Welcome to our October 27th, 2025 meeting of the City of Tuscusa Zoning Board of Adjustments.

Any written comments sent to staff were forwarded to the board directly.

At this time, we'd like to introduce introduction of the staff and members.

Uh Chad Hobbs, senior associate city attorney.

Zach Pons, Director of Planning.

Lemmo Leary, planner.

I asked the board members to introduce themselves, starting to my right.

Mary Catherine Holt.

Paul Rollins Jr.

Michelle Coley.

Kim Gillum.

Marty Hamner.

Okay, Mel, by virtue of the state law, the city ordinances.

The purpose of the zoning board of adjustments is as follows.

We hear appeals from zoning officer decisions, grant special exceptions to the zoning code in accordance with the terms as established by the city council.

We grant variances from the zoning code when strict enforcement creates unnecessary hardship.

Circumstances that are not hardship include those that are self-inflicted or self-created, inconvenient, and are personal.

Now the zoning board of adjustments does not interpret or enforce subdivision covenants or HOA rules.

Now those matters are not relevant areas of inquiry by the board on any petition.

Now there were signup sheets located outside for public comment.

Now four speakers are allowed to speak in favor of a petition, and four speakers are allowed to speak in opposition of a petition.

Now all speakers will have a maximum of five minutes unless the board votes to allow a longer time.

Now the board will take up items in the order of our final agenda.

The board will initially receive a presentation from the staff as to the details of the agenda item.

Now after the staff presentation, I will call upon the petitioner to present their case.

The petitioner will have a maximum of 10 minutes unless the board votes to allow longer time.

Now at the conclusion of the petitioner's remarks, I will call on any party in order of the sign up who desires to support the petition.

Thereafter, I will call on any party in order of sign-up, those who oppose the petition.

Now when it's your turn for comment, please introduce yourself, stating your name and address to the board to provide any to provide your remarks.

Any written comments have been included into the record, okay?

Now after receiving the remarks of those who oppose the petition, the petitioner will have the opportunity to respond to those objections.

Any rebuttal will be limited to two minutes unless the board votes to allow a longer time.

Now, if the petitioner presents any new information in response to the objections, the board will allow those who oppose the petition the opportunity to respond to the new information only.

Now any response will be limited to two minutes unless the board votes to allow a longer time.

Now during the course of this presentation, you may be interrupted by any member of the board for clarification or additional information.

Now such interruptions will not reduce your allowed time.

Now once the board members are satisfied that they have received all relevant information.

At which time the board members will discuss the matter and then vote.

Now after the vote, you are free to leave.

These proceedings are video recorded and broadcast live.

All in-person public comments should be made at the podium into the microphone.

Any party agreed by any final judgment or decision of such zoning board of adjustments may within 15 days thereafter appeal therefrom to the circuit court by filing with such board a written notice of appeal specifying the judgment or decision from which the appeal is taken.

Now do any members of the board have any conflicts of interest as to any agenda matters?

If so, please state the same for the record.

Okay.

Yes, it has.

Okay.

So the following agenda items have been modified.

ZBA-101-25, Brian Winter, petitions for a special exception to allow the operation of a group home at the property located at 2212 26th Avenue, Zone MR-1, Council District 2, is requesting to withdraw.

Before we do that, we want to have them requesting to continue.

Oh, continue.

Okay, let me make a note of that.

Continue.

And I understand we have someone here that would like to speak before we take a vote.

So we need to have a motion to move it to the portion of the agenda, the withdrawal cases requesting to withdraw.

Okay.

So do I hear a motion and a second to move this item on the agenda to cases requesting to be continued?

Or to be continued, sorry.

So move.

Second.

Okay, voting, Mayor Catherine.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

Petition may be moved.

All right.

And then now y'all can vote on the actual continuance of it.

Okay, so now we're gonna vote.

Do we want them to be able to speak to us first?

I think you should you should see if people are here to speak for or against and give them the chance to speak since they're here.

Okay.

So ZBA-101-25, Brian Winter petitions for a special exception to allow the operation of a group home at the property located at 2212-26th Avenue, zone MR-1.

Now we have uh moved it to the top to get a continuance, but is there anyone here that'd like to speak on behalf before we vote about continuing it?

Good evening.

I'm John Tyler, the executive director at Phoenix House, and we're just asking for a continuance until November ZBA meeting.

Okay.

Anything else?

No, ma'am.

Okay, and Daniel Hinton, are you Daniel Hinton?

Ma'am.

Are you Daniel Hinton?

You're not Daniel Hinton.

So no, John Tyler.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Do we want to hear opposition at this time as well?

Okay.

So Mr.

Hinton, if you'll come up.

Anybody else want to speak for it?

The Phoenix House.

Okay.

Speaking before it.

Okay.

My name is Daniel Hinton.

I live at 2204-26th Avenue.

And that's right across the street from this property here.

And um I really don't know where to start from, but to say we really don't want this in an in a neighborhood because this letter here, the last couple of projects that's been put in our neighborhood.

We hadn't received these right now.

We have a full-fledged um greenhouse up the street from my house.

And right around the corner, we have a record service coming.

I took some pictures, but I couldn't get around at Walmart because they still was down just to show y'all.

But well, we have a continuance, so you have November.

If you want to take time and get all that together, you can bring it back in November because it's being moved to November.

Okay.

Yes, ma'am.

So you have time to get things together and have you know anyone come with you, okay?

Yes, ma'am.

I thank y'all.

Thank you.

Anyone else would like to have a say on this petition?

If you would come up and give us your name.

This petition is being continued and moved to November.

I'm Loretta Griffin.

Um Representative Faye Free.

I saw church addresses 1912, 26th Avenue.

My interest.

Church address is 2104 26th Avenue.

And these um some question that came to mind for the church as well as the neighborhood.

Um is not the best location for the group home.

Uh it's not a it's a lot of noise sound from 26th Avenue.

The interstate goes um 359 for I 59.

Um, it's just not enough space for three bedrooms, kitchen, dining area, seating room, smoking area, and sitting room outside the group home.

Uh, how many um staff will it be?

And where would they park?

How many uh will be for each shift?

Day shift, evening shift, night shift, and what would they be um K E T during the day or night?

Uh delivery trucks, where they're gonna park.

Uh business is coming to visit where will they park?

Um, what visiting hours, how long it will be, um cap for parts they're gonna have, uh, what we're going on during the weekend, as we do have service um on Sunday.

Sunday, ma'am, as well on Tuesday.

So I I hear what you're saying, and you have very valid questions, but at this time they're not presenting to us.

So to get the answers to those, we'll have them in November when they actually come back and present.

So we are continuing this.

So if you want to seek those answers or if you want to come back, we wanted to give you an opportunity to express your opposition and have it on record.

Um signatures.

Okay.

So does she need to turn that in now or can she uh you can hold it until November if you plan on coming back in November?

Yes, ma'am.

It just gives you more time to get things together and come back, okay?

Thank you.

Thank you so much for being here this evening.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, so at this time we're gonna close public comment and we're gonna vote on continuing uh Brian Winter's petitions for special exception to allow the operation of a group home at the property located at 2212 26th Avenue zone MR-1 Council District 2 voting to my right, yes.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, it's continued.

Board, we do have one more case.

Um question can tend to continue a song gay petitions for a special exception to allow the operation of a tent sheltered retail establishment at the property located at 2002 Greensboro Avenue, zone GC Council District 2.

Um this case was continued by staff.

We're working with the applicant to collect more information to next month.

Okay, sounds good.

Can we get a vote on that, please, Commissioner uh board?

So we need to vote.

Yes, okay.

Do we need a motion and the second?

I need a motion.

So moved.

Second.

All right, voting to the right, yes.

Yes, yes, yes, yes.

All right, continue.

All right, board.

Moving on to our first two cases tonight.

Uh, these cases are essentially the same just on different properties.

So I'm gonna present them together for you tonight.

Uh ZBA 9825, Leah Alexander petitions for a variance from the setback requirements to construct an attached garage on the property located at 3016 4th Street East, zoned SFR1 Council District 5.

Here we have the zoning of that property as you can see it's located uh northwest of the gateway in Alberta.

And here we have an aerial view of that first property, and as you can see, that property is currently vacant right now.

So it's part of the request, they're asking for a variance from the residential setback regulations to construct an attached carport.

The proposed car port will be located no closer than five feet from the property line within the side setback.

So here we have a site plan of that property.

You can see the car port over to the right.

As it stands right now, um, because this is an attached car port, it would be required to meet the 10-foot side setback requirement for SFR1.

Um, if this were a detached carport, it would be considered an accessory structure and it could be located no closer than five feet from the property line because it's currently attached, um, it would need to meet that 10-foot side setback with which you can see that it crosses.

Um in the old zoning ordinance, we did have an allowance for an attached carport to be located um within five feet of the property line.

Um, and we do have plans to make that change in the current ordinance, but as it stands right now today, that would be required to meet that 10-foot side setback.

So we have some elevations of that property uh showing the what what it'll look like in the carport.

And then as you can see in these regulations, they do have a 10-foot minimum side setback for SFR1.

So I'll go ahead and run through the next one.

ZBA 9925, Leah Alexander petitions for a variance from the setback requirements to construct an attached garage on the property located at 3020 4th Street East zoned SFR1, Council District 5.

This is in a similar location, just one lot over.

And you can see that lot there.

And this lot is also currently vacant.

This is the same request as the last one, variants from the residential setback regulations to construct a carport no closer than five feet from this property line.

Here's that site plan very similar to the last one.

You can see how far away they are from that property line, and they are um within that 10-foot setback that's required for SFR1 and elevations again, very similar to the last one.

And the requirements for the setbacks there.

We did receive one public comment in opposition to this request.

Um we do have the applicant's representative here in person.

I would ask that you issue two votes for these.

Do you have any questions for staff?

So when is the new ordinance supposed to come out?

We're changing it back, Mr.

Ponds.

Yeah, so we are bringing a code update um to planning and zoning commission.

It'll be heard November 17th.

Then it has to go to city council.

So ultimately, it's about a two-month-long process, uh, maybe a little bit longer.

Um, January 6th is what we're is the time frame.

Um, part of those updates includes um the five-foot setback for car ports if they're attached.

However, right now it, you know, and and council could not approve that as well.

That could be a possibility.

All right.

So either way, um, it's not a hardship really, it's it's just a desire to have it be there where it is.

It could be put somewhere else on the property, right?

It could go in the back or if it were detached from the property, it could be located where it currently is shown on the site plans.

And detach is just a little bit of a little daylight between it, doesn't have to be a certain amount of time.

That's correct.

Okay.

All right.

So prior to the current zoning, it was five feet.

That's changed to ten.

And we're proposing that it changes back to five.

Well, to clarify, the previous ordinance allowed carports to be attached, like an attached carport to be able to be five feet from a property line.

And so, in a situation where someone has that, they come and they want to you know enclose that and make it living space, they would have to request a variance because it then would not be a carport.

So it's specific to car ports, attached carports, and the five-foot setback in the previous code.

So this construction is this going to be a carport or a living space?

It's a carport.

Yeah, not a garage, it's the correct, it will be open, and I'll let the applicant confirm the details on that.

All right, any more questions for staff?

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Lee Alexander.

Good evening, everyone.

I'm Leah Alexander, 5520, 10th Court East, Northport, Alabama, representing the owner in this these two projects.

Um, as we mentioned, um, we are petitioning to request a variance regarding these attached carports so that we can hopefully see if I can set this down, attach the carport to the structure so that it can be located within five feet to the property line.

In our conversations with staff, they mentioned that this is intended to be added back to the code uh as it was taken out in framework.

Um it was not a removal that was an intended removal from the code as it was in there previously.

Um, and that's why we're requesting that it be added back, and that's why we're requesting a variance today so that we can attach the carport, and it allows us in this instance to be able to do a double carport in in this particular situation for it to be a detached um structure, it wouldn't allow for a double in this particular situation.

What's your dimensions of your carport?

I believe it is uh I'm trying to have to go on memory.

Um it's like around 20 foot deep, and then we've got the minimum nine foot wide parking structures, but we've got some added width because of the depth of the steps coming out of the uh the the door there.

So I think we've got 12 um maybe 2 width or something like that to give room to get out of the car, so that there's room for double cars, something like that.

Any other questions for Ms.

Alexander?

Um since this is a variance.

I have one question for the petitioner, one question for the city staff.

So for the petitioner, what would be your hardship and for the city staff?

If we can't find a hardship, except what's voting on the case you just continue till she won't have to continue to January if it's going to be changed automatically, right?

The we feel the hardship is that we we would have to wait until January, thinking that this is going to be changed.

So the developer is unable to proceed with the project because this in terms of city staff, they're planning to move forward in November to present to council, and then having to wait until the council actually approves planning and zoning in November.

I guess the hardship is that there the project is unable to move forward in waiting until this is approved.

Could you not separate it?

Attaching to the house allows to give full coverage from wind and rain.

Um it gives a better closure from the elements.

So what we have here is that it was changed, and they have plans to change it back, but as it stands right now, I'm not seeing the hardship that so say council decides not to change it.

That puts us back in the position of what is the hardship because you have options like the delaying of it is financial, meaning it's the the developer can't start because he's waiting, so that's a financial thing.

He wants to go ahead and start, it's inconvenient.

So that's not a hardship inconvenience.

Um leaving a little bit of daylight, that's not a hard you mean is there's some different options, and so I'm trying to see where the anybody well the the change in the code the lot existed prior to the code, and he was allowed to do an attached carport that he could place within 10 feet of the property line prior to framework, and then after framework, that was taken out inadvertently, I think without meaning to, and now the lot does not allow him to build that carport within five feet to the property line.

So his lot was rendered the buildable nature of that lot as a result of framework, his lot was the ability to build this plan by nature of framework, it was rendered that the nature of being able to build this plan was rendered invalid due to framework, but I think it was rendered uh unknowingly or uh inadvertently, and I think that the new code update is they're trying to correct things like errors in spelling and other things that were changed in the code that they didn't realize that got changed, and that's part of the desire to implement this addition to planning and zoning, and correct me if I'm wrong in any way.

Um but there's no guarantee, I guess that the council is going to approve everyone, but I don't know if they're gonna take them line by line, Zach.

Will it be an approval of all of them, or will they how will they do that?

Yeah, I'll present it and then they will probably look at it section by section, and if they don't like something, they would remove it or something like that.

So it could be all, it could be nothing, it could be piece by piece in the way that they approve it.

Does the builder uh or owner have own the center lot between these two properties?

He does not.

He does not?

His that's my understanding that he does not own the center lot.

Is that correct?

Are y'all able to see that?

I don't know.

There was a picture that showed the two with this right.

He does not own that lot.

Or the owner of the other two does not own the middle lot.

Thank you.

Was it from the lot owner in between, or do you know?

I believe it was from um an adjacent lot to the uh to the east of the these lots.

Yeah, you can see you have it in front of you and it was emailed to you earlier.

It looks like there might have been some misunderstanding of it being a rezoning request rather than a variance request as you look at the the comments.

So the initial change from five feet to ten feet.

What was the reason, or was it just oversight?

I don't think it was I can't speak to if it was intentional or not.

I don't quite recall exactly, but we are proposing to put it back in because we do feel like it was a regulation that was appropriate in the past and would be appropriate in the future.

I mean, is there in order to get a carport in this lot line?

I mean, the only other option would be detaching it.

I mean, based off the other setbacks.

I mean, I don't see the back, but I mean, I don't just looking at the overall under 27, and unless you can tell me, I'm not seeing whether this is the only place to put it on the lot.

Well, this is brand new construction.

So the house could be reimagined.

The primary structure could be reimagined also.

Um, and that's where I guess I'm having a little bit of hesitation is that if this is the primary structure was existing and we were just talking about a carport, that's one condition.

But with the primary structure being new construction, also all of this could be designed to fit within the current regulations, the current setbacks.

Because you're only talking a couple feet here.

Yeah.

So three feet.

So I'll I'll read you guys your decision making standards for a variance, and maybe it'll help you make a decision or be able to make a decision.

So a variance may be approved only on finding the applicant demonstrates all of the following.

There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the pick particular piece of property.

Those conditions are peculiar to the property and do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity.

Those conditions are not the result of the landowners or applicants' own actions.

Because of those conditions, the application of the standards in this ordinance to the particular piece of property would result in unnecessary hardship to the applicant, and the variance is the minimum minimum necessary or minimum necessary to alleviate that hardship and is consistent with the public interest and with the spirit purpose and intent of this ordinance, such that public safety is secured and substantial justice is achieved.

Well, thank you there.

That was well, thank you for sharing that.

Um I do understand what you're saying.

And uh I defer to my counsel and see.

The purpose of the setback rule is to make sure that someone is not uh constructing living space too close to someone else's property because of the problems that are attended to that.

Um I think the problem or or the reason that we had in the prior code, the allowance for a carport specifically, was uh as Zach mentioned earlier, that's not living space.

So you know, an open carport uh would be subject just to the five foot setback rule rather than the primary structure of setback footprint because it would not the carport would not be treated as as living space.

Um the and I think that's why the planning staff are are going back to the council to have that um to try to ask the council to put that back in that one specific allowance back in.

So would we say that the ordinance is making the hardship for them?

I uh that's the next thing that I was gonna address.

Uh, according to what Ms.

Alexander said, the property owner, I assume the property owner has had owned the property prior to January 1 of 2025.

Yes.

Um the so there has been a change in law that has changed what he could I say he, I don't know who the owner is.

Uh but there's been a change in the law that has changed what the uh owner is able to do with the property.

Um the the board can look at that and determine whether that's considered a hardship or whether you want you feel that that rises to the the level of the buttons happened in a lot of scenarios where it is changed, and even though you had the property, it can be you might not be able to do what you want to do with it because you we had that before where somebody came in and they it changed and they couldn't do because it changed since we had it last month with the sign regulation.

Exactly.

So I mean we if we get into this, I feel like you know that's my concern is that if we get into because the ordinance changed and you own the property prior to the ordinance, whether it's going to change again or not, that's like the sign people, they can come back and go, well, we had the property and then the sign law changed, and now we want to do something different.

So that's the concern.

I see, you know, the potential there, but just want to make sure that if we are we opening ourselves up for Pandora's box here, you know.

Well, and and because the next the next point, and and I'll say I think this is a is is uh is a difficult case um because there are considerations that that weigh on on both sides of it.

The next thing that I was gonna say is that um you know, the third of the criteria that uh Mr.

Ponds read a couple minutes ago is that the conditions are excuse me.

Excuse me, the second of the criteria.

I got uh I got uh out of order in my reading, but the second of the criteria is that the conditions are peculiar to the property and do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity because of the nature of this, that it's a change in the rule, it does apply to all the all properties that you know, any anyone in the same zoning district or any other zoning district that was building new construction would confront this the same issue.

Um and so that you know that's something that would weigh back against the granting of the variants.

Um I I think this is one that would be in the in the board's uh uh broad discretion in terms of which way you go on it.

Now, Chad, there's existing homes that look like maybe built in the 40s, but probably are past they're within five instead of ten.

I I would based on an aerial view.

I I don't know, I don't know for sure one way or the other, but I would imagine if you looked in the uh in the neighborhood, you would find uh numerous or and multiple car ports that you know were built outside of that 10 foot uh footprint and um get to the get to the five foot uh setback.

So it's it's uh common to the neighborhood potentially as a rationale.

My concern about asking about who owns the middle lot is that person being impinged upon because now you're they're thinking they bought it and they got 10.

Now they bought it and they've only got five on each side of them.

So I don't know the owner's intention or who it is, but that would be a concern.

All right, uh Miss Alexander, anything else to share with us.

I think so.

Thank you so much for your time.

Um is there anybody that like to speak for or against this petition for this petition in the audience?

No one's signed up.

Is there anybody like to speak in opposition of this petition?

Okay, at this time we'll close uh public comment.

I'll go to board comments, starting with Mary Catherine Holt.

All right, for all the reasons that we've been discussing.

This this is a little bit of a tricky one with the previous setbacks versus the current setback requirements.

Um but because this is new construction and because we don't know yet if the council is going to approve changing the setbacks at this time.

I don't see the hardship to grant either of these variances.

I agree as well.

I don't see the hardship um in this situation to be able to grant these variances.

Yeah, they read it to us very clearly.

Um we asked our council about it, and this is one of the situations that I feel like we're opening a door.

If we you know, Marty made a good point about the middle lot and what we're doing to that person's property, and then we're opening up all these on something that's not built already.

That's the biggest thing that we have some time to waive and see, or um, I just don't see a hardship right here.

Yeah, I I'm gonna go and answer the board members.

Um I'm not seeing the hardship.

I was you know, hoping maybe if they own the middle lot, there may could be a way to work around it, but being that not only that, and and not knowing what council is gonna do in in January.

I'm I'm not gonna be in favor.

I agree with my former, I mean my current uh board members.

I do think the city staff is saying they're gonna be supportive of this change, but it is not voted on at this point, so it's not a real thing.

I feel we're a little bit hand-tied with this one because we're following what the variance hardships are, and there's not really hardship when you haven't built it.

Okay, at this time we'll close board comment.

We're gonna vote on these separate.

I'll read the first one, ZBA-98-25.

Lee Alexander petitions for a variance from the setback requirements to construct an attached garage on the property located at 3016 4th Street East, zone SFR-1, Council District 5.

Voting Ms.

Holt.

No.

No.

No.

No, no.

Petition failed.

Next petition, CBA-99-25.

Lee Alexander petitions for a variance from the setback requirements to construct an attached garage on the property located at 3016 Fourth Avenue East, zone SFR-1, Council District 5.

Voting with Ms.

Holt.

No.

No.

No.

No, no.

Petition failed.

All right, moving on to our next case tonight, ZBA 125 Wiley Petty petitions for a variance from the accessory structure standards to construct a metal accessory structure on the property located at 3709 65th Avenue, Council District 1.

Here we have an aerial view of the property with its zoning.

Excuse me, just west of Joe Mallisham and Australi's Ferry intersection.

And an aerial view of the property.

And the rear yard, well that where that accessory structure will be placed.

Here we have a site plan of the accessory structure.

You can see it's gonna go in that back corner.

And here we have some uh drawings of what that structure will look like.

Here are applicable regulations for accessory structures.

As you can see, section 25106 states that no accessory structure exceeding 120 square feet should be clad in aluminum or other sheet metal.

Uh we did not receive any public comment.

We do have the applicant in here in person.

Do you have any questions for staff?

No, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Patty.

I live at 376 Fifth Avenue, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, 35401.

Uh on June 16th, uh, we had a storm.

And I had a meld building in the back.

And my building got destroyed.

Also, I'm a Vecka got damaged.

So I didn't know about the new orders.

So and I came up to ask to get a billing permit.

And that's when I found out I couldn't have another meld bill and put back.

But uh that zone as uh flood air and water stands in in our backyard with the rain real hot, the water stand about halfway uh my back yard.

So uh if we put the mill back there, I feel like that would be the best.

Uh I'm asking them for that's Mount Artship because that water stands back there in it.

Okay.

Any questions for Mr.

Um Petty?

Is this a prefabricated building or is it something you building on prefabricate?

It's prefabricated, yeah.

Have you already purchased the building?

Well, I had I had gone, I still got it ordered.

Uh order.

But uh I told them, you know, I got them to hold up on it because once I once I found out that they couldn't put a metal, so I didn't want them to bring it out there and then I'd be messed up in, you know.

So does the vendor have any options where you could take the internal structure and then clad it and vinyl?

Excuse me.

Does the vendor have an option to clad it in exterior vinyl, something of that nature?

You still got a steel interior building?

Exterior would match the yeah, but the billing is male is up.

I I got I got it from a steel company, you know.

I don't know.

But you can't change the outside.

Is there not an option to change that and not be metal but be like vinyl siding or something on it or oh not with that with that?

No, not with that company.

Oh so I question to staff.

He could get another, it just can't be metal, it can be any other certain type of material it can be.

That's correct.

He could um surface it with a different material, but it cannot be metal.

So yeah, I'm sorry, you said we could I could do it with NL counter material.

Uh that I could put like uh sidings over the metal building.

Is that what you're saying?

Um that they can do vinyl siding over the the metal they could, and it would be um acceptable.

Yeah, so you have some options that you can do.

You just can't have the metal exterior, but you can put something else over that, some siding, and the staff will be happy to get with you in walking through what you can do.

Um in terms because it just can't have the metal.

Okay.

Well, uh thanks anyway.

Or you could I mean that there may be a different vendor that has maybe a I know you don't want wood, but they may have metal uh interior structure, and you could put any type of siding on the outside, a hardy board or anything.

Cedar, whatever you mean.

Yeah, but my thing uh have a metal bill and then put the sides, you know.

I mean well, it's it's and it's if I'm the the metal is is it safety in terms of something happens when I want to you know you have that type of building, it is almost like having a tra a mobile home that can you know yeah.

I think the aluminum or yeah, aluminum or other sheet metal siding is more of like an aesthetic type thing in neighborhoods, though that is why it's probably in the code.

So there are so when we talk about a hardship, you gotta have a reason other than just preference, financial or anything like that.

So um, you have some options of what you can do and still do what you want in the in on your property.

Yeah, I understand.

But I was just saying because of that water standing back there, you know that would have been a better product, what I'm saying.

So the petitioner mentioned the flooding.

Is is there any whether we can check to see if that's in a flood zone or yeah, we do not have a record of it being a female registered flood zone.

We hooked up with uh uh Royal Pine, Riley Pine is that's the zone flood zone, and we we use that as flood zone too, rap street.

Is that a part of the uh was it was it Noah's Ark project or something like that with the okay.

Um anything else, Mr.

Petty?

No, that's it.

Thank you so much for your time.

Okay.

Thank you.

We don't have anybody signed up to speak for or against this petition.

Is there anybody in the audience that like to speak for this petition?

Is there anybody like to speak against this petition?

At this time, we'll close public comment and go to board comment, Ms.

Holt.

So I think that our regulations are pretty clear on the material that should be used on any accessory structure over 120 feet, and so um for that reason, I feel like um I'm not in favor of granting this variance.

I also feel like um as far as the hardship of the the flooding, that that's probably that's something that you should address with grading or um uh something else rather than the materiality of the structure.

So um for that reason I'm not in favor of the variance.

Um if it was if it was somewhere that we could confirm or verify the the flooding aspect of it.

I would I can see that as a hardship, um, especially having wood as opposed to a metal building uh in standing water.

Um but the petitioner can do a metal building just if he covers it with something else, right?

So whether it's a different material or if it's sprayed vinyl or something like that, right?

Or wrapped or something like that, that would be fine.

Okay.

I do understand, Mr.

Petty, about the flood the the water standing in your backyard.

Um, and that being an issue, and like my fellow board members said that's price rating needs to be checked on or looked at.

Um, you do have options.

You can do the metal building, but it has to have this the the out exterior of it has to be covered in some other way.

So you have an option.

So um that with that being said, I would not be in favor of approving this.

Um yeah, I'm not gonna be in favor either on this one.

I mean, there's other options for materials, um, and there isn't plenty of options out there for materials that you know withstand water.

Uh so I'm not gonna be in favor either.

Group, my fellow board members.

Okay.

At this time we'll close board comment and I'll read the petition.

ZBA-100-25.

Wiley petty petitions for a variance from the accessory structure standards to construct a metal accessory structure on the property located at 3709 65th Avenue Council District 1.

Voting with Ms.

Holt.

No.

No.

No.

No, no.

Petition fail.

Staff will get with you, Mr.

Petty, and further talk about it, okay.

All right, moving on to our next case tonight, ZBA 102 25.

Ginger Contos petitions for a special exception to allow the operation of a liquor store at the property located at 589 Lurleen B.

Wallace Boulevard North, zone downtown, Council District 4.

Here we have the zoning of that property.

As you can see, it's directly behind Tom Beckby along Lurlean Wallace.

And here we have an aerial view of the property.

And a view of that property from the street.

So as part of this request, there'll be requesting a special exception to operate a liquor store.

The petitioner states that the business will engage in the sale of specialty wines, beers, and liquor.

The business will operate Monday to Saturday from 11 to 8, although the applicant did mention that those hours are subject to change based on demand.

There will be three full-time employees, including the petitioner.

We have a floor plan of that space.

That they're just gonna have one unit.

Do you have any questions for staff?

All right, thank you.

Okay.

Tell us about your place.

So a little history on the building itself.

My granddaddy from what my uncle told me purchased this building in 1935.

So it's been in my family for a long time.

And so over the last year I've held held on to it.

I've I was a reciprocal of the facelift, Tuscaloosa, and I put on a roof.

I've done the painting, um, got new windows and doors, but have since decided to maybe try this business opportunity.

So liquor store, yes, but let me soften it with saying it's more of a beverage boutique.

I only have 800 square feet that I'm gonna be working out of.

But just something that would be more along the lines of like top shelf liquors, uh, specialty wines, craft beers.

Um there's a lot of foot traffic in that area, um, surrounded by the hotels and the lofts and new condominiums coming in next door.

So just from a business standpoint, it looks like it could be favorable.

So will there be drinking on the premises or would it just be sales going out?

Sales only.

Now I um after talking to the ABC board, obviously I can't sell, I mean, like open containers, but vendors could come in and do like tasting, so I will do that.

Okay.

Any questions?

All right, thank you so much.

Okay, all right.

Uh, we don't have anybody signed up to speak for or against this petition.

Uh, is there anybody in the audience that'd like to speak for this petition or against it?

Or against, sir.

Uh just in for just information.

If you Zach, if you could pull up the site plan or the aerial.

I guess I want clarification as to exactly which space we're talking about.

That okay.

So in front on Lurley.

My concern is Christ Episcopal Church is right there.

So I I just mind.

Okay, thank you.

I'll do a quick measurement.

It's at least walk about that.

About 160 feet.

Okay, thank you.

So at this time we'll close public comment and we'll go to board comment, Ms.

Holt.

So, question real quick.

That is the that is why we're voting on this, because it is within a thousand feet of no, so it meets all of these regulations, so there's no variance request or anything associated with it.

Uh, it's just a special exception in in this district.

Um so essentially you guys can look at the character of the area to see if it's an appropriate use in this in this specific location.

Okay, thank you.

Sorry, I just want to clarify that.

Um I have I have no issues with this.

Um I think that the um the owner has done some homework and it seems like uh a decent fit for the area, so I have no issues.

I have no issues, I'm in favor.

I agree with my fellow board members.

I think it'll be uh fit for the area, kind of downtown, walkable.

Um it's gonna be more upscale, not just the package door where we're taking out just anything, so I think it'll fit the area.

Yeah, I agree.

It fits the area, and uh I haven't I do not have an issue.

Approved my fellow board members.

Okay, at this time we'll close board comment.

I'll read the petition.

ZBA-102-25, Ginger Catos Cantos, Contos petitions for a special exception to allow the operation of a liquor store at the property located at 589 Lurling B.

Wallace Boulevard North Zone D.

Council District 4 voting with Ms.

Holt.

Yes.

Yes, yes, yes, yes.

Petition is approved.

All right, moving on to our short term rentals tonight.

This case should look familiar to some of you.

ZBA 8125, Stephen Friday petitions for a special exception to allow the short-term rental of a property located at 1985 Woodridge Road.

So an SFR1 Council District 3.

Um, this did appear before you last month, and it was continued.

Here we have an aerial view of the property.

This is the Woodridge neighborhood just north of McFarland Boulevard North.

Here we have an aerial view of the property.

And here we have short-term rentals in the area.

Here we have a view of that property from the road.

And the driveway.

And the new driveway.

This was uh continued for gravel driveway last month.

Um they have appropriately surfaced it.

Looks good as you can see there.

Yeah.

So as part of this request, Stephen Friday will be the primary contact and will be available 24 hours a day in case of an emergency.

The petitioner has previously managed one short-term rental in the past.

The house is equipped with security cameras and keypad locks, and it is owner occupied.

So the house has four bedrooms and two bathrooms.

The petitioner is requesting eight adults and four vehicles.

If approved, staff recommends eight and four.

We do have the applicant here in person tonight.

We did not receive any public comment.

Do you have any questions for staff?

Show the aerial one more time.

Sure.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right, Mr.

Friday.

I did what you said.

We're got the driveway done, like you asked.

That's my hardship now.

So we're asking for 45 nights, eight adults, four cars.

We have you know plenty of parking now.

Oh yeah.

I think it's your first year is uh probationary, so it's 30 nights to ask.

And so are you okay with that?

You always go for the so thank you.

Any other questions for Mr.

Friday?

All right, thank you.

Okay, thank you.

All right, don't have anybody signed up to speak for or against the petition.

Is there anybody in the audience that'd like to speak for or against this petition?

All right, we'll close public comment.

We'll go to board comment, Ms.

Holt.

Thank you for addressing the driveway.

Looks nice.

Um, I have no issues with this.

I'm in favor.

I have no issues, I'm in favor.

I agree with my fellow board members.

I have no issue.

It looks really nice.

I have no issues, no issues.

Okay, at this time we'll close board comment.

I'll read the petition.

ZBA-81-25.

Stephen Friday petitions for a special exception to allow the short-term rental of a property located at 1985 Woodridge Road Zone SFR-1, Council District 3.

Uh, it was continued from September.

Uh eight adults, four vehicles, 30 nights, one year probation voting with Ms.

Holt.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes, yes.

Petition is approved.

All right.

ZBA 10425.

Kimberly Cooper petitions for a special exception to allow the short-term rental of a property located at 108 Springbrook, zoned SFR2, Council District 7.

Here we have a view of that property.

Um you see it's right off 82 nearby Buffalo Wild Wings.

And an aerial of the property.

Short term rentals in the area.

And a view from the street.

And the driveway.

So as part of this request, Dolores Boyd will be the primary contact in case of emergency.

The petitioner will also be available, but is located roughly three hours from the property.

The petitioner has over eight years of experience managing short and long-term rentals.

The house will be equipped with remote keypad lock.

It is not owner-occupied and will be used as a second home for family and friends when not being rented short term.

If approved, staff recommends four adults and two vehicles based on the parking.

We should have the applicant here in person tonight.

No questions.

Thank you.

All right, Miss Cooper.

So we just uh had this property for a few years for my I'm sorry, give us your name and your address.

Sorry, Kimberly Cooper.

It's actually Kimberly Schlottman now because I got married.

Um and we are trying to turn this property into an Airbnb short-term rental.

Um we had had it for uh a few years for my niece to live in while she went to the university and she has graduated and moved, so now we are just uh using it for a second home at this point and want to also rent it out.

Okay.

Um so you are you okay with the four and two suggested by the um city for uh the number of people to live there or to stay there?

That's four adults, it doesn't count children.

Okay.

Um each of the bedrooms uh has their big bedrooms, so each of them have queen-sized beds in each one of them.

So if we could do eight, because it would be two adults in each bedroom.

So what they look at is the parking and oh I gotcha.

The parking is that's the issue.

The driveway only I think engineering is saying only two cars can because you can't have any parking on the street.

So all of it has to be in the driveway.

Okay, because well, the side we usually park four cars there whenever they live there on the drive, and then the beside there's actually for two, but I don't know if y'all consider that park in the grass, and then all it can't do that.

Like now, if you live there, if you live there, you can do it, but got it.

You can't do it when long-term rental you can park on the street, short-term rental.

You gotta park in your driveway.

Yeah, it's well, it's it actually, if you see there's the driveway, and then right beside it, that is a gravel area, and people do park that's where we parked with those two places.

So when engineering they didn't see gravel, he said they did not mention that in their assessment.

I mean, we have grass in the front, people park there too, but yeah, we just park in those two sections.

But okay, so we we're fine with that.

All right, I think that's what we have to do for the two parks.

So if we were to come back in and pave that side section there, yes.

Okay, so they need to adjust the curb cut, or all they have to do is pave.

Yeah, we can talk with you after that, after this meeting about how to do that.

All right, that sounds good.

All right, thank you.

All right, thank you.

You say your lad's new name is Schlotman.

Schlotman, okay.

Can we spell it for you because it's a whole mouthful?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, we don't have anybody signed up to speak for or against.

Is there anybody in the audience that'd like to speak for against this petition?

At this time, we'll close public comment and we will go to Borick Comment.

I have no issues.

I have no issues.

I'm in favor.

I'm in favor with um the city's recommended staff's recommendations.

Yes, I'm in favor of four and two as well.

In favor.

Okay, at this time I'd like to read the petition.

ZBA-104-25, Kimberly Cooper petitions for a special exception to allow the short-term rental of a property located at 108 Springbrook Zone SFR-2, Council District 7, uh, with four adults, two vehicles, 30 nights, one year probation, voting Ms.

Holt.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes, yes.

All right, the petition is approved.

All right, moving on to our final case tonight, ZBA 10525.

Matt Moore petitions for a special exception to allow the short-term rental of a property located at 1718 8th Street, zoned SFR3H, Council District 4.

Here we have zoning that property as you can see.

It's directly off Queen City along 8th Street, and an aerial view of that property.

And here we have short-term rentals in the area.

Here's a view of that property from the street.

And the driveway.

Yes, it has.

What was it approved for?

Mr.

Ponds.

I'll have to dig into it.

Okay, no problem.

Okay.

So uh Matt Moore and Kim Van will be the primary contacts and will be available 24 hours a day in case of emergency.

The petitioner has operated five to ten short-term rentals in the Tuscaloosa area in the past.

The houses are equipped with an alarm system and a list of rules will be provided to the renters prior to their arrival.

The house is not occupied and will be used as a private home when not being rented short term.

The house has three bedrooms and three bathrooms.

Petitioner is requesting four to six adults and two vehicles.

If approved, staff recommends four adults and two vehicles based on the driveway.

We did receive three public comments in opposition to this request.

We do have the applicant here in person tonight.

Do you have any questions for staff?

Four and two was the previous approval.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, Mr.

Moore.

Come on down.

Last but not least, right?

Sure.

I'm Matthew Moore.

Um, I'm a resident of Birmingham.

Um we've had this property in a short-term rental program uh here in Tuscaloosa previously.

We stopped doing it, I think, at the end of or didn't renew at the beginning of 24 and just want to start doing it again.

My sister lives here in uh Tuscaloosa and we own the property together.

So she would be the contact in local contact in town.

Well, she would be certainly the most immediate.

She lives over in the Guildswood area, so she's only five minutes away.

All right.

Thank you.

Any questions for Mr.

Moore?

All right, thank you.

Thanks.

We don't have anybody signed up to speak for or against.

Is there anybody in the audience that like to speak for or against this petition?

Okay, we'll close public comment and we'll go to board comment with Ms.

Holt.

I have no issues, especially since it was approved previously.

I have no issues.

I'm in favor.

I agree as well.

I'm in favor.

Okay.

At this time we'll close board comment.

I'll read the petition.

ZBA 104-25.

Matt Moore petitions for a special exception to allow the short term rental of a property located at 1718 8th Street, Zone SFR 3H, Council District 4.

Uh for adults, two vehicles, 30 nights, one year.

Voting with Ms.

Holt.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Petition is approved, and we are adjourned.

Thank you.

Voting on our calendar.

We vote on the calendar.

Okay.