Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Birmingham City BZA approves three variances tied to submitted plans; two appeals postponed

Birmingham City Board of Zoning Appeals
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

The Birmingham City Board of Zoning Appeals approved variances for properties at 2630 Dorchester, 1998 Hazel and 798 Redding (each tied to submitted plans) and postponed at least two appeals to a future meeting. Neighbors raised concerns about separation and egress-window spacing during deliberations.

The Birmingham City Board of Zoning Appeals on an unspecified date approved three variances for residential properties and postponed other appeals to a later meeting. Board members said the approvals were tied to the plans submitted and were granted by the five members present.

City staff described the first approved request, for 2630 Dorchester (case 25-15), as a request to reduce the required distance between principal residential buildings. Staff (Mike Morad) said the zoning ordinance (Chapter 126, Article 4, Section 4.74(c)) sets a minimum of 14 feet (or 25% of lot width) between principal residential buildings; the proposed total distance between the subject house and a neighboring dwelling is 12.23 feet, a requested variance of 1.77 feet. Derek Babbie of Babbie Construction, representing the applicant, said the lot configuration and the adjacent older house create the condition. Board member Reddy moved to approve the variance tied to the submitted plans, citing the preexisting encroachment by the adjacent home; the motion carried with the members present granting the variance.

The second approved variance, for 1998 Hazel (case 25-18), asked for a 4-foot reduction on the west side so a new house could be built on a corner lot. Staff (Jeff Zilke) explained corner-lot rules and noted a neighboring house constructed in 2020 had previously received a variance. Owner Linden Lajchei confirmed the proposal meets the building-envelope requirements and requested the 4-foot variance so the lot would be buildable. Neighbor Michael Wilson raised concerns that the plans understate existing distances (he said, “there's only 12 feet between my house and the property”); he also questioned egress-window spacing and why properties across the street did not require the same variance. Staff replied that the proposed plan moves the egress window location to increase separation and that window wells may project up to three feet into the required side yard under current practice. Miss Miller moved to approve the variance tied to the plans, citing special conditions on the lot and the prior neighboring variance; the motion was seconded and approved by the members present.

The board also approved a variance for 798 Redding (case 25-20) to allow an addition on the east side of a preexisting nonconforming home. Staff (Andrew Erickson) explained the property's existing attached garage projects forward of the front facade and that the ordinance provision cited (Chapter 126, Article 4, Section 4.75) establishes a five-foot setback requirement for private attached garages; the staff presentation recorded the requested variance magnitude in the record. Architect Glenda Meads (Glenda Meads Architects) said the practical difficulty stems from the preexisting garage placement and the lot's jog, that the condition is not self-created, and that the addition would be effectively invisible from the street. Carl Connor moved to approve the request tied to the plans; Miss Miller seconded, and the motion passed.

At the start of the meeting staff and the Chair acknowledged there were fewer than the full seven-member board present and offered applicants the opportunity to postpone; the minutes show at least one hearing (1133 Latham) was postponed to the August agenda and the Chair later noted the final appeal of the evening was carried forward to the next hearing. The meeting adjourned after the board completed votes and business. The transcript does not specify the meeting date or the full roster of votes by individual board-seat names.

Decisions recorded in this meeting were approvals tied to submitted plans rather than study-only referrals. Where neighbors raised technical concerns (setback measurements, fence locations, and egress-window spacing), staff provided plan-based clarifications and cited survey/property-line use rather than fences as boundaries. The board’s approvals were issued by the five members present and explicitly tied to the submitted plans.