Untitled Document

CITY OF CHARLEVOIX

BOARD OF APPEALS

Minutes

June 20, 2001
City Hall - 1st Floor

7:00 P.M.

A) CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Acting Chairman Hodgson

B) ROLL CALL

Roll call was taken. Chairman Withrow, Mr. Anderson and Mrs. Cross were absent with leave.

C) DESIGNATION OF ALTERNATES

Mr. Nuttle and Mr. Ostling

D) APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The minutes of April 18, 2001 were approved as amended

E) APPROVAL OF AGENDA

The agenda was approved as amended. Item #1 was deleted from
"Old Business"

F) INQUIRY INTO POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

None

G) PUBLIC HEARING

1. Case #01-24ZBA- Terrill(King)- 115 Eaton -rear yard variance

Mr. Hodgson introduced the case. Ms. King was present to answer questions. She stated that she rents this home from Mr. Terrill who does not live in Charlevoix.

Ms. Manore explained that the proposed 10' x 24' addition will have one foot eaves. Ms. Manore stated one of the neighbors to the rear reviewed the plan with no objection.

Mr. Nuttle pointed out that the addition will be placed on the interior or west side of the lot. Ms. King stated that their neighbors have been informed of this proposal and are not in opposition to this plan.

Ms. Manore explained that the allowable rear and total lot coverages are 30%. This proposal is well below those percentages.

Mr. Nuttle asked how high this structure will be. Ms. King stated it will be one story, but that the new roof will have a slightly different pitch. Mr. Nuttle asked how much higher the new roof will be. Mrs. King stated that the east side of the roof is higher than the west side. The new roof will even out this difference. The height requirements in the R-1 district is 26' to the mid-point. Ms. Kelly stated the roof will not be that high. Mr. Nuttle pointed out that a height elevation should have been included in the proposal, since the owner is planning to install a new roof. Ms. Kelly stated that the pitch of the new roof will be 6/12.

Mr. Ostling stated that we do not know where the lot lines are located. He stated he has no objection to this proposal and that it will not effect the property next door. However, he stated that he will not continue to sit on this Board and look at dimensions that someone cannot realistically say where the lot lines are.

Ms. Manore asked the applicant if she staked the property. Ms. King stated she did stake it to the best of her ability.

The Board agreed that the survey did not show the location of the house. Ms. Manore explained that the dimensions of the house were drawn using the metes and bounds as shown on the survey, including the house dimensions supplied by the Applicant.

Ms. Manore pointed out the locations of the irons are shown on the survey. It was also pointed out that there are very thick shrubs surrounding the property, which made it difficult to locate the irons. Ms. King stated she could not find the irons, but staked it to the best of her ability.

Mr. Ostling stated he does not see a problem with this application. However, over a period of time, this Board gives people authority to build based on dimensions that no one will ever know are correct. He stated the building department does not require a survey. Some Applicants come before the Board with a survey and elevations while others come in with only a survey and they have no idea where the property lines are, and never will.

Ms. Manore pointed out that it is up to this Board to determine if each Applicant should be required to present a certified survey. Historically staff has accepted mortgage or boundary surveys with the applications.

Mr. Ostling stated it is the Applicant's responsibility to supply Staff with what is required. Ms. Manore suggested that this issue should be discussed with Jim Young at the next work session.

The Applicant related the difficulties she had trying to stake the property. Mr. Nuttle stated requiring a survey puts a burden on the Applicant, as far as time and finances related to requiring a certified survey.

It was again pointed out that historically, the Board has accepted mortgage survey's. Mr. Ostling stated that the Board can continue to do that, but that he would prefer not to. If he cannot have real numbers in front of him, then he does want to be bothered. The Board will have to decide if they want to continue to go on with the way things are.

Ms. Manore explained that this drawing can be checked against the 49' width of the parcel. If the 2'.8" on the east portion of the lot is measurable, plus the house dimensions, it would leave approximately 15'5" on the west side of the property.

Mr. Nuttle pointed out that it would cost each petitioner approximately $1,000 to get a certified survey of their property, which would constitute a hardship. Mr. Hodgson stated the Board should go with Staff's recommendation that this is the way this Board has reviewed plans in the past.

There was no public comment or correspondence received on this matter.

The Board reviewed the following conditions:

1. Not be contrary to the public interest or the general intent and purpose of this Chapter

"This Chapter is adopted pursuant to the authority conferred by Public Act 285, P.A. 1931, as amended of the State of Michigan, for the purpose of promoting and protecting the public health, safety, peace, comfort, convenience and general welfare of the inhabitants of the City of Charlevoix by protecting and conserving the character and social and economic stability of the

residential, commercial, industrial and other use areas, by securing the most appropriate use of land; preventing overcrowding of the land and undue congestion of population; providing adequate light, air and reasonable access; and facilitating adequate and economical provision of transportation, water, sewers, schools, recreation and other public requirements."

The Board agreed that there is no violation of the public interest since the addition is being built in the center of the lot.

2. Not permit the establishment of a use within a given district which is prohibited therein

The residential use is one which is allowed in the R-1 District.

3. Not be a variance so commonly recurring as to make reasonably practical the formulation of a general regulation by the City Council.

The frequency of such requests having similar circumstances is minimal.

4. Not cause substantial adverse effect to properties in the immediate vicinity or in the zoning district where the variance is located

This addition will be a benefit and will be consistent with the existing structure. No correspondence was received on this request.

5. Relate only to the property that is described in the application for the variance

This request relates only to the property described in the application.

The Board reviewed the special findings and determined the following: SPECIAL FINDINGS 1. That there are practical difficulties* or unnecessary hardships** resulting from the physical characteristics of the property in question which make it unfeasible to carry out the strict letter of this Chapter. Increased financial return to the applicant shall not be considered just cause for a variance based upon hardship. 2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions which apply to the property in question that do not apply to other properties in the vicinity within the same zoning district and which have not resulted from any act of the applicant subsequent to the adoption of this Chapter.

This lot is part of a former right-of-way which was vacated. This lot has been in existence for many years, as has the existing cottage. There is no reasonable option on this parcel for expansion without the need for a variance.

3. That such variation is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right possessed by other properties within the same zoning district. Motion by: Nuttle Supported by: Ostling to grant an eleven (11') foot rear yard variance for Case #01- 24ZBA, on the basis that all the five (5) general findings have been met. That special finding #2 applies because: This lot is part of a former right-of-way which was vacated. This lot has been in existence for many years, as has the existing cottage. There is no reasonable option on this small parcel for expansion without the need for a variance. Ayes: Nuttle, Hodgson and Ostling Nays: None Motion CARRIED H) OLD BUSINESS The following Decisions & Orders were approved as presented 2. D & O's Case #01-09ZBA - 208 E. Upright - Peterson 3. D & O's Case #01-10ZBA - 308 Mason - McKenna I) OTHER COMMUNICATIONS None J) NEW BUSINESS None K). PUBLIC INPUT, NOT RELATED TO OTHER AGENDA IT None L). ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 P.M.