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: 4:00 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 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, MI 49440
(231) 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
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 1370 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
property.
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 2019-01: 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.
BACKGROUND
1. 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 property.
Aerial Map
Zoning 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
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?
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.
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
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
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?
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.
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails