Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes

1. CALL TO ORDER:

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

2. ROLL CALL:

Commissioners:

Present:
John Rae
Charles Ayers
Chris Gazlay
Bill Lokey
James Bress
James Haveraneck
Carol Maise
Larry Jensen

Absent:
Luke Durst - excu
Connie Cronin – excu.
Rolland Stapleton – excu.

Also Present:
Richard Starling

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

4. MINUTES:

Motion by Gazlay, supported by Jensen to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of September 1, 2004. Voice Vote: Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion Unanimously Carried.

CASE 04 - 15
Beatriz Mitrzyk
761 Horton
Northville, Michigan 48167

The applicant requests a variance from Section 18.04C, accessory building. Ordinance requires no more than a 14’ mean roof height. Proposed garage mean roof height is 17’6". variance requested for 3’6" for roof height. Applicant also requests a variance from Sec. 18.04-d, side yard setback. Requesting a 3’ variance from the 5’ set back. Grounds for Appeal: Undue Hardship.

Ms Mitrzyk stated her request is to demolish the current garage (because there is no foundation) and rebuild a two story garage in the current location and on the original footprint. The existing garage is a non conforming structure; three feet too close to the neighbor’s lot line. The Mitrzyks plan to add a 4’ addition to the home, and do not wish to move the garage further away from the lot line and in to the back yard.

Commissioner Maise stated that since the application entails two variances; one for height and one for side yard set back variance, two separate votes will be taken.

The applicant stated that an additional 3’6" (above the mean height of 14’) is needed for the height of the garage. The home owners plan to use the second floor of the garage for storage, quantities of wood flooring and oak paneling.

Commissioner Comments: Concerns were expressed when the height of a garage is increased, that additional space often becomes a business.

Motion by Rae, supported by Jensen to grant the height variance. Roll Call Vote: Ayes: Jensen. Nays: Maise, Bress, Lokey, Rae, Haveraneck Ayers, and Gazlay. Motion Failed.

The applicant stated that the garage footprint can’t be made any larger because it encroaches into the back yard and would interfere with the addition. There is no other place in the yard to add a storage unit.

Motion by Rae, supported by Lokey to grant the variance for the side yard set back. Roll Call Vote: Ayes: Maise, Lokey, Haveraneck, Jensen, and Rae. Nays: Ayers, Bress and Gazlay.

CASE #04 - 16
John Saad
510 S. Main Street
Northville, Mi. 48167

Applicant requests a variance to Sec 11.04 9’, rear yard variance and 18" , side yard variance. Grounds for appeal: Undue Hardship.

John Saad, speaking in behalf of the new owners of the Clark gas station, asked for a variance for both the side and rear yards. The hardship is the existing lot size. The existing small building, which barely serves the employees, will be increased to 2,270 sq. ft. The remodeled facility will provide a better traffic pattern, serve the handicapped, provide public restrooms and include a sliding front door. All display items will be stored inside. All cement will be repaired. The only change at the pumps will be to brick the columns, and to extend the lights to the bottom surface of the canopies.

Motion by Rae, supported by Lokey to grant the two variances contingent on Planning Commission approval and with the condition that all outside storage will be contained within the building. The 9’ rear yard variance is for the south side and the 18’ is for the side yard setback. Roll Call Vote: Ayes: Ayers, Bress, Rae, Gazlay, Haveraneck, Jensen, Lokey, and Maise. Nays: None. Motion Unanimously Carried.

CASE #04 – 17
Michael and Karol Rowan
516 Randolph Street
Northville, Mi 48167

Applicant requests a variance from section 15.01, side yard set-back. Requesting a variance of 4’2". Grounds for Appeal – Undue Hardship.

Mr. Rowan, the applicant, stated that current remodeling plans for his home at 516 Randolph include an addition to the attached garage. A side yard setback of 7’ is needed. Because of the drastic slope of the yard, a retaining wall is needed at the west side. A small covered porch will be placed on this wall. In the design of the addition, his architect miscalculated the measurements. To redesign the home would be at a great financial hardship. He could install the retaining wall with out a variance, but for the continuity and style of the home and for compatibility with the covered front porch for the front of the house, he is asking to cover this area. This will be the primary entrance into the garage and will increase its function.

The Building Official stated that the cause for the variance is the cover over the porch and its walkway. The west wall of the porch (proper) becomes a retaining wall. At that point the covering of the porch creates a variance.

The Marinos who live to the immediate west of the property are in agreement with the variance.

Commissioner Comments: Several Commissioners stated that one purpose of the BZA is to protect the interests of the neighbors and the residents.

Motion by Rae, supported by Lokey to grant approval for the variance. Roll Call Vote: Ayes: Bress, Maise, Rae, Lokey, Jensen and Haveraneck. Nays: Ayers and Gazlay. Motion Carried.

Commissioner Gazlay stated that the Planning Commission approved the OLV site plan at the 11-2-2004 meeting. The applicant has been given this approval with some modifications.

Motion by Gazlay, supported by Lokey to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 PM. Voice Vote: Ayes: All: Nays: None. Motion Unanimously Carried.

Respectfully submitted,

P S Howard
Recording Secretary