View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
November 9, 2010
Chairman R. Hilt called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: E. Fordham, S. Brock, B. Larson, R. Hilt, S. Wisneski, T. Halterman
MEMBERS ABSENT: J. Clingman-Scott
STAFF PRESENT: M. Cameron, D. Leafers
OTHERS PRESENT: D. Medendorp, 115 Maple Leaf Ln; S. Holdeman, 1996 W. Sherman
Blvd.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of September 14, 2010 be approved was made
by B. Larson, supported by E. Fordham and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing, Case 2010-006: Request for a use variance to allow occupancy of two separate single
family residential structures located on one parcel at 569 W. Webster Avenue in an R-1 Single-
Family Residential Zone, by David Medendorp (Alt Property Management). M. Cameron
presented the staff report. The subject property was registered as a nonconforming three-family
residence with two buildings on the parcel until the most recent Certificate of Compliance
expired on May 1, 2007. Water use records appear to establish a beginning timeline of when the
buildings were abandoned, which would be prior to October 13, 2004. A City inspector began
the process to inspect the home on June 28, 2007; however, they could not gain entry. The
inspector had indicated to staff that the buildings were empty at that time. On September 5, 2008
a police report was made of a possible breaking and entering at the location. The officer found
the rear home, known as 569 ½ W. Webster, with an open front door and broken window. The
Inspections Department subsequently had the front door, rear door and window boarded up to
prevent entry. Since more than two years have passed since this property was registered as a
three family dwelling and was abandoned, it has lost its non-conforming status. The zoning in
the surrounding neighborhood is R-1, Single Family Residential and land uses are mixed, with
both single family and multi-family dwelling units in the area. The proper zoning district for a
parcel of land with multiple dwelling structures similar to this parcel would be RM-1, Low
Density Multiple Family Residential Districts. The front building at this address was formerly a
two-unit but has since been converted to a single family structure. The rear building has been a
single family structure. The owners are working closely with the Inspections Department to
acquire the necessary certificates if a variance is allowed. The ordinance requires two parking
spaces per dwelling unit, but there were no parking spaces available for either building on this
site. However, the property owners recently acquired a vacant lot next door at 575 W. Webster,
and have combined the two lots and installed four paved parking spaces. They will be erecting a
storage shed as well. This case is not a variance request from Section 2304: One Building to a
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes – 11/09/10 1
Lot. As such, it would have no impact on the two non-conforming structures, particularly if they
were no longer allowed because of an event covered in Section 2203: Nonconforming Structures.
For example, if one of the structures was damaged by fire in excess of 75% of its replacement
cost, it would not be allowed to be rebuilt and the remaining structure would have to remain a
single family unit. Additionally, a condition of approval, if adopted and approved, would render
the use variance null and void if one of the existing buildings were destroyed or removed. This
would prevent an owner from using this use variance to convert the remaining building into a
two-family dwelling unit. The exterior of the homes are consistent with other single family
residences nearby. Use variances require a 2/3 majority vote of the ZBA membership to be
approved, which has been determined to be 5 members. Staff has received a comment from
Linda Aumiller of 578 W. Webster, who called to express her general concerns regarding some
of the previous problems and conditions at this property, and concerns about some recent issues,
such as a large portable sign placed on the vacant lot and people sleeping on the porch. J.
Singleton also contacted staff to express her opposition to the request, but did not give a reason.
M. Cameron stated that the applicant had combined the two lots and paved the parking area
since the original staff report was provided to the board. S. Brock asked if the lot was large
enough to be split at a later date. M. Cameron stated that it wasn’t likely, since a buildable lot
required 50 feet of street frontage and 6000 square feet total area. D. Medendorp stated that both
houses would be rental units. The front house was formerly a 2-unit, but he had converted it to a
single unit, moving closer to compliance with the R-1 zoning. The smaller house in back would
be able to rent for less money, which was needed in this economy. He planned to put in some
landscaping and make the properties look nice, so they would fit in with the neighborhood.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Larson, supported by S. Brock and
unanimously approved.
E. Fordham stated that vacant homes invited theft and that getting these places occupied would
be good for the neighborhood. R. Hilt wasn’t sure that allowing multiple uses was right for that
area. B. Larson stated that unoccupied homes caused blight, so he preferred that the homes be
occupied. E. Fordham asked M. Cameron if the homes were required to be inspected to make
sure they were suitable for living in before they were rented. M. Cameron stated that they were.
S. Wisneski asked what the proposed conditions of approval were, and M. Cameron reviewed
those.
The following findings of fact were offered: that the plight is due to unique circumstances
peculiar to the property and not to general neighborhood conditions, that the proposed use would
not alter the essential character of the area and will not materially impair the purposes of this
ordinance or the public interest, that the alleged hardship is caused by the Ordinance and has not
been created by any person presently having an interest in the property or by any previous
owner, that the alleged hardship is not founded solely upon the opportunity to make the property
more profitable or to reduce expense to the owner, that the requested variance is the minimum
action required to eliminate the hardship, that the use variance does not permit a use specifically
identified by this Ordinance as a use excluded from the particular zone in which requested, the
use does not seriously threatens the health of future residents or neighbors, and the use is not a
nuisance per se, or the use in that particular location does not constitute a nuisance.
A motion that the use variance to permit the two structures at 569 W. Webster Avenue to each be
occupied as a single family residence in an R-1 Single Family Residential zone be
approved, subject to the conditions that 1) The variance is recorded with the deed to keep record
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes – 11/09/10 2
of it in the future, 2) The properties 569 W. Webster and 575 W. Webster are combined into one
parcel by the Muskegon County Assessing Department, 3) Four paved parking spaces shall be
provided on the property at 569 W. Webster (this has also been done), 4) The two single family
homes are properly registered, certified and occupied within one year, 5) This variance becomes
null & void if either of the structures become damaged or destroyed to the point they are no
longer considered a legal nonconforming structure, as defined in Section 2203: Nonconforming
Structures, and 6) That the additions to the property must be complete within one year (Sec.
2504) or the variance is void, was made by B. Larson, supported by S. Brock and unanimously
approved.
Hearing Case 2010-007: Request for a variance from the minimum lot area requirements in
Section: 1100 (11), to allow a residential use as part of a building located in a B-2 Convenience
& Comparison Business District, at 1996 W. Sherman Blvd., by Stephan Holdeman. M.
Cameron summarized the staff report. Mr. Holdeman submitted a variance request to reduce the
required lot size to allow the occupation of a portion of the building at 1996 W. Sherman Blvd.
as a residential living unit. Zoning of adjacent parcels is R-1 Single Family Residential to the
east along Sherman Blvd., B-1, Limited Business directly to the north, and B-2 Convenience &
Comparison Business to the west across McCracken St. This case is the result of ongoing
discussions between the property owner and city staff, and ultimately a court complaint filed by
the city requesting injunctive relief. On June 30, 2010, I accompanied a city inspector
investigating a tenant complaint and we went into the residential living unit in the building (this
unit is labeled 1984). Upon return to the office, my research confirmed that there has never been
a Certificate of Compliance issued to this residential unit, nor permits for the conversion from
commercial use. Because it has long been a source of continued problems and misunderstandings
with this property, it is very important to note that the applicant continues to refer to the building
using various postal addresses, instead of the single legal address for the property, which is 1996
W. Sherman Blvd. The application for the two variances incorrectly used the postal address or
unit number assigned to the portion of the building that has been converted to residential use.
The address on the application was corrected by staff and initialed. The B-2 ordinance language
allows for a residential use as part of a building in this zone if it has been issued a Certificate of
Occupancy from the Inspections Department and meets the minimum lot requirements for the
RM-2 District. This parcel of land is 10,625 square feet in size; the minimum lot size required
for parcels in the RM-2 District is 14,520 square feet in size. This lot is then 3,895 square feet
short of the required area to allow a residential unit as part of the building. The property owner
claims that the residential unit had a permit for its conversion in February 1994; city staff
disagrees with this belief. Regardless of this disagreement, the ordinance language regarding lot
size was the same at that time as it is now, and the parcel has never met the two requirements
which allow residential uses as part of a building in the B-2 District. With that said, this property
was formerly zoned B-1, until September 2003; even when zoned B-1 it did not meet the
minimum qualifications to allow a residential unit as part of the building in a B-1 District. B-1
District language requires that the residential unit be issued a Certificate of Occupancy from the
Inspections Department, and the parcel of land must meet the minimum lot requirements for the
RM-1 District (10,890 square feet). Since the current lot is 10,625 square feet, the parcel was
265 square feet too small to allow a residential use, even when it was previously zoned B-1.
Additionally, Mr. Holdeman owns 2572 McCracken St., which is the property directly to the
north of this parcel. The McCracken parcel has a former dentist office located on it and a gravel
parking area. It is currently zoned B-1, Limited Business. Staff has repeatedly tried to explain to
Mr. Holdeman that he could split the McCracken parcel giving just enough land to 1996 W.
Sherman to make it conforming and allow it to have a residential unit. Furthermore, Mr.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes – 11/09/10 3
Holdeman’s attorney has informed us that Mr. Holdeman is in the process of converting the
former dentist office back into a residential unit. Since no permits have been applied for we
cannot verify that; however, if it is Mr. Holdeman’s course of action, it would be an illegal
conversion and render the McCracken property legally unusable, either as a residence or B-1 use,
or even as a parking lot overflow for 1996 W. Sherman.
The submitted site plan is incorrect in its depiction of parking spaces. When staff visited the site
on October 22 and inspected the exterior, I found 13 parking spaces faintly outlined with old
striping. Each space is approximately 9 feet wide. City ordinance requires parking spaces to be a
minimum of 8 feet wide. Without expansion of this property, by combining land from the
adjacent parcel, it appears the owner has not applied for all the variances that may ultimately be
needed. Since there are no dimensions on the site plan, staff could not verify the maneuvering
lane width and parking space sizes but after my site visit, it appears the property will not have
the required 22 feet of lane width for two-way traffic and still have 8 x 18-foot parking spaces as
required. Staff has suggested that the proper course of action to resolve all current and probable
new issues with both of these properties, without requiring any variance requests or court actions
based upon the information staff now has, would be as follows: 1) Split the McCracken property
and give approximately 4,000 square feet to 1996 W. Sherman. The remaining McCracken lot
would be 8,825 square feet, which is well above the required 6,000 square feet for an R-1 zoned
lot and above the required 4,000 square feet required for a B-1 lot. This would give the Sherman
lot more than the 14,520 square feet that is required and increase the parking area to comply with
the current parking needs, along with some extra parking in case of different uses in the 1996 W.
Sherman building since changes in uses can increase the required parking; 2) Request to rezone
the small sliver of land that has been joined from the McCracken property to the Sherman
property from B-1 to B-2 so it is the same zone as the building; and 3) Request the rezoning of
2572 McCracken to R-1 Single Family residential if the owner’s intent is for it to be a residential
unit again. This would allow the property owner to pursue the proper permits and it could
eventually become legally occupied as a residential unit, leaving it with a place for a legal
parking area of two vehicles. Mr. Holdeman has been resistant to this solution or any form of it
in the past, and has expressed his desire to seek a variance instead. Staff has not received any
public comments.
S. Brock asked if the residential unit was currently occupied. S. Holdeman stated that it was not.
M. Cameron stated that the City’s Inspection Department would not issue a Certificate of
Occupancy. S. Holdeman explained his reasons for requesting the variance. He wanted to be
able to use part of the building for residential uses, have enough parking, and convert the
adjacent building on McCracken into a residential use. He disagreed with some of staff’s
comments, but stated that he would like to get past problems with the City resolved so he could
rent out the units. E. Fordham asked S. Holdeman why he was opposed to staff’s suggestions for
the property, which would allow him to use it as he was requesting. S. Brock asked if the case
could be tabled and returned to staff to work with Mr. Holdeman on a solution. M. Cameron
explained the background on this case and stated that the City had begun court action to get an
injunction against this property. In the past, staff has had problems getting requested information
from the applicant. Staff and board members discussed the court proceedings and various
options for resolving the issues. R. Hilt asked if any audience members would like to comment.
D. Medendorp stated that he was in favor of the request. E. Fordham asked what effect tabling
this case would have. M. Cameron discussed possibilities.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Larson, supported by E. Fordham and
unanimously approved.
A motion to table this case and send it back to staff to work with Mr. Holdeman on a solution
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes – 11/09/10 4
was made by S. Brock, supported by B. Larson and approved, with R. Hilt voting nay.
Hearing Case 2010-008: Request for a variance from Section 2326: Off Street Parking and
Loading, to reduce the number of parking spaces required from 13 to 12 spaces at, 1996 W.
Sherman Blvd. by Stephan Holdeman. Since the previous case was tabled, staff and board
members discussed how to handle this case. Options were discussed with Mr. Holdeman, who
advised that he would like to withdraw the request.
A motion that the Zoning Board of Appeals accept the request to withdraw this request was made
by B. Larson, supported by S. Brock and unanimously approved. R. Hilt stated they could revisit
the issue if it became necessary at a later date.
OLD BUSINESS
None
OTHER
None
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:02 p.m.
dl
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes – 11/09/10 5