Citizen Portal
Sign In

Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows

Homewood City Board of Zoning Adjustments denies several variances, approves signage and a second‑story addition

Homewood City Board of Zoning Adjustments · March 6, 2026

Loading...

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

On March 5 the Homewood City Board of Zoning Adjustments denied multiple setback and impervious‑coverage variance requests, approved a storefront sign at 251 Lakeshore Parkway and approved a second‑story addition at 422 Woodland Drive; several applications were discussed at length with no public speakers.

The Homewood City Board of Zoning Adjustments met March 5 and voted on a slate of variance requests, approving relief for a storefront sign at 251 Lakeshore Parkway and a second‑story addition at 422 Woodland Drive while denying other setback and impervious‑coverage requests.

Why it matters: Board approval is required for deviations from Homewood City zoning measurements such as setbacks and maximum impervious surface; approvals allow property owners to proceed with permit applications, while denials require applicants to revise plans or seek appeals.

What the board decided: The board approved a signage variance for Pickleball Kingdom at 251 Lakeshore Parkway and a variance to add a second story at 422 Woodland Drive. The body denied variance requests for 504 Hampton Drive (mudroom enclosure), 301 Ascot Road (front/right‑side addition), 837 Forest Drive (impervious‑coverage increase), and the carried La Prado Circle application after discussion.

Key votes at a glance (as recorded in the transcript): - BZA‑26‑0016 (504 Hampton Drive) — motion to approve failed, vote 1–4 (Yes: Nieves; No: Johnson, Hand, Young, Pirkle). Outcome: denied. - BZA‑26‑0018 (251 Lakeshore Parkway, Pickleball Kingdom signage) — motion to approve passed, vote recorded as 4–1 (Yes recorded from a majority; Hand recorded No). Outcome: approved; applicant has one year to file for permit. - BZA‑26‑0023 (301 Ascot Road) — motion to approve failed, vote 1–4 (Yes: Nieves; No: Johnson, Hand, Young, Pirkle). Outcome: denied. - BZA‑26‑0024 (422 Woodland Drive, second story) — motion to approve passed unanimously in the recorded vote (Yes: Nieves, Johnson, Hand, Gere, Pirkle). Outcome: approved; one year to apply for permits. - BZA‑26‑0025 (837 Forest Drive, impervious coverage) — motion to approve failed, recorded vote 0–5. Outcome: denied. - Carried case (La Prado Circle / previously tabled BZA‑26‑0017) — after the applicant returned and explained netting impervious area, the board voted to deny the variance in a recorded unanimous negative vote.

What applicants said: Elton Douthat, representing the owners at 504 Hampton Drive, told the board the mudroom encloses an existing stoop and avoids tearing into a newly renovated kitchen and that the entry is needed because residents park at the side of the house. Megan Ellis of Advanced Sun and Lighting, speaking for Pickleball Kingdom, said the proposed storefront sign "still only takes up less than 5% of the building frontage" and that site topography and trees reduce visibility from Lakeshore Parkway.

Board discussion and process details: Board members repeatedly questioned precise dimensions and calculations — for example, whether sign area was proportionate to the 29‑foot building elevation and whether impervious coverage calculations reflected the latest site plan. For the 837 Forest Drive application, staff and the applicant discussed landscaping or pervious paving options; the applicant said achieving the required reduction would require about 350 square feet of additional pervious area.

Next steps and appeals: Approved applicants were told they have one year to apply for building permits. Parties denied by the board retain appeal rights to circuit court within 15 days as noted during the meeting.

Speakers quoted in this article are from meeting statements recorded in the transcript and are attributed to the speakers listed by the board or who self‑identified at the hearing.