MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE GEORGETOWN
CHARTER TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
HELD SEPTEMBER 13, 2006
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by
Chairman Daniel Lennington.
Members Present: Greg
Honderd, Joyce Weise, Daniel Lennington, Carl DeVree, and Don Upp
Members Absent: none
Others Present: Mannette
Minier, Secretary and Zoning Administrator, and the applicants
#060913-01 - Approval of the
minutes
The minutes of the regular meeting held on August 23, 2006 meeting were presented.
Moved by Joyce Weise,
seconded by Carl DeVree, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held on August 23, 2006, as presented.
MOTION CARRIED.
#060913-02 – (VAR0615)
Creekside
Construction Inc. (Doug Butterworth), 3672 Chicago Dr., is requesting to
rebuild a house that was destroyed by fire on a non-conforming lot with only
82.5 feet of width when 200 feet is required in the (AG) Agriculture district,
under Sec. 27.5, and to have one side yard setback of 10 feet, a variance of 10
feet, and one side yard setback of 14.5 feet, a variance of 5.5 feet, from the
20 feet required in Chapter 24 for an AG district, on a parcel of land
described as P.P. # 70-14-31-100-003, located at 4612 VanBuren, Georgetown
Township, Ottawa County, Michigan.
The zoning administrator
presented a review as follows:
REQUEST
In
April 2006, the house located at 4612 VanBuren was partially destroyed by
fire. Since the house was damaged
beyond repair, the property owner decided to rebuild the house and construct a
new foundation. Note the attached letter
from the Fire Department that states that the damaged house will be
demolished by fire. Although the house
burned months ago, the applicants asked for the special meeting in order to
expedite the building permit procedure since no permit would be issued for
construction on a nonconforming lot of record that does not meet the
requirements of Sec. 27.5(A) without the approval of the ZBA.
The
assessor estimates that the house was constructed in 1920 or 1921 and it is
located on a nonconforming lot of record in the Agriculture district that is
82.5 feet wide and 264 feet deep for an area of 21,780 square feet. Years ago most likely no one reviewed lot
splits for compliance with any ordinances.
Currently for the AG district, Chapter 24 requires that a lot is a
minimum of 200 feet wide and a minimum of 40,000 square feet in area. The width of 82.5 is only 41.25% of the 200 feet of width
required in the district. Also note the
dramatic elevation changes in the pictures from one side where there is a shear
drop-off to the other side where there is a steep hill. This lot consists of the flat land between
these major elevation changes.
The
new house is proposed to meet the requirements of the AG district for the front
yard setback with 40 feet measured from a point 50 feet from the centerline for
a total of 90 feet from the centerline of VanBuren. It is proposed to meet the rear yard setback
of 75 feet. However, one side yard is
proposed to be 10 feet, 10 feet different than the 20 feet required in Chapter
24, and the other side yard to be 14.5 feet, 5.5 feet different than the 20
feet required in Chapter 24.
Although
the lot will remain nonconforming due to lot width and area, other
nonconforming elements that currently exit on the site will be reduced or
eliminated. The garage is currently
detached and an attached garage is proposed, which is now required by the
ordinance in Sec. 3.6(I), and will decrease the non-conformity in that
respect. The existing house is located
too close to the road right-of-way and the new proposed house will meet the
front yard setback.
Although
the side yard setbacks do not meet the ordinance requirements, this element of
the request is not to be reviewed as a traditional variance according to the
seven standards in Sec. 28.11, but rather it is to be reviewed according to
Sec. 27.5 in the chapter related to nonconforming structures and uses since
this is a non-conforming lot of record (Sec. 27.5 of the ordinance is attached
following the review). Note that (A)
states that the Zoning Administrator shall approve all applications for single
family residences on non-conforming lots of record if (1) the lot complies with
the front and rear yard requirements (this is met); (2) no side yard is less
than 10 feet (this is met); (3) the lot has a width of no less than 75% of the
zoning district requirement (this is not
met since the lot only has 41.25% of the width requirement).
Sections
(B) and (C) state that if the Zoning Administrator believes that the lot does
not comply with the above requirements (the lot does NOT comply with the
requirements since it has only 41.25% of the width requirement) the
plan and specifications shall be submitted to the ZBA for review. Further, the ZBA shall review the plans and
specifications and may reduce any or all of the area requirements (not
including use requirements) it reasonably believes are necessary so as to allow
construction of a single family residence on the lot, provided that the construction is not detrimental to the public health,
safety and general welfare of the Township.
In addition, the ZBA shall have the right to require conditions for the
construction to secure substantial compliance with the intent of the ordinance
provided that the conditions are not unreasonable or confiscatory.
Following
the review is an excerpt of the August 25, 2004 ZBA when a similar request was
reviewed.
The standards of review are:
1.
Is the proposal reasonably necessary for the
construction of a single family residence on the lot? (It
appears as though it is reasonable necessary to construct a house with the
dimensions as shown on the attached site plan, which is a fairly small house
with an attached garage. The problem
lies with the fact that the lot is only 82.5 feet wide.)
2.
Is the construction detrimental to the public health,
safety and general welfare of the Township?
(The lot has dramatic
elevation changes on both sides, which would provide buffers from the adjacent
property. In addition, the site is
fairly heavily wooded.)
3.
Should any conditions be attached to secure
substantial compliance with the intent of the ordinance? (Conditions
should be added to ensure that the construction meets all possible requirements
of the ordinance to make the site as minimally nonconforming as possible.)
Doug Butterworth, Creekside Construction, represented
the applicant and presented the request. He stated that the following were the
reasons for the request:
1.
The request is to rebuild the house because of
the age and condition of the structure after the fire. Much of the damage occurred in the basement,
in the rear and in the interior of the house.
2.
The current elevation results in water problems
because the water comes down the hill to the property. The plan is to move the house back which will
result in the house being located at a different elevation.
3.
Safety issues were involved. If the house is permitted to be moved back to
the correct setback, there would be room for a turn-around driveway that would
permit the residents to exit the driveway forward facing rather than backing
out with limited vision due to the hill.
4.
The proposed location on the lot meets the LDR
requirements and the Master Plan designates the site as LDR. While it is nonconforming now, when the area
is changed to LDR, it would be conforming.
Dan Lennington asked for a confirmation and the zoning
administrator stated that the setbacks would meet the LDR requirements as
designated by the LDR zoning district on the Future Land Use Map in the Master Plan;
however, the 82.5 feet of width for the parcel would remain nonconforming since
the LDR called for lots with 85 feet of width.
Dan Lennington asked about the size of the new house
and was told that it would be bigger than the existing house and have an
attached garage. Dan Lennington asked
what percentage of the house was damaged and was told close to 50%. Dan Lennington asked if the occupants still
resided in the damaged house and was told no because it was condemned.
Joyce Weise asked where the damage occurred and was
told in the rear, basement and interior of the house.
Dan Lennington asked when the new construction would
begin.
Doug Butterworth said the construction would begin as
soon as the Fire Department burned the house down and as soon as the new septic
system could be installed and foundation could be put in. He said that he was working with the County
to get the septic system approved.
No one was present to speak at the public hearing.
Joyce Weise asked if the ZBA should make the decision
based on the house specifications.
Greg Honderd said that they should look at the
footprint on the lot rather than the specifications.
Don Upp said that after looking at the site he
understood why it was practical to re-grade the property.
The zoning administrator stated the following. This is a non-conforming lot of record with a
house that has existed since approximately 1920 according to the Township
assessor. Reconstructing the house at
the new location is in the best interest of the Township and the community
since the nonconformity of the site will be reduced with the attached garage as
required in Sec. 3.6(I) and the new location will meet the front and rear yard
setback requirements as listed in Chapter 24.
The new construction would not be
detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare of the Township.
Joyce Weise asked if the was going to be a new septic
system and was told yes.
Dan Lennington said that the new construction would
reduce non-conformity, would be in compliance with the LDR zoning district
which was the designation the Master Plan called for the site, and the ZBA
should state in the findings if they determine the construction is not
detrimental to health, safety and welfare of the residents of the Township.
Joyce Weise asked if the site would be re-graded and
was told yes. She stated a concern for
the trees and asked that the trees be protected.
Doug Butterworth said that the trees would be protected
with tree boxes.
Moved by
Carl DeVree, seconded by Don Upp, to approve
the proposed location of a house at 4612 VanBuren as shown on the site
plan drawn by Exxel Engineering Inc. for Doug Butterworth, Creekside
Construction, dated 8-10-06, File Number 061883E, for 4612 Van Buren Street,
and for the house to be located on the lot with one side yard setback of 10 feet, a
difference of 10 feet, and one side yard setback of 14.5 feet, a difference of
5.5 feet, from the 20 feet required in Chapter 24 for an AG district, on a
parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-31-100-003, located at 4612 VanBuren,
Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan, based on the following findings and reasons:
1.
This is a
non-conforming lot of record with a house that has existed since approximately 1920
(according to the Township assessor);
2.
Reconstructing
the house at the new location is in the best interest of the Township and the
community since the nonconformity of the site will be reduced with the attached
garage (as required in Sec. 3.6(I)) and the new location will meet the front
and rear yard setback requirements as listed in Chapter 24;
3.
The
construction is not detrimental to the public health, safety and general
welfare of the Township;
4.
The setbacks meet the zoning requirements for the LDR
district which is the zoning designation the Master Plan calls for the
property.
and with
the following conditions:
1. The front setback is a minimum of 90
feet from the centerline of VanBuren;
2. No side yard setback is less than 10
feet;
3.
The rear yard setback is not
less than 75 feet;
4. The garage must be attached to the
dwelling unit;
5. As many trees as possible are
preserved to help to mitigate the small side yard setbacks
for the AG
district.
MOTION CARRIED.
#060913-03 - Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:47 p.m.