Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes

CITY OF NORTHVILLE
Board of Zoning Appeals
June 1, 2005 – 7:30 PM Approved
Northville Council Chambers
215 W. Main Street

1. CALL TO ORDER:

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

2. ROLL CALL:

Commissioners:

Present:
Rolland Stapleton - Chairman
James Bress - Secretary
Chris Gazlay
Bill Lokey
Carol Maise
Charles Ayers
Mark Ernst

Absent:
Luke Durst - excused
John Rae – excused
James Haveraneck – excused
Larry Jensen - excused

3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

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

4. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: May 4, 2005

Motion by Maise, supported by Ayers to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of May 4, 2005. Voice Vote: Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion Unanimously Carried.

Case is Called.

Appellant presents case.

Board questions & comments.

Public comments on the case.

A motion (usually to grant the variance) is made and seconded; discussed then voted upon; the results are announced by the Chairman.

CASE # 05-05
Edward & Carrie Lee
19956 Caldwell
Northville, Michigan 48167

The applicants were not present.

Motion by Maise, supported by Ernst to table CASE # 05-05. Voice Vote: Ayes. All. Nays: None. Motion Unanimously Carried.

8:15 PM

Motion by Lokey, supported by Maise to take the application for CASE # 05-05 from the table. Voice Vote: Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion Unanimously Carried.

Applicant requests a variance to Sec. 3.04. Area, Height and Placement. 100’ lot width required. Need to have a variance of 6.83’. Proposing a lot width of 93.17’. Grounds for Appeal: Undue Hardship.

The applicant, Mr. Lee referenced an April 21, 2005 letter drafted to the Northville BZA and the Northville Building Department and submitted for the official packet. He stated that the lot can be split without a zoning variance. In May of 2005 the Planning Commission determined the lot can be diagonally split (from the NW to the SE) with out a variance. However this split is not feasible and creates an undue hardship because of the unique physical characteristics of the property. It is particularly esthetically not ideal. It is not economically possible to build on the approved plan. The building envelope becomes so small and convoluted that the two homes will have to sit one behind the other. There fore, he is back before this board asking for proposal #2

Resident Comments: Letters of support of the lot split were submitted by:

Renaldo Macciomei and Darlene Dempsey – 790 W. Main Street

Dan and Amy Horton - 800 W. Main Street

Diana and Michael Schiavi – 726 W. Main Street

Norman and Susan Baker -45620 Bloomcrest

Applicant Appeal: Mr. Lee concluded that the lot can be split without a variance, but it can be split in a better way with the BZA’s approval.

There are ways that the lot can be split without a variance.

An economic gain was considered when Mr. Lee stated that he would be living in one of the homes and selling off the other.

The hardship is self imposed because the existing home could be demolished and re built on this lot which he owns.

This is the third time this property has been before the BZA. The previous two times, the appeal was denied.

Motion by Ernst, supported by Bress to grant the variance for Edward and Carrie Lee at 19956 Caldwell. Yeas: Bress, and Lokey. Nays: Ayers, Ernst, Gazlay, Maise and Stapleton. Motion Failed.

Applicant requests a variance to Article 21F-6 (a), one wall sign permitted and to (b) ii – maximum height of 3’. Grounds for Appeal: Undue Hardship.

Pastor Lubeck stated that St. Paul’s Lutheran Church is requesting a variance for a new message sign of 4’ x 6’ based on the intention to remove certain signs and because of the remote location of the church from both residential and business properties.

Sign #1 will be removed. This sign is above a locked entrance, due to school security reasons.

Sign #2 could be removed. This sign is on an awning entrance and will be eliminated when the awning is replaced.

Sing #3 could be removed because it is very difficult to see and serves little purpose. This sign is left of the cross.

A drawing of the proposed sign was attached as well as photos illustrating the exact locations of Signs #1 and #2. The sign will not be lit.

The Pastor stated that the hardship pertains to the Church being difficult to find. The new sign "markets" the Church and its school, provides directions and communicates the activities of the Church to those attending. The sign has already been constructed and is standing in the hallway of the church.

Commissioner Gazlay contended that the hardship was created by the vendor. This particular sign is a "canned" sign and one used thru out Michigan. The hardship is not self induced, but a vendor propagated problem.

Motion by Lokey, supported by Maise to grant the variance on the condition that the

New sign is concurrent with the one found in the packet.

New sign can be ground lit, but not internally lit.

Signs #1 and #3 are removed as soon as possible.

Sign #2 will be removed when the awning canopy is removed.

Voice Vote: Ayes: Ayers, Bress, Gazlay, Lokey, Maise, And Stapleton. Nays: Ernst. Motion Carried.

Applicant requests a variance from Sec 3.04, Area Height and Placement. Seeking 1’ from the required 7’ side yard setback, also seeking 907.65 feet from the required 7,200 square foot lot minimum. Grounds for Appeal: Undue Hardship.

Mr. Peters described plans to demolish the 700 sq. foot home at 637 Novi Street. He has lived in the post World Was II home since 1998. As it stands, the current home is in a shape which is cost prohibitive to repair. The foundation and chimney are cracked. The house has no insulation and needs a new roof, as well as furnace. The ceiling and the roof are collapsing. It does not make sense to keep repairing the home, or to "throw" good money after bad to repair it. Improvements would cost 50-75 thousand dollars. Plans for the new home include:

Footprint of 1,100 sq. ft.

Home will be constructed by Superior Concept Homes.

New modular home will set on the same foot print as the existing house and 34’ from the street.

Construction and foundation of the existing home will be removed.

Commissioner Comments: Relocating the footprint of the home one foot to the north eliminates the need for the first variance; the side yard setback.

Motion by Gazlay supported by Maise to grant the variance to build a home with a 1,100 sq. ft. footprint on the existing lot. Moving the footprint of the house one foot to the north satisfies the side yard set back requirement. Roll Call Vote: Ayes: Maise, Bress, Ayers, Gazlay, Lokey, and Stapleton. Nays: Ernst. Motion Carried.

6. PUBLIC COMMENTS (Limited to two minutes each person, not to exceed twenty minutes total time for all presenters – only on matters not on the agenda) None

Motion by Gazlay, supported by Bress to adjourn the meeting at 8:48 PM. Voice Vote: Ayes: All: Nays: None. Motion Unanimously Carried.

Respectfully submitted,

P.S. Howard

Recording Secretary