View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
April 8, 2014
Chairman R. Hilt called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: R. Hilt, S. Warmington, B. Larson, E. Carter, W. German
MEMBERS ABSENT: T. Halterman, excused; E. Fordham, excused
STAFF PRESENT: M. Franzak, D. Renkenberger
OTHERS PRESENT: D. Medendorp, ALT Property Management
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of January 14, 2014 be approved was made by
S. Warmington, supported by B. Larson and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing; Case 2014-02: Request for a use variance from Section 400 of the Zoning Ordinance to
allow a two-unit home in an R-1, Single Family Residential district at 1430 Hoyt Street. M.
Franzak presented the staff report. The parcel is located in an R-1, Single Family Residential
District and measures approximately 7,800 square feet in size, with 58 feet of road frontage. The
lot contains two separate houses that were connected by a front porch sometime in the past. An
Assessors sketch of the property was provided, showing the front porch that linked the two
houses. The City’s Building Official, Kirk Briggs, also provided an assessment of the property,
noting that the houses were originally built as two separate residences. No permit was found
showing that the porch now linking the houses was legally constructed. Both residences have
been vacant for more than two years, so the property has lost its grandfathered rights and must
revert back to single family use. The lot cannot legally be split into two parcels, because each lot
would require 50 feet of street frontage, and the entire parcel is only 58 feet wide. There is a
garage in the back yard off of the alley for parking, but it is in poor condition. There are not any
legal paved parking spaces on site other than in the garage. Notice was sent to property owners
within 300 feet of this property. Bernadette Young of 1468 Terrace Street is opposed to the
variance because she would like to see the neighborhood return to single family use. Greg and
Wynne David at 1452 Hoyt stated that they are in favor of the variance because this had been
occupied as a duplex for years and there were no problems. Janet and Peter Johnson own seven
properties in the area and expressed concerns about parking. They stated that if parking was
provided for the occupants on their own property, they would not be opposed to the variance. J.
Westphal of 1442 Hoyt called to say that he was opposed to the request.
M. Franzak pointed out that the property owners were not requesting to divide one dwelling into
smaller apartments, which the City has been trying to discourage. In this case, the houses were
originally built as two separate buildings. The lack of parking was a concern, but the board
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes – 4/08/14 1
could add a condition to an approval, requiring the addition of parking spaces off the alley. R.
Hilt noted that the property was in bad shape, as were several others in this area. S. Warmington
asked if the board could add a condition of approval that the building be inspected and brought
up to code. M. Franzak stated that was possible, and suggested that they could require the work
to be completed in a reasonable amount of time, or the variance would expire. He added that the
owners would be required to get a Certificate of Occupancy (COO) before they were able to rent
the place out, which would ensure that the buildings were up to code. W. German asked the
applicant what the timeline for completion was. D. Medendorp was managing the property for
the owners. He stated that they would like to do the renovations quickly, and had already pulled
electrical and mechanical permits, as well as a permit for roof repairs. They expected to have a
COO for the unit on the right within 45 days, then would work on the other side. D. Medendorp
stated that they would like to save the garage if at all possible, and they would perform any
needed repairs. He stated they wanted to put in dolomite or gravel for parking spaces off the
alley. R. Hilt stated that the home’s roof was in bad shape. D. Medendorp stated that there was
only one leak, and the rest of the attic was dry when they blew in insulation. He would have
Safebuilt inspect it. R. Hilt asked about furnaces. D. Medendorp stated that the furnaces and
ductwork had been stolen, but one side now had a new furnace and the other side would also. M.
Franzak stated that parking spaces would have to be paved, as dolomite and gravel were not
allowed. He suggested that board members place another condition of approval, stating that the
variance would be void if the house was destroyed.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Larson, supported by E. Carter and
unanimously approved.
S. Warmington stated that there were a lot of non-conforming houses in the area, but this one
was a unique situation due to the way the houses were originally built. He stated that the garage
needed to be demolished and a parking pad installed there. D. Medendorp asked that they be
allowed to try and salvage the garage if possible. The owners were putting a substantial amount
of money into improving the property, and wanted to repair the garage if they could. B. Larson
stated that if the variance were denied, it was likely that the property would fall into further
disrepair. Allowing the owners to improve the properties would benefit the neighborhood rather
than having a negative effect.
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; that being that the houses were originally constructed as two completely separate
dwellings; b) That such dimensional variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the
vicinity; c) That the authorizing of such dimensional variance will not be of substantial detriment
to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purposes of this chapter or the public
interest; d) That the alleged difficulty is caused by the Ordinance and has not been created 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; and f) That the requested variance is the minimum
action required to eliminate the difficulty.
A motion that the findings of fact be adopted and the variance request to allow a two-unit
residence in an R-1, Single Family Residential District at 1430 Hoyt Street in its current
structured condition be approved, with the conditions that 1) four legal parking spaces be
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes – 4/08/14 2
provided on the property, 2) if either of the two units are destroyed beyond 75% the variance is
void, and 3) the variance is recorded with the deed to keep record of it in the future, was made by
S. Warmington, supported by B. Larson and unanimously approved.
OLD BUSINESS
None
OTHER
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:44 p.m.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes – 4/08/14 3