February 19, 2003
City Hall - 1st Floor
7:00 P.M.
A) CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Withrow
B) ROLL CALL
Members Present: Withrow, Cross, Nuttle, Horton and Miller
Members Excused : Witthoeft and Anderson
C) DESIGNATION OF ALTERNATES
Mr. Horton and Ms. Miller were designated as voting members of
the Board.
D) APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of December 18, 2002 and December 18 (Presentation)
were approved as corrected. Page 1 - change ZBA to ZBA, page 4
- change eases to eaves.
E) APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Item J, was moved to item E. Motion by Cross, supported by Nuttle
to approve the amended By-Laws. The motion was approved by voice
vote.
F) INQUIRY INTO POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
There were no potential conflicts of interest
G) PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Case #03-02ZBA - Charest - 202 Alice
Mrs. Charest, Applicant stated that in addition to what she
has given the Board, they are planning to put a garage on the
property. In view of that, she asked for an extension regarding
moving of the gazebo based on where they would build the garage.
Mr. Withrow asked if the gazebo has been moved onto the property,
or is it still in the City right-of-way. Staff stated the gazebo
is still in the City right-of-way.
The Applicant presented the Board with two petitions signed by
a number of neighbors in the area. One petition indicates the
gazebo should stay in its present location and the second stating
they have no problem with locating it to the proposed new location.
Mr. Withrow stated it makes no difference what the Board personally
likes. The Board tries to interpret the rules that the City has
enacted.
The Applicant stated she would like to place the gazebo on the
side property line, but because the lot is so thin and due to
the location of the house, she is asking for these variances.
Mr. Nuttle asked if the shaded area in the rear of the property
is for the proposed garage. Staff stated the shaded area is the
buildable area behind the deck where the gazebo could be placed
and meet all the requirements of the ordinance. There is no garage
there now.
Mr. Harsch pointed out to the Applicant that the ordinance allows
only one detached accessory building on the property. If the Applicant
built a garage, the gazebo would have to be removed.
Mr. Nuttle asked if the Applicant has considered moving the gazebo
onto the deck. The Applicant did not think the deck would support
the gazebo, and that the deck is not large enough.
Mr. Withrow pointed out that Staff has provided a drawing showing
the buildable location for a detached accessory building.
Staff pointed out a typing error on page 8 of the staff report.
The variance requested should be five (5) inches and not three
(3) inches.
The Board reviewed the setbacks of the existing house. Mr. Withrow
pointed out this is a nonconforming lot and that the existing
house does not meet the front and side (Stockman) yard setbacks.
Mr. Nuttle asked if the Applicant has considered incorporating
the gazebo into the proposed garage or existing deck. The Applicant
stated that would depend on the size of the garage.
Mr. Withrow stated the Board would be willing to table this request
since the Applicant is contemplating a new garage. If the Board
makes a finding on the gazebo, the Applicant could not put up
a garage in the rear yard.
Mr. Withrow asked if the gazebo can remain in its present location,
if the Board tables this item for two months. Mr. Harsch indicated
that based on the fact that this matter has been brought before
this Board, administrative action has stopped until the Board
acts on the matter.
Mr. Withrow asked if Staff received any correspondence. Staff
stated no correspondence has been received. Mr. Withrow discussed
whether giving the Applicant addition time would create distress
on the neighborhood. He pointed out that there does not appear
to be anyone against the gazebos location.
Shirley Gibson, 209 E. Upright, stated she received a notice regarding
this matter. She stated that if the gazebo is not for public view,
it should be totally on private property and should conform to
the ordinance.
Mr. Withrow asked if tabling this matter for 60 days would be
an imposition to Ms. Gibson or the neighborhood. She stated that
it would not.
June Cross asked why the gazebo was placed on City property. Mrs.
Charest stated they called the Building Department and asked
about the gazebo. The Building Department stated that since it
was a portable structure it did not fall within the realm of needing
any variance. That is why we put it where it is. Mrs. Charest
stated that when she called the Building Department, they stated
there was no problem with putting the gazebo on City property.
Mr. Withrow stated that the Applicant has presented the Board
with a petition indicating that a number of neighbors have no
problem with any action taken by the Board.
Mrs. Cross pointed out that the Applicant can have either a garage
or a gazebo. Mrs. Cross asked how long this has been going on.
Staff stated it has been ongoing since August of 2002. Mrs. Cross
stated she would like to have a decision on this and that the
gazebo should be moved off of City land.
Staff pointed out that the structures on this property currently
occupy approximately 21.6% of the parcel which will impact the
size of any proposed garage.
Mr. Nuttle stated the petition states the neighbors have no objection
to the location of the gazebo or with moving the gazebo.
Shirley Gibson asked if the neighbors were aware that the gazebo
was on City property.
Mr. Withrow read the petition as follows: "We the residents
of Charlevoix and neighbors of 202 Alice have no objection to
the current location of the subject gazebo, and prefer that it
remains where it's at. The gazebo is attractive and has actually
enhanced the beauty of our neighborhood. We ask you to strongly
consider granting permission for a variance to leave it at its'
current location instead of moving it."
Mr. Withrow stated that Mrs. Gibson and Mrs. Cross may be correct
in that the signers of the petition were unaware that the gazebo
is on City property. Mrs. Charest stated that each neighbor does
know that the gazebo is on City property. Mr. Withrow pointed
out that the only thing that is evidence that the Board can deal
with is what is written.
The Applicant asked if the notice indicates that the gazebo is
on City property. Mr. Withrow stated the notice would outline
the hearing date and what the variance would be.
Mr. Harsch stated the fact that the gazebo is on City property
is not a factor in the Board making a decision regarding the requested
variances. Mr. Withrow agreed, since the Applicant is not planning
on leaving it on City property. Mr. Withrow stated moving the
gazebo off City property will be handled by the City.
Mr. Withrow asked the Board if they wanted to give the Applicant
time to come back with a revised request considering all the regulation
relating to the placement of a garage and a gazebo. He also pointed
out that the applicant can have one or the other. He suggested
giving the Applicant 30-60 days.
Mrs. Cross asked if the Applicant has been working with staff.
Staff did not know about the Applicant's wish to construct a garage
until this meeting.
Mr. Withrow cautioned the Applicant that the purpose of the Zoning
Board is not to grant variances except in rare cases where they
are absolutely needed and that they meet the conditions to grant
the variance. He pointed out that just because the Applicant wants
the variance does not mean it will be granted.
Mrs. Cross stated she would like to vote on this request, since
that is what the Applicant is here for.
Mr. Nuttle agreed that the case should be tabled until the garage
issue is resolved.
Mrs. Miller suggested additional time to allow the Applicant time
to decide what she wants.
Motion by Nuttle Supported by Miller
to table Case #03-02ZBA for a time not to exceed sixty (60) days,
or no later than the April meeting.
Mr. Nuttle pointed out that Staff is good at working with the
Applicant. The application will have to be submitted by the April
meeting or the Board will have to act on the variance as currently
presented.
Ayes: Nuttle, Withrow, Horton and Miller
Nays: Cross
Motion Carried
Mr. Withrow noted that the one negative vote should indicate to
the Applicant that she needs to understand what the regulations
are and that they are not taken lightly. Mr. Withrow stated the
Applicant needs to work with Staff to see if it meets the rules
and regulations of the ordinance.
2. Case #03-03ZBA - Jaekle - 501 Mercer - Withdrawn
H) OLD BUSINESS
Decision and Order for Case #02-25ZBA - Mailloux was approved
as presented.
I) OTHER COMMUNICATIONS
None
J) NEW BUSINESS
Approval of amended By-Laws was moved to Item E for approval.
K). PUBLIC INPUT, NOT RELATED TO OTHER AGENDA ITEMS
None
L). ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 P.M.