Fairhope Board of Adjustment tables variance request for 50 Fells Ave., asks for final site plan

The Fairhope City Board of Adjustment on Feb. 17 voted to table BOA 24.11, a variance request for the property at 50 Fells Avenue, at the applicant’s request so staff and the board can review a finalized site plan and tree‑protection details.

The request, from property owner Jason Lasource, asked for a 20‑foot front‑setback variance (which would leave the proposed house beginning about 15 feet from the street), a 5‑foot side‑setback variance, and a variance allowing an accessory structure to sit 10.5 feet forward of the rear building line on a lot the staff said is approximately 0.22 acres.

Mike Jeffries, City of Fairhope planning staff, told the board that the parcel and existing structure are nonconforming and that the neighborhood contains many substandard lots. He said the city has an administrative front‑setback allowance but the adjacent properties did not qualify to trigger that administrative relief. “The front setback variance is for a 20 foot variance that would leave the house beginning at 15 feet from the street,” Jeffries said, and he added staff’s position: to deny the requested 20‑foot front variance but consider a smaller front variance tied to a site plan.

Staff recommended four specific points tied to the site plan presented: approve a 5‑foot east side setback to protect a poplar tree; deny the requested 20‑foot front setback but consider supporting a 12‑foot front‑setback variance if the eight‑foot front porch shown in the applicant’s plan is removed; support the requested 10.5‑foot variance for the accessory structure; and require a tree‑protection plan by a licensed arborist as part of land‑disturbance and building permit applications. Jeffries said the recommendations apply only to the specific site plan submitted and would be void if a different plan were later adopted for the property.

The application has been before the board multiple times, and Jeffries and other staff told the board they had received a revised plan the Friday before the meeting that they had not yet fully reviewed. Board members and staff repeatedly said they were reluctant to grant a broad front‑setback variance without conditioning it to a survey‑accurate site plan because minor differences between a conceptual drawing and a surveyed overlay could shift the building footprint relative to protected tree root zones and property lines.

Applicant Jason Lasource said preserving a front porch is important to his design and that his preferred porch depth is eight feet: “the front porch is definitely a need and we're still, at 8 foot on that,” he told the board. Lasource also said the design reflected arborist Chris Francis’s critical root‑zone markings and that the design was intended to align with the neighborhood’s character, noting nearby houses with porches and smaller setbacks.

Board members raised several implementation questions, including whether the applicant had an actual survey to overlay the site plan, how the protection zones for heritage trees would be confirmed at permitting, and whether the garage could be attached to the house to reduce pressure on setbacks. Staff explained that heritage trees must meet ordinance criteria — including a 20‑inch diameter at breast height and species listing — and that an arborist’s letter and a horticultural inspection are part of the heritage‑tree verification process.

After discussion, a board member moved to table the case for one month “per the applicant’s request.” The motion passed on a roll call vote recorded as all Ayes; the board did not take a final vote on any of the requested variances at the Feb. 17 meeting. The board also approved the meeting minutes earlier in the agenda; that motion passed with one abstention.

The board directed the applicant to coordinate with staff (including Christine, a city staff member referenced during the hearing) to align the revised plan that had been emailed to staff with the site plan the applicant intends to have the board condition upon. Staff emphasized that, if the board were to approve setbacks tied to a plan, they would want a survey‑accurate site plan to be part of the condition to prevent discrepancies when the building permit is reviewed.

The case will return to the Board of Adjustment at the next monthly meeting after staff has reviewed the revised site plan and the applicant and staff have agreed on the version to be conditioned on, if any. No final variances were granted or denied at this meeting.