Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance Setback topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board approves variance to connect 25‑year accessory structure at 4321 Timberdale Drive
Summary
The Tuscaloosa Zoning Board of Adjustment approved a variance allowing an existing accessory structure at 4321 Timberdale Drive to be connected to the primary home, overcoming SFR‑1 side and rear setback requirements; the board placed no additional conditions.
The Tuscaloosa Zoning Board of Adjustment on Feb. 24 approved a variance allowing an existing accessory structure at 4321 Timberdale Drive to be attached to the primary house, despite side and rear setback requirements in the city's SFR‑1 zoning district.
Staff described the request as ZBA‑06‑25 and said the accessory building, roughly 25 years old, sits about 2.5 feet from the rear property line and about 8 feet from the side property line, short of the SFR‑1 setbacks (10 feet side, 35 feet rear). The petitioner proposed connecting the accessory structure to the main house by a heated, air‑conditioned hallway so the two would function as a single, unified dwelling.
The variance mattered because, as Planning staff noted, connecting the structures converts the accessory building into part of the primary residence and therefore requires relief from the city’s setback standards. Planning staff said they received no public comments on the request.
Tommy Woods, the contractor who prepared the plans, represented the petitioner in person. "I was told by the homeowner that when they were originally sold this piece of property that it was marketed to them as a mother‑in‑law [suite] or that it could be turned into a mother‑in‑law suite, which is why they bought the property, and that's how we've gotten here," Woods said.
Board members discussed the property's long‑standing configuration and neighbors' likely awareness of the structure. "The connection was what was needed to get there given that it's been there 25 years; neighbors would have already complained before, so I'm fine with the proposal," said Board Member Marty (no last name provided). Other board members expressed no objections.
The board voted in favor of ZBA‑06‑25. The motion as read by the chair approved the variance; the record shows four affirmative votes and the motion passed.
Staff noted the petitioner plans to pull building permits and that Building and Inspections staff had reviewed the proposal; the hallway and conversion would be required to meet applicable building codes. Planning staff also reported that the fire department reviewed the plans and had no comments. The petitioner and his contractor said the accessory structure would receive fire‑rated drywall and updated exterior siding during the conversion.
The board did not attach additional conditions beyond approval of the variance. The decision is subject to the usual 15‑day appeal period to circuit court as described during the meeting.
