A regular meeting of the Charter Township of Oxford Zoning Board of Appeals Monday, May 15, 2006 at the Oxford Veterans Memorial Civic Center.

Members Present: Bellairs, Butler, Dywasuk, Myrick, O’Connor, Reynolds, Roesner

Members Absent: 0

Also Present: Zoning Administrator Darling, Recording Secretary Harrison, and approximately 4 visitors.

The meeting was called to order by Chairperson O’Connor at 7:30 pm

RESPECTS TO THE FLAG

NOTING OF ROLL

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Roesner moved, Bellairs seconded to approve the May 15, 2006 Regular Meeting Agenda as presented.

Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Absent: 0 Motion Carried (7-0-0)

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting – April 10, 2006

Board Member Butler noted that under Election of Officers, the Secretary should be Butler not Reynolds.

Butler moved, Roesner seconded to approve the Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of April 10, 2006 as amended.

Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Absent: 0 Motion Carried (7-0-0)

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA - None

REGULAR BUSINESS

ZBA002.06 – Kevin and Catherine Kochanski, 1744 Driftwood Ct., Oxford, MI 48371 – Parcel #04-29-277-008 – FRONT YARD SETBACK

The subject property is located on Driftwood Ct. on the north side of Harwood Drive on the south shore of Lake Michelson subdivision No. 2 in the R1 Zoning District within the Township of Oxford. Applicant proposes to construct a 12ft. x 22 ft. garage attached to his house. Approval of this Application, as submitted, would require one (1) variance from the Charter Township of Oxford Zoning Ordinance #67 as follows:

ARTICLE XXI – R-1 ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, SECTION 2100, REGULATIONS FOR PRINCIPAL BUILDING AND USES (EXCEPT FENCES)

… minimum Front Yard Setback of 40 feet ….

Required Ordinance Setback 40 ft.

Current Setback 40 ft.

Proposed Garage Width 12 ft.

Proposed New Setback 28 ft.

Variance Requested 12 ft.

Applicant Kevin Kochanski, 1744 Driftwood Ct., was present. He is seeking to build a third bay to their 2 car attached garage to give them more storage and to enhance the appeal of their home. He noted that most of the neighbors in the area have 3 car garages.

Open Public Hearing

Christina Baker, 1760 Driftwood Ct., wanted it noted that she has no objections to the addition and feels it will increase the value of the home and the neighborhood.

Close Public Hearing

Zoning Administrator Darling commented that the application is straight forward as to what’s being requested. The other way for them to add-on would require a variance off the side yard setback.

Board Members Questions and Comments

Board Member Roesner asked if the garage comes off the house to the front towards Driftwood Ct.? Mr. Darling responded, yes. She commented that the document with the neighbor signatures does not match what the variance is for, it states “….to construct a 1 car garage”. She wanted to make sure that those who signed it knew it was an addition to an already existing 2 car attached garage. Ms. Roesner confirmed and stated that it would be a condition should the variance be granted that the garage doors do not open towards the road.

Board Member Reynolds went by the site and the proposed addition has been staked. He commented that it doesn’t appear it will block any ones house and he does not see a problem with it.

Chairperson O’Conner asked if there were other 3 car garages on the street. Mr. Kochanski responded he had photos of homes with 3 car garages in the area and ones with 2 car garages where items had to be kept outside. He also passed around a rendering of the addition.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Board of Appeals shall make a Findings of Fact based upon competent evidence that the requirements of [Section 2603, subsection A. 1(a). (1) through (5) have been met. (Article XXVI, Section 2603, A. 4.)]

SECTION 2603 – SUBSECTION A 1 (a):

1. Strict compliance with restrictions governing area, setback, frontage, height, bulk, density or other non-use matters, will unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for a permitted purpose or will render ordinance conformity unnecessarily burdensome.

· Board Member Dywasuk: Does not apply, they have a 2 car garage so they are not denied the purpose of having a garage.

· Board Member Roesner: Agreed with Dywasuk, not unnecessarily burdensome to not have a 3 car garage.

· Board Member Myrick: Does not apply

2. There are unique circumstances applying to the property. The condition or situation which requires the variance is unique to the property and is not shared by neighboring properties in the same zoning district.

· Board Member Myrick: Doesn’t apply, not necessarily unique, there are other lakefront and cul-de-sac lots.

3. The variance will do substantial justice to the applicant, as well as to other property owners: The variance will not be unreasonably detrimental to adjacent properties and surrounding neighborhood and will not alter the essential character of the area or neighborhood.

· Board Member Dywasuk: Doesn’t apply. When he visited the site, there was some traffic congestion and adding another structure would be detrimental.

· Board Member Bellairs: Does apply, will do justice to the applicant and to the other property owners whereas everything won’t be sitting out.

· Board Member Roesner: Understands why the applicant made this request but it is the Board’s responsibility to uphold the Ordinance unless there is extreme circumstances. A shed could be built behind the house for storage.

· Board Member Myrick: Does apply, agreed with Bellairs and added the proposed facade will not alter the character of the neighborhood.

· Chairperson O’Connor: Does apply, commented that you wouldn’t want to build something on the lakefront which might block a neighbor’s view.

4. The need for the variance is not self-created by the applicant and/or the applicant’s predecessor(s): The circumstances requiring the variance have not been unreasonably created by an action of the applicant and either existed at the time of the adoption of the ordinance or requirement from which the variance is requested, or is necessary as the result of a governmental action or some other circumstance not reasonably within the control of the applicant and/or the applicant’s predecessor(s).

· Board Member Myrick: Doesn’t apply, could have purchased a different home or a bigger lot, not aware of any change in the law that would have affected the front yard setback.

· Chairperson O’Connor: Doesn’t apply

5. The Variance is the Minimum Necessary: It shall be established that the variance is the minimum necessary to permit reasonable use of the land and buildings and is in harmony to the surrounding neighborhood and zoning district.

· Board Member Dywasuk: Doesn’t apply, already making reasonable use of the property without the variance.

· Chairperson O’Connor: If there weren’t any other 3 car garages in the area, would agree with Mr. Dywasuk.

· Board Member Roesner: Even though there are other 3 car garages, it wouldn’t mean that it’s a reasonable use to make a lot non-conforming to give them what someone else has.

· Board Member Bellairs: The variance is the minimum necessary to do what they want to do and is in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood and zoning district.

SECTION 2603 – SUBSECTION A 1 (b):

The existence of Unnecessary Hardship shall be established by meeting all of the criteria of (A)(1)(a)(1) through (A)(1)(a)(5) above and, in addition, demonstrating that the property cannot reasonably be put to a conforming use.

· It was the consensus of the Board that this does not apply

Dywasuk moved, Roesner seconded that in the case of ZBA002.06, to request that the ZBA deny the applicant’s request for a variance from Article XXI - Section 2100 based upon discussion and Findings of Fact.

Roll Call Vote:

Ayes: Dywasuk, Roesner

Nays: Bellairs, Butler, Myrick, O’Connor, Reynolds

Motion [Failed (2-5-0)]

Bellairs moved, Myrick seconded to approve request ZBA002.06 - Kevin and Catherine Kochanski, 1744 Driftwood Ct., a variance of 12 ft. for the purpose of constructing a 1 car garage addition with the condition the door does not face the road based on discussion and the Findings of Fact.

Roll Call Vote:

Ayes: Reynolds, O’Connor, Myrick, Bellairs, Butler

Nays: Roesner, Dywasuk

Motion [Passed (5-2-0)]

BOARD MEMBER’S COMMENTS

Board Member Roesner commented that the new Findings of Fact standards will make for better discussions and decisions, and that it is important to discuss the issues out.

The Board Members went on to discuss the recent New Zoning Enabling Workshop. Board Member Dywasuk commented that since the Township Board did not specifically give the ZBA the ability to grant a Use Variance prior to February 2006, it can now never go back and do that.

Board Member Roesner noted that the Planning Commission had a pre application conference for a development where the former Clark station was, south of town. They propose to tear down what is there and build a gas mart with lease space which will require a setback variance, once they submit a site plan, it would have to be denied and then sent to the ZBA.

Zoning Administrator Darling updated the Board on the variance request from the last meeting. He received a Consent Judgment from Oakland County, they determined that the “road” leading down to the lake from Maloney was a public road.

ADJOURNMENT

Bellairs moved, Myrick seconded to adjourn the meeting at 8:40 pm.

Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Absent: 0 Motion Carried (7-0-0)

Tammy O’Connor, Chairperson James P. Butler, Secretary

Date approved: 11/20/2006

lmh