Zoning Board of
Appeals Minutes
MINUTES
Cascade Charter Township Zoning Board of Appeals
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
7:00 p.m.
ARTICLE 1. Vice-Chairman Lewis called the meeting to order at 7:02
p.m.
Members Present: Beahan, Casey, Lewis
Members Absent: Crawley (unexcused), 1st Alternate Neal (excused), 2nd
Alternate Richards (excused), Vaughn (unexcused)
Others Present: Assistant to the Manager Otey, Admin. Assistant Hern,
and members from the public.
ARTICLE 2. Pledge of Allegiance
ARTICLE 3. Vice-Chairman Lewis requested a motion for approval of
the May 1, 2007 Agenda.
Member Beahan motioned for the approval of the May 1st ZBA Agenda
with support from Member Casey. All were in favor, none opposed. The
motion carried, May 1, 2007 Agenda approved.
ARTICLE 4. Vice-Chairman Lewis requested a motion for approval or
corrections of the April 10, 2007 Meeting Minutes and the Minutes from
the Special Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting April 18, 2007.
Member Beahan motioned to approve the April 10, 2007 ZBA Meeting
Minutes and the April 18, 2007 ZBA Meeting Minutes as presented,
supported by Member Casey. All in favor with none opposed. April 10,
2007 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes and April 18, 2007 Zoning
Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes were approved as submitted.
ARTICLE 5. Case #07-2872: Brenda Lynema
Property Address: 9555 60th Street SE
(PUBLIC HEARING)
Vice-Chairman Lewis noted the Applicant is requesting a variance to
place an accessory building in the front yard.
Assistant to the Manager Otey said this parcel is approximately
2-acres. The property received ZBA and Planning Commission (PC)
approval to build a similar building in 1994. That building was never
constructed, therefore the approvals have expired.
The Township does not allow accessory buildings in the front of
homes unless they meet the following conditions:
1. A lot in which the topography of the property makes it impossible
to construct the building in the rear or side yard, or extensive
grading and tree and tree removal is required which would
significantly change the landscape and views of the neighborhood if
required to locate the building in the rear or side yard.
2. A lot in which the property owner would have to drive over a drain
or septic field in order to access the garage.
3. A lot in which the accessory building is setback a minimum of
two-hundred (20') feet from the right-of-way.
The proposed building is located eighty-eight (88') feet from the
right-of-way, therefore, they cannot meet the three (3) conditions to
locate the building in the front yard.
The Applicant has indicated that the reason for the front yard
location of the building is due to the location of the drain field on
the property that is located in the side yard.
The property does slope slightly away from the road and is wooded
on the north and west property lines.
Staff has reviewed ZBA cases back to 2002 and the Township had
seven (7) similar requests as this Applicant's request and three (3)
of those cases were approved. The common denominator for the cases
that were denied was that the Applicants were able to move the
building without the need even though it may not have been the
Applicants' preferred location. For the variance approved, the reasons
were largely centered on topographical, screening from view, the
minimum amount of variance needed and the location of well or septic.
The largest of the buildings approved for a variance in the front
was 786-square feet and only required a variance of three (3) feet.
The Applicant does not have any other buildings on the parcel.
When this case was approved in 1994, the building was proposed to
be 1,280-square feet and Staff believes in a similar location
(although no site plan was included within the file) and this proposed
building is for 1,200-square feet.
Staff has listed the Findings of Fact and their comments for the
ZBA noting that the location of the septic system makes it extremely
difficult to locate the building behind the house. If the building
were even placed towards the rear of the parcel, there would be some
concern of possibly driving over the septic system.
The location of the septic system was not created by the Applicant.
Assistant to the Township Manager Otey noted that it would appear
that one way to minimize the variance would be for the building to be
smaller or for the building to be rotated so that the long-side of the
building would run east to west and the shortest side run north to
south.
This building would also be in front of the nearest home to the
West. This would appear to be a slight detriment to that property,
given the location and size of this building and rotating the building
would also appear to lessen the impact on the neighbor.
The Township has granted other variances for front yard accessory
buildings but these were granted due to wetlands, steep slopes and
well and septic locations.
The Zoning Board of Appeals should also consider comments from the
neighbors.
Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow the accessory
building in the front yard under the following conditions:
1. The building is rotated in an east/west direction with a minimum
setback of 98-feet from the right-of-way.
2. The building not be involved, directly or indirectly, with any
business, trade, occupation or profession.
3. Any lighting for the building will be shielded or downcast.
Vice-Chairman Lewis asked what the sideyard setback is on this plan
and Assistant to the Manager Otey said the site plan indicates a
12-foot setback and the Township's minimum is 10-feet.
Vice-Chairman Lewis asked the ZBA if they had any questions of
Staff and they did not. Vice-Chairman Lewis invited the Applicant to
make any additional comments.
Applicant Dave Lynema, 9555 60th Street, said he is not sure if he
can rotate the building east and west as Staff has conditioned as it
may affect the drain field. He said if the rotation would not affect
the drain field, then he will rotate the building as Staff has
recommended.
Vice-Chairman Lewis asked the Applicant if he built the house on
the property and the Applicant stated he did not and has owned it for
approximately fifteen (15) years.
Member Beahan asked why the property has two (2) drain fields and
two (2) septic and Applicant Lynema said the drain field and septic
are located in a potential building spot and believes there are two
(2) 500-gallon tanks.
Vice-Chairman Lewis asked the Applicant if he has had the tanks
cleaned and Applicant Lynema said he did two (2) years ago and
referred to the tank that was kitty-corner of the garage.
Vice-Chairman Lewis noted the drawing on the site plan indicating a
second septic tank in the rear of the house and the Applicant was
unsure of the second tank.
Vice-Chairman Lewis noted that it is seldom that properties have a
second septic tank and the ZBA has seen two drain fields in some
occasions. Assistant to the Manager Otey also said that the Township
has seen two (2) drain fields on a property but not two (2) septic and
the Applicant said that his wife had created the site plan.
There were no further questions or comments from the ZBA.
Member Beahan motioned to open the Public Hearing, supported by
Member Casey. All in favor with none opposed, the Public Hearing was
opened.
Vice-Chairman Lewis asked Staff if they received any public
comments, phone calls or letters regarding the project. Assistant to
the Manager Otey said the Township has not received any phone calls or
letters regarding the project.
Vice-Chairman Lewis invited any public members to speak regarding
their comments of the project. No public comments.
Member Beahan motioned to close the Public Hearing, supported by
Member Casey. All in favor to close the Public Hearing, with none
opposed. Public Hearing closed.
Vice-Chairman Lewis noted that normally the ZBA has seen sketches
that have been drawn and do not hinge upon a variance and this request
hinges upon if there are two (2) septic systems and drain fields as
indicated on the site plan and if the building can be rotated as a
recommendation by Staff. Vice-Chairman Lewis said there is not clear
indication on the site plan as to the location of the septic tanks and
drain fields.
Member Casey said Vice-Chairman Lewis has a valid point, one tank
is connected to a drain field and the other is a separate tank without
any connection indicated on neither the site plan nor the label of it
being a reserve tank. He believes the tanks and drain fields need to
be accurately reflected on the site plan.
Applicant Lynema said that he is not sure where the septic sits on
the property but is positive that there is a drain field located to
the kitty-corner of the garage and that would be a hindrance either
way.
Vice-Chairman Lewis asked if the County Health Department would
have records of septic tanks and drain fields and Assistant to the
Manager Otey said they do have the records but is not sure how far
back the records go nor does she know how old the Applicant's system
is.
He also noted that the neighbor to the west, in all fairness, would
not care if the building is there due to the thick woods and foliage
along the property line. Vice-Chairman Lewis noted the ZBA would not
be infringing upon the neighbor as he did not present any feedback or
comments at the Public Hearing and did not contact the Township
Offices.
Member Beahan noted the building is 1,200-square feet but
questioned the building's dimensions and Applicant Lynema said it is
30-feet by 40-feet. Member Beahan asked the Applicant if he would have
a problem turning the building and Applicant Lynema said as long as he
is not interfering with the septic and drain fields he would rotate
the building as Staff recommends.
Vice-Chairman Lewis also noted that if the building were turned, it
would provide an additional setback of 10-feet from the road with a
total of 98-feet setback from the road. Vice-Chairman Lewis said he
would favor the building being turned in an east/west fashion gaining
an additional 10-foot setback from the road.
Vice-Chairman Lewis asked Applicant Lynema if he had drawings of
the accessory building showing what the building will look like and
Applicant Lynema said he has sketches but not with him at the time.
Vice-Chairman Lewis requested that the Applicant provide better site
plan drawings and have drawings or sketches of the accessory building
and indicate the correct locations of the drain fields and septic
tanks from the County if possible and Member Casey suggested
requesting these documents as a condition of approval that they be on
file with the Township. Applicant Lynema said he is going before the
Planning Commission on May 14th and can provide plans. Vice-Chairman
Lewis noted that he also serves on the Planning Commission and
requested the Applicant provide at least an attempt that he has
contacted the County requesting the location of the septic tanks and
drain fields along with drawings of the accessory building at the
Planning Commission Meeting on May 15th.
Member Beahan motioned for approval for the recommendation that the
Applicant's request for a variance to building an accessory building
in the front yard be approved on the conditions that:
1. The Applicant submits to the Planning Commission on May 15, 2007
the drawing of the location of the septic and drain fields.
2. The Applicant submits to the Planning Commission on May 15, 2007
the drawing of the proposed accessory building.
3. The building is rotated in an east/west direction with a minimum
setback of 98-feet from the right-of-way.
4. Any lighting for the building will be shielded or downcast.
5. The building is not to be involved, directly or indirectly, with
any business, trade, occupation or profession.
Member Casey seconded the motion.
Vice-Chairman called the motion to question. All in favor with none
opposed. Motion carried.
Member Beahan noted to the Applicant that he has one (1) year to
build the accessory building or he would have to come before the
Zoning Board of Appeals for a renewal of the variance.
ARTICLE 6. Case # 07-2873: Lakeland Finishing
Property Address: 5400 36th Street SE
(PUBLIC HEARING)
Vice-Chairman Lewis noted the Applicant is seeking a variance that
would allow their ground sign along 36th Street be placed closer to
the road than permitted.
Assistant to the Manager Otey said that Section 5.06d requires that
all permanent signs be setback from the lot line a minimum of 25-feet.
Industrial signs are limited to no more than 5-feet high and the
square footage is based on the property frontage. This property could
have a sign totaling 60-square feet.
The Applicant is proposing a 25-square foot sign that is 4.5-feet
tall.
The Applicant would simply like to replace the old sign with a new
sign in the same location. The old sign was non-conforming, in terms
of its placement, and when it was removed the Applicant lost any
ability to simply replace the sign in the existing spot without a
variance since it was located adjacent to the 36th Street
right-of-way.
The new sign is required to be placed a minimum of 25-feet off from
the 36th Street right-of-way.
There appears to be some discrepancy between the site plan the
Applicant submitted and their written description of their request.
They have written that they would like the sign 12-ffet off from the
road but show the sign location 10-feet off from the right-of-way.
Staff does not believe either are correct since the old sign was
located adjacent to the right-of-way.
There are other signs in the area that are also non-conforming,
some of them may have become non-conforming after the widening of 36th
Street.
Staff has looked back over the last few years and the Township has
had three (3) similar requests and two (2) of them were granted. Those
granted include Cascade Engineering on 36th Street and the Roadhouse
on Cascade Road. The variance that was denied was for Unitog on 33rd
Street.
One of the unique aspects about the site is the topography of the
front yard. The site drops off quite rapidly in front and if the sign
is placed where it is required, it would be difficult to see the sign
since the Township limits the sign's height to five (5) feet.
The other spot for a sign on the property is in the Northeast
corner that is flat but has a couple of pine trees that would have to
be removed if the sign were to be installed in this location.
Assitant to the Manager Otey reviewed the Findings of Fact noting
that others in the area have non-conforming signs and would probably
not object if they could have the same.
The property does fall away from the road making it difficult to
both see the sign and have it meet the Township's requirement of
5-feet.
The fact that the sign is smaller and shorter than allowed and the
sharp drop-off, Staff does not believe it would create an adverse
precedent and does need to establish exactly where the sign is being
located to determine the amount of variance necessary.
Based on the topography of the site, the fact that they are only
replacing what was there, the sign is smaller than permitted, the sign
is shorter than permitted, the fact that the Applicant would have to
have a taller sign if placed in the correct location and the fact that
they would have to remove some landscaping to place it in the correct
location, Staff is in support of the Applicant's request for a
variance to replace the old sign with their new sign provided it is
located outside of the road right-of-way.
Vice-Chairman Lewis opened the meeting for questions of Staff from
the Zoning Board. Being no questions, Vice-Chairman Lewis asked the
Applicant if he would like to present any additional comments.
Applicant Thomas Smith from Lakeland said they have been at their
other location on Kraft Avenue and 36th Street since 1982 and this
sign will match that location's sign. The topography of this location
does not allow them to place the sign where they would like it or
without removing landscaping.
This building was purchased last March and has been renovated. The
Heritage Paper sign that was on the property created a lot of public
confusion and they removed the sign and did not realize by doing this
that they could not replace the sign with their own.
The Applicant believes their site plan makes sense and will keep
the sign attractive. Applicant Smith also believes that there may be
some aerial pictures of the property on file at the Township that will
indicate the location of the old sign and they intend to install their
sign in this location.
Vice-Chairman Lewis asked if the street signs for the truck drivers
would remain and Applicant Smith said they would be removed.
Vice-Chairman Lewis also asked if the building would have signage on
the front of it and Applicant Smith said it would not.
Vice-Chairman Lewis thanked the Applicant for the detailed
presentation he has submitted to the Township and appreciate their
improvements and review a completed application.
Vice-Chairman Lewis opened the meeting for the Zoning Boards'
questions of the Applicant and Member Beahan asked where the exact
location is of the sign? Applicant Smith said they believe they can
find the holes in the front yard from the previous sign. If they
cannot locate the original footings of the sign, they will refer to
the aerial views the Township has on file.
Member Beahan motioned to open the Public Hearing, supported by
Member Casey. All in favor with none opposed, the Public Hearing was
opened.
Vice-Chairman Lewis asked if the Township Offices received any
phone calls or letters regarding the project and Assistant to the
Township Manager Otey said they have not received any.
Member Beahan motioned to close the Public Hearing supported by
Member Casey. All in favor with none opposed, the Public Hearing was
closed.
Vice-Chairman Lewis said the Board is now allowed to further
discuss the project and noted that he had visited the site and there
is quite a variety of signs along 36th Street. He believes the
Applicant's request and proposed sign is an advantage to the Township
since it is smaller than what is allowed and placing the sign
elsewhere on the property could result in the removal of landscaping.
Member Casey favors placing the new sign in the old sign's location
remembering the trucker's safety along 36th Street.
Member Beahan asked if the Applicant will have any wall signs on
their facility and Applicant Smith said they would not with the
exception of a sign indicating an employee entrance that is towards
the back
Member Beahan asked if there is a lot of truck traffic into the
facility and Applicant Smith said that trucks come in during the
morning and then again in the late afternoon, twice per day.
Member Beahan motioned for approval of the Applicant's request for
a variance of Section 9.07d of the Sign Ordinance that would allow
their ground sign along 36th Street to be placed closer to the road
than permitted based on the following reasons:
1. The topography of the site.
2. The Applicant is only replacing what was there.
3. The sign proposed is smaller than what is permitted.
4. The sign proposed is shorter than what is permitted.
5. If the sign were to be placed in the correct location to meet the
Township's Ordinance, the Applicant would have to remove landscaping.
6. The Applicant does not have any signage on the building itself.
Member Casey supported the motion based on Member Beahan's comments.
Member Beahan amended his motion to include that the Applicant will
place the sign in the location of the old sign, supported by Member
Casey.
Vice-Chairman called the motion to question. All in favor with none
opposed. Motion carried.
ARTICLE 7. Any Other Business
Vice-Chairman Lewis opened the meeting for other Zoning Board
business.
Member Beahan noted that the tall weather sirens within the
Township were installed today. He said there were a few public members
who attended the Township Board Meeting. The questions the public had
regarding the sirens was if the Township had sought funding through
grants and one resident requested the siren on Spaulding be moved
further down their property so it was not directly in front of their
house. There was not any opposition to the weather sirens and they
will be tested the first Friday of the month.
ARTICLE 8. Member Beahan supported by Member Casey moved to
adjourn. The motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 7:38 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary Crawley, 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
 |
|
