Planning commission denies setback variance for 321 Sanborn Avenue

The planning commission voted to deny a use‑variance application for 321 Sanborn Avenue on grounds that the request did not meet standards in sections 13.5 and 13.7 of the zoning ordinance.

At a public hearing, staff presented new materials supplied since the petition was postponed: two surveys (one from the applicant and one from a neighbor) and annotated photos showing survey stakes and property lines. Michelle, a staff member, told commissioners the surveys showed property lines but did not mark the locations of existing structures, which limited what the commission could verify from the packet.

The applicant, who spoke during the hearing, said she and a neighbor performed a nonbinding elevation survey that morning to estimate runoff and noted roughly 23 feet of elevation drop across the block. She described the property’s permit history, saying county inspections had earlier approved occupancy but that a setback compliance issue surfaced later. “I’m moving the post…to be compliant with the city,” the applicant said, adding she had a builder scheduled to make the change next week.

Matt Kuntaitis, a state‑licensed Michigan builder and soil‑and‑sediment control specialist who spoke at the hearing, urged the applicant to remove stone and tile that impede drainage and offered to help with foundation access to make repairs. “The water is a serious thing,” Kuntaitis said.

Commissioners focused the fact‑finding on setback rules: staff and members reiterated that accessory structures require a 3‑foot side setback (primary structures require 8 feet), and that the surveys provided did not show structure footprints. The commission’s zoning inspection plan calls for the county building department to process the required permit for any post relocation and to notify the commission; the commission said its zoning inspector (Craig) would verify the 3‑foot setback before final acceptance.

After discussion, a member moved to deny the use‑variance application, citing failure to meet sections 13.5 and 13.7 of the zoning ordinance. The motion was seconded and approved by roll call (named members voted yes), resulting in denial of the application.

The applicant said she will proceed with moving the posts to meet the setback. The county building department will handle the building permit for the post relocation and the commission’s zoning inspection staff will verify compliance before final acceptance. No other formal actions were taken on drainage or foundation work, which speakers said would need to be addressed separately between property owners and contractors.

The commission then addressed routine updates on local development items and adjourned.