ZBA minutes 12-10-2003

Don Upp said that according to the plat map, lots 13 and 14 had similar situations and were pushed westerly. He said that some relief is necessary.

Jim Jansma said that the developer had actually created the situation and, therefore, standards seven is not met because the situation is self-created. He said that a couple lots in the plat were marginal and barely met the minimum Township requirements. He said that the house could have been rotated to create a larger buildable area. He said that the setback ran parallel to the property line. He said that lot 13 could also have a problem. He said that these questions had been asked of the developer at the time approval was requested for the plat and the developer was aware that small building envelopes were created.

Dan Lennington asked how old the house was and if the applicant had built the house.

The applicant stated that the house was four years old and he was the one who had the house built. He said that the builder who built the house was also present at the meeting with him now.

Dan Lennington asked if there were any extraordinary circumstances and if the applicant had been aware of the 40 foot setback requirements in the rear.

The applicant said that he had tried to meet the minimum requirements and now, four years later, wanted to build a sunroom.

John Fanthorpe asked if the sunroom would replace the deck and was told that it would. He asked if the proposed dimensions of 12 by 16 feet were necessary for the proposed addition.

The applicant said that he was working with the builder and these were the numbers that they had come up with to meet the size room that was wanted.

Carl DeVree said that the proposed room was bigger than the deck.

The applicant said that maybe a 12 by 10 foot room could be done.

Jim Jansma said that the rear of the house is almost at the end of the buildable area and there was not much room left where anything could be built to retain the 40 foot rear yard setback.

The applicant said that they had two feet.

Jim Jansma said that they were proposing a 12 foot addition and were asking for an 11.5 foot variance, which meant that there was less than one foot available to build while retaining the 40 foot rear yard setback. He said that the house is askew on the lot. He said that the applicant had not submitted a survey, but rather a drawing.

The applicant acknowledged that they had not submitted a survey, but rather a computer drawing with information taken from a survey.

Don Upp said that the drawing indicates that the neighbor’s house is in violation of the ordinance by not having a 40 foot rear yard setback.

The applicant said that he used the survey to pull the neighbors’ houses in.

The planner stated that although it is an unusual lot, the request does not meet the ordinance standards.

The applicant asked what is meant by the spirit of the ordinance and if anyone ever met that standard.

Jim Jansma said that the ZBA was the only board that had the authority to grant a variance. He said that spirit of the ordinance meant fair play and what were the applicant’s good reasons to not obey the ordinance when 35,000 other residents of the Township did obey the ordinance.

The planner stated that the spirit of the ordinance means that there are extraordinary circumstances involved and that it isn’t requested just because they want it.

Jim Jansma said that the developer was warned about the small lots and the small building envelopes. He said that the situation was self-created and that the applicant wants a bigger house than the lot is capable of having. He said that the applicant was asking to have a bigger house than everyone else in the area was permitted to have.

Moved by Dan Lennington, seconded by Carl DeVree, to deny variance (VAR0316) Robert Bosma, 6347 Churchview Ct., to have a rear yard setback of 28.5 feet, a variance of 11.5 feet from the 40 feet required in Chapter 24, in a (LDR) Low Density residential district, on a parcel of land described as P.P.# 70-14-29-201-013, located at 6347 Churchview Ct., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan, because of the following reasons:

1. The request does not meet all the standards of the ordinance.

2. The builder and developer were aware of the plat design that created the situation of the small lots with small building envelopes, making the situation self-created.

3. The house barely fits in the building envelope.

4. The building envelope is a minimum size that barely meets the Township’s minimum setback standards.

5. There are no unusual circumstances relating to the site.

John Fanthorpe stated that all the houses in the area have nice decks that project into the rear yard setback. He said that if this variance is granted for no extraordinary reason, the rest of the property owners could request the same thing and that would be a bad situation. He said that other property owners could want sunrooms the same size of their decks or larger, just like this applicant.

Jim Jansma said that lots 4, 6, 7, and 8 have the same problem. He said that a significant number of lots in the plat have the same problem.

MOTION CARRIED.

#031210-03 – (VAR0317)

American Gas and Oil, Inc., is requesting to have a freestanding sign 37.8 feet from the centerline of Port Sheldon, a variance of 22.2 feet from the 60 feet required in Sec. 25.6(B)(2), in a (CS) Community Service Commercial district, on a parcel of land described as P.P.# 70-14-21-300-079, located at 2805 Port Sheldon, Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan.

Jason Berris, American Gas and Oil, represented the applicant and presented the request. He said that Amoco was re-imaging to BP. He said that the companies merged and wanted a new image. He said that Amoco would be faded out and the signs changed to BP. He said that the freestanding sign is presently located 37.8 feet from the centerline of Port Sheldon. He said that this was a tight area and that whole lot was tight. He said that if the sign were to be moved to the location required by the ordinance, it would be located in the middle of the parking lot and that would be a bad situation because it would interfere with traffic flow. He said that the hardship for the request was that the sign had already been exiting for ten to fifteen years. He said that five to six years ago the road was widened. He said that not much green space remained and power lines were located between the sign and the building. He said that a smaller sign was proposed, going from the existing 115 to 76 square feet. He said that the total signage would decrease. He submitted a picture of the existing freestanding sign and a drawing of the location of the sign on the site in relation to the power lines.

The zoning administrator stated that the building and sign were constructed prior to the adoption of the ordinance that required setbacks to be measured from the extra distances on Port Sheldon and prior to the widening of Port Sheldon. She said that the sign being proposed would decrease the non-conformity because it would be smaller. She stated that although she was not making a recommendation either way, if the ZBA were to grant the variance, a condition could be added that if the road were to be further widened or the sign moved, the applicant would be responsible to pay any costs incurred with moving the sign.

It was noted that it was unlikely that Port Sheldon would be widened further because it is already five lanes in this area. However, 28^th Ave. was scheduled to be widened within the next few years.

The applicant stated that distance from the centerline of 28^th Ave. to the sign was larger than required by the ordinance.

The zoning administrator stated that this measurement would not change even if the road was widened because the distance to the centerline of the road would still remain the same and part of the distance would be pavement. She said that this was the purpose of the new ordinance requirement.

The planner presented her review and stated that the request does not meet standards 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7.

The chairman opened the public hearing. No one was present to speak on this topic. The chairman closed the public hearing.

It was noted that the bank building to the west had been constructed prior to the adoption of the ordinance requiring the extra distance; however, when the bank changed ownership the sign on Port Sheldon was relocated to a spot that meets the ordinance requirements, while the bank sign on 28^th Ave. does not meet ordinance requirements.

Carl DeVree asked if there was any developable land near this site.

It was noted that all the surrounding land has already been developed and no vacant land remained.

John Fanthorpe asked if the power lines were close and was told that they were.

Don Upp said that he had visited the site and other signs were located this same distance from the centerline. He said that this request was similar to variance request VAR0137, which was a request from a dentist on Baldwin who wanted to change a non-conforming sign that had been constructed prior to the adoption of the ordinance and the widening of Baldwin. He said that same problem existed because they had wanted a name change and to meet the ordinance would have had to locate the sign in the middle of the parking lot. He stated that at the time, the planner had said that VAR0137 met all the standards of the ordinance and the variance had been granted. He said that he was surprised that the planner’s comments tonight had been so different. He said that the new smaller sign would actually decrease the non-conformity. He said that the variance for the dentist had been granted and that this was the same situation where the sign would have to be located in a parking lot to meet the ordinance. He said that he normally did not like signs, but was in favor of approving this variance because he thought that the request met the standards of the ordinance.

Dan Lennington asked if there were many pre-existing nonconforming signs and he was told that there were some. He said that the ordinance requiring the extra distance was to provide for the widening of a street and that Port Sheldon had already been widened. He asked the applicant if there were any alternatives other than to put the sign in the parking lot.

The applicant stated that there really were no other alternatives other than to put a bag over the sign. He said that other Townships allow the face of a nonconforming sign to be changed if the structure was not changed. He said that a large part of the gas station business was pricing and that was the lifeline of the business. He said that if the green space had been square rather than triangular and the power lines were not located to the north of the sign, it could be moved. He said that phones were also located in the area where the sign would have to be moved. He said that the area would choke off fast and that people might run into the sign if it was in the parking lot.

Dan Lennington said that he was in favor of granting the variance and he disagreed with the planner’s review. He said that the request does meet the standards of the ordinance. He said that signs were especially important to gas stations for their business and that the applicant would be deprived of a property right if the sign couldn’t be moved.

Jim Jansma stated that the sign would not be permitted to have a display area that blocked the view for cars.

It was noted that even if the variance were to be approve, the applicant would still be required to obtain a sign permit and meet all other aspects of the ordinance including have a minimum of eight feet from the bottom of the sign to the ground.

Moved by John Fanthorpe, seconded by Don Upp, to approve variance (VAR0317) American Gas and Oil, Inc., to have a freestanding sign 37.8 feet from the centerline of Port Sheldon, a variance of 22.2 feet from the 60 feet required in Sec. 25.6(B)(2), in a (CS) Community Service Commercial district, on a parcel of land described as P.P.# 70-14-21-300-079, located at 2805 Port Sheldon, Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan, with the condition that the applicant would be responsible for all costs incurred if the sign would have to be moved in the future, and for the following reasons:

1. The proposed sign is smaller than the existing sign and would decrease the non-conformity.

2. The request meets the seven standards of the ordinance.

3. The variance will be in the public interest and will ensure that the spirit of the ordinance is observed because the sign was pre-existing prior to the adoption of the ordinance that required the new location and prior to the widening of Port Sheldon. It was not their fault that the road was widened and that the ordinance was adopted. It was conforming at the time it was erected and became non-conforming by action taken by the Township.

4. There are practical difficulties in complying with the standards of the ordinance because the relocation of the sign would place it in the middle of a parking lot and could interfere with the power lines.

5. The sign has existed in this location without being detrimental.

6. Granting the variance is necessary for the preservation of a property right because signs are very important to the gas station business. Other business signs in the area are nonconforming as well, and are located the same distance from the centerline of Port Sheldon.

7. A nonconforming structure would be decreased.

8. It was not action of the applicant that required the variance, but rather the action of the Township by adopting the ordinance requiring the extra distance and the Road Commission for widening the street.

MOTION CARRIED.

#031210-04 - Interpretation-Sec. 2.6 Architectural Feature

The zoning administrator presented the following information:

Sec. 28.11(B)(1) gives the ZBA the authority to interpret provisions of the ordinance. In regards to the Building/Zoning Department enforcement of the ordinance, the ZBA was asked to interpret Sec. 2.6 Architectural Features. Bay windows have been interpreted as not having a floor structure.

Chapter 24, footnote (o) allows for projections into yards as follows: Architectural features, as defined, not including vertical projections, may extend or project into a required front yard not more than three feet. An open porch, paved patio, or terrace may project into a required front or rear yard for a distance not to exceed twelve feet.

Architectural features are defined in Sec. 2.6 as: cornices, eaves, gutters, belt courses, sills, lintels, bay windows, chimneys and decorative ornaments.

Bay windows have been interpreted as projections WITHOUT floor area, but rather as a projection, for instance, by a kitchen sink for plants or as a seating area (without a floor structure). This was due to the fact that the setbacks would be preserved from those trying merely to expand a room by circumventing the ordinance.

The dictionary definition of a bay window is a large window or series of windows projecting from the outer wall of a building and forming a recess within.

The question was asked if the definition included siding and wall structure half way up and the windows the rest of the way up, or if the bay window only includes substantially the windows.

The planner presented a review and said that a size limit could be included in the ordinance language.

Don Upp said that he did some research and the word “bay window” was commonly used for both with and without a floor area. He said that the architectural term for “bay window” does not include a floor area and that a bay window with a floor area would be considered to be a “bay” or “bow” or room extension, and not considered to be a bay window.

Dan Lennington said that a bay window would not have a foundation.

Don Upp said that research showed that a bay window would not have a foundation.

Jim Jansma said that a bay would cantilever over the wall foundation, and that a bay window could be anywhere from three up to six or seven feet.

Don Upp said that the bay window in his house was ten feet long.

Jim Jansma said that rim joists could be the foundation. He said that a bay window could be ten feet, but most would be a maximum of eight feet.

The decision was made by the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals to present the information to the Planning Commission and ask them to review amending the ordinance to clarify the issue.

#031210-05 – VAR0117

In 2001, a variance was granted for Harold Rozeveld, 5419 16^th Ave., to have an accessory building in a front yard. The reason was because he had split a large parcel of land, which resulted in his existing house being located on the lot in such a way as to have the accessory building slightly in the front yard. It was noted that since an application was received by the Planning Commission to subdivide this parcel into a plat, the variance would no longer valid because the original parcel would no longer existed after the plat was approved. In addition, the accessory building would not be located in the front yard of the existing house because the house would now front on a new cul de sac.

#031210-06 – Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.