Fairhope Board of Adjustments tables variance request for 50 Fells Avenue to allow more time for final site plans and tree protections

The City of Fairhope Board of Adjustments on Feb. 17 voted to table BOA 24.11, the variance application for 50 Fells Avenue, after staff and board members said they need a finalized site plan and clearer tree-protection details before granting the requested setbacks.

The request, filed by property owner Jason Lasource, seeks variances related to a proposed new house and accessory structure on a roughly 0.22-acre R-2 lot. The application as advertised asks for a 20-foot front-setback variance (which would yield a 15-foot setback from the street), a 5-foot side-setback variance, and a 10.5-foot variance to allow an accessory structure to be located forward of the rear building line. Mike Jeffries, City of Fairhope staff, told the board that staff could not support the full 20-foot front variance as requested but could potentially support a smaller 12-foot front variance tied to a site plan that would require removing an 8-foot front porch.

Why it matters: The site contains multiple trees classified as heritage trees, including a large live oak the applicant and an arborist seek to protect. Staff and the applicant said construction methods and exact footprint adjustments hinge on where critical root zones are located and on a finalized survey overlay, so the board postponed action to avoid approving permanent setbacks without accurate, permit-level documentation.

Most important facts: Jeffries said the property and existing structure are nonconforming and that the lot is narrower than the R-2 standard for the neighborhood. He also described an updated site plan submitted to staff and noted two arborists had reviewed revised plans and identified estimated critical root zones. "Staff does support any efforts to save their heritage trees," Jeffries said, and recommended that if the board were to approve variances, the approvals should be conditioned on a licensed arborist's tree protection plan submitted with the building permit.

Applicant Jason Lasource told the board the eight-foot front porch is integral to the neighborhood character and to his design. "The front porch is definitely a need and we're still, at 8 foot on that," Lasource said, and asked for flexibility to adjust the house location once tree roots are exposed during demolition and survey work.

Board discussion centered on two issues: whether to tie any variance approval to a finalized, survey-anchored site plan (staff strongly recommended conditioning approvals on a final site plan), and whether to approve the full front-setback relief requested or a smaller variance that would preserve more of the tree root zone. Staff recommended denial of the advertised 20-foot front variance but suggested the board could consider a 12-foot variance if the final site plan (and removal of the eight-foot porch) were provided. Staff supported the requested 10.5-foot variance for the accessory structure and the 5-foot side setback to protect a poplar and other heritage trees on the lot.

The board received and discussed an alternate site plan the applicant emailed to staff on the Friday before the meeting; staff said it had not had sufficient time to fully review that submittal and therefore did not want to condition an approval on an unreviewed drawing. Members said approving a broad, unconditioned front-setback variance could allow unanticipated future changes to the structure that would not reflect the board's intent. The case has been before the board previously; Jeffries and others noted this was the third hearing on the application.

Action and votes: A board member moved to table the case for one month at the applicant's request; the motion passed by roll call. The board also earlier approved the meeting minutes with one abstention recorded from a member who said they were not present at the prior meeting.

What happens next: The board left the case open so the applicant can work with staff to produce a finalized, survey-anchored site plan and a tree protection plan prepared or certified by a licensed arborist. The board asked the applicant and staff to coordinate on the Friday submittal so members have a reviewed drawing before the next hearing.

No formal final variances were granted at this meeting; the board's tabling means the applicant is expected to return with updated plans at the next monthly meeting.