the-compact
Zoning Board Of Appeals Wednesday, August 12, 2026 · 17 min

City of Birmingham Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting on August 11, 2026

Transcript

Click any timestamp to jump the video to that moment. Auto-transcribed; expect occasional errors on proper nouns.

  1. Good evening and welcome to the regularly scheduled monthly meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals. BZA members are volunteers and receive no compensation. The board members are appointed by City Commission for staggered three-year terms. Under state statutes the BZA hears three types of appeals. We hear dimensional or non-use variances, use variances and then appeals of interpretations of rulings of building officials or other boards regarding any provision of the ordinance, the zoning ordinance. Today we have two appeals they are both dimensional. In a dimensional appeal the appellate must show a practical difficulty complying with the dimensional requirements of the ordinance. It requires four affirmative votes and as I mentioned both appeals tonight are dimensional. We have a full board so you need four affirmative out of seven. Our procedure are the comments are to be addressed to myself the chair. Please wait to be recognized. City staff will first make a presentation regarding the appeal and take questions from the board. The opponent is then invited to present their case. Only one person may speak on behalf of any appeal. I can make exceptions if there are situations where we need technical support from an engineer or an architect. Members of the public are then invited to come forward, identify themselves, and provide their comments to the board. That can also happen by Zoom. The hearing is then closed and motions from the board aren't entertained or and or acted upon. In all cases this is not a popularity contest. Granting or denying of variance is based substantially on the appellate meeting their burden. approve can we please call the role of the board members here here john miller here i heard lily but did you know i didn't hear all right you're here here i'll call the role of the two appeals we have tonight so we have one for 719 westwood thank you and also one for east 14 mile thank you uh any additional correspondence for the board i do have one in front of me regarding um westwood that's the only one and have they received a copy

  2. identify themselves, and provide their comments to the board. That can also happen by Zoom. The hearing is then closed and motions from the board aren't entertained or and or acted upon. In all cases this is not a popularity contest. Granting or denying of variance is based substantially on the appellate meeting their burden. approve can we please call the role of the board members here here john miller here i heard lily but did you know i didn't hear all right you're here here i'll call the role of the two appeals we have tonight so we have one for 719 westwood thank you and also one for east 14 mile thank you uh any additional correspondence for the board i do have one in front of me regarding um westwood that's the only one and have they received a copy of this yes very good board members we have in front of you the previous notice from our last meeting do we have any amendments or comments about those meeting notes or do we have a motion to approve motion to approve second all in favor you you you all right all opposed our minutes are approved our first appeal tonight is appeal 2619 for 719 westwood and andrews thank you andrew erickson here to present appeal number 2619 the owner of the property known as 719 westwood requests the following variances to construct an addition to the north side of the existing non-conforming home variance a chapter 126 article 2 section 2.06.2 of the zoning ordinance requires that a minimum total combined side yard setback be 14 feet or 25 percent of the total lot width whichever is larger for both side yards

  3. do have one in front of me regarding um westwood that's the only one and have they received a copy of this yes very good board members we have in front of you the previous notice from our last meeting do we have any amendments or comments about those meeting notes or do we have a motion to approve motion to approve second all in favor you you you all right all opposed our minutes are approved our first appeal tonight is appeal 2619 for 719 westwood and andrews thank you andrew erickson here to present appeal number 2619 the owner of the property known as 719 westwood requests the following variances to construct an addition to the north side of the existing non-conforming home variance a chapter 126 article 2 section 2.06.2 of the zoning ordinance requires that a minimum total combined side yard setback be 14 feet or 25 percent of the total lot width whichever is larger for both side yards the required is 22.50 feet the proposed is 19.40 feet therefore variance of 3.10 feet is being requested variance b chapter 126 article 4 section 4.74 c of the zoning ordinance requires that the minimum distance between principal residential buildings on adjacent lots of 14 feet or 25 percent of the total lot width whichever is larger the required is 22.5 feet on the north side the proposed is 18 therefore a variance of 4.50 feet is being requested the applicant is seeking two variances to construct an addition to the north side of the existing non-conforming home that was constructed in 1941 so the first variance is that for the total side yards we have the 12.2 is here and then 7.2 on the north side that gives us the 19.40 feet and then the second variance is for the distance in between the 18 is here and the required is 22.50 feet can

  4. the required is 22.50 feet the proposed is 19.40 feet therefore variance of 3.10 feet is being requested variance b chapter 126 article 4 section 4.74 c of the zoning ordinance requires that the minimum distance between principal residential buildings on adjacent lots of 14 feet or 25 percent of the total lot width whichever is larger the required is 22.5 feet on the north side the proposed is 18 therefore a variance of 4.50 feet is being requested the applicant is seeking two variances to construct an addition to the north side of the existing non-conforming home that was constructed in 1941 so the first variance is that for the total side yards we have the 12.2 is here and then 7.2 on the north side that gives us the 19.40 feet and then the second variance is for the distance in between the 18 is here and the required is 22.50 feet can you circle the area that is the addition to the existing structure right here they're gonna deconstruct the garage and rebuild it in the exact same location so are either of these variances caused by this addition are they existing non-conformity existing non-conforming and the work they're doing on this property is not exacerbating those non-conformity no very good any questions for the city so from what I can tell the only thing they're doing is this putting a basement under the garage and they're rebuilding the garage over it correct okay thank you any other questions for Andrew seeing none who's speaking on behalf of this case please please tell us your name your address and why you believe this is a your answer you should have sure my name is Zach Astroff worked on the plans my address is 1515 Midwood White Lake Michigan 48386 and essentially we've got a pre-existing and conforming structure in terms of the setbacks and

  5. is for the distance in between the 18 is here and the required is 22.50 feet can you circle the area that is the addition to the existing structure right here they're gonna deconstruct the garage and rebuild it in the exact same location so are either of these variances caused by this addition are they existing non-conformity existing non-conforming and the work they're doing on this property is not exacerbating those non-conformity no very good any questions for the city so from what I can tell the only thing they're doing is this putting a basement under the garage and they're rebuilding the garage over it correct okay thank you any other questions for Andrew seeing none who's speaking on behalf of this case please please tell us your name your address and why you believe this is a your answer you should have sure my name is Zach Astroff worked on the plans my address is 1515 Midwood White Lake Michigan 48386 and essentially we've got a pre-existing and conforming structure in terms of the setbacks and the variance that we're requesting essentially the proposal is gonna the garage and the house is gonna look exactly like it does now except for the fact that we're gonna meet the new ordinance of separate two separate doors since we're front-facing instead of currently they have one garage door other than that we're not making a non-conformity any worse and we need all the setbacks for the structure itself very good any questions for your comment seeing that thank you in the audience or on zoom if you're on zoom you can use the raised hand feature to identify that you'd like to speak regarding this appeal have any comments about this appeal anything job I don't see nobody answer all right seeing no public comment close public comment board members it's cancer sir I'll make a motion to approve in regard to appeal 2619 the property at 719 Westwood I would

  6. got a pre-existing and conforming structure in terms of the setbacks and the variance that we're requesting essentially the proposal is gonna the garage and the house is gonna look exactly like it does now except for the fact that we're gonna meet the new ordinance of separate two separate doors since we're front-facing instead of currently they have one garage door other than that we're not making a non-conformity any worse and we need all the setbacks for the structure itself very good any questions for your comment seeing that thank you in the audience or on zoom if you're on zoom you can use the raised hand feature to identify that you'd like to speak regarding this appeal have any comments about this appeal anything job I don't see nobody answer all right seeing no public comment close public comment board members it's cancer sir I'll make a motion to approve in regard to appeal 2619 the property at 719 Westwood I would move to approve variance requests a and B this is a pre-existing nonconforming property as we heard from the applicant they're tearing down the garage putting it in the exact same place no exacerbation to the pre-existing conformity nonconformity excuse me and so because of that I think there are some special conditions applicable to the property in question namely the fact that this is pre-existing nonconforming and it's not changing literal enforcement of the chart of the chapter the ordinance will result in a unnecessary hardship if we don't grant this variance and I don't believe granting the variance would be contrary to the spirit and purpose of the zoning ordinance nor would it be contrary to the public health safety and welfare and I do believe it will result in substantial justice to property on the neighboring properties I would note we do have one objection they're not here to speak but because this isn't going any closer to the property and exacerbating any pre-existing conditions I don't find any merit to the objection so I will tie it to the planes move to approve second we have a second I had a comment also please I just

  7. move to approve variance requests a and B this is a pre-existing nonconforming property as we heard from the applicant they're tearing down the garage putting it in the exact same place no exacerbation to the pre-existing conformity nonconformity excuse me and so because of that I think there are some special conditions applicable to the property in question namely the fact that this is pre-existing nonconforming and it's not changing literal enforcement of the chart of the chapter the ordinance will result in a unnecessary hardship if we don't grant this variance and I don't believe granting the variance would be contrary to the spirit and purpose of the zoning ordinance nor would it be contrary to the public health safety and welfare and I do believe it will result in substantial justice to property on the neighboring properties I would note we do have one objection they're not here to speak but because this isn't going any closer to the property and exacerbating any pre-existing conditions I don't find any merit to the objection so I will tie it to the planes move to approve second we have a second I had a comment also please I just wanted to add that as you go along the street this house does not seem to be at all misaligned with all the other homes so I think that that there's a question of separation here um between this house and the others it doesn't seem to have any uh negative effect on on any of the neighbors the way it sits and with the garage basically just being replaced it's a pretty reasonable request and so i'm seconding the motion very good any other comments i'll just comment that i will support the motion and that um specifically regarding the objection if we did not approve this motion and the garage remained and the appellant just remodeled it the two variances would not be impact in other words the the structures distance between and side yard would not change so the approval of this variance does not change the footprint of this home and thus on the objection doesn't really appear to understand what was being requested and that they are not adding to the width of this home um we have a motion to approve can we please call the roll using cancer yes john miller yes yes yes who was that i think that was

  8. the planes move to approve second we have a second I had a comment also please I just wanted to add that as you go along the street this house does not seem to be at all misaligned with all the other homes so I think that that there's a question of separation here um between this house and the others it doesn't seem to have any uh negative effect on on any of the neighbors the way it sits and with the garage basically just being replaced it's a pretty reasonable request and so i'm seconding the motion very good any other comments i'll just comment that i will support the motion and that um specifically regarding the objection if we did not approve this motion and the garage remained and the appellant just remodeled it the two variances would not be impact in other words the the structures distance between and side yard would not change so the approval of this variance does not change the footprint of this home and thus on the objection doesn't really appear to understand what was being requested and that they are not adding to the width of this home um we have a motion to approve can we please call the roll using cancer yes john miller yes yes yes who was that i think that was we have a motion to approve yes victoria yes evan hart yes yes yes congratulations we have your very hands thank you our next case is case number 2620 for 1451 east 14 mile Road Andrew Erickson here to present appeal number 26-20 the owner of the property known as 1451 East 14 mile request the following variants that construct a second-story addition to an existing non-conforming home variance a chapter 126 article 2 section 2.1 0.2 of the zoning ordinance requires that no side yard shall be less than 5 feet the existing is 4.36 feet and the proposed is 4.36 feet therefore a variance of 0.64 feet is being requested the applicant is looking to construct a second-story addition to an existing non-conforming

  9. please call the roll using cancer yes john miller yes yes yes who was that i think that was we have a motion to approve yes victoria yes evan hart yes yes yes congratulations we have your very hands thank you our next case is case number 2620 for 1451 east 14 mile Road Andrew Erickson here to present appeal number 26-20 the owner of the property known as 1451 East 14 mile request the following variants that construct a second-story addition to an existing non-conforming home variance a chapter 126 article 2 section 2.1 0.2 of the zoning ordinance requires that no side yard shall be less than 5 feet the existing is 4.36 feet and the proposed is 4.36 feet therefore a variance of 0.64 feet is being requested the applicant is looking to construct a second-story addition to an existing non-conforming home so if you look here this is the existing setback of 4.36 feet they're doing a second-story addition on the existing home very good any questions for Andrew so they're also expanding in the back right so they're following the line of build of the existing house correct okay thank you you're not going back we are going back but we're not following the line of the existing house right oh okay even better even better any other questions for Andrew seeing none who's speaking on behalf of this appeal good evening harold rumlinger design team plus i'm the architect of record on the project 975 east maple um birmingham uh as mentioned this is an existing non-conforming house uh the east property line is less than five feet we do have over the required 14 feet between principal structures um to the east 15 foot one and a half and to the west 17 foot one and a quarter so we do meet the overall setbacks between buildings we are only building on top of the existing house

  10. is looking to construct a second-story addition to an existing non-conforming home so if you look here this is the existing setback of 4.36 feet they're doing a second-story addition on the existing home very good any questions for Andrew so they're also expanding in the back right so they're following the line of build of the existing house correct okay thank you you're not going back we are going back but we're not following the line of the existing house right oh okay even better even better any other questions for Andrew seeing none who's speaking on behalf of this appeal good evening harold rumlinger design team plus i'm the architect of record on the project 975 east maple um birmingham uh as mentioned this is an existing non-conforming house uh the east property line is less than five feet we do have over the required 14 feet between principal structures um to the east 15 foot one and a half and to the west 17 foot one and a quarter so we do meet the overall setbacks between buildings we are only building on top of the existing house within the footprint of the existing house the east elevations being expanded by approximately 270 square feet of surface which is just over 50 percent of what's already there currently the addition which is going to the north we have stepped back six and three quarters of an inch since the house is not completely parallel to the side yard setback as we go towards the north we are further away from the property line so that has been stepped back so that we meet the requirement of five foot setback for the new addition all lot usage open space does meet the requirements the zoning ordinance and we're holding the same front facade and setbacks that we have originally on the project in the house very good so with the ability to step back on the you know the addition yes could you just explain to us the reason why you couldn't do the same on this second floor edition stepping back six and three quarter inches basically comes up structural issue um also that it puts a notch within the wall and a little six and three quarter ledge great potential for water leakage and filtration into the building also it's unsightly you know design lines on the house so we opted to keep it within the confines of the house and

  11. do meet the overall setbacks between buildings we are only building on top of the existing house within the footprint of the existing house the east elevations being expanded by approximately 270 square feet of surface which is just over 50 percent of what's already there currently the addition which is going to the north we have stepped back six and three quarters of an inch since the house is not completely parallel to the side yard setback as we go towards the north we are further away from the property line so that has been stepped back so that we meet the requirement of five foot setback for the new addition all lot usage open space does meet the requirements the zoning ordinance and we're holding the same front facade and setbacks that we have originally on the project in the house very good so with the ability to step back on the you know the addition yes could you just explain to us the reason why you couldn't do the same on this second floor edition stepping back six and three quarter inches basically comes up structural issue um also that it puts a notch within the wall and a little six and three quarter ledge great potential for water leakage and filtration into the building also it's unsightly you know design lines on the house so we opted to keep it within the confines of the house and go straight up thank you any other questions for the appellant seeing them thank you sir thank you in the audience or on zoom anybody that is not affiliated with the appeal have any comments about this appeal seeing none we'll close public comments board members thank you mr hart yes mr chairman uh i'd like to make a motion to approve um uh case number 2620 at 1451 east 14 mile road i think the uh the appellant has done an exceptional job with a uh an existing non-conforming structure uh there's there is a uh it's not a uh um it uh it has no uh ill effect on any uh neighboring properties it is a uh as was mentioned it's an existing non-conforming so anything that happens on this house would be uh would be uh uh requiring this type of attention

  12. you know design lines on the house so we opted to keep it within the confines of the house and go straight up thank you any other questions for the appellant seeing them thank you sir thank you in the audience or on zoom anybody that is not affiliated with the appeal have any comments about this appeal seeing none we'll close public comments board members thank you mr hart yes mr chairman uh i'd like to make a motion to approve um uh case number 2620 at 1451 east 14 mile road i think the uh the appellant has done an exceptional job with a uh an existing non-conforming structure uh there's there is a uh it's not a uh um it uh it has no uh ill effect on any uh neighboring properties it is a uh as was mentioned it's an existing non-conforming so anything that happens on this house would be uh would be uh uh requiring this type of attention uh the practical difficulties of of trying to notch that back uh the appellant mentioned that it would create sort of a uh an ungainly structure and i think uh this is a sensible approach to a good a good design um not creating the variance would again would create uh hardships that are not necessary and uh this uh all the work that we see here in this uh these drawings show that there there's no uh contrary effort uh the spirit and the purpose of the zoning ordinance is kept and um i think um it results in substantial justice to the owner and to neighboring properties who'll see a very desirable structure in their neighborhood and i'd like to tie it to the uh drawings as presented and uh uh to approve we have a motion approved do we have a second second we hit a bunch of them maybe victoria actually never for a second for a second we have any comments about this particular motion and appeal yeah just just one comment and i'll support the motion but i just wanted to add that it's uh not contrary to any public health safety or

  13. uh the practical difficulties of of trying to notch that back uh the appellant mentioned that it would create sort of a uh an ungainly structure and i think uh this is a sensible approach to a good a good design um not creating the variance would again would create uh hardships that are not necessary and uh this uh all the work that we see here in this uh these drawings show that there there's no uh contrary effort uh the spirit and the purpose of the zoning ordinance is kept and um i think um it results in substantial justice to the owner and to neighboring properties who'll see a very desirable structure in their neighborhood and i'd like to tie it to the uh drawings as presented and uh uh to approve we have a motion approved do we have a second second we hit a bunch of them maybe victoria actually never for a second for a second we have any comments about this particular motion and appeal yeah just just one comment and i'll support the motion but i just wanted to add that it's uh not contrary to any public health safety or welfare issues and um in terms of the spirit of the zoning ordinance i think um that's been enhanced in the way that the addition to the north has actually stepped back and stayed within the zoning envelope Seeing no more board member comments, can we please call the roll? The motion is to approve. Evan Hart? Yes. Victoria Polachicchio? Yes. Jason Kambeser? Yes. Carl Kona? Yes. Bridget Lilly? Yes. John Miller? Yes. Kirk Morganoth? Yes. Congratulations, you have your variance. Thank you. Do we have any other business to speak of? No, we don't. Anybody in the audience? I see one young gentleman back there. Have any comments about topics unrelated to our appeals today? Seeing none, can we get a motion to adjourn? Moved. Do we have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. We are adjourned.