|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Board of Zoning Appeals MinutesCITY OF NORTHVILLE 1. CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman Carol Maise called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. 2. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Present: Absent: 3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA: Motion by Ernst, supported by Haveraneck to approve the agenda. Voice Vote: Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion Unanimously Carried. 4. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: October 5, 2005 Minutes as amended. #1 CALL TO ORDER: Change Chairman Stapleton to Vice Chairman Maise called the meeting to order. #7 DISCUSSION: Correct - Michigan Case Law to #125.585. Motion by Haveraneck, supported by Bress to approve the October 5, 2005 minutes as amended. Voice Vote: Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion Unanimously Carried. Commissioner Jensen will comprise a letter to the City Manager regarding the BZA’s role in the interpretation of MCL #125.585, versus the enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance. The letter will be forwarded to all Commissioners. (amended 12-7-2005) 5. CASES to be heard – By Case 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 #05-017 Applicant requests a variance to Sec. 14-294, permits and Sec. 14-296, Residential fences. Rebecca Fielden explained the plans to fence in the yard to the west side of her home which is at the corner of Rayson and Hutton Street. She stated that when the home was renovated part of the existing fence was removed during the construction period. The fence was one foot off the sidewalk. The new fence is the same height and dimension of the existing fence. The practical difficulties for the variance are: Safety issues regarding her four little boys. Esthetics of not wanting to disturb a mature pine tree in the side yard. The grade of the rear yard does not allow a flat surface for a play soccer field. The fence is pre existing. The Chief Building Inspector stated that the fence, which has already been in stalled, was done so without a permit. The original fence (down for 21/2 to 3 years) was one of non conformance and in a state of dis repair. The Zoning Ordinance does allows for a non conforming existing fence to be repaired or replaced if not greater than 5o per cent of the entire fence. However this entire fence has been replaced with a new one. A commissioner stated that a neighbor who has lived there for thirty years reported that the front yard was never completely fenced in. The representative from Novi Fence affirmed that the fence was installed before the permit was approved and the remaining portion of the old fence was removed and hauled away. Motion by Ernst, supported by Bress to grant the variance as requested. Roll Call Vote: Ayes: Jensen and Ernst. Nays: Bress, Gazlay, Haveraneck, Lokey and Maise. Motion Denied. 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) George Hartman – 370 First – stated that he was still concerned with Mark Ernst’s comments regarding the "intent" of the Zoning Ordinance. Hartman wanted an explanation to the comment of not allowing a non conforming lot to be built upon. 7. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Comments: By definition, pre existing lots of record are buildable within the foot print of the allowable square footage of the home, per the size of the lot (as required by the ordinance). Commissioner Ernst suggested that an interpretation or definition of "Undue Hardship" should be explained by City Administration or the City Attorney. The words "I want" and "I need" are not adequate reasons to grant a variance. Amended 12-7-2005 8. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Haveraneck, supported by Gazlay to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 PM. Voice Vote: Ayes: All: Nays: None. Motion Unanimously Carried. Respectfully submitted, P.S. Howard Recording Secretary |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||