View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
June 9, 2009
Chairman R. Hilt called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: E. Fordham, S. Brock, B. Larson, R. Hilt, J. Clingman-Scott,
S. Wisneski
MEMBERS ABSENT: E. Fife
STAFF PRESENT: M. Cameron, D. Leafers
OTHERS PRESENT: J. Szmadzinski, 3293 Lakeshore Dr.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of October 14, 2008 be approved was made by B.
Larson, supported by E .Fordham and unanimously approved.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
A motion to nominate R. Hilt for Chairman and E. Fordham for Vice-Chairman was made by B.
Larson, supported by S. Wisneski and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing Case 2009-001: Request for a variance from Section 2311: Accessory Structures &
Buildings, to allow the construction of an accessory structure (garage), to be located in the front yard
at 3293 Lakeshore Drive, by John Szmadzinski. M. Cameron presented the staff report. Zoning of
parcels in the area is R-1, Single Family Residential. The principal structure at 3293 Lakeshore is
located to the rear of the property and high on top of a steep hill, making the area between the home
and Lakeshore Drive a front yard. The property currently has a parking area at the base of that hill
which is nonconforming. This parking area is adjacent to Gruber Court, an undeveloped road right
of way running off Lakeshore Drive. The size of the proposed garage is 20 x 16 feet. All setback
dimensions are measured at the drip edge of the garage roof. According to the enclosed site plans,
the structure would meet the required side setback but due to the slope of the hill, it would need to be
located 6 inches from the front property line. There are no required front setbacks for an accessory
structure, since they are not normally allowed in a front yard. The applicant will pave the narrow
garage approach apron located immediately in front of the new garage, but intends to leave the
current parking area unpaved. This is the practice that is followed in all cases where a garage is
being built at the end of an existing driveway or parking area. In this case the applicant has
expressed a desire to eventually pave all the existing parking areas, but hopes to be able to wait until
he has a sanitary sewer line installed to the home. The proposed sewer line would need to be
installed under the area that is currently being used for parking, so it is practical to wait to pave this
area until it is installed. One clarification staff would like to make regarding the submitted site plan
is that the area marked “Additional Parking” is currently used for a parking area. This area is
considered a nonconforming use that would be allowed to continue. The applicant is not asking to
increase that area from what is currently being used. The area is not located in the DEQ-designated
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes – 6/09/09 1
critical dune area. Staff has received one comment on this case from Mr. Tom Blake, owner of 3296
Thompson. Mr. Blake stated he had no concerns regarding the request and thought the garage would
be a positive for the neighborhood.
S. Wisneski asked if there was a plan for a sidewalk on that side of the street. M. Cameron stated
that he wasn’t aware of one. S. Wisneski asked if the split-rail fence shown in the picture would be
removed. J. Szmadzinski stated that the garage would be behind the fence. E. Fordham asked where
the sewer line would be located. J. Szmadzinski stated that it would be to the left of the stairs, and
there was already a stub he could connect to so there would be no need to tear up Lakeshore Drive.
R. Hilt asked if it would be necessary to cut into the hill. J. Szmadzinski stated that it would. Board
members discussed the uniqueness of the area, much of which was due to the hills and dunes. They
concurred that the large hill on this property necessitated the garage being in front of the house.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Larson, supported by E. Fordham and
unanimously approved.
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 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 determined by the Zoning Board of Appeals be adopted and that
the variance request to allow construction of an accessory structure (garage) in the front yard be
approved, subject to the following conditions: 1) that the additions to the property must be complete
within one year (Sec. 2504) or the variance is void, 2) the accessory structure is built and located as
shown on the submitted site plan; slight modifications to the front setback shown on the site plan
may be approved by the Zoning Administrator, and 3) the variance is recorded with the deed to keep
record of it in the future, was made by B. Larson, supported by S. Wisneski and unanimously
approved.
OLD BUSINESS
None
OTHER
Barbed wire fences – S. Brock asked about Homeland Security regulations for barbed wire fences,
since it had been mentioned at a previous meeting. M. Cameron stated that he had researched the
regulations in depth, and had found no Federal requirement for barbed wire. S. Brock stated that the
research center on Sherman Blvd. had put up additional barbed wire fence in the rear of the building
about 9 months after their case was heard by the ZBA. M. Cameron stated that he would look into it.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:21 p.m.
dl
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes – 6/09/09 2