MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE GEORGETOWN
CHARTER TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
HELD APRIL 26, 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, Carl DeVree
Members Absent: none
Others Present: Mannette
Minier, Secretary and Zoning Administrator, and the applicants
#060426-01 - Approval of the
minutes
The minutes of the regular meeting held on March 29, 2006 meeting were presented.
Moved by John Fanthorpe, seconded by Greg Honderd, to approve the
minutes of the regular meeting held on March 29, 2006, as presented.
MOTION CARRIED.
#060426-02 - (VAR0606)
Tyler
Wolf, 8710 Lumina Court, is requesting to have a rear yard setback of 37 feet,
a variance of 3 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. #
70-14-11-205-013, located at 8710 Lumina Court, Georgetown Township, Ottawa
County, Michigan.
The applicant presented the
request. The applicant stated that
purpose for the addition is to provide an area for fitness equipment and for
physical therapy equipment which he needed because he is a dentist.
The zoning administrator
presented a review. The applicant is
requesting to construct an addition to an existing house. The proposed addition would project 2.7 into
the required rear yard setback resulting in a rear yard setback of 37.3 feet
when 40 feet is required by Chapter 24 for the LDR district. The review included the
following.
Findings.
The determination can be made that standards 2 and 6 are met and that
standards 1, 3, 5 and 7 are not met.
Standard
#1 - Granting the variance will be in the public interest
and will ensure that the spirit of the Ordinance shall be observed.
Not met. Chapter One of the Zoning Ordinance states
that the purpose of the Ordinance is to promote and safeguard the public
health, safety, morals, prosperity and general welfare of the people of the
Township. In response to the questions,
the applicant has indicated that they need the addition for fitness equipment
so that they can live healthy lives.
However, the public interest would not necessarily be served by allowing
a structure to encroach upon the rear yard setback. The spirit of the ordinance would not be
observed because all other houses constructed in the LDR district would have to
meet the requirement for the 40 foot rear yard setback barring any unusual
circumstances pertaining to the property.
The spirit of the ordinance would to provide for a 40 foot rear yard
setback for each home in the LDR to protect property values and to maintain
consistency in a rear yard setback. In
addition, the structure is clearly visible from all neighboring properties
since there are no fences or large trees and landscaping to mitigate clear
vision to the house or any of the houses in the vicinity.
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. The use is a single family dwelling and is
permitted in the LDR district.
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.
Not met. There are no exceptional, extraordinary or
unique circumstances or conditions applying to the property that do not apply
to other properties in the area. There
are no practical difficulties relating to the property that prevent the
applicant from complying with the ordinance.
The applicant answered the question by stating that the house existed
when they purchased it and the roof line would dictate the dimension of the
addition. The only reason the variance
is requested is because the applicant wants to construct an addition (that
would encroach upon the rear yard setback) so that they can have an area for
exercise equipment. There is nothing
unusual about this property other than the fact that the owner wants to
construct an addition to an existing house.
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.
The applicant has provided letters from neighbors who are not opposed to the variance being granted. However, there are no elements on the property, such as a fence or amounts of large landscaping and trees, to mitigate the negative impact of the encroachment upon the rear yard setback. If those neighbors move, the new owners would be subject to the lesser amount of rear yard setback. In addition, since all the back yards on this block are open and visible to each other, the setback encroachment would be visible to many other property owners in addition to those who are immediately adjacent to the subject site.
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.
Not met. No other properties in the vicinity have the
property right to encroach upon the rear yard setback. All properties in the vicinity have abided by
the ordinance requirements. The
applicants answer the question by stating that they would be denied the right
to use the property in accordance with its character and most suitable
use. In addition, they state that they
would be denied the right to better their living situation, their health and
well-being, and the value of their property.
However, the property owners are already using the property in the way
that it is zoned, which is in accordance with the surrounding character of the
neighborhood. Their request to vary from
the ordinance requirements for personal use must be weighed against the
negative impact to the surrounding properties.
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.
Met. Nothing on the property is currently
nonconforming.
Standard
#7 - That the variance is not necessitated as a result of
any action or inaction of the applicant.
Not met. The only reason the variance request is
necessitated is because the applicant wants the additional space for exercise
equipment.
The chairman opened the public
hearing. No one was present to speak on
this topic. The chairman closed the
public hearing.
Dan Lennington asked what was
meant by the physical therapy equipment.
Tyler Wolf said that he was a
dentist which required a certain posture during the workday that was not
ergonomically correct and the equipment was used as a prevention measure since
back and neck pain were common for dentists.
He said that he has expensive equipment in a storage room that was
difficult to use and move. He said that
the equipment was not safe for his son to use.
Dan Lennington asked the reason
for the 14 by 18 foot dimensions and if there were any alternatives.
The applicant said that they have
done everything possible to not go through the process of requesting a
variance. He said that they had
commissioned an architect who determined that due to the second story window
and pitch of the roof, this was the only way to construct the addition to
prevent water problems with the roof. He
said that the deck was larger than the room they were requesting.
Dan Lennington asked if a 14 by
15 foot room would work or 18 by 11 feet.
He asked if the room could be constructed on the side of the house.
The applicant said that they
would encroach on the side yard setback.
Joyce Weise asked if the addition
could be 21 by 11 feet.
The applicant said that it would
be too long and thin, and that the roofline would not work. He said that they spent two weeks looking at
other solutions and other designs would cause water problems. He said that he had copies of letters from
all his immediate neighbors who were not opposed to the addition after they saw
the drawings.
Mrs. Wolf said that they liked
the community, their home and their neighborhood. She said that they had tried to work within
the ordinance because they respect the ordinance. She said that they wanted to be sure that
there were no problems with their neighbors and they checked alternative
designs. She said that they feel what
they are requesting is reasonable because some neighbors have little green
space and they would not be encroaching by a large amount. She said that the encroachment would not be
evident to the neighbors.
Tyler Wolf said that they have
plenty of space and the idea was to make the addition look like it had always
been there, not an add-on. He said that
the addition would not be an eyesore or burden.
Greg Honderd asked if they could
cantilever the addition and still meet the ordinance.
The zoning administrator said
that Sec. 2.101 defines a required setback in a yard as unoccupied and
unobstructed from the ground up; so the cantilevered addition would have to be
all outside the setback area and within the building envelope.
The applicant stated that he
needs the space for therapy equipment and now he has to use it by the
furnace. He said that the house should
have been built further back on the lot and the placement of windows
necessitates the variance request.
Dan Lennington said that the
applicant could use the space available and add eleven feet within the building
envelope to incorporate part of the basement.
The applicant said that there
would be a problem with the sliding doors because the house was a walk-out and
the pool table sits in that location. He
said that they purchased the pool table with the house because the former
owners did not want to move it.
The applicant said that they had
researched the past minutes and presented a similar scenario with no unique
circumstances compared to what they have.
He said that the spirit of the ordinance would be met because this would
not cause any harm and would add value to the house, community and
neighborhood. He said that there was no
opposition with the neighbors and larger variances were granted in the past.
The zoning administrator explained
that whether or not similar variances were granted in the past, the ordinance
states that the Zoning Board of Appeals only has the authority to grant a
variance if all seven standards are met.
Dan Lennington stated that all
seven standards have to be met in order for a variance to be granted. He said that he can not speak for past
Boards, but for the past two and a half years this Board has faithfully and
consistently applied the standards of the ordinance. He said that they have not granted variances
just because someone wants a variance if the standards are not met.
The applicant said that they have
reviewed all other options and this was a minimal amount. He said that no one was opposed to it.
The chairman asked for an
explanation for standard number seven.
The zoning administrator
explained that, for instance, a plat developer designs a layout for a lot and
would be the responsible entity if a specific house would not fit on that lot.
Moved by Greg Honderd, seconded by Dan Lennington, to deny the request
(VAR0606) for Tyler Wolf, 8710 Lumina Court, to have a rear yard
setback of 37 feet, a variance of 3 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. # 70-14-11-205-013, located at 8710 Lumina Court, Georgetown Township,
Ottawa County, Michigan, based
on the fact that standards number 1, 3, 5, and 7 of the ordinance are not
met.
It was noted that the
variance was denied for the following reasons.
There was no practical difficulty, as well as nothing exceptional,
extraordinary or unique about the site.
The site was basically the same as the others in the general vicinity. This was the same situation as any other
house when the people want an addition outside the building envelope. The ZBA only has the authority to grant a
variance if there are extraordinary or unique conditions of the property. The applicant has eleven feet available for
an addition within the building envelope and they want fourteen. There also is an area available on the side
of the house for an addition. There are
alternatives available. They could use
the basement. The only problem is that
the options available are just not how they want it. The reasons for the
variance are not good in regards to meeting the ordinance standards. The addition could be reconfigured to not
extend so far into the setback. The
addition could be designed differently, even if it is not exactly how they want
it.
Dan Lennington said that it is
not right to grant the variance just because this is what they want. He said that he might want to install a pool,
but if it does not fit in his yard, he would not be allowed to have it. He said that he would not have the right to
have it if it wouldn’t meet the ordinance unless there was a situation that met
the seven standards of the ordinance and were extraordinary or unique
circumstances. He said that the
applicant was not denied any substantial property right that others in the area
had.
John Fanthorpe said that they
could change the design to fit in the building envelope.
Dan Lennington said that they
could pay the architect to redesign the addition. He said that it was a cold hard fact that not
everyone one in the Township has a site where an addition could be
constructed. He said that the applicant
could take up the issue with the Township Board to rewrite the ordinance, but
the ZBA has their hands tied because they do not write ordinances.
The applicant asked why other
variances were granted with no unique circumstances.
Dan Lennington said that he
may not have been on the Board at that time and this Board consistently applies
the standards of the ordinance.
The applicant said that if
the rules have been broken in the past, they should be broken again since they
are asking for a small amount and the neighbors are in support.
Dan Lennington said that they
do like to keep their decisions uniform; however, if wrong decisions were made
in the past, the ZBA would not continue to make wrong decisions.
John Fanthorpe said that the
ZBA is not saying that they can’t have the addition, just
that the addition has to meet the ordinance.
Joyce Weise asked if the plan
was drawn by a registered architect and questioned the seal.
MOTION CARRIED.
#060426-03 - (VAR0607)
Advance
Auto (John Fergus Inc. and Site Enhancement Services) is requesting the
following:
in a (NS)
Neighborhood Service Commercial district, on a parcel of land described as P.P.
# 70-14-13-300-067, located at 600 Baldwin, Georgetown Township, Ottawa County,
Michigan.
Steve Jacks, Site Enhancement
Service, 6001 Nimtz Parkway, South Bend, represented the applicant and
presented the request. He stated that
they would like to withdraw the requests for the square footage and height of
the freestanding sign and to withdraw the request for the square footage of the
wall sign because they understood that those were substantial requests.
Moved by Greg Honderd, seconded by John Fanthorpe, to
accept the withdrawal of b, c, and d as listed in the request.
MOTION CARRIED.
The applicant stated that
they had revised the application to request one additional wall sign with the
overall total square footage of the two wall signs to be less than the amount
of square footage permitted for the one wall sign allowed by the ordinance.
Dan Lennington clarified that
the request was to have one additional sign over what was permitted by the
ordinance.
The applicant explained that
the building’s primary frontage was on Baldwin; however, the unique layout
called for a sign off the driveway entrance off Baldwin.
The zoning administrator
explained that reviews had been prepared for the original request and not for
the revised request that had just been presented. She explained that the ZBA in the past had
determined that the driveway entrance off Baldwin by the former Deli and
Deserts Restaurant was not a street, but rather a private driveway. She said that the entrance off Cottonwood
that led to Culvers and Pages in Time was actually a private street because it
had been approved as such with the PUD approval.
The chairman opened the
public hearing. No one was present to
speak on this topic. The chairman closed
the public hearing.
Joyce Weise said that sign was
part of the architecture and part of the design of the building. She clarified that each of the proposed signs
would be 56 square feet in area, which would just split the allowed amount of
square footage. She asked if the
ordinance would permit that and was told no.
John Fanthorpe said that
instead of one large sign, they were requesting to have two smaller signs.
The applicant said that their
site was unique in form and function.
Dan Lennington said that
their site was not unique because there were many parcels with the same
situation.
Dan Lennington asked where
the signs would be placed and was told on the north and west faces.
Greg Honderd said that he did
not remember the intention of the Planning Commission when the ordinance was
adopted and did not remember the rationale for having one larger sign rather
than two smaller signs.
John Fanthorpe said that when
ABC Warehouse requested a variance, they asked for more overall square footage
rather than to divide the square footage that was permitted.
Greg Honderd said that the
Planning Commission should review the ordinance to possibly amend it to permit
two smaller signs rather than one larger sign.
The zoning administrator said
that a similar variance had been granted for Culvers to have two signs, each
with 18 square feet rather than to have one sign over 100 square feet.
Dan Lennington said that the
building was already constructed with places for the signs.
The zoning administrator
checked the previous minutes for Culvers and found that Culvers had been
allowed 150 square feet of wall sign and asked to have only a total of 36
square feet for the two signs. She also
clarified that Culvers was located on a private street that had been approved
in a PUD.
Greg Honderd said that the
ZBA could either grant or deny the variance and ask the Planning Commission to
review the ordinance. He said that he
thought the better situation for the Township was to have two smaller signs
rather than one larger one.
Dan Lennington said that
there was nothing exceptional, extraordinary or unique about the site.
The applicant said that they
were unique because they were located on a drive into Meijers as well as having
frontage on Baldwin.
Dan Lennington said that it would
be an unfair advantage to the competitors who were not allowed to have the same
signage. He said that the applicant just
wants to have two signs but does not meet the standards. He said that an ordinance amendment needs to
be adopted. He agreed that the
architecture was designed for two signs, but it was not the ZBA’s place to
rewrite the ordinance.
There was discussion
regarding the variance that had been granted for Culvers. It was noted that Culvers was located on a
private street and had frontage on Chicago Drive and on Cottonwood.
John Fanthorpe said that he
would like to see the Planning Commission change the ordinance because he would
rather see two smaller signs than one large sign. He said that everyone wants more signage. He said that most people do not impulse buy
at an auto parts store.
Dan Lennington said that the
neighbors would want to come in for variances and that the ordinance should be
rewritten.
The zoning administrator
stated that everyone wants more signage.
The applicant said that it
would look nice to have the two signs and it would be safer for traffic to have
the two signs.
Greg Honderd said that some
of the Planning Commission members might be in favor of changing the ordinance
but he could not speak for them.
Joyce Weise said that the
Township should want to draw more business and the ordinance is not working
because there were so many sign variance applications.
Greg Honderd said that if the
request does not meet the standards, it would be best to change the ordinance.
The applicant stated that
they planned to open the store in two weeks and would have their sign installed
by then.
The zoning administrator said
that the ZBA could also consider that this site is unique due to the fact that
the Planning Commission required that the site only have entrances off the
interior drives of the Meijer site and there were no direct accesses to
Baldwin.
Moved by Greg Honderd, seconded by Carl DeVree to grant the variance
(VAR0607) Advance Auto (John Fergus Inc. and Site Enhancement
Services) to have two (2) 56 square foot wall signs, a variance of one wall
sign from the one permitted in Sec. 25.6(B)(3), in a (NS) Neighborhood Service
Commercial district, on a parcel of land described as P.P.# 70-14-13-300-067,
located at 600 Baldwin, Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan, based on the unique
circumstance that the site has no direct access to Baldwin (as requested by the
Planning Commission) and the driveway to the west acts like a private street to
this business and to Tudor Time, Culvers and Soccer Zone, and because the
request meets the spirit of the ordinance by having two smaller signs each with
56 square feet for a total square footage of less than the ordinance would
permit for one sign.
Greg Honderd said that the
Planning Commission should review the ordinance for a change to permit two wall
signs as long as the overall square footage is less than what would be
permitted for one sign.
Dan Lennington said that the
request does not meet the standards, that this is a
result of action of the application and the applicant is not denied a
substantial property right that other businesses have. He said that it would be detrimental and
unfair to the other businesses and there are no practical difficulties. He said that the Zoning Ordinance allows them
to have one sign and it would be simple to comply with the ordinance. He said that this is not in the public
interest and there are no extraordinary circumstances. He said that the ZBA is not in the position
of amending the ordinance and they should not apply the ordinance piecemeal on
some. He said that it was not in the
spirit and the ordinance should be applied uniformly. He said that the way to address this
situation was to amend the ordinance.
Yeas: John Fanthorpe, Carl DeVree, Joyce Weise
Nays: Greg Honderd, Dan Lennington
MOTION CARRIED.
Those
who voted in favor of granted the variance stated that they believed the
standards of the ordinance were met and offered the following reasons.
Joyce
Weise said that the reason that she voted to grant the variance is that she
does not like one big sign and would rather see two smaller ones. She said that the two smaller ones would be
more appealing and not give other businesses an advantage.
John
Fanthorpe said that this was a unique situation since there was no direct
access to Baldwin. He said that he has
handled auto accidents and agrees that two smaller signs would be safer and
more appropriate than one larger sign.
#060426-04 – Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.