Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 09-13-2022

View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer

September 13, 2022

Chairman W. Bowman called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and roll was taken.

MEMBERS PRESENT:              W. Bowman, T. Puffer, J. Montgomery-Keast, V. Taylor

MEMBERS ABSENT:               W. German, J. Whitmer, M. Ribesky, R. King

STAFF PRESENT:                M. Franzak, S. Pulos


A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of June 14, 2022, be approved was made by W.
Bowman, supported by T. Puffer, and unanimously approved.

Hearing Case 2022-04
Request for a variance from Section 404 of the zoning ordinance to allow more than 10% of the
property to be covered by pavement at 3406 Fulton St.
 1. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Single Family Residential.
 2. The lot measures 12,355 sqft. Ten percent of the property can be used for pavement. This
    lot is allowed up to 1,235 sqft of pavement.
 3. The current parking lot on site was made using gravel, which is no longer allowed. This
    parking lot is considered legally non-conforming (grandfathered) because it was
    constructed before the ordinance was adopted.
 4. The applicant is requesting to pave the existing gravel driveway, but also to extend it to
    make it larger. The existing gravel driveway measures approximately 1,225 sqft.
 5. The proposed paved driveway measures 36’ x 57’ (2,052 sqft).
 6. Please see the enclosed responses to page two of the application.
 7. Notice was sent to properties within 300 feet of the property. At the time of this writing,
    staff had not received any comments from the public.

                                                                                          Page 1 of 2
No motion was made.

Thomas Kresnak of 3406 Fulton, spoke to state that he received a letter from Stephen Fisher,
City Code Compliance Inspector that references gravel/concrete at the property and stated that
it didn’t address the original request of the applicant. The letter stated that he had 1055 ft 2 of
concrete on the lot. The applicant stated that the only concrete is the walkway towards the
house. Jill Montgomery-Keast clarified that the letter states that the applicant has 1225 ft 2 of
gravel and not concrete. The applicant acknowledged that he understood. He said that in years
past, he commuted from CA to MI and didn’t deal with snow removal. Now that he and his wife
are dealing with snow removal, they understood that it is easier to maintain and manage snow
removal with a solid concrete surface. He stated that he patterned his project after his
neighbors. Thomas then stated that he did not want to extend the size of his existing parking
surface, but only to turn the gravel areas into concrete.
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 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?

The board acknowledged that if the applicant did not want to increase the size, he did not need
to ask for a Variance. Mike Franzak, confirmed that the applicant was within the City’s
ordinance if he just replaced gravel with concrete without changing size, and that he is
complying. No motion was made.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:31 p.m.
                                                                                         Page 2 of 2

Top of Page

Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails