Loading...
Zoning Board of Appeals - MINUTES - 10/25/2007 Z ONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES approved CITY OF MUSKEGO October 25, 2007 Meeting was called to order at 7:03 P.M. Those in attendance recited the Pledge of Allegiance. PRESENT: Chairman Dan Schepp, Dr. Barb Blumenfield, Mr. William Le Doux, Mr. Richard Ristow and Planner Adam Trzebiatowski. ABSENT: Vice Chairman Henry Schneiker, Mr. Horst Schmidt and Dr. Russ Kashian STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE: The secretary stated the meeting was noticed on October 9, 2007 in accordance with open meeting laws. NEW BUSINESS: Appeal #05-2007 – Petitioner: Randall Girard, S70 W18871 Gold Drive / Tax key No. 2180.941. REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 3.02 Zoning Board of Appeals, Petitioner seeks the following variances: Chapter 17 – Zoning Ordinance: Section 15.05 – Accessory Uses and Structures (9) Walks, drives, paved terraces, mechanical appurtenances for all single family and two family structures (such as air conditioners, venting, and service panels), and purely decorative garden accessories (such as pools, fountains, statuary, flag poles, etc.) , where subject to “permanent structure” classification shall be permitted in setback and offset areas but not closer than 3 feet to an abutting property line other than a street line. An offset of 3-feet is required from any lot line for mechanical appurtenances on all single-family and two-family lots within the City. The petitioner seeks an offset of 0.83-feet (10 inches) from the western (side) lot line to permit the placement of two air conditioner units alongside their home, and is therefore requesting a 2.17-foot variance from the western (side) lot line. Dr. Blumenfield swore in Randall Girard and Planner Adam Trzebiatowski. Mr. Girard explained his house has an offset of 3 ½ feet from the side of the house to the lot line. He had planned to put the air conditioning units in the garage. At the time of building inspection the electrical inspector questioned the safety of placing the air conditioning units in the garage and asked Mr. Girard for paper work from the manufacturer stating it is legal to put the units in the garage. The manufacturer would not give paper work stating this. Mr. Girard added that his neighbor did not have a problem with the location as long as it was not right under bedroom window. Mr. Girard stated the units will be sheltered from the neighbor and her house is 70 feet away. The neighbor also has a fence along the west side where they are proposing the air conditioning units. Dr. Blumenfield questioned if they looked into another location. Mr. Girard stated they did look into other locations. If they put it to the north of the house it would be in the yard, and there is already a variance granted on the east side of the house for walkway. If the units were placed on this side they would make it difficult to pass by on the walkway with a wheelchair. They also thought about putting it under the deck to the south of the house, but the distance would exceed 130 feet from the furnace and would compromise the efficiency of the unit. In the proposed ZBA Minutes 10/25/2007 Page 2 location the furnace is directly below the units. Dr. Blumenfield questioned what the hardship is for the request. Mr. Girard stated several hardships; having a 30-foot wide lot, the location of the house, and being unable to place the units in the garage due to safety concerns. Mr. Trzebiatowski gave the City’s opinion based on the Zoning Code. Mr. Trzebiatowski explained the petitioner is proposing to locate two air conditioner units along the west side of their existing home. The lot that the home was constructed on is only 30 feet wide. Due to the narrowness of the lot, the house is located only 5.5 feet away from one lot line and only 3.5 feet away from the other lot line, which is conforming. The petitioner was originally planning to locate the air conditioner units inside the garage due to the 3-foot offset requirement for mechanical devices. Upon an inspection by the Building Department the inspector had concerns with the ventilation and possible refrigerant leakage with the units being placed in the garage, even with venting on the side of the garage. The inspector requested something in writing from the manufacturer stating that the units could be placed within the garage, which the manufacture would not do. The petitioner is now proposing to locate the units outside along the west side of the house. An offset of 3-feet is required from any lot line for mechanical appurtenances on all single family and two family lots within the City. The petitioner seeks an offset of 0.83-offset (10-inches) form the western (side) lot line to permit the placement of two air conditioner units alongside their home, and is therefore requesting a 2.17-foot variance form the western side lot line. Based upon the submitted information staff has not been able to find a valid hardship that meets the State Law and Zoning Case Law guidelines. There are other options outside the garage. The petitioner could place the air conditioner on the east side of the house. There is a walkway proposed along that side of the house, but after doing some research staff found there are units that are built taller and narrower. The unit could be as deep as 2.5 feet and no variance would be required and would still leave 2 feet of open walkway. However, this may or may not allow room for a wheelchair. The petitioner could also place the air conditioners on the south side of the house next to the pool heater and filter equipment. Staff respectfully requests denial of appeal 05-2007, allowing the placement of an air conditioner to be allowed with a 0.83-foot (10 inch) offset, a 2.17-foot variance, from the side (western) lot line; citing that the variance does not preserve the intent of the Zoning Ordinance because there are not exceptional conditions applying to the parcel that do not apply to other properties. Also, a non-self imposed hardship is not found for the appeal. The placement of the house on the site is a self-imposed hardship and there are other placement options not requiring a variance. The air conditioners could be placed on the south side (lake side) of the home next to the pool equipment or along the east side of the lot (with a slightly smaller unit). These two options would meet the code requirement and not require any variances. DELIBERATIONS Appeal #05-2007 – Dr. Blumenfied moved to approve as submitted. Seconded by Mr. LeDoux. Mr. Ristow stated he will vote in favor based on the narrow width of the lot. Dr. Blumenfield also stated she is in favor of the approving this appeal. The hardship is based on the narrowness of the lot, which allows for few options. The petitioner did have plans to place the units in the garage. The lake side of the house is not an option because it will take away from the area. The east side being the only other option would not allow for wheelchair access. Mr. LeDoux added locating the air conditioning units near the furnace is important for efficiency purposes. If there is a problem with noise, the petitioner could put up another fence to block ZBA Minutes 10/25/2007 Page 3 the noise from the neighbor. Chairman Schepp agreed that the air conditioner should be near the furnace and noted the neighbor’s house is 70-feet away from the proposed air conditioner units. Upon a roll call vote appeal 05-2007 is approved 5-0. OLD BUSINESS: none. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Members present at the September 27, 2007 meeting were not in majority and could not approve the minutes. The minutes will be placed on the next agenda for approval. MISCELLANEOUS - Planner Trzebiatowski noted that, as in the past, the November and December meeting will be combined and held the first week of December if there is an appeal. Notification will be send out if there will or will not be a meeting. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before this Board, Dr. Blumenfield moved to adjourn. Mr. Ristow seconded. Upon voice vote, meeting adjourned at 7:24 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Kellie Renk Recording Secretary