Homewood zoning board denies variance to enclose Oakmore Drive carport

The Homewood Board of Zoning Adjustments on Nov. 6 denied a request to enclose an existing carport at a home on Oakmore Drive, ruling the petitioner did not present the code-based hardship required for a variance.

David Morrison, owner of ALR Construction, spoke for the homeowner and described the project as closing an existing 14-by-20-foot carport under the existing roofline to create a master bedroom. Morrison said the work would stay within the current roof footprint, would not add impervious coverage and would cost under $50,000; he told the board the homeowner is a single mother who recently divorced and needs additional living space. “We’re not changing the water flow in any way…we’re not adding any impervious coverage at all,” Morrison said.

Board members and staff questioned whether the circumstances met the legal standard for a variance. A board member read the applicable administrative standard, noting that “personal or economic hardship cannot be factors considered in the determination of the hardship,” citing Article 11 of the board’s administrative procedures. Planning staff explained that the house is an existing nonconforming structure and that converting an unconditioned carport to conditioned living space is treated as an expansion that must conform to current code.

The motion to approve the variance was seconded and received three affirmative votes (Miss Childs, Mister Nieves, Mister Perkle) and two negative votes (Mister Johnson, Miss Hand). The board requires a minimum of four affirmative votes to grant a variance, so the motion failed. The chair announced the motion denied and reminded the applicant that “any party aggrieved by any decision of this board may, within 15 days, file a written notice of appeal” to the circuit court.

During discussion, Morrison offered that building a new addition would roughly double the project cost (he cited a comparison of a 700-square-foot addition estimated at about $120,000) and said closing the carport preserves the existing roofline. Board members emphasized that being in a nonconforming position does not automatically create a variance entitlement; changing from an unconditioned carport to living space triggers conformity requirements.

The board’s written decision and the applicant’s appeal options were noted on the record. The case will carry the board’s file number SV25-11-01613 and may be the subject of a court appeal within 15 days.