Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Accessory Structure Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board approves Mug and Jug trash-enclosure variance after applicants cite utility easements

Berkley Zoning Board of Appeals
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Berkley Zoning Board of Appeals approved a variance allowing a masonry trash enclosure to be placed in a side yard for the Mug and Jug redevelopment, citing overhead utilities and public-sewer easements that prevent placement in the rear yard.

The Berkley Zoning Board of Appeals on July 14 approved a dimensional variance allowing a masonry trash enclosure to be located in a side yard for the Mug and Jug redevelopment project.

Eric Williams of Stonefield Engineering represented the applicant and told the board the property has three frontages, overhead utilities and a public sanitary-sewer line in an easement that prohibits permanent foundations in portions of the site. Williams said those easements and the position of existing buildings make a rear-yard enclosure infeasible and argued the proposed east-side enclosure would be screened, masonry-faced and buffered with evergreen plantings to reduce impacts on nearby single-family homes.

Williams warned that a trash truck attempting to access a container under the overhead lines would be “not gonna go well for anybody,” citing safety and utility constraints. Staff noted the planning commission and city council had given conditional approvals for the broader site plan and that the zoning-board variance is the remaining administrative step for the enclosure location.

Board members discussed alternatives, public-works coordination and whether relocation of utilities would be practical or cost-prohibitive; public works had indicated relocating utilities would be disruptive and developer expense. After finding the five variance criteria in Sec. 138-17.04 satisfied, the board approved the variance by roll-call with members present voting in favor.