Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

september 9th 2026 barter zone appeals meeting to order david you want to do roll call sure uh vicky gushrowski here nate laux president mark danielson pete saunders brian kager president three present uh

We'll start the rest of the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands,

approval of minutes from July 14th meeting I'll make a motion to approve the minutes second motion a second all in favor aye motion passes variance to allow accessory building unit step forward please And if you would, state your name and address and so forth, and then give us a little presentation of.

Sure, I'm obviously not Rhonda. My name is Jim Fry, 6941 Youngburn Road in Harbert, Michigan. I am a friend of Rhonda's who helped consult on the purchase of a home on 3rd Street and C Street here in La Porte last December. And just here to, as you can see, ask for a use variance in the way of an ADU. Staff DM.

Is it currently used as a dwelling unit?

It is not at this moment, but we're hoping to get that tonight. It was previously instated a few years ago when the home was occupied. The home went into bankruptcy. And through a lot of help from Dave, who's been great, by the way, over the last several months, we understand that that precedent was a good reason for us to come back today. After a one-year vacancy of having the ADU approved under the variance, the use variance, it dropped off because nobody was living in the house. It went into bankruptcy and foreclosure. brought them purchased the house and has come in and done some cosmetic work and painted it and kind of fix some things up swap some appliances out and she'd like to start using it as a full-time rental and the unit in the back is another additional unit that she can use for some rental income so that's why we're here today is there parking for if you use both those dwellings as rentals is there parking there is parking on the street that we're using there's no designated parking on the parcel itself But like I said, the precedent was already there, I think two years ago maybe and dropped off a year ago or so. So we're just hoping to get that reinstated tonight.

Thank you. Sure. This time I'll open it up for a public comment. If there's anyone from the public. Hearing none, I'll close public comment. David your staff report, please.

Yeah, so item number five use variance 26-0 to petition is to allow an accessory dwelling unit in the existing accessory building located on the property at 302 C Street This property is about point two acres inside or point two zero acres in size It currently has the existing house two-story house on it there With the attic and as you can see the site plan that shows the image of the l-shaped building, which is the existing Accessory building you can see there's kind of a chimney smokestack there if you go forward to the next slide It'll go through there's the house The next one I'll show the the back towards the alley and that existing accessory building which is Which has lapsed as was mentioned by mr. Frye Under the non-conforming use it's been left over a year since it's been used as as such Or as some kind of living quarters So the use variance is required under under the zoning ordinance for the city to allow the building An accessory dwelling or the second living quarters on the property there in addition to the existing house on the property and so Just briefly go through Because the use is not allowed currently in the zoning district that it's within or the r1c single-family residential district, which only allows for one dwelling uh... and so i'll go through the criteria that you are to consider with the use variances uh... one the approval not be interest of the public health safety morals in general welfare of the community uh... the approval of this requested use variance to allow an accessory dwelling unit within the existing accessory building will not be interest of the public health Safety and morals and general welfare of the community because the existing building was constructed similar to a living quarters and is comparable to The so let me back up there a second The requested use variance to allow the accessory dwelling unit within the existing accessory building is appropriate for this size and type of residential property located within a half mile of downtown Laporte and Two, the use and value of the area adjacent to the property will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property requesting a use variance to allow an accessory dwelling unit will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner because there are other similar Accessory building sizes on similar lots in the surrounding neighborhood The existing building as was mentioned is legal non-conforming building that was constructed kind of around the 1940s similar to the style of an existing single-family dwelling Three, the need for the variance arises for some condition peculiar to the property involved. The need for the use variance to allow an accessory dwelling within the existing accessory dwelling arises from the condition peculiar to the property because the existing building was constructed similar to a living quarters and is reasonable use of the existing building on the subject property. The subject property has the appropriate amount of land to provide the minimum setbacks between existing structures and setbacks to the surrounding properties. For the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will constitute an unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought. The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will constitute an unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which this use variance is sought because the existing building was constructed similar to a living quarters and it is a reasonable use of the residential property within the city limits near downtown the port to allow an accessory dwelling unit within the existing accessory building for the size and type of subject property. And lastly, five, the approval does not interfere substantially with the comprehensive land development plan. The approval of the use variance to allow an accessory dwelling unit in an existing accessory building on property located in close proximity to downtown La Porte will not interfere substantially with the comprehensive land development plan because the city of La Porte recognizes that accessory dwelling units may be appropriate on similar residential properties where the minimum requirements for building setbacks, open space, and parking requirements can be met for the type of land use as is indicated by the size of the property. The proposed accessory dwelling unit will not interfere substantially with the countywide land development plan or the city of La Porte zoning ordinance because it is an important land use that is often used to fill a need in the community for a certain type of housing for individuals. So staff finds that the approval of the use variance petition to allow an accessory dwelling unit within the existing accessory building is appropriate for the surrounding area in close proximity to downtown La Porte. Staff recommends approval of use variance petition 26-02 to allow an accessory dwelling unit within the existing accessory building. And I'll answer any questions if you have them.

Thank you.

I do have some questions. So back to what the question was before. Where do people park?

So the property is located off an existing alley. There is a fence that's located there. So the petitioner could probably clarify on that if parking was needed for the specific thing. Otherwise, The street parking in front of, it is a corner lot, and so there is parking around. Currently, there's not a specific requirement for parking requirements for accessory dwelling units, just for single family dwellings. We could apply that if needed.

Where's the access to this building at? Is it on the inside of that fence, or is it on this back alley?

if the petitioner step back up please so as you can see by the gate on the left about halfway down behind that big tree with the leaves on it there is a gate right there that allows access to the back of the single-family home and there's also a walking path that goes to what used to be the ADU that we're asking to be reinstated so they do have access through that fence

Okay, I'm still confused. So, like, they don't access the building here in the back here? There's no door?

They do not at that. There is a gate there on the front. You can see the two hinges if you kind of look there, the two black hinges.

Yeah, but you're going inside of the fence.

Correct. You're going through the fence to access that ADU that way, or there's another gate on the left side here hidden by that tree with the leaves on it.

and you said that um it it the setbacks because again it's kind of hard a little bit to tell with this this picture the setbacks are right on that alleyway it looks like the fence and the building are right up against the alleyway is that not right it's an existing uh non-confirming but it is okay okay we did follow the setbacks when the fence was put in place okay yep

And the parking there could be used, we just haven't done it to impede upon the neighbors. The rental that she's done in the front, they've had plenty of space around the corner in the front there on C Street and 3rd. I don't anticipate any problems with vehicles and we haven't seen an issue to this point.

So then if somebody's renting this, this is short term, this is like Airbnb rental, correct?

For the most part, yes.

Okay, so if somebody's renting this, are they going to access it through that gate then?

They would probably park right here, which you see, which is third street and access through that gate hidden behind the tree. But again, we put two fences in, so there was another egress through the rear if needed.

Okay. Okay. Do we have, do we, does the city of LaPorte have guidelines for Airbnb like short term rentals?

We do not.

Okay. I have no more questions.

Any other questions? Would you like to make a motion?

Yeah, I'll make a motion to approve the use variance 26-02 to allow the accessory dwelling unit.

I'll second that.

Motion to second. All in favor? Aye. Motion passed.

Thank you very much.

Item number six, petition to exceed maximum accessory building. Petitioner, please step forward. State your name and address. Welcome. Current and or.

Okay. Proposed. Jeremy and Ashlyn Cyford currently reside at 184 West Greenlawn Drive out in the county. We're seeking a variance to exceed the maximum 721 square foot outbuilding at 1819 Michigan Avenue with the approval of the current owner, Jeffrey Dorian, who's also here. We just found our perfect house, and it's perfect, but it doesn't have the garage. So we're here to get the garage.

Real quick, so is this your home then?

No, no. The purchase of this home is contingent on us being able to. Thank you.

Okay, this is the home you're wanting to buy?

Correct, correct. Yeah, this is the perfect house for us. Thank you. Do you need us to stay up here?

Right now I don't know.

We'll ask you any questions if we have them. Thank you.

At this point I'll open it up for a public comment. If there's anyone from the public that would like to speak. Come on. Say your name and address.

I'm Janice Martinson. I live at 1905 Michigan Avenue which is adjacent to this property that they're considering. Myself, I think that it's a giant building for a backyard, but what concerns me most is the driveway, and I strongly urge you to approve them to have a driveway off of Michigan Avenue so they are not using my driveway to access their place.

Okay, thank you. Sir?

Good evening, my name's Tom Buell from 1906 Michigan, a catty corner across from the property. I'd like to say these are the kind of people we want in the neighborhood on historic Michigan Ave. Young couple, kids, that's the kind of thing we want. The issue we have in a lot of the people around us is the size of the building. sixteen hundred square foot on michigan and and if we're going to keep it historic michigan and is a big now it is behind the fence We don't have talked to Jeremy in Ashland. We don't have any specifics on what the building's going to look like. I know in the paperwork, they want to keep it within the, you know, type of air building in the area or matching the house, but that doesn't give us. you know that warm fuzzy feeling you know all of a sudden we've got a pole barn going up with metal on it and a metal roof it's not what we want on michigan ave so i think that's our biggest concern is the size uh... reduce the size and i think there'd be people that are a lot more willing to do something with that at sixteen hundred square foot that's forty by forty that's a big building and then what happens down the road i live at 1906 and i go hey i want to build a pole barn next to my house or a building next to my house that size i don't think the neighbors would be too happy with that so we set a precedent if we if we go there so that's all i got does anyone else from public like speak

Good evening. Howard Jones, 1815 Michigan Avenue. You met my wife, but I didn't get the pleasure of meeting you. Really just to reiterate what Tom said here, we would like to get some more specifics and clarity on exactly what the construction type is going to be and dimensions, including the height of this building, cross-section, what it's going to look like. Other than that, ostensibly no great objection from me, just a little bit more clarity on what we're going to get. Thank you.

Any other public comment? Please.

Hi, I'm Elizabeth McCluskey, 1602 Michigan Avenue. My house was built in 1875-76. It's across the street from the Ruth Sabin home, which was built in 1888. There are a few other houses that were built about 1890, but most of the neighborhood was built in the 1920s and 30s. a building of this type does not belong in this neighborhood unless it was built to look like a carriage house from the time period of the house which is 1911 as i understand it there are carriage houses still in some of the neighbor behind the houses and various houses along michigan avenue and they fit right in they're multi-story they belong with the house If this was designed to look like the house being made out of white brick and fit in, it wouldn't be so bad, but we have no idea what it's going to look like and it doesn't belong in a historical neighborhood. Whether or not this neighborhood is a designated historic area. Thank you, thank you.

Any other public comment? So at this time, I'll close public comment. David, you might give a staff report, please.

Yeah, so item number six, variance of development standards, 26-08 petition. And the request is to exceed the maximum accessory building area is requesting 1,600 square feet total. This property is located at 1819 Michigan Avenue. The approximate size of the parcel is 0.95 acres. The current zoning is r1b single-family residential district the petitioner proposes to allow the construction of an approximately 30 foot by 40 foot detached accessory building with possible covered or like lean-to additions on the building for personal storage and use on the subject property and The request I mentioned was to allow for the total area of 1,600 square feet of Maximum accessory building area as is mentioned in the zoning ordinance for accessory buildings this property The existing single-family dwelling if you measure the footprint is about 1,800 square feet as a residential property as you see in the image there and this so just briefly going through the decision criteria that you are to take into consideration with variance of development standards petitions one is that the approval will not be injurious to the public health safety and morals of the general welfare of the community This proposed accessory building size for the 30 foot by 40 foot accessory building with the lean-to additions on the size of it will not be injurious to the public health safety morals and general welfare of the community because the existing use of the subject property is for single-family residential and the proposed accessory building will be compatible with surrounding residential properties within the immediate vicinity. The sizes of existing accessory building ranges from 120 square feet to 1,800 square feet. In the surrounding area, just around, if you go back to the subject map there, that shows kind of the snapshot of all the properties in the vicinity. Just to the north of that, you can see there's an existing accessory building there for what I'm mentioning. The proposed accessory building is very similar to a lot of the existing buildings within the general vicinity as well as within a half mile of the property. Board of Zoning Appeals approved a variance of development standards to allow 1,600 square feet of maximum accessory building area located at two green acres on March 5th, 2025, which is, actually I mentioned, which is about within one mile south of the subject property with a range of similar type of houses and lot sizes near Kingsbury and Michigan Avenues. Two, the use and value of the area adjacent to the property will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner where the construction of a 1,200 square foot accessory building with lean-to additions for storage of personal vehicles and lawn maintenance equipment. The proposed 1,600 square foot total accessory building area will not negatively impact the use and value of the area adjacent to the property because the accessory building will be used for personal storage Didn't notice an error there. The size of residential accessory buildings ranges from 120 square feet to 1,800 square feet in the surrounding area. As was mentioned, city staff does recommend the potential for adding a condition that the petitioner would utilize the existing city driveway easement for ingress and egress to the proposed accessory building to limit number of driveways. Michigan Avenue to keep with the continuity of the street itself Three that the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property the strict application to of the terms of the zoning ordinance to limit the size of accessory building to 721 square feet on a .95 or about one acre parcel will constitute practical difficulty in the use of property to store personal vehicles and property maintenance equipment on the site for the subject property. I mentioned the range of building sizes in the area is very similar to the petitioner's request. City staff recommends adding another condition to the approval of the variance that the proposed single-story accessory building shall be composed of similar exterior materials for site-built residential dwellings as is constructed and seen with the, as is shown with the building on Green Acres that I show in the picture of that towards the end of the slides there. Similar to the existing house and residential dwellings are on the site so similar so the building itself looks similar to the house in keeping with What the requirements are for building a house? And so under the zoning ordinance, section 14.01 sets forth requirements for primary materials for site-built residential dwellings to consist of one or more of the following. So there's options to give, different options as opposed to what the houses are looking like. So one, residential horizontal aluminum, vinyl or fiber cement, lap siding, cedar or other wood siding, stucco, brick, stone, Another similar material to the above as is determined by the enforcement official so in in what the existing house looks like kind of in keeping with what Residential buildings look like and making sure that it's not just aluminum siding and so that would be the reason for adding the condition there and So staff finds that the requested variance of development standards petition conforms to the goals and policies of the countywide land development plan. The requested variance to exceed the maximum area limitations for accessory buildings to allow 1,600 square feet of total accessory building area is appropriate for the surrounding area. Staff recommends approval of the petitioner's request to exceed the maximum area limitations for accessory buildings to allow 1,600 square feet of total accessory building area as part of variance of development standards petition 26-08 with the following two conditions. And I can read those if you want, if you'd like me to, or you can answer questions.

Thank you. Staff.

You want me to read the two conditions? Sure. Just for clarification. Okay, so I briefly went over these, but in specific speak. One, that the accessory building shall be composed of similar exterior materials for site-built residential dwellings as required by section 14.01b. One, in this 2017 City of La Porte revised joint zoning ordinance, and two, that the petitioner shall utilize the existing access easement adjacent to the southern property boundary for ingress and egress to the accessory building.

I have nothing to say about that. My property line does go about halfway through that driveway.

Excuse me if you have a question you have to come up and ask but we're not in that time right now, though My name is Julie Euler I'm at 1902 Michigan pretty much directly across At before the meeting Ashland actually showed me a mock-up of a garage much different than that. Yes, and it had a stucco in exterior and You know, and so I don't know if all the neighbors saw that, but if they haven't, would they have the opportunity to at least look at that?

So technically, public comment is closed. Oh, I'm sorry.

It's okay. Let us address, yeah.

But we're going to have the petitioner step back up and then answer staff questions and so forth. Okay. Certainly. Okay.

To answer that just because everyone's wondering one of the conditions that the city is putting in place is that whatever whatever building they build if it's approved it has to look like the house essentially so it's one is the first condition I think in there is it has to be built with similar material these kind of things so that it's going to model both of them and won't just be like a an Amish-built pole barn in the back or anything like that.

Yeah, and the rendering that...

If the petitioner would step back up, Jeremy Ashland, please.

Yeah, and just to kind of add, the rendering that they gave us, and I drove by the house today, beautiful house. I don't think you could do a better job to match the house with the rendering that they gave us. I know you guys probably have not seen it, but it spot-on matches the house, so... we want it to match the house too we don't want to put up like a steel framed pole barn either yeah and that's a large lot i mean if you've been by it's very i don't even know with the fence and the trees that most people will even see it which is a shame because it's a it's a beautiful building but it definitely matches the house david uh as a separate question how did that easement get how did that easement get easement get there i mean it just seems like a weird it was an alleyway at one point you think

It appears to be an alleyway that doesn't go all the way through the block.

Yeah, that's right.

Is that city property? I know Mrs. Martinson is saying that it's her driveway. Is it her driveway or is that city property?

It's like an alley, yeah.

I looked it up on Beacon. It is the city's.

City, okay. We have a pending stake survey, so we're going to make sure we're not impeding on anyone's property for this. Do you know what's the middle?

A question for you real quick. You're just going to keep some, like you said, a boat and everything in there. This is probably not going to be a driveway you're driving in and out of every day, though, is it? Definitely not. You're going to use a garage for your cars and things like that, right?

No, this will be a primary egress and degress out of the house.

Yeah, so this is, I'm not saying a couple times a year, but yeah, you're not, you know.

maybe you know once a weekend kind of deal with the boat it's not a high traffic no no no the actual house in consideration the white house uh do we have a front view of the house

you don't have anything up there um i'm saying david did you take it's the old freedom it's a beautiful house there yeah there okay

And again, you can see the fence, the trees. I don't think there's, as far as I know, there was concern about the size, whereas there are buildings similar to that size in that area. But, I mean, it's not going to be totally visible back there.

Two things to point out. The city has made two stipulations at minimum that they garage. has to match a house. And you guys, as the petitioners, have no problems proceeding down that road?

Oh, absolutely not. We were going to do that, whether it was a stipulation or not.

So this rendering that you provided is, if this were approved, this is what would be built?

Similar. I mean, that's something we did, so it's not official building plans. Materials would match materials that are on the house currently. Either stucco or we found like a fiber cement siding with stucco texture, and we'd match the paint to the house.

I believe the rendering at minimum shows a divided facade and a 10-foot door. I mean, that's basically what you guys were. And the door obviously is going to be facing Michigan Avenue, but the entrance is coming from the alleyway. That's correct. Thank you. Um, my own thoughts on this is that it is a very large lot in the city of LaPorte. I mean, it's nearly an acre, right? David, something like that. So it's obviously those lots do not exist. And the size of the house, the also being a car individual, I would like to have a garage like this, but that's some house. So, is there other questions from staff?

No.

No.

All right, I'd like to make a motion.

I'll make a motion to approve.

Based on the, yeah, stipulations.

With the stipulations that it needs to match the historic look of the home and the trust that you're gonna be a good neighbor, we'll be sharing that easement as well. I Assume David you're saying it has to go through the standards of so when when they get a building permit It's going to have to go through that permitting process and meet the standards that are set out here, correct It'll have to go through the building.

Yeah zoning ordinance and building permit process for review.

So my question is who so that is a Subjective standard So I think that if you want to approve it based on an aesthetic criteria, you need to assign somebody that they need to get the approval of through the city. So this is kind of an architectural aesthetic designation I understand what you're getting at but we that's not enforceable as as moved so we need to say somebody within the city is gonna sign off and say that this meets the aesthetic is this is this I mean obviously you're gonna we're gonna send it through

the process to get approved, but are you saying maybe in addition the historic preservation or something like that or?

Yeah, somebody. It needs, yeah, if you want. I mean, yeah.

This is what we call a sidebar.

Hey, what are they saying?

I think I think we all want to make it work but I also understand the historic significance in this neighborhood and wanting to guarantee

So I believe, for clarity, that what Mark is emphasizing is that it's a broad statement when you say the facade has to match.

We want some guarantees for your neighbors to make sure that this is going to look like this, right? We want some guarantees that the city, that it has to look significant, you know.

Okay. Is this rendering acceptable?

Well, I mean, again, I think the question was is it's not the rendering is are the city statutes about historical significance robust enough to make sure that it's going to be and I see that the city planner is shaking his head so I would say it would probably I would maybe amend that motion to say based on also the approval of the historic preservation committee or you know that you know, they go in front of the historic preservation. Once you guys get your actual drawings, go in front of them, get their approval, if they have any input, you know, that'll help.

So today's approval is conditioned upon petitioners receiving a, I guess, green light from the Historic Preservation Committee.

That would be the third part of that, I think, yep. So let me amend that to say that.

On the facade of the building that it must match.

As far as. You gave three conditions.

I'm taking David's too, and then adding the approval in front of the Historic Preservation Committee before approval of the actual project.

So that would be a motion, right? And now you need a second. Make your motion on.

That was my motion, yes.

Somebody has to second it or else?

Well, first off, I don't remember going through all this when we approved that accessory building on Green Acres, but I will second that motion.

Motion is second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you. Congratulations. Item number seven, old business. New business? Other business? Motion to adjourn?

I'll make that motion to adjourn.