Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES March 13, 2018 4:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: Mr. James Moreno, Chairperson called meeting to order at 4:00 P.M. ATTENDANCE: Members Present: Deland Davis Mark Jones Michael Delaware James Moreno Bill Hanner Becky Squires Barbara Hibiske John Stetler Members Excused: Carlyle Sims Staff Present: Marcel Stoetzel, Deputy City Attorney Eric Feldt, Planner, Planning Dept. Leona Parrish, Admin. Assist. Planning Dept. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA: None CORRESPONDANCE: None OPENING COMMENTS: Mr. Jim Moreno, Chairperson stated the meeting procedure where everyone present may speak either for or against an appeal and that, he will ask for a staff report to be read and then open the public hearing. At the public hearing, persons may come forward and state their name and address for the record as it is being recorded and then speak either for or against an appeal. The public hearing will then be closed and the zoning board will discuss and make a decision. If a petition has been denied the petitioner has the right to appeal to Circuit Court. OLD BUSINESS: A. Z-01-18 (18 Angell Street): Petition from Mr. Martin Liverance, 134 Columbia Rd., Berkley, MI 48072, requesting a use variance to allow entire building to be a “Single Family Residential” use for property zoned “I-1 light Industrial and C-3 Intensive Business” district. The permit application is requested pursuant to Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1272.03 & 1264.03. Mr. Glenn Perian stated there has been no change since last month. Stated the request was for a use variance at 18 Angell Street that had a use variance granted in the year 2004 to allow upper floor to be used as residential. Stated the applicant would like to convert the entire building into a single-family residence, noted staff is recommending approval of the use variance and want to remind the board that there will need to be five affirmative votes to approve the use variance request and will answer any questions the board may have regarding this request. Chair Mr. Moreno asked the applicant to come forward and speak regarding his request for those board members that were not in attendance at the last meeting. Mr. Martin Liverance, 1340 Columbia Rd., Berkley, MI 48072, property owner stated he was an investor with this property and had come into possession of it and is trying to make it viable and have 1 of 5  Zoning Board of Appeals March 13, 2018 Minutes Page 2 of 5 not been able to so. Stated it is an odd shape of land with residential and commercial on different sides and in his mind is between districts. Said this property has a second story with a living space and a ground floor with a garage door opening in the rear with a partial basement having the utilities located. Said his architect pointed out to him that the downstairs was no different than having an attached garage with living quarters upstairs and it could be a home. Stated he had struggled with the building for three years and the city’s building inspector, Mr. Don Wilkinson quoted a cost estimate of repairs is $358,462 and he had gotten a market analysis of the building that had a recommendation of a price of $24,000 to do the repairs himself if it were to be occupied. Stated he is proposing for it to be a residence and is proposing to do the work himself and get a certificate of occupancy to live there himself, which to him is technically a six-car garage with a basketball court with a five-bedroom home upstairs. Ms. Barbara Hibiske asked if he planned to live in the upstairs and did he plan to use as a multi-family. Mr. Liverance stated the downstairs has been zoned as commercial and to get the certificate of occupancy is impossibly expensive as it has no heating system with no plumbing and has been scrapped and is just a shell. Said he would leave the downstairs to be unheated garage in the lower level; noted he would not redo it as a multi-family as it would not be feasible and someone else would need to do the work and would cost a fortune. Chair Mr. James Moreno asked if there was any further discussion; seeing none, he would close the Public Hearing and entertain a motion. MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. DELAND DAVIS TO APPROVE APPEAL #Z-01-18 FOR A USE VARIANCE; TO ALLOW ENTIRE USE AS A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE “I-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AN C-3 INTENSIVE BUSINESS DISTRICT” AS STATED IN THE APPLICATION AND FINDINGS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18 ANGELL STREET; SECONDED BY MS. BECKY SQUIRES. Discussion: Mr. John Stetler stated he thinks it is a very good use of this building, cannot imagine deeming this building back to a commercial use, and noted the building is worth doing something with and it is on the edge of residential and think it is a good use for this property. Ms. Becky Squires asked what was this building originally. It was noted the building had been Troxel Lumber Company. Chairperson Moreno stated he agrees with Mr. Stetler that it would be a good use and better than remaining vacant. Stated he would be supporting staff’s recommendations today. CHAIR MR. MORENO ASKED FOR ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, SEEING NONE A VOTE WAS TAKEN; ALL IN FAVOR BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND AGREEMENT WITH THE STAFF REPORT; NONE OPPOSED MOTION APPROVED. NEW BUSINESS: None  Zoning Board of Appeals March 13, 2018 Minutes Page 3 of 5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Mark Jones noted two corrections to the February 13, 2018 minutes: 1. (Page 4, last paragraph): Should have stated the drawing was not done by him but should have been done by AASHTO “American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials”. 2. (Page 5, first paragraph under Comments by the Members/Staff): Mr. Jones said he had asked about the “Open Meetings Act” and the sentence in the minutes stated, “Mr. Stoetzel stated any discussion outside of the meeting would be in violation”. Mr. Jones said he does not believe that to be true; believes it is a matter of quorum and if he speaks to a single person that is allowed; but he understands under the “Open Meetings Act” that they cannot have a quorum, which last month since there were only five members; if they had spoken to two other persons it would have been three and would have been a quorum. Stated as he recalled Mr. Stoetzel response was that they could not violate that for the quorum, but if he has a question of another member, they can do that. Mr. Stoetzel stated that was correct, given the way it was presented where it was three or more he believe; that would have been in violation, but yes you certainly can discuss today. MOTION MADE BY MS. BECKY SQUIRES TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 13, 2018 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES WITH CORRECTIONS AS NOTED, SECONDED BY MR. DELAND DAVIS. VOTE ON MINUTES APPROVAL: ALL IN FAVOR; NONE OPPOSED; MINUTES APPROVED. COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC: None COMMENTS BY THE MEMBERS / STAFF: Mr. Glenn Perian stated the Non-Conforming ordinance had been revised and will be going to the City Commission next week for approval he hopes. Stated it had been revised to address the insurable value portion of the code that has been given the zoning board problems for many years. Mr. Perian stated at their most recent staff meeting it was discussed they should probably come up with a policy for zoning board to provide rules as to when a hearing will be postponed due to a lack of members, as it was last month as there were five members needed for an affirmative action on the request for it to be approved. Said they think it would be a good idea to have a policy stating under what conditions they would allow postponement when it would occur at the meeting just so everyone is treated fairly and is provided due process. Stated he would like to talk about it and hope to bring it to Mr. Marcel Stoetzel for consideration at their next meeting. Mr. John Stetler stated the postponement that was done by the board last month was not done by the Chairman it was done by a motion and all agreed to ask the appellant if they wished a postponement and might be times they would not want it postponed because they do not see an better attendance then what they have now and hope they would still have the option available to ask for it by the board and not by regulation. Mr. Glenn Perian said what they would want to do is establish an understanding with the zoning board as to when that option would be provided to an applicant; as they always want to suggest it to the applicant. Mr. Perian said for example last month the applicant chose proceed; they could have taken a vote and made a determination at that meeting and would like to establish some rules as to when they would afford that applicant the option to postpone.  Zoning Board of Appeals March 13, 2018 Minutes Page 4 of 5 Mr. Jones asked if there was ever a time when the board had gotten into trouble or harm was done because he was not in favor of just making rules just to make rules. Mr. Perian stated to his knowledge not yet; they want to avoid that and he does not think they are making rules just to make rules. Said in this particular case the idea would be to establish rules to give everybody an equal and fair opportunity to have their request heard. Chairperson Moreno said if they are documented policies as procedures in this regard; if it should ever be taken to court, our attorney has the ability to produce that in the process to say everyone is based on these policy and procedures and given the same level playing field to operate from as to opposed to being told that is the theory or the interpretation of what the zoning board should be doing. Said this reduces a hard fact and eliminates any possibility of any of them to find themselves in that position as someone could potentially could say show me and if they cannot produce then they are in a bad place and it is better they have it documented as their understanding and then they had demonstrated their intent and followed procedure. Mr. Perian stated that was correct and that Mr. Stoetzel can follow-up. Mr. Marcel Stoetzel stated there had been a problem in the past where he believes that at least half of the board members may recall. Stated what they are looking at to address is primary those instances where two-thirds of a vote is needed. Said they are granting an extension in those situations where they need that two-thirds vote. Said the problem he was recalling was the person that sought a use variance for their home, alleging it had been a multi-unit home where it was not a problem with the zoning board. Said he dealt with it across the street in the court system where the attorney appeared for the petitioner and in part because of the way the motion was made was confused over what happened in the outcome and there was some confusion on the board as well as to who was voting and who was not voting with one of the alternates. Said the idea being if someone needed that two-thirds vote and they, as staff knew that perhaps the full board would not be present ahead of time, the applicant could volunteer to withdraw that request for a postponement. Stated they need to create a process where they are treated the same for all applicants, so someone cannot say they were not offered the same choices as others. Said the most problematic has been the dimensional variance. Mr. Marcel Stoetzel said last month there was a two-part dimensional variance request for Taco Bell and when we receive applications, the board needs to look at the findings. Stated last month the majority voted in support and one vote had not and when deciding to go against the staff report they need to layout the reasons why as the findings are important as it can be petitioned to the circuit court what was noted on the record and see if the procedures were properly followed. Mr. Stoetzel stated there are two types of request, use and dimensional variances, both are difficult standards. Stated the staff walk through all those findings and note them in the staff report. Said they need to look at the Zoning Enabling Act and read it to help determine if making the right decision or the right correct choice. Mr. Stoetzel stated if there are any questions, staff can assist or he would be glad to help discuss any concerns regarding the ordinance or the State Act. Mr. John Stetler stated he was the one to decide to split those request last month, as from a staff point of view he recognized it was the same individual and same property but felt they should have been done in two requests; as if done in two request it would not have been a problem. Mr. Stoetzel said he does not know if it would have made a difference either way; said it was two requests and agreed as it  Zoning Board of Appeals March 13, 2018 Minutes Page 5 of 5 allowed the board to discuss them separately and was not required to be submitted on two different petitions. Mr. Mark Jones said he wished to make a comment regarding they did not address the law of physics and laws of nature and the ordinance created did not address the laws of physics. Spoke regarding other guidelines regarding highway signage that was not consulted in making the rule and ordinance they adjusted. Talked regarding menu board and freeway/highway signage standards and feels there is a need to be a review of the ordinances to go back and look at them from the perspective of physics and the human element. Stated do we want people to read signs; at what distance or size letters can people with 20/20 vision read them. Said this was not done and understand they need to defend themselves, but if they have not paid attention to physics he does not know how it can be presented in a court of law; yes they are going to require somebody to do something that violates the law of physics or it prevents them from doing something that they should reasonably be allowed to do, i.e. drive a semi into theirs to fill their counters. Mr. Jones said he thinks we need a review to go back and say do these ordinances abide by AASHTO standards, as this is why they exist and we should follow them. Mr. Deland Davis stated there was another variable perhaps on how large letters on a sign have to be in order for people that are 20/20 to read them; and how much material do they want to put on the sign, which could be debatable. Mr. Glenn Perian stated he would like to welcome two new members Michael Delaware and Barbara Hibiske who are alternate board members. Stated they are asked to attend all meetings in the future whether they are participating in deliberations or not and hopefully, there will not be a problem of not having enough members in attendance, and thanked them for their service. Chair James Moreno noted this would be Ms. Leona Parrish last meeting as she will be retiring and wanted to thank her for her years of service to the board, and wished her well. Mr. Deland Davis asked if the board could receive a new board member listing. Ms. Parrish said she would email a copy and send a hard copy to place in their manuals. ADJOURNMENT: Chair James Moreno made a motion for the meeting to be adjourned; all stated in favor, meeting was adjourned at 4:35 P.M. Submitted by: Leona A. Parrish, Administrative Assistant, Planning Department