HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-18-2017 Board of Adjustments Agenda PacketKa rin Wil son
M<!)'Or
Council Members
Kevin G. Boone
Roben A. Brown
Jack BurreU, ACMO
Jimmy Conyers
Jay Robinson
Lisa A. Hanks, JliL\K
Cio• Clerk
Deborah A. Smith, CPA
City Treasurer
I 61 North Section Srreet
P.O. Drawer 429
Fairhope, Alabama 36533
251 -928 -2136
251 -9 28 -6776 Fax
www.fairhopeal.gov
1. Call to Order
City of Fairhope
Board of Adjustment and Appeals
5:00 PM
City Council Chambers
September 18, 2017
2 . Approval of the August 21 , 2017 minutes
3 . Consideration of Agenda Items:
A. BOA 17.09 Public hearing to consider the request of Bob
Pope for a variance to front and rear setback
requirements and a Special Exception to allow
Multi-Family for property is located at 4 Beach
Road .
PPIN #: 15111
B. BOA 17 .12 Public hearing to consider the request of Michael
and Alice Waldrip for a variance to front setback
requirements and lot coverage for a principal
structure. The property is locate d at 121 White
Avenue .
PPIN #: 15441
C. BOA 17 .13 Publi c hearing to consider the request of J .
Andrew and Brynne Allison for a variance to front
setback requirements for an accessory structure.
The property is located at 2128 Fig Avenue .
PPIN #: 30076
D. BOA 17 .14 Public hearing to consider the request of Chris and
Eli zabeth Collins for a varian ce to the minimum
separation requirements for an accessory
structure and principal structure. The property is
located at 22648 Alice Lane.
PPIN #: 89494
E. BOA 17 .15 Public hearing to consider the request of David
and Colleen Black for a variance t o driveway side
setback requirements for a principal structure .
The property is lo cated at 45 Paddock Drive .
PPIN #: 8260
4. Old/New Business
5. Adjourn
August 2 l , 20 l 7
Board of Adjustment Minute s
The City of F.airhope Board of Adjustments and Appeals met on Monday, August
21, 2017 at 5:00 PM in the City Council Chambers at the City Administration
Building, located at 161 N. Section Street.
Members Present: Chairman Anil Vira; Cathy Slagle; Harry Kohler; John Avent;
Christina Stankoski; Wayne Dyess, Director of Planning; Buford King, Planner;
and Emily Boyett, Secretary.
Absent: Troy Strunk, Vice-Chair; and Dick Schneider
The meeting was called to order at 5:02 PM by Chairman Vira.
The minutes of the July 17 , 2017 meeting were considered. John Avent moved to accept
the minutes as written and was 2 nd by Cathy Slagle. Motion carried with two abstentions
by Christina Stankoski and Harry Kohler.
BOA 17.10 Public hearing to consider the request of The Retirement Systems of
Alabama for a variance to the height requirements for Lots 91-107 of
Battles Trace at the Colony.
Mr. Dyess gave the staff report.
Summary of Request:
The applicant is requesting an increase in the maximum building height from 3 5' to 41 '.
The subject properties are located in the TR Tourist Resort Zoning District. Lots 91-107
fall within Phase III of Battles Trace, located west and n01ihwest of Bay View Towers at
the Colony at the Grand. The final plat of Phase III of Battles Trace was approved by the
City of Fairhope Planning Commission on November 10, 2016, Case# SD16.31. Phase
III of Battles Trace occurs within the low rise residential z one within the TR district. The
approved plat, dated October 13, 2016 reflects a finished floor elevation (FFE) of 31 ' for
lots 91-107. Hutchinson, Moore, and Raugh (HMR) verified the top oflake berm
elevation to be approximately 30'. HMR further-clarified that the 31 'FFE was included
in the final plat with the intent of allowing homes to be constructed on lots 91-107 with a
main living space at the 31' FFE to match the top of berm elevation of the lake. The
topography of lots 91-107 outside the lake berm allows construction of homes with a
main living space at 31 ' FFE, however the same topography combined with a 35'
building height restriction will result in roof lines lower than the roof lines of sunounding
homes to be constructed. The building height increase will allow homes to be
constructed with consistent roof lines regardless of the topography outside the lake berm.
Recommendation:
It is staff's position that the variance request has proven hardship as required by the
criteria established by the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance Article IJ.C.3.e. Therefore,
staff recommends that variance request be approved.
1
Augu st 21 , 20 17
Bo ar d of Adjustm ent Mi nute s
Jennifer Mitchell of Stuart Contracting ; LLC was present on behalf of the developer and
RSA. She stated the berm will cause lakefront lots not to have a view. She said their
request will allow parking underneath the homes and keep a consistent look around the
lake.
Mr. Vira opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, Mr. Vira closed the
public hearing.
Mr. Avent asked if the building height was measured differently would this be an issue
and Mrs. Mitchell responded no . Mrs . Slagle asked who owns the berm and Mrs .
Mitchell answered a portion of the berm will be part of the lot. The walkway on top of
the berm is owned by the _propeity owners ' association. Mr. Vira asked if the remaining
lots are suitable and Mr. Dyess responded yes, they have a higher elevation.
Cathy Slagle made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to approve the variance
as requested. John Avent 2 nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously.
Having no further business, Cathy Slagle made a motion to adjourn. John A vent 2nd the
motion and the motion carried unanimously . The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 PM.
2
Summary of Request:
Bob Pope is requesting use approval for a 4-unit multi-family condo comprised of 3 floors (parking on
pt floor and habitable floors above) and variance to build to the rear property line (pl ease attached
drawings of proposed development.)
Comments:
The current zoning of the subject property is B-3(b) Tourist Resort Commercial Services District. Thi s
district is intended for a range of commercial and resort residential use s at appropriate locations to
serve the need s of tourists. Pursuant to Article Ill. Section B. Allowed Use s, Table 3-1: Use Table, of the
Fairhope Zoning Ordinance, a multi-family use is only allowed in the B-3(b) district on appeal and
subject to special conditions.
Per Article Ill. Section C. Dimen sion Standards, Table 3-2: Dimen sion Table -Lots and Principle
Structure, the subject property required setbacks are: front 20'; rear 20'; side O' and maximum height
is 30'. The applicant is requesting a 20' variance to build to the rear property line .
The subject property is comprised of Parcel "A" and Parcel "B" per a 1994 survey provided with the
application for appeal and variance. Parcel "A' is 44'x45' totaling 1,980 sq .ft., and Parcel "B" 44'x45'
also totaling 1,980 sq.ft., for a cumulative total for both parcels of 3,960 sq.ft. When you divide your
total lot size ofthe parcels (3,960) by the minimum lot size which determines density (7 ,500 sq.ft.) the
result is 0.5 units. The applicant is requesting a 4-unit condominium when the property only allows 0.5
units of density. Therefore, the subject development exceeds the maximum allowable density. In
addition, the drawings submitted by the applicant in conjunction with hi s application for appeal and
rear setback variance, shows a building height of 37'. The ordinance says the following regarding
height:
Article IX Section C. Definitions and Interpretation Defined Terms
Building, Height: The vertical distance measured from the average natural elevation of the lot at the
front of the building ta the highest point of the roof.
Therefore, the measurement of height is to the highest point of the roof, including any
architectural feature related to the roof. Therefore, the subject development exceeds the
height by 71
•
The applicant has requ este d a rear setback variance of 20' so that the subject building can build
to the rear property line. The rear property line abuts the bluff. Th e subject properties each
are 44' in width. As stated previously, the B-3(b) district requires a 20' front and 20' rear
setback. The applicant has stated that he has already obtained a front setback variance some
years ago. Assuming the front setback variance i s valid, the resulting lot depth area which
could be used would be 24' (44' lot depth -the 20' front setback variance). The applicant has
also requested to build the rear property line through a request for a 201 re_ar setback variance .
If the 20' rear set back variance was granted to allow development to abut the rear property
line in conjunction with no side yard setback allowed by ordinance, the subject property could
be built on.
2 BOA 17.09 4 Beach Road -Sept. 18, 2017
Analysis and Recommendation:
Staff cannot recommend approval of a project that exceeds the density and the building height of the
zoning district in which it is located. The other issues become moot when the fundamental elements
of development (density) exceeds the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, staff recommends Denial of the
appeal and variance.
3 BOA 17.09 4 Beach Road-Sept. 18, 2017
• M SOUTH WEST LOOKING FRO
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ms Boyett,
Betty Jackson <buddiejoy@bellsouth.net>
Thursday, August 31, 2017 4:25 PM
Emily Boyett
Condo at rose garden
As a resident of Fairhope, I would like to express my fear of development at the rose garden/Fairhope pier area. A three
story structure would ruin the beauty of that area. I can't imagine going to our wonderful celebrations on the bluff and
instead of seeing the beautiful bay looking at the back of a condo.
What can I do? Who do I need
to try to contact? There are many people in Fairhope who feel the way I do.
Thanking you for any consideration in this matter.
Betty Jackson
50 South Church Street
#10
Fairhope, AL. 36532
Sent from my iPhone
1
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Ms. Boyett,
Ina Buchanan <inabuchanan@yahoo.com>
Tuesday, September OS , 2017 8:49 PM
Emily Boyett
condos by rose garden
Please prevent the construction of the condos that are planned to be buil t near the rose garden at the Fairhope Pier. I think that the
condos would take away from the natural beauty of the bluff and the pier. The views from the bluff and pier give re sidents a better
quality of life . Fairhope is a gem and it should stay that way; otherwise it will lose its charm.
Thank you,
Ina Buchanan
704 Cedar A venue
Fairhope 36532
1
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Ms . Boyett:
AANGIE HOLMES <alrholmes@bellsouth.net>
Tuesday, August 29, 2017 4:30 PM
Emily Boyett
proposed condos
I appreciate your taking my recent call in which I expressed my concern over the proposed rose garden condos
described in last week's Fa irhope newspaper. I realize from the article that the property can lawfully be used for this
purpose. However, I, as well as many area residents, wish this land along the water could be purchased by the City of
Fairhope or The Colony to remain in its natural waterfront state.
I realize this would cost a lot, but perhaps a grant or BP money , etc . might be found for a purchase that would enhance
the environment. Maybe the owner would entertain such an offer.
I have owned a place in Fairhope for approximately 20 years and have been dismayed to see the quaint, beautiful
charm of Fa irhope slipping away littl e by little each yea r. I hope we will never lose the characteristics that make people
want to live in Fairhope. Most people will not take the time to contact you , but I can assure you many people are
concerned about the over-development of Fairhope when our schools and infrastructure are straining to keep up w ith the
too-rapid growth .
Again, I LOVE Fairhope , and hope you w ill accept my comments in the constructive way they are intended . I know all
of you in city
government are working hard to keep Fairhope the wonderful place it is, and I do appreciate your efforts.
Sincerely ,
A.R. Holmes
210 S. Mobile St.
1
Summary of Request:
The applicant is requesting a variance to the maximum allowable lot coverage for the subject property
from 37% to 39.5% and desires to extend the proposed primary structure further by 61 into the existing
front setback. According to the applicant, the existing non-conforming front setback for the principle
structure is 33'. The R-2 Zoning District requ ires a 35' front setback. The applicant is requesting a 27'
front setback (an 8-foot difference).
The subject property is located in the R-2 Medium Density Single-Family Residential District: This
district is intended as a medium density single family urban residential district, with lots of moderate
size.
Article Ill. C. Dimension Standards:
Dl mens ion Min. Lot Area/ l\'Iiri. Lot Setbacks lax. total lot Max.
District or A llowed Units-Per 'V_idth Front Rear Side Street co verage by height
use A cre ((IPA) side princi ple
structur e -
R-2 10,500 s.f./ -75 ' 35 ' 35 ' IQ' b 20 ' 37% 30' a
Subject Property History:
On June 1, 2017, a damaged tree fell on the principle structure and caused significant damage.
The principal structure will be demolished due to the extensive amount of damage. The
existing principal structure was constructed in the 1940's and is considered a non-conforming
structure. In accordance with Article VII, Non-conformities, Section 8 1 the existing principle
structure was not intentionally destroyed and can be restored within one year from the date of
the event.
Article VII, Non-conformities, Section 8:
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. Alteration and expansions may follow the non-conforming setback only on the non-
conforming side.
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.
The subject property dimensions are approximate 44' X 88 11 , which is approximately 3872 sf,
nearly a third ofthe size of the minimum lot size (10,500 sf) of an R-2 sized lot. The applicant
contends there is an extraordinary and exceptional condition pertaining to this particular piece
2 BOA 17.12 121 White Avenue -Sept. 18, 2017
of property in question because of its size and the required setbacks with the R-2 zoning
designation. Based on the setbacks for R-2 the applicant, the maximum allowable principle
structure that could be built would be 432 sf in size. The current house size is approximately
900 sf. The applicant desires to expand the footprint of the existing principle structure to an
approximate (51X30) 1530 sf house as shown on the proposed layout.
According to the applicant, the existing structure front setback is 33' and the existing rear setback is
approximately 10' from the property line. The existing side set is approximately 7' on the west side and
6.5' on the east side. The applicant desires to maintain the 10 ' ex ist rea r setback, a 7' side setback and
encroach 6' i nt o the existing front setback . This would allow the applicant a 1530 sf principle structure
with a 39.5% lot coverage. The maximum allowable lot coverage for R-2 is 37% which in this case would
allow for a 1433 sf ho use.
Surrounding Properties: The adjacent properties to 121 White Avenue were constructed between the
1950's and 1970's and have non-conforming front setbacks. Staff could support the variance if the
proposed subject property principal structure in located no more than midway between the adjacent
structures.
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 variance 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 :
3 BOA 17.12 121 White Avenue -Sept. 18, 2017
Article 11.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 ha s the following effect:
Article 11.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:
It is staff's position that the variance request ha s demon strated a ha r dship based on the size of
the lot. The applicant is requesting an increase in lot co ve rage for the R-2 zo nin g district by
2.5%, and an 8' encroachment from the R-2 zoning district front se tba ck (a 6' encroachment
from the existing front setback.) Th e proposed front setba ck is 27'. The applicant ha s shown a
willingness to increase the current side setback by appro xi mately 1.5' on the east side. Staff i s
in support of the variance due to the lot size constraints; howeve r, sta ff would li ke the subject
property front setback to be no more than mid-way (not to exceed a 27' front set ba ck)
between the adjacent properties and to be limited to a maximum lot coverage of 37% of the
existing lot si ze.
4 BOA 17.12 121 White Avenue -Sept. 18, 2017
f/•i" 6 p o ~ e t.L _.,.Lf" c.use.
~ ~~o-+ .l
•
/2( (J)~'.1~4 All2 ·NLL{!_
.
.
-ii-r+'Jp
' 1''-
"i=... . -·-:,.jl~ ,_ . 30,t , ..., ,
" ./_
I P• -j .. .....
;
I Dl"\A J-\ a C:...tO IJ
l ~~ ·-·> -t., .. -
-,:'•
:i --/ -,,
fl tJ a>'S e. ...._. ~
·~·1 -\,vj ~
. I ~ ~-
°'---
·,
!
. '
'
~ ••; 3oi ·
I \ -
--~ "' I \ '
,Y
C 1-41 ~
0 15': r ~ -, -~ ,--, ffi)
If.:_ • !~ (1 -I SEP 1 2 Wil ~
1m .. /J.fYj ........ .
~, ·~,
--.,, --
Summary of Request:
The applicants own lot 2 as shown on the survey (see attached survey) which has no frontage on Fig
Avenue. Another property separates the subject property from Fig Avenue. They wish to construct an
open sided garage in the front of the property. The Zoning Ordinance defines the front of the subject
property as the area between the front of the building and the right-of-way line. In this case the front
of the subject property is located directly to the rear of Lot 1 which is adjacent to Fig Avenue (see
attached survey). The Tatumville Gulley is to the rear of the subject property.
Th is variance is requesting relief from Article Ill. Section C. Zoning Districts Dimension Standards (Table
3-3), 2. Residential Accessory Structures, which requires that accessory structures be located "behind
rear building line of principle structure". The request is to locate an open side garage (carport) in the
front of the subject property.
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 about
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 variance 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 11.C.3.e.
2 BOA 17.13 212B Fig Avenue -Sept. 18, 2017
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;
Response: The subject property has no frontage on a Right-of-Way and has the
Tatumville Gulley to the rear of the property.
(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.
Re spo nse : Due to the configuration and the location of the property as well as its
proxi mity to the Tatumville Gulley to the rear, requiring the accessory structure in the
rear of the subject property would be a hardship .
(c) Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved; and
Response: The configuration and location of the subject property doe make this
property unique and peculiar .
(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: The granting of this variance would not be detrimental to the public good
and would not infringe on the intent and purpose of the ordinance.
When a variance is granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment it ha s the following effect:
Article 11.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:
Due to the subject properties location without frontage and its proximity to the Tatumville Gulley,
requiring an accessory structure in the r ea r of the property, adjacent to the Tatumville Gulley, would
be detrimental and create a hardship .
Staff r eco mmends that the request variance be APPROVED subject to the fo llowing:
1. The accessory structure will be open sided; and
2. Accessory structure may be located no closer than 10' from the front and side property line.
3 BOA 17.13 212B Fi g Avenue-Sept.18, 20 17
Summary of Request:
The applicant is requesting a variance from the 10' building separation requirement for accessory
structures. The subject property is located in the R-1 Low Density Single Family Zoning District. As
described in Article Ill, Section A of the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance, the intent of the R-1 Zoning
District is " ... intended to provide choices of low-density suburban residential environment consisting of
single-family homes on large parcels of land". The dimension table for R-1 zoning classification is
summarized below:
Zon i ng Min. Lot Lot Front Rear .5 i de Street Max. Lot Max .
Distric;:t Area4, Width Setb9ck S_etback Setbac~ Side Cov erage He_ight
R-1 15,000sf 100' 40' 35' 10' 20' 40% 30'
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 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 requests through the following criteria :
Article 11.C.3.e .
2 BOA 17.14 22648 Alice Lane -Sept. 18, 2017
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 ordinqnce; 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 gra nted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment it ha s 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.
Additional Background Information
The City of Fairhope Building Department i ssued permit number 1701277 on August 3, 2017 for
construction of a swimming pool at 22648 Alice Lane. A drawing was included as a supporting
document to the swimming pool permit application depicting a rectan gular residence with an
accessory structure swimming pool behind the residen ce. A distance of 8' was depicted se parating the
swimming pool and what was assumed as a porch on the rear of th e residence. The building official
approved the swimming pool application but noted that the se paration distance "must be 10' if not
open porch".
On August 7, 2017, a City of Fairhope building inspector visited 22648 Alice Lane and noted the results ' of inspection as "not approved" and furth er noted "ass ure house/pool separation is approved by C.O.F.
-approx. 6' from attached garage". Th e attached ga r age was not depicted on the initial swimming
pool permit application. The attached garage forms an "L" shape to the residence, and since the
garage was not submitted with the swimming pool p erm it application, the required accessory structure
separation from the garage was not revi ewed as a part of the application revi ew.
On August 9, 2017, a City of Fairhope building in specto r re-visited 22648 Alice Lane and issued a stop
work order for violation of The City of Fairhop e Zoning Ordinance Article Ill Section C.2. and ad vised the
applicant to "see planning/zoning department".
3 BOA 17 .14 22648 Ali ce Lane -Sept. 18, 2017
Analysis and Recommendation:
Variance Cr ite r ia:
(a) There c;,re extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property
in question because of its size, shape, or topography.
Response:
The subject property is a rectangular lot with a western width of 108.9', an eastern width of
125', a northern length of 199.9', and a southern length of 164'. The size and sh ape of t he lot
do not appear t o be irregular and the lot appears to be relatively flat in 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.
Response:
As stated above , attached garage was not depicted in the swimming pool permit appl ication
and therefore building department staff were unable to review the accessory structure
separation from the attached garage as required by City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance Article Ill,
C.2. "Residential Accessory Structures". Table 3 -3 from the afore-mentioned zoning ordinance
is depicted below:
Table 3-3 : Dimension Table -Residential Accessory Structures
Dimension -Setbacks Max. total lot Mu. height l\lin. s tructure
Front Rea r Sid e S treet si de coverage by separation rrorn
accessory priocipk
District or use structure ,structure
RIA Beh in d fro nt 15 ' 15 ' 50 ' 30% ofrequired 30 ' 50' for
buil ding line rear yard agr iculture
of principle struc tur es ;
structure IO feet for all
other ac cessory
stru ctu res
R-3 PGH* Behind rear no ne same as same as 25% of required 20 'butno 5'
bu il ding line requ ired principle principle rear yard* taller than
of principle structure structure the princip le
structure structure
AU other Behind rear 5' 5' no nearer 25% of required 30 ' but no 10 '
residential bui lding li ne th an rear yard ta ll er than
districts of principle principl e the principle
structure structure structure
The supporting document included with the Variance Request and Board of Adjustments
application indicates a lot width of 118'3" at a line crossing the rea r of the property 39' -6 11 from
the rear property line. The lot size and shape appears to be sufficient for locating a swimming
pool at the rear of the residence while maintaining the requ ired 10' separation from the
principle structure as required by Table 3-3 , above.
(c) Such conditions are peculiar ta the particular piece of property involved.
Response:
The afo re-mentioned lot size is rect ang ul ar w ith fla t topogr aphy and do es not appear to contain
any conditions peculiar to the lot.
4 BOA 17 .14 2264 8 Alice Lane-Sept . 18, 2017
(d) Reliet if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good and impair the
purpose and intent of this ordinance; provided howeverJ 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 3'-9" less building separation from the principle structure
to the accessory structure is not warranted. The variance request indicates "elevation on the
north side and septic on the south create a small usable area". However, no supporting
documents were furnished indicating clearance requirements for areas adjacent to the septic
system field lines, nor was any supporting documentation furnished explaining why elevation
changes required the swimming pool to be closer to the principle structure than the required
10' separation. Referencing the dimension in the supporting document to the variance request,
more than 65' is available east of the porch area in which the swimming pool may be located
while maintaining 10' separation and 5' setback requirements for the subject property.
Recommendation:
It is staffs position that the variance request has not proven hardship as required by the criteria
established by the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance Article 11.C.3.e. as there is adequate lot
space to place the swimming pool in a location that will comply with separation and setback
requirements. Therefore, staff recommends the variance request be denied.
Prepared by:
J. Buford King
LEED AP, QCI
Planner
5 BOA 17.14 22648 Alice Lane -Sept. 18, 2017
Summary of Request:
The applicant is requesting a varian ce from the 15' driveway side setback requ i rement to allow
construction of an additional driveway for subject property. The subject property is located in the R-3
High Dens ity Sing l e Family Zoni ng District. As described in Article Ill, Section A of the City of Fairhope
Zoning Ordinance, the intent of the R-3 Zoning District is " ... intended as a high-density single -family
urban residential district with lots of relatively small size as compared to the preceding single-family
residenti al districts". The dimension table for R-3 zoning classjfication is summarized below in an
excerpt of Table 3-2 from Article 111, Section C.1. of the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance:
Excerpt of Table 3-2 Lots and Principal Structure
l o ning ' M in . lot lot Front Rea r Si de Stree t
Qtstrid ~ r-;Are9 Wi dth S~!b'ac k Set ba ck Set bac k Si de
R-3 7,800sf 65' 30 ' 35' *8 ' 20'
*Driveways to within 3 feet of the side lot l ine and a side setback of 15'.
Comments:
The City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance defines a variance as follows :
M ax. Lot Max.
Coverag~ !-!_eight
35% 30'
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 ta 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 ta satisfaction of the standards specified in this ordinance.
The Board of Adjustments is authorized to grant variance through Article II.A .d(3) which states
the followi ng:
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 detrimen t 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.
2 BOA 17 .1 5 45 Paddock Dri ve -Sept. 18 , 2017
The Ordinance provides guidance for variance requests 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
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} Reliei 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 11.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.
Additional Background Information
The applicant stated in the variance request their desire to construct a garage accessory structure in
the back yard of the subject property to alleviate minimal existing parking and garage space in front of
the principle structure. A driveway will be required to access an accessory structure garage, and the
applicant asserts adequate space exists to construct a driveway between the principle structure and
the existing property line. Though the subject property is in compliance with the 8' side building
setbacks required by Table 3-3 shown above, a new driveway will require a 15' side building setback to
be in place. A driveway may be placed within 3' of the side property line also as shown in Table 3-3.
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:
The subject property is a rectangular lot with a western width of 90', an eastern width of 90.05',
a northern length of 124.7", and a southern length of 121.24'. The size and shape of the lot do
not appear to be irregular and the lot appears to be relatively flat in topography. It appears
3 BOA 17.15 45 Paddock Drive -Sept. 18, 2017
that adequate back yard space is available for an accessory structure ga r age comp lying with 5'
setbacks as well as 10' separation from the principle structure. The applicant is reminded that
the accessory structure's maximum lot coverage is 25% of the required rear yard . An Excerpt of
Table 3-3: Dimension Table -Residential Accessor y Structures from the City of Fairhope Zoning
Ordinance is depicted below:
Table 3-3: Dimension Table -Residential Accessory Structures
Dimension Set bac ks I\ fax. total lol M:u. heigh! l\lin. structure
Front Rear Side Street side co verage by separation from
accessory ]Jriociple
District or use s tructure struci-ure
RIA Behind fron t 15' 15 ' 50 ' 30% of required 30 ' 50 ' for
buildin g line rear yard agricultu re
of principle structures ;
structure IO feet for all
other accessory
structures
R-JPGH• Behind rear none same as same as 25% of required 20 'butno 5'
buildin g line required principle principle rear yard* taller than
of prin ciple structure stru cture the principle
structure structure
All other Behind rear 5' S' no nearer 25% of required 30 'butno 10 '
residential building line than rear yard taller than
ilisfricts of princip le prin cip le th e principle
structure structu re structure
Though the lot size is otherwise in compliance with the dimension requirements of the R-3
zoning classification and a desired accessory structure appea r s to be allowable, the size and
shape of the lot in relation to the placement of the existing home do not allow the driveway
side setbacks required by with Table 3-2.
(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 applicant desires to construct a garage accessory structure on the subject
property and it appears that an accessory structure may constructed and maintain compliance
with setback and principle structu re separation requi r ements. A driveway will need to be
constructed to gain access to the accessory structure, and enforcement of the ordinance may
create an unnecessary hardship by limiting access to an otherwise allowable accessory
structure.
(c) Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved.
Response:
The afore-mentioned lot siz e and shape complies with the R-3 zoning classification requirement
for 8' side setbacks. However, the placement of the existing home durin g its 1977 construction
locates the home 13.4' from the southern property line, short of the required 15 ' driveway side
setback by 1.6', a condition that appears to be peculiar to the lot.
(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.
4 BOA 17.15 45 Paddock Drive -Sept. 18, 2017
Response:
Staff believes a vari.ance allowing 1.6' less driveway side setback is warranted. The applicant
indicated, and a survey as a supporting document verifies that though a 15' side setback on the
south side of the property is not possible due to the size and orientation of the principle
structure, 13.4' of setback from the principle structure to the south property line does exists.
Construction of a driveway to within 3' of the southern property line will allow access to an
otherwise allowable accessory structure the applicant wishes to construct.
Recommendation:
Therefore, staff recommends the variance request be approved with the following condition:
1) The driveway as depicted in the survey furnished as a supporting document must be
constructed to within at least 3' from the southern property line as required by table 3-3
(i.e. at least 3' of greenspace must be maintained the entire length of the driveway
when constructed).
Prepared by:
J. Buford King
LEED AP, QCI
Planner
5 BOA 17.15 45 Paddock Drive-Sept.18, 2017
45 Paddock Dr
David and Colleen Black
North side: Blocked by large tree
South side: Vehicle access possible