Zoning Board of
Appeals Minutes
MINUTES
Cascade Charter Township Zoning Board of Appeals
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
7:00 p.m.
ARTICLE 1. Chairman Vaughn called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Beahan, Casey, Crawley, Lewis, and Vaughn
Members Absent: None
Others Present: Planning Director Peterson and members from the
public.
ARTICLE 2. Pledge of Allegiance
ARTICLE 3. Chairman Vaughn requested a motion for approval of the
October 9, 2007 Agenda.
Member Lewis motioned for the approval of the October 9th ZBA
Agenda with support from Member Casey. All were in favor, none
opposed. The motion carried, October 9, 2007 Agenda approved.
ARTICLE 4. Chairman Vaughn requested a motion for approval or
corrections of the September 11, 2007 Meeting Minutes.
Member Casey requested in the fourth paragraph to change the words
"Member Casey" to "Member Lewis".
Chairman Vaughn asked for clarification into the third paragraph
under Article 4 in the first sentence and change "that he"
to read "that Member Casey".
Member Lewis noted that on Page 4 he made a motion for approval and
the motion is also reflected on Page 6, one of the motions should be
stricken from the Minutes and Planning Director Peterson said the
motion on Page 6 would be stricken.
No further comments or corrections.
Member Lewis motioned to approve the September 11, 2007 ZBA Meeting
Minutes as corrected, supported by Member Crawley. All in favor with
none opposed. September 11, 2007 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting
Minutes was approved as corrected.
ARTICLE 5. Case #07-2901: High Ridge, LLC
Property Address: 2411 Highbridge Lane
(PUBLIC HEARING)
The Applicant has requested their case be postponed until the November
13, 2007 ZBA (Zoning Board of Appeals) Meeting.
Chairman Vaughn recused himself from this case due to his intimate
involvement with the association.
Member Lewis motioned to accept Chairman Vaughn's recusal from Case
# 07-2901: High Ridge, LLC due to conflict of interest, Member Beahan
supported the motion. All in favor, with none opposed. Motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Lewis invited Staff to present their report.
Planning Director Peterson said the Applicant is making the request
for a fence they would like to construct along I-96, however, the
Applicant has not been able to pull all their information together and
are currently working with MDOT to see what can be done. At this
point, the Township does not know where this fence, wall or screening
would be located or how tall it would be. The Applicant has requested
that this case be tabled until the November meeting.
This case has been noticed for a Public Hearing this evening and it
may be appropriate to hold the Public Hearing and table the case after
the hearing and also send public notice for the rescheduled date of
November 13th.
Vice-Chairman Lewis requested a motion to open the Public Hearing.
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 opened the meeting for comments from the
Public. No public comments.
Vice-Chairman Lewis asked Staff if the Township received any
letters or phone calls regarding the case. Planning Director Peterson
said the Township did not receive any comments from the Public.
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 said that at the request of the Applicant to
table Case # 07-2901: High Ridge, LLC, he would accept a motion to
table the case.
Member Casey motioned to table Case # 07-2901: High Ridge, LLC,
supported by Member Beahan.
Vice-Chairman Lewis called to question the motion. All in favor
with none opposed; Case # 07-2901: High Ridge, LLC tabled until
November 13, 2007 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting.
Vice-Chairman Lewis turned the meeting over to Chairman Vaughn.
ARTICLE 6. Case # 07-2900: Ada Bible Church
Property Address: 8899 Cascade Road
(PUBLIC HEARING)
Requested Action: Approval to allow the placement of a temporary
portable classroom on the property.
Planning Director Peterson said the Applicant is requesting to put
up a temporary portable classroom in the far rear of the property and
referred to the site plan.
He noted that this is not a variance and Staff included the
Standards of Review within the Boards' packets. The Applicant is
requesting a temporary portable classroom while investigating the need
for a permanent addition to the church. They have indicated they would
like the temporary classroom for up to twenty-four (24) months.
This request is not unlike others the Township has had. Most
recently the Township has granted approval of a similar situation for
Cascade Fellowship Christian Reformed Church and the Thornapple
Evangelical Church. In those cases, the longest time allowed for a
temporary building was three (3) years.
Staff recommends approval of the Applicant's request to allow the
temporary portable classroom at 6596 Cascade Road SE to be placed as
shown on the site plan with the following condition:
1) The permit would be good for a period of no more than two (2) years
beginning at the time the building permit is issued for the temporary
building.
Chairman Vaughn opened the meeting for any questions of Staff by
the Zoning Board. There were no questions.
Chairman Vaughn invited the Applicant to add their comments to
Staff's report.
Applicant Edward Shepard, Senior Operations Pastor of Ada Bible
Church said the church is getting ready to expand and the original
three (3) phases of the project was approved. The church is growing
and they are looking for additional space until the project is
completed. They are proposing a temporary classroom that is 24-feet by
44-feet be put up. They do not want the building on their property any
longer than there is a need for it. The Applicant is requesting the
building for 24-months, at that time the building would be removed and
if they fix their need for additional space ahead of time, they would
remove the temporary building ahead of time.
Member Lewis asked what a premium unit is and Applicant Shepard
said that when they looked at temporary buildings, many of them look
like mobile homes and the premium unit is a wood sided unit that looks
very nice.
Member Beahan asked if the temporary building has a flat roof and
the Applicant said it would.
Member Lewis asked if there is outdoor lighting on the building and
Applicant Shepard said there would be and they would utilize
underground electric so the additional lines would not be visible.
Member Lewis asked how many people does the building seat and
Applicant Shepard said they are planning on fifty (50) to sixty (60)
would be seated in the building.
Planning Director Peterson noted the temporary building is quite a
distance away from the adjoining property lines. Applicant Shepard
noted that they chose a location for the building out of view from the
surrounding properties and it is not visible from Quiggle Avenue.
There were no other questions of the Applicant and Chairman Vaughn
requested a motion to open the Public Hearing.
Member Lewis motioned to open the Public Hearing supported by Member
Casey. Chairman Vaughn called the motion to question. All in favor
with none opposed, the Public Hearing was opened.
Chairman Vaughn asked if the Township received and letters or phone
calls regarding the case. Planning Director Peterson said there were
no letters or phone calls received at the Township.
Chairman Vaughn invited members of the public to approach the
Zoning Board with their comments. No public comments.
Member Lewis motioned to close the Public Hearing supported by
Member Beahan. Chairman Vaughn called the motion to question. All in
favor with none opposed, the Public Hearing was closed.
Member Lewis noted that the Township has had a couple of similar
requests like this in the past that have worked out well without any
problems and does not anticipate any problems with this project.
Member Lewis motioned for approval of the Applicant's request to
allow for a temporary portable building at 8899 Cascade Road for a
period of two (2) years beginning at the time the building permit is
issued for the temporary building supported by Member Casey.
Chairman Vaughn opened the meeting for discussion of the motion and
asked Member Lewis if the building's description should be included in
the motion?
Member Lewis added the description of the temporary building to
include that the classroom be 24-feet by 44-feet, separate units that
are anchored and be premium units as presented in the Applicant's
request.
Chairman Vaughn called the motion to question.
All in favor with none opposed. Motion carried.
ARTICLE 7. Case # 07-2907: Steven Whitbeck
Property Address: 7750 Sandy Hollow Drive SE
(PUBLIC HEARING)
Requested Action: The Applicant is requesting a variance to construct
a new accessory building closer to the lot line than permitted.
Planning Director Peterson noted this Applicant is requesting a
variance and the Findings of Fact are included within Staff's report.
The property is located at the west end of Sandy Hollow Drive and
noted the location map on the projection screen.
The request stems from the replacement of the existing accessory
building on the property. The Zoning Board may recall that the
Township has different setback requirements for different building
heights. This building is being shown with a 25-foot rear setback and
a 48-foot side yard setback. It is required to have a minimum setback
of 40-feet in the rear and side property lines due to the building
height of a little over 15-feet tall measured to the midpoint.
Staff has provided within the Boards' packets the drawings of the
site that show the building is built into the side of a hill. The
building is not the same height all the way around. The Township
measures height to the midpoint from the average grade. Staff did have
the Townships Planning Reviewers assess the midpoint to assure the
height of the building and they concurred with Staff's measurement of
a little over 15-feet tall at the building's midpoint, requiring the
40-foot setback.
When reviewing the building, it should be noted that the Applicant
has the building set skewed to the property line and the entire rear
of the building is not at 25-feet and the measurement is taken from
the closest corner to the setback.
The property to the south is undeveloped at this time.
This project would also need to be reviewed by the Planning
Commission since the accessory building is over 832-square feet and
that meeting is scheduled for November 12, 2007. The variance is being
requested first in order to determine the placement of the building.
When reviewing the Findings of Fact, the exceptional or
extraordinary circumstances involved with this project is that there
is a grade difference on the property but the owner does have other
options. The Applicant could move the building further to the north or
could lower the height of the building and it is the building's height
that is driving the setback requirement.
The grade of the property is not the result of actions taken by the
Applicant.
The condition for such a variance is the minimum variance that
would make possible the reasonable use of land or the building or
structure and Planning Director Peterson noted that the variance
portion of the request is only for a small corner of the building. The
variance could be reduced or even eliminated by moving the structure
north. The Applicant does indicate a driveway on the site plan and
Staff believes it could be possible to move the building north to
reduce or eliminate the need for a variance.
Regarding the impact to the neighborhood, the property to the south
is undeveloped and would have the biggest impact on this piece of
property but due to the grade difference this is the side of the
building that would not appear as tall since it is into the hill. The
property to the east would probably be the next most affected and this
home is located a distance away from this building.
Staff also noted that until only a few years ago, the Township did
not allow for taller buildings. The fact that the building is
constructed in the hill and the topography would make it different
from other requests the Township has had.
Planning Director Peterson also showed the contours of the property
and noted some steep slopes on the property.
Staff recommends that the ZBA pursue the idea of moving the
building as far north as possible to either reduce or eliminate the
variance. There were some members of the public that did review the
site's plans at the Township office.
Chairman Vaughn noted that the drawings reflect that potentially up
to twenty-percent (20%) of the building is encroaching on the setback
and Planning Director Peterson agreed.
Member Beahan asked if there would be a problem moving the building
north with the property's topography and Planning Director Peterson
said he does not believe so.
There were no more questions of Staff and Chairman Vaughn invited
the Applicant to add their comments.
Applicant Steven Whitbeck of 7750 Sandy Hollow Drive said he would
like to construct an accessory building closer to the lot line than
the Township's ordinance allows.
He bought the spec home approximately 2 ½ years ago and has done
no outside improvements to the house but has improved the property.
The main reason for building the accessory building is to store a boat
that is quite tall when on the trailer therefore he cannot lessen the
height of the building. When the boat was purchased a couple of years
ago, he did apply for a Special Use Permit to build the current
building to allow for the tall boat. The request for the building as
shown on the site plan is due to the boat's length on the trailer of
approximately 40-feet. To come in and out of the garage with the
building more forward on the property, allowing for the 40-foot
setback, would cause him to drive over his lawn. He plans to re-do the
drive way with cement and plans to straighten out some of the curves
for easier accessibility.
The one corner is less that 42-feet from the property and the
Applicant showed the only two (2) flat spots on where the house sits.
Instead of hauling dirt on and off the property, he excavated a flat
spot where the accessory building is proposed to be and used the dirt
to fill his front yard.
Due to the lay of the land, he is also unable to turn the garage to
face another direction; if this were done, he would not be able to get
in and out of the building.
Applicant Whitbeck said that if he were to pull the garage north,
as Staff has suggested, it would make it very difficult for him to get
the boat out without driving all over the front yard.
Applicant Whitbeck showed plans for the exterior of the accessory
building. He plans to match the exterior of his house as much as
possible. The house has a stonework exterior and the accessory
building will have the same, including a window with shutters. It is
important for him to make the building look as nice as possible, it is
important for him and his neighbors.
Applicant Whitbeck also provided photographs of various views of
his property from the neighbor's showing the differences in view of
25-feet and 40-feet setback. The only neighbor affected by a view of
the accessory building is the neighbor to the east all others are not
able to see it.
When Applicant Whitbeck purchased the property the builder drew the
map with the location of the accessory building on the property with a
60-foot setback that was previously approved by the Township. When
Applicant Whitbeck actually looked at the approved 60-foot setback he
noticed that it is not allow for enough room to maneuver his boat and
trailer.
The main reasons Applicant Whitbeck is requesting the variance for
the accessory building is so his neighbors do not see it, he needs a
building that will store his boat that he can easily access.
The building will not be a pole barn and it will have vinyl siding.
It will also have the stonework to match his house and maybe wood
siding in the front to match the house as well. He intends to orient
the building so one wall is 11-feet tall with the wall on the other
side at 14-feet tall to accommodate the boat and trailer. The 11-foot
wall would be oriented as the only visible wall to the surrounding
neighbors. He would prefer to have the 11-foot wall where he would see
it but realizes the 11-foot wall would be better for his neighbors. If
he were to move the building north then half of his front yard would
have to be cement in order to maneuver the boat in and out of the
building and he prefers not to do that.
Applicant Whitbeck asked the Zoning Board if they had any questions
regarding the accessory building.
Member Lewis noted the white stakes on the property and asked what
the stakes represent. Applicant Whitbeck said they represent the
40-foot setback line and the four (4) orange stakes that are on the
property represent where he would like to put the accessory building.
Member Beahan asked the Applicant how big his boat is and Applicant
Whitbeck said the boat, on the trailer, is almost 40-feet long and
11-feet, 4-inches tall on the trailer.
There were no further questions of the Applicant.
Chairman Vaughn requested a motion to open the Public Hearing.
Member Beahan motioned to open the Public Hearing supported by
Member Casey.
Chairman Vaughn called the motion to question. All in favor to open
the Public Hearing with none opposed. The Public Hearing was opened.
Chairman Vaughn asked Staff if the Township concerning the case
received any letters or phone calls. Planning Director Peterson said
there were a couple of neighbors who visited the Township Office to
view the plans one is in the audience this evening.
Chairman Vaughn invited any members of the Public to approach the
Zoning Board and express their comments regarding the project.
(?Todd Olman?) of 7635 Sandy Hollow Lane said he had a question
regarding the two (2) garage doors on the building and one (1) boat
and asked the Applicant if he needed that large of a building for two
(2) doors for one (1) boat and asked what the other part of the
building would be used for? Member Lewis noted that this time is used
for comments rather than justification to a project that is being
presented. This is the size of the building the Applicant is
requesting and Member Lewis is not too sure the Applicant has to
justify its uses.
Mr. Olman noted there is no other building similar to this one in
the neighborhood that size.
As far as viewing it, going down Sandy Hollow Lane it will be
visible. Currently the boat is on a trailer with a tarp over it along
side the house and very visible when you drive in there. Now that the
leaves are falling, the boat is even more visible. Mr. Olman noted the
accessory building would be just as visible.
Mr. Olman noted he has a 37-foot boat that he keeps at a marina and
does not see any reason why this size of a boat should be stored at
this location. He could understand storing a small boat under 20-feet
on the property but this size of a boat belongs in storage at a marina
and not in a private neighborhood like this. He believes it is
unnecessary to build an accessory building of this size to house a
boat of that size and is against the project.
Tom (?Kordingly?) of 7780 Sandy Hollow Drive said he is the
property owner to the immediate east of the Whitbeck property. Mr.
Kordingly said he is not prepared to say anything either way regarding
the project other than the Whitbeck's, Steve and Patty, are
exceptional neighbors and take great care of their property.
He and his wife would see this building more than anyone else and
they do not have any objection to the project.
The Whitbecks want the building for good purpose and they do take
great care of their property. The Applicant has been very clear as to
the type of building he intends to build and he and his wife have
discussed the building thoroughly and have no opposition to it. They
think it is a great improvement.
They have owned their property for 13-years now and there is not
another building in the neighborhood in the area but believes storing
the boat indoors is better than having it outside.
As the property owner adjacent to the Applicant's property, he has
no opposition to the accessory building and is the one who would view
it the most.
The owner of the property at 7675 Sandy Hollow Lane believes that
the variance being requested is to his property line. Applicant
Whitbeck clarified the property lines noting that some of the
encroachment would be to the vacant plat to the south. Planning
Director Peterson noted the property to the south that the Applicant
is referring to is owned by Mr. ?Renucci? that is completely vacant
and is the property that the Applicant wants to be closer to and the
property to the east, Mr. Kordingly, is the property that would see
the building the most.
The Sandy Hollow Lane resident said he is concerned with how much
of the building would be visible from his house and from the drive
especially now that the leaves are falling from the trees. Applicant
Whitbeck said he probably would not be able to see the building from
his property but the building may be visible from the road. He also
intends to plant evergreens to help shield the view of the accessory
building. Applicant Whitbeck said the front of the building would be
faced towards his house and the short side of the building would face
the road. Applicant Whitbeck said he plans to plant bushes along the
sides but the roof would still be visible. If the variance is allowed,
then most of the building would be blocked by tree and bush plantings.
Applicant Whitbeck noted on the pictures the height of the wall of
the building with the blue boards in the photo noting the building's
visibility. He also showed other pictures if the variance is allowed
of views from the street and other surrounding areas.
Applicant Whitbeck said he hopes to have less driveway if the
variance is granted. If the variance is granted he plans to remove
some of the bends in the current drive and straighten it out. He would
have less driveway in his front yard if he was allowed the variance to
the setback.
The Public Member of 7675 Sandy Hollow Lane asked why the Applicant
cannot move the building north as the Township is suggesting and
Applicant Whitbeck said that if he does, the neighbors will see more
of the building and he would still not be able to maneuver his boat in
and out of the drive without adding more concrete to his front yard.
Applicant Whitbeck noted on the pictures the low spots on the
property and the unevenness. He also showed the area of woods located
on the property that would be affected if the building were moved
19-feet forward. One of his driving reasons in requesting the variance
is to help shield the building from view of the neighbors.
The Public Member asked if there was still time to think about the
project or if a decision was being made tonight and Member Lewis said
a decision was being made tonight.
Chairman Vaughn noted that this project will also be going before
the Planning Commission and Member Lewis said that is correct but the
variance seems to be the question. Chairman Vaughn noted the building
also seems to be in question. Planning Director Peterson noted the
Zoning Board should be concentrating on the variance issue.
Member Crawley noted that Mr. Olman does have an accessory building
for storage of a boat on his property. Mr. Olman said that he has a
boathouse on his property that is down below his house and blends in
with the river. He has two (2) small boats in the boathouse and it
flows with the neighborhood and is not an eye sore.
Mr. Olman said that, again, he stores his boat at a marina and
Member Crawley asked if he could legally tow his boat and Mr. Olman
said he could not because of his boat's height.
Mr. Kordingly noted that the reason Mr. Whitbeck is here this
evening is to make the neighborhood better and if he is allowed the
variance he would be.
There were no further Public comments. Chairman Vaughn requested a
motion to close the Public Hearing.
Member Crawley motioned to close the Public Hearing supported by
Member Lewis.
Chairman Vaughn called the motion to question. All in favor to
close the Public Hearing with none opposed. The Public Hearing was
closed.
Chairman Vaughn opened the meeting for Board discussion.
Member Casey asked Staff if there are any problems with the
proposed building being in front of the Applicant's house and
Applicant Whitbeck said that he has over 200-feet of right-of-way.
Planning Director Peterson noted that the right-of-way is in the side
yard. As mentioned, the building has been approved on this property in
essentially the same location with a 60-foot setback. Planning
Director Peterson said that now the Applicant is requesting a 25-foot
setback.
Applicant Whitbeck clarified that originally he was granted a
40-foot setback and the architect's drawing shows a larger setback,
but the original approval was for a 40-foot setback. Chairman Vaughn
noted that the 40-foot setback would be consistent with the 15-foot
height of the building and Applicant Whitbeck agreed.
Chairman Vaughn reiterated that the Zoning Board is to consider the
variance for the accessory building and not the building itself.
Member Casey referred to the Findings of Fact, the Applicant does
have other alternatives. One of the things the Zoning Board is guided
by is, in theory, to give the minimal variance to make the project
work and in this case, believes the building could be adjusted.
Chairman Vaughn asked if it would be legitimate of the Board to
consider less of a variance into the setback and Member Casey said the
Board could consider a different setback variance. Chairman Vaughn
asked the Applicant if he was open to the possibilities of moving the
building to a 20-feet from the property line as opposed to 15-feet.
Applicant Whitbeck said that moving the building anywhere else would
not alleviate his problems and the place he proposes best suits his
needs and best shields the building from the neighbors. Chairman
Vaughn asked if the building had a 10-foot setback if that would
improve the boat maneuverability even more so and Applicant Whitbeck
said that he would then have to build part of the accessory building
as concrete since it would be into the hill and this would not make
any sense.
Chairman Vaughn noted the Applicant has put a lot of thought into his
request for the 20-foot setback variance and the Applicant agreed he
has spent hours analyzing the best placement for the building.
Member Crawley noted that setbacks are established for esthetic
reasons but it appears in this case that the building would be less
visible if pushed back and it appears the way the Applicant has
presented the building, this is the best way.
Chairman Vaughn also noted that the Zoning Board has an obligation
to the property owner to the south and asked Staff if that property
owner contacted the Township. Planning Director Peterson said the
owner had not.
Member Crawley asked Applicant Whitbeck if he is considering
plantings that would grow as tall as the building and Applicant
Whitbeck said he would. Member Crawley noted the Board could stipulate
additional plantings to help screen the building.
Member Lewis supported Member Casey's comment in that there could
be a comprise between the required 40-foot setback and the Applicant's
request and heard that moving the building 5-feet would not be that
much of a burden to the Applicant and would fall closer to compliance
with the setback.
Member Lewis recognizes that this is a large building and that the
lot is 2.1 acres in size. He has visited the property and the way the
driveway comes in. He is leaning towards the 30-foot setback in
keeping with following the ordinance without causing hardship to the
Applicant and neighbors.
Member Lewis motioned that the request for a variance at 7750 Sandy
Hollow Drive SE for a variance of 30-feet from the south lot line for
the purpose of constructing a new accessory building be approved
supported by Member Casey.
Chairman Vaughn opened the meeting for discussion of the motion.
Member Lewis noted there is some uniqueness to the property: the
turning radius is very limited; there is a wash that dictates where
the building could be located. He also recognizes the fact that the
Applicant is making the effort to have the building's exterior match
the house.
Member Crawley believes, after hearing comments tonight, that if
the building were moved 5-feet forward, the homeowner and the
neighbors are less satisfied with it and develops the conflict of
moving the building for the sake of granting a minimum variance
instead of what works best for the property. He believes what works
best for the situation is having the building located where the
Applicant proposes.
Member Beahan clarified that the motion is for five (5) less feet
than what the Applicant is requesting at a 30-foot setback and Member
Lewis said that is correct.
Member Casey noted that if you study the contours of the property,
the contours of the property of the surrounding properties should also
be considered.
Chairman Vaughn called the motion to question. Four members in
favor with one opposed. Motion granted.
ARTICLE 8. Case # 07-2897: Weesies' Landscape Service
Property Address: 3700 Quiggle SE
(PUBLIC HEARING)
Requested Action: The Applicant is requesting a variance to construct
an addition to his accessory building closer to the lot line than
permitted.
Planning Director Peterson said this case has already received
approval from the Planning Commission for the addition. One of the
conditions was that the addition either be adjusted so it had a
50-foot setback or that the Applicant receives a variance.
The request is for a landscape business and the Township does allow
a landscape business within the agricultural zone and the Applicant
has been in operation since the 1970's.
The Applicant's request is to add onto the existing building with
the same setback they have today. The site plan shows a 45-foot
setback for the new addition onto the barn.
The building has a proposed height of approximately 15-feet to the
midpoint. Because this is a landscape business, it requires a setback
of 50-feet. If it was just a regular accessory building it would
require a setback of 40-feet.
The Applicant is requesting the 5-foot variance to continue with
the building's current roofline of the existing building.
Staff also listed the Findings of Fact in their report and Staff
recommends approval of the variance since the business predates the
Township regulations for landscape companies, it is only a 5-foot
variance and it meets the requirements for setbacks for a
non-landscape accessory building.
Chairman Vaughn clarified that the building that is receiving the
addition is 45-feet from the lot line and Planning Director Peterson
said that is correct and he would be providing a smooth face on the
building. If the addition were required to meet the required setback,
then the building's addition would have a 5-foot jog where the two
connect.
Member Lewis asked if the existing building is considered
non-conforming and Planning Director Peterson said that is correct.
Chairman Vaughn invited the Applicant to add any additional
comments to Staff's report.
Wendell Weesies of 3700 Quiggle SE said the request is in fact to
keep a consistent line on the building and would look most
appropriate. The purpose of putting the addition this way is strictly
for esthetics and will look much better and neater with the current
building.
Applicant Weesies also said that there is a large hedgerow behind
the building, to the north, and if additional screening is needed,
that is not an issue.
Chairman Vaughn asked the Applicant if he would see a visible
difference between the current building and the addition and Applicant
Weesies said he intends the building to look as one (1) building.
Chairman Vaughn opened the meeting for questions of the Applicant
from the Zoning Board. There were no questions.
Member Lewis motioned to open the Public Hearing, supported by
Member Casey.
Chairman Vaughn called the motion to question. All in favor with
none opposed. The Public Hearing was opened.
Chairman Vaughn asked Staff if any letters or phone calls were
received and Planning Director Peterson said none.
Chairman Vaughn invited the Members of the Public to present their
comments to the case. No comments from the Public.
Member Lewis motioned to close the Public Hearing, supported by
Member Crawley.
Chairman Vaughn called the motion to question. All in favor with
none opposed. The Public Hearing was closed.
Member Lewis noted there is a school of thought that says you
should not try to improve upon a non-conforming building because it
will continue on but in this case the structure is there and is
non-conforming since the Township changed the zoning rules from when
the building was built. Granting the variance does make the building
more attractive with the variance.
Member Beahan said he is comfortable with the fact that there is
the lean-to on the original part of the building that does extend
further to the north and this is setback from that.
Member Beahan motioned to grant the variance to construct an
addition to the accessory building located at 3700 Quiggle SE closer
to the lot line than permitted and Member Crawley supported the
motion.
Chairman Vaughn called for further discussion of the motion. He
noted that if something has been grandfathered in, the Township does
not want to make it worse and an esthetically pleasing building is an
acceptable trade-off to allow for a minimal variance.
Member Casey said his interpretation of the project is that the
addition is setback but the lean-to is closer to the lot line and
Member Beahan said that is what he meant to imply and that the lean-to
does extend further to the north.
Member Casey noted that this is a pre-existing building and is
somewhat limited in use and does not have a problem with the project.
Chairman Vaughn called the motion to question. All in favor with
none opposed. Motion carried.
ARTICLE 9. Any Other Business
Chairman Vaughn opened the meeting for other business of the ZBA.
Member Lewis noted a point of reference to Staff that during the
Public Hearing of the one case, the Public might have reacted
differently had they known there is an ordinance in storing a boat in
front of a house and Planning Director Peterson said there is an
ordinance that reflects certain times during the year, yes. Member
Beahan asked if the amount of the Applicant's side yard setback comes
into play and Planning Director Peterson said the Township's ordinance
does state that you are allowed to store your boat or R.V. on the
property during certain times of the year and for a boat, the spring
and summer, the rule does not apply based on the theory you are using
these things during that time and the Applicant can have the boat in
their front yard. After the season for the RV or boat, then it is
required it to be stored in the back.
Member Casey clarified the one Public Member who highly objected to
the project is the owner of the property at the end of the
neighborhood with the large chain-link and Staff confirmed that is
correct. Their property has been under construction for years and can
be seen from the 48th Street Bridge.
Member Beahan noted that the neighbor to the east spoke very well
in support of the project.
ARTICLE 10. Adjournment
Member Casey supported by Alternate Neal moved to adjourn. The motion
carried and the meeting was adjourned at 8:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jack Lewis, Vice-Chairman/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
 |
|
