Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hilltop Height Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BZA approves height variances for 504 Willets but denies lot‑coverage exemption for rooftop/deck
Summary
After extensive neighbor testimony about privacy, light and erosion on the steep Willets Street ravine lot, the board approved roof/eave-height variances for 504 Willets tied to the submitted plans but denied the requested lot-coverage variance for a raised deck, requiring the applicant to revise if it wants the terrace.
The Birmingham Board of Zoning Appeals split its decision on a contentious appeal for a proposed home at 504 Willets Street, approving three height-related variances but denying a requested lot-coverage variance that would have allowed a large raised terrace.
The applicant’s designer and builder told the board a steep walkout lot created a practical difficulty: measuring height from the lowest grade (the walkout elevation) makes otherwise conforming front elevations exceed R-2 height limits. The applicant asked for four variances — pitched‑roof height, flat‑roof height, eave height and an additional lot-coverage allowance for a raised deck that would effectively create an elevated terrace — arguing the slope prevented a functional house without relief.
Neighbors and an attorney representing them urged the board to deny the package. "These variances will deny us the opportunity to enjoy privacy, sunlight and the character of our street," attorney Scott Galloway said, describing steep grade changes and a rear terrace that would tower over adjacent yards.
Board members debated whether the slope constituted a sufficient, non‑self‑created hardship. A motion to deny all four variances failed. The board instead voted to approve variances a, b and c (the height and eave exceptions) tied explicitly to the plans the designer presented, but then separately voted to deny variance d (the lot‑coverage increase for the terrace). That denial means the applicant may adjust the plan (for example, remove or reduce the terrace) and return to the board if it seeks a different footprint.
The board tied the approvals to the submitted drawings and the record; members emphasized that the lot’s natural topography — not deliberate grading — drove the height variances, while the deck was characterized by several members as an optional design choice that could have been accommodated by a smaller house footprint.
What’s next: Variances a–c are approved and the applicant may proceed with plan-based permitting; the denied lot-coverage request requires design changes to include a terrace within 30% lot coverage or a return to the BZA with a new request. Neighbors were encouraged to raise any city-level zoning changes with the City Commission.
