Reference Desk

 

Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - June 23, 2010

THE CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF CHESTERFIELD

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

June 23, 2010

On June 23, 2010, a regular meeting of the Chesterfield Township Zoning Board of Appeals

was held at the Township Hall located at 47275 Sugarbush, Chesterfield Twp., MI 48047.

1. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Stepnak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

2. ROLL CALL: Present: Marvin Stepnak, Chairman

Nancy Orewyler, Secretary Janice Uglis, Township board liaison

Paula Frame, Planning Commission liaison

Gerald Blake

James Klonowski

Thomas Yaschen

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:

Chairman Stepnak explained the procedures to the audience.

4. ZBA PETITION #2010-10: Miller Garage Building Company, 13042 E. 8 Mile Road, Detroit,

MI 48205. Requesting a variance for a 22’ x 22’ detached second garage. There is an existing 260 square foot attached garage. The location is 48155 Forbes, Chesterfield, MI.

Tom Biljan, 48155 Forbes, Chesterfield, MI 48047 addressed the board.

Petitioner stated that he was the owner of the home and he was requesting to build an additional garage at the rear of his lot for storage at 48155 Forbes. He added that he was also requesting to keep the present shed on his property. He explained that his attached garage is not actually 260 square feet; it is really only 240 square feet without obstructions and is more of a utility room that houses his furnace, hot water heater. It is only a one-car attached garage.

Ms. Frame stated that she went out to the home and looked at the attached garage. She explained that the room is very tiny and most of the space is taken up by the furnace and the water heater. She also mentioned that the Planning Commission has an ordinance in the works that would be upping the size allowed for accessory buildings to 1160 square feet instead of the 920 square feet. The proposed building would be 484’; the shed is 190 square feet and the attached garage is only 240 square feet. So the total of accessory structures would still be only about 914 square feet as it stands. She felt that the garage would be located in a good place and does not have a problem with it.

Mr. Blake asked if the petitioner planned to put electrical in the garage?

Petitioner answered no because he would just be using the structure for storage.

Mr. Blake asked what type of storage?

Petitioner answered for his antique cars. Petitioner stated that the main reason he wanted to keep his shed was so that he would be able to continue his woodworking and cabinet building. He explained that he did not want to do the woodworking where he is storing his cars because of the sawdust and mess it makes.

Mr. Blake stated that he had a problem with leaving the existing shed on the property. He stated that the Zoning Code. Section 76-331 2a. states the following: "One accessory building, whether attached or detached, shall be permitted for each lot within a platted subdivision or on residential parcel of one acre or less. In no case shall such building be designed to house more than three cars, nor shall it exceed 920 square feet."

Petitioner stated that he cannot even park a car in his attached garage.

Mr. Blake agreed that he would have a hard time getting a car in that garage.

Mr. Yaschen had no questions at that time.

Mr. Klonowski stated that the attached garage would make it three accessory buildings on the property even thought they might be small; there would still be three. He asked if there were any changes considered in the ordinances concerning the number of accessory buildings?

Ms. Frame answered no. She reiterated that the Planning Commission would be upping the size allowed for accessory buildings to 1160 square feet for lots over a ½ acre. She asked the size of the lot?

Petitioner answered that it was just over a ½ acre.

Ms. Uglis stated that she did not have a problem with the detached second garage. However, she did have a problem with the petitioner keeping the existing shed on the property.

Petitioner stated that he did not have a basement and his roof line is low so he needed the shed for storage space.

Ms. Orewyler stated that she did not have a problem with the petitioner building an accessory structure, if after the structure is completed; he would tear down the existing shed.

Chairman Stepnak asked the condition of the shed at this time?

Petitioner stated that it needed no repair.

Chairman Stepnak asked if the shed had a ratwall?

Petitioner answered that the shed had a footing. He explained that when he pulled the permit, he was informed that, according to the Building Department records, the shed has a footing.

Chairman Stepnak asked the age of the shed?

Petitioner answered that it was built in 1983.

Chairman Stepnak stated so the petitioner pulled the permits for the shed and followed building codes when it was built.

Petitioner explained that he just moved into the home about a month ago and the Mike and Maureen Morency who lived at the property before built the shed.

Mr. Shortt stated asked if the petitioner planned to put a driveway in to access the garage in the back?

Petitioner answered no.

Mr. Shortt stated that he did not have a problem with it. His only concern would be the drainage back there on the lot. He verified that the petitioner has a drain at the back of his property.

Petitioner answered yes.

Mr. Shortt mentioned that the gutters would have to pitch down to the back drain.

Petitioner answered right.

Mr. Blake commented that there was a big tree right at the center of the petitioner’s lot, so he probably could not even put in a driveway.

Chairman Stepnak asked Mr. Shortt if he went out to the site?

Mr. Shortt answered yes.

Chairman Stepnak asked Mr. Shortt the condition of the existing shed?

Mr. Shortt stated that he assumed the petitioner planned to remove the old shed so he did not look at it.

Public Comments:

Mike Desmarais, 48163 Forbes, Chesterfield, MI 48047 addressed the board.

Mr. Desmarais stated that he was the next door neighbor and the shed was in excellent condition. He made numerous comments in support of the granting of the variance.

Ron Rhodes, 48171 Forbes, Chesterfield, MI 48047 addressed the board.

Mr. Rhodes stated that the petitioner did not need a driveway to get back to the garage because the land there is very dry.

Mr. Shortt commented that the petitioner did not need to put in a driveway to get back to the garage.

Mark Forton, 48143 Mallard, Chesterfield, MI addressed the board.

Mr. Forton made positive comments in favor of the board granting the variance for the petitioner.

Chairman Stepnak stated that in the past when looking at someone putting in an accessory building the board requests that the petitioner eliminate the older structures on the site. That is something that is pretty much standard protocol. He stated that the problem he had would be the petitioner requested a variance that was published requesting a 22’ x 22’ garage for additional storage, but there was no mention of the two structures on the property. He stated that the petition was not filed that way and basically from the legal aspect of it, someone may say that they did not mind if the petitioner put up a larger garage, but they were not aware that the petitioner would have two or three storage sheds. Therefore if the board would go ahead and allow the additional storage shed without it being published as such; that would be another variance request; which could have been on the same petition.

Petitioner commented that maybe he would have to do it all over again and request another variance for the shed.

Chairman Stepnak asked other members their opinion on the matter.

Ms. Frame stated that she visited the property and mentioned that the shed was in very nice condition. She explained that when she considered the petition, she considered it with the shed staying as is. She mentioned that was the reason she earlier stated that although it would be considered two accessory buildings, that poor attached garage is really more like a mud room than a garage. She also reiterated that the combined accessory buildings would still be under the allowable square footage.

Mr. Yaschen stated that the structures would be under the maximum square footage. He also mentioned that the second shed was not put into the petition.

Mr. Shortt suggested that if he issued the petitioner a permit for the new garage, he would allow the petitioner to complete the new structure before tearing down the existing shed. So,

Mr. Shortt stated the petitioner would be able to submit another petition to keep the existing shed. Then the public would be informed of the petitioner’s intentions to have another accessory structure.

Ms. Orewyler explained that the board routinely denies the second accessory building on a property.

Petitioner asked so what if he tears down the shed and the ordinance changes?

Chairman Stepnak stated that everything was subject to change. He explained that in the past it has been the board’s practice to only allow one additional accessory structure.

Petitioner commented that in other words that was the way the board always did it.

Chairman Stepnak commented that the petitioner could use that analogy or maybe that the board would like to treat everyone equally and on a fair basis.

Petitioner stated he was not being treated fairly because his total square footage of all three structures would be less than 920 square feet.

Mr. Klonowski stated that the problem would be the number of accessory buildings.

Petitioner asked why the code used the total of 920’?

Mr. Klonowski explained that that would be the total square footage, but the code also only allows one accessory building. He stated that the petitioner was actually requesting three accessory buildings; the attached garage, the new structure, and the old existing shed.

Petitioner asked if he had to tear the shed down, would there be a time limit?

Chairman Stepnak stated that it would have to be removed before the Building Department would issue a C of O for the new structure.

Mr. Shortt suggested that the petitioner could hide the shed with 6’ arborvitaes.

Petitioner stated that he could plant some trees he guessed.

Ms. Orewyler asked if the petitioner considered building the garage larger? She explained that the petitioner would have the correct amount of out buildings; he would just have one larger structure.

Petitioner answered that the problem was a larger garage would cost him more money. He did not understand why he would have to tear down a perfectly good structure that was already there. Furthermore, he stated that it would cost him even more money to tear down the old shed.

Chairman Stepnak stated that he could save some money on the new structure by installing a ratwall instead of a footing.

Mr. Calcaterra representative of Miller Garage Building Company, 13042 E. 8 Mile Road, Detroit, MI 48205

Mr. Calcaterra explained that the petitioner would need a footing under the structure if he made it larger because anything 600 square feet or larger would require a footing. He commented that otherwise the petitioner could only make it 120 feet larger.

Chairman Stepnak stated that the petition would have to mention that the petitioner would be requesting to have three accessory structures. He explained that the wording would have to be changed and the petitioner would have to be republished.

Mr. Blake stated that the next petitioner coming up was asking for an accessory structure and he also has a shed in the back. He mentioned that the next petitioner may ask to keep his old shed because the board just allowed this petitioner to keep his shed. He stated that could be a problem.

Chairman Stepnak stated that the petition is now requesting a new garage. The board would ask that the old one be removed, however, that does not seem to be what the petitioner wants to do. Additional paperwork would need to be filed, however, that would not guarantee that the board would move favorably on the second petition. He explained that the board could table the petition and have the paperwork sent out to indicate that there would be three accessory buildings on the property.

Ms. Frame suggested that the board stick to what is stated in the application at this point because if they change the petition and ask for three accessory structures, she had a feeling that would not fly. Therefore, the whole application would be down the drain. She thought the board should work off of this application with whatever contingencies that are attached to it and then the petitioner could submit a new petition asking for the shed being left on the property.

Mr. Blake stated if the petitioner comes in again asking for three accessory buildings; he would still be asking for two extra accessory structures.

Ms. Frame understood that however, she thought the board should work with what the petitioner has presented to them at this time. Then if the petitioner would like to submit a new variance he would be free to do so.

Petitioner stated that regardless of what happens; he still needed the garage.

Motion by Ms. Frame to approve Petition # 2010-10 for the construction of a 22’ x 22’ detached garage at 48155 Forbes, Chesterfield, MI. The hardship being that the petitioner has no basement, a low pitched roof, and a very tiny attached garage.

Supported by Mr. Yaschen

Ms. Orewyler asked if Ms. Frame would add to the motion that the shed must be torn down?

Ms. Frame agreed to add to the motion that the existing shed must be removed.

Ayes: All

Nays: None Motion Granted

Mr. Calcaterra asked if the shed has to be removed could the petitioner decide to make the garage bigger?

Ms. Orewyler stated that the petitioner would now have to file another petition.

Ms. Frame asked if that could be handled administratively?

Chairman Stepnak answered no. The petition was approved as filed. He stated that the board has moved on the petition and they could not go back.

5. ZBA PETITION # 2010-11: Charles Shelley at 50417 Bellaire, Chesterfield, MI 48047. He is requesting a variance for a 12’ x 16’ shed in lieu of the allowable 10’ x 12’ and to be located in the side yard at the above address.

Charles Shelley at 50417 Bellaire, Chesterfield, MI 48047 addressed the board.

Petitioner stated that he was requesting a variance for the size of the shed he is building in the side yard of his lot. He has a 15 foot easement at the back of his property and a six foot on the other side which limits his placement of the building.

Ms. Uglis stated that she stopped by and there was a gate so she could not see everything. She knew where the petitioner wanted to put the shed and because of the 10’ the structure must be from the house and the 5’ from the property line.

Petitioner mentioned that he would actually be 8’ from the property line.

Ms. Uglis also mentioned that the petitioner had an existing shed in the back.

Petitioner stated that would be torn down.

Ms. Uglis verified that the shed would be coming down.

Petitioner answered yes the shed would be removed and that it was actually on the easement. He mentioned that the shed was already on the property when he purchased the home and reiterated that it would be torn down.

Ms. Uglis asked because she could not get into the back yard if there was any other space where the petitioner could put the shed.

Petitioner answered not with the easements.

Ms. Uglis asked the size of the lot?

Chairman Stepnak stated that it was a typical size subdivision lot.

Ms. Uglis asked the size of the easement?

Petitioner answered that it was 15’ and it is 8’ to 10’ from his deck. He reiterated that there was no other place to put the shed. He stated that the shed would be 10’ from his house and 8’ from the property line.

Mr. Blake asked if there would be any electricity in the structure?

Petitioner answered no electricity.

Mr. Blake stated that the petitioner had a wood fence and a large cherry tree in the center of his yard and the structure would not even be seen.

Mr. Klonowski had no questions.

Mr. Yaschen had no questions.

Ms. Orewyler asked if the easement in the back was for waste water or storm water?

Petitioner answered that it was for storm water and utilities.

Ms. Orewyler verified that the backyard was shallow with the easement and the petitioner does want to put the structure 10’ away from the house.

Petitioner answered yes.

Ms. Frame asked if the fence was on the petitioner’s lot line?

Petitioner answered that the fence itself was 15’ into the easement. The easement ends 15’ from the fence.

Ms. Frame stated that the only problem she had with putting the shed that close to the front of the house on the side like that would be that the privacy fence that is up now may not always be there. She added that the neighbors that are there now are not always going to be the same neighbors. She felt it was a tough call.

Chairman Stepnak stated that he went by the home the previous day and he felt with the easement, the large tree and the privacy the fence the shed would work well in that area.

Chairman Stepnak agreed that the shed may be an issue along the road if the privacy fence would be removed. He asked the petitioner what type of shed he planned to build and what type of building material he planned to use?

Petitioner answered that he planned to use siding that matches his home.

Chairman Stepnak asked how high the peak would come up because it would probably be higher than the privacy fence?

Petitioner stated that it would have a shallow peak.

Chairman Stepnak asked if it would be painted just like the house?

Petitioner answered that he would be putting vinyl siding that matches his home on the structure.

Chairman Stepnak commented that the petitioner mentioned having some mature trees on the lot.

Petitioner stated that he had a large cherry tree.

Chairman Stepnak stated that the petitioner has a large easement and verified that the old shed would be removed?

Petitioner reiterated that he would be removing the old shed.

Chairman Stepnak stated that if the shed would be pushed back it would take up his whole lot.

Ms. Uglis commented that if the petitioner put the shed back, he would have to remove the tree.

Chairman Stepnak stated that the petitioner had a practical difficulty due to the layout of the lot and the large easement.

There were no comments from the public.

Mr. Shortt stated that the Building Department had no problem with it.

Ms. Orewyler asked the petitioner if he had a basement?

Petitioner answered yes.

Ms. Orewyler asked why the petitioner needed an oversized shed?

Petitioner stated that he had a motorcycle, lawn equipment, a tractor that he uses in the back. Most of all he would like to be able to park his truck in the garage in the winter time.

Chairman Stepnak asked if she was concerned about the size of the shed?

Ms. Orewyler answered no, she just wanted to know.

Motion by Mr. Yaschen to approve Petition #2010-11 to approve the requested variance for a 12’ x 16’ shed in lieu of the allowable 10’ x 12’ and to be located in the side yard at the above address. The practical difficulty would be the layout of the lot and the easement.

Supported by Ms. Uglis

Chairman Stepnak asked that the motion include that the old existing shed must be removed.

Ms. Uglis asked that the motion include that the petitioner must abide by the regulations of the Building Department.

Mr. Yaschen agreed to both additions to the motion.

Ayes: All

Nays: None Motion Granted

6. ZBA PETITION # 2010-12: Luke DiCicco, 28428 Aline, Warren, MI 48093. He is requesting a front yard setback variance. Address for this proposal is 26549 Harvest Drive in the Autumn Lakes Subdivision.

Deborah DiCicco, 28428 Aline, Warren, MI 48093 addressed the board.

Ms. DiCicco stated that she and her husband own Lot #4 in the Autumn Lakes Subdivision and they would like to build a home and are requesting a front yard setback variance. She explained that when they bought the lot they did not realize that the lot was odd shaped. When the architect drew up the plans, he showed them that they could not put the house where they planned. The home would have to be pushed back because of a curve in the road which would leave the petitioners with no back yard at all. She explained that they were asking for the home to be brought forward up even to where most of the other houses are in the subdivision.

Mr. Yaschen stated that he did not go see the lot. He verified if the petitioner’s were just asking for a 5’ variance at the front?

Luke DiCicco, 28428 Aline, Warren, MI 48093.

Petitioner answered yes because of the curve in the road.

Ms. Orewyler stated that she could see the petitioner’s problem. She mentioned that the lot had an awful lot of easement area and a berm.

Petitioner stated that the berm on Facebook does not look so bad until you go out and look at it in person.

Ms. Orewyler agreed.

Petitioner explained that they staked out where the house would be and they will not have any back yard. He explained that Mr. Shortt told him that the house would not be approved without the variance because of the covered porch in the back.

Ms. Orewyler stated that she really did not have any more questions.

Ms. Uglis did not have any questions.

Mr. Klonowski stated that he had no problem with the variance.

Ms. Frame stated that she visited the site and spoke to the neighbor to the right and they had no problem with it. She also mentioned that the petitioner had a large berm and a large easement.

Chairman Stepnak mentioned that when the Planning Commission gets all these lots approved; they are all supposed to be buildable lots.

Ms. Frame stated that the lot was buildable and the petitioners just want to put a very large home on that buildable lot.

Chairman Stepnak stated that Ms. Frame is probably going to say it was set up when he was on the Planning Commission.

Mr. Blake stated that he did not have any problem with that.

Ms. DiCicco stated that while talking with the architect, they were even thinking of making the house a little smaller and they were told if they downsize the house, they would have to come back to the ZBA for approval. She asked if that was correct?

Chairman Stepnak stated that the rule of thumb would be if the board approved the variance with the setbacks and the house ends up smaller; that would not really be an issue. He asked Mr. Shortt if that was correct?

Mr. Shortt asked if the petitioners would plan to push the house back even farther?

Ms. DiCicco answered no. She explained that the home at this time was 2400 square feet and they were considering downsizing the home to 2100 square feet to give them more room on the side for the driveway and the back yard.

Mr. Shortt explained as long as the encroachments the petitioners are asking for are not any more that what is being requested, the petitioners would not have to resubmit a variance. He stated that the Building Department had no problems with it.

Chairman Stepnak stated if the petitioner went smaller with the home, the board would not have a problem with it. The only problem would be if the petitioner planned to make the home any larger and further encroach more than the 5’.

Motion by Ms. Frame to approve Petition # 2010-12 for 26549 Harvest Drive, Chesterfield Township for the variance on the front yard setback to be changed to 30 feet. The practical difficulty in this case would be the odd-shaped lot, large berm and a lot of easement area.

Supported by Mr. Yaschen

Ayes: All

Nays: None Motion Granted

7. ZBA PETITION # 2010-13: Erik Heiderer, 44045 Gratiot, Clinton Township, MI 48036.

Requesting a rear yard setback variance for a covered porch/deck located at 45594 Private Shore Drive.

Erik Heiderer, 44045 Gratiot, Clinton Township, MI 48036 addressed the board.

Mr. Heiderer stated that he was representing Burton Kirsten the owner of the property.

He stated that Mr. Kirsten bought the property about 10 years ago and has made some renovations to the house. The petitioner has an existing deck on the back and over the years has realized that the sun, wind and elements have been beating down on the house. Therefore, he would like to cover the deck and porch to lessen that intensity. He explained that the deck was existing when the petitioner bought the property and at this time he would just like to cover the area.

Chairman Stepnak asked Mr. Shortt if the project had been started already?

Mr. Shortt stated that the project was started and there was a Stop Work Order placed on it. He stated that the deck needed a continuous foundation and actually needs a front yard set back the way the ordinance states. He stated that the structure must stay in line with six houses to the right and six houses to the left. He mentioned that when on the road facing the house the deck would need to be three feet on the left side and five feet on the right side to meet the side yard setbacks. He thought the petitioner would need a side yard setback.

Mr. Heiderer stated that the house was actually only three or four feet from the property line so he did not think that was necessary.

Mr. Shortt asked which side?

Mr. Heiderer stated the it sticks over two feet on the right side. He claimed that he thought it was exactly three feet.

Mr. KIonowski stated that his concern would be if the structure would block the view for the neighbors.

Ms. Frame expressed that the deck would be covered not enclosed.

Mr. Heiderer explained that there would only be a cover and that it would be possible to see through the area. There would just be some posts. It would be more like a portico or gazebo; it would just be attached to the house.

Ms. Uglis verified that the structure would just be covered with a roof and it would not be enclosed.

Mr. Heiderer answered yes.

Ms. Uglis stated that she really did not have any questions and commented that it looked really nice.

Mr. Heiderer reiterated that the structure would not be enclosed and the petitioner never planned to enclose it.

Ms. Frame stated that she visited the site and thought it looked nice and was in line with what the rest of the neighbors had on their properties. She looked from the neighbor’s home by the door wall and took a look down at the lake and there was really no obstruction of the lake view.

Ms. Orewyler stated that her major concern was that the deck and the overhang extended over at the side; however, the petitioner mentioned that he would correct that problem. She also mentioned that there should be no enclosures of any kind because it would block the neighbor’s views. She mentioned that she also went to the neighbor’s homes and she could see through the area.

Mr. Yaschen had no questions.

There were no public comments.

Mr. Shortt stated that there were a bunch of building things that he had to go through with the petitioner. He asked if the petitioner planned to put a deck on to the structure now?

Ms. Orewyler commented that the petitioner was not asking for that.

Mr. Shortt asked that since the property would already be non-conforming would the petitioner need another variance if he decided to put up a deck?

Ms. Orewyler answered yes he would need another variance.

Chairman Stepnak stated should the petitioner decide to put in a deck in the future, it would be entertained at that time. The board would only be looking at what was presented to them and any other changes to the site would have to go before the board again.

Mr. Blake asked if the petitioner planned to put a railing on the structure?

Mr. Heiderer stated that the structure is higher than two steps so according to code, the petitioner would need to put up a railing.

Ms. Frame stated that there still would not be any obstruction of view.

Mr. Heiderer explained that there would not be any spindles; it would be 4" on center with plexi-glass. Therefore, it would be transparent and would not block any view.

Mr. Blake commented that it would be California style.

Ms. Orewyler verified that the petitioner would be putting a three foot tall plexi- glass railing?

Mr. Heiderer answered it would not exactly be plexi- glass. It would be a transparent solid glass that the neighbors could see through.

Ms. Orewyler asked it that would just be to each post without a cap on it?

Mr. Heiderer answered that they planned to put a cap on it, but it was not necessary because the glass could be beveled on top.

Chairman Stepnak stated that the petitioner would have to follow building codes so there would have to be some guard rail of some type.

Mr. Shortt asked if the board would require an affidavit to assure the walls would not be enclosed so it would not be an addition if the petitioner sells the house in five years?

Chairman Stepnak stated that people are not supposed to be breaking the rules and he did not know if the board wanted to go down the road on that. He mentioned that the board could stipulate that the railing be decorative and the sides transparent.

Ms. Frame stated that there was no obstruction of view even if the petitioner put up a spindled railing. She commented that as long as the petitioner follows the building codes and the structure is aesthetically pleasing she does not know the board would be concerned with the building materials.

Chairman Stepnak stated that the board is considering those aspects because the porch sticks out and there is the matter of the lake view.

Motion by Mr. Klonowski to approve Petition # 2010-13 at 45594 Private Shore Drive, with the structure meeting the side yard set backs and all the Building Department and code requirements.

Supported by Mr. Blake

Ayes: All

Nays: None Motion Granted

8. ZBA PETITION # 2010-14: F. Norman Fox at 48135 Mallard, Chesterfield, MI 48047.

Request is for multiple allowances for an existing shed. A) To allow the shed to remain in the present side yard location. 2) Structure is closer than 10’ from the main structure. 3) To be over the allowed 120’ for a shed and to waive the ratwall requirement in the ordinance. Location is stated above.

F. Norman (Bud) Fox, 48135 Mallard, Chesterfield, MI 48047 addressed the board.

Petitioner stated that he assumed the board received his letter and knew the details of what he was requesting.

At this point in the proceedings, the cassette tape was destroyed in the recorder and the MP3 recording was inaudible. Another tape was used to record the rest of the meeting.

Ms. Orewyler stated that she does know the area well. She explained that being a plastic shed does not protect it from lightening, fires, rats, and ground hogs. The shed needs a ratwall. She commented that the petitioner has a large yard and if he wanted to use the other yard; she would not have a problem with it. However, she insisted that the shed cannot stay where it is; the shed should be 10’ away from the house.

Petitioner stated that he has been there for 30 years and has never had a rodent problem. Maybe that is because the shed is not right on the cement; it is back a little ways.

Chairman Stepnak stated that the board would have to make a decision on what is being presented and would not rely on what happened in the past. Ordinance clearly states that a ratwall is required for the health, safety and welfare of the community.

Ms. Orewyler read a letter in favor of the board granting the variance from the petitioner’s neighbors Sherri and William Sparks.

Ms. Orewyler read another favorable letter from Mr. and Mrs. Steve Williams.

A copy of both letter were retained for the ZBA records.

Mark Forton, 48143 Mallard, Chesterfield, MI addressed the board.

Mr. Forton made comments in favor of the petitioner and vehemently defended the petitioner’s right to put the shed in the same spot as the old shed without a ratwall. He stated that the shed could be furred out and lined with 5/8 fire boards. He claimed it could be done and it would be a reasonable solution.

Chairman Stepnak stated that the point was the shed is closer than it should be to the house. He asked if there a way to bring the shed up to fire codes? He stated it would be possible, but would it be recommended in this situation. He explained that as far as the ratwall issue; the shed would have been grandfathered in until the petitioner made changes to the structure. Anytime changes are made to a building, the structure must be subjected to the new codes that are in place.

Ms. Frame asked if the plastic on the shed was fire-retardant?

Ms. Orewyler stated that actually, if the plastic burned, it would actually omit noxious fumes.

Ms. Frame asked if the plastic could be treated?

Mr. Shortt explained that there is a fire retardant spray. However, he was not aware if the spray would stick to plastic.

Chairman Stepnak stated that the shed would still need a ratwall. He reiterated that the ratwall was a requirement for the health, safety and welfare of the community. He stated that it would be a requirement of the Health Department.

Mr. Shortt commented that in the 70’s only a ratwall 18" deep was the requirement. However, in the 80’s and 90’s studies were done that show vermin dig deeper than previously thought; so the present requirement was at 24".

Petitioner stated that he wanted to make this a win/win situation. He explained that the shed sits on part of his driveway and that in between the garage and the shed there is an open part with shrubs. He asked if he could drive something down into the ground to prevent rodents from entering the shed?

Mr. Shortt explained that the petitioner could use some type of metal, like pole barn siding or marine plywood at 40 retention.

Petitioner stated that he could bury either one down two feet. He added that he would also commit to putting something on the shed that would be fire proof.

Mr. Short stated that he supposed the petitioner could fur out the walls and put fireboard in there.

Motion by Ms. Frame to approve Petition # 2010-14 for the shed located at 48135 Mallard, Chesterfield, MI. The approval was subject to the installation of a ratwall and some type of fire-retardant or prevention mechanism either drywall or some fire-retardant material; whatever is approved by the Building Department. So the petitioner could leave the shed in the current location.

Supported by Mr. Yaschen

Ayes: Frame, Yaschen, Uglis, and Klonowski

Nays: Stepnak, Orewyler and Blake Motion Granted

9. OLD BUSINESS:

There was no old business.

10. NEW BUSINESS:

There was no new business

11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETING:

Motion by Ms. Orewyler to approve the minutes from the June 9, 2010 ZBA meeting.

Supported by Ms. Uglis

Ayes: All

Nays: None Motion Granted

12. COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR:

Chairman Stepnak thanked Mr. Shortt from the Building Department for attending the meeting.

13. ADJOURNMENT:

Motion by Chairman Stepnak to adjourn at 8:48 PM.

Supported by Mr. Blake

Ayes: All

Nays: None Motion Granted

Nancy Orewyler, Secretary

Grace Mastronardi, Recording Secretary

Go To Top