Troy zoning board denies variance for Chestnut Hill home addition after neighbors object

The Troy City Zoning Board of Appeals voted 7-0 to deny a variance request that would have allowed a one-story addition at 4110 Chestnut Hill to sit about 14 feet 4 inches from the rear property line, rather than the 45 feet required by the city's zoning ordinance.

The denial came after city staff described the proposal, the applicant and architect explained the plan and neighborhood residents testified against it. City staff told the board the property is zoned R-1A single-family residential and that the applicant’s site plans and renderings showed the proposed addition; the architect said lot coverage with the addition would be just under 25%.

Board members said the applicant did not prove the request met the five legal standards for a variance. Several members questioned whether the difficulties cited were tied to the land itself or were personal to the owner, and whether less-impactful alternatives were available. "I do not believe it meets 3 of them," said board member Macaulay as he moved to deny the request, arguing the design and circumstances were created by the current owner and would alter the neighborhood’s character. Board member Fox said he sympathized with the applicant’s family needs but still could not support the variance because the same program could likely be achieved within the existing building envelope.

The applicant, Sam Tocco, said the addition was intended to keep the home single-story to accommodate family needs: "we do have a daughter that has epilepsy and we wanted to stay away from going 2 stories," he told the board. Architect Brian Grazinski said the design was intended to create a long horizontal mass to reduce noise from Adams Road and to create a private backyard "sanctuary." The architect also said the property sits on slab-on-grade, which influenced construction choices.

Neighbors who spoke urged denial. Karen Josephoski said recent local construction had caused debris and noise on adjacent lawns and asked the board to "keep the ordinance there." Patrick Carolyn, who lives nearby, warned the addition would be disproportionately large and said homeowners often use alternatives such as additions over garages or elevators to meet accessibility needs without expanding beyond setback requirements: "I would hate to see a 4,800 square foot ranch built on this property," he said. Denise McKeown raised stormwater concerns on a neighborhood without sewers, asking how increased lot coverage would affect runoff; Kim Hedblum said the area's modest lots and open space are central to neighborhood character and opposed the scale of the proposal.

Board member Eisenbacher summarized about 10 written letters that echoed public comments, citing concerns about excessive scale, loss of open space, drainage, impacts on tree buffers and precedent for future overdevelopment. Multiple members said the record relied heavily on the applicant’s personal circumstances rather than exceptional property features that would justify a permanent variance that runs with the land.

Macaulay moved to deny the variance, Fox seconded, and the board voted unanimously in favor of denial. The board advised the applicant that redesigning the plan to remain within the building envelope or seeking a much smaller variance might be options if they chose to resubmit. The board also noted that, if denied, applicants retain the right to appeal the board's decision to Oakland County Circuit Court.

The board closed the hearing on the case and heard a brief report that one case is scheduled for the April 21 meeting. The meeting occurred in March 2026 (exact day not specified in the transcript).