Mobile Board of Adjustment Meeting – August 3, 2026

The Mobile Board of Adjustment convened on August 3, 2026, at 7:00 PM to consider several variance, extension, and conditional use permit applications. The board approved five requests, denied one, and held over two applications for further review or procedural clarification. Public comments were heard on multiple items.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Edward Franklin (908 Stand Road, Mobile) – Opposed the buffer variance at 1451 Cedar Crescent Drive, citing safety concerns and the lack of compliance with prior approvals.
• Dorothy Cage (Thomaston, AL) – Expressed confusion about ownership of 1214 Texas Street property; later clarified that her concern involved a different parcel but acknowledged she was within the notification area.
• Unnamed woman (wife of Alex Kraft, 1219 Texas Street) – Opposed the lot-size variance for 1214 Texas Street, arguing it would break the historic lot pattern, increase density, and set a bad precedent.
• David Mosley (1221 Texas Street) – Opposed the same variance, emphasizing the historic character and lack of hardship.
• John LeParry (115 North Ann Street) – Opposed the subdivision and variance for 10 lots on Ann Street/Old Shell Road, citing concerns about density, drainage, traffic, and compatibility with the historic district.
• Several letters of support for the sign variance at 2668 Berkeley Avenue were received and noted.

Discussion Items

1. Application 6717 – Extension for 503 & 505 Congress Street (1 year)

• Applicant Kathy Sherman (Burton Property Group) requested a one-year extension for a previously approved variance due to extended design process for a boutique hotel.
• No public comments. Motion carried unanimously.

2. Applications 6741, 6662, 6549 – Extension for 720 Museum Drive (1 year)

• Same applicant requested an additional one-year extension. No opposition. Motion carried unanimously.

3. Application 4 – Electronic Sign Variance at 2668 Berkeley Avenue

• Justin Woodward (Complete Signs) requested a variance for an LED sign within 300 ft of residential property. He stated the sign would be dimmed automatically and set to static content. A letter of support was provided.
• The board added conditions: sign must dim automatically, remain static, and be turned off from 9 PM to 6 AM. Motion carried unanimously.

4. Application 5 – Warehouse Use Variance at 306–310 Glenwood Street

• Dustin Britton (Element 3 Engineering) re-applied for a use variance previously approved but expired during litigation. The new application mirrors the original and complies with current UDC. No public comment. Motion carried unanimously.

5. Application 6 – Buffer Variance at 1451 Cedar Crescent Drive

• Jerry Bird (Bird Surveying) represented the property owner. Staff noted the site has never fully complied with 1970 or 2022 approvals, and the proper remedy is a conditional use permit, not a variance. Public comment was heard (Edward Franklin in opposition). The board held the item over for 30 days to allow the applicant to consult with staff on the correct process.

6. Application 7 – Lot Size Variance at 1214 Texas Street

• Jared Irby (BPCH Builders) requested a variance to split an odd-shaped corner lot into two lots (approx. 4,800–5,000 sq ft each) to build two single-family homes. He cited many non-conforming lots in the area. Public opposition emphasized historic character, lack of hardship, and insufficient details.
• The board discussed the lack of a site plan and the question of hardship. Motion to deny carried unanimously.

7. Application 8 – Conditional Use Permit for Cell Tower at 2770 Government Boulevard

• Patton Hahn (Baker Donelson) requested a CUP for a 150‑ft cell tower to fill a coverage gap. He noted space for three additional carriers and provided propagation maps. No public comment in person; letters of concern were noted. The board approved based on findings of fact and conditions. Motion carried unanimously.

8. Application 9 – Variances for Same Tower (setbacks, access, surfacing, landscaping, height, camouflage)

• Same applicant sought relief from multiple UDC standards due to parcel size and technology constraints. The board discussed camouflage alternatives but approved all requested variances. Motion carried unanimously.

9. Application 10 – Setback Variance at 6068 Highland Circle North

• Joshua Williams (A Plus Patio and Screen) sought a variance to build a screen porch within 10 ft of the side property line. The existing house is non-conforming. No public comment. Board approved with conditions including gutters/downspouts. Motion carried unanimously.

10. Application 11 – Subdivision and Variances for 10 Lots on Ann Street/Old Shell Road

• Evan Burnett (investor) proposed 10 single-family lots with rear alley. Variances needed for lot size and side yards. Public opposition (John LeParry) raised density and drainage concerns. Board members expressed concern about density relative to the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant requested a 30‑day holdover to reconsider design options. Motion to hold over carried (with one member recused, leaving five voting members).

11. Application for Porch Light LLC – Extension for 503 & 505 Congress Street (returned to)

• Carrie Commandus (city staff) requested a one-year extension for an affordable housing project using state tax credits. No opposition. Motion carried unanimously.

Key Outcomes

• Approved: Extensions for 503–505 Congress Street (1 year), 720 Museum Drive (1 year), Porch Light LLC (1 year).
• Approved (with conditions): Electronic sign variance at 2668 Berkeley Avenue.
• Approved: Warehouse use variance at 306–310 Glenwood Street.
• Approved: Conditional use permit and variances for cell tower at 2770 Government Boulevard.
• Approved (with conditions): Screen porch variance at 6068 Highland Circle North.
• Denied: Lot size variance at 1214 Texas Street.
• Held Over (30 days): Buffer variance at 1451 Cedar Crescent Drive (procedural issue); Subdivision/variance for Ann Street/Old Shell Road (applicant requested holdover to adjust density). All votes were unanimous where tallied; the board maintained a quorum throughout.