Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes

MINUTES

Cascade Charter Township Zoning Board of Appeals

Tuesday, December 14, 2004

7:00 pm

ARTICLE 1. Vice Chairman Casey called the meeting to order.
Members Present: Beahan, Casey, Lewis
Absent: Crawley (excused), Estes (unexcused).
Other Present: Planning Director Peterson, Admin. Assistant Thompson and those listed on Supplement #1.

(Note: Member Beahan was elected to the Township Board, effective Nov. 20, 2004 and will serve as the Township Board Representative to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Vice Chair Casey will serve as Chair of this meeting until the Election of Officers is held in 2005.)

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

ARTICLE 3. The Minutes of the October 12, 2004 meeting were approved on motion by Member Beahan and supported by Member Casey. The motion carried.

ARTICLE 4. The Planning Commission Minutes of October 4, October 18, November 1 and November 15, 2004 were received and filed.

ARTICLE 5. Case #04-2690: William Firestone
(PUBLIC HEARING)
The applicant requested a variance to reconfigure 2611 and 2617 Thornapple River Drive. This reconfiguration would allow less than the required lot width.

Planning Director Peterson presented a map of the area. The variance is for reconfiguration of the property lines. As the parcels exist, the zoning requirements are met. The applicant purchased a portion of property from the Township (formerly known as the Lenger property) and is adding it to his parcel. In turn he would like to change the property line of 2617 Thornapple River Drive. If reconfigured, the parcel at 2617 Thornapple River Drive would not meet the requirements of the 110 foot lot width at the setback line. Both parcels 2617 and 2611 show the required 100 feet of river frontage. Planning Director Peterson related a few years ago, the property at 2617 was connected to 2611. The former homeowner built an accessory building and turned it into living quarters which was a zoning violation and was not constructed to standards for a home. It also violated the ordinance requirement of one home per parcel. When Mr. Firestone purchased the property, he split that portion with the building out and made upgrades to the building which comply with construction codes for living quarters. Also unique to the situation was the township pedestrian pathway on Thornapple River Drive. The driveway was changed because of the topography, slopes and curve of the road. Both parcels of 2611 and 2617 share the curb cut which has been reconfigured. During pathway construction, new retaining walls were installed and the driveway shared. The applicant would like to split that piece of property at the curb cut to have access to the road from both properties.

Planning Director Peterson then went through the standards to be considered before granting a variance as listed in the Staff Report. Staff believes the circumstances are unique to the property. The parcel has just a small area that would not be in compliance for the setback of 110 feet. Staff also does not believe granting the variance would be harmful to the neighborhood or precedent setting. The circumstances would be difficult to repeat anywhere else in the township. Splits would not allow the property to be further developed from what it is now.

Planning Director Peterson recommended approval of the variance as the applicant requests. He related no comments were received from the neighbors. The applicant canvassed the whole neighborhood and spoke with the neighbors.

Vice Chair Casey asked if there is any way the parcel could be split from the back side. Planning Director Peterson responded no, the existing homes are all the way around it. All the circumstances together would be pretty difficult to repeat.

Member Lewis asked why the line could not be drawn differently. He suggested the line be drawn straight up and a variance would not be needed. Then just an easement could be given for the use of that driveway. Member Lewis related as a Zoning Board of Appeals members, one of our jobs is to grant the smallest amount of variance possible. He related Mr. Firestone would like to have a yard in front of the 2617 parcel. That would keep the parcels at 2617 and 2611 from ever having another home there.

Mr. Firestone related they did go around to the neighbors with a petition that all of them signed. Some of the neighbors even offered to attend tonight to show their support.

Member Beahan suggested one solution would be to give a driveway easement, and as long as a relative lives there it wouldn't be a problem. If the property were sold, the new owner may not be willing to pay higher property taxes for the additional property.

Member Lewis agreed with the concept but the Zoning Board of Appeals members have to base decisions upon the Zoning Ordinance and not the property tax amount.

Mr. Firestone related if the driveway had been moved further north it wouldn't be an issue. He had a driveway easement for the parcel at 2617 on the south side of the property. When the pedestrian path was developed the Township worked hard to make a beautiful pathway. Mr. Firestone related he donated over 500 feet of river frontage and agreed to share a driveway. Mr. Firestone related he lost over 50 trees from his property during that construction. There is a grove of hemlocks and a 200 year old elm and a 150 year old maple tree that he is trying to save. That is why the driveway location is where it is. Everyone that signed the petition said the variance makes sense and fits the neighborhood.

Member Lewis related he has been filled in on this situation and realizes Mr. Firestone helped the Township out as much as possible. He stated he really appreciates that. He agrees with what we are seeing but is still looking for a way as to why the property line couldn't go straight up.

Mr. Firestone requested the variance be granted as Staff has recommended. The parcel of 2611 is a very unusual property. This layout fits very nicely with everything. A variance is for an odd piece of property such as this.

Kent Ott of 2611 Thornapple River Drive related the driveway could have been relocated, but the retaining wall dictated its location. The land had a natural dip there and in order to get the correct pitch on the driveway, it was better to put it there. And another reason was to save the remaining large trees in the front yard. The Township was pleased with the shared driveway and not having to put in two driveways.

Mr. Firestone related this is a beautiful set up for both properties and the neighbors support it 100%.

Vice Chair Casey related the Zoning Board of Appeals has to make the minimum variance as possible and can't create another problem for the future. The easement can be written so both parcels can use and maintain the driveway. If 2611 has the full responsibility of maintenance and 2617 gets to use it, we have no control over that.

Mr. Firestone related his main goal is to not have anyone able to build in front of the house at 2617 Thornapple River Drive. If his variance request is turned down, he has the option to drawn the property line straight all the way up. But if he does that, a future owner could actually build a home in front of 2617. By granting the variance, it would limit both properties of 2611 and 2617 from being able to build another home in front. The variance would make both properties nicer. The neighbors do not want to see another home there.

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

The petition signed by the neighbors in favor of the variance was submitted for the record. Planning Director Peterson related he received no comments.

Mr. Ott related all the neighbors are very much in support of the variance. They all voiced their concerns with the size of the property and their concerns were future development. He is very glad they took the time to contact them and explain the variance. The neighbors are hoping it will be supported and passed.

Member Lewis supported by Member Beahan moved to close the public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was closed.

Vice Chair Casey asked if the property can be split legally. Planning Director Peterson responded there is no problem with that. The only issue is meeting the township requirements for the zoning code.

Member Beahan related from experience, some properties with easements have had problems with maintenance fees, etc. He is leery of relying an easement to solve the problem, especially in residential situations. He believes this to be the minimum variance and feels comfortable in making a motion to recommend granting the variance.

Vice Chair Casey asked if an easement is filed with the County. Planning Director Peterson responded yes, we do require that. The Register of Deeds and Mapping and Description are the authority that records those documents. We have had some issues with easements in the past where people have not wanted to pay for maintenance, plowing, etc.

Member Lewis related if the variance is approved as drawn, both parcels will still share a driveway. We are dealing with a very unique piece of property. The Township did harass this particular owner with widening of the road and cutting the pedestrian path though and moving the driveway wasn't his idea in the first place. Topography in the past has dictated some of the variances that have been granted. Member Lewis related what he is hearing now is the property line can be dictated by topography, and in that case the variance should go forward. The petitions from all the neighbors speak very highly in the applicant's favor and no one is present to complain about the request. Some of the problem was dictated by the township and improvements of the road. That is the unique fact of it.

Member Lewis then moved that the applicant's request for a variance be approved.

Member Beahan supported the motion.

Vice Chair Casey asked for clarification if the new legal description will change the driveway. Mr. Firestone responded no, the new property line will go down the middle of the driveway.

The motion carried.

ARTICLE 6. Any Other Business

Member Beahan related the west side of Brann's restaurant and Days Inn both have banner signs. Planning Director Peterson related letters have gone out on those.

Vice Chair Casey noted the references in the Planning Commission Minutes regarding electronic packets. He does not have a computer and would like to continue receiving a paper packet.

Member Beahan related he has been unable to contact Alternate Member Estes. He has made several attempts and now finds his number disconnected.

Member Lewis asked if he is able to hold an office on the Zoning Board of Appeals as he is a representative from the Planning Commission. Planning Director Peterson responded yes. The only person who can't is our Township Board Representative.

ARTICLE 7. Adjournment

Member Beahan supported by Member Lewis moved to adjourn. The motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 7:50 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Mel Casey, Vice Chair/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

Site Design/Development by