Zoning Board of
Appeals Minutes
MINUTES
Cascade Charter Township Zoning Board of Appeals
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
7:00 pm
ARTICLE 1. Chairman Beahan called the meeting to order.
Members Present: Beahan, Casey, Crawley, Timmons
Members Absent: Estes (unexcused), Lewis (excused).
Others Present: Planning Director Peterson, Admin. Assistant Thompson
and those listed on Supplement #1.
ARTICLE 2. The agenda was approved on motion by Member Timmons and
supported by Member Casey. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 3. The Minutes of the June 15, 2004 meeting were approved
on motion by Member Casey and supported by Member Crawley. The motion
carried.
The Minutes of the August 10, 2004 meeting were approved on motion
by Member Crawley and supported by Member Casey. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 4. The Planning Commission Minutes of August 2 and August
16, 2004 were received and filed.
ARTICLE 5. Case #04-2656: Thornapple Evangelical Covenant Church
(From the Table of August 10, 2004)
The applicant requested approval to allow placement of a temporary
portable classroom at 6595 Cascade Road.
(The following is a verbatim transcript)
Member Timmons: Move to remove from the table.
Member Casey: Second.
Chairman Beahan: We have a motion and support to remove from the
table. All those in favor signify by saying "aye". (All
voted in favor.) Opposed. (None.)
Chairman Beahan: It's back on board and I'll turn it over to Steve.
Planning Director Peterson: Thanks. As you mentioned it was tabled
at the last meeting where we had the public hearing and although this
isn't a public hearing we did send out reminders of the meeting to the
people on the notification list for tonight as well. Essentially, we
tabled the request at the last meeting to get some additional
information really from the Township Attorney in regards to the
Religious Land Use Act and how it may apply to this particular case.
He has since provided you with that opinion that is in your packet. To
try to sum up his opinion, he states that except in such exceptional
cases, local zoning ordinances are not applied to land uses for
religious practices if they result in a substantial burden on the
religious exercise and goes on to state you should continue to use our
section of our ordinance that applies here - that's Section 4.18.4 in
regards to that standard for temporary uses and if you find that they
don't meet those requirements to consider options and alternatives
available to the church. If reasonable and non-burdening alternatives
are available then you can certainly apply Section 4.18. If reasonable
alternatives are not available, then he basically advises us a
suspension of the ordinance would be in order essentially allowing it
under the Religious Land Use Act. As well as the attorney opinion I
did include for you a copy of an email we received from one of the
neighbors as well as a response from Dan Vos, a representative from
the church, that really took into account some of the matters that
seemed to come up in terms of placement of this and addressing the
concern of the look of the building and goes on to say it would be
painted to match the church. Second, was the placement of it - if you
remember that seemed to be one of the particular issues. I believe the
issue from the email from the neighborhood I put on the map here where
I tried to visually show you the proposed location as well as the
neighbors preferred location over in the northeast corner. The
church's representative tries to indicate why they chose the location
they did based upon the fact that they would have to relocate the
building again if they did the addition it is in the proximity of the
church for a bathroom facilities as well as other utilities that they
would have to put the building into. And finally they go on to say
that they need the three years in order to make this work and that
they were fine with Staff's suggestions of the conditions that they
plant some additional trees out front; that it would be for no more
than three years and that they would provide annual updates to the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
Chairman Beahan: Thank you Steve. Any questions of Staff before we
hear from the applicant? Any update?
Member Timmons: Yes, just from my memory, we have approved three
year temporary uses before so this isn't precedent setting?
Peterson: We have done it a couple of times. I think the ones I
mentioned before were the golf course at Quail Ridge and Cascade
Fellowship Church just a little further down the street.
Member Timmons: The way I read this federal statute is, it really
doesn't matter what we do, the federal act applies and the church can
do whatever it wants regardless of what we do here. Do you read it
differently than that?
Peterson: I think that's the way I summed up his letter. He says
several times it would be very difficult
Member Timmons: It doesn't compel us to approve anything. We can
approve, not approve, whatever. And if the Act applies then they can
go ahead and do it anyway we can't stop them. In the past when this
has come up we have tried to find ways to approve it to avoid the
application of the Act so we don't have to create a dog and pony show
down in Circuit Court or in Federal Court to get something done but
that could happen. Right? That's all I have.
Chairman Beahan: Steve, how old is this aerial photo? Do you have
any idea?
Planning Director Peterson: It's a couple of years old. I threw the
map up on the board there from when they did their additional parking
lot. I think the aerial photo is 2002 so this would be the more
current make up of the parking lot. The gray, here is their additional
parking and access out to Burton that they did and was approved back
in 2001. So, this essentially is a good location I believe more
preferred by the neighbors and here is the location proposed by the
church.
Chairman Beahan: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Anybody from
the church - anything you guys would like to add to this?
Dan Vos: I don't think I have anything to add. The letter pretty
much summed it up.
Chairman Beahan: Okay. For the record could we have your name
please?
Dan Vos: Dan Vos, sorry.
Chairman Beahan: Are you a member of the church also?
Dan Vos: Yes sir.
Chairman Beahan: And then your firm is doing the construction also?
Dan Vos: Hasn't been decided yet.
Chairman Beahan: Oh, okay.
Dan Vos: I just simply wrote out all the applications and did all
the paperwork for them.
Chairman Beahan: Okay. But that's your background.
Dan Vos: Yeah.
Member Timmons: Well, I think we've got a primary choice to make
here. I don't think we can out and out deny this. We can grant it as
requested, or we can grant it and move it to the other place. Then the
issue is does that substantially burden the church? And is that the
least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government
interest? I don't know that we have a compelling government interest
at stake here. That's my concern. But I suppose the middle ground
would be to grant it and move it to satisfy the concerns of the
neighbors and see if that is acceptable or not. If it's not, I imagine
a federal judge will move it right back. Or, we can just grant it. I
think those are sort of the two possibilities here that we have to
struggle with.
Member Crawley: If it is granted from the standpoint of an annual
review or annual report - what will we use that for and what type of
review exactly would we be performing if any?
Planning Director Peterson: In the past we have used that to get
updates from the applicants to see how they were - let me back up. In
the past what we have done is granted one year temporary uses but we
have not let those go on and the Zoning Board has always had concerns
in the past when is this going to go on. Three years seems to be where
we have said enough is enough - your temporary is becoming permanent.
So in the past we have used that one year to get updates from
applicants to say how are you coming along on your project? Are you
going to be coming in for site plan approval for your addition here -
to get updates. In the past we have used that annual review for is to
try to insure that we are keeping track of this and that the temporary
use is not going to go on forever.
Member Crawley: So in this case if we did grant it and is there a
use for - I still struggle with understanding how an annual report
would help us or give us the ability to really change anything. If it
is granted, it is granted and at that point we are basically committed
to the three years.
Planning Director Peterson: Yeah I don't disagree with that. But
again I guess it's probably more for the applicants ability to be
aware that you know the Township is concerned and wants to make sure
that indeed it doesn't just get lost and forgotten about that we want
to make sure there is alight at the end of the tunnel too.
Member Timmons: It also gives the neighbors a forum to come in in a
year and come and talk to somebody about their view of how the thing
has been operating.
Member Crawley: That's what I'm asking is - if there is an issue
that comes up after a year then is that something we can act on. If
two of the trees die and it's more visible or if at that point is it a
situation where there's two more years to go we would prefer not to do
anything?
Planning Director Peterson: I would say it's the first option that
you gave that has always given us the ability to make sure everything
is still operating in compliance, the siding falling off the building,
the trees have died down. Other things that may come it has given us
the ability to make sure that those things - the whole site remains in
compliance.
Member Crawley: So the renewable clause coming up one year at a
time has given us that ability to approve or disapprove and again, I
guess not that I expect anything would happen but you know from a
standpoint of neighbors and neighbors complaints - if this is a three
year term and after a year there are issues, I guess I just want to
make sure if there are autonomies and I'm not sure that you're saying
that we do.
Planning Director Peterson: Well in a sense you almost - maybe what
you want to do is go back to the way we have done previous projects
and say I approve it for a year with the ability that they know they
can have it for three years with these annual reviews so you are
reviewing it annually for approval - not just for review.
Chairman Beahan: I have a question of Mr. Vos. Could you reiterate
your reasons why you want it located in the front part?
Dan Vos: The reason we chose that space was when we add on we will
be adding onto the other spot on the northeast corner. That would be
the place where our addition would go. We simply don't have the budget
to relocate and have to do that in two years when we start
construction.
Chairman Beahan: Okay. Have you come up with a time frame for the
start of construction?
Dan Vos: No, it would be within three years. If and when we add on
we need - as I addressed in the letter - you got fundraising, drawings
for construction, and construction - it's usually about a three year
process.
Chairman Beahan: When you say a three year process - would you by
chance be coming back at the end of three years and saying you need it
for another two years there or something?
Dan Vos: No. It will be complete with construction after the three
years. We will be able to remove the unit from the site.
Chairman Beahan: At the longest it would be three years.
Dan Vos: Right.
Member Casey: Barring any acts of God - right?
Dan Vos: Correct.
Jeanne Clemens: Could I ask one question? I just want something
clarified.
Chairman Beahan: Normally we are not in a public hearing.
Jeanne Clemens: I understand but.
Chairman Beahan: Just hold on a minute please. We are not in a
public hearing but if you want to take just a brief minute to make a
comment we can allow that. And direct the comments to here then.
Jeanne Clemens: I have a question about when hearing you all talk
my understanding is the church can basically do whatever it wants
barring this governmental purpose thing.
Member Timmons: Very severe restrictions on what local government
can do with churches.
Jeanne Clemens: That's my understanding. So when you all are
talking about having this one year meeting - what difference does it
make? I mean if we get to the end of three years and the classrooms
are still sitting there and the siding is falling off and the
shrubbery is gone - what difference does it make if they come back
here in three years. Because barring this extremely high standard you
all are not going to be able to (inaudible).
Member Timmons: I won't be sitting on the ZBA in a year when they
come back but if I were and the trees have died and siding fell off
and they were bad neighbors, I would vote to make them fix those
things and keep them fixed and put them on a shorter lease or I would
withdraw the approval and let them make some federal judge
Jeanne Clemens: Maybe they will in federal court.
Member Timmons: Well because the burden to them of doing what they
agreed to do, promising to go forth and accept it and not doing I like
that case a lot better than the case where we just say no in light of
the statute says (inaudible).
Chairman Beahan: Does that answer your question?
Jeanne Clemens: Yeah. Thank you.
Chairman Beahan: Mel.
Member Casey: Now I assume that because this is a temporary
building there is part of this that we could go after if they didn't
fulfill their obligations. We are not restricting the use to the
(inaudible) to what they intended but if we gave them a right for a
temporary.
Member Timmons: I think our case is a lot stronger if we granted it
and they agreed to the conditions and there were reasonable conditions
and they just didn't live up to them and we had a group of citizen
neighbors who had legitimate concerns about that - that they relied on
that, etc., etc. I like that case a lot better.
Member Casey: And we're talking from the time they get their
temporary building permit the three years starts?
Member Crawley: That's my understanding.
Member Timmons: Are you guys ready? I'm going to move that we grant
the application subject to the conditions set forth in the Staff
Report and if I get a second I'll give you my reasons.
Member Casey: I second it.
Member Timmons: I think if we granted this and moved it in the
other location it wouldn't be substantially burdening on the church.
Whether it is the least restrictive means I don't know. But, I have a
hard time - I'm struggling to come up with a compelling governmental
interest for denying this. So, in the absence of thinking up a
compelling governmental interest, I just don't think we can defeat the
terms of the statute and so we should do this. I did it for three
years because if we are going to do this the church has to plan, it's
a capital cost to them and they have to have some degree of certainty
that they can do so. And so if we are going to do this we shouldn't
just do it half baked. We should either do it or not do it. Those are
my reasons.
Member Casey: Can I ask a question?
Member Timmons: Sure.
Member Casey: I did second it but I presume that if we have an
annual review we still give them the three year term but the annual
review - if they are falling behind - we know it, they know that we
are watching. I think that's an important aspect.
Member Timmons: Right and that gives the neighbors a chance to come
in and have a forum.
Member Casey: They are not excluding that.
Member Timmons: No, isn't that one of the conditions?
Chairman Beahan: Yes, number three.
Member Casey: So you are just taking it as written these
Member Timmons: Yes, part of the motion is conditions which I think
the applicant has agreed to.
Chairman Beahan: Right. Just for the record I'll read the
recommendations, conditions: 1) that the applicant provide at least
five evergreens planted along the front of the building, a minimum of
six feet tall to provide adequate screening. The second condition is
that the permit would be good for no more than three years beginning
at the time the building permit is issued for the temporary building;
and 3) come back to the Zoning Board of Appeals to report on the
progress of the plans for a permanent addition and/or removal of the
temporary building. So those are the three conditions that Bob
mentioned that his motion was conditioned on. Any other discussion by
the board members of the motion before the board.
Member Crawley: Just from the standpoint of a one year renewable
just think that muddies the water and again
Member Timmons: That places so much uncertainty when they are doing
their capital improvement and creates a lot of trouble for the church
for very little gain for us.
Member Crawley: Aren't we precedent wise if in the past we have
always done one year and done a renewable aren't we really doing
something different this time?
Chairman Beahan: No, I think in the past we have done I think for
Cascade it was three years.
Member Timmons: Three years.
Member Crawley: So it was a three year it was just a review? Okay.
All right.
Chairman Beahan: Any other discussion? All right all those in favor
of the motion as stated signify by saying "aye". Opposed.
The motion carries (unanimous).
ARTICLE 6. Any Other Business
None presented.
ARTICLE 7. Adjournment.
Member Timmons supported by Member Crawley moved to adjourn. The
motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 7:22 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
 |
|
