View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
DATE OF MEETING: April 8, 2014
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 January 14, 2014.
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Hearing; Case 2014-02: Request for a use variance from Section 400 of the zoning
ordinance to allow for a two unit home in an R-1, Single Family Residential district at
1430 Hoyt St.
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
January 14, 2014
Chairman R. Hilt called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: R. Hilt, S. Warmington, B. Larson, E. Fordham, E. Carter
MEMBERS ABSENT: T. Halterman; W. German, excused
STAFF PRESENT: M. Franzak, D. Renkenberger
OTHERS PRESENT: Tyler Remington, Consumers Energy
Board members were introduced to new member, Edwin “Ned” Carter.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of December 10, 2013 be approved was made
by S. Warmington, supported by B. Larson and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing; Case 2014-01: Request for a variance from Section 2331 (Fencing) of the Zoning
Ordinance to allow a seven-foot fence with barbed wire at 1133 West Western Avenue. M.
Franzak presented the staff report. The parcel is located in an I-2, General Industrial district.
Consumers Energy will be constructing a new temporary electric substation on the parcel, while
they rebuild the current station. The National Electric Safety Code requires that fences around
substations be a minimum of 7 feet tall; however, the zoning ordinance only allows 6-foot tall
fences in front yards and does not allow barbed wire. Consumers Energy has over 950
substations within the State of Michigan that employ barbed wire as a security method.
M. Franzak suggested that staff consider changing the zoning ordinance to allow this type of
fence for utility companies, since it is a requirement of the National Electric Safety Code. S.
Warmington stated that he understood the need for enhanced fencing, but it did not look
aesthetically pleasing, especially considering that this location was part of the Lake Michigan
Circle Tour route to Pere Marquette Park. B. Larson asked why the temporary facility was
needed. T. Remington stated that they were going to rebuild the existing facility and needed the
temporary station so they could continue to provide electricity during the construction. The
temporary substation would be disassembled upon completion of construction. R. Hilt stated
that he had seen 7-foot fences that were angled at the top, making the barbed wire less visible. T.
Remington stated that the top of the fence would be angled. E. Fordham asked if the entire
property would be fenced, and how that would affect the separate property in the midst of
Consumers’ lot. M. Franzak stated that the fenced area would be located near the corner of
Western and Franklin Avenues; the entire property would not be enclosed.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Larson, supported by S. Warmington and
unanimously approved.
E. Fordham asked for clarification on the fence height, since it sounded like it would be higher
than 7 feet. T. Remington stated that the chain link portion of the fence would be 7 feet high,
with an additional foot of barbed wire at the top. However, the barbed wire would be angled, so
the fence would not be a full 8 feet tall. N. Carter asked if the City was required to follow the
National Electric Safety Code. B. Larson stated that they were, but since the City’s zoning
ordinance didn’t allow it, a variance was needed. M. Franzak stated that it was possible that the
City would end up in court if the variance was denied, since it was a national requirement.
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, i.e. the National Electricity Safety Code requirements; 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 allow a seven-foot tall chain link fence topped with one
foot of barbed wire at 1133 West Western Avenue be approved, was made by B. Larson,
supported by S. Warmington and unanimously approved.
OLD BUSINESS
None
OTHER
M. Franzak updated board members on the status of two court cases that had previously been
before the ZBA, and thanked the members for their efforts in deciding some difficult cases over
the past year.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m.
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
STAFF REVIEW
April 8, 2014
Hearing; Case 2014-02: Request for a use variance from Section 400 of the zoning ordinance to
allow for a two unit home in an R-1, Single Family Residential district at 1430 Hoyt St.
BACKGROUND
1. The parcel is located in a R-1, Single Family Residential District.
2. The lot measures about 7,800 sqft and has 58 feet of road frontage.
3. The lot contains two separate houses that were eventually connected by a front porch. (Please
see the enclosed letter from the building inspector.)
4. Both residences have been vacant for more than two years, so the property must revert back
to single family use.
5. The lot would not be able to be split into two separate lots, because there is only 58 feet of
road frontage and each lot would need to have 50 feet of frontage to be legal.
6. There is a garage in the back yard off of the alley for parking, but it is in bad condition.
There are not any legal paved parking spaces on site other than in the garage.
7. Notice was sent to property owners within 300 feet of this property. At the time of this
writing, staff has received two comments. Bernadette Young at 1468 Terrace St is against
the variance because she would like to see the neighborhood return to single family use.
Greg and Wynne David at 1452 Hoyt are in favor of the variance because the they said for
years it was occupied as a duplex and had no problems.
Front of 1430 Hoyt St
Back of 1430 Hoyt St
Garage in back
Aerial Map
Zoning Map
Zoning Ordinance Excerpt:
ARTICLE IV – R-1, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
PREAMBLE
These districts are designed to be composed of low density residential development. The
regulations are intended to stabilize, protect, and encourage the residential character of the
district and prohibit activities not compatible with a residential neighborhood. Development is
limited to single family dwellings and such other uses as schools, parks, churches, and certain
public facilities which serve residents of the district. It is the intent of these districts to recognize
that the City of Muskegon has been developed and platted with some lots that are smaller than
those found in recently urbanized communities, and the standards in Section 2100 reflect
residential development standards that the citizens of Muskegon find to be compatible.
SECTION 400: PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED
In R, One Family Residential, Districts no building or land shall be used and no building shall be
erected, structurally altered, or occupied except for one or more of the following specified uses,
unless otherwise provided in this Ordinance;
1. One Family detached dwellings.
2. Home occupations of a non-industrial nature may be permitted. Permissible home
occupations include, but are not limited to the following: [amended 11/02]
3. Adult Foster Care Family Homes, provided that such facilities shall be at least one
thousand five hundred (1,500) feet from any other similar facility. [amended
11/02]
4. Accessory buildings and accessory uses customarily incidental to any of the
above Principal Uses Permitted.
5. Uses similar to the above Principal Uses Permitted.
DETERMINATION:
The following motion is offered for consideration:
I move that the variance request to allow for two unit residence in an R-1, Single Family
Residential District at 1430 Hoyt St be (approved/denied), based on the following review
standards listed below (found in Section 2502 of the Zoning Ordinance) and subject to conditions
(if any):
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.
f. That the requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the difficulty.