Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Royal Oak ZBA approves covered porch enlargement and backyard sauna at 4131 North Fulton Place
Summary
The Royal Oak City Zoning Board of Appeals approved two variances for 4131 North Fulton Place on a case brought by the homeowner: a setback variance to replace a 120 sq ft screened porch with a 210 sq ft covered porch (reducing the rear setback to 16.5 ft) and a second variance to allow a third accessory structure to accommodate a 48 sq ft sauna.
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Royal Oak City Zoning Board of Appeals approved variances Tuesday for 4131 North Fulton Place that will allow the homeowner to replace an aging screened porch with a larger covered porch and to install a small backyard sauna.
City planning staff told the board the property is in a one-family residential zone and currently includes a 120-square-foot screened porch at the rear. The applicant proposes a new, 210-square-foot covered but unenclosed porch in the same general location and a separate 48-square-foot prefabricated sauna. Under the zoning ordinance, covered structures cannot encroach into the required 35-foot rear yard; the petition seeks a variance to reduce the rear setback to about 16.5 feet (an 18.5-foot waiver) and a second variance to allow a third accessory structure on a lot that the ordinance limits to two.
"There already is a 120-square-foot covered but screened porch," planning staff said during the presentation, adding that the property's original construction received a variance in 1964 and that the existing porch is not shown on the original permit drawings. Staff also noted the sauna would be treated as an accessory building because the petitioner plans to add electrical service to it.
The petitioner, who identified himself as Brian, said the existing porch is "dilapidated" and that the enlarged porch would improve safety and provide useful outdoor space for his family. He described practical obstacles to relocating the porch to the side yard, including a back door and a bedroom window that would be blocked and electrical service boxes that would be costly to relocate. "I have rodents coming under there," Brian said, describing difficulty repairing the current deck-based porch and saying the family wants a structure that will be safe and usable for multiple seasons.
Board members split over the appropriate remedy. Some members emphasized the property's unusual lot history and the practical difficulty of moving the porch. "The structure that's there now is in disrepair and needs to be replaced," one member said, supporting approval on grounds of safety and aesthetic improvement. Others noted the lot is large and suggested the homeowner had not fully explored side-yard alternatives that could avoid an encroachment.
On the accessory structure question, members likened the proposed sauna to previously permitted small structures such as pergolas and said it would be concealed behind the house. Member Clark moved to approve the accessory building variance; members voted verbally and the chair pronounced the motion carried. Later, Member Wolf moved to approve the rear-yard setback variance for the covered porch; after deliberation members again voted in favor and the motion carried.
The record packet lists the key numeric details discussed at the hearing: required rear setback 35 feet, proposed rear setback roughly 16.5 feet, existing screened porch 120 square feet, new porch 210 square feet, sauna 48 square feet, and the ordinance limit of two accessory structures per lot. The transcript does not record a roll-call vote; the board voted by voice and the chair declared both motions carried.
The petitioner thanked the board after the second approval and returned to the public seating area. The Zoning Board closed public comment after no additional speakers appeared and adjourned the final meeting of 2025.
What happens next: the approvals are the ZBA's decision for these variances; if the applicant or a future owner wanted a different accessory structure later, planning staff said the variance could potentially be applied to subsequent structures if the board chooses to do so, and building permits and electrical inspections would still be required before construction or use.

