Split Request Delayed First, To Give Owners Time To Explore Options
By Karen Gould

Rather than deny a lot split request that, if approved, would jeopardize the city's zoning ordinance, the Mackinac Island Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) has tabled a vote until April. The postponement will give lot owners Josephine "Elaine" and Isaac Bunker a chance to explore other options and possibly withdraw their request for the lot split, which the ZBA is likely to deny. Members said they also would like full board attendance when they vote on the matter.

The issue was tabled following a public hearing Tuesday, March 13, at which board member Lee Finkel was absent.

The Bunkers have two homes on one lot on Cadotte Avenue in Harrisonville. A lot split would allow independent ownership of each home by family members, which would create separate property tax bills and eliminate estate confusion, said Marion Bunker and Jay Davis, who live in one of the homes and attended Tuesday's meeting. Mr. and Mrs. Bunker did not attend the meeting.

The Bunkers' lot is zoned R-3, high density residential, and the family's plan is to split the 7,046-square-foot lot into a 2,403-square-foot lot with a single family home and a 4,643-square-foot lot, which contains a building with four apartments.

The zoning ordinance sets the city's minimum lot size at 5,000 square feet.

The lot already has a variance allowing five dwelling units, instead of the three normally allowed for a lot that size. A setback variance also exists on the property, with the rear setback less than the required 25 feet.

What the Bunkers want to accomplish is reasonable, said city attorney Tom Evashevski as he guided the ZBA through the city regulation, however, to proceed with the lot split, the ZBA would have to approve 10 zoning variances, he added.

Setback variances for the front yards, side yards, and rear yards would be needed to satisfy the Bunkers' request, along with variances for lot sizes and housing density, which also are contrary to the city's zoning ordinance.

Mr. Evashevski suggested that the Bunkers could achieve their goal by designating the property a condominium.

While each home now has its own septic system, a lot split would place each property in violation of lot size requirements for septic systems by the Health Department.

Harrisonville does not have a public sewer system. To get septic permits now, room for a septic system and a drain field is required by the Health Department, a regulation that is just met by the city's 5,000 square foot lot size requirement.

For lots created after 2003, the Health Department advised Mr. Evashevski, the lot owners would get no special consideration if the septic systems failed.

A condominium would allow for separate ownership of the buildings but would retain the original lot size, which would be legal under the zoning ordinance and the septic system code.

Approval of a variance generally involves conditions that are unique and distinct to a specific parcel of land, and cause a hardship for the owner. There are about nine other situations in Harrisonville with multiple structures on one lot, said Mr. Evasheski, which means the Bunker's situation is not unique.

Future requests by property owners to divide lots would be difficult to deny, and by agreeing to the Bunker lot split, in effect the board would be amending the city's zoning ordinance by reducing the size of lots, explained Mr. Evashevski.

"I think it would really damage our zoning ordinance to the point where we'd almost have to start over," advised Mr. Evashevski.

While sympathizing with the Bunker family over the need for the split, ZBA board member Mike Hart said the condominium option would not impact the city's zoning ordinance.

"The split really does erode the zoning ordinance pretty severely," he said. "I really have a problem with that."

The lot split request has been tossed around the city since December, when it came before City Council. At that time, Council referred the issue to the Planning Commission. In January, the Planning Commission sent it back to Council, saying the decision was not the commission's responsibility.