Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board splits on large‑lot variances at 125 East Houstonia: house allowance approved, garage requests denied
Summary
The zoning board approved a modest increase in usable floor area for a large lot at 125 East Houstonia Ave but denied the petitioner’s requested accessory‑garage size and dormer/height variances after neighbors objected to driveway expansion and the board concluded reductions were feasible.
The Royal Oak Zoning Board approved one of three variance requests for a proposed renovation at 125 East Houstonia Ave and denied two others following extensive public comment and internal debate. Planning staff outlined three requested variances: (A) waiver of about 453 sq ft above the 3,500‑sq‑ft usable floor area cap (proposed total ~3,952 sq ft), (B) waiver of about 188 sq ft above the 800‑sq‑ft accessory ground‑floor cap for a proposed garage (proposed 988 sq ft), and (C) waiver of approximately 6.3 ft above the 15‑ft maximum accessory building height (proposed garage midpoint ~21.3 ft).
Petitioner case: The homeowner (Speaker 15) described a growing family of five, storage and circulation issues and plans to move the driveway and add an attached garage to create a front porch and improved streetscape. He cited the lot’s unusual depth and width and offered signed letters from neighbors in support. An architect explained dormers were added to provide headroom in the garage attic and to match the house’s roof form.
Neighbor opposition: Direct abutting neighbor Kathleen Williams said she and other long‑time residents selected large, deep lots for the green yards and contended the proposed 40‑foot‑long two‑story garage, extended driveway and additional paving would create a parking‑lot feel adjacent to her backyard, reduce permeable surface and substantially change her view.
Board action and rationale: Debate focused on whether the lot’s size constitutes a ‘practical difficulty’ justifying the variances and whether lesser relief was feasible. The board split its actions: it denied variance C (garage height/dormers), concluding the dormers and resulting height were not necessary to meet hardship criteria; it approved variance A (extra usable floor area) by a 5–3 vote, citing lot depth and family needs as part of the practical‑difficulty discussion; and it denied variance B (accessory garage square footage), with several members noting the petitioner had indicated the garage could be tightened and that a smaller garage would avoid the need for the requested relief.
Next steps: Because the board denied the garage size and height requests, the petitioner may revise the garage plans and either resubmit to the board or seek administrative adjustments if the revisions do not constitute a material change. The petitioner was advised by staff on rebidding options and the timeframes for reapplication.
