Zoning Board of
Appeals Minutes
MINUTES
Cascade Charter Township Zoning Board of Appeals
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
7:00 pm
ARTICLE 1. Vice Chair Casey called the meeting to order.
Members Present: Beahan, Casey, Crawley, Lewis, Neal, Vaughn
Members Absent: 2nd Alternate Richards (excused).
Others Present: Planning Director Peterson, Admin. Assistant Thompson,
and those listed on Supplement #1.
ARTICLE 2. Vice Chair Casey asked for a motion to revise the agenda
to have the Election of Officers at the beginning of the meeting as
Article 3. Member Lewis supported by Member Beahan moved to revise the
agenda order and hold the Election of Officers as Article 3. The
motion carried.
ARTICLE 3. Member Lewis supported by Member Crawley nominated Mel
Casey for Chairman. The motion carried.
Member Beahan supported by Member Crawley nominated Jack Lewis as
Vice Chair/Secretary. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 4. The Minutes of the December 14, 2004 meeting were
approved as presented on motion by Member Lewis and supported by
Member Crawley. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 5. The Planning Commission Minutes of December 6 and
December 20, 2004 were received and filed.
ARTICLE 6. Case #04-2691: Mike Gantos/Thornhills Properties LLC
(PUBLIC HEARING)
The applicant requested bufferyard and curb cut variances for the
redevelopment of 2845 Thornhills, SE.
Planner Director Peterson presented the site plan. The site is
vacant and has several issues making it legal non-conforming. The
building has been empty for 180 days which requires the site to be
brought up to current standards. The site has lost its grand fathered
status due the vacancy. The curb cuts are existing but would have to
comply with today's standards. One curb cut (southerly) on Thornhills
Drive is shared with the Township Hall. The second curb cut is on the
north side of the property. The Zoning Ordinance requires driveways to
be spaced 300 feet apart. This property has 366 feet of frontage on
Thornhills Drive. If the required 300 foot spacing were exercised,
that would push the northerly drive farther to the south and then we
would have the same issue with the southerly curb cut.
Planning Director Peterson related the first variance deals with
the location of the north driveway. The north drive does provide
access for the bank property. In the late 1980's the township required
the bank to have access to the curb cut and parking on the south end
of the property. These drives have been reviewed and approved by the
Kent County Road Commission. The north drive would need changes for
curb cut and radius and will be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
The existing curb cut is thought to be a good location in terms of
future access.
Planning Director Peterson then addressed the second variance. He
related that variance deals with the north property line. Today's
standards require a 25 foot bufferyard for landscaping. It is not
intended to have 25 feet of buffer yard. Staff is suggesting seventeen
feet be provided on the north property line. A type D bufferyard would
be required which includes 3 canopy trees, 6 understory trees and 9
shrubs every 100 lineal feet. About one-third of the existing
bufferyard is provided with a 17 foot width and the remainder goes
down to zero. A cross access is provided for the property to the west
which is also being redeveloped. The easement is a good movement for
that cross connection and would provide good traffic flow. The
easement is for the bank to have access and is also for parking for
bank employees. Planning Director Peterson related he consulted with
the Township Attorney to see if that easement area could be modified
to provide for some bufferyard and keep the existing parking and
access. The applicant has some concern about that. The Township
Attorney determined there is no problem with providing additional
bufferyard and additional landscaping within the easement. Staff asked
the attorney if they could extend the 17 foot bufferyard along the
entire strip of the north property line and the attorney agreed that
is possible. No parking spaces would be removed. If additional
landscape area is not installed, there is not enough room to put all
the landscaping in the existing landscape area.
Planning Director Peterson then went through the findings of fact
as found in the Staff Report. Planning Director Peterson recommended
approval of the variance for the location of the north drive with the
condition that it be modified as required by the Kent County Road
Commission. Secondly, Planning Director Peterson recommended the
variance for the bufferyard along the north property line be approved
with a 17 foot landscape buffer (Type D) for the entire north property
line.
Member Crawley asked if the bank uses the easement. Planning
Director Peterson responded yes, they do. They still use it and they
want to continue using it. The variance, if granted, would not
eliminate any of that.
Member Lewis asked does that impact on the parking also? Planning
Director Peterson responded the parking is down a few steps from the
rear of the bank building and the bank would still be able to use the
parking.
Member Vaughn asked is the easement currently asphalt? Planning
Director Peterson responded yes.
Mike Gantos, the applicant, was present. He related his rationale
is to redevelop the entire site. He is attempting to make sure there
is good pass through to the west. The biggest area in dispute is the
area on the north. If a 17 foot bufferyard is installed there, it
would make it non-conforming to the easement and would expose him to
liability with the bank. The easement is for the exclusive use of the
bank. Mr. Gantos related his attorney and the Township Attorney do not
agree. A bufferyard would change the purpose of the area. It becomes
something different and would be adding an obstruction. Mr. Gantos
related he is exposed to liability if he changes that area. Mr. Gantos
related he has no issue in trying to talk with the bank.
Member Vaughn asked Mr. Gantos why he hasn't already talked to the
bank about that. Mr. Gantos responded he would be asking them to
change something they have a current right to.
Member Vaughn asked do you want the variance tabled until you talk
to the bank. Mr. Gantos responded if the bank is open to discussions
they may change it.
Member Lewis asked our attorney does not agree with your attorney.
Mr. Gantos responded right. My attorney does real estate and he
believes it would not hold up in a court.
Member Lewis related there are two attorneys' opinions. If we have
to pick one, it will be the Township Attorney's opinion. Mr. Gantos
related he is still trying to make a business decision. His attorney
says we can't touch that easement area.
Member Crawley asked how do you plan to keep the easement for the
exclusive use of the bank. Mr. Gantos responded it could be used by
both parties for shared parking.
Member Vaughn asked if regular people could use the parking spaces.
Mr. Gantos responded yes.
Member Lewis asked does the size of the bufferyard impact on the
size of the building, etc. Mr. Gantos responded it meets the B-2
zoning with the exception of the northern bufferyard.
Planning Director Peterson related the bufferyard required would
not change because of the size of the building.
Chairman Casey asked for a specific count on parking when the bank
expanded in the past. Planning Director Peterson related it is about
14 or 15 spaces. As long as the number of spaces remains the same it
is not a problem to create a bufferyard.
Chairman Casey related his opinion is the Zoning Board of Appeals
cannot practice law. The Zoning Board is supposed to give the minimum
variance possible. Unless that easement is actually resolved, that
could be a point of fact that would be very important to us. He
believes the way the easement is written, it is open to
interpretation.
Member Lewis supported by Member Beahan moved to open the public
hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.
Planning Director Peterson related no written or oral
communications were received.
There being no one present to speak on the matter, Member Beahan
supported by Member Lewis moved to close the public hearing. The
motion carried and the public hearing was closed.
Member Lewis related he is pretty comfortable with granting the
first variance. The curb cut has been there for many years and lines
up with the curb cut across the street. He would like to see it
re-designed a little.
Member Lewis supported by Member Vaughn moved that the request for
the curb cut with spacing of less than 300 feet be granted in as much
that it has been in existence previous to this period of time and
lines up with the property across the street and gives good traffic
flow to the property to the west.
Chairman Casey related his concern regarding people avoiding the
traffic light at the corner and cutting through parking lots.
The motion carried.
Member Lewis related he is uncomfortable with granting the second
variance until we have had an opportunity to read a response from the
Township Attorney. Member Lewis related he recognizes the applicant
would be prevented from coming to the Planning Commission at the next
meeting if this were tabled. However, he believes the whole thing has
to be settled here before it gets to the Planning Commission. He is
not comfortable with what he is hearing as the Township Attorney's
point of view. Member Lewis related the zoning Board has three
choices: approve, deny or table. Tabling has some appeal which would
give our attorney an opportunity to give us something in writing.
Member Lewis related he would feel more comfortable in tabling.
Chairman Casey asked do you know who to talk to at the bank. Mr.
Gantos responded yes. If they say no, I can't change their easement
area. It has been there since 1989 which they paid for. They have no
reason to modify it.
Chairman Casey asked does the bank incur any cost for maintenance
or plowing of the easement. Mr. Gantos responded no.
Chairman Casey asked do you have to go through the bank's holding
company for permission. Mr. Gantos related he will start with the bank
manager and go through their committee and channels they may have. He
does not want to be legally required to do change the easement.
Chairman Casey asked do you own the property now? Mr. Gantos
responded yes.
Planning Director Peterson related he will contact our Township
Attorney for a written opinion. He still feels the 17 foot landscape
buffer will not impact the easement agreement with the bank.
Member Lewis related he would rather see the opinion from the
Township Attorney and how they interpret the easement.
Planning Director Peterson related there is nothing in the easement
that prevents the bufferyard from being created. Our attorney says yes
we can require a 17 foot bufferyard here.
Member Lewis related he is finding it hard to believe the bank
would be adverse to this type of change. He can understand Mr. Gantos'
concerns. Member Lewis related he feels very uncomfortable in making a
decision tonight.
Member Crawley related if the variance is granted, let the chips
fall where they may.
Member Beahan related he is leaning more to tabling and wait for
the attorney's opinion.
Mr. Gantos related for the last 16 years it has been a zero
bufferyard which the Township granted.
Planning Director Peterson related right, it was a non-conforming
situation and they have lost that grand fathered status and now it is
different. Non-conforming issues are supposed to end some time. A
seventeen foot bufferyard is appropriate instead of asking for the
required twenty-five feet.
Member Neal related he feels uncomfortable without a written
opinion from Township counsel in respect to the easement.
Member Vaughn related tabling for a written opinion would make him
feel more comfortable and give the applicant time to talk to the bank.
Member Lewis supported by Member Vaughn moved that the second
variance be tabled allowing time for the Township Attorney to give a
written legal opinion. Tabling would also give the applicant time to
talk with the bank. The motion carried with Member Crawley casting a
nay vote.
ARTICLE 7. Any Other Business
Planning Director Peterson related we also have to appoint a
representative to the Village Design Committee. Our previous
representative was Member Beahan who is now a Township Board member
and unable to serve in that capacity. Member Crawley volunteered to
fill the position.
Member Lewis supported by Member Beahan moved to appoint Gary
Crawley as the Zoning Board of Appeals representative to the Village
Design Committee. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 8. Adjournment
Member Beahan supported by Member Crawley moved to adjourn. The
motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 8:05 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
|
Site
Design/Development by
 |
|
