View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
DATE OF MEETING: Tuesday, April 9, 2019
TIME OF MEETING: 4:00p.m.
PLACE OF MEETING: Commission Chambers, First Floor, Muskegon City Hall
AGENDA
I. Roll Call
II. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 14, 2017.
III. Election of Officers (Chair and Vice Chair)
IV. Public Hearings
A. 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.
B. 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.
V. New Business
VI. Old Business
VII. Adjourn
AMERICAN DISABILITY ACT POLICY FOR ACCESS TO OPEN MEETING OF THE
CITY COMMISSION AND ANY OF ITS COMMITTEES OR SUBCOMMITTEES
The City of Muskegon will provide necessary reasonable auxiliary aids and services, such as signers for the hearing
impaired and audio tapes of printed materials being considered at the meeting, to individuals with disabilities who want to
attend the meeting, upon twenty-four hour notice to the City of Muskegon. Individuals with disabilities requiring auxiliary
aids or services should contact the City of Muskegon by writing or calling the following:
Ann Marie Cummings, City Clerk
933 Terrace Street
Muskegon, Ml 49440
(231) 724-6705
1TY/fDD: Dial 7-1-1 and request that a representative dial 231-724-6705
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
November 14, 2017
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, W. German, J. Witmer
MEMBERS ABSENT: E. Fordham, excused
STAFF PRESENT: M. Franzak, D. Renkenberger
OTHERS PRESENT: F. Glancy, 1370 Ridge Ave.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of October 10, 2017 be approved was made by
S. Warmington, supported by B. Larson and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARING
Hearing; Case 2017-07: Request for a variance from Section 2311 of the zoning ordinance to
allow a shed to be expanded in a front yard at 13 70 Ridge Avenue, by Fred Glancy. M. Franzak
presented the staff report. The property owner would like expand the shed in the back of the
home; however, the property has two front yards and no back yard because it is located between
Ridge Ave and Glen Ave. This is the only home with frontage on Glen Ave that doesn't face the
street. Sheds cannot be located in front yards per the zoning ordinance. The existing shed is
considered legally, non-conforming and cannot be expanded. The variance request is for the
expansion of the shed only. Neighbors within 300 feet of this property were notified; at the time
of this writing, staff had not received any comments. Staff considers there to be a valid hardship
on the property, as it is has frontage on two streets which makes it difficult to place a shed on the
prope1ty.
M. Franzak stated that he had searched for a previous variance for this property to allow the
current shed but he did not locate one; therefore, ZBA approval was required for the proposed
addition. The shed would be located behind the house on the Glen Ave. frontage, which was the
home's back yard. F. Glancy stated that he had spoken to all affected neighbors and none noted
any objections to his request, as long as the shed was not in the front yard on the Ridge Avenue
side. He confirmed that he planned to attach the new shed to the current shed on the property.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by S. Warmington, supported by B. Larson 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, i.e. that the ordinance defines this property as having two front yards; b) that the
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
properties, 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, and f) that the requested variance is the minimum action required
to eliminate the difficulty.
A motion that the variance request to allow the expansion of the current shed fronting Glen
Avenue, at 1370 Ridge Avenue be approved, based on the review standards in Section 2502 of
the Zoning Ordinance and with the condition that any necessary permits are obtained, was made
by S. Warmington, supported by W. German and unanimously approved, with R. Hilt, S.
Warmington, B. Larson, W. German, and J. Witmer voting aye.
OLD BUSINESS
None
OTHER
None.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
DR
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
STAFF REPORT
April 9, 2019
Hearing; Case 2019-0 I : 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.
BACKGROUND
I. The property is zone R-1, Low Density Single Family Residential. Fences in side and rear
yards may only be a maximum of six feet tall.
2. The applicant is seeking approval of an eight feet fence in the rear yard because of nuisance
issues with the neighbor. Please see the variance questionnaire attached.
3. There is currently a six-foot tall fence in this location.
4. The variance request is for an eight-foot tall fence in the back yard on the southern edge of
the prope1iy.
Aerial Map
Zoning Map
11!1
\
\
....
,,..
....
1":<~
,...
,·1•
,-;,, ;>;U
,.n
""
"''
...
1:.:-\
Y.-d
! x»
I
>:-4
'" ,...
',. 1~ i
,..,
VARIAN CE REVIEW STAND ARDS
Questions to consider when reviewing a variance request:
a. Are 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. Is 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?
c. Will the authorizing of such dimensional variance be of substantial detriment to adjacent
prope1ties?
d. Is the alleged difficulty caused by the ordinance and not by any person presently having
an interest in the property, or by any previous owner?
e. Is the alleged difficulty founded solely upon the opportunity to make the property more
profitable or to reduce expense to the owner?
f. Is the requested variance the minimum action required to eliminate the difficulty?
DETERMINATION:
The following motion is offered for consideration:
I move 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/denied) based on the review
standards in Section 2502 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Req'uest 2027 Bourdon - Response to Facts and Conditions
1. 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. Neighbor residing directly south of 2027 Bourdon (2035) has driveway butting up to next to house. 2027 has
a pool in the back yard that needs to be properly enclosed and accesses limited as much as possible.
2. Such a dimensional variance Is necessary for the preservation ad enjoyment of a substantial property right
possessed by other properties In the same zoning district and In the vicinity. Owner at 2035 works on trucks and
cars, Including stock cars In driveway and garage evenings and weekends. Fumes and extreme noise from activity
reduce owner of 2027's abllity to enjoy backyard recreation area. Owner of 2027 is also subjected to viewing the
automobile work area at 2035 through kitchen and bathroom windows.
3. Proposed use would not alter the essential character of the area and wlll not materially Impair the purposes of
this ordinance or the public interest. New fence will be built In character with remaining fence and include
decorative top.
4. The alleged hardship Is caused by this ordinance and has not been created by any 1>erson presently having and
Interest In the property, or by any previous owner, The current fence is built according to ordinance - 6 foot tall
and extends the full length of the property and Joins to additional sections of fence, which surround an lnground
pool.
- - 5. The alleged hardship ls not founded solely upon the opportunity to make lhe property more profitable or to
reduce expense to the owner. The proposed fence will be an enhanced improvement over the current fence.
Because of the need for sound reduction, the fence boards will be constructed In an overlapping manner, costing
substantially more than what is actually required.
6. The requested variance Is the minimum action required to ellmlnate the hardship, This action will not totally
eliminate the noise generated from the neighboring driveway and garage, but It will deaden some of the sound. It
will also block the view of the garage and multiple cars.
7. The use variance does not permit a use speclflcally Identified by this ordinance as excluded from the particular
zone In which reciuested. Fences are permitted In Rl and required for pool enclosure.
8. The extent to which the ordinance protect users or neighbors from threats to health, safety and welfare shall be
considered. The current fence Is built with horizontal boards on the outside of the fenced area. The new fence wlll
be designed to have horizontal boards on the inside of the property (if there are any), reducing the ability to access
the pool area.
9. In no case shall a use that Is a nuisance per se, or a use which In that particular location constitutes a nuisance, be
granted as a use variance, In all actuality, nearly½ of the 72' of the current fence on south side Is next to the
neighbor's garage, which Is already at least 15' tall. The new fence will be erected In the same configuration and In
the same place as the current fence. The remaining 2 sides of the fence will be In accordance with the ordinance
rules of 6' In height.
1
·I' I I I I
I I I I I
I I 1 I I
I
I I I
I
I
I I
I
I
I I
I I
I
- I
I
I
I - I
I
I I
I
I
I I I
I
I • I I - I
I I I
I r
I
- -L---
I
I
I
I I I I . I
I ! I
I
I I l I I
I
I I , I I
~J d - ld'--l'"-'qr~!
~
I I
1
4
0 I'
I d? i I
I
~; I l
(0
I I ' I
I ~ I
I I I I
rJ.. I -J?Jo1--
I :J\ I
I. I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I
I I : I I I I
1- ·
'
/ ,V),t<:~:
It{v1 ~\' , - I
I
1 I
clI
I~ ,
I
I
lro~I I
\J I
I I I
I I I
I I lI I I
I
w-
I ,\1<>! . Ii ~ I
I
I
I ! I
I
'
I
I
I I I
I
.
I i
~
,....
' I ~.,
\.
... Al
, ,1
·: I j:
I·
I
I ! • .,. I
l ' . I
· ' I:' / /1 :i ,
/
I i;fJ•
I
·' j ·
1.
I
I
I '. I
·I! ,,
II
., ,'
· 1'
1I ..'
'I '' I I
. I.
I
' !
I
I
I II
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.
BACKGROUND
1. The property is zone R-2, Medium Density Single Family Residential. A fire at the
property destroyed the attached garage, which sat only two feet away from the side
property line on the south side of the lot.
2. The ordinance requires attached garages to meet the setback requirements of the home,
which is six feet for side yards.
3. The applicant is seeking a variance to rebuild the garage in the same place.
4. The variance request is to allow a two-foot side setback on the southern side of the
property.
5. Please see the enclosed zoning questionnaire.
Aerial Map
Zoning Map
1910
t001 SH 911 9}5
19 11
1911
ml
mo 1n , 1921
1935
19)1
1916 190
19 ) 9
19SO 1951
19H
19S1
1911
19'3
1960
~
VARIAN CE REVIEW STANDARDS
Questions to consider when reviewing a variance request:
a. Are 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. Is 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?
c. Will the authorizing of such dimensional variance be of substantial detriment to adjacent
properties?
d. Is the alleged difficulty caused by the ordinance and not by any person presently having
an interest in the prope,ty, or by any previous owner?
e. Is the alleged difficulty founded solely upon the oppo1tunity to make the prope1ty more
profitable or to reduce expense to the owner?
f. Is the requested variance the minimum action required to eliminate the difficulty?
DETERMINATION:
The following motion is offered for consideration:
I move that the variance request to reduce the minimum side setback to two-feet (garage portion
only) be (approved/denied) based on the review standards in Section 2502 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
City o( Muskegon Planning & Zoning Application
Page 2 - Va1twces
Please provide ctn c1nswe1· to the following questions:
·1 . Why ctt·c there "excepf/017<1/ ot ext1-;Jotc/1iJ<1Jy cfi-cams(<11Jces ,1pp/yit7g to the pwpedy liJ c;aesfiotJ at to
the 1i7fe1Jc/ed use ofthe ptopedy t/7qt Jo l)ot <1pply ge1JeJ-;J//y to othetpwperlies ot chss ofuses JiJ the
s4me zo1Jillg c/isttid' I (i.e., Why Is your pt"Dperty unl<1ue compared to others In the neighborhood I)
y\ \2_5<:, \)'~""-\ r~ ~-Oc_O ·\: \_,.__, %~re---.~~ fu 00:t= ~
0-1/"Y ( ~- \I'\ l l"] Cf\ l V\--V I +
2. Why is ct v;i t·iance "necess,11y fo,- the ptesetv.1tio17 ,me/ enjoyment of,1 sahst,1nt1°<1Iptopedy tight
possessed by othetptoperties JiJ the s<1me zo171i1g c/istnd :¼½- ~ '-1-J (r,,c:.,_{- A oJIYI ~pos (~
3. How will the c1uthmizing of cl vc1l"ic1nce "not he ofsuhst,71)(1";/I c/et11ine1Jt to ,1djc1cent ptopedy ,1nc/ not
m,1ten";/lly 1inp<11i· the pll!poses ofthe City's zol)ing orc/liJ-:)t\t ~ r;; t-'--:-\ \J l(d
4. Explc1in why the alleged clifFiculty is'' c<1used by the Otc/1i1<1nce ,I/Jc/ h<1s not beetJ ete;Jtec/Py <1ny petson
1
ptesently h<1v1i7g <1n tiJtetest tiJ the ptoperty, ot hy <1ny ptevious ow1Jd : (i.e., Who/whc1t Is the cc1use
ofthe diFFrcultyl)
\ ~
c-::-- ~
r .
'--~0 (.Jc:::::..., ' -::::,
,4
\.J C)c-.,__, 1,
4:\-:'2 :±;:\ra- o r, ~Y ro.--~
lo0 '- l cJ 0-v,d ~,~.A.,:::> c..\0~ ,J'l,,.J...,~ puf t~ ·¼-:?
5. The c1llegec\ difficulty is "1Jof fou1Jc/ed sole~v upo1J the oppotftmify to tn