View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
DATE OF MEETING: Tuesday, November 14, 2017
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 October 10, 2017.
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Hearing; Case 2017-07: Request for a variance from Section 2311 of the zoning
ordinance to allow a shed to be constructed in a front yard at 1370 Ridge Ave, by Fred
Glancy.
IV. New Business
V. Old Business
VI. 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
October 10, 2017
Chairman R. Hilt called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: R. Hilt, E. Fordham, S. Warmington, B. Larson
MEMBERS ABSENT: W. German
STAFF PRESENT: M. Franzak, D. Renkenberger
OTHERS PRESENT: K. Kuyper, Nederveld; T. Hamstra, Hamstra Builders; C. Jados,
1970 Terrace St.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of September 12, 2017 be approved was made
by S. Warmington, supported by E. Fordham and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARING
Hearing; Case 2017-05: Request for a variance from Section 404 of the zoning ordinance to
allow a home to be constructed on a parcel that is less than 6,000 sq ft in size at 1723 Edgewater
St, by Melanie B Thornton. M. Franzak presented the staff report. The property owner would
like to demolish the existing home and build new; however, the existing lot does not meet the
minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. The lot only measures 4,994 square feet, but it does meet
the minimum road frontage requirement of 50 feet, with 51.5 feet of frontage on Edgewater. The
property is zoned R-1, Single Family Low Density Residential District, and development
requirements for this district were provided to board members. The home does not currently
meet the minimum side setback requirements of six feet, as it sits nearly on the property line.
This variance request is for a waiver of the minimum lot size only, meaning a new home would
have to meet all of the setback requirements. Notification letters were sent out to properties
within 300 feet of this property. At the time of this writing, staff had received the following
comments: S. Balaskovitz of 1683 Edgewater St indicated that she was not in favor of the
request. A. Schaub lived in California but owned 1731 Edgewater; she was concerned that a
two-story house would block her view of the water. C. Bieszka, 1689 Edgewater, stated that he
was also opposed to the request due to the blocking of water views and the possibility that the
home would become a rental property. T. Blake, owner of 3222 Park Place, 1677 Edgewater and
1702 Edgewater called to say that he is in favor of the request.
M. Franzak pointed out that the renderings of the proposed new structure showed 10-foot side
setbacks, which would bring the house closer to conformance with the ordinance. A house up to
two stories would be allowed on the site if the requested variance was approved. E. Fordham
asked if the ZBA would have the authority to regulate the height of the home. M. Franzak stated
that they would not. K. Kuyper spoke on behalf of the property owner. She stated that the lot
was non-conforming and not a lot of record, and the ordinance rendered the lot unbuildable.
They needed a variance in order to preserve their property rights to build a single-family home
on the lot. She stated that the requested variance would bring the property closer to compliance
with the zoning ordinance, and there would be no profit or financial gain to the owner if it were
granted. T. Hamstra was the builder. He stated that as the house currently sat, it was located
partly on the neighbor’s property, and much of it sat right on the lot line. The property owner
was not asking for any rights that others in the area did not have. He also stated that the owner
used it as a summer home, not a rental.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by S. Warmington, 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 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, c) that the authorizing of such dimensional variance will not be of substantial detriment
to adjacent properties, 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, and f) that the requested variance is the minimum action required
to eliminate the difficulty.
A motion that the variance request to allow a home to be constructed on a parcel that is less than
6,000 square feet in size at 1723 Edgewater St be approved based on the review standards in
Section 2502 of the Zoning Ordinance, was made by S. Warmington, supported by B. Larson
and unanimously approved, with R. Hilt, E. Fordham, S. Warmington, and B. Larson voting aye.
Hearing; Case 2017-06: Request for a variance from Section 2331 of the zoning ordinance to
allow a six-foot tall fence in a front yard at 1970 Terrace St, by Cynthia Jados. M. Franzak
presented the staff report. The property owner would like to install a six-foot privacy fence
behind her home. However, this property is located between two streets, so according to the
ordinance, it has two front yards and no back yard; six-foot tall fences are not allowed in front
yards. The property has frontage on Terrace St and Smith St. The three properties to the north
also have frontage on both streets. Smith street dead-ends behind 1970 Terrace St. Notification
letters were sent out to properties within 300 feet of this property.
B. Larson stated that he drove by the location and the yard facing Smith St. did not appear to be a
“front” yard. He stated that the property was in an inconspicuous location and he did not foresee
any hardship this could cause the neighbors. R. Hilt asked what type of fence they planned to
erect. C. Jados stated that it would be a six-food wood privacy fence so they could enjoy their
back yard.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by S. Warmington, 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 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 they can have some privacy when using their back yard, c) that the authorizing
of such dimensional variance would not be of substantial detriment to adjacent properties, 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 (i.e. the ordinance limiting fences in front
yards, and designating this back yard as a front, due to the street running behind it), 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 for 1970 Terrace St, to allow a six-foot tall fence in the front
yard along Smith St, be approved based on the review standards in Section 2502 of the Zoning
Ordinance, was made by S. Warmington, supported by B. Larson and unanimously approved,
with R. Hilt, E. Fordham, S. Warmington, and B. Larson voting aye.
OLD BUSINESS
None
OTHER
None.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
DR
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
STAFF REPORT
November 14, 2017
Hearing; Case 2017-07: Request for a variance from Section 2311 of the zoning ordinance to
allow a shed to be expanded in a front yard at 1370 Ridge Ave, by Fred Glancy.
BACKGROUND
1. The property owner would like expand the shed in the back of the home; however, the
property has two front yards, and no back yard, because it is located between Ridge Ave
and Glen Ave. This is the only home with frontage on Glen Ave that doesn’t face the
street.
2. Sheds cannot be located in front yards. The existing shed is considered legally, non-
conforming and cannot be expanded.
3. The variance is only for the expansion of the shed, there is not a request for any drive or
curb cut.
4. Neighbors within 300 feet of this property were notified. At the time of this writing, staff
had not received any comments.
1370 Ridge Ave (front yard on Ridge Ave)
1370 Ridge Ave (front yard on Glen Ave)
Aerial Map
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff considers there to be a valid hardship on the property, as it is has frontage on two streets,
which makes it difficult to place a shed on the property.
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 the expansion of the shed, fronting Glen Ave, at 1370
Ridge Ave be (approved/denied) based on the review standards in Section 2502 of the Zoning
Ordinance.