Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board denies variances for attached carports on two Fourth Street lots

Tuscaloosa Zoning Board of Adjustment · October 28, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Two petitions to allow attached carports within 5 feet of side property lines at 3016 and 3020 Fourth Street East were denied after the board concluded the applicants failed to demonstrate the variance hardship criteria now that the code change is not yet effective.

The Tuscaloosa Zoning Board of Adjustment on Oct. 27 denied two variance petitions from Leah Alexander that would have allowed attached carports to be located within 5 feet of side property lines at 3016 and 3020 Fourth Street East.

Planning director Zach Ponds told the board a forthcoming code update would restore a 5‑foot allowance for attached carports in the SFR‑1 district, but the change had not yet taken effect. "Part of those updates includes the 5 foot setback for carports if they're attached," Ponds said, adding that the change still must be approved through Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.

The applicant argued the change to the code had rendered their planned construction unbuildable under current rules and that waiting for the code revision would delay the project. "We are petitioning to request a variance regarding these attached carports so that we can ... attach the carport to the structure so that it can be located within 5 feet to the property line," Lee Alexander said.

Board members questioned whether the conditions were peculiar to the parcels or the result of a broadly applied code change. Senior associate city attorney Chad Hobbs and board members noted that because the ordinance change affects multiple lots, that fact weighs against finding the narrow, property‑specific hardship required for a variance. Board member Mary Catherine Holt said, "Because this is new construction and because we don't know yet if the council is going to approve changing the setbacks, at this time, I don't see the hardship to grant either of these variances."

The board voted to deny both variance requests, concluding applicants had other design options (such as detaching the carport or reconfiguring the primary structure) and that a citywide code change could not be presumed. No amendment or conditions were applied.