Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BZA grants large corner‑lot variance at 1573 Chesterfield after split board votes
Summary
After extended debate over neighborhood consistency and lot geometry, the Birmingham BZA granted a sizable setback/building‑envelope variance for a new single‑family home at 1573 Chesterfield, with the board citing the parcel’s unusual geometry and right‑of‑way jog.
The Birmingham Board of Zoning Appeals on June 13 granted a dimensional variance for a proposed single‑family home at 1573 Chesterfield after a lengthy hearing and split votes.
Staff summarized the request: the corner lot’s required side‑street setback was listed in staff materials as approximately 83 feet; the applicant sought a substantially reduced setback (roughly 24.8 feet proposed), representing a large numeric variance from the ordinance‑calculated envelope. Staff noted the lot resulted from a 2020 split and abuts Bloomfield Township, creating an atypical geometry and a narrow, buildable envelope under strict application of the code.
Mark Nasser, attorney for Sapphire Luxury Homes & Landscaping, argued the proposal seeks to preserve frontage consistency with existing homes on the block and that the property’s unique jog and right‑of‑way make the ordinance’s standard buildable envelope unworkable. Nasser emphasized neighborhood context and submitted letters of support from nearby property owners.
Board members were divided. Several members said the lot’s geometry and the adjacent Bloomfield Township parcel produce a special condition that justifies relief; others urged the applicant to reduce the proposed width to better match adjacent houses and to avoid setting a broad variance precedent. One board member described hope that a revised plan aligning more closely with adjacent frontages would have been offered when the applicant returned to a full seven‑member board.
A motion to deny the variance failed on roll call. A subsequent motion to approve, tied to the submitted plans and conditioned in the record, carried on a later roll call, granting the variance required to construct the proposed home as presented.
What happens next: the applicant may proceed with building‑permit submittals consistent with the approved plans and any conditions recorded by the BZA. The board’s action was narrowly framed to this site’s specific circumstances and the plans before the board; members stressed that the approval reflected the parcel’s unusual geometry and should not be taken as general guidance for other corner lots.
