Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA)

ROYAL OAK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CITY OF ROYAL OAK, MICHIGAN Thursday, November 12, 2020 7:00 P.M. Present Absent Leslie Anderson Paul Curtis Clyde Esbri, Chairperson Robert Gavin Jeff Klatt Alan Kroll Anthony Offak, Vice Chairperson Nancy Robinson Deborah Zukin Julianna Tschirhart, Planner Ryan Kaluzny, Assistant City Attorney Agenda A. Call to Order B. Approval of Minutes for October 8, 2020 C. Old / Unfinished Business 1. Case No. 20-10-24 – public hearing on the appeal of Mary Ann and Sam Palazzolo, petitioner, & Louis Domin, owner, for the following variances: (a) waive 8.7 ft. of the minimum required 35 ft. south rear yard setback (b) waive 5.1 percent from the requirement that an attached garage be no greater than 50 percent of the total width of the front façade of the structure to permit construction of a two and a half story single-family dwelling with a front entry attached garage at the vacant parcel on E. 4th St. (25-22-208-029). D. New Business 1. Case No. F-20-11-02 – public hearing on the appeal of Maggie Schultz, The Guy Outdoor Services, petitioner, & Craig Fletcher, owner, for the following variances: (a) waive 2 ft. of the maximum permitted 4 ft. fence height within a front yard setback along Baxter Ave. (b) waive 3 ft. of the maximum permitted 3 ft. fence height within 10 ft. of the intersection of any driveway with a public sidewalk to allow a 6 ft. sight obscuring fence within a front yard setback as defined in the Zoning Ordinance at 300 N. Minerva Ave. (25-14-380-003). 2. Case No. F-20-11-03 – public hearing on the appeal of Martin and Elise Levinson, petitioner & owner, for the following variance: (a) waive 2 ft. of the maximum allowable 6 ft. fence height in a rear yard to install an 8 ft. sight obscuring wood fence at 25960 York Rd. (25-21-403-002). 3. Case No. 20-11-26 – public hearing on the appeal of Lee Broadbridge, petitioner & owner, for the following variances: (a) waive 160 sq. ft. of the maximum allowable accessory structure ground floor area of 800 sq. ft. (b) waive 0.5% of the maximum allowable 10% accessory structure lot coverage Page 1 of 7  Zoning Board of Appeals November 12, 2020 to permit construction of a 384 sq. ft. pavilion / accessory structure in the rear yard at 429 Woodlawn Ave. (25-03-355-027). 4. Case No. 20-11-27 – public hearing on the appeal of Marilyn Begeny, petitioner & owner, for the following variances: (a) waive 1.8% (147.4 sq. ft.) of the maximum allowable lot coverage of 30% (b) waive 3.8 ft. of the minimum required 5 ft. south side yard setback from an attached accessory structure to permit construction of a 165 sq. ft. pergola-style carport / accessory structure over the driveway at 1520 Marywood Dr. (25-16-228-010). 5. Case No. 20-11-28 – public hearing on the appeal of Douglas Schulze, petitioner & owner, for the following variance: (a) waive 1 ft. of the minimum required 22.5 ft. west front yard setback measured to an unenclosed front porch and steps to permit construction of a new, covered front porch and steps at 3034 Shenandoah Dr. (25-08- 131-092). E. Other Business F. Public Comment Call to Order The virtual meeting was called to order at 6:59 p.m. by Chairperson Esbri. He informed the audience that the board does not write the zoning ordinance but does have the authority to grant relief from it where practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship would result. He stated the board will vote on each agenda item following a public hearing. Use variance requests require a minimum of 6 affirmative votes in order to grant the requested variances. Non-use variance requests require a minimum of 5 affirmative votes in order to grant the variances. Petitioners were directed to limit their presentations to 10 minutes. Roll Call Present Absent Leslie Anderson Paul Curtis Clyde Esbri, Chairperson Robert Gavin Jeff Klatt Alan Kroll Anthony Offak, Vice Chairperson Nancy Robinson Deborah Zukin Approval of Minutes for October 8, 2020 Moved by: Mr. Kroll Supported by: Mrs. Zukin Moved, that the minutes of the October 8, 2020 regular meeting be approved as presented. Motion adopted unanimously. Page 2 of 7  Zoning Board of Appeals November 12, 2020 Old / Unfinished Business 1. Case No. 20-10-24 – vacant parcel on E. 4th St. (25-22-208-029) Moved by: Mr. Curtis Supported by: Mr. Offak Moved, that the appeal of Mary Ann and Sam Palazzolo, petitioner & Louis Domin, owner, for the following variances: (a) waive 8.4 ft. of the minimum required 35 ft. south rear yard setback to permit construction of a two and a half story single-family dwelling with a front entry attached garage at the vacant parcel on E. 4th St. (25-22-208-029), be granted. Motion adopted unanimously. Granting the variances is based upon the following: 1. Strict compliance with the zoning ordinance provisions will unreasonably prevent the petitioner from use and enjoyment of the property for a permitted purpose, or would render conformity with such provisions unnecessarily burdensome. 2. Granting the variances will do substantial justice to the petitioner and will not prove detrimental to other property owners in the area, and is the least relief required in order to afford substantial justice to the petitioner or be more consistent with justice to nearby property owners. 3. There are circumstances or conditions inherently unique to the property that necessitates granting the variances. 4. There is evidence of practical difficulty that has not been created by the petitioner and/or property owner but instead results from the inherently unique circumstances or conditions of the property that requires granting the variances. It is further the finding of the board that the spirit of the zoning ordinance will be observed, public safety secured, and substantial justice rendered by granting the variances. New Business 1. Case No. F-20-11-02 – 300 N. Minerva Ave. (25-14-380-003) Moved by: Mr. Offak Supported by: Mr. Kroll Moved, that the appeal of Maggie Schultz, The Guy Outdoor Services, petitioner, & Craig Fletcher, owner, for the following variance: (b) waive 3 ft. of the maximum permitted 3 ft. fence height within 10 ft. of the intersection of any driveway with a public sidewalk to allow a 6 ft. sight obscuring fence within a front yard setback as defined in the Zoning Ordinance at 300 N. Minerva Ave, be denied. Motion adopted unanimously. Denying the variances is based upon the following: Page 3 of 7  Zoning Board of Appeals November 12, 2020 1. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that practical difficulties exist in strict compliance with the Fence Ordinance provisions. 2. Denying the variance will not prove detrimental to the petitioner. 3. Denying the variance is done in light of public health, safety, and welfare concerns. Moved by: Mr. Offak Supported by: Mr. Kroll Moved, that the appeal of Maggie Schultz, The Guy Outdoor Services, petitioner, & Craig Fletcher, owner, for the following variance: (a) waive 2 ft. of the maximum permitted 4 ft. fence height within a front yard setback along Baxter Ave. to allow a 6 ft. sight obscuring fence within a front yard setback as defined in the Zoning Ordinance at 300 N. Minerva Ave, be denied. Motion adopted 8-1 (Mr. Curtis). Denying the variances is based upon the following: 1. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that practical difficulties exist in strict compliance with the Fence Ordinance provisions. 2. Denying the variance will not prove detrimental to the petitioner. 3. Denying the variance is done in light of public health, safety, and welfare concerns. 2. Case No. F-20-11-03 – 25960 York Rd. (25-21-403-002) Moved by: Mr. Kroll Supported by: Mr. Curtis Moved, that the appeal of Martin and Elise Levinson, petitioner & owner, for the following variance: (a) waive 2 ft. of the maximum allowable 6 ft. fence height in a rear yard to install an 8 ft. sight obscuring wood fence at 25960 York Rd., be granted. Motion adopted unanimously. Granting the variances is based upon the following: 1. Practical difficulties exist in strict compliance with the Fence Ordinance provisions. 2. Granting the variance will do substantial justice to the petitioner and will not prove detrimental to other property owners in the area. 3. Granting the variance is done in light of public health, safety, and welfare concerns. 3. Case No. 20-11-26 – 429 Woodlawn Ave. (25-03-355-027) Moved by: Mr. Curtis Supported by: Mr. Gavin Page 4 of 7  Zoning Board of Appeals November 12, 2020 Moved, that the appeal of Lee Broadbridge, petitioner & owner, for the following variances: (a) waive 160 sq. ft. of the maximum allowable accessory structure ground floor area of 800 sq. ft. (b) waive 0.5% of the maximum allowable 10% accessory structure lot coverage to permit construction of a 384 sq. ft. pavilion / accessory structure in the rear yard at 429 Woodlawn Ave., be granted. Motion adopted 7-2 (Mr. Offak, Mr. Anderson). Granting the variances is based upon the following: 1. Strict compliance with the zoning ordinance provisions will unreasonably prevent the petitioner from use and enjoyment of the property for a permitted purpose, or would render conformity with such provisions unnecessarily burdensome. 2. Granting the variances will do substantial justice to the petitioner and will not prove detrimental to other property owners in the area, and is the least relief required in order to afford substantial justice to the petitioner or be more consistent with justice to nearby property owners. 3. There are circumstances or conditions inherently unique to the property that necessitates granting the variances. 4. There is evidence of practical difficulty that has not been created by the petitioner and/or property owner but instead results from the inherently unique circumstances or conditions of the property that requires granting the variances. It is further the finding of the board that the spirit of the zoning ordinance will be observed, public safety secured, and substantial justice rendered by granting the variances. 4. Case No. 20-11-27 – 1520 Marywood Dr. (25-16-228-010) Moved by: Mr. Offak Supported by: Mr. Kroll Moved, that the appeal of Marilyn Begeny, petitioner & owner, for the following variances: (a) waive 1.8% (147.4 sq. ft.) of the maximum allowable lot coverage of 30% (b) waive 3.8 ft. of the minimum required 5 ft. south side yard setback from an attached accessory structure to permit construction of a 165 sq. ft. pergola-style carport / accessory structure over the driveway at 1520 Marywood Dr., be granted, with the requirement that the structure remains an open pergola and is never enclosed. Motion adopted unanimously. Granting the variances is based upon the following: 1. Strict compliance with the zoning ordinance provisions will unreasonably prevent the petitioner from use and enjoyment of the property for a permitted purpose, or would render conformity with such provisions unnecessarily burdensome. 2. Granting the variances will do substantial justice to the petitioner and will not prove detrimental to other property owners in the area, and is the least relief required in order to afford substantial justice to the petitioner or be more consistent with justice to nearby property owners. Page 5 of 7  Zoning Board of Appeals November 12, 2020 3. There are circumstances or conditions inherently unique to the property that necessitates granting the variances. 4. There is evidence of practical difficulty that has not been created by the petitioner and/or property owner but instead results from the inherently unique circumstances or conditions of the property that requires granting the variances. It is further the finding of the board that the spirit of the zoning ordinance will be observed, public safety secured, and substantial justice rendered by granting the variances. 5. Case No. 20-11-28 – 3034 Shenandoah Dr. (25-08-131-092) Moved by: Mr. Kroll Supported by: Mr. Offak Moved, that the appeal of Douglas Schulze, petitioner & owner, for the following variance: (a) waive 1 ft. of the minimum required 22.5 ft. west front yard setback measured to an unenclosed front porch and steps to permit construction of a new, covered front porch and steps at 3034 Shenandoah Dr., be granted. Motion adopted unanimously. Granting the variances is based upon the following: 1. Strict compliance with the zoning ordinance provisions will unreasonably prevent the petitioner from use and enjoyment of the property for a permitted purpose, or would render conformity with such provisions unnecessarily burdensome. 2. Granting the variances will do substantial justice to the petitioner and will not prove detrimental to other property owners in the area, and is the least relief required in order to afford substantial justice to the petitioner or be more consistent with justice to nearby property owners. 3. There are circumstances or conditions inherently unique to the property that necessitates granting the variances. 4. There is evidence of practical difficulty that has not been created by the petitioner and/or property owner but instead results from the inherently unique circumstances or conditions of the property that requires granting the variances. It is further the finding of the board that the spirit of the zoning ordinance will be observed, public safety secured, and substantial justice rendered by granting the variances. Other Business 1. Case No. 20-08-20 – 4105 Highfield Rd. (25-06-309-007) At its September 10, 2020 meeting, the petitioner failed to obtain the minimum required number of affirmative votes to approve the requested variances. The petitioner provided the board a written request for a rehearing. The board discussed the merits of the request in light of a recommendation from the Office of the City Attorney. Moved by: Mr. Offak Page 6 of 7