CITY OF CHARLEVOIX

BOARD OF APPEALS

Minutes



June 18, 2003
City Hall - 1st Floor

7:00 P.M.



A) CALL TO ORDER


The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chairman Witthoeft at 7:00 P.M.

B) ROLL CALL

Members Present: Witthoeft, Miller, Nuttle and Horton,
Members Excused: Cross, Anderson and Withrow

C) DESIGNATION OF ALTERNATES

Mr. Horton was designated as voting members of the Board.

D) APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The minutes of May 21, 2003 were approved as reviewed.

E) APPROVAL OF AGENDA

The Agenda was approved as presented

F) INQUIRY INTO POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

There were no potential conflicts of interest





G) PUBLIC HEARINGS

1. Case #03-11ZBA - Gaffney - 104 Auld

Vice-Chairman Witthoeft called the case.

Staff explained that the Applicant is seeking a 20.5' variance in
the rear yard setback for an attached 10' x 18' open deck.

The lot is nonconforming, with an area of 8,283.70 sq. ft. (12,000) sq.ft. required. The parcel is irregular in shape, containing eight uneven sides. The parcel measures only 67.7' at the building line on Auld.

Exhibit D shows that the location of the 35' rear yard setback line. It is located through the middle of the house.

The required rear yard setback is thirty-five (35) feet in the R-1 district. Section 5.12(7) of the ordinance allow for open unenclosed decks to project ten (10) feet in the rear yard.

The deck is 4.5' from the rear property line, which would require a 20.5' variance in the rear yard setback.

The variances that were granted in 1997 for the construction of a detached accessory building have expired and the garage was never built. In 2003, a zoning permit was issued to build a smaller detached accessory structure that complies with all the requirements of the ordinance.

The Board discussed the configuration of the parcel and debated as to the location of the side and rear lot lines. Staff read the definition of a rear and front lot. It was pointed out that in 1998, the Zoning Board granted variances based on the lot line interpretation. Staff stated that the new detached storage building would be nonconforming if the lot lines were changed.

The Board decided to make their decision regarding the deck based on the lot lines presented in the exhibits.

No correspondence was received regarding this matter.

Mrs. Gaffney was present to answer any questions from the Board.

Staff explained that the following findings are offered to assist the Board of Appeals in their deliberations only, and are subject to change, modification and alteration by the Board.


GENERAL FINDINGS OF FACT: (Staff Draft)

1. The property is located at 104 Auld. The property is zoned R-1 Single Family Residential.

2. Section 5.33(1) require that: "The minimum lot area for use
in this zone shall be twelve thousand (12,000) square feet
and shall have a minimum width of one hundred (100) feet at
the building line. The building and/or structures shall not
use more than thirty percent (30%) of the usable lot area."

3. The dimensions of this eight sided parcel are shown in Exhibits C & D. The lot is nonconforming since it
contains 8,129 sq.ft. of area (12,000 sq. ft. required) and
only 67.70' at the building line on Auld Street.

4. Therefore, the parcel is nonconforming in size and
configuration.

5. The existing principal structure (w/1'eaves) and the 10'x 18' deck contain 1,577 sq.ft. of area. On 5/19/03 a zoning permit was issued for the construction of a new conforming storage building (w1'/eaves) which will contain 396 sq. ft. of area. The total lot coverage is 1,973 sq.ft. or 23.8% lot coverage(30% allowed).

6. The existing buildings conform to the required 30% lot
coverage.

7. Section 5.33(4) Rear Yard of the zoning ordinance states: "There shall be a rear yard of not less than thirty-five (35) feet.

8. Section 5.12(7) Yard Projections of the zoning ordinance states: "Projections or encroachments into the open spaces shall be permitted as follows: (a) An open unenclosed and
unroofed deck, terrace or patio may project into the front
yard or rear yard for a distance not exceeding ten (10)
feet."

9. Due to the odd configuration of this parcel, the rear yard setback line of 35' runs through the house, as shown in Exhibit D.

10. The Applicant has constructed a 10' x 18' attached deck in
the rear yard. Therefore, the Applicant is requesting a
20.5' foot rear yard setback variance.

11. In 1999, the Applicant reconfigured the lot in an attempt to create more conformance, as shown in Exhibit E.

The Board unanimously agreed with the general findings.

SECTION 5.256(4) FINDINGS OF FACT (Staff Draft)

The following three (3) standards, as found in Section 5.256(4) of the zoning ordinance must be met:

1. The need for the requested variance is due to unique circumstances or physical conditions of the property involved, such as narrowness, shallowness, shape, water or topography and is not due to the Applicant's personal or economic situation.


b. Therefore, this variance is necessary due to the unique shape and size of the parcel.

c. Section 5.12(7)(a) Yard Projections of the zoning ordinance states: "an open unenclosed and unroofed deck, terrace or patio may project into the front yard or rear yard for a distance not exceeding ten (10) feet."

side yard of not less than fifteen (15) feet on each side of any dwelling or accessory building, excepting the street side of any corner mot, which must abide by the regulations of this Chapter for front yard area."


g. Therefore, a deck could not project into either side yard setback without the need for a variance.


i. Therefore, the construction of the 10' x 18' deck in the rear yard is due to the small size of the lot, it's unusual configuration and no buildable area in the rear yard. Exhibit D shows the location of the 35' rear yard setback line. The need for the requested variance is based on the small size and physical boundaries of the property.


The Board agreed with the findings of fact and determined that the first standard has been met.

2. The need for the requested variance is not the result of action taken by the property owner or previous property owners that were in violation of zoning regulations in effect at the time the action was taken (self-create).

the rear yard setback.

b. The reason for the requested variance is due to the odd shape of the lot, as shown in Exhibits C & D.

c. Exhibits C & D shown that a deck could not be placed
anywhere on this parcel and meet the required setbacks.


e. Therefore, the second standard is met.

The Board agreed with the findings of fact and determined that the second standard has been met.

3. The requested variance is the minimum variance necessary to grant substantial relief to the Applicant while at the same time minimizing any adverse impacts to other property owners in the general neighborhood or zoning district.


a. The requested variance of 20.5' is the minimum variance needed to construct a deck in the rear yard, based on the size and configuration of the lot.

b. The adverse impact to the adjacent property owner will be


c. Therefore, this standard is met.

The Board agreed with the findings of fact and determined that the third standard has been met.

SECTION 5.256(5)(A) FINDINGS OF FACT (Staff Draft)

1. To obtain a variance from the dimensional requirements of this Ordinance (area setback, frontage, height, bulk, density or other dimensional requirements), the Applicant must establish that strict compliance with regulations governing area, setback, frontage, height, bulk, density or other dimensional requirements will unreasonably prevent the property owner from using the property for a permitted purpose, or will render conformity with those regulations unnecessarily burdensome.

a. Section 5.33(1), as cited above states that the minimum lot
area in the R-1 zoning district is 12,000 sq. ft, with a
required 100' at the building line. The Applicant's parcel
contains only 8,129 sq.ft. of area and is 67.70' at the building line.

b. Exhibits C & D show the location of the existing house and setbacks, size and configuration of this irregular shaped
eight sided trapezoid lot.

c. Therefore, the parcel is nonconforming in width and area.

d. Section 5.33(3), as cited above establishes the side yard setback at fifteen (15) feet. Section 5.33(4), as cited above establishes the rear yard setback at thirty-five (35) feet.

Exhibit D shows that the 35' rear yard setback line runs through the center of the existing house.

e. Section 5.12(7) Yard Projections, as cited above, allows
for an unenclosed attached deck to encroach ten (10) feet
into the rear yard.

f. Therefore, an unenclosed attached deck can be built in an
R-1 zoning district.

g. However, an attached open deck could not be built on
this parcel without encroaching into the rear or side yard
setbacks.

h. Exhibits C & D show the location of the 8' x 10' attached open deck located in the rear yard.

setbacks will unreasonably prevent the property owner from
using the property for the permitted purpose of building an unenclosed, open attached deck.

j. Therefore, this standard is met.

The Board agreed with the findings of fact in section 5.256 (5)(A)and determined that the standard has been met.


Motion by Withrow Supported by Witthoeft

That Case #03-11ZBA - Gaffney - 104 Auld for the requested variances of: 20.5' in the rear yard setback as required in Section 5.33(4) of the zoning ordinance.

The Board finds that the standards outlined in Sections 5.256(4) and 5.256(5)(A)have been met.

Ayes:, Witthoeft, Horton Nuttle and Miller
Nays: None
Motion Carried

H) OLD BUSINESS

I) OTHER COMMUNICATIONS

J) NEW BUSINESS

K) PUBLIC INPUT, NOT RELATED TO OTHER AGENDA ITEMS

L) ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 P.M.