Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lot Coverage Denial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ferrysburg ZBA denies after‑the‑fact lot‑coverage variance for 17585 Mary Lane
Summary
The board rejected an after‑the‑fact request to allow 48.6% lot coverage at 17585 Mary Lane, citing neighbor objections, planning staff concerns about precedent and insufficient technical analysis of drainage impacts.
The Ferrysburg Zoning Board of Appeals on July 10 denied an after‑the‑fact variance request from property owner Brian Klingle that sought to allow 48.6% lot coverage where the RG‑1 zoning district permits a maximum of 35%.
The public hearing drew technical testimony and multiple neighborhood objections. Architect Danny Dreyer and a hired landscape contractor argued that the synthetic turf and crushed stone base are permeable and that on‑site retention would prevent stormwater issues; Dreyer said his calculations (excluding some features) produced approximately 40.4% coverage but conceded the site as currently configured exceeded the permitted maximum. "When I ran the numbers, and I did not include the AstroTurf, I come up with 40.4 percent," Dreyer told the board.
Neighbors and several written submissions said the work had been completed before approval, raised drainage and safety concerns, and asserted the existing coverage may be as high as 53 percent. One neighborhood letter emphasized the Ferrysburg master plan's open‑space goals and argued that allowing the after‑the‑fact variance would set a poor precedent for ordinance enforcement.
Applicant Brian Klingle told the board he believes the 48.6% figure was an overestimate derived from a drone rendering and said the on‑site materials were intended to be permeable. He acknowledged two building‑code letters had been issued earlier and said he would remove specified noncompliant gravel if directed. "I did not realize that that was gonna be thrown on the agenda at 48%. I think we're probably leaning towards a request for closer to 40%," Klingle said.
City planning materials presented to the board noted the lot is larger than the minimum RG‑1 parcel size but already nonconforming (about 40.6% per the staff overview) and recommended careful application of the six variance standards. After public comment and deliberation, a motion to deny the after‑the‑fact lot‑coverage variance was made, seconded and approved by roll call.
The board's action requires the applicant to bring the property into conformance or pursue other authorized remedies; the voting record and written findings will be included in the official minutes.
