Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies after-the-fact use variance for contractor building on North Side of Third Avenue
Summary
Board rejected a request to allow an HVAC contractor to use a 10-by-10 metal building as a business site in an R-1 residential district, citing lack of hardship and concerns about policing after-the-fact construction.
The Mobile City Board of Adjustment denied a request on Feb. 3 to permit an HVAC contractor to operate from a small metal building on the north side of Third Avenue, finding the proposal inconsistent with surrounding R-1 residential zoning.
John Crenshaw, a surveyor representing the property owner, described a 10-by-10 metal structure and a short concrete driveway added without permits. He said the owner wanted to use the building for parts storage and to park work vehicles for a small, family-run HVAC company. Crenshaw said the family operates the business primarily from the house across the street and that no formal employee roster was known.
Planning staff confirmed the residential property across the street holds a zoning clearance for a home-based business subject to home-occupation limits: operations confined inside the home, no outside accessory-structure use, and limitations on outside employees. A neighbor wrote in support on condition the site not be used as a laydown or salvage yard.
Several board members questioned hardship and enforcement after the fact. "I just maybe look at the neighborhood all around it. I mean, it's all R-1. I think I'm not sure what the hardship is here that would predicate us allowing this commercial use," a board member said during deliberations. Another member noted the risk that an approved use variance could "morph into something else" absent strong controls. The board moved to deny the use variance; the chair announced the application was denied.
The transcript records the denial but does not show a detailed roll-call tally in the hearing record. Staff noted no notices of violation or tickets had been issued and that the applicant had approached the planning office to seek after-the-fact permitting rather than having been cited.
