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, January 8, 2002

7:00 pm

ARTICLE 1. Chairman Wilson called the meeting to order.

Members Present: Beahan, Erickson, Goldberg, Lewis, Timmons, Wilson.

Members Absent: None

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

ARTICLE 3. The Minutes of the December 18, 2001 Special Meeting were approved on motion by Member Goldberg and supported by Member Lewis. The motion carried.

(PUBLIC HEARING)

The applicant requested a variance to allow the construction of a horse riding arena that would be 22 feet high to the midpoint instead of the required 14feet at 1370 Buttrick, SE (corner of Buttrick Avenue and Grand River Drive).

Planning Director Peterson related the height is measured at the mid-point between the peak and eave. The height of the mid-point depends on the pitch of the roof.

(Member Erickson entered the meeting at 7:04 pm).

Planning Director Peterson related the property is on the corner of Grand River Drive and Buttrick Avenue. The applicant was granted a variance a couple of years ago for an accessory building south of Grand River Drive. The applicant is requesting the height of this building to be 22 feet with an inside clearance of 14 feet for a horse riding arena. Planning Director Peterson related we recently dealt with a similar variance request in the Buttrick Country Estates PUD Subdivision north of 60^th Street where a resident constructed a barn without a permit which was 22 feet high. That applicant went through the Planning Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals. The applicant applied for a PUD amendment in order to allow for 22 foot high accessory buildings in the PUD. The Township Board approved the amendment which allowed for 22 foot high accessory buildings in that PUD development. The Township Board then directed Staff to look at other options as it relates to the height of accessory buildings.

Planning Director Peterson related this accessory building would be located approximately in the middle of a 27 acre parcel. The setbacks would be 350 feet from Grand River Drive, 400 feet from the Old Elm Subdivision and 400 feet from Buttrick Avenue. The applicant was in front of the Planning Commission last night (Jan. 7) for a Special Use Permit. The Special Use Permit was approved. One condition of approval was that the building remain on a parcel a minimum of 20 acres in size. The logic being that a large building should be on a large piece of property. Planning Director Peterson recommended approval of the height variance based on location of the building; and the fact Staff has begun the process of amending the ordinance.

Member Lewis asked do I understand that it would be impossible for the applicant to divide the land and sell it? Planning Director Peterson responded the applicant has talked about splitting off a small piece to build a smaller home when the kids are gone. The minimum 20 acre requirement would allow that future split to occur and still maintain a large parcel for the horse farm.

Chairman Wilson asked the progress toward amending the Zoning Ordinance. Planning Director Peterson responded he has been collecting data from other townships and looking at our permits from the past. He believes the thought is for the amendment to have greater setbacks for taller buildings.

Chairman Wilson asked how far along are you in the amendment process. Planning Director Peterson responded it has not been presented to the Planning Commission yet.

Chairman Wilson related there is still an issue of neighbors that could be disturbed by a higher building.

Planning Director Peterson responded the situation in Buttrick Country Estates was a two acre parcel and the setbacks were much closer than this building. Houses can be 35 feet high and ten feet from the property line. He feels the original intent of the Zoning Ordinance for accessory building height was more for a subdivision type parcel than a large acreage.

Member Lewis related the other barn was in an agricultural area. Planning Director Peterson responded the property was zoned PUD with the underlying zoning being agricultural.

Chairman Wilson asked what was the original intent of 14 feet? Planning Director Peterson related it was probably for sheds in subdivisions. That is the current height restriction for all accessory buildings. If this was agricultural property the building would be a use permitted by right.

Member Timmons asked Staff to help him work through this request. If we were to grant the variance as proposed, it would prevent the applicant from splitting anything more than a seven acre parcel; and they would have to keep 20 acres intact forever. He asked is that right? Planning Director Peterson responded right.

Member Timmons related that could have a significant affect on marketability of that property. Planning Director Peterson responded the major difficulty with this site is it does not perk.

Member Timmons related if he would tear that building down, would he be relieved from the restrictions? Planning Director Peterson responded yes.

Member Goldberg related another way to do this would be to create a PUD and then we would have control and could mandate setbacks. He asked could that be a condition of the variance? Planning Director Peterson responded we explored that option but felt it would fall into a spot zoning issue and we have discouraged people from applying for a PUD simply to avoid asking for a variance. Minimum setbacks can be done as part of the variance. The area in the southwest corner is the best suited to perk for a septic system and well. That is the most likely spot for a homesite. The idea of the variance was trying to allow them to have a future building site and still allow for a large building.

Member Erickson asked are we redoing what we did with the last variance? She recalls them being over their allotted number of buildings. Planning Director Peterson related at that time we identified this building as something they could do. We gave them a variance to do two additional buildings.

Mr. Curtis, the applicant, related one building shown on the map was removed before he acquired the property. It was an elevated tennis court.

Member Erickson asked how many total buildings are there. Mr. Curtis responded four right now.

Chairman Wilson asked if we addressed this building at the previous variance request? Planning Director Peterson related that’s how we did the approval back in 2000. The idea was to allow them two additional buildings not counting the old ones out there.

Chairman Wilson related that was an issue because at that time we didn’t know where this building was going to go.

Member Erickson related at that time one concern was upkeep of the buildings that are no longer being used. She asked if the buildings are becoming dilapidated. Planning Director Peterson related no, and they aren’t planning on taking any of those old buildings down.

Mr. Curtis related he will answer those questions. There is an old chicken coop that he didn’t count. So, there are actually five buildings right now. That building is not being used presently. He does plan on using that in the future. Mr. Curtis related one building his father and mother use for a garage (they live on Buttrick Avenue) because their house doesn’t have a garage. A tractor is also stored in there. Eventually that building will go down, but until we have the function of a new building, it will stay up. Mr. Curtis related we try to keep our buildings looking good. One is an old Michigan red barn. We don’t want it to look run down either.

Member Lewis asked Mr. Curtis to list the five buildings and what they being used for now. Mr. Curtis pointed out the buildings on the map.

Planning Director Peterson related the riding arena and stall barn will be attached and will technically be considered one building.

Mr. Curtis related the building will run north and south instead of in a "T" shape as proposed two years ago. He is trying to put it on the highest elevation.

Member Goldberg asked will both buildings need the height variance? Mr. Curtis responded no, only the riding arena needs a variance.

Member Erickson related there are a lot of buildings on here.

Member Lewis related he didn’t realize that when we gave a variance that meant you can build more than one building. It appears we are going for two more buildings.

Member Beahan related in looking at the property he realizes it is still basically in a farm setting. It doesn’t seem overbuilt at all.

Member Erickson related she doesn’t have a problem with this. There is a neighborhood that look back on it. There is a fine line between quaint and dilapidated. It was getting to dilapidated a couple of years ago and now we are allowing more buildings. She related she feels this is a big leap from what the zoning codes are and we are getting into a lot of additional perks.

Member Beahan related he feels the building conditions were more of a problem when the house on Buttrick was a rental property. The property looks much better now that it is owned by Mr. Curtis. The tennis court came down and was taken care of. Mr. Curtis related they have had nothing but a lot of happy neighbors. The neighbors voiced their support of what we have done last night at the Planning Commission meeting. Some people that were here haven’t even built in Old Elm yet. The Bettens (that wrote the letter) moved in a couple of months ago.

Planning Director Peterson related there were two or three neighbors at Planning Commission last night. They had questions about what the building would look like.

Chairman Wilson asked were they in favor of this? Planning Director Peterson responded they just wanted to know where it was and what it would look like.

Member Beahan related Eric Richards, a Planning Commissioner, is a neighbor across Buttrick Avenue from Mr. Curtis. He was concerned about the height because he is a pilot and flies into the Somerville Airport. He mentioned that he went to Mr. Curtis with the airport manager and the buildings passed all the regulations for height and distance from the runway. They had no concerns.

Member Lewis related he is somewhat troubled by the comparison with the variance in Buttrick Country Estates PUD that was passed by the Township Board. He does not see it as the same. That one triggered a request from the Township Board to look at this section of the ordinance, but that hasn’t been done yet. He stated we have to look at the ordinance as it is written now. This property is unique. It is a large acreage. The Planning Commission did have the opportunity to see that the parcel will stay the same size and that helps him a lot. Member Lewis related if the building was not going to be maintained on a large parcel of land he would be more concerned than he is now. He related he is still is concerned about the number of the buildings out there regardless of the size of the property. We gave one variance and now we are up to two more buildings on top of that. Member Lewis related he would like to hear comments from the other board members.

Chairman Wilson related another factor is the property does not perk. It is not useable as a residential area. The property is being used in a very productive way.

Member Lewis asked is this property in the utility service boundary? Planning Director Peterson responded it is in the service boundary although sewer is miles away. Water is at Jonathan Woods. This property is a very long time from being served by either public sewer or water. There are also issues with getting water service through Ada Township, as they are wholesale customers and Cascade is retail.

Member Goldberg related his feeling is the particular size of the property gives him comfort so long as we maintain the setbacks that are being talked about here. We are talking about being 350 and 400 feet away from neighboring parcels on a parcel that doesn’t perk and utilities are a ways away. Member Goldberg related he doesn’t have a particular problem with the variance so long as the setbacks are maintained. If the setbacks weren’t there, he would have a problem because you could cut off a seven acre piece, put five houses on it and be within 100 feet of a large building. As far as the number of buildings, we have 27 acres with six buildings on it. That is not an inappropriate kind of density for the use of the property. The limit on the number of accessory buildings allows us to examine the particular circumstances of the parcel of property. We can evaluate whether we think the property will bear the additional buildings in a way that does not do harm to neighboring properties and does not change the ambience of the surrounding area. In looking at these out buildings and this piece of property he doesn’t have the sense that it does that. He is not particularly upset by six buildings on a 27 acre parcel. He also would like to hear what other board members have to say. Member Goldberg related he will be prepared to support granting the variance with an additional condition of setbacks of at least 300 feet be maintained in all directions from this building to any lot line.

Member Timmons asked Mr. Curtis is that something you can live with? Mr. Curtis responded he and his wife live in a huge house on the corner. When the kids are gone they probably won’t want to live in that sized house but keep the farm. There is a nice little hill where they could build a retirement size home and still maintain the farm. His concern with the 300 feet is he would not want to create a long strip of land to get back to the parcel that is planned to be split.

Member Goldberg asked what is the number you need to have? Mr. Curtis responded he is trying to not create a narrow strip of property which the township is trying to get away from. Member Goldberg related he feels 300 feet would give plenty of room. Mr. Curtis related the intention isn’t to say I am selling homesites. I intend to build my own home and be all on the same property.

Member Goldberg related eventually you will sell it or your heirs will. The size and configuration of where you are putting the building on the parcel ensures the extra height will not change the character of the neighborhood from the perspective of a person on a neighboring parcel. Member Goldberg related from the Township’s point of view we want to create a level playing field so that new parcel is not handicapped or enhanced by being next to a larger structure than what might otherwise be allowed.

Mr. Curtis related anytime you put restrictions on a property you lose some marketability of the property. He related he has no intention of splitting the 20 acres right now. Mr. Curtis related if you dig down three feet the hole fills up with water. The water table in some spots is above ground. Some areas have standing water ten to eleven months of the year. He is not sure that even with sewer and water those areas could be built on.

Member Lewis related he could support 300 foot setbacks.

Member Timmons related he wants to make sure Mr. Curtis has thought through the setbacks and understands their significance. Member Timmons related he is concerned that in making this trade-off Mr. Curtis might be tying himself up more than he wants to. Mr. Curtis related his only thought was to put one house on the hill back there. The idea brought up by Fred Goldberg intrigues him. He has a piece of property that has value but today he doesn’t need to realize the value of the property. He asked would it be an asset to the community to have a 27 acre parcel with a riding arena and stable on it and five people being able to have access to it. Some people might say move into Cascade Township and be across the drive from your horses.

Member Timmons related across Buttrick Avenue you can do that with an airplane.

Mr. Curtis related it can be unique in a good way or unique in a bad way.

Member Timmons asked if Mr. Curtis could do a PUD to develop the property ten years from now, we could re-write this whole thing? Planning Director Peterson responded yes.

Member Goldberg related in response you would have the same spot zoning. Planning Director Peterson related not if they did a residential development as opposed to a variance issue.

Member Goldberg related his second point is that while he is talking about an additional restriction of setback, the Planning Commission has already added a restriction of keeping the parcel at 20 acres. Member Goldberg related he does not see this additional restriction as ingrafting a condition. With the setback restriction the issue only arises when you couldn’t cut that seven acres off at the north end.

Mr. Curtis related the proposed building is in the middle of 27 acres. If he ever splits that it would come off the south end. A 300 foot setback will bind him to a point where he can’t split it. Fifteen years from now he could come in with a good plan and sell it to whoever is here.

Member Timmons asked can you carve off seven acres on the south and meet the 300 foot setback? Mr. Curtis related he didn’t think so.

Member Lewis related this building is 22 feet high. Does our Fire Department have the ability to get up there? Planning Director Peterson responded we have plenty of buildings that are higher than that. We certainly have plenty of buildings out in the farm land taller than this one would be.

Member Erickson asked for clarification on the motion’s condition requiring a certain amount of acreage.

Member Goldberg related the parcel on which this building sits be maintained at 20 acres for the life of the building. And, any part of the building shall be setback 300 feet from any adjoining property lot line.

Member Erickson related she would like to make sure that all the loopholes are closed.

Member Timmons related it is always open. The applicant can always come back and ask in the future.

Member Erickson related it has to be these six buildings that are currently standing. No trading.

Member Timmons related if he wants to do something different he can come back.

Member Erickson related she doesn’t want to open this up to a situation if he get six buildings and tears down one he can have another.

Planning Director Peterson responded if he wanted to tear down one and re-build it he could do that. This particular building can’t be closer than 300 feet from the lot lines. Other buildings could be re-built in conforming locations.

Member Lewis asked could they expand this building we just approved? Planning Director Peterson responded not without getting a Special Use Permit. They could decrease the size. To increase the size they would have to go back to the Planning Commission.

Member Lewis moved to nominate Fred Goldberg as Chairman. Member Beahan supported the nomination. There being no other nominations, the motion carried.

Member Beahan moved to nominate Member Lewis as Vice Chair/Secretary. Member Timmons supported the nomination. There being no other nominations, the motion carried.

None presented.

Member Goldberg supported by Member Beahan moved to adjourn. The motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 8:04 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Jack Lewis,Secretary

JL: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