View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
DATE OF MEETING: Tuesday, January 14, 2020
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 April 9, 2019.
III. Election of Officers (Chair and Vice Chair)
IV. Public Hearings
A. Hearing; Case 2020-01: Request for a variance from Section 404 of the zoning
ordinance to allow a reduced side setback of 5.5 feet for a second story addition to the
house at 1542 Beach St. by Allen Drouare.
V. New Business
VI. Old Business
VII. Adjourn
AMERICAN DISABILITY ACT POLICY FOR ACCESS TO OPEN MEETING OF THE
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 Cummings, City Clerk
933 Terrace Street
Muskegon, MI 49440
(231) 724-6705
TTY/TDD: Dial 7-1-1 and request that a representative dial 231-724-6705
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
April 9, 2019
Chairman E. Fordham called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: E. Fordham, B. Mazade, J. Witmer, T. Frens, W. Bouwman
MEMBERS ABSENT: S. Warmington, excused; W. German, excused
STAFF PRESENT: M. Franzak, D. Renkenberger
OTHERS PRESENT: J. Montgomery-Keast, 2027 Bourdon St; D. Cardosa for 1924
Dowd St.; R. Swanson, 1924 Dowd St.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
A motion to nominate E. Fordham as Chairperson and S. Warmington as Vice Chair was made
by B. Mazade, supported by W. Bouwman and unanimously approved, with E. Fordham, B.
Mazade, J. Witmer, T. Frens, and W. Bouwman voting aye.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of November 17, 2017 be approved was made
by B. Mazade, supported by J. Witmer and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARING
Hearing; Case 2019-01: Request for a variance from Section 2311 of the zoning ordinance to
allow an 8-foot fence to be constructed on a residential property at 2027 Bourdon St, by Jill
Montgomery-Keast. M. Franzak presented the staff report. The property is zoned R-1, Low
Density Single Family Residential; therefore, fences in side and rear yards may only be a
maximum of six feet tall. The applicant is seeking approval to place an eight-foot fence along
the southern edge of the rear side yard due to nuisance issues with the neighbor. There is
currently a six-foot tall fence in this location.
Photos of the neighboring property and applicant’s property were provided. J. Montgomery-
Keast explained the ongoing issues with the adjacent property owner, which included excessive
noise, odors/fumes, foul language, visible trash and clutter. The neighbor often worked on race
cars in their driveway, which was the cause of many of the problems, and it was interfering with
the use and enjoyment of her back yard. She stated that she had tried talking to the neighbor and
had resorted to contacting the police, but nothing had improved. She currently had the highest
fence allowed by the ordinance, but it was not sufficient. She hoped that a higher, more solid
fence on that side of the property would help block the view, noise, and fumes. She would retain
the 6-foot fence around the rest of the back yard.
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 the 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, i.e. that the homeowner should be able to enjoy the use of her back yard, c) that the
authorizing of such dimensional variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
properties, as the taller fence should benefit both parties, d) that the alleged difficulty is caused
by the ordinance and not 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 (the fence would not make the
property more profitable, and it would actually be an additional expense), and f) that the
requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the difficulty (only the fence
bordering the one neighbor will be 8 feet high; the rest will remain 6 feet high).
There were no public comments. A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Mazade,
supported by J. Witmer and unanimously approved.
A motion that the variance request to allow an 8-foot fence to be constructed in the rear yard on
the southern edge of the property at 2027 Bourdon St be approved based on the review standards
in Section 2502 of the Zoning Ordinance, was made by T. Frens, supported by B. Mazade and
unanimously approved, with E. Fordham, B. Mazade, J. Witmer, T. Frens, and W. Bouwman
voting aye.
Hearing; Case 2019-02: Request for a variance to reduce the minimum side setback to less than
6 feet at 1924 Dowd St, by Daniel Cardosa. M. Franzak presented the staff report. The property
is zoned R-2, Medium Density Single Family Residential. A fire destroyed the attached garage,
which sat only two feet from the side property line on the south side of the lot. Because the
structure was destroyed, it lost its grandfathered rights. Current ordinance requires attached
garages to meet the setback requirements of the home, which is six feet for side yards. The
applicant is seeking a variance to rebuild the garage in the same place, which would allow a two-
foot side setback on the southern side of the property.
B. Mazade asked if the new garage would be built on the same footprint as the old. D. Cardosa
spoke on behalf of the property owner. He stated that it would, but the existing concrete had to
be torn out because the requirement for footings was different now than it was in the past. W.
Bouwman asked if he knew what the setback requirements were when the garage was built. D.
Cardosa stated that he didn’t know, but he did pull up a GIS map of the area and it appeared that
many structures in the neighborhood were built close to the side property lines. B. Mazade
stated that this area used to be part of Muskegon Township and the rules may have been different
at that time. J. Witmer asked how close the neighboring house to the south was to the proposed
garage. M. Franzak stated that it was set quite far back.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Mazade, supported by J. Witmer and
unanimously approved.
The following findings of fact were offered: 1) 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, 2) that the 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, 3) that the authorization of such dimensional variance is not of substantial detriment to
adjacent properties, since the house on the adjacent property is set back a good distance from the
property line, 4) that the alleged difficulty is caused by the ordinance and not by any person
presently having an interest in the property, or by any previous owner, 5) 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 6) that the requested variance is the minimum action required
to eliminate the difficulty.
A motion that the variance request to reduce the minimum side setback to two feet (garage
portion only) be approved based on the review standards in Section 2502 of the Zoning
Ordinance, was made by W. Bouwman, supported by B. Mazade and unanimously approved,
with E. Fordham, B. Mazade, J. Witmer, T. Frens, and W. Bouwman voting aye.
OLD BUSINESS
None
OTHER
None.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:27 p.m.
DR
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
STAFF REPORT
January 14, 2020
Hearing; Case 2020-01: Request for a variance from Section 404 of the zoning ordinance to
allow a reduced side setback of 5.5 feet for a second story addition to the house at 1542 Beach
St. by Allen Drouare.
BACKGROUND
1. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Single Family Residential. It does not meet the
minimum lot size of 6,000 sf; however, it is buildable because it is considered a legal lot of
record. Side setbacks in this district are six feet for a one-story home and eight feet for a
two-story home.
2. The current side setback on the southern side is 5.5 feet and it is a single-story home.
3. The applicant would like to add a second story to the home, which means the side setback
would continue to be 5.5, even though it is required to be eight feet.
4. Notice was sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the property. At the time of this
writing, staff had received two comments from the public. Don Boorman at 1562 Beach St
is in favor of the request. Janet Steiner at 3691 Simpson Ave has no objection to the
request.
5. Please see the enclosed variance questions/answers.
1542 Beach St (yellow house on left)
Zoning Map
Aerial Map
VARIANCE REVIEW STANDARDS
Questions to consider when reviewing a variance request:
a. Are 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. Is the dimensional variance 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. Will the authorizing of such dimensional variance be of substantial detriment to adjacent
properties?
d. Is the alleged difficulty caused by the ordinance and not by any person presently having
an interest in the property, or by any previous owner?
e. Is the alleged difficulty founded solely upon the opportunity to make the property more
profitable or to reduce expense to the owner?
f. Is the requested variance the minimum action required to eliminate the difficulty?
DETERMINATION:
The following motion is offered for consideration:
I move that the variance request to allow a reduced side setback of 5.5 feet for a two story home
at 1542 Beach St be (approved/denied) based on the review standards in Section 2502 of the
Zoning Ordinance.