Barton Hills Village, Michigan

shim image News

February 8, 2016




February 8, 2016

The meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order by President ProTem Butterwick at 6:02 PM at the Village Hall.

ROLL CALL Present: Trustees Al-Awar, Benson, Borel, Butterwick, Langford, MacKrell and van der Velde. Absent: Trustees Boddie and Izenberg.
Others attending: Zoning Administrator Perry, Asst. Treasurer King, BHMC President Legacki, three project applicants and three residents.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the June 8, 2015 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting were approved as printed. (Al-Awar/MacKrell/P)


Project Presentation (ZA Perry) Variance is requested for construction of a deck in the side set back. Dimensional variance (practical difficulty) criteria include degree of encroachment, impact on neighbors and support of purposes of the BHV Zoning Ordinance and Master Plan. While the use of setbacks in many communities is to promote uniformity, the focus in BHV is more on impact to neighboring homes.

Public Hearing The Public Hearing was convened at 6:05 PM. No verbal public comment was given. Neighbors were given notice as required and no written public comment was submitted. The hearing was closed at 6:06 PM.

Applicant was present and described the proposed deck which would connect to an existing stone patio, providing required safe egress from a bedroom door as well as an aesthetic completion to the rear of the home. Adhering to the diagonal property line would require an unusual angle on the rectangular deck, significantly reducing the safe egress space as well as usable deck space. The steep, heavily vegetated slope to Barton Pond also limits possible design options. The closest neighboring home is uphill, separated from the area by some brushy vegetation, an old stone fireplace and parking area. Applicant stated that she/husband and their architects had considered a number of other options before choosing this plan. ZBA members favored taking more time for the applicants to look for alternate designs and for the ZBA members to visit the site and think more about the situation. The proposed location of the deck is staked on the property.

Motion Review of the application for variance from Section 4.08 of the Barton Hills Village Zoning Ordinance to allow construction of a deck in the side setback at 326 Juniper Lane was tabled to the March 14, 2016 ZBA meeting. (Al-Awar/Benson/P)


Project Presentation (ZA Perry) Variance is requested for construction of a new house with a roof height greater than 40 feet and a chimney height greater than 5 feet. Mr. Perry explained that the drawings as originally presented were unclear as to the height measurements for the roof and indicated a 6 foot chimney height so a variance application was suggested to the owners’ representatives at the PreProject Conference.

Public Hearing The Public Hearing was convened at 6:30 PM. Neighbors were given notice as required. Neighbor at 280 Barton North Drive spoke in support of the house design and variance request, noting that her home was built by the same contractor and was granted a variance for height just over the limit. Written comment was received from neighbors at 242 Barton North Drive, asking about screening between the two properties. Plans indicate that several existing trees in that area will remain. The hearing was closed at 6:33 PM.

Applicant representatives were present. They provided additional copies of a new drawing that was emailed to BHV earlier in the afternoon. The drawing verifies that the roof height is 38 feet 3 inches, the chimney extension beyond the roof height is 3 feet and the clay chimney flue terminations are an additional 3 feet for a total height of 44 feet 3 inches. While the roof height and chimney height could be interpreted separately, the ZBA members concluded that since the total height is less than the BHV Zoning Ordinance roof height limit of 40 feet plus the allowed additional 5 feet for the chimney (45 feet), a variance was not necessary for this project.

It was noted that the variance fee collected by BHV would not be refunded since the public hearing notice expenses were incurred based on the information provided, and that the parties involved were in agreement that it was better to schedule the public hearing and not need the variance than to wait for additional information and delay the process another month due to publishing deadlines.


The meeting was adjourned at 6:39 PM. (Al-Awar/MacKrell/P)

Janice K. Esch, Deputy Clerk     Approved 5/9/16