Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fairhope BOA denies 4-foot rear-yard variance for covered deck at 20105 Bunker Loop
Summary
The Board of Adjustment voted to deny a request to enclose an existing deck at 20105 Bunker Loop, finding staff had not shown an extraordinary hardship on the land; the owner argued screening and a roof would improve usability and add local contracting work.
The Fairhope Board of Adjustment on Nov. 17 denied a request for a 4-foot rear-yard setback variance that would have allowed an existing uncovered rear deck at 20105 Bunker Loop to be covered and screened.
City staff presented BOA2515 and explained that while an uncovered deck can sit within the required 35-foot rear setback in Quail Creek Subdivision, placing a roof over the deck would make it part of the principal structure and subject the structure to the full 35-foot setback. Staff said the applicant had not demonstrated the kind of extraordinary or exceptional conditions of the land required to justify a variance and recommended denial.
Property owner Mick Blackledge told the board he had recently moved into the house and wanted to roof and screen the existing deck for mosquito protection, shade and to allow outdoor cooking in rain. Blackledge said alternatives such as relocating a structure would require substantial foundation work, remove long-established landscaping and have greater environmental impact. He said neighbors he contacted did not object and estimated roughly $45,000 in local contractor work.
A neighbor, Nita Blackwood, told the board the previous owners were master gardeners and warned that pushing a structure farther into the yard would damage the garden. Board members discussed design alternatives, including trimming the deck back so covered portions would meet the setback and combining a covered portion with open decking inside the setback. Staff also noted uncertainty about whether trellises or pergolas count as a roof under current local practice.
After deliberation a board member moved to deny the 4-foot rear-yard variance; another member seconded. On roll call the board voted to deny the variance, with members saying they did not see the necessary hardship on the land to justify an exception to the setback rule. Staff and the board noted alternatives the owner could pursue to achieve partial coverage while complying with the 35-foot setback.
The denial leaves the homeowner the option to pursue design revisions (for example, reducing the covered footprint so the roofed portion meets the setback) or to reapply with additional evidence showing a land-based hardship.
