View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
August 14, 2007
Chairman R. Hilt called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: E. Fordham S. Brock, K. Davis, B. Larson, L. Gomez-Payne,
R. Hilt, J. Clingman-Scott
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: M. Cameron, D. Leafers
OTHERS PRESENT: J. Mieler, K. Mieler, 1055 Windsor; J. Weatherbee, 4236 W. Giles
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of July 10, 2007 be approved was made by B.
Larson, supported by E. Fordham and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing Case 2007-004: Request for a variance from Section 2316: Storage of Vehicles, to allow
creation of a driveway/parking area in the required front yard, at 1055 Windsor. Applicant:
Kimberly Mieler. M. Cameron presented the staff report. Zoning of parcels in the area is R-1,
Single Family Residential. The applicant applied for a curb breaking permit with the Engineering
Department to enable the home to have a driveway. After a review of the site plan it was
determined that the driveway would be in an area that is classified as a front yard. Due to this
area being developed under the zoning regulations of the Township of Muskegon, it does not
comply with our ordinance requirements. The previous property owner had a nonconforming
driveway/parking area in the approximate location that the current homeowner is requesting to
build. The previous homeowner did not drive or own a car so when the roadway was rebuilt they
declined to have a drive approach installed and thus lost the protection granted a nonconforming
use. Staff attempted to convince the previous homeowner of the need for a driveway/parking
area while the nonconforming status was in place, but they were not persuaded to comply. The
home located on the current lot is quite small in size and is a nonconforming structure due to
setbacks. The home has very little rear yard and only four (4) feet for a side yard to the east
property line. Today’s ordinance requirements for parking require two (2) parking places for
vehicles and they must be eight (8) by eighteen (18) feet in size. The location of these parking
spaces may not be located in a front yard. The proposed driveway would meet the size
requirements for a single car parking area and as drawn would be located in both front yards of
the home. Since the property does not have a sidewalk to use as a reference, staff has added the
approximate property line location to the applicant’s site plan. The site plan submitted shows a
concrete driveway/parking area eighteen feet (18) long as measured from the street. Because the
property line appears to be approximately eight (8) feet from the curb, that would only leave ten
(10) feet of private property for the parking of a vehicle. Should a sidewalk ever need to be
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –08/14/07 1
installed, there would not be enough room for a larger vehicle to park in the parking area without
hanging over the sidewalk. Blocking the sidewalk would expose the occupant to another ticket
situation. To correct this problem the drive/parking area should extend at least eighteen (18) feet
onto the private property as is normally required. Staff has not received any comments on this
case.
J. Mieler gave several reasons for needing the driveway. M. Cameron stated that one of the
conditions suggested in the staff report was that the driveway be longer than what was proposed,
and he explained why. Board members concurred that it was reasonable for the home to have a
driveway, as other homes in the neighborhood did. They also agreed that an additional 8 feet
should be added to the length to avoid possible problems in the future if a sidewalk were to be
put in.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by J. Clingman-Scott, supported by B. Larson
and unanimously approved.
The following findings of fact were offered: a) that there are exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question or to the intended use of the
property that do not apply generally to other properties or class of uses in the same zoning
district; b) that such dimensional variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the
vicinity, c) that the authorizing of such dimensional variance will not be of substantial detriment
to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purposes of this chapter or the public
interest, d) that the alleged difficulty 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
difficulty is not founded solely upon the opportunity to make the property more profitable or to
reduce expense to the owner, and f) that the requested variance is the minimum action required
to eliminate the difficulty.
A motion that the findings of fact determined by the Zoning Board of Appeals be adopted and
that the variance request to allow construction of a driveway/parking area as located on the
included site plan be approved, subject to conditions 1) the additions to the property must be
complete within one year (Sec. 2504) or the variance is void, 2) there be at least eight (8) by
eighteen feet (18) of parking area on private property, and 2) the variance is recorded with the
deed to keep record of it in the future, was made by J. Clingman-Scott, supported by B. Larson
and unanimously approved.
Hearing Case 2007-005: Request for a variance from Section 400 Area and Bulk Requirements
and Table I, to allow a conforming lot at 1943 Dowd to be split into two lots with the two
resultant parcels being 4950 square feet, which is less than the required six-thousand (6000)
square feet each, by James Weatherbee. M. Cameron presented the staff report. Zoning of all
parcels in the area is R-1, Single Family Residential. The applicant applied for and received a
variance for the same request in February of 2002 with the condition that the homes are
compatible with adjacent homes and that they comply with all other zoning requirements.
Because of a misunderstanding, the applicant did not proceed with the lot split before the one
year time limit in the ordinance. The current lot is 117 x 82.5 for a total of 9652.5 square feet in
area. This lot was originally configured as three lots, but due to ordinance requirements they
were combined as one by the Assessing Department when they were all owned by one person.
To build one large home on a single lot of this size would not be compatible with the character of
the adjacent area both in lot size and probably the home design. It is not known why, due to the
history of this subdivision, but this block is the only block platted with lot sizes less than 100 feet
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –08/14/07 2
deep on one half of a block. Most blocks were split down the middle. This area was developed
under the regulations of the Township of Muskegon and it does not comply with our ordinance
requirements. Staff has not received any comments on this case.
K. Davis stated that the lot behind this one was also large. M. Cameron stated that the
homeowner bought the vacant lot next door to his house and had them combined. J. Weatherbee
stated that he would like to improve the neighborhood by building houses on the lots, and the
size of the lots he is requesting would be compatible with the rest of the neighborhood.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Larson, supported by E. Fordham and
unanimously approved.
J. Clingman-Scott stated that the way the lots were divided in this block caused the shorter lot
depth, which was a contributing factor in the reduced square footage. K. Davis stated that the
only reason he saw for the variance was economic. B. Larson stated that allowing the split
would keep the lots more in conformance with the rest of the neighborhood. Also, these were
three separate lots at one time, and this request would result in only two lots.
The following findings of fact were offered: a) that there are exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question or to the intended use of the
property that do not apply generally to other properties or class of uses in the same zoning
district, b) that such dimensional variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the
vicinity, c) that the authorizing of such dimensional variance will not be of substantial detriment
to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purposes of this chapter or the public
interest, d) that the alleged difficulty 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
difficulty is not founded solely upon the opportunity to make the property more profitable or to
reduce expense to the owner, and f) that the requested variance is the minimum action required
to eliminate the difficulty.
A motion that the findings of fact as determined by the Zoning Board of Appeals be adopted and
that the variance request to allow a reduction in the minimum lot size so the property can be split
into two lots as proposed in the submitted site plan be approved, with the conditions that 1) the
lot split to the property must be complete within one year (Sec. 2504) or the variance is void, 2)
the structures to be built must conform to all other applicable zoning requirements, and 3) the
variance is recorded with the deed to keep record of it in the future, was made by B. Larson,
supported by S. Brock and approved, with K. Davis voting nay.
OLD BUSINESS
None
OTHER
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:33 p.m.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –08/14/07 3
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails