Zoning board deadlocks on Division Street garage setback variance; applicant denied

Carl Wiggins, the applicant, asked the City of Kalamazoo Zoning Board of Appeals on Feb. 13 for a variance to retain a prefabricated garage 0.5 feet from his side property line at 1114 Division Street.

The board’s nut graf: Wiggins said he positioned the garage to align with a neighbor’s structure and to allow a vehicle to drive straight into the unit; city staff and several board members said a conforming alternative location exists on the lot and therefore staff did not recommend approval.

Wiggins told the board he set the garage “1 foot off the property line so it lined up with the driveway” and that his neighbor’s garage already sits closer to its line. He said moving the building would be costly and would impede his ability to park and enter the house, and that because his garage is metal it presents less of a fire hazard. Pete (city planning staff) explained the lot is narrow — about 33 feet wide and 96 feet deep — and said staff found a conforming alternative by moving and angling the building toward the rear yard.

During the public-hearing portion, there were no in‑person speakers opposing or supporting the variance; a caller who dialed in was connected for a different agenda item. The board then adopted a finding of fact that summarized the applicant’s statements, the lot dimensions, the presence of an older, nonconforming neighbor garage, and the staff conclusion that a conforming alternative exists.

After discussion, the Zoning Board took a recorded roll-call vote. Members voted as follows: Vanden Homburg — yes; Wark — no; Holder (chair) — no; Harrington — yes; McReynolds — yes; Hahn — no. The motion to grant the variance failed on a tied 3–3 vote, so the request was denied.

The board noted the standard for a variance requires special circumstances not of the applicant’s own making and avoidance of arbitrary decisions; several members said they found no practical difficulty that could not be addressed by moving the structure. Wiggins said he had invested roughly $25,000–$30,000 in his property and that moving the garage would require a crane and re‑compaction of fill.

Because the board denied the variance, the property remains subject to the existing zoning setback (minimum 3 feet for a rear-yard accessory structure); the applicant may reapply or pursue other remedies available under local ordinance.

Votes at a glance: ZBA case ZBA-25-01-1 (1114 Division Street) — variance to allow a 0.5-foot side setback for an accessory garage; finding of fact adopted; motion to grant variance failed, vote 3–3 (denied).