Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Variance Denial topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Plymouth zoning board denies variance for oversized pole barn/garage

Plymouth Township Zoning Hearing Board · June 15, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Plymouth Township Zoning Hearing Board denied Frederick Arthur’s request for multiple variances to build a roughly 40×60 pole barn/garage after neighbors argued he had not demonstrated a unique hardship and raised concerns about size, runoff, lighting and tree screening.

Frederick Arthur the third asked the Plymouth Township Zoning Hearing Board for multiple variances to replace an existing falling-down three‑car garage with a roughly 40×60 pole barn-style garage intended to store a camper, show vehicles and recreational equipment. "I'm looking to replace my 25x35 falling down three-car garage ... I'm looking to replace that with a 40x60," Arthur said during testimony.

Neighbors who became parties to the case — Diane Barnes, Brenda Murphy and Kevin Murphy — opposed the request. Brenda Murphy submitted a written statement incorporated into the record and argued the applicant had not shown the unique hardship required to justify multiple variances. "The ordinance permits a detached garage footprint of 32 feet by 24 ft in an A residential district ... The proposed pole barn is approximately 40 by 60 ft or 2400 square ft," Murphy said, urging the board to deny the application because the legal standards for multiple variances had not been met.

Board members questioned Arthur about placement, height, stormwater management and screening. Arthur described a landscape plan including Leyland cypress trees intended to screen the structure and a stormwater management basin he said would prevent runoff to neighboring yards. He said the building would be used strictly for private storage and would have only electric service.

After closing testimony, the board held an executive session and returned to the public meeting. The members moved, seconded and voted in favor of denying the variances, concluding the hearing. The board’s oral vote recorded support for denial at the meeting; the board will issue a written decision following its established processes.

The denial leaves the existing garage to be demolished or replaced only if a conforming plan that meets ordinance size limits and demonstrates the required hardship is submitted.