Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Adjustment approves height-variance method for renovated home at 210 Gaver Court
Summary
The Fairhope City Board of Adjustment unanimously approved a variance allowing building height for 210 Gaver Court to be measured from the upland/top-of-bluff portion of the lot, enabling the owner to renovate a nonconforming 1970 house without meeting the 2017 whole-lot average-height standard.
The Fairhope City Board of Adjustment on April 21 unanimously approved a height variance that lets the owner of 210 Gaver Court measure building height from the upland portion of the lot rather than the lotwide average used in the city’s current zoning ordinance.
Planning staff told the board the 0.72‑acre R‑2 lot contains a deep rear gully that drags down the average natural elevation under the 2017 definition of building height, making much of the parcel effectively unbuildable. Staff said the existing house, built in 1970 and roughly 2,500 square feet, is legally nonconforming; the owners propose renovations and additions that would expand the residence to about 5,300 square feet.
Staff recommended denying a site‑specific redefinition of building height but recommended granting a variance to measure height from the northern upland area above the top‑of‑bluff line. Staff explained that using the upland-only average (rather than averaging the entire lot) yields an average natural elevation at roughly the 51‑foot contour and would allow the proposed mean roof height to remain under the 30‑foot maximum for R‑2 zoning.
Chip Chappelle, speaking for owner Lucinda Chappelle, told the board the owners had worked with a surveyor, architects and contractors who did not identify the gully complication before they began work. Chappelle said the homeowners do not intend to create hazards, plan to hire a landscape architect and want to improve the neighborhood.
Neighbor Lee Vernell testified in support of the variance, saying steep bluff lots in the area commonly create hardships under the city’s present method for calculating building height and urging the board to rule in favor of the applicant.
Board members discussed whether to wait for broader zoning amendments but decided to act on the variance application. The board adopted staff’s recommended approach — allowing measurement from the upland/top‑of‑bluff portion of the lot — and the motion carried unanimously.
Next steps: the variance approval allows the applicant to proceed toward required building‑permit and site‑plan actions; the board and staff noted that other regulatory reviews (engineering, tree and stormwater requirements) still apply during permitting.
