Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the regularly scheduled meeting for the Board of Zoning Appeals. The 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 have two of those tonight the appellant must show practical difficulty complying with the dimension requirements of the ordinance it requires four affirmative votes and as I mentioned both appeals we have tonight are dimensional we also look at use and appeals of interpretations and those don't apply 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 any particular appeal. I can make exceptions if there's an architect or an engineer that we need more information. members of the public are then invited to come forward, identify themselves, and provide comments to the board. The hearing is then closed. Motions by 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 appellant meeting their burden of proof. Can we please call the roll of the board members?

Here. Here.

Here.

Here.

Here. Here. Here. Here. So we have a full board this evening.

So as I mentioned, for a dimensional variance, you need four of seven, four from your votes. I'll call the roll of the two appeals tonight. Do we have someone here for 504 or 506 Townsend? Thank you. And do we have someone here for 1982 Hayes?

Thank you.

Besides the one or two correspondence we saw for Townsend, are there any other correspondence regarding the appeals? Thank you, sir. And the appellants have received copies of those? Yes. Have you seen the support for your appeal? No. Before you gentlemen are the meeting notes from the last regularly scheduled meeting. Do we have any amendments or do we have a motion to approve? Motion to approve. Yeah, motion to approve. Second. We have a second. Any comments about that? All in favor of approving the minutes? Aye. All opposed? Hearing none, the minutes are approved. Our first appeal tonight is case number 2617-4504-506, Townsend, and I believe Nick is coming on by Zoom. Yes. Good, how are you?

Very good. Thank you for accommodating me virtually today.

I will admit, Jeff told me he was a little sick of seeing me, so he asked me to be virtual, so I think that was pretty messed up. Well, since you haven't turned your video on, could you also tell us where you're Zooming from and your address? Sure. I'm at 1360 Pinecrest in Ferndale.

We're going to come visit you. I just want to know your address. Very good. Please tell us about this case.

Sure thing. So I got a quirky site for you.

504-506 Townsend. I guess my tactic is to split it up three ways. It's the historic Austin Logan house. I'm sure about what it was built, but it looks to be, uh, early 19 hundreds or very late 18 hundreds due to that historic designation. Of course, it did have to be reviewed by the historic district commission. Of course, accomplish that on June 3rd, 2026, just last month.

They were granted a certificate of appropriateness with a few conditions, some relating to materials, but if I may summarize the conversation related to the subject of these variances tonight, they were ultimately happy with the bulk of the area, the setback types.

They understand the challenge with the historic property, and from a historic perspective, it's placed rather appropriately for an addition. The other quirk is that this property was a duplex before it was recently purchased by the petitioners. A duplex is actually not a permitted use in the R8 zoning district in which it's located, but a single family home is, which is what they're proposing to transition it to.

So it will now be a single family home in the R8 zoning district, which kind of is the last quirk.

It's frankly surrounded by R8. If you're familiar with the site or if you drove by or walked by, if you simply look to the left or right, you'll get an idea of what R8 single family attached development is.

Townhome, row house style development. All of this has necessitated a few variances, so the addition itself is about 1,000 square feet. It does stretch to the west, a little bit to the north, and a little bit to the east. The first variance that is required, oh, I should mention, forgive me, because it's a single-family home in an R8 district, the applicant's required to develop that single-family property to the R3 single-family zoning standards.

That has triggered the three advantages you see before you, which I'll kind of go over right now.

The first one is that there's a minimum distance between principal residential buildings on adjacent lots of 14 feet or 25% of the total lot width, whichever is larger.

In this particular case, it would be required to be 19.5 feet distance between buildings. The applicant's proposing a distance between of 16.20 feet. The variance required here is 3.30 feet. Secondly, Again, there are three zoning standards. The rear yard setback is required to be a minimum of 30 feet. The setback proposed in the plans you see is 20 feet. Therefore they'll need a 10 foot variance.

Lastly, the R3 zoning district requires the combined front and rear setbacks in the R3 zoning district to be a minimum of 55 feet. the applicant's proposing a combined front and rear setback of 44.90 feet, thus necessitating 10.10 feet variance. Ultimately, I'm happy to answer any questions, whether it be zoning related or historic related, and I'll kick it back to you, Chair.

Thank you. Thanks, Nick. So first question, do any of these variances impact what could be done on the adjacent properties if those properties have the ability to build or expand and now they have these structures especially the distance between Are they impeding the ability of the neighbors to use their property as they could use without variances? I would say I don't believe so for a couple of reasons.

One, especially the property of the west, both sites to the west and the east were fairly recently developed, so they were developed to those R8 standards, they meet the R8 setbacks, heights, et cetera.

I think on the second hand, if I may call it such, there's usually actually a disadvantage to the last property to develop in a row of properties like that because they're the last to have to match that distance between standard.

So I think that the petitioner is actually in the, I don't know how to describe it, the bad spot here. I don't think it affects the neighbors whatsoever. I don't know if I'm missing some dimensions. I'm on one of the pages, but I don't see the dimension of the kitchen and living room expansion. I don't see the depth of the garage. Oh yeah, 26 by 22. I do see it. I'm just trying to determine if these variances are reasonable relative to the proportional sizes of the expansion, so I can look at that. Board members, any other questions for Mr. Kona?

If this was a R8 property and the changes were being made as proposed as an R8 property the rear setback would not be applicable is that correct?

I believe the rear setback in the R8 is 20 feet so if I'm just restating yes a variance would not be required if they were able to develop to the R8 standards.

but the side setback would still be the issue.

If I'm not mistaken, I think that's correct. And if it's not the side, it'd still be the distance between. Good, that's what I meant.

Yes, correct. Thank you.

Nick, can you just give us a little bit of clarity? Because I think that's an important question. They aren't governed by the R-rate because the R-rate is multifamily, right? And because those multifamily rules don't apply to a single-family home, that's why it reverts, for lack of a better description, to R3. That's exactly correct, yep. So the requirements, if you're building five units attached, they're a little bit more generous in those smaller setbacks because you're doing density.

Yeah, we're looking for a different form, style of development in the R8 zone, yes.

A little more dense, a little closer to the street, all that good stuff. Right, so the requirement as a residential single-family home is no more stringent than any other R3. It's just because you're in the R8, it seems unreasonable, maybe. I think that's a fair statement, personally. Any other questions for Nick, please? Yes, Mr. Bichoux.

you mentioned that this wouldn't have any effect on the neighboring property did the the recent development of the property to the west did that did that development having but does that have any effect on this distance between structures if they had if they had moved if they had been slightly smaller it might have allowed for more of development on the on this on this but for Distance at nineteen point point nineteen foot six inches and were proposed at sixteen point two with that It would have mattered would it would it not? So it's almost like whoever hurried to the whoever heard to the finish line got the better shake on the distance between structure The disadvantage usually lies with the person to develop last in situations like this.

Okay.

Thank you This would be the petitioner in this case thank you. Any other questions for nick? Seeing none you mind staying on until the case is over or I assume you were going to? absolutely. thank you. Who is speaking on behalf of the appeal? Please come on up. Your name and address and tell us why you think this appeal is reasonable.

my name is mia gordon 504 good evening members of the board my name is Mia Gordon and my husband Zach Lerner and I are owners and petitioners real quick does there a green light on that does it look like this mic is on oh yeah it's on it's just gonna be low all right just want to make sure thanks can you everyone can hear me okay yes we can hear you we're just hoping that whoever's watching if anyone okay hopefully everybody um yes um me and my husband and our architect are here with us tonight. We fell in love with the community and purchased this historic home with the intention of raising our family here for decades to come. In fact we just welcomed our baby boy into the world last month making our commitment to building a long-term family home here all the more meaningful. To add some context, a family member and nearby R8 homeowner purchased this property as an investment in 2024. It was a rundown, vacant duplex. Its condition was such that it sat on the market for over a year before it was purchased. The plan was to maintain the historic facade and utilize the current R8 zoning to maximize the entire lot footprint and turn it into an intense multifamily unit. They had plans drawn up and had preliminary meetings with the city. we saw a different potential and they agreed to sell. We stepped in to save this historic home from extreme overdevelopment, choosing instead to restore it back to a single family home. But in doing the right thing for the neighborhood, we are now bound by strict low density, our three dimensional rules, which have triggered our physical site hardships and our requests for three dimensional variances. We did not approach these requests lately, nor are we attempting to maximize the slot for the sake of square footage. Every inch of this design was meticulously thought out and held to minimum requirements for long-term functionality. The rooms are not massive. We added a modest but functional kitchen, an additional bedroom, and necessary bathroom space. similarly the garage of scale to fit two vehicles and light storage leaving a small usable backyard in addition the design was reviewed last month month at the june historic district commission meeting the hdc approved the certificate appropriateness for this project while the hdc's approval is conditioned primarily upon us obtaining these variances from this board the physical footprint scale and setbacks of what we are showing you tonight have already been thoroughly vetted and deemed both reasonable and condemnable by your peer commissioners. In addition to the city's preservation approval we have engaged with our immediate neighborhood we walked the block and shared our architectural drawings explained exactly what we were looking for. Bringing you a design that has been both thoroughly vetted, enthusiastically supported by our surrounding neighbors, and formally approved in scale by the HDC, we're asking for the minimum relief necessary to build a functional, safe family home. Thank you for your time, your service, and your consideration to our petition. We are happy to answer any questions.

So I guess my first question is with regard to the kitchen and breakfast expansion, I see you're adding 12 feet and I think maybe Nick can correct me, that's impacting the three foot variance, right Nick? The kitchen expansion's part of that, that's the one that impacts it or is that the garage that impacts the distance between? It would be the kitchen on the west side. Right. So I'm looking at that, seeing the 12-foot expansion and seeing, obviously it's a generous kitchen, a generous breakfast nook. It's not inappropriate and it's not right or wrong, right? But if it were three feet smaller, you would not need that variance. So I guess what's your response to that?

It impacts the second floor to the bedroom width are the minimum, about the minimum that we're, you know, is a normal sized bedroom these days and I think Glenda can speak to the actual dimension.

We'll let you know if we have, Glenda, we'll let you know if we need your input, it's okay.

Yeah, yeah. I don't have it in front of me, the exact width, but.

Okay, let me look at that and see what other board member questions. Gentlemen, any other questions? Mr. Hart, sir.

I'm looking at the second floor, and the first floor, it appears, sensible not overdone I think it's beautifully done the second floor though I have questions the laundry room and the new office in front the dimensions roughly for the laundry room it's it looks it looks you know fairly small to me what what are those dimensions

May I?

You please.

That's something we definitely need you for. Well, the new office is gonna be 12 foot. Yeah, it's 12 foot wide.

It's 12 feet addition that we're showing you on both the upper and lower floors. And with a six inch wall thickness out there, that's an 11 and a half foot room. And I did tell the Gordons, and Nick Dupuy also knows, we came into the historic board with something that was at 13 feet, or 13.6, I think, to try and get a 13-foot bedroom, you know, beyond the main structural wall of the historic structure. And we took a foot and a half off. to satisfy the historic boards wish that of the balance of you know addition that you see we also pushed it well back which is another sort of feature that nick didn't mention but we were trying to preserve the front gable and the main side gable and their requirements want additions to be as far as practical to the back so that's you know another part of the puzzle but so we reduced it by a foot and a half and then I told me 11 and a half is really kind of a minimum bedroom so again the laundry also everything's modest right it's three and a half feet smaller than that the aisle widths upstairs what are the hallway widths so we are making the hallway woods three foot four but those are all on this side of that main structural wall when you look where the stair comes up that's the structural wall holding up the rest of the house and our addition cleanly sits that way so you know we're making that other bath a little smaller to have a

I've been in this house before, so I know how tight it is. The dimension, the 12-foot, the office of that 12-foot is one dimension. The other dimension is what, 9-6 or something? What's that?

I'm just getting closer to the microphone so the public can hear.

Yes, I'm sorry.

Yeah, so the office, which they both work from home. We're looking for an office. They're trying to make this historical house work today's standards. So, yeah, we're getting a little office.

Would you agree that any dimension for a bedroom under 10 feet is really not a bedroom? Would you agree? I really consider 11. Understood. Okay. Thank you.

Okay.

Can I say one more thing that pertains kind of that I think or gets back to your previous question? The R8 development that comes up next to them, they don't meet their 25% of the lot width, I wouldn't imagine. I mean, it's got to be a 300 foot lot. The distance they were supposed to stay away from even this historical home is supposed to be 25% of their lot width.

Yeah, it just depends when it was built and what the ordinance were back then.

Yeah. But they're at their bare minimum. And I mean, if that got torn down, they should have a 25% of their lot with requirement also. They would require that.

And they would require their answer. Do you want to finish? Oh, you're done? All right. Well, let's still come back up because we may have questions for you. And the last unique thing on this property is the... Honestly, you can't testify on behalf of other comments. We just need you for architecture, which is beautiful, by the way. I'm sorry.

Is there a garage on the property right now? It's hard for me to see exactly from the picture.

There is a detached garage, I will put in quotes, that's on its last legs. I think it's on the first...

Well, my question is pretty straightforward. Is it coming down?

Yes.

That's all I need to know.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the appellant? Seeing none, thank you.

Thank you both.

In the audience or on Zoom, anybody have any comments about this appeal that's not affiliated with this appeal?

Neighbor.

Neighbor's okay.

Please, come on up.

Come on up. Microphone, name, address, and tell us your thoughts.

Hi, I'm Ann Feldman. I live at 505 Townsend right across from them. I've been staying at their house for five years. So I'm super happy to have them put an addition on. And I think... where the addition is on the house it is it set back and it's on the side you really still see the home the historic home that part of it so I think that's a good you know they're not changing the whole facade the whole front so you know driving let's say you're coming from the east you Like, you know, the addition, it's more from the west side. And, yeah, I just think it would really add some value and look a lot better than it does now. And that garage is like, didn't you say it's about to fall down? I don't think you guys park in there, do you? Yeah, it's bad news. So, yeah. And the surrounding neighbors, I'm not speaking to them, just making comments that the neighbors to the east of them, they are all in favor, everyone's in favor of it, so yeah. That's all I had to say.

Thanks for the feedback. Okay. Anybody online that would like to speak on behalf of this besides Nick? Seeing none, we'll close public comment. Board members? Oh, you see somebody? No. Oh. You good? You don't see anybody, right? No. All right, so close public comment. Board members, do we have a motion?

Mr. Moser. Motion to approve 504 506 Townsend. I believe granting the variance will result in substantial justice to the property owner and the general this very unique historic property the granting of the variance will also not be contrary to the spirit or purpose of the zoning ordinance and In no way be contrary to any public health safety or welfare concern Enforcement this site. The literal enforcement of the chapter result in unnecessary hardship and that' s due to the unique location and concerns of this site. Not only being converted from a duplex to a single family but the historical because of special conditions applicable to this property in question the provisions of the ordinance if strictly applied would prevent the property owner from using the property for its permitted purpose and That's due to The this is an appropriate single family residence here and complementing and enhancing the historic qualities of the home. These represent unique hardships and the zoning appeal here I believe is very reasonable to allow this home to function as a single unique location so I would tie an approval to the plans as submitted.

Do you want to comment also in your motion about the existing garage? Do you want to tie anything to that statement that they're tearing it down since they're adding a new garage?

I would let you add something on to my motion that would address that. Okay. It's on the plans. It's on the plans that it's being torn down. Okay. Very good.

Tying it to the plans I think addresses that.

Okay.

Yeah. We have a motion to approve. Do we have a second? Second. See it from Mr. Kona. Do we have any comments? Seeing none, let's call the roll. We have a motion for appeal 2617 to approve.

Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Yes.

I assume that was me, yes. Congratulations, you have your variance.

Thank you very much. Enjoy.

The home's beautiful.

Thank you.

Our next case and our final case for the evening is case 2618 for 1982 hands.

Andrew Erickson, here to present appeal number 26-18. The owner of the property known as 1982 Haynes requests the following variance to construct a new home with an attached garage. variance a chapter 126 article 4 section 4.74 C of the zoning ordinance requires that the minimum distance between principal residential buildings on adjacent lots of 14 feet or 25% of the total lot width whichever is larger the required is 14 feet on the east side the proposed is twelve point eight five feet therefore the variant a variance of one point is being requested. The applicant is requesting a variance for the distance from the adjoining principal building and the adjoining adjacent lot. There was a variance granted for 1982 Haynes in March of 2024 the variance has expired the minutes are attached.

Andrew what's the width of this home? I'm looking but I'm sure you might know if that's right. This is less than 25 feet 24 24 I don't have any questions Please um in the packet there's busy minutes from 2005 was that that was for the house on the other side?

Okay

That's it? All right, we're done with asking the city questions. Who's speaking on behalf of the appeal? Please come on up.

thank you Mr. Chair I' m paul sign martino 920 east lone lake troy michigan I' m designing the house for armando we designed the previous home that was granted the variance as the owners they kind of change their tune and reduce the house based on market and what not so we' re basically coming back with a less impactful home that was property to the east which did get a variance you know we're kind of pinched we have a probably a future tear down to the west that's not conforming then we have the newer home to the east which is at six feet so we kind of get pinched on both ends so we positioned it where where we have it like you said we're 24 feet wide we're trying to keep it simple one car garage so that that's kind of where we're at.

All right, any questions for the appellant? Seeing none, thank you, sir. In the audience or online, anybody that would like to speak on behalf of this appeal that isn't affiliated? We have a hand from Alex Montgomery. Okay, can you unmute, Alex? Hey, Alex, just tell us your, we have your name, Alex Montgomery. Can you tell us where you're Zooming from and then tell us your thoughts about this appeal?

Yeah, this is out Montgomery. I'm here with Rachel high song resuming from 1996.

The house next door to 1982. Okay. We are new owners of the house. We moved in about a month ago. So.

One we just wanted to see what this process was all about and it was very interesting. I appreciate you guys having me and then to You know, we noticed that the previous variance was approved for the opposite side of the house and the with the house coming closer to

to our house and it being a two-story home versus the current one-story home we do believe that it will impact our light that we received especially in the evenings we're in a nice room right now that's receiving light in the back of our house and we would not have that if we had a house that was closer and outside of the allowed 14 feet. So I guess the request would be that if we're using the previous variance as precedence, that we would look to have that be used on that side of the house and go closer to that side of the house as opposed to our side of the house i understand we had a previous variance approved when the house was built many years ago but that was because we are close to the My understanding is because we're close to the road, we're the first house off the main road on Eden. So that would be our request would be that it go back to the previous variance and that this is not approved due to our light, privacy, air flow, and you could even argue some fire safety.

Very good, I appreciate your feedback. So you realize this variance is for just over 12 inches, right? Yes. Okay. I just want to make sure you understand that. And I can ask the appellant to come up and address whether that one foot difference, if there's a reason one way or the other. I believe he stated on the record that this home is more narrow than the previous home. So likely it's still probably a similar distance apart from your home, but I can get an answer to that. And we appreciate your feedback.

Yeah, my understanding was that the previous variance was still 14 feet from our house. Right.

And now it's going to be less than 14. Yeah, I appreciate it. It looks like 14 is what they're proposing, but let me find out and you'll hear it as we ask the question. Okay, thank you. Yep, thank you. Can you come up and just comment real quickly on his comment about the previous variance? If you were 14 before, it looks like you're still 14, so maybe the... No, I mean, we're 12.5. As distance between? Distance between. Yeah, I'm looking at a 14, but I'm not sure what that measurement is then.

Oh, it's the other side, right? On the left side, we're 14. So that 12 inches, could you shift one way or the other, and what's the difference? We could. I just did the math real quick.

No, we could only shift... I think it's .16 feet. It's 9.16 is where we're at on the west side. But that's a non-conforming house that's probably, it's a very old home. They don't feel that way about it.

I understand that.

I'm just saying, in the Birmingham world, that maybe is a future teardown that would have to conform to five feet. So if we went to nine, then we would be... Would it? Well, I think we would be under one foot on the east side, the gentleman that just spoke. But I don't have that in front of me, the previous, what was approved, to rely back and tell you exactly what it was.

All right. We appreciate the feedback. We can make a motion, and then if you're willing to exercise that and speak to the neighbor and adjust it based on what the final approval is, that would be something you can work out with them. It isn't contingent on what he's saying, but first we have to see how the board votes.

Understood.

All right. Anyone else on Zoom that has any comments about this appeal? So Andrew, do you agree that they can only move it 10% of that?

Yeah, it looks like they're 14. If they shifted the house over, they would create a variance on the other side.

Yeah, you'd require two variants. So we went with trying to make it one. That's fair.

I think we're good. So we'll close public comment. Board members, do we have a motion on this appeal?

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion. With regards to appeal 26-18, the property known as 1982 Haynes Street, I would move to approve the variance request and tie it to plans as submitted. This is... previously approved variance that is this this property was subjected to a previously approved variance and the owner and the appellant has come in with a slightly less request so they're obviously aware of the concerns here in addition we've granted many of these variances where we have the issue on the older homes on that particular side of town where the All the homes are affected by the nine and five Dimensional setbacks so we have the typical circumstances here where if we were not to grant this variance they would probably not be able to build a suitable home on this property so I think that there's enough special conditions applicable in this property that if the zoning ordinance was strictly applied it wouldn't reasonably prevent the appellant from building the home here and so for those reasons I would move to approve tied to the plans as submitted to the city previously a motion to approve do we have a second

So Mr. Kona again for the second. Do we have any discussion? Seeing none, we have a motion to approve. Can we call the roll? Ron Hrdyk? Yes.

Paul Kona?

Yes.

Richard Lilley? Yes. Sean Miller?

Yes.

Eric Holzer?

Yes.

Jason Kampiser? Yes. Kevin Hart?

Yes. it that's it congratulations you have your variance alex if you can hear me online um it sounds like they can move the house over you know a few inches and it's something they're open to considering that so if you want to come into the building department and speak to andrew he can communicate with them and see whether or not it's reasonable and whether or not you want them to explore that inch or two but if they go any further they would then need a variance on the other side and so It's much more difficult to get two variances in our board than it is one. But they are willing to explore what you're asking as a neighbor. So you can talk to Andrew at the city and then they can talk to the builder and see if they're open to making that adjustment. But they did get their variance. So we appreciate your feedback. Thank you, guys. Thank you. online or in the audience. Do we have anything we'd like to discuss that is not related to the appeals tonight? Seeing none. Do you have any more business for us, sir? No. All right. Motion to adjourn. Anybody? All in favor? Aye. We are adjourned.