A) CALL TO ORDER

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

B) ROLL CALL

Members Present: Chairman Withrow, Nuttle, Ostling, Cross & Anderson

Members Excused: Hodgson

Absent: Smith

Others Present: Dianne Manore

C). DESIGNATION OF ALTERNATES

Nuttle and Ostling were designated as alternates

D). APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The minutes of September 20, 2000 were approved as corrected.

E) APPROVAL OF AGENDA

The Agenda was approved as presented

F) INQUIRY INTO POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Mr. Ostling is the Applicant in Case #00-36ZBA and will step down.

G) PUBLIC HEARINGS

1. Case #00-36ZBA- Ostling - 1025 May Street

Mr. Ostling presented his request. He pointed out that additional living space is needed for this small house. This addition would allow a dinning room area and expand the living space of the house. The existing porch and proposed addition would be enclosed and a new entrance would be added on the north side of the porch. The house and the porch were built in 1975, prior to the existing ordinance. Due to the shape and size of his lot, he only has a 6' x 100' building envelope due to the current required setbacks.

He stated that if he is granted this variance, he would install a circle drive in front of his house. This would create a safer traffic situation for the vehicles, pedestrians and skate boarders on this very busy street (May Street).

Mr. Ostling pointed out that many of the homes on May Street have similar nonconforming setbacks and building envelopes. There are other properties that have been granted similar variance in the same zoning district.

Staff pointed out that there are no adjacent houses and that the parcel abuts the following zoning districts: PO,-Professional Office, I-Industrial and R.A.-Two Family Residential.

There was no public comment or correspondence related to this case.

The Board reviewed the five conditions that should exist before any variance is granted.

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."

No information was received from other sources opposing or approving of this application. The Board could find nothing that would be contrary to the public interest.

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

The use is one which is allowed in the 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

No evidence was presented nor testimony given upon which it could be concluded that a substantial adverse effect to other properties would result.

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 determined that Special Finding #3 would apply. It was determined that the size of the lot would unreasonably limit the use of the property right possessed by other properties within the same zoning district. In addition, the Board has granted four front yard variances for nonconforming lots and three for conforming lots in the same zoning district (R-1).

Motion by Nuttle Supported by Cross to approve a front yard setback variance of 12.167' for Case #00-36ZBA on the basis that such variation is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right possessed by other properties within the same zoning district.

Ayes: Nuttle, Anderson, Withrow and Cross

Nays: None

Motion CARRIED

H) OLD BUSINESS

The following Decisions & Orders were tabled to the next scheduled meeting:

1. Decision & Order - Case #00-36ZBA - County of Charlevoix

2. Decision & Order - Case #00-32ZBA - Blast

3. Decision & Order - Case #00-36ZBA - Goitrous

4. Decision & Order - Case #00-36ZBA - Olson's

Mrs. Cross requested that the Planning Commission review Section 5.191(1) of the Fence, Wall and Screen Regulations. She stated that while the Board could not grant Mr. Elliott's variance for one (1') foot in the height of his front yard fence, his request was not unreasonable. The Board discussed the fact that the four (4') foot fence would better meet the needs for child safety in the front yard. The Elliott property is not on a corner and would not have obstructed anyone's view. It was pointed out that there are many grand fathered fences in the City that are higher than three (3') feet.

I) OTHER COMMUNICATIONS

1. Review of proposed amendment to Section 5.256(6) of the Zoning Ordinance.

The Board reviewed the following proposed language:

5.256

(6) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. In granting a variance, the board may specify, in writing, such other conditions regarding the location, character, landscaping or other treatment that will, in the Board's judgement, be reasonably necessary to the furtherance of the intent of this Chapter and the protection of the public interest. The breach of any such condition shall automatically invalidate the permit granted. Each variance granted under the provisions of this Chapter shall become null and void after six (6) months unless construction or occupancy authorized by such variance or permit has commenced and is being carried to completion. However, the Zoning Board of Appeals may grant a six (6) month extension upon the submission of a letter by the applicant providing reasonable evidence as to why the project cannot be commenced within the allowed time, and provided further, that an additional six (6) month approval extension may be granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals upon the personal presentation by the applicant of reasonable evidence as to why the project cannot be commenced within the allowed time.

After a variance has been denied in whole or in part by the Board, then no application shall be resubmitted for a period of one (1) year from the date of the last denial; provided, however, that a denied variance may be reconsidered by the Board when, in the opinion of the Zoning Administrator, newly discovered evidence or changed conditions warrant such reconsideration.

Motion by Nuttle Supported by: Withrow

to present the proposed amendment to Section 5.256(6) to the Planning Commission for review and public hearing.

Ayes: Nuttle, Withrow, Anderson, Ostling & Cross

Nays: None

Motion CARRIED

I). NEW BUSINESS

None

K). PUBLIC INPUT, NOT RELATED TO OTHER AGENDA ITEMS

None

L). ADJOURNMENT

The meeting ended at: 7:30 p.m.