MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE GEORGETOWN CHARTER TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD JANUARY 12, 2005

The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Daniel Lennington.

Members Present: Daniel Lennington (chairman), John Fanthorpe, Greg Honderd, Don Upp, Joyce Weise

Members Absent: none

Others Present: Paul LeBlanc, Consultant from Langworthy, Strader, LeBlanc, Inc.,

Craig Noland, special legal council for the Township, Mannette Minier, secretary and Zoning Administrator, and the applicants

#050112-01 - (VAR0211)

Great Lakes Society, 7277 40^th Ave., is appealing the Zoning Administrator's decision/interpretation that the proposal in the special use permit application (SUP0204) (including subsequent submissions) is not a church for zoning purposes, under Sec. 28.10, in a (LDR) Low Density Residential district, on a parcel of land described as P.P.# 70-14-18-400-043, located at 7277 40^th Ave., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan.

The chairman stated the following. In 2002, Great Lakes Society filed an application for a Special Use Permit to construct a building that it designated as a “church and parsonage site” at 7277 40^th Avenue, which is a Low Density Residential District. Under Section 8.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, a church building must obtain a Special Use Permit to be allowed in a Low Density Residential District.

On May 8, 2002, the Zoning Administrator made the determination that the proposed building was not a church for zoning purposes, and therefore ineligible for a Special Use Permit. Great Lakes Society appealed the decision to the Zoning Board of Appeals. After public hearings on the matter, on July 24, 2002, the ZBA upheld the decision of the Zoning Administrator that the proposed building was not a church for zoning purposes.

Great Lakes Society then filed an appeal with the Ottawa County Circuit Court. On June 3, 2004, Judge Bosman ordered that the matter be sent back to the ZBA. In his opinion, the Court ordered the ZBA to examine the principal use of the proposed building. The Court ruled that for the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance, a “church” is a building set apart whose principal use is for public worship.

Therefore, tonight the ZBA will hear from the applicant concerning the principal use of the proposed building in an effort to determine whether the proposed building is a “church” for zoning purposes.

John Karafa, McNeil Karafa Baty & Saunders, lawyer representing the applicant Great Lakes Society, presented the request. He stated the following. He has represented GLS since July 2002. They were not going to review and revisit the substantial documents that have been generated during the course of the last couple years. It is up to the court, and he and Craig Noland have a stipulated record with 58 exhibits. This is to be supplemental to the proceedings.

The chairman said that Judge Bosman remanded the issue to the ZBA to fortify the facts and this was a new board that would explore the principal use of the proposed building. He said that they would question the uses and take public comments.

John Karafa acknowledged the record.

The chairman said that it has been provided.

John Karafa said that in addition to the record supplemental information had been provided with the mission articles and other documents with twenty-one affidavits, all notarized. He said that this represents supplemental materials to fortify the record.

The chairman opened the floor to public comments and said the following. Before making comments, please stand, state your name and address, and direct all comments to the Chair. Once the public hearing is closed, comments from the public will not be allowed. He reminded members of the public that the issue before the ZBA at this point was solely whether the proposed building is to be used as a church for zoning purposes. A church for zoning purposes is a building whose principal use is public worship. Comments on this matter were to be directed to the Chair. He noted that he would also accept public comments on the second item of business, which is the Great Lakes Society’s application for a variance from the requirement that it have 200 feet of frontage.

David Anderson, 2954 Vista View Ct. NW, City of Walker, stated the following. He has been a member of GLS for ten to twelve years and could answer questions because he knows what they do and he knows John Cheetham. He worships on a weekly or monthly basis and does not attend every week, but does when he is able. The group usually gets together weekly for the purpose of worship and the public is invited. They are sensitive to fragrances and need special accommodations. They rent space from St. Cecelia’s in the lower level, but it is not adequate and they need cleaner space. They need a place to meet as a group to worship freely together. They worship, council and pray. They are Christians following the New Testament. They believe in prime doctrine and John Cheetham and Tim DeYoung are dedicated. He has spent many hours with them and has testified so in affidavits and to the purpose of the building. It is right that they should build a building like any church. The last board denied them and it is illegal and they were denied their civil rights to worship freely. Several other members were present, but not all who are members were present. The purpose of the building would be addressed. They participate in meetings. They designed the building for privacy and to accommodate a fragrance free structure for members and to worship. They can’t have a building like other churches and can only have certain types of construction. They want to expand the ministry to those who want to worship and want help in their personal lives and want to become fragrance free. They gave a lot of thought as to how the building should be laid out. This was not like other churches. There is no other purpose. This is not a store on 40^th Ave. and not on six acres and not in an area that can’t be seen. He has been an attorney for 25 years and has been involved in financial issues. He would not support the building if it was for anything other than a church. He has heard the allegations and has argued with Mr. Bloom and has not been able to get through. They don’t want a store, market or warehouse and there would be no customers. They are a Christian movement with a unique ministry, unique needs and unique services. He has heard the arguments and has been to a lot of other churches. This is not a warehouse for people to sit in, but has a lot of spaces and many rooms. He said that other churches have stores, gift shops, offices, libraries, video rooms, equipment rooms, gymnasiums and daycare centers. Many of the churches resell portions to daycares and there are no problems. He has no problem with the daycares. The problem with the Township is the argument or idea that this is something different and it takes space and doesn’t look like a church. They are discriminated against and this is what they need and are entitled to. They are not asking for anything other than what any other church has.

Mary Boone, 4360 Wimbleton Dr., Grandville, said that she supported everything David Anderson said. She said that she has known John Cheetham since the 1970’s and he has been a minister who supported her.

The chairman read a letter dated December 27, 2004 from Louise and Larry Randall in opposition to the construction.

Moved by Don Upp, seconded by Joyce Weise, to accept the letter for informational purposes.

MOTION CARRIED.

The chairman adjourned the public comments to be reopened if necessary.

The chairman said that they would ask questions for fact-finding purposes and discuss additional factors. He said that the judge instructed the ZBA to look at new factors. He said that he looked at the material and the circuit court identified five different uses including worship, counseling, food bank/nutritional uses, ministerial uses and youth ministry. He said their main goal is to interpret and understand and they would ask questions. He asked about the worship services and how often the worship services would be conducted. He said that they had gotten a letter from Mr. Cheetham and they have information from the deposition and testimony. He said they needed to understand and examine the uses. He said that Mr. Cheetham says that the principal use is worship and he asked how often the worship services would be held.

John Karafa said that the answer was in the record including a description of the worship services at St. Cecelia’s.

The chairman asked what the purpose is and how often the services were conducted.

John Karafa said that the judge identified seven factors that were immaterial that the Township set up as its basis and that supported the zoning administrator’s determination that this was not a church. He said that the judge found those reasons immaterial.

The chairman said that this was a new factor, a new item that was not part of the seven factors. He asked about the worship use. He said that on page 9 is says what is to be the principal use of the building. He asked where the various ministries would be located and how often services would be held. He said that they had to be convinced of the use and they had to be persuaded with fact-based information.

John Karafa said that they did not have to persuade because it is all stipulated in the record and in all the documents. He said that worship was discussed at great length in all the documents and it could be reviewed.

The chairman said that if the questions were not answered they would not have the opportunity to fortify the record with material facts.

John Karafa asked if he wanted to know the number of people who walk to the church for the purpose of worship.

The chairman said how often.

John Karafa said on Sundays.

The chairman asked how many members worship.

John Karafa said that twenty-six members were prepared to attend and have been. He said that there would be more in different circumstances due to chemical sensitivity and they were waiting.

The chairman asked if there are twenty-five to thirty currently worshiping at St. Cecelia’s and when the location changed would it change the make-up. He asked if it would be the same if they had to come twenty minutes.

David Anderson said that it would be the same or more.

The chairman asked if a maximum of sixty could come before the air was contaminated. He asked approximately when they historically started holding services.

John Karafa said February 1974.

The chairman asked about counseling. He said in the May 15, 2002 letter it says that they would have 1600 square feet of space devoted to counseling. He said that the site plan has nothing to do with counseling. He asked for an explanation of the discrepancy.

Due to confusion by the applicant and his representatives Craig Noland said that it was exhibit 14C.

The chairman read part of the letter in regards to the space to be dedicated to counseling. He said that uses were detailed on the map such as training, publishing and recording, but not counseling.

John Cheetham said that the letter was written in response to the statement that this was not a church. He said that there was some anxiety to get something explained. He said that it was a collective and broad term, not to indicate counseling in one space. He said that he hasn’t familiar with exactly what was written because he hasn’t read the letter recently.

The chairman said that the applicant had proposed counseling.

John Cheetham said that it was meant as group counseling, youth counseling or ministerial training. He said that he had to project what would be needed in the next 50 years and it was difficult to project something that would outlive him. He said that they wanted the building to have security and be strong and to last 50 years and he would be dead by then. He said that they had projected what it mostly would look like and develop the reason for the question.

The chairman said that the specific plans say counseling. He asked if the applicant was licensed by the stated and if he charged an hourly rate.

John Cheetham said that he could counsel because he was a minister and he counseled for no charge.

The chairman asked if the DeYoungs had been charged.

John Cheetham said that it as untrue and it had been a donation. He said that the funds had been returned when it was discovered that it was not a donation.

The chairman said that the counseling was integrated.

John Karafa said that at the GLS services Pastor Cheetham and Pastor DeYoung counseled, including for personal lives, mental or other issues. He said it was just like other churches that have youth groups and the leaders talk to families about struggles. He said that he was flabbergasted that the questioned had been asked and that if this is counseling that it should be licensed.

The chairman said that he was asking the question because they were ordered by the court. He said that they were not attacking, but rather were fact finding. He said that he read about counseling in the record.

John Karafa said that they had seen the affidavits.

The chairman said that they were not making a judgment, but were getting the facts.

Joyce Weise said that they had a very large and important job and were asking questions to help make the decision. She asked that the applicants bear with them. She said that she spent hours reading the material and still had questions. She asked that the applicants bear with them and help them.

John Karafa said that he was not prepared and thought that they had gone over all of this before. He said that they had previously set out their best case and their special use permit was rejected. He said that the judge had said that the seven points were not material. He said that they had to supplement the extensive record. He questioned the old stuff and long-discussed affidavits. He said that they were back to the same questions and it was a waste of time.

The chairman said that he would ask the questions quickly and he asked the attorney to read the opinion.

Craig Noland said that the record does include 58 exhibits and in a few of the documents the applicant describes the proposed uses, including pubic worship. He said that letters of May 15 and June 17, 2002 were exhibit 28. He said that the floor plans provided were dated September 16, 2002, exhibit 45. He said that they could see that the materials had discrepancies with the proposed uses. He said that those were being examined at the direction of the court.

The chairman asked about the tape and publications and asked that the ministry be described, including what goes on with it.

John Karafa said to respond to Craig, he didn’t study the record and this was the supplemental process. He said that the court was asking to remand this after the determination was made about the material He said that they were to address what might be beyond those that were addressed. He said that they visited those extensively and were immaterial. He said that this was a chance to fortify the record.

The chairman said that he had not mentioned the seven immaterial items, but rather was asking about the tape and publication ministry, in a 13 by 20 foot room.

John Cheetham said that the equipment was for copying tapes and he did not know how it grew. He said that the tapes were popular spiritual messages. He said that they have distributed thousands publicly and privately. He said that it takes equipment. He said that it was not different from other churches like Fair Haven and most other churches. He said that they labeled the room and it would not be used exclusively. He said that he can’t predictably say. He said that now it was in a six square foot room and now was a small occupation. He said that they tended to publish recently and mostly messages made at St. Cecelia’s.

The chairman said that the information was helpful and he asked bout the ministerial training.

John Cheetham said that it was a projection and that he would not live forever. He said that he would be gone in 50 years and needed someone trained. He said that it takes a long time. He said that he had trained one person, Mr. DeYoung, since 1974.

The chairman asked about the garage.

John Cheetham said that the building can be occupied if there is a security problem in the parsonage. He said that he has neighbor problems. He said that it could be used by a visiting pastor. He said that it was consistent with the development in this community. He said that they could invite a minister to speak and it could be temporary overnight housing. He said that the two stalls were not for storing food.

The chairman asked about the driveway and the shape of the parking lot. He asked if trucks were allowed and he asked about truck traffic.

John Cheetham said that the principal use was for people to turn around and it was easier for trucks. He said that there were UPS deliveries and will remain the same as it is. He said that this will allow vehicles to turn around and the existing people appreciate it.

The chairman asked about the youth ministry mentioned in the May 22, 2002 document and not mentioned in the June one, and now allocated a significant portion on the plan. He asked how many youths there were.

John Cheetham said that there were two, but the purpose was to allow for additional. He said that it should have been labeled a multi purpose room. He said that they expected to have weddings and funerals. He said that they wanted to have closed circuit televisions for people not able to meet with 30 or 60 others, and the overflow for special meetings. He said that they wanted a recreational area for youth and they conceivably would need it in the future. He said that it was a projection.

The chairman said that it was concern that it was a hodgepodge with uses relating to nutritional, health, beauty care, lotion and a food coop. He asked if the nutritional use, food coop and hygiene related products would be located in the building.

John Cheetham said that he had no idea was a food coop was and just used the word for the State of Michigan for the exemption. He said that they do not sell and do not provide to the general public. He said that it was on a donation basis. He said that the members know their needs and fax their list, and GLS supplies their needs. He said that some people are chemically sensitive and are cut off from worship and society and it is a burden to go to the store. He said that it is difficult to find fragrance-free products. He said that this requires special efforts.

The chairman asked if all of those uses would be in the building.

John Cheetham said that it is possible within the next 50 years, otherwise they would be in the parsonage which is where they are now.

The chairman said that he was concerned with the donations listed as $98,000.

John Cheetham said that it was higher in 2001.

The chairman asked if the food establishment had a license as a nonprofit cooperative. He said that GLS went by several names and they sounded like business uses and not public worship. He said that he found them on the website. He said that one ad said that the nutritional “office” was dedicated to helping with nutritional needs and was located at 7277 40^th Ave. He said that this information is important to the use of the building. He said that this was substantial advertisement.

John Cheetham said that it was not and the principle reason for the assumed names as that he was able to secure certain products. He said that he called the state and they recommended that he use different names. He said that this was the same reason that he used the word “co-op.” He said that he called the state and they told him to write “co-op” because it was the key word to use in the exemption.

The chairman said that the uses then were basically purchasing all sorts of things including respirations, dish soap, orange juice, olives, and if people are interested they get these things from GLS and give donations. He asked if this would be the use at the proposed building.

John Cheetham said that he did not know who the authors were for the advertisements on the websites and that the advertisements keep popping up.

The chairman said that he would take his word if he said that he did not write the ads.

John Karafa said that there were several affidavits from church members detailing some challenges of going to the store and we take it for granted. He said that these detailed challenges describe how a chemically sensitive person would be exhausted when they get to the store and be incapacitated with headaches. He said that this is an extension of the ministry and people call ahead and have a friendly environment.

The chairman said that a very important part of the ministry is to help people with the disability of chemical sensitivity to products and food.

John Karafa said that the purpose is to help the chemically sensitive and enable them to worship, and this is an extension of the ministry.

David Anderson said that he would provide more personal matters and he would let the ZBA know what their beliefs are.

The chairman said that they did not want to know beliefs and that they only wanted to know the use of the building.

David Anderson said that it might help to know what they believe. He said that they assume that what they eat and breathe is an integral point of what they believe and they pray for protection.

The chairman said that the public comment part of the meeting was closed and the ZBA was not interested in beliefs.

Joyce Weise said that she lives in Hudsonville and has heard about many different ministries. She said that she had not heard of GLS before this and GLS was brand new to her. She asked how she could find out about them if she was chemically sensitive.

John Cheetham said that at the moment it was by word of mouth because their current building was not suitable and if they advertised it would be unsuitable for people to come. He said that if they were open to the public, they would think why they were there if this was supposed to be for chemically sensitive people.

Joyce Weise said that she was looking at it in the light as if she has had problems and needs help. She said that there were ten people who were out-of-state who submitted notarized affidavits, including those from Florida, Georgia, Wisconsin, Indiana and Illinois.

John Cheetham said that there were many in-state and the reason they were added in was because they had not had their piece and some had moved.

Joyce Weise said that she was trying to find out how she would get help from GLS if she was chemically sensitive.

John Cheetham said that they intend to advertise after their building is built and that they give their name out to organizations that they work with in Holland or Grand Rapids. He said that he gives his name out whenever he sees an article in the Press about allergies and chemical sensitivities and he recently called Hope Network in regards to an article in the Saturday, January 8, 2005 edition.

Joyce Weise said that she has always sought help when needed and was surprised that she had not heard of GLS before. She said that she also did research and could find nothing on GLS.

John Cheetham said that they had put all of their efforts towards the building. He said that they had tried advertising in different dimensions and it does not work well. He said that they advertised in the Readers Digest and the responses were not what they wanted. He said that if they advertised in the paper they would have to be constantly available and it costs a lot of money.

Joyce Weise said that there were a lot of people who submitted affidavits that were from out-of-state and she asked how they heard of GLS and if they knew John Cheetham before.

John Cheetham said that some did know him before, some heard from word-of-mouth and some heard from the tape ministry. He said that they obtained the tapes as a result of advertising in the early 1980’s and they tried to reach out to people. He said that he believed it was in the Readers Digest in 1996.

Joyce Weise asked if they met at St. Cecelia’s downtown and was told yes. She noted a ten-dollar church also is located downtown and that some of the documents indicated that people who come to GLS’s services are impoverished or homeless. She asked why the location in Georgetown Township was important when GLS had quite a ministry in the downtown area.

John Cheetham said that there are multiple reasons, including the fact that people are scattered all over not necessarily just in Kent County and they were just trying to pick a central location. He said that it now has become a cost issue because the land is donated and to get suitable land elsewhere would probably cost a lot of money.

Joyce Weise asked and was told that yes, the reason GLS was trying hard to be located at this site was due to hardship. She said that the affidavits mention donations of $200,000 and of $25,000 per year towards the building fund and there could be other land that could be purchased that would meet their needs. She said that she has seen churches built that start out with what they can afford. She said that she wanted to understand why this land was so important.

John Cheetham said that there were some factors involved and that Mr. DeHahn might not donate anything. He said that the difficulty is the cost of the building because it is specialized and that a lot of effort must go into the design and construction. He said that the land was one burden that they did not have to spend money on. He said that they had expenses with filtration and heating system. He said that there is no way they could meet the present budget.

John Karafa said that the process has taken so long and that her observation is that the money is there and is going to be there and that is not necessarily the case. He said that with the process dragging on and causing some serious dis-inspirational affect, there is a beaten down affect and it is difficult for people to continue to contribute. He said that when they have a home GLS can reach out through advertising to the innumerable people who are physically introverted and that at that time there would be more opportunity to receive funds on a more continuous basis.

Joyce Weise said that the organization could grow and she wanted to understand why this piece of property was so key. She asked what would happen when they pass the 60 member point, maybe get to 2000 members, and the building is not sufficient.

John Cheetham said that they can not possibly accommodate 2000 people and that they would set an example with a model that future members could use to expand if they were not allowed to expand for any number of reasons such as the building is not big enough, or the ZBA says no, or the Planning Commission says no. He said that the members would have to collectively come together to use the model and fund an additional facility somewhere else to build a second congregation. He said that this is intended to be a model and in the future the expanded membership would be able to fund the next one.

Joyce Weise asked if GLS hoped to expand the ministry and have other locations with the ministerial training and classes they offered.

John Cheetham said that he could not predict it but he doesn’t think that there is an inherent risk to the neighborhood in terms of what they were doing and that this is a model not intended to be the final statement on this issue.

Greg Honderd asked what the maximum number of trucks and delivery vehicles that they anticipated in a day.

John Cheetham said probably about the same and that if the membership was larger the size of the packages would just be larger.

Greg Honderd asked what the number was.

John Cheetham said that the number is already stated on the record and is about one to two a week.

Greg Honderd clarified that the answer was one to two per week and he asked about the hours.

John Cheetham said that it may be zero one week and maybe three the next.

Greg Honderd clarified that the answer was now a maximum of three vehicles per week for deliveries.

John Cheetham said not at one time and that he was talking about averages because he could not really predict exactly what it would be.

John Karafa asked if he was talking about Fed Ex vans and those kinds of things.

Greg Honderd said that he meant delivery vehicles including pick-ups.

John Cheetham said that he would say a maximum of three.

Greg Honderd asked if he meant a maximum of three deliveries per week.

John Cheetham asked if he was going to come back to him if it is four one week and zero the next.

Greg Honderd asked if he would be comfortable saying a maximum of ten deliveries per week.

John Cheetham said that he would not be happy about it and that it was being inflated.

Greg Honderd said that first John Cheetham said one and then he said three.

John Cheetham said that he was trying to provide an average and that Greg Honderd did not like the average.

Dan Lennington said that the question is what was the maximum amount.

Greg Honderd said that he was trying to get at the fact that when they look at a special use permit they look at compatibility or what impact the use would have on the neighbors.

John Cheetham said that the neighbor gets five FedEx trucks a week, one per day, and that their record is nothing like that, so he said like ordinary residential expectations.

Greg Honderd asked what the hours were that the trucks came.

John Cheetham said that the trucks come early in the morning and sometimes in the evening usually no later than 6:00. He said that UPS has two deliveries, sometimes in the morning and sometimes in the evening, but generally in the morning when people are not around.

John Fanthorpe asked if there would be a maximum of 60 members or 60 families that would be worshiping at the church and was told 60 members. He asked if they would be able to financially support the ministry, the building and the upkeep of the building.

John Cheetham said that they were going to make the building energy-efficient, which is important with chemical sensitivity, and to build it with good materials to minimize the burden on members for repairs. He said that their financial goal was to raise the funds before the building was started so there would be no burden of a heavy mortgage and that it would be nice to invite new members and say the building fund is complete.

John Fanthorpe said that he was concerned because filtration systems were expensive and he wanted to be sure that the building would be able to be kept up with expenses with only 60 members.

John Cheetham said that they would not make the commitment unless there was sufficient membership and that is the reason they want to keep expenses down. He said that they would also use volunteer efforts as with other churches and they would save on the cost of utilities.

Don Upp said that most of his questions had already been answered and that he was the only one previously on the Board to have heard the questions before. He said that it was much easier to look at this with a floor plan and there had not been one previously. He thanked Mr. Anderson for staying with the subject when giving his comments. He said that religious philosophy of their teachings has never been an issue and they never questioned whether GLS was a religious organization despite what was in the papers. He said that they were just strictly looking at the building.

John Cheetham said that he tried to also.

Craig Noland stated as a point of clarification that it was his understanding that no plans had been submitted to the ZBA when the applicant was before the ZBA the first time. He asked if the plans were prepared after the ZBA decision in July of 2002.

John Karafa asked what he was referring to when he said plan.

Craig Noland said that he meant a floor plan.

John Cheetham said that the judge interpreted a floor plan from the May 15^th letter.

Craig Noland said that he was confused about this issue and asked if the terms of the May 15^th letter that describes the use of the building are the same thing as the floor plans that were supplied to the board.

John Karafa said that according to the procedural history it never got to the Planning Commission because it was preempted by the zoning administrator and there was no obligation to present the plan.

Dan Lennington said that he understood that John Karafa was making a speech for the benefit of the audience and he said that the question was: is the description provided to the ZBA the same as the plans that were later provided in this matter and has the anticipated use of the building changed or has it always been the same.

Craig Noland asked again if the description was the same as the plans presented and if the uses have changed or are the same.

John Cheetham said that it has always been the same.

Craig Noland said that during the course of the meeting reference was made to the record and matters that were generated by the discovery proceedings in court but were not yet a part of the ZBA records. He recommended that the record before the ZBA be expanded to include the items that were referenced earlier, including the Responses to Interrogatories provided by GLS, specifically interrogatory number 8 where Mr. Cheetham had an opportunity to describe the counseling ministry as it was described to the ZBA in the letter of May 15, 2002. He asked that the record also include the financial report of the GLS which was provided in response to bate’s stamp number of 00126 and it shows various donations for health ministry and tape ministry and such. He asked that the record be supplemented to include interrogatory number 29 which is plaintiff’s answers to interrogatories where GLS described the health ministry. He asked that those same interrogatory answers be included, which are the invoices of products that were including in the health ministry, invoices of 2002 and 2003, exhibit L to the interrogator answers, including some products that were mentioned earlier in the meeting. He asked that the record be supplemented to include the food establishment license application, which is exhibit L to the answers to interrogatories, and to include the health minister reports showing the amount of ministry donations for the health ministry 1999 to 2002. He pointed out for the record that to the extent that these documents reflect the anticipated use as described tonight through these questions that it also be a part of the record and part of the consideration. He asked the ZBA to expand the record to include the description of the health ministry as provided by Mr. Cheetham in his deposition pages 70 to 75. He asked that they also include a document regarding the counseling ministry, titled confidential agreement disclaimer and acknowledgement and release, which is exhibit 58 from a deposition of Harold DeYoung and that it be offered again as part of the record for purposes of illustrating the use of the counseling ministry. He asked that the record also include the affidavit of Harold and Anna Mae DeYoung to the extent that it addresses the use of a counseling ministry.

Craig Noland recommended that GLS be given time to address what has come up at the meeting and that the item be tabled for a limited period of time due to the importance of the decision.

Dan Lennington asked if it would be appropriate to expand the record to include the comments of Mr. Cheetham, comments of the public, and comments of counsel.

Craig Noland said that a very qualified court reported was recording the proceeding and it would be appropriate that the transcript of the entire proceeding be included as part of the supplemental record.

John Karafa asked if there was an invitation to supplement the record further for some period of time.

Craig Noland said that it was a thought he had and that the documents would be appropriate to supplement.

Moved by Greg Honderd, seconded by Joyce, to include in the record documents referenced by Mr. Noland, including the transcript of this meeting.

Joyce Weise asked for a clarification if they would have a chance to read this information over and Craig Noland answered yes.

Greg Honderd said that it was common sense to him.

There was discussion regarding the court reporter, the transcript, who would pay and if it was available for the record.

John Karafa asked if they would have some time to supplement the record in order to balance out the record. He said that it would give him the opportunity to see if there would be something that would benefit the board.

The decision was made that they would have two weeks to supplement the record.

Moved by Greg Honderd, seconded by Joyce Weise, to amend the motion to include the stipulation that GLS would have two weeks to supplement the record for the ZBA.

MOTION CARRIED AS AMENDED.

In response to the chairman’s question for a recommendation, Paul LeBlanc stated that he agrees with counsel that given the amount of information presented plus what would be forthcoming, the item should be tabled to give everybody time.

Moved by Joyce Weise, seconded by Greg Honderd, to table the issue.

MOTION CARRIED.

A recess was taken from 9:00 p.m. until 9:07.

#050112-02 – Variance Request

The Zoning Board of Appeals will also consider a variance for Great Lakes Society, 7277 40^th Ave., from Sec. 20.4(E) that requires a church in a residential district to be located such that at least one property line has a minimum width of 200 feet that abuts and has access to a collector, major arterial, or minor arterial street. The variance would allow a church in a residential district to have only sixty-six (66) feet of width that abuts and has access to a collector, major arterial, or minor arterial street, with is a variance of 134 feet from the 200 feet required in Sec. 20.4(E), in a (LDR) Low Density Residential district, on a parcel of land described as P.P.# 70-14-18-400-043, located at 7277 40^th Ave., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan

The chairman explained the request.

John Karafa represented the applicant and presented the request. He stated that the application was submitted responding to the criteria requested of the applicant. He stated that the reason for the variance was not necessary, not existent and immaterial on the date of the initial application and that there was no ordinance that created any issue or need to seek a variance. He said that if there is a need for a variance, it arose from an amended ordinance to Section 20.4(E), which changed the frontage requirement. He said that well into the case, beyond the ZBA and up to Circuit Court, and while the action was pending, he believed that it was at this point when they were awaiting the assignments of briefs and oral arguments, when the Township amended the ordinance to require 200 feet of frontage which objectively knocked GLS out of the water. He said that they filed the application for the variance for that reason and all of the factors can be linked to that procedural history.

John Karafa said that they have made statements in response to the factors in the applications and that the variance should not be intended or construed as any waiver of claim, cause of action, or demand of any kind. He said that the application has been submitted as a matter of technical formality and they tried to address the factors 1-7, and that the ordinance would be upheld and no detrimental effects to the public if granted. He said that the site plan would serve the public and is a specific committed use in a low density residential district. He said that it would not permit the establishment of any use that is prohibited, and that there has been an inquiry of the applicant in regard to practical difficulty. He said that the whole thing started in January of 2002 and that it must have been during the development of the brief and prior to oral argument for the Circuit Court that the Township amended the ordinance to require a minimum lot width of 200 feet abutting a collector, major arterial, or minor street. He said that this is the practical difficulty and that adjacent properties will not suffer from detrimental effects. He said that he thinks the board has gone through the record and that the record has evidence of GLS’s efforts and considerations for accommodating the character of the neighborhood, the grounds surrounding the property, preserving the trees, and getting a wetlands permit. He said that the state has granted a permit and that they have gone through all the necessary hoops. He said that the variance would be relative to the drive out to 40^th Ave. and there would be limited traffic with no overburdening. He said that he has addressed the property rights issue and the beauty of the wooded area would be maintained. He said that there are no nonconforming circumstances and that the applicant has done nothing with regard to the need of this variance because it was the Township that amended the ordinance at the specific point in time.

In response to a question from the chairman, the zoning administrator stated that she had done research on the churches in the Township and there are 37 churches in the Township, and all but three have the 200 feet of frontage on a major or minor arterial street. She said that one was built about 50 years ago, one about 1991 and one had been granted a variance to have frontage on Port Sheldon and 36^th Ave.

In response to a question from the chairman regarding the ordinance amendment for the 200 feet of frontage, the zoning administrator stated that this had always been the intention of the Board and had always been enforced as such, so the amendment was adopted when they became aware of the discrepancy.

Paul LeBlanc stated that this is a variance request that specifically applies to a church and since the Board has not made a determination in this regard, we were proceeding under the assumption that this is a church and this issue would be moot if the Board determines that this is not a church. He said that it was important to understand that the requirement for 200 feet of frontage is not in the Township’s mind a new requirement and has been in the ordinance. He said that he took the blame if the ordinance was inartfully drafted and that it was not until GLS’s request that the question came to light. He said that the ordinance has always been interpreted as requiring the 200 feet of frontage on a major street and the amendment only clarified the language while not creating a new requirement. He said that historically he has been working with the Township for over 30 years and that they have gone back to the ordinance at least once a year, if not more, to make amendments that clarify provisions; therefore, this was not an unusual thing in this case.

Paul LeBlanc said that there are seven standards in the ordinance that must be met and he presented a review. He said that standard one is not met because the purpose of the requirement is to insure adequate sight distance for traffic entering and exiting the site, to provide sufficient spacing between access points, and adjacent property lines and driveways, to minimize confusion with regard to multiple driveways within a limited distance, to provide reasonable stacking space in front of the church property, and to minimize conflicts with adjacent driveways with vehicles turning left into the site. He said that GLS has proposed that there would be a limited congregation; however, variances run with the land and expansion or a future congregation could acquire the property and generate more traffic than is presently anticipated. He said that historically churches start small, expand and move elsewhere. He said that the request meets standard 2. He said that standard 3 was not met because there were no unique circumstances or conditions of the property other than the property does not have sufficient frontage. He said that the property would have amply area and dimensions for many of the uses in the LDR district and that the facility could be moved to another location that meets the ordinance requirements. He said that number 4 is not met and there would be a substantial detrimental effect to adjacent properties because there is only 66 feet, which is sufficient to accommodate a driveway but not adequate to meet the desired separation from adjoining properties and driveways and not adequate for sight distance or left-turn stacking. He said that standard number five is not met because the property is occupied by a single family dwelling which is permitted and is surrounded by the same. He said that the subject property is of sufficient size to be subdivided to accommodate several sites in the LDR district. He said that standard numbers 6 and 7 are met.

The chairman opened the public hearing for public comments.

Richard Bennett, 7289 Tory Dr., said that he is opposed to granting the variance because the zoning laws are to protect property owners and to change them changes that protection. He said that he owns land elsewhere in Grand Rapids and what is said could be changed later. He said that he is also interested in the separation of church and state and such legal issues. He asked if this property was in a plat and was told by the planner that it did not appear to be.

The chairman closed the public hearing.

John Karafa said that he agrees with Mr. Bennett’s perceptions and that the zoning administrator’s correspondence with the applicant in the early days of this application process was ambiguous in this requirement because there was a change in the ordinance.

Craig Noland stated that the information concerning the churches meeting the requirement was prepared at his request in pending litigation and was not prepared for tonight’s meeting, but would like to be a part of the record. He said that he also wanted to clarify that the process of the ordinance amendment started January 13, 2003 and the ordinance was amended before the litigation started.

Don Upp said that he was confused about getting the 200 feet of frontage and said that it has been recognized at a problem from the beginning. He said that if a variance did not go with the land he would not think that there would be problem for this group but it could create a horrible situation. He said that they had to look 50 years into the future and what would happen if another congregation moves here with a thousand members. He said that there could be a problem with the parking situation.

John Fanthorpe had no questions.

Joyce Weise said that there is a very limited basis on how the public would be served in that location because of the 60 or less members and that it would be detrimental because 40^th Ave. is already a zoo. She said that she was concerned that someone would not see the driveway and not stop in time because she has seen close calls due to the fact that there are no decel lanes.

Dan Lennington said that he thinks the variance should be denied because the ordinance says that all seven standards have to be met and there are no exceptional or unique circumstances that the applicant could not comply. He said that he was going to assume that this is a church and with all the history there is on the other 37 churches along with the history of the planner for the past 30 years, it has been understood that the 200 feet of frontage is required. He said that he does not accept the argument that this was concocted out of some discriminatory reason and he disagrees because this is the way the Township has applied the ordinance for many years. He said that there are no unique circumstances and the 200 feet is required for traffic purposes, for deceleration lanes, and for all sorts of reasons. He said that there are residents here that use 40^th Ave. regularly and that he has not see anything unique about this property to warrant that the ordinance should not apply. He said that one church had received a variance, Cornerstone, and they had the minutes of when the variance was granted to have 132 feet of frontage and it had frontage on two major streets, 36^th Ave. and Port Sheldon. He said that the fact that a variance had been granted in the past for those circumstances was not binding precedent for this particular case. He said that these circumstances are different and there are not two major streets here. He said that this is a huge variance request. He said that if he said one thing to convince Don it would be that unless all seven standards are met, a variance cannot be granted and the planner has found that they only met three. He said that this is like any other variance and there is not choice.

Joyce Weise said that the proposed use cannot be seen on the property and could pose traffic problems.

Paul LeBlanc presented a recommendation of denial based on the fact that the request failed to meet all seven standards; however based on the fact that the determination of whether it is a church has not been made it might be appropriate to table under until after the determination of whether it is a church is made.

Craig Noland said that he had no opinion from a legal point of view, but it made sense to table from a practical matter.

Joyce Weise asked if action was taken on this matter would it reflect on the first part.

Craig Noland said no; however, it might impact the time frame for an appeal so he thought it might make sense to have both decisions at one time.

John Fanthorpe said that this would be a moot point if they made the determination that this was not a church.

Craig Noland said that due to the long history, he thought at some point the issue would have to be addressed and that is why he suggested GLS apply for the variance.

Dan Lennington said that he believed they should decide now because there has been sufficient deliberation and Don Upp is an alternate who was present for the information. He said that the applicant has asked for a variance and in the normal course on variances the ZBA would make a decision tonight unless there were extenuating circumstances like needing more information. He said that if everyone’s minds were made up, he was not will to change his course of action because he was worried about their appeals rights. He said that if they wanted to wait, they should have waited.

John Karafa said that they would make it easy on the board and if there was not prejudice with regard to the continuing appeal rights, and since they applied for the purposes of efficiency they would withdraw the application for a variance with no prejudice to their right to pursue it pending the ZBA’s decision.

Dan Lennington asked if it was correct that if they withdrew they could not apply for another year.

Greg Honderd said that if it is denied they could not reapply within a year unless there was new information.

Joyce Weise asked if they could allow him to withdraw.

Dan Lennington asked if it would have to be in writing.

Craig Noland said that he did not know.

Dan Lennington said that they had submitted the application and this was gamesmanship at the last minute to avoid some procedure. He said that they should proceed. He said that people come in every month and they should decide according to the law.

John Karafa said that he had spoken with Craig Noland about this out of quasi-judicial efficiency and this is not gamesmanship. He said that the process has been going on for a long time with negotiations to try to resolve this and they were trying to move forward pursuant to the Court’s directive. He said that they put the cart before the horse.

Moved by Greg Honderd, seconded by Don Upp, to accept the applicant’s request for withdrawal.

Greg Honderd said that the reason that he made the motion is because he recalls that in the past when he was on the ZBA if somebody requests a withdrawal it was usually accepted and they were allowed to reevaluate and this is general practice.

Don Upp said that he agrees and that withdrawals were allowed.

Dan Lennington said that the only recollection he has is of Jim Jansma saying that a withdrawal would be accepted prior to the public hearing but not if it looks like the board is not going the way the applicant wants. He said that withdrawals were only accepted at the beginning, but not after discussion.

Paul LeBlanc said that he has been aware that applicants have withdrawn when, for instance, they suddenly discovered that they could build according to the ordinance. He said that in this instance, even if the determination were to be made that this is a church, it still could not be built without a variance. He said that there really was no good reason to withdraw the request because it has to go before the ZBA at some point and it is before the ZBA now.

Greg Honderd said that this makes sense and he would vote against the motion.

The chairman called for the vote.

Yeas: none

Nays: Dan Lennington, Greg Honderd, Don Upp, John Fanthorpe, Joyce Weise

MOTION DENIED.

Moved by Greg Honderd, seconded by John Fanthorpe, to deny the variance based on the reasons stated and that it only meets three of the seven standards that are required.

Yeas: Dan Lennington, Greg Honderd, Don Upp, John Fanthorpe, Joyce Weise