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 12, 2002

7:00 pm

ARTICLE 1. Vice Chairman Lewis called the meeting to order.

Members Present: Beahan, Erickson, Goldberg, Lewis, Wilson.

Members Absent: Timmons (excused).

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

In the absence of the Chair, Vice Chair Lewis conducted the meeting.

ARTICLE 2. The agenda was approved on motion by Member Beahan and supported by Member Wilson. The motion carried.

ARTICLE 3. The Minutes of the January 8, 2002 meeting were received and filed.

ARTICLE 4. The Planning Commission Minutes of December 3, 2001 and January 7, 2002 were received and filed.

The applicant requested a variance to allow the corner of the new house and deck to encroach into the rear yard setback at 1987 Watermark Drive.

Planner Otey related the Zoning Ordinance does require a rear yard setback of 25 feet as does the Watermark PUD Ordinance. When the builder applied for a building permit in December, 2001, the site plan did comply with the setback requirements. After the foundation was poured it did not meet the setback. This property does back up to the Watermark Golf Course. Watermark will add an additional two feet of property onto the applicant’s property if this variance request is denied. Planner Otey then went through the factors to be considered before granting a variance. She noted: 1) no extraordinary circumstances exist on the property; 2) the situation is a result of the actions taken by the builder; 3) the square footage of the house could be reduced, however the foundation is in. 4) Watermark is willing to add an additional two feet of property onto the back of the applicant’s property which would allow the applicant to meet the setback; 5) the granting of the variance could be viewed as injurious to the neighborhood as the applicant would be enjoying a privilege that others do not enjoy; 6) it would not be practical to amend the zoning ordinance or PUD ordinance as a result of this application.

Planner Otey recommended denial of this request as there is no hardship, it is a self created situation and Watermark is willing to add two feet of property to the applicant’s lot to correct the situation.

Mr. Hausch, the applicant was present. He related his builder poured the footings. He recommended a change in the shape of a room to make it fit on the lot. Mr. Hausch related the builder tried to sell him on change of shape of house from a 45 degree angle to a 30 degree angle. Mrs. Hausch felt the carpeting would not look right if that was done. Mr. Hausch then called the township office and talked to someone in charge. He was told the township would not approve a variance to build a bigger house. Mr. Hausch related he is requesting a section of variance not across the whole house. Mr. Hausch related he asked Doug Bouwer of Watermark if they could do anything. Mr. Bouwer told him they could probably give him two feet. Mr. Hausch related because of the delay he is mortgaged out for two months and has incurred 60 days of additional expense. Property that he would have to get from Watermark will be another expense and changing the Watermark Master Deed will cost $1,500. Most of his neighbors mentioned the variance is fine and they don’t have a problem with it. Mr. Hausch related the original Watermark documents specify a side loading garage. Since then they have allowed people to turn their garage to face the front. Mr. Hausch believes the house will look good on the lot. Mr. Hausch related he does not think the golf course wants to continue re-writing their Master Deed.

Member Lewis related it sounds like the builder himself is in error here and you are standing all the expense. Member Lewis asked if the builder has insurance? Mr. Hausch responded he has made adjustments but no financial has come forth. Mr. Hausch related he is willing to ask for something whatever his resolution would be. Mr. Hausch related he bought the property three years ago and this has been an emotional roller coaster for them regarding faith and trust in their builder. Now the trust is gone. They believe he is a quality builder but they don’t want to create another problem.

Member Erickson asked do you have a licensed architect or engineer? Mr. Hausch responded he thinks what happened is the way the property is shaped there was a difference of eight feet in length from one end of the property to the other. It would fit on one corner but not the other. The second survey showed the first was in error.

Member Erickson related Exxel who drew the plans would probably have insurance for this. Mr. Hausch related two feet has already been taken from the garage. A third survey agreed with the second survey.

Member Beahan asked Mr. Hausch to clarify the 60 day mortgage problem. Mr. Hausch related the error was found just before Christmas. He filled out the variance application but wasn’t able to get it in for the January meeting. He has incurred some significant expense.

Member Wilson asked where did they take the two feet off the garage. Mr. Hausch responded they took one foot between the second and third garage stall and one foot between the house and garage. The foundation was poured wrong on the garage as well.

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

Planner Otey related she talked to a neighbor who had no problem. She received a letter from Watermark and they support the variance request.

Member Wilson related there is nothing in our report that indicates there have been similar cases. Planner Otey related we had one a couple of years ago in Eastmont Meadows. There was one also on Tanglewood where the builder had to re-do the foundation to meet the setback.

Member Lewis related the Zoning Board of Appeals has to meet certain criteria. It is kind of hard to look at a situation like this with a vacant piece of property and somebody makes a mistake. Our goal is to give the smallest variance possible. In this particular instance he was surprised to see a letter by Watermark Country Club offering relief from this problem. If this variance is granted it would set a precedent. It sets a precedent.

Mr. Hausch related the point he wants to make is he would not have pursued this unless indicated by your office that this has never happened.

Member Lewis related within the last few years he does not remember any similar cases.

(Chairman Goldberg entered the meeting at 7:25 pm.)

Member Beahan related if we allow this it would start a precedent. be a tough one to follow. There is a situation here that is fairly easily remedied with the adjacent land owner willing to give property to make this legal.

Member Wilson related regarding what the township may have told you, she would be slightly angry as well. If they discouraged you from coming for a variance, it could work that way too. Member Wilson related the applicant has a recourse in another area. The Zoning Board of Appeals is charged with keeping the Ordinance intact. Financial hardship is not a criteria the Zoning Board can consider. The builder should remedy the situation financially in this.

Member Erickson related she feels for the applicant. The only thing she sees as a solution is to change the design and have the builder re-build it. It would not a big change to take off both corners.

Member Lewis related the Chair is in agreement.

(Chairman Goldberg acted as Chair for the remainder of the meeting.)

The applicant requested a variance for the construction of an accessory building to be taller than the Zoning Ordinance permits.

Planner Otey related this was originally noticed for two variances. We determined the second variance for front yard setback was not needed. We are just here for the height variance tonight. This will go before the Planning Commission next week for a Special Use permit for this building. We have had height requests in the past, most of which were denied. Last month there was a height variance approved and also one in a PUD late last year. The one last month was approved for a building higher than what the Zoning Ordinance allowed. It was for a 22 foot high indoor riding arena. The Township Board passed a PUD amendment for the other request and Staff was instructed by the Township Board to look at amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow for taller buildings in the township. That proposed amendment is being worked on by Staff at the present time. It will probably be a situation where setbacks would increase as the building got taller. The location of this proposed building is on the south side of this property, 27 feet from the property line. The building would be 18 feet high to mid-peak and used for storage. Planner Otey then went through the factors to be considered before granting the variance.

Planner Otey recommended the variance be denied as there is no hardship, the situation is self-created and the building can be constructed to meet the height requirement.

Chairman Goldberg asked if the new ordinance amendments, if passed, would still have a minimum height requirement. Planner Otey responded yes, 22 feet. Buildings up to 14 feet in height would be the existing setback. Buildings fifteen to eighteen feet in height would require a setback of 40 feet. Buildings nineteen to twenty-two feet in height would require a setback of 60 feet.

Member Lewis asked for clarification of the variance granted in Buttrick Country Estates. He stated that was actually turned down by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Planner Otey responded that is correct.

Member Lewis related then a PUD amendment was passed by the Township Board to allow for the taller height. Mr. Lewis related we have PUDs with height restriction higher than 22 feet. Planner Otey related homes can be 35 feet high.

Mr. Wisner, the applicant, related the side of his yard adjoins the neighbors and in between is a 30 foot power line right of way. The neighbor’s house is 350 feet from his property line. Mr. Wisner related he can’t see his neighbor’s house and the neighbor can’t see his. Mr. Wisner related he has seven acres of property, most of it is down hill toward the lake. This is the only location suitable for building. The gambrel roof is what he wants although it makes a taller building. His other accessory building was approved at twenty feet high to the peak. This new building would be 40’ x 96’. There is only one way to span such a large building to pitch it to keep the snow off the roof. It is strictly an aesthetic thing. The gambrel roof would allow for an eight foot loft for storage. He does need the building by spring. He would like ten foot doors which will require a ceiling of 11’6". Mr. Wisner related the rules on accessory buildings changed since he put the last building up. Perhaps he should wait until these new amendments go into effect.

Member Lewis related he visited the site. He asked what is the little house in the front? Mr. Wisner responded it is a well house for the underground sprinkling. This new building would take in that. The other three buildings would come down.

Member Lewis asked will you lose a lot of trees? Mr. Wisner responded the majority of the trees will stay.

Member Lewis asked what the outside would be constructed of. Mr. Wisner responded T-111 board.

Member Wilson asked so we would have one building instead of four? Mr. Wisner related the others were attached together and made into one building but they will be gone if this new one is put up.

Member Beahan asked if the 24’ x 28’ building will stay? Mr. Wisner responded yes.

There being no one to speak on the matter, Member Lewis supported by Member Wilson moved to close the public hearing. The motion carried and public hearing was closed.

Chairman Goldberg related he is concerned about this as circumstances change from time to time. This board is not the board that does the changing. What the ordinance says right now is what we can do. We ought to be measuring the setback from the property line whether it is subject to an easement or not. A change in the ordinance that may be coming. Member Goldberg related he feels the Board’s hands are tied.

Member Wilson related she disagrees. She I feels a little uncomfortable. The applicant has stated this was a personal preference to make the building the way it is. She sees no difference from last month with Mr. Curtis and his riding arena. The purpose of this building being this high is for storage. The applicant will be taking down three buildings and putting up one building. That sets this apart from other variances. The topography is no different than other situations where we have allowed variances. It is a self created situation but there is topography and extenuating circumstances to consider. Member Wilson related we set a precedent last month and we need to adhere to the ordinance until it changes. This applicant could put up something which would be a lot worse.

Member Erickson related this is agricultural property and this is a personal preference because this design works. The height would allow the applicant to have the door height he needs and room for storage. It is a better design than other designs and works for an agricultural use. There is also topography of this lot to consider. Member Erickson related she can see this will work for him for several reasons.

Member Lewis asked this building will be 18 feet at mid-point? How high is the current building? Mr. Wisner responded 14 feet at the mid-point and 20 to the peak. The present one has eight foot doors. He can’t get a trailer in it because it is four inches too low. A ten feet needs 11’6" to the ceiling. The side wall of the new building would be 12 feet. Twelve feet is needed to put cross members in.

Member Lewis asked this building would be about four feet taller than the building that is there? Mr. Wisner responded yes.

Member Lewis related he is having a difficult time on the storage issue.

Chairman Goldberg related the bigger issue for him is the location of the building on the lot. In the case of Mr. Curtis we were talking about 20 acres and the building would be located toward the center of that piece. We put in conditions that the property couldn’t be subdivided any closer than 200 feet to lot line. Member Lewis related for him that makes a huge difference. He is still having a lot of concern about the building being 27 feet from a lot line.

Member Wilson related she asked Staff last month what was the intent behind the 14 foot height restriction. The response was it was basically pertinent to a subdivision situation for sheds, etc. If that is the case, there are no neighbors to look at it in this case. The township is going to benefit that three other buildings will be taken down and the intent behind the ordinance is still met. No neighbors will be harmed by this. And, this would be the minimum variance we could grant under the circumstances for the use. Member Wilson asked would it be appropriate to ask for a little more history on height variances and bring this back next month.

Chairman Goldberg related anyone can suggest anything.

Member Goldberg related we consider the size of lots and setbacks. There are no neighbors here. We are charged with anticipating future development. We need to anticipate future uses of land. There is nothing that says this land couldn’t be subdivided and turned into a development tomorrow. Because the Township Board is considering whether or not to make some changes we should anticipate those changes will be made and begin to apply those as if they are already in effect. Member Goldberg encouraged the applicant to wait until a change is made. A storage type use is a situation that has been considered in the past and justified with a height variance.

Member Erickson related this would be reducing the number of buildings on the lot. It is appropriate for an agricultural use. The applicant would be enhancing the property and coming into code for the number of buildings.

Member Beahan related we can get rid of two buildings on this parcel. It is a chance for development come into the neighborhood. Chances are Consumers Power is not going to give up that easement.

Planner Otey related the applicant is in conformance with the number of buildings right now.

Member Lewis related let’s remember there is also a 24’ x 28’ and 26’ x 26’ building already there.

Member Beahan asked how close to compliance would he be if the rules are changed. Planner Otey responded he would have to move it another 13 feet from the property line for the height.

Mr. Wisner related that is doable. If he moves it further forward he would take out 100 feet of trees. He has walked the property for six months to figure out how he could do this differently and hasn’t been able to figure it out.

Member Beahan asked where would this building be in relation to the entrance wall at the driveway. Mr. Wisner responded ten feet in front of the little "well house" building. He related he didn’t want to put up something that looked like a chicken house. He preferred to have something that looks good and would enhance the property.

Member Lewis asked if the door to the new building would be facing Quiggle? Mr. Wisner responded no. There will be five stalls in this garage.

Member Lewis related it seems to him everything has been said and we still have to go back to what the ordinance says and the criteria we have to use. He related some of the staff comments could have recognized specific conditions of the property. There are some unique situations here. There is a side yard setback with an easement to Consumers Power. No one is going to building up to the lot line. The property does butt up to a lake. With those conditions the location for the building is pretty well dictated by circumstances beyond the applicant’s doing. No neighbors responded to the public hearing. The property is located on a dirt road and chances of development is not as strong as a public highway. This is an agricultural area. This is a big building close to the lot line which the applicant will look at. There are some reasons for granting this variance.

Planner Otey related those reasons are something that the Planning Commission will look at for the location of the building during site plan review.

Member Lewis if the Planning Commission feels the building needs to be moved they can do that.

Member Lewis related when we do variances we give conditions. This is an unusual situation because of the lake and side yards.

Chairman Goldberg related his intention is not to support the motion. He would like to see the motion with a condition attached to it that the existing building will go down as the new one goes in. He reminded the ZBA members this is a variance request for height.

Chairman Goldberg called for the question.

ARTICLE 7. Case #02-2461: Marsh Belding – CASE WITHDRAWN

ARTICLE 8. Any Other Business

None presented.

ARTICLE 9. Adjournment

Respectfully submitted,

Jack Lewis, Secretary

JL: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