HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-20-2024 Board of Adjustments Agenda PacketApril 15, 2024
Board of Adjustments Minutes
1
The Board of Adjustments met Monday, April 15, 2024, 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; Bryan
Flowers; Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Director; Mike Jeffries, Development Services
Manager; and Cindy Beaudreau, Planning Clerk.
Absent: Donna Cook
Chairman Vira called the meeting to order at 5:00 PM.
Approval of Minutes
Ryan Baker made a motion to approve the minutes from the March 18, 2024, meeting.
Frank Lamia seconded the motion and the motion carried with the following vote:
Aye: Anil Vira, Cathy Slagle, Frank Lamia, Ryan Baker, and Bryan Flowers
Nay: None.
BOA 24.01 Public hearing to consider the request of the Applicant, Cartiology LLC, on behalf
of the Owner, Fairhope Avenue Partners LLC, for a Special Exception – Use on Appeal – to
display carts for outside sales on property located at 506 Fairhope Avenue. The property is
approximately 0.2 acres. PPIN#: 15136
Mike Jeffries, Development Services Manager, explained the request. Ms. Jeffries explained the
intentions of B-2 zoning and that outdoor sales it not allowable by right, but only by special
exception approval per the Fairhope Zoning Ordinance. The use is allowed “only on appeal and
subject to special conditions”. The applicant is requesting the ability to display no more than three
carts outside for sale in front of the building in a designated location during the hours of Monday
through Friday from 10am to 5pm and Saturday from 10am to 2pm. An area of concrete needs to
be removed for this project to become compliant with the Tree Ordinance.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of Case BOA 24.01 with the following conditions:
1. Outdoor sales shall be limited to a maximum of three carts displayed at one time inside the
designated area.
2. Carts are displayed only during normal business hours.
a. Monday – Friday 10am-5pm
b. Saturday 10am-2pm
3. The area reserved for display shall have concrete pavers and be bordered with a picket fence to
be between 2 ½’ and 4’ tall.
4. Remove area of concrete adjacent to the ROW mimicking the other side of the shared drive.
5. Add landscaping along the front and side property in accordance with the Tree Ordinance to be
approved by the City Horticulture Supervisor.
April 15, 2024
Board of Adjustments Minutes
2
Anil Vira asked if the fence were 4’ tall, would you still be able to see the carts. Mr. Jeffries
explained that the fence must be between 2 ½’ and 4’ so it does not have to be 4’.
Ryan Baker asked why the limit was for only three carts when others in town have more. Mr.
Jeffries answered that the applicant provided that number. Mr. Baker asked how we could control
that. Mr. Jeffries replied that it was tied to their business license.
Cathy Slagle asked if three were approved for the Delamar property and how many were approved
for that property. Mr. Jeffries stated that he did not recall there being a maximum on the Delamar
property. Mr. Baker stated that he has seen six on that property along with other types of vehicles.
Mr. Baker asked if the fence was suggested by the applicant. Mr. Jeffries replied that the Tree
Ordinance requires a buffer between vehicle use area. Staff asked the applicant to provide
something that would designate the area as a display area and not for parking or storage.
Ms. Slagle stated that she drove by and there were two carts parked there on the concrete and asked
how that will change with three more in the grass area. Mr. Jeffries explained that the business
license was for cart sales and staff noticed that there were carts on display. The business license
will be changed for the outside limited sales. The applicant will have to abide by the decision of
the Board of Adjustments.
Ben Waugh, Cartiology, stated that they are working to make the area look good and appealing for
sales. That is why they chose the fence with low plants. Mr. Waugh stated that he could probably
fit four carts. Alton, White Spunner, stated that the landlord does not want to cut out the concrete.
He considers the concrete an asset for parking during events. Mr. Lamia asked where customers
park now. Alton stated that customers park between the buildings. Mr. Baker asked if there was
ADA parking in the bank. Alton stated yes. Bryan Flowers asked if the fence was a requirement.
Mr. Jeffries stated that the Tree Ordinance requires a 10’ landscape buffer across the front which
is why the bank cut out their concrete in the front along with landscaping. The landscaping was
either not installed or it was put in and it died. Mr. Jeffries explained that there is not a requirement
to have the fence but installing the fence would help not make the area a 10’ area that could not be
used, but rather to make it a display area.
Mr. Baker asked the applicant if they wanted four carts. The applicant stated yes. Alton explained
that they would love to allow this display but reiterated that he does not want to cut out the
concrete. Mr. Lamia stated that area would give them more display area. Mr. Waugh asked if
AstroTurf could be used to cover that concrete area rather than removing it. Mr. Jeffries stated that
staff would not support Astro Turf on top of the concrete. Staff is requesting the concrete be
removed and replaced with grass.
Chairman Vira opened the public hearing at 5:25pm. Having no one present to speak, the public
hearing was closed at 5:25pm.
Mr. Jeffries stated that if the building stay as is, they will not be required to remove the concrete.
April 15, 2024
Board of Adjustments Minutes
3
Motion:
Frank Lamia made a motion to approve BOA 24.01 with staff recommendations.
Mr. Vira and Mr. Baker asked if he was revising the number of carts. Mr. Lamia and Ms. Slagle
both agreed that the applicant asked for three and that was what they agreed to.
Cathy Slagle seconded the motion.
Mr. Baker asked if the motion could be revised to be four carts.
There was more discussion about the number of carts.
Frank Lamia revised his motion to include revising the first condition to four carts rather than
three.
Cathy Slagle seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
Aye: Anil Vira, Cathy Slagle, Frank Lamia, Ryan Baker, and Bryan Flowers
Nay: None.
Old/New Business
Mr. Vira asked if there was a May meeting. Mr. Jeffries stated that there are two cases for May.
Adjournment
Cathy Slagle made a motion to adjourn.
The motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
Aye: Anil Vira, Cathy Slagle, Frank Lamia, Ryan Baker, and Bryan Flowers
Nay: None.
Adjourned at 5:30p.m.
____________________________ ________________________
Anil Vira, Chairman Cindy Beaudreau, Secretary
(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.
Respo nse: The app licatio n o f the Zo n ing Ordi n ance or the approved su bdiv isi o n and re-p lat do
not create an unnecess ary hards h i p.
(c) Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved; and
Respon se: Co nditio ns are no t peculiar to the p articular piece o f property.
(d) Reliet if granted1 would not cause substantial detriment to the public good and impair the
purpose and intent of this ordinance; provided however1 that no variance may be granted for
a use of land or building or structure that is prohibited by this ordinance.
Re sponse : Relief w ill cau se substantial detriment t o the public goo d as the property do es n ot
meet the criteria in which a va r ian ce can be granted.
W hen a vari ance is granted by the Zo ning Board o f Adj u stment it has the fo llowing 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) TI1e variance is acted upon accor ding 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 recor ded with the Judge of Probate.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends Denial of a 10' fro nt setback variance for the princi ple structure i n case BOA
24.03.
3 BOA 24.0 3 Peca n Ridge Subd v isi o n (Tho mpso n) -10' Front Setback Vari ance
To Whom It May Concern: 4/15/2024
We are seeking a variance to increase the buildable footprint depth of lots 25 and 26 in Pecan
Ridge subdivision. The main reason we are pursuing this is because we believe the foundation
of the house would run the risk of being undermined by the ditch during a heavy rain event.
With the current buildable footprint a 40 foot deep home would put the back of the house right
on the ditch. This is a potential issue for the occupants of the house we intend to build. Please
consider the fact that someone would be most likely making the biggest purchase of their life
with potential to have the foundation compromised in a heavy rain event or hurricane. Thank
you for your time and consideration in this matter. We look forward to your response.
Thanks,
Tut Campbell -Co-Owner Cypress Builders, LLC
/fl-fcf ~
Js ~ho3 n -Co-Owner Cypress Builders, LLC
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
[i]
Hello,
Piaooe Bragg
lllilllOio9.
Rick Bragg
PPIN: 270304 and 270303
Friday, May 10, 2024 11:51:38 AM
This is in response to the letter we received concerning the development plans for the two
prope1ties at the comer of Mosley Rd. and Pecan Ridge Blvd., PPIN: 270304 and 270303. The
letter stated that infonnation would not be posted on the website until the week before the May
20, 2024, meeting, so we are commenting without that infonnation. I did check the website,
but did not find a tab for "Agendas and Minutes" on the BOA page.
We almost did not have time to reply at all conside1ing the sh01t time frame from the date of
the letter and the deadline of today at noon (four days).
We easily might have missed this letter had the mail been slower or ifwe had been out of
town and not receiving our mail, even by a day or two.
We are greatly concerned about any type of structure being built on these two prope1ties.
Neither of them fits the dimensions of the other prope1ties on Pecan Ridge Blvd. or Mosley
Rd.
The prope1ty closest to the comer ce1tainly does not fit the Mosley Rd. setback of the
prope1ties to the east of it, including the one that directly abuts these two prope1ties at 9370
Mosley Rd.
We question how these two prope1ties ever would have been approved for development,
considering their deviance from the cunent structures on Mosley and the design of the rest of
the Pecan Ridge development.
Along with the deviations, another issue is the drainage at this comer. The home at 9370
Mosley Rd. akeady has flooding issues during heavy rains.
The front yard becomes almost impassable as the drains back up. Building two new strnctures
next to 9370 will likely result in even greater rnnoff and damage to this prope1ty, including
more flooding in the back pa1t of that lot. The prope1ties on Pecan Ridge have a slightly higher
elevation with what appears to be a natural drainage easement between them and the prope1ty
at 9370.
Without seeing the plans, we cannot asce1tain if this is an official easement, but the likelihood
of flooding is a concern in any case.
Lastly, and of great imp01tance to those of us who live on Mosley Road, is the protection of
our investment.
We have paid our taxes and repaired our properties after severe weather and hunicanes and
are distressed at the idea of two houses basically being built in our front yards, something we
would hope the Board would appreciate and understand.
It is our opinion that the prope1ty in question should remain strncture-free as a green space.
As such, we oppose any variance that would allow any type of development on these two
parcels to move f 01ward.
Sincerely,
Dianne Bragg
Rick Bragg
Dianne M. Bragg, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Journalism
and Creative Media
U niversity of Alabama
492 Reese Phifer Hall
Box 870172
Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0172
Phone (205) 348-7155
FAX (205) 348-2780
dmbragg@ua.edu
CELEBRATING
50 EARS
efC&IS
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
[I]
May 9, 2024
Um payjs
J;llilllllWl1; Mary Dayjs
BOA 24.04 response
Friday, May 10, 2024 7:59:48 AM
Via Email: planning@fairhopeal.gov
City of Fairhope, Alabama
161 North Section Street
Fairhope, A labama 36533
RE: Case: BOA 24.03
Applicant: Harold Thompson
Property Located: South of Mosley Road and East of Pine Ridge Road
PPIN: 270303
Dear Sirs:
We are in receipt of your May 6 , 2024 notice regarding the above-mentioned prope1ty.
We would like the Commission to be aware that we are wholly opposed to this request for a
variance. We are concerned that if this request is granted it would diminish the enjoyment of
our property including a diminished open view and an increase in noise and would possibly
increase any water rnn-off from the drainage ditch.
We would ask that this Commission consider our opinions regarding this and deny the
applicant's request for a variance .
Sincerely,
Maiy and Tim Davis
Owners of Prope1ty at
9370 Moseley Road
Fairhope, A labama
Tim Davis
Shadow Catchers Art
334 382-2929
(b) The application of the ordinance to this particular piece of property would create an
unnecessary hardship. Personal financial hardship is not a justification for a variance.
Response: The application of the Zon i ng Ord i nance or the approved subdivisi on and re-plat do
not create an unnecessary hardship.
(c) Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved; and
Response: Conditions are not pecul iar to the particular piece of property.
(d) Reliet if granted1 would not cause substantial detriment to the public good and impair the
purpose and intent of this ordinance; provided however1 that no variance may be granted for
a use of land or building or structure that is prohibited by this ordinance.
Response: Relief will cause substantial detriment to the public good as the property does not
meet the criteria in which a variance can be granted.
When a variance is granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment it has the follow ing effect:
Article II.C.3.g .
E ffect of Variance -Any variance granted accor din g to this section and which is n ot challen g e d o n
appeal shall nm w ith the land provided that:
(1) TI1e variance is acted upon according to the application and subject to any condition s of approval
within 365 days o f the granting of the varian ce or final decision o f appeal, whichev e r is later ; an d
(2) The variance is rec o r ded w ith the Judge o f P robate.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends Denial of a 10' front setback variance for the principle structure in case BOA
24.04.
3 BOA 24.04 Pecan Ridge Subd vis ion (Thompson ) -10' Front Setback Variance
To Whom It May Concern: 4/15/2024
We are seeking a variance to increase the buildable footprint depth of lots 25 and 26 in Pecan
Ridge subdivision. The main reason we are pursuing this is because we believe the foundation
of the house would run the risk of being undermined by the ditch during a heavy rain event.
With the current buildable footprint a 40 foot deep home would put the back of the house right
on the ditch. This is a potential issue for the occupants of the house we intend to build. Please
consider the fact that someone would be most likely making the biggest purchase of their life
with potential to have the foundation compromised in a heavy rain event or hurricane. Thank
you for your time and consideration in this matter. We look forward to your response.
Thanks,
Tut Campbell -Co-Owner Cypress Builders, LLC
/fl-fcf ~
Js ~ho3 n -Co-Owner Cypress Builders, LLC
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
[i]
Hello,
Piaooe Bragg
lllilllOio9.
Rick Bragg
PPIN: 270304 and 270303
Friday, May 10, 2024 11:51:38 AM
This is in response to the letter we received concerning the development plans for the two
prope1ties at the comer of Mosley Rd. and Pecan Ridge Blvd., PPIN: 270304 and 270303. The
letter stated that infonnation would not be posted on the website until the week before the May
20, 2024, meeting, so we are commenting without that infonnation. I did check the website,
but did not find a tab for "Agendas and Minutes" on the BOA page.
We almost did not have time to reply at all conside1ing the sh01t time frame from the date of
the letter and the deadline of today at noon (four days).
We easily might have missed this letter had the mail been slower or ifwe had been out of
town and not receiving our mail, even by a day or two.
We are greatly concerned about any type of structure being built on these two prope1ties.
Neither of them fits the dimensions of the other prope1ties on Pecan Ridge Blvd. or Mosley
Rd.
The prope1ty closest to the comer ce1tainly does not fit the Mosley Rd. setback of the
prope1ties to the east of it, including the one that directly abuts these two prope1ties at 9370
Mosley Rd.
We question how these two prope1ties ever would have been approved for development,
considering their deviance from the cunent structures on Mosley and the design of the rest of
the Pecan Ridge development.
Along with the deviations, another issue is the drainage at this comer. The home at 9370
Mosley Rd. akeady has flooding issues during heavy rains.
The front yard becomes almost impassable as the drains back up. Building two new strnctures
next to 9370 will likely result in even greater rnnoff and damage to this prope1ty, including
more flooding in the back pa1t of that lot. The prope1ties on Pecan Ridge have a slightly higher
elevation with what appears to be a natural drainage easement between them and the prope1ty
at 9370.
Without seeing the plans, we cannot asce1tain if this is an official easement, but the likelihood
of flooding is a concern in any case.
Lastly, and of great imp01tance to those of us who live on Mosley Road, is the protection of
our investment.
We have paid our taxes and repaired our properties after severe weather and hunicanes and
are distressed at the idea of two houses basically being built in our front yards, something we
would hope the Board would appreciate and understand.
It is our opinion that the prope1ty in question should remain strncture-free as a green space.
As such, we oppose any variance that would allow any type of development on these two
parcels to move f 01ward.
Sincerely,
Dianne Bragg
Rick Bragg
Dianne M. Bragg, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Journalism
and Creative Media
U niversity of Alabama
492 Reese Phifer Hall
Box 870172
Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0172
Phone (205) 348-7155
FAX (205) 348-2780
dmbragg@ua.edu
CELEBRATING
50 EARS
efC&IS
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
[I]
May 9, 2024
Um payjs
J;llilllllWl1; Mary Dayjs
BOA 24.04 response
Friday, May 10, 2024 7:59:48 AM
Via Email: planning@fairhopeal.gov
City of Fairhope, Alabama
161 North Section Street
Fairhope, A labama 36533
RE: Case: BOA 24.03
Applicant: Harold Thompson
Property Located: South of Mosley Road and East of Pine Ridge Road
PPIN: 270303
Dear Sirs:
We are in receipt of your May 6 , 2024 notice regarding the above-mentioned prope1ty.
We would like the Commission to be aware that we are wholly opposed to this request for a
variance. We are concerned that if this request is granted it would diminish the enjoyment of
our property including a diminished open view and an increase in noise and would possibly
increase any water rnn-off from the drainage ditch.
We would ask that this Commission consider our opinions regarding this and deny the
applicant's request for a variance .
Sincerely,
Maiy and Tim Davis
Owners of Prope1ty at
9370 Moseley Road
Fairhope, A labama
Tim Davis
Shadow Catchers Art
334 382-2929