Birmingham City BZA approves five dimensional variances for single-family homes

The Birmingham City Board of Zoning Appeals approved five dimensional variances at its monthly meeting, granting modest setback relief tied to submitted plans for homes at 655 Hawthorne, 236 Pleasant, 952 Brookwood, 350 Shirley, and 550 South Glenhurst.

The board’s decisions followed staff presentations that cited Chapter 126, Article 4, Section 4.74(c) (minimum distance between principal residential buildings: 14 feet or 25% of lot width) and an explanation that curved or irregular lot geometry produced larger setback calculations in some cases. Mike Moran, assistant building official, presented the first appeal and explained the chord-based measurement on a curved lot produced a required setback of 41.74 feet where the applicant proposed 38.3 feet, prompting a 3.44-foot variance request for 655 Hawthorne.

Applicants described narrow, practical needs or design constraints behind the requests. Lauren Freund, the appellant for 655 Hawthorne, said, “This is my grandparents’ home,” and asked the board to allow a rear addition while preserving the front elevation and original roofline. For 236 Pleasant, Victoria Palachico told the board she sought a slightly larger kitchen and said the nonconforming area at issue was roughly 8.6 square feet; adjacent owner David Lattie did not oppose the addition but urged the board and applicant to consider relocating an existing accessory generator to the rear yard under new guidance, noting the planning commission had expressed safety concerns about tight side yards.

At 952 Brookwood, builder Taylor Calero said the proposal was for an open-air aluminum pergola over an existing outdoor kitchen; he noted the pergola would be farther from the neighbor than the existing nonconforming condition. Paul Sammartino, designer for 350 Shirley, explained a roof redesign (hip to gable) that would not change the house footprint and in some respects would lessen the nonconformity. For 550 South Glenhurst, representatives outlined three preexisting nonconforming conditions and said the proposal would, on balance, improve compliance while providing a modest one-car garage, a mudroom and additional living space.

Board members repeatedly tied approvals to the submitted plans and to findings of special conditions or practical difficulties. Several motions cited the lot geometry (curved or tapered frontage) or the age and placement of existing homes as reasons that strict application of the ordinance would unreasonably prevent reasonable use. The board also noted building-code and appliance clearances remain subject to final inspections; in the Brookwood case members discussed conditioning final compliance on verification that any cooking appliances and manufacturer clearances met code.

Votes at a glance

- Appeal 25-31 (655 Hawthorne): Variance requested 3.44 ft (required 41.74 ft, proposed 38.3 ft). Motion to approve tied to plans; outcome: approved (motion passed).

- Appeal 26-01 (236 Pleasant): Variance requested 2.8 ft (required 14 ft, proposed 11.2 ft). Motion to approve tied to plans; outcome: approved (motion passed); neighbor requested generator relocation be considered separate from the variance decision.

- Appeal 26-03 (952 Brookwood): Variance requested 11.97 ft (required 39.37 ft, proposed 27.4 ft) to permit an open pergola. Motion to approve tied to plans and subject to standard building-code review; outcome: approved (motion passed).

- Appeal 26-04 (350 Shirley): Variance requested 8.49 ft (required 34.87 ft, proposed 26.38 ft) for a roof redesign that reduces certain nonconformities. Motion to approve tied to plans; outcome: approved (motion passed).

- Appeal 26-05 (550 South Glenhurst): Variance requested 3.38 ft (required 17.89 ft, proposed 14.51 ft) for combined side-yard setback; applicants said the proposal pulls portions of the structure back and reduces some existing encroachments. Motion to approve tied to plans; outcome: approved (motion passed).

A few other items of record: the chair alerted attendees to recent fraudulent emails that targeted variance applicants and said the city is investigating; the board reminded applicants the city will not request additional fees by email. A member of the public raised an unrelated as-built/survey question at the end of the meeting and staff directed that matter to city administrative follow-up rather than the BZA hearing process.

The board tied each approval to the submitted plans and adjourned after completing the agenda.