Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Dwelling Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Royal Oak zoning board deadlocks on variance for senior accessory dwelling
Summary
The Zoning Board of Appeals split 4–4 and failed to grant variances requested to add a 600-square-foot senior accessory dwelling at a Greenleaf Drive home, leaving the applicant without relief after the Planning Commission had approved the special land use. Board members were split over whether the property’s size and prior variances made the hardship self-created.
The Royal Oak Zoning Board of Appeals deadlocked 4–4 and did not approve two variances requested to allow a 600-square-foot senior accessory dwelling at a single-family property on Greenleaf Drive.
Keith Logs, an architect with Michael Willoughby & Associates, told the board the planning commission had unanimously approved the applicant’s site plan and the special land use needed to add a senior accessory dwelling. Logs said the unit would be attached, no larger than 600 square feet, would include a 247-square-foot garage, and that the owner would record a deed restriction with Oakland County requiring owner occupancy and limiting future use as a two-family dwelling.
Owner George Blower said the addition is needed so his aging mother can live safely at the property and argued denying relief would force the family to move out of Royal Oak. “I stand before you as a resident of Royal Oak… I’m here today to respectfully request your approval for a variance that would allow us to move forward with a permitted accessory dwelling unit,” Blower said.
During deliberations, board members split on the legal standards the ordinance requires. Some members said they could not identify a unique physical condition of the lot that created the practical difficulty and noted the existing home already exceeds the ordinance’s 3,500-square-foot limit — a prior variance had previously allowed the larger house. Opponents argued the property owner largely created the difficulty by previously building beyond the limit. Supporters cited the planning commission’s approval, the home’s large lot size and the owner’s stated family need.
After a motion to deny the requested variances failed, a motion to approve also produced a 4–4 tie and therefore failed. The board took no action to grant the variances, and the applicant will need to choose whether to revise the plans or reapply.
The zoning ordinance sections and previous variance that affect this case were discussed at length, and staff noted that the addition would increase the property’s nonconformity to about 4,466 square feet of usable floor area.
