BZA postpones decision on large front/rear setback variances for 550 Henley to allow staff review
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
After an extended public presentation and detailed board questioning, the Board of Zoning Appeals postponed appeal 24-32 (550 Henley) so staff can re-check setback calculations and the applicant may return with the architect.
The Birmingham Board of Zoning Appeals postponed action on appeal 24-32 for 550 Henley, taking the case to the next regularly scheduled meeting to allow staff time to re-examine how the lot's irregular geometry determines front/side/rear yards and to encourage the applicant to have the project architect available.
Staff presenter Jeff Zilke described three requested variances under Chapter 126, Article 2, Section 2.06.2 and related provisions: (a) a front-yard setback variance (required 34.60 feet; existing/proposed 24.50 feet) of 10.10 feet; (b) a rear-yard setback variance (required 30 feet; existing 12.10 feet; proposed 7.4 feet) of 22.60 feet; and (c) a minimum combined front-and-rear depth requirement of 55 feet, where the existing is 36.60 feet and the proposal would be 31.90 feet, producing a variance request of 23.10 feet for the combined measurement.
Homeowner/applicant Jeff Eichel described a long public presentation explaining the lot's irregular triangle-like buildable area and the applicant's plan for a modest, single-story primary suite and laundry to enable aging in place. Eichel said the existing home is 65 years old, nonconforming, and that neighbors adjacent to the proposed addition provided letters of support. "The practical difficulty in our case is the, current zoning regulations preclude any reasonable addition to property because the existing home is already non conforming," Eichel said, adding the addition is intended to improve daily living and safety.
Board members asked multiple questions about alternatives the applicant considered (adding an elevator, building over existing areas, or placing a garage elsewhere) and about the potential long-term impact of enlarging a nonconforming footprint. Members raised a specific concern: approving the requested encroachment could prevent a neighbor's detached garage from being rebuilt in the future if it were destroyed, because the new configuration would reduce available building area and separation requirements.
Board member Bill Johnson (planning/board discussion) suggested staff verify how the rear property line and rear-yard setback were calculated for this unusual lot; staff and several board members agreed that a postponement would permit that technical review. The board voted to postpone the appeal to the next regular meeting and asked the applicant to consider bringing the project architect for a follow-up presentation. The chair recorded the motion to adjourn this agenda item and schedule it as the first appeal at the next meeting.