Zoning Board of
Appeals Minutes
MINUTES
Cascade Charter Township Zoning Board of Appeals
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
7:00 pm
ARTICLE 1. Chairman Beahan called the meeting to order.
Members Present: Beahan, Casey, Crawley, Lewis, Timmons.
Members Absent: Estes (unexcused).
Others present: Planning Director Peterson, Admin. Assistant Thompson,
Township Attorney Buchanan, and those listed on Supplement #1 (an
audience of approximately 37 people).
ARTICLE 2. The agenda was approved on motion by Member Lewis and
supported by Member Casey. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 3. The Minutes of the June 15, 2004 meeting will be
approved at the next meeting.
ARTICLE 4. The Planning Commission Minutes of June 7 and July 19,
2004 were received and filed.
ARTICLE 5. Case #04-2656: Thornapple Evangelical Covenant Church
(PUBLIC HEARING)
The applicant requested approval to allow placement of a temporary
portable classroom at 6595 Cascade Road.
Planning Director Peterson stated this is the church at the corner
of Cascade Road and Burton Street. A couple of years ago they did a
small addition and parking access out to Burton Street. This is
similar to a request a few years ago for two portable classrooms at
Cascade Fellowship Church. Section 4.18(4) of the Zoning Ordinance
allows for the Zoning Board of Appeals to permit these types of
structures so long as it is served by a healthful water supply and
toilet facilities and will not be injurious to the surrounding
properties or neighborhood. (Member Timmons enters the meeting at 7:02
pm).
Planning Director Peterson presented the plan and showed the
proposed location of the temporary classroom. The location is the
first parking lot behind the front of the church. The Fire Department
has reviewed the plans and are comfortable with placement of the
building. The building is not in need of restroom facilities because
of its close location to the main church building. The church would
like to utilize this temporary classroom building while they
contemplate a church addition. Cascade Fellowship Church was allowed
the temporary classrooms for a period of three years with an annual
review to review the status on the addition and to make sure this was
a temporary situation. There have been other temporary building
situations in the township such as the temporary club house at Quail
Ridge Golf Course.
Planning Director Peterson stated this is not a variance request.
Section 4.18(4) of the Zoning Ordinances requires the Zoning Board of
Appeals to determine: if the structure is temporary and when its use
will be terminated; if the structure will be served by a healthful
water supply and toilet facilities, and, if the temporary building
will be injurious to the surrounding properties or neighborhood.
Planning Director Peterson recommended approval of the request with
the following conditions: 1) the applicant provide at least 5
evergreens planted along the front of the building a minimum of six
feet tall to provide adequate screening; 2) the permit would be good
for a period of no more than 3 years, beginning at the time the
building permit is issued for the temporary building; and 3) come back
for annual review to report on the progress of the plans for a
permanent addition and/or removal of the temporary building. Planning
Director Peterson stated he has received one letter from Barbara Frye
and one email in opposition to the request.
The applicant was represented by Bob Worcester of 5283 Whitneyville
Road.
Member Lewis stated our materials say you are going to explore the
possibility of putting in a permanent building. He asked how far along
are you on that. Mr. Worcester responded we have a foot print of the
building and have been meeting for three to four months to determine
space needs. We plan on about a year to firm up all the details, a
year for planning and fundraising, and a year for construction. We
will need the three year time table. Our last building addition was in
1997.
Member Lewis supported by Member Casey moved to open the public
hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.
Rick Kehr of 6700 Cascade Lakes Court, Jim Frazier of 2322 Cascade
Lakes Circle, and Doug Siekman 2354 Cascade Lakes Circle represented
the Cascade Lakes Association. Mr. Frazier stated he lives behind the
church and emailed a letter. Mr. Frazier read his letter into the
record. Mr. Frazier stated he hasn't had a lot of time to poll the
neighborhood. He believes the temporary building will be a total
eyesore. When he built his home they were adding on to the church and
did an excellent job. He has had problems after that with the church.
They put in a new parking lot without his knowledge and took out all
the natural buffer. The three of us met with the church about a year
ago and asked them to clean up the pond. We didn't like all the weeds
and bulrushes around the pond. This is just adding another thing to
the issue. The church has not been very good neighbors to the
association. All of us pay quite a bit of money for taxes. We have a
problem with the temporary building going up. We can understand the
temporary building for Quail Ridge but they didn't have all the
traffic going by.
Rick Kehr stated there is an issue of aesthetics looking at a bunch
of vehicles up there. He believes a temporary structure is a rather
narrow period of time. Three years is way beyond what is reasonable.
Mr. Kehr stated another issue is since the property owners of Cascade
Lakes are owners in kind shouldn't that notice go to the entire
association? Many neighbors were not aware of this public hearing.
Chairman Beahan related we mail notices to neighbors within 300
feet and it is also published in the newspaper.
Mr. Kehr stated we want to be reasonable and want to be good
neighbors. We offered to pay for the cleaning and maintenance of the
pond for the church. The church said no, they didn't want anything to
do with it. There is stagnant water there. This does not give us a
high degree of confidence about a construction trailer.
Mr. Worcester stated the parking lot issue came before the Planning
Commission several times. There was proper notification of that
several years ago. He is not too sure what the pond has to do with
anything. We follow the guidelines of the DNR and the pond is
monitored by them. We don't want to put any chemicals in the pond and
turn the water blue or green. We like a natural pond. Cascade Lakes'
pond is beautifully landscaped. We prefer to have a natural look to
our pond. It is part of a trout stream. Mr. Worcester stated they will
continue to work with the Township but he does not understand how the
pond reflects on this request.
Mr. Frazier stated he doesn't like looking at the pond and the way
it looks. It has a lot to do with it.
Chairman Beahan asked if this building is temporary and you are not
starting construction yet, what is your justification for this
building. Mr. Worcester responded we have gone from 500 to 800 people
attending services for the last 18 months. We need additional office
space and classroom space for members. The request for this the
building is we would utilize that space Sunday mornings and Wednesday
nights for our youth. We will maintain the building. It will match the
existing church property. There is no other place on the property to
put it.
Member Timmons asked what specifically would you do in the
classrooms. Mr. Worcester stated we would use the building for senior
high Sunday School class and Wednesday night meetings.
Member Timmons asked is this for religious purposes? Mr. Worcester
responded yes.
Member Timmons asked what is your time table. When do you have to
do this. Mr. Worcester responded start our current church year begins
on September 12 and we would like to be able to start the process of
bringing it in and putting it in place. Any delay would cause
significant space issues.
Mr. Kehr stated the maintenance of the pond has everything to do
with the issue. We weren't proposing to dump chemicals in it. We
simply said clean it up. We don't have a high degree of comfort to
make sure it is in keeping with the aesthetics of the Cascade
community.
Chairman Beahan stated if this temporary building is granted, it
would be under review.
Mr. Worester stated the church just spent $50,000 in building
improvements and maintenance and $20,000 in landscaping. It is very
hard for him to understand why we are not good neighbors. We have been
approached by Cascade Lakes several times. People built their homes
knowing we were there. The property is not an eye sore. Because we
have cat tails in the pond, Cascade Lakes believes we are being
negligent.
Doug Siekman stated they live in a relatively expensive gated
community and spent a lot of money on their homes. Their development
has a lot of restrictions. They all pay a lot of taxes paid. He does
not know why they have to look at a trailer for three years every time
they enter their plat.
Member Lewis asked would you be willing to look at it for a year.
Mr. Siekman responded no.
Member Lewis asked what period of time would you be comfortable
with. Mr. Siekman responded for as long as construction takes.
Mr. Frazier stated he has lived in Cascade since 1986 and a lot of
improvements have been made with streetscapes, etc. We have spent a
lot of money in our neighborhood and we don't want the building at all
- not even for a year.
Member Crawley asked is there anything that would make it
aesthetically pleasing or acceptable. Mr. Frazier responded he does
not know how you would do that. It will look totally out of place.
Member Crawley asked for a clarification of placement. Mr.
Worcester responded the other side would be where we would put an
addition on if we expand the property. The temporary building would be
100 feet behind Cascade Road and behind evergreen trees.
Member Lewis supported by Member Crawley moved to close the public
hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was closed.
Member Timmons stated back in the early 1990's churches went to
Congress and obtained legislation which severely restricts our ability
to regulate churches. That places the burden on us in the township to
decide if that statute applies. We have to prove a very high burden
before we can turn these things down.
Planning Director Peterson stated he does not know why the
Religious Land Use Act would not apply here.. The Act says we can't
place any restrictions on religious institutions that would be more
restrictive than those placed on anybody else.
Member Timmons stated he thinks it probably applies to this
situation. We need to find out what the affect for this application
would be. We need to take a look at this.
Member Lewis stated he feels a table coming on.
Member Timmons statedif you think it applies, we need to table.
Member Lewis stated it appears that there is a possibility the
Religious Land Use Act applies in this case and he would prefer to
table this and allow our attorney time to review the law and see how
it applies to us. In the meantime, maybe the applicant can meet with
neighborhood association.
Member Lewis supported by Member Casey moved to table. The motion
carried.
ARTICLE 6. Case #04-2632: Cascade Thornapple River Association
(PUBLIC HEARING)
The applicant requested a variance from Section 4.33(1)(2) of the
Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a boat launch at 7430
Cascade Road to be used for association members.
Chairman Beahan stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals heard this
request in May and that he participated in the discussion and voting
on this item. Since our last meeting a lawsuit has been filed by one
of the neighbors. When this came before the Planning Commission for
the Special Use Permit, one member of the Planning Commission who owns
riverfront property asked to be excused from voting and discussion.
She was excused. Because of the pending litigation, and on the advice
of the Township Attorney, Chairman Beahan asked to be excused.
Member Lewis supported by Member Crawley moved to excuse Chairman
Beahan. The motion carried and Chairman Beahan took a seat in the
audience. Vice Chairman Casey took over as Chair for this portion of
the meeting.
Planning Director Peterson stated that this request was before the
Zoning Board of Appeals in May of 2004. None of the facts have changed
other than there being a lawsuit filed by one of the neighbors. Upon
the recommendation of the Township Attorney the request has been taken
to the Planning Commission for a Special Use Permit. The request for a
Special Use Permit was tabled to appoint a subcommittee to draft
potential conditions for approval. The Planning Commission will review
their recommendation at their next meeting on August 16. The standards
to be considered before granting a variance have not changed since the
May 11 meeting. Planning Director Peterson referred to the Staff
Report dated August 3, 2004, and attached hereto. He then reviewed the
standards for granting this variance:
1) that there are exceptional or extraordinary conditions or
circumstances that are inherent to the property in question and that
do not apply generally to the other nearby properties in the same
zoning district. The Township has never granted nor heard a request
from this section of the ordinance since it was adopted in 1995. The
exceptional circumstances here are that fact that several owners have
legal rights to use the river but due to site constraints, mainly
topography involving steep river banks, it is almost impossible to
have a launch on some properties. Granting the variance to allow only
a single common launch site for the Cascade Thornapple River
Association may serve to limit the number of launch sites on the
river. The problem is that very few parcels exist on the river that
could be suitable as a common launch - or owned by a property owner
willing to have his property used for a common launch site - in spite
of the lengthy period of time the Association, at the Township Board's
urging, has been searching for one.
2) That the exceptional or extraordinary conditions or
circumstances are not the result of actions of the applicant taken
subsequent to the adoption of this ordinance (any action taken by the
applicant pursuant to lawfully adopted regulations preceding this
Ordinance will not be considered self-created). These exceptional
conditions are not the result of actions taken by the applicant.
Finding a common launch site is actually something the Township Board
has requested that they pursue.
3) That such variance is the minimum variance that will make
possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. The
Association's proposed Boat Launch Rules and Regulations which are
included in the application do limit the variance to a minimum
necessary to get watercraft on and off the river. This is not a public
launch, but a private launch for the use of Association members only
for a fee. Having the Township review and approve any changes to the
Association's rules would ensure that these limitations would continue
- and that reasonable control by the Township is assured.
4) That the granting of the variance will not be injurious to the
neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Having
the launch restricted should assist in limiting any impact on the
neighbors. The Association's rules provide for personal presence and
control during the designated times. Vehicles and trailers must be
removed immediately and there will be no vehicular parking at the
site. There will be no docking of boats at the site. The proposed ramp
will really be no different than other ramps on the river.
5) That the condition or situation of the specific piece of
property, or the intended use of the property, for which the variance
is sought is not of so general or recurrent nature as to make it more
reasonable and practical to amend the Zoning Ordinance. Given the
specific circumstances it is not necessary to amend the ordinance as a
result of this. There is not likely to be a proliferation of common
boat launch requests.
6) The Zoning Board of Appeals shall further find that the reasons
set forth in the application justify the granting of the variance, and
that it is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable
use of the land, building or structure. The reasons set forth in the
application justify the granting of the variance which is the minimal
relief required for the purposes of providing a common Association
launch site.
Planning Director Peterson stated that at the May 11 meeting, the
variance request was approved allowing for the boat launch at 36th
Street and Cascade Road with the following conditions: 1) the Cascade
Thornapple River Association add a rule #6 that would require the
Township Zoning Board to review any proposed change to the boat launch
rules and regulations as presented at the May 11, 2004 ZBA meeting; 2)
provide fencing/gate to secure the launch during non-use periods to
ensure the site is used only when allowed by the proposed association
rules; 3) notify the Township of any proposed changes or extensions to
the lease agreement; 4) receive a copy of the approved rules; 5)
receive approval from the MDNR for boat launch; 6) have the access
reviewed and approved by the Kent County Road Commission. This
approval and the additional conditions provided a framework for the
Planning Commission discussion and drafting of their conditions that
they have been considering.
Member Timmons asked whether the Zoning Board of Appeals laid the
foundation for the Planning Commission. Planning Director Peterson
responded yes.
Member Timmons asked why should we have a different outcome? He
stated he agrees that we should approve it. The only thing changed is
the lawsuit and going through the Planning Commission process.
Planning Director Peterson stated a claim is being made that proper
notice wasn't given for the May 11 Zoning Board meeting. Notices were
sent out again for this meeting and it was also published in the
newspaper as we always do. Any conditions would simply be tied into
what the Planning Commission and the Township Board may apply to it so
all the conditions would be consistent.
Vice Chair Casey asked why this is going through the Zoning Board
of Appeals. Planning Director Peterson responded Section 4.33(1)(2) of
the Zoning Ordinance says you have 100 feet of river frontage in order
to have access to the river. With 300 association members they would
need 30,000 square feet of frontage. This property has 150 feet of
river frontage.
Vice Chair Casey stated in the first hearing you gave us a history
of why we are looking at this. Planning Director Peterson responded
yes, other sites just were not acceptable. The Road Commission turned
them down for one of those sites. They have been looking for a site
for the past five years.
Scott Rissi of 11270 Cascade Road stated that he is the President
of the Cascade Thornapple River Association. He said he had already
covered most of the details presented at the May meeting.
Vice Chair Casey asked Mr. Rissi to give a brief history.
Mr. Rissi stated the Association has 300 homeowners, 250 of them
are without a launch site. Many are in favor of having an access
point. It would enhance property values and would be easier to sell
their home with access available to the river. There are forty to
seventy home owners along the river that are looking for a place to
launch their boats. People have used access from neighbors in the
past. The Association has tried for about five years to work out an
agreement with other associations that have launch sites and that has
not been responded to with open arms by anybody. We would like to
create our own site for people who have deeded access to the river. We
are trying to give everyone a legal way to launch their boat for their
convenience. The neighbor here has a concern for a home that they have
not yet built. We will have people on site for monitoring. Even some
neighborhood association sites have not been gated or locked. We will
be keeping a fenced, locked site to insure it is being used legally.
Persons who violate the rules would have their access denied. The
Association agrees with the conditions the Zoning Board approved at
the May meeting, and recommend the same outcome at this meeting.
Member Lewis asked how many additional boats would be allowed on
the river because of this site? Mr. Rissi responded they have no data
to answer that question. He stated it is pretty much anybody who wants
to can find a way to launch a boat on the river.
Member Lewis stated wouldn't this allow additional boats on the
river? Mr. Rissi responded yes. Vice Chair Casey asked Staff to read
the six original conditions of approval. The conditions are: 1)
require the Township Zoning Board of Appeals to review any proposed
change to the boat launch rules and regulations as presented at the
May 11, 2004 meeting; 2) provide fencing/gate to secure the launch
during non-use period to ensure the site is used only when allowed by
the proposed association rules; 3) notify the Township of any proposed
changes or extensions to the lease agreement; 4) receive a copy of the
approved rules; 5) receive approval from the MDNR for the boat launch;
6) have the access reviewed and approved by the Kent County Road
Commission.
Vice Chair Casey asked whether there been any change on the
original proposal of the five year lease. Mr. Rissi responded there
has been no change to that.
Member Lewis supported by Member Crawley moved to open the public
hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.
Laura Finelli of 7372 Cascade Road stated that she owns the
property adjoining the proposed launch site. She is here to state her
opposition to the launch. They have plans finished and working plans
ready to build their future residence which would be 20 yards from the
turn around area of the proposed launch. Her husband has owned the
property since 1976. They empathize with people who would like the
convenience of access to the river. There are people who want a boat
and can't physically get a boat on the river. We have those people who
have stated they would be willing to help out a few neighbors. Mrs.
Finelli stated their greatest concern really boils down to decreased
property value for their property. Their property value should not
have to decrease in order to have a launch. The second concern is the
peace and tranquility they enjoy in their back yard. Even though
limited hours are stated she finds it very hard to believe that there
won't be a number of people who would get through the gate outside the
limited hours. The burden of that would fall on her family since they
have the most visible access to that ramp. Mrs. Finelli stated she
does not want to spend her time policing the ramp. She intends to
enjoy the water. A third concern is noise and dust. That is a very
busy strip of road that this launch accesses out to with a very
limited view. The foliage goes right up to road with a blind corner.
The traffic with cars and trailers would be awkward moving traffic.
There have been numerous accidents along that strip of road. That is a
threat to the immediate neighbors.
Jay Shachler of 3003 Thornapple River Drive stated he owns the
property near the Cascade Dam and almost worked out a deal with the
association until the Road Commission declined that. He believes there
have been some misrepresentation of the situation by the association.
He spoke to several neighbors over the last weekend and was told in
very clear terms people who had homes on the river would be able to
use the ramp. Association members who are not living on the river
themselves would be able to use the ramp also. Since that weekend he
has had conversations with the Goodwood Association. They have forty
homes that are not on the river and feel they will be able to also use
that ramp. Everything in writing in the Association bylaws is any home
that has access to the river can be a member. He would like to hear
more of what the numbers are. Mr. Shachler stated on a busy Sunday or
Saturday afternoon that river is very dangerous. Boats come too close
to skiers, etc. His concern is nobody was properly notified in clear
terms who is going to be able to use the ramp. He asked how many homes
would be able to use this ramp? He also objects that there hasn't been
a process of notifying people. There are hundreds of homes that have
access to the river. People in the Goodwood Association technically
own a piece of the land that is on the Thornapple River. They all are
riverfront property owners. Mr. Shachler further stated he believes
because the Thornapple River is a navigable body of water way it is
illegal for people to moor their boats in the river and walk to shore.
That needs to be addressed. This is an Association that is bringing
this request forward. He stated he feels everybody in the Association
should be notified, including plat owners. Let the people know the
real facts and let them vote as an association of how they want this
thing to go. He does not want the river to become a very busy place
where accidents happen. He suggested having defined language of how
many homes will have access to this ramp. There are problems with that
site. It is very shallow with rocks and stones and will have to be
dredged. Mr. Shachler then presented an alternative. He stated there
about 50 ramps on the water now. He proposed each of those people
adopt ten others to allow them access to launch boats. Then the ramp
would not be needed.
Vice Chair Casey stated that is beyond our control. Mr. Shachler
stated he is certain that if he sold his home he could get a lot more
money for it by saying this is a very exclusively used river with
limited access.
Vice Chair Casey asked Attorney Buchanan if economic issues can be
taken into consideration. Planning Director Peterson stated that is
not one of the findings of fact to be considered. Attorney Buchanan
stated that if it is determined the ramp is injurious to neighbors and
detrimental to public welfare, economic issues can be a factor, but
probably can't be the sole determining factor.
Vicki Gaviglio of 3115 Thorncrest stated she would really like to
address the Association bylaws. The bylaws do allow for members to be
able to access the river. According to the numbers that Mr. Rissi gave
there are 250 homes on the river and only about 40 show up to
meetings. Out of 250 homes without ramps there are 150 in Goodwood,
Thornapple Valley, etc. There are 400 homes that need to use this
ramp. Everyone has at least two trailers. That would be 800 possible
trips in spring and 800 in fall. If you open up the ramp for day use
so people can remove their boat to Lake Michigan, Zebra mussels and
lampreys can be introduced into the river. Ms. Gaviglio stated she
gets her boat repaired at her house. Her recommendation would be to
put a limit on the amount of people who could use ramp. She
recommended limiting it to the first 100 trailers in spring and fall
and take out the day use for the middle part of the season. Another
recommendation is people could use Camp O'Malley ramp in Caledonia
Township. Ms. Gaviglio stated she is on the Camp O'Malley board and
they would allow boats to come in and out for $50. That site would
have to be dredged but the association site will also have to be
dredged.
Doug Rissi of 3216 Thorncrest stated Zebra mussels don't know the
difference between the river at Camp O'Malley or at Cascade Road.
There are people who have deeded existing access and this would offer
them the most convenience way to get on the river. This will not
increase river traffic. All the people we are talking about are
currently have boats on the River. The keyhole law clearly states you
can't invite other people to use your own ramp. Docks are for one
family per 100 feet of frontage. Pulte has no river frontage. The
Goodwood Association may have deeded access to the river. It is in
their deeds. There is unregulated access going on at 48th Street, at
Maracaibo Shores. and at the end of the Thornapple where the dam is.
Those sites are ungated, unfenced, and un regulated. This would enable
us to do access the river legally. According to the key hole law we
are not allowed to bring in other boats. To do what Mr. Shachler has
suggested is prohibited. It is unenforced but prohibited. This is a
simple thing. Most people are willing to accommodate their neighbors.
The figure of 800 boats and trailers on Cascade Road is interesting
because the Breens never saw two trailers on Cascade Road in all these
years. He feels the Finelli's have a legitimate concern. Their house
isn't built yet but would be 60 feet away. There has got to be a
reasonable way to do this. The keyhole law protects against increased
traffic on the river.
Karen Reifler of 7474 Cascade Road stated she did not receive a
notice of the first hearing. Her biggest concern is for the traffic on
Cascade Road. She is often nearly hit when turning into her driveway.
She has real serious concerns. Mrs. Reifler stated she does not have
access to the river and they need the ramp but they would rather have
it on somebody else's property so as not to diminish their property
values.
Herb Lantinga of 7358 Cascade Road stated he lives three doors down
from the Finelli's. Both of his neighbors have ramps and both welcomed
me to use their ramps. The river Association has tried diligently to
find a launch site. There are many people who don't have the ability
to put their boat in from their own property. Mr. Lantinga stated the
drawing is not correct. It implies the Finelli's are going to put
their house a few feet from the edge of the property. Mr. Finelli
stated it will be 100 feet from the water's edge.
Mr. Lantinga then addressed the possible decrease in property
values. The Finelli's haven't built the home yet and the Association
is leasing the property for five years. If he is not selling his
present home - that is where your property values come in. There are
people and traffic because we do live in a city. There are cars,
trains, planes, and boats. Boats on the river is not a problem.
Traffic accidents happened there before Cascade Road was improved.
There is a third lane now. Thousands of cars go up and down this road
every day. The road is built to take cars and trailers. If we could
adopt a family he would love that. But it is not permitted under the
keyhole law.
Eric Neitzel of 5060 Sequoia stated Mr. Shachler does not
appreciate the variance. The keyhole ordinance is very important to
him. It protects his property and his access to the river. The
association feels that it is also is a very important ordinance for
everybody on the river. Every time the ordinance is broken it makes
the ordinance that much weaker. He wants to protect that ordinance by
seeking proper approval.
Mark deWall of 7156 Mooring Heights Court stated he was involved in
a traffic accident at that driveway on Cascade Road and was hit at 60
miles per hour. He believes there is not enough information here to
make a decision on this location and questions whether it makes any
sense to put a boat ramp where people are truly driving 55-60 miles
per hour.
Vice Chair Casey stated the association is looking at a variance to
the keyhole ordinance, that is why we are here. Traffic issues are
handled by the Road Commission. The association will have to comply
with all those safety issues.
Scott Rissi stated the Road Commission has already approved the
site.
Sandy Collins of 3468 Goodwood stated through the years they have
asked neighbors to put their boat in and take it out. Maybe one out of
28 years they have had to take it out for repairs. They have been
neighborly and brought a bottle of wine and had good luck with that.
It would be nice to have a place we could go to for launching. Cascade
Road is an incredible place for the police department to give tickets.
She has noticed the river traffic is very cyclic. It depends on how
many children are in the family to ski and run seadoos. Some years are
busy and some are not.
Bill Andrews of 7476 Cascade Road stated he lives about where the
traffic light is. It is difficult to come and go from his home without
getting killed. Hauling boats with trailers in and out of there with
the traffic will really be bad.
Nelson Brummel of 3262 Thorncrest stated the place where most
people did launch is the Breen residence. This site is down the road
about 200 yards. He doesn't feel we will see any more issues 200 yards
down the road. The opposition has not given us any solutions. He asked
as a land owner, if this is denied - what can he do. The Township
won't allow a ramp on his property and the Association won't have an
access site. The times that the association picked for ramp times are
non peak traffic times. Mr. Brummel stated if this is denied, Cascade
Township can lower his taxes because he won't be able to get his boat
on the river legally.
Peggy Dekkinga of 7463 - 36th Street stated she has lived there for
seven years and the neighborhood has changed a lot. When they first
moved in traffic was going at 70 miles an hour and now has slowed down
a little but still flies by. She is concerned with safety with cars,
trailers and boats right there. She also stated she knew nothing about
this request and she is within 300 feet of the site.
Vice Chair Casey stated he understands the traffic issues brought
up and the Planning Department will keep those in mind. Those are
things beyond the Zoning Board's control.
Barb Peters of 5140 Sequoia stated she is a high bank property
owner. Several years ago she was putting her boat in at her neighbor's
house. Her understanding is that if she uses her neighbor's ramp now
she would be violating the keyhole ordinance. She sold her boat
because she did not know about launching from the Breen's property.
She stated the Association is simply looking for a point to put in
boats in during the spring and take them out in the fall. She
recommended giving people time slots or appointments for launching.
Mrs. Peters stated they want to put their boats in without breaking
the key hole law and without using neighbor's property. No one is
going to want the ramp next door to their house. The Association has
been looking for a long time and tried to go to existing places. The
Association has not been able to find another solution. No one is
looking to abuse these people.
Steve Mulder of 3515 Hidden Hills stated his is the first house off
Cascade Road. He is opposed to anything that would increase the
traffic along this area. It is very bad and very dangerous.
Don Finelli thanked the Commission for giving him the opportunity
to speak. He gave a brief history of how he is here today. On May 21
he came to the Township office. At that time Steve Peterson informed
him the Zoning Board of Appeals approved the variance to allow for the
construction of the boat launch. He learned this proposed boat launch
could be used by any plat owner of river property. Mr. Finelli stated
he wrote a letter to the Township on May 25. He stated seven issues
why he was opposed to the variance. He asked in that letter for advice
as to what his options were to appeal this zoning variance. Jay
Cravens responded to his letter and stated his only option at that
point was Circuit Court. He did not want to do that but it was his
only option. Since that time he has some concerns that the general
public should be aware of. He went to the Planning Department and
asked how many plats have deeded access. There are five, including
Goodwood and Thornapple Dale but there could be more. What the general
public doesn't understand here is in the Goodwood Plat there are 52
homes on the Thornapple River. Some of these have deeded access but
they are not living on the Thornapple River. Access can give you
access to the water but does not mean you can launch a boat there. You
may have only access which would allow carrying a boat to it. The
Thornapple Dale plat has 89 homes. That is very important for the
public to understand. He has been trying to get the number of how many
homes there are who will use the ramp. Mr. Rissi believes it is 27
homes. But there are more homes than that in one plat. Mr. Finelli
estimated the number to be a couple of hundred homes.
Mr. Finelli went on to quote the key hole ordinance provision #11
"the owner shall not permit anyone other than a family member of
a person co-owning or residing on the property fronting on the water
to moor a watercraft overnight at the dock on the property or in the
water adjacent to the property." There is no law that says
specifically no one can moor a boat in the Thornapple River. Mr.
Finelli suggested the ordinance be amended to address mooring in
general. Mr. Finelli stated that the comment was made that the ramp
would improve other people's property values but would diminish his
own. He stated he has his own ramp and is willing to get 10-15 other
ramp owners together and put the names on a list and allow a number of
people to use our ramps. That is a permanent solution. Launching at
Camp O'Malley is also a permanent solution. Mr. Finelli then handed
out an information packet. Mr. Rissi emailed him the sunset provision
proposed on page 4 item #5. The last sentence reads they are in the
process still of finding a long term solution and would be happy to
hear any input or ideas we have regarding this site or a possible
permanent site. Mr. Finelli stated he is trying to convince Mr. Rissi
to work on a permanent solution. Mr. Finelli stated on page 3 he is
asking for five things: computerized card reading gate; limited
access, berm and landscaping, sunset provision and handling of
violations. He does not believe the Association can meet 50% of those
at this point. At the previous meeting of the Planning Commission Mr.
Rissi said he would put in a card reading gate. Mr. Finelli would like
one that issues a report to document any unauthorized use.
Vice Chair Casey stated that is a question to discuss with the
association. We are here to address the variance.
Mr. Finelli proposed limiting the access to two weeks in the spring
and fall and an additional week for missed days. That could also be
used if someone missed their time. Hours of operation from 9:00 am to
7:00 pm with no more than five two hour slots per day, which would be
no more than 70 total. Mr. Finelli suggested a six foot high berm
along the northwest side of the property planted with two rows of
dwarf cedar or other acceptable trees along with a six foot high
cyclone fence at the base of the berm on the launch site side. Mr.
Finelli also suggested a sunset provision of five years with the
possibility of extension if all parties agree in writing. Mr. Finelli
then suggested any member who violates the rules should lose their
privileges to the ramp. If there are more than five violations in any
calendar year, ramp useage would be suspended for the remaining year.
It would be the burden of applicant (Associaiton) to conform to
Section 23.07.2c.1 of Zoning Ordinance which says "that there are
exceptional or extraordinary conditions or circumstances that are
inherent to the property in question and that do not apply generally
to the other nearby properties in the same zoning district". Mr.
Finelli stated the property does not meet that standard. Mr. Finelli
then read the standards from the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Finelli then
referred to Section 23.07(4) of the Zoning Ordinance "that the
granting of the variance will not be injurious to the neighborhood or
otherwise detrimental to the public welfare". Mr. Finelli stated
he still believes if this goes on for a long period of time it will
diminish his property values. He feels the burden is upon the
Association to show it will not be injurious to the neighborhood. Mr.
Rissi has already admitted his property value will be diminished. He
also said the Association will rely on owners of neighboring property
to help insure the security of the site. Mr. Rissi will rely on my
wife to inform him of any problems on the site. The Association's
solution to dust control is water dripping from trailers and boats
that will wet the gravel and further reduce the dust. That is not a
solution to the dust problem. Mr. Finelli then addressed notice. He
would like more notice. Mr. Rissi also stated ramp traffic may cause
noise near the applicant's property. Most owners arriving to launch
boats will arrive with tanks full. Crafts will be in good running
order and seaworthy. There is no guarantee a boat will not have
spillage. He is also surprised they would not do a traffic study here.
The traffic concerns are very valid.
Vice Chair Casey stated we have noted the concerns.
Mr. Finelli stated there was a traffic accident there today. He is
opposed to the ramp based on the conditions that Mr. Rissi has
opposed. However, if he were to get all the things outlined in his
five points, he would work with the association to insure that it
could be managed responsibly. His system would eliminate abuses,
noise, etc. He asked the Zoning Board to deny the request for a
variance unless there is strict enforcement.
Member Lewis supported by Member Crawley moved to close the public
hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was closed.
Vice Chair Casey asked the association if this is the entire lease
agreement and is it just for a five year period? Mr. Rissi responded
it can be extended beyond the five years if both parties agree. It
could be shorter or longer than the five years.
Member Timmons asked what is the next step? Planning Director
Peterson responded this will go back to the Planning Commission on
August 16 and then to the Township Board on August 25.
Vice Chair Casey asked a question regarding the administrative
process. Would it be appropriate to grant the request as an exception
with the Planning Commission reviewing the conditions. Township
Attorney Buchanan stated that was the recommendation.
Member Timmons asked can the Township Board change the matrix of
this whole thing. Attorney Buchanan responded yes.
Member Timmons stated he is the representative here from the
Township Board. He stated the applicant has presented us with an
unsolvable problem. What it looks like is someone wins and someone
loses. What we generally try to do with the township is go for an
agreement where there is none. The conditions happen here or at the
Planning Commission or at the Township Board. There is nothing we can
do here to solve this problem. If you want the Zoning Board of
Appeals' help to implement a reasonable solution we can do that for
you. Member Timmons stated his preference is to work something out and
he realizes the people involved are all talking about property rights.
The Zoning Board could make a distinction between people who have
deeded access to the river and people who have physical access to the
river. We could give the people with physical access the use of the
ramp for a year or two and see how it goes. We could have them come
back here for an annual review to see how it is working. The Zoning
Board can also address the Finelli's five points and attempt to craft
a compromise. If that is all of you want to do, we can start doing
that.
Mr. Finelli responded he is very willing to compromise and get a
workable solution. He stated they are not trying to deny anyone
access, they are willing to help out. With the keyhole law, the only
legal access right now to property owners is through their own
property. He can live with a little dust and a little noise to get a
compromise.
Mr. Rissi responded he likes the recommendation of an annual review
or semi-annual review.
Member Timmons asked what about starting small for just the people
who actually live on the river and then expand the use if it works.
Mr. Rissi stated he would be agreeable to that. There would be a
couple of dozen homes that we would actually be able to sell keys to.
Member Timmons stated no day use would be allowed.
Member Timmons stated the Planning Commission is a better place to
work out a deal than the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Planning Director Peterson stated that the process has already
started by a subcommittee of the Planning Commission. They are working
on forming some sort of compromise.
Member Timmons asked whether you want action tonight or should we
table it. Planning Director Peterson suggested approve it tonight and
then let it go through with whatever conditions the Township Board may
put on it.
Member Timmons stated we already acted on it without adequate
notice in May. If we were to table it tonight, there is no decision
from us. Then, all options are open.
Attorney Buchanan stated that there is logic in what Board Member
Timmons is saying. However, the concern in moving it along was trying
to accommodate all the various interests - now we are going to get
into the fall season. On the other hand there is nothing that prevents
the ZBA from granting the variance and letting the Planning Commission
do its thing to work with the conditions.
Member Timmons stated he believes there is a benefit if this group
wants one more meeting on this. He stated his preference is not to
make a decision here tonight. He believes there is a deal to be made.
Mr. Rissi stated if Mr. Finelli would accept that people with only
physical frontage would be able to use the site we would go ahead with
that.
Vice Chair Casey stated ultimately this Board has to make a
decision.
Attorney Buchanan stated that if we were contemplating accepting
the recommendation this evening, the Township Board would have the
final say. If we are going to table the variance request tonight, then
the Township Board will consider what the Planning Commission
recommends but will have to then send it back to the Zoning Board of
Appeals for one last approval. The applicant needs both a variance and
a Special Use Permit.
Member Lewis stated it seems to him that if he has to make a
decision on this variance or not, he feels very comfortable in voting
for it. He is uncomfortable with imposing all the conditions to make
it function correctly. That belongs to the Planning Commission and not
to this Board. He is charged to make one decision on the keyhole
ordinance. There is enough need and enough of a unique situation to
grant a variance. On the other hand, in order to put that launch in we
have to plan for problems. The Planning Commission level is where they
handled that use. Member Lewis stated he would rather see the
conditions set at Planning Commission level and that there is already
a subcommittee functioning there for that purpose. Member Lewis stated
he thinks this matter should be moved forward to the Planning
Commission level with the final conditions set by the Township Board.
Member Timmons asked where does the "who" get decided?
Here or the Planning Commission? Are the "who" those
property owners who have deeded access? Planning Director Peterson
responded that the keyhole ordinance is for every water body in the
Township. The "who" are those who have deeded access or
river frontage. It is possible we could add that the Planning
Commission consider that as an additional condition.
Member Timmons asked what if we were to make it just for people who
have physical access to the river? Could they come back and expand it?
Planning Director Peterson responded sure.
Attorney Buchanan stated approval to expand or limit the users is
more of a Planning Commission prerogative. The variance being sought
is from the 100 foot rule. The "who" at present is the
applicant and people who are legally association members and who have
physical frontage on the river as well as those back lot owners with
legal access. It probably would be best to table it or move it on and
let the Planning Commission further delineate those users. The
Planning Commission can set some sort of annual review to be proposed
by the subcommittee.
Member Crawley asked if we were to approve the six existing
conditions and add the provision for the Township Board to review the
Special Use Permit, it wouldn't have to come back here.
Planning Director Peterson stated the variance would be from the
standard of having a variance from the 100 foot requirement for more
users than one for every 100 feet and have the conditions worked out
by the Planning Commission and Township Board.
Member Lewis stated historically the Zoning Board of Appeals has
always had the final say before going to court. It seems like it is an
important condition that we are talking about who can use the launch.
However, if the Zoning Board of Appeals can make that determination as
part of their discussion, he would feel comfortable in making that
here. Member Lewis believes this Board could limit the number of users
to those who have physical access on the river.
Attorney Buchanan responded that the Zoning Board of Appeals could
lawfully place that limitation of the variance.
Member Timmons supported by Member Lewis moved to grant a variance
subject to the conditions to be worked out by the Planning Commission
and Township Board, the variance being limited to those property
owners who have physical access to the river, not including properties
not on the river but having access through some kind of deed. Only
those properties physically on the river would be entitled to benefit
and use this variance. This motion is based on the reasons set forth
in the Planning Director's presentation and the conclusions contained
in Staff's findings of fact on each of the variance criteria which are
adopted as the findings of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Member Timmons stated that what he is hearing tonight is that the
river group is kind of an unknown number. If we take this step first,
that will guide us in the future. This is the beginning of some kind
of workable solution.
The motion carried unanimously.
Chairman Beahan resumed chairing the meeting at this time.
ARTICLE 7. Any Other Business
None presented.
ARTICLE 8. Adjournment
Member Lewis supported by Member Crawley moved to adjourn. The
motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 9:25 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Mel Casey, Secretary
MC: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
|
Site
Design/Development by
 |
|
