Zoning Board of
Appeals Minutes
MINUTES
Cascade Charter Township Zoning Board of Appeals
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
7:00 p.m.
ARTICLE 1. Vice Chairman Lewis called the meeting to order at 7:00
p.m.
Members Present: Beahan, Casey, Lewis, and 1st Alternate Neal
Members Absent: Vaughn (excused), Crawley (excused), 2nd Alternate
Richards (excused)
Others Present: Planning Director Peterson and members from the
public.
ARTICLE 2. Pledge of Allegiance
ARTICLE 3. Vice-Chairman Lewis requested a motion for approval of
the November 13, 2007 Agenda.
Member Beahan motioned for the approval of the November 13th ZBA
Agenda with support from Member Casey. All were in favor, none
opposed. The motion carried, November 13, 2007 Agenda approved.
ARTICLE 4. Vice-Chairman Lewis requested a motion for approval or
corrections of the October 9, 2007 Meeting Minutes.
He noted a correction to Page 17 in the third paragraph, first
sentence. The sentence should read as: …"school of thought that
says you should not try to improve"… the word "not"
needs to be added as indicated.
No further comments or corrections.
Member Beahan motioned to approve the October 9, 2007 ZBA Meeting
Minutes as corrected, supported by Member Casey. All in favor with
none opposed. October 9, 2007 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes
was approved as corrected.
ARTICLE 5. Case #07-2911: James White
Property Address: 3254 Buttrick SE
(PUBLIC HEARING)
Planning Director Peterson said the Applicant is seeking a variance as
the result of a proposed property split. The property is located on
the East side of Buttrick, approximately halfway between 30th Street
and 36th Street. The Quail Ridge Golf Course surrounds the property.
The Township's regulations limit the number of accessory buildings
based upon parcel size. Right now, the entire property is
approximately 5.5 acres that allows for up to two (2) accessory
buildings. When referring to accessory buildings, the garage is not
included whether it is attached or detached. 5.5 acres would allow for
two (2) accessory buildings and the garage and home.
The Applicant is proposing splitting the property and will leave
approximately 2.29 acres that will include the house. The large barn
that is on the property will be removed. Once the property is split, a
new vacant piece of property would be approximately 3.2 acres in size
and the parcel with the home would be approximately 2.29 acres in size
with seven (7) other buildings.
The buildings the Applicant would like to keep are very small
accessory buildings compared to others in the area. The majority of
the buildings are 200-s.f. or less and the largest is approximately
880-s.f.
Currently the site would be considered non-conforming because of
the number of accessory buildings on the 5.5-acre parcel.
If the variance is approved, the Applicant would still have to
apply for land division.
Looking back, Staff did not find a lot of case history for similar
requests. Typically, other requests that involve this area are because
someone wants to construct another building.
This property was part of a large 80-acre farm that was split in
1992. The split in 1992 is the result of the former owner.
The 2-acre property would only be allowed one (1) accessory
building and the detached garage.
The variance may seem detrimental to some property owners who are
not allowed additional buildings. However, this situation does not
involve the construction of any new buildings and those that will
remain are small in relation to others in the area.
Staff did not find any other similar variances in the past. The
difference between this and others is usually someone is asking to
construct additional buildings rather than keep an old building.
If denied, the Applicant could take down five (5) buildings, not
split the property or ask for a different variance.
Given that the Township is dealing with an existing lot that is
already non-conforming, the fact that the Applicant is removing the
large barn and the only buildings left are very small and the largest
building remaining is 880-s.f. Staff is recommending approval of the
variance to create a new lot allowing the existing parcel at 3254
Buttrick to retain the six (6) accessory buildings and detached garage
provided the buildings do not increase in size and the large barn is
removed before the Township approves the lot split.
There were no questions of Staff by the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA).
Vice-Chairman Lewis invited the Applicant to provide his comments.
Applicant James White of 3254 Buttrick SE clarified that he will be
removing the barn, not demolishing it, and someone from the Historical
Society will begin taking it down in December.
Member Casey asked the Applicant his reason for the property split
and Applicant White said they have been trying to sell the property as
one parcel but it has not sold and he is hoping that by splitting the
parcel they will sell.
Member Beahan asked the Applicant if the Historical Society plans
to rebuild the barn and Applicant White said they would be re-using it
at another location.
Member Beahan motioned to open the Public Hearing, supported by
Member Casey. All in favor with none opposed, the Public Hearing was
opened.
Vice-Chairman Lewis opened the meeting for comments from the
Public. No public comments.
Vice-Chairman Lewis asked Staff if the Township received any
letters or phone calls regarding the case. Planning Director Peterson
said the Township did not receive any comments from the Public.
Member Casey motioned to close the Public Hearing, supported by
Member Beahan. All in favor to close the Public Hearing, with none
opposed. Public Hearing closed.
Vice-Chairman Lewis noted that the property still does not meet
compliance but the Applicant is removing one (1) of the buildings,
this is reducing the size of the variance. He congratulated the
Applicant for the condition of the buildings that are remaining; they
look very nice.
Member Casey's concern is allowing the other out buildings to stay
and noted that new residents may move into the area and see the number
of buildings this applicant owns. He believes that if the condition is
established that no new buildings are allowed nor the replacement of
any of the current buildings on the parcel he would be more
comfortable with the case.
Member Beahan motioned to approve the Applicant's request for a
variance that would allow the property at 3254 Buttrick Ave SE to be
split leaving five (5) accessory buildings on the property with the
condition that:
1) If any of the current accessory buildings are removed or damaged
beyond repair, the Applicant cannot rebuild the building(s).
The motion was supported by Member Casey.
Vice-Chairman Lewis called to question the motion. All in favor
with none opposed; motion carried.
ARTICLE 6. Case # 07-2902: Lakeland Finishing
Property Address: 5400 36th Street SE
(PUBLIC HEARING)
Requested Action: The Applicant is seeking a variance that would allow
an addition to the building that does not meet all of the Township's
landscaping requirements.
Planning Director Peterson said this case does include a couple of
issues regarding the Township's ordinance.
The property is located on the south side of 36th Street just west
of Kraft Avenue.
The Applicant is proposing an addition off to the rear of their
building and the Township's codes require that if an addition is done
of a certain size, the developers is required to upgrade the entire
lot to meet the Township's landscape requirements. This not only
includes plantings around the parameter of the lot but the bufferyard
around the site.
This area is much older than the current regulations and many of
the sites in this area do not conform to the Township's requirements.
Therefore, there are the additional plantings that are required and
the bufferyard itself at 20-feet is also required.
Planning Director Peterson referred to the site plan noting where
the Applicant plans to do the proposed addition to the building. The
east bufferyard is really a continuation of the bufferyard that is
approximately 6-feet wide. This equates to two variances: one for the
additional plantings and one for the 6-foot wide bufferyard.
Staff's report includes a table indicating the number of plantings
required and there is some existing landscaping on the property but it
is not as much as the required plantings. The Applicant also proposes
to place some additional plantings toward the rear of the site. They
have also indicated plantings up near the building but these are not
counted because they are not in the required bufferyards.
Many of the other parcels in this area are non-conforming and in
looking back through past records, Staff found one other similar
landscape variance case that was given a couple of landscaping
variances to construct a building next to an existing building on
Cascade Road.
Given the prevailing conditions of the area, the fact that this lot
does have some existing landscaping, the Applicant is not making the
conditions any worse, and the fact that the Applicant would be
installing new landscaping, Staff would recommend approving the
variance as requested with the condition:
1) The Applicant install additional plantings.
Planning Director Peterson noted that this case has been before the
Planning Commission as well and received approval of the Site Plan
conditioned on the variances being requested.
There were no questions of Staff by the ZBA and Vice-Chairman Lewis
invited the Applicant to add his comments.
Steve Witte of Nederveld was representing the Applicant this
evening along with Ken Pitchford from DVK who is the general
contractor as well as Tom Smith of Lakeland Finishing.
Mr. Witte noted that the existing landscaping in the front of the
property, along 36th Street, is well landscaped. The plantings, though
outside the bufferyard, are against the building and provides a
well-screened area of the building. The building and parking itself
also sits approximately 6-8 feet lower than 36th Street and also
provides screening to those driving by.
The proposed pavement expansion to the south follows the existing
pavement line along the east edge of the property. The need for this
is for the proposed truck docks along the east side of the building
and need the extra room to allow for trucks.
Mr. Witte also indicated there is a fence along the east property
line that is slated and any plantings along the fence line would not
be visible to the adjacent neighbor.
Also, K & R is the property owner to the west and south of this
parcel and they have agreed to do a shared drainage basin and are
comfortable with this Site Plan. K & R may also be doing the site
work for this property.
K & R also has a grade elevation between their property and
Lakeland Finishing's and with K & R's grading revisions,
Lakeland's property will be approximately 8-feet above K & R's.
Vice-Chairman Lewis asked who is responsible for the fence between
Lakeland's property and the east property and Mr. Witte said his
understanding is it belongs to the other property owner.
There were no other questions of the Applicant and Vice-Chairman
Lewis requested a motion to open the Public Hearing.
Member Beahan motioned to open the Public Hearing supported by Member
Neal. Vice-Chairman Lewis called the motion to question. All in favor
with none opposed, the Public Hearing was opened.
Vice-Chairman Lewis asked if the Township received and letters or
phone calls regarding the case. Planning Director Peterson said there
were no letters or phone calls received at the Township.
Vice-Chairman Lewis invited members of the public to approach the
Zoning Board with their comments. No public comments.
Member Beahan motioned to close the Public Hearing supported by
Member Neal. Vice-Chairman Lewis called the motion to question. All in
favor with none opposed, the Public Hearing was closed.
Vice-Chairman Lewis noted there are two (2) issues regarding this
case: one being the number of plantings and the second being the size
of the bufferyard. The side of the building has been maintained and
there is a privacy fence in place. Member Beahan also noted that the
property is set down and this adds to the uniqueness of the property.
Member Beahan motioned to grant the Applicant's request for a
variance to allow them to do the expansion with the limited
landscaping and bufferyard, supported by Member Neal.
Vice-Chairman Lewis opened the meeting for discussion of the
motion, no discussion. All in favor with none opposed. Motion carried.
ARTICLE 7. Case # 07-2906: Eastbrook Development Company
Property Address: Stoneshire Drive
(PUBLIC HEARING)
Requested Action: The Applicant is seeking an appeal from the
Manchester Woods/Stoneshire P.U.D. that requires sidewalks to be
installed within 3-years after the road has been paved.
Planning Director Peterson noted the Township has not done too many
variances of P.U.D.s.
Planning Director Peterson noted the picture of the development and
reminded the Board that this is one (1) project. The Manchester Woods/Stoneshire
was done approximately four (4) years ago and the owner of the project
sold the north half, Stoneshire, to Eastbrook Homes. The P.U.D. does
include both developments but the request is for the Stoneshire side
of the development.
When the project was approved, one of the things the Township
negotiated were sidewalks throughout the development. Planning
Director Peterson noted the sidewalk plans throughout Stoneshire.
Stoneshire has not been fully developed yet with another phase to
occur further to the east of the project. The Manchester Woods/Stoneshire
project was given three (3) years once the roads were paved to install
sidewalks. Planning Director Peterson believes that since Watermark
was given three (3) years for their sidewalks, the three (3) years was
carried over onto this project.
The Township has written letters, included in the Boards' packets,
reminding the Stoneshire developer of the three (3) year requirement
for sidewalks. The Applicant is present this evening and is asking for
the variance due to the decline in the housing market.
The Zoning Board can grant the Applicant's request and Staff has
included the Standards for granting a variance. After reviewing the
Standards, Staff found it difficult to justify granting the variance
and believes this project should go through the process of amending
the P.U.D. as this seems to be more of a negotiation than a variance
aspect, but from Staff's perspective, they could not see where the
Applicant was sighting any unusual circumstances, only sighting the
decline in the residential housing market.
The minimum variance necessary, the Applicant is requesting a three
(3) year extension but could be any amount of years if the ZBA wanted
to grant the variance.
Other developments were required to install sidewalks, however,
Watermark was the only development that was given a required timeline.
Staff would recommend having the Applicant go through the P.U.D.
amendment process but this process takes much longer and the
Applicants have indicated they would like a quick answer to their
request as the amendment process could take up to three (3) months.
The amendment would also include Manchester Woods.
Staff recommends that the variance be denied since no hardship is
demonstrated other than the economic difficulty it represents for the
Applicant.
Vice-Chairman Lewis asked if the three (3) years is written in the
P.U.D. and Planning Director Peterson said he copied the portion of
the P.U.D. reflecting the language in the Boards' packets.
Applicant Ed Pynnonen noted that Manchester Woods has agreed to
install temporary asphalt sidewalks that will be installed and torn
out and recycled and as a business owner, he would like to eliminate
the waste of installing asphalt until the concrete sidewalks are
installed.
He drove through Watermark and took photos that he shared with the
ZBA. The photos depicted homes being built and the condition of the
sidewalk in front of the construction.
Applicant Pynnonen noted that in his development there are three
(3) homes that are occupied out of fourteen that are being constructed
and noted that if he paved along the entire area, he would have to
break the sidewalk as he built the remainder of the homes. There are
not a lot of residents using the sidewalk since not many are in the
homes.
He is asking for the variance to allow time to build more homes and
install the sidewalks as they go and believes the asphalt sidewalks
are wasteful.
Member Casey asked how many of the required homes are built without
the sidewalk and the Applicant said there are none. Member Casey said
he is concerned with the lateness of the Applicant's request since the
winter months are approaching and concrete cannot be poured.
Member Beahan said he supports installing the sidewalks and this
out-weighs the asphalt sidewalks.
Vice-Chairman Lewis' observation with Watermark was that people
were told when they bought the home they would have a sidewalk through
the development and if they were to apply the same thesis for
Stoneshire, some of the residents would have to live there for up to
five (5) years before they have a sidewalk. In this particular case,
it is written in the P.U.D. the residents will have a sidewalk and is
now a legal instrument that has been recorded. Asphalt could be used
to provide the residents a temporary sidewalk since they were told
they would have a sidewalk when purchasing their home. This was an
agreement that was reached three (3) years ago and how long do the
residents have to wait for a sidewalk, do they have to wait until each
house is built before pedestrians can walk through? This is not what
was agreed upon.
Applicant Pynnonen said this is why he is seeking a variance and
does not believe a temporary sidewalk is the solution.
Member Beahan asked the Applicant what he believes would be a
reasonable timeline and Applicant Pynnonen said that a three (3) year
maximum would be reasonable and if the development progressed quickly,
he would complete the sidewalks prior to the three (3) years and
believes most of the homes would be completed by then. He believes if
the three (3) year extension was granted, what homes that were not
built would be a small number and could then justify the asphalt
sidewalk. Member Beahan asked what the total number of years it would
take to complete the sidewalk and Applicant Pynnonen said a total of
five (5) to six (6) years.
Vice-Chairman Lewis asked the Applicant if he built all the homes
in Stoneshire and Applicant Pynnonen said not all of them, one
individual hired another contractor but Eastbrook owns the lots.
Vice-Chairman Lewis asked if there is anything preventing Eastbrook
Development from selling the lots to another developer and Applicant
Pynnonen said that is not their intent but there is not anything that
could stop them if they chose to do so. Applicant Pynnonen said they
could bond the sidewalks if the Township was more comfortable with
that. Vice-Chairman noted that a bond may be reasonable but he does
not favor the Applicant's request for three (3) additional years.
Member Casey motioned to open the Public Hearing supported by
Member Beahan. All in favor to open the Public Hearing with none
opposed. The Public Hearing was opened.
Vice-Chairman Lewis asked Staff if the Township received any
letters or phone calls concerning the case. Planning Director Peterson
said he received a couple of phone calls inquiring but nothing
objectionable.
There were no further Public comments. Vice-Chairman Lewis
requested a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Member Beahan motioned to close the Public Hearing supported by
Member Casey. Vice-Chairman Lewis called the motion to question. All
in favor to close the Public Hearing with none opposed. The Public
Hearing was closed.
Vice-Chairman Lewis opened the meeting for Board discussion.
Member Casey noted that the destruction of the sidewalks is almost
one hundred percent and in this community there are homes that are
supposed to have sidewalks but do not because of conditions. His main
concern is that this is a P.U.D. and should go through the amendment
process and for the ZBA to re-write the P.U.D. is not right. Secondly,
without it being in the P.U.D., if some day these lots were auctioned
off, the Township would have a problem trying to get sidewalks
installed on each one of them. Member Casey acknowledged it is
currently in the P.U.D. and should go through the amendment process in
order to change the timeline.
Planning Director Peterson said that if the P.U.D. were to be
amended, it would first go before the Planning Commission and then to
the Township Board for final approval. The process usually takes three
(3) months.
Members Beahan and Neal both favored amending the P.U.D.
Vice-Chairman Lewis noted that within three (3) months, there will
be snow on the ground and the ZBA could grant a variance for the
period of time from now and until the time the P.U.D. is amended and
Member Casey did not have any opposition to this so the builder would
not end in default. Planning Director Peterson clarified that though
his letter within his report states January 1, 2008, the Township
would actually allow the developer until the spring since that is when
the road was completed in the project. Staff does not believe the
Applicant would be in default until Spring 2008. Member Beahan also
noted that a temporary sidewalk would have to be installed right now
before it gets any colder.
Vice-Chairman noted that if the Applicant were to go through the
amendment process that either the Planning Commission or the Township
Board could deny his request and make him keep his commitment.
Vice-Chairman Lewis also said that another option could be requiring
the bond that would guarantee the sidewalks would be put sometime in
the future as suggested by the developer.
Applicant Pynnonen said that he believes Staff is correct that he
has until Spring to install the sidewalks and believes if he is denied
he would have time to come back to the ZBA. One issue with the
amendment is there is a $3,000 - $4,000 cost involved to obtain
approvals through the various boards. Member Casey noted that the
P.U.D. is a legal document and should be amended by the Planning
Commission. If the lots were to go into auction, the Township would
have a difficult time ensuring the sidewalks were installed. Applicant
Pynnonen said he would agree to posting a bond, thus guaranteeing the
finances to install the sidewalks if the properties were auctioned
Member Casey said the Applicant currently did not have a bond and
Applicant Pynnonen said that by spring he could have a legal agreement
in place along with the bond and if those two (2) items were not
presented to the Township by spring, he would install the sidewalks.
Planning Director Peterson agrees with obtaining a bond if granting an
exception and also has the language of the variance reviewed by the
Township's Attorney to ensure the proper language is in the document
so there is not a problem during the time of the allowed extension.
Member Beahan asked how much the bond would have to be for and
Applicant Pynnonen said the sidewalk is 5-feet wide and is
approximately $10 per lineal foot. Planning Director Peterson said the
Township's Engineer would need to measure the length.
Applicant Pynnonen said he would not object if the Zoning Board
tabled his request so they may consult with the Township Engineer.
Member Beahan asked Staff for their thoughts regarding the variance
for the P.U.D. and Planning Director Peterson said that Staff could
not justify the variance after reviewing the Standards; it was a
negotiated aspect of the P.U.D.
Vice-Chairman Lewis said it could be left for the Applicant to
decide which path he would like to pursue. Applicant Pynnonen said
that the costs of going before the Planning Commission would be
approximately $3,000 and he would have to review his finances.
Planning Director Peterson said the cost for coming before the ZBA is
$500 and the meetings could add cost, not as much as $3,000 but it
could add up.
Member Casey motioned that the Zoning Board of Appeals reject the
Applicant's request for a variance on the construction of sidewalks on
Stoneshire Drive and recommends the Applicant pursue the P.U.D. be
amended, supported by Member Neal.
Vice-Chairman Lewis opened the meeting for discussion of the
motion.
Member Beahan supported the motion since Staff recommended amending
the P.U.D.
Vice-Chairman Lewis called the motion to question. All in favor
with none opposed. Motion carried.
ARTICLE 8. Any Other Business
Vice-Chairman Lewis opened the meeting for any other business.
ARTICLE 9. Adjournment
Member Beahan supported by Alternate Neal moved to adjourn. The motion
carried and the meeting was adjourned at 8:22 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jack Lewis, Vice-Chairman/Secretary
Lisa Hern, Recording Secretary
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
 |
|
