Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Building Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves variance for enlarged accessory building at 716 Superior Street
Summary
The Saginaw Board of Appeals for Zoning unanimously approved a variance allowing an accessory building larger than the zoning ordinance limit at 716 Superior Street after the property owner described existing structures on adjacent lots and said no neighbors objected.
The Saginaw Board of Appeals for Zoning on an unspecified date approved a variance allowing an accessory building larger than the ordinance limit at 716 Superior Street.
The property owner seeking the variance said the house at 716 Superior currently has no garage and that an existing 24-by-40 garage (about 960 square feet) sits on the adjacent 710 Superior property. The applicant said the proposed accessory building would match the nearby garage and described plans to retain a 200-square-foot shed on-site.
Under the city zoning ordinance, accessory buildings cannot exceed either the ground-floor area of the main building or 864 square feet, whichever is larger, the board’s staff recited at the hearing. The applicant told the board the new garage would be roughly 1,008 square feet in one description and referenced 960 square feet in another; the transcript recorded both figures and the existing 24-by-40 garage at 710 Superior as 960 square feet.
No written neighbor objections were recorded at the hearing. The board opened public comment; the applicant displayed photographs and explained that the two lots and houses are similar in size and that the new garage would mirror the neighboring property. After closing public comment, a board member moved to approve case J25-2816; the motion passed with all members voting in favor.
Chair Forbes said the motion carried after the roll-call-style confirmation of the vote. The board noted that an affirmative decision requires two-thirds of the membership; with three members present, that threshold equals three votes.
The action is final at the board level; the chair informed the room that the only further relief is through the courts. The applicant was thanked and invited to remain for a second hearing later in the meeting.
The record at the hearing did not include a stamped, signed permit or construction timetable, and no building-permit approvals or subsequent inspections were discussed during the appeal.
The board’s decision allows the applicant to pursue the larger accessory building but does not itself authorize building permits, which remain subject to compliance with other city requirements and permit processes.
