Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting Minutes April 9, 2019 Commission Chambers - City Hall Introduction & Roll Call Jan Rise called the meeting to order for Chairman W. Darbee (absent) at 7:02 p.m. Members present: Jan Rise, Chris Greenleaf, and Kellie Berry. Members excused: Lonnie Dowd, W. Darbee. Members absent: Alternate Member C. Congdon Others: Staff Liaison Scott McKillop Approval of Minutes Motion made by C. Greenleaf, seconded by K. Berry, to approve the March 12, 2019 meeting minutes. Motion carried. Motion made by C. Greenleaf, seconded by K. Berry to approve the minutes from May 8, 2018 meeting. Motion carried. Public Comment Not Related to Public Hearings No public comment. New Business – Public Hearings None. Old Business – Public Hearings Case No. Z 19-01 – 1700 S. Erie – Bruce R. Ervin Request for non-use variances that would allow a residential lot occupied by two individual single- family homes to be split into two lots. Variances are required because: 1) splitting the lot would create two lots that will not comply with minimum residential lots size requirement; and 2) the lot line dividing the two proposed lots will violate the regulation requiring a setback of not less than 25 feet between homes and rear lot lines. Mr. Ervin had been invited but was not in attendance. 1 As a public hearing had already been held for this request, the board went directly into discussion for this case. S. McKillop explained to the board that the previous motion had not been complete. Variances are granted to properties, not people, and the circumstances as it exists today have existed since 1950. The first house in front was built in 1912, the second was built in 1950. Whom ever owned it in 1950 would have been responsible for the second house being there. There were no regulations zoning-wise precluding the construction for two homes on one lot until the late 1970’s. S. McKillop went on to add that according to the city’s market study in 2017 there are 13, 043 residential lots in the city. 36 of those are occupied by two single family homes – none of them are owner occupied and the majority of them are problem properties that are not kept up causing a problem in the city’s neighborhoods. Mr. Ervin wants to sell one of the houses to be owner occupied which is strongly encouraged by the city’s master plan. S. McKillop stated the situation existed when Mr. Ervin purchased the property. He did not create the situation. Discussion had been held at the last meeting pertaining to what Mr. Erving was responsible for as far as creating a need for the variance. S. McKillop referred to the staff findings in the revised staff report and explained that although a decision cannot be made for the board, it is recommended that the board pay attention to the staff findings because of staff’s experience and knowledge of variance standards. C. Greenleaf stated it was not burdensome because Mr. Ervin was aware that the homes existed together on the lot and asked if he was reading too much into it as he felt Mr. Ervin accepted the circumstances of the property when he purchased it. S. McKillop replied that it has nothing to do with the owner. It has to do with how the regulations are applied to the piece of property and if they impose an undue burden on a property right. S. McKillop explained that a person’s circumstance, or what they have done, is not considered unless they have taken a specific action that creates a need for a variance and then cited examples. He stated a decision has to be made if the regulations stop a person from doing what everybody else is able to do with their property without a variance, in addition to whether it’s burdensome or unfair. C. Greenleaf stated a lesser variance could not be given because there is only three feet between the homes. He asked if the homes could be rebuilt on the smaller lots if something were to happen such as a fire. S. McKillop answered yes, as long as construction was started within one year. K. Berry commented that she doesn’t believe the first applied standard unreasonably stops the owner from using the property for a permitted purpose because he has been renting both of the houses. S. McKillop stated that he wants to sell at least one of the houses and that is why Mr. Ervin is requesting a variance to divide the property. Why Mr. Ervin wants to divide the property is immaterial because it has to do with him; however, the variance is about his property. K. Berry replied she wasn’t tying it to Mr. Ervin. She said Mr. Ervin bought the property with the intention or purpose of renting the houses. C. Greenleaf said he has the same issues. Mr. Ervin previously said he bought the property not knowing there were two houses. He feels Mr. Ervin would have been aware with how property purchases are conducted. 2 S. McKillop suggested to C. Greenleaf not to use his personal experience as a real estate agent. He also said K. Berry should not tie the application to a regulation because of a speculation. It is unknown what Mr. Ervin might have been thinking when he purchased the property. S. McKillop stated again that the regulations are stopping the property from being divided. It is something brought about because of the regulations and not by an action taken by Mr. Ervin because the situation predates his ownership of the property. J. Rise asked if there were any records of a variance having been applied for the property. S. McKillop said there are no records in planning department files. C. Greenleaf asked how this applies to the Land Division Act for the State of Michigan. S. McKillop replied the Act does not apply. S. McKillop briefly reiterated his findings for a variance. He stated the regulation is preventing the owner from doing something everyone else is able to under normal circumstances without a variance and a lesser variance would not grant relief in this circumstance. C. Greenleaf stated it was already at the bare minimum. S. McKillop indicated a variance was warranted due to the property being one of only 36 lots in the city occupied by two individual single-family homes. He also stated that from the city’s standpoint, having two owner occupied lots is be preferable over one lot with occupied by non-owner occupied rental units. S. McKillop asked the board members if they would like to postpone their decision until the next meeting. Motion by C. Greenleaf to postpone until the next month when possibly more board members would be there for the May 14th meeting. Seconded by K. Berry. Motion carried. Other Business None. Motion to adjourn by C. Greenleaf. Seconded by K. Berry. Motion carried. Adjourn J. Rise adjourned the meeting. Prepared by: Lisa Griffiths 3