Fairhope Board of Adjustment hears variance request for 657 North Mobile Street; motion to deny made

At a June 16 meeting of the Fairhope City Board of Adjustment, property owners Robert and Melanie Roberts asked the board to grant a 20.7-foot front-setback variance and a roughly 3.2–3.4-foot side-setback variance for a covered walkway at 657 North Mobile Street.

Planning staff recommended denial after reviewing the zoning standards and the recorded replat. Hunter, a planning staff member, told the board that the house as built sits 14.33 feet from the front property line where the R-2 front setback is 35 feet, creating the 20.7-foot variance request; staff said the lot is nonconforming in width but did not find the statutory variance criteria met and therefore recommended denial.

Brad Hicks, attorney with Stone Crosby, P.C., who represented the Roberts, argued the block’s physical pattern and century-old plats create “special conditions” that make strict enforcement an unnecessary hardship. Hicks said his block survey showed 10 of 11 houses on Block 8 sit inside the 35-foot setback line and that the Palisano replat and an unopened park/right of way bisect waterfront parcels. Hicks told the board, “We submit to you that the special conditions we have outlined today show that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the zoning ordinance will result in an unnecessary hardship.”

Property owner Bob Roberts said he discovered the issue after changing contractors and having new work laid out; he said he self-reported the discrepancy to the city and asked the board for relief. “I did the right thing,” Roberts said. “I called. I needed help.”

Opponents, including attorney Joe Thetford of Chason and Chason representing neighboring property owners Richard and Carrie Palisano and residents who live along North Mobile Street, urged denial. Thetford called the request “not a minor variance” and noted the request is more than half of the 35-foot front setback and exceeds the 10-foot side setback by about one-third. Thetford warned that granting the variance would ignore the purposes of setbacks, including preserving parkland character and owners’ expectations, and said the requested relief “would cause substantial detriment to the public good and impair the purpose and intent of this ordinance.”

Several neighbors spoke in opposition. Joanne Barless, who lives at 617 North Mobile Street, said the structure projects into the parkland and “does violate our views of the bay.” Contractor Robert Brown and other speakers told the board the city’s inspection record and permitting correspondence suggested the error could have been caught earlier if a required foundation survey had been uploaded to the city system.

Planning and building department emails in the meeting record show plan-review comments and permit approvals in 2022 and an inspection approval in early 2023. The Roberts’ attorneys and supporters said the permit-review record and the way the block’s lots and parkland were platted contributed to confusion; opponents said the revised site plan and the subdivision plat could have led the applicant to build in compliance and that the variance criteria therefore are not met.

Before adjourning the public hearing, the board received several written letters in opposition that were placed into the record. After public comment, a board member moved to deny both the front- and side-setback variances (BOA 25.05); the motion was seconded. The provided transcript ends after the motion and second; no roll-call vote or final action is recorded in the portion of the transcript provided.

The application will return to the board for a final vote or further procedural action if the board takes it, or staff will follow established notice procedures. The case raised questions among members and attendees about how century-old plats, waterfront lot definitions and contemporary setback rules should be reconciled in Fairhope’s permitting process.

Votes at a glance

- BOA 25.05 — Roberts, 657 North Mobile Street: requested 20.7-foot front-setback variance (existing building 14.33 feet from front lot line where 35 feet required) and approximately 3.2–3.4-foot side-setback variance for a covered walkway (application paperwork referenced ~3.14–3.4 feet). Motion to deny both variances was made and seconded; transcript excerpt does not record the final vote or tally.