View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
January 14, 2020
Vice Chairman S. Warmington called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: S. Warmington, W. German, J. Witmer, W. Bouwman
MEMBERS ABSENT: Excused: E. Fordham, B. Mazade, T. Frens
STAFF PRESENT: M. Franzak, D. Renkenberger
OTHERS PRESENT:
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
A motion to retain E. Fordham as Chairperson and S. Warmington as Vice Chair was made by J.
Witmer, supported by W. German and unanimously approved.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of April 9, 2019 be approved was made by B.
Mazade, supported by J. Witmer and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARING
Hearing; Case 2019-01: Request for a variance from Section 2311 of the zoning ordinance to
allow an 8-foot fence to be constructed on a residential property at 2027 Bourdon St, by Jill
Montgomery-Keast. M. Franzak presented the staff report. The property is zoned R-1, Low
Density Single Family Residential; therefore, fences in side and rear yards may only be a
maximum of six feet tall. The applicant is seeking approval to place an eight-foot fence along
the southern edge of the rear side yard due to nuisance issues with the neighbor. There is
currently a six-foot tall fence in this location.
Photos of the neighboring property and applicant’s property were provided. J. Montgomery-
Keast explained the ongoing issues with the adjacent property owner, which included excessive
noise, odors/fumes, foul language, visible trash and clutter. The neighbor often worked on race
cars in their driveway, which was the cause of many of the problems, and it was interfering with
the use and enjoyment of her back yard. She stated that she had tried talking to the neighbor and
had resorted to contacting the police, but nothing had improved. She currently had the highest
fence allowed by the ordinance, but it was not sufficient. She hoped that a higher, more solid
fence on that side of the property would help block the view, noise, and fumes. She would retain
the 6-foot fence around the rest of the back yard.
The following findings of fact were offered: a) that there are exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question or to the intended use of the
property that do not apply generally to other properties or class of uses in the same zoning
district, b) that the dimensional variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes – 04/09/19 1
substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the
vicinity, i.e. that the homeowner should be able to enjoy the use of her back yard, c) that the
authorizing of such dimensional variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
properties, as the taller fence should benefit both parties, d) that the alleged difficulty is caused
by the ordinance and not by any person presently having an interest in the property or by any
previous owner, e) that the alleged difficulty is not founded solely upon the opportunity to make
the property more profitable or to reduce expense to the owner (the fence would not make the
property more profitable, and it would actually be an additional expense), and f) that the
requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the difficulty (only the fence
bordering the one neighbor will be 8 feet high; the rest will remain 6 feet high).
There were no public comments. A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Mazade,
supported by J. Witmer and unanimously approved.
A motion that the variance request to allow an 8-foot fence to be constructed in the rear yard on
the southern edge of the property at 2027 Bourdon St be approved based on the review standards
in Section 2502 of the Zoning Ordinance, was made by T. Frens, supported by B. Mazade and
unanimously approved, with E. Fordham, B. Mazade, J. Witmer, T. Frens, and W. Bouwman
voting aye.
Hearing; Case 2019-02: Request for a variance to reduce the minimum side setback to less than
6 feet at 1924 Dowd St, by Daniel Cardosa. M. Franzak presented the staff report. The property
is zoned R-2, Medium Density Single Family Residential. A fire destroyed the attached garage,
which sat only two feet from the side property line on the south side of the lot. Because the
structure was destroyed, it lost its grandfathered rights. Current ordinance requires attached
garages to meet the setback requirements of the home, which is six feet for side yards. The
applicant is seeking a variance to rebuild the garage in the same place, which would allow a two-
foot side setback on the southern side of the property.
B. Mazade asked if the new garage would be built on the same footprint as the old. D. Cardosa
spoke on behalf of the property owner. He stated that it would, but the existing concrete had to
be torn out because the requirement for footings was different now than it was in the past. W.
Bouwman asked if he knew what the setback requirements were when the garage was built. D.
Cardosa stated that he didn’t know, but he did pull up a GIS map of the area and it appeared that
many structures in the neighborhood were built close to the side property lines. B. Mazade
stated that this area used to be part of Muskegon Township and the rules may have been different
at that time. J. Witmer asked how close the neighboring house to the south was to the proposed
garage. M. Franzak stated that it was set quite far back.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Mazade, supported by J. Witmer and
unanimously approved.
The following findings of fact were offered: 1) that there are exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question or to the intended use of the
property that do not apply generally to other properties or class of uses in the same zoning
district, 2) that the the dimensional variance necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the
vicinity, 3) that the authorization of such dimensional variance is not of substantial detriment to
adjacent properties, since the house on the adjacent property is set back a good distance from the
property line, 4) that the alleged difficulty is caused by the ordinance and not by any person
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes – 04/09/19 2
presently having an interest in the property, or by any previous owner, 5) that the alleged
difficulty is not founded solely upon the opportunity to make the property more profitable or to
reduce expense to the owner, and 6) that the requested variance is the minimum action required
to eliminate the difficulty.
A motion that the variance request to reduce the minimum side setback to two-feet (garage
portion only) be approved based on the review standards in Section 2502 of the Zoning
Ordinance, was made by W. Bouwman, supported by B. Mazade and unanimously approved,
with E. Fordham, B. Mazade, J. Witmer, T. Frens, and W. Bouwman voting aye.
OLD BUSINESS
None
OTHER
None.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:27 p.m.
DR
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes – 04/09/19 3