Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes

CITY OF NORTHVILLE
Board of Zoning Appeals
September 7, 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
Larry Jensen
Chris Gazlay
John Rae
Charles Ayers
Luke Durst
Bill Lokey
James Haveraneck

Absent:
Carol Maise – excused
James Bress - excused
Mark Ernst – excused

3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA:

Motion by Ayers, supported by Rae to approve the agenda. Voice Vote: Ayes: Al. Nays: None. Motion Unanimously Carried.

Motion by Rae, supported by Durst to approve the August 3, 2005 minutes as submitted. 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.

Applicant requests a variance to Section 15.01 – minimum lot width requirement. Requesting a variance of 11’ from the required 60’. Grounds for Appeal - Undue Hardship.

The applicant is returning from a previous meeting with additional information. Originally Lot #2 of the Oakwood Subdivision was platted as a 50’ wide lot. At some point the Zoning Ordinance was revised requiring 60’ frontage. The existing house does not warrant significant remodeling due to structural deficiencies. She listed eleven separate reasons, from electrical problems to cracks in the foundation. The proposed new home is a one and half story bungalow in keeping with the architectural streetscape. The new home is 35’ or six feet less in width than the overall existing structure which sits on a nonconforming lot. The new home meets the side yard set back requirements.

Commissioner Lokey referenced the Northville Zoning Ordinance, Article 22 (Nonconforming Uses, Structures and Lots) specifically Section 22.01 - Non Conforming Lots, Nonconforming Uses of Land, Nonconforming Structures, and Nonconforming Uses of Structures and Premises. He argued that if the plat was plotted prior to the adoption of the ordinance, then the applicant does not even need to appear before this board.

Chairman Stapleton argued that at some point the Zoning Ordinance was adopted and the 60’ lot width was put in place.

Commissioner Ayers stated that Section 15.01 – Schedule of Regulations should be considered when making a decision. The discussion of Section 15.01 vs. 22.01 is for the City Attorney and the City Administration.

Doug Berg – 111 Baseline – owner of the home to the east of the applicant’s stated that all the homes on Baseline predate 1911. The lots were marketed and sold as 50’ wide lots. He is in agreement with Section 22.01.

George Hartman – 370 First – supports Section 22.01 of the Zoning Ordinance. He supports the idea that the applicant does not need a variance based on 22.01 – A.

Motion by Durst, supported by Ayers to grant the variance as requested. Roll Call Vote: Ayes: Ayers, Durst, Gazlay, Haveraneck, Jenson, Lokey, Rae and Stapleton. Nays: None. Motion Unanimously Carried.

Motion by Lokey, supported by Rae to refund the applicant’s fee based on Article 22.01 of the Zoning Ordinance. Roll Call Vote: Ayes: Gazlay, Haveraneck, Jensen and Lokey. Nays: Ayers, Durst, Rae and Stapleton. When the vote is a tie it is recorded as a motion to deny.

Applicant requests interpretation of specific sections of the Northville Zoning Ordinance as attached.

Appellant alleges that there is an ERROR in the decision or order being appealed. (Article 25, Section 24.04a)

Appellant alleges that strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance will result in exceptionally UNDUE HARDSHIP. (Article 25, Section 25.04b)

The applicant George Hartman stated that he was seeking an interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance, as it relates to side yard set backs, as well as, lot width and area coverage.

Chairman Stapleton repeated, as he had during previous meetings, that the applicant and his case would be heard if he provided additional information regarding specific details of the variances to which he had been denied.

Chairman Stapleton ruled the case out of order. No action was taken.

The applicant expressed his disappointment in the evening’s proceedings. He was disappointed in the non action taken on his case; particularly in light of ruling on the first case which he felt didn’t need to be before the board.

Chairman Stapleton asked that City Staff return two month’s of application fees to Mr. Hartman.

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)

Motion by Gazlay, supported by Rae to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 PM. Voice Vote: Ayes: All: Nays: None. Motion Unanimously Carried.

Respectfully submitted,

P.S. Howard
Recording Secretary