Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes

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

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

Commissioner Jensen asked that the following be inserted (in italics). Page 1, Item #4 Commissioner Jensen will comprise a letter to the City Manager regarding the BZA’s role in the interpretation of Michigan Case Law #125.585, versus the enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance.

Motion by Haveraneck, supported by Bress to approve the November 2, 2005 minutes as amended. 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 Sec. 7.04 – Area Height and Placement Requirements in GCD. Requesting a variance of 5’ in the side yard and a 15’ variance in the rear yard. Grounds for Appeal: UNDUE HARDSHIP.

Mr. Schuster explained his request to construct a garage allowing a minimum five-foot side yard set back and a five foot rear yard set back. The hardship is due to the minimal size of the residential property (35’ x 100’) and the peculiar conditions of being the last remaining residence on North Wing Street. Some time ago the block was re-zoned to General Commercial District which requires a 10 foot side yard set back and a rear yard set back of 20 feet. This change in the set back requirements makes it impossible to construct a garage. Most of the historical homes in the neighborhood, which have a garage, are at a 5 foot setback. He presented construction plans for the proposed garage.

Commissioner Comments: This case presents a true classic difficulty.

Motion by Haveraneck, supported by Bress to grant the variance as requested. Roll Call Vote: Ayes: Jensen, Ernst, Bress, Gazlay, Haveraneck, Lokey, Maise and Stapleton. Nays: None. Motion Unanimously Carried.

Applicant requests a variance to article 14-84, Location of Condensers. Requesting a variance to place a condenser in the side yard. Grounds for Appeal: Undue Hardship.

Mr. Hartman explained the reasons for his request to place the air conditioner condensers in the side yard at the south side of the new home which is under construction. The two units will be landscaped with seven new hicks’ yews and will face the north side of the garage of the home, at the existing residence to the south, which is located at 384 First Street. He stated that the two furnaces which are already in place are located towards the front of the house provide proper air distribution for the home. Aladdin Heating and Cooling is the contractor and a letter was referenced stating that the distance to the rear of the house for the air conditioner location was going to be excessive. The contractor preferred to stay within the accepted engineering practices by locating the units nearest the furnace location, which would thus require the units to be located along the side of the house.

Commissioner Comments:

This is new construction and the contractor has ignored the ordinance.

The condensers can still be placed in the rear yard as the ordinance requires.

Some of the duct work can still be moved.

Motion by Bress, supported by Maise to grant the variance. Roll Call Vote: Ayes: Lokey and,Haveraneck. Nays: Bress, Ernst, Gazlay, Jensen, Maise and Stapleton. Motion Denied.

Mr. Hartman reported that at the October BZA meeting, an applicant on Fairbrook Court asked for a variance to leave one wall of an existing non conforming garage. The entire garage has been demolished.

Commissioner Haveraneck reported that the fence is still standing at the house on Rayson Street. That front yard fence variance was denied.

Chris Gazlay, the BZA/Planning Commission liaison, reported that at a recent Planning Commission meeting an applicant was granted a lot split in the RI-B district which created two 60’ wide lots. However, by granting the split, a side yard with a set back issue was created.

Chairman Stapleton responded that this can not be done if the lot split increases the non-conformity.

Motion by Maise, supported by Bress to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 PM. Voice Vote: Ayes: All: Nays: None. Motion Unanimously Carried.

Respectfully submitted,

P.S. Howard
Recording Secretary