View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
June 13, 2006
Chairman R. Hilt called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: R. Hilt, S. Brock, K. Davis, J. Clingman-Scott, L. Gomez-Payne,
C. Kufta
MEMBERS ABSENT: E. Fordham, excused
STAFF PRESENT: M. Cameron, L. Anguilm, D. Leafers
OTHERS PRESENT: T. Bailey, Mill Street Group LLC, Northville; M. Marek, 1878
Dowd; T. Bosma, 557 W. Western; B. Reckell, 1430 Beach; R.
Reckell, 1430 Beach; P. Mason, 3687 Rogers; J. Matty, 1412
Nelson; C. Zaagman, 975 W. Broadway; P. Simonis, 2471
Whitehall Rd.; T. Noll, 3351 Thompson; L. Vanbrocklin, 3366
Plum; N. Poole, 3324 Thompson
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of May 9, 2006 be approved was made by K
Davis supported by J. Clingman-Scott and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing, Case 2006-006: Request for a variance from Section 2003: Area and Bulk
Requirements and Table I: Heights, Areas, and Yards, to reduce the minimum required square
footage of a lot in the H, Heritage District from 4,000 square feet to 2,461 square feet. M.
Cameron presented the staff report. The applicant is Terry Bailey and the property owner is Mill
Street Group LLC. The property is located at the northeast corner of Clay and Eighth Streets and
is zoned H, Heritage. It is a vacant former office building. The variance request is for a
reduction in the required minimum square footage of a lot in the H district to enable the approval
of a lot split. The subject property has one structure located on it that will be converted to a 2-
unit condominium. Zoning of the adjacent properties in the area is H, Heritage to the north and
east, I-1 Light Industrial to the south, and I-2 General Industrial to the west. Muskegon County
Equalization has assigned a parcel number to the proposed parcel of 24-205-317-0009-10. The
proposed new parcel was actually deeded from the parent parcel without proper zoning approvals
in February 2005. The Muskegon County Equalization Department notified the Zoning
Administrator in August 2005 of the illegal land division. After notification was received, our
Zoning Administrator contacted Mr. Michael Jacobsen of Boilerworks LLC to make him aware
of the situation. The application for a lot split was received April 28th, 2006 but could not be
approved due to the size of the proposed new parcel. The Zoning Administrator is not allowed to
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –06/13/06 1
approve the split of the parcel because of the requirements of Section 2305: Reduction of parcels
below minimum required size, width, or depth. The resultant parcel would not meet the minimum
area of 4,000 square feet for the zoning district.
According to the provided survey, the structure on the new lot would have setbacks of
approximately 10 feet to the proposed easterly, or rear, lot line. The side setback to the northerly
lot line is not indicated on the survey but it appears to be approximately 3 feet. There are no
required side setback requirements in an H, Heritage district and the required rear setback is 10
feet. The two front setbacks are pre-existing and are not affected by the proposed split. The
proposed new parcel would continue to be subject to parking and refuse agreements made
between parcels A, B and C on the survey and also would remain part of the Planned Unit
Development. A building permit has been issued for the alteration of the building into two
condominiums. This permit is valid until October 10, 2006 and remains valid regardless of the
property split. The property split is not a requirement of the PUD or city regulations and the
parent property before the proposed lot split meets the size standards of the ordinance. Staff has
not been made aware of the reasons for the split request and the applicant's page 2 answers do
not give enough details regarding the reasons for the lot split. Staff has not received any
comments on this case.
J. Clingman-Scott asked the applicant why they needed the lot split. T. Bailey stated that this
building was not part of Boilerworks LLC. They needed to have it as a separate entity for their
financing to go through. R. Hilt asked about the parking arrangement. T. Bailey stated that there
was a cross-easement agreement between parcels A, B, and C and there were three different lots.
R. Hilt asked if a vehicle pulling something like a boat trailer could park there. T. Bailey stated
that the stipulations for the Artworks parking would also apply to this building, so they could
not. K. Davis thought that originally these two units were part of the PUD with Boilerworks,
even if they were not developed at the same time. T. Bailey stated that it was his understanding
that the yellow building was separate from the Artworks with agreements between them, and this
building would be the same situation. J. Clingman-Scott asked if the PUD could contain more
than one entity. L. Anguilm stated that it could, but the application at the time the PUD was
created didn’t indicate more than one. J. Clingman-Scott asked if the easement for parking and
services stayed with the land or the ownership. L. Anguilm stated that she hadn’t seen the
agreement, but it needed to stay with the property, not the owner. T. Bailey stated that he was
not present when the original proposal was made, but the plan was for three separate projects. J.
Clingman-Scott asked if the two market-rate apartments were included in the PUD. L. Anguilm
stated that she believed so, but there was no mention of them being owned by someone else. C.
Kufta asked architect T. Bosma where the building sat on the lot. T. Bosma provided the
approximate building setbacks. K. Davis thought that this building was to be the only market
based rental units in the development, not condos.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by J. Clingman-Scott supported by K. Davis and
unanimously approved.
J. Clingman-Scott stated that she could understand how the financing might be affected, but she
was concerned about a change in the intent of the PUD. K. Davis suggested tabling the case
until the next meeting so that staff could check into the original PUD agreement, and to allow the
applicant to gather additional information.
A motion to table this case until the next meeting was made by K. Davis, supported by J.
Clingman-Scott and unanimously approved.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –06/13/06 2
S. Brock asked that minutes from the meeting where the PUD was originally approved be
included in next month’s meeting packet.
Hearing, Case 2006-007: Request for a variance from Section 2311: Accessory Structures &
Buildings, to erect an accessory structure (shed) in a front yard at 1878 Dowd St. Applicant:
Michael Marek. M. Cameron presented the staff report. The zoning of the subject property is R-
1, Single Family Residential and the current land use is a single family residence. The variance
request is for construction of a 12 x 8-foot accessory structure (shed) in the front yard area of the
property. Zoning of the adjacent properties in the area is R-1, Single Family Residential. The
principal structure on the property is located to the rear of the property. This request is the result
of an enforcement action. The shed was erected without a permit and found completed on the site
by staff. The ordinance defines a front yard as: "An open unoccupied space extending the full
width of the lot, the depth of which is the horizontal distance between the front lot line and the
nearest point of the building. In the case of lots abutting lakes, rivers, and canals, the front yard
shall be that side of the lot or parcel on the street side." The front lot line is defined as: "Lot
Line, Front: The line(s) separating the lot from any street right-of-way, private road or other
access easement. Such line shall be continuous at least a sufficient length to conform with the
minimum lot width requirement of the district." The front yard is thus defined as being any area
between the building and the front lot line. The term “building” as applied here is the principal
structure currently on the property. The Zoning Administrator has determined that the area that
would be used for the accessory structure is in fact a front yard area as defined in the ordinance.
Accessory structures are not allowed in these areas. According to the site plan submitted, the
shed would meet the required setbacks from the property line and from the home. Staff has not
received any comments on this case.
J. Clingman-Scott asked what type of permit was required for a shed of this size. M. Cameron
stated that a building permit was not required, but a development permit was. S. Brock asked
where the alley was. M. Marek stated that it was right behind the house. S. Brock asked if the
shed would fit in a side yard. M. Marek stated that it would not. He had no garage or other
outdoor storage. R. Hilt asked how big the shed was. M. Marek stated that it was 8 x 12.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by K. Davis, supported by S. Brock and
unanimously approved.
K. Davis stated that this house was built toward the back of the lot, leaving a large front yard but
no back yard, and today’s building standards were different than those in place when the house
was built.
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.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –06/13/06 3
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 an 8 x 12 foot accessory structure (shed) in the
front yard between the principal structure and Dowd Street at 1878 Dowd be approved subject to
the conditions that 1) the variance is recorded with the deed to keep record of it in the future, 2)
that the additions to the property must be complete within one year (Sec. 2504) or the variance is
void, 3) the accessory structure is constructed on the property as indicated on the included site
plan, and 4) the property owner applies for a Development Permit within 30 days, was made by
C. Kufta, supported by J. Clingman-Scott and unanimously approved.
Hearing, Case 2006-008: Request for a variance from Section 2311: Accessory Structures &
Buildings, to erect an accessory structure (gazebo) on a vacant lot prior to the establishment of a
principal structure at 1426 Beach Street. M. Cameron presented the staff report. The applicants
are Russell & Barbara Reckell, 1430 Beach St, and the property owner is CVT Trust et al,
Timothy Reckell. The zoning of the property is R-1, Single Family Residential and its current
land use is a vacant lot. The variance request is to allow an accessory structure (gazebo) to be
built on a vacant lot that does not have a principal structure on it. The subject property is located
on the corner of Beach Street and Rogers. Zoning of the adjacent properties in the area is R-1,
Single Family Residential with OSC, Open Space Conservation across Beach Street. The
property is in a critical dune area and it is unknown if the applicant has a DEQ permit. This case
is a result of the denial of a Development Permit application to place a gazebo on the property.
Section 2311: Accessory Structures & Buildings does not permit placement of accessory
structures on vacant lots prior to construction of a principal structure. The vacant parcel known
as 1426 Beach St. had a house on it that was recently demolished. The applicants own the
property next door at 1430 Beach Street and their son currently owns the parcel at 1426 Beach.
The transferring of title and combining of the two lots was a consideration but a variance would
still have to be obtained because the combination would have made the resultant parcel a corner
lot and the old lot would have become a front yard area. Accessory structures are not allowed in
front yards. The site plan that has been provided for this hearing does not include enough
dimensions to ascertain the exact location of the gazebo but the site plan provided for the permit
process indicates a setback of 25 feet from Rogers Street. Both site plans indicate the gazebo is
centrally located on the lot and should not cause any vision clearance issues. Staff has received
two comments on this case. Ms. Janet M. Vorgias of 1438 Beach St. states in her letter that she
is in favor of the request. Mr. Tom Schaefer of 3695 Watson e-mailed to say he supports the
variance request.
J. Clingman-Scott asked for the dimensions of the lot, which M. Cameron provided. J.
Clingman-Scott asked if it was a buildable lot. M. Cameron stated that it would not be buildable
based on the requirement of 6,000 square feet, but it could enjoy legal lot of record status which
would allow it to be buildable. B. Reckell distributed photos of the property as it is now, with
the garden on it. J. Clingman-Scott asked if there was any reason why they couldn’t combine the
lots. B. Reckell stated that they had discussed it, but they didn’t want to deal with the front yard
issues that would be created, and it could also cause problems in the family in the future. J.
Clingman-Scott asked what the foundation of the gazebo would be. B. Reckell stated that it
would be a concrete slab.
Neighbor P. Mason stated that he was not opposed to this request or the one following. J. Matty
was in favor of the request and stated that it was an enhancement to the neighborhood.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –06/13/06 4
A motion to close the public hearing was made by K. Davis, supported by S. Brock and
unanimously approved.
K. Davis stated that there were other isolated lots in this area on which the owners would like to
build structures, and he was concerned about creating a precedent. He would support combining
the lots, but not a vacant lot without a primary structure. C. Kufta concurred. He was also
concerned about unforeseen consequences if the lot were to be sold in the future. L. Gomez-
Payne concurred and asked who would maintain the lot if the applicants no longer occupied the
adjoining residence. S. Brock asked how permanent of a structure the gazebo was. R. Reckell
stated that there were posts in the ground, but it could be dismantled in a day. K. Davis asked if
the case could be tabled. M. Cameron stated that if the applicants withdrew their request they
could combine the lots and return with a request for a front yard exception. K. Davis asked if
they would have to pay another fee. M. Cameron stated that the State had recently added new
regulations to the zoning ordinance and the City would now incur more costs. If the request
changed it would have to be renoticed, and he did not have the authority to waive fees. Board
members discussed procedural issues regarding tabling the case. R. Hilt stated that approval of
the request would not establish a precedent, since each case is considered individually. M.
Cameron stated that if the case were tabled it would preserve the applicant’s ability to return with
the same request and to decide whether or not they want to combine the lots. R. Hilt asked if the
applicants had DEQ permission for the project. R. Reckell stated that he wasn’t aware that the
property was in a critical dune area and required a DEQ permit.
A motion to table this request pending a DEQ response or a change in request by the applicants
was made by J. Clingman-Scott, supported by K. Davis and unanimously approved.
Hearing, Case 2006-009: Request for a variance from Section 2331: Landscaping, Fencing,
Walls, Screens and Lighting, to place a 4 foot tall privacy style fence in the front setback/yard at
1426 Beach Street. M. Cameron presented the staff report. The applicants are Russell &
Barbara Reckell, 1430 Beach St., and the property owner is CVT Trust et al, Timothy Reckell.
The zoning of the property is R-1, Single Family Residential and its current land use is a vacant
lot. The variance request is to allow construction of a 4-foot tall privacy-style fence that would
be in the front setback/yard. The subject property is located on the corner of Beach St. and
Rogers. Zoning of the adjacent properties in the area is R-1, Single Family Residential with
OSC, Open Space Conservation across Beach Street. This case is a result of the denial of a
Development Permit Application to place a gazebo and fence on the property as indicated on the
application. The vacant parcel known as 1426 Beach St. had a house on it that was recently
demolished. The applicants own the property next door at 1430 Beach St. and their son currently
owns the parcel at 1426 Beach St. The transferring of title and combining of the two lots was a
consideration but it would still not allow a fence of this type in this area of the property because
it would then all be considered a front yard area. The front yard areas of vacant lots have been
determined by using the front setback dimension. The site plan that has been provided for this
hearing indicates that the fence would be set back 14 feet. The front setback for a home on this
lot would be 15 feet from the property line. No dimension is given for the setback from the
Rogers property line. The fence has been installed in front of the building line of the home and
fences of this type and height are not allowed in this area. Fences of a see-through design up to 4
feet tall would be allowed, but fences of a shadow box design are not considered see-through and
may only be 3 feet tall. Staff has received two comments on this case. Ms. Janet M. Vorgias of
1438 Beach St. states in her letter that she is in favor of the request. Mr. Tom Schaefer of 3695
Watson e-mailed to he supports the variance request.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –06/13/06 5
J. Clingman-Scott asked if the photo that was provided showed the entire fence. B. Reckell
stated that it did. The fence was 32 feet long and 30 feet from Rogers St. It did not block the
view for traffic. They needed the fence to help block winds off the lake and to keep debris and
leaves from blowing into the garden from the park across the street.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by C. Kufta, supported by K. Davis 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 a variance to allow a four-foot privacy-style fence located in the front setback/yard at 1426
Beach, be approved subject to the conditions that 1) the variance is recorded with the deed to
keep record of it in the future, and 2) the additions to the property must be complete within one
year (Sec. 2504) or the variance is void, was made by C. Kufta, supported by J. Clingman-Scott
and unanimously approved.
Hearing, Case 2006-010: Request for a variance from Section 603: Area and Bulk
Requirements and Table I: Heights, Areas, and Yards to reduce required thirty-foot rear setback
to a rear setback of eight feet, to allow construction of three duplex structures at 2495 Barclay
Street, by Carol Zaagman of Exit Your Way LLC. M. Cameron presented the staff report. The
property owner is Chris Collins of 2937 Getty St. The zoning of the property is RT, Two-Family
Residential and its current land use is a vacant wooded lot. The request is for a 22-foot rear
setback variance for the west lot line, having a proposed setback of 8 feet rather than the required
30 feet. The subject property is facing Barclay St. and is bordered by a deep ravine and creek to
the south, vacant land to the west and a single-family residence to the north. The adjacent
property to the south is zoned B-4, General Business, the properties to the west and north are
zoned R-1 Single Family, and across Barclay St. is a PUD Overlay development. This variance
request is being made due to the expiration of a variance granted in May of 2005 to Mr. Collins.
The new developers have indicated that they would like to build the development as approved
previously. The applicant is proposing to build three single story duplex apartment buildings on
the site using the same plans submitted by Mr. Collins. The site plan for this development
received approvals from the Zoning Administrator on March 29, 2006. The applicant’s site plan
indicates the eight-foot setback from the corner of the westerly building to the lot line. This may
appear to be a side setback dimension but by ordinance definition it is considered a rear setback.
The property is an irregularly shaped lot with 383.89 feet of frontage along Barclay and 322.78
feet along the west lot line. The south lot line is 223.9 feet long running along the creek and the
north lot line adjacent to the residential structure is 220 feet in length. During the previous
variance hearing some concerns were expressed regarding the proposed eight foot rear setback.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –06/13/06 6
After hearing the concerns Mr. Collins offered to build an 8 foot berm with landscaping on it to
minimize the impact of the development. The berm and landscaping have been included on the
approved site plan. Staff received one comment regarding this case from Peter and Mary Oakes
of 2379 Park Dr. The Oakes own property adjacent to the proposed development and are
opposed to the variance request.
R. Hilt asked if there were any changes between this request and the one approved last year. M.
Cameron stated that there were not. J. Clingman-Scott asked if there had been any changes in
any of the surrounding properties. M. Cameron stated that there had not been, other than the
environmental work on Ruddiman Creek.
K. Davis asked why the reduction in the setback was needed. Builder P. Simonis and other
board members explained the circumstances of last year’s variance request for this property. J.
Clingman-Scott stated that the building could not be shifted on the lot because of the slope and
creek running through it. S. Brock asked if they could build right on the lot line. M. Cameron
stated that they could utilize a zero lot line development. C. Kufta asked about the details of the
berm, which were explained by P. Simonis. M. Cameron read the conditions of the variance
approval from 2005 outlining the berm specifications. S. Brock asked if there were regulations
on what the berm could be made of. M. Cameron stated that specific materials were not
mentioned but it must be of a residential design. C. Kufta asked if it would be irrigated. P.
Simonis stated that it would. S. Brock asked who would maintain it and pay for the water. P.
Simonis stated that the condominium association would.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by J. Clingman-Scott, supported by K. Davis 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 variance request to reduce the required rear setback from thirty feet to eight
feet, be approved, 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, and 3) the variance is granted for the plans currently approved and
known as Minor Site Plan Review case # 2004-012 Barclay Condos, was made by J. Clingman-
Scott, supported by K. Davis and unanimously approved.
Hearing, Case 2006-011: Request for a variance from Section 404: Area and Bulk
Requirements and Table I: Heights, Areas, and Yards to reduce the side setback requirements
for a two story structure from a minimum side setback of eight feet with a total of twenty feet on
both sides of the structure to the homes current setbacks of four point nine (4.9) feet on the west
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –06/13/06 7
side and three point eight (3.8) feet on the east side. M. Cameron presented the staff report. The
applicant is Tina Noll of 3383 Wilcox. The zoning is R-1, Single Family Residential and the
current land use is a single family home. The request is for a reduction in the required side
setbacks to allow construction of a second story addition to the home. The subject property has a
single story home located on the irregularly-shaped lot abutting a sand dune. The property is not
in a critical dune area. The rear portion of the lot is a steep hill with a retaining wall behind the
home. Zoning of adjacent properties is R-1, Single Family Residential. Work on the second
floor addition was begun under a building permit issued March 20, 2006 with a description
indicating the work to be performed would be "level basement floors, add floor joists + beams",
"will be adding dormer later". Zoning staff found the second story expansion in progress and
requested to meet with the owner. This resulted in the owner amending the building permit
application to include the second floor work being performed. After a review of the proposed
work on the second story, staff denied the amended permit application and the applicant
proceeded with the variance request. The current structure is nonconforming in regards to front
and side setbacks for a one story structure. The provided survey indicates a front setback of 13.2
feet and side setbacks of 4.9 feet to the west and 3.8 feet on the east side. The east setback is
measured from the garage since it is attached and thus considered part of the principal structure.
It is not known if the setbacks provided on the survey are from the drip edges or the structure
walls. All setbacks must be measured from the drip edges. The current ordinance requirements
for setbacks for a single story home on a minor street are 15 feet in the front and a total of 16 feet
on the sides, the least of which may be 6 feet. A two story home on a minor street must have a
15-foot front setback and a total of 20 feet on the sides, the least of which may be 8 feet. As a
result of the additional story this structure would be moving further away from compliance with
side setbacks. Directly east of the home and running the full length of the easterly lot line is a
platted public walkway that is 10 feet wide. Because this is not part of the property in question,
it cannot be used in the calculation of side setbacks. Staff has received several comments
regarding this case. The following people have contacted staff to state that they have no problem
with the request: C. Jensen of 3361 Lakeshore Dr., Mr. & Mrs. L. Page of 3328 Wilcox, D.
VanBrocklin of 3301 Thompson Ave., and Mr. and Mrs. L. Bullion of 1873 Walnut. S. Line of
3340 Millard was opposed to the request because of the fire danger, noise, and airflow between
the buildings.
T. Noll stated that she purchased the house in February and was not aware that she needed a
variance to do the renovations. She stated that the addition was not a full story and would not
change the current footprint of the house. She stated that she obtained 25 signatures from
neighbors who were in favor of the project, and had taken photos of several other non-
conforming structures in the area. She stated that her house was not visible from the house on
Millard whose owner was opposed to the variance. J. Clingman-Scott asked if the property to
the west of this had a home on it. M. Cameron stated that it did, and it appeared to be a 2-story
home. R. Hilt stated that many of the other 2-story homes in the area were built that way
originally and would have no bearing on this case, since each request was considered
individually. L. Vanbrocklin and N. Poole lived in the area and supported the applicant’s
request.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by K. Davis, supported by J. Clingman-Scott and
unanimously approved.
J. Clingman-Scott stated that one purpose of the setbacks was to provide safety for neighboring
homes in case of a fire. She recalled a previous similar case on Jefferson St. where there was a
requirement to build the house to a higher fire rating. M. Cameron stated that the building code
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –06/13/06 8
required a higher fire rating in that case. S. Brock asked if the house was still on the same
footprint on the sides. M. Cameron stated that it was, although there may be a couple-inch
encroachment since the current drip edge was smaller than normal, about 6 inches. R. Hilt asked
about the deck over the garage. M. Cameron stated that there was no reference to that in the staff
report because the deck would have been approved from a zoning perspective. L. Gomez-Payne
asked for clarification of the drawing on how the look of the home would be altered. She was
shown photos of how the house looked before the work started and the plans on how it would
look when finished. J. Clingman-Scott asked how many square feet were being added. M.
Cameron stated that it was close to 30% of the size of the home, which was the limit for
expanding a non-conforming structure. J. Clingman-Scott asked about the fire code. M.
Cameron stated that it appeared that the setback was far enough away that the building inspector
would not have any additional requirements. C. Kufta felt that it was a reasonable request,
considering the uniqueness of the area.
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) hat the requested variance is the minimum action required to
eliminate the difficulty.
A motion that the variance request to reduce the required side setbacks from a minimum of eight
feet on one side with 12 feet on the other side be reduced to the setbacks of the existing home as
indicated on the provided survey be approved, subject to the conditions that 1) the variance is
recorded with the deed to keep record of it in the future, and 2) the additions to the property must
be complete within one year (Sec. 2504) or the variance is void, was made by C. Kufta,
supported by S. Brock and unanimously approved.
NEW BUSINESS
None
OLD BUSINESS
None
OTHER
M. Cameron provided members with a guidebook regarding the new State Enabling Act which
affected the zoning ordinance. The City is now required to advertise the ZBA cases in the
newspaper, making the deadline for submission of ZBA requests very difficult to meet. He was
considering changing the deadline date by making it one day earlier than it was currently. S.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –06/13/06 9
Brock asked what the cost was for a variance application. M. Cameron stated that there was a
residential variance application fee of $150, but the legal ads could run up to $400, which does
not include the mailings. L. Anguilm stated that advertising for the average Planning
Commission case was $400. Board members did not have a problem with the deadline date
being moved back.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:56 p.m.
dml
6/13/06
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –06/13/06 10
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails