Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes

Chairman Stapleton called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. in the Northville City Council Chambers, 215 W. Main Street, Northville, Michigan.

Commissioners:

Present:
Rolland Stapleton, Chairman
James Bress, Secretary
Charles Ayers
Mark Ernst
Christopher Gazlay
James Haveraneck
Larry Jensen
Bill Lokey
Carol Maise

Absent:
Luke Durst, Alternate (excused)
John Rae, Alternate (excused)

Also Present:
Richard Starling, Chief Building Official
Carol Kasprowicz, Recording Secretary

9 Citizens

Motion by Maise, seconded by Bress to approve the agenda. Voice vote: Yes: all. No: none. Motion carried unanimously.

Commissioner Gazlay stated the last sentence of Item #7 – Discussion, which states "The applicant will reappear at the BZA" be changed to "The applicant may reappear at the BZA."

Motion by Ayers, seconded by Maise to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of April 6, 2005 as amended. Voice vote: Yes: all. No: none. Motion carried unanimously.

CASE #05-02
George and Denise Hartman
561 Grace
Northville, Michigan 48167

Appellant requested a variance to Article 15, Section 15.01 – Schedule of Regulations, Front Yard Setbacks. The variance requested is for 9.2 feet on the east side of the property per the required setback of 25 feet, or a variance of 1.59 feet per the allowable 90% average of

neighboring residences within 200 feet (17.39 feet). Either of these two variances would allow the Appellant to build at the same setback as the property to the north.

The Appellant also requested a variance to Article 18, Section 18.04 (c) – Accessory Buildings, for additional rear yard coverage of 163.5 square feet. The variances were requested to be voted on individually. Grounds for Appeal: Undue Hardship.

Appellant comments regarding front yard variance: The front yard variance is requested because of the location of the structure on the property to the north, located at 605 Grace Street. The property at 605 Grace has a new two-car garage, with a second floor, situated 15.8 feet from the east property line, which abuts the street. This creates an obstructed view for the Appellant if forced to build at the average setback allowed at 17.39 feet.

Commissioner comments: Discussion and questions were asked regarding the structures to the north of the subject property, degree of obstructed view, uniqueness of the subject property to justify granting the hardship, and the significance of non-conformance of a remodeled structure versus new construction.

Motion by Gazlay, supported by Maise to allow the variance regarding front yard setback as requested. Roll call vote: Yes: Haveraneck, Lokey. No: Ayers, Bress, Ernst, Gazlay, Jensen, Maise, Stapleton. Motion denied.

Appellant comments regarding accessory building allowable size variance: The variance for the allowable size of the garage is requested due to the proximity of a "heavily used" alley to the west (rear) of the property. Situating the garage as close to the alley as possible will allow for more privacy, safety, and separation from the alley and vehicular traffic. Additionally, if alley abandonment were to occur, the coverage in the rear yard would be compliant with the allowable coverage.

Commissioner comments: Questions and comments dealt with clarification of how large and how much of the building was in the rear setback.

Motion Lokey, supported by Bress to allow the variance regarding the construction of an accessory building which exceeds the allowable rear yard coverage by 163.5 square feet. Roll call vote: Yes: Bress, Lokey. No: Ayers, Ernst, Gazlay, Haveraneck, Jensen, Maise, Stapleton. Motion denied.

CASE #05-03
Robert and Gail Clark
20250 Clement
Northville, Michigan 48167

Appellant is requesting a variance to Section 14.84, Location of Condensers. The Appellant is requesting to locate the unit on the north side of the house to be built (located at 20240 Clement) in the side yard. Grounds for Appeal: (The Appellant, upon receiving further clarification of the possible grounds for appeal, changed the application from "6F: Approval to expand, extend or enlarge a non-conforming use" to "6B: Undue hardship." Grounds for Appeal: Undue Hardship.

Appellant comments: Placing the condenser unit on the north (side) of the home would have greater energy efficiency as it will be located closer to the furnace (10 feet 2 inches) versus the required east (back) wall distance of 23 feet 6 inches. Additionally, the topography of the site deters the placement of the unit at the back of the house.

Commissioner comments: Questions were asked regarding the timing of the request in light of the construction schedule, the significance of the distance from the condenser to the furnace, and the plans to screen the unit if placed in the side of the house.

It was suggested that the requirements of the Northville Zoning Ordinance regarding the placement of condenser units be mailed to heating and cooling contractors in southeast Michigan in an effort to eliminate problems experienced by Northville residents.

Motion Ernst, supported by Maise to grant the variance to place the condenser unit at the north (side) yard of the structure located at 20240 Clement with screening of plants having the initial height of the condenser unit.

Discussion: Questions were raised as to the side yard requirements being met with placing the condenser unit at the side of the house. When asked for specific information, the Appellant asked that the request be deferred until the next Board of Zoning Appeals meeting to enable the gathering of appropriate information.

Motion Ayers, supported by Maise to defer the request for a variance regarding the placement of a condenser unit until the next Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. Voice vote: Yes: all. No: none. Motion carried unanimously.

CASE #05-04
Charles Bradley
860 Carpenter
Northville, Michigan 48167

The Appellant requests a variance of 4 feet to Article 3, Section 3.04 R – Side Yard Setback. Additionally, the Appellant requests a variance of 3.4 feet to Article 15, Section 16 – Front Yard Setback. The variances were requested to be voted on separately. Grounds for Appeal: Undue Hardship.

Appellant comments regarding side yard variance: Appellant demonstrated the topographical difficulties with the lot, which causes water drainage from the street and gutter into the driveway and basement. The garage is to be situated in a manner that places it three feet from the north property line.

Commissioner comments: Question was asked regarding the distance of the proposed garage to the north property line.

Motion Maise, supported by Bress to grant the variance for side yard setback as requested. Roll call vote: Yes: Ayers, Bress, Ernst, Gazlay, Haveraneck, Jensen, Lokey, Maise, Stapleton. No: none. Motion carried unanimously.

Appellant comments regarding front yard variance: Appellant described the moving of the existing porch to one side and placing a roof on it. It will not extend any further into the setback.

Commissioner comments: Questions were asked regarding clarification of porch alignment.

Motion Ayers, supported by Lokey to grant the front yard setback as requested. Roll call vote: Yes: Ayers, Bress, Ernst, Gazlay, Haveraneck, Jensen, Lokey, Maise, Stapleton. No: none. Motion carried unanimously.

6. PUBLIC COMMENTS

None

Informal questions were asked regarding specific buildings under construction. Questions were referred to the Building Official.

The meeting was adjourned by informal motion and support. Meeting adjourned 8:50 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Carol T. Kasprowicz
Recording Secretary