Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-18-2024 Board of Adjustments Agenda PacketOctober 21, 2024 Board of Adjustments Minutes 1 The Board of Adjustments met Monday, October 21, 2024, at 5:00 PM at the City Municipal Complex, 161 N. Section Street in the Council Chambers. Present: Anil Vira, Chair; Cathy Slagle, Vice-Chair; Donna Cook; Ryan Baker; Frank Lamia; Bryan Flowers; Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Director; Michelle Melton, City Planner; and Cindy Beaudreau, Planning Clerk. Absent: None Chairman Vira called the meeting to order at 5:02 PM. Approval of Minutes Ryan Baker made a motion to approve the minutes from the September 16, 2024, meeting. Cathy Slagle seconded the motion and the motion carried with the following vote: Aye: Anil Vira, Cathy Slagle, Donna Cook, Ryan Baker, and Frank Lamia Nay: None. BOA 24.10 Public hearing to consider the request of the Applicant, Mack McKinney, on behalf of the Owner, FST Sildi LLC, for a Special Exception – Use on Appeal – to allow for a hotel on property zoned B-2 General Business District. The property is located at 301 Fairhope Avenue and is approximately 0.20 acres. PPIN#: 14359 Chairman Vira stated that the Applicant would like to table this item until the December meeting. Recommendation: Staff recommends tabling of BOA 24.10 until December. Motion: At the applicant’s request Frank Lamia made a motion to table BOA 24.10. Cathy Slagle seconded the motion and the motion carried with the following vote: Aye: Anil Vira, Cathy Slagle, Donna Cook, Ryan Baker, and Frank Lamia Nay: None. BOA 24.11 Public hearing to consider the request of the Owner, Jason LaSource, for a 15’ front setback variance and a 5’ side setback variance on property zoned R-2 Medium Density Single- Family Residential District. The property is located at 50 Fels Avenue. The property is approximately 0.22 acres. PPIN#: 14503 Michelle Melton, City Planner, presented the request of the Owner, Jason LaSource, for a 15’ front setback variance and a 5’ side setback variance on property zoned R-2 Medium Density Single- Family Residential District. Ms. Melton shared the zoning and aerial maps. Ms. Melton shared the updated site plan with the second floor and where the tree limbs would be in connection with the October 21, 2024 Board of Adjustments Minutes 2 second floor. Ms. Melton reminded the Board of Adjustment members that the Tree Ordinance does not apply, and the owner could cut the tree down in order to build his house, but he would prefer to protect the tree. Staff supports the efforts to save the Heritage Tree but feel a variance should be granted conditioned on a special plan that is designed to work around the tree as much as possible. The updated plan provides more information about the house itself; however, a different house placement may provide better protection for the tree. Applicant desires to maintain an existing garden and erect a new accessory structure in the backyard, which is part of the reasoning for the variance request(s). Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of BOA 24.11. Jason LaSource, 50 Fels Avenue, stated that there would be 5’ on either side of the tree and 10’ from left to right. Mr. LaSource shared a portion of an historical zoning ordinance which states that if you were outside of the setbacks, you could build up to where your neighbor’s house was to keep the continuity. Ryan Baker asked why the house was moving closer to the side yard. Mr. LaSource answered that the house would be too narrow if they stayed within the setbacks. Mr. Baker continued that when rebuilding a house, the new house would need to stay within the new setbacks. Mr. LaSource stated that those setbacks should not apply in the Fruit and Nut or Bluff areas in order to keep the continuity in the neighborhood. Mr. Baker reminded Mr. LaSource is creating his own hardship and there are other choices that could be made that would keep the new house within the current setbacks. Mr. Simmons added that all lots in the Fruit and Nut neighborhood are the same size, and one lot is not being punished more than the rest. The City Council, nine Planning Commissioners and staff are the ones that changed the Zoning Ordinance. Chris Francis, 1214 Captain O’Neal Drive, Daphne, stated that he would like for construction to be farther away from a tree, but this house would be on footers which would protect the tree roots. Mr. Francis stated that the tree can stay there with the house built around it based on the design of the house. Mr. Baker asked if there was any concern with the tree being surrounded on three sides. Mr. Francis replied generally yes, with standard construction, but the design with allow for footers that the house will sit on which will be between the roots. Mr. Francis stated that he will be there during construction so that the tree will be protected. Ms. Slagle asked if there was room to move the house behind the tree. Mr. Francis stated that the tree was in the middle of the lot and building behind it would leave a huge front yard and the house wouldn’t line up with the other homes in the neighborhood. Ms. Slagle asked if the house moved 5’ south, would the tree be more protected. Mr. Francis stated that cutting off the branches to put a house there would create decay in the trunk and that Mr. LaSource has designed the house so that the branches do not need to be cut. Mr. Baker continued that with 5’ on each side of the tree with 18’ from the front set back line, would it help the tree more if the master bedroom was pulled further away. Mr. Francis stated that the house could slide closer to the tree without hurting the tree and if the house was moved, the branches might be impacted. October 21, 2024 Board of Adjustments Minutes 3 Mr. Simmons stated that if the connecting the hallway was longer and the bottom half of the house moves down, the accessory structure could be attached to the house and a variance would not be needed behind the tree. Mr. Francis stated that there are other options, but this design is reasonable. Mr., Vira asked if the garage should be behind the house. Mr. Simmons stated that the garage is typically behind the rear building line of the principal structure. Mr. Vira continued that the way the house is designed, another variance would be needed. Mr. Simmons stated yes, unless the accessory structure is connected. Mr. Simmons stated that staff would rather see a rear setback variance. Ms. Slagle stated that Mr. LaSource should meet with the City to find another solution. Mr. Simmons stated that staff could meet with Mr. LaSource and the home designer to look for other options. Mr. LaSource requested to table his case until revised plans are received by staff. Motion: At the applicant’s request Donna Cook made a motion to table BOA 24.11. Cathy Slagle seconded the motion and the motion carried with the following vote: Aye: Anil Vira, Cathy Slagle, Donna Cook, Ryan Baker, and Frank Lamia Nay: None. BOA 24.13 Public hearing to consider the request of the Owners, James and Heather DeLapp, for a building height variance, an accessory structure to be built forward of the principal structure and a variance to retaining wall height of 4’ or 8’ based on placement of primary home on property zoned R-1 – Low Density Single-Family Residential District. The property is located at 23335 Main Street and is approximately 0.82 acres. PPIN#: 265003 Mr. Baker stated that he needs to recuse himself due to him being the architect for the next-door neighbor. Bryan Flowers replaced Mr. Baker. Mr. Simmons reminded everyone that this case is strictly a case to decide on variances and not about pointing fingers and asked if everyone would concentrate only on the variances. Mr. Simmons stated that research had been done on Alabama law relating to hardships and that finances are not a consideration when granting a hardship. Mike Jeffries, Development Services Manager, presented the request of the Owners, James and Heather DeLapp, for a building height variance, an accessory structure to be built forward of the principal structure and a variance to retaining wall height of 4’ or 8’ based on placement of primary home on property zoned R-1 – Low Density Single-Family Residential District. Mr. Jeffries reminded the Board of Adjustments of the prior variance requests. Mr. Jeffries shared the aerial and zoning maps along with the site plan and elevations. Mr. Jeffries listed the summary of Mr. DeLapp’s revised plans including a depiction of terraced retaining wall options, photos and illustrations of northern properties fence which has no bearing on if his property and proposed October 21, 2024 Board of Adjustments Minutes 4 variance requests meet the variance criteria, alternatives to the carport connected by a covered walkway and alternatives with no variance required by integrating the garage with the house. Recommendation: Staff recommends denial for the height variance for the retaining wall, denial for the location of the accessory structure and approval for the building height of the principal structure. James DeLapp, 23335 Main Street, stated that he agrees with Mr. Simmons’ comments and the staff recommendations. Mr. DeLapp shared a presentation which showed that he only needs a building height variance. Mr. DeLapp showed the make up of the Crawford Subdivision. Mr. DeLapp stated that this is a private subdivision and anyone using the boardwalk is trespassing. Mr. DeLapp showed what a terraced retaining wall would look like and the cost for a terraced retaining wall. The neighbor’s fence was shown to show the height and length which could be considered unsightly and shared a slide showing the line of sight for his retaining wall which would not be seen from the road. Mr. DeLapp then addressed integrating the garage with the house and stated that he could add the garage to the front of the house but that would violate the HOA rules. A new image was shared that included an alternative design that integrated the garage with the house. A new proposed site plan was shown with the house falling within the setbacks. Mr. Lamia asked Mr. Simmons what they were being asked to vote on. Mr. Simmons stated that the staff needs more information showing that this plan would work. The average elevation of the building footprint is needed to confirm whether a building height variance is required. Mr. DeLapp stated that he may not need the building height variance. Ms. Slagle asked if a home built on lots 4 and 5 would have a view of the bay. Mr. DeLapp answered that depending on what type of house would be built, lots 4 and 5 are at a higher elevation than his proposed home which would not block their view. Ms. Slagle asked how far back from the street was his proposed home. Mr. DeLapp stated that it is approximately 500’. Ms. Slagle asked if the HOA had approved all aspects of his proposed home. Mr. DeLapp stated yes. Mr. Simmons asked if there was a 3-car garage, Mr. DeLapp answered it is a 2.5 car garage. Chairman Vira opened the public hearing at 6:09pm, having no one to speak, the public hearing was closed at 6:09pm. Mr. Simmons stated that staff does not believe any variances are required and asked Mr. DeLapp if he wanted to withdraw his request. Mr. Jeffries suggested tabling the case until staff can review the height plans to confirm that a height variance is not required. Mr. DeLapp requested that his case be tabled until staff can vet the height variance. Motion: At the applicant’s request Cathy Slagle made a motion to table BOA 24.13. The motion carried with the following vote: Aye: Anil Vira, Cathy Slagle, Donna Cook, Frank Lamia, and Bryan Flowers Nay: None. October 21, 2024 Board of Adjustments Minutes 5 BOA 24.14 Public hearing to consider the request of the Applicant, Rebecca Bryant, Watershed, on behalf of the Owner, Gerard Garcia, for a Special Exception – Use on Appeal – to allow for a restaurant, bar and community center on property zoned B-3a Tourist Resort Lodging District. The property is located at 700 S. Mobile Street and is approximately 3.21 acres. PPIN#: 11940 Mike Jeffries, Development Services Manager, presented the request of the Applicant, Rebecca Bryant, Watershed, on behalf of the Owner, Gerard Garcia, for a Special Exception – Use on Appeal – to allow for a restaurant, bar and community center on property zoned B-3a Tourist Resort Lodging District. The request by the Eastern Shore American Legion is an amendment to a May 16, 2022, approval. A new building will be constructed (Phase 1 Legion Club), and the existing building will be renovated and become the Legion Hall and restaurant. The restaurant will operate only on Tuesday – Saturday (drive-through is not a permitted use on site) and the Legion Events including the monthly membership meetings will be limited to only Sundays and/or Mondays (or when the restaurant is not in operation). Mr. Jeffries shared the parking information. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of BOA 24.14 with the following recommendations: 1. A drive-through shall not be an allowed use on this site. 2. The restaurant shall only be open Tuesday-Saturday. 3. Legion events and monthly membership meetings shall be Sundays and/or Mondays or when the restaurant is not in operation. Mr. Simmons added that this project was not an easy process due to wanting to preserve the building and commended the patience of the Legion members while working through the process. Rebecca Bryant, Watershed, 103 Blakeney Avenue, stated that a goal of this project is to create an asset, rather than renting, for the Legion that would allow for fundraising. Ms. Bryant shared the plans for the design. Mr. Vira asked Ms. Bryant to share the existing and proposed site plans. Ms. Bryant showed the phase 1 and phase 2 proposals. Ms. Bryant stated that originally there was an outdoor seating area for the restaurant which was removed and will now be used for the flag ceremony and cannons. Ms. Slagle asked Ms. Bryant to share the proposal for the two buildings. Ms. Bryant stated that in Phase 1, the rectangular building will house the Legion Club events with a small kitchen, bar and gathering space along with the Emergency Operations space and is projected to be finished in approximately 18 months. Phase 2 is dependent on fundraising. The ground floor is slated for restaurant use and the second floor is a proposed event space along with the Legion offices. Mr. Vira asked if there would be an elevator. Ms. Bryant stated yes. Mr. Lamia asked if the sitework would occur in Phase 1. Ms. Bryant stated yes. Ms. Slagle asked about the club building architecture. Ms. Bryant stated that it would be compatible with the original building and showed the rendering. Chairman Vira opened the public hearing at 6:35pm. Gary Gover, 300 Lincoln Street, shared his concerns about storm survival of the site. October 21, 2024 Board of Adjustments Minutes 6 Gerard Garcia, American Legion, stated that with a category 5 or greater, all bets would be off, but those types of storms are hundred-year storms. They will have the ability to sustain lesser storms and be able to help with Emergency Operations. Mr. Garcia stated that the building is tailored for immediate response. Fundraising for Phase 2 has been demanding but they have recently attained a 501C3 which changes their ability to apply for grants which will help with the fundraising. Frank Thrasher, St. Alban Avenue, Loxley, Secretary of the American Legion Response Team, shared the importance of the Emergency Operations of the American Legion. This project will give them a home and actualizing missions statements received from the national level. National Security is one of the four pillars of the American Legion which helps the community. Mr. Thrasher listed many of his resources and thanked the Board of Adjustments for moving this project forward. The public hearing was closed at 6:43pm. Ms. Slagle asked for the history of Ivan and Sally, how much water came on site, how far away is the building from the bay, the insurance for the Legion, and the elevation of the building. Ms. Bryant stated they are well above the BFE, they have a flood elevation certification, and a geotechnical study was done on the stability of the bluff. The proposed new building is located beyond the bluff setback. Motion: Cathy Slagle made a motion to approve BOA 24.14 with staff recommendations. Frank Lamia seconded the motion and the motion carried with the following vote: Aye: Anil Vira, Cathy Slagle, Donna Cook, Frank Lamia, and Bryan Flowers Nay: None. BOA 24.15 Public hearing to consider the request of the Applicant, Element 3 Engineering LLC, on behalf of the Owner, Fairhope Avenue Baptist Church, for a Special Exception – Use not Provided for – to allow for a church expansion on property zoned R-1 Low Density Single-Family Residential District. The property is located at 8717 Fairhope Avenue and is approximately 4.29 acres. PPIN#: 13305 Mike Jeffries, Development Services Manager, presented the request of the Applicant, Element 3 Engineering LLC, on behalf of the Owner, Fairhope Avenue Baptist Church, for a Special Exception – Use not Provided for – to allow for a church expansion on property zoned R-1 Low Density Single-Family Residential District. Mr. Jeffries shared the aerial and zoning maps along with the site plan. The applicant is requesting to expand the Sunday School classrooms, choir room and pastor’s office of the existing church to accommodate the growing church congregation. The applicant provided a narrative stating the classrooms will be used during Sunday and/or Wednesday services. The choir room will be used on Sundays and one night per week for choir practice. October 21, 2024 Board of Adjustments Minutes 7 Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of BOA 24.15. Steve Fisher, Element 3 Engineering, 3938 Government Boulevard, Mobile, stated that this is a 5,060 sq ft building addition on the east side. The architectural improvements will match the existing building. Chairman Vira opened the public hearing at 6:51pm. Lewis Johnson, 219 Divit Loop, Pastor of Fairhope Avenue Baptist Church, added that when Hurricane Sally hit, two of the existing buildings were destroyed. They are seeking to replace the buildings that were destroyed by adding an east wing. The public hearing was closed at 6:53pm. Motion: Frank Lamia made a motion to approve BOA 24.15. Donna Cook seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: Aye: Anil Vira, Cathy Slagle, Donna Cook, Frank Lamia, and Bryan Flowers Nay: None. Old/New Business • Approval of 2025 Meeting Schedule Motion: Cathy Slagle made a motion to approve the 2025 Meeting Schedule. Frank Lamia seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: Aye: Anil Vira, Cathy Slagle, Donna Cook, Frank Lamia, and Bryan Flowers Nay: None. Mr. Jeffries noted that the January 2025 and January 2026, meeting dates have been moved due to the Martin Luther King holiday. • Election of Officers Motion: Bryan Flowers made a motion to keep the same officers of Anil Vira as Chair, Cathy Slagle as Vice-Chair and Cindy Beaudreau as Secretary. Donna Cook seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: Aye: Anil Vira, Cathy Slagle, Donna Cook, Frank Lamia, and Bryan Flowers Nay: None. October 21, 2024 Board of Adjustments Minutes 8 Adjournment Cathy Slagle made a motion to adjourn. The motion carried unanimously with the following vote: Aye: Anil Vira, Cathy Slagle, Donna Cook, Frank Lamia, and Bryan Flowers Nay: None. Adjourned at 6:55p.m. ____________________________ ________________________ Anil Vira, Chairman Cindy Beaudreau, Secretary BOA 24.13 - 23335 Main Street City of Fairhope Board of Adjustments November 18, 2024 3RD ST2ND STMAIN ST3RD STU S HWY 98DOVECOTE LNU S HWY 98ALSWAY CHAPMAN S T ADAMS ST JUBILEE LN TAYLOR S T STANFOR D L N MAIN ST Road Parcel Zoning District PUD R-1 µ µ Project Name: 23335 Main Street Site Data: 0.82 acres Project Type: Variance Building Height Jurisdiction: Fairhope Planning Jurisdiction Zoning District: R-1 PPIN Number: 265003 General Location: West side of Main Street, North of Taylor Street Surveyor of Record: N/A Engineer of Record: N/A Owner / Developer: James and Heather DeLapp School District: Fairhope Elementary School Fairhope Middle and High Schools Recommendation: Approval Prepared by: Hunter Simmons CJ 1111 Page 4 of 6 APPLICATION FOR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS Application Type: Administrative Appeal Special Exception Variance Property Owner / Leaseholder Information Name: ____________________________ Phone Number: ________________________ Street Address: _____________________________________________________________ City: ________________________ State: ________ Zip: _____________________ Applicant / Agent Information If different from above. Notarized letter from property owner is required if an agent is used for representation. Name: ___________________________ Phone Number: _________________________ Street Address: _____________________________________________________________ City: _________________________ State: ________ Zip: _____________________ Site Plan with Existing Conditions Attached: YES NO Site Plan with Proposed Conditions Attached: YES NO Variance Request Information Complete: YES NO Names and Address of all Real Property Owners within 300 Feet of Above Described Property Attached: YES NO Applications for Administrative Appeal or Special Exception: Please attach as a separate sheet(s) information regarding the administrative decision made or information regarding the use seeking approval. Please feel free to be as specific or as general as you wish in your description. This information will be provided to the Board before the actual meeting date. It is to your benefit to explain as much as possible your position or proposal. I certify that I am the property owner/leaseholder of the above described property and hereby submit this application to the City for review. *If property is owned by Fairhope Single Tax Corp. an authorized Single Tax representative shall sign this application. ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ Property Owner/Leaseholder Printed Name Signature ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ Date Fairhope Single Tax Corp. (If Applicable) □ □ □ Page 5 of 6 VARIANCE REQUEST INFORMATION What characteristics of the property prevent / preclude its development?: Too Narrow Elevation Soil Too Small Slope Subsurface Too Shallow Shape Other (specify) Describe the indicated conditions:____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ How do the above indicated characteristics preclude reasonable use of your land? _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ What type of variance are you requesting (be as specific as possible)? _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Hardship (taken from Code of Alabama 1975 Section 11-52-80): "To authorize upon appeal in specific cases such variance from the terms of the (zoning) ordinance as will not be contrary to the public interest, where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provision of the (zoning) ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship and so that the spirit of the (zoning) ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done." BOA Fee Calculation: Residential Commercial Filing Fee: $100 $500 Publication: $20 $20 TOTAL: $ I certify that I am the property owner/leaseholder of the above described property and hereby submit this application to the City for review. *If property is owned by Fairhope Single Tax Corp. an authorized Single Tax representative shall sign this application. ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ Property Owner/Leaseholder Printed Name Signature ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ Date Fairhope Single Tax Corp. (If Applicable) □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 1 BOA 24.13 DeLapp- 23335 Main Street November 18, 2024 Summary of Request: The applicants, James and Heather DeLapp, requests a building height variance. More particularly on how the building height is defined. Subject property is zoned R-1, Low Density Single-Family Residential District (approx. 36,012sf) at 23335 Main Street. The request is for Lot 6 of the Crawford Subdivision (S 2156-F). See below. Comments: The property slopes from ~95’ close to Main Street to ~11’ along a common area on Mobile Bay. Applicants state that the elevation, slope, and shape of the lot warrant the variance requests. Principle Structure Height Variance Table 3-2 Lots and Principle Structure has a maximum height of 30ft for R-1 zoned property. Building Height is defined in the Zoning Ordinance as “The vertical distance measured from the average natural elevation of the lot to the mean point of the roof of the building.” Applicants are requesting a variance from the definition of building height because “…the maximum height limitation using the entire lot for natural elevation makes it almost impossible to build a home as SITE DATA N:RUa. ~-~3~F. =.m LOT SIZE I LOTS TOT"-U>1'S • n Table -Lot-S and P rinctp Max. total lot Ma. T ble 3-2: Dimenuo a setbacks 11\-fln. Dlmen slon Min, Lo Arwl • fe Strttcture height co erjijle bi1 Ill ~I Rear Sid .e Street straeturei LotWidt!h Front _!l~e ..ill' Allowed Units P·er none - District or 7S' 25 ' 50 ' AcreJUPAJ, 198 ' 75 ' '!!C 3 acres/-, RI~ ' R-1 15 000 s.t:1-100' 4 0 ' 35 ' lO '" 20' 4-0% I 30' • J . 2 BOA 24.13 DeLapp- 23335 Main Street November 18, 2024 intended” and suggests building height be determined by the average natural elevation of the “buildable area.” The average natural elevation of the lot is 53ft. According to Applicants, the average buildable area elevation is 63ft. Staff supports the request to measure FROM the natural elevation of the building footprint. Elevations are included in the packet Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Approval for the Building Height variance of the principle structure to use the natural elevation of the building footprint. Zoning Ordinance Requirements: The City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance defines a variance as follows: Variances: A modification of the strict terms of the relevant regulations in a district with regard to placement of structures, developmental criteria or provision facilities. Examples would be: allowing smaller yard dimensions because an existing lot of record is of substandard size; waiving a portion of 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. New Proposal Site Plan 6 (N89° 38' 16" W S89°01 '06'' W 197.37) 197.35' 1/2" CAPPED REBAR(HM/ I I I I 3 BOA 24.13 DeLapp- 23335 Main Street November 18, 2024 The Board of Adjustments is authorized to grant variances through Article II.A.d(3) which says the following: d. Duties and Powers: The Board shall have the following duties and powers: (3) Variances - To authorize upon appeal in specific cases variance from the terms of this ordinance not contrary to the public interest where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance will, in an individual case, result in unnecessary hardship, so that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed, public safety and welfare secured, and substantial justice done. Prior to granting a variance, the Board shall find that: (a) There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property in question because of its size, shape, or topography; (b) The application of this ordinance to the particular piece of property would create an unnecessary hardship; (c) Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved; and, (d) Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good or impair the purpose and intent of this ordinance; provided however, that no variance may be granted for a use of land or building or structure that is prohibited by this ordinance. The Ordinance provides guidance for variance requests through the following criteria: Article II.C.3.e. Criteria – (1) An application for a variance shall be granted only on the concurring vote of four Board members finding that: (a) There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property in question because of its size, shape, or topography; (b) The application of the ordinance to this particular piece of property would create an unnecessary hardship. Personal financial hardship is not a justification for a variance. (c) Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved; and (d) Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good and impair the purpose and intent of this ordinance; provided however, that no variance may be granted for a use of land or building or structure that is prohibited by this ordinance. When a variance is granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment it has the following effect: Article II.C.3.g. Effect of Variance - Any variance granted according to this section and which is not challenged on appeal shall run with the land provided that: (1) The variance is acted upon according to the application and subject to any conditions of approval within 365 days of the granting of the variance or final decision of appeal, whichever is later; and (2) The variance is recorded with the Judge of Probate. BOA 24.16 - 258 Equity Street City of Fairhope Board of Adjustments November 18, 2024 S BAYVIEW STPOMELO STGEORGE ST W H I T E A V E FE L S A V E G A S T O N A V E NI C H O L S A V E D E F E R R I E T C T LIBERTY STEQUITY STKUMQUAT STW H I T E A V E S SUMMIT ST W H I T E A V E EQUITY STRoad Parcel Zoning District B-1 R-2 µ µ Project Name: 258 Equity Street Site Data: 0.18 acres Project Type: 23' Front, 25' Rear and 5' Side Street Setback Variance Jurisdiction: Fairhope Planning Jurisdiction Zoning District: R-2 PPIN Number: 14343 General Location: Northwest corner of the intersection of White Avenue and Equity Street Surveyor of Record: N/A Engineer of Record: N/A Owner / Developer: FST and Bell, Zachary School District: Fairhope Elementary School Fairhope Middle and High Schools Recommendation: Denial of 2 and approval of 1 Prepared by: Mike Jeffries CJ 1 BOA 24.15 258 Equity St. – 23’ Front, 25’ Rear, and 5’ Side Street Setback Variances Summary of Request: Applicant, Apex Contracting Services LLC, on behalf of the owner, FST and Bell, Zachary, is requesting a 23’ front setback variance, a 25’ rear setback variance and a 5’ side setback variance on property at 258 Equity Street. The property is zoned R-2 – Medium Density Single-Family Residential District. Comments: The lot does not conform to the current day R-2 dimensions because the lot is less than 10,500 sf (approximately 7,400 sf) and the lot is slightly irregular in shape. The lot does not have the depth most lots do creating a very small buildable area. Once the setbacks are applied an approximate 18’x38’ buildable area is left. A house currently exists and is non-conforming. See below. It is the intent of the Applicant to completely tear down the principle structure and rebuild. New structures shall conform to the current Zoning Ordinance unless there is a case for a variance based on the following criteria listed in Section C(e)(1). Article VII, Section D(3) reads the following regarding front setbacks for non-conforming lots: T able 3 -2: D im ~ndon T bl.e -Lots :i n d! P diidple-Sn,,uetur e Dimension Min. Lo t Arn.I :Mm. Sftbadi:s Mn.llri:al lo t M:n. Dist rict or Allow ed U nit s IIK Lot Width Fron t Rear Sidi!-Street co-ru·~t by 11D lB,ght II/Si!' Acre (l]l>A'I side slnlchlre'5 RIA l acres.I -198 ' 75 ' 15 ' :25 ' .5 0 ' n.on~-30 ' R-1 15,000 s .. f./ -100' 4 0' 35 ' 10 •1> 2,0 ' 4 0% 30 ' • R-b 40.000 s.f./ -120' 3 0' 30' 10 '" 2-0 ' 15% 3-513 R-lb 30 .000 s .. f./ -100' 3 01 30' 10 •1> 2-0 ' •Jj% 3.5? R-lc W ,000 s.f./ -SO' 3 0' 30 ' 10 '" 2-0 ' 15% 3S 3 R-l IT.c .-Xi S '.:'-I;!' -5 · l__,, !DJ !'], EiC, • ... iL Strw:,nrre ~ ,e:-:ceedl lbe bllll.diJlg heigh.t provided the lot Md.th is illcrei!sedl by IO fm far earn ,ad'drtrooal. foot in beigji,1. b . m m a dm'ev.1i!)'i..; m1be side, and efllt.etui:; j!i!5tlhe :li:Dmofthepri.ncip.e S1JJJctare.1be side setbad. shall be 1.5'. ·\•ew ys slliill110t be 'L\li1fl:in Hesofthe side lot line. Th.euea~·emlfle sid e t • e i!Drll ,limie'L\1i1y!JJall. bei.e;se :ted.i!Dllll'.mainpen.wu:;. e . Critmn - (1) Alll aµplicmmi for a ,·aiiance shall be granted ,only ,on lh e cmicruring ,'Ote of fum B o.a:rd me mbers fm iliD;1;; that (a:) There are e.-.iraordmary and. eii:,ceptional c:ondiii.on.s pe:rbinmg to-lhe pJr1ticular p iece ,of properly in question b eca:us:e o f its s iz e, .shape, ,or topography; (b), The-app i.ca ti on ,of the or,d.ina=e to tbi.s parii.c u.lar p:i ece of pmpei.ty wou d create .an. wmecessary hardship. Per.son ;tl fma:ncia l. hai·ds:h.i.p is not a. jns tifi.c.al:imi ml' a vaiiance. ~c) Such c:oediti.ons are peculiar to the parncular piece ,ofpi;operty mvoh,ed ; ae-d, ~d), Relief, if granted, 'L\tO d. not can.se subsbl!l.tia l eh:im ent to the public good and impair the pm-pos e and intent ,of this ,01ilm;,rnce; p ro1,;".i .ed however, th.at no varimce may b e gr.anted for a ·nse of l md or bui CUD,g o:r sfrueiture that is p rolu"b.ited b y Ibis 01,din.ance. 2 BOA 24.15 258 Equity St. – 23’ Front, 25’ Rear, and 5’ Side Street Setback Variances The above site plan illustrates the proposed home in the blue outline, existing home in the shaded gray, and proposed setback lines. 3. T he uu.nunum ti:ont s etback reqi.u.ttd for the d istnct (and, on corner !ots, the street s 1de set back) shall not app ly to a.ny lo t where the anl'a ge front building line(s) of the adj acent lot(s), is less than the minimum s etb ack required fol' the district. In such cases , the front building line m ay be the s ame as the average front building lines(s) o f the adjacent !ot(s). I n no cas e, s hall the front building line be more than 5' less than the mininnw, s etb ack requ.ind fo r the dis11id. / / WESTU'OFMSOl.lntil' OF ,.or 10, SLOCK ,e, DIVISIOt/2 FST Al!.11 Pll.CHER MARYE FJb 0$-4&.tlJ.J 14Ct1•11~2Mt PJ'115"1 A'I Jf~ftU lefWR•l I / ! ; ' ! I I / / / ./ / 3 BOA 24.15 258 Equity St. – 23’ Front, 25’ Rear, and 5’ Side Street Setback Variances Analysis and Recommendation: Variance Criteria (a) There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the piece of property in question because of its size, shape, or topography. Response: The City acknowledges the lot is substandard and shallow. (b) The application of the ordinance to this piece of property would create an unnecessary hardship. Personal financial hardship is not a justification for a variance. Response: The application of the Zoning Ordinance does create an unnecessary hardship. (c) Such conditions are peculiar to the piece of property involved; and Response: A few neighboring properties share approximately the same shape and size but the majority have a greater depth. (d) Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good and impair the purpose and intent of this ordinance; provided however, that no variance may be granted for a use of land or building or structure that is prohibited by this ordinance. Response: Relief will not cause substantial detriment to the public good. When a variance is granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment it has the following effect: Article II.C.3.g. Effect of Variance - Any variance granted according to this section, and which is not challenged on appeal shall run with the land provided that: (1) The variance is acted upon according to the application and subject to any conditions of approval within 365 days of the granting of the variance or final decision of appeal, whichever is later; and (2) The variance is recorded with the Judge of Probate. Although staff would support a minimal variance the applicant is requesting more than what can be supported. Recommendation: Staff recommends Denial of the Front Setback variance. Staff recommends Denial of the Rear Setback variance. Staff recommends Approval of the Side Street Setback variance. ( Narrative and Explanation 258 Equity Street Fairhope, AL 36532 • Current setbacks do not allow for any house ( • Distance from the property line and the road setback combined meet the standard the city has set • Home is under the 37% threshold allowed by the city • Home placement is not affecting an neighbors, utility, or city activity BOA 24.17 - 519 Equality Avenue City of Fairhope Board of Adjustments November 18, 2024 PARK D R STIMPSON AVEN SCHOOL STPINE AVE SHIRLEY LNRAMEY LNBROWN STKURLANE STPORTICO STR O N F O R T H S T F A I RW O O D B L V D SPRING DREQUALITY ST F A I R W O O D B L V D EQUALITY ST Road Parcel Zoning District B-2 B-3a B-4 R-2 R-4 R-5 µ µ Project Name: 519 Equality Avenue Site Data: 1.02 acres Project Type: Accessory Structure Forward of Principal Structure Variance Jurisdiction: Fairhope Planning Jurisdiction Zoning District: R-2 PPIN Number: 15475 General Location: North side of Equality Avenue, East side of North School Street Surveyor of Record: N/A Engineer of Record: N/A Owner / Developer: FST and Beckwith/The Baker Living Trust School District: Fairhope Elementary School Fairhope Middle and High Schools Recommendation: Denied Prepared by: Name Michelle Melton CJ 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 I I 1 BOA 24.17 519 Equality Avenue– Special Exception for Accessory Structure    Summary of Request:  The Applicant, David Beckwith, is requesting a special exception for an accessory structure to be placed  forward of the principle structure at 519 Equality Street. The accessory structure is a proposed 28x28ft  carport with storage. The lot is zoned R‐2 and is 0.96 acres. The lot is outside of the CBD and backs up to  a city owned gully (Bayou Charbon).  Applicant contends that there is very little to no access to the side  and backyards. Applicant’s narrative states that there is 18.57 feet between the house and property line  on the east side and that area is extremely steep. The narrative further states that on the west side  there is 10.34 feet from the corner of the house to the property line and that there is a concrete pad for  a generator 6.5 ft from the sloping property line. Thus, the only place for an accessory structure is in  front of the principle structure due to the steep slopes and limited areas to the sides and rear of the  existing house.    Figures 1 and 2 are the Baldwin County and City of Fairhope maps (left to right, respectively).            Table J-3: Dimension Table -Re idential Acc,es ory Sfructures Dlm~nslon Selbacks MaL total Nla:1:. Min. :,\tin. Frnot Rt>.a1-Side stnet lotconraa;e height strudure separation side br•=•ny ,;ep 11111 lioo betn-«n District OJ' scructure D'om pr! lpl strncrures use str cture RI Behindmmt 15' 15' 50 ' 30%,of 30' 50' for 5' uuilililJ8tiw:: mqutn!(l raa:r 11gricultnre of princip.le yard structures ; stmcture 10 feet for all other a.ccessoiy structures R-3PGH* Behind rear none same a same as 25%of 20' b1.1t oo j.' 5' bmldiog line required prwc.tple principle ret}Utred rear taller than of priucip.le structure structure yard• the strncfure 5' s· 2 BOA 24.17 519 Equality Avenue– Special Exception for Accessory Structure      History of Property:  April 4, 1983: Slide 994‐A is recorded showing two (2) lots backing up to Bayou Charbon. Lot 1  on said slide has an existing residence. See Figure 3.   DAVJ!J • LJ WERY SURVEYING, r,,l,. C. .. ·---..&IC. 'i:.St ~rDE ro .~tf ft.eA- f~"1 co~~ THE ijO,I se -tti fnopu,N u,J (~$1.i.f~) SCM,t; I -a;?fY zfj' ~ z,a ,· -~ bs.(1~ f~M f'~-½' V.r..t +o G1?JJ ,fVt:o lh, r ,r,e,1~ '$ ltf,"'1' ~ . ,, ~,- , ' ., LOT l/l u_1-,aan 177'..: r • , "'' u,, ... / , EQUALITY ST. e,p..ci(l.fNtO l,D T 1..t a,;::, ._, ..= ,-- -" <-, -.._ .. ~ ' ., , _, -, I I I ' • ' .• 50 · R-0~ f , ...! 3 BOA 24.17 519 Equality Avenue– Special Exception for Accessory Structure      Figure 3: Slide 994‐A.  2007: Existing residence built.   February 26, 2024: Re‐plat done with existing structure. See Figure 4.    Figure 4: February 2024 Re‐plat.  Spring 2024: Applicant purchases the property “as is”.  -------, ~ /,./ I I // ,._ -----l-.--. / ---;r __ --..... ~---/// / ( / / I I ; :1 ,I 1 lOT IA (~-~:.--,I - _,,.,.. I - I ..... ,--~-, :1 I I I t: LOT IB ~I:· : ·1 o,,_; { I I I I I I I I.~·- L-~~-~ ---~~~--- 0-..7-001107'. .... 11(11&'1 --~r: 4 BOA 24.17 519 Equality Avenue– Special Exception for Accessory Structure    May 9, 2024: Staff does site visit with Applicant and states in person and via email that a BOA  application will be necessary if Applicant desires to put a carport in front of principle structure.  Emails in packet.  July 30, 2024: Stop Work Order issued because work exceeds that of the permit. Included in  packet with Citizenserve comments below. Also see Figure 5.  Comments:  A site visit was performed and a Stop Work Order issued on 7/30/24; no further work to be performed until SWO released by the Building Department  Interior work has exceeded the scope of work described in the permit application- work being done beyond kitchen area (see attached photos)  Kitchen renovation that was part of the permit has not had any inspections of new in wall plumbing and electrical and all walls have been closed with new drywall installed  New slab poured in front of the house without any permit and was not included in the scope of work for the original permit. It has not been reviewed and approved by Planning and Zoning for placement and the footings and slab pour were not inspected prior to placement of concrete.  Provide full schedule of values or contract of all work to be performed for the entire project.  Site issues will be addressed under the submitted Land Disturbance permit. The property borders an adjacent gully with an AE flood zone and immediately requires commercial grade Erosion and Sediment Control measures to be installed before any work may resume at the property. July 31, 2024: Plans uploaded in Citizenserve.  August 2, 2024: Stop Work Order released.   Figure 5.  September 26, 2024: Generator installed on concrete pad on west side of house.  October 3, 2024: BOA application received.      5 BOA 24.17 519 Equality Avenue– Special Exception for Accessory Structure    Comments:  Staff does not support the exception to Table 3‐3 for this case. Applicant was made aware of  the allowable dimensions and placements of accessory structures in May 2024.   Applicant, in the BOA application, asks for a variance for the accessory structure based on the  size, shape, slope, and elevation of the subject lot. All of which Applicant was aware of at time of  purchase and prior to applying for any permit. The lot backs up to a gully. Most of the lots on that  side of Equality back up to the gully/flood zone and none of which have applied nor been granted  a BOA exception or variance. Self‐created “hardships” are not hardships in a variance case in the  State of Alabama. Ex parte Chapman, 485 So. 2d. 1161, 1163 (Ala.1986). The issue is the location  of the existing house not the property itself. The re‐plat earlier this year made accessing the rear  more challenging from the west side and the installation of the generator at the end of  September made it impossible from the west side.     Since a request for a variance was mentioned in the application and in correspondence variance  criteria is analyzed below. However, a more appropriate request would be a special exception  to Table 3‐3 for the accessory structure.  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: Exceptional or extraordinary conditions do not exist.        (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 Zoning Ordinance or the approved subdivision 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 peculiar to the particular piece of property.    (d) Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good and impair the  purpose and intent of this ordinance; provided however, that no variance may be granted for  a use of land or building or structure that is prohibited by this ordinance.     Response: Relief will cause substantial detriment to the public good as the property does not  meet the criteria in which a variance can be granted.   6 BOA 24.17 519 Equality Avenue– Special Exception for Accessory Structure      When a variance is granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment it has the following effect:     Article II.C.3.g. Effect of Variance - Any variance granted according to this section and which is not challenged on appeal shall run with the land provided that: (1) The variance is acted upon according to the application and subject to any conditions of approval within 365 days of the granting of the variance or final decision of appeal, whichever is later; and (2) The variance is recorded with the Judge of Probate.    Recommendation:    Staff recommends Denial of case BOA 24.17.        "--~ ... ~ ~ --. -... ~-' . ·-.. -~--.......... _. ' • Photos Share - 0 Read it Firefox about: blank I of 2 l 0/2/24, 11 :55 Al\.