Zoning Board of
Appeals Minutes
MINUTES
Cascade Charter Township Zoning Board of Appeals
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
7:00 pm
ARTICLE 1. Chairman Casey called the meeting to order.
Members Present: Beahan, Casey, Crawley, Lewis, 1st Alternate Neal,
Vaughn.
Members Absent: 2nd Alternate Richards (excused).
Others Present: Planner Deem. Admin. Assistant Thompson and those
listed on Supplement #1.
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 March 8, 2005 meeting were approved
as presented on motion by Member Beahan and supported by Member Neal.
The motion carried.
ARTICLE 4. The Planning Commission Minutes of February 22, 2005 and
March 21, 2005 were received and filed.
ARTICLE 5. Case #05-2711: David Crum
(PUBLIC HEARING)
The applicant requested a variance of eight feet to place a home 17
feet from the rear property line at 3042 Wycliffe Drive.
Planner Deem related the parcel is zoned R2 and is .61 of an acre,
or just over a half acre in size. The applicant is seeking an eight
foot variance for the rear yard to place the house 17 feet from the
rear yard property line. The parcel adjoins the rear of the township
cemetery on the east. The lot was created in 1997 when the Zoning
Board of Appeals granted approval for a platted lot split. Originally
three lots were combined to make two lots. There are five findings of
fact that the Zoning Board of Appeals use to review such requests.
Planner Deem then went through those:
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. Planner Deem related in this case, the conditions can
be found anywhere in the township.
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 an applicant pursuant
to lawfully adopted regulations preceding this Ordinance will not be
considered self-created). One of the reasons for the variance is that
the applicant feels a variance is needed due to an odd shaped lot. In
speaking with the applicant, the shape is due to the location of the
drainfield and septic system for the parcel located on Wycliffe Drive.
3) That such variance is the minimum variance that will make possible
the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. No variance is
needed to make reasonable use. The home could be reoriented or reduced
in size to meet the setback requirements.
4) That the granting of the variance will not be injurious to the
neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. There is
no reason to amend the Zoning Ordinance due to this request. The
neighbor affected the most would be the township cemetery.
5) That the conditions 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. There is no need or
reason in this case to amend the Zoning Ordinance.
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 this
application do not justify the granting of a variance. The previous
five factors are not met due to the fact that the shape of the lot is
user created and not unique.
Planner Deem recommended denial of the request.
The applicant, David Crum of 3148 Plainfield Avenue, was present.
Mr. Crum presented drawings of the site. The first drawing shows where
the house would be placed with a 15 foot reduction in setback. The
house that is shown in dotted lines shows the vision how the neighbors
would see it. The Township requirement for a 25 foot setback would
necessitate slanting the house in such a way it would be even more
visible into the neighbors property than as proposed. Mr. Crum related
he bought and renovated the house on Wycliffe in 1997. He sold it to
the people who wrote the letter in opposition to the variance. It
still allows a lot of room around the three sites. Mr. Crum related he
bought the property thinking it would be for a new home. The Township
requires at least 1,300 s.f. for a home size. The garage would be
about 24 feet from the house. Mr. Crum related he could have used a
different ranch home style. The last sheet on the handout is a survey
of the property. There is a vacated street - Avon - which was given to
the neighbors. He brings these things up because of Staff's statements
and requirements. The property was divided and accepted as a building
lot by the Township. There is a hill behind and up to cemetery. If he
would build a two story house his neighbors would see two stories.
That would be like looking out at a wall behind them. He feels this
design fits better. He does consider the neighbors when designing a
house. Staff gave him a copy of the letter in opposition to the
variance from Mr. Burress. Mr. Crum related he sold the house to Mr.
Burress. He offered to sell the neighbor the property but was not able
to purchase it.
Member Lewis asked is this a two story house? Mr. Crum responded
no, a vaulted ranch.
Member Neal asked how many square feet is the house. Mr. Crum
responded between 1,300 to 1,400 s.f.
Member Beahan asked are you using stock plans or custom built. Mr.
Crum related he found stock plans he liked and manipulated them a
little. He extended one of the bedrooms a little bit. He could make a
22 foot garage as opposed to 24 feet.
Member Beahan asked do you live in the township now. Mr. Crum
responded no.
Member Beahan asked will you live in this house when it is built.
Mr. Crum responded he can't say at this time.
Member Beahan asked is it a spec house. Mr. Crum responded
probably.
Member Beahan asked Mr. Crum if he was aware of limiting the house
when he designed the lot. Mr. Crum responded yes.
Member Beahan related you got a variance to split it before. When
you created that lot, weren't you aware of the limitations of that
lot? Mr. Crum responded yes.
Member Beahan asked why are you asking for a variance when you knew
the size? Mr. Crum responded the purpose of the variance is to turn it
so people won't look at each others areas. Mr. Crum related I can't
afford an architect.
Member Lewis supported by Member Crawley moved to open the public
hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.
Karen MacGregor of 3010 Wycliffe related she has not met this man
and hasn't seen these plans. When we bought our house ~ 1999 knew
house was going to be changing but didn't know about two separate
properties. Didn't know about the bike path either. Would have been
happy to buy part of the lot from you. My yard backs up right next to
yours. Concerned about density and what it is going to do to my
property values. I work in Lowell and wanted to be closer so we moved
here from Standale. Will block view. We like the view and wildlife and
it is convenient. I also took pictures. Part of my concern. Mrs.
MacGregor then presented the pictures.
Member Lewis related I think you should be informed again the
question isn't can he build the house. The question is location of the
house and size of the house. The lot has been split before you bought
your house. It was split to allow a house to be built there. The
question tonight is location.
Mrs. MacGregor related already granted him permission to make this
lot. Been for sale all this time. No buyers for it. Hope you don't
grant the variance.
Mrs. MacGregor related would like to see an architect hired so it
doesn't look like built behind other houses. It can be set so it would
blend in with the surroundings. That is what Frank Lloyd Wright was
all about.
Chairman Casey related that is not in our jurisdiction.
Brian Estates of 7001 Cascade Road related he has been in the
Township over 40 years. He is opposed to the variance. He property
adjoins the property. When we start granting a variance we are going
to have a hodge-podge. Questions an additional drainfield in the area.
The ground is saturated right now. He is not for it. Mr. Crum
responded they did a perk test two times. Five years ago and again for
the variance process.
Thomas Patton is a builder and owner of 7104 - 30th Street. It is a
matter of the drainfield and sewer and he was forced to hook up to the
city sewer with no option which was land exchange. That cost about
$11,000. Why is this new parcel not subject to hooking up to sewer?
Mr. Crum responded there is no sewer and water in the street.
Mr. Patton related he spoke with the neighbors about that matter
and was told many of the neighbors now are on septic and wells and
when they fail they will be forced to hook up to sewer. They would be
adjoining lots. Really I hope nothing goes in there. If this is just
simply a question of how to situate the lot, if you grant him a
variance and allow him to sit the house on far southeast corner of lot
you might get the best appearance. That would appear less dense. In
the interest of the neighborhood would like to see it developed in
most ecological reasonably manner.
Bill Burress of 3024 Wycliffe related he moved into the house and
bought it from Mr. Crum in December of 1999 and did not know that the
lot was split. That was my own fault. I thought it was all one piece.
Even after the closing, I went to him and said you forgot to give us
the key to the shed. That was the first time I found out the property
was split. When I saw it for sale time out and I knew. He was asking
$40,000 for the lot. I don't think that would have affected my moving
but would like to see the best possible use and take time to look at
best place for the house even if it takes hiring an architect. Seems
like the prudent thing to do. No matter how the house sits, it is
going to be looking into somebody's back yard. I would just hope
instead of granting variance take another step and have somebody
really look at the best way to do it.
Chairman Casey asked Mr. Burress when he closed on the house did he
have a survey? Mr. Burress responded he was sure he did. Just wasn't
thinking. It was December and snow all over the ground. Didn't really
pay that much attention. If Mr. Crum put a lot of renovation into the
house it must have really been a wreck.
Planner Deem related he received one call and letter from Mr.
Burress.
Member Lewis supported by Member Beahan moved to close the public
hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was closed.
Member Beahan asked Staff how did they get an out building on the
property without having a residence there. Planner Deem related it was
there before the split occurred.
Member Beahan asked normally isn't that part of the conditions that
it be removed. Planner Deem responded didn't see anything in the old
lot split file noting the accessory building or discussion about it.
Don't know how it got on the parcel by itself. Didn't see anything in
the Minutes about it either.
Chairman Casey asked what about the site plan he presented tonight.
Planner Deem responded asking for a ten foot setback now instead of
eight. The house would be fifteen feet off the rear property line
instead of 25 feet. Eighty two feet is what the township has.
Chairman Casey related the 1997 survey shows 82 feet plus the 22
feet. Chairman Casey asked do we have a current survey. Mr. Crum
responded the survey you have there is the survey we used. Planner
Deem related the minimum lot width is 100 feet.
Mr. Crum asked for two minutes to visit with Mr. Burress. Member
Lewis related that is not an issue. The issue we have is to look at
the ordinance and follow it. Sometimes the result in the township is
favorable and sometimes it doesn't. When this property was split it
met the township requirement. I appreciate the applicant's concern
about visual between himself and the neighbors. Unfortunately that is
not one of the conditions we have to consider. I recognize the fact
that the ~ won't be important. We do have side and rear yard setbacks
and have them for a reason. Whatever we do here might make it
difficult to make reason why it should be done. I can build house on
there with no need for a variance. Having a difficult time for a
reason to support the need for a variance. Don't see any criteria that
would allow me to vote for it.
Member Lewis supported by Member Beahan moved that the request for
an eight foot variance at 3042 Wycliffe be denied for the reasons
given.
Member Vaughn related he agrees with the motion to deny. He stated
he wished it were different but not within our power to do that.
The motion carried.
ARTICLE 6. Case #05-2710: TCF Enterprises
(PUBLIC HEARING)
The applicant requested to have an interpretation of the Meadowbrooke
Business Park PUD ordinance regarding whether a banquet facility is an
allowed use.
Planner Deem related the applicant came in to the Township
requesting to build a banquet facility in the Meadowbrooke PUD.
Banquet facilities were not mentioned in the PUD Ordinance although
restaurants are allowed, fast food restaurants are not. The applicant
is asking to have their banquet facility determined a restaurant.
Chairman Casey related he did not understand the request when he
read the packet.
Planner Deem related the ordinance does not define what a banquet
facility is. The Zoning Ordinance defines a restaurant as: "A
public eating place where food is prepared and sold for immediate
consumption". Staff is having an issue of "public"
portion of the definition. Someone off the street can come in and rent
out the facility but not order a sandwich. The applicants are working
with the hotel to allow guests to purchase a sandwich from the
kitchen. In speaking with the association, they are in favor of having
this use considered a restaurant. If the hotel and banquet facility
were built on the same lot, this use would be allowed by right as a
use incidental to the hotel. Planner Deem then went through the
standards to consider before making an interpretation as found in the
Staff Report.
Planner Deem recommended that the Zoning Board of Appeals find the
banquet facility would be an allowed use for the following reasons: 1)
banquet facilities are allowed in the same zoning districts as
restaurants in the Zoning Ordinance; 2) the Meadowbrooke Business Park
Association supports interpretation that banquet facilities are
restaurants; and 3) when mentioning types of restaurants to exclude
from this project, fast food restaurants were specifically mentioned,
and not banquet facilities.
Chairman Casey related the interpretation needs to be exact as this
could affect the entire Meadowbrooke PUD.
Dan Durr and Jerry Sytsma, the applicants, were present.
Member Lewis asked is there a hotel there now. Planner Deem
responded no, there was one approved a few years ago.
Mr. Sytsma related the banquet facility was attached to the hotel.
Now we got together when purchasing the land and other person is
putting up the hotel but we couldn't connect them together. We have
split the land and closed on it. The hotel person will be going before
the Planning Commission on May 21 for site plan review. The property
was split into lots of about five acres each. The banquet facility
will be right next door to the hotel as a separate banquet facility.
Mr. Sytsma related they sat down with the Meadowbrooke people and
Township Staff and asked what is the most appropriate way to verify
that it is an allowed use. This was determined to be the way to do it.
Member Lewis related we had an interpretation a few years ago with
a car wash and gas station. We determined the car wash was part of the
gas station. Member Lewis related he has a difficult time saying a
banquet facility is a restaurant. He has no problem in saying a
banquet facility should be an approved use.
Member Vaughn related it was approved for a banquet facility by
design.
Member Lewis related a car wash could be split from the gas station
and it is still a car wash. He has no problem with it being there.
Planner Deem related we should focus on definition of restaurant.
Member Beahan asked could I go there at 7:00 pm for dinner. Mr.
Sytsma responded no. You would have to have a reservation. There could
be a case made that a banquet facility is much like a different type
of business style.
Member Lewis asked the applicants if they have a liquor license.
Mr. Sytsma responded yes.
Member Lewis asked could I go in there for a drink? Mr. Sytsma
responded if you rent the facility for a party you could have food and
liquor.
Chairman Casey related the banquet facility allows them to restrict
the hours and clientele.
Member Beahan asked who is TCF Enterprises. Mr. Sytsma responded a
family owned company in the banquet business over the years. The names
are confidential. Dan Durr related they have done many restaurants in
Grand Rapids and are in the banquet business right now.
Member Lewis supported by Member Beahan moved to open the public
hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.
Planner Deem related he received some calls from neighbors in favor
of having it defined as a restaurant.
Member Beahan supported by Member Crawley moved to close the public
hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was closed.
Member Beahan asked what is the reason the applicant is here.
Planner Deem responded the Zoning Board has the responsibility of
determining whether or not they meet the "public" portion of
the definition restaurant definition.
Member Beahan asked if "banquet facility" was
specifically listed in the Meadowbrooke PUD the applicant wouldn't be
here. Planner Deem responded correct.
Mr. Sytsma related the Meadowbrooke people wanted to pursue it this
way.
Planner Deem related another possibility is to consider that this
is a restaurant and have Staff make an amendment to the PUD so we
don't hold up the applicant.
Chairman Casey related an interpretation has to be properly done or
when they try to finance the project they won't have a clear use. We
do want to do it right. Planner Deem related if we consider it a
restaurant there would not be a use issue because it would be a use
allowed by right.
Member Beahan related he is worried about the precedent.
Chairman Casey asked do we have a definition of banquet facility in
the township. Planner Deem responded no. In every zoning district that
we allow a banquet facility we also allow restaurants.
Member Beahan related if we amend the PUD, Meadowbrooke would have
to amend the PUD part of the application. Planner Deem responded
correct.
Mr. Sytsma related outside of the Meadowbrooke PUD we would have
been allowed to do it.
Member Lewis related I think we should look first at the request.
We have to determine whether or not the banquet facility is an allowed
use. Member Lewis related he thinks it is. It is in a PUD next to a
hotel where restaurants are allowed. Member Lewis related he is having
a tough time looking at the banquet facility and saying it is a
restaurant. He does think it is an allowed use.
Member Lewis supported by Member Crawley moved that the
interpretation of banquet facility is an allowed use in the
Meadowbrooke PUD. The motion carried.
ARTICLE 7. Any Other Business
Member Lewis related he would like to discuss term limits. There
has been some movement in that direction. The proposed ordinance
change was given to the Planning Commission. He feels the Zoning Board
of Appeals should be involved also since it also would affect them.
Staff has suggested an ordinance change that says a person can have
three terms on the Zoning Board of Appeals or Planning Commission and
if going between the two boards you would have to stay off for a year.
But, at the end of 18 years you could not serve any more. Member Lewis
related he thinks term limits are wrong. Somewhere along the line it
would seem a person is more important than time. If you perform your
public you duty and you want a reappointment then fine. A person
should not be canned just because of a time frame. In the form of a
compromise, it looks like a person would be allowed three 3 year terms
on each board instead of the present two. There is a feeling that
there are so many people in the township to serve on all these boards
we should open some positions up for them. Every year people are
graduating from different schools in the school of planning. Since
there is an abundance of people graduating from schools of planning,
maybe planners should only be employed for three years. Just because
you have an abundance of people, quality is important. Past history is
also important.
Member Vaughn asked if there was a problem that needed to be fixed.
Member Lewis responded yes because people served their two terms and
we are losing good people.
Member Vaughn related his past zoning board experience was with
Grand Haven Township. He realized after serving four years he was not
ready to be chairman. There were no term limits there.
Member Lewis related it is not automatic that a person would be
appointed to a second term.
Member Neal related he agrees with Member Lewis 100%. There is a
great number of things to learn about the functioning of this board
and other boards. He does not approve of term limits.
Member Crawley related we have to do the job. Somebody who is
willing to serve and does a good job time doesn't seem fair they would
limited in their service.
Member Beahan related he is a Township Board Trustee and got his
start by serving on the Planning Commission and then was appointed to
the Zoning Board of Appeals. There are no term limits for trustee or
supervisor or clerk and treasurer. We need experience and continuity.
If a member is not doing their job at the end of the term, the
supervisor says you are out of there. Member Beahan related there are
a number of Township Board members serving now that are past Zoning
Board and Planning Commission members that have that same feeling of
not being in favor of term limits. He would prefer to see no term
limits instead of serving just two terms.
Chairman Casey asked if a motion is necessary on this issue.
Member Lewis related Member Beahan will report back to the Township
Board. Member Lewis related he will report back to the Planning
Commission.
Chairman Casey related he thought he would like to be on the
Assessing Board of Review and then he got the appointment for Zoning
Board. He related being on Planning Commission first would be very
helpful. The progression from Planning Commission to Zoning Board of
Appeals is logical.
Member Beahan related with regard to the variance request on
Wycliffe tonight, he would be more willing to work with someone if
they were residents of the township and were going to live there. We
have to follow the findings of fact and there was no way to approve
it. In looking at it now, we have an accessory building without a
house. He asked what needs to be done next on that. Planner Deem
related he will look into that. It is possible that it is legal
non-conforming accessory building.
Chairman Casey related trash is there also.
ARTICLE 8. Adjournment
Member Beahan supported by Member Neal moved to adjourn. The motion
carried and the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Jack Lewis, Secretary
JL:MJT
Government
~ Departments ~
Community
Business ~
Reference Desk ~
What's Happening
Help ~
Home ~ Search ~ Site Map
Comments? Feedback? Questions? Click here to send an email.
Site Use Policy
This page last modified
06/08/04.
All information © 2003-2004Cascade Township, Michigan
|
Site
Design/Development by
 |
|
