Text size: A A A

APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING

OF THE KENTWOOD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS
FEBRUARY 16, 2015, 7:00 P.M.
(return to index)
 

 

1.                  Secretary Lipner called the meeting to order.

 

2.                  Roll Call

MEMBERS PRESENT:  Kemal Hamulic, Alan Lipner and Monica Sparks, Thomas Webb

MEMBERS ABSENT: Les Derusha, Anita Hitchcock, Robert Houtman, Richard Lenger

OTHERS PRESENT: Planner Joe Pung, Staff Secretary Monique Collier and the applicants. 

 

3.                  Approval of the Minutes and Findings of Fact

 

Sparks stated she was present at the November 17, 2014 meeting and that Benedict and Holloway’s names should be removed from the minutes.

 

Motion by Hemulic, supported by Webb, to approve the minutes of November 17, 2014 with change noted.      

-          Motion Carried (4-0) –

-          Derusha, Hitchcock, Lenger and Houtman absent -

4.                  Public Hearing

 

Appeal #V-15-01

 

Applicant:                   David Thacker

Location:                     731 – 52nd St SE

 

Request:                      The applicant wishes to relocate and existing 440 square foot detached garage further in into the rear yard of the property and attach a new 24-foot by 24-foot garage to the front of it for a total area of 1,016 square feet.  Section 3.15.D.2.a of the Zoning Ordinance limits the size of the garage to 768 square feet.  The requested variance is for an increase of 248 square feet over the maximum area allowed by ordinance

 

Lipner explained to the applicant that all of the board members were not present at the meeting. He gave the applicant the opportunity to either proceed or table to the March meeting. The applicant chose to proceed with the request with the 4 board members that were present.

 

David Thacker, 731 52nd St SE was present representing the request. He stated they have owned adult foster care homes on 28th street for the last 34 years and they are now retiring. Thacker stated on his 28th Street 3 ½ acre site there is a 1,000 square foot shop. He stated once they sell the home they will no longer have the shop. He stated his goal is to have some indoor parking for him and his wife at his residence. He stated he would like to move his garage back about 26 feet and then attach a 24x24 pole barn which he would use for parking and some benches around the outside edges. He stated the portion that is currently there would continue to be used that as his workshop.  He stated they have the largest property on the street by 10 feet wide. Thacker stated they are surrounded by commercial property.

 

Thacker stated when he bought his home it was 1,800 square feet, he has since made a few additions and now it is over 2,900 square feet. Thacker stated on the back portion was an addition so they could take care of his wife’s family. He stated his goal would be to lift it up it is too low and to build a new garage it would have to come up 6 inches because everything is very low. His goal would be to move it back, put it on a new slab and then set the structure back down on top of that. In the front he would like to add a 24x24 pole barn style.

 

Lipner ask if the addition in the back of the house is living space. Thacker stated it is living space

 

Webb stated he notices he has a builders license. Thacker stated he has been a licensed builder for several years and he built a lot of spec houses. Thacker stated he has been primarily involved in insulation and sprinkling. Discussion ensued.

 

Lipner ask what was at the back of the property. Thacker stated an 8x10 shed. Lipner ask what was on the west side of the property. Thacker stated it is a playground for grandkids. He stated they have a nice elevated treehouse decking and a sandbox in his yard.

 

Webb stated the applicant has a lot going on with his property. Webb stated his concern is with moving the existing building. Webb ask if he has considered building just one building. Thacker stated he knows that going to a 768 square foot space is going to be nothing more than 2 car parking with some benches around the outside. Thacker stated if he could do 1,068 square foot building and put it in one building if that would make the difference he would do that. He stated this space is important to him. Webb stated with everything he has going on with his property it looks messy. Thacker stated he likes the challenge to make old stuff look new and secondly he’d hate to see anything go to waste so he would like to recycle the building.

 

Lipner opened the public hearing. 

 

There was no public comment.

 

Motion by Hamulic, supported by Webb, to close the public hearing.

 

-          Motion Carried (4-0) –

-          Derusha, Hitchcock, Houtman and Lenger Absent

 

 

Hamulic stated point 1 has not been met there is nothing exceptional or extraordinary about the property. Hamulic stated point 2 has been met. Hamulic stated point 3 has not been met, variance is not necessary for the presentation of a substantial property right.

 

Sparks stated point 1 has not been met, point 2 has been met and point 3 has not been met.

 

Webb stated point 1 has been met. Webb stated point 2 has been met. Webb stated point 3 has been met.

 

Lipner stated looking at the adjacent properties he doesn’t see anything specific that would warrant point 1 to be met. Lipner stated point 2 has been met. Lipner stated point 3 has not been met.

 

Hamulic stated if you look at this property and other properties in the neighborhood it does look busy but point 4 has been met. Hamulic stated point 5 has been met. Hamulic stated point 6 has not been met.

 

Sparks stated points 4 and 5 have been met and point 6 has not been met.

 

Webb stated points 4 and 5 have been met and point 6 has not been met. 

 

Lipner stated points 4 and 5 have been met and point 6 has not been met it is the actions of the applicant.

 

Motion by Hamulic, supported by Sparks, to deny V-15-01 in that the following are not met

1.      That there are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district. There is nothing exceptional about this property as compared to others in the area.

2.      That such variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right similar to that possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the vicinity. The applicant can construct an accessory building similar to others in the area and same zoning district.

3.      That the immediate practical difficulty causing the need for the variance request was created by any action of the applicant. The applicants desire for a larger building is what caused the need for the variance request.

 

-          Motion Carried (4-0) –

-          Derusha, Hitchcock, Houtman and Lenger absent –

 

Motion by supported by to adjourn the meeting.

 

-          Motion Carried (4-0) –

Meeting adjourned at 7:55p.m.

                                                                        Respectfully submitted,