Summary
The Suttons Bay Village Zoning Board of Appeals met on July 9, 2025, chaired by Popke, with Bahle, Hassevoort, Smith, and Cheadle present (5-0 quorum). The Board approved the agenda and the June 11, 2025 minutes unanimously (5-0). The primary business was the continuation of a variance request from applicant Michael Sanocki for property at 379 S. Shore. After reviewing Findings of Fact, the Board ultimately voted 5-0 to deny the variance application, finding the applicant failed to meet Standard C regarding unreasonable hardship.
Public Comments
Rick Andrews spoke in favor of the applicant, stating he felt it was doable for the applicant to adjust impervious lot coverage to 30%. Alan Harris, the applicant's neighbor, expressed support for the garage addition and noted he was pleased the property would no longer operate as a short-term rental. Applicant Michael Sanocki stated his intent was to build a garage to clean up the property and install an EV charging station.
Other Business
The Board continued its review of a variance request for 379 S. Shore (Parcel ID# 043-828-036-00), located in the Single-Family Waterfront District. The applicant sought an 8.33' variance from the required 13.33' front yard setback and a 7' variance from the required 33.33' Lake Michigan setback, to construct a garage addition. The matter had been tabled from the previous meeting pending impervious lot coverage calculations.
Zoning Administrator Patmore reported he visited the site and determined impervious coverage would be at 32% with the proposed addition, exceeding allowed limits. He suggested removing approximately 288 square feet as a potential condition of variance approval, and noted any variance would need to account for the eave line with a one-foot overhang allowance. Member Smith asked who would confirm the applicant met the 30% threshold; Patmore stated he would verify this prior to issuing a land use permit.
Bahle moved, Hassevoort seconded, and the Board voted 5-0 to approve the General Findings of Fact, application, drawings, and zoning administrator reports from both the June 11 and July 9 meetings.
The Board then reviewed five variance standards. Standards A, B, D, and E were found to be met (Standard A: 5-Yes; Standard B: 4-Yes, 1-No; Standard D: 4-Yes, 1-No; Standard E: 4-Yes, 1-No). However, Standard C - whether strict compliance would unreasonably prevent use of the property or be unnecessarily burdensome - was found NOT to be met, with a consensus of 4-No, 1-Yes. Members Smith and Hassevoort spoke favorably toward the hardship of living without a garage in the local climate, while Cheadle, Bahle, and Popke noted the property was already being enjoyed for its permitted purpose without the variance.
Bahle moved, Cheadle seconded, to deny the variance application based on failure to meet Standard C. The motion carried 5-0.
The next meeting was scheduled for August 13 at 5:30 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 5:12 p.m.