Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes

CITY OF NORTHVILLE
Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting – November 6, 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
James Bress
Bill Lokey
Chris Gazlay
Carol Maise
John Rae

Absent: Connie Cronin - excu.
Charles Ayers - excu
Luke Durst– excu.

Also Present: Richard Starling – Chief Building Official

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

MINUTES:

Motion by Gazlay, supported by Bress to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of June 5, 2002. Voice Vote: Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion Unanimously Carried.

Richard Probst Applicant requests a variance to Article IV

301 N. Center Sec.14-84, (e) to place a condenser within

Northville, Michigan 48167 the 25’ front yard setback.

The applicant, Richard Probst requested a variance from Article IV, Sec. 14-84, (e) to place a condenser within the 25’ front yard setback. Grounds for appeal: Undue Hardship. He stated that because of the unique physical characteristics of the lot, he thought he had used logical reasoning in placing the condensers at its’ current location.

Chief Building Official, Richard Starling stated that the condenser is already in place in the southeast corner of the front/side yard. It was installed with out a permit.

Mr. Probst stated that the house sits very close to the rear (west) lot line. The rear enclosure and rear steps sit outside of the lot line. Placement at the rear of the house would create another encroachment issue.

Additionally, there is approximately 15 feet between the back of the house and the house behind it. The lower apartment at the neighboring house has its bedroom and living room windows less than 15 ft. from where the condenser would be, if placed there. Noise would be an issue.

Placement on the driveway side of the house (north side) would be the most visible location to the neighbors and the street. Placement there would also create a noise issue to the neighbor immediately north, and would be directly outside the bedroom window.

The south side of the house sits below street level due to the retaining wall parallel to Randolph St. The unit is not visible from Randolph St. in its current, proposed location. Currently is sits four feet below street level.

Mr. Probst stated that on completion of the renovation, he will be sole owner of the property, but he does not have any documents stating thus.

Chief Building Official. Richard Starling also stated that there is no place on this particular lot that the condenser can be placed within the ordinance.

COMMISSIONER COMMNETS AND CONCERNS: The commissioners were in agreement that the condenser (already installed) was in the best location for this particular lot. However, because the owner of the property was not present, the Commissioners could not act on the request. Before they can act on a formal motion, they need to see proper documentation of ownership.

Procedurally the BZA Board heard the request bur post phoned action pending the document.

A signed and notarized document of ownership needs to be submitted.

Motion by Maise supported by Lokey to post phone the voting to next meeting. Voice Vote: Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion Unanimously Carried.

Motion by Maise, supported by Haveraneck to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 PM. Voice vote: Ayes: All: Nays: None. Motion Unanimously Carried.

Respectfully submitted,

P S Howard

Recording Secretary