Zoning Board of
Appeals Minutes
MINUTES
Cascade Charter Township Zoning Board of Appeals
Monday, August 14, 2006
7:00 p.m.
ARTICLE 1. Chairman Casey called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
Members Present: Beahan, Casey, Lewis, Alternate Neal, Vaughn
Members Absent: Crawley (unexcused), 2nd Alternate Richards (excused)
Others Present: Planner Deem, Admin. Assistant Hern and members from
the public.
ARTICLE 2. Pledge of Allegiance
ARTICLE 3. Chairman Casey requested a motion for approval of the
August 14, 2006 Agenda. Member Lewis motioned for approval of the
August 14, 2006 Agenda as presented, supported by Member Vaughn. All
were in favor, none opposed. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 4. Chairman Casey requested a motion for approval of the
July 11, 2006 Meeting Minutes. Member Vaughn motioned for approval of
the minutes as presented. Member Lewis supported the motion. All in
favor, with none opposed, July 11, 2006 Minutes approved as presented.
ARTICLE 5. Case #06-2821: Joe Geroux, 6420 Ridgemont Dr. SE
(PUBLIC HEARING)
Planner Deem noted the Applicant is here to seek a variance from
the front yard setback requirements for an accessory building.
The property is located at 6420 Ridgemont Drive at the corner of
Thornapple River Drive and Ridgemont Drive and is North of the Cascade
Recreation Park and is located on 0.79 acres.
The Applicant is seeking a variance to place an accessory building
in the front yard. An accessory building is allowed in the front yard
with a 200-foot setback. The accessory building in question is
currently up and the building is 200-square feet, a building of this
size has a minimum setback of 10-feet from the side and rear yards. A
building of 200-square feet or less does not require a building permit
therefore, no review for location was required by the Planning
Department.
Front yard setbacks, for an accessory building to be placed in a
front yard, the minimum setback would be 200-feet and in this case do
not apply. When the 200-foot minimum setback cannot be met, the
building must be placed in the side yard or in the rear yard.
Planner Deem noted there is a house on the property and is located
approximately 73-feet off Thornapple River Drive therefore, the
minimum setback for Thornapple River Drive would be 73-feet. The
current location of the accessory building is less than 73-feet.
The minimum setbacks for an accessory building under 200-square
feet would be 10-feet from the side, 10-feet from the rear and an
accessory building would not be allowed in the front yard unless
200-feet from the road.
The proper in question is a corner lot with frontage on both
Ridgemont Drive and Thornapple River Drive. The location of the
accessory building is in the front yard along Thornapple River Drive.
When reviewing requests for a variance, there are Findings of Fact
that need to be reviewed. The first is that there are exceptional or
extraordinary conditions or circumstances that are inherent to the
property in question and that do not apply generally to the other
nearby properties in the same zoning district.
There are no exceptional conditions that apply to this case that
cannot be applied to other properties.
The Applicant has stated that he called the Township for the
setbacks. He was told that the accessory building would have a 10-foot
minimum setback from the side and rear yards. The most likely reason
for the Applicant's confusion on the setback requirements is that the
Township was not informed that the site is a corner lot and thus
having two (2) front yards. As Planner Deem previously noted, the
property has two front yards; one along Ridgemont Drive and the other
along Thornapple River Drive. In this situation, the house is facing
the apparent front yard of Ridgemont Drive.
Planner Deem noted that the most likely reason for the Applicant's
confusion regarding the setback is confusion in how the lot is set up
with the two (2) front yards. The end result is that the Applicant has
placed the building in what the Township considers the front yard,
less than the minimum setback along Thornapple River Drive.
Going back to the Findings of Fact, having a corner lot is not an
exceptional or extraordinary condition that cannot be applied
elsewhere in the Township.
The next Finding of Fact 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
location of the accessory building is the result of the Applicant.
That such variance is the minimum variance that will make possible
the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. Planner Deem
stated there is no variance needed to make minimum use of the land.
There is a viable building location on the lot that does not require a
variance. These may require some removal of trees and place behind the
drain field; however, the removal of trees is not a unique situation
that cannot be applied to other lots in the Township.
The granting of the variance will not be injurious to the
neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The
granting of the variance would not be injurious to the neighborhood.
This property is placed along Thornapple River Drive and the highway
and does not cause a direct affect on surrounding properties.
The condition or situation of the specific piece of property, or
the intended use of the property, for which the variance is sought is
not of so general or recurrent nature as to make it more reasonable
and practical to amend the Zoning Ordinance. The condition of this
property being a corner lot is not specific to this property. If the
Zoning Board were to approve this request, it would be more reasonable
to amend the Zoning Ordinance.
The Zoning Board of Appeals shall further find that the reasons set
forth in application justify the granting of the variance, and that it
is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of
the land, building or structure. The request does not meet the
requirements set forth in these Findings of Fact and do not justify
the granting of this variance.
Planner Deem noted one other item is that the Applicant did supply
the Health Department's Vacant Land Evaluation with the location of
the drain field; it is located behind the house approximately 15-feet.
The drain field itself is approximately 20-feet wide and should leave
enough land back there to push the accessory building back so that it
may meet the minimum setback requirements.
After reviewing the Findings of Fact, Staff recommends that the
Cascade Township Zoning Board of Appeals deny this variance request
due to it not meeting the standards set forth in the Findings of Fact.
Chairman Casey opened the meeting for questions of Staff.
Member Vaughn asked how far back Staff proposes the accessory
building should be and Planner Deem said 73-feet because of the
73-foot setback for the house, according to the Ordinance. Planner
Deem said that if the house were built up to the minimum setback of
50-feet, then the accessory building would be allowed at 50-feet.
Member Vaughn concluded the accessory building needs to be even with
the side of the house or further back and Planner Deem said that is
correct.
Chairman Casey asked if the 73-feet was being measured from the
edge of the pavement and Planner Deem noted that is what it appears to
be on the site plan for the building permit.
Being there no more questions of Staff, Chairman Casey invited the
Applicant to approach the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Applicant Joe Geroux of 6420 Ridgemont Dr SE said that having sat
on a Zoning Board he would like to thank them for their work they do
for the Township, it is important.
In answer to the question the Board had, he believes the 73-feet
was measured from the easement because the property stakes are still
there and he measured it off and the building is actually further back
from the road.
The circumstance he finds himself here, requesting a variance, was
not expected and is why he contacted Staff to comply with rules for
building the accessory building. He disagrees with Staff's
recommendation and believes the report is flawed. In speaking with
Staff today, other than driving by the house, they have not been there
to see the topography of the land and done the measurements. They may
have visited the home this afternoon but believes Staff should have
visited the land prior to making a recommendation.
Applicant Geroux said he is very disappointed and discouraged in
the information he received and was told not to bring a survey into
the Township. He represented himself off his address and was given the
wrong information. This is not a concern for the Board but an
Administrative concern.
The land does have uniqueness that was not cited in the report, but
the two (2) lots that were purchased and merged were not build-able
separately. The Applicant bought the two (2) lots to build a home that
generates tax dollars for Cascade. So, being that there are very few
lots that are merged to create a build-able home site, this makes this
lot unique.
He also requested the Board look at the lay out of the drain field
and the septic system behind the home he noted that it would be ill
advisable, noting the County Sanitation Engineer who would not advise
a building be placed in that approximate vicinity to the drain field
based on any type of repair. If the building were moved, it would
place the building up against the drain field. Applicant Geroux
referred to a previous home in Cascade he owned that needed the drain
field replaced after four (4) years.
He also said they would like to keep the wooded area shown on the
plan, preserving the trees and keeping the wildlife that is there. The
wooded area also has a drop of over one-foot that would force him to
bring in fill and could develop circumstances to his neighbors both
behind him and to the east. He also noted the economic cost to himself
of trying to make the land usable and the shed would not have been
placed there had he been given correct information.
He requests the variance to come to a solution regarding the shed
and has the outmost respect for the Board and will comply with the
Township's rules. Applicant Geroux appreciates the Board's
consideration and understands complying with the law. He believes
there are unique circumstances for the law and appreciates their
consideration.
Chairman Casey opened the meeting for the Board's questions of the
Applicant.
Alternate Neal asked Applicant Geroux if it was his understanding
that he had two (2) front yards and Applicant Geroux said it was not
to his understanding. Alternate Neal said that his material within his
Board packet notes a conversation he had with the Township's Planner,
is that correct. Applicant Geroux said it was correct and Alternate
Neal asked what he was informed about. Applicant Geroux said that all
he needed to do was be 10-feet off the lot line and asked if the
Township required a copy of the survey. The shed was delivered and
placed 20-feet back off the property line. He noted that if the lot
was not able to have a secondary building, he would not have made the
investment in having this shed built and brought out. Alternate Neal
asked why the Applicant selected this particular location for the shed
and the Applicant said it was due to the drain field and not to
disturb the wildlife. If his request is denied, he still seeks the
Township's help in determining the best spot for it. He believes the
alternative is to destroy the woods and bring in a lot of fill to make
it work.
Alternate Neal asked the Applicant if he is aware that one (1) of
his neighbors had written a letter to the Township in objection to the
placement of his shed. Applicant Geroux said he was not aware of any
neighbors' objection and was not given a copy of the letter.
Alternate Neal asked how many homes are on Ridgemont and Applicant
Geroux noted this is a corner house and the property extends
approximately 25 feet on each roadside with the house facing
Thornhills that does not have any residential areas. There is also a
berm and pine trees that are being planted along the berm. There
intent is to shield it from Thornhills. Alternate Neal asked if he has
had any other complaints from any of the other neighbors and Applicant
Geroux responded that he has not received any complaints and requested
a copy of the letter submitted by his neighbor who is in objection to
the shed. He would like to do the right thing and contact them to see
if there is something he can do. Planner Deem noted the last page of
the packet includes the neighbor's letter that the Applicant has been
provided. Member Beahan noted his packet includes a second letter and
Planner Deem said the second letter was received late and the
Applicant has not seen a copy of this letter.
Applicant Geroux noted that he learned of the 10-foot setback and
just recently learned of the 50-foot setback and he never learned of
the 200-foot setback until he received his packet last Friday and
there is a lot of confusion regarding the information he has been
provided.
Chairman Casey noted that some of the lots within the Township are
allowed to have accessory building in the front yard provided they are
200-feet off the setback from the road with one front yard.
Member Lewis said he appreciates the Applicant's concern and this
is not the first time they have heard of a misunderstanding and in
this particular case, it seems a unique situation because it appears
they are calling the Township initially as to the proper placement of
the shed and the Township was given a set of circumstances that
probably covers 85% to 95% of the lots within the Township because
they are not corner lots; another variance area would be a river lot.
So, when calling the Township for the correct answer to where to put a
building, the Applicant received a correct answer for 85% to 95% of
the lots within the Township. The problem seems to be that the
Township did not receive the total condition that it was a corner
house. Member Lewis believes that had the Applicant noted he has a
corner lot and wanted to place a building, he would have received a
different answer. He noted the Applicant was probably unaware that
having a corner lot makes a difference or it makes a difference if it
is a river lot, it does make a difference. In this particular case, it
does make a difference because it is a corner lot and the answer was
given correctly under the circumstances presented since the Applicant
did not inform the Township it is a corner lot. Member Lewis also
noted that Staff does rely upon the Applicant to provide the
circumstances when asking to construct an accessory building. The
Applicant presented circumstances and Staff answered the question. The
circumstances the Applicant presented were not all inclusive and he
has a difficulty faulting someone who provides answers based on a set
of facts.
Applicant Geroux noted that he did not declare the address when
speaking with Staff and believes the address should have been
referenced on the Township's records noting it is a corner lot. Member
Lewis noted that Staff could not access every resident's property
information for each request and the Applicant said he is just noting
this should not happen to another resident.
Member Lewis said the Board is reviewing the circumstances
presented tonight and how we got where we are at and where to proceed
from this point. He is sorry this happened but understands how it
happened. Applicant Geroux said he had no further comments.
Member Lewis noted he understands the Applicant's frustration and
he did a wonderful job in presenting the case this evening.
Member Lewis asked where the stationery deer is located in his back
yard and Applicant Geroux said it is on the drain field and Member
Lewis thanked him for the perspective. Member Lewis asked if the
building is on a skid and the Applicant said it is, it is not
permanent and noted the building was delivered on a flatbed type
trailer with a double hydraulic system to slide it on and off. The
Applicant noted that if he were forced to move the shed, he would have
to retain the same company. He also referred back to his previous
house in Cascade that he had to replace the septic they had to provide
the contractors an extra 20-feet around the drain field for their
equipment and repairs. He believes it is unwise to place a
semi-permanent building next to a drain field. He also said that he
asked the builder why the drain field is located so far back and he
said it was to necessitate the merge of the two lots per the County.
Member Beahan asked for a point of clarification regarding the
letter the Applicant submitted July 6th where the sentence states the
shed was installed on Friday, June 16th and ordered on June 22nd and
asked when he spoke with Staff, was that prior to installing the shed?
Applicant Geroux said that he did list the dates incorrectly in the
letter; he spoke with Staff on either June 15th or June 16th and
ordered the shed on the 16th. The shed took approximately ten (10)
days to be installed.
Member Vaughn asked the Applicant that if he has to move the
building, would he keep it? Applicant Geroux said would like to keep
it if they can find a place to keep it legally. He said he will not
put it on the drain field nor encroach the drain field, that would be
poor judgment. He further said he has reviewed the property for other
possibilities and considered bringing it up the drive way but he would
then encroach on that neighbor and destroy the trees his neighbor
planted on his property. If he were to place the building here, he
would have to remove 10-feet of the trees along that property line and
referred to his neighbor's driveway along the line. Applicant Geroux
said he is open to having Staff come out to the property and suggest
an appropriate location. The only viable solution he can see at this
time is to cut down the trees and add the fill.
Member Beahan asked if the shed could be placed on pier-type
foundation and Applicant Geroux said he would have to check with the
builder because of the weight. Member Vaughn asked what is in the shed
and the Applicant noted a lawn tractor and bicycles.
Chairman Casey requested a motion to open the Public Hearing.
Member Lewis motioned to open the Public Hearing supported by Member
Beahan. All were in favor to open the Public Hearing, with none
opposed. Public Hearing opened.
Doug Elsie of 6500 Woodbrook Drive SE noted he is one of the
neighbors who submitted a letter of objection regarding the placement
of the shed. He noted he and his wife oppose the placement of the shed
for the following reasons:
1) The shed is in plain sight of any driver heading south on
Thornapple River Drive.
2) The shed is in the direct line of sight with the Forest Ridge
Estates sign at the entrance of the subdivision, and is especially
noticeable when executing a left turn onto Ridgemont.
3) The shed, and any other freestanding structure like it, is out of
character with the rest of the neighborhood.
Mr. Elsie thanked the Board for hearing his comments.
Chairman Casey invited any other members of the public to speak.
Being no other public members had any comments Chairman Casey asked
Staff if any other letters or phone calls have been received with the
exception of the two (2) letters of objection already received.
Planner Deem noted that no other letters were received nor phone
calls.
Member Beahan motioned to close the Public Hearing, supported by
Alternate Neal. All in favor to close the Public Hearing, with none
opposed. Public Hearing closed.
Member Lewis asked how far back would the accessory building have
to be moved to meet the Township's Ordinance and Planner Deem
responded approximately 63-feet back to meet the house. Member Lewis
wondered if the shed were turned if it were turned to face the other
direction, would it take up as much space near the drain field but it
would still have to be moved to meet the Ordinance.
Member Lewis also noted the Zoning Board hears frequently that the
Applicant wants to do something that their lot prevents them from
doing. Drain fields are something the Board hears frequently because
most of the lots within the Township have septic and are not connected
to city sewer systems. He noted he is hard pressed on this case
because there are other options available on the property that meets
the Ordinance but, yes, fill would have to be brought in and trees
would have to be cut. These are common problems in Cascade Township
because the Township does not have sewer. In this particular case, a
variance could be given but the problem the Zoning Board would then
face is that granting the variance would set a precedent to all who
own corner lots on a major road, those owners could then request a
variance since the precedent would be established if this case were
granted the variance.
Member Lewis also noted the fact that there are a couple of
neighbors who are not pleased with the placement of the shed. The
neighbors in this case do care about a precedence being set and he
understands their concerns as well. Member Lewis said it is
unfortunate that a misunderstanding has led to this point and he is
not going to fault one nor the other party involved. He does not
believe the Applicant should have full knowledge of the law and does
not hold the Township Staff accountable for not being able to
mind-read that the Applicant has a corner lot. The good news is that
the building is not permanently built into the ground and can be moved
with minimal effort and cost, but that is up to the Applicant if he
decides to move it. Member Lewis believes for the reasons noted, that
the variance, though presented very well by the Applicant, should be
denied. His concern is with the precedence set by allowing a corner
lot to have this type of a variance.
Member Beahan supported Member Lewis' comments and agrees with
denying the Applicant's request.
Member Lewis motioned that the Applicant's request for a variance
from the front yard setback for an accessory building is denied for
the reasons he has presented; Member Beahan supported the motion.
Chairman Casey opened the meeting for discussion.
Alternate Neal said that although he is sympathetic to the
Applicant's request it appears from the photos that the shed is not
particularly sightly in its current location, along with neighbors'
complaints, and it also appears the shed could be moved without
excessive cost to the Applicant. He concurs the variance should be
denied.
Member Lewis reiterated that the Findings of Fact are correct in
stating there are no unique conditions to allow the variance. He
recognizes that two (2) un-buildable lots were merged to create one
(1) buildable lot and it is considered a buildable lot now. Based on
the Findings of Fact for a buildable lot, this does not meet the
requirements to allow a variance.
Member Vaughn said that having reviewed the Findings of Fact, it
would be very difficult for him to find a way to allow for the
variance according to the conditions the Board is to work within. He
cannot justify the granting of the variance based on the Findings of
Fact.
Chairman Casey also noted other cases brought before the Board for
lots on cul-d-sacs and angled lot situations. These cases were denied
as well because of visibility and also supports deny the request.
Being no further discussion from the Zoning Board, all were in
favor with none opposed. Motion carried and the variance was denied.
ARTICLE 6. Any Other Business
Chairman Casey opened the meeting for other Zoning Board business.
Member Lewis thanked the Board for the flowers he received for his
surgery, he greatly appreciates their thoughtfulness.
Member Lewis also noted that at the last Planning Commission
Meeting, the Commission sent the Ordinance changes onto the Township
Board for their approval. The Commission accepted and approved the
recommendations though not all the suggestions were accepted. There
was a suggestion to remove one (1) condition regarding if the building
affects the wind/air circulation or light. The Commission agreed to
keep this condition as one of the criteria. The Ordinance changes are
in the process and they will impact the Zoning Board. Once the
Township Board approves the Ordinance, the Zoning Board will receive
updated copies. Chairman Casey noted that some Fire Departments are
concerned about the buildings and up-drafts that could affect
surrounding buildings. Member Lewis noted the Planning Commission
recently passed an Ordinance dealing with cellular antennas on
structures and the air circulation and light was one of the
conditions. He has not seen the air circulation affect any case in
past years but can understand it in some cases.
Member Beahan asked if the Township should have guidelines to
follow when a resident calls the Township regarding such circumstances
as tonight's applicant and Planner Deem does not believe guidelines
need to be developed as this is the first time he has seen this
problem in the four (4) years he has been with the Township. Planner
Deem also commented that he did visit this site prior to writing the
report.
ARTICLE 7. Member Beahan supported by Alternate Neal moved to
adjourn. The motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 7:48 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
 |
|
