Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance Waterfront Structure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board denies request to keep waterfront awning at 26457 West River Road
Summary
The Grosse Ile Zoning Board of Appeals voted 4-3 on Sept. 23 to deny a variance allowing a covered, unenclosed shade structure in the waterfront yard at 26457 West River Road, concluding the applicant did not meet the ordinance tests for a variance.
GROSSE ILE, Mich. — The Grosse Ile Township Zoning Board of Appeals on Sept. 23 denied an appeal from homeowner Frank Consesci to retain a covered, unenclosed shade structure in his waterfront yard at 26457 West River Road, voting 4-3.
Township planner Brian Borden told the board the structure is “essentially a nonconforming structure” that is not listed among permitted waterfront buildings under the township zoning ordinance and that the petitioner reinstalled it after removing it during repair work. Borden said the application did not demonstrate the required variance tests — practical difficulty, substantial justice or an extraordinary circumstance — in the staff review materials.
Consesci told the board he and his family used the structure for shade for years and said the structure was in place when he bought the property about 2019. “We’re just looking to get our structure put back where it was,” Consesci said.
Board members debated whether the three legal tests for a variance had been met. Several members cited the presence of other nonconforming waterfront structures along West River Road and Consesci’s prior use of the structure as reasons to consider approval, while others emphasized strict enforcement of the ordinance. After discussion, a motion to approve the variance failed by roll call, with board members recorded voting three in favor and four against.
Borden had described the structure as “approximately a 15 by 11, covered but unenclosed structure” located in the waterfront yard where sections of the zoning ordinance prohibit buildings or structures. He noted alternatives such as umbrellas or retractable tents and said the application did not document an extraordinary circumstance unique to the property that would justify a variance.
Consesci said the structure was removed while contractors repaired a deteriorating patio and concrete; he told the board the repair work revealed deeper concrete and that, had he known of the ordinance limitation, he would have left the structure in place during repairs. Consesci added neighbors use the yard for shade and that one neighbor provided a letter of support, which the applicant filed with staff and the board record.
After the vote, the chair told Consesci the appeal was not granted.
The board record shows the variance request cited provisions of the township zoning ordinance, including section 3.5(b) and waterfront-specific rules in section 17.4; staff also referenced sections 18.6 and the variance review standards in section 23.5(b).
