View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
DATE OF MEETING: Tuesday, October 10, 2017
TIME OF MEETING: 4:00 p.m.
PLACE OF MEETING: Commission Chambers, First Floor, Muskegon City Hall
AGENDA
I. Roll Call
II. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 12, 2017.
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Hearing; Case 2017-05: Request for a variance from Section 404 of the zoning ordinance
to allow a home to be constructed on a parcel that is less than 6,000 sq ft in size at 1723
Edgewater St, by Melanie B Th01ion.
B. Hearing; Case 2017-06: Request for a variance from Section 2331 of the zoning
ordinance to allow a six foot tall fence in a back yard at 1970 Terrace St, by Cynthia
Jados.
IV. New Business
V. Old Business
VI. 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 \\Titing or calling the following:
Ann Marie Cummings, City Clerk
933 Terrace Street
Muskegon, Ml 49440
(23 I) 724-6705
TTY/TDD: Dial 7-1-1 and request that a representative dial 231-724-6705
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
September 12, 2017
Chairman R. Hilt called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: R. Hilt, E. Fordham, S. Warmington, W. German, B. Larson
MEMBERS ABSENT: T. Halterman, excused
STAFF PRESENT: M. Franzak, D. Renkenberger
OTHERS PRESENT: R. Norden, 1545 Edgewater; M. Johnson, 2258 Worden; L.
Lindstrom, 1535 Edgewater; R. Knop, 3212 Windward; N.
Bodman, 1603 Nelson
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of March 14, 2017 be approved was made by S.
Warmington, supported by B. Larson and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARING
The first two cases were heard out of order, with Case 2017-04 being heard first.
Hearing; Case 2017-04: Request for a variance from Section 404 of the zoning ordinance to
allow an addition to the home with a rear lot setback of 19 feet at 1545 Edgewater St, by Randall
S Norden. M. Franzak presented the staff report. The prope1iy owner would like to build a two-
story addition to the rear of the principal structure. The proposed addition would leave a 19-foot
rear setback instead of the required 30-foot minimum rear setback. The current home is set back
about 50 feet from the front property line, where only a 15-foot front setback is required. It
appears that there are other options to place an addition to the home. A copy of the applicant's
answers to the variance review standards was provided to board members. Notification letters
were sent out to properties within 300 feet of this prope1iy. Staff received a comment from the
neighbors at 3205 Brighton Ave who were in favor of the request. R. Schmidt of 3205 Brighton
wrote in support of the project, as did L. Johnson of3204 Windward Dr. D. Schirmann of3213
Windward Dr. wrote a letter opposing the request to due drainage and air flow issues, as well as
the negative effect on her parents' house which was directly adjacent to the subject property.
R. Norden provided background on the property. He had met with a designer and builder, and
believed that this is the best way to add the addition. The house was set back from the road a
ways, but putting an addition on the front would obstruct the neighbors' views. E. Fordham
asked if the proposed addition would be 12 feet. R. Norden affirmed, stating it would go 12 feet
straight back, with the same roof line as the current building. If the addition was approved, they
would get rid of the shed on the property and use the lower floor for storage and put a bedroom
above it. There was a steel retaining wall behind the house, and that would remain in place and
unaffected by the addition. R. Hilt asked for additional information on how the addition would
be a detriment to the neighboring properties. M. Franzak stated that the large hill rising behind
the properties in this area limited the air flow in the back yards. It would also reduce the privacy
of the neighbor's back yard, as the 2nd floor of the addition would look directly over their back
yard. R. Hilt stated that this was a unique area due to the dunes, terrain, and lakefront. W.
German asked if M. Franzak recalled any similar cases from this area, and if he agreed with the
objections regarding air flow and privacy. M. Franzak stated that he could not recall any similar
cases offhand, and after visiting the property, he did agree with the airflow and privacy issues.
E. Fordham asked if the lot was buildable by today's standards. M. Franzak stated that it was; it
was currently a legal, conforming lot. S. Warmington asked if M. Franzak had gone into the
back yards of any of the properties. M. Franzak stated that he had.
M. Johnson was the builder hired by the homeowner. He stated that the proposed addition would
have the least amount of impact on the neighboring properties. L. Lindstrom lived next door to
the subject prope11y and objected to the request. She stated that the houses were very close
together and the proposed addition would take away any privacy they had in their fenced back
yard, since it would be in full view from the 2nd story of the neighboring house, and it would also
further limit air flow, which had already caused mold problems. She also believed it would
cause environmental issues by fmiher limiting drainage on the lot, which was already extensively
covered with concrete. M. Franzak stated that he had observed damage to a fence caused by
water runoff. L. Lindstrom also believed that their property value would be negatively affected,
as the addition would further box in her prope11y, making it appear smaller and confined. She
stated that the property owners could put an addition on the front of the house and still meet the
ordinance requirements. S. Warmington asked her if an addition on the front would block her
view. L. Lindstrom stated that it would not, due to the angle of the street, and she did not object
to a front addition. R. Knop stated that he objected to the request due to air flow and density
issues in the area.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by S. Warmington, supported by W. Geiman and
unanimously approved.
M. Franzak stated that the applicant must show a hardship caused by the ordinance in order for a
variance to be approved. S. Warmington stated that he originally did not see any problem with
the request, but had not been aware of the other issues mentioned by the neighbors.
Board members discussed the review standards. A motion that the variance request to allow an
addition to the home with a rear lot setback of 19 feet at 1545 Edgewater St be denied, based on
fact that the request does not meet the following review standards: a) That there are exceptional
or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question or to the
intended use of the prope11y that do not apply generally to other prope11ies or class of uses in the
same zoning district (many properties in the area are similar); 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 (they are able to build an addition
elsewhere on the property and still conform to the Zoning Ordinance); 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 (granting the request could be
detrimental to neighboring prope11ies as discussed); 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 (there are
other options to add on to the house, although they may be more expensive); and f) That the
requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the difficulty (it is not; there are
other options available), was made by S. Warmington, supported by B. Larson and approved,
with R. Hilt, E. Fordham, S. Warmington, and W. German voting aye, and B. Larson voting nay.
Hearing; Case 2017-03: Request for a variance from Section 404 of the zoning ordinance to
allow an addition to the home with a rear lot setback less than 30 feet at 1603 Nelson St, by Nils
E Bodman. M. Franzak presented the staff report. This is an L-shaped parcel on a corner lot.
The property owner would like to build a new garage addition between the house and detached
garage on the property, which would connect the two structures, making the detached garage into
an attached garage. The current detached garage sits 3'6" from the rear lot line, which meets the
setback requirements for accessory structure setbacks. However, connecting it to the house
would make it pai1 of the principal structure, which would then require a 30-foot rear setback.
The odd shape of the lot prevents this addition from meeting the zoning ordinance requirements
for a 30-foot rear yard setback. A site plan showing the proposed garage placement was
provided. Notification letters were sent to properties within 300 feet of this prope11y. K. Felske,
1688 Beach St, submitted written concerns about this being a rental prope1ty; enlarging it would
allow for larger groups of renters and more disruption to the neighbors. She was opposed to the
request if it added additional living space.
M. Franzak explained that the current structures would remain in place and the rear setback itself
would not change. However, the rear setback requirement would change, as the currently
detached garage would become an attached garage. N. Bodman stated that he purchased the
property 4 years ago and had been renting it out while living in and fixing up another house. He
now planned to Ii ve in this house and rent out the other. He stated that during winter months,
there was a lot of wind and blowing snow by the lake. The reasons for this request to attach the
garage to the house were to minimize exposure to the weather and add more storage space. He
stated that the proposed location was the only place to add on where no demolition would be
required. S. Warmington asked Mr. Bodman if he intended the prope11y to be owner-occupied
and no longer a rental. N. Bodman stated that was correct. R. Hilt asked why such a large
addition to the garage was needed. N. Bodman stated that he had several vehicles as well as
woodworking tools that he wished to store. W. German asked Mr. Bodman if he had spoken to
any neighbors about his plans. N. Bodman stated that he had spoken to the two adjacent
neighbors and they had not expressed an objection.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by S. Warmington, supported by B. Larson and
unanimously approved.
Board members discussed the review standards. 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 prope11y 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 prope11ies 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 prope11y and will not materially impair the
purposes of this chapter or the public interest (a garage addition should not be a detriment to
neighboring properties); 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 oppo11unity to make the
propeity more profitable or to reduce expense to the owner (a garage addition does not make the
property more profitable for 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 a building addition with a 3'6" rear setback (only
applying to the p01iion of the prope1iy extending 30 feet north from Ohio St) at 1603 Nelson St
be approved, based on the review standards found in Section 2502 of the Zoning Ordinance, was
made by S. Warmington, supported by B. Larson and unanimously approved, with R. Hilt, E.
Fordham, S. Warmington, W. German, and B. Larson voting aye:
OLD BUSINESS
None
OTHER
None.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:44 p.m.
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
STAFF REPORT
October 10, 2017
Hearing; Case 2017-05: Request for a variance from Section 404 of the zoning ordinance to
allow a home to be constructed on a parcel that is less than 6,000 sq ft in size at 1723 Edgewater
St, by Melanie B Thorton.
BACKGROUND
1. The property owner would like to demo the existing home and build new. However, the
existing lot does not meet the minimum lot size of 6,000 sf. The lot only measures 4,994
sf. It does meet the minimum road frontage requirement of 50 feet, as it has 51.5 feet of
road frontage.
2. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Low Density Residential District. Please see the
table on the following page for the development requirements for this district.
3. The current home does not meet the minimum side setback requirements of six feet. This
variance is only for a waiver of the minimum lot size and nothing else. A new home would
have to be built to meet all of the setback requirements.
4. Notification letters were sent out to properties within 300 feet of this property. At the time
of this writing, staff has received the following comments: Sherri Balaskovitz of 1683
Edgewater St is not in favor of the request. Staff has talked to a couple other neighbors in
the area and the main concern is that the new home could potentially be two stories and
block water views. Tom Blake, owner of 3222 Park Place, 1677 Edgewater and 1702
Edgewater called to say that he is in favor of the request.
5. Please see the enclosed answers to the variance request questionnaire.
1723 Edgewater St
SECTION 404: AREA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS
R-1 R-2 R-3
Minimum Lot 6,000 sf 4,000 sf 3,000 sf
Size
Minimum Lot 50 ft 40 ft 30 ft
Width
Maximum Lot Buildings: 50% Buildings: 60% Buildings: 70%
Coverage Pavement: 10% Pavement: 15% Pavement: 20%
Height Limit* 2 stories or 35 feet** 2 stories or 35 feet** 2 stories or 35 feet**
Front Expressway/Arterial Expressway/Arterial Expressway/Arterial
Setbacks*** Street: 30 ft Street: 30 ft Street: 30 ft
Collector/Major Street: Collector/Major Street: Collector/Major
25 ft 25 ft Street: 25 ft
Minor Street: 15 feet Minor Street: 10 feet Minor Street: IO feet
Rear Setback 30 ft 20 ft/\ 15 ft/\
Side Setbacks#: I story: 6 I story: 6 1 story: 5
2 story: 8 2 story: 7 2 story: 5
Aerial Map
VARIANCE REVIEW STANDARDS
Questions to consider when reviewing a variance request:
a. Are there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the
propeiiy 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 prope1iy 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 a home to be constructed on a parcel that is less than
6,000 sq ft in size at 1723 Edgewater St be (approved/denied) based on the review standards in
Section 2502 of the Zoning Ordinance, [with the conditions that...(ifthere are any conditions)]
o · 0 - ·
Planning Commission* Zoning Board of Appeals* (2-pagc application)
□ Amendment to Ordinance ($500) ~ Variance ($200 Residential/ $400 Commercial/Industrial)
□ Rezoning ($500)
□ Ordinance Interpretation ($200 Res./ $400 Com.find.)
□ Special Use Permit ($500)
□ Zoning Appeal ($200 Residential or $400 Com./Jnd._)
□ PUD - Preliminary ($500)
□ Special Meeting ($400 additional)
□ PUD - f<inal ($500) Site Plan Review*
□ PUD -Amendment ($500)
□ Staff Review - Minor ($200)
□ Vacation - Alley or Street ($500)*~'
□ Staff Review - Major ($400)
□ Special Meeting ($500 additional)
□ Planning Comm. Review ($500)
*Application fees are non-refundable **Alley I Street vacations require 90 days adl'ance notice
Address/Location of Subject Property: ___,_1.:. .:72=.:3:c. . =E:.: d.:tg.: c.ew=at:. : e:. :. .r. : :S:. : tr. : :e. : :e. :. .t_ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _
Parcel# of Subject Property: 24-270-000-9991 -01
_!:....!....!::.!~=~=~~-- -- - - - -- - -- - -- - - - - -- -
Current Zoning & Use of Subject Property: _,_R_,_--'1_,&~S~in~gu.,le"-'---F~am!..!..!!!ilJ-y'-'-R,.,,e'""'s"""id,.,,e'-'--'n-"'tia,,,,l'------------ -
Applicant Information:
Name: ~K_e_lly~K_u~ip_e_r____ _ _ _____ Organization _N_e_d_e_rv_e_ld________ _ _ __ _
Address: 217 Grandville Ave SW, Suite 302 City/State/Zip: Grand Rapids, Ml 49503
Phone: (616) 575-5190 Alt. Phone: _ _ __ _ __ _ _ Fax:
E-mail: kkuiper@nederveld.com
I hereby attest that all information on ~his application is, to the best of my knowledge, true and accurate.
Date: 09/20/2017
I hereby g1·ant permissj II m mb rs o he City of Muskegon (Planning Commission/ Zoning Boal'd of Appeals / City Commission/
q,
Sta ll) tu cuter the pr6perty dcsc l'ibed l,e w (or as described in the attached) for the purpose of gathering information related to this
application. (Note to a p J ~ : This is option~) a nd ,·ill n t affect any decision oti your application)
SignatureofOwner: ,, Date: 'o<_O ·~ OJ~
Applicant is the: D Owne
If the applicant is not the owner of the property. complete the following:
Owner's Name: Melanie Thornton
Address: 295 Rugby Cove Road City /State/Zip: ___,_A_,_,_r.,__,_no=l=dL.:Mc:.=D.. : 2: . .;1c..::0:,.:.=_ _ __ _ _ _ _- - i
Phone: Signature:
Proposed Use: Single Family Residential Proposed Zoning: No change (R-1)
Explanation of Request: The request for a dimensional variance for the lot area is necessary due to the demolition
of the existing structure, in order to build a new residential structure, since the lot is non-conforming in its overall lot area.
If application is for a Special Use Permit or Planning Commission Site Plan Review, please attach sixteen (16) copies of a
complete site plan. If application is for a Planned Unit Development, please attach nineteen ( 19) copies of a complete site
plan. If application is for a Staff Site Plan Review, please attach six (6) copies of a complete site plan.
TO BE COiJJPLETED Jµ;CITY: ~
Date Received: Lf ~;;;o -/J Received by: - ~ ~~ - - - - -- - - -
Paid by: Cash □ Credit □ Check ~ check number: __/.c;q
_ _/_.?>_ '7_ _ ___
iJJeetin9 date (if applicable): - ~L=
O_-_.I._0_ -_.!_7..___ _ ___ _ ZBA gf_ PC □
IZONING VAPIANC[ t~[QU[ST
1723 Edgewater Street
SECTION 404: AREA AND BULK REQUIREI\1ENTS [amended 4/00]
1. Minimum lot size: 6,000 sq. teet
A dimensional variance of 1,006 square feet from the required 6,000 square feet is being requested to
allow 1723 Edgewater Street to be utilized as a lot of 4,994 square feet.
I
VAf<IAI\JCE STANDAPDS
1723 Edgewater Street
1. Why are there exceptional or extraordinary circumstances 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.
The majority of properties within the Edgewater Subdivision ( as recorded with the State of
Michigan) have been "grandfathered" in due to their status as a lot of record per the City of
Muskegon Zoning Ordinance definition. However, the parcels just north of Wilcox along
Edgewater Street and along the lake, including the subject parcel, 1723 Edgewater Street, have
been in existence for several decades, but do not qualify under the strict definition of "lot of
record." This situation is an extraordinary circumstance that does not apply to other nearby lots
or lots within the R-1 district throughout the City.
2. Why is a 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.
The requested variance is necessary for the preservation of a property right possessed by other
properties in the same zoning district since the property, through a series of unknown and
historical events, does not meet the minimum lot area requirement of the R-1 district. Therefore,
without the variance of 1,006 square feet, the property cannot even be utilized with a permitted
use in the R-1 zoning district. Other lots which meet the strict "lot of record" definition enjoy the
typical property rights of the R-1 zoning district. The subject parcel, 1723 Edgewater Street, has
the ability to meet all other R-1 standards with the exception of lot area.
3. How will the authorizing of a variance not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
property and not materially impair the purposes of the City's zoning ordinance or the
public interest.
The proposed variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and not
materially impair the purposes of the City's zoning ordinance since there is no tangible change to
the property's existing configuration, specifically the existing lot area, or the existing
configuration of adjacent properties.
In fact, the authorizing of the requested variance will allow the existing structure to be
demolished in favor of a new residential structure that will meet the required setback dimensions
making the property even more conforming than currently exists.
4. Explain why 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.
The difficulty of the non-conforming lot area has not been created by the current or previous
owner of 1723 Edgewater Street, but through a series of unknown and historical reconfigurations
of the lots specifically along Edgewater Street, north of Wilcox. The City of Muskegon's Zoning
Ordinance takes care to provide protections to legal, non-conforming lots of record. However,
despite the subject parcel being in existence for many years in its exact configuration, and the
City and County acknowledging its configuration in its records (tax description, etc), it does not
meet the strict definition of "lot of record" per the City of Muskegon Zoning Ordinance and
therefore, cannot be utilized for a by-right use in the R-1 zoning district without the requested
variance.
5. The alleged difficulty is not founded solely upon the opportunity to make the property
more profitable or to reduce expense to the owner.
The requested variance is not founded upon the opportunity to make the property more
profitable or to reduce expense to the owner. The requested variance will simply allow the
property to be lawfully utilized with a permitted use in the R-1 zoning district. Additionally, the
existing structure will be demolished and a new home meeting current standards will be
constructed. These items are costing money to the property owner, not creating a profit
opportunity.
6. Is the requested variance the minimum action required to eliminate the difficulty.
The requested variance is not only the minimum action required, but the only available action to
eliminate the difficulty in order to utilize the property for a by-right use. The zoning district
requires 6,000 square feet for the lot area, however, through a series of unknown and historical
actions, the property is only 4,994 square feet in area. Therefore, the requested variance will
allow the property to be lawfully utilized with a permitted use in the R-1 zoning district.
Hearing; Case 2017-06: Request for a variance from Section 2331 of the zoning ordinance to
allow a six-foot tall fence in a front yard at 1970 Terrace St, by Cynthia Jados.
BACKGROUND
1. The property owner would like to install a six-foot tall privacy fence behind her home.
However, this property is placed between two streets, so it technically has two front yards
and no back yard. Six-foot tall fences are not allowed in front yards.
2. The property has frontage on Terrace St and Smith St. The three properties to the north
also have frontage on both streets. Smith street dead ends behind 1970 Terrace St.
3. Notification letters were sent out to properties within 300 feet of this property. At the time
of this writing, staff had received one message from a neighbor who was opposed to the
request, stating that the fence was being put up to avoid leashing their dog.
4. Please see the enclosed answers to the variance request questionnaire.
1970 Terrace St (front yard facing Terrace St.)
Back yard facing Smith St.
Aerial Map
172.◄3'
I~ J
125'
125'
71
VARIANCE 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
I
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 prope11y, 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 a six-foot tall fence in the front yard along Smith St at
1970 Terrace St be (approved/denied). based on the review standards in Section 2502 of the
Zoning Ordinance, [with the conditions that. .. ({f there are any conditions)]
1/15
City of Muskegon Planning & Zoning Application
Planning Co1n1nission * Zoning Board of Appeals* (2-pagc application)
□ Amendment to Ordinance (SS00) L11' Variance ($200 Residential/ $400 Commercial/Industrial)
□ Rezoning ($500)
□ Ordinance Interpretation (S200 Res./ $400 Com./Ind,)
□ Special Use Permit (S500)
□ Zoning Appeal ($200 Residential or S400 Com./Ind.)
□ PUD - Preliminary (S500)
□ Special Meeting (S400 additional)
□ PUD - Final ($500) Site Plan Revie,v*
□ PUD - Amendment (S500)
□ StalIReview - Minor ($200)
□ Vacation - Alley or Street ($500)**
□ StalIRcvicw - Major (S400)
□ Special Meeting ($500 additional)
□ Planning Comm. Review (S500)
¥Applicat10nfees are non-refundable **Alley !Street vacations require 90 days adrance notice
Address/Location of Subject Property: -~/37..,.·
-"~D~/,.~ft::~:JdR-~=A~U'.,~"~_~{;;=f~-----------
Parcel # of Subject Property: /.e (-~-z,4,,-·703-{)tJ'2. -[)0/ "f, ['[)
Current Zoning & Use of Subject Property:
Organization
hit
I hereby attest that all iliformation on this application is, to the best efmy k11owled9c, true and accurate,
Signature: (! ~~ . , Date: 9 IC/ 1
I hereby gr.mt pcrmi on for members of the City of Muskegon (Planning Commission/ Zoning Board of Appeals/ City Commission/
Sta fl) to enter the property described below (or as described in the attached) for the purpose of gathering information related to this
application. (Note to applicant: This is optio1}"I an1 will not 7ffect r)
:ecision on your application)
Signature of Owner: {l.-A. fJL(_J;L, -.JtL,,,,k'..V &_ Date: CJ,
Applicant is the: D Contractor/ Architect D Other: _ _ _ _ _ _ __
If the applicant is not the owner of the property. complete the following:
O"·ner's Naine:
Address: City /State/Zip:
Phone: Signature:
Proposed Use: Proposed Zoning:
-------------------
Explanation of Request:
If application is for a Special Use Permit or Planning Commission Site Plan Review, please attach sixteen (16) copies of a
complete site plan, If application is for a Planned Unit Development, please attach nineteen (19) copies of a complete site
plan. If application is for a Staff Site Plan Review, please attach six (6) copies ofa complete site plan,
TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY:
Date Received: '\ 1'111 7 I Recehed by: _<t?)~tD~~---------
Paid by: Cash □ Credit □ Checkoc) check number: ~l...
o~q~q~-~'------
Meeting date (if applicable): ZBA ~ PC 0
~ : Information contained in this application, as well as supporting clo,11mmtation, may be rnbject to review by the public if a Freedom of Information Act Request is filecl.
City of Muskegon Planning & Zoning Application
Page 2a - Non-Use Variances
Please provide.an answer to the following questions:
1. Why are there ''exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the property in question or to the intended use ef the
property that do not apply generally to other properties or class ef uses in the same zoning districe'? (i.e. Why is your
J
~perty unique compared to others in the neighborhood?)
. i:>M.k(~ YARl> orJ ~1117-e .s:t
2. Why is a variance "necessaryfor the preservation and enjoyment ef a mbstantial property right possessed by other properties in the
same zanin9 district and in the vicinity"? (i.e., What property rights do your neighbors enjoy that you can't
because of the nature of your property?) .
T'f,1vt--<!,j./ I <J&t-J!Jc<:>T l1f( Atv'--/1{;-)1tJt~ IN t/Aflb
3. How will the authorizing of a variance "not be cf substantial detriment to adjacent property and not materially impair the
purposes efthe City's zoning ordinance or the public interest"? (i.e., Will granting a variance to you negatively
affect your neighbors or the public in general?)
0
4. Explain why 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 previaus awner": i.e., Who/what is the cause of the difficulty?)
I ~ - R-D c: • Jc _·
5. The alleged difficulty is "not jollnded solely upon the opportunity to make the property more prefitable or to reduce expense to the
owner" because: (i.e., Do you have reasons, other than financial gain, for asking for the variance?)
rf<1\Jp,-.c'-/
6. fs the requested variance "the minimum action required to eliminate the difficult/'? (i.e., Could you get by ,vith less of
a variance from the ordinance requirement(s)?)
,J QT ~t:.A. Lt;~
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails