October 17, 2001
City Hall - 1st Floor
7:00 P.M.
A) CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Withrow at 7:05 P.M.
B) ROLL CALL
Members present: Withrow, Cross, Anderson, Hodgson and Horton
Members absent: Nuttle and Ostling (excused)
C) DESIGNATION OF ALTERNATES
Mr. Horton was designated as alternate
D) APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The following minutes were tabled to the next scheduled meeting
1. Minutes of the meeting of September 19, 2001
2. Minutes of the meeting of August 15, 2001
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 HEARING
Public Hearing for Case #01-31ZBA -Carlson - 214 Newman
Mr. Norm Carlson, Jr. presented this case for his father, Norm Carlson, Sr. Mr. Carlson pointed out that his father would like to add a "sunroom" on the second story deck. He stated that the deck was constructed to accommodate this addition.
He reminded the Board that the topography at the rear of the property is very steep. The sunroom eaves will match the side yard deck, while the addition will be cantilevered over the rear, with no impact to the rear yard setback.
The Board reviewed the Decision & Order on June 21, 2000, which granted a six (6') foot side yard setback variance. The Board determined that this Order did not mention anything about the deck versus the building or air movement. Mr. Withrow suggested that the same findings set forth on June 21 could be used since they still apply.
Mr. Carlson reminded the Board that the only adjacent structure is a garage that is used to house an antique car.
After reviewing each of the general findings, the Board determined that they still apply. No testimony was received indicating that the "sunroom" would cause a substantial adverse effect to properties in the immediate vicinity.
General Findings:
(a) 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.)
Given the accessory use granted to the property to the east and the uncrowded nature of the area, the request is not contrary to the public interest or the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance.
(b) Not permit the establishment of a use within a given district which is prohibited therein.
The use requested is allowed in the R-2 district.
(c) Not be a variance so commonly recurring as to make reasonably practical the formulation of a general regulation by the City Council
Side yard variance requests typically presented to the Board of Appeals are based on some relatively unique or unusual circumstance related to the specific property in question or are the result of the property being a legal nonconforming situation due to the existing size of the lot at the adoption date of the Zoning Ordinance. The situation with this property regarding site topography and the adjacent accessory use is a unique situation.
(d) Not cause substantial adverse effect to properties in the immediate vicinity or in the zoning district where the variance is located.
No evidence or testimony was presented to the Board which established the potential for an adverse effect to other properties. The potential for adverse impact is minimum due to the character of development along this section of the street.
(e) Relate only to property that is described in the application for the variance.
The Board reviewed the Special Findings, agreeing that they still apply.
Special Findings:
(a) 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.
(b) 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 property contains a steep incline in the rear which restricts the use of the property. The neighboring property to the east is a nonconforming storage building.
(c) That such variation is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right possessed by other properties within the same zoning district.
Motion by Horton Supported by Anderson
to amendment Case #00-22ZBA with the side yard setback variance of six (6') feet to allow the construction of an addition to be built on top of the existing deck. The granting of this amendment is based on Special Finding #2. In addition, the facts presented in Case #00-22ZBA have not changed and that all the findings still apply in this case.
Ayes: Hodgson, Horton, Withrow, Cross and Anderson
Nays: None
Motion Carried
H) OLD BUSINESS
Withrow, Cross and Anderson approved the Decision & Order for
Case #01-30ZBA-Eveleigh -
208 E. Dixon.
I) OTHER COMMUNICATIONS
Staff explained that a letter was received on October 10, 2001 from Ms. Jodi Lyons requesting an extension for Case #00-18ZBA. It
was pointed out that this case was approved on June 21, 2000 and
expired on June 21, 2001. This is past the time limits outlined in the ordinance. For that reason, staff is recommending that this request be denied and that the Cohens will have to reapply.
The Board agreed with staff's recommendation and denied the request.
J) NEW BUSINESS
June Cross inquired as to the date Mr. Young will schedule a presentation with the Board of Appeals. Mr. Harsch stated that this meeting will probably be scheduled for the regular February meeting. The Board discussed the ordinance changes that have been made and how they will apply to the Cresswell/Aerne case.
K). PUBLIC INPUT, NOT RELATED TO OTHER AGENDA ITEMS
None
L). ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 P.M.