Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 1707 Rees Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Homewood BZA denies developer’s request to shrink landscape buffer at 1707 Rees Street
Summary
The BZA voted down a request to renew a prior variance reducing the required perimeter landscape strip from 15 feet to 5 feet at 1707 Rees Street after neighbors and an adjacent property owner raised parking and fairness concerns.
The Homewood Board of Zoning Adjustment denied a landscape‑variance request for a proposed retail development at 1707 Rees Street after a neighbor’s objections and board questions about parking and hardship.
Developer representatives asked the board to renew an earlier landscaping variance that would reduce the required perimeter vehicular landscape strip from 15 feet to 5 feet to preserve sufficient parking for the planned shopping‑center‑style development. Brent Pierce of Gonzales Strength told the board they were requesting “a variance to 5 feet” and planned to plant evergreen shrubs and trees as screening.
An adjacent property owner, represented by attorney Tripp Galloway of Redfish Properties, told the BZA the reduction from 15 feet was a “drastic cutback” that could be a self‑created hardship and asked the board to apply the same standard to all applicants. Galloway warned that any leniency granted here should not set a precedent: “There is no basis whatsoever for this variance to be granted,” he said, and noted his client might seek judicial review if the board relaxed standards unequally.
Board members and staff clarified that several contested parking spaces are on public right‑of‑way and would be striped and available to the public after development, not owned by the applicant. Staff also explained a recent local change in parking calculation methodology (moving from gross to net square footage and excluding non‑rentable areas such as lobbies and restrooms) reduced required parking compared with prior practice.
After public comment and board questions, a motion to approve the variance was made and seconded. The roll call recorded Miss Childs, Mr. Nieves, Miss Hand, Mr. Gere and Mr. Perkle voting No; the motion failed and the request was denied. Staff advised the applicant to contact Emily Harris for next steps.
The board treated the case as a site‑specific variance request tied to narrow lot geometry and parking calculations; the denial preserves the current landscape‑buffer requirement for this parcel unless the applicant pursues an appeal or a revised application.
