Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-12-10 City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 1 of 22 December 10, 2013 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CITY OF LIVONIA MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING HELD DECEMBER 10, 2013 A Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Livonia was held in the Auditorium of the Livonia City Hall on Tuesday, December 10, 2013. MEMBERS PRESENT: Matthew Henzi, Chairman Sam Caramagno, Secretary Edward E. Duggan, Jr. Elizabeth McCue Kathleen McIntyre MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Pastor Robert Sills OTHERS PRESENT: Michael Fisher, Assistant City Attorney Dennis DeMeyer, City Inspector Bonnie J. Murphy, CER2300/CSR22300 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Henzi then explained the Rules of Procedure to those interested parties. Each petitioner must give their name and address and declare hardship for appeal. Appeals of the Zoning Board's decisions are made to the Wayne County Circuit Court. The Chairman advised the audience that appeals can be filed within 21 days of the date tonight’s minutes are approved. The decision of the Zoning Board shall become final within five (5) calendar days following the hearing and the applicant shall be mailed a copy of the decision. There are four decisions the Board can make: to deny, to grant, to grant as modified by the Board, or to table for further information. Each petitioner may ask to be heard by a full seven (7) member Board. Five (5) members were present this evening. The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard by a full Board and no one wished to do so. The Secretary then read the Agenda and Legal Notice to each appeal, and each petitioner indicated their presence. Appeals came up for hearing after due legal notice was given to all interested parties within 300 feet, petitioners and City Departments. There were twelve people present in the audience. (7:05 ) City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 of 22 December 10, 2013 APPEAL CASE NO. 2013-11-56 (Tabled on November 12, 2013): David Terski, 14315 Richfield, seeking to erect a 6-foot tall privacy fence within the side yard which is not allowed. Privacy fences cannot extend beyond the rear line of the home towards the street. Henzi: Is there a motion to remove? Duggan: I’ll make the motion to remove. McCue: Second. Henzi: All in favor say aye. Board (in unison): Aye. Henzi: Dennis, anything to add to this case? DeMeyer: The Department has nothing to add at this time, Mr. Chair. Henzi: Any questions for the Inspection Department? Hearing none, will the Petitioner please come forward. Petitioner: David Terski, 14315 Richfield, Livonia, Michigan. Good evening everyone. If you recall from our last meeting we came requesting to try and get a variance for the privacy fence to come forward, there were a myriad of safety concerns that we had. We live on a dark, dirt road. We have a deep wooded lot. We found debris in the backyard, we know that people have been back there. We have pool equipment that sits along the south side which gets extraordinarily hot, the heater, we want to make sure that’s contained from our neighbors. If you recall there’s a group home which we don’t have any issues with but we wanted to make sure that there aren’t any safety concerns. When we talked about safety in the past it has always been we’d rather be one day ahead than one day behind. So, with that being said, the last time we were here there was some concern expressed by some of our neighbors in regards to we were putting up wiring for garden and vines across the rear of our property. The Board had asked us to work with the Inspection Department to find out if we were to Code and to find out what we were supposed to do. My wife and I went to the Inspection Department, spoke with Randy and numerous people, found out exactly what a privacy screen entailed based off of Mr. Fisher’s definition, it closely resembled what we have constructed. After speaking with numerous people we went home and tore down all the wiring, went back City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 of 22 December 10, 2013 and we pulled a permit through the Inspection Department, we constructed a privacy screen that was up to Code, that fit all the rules and regulations. Three days prior to Thanksgiving, we had a City Inspector come out, surveyed the backyard, walked around, I know there was some concern from one of our neighbors about essentially what we were doing in the back, voiced some concern. The City Inspector walked, we were approved for a privacy screen we have erected. About ten days after that, seven to ten days another City Inspector came out who my wife spoke with again, walked the backyard, looked at everything, which brings us to our point today, we have complied with the City, complied with everything that was asked from the Zoning Board. We’ve worked with the Inspection Department multiple times, pulled a permit and were approved for a privacy screen along the back, we removed the wiring our neighbors had expressed concern about. Henzi: Can I ask Dennis a question, is all that true with respect to the Inspector’s visits to the property? DeMeyer: That’s correct, I was not one of them, but that’s correct. Henzi: Thank you. Mr. Terski, I just want to make sure I know exactly where the fence is going to go. We talked at length last time you wanted to move it closer towards the front of the house. Petitioner: Yes, sir. Henzi: And you said why, I remember, there’s a pool and for safety, etc., and then you described where close to the back and as I looked at my notes it’s going to touch the rear corner of the property behind the shed on that side? Petitioner: Yes, sir. On the south side the fence extends all along to the rear of the property. On the north side it will only go back to where there’s 5-foot fence that was constructed when the new cul-de-sac was developed. We aren’t touching any of that nor are we touching the fence along the back. Henzi: Okay. Then the only other question I have is in your packet you have pictures of some fences which are set in the middle of some houses that exist throughout Livonia. Were those in your subdivision or did you find them all over? Petitioner: We were just looking to see, some of them are in the subdivision behind our property. We just wanted to see what it would like that other homes had constructed. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 of 22 December 10, 2013 Henzi: Okay. That’s all the questions I had. Any questions for the Petitioner? Duggan: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Duggan. Duggan: For the privacy screen, approximately how many feet will that be between that and the back fence? Petitioner: From the south side it’s 15 feet, from the north side it’s 72 feet, and the rear it’s anywhere from 13 to 15 feet where our backyard is very wooded. So we tried to make it blend in with the tree line. And we’re also going to stain it like we were with the other fence to make it feel more natural. Duggan: Will you go behind the privacy fence to the --- that’s still your property, you know, behind the privacy fence at all? Petitioner: We can go back there, you know to keep it clean and keep the debris picked up. There’s a lot of things that we do back there. And we are going to use the privacy screen pretty much for growing vines like we wanted originally, we don’t want to get away from that, but we wanted to build something that was to Code. Duggan: Right. But you’re going to make sure you take care of that piece of property? Petitioner: Oh, yes, that whole property, we keep it cleaned up, like I said we have large limbs that fall, I have to go back in there and cut them out. That’s one of the painful things of having a wooded lot, it’s a lot of maintenance, especially come leaf time when it all falls. Duggan: Okay, thank you. Petitioner: Thank you. Henzi: Any other questions? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 of 22 December 10, 2013 Caramagno: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: Sir, will the screen be aligned with the end of the fences that you’re going to put up along the north and south side? Petitioner: Beyond that. The fence on the south side goes all the way to the back fence line. Caramagno: Yes. Petitioner: The screen, in working with the Inspection Department, couldn’t be any farther than the side of the house, so that’s why we had to come up 50 feet off the south and then 72 feet from the north and then it’s right within the proximity of the house itself. Caramagno: Does it extend beyond the north? Petitioner: It’s deeper than the north. Caramagno: It’s deeper than the north? Petitioner: Yes, it’s deeper than the north side. The north side is only about maybe two/thirds the length of the fence. There’s another, I think it’s 110 feet of 5-foot fencing that’s there that we’re not touching. Caramagno: I was just trying to get a feel for it. Petitioner: No, absolutely. Caramagno: That’s all I have. Henzi: Any other questions? Hearing none, is there anyone in the audience who wants to speak for or against the project? If so, come on up. Seeing no one coming forward, are there letters? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 of 22 December 10, 2013 Caramagno: We have an approval from Charles Williams at 14326 Stonehouse, an approval from Sharron Bjornbak at 14325 Richfield, (letter read). We have an objection from Virginia Pochloff at 14340 Stonehouse, (letter read). Carol Slater at 14400 Stonehouse sends an objection, (letter read). Carol Ball at 14382 Stonehouse writes an objection (letter read). Henzi: Is that it? Caramagno: That’s all I’ve got. Henzi: Mr. Terski, anything you’d like to say in closing? Petitioner: I agree with Carol, it’s unfortunate that it’s come to this point. We’ve tried to do everything to comply with the law and the Ordinance. The way the privacy screen is constructed now it doesn’t even go to Mrs. Ball’s property, it actually is about 10 to 15 feet on the north side where her fence line comes in. Her comment about the existing fence is a privacy along the fence, the side line, which both of our neighbors have signed off on, I think that that’s what she’s referring to, where it does butt up to her fence, but that’s where the privacy fence is going along that entire fence line. We tried to comply, we want to be good neighbors. We’re going to stain the privacy screen so it fits in. We’re not going to remove the woods, we enjoy them as much as anybody. We would like to do some gardening and then do some other things on my side of the property, we’re going to take advantage of it. And yes, it’s our property but we want to be good neighbors so we’re going to do everything we can to try and create a nice environment, the last thing I’m going to do is go in and tear out all the woods. It just doesn’t make any sense. We bought it for the wooded lot, that’s exactly why we bought the house. So we will do what we can to try and remedy the situation and make it better with our neighbors. Henzi: I had a couple questions. I thought that last time the neighbor at 14412, which would be one of your backyard neighbors to the right, was the main objector, have you spoken with that family? Petitioner: I believe that’s the Malcolms, we have not spoken to them. I do know that the privacy screen that we constructed does not border their property, it comes to the middle of their garage and stops there. So if they were in their backyard, they don’t actually see the privacy screen. The only way they’d see it is if they go in their driveway and look through their neighbor’s yard on the south side, that’s the only way they’d be able to see it. We tore off everything that was near their fence line. Anything they were upset about, we took out. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 of 22 December 10, 2013 Henzi: And the last thing I want to ask is can you take a look at these photographs that Carol Ball sent, is that what it looks like now or is that from a long time ago? Petitioner: No, this has been there the whole time. This is where it comes up from, this is the south border of our property and it runs along the entire side and butts up right into, that’s coming from the side. What she’s referring to what everyone was upset about was inside of this there was more of the wiring and we pulled that out. Henzi: That’s on the next page. Petitioner: That’s completely gone. Henzi: These are old but this is what, her backyard? Petitioner: It’s coming out, this is what this side of the privacy fence is going to look like. It’s the one spot where it touches. Henzi: Thank you. Any other questions? Anything else you want to say Mr. Terski? Petitioner: No. I appreciate the comments. Henzi: Okay. I’ll close the public portion of the case and begin the Board’s comments with Mrs. McIntyre. McIntyre: You know, I appreciate the effort that you’ve gone to to ensure compliance and got rid of the zoning issues, taken care of. If I read this correctly, what we’re being asked to do is give the okay for the privacy fence to be in the side yard and the privacy fence in the back as it exists is permitted? Henzi: Right. McIntyre: So, I’m looking at, I think esthetically for the neighborhood and I’m understanding that fences always cause issues, but the privacy fence at the rear abutting Mrs. Ball’s house, fence, not privacy fence, there’s no variance required there, right? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 8 of 22 December 10, 2013 Henzi: Right. McIntyre: So I don’t have any problems approving the privacy fence along the side of the house, I think it fits in with the neighborhood, you’ve already got one neighbor who’s got very similar configurations with their fence line, so I will be in support. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: Well, last time you were here I didn’t think what you were asking for was out of line, I think that what held us up was the wire, the fence in the back, it created some controversy. What I think you’re asking for is realistic, you’ve got a pool in your yard and having some protection and some screening regarding that is fine so I will be in support. Henzi: Mr. Duggan. Duggan: I, too, will be in support. You guys have a unique property, unique lot, you compromised in your plan from originally and you’re going to stain the fence, my only request would be just make sure you take care of the back behind the privacy fence. Other than that, II will be in support. Henzi: Mrs. McCue. McCue: I, too, will be in support. You complied with the requirements of the Building Department, took down the wire that was a cause of concern, so I will be in support. Henzi: I, too, will support it. I’d like to thank you for the work you did in short order, you got Inspection out there at least twice. And I agree with all the comments that were made, I think that you gave good reason for why you need to bring it up a little bit in your neighborhood which is what we’re being asked for and everything else is being taken care of so I’ll support it as well. The floor is open for a motion. Upon motion by McIntyre, supported by Duggan, it was: City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 9 of 22 December 10, 2013 RESOLVED, APPEAL CASE NO. 2013-11-56 (Tabled on November 12, 2013): David Terski, 14315 Richfield, seeking to erect a 6-foot tall privacy fence within the side yard which is not allowed. Privacy fences cannot extend beyond the rear line of the home towards the street. The property is located on the west side of Richfield, (14315), between Newburgh and Perth, Lot No. 076-01-0049-000, RUF Zoning District. Rejected by the Inspection Department under Fence Ordinance, Section 15.44.090B “Residential District Regulations,” be granted for the following reasons and findings of fact: 1. The uniqueness requirement is met because it is a unique property located on a unique street. 2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner because it would it would deprive them of the safety and privacy they need for their pool and their backyard. 3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and in the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance because the fence does not adversely affect any of the neighboring properties. 4. The Board received two letters of approval and three objection letters from neighboring property owners. 5. The property is classified as “Low Density Residential” in the Master Plan and the proposed variance is not inconsistent with that classification. FURTHER, This variance is granted with the following conditions: 1. That the fence be maintained. 2. That the variance is good for seven months. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: McIntyre, Duggan, McCue, Caramagno, Henzi NAYS: ABSENT: Pastor, Sills City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 10 of 22 December 10, 2013 Henzi: The variance is granted with those two conditions, you’ve got to maintain and then it’s good for seven months, just like Mrs. McIntyre said, it doesn’t expire it just means you have to finish up during that time. Petitioner: Thank you. Henzi: Good luck. ______________________________________________________________________ City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 11 of 22 December 10, 2013 APPEAL CASE NO. 2013-12-65: Tittle Brothers Construction, on behalf of Allen Schinsky, 11326 Loveland, seeking to erect a covered front porch resulting in deficient front yard setback. Front Yard Setback Required: 25 ft. Proposed: 21.5 ft. Deficient: 3.5 ft. Henzi: Mr. DeMeyer, anything to add to this case? DeMeyer: Not at this time, Mr. Chair. Henzi: Any questions for Mr. DeMeyer? Hearing none, will the Petitioner please come forward or representative? Representative: Tom Krechnyak representing Tittle Brothers and also Cindy and Allen Schinsky. Henzi: Krechnyak? Representative: Krechnyak. Henzi: Go ahead and tell us about the porch. Representative: We are looking to build a porch overhang on the existing --- actually, we’re going to rebuild the existing porch but we’re not coming out any closer to the street. So you’re five and a half feet off the house now, we’re going to rebuild it back to 5.5 feet. We are going to widen it out a little bit due to you know entering the house, kind of step to the side of the door, make it a little bit more safer, we’re going to add a foot on each side of the porch and then we’re looking to build a porch overhang. The nice thing is we’re going to build it right into the roof line, we’ll roof it the same, we’re going to side it the same, we’re going to trim it the same so it’s going to look like it was built with the home. We’re not looking to do a bolt on aluminum awning or anything to that effect. So not only is it going to be a little nicer with the covered porch, safety features, and also it’s going to give a good curb appeal. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 12 of 22 December 10, 2013 Henzi: Shingles to match, too? Representative: Yes. We’re going to actually shingle the overhang and the entire roof. House and garage. Henzi: Any questions for the Representative? Hearing none, is there anyone in the audience who wants to speak for or against the project? If so, come on up. Seeing no one coming forward, can you read the letters? Caramagno: Mary Jane Anderson, an approval, at 11100 Loveland, (letter read). Nancy Robertson, 11308 Loveland, an approval, (letter read). An approval from Margaret Eskildsen at 11400 Mayfield, (letter read). Maureen Gizowski, approval, 11400 Loveland, (letter read). Raymond Curlew, approval, 11314 Loveland. Theodore Langlois, approval, 11321 Mayfield, (letter read). Henzi: Mr. Krechnyak, anything you want to say in closing? Representative: No, sir. Henzi: Thanks. I’ll close the public portion of the case and begin the Board’s comments with Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: The project looks reasonable to me, you’re not encroaching on the front, and further you’re just covering what’s there and improving what’s there. I’m looking at six letters of approval here and I will be in support. Henzi: Mr. Duggan. Duggan: I, too, will be in support. It’s going to be an upgrade to the property, you’re not asking for a lot, it will be safer coming in and out of that front porch especially it’s only deficient 3.5 feet, so I will be in support. Henzi: Mrs. McCue. McCue: I agree, I will also be in support. It obviously will add to the value of the property, no question about that, small amount of a variance, total neighbor support so I will be in support. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 13 of 22 December 10, 2013 Henzi: Mrs. McIntyre. McIntyre: Full support. The house looks very nice, well maintained, and a very small request of a variance so I will be in full support. Henzi: I, too, will support for all the reasons stated. I believe we have approved a very similar one further down the street. I like your approach, I think it’s smart to widen it. I know that street well, you can’t have two people on the porch and get in the front door at the same time, it’s just impossible on every house, they all look the same. And I also credit you for coming in and saying you want to build it so it’s going to look like it was always there because that’s always what we hope for. So I’m in full support as well. The floor is open for a motion. Upon Motion by Duggan, supported by Caramagno, it was: RESOLVED, APPEAL CASE NO. 2013-12-65: Tittle Brothers Construction, on behalf of Allen Schinsky, 11326 Loveland, Livonia, MI 58150, seeking to erect a covered front porch resulting in deficient front yard setback. Front Yard Setback Required: 25 ft. Proposed: 21.5 ft. Deficient: 3.5 ft. The property is located on the east side of Loveland (11326), between Plymouth and Orangelawn, Lot No. 134-03-1630-000, R-1 Zoning District. Rejected by the Inspection Department under Zoning Ordinance 543, Section 4.05 “Schedule of Minimum Front and Rear Yard Requirements in R-1 through R-5 Districts,” be granted for the following reasons and findings of fact: 1. The uniqueness requirement is met because it is an older home and needs updating. 2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner because it would deprive them safe entrance and exit into the home and protection from the elements. 3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and in the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance because of the overwhelming support of the neighbors. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 14 of 22 December 10, 2013 4. The Board received six letters of approval and no objection letters from neighboring property owners. 5. The property is classified as “Low Density Residential” in the Master Plan and the proposed variance is not inconsistent with that classification. FURTHER, This variance is granted with the following conditions: 1. That it be built as presented to the Board. 2. That the variance is good for eight months. 3. That the five day waiting period be waived. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: Duggan, Caramagno, McCue, McIntyre, Henzi Nays: None Absent: Pastor, Sills Henzi: The variance is granted with those two conditions, you’ve got to build it exactly as you presented it in the packet and what you represented tonight and you’ve got eight months to do it. Now, are you looking to pour footings? Representative; Yes, we are looking to pour footings. Henzi: Do you want us to waive the five day waiting period because it’s getting cold. Would you like us to do that? Representative: Yes, thanks. Henzi: I’d make a motion to waive the five day waiting period, is there support? Caramagno: Sure. Henzi: All in favor say aye? Board: (In unison) Aye. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 15 of 22 December 10, 2013 Henzi: There you go. Representative: Thank you. ______________________________________________________________________ City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 16 of 22 December 10, 2013 APPEAL CASE NO. 2013-12-66: Tittle Brothers Construction, on behalf of Frank Hanner, 15061 Harrison, seeking to erect a covered front porch onto an existing nonconforming dwelling resulting in deficient front yard setback. Front Yard Setback Required: 50. ft. Proposed: 30 ft. Deficient: 20 ft. Henzi: Mr. DeMeyer, anything to add on this one? DeMeyer: Not at this time, Mr. Chair. Henzi: Any questions for Mr. DeMeyer? Hearing none, will the Petitioner or Representative please come forward. Representative: I’m Kevin Tittle from TittleBrothers Construction, 787 Southfield Road, Lincoln Park, Michigan. Henzi: Go ahead and tell us about this covered porch. Representative: Basically what we’re going to do is very similar to the last case, we’re going to build a front porch on this particular home, we’re going to build the porch a little bigger, though, this particular porch we’re looking to build is an 8 by 20 porch on the house, right now it’s about 4 foot by 20 wide. The reason being is that his 98 year old father lives with him and basically he’s in a wheelchair so he’s looking to sit out on the front porch with him. So we’re going to build a covered porch with the top of it being stick built shingled roof, everything exactly as we do all of our front porch or awnings. We’re gonna put a railing around it completely and a stairwell so grandpa doesn’t roll off. So it’s going to look very nice, classy, and that’s really what we want to do is make it a classy piece to really improve the neighborhood. Henzi: What color on the railing? Representative: It will be white. It will be a white railing with a white siding and a white 6 by 6 square column posts so everything will look uniform. Henzi: Siding and shingles to match? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 17 of 22 December 10, 2013 Representative: Everything will match, yes, everything will be matched exactly. A vinyl soffit roof, aluminum trim to match the shingles, we’re going to reshingle the whole front of the house so it all matches and blends right in. Henzi: Okay. Any questions for the Representative? Caramagno: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: Will the shingles on the front of the house match the rest of the shingles? Representative: Correct. Caramagno: Or will it just be on the front of the house? Representative: We’re going to reshingle the front of the house that will match the back of the house. Caramagno: How long has your client lived in this house? Representative: How long have you lived there? Petitioner: Since ’68. Caramagno: And now you said his father has moved in with him and he’s in a chair? Representative: Correct. Caramagno: So he can have a little fresh air? Representative: Right, exactly, we were looking to have his father sit on the front porch, be on the front porch. He also has a granddaughter who is two years old who comes City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 18 of 22 December 10, 2013 over, that’s why we’re going to do the swing close gate, it’s good for handicapped adults or children. What it is is instead of the aluminum railings that you usually have on the house, we’re going to have the dowel rails just in case any of his relatives come over that need a little bit of support going up the stairs but it also has a gate that will close and automatically lock. Caramagno: Thank you. Henzi: Any other questions? Hearing none, anyone in the audience want to speak for or against the project? Seeing no one coming forward, can you read the letters? Caramagno: David at 15121 Sunbury writes an approval, (letter read). An approval from June Shepherd at 15111 Harrison, (letter read). Erica at 15118 Harrison writes an approval, (letter read). Henzi: Mr. Tittle, anything else? Representative: The only thing basically is there another house with this very similar set up, it’s about six houses down and it doesn’t look bad, we’re going to make it 100 times classier and it’s going to be a permanent fixture, a permanent porch, a permanent railing, I mean it’s going to be really, really nice. Henzi: Okay, thank you very much. Representative: Thank you. Henzi: I’ll close the public portion of the case and begin the Board’s comments with Mr. Duggan. Duggan: I will be in support. As I said earlier, everyone deserves a front porch, and this will be 20 feet and given the hardship of the wheelchair you want to have him enjoy the front porch, I get that. I think the plan is great and it will be an upgrade so I will be in support. Henzi: Mrs. McCue. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 19 of 22 December 10, 2013 McCue: I, too, will be in support. The amount of the variance is overcome by the need of the people in the house, it makes total sense to me, and I believe any type of improvement or upgrade like that on any house in Livonia only adds to the value in the long run, not to mention the short run benefits that will happen so I will be in support. Henzi: Mrs. McIntyre. McIntyre: I don’t have any problems supporting this, the deficiency is overcome by what you’re doing, the reason for doing it, and also with that street there are several kind of nonconforming dwellings, and you have one of the nicest houses on the street so I’m sure this will make your house even nicer and hopefully encourage neighbors to do the same thing, so anyway, full support. Representative: Thank you. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: This makes sense to me, makes sense, it’s going to make the house look better. I hope this catches on on that street because there’s a couple of houses, especially some to the south of you that really need some attention. Hopefully this enhances the neighborhood and the neighbors will catch on and fix up as well, maybe Tittle Brothers will get some more work out of it but I will be in support. Representative: Thank you. Henzi: I, too, will support. And there is something I’d like to say. I do see a hardship here because you know I would never think that that side of the street is RUF zoned unless you told me ahead of time and I saw it in my packet and if it was R-1 like the house on Loveland we just talked about, you only have to have a 25 foot setback, here you’re required to have 50, that’s just not fair to folks who have these 55 foot wide lots on this street so I think that that’s a real hardship, otherwise you could never have this kind of structure. It’s also going to look great and I agree it’s sort of like a hodge podge of construction along that street and I don’t think that it will look out of place, I’m thinking it will look very good. So, for all those reasons I’m in full support and the floor is open for a motion. Upon Motion by McCue, supported by Caramagno, it was: City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 20 of 22 December 10, 2013 RESOLVED, APPEAL CASE NO. 2013-12-66: Tittle Brothers Construction, on behalf of Frank Hanner, 15061 Harrison, Livonia, MI 48154, seeking to erect a covered front porch onto an existing nonconforming dwelling resulting in deficient front yard setback. Nonconformity is based on the existing front yard setback of 38 feet, where 50 feet is required. Front Yard Setback Required: 50. ft. Proposed: 30 ft. Deficient: 20 ft. The property is located on the west side of Harrison (15061), between Jamison and Five Mile, Lot No. 094-02-0136-000, RUF Zoning District. Rejected by the Inspection Department under Zoning Ordinance 543, Section 5.05 “RUF District Regulations - Front Yard,” be granted for the following reasons and findings of fact: 1. The uniqueness requirement is met because there is a medical hardship and zoning hardship associated with the property. 2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner because it would deny them the enjoyment of the porch and outdoors without the modifications requested. 3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and in the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance because there are other homes in the neighborhood that have similar porches. 4. The Board received three letters of approval and no objection letters from neighboring property owners. 5. The property is classified as “Low Density Residential” in the Master Plan and the proposed variance is not inconsistent with that classification. FURTHER, This variance is granted with the following conditions: 1. That it be built as presented to the Board. 2. That the variance is good for six months. 3. That the five day period be waived. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 21 of 22 December 10, 2013 ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: McCue, Caramagno, McIntyre, Duggan, Henzi Nays: None Absent: Pastor, Sills Henzi: So let me read these conditions. You’ve got to build it as you proposed and represented tonight, it’s good for six months, you’ve got to finish it within six months and then the five day waiting period is waived so you can pull a permit tomorrow. Representative: Thank you. Henzi: Good luck. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 22 of 22 December 10, 2013 ____________________________________________________________________ Motion by Duggan, supported by McCue to approve the minutes of October 8th, 2013. Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Caramagno, supported by McIntyre to approve the 2014 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Calendar. Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Caramagno, supported by McIntyre, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 7:41 p.m. _________________________ SAM CARAMAGNO, Secretary _________________________ MATTHEW HENZI, Chairman /bjm