Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Nonconforming Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission backs administrative approval for residential alterations to nonconforming homes
Summary
The Ann Arbor City Planning Commission voted to recommend that city council amend chapter 55 (Unified Development Code) to allow administrative approval for certain additions and alterations to nonconforming residential structures, removing routine matters from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The Ann Arbor City Planning Commission recommended that the mayor and city council amend Chapter 55 of the Unified Development Code, section 5.32.2, to allow administrative approval for additions to nonconforming buildings in residential zoning districts.
Planning manager Lehi Leonard presented the amendment as a narrowing of discretion and an efficiency measure, saying “we are proposing to change the residential properties that are subject to this provision now to be an automatic approval.” Leonard said the proposed language makes clear that “if you meet those standards, your permit shall be issued,” removing a discretionary determination by the zoning board or planning manager for qualifying residential projects.
The change responds to a long-running pattern in which the Zoning Board of Appeals has granted near-universal approval for alterations to nonconforming residential structures. Leonard told commissioners that staff have reviewed recent cases and found 23 of 23 petitions approved (22 residential, 1 nonresidential), and argued administrative review would speed permitting for homeowners while freeing the Zoning Board of Appeals to focus on genuinely discretionary matters.
Under the draft text, residential alterations that do not create a new nonconformity or expand an existing nonconformity would be eligible for by-right administrative permits. Leonard and staff provided examples to illustrate: converting previously nonhabitable basements to additional bedrooms without changing setbacks; additions that keep the same minimum setback dimension (for example, a property that has a 2 foot 7 inch setback would retain that minimum setback even if more of the building sits along it); and interior conversions that do not alter nonconforming site dimensions.
Commission discussion focused on clarity and statutory effects. Commissioner Adams thanked staff and said the revision was “a lot better,” but asked whether the new subclauses effectively recreate a definition of variance in code language and whether some of the added provisions are surplus because applications that meet the tests would not otherwise be in the alteration category. No public speakers addressed the item during the hearing.
A motion recommending approval to city council was made by Commissioner Weatherby and seconded by Commissioner Abrams. The commission carried the recommendation in a roll-call vote recorded by staff as: Lee—yes; Weitz—yes; Hammerschmidt—yes; Abrams—yes; DeSh—yes; Wetherbee—yes; Adams—yes; Norton—yes (Commissioner Mills absent). The commission recorded eight yes votes, zero no votes and one absence. The recommendation moves to city council for its two readings.
The Planning Commission packet and staff presentation indicate the amendment applies only to residential zoning districts; nonresidential properties remain subject to discretionary Zoning Board of Appeals review under the proposed language. Staff said the text change is intended to reduce process time for homeowners making qualifying alterations but does not change the standards that prevent new nonconformities or expansion of an existing nonconformity.
City council will receive the Planning Commission’s recommendation; council must hold its required readings and take final action before the amendment becomes law.
