Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes

MINUTES

Cascade Charter Township Zoning Board of Appeals

Tuesday, April 13, 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: Planner Deem, 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 March 9, 2004 meeting were approved as presented on motion by Member Lewis and supported by Member Casey. The motion carried.

ARTICLE 4. The Planning Commission Minutes of March 1, 2004 and March 15, 2004 were received and filed.

ARTICLE 5. Case #04-2626: John Postma
(PUBLIC HEARING)
The applicant requested to place an accessory building 12.5 feet away from the rear yard setback. The Zoning Ordinance requires a rear yard setback of 25 feet. The property is located at 1301 Royal County Down.

Planner Deem related the applicant is seeking a variance for a rear yard setback for placement of an accessory building. The proposed building would be approximately 760 square feet which does not require a Special Use Permit. The Zoning Ordinance requires a rear yard setback of 25 feet. Only a portion of the proposed building will be 12.5 feet from the property line. The building would actually extend as far as 32 feet from the setback line. Staff did explore the possibility of alternate sites. It appears moving the building south would be a possibility except that is the location of the septic tank and drainfield. In looking at the site plan, it appears like the building could be placed behind the house. An on-site inspection determined that would not be possible due to the steepness of the slope at the rear of the home.

Planner Deem then went through the findings of fact as listed in the Staff Report. Planner Deem related exceptional conditions are the location of the septic system and the steep grade change on the property. The circumstances related to this case are not the result of the actions of the applicant but are related to the land. This is the minimum variance needed for this accessory building. Only a portion of the building will be in the rear setback area. The variance would not be injurious to the neighborhood. The neighbor most affected is separated by a 50 foot grade change over 100 feet before the first buildable area of the property. There is no need to amend the Zoning Ordinance as this variance would be very specific to this site.

Planner Deem recommended approval for the construction of an accessory building with a rear yard setback of 12.5 feet as shown on the site plan.

The applicant, John Postma, related there is a limited area to put up the building. He tried to go farther to the south but the 10 foot requirement in between buildings would prohibit that. This would be the best place for the accessory building.

Member Lewis asked if the flags indicate the area where the building would be constructed. Mr. Postma responded yes. He related the off set stake is 10 feet from the accessory building. Grading will be carefully done as he installed a large catch basin on the back of the property which flows down to the wetland area. He will also be careful with stormwater from downspouts and gutters.

Member Lewis asked if the basketball hoop is on Mr. Postma's property. Mr. Postma responded no. That is his neighbors. It is located over their drainfield and reserve area.

Chairman Beahan asked if the building would be used for storage of vehicles, etc. Mr. Postma responded yes. He has two teens who will be driving this summer and would like to put their cars inside. The building will also be used for bikes, etc.

Chairman Beahan asked if the building would be used for any business or a living unit. Mr. Postma responded no.

Member Lewis asked if the building would have electricity. Mr. Postma responded yes, and hot and cold running water.

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

Chairman Beahan asked if any comments were received. Planner Deem related two people came in today and looked at the plans. They had no problem with the request.

Larry Fleming of 6200 Hall Street related he received the notice while he was in Arizona. He would appreciate seeing a sketch of where the building would be in relation to his property line. Planner Deem presented the plan to Mr. Fleming. Mr. Fleming related the request is acceptable to him.

Member Lewis supported by Member Casey moved to close the public hearing. The motion carried.

Member Lewis stated we have seen these reasons for an exception before with other septic tanks. Also, God dug a big hole behind this house. This is a smaller sized building. Normally applicants ask for 1,300 s.f. building. The variance is not needed for the entire building, but just the corner. Member Lewis related he feels comfortable approving the variance.

Member Crawley agreed with Member Lewis' logic and thinking. Clearly it is only a portion of the building we would be granting a variance for. He will support it.

Member Casey related he looked at the site from the street. He concurs it is the minimum variance needed. With the topography of the site, a variance is necessary.

Member Lewis supported by Member Crawley moved to approve the request to place a 760 s.f. accessory building 12.5 feet from the rear yard setback at 1301 Royal County Down. Member Lewis noted he made the motion for the reasons previously stated.

Member Casey asked could we add "as shown on the drawing presented". Members Lewis and Crawley responded yes.

The motion carried.

ARTICLE 7. Any Other Business

Member Lewis related in the past we have seen some building lots that would not accommodate accessory buildings. In this situation I think some of that could also apply. The applicant already has a four car garage. We are not denying the use of his property by saying no. The property is limited for building. People cannot keep building on a piece of property that can't accommodate a building of that size. There have been some people that need a variance in order to build a building. There are certain lots that you just can't build on. The ordinance is to prevent over building of the property. This property may be one of those.

Member Casey referred to Dr. Siegle's new building. He thought the second building was going to be identical to the other one. The new building is higher and not the building that I thought we were voting on when we gave the variance.

Member Lewis related he also was led to believe it was to be a mirror of the first building.

Member Crawley related that's why we should say "as in the drawing", and be as specific as possible.

Member Casey referred to the Planning Commission minutes regarding the Ventura Drive request. He related there was another resident there who came to us for a variance for an accessory building. He wanted to keep the accessory building closer to the house to be able to sell off the rear portion for a building lot. In the discussion of how many lots Ventura Drive has, is that lot been taken into account. Planner Deem responded no. Ventura Drive is an interesting case in itself. The actual number of lots on the road is debatable. It ranges from 19 to 21 depending on how you consider the lots at the corner of Thornapple River Drive and Ventura. Those lots both have access to both streets. The resident you are referring to has not split his lot. If he wants to split it off, the upgrades to Ventura would need to be made. He does not have the property split right now.

Chairman Beahan related he and Mel attended the Advanced Zoning Seminar. It was very good. Member Crawley related he attended the basic course. He enjoyed it and felt it was better than the video conference. Members Casey and Beahan related some points covered in the seminar: 1) if you are excused due to a conflict of interest you should leave the room - not just sit in the audience as you may be able to influence the board members by using non-verbal communications. 2) the presenter recommended visiting the site in pairs. (Chairman Beahan wondered if that would violate the Open Meetings Act). 3) the presenter also recommended putting a statement on the application that zoning board members are allowed access to the property for a site visit.

ARTICLE 8. Adjournment

Member Casey supported by Member Crawley moved to adjourn. The motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 7:35 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