Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Birmingham BZA denies J. Jill request to obscure corner storefront at 284 West Maple
Summary
The Board of Zoning Appeals denied a dimensional variance requested by retailer J. Jill to place 392 sq ft of opaque film over two Bates Street windows at 284 West Maple, concluding the appellant had not demonstrated the kind of practical difficulty that outweighs the ordinance goal of visible storefronts.
The Birmingham Board of Zoning Appeals voted to deny an appeal by retailer J. Jill asking permission to obscure two storefront windows at 284 West Maple with 392 square feet of opaque window film.
Nick Depuy, the city’s planning director, told the board the ordinance (Article 4 §4.9(o)) prohibits blocking required window area because the city seeks “active, engaging storefronts” to support a walkable downtown. Depuy said the applicant’s letter cited store-layout constraints and fitting rooms as the reason for the requested relief.
Architect David Blair, representing the tenant, said the store’s layout and corporate fixturing leave limited options in the roughly 2,200-square-foot corner unit and that built-in wall-mounted fixtures and a needed dressing-room configuration make it difficult to keep those particular windows open. “We’ve been working with Nick … this space gives us because of its, it’s a corner…we’re dealing with a little smaller space,” Blair said during his presentation.
Board members pressed the applicant for alternate designs and asked whether fitting rooms could be relocated to a blank east wall or whether semi-transparent gondolas or open racks could retain window visibility. Several members cited examples on the same block where storefront glass remains exposed and said those precedent conditions underlie the ordinance.
John Miller, who moved to deny the appeal, argued the corner location did not create a special condition amounting to practical difficulty and that maintaining visible storefronts along the corridor was an important public-design objective. The motion to deny passed on the board’s recorded roll call.
The variance was denied; the chair closed the case and encouraged the applicant to explore alternate layouts that could comply with the ordinance while accommodating security and merchandising needs.
What’s next: The applicant may revise plans and return to the board, or pursue storefront adjustments that maintain window visibility. The board recorded no further action on the property at this meeting.
