Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Troy Zoning Board approves front-setback variance at 2488 Lannergan to rebuild garage and add elevator
Summary
The Zoning Board of Appeals granted a variance on Aug. 19 to allow an addition and rebuilt garage at 2488 Lannergan to sit 19.5 feet from the Beach Road front property line instead of the 40 feet required; the board cited reconstruction of an existing nonconforming structure, accessibility needs and the lot's corner status.
The Troy City Zoning Board of Appeals on Aug. 19 granted a variance allowing a rebuilt garage and home addition at 2488 Lannergan to be set 19.5 feet from the Beach Road front property line instead of the 40 feet required by the zoning ordinance.
Board members approved the variance after staff presented the site plan and the applicant described why rebuilding and modest expansion are needed. The board's reasoning emphasized that the proposal rebuilds an existing nonconforming structure, includes an elevator to improve accessibility, and is complicated by the lot's corner status with two front-yard setbacks.
City staff described the property and the proposed hatched area for the front setback encroachment. Doug Klee, president of Main Street Design Build, represented the property owners (described in the application as the Yoshi family) and said the owners have lived in the house since 1997 and want to "age in place." Klee said the existing garage is undersized and in poor condition, and the proposed work would rebuild the garage to modern depth and include an elevator shaft to serve mobility needs. He summarized the family's intent: the owner "wants to age in place in this particular...home" and said he wants to "make this his legacy home." Klee also explained the elevator space: "a 4 foot by 4 foot elevator cavity is about as small as you're gonna be able to get to put a roll wheelchair in there," and that the elevator drove part of the additional depth requested.
The application packet included a neighbor letter opposing the variance on visibility grounds; one neighbor wrote that an addition so close to Beach Road, especially on a corner lot, could harm sight lines. Board members reviewed sight-line concerns and the aerial map and concluded the proposed rebuild would not obstruct visibility at the intersection; members noted an existing tree, not the proposed garage, was the primary sight-line factor.
Board member Mister Eisenbacher and others noted the garage is already nonconforming (existing setback measured between about 24 feet 7 inches and 25 feet 5 inches in the packet) and that reconstruction would not be an expansion intended solely for personal benefit. The board adopted an amendment to the approving motion to add that the lot's corner status — having two front yards — is an additional exceptional characteristic making strict compliance more difficult.
The board recorded a roll-call vote approving the variance. Recorded votes on the final motion (as shown in the meeting record) were: Yes — Mister Eisenbacher, Miss Chambers, Mister Bossenburg, Mister McCauley, Mister Green, Mister Kenrick. The motion carried and the variance was granted.
Ending: The board closed public testimony on the item, approved the variance with stated findings, and adjourned after concluding the remaining agenda business; staff noted there will be no September meeting due to the application deadline.
