Board of Adjustment Meeting - July 13, 2026: Variance, Special Exception, and Enforcement Actions
Board of Adjustment Meeting - July 13, 2026
The Mobile Board of Adjustment met on July 13, 2026, at 7:00 PM. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Adam Metcalfe, with a quorum present (Commissioners Golden, Milling, Petway, Morris, Farrell, and Metcalfe; Atchison Williams and Guess were absent). The board reviewed four agenda items, including a denial for failure to appear, approvals for a variance and a special exception, and a fence variance. The board also received an update on litigation regarding a car lot on Highway 90.
Consent Calendar
- The agenda was adopted unanimously by voice vote.
Public Comments & Testimony
- No members of the public spoke during the public hearing session for any agenda item.
Discussion Items
Case 6722: 122 Michael Donald Avenue
- The applicant was absent. Staff noted that the applicant had been given six months to pursue rezoning (per a prior SNAF report) but had not done so, and no contact had been made since January. The board voted unanimously to deny the application.
Cases 6761 & 6701: 2449 and 2453 Oslava Creek Parkway
- Applicant George Coles (457 St. Michael Street) presented a revised site plan (submitted July 10, 2026) that removed the need for a variance on landscape islands every 12 parking spaces, due to a reconfiguration requested by Alabama Power. The only remaining request was a setback variance that had previously been approved but expired. The board voted unanimously to approve, subject to findings of fact.
Case 6765: 2497 and 2286 (former Circle K – laundromat conversion)
- Applicant Joey Veglasic (216 Rochester Road) described plans to renovate a vacant former Circle K convenience store (closed for 15 years) into a laundromat with an employee on site. The property is zoned R-4, surrounded by R-3 and adjacent to a gas station and offices. The board noted a parking calculation issue: the applicant showed six spaces; staff recommended a condition to verify compliance. Applicant confirmed the building is 2,400 sq. ft., making six spaces sufficient. The board found a clear hardship due to the zoning and unanimously approved, subject to findings of fact.
Case 6766: 6622 3995 Canopy Partners LLC (Special Exception)
- Applicant Bruce Smith (CMG Engineers, representing Canopy Partners) requested a special exception to exceed 40,000 sq. ft. in B-3 zoning (proposed 60,000 sq. ft. building). The same approval was granted in 2024 but expired without permits. The building will have two or three demising walls; no tenant is currently lined up (spec building). The applicant noted neighborhood support due to homeless and dumping issues. The board approved unanimously, subject to findings of fact A through L.
Fence Variance (same property as Canopy Partners, west side)
- Bruce Smith requested to retain and repair the existing chain-link fence with slats (in a well-established 12-foot-wide vegetation buffer) instead of installing a new six-foot wooden fence. The neighbor (Mr. Howe) reportedly supported this to preserve vegetation. Board member Morris confirmed the buffer's condition by visiting the site. The board unanimously approved, subject to findings of fact.
Key Outcomes
- Case 6722 (122 Michael Donald Avenue): Denied (unanimous) for failure to prosecute.
- Cases 6761 & 6701 (2449 & 2453 Oslava Creek Parkway): Approved (unanimous) – setback variance with revised plan.
- Case 6765 (2497 & 2286, former Circle K): Approved (unanimous) – variance for laundromat with condition on parking verification.
- Case 6766 (6622 3995 Canopy Partners): Approved (unanimous) – special exception for 60,000 sq. ft. building.
- Fence variance (same property): Approved (unanimous) – to retain existing chain-link fence.
- Other business: The board was updated on litigation regarding a car lot on Highway 90. A motion for sanctions was filed, with a proposed order including a $500/day fine for non-compliance. The court requested a proposed order; the city is also placing seven-day warning tickets on vehicles in the right-of-way, after which police may remove them. If all vehicles are not removed within 30 days, the city may enter the property to remove them. The owner (Chassidy) had failed to comply despite prior promises.
Meeting Transcript
Call the meeting to order. This is the uh meeting for the Board of Adjustment for July 13th, 2026. I'd like to take the moment to uh um review some of our operating procedures. Our meeting is divided into two sessions the public hearing session and the deliberation session. In the public session, excuse me, in the public hearing session, I uh agenda items will be called. The applicant will be asked to make their presentations, board members will ask questions, members of the public may make their comments. Only four people may speak for an agenda item, and four people against. Each speaker is limited to five minutes, subject to questions by the board. At one minute remaining, you'll hear a warning bill or be prompting you to summarize your comments after the opposition speakers have finished the application. Uh the applicant is allowed two-minute rebuttal. If you intend to speak, come to the podium, speak into the microphone, and provide your name and address for the record. Direct all comments to the board only and not to the applicant, staff, or the audience. After the session, all applicants' applications, the board will go into deliberation session. In that session, the board members discuss each application with input from staff as necessary, but no input from the audience. The board then votes on each item. Results of the meeting can be learned from the planning department at 251-208-5895. If some issues arise during the deliberation session that were not addressed in the public hearing, the chairman has discretion to allow additional comments pertaining to those issues in order to resolve them, or call for the application to be held over for discussion at a future meeting. Occasionally a board, uh a board member may recuse themselves from discussing and voting on a given application. A recusal does not mean that the member is directly involved with the application or applicant. However, depending on the circumstances, ethical rules may require a recusal, even if there's only the slightest appearance of conflict of interest. We have one today. Everybody please turn off their cell phones or electronic devices at this time. Uh commissioners and staff, please. We'll have a roll call. Um, Mr. Golden. Yeah. Mr. Milling? Here. Ms. Petway? Here. Mr. Morris? Here. Ms. Farrell? Here. Mr. Atchison? Mr. Williams. Absent. And William Guess is absent, and I'm Adam Metcalfe. So we have one. We do have a quorum. All right. We will move on to our first agenda item, which is case number 6722. 122 Michael Donald Avenue.
openpublica.com