Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Ice Machine topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies variance for ice vending machine at 719 Skyland Boulevard East
Summary
The Lorna Group's request to locate an ice vending machine 10 feet from the southern property line at 719 Skyland Blvd E was denied after board members questioned the claimed hardship and raised safety and parking concerns; staff said code requires a 25-foot setback.
The Tuscaloosa Zoning Board of Adjustments denied a variance request from The Lorna Group to place an ice vending machine closer than the code's required 25 feet at 719 Skyland Boulevard East.
Staff said the proposed machine would sit about 10 feet from the southern lot line and be roughly 8 feet by 24 feet. Engineers reviewing the original, code‑compliant location concluded it would obstruct traffic; the applicant proposed an alternate site closer to the property line that staff said would not obstruct traffic. Staff also said the property should provide at least 12 parking spaces for the uses on site.
Petitioner Jimmy Adams told the board the machine's placement is driven by safety concerns related to three drive‑thrus along the south end of the building and that the landlord would not permit other placements. "This is strictly a safety thing," Adams said, asking the board to consider that the owner had committed other spaces (including to a food truck), leaving the petitioner only the location requested.
Board members examined whether the landlord's refusal to permit other placements created a hardship for the petitioner and whether the machine could be sited in parking areas without reducing required spaces. Several members said the applicant had not demonstrated the legal hardship required for a variance and raised additional safety concerns for vehicles entering at speed from McFarland Boulevard.
The board voted to deny ZBA‑25‑26. The record shows mixed views among members during deliberation — some were sympathetic to the landlord‑permission argument, others urged the petitioner to negotiate alternate placement so required parking would not be reduced.
Outcome: ZBA‑25‑26 (variance) was denied. The petitioner may consider negotiating with the property owner about relocating the machine into a parking stall area that would not reduce the required 12 spaces or seek other sites.
