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, March 12, 2002

7:00 pm

ARTICLE 1. Chairman Goldberg called the meeting to order.

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

Members Absent: Timmons (unexcused)

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

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

ARTICLE 3. The Minutes of the February 12, 2002 meeting were approved on motion by Member Lewis and supported by Member Wilson. The motion carried.

ARTICLE 4. The January 22, 2002 and February 19, 2002 Planning Commission Minutes were received and filed.

(PUBLIC HEARING)

The applicant requested a variance to allow a front yard setback of 13 feet for the construction of a new house at 1597 Laraway Lake Drive.

Planner Otey related the property is actually located on Laraway Woods, a private drive, but has a Laraway Lake Drive address. The applicant is requesting a front yard setback variance for 13 feet. This same applicant appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals in 1997 to request the same variance which was granted. However, the applicant did not apply for a building permit and that variance expired after one year. The lot is very wooded with severe topographical problems. The Zoning Board of Appeals in the past has granted variances for similar topographical problems. Planner Otey related the front yard setback is taken from the private road easement which is 60 feet wide. The house would set back 13 feet from the easement and 46 feet from the edge of the pavement. Planner Otey then went through the findings of fact as listed in the Staff Report.

Planner Otey recommended approval of the variance request due to the topography, not being a self created hardship and the request is the minimum variance to make reasonable use of the land.

Member Wilson asked if the applicant owns the easement. Planner Otey responded he owns part of it.

Mr. Allen, the applicant, pointed to the easement on the map.

Chairman Goldberg related with easements there is typically a certain width of the easement and we would measure from the edge of easement. Planner Otey responded correct.

Member Lewis related when driving to the site he was confused with the fork in the private drive. In the future he would like to have a better location maps.

Mr. Allen drew a location map for the board members.

Tom Sanford of 1552 Hillsboro asked what is the depth of the property? Planner Otey responded the lot dimensions are 204’, 265’, 251’ and 178’.

Planner Otey related no comments were received.

Member Beahan asked if this plan was the same as the previous one. Planner Otey responded she believes it to be very close.

Mr. Allen related it is very similar.

Member Wilson asked what is the reason you didn’t go ahead with it in 1997? Mr. Allen responded money. He is now engaged and looking to build a home to live in.

Mr. Sanford related when receiving a mailing like this one, it was very difficult to determine what the applicant wants to do. It would benefit everyone with a better description of what is being requested.

Chairman Goldberg related Staff needs to look that over so that it is understandable to all of us.

Mr. Sanford related he attended the meeting tonight to get clarification and he got it.

Chairman Goldberg asked are you comfortable with what is being proposed? Mr. Sanford responded yes.

Mike Betz of 1549 Hillsboro related it seems this lot is unbuildable the setback is violated. He related that ought to be considered when the development is approved. It seems the developer is attempting to squeeze in one more lot. Someone has purchased the lot in good faith. That consideration should be made at the time the original plat is being considered. If this is not a buildable lot, it shouldn’t have been approved as such.

Member Lewis related he recalls the previous request we received a letter from someone anonymously. This request does meet our criteria for a variance.

Member Wilson related this is one of the few times we have an application that meets all six of our required findings. She agreed with Member Lewis to approve the variance.

Member Erickson agreed.

Member Beahan asked if there will be a one year time limit on this. Planner Otey responded yes.

Member Wilson questioned the number of requests for 2001. Planner Otey responded we had about 20 requests in 2002 and 13 in 2001.

Member Lewis related he would like to comment on the Planning Commission Minutes of February 19, 2002 regarding the Tom Wisner request. Member Lewis recalled at that meeting of the Zoning Board was informed by the Planning Department that the township was in the process of re-doing the ordinance section in relation to height and setback of accessory buildings. That swayed his thinking in regard to the variance. We anticipated what would be the new ordinance. When reading the Planning Commission minutes it seems that the Planning Commission said that proposal may not go through so let’s not consider that. Member Lewis related he is filing that away and the next time the Zoning Board is faced with a decision that should be influenced in the future by something the Planning Department or Township Board is going to do we might as well adopt the philosophy the Planning Commission did and say forget it. This is the way the law is written now and this is the way I’m going to interpret it. He feels that is exactly what happened on this case in the Planning Commission. Secondly, when he made the motion trying to get the barn away from the lot line and meet more of the proposed ordinance change, he was led to believe that the moving of the building was more in the area of the Planning Commission and not the Zoning Board. Therefore, he took it out of the motion and did not indicate the placement of the building. The minutes also say Member Richards was asked for an opinion and he stated that as a matter of law the applicant is entitled to place the barn ten feet from the property line under the current ordinance. The barn could be moved closer to the property line than the Zoning Board said. Member Lewis related in the future we will have some conditions put on variances. His point some criteria seemed to be ignored at the Planning Commission level. Member Lewis related as far as location of the barn he would not have given a vote and agreed to what happened here last month based on what happened at the Planning Commission.

Planner Otey related she was not trying to sway Member Lewis from putting a condition on the variance. The Planning Commission does look at setbacks also. The building did meet the setbacks of the Zoning Ordinance as written at this time.

Member Lewis related you should know that we at this Board have the right to say this building should be moved and tell where it is going to be. Member Lewis related the approval was based on concept of the new ordinance with the building being further away from the lot line.

Member Beahan related he was surprised the Planning Commission moved it the opposite way. He related he made it clear the intent of the Zoning Board was to have the building moved the away from the lot line. The applicant’s landscaper was there and the Planning Commission got on the subject of saving more trees and that is why they moved it the other way.

Chairman Goldberg related but what they were not thinking about was the future development of the property. They were not giving thought to the surrounding properties developing. The closer the building is to the lot line the more of a problem it will create.

Member Erickson related she was impressed with the applicant feeling this was such a perfect location for the building. She asked if we would have put in the motion "per the drawing" we would have established a point of location.

Member Lewis related we could have put in the motion placement of the building to be "ten feet from or 30 feet from" to locate that building specifically.

Member Wilson concurred with Member Lewis regarding the motion. Her understanding was the Zoning Board was relying on the Planning Commission to consider the placement of the building when the applicant came for his special use permit. Member Wilson related she spoke with Jim Koessel. He said the Planning Commission let him move the building to avoid cutting down trees. Member Wilson related Jack makes a good point that we should no longer depend on any other board but ourselves.

Member Lewis related in the future if there is a choice between cutting trees down and moving the building to enforce the ordinance, he is going to vote to cut down trees.

Member Wilson related Chairman Goldberg always tends to look to the future and future developments. There is a pro and con to that. Once you put something up people who come in know what is there. It is their choice whether they want to live next to it or not. She is not sure that placement of a building should be determined on somebody eventually will move in next door. The point is the Zoning Board should establish a philosophy as to how we look at things. We should look at things as they are now. Member Wilson believes the Zoning Board was correct in giving the variance.

Chairman Goldberg related we have to consider the future because that is what we are. We are a Zoning Board of Appeals and interpret the Ordinance and look at the facts before us in a greater context. The Planning Commission comes up with the master plan and has ideals as to what our community ought to be. We ought to be looking at the interests of the entire community and not just the immediate neighbor or applicant himself. Then we step back and look at the individual situation and see how it fits in. Member Goldberg related that how he looks at the future. We look at the hardships in each case and balance those against the community’s interest in having its plan come to fruition.

Member Wilson related she looks at the findings of fact and to a certain level consider the community as a whole. She is not sure how much of that the Zoning Board of Appeals considers versus the Planning Commission.

Member Erickson related her interpretation is just the wording and the way it was presented. It was her understanding we were not delegating this to the next committee but doing it according to the drawing. We left a loophole. That was communication between all of us. It was never her intent to leave it open. Her intent was to approve it based on the drawing presented. In the future we should be more careful in wording.

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