MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE GEORGETOWN
CHARTER TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
HELD MARCH 29, 2006
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by
Chairman Daniel Lennington.
Members Present: Daniel
Lennington (chairman), John Fanthorpe, Greg Honderd and Joyce
Weise
Members Absent: Carl
DeVree
Others Present: Mannette
Minier, Secretary and Zoning Administrator, and the applicants
#060329-01 - Approval of the
minutes
The minutes of the regular meeting held on February 22, 2006 meeting were presented.
Moved by Greg Honderd,
seconded by John Fanthorpe, to approve the minutes of the regular meetings held
on February 22, 2006, as presented.
MOTION CARRIED.
#060329-02 - (VAR0605)
Tim
and Rebecca Hindenach, 6586 8th Ave., are requesting to have a front
yard setback of 72 feet from the centerline of 8th Ave., a variance
of 18 feet from the 90 feet required in Chapter 24, footnote b, in a (LDR) Low
Density Residential district, on a parcel of land described as P.P. #
70-14-24-352-005, located at 6586 8th Ave., Georgetown Township,
Ottawa County, Michigan.
Rebecca Hindenach, 6586 8th
Ave., presented the request and stated that they currently have a porch,
foundation and roof at this spot. She
said that they would just be adding two walls and a door at the same setback as
the existing garage. She said that the
house was built at the setback in effect at the time and they would not be
moving anything closer to the road than the line of the garage. She said that the materials would be the same
at those of the house and they needed the room for her daycare.
The zoning administrator
presented a review. The following had
been presented to the ZBA:
History
The
applicants own an existing house on 8th Ave. between Port Sheldon
and 44th St. The house was
constructed prior to the adoption of the ordinance that requires the additional
setback on 8th Ave. and has a front yard setback of 47 feet, which
was well over the 40 foot front yard setback from the right-of-way line
requirement that was in effect at the time of construction. However, subsequent to the date the house was
built, the Board adopted the ordinance requiring the extra distance to measure
setbacks.
Request
The house
has a roof over the front porch and the request is to enclose the front porch
area, which makes this area part of the main structure and subject to the same
setback requirements as the main structure.
The garage already exists at this requested setback distance and the
enclosure of this area would extend the current setback of the garage further
to the south to include this front porch area.
The
house is more or less in line with the other houses on the same side of the
street in regards to setback (see the GIS map at the end of the review). In two places, Sec. 3.7 and Chapter 24
footnote (s), the ordinance allows for setbacks to be the same as those already
established by existing setbacks.
However, the ordinance specifically states that this new established
setback is not allowed in those streets identified in Chapter 24 footnote
(b). Therefore, this established setback
does not become the required setback.
A
similar variance had been approved by the ZBA for a house on the same side of
this street a few houses down to the south of this residence. However, that variance was only granted for
12 feet rather than the currently requested 18 feet. In addition, the previous variance permitted
the construction of a garage, which is required in the ordinance, therefore
making the site less non-conforming. The
minutes from this variance request are included after the review.
Findings.
The determination can specifically be made that
standards 1, 2, 4 and 7 are met. The ZBA
should discuss those findings and determine if they agree with the
determinations. The remaining standards
are left to the determination of the ZBA.
The following is provided for information and discussion.
Standard #1 - Granting the variance will be in the
public interest and will ensure that the spirit of the Ordinance shall be
observed.
Met. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is listed
in Sec. 1.2 as follow:
The fundamental purpose of this
Ordinance is to promote and safeguard the public health, safety, morals, prosperity
and general welfare of the people of this Township. The provisions are intended to, among other
things, encourage the use of lands, waters and other natural
resources in the Township in accordance with their character and most
suitable use; to limit the improper use of land and resources; to conserve
natural resources and energy; to meet the needs of the state's residents for
food, fiber, and other natural resources, places of residence, recreation,
industry, trade, service, and other uses of land; to ensure that uses of the
land shall be situated in appropriate locations and relationships; to
reduce hazards to life and property; to provide for orderly development within
the Township; to avoid overcrowding of the population; to provide for adequate
light, air and health conditions in dwellings and buildings hereafter erected
or altered; to lessen congestion on the public roads and streets; to protect
and conserve natural recreational areas, agricultural, residential, and other
areas naturally suited to particular uses; to facilitate the establishment of
an adequate and economic system of transportation, sewage disposal, safe water
supply, education, recreation and other public requirements; to conserve the
expenditure of funds for public improvements and services to conform with the
most advantageous uses of land, resources, and properties. (Underlines added to emphasize sections to
note.)
This is a residential district where the
houses were constructed in the 1970’s.
This house was constructed in compliance with the ordinances that were
in effect at the time. In fact, the
house was constructed 47 feet from the right-of-way line, which means that it
was, in fact, constructed an additional 7 feet of front yard setback. In 1995 and 2000, the Township adopted the
ordinance that requires the extra distances for setback on streets listed in
footnote b. The reason is to prepare for
future street widening. With the plan
for the construction of M-6, 8th Ave. was designated as a road that
would most likely be improved. In fact,
8th Ave. south of 44th St. has already been widened and
improved. During this road project, no
changes were made to this section of 8th Ave., which dead-ends into
Port Sheldon and the Jenison Cemetery.
In 2004, when considering a variance request for Michael Simmons, 6426 8th
Ave., the ZBA determined that most likely this section of 8th Ave.
would not be widened since it only dead-ends into Port Sheldon. (See the minutes included after the review).
In addition, the request is to extend
the setback line that has been established by the existing garage.
Standard #2 - Granting the variance shall not permit
the establishment within a district of any use, which is prohibited, nor shall
any use variances be granted.
Met.
Standard #3 - That there are practical difficulties
in complying with the standards of the Zoning Ordinance resulting from
exceptional, extraordinary, or unique circumstances or conditions applying to
the property in question, that do not generally apply to other property or uses
in the vicinity in the same zoning district; and have not resulted from the
adoption of this Ordinance.
As was noted earlier, this is an existing
neighborhood. The applicant does have the
opportunity to expand the house in the rear, but they are looking for an
addition to use as a mud room to expand the entrance to their house. The unique circumstances are that the house
was constructed in compliance with the ordinance at the time it was
constructed. Then the ordinance changed
requiring the additional setback distances.
Standard #4 - That the granting of such variances
will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent properties or improvements in
the vicinity; or, that the application of conditions of an approved variance
will eliminate or sufficiently mitigate potential detrimental impacts.
Met. Since
this is an existing neighborhood with similar setbacks, it does not appear that the addition would be
detrimental. In fact, the addition would
improve the structure. The garage is
currently located at the same setback requested for the addition. A letter was submitted with several of the
neighbors in support of the variance.
Standard #5 - That granting such variance is
necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right possessed by
other properties in the vicinity in the same zoning district.
Other houses are located with similar
setbacks and a variance was granted for 6426 8th Ave. However, that variance was only for 12 feet
rather than 19 feet and the variance permitted the construction of a garage
which made the previous site less nonconforming.
Standard #6 - That granting such variance will not
cause any existing non-conforming use, structure, or condition to be increased
or perpetuated, contrary to the provisions of Chapter 27 of this Ordinance,
except in accordance in Section 27.12.
The house
was constructed in compliance with ordinances in effect at the time. Subsequently, in 1995 and 2000, the Board
adopted the ordinances that required the extra setbacks on certain streets,
making this structure non-conforming.
Standard #7 - That the variance is not necessitated
as a result of any action or inaction of the applicant.
Met. The ordinance change necessitated the
variance request.
The
chairman opened the public hearing.
Sandy Rose, 810 Port Sheldon,
said that she had no problem with the proposed addition and she lives across
the street. She said that it would not
be a hindrance.
Ken Miedema, 770 Port
Sheldon, said that his back yard almost touches the site and they are not
adding, just enclosing. He said that he
has lived there for 42 years and this would be an improvement. He said that he does not understand the
problem because this would improve his house too since he lives in the
neighborhood.
Jennifer Bull, 1048 Meadow
Lane, said that they would pay more taxes and it would improve the
neighborhood.
The applicant was asked about
the daycare and said that she is a full-time licensed provider with six children. She said that the proposed addition was only
8 by 8 feet and would be used to store coats and boots. She said that now there is no place for
storage which creates a hazard from the items.
Dan Lennington said that if
the variance was to be granted as listed, they could expand the whole house to
have a front yard setback of 72 feet, but he preferred to limit the variance to
the area as shown on the plan in case they moved out and the new people wanted
to expand the whole front of the house.
The question was asked if a
garage had to meet the same setback requirements and the zoning administrator
clarified that the ordinance states that an attached garage or attached
accessory building becomes part of the main structure and must meet the same
setback requirements.
Dan Lennington said that if
the variance was not tied to the area specified in the application, the house
could be expanded more than the ZBA intended.
The applicant asked if the
Township could address the situation of requiring the extra setbacks on this
portion of 8th Ave. since 8th Ave. was already widened
and this section probably would not ever be widened. She said that she was the second variance
applicant on this street and wanted to know if anything could be done about
this so others could expand without having to obtain a variance.
Dan Lennington said that the
Township Board writes the ordinances and the ZBA has already brought some
issues to the attention of the Board.
There were questions about
the location of the house on the site.
It was explained that the house met the ordinance at the time it was
constructed but the Board changed the ordinance to require a larger setback.
The
chairman closed the public hearing.
John Fanthorpe said that
there were practical difficulties because this is a pre-existing area with just
the porch being enclosed without going outside of the footprint of the house.
Dan Lennington said that he
would determine that the request meets the standards of the ordinance since
this is a pre-existing area, it is not out of line with the existing
neighborhood, it complied with the ordinance at the time it was constructed,
and a similar variance was granted for a house to the south of the site. He said that the variance was mitigated by
factors such as the minimal request for a small area, just 8 by 8 feet, and the
ZBA has consistently determined that this part of 8th Ave. probably
would not be widened. He said that a new
setback would not be created and the request meets all the seven standards.
Moved by Greg Honderd, seconded by Joyce Weise, to approve the variance
request (VAR0605) Tim and Rebecca Hindenach, 6586 8th
Ave., to have a front yard setback of 72 feet from the centerline of 8th
Ave., a variance of 18 feet from the 90 feet required in Chapter 24, footnote
b, in a (LDR) Low Density Residential district, on a parcel of land described
as P.P. # 70-14-24-352-005, located at 6586 8th Ave., Georgetown
Township, Ottawa County, Michigan, based on conformance with the seven standards of the
ordinance.
The following are reasons:
1. It is in the best interest of the Township to allow an improvement to the existing house.
2.
There are no reasonable alternatives.
3.
The extended setback requirements in the ordinance do not
appear to be applicable for this section of 8th Ave.
4.
It complies with the spirit and intent of the
ordinance.
5.
It is not detrimental to the neighborhood.
And the following are conditions:
1. The
addition must be constructed with materials similar to the existing
structure.
2. This does not establish a new setback line, but rather
allows the addition only according
to the
materials submitted with the application dated 2-9-06.
MOTION CARRIED.
#060329-03 – Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:46 p.m.