View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
October 10, 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, E. Fordham, J. Clingman-Scott, L.
Gomez-Payne, C. Kufta
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: M. Cameron, L. Anguilm, D. Leafers
OTHERS PRESENT: J. Hughes, Hughes Builders, 3279 E. Laketon; B. Morin, Great
Lakes Naval Museum, 3800 Bluff; C. Luders, 1250 Browne; C.
Linstrom, 3540 Fulton; D. Barns, 3509 Channel; B. Reckell, 1430
Beach
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of August 8, 2006 be approved was made by E.
Fordham, supported by R. Hilt and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing, Case 2006-015: Request for a variance from Section 1703: Area and Bulk
Requirements and Table I: Heights, Areas, and Yards, to reduce the setback from the ordinary
high water mark or wetland from 75 feet for principle structures to a proposed 43 feet in the
OSR, Open Space Recreation District at 3800 Bluff and 1260 Browne, by Bob Morin, Great
Lakes Naval Museum. M. Cameron presented the staff report. The request to allow the reduced
setbacks is for the purpose of building a new museum structure on the site. Zoning of adjacent
parcels are R-1 Single-Family Residential to the east, LR, Lakefront Recreation with the Harbour
Towne P.U.D. to the south and OSR, Open Space Recreation to the west. A previous case had
been before this body for a reduction in the waterfront setback to 30 feet and was denied. The
Zoning Administrator has determined that the current case before the ZBA has sufficient
changed conditions from the previous case to be heard. The previous variance request that was
denied had proposed to allow the deck to be 30 feet from the channel. The current request has
shortened the deck and moved the building further into the hill and results in a setback of 43 feet
to the deck and 55 feet to the building. Because the deck is more than two feet above grade it
must meet the structures setbacks. The museum leases the property from the city and is
operating on the site under terms of a Special Use Permit granted in September of 2005. At the
time of approval of the Special Use Permit, a zoning change was approved to rezone the property
from R-1 to the current OSR zoning. The proposed project will be built spanning both of the
properties listed above. There is a hill sloping down onto the Browne Street property and the
proposed building would be located into the foot of this hill. The Zoning Administrator has
determined the high water mark or wetland point for the purpose of calculating setbacks, to be
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –10/10/06 1
the lakeward point of the channel wall. The site is not in a critical dune area. The Zoning
Ordinance does not regulate view, but in this case the placement of the building is such that it
will minimize its impact on neighboring views and properties. Building height is regulated and
checked as part of the site plan review process. The maximum building height in this zone is 2
stories with a total of 35 feet in height. A statement has been provided from Mr. Stephan W.
Parker P.E., Consulting Engineer for Hughes Builders Inc., Mr. Parker comments on the nature
and conditions of the sand in the area. Staff has received one comment on this case from J.
Parenti of 3505 Channel Dr., who was opposed to the request. He stated that the Silversides had
not been a very good neighbor in the past, and was concerned with the condition of the site.
J. Clingman-Scott arrived at 4:10 p.m.
E. Fordham asked who determined that the site was not in a critical dune area. M. Cameron
stated that the determination was made by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). K.
Davis asked what had changed since the last request. M. Cameron stated that the setbacks and
deck size were different. J. Hughes described the difficulties with the site. Although it was a
large parcel, it was irregularly shaped with the channel in front and a large hill in the rear. This
made it difficult to comply with the 75-foot setback required by the zoning ordinance. The type
of sand also posed a problem, as the round shape and low cohesive ability made it fairly unstable
to build on. E. Fordham asked if the portable toilets would be removed from the site. J. Hughes
stated that they would. With the new building, everything would be indoors, which would cut
down on the noise and clutter. He stated that the facility would be a very positive thing for
Muskegon. C. Linstrom asked what would be behind the building, as his house looked down on
that area. M. Cameron stated that those issues would be addressed at site plan review. This
meeting was just for the variance request. J. Hughes stated that the equipment and materials
currently behind the building would be stored inside the new building. C. Luders was opposed to
the request and was concerned that the new building would block the view of the channel. D.
Barns was opposed to the request. He stated that this was a high traffic area for pedestrians, and
he didn’t feel it was safe with wires and other equipment in the walkway area. C. Kufta stated
that he had walked the area many times and didn’t recall any obstacles. D. Barns stated that
pedestrians had to walk out into the parking lot in order to get around the gangplank. J. Hughes
stated that with the new site plan, the parking lot would be located to the west, which would open
up the walkway area and keep pedestrians from having to walk through the parking lot. The
wiring would also be underground. K. Davis asked why the building had to be placed on that
side of the lot. He felt that the setbacks could be met by moving the building. J. Hughes stated
that they had architects and engineers review the plans and the site and decided that this was the
best place for the building. B. Morin stated that they had met with the neighbors when they first
started this project, and the neighbors had requested that the building block as little of their views
as possible. The way to do this was by placing the building as far to the east as possible, which
was reflected in this proposal. B. Morin stated that they would like to have the building as close
to the channel as possible, because groups that stay overnight on the submarine would need to
use the facilities in the building and they wanted to minimize exposure to the outdoors in bad
weather.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by C. Kufta, supported by S. Brock and
unanimously approved.
E. Fordham stated that he had been to the site and was in favor of the request. He stated that the
applicants had consulted with professionals and he believed they would do a good job on the
project. K. Davis didn’t think that the applicants had made a case to reduce the 75-foot setback.
The following findings of fact were offered: a) that there are exceptional or extraordinary
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –10/10/06 2
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 reduce the waterfront setback for the proposed principal structure
from seventy five (75) feet to forty three (43) feet, be approved, subject to the condition that the
additions to the property must be complete within one year (Sec. 2504) or the variance is void,
was made by E. Fordham, supported by C. Kufta and approved, with L. Gomez-Payne, J.
Clingman-Scott, and K. Davis voting nay.
OLD BUSINESS
Case 2006-008: Request for a variance from Section 2311: Accessory Structures & Buildings to
place an accessory structure (gazebo) on a property prior to the principal structure at 1426 Beach
St., by Russell & Barbara Reckell of 1430 Beach St. Tabled at the July 2006 meeting. M.
Cameron stated that he had sent a letter to the Reckells informing them that this case would be
heard at this meeting, in order to remove it from the table and determine a final disposition. The
Reckells had also sent a letter requesting that the ZBA reconsider their request, and approve it
contingent upon DEQ approval.
S. Brock didn’t think that approving this case would set a precedent, since each case is supposed
to be considered individually. K. Davis agreed. E. Fordham asked if the case had been tabled to
await DEQ approval. M. Cameron stated that the Reckells had looked into DEQ approval, but
the application process was very expensive. There was still the issue of an accessory structure
on a lot without a principal structure. J. Clingman-Scott stated that she didn’t see where the facts
of the case had changed to warrant a reconsideration. L. Anguilm stated that the lot in question
was not a buildable lot. Board members had been under the impression that it was. M. Cameron
stated that the lot had lost its non-conforming status when the house was demolished. E.
Fordham asked if that parcel was taxed separately from the parcel with the house on it. M.
Cameron stated that it was, and there were also different owners.
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
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –10/10/06 3
to eliminate the difficulty.
A motion to approve the request for a variance from Section 2311: Accessory Structures &
Buildings to place an accessory structure (gazebo) on a property without a principal structure at
1426 Beach St., contingent on DEQ approval and with 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, and 3) the gazebo is built as
shown in the drawings submitted with this request, was made by K. Davis, supported by S.
Brock and unanimously approved.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
dml
10/10/06
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –10/10/06 4
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails