Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BZA grants small setback variance for new house at 1982 Haines amid neighbor concerns
Summary
Board approved a 1.15-foot variance to allow a 24-foot-wide house at 1982 Haines with an east-side separation of 12.85 feet; the neighbor raised concerns about loss of evening light and privacy and staff offered to mediate minor post-approval adjustments.
The Birmingham Board of Zoning Appeals approved a narrow setback variance for 1982 Haines on June 15, allowing construction of a new house with an attached garage whose east-side separation would be 12.85 feet — 1.15 feet less than the ordinance minimum.
City presenter Andrew Erickson told the board the ordinance (chapter 126, article 4, section 4.74.c) requires a minimum 14-foot separation between principal residential buildings on adjacent lots (or 25% of lot width, whichever is larger). The applicant requested a 1.15-foot variance after a prior variance for the property (granted in March 2024) had expired.
Designer Paul Sammartino said the proposed home is 24 feet wide and narrower than a previously approved design. He explained surrounding conditions — a likely future tear-down to the west and a newer two-story home to the east — constrained where the house could be positioned.
A neighbor joining by Zoom, Alex Montgomery of 1996 Haines Street, said the closer, two-story replacement could reduce evening light and intrude on privacy for his home. "We do believe that it will impact our light that we received, especially in the evenings," Montgomery said. The applicant and city staff acknowledged the concern but told the board the variance is just over a foot and that shifting the house could create a need for a second variance on the opposite side. Staff offered to have the applicant speak with the neighbor after approval to explore an inch-or-two adjustment.
A board member moved to approve the variance tied to the plans as submitted; the motion passed on roll call and the variance was granted. Board members noted the practical difficulty created by the existing lot and adjacent nonconforming conditions and tied approval to the submitted drawings.
Staff encouraged neighbors and the applicant to discuss minor post-approval adjustments at the building department; the approval itself was not made contingent on such a change.
