Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Zoning Adjustments denies variance for 300 Edgewood Boulevard
Summary
The Homewood Board of Zoning Adjustments on Aug. 6 denied a request to move a 6-foot privacy fence closer to the street at 300 Edgewood Boulevard, finding the applicant did not secure the four affirmative votes required to grant a variance.
The Homewood Board of Zoning Adjustments voted on Aug. 6 to deny a variance request that would have allowed a 6-foot privacy fence to be placed closer to the street at a new house on 300 Edgewood Boulevard.
The applicant had asked the board to allow an 8-foot encroachment into the side-yard setback on a 50-foot corner lot in order to increase usable backyard space. David Lorum, the landscape architect for the project, told the board the lot’s corner configuration and topography created a hardship that made it difficult to provide flat, usable yard areas without moving the fence closer to Roseland Drive. "Code based hardship is it's a corner lot, 2 technical front yards, and we're trying to impede upon that deemed 1 side from the city as a side setback," Lorum said when asked to state the hardship for the record.
Several nearby residents spoke at the public hearing. Beverly Bryce LaBeouf of Edgemoor Drive urged the board to apply the hardship standard strictly, saying she did not see the extraordinary and exceptional conditions described in the project narrative. Jessica Shaka, a future neighbor, described safety concerns and said the extra width would "allow more space for kids to be able to play" on terraced areas of the backyard.
After questions about topography, alternatives such as landscaping and the impact on a planned sidewalk, a board member moved to approve BZA case 26-0039; another seconded. The board then voted with all five present members — Mister Johnson, Miss Han, Mister Sims, Mister Young and Mister Nieves — recording "No" votes. The motion failed for lack of the four affirmative votes required under the board’s rules. The chair advised the applicant to consult the building department for next steps.
The result means the applicant must revise the plan or pursue other options; the board’s denial does not itself prevent future applications or alternative solutions that address privacy and safety while conforming to setback requirements.
