Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

Welcome to our regular monthly meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals. The BZA members are volunteers and receive no compensation. We are appointed by the City Commission for staggered three-year terms. Under state statutes, the BZA hears three types of appeals. Dimensional or non-use variances including sign variances, use variances, and appeals of interpretation or rulings of building officials or other boards regarding any provision of the zoning ordinance. Tonight we have two dimensional variance requests. In a dimensional variance or non-use variance, the appellant must show more practical difficulty complying with the dimensional requirements of the ordinance. It requires four affirmative votes. We have a full board, seven members today, so you need four out of seven for the pass of an appeal. And as I mentioned, the two appeals tonight are dimensional. Our procedure is all comments are to be addressed to the chair. Please wait to be recognized. The city staff will make a presentation regarding the appeal and take questions from the board members. The appellant is then invited to present their case. Only one person will be allowed to address the board regarding any particular case. I sometimes can make exceptions if there's an architect or an engineer that can answer a board member's questions. Members of the public are then invited to come forward, identify themselves, and provide their comments to the board. The hearing is then closed and motions from the board are entertained and acted upon. In all cases, this is not a popularity contest. Granting or denying a variance is based substantially on the appellate meeting their burden of proof. Can we please call the roll of the board members?

Yes. I just have a quick request that City Hall make the video available. It is not currently showing up. Perfect, thank you. Eric Mortimer. Here. Kevin Hart.

Here.

Bob Cole.

Here. Richard Lowe. Yes, here.

John Miller. Here. Ron Reddy. Here.

Victoria Palachukiu. Here. Susan Chackett.

All right. I'll call the attendance for the appellants. Do we have someone here for 1072 Ridgedale? Yes. Thank you. And do we have someone here for 655 Hawthorne? Very good. I think we have three correspondence. Yes. And have the appellants received copies? Yes. Very good. Nothing else that we have to see? No. Very good. Ladies and gentlemen, we have our previous minutes from our last regularly scheduled meeting. Do we have any amendments or a motion to approve? Motion to approve. We have a motion. Seconded. Second. All in favor of approving the minutes? Aye. The minutes are approved. Our first case this evening is 26-21 for 1072 Ridgedale.

Andrew Erickson here to present appeal number 2621, the owner of the property known as 1072 Ridgedale requests the following variance to construct a second story addition to an existing non-conforming home. Variance A. Chapter 126 article 4 section 4.7 for C of the zoning ordinance requires that each Residential lot shall provide a minimum distance between principal residential buildings on adjacent Lots of 14 feet or 25% of the lot width Whichever is larger the require is 14 feet the proposed is ten point seven zero feet therefore a variance of three point eight three point three zero feet is being requested the applicant is looking to construct a second story addition to an existing non-conforming home. So the addition the second story addition starts right here and goes all the way back over the garage this area in red

where we're asking for the variance of three point three zero feet for the distance in between very good any questions for the city yeah the the existing house to the east it's an obviously an older house I don't see it I'm not sure how far that house is from the property line I believe

5.9?

I think, well, from the way I read it, the 5.9 is the property line to the proposed construction. 4.8.

You can speak only when it's your turn. 4.8. Okay, so that actually is...

that house is closer to the property line then correct the code would allow even though that's not the house in question so that is that's producing at least part of the inconsistency here in terms of our correct they meet theirs on on the yeah with the proposed proposed building in the lot here they're 5.9 feet so they're more or less over what their minimum might be if it's nine on one side and five on the other. But the house adjacent is actually closer to the property line than it would be allowed if it was new construction today. Thank you. Any other questions for the city?

Mr. Herring? Mr. Erickson, also the 4.8, if they were to improve the property to the east later on, they would need, if they were stacking on top of their existing, I don't mean to harp on the property, but they would need a variance regardless for any improvement to that geometry along that wall. Thank you.

Very good, any other questions for Andrew? Seeing none, who's speaking on behalf of this appeal? Please, could you just give us your name and your address and tell you why you believe this variance should be granted?

So my name is Jasdeep Singh, I live in Troy. The address is 1072 Ridgedale, Birmingham. So we are moving to this house next year and currently this does not meet our needs. We need one additional bedroom and a bathroom. So that's our family needs. My wife's parents are going to move with us too. So we need an extra room. I think that's why we looked at the issue here. Even if we go like 3.3 inward, build a wall there, it becomes a structural issue because it's not over the load-bearing wall. So that's why we are asking for... variance that we need extra room and it'll mess up our plan. If we put a bedroom, the bedroom, if we move more like four feet in board, our bedroom would be only like eight feet wide. which is not like a bedroom.

So when you purchased this home, were you aware that the home was non-conforming and that any addition might impact or you may not be able to do any addition because of that?

No, I was not aware because I didn't, that time there was no survey available. Right. Yeah, I didn't have the survey. In fact, I got the survey done. and when we made the plans for that.

So when, are you an engineer or a builder? I'm an engineer on General Motors. Right, because the comment about moving the wall inward four feet is probably a question I would have asked you, so you kind of.

Yeah, I have to put a post in the family room downstairs if I have to move the wall. You can mount the TV to the post, right?

Very good question, Mr. Reddy.

Sir, do you know approximately how old the house is, when it was constructed? I think it shows 1918, like. 1980? 18.

Okay. I thought that's what you said, but that's 100. Okay. Very good. Thank you.

Any other questions for the appellant? Seeing none, thank you, sir. In the audience or online, anyone have any comments about this appeal beyond the letters we received by email or submitted? Anyone have any comments about the appeal that would like to speak? Same thing? Seeing none, we'll close public comment. Board members. Mr. Reddy, sir. Go ahead.

From what I understand, it doesn't actually increase the footprint at all. It just follows along the line of a house underneath it when you're expanding on the second.

As he mentioned, we may have said, hey, could you step it in three feet so that you didn't need a variance, and he responded to that also correctly. Do you want to make a motion?

I do. I'll make a motion. In looking at the ordinance and whether or not this is creating an unnecessary hardship for the plaintiffs, it's clear that this special condition applicable to the property does, when strictly applied, cause an unreasonable prevention of the owner from using the property for a permitted use. if we were not to grant the variance. I think that because of the fact that it does follow the footprint of the original standing home that's about 100 years old and they weren't aware of this issue as the owners, their request is reasonable. It does not cause an unnecessary hardship. And I think that based on what they're presenting before us that it is contrary to the spirit and purpose of the zoning ordinance if we were not to grant this. And I don't believe that there's any kind of safety, health, public health safety or welfare issue. So I think that in granting this, it would result in justice to the owners. So I would move to approve based on the plans as presented.

Very good. We have a motion to approve. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second. Any...

comments I have a comment yeah this relates a lot to our situation that would that we've encountered many times the five nine nine five situation where you have a five foot setback adjacencies on the lots instead of nine on one side and five on the other here the the two homes that are next to one another both have a plus or minus five foot setback on either side Which obviously creates a hard shot, but it's also exasperated by the nonconformity of the house The existing nonconformity to the east and again for those reasons I would support the motion Seeing none we have a motion to approve.

Can we call the roll please? Yes Yes Yes

John Miller.

Yes.

Eric Morgan.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Congratulations, you have your variance. Thank you. Thank you so much. Welcome to Birmingham. Our next case this evening is case 2622 for 655 Hawthorne.

Hi, Mike Moria here to appeal number 26-22. The owner of the property known as 655 Hawthorne requests the following variances to reconstruct an attached garage to the west side of a non-conforming home. Appearance A, Chapter 126, Article 4, Section 4.75A1 of the zoning ordinance requires that private attached garages must be set back a minimum of 5.00 feet from the portion of the front facade on the first floor of the principal residential building that is further set back from the front property line. The proposed is 5.80 feet in front of the portion for the setback on the front elevation. The required is for the front of the garage to be 5.00 feet behind the portion for the setback on the front elevation. Therefore, a variance of 10.80 feet is being requested. Variance B is Chapter 126, Article 2, Section 2.062 of the zoning ordinance requires that the front yard setback is the average of the homes within 200 feet in each direction. The required is 30.50 feet. The existing and proposed is 18.60 feet. Therefore, a variance of 11.90 feet is being requested. Variant C, Chapter 126, Article 4, Section 4.75.2 of the zoning ordinance requires that garage doors with an attached garage that are facing the street may not exceed 9.00 feet in width. Where there are multiple doors, they must be separated by a solid wall or jam not less than 8.00 inches wide. The existing and proposed is 16.00 feet. Therefore, a variance of 7.0 feet is being requested. The applicant has removed the existing garage and is applying for variance to rebuild the garage in the same location. Variances were granted in 1968, 1987, and 2026. The minutes are attached. This is our one zoning district. Okay, this home was in front of you recently for a variance which was granted and for an addition on the home. Part of which... was that this garage was not part of that. During construction, and the appellant will speak to the reasons why, the garage had to be demolished because of the structure. It had to be rebuilt. To be rebuilt in the same location, it would require these variances. Number one is this arc right here. We see that is the front setback portion there where the home is, the garage is sticking into the front setback. Again, this was not, this was existing before, so it was not part of the first variance last time. That's changing here. I asked him to zoom in a little bit so we could see it. Gotcha. Okay, thank you. And then the standard garage being five feet behind the front facade, the part of the front facade is over here. This is the furthest front facade and the garage as existing is in front of that. So that's what that variance is for. And the garage as it currently existed had a 16-foot garage door on it, and they wanted to duplicate that, and they have reasons why, and the accountant will speak to that, too.

So, Mike, do you, you know, when I'm looking at this, and I see he has, I mean, of all the different variants that are focusing on the doors, but, you know, they have approximately two feet on one side and maybe three and a half feet on the other side. Notwithstanding whatever that potentially structural post is there, it does appear that two separate doors would likely fit on that facade. Would you agree? Probably what mathematically fed would be some structure involved. Right.

But yes.

But they're almost starting from scratch when it comes to this garage, right?

There's no structure there at all anymore. They're just a limitation of the size and width. But yes, it is starting from scratch with structure and so forth. They can speak to why they feel there's an issue with that.

And the city didn't know this was being demoed till you shut up for a for a footing inspection or something?

Yes, it showed up during a building inspection that it had been demolished and they explained why and then that's what we informed them that their need to get variances to continue.

Very good. Other questions for Mike? Mr. Chair? Sir. Mike, the photographs submitted by the appellant show some kind of structural damage to this garage area. I can't quite tell where it's at. Can you explain what all that's about and whether or not This actual structure failure would have necessitated them rebuilding this garage. I get the impression that's the case, but I'd like to hear it from you. Which picture are you looking at?

I'm looking at page 47.

Thank you.

There's an image with some wood bracing and some high beams.

Yeah, it looks like the foundation wall is cracked.

That was all what was... The problem was that structurally the garage was not going to work for them because they are going to want to build it back in the exact same spot so they're not gaining anything there as far as any change. It had purely to do with structural issues. So...

Do you know if this damage was caused when they were doing the demolition or was this damage pre-existing? Do you know that?

I would say there's definitely pre-existing and there could be some by the demolition too, but I would say that's pre-existing. Okay. The home was, I forgot the year it was built, but it's a very old home. The appellant can speak to that.

Yeah, it's page 47. She's correct, so yeah.

Any other questions for the city? Seeing none. Who's speaking on behalf of this appeal? I think it's a familiar face.

I'm Lauren Freund. We live at 963 Warwick in Birmingham, long-time Birmingham residents, but I'm here for 655 Hawthorne today. I do have a letter in support from a neighbor that just came in today. I don't know if that's something I could submit now, if I could pass it around. We have one neighbor at 655, if you're looking at the house directly to the left. So that's from them in support of our request for the variance.

So tell us about what happened, why you think a variance is reasonable. I mean, in our city, basically, I think it's when 50% of a structure is destroyed, 75% are destroyed, you have to build to the new ordinance. So that would preclude being able to rebuild this. So tell us why you think that's...

So we did the demolition for the addition off the back, and in doing so, We discovered or uncovered stress fractures in that two of the foundational walls of what is the garage. It was also part of the house before, but the garage walls. And then after a big storm this summer, with rains and all that it sort of we put bracing up which you saw in the picture and it sort of washed out through the bracing and the foundational walls cracked so we consulted our structural engineer there was a letter from him submitted with the materials and he advised that because we would have to rebuild these foundational walls and the only way to do that would be to take down the existing structure that sat on top of them so we did that At the time, I didn't know that we would need the variances, of course, to rebuild the same thing, but we just want to put back the garage with new foundational walls just exactly how it was existing for many years before.

Was there any way to jack the house up or somehow support the structure while you redid the foundation? Was that something that was explored or wasn't?

I don't believe that that was an opportunity. Certainly, if that had been possible and definitely if it had been a cost savings, we would have gone in that direction. There were other stress fractures in the brick of the side of the garage and the front of the garage as well, sort of leading us to believe that maybe there was some instability beneath the garage to begin with. We were just gonna fix the facade, take the brick off and put it back on was how we were gonna handle that before this happened.

So I'm sure the other board members have questions. You heard my question about it appears you have enough room to put in two separate eight-foot doors. And of course, if you're building from new and you get a variance to be able to build something you're not supposed to, I would like to see you at least try to meet whatever you can conform to. Is there a reason why you can't do that?

Well, we won't be making the garage any wider. And the interior of the garage, as it stood before, had sort of a garage mudroom, if you will. So you'd like walk from a door in the house. This was my grandparents' house, so I grew up there. But you go from a door in the house and then there was like a little sort of mudroom wood shop within the confines of the garage. And then areas to park cars. That section has been taken by the house in our new plans. So we don't have that sort of interior space. mudroom space anymore. That's actually the depth of the garage is smaller than it used to be because the internal width of the garage actually so that 16-foot door it's going to be tight already parking two cars in there because the house now the interior of the house starts

first, if you will. So the plans I'm looking at where it shows the garage, I mean, at least 16, 17, 18, at least 2021 is not accurate. The new version is different. Looks like we're scrolling to that page. There's one where they show two cars in the garage. Andrew? Mike's got it. All right. It shows the garage there. Page 46.

I see a page 46. There's two cards in there. Yeah.

Page 54 shows it too. There we go. So is that...

Yes, so this I asked our architect actually to do this really to show that it would be too tight to put two cars in there. I don't know if that's the effect that it has but with the eight inch center point between the two eight feet doors like we can't move the door further to the left or further to the right. So

We can't make that opening large? I'm not sure what you mean. You can see between the width of the garage wall. You can go over there if you want. We won't be able to hear you on the public.

This is like an existing load-bearing column in the house. We can't move the doors any part this way is how the architect explained it to me.

That dimensionally, if you move it over eight...

This is eight feet, but this needs the eight inches. And right now we have the 16 feet without that eight extra inches in the middle. Right. And the garage is so tight on either side that... You know, the cars aren't usually eight feet, though.

Just the door is. So, you know, I guess I'm not sure... And maybe the two architects on our board can comment on that, whether or not you're demonstrating that it isn't feasible. I get how the function of the garage may be different, but it appears you have way more than eight inches between the opening of the 16-foot door and the wall. So even if that structure is 10 inches, you've got maybe two and a half feet there. But that was my initial comments. Other board member comments? Mr. Connolly, sir?

Yeah, on the same topic, if the garage is going to be identical, the two cars will fit in there. It's just the door is the question. And if you have right now, it's showing two feet between the two eight foot doors. You have a 16 foot door, so you're showing 18 feet width. if that's narrowed down and you put two eight-foot doors in there, I guess I don't understand how.

I think they're showing that if you did that eight inches, the line at the side of the door would be here. I think that's what he's trying to demonstrate, two eight and eight, push the door all the way next to that.

Right, but this is 24 inches.

Not eight inches, right, it's only two feet, right?

Yeah, so I don't understand how you're not changing the space of the garage. You could put two cars in there now and the other new garage is basically giving you the same clearance as, well, probably less clearance than this existing garage does. So I don't understand why you can't put two doors in with a smaller than 24-inch separator and still get the same cars in that you had before.

Yeah, I don't think she knows I just I asked our architect, you know, here's that here's what we're gonna be facing and then what's your opinion on this and I clearly the picture is not helpful But he advised us that that would not work and we would need to ask for a variance to get the 16-foot door.

I Think that there's like a pre-existing condition that that load-bearing wall It's like eating up I don't know how big that is because it's not measured, but if it's to scale, it's just shy of two feet. And so it's in a way shortening the width of the garage. So like you have it, but with that wall, when you open the door, you can't open the door. Is that the point? Yeah.

Because it's a preexisting thing. If you've got that eight foot door, you still have to be able to pull straight into the garage or you can't pull in and like go to the side a little bit.

So you can pull in. It's just, you won't be able to open your door.

Like the space in between the two cars to like pull in and go to the side You really have to go straight in and straight out with an eight-foot door, right? You don't have room to angle that so it's just that inside of the garage is so tight. I Don't know that we could functionally use that like a normal garage if we had to have the two eight-foot doors Mr. Ready a question

Ma'am, I'm not quite sure, looking at this correctly, but in the upper right-hand corner of page 54, which you may be on right now, is that an entirely new single-car garage that's being added onto the solar?

Yeah, we're adding on a single-car garage, but because of that... setback uh we couldn't do it any farther forward to the front of the house so we had to because we're on a curved that's part of the previous variance they got i think as part of their remote okay so like it did it it was not it wasn't part of it we didn't need a variance for it because we kept it as far back as i see as we did it's like 30 feet back or so so it matches you know within the code that's part of your remod of the world right but essentially you'd have

I'm wondering the same things with my colleagues is you you're gonna build a new garage so you have a whole new single-car garage and why you couldn't adapt this plan here to at least meet that part of the variance so some of the other stuff I understand with the you know you got some contractor who puts in structural sports and it collapses during a rainstorm but again you had you're getting a whole new garage here and you've got It looks to me like you could probably fit this garage door variance. I mean, would it be ideal? No, but it is what it is. So did he give you any specific reasons why you couldn't do this? Because we've seen this many times before.

I wish I had better information to give you today.

That's not your fault. I'm just curious if he had given you any specific...

I actually didn't think this was going to be the sticking point, so I would have asked him for his calculations, but he looked at it and said he didn't think the two cars could fit in the garage if they had to be eight-foot doors. Okay. So I apologize for noise.

That's that's alright the numbers in front of me It's possible to he's drawing a two-foot separation which may be appropriate for the two cars for the doors to open next to each other Whereas we're proposing that it wouldn't have to necessarily be two feet. So I think there's some Debate on that but the garage is wide enough for double doors and I don't even know if the framing around Whatever that structure is that's in the garage. It's protruding into the side if that framing is around it is necessary or if it's like a plumbing pipe that's right next to like we just don't have enough information and because the ordinance requires these details for us to just say let's not worry about it would be tough for me personally right I understand

Looking just looking at this there were there's some dimensions missing but using the two-foot piece in the center that's separating I think the speculating that if you were to use the two eight-foot doors that two-foot section the mill knowing what that is this looks like a 24 foot inside to inside dimension maybe a little bit smaller because the dimension on the right is the wing wall on the right side is looks like it's slightly smaller now the key is that protrusion looks like it's either it's either a column or it's a chimney is there any kind of furnace or anything downstairs because that that sticks in beyond two feet probably closer to two foot six inches so the nominal dimension for this garage is is really the 24 minus 30 inches so it's probably closer to 21 feet which is not great and with two doors and then if even if you were to bring those doors within eight inches of each other which is allowed by the ordinance that would would that be a problem for you that would be very difficult okay what kind of card what kind of card and a pickup truck

Okay, so that would is it one reason we need the other we also have a family with three kids that will all eventually have cars and You know, that's that particular column is shown on all of your drawings.

So I know it's an important piece whether it's a whether it's a mechanical Chase or a column it needs to be on this plan. Yeah, so that that you would you would you think that that does that is that probably one of the problems you you

Oh, absolutely. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hart.

Any other questions for the appellant? Seeing none, thank you.

Okay, thank you. So just so that I understand, like in looking at the ordinance, the doors, you have to have... Is that a question for us or a question for her? I'll ask for you. Did you ever talk about... It looks like in my, the way I look at it, like without any explanation from anyone is that you're putting like a two foot wall in between the two garage doors. That's not the case.

Right? I think what that drawing is demonstrating is the architect helping her demonstrate that if you had two feet in between and two eight-foot doors, it would then interfere with that column and not be feasible. That's the implication. We're suggesting it doesn't have to be two feet. It could be eight inches, and thus pulling it all inward, it's possible, and that's kind of the debate we're going through right now. She's saying, I don't really want it with the size of our cars, but our ordinance does not owner specific right it's whoever the next person could drive a yugo if they still make those so that can't be part of our decision making and I mean technically you're building a non-conforming garage on non-conforming property they could make the garage a little bit wider you're probably pouring new footings anyway so the garage doors could fit in other words we could insist that the garage be double doors and do what you need to do to make it happen like that's that's the next part of this discussion is what are we proposing okay and the

Can I ask you a question? Please.

Are we done with the...

I don't have any more questions.

And that's a cool idea, except we can't make it any wider because then we're bumping into the further back garage. You said we could bring... Hypothetically, right. Hypothetically, right.

And that is something that before... Or one could argue that whatever that post is, if it's mechanical, it could be moved so you could... I don't know the answer to that. I don't.

Yeah.

And we may say we don't have enough information and that... We'll have to figure that out. Thanks. Sorry, go ahead.

Per ordinance though, the separation between the two garage doors can be eight inches at the very narrowest.

I think your ordinance just reflects the second doors.

Yes, you have to have a minimum of eight inches in between the two doors. To create that visual separation probably.

My point in figuring that out is there's not that much for maneuvering then. If there were a two-foot...

like thing in between the two doors like a two-foot wall a two-foot wall that would be harder to navigate just remember like and again it isn't a debate about the size of a vehicle but eight foot doors are eight feet because most cars fit yeah so sometimes if you're not folding your mirrors in you know you have another six inches or five inches on each side if it's not a wide vehicle maybe you have a foot on each side like the eight is not the minimum the eighth i mean some builders do nine foot doors but the reality is is Maybe maneuvering is necessary, maybe maneuvering is unreasonable, but when other people build garages in our city, they have to have double doors, and we're focusing on that because the other things they can't really control. I think the good thing is nobody's arguing that you shouldn't be able to rebuild the garage, so that's probably a good thing, but this seems to be a stickler for a lot of us.

Right, and I just think that based on the way the plans are presented, the plans don't present in a way that may get clearer.

Right. I don't know if that, like I said, it shows framing around that mechanic, whatever that post is. Maybe that framing is a two by six. That's six inches. Who knows? What we don't know. Senator, you got a comment?

Yeah. I just wanted to ask Mr. Erickson, what year was this house built, the original?

It was around 1920s, wasn't it? 1920. What usually is in a garage that would be in that area? Like you said, a vent for a basement?

I agree. It would be either a flue. It would be an old clay crock flue. Moving it, we can say that in itself can be problematic once you start chipping away at an old structure like that.

affects everything around it absolutely and it you know it does it is a little bit of a hardship to I mean whoever makes this motion could say you know I want to approve a and B or whatever category they're in and I'd like to postpone see with more information I mean we can propose whatever we want to propose I'm not saying that's just going to happen. I'm just proposing the proposal and ask for more information. If they had an architect here or somebody that came with them, we could possibly ask them. I'd like to know if the material around that post is necessary. I'd like to know if it is structure or an old flue and we're just ignoring it. I'm guessing you're not because most flues don't run through the garage. So I don't know. Is it any images that you sent us? If that garage protrusion is actually even showing any images that you sent us, because that wall is the exposed wall, right?

I think the pictures were taken too low to show that.

It doesn't matter. We'll figure it out. Any other comments or any motions?

Mr. Miller. I would, for 655 Hawthorne, I would move actually to approve A, B, and C. And it seems that the item most in question is the garage door. And in my view, it's The garage is just being rebuilt in the same way that the existing one was there. So the garage door are just being maintained and rebuilt in their existing condition. It's a very tight garage. Obviously, that pier that's there would not allow you to open your driver's side door. So I think that what's being asked here is... pretty reasonable. It's not creating a more difficult condition here, it's just maintaining what's there. So I don't think we're creating anything that is unreasonable given that it's existing, it's an old house, and it's just rebuilding that garage that has an obvious problem within because of the way that pier was located. So in my view, again, maintaining that larger garage door here is reasonable. Concerning the other the other request certainly what we have is a unique lot under consideration here. It's pie shaped It's not rectangular kind of has a combined front yard side yard curved front And I think this provides has has provided a unique challenge to remain in an absolute conformity which is probably which is why it was approved in the past Um, and I think that, um, we, we would result in an unnecessary hardship if we had to maintain the zoning exactly as written. I think the granting of the variance will do substantial justice to the property owner I don't think there's any negative aspects here in terms of health safety welfare and the special conditions here are strictly applied again unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property in a reasonable way given that this was an existing house with existing conditions and in particular that garage is just being rebuilt and in its existing massing and configuration. So for those reasons, I would move to approve and tied them to the plan as submitted.

So you have a motion to approve A, B, and C. Do we have a second? Second. I saw Mr. Lalique. So just for the public and for the board members, and most of us know this, you can choose to approve, which would be A, B, and C. You could choose to not approve the motion if you're unhappy with A, B, or C, and then that would require another motion that could potentially deny the entire garage, or a newer proposal that could be I want to approve A and C and not B, or any combination thereof. So a denial doesn't mean you don't want them to build a garage, it means I don't agree with A, B, and C combined, or you can say I love A, B, and C, and I think that this is reasonable, so just so we all understand.

I just want to make a comment. I can't support the motion supporting all three variances because the garage variant C does not make sense to me that you can put two cars in this garage as it is now with an eight-inch separator. You're not going to bring your car eight inches to the next car. There's going to be space between them. Which would be the same normal spacing you'd have is you'd pull in without the separator there So I don't see that the separator is causing this they're showing a two-foot separator. It doesn't need to be that big It currently holds two cars I don't think the separator a smaller scale would be an obstacle If it's hard to get in there now, it's gonna be hard to get in there with a one a one foot separator or smaller So for that reason I can't support this motion

I concur with Mr. Kona. I certainly see the need to go forward with various requests A and B. I mean clearly this is a pre-existing issue. We've got variances that date back to 68, 87, 2025 that basically granted this. So I'm okay with those but I agree with Mr. Kona. I just don't have enough information with regards to okay i see on the drawing there's a possibly a post there possibly nothing i don't know what that is i think they have adequate room uh you know based on all the other garages including my own in birmingham which are small and tight and you gotta you just gotta meet that particular uh make that adjustment so i concur with mr coney cannot support the motion as it stands so i mean i kind of see it both ways um

I think one of the other challenges in the image, these smaller vehicles are favoring being closer to the garage door, which implies that the passenger or the driver's door would be interfered if you opened it. I think if you had a Yukon, you're going to be driving the car further in, you're going to want to make sure your tailgate can open, and you're likely not going to have your driver's side door next to that post. I'm not saying that was a purposeful thing, but yeah, we all want to put our garbage cans and put everything at the end of the garage. With the reality of most of the garages in Birmingham, I can't do that and most people cannot. But a Yukon is likely much longer than these. It could be a Mini Cooper or whatever they're trying to show in that image, and likely the door is not necessarily right at that post. So I don't think I have enough information to... say that it can't be done and for that reason I wouldn't be able to support the motion as presented.

Mr. Chairman, I would support this motion. I think that working with older homes, especially something from the 1920s, there's several chases, pipes, and things that are throughout a house like this that you would find that a 24-foot wide garage is really not 24 feet, especially with a chase that protrudes inbound. You need You need 24 foot clear to be a true two-car garage And I know we all had one myself on pilgrim and I never put a car in the garage So I had I had one car garage or two car garage I had one car in there and the rest of it was because nothing else would fit so the neighbors were adversely affected because they saw my car in the street or on the driveway and so I don't think I think there are some some very pronounced challenges with an older home like this obviously a and B are are easy to see but I even to to to to totally comprehend but see it's a little bit a little bit trickier than you would think it is a it is a challenge to eight-foot doors eight-foot doors are challenging in themselves and again this this this dimension is really not truly 24 it's probably closer to 20 or 22 so with that for obvious reasons on a and B I was supported by also support

Can I make a comment? Sure. No, I don't know though. So the idea is, no, I just wanted to comment that the reason I would support it and I do support it is when you're actually looking at the way in which like the continuity in which we apply this variance ordinance that we're always citing is the idea that if there's a special condition, Question and if it would unreasonably prevent the property owner from using the property for permitted use You're always getting these houses that are very old that have these unique Characteristics and after my garage would wash away in a storm. I certainly don't want to be like Hammering away at some other unknown structure inside of it. So I look at it as something that is a pre-existing thing in the home that regardless of what it is, whatever it ends up being, it's there and it exists and it's a preexisting condition. And so therefore it is a special condition. And it's something that will not allow a homeowner to use their property for the permitted purpose, regardless of what it is. And we're always talking about like, oh, there's like the Southeast corner that we need this much because it's this close to the other property. But in this situation, like look at it in that sense when you're applying this ordinance to it, that there's a specific condition that makes the house like special or different. and regardless of the explanation it's there and it's been there for a hundred years and now because they're home their garage washed away in a storm and while they're trying to work with this very unique property and this lot now it's like well you have to have a two-car garage but your garage isn't actually 24 feet you have to take that into consideration as a pre-existing special condition and that's why I support it I don't I don't know if that changes anyone's mind, but I just think that that's why we should support it.

Yes, if you if the garage cannot allow for the doors and they're replacing something that was existing Which the ordinance doesn't allow for but if we are agreeing that we're gonna do that Then they shouldn't be forced to build something they can't build but if the doors can work And anyone else that has a new garage must put in two doors Is it fair and reasonable that this home also have those two doors? That's the real question and I don't I don't know that it's been demonstrated which I think is a challenge for so far the three people that have said they don't support it is has not been demonstrated that is not feasible because a 16 foot door or 16 feet plus you know whatever we said eight inches there is enough room to achieve that okay very good any other comments seeing none we have a motion to approve a b and c can we call the roll john miller yes

Yes.

No.

No. Yes.

No. Congratulations. Good luck.

Of course.

I have no doubt. Just put an eight-inch stripe down the middle of it, please. We have no doubt. Thank you. Thanks a lot. Do we have any other business? No? Anybody in the audience have anything they would like to discuss not affiliated with the particular appeals we had tonight? Seeing none, do we have a motion to adjourn? To adjourn. Sure. We have a second? Second. Second, all in favor? Aye.