City of Tuscaloosa Zoning Board of Adjustments Meeting – September 29, 2026

The Zoning Board of Adjustments convened at 5:30 p.m. on September 29, 2026 (the chair referenced September 28th, a discrepancy noted in the transcript). The board heard 15 petitions: one withdrawal, one variance for a daycare driveway, one variance for a non‑conforming structure repair, one variance for an accessory structure, and 11 special exceptions for short‑term rentals. Staff recommended conditions for most cases. Public testimony was heard on several items. Votes and decisions are detailed below.

Consent Calendar

• Minutes Approval – The synopsis of the August 2026 meeting was approved unanimously on a motion and second. (Vote: 5‑0)
• ZBA 81‑26 (Withdrawal) – Petition ZBA 81‑26 (daycare variance) was withdrawn by the applicant to allow more time to prepare; the board voted unanimously to approve the withdrawal. (Vote: 5‑0)

Public Comments & Testimony

• ZBA 79‑26 (Nolan Lee) – The petitioner and family members testified that the repair cost was far less than the city’s estimate ($5,500 vs. $45,220), argued the house was not as deteriorated as portrayed, and expressed that they felt the city was targeting their home. The board explained that the variance criteria required a hardship unrelated to health or personal circumstances and that the proper forum was city council.
• ZBA 80‑26 (Jones) – Three neighbors spoke in support of the accessory structure, stating it was well‑built, did not obstruct views, and added value to the neighborhood. The petitioners acknowledged they were unaware of the setback rules when the structure was built in 2018.
• ZBA 86‑26 (Surney) – Two neighbors spoke in opposition, citing concerns about safety, lack of vetting, and the character of the neighborhood (Heatherwood Gardens, mostly seniors and families). A neighbor who agreed to serve as a local on‑site contact spoke in support, noting the owners were keeping their home while away for a fellowship.
• ZBA 90‑26 (Silvetti) – A neighbor testified that the property had been operating as a short‑term rental without approval, that parking was a chronic problem, and that there were already multiple short‑term rentals in the complex. She asked the board to deny the petition.
• ZBA 93‑26 (Pino) – Two neighbors spoke in opposition, describing a close‑knit, quiet neighborhood and fears that unknown renters would disrupt the area. They cited concerns about parking, noise, and safety. The applicant’s local contact highlighted the house rules, towing contract, and proposed noise monitors.

Discussion Items

• ZBA 78‑26 – Daycare Variance (Peterson) – The petitioner requested a variance to allow a daycare for 30+ children on a local street (Palisades Court) rather than a collector/arterial. Staff noted the intent was to keep high‑traffic daycares out of neighborhoods; this site was in a commercial area. The petitioner plans to accommodate 30 children, with pickup/drop‑off on private property and a screened playground. The board found the location appropriate and granted the variance. (Vote: 5‑0)
• ZBA 79‑26 – Non‑Conforming Structure Variance (Nolan Lee) – The petitioner sought to repair a condemned house at 1225 19th Alley. The chief building official estimated repairs at $45,220, exceeding 50% of the assessed value ($35,600), causing the structure to lose its legal non‑conforming status. The board found no demonstrable hardship distinct from personal circumstances and that the property had multiple non‑conformities (setbacks, lot line). The variance was denied. (Vote: 0‑5)
• ZBA 80‑26 – Accessory Structure Variance (Jones) – The petitioners requested a variance to keep a carport that was built six inches from the front property line (closer to the street than the house). Staff explained that other viable locations existed (attached to the house, on the side) and that the hardship was self‑created (built without a permit). The board denied the variance. (Vote: 0‑5)
• ZBA 82‑26 through 94‑26 – Short‑Term Rental Special Exceptions – Eleven separate short‑term rental petitions were heard. Boards generally followed staff recommendations on occupancy and vehicle limits. Notable cases:
  • ZBA 82‑26 (Hari): Approved with 4 adults, 2 vehicles, 30‑night minimum, 1‑year probation. (Vote: 5‑0)
  • ZBA 83‑26 (Mills): Approved with 4 adults, 2 vehicles, same conditions. (Vote: 5‑0)
  • ZBA 84‑26 (Fillers): Approved with 6 adults, 3 vehicles, same conditions. (Vote: 5‑0)
  • ZBA 85‑26 (Butel): Approved for a one‑bedroom lock‑out unit with 2 adults, 1 vehicle, same conditions. (Vote: 5‑0)
  • ZBA 86‑26 (Surney): Approved with 4 adults, 2 vehicles, same conditions. Board acknowledged neighbor concerns but noted short‑term rentals are more regulated than long‑term and recommended neighbors use 311 for issues. (Vote: 5‑0)
  • ZBA 87‑26 (Norris): Approved with 4 adults, 2 vehicles, same conditions. Board urged securing a reliable local contact. (Vote: 5‑0)
  • ZBA 88‑26 (Castillo): Approved with 6 adults, 3 vehicles, same conditions. (Vote: 5‑0)
  • ZBA 89‑26 (Wynne): Approved with 4 adults, 2 vehicles, same conditions. (Vote: 5‑0)
  • ZBA 90‑26 (Silvetti): Denied. The property had operated without approval (violation). Neighbors reported parking and noise problems. Board members split; motion failed 3‑2 (yes: 2, no: 3).
  • ZBA 91‑26 (Miller): Approved with 6 adults, 3 vehicles, same conditions. (Vote: 5‑0)
  • ZBA 92‑26 (White): Approved with 4 adults, 2 vehicles (one must be parked in garage), same conditions. (Vote: 5‑0)
  • ZBA 93‑26 (Pino): Approved with 6 adults, 3 vehicles, same conditions. Board urged use of noise monitors. (Vote: 5‑0)
  • ZBA 94‑26 (Machette): Approved with 6 adults, 3 vehicles, same conditions. (Vote: 5‑0)

Key Outcomes

• ZBA 78‑26: Varianced granted. (5‑0)
• ZBA 79‑26: Variance denied. (0‑5)
• ZBA 80‑26: Variance denied. (0‑5)
• ZBA 82‑26 through 89‑26, 91‑26 through 94‑26: Short‑term rental special exceptions granted with conditions (4+ adults, 2–3 vehicles, 30‑night minimum, 1‑year probation). All passed 5‑0 except ZBA 90‑26.
• ZBA 90‑26: Short‑term rental special exception denied. (2‑3)
• The board reminded all applicants to adhere to city regulations and that short‑term rentals operate under a probationary year with renewal review. Neighbors were encouraged to report violations via 311 (during business hours) or 911 (after hours) and to document property addresses for enforcement.

Note: The meeting date is given as September 29, 2026 per the assignment, though the transcription begins with a reference to September 28th.