MINUTES OF THE
MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS,
WHICH TOOK PLACE
ON WEDNESDAY,
AT 6:30 P.M., IN
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL,
MIDLAND, MICHIGAN
1. ROLL
CALL
PRESENT: Board Members - Green, Higgins, Holthof, Lichtenwald, and Steele
ABSENT: Board Members – None
OTHERS PRESENT: Daryl Poprave, Cheri King, and 3 others.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved
by Higgins and supported by Holthof to approve the minutes of the
3. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
a. Election of Chairman and Vice Chairman for FY 2008-2009.
Mr. Higgins nominated Roy Green for Chairman. Mr. Steele seconded the motion.
Motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Steele nominated Jack Higgins for Vice Chairman. Mr. Holthof seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
The Chairman explained the public hearing procedures and how the Board
decides if the variance request is approved based on the five ordinance
criteria. Mr. Lichtenwald reinforced
that the variance goes with the property and not with the property owner.
a. No.
08-06 – Wendy Sines for an
area/dimension variance for an interior side yard setback reduction for a
garage addition at
Mr. Poprave showed an aerial photograph of the subject property. It is located on
The lot to the east of this lot is also 60 feet wide and there are a few
other lots that are only 60 feet wide.
The house next door is also only six feet from the property line.
Jack Doty, the builder for the project, representing Wendy Sines, from
the Gladwin area, spoke on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Holthof requested Mr. Doty to review the
criteria. The petitioner stated the six
feet from the property line at Ms. Sine’s house and the six feet from the
property line to the house next door would place 12 feet between the two
houses. They need that width in order to
get a garage door to fit and to get a vehicle into the garage. They need the 14-foot width just to get a
one-car garage. There will be no storage
provided. If they were to keep the
garage within the required setbacks, they would have to tap into space used for
HVAC in the utility room of the house.
The power and utilities enter the house at this location. This would cause a significant increase in
expense for the project. The garage will
be 14’ x 28’, for a one-car garage. Mr. Holthof
stated the standard garage door for a one-car garage is 8 feet wide. The thirteen feet allowed within the confines
of the ordinance would allow sufficient room to get out of the vehicle.
The petitioner stated due to the fact that there is very little storage
now, the homeowner would like to have a little more storage available in the
new garage. Mr. Lichtenwald asked how
this would do substantial justice to the neighborhood if they are already
crowding the next door neighbors. The
petitioner stated there is greater security in the neighborhood if things are
locked up and not left sitting out.
Criteria C is addressed by the fact that they do not want to change the
layout of the interior utility room and the hallway inside the house. Everything on this lot is small, including
the house and the carport. The garage
will also be small as this is a small lot.
Mr. Higgins stated that from the curb appeal, you would not notice a
difference whether the garage is 13 feet or 14 feet wide. The petitioner agreed, although it might
affect the resale value of the house.
The lots across the street are wider than this lot. Some of these homes have larger garages
because they are on wider lots. They are looking to eliminate the carport and
add a new garage. Mr. Holthof asked if
they considered a detached garage. The petitioner stated they did but there are
two large trees in the back yard. It is
63 feet from the back of the structure to the rear lot line.
No one spoke either in favor of or in opposition to this request. The Chairman closed the public hearing and
directed the ZBA to enter into findings of fact.
Findings of
Fact:
1.
The
property is zoned RA-3 with adjacent RB and RA-4 zoning.
2.
The
property’s west side yard setback is 6 feet and is existing legal
non-conforming and the property currently has 11 feet on the east side of the
structure for a sum of both sides equal to 17 feet.
3.
The
addition would create a one-foot encroachment on the east side of the structure
and would decrease the overall sum of both side yard setbacks from 17 feet to
12 feet.
4.
The lot
is 60 feet wide which does meet RA-3 regulations, but it is one of the
narrowest lots in the subdivision.
5.
The subdivision
(Adams Acres) was platted in 1957.
6.
The
petitioner stated it would be a financial hardship to have to move the
structure inward because the building’s utilities are in the way.
7.
There
were no communications received in favor of or against this request.
It is moved by Higgins and supported
by Holthof to approve Petition No. 08-06 based on the findings of fact to allow
a side yard setback reduction for a garage addition at 1421 Jay Street, with
the following conditions: (1) that the east side yard setback shall not be less
than seven (7) feet and; (2) the total of the sum of both side yard setbacks
shall not be less than 13 feet.
Mr. Higgins feels he can meet the criteria based upon the fact that this
is a 60 foot lot.
Mr.
Holthof stated that there comes a point where you are overbuilding the lot.
There are other structures in this area that come close to the property line
and he is concerned about the petitioner overbuilding what will fit onto the
property.
Mr.
Green stated that with the concrete pad, you are not changing the layout
significantly. The concrete pad and the
fence go over to the lot line already.
Mr.
Steele stated this is a tough choice. It
adds to the value of the house and the neighborhood and it does protect their
personal property more than a carport.
It does bother him that we are considering reducing the required
setback. Part of this is a safety issue
with fire regulations.
Mr.
Lichtenwald stated he has some issues with the criteria. He understands how this will benefit the
owner, but how will it affect the homeowners on either side? It is not unique as there are several other
lots in this area that are 60 feet wide.
He feels they can still build the garage without the one foot variance
and there are several criteria that are not met.
Voting on the motion:
Green: Yes
Higgins: Yes
Holthof: Yes
Lichtenwald: No
Steele: Yes
The motion to approve the Petition 08-06
was approved 4-1.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS (not related to items on the agenda)
None
6. OLD BUSINESS
None
7. NEW BUSINESS
a.
Staff stated that there would be a July 15th
ZBA meeting as there has already been one case filed (Midland Country Club at
1120 W. St. Andrews)
8. DECISION SHEET SIGNATURES
9. ADJOURNMENT
Hearing no further business, the Chairman adjourned the
meeting at 7:21 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Daryl Poprave, AICP, CFM
Deputy Planning Director