Royal Oak zoning board approves four variance requests, including two close votes

The Royal Oak Zoning Board on Wednesday approved four separate variance requests covering accessory structures, second‑story additions and porches, after deliberating on lot shape, existing nonconformities and neighborhood impacts.

Board members approved a petition for 1620 Northwood Blvd to allow a partially covered 690‑square‑foot pool house and a third accessory structure, finding the lot’s triangular shape and concealment from the street satisfied variance criteria. Alex, the planning staff presenter, said staff’s lot‑coverage calculations exclude fully open frame structures but include permanent covering; the petition would raise accessory ground‑floor area above the 800‑square‑foot cap to an aggregate the petitioner said totals 1,188 square feet. Petitioner testimony emphasized neighbor outreach and argued the 3,500‑square‑foot house will remain the predominant structure. The motion to approve was moved by Mister Wolf and seconded by Miss Robinson; the board voted 7–2 to approve the variances.

The board next approved a proposal at 2209 Vinceta Blvd for a full‑height second‑story addition that would add 449 square feet above the existing footprint and require three variances: expanding a nonconforming structure, waiving 12.5 feet from the 25‑foot front‑yard setback, and waiving 449 square feet above the city’s 3,500‑square‑foot usable floor‑area cap. Attorney Trey Bryce, representing the Sewell family, argued the lot’s size, through‑lot geometry and road buffers create a practical difficulty and that the addition would not increase the footprint. Multiple neighbors offered support during public comment. The motion to approve the three variances carried 8–1.

At 433 Berkshire Road, the board considered a request to place a 190‑square‑foot covered roof over an existing rear concrete patio that would raise total lot coverage from 29.8% to 32.2% on a 7,800‑square‑foot lot. Petitioner Michael Van Overback said he did not intend to enclose the space or add living area; he said a permanent roof was preferable to a pergola because of rain and wind. Board members debated limited drawings and whether the small overage (about 13 square feet before hitting the 30% cap) warranted approval. The motion carried 5–4.

Finally, the board approved a variance to allow a cantilevered second‑story balcony projecting roughly 4.5 feet over the front garage on a property within the Vinceta Boulevard overlay district. Staff explained the planning division has historically treated front‑facing second‑story balconies as porches, which are limited to one story and constrained in how far they project into front yards; the petitioners argued the structure is a cantilevered balcony that improves the house’s facade and is consistent with nearby examples. Multiple neighbors testified in favor. The motion to grant the variances carried (tally not explicitly stated in the transcript). The board adjourned following those votes.

Votes at a glance

• Case 25‑03‑25‑04 (1620 Northwood Blvd) — Requested: variance to exceed 800 sq ft accessory building limit and to allow a third accessory structure. Motion to approve moved by Mister Wolf; vote: 7–2; outcome: approved.

• Case 25‑04‑08 (2209 Vinceta Blvd) — Requested: variances to alter/expand a nonconforming structure, waive front‑yard setback, and waive 449 sq ft above 3,500 sq ft cap. Motion to approve moved by Mister Clapp; vote: 8–1; outcome: approved.

• Case 25‑04‑9433 (433 Berkshire Rd) — Requested: variance to exceed 30% total lot coverage by ~2.2% (resulting coverage ~32.2%). Motion to approve moved by Mister Clapp; vote: 5–4; outcome: approved.

• Case 25‑04‑102511 (Marie Ave, Vinceta overlay) — Requested: variances to alter/expand a nonconforming structure and to waive 4 ft of allowable porch projection into front yard setback for a second‑story balcony. Motion to approve moved by Mister Reddy; vote: not specified in transcript; outcome: approved.

What it means

Board members who opposed specific items said they did not see sufficient uniqueness in the property to justify certain square‑footage increases; supporters emphasized lot geometry, concealment from the public way and the projects’ limited visibility as reasons to grant relief. Where petitioners proposed only vertical changes (no new footprint) or where existing slabs or buffering already existed, several members saw lesser risk of precedent. Multiple petitioners presented neighbor petitions or in‑person support, which board members repeatedly cited in deliberations.

Next steps

Approvals are valid under the city’s ordinance for one year for permit issuance; several petitioners said they will complete more detailed permit drawings and planning/permit review before building.