Zoning Board of
Appeals Minutes
MINUTES
Cascade Charter Township Zoning Board of Appeals
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
7:00 p.m.
ARTICLE 1. Chairman Casey called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Beahan, Casey, Crawley, Lewis, Vaughn
Members Absent: 1st Alternate Neal (excused), 2nd Alternate Richards
(excused)
Others Present: Planning Director Peterson, Admin. Assistant Hern and
members from the public.
ARTICLE 2. Pledge of Allegiance
ARTICLE 3. Chairman Casey requested a motion for approval of the
June 13, 2006 Agenda. Member Beahan motioned for approval of the June
13, 2006 Agenda, supported by Member Crawley. All were in favor, none
opposed. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 4. Chairman Casey requested a motion for approval of the
April 11, 2006 Meeting Minutes. Member Lewis motioned for approval of
the minutes as presented. Member Vaughn supported the motion. All in
favor, with none opposed, April 11, 2006 Minutes approved as
presented.
ARTICLE 5. Receive and File
The Zoning Board of Appeals received and filed the following:
1) Planning Commission Minutes from April 17, 2006
2) Planning Commission Minutes from May 1, 2006
3) Planning Commission Minutes from May 15, 2006
ARTICLE 6. Case #06-2808 Scott Barron
(PUBLIC HEARING)
The Applicant is seeking a variance from the side yard setback
requirements.
Planning Director Peterson reviewed the site plan of the
Applicant's property located at 2429 Cascade Springs Drive, noting the
orange section is the proposed addition to the garage. The parcel is
located on the riverside of Cascade Springs, past the Riveredge and
Cascade Springs intersection and is zoned R-2, the parcel size is
approximately 12,754-square feet.
Planning Director Peterson said the Applicant is seeking a variance
to place an addition to the existing garage of eight feet, eleven
inches (8' 11'') from the side yard; the minimum side yard setback is
ten feet (10'). The existing garage is 484-square feet and is setback
20.5' from the side yard. He also noted that an addition of 10.5'
could be done without needing a variance.
Planning Director Peterson reviewed the Findings of Fact noting
that there are no circumstances related to this variance request that
cannot be applied to other nearby parcels in this zoning district. The
lots in Cascade Springs are smaller than other lots in the R-2
District. The existing building is built to the minimum setbacks for
the front, rear and the southwest side yard. A smaller addition of
10.5' is possible and without requiring a variance and this lot is
almost built out. He also noted that most of the homes have two (2)
stall garages and there are approximately four (4) homes that have
three (3) stall garages. Staff considers a two (2) stall garage to be
the norm for the neighborhood with the three (3) stall garage as the
exception.
Another factor for the Zoning Board's consideration is that the
exceptional or extraordinary conditions or circumstances are not the
result of actions of the Applicant taken subsequent to the adoption of
this Ordinance (any action taken by an Applicant pursuant to lawfully
adopted regulations preceding this Ordinance will not be considered
self-created). The circumstances of this variance request are the
result of the Applicant.
Planning Director Peterson noted that such a variance is the
minimum variance for the reasonable use of the land. No variance is
needed to make reasonable use of this land. There is an existing home
on the property that is almost built out to the minimum setback
requirements. A smaller 10.5' addition is possible without requiring a
variance.
Another Finding of Fact is that the granting of the variance will
not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the
public welfare and the granting of this variance would set precedence
to allow other lots that have been built out to expand.
Planning Director Peterson said that Staff recommends that the
Cascade Township Zoning Board of Appeals deny this variance request
due to it not meeting the requirements set forth in the Findings of
Fact.
Chairman Casey opened the meeting to questions of Staff and being
no questions from the Board he invited the Applicant to address the
Board.
Applicant Scott Barron, 2429 Cascade Springs Drive, introduced his
neighbor, Laura Wagner, and builder, Scott Williams.
Applicant Barron noted Mrs. Wagner is his neighbor to the right of
his property and owns a 150-foot lot. Between her house and his
property is a parcel of 50-feet of vacant land, so her house is not
near his property line. He noted when he spoke with the Planning
Department, he knew how much footage he had between his house and the
property line and knew he was coming up a bit short. The Planning
Department requested him to provide some costly ventures in a survey,
obtain an architectural write-up and believes, to the Planning
Department, that it was not new news that there is not enough room
there for the proposed addition. If that's the case and the Board
denies him, then why have him go through the expense of the items
previously noted? If denying him the variance, then why have him ask
his neighbor if he could purchase inches of her property so the
addition is within the ordinance? She does not have a problem with the
addition being so close to the property line and does not want to
break up her lot; she's been there since the 1960's.
Applicant Barron said he is not asking for this variance out of
having the largest garage in the neighborhood but more out of
necessity. He noted some pictures he printed and reviewed the property
with the Zoning Board. He described how he wanted to match the
rooflines of the addition with the sunroom and make it symmetrical,
additional windows and a rear door. Also, the real reason they need to
do this is they now have a daughter. The way the garage is currently
does not allow enough room for his wife to park in the garage and take
the baby out of the back seat. The garage is currently twenty (20)
feet eleven (11) inches from the front of the garage to the back. He
also noted a three (3) foot, eight (8) inch step that runs from front
to back of the garage. He pointed out a swing door that also gets in
the way of a parked car. He also said he has very tight tolerances in
parking his vehicle with a trailer hitch on it, the garage door will
not close with a hitch on and he recently purchased a new garage door
because he dented it with his hitch. They are riverfront and they do
have a boat and they need to have a vehicle that can tow a boat. So,
the proposed addition is truly so his wife can park and get the baby
out of the car. He also pointed out where the cars park and the
miscellaneous items stored in their garage and are now parking in
their driveway. They feel the addition is out of necessity and not
that they are trying to have the biggest garage on the street.
Laura Wagner, Cascade Springs Drive, said that the Applicant is a
good neighbor and good for the neighborhood and he has brought the
house back to par, he has done a lot of good. She also believes this
situation is so minute, his request should be granted to him and
highly recommends it.
Applicant Barron said that basically his wife has resulted to
parking in the driveway and noted if the addition is built, he will
still be nine (9) feet, eight (8) inches off the property line and
still has distance between his house and the property line. Mrs.
Wagner also has fifty (50) feet of open parcel between his property
line and where her house sits.
Mrs. Wagner noted that when the area was being developed, she
purchased the extra fifty (50) foot parcel to ensure space between her
and her neighbors. She's approaching ninety (90) years old and will be
selling the property soon; she does not wish to sell part of the
property to the Applicant. Applicant Barron is a good neighbor and
good for the neighborhood; it would look nicer if they could park
their cars in the garage instead of in the driveway.
Applicant Barron noted the Planning Department suggested a ten (10)
foot wide addition that could be done and the reason he chose this
proposed plan is because of the garage door. He referred back to
recently purchasing a new garage door and they recommended a nine (9)
foot door with eight (8) inches on each side of the doorway but really
recommended twelve (12) inches on each side. Eight (8) inches is the
minimum requirement so the garage door equipment may be installed and
this is where he developed the dimensions for the addition plus the
six (6) inch foundation wall. He also does not want to put an addition
on that won't allow him to open the car doors once parked.
He asked the Board to consider his reasons for the addition and
dimensions; he has put a lot of thought into the project. Applicant
Barron thanked the Board for their time and consideration.
Chairman Casey opened the meeting for questions of the Applicant.
Member Vaughn questioned if the wall between the existing garage
and addition would remain or if the Applicant could open the area?
Applicant Barron said the wall is a structural wall and is the
foundation to the garage and has spoken with the builder regarding
possibly opening the area but it would still be quite tight. He noted
a doorway that would be installed but the dimensions for a nine (9)
foot door require at least eight (8) inches for equipment. Chairman
Casey clarified that the structural wall would not be removed and that
a doorway would be added and Applicant Barron said that is correct and
the support of the addition will rely on the current wall and new
foundation.
Member Lewis said that initially there is a sunroom door, the
sunroom is located behind the garage and proposed addition; how will
the Applicant get from the sunroom to the garage? The Applicant showed
a picture of the area noting a gate and walkway and they may
enter/exit from there. Member Lewis asked how they would get from the
sunroom to the front of the house and the Applicant said through the
garage or walk around the outside. Member Lewis asked if the big pine
tree is on Mrs. Wagner's property. Mrs. Wagner said she is seriously
considering removing the tree, she believes it is causing her serious
allergy problems.
Applicant Barron noted he does not plan on installing pavement that
comes out towards the road, he intends to retain as much of the grass
as possible. He does vision a little woodchip trail around the side of
the garage.
Applicant Barron also said that Scott Williams is his builder and
the Board has technical questions regarding the support of the
addition, Mr. Williams is the one to ask regarding these technical
questions.
Member Lewis noted that unfortunately, the decision to allow an
addition cannot be based on the structure's foundation and the Zoning
Board is governed by the Planning Department by the Township's
Ordinance that speaks very clearly on these variances and
unfortunately it is not the structural soundness that the Board is
considering. He did say that Applicant Barron did a wonderful job in
presenting the project and thanked him. Member Lewis appreciated the
Applicant's information regarding the project and explaining his
position and did a great job at how he arrived at the size of the
proposed addition and appreciates the Applicant's work.
Mrs. Wagner said Applicant Barron has wonderful taste and said she
is sure the project will look very nice once it is finished.
Member Beahan asked if an eight (8) foot garage door would work for
the project? Applicant Barron said his boat trailer would not fit
through an eight (8) foot door, it would be very tight. He currently
stores his boat and trailer at his mother's house since it does not
fit into the existing garage. His vision is to eventually store the
boat trailer in his own garage since he is spending so much money on
the proposed addition. He noted with the existing garage, he and his
wife have both had minor accidents when backing out of the garage;
they have torn off side view mirrors and dented front quarter panels
trying to back out. A smaller garage door is very unappealing to him.
Member Beahan asked about the fire hydrant that is out front that
looks like it will be in front of the addition? Applicant Barron said
that the hydrant is why he is not changing the driveway. Mrs. Wagner
said the Applicant could flare the driveway out at the garage's
entrance, as hers is.
Chairman Casey requested a motion to open Public Hearing.
Member Lewis motioned to open the Public Hearing, supported by
Member Crawley. All in favor with none opposed; Public Hearing opened.
No other public attendees present regarding the project. Chairman
Casey asked Staff if any letters or phone calls were received
regarding the project and Planning Director Peterson noted one (1)
phone call received inquiring about the project; no other comments
were received.
Member Beahan said he visited the property prior to the Hearing and
met the Applicant's neighbor across the street, Mrs. Gleason. Mrs.
Gleason said she was very much in favor of the garage addition and
also implied that Mrs. Wagner was also in favor. It appears that
Applicant Barron has discussed with his neighbors the proposed
addition and Mrs. Gleason is in favor also.
Chairman Casey also requested the minutes reflect that Mrs. Wagner
was also in attendance and has previously spoken favorably of the
Applicant's proposed addition.
Member Beahan, with support from Member Lewis, motioned to close
the Public Hearing. All in favor with none opposed; the Public Hearing
was closed.
Member Lewis commented that the Zoning Board is handcuffed by the
Ordinance and the Applicant has explored various options for the
project such as a smaller addition and purchasing one (1) foot of land
from his neighbor to meet the Ordinance. Member Lewis asked if Mrs.
Wagner could provide easement rights to allow the proposed addition?
Planning Director Peterson said easement rights are very difficult to
track in record since the property line does not change. He referred
to previously granted easement in Quail Crest and there was a building
put in the wrong spot and had a variance granted after the fact. One
of the ways that concluded was there was an easement granted on one
(1) of the pieces of property. Planning Director Peterson said that
this does not say that it cannot be done; Staff prefers the granting
of the variance versus an easement. Member Lewis commented that the
easement would certainly save the Applicant money and time in changing
lot lines and the process. Planning Director Peterson said that if
that is the Boards' feelings, then Staff recommends granting the
variance. Member Lewis said he is trying to explore different ways to
satisfy the ordinance as written and he was not sure if an easement
would work or not. He referred to considerations given to those who
park under Consumers Power lines; where the easements have become
important. He said that in this particular case, Staff prefers the
variance be granted instead of easement rights. Planning Director
Peterson said that Consumers Power is not an easement since that is
actually their property and those people were granted variances.
Technically speaking, the thought of doing an easement as a property
does not end up working and Staff's preference would be the Board to
grant the variance and not an easement. Chairman Casey said that would
be an unusual granting of an easement and could cause legal problems
later as easements run with the land and someone could come in and
tear down the existing house and build new causing problems later.
Member Crawley asked if there was a way, under Findings of Fact,
that the Board could take into consideration unusual findings, such as
the fifty (50) foot vacant parcel next door? Member Beahan noted that
the fifty (50) foot lot is not build able; she could not sell that lot
separately since the minimum lot is one hundred (100) feet. That could
be considered an unusual finding. Chairman Casey also commented that
this is the only property in that area that has a vacant fifty (50)
foot parcel.
Chairman Casey said the Applicant should understand that one (1) of
the reasons the Board is exploring various is options is because they
cannot set a precedent that could then multiply a situation. This is
why the Board reviews the Findings of Fact that outlines what the
Board can and cannot do. Being that there is a vacant fifty (50) foot
parcel next door is an unusual circumstance.
Member Lewis commented that one (1) of the Findings of Fact is not
'he deserves it' although he does deserve it and that places the Board
in a position of who deserves it and who does not. The Board has basic
facts that can be applied to everybody and appreciates the comments of
deserving it but unfortunately that is not one (1) of the Findings of
Facts the Board needs to consider. The other fact is the Applicant has
to ask for the minimum variance, whether that be eight (8) feet or
five (5) feet, the Board's goal is to get it as small as possible and
noted it cannot get much smaller than the current Applicant's request.
This is why the Board is exploring various ways to do it. Planning
Director Peterson also informed the Zoning Board that when the
Applicant first came to the Planning Department, it was a larger
variance request and they went over one (1) of those circumstances and
believes the Applicant did a good job in getting the project down to a
minimum of a variance as necessary.
Member Beahan noted that he mentioned the possibility of the
Applicant using an eight (8) foot door and realizes that this could be
one (1) solution but realizes the smaller door would not be an option
due to the boat trailer and noted most buildings are going to a nine
(9) foot door.
Member Lewis asked Planning Director Peterson for clarification
regarding the idea of having a twenty-five (25) foot total on either
side, combined, is that only in that area or in all R-1 areas? Where
does that apply? Planning Director Peterson said it applies to
ninety-percent (90%) of the Residential Zones within the Township
unless there has been some unique development but is in every
Residential Zone District: a total of twenty-five (25) with no one (1)
side being less than ten (10). Chairman Casey questioned if the Board
makes an exception here, it could translate then to the entire
Township, not just to this neighborhood? Planning Director Peterson
said that is true and if the Board wants to approve this project, they
would want to distinguish that request from others so that if someone
were to request a variance and refer to another project; you could say
that one had specific unique circumstances to allow for the variance.
Member Vaughn noted that the unique circumstance that seems to be
under review is that the adjacent lot is un-build able due to the
lot's number of feet and there could be other lots throughout the
Township that have vacant lots next door. Member Crawley said that it
could possibly occur and the Board could face it again.
Chairman Casey referenced a situation not too long ago that
occurred in a cul-de-sac and the angle of the property regarding the
placement of the septic and well, the Board did not go along with it
because of the situation and circumstances.
Member Lewis also noted another unusual aspect of this property is
it is on river frontage, meaning the back of the house is actually the
front and the front of the house the back. This would certainly limit
the variance to being applied to every lot in the Township since it is
on the river and make it a unique circumstance.
Member Beahan asked the Applicant how old the house is and
Applicant Barron believes it was built in 1979. Planning Director
Peterson believes most of the homes in the neighborhood were built in
the earlier 70's.
Member Beahan said he is becoming more comfortable in granting the
variance because of the vacant, un-build able fifty (50) foot of
parcel next door to the property.
Member Vaughn questioned if he were to come into the Planning
Department with a fifty (50) foot lot next to him and wants to put in
a garage, does the Planning Department let him go through? Chairman
Casey noted that would be an accessory building situation and would
have to follow the Accessory Building Ordinance and the principle the
Board is dealing with is a side yard concept, not the use but the side
yard. Member Crawley also said the Board needs to think about that
situation and how often someone would be looking for a variance of
less than twelve (12) inches and have an additional, un-build able
parcel on the same side they need to build on. He believes this is
rather remote that the Board would run into this again, but it could
happen. He is comfortable with the project from that standpoint.
Member Vaughn questioned what if he wanted fifteen (15) or eighteen
(18) inches? Member Crawley said it would have to be reviewed.
Chairman Casey noted that request would only be for six (6) or eight
(8) inches more.
Member Lewis is having a difficult time and agrees with what has
been said but this is precedence setting and unless someone comes in
and says 'you did it for these people, why can't you do it for me but
making it six (6) inches longer', the Board could then say that if
they were to build an accessory building, this gentleman built an
addition to the house, which is different because an accessory
building can be placed elsewhere. This is a river lot and particular
considerations were given when the house was built, it is on the
river. There is also the fifty (50) foot un-build able lot on the same
side as the addition, so there is space there. He can see there is
enough leeway to present the facts of this request for eleven (11)
inches instead of eighteen (18) because of the above unusual
circumstances and the uniqueness of this particular situation. Member
Vaughn understands that and noted as Staff has said, the Board needs
to circumscribe the uniqueness of this situation in a very clear
fashion. Member Crawley noted this is what the Board need to craft so
that the variance is stated in a way that is unique to this location.
Chairman Casey asked Staff if they know if the fire hydrant is on
the corner of the lot? Planning Director Peterson said he is not sure.
Member Beahan believes it is more in line with the sun room.
Member Lewis said one of the things the Board is charged with is
not to give out variances unnecessarily and one of the ways he started
that was the possibility that the Applicant purchase one (1) foot of
property from the neighbor. He asked the Applicant if this option has
been explored with that neighbor?
Applicant Barron noted the Planning Department had asked him to
explore that option with his neighbor. He asked if he needed to
purchase the twelve (12) inches from the road to the river and they
told him not necessarily, could purchase just the inches needed to
meet the footprint of the garage. Applicant Barron did meet with Mrs.
Wagner and asked to purchase the inches needed and she does not want
to split her property and keep it symmetrical. She does not understand
why the Board will not allow him to build the addition; he is still on
his own property. Member Lewis understands her position but the Board
needs to follow the Ordinance. He said he understands her to say that
she prefers not to sell the Applicant one (1) foot of property? Mrs.
Wagner said she does not want her land to be chopped up and Member
Lewis said she would not even know the difference, trees will not be
removed and the record would hold on a piece of paper in the Township
Offices; she would not know the difference. Mrs. Wagner said that she
would be selling the property soon and wants to sell it as one hundred
fifty (150) feet, not any less.
Member Beahan noted the garage door company recommended the garage
door be twelve (12) inches on the inside but you could get a way with
eight (8) inches. If you did that, eight (8) inches would be gained
and reducing the variance. He also noted the Applicant has worked very
hard to keep this to a minimum and admits an eight (8) foot door would
be very difficult and a viewpoint from the road, he doesn't believe
the smaller door would be as appealing as the nine (9) foot door.
Member Lewis referred back to the six (6) Findings of Fact and the
Board may be able to dodge the one (1) but the one (1) that is
difficult to overcome is the one that states "That the
exceptional or extraordinary conditions or circumstances are not the
result of actions of the Applicant…." and it is cause by the
Applicant.
Member Lewis said recognizing the uniqueness of the situation, and
the situation being that: the building to be constructed is not a
temporary building or a free-standing building but is an addition to
the existing house; recognizing further that the lot the addition is
to be constructed is a river lot which makes it a rather unique
situation as far as placement of houses; recognizing in that it is in
a part of the Township where all the lots are narrow in size and has a
greater demand for the size in storage purposes; recognizing also that
the neighbor on the North side, who is affected by this variance, has
fifty (50) feet un-build able land next to the lot line so the
infringement would be a minimal amount and because of these unique
circumstances Member Lewis motioned that the Applicant's request of a
side yard setback variance of thirteen inches be approved. Member
Crawley supported the motion. Chairman Casey opened the meeting for
discussion.
Member Vaughn noted that though he is compassionate, he is not sure
if the situation is specifically different enough to compel the
granting of a variance. As Mrs. Wagner said she did not want to sell a
foot of property, the Board does not want to sell a foot of property
one hundred (100) times. He's not sure if the Board could specifically
define the criteria to narrow only to one or two percent (1%-2%)
within the Township; everyone would like to add an extra foot to their
property. The situation may not arise but is the Board here to take
that chance? This is just his position on the situation. Chairman
Casey noted that the Findings of Facts need to be consistently
applied.
Member Lewis said he respects all of the Board Members' points of
discussion. There is no doubt that various ways have been explored to
solve this problem and the last possible way is to grant the variance.
If the Board is not comfortable doing that, then certainly vote with
your conscience.
Member Beahan asked if it should also be noted that the Applicant
has tried to make this the minimal amount and Member Lewis believes
the minutes would reflect the Applicant's and Board's attempt in doing
so.
Chairman Casey called to question the motion and second to approve
the thirteen (13) inch variance. Three (3) Board Members in favor with
two (2) opposed. Motion Passes.
Member Lewis requested a roll call vote:
Member Crawley: I
Member Lewis: I
Chairman Casey: Nay
Member Vaughn: Nay
Member Crawley: I
Chairman Casey noted the motion passed and asked the Applicant to
try to make the addition work with little variance as possible. He
also noted that while the Applicant was requested to go through some
costly steps by the Planning Department, the steps were necessary for
a Board decision and thanked the Applicant for his efforts.
Applicant Barron thanked the Board and particularly thanked Member
Beahan for visiting his property prior to the hearing. He appreciates
a Board who cares about its community. Chairman Casey noted that many
of the Board Members have driven by his residence to review the
situation and Member Beahan said it is mandated that the Board do so
with every property so they can see the request being made.
ARTICLE 7. Any Other Business
Chairman Casey opened the meeting for other business and requested an
update from Staff regarding the Veterinary Hospital request for a
variance and how Staff has completed the process. Chairman Casey
requested a brief report regarding Staff's solution to the Veterinary
Hospital.
Planning Director Peterson said the solution did not come from
Staff and the Applicant, after hearing the Zoning Boards' comments,
took a harder look at their project and were able to meet the setback
ordinances for the project.
ARTICLE 7. Member Beahan supported by Member Lewis moved to
adjourn. The motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jack Lewis, Secretary
Lisa Hern, Recording Secretary
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
 |
|
