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. The board members are appointed by city commission for staggered three-year terms. Under state statutes, the BZA hears three types of appeals. we hear dimensional or non-use variances, use variances, and then appeals of interpretations of rulings of building officials or other boards regarding any provision of the zoning ordinance. Today, we have two appeals. They are both dimensional. In a dimensional appeal, the appellant must show a practical difficulty complying with the dimensional requirements of the ordinance. It requires four affirmative votes, and as I mentioned, both appeals tonight are dimensional. We have a full board, so you need four affirmative out of seven. Our procedure are, the comments are to be addressed to myself, the chair. Please wait to be recognized. City staff will first make a presentation regarding the appeal and take questions from the board. The appellant is then invited to present their case. Only one person may speak on behalf of any appeal. I can make exceptions if there are situations where we need technical support from an engineer or an architect. members of the public are then invited to come forward identify themselves and provide their comments to the board that can also happen by zoom the hearing is then closed and motions from the board are entertained or and or 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 their proof can we please call the role of the board members

Kevin Hart here.

Here.

John Miller here. I'm ready. Here. Did you mistake.

heard Lily but did you know I didn't hear all right you're here here I'll call the roll of the two appeals we have tonight so we have one for 719 Westwood thank you and also one for East 14 mile thank you any additional correspondence for the board I do have one in front of me regarding Westwood That's the only one. And have they received a copy of this? Yes. Very good. Board members, we have in front of you the previous notes from our last meeting. Do we have any amendments or comments about those meeting notes or do we have a motion to approve? Motion to approve. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Our minutes are approved.

first appeal tonight is appeal 2619 for 719 Westwood Thank You Andrew Erickson here to present appeal number 2619 the owner of the property known as 719 Westwood requests the following variances to construct an addition to the north side of the existing non-conforming home variants a section 2.0 6.2 of the zoning ordinance requires that a minimum total combined side yard setback be 14 feet or 25% of the total lot width whichever is larger for both side yards the required is 22.5 0 feet the proposed is 19.4 0 feet therefore variance of Variant speed chapter 126 article 4 section 4.7 for 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 22.5 feet on the north side the proposed is 18 therefore a variance of 4.5 zero feet is being requested The applicant is seeking two variances to construct in addition to the north side of the existing non-conforming home that was constructed in 1941. So, the first variance is for the total side yards. We have the 12.2 is here. And then 7.2 on the north side, that gives us the 19.40 feet. then the second variance is for the distance in between the 18 is here and the required is 22.50 feet.

Can you circle the area that is the addition to the existing structure?

Right here, they're going to deconstruct the garage and rebuild it in the exact same location.

So are either of these variances caused by this addition or are they existing non-conformities? They're existing non-conforming. And the work they're doing on this property is not exacerbating those non-conformities?

No.

Very good. Any questions for the city?

So from what I can tell the only thing they're doing is this putting a basement under the garage And they're rebuilding the garage over it correct, okay?

Thank you Any other questions for Andrew seeing that who's speaking on behalf of this case please?

please tell us your name your address and why you believe this is a variance you should have sure my name is zach astroff worked on the plans my address is 1515 midwood white lake michigan 48386 And essentially, we've got a pre-existing non-conforming structure in terms of the setbacks and the variants that we're requesting. Essentially, the garage and the house is going to look exactly like it does now, except for the fact that we're going to meet the new ordinance of two separate doors since we're front-facing. Instead of, currently they have one garage door. Other than that, we're not making the nonconformity any worse, and we meet all the setbacks for the structure itself.

Very good. Any questions for the appellant? Seeing none, thank you. In the audience. on zoom if you're on zoom you can use the raised hand feature to identify that you'd like to speak regarding this appeal have any comments about this appeal anything Joe I don't see nobody answer all right seeing no public comment we've closed public comment board members

I'll make a motion to approve in regard to appeal 2619, the property at 719 Westwood. I would move to approve variance requests A and B. this is a pre-existing non-conforming property as we heard from the applicant there tearing down the garage putting it in the exact same place. No exacerbation to the pre-existing conformity non-conforming excuse me and so because of that I think there are some special conditions applicable to the property in question namely the fact that this is pre-existing non-conforming and it's not changing literal enforcement of the chapter The ordinance will result in a necessary hardship if we don't grant this variance And I don't believe raining the variance would be contrary to experience purpose of the zoning ordinance Nor would it be contrary to the public health safety and welfare And I do believe it will result in substantial justice to property on the neighboring properties. I would note. We do have one objection they're not here to speak but because this isn't going any closer to the property and in exacerbating Any pre-existing conditions? I I don't find any merit to the objects and so we'll tie it to the planes and move to approve They have motion to approve Second give a second.

I had a comment also, please I just wanted to add that as you go along the street. This house does not seem to be at all misaligned with all the other homes, so I think that the fact that there's a question of separation here and between this house and the others it doesn't seem to have any negative effect on any of the neighbors the way it sits and with the garage basically just being replaced it's a pretty reasonable request and so I'm seconding the motion very good any other comments

I will just comment that I will support the motion and that specifically regarding the objection if we did not approve this motion and the garage remained and the appellant just remodeled it the two variances would not be impacted in other words the structures distance between and side yard would not change so the approval of this variance does not change the footprint of this home and thus on the objection doesn't really appear to understand what was being requested and that they are not adding to the width of this home. We have a motion to approve can we please call the roll.

Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Evan Hart?

Yes.

Carl O'Connor?

Yes.

Richard Bowie?

Yes. Congratulations, you have your variance.

Thank you.

Our next case is case number 2620 for 1451 East 14 Mile Road.

Andrew Erickson here to present appeal number 26-20 the owner of the property known as 1451 East 14 mile request the following variants that construct a second-story addition to an existing non-conforming home variants a chapter 126 article 2 section 2.1 0.2 of the zoning ordinance requires that no side yard shall be less than 5 feet the three six feet therefore a variance of zero point six four feet is being requested The applicant is looking to construct a second story addition to an existing non-conforming home So if you look here, this is the existing setback of four point three six feet They're doing a second story addition an existing home very good Any questions for Andrew

So they're also expanding in the back right so they're following the Line of build of the existing house, correct.

Okay.

Thank you You're not going back Right, oh, okay Even better even better any other questions rendered See none who's speaking on behalf of this appeal? Good evening, Harold Rumlinger, Design Team Plus. I'm the architect of record on the project 975 East Maple. Birmingham, as mentioned, this is an existing non-conforming house. The east property line is less than five feet. We do have over the required 14 feet between principal structures. To the east, 15 foot one and a half, and to the west, 17 foot one and a quarter, so we do meet the overall setbacks between buildings. We are only building on top of the existing house within the footprint of the existing house. The east elevations being expanded by approximately 270 square feet of surface, which is just over 50% of what's already there currently. The addition, which is going to the north, we have step back six and three quarters of an inch. Since the house is not completely parallel to the side yard setback as we go towards the north, we are further away from the property line so that has been stepped back so that we were meet the requirement of five foot setback for the new addition all lot usage open space does meet the requirements the zoning ordinance and we're holding the same front facade and setbacks that we have originally on the project in the house very good so with the ability to step back on the you know the addition yes could same on this second floor addition stepping back six and three-quarter inches basically comes a structural issue also that it puts a notch within the wall and a little six and three-quarter ledge great potential for water leakage infiltration into the building also it's unsightly you know design lines on the house so we opted to keep it within the confines of the house and go straight up thank you any other questions for the appellant seeing them thank you sir thank you

the audience or on zoom anybody that is not affiliated with the appeal have any comments about this appeal see none we'll close public comments board members thank you mr. Hart yes mr. chairman I'd like to

a motion to approve case number 2620 at 1451 east 14 mile road I think the appellant has done an exceptional job with an existing nonconforming structure there' s no ill effect on any was mentioned it's an existing non-conforming so anything that happens on this house would be would be requiring this type of attention the practical difficulties of trying to notch that back the appellant mentioned that it would create sort of a an ungainly structure and I think this is a sensible approach to a good a good design not creating the variance would again would create hardships that are not necessary and This all the work that we see here in this these drawings show that there there's no contrary effort the spirit and the purpose of the zoning ordinance is kept and think that results in substantial justice to the owner and to neighboring properties you'll see a very desirable structure in their neighborhood and I like to tie it to the drawings as presented and To approve we have motion to approve we have a second second second

a bunch of them maybe Victoria for a second for a second we have any comments about this a particular motion and appeal yeah just just one comment and I'll support the motion but I just wanted to add that it's not contrary to any public health safety or welfare issues and in terms of the spirit of the zoning ordinance I think that's been enhanced in the way that the addition to the north has actually stepped back and stayed within the zoning envelope

Very good, seeing no more board member comments, can we please call the roll? The motion is to approve.

Evan Hart?

Yes.

Victoria Polachekio? Yes. Jason Kampiser?

Yes.

Carl Kona?

Yes.

Richard Lilly?

Yes.

John Miller?

Yes.

Kirk Morganoff?

Yes. Congratulations, you have your variance. Thank you. Zoki, do we have any other business to speak of? No, we don't. Anybody in the audience? I see one young gentleman back there. Have any comments about topics unrelated to our appeals today? Seeing none, can we get a motion to adjourn? Moved. Do we have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. We are adjourned.