Variances for Pink House denied at BZA
The Board of Zoning Adjustments denied requests for variances for the historic Pink House at its June 3 meeting, and now the future of the home is uncertain once again.
Owners Clayton and Rachel Mobley requested two variances. The first was to allow the placement of a swimming pool in the secondary front yard that is closest to Roseland Drive.
The second was to increase the maximum building height from 35 feet to 46 feet so the Mobleys could construct an addition to the house where the Mobleys planned to live. The addition would be an attached house that faces Roseland Drive.
“The reason for the height variance is since it’s a single-family structure, you have to measure from the bottom of the Pink House door all the way to the top of the Roseland-facing addition,” Clayton said. “That wouldn’t be a problem if we had a flat lot. So the issue is we have a slanted lot, and it goes up exactly 11 feet and 6 inches.
“If this new addition were to be built on Roseland, we would not need a variance. But as it stands, we need a rather large height variance to make this plan work.”
Out of 17 friends and neighbors who spoke at the meeting, 16 were in favor of the renovation.
These two variance requests were denied in a 3-2 vote. Commissioners Ty Cole and Joy Smith voted yes, and Commissioners Matthew Foley, Megan Hand and Beverly LeBoeuf voted no.
“It’s unclear to me whether or not you have a pool affects whether or not you preserve the Pink House, as well as how the height of your proposed home affects whether or not you remodel the Pink House,” Hand said.
Despite how large it appears, the Pink House only has two bedrooms, and it doesn’t have a central air conditioning system. The two-story proposed addition needs to have enough bedrooms for a “growing family,” Rachel said.
“The accommodations for a modern family and the comforts of a modern family are not currently part of the original structure,” she said. “By placing our structure in that particular corner of the lot and not expanding further out across the back side of the lot, by minimizing the footprint of that structure and going up rather than out, we are protecting the trees.”
Having a pool on the property isn’t a technical requirement, Clayton said. But in their vision of their dream home, they want a pool.
Before casting their vote, Hand asked the Mobleys if they would move if their variance requests were denied. Clayton responded that he already has offers on the Pink House.
“Just to be candid, I have three offers from new home construction on the lots, and they’re all going to build on them,” he said. “I don’t want this to sound like that. I don’t think that helps anyone out for me to sound like ‘this or that,’ but this it. We’ve tried so hard. We really have.”
There was a sense of urgency in the Mobleys. For one, the Pink House has become so dilapidated that insurance has dropped the Mobleys’ liability coverage. They have already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on architects and designers to plan the renovation, and they said they feel they can’t waste anymore time uninsured or any more money on planning.
“If we want to build our dream home and invest that effort here in Homewood, this is our best shot,” Racel said. “If our dream home is no longer a plan that is our dream, we can take that plan somewhere else. But this is where we want to be. This is where we want our kids. This is where we have dreams.”
The Mobleys could not be reached for comment about what their next plan is for the property.
For more information on the history of the Pink House and the Mobleys, view the January 2021 cover story, “Under New Ownership.”