Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Troy Zoning Board denies rear-setback variance for addition at 2385 Oak Ridge
Summary
The Troy Zoning Board of Appeals on Aug. 19 denied a request to allow a home addition 37 feet from the rear property line at 2385 Oak Ridge, instead of the 45 feet required by the city zoning ordinance; the board found the need was personal and not the product of an exceptional land characteristic.
The Troy City Zoning Board of Appeals on Aug. 19 denied a variance request that would have allowed a home addition at 2385 Oak Ridge to be set 37 feet from the rear property line instead of the 45 feet required by the city's zoning ordinance.
Board members said the applicant did not demonstrate an exceptional characteristic of the land that made compliance with the ordinance substantially more difficult and described the requested addition as largely personal in purpose. The motion to deny passed in a roll-call vote recorded by the board.
City staff summarized the request and site plan, showing the proposed addition at the rear of the house and noting the 45-foot rear setback required by the zoning ordinance. Aaron Wolf of MW Homes, the applicant's builder, said the contractor provided written approvals from adjacent neighbors and the Beach Forest Homeowners Association. The applicant and a homeowner described drainage and topography issues on the lot and said the addition would remedy drainage and improve the backyard layout.
Homeowner comments included praise for the HOA review and the addition's design. The homeowner said the addition would "shoulder the patio area" and observed mature walnut trees in the rear yard. The homeowner also said the primary purpose for the requested dimensions was personal: "to have an x extra room, First Floor, room that, could be used as a spare as as an extra sleeping room, for elderly visitors," and that the space could also be used recreationally.
Members of the board questioned whether the lot's physical characteristics were sufficiently unique to justify a variance. Several members noted neighboring lots are similarly sized and that staggered house positions along the street appear to reflect design choices at original construction rather than a site condition preventing compliance. Board member John Green (Zoning Board of Appeals member) moved to deny, saying the request was "for a non utilitarian space. It is for a recreation space," and that the applicant had not shown the property had exceptional characteristics that made compliance substantially more difficult than other lots in the district.
After discussion and a roll-call vote, the motion to deny the variance was approved. Recorded votes on the motion to deny were: Yes — Mister McCauley, Mister Bostonbrook, Mister Kenrick, Miss Chambers, Mister Green; No — Mister Eisenbacher. The board did not record other votes for that motion in the transcript.
Because the request was denied, the applicant was informed of the right to appeal the board's decision to Oakland County Circuit Court, as explained in the board's procedure statement.
The board closed the matter and moved on to the next agenda item.
Ending: The board recorded the denial, thanked the applicants for appearing, and proceeded to the next hearing on the agenda.
