Zoning Board of
Appeals Minutes
MINUTES
Cascade Charter Township Zoning Board of Appeals
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
7:00 pm
ARTICLE 1. Chairman Beahan called the meeting to order.
Members Present: Beahan, Casey, Crawley, Lewis
Members Absent: Estes and Timmons (both unexcused).
Others Present: Planning Director Peterson, Admin. Assistant Thompson
and those listed on Supplement #1.
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 September 14, 2004 meeting were
approved as submitted on motion by Member Lewis and supported by
Member Crawley. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 4. The Planning Commission Minutes of September 7 and
September 20, 2004 were received and filed.
ARTICLE 5. Case #04-2666: Duane & Linda Nachbar
(PUBLIC HEARING)
The applicant requested a variance that would allow the property at
6290 Burton to be split leaving the barn on the property for a period
of one year. Before the one-year time period has expired, the
applicant will remove the barn from the property.
Planning Director Peterson presented the site plan of the property.
He related our Zoning Ordinance does not allow accessory buildings to
be located on a vacant parcel. The existing home and garage would be
on another parcel. When the applicants first came in it was explained
to them why they would need a variance. The applicants indicated they
would be taking down the barn after their home was constructed. The
variance would allow them to split the property and construct a home
on the parcel with the barn. The ordinance actually requires a home to
be 50% complete before building an accessory building. There are other
properties that have done similar types of variances in the past. In
those situations we have required some sort of a performance
guarantee. This property is zoned R-2 and is on the south side of
Burton Street. The R-2 zone requires a minimum lot size of 18,000 s.f.
The property is about three acres in size and is surrounded by
developed subdivisions. Mathematically there is enough room to split
the property but the applicant would still have to go through the lot
split procedure. Burton Street does have water available. Staff
considers this to be a minimal variance request considering the
temporary nature.
Planning Director Peterson recommended approval of the variance
depending on the lot split approval and supply the Township with a
performance bond of $7,000. The amount of the bond was determined by
the Building Department recommendation.
Planning Director Peterson related he did not receive any comments
from the notices that were sent out.
Member Crawley asked if a letter of credit would authorize the
Township to take action after a one year period and how does that
work. Planning Director Peterson responded the Township would be able
to take action and take the barn down if the applicant does not do it
within the allotted time.
Member Crawley asked there is nothing else necessary in order to
act on it. Planning Director Peterson responded no.
Member Casey asked Planning Director Peterson if he envisions the
barn being removed in a short period of time. He is concerned about a
lengthy period of time as it does not take a year to remove the barn.
Planning Director Peterson related a one year time frame is pretty
standard with what we have done in the past. It would not take a year
to remove the barn. It has been our standard practice to give time to
coordinate things.
Member Casey asked how much of the barn would need to be removed to
get it off tax rolls by December 31. Planning Director Peterson
responded all of it.
Member Lewis asked if at the end of one year the barn has not been
removed, do we have a right to go in there and demolish it? Planning
Director Peterson responded we would hire a contractor to do it.
Member Casey asked do you have experience with letters of credit.
Planning Director Peterson responded he has received them from other
applicants but has never had to cash one.
Member Casey suggested a bond would be easier. Planning Director
Peterson related we have used letters of credit, bonds or checks -
whatever is convenient to the applicant.
The applicants, Duane and Linda Nachbar, were present. Mrs. Nachbar
related they have nothing to add. They do not want to give a bond or a
check. They have lived in Cascade Township for 28 years. Forest Hills
Schools have used the barn for building floats. They have paid their
taxes on time. This is their retirement. They feel the township should
take them on their word because they say they will do it. They don't
want a barn overshadowing their new home from the south side where the
sun comes from. When we the barn comes down they want it cleared away.
They are not going to leave it up. They are going to sell the
farmhouse. They put an ad in the newspaper for the barn offering it
for free and received over 100 responses. They choose a person who is
going to rebuild the barn and use it for horses. The barn was built in
the early 1900's and has big beams. They didn't want to see a wrecking
ball tear it down. There will be no problem removing the barn.
Chairman Beahan asked what is the time frame for removal. Mrs.
Nachbar responded they told the people 90 days. If the Burton Street
would not have been closed they would have had a barn sale. They want
to build the house, take what they need and sell the rest. The barn
will be used to store the things until their new home is built.
Chairman Beahan related to the Nachbars one of the reasons that
Staff requested a bond is that everybody has good intentions but
something unforeseen might happen. We are not questioning your
sincerity.
Planning Director Peterson suggested if the applicant does not want
to post a bond, the lot split not be approved until the barn is gone.
However, in that situation they would not be able to get a building
permit for the new house until the lot split was approved.
Member Lewis asked if the applicant could provide a personal check.
We could just tear it up when the barn is gone as long as there is the
money in the account. Member Lewis related to the Nachbars that we
have to offer some protection to the citizens of the township.
Mr. Nachbar related originally there was another house on that
piece of property with the barn. We tore the house down because it was
in disrepair and now it is a vacant piece of property.
Mrs. Nachbar related you people should watch who is doing your
work. She related they contacted two construction companies and got
estimates for $3,000 - $5,000 to take the barn down. Planning Director
Peterson related he would be happy to accept a quote in that amount.
Chairman Beahan related if we do this without a bond the next
person that comes along may not have your reputation and they could
say we granted this to you without a bond. They would go back and look
at past procedures and see this is the only time we did not require a
bond. We would be in a tight situation.
Mrs. Nachbar asked can you give us a year from the time the
property is split. We originally hoped to get our home built by
November. Now it looks more like spring. Mrs. Nachbar would like to
have a year from the time the parcel is split to tear the barn down.
Member Lewis asked if the existing driveway would be shared. Mrs.
Nachbar responded no. Their new home will have its own driveway.
Member Lewis supported by Member Casey moved to open the public
hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.
Planning Director Peterson related no comments were received.
Rick LaPorte of 6420 Burton Street related the barn has been there
and is not an eye sore. It is not an issue for the neighbors. He urged
the Planning Commission to help the applicant with whatever could be
done without having to post any money through the process. He feels
the residents on Burton Street have enough challenges as it is.
Frank Garber of 6301 Capitan related the barn is attractive. He
asked how long it might be in a state of demolition if not done by a
professional contractor. People are less likely to have the resources
and accountability to get it out of there by a specific time. He does
not want to see the barn half there.
Mrs. Nachbar related people taking the barn were going to hire
someone to do it for them. They would be under a contract with us to
take it down within a certain period of time. We were going to give
them 90 days but they won't be taking it down in the winter.
Chairman Beahan related he does not see the winter as an issue.
People build houses in the winter.
Sheri LaPorte addressed the time frame with all the disruption on
Burton Street. She would like the barn to stay. It is historical and a
nice addition to the landscape.
Mr. Garber related a time limit is necessary so demolition won't
drag on.
Member Lewis supported by Member Crawley moved to close the public
hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was closed.
Member Casey asked when is the other end of Burton Street going to
be disrupted. Member Lewis related he would prefer to postpone that
conversation. Planning Director Peterson related that project was not
approved by the Township Board.
Member Casey related the Zoning Board of Appeals has to work within
guidelines and the ordinances of the township. The members are not in
a situation where they can negotiate too much. A performance bond,
check or whatever should be required. He has no problem with a bond in
the amount of $7,000. That should cover the township having to hire a
contractor and assuming the liability, if necessary. Member Casey
explained that a company he previously worked for negotiated in buying
a parcel and the owner was to tear the barn down. In doing so the barn
collapsed and killed the owner. He related protection is necessary for
potential liability to protect the township in demolition of the barn.
Member Casey related he does not think we should give in on not
requiring some form of proof of performance.
Member Lewis asked if a time limit should be set for demolition.
Planning Director Peterson related that could be a condition of
approval. He can see some protection for neighbors would be necessary.
Member Lewis supported by Member Casey moved that the applicant's
request for a variance to split the property leaving the barn on the
property for one year be approved with the following conditions: 1)
that the applicant apply for and receive an approval of the lot split;
2) the applicant submit a personal check in the amount of $5,000 that
would be used for removal of the barn for a one year period of time
from when the lot split is approved; and 3) once demolition begins the
barn shall be taken down within a three month period of time. The
money could also be used to finish the job of taking the barn down if
not completed within the three months.
Member Casey related he is concerned about a personal check and
that precedent.
Chairman Beahan asked if the check will be held by the Township and
not cashed. Member Lewis responded yes.
Chairman Beahan related he is not uncomfortable with that situation
in this instance.
Member Crawley agreed.
The motion carried with Member Casey abstaining. (Note for the
record: Member Casey's abstention is improper and counts as a yes vote
for the motion pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance Section 23.04(5).4).
ARTICLE 6. Case #04-2669: Thomas Mills
(PUBLIC HEARING)
The applicant requested a variance to allow an accessory building in
front of the house at 3880 Buttrick, SE.
Planning Director Peterson related the applicant would like to
build an accessory building at 3880 Buttrick. Planning Director
Peterson presented the site plan. The definition of front yard is
"the yard between front lot line or street right-of-way line and
the nearest point of any part of the main building thereon". The
Zoning Ordinance was amended in 2000 to allow for accessory buildings
in the front yard under certain circumstances. Those circumstances are
areas where the topography made it impossible, the necessity of
driving over a drainfield and if the building was at least 200 feet
off the road. This applicant is not driving over a septic system and
the building is not 200 feet off the road. The building is about 48
feet from the road right-of-way. The house is about 95 feet from the
right-of-way. The required Buttrick Avenue setback is 43 feet. The
building is behind the required set back line for Buttrick Avenue. The
applicant could place the building farther back but there are some
topography challenges. Technically the building would be in the front
yard but would appear to be in the side yard. The applicant indicated
that they would be doing some clearing to place the building and would
move the propane tank. The size of the building would be 832 s.f.
which is our limit for accessory buildings before requiring a Special
Use Permit. Planning Director Peterson noted we have granted other
variances for buildings in the front yard. The reasons for those have
been topography, location of septic systems and wells, and adequately
screened buildings. Planning Director Peterson recommended approval of
the variance. One letter in support of the variance was received from
the neighbor across the street.
Member Lewis clarified that this setback is from the corner of the
garage. Planning Director Peterson responded that is correct.
Member Casey asked have you discussed with the applicant that this
is a garage only. Normally the recommendation specifies no business
use, etc. Planning Director Peterson responded no, they have not
talked about that. That is a township ordinance and a condition of
approval for a special use permit.
Mr. Mills, the applicant, was present. Mr. Mills related Planning
Director Peterson did a very nice job in describing the situation. Mr.
Mills related if the garage was placed to meet the setback the whole
front yard drains to that area. It is ten feet below the level of the
driveway. He would have water issues. There is really no other
practical alternative to place it anywhere else. It will match the
house with siding and roofing. The only intended use is as a garage.
Chairman Beahan asked have you talked about the height of the
building with Staff. Mr. Mills responded it is very close in height
with the current attached garage.
Member Lewis supported by Member Crawley moved to open the public
hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.
There being no one present to speak on the matter, Member Lewis
supported by Member Casey moved to close the public hearing. The
motion carried and the public hearing was closed.
Member Lewis related he was surprised to see the condition about
driving over a septic tank. We have given variances based upon the
fact that there is a drain field or septic tank. He is not too
concerned about starting a precedent for buildings in the front yard.
Member Crawley noted there is vegetation in the front. He asked if
anything should be added about not clearing trees in front of the
building. Chairman Beahan responded we can't make that a condition
that the vegetation is retained.
Planning Director Peterson related it is pretty difficult to be
able to keep track of that years down the road. Screening is a bonus
but still has limits because of the other issues. He does not consider
screening to be the driving factor. He encouraged the applicant to
keep the shrubs there to use as a shield from the street.
Member Lewis supported by Member Casey moved to approve the
variance to allow an accessory building in front of the house at 3880
Buttrick Avenue with the condition that it not be used for any
business, trade, occupation or profession and for the reasons we have
given earlier in the discussion. The motion carried with Member
Crawley abstaining. (Note for the record: Member Crawley's abstention
is improper and counts as a yes vote for the for the motion pursuant
to the Zoning Ordinance Section 23.04(5).4).
ARTICLE 7. Case #04-2677: Scott & Lisa Lockwood
(PUBLIC HEARING)
The applicant requested a variance to allow an addition to the side of
the house that would result in the side yards being less than 25 feet
total at 3049 Thorncrest.
Planning Director Peterson related the property is near the Cascade
Dam on the east side of the bridge. The reason for the variance is the
side yard setback. The Zoning Ordinance requires the side yard to
total 25 feet with no less than ten feet on one side. The house does
not sit parallel to the property line. The applicant's site plan
indicates that the existing side yard setbacks are 10-1/2 feet and 17
feet. Add the 10-1/2 to the 17 and you get 27 feet. That meets our
requirements. The proposed six foot addition would push the home out
an additional six feet to the north. Then the setback would be 11 feet
instead of 17 making the total side yard 21 feet. The Cascade Dam
access property is immediately to the north. There is no home built on
that parcel. The applicants indicated they looked at other ways to do
the addition but the floor plan for the house would not work. Staff
looked at through the history but could not find one that is similar.
Typically, setbacks granted have been ones where they are in the front
yard or wanted to go closer to a rear yard. There was one requested in
Watermark a couple of years ago for an additions off the back of the
home facing the golf course which was denied because they had agreed
to buy property from the golf course and did not need the variance.
Planning Director Peterson then went through the Findings of Fact
as found in the Staff Report. He related the house does not sit
perpendicular to the lot lines and only a corner of the home would
violate the setback with the addition. The applicants would be allowed
to add two feet to the home to avoid a variance. The applicants are
seeking a six foot addition. Setbacks are to ensure proper spacing
between buildings. The house will still be setback at least 10 feet to
the north property line and with this property being occupied by the
Dam it is safe to assume no buildings would be constructed on the Dam
property.
Planning Director Peterson recommended approval of the variance to
allow for a six foot addition as shown.
Member Lewis asked how did the garage get built so close to the lot
line. Planning Director Peterson related that is hard to say, it
predates our current code.
The applicant, Scott Lockwood, of 3049 Thorncrest was present. Mr.
Lockwood related the garage was probably built at the same time as the
house and is about 50 years old. It is probably two or three feet from
the lot line. The garage blocks any view anyone else would have. There
is a line of trees between their property and the Dam property. They
plan on removing one tree that is clearly on their property that
overhangs the roof.
Member Lewis supported by Member Crawley moved to open the public
hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.
Planning Director Peterson related no comments were received.
There being no one present to speak on the matter, Member Lewis
supported by Member Crawley moved to close the public hearing. The
motion carried and the public hearing was closed.
Chairman Beahan asked if there is concern for fire safety by
expanding the building's size. Planning Director Peterson responded
setbacks are there to create spacing partially for that reason. There
is no building to the north. It is a sliver of the home that would
violate the setback - not the entire addition.
Member Lewis related his only concern is screening between this
property and the township property. He would hate to see the trees go
down on the township line. Something unforeseen could happen during
construction.
Member Casey related he has the same concern. The Township should
not absolve any cost of replacing trees.
Member Lewis asked the applicant the floor plan. Mr. Lockwood
responded explained there is a bedroom on the side of the house facing
the township property. There is no window on that side. Mr. Lockwood
explained they have a six foot vinyl fence from the edge of the river
to that corner of the house now. They would like to extend that back
farther. It shields the hot tub that sits along that side.
Member Lewis asked what is the ordinance on fencing. Planning
Director Peterson related six feet high and it can be placed right on
the lot line.
Member Crawley supported by Member Casey moved to approve the
requested variance to allow a six foot addition to the house as shown
on the site plan at 3049 Thorncrest.
Member Lewis noted the fact that the property does adjoin the
township property which will not be built on. If there were a house
next door the situation would be different.
The motion carried.
ARTICLE 8. Any Other Business
Chairman Beahan related there are two vacancies on the Zoning Board
of Appeals. Member Crawley related his interest in reapplying for
another term.
Member Casey explained a performance check would be valid for the
entire period of time. That was the reason for his abstention. He
feels it sends the wrong message. Member Crawley related it does put
the township at some risk. Member Casey related he would like to
discuss that with the Township Attorney. Those are his own personal
views. Planning Director Peterson related he believes it to be more of
an administrative matter.
ARTICLE 9. Adjournment
Member Crawley supported by Member Casey moved to
adjourn. The motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 8:16
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
 |
|
