Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board rejects large setback variance request at 1573 Chesterfield after extended debate
Summary
The BZA declined to grant a wide corner‑lot side‑street setback relief for a proposed model home at 1573 Chesterfield, with board members split over whether the lot’s unique constraints justify the size of the variance requested.
The Birmingham Board of Zoning Appeals considered a substantial request for a corner‑lot side‑street setback variance at 1573 Chesterfield and ultimately failed to approve it after extended debate and split votes.
Architect Brad Dere, speaking for Sapphire Luxury Homes, asked the board to reduce the required side‑street setback from an averaged ordinance calculation of roughly 83.06 ft to 24.83 ft so the developer could build a single‑story ranch with approximately 30% lot coverage and a usable rear yard. Dere said the lot is the remaining parcel of a three‑lot subdivision, that one of the neighboring lots used in the 200‑ft averaging calculation sits in Bloomfield Township (outside Birmingham), and that a jog in the right‑of‑way and unusual lot shape create a very narrow, tapered buildable envelope that makes a standard interpretation effectively impossible.
Dere presented diagrams showing that following the strict averaging method could leave the property with a narrow 28‑ft buildable width and as little as 13.7% allowable coverage; removing the out‑of‑city lot from the calculation still left a constrained site (around 21.2% coverage) in his presentation. He argued the conditions are not self‑created and asked the board to allow a reduced side‑street setback so the lot can support a reasonable house and rear‑yard amenities.
Board members probed alternatives (different house types and orientations, reduced footprints) and questioned whether the applicant had tried smaller proposals instead of a wide ranch designed to preserve a pool and extensive backyard amenities. One board member said a large variance that projects the house significantly closer to Corton/Big Beaver would change the character and expressed concern that the applicant was not presenting an intermediate solution. Another member flagged that even without the Bloomfield Township parcel the calculated setback would still be substantial.
After discussion and competing motions, the votes did not produce the required four affirmative votes; the motion to deny received three affirmative votes and three negatives on a subsequent tally, so the appeal failed to obtain the necessary four yes votes. The applicant was told they could consult with staff about potential revisions or whether a materially changed plan could return to the board.
