Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the regularly scheduled monthly meeting of the board of zoning appeals. BZA members are volunteers and receive no compensation. We are appointed by the city commission for staggered three-year terms. Under state statutes, the BZA hears three types of appeals. dimensional or non-use variances including sign variances. We also explore use variances and appeals of interpretations or rulings of the building official or other boards. This evening we have five appeals and they are all dimensional. Under a dimensional you or use variance, the appellent must show practical difficulty complying with the dimensional requirements of the ordinance. It requires four affirmative votes. We have six members today. So that's four out of six. And as I mentioned, those are all of our appeals this evening. Our procedure is all comments are to be addressed to myself, the chair. Please wait to be recognized. City staff will make a presentation regarding the appeal and take questions from the board members. The appellant is then invited to present their case. Only one person may speak on behalf of the uh appeal. I do make exceptions for architects or engineers as needed. Members of the public are then invited to come forward, identify themselves, provide their comments to the board. The hearing is then closed. Motions from the board are entertained and acted upon. In all cases, this is not a popularity contest. Granting or denying a variance is based substantially on the appellent meeting their burden of proof. I just want to mention while we have everybody here versus at the end that we did have some fraudulent emails go out to um people that had applied for appeals. This email did not come from a Birmingham um email address. It was a fraudulent email. It was asking for additional fees for applying for variance as well as bonds. um it was fraud and I don't believe anybody paid it, but just to be aware those were not from the city. They are not required fees. Um the city is looking into these emails to figure out who the perpetrators are, but anybody else exploring um looking into applying for an a variance. Keep in mind you we will

not request funds or money through email. Um all the fees are told to you upfront and there are no additional ones that we would never solicit through the email. Sorry for anybody that received those emails. Um, can we please call the role of the board members? Eric here. Jason here. Kevin here. Carl Conor here. Richard here. John Miller here. Ready? Donald Garders, Susan Jacket.

So again, we have uh six board members out of seven. It does require four affirmative to have your appeal approved. Uh I'm going to call the role of the appellants. Do we have someone here for 655 Hawthorne? Thank you. Do we have someone here for 236 Pleasant? Thank you. Do we have someone here for 952 Brookwood? Thank you. We have someone here for 3 350 Shirley. Thank you. Do we have someone here for 550 South Glennhurst? Thank you. Um besides the ones in front of us, do we have any additional correspondents for the board member? Nope, we got everything and everyone's received there's three in here. Everyone's received copies.

Yes. Thank you. Uh gentlemen, before you are the minutes from our last regularly scheduled meetings. Do we have any corrections? or a motion. Motion to approve. Thank you. Have a second. Is there a second? All in favor of approving the minutes as presented? I I I.

All opposed? Hearing none. The minutes are approved. Our first appeal this evening is appeal 2531 for Hawthorne. Andrew is presenting. I got it. Oh, I'm sorry. Mike. Mike Morad, assistant building official for the city here to present appeal 25-31. The owner of the property known as 655 Hawthorne request the following variance to construct an addition on the rear of the home. Chapter 126, article 4, section 4.74 C of the zoning ordinance requires that a minimum distance between principal residential buildings on adjacent lots are to be 14.00 ft or 25% of the lot width, whichever is larger. The required is 41.74 feet. The proposed is 38.30 feet. Therefore, a variance of 3.44 feet is requested on the east side. The applicant is seeking a variance to construct a rear yard addition to a existing non-conforming home that was constructed in the 1940s. Variances were granted in both 1968 and 1987. See minutes that are attached. Okay. So if we look here, 25% of the the required distance of of the cord from the front yard setback is 166.96 ft. So 25% of that is 41.74 ft. Here's the addition they're trying to put on in the rear, which they are proposing to be at 38.3 ft. The home is already non-conforming up in here, but that has nothing to do with the variance today. Um, this would be required to be 41.74 feet, but they're proposing 38.3 feet. Um, so this area right here, this shaded blue area, this arc is the only portion

of the request that is in violation of the ordinance right there. Oops. The home next door has a 100 foot um frontage at the at the setback line. So their requirement would only be 25 ft. So this home could build their home 25 ft from this home. Whereas the 655 Hawthorne requirement is the 41.74 ft. And what measurement on the lot is is creating that 41 ft.

The that's the this the I'll go back to that. That is this distance here. That is the width of the lot at the setback line. If it was a square lot, you would measure or any even a regular lot, you measure what the distance of the width of the lot is at the setback point. That's what the width of the lot is at the setback point is 166.96 ft. And they are required to be 25% of that from the neighboring property. So if the front of the lot was not on a curve but had a right angle, then likely the rear setback would be, you know, across the lower section of the lot and that 41 wouldn't be required.

If I'll go back to this slot here, this is like a conventional like 100 foot wide lot, right? It it's basically 100 ft no matter where you are on the lot, the width. So that therefore their their setback or their distance between structures is only 25 ft. If the lot were tapered, you always take the dimension at the setback line, the front set back line, but you're doing a diagonal cord because of the curvature of the lot. Well, there's no other place to you don't measure along a curve, right?

Yeah. Right. So that is the they you'll see here. You go back to it. One second. Um, you come down the distance of the front set back and down the distance of the front set back and the line between them that connects is the the cord line that that is the front set back. But I guess my point to you is if it was a if the lot was a true corner that was at a 90° angle, you'd be able to come down the lot and similar to the adjacent lot and measure and it likely would be significantly smaller than that. Yes. If it was a just a true corner which was a square like a rectangular shaped lot it would be a convent just like the lot next door right whether it's a corner or not it would be measured the same way because there was only one front set back

very good other question for Mikeer can you go to the drawing with the blue kind of the shading that one there um what what's the measurement at the widest point because that of that actual blue shaded piece at the widest point well they're asking for 3.44 44. Okay. And that would be So that would be at the widest point. Yes. That's the most that's the greatest point. 3.44. You're the widest width. We're not taking the length of the Okay. You're not taking the back wall. You're not you're you're going to the widest point. I maybe it's the same. It looks like that's the only that's the only portion of the home that is not that is into the the required yard. Okay. So they cut out for the sake of discussion that blue shape. There's no variance needed.

That is correct. Okay. Start. Yes. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Um, Mr. Morhead, the U southern lot line is 140.3 ft uh from uh going east to west, the very the very bottom of the survey. If that if that property were square, it would be 25% of that number. Right. That's correct. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for the city?

Please. I I believe you had mentioned that if this uh variance is granted, it would not have a negative effect on the adjacent property. In terms of in terms of uh the setback situation, this little portion, no, it would not from the standpoint of the distance between of the home next door, right? Does not have the same requirement due to the fact the lot's not the same width. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none, who's speaking on behalf of the appeal, please. We don't get that big story board over there. Oh, I mean I'm happy to hold that up.

Good evening everybody. Good evening. If you could just tell us your name and your address. Yes. Lauren Frey, 963 Warwick Street, Birmingham, Michigan 48009. Very good. So tell us why you think this uh appeal is justified.

Yeah. So we are um really excited about this home. This is my grandparents home. My mom grew up in this home and we've celebrated countless birthdays, Christmases, holidays, uh you name it. And uh Nick and I bought the home in 22 right before my grandparents passed away. We've been um eagerly preparing ourselves for this renovation. We really love the style and the look of the home. We think it fits in the neighborhood really beautifully. So, it was important to us that we don't tear down the home, but instead do a renovation to add space for our growing family off the back. So, we're hoping to keep the front of the house intact and uh, you know, fix the brick and, you know, get some new windows and stuff, but basically leave that alone from the exterior point of view and use the very sloped backyard to um, increase our living space and and uh, another bay for a garage. Um, we are adjacent to 63 Hawthorne and I've spoken with the Levies who um have lived there for a long time and knew my grandparents. The uh variance that we're looking to get is um on their garage side of their house and they went outside and looked around and decided it wasn't um going to interfere with any enjoyment of their property. They have a pool and a beautiful two-story deck and it's sort of on the other side of the house. So, I don't think there's anything about what we're seeking that will impact their property at all. Um, we did try to design this house with all of the ordinances in mind. Um, there's a very large 30foot setback that, um, we decided not to seek a variance for and just work within the parameters of what was already allowed by Birmingham. We didn't realize at the time that we did these drawings that the cord was the distance used to measure on a curved lot. We thought it was the width of the lot and so therefore we thought we were designing within the parameters. Um and

we are very much hoping to have an extra 3 ft to build the the plan as we've designed them. So you know with everything you've heard you could choose to just take three feet off the space and not need a variance. Is there a reason why you haven't done that or why you want

the three in question? Um, it impacts both a living space and a primary bedroom and a stairwell that's been designed into this house. We're trying to because we're trying to keep the original house with the original roof line. It was actually pretty challenging from an engineering perspective to build out the back without building taller than the existing house and keep the roof lines intact. And this was the best layout that we could come up with with the architect to make that all happen. Um, it would need, I don't want to sound dramatic and say a full redesign, but it would need quite a bit of redesigning to take three feet out of both of those rooms. They're sort of like long narrow rooms that we were trying to compact on the back of the house.

Very good. Other questions for the appellant? Seeing none. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. online or in the audience. Anyone not specifically affiliated with this appeal that [clears throat] has comments about this appeal? See anything? I don't see anybody. Uh we don't see anybody requesting. Uh I'm sorry. I should have said if you're on Zoom and you'd like to speak on behalf of this appeal, you can use the raised hand feature. If you raise your hand, we'll recognize you. We'll unmute you and you can present. So, if you are interested in speaking on behalf of this appeal, please raise your hand with the raised hand feature.

You also have somebody at the phone, so you probably need star 9. And if you're on the phone, you can use the star9 feature, which will also alert us that you'd like to speak on behalf of a particular appeal. And then again, we will unmute you. So, we'll give you another 5 seconds if anybody would like to alert us that they would like to speak on behalf of this appeal. If not, we will close public comment. Seeing none, we will close public comment. Um board members over here, please comment.

Um move to uh approve 655 Hawthorne. Um I believe that the unusual curved geometry of the lot is what's uh requiring the need for this variance. Um it will not have a uh any undo or any impact at all on the one adjacent lot and uh because of special conditions applicable to the property in question. Uh provisions of the zoning ordinance if strictly applied would unreasonably pre prevent the property owner um from using the property for the permitted purpose. Um this would result um the literal enforcement would result in an unnecessary hardship and um there is nothing that would be contrary to public health, safety or welfare and I believe that granting the variance would result in substantial justice to this property and the adjacent property owners. So for those reasons again I would move to approve and tie to the plans as submitted. We have a motion to approve. Do we have a second? I see almost the whole board. I think I saw Mr. Kona's hand first. Uh any discussion? Mr. Hurt.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Um I'll support the motion as well. Um if uh if this was a square lot using the 25% of the southernmost property line at 140.3, the setback would be 35.07. The appellants asking for 38.03t. And that would give him if he would be 1.96 almost 2 feet under what was required. So I think it's a very reasonable and very uh uh appropriate uh approach to this variance. uh the the new garage to the uh to the west. I I really like the way that it's set back and and preserving the uh original integrity of the house and it it sort of becomes a non-in I think it's done very well and uh that's why I'll support the motion.

Very good. Any other comments? Seeing none, can we please call the role for approve? Miller, yes. Carl Coner, yes. Eric, yes. Jason Campiser, yes. Kevin Hart, yes. Richard Lee, yes. Congratulations. Yep. Good luck. If you need to, I'll find something. We'll recycle them for you. Yep. Artwork for your new house. Exactly. Yeah.

Our next case is 26-01 for 236 Pleasant. Andrew, your time.

Yep. Andrew Ericson here to present appeal number 26-01. The owner of the property known as 236 Pleasant requests the following variance to construct an addition to the existing home. Chapter 126, article 4, section 4.74 C of the zoning ordinance requires that a minimum distance between principal residential buildings and adjacent lots to be 14 ft or 25% of the lot width, whichever is larger. The required is 14 ft. The proposed is 11.20 ft. Therefore, variance of 2.80 ft is being requested. on the north side. The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a rear yard edition on the non-existing home that was constructed in the 1940s. [cough and clears throat]

Did you say non-existing home? Mhm. Oh, non-conforming. I'm sorry. Very good. Thank you. Sure. Um, so you can see here they're doing an addition on the back of the home. They did hold it in to get to the 5.33 feet here. Can you see that? Kind of. Yeah.

So, they're requesting the variance by the distance in between there. So, can you explain the the 14T arc that's showing what the non-conforming area is? The hatched area. That's the non-conforming. Oh, just that small that small little area. Yes. Right. So, it's because the adjacent home has that offset. Well, the offset still applies even for the other side.

Correct. And how much what's the the depth off the house that that hatched area is? Is it just 5.33 ft from the addition? From the addition from the addition. Right. Very good. Questions for city. Miller. So they're just continuing that existing wall and they're holding it in a little bit to get to the 5.33. Okay. The existing is 4.8 see. Oh, so there's a slight jog. So there's a slight jog in the back. Correct. Okay.

At the addition. Other questions for city. Seeing none, please come on up. Please state your name and your address. Good evening. I'm Victoria Policio, 236 Pleasant. Um, I know that you said that you would only allow one speaker, but for all technical questions that I can't answer, I brought my builder. Okay. Who is also my father. All right. If you need him, we will spring him up here.

Okay. Great. Thank you. Um, first of all, thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate and all the help that Mike and Andrew have given us. We really appreciate it. So, we are respectfully requesting a dimensional variance. Um, as you can see, most of the part that we are trying to extend, we're just extending the kitchen. in my kitchen right now. I've lived here since 2017. I've lived in Birmingham almost my entire life. Like one person can be in the kitchen. So I'd like to expand it just to have a little bit more room. And we would we intend to follow the line and although a little bit inward in order to be able to comply, but the only part of the home that is non-conforming per the ordinances in Birmingham, I believe, is only 8.33 square feet. and that is at the north uh norththeast corner of the home. The rest of the home would be in compliance with this proposed addition. Um our home was constructed in 1938 before the current zoning requirement. So this is not a non-conformance that was self-created. It's not something I had anything to do with. Um, as far as lot coverage proposed, it would not exceed any of those ordinances. So, we're fine there. Um, the 8.6 square feet that is not that is the subject area. Um, it it does not affect anything. It doesn't change anything. What we realized as we were surveying this property is that every all the homes were kind of slanted. You don't see it when you're looking at it directly, but every tiny slant of degree eventually gets larger as distance prevails. Um, and interestingly enough, and I don't know if my neighbors to the north who had actually written a letter and saying that they do not object to this, um, it would be mirror image of their home. They also have a structure that is very similar to what we want to create and

it's like a little sun room that they have. For me, I just want it to be a bigger kitchen. Um, and I think because it follows the footprint of a home, it does not expand the width in any way. And I don't think that it would be cumbersome to them at all. As far as practical difficulty, again, there's no impact on the adjacent properties. We've had it surveyed. We don't believe that there's going to be any issues. If anything, it's taking the home out just far away, but not affecting anything from the front. Um, as far as drainage considerations are concerned, we've never had a drainage problem, at least on my side. I'm I'm not familiar with any. We've never had any issues in the almost eight years that I've lived there. Um, I do have another neighbor, and this is another reason why there's a hardship there, and there's this non-compliance part. I share a driveway with them, and I actually don't even realize whether or not they'd even be able to see the structure. I I can't really they would see like a part of the structure because there's a a fence a pretty high fence in between our properties. So, it wouldn't affect the other neighbor at all. Um, and most importantly, I have a copy here of page 62 of the Birmingham master plan. And it's it's page 62. I've highlighted it if you guys want. I'm sure you're all familiar with it because I know you're adopting it and um but we are in the spirit of the master plan where they're trying to um keep these historic homes, keep like that character of Birmingham. We have a lot of new builds and it's amazing. My dad's built a lot of houses, a lot of beautiful houses in this in this city, but there's something about that historical element that we're tearing down a lot of these old homes because they are not practical for the modern usage today of like families. Like maybe in 1938 a one-person kitchen was great, but for an Italian with a large family, it's just not. And I don't want to move. That's really just what it comes down to. But in the spirit of the master

plan, one of the things they are recommending and pushing is allowing these additions um for kitchen remodels because think about the things that add value to your homes. The things that we're building that are much bigger and brighter and shinier are larger kitchens, ton more bathrooms, things like that. So, the house is going to look exactly the same from the front. It looks like a cute little dollhouse. On the back, I just need more room to be able to cook and safely, too. Honestly, at some point, it gets it gets a little dicey when the dishwasher door is open. Um, so I think that we comply except for the 8.6 square feet. Everything else, we are in compliance. I do know that the laddies, uh, Dave Latty's a city attorney. I think he's sort of retired now, who wrote you guys the letter. He does not object to it. He's the closest neighbor to what the addition would be affecting him. He is worried about drainage, but we had engineering come out and look at everything. Plus, there's no historic problems with water. Um, and he was worried about the generator. I don't think that Dave knows that two years ago when I installed my generator, these very gentlemen here in this room were the ones that helped us with the permitting. It's completely up to code and we would absolutely abide by any ordinances and do anything that is necessary to comply with all

the code changed recently, but you're existing non-conforming because you put it in when it was allowed two years ago. Yeah. Yeah. Happened like six months ago or something. And so that is fine. We're absolutely we're not required to change it. Okay. But as long as it was in con form as at the time that we applied and it was placed and it was approved by the city, we would stand by that. If there's any other issues, then I'll just talk to him. We'll figure it out. Andrew is is if this variance was approved, would it impact a tear down and a rebuild of the adjacent home in terms of their sideyard setbacks or distance between? No. Very good. Thank you. Questions for the appellent? Thank you. Thank you so much.

In the audience, anyone or on the phone or by Zoom? Anyone that is not affiliated with Appeal? I see a raised hand like to speak something. Looks like Dave Lahi has a comment. Could you unmute him?

Good evening. Can Can you hear me?

Hi, David. Yes. Please uh state your name and your address and let us know your thoughts about this appeal. So, my name is David Latty. I am the um the adjacent property owner at 230 Pleasant Street. So, I'm just to the north. Uh and as Vicki stated, we we don't have any objection to the expansion of the kitchen. Um our comment and I I think I forwarded a letter um for the board members to review. My comments focus on the um current location of the accessory uh generator. And as as you just noted um you went through an ordinance change um for accessory generators. And um of particular interest to me is the change that you made that that has new installations needing to be installed in the rear open space. And as I noted in my correspondence, uh, as the applicants extend their sidewall, they're also extending into the rear open space. And what happens there is we is the and I don't think that the generators depicted on the the plan that you have but what happens is you you will potentially have um a very small distance between the accessory generator and the applicant's wall and not much of a distance between the gener generator and our our wall. And I cited um discussion from your planning commission in before their recommendation to the city commission to change the ordinance. And this was from January 22nd of 20 2025. And and in there they're describing um home generators placed on the side yard approximately 18 in from the structure and 5 ft for a window or door opening. And the planning commission notes that

in the environment of Birming uh with some of Birmingham with tight side yards and uh buildings within several feet of each other, it's not always um proving to be safe and and those comments I think are particularly relevant to our situation. And I recognize that when the generator was installed, it was it complied with the manufacturer's recommendations um and that this ordinance is relatively new and um and it applies primarily to new generators. But in our particular case, when you extend that sidewall out, you've essentially walled in that generator on both sides and there's not a lot of distance between the houses. And so we'd ask that the that uh the board consider um and I think the applicants may have mentioned in their submission that they were u willing to relocate the generator and we'd like you to take them up on that and um have them place it in the rear um the rear required yard. Um, and I assume, again, I made a comment on the drainage, but I assume that the uh, building department will make sure that the drainage meets um, current um, requirements. And those are my only comments. And if anybody has a question for me, I'm happy to uh, to answer.

So, David, I mean, I guess well, I'll put on the record that I did hear that the um, appellent did offer to move it. um because it is a existing non-conforming already approved generator. I can't tie her moving it to the decision we make on her appeal because you know that isn't I'm not in a position to create a criteria or or a something that contradicts the fact that it is existing non-conforming. We have had two or even three cases about generators come in front of the board in the last six months. All with this topic about the safety of the carbon monoxide and its proximity to a window or even just the natural ventilation of a home. So if the homeowner feels uncomfortable with the reason why the fire marshall suggested these generators be put in the um you know further from the home and and all the other new criteria. Um, I I'm sure that maybe she'll choose to look at that for her own safety, but it isn't something I can tie to whatever our approvals are simply because it is a conforming. Even if it's existing non-conforming, she does meet the ordinance because it was installed when when the ordinance allowed for it to be there.

Well, I understand and and appreciate any consideration that you that you can uh give us. Yeah. I mean, it sounds I I did see it. I believe it was I think it was in writing that either from you or I think she acknowledged she'd move it if she had to. I can't have her move it because it is does meet the current ordinance and that it was installed before the ordinance was changed, but u maybe you can enlighten her on the reason why it was, you know, suggested it shouldn't be there and maybe she'll move it for her own needs. But, um, you know, your comments are on the record. Understand. Thank you for your time, sir.

Thank you. Bye. Any other questions or comments from anyone in the audience? Seeing none, we'll close public comment. Board members,

I do have a question, please. So, I I didn't see where the current generator is, but from what I understand from the the uh existing non-conforming is it can stay where it is, but if they're moving closer to it, doesn't that change? Yeah, I would say that if the structure they're adding changes, that changes her approval, would it not? if it's impacting the distance the distance that it is from the home. If it's installed with the manufacturer specs when it was done and it's sits that way, it should still be able to sit there unless there is an issue down the road, then it's going to be forced to move,

right? But if the structure is moving closer to the generator [clears throat] where it is no longer part of the manufacturer specs, then she'd be forced to move it, right? If it didn't meet the manufacturer specs, it would be required to be moved. Very good. But I mean it is in front that part isn't in front of us. The city will look and make sure if they need a variance for that they would figure that out. We're only giving her potentially a variance for the 8.6. Yeah. My only comment was I didn't see on the plans where that was. Yeah. Because it isn't in [clears throat] front of us. I think just the neighbor was suggesting first she move it based on the new requirements. Okay. Thank you.

Was that a question or was that the start of a motion? Uh, I will make a motion to uh approve um 236 Pleasant case 2601. I believe the uh appellant is trying to continue the existing homes distance and not make the uh existing non-conforming any worse and is actually coming in further to accommodate the looks like a jog in the the line between the property and the house. So uh with that I think there is uh a reasonable reason to allow that to continue down the same line as the current existing structure. I don't think that would result in any necessary hardship as the neighbors have already attested uh or also that the uh appellant is not going to be able to continue the structure and follow the exact same um lines as the existing structure. the I don't think this is contrary to the spirit or purpose of the zoning ordinance uh in that we're trying to maintain and update the um structures in in compliance with what we have and not make the conforming the non-conforming situation any worse than it is and I don't think this will result in any injustice as it'll be improving the property and the neighborhood around it. So for that I wish to make a motion to approve. We may have a motion to approve. Do we have a second?

Was it tied to the plans? And tied. You want to tie it to the plans as presented? Oh, yes. I'm sorry. And tied to the plans. Thank you. Okay. A second also tied to the plans. And just like to mention that probably reconsidering the the position of that generator would be a a good idea in terms of uh uh the new construction going on. So, um I just wanted to um add that recommendation on to our approval, but uh I would move to uh second and approve the motion. We have a motion to approve in a second. Do we have any discussion? Seeing none, can we please call the role for appeal 2601 to approve? Carl Conor,

yes. John Miller, yes. Yes. Jason Gamer. Yes. Kevin Hart. Yes. Lily. Yep. Yes. Congratulations. Yep. Our third case this evening is case 2603 for 952 Brookwood. Looks like Andrew is up again.

Andrew Ericson here to present appeal number 2603. with the owner of the property known as 952 Brookwood requests the following variance to construct a covered patio on the rear of the house. Chapter 126 article 4 section 4 point 7 section 4.74 C of the zoning ordinance requires that minimum distance between principal residential buildings on adjacent lots to be 14 ft or 25% of the lot width whichever is larger. The required is 39.37 ft. The proposed is 27.4T. Therefore, a variance of 11.97 ft is requested on the east side. The applicant is seeking a variance to construct a pergola to an existing patio. The existing non-conforming home was built in 1950. A variance was granted in 2005. The minutes are attached. So, the home is already existing non-conforming. It's not the 27 ft, but it's I guess it is 27.

I think 22.2. Are you saying that dimension? Oh, okay. 22.2. Um, and then the existing patio is just uncovered. So, they're adding the pergola over it. They're adding a correct. And really, if you look at that dotted line that those two arrows meet, that's the maximum width that pergola could be without a variance. The dotted line. Yeah, the dotted line that 39.37.

Right. Very good. [snorts] Questions for the city. Seeing none, who's speaking on behalf of this appeal? Hi, come on up. Hi everyone. Uh Taylor Callero, 2943 Sleuth Road, Commerce Township. Um I'm the builder with Sky View Detroit. Um here on behalf of Liam Bishop, the homeowner. U just a few highlights I want to point out with this as it's been mentioned. Um the home is existing uh non-conforming. Um if we look at the uh top right uh circled blue number that we were mentioning. So the current home is 22.2 feet from the neighbor's home. Um the proposed pergola is 27.4. So we are going to be um farther away than the existing non-conform already is. Um the this is an open air pergola. So it's not an addition. There's no walls. Um it's not going to be enclosed. Um, so it is an open air system. Um, the reason we want it where it's located. Um, there's an existing outdoor kitchen on this patio. Um, it comes all the way there's an outdoor kitchen, a grill and a countertop that comes all the way to where our right edge of the pergola is. Um, so it would it it's not reasonable to to to move that at all. Um, the the purpose would be to cover that existing outdoor kitchen that's there. Now, um the east neighbor um is in complete agreement. They're on vacation right now. We we couldn't obtain a letter um but they have no objection um to this parents request. So when you state that the reason for going all the way to that 27 ft is because there is an outdoor kitchen and the goal is to keep that covered. Is

there any code about having um heating elements and cooking under a roof in terms of the number of BTUs and all that stuff? Depending on the manufacturer specs of the unit itself. um if it's a pergo and it's open it, you know, there's probably a clearance to combustibles they'd have to comply with on the actual appliance itself, right? So, is that something that's been explored before this variance? Do we know? I would say no. Uh, we probably haven't been provided with that, but like on an inspection, if it would if it appeared to be a conflict, we would I would question if we make a motion and we approve it, we could say contingent on confirming that the specs for the heating element meets code based on distance to combustible or something.

Basically, yeah. Any any variance approval would be subject to any of the building code uh being approved, right? And so shifting this whole covered space where you wouldn't need a variance and then moving a gas line and moving I mean I don't I haven't seen the structure if it's if you scroll down there's a rendering um the the homeowners have built a space where the covering is at now. Um and that's that's all essentially permanent. So there would we could not there would be no use to move the pergola over. It wouldn't cover a space they're hanging out in. Very good. have any questions for

and could I just one more comment please? Um the the pergolo is all extruded aluminum. I know there's a concern about the the gas um grill. Um it's it's non-combustible but and we would obviously work with the building department to make sure there's no issue with that. Is there fabric that that spans any of that? No. Very good. Questions for the appellent, please. What what is the uh finish height of the louvers uh to the patio surface? What's the what's the dimension from the finish to the bottom of the roof? So, the the underside is roughly 10 ft from the patio. Okay. Thank you.

Is there anything about the particular lot or the conditions on the property that would justify, you know, having this variance? In other words, it's why can't you build a covered structure or not have a covered structure based on what the lot allows for? Is there something unique about the property itself as opposed to anybody else in the city that'd like to build a pergola or some kind of covered structure where they have to abide by the ordinance?

So, um, our view would be that the ex the homes already non-conforming. Um, and we're not making that uh conforming any worse than it already is. Um, and so the idea is that the homeowners would like to be able to use the space back there. um the it's a very wide um home on a very large lot. Um and I I don't know if the neighboring home um what their it's 100 foot lot. So their distance um requirement is it much less than it's less. Okay. And fortunately that adjacent home is at an angle so it's giving you much more width than than you have at the at the front of the house.

Any other questions for the appellent? Seeing none. Thank you, sir. Thank you. In the audience or online, anyone not specifically affiliated with this appeal that would like to comment on this appeal? Seeing none, we'll close public comment. Board members, Mr. Miller, thank you, sir. Uh move to approve 952 uh Brookwood. Um, I believe that uh the original position of the house built in the 50s, it's what's really requiring the need for this variance. It seems to be a a pretty reasonable proposition here um to locate uh the structure in that in that position. And I also note that the adjacent homes uh to this one all have their outdoor areas on the east side. So, um the the location of this of this patio is is in conjunction with with the other homes, adjacent homes on the block, and it uh I don't believe would cause any um undue harm or concern by uh by either of the neighbors. Um so for those reasons um I believe that uh because of the special conditions of this property again uh given that the home was built in the 50s on this lot that uh the zoning ordinance if strictly applied would unreasonably prevent the property owner um from using this property in a reasonable fashion. Um it would create an unnecessary hardship. Um, I don't see anything contrary to the spirit or purpose of the ordinance and I believe it would do substantial justice to this house and and to the adjacent neighborhood. Uh, so for those reasons, I would move to approve and tie to the plans as submitted.

We have a motion to approve. Second. We have a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, we have a motion to approve 2603 for Brookwood. Can we please call the roll? John Miller, yes. Jason Caner, yes. Kevin Hart, yes. Richard Lily, yes. Carl Cloner, yes. Erica, yes. Congratulations. You have your variance. Our next case is 2604 for 350 Shirley. Thank you.

And Mike is presenting. And Mike Morad, assistant building official again to uh present appeal 26-04. The owner of the property known as 350 Shirley requests the following variance to construct an addition to the second story of an existing home. Chapter 126, article 4, section 4.74 C of the Zoring ordinance requires that a minimum distance between principal residential buildings on adjacent lots to be 14.00 ft or 25% of the lot, whichever is larger. The required is 34.87 87 ft. The proposed is 26.38 ft. Therefore, a variance of 8.49 ft is requested on the north side. The applicant is seeking a variance to add a front to back gable design roof. The existing non-conforming home was constructed in 1971. So, here's the home sitting on the lot here. They are doing some other work on the property, addition of a garage and the back here, but neither of these are impacted. they f they are in compliance with the ordinance. What they're doing is on this side of the home they want to change the roof design on the second story and this portion of the in the ark here is in non-compliance due to the distance between the structures. So the area here this where you see this arc everything in that shaded area is uh non-compliance. So they want to reconstruct the roof there. They're not changing the outside walls of the house or making the home any bigger in that location, but they are making the roof structure larger.

So, if you look at some of the like that right here, if you look at the front elevation, there's the presently there's a hip roof on the house and they're making a gable on the side. So, this portion here and if you look at the side, that's what it's going to look like on the side. And that's the other view from the rear of what you'll see. So basically the current distance is equal to the proposed distance. The only difference is they're rebuilding it. So they need a variance to to keep what they already have. That's correct.

Questions for Mike. Seeing none, please come on up. Good evening. Paul San Martino. Martini San Martino Design Group, 920 East Long Lake Road in Troy. Um, yeah. So, we're designing the house for the Shaines and this portion of the home as was kind of kind of laid out. We're not changing anything on the footprint, uh, the first floor, the second floor in that area. We are going from a low pitched hip roof that was done in the 70s and we're going to the front to back gable just kind of tying in with the new type of aesthetic we're trying to achieve with the house. So, um so really it's just the the roof portion in that area that we're trying to edit to try to just keep it conforming with what this current style wants to look like.

So all the overhangs and everything won't be at a greater No, they're going to be less actually. The overhang is quite large. We're removing the whole hip roof. It's got like a 30-in overhang. We're going to be bringing it in less. So, so technically you're going to be lesser non-conformity with your correct. It's just the fact that the house is there. I can't, you know, and we're purposefully not changing that part of the house for this reason. The plans reflect that that the it's less sir. That's correct. Very good. Any questions for Mr. Snorino? Seeing none, thanks for the quick testimony. Yeah, you got it.

In the audience or online, anybody who has any comment that isn't affiliated with this appeal that would like to comment on this appeal. I assume you're with that group as part of it. Yeah, you can comment if you're part of the group. It isn't necessary hopefully. Um, anybody in the audience that isn't affiliated with appeal that would like to comment on this appeal? See anybody on Zoom? Um, seeing none, we'll close public comment. Board members, any Mr. Canister? Sir,

uh, in regard to appeal 2604 for the property at 350 Shirley, I would move to approve the request, uh, requested variance. Um, this seems pretty straightforward. We have a pre-existing non-conforming use that is actually being lessened by this variance. um as we heard from the city and the applicant they are redesigning the roof um changing the configuration they are not changing the dimensions so we do I do believe there are special cons conditions applicable to the property in question and uh the provision of the zoning ordinance if strictly applied would unreasonably prevent the property owner from using the property for permitted purpose uh that literal enforcement would result in unnecessary hardship uh and therefore the granting of variance uh will not be contrary to the spirit and purpose of the zoning ordinance nor contrary to the public health, safety and welfare and that the granting of the variance will result in substantial justice to the property owners, the owners of the property in the area and the general public. So I will tie it to the plans and request uh and move to approve.

Very good. We have a motion to approve. Do we have a second? Seeing none from Mr. Kona. Any comments about this motion? Seeing none, can we please call the role to approve? Jason Caviser, yes. Carl Cordon, yes. John Miller, yes. Bro, yes. Kevin Hart, yes. Richard, yes. Congratulations. Thank you. Yep.

Our last and final appeal is 2605 for 550 South Glennhurst. Who's up? This is Andrew Ericson here to present appeal number 26-05. The owner of the property known as 550 South Glennhurst requests the following variance to construct an addition to the right side of the existing home. Chapter 126 article 2 section 2.06.2 Two, the zoning ordinance requires that a minimum total combined sideyard setback be 14t or 25% of the lot width, whichever is larger. The required is 17.89 ft. The proposed is 14.51 ft. Therefore, a variance of 3.38 ft is being requested. The applicant is seeking a variance to construct an addition to the right side of the existing nonconforming column that was constructed in 1948. So basically this whole the gray area here it's all it's going to be in a garage an an addition on the side of the house. The area in yellow is showing the nonconforming portion.

So this entire yellow area is adding additional nonconformity to the existing nonconformity or is this like this? Well, go ahead. The ex existing is non-conforming. They're tearing it down and they're actually lessing it. to they're bringing it in to get the five yard sideyard set back to So it's not that they're adding this yellow to the side of the home. No, they're removing and then adding back on and the final product is less of a non-conformity than its current position. Correct. Very good. That includes the foundation and everything. All right, questions for the city. Mr. Hurt.

Yes, Mr. Thank you. Um the um property to the um property to the north uh number uh address is 540. Mhm.

Uh Mr. Ericson, the it's a trapezoidal shape. The front the frontage on on uh Glenhurst is uh wider than the backyard frontage. If the property and it it is conforming the property is parallel to the to the uh to the north property line. If that property were squared up, the house would likely be squared up along with that setback. I think it's at 5 ft to the north side. So the the the kind of this property by itself has its own constrictions, but the constricting geometry of the property to the north has an effect on this property. Well, it's just we're the it's the total setbacks that we're worried about. We're not worried about the distance in between that complies.

Okay. So, would it but but that again that if that if that house were tipped to go parallel with the street instead of being on this angle, it would likely be three or four feet farther away from correct this property. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Other questions for the city? the um the the new garage is going to be closer to the front of the house than the existing garages. I I I I couldn't find the uh the code for the set back from the front of the build. Is that five or 10 feet? Five feet.

Five feet. Okay. So, they they meet that. Yeah. Five feet. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Yeah. Oh, please. So, they're tearing down a garage. They're building a new garage. They're they're bringing it in. Um, what is the dimensions of the current propos or the new proposed garage? Thought I saw it somewhere, but um like 10 ft wide. Is it just a single car garage? Yeah, that's what I thought. Okay. So, they're not even proposing a two-car garage here? No. So, if we don't grant them variances, it they wouldn't have a garage. Is that long and short of it? Yes. Okay.

Okay. Any other questions? Well, just a comment. The [clears throat] singlecar garage, if I could, Mr. Chairman, single car garage on this dimension is u is is pretty austere. It's at 10 ft inside to inside by 22 feet long. So on any dimension for a a typical garage would be 24 ft inside would be standard two car or no one car would have it. So it's it's a very austere one cars. I'm thinking how I see it would unless there's some I'm missing.

Very good. Any other comments or questions? Seeing none, who's speaking on behalf of this appeal? Good evening everyone. Thank you very much for your time. Uh my name is Wyatt Gilbert and I'm here on behalf of both CregerClad Architects in Royal Oak and also Laura and Mark over there. Uh so we're seeking just one variance for the total of the sideyard setbacks. Say the address. I don't Sorry. 550 South Glenhurst. No, I don't mean of the property of your business. 400 East Lincoln Road. Okay, maybe you can say it. Thanks. Sorry about that.

That's all right. Um and so we're just requesting uh one variance for the uh total sideyard setback which is under an existing non-conforming condition and we'll actually you'll find that we're actually making it better. Um so on this first slide uh this is kind of just a quick highle overview of the zoning analysis. Uh we are good on lot coverage and open space. The setbacks the front yard setback we're under on the south sideyard setback. We're not doing any scope of work there. And so that that one's staying at 9 ft. Uh the rear yard, we are lessening a bit, but we're still well within compliance on that side. And the main area of focus is going to be on that north sideyard setback. And uh while we got the survey back from this one, we actually came to understand that there was three existing non-conforming conditions as a part of this property. Uh all of these are underlined under the setbacks. So this would be the uh the three conditions are number one the minimum sideyard setback of 5 ft. Uh the existing survey showed that it was 4.92 ft encroaching. So uh that was number one. Number two was the minimum building separation between uh which has to be 25% of the lot width. Uh as previously stated that's 17.89. uh and we're proposing to come under both of those by pulling the existing structure structure back so that we comply with both of those. The one that we weren't able to work around was what we're requesting tonight which is the total of this two sideyards. Um it's required to also be 25% of the existing lot width which would be 17.89. We're proposing 14.51 so a 3.38 variance would be required. Uh, and just to note that the 14.51 is pulling it further back. So, we are getting closer to compliant and we're leaving everything more compliant than

when we found it essentially. You want to go on to the next slide? [cough and clears throat]

Uh, just to quickly run through some of the practical difficulties that we encountered for this one. Uh, like I said previously, we had the three existing non-conforming conditions, but in addition to those, this is actually built a skew on the lot line. Uh, so it's pretty minimal and wouldn't really show up in a site plan like this, but uh, essentially if we were to follow the existing line and climb closer towards the front yard setback, we'd be getting further away from the sideyard. Uh, and if we were to follow the existing line and go towards the rear yard, we would be encroaching further. So that's why, as you'll see, as on this zoomed in site plan, when we extended the existing floodprint towards the front yard, we met that line. But once we extended it towards the rear yard in order to be in compliance with the sideyard setback, we did step it back so that uh the entirety of the of the structure and also that uh small appendage is a chimney. Uh both of those would be in compliance with uh all of the setbacks in the existing conditions. Can go on to the next one. Uh this is just also some a few more practical difficulties that the family is currently facing. Uh so right now the [clears throat] effective mud room for the house is a stair landing in between the driveway and the kitchen. Uh so you'll see on our proposed plans that we're proposing a uh mud room in order to keep up with more modern standards and also to help this unsafe and hazardous situation going on at the top of their stairs. Um also on the first floor is pretty limited closet space. So the whole uh a large driving factor in this was to get more closet space onto the first floor in order to keep up with modern amenities and modern houses. And then uh finally they found that they were outgrowing a lot of their common spaces. So part of it you'll see that uh in addition to the onecar garage that we're proposing and the adjacent mudroom uh were also proposing to go out towards

the backyard and include a living room. uh this would be larger than their current one and meet their current needs and then they would be able to use their existing living room as a much larger dining room and uh in order to meet the needs of their growing family. Very good. Any questions for the appellant? [snorts] Seeing none, I think you said everything you needed. You're good. Cool. Thanks. uh in the audience or online. Anybody that has comments about this appeal that is not affiliated with this appeal. I will close public comment for members.

All right, Mr. Chairman. Uh yes, I'd like to uh make a motion to approve uh case number 26-05 of 550 South Glennhurst. I think the u the appellent has done a very good job of describing the uh the challenges of the house. I think that the u the plan that is presented this evening is uh is uh is very carefully done to uh and and um it's very it's very carefully done and trying to uh remediate some of the encroachments that are existing on the existing nonconforming house. I think that the he's demonstrated that the practical difficulties of the house and uh the austere nature of the solution also includes a onecar garage which I haven't seen for quite a while. Um I think um the impact on the neighbor is uh on the neighboring properties is minimal and the onecar garage um configuration is also a very appealing and and uh very u very well presented I think. um special conditions have been also been outlined by the uh the appellant and uh again there's no uh um there is no adverse effect on neighboring properties. So I think we are uh resulting in substantial justice for both the neighboring properties and for the homeowner and I would tie the motion to the uh drawings and information presented.

We have a motion to approve. Do we have a second? Seeing a second from Mr. Kona. Um, any discussion about this motion? I just had a a comment that I believe that this is a really significant uh mitigation of the existing uh nonconformity um and uh you know for for that reason and others I would I would support this motion. Very good. We have a motion to approve. Can we please call the role? Kevin Hart. Yes. Carl Con. Yes. John Miller, yes. Erica, yes. Jason Casser,

yes. Yes. Congratulations. You have your variance. Thank you, Mr. Zuki. Do we have any other things for the board? We do not. And out in the audience, I see a single person who joined us. Do you have a particular anything you'd like to discuss with our board that doesn't cover what we talked about today? I was going to weigh in on the situation. Oh, I'm sorry.

And so I was fine with building a roof on top of the existing thing. I have a question about Why should you come up to the microphone? Do you want to come up to the microphone and then we can hear you on the record and Sure. I've been sick. Oh, it's all right. You can breathe on Mr. Kona. It's good that I'm the last speaker. Um, I'm really didn't intend to do this, but I have a question about asbuilt because I have a Can you please say your name for the record? I'm sorry. Civil Kickham um 312 Lynen Road for me.

Thank you. Um I have uh a survey that was done. I guess it's called a site plan and drainage plan, but then it becomes an asbuilt. And I really don't understand but um I have tried to communicate with the city for two years even while this was under construction believing that it encroached on the side setback. It is an accessory building in the back of the property. This has nothing to do with Shirley, right? This is It has nothing to do with

You're just saying in general you have a question. I have a question about asbuilt because so well I bet these gentlemen could help you out. Let me just inter Yeah. So we're a board of zoning and zoning appeals. So you deal with this. Well, I mean I I know what an asbuilt is, but it is in our position to talk about it. And if you have questions about drainage or what an asbuilt is, which is really just how was it built? As built shows the final product, approved as built. It's got a date on it. Yeah. But it's something you would talk to the city about. And if you haven't been getting any clarity through an email, I haven't been getting clarity about this at all. Well, this is the head of the the building official.

He's one of my favorite people. I really like Jeff. But um we got wanted to go first to um unconforming use. Is that what it was? Non-conforming. It's a new garage and there's there's a discrepancy from an existing survey on Cibbble's property invest as typically is done subsequent to the construction.

Well, it's it's titled even it's they didn't even change the title of it. It says site plan and drainage plan, right? But you understand that it has the signatures on it. Um, you're just in front you're in front of the wrong board. It isn't. Am I What board do I go to?

You wouldn't because it's not a board issue. You're complaining about maybe proximity or something that's built next to you and you think that there's misinformation and you either go to the city first or if you have a a complaint with your uh your neighbor about it something positioned, you have to reach out to an attorney, have a have a survey done and then compare it. matter and I see how carefully you review everything and I was very impressed but I just wonder how these other things happen and go unnoticed by this board. Well, we only the only thing that comes in front of us is when there is an ordinance or a rule in the city on how something should be done and someone believes that they should be able to do something else because of a specific factor of their property. They can come in and request a variance permission to build it differently that has nothing to do with your asbuilt the drainage or your neighbors property. there. They don't ask for permission and get an constructive asbuilt variance.

I mean, there are times where someone comes in front of us because the the property was built, it's discovered after it was built that it needs a variance because it was positioned incorrectly and then they can come in front of us and say, "We'd like a variance for what we built." And then the answer can be we give it to you or we don't and you have to tear it down. But that has nothing to do with what you're asking me now. And that becomes a civil matter for me to initiate. No. If the city determines something was built incorrectly and requires a variance because it's not built within the ordinance, they would force that person to come in.

We'll talk about this later. But um I it's just troubles me because we rely for my survey on the two pins that they sent set in both corners. The only deviation in that line that would allow them to be 3 feet from the property line as required is in the first 20 ft of the garage. Yeah, I'm not I mean I hear what you're saying. No, it's just where the garage is where there's a discrepancy,

right? even though we relied on the irons that they had set. And I just don't understand when I talked about this while the garage was being built that I thought it was being built crooked. I mean, I hear you're talking to us and you're on the record, but you really should be talking to the city because it's nothing we can talk to the city. Good luck. And I promised myself I wouldn't talk to the city anymore. Listen, if you're right, you need clarity. If you're not right, they need to help you understand it so that you can feel comfortable that what was done was proper. I hear you.

Thank you so much for that. And it was very interesting watching this. It was and I was glad I noticed that 350 um surely didn't need any help from me. Thank you very much for spending the time with us. Bye. Bye. Seeing nobody else in the audience, um we will have a motion to adjourn. So move. Any second. All favor. All oppose. We are return.