Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes

MINUTES

Cascade Charter Township Zoning Board of Appeals

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

7:00 p.m.

ARTICLE 1. Chairman Casey called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Beahan, Casey, Lewis, Vaughn, Neal
Members Absent: Crawley (excused)
Others Present: Planning Director Peterson and Deputy Clerk Biegalle.

ARTICLE 2. Chairman Casey led the Pledge of Allegiance.

ARTICLE 3. Chairman Casey requested a motion for approval of the July 11, 2006 Agenda. Member Lewis stated that he would have something under Article 7 regarding the Planning Commission. A motion by Member Lewis and supported by Member Neal to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried.

ARTICLE 4. Chairman Casey requested a motion for approval of the minutes of the June 13, 2006 meeting. Motion by Member Neal and supported by Member Beahan to approve the minutes of the June 13, 2006 meeting. Motion carried.

ARTICLE 5. Case #06-2811: High Ridge, LLC
(PUBLIC HEARING)
The applicant is seeking to appeal from an administrative action that will determine the number of units allowed in this development. Member Vaughn brought to the Boards attention that there might be a conflict of interest on his part, as he is a resident and a member of the Association Board of that development.

Member Lewis inquired whether the Board should be voting on the conflict of interest. Motion by Member Lewis and supported by Member Neal to accept his conflict of interest. Motion carried. Member Vaughn joined the public.

Planning Director Peterson reviewed the appeal. The request is necessary due to a discrepancy between the site plan and the PUD Ordinance. The discrepancy is because the approved site plan shows 97 units (46 buildings) and the PUD Ordinance states that 95 units are allowed. Staff became aware of this in April of 2005 and wrote the developer a letter explaining the process they would need to go through to have this clarified. This is not a variance application.
Staff believes it was the intent of the 2000 amendment to allow for 97 units as opposed to the 95 that was written in the text. It does not raise the density of what was reviewed and appears that it was a simple clerical error.

Motion by Member Lewis and supported by Member Beahan to open the public hearing. Motion carried.

Motion by Member Beahan and supported by Member Lewis to close the public hearing. Motion carried.

Member Lewis stated that he thought is was very unusual that they would be asked to give an interpretation; however, in as much as we are the court of last appeal for the Township, it is our job to make these determinations. The staff has set aside the part of the ordinance which the criteria could be used to do it. Member Lewis stated that he would prefer to go with the number that was generated by the site plan and not by the PUD. Motion by Member Lewis and supported by Member Neal that we accept the number 97 units based upon the site plan presentation. Motion carried.

ARTICLE 6. Case #06-2817 George Gaskey
(PUBLIC HEARING)
The applicant is seeking a variance from the front yard setback requirements for an accessory building.

Planning Director Peterson reviewed request. The parcel is accessed through an easement to Timber Canyon Dr. This parcel also has frontage on an unnamed private road to the north. The parcel does not use this for ingress or egress. The address 7773 Timber Canyon Dr. was split from 7777 Timber Canyon Dr. in 1996.

The proposed building is 672 square feet and meets all other setback requirements. This building does not require a Special Use Permit.

There have been three similar cases in the past five years. Two were approved by the ZBA due to the location of the septic system. The third case was denied due to an alternative location that would meet the setback requirements.

The proposed location of the accessory building is 205 feet from Timber Canyon Drive. An accessory building is allowed to be placed in the front yard with a 200-foot setback.

The location of the building was chosen for a number of reasons:
" It is located off the existing driveway
" The house is orientated such that the front of the house is facing the west property line. Moving the building back would place it in this line of site.
" The owner is trying to minimize the amount of trees being removed.

Staff recommends that the ZBA approve this variance request due to the unique circumstance of using access through an easement across another property for ingress and egress and have frontage on a different private road.

Chairman Casey asked the applicant if he had anything to add to the information provided by Planning Director Peterson. Mr. Gaskey stated that Mr. Peterson had summed it pretty well. He was trying to get the building to be aesthetically pleasing with the set-up of the house and also comply with all other regulations. If at all possible to have it where he has proposed.

Member Beahan inquired about the garage doors, whether or not they would be facing the house. Mr. Gaskey stated that they would be facing the house. Member Beahan also inquired about the two out buildings if they were going to be removed. Mr. Gaskey stated that they would be moved.

Motion by Member Lewis and supported by Member Neal to open the public hearing. Motion carried.

Chairman Casey inquired if staff had received any letters nor any phone calls.

Motion by Member Lewis and supported by Member Neal to close the public hearing. Motion carried.

Member Vaughn stated that he had been out to the property and had the homeowner show him where the placement of the accessory building would be. Member Vaughn stated that it would be hard to imagine that you would be putting an accessory building anywhere else on the lot without extending the driveway or turning the house on a pivot. It certainly seems to fit the land and it will not be easily visible from the road.

Chairman Casey asked the applicant what the use of the accessory building was going to be. Mr. Gaskey responded that it would be a garage/residential use.

Motion by Member Beahan and supported by Member Lewis to grant the variance to place an accessory building in the front yard for the location at 7777 Timer Canyon Dr. Motion carried.

ARTICLE 7. Other Business
Member Lewis presented some changes to our ordinances that were given to the Planning Commission at their last meeting. Member Lewis felt that the Zoning Board of Appeals should be kept informed on what was going on.

Planning Director Peterson reviewed the process that was taking place at the Planning Commission level. The changes were "housekeeping" changes that had been recommended by the Township Attorney and changes that were being mandated by the State. Discussion followed.

ARTICLE 9. Member Beahan supported by Member Neal moved to adjourn. The motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Jack Lewis, Secretary

JL:DMB

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