Minutes Archive

Overview ~ Cascade Community Foundation ~ Downtown Development Authority ~ Library Advisory Board Planning Commission ~ Township Board ~ Zoning Board of Appeals

Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes

Cascade Charter Township Zoning Board of Appeals

Tuesday, February 8, 2000

7:30 p.m.

ARTICLE 1. Chairman Koessel called the meeting to order.

Members Present: Erickson, Goldberg, Koessel, Lewis, Wilson

Members Absent: Timmons (unexcused).

Others Present: Planner Otey, Admin. Assistant Thompson, and those listed on Supplement #1.

Chairman Koessel welcome new members Jack Lewis and Melissa Erickson (alternate).

ARTICLE 2. The agenda was approved on motion by Member Lewis and supported by Member Goldberg. The motion carried.

ARTICLE 3. The Minutes of the December 14, 1999 meeting were approved on motion by Member Wilson and supported by Member Goldberg. The motion carried.

The applicant requested three variances to use the property as a horse farm: 1) to allow an accessory building in the front yard; 2) to allow more than two accessory buildings on the property; and 3) to allow for a front yard setback of 33 feet from the property line, instead of the required 100 feet. The property is located at 1370 Buttrick, SE.

Planner Otey related the property is located on the corner of Buttrick Avenue and Grand River Drive, west of the Old Elm development. The parcel is 27 acres in size and zoned R-1. This piece of property had numerous soil borings and does not perk. Therefore, it cannot be split or developed until public sewer and water are run to the area. The applicant did appear before the Planning Commission on February 7, 2000 for three Special Use Permits which were granted. The site plan does show a proposed riding arena for the future. That is not under consideration at this time.

Planner Otey related the first variance requested is from Section 4.08(3) to allow an accessory building in the front yard. This is a corner lot and therefore does have two front yards. There is a house on the property and a few other accessory buildings. Because of the location of the house it would be difficult to place an accessory building back in a location or anywhere else on the property that would not be considered a front yard. The property is fairly wooded and does slope up. The applicant did purchase a home on Lot 11 in Old Elm and visually would like to see the barn from the house.

Planner Otey related the second variance is from Section 4.09(3) to allow more than two accessory buildings on the property. There are currently four buildings on the parcel. One building has been eliminated. The applicant would like the others to remain. The buildings have been on the property for years. Planner Otey related she did not receive any complaints and believes the parcel can support another accessory building.

Planner Otey related the third variance is to allow a front yard setback of 33 feet instead of the required 100 feet from the property line. The Zoning Ordinance requires the building setback to be 100 feet from the property line. The setback can be met and Staff is recommending that variance be denied due to if this lot was ever split off they could still build a house that would meet the setbacks and the barn would be conforming.

Planner Otey related she met with the applicant today on the property and he explained his reasons why he is requesting the variance and his comments should be considered. From a planning aspect the setback can be met. Planner Otey then went through the criteria to be considered before granting a variance as found in the Staff Report.

Planner Otey recommended the variance for placement of an accessory building in the front yard be approved, the variance for more than one accessory building be approved, and the setback variance be denied.

Chairman Koessel asked if there were already accessory buildings in the front yard? Planner Otey responded yes.

Chairman Koessel asked do we have to deal with that or just the setback? Planner Otey related she did not believe any of the buildings ever received a variance. The buildings are quite old and have been on the property for years.

Chairman Koessel related maybe we don’t need to deal with that.

Planner Otey related she believes we are dealing with the second variance request.

Mr. Curtis, the applicant, related the buildings were built before it was zoned R-1. It was previously zoned agricultural.

Member Goldberg asked the existing structure might be non-conforming and when you make a change in the property by constructing additional things don’t we have to bring this into conformity?

Chairman Koessel related one request tonight is granting a variance for multiple accessory buildings.

Planner Otey related those are grandfathered in. The applicant is not re-locating or up-grading those buildings.

Chairman Koessel related in the past we have tried to bring existing non-conforming situations into conformity with the ordinance. He asked should we be dealing with more than one accessory building on the property as another variance? We ought to be a little big careful in setting a precedent.

Member Erickson asked how many accessory buildings are on the property right now? Planner Otey related four plus a house. At the time they were constructed they did not need a Special Use Permits or variances.

Member Goldberg asked do we look at changes being made to property or changes being made to buildings when we decide that someone needs to build structures.

Chairman Koessel related we are going to act on a motion to allow more than two accessory buildings on a property. If we act favorably on that we have covered the whole thing. We are not dealing with setback issues on other buildings.

Member Goldberg related he would like guidance from the Township Attorney of what triggers bringing a property into conformance – whether it is altered by property or buildings.

Planner Otey related she would be happy to check that out.

Member Wilson asked Planner Otey when she went out to the site was it her opinion that the building could not be back toward the rear yard? Planner Otey responded she thought it would be difficult to place the building back there.

Mr. Curtis related he would like to have the opportunity to address the situation. He feels each case should be evaluated as it comes up. Mr. Curtis related the front yard isn’t like the front yard of the house he grew up in. He understands the meaning in the ordinance, but you need to look at the property and get an idea of the scale. In Michigan an old barn kind of grows on you. Repositioning the building would cause the property not to be a useful horse area. It is flat pasture land. The area back of the house is wooded. The back 12 feet of the building would be the horse stalls.

Member Wilson related when you look at the property you have all the existing buildings in one area and the new one by itself. She related it would seem more natural to group them together.

Mr. Curtis related the building will match our house in Old Elm. They will look like they are together. My parents will be occupying the old farmhouse. There is an existing fence line 20 feet off the road. The old fence will come down. The new fence will be inside of that old fence line and we will use the front of my building as the new fence line. The new fence will be vinyl. The area will look best if it flows together. The building will have a shake shingle roof to match our house. The accessory building will have shutters on the back side (street side). Mr. Curtis related he also owns Lot 12 of Old Elm which is vacant.

Member Erickson asked what is the fence setback? Planner Otey responded fences can be on the property line.

Mr. Curtis related last night at Planning Commission a few neighbors were in attendance in favor of turning the property into a horse farm.

Chairman Koessel related the fence would be abutting the front part of the building then? Mr. Curtis responded yes. If he has to move the building by 100 feet, he doesn’t know how to do it that way. Everything would need to be re-evaluated. The main reason we have horses is to enjoy them visually from the house.

Member Erickson asked what about the back line of the fence? Mr. Curtis responded the building needs to be open to the south. The building cannot be open from the east or north. The horses need shelter from the cold winds.

Member Goldberg suggested putting the building on the south fence line. Mr. Curtis responded he can’t do that because it would be open to the north winds.

Chairman Koessel related asked the purpose of being able to see into the barn. Mr. Curtis responded being able to see the horses are okay and enjoy them.

Member Goldberg related Planner Otey’s concern is if this property is subdivided in the future we would have a non-conforming structure. He asked if a variance could terminate if the property splits? Planner Otey responded yes, you can make that a condition.

Member Goldberg asked Mr. Curtis if that would be acceptable? Mr. Curtis responded yes. If city sewer and water got there then that piece of property would be a $500,000 purchase to turn it into a development.

Member Goldberg related to solve Planner Otey’s concern, we could put a condition on the variance that it would terminate if the property was ever divided. Mr. Curtis responded that would be fine with him.

Member Goldberg related he does not have a problem with what the applicant is doing so long as it is a horse farm. His concern arises when potential future use comes up.

Member Lewis supported by Member Wilson moved to open the public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.

Planner Otey related there is a letter in your packet from Mr. Flory stating his support of the Special Use Permit. No comments were received in regard to the variance.

Member Lewis noted last night at the Planning Commission we had quite a few favorable comments. The neighbors felt it is a type of use we like to see in the township and maintains a kind of agricultural flavor. People in the audience felt very positive toward it.

Member Lewis supported by Member Wilson moved to close the public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was closed.

Member Goldberg related his feeling is this is just the type of use that he likes to see encouraged in the township. A lot of people moved here to get a rural flavor. It is positive for our township. Member Goldberg related in regard to the fence he believes all requirements of the ordinance have been met in light of the unique nature of this property and request.

Member Goldberg moved to grant three variances as follows:

Member E. Richards asked can we support that on the size of the property? Chairman Koessel responded yes.

Member Lewis related this is different than a usual R1 request due to the size of the property and use as a horse farm. Based on that Member Lewis noted also the property won’t perk.

Member Goldberg added to the motion his condition that the variance will continue only for so long as this property is not subdivided.

Member Wilson noted the existing buildings on the property are old and at the time they were constructed they needed no variance or permits and there was no limit for the number of accessory buildings on a property.

The motion carried.

Member Lewis noted the horse barn makes it a unique situation.

Member Erickson related there was a lot of neighbor support.

The motion carried with Member Wilson casting a nay vote.

The applicant requested a front yard variance to allow for a garage addition to be placed 30 feet from the property line instead of the required 35 feet at 6881 Burger Drive, SE.

Planner Otey related the applicant is requesting a variance to allow a garage addition 30 feet from the property line instead of 35 feet. The applicant is proposing to convert a portion of the existing attached garage into living area and construct an addition to the remaining portion of the garage. That addition will extend into the front yard setback by five feet. The driveway is existing now although the plan says "new". Road Commission approval is not needed for the driveway. The size and shape of the lot make it difficult to build elsewhere on the lot. There are a few houses in the neighborhood that do sit close to the property line. Planner Otey then went through the criteria to be considered before granting a variance as listed in the Staff Report. Planner Otey also related the applicant’s comments should be considered also. Planner Otey then recommended approval of the variance request to allow for a five foot reduction in the front yard setback. The garage will not extend out further than the existing house does.

Chairman Koessel asked where is the measurement taken for the variance? Planner Otey responded to the far left corner of the lot.

Mr. Walco related the main purpose of the request is to change the master bedroom from the front of the property to the back due to street noise and a new subdivision coming in.

Chairman Koessel asked if the reason the addition is not going on the back of the house is because of the river? Mr. Walco responded correct.

Planner Otey related by not adding onto the back of the home the 25 foot setback would be maintained.

Member Lewis asked if the 35 foot setback line is measured from the edge of the road or if it had been surveyed? Mr. Walco responded we have had that surveyed. That is the property line. It is probably 60 feet from the middle of the road.

Member Erickson related due to the topography of the lot and being irregular, this plan makes sense.

Member Lewis supported by Member Goldberg moved to open the public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.

Planner Otey related no other comments were received other than the letter in your packet. She believes Mr. Butler confused the request and apparently reversed the front and back yard and mistook the river edge as the front yard.

Mr. Walco related the river cannot be seen from the street there anyway.

Member Wilson supported by Member Lewis moved to close the public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was closed.

Member Wilson supported by Member Lewis moved to approve the variance from Section 18.05 of the Zoning Ordinance. Member Wilson stated in her opinion this is a unique situation with an irregular lot which does not make it feasible for the applicant to build their addition and still meet the setback as the ordinance requires. Through no fault of the applicant, the setback cannot be met. What they are proposing is very reasonable to do. It is a small river lot and we have allowed these kinds of variances previously.

Member Lewis requested the fact that the addition does not come closer to the front than the existing building should be included.

The motion carried.

Chairman Koessel related we have not been able to elect officers for two years because we did not have all members present. The provisions for the election has been revised in the Zoning Ordinance.

Chairman Koessel moved to recommend the nomination of Barbara Wilson to take his place as Chairman.

Member Goldberg supported the nomination.

The motion carried.

Member Wilson moved to nominate Member Koessel as Vice-Chair/Secretary.

Member Goldberg supported the nomination.

The motion carried.

The new officers for 2000 will be Barbara Wilson as Chairperson and Jim Koessel as Vice-Chair/Secretary.

None presented.

Member Wilson supported by Member Goldberg moved to adjourn. The motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Jim Koessel, Secretary

JK:MJT

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