View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
DATE OF MEETING: October 12, 2010
TIME OF MEETING: 4:00 p.m.
PLACE OF MEETING: Commission Chambers, First Floor, Muskegon City Hall
AGENDA
I. Roll Call
II. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 14, 2010
M
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Hearing Case 2010-006: Request for a use variance to allow occupancy of
two separate single family residential structures located on one parcel, in an
RU
R-1 Single-Family Residential Zone, at 569 W. Webster, by David
Medendorp, Alt Property Management.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
IV. Adjourn
O
U
Q
O
AMERICAN DISABILITY ACT POLICY FOR ACCESS TO OPEN MEETINGS OF THE
N
CITY COMMISSION AND ANY OF ITS COMMITTEES OR SUBCOMMITTEES
The City of Muskegon will provide necessary reasonable auxiliary aids and services, such as signers for the
hearing impaired and audio tapes of printed materials being considered at the meeting, to individuals with
disabilities who want to attend the meeting, upon twenty-four hour notice to the City of Muskegon.
Individuals with disabilities requiring auxiliary aids or services should contact the City of Muskegon by
writing or calling the following:
Ann Marie Becker, City Clerk
933 Terrace Street
Muskegon, MI 49440
(231) 724-6705
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
STAFF REVIEW
October 12, 2010
Hearing, Case 2010-006: Request for a use variance to allow occupancy of two
separate single family residential structures located on one parcel, in an R-1 Single-
Family Residential Zone, by David Medendorp (Alt Property Management)
BACKGROUND:
Applicant: David Medendorp, Alt Property Management, 4265 Grand Haven Rd.,
M
Muskegon
Property Owner: Unlikely 3 LLC, 4265 Grand Haven Rd., Muskegon
Property Address(location): 569 W. Webster
RU
Zoning: R-1 Single Family Residential
Current Land Use: Two Vacant Single Family Structures
Request: Use variance to allow two-single family structures on one lot to be occupied.
O
STAFF OBSERVATIONS
1. The subject property was registered as a nonconforming three-family residence, with
U
two buildings on the parcel, until the most recent Certificate of Compliance expired
on May 1, 2007.
2. The last residential water usage occurred prior to the meter reading of October 13,
Q
2004. Subsequent meter readings appear to indicate a broken pipe in the building.
Typical water usage increased from an average of 50 units per month, in the 6
months prior to the February 2005 reading, to an average of over 335 units on the
next three meter readings. These meter readings appear to establish a beginning
timeline of when the buildings were abandoned.
O
3. An inspection department staff member began the process to inspect the home on
June 28, 2007, however, could not gain entry. The inspector has indicated to staff
that the buildings were empty at that time.
N
4. On September 5, 2008 a police report was made due to a police officer investigating
the possibility of a breaking & entering in progress at the two buildings on this
parcel. The officer found the rear home, which is known as 569 ½ W. Webster,
unsecure and with an open front door and a broken window. The inspections
subsequently had the front door, rear door & window boarded up to prevent entry.
5. Since more than two years have passed since this property was registered as a three
family dwelling, and was abandoned, it has lost its nonconforming status.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. The front building at this address was formerly a two unit and 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.
9. The ordinance requires 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit, and there are currently no
parking spaces available for either building on this site. The property owners have
acquired a vacant lot next door at 575 W. Webster and have applied for approvals to
install 4 paved parking spaces and a storage shed. To comply with the ordinance the
vacant lot at 575 W. Webster must be combined by the assessing department with
569 W. Webster. This will ensure that parking will remain available for the two
M
structures and allow the partial use of this vacant land for parking. Vacant lots may
not be principally used for parking in an R-1, Single-Family Residential zone.
10. This is not a Variance request from Section 2304: One Building to a Lot, as such, it
would have no impact on the two nonconforming structures, particularly if they were
RU
no longer allowed because of an event covered in Section 2203: Nonconforming
Structures. As an 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 only a single family structure. 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
O
prevent an owner from using this use variance to convert the remaining building into
a two family dwelling unit.
11. The exterior of the homes are consistent with other single family residences nearby.
U
12. Use variances require a 2/3 majority vote of the membership of the Zoning Board of
Appeals to be approved. This has been determined to be 5 members.
13. No comments have been received from staff or the public at this time.
Q
O
N
ORDINANCE EXCERPTS:
ARTICLE XXV - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECTION 2502: POWERS AND DUTIES
…
4. Use Variances
The ZBA shall have the power to authorize upon appeal in specific cases, filed as
required by this article, such use variances from the provisions or requirements of
this chapter as will not be contrary to the public interest; but only in such cases
where, owing to special conditions pertaining to a specific piece of property, the
literal enforcement of the provisions or requirements of the chapter would cause
unnecessary hardship.
M
The purpose and intent of this Ordinance is that every landowner in the City of
Muskegon should enjoy a beneficial use of their property. A use variance is a
process by which the City evaluates the allegation that there is no beneficial use,
RU
and can provide relief from the regulations by granting additional development
potential to provide a beneficial use of the property. It is also the intent of this
Section that such relief not increases the potential for damaging the health,
safety, or welfare of future users of the property or neighbors that might
reasonably anticipated if the landowner were permitted to engage in or construct
the use proposed. Under no conditions shall a use variance be granted unless
there is a finding of no beneficial use.
O
No such use variance in the provisions of requirements of this chapter shall be
authorized by the ZBA unless the ZBA finds that all the following facts and
U
conditions exist:
a. That the property could not be used (put to a reasonable use) for the
Q
purposes permitted in that zone district.
b. That the plight is due to unique circumstances peculiar to the property
and not to general neighborhood conditions.
O
c. 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.
N
d. 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.
e. That the alleged hardship is not founded solely upon the opportunity to
make the property more profitable or to reduce expense to the owner.
f. That the requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate
the hardship.
g. 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.
h. The extent to which the ordinance protects users or neighbors from
threats to health, safety and welfare shall be considered. A use that
seriously threatens the health of future residents or neighbors is not a
beneficial or allowable use.
i. In no case shall a use that is a nuisance per se, or a use which in that
particular location constitutes a nuisance, be granted as a use variance.
Such uses are not legal uses of the land.
The following data shall accompany all applications for a use variance:
M
a. A site plan must be submitted which meets the requirements of this
ordinance.
Every use variance approved by the ZBA shall require a time for completion of
RU
improvements.
SECTION 2304: ONE BUILDING TO A LOT
No more than one principal building may be permanently established on a lot or parcel,
O
unless specifically provided for elsewhere in this Ordinance as in the case of a
condominium development, site planned use, planned unit development, or multiple
family development.
U
Q
O
N
Application Page 2:
M
RU
O
U
Q
O
N
Site Plan:
M
RU
O
U
Q
O
N
Notification & Vicinity Map:
M
RU
O
U
Q
O
N
Site Photos:
M
RU
O
U
Q
O
N
N
O
Q
U
O
RU
M
M
RU
O
Proposed Parking Area:
U
Q
O
N
Water Records:
M
RU
O
U
Q
O
N
N
O
Q
U
O
RU
M
DETERMINATION:
The following motion is offered for consideration:
I move that the use variance to permit the two structures at 569 W. Webster Avenue to
each be occupied as a one-family residence in an R-1 Single Family Residential zone be
(approved/denied), based on the following review standards (found in Section 2502 of
the Zoning Ordinance) subject to conditions (only if approved):
a. That the property (could not/could) be used (put to a reasonable use) for the purposes
permitted in that zone district.
b. That the plight (is/is not) due to unique circumstances peculiar to the property and
(not/instead) to general neighborhood conditions.
M
c. That the proposed use (would not/would) alter the essential character of the area and
(will not/will) materially impair the purposes of this ordinance or the public interest.
d. That the alleged hardship (is/is not) caused by the Ordinance and (has not/has) been
RU
created by any person presently having an interest in the property, or by any previous
owner.
e. That the alleged hardship (is not/is) founded solely upon the opportunity to make the
property more profitable or to reduce expense to the owner.
O
f. That the requested variance (is/is not) the minimum action required to eliminate the
hardship.
U
g. That the use variance (does not/does) permit a use specifically identified by this
Ordinance as a use excluded from the particular zone in which requested.
h. The use (does/does not) seriously threatens the health of future residents or
Q
neighbors.
i. The use (is/is not) a nuisance per se, or the use in that particular location
(constitutes/does not constitute) a nuisance.
O
CONDITIONS
1. The variance is recorded with the deed to keep record of it in the future.
N
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, with all necessary permits acquired, at
569 W. Webster, prior to the dwelling units becoming occupied.
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.