Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Huntington Woods zoning board denies variance for three-car garage at 25844 Salem, cites drainage and precedent
Summary
The Huntington Woods Zoning Board of Appeals voted Nov. 10 to deny a homeowner’s request to build a three-car garage at 25844 Salem after staff and neighbors raised stormwater and precedent concerns. The proposed structure would have increased rear-yard coverage to about 62%, above the 50% limit.
The Huntington Woods Zoning Board of Appeals on Nov. 10 denied a variance request from homeowner Keith Mossman that would have allowed a three-car garage at 25844 Salem that staff said would increase rear-yard coverage to roughly 62% — exceeding the 50% limit in city code.
City planning staff Hank told the board the governing provision (Section 40-6.03 on accessory buildings in residential zones) caps rear-yard accessory coverage at 50% to help manage stormwater and preserve green space. Staff said Mossman’s lot already contains impervious area that puts the parcel above the allowable rear-yard coverage before the proposed addition, and that the applicant had not submitted a drainage or downspout plan showing how runoff would be managed.
Mossman, the appellant, said his goal was practical: "I currently spend close to $400 a month on a storage unit to park my car in, and I'm wanting to reinvest that back into the property," and argued a three-car garage would reduce off-site storage costs. Staff and several board members pushed back, saying financial convenience alone did not demonstrate the legal hardship required to justify a variance. One board member said they were "very concerned about precedent" if the board approved exceptions for preference rather than hardship.
Neighbors and public commenters emphasized recurring flooding and stormwater problems in the Huntington Woods area. Resident Steven Compton urged a moratorium on percentage increases until the city tightens stormwater controls and permit checks; he told the board he had compiled related master-plan action items and code references for review. A neighbor, Gail Linden, also said many lots in the area are narrow but that alternatives — such as vehicle lifts or parking outside — can address storage needs without changing coverage rules.
After discussion, a board member moved to deny the variance application on the grounds that the applicant had not met the necessary standards for approval, the motion was seconded and the board voted to deny the request. The board noted Mossman could return with material, documented mitigation — for example a sealed engineering drainage plan and documented downspout/discharge details — that the staff and the board could evaluate at a future meeting.
The decision leaves in place the city's 50% rear-yard coverage standard; the board recorded that a future submittal with engineered mitigation would be considered as new information.
