Zoning board approves variance for 825 Elmsford to add interior connection to garage

The Clawson Zoning Board of Appeals on Sept. 18 approved a variance allowing a 200-square-foot addition at 825 Elmsford that will maintain a 15-foot rear setback instead of the 35-foot minimum required in the R-2 zoning district. The board voted 4-0 to approve the request during a public hearing.

The variance will allow the homeowner to add an interior connection from the attached garage into the house. Andy (planner) told the board the zoning code requires a 35-foot minimum rear setback and that the existing house already sits 15 feet from the rear property line, so the proposed addition “will not get any closer to that rear property line than what the house is already sitting at.”

The request, the planner said, is for a roughly 200-square-foot addition to the rear of the garage that will tie into the house at grade and provide interior access from the garage. Designer Zach Astra said the addition is intended to “square it off to the end of the garage,” will be consistent with the house and garage height, and “we're not making the nonconformity any worse.”

Homeowner Judith Klein, who identified herself as a 77-year-old widow and a 42-year resident of the address, told the board she needs the addition for safety and daily access. “It's very dangerous for me carrying my groceries in,” Klein said, describing slippery walkways and a sunken sidewalk that make the current route from the garage hazardous.

A neighbor, Ron Person of 809 Elmsford, addressed the hearing and said he had no objections to the project. The board received no objections in the public hearing and members spoke in favor of approval, noting the proposal chiefly formalizes an existing nonconforming condition and addresses the owner's safety concerns.

Board members discussed the lot configuration and context. Andy said the lot has a shallow depth — about 75 feet — and that detached garages in the area sometimes sit much closer to the rear lot line because they follow different setback standards. The applicant also noted a six-foot utility easement along the east property line that limits expansion in that direction.

During the motion the board referenced the practical-difficulty standards in section 34-7.15(d) of the zoning ordinance and approved the variance with that finding. The motion was carried by roll call: Perkins — yes; O'Rourke — yes; Carpenter — yes; Diane Smith — yes.

Staff noted at the meeting that while the local zoning ordinance currently references a four-vote requirement for some variances, the city has been following state law and legal advice that a majority of the sitting members may approve variances; the planning commission has scheduled a public hearing for Oct. 14 to amend conflicting ordinance language to align procedures.

The board closed the public hearing and approved the variance; the record indicates the applicant will remove an existing rear deck as part of the work and that the addition will not increase the house’s encroachment beyond the existing 15-foot rear setback.

Details recorded at the hearing: the planner identified the case as a variance from Section 3.1(b)(0.4) (rear setback requirement) to allow a 15-foot rear setback where the R-2 zoning standard calls for 35 feet; the board applied findings under section 34-7.15(d) of the zoning ordinance. The project materials included a site plan labeled sheet A2 showing setbacks and existing conditions.