View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
February 14, 2006
Chairman R. Hilt called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: R. Hilt, S. Brock, E. Fordham, K. Davis, J. Clingman-Scott,
C. Kufta
MEMBERS ABSENT: L. Blackmon
STAFF PRESENT: M. Cameron, L. Anguilm, D. Leafers
OTHERS PRESENT: C. Ostrowski, 16 Circle Dr.; J. Wozny, 2984 Lakeshore Dr.;
G. Merkey, 555 E. Western; T. Freye, 1986 Lakeshore Dr.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of January 10, 2006 be approved was made by
J. Clingman-Scott, supported by K. Davis and unanimously approved.
C. Kufta arrived at 4:05 p.m.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
A motion to retain R. Hilt as Chairman and E. Fordham as Vice-Chair was made by E. Fordham,
supported by S. Brock and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing, Case 2006-003: Request for a variance from Section 2311: Accessory Structures &
Buildings, to erect a garage and shed in the front yard at 2984 Lakeshore Dr. by Leland Leiter.
M. Cameron presented the staff report. The subject property is located just west of Cottage
Grove Street on the north side of Lakeshore Drive. Zoning of the adjacent properties in the area
is all WM, Waterfront Marine. While the zoning is WM, the property is a residential non-
conforming use similar to the adjacent properties, with the Balcom's Cove planned unit
development nearby. This case has previously been before the Zoning Board of Appeals
beginning in December 2002 with a final vote at the March 2003 meeting. A zoning variance
was granted at the March 2003 meeting to allow the applicant to build a new 30 foot wide by 50
foot long garage 100 feet from the front right-of-way line and at least 3 feet from the western
property line with the following conditions: 1) the garage doors may front Lakeshore Dr., 2) the
garage must be sided and may not be sheet metal, 3) an improved driveway (paved) must be
provided to the garage from Lakeshore Dr., 4) the new garage may not be used for commercial
purposes, and 5) both of the old garages must be removed before the building permit is issued for
the new garage. The new garage was never built and the variance expired in March of 2004.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –02/14/06 1
There is considerable outdoor storage of materials and equipment on the site. The current
proposal is to construct a 30-foot by 50-foot garage facing east with access via an established
driveway easement. The access to the garage would be paved from the east property line to the
garage. Additionally, the applicant would like the existing garage to remain on the property as a
storage shed. The existing garage currently on the property has been moved and enlarged without
the necessary permits and site plan approvals. Enforcement action had been initiated but no
formal action has been taken because the applicant has been working with staff toward a
resolution. Mr. Leiter has presented a number of concepts but the process has been difficult, in
part because of the changes in staff in our department during this same time frame, but also due
to the complexity of the case. For the existing building to be considered a shed, it must not be
capable of storing vehicles. This could be accomplished by removing the current garage doors
and installing normal single or doublewide service doors. A shed and vehicle storage building
are allowed in residential zones with certain restrictions regarding placement and construction.
These restrictions do not apply in a WM, Waterfront Marine zone. If the existing garage is to
remain on the site in its present form, the driveway to it will need to be paved to the easement.
The ordinance requires that the driveway and parking areas have to be paved. This section has
been interpreted by staff in the past to mean any new portions of driveway installed as the result
of a new or moved structure and not to require pre-existing drives to be paved except where they
are being added to. The proposed plan would use less pavement then what had been previously
required and have a lesser impact on water runoff both towards the home and lake, and would
help preserve green space. The Waterfront Marine district does not limit the number of
accessory structures used for vehicle storage, as does our residential districts. Since the non-
conforming use is single family residential, the construction standards for accessory structures in
a residential use do apply and the structures may not be pole-style buildings with sheet metal
sides and they must meet the height restrictions. Staff has received a letter from G. Merkey of
2976 Lakeshore Dr., who is opposed to the request.
S. Brock asked what constituted a vehicle, for storage purposes. M. Cameron explained the
applicable zoning ordinance sections. C. Ostrowski stated that he was there on behalf of Mr.
Leiter. J. Wozny was also present. C. Ostrowski stated that the proposed new garage would meet
all height and setback requirements, and that this request was basically re-granting the previous
variance. He stated that the building would not be a pole barn style. It would be a frame
structure with siding and landscaping. R. Hilt stated that this request was different than what the
previous variance was granted for. The proposed garage doors were facing in a different
direction, and since the previous variance was granted, the applicant had illegally moved one
garage and torn down another. C. Ostrowski stated that there were some differences, but that the
proposed garage would be in the same footprint as the current one. They were willing to face the
garage doors any way that the Board determined. He also stated that, regarding the illegal
demolition of the garage and movement of the shed, they had done those things after the
previous variance was approved, in order to make room for the new garage. J. Clingman-Scott
asked if they intended to keep the existing garage. C. Ostrowski stated that they would like to,
but would take it down if it were required. They would side it and remove the garage doors to
make it into a shed and meet the zoning ordinance requirements. J. Clingman-Scott asked if the
shed currently met the zoning ordinance. M. Cameron wasn’t sure, since no setbacks had been
provided, but due to the size of the shed the Inspections Department would need to be involved.
S. Brock asked where the footprint was for the proposed 30 x 50-foot garage. C. Ostrowski
stated that it was currently 24 x 29 feet. R. Hilt asked if the garage doors would face the house.
C. Ostrowski stated that they would not. E. Fordham stated that according to the drawing, it
appeared that there would be less than 10 feet between this garage and the neighbor’s garage,
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –02/14/06 2
and he asked if that would meet the fire code. M. Cameron stated that he wasn’t familiar with
the fire code for accessory structures, but that the Inspections Department would determine that.
C. Ostrowski stated that they would comply with whatever the ordinance required. C. Kufta
asked why the garage wasn’t put up when the previous variance was approved. C. Ostrowski
asked if M. Cameron could address what had happened at that time, as C. Ostrowski was not
involved in the previous case. M. Cameron stated that there had been confusion because of the
number of different proposals that had been submitted by the applicant, as well as staff changes
in the Planning Department. C. Ostrowski stated that finances had also been an issue in the past,
but that they were now prepared to do the project right, and in compliance with city ordinance
requirements. C. Kufta asked if there was any reason why the structure could not have been built
based on the original variance that was granted. M. Cameron stated that in his opinion, the
garage could have been constructed after the previous variance was granted. Although different
proposals were submitted even after the variance was approved, to his knowledge staff had not
denied construction of the building while the variance was valid.
G. Merkey, owner of the adjoining property, was opposed to the variance. The applicants use an
easement over his property for their driveway. He stated that the area is congested as it is, and
he thought that a new larger garage would add to the traffic and congestion. J. Clingman-Scott
stated that an easement was a property right and not a zoning issue, so there was nothing that this
board could do about easement issues. G. Merkey stated that there were past problems with
applicant’s vehicles right on the property line, but it would be less objectionable if the garage
doors faced Lakeshore Dr. He asked what other rights he had, other than voicing his objection at
the meeting. R. Hilt stated that the board would consider all input, but they could not do
anything about the easement. Also, in the previous case, the feeling was that garage doors should
face the street, but that has changed. T. Freye owned the property on the other side of the
applicant. He asked what criteria were used to determine if the requested variance would be a
detriment. J. Clingman-Scott stated that an increase in traffic, noise or pollution. T. Freye felt
that anything that would decrease his property value would be detrimental. He wasn’t sure if
allowing this variance would, but his concern was that requests for zoning variances would be an
ongoing issue. He asked about the likelihood of ending up with an unbuildable portion of land
after the garage was built. J. Clingman-Scott asked M. Cameron about situations where
someone’s property covers two lots. M. Cameron stated that the lots were combined and were
considered one lot. If the applicant were to apply for a lot split, it would have to meet the zoning
ordinance or it would not be granted.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by C. Kufta, supported by J. Clingman-Scott and
unanimously approved.
J. Clingman-Scott pointed out the unique situation of lakefront property regarding front and back
yard issues. She felt that presentability from the road was an important consideration. In the
current proposal, the paved area was smaller and would leave more green space. She believed
that the request met the six criteria for issuance of a variance.
A motion to approve the variance request to allow a 30-foot wide by 50-foot long garage and a
12-foot by 22-foot shed in front of the building line as indicated on the included site plan at 2984
Lakeshore Drive, was made by J. Clingman-Scott and supported by K. Davis, with discussion
continuing on the motion.
R. Hilt asked about the existing garage. J. Clingman-Scott had no problem allowing that to be
used as a shed. M. Cameron asked about the conditions to the approval that were mentioned in
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –02/14/06 3
the staff report. J. Clingman-Scott wanted those included in the motion. K. Davis concurred. E.
Fordham asked about #6 on the staff report, regarding the outdoor storage of materials on the
property. He was unhappy with the current state of the property and asked if there was any
protection against that type of situation. M. Cameron stated that the applicants had indicated that
the materials would be stored in the garage, but that it would be difficult to enforce if they
weren’t. He stated that if storage of materials was a concern, it could be attached as a condition
of approval of the variance. E. Fordham stated that he did wish to attach an addendum to the
motion, stating that no outdoor storage of materials would be allowed in the front yard. J.
Clingman-Scott concurred. K. Davis felt that they should be allowed to store items in their back
yard if it was allowed for other properties. M. Cameron stated that, according to the zoning
ordinance, it would be considered their front yard. J. Clingman-Scott asked if adding a condition
that all building materials and equipment could not be stored outdoors would be acceptable. M.
Cameron stated that it would be difficult to enforce, considering the historical use of this
property. J. Clingman-Scott suggested requiring that storage of materials and vehicles meet
residential code. E. Fordham and K. Davis concurred. C. Kufta felt that the driveway approach
should be paved, and that this case provided an opportunity to fix several issues involving this
property. S. Brock concurred, and suggested that the driveway be located where the curb cut
was. J. Clingman-Scott stated that the easement was a property right, and requiring them to
move the driveway would be an undue burden. C. Kufta stated that he was not referring to the
easement, but if the board wanted this property to conform to residential code, this would be a
way to do it. S. Brock asked the applicant if there was any reason they didn’t want the garage
doors to face Lakeshore Dr. C. Ostrowski stated that the new rule was to not have them face the
road. He stated that their current proposal would have the least impact and the least amount of
blacktop. They wanted to get rid of the junk in the yard and landscape it, which is why they
needed to build the garage.
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.
An amended motion to approve the variance request to allow a 30 foot wide by 50 foot long
garage and a 12 foot by 22-foot shed in front of the building line as indicated on the included site
plan at 2984 Lakeshore Drive, subject to the conditions that 1) the variance is recorded with the
deed to keep record of it in the future, 2) the additions to the property must be complete within
one year (Sec. 2504) or the variance is void, 3) the existing garage shall be converted to a shed
without the lean-to on the north side and have received all necessary permits and final Inspection
Department approvals for a completed structure, prior to issuance of a permit to construct the
new 30-foot by 50 foot garage, 4) there shall be no commercial activity conducted in any
accessory structure on the property except as may be allowed under the home occupation
regulations for the R-1 Single Family Residential zone, and 5) that all outdoor storage of
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –02/14/06 4
materials and vehicles shall conform to the residential code, was made by J. Clingman-Scott,
supported by K. Davis and approved, with S. Brock and C. Kufta voting nay.
OTHER BUSINESS
R. Hilt asked staff to request the resignation of board member L. Blackmon, and to request a
replacement. M. Cameron stated that he would contact the City Clerk’s office.
Updated zoning ordinance books were distributed to the members.
R. Hilt thanked the members who attended the training session on February 1.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
dml
2/14/06
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –02/14/06 5
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails