The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBOA Agenda Packet Council Chambers, Fairhope Municipal Complex, 161 N Section St For more information, please visit: fairhopeal.gov/departments/planning-and-zoning Sherry Sullivan Mayor Council Members Andrea F. Booth Jack Burrell, ACMO Jimmy Conyers Joshua N. Gammon Jay Robinson Lisa A. Hanks, MMC City Clerk Kimberly Creech City Treasurer Fairhope Board of Adjustment Agenda July 20, 2026 – 5:00 PM MEMBERS Anil Vira, Chairman Andrew Belcher Ryan Baker Frank Lamia, Vice Chairman Cathy Slagle Donna Cook Janine Saykes, Secretary 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • May 18, 2026 3. OLD/NEW BUSINESS OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS A. BOA 26.07 Public hearing to consider the request of the Owner, Virginia Oglesby Littlepage for a 15-foot Front Yard Setback Variance on property zoned R-2, Medium Density Single-Family District. The property is located south of Dogwood Avenue on the west side of Wisteria Street and is 0.14± acres. PPIN#: 364724 B. BOA 26.08 Public hearing to consider the request of the Owners, Frances McGowin and Cary Bathrick for an Administrative Appeal to allow an Accessory Structure on property zoned R-3, High Density Single-Family District. The property is located at 13 Echo Lane and is 0.29± acres. PPIN#:74444 4. ADJOURN Page 1 of 79 Fairhope Board of Adjustment Minutes May 18, 2026 – 5:00 PM Fairhope Board of Adjustment Minutes – May 18, 2026 1 ADMINISTRATIVE The Board of Adjustments met on Tuesday, May 18, at 5:00 PM at the City Municipal Complex, 161 N. Section Street in the Council Chambers. Present: Staff: Payton Rogers, Planning and Zoning Manager, and Janine Saykes, Planning Clerk Vice Chairman Lamia called the meeting to order at 5:00 PM. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • Approval of the Minutes – April 21, 2026 Ryan Baker made a motion to approve minutes from the April 21, 2026, meeting. Frank Lamia seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYE: Frank Lamia, David Martin, Donna Cook, and Ryan Baker. NAY: None ABSTAIN: None OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS A. BOA 26.06 Public hearing to consider the request of the Owner, Jinan Chaarani, MD, for a Special Exception for a clinic on property zoned B-2, General Business District. The property is located at 308 Magnolia Avenue and is 0.27± acres. PPIN#: 53140 Payton Rogers, Planning and Zoning Manager, presented the above request made by the Applicant. Mr. Rogers shared the aerial and zoning maps. There was a Site Plan approved in 2006 for the two-story commercial building. The proposed business is Suite 100. Staff recommends Approval of BOA 26.06 for a Special Exception for a Tele-health Dermatology Clinic. Vice Chairman Lamia asked the Applicant if she would like to speak. Page 2 of 79 Fairhope Board of Adjustment Minutes – May 18, 2026 2 Jinan Chaarani, MD, 133 Old Mill Road: Jinan Chaarani stated her business is an online clinic. Dr. Chaarani will work in the clinic a few hours a week and see one or two patients by appointment only. Vice Chairman Lamia opened the public hearing at 5:04pm. Vice Chairman Lamia closed the public hearing at 5:04pm. Ryan Baker made a motion to approve BOA 26.06 for a Special Exception for a Clinic. Frank Lamia seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYE: Frank Lamia, Ryan Baker, David Martin, and Donna Cook. NAY: None ABSTAIN: None ADJOURNMENT Frank Lamia made a motion to adjourn. Ryan Baker seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYE: Frank Lamia, Ryan Baker, Donna Cook, and David Martin. NAY: None ABSTAIN: None Adjourned at 5:05 pm. ______________________________ _________________________________ Frank Lamia, Vice Chairman Janine Saykes, Secretary Page 3 of 79 :Michelle Melton-Null Page 4 of 79 BOA 26.07 – Wisteria Street July 20, 2026 Page 1 of 7 SUMMARY OF REQUEST Public hearing to consider the request of the Owner /Applicant, Virginia Oglesby Littlepage, as Trustee of the Virginia Oglesby Living Trust, for a 15-foot Front Yard Setback Variance on property zoned R-2, Medium Density Single-Family District. The property is located south of Dogwood Avenue on the west side of Wisteria Street and is 0.14± acres. SITE HISTORY There have been no other Board of Adjustment applications associated with this site. STAFF COMMENTS The Applicant is requesting a 15-foot Front Yard Setback Variance to allow construction of a single -family dwelling within the required 35-foot front yard setback. The Zoning Ordinance requires all structures to be a minimum of 35 feet from the front property line in an R-2, Medium Density Single-Family Residential District. The subject site is Lot 76 within Fairland Heights (circa 1946) and is currently one (1) of two (2) directly adjacent undeveloped lots within the subdivision. See Exhibits. The 1946 plat did not illustrate any revised setbacks; thus, setbacks for all properties are determined by the underlying zoning district as required by the current Zoning Ordinance. Article III.C.1 Table 3-2 of the Zoning Ordinance details setback requirements for R -2 districts as follows: Dimension, District or Use Zoning District Front Setback Rear Setback Side Setback R-2 35’ 35’ 10’ b b. Where a driveway is in the side, and extends past the front of the principle structure, the side setback shall be 15’. Driveways shall not be within 3 feet of the side lot line. The area between the side lot line and driveway shall be vegetated and remain pervious. There is a known and visually apparent natural drainage feature towards the back of Lot 76. Richard Johnson, P.E., City Engineer, has conducted a site visit on the subject property and provided a letter supporting a potential front yard setback variance based on his findings. The letter in its entirety is included within the agenda packet. In sum, the rear portion of the lot functions as an established overland drainageway that currently accommodates the surrounding development. Avoiding encroachment into the drainageway and maintaining its function is preferable. Adding non -structural erosion control measures (rock tunnels, rip/rap, etc.) may be acceptable so long as they do not obstruct the current flow pattern(s). Staff conducted a site visit on July 1, 2026. Richard Johnson, P.E., City Engineer, suggested a 30’ drainage easement to encompass the natural drainageway; however, a 30’ easement slightly encroaches into the buildable area even with the requested 20’ variance to the front yard setback. A 25’ drainage easement does not encroach into the buildable area with the requested variance included. Mr. Johnson also provided verbiage of what is allowed and not allowed within the drainage easement. See Exhibits. If approved, the Applicant must have a surveyor provide the legal description for the required drainage easement, add the easement with the legal description (and the City Engineer’s verbiage) to the plat, and record the revised plat in probate court along with the Variance. Variances shall be recorded in Baldwin County Probate Court within 365 days of the granting of said variance. Page 5 of 79 BOA 26.07 – Wisteria Street July 20, 2026 Page 2 of 7 If approved, a potential dwelling could encroach 15 feet inside the required 35-foot front yard setback allowing the Applicant and any future owner to develop the subject site with a 20-foot front yard setback. The Applicant’s full narrative can be found within the application package attached to this report. Applicant provided the following as justification for their request within the attached narrative: “Foundation needs to be a minimum of 15 ft away from stormwater flow to avoid scouring of the ground and undermining the foundation.” Staff acknowledges that the lot has physical elements which make construction within the required setbacks challenging. As proposed by the applicant, the Floor Plans illustrate a “24-inch drain pipe to be installed”. See Exhibits. Firstly, the BOA does not approve floor plans or drainage pipe installations. Secondly, Applicant has been made aware that the City does not support the aforementioned pipe installation. Finally, the City may support a front yard setback variance for the foundation of a single-family residence so that the established functioning drainage way is maintained and possibly improved per Mr. Johnson’s letter. It is important to note that if approved, no building plans, floor plans, or site plans are approved with this variance request. Citizen Comments During the public comment period staff did not receive any citizen comments related to this application. Page 6 of 79 BOA 26.07 – Wisteria Street July 20, 2026 Page 3 of 7 VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS Standards of Review: Variances are not intended to be granted frequently. The applicant must clearly show the Board that the request is due to very unusual characteristics of the property and that it satisfies the variance standards. What constitutes extraordinary and exceptional conditions and unnecessary hardship is a matter to be determined from the facts and circumstances of each application. Article II Section C.3.e(1) of the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance states that the Board of Adjustment may grant a Variance if: (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. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION The Applicant has provided evidence of extraordinary and/or exceptional conditions which may create unnecessary hardship on the land such that a Variance may be necessary for the reasonable use of the property. Applying the standard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance to the subject site would create an unnecessary hardship as the buildable area is compromised due to the existing natural drainageway and topography. The topographical challenges presented by this application are peculiar to the subject property (Lot 76) within the subdivision. If approved, the Variance request would not appear to cause substantial detriment to the public good as it would allow development on a scale similar to what has already been constructed within the neighborhood. Recommendation: Granting the variance will result in a 20-foot Front Yard Setback. Staff recommends conditional APPROVAL of BOA 26.07 – Lot 76 of Fairfield Heights (Wisteria Street – PPIN: 364724) variance request for a 15-foot Front Yard Setback Variance with the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall supply a legal description for the 25’ drainage easement provided by a licensed surveyor in the State of Alabama; 2. The recorded drainage easement shall include the following language, verbatim: “A nonexclusive drainage easement as shown on the attached exhibit for the collection and conveyance of stormwater runoff across the burdened property. No structures, fill, grad e modifications, piping, or other land disturbances that impede or obstruct the natural flow of drainage shall be permitted within the easement. Landscaping, hardscaping, fences, bridges, and similar improvements are permitted provided they are designed, c onstructed, and maintained so as not to restrict or interfere with the free flow of stormwater”; and 3. Variance and drainage easement shall be recorded together within 365 days of a decision in Baldwin County Probate Court prior to application of any City of Fairhope permits. Page 7 of 79 EXHIBITS BOA 26.07 – Wisteria Street July 20, 2026 Page 4 of 7 Survey with Drainage Area Location Page 8 of 79 EXHIBITS BOA 26.07 – Wisteria Street July 20, 2026 Page 5 of 7 1949 Fairland Heights Subdivision Recorded Plat Page 9 of 79 EXHIBITS BOA 26.07 – Wisteria Street July 20, 2026 Page 6 of 7 30-Foot Drainage Easement with Conflict (shown in yellow) 25-Foot Drainage Easement With No Conflict Page 10 of 79 EXHIBITS BOA 26.07 – Wisteria Street July 20, 2026 Page 7 of 7 Proposed Drainage Easement Language Drainage Easement. A nonexclusive drainage easement as shown on the attached exhibit for the collection and conveyance of stormwater runoff across the burdened property. No structures, fill, grade modifications, piping, or other land disturbances that impede or obstruct the natural flow of drainage shall be permitted within the easement. Landscaping, hardscaping, fences, bridges, and similar improvements are permitted provided they are designed, constructed, and maintained so as not to restrict or interfere with the free flow of stormwater. Potential House Plans with Proposed 24” Pipe Page 11 of 79 Page 12 of 79 Page 13 of 79 Page 14 of 79 Page 15 of 79 Page 16 of 79 Page 17 of 79 12'-6" 12'-6" ADJUSTED FRONT BUILDING SETBACK 25-FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT 20' Page 18 of 79 Drainage Easement. A nonexclusive drainage easement as shown on the attached exhibit for the collection and conveyance of stormwater runoff across the burdened property. No structures, fill, grade modifications, piping, or other land disturbances that impede or obstruct the natural flow of drainage shall be permitted within the easement. Landscaping, hardscaping, fences, bridges, and similar improvements are permitted provided they are designed, constructed, and maintained so as not to restrict or interfere with the free flow of stormwater. Page 19 of 79 Page 20 of 79 Page 21 of 79 Page 22 of 79 Admin. Review/Appeal to allow an Accessory Structure in an R-3 district. Payton Rogers Page 23 of 79 BOA 26.08 – 13 Echo Lane July 20, 2026 Page 1 of 15 SUMMARY OF REQUEST Public hearing to consider the request of the Owners, Frances McGowin and Cary Bathrick for an Administrative Appeal to allow an Accessory Structure on property zoned R -3, High Density Single-Family Residential District. The property is located at 13 Echo Lane and is 0.29± acres. The Applicant is seeking an Administrative Review/Appeal to two (2) Zoning Ordinance interpretations made by Planning Staff. Staff’s interpretations are as follows: 1. That Article III, Section C Table 3-3: Dimension Table – Residential Accessory Structures, as written, requires a 5-foot rear setback for all accessory structures and limits the maximum lot coverage by all accessory structures to a total of 25% of the required rear yard in an R-3 district; and 2. That, following the issuance of a Building Permit for a “Treehouse or kids fort” based on a suboptimal—though procedurally sufficient (at the time)—set of sketch plans, Staff revoked said permit after discovering that the structure was being constructed across the owner's property line onto City-owned property (Tatumville Gully), within a platted 15-foot utility easement, and inside the required 5-foot rear setback. The permit had been issued subject to conditions expressly prohibiting construction within any easements or required setbacks. The revocation was authorized under the building permit review procedures set forth in Article II, Section C.4.e, of the Fairhope Zoning Ordinance. The Applicant has already constructed part of the structure and while they have agreed to remove it from city property, they are currently proposing to do so by shifting the structure seven (7) feet south onto the subject site. Doing so would place the northern wall of the structure on the rear property line and remove it from city property. However, the structure would still exceed the 25% maximum total lot coverage allowed for accessory structures; and would still be located inside of the required 5-foot rear setback as well as a platted 15-foot utility easement. Staff has yet to receive a Site Plan or As-Built Survey from a verifiably credentialed design professional that would confirm any proposed new location of the treehouse structure . SITE HISTORY The subject site was included as Lot 7 in the subdivision for Covered Bridge Estates Unit Three recorded in Probate in 1984. There have been no Board of Adjustment applications associated with this site. Page 24 of 79 BOA 26.08 – 13 Echo Lane July 20, 2026 Page 2 of 15 STAFF DETERMINATION LEADING TO APPEAL The Applicant submitted a permit for the construction of a “Treehouse or kids fort” on December 4, 2025 (Exhibit A). On December 16, 2025, City of Fairhope Planning Technician, Kelly Brady, approved the plans submitted with the application with the following comments/conditions (Exhibit B): • “Any modifications to the approved plans shall be revised and resubmitted to your application for review by the Planning Department.” • “May not be located in any easements that may be on the property, otherwise 5ft from property lines. Accessory structures shall maintain minimum separation of 10ft from the principal structure and 5ft separation from all other structures.” On December 19, 2025, a Building Permit was issued to the applicant by the Building Department to begin construction (Exhibit C). Upon the request of the applicant for a strapping inspection on December 29, 2025, f ield reviews performed by City of Fairhope Chief Building Official, Erik Cortinas, established where the structure is currently “estimated” to be located. The location can only be estimated because currently, and at the time of inspection, no as-built survey has been performed to accurately locate the structure on site. The discovery by Mr. Cortinas that the structure may not have been constructed in accordance with the approved sketch plans triggered a formal resubmittal of revised plans to be reviewed for compliance by pertinent staff. Staff has yet to receive any formal resubmittal to the Building Permit application, nor has a site plan or as-built survey, from a verifiably credentialed design professional, been submitted confirming the current location or any proposed new location of the treehouse structure. Around the time of his discovery, Mr. Cortinas provided a “rough-scaled as-built” sketch plan to the applicant and Planning Staff which illustrates the approximate location of the structure (Exhibit D). However, in doing so he clearly stated the plan was simply for reference and not 100% accurate. Utilizing both the plan provided by Mr. Cortinas as well as an as-built survey provided in 2022 when the existing home and garage were being built Planning & Zoning Manager, Payton Rogers, performed an informal second plan review. Afterwards, on February 20, 2026, Mr. Rogers informed the applicant that as proposed the structure exceeded the 25% maximum site coverage allowed by accessory structures. In fact, the site’s existing garage already exceeded this 25% maximum (Exhibit E), and as such, the treehouse structure would have to be removed from the property. STAFF COMMENTS As previously stated, the applicant is seeking an Administrative Review/Appeal to two (2) Zoning Ordinance interpretations made by Staff leading to the revocation of a building permit for the construction of an accessory structure which exceeds the maximum coverage allowed by accessory structures and is located within both the required 5-foot rear setback and a platted 15-foot utility easement. Article III, Section C.2. Table 3-3 of the Zoning Ordinance limits the maximum coverage of all accessory structures to no more than 25% of the required rear yard and requires a minimum 5-foot rear setback for all accessory structures in an R- 3 district. The subject site fronts Echo Lane East and directly abuts Tatumville Gully (aka Big Head Gully) to the north behind the rear property line. As detailed on a boundary survey of the site that was submitted to the city in Page 25 of 79 BOA 26.08 – 13 Echo Lane July 20, 2026 Page 3 of 15 2022, the subject site is 13,014± square feet and is currently developed with a 2,565± square -foot single-family dwelling and a 768± square-foot garage accessory structure. A complete copy of the applicant’s narrative, timeline, and submitted site photos have been included as an attachment to this report. In order to properly analyze the request, Staff has prepared a concise permitting and review timeline which is detailed below and included as an attachment to this report: Permitting & Review Timeline 12/04/2025: Building permit application for a “Treehouse or kids fort” submitted for review by the applicant via Citizenserve with hand drawn sketch plans (Exhibit A). 12/16/2025: Planning Staff completed their review with a status of “Approved with Comments”. Planning comments were provided to the applicant in addition to staff attaching a copy of the submitted “Property Layout plan” including the same comments (Exhibit B). 12/19/2025: A Building Permit was issued to the applicant to begin construction (Exhibit C). 12/29/2025: A strapping inspection was requested by the applicant and assigned to Erik Cortinas to be completed on 12/30/2026. 12/30/2025: Erik Cortinas performed a site visit for the strapping inspection and informed the applicant that the location did not appear to match the approved sketch plans. 12/30/2025 – 01/01/2026: Hunter Simmons performed a site visit with Erik Cortinas and concurred that the location appeared to not match the approved layout plan and that the structure appeared to be located on City of Fairhope property. 01/02/2026: Erik Cortinas notified the applicant via email that the structure was illegally built on city property and did not match the approved plans. Mr. Cortinas provided a “rough-scaled as- built” sketch plan as reference to the applicant illustrating the approximate location of the structure (Exhibit D). Thus, triggering a 2nd review and resubmittal of the permit application to be reviewed by all pertinent staff. 02/13/2026: A second plan review of the revised “rough-scaled as-built” sketch plan was informally assigned to Payton Rogers to review for compliance and to determine if an alternative location on site may be possible. 02/20/2026: Payton Rogers informed the applicant that the structure as proposed was non-compliant and could not be approved due to the size of the proposed structure and the fact that the existing garage, which was constructed in 2022, already exceeded the maximum coverage allowed by accessory structures on the site (Exhibit E). 06/08/2026: The applicant applied for an Administrative Appeal to Planning staff challenging the February determination. Page 26 of 79 BOA 26.08 – 13 Echo Lane July 20, 2026 Page 4 of 15 It should be noted that no single plan nor collection of plans submitted with the original building permit application included all the measurements or dimensions necessary for staff to calculate maximum site coverage of all accessory structures. As previously mentioned, Article, III Section C.2. Table 3-3 of the Zoning Ordinance limits the maximum coverage of all accessory structures to no more than 25% of the required rear yard. In order to calculate this coverage an application for an accessory structure typically would need to provide one of the following: • A full site plan, drawn to scale by a licensed design professional, illustrating all property lines, any existing easements, the proposed structure, and all existing structures on site; or • A sketch site plan not drawn to scale by a design professional, but nonetheless illustrating all property lines and any existing easements with accurate dimensions, the proposed structure with accurate dimensions, and all existing structures with accurate dimensions. Neither of the aforementioned standards were satisfied by the documents provided to staff with the original application. It should be noted, however, that it is not uncommon for building permit applications to be reviewed and approved by staff for minor accessory structures whose submitted plans do not follow the aforementioned standards. However, in doing so staff will typically condition said approval, as was done with this application, in order to ensure compliance with setbacks and to make certain that structures are not constructed within easements. Additionally, in applying for a building permit to construct any structure on a site it is the property owner’s obligation to locate all existing easements and to submit plans which do not place a structure within said easement. If an applicant does wish to build within a platted easement they may do so at their own risk provided they first receive the expressed permission of any easement holder. Said permission(s) must be provided with their application materials to staff for review with their Building Permit application. None of the documents provided with the original building permit application illustrated any easements on site, nor were any documents submitted to staff which may indicate permission granted by an easement holder to build within any easement. As such, staff included standard conditions as described above in order to mitigate any such illegal construction. First Plan Review Based on staff comments provided to the applicant on 12/16/2025, it appears that maximum coverage of accessory structures was not calculated in the first plan review performed by Staff. Instead, staff’s review covered setbacks of the proposed structure utilizing the documents submitted by the Applicant to make a determination about the location based on the information provided by the applicant’s plans. Approval was granted under the aforementioned conditions. Second Plan Review After a second review and resubmit was triggered by the aforementioned field inspections, Planning Staff reviewed the “rough-scaled as-built” sketch plan and determined that the proposed treehouse structure may exceed the maximum allowed coverage for accessory structures. However, still having not been provided with a scalable accurate site plan staff referenced a 2022 boundary survey illustrating the existing home and garage in order to determine how much of the accessory structure coverage was already accounted for with the existing garage. After reviewing the 2022 survey Staff discovered that the existing garage already exceeded the maximum coverage of all accessory structures allowed for the subject site. As such, per Article III, Section C.2. Table 3-3 of the Zoning Ordinance the proposed treehouse structure, if built, would increase the existing non-conformity and therefore could not be approved by Planning Staff. Page 27 of 79 BOA 26.08 – 13 Echo Lane July 20, 2026 Page 5 of 15 It should be noted that while it may have been discussed informally between the applicant and the Chief Building Official, it was not until the submittal of this Administrative Appeal that Planning Staff was informed of the applicant’s intention to not only appeal the 25% coverage determination, but in doing so shift the structure seven (7) feet south onto the subject site. Citizen Comments During the public comment period staff received two (2) comments from two separate neighboring citizens. A complete copy of all citizen comments have been included as an attachment to this report. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL CONSIDERATIONS Standards of Review: Article II, Section A.4.d of the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance states that when hearing an Administrative Review/Appeal the duties and powers of the Board of Adjustment are to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is an error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination, made by the Director of Planning and Zoning, or other administrative official, in the enforcement of this ordinance. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff does not agree that the Building Permit, when issued, was done so approving the structure to be placed within a utility easement or required rear setback. As evidenced by the review comments issued to the applicant on December 16, 2025. Nor does staff agree that the revocation of the issued building permit upon discovery of the structure exceeding the 25% maximum lot coverage, or the process by which this determination was made and revocation performed, resulted in an “error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by the zoning administrator or other administrative official, in the enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance”. It should be noted that if the Board were so inclined to grant the appeal, while they certainly have the authority to also grant a Rear Setback Variance to allow construction of the accessory structure within a required rear setback, there does not appear to be a physical hardship on the subject site in order to justify such a Variance in accordance with Article II, Section C.3.e of the Zoning Ordinance . Additionally, staff does not believe the Board has the legal authority to allow relocation of the structure within the platted utility easement . Recommendation: Based on the preceding, staff recommends DENIAL of BOA 26.08 – 13 Echo Lane and encourages the Board to consider all relevant aspects of the Administrative Review/Appeal, and determine if there is error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by the Director of Planning and Zoning, or other administrative official, in the enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance. Page 28 of 79 EXHIBITS BOA 26.08 – 13 Echo Lane July 20, 2026 Page 6 of 15 Exhibit A: Hand Drawn Sketch Plans Page 29 of 79 EXHIBITS BOA 26.08 – 13 Echo Lane July 20, 2026 Page 7 of 15 Exhibit A: Hand Drawn Sketch Plans (continued) Page 30 of 79 EXHIBITS BOA 26.08 – 13 Echo Lane July 20, 2026 Page 8 of 15 Exhibit A: Hand Drawn Sketch Plans (continued) Page 31 of 79 EXHIBITS BOA 26.08 – 13 Echo Lane July 20, 2026 Page 9 of 15 Exhibit A: Hand Drawn Sketch Plans (continued) Page 32 of 79 EXHIBITS BOA 26.08 – 13 Echo Lane July 20, 2026 Page 10 of 15 Exhibit A: Hand Drawn Sketch Plans (continued) Page 33 of 79 EXHIBITS BOA 26.08 – 13 Echo Lane July 20, 2026 Page 11 of 15 Exhibit B: First Plan Review Comments Page 34 of 79 EXHIBITS BOA 26.08 – 13 Echo Lane July 20, 2026 Page 12 of 15 Exhibit C: Issued Building Permit Page 35 of 79 EXHIBITS BOA 26.08 – 13 Echo Lane July 20, 2026 Page 13 of 15 Exhibit D: Rough-Scaled As-Built Sketch Plan Page 36 of 79 EXHIBITS BOA 26.08 – 13 Echo Lane July 20, 2026 Page 14 of 15 Exhibit E: Accessory Structure Maximum Coverage Calculations Page 37 of 79 EXHIBITS BOA 26.08 – 13 Echo Lane July 20, 2026 Page 15 of 15 Exhibit F: Revised Property Layout Plan Page 38 of 79 Board of Adjustment and Appeals BOA 26.08 – 13 Echo Lane July 20, 2026 BOA 26.08: STAFF PERMITTING & REVIEW TIMELINE 12/04/2025: Building permit application for a “Treehouse or kids fort” submitted for review by the applicant via Citizenserve with hand drawn sketch plans (Exhibit A). 12/16/2025: Planning Staff completed their review with a status of “Approved with Comments”. Planning comments were provided to the applicant in addition to staff attaching a copy of the submitted “Property Layout plan” including the same comments (Exhibit B). 12/19/2025: A Building Permit was issued to the applicant to begin construction (Exhibit C). 12/29/2025: A strapping inspection was requested by the applicant and assigned to Erik Cortinas to be completed on 12/30/2026. 12/30/2025: Erik Cortinas performed a site visit for the strapping inspection and informed the applicant that the location did not appear to match the approved sketch plans. 12/30/2025 – 01/01/2026: Hunter Simmons performed a site visit with Erik Cortinas and concurred that the location appeared to not match the approved layout plan and that the structure appeared to be located on City of Fairhope property. 01/02/2026: Erik Cortinas notified the applicant via email that the structure was illegally built on city property and did not match the approved plans. Mr. Cortinas provided a “rough-scaled as-built” sketch plan as reference to the applicant illustrating the approximate location of the structure (Exhibit D). Thus, triggering a 2nd review and resubmittal of the permit application to be reviewed by all pertinent staff. 02/13/2026: A second plan review of the revised “rough-scaled as-built” sketch plan was informally assigned to Payton Rogers to review for compliance and to determine if an alternative location on site may be possible. 02/20/2026: Payton Rogers informed the applicant that the structure as proposed was non - compliant and could not be approved due to the size of the proposed structure and the fact that the existing garage, which was constructed in 2022, already exceeded the maximum coverage allowed by accessory structures on the site (Exhibit E). 06/08/2026: The applicant applied for an Administrative Appeal to Planning staff challenging the February determination. Page 39 of 79 Page 40 of 79 Page 41 of 79 Page 42 of 79 Page 43 of 79 Page 44 of 79 Page 45 of 79 Page 46 of 79 Page 47 of 79 Page 48 of 79 Page 49 of 79 Page 50 of 79 Page 51 of 79 Page 52 of 79 Page 53 of 79 Page 54 of 79 Page 55 of 79 Page 56 of 79 Page 57 of 79 Page 58 of 79 Page 59 of 79 Page 60 of 79 Page 61 of 79 Page 62 of 79 Page 63 of 79 Page 64 of 79 Page 65 of 79 FAIRHOPE PERMIT Inspections can be requested online at www.citizenserve.com/fairhope or by calling: Building Inspections: (251) 990-0153 Gas Inspections: (251) 928-8003 Permit #:RES25-001626 Project Type:Residential Project - Shed/Accessory Building Builder: Cary Bathrick Address:13 ECHO LN Subdivision: Lot: Page 66 of 79 Page 67 of 79 Page 68 of 79 Page 69 of 79 To the City of Fairhope Board of Adjustments Re: BOA 26.08 Address; 13 Echo Lane PPIN#: 74444 As residents of 9 Echo Lane for 23 years, my husband, Frederick Ingraham and I both have no concern with allowing an Accessory Structure on the property of 13 Echo Lane. BUT, we have concern with PLACEMENT of the structure (being called a ‘tree house’ on the initial permit) on the property of 13 Echo Lane. 1) 15’ drainage and utility easement. a) Those of us with property running along the Tatumville Gully all have a 15 foot drainage and utility easement for which we cannot build within that area. The existing structure in question (that has been partially built and stalled) clearly has been built inside the easement. b) To allow building within this area on one property is opening this up to allowing other properties to do so. The easement is in place to protect the sensitivity of our vital gully. No variance should be given within the 15 foot easement. c) The due diligence consultation of a property survey would have shown the 15’ easement and I was surprised that the initial permit was issued for this placement of the 16’ x 20’ Tree House. 2) Tatumville Gully and vital importance to our city. a) This structure has been built atop a severely undercut and compromised peninsula on the gully side of their property, with some of the posts appearing to be within approximately 6 feet of the gully overhang. (see attached photos). b) The gully is under much pressure with the growth of our city and the volume and speed with which drainage passes through. There have been walls of sloughing directly by their property, and as mentioned before, the existing building has been partially placed atop an undercut piece of ground. Living aside this gully for 23 years we have seen vast and alarming changes which without a doubt will be further and speedily perpetuated by this placement of the building and possibly others alike, should this be allowed. c) In the event of a failure of this building (without a doubt into the gully), the result will be disastrous for those both upstream and downstream for the flow and redirection of water, not to mention any debris, further compromising other properties, and ultimately the vital function of the gully. Who will be held Page 70 of 79 responsible for cleanup, gully wall reinforcement, ecological damages – private property owners, the City of Fairhope, government grants? I feel certain that just the placement of the current posts for the tree house immediately put additional and unnecessary stress on the undercut peninsula. My husband and I have no objection to an accessory building being placed on 13 Echo Lane property so long as it falls within the existing zoning requirement of a 15’ drainage and utility easement and any other existing building ordinances. Because rules and ordinances are to be followed and because this rule/ordinance is written to protect our vital gully, we cannot support any variance if it is structured to allow this Accessory Structure (initially named a tree house) to be placed any closer to the back property line than as current zoning allows – 15’ from the back property line. Thank you for your consideration in our concern for the development and protection of our neighborhood on Echo Lane and understanding the extreme importance that our gully’s play in the function of our lovely city. Cordially, Harriet King Ingraham 9 Echo Lane Fairhope, AL 36532 cc: Frederick D Ingraham jr. Page 71 of 79 Page 72 of 79 Page 73 of 79 Page 74 of 79 Page 75 of 79 Page 76 of 79 Page 77 of 79 David and Libby Hackney 15 Echo Lane Fairhope, AL 843 -327-6084 hackneyd@bellsouth.net RE: 13 Echo Lane/BOA 26.08/PPIN# 74444 July 9, 2026 To the City of Fairhope Planning and Zoning, We are writing in response to the City’s notice requesting comments regarding the proposed treehouse structure on the neighboring property. Our primary concern is not with the homeowner, but with the approval process itself. We believe it was unfair to both the homeowner and the surrounding neighbors for the project to have been approved without more careful consideration of the unique characteristics and environmental sensitivity of this property. The property in question has experienced ongoing erosion issues since the home and garage were constructed. Given the lot’s history and its vulnerability to erosion, we believe any additional structure or disturbance should be carefully evaluated to ensure it does not further compromise the stability of the property and surrounding areas. Our homes are located along one of Fairhope’s fragile gullies, an area that is particularly vulnerable to erosion and land disturbance. The neighboring lot is already heavily developed with a large residence, garage and other improvements. We understand that the structure currently under construction extends outside the easement and is located only a few feet from the edge of the gully. While we recognize that one option under consideration may be to relocate the structure farther away from the gully, we want to be clear that we do not believe that moving it elsewhere on the lot addresses the underlying issue. Adding another permanent structure—regardless of its exact location—continues to increase the intensity of development on land that is already vulnerable to erosion. Page 78 of 79 In addition, while a structure may initially be approved as a “treehouse,” it is not uncommon for such structures to be enclosed or expanded over time, increasing their size use and impact on the property and surrounding areas. The question should not be where the structure is placed, but whether another structure should be permitted on this property at all. We also question whether a current property survey was required and reviewed before this project was approved. Given the proximity of the structure to the easement and the gully, a survey would seem to be an essential part of verifying property boundaries, easements, setbacks, and compliance with applicable regulations. If a survey was not required, we respectfully request an explanation as to why. Our comments are intended not only to address this project, but also to encourage the City to establish a thoughtful precedent for future development within Fairhope’s unique and fragile gully system. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. We respectfully request that this letter be included as part of the oﬃcial record during the City’s review of this matter. Sincerely, David and Libby Hackney Page 79 of 79