Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ZBA delays decision on Northwood pool house after petitioner absent
Summary
Royal Oak City Zoning Board of Appeals postponed a variance request for a detached pool house at 1620 Northwood Boulevard after the owner was not present and the board was short two members. The petitioner’s daughter described a largely concealed design; neighbors voiced support.
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Royal Oak City Zoning Board of Appeals on March 13 postponed a request to allow a detached pool house at 1620 Northwood Boulevard after the property owner was not present and the board lacked a full complement of members.
Staff described the triangular lot and said the proposed detached pool house would add 445 square feet of covered permanent area and 245 square feet of open trellis-style cover, pushing accessory ground-floor area beyond the zoning cap and increasing the number of accessory structures on the parcel from two to three. Because the lot already contains an attached garage and a shed, the petitioner asked the board to waive both the 800-square-foot accessory-floor-area limit and the two-structures maximum.
At the public hearing the petitioner’s daughter, speaking for the absent owner, said the property is secluded—bordering railroad tracks—and that the hot tub and pool would be filled with a hose rather than a permanent water line. She confirmed the existing shed is portable and could be moved but said she would need to consult the owner about removing or incorporating it into the new design.
Neighbor Steve Jaswiak, who lives nearby, urged approval, saying much of the backyard is concealed and the proposed pergola would not be visible from the street. "Nobody can see anything back there," he said, adding the home "fits in the neighborhood." The board heard technical clarifications from staff that placing the shed adjacent to the proposed pool house would still count as separate structures because each would retain distinct roof lines and foundations.
Because two regular board members were absent, Miss Robinson moved to postpone the matter until next month so the owner could answer outstanding questions in person; the motion carried. The applicant was advised that, if the owner cannot attend next month, the recorded public meeting would be available for review and that postponement is not guaranteed.

