Mobile Board of Adjustment Meeting - March 2, 2026

The Mobile Board of Adjustment met on March 2, 2026, at 8:00 PM to consider multiple applications for variances, special exceptions, and extensions. The board approved all items with conditions, except the final application (cell tower) where the transcript ends during deliberation. Key topics included signage variances for commercial properties, wastewater infrastructure improvements, and residential setback adjustments.

Discussion Items

• Application 1 – 3201 Airport Blvd (Target): Brandon Black (Kimley Horn) requested a six-month extension of a previously approved variance for signage at Belair Mall. Target is starting construction in April. No public comments. Approved.
• Application 2 – 960 South Lawrence St (Restaurant): Paul Davis requested a six-month extension for a variance to allow completion of drawings. No opposition. Approved.
• Application 3 – 850 Merrion St (Alabama Power): Chester Lackowitz requested a nine-month extension due to material procurement delays; in-service target is October 2026. No public comments. Approved.
• Application 4 – 985 Schillinger Rd S (Gas station/convenience store): Andrew Alander requested variances for five wall signs and one freestanding sign (reducing from seven existing wall signs) at a single-use site. No public comments. Approved subject to findings of fact.
• Applications 5–8 – 4250 & 4300 Dauphin Island Parkway and 2590 Dauphin Island Parkway (Mawz wastewater lift station): Brock Jones (Kimley Horn) presented for four applications covering two lift stations: special exceptions to allow lift stations in R-1 zoning, and variances for setbacks, tree planting, fencing, and landscaping due to site constraints. The lift stations are critical infrastructure, replacing outdated facilities from the 1970s. No public comments. Each item approved with conditions (findings of fact and conditions 1–6 for variances; conditions 1–3 for special exceptions).
• Application 9 – 5831 US Highway 90 West (Corner Market): Harold Russell (Edward Sign) requested variances for a wall sign exceeding 350 sq ft (approx. 375 sq ft) and informational signs over 20 sq ft, converting a former Winn-Dixie to a Corner Market. The freestanding sign is a reface; only wall signage is new. No public comments. Approved with condition that signs be limited to the size depicted in the application.
• Application 10 – 1558 Lowling St (Carriage house): Dennis Carlisle (architect) requested a setback variance for a two-story, ~2,100 sq ft carriage house to buffer a neighbor’s two-story structure that overlooks the property. The site is a consolidated lot; coverage is now compliant. No public comments. Approved subject to findings of fact and conditions 1–3.
• Application 11 – 824 West I-65 Service Road S (Drury Inn): Jay Watkins requested variances for three freestanding signs and four wall signs on a 4.5-acre site. Board members questioned the need for a wall sign facing Western American Circle, noting the area is not heavily traveled. Applicant agreed to consider concessions. No public comments. Approved with condition eliminating the wall sign on the southwest side facing Western American Circle.
• Application 12 – 360 Palmetto St (Cell tower for AT&T): Pat Hendon (applicant) requested variances from camouflage and landscaping requirements for a proposed 160-foot telecommunications tower. The site has no current adequate coverage; a temporary “cell on wheels” is in place. Board received opposition from Paul Jellino of ALDOT, who cited proximity to the new Mobile River Bridge, structural collapse risk, radio frequency interference, and exposure to the traveling public. The transcript ends during Jellino’s testimony; no vote or further discussion is recorded.

Public Comments & Testimony

• For applications 1–11, no public comments were made.
• For application 12 (cell tower), Paul Jellino (ALDOT) spoke in opposition, raising concerns about the tower’s proximity to the bridge, potential structural failure, RF interference with bridge operations, and public exposure. He requested denial based on the Unified Development Code.

Key Outcomes

• Applications 1–11 were approved unanimously (all aye votes, no opposition recorded).
• Application 12 (360 Palmetto St) was discussed but the meeting recording ended before any motion or vote. The outcome is unknown based on available materials.
• All approvals were subject to specific conditions and findings of fact as noted in the transcript.