Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I'd like to call the regularly scheduled meeting of the board of zoning appeals to order. Uh board members are appointed by the city commission to staggered three-year terms. We do not receive any compensation for our service. Uh the board of zoning appeals hears three different types of appeals. Uh dimensional requests, use requests, and uh appeals from interpretation of a city official. Before us tonight, we have two dimensional variances. Uh that requires among other things a showing of a hardship and a practical difficulty. Um, applicants must have four affirmative votes in order to um receive their variance in all cases. This is not a popularity contest. Um, and I will mention tonight that we only have five board members. Um, so I when when I call the role, uh, we'll give you an opportunity to come back next month if you'd like. Again, out of five, you have to have four affirmative votes. Um, with that, let's call the role of the board members. Eric Mortmouth,

Jason Camaser here. Kevin Hart here. Carl Cona here. Richard Lily. John Miller here. Ron Ready here. Donald Rogers, Susan Shacket. Great. Thank you. I'll now call the role of the applicants. And again, you can either tell me now or when your specific appeal is called uh whether or not you want to proceed or again, you have the opportunity because we only have five members here to adjourn to next month's meeting. Uh is anybody here for 1420 West Lincoln appeal number 2606? Yes.

And would you like to you'll go forward tonight? Okay. And is anybody here for 551 South Bates appeal 2607? Yes. Okay. And and do you want to proceed, please? Okay. And again, you can change your mind before your appeals hearing is heard, but once we start, we're going to go to a vote at that point. Um, Mr. Zilki, do we have any correspondence announcements that we need to discuss at this point? There should be one letter on your desk. Great. And that is for Lincoln. Did the applicants get a copy of that? Yes.

Okay, great. Thank you. All right. Uh moving to approval of the minutes. Board members, you have the January me minutes in front of you. Um corrections, comments, questions, motions, Mr. Miller. To approve. Okay. Do we have a second? Second. We have a motion and a second by Mr. Kona. Uh all in favor? I. Any opposed? All right. The A's have it. All right. We'll move to our uh first appeal of the evening. 1420 West Lincoln appeal 2606. Who will present for the city? I will.

Andrew Ericson here to present appeal number 26-06. The owner of the property known as 1420 West Lincoln requires the following variance to construct a new home. Chapter 126, article 2, section 2.06.2 2 of the zoning ordinance requires that a minimum total combined sideyard setback to be 14 ft or 25% of the lot width, whichever is larger. The required is 68.25 ft. The proposed is 62.83 ft. Therefore, variance of 5.42 ft is being requested. Uh the applicant is looking to construct a new home with an attached garage on a corner lot. So [clears throat] the 273 lot width is measured here here at the front setback. And then on the west side we have a set back of 5.73 ft. And then on the east side we have the setback of 57.10T. 10 ft. That gives us the total of 62.83 and then the variance of 5.42 ft is what's being requested.

Thank you. Board members, any questions? Yes. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Um Andrew, on um the the the we've we've looked at this property before. Uh there was a uh um a variance requested for a house that was a 1920s home that was preceded this. It's been uh demolished. Uh do you remember what the uh request was for variance on on that one or would we have is that something that we would have in uh I didn't

I think it was a significant uh we we didn't uh approve that. I don't know if that that matters, but it originally it was a significantly larger request than this one today. But I I don't I just was curious as to what um you know that that requirement was. It was probably this time last year. Maybe uh uh the uh Shirley, those are different. I think you were speaking to the house on Shirley that you're talking about. It's on this the corner of the street next to it. Okay. That one had a variance request recently. Okay, good. All right. I wasn't sure if this was the same, but thank you. That that's good. Thank you.

Yes, Mod. So, the the applicant is purchasing both lots and demolishing both houses, but the variance is only based on the one lot. Correct. It's my understanding that the other lot is just going to remain vacant. Mhm. But the variance in question is on that property line, correct? Correct. Okay. Thank you. Yes.

Yeah. Could you just review one more time the the the the two sideyards that that are in Well, it would be only really So the the east is 5.73 ft and that's in compliance. That's the west with the adjacent house. Absolutely. Okay. And then the other the east is 5.10 feet set back which is adjacent to the street.

Correct. So if this variance was granted, it wouldn't have a negative impact on any other any of the two adjacent houses should they choose to rebuild. Correct. Okay. Thank you.

And Mr. We we we look at this regardless of what's happening on the other lot and until those lots are combined and and in this case they're there's either can't be combined or they're not combined. They're not going to be combined. I don't that would be a it would have to go through the planning department. Okay.

To give you a little bit of history on that with the two lots. They did purchase the other house next door due to the distance that would be required from structure to structure. With that, they wanted a larger lot. So they removed that house on that vacant lot that's to the west which eliminated that distance between requirement. That lot to the west is actually narrower. So with when that gets constructed it wouldn't have a negative impact if they ever decide to choose to sell that lot but their their intent is not to. They wanted a bigger lot. And I know with the contours of the lot itself there were some other restrictions to it. So Okay. Yeah. I mean 10 20 years from now they could always choose to sell that lot and you know we we can't look at it from that

it couldn't be combined because of the requirements of the the width the depth the ratio in the area. So okay yes Mr. Ry I was just curious was the prior home before it was demoed was that in compliance? I I really don't know if it was or it wasn't. Okay. It was. Any other questions for the city? All right. Thank you. Who from the uh applicant is going to speak? Yes, sir. Rander

Rick Ratner 380 North whatever uh Birmingham. [clears throat] The answer to that question is that house actually needed a greater variance. Our architect has it has a survey of that house and it is actually it was actually closer to the sideyard than ours. That's what I I don't live far from there. That's what I recall. That's why I asked. Thank you. Um, thank you. Um, this house I think. Well, this house, do you have that? It's right here. Thanks. Does he name on the side? You see it? Name?

Yes. Can you announce his name? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Doesn't make it that far. It does. You can see it. Can you? It's up there. That's in the ceiling. It's on the ceiling right now. There it is. Oh, I see it. Okay. Oh my goodness. This lot. Could you go down farther, Andrew?

So, we see the whole lot. If you can do it there. I think this is a poster child for unusual and unusual lot and one that presents unique difficulties for construction. What is not is on there but is not given enough emphasis is the fact that running right through the middle of this property are tremendous grades. it drops down to Lincoln and the building area is interrupted dramatically by not only the shape of the lot but also the fact that there's a there's a grade that requires retaining walls all the way through the center. So that cuts it down more. Now the obvious question is one that was asked I think and that is why can't you make it fit? Well after two years of design on this lot they designed a house that is 20% lot coverage and all the other houses in that zoning district are allowed 30%. The ordinance says that if the [snorts] hardship prevents the applicant from doing work and for a permitted use, which is to build a house like all of the other homeowners in the R1A districts, if you can't do that, you've got a problem. And if you got a problem that was caused by something you didn't control, which is the shape of the lot, then you really

should be able to ask for and receive a relief of a variance. It's only fair and it doesn't um affect adversely any of the neighbors or the health, safety, and welfare of our community. What it does is allow the client, the applicant, to go in there, build a house that fits the lot except for a smaller um uh variance. and in fact having shown tremendous ability to try and make it uh look properly proper in the area by building the other lot by take buying the other lot and demolishing the the house. We have a big area with a house that's smaller than really should be able to fit on that corner lot. But when you get down to it, it's the shape of the lot, the size of the lot, the topography of the lot, everything natural about the lot. I had a PowerPoint. Andrew said, I really I don't need to show the PowerPoint, so I didn't. But

two questions. Uh, no, we we'll we'll let the public speak after the applicant presents. I would ask that this board consider the issues, the hard work that went into it. Uh we had consideration from the staff, which we greatly appreciate, but we would ask that we are granted this 5.42 foot variance in order to put the house where we think it can fit. after all of the design work that we've done and I'm here to answer questions.

Thank you. Uh board members, any questions for the applicant? Okay, seeing none, thank you. Thank you. Uh we'll we'll now open public comment. If anybody from the public not affiliated with the ownership of this uh property or this project would like to come up and address this appeal, uh this is the time. Thanks. Okay, seeing no. Oh, sure. If you have if you have something you'd like to say, please come up, tell us your name, um, and your address and all your comments will be directed through me and we'll address them. Okay. Um, Kevin, um, I live at 1370 West Lincoln. Okay. Kevin did my house. And your name, please? Sarah Dodge.

Okay. So, for those of you who don't know my address, I live at the corner of Arlington and Lincoln, just opposite where the house will be built. Um, so two questions. You mentioned that the Well, you you get to address questions to me and then Okay, so he mentioned just real just real quickly. Yeah, this the public comment is to tell us why you either um favor it or opposed to it. I'm opposed to it. Okay. So, you could tell us why you're opposed to it. If you have questions, the time would be to talk to the applicant or the city afterwards. you could pose those questions, but this is an interactive conversation at this point.

Okay. So, I'm opposed because a I I can't see why they can't fit it on the lot, even though I heard him just make those comments. Two, I'm curious how he's going to address the second lot in in two years when the people buy the house because I'm assuming this is a speck house. It's a Okay. So, are they going to sell the lot and then is the next person who buys the adjacent lot going to then come for a variance as well because or is it set in stone that they cannot sell this second lot and have it built on? So, so that would be my question. Okay. So, and I I'll address that I'll address that real quick.

We're only here to hear a variance as it relates to the lot up on the screen. We can take into account that second lot. We can, you know, factor in what, you know, what somebody might do in 5, 10, 15 years, but we look at the variance to determine whether or not this lot in it in its, you know, just this lot in this configuration, whether or not they've proven their factors that they're required to prove uh for us to grant their variance. And and one of those could be how is it going to impact somebody later on? Um because we talk about the public health, safety, and welfare and and the impact on on the adjoining neighbors. So that could be a factor we we consider. Um Okay. So you certainly can address that.

That's my only thing I all I can basically say is no. I don't want him to get the variance is what you're saying. And why you could certain Yeah, you could tell us any reasons you want as to why they they you don't think they should have a variance.

Well, you're probably going to think it's ridiculous, but I think the house is just outrageously huge. Doesn't need to go. And I'm sure there are plenty of lots in other areas of Birmingham or Bloomfield that are more appropriate for this house. One, and two, I'm already going through this with the house behind me that's 14,000 square feet that I've had to hire a civil engineer to come through and review all the drawings to make sure that my landscaping isn't ruined because of what they're building. So, I guess I I've said my piece. I don't want him to get the variance. Thank you. So, and then I'll talk to him about the project itself. Okay. Okay. Thank you for your comments.

Uh would anybody else from the public like to address this appeal? Sure. You can come up to the mic, give us your name and your address, and tell us why you're in favor of it or why you're opposed to it. My name is Richard Sher. I live directly across the street from this property. I've lived here since 1956. Please give us your address first. 1431 West Lincoln. Thank you.

48009. You know, a lot of the people when I walk around over decades are bemmoning what's happening in this town. I have to look at that monstrosity at the corner, which no one likes. It's a speck home. It's just big. It's just a monument to wretched excess. They took a perfectly nice home like with this other property. specimen plants, 5-ft beach tree, 100 plus foot evergreen, another specimen. Nobody here is going to see anything like that in our lifetimes. And it's denuted. It's just dirt. It's a mess. It's It's sorrowful. No, whatever to taste. Just bigger, bigger money. Bigger bigger. A monument to what? And when you when you're a neighbor and you've got to look at this stuff, it's awful. The other the other one that went up, how did that happen? Oh, it was money again, was the levy thing on Shirley, the poured concrete beast. Please, please. This is not Birmingham. This is a trend somewhere. It's got to stop. There's an article in today's paper. Did anybody see that? hear about it.

Thank you for your comments. Yeah. Uh, anybody else from the public wish to speak on this appeal? And just confirm that we don't have anybody online.

I don't see any I don't see any uhbody from the public online. So, we will close public comment. Uh board members, at this point uh we'll entertain a motion to either approve or deny the variance and then we can discuss uh as necessary. Uh Mr. Kona,

uh I will uh make a motion uh to approve uh 1420 West Lincoln appeal number 2606. Um this lot obviously has a lot of disadvantages as the front being three time almost three times the size of the back lot. Uh obviously the disproportionate width in the front gives it a lot of restraints on the building of the actual property. And from looking at this, just 20 ft off the one tip would give them enough to not need the variance, which that tip at the bottom by Lincoln and um Arlington is on a, you know, steep decline. So, it's not even buildable at this point. So, in that regards, I would move to approve this uh based on those special conditions of this property. I think by not approving it, it would be an unnecessary hardship on the owner of the property not to be able to improve the property as they would like to request. uh the granting of this variance I don't believe is in contrary to the spirit of the purpose of the zoning of the ordinance nor contrary to public health safety and welfare and I believe this will be result in substantial justice to the property owner and the owners in the area and general public by allowing the property to be approved and I would tie this to the plans motion to approve. Do we have a second Mr. Miller? We have

I would second. I'd like to add that the ask of a uh uh 5 plus foot uh variance is relatively minuscule in in terms of the required uh 68 foot sideyard setback. I don't think we've ever dealt with a sideyard setback that large and it's just due to the unusual nature of this of this lot. So for for that reason, I would uh uh support the motion. Mr. Ry,

I'm also going to support the motion. While I certainly heard the neighbors loud and clear, this is a large lot and a large home is going to be built on this lot. And the fact of the matter is, as Mr. Miller has pointed out, the 5- foot variance is relatively small in the scheme of life for this. So for those reasons, I'm going to go ahead and support the motion. I'm going to also support the motion. Um, for the benefit of of the public comments, um, I just want to reiterate that the board of zoning appeals when it determines whether or not to grant or to deny a variance has a very specific set of factors we have to review. Um, we look at the special conditions that are applicable to the property. We determine whether or not literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance will result result in a necessary hardship. We look at whether the granting of the variance will be or will not be contrary to the spirit and purpose of the zoning ordinance. Uh whether it be contrary to the public health, safety and welfare, and whether it will be uh whether it will result in substantial justice. Um as I mentioned at the outset, this isn't a popularity contest. We don't look at aesthetics. We've denied beautiful homes and we've um we've granted variance for homes that you know in my subjective opinion were hideous. Um but that's not what we look at. We don't look at the aesthetics. We don't look at the square footage. Um we look at those specific factors. This lot is clearly uh in a regular shape. Um the square footage could be if this was a square lot, the square footage could be substantially larger on this lot. Um and so um it's whether we grant the variance or not, a house is going to go here at some point. And as as my fellow board members said, the request is is very minimal. Uh and I don't think it will impact the property or any of the adjacent homeowners,

including somebody who may buy that vacant lot in the future. and uh potentially build something for. So for that reason, I will support um Mr. Hart, you have any comments? You're the only I I u you know, again, I u I'm going to be supporting the motion as well. Um the topography on this site is very complex. there's u uh the the trapezoidal shape is is difficult to even calculate the uh the setbacks and it's up to uh uh so many uh issues here that are they're fighting against and uh I think what this will do is it will allow a lot of the property to be uh to be landscaped properly and uh uh I think that this will this is an appropriate use of this property and I I don't see any harm in adjacent uh structures So, uh, but I will be supporting the motion as well.

All right. Thank you for everybody's comments. With that, please call the role of the board members. Carl Kono, yes. Ron Miller, yes. Ron Ready? Yes. Jason Caner, yes. Kevin Hart, yes. Thank you. You have your variance. Thank you for your good night. Appreciate it. With that, we'll turn to our next appeal. Uh 551 South Bates, appeal 2607. Uh I believe Mr. Morad, that's you.

Yes, sir. Mike Morad here to um present appeal number 26-07. The owner of the property known as 551 South Bates requests the following variance to construct a front covered porch and steps. Chapter 126, article 4.30. 30 C1 of the zoning ordinance permits a covered or uncovered porch including the steps may project into a front open space for maximum distance of 10 ft. The proposed is 15.00 ft. Therefore, a variance of 5.0 ft is being requested. The applicant is seeking a variance to rebuild the existing non-conforming covered front porch and steps. A variance was granted in 2021. Okay. as we see our house here. I'm going to blow this up a little bit here if I can. Um, one second. Okay, so this line here, if you can see my mouse, represents the the required front setback and the front porch and steps may project 10 ft into that. The [snorts] original porch projects exactly 10 feet into that and then the steps project the extra five or real close to that. They're just planning on rebuilding what's there. I visited this um for an inspection and the old the original plan was just to recover this porch and uh save it. But the structure was just too bad and they had to remove it because of that. So therefore, we stopped the construction and they were required to get a variance due to the fact that they were demolishing a non-conforming structure. So what they're asking for is to put the porch back in the same exact spot and just they're going to pour new concrete steps here and it's going to come slightly forward of where it was. Um you want to do concrete steps which in order not to

put a nosing on there with the concrete would have to be at least 11 in. So I think they're putting 12 in steps on here for the runs. So that's uh where they're at with this, but they are putting back exactly the porch where it was on the existing foundation. And what's difference between this proposal and the one we approve previously? There were some other variances involved with that other uh two with a a patio and so forth, but basically it was very similar as far as the front porch was concerned. Okay. It was larger. It's actually larger.

Do the Pelican speak to that exactly? But there was three variances there and they were also for a rear porch, you know, in lap coverage. Yeah. And the porch was going to extend off to the right of the house, so it would have gone across and then the back patio was part of it. Gotcha. Okay. Uh board members, any other questions for Mr. Mor? Yes. So, you mentioned something that they're allowed to come 10 feet off the the front, which is where you said exactly that where the porch was, but you said you stopped construction because it was going to be a nonconformity. Doesn't that conform by the porch and steps can only be 10 ft. Oh, okay. So, it was the steps that was causing

correct. The porch is exactly 10 ft, but the steps are what in the existing are non-conforming now. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for the city? Okay, thank you. Who from the applicant is going to speak on this one? And we'd ask just one person speak and on behalf of the applicant. No problem.

Good evening. Jeff Rizzo with Ben and Associates, 14933 Commercial Drive, Shelby Township. Thank you.

48315. Uh so yeah, we're here tonight to uh what I feel is to request a uh very basic variance. Um as uh Mr. Morad pointed out, you know, you're allowed the encroachment [snorts] in the front yard and um you know, with with the five foot additional with the steps, we feel that it's you know, not too big of an ask. and uh it's basically putting back what was there previously. So with that uh if you have any questions, we're both here. The builder's here as well. Thank you. Board members, any questions?

All right, seeing none, um we'll turn to public comment. I don't see anybody in the public to comment on this. You can take a seat, sir. Thank you. Um, and I don't see anybody in the audience, so I will close public comment. Uh, board members, what's your pleasure on this one? Uh, Mr. Ready.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion with regards to appeal number 26-07, the property known as 551 South Bates. I would move to approve. This is a hundred-y old structure uh that is basically having uh a porch rehabilitated to fit into the uh to what was originally there. Uh I think there are special conditions applicable to this property. It is 100 years old. The current structure would is apparently uh non-conforming as well. I don't think that I think little enforcement of the chapter would result in unnecessary hardship. I.e. they wouldn't have stairs to be able into the front door of the house. I don't think granting the variance is contrary to the spirit of purpose of the uh zoning ordinance and I do think that granting the variance will result in substantial justice to the property owners. For those reasons, I'd move to approve and tie it to the plans as submitted previously to the city. Okay.

Um I don't know who's first, Mr. Miller. Um I would second that and I would like to add that um uh the steps that are uh proposed the treads are slightly larger than the than the minimum required and maybe what was there but however I believe that um the minimum requirements might be fine for interior steps but these are exterior uncovered stairs um and here in Michigan with ice snow and sleet and rain um what is proposed is actually much more appropriate for for our climate and again uncovered uh front steps. Um I think if it was designed to the absolute minimum would actually be dangerous. So um for for that reason the one stated I will support the uh the motion.

Any other comments? Uh we have a motion by Mr. Ready, a second by Mr. Miller to approve. Can we please call the role ready? Yes. John Miller, yes. Jason Caviser, yes. Kevin Hart, yes. Carl Corn, yes. Congratulations. You have your variance.

Um, all right, Mr. Zilki, do we have any other general business to discuss tonight? Uh, no, we do not. Okay. Um, anybody want to talk about anything um, not on our agenda tonight? All right. See, no hands. I'll I'll close that portion of our agenda. And, uh, with that, if anybody would like to make a motion to adjurnn. I think that's it. Mr. Kona, we have a motion to adjurnn, I'll second that. All in favor? Any opposed? All right. The A's have it. Have a good night, everyone.