Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
St. Clair Shores council adopts revised mechanical equipment arbitration policy, moves to amend ordinance
Summary
Council approved a revised policy to streamline appeals of mechanical equipment (e.g., air-conditioning) siting by using an administrative route for existing nonconforming units and directing unresolved cases to the Building and Property Maintenance Board of Appeals; council asked administration to return with ordinance amendments and public notice.
The St. Clair Shores City Council voted Sept. 15 to adopt a revised mechanical equipment arbitration policy intended to streamline appeals over the placement of exterior mechanical equipment.
City planner Denise Pike told the council the current 1994 policy included a three-member arbitration board and an administrative option, but "currently, the administrative...mechanical arbitration equipment board only has 1 member, so it is a non functioning body of the city," prompting a proposed change to direct appeals to the existing Building and Property Maintenance Board of Appeals when administrative criteria are not met.
Under the adopted policy, staff said an administrative approval route would apply when: (1) the existing equipment is a lawful nonconforming installation; (2) the proposed replacement is the same size (or smaller, per council amendment) and capacity as the existing unit; and (3) a signed letter from the affected neighbor accompanies the application. If those three items are absent, the matter would go to the Board of Appeals. Criteria for variance decisions will include likelihood of a noise nuisance, hardship on the premises and other health, safety and welfare factors.
Council members asked for clarifications on how long an existing installation must have been in place to qualify as nonconforming, whether capacity or physical size should govern (several members suggested using physical size as the key measurement), and how notice would reach residents. Members recommended adding language accepting smaller replacement units and adding a clear neighbor-signature requirement indicating which neighbor supports the change.
Councilmember Frederick moved to approve the policy, asking administration to prepare an accompanying ordinance amendment and public-notice plan; the motion was supported and carried. Staff said the policy would take effect immediately upon council approval and that administration will return with the ordinance amendment for formal adoption later.
The change is administrative; it does not alter the underlying zoning ordinance itself at this meeting but creates a published policy and a path to a future ordinance amendment.
