Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Senior Accessory Dwelling topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Petitioner asks to postpone senior accessory dwelling request at 1423 Greenleaf after neighbor objections
Summary
The applicant for a 600‑sq‑ft senior accessory dwelling at 1423 Greenleaf asked to postpone the case until a full board after nearby residents objected; the planning commission had earlier approved the special land use contingent on variances.
Petitioner George Blower and architect Keith Logsdon asked the Royal Oak Zoning Board to postpone a decision on a proposed 600‑square‑foot senior accessory dwelling unit (ADU) at 1423 Greenleaf until next month after neighbors voiced objections.
Staff told the board the lot is in a large‑lot single‑family zoning district and that the ADU is permitted as a special land use subject to performance standards. The planning commission had granted site‑plan and special‑land‑use approval on May 13, contingent on the petitioner obtaining listed variances.
During public comment, neighbor Steve Rosenowski said the house is already 4,000 square feet and opposed any further enlargement, complaining about materials and the visual impact: “I object to any further variance on this building,” he said. Architect and resident Joe Roman spoke in favor, saying the design meets lot coverage and setbacks and that the ordinance should be updated to reflect more work‑from‑home arrangements.
Petitioner George Blower and architect Keith Logsdon described mitigation steps: the ADU will be attached to the principal dwelling, include a dedicated off‑street parking space in an attached garage, be limited to 600 square feet, and the owner will record a deed restriction with the county register of deeds to prevent future conversion to a two‑family dwelling. Logsdon said verifiable proof that an elderly family member occupies the unit will be submitted as required.
Because six board members were present and the petitioner preferred to return when a full board might be available, the petitioner asked to postpone. The board approved a motion to postpone the case to next month by voice vote.
What happens next: Staff noted that if the board denies the variances tonight, the planning commission’s contingent approval would be nullified; postponement lets the petitioner return with the same proposal before a larger board.
