Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fairhope board: staff erred on accessory-coverage calculation but not on utility-easement finding for Echo Lane tree house
Summary
In an administrative appeal over a permitted tree-house at 13 Echo Lane, the board concluded staff erred in applying the 25% accessory-structure coverage calculation but found the structure does encroach on a platted 15-foot utility easement and the five-foot accessory setback; the board voted the applicant may relocate or pursue other remedies.
At its July 20 meeting the Fairhope Board of Adjustment heard an administrative appeal by Frances McGowan and Carrie Bathrick over a permitted tree-house at 13 Echo Lane. Planning staff told the board the building permit was initially submitted with sketch plans and conditions but staff subsequently determined the as-built structure crosses the property line, appears to be in a platted 15-foot utility easement, and may push accessory structures over the 25% coverage limit for the rear yard.
Applicant Carrie Bathrick described relying on the permit process and submitting the available sketches. She said field inspections later identified discrepancies and that the owners offered to move the structure seven feet at cost to remedy encroachment, but were frustrated by inconsistent guidance. “We were permitted exactly as it is today,” Bathrick told the board, saying she paid contractors and spent money in reliance on the permit.
Neighbors and other residents urged caution, describing long-term erosion in Tatumville Gully and pointing to utility infrastructure in the easement. Frederick Ingram, a nearby resident, said a recent survey identified a sewer cleanout and a collapsed storm structure within the utility easement and warned that allowing buildings in the easement would set a precedent that could worsen erosion.
The board framed the appeal narrowly. After discussion it approved a two-part motion: that planning staff made an error or omission related to the 25% lot-coverage calculation for accessory structures, but that staff did not err with respect to the setback or the existence of the utility easement. The motion passed unanimously. The board advised the applicants to pursue corrective options (moving the structure out of the easement, seeking a variance, or pursuing a utility-vacation process) and asked staff to clarify permitting and review procedures to avoid similar outcomes.
