MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE GEORGETOWN CHARTER TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD OCTOBER 25, 2006

 

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

 

Members Present:         John Fanthorpe, Greg Honderd, Joyce Weise, Daniel Lennington and

Carl DeVree

Members Absent:         none

Others Present: Mannette Minier, Secretary and Zoning Administrator, and the applicants

 

#061025-01 - Approval of the minutes

 

The minutes of the regular meeting held on September 27, 2006 meeting were presented.

 

Moved by Joyce Weise, seconded by John Fanthorpe, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held on September 27, 2006, as presented.

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

#061025-02 – (VAR0618)

 

Lisa Gocha, 6740 Gettysburg, is requesting to locate an accessory building with the eave line one (1) foot from the property line, a variance of four (4) feet from the five (5) feet required in Sec. 3.4(C), in a (LDR) Low Density Residential District, on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-19-273-036, located at 6740 Gettysburg, Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan.

 

Lisa Gocha explained that she had an existing shed that deteriorated and she replaced it with a new shed.  She said that plumbing and electrical equipment had to be covered for her pool and she figured that since the foundation had been there for 20 years she would be able to replace the shed.

 

Dan Lennington asked her who constructed the accessory building and was told by the application that she and her family had constructed it.  He clarified that a licensed contractor had not constructed the accessory building and the applicant stated that was true.  He asked when the accessory building was constructed and was told in the spring or early summer.  The applicant explained that the electrical pool equipment including the gas lines can not be exposed.  Dan Lennington asked if the pool equipment included the heating and filtration systems and was told that the heater was outside of the pool.

 

The zoning administrator stated the following.  The Township received a complaint regarding property maintenance issues, along with the unclean condition of a swimming pool and the construction of an accessory building too close to the property line at 6740 Gettysburg.  In response to contact by the Township Code Enforcement officer, the property owner stated that the pool would be closed for the season and the condition of the pool addressed next spring by removing trees in the backyard that shed debris into the pool contributing to the algae situation.  On September 25, 2006, the property owner submitted an application and fee for a variance to leave the accessory building in its newly constructed location.  The applicant states on the application for the nature of the request: “Shed does not meet setback requirements.”  However, the applicant did not know the exact dimension of the accessory building to the property line and was directed to submit a site plan or survey to establish the location of the accessory building on the site, along with the dimension of the accessory building to the property line.  The site plan is especially important in this case because the request deals with the location of the accessory building and the relation to the property line.  The property owner was directed to either draw the accessory building on a copy of a survey with exact dimensions or to hand-draw a site plan with exact dimensions.  At the time the application was submitted without the site plan, the request was made that the property owner take back all the submittal materials and return with everything together; however, the property owner asked that the application and fee be kept at the Township Office so that the site plan by itself could either be dropped off or faxed to the office.  The site plan was finally submitted to the Township Office only a few hours before the meeting; therefore, there was not sufficient time for a formal review to be prepared.  In addition, since the numerous attempts to contact the applicant were unsuccessful, no site visit was scheduled or conducted inside the fenced back yard.

 

Dan Lennington stated that it was up to the ZBA if they wanted to act on the application or table the request until next month.

 

Joyce Weise asked if the zoning administrator could give a review.  The zoning administrator said that since a site plan had not been submitted in time and the applicant had been unreachable to set up a time for a site visit, no review had been prepared and she was not prepared to give a review for this meeting.

 

Dan Lennington said that the ZBA could make a decision by itself or ask the applicant if she preferred to have the request tabled and acted upon at the next meeting.  He said that he was not certain of how much of a benefit it was to the ZBA for the zoning administrator to make a site visit.

 

Joyce Weise said that they have the survey to review.

 

Greg Honderd said that he was comfortable making a decision tonight because he visited the site.  He said that this was straight forward and he suggested that the applicant be asked how she wanted to proceed since the zoning administrator’s review may or may not affect the ZBA’s decision.

 

Dan Lennington said that he would be able to review and act on the application tonight.

 

The applicant stated that the ZBA had an accurate picture and could review the application tonight.

 

In response to the question of what issues were brought to the Code Enforcement Officer’s attention, the zoning administrator stated that there were property maintenance issues such as structures deteriorating and the pool smelling because it was in an unclean condition.

 

Joyce Weise asked if the applicant had any nonconforming rights since an accessory building was located on the same foundation.

 

The zoning administrator said that the Zoning Ordinance states that once a nonconforming structure is removed, there are no longer any nonconforming rights and the structure must be located in compliance with the ordinance.

 

The applicant stated the following.  If she had to move the accessory building it would be an extreme difficulty.  This has already cost her a lot of money for the building, the survey and the variance fee.  The pool equipment would have to be moved along with the existing foundation.  She would have to hire someone with a forklift to move the accessory building.  Wherever the building was moved would not be as visually good for her neighbor because if it was moved back, her neighbors would look right at it.

 

Joyce Weise asked why it is so tall and the applicant stated that she stores other things in the shed along with the pool equipment and poles.

 

Dan Lennington asked how tall a structure could be to cover the pool equipment and not be considered to be an accessory building.

 

The zoning administrator said that she has consistently determined that a structure could be erected to cover pool equipment and would not be considered to be an accessory building if it was not tall enough to walk in with, for example, a lawn mower.  She said somewhere about shoulder height or about four feet.

 

Dan Lennington asked how tall the pool equipment was and how tall a structure would have to be to cover the pool equipment.

 

The applicant said that a structure about shoulder height would cover the pool equipment including the filter and pump, and that the heater was outside.  She said that she stores other things in the accessory building and would have to build another one to store the other things.

 

Greg Honderd asked if there was an open area inside the shed on the neighbor’s side and if the shed could just be slid over a few feet to meet the ordinance with the pump left intact. 

 

The applicant said that a gate is in that spot and she did not know how she would get in here back yard because that would cover the gate.  She said that if the shed was moved back it would be a problem and be bad for the neighbors.

 

John Fanthorpe said that it would have been helpful to see the house on the survey.

 

Carl DeVree said that he would like to have the zoning administrator take a look and return with a recommendation.  He said that the accessory building was not completed and siding was missing.

 

The applicant said that only one little piece of siding was missing.

 

Carl DeVree asked how long the piece of siding had been missing and the applicant said that she did not even know that it was missing until she saw the picture tonight because she could not see that side of the shed.

 

Joyce Weise asked if the applicant had looked at the Zoning Ordinance.

 

The applicant said that she has now and did not before because it did not even occur to her since there was an existing foundation.  She said that she can add the piece of siding.

 

Joyce said that she had an issue with the tall height so close to the property line and the applicant said that the accessory building was used to store other things as well as the pool equipment. 

 

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

 

Dan Lennington stated the following.  The Zoning Ordinance does not allow an accessory building to be two feet from the property line, not even if an applicant really wants it.  There must be extraordinary circumstances for a variance to be granted, not just because the applicant wants it to cover pool equipment.  Items could be stored elsewhere or another building could be erected in a location that meets the ordinance, especially since the lot is large with dimensions of 95 by 145 feet.  There seems to be alternatives to extend the slab and move the building.

 

The applicant said that the problem is that there would be no way into the back yard if the shed was moved.

 

Dan Lennington said that there were alternatives such as constructing a smaller structure to just cover the pool equipment and the only problem for the applicant is that it is inconvenient.

 

The applicant said that she has a great expense into the shed because she put thousands of dollars into it and even if she built it in a different location the slab would still be there.

 

Dan Lennington stated the following.  It is unfortunate that the shed is illegal and all seven standards in the ordinance must be met in order for a variance to be granted.  Standard number 7 is not met because this is a classic example of a self-created hardship that was necessitated by the action of the applicant.  The ZBA has specifically denied several such applications that did not meet standard number 7 when the problem is self-created and caused by a problem the applicant created.  There also is no practical difficulty in meeting the ordinance.  Standards 3 and 7 are definitely not met.  In addition, there are alternatives.

 

John Fanthorpe said that standards 1, 3 and 7 have not been met because this is not in the public interest and does not assure that the spirit of the ordinance is met.  He said that all seven standards must be met for a variance to be granted.

 

The applicant asked when the shed would have to be moved and was told that the date would be up to the Code Enforcement Officer.

 

The applicant stated that the neighbor’s driveway encroaches on her property.

 

Dan Lennington said that the Township is complaint-driven and complaints would have to be given to the Code Enforcement Officer.

 

Moved by Joyce Weise, seconded by Carl DeVree, to deny variance (VAR0618) for Lisa Gocha, 6740 Gettysburg, to locate an accessory building with the eave line one (1) foot (or more but less than 5 feet) from the property line, a variance of four (4) feet from the five (5) feet required in Sec. 3.4(C), in a (LDR) Low Density Residential District, on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-19-273-036, located at 6740 Gettysburg, Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan, because the seven standards of the ordinance are not met and there are alternative such as moving the building or constructing a shorter structure that would not be considered to be an accessory building, such as a short structure that a person would be unable to walk into to cover the pool equipment.

 

Greg Honderd noted that specifically standards number 1, 3 and 7 in the ordinance are not met and all the standards are required to be met in order for a variance to be granted.

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

#061025-03 - Adjournment

 

The meeting was adjourned at 8:03 p.m.