Docstoc

Approved______

Document Sample
Approved______ Powered By Docstoc
					                                                                              Approved:___________


MEETING OF            RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE REGULAR BOYNE CITY
AUGUST 3, 2004        ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING HELD AT BOYNE CITY
                      HALL, 319 NORTH LAKE STREET, ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 3, 2004 AT
                      5:00 P.M.

CALL TO ORDER         Chair Kubesh called the meeting to order at 5:03 p.m.

ROLL CALL             Present:   Bob Carlile, Jim Knurick, Chuck Vondra, Pat Kubesh

                      Absent:    John McClorey

MEETING ATTENDANCE    City Officials/Staff: Assistant Planner Scott McPherson, Planning Director
                                            Daniel Reed and Recording Secretary Amy Pankratz

                      Public Present:    There were three people in attendance.

EXCUSED ABSENCE       ZBA-2004-08-012
                      Knurick moved
                      Kubesh seconded
                      Approve the absence of John McClorey, due to a doctor’s appointment, as
                      excused.

                       Ayes: 4
                       Nays: 0
                      Absent: McClorey
                      Motion carried.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES   ZBA-2004-08-013
MOTION                Knurick moved
                      Carlile seconded
                      Approve minutes of the July 6, 2004 ZBA meeting as presented.

                       Ayes: 4
                       Nays: 0
                      Absent: McClorey
                      Motion carried.
CITIZEN COMMENT                  Jim Hevey, owner of Devlon properties – 475 N Lake Street, provided the board
                                 with a packet and asked for direction on whether or not to proceed with an
                                 application to the ZBA. After giving an overview of the Planning Commissions
                                 approval and subsequent denial letter from Planner Daniel Reed, Hevey
                                 questioned whether is was “proper or necessary” to bring his case before the
                                 ZBA, given the Planning Commission had already approved the project. The
                                 board informed Mr. Hevey that he must come before the ZBA, as it is the only
                                 body that may overturn a decision made by the Planning Director.

REQUEST FOR A                    APPLICANT PRESENTATION
SETBACK VARIANCE AT              Applicant Scott Jacobs presented a modified plan for the requested variance at
311 FRONT STREET                 311 Front Street. Jacobs felt the new plan was the only option to effectively
(15-051-455-063-00)              shield his property from the dryer vents and stated that a fence would have to
                                 be at least 14 feet high and could be extremely costly. He stated the dry
                                 cleaners’ creates an undesirable view from the subject property as well as
                                 giving off offensive odors and noise. Jacobs felt the garage would shield the
                                 negative effects of the dry cleaners, while preserving the historical significance
                                 of the structure.

                                 The board received letters of support from Jeff Bradford, owner of Bradfords
                                 Drycleaners, and Glenn and Lyssa Truitt of 520 South Park Street. (letters are
                                 attached and made a part of these minutes as appendix “a” and “b”).

                                 GENERAL FINDINGS OF FACT
                                 Review of the Zoning Board of Appeals Application (attached to the original
                                 copy of these minutes as appendix “A” and made part of these minutes). The
                                 board changed item number 3 to state “the property is 66’ wide and 132’ deep
                                 and has 66’ of road frontage”. The board also changed item number 8 to state “
                                 ….structure to have a setback of 3 feet 7 inches from the existing house”. The
                                 board changed item number 9 to read “….require a 6 foot 5 inch variance from
                                 this requirement”. The board agreed with all the other items under General
                                 Finding of Fact.

                                 FINDING OF FACT UNDER SECTION 27.45.B – VARIANCES
                                 The board reviewed the criteria for awarding a variance.

                                 ZBA-2004-08-014
MOTION                           Kubesh moved
                                 Knurick seconded
                                 To incorporate Mr. Jacobs’ report as the Findings of Fact. (attached and made a
                                 part of these official minutes as Appendix “c”.

                                  Ayes: 4
                                  Nays: 0
                                 Absent: McClorey.
                                 Motion carried.

                                 The next regular meeting of the Boyne City Zoning Board of Appeals is
NEXT MEETING                     scheduled for September 7, 2004.

Boyne City Zoning Board of Appeals                                                                  August 3, 2004
                                                         2
                                 Vondra moved, Knurick seconded a motion to adjourn the Tuesday, August 3,
ADJOURNMENT                      2004 Boyne City Zoning Board of Appeals meeting at 5:58 p.m.




                                                                 ____________________________
                                                                 Amy Pankratz, Recording Secretary




Boyne City Zoning Board of Appeals                                                           August 3, 2004
                                                      3
                                     APPENDIX A




Boyne City Zoning Board of Appeals                August 3, 2004
                                        4
                                     APPENDIX B




Boyne City Zoning Board of Appeals                August 3, 2004
                                         5
                                                   APPENDIX C


                                             BOYNE CITY
                                       ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

                                         APPLICANT INFORMATION

APPLICANT:              Scott and Vicky Jacobs
                        1324 Raindrop Lane
                        Golden CO 80401

HEARING DATE:           July 6, 2004

                                          PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

The property of Scott and Vicky Jacobs 311 Front Street, described as tax identification number 15-
051-455-063-00, hereinafter referred to as the property.


                                                  APPLICATION

Describe Variance Requests: The applicant wishes to build a detached accessory structure that will have a
side yard setback of 0 feet and be 5 feet from the existing home. The Boyne City Zoning Ordinance requires
detached accessory structures must maintain at least a 3’ setback from the side lot line and a 10’ setback from
the principal building.

                                             BOYNE CITY
                                       ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

An affirmative vote of a majority of members shall be required to reverse any order, requirement, decision
or determination of the City Manager, an administrative official of the City, or the Planning Director except
   that a two-thirds (2/3) majority of members shall be necessary to grant any variances from uses of land
                                  which may be permitted by this Ordinance.


                                       BOARD DECISION AND ORDER

The Board having considered the Application, a public hearing having been held on July 6, 2004 after
giving due notice as required by law, the Board having heard the statements of the
Applicant/Applicant’s attorney and agents, the Board having considered letters submitted by members
of the public and several comments by members of the public, the Board having considered the
following Findings of Fact and Exhibits as part of the record, and the Board having reached a decision
on this matter, states as follows:



 Boyne City Zoning Board of Appeals                                                                August 3, 2004
                                                        6
                                      GENERAL FINDINGS OF FACT


     1.   The property is owned by Scott and Vicky Jacobs
     2.   The property is in the Traditional Residential Zoning District.
     3.   The property is 66’ wide and 132’ deep and has 66’ of road frontage.
     4.   An existing home is located on the parcel.
     5.   The property has an existing undeveloped alley that runs along the south property line.
     6.   The property owner wishes the proposed accessory structure to have a side yard setback of 0 feet.
     7.   Section 21.36(7) of the Boyne City Zoning Ordinance requires a 3 side yard set back for detached
          accessory buildings. The applicant would require a 3’ variance from this requirement.
     8.   The property owner wishes the proposed accessory structure to have a setback of 3’ 7” from the
          existing house.
     9.   Section 21.36(7) of the Boyne City Zoning Ordinance requires a 10’ set back for detached accessory
          building to any principal or main structure. The applicant would require a 6’ 5” variance from this
          requirement.

                       FINDINGS OF FACT UNDER SECTION 27.45. – VARIANCES

In hearing and deciding appeals for variances, the Board shall adhere to the following criteria in determining
whether or not practical difficulties and/or unnecessary hardships exist:

l.   That if the property owner complies with this Zoning Ordinance, he or she can secure no reasonable return
     from or make no reasonable use of his or her property;

     A.     No reasonable return can be secured from the property. Renters looking for a single family
          residential property are not willing to pay the going rate of approximately $800-900/mo. Because of the
          negative impact of a commercial facility adjoining the property. The property was not able to rent at
          $900/mo. and sat vacant from October, 2003-May 10, 2004. Even though ReMax and Vacation
          Properties were both attempting to rent if after owners spent two months improving the interior of the
          property. They now have a four-month lease for the key rental months of summer for $800/mo. which
          may represent the only yearly income for the property (or$3200/year divided by 12=$266/mo.)which
          covers only real estate taxes plus $700.00. Not only will the negative economic impact be felt in terms
          of monthly income, but also in terms of long-term value of the property. Reduced rents usually means a
          less desirable tenant with less cash flow generated for improvements. The property will decline in
          upkeep affecting its overall resale value. This will also have a negative impact on adjacent properties.

2. That the hardship results from the application of this Zoning Ordinance to his or her property, rather than
   from some other factor;

     A. The hardship results from the application of the City zoning ordinance, keeping the owner from
        effectively isolating the negative impacts of an adjacent commercial facility.

     3. That the hardship of which he or she complains is suffered merely by his or her property directly and not
        by others;

      A. This hardship exists only at 311 Front Street because of its proximity to the laundry facility. Other
         properties in the area do not have this problem.


 Boyne City Zoning Board of Appeals                                                                 August 3, 2004
                                                         7
4. That the hardship is not the result of his or her own actions; and,

     A. The hardship is not the result of the property owners actions. It was a pre-existing condition.

5. That the hardship is peculiar to the property of the applicant.

     A. This hardship is peculiar to the property owner only and not to other properties.


The Board shall grant no variance if it finds an application does not meet all of the above listed criteria for
   determining whether or not a practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship exists.



    MOTION:          Kubesh moved.
                     Knurick seconded
                     To approve the request as presented with the expectation that measurements be
                     taken from the drip line and not the wall itself.


                    Roll Call
                         Aye: 4
                         Nay: 0
                     Abstain: 0
                      Absent: McClorey
                    Motion Carried.

    DATE: AUGUST 3, 2004



                                                                     ___________________________
                                                                     Zoning Board of Appeals Chairperson

                                      TIME PERIOD FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

MCLA 125.585 (11) provides that a person having an interest affected by the zoning ordinance may appeal a
decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals to the Circuit Court. Pursuant to MCR 7.101 any appeal must be filed
within twenty-one (21) days after this Decision and Order is adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals.




 Boyne City Zoning Board of Appeals                                                                    August 3, 2004
                                                        8

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:28
posted:2/6/2010
language:English
pages:8