Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Pergola topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BZA splits then approves pergola variance at 270 South Glenhurst after debate on lot shape
Summary
After extended debate about lot geometry and whether the pergola constituted an expansion of an existing nonconforming condition, the Birmingham Board of Zoning Appeals approved a variance allowing an attached pergola to extend into the rear setback at 270 South Glenhurst.
After extended debate about lot geometry and whether the pergola constituted an expansion of an existing nonconforming condition, the Birmingham Board of Zoning Appeals approved a variance allowing an attached pergola to extend into the rear setback at 270 South Glenhurst.
City staff said the pergola would leave 7.5 feet of rear yard where the ordinance requires 30 feet; the staff presentation cited Chapter 126, Article 2, Section 2.06.2 of the zoning ordinance. "The applicant is requesting a variance to construct an attached pergola on the rear of the home, which extends into the required rear yard setback," the assistant building official explained.
Applicant representative Jason Armbruster of Great Oaks Landscape argued the lot is unusually shaped and the house is built on a nonconforming footprint, making a functional, attached pergola the practical option. "The hardship we're facing is that the lot is unusually shaped, as you can see, and due to the way the subdivision is currently platted," Armbruster said, and he described locating the structure to minimize impacts on neighboring properties.
The board first considered a motion to deny the appeal, with a member arguing the pergola was not necessary and would expand a nonconforming condition. That motion failed on a roll call. A second motion to approve, made later in the meeting, passed 4–3. The chair tied approval to the plans submitted at the hearing.
Board members who voted to approve said the trapezoidal lot and preexisting nonconforming position of the home justified relief in this case; those who voted to deny said the pergola was a discretionary feature and not required for reasonable use of the property. The board recorded the final roll-call and announced the variance approved.
The ordinance reference discussed at the hearing was Chapter 126, Article 2, Section 2.06.2. The board did not identify additional conditions beyond the requirement that the work match the plans presented at the meeting.
