CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
July 10, 2012
Chairman R. Hilt called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: E. Fordham, R. Hilt, S. Brock, T. Halterman, J. Clingman-Scott,
W. German Jr.
MEMBERS ABSENT: B. Larson, excused
STAFF PRESENT: M. Franzak, D. Renkenberger
OTHERS PRESENT: C. Fox, 2283 Resort Avenue; K. Bednarek, 3302 Arlington
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of April 10, 2012 be approved was made by J.
Clingman-Scott, supported by E. Fordham and unanimously approved.
Hearing; Case 2012-004: Request for a variance from Section 2203: Non-Conforming
Structures, to allow a non-conforming structure to be increased more than 30% with a Special
Land Use Permit from the Planning Commission, at 2283 Resort Ave, by Cheryl Fox. M.
Franzak presented the staff report. The zoning of this lot is R-1, Single Family Residential District,
and its current use is a residential home. The owner would like to demolish the current carport
which is attached to the home, and build an attached garage and a front porch. The house is
considered a non-conforming structure because the rear setback of the house is 28.5 feet, not 30
feet as required by the ordinance. A non-conforming structure may be expanded up to 30% with
a Special Land Use Permit from the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission approved
that request at their June meeting, contingent upon ZBA approval of this case. Because the
applicant would like to expand the current structure by 35%, a variance is also needed. The
current structure totals 1528 square feet and the proposed addition is 540 square feet, making it a
total of 2068 square feet.
This case was tabled due to lack of a quorum at last month’s ZBA meeting. The applicant
proceeded with the Planning Commission case on June 14 and was approved for the Special
Land Use Permit to expand the structure more than 30%, contingent on ZBA approval of the
variance. R. Hilt stated that there were many non-conforming properties in this particular area of
town. J. Clingman-Scott asked if the porch addition would be the same height as the front of the
house. C. Fox stated that it would change the roofline and peak, but not substantially. She
showed a picture of her planned design and explained the project. J. Clingman-Scott thought
that the improvements would benefit the neighborhood. K. Bednarek had no opposition to the
request. In addition, the applicant had provided a list signed by several neighbors, stating that
they had no objection.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes – 7/10/12 1
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 to close the public hearing was made by E. Fordham, supported by S. Brock and
A motion that the findings of fact as determined by the Zoning Board of Appeals be adopted and
that the variance request to allow for an expansion of a non-conforming structure more that 30%
with a Special Land Use Permit from the Planning Commission at 2283 Resort Avenue be
approved, with the conditions that 1) That the additions to the property must be complete within
one year (Sec. 2504) or the variance is void, and 2) The variance is recorded with the deed to
keep record of it in the future, was made by J. Clingman-Scott, supported by S. Brock and
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes – 7/10/12 2