Minutes Archive

Overview ~ Cascade Community Foundation ~ Downtown Development Authority ~ Library Advisory Board Planning Commission ~ Township Board ~ Zoning Board of Appeals

Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes

Cascade Charter Township Zoning Board of Appeals

Tuesday, March 14, 2000

7:30 p.m.

ARTICLE 1. Chairperson Wilson called the meeting to order.

Members Present: Erickson, Lewis, Koessel, Wilson.

Members Absent: Goldberg and Timmons (both unexcused).

Others present: Planning Director Peterson, Admin. Assistant Thompson and those listed on Supplement #1.

ARTICLE 2. Member Koessel supported by Member Lewis moved to approve the agenda. The motion carried and the agenda was approved.

ARTICLE 3. The Minutes of the February 8, 2000 meeting were approved on motion by Member Lewis and supported by Member Koessel. The motion carried.

(PUBLIC HEARING)

The applicant requested permission to site a second temporary portable classroom on the property at 6655 Cascade Road, SE.

Planning Director Peterson related the applicant is asking for a second portable classroom to be placed in the vicinity of the current temporary classroom. Back in the spring of 1998 the applicant requested approval from the Township Zoning Board for approval of the initial temporary building. It was determined at that meeting that the request should come back within a year to extend approval. The applicant did come back in June of 1999. At that time, the Zoning Board of Appeals really was interested in getting information from the church on when they intended to proceed with a building addition to do away with the temporary classrooms. The applicant has run into more problems and needs another classroom and requested a second classroom building for a period of two years. Originally the applicant requested a three year time period. A two year request would be approximately five months longer than their original three year proposal. They are thinking their two year time frame seems to be on low end of a master plan for the church. They indicated they would have some sort of construction drawings to present or be able to tell you about the progress on their building addition. The applicant does have a representative here tonight to address that issue. For clarification Planning Director Peterson has put together an estimated time frame for a two year request. Just the permitting process alone does take quite a bit of lead time. Even with a two year permit, they need to be into the township for site plan approval about a year from now. Planning Director Peterson related if they are serious about putting in this temporary classroom, they won’t have any problem with a time limit of 2002 to remove them. The Zoning Ordinance section 4.18(4) contains a couple of standards regarding temporary buildings. Planning Director Peterson related the portable classroom must be ten feet away from the property line. Planning Director Peterson recommended approval of their request to allow for two temporary classrooms until February of 2002 with the applicant supplying a site plan and obtaining a building permit.

Chairperson Wilson related she did go out to the site to see where the general placement would be.

Planning Director Peterson related they will probably move it more towards the rear of the site.

Member Lewis related the initial request was for three years. Wasn’t the original approval cut back? Planning Director Peterson related the ZBA wanted an annual review. Which is what they did last summer.

John Versluys, represented the applicant. Mr. Versluys related he is a member of the church Council. They have not been able to complete the master plan and presented a letter from Postema Architects. They intend to have it ready by May. They are getting ready with classrooms for this fall. There are many more children in the church education program than they planned on. They will need one or two more places for classes again this fall and are already using every available space including the Pastor’s study. In order to get a portable classroom they must act quickly. The portable will not be installed until summer for use in September.

Member Koessel related last year at your review we wanted to see progress made toward getting a permanent building in a year. Now you are looking at 2002. Mr. Versluys responded we thought it would take us three years. Now we realize that two years from this point would be better than the original schedule. We wanted to recognize that in our application.

Member Koessel related the Minutes reflected the church is looking to build within a year. He asked has that changed? Mr. Versluys related the time line of the architects, financing and church approval are taking longer than we originally thought.

Chairperson Wilson asked is this where you are planning to place the second building? Mr. Versluys responded it will be adjacent to the first one with the doors facing the parking lot. We will make sure that it is not on the property line and meets the township setback requirements.

Member Koessel asked last year in the motion we indicated that the applicant would present a progress report or contingency plan to have a construction complete within the next year. Has the township received that? Planning Director Peterson responded no, the application indicates how far they are in the process of a permanent building and their need for another temporary classroom.

Member Koessel asked do you feel that requirement has been met? Planning Director Peterson related that is what we are discussing tonight. No it hasn’t been met.

Member Koessel related there has been some concern about additional temporary buildings. Last year that was a concern too. We are looking at a second request but still don’t know what your plans are for expansion. Now we are looking at another two years in the future. That doesn’t mean the motion will go one way or the other tonight but we are concerned about what you are doing. We don’t want to have a request next year for a third additional building.

Member Lewis related church building plans and financing are hard to put together. The church should be applauded for the long range planning and it should fit within the framework of the Zoning Ordinance too.

Member Lewis supported by Member Koessel moved to open the public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.

David Caplan asked why when you applied for the original permit why you didn’t apply for two classrooms. What is the church’s plan?

Mr. Versluys responded as early as August and September we thought we would have enough classrooms to meet our needs. We are using the Pastor’s study and don’t have any place else to go. We did not anticipate our growth well enough last summer.

Mr. Caplan asked what about the residence next door? Mr. Versluys responded the house is occupied by our custodian and family and the second house is rented from the church by the owner. We looked at the possibility of converting two classrooms in one of the homes, but have some problems with building code. It would require quite a bit of renovation. The portable classrooms suit us better.

Mr. Caplan related you are collecting rent from second house. You are asking the township to say okay to collect rent and put a second structure out there.

Mr. Versluys responded yes. It is more than economics; we can’t use the house as it is.

Mr. Caplan related he hears it is an economic question. Mr. Versluys related the house would have to be gutted and meet building and safety codes.

Kathy Gatchalian related she lives directly east of the church. She also asked what are the church’s plans? She hasn’t seen a plan. She asked how is it going to affect our property and property values? She then asked if the church has decided what is going to happen with the residential houses once construction is begun?

Mr. Versluys related we are waiting for a master plan. We expect to go toward the south somehow. We are not really sure yet. We will have the master plan in mid-May. Our congregation will look at it and approve it.

Chairperson Wilson related you will have to come before the Planning Commission for site plan approval as well. She related to Mrs. Gatchalian it shouldn’t have an adverse effect on your property.

Mrs. Gatchalian related what is the property setback? Planning Director Peterson related ten feet.

Mrs. Gatchalian related she has a teaching certificate. Would she be permitted to put up a temporary structure on her property for a temporary classroom? Planning Director Peterson responded that is a different use. The issue is not so much zoning but the principle use of the property. Yours is a residential home and this is the church. He was not able to think of an example where a business has been run out of a home. We certainly don’t let anybody run a business out of an accessory building. We do have a home occupation ordinance. Planning Director Peterson related to Mrs. Gatchalian she could have a home teaching business but not in a temporary building.

Chairperson Wilson related they are looking at something permanent at a later date.

Mrs. Gatchalian related the church will be creating a bigger structure which will affect our property value. There will no longer be that single family residential feeling. We have been attempting to find a buyer for our property for other than residential. Our real estate agent has said the property is not acceptable for anything other than residential. It appears to us that the church is getting preferential treatment.

Mr. Caplan asked if any of the board members are members of the church? Member Lewis related that is not important at all. Mr. Caplan related he feels it is.

Mrs. Gatchalain related if she has put her house up for sale for residential would have an effect? Member Lewis related he has no idea.

Mr. Caplan asked what is the present zoning on the two houses the church owns? Planning Director Peterson responded R-1 residential.

Mr. Caplan related it is the same zoning, the church property zoning hasn’t been changed. It seems they are trying to get away with having it both ways by saying they are a church but can do what they want with the residences. There is an economic issue involved for the board to grant the variance for the church to allow them to put up these temporary structures. Mr. Caplan related it bothers him that we are getting into an area of church and state. He related he is an attorney. The ZBA is endowing the church with an economic benefit and supporting a tax relief institution.

Chairperson Wilson related to Mr. Caplan she disagrees with him totally. The ZBA hasn’t given them anything yet. She does not feel the ZBA is preferential. We questioned the fact that they are asking for a longer time. It is a total of five months. She also does not think the economics issue is a big issue. Chairperson Wilson related she takes a slight bit of offense to Mr. Caplan’s comments. She believes this board to be very objective and are very worried about preference.

Member Erickson asked Mrs. Gatchalian if there is any way that the landscaping around the temporary building could be included in the variance so you would feel better about that.

Mrs. Gatchalian responded last September we were worried about how it would look. She was under the assumption they were going to do landscaping.

Chairperson Wilson related she agrees that the side could use some landscaping.

Member Erickson asked would you have the same objection if they were to put up landscaping all around the building? Mrs. Gatchalian responded that would be better.

Member Erickson asked would you still object to it? Mr. Caplan responded he understands this hearing is for public comment. He has every right to make whatever comment. He realizes you are supposed to listen to the public. He does not think he should be shut down now. He related he would like to influence the vote. He does not think the application from the church is really the proper thing to do.

Mr. Gatchalian questioned the due date of the request. He thought he heard 2002. He asked if both structures would be extended by this vote? Member Koessel responded in July of 1999 they came in for review and then asked for an additional two year renewal. The applicant is now asking for permission for two temporary classrooms for a two year period until February of 2002.

Mr. Gatchalian responded it seems to him they are still not making progress and should not extend the date to 2002 and they should be required to show some progress by this 2000 date.

Mr. Caplan related at this point in time when the church is asking for a variance, the township should know what their long term plans are.

Chairperson Wilson related she believes they have until July of this year to come up with plans.

Planning Director Peterson related the issue is their future plans. The church has indicated the plans will be completed by mid-May. We could ask for a table and they can present that plan to us in May and you will have what was supposed to have presented by July 2000 and render a decision on those temporary buildings.

Member Koessel asked what is your time frame if this would receive a favorable vote tonight? Mr. Versluys related in August. But we want to get it lined up prior to that. It is a judgment call. There is one company that handles re-built classrooms.

Member Koessel asked would our plan to table give you enough time? Mr. Versluys related it would not be the best and not what we hoped for. If that is as far as you are able to go we will have to accept that.

Member Koessel supported by Member Lewis moved to close the public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was closed.

Member Lewis related he is not too sure about tabling. We have had a public hearing. He understands we all want to see the master plan and the applicant wants to get a building lined up. We could grant a variance in July when the master plan is available. Member Lewis related personally he has no problem with either of these buildings being approved until 2001. He thinks a review in July of 2000 when a master plan will be presented along with landscaping plan would be fine.

Member Koessel asked what if we did that and made a motion to approve the variance subject to review in July? Based on the church’s presentation we felt the time was little long with anticipation of the master plan. One concern we have is if this would become a continual thing year after year. That is why we asked the applicant to present a progress report. I think the issue is we haven’t received anything. But it is not July of 2000 yet. We are not entitled to receive that master plan yet. Come July if we look at the plan and feel it is going to extend out even further can we rescind our approval?

Planning Director Peterson related the applicant would not need a building permit until July after you have received and reviewed the master plan. If the master plan shows some additional reason that it will be longer than another year, I don’t know. They would be allowed time to get site plan approval for the new addition. They do need a building permit and Certificate of Occupancy for this temporary building but that won’t be until after you have reviewed the Master Plan.

Member Koessel related Mr. Jasperse last year asked for two years. Now we are into 2002. The original time frame was 3-5 years. He doesn’t want this to go on and on. Temporary is temporary.

Planning Director Peterson responded that is why he recommended we put a date that the temporary classrooms have to be removed by. And that is it. No more extensions or approvals. Planning Director Peterson thought this request was reasonable knowing that if they are serious about building a permanent structure they are going to be back in a year to get their final approval for new building plans.

Member Erickson related she would like to have landscaping on both sides of the temporary classroom within 30 days of it being put up. She would be willing to table the request until we see the plans.

Member Lewis related we are not any closer to a permanent structure if they bring us plans. You can’t force them to build. You are better off to have trip wires (deadline dates) all the way through.

Member Lewis supported by Member Koessel moved to approve the request for the second building with the understanding both buildings would have to come in for review in July of 2000. At that time we would like to see master plan for the church. Before the second building is put into place we would like the landscaping plans. Further, that a review would take place in 2001 at which time if they are not making progress we can request the buildings be removed. In any event the both temporary classrooms will be removed in July of 2002. The second temporary classroom can be in place in July of 2000 along with landscaping. The motion carried.

(PUBLIC HEARING)

The applicant requested a variance due to the construction of a new private road to allow the existing accessory building to be located in the front yard and the existing home to have less than the required rear yard at 7710 Cascade Road.

Planning Director Peterson related the applicant is requesting two variances. One variance is for a rear yard setback and the other is for an accessory building in the front yard. The variances have been triggered by a lot split. The house on the site plan is existing. It is a large four acre piece of property. Where the house is built today is the front yard (east property line) facing Cascade Road. The applicant discussed with us the splitting of his property which he can do. He would have to run a private road in order to split the property. As soon as you access two or more lots the road needs to be built as a private road not a driveway. That standard has to be met for all lot splits today. Because the new private road would go down the north property line (which used to be his side yard) it now becomes the front yard. The pole barn would also be in the front yard now. The applicant did supply you with a rendering of what the applicant without any variances. The private road stops and the applicant could have a driveway easement much like he has now back to rear portion of property. The ZBA has granted several front yard variances for accessory buildings in past years. Planning Director Peterson then went through the criteria to be considered as found in the Staff Report. A few people came in at regarding the request and didn’t seem to have a problem with it. Nothing in writing was received. Planning Director Peterson recommended approval for the variances requested.

Member Koessel asked how would Parcel B have access? Planning Director Peterson related from a private drive through Parcel A. One lot can be accessed by just a driveway.

Member Erickson asked the size of Parcel B. Planning Director Peterson related it is just over an acre, big enough to meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements.

Mr. Bailey, the applicant, was present. Mr. Bailey related he is requesting the variances to go on to what he is doing. He has talked to most neighbors that adjoin his property and they have no problem. He has not heard any negatives. The property is not in the subdivision on Cahoon Drive.

Member Koessel asked which neighbor is on Lot 4. Mr. Bailey responded he didn’t know. He has not met them.

Chairman Wilson asked your purpose for doing that is selling the lots? Mr. Bailey responded he is going to building on one. He will be downsizing. He is planning to build on Parcel B.

Member Lewis supported by Member Koessel moved to open the public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.

Gloria Brannon of Doubloon Drive related this is directly in back of her property. She was never contacted. She bought the property today and has some really strong concerns. She asked Mr. Bailey who owns the piece of land on the cul-de-sac of Cahoon next to the beige house? Mr. Bailey responded he didn’t know.

Mrs. Brannon related several years ago Jack Smith made mention of the fact that he would try to mine that big sand dune. He did plan to have access from Cascade Road to mine the sand. That worries her. She couldn’t understand why Mr. Bailey didn’t just use the roadway instead of constructing a new street. Now, she will have a road and two houses behind her house. She is curious as to why this lot has been bulldozed and flagged. She asked if anyone has ever approached Mr. Bailey about the possibility of mining the sand? Mr. Bailey responded no. He is building on Parcel B. The other gentleman with him tonight will be building on Parcel A.

Mrs. Brannon related she feels the neighbors should be involved with this before the Planning Commission approves it.

Member Koessel related this is the whole parcel. Lot 4 in Shenandoah Valley is a lot that now is going to have back yards abutting it.

A long discussion took place at the table with Mr. Bailey and Mrs. Brannon.

Mrs. Brannon restated her concern regarding what happened in Maracaibo Shores and the property sold to the State. The property values are not good. She requested the ZBA table this request and look it over.

Member Koessel asked did all the neighbors receive notices? Planning Director Peterson related 31 notices went out including everybody on Cahoon and the back half of Maracaibo Shores.

Planning Director Peterson spoke regarding sand mining. He related there is an extensive amount of work that someone has to do to get a sand mine project approved. He related it simply won’t happen here.

Scott Trapp related he plans on buying Parcel A. He is not even going to have a back yard. He is going to build up on the slope. He doesn’t think the neighbors will see his home.

Mrs. Brannon related her concern is the sand mining. Mr. Smith said he was going to do it and Dick Smith (his son) has the house next to that lot and has a clean entry way to that sand dune.

Member Lewis related he represents the Planning Commission also. The last people that tried to put a sand mine in didn’t work. He related we are all concerned about mining situations in the area. He related he appreciates Mrs. Brannon’s feelings but Mr. Smith is not going to move that sand.

Member Koessel supported by Member Erickson moved to close the public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was closed.

Chairperson Wilson related our purpose is to review the variances as requested.

Member Koessel moved to approve the variance for the 22 foot rear yard setback as well as the variance for a pole barn in the front yard.

Member Lewis related he would like to discuss dealing with the Ordinance itself. The idea behind having a Zoning Board of Appeals is to produce the findings of fact. He sees the condition that has been created by the applicant. As was pointed out by staff there are ways it can be done without creating variances, however it would eliminate one of the parcels. The down side is every time we give a variance we set a precedent for someone else to do it too. He feels that the charge of this board is to give the least amount of variance possible. In this particular case it can be done without variances. Member Lewis related he will not support the motion.

Member Erickson related she will support the motion based on the fact this property now meets the setback criteria and because the required private drive is re-defining the property. Visually it will not appear as the front yard. It is a unique situation for an existing home. She thinks the request has merit and will support the motion.

Member Koessel related Parcels A and B are one and a half acre parcels. We are going to have a pole barn in a front yard whether it is one or two parcels. To leave a three acre parcel undeveloped when we have two people who intend to build on it does not make sense. He related he does not share Member Lewis’ concerns. He believes we would be granting the minimum amount of variance that is required.

Chairperson Wilson related she has to agree with Ms. Erickson that it appears the property would not be different. Also she wouldn’t necessarily agree with Mr. Lewis that we are here to approve the least amount of variance possible. The home is existing and is not unique at all. The applicant purchased it that way and it is the applicant’s decision to change it. While it is true the applicant has a beautiful three acre piece of property, she cannot agree with a variance.

Member Erickson related if this driveway were to go through she does see a lot of uniqueness in this lot enough to cover the requirement based on the location of the house and shape of the house in relation to the front yard and shape of the parcel. This house is facing the side yard. That is a fairly unique back yard. It does have an existing pole barn in the front yard. Member Erickson related she believes it is unique and believes it does meet the criteria.

Member Lewis related you are correct but all the situations have been created by the applicant.

Member Erickson related created but by definition redefined by the road.

Member Lewis related that is not a new situation which we just passed.

Member Erickson related by passing this variance you would not be opening a flood of variances.

Member Koessel related we have given variances before for accessory buildings in the front yard. This one is existing. This is a driveway issue - private road versus driveway. All we are getting out of it is one three acre parcel.

Member Erickson related we have two people here willing to purchase the property. There are no objections to this variance.

Member Lewis called the question and asked for a roll call vote.

Members Lewis and Wilson cast nay votes. A tie vote results in a dead motion. The variances were rejected.

Mr. Bailey questioned the vote. Planning Director Peterson related you cannot re-apply for the same variance. You can change your plan and do something that complies with the ordinance but not ask for the same variances.

(PUBLIC HEARING)

The applicant requested a variance to allow for the splitting of his parcel at 7136 Gladys, SE.

Planning Director Peterson related Section 44.(6)(a) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that for any parcel in a platted subdivision when you want to reconfigure the lot line you need approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals. A copy of the original plat is enclosed in your packet showing Lots 13 and 14 are combined as of today. This reconfiguration would simply allow the lots to be reverted back to the original Lots 13 and 14. The size of both lots would comply with the ZBA requirement. Planning Director Peterson recommended approval of the request on basis that they are not asking for any more splits than what was originally approved in this neighborhood. There is a house on the combined parcel which would be removed in the process. The applicant is seeking approval before proceeding with the demolition.

Member Lewis related there are 17 lots and there were how many? Planning Director Peterson related 17 lots and there would still be 17 lots.

Member Koessel related the plat does show Lots 13 and 14 as the same size. Member Koessel asked are how the lots taxed? Planning Director Peterson related 13 and 14 are one lot and are taxed as one lot.

Member Koessel asked they are not really being split? Planning Director Peterson related one lot will turn into two lots as it was originally platted.

Mr. Sytsma, the applicant, related he had nothing to add other than the lots would revert back to their original plat configuration.

Member Koessel asked they are going to tear down the existing house. Will they build on another lot? Mr. Systma responded he is going to build and somebody else is going to build on the other lot.

Chairperson Wilson asked you live in the home that is on both lots? You intend to sell the home and both lots? Mr. Sytsma responded yes. The purchaser will tear down the house and build a new home on one lot and sell the other lot.

Member Koessel supported by Member Lewis moved to open the public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.

Marinus Rooks related he is concerned about the variance. The property looks beautiful the way it is. He related new houses are much taller. The existing home is beautiful. He asked are we going to have two huge houses there?

Ben Brinks related they haven’t worked out the design yet. They expect to build something that will fit in with the adjoining lots. It will be pleasing. Everyone has a little bit difference of pleasing.

Planning Director Peterson related we allow 35 foot high homes in that area. They would have to meet those regulations on building height.

Cheryl Noordyke related she is concerned about the driveway. She doesn’t know whose lot the hedge is on. She asked how is that going to affect us? Will it come down when they tear the house down? We bought our house because of the privacy. A home 35 feet high will look into our house.

Chairperson Wilson related the hedging would depend on whose lot line it is on.

Planning Director Peterson suggested looking up the survey of the property.

Mrs. Noordyke asked how much river frontage would they have? Planning Director Peterson related each lot is 100 feet wide.

Mr. Rooks related as he goes up and down the river he sees more houses torn down and new houses going up. When they do that they are all big houses so close to each other.

Member Lewis asked Staff if any phone calls were received. Planning Director Peterson responded no.

Member Lewis supported by Member Koessel moved to close the public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was closed.

Member Lewis commented we passed this ordinance several years ago when people starting splitting lots in subdivisions and we were ending up with more lots than originally platted for. This would go back to the same number of lots originally platted years ago. In this case the lots are all platted and it does allow for an additional house to be built and does increase the density of the area. There are some extenuating circumstances to this type of split.

Member Koessel referred to the Jeanlin lot splits. He believes those were platted and not built on until someone came and wanted to do something with those lots. In the meantime the ordinance was changed to require a minimum frontage. Now the lots did not meet the existing frontage requirements. The buyers were only able to build on a limited number of those lots so they could meet the minimum square footage requirement and frontage requirement. This is a little different situation. In the Jeanlin situation we didn’t allow for as many lots as originally platted.

Member Koessel supported by Member Lewis moved to approve the request for a split with the following conditions: 1) the applicants have the home removed from the site before the Township signs off on the lot split; 2) the applicant submit a survey drawing with the new legal descriptions to Cascade Township and the County Register of Deeds.

Chairperson Wilson related she would like to say that she agrees with Member Lewis that there is going to be another house. It is not a variance to the Zoning Ordinance. It will simply bring the lot back to its original platted state. Nobody is asking for anything more than what they already had. She will support the motion.

The motion carried.

Member Koessel supported by Member Erickson moved to adjourn. The motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 9:24 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

James Koessel, Secretary

JK:MJT

Government  ~  Departments  ~  Community
Business  ~  Reference Desk  ~  What's Happening
Help  ~  Home  ~  Search  ~  Site Map

Comments? Feedback? Questions? Click here to send an email.

Site Use Policy

This page last modified 06/08/04.
All information © 2003-2004Cascade Township, Michigan