Board denies variance request for 300 Edgewood Boulevard privacy fence

The Homewood City Board of Zoning Adjustments voted on Aug. 6 to deny a variance request for a 6-foot privacy fence proposed at 300 Edgewood Boulevard.

David Lorum, the landscape architect for the project, told the board the house sits on a narrow 50-foot corner lot created by a subdivision and that the applicant requested up to an 8- to 9-foot encroachment into the setback to gain usable backyard space. "Code based hardship is it's a corner lot, 2 technical front yards," Lorum said, explaining that the corner-lot designation, combined with the lot's topography, is the basis for the hardship claim.

Members pressed Lorum on alternatives and on how much area the applicant would lose by building the fence to the required setback; Lorum estimated roughly a 9-foot difference in places and said some grade work remains to be finalized. Board members asked whether dense landscaping could provide privacy instead of a variance and whether the fence location would impede a future sidewalk or require removal of crepe myrtles in the city right-of-way.

During public comment, neighbors opposed and supported the request. Resident Beverly Bryce LeBoeuf said the hardship criteria in the zoning code are strict and indicated she did not see the applicant's statement meeting that standard. The applicant's occupant, Jessica Shaka, described past safety concerns and said moving the fence closer to the sidewalk would create flatter, safer backyard space for her children and help protect the family; she said the city has been responsive and that the Homewood Police had provided support.

Committee member (speaker 5) moved to approve BZA case 26-0039; Committee member (speaker 6) seconded. The secretary conducted a roll-call vote and recorded No votes from Johnson, Han, Sims, Young and Nieves; the motion failed. The chair advised the applicant to work with the building department on next steps and possible revisions.

The board's decision came after the chair reminded members that a positive vote of at least four members is required to grant a variance, and the motion did not meet that threshold.