Birmingham Board grants three variances for 774 Lakeside to allow small rear additions

The Birmingham Board of Zoning Appeals approved three variances tied to plans for 774 Lakeside Drive (appeal 25-05), allowing a modest rear mudroom, a second-floor addition stacked over an existing nonconforming wall, and a 1.1% increase in lot coverage.

The variances affect (a) total lot coverage (requested increase to 31.1%, an additional 28.1 square feet above the 30% limit), (b) a first-floor mudroom encroaching to 20.9 feet from the rear lot line (a requested reduction of 9.1 feet from the 30-foot rear setback), and (c) a second-floor wall that would sit 24.25 feet from the rear lot line (a requested 5.75-foot variance). City staff presented the case; the homeowner’s representative said the home dates from the 1940s and the design was narrowed after the board’s prior hearing.

Why it mattered: The house is an existing nonconforming structure: the property already exceeded the 30% lot-coverage threshold before the proposal. The applicant reduced the previously proposed deck and shrank the mudroom by two feet after the prior meeting; staff said those changes removed about 2% of the earlier overage, leaving the current request at 31.1% coverage (about 3,501 sq ft).

Details and board reasoning: City staff explained the lot coverage math and pointed to a 49-square-foot demolition of a deck corner that reduced the coverage calculation. Appellant Eve Hadley (resident, appellant) described safety and circulation hardships inside the narrow, older garage that motivated the mudroom pass-through: with two cars in the narrow garage doors and a shallow interior, interior doors could not open fully and an exterior path from the master suite was restricted. She said the mudroom footprint was minimized to the smallest practical size (8 by 6 feet) to create a safe, direct exit without routing through the garage. The applicant also reduced the rear deck and some front/side masonry to mitigate impacts.

A board member who moved for approval cited the house’s age and its preexisting nonconformity, the applicants’ mitigation since the last hearing and the limited scale of the new encroachment. The motion tied approval to the submitted plans; a roll call showed unanimous support and the motion passed.

What the approvals do and next steps: The variances are granted only as shown on the approved plans. No additional city approvals (building permits) were discussed in detail during the hearing; the applicant must pursue the normal permit reviews and inspections.

Votes at a glance: Motion to approve a, b and c (tied to plans) — approved unanimously on roll call.