Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes

CITY OF NORTHVILLE
Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting – June 5, 2002 - Approved
Northville City Hall – Council Chambers

CALL TO ORDER:

Commissioner Stapleton called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M.

ROLL CALL:

Commissioners:

Present:
Rolland Stapleton
Eugene Lawrie
James Haveraneck
John Rae
James Bress
Chris Gazlay
Charles Ayers
Carol Maise
John Rae
Bill Lokey

Absent: Luke Durst – excu

Also Present: Richard Starling, Building Official

Motion by Lawrie, supported by Cronin to approve the agenda. Voice Vote: Ayes: All. Nays: None

MINUTES:

The May 1, 2002 BZA meeting was cancelled.

CASE #02-01
Ken Park
270 S. Center Street
Northville, Michigan 48167

The applicant requests a variance to Section 14-296- (2) - no line fence may be erected ahead of the front building line. Grounds for Appeal: Undue Hardship (A Commissioner pointed out that a book keeping error had been made. The applicant chose (C) and should have checked (B) Undue Hardship.

Ken Park returned after the April 3, 2002 BZA meeting. At that time a quorum was not present.

Mr. Park stated that he wishes to re design the front yard in order to provide privacy from the racetrack traffic, and control the trash and papers that blow into his yard. He also wishes to grow and care for a front yard lawn. The work he plans to do will be on the front yard property line adjoining the sidewalk. A diagram was provided.

Plans Include:

Treated landscape timbers (6’ x 6’) boarding the front lot line.

Two walls (landscape timbers): one a t 18" and the second at 28".

Backfill and plant evergreens

Addition of a brick side walk with a lamppost.

Chief Building Official, Richard Starling, stated that the proposed construction (the wall at the base of the sidewalk with the addition of the 42" evergreens) is too tall. It is not exactly a wall (as discussed regarding the brick wall on N. Center St.) but more of an "earth retention system." If the evergreens are kept under 30" than this is not an issue.

COMMISIONER COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: One Commissioner asked if there were no plantings than would a variance be required? Starling answered that would be true. Another asked about the height of the evergreens. Starling replied that if the shrubs are kept at less than 30" than the height is not an issue. Other concerns were the matter of the motion. One issue to be determined was whether this is a fence, hedge or wall.

The Commissioners decided that the structure was not a fence.

Motion by Cronin, supported by Maise to approve the variance with the understanding that in this application the "earth retention device" is not a fence and the application should be approved with the condition that the shrubs, planted on top of the earth, be kept to 30" or less. Roll Call Vote: Ayes: Maise, Cronin, Ayers, Gazlay, Lawrie, Lokey, Haveraneck, Rae, Stapleton. Nays: Bress. Motion Carried.

The variance was granted for this one specific parcel of land.

CASE #02-02
Debra & David Mielock
353 N. Rogers
Northville, Michigan 48167

The applicant requests a variance to Section 18.04, accessory buildings to allow a new detached garage to be constructed on the side yard lot line in the same location as the old garage.

The applicant, Dave Mielock stated that he is asking for a new detached garage to be constructed on the side yard (south side) lot line in lieu of the required setback. A new garage is to be constructed in the same location and on the same foot- print as the existing garage. The strict application pf the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance will result in undue hardship because of the unique physical characteristics and of the extraordinary or exceptional conditions of the property. The property is very narrow (52 feet), which does not comply with the required 60’ property width as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance.

The applicant stated that in February 1996 he received approval for the same garage setback as well as other variances for the renovation on his home. The renovation of the home was completed at that time, but the garage was never started. The applicant also stated that the lot coverage with the garage is still less than the allowable lot coverage. One change in the garage plans, which were originally submitted, includes an overall garage height of 16.5’ at the highest point. The old garage was 12’ at the highest point.

Motion by Haveraneck, supported by Lokey to grant the variance. Roll Call Vote: Ayes: Bress, Cronin, Ayers, Gazlay, Lawrie, Lokey, Haveraneck, Rae, Stapleton. Nays: None. Motion Unanimously Carried.

Fence/Trellis Issue

Richard Starling stated with the influx of trellis the commissioners should discuss the trellis and how it relates to the fence issue. There are examples of an 8’ high screen on N. Center and an arbor tied into a fence on W. Cady St. Should these examples be referred to the Planning Consultant, Don Wortman?

Commissioner Comments and Concerns: Some thought the City’s Fencing Ordinance is too restrictive and must have elasticity with different issues. Others thought the commission needed parameters and more standards. Some thought these issues are Planning Concerns and not BZA.

Motion by Haveraneck, supported by Lokey to adjourn at 8:40 PM. Voice vote: Ayes: All: Nays: None. Motion Unanimously Carried.

Respectfully submitted,

P S Howard
Recording Secretary