Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda
November 7, 2002

Meeting called to order at 5:20 p.m. by Chairman Steiner.

MEMBERS PRESENT:   Joe Bridgman
                                     Ronald Griffith
                                     Bill Steiner
                                     Gene Levengood


MEMBERS ABSENT:   Jim Zdanek (Excused)

OTHERS PRESENT:   Mark Lewis, Chief Building Official
                                  Alice Geletzke, Recording Secretary
                                  12 members of the public

ITEM NO. 1 - APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. Regular Meeting -October 3, 2002

Moved by Mr. Bridgman, supported by Mr. Griffith, to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 3, 2002, as submitted. Ayes all.

ITEM NO. 2 - OLD BUSINESS

RE: Zoning Ordinance 83, Article XVI R-1-E, R-1-H, R-1-S and R-1. One Family Residential Districts. 
Zoning District R-1

Minimum lot area - 7,200 square feet
Minimum width of lot - 60 feet
Minimum front yard setback - 25 feet
Minimum side yard setback - 5 feet, total of two = 16 feet

The applicant is requesting one variance:

The existing residence has a front yard setback of twenty four (24) feet, six (6) inches, establishing it as a non-conforming residence. With the proposed covered front porch of forty (40) feet, zero (0) inches wide x six (6) feet, zero (0) inch deep to the existing residence, the applicant is requesting a front yard setback variance of six (6) feet, zero (0) inches.

Mr. Macek addressed the Board and answered questions.

Building Official Lewis noted the porch would not be larger than the existing awning, and the houses in the area were faced with a difficult situation.

Mr. Griffith commented that the lots in that general area are very small and the houses were built prior to the existence of the ordinance, therefore they were immediately in non-conformance.

Moved by Mr. Griffith, seconded by Mr. Levengood to grant approval for Application No. 1316, Mark Macek, 8835 Brookline Avenue, because the lots in the general area are very small and the houses were built prior to the adoption of the ordinance, making it almost impossible to make improvements in those areas without being in non-conformance. 

Ayes all.

ITEM NO. 3 - NEW BUSINESS

RE: Zoning Ordinance No. 83, Article VI, R-I-E, R-1-H, R-1-S, R-1 One Family Residential Districts. Section 6.4 Development Requirements:
The following requirements shall be provided within a One Family Residential District (R-1-E, R-1-H, R-1-S, R-1):

(g) Accessory Buildings in Residential Districts:

(4) Detached garages and detached accessory buildings shall not exceed one (1) story or twelve (12) feet in height and shall not   occupy more than seven (7) percent of the lot area and at the same  time combined shall not exceed the total square-foot area of the  residence, and when located on the rear one-quarter (1/4) of the lots,  shall not be nearer than five (5) feet to any rear or side lot line, and  when otherwise located shall conform to all requirement for side yards set forth in the requirements for each residential district,  provided, that where the side yard abuts upon a side street, such accessory structure shall not extend nearer to the side street lot line than the required building setback: provided, however, a private stable shall not be less than one hundred (100) feet from any residence. In no instance shall an accessory building be located within a dedicated easement or right-of-way.

The applicant is requesting one variance:

The existing lot is approximately 7823 sq. ft., allowing for a 548 sq. ft. accessory building maximum. The existing accessory building is twenty (20) feet, two (2) inches wide x twenty two (22) feet, two (2) inches deep = four hundred and forty eight point forty four (448.44) sq. ft. The proposed addition of twenty (20) feet, two inches (2) wide and fifteen feet (15) deep = three hundred and three (303) sq. ft. The total accessory building would be seven hundred and fifty one point forty four (751.44) sq. ft. (the main residence occupies one thousand and fifty (1050) sq. ft.). The applicant is requesting a lot coverage for an accessory building variance of two hundred and three point forty four (203.44) sq. ft.

Mr. Johnson addressed the Board and answered questions regarding his desire to build a 15 x 20 ft. addition to the rear of his garage for a work area and storage.

Mr. Lewis said he understood Mr. Johnson's plight in wanting additional work space, but he doesn't see a hardship or practical difficulty though the lot is somewhat pie-shaped.

Mr. Steiner noted a 100 square feet could be added without a variance.

Moved by Mr. Bridgman, seconded by Mr. Griffith, to deny Application 1319, Johnnie Johnson, 41653 River Oaks Drive, because of no practical difficulty. 

Ayes all.

RE: Zoning Ordinance No. 83, Article XXXIV, ARC (Ann Arbor Road Corridor) District. Sec. 34.2 ARC:

3. Uses Subject to Special Approval

The following uses may be permitted by the Planning Commission, subject to the conditions hereinafter imposed for each use, including the review and approval of the site plan by the Planning Commission; and the imposition of special conditions which, in the opinion of the Commission, are necessary to fulfill the purposes of this Ordinance; and the procedures and requirements set forth in this Ordinance for special approval, including a public hearing.

v. Gasoline service stations subject to the following:
1) Gasoline service stations shall provide a front yard and side yards of
    not less than twenty (20) feet each. No part of a service station
    canopy shall extend into a required yard.

SEC. 34.3 Schedule of Regulations

2. Notes to Schedule

(a) When parking is furnished between the building and the street, a
     front yard of not less than seventy- five (75) feet shall be provided.

(b) When a side yard is adjacent to a non-residential use, a side yard of
     not less than twenty (20) feet shall be provided.

SEC. 34.4 PARKING REQUIREMENTS, LAYOUT, STANDARDS AND OFF STREET LOADING AND UNLOADING:

1. Off-Street Parking Requirements

Within the Ann Arbor Road Corridor zoning district, off-street parking facilities for the storage or parking of self-propelled motor vehicles for the use of occupants, employees and patrons of the buildings hereafter erected, altered or extended after the effective date of this Article, shall be provided herein and in accordance with Sections 34.4.2 and 34.4.3. Such space shall be maintained and shall not be encroached upon so long as said main building structure remains, unless equivalent number of such spaces are provided elsewhere in conformance with this Article.

c. Barrier Free Parking Spaces

Barrier free parking spaces shall be required and included as part of the total parking space requirement of Section 34.4.1, paragraph k. A barrier free space shall mean a parking space 8 feet wide with a 5 foot aisle and shall be marked off in blue handicapper paint. A sign located approximately 6 feet above grade inscribed with the international wheelchair symbol or a reasonable facsimile thereof shall identify the handicapper space.

Barrier free parking space requirements shall be in accordance with the Michigan Department of Labor, Construction Code Commission, Barrier Free Design Division. A summary of parking space requirements is listed below:

Barrier free spaces shall be located as close as possible to elevators, ramps, walkways and entry areas. Where a curb exists between a parking lot surface and a side walk surface, an inclined curb approach or a curb cut with a gradient of not more than one (1) foot in twelve (12) feet and a width of not less than four (4) feet shall be provided for wheelchair access.

The applicant is requesting three variances:

The required front yard setback along Lilley Road is seventy five (75) feet, zero (0) inches. The proposed commercial store would have a front yard setback of sixty (60) feet, zero (0) inches. The applicant is requesting a front yard setback variance of fifteen (15) feet, zero (0) inches.

The required east side yard setback is twenty (20) feet, zero (0) inches, when adjacent to a non-residential use. 
The proposed commercial store would have an east side yard setback of six (6) feet, zero (0) inches. The applicant is requesting an east side yard setback variance of fourteen (14) feet, zero (0) inches.

With the proposed commercial store, the required total number of parking spaces would be twenty one (21) spaces. The proposed site plan as presented provides for a total number of parking spaces of seventeen (17) spaces. The applicant is requesting a total parking space variance of four (4) parking spaces.

Moved by Mr. Griffith, supported by Mr. Bridgman, to table Application 1320, Hassib Zahr, 42395 Ann Arbor Road, until the meeting of December 5 for receipt of more information. Ayes all. 

RE: Zoning Ordinance 83, Article XVI R-1-E, R-1-H, R-1-S and R-1. One Family Residential Districts Zoning District R-1-H, Article XVI SCHEDULE OF REGULATIONS:

The applicant is requesting two variances:

The existing lot area is: 15,536 sq. ft. +-
The existing lot width is: 96.25 ft. to 113 ft. +-
The existing lot residence footprint is: 2044 sq. ft. +-
The existing lot coverage is: 13.2 % +-
The existing lot is non-conforming for the zoned area R-1-H

The existing in-ground pool is 1135 sq. ft. +-
The proposed in-ground pool enclosure shall be: 2160 sq. ft.
The applicant desires to provide an enclosed walkway between the existing residence and the proposed pool enclosure, thus making it a part of the primary residence, per Article VI Section 6.4 Development Requirements:

6. The following specific requirements shall apply within a One Family Residential District (r-1-E, R-1-H, R-1-S, R-1):
(g) Accessory Buildings in Residential Districts:
(1) An accessory building, including carports attached to the principal building, shall be made structurally a part thereof, and shall comply in all respects with the requirements of this Ordinance applicable to the principal building. Breezeways, as an attachment between the garage or carport and the main building, shall be considered a part of the main building, but shall not be considered livable floor area.

Combining the existing residence footprint of 2044 sq. ft. +- with the proposed pool enclosure of 2160 sq. ft. +- for a total footprint of 4204 sq. ft. +-. The proposed lot coverage would be approximately 27%. The applicant is requesting a maximum lot coverage in percent variance of twelve (12) percent.

The required minimum rear yard setback for a primary residence is fifty (50) feet. The proposed in-ground pool enclosure would have a maximum rear yard setback of fifteen (15) feet. The applicant is requesting a rear yard setback variance of thirty five (35) feet, zero (0) inches.

Jim Greenshields, present with his builder and attorney, said this has been a controversial problem for him, having been in conversation many times with Mark Lewis to discuss the drainage problems he's had. Three of the neighbors who have filled in the easement are present tonight to complain about his proposed building. They don't understand that if the retaining wall can't be built he is going to sue them.

Arthur Butler, Mr. Greenshields' attorney, said the situation is that there is a swale that runs along the property line of Mr. Greenshields' property, but over the course of the years that swale has been filled in. He presented a picture to the Board members that shows the line where the swale is. He pointed out an area on the left in the picture where the ground has grown into a mound and he said that is where there is supposed to be a ditch. He said the water is supposed to run down that ditch, between the houses, and out into the street; but what has happened over the years is that some of the neighbors have filled in their property and raised the elevation of their respective properties which has caused a divergence in the flow of the water as it goes down what should have been the swale. He also presented a picture of how the water actually runs down into and around Mr. Greenshields' pool rather than running down between the buildings as it's supposed to. He said they've had Mr. Lewis and other people out to look at that area and have also had the topographical map to show where, in fact, the swale should be. It should be to the left of where the water is flowing. He said as a result Mr. Greenshields swimming pool has been undermined, the concrete damaged, and the water table in that area has risen considerably because of that runoff water so the ground is also saturated. He said what they were present to do is to try to rectify the situation. He said there is some question as to who is responsible for maintaining the proper elevations, whether the Township should be involved in enforcing topographical and the elevations required by the original platting of the development, whether the neighbors are responsible for filling their land and raising the elevations of their respective properties which causes the flow to vary, whether the neighbors on the upgrade are responsible for using fertilizer that flows down into Mr. Greenshields' swimming pool, and all those are questions that could be addressed through the litigation Mr. Greenshields talks about. He said the fact is Mr. Greenshields' pool is unusable, that his property is slowly being undermined by this water, and the question that remains is who authorized the flow to be diverted from its natural and intended path, and who's responsible for putting it back the way it should be. He said they talked at length about it and Mr. Greenshields mentioned there is some animosity in the neighborhood, that he does have other problems with the neighbors, some dealing with this land and some dealing with children and animals. He said they anticipate the Board will hear some negative comments tonight about this proposal, but he requests that the Board pay attention and listen to the issues as to the issues as to the building variance and try to sort out other animosities that may be present and may influence some of the comments. He said what Mr. Greenshields is looking to do is to put a barrier around his swimming pool so as to divert the water from his property, and in so doing build a building over his swimming pool so that the water will no longer cause damage to his property and, hopefully, avoid any further finger pointing as to who's responsible and who should clean it up. He introduced Mr. Ken Clark, the builder, and said he could better explain what Mr. Greenshields would like to do. Mr. Butler said his purpose was to inform the Board that this is something they've been working on as a settlement type of action that would avoid further complications and possible litigation.

Ken Clark referred to and discussed the plans and building materials with the Board, noting it would be octagon-shaped. He said four feet on the west side of the pool would be a walkway. He said on the north side of his property, the Board could see there is a drain easement between his property and the neighbor to the north, along with on the west side there would be a retaining wall installed. He said Mr. Greenshields had spoken to Mark Lewis and that originally there was supposed to be a drain installed at the back northwest corner, a sewer drain there to accommodate some of the flow of the water. Mr. Clark said that was never installed by the Township. He said he was sure that the Board and Mr. Greenshields and the neighbor to the north would not want the entire area to be dug up, a large sewer drain installed, and all the land re-dug, refilled, and resodded. He said that would exceed the costs of enclosing the pool.

Mr. Butler referred to photographs of Mr. Greenshields' house and the Board discussed them with Mr. Greenshields and Mr. Clark.

Mr. Steiner asked the purpose for the cover over the retaining wall. Mr. Clark said it would be more aesthetically pleasing. He asked Mr. Clark how high the wall would have to be just to divert the water, and Mr. Clark said one foot would be sufficient.

Mr. Levengood asked if anyone had considered installing a French drain which would draw the water from the whole area and run it out to the road. He said if litigation is planned, that could be a possible cure with settlement with the neighbors which would be a lot cheaper.

Building Official Lewis said he felt they were dealing with two different issues, one of which is probably not in the appropriate place to talk about-the drainage-except for looking at the practical difficulty of it. The other is the roof over the structure, the total setback and lot coverage. He wasn't aware of lot coverage of this size ever having been approved by the Zoning Board in any neighborhood. And for having a building, he wasn't sure what hardship had been presented for that issue. The drainage issue, directing the flow of the water, is probably a different issue than even a French drain, but he does recognize Mr. Greenshields has issues possibly even the way it goes down in the drain in the Wayne County Road that possibly could be dealt with, but those issues were there before Mr. Greenshields bought the house. It's a hillside and Mr. Greenshields is at the bottom of the hill, and the neighbor has chosen to build a retaining wall that is referred to and there has possibly been some sediment over the years. 

Mr. Griffith asked if a retaining wall would be permissible.

Mr. Lewis said yes, and this hill comes down and swoops around him toward the neighbors. He said Mr. Greenshields' problem is that his pool is about level and there is not a defining slope possible at this time to direct the water during the big rain events. It may go in toward the pool. 

Mr. Steiner noted that basically regarding the drainage problems that do seem to be present, it is not the forte of the Zoning Board to suggest cures. The Board's decision is whether to allow this sort of variance and is there a hardship as far as building a covered structure.

Mr. Griffith felt a question that also had to be addressed is other remedies that may be available to the applicant that doesn't require a variance at all, such as the retainage.

Mr. Butler said he understood there might be other alternatives such as digging a new trench, building a lower retaining wall at Mr. Greenshields' expense, the alternative of litigation to see if the Township is liable for not insisting a drain be put in originally according to the plat sheet. Mr. Butler said this structure is offered as a possible solution. He said Mr. Greenshields may or may not be willing to just put in a retaining wall, whereas he's looking for the solution of something aesthetically more attractive by having the retaining wall in a domed enclosure. He said the reason for appearing before the Board was in order to come up with this type of compromise to solve an actual problem that needs solution one way or another.

Mr. David Rymph, 13147 Wyndham Court, read a letter to the Board. He and his wife are owners of Lot 55 which is contiguous and northwest of Mr. Greenshields property. They share a common lot line of 20 feet. The letter noted their opposition to the application and the reasons therefor.

Mr. Dave Stanbury, 12959 Moorcroft Court, said he objected to the variances because he felt the total footprint would be too big and the structure would be too close to his property.

Mr. Ray Figlewicz, 12931 Moorcroft Court, president of the Walnut Creek Homeowners Association, said their bylaws, as they relate to the building and use restrictions, say that the board and officers of the association are charged with enforcing the building and use restrictions for the subdivision. He did canvas the board members by phone and they agreed they ought to voice their opinion. There was no support for the variance. Some members felt something of this size would not fit within the character of the community.

Ms. Gwendolyn Powers, 13051 Haverhill, next to Mr. Greenshields, had no objection. She felt if the wall was in, there would be a pronounced ditch for the water to run down.

Mr. Butler suggested tabling the matter to take a look at the subdivision restrictions and present more detailed drawings.

Mr. Griffith noted the aesthetics were not the issue, just the lot coverage. The Board can only act if there's an existing hardship that is not created by the individual applicant but is imposed upon him that can't be remedied any other way.

Moved by Mr. Levengood, supported by Mr. Bridgman, that Application 1321, Clark Home Improvement for James Greenshields at 13053 Haverhill, be denied because it is beyond the span of the Zoning Board of Appeals authority with regard to the variances and the footprint expansion, and there might be other remedies to this problem other than the building that is in violation of the ordinance. 

Ayes all.

The applicant is requesting two variances:

The existing residence has a rear yard setback of forty eight (48) feet, zero (0) inches, establishing it as a non-conforming residence. Where the proposed rear yard three-season room of fifteen (15) feet, zero (0) inches wide x fourteen (14) feet, zero (0) inches deep, the proposed rear yard setback would be thirty four (34) feet, zero (0) inches. The applicant is requesting a rear yard setback variance of sixteen (16) feet, zero (0) inches. The applicant is requesting a rear yard setback variance of sixteen (16) feet, zero (0) inches.

The above application was withdrawn.

Moved by Mr. Bridgman, supported by Mr. Levengood, to adjourn the meeting. 

Ayes all.


Meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Joe Bridgman, Secretary
Zoning Board of Appeals

NOTE: Upon granting a zoning variance, a building permit is required.
If denied, the applicant may appeal to Circuit Court.

The Charter Township of Plymouth will provide necessary reasonable aids and services, such as signers for the hearing impaired and audio tapes of printed materials being considered at the meeting, to individuals with disabilities at the meeting/hearing upon two weeks notice to the Charter Township of Plymouth. Individuals with disabilities requiring auxiliary aids or services should contact the Charter Township of Plymouth by writing or calling the Supervisor's Office, Charter Township of Plymouth, 42350 Ann Arbor Road, Plymouth, Michigan, 48170, (734) 453-3840, TDD users: 1-800-649-3777 (Michigan Relay Service)-

Government   Business   Community   Departments   Reference Desk
Home   Search   Site Map

Comments/feedback on this website can be sent by clicking here.

Charter Township of Plymouth
9955 N. Haggerty Road
Plymouth, Michigan  48170
(734) 453-3840

This page last modified 12/07/07 .
All information © 2007 Plymouth Township, Michigan 

Site Use Policy

Site Design/Development by