Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA)

ROYAL OAK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CITY OF ROYAL OAK, MICHIGAN Regular Meeting Thursday, March 10, 2022 7:00 P.M. Royal Oak City Hall 203 S. Troy St. City Commission Chambers , Room 121 Royal Oak M I 48067 Present Absent Robert Gavin , Vice Chairperson Samantha Grant Maggie George Jeff Klatt Trevis Moore Anthony Offak, Chairperson Arvind Reddy Nancy Robinson Deborah Zukin Joseph M. Murphy, Director of Planning Ryan Kaluzny, Assistant City Attorney Agenda A. Call to Order & Roll Call B. Approval of Minutes for February 10, 2022 C. Old / Unfinished Business D. New Business 1. Case No. 22-03-08 - public hearing on the appeal of Presidio Capital , petitioner & Norris Group Inc, owner, for the following variance: (a) waive 13 of the minimum required 20 off-street parking spaces to permit conversion of an existing tenant space into 16 individual carry-out restaurants ' kitchen suites at 28096 Woodward Ave. (25-17-279-004). 2. Case No. 22-03-09 - public hearing on the appeal of Tabitha & Michael See Trust, petitioner & owner, for the following variances: (a) waive 16.3 ft. of the minimum required east rear yard setback of 35 ft. (b) waive 4 ft. of the maximum allowable height of 15 ft. for the garage / accessory structure to permit additions to an existing single-family dwelling at 832 N. Pleasant SI. (25-16-404-014). 3. Case No. 22-03-10 - public hearing on the appeal of Brian D Latulippe, petitioner & owner, for the following variances : (a) alter/expand a non-conforming structure (b) waive 14.2 ft. of the maximum allowable 7 ft. that an attached garage / accessory structure may project from the nearest point of living space on the ground floor (c) waive 2.9% of the maximum allowable 50% that an attached garage I accessory structure may be of the total width of the principal building's primary facade (d) waive 1.2 ft. of the maximum allowable front yard setback of 50 ft. (e) waive the prohibition of a gravel (non-hard surface) driveway Page 10f7  Zoning Board of Appeals March 10, 2022 to permit construction of a front entry attached garage and second story addition to an existing, non-conforming si ngle-family dwelling at 517 Elm Ct. (25-16-476-012). 4. Case No. 22-03-11 - public hearing on the appeal of Kyle Hunt, petitioner & 10 Lincoln LLC, owner, for the following variances: (a) use variance (b) waive 14 of the minimum requ ired 34 off-street parking spaces to permit conversion of a 1,400 gross sq. ft. tenant space into a restaurant in a multi-tenant building at 400 E. Lincoln Ave. (25-22-302-033). 5. Case No. 22-03-12 - public hearing on the appeal of Sandra Bazzo, petitioner & CGBD LLC , owner, for the following variances: (a) use variance (b) waive 880 ft. of the minimum required 1,000 ft. distance from a school, library, park, playground , licensed day care, or religious institution to permit a tattoo/microblading studio which is defined as an adult-oriented commercial enterprise in a mUlti-tenant building at 1320 N. Campbell Rd . (25-14-151-001). E. Other Business F. General Public Comment G. Adjournment Call to Order The regular meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Offak. 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 and that each participant in a public hearing limit their comments to 3 minutes. He further pointed out to petitioners the absence of a full board at tonight's meeting and their opportunity to request that their agenda item be postponed until the next regular meeting due to the circumstances. Roll Call Present Absent Robert Gavin, Vice Chairperson Samantha Grant Maggie George Jeff Klatt Trevis Moore Anthony Offak, Chairperson Arvind Redd y Nancy Robinson Deborah Zukin Approval of Minutes for February 10, 2022 Moved by: Mr. Moore Supported by: Mr. Klatt Page 2 of 7  Zoning Board of Appeals March 10. 2022 Moved. that the minutes of the February 10. 2022 regular meeting be approved as presented. Motion adopted unanimously. Unfinished Business None. New Business 1. Case No. 22-03-08 - 28096 Woodward Ave. (25-17-279-004) Moved by: Mr. Gavin Supported by: Mr. Reddy Moved that the appeal of Presidio Capital. petitioner & Norris Group Inc .• owner. for the following variance: (a) waive 13 of the minimum required 20 off-street parking spaces to permit conversion of an existing tenant space into 16 individual carry-out restaurant kitchen suites at 28096 Woodward Ave. (25-17-279-004), be denied. Motion adopted unanimously. Denying the variance is based upon the following: 1. Strict compliance with the zoning ordinance provisions will not unreasonably prevent the petitioner from use and enjoyment of the property for a permitted purpose, or would not render conformity with such provisions unnecessarily burdensome. 2. Granting the variance would prove detrimental to other property owners in the area. 3. There are not circumstances or conditions inherently unique to the property that necessitates granti ng the variance . 4. There is not evidence of practical difficulty and there are not inherently unique circumstances or conditions of the property that requires granting the variance. 2. Case No. 22-03-09 - 832 N. Pleasant 51. (25-16-404-014) Moved by: Mr. Klatt Supported by: Ms. Robinson Moved that the appeal of Tabitha & Michael See, petitioner & owner, for the following variances : (a) waive 16.3 ft. of the minimum required east rear yard setback of 35 ft. (b) waive 4 ft. of the maximum allowable height of 15 ft. for the garage I accessory structure to permit additions to an existing single-family dwelling at 832 N. Pleasant St. (25-16-404-014), 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 rend er conformity with such provisions unnecessarily burdensome. Page 3 of 7  Zoning Board of Appeals March 10, 2022 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. 3. Case No. 22-03-10 - 517 Elm Ct. (25-16-476-012) Moved by: Mr. Gavin Supported by: Mr. Klatt Moved that the appeal of Brian 0 Latulippe, petitioner & owner, for the following variances: (a) alter/expand a non-conforming structure (b) waive 14.2 ft. of the maximum allowable 7 ft. that an attached garage / accessory structure may project from the nearest point of living space on the ground floor (c) waive 2.9% of the maximum allowable 50% that an attached garage / accessory structure may be of the total width of the principal building's primary fayade (d) waive 1.2 ft. of the maximum allowable front yard setback of 50 ft. (e) waive the prohibition of a gravel (non-hard surface) driveway to permit construction of a front entry attached garage and second story addition to an existing, nonconforming single-family dwelling at 517 Elm Ct. (25-16-476-01 2), be granted. Motion adopted unanimously. Granting the variances is based upon the following: 1. Strict compliance wi th 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. 22-03-11 - 400 E. Lincoln Ave. (25-22-302-033) Page 4 of 7  Zoning Board of Appeals March 10, 2022 Moved by: Mr. Gavin Supported by: Mr. Moore Moved that the appeal of Kyle Hunt, petitioner & 10 Lincoln LLC , owner, for the following variances: (a) use variance (b) waive 14 of the minimum required 34 off-street parking spaces to permit conversion of a 1,400 gross sq . ft. tenant space into a restaurant in a multi-tenant building at 400 E. Lincoln Ave. (25-22-302-033), be granted. Motion adopted unanimously. Granting the use variance is based upon the following: 1. The property cannot be reasonably used for the purposes permitted in the mixed use 1 zoning district. Strict compliance with the zoning ordinance provisions would prevent the property owner from use and enjoyment of the property and would render conformity with such provisions unnecessarily burdensome . 2. The appeal results from unique circumstances peculiar to the property and not the general conditions of the surround ing area. Further, the requested use would not alter the essential character of the area. 3. The alleged hardship has not been created by the petitioner and/or property owner. There are circumstances or conditions inherently unique to the property. 4. The requested use is a substantial property right possessed by other property owners in the mixed use 1 zoning district. Granting the non-use variance is based upon the fo llowing: 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 non-use variance 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 consisten t with justice to nearby property owners. 3. There are circumstances or conditions inherently unique to the property that necessitates granting the non-use variance. 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 non-use variance. 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 non-use variance. 5. Case No. 22-03-12-1320 N. Campbell Rd . (25-14-151-001) Moved by: Mr. Gavin Supported by: Mr. Moore Page 5 of 7  Zoning Board of Appeals March 10, 2022 Moved that the appeal of Sandra Bazzo, petitioner & CGBD LLC, owner, for the following variances: (a) use variance (b) waive 880 ft. of the minimum required 1,000 ft. distance from a school , library, park, playgroun d, licensed day care, or religious institution to permit a tattoo/microblading studio which is defined as an adult-oriented commercial enterprise in a multi-tenant building at 1320 N. Campbell Rd . (25-14-151-001), be granted. Motion adopted unanimously. Granting the use variance is based upon the following: 1. The property cannot be reasonably used for the purposes permitted in the mixed use 1 zoning district. Strict compliance with the zoning ordinance provisions would prevent the property owner from use and enjoyment of the property and would rend er conformity with such provisions unnecessarily burdensome. 2. The appeal results from unique circumstances peculiar to the property and not the general conditions of the surrounding area. Further, the requested use would not alter the essential character of the area. 3. The alleged hardship has not been created by the petitioner and/or property owner. There are circumstances or conditions inherently unique to the property. 4. The requested use is a substantial property right possessed by other property owners in the mixed use 1 zoning district. Granting the non-use variance 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 non-use variance will do substantial justice to the petitioner and wil l 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 non-use variance. 4. There is evidence of practical difficulty that has not been created by the petitioner and/or property owner but instead re sults from the inherently unique circumstances or conditions of the property that requires granting the non-use variance. 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 non-use variance. Other Business None. General Public Comment Page 6 of 7  Zoning Board of Appeals March 10, 2022 None. Adjournment Moved by: Mr. Moore Supported by: Ms . Zukin Moved, that the meeting adjourned at 8:43 p.m. Motion adopted unanimously . Page 70f7