Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lot Coverage Deck Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BZA denies variance for deck on new home at 1291 Washington; board cites design alternatives
Summary
The board denied a request to exceed the city’s 30% maximum lot coverage for a deck at 1291 Washington, rejecting the applicant’s claim of practical difficulty and noting alternative design and siting options.
The Birmingham Board of Zoning Appeals denied a variance request for a proposed deck at 1291 Washington that would raise lot coverage from 30 percent (2,496 square feet) to 31.83 percent (2,648.75 square feet).
Mike Morratus, identified in the hearing as the city’s building official, explained the technical basis: the proposed deck sits partly forward of the plane that defines the rear of the house and therefore is counted as lot coverage. The applicant sought a variance of 1.83 percent (152.75 square feet) to permit the deck as designed.
Matt Whetstone, representing the owners and Greater Detroit Landscape Company, told the board the deck is intended as a safety and accessibility feature for a retirement home and argued the lot’s grades and drainage make an on-grade patio impractical without larger site work. He said the owners “did a lot of efforts on keeping the home as low as possible to grade, minimizing steps” and that the deck would minimize steps as they age in place.
Board members examined alternatives during the hearing: moving the deck beyond the building envelope (so it would not count as lot coverage), installing a flush-on-grade patio, shifting egress or door-wall locations, using landings instead of multiple steps, or rearranging stair placement. Several members noted the house was framed and the window/door locations were in place before the contractor’s proposal.
Board member Carl Connor moved to deny the variance, stating he did not find a practical difficulty and that the request appeared to be a preference rather than a necessity. The motion was seconded and carried by roll call: the board recorded affirmative votes and denied the variance.
The board’s decision stressed that cost, convenience and the homeowners’ design preference do not meet the legal standard for a dimensional variance when reasonable alternatives exist.
