HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-21-2025 Board of Adjustments Agenda PacketFebruary 17, 2025
Board of Adjustments Minutes
1
The Board of Adjustments met Monday, February 17, 2025, 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; Ryan Baker; Frank Lamia; 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 5:02 PM.
Approval of Minutes
Ryan Baker made a motion to approve the minutes from the January 23, 2025, meeting.
Frank Lamia seconded the motion and the motion carried with the following vote:
Aye: Anil Vira, Cathy Slagle, Ryan Baker, Frank Lamia and Bryan Flowers
Nay: None.
BOA 24.11 Public hearing to consider the request of the Owner, Jason LaSource, for a 15’ front
setback variance, a variance for an accessory structure 10.5’ forward of rear building line 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
Mike Jeffries, Development Services Manager, presented the request of the Owner, Jason
LaSource, for a 15’ front setback variance, a variance for an accessory structure 10.5’ forward of
rear building line and a 5’ side setback variance on property zoned R-2 Medium Density Single-
Family Residential District. Mr. Jeffries shared the aerial and zoning maps.
Jason LaSource, applicant, stated that the home needs an 8’ front porch, the new plan suits their
needs and aligns with the neighbor. Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Director, stated that
Mr. LaSource’s home and his neighbor’s home are different zoning. Mr. LaSource continued that
the footprint decides the design based on variance and notes the setbacks on surrounding homes.
Chairman Vira asked how many feet the current house is from the property line. Mr. Jeffries stated
it is 20’.
Cathy Slagle asked if the front porch was removed, would staff approve the variances. Mr. Jeffries
stated yes.
Mr. Simmons stated that staff received a new site plan on the Friday prior to the meeting after the
applicant having the staff report for a month.
Ms. Slagle asked if other trees would qualify for heritage trees. Mr. Jeffries answered yes.
February 17, 2025
Board of Adjustments Minutes
2
Chairman Vira asked for confirmation that staff does not have an updated site plan. Mr. Simmons
stated no, but the request is within approximately 2’ of recommendation and would need to be
conditioned on a site plan.
Chairman Vira asked if the house could be extended. Mr. Simmons stated no, because the house
is non-conforming.
Mr. LaSource asked if his request could be tabled.
Motion:
Cathy Slagle made a motion to table BOA 24.11 at the request of the applicant.
Ryan Baker seconded the motion and the motion carried with the following vote:
Aye: Anil Vira, Cathy Slagle, Ryan Baker, Frank Lamia and Bryan Flowers
Nay: None.
Old/New Business
None
Adjournment
Cathy Slagle made a motion to adjourn.
The motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
Aye: Anil Vira, Cathy Slagle, Ryan Baker, Frank Lamia and Bryan Flowers
Nay: None.
Adjourned at 5:44p.m.
____________________________ ________________________
Anil Vira, Chairman Cindy Beaudreau, Secretary
:Michelle Melton
April 21, 2025
City of Fairhope
Board of Adjustments
BOA 24.11 -50 Fels Avenue
Proiect Name:
SO Feb A.,,cnuc
Site Data:
0.22 acres
Project T);'.ee:
,·' \
, ..
Setback variances of 5 and 15 feet
Jurisdiction:
Fairhope Planning Jurisdiction
Zoning_ District:
R-2 Medium Density Si ngle-Family Residential
District
PPIN Number:
14503
f-
General location:
Freedom Street and Fels Aven ue
Surve);'.or ol Record:
N/A
Enaineer of Record:
N/A
Owner L Develoe_er:
Jason LaSource
School District:
Fairhope Elementary School
Fai rhope Middle and High Schools
Recomme ndation:
Approved w/ Conditions
Pre eared b~:
Name
--Road
~ Parcel
Zon ing District
-B-1
B-2
B-3a
B-3b
R-2
R-4
z
1 BOA 24.11 50 Fels Avenue (LaSource) – Front Setback, Accessory Structure, and Side Variances
Summary of Request:
Applicant/Owner, Jason LaSource, is requesting three (3) variances. Requested variances are: 15 ft front
setback variance so that the proposed house will be 20 ft from the property line; a variance to allow the
accessory structure placed 10.5 ft forward of the rear of the primary structure; and a 5 ft side setback
variance on east side of principle structure. There are four (4) heritage trees on site (referred to as
“historical trees” on the submitted plans). The requested variances are to preserve the root system of
an 80+ year old live oak, a magnolia, and an existing heritage poplar tree. The structure and lot are both
legal and non-conforming.
Figures 1-3: Existing Conditions of house and tree.
2 BOA 24.11 50 Fels Avenue (LaSource) – Front Setback, Accessory Structure, and Side Variances
Comments:
Applicant has applied for these variances with various plans since October 2024. The prior
variance requests and the plans associated with said requests were not entirely supported by
Staff. At the January 2025 BOA meeting the Board informed Applicant that there needed to be
substantial changes to the next submitted plans associated with the variance requests. The
most recent plans dated March 28, 2025, amount to substantial changes including eliminating
the need for the accessory structure variance. The garage is now attached to the house.
A 5 ft administrative setback variance is supported for the east side setback to preserve the heritage
poplar tree on the west side and to allow for better protection of the live oak’s root system pursuant to
Article IV, Section G below.
The Planning and Zoning Director may grant a 7’ administrative setback variance to
protect and/or preserve an existing Heritage Tree.
The remaining variance request is for the front setback line. Applicant desires a 20 ft front
setback line whereas R-2 currently requires a 35 front setback line. The variance is to move the
front of the proposed structure forward to protect a historic live oak tree.
It is the intent of the Applicant to completely tear down the principle and accessory 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).
T :i b le 3 -2: Dime:n ~ion T:ibie -Lo :md P rim:iple :S n,,udure-
Dimen sion Min_ Lot .be:al lfin.. Se-tbad,s M:n.loW lo t M:u:_
District o.-Allow ed Unit s l'IK Lo t Width Fron t Re ar Sid • Sina co..-u-~e by ::11D Jteight
slnlcDITM II.SI!-Ac.-e {UP.,\) side
RIA l acres/ -198' 75 ' 75' 2 5 ' 5 0 ' no n.: .3 0 J
R-1 l .S..000 s .f./ -100' 4 0' 35 , 10'" 2-0 ' 40~~ 30' .
R-111 40.000 5 .. f./ -P O' 3 01 30 ' lO'lb 2-0 ' 25¾ .3,51J
R-lb 30 .000 s .f./ -100' 30' 30' 10'" 2'0 ' 25¾ 3-513
R-lc 20 ,000 5 .. f./ -80' 301 30' l O'ib 2-0 ' 25'1-• 3,51J
R-! ,rn . r, ,r -'I 1,;.;;;: :;.·· -~-l ,., ..,[) .'7 Hl jf
iL Strurnlle may ,ei:ceed lbe building hP_jght pm\ti.ded the lot iliidth is iJJ.cre115i!d by IO fm for ,each ,ad.'dmooal foot in bei~I.
b . \\'bm a dm'e\\ta)'i ;.m 1ne sid e.i!lld ~d'.;.past ll!.e ftomoftheprincip.e !.1ructnre-,.1ne side setbil:d; ~ be 15'_ \•eways shill not be
i11i.1Din 3 ~ oftlu! side lot line. The lre1r;1,em 1ne side .ot • e ilil rll ,dmiev,ray s1wl ]re oll!§e-terl ililrll l".=i.n peF!.'Wlli .
e _ Cril fYia -
(1) All. applicatii.on for-a ,;,-aria.nee shall be g,-anted ,only ,on e coneurnin g "\tote-of mm B oa.Td me mbers
fm ~g that:
(a) Tb.ere are exflrwrdinary and e :,.:,cept ·001a1 conditions p emtining to-the-particular piec,e ,of properly in
q u est ion b ecau se o f :iis s iz e, s ap e, ,or topography;
(b), The app. icati on ,of the ordinance to this p amcular pi ece of p.i;op ei. 'won d cr-eate an unnec es;s ar,•
hards hip. .P er.son fma:ncia! hard5bip is not a jus tification for a v arian ce.
~c) Such c:o!!d di.o 11:S are p,e,c,uliar to the p arncu lM piece ,ofplioperty m ¥oh,ed ; aE:d,
(d) Relief, i:f granted, w ould n ot cause substmtial defrrim eut to the public: ,good a!!d imp-air the pm-po se
and in!eut ,of this ,ordin;mce; p ro i.,·i e d however, that no ¥m;mce may b e granted for a use of bmd
o i: bui.ding or sflruotnr e that is proluoirted by lh:is ordmance.
3 BOA 24.11 50 Fels Avenue (LaSource) – Front Setback, Accessory Structure, and Side Variances
Article VII, Section D(3) reads the following regarding front setbacks for non-conforming lots:
The direct “adjacent lots” are 24 and 52 Fels Avenue with approximately 15’ and 60’ front
setbacks, respectively. See below.
Article VII, Section D(3) allows relief, under certain conditions, when adjacent structures are
built closer to the street than current front setbacks allow. The average front building line of
the two adjacent properties is 37.5’, so there is no relief allowed under this clause.
::S . T he uu.nunum ft·o n t s etback reqi.uttd for the d istnct (and, on corner lots, the street s tde set back) shall not app ly
to a.ny lo t where the avet'a ge fro nt building line(s) of the adj acent lot(s), is less than the minimum s etb acl.:
required for the district. In s uch cases , the front building line m ay be the s ame as the average front building
lines(s) o f the adjacent lot(s). I n no cas e, shall the front building line be mol'e than 5' less than the minimtw1
s etb ack requ.ind fo r the disbi d .
4 BOA 24.11 50 Fels Avenue (LaSource) – Front Setback, Accessory Structure, and Side Variances
Figure 4: Proposed Site Plan with Oak and Largest Limbs
SITEPLAN
1 I El• ' SCAf.1=
■lft! l'IAl!l 8 _.. I& FGII llHIIDIC~ otlLY.
PUC2ill.Bll"TO ■I! Ml!'MUltH a,y COll'lllAC'l"OII UI.C AIIBGll:ift~
U WE.I. M -APNOWD IIY l:ff'i'" llffl~ CONDll:UCnDN 112m!n..
UFl!HN~: -~ &UR"ft'l'ORa
----------------Ql;'--------------
...
I
,,_
~
~---~~
~j -p l,,,_ -~..:
,,
11
~ !l:f ~
E.3lll£SIT.J,ll!O'N~Rlfi
-1-!~rlO.:.ls..lAi': PIJFIJA:r.n
~
"'
~
·-=
5 BOA 24.11 50 Fels Avenue (LaSource) – Front Setback, Accessory Structure, and Side Variances
The above site plan illustrates the proposed home with an area cut out to protect the tree and
its roots. Staff and the Board did not support prior plans because those plans did not appear to
protect the historic live oak tree as much as possible and that there were other options that did
more to protect the tree and reduce the need for a variance or at least lessen the amount of
feet in the variance request(s). Exact locations of root systems of all the historic trees will be
determined post demolition as part of a tree protection plan. Applicant has consulted with
Chris Francis Tree Service (“Francis”) whereas Francis “verified the tree is healthy” regarding
the live oak.
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 a Heritage Tree is worth saving in various sections of local code.
(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 for
protection of the 80+ year old live oak tree and the other historic trees because the Tree
Ordinance protection does not extend to single family residential lots.
(c) Such conditions are peculiar to the piece of property involved; and
Response: A heritage live oak meets the tree preservation criteria of Article IV, Section G, which
is unique to this 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 or dinance.
Response: Relief will not cause substantial detriment to the public good because tree variances
have been granted in the past to protect heritage trees.
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:
6 BOA 24.11 50 Fels Avenue (LaSource) – Front Setback, Accessory Structure, and Side Variances
(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.
The Board and Staff have worked with the Applicant over the past months to accommodate Applicant’s
desire to build a new home and protect historic trees on the property; and to satisfy the Zoning
Ordinance. The revised two-story house plan has been designed to protect the heritage live oak, its root
system, and its largest limbs as submitted with the plan. The revised plan also aims to preserve three (3)
other heritage trees on site.
Recommendation:
The following recommendations are specific to the site plan contained herein. If the proposed
house is not built within the required time limit from this BOA meeting or is ever torn down, then
these recommendations are null and void and shall not be applicable to any other site plan(s) for
50 Fels Avenue.
1) Based on the Zoning Ordinance the Planning & Zoning Director supports the 5 ft (east)
side setback to protect the existing heritage poplar on the west side and the live oak’s
roots.
2) Staff recommends Approval of a 15’ front setback variance request of the primary
structure.
3) A tree-protection plan done by a licensed arborist shall be approved as part of the land
disturbance and building permit applications.
To whom it may concern:
We purchased our property at SO Fels Avenue in 2017 with the intent to build. The house was in such
poor shape that we almost did not even consider visiting the property because the pictures were so
terrible. We took a chance and decided to visit the property and upon seeing the live oak, the proximity
to the bay and room for a garden we made an offer to purchase the property. Our intention from the
beginning was to build a coastal cottage home with a modest footprint to preserve our great outdoor
space while preserving the 80+ year old live oak.
We are in an area that has a lot of foot traffic and frequently observe people stopping directly in front of
our property to admire the massive live oak that hangs over the property. We did the same thing upon
our initial visit to SO Fels. It is a magnificent tree that has many more years to mature and should be
preserved. Moving the house up 2-3 feet from where it currently sits and keeping our current set back
on the east side (where our house sits now) would allow for that. Even with moving the house forward
it will still be set back further than several other houses on our street including the S houses that are
west of us. With the new house remaining near where the current house is on the east side it will give
our neighbor to the west more privacy than if we had to center the house and move it closer to her lot.
Almost all of the houses on our side of the street are offset to the left with driveways on the right.
Maintaining our left offset will allow us to keep our current level of privacy while maintaining the look of
our street. We enjoy teaching our daughter how to garden and having space for friends and family to
enjoy in our backyard so do not want to take up our entire property with a house which we would have
to do otherwise. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Jason and Sarah LaSource