Board holds over appeal by March family on short-term rental nonconforming status

The Mobile City Board of Adjustment on Monday voted to hold over for 30 days an administrative appeal by Carrie and Charlotte March asking the board to recognize a carriage‑house short‑term rental on their property as a legal nonconforming use.

The Marches, represented by attorneys Carrie Kamanas and Casey Pipes of Helmsing Leach, told the board the carriage house was used as a rental beginning in 2018 and that the family began remitting lodging taxes in February 2019. They argued that, because the rental predates the Unified Development Code (UDC) adopted in March 2023, the use is eligible for legal nonconforming status and should not be subject to the UDC’s conditional‑use permitting process.

City staff, represented by Jim Rosler, Staff Attorney for the City, told the board the carriage house sits on a separate legal lot of record and therefore cannot qualify as an accessory use to the main house. Rosler said staff would have treated a short‑term rental as most similar in nature to a bed‑and‑breakfast under the prior code and therefore it would not have been allowed in an R‑1 district. Rosler added that the Airbnb tax‑collection agreement remits anonymized payments to the city and does not provide owner‑level notice that would entitle an owner to rely on the tax remittances as proof their use was lawful.

The exchange of legal views touched on a recent Alabama Supreme Court decision, Dixon v. City of Auburn, cited by Rosler as precedent that a prior short‑term rental operator may not be entitled to nonconforming status when the historical use was not lawfully established under the older code.

Board member discussion focused on the legal complexity and the potential citywide ramifications of the panel’s decision. Chair and staff reminded members that the administrative‑appeal standards in the staff report require the board to decide whether the staff’s determination resulted from an error of law, an arbitrary or capricious interpretation, or lack of evidence. Given the legal questions and precedent cited by both sides, a board member moved to hold the matter 30 days to allow additional review; the motion passed with five in favor and one opposed. The board noted the applicants may pursue a conditional‑use application before the Planning Commission and City Council or appeal the board’s final ruling to circuit court.

The board’s holdover means no final determination was made on whether the March family’s carriage house qualifies as a legal nonconforming short‑term rental; the case returns to the board for further consideration in 30 days.