Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variances Setbacks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Zoning Board to allow variances for long-standing garages
Summary
Residents at the Feb. 7, 2026 Eastpointe City Zoning Board of Appeals meeting said recent setback rules have made many existing garages nonconforming and asked whether the board would grant variances or allow rebuilding in the original footprints after disaster. Board members agreed to put bylaw amendments on a future agenda and directed residents to the building department for technical questions.
At the Feb. 7, 2026 meeting of the Eastpointe City Zoning Board of Appeals, residents told the board that a recent change to setback rules has left many long-standing garages technically nonconforming and asked how homeowners can rebuild or seek relief.
One resident said that within a roughly nine-street area east of Kelly and north of Stevens, “there’s almost 700 houses that have garages now that are non-conforming,” and asked what recourse a homeowner would have if a garage were destroyed by fire or storm or if a homeowner chose to replace an aging garage. The resident said rebuilding in the same footprint could force homeowners to shift or downsize a garage, potentially converting a two-car garage to something smaller.
Jennifer Nichols, introduced during the second hearing of the public, asked whether homeowners can request a variance proactively rather than waiting for a disaster. Nichols said that in many yards there is nothing on the other side of the fence, so moving a garage farther from a fence could in some cases place it closer to another structure, creating a different safety concern.
Nichols told the board she had discussed the issue with Fire Chief Clark, and quoted him as saying, “Normally they just cut through the fence when they’re having to attend to a fire,” an account she offered to illustrate that a one- or two-foot difference from the fence is unlikely to change firefighter operations. The account came from Nichols’s report of that conversation.
Board member Miss Baronei noted that when this issue previously came before the planning commission, officials referenced an ordinance provision that could allow rebuilding “as is” after a disaster but said that provision may be constrained if the cost of rebuilding exceeds assessed value; she said the ordinance does not protect a homeowner who simply wants to build a brand-new garage in the original location. Baronei described the rule as potentially unfair for homeowners whose garages have existed in the same location for six or seven decades.
No formal variance application or decision was taken at the meeting. Members discussed placing an item on a future agenda to consider amendments to the ZBA bylaws and the underlying ordinance language. The chair and other members advised residents with technical questions to contact the city building department for guidance on permitting and the variance application process.
The board did not set a timetable for any change. The matter was referred for possible bylaw amendment and may appear on a future agenda for formal consideration.
