Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes

MINUTES

Cascade Charter Township Zoning Board of Appeals

Tuesday, March 9, 2004

7:00 pm

ARTICLE 1. Chairman Beahan called the meeting to order.
Members Present: Beahan, Casey, Crawley, Lewis
Members Absent: Estes (excused), Timmons (unexcused).
Others Present: Planning Director Peterson, Admin. Assistant Thompson and those listed on Supplement #1.

ARTICLE 2. The agenda was approved on motion by Member Lewis and supported by Member Casey. The motion carried.

ARTICLE 3. The Minutes of the February 10, 2004 meeting were approved on motion by Member Casey and supported by Member Crawley. The motion carried.

ARTICLE 4. The Planning Commission Minutes of February 2, 2004 and February 17, 2004 were received and filed.

ARTICLE 5. Election of Officers

Member Lewis asked for a clarification. We are going to elect a Chairman and Vice Chairman/Secretary. Chairman Beahan responded correct.

Member Lewis nominated Rob Beahan as Chairman and Mel Casey as Vice Chair. Member Crawley supported the nominations.

Chairman Beahan asked for other nominations. There being none, Member Lewis supported by Member Crawley moved to close the nominations. The motion carried and the nominations were closed.

The motion carried. Member Beahan will serve as Chairman. Member Casey will serve as Vice Chair/Secretary.

ARTICLE 6. Case #04-2618: Heather Hendges
(PUBLIC HEARING)
The applicant requested a variance for the property at 5584 Thornapple River Drive to allow for a smaller front and rear yard setback.

Planning Director Peterson presented the site plan. He related the property is owned by MDOT. Thornapple River Drive is classified as an arterial road. The township bases the setbacks on road classification. For an arterial road a 50 foot front yard setback from the right-of-way is required. A rear yard setback of 25 feet would be required. The side yards would total 25 feet with not less than 10 feet on any one side. The lot was 170 feet deep previously. The lot is now 100 feet deep due to extra right-of-way being used from the original parcel. The 50 foot front yard setback will be taken from the new right-of-way line. That leaves the property with 25 feet of depth for a building envelope. The Township Building Department has indicated 30 feet to be the normal width of a home. This property is one of very few that will have additional right-of-way. The property also has a ravine on the back side of the site. According to MDOT, the expanded right-of-way is due to the slope that was created. They like additional right-of-way to maintain those sloped areas as opposed to having easements.

Planning Director Peterson related it seems like some sort of variance may be appropriate. This situation is not unlike other variances we have granted in the past due to public improvement projects such as sidewalks and pedestrian pathways. In the past we approved situations that would have become a non-conforming. Here we are not approving the existing situation but being asked to approve a hypothetical situation. The applicant would like some flexibility in terms of the way to place the house before she purchases the property from MDOT. Not knowing the exact location of the house is the biggest obstacle in determining if this is the minimum amount of variance necessary. The applicant is asking for a 35 foot front yard setback and a ten foot rear yard setback. Planning Director Peterson related he feels a variance for one or the other would be appropriate but not both. Some of the materials from the applicant were received after the applicant received my Staff Report. The applicant says she may have requested something different if she would have known Staff's recommendation. Planning Director Peterson believes this goes back to what is the minimum amount of variance necessary. He does not believe it would be appropriate to have a 25 foot front yard setback since we don't know exactly where the house is going to be. Planning Director Peterson related maybe the request should be tabled until the exact location is determined. A twenty-five foot front yard setback is even below our lowest front yard setback in any zoning district. We did receive a few visits in the office regarding the request. A letter from the property owners to the south has been received. To summarize their letter, they are not in favor of the request.

Member Lewis asked who owns the large piece of property to the east. A gentleman in the audience responded he is the property owner - Roger Cook.

Member Casey related he found it curious MDOT is requesting the additional right-of-way. He asked would the location be an entrance to the expressway twenty years from now? Planning Director Peterson responded no. He has never seen any plans for that. The 48th Street interchange was discussed in the past. That was dismissed early on in the discussions about the 36th Street extension.

Member Casey asked if the lot that remains is the proper size for the Township. Planning Director Peterson responded yes, it is 1.2 acres. It would be a lot we could approve as a stand alone lot. That does not guarantee someone can get a building permit.

Heather Hendges, the applicant, was present. She related she checked with MDOT and they have no future plans for an interchange at this time. She is just looking for flexibility. This parcel was posted as additional property from MDOT. It has been passed over several times. It was probably passed over because of the restrictions and the odd shape. Ms. Hendges related she is not looking to do a bunch of crazy things on the property. She outlined the general area for the house on the site plan. When she was out at the site there was quite a bit of snow on the ground and she could not find the property lines. The home will probably be located close to where the former house was. The house will be about 35 feet wide. Ms. Hendges related she wants to be able to have the room to move it accordingly and put on a deck. The property purchase is contingent upon receiving the variance. If the variance is approved it would be a taxable lot.

Member Crawley asked the applicant if she has any idea at all on size of the home. Ms. Hendges responded it would be about 35 feet wide and 40 feet long, and part of that would be an attached garage.

Planning Director Peterson responded the minimum home size in that zoning district is 1300 square feet for a one story dwelling and 1600 square feet for a two story.

Member Casey asked if the applicant has worked with MDOT for the driveway. Ms. Hendges responded she checked with the Kent County Road Commission and they said there were no restrictions. She will apply for a driveway permit and the County makes a determination on whether or not they want to grant it.

Member Casey asked if the State would want to know where the driveway would be or have any restrictions on it? Ms. Hendges responded no.

Member Lewis asked if the previous home had well water and a septic system? Ms. Hendges responded yes. The placement of the house would be roughly in the same location.

Member Lewis asked you wouldn't be taking down the trees. Ms. Hendges responded she couldn't determine exactly where the other house was. But she does not intend to clear the property.

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

Planning Director Peterson related a few people called and asked general questions regarding the request.

John Bult of 6620 Woodbrook was present representing his son, David, who owns the property to the south. He wants to make sure the Zoning Board members have all read the top paragraph of the letter. His son was told before he purchased the property by MDOT and the township personnel the property was not suitable for a house because of the road restrictions. MDOT wanted the property to be kept in a natural state. He wants to be sure that is understood.

Member Lewis asked Mr. Bult why is he opposed to the variance. Mr. Bult responded because his son built a home in a chalet style with large windows to look over the ravine. Now they would be looking at the back of somebody's house. That is the concern.

Roger Cook related he owns the property behind (to the east). He related the people that owned the property before argued with MDOT about the additional right-of-way. He believes MDOT added on to north end of the property to make it big enough to sell. The property is wet with clay soils and springs. MDOT told the previous owner they were making the right-of-way large enough to widen Thornapple River Drive to four lanes. Mr. Cook's understanding is the lot was non-conforming.

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

Planning Director Peterson clarified the request is for the setback variance. One neighbor to the south would be able to see the house. The variance could be denied but it would not necessarily stop a house from being built there. On the other hand, it does not guarantee a building permit would be issued either. Even if the variance is granted, the applicant will have to be able to meet all the standards of getting septic and well permits.

Member Casey related that concerns him. He is not sure the ZBA can make a decision. Soil conditions will dictate where a house would be placed.

Member Lewis related it seems like there are two issues here: 1) does this warrant a variance, and 2) if so, how much of a variance. This is different than other requests we have had. Some people are concerned about the variance and the impact on their property. In going through the findings of fact, there has been a degree of pre-existing conditions in other areas because of something that has nothing to do with the property owners themselves. Member Lewis related he would feel comfortable offering some kind of a variance on this particular piece of property.

Member Casey related we have a proposal with the applicant who has bought the property on a contingency basis of getting a variance. This could be a two step process without having a plan specific toward dimensions. Member Casey agreed with Staff of going with either a front or rear yard variance but not both.

Member Lewis asked Mr. Cook if any of his land is for sale? Mr. Cook responded not as of yet.

Member Lewis related a legitimate option for the applicant would be to buy additional property, which would eliminate the need for a variance. He asked the applicant if she thought about buying some additional property. Ms. Hendges related no, not in order to get a variance. She related once she purchases the property and determines where she can build on it she may consider purchasing maybe 100 feet of land. She has considered that but she is not going to consider purchasing additional property until this piece is purchased.

Mr. Cook related the reason why MDOT ended up purchasing the entire piece was because the previous owner didn't want to give up the right-of-way. He didn't want a smaller lot.

Chairman Beahan asked if a variance is granted and the current buyer decides to sell the property before she builds, does the variance go with the property. Planning Director Peterson responded yes. She would have to act on the variance or it would sunset. The variance does go with the property but you have to act on any approval you get.

Member Casey asked if she doesn't act on it there is no variance? Planning Director Peterson responded right.

Member Crawley related there are a lot of things that could happen regarding the issue of well, septic and driveway. He can see where it is reasonable some type of variance would be granted.

Member Lewis related there are so many variables. He would be more concerned if there hadn't been a house there before. Our job is a variance. He is also concerned about the size of the house. That is self-limiting. He would really frown upon the applicant coming back and asking for a larger variance to build a bigger house.

Member Lewis supported by Member Casey moved that the request for a variance at 5584 Thornapple River Drive be approved with a 35 foot setback from the front lot line or a 15 foot variance from the back lot line. The option is being made available to the applicant on which of the two setbacks she chooses to use.

Ms. Hendges related she is not going any wider than 35 feet for the house. She would like 25 feet off the front and 15 off the back leaving her 50 feet in between to place the house. Forty feet is limiting where the house will go.

Member Lewis related he does not want the variance to be driven by the size of the house. Thirty five feet is the minimum front yard setback in the township and he is not willing to go any closer to the setback than that.

The motion carried.

ARTICLE 7. Any Other Business

Member Lewis inquired about the workshop information. Planning Director Peterson related the township will pick up the cost. He recommended the advanced workshop. Members Beahan and Casey related they would like to attend the Advanced course. Member Crawley would like to attend the New Official training.

ARTICLE 8. Adjournment

Member Lewis supported by Member Casey moved to adjourn. The motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 7:51 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Mel Casey, Secretary

MC: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

Site Design/Development by