ZBA minutes 9-26-07

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE GEORGETOWN CHARTER TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD SEPTEMBER 26, 2007

The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Vice Chairman John Fanthorpe.

Members Present: John Fanthorpe, Greg Honderd, Stanley Sterk and Carl DeVree

Members Absent: Joyce Weise

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

Note: Daniel Lennington resigned and Stanley Sterk was appointed on 7-23-07

#070926-01 - Approval of the minutes

The minutes of the regular meeting held on July 25, 2007 were presented.

Moved by Stanley Sterk, seconded by Joyce Weise, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held on July 25, 2007, as presented.

MOTION CARRIED.

#070926-02 – Election of Officers

Current officers are: Dan Lennington, chairman; John Fanthorpe, vice-chairman; and Joyce Weise, secretary. Since Dan Lennington has resigned his position on the ZBA, Stanley Sterk, a Township Board member, was appointed to the ZBA.

Tabled motion:

Moved by Carl DeVree, seconded by Stanley Sterk, to appoint the following to offices on the ZBA: Joyce Weise as chairman of the ZBA; John Fanthorpe as Vice Chairman, and Carl DeVree as secretary.

Moved by Greg Honderd, seconded by Carl DeVree, to remove the motion from the table.

MOTION CARRIED.

MOTION AS PREVIOUS MADE CARRIED.

Joyce Weise took over as chairperson of the meeting.

#070926-03 – (VAR0706)

Sue Hansen, 4464 Fillmore St., is requesting to have an accessory building (garage) with an above grade floor area of 1028 square feet attached to a dwelling unit of 1372 square feet which is 75% of the gross floor area of the dwelling to which it is attached, a variance of 15% from the maximum of 60% permitted in Sec. 3.4(E)(1), and to have a side yard setback of 19 feet, a variance of one foot from the 20 feet required in Chapter 24, in an (AG) Agriculture District, on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-06-100-007, located at 4464 Fillmore St., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan. (submittal materials)

The following review had been presented.

REQUEST

The applicant is requesting to construct a third stall to the attached garage of an existing house. The proposed addition is 16 feet wide by 24 feet deep. The existing house is 1372 square feet in area with an existing attached garage 644 square feet in area. Sec. 3.4(E)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance states that the maximum floor area for an attached garage shall not exceed 60% of the gross floor area of the dwelling to which it is attached. To comply with the Zoning Ordinance, the maximum area for an attached garage for this house is 60% of 1372, which is 823.2 square feet. The attached garage currently is 644 square feet in area. To comply with the ordinance, 179.2 square feet could be added. The applicant is proposing to add 384 square feet to the current 644 square foot garage for a total area of 1028 square feet. That is 204.8 square feet more than permitted by the ordinance and is 75% of the gross floor area of the dwelling to which it is attached (15% more than the 60% allowed). The applicant has also proposed that the addition encroach on the 20 foot side yard setback by one foot. A 20 foot side yard setback is required in the Agriculture district and the proposed addition would result in a side yard setback of only 19 feet.

SUMMARY

The Planning Commission and Township Board recently reviewed the Zoning Ordinance requirements for attached garages and amended the ordinance to permit a maximum of 1500 square feet for attached garages; however, the stipulation remained that an attached garage be a maximum of 60% of the floor area of the dwelling unit to which it is attached. By keeping the 60% amount, the Planning Commission and Township Board both determined that the public interest would best be served by keeping a garage to a 60% proportion of the dwelling to which it is attached so that a garage would not be proportionately larger than 60% of the house. Although many people ask about and want larger garages than what the ordinance permits, most everyone else accepts and abides by the ordinance requirements.

The applicant has the opportunity to construct a detached accessory building with a maximum of 1500 square feet. Although they indicate that some portions of the parcel flood, the site is nearly 10 acres and it appears as though there are ample places to place the accessory building in a higher elevated area in the rear yard behind the house. The elevation declines to the south as depicted in the attached pictures.

The applicant is denied no substantial property right because no other property in the vicinity has an attached garage larger than 60% of the floor area of the dwelling unit to which it is attached. As the applicant points out, other houses in the vicinity have three stall garages; however, those houses have larger floor area and meet the maximum of 60% requirement.

The following documentation provides details as to how the determination has been made of either meeting or not meeting ordinance standards.

Variance standards in Sec. 28.11(C) are required to be met in order for a variance to be granted. The standards that have objectively been met are noted with an “X” in the “yes” column and those not met are noted with an “X” in the “no” column. The ZBA should determine if they agree with the review. The ZBA should determine if those standards not marked are met.

Variance ID

VAR0706

Applicant

Sue Hansen

Address

4464 Fillmore St.

Request

Garage 75% of dwelling; side yard setback of 19 feet

Date

Applied for September 26, 2007 meeting

#	YES	NO	CONDITIONS (Chapter 28.11-C)
1		X (both)	Granting the variance(s) will be in the public interest and will ensure that the spirit of the Ordinance shall be observed.
2	X (both)		Granting the variance shall not permit the establishment within a district of any use which is prohibited, nor shall any use variances be granted.
3		X for side yard setback	That there are practical difficulties in complying with the standards of the Zoning Ordinance resulting form 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.
4			That the granting of such variance 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.
5		X (both)	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.
6	X (both)		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 with Section 27.12.
7		X (both)	That the variance is not necessitated as a result of any action or inaction of the applicant.

For the 60% amount variance:

a. The ZBA should determine if they agree with the determination that standards 1, 5 and 7 are not met;

b. The ZBA should determine if they agree with the determination that standards 2 and 6 are met;

c. The ZBA should determine if standards 3 and 4 are met.

For the side yard setback variance:

d. The ZBA should determine if they agree with the determination that standards 1, 3, 5 and 7 are not met;

e. The ZBA should determine if they agree with the determination that standards 2 and 6 are met;

f. The ZBA should determine if standards 3 and 4 are 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 for both requests. The Planning Commission and Township Board recently reviewed the Zoning Ordinance requirements for attached garages and amended the ordinance. The previous ordinance permitted a house to have an attached garage with 60% of the gross floor area of the dwelling to which it is attached, not to exceed 1000 square feet. The ordinance amendment changed the maximum to 1500 square feet; however, the 60% amount was left unchanged. So both the Planning Commission and Township Board determined to keep the 60% amount the same, but determined that larger houses could have proportionately larger sized garages. They noted that the ZBA could address houses that were substantially larger than 2500 square feet (such as the 10,000 square foot house on Hillsborough). However, no Planning Commission member and no Board member stated that the 60% amount should be increased.

For example:

1. A 1000 square foot house could have a garage with a maximum of 600 square feet;

2. A 1250 square foot house could have a garage with a maximum of 750 square feet;

3. A 1500 square foot house could have a garage with a maximum of 900 square feet;

4. A 1750 square foot house could have a garage with a maximum of 1050 square feet;

5. A 2000 square foot house could have a garage with a maximum of 1200 square feet;

6. A 2250 square foot house could have a garage with a maximum of 1350 square feet;

7. A 2500 square foot house could have a garage with a maximum of 1500 square feet;

8. Any house larger than 2500 square feet could have a maximum of 1500 square feet.

By keeping the 60% amount, the Planning Commission and Township Board both determined that the public interest would best be served by keeping a garage to a 60% proportion of the dwelling to which it is attached so that a garage would not be proportionately larger than 60% of the house.

It should be noted that many of those who submit building permit application ask about larger garages and want larger garages than permitted by the ordinance. However, most everyone abides by the ordinance requirement for garage sizes. If it would be in the public interest to permit garages to be 75% of the dwelling unit to which it is attached, the Township would amend the ordinance to permit the increased percentage for all houses in the Township.

For the side yard setback, the Planning Commission and Township Board determined that in an Agriculture district, structures should be at least 20 feet from a side property line. The neighboring property is currently being farmed as the attached pictures show and crops have been planted on the neighboring property right up to the property line. Since this is an AG district, it is in the public interest that the neighboring property’s crops are at least 20 feet away.

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 for both requests. The use of a single family home with attached garage is permitted in the AG 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 for the side yard setback because the building permit application for the construction that was initially submitted to the Township listed the dimensions of the proposed additional stall as 15 by 24 feet which resulted in compliance with the 20 foot side yard setback requirement. The applicant changed the dimension of the width to 16 feet only after discovering that a variance was needed due to the fact that the square footage of the garage would be 75% of the dwelling unit. Therefore, the applicant has already demonstrated that this setback could be met and there are no exceptional reasons listed on the application why it could not be met.

The ZBA will have to determine if this standard is met for the 60% amount. Although the applicant indicates that the site floods on the east and south ends of the parcel, the site is not in a floodplain according to the Flood Insurance Rate Map. This is a very large parcel with ample room for the applicant to construct an accessory building with up to 1500 square feet as permitted by the ordinance. Even if the south and east parts of the parcel flood, the pictures show that the house is at a much higher elevation than the road. The rear of the site directly behind the house (as shown in the pictures) is close to the same elevation as the house. The property begins to decline in elevation towards the south. Therefore, even if the site floods in some areas, the applicant does have the opportunity to construct a detached accessory building with a maximum floor area of 1500 square feet in the area close behind the house (but at least 10 feet from the house). Simply because the applicant does not want to construct an accessory building in the rear yard close to the house (but at least 10 feet away as per the ordinance) does not appear to provide a sufficient reason to determine that this standard is met. However, the ZBA should determine if this standard is met.

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 ZBA will have to determine if this standard is met for both requests. While many other houses in the area have attached three stall garages, the houses are larger than this house. Will it be detrimental to those larger houses to have a smaller house with a proportionately larger garage? What is the reason that the Planning Commission and Township Board determined the maximum percentage to be 60%? Will the addition have a negative affect upon the crops that are on the adjacent property?

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 for both requests. There is no substantial property right possessed by other properties in the vicinity that the applicant does not have. The applicant notes in the application that other houses in the vicinity have attached three stall garages. ALL of the properties in the vicinity meet the ordinance in regards to the 60% amount. The only difference is that the houses with three stall garages have a dwelling unit with larger floor areas. All the property owners in the vicinity, including the applicant, have the property right to have a detached accessory building. The applicant could take advantage of the ability to construct an accessory building (like other properties in the vicinity) to address additional storage concerns.

Further, frequently Township residents request garages (and accessory buildings) that are larger than the ordinance permits. Other than the one variance request noted below that was granted to remedy the nonconforming issue of no attached garage, there are no records of a variance being granted for an accessory building to be larger than 60% of the dwelling unit for the past twelve years. Therefore, if the variance was to be granted, the applicant would possess a property right that NO other properties in the Township have (other than the one variance that was granted). All other construction within the Township for the past twelve years, even if the property owners wanted larger garages, abided by the ordinance in regards to the 60% amount.

According to Sec. 3.4(E)(4), the applicant has the property right to have a detached accessory building up to 1500 square feet in area as long at the setbacks were met. Although the applicant mentions that areas of the site flood, the area around the house has a much higher elevation that the outskirts of the parcel and it appears that the detached accessory building could be constructed there without the problems of flooding.

In the past ten years, three variances were approved for houses to have larger garages than the ordinance permitted, though two were not for the garage to be more than 60% of the dwelling unit. One variance was approved for a 4719 square foot house at 5853 Stonebridge to have an attached garage 1242 square feet in area. One variance was approved for a 10,000 square foot house at 6029 Hillsborough to have a 2228 square foot garage. In 2002, a variance was approved for 1408 Oakwood Dr. for the property owner to attach a house to an existing detached garage, which resulting in the garage being larger than 60% of the house. However, attaching the garage resulted in the structure becoming conforming since attached garages are required.

Two similar variance requests were denied in the past 6 years. In 2001 a variance was denied for 7725 Graceland for the construction of a third stall for a garage which would have resulted in a floor area of the garage exceeding the 60% amount. A variance request for a garage of 1315 square feet was denied for 5553 Kenowa Ave.

The applicant has not provided any reason why the side yard setback could not be met. In fact, the initial building permit application listed the dimension of the addition as 15 by 24 which resulted in compliance with the side yard setback.

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 for both requests. As far as is known, no elements on the site are currently non-conforming. The property owner notes on the application that the shed would be removed from the side of the house. As the pictures show, the accessory building has already been moved from the side of the house. The site plan submitted by the applicant does not even show the accessory building located anywhere on the site.

Standard #7 - That the variance is not necessitated as a result of any action or inaction of the applicant.

NOT MET for both requests. The pictures clearly show that construction has already begun on the addition without an approved building permit (the initially submitted building permit application was denied because the 60% maximum amount was exceeded). It appears as though the variance is necessary because the applicant found that a building permit is needed for the construction after it had already begun for the additional stall which results in a 19 foot side yard setback and the garage equaling 75% of the floor area of the dwelling unit to which it is attached.

Sue Hansen, 4464 Fillmore St., presented the request and stated that they had lost some siding and wanted to put up a third stall of the garage for storage.

Joyce Weise asked why they located the accessory building where they did.

Sue Hansen stated the following. A County drain is on the east side of the house. The front yard fills with water in the spring and a lot of the lower land in the back floods, too. They have lost trees on the east side. They have a double drain field in the rear and it takes up a lot of the rear yard. The septic is behind the drain and is about 75 to 100 feet out.

Carl DeVree asked why the applicant started construction without a permit.

Sue Hansen said that they were under the assumption that the side yard setback was 10 feet from the lot line and they moved the shed to put a footing in. She said they stopped construction after they found out about the permit and the side yard setback.

John Fanthorpe asked why the original building permit application was different from the variance request in that the permit showed the stall to be 15 feet wide and the variance was to have a 16 foot wide stall.

Sue Hansen said that they had initially wanted the stall to be 16 feet wide and then 15 feet wide, but they stopped construction when they found that the addition exceeded 60% of the house.

Greg Honderd asked if it was possible for the ZBA to add a condition of approval that an accessory building not be allowed. He also asked if the site was in a flood plain.

The zoning administrator stated that the ZBA could add conditions, but enforcement might be an issue in the future. She stated that she had checked the flood plain maps and the site was not in a flood plain.

Greg Honderd said that fill could be brought in and it was less expensive to construct a detached accessory building.

William Hansen, 4464 Fillmore St., stated that they did not want a detached accessory building because they did not want to walk in the snow to access it and they wanted to store items in it that were currently in their basement.

The question was raised as to whether or not a finished basement could count toward the gross floor area which would make the 60% number larger.

The zoning administrator stated that Sec. 2.43 of the Zoning Ordinance defines gross floor area as counting the basement when more than one half of the basement height is above the established curb level, or finished lot grade, whichever is high. Therefore, the basement could only count if it was more than half above the grade or if there was a situation such as a walkout and the walkout would only count for the area affected.

Joyce Weise asked if they could dig out the basement to count it toward finished floor area.

Stanley Sterk suggested that the accessory building be detached.

Mr. Hansen said that he did not want to store items outside because of the snow and he does not want to build a driveway on the east side of his house because it is a swamp.

Joyce Weise suggested that the driveway could be put in the west side of the house where the third stall was planned to go.

Members of the ZBA asked why the Agriculture district had a side yard setback of 20 feet.

The zoning administrator stated the following. The Planning Commission and Township Board adopted the ordinance because they determined that there should be standards for each of the zoning districts relative to the uses and structures that would be allowed in the districts. She read the purpose stated in the ordinance for the AG district as follows. The district is intended to preserve, enhance and stabilize areas within the community which are presently being used for food and fiber production or are primarily rural. It is the purpose of the regulations for this district to promote the orderly, harmonious development of the community by preserving predominantly rural lands from inappropriate development and to preserve the essential characteristics and economic values of these areas as agricultural and open lands.

Greg Honderd said the following. The Planning Commission looked at it as a ratio issue and how close neighboring structures would be. The lot is 330 feet wide and they would not want the house to crowd the neighbor in case they wanted to build an accessory building or if they wanted to get large equipment to the rear yard. The main issue was the uses that were allowed in the district. The neighbors to the west are farming and they might want to push manure around. He understood that one foot did not seem to be a big amount, but the setback was required for the reasoning that other uses could affect the property. For instance, a wood burning furnace was permitted in this district along with other various uses that would be better if there was a larger setback. There was an advantage to having the 20 foot setback in case they wanted to drive equipment and it was more practical to have the 20 foot side yard setback.

Joyce Weise asked the applicant why they had constructed the house in this specific location.

Sue Hansen said that the land had to perk and the county drain had a lot to do with the location. She said that the drain comes from the east and water can go up 100 feet on their property.

Joyce Weise said that they could construct an addition half the size as proposed and still meet the ordinance although a vehicle could not fit.

William Hansen said that parking a vehicle in the stall was not the reason they wanted the addition now, but maybe they would park a vehicle in it in the future and the extra stall would be good for resale. He said that he did not want to go in the snow to access the storage area.

Stanley Sterk said that they could add the storage space as living area and that would meet the ordinance.

William Hansen said that they could change the other stall closer to the house to living space.

The zoning administrator explained that the Planning Commission and Township Board recently reviewed the ordinance relating to attached garages and did not change the 60% maximum amount.

Joyce Weise asked if the ZBA determined that the standards of the ordinance were met.

John Fanthorpe said that there were extenuating circumstances due to the drain and they could possibly get more square footage by finishing the basement with a grade change. He said that they could exit on the side of the house and then a variance would not be needed.

William Hansen said that if they could get the stuff out of the basement they eventually could finish the basement.

John Fanthorpe questioned the original size of the addition.

Joyce Weise stated the following. She is bothered by the location of the house on the site and thinks they are compelled to consider the drainage issues even though she has not seen the site in the spring. She was curious about the Drain Commission changing the route of the drain. The project was started without permits. She thought that although the ZBA could be lenient with the 1 foot side yard setback variance, the 60% maximum was important because the house and garage should not be out of proportion. She asked why the Planning Commission wanted the 60% maximum in the ordinance.

Greg Honderd said that the reason was to keep the house and garage proportionate.

Joyce Weise said that the applicants have other options even with the drainage issues, such as to put up a detached accessory building in areas other than the east side or construct a 179 square foot addition which meets the ordinance.

The chairperson opened the public hearing. No one was present to speak at the public hearing. The chairperson closed the public hearing.

The applicants stated the following. Back in 1978 when the house was built three bedroom ranches were the norms but not any more. It would be hard to add enough square footage for the right ratio. The smaller addition would not add value to the house or look as good as a three stall garage would. A detached accessory building would not work.

Carl DeVree asked how large the existing detached accessory building was.

The applicant stated that the existing detached accessory building is 10 by 12 feet and is full.

Joyce Weise stated the following. She determined that standard number 3 is met because of the drainage issues. As far as standard number 4 and the third stall being detrimental to the neighborhood, the whole area is zoned AG and farming is taking place, plus the other houses in the area are larger and are permitted to have the third stall.

Carl DeVree asked if the horse farm was next door and he was told the horse farm was to the east and the corn field was to the west of the site.

Moved by Greg Honderd, seconded by Carl DeVree, to deny the variance request for (VAR0706) Sue Hansen, 4464 Fillmore St., to have a side yard setback of 19 feet, a variance of one foot from the 20 feet required in Chapter 24, in an (AG) Agriculture District, on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-06-100-007, located at 4464 Fillmore St., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan, (submittal materials) based on noncompliance with the seven standards. Specifically, the request does not comply with the following standards: No. 1, 3, 5 and 7.

MOTION CARRIED.

Moved by Greg Honderd, seconded by Carl DeVree, to deny the variance request for (VAR0706) Sue Hansen, 4464 Fillmore St., to have an accessory building (garage) with an above grade floor area of 1028 square feet attached to a dwelling unit of 1372 square feet which is 75% of the gross floor area of the dwelling to which it is attached, a variance of 15% from the maximum of 60% permitted in Sec. 3.4(E)(1), and to have a side yard setback of 19 feet, a variance of one foot from the 20 feet required in Chapter 24, in an (AG) Agriculture District, on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-06-100-007, located at 4464 Fillmore St., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan, (submittal materials) based on noncompliance with the seven standards. Specifically, the request does not comply with the following standards: 1, 3, 5 and 7.

John Fanthorpe asked how much more area was needed to be finished.

Greg Honderd stated that they had options such as adding a three-seasons porch or to finish an area of the garage and that the amount of square footage needed would be less if part of the garage was finished.

Carl DeVree asked about vehicles parking in the garage.

The applicant stated that they had five vehicles because their kids were home, but they had a big driveway with an area to turn around and they could park on the driveway.

Yeas: Joyce Weise, Greg Honderd, Carl DeVree, John Fanthorpe

Nays: Stanley Sterk

MOTION CARRIED.

#070926-04 - Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 8:16 p.m.