Georgetown Township Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of April 23, 2008

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE GEORGETOWN CHARTER TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD APRIL 23, 2008

The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairperson Joyce Weise.

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

Members Absent: none

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

#080423-01 - Approval of the minutes

The minutes of the regular meeting held on March 26, 2008 were presented.

Moved by Carl DeVree, seconded by John Fanthorpe, to approve the minutes as presented.

MOTION CARRIED.

#080423-02 – (VAR0804) Unfinished Business - (VAR0804) 348 Baldwin LLC, 169 Monroe Ave.,

Grand Rapids, is requesting to have 28 parking spaces, a variance of 17 spaces (38%) from the 45 spaces required in Sec. 26.8 and 26.9; in a (CS) Community Service Commercial district, on parcels of land described as P.P. # 70-14-13-401-004 and -005, located at 348 and 358 Baldwin St., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan.

The applicants submitted a site plan to the Planning Commission that complies with the ordinance in regards to parking requirements. The applicant was not present and the item was left tabled.

#080423-03 - (VAR0805) Robert Stoll, 8240 Mellowwood Dr., is requesting the following variances:

1. To locate an accessory use (hot tub) in the front yard, a variance from Sec. 3.4(A) which states that accessory buildings and uses shall not be erected in any front yard;

2. To locate the accessory use (hot tub) 23 feet from the front property line, a variance of 17 feet from the 40 feet required for a front yard setback in Chapter 24, and a variance from Sec. 3.4(D) which states that when an accessory building or use is located on a corner lot, the side lot line of which is substantially a continuation of the front lot line of the lot to its rear, said building or use shall not project beyond the front yard setback line required on the lot in the rear of such corner lot;

3. To locate the accessory use (hot tub) two feet from the main building, a variance of 8 feet from the 10 feet required in Sec. 3.4(C);

4. To locate a 10 by 12 foot (120 square foot) accessory building in the front yard, a variance from Sec. 3.4(A) which states that accessory buildings and uses shall not be erected in any front yard and a variance from Sec. 3.4 (F) which states that in a residential district a detached accessory building shall be located in the rear yard or non-required side yard of the lot;

5. To locate the accessory building 23 feet from the front property line, a variance of 17 feet from the 40 feet required for a front yard setback in Chapter 24 and a variance from Sec. 3.4(D) which states that when an accessory building or use is located on a corner lot, the side lot line of which is substantially a continuation of the front lot line of the lot to its rear, said building or use shall not project beyond the front yard setback line required on the lot in the rear of such corner lot;

In a (LDR) Low Density Residential District, on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-10-465-005, located at 8240 Mellowwood Dr., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, MI.

The zoning administrator presented a review as follows.

REQUEST

The multiple variance requests relate to the proposal of the property owner to construct a 10 by 12 foot accessory building and to locate a hot tub two feet behind the main structure.

The situation pertaining to this property is as follows:

1. This is a corner lot in the LDR district with street frontage on Mellowwood Dr. and on Mellowwood East Court. Therefore, a 40 foot front yard setback is required from the west and south property lines on both streets. Since there is only 10.4 feet from the structure to the north property line, that yard is considered to be the side yard. The rear yard is determined to be the yard to the east of the main structure. However, due to the unusual layout of the lot where the southern property line angles north to provide a very tiny eastern yard and the fact that the yard to the east also abuts a street (making it a front yard for setback purposes), the back yard (according to the definition of the ordinance) is very small after the 40 foot front yard setback is applied. The very small area that meets the ordinance definition of a rear yard (where the accessory building and use should be located) is mostly taken up by a large oak tree.

2. Although this property is located in an LDR district, the house currently exists within the front yard setback along Mellowwood East Court. The house was constructed in 1976 and there is no known reason as to why this unusual shaped lot was ever approved through the platting process by the Township in the first place since the building envelope is extremely small or why a building permit was issued for the house to be constructed in a front yard.

3. There is a large oak tree and one other smaller tree located within the very small area that would be considered to be the rear yard by the ordinance definition.

4. Due to this situation, the only physical area available or possible for the property owner to construct an accessory building and to locate an accessory use (hot tub) would be in the area that is considered by ordinance definition to be the front yard off Mellowwood East Court (after they were located at least 10 feet from the main structure).

5. This area to the east of the main structure has been used by the property owner as a back yard since the house faces towards Mellowwood Dr.

6. Many mature trees and landscaping exist in this area and between this lot and the lot to the east.

7. Various sections of the ordinance pertain to the requirement of locating accessory buildings and uses in a rear yard or non-required side yard and not in a front yard. Plus the ordinance also addresses corner lots in various sections and requires that a front yard setback be applied towards any yard that abuts a street.

8. Another ordinance section relates to the rear yard when the property is a corner lot and states that the front lot line continues to the property line and no building or use shall project beyond the front yard setback line required on the lot in the rear of such corner lot.

9. Another variance request is to locate the accessory use (hot tub) on the cement patio only two feet from the main structure when 10 feet is required. There is no physical reason to prevent the applicant from complying with the ten foot requirement other than the property owner wants to locate the hot tub in this location for added privacy from the existing landscaping and for convenience to access it from the patio sliding door.

HISTORY

Similar requests for an accessory building to be right next to a main structure was denied at the December 11, 2002 and April 28, 2004 ZBA meetings. It was determined that the Planning Commission had adopted the ten foot distance requirement for health, safety and welfare issues, along with issues related to fire safety. An excerpt of the minutes follows the review. Another similar request for an accessory building to be located one foot from the main structure was granted on January 26, 2000. This particular structure had been constructed four and a half years prior to the time it was presented to the ZBA and only finally went before the ZBA due to a complaint received by the Township. The ZBA granted the variance because this was the only spot on the site that it could be located due to ponds, topography, and the 100-year flood plain.

DISCUSSION

The review has been divided into two sections for discussion, the first will be the review pertaining to all the variance requests to locate the accessory building and use in the front yard which encompasses the following.

1. To locate an accessory use (hot tub) in the front yard, a variance from Sec. 3.4(A) which states that accessory buildings and uses shall not be erected in any front yard;

3. To locate a 10 by 12 foot (120 square foot) accessory building in the front yard, a variance from Sec. 3.4(A) which states that accessory buildings and uses shall not be erected in any front yard and a variance from Sec. 3.4 (F) which states that in a residential district a detached accessory building shall be located in the rear yard or non-required side yard of the lot;

4. To locate the accessory building 23 feet from the front property line, a variance of 17 feet from the 40 feet required for a front yard setback in Chapter 24 and a variance from Sec. 3.4(D) which states that when an accessory building or use is located on a corner lot, the side lot line of which is substantially a continuation of the front lot line of the lot to its rear, said building or use shall not project beyond the front yard setback line required on the lot in the rear of such corner lot;

Variance standards in Sec. 28.11(C) are required to be met in order for a variance to be granted. The ZBA should determine if they agree with the determination that the following standards are met or not met.

Variance ID

VAR0805

Applicant

Robert Stoll

Address

8240 Mellowwood Dr.

Request

Accessory building and accessory use in front yard

Date

Applied for April 23, 2008 meeting

#	YES	NO	CONDITIONS (Chapter 28.11-C)
1			Granting the variance(s) will be in the public interest and will ensure that the spirit of the Ordinance shall be observed.
2	X		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		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.
4	X		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		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		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			That the variance is not necessitated as a result of any action or inaction of the applicant.

Standard #1 - Granting the variance will be in the public interest and will ensure that the spirit of the Ordinance shall be observed.

The ZBA will have to determine if this standard is met. The spirit of the ordinance is to provide sufficient front yard setbacks for houses and to provide that those front yard setbacks be free of any accessory buildings or uses. However, the layout of this lot would likely not be approved by the Township today since the building envelop is too small for a house to be constructed while still meeting the setbacks. Further, the layout of the lot would likely not be approved because the rear yard scales out to be about 33 feet at the widest point and decreases to an area with about half of that at the rear property line. With the way the lot line along Mellowwood East Court veers to the north, the front setback line along with street significantly cuts to the north, making the house nonconforming since it was constructed within this front yard setback area and making the rear yard (by ordinance definition) extremely small.

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 all requests.

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.

Met for the setback requests. This area of Georgetown Township was constructed in the 1970’s. A Zoning Ordinance dated “Adopted August 10, 1964” appears to be the one in effect at the time the house was constructed and lists the front yard setback as the one listed in the “Master Plan for Streets and Highways.” Unfortunately, as for Township records, no copy of that document exists. Consequently, there is no way to determine why the lot design was approved for such an unusually shaped lot with a small rear yard and there is no way to determine why a building permit was issued for the house to be constructed in the front yard. For some reason, it appears as though most of the circular pavement of the cul-de-sac was placed to the north in such as way as to take off a large portion of this lot.

At any rate, the practical difficulties exist from the exception, extraordinary or unique circumstances that apply to the layout of the lot and the absence of area in the rear yard after taking into account the front yard setback off Mellowwood East Court.

Further, there is no physical way the applicant could locate the accessory building and use in the area defined as the rear yard at least 10 feet from the main structure without removing the existing mature trees.

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 for the setbacks. There are many mature trees and landscaping in the applicant’s east yard and along the eastern property line that visually shied the area from the neighbors to the east and from the cul-de-sac to the south.

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.

Met for the setbacks. All the property owners in the vicinity have the right to have an accessory building and accessory uses. The applicant is denied the right to have an accessory building and use because of the small area of the rear yard of his property (the rear yard that meets the ordinance definition which is outside of the front yard setback of Mellowwood East Court), unless the mature trees and landscaping would be removed.

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 all requests. Although the house is currently nonconforming since it is located within the front yard setback adjacent to Mellowwood East Court, no other aspects of the site appear to be nonconforming. Since no accessory buildings or uses currently exist on the site, adding them will not cause any existing nonconforming situation to be increased.

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

The ZBA will have to determine if this standard is met. Although the variance request originated from the fact that the applicant wants to construct an accessory building and accessory use, the reason the applicant has difficulty meeting the ordinance requirements is because lot has an unusual layout with a very small rear yard (that meets the ordinance definition where accessory buildings and uses are to be located) and mature trees and landscaping are located in the small rear yard area.

Robert Stoll, 8240 Mellowwood Dr., presented the request and submitted pictures.

Greg Honderd asked if the variance was not granted for the hot tub to be two feet from the house, would it still be possible for the location to be within the distances requested for setbacks.

The zoning administrator stated that if the hot tub was moved 8 feet to the north and east it would still meet the setback distances listed in the request.

The applicant asked why the ordinance existed requiring that an accessory use be located ten feet from a main building.

The zoning administrator stated the following. The Planning Commission and Township Board had adopted the ordinance for health, safety and welfare issues. It seems that reasons may include fire safety and ability for maintenance between the structure and the house. The ordinance may not be appropriate for portable hot tubs such as this; however, if the ordinance is really not applicable for portable hot tubs, the ordinance should be changed to be fair to everyone and allow everyone to have the same setback requirement. As per the Zoning Ordinance, the determination has been made that a hot tub or swimming pool are accessory uses and must meet the requirements in the ordinance for accessory uses. The determination is consistent with the Building Code where a hot tub or pool is defined as an accessory use. The ZBA has denied multiple similar variance requests in the past and only granted a similar variance when other criteria were present such as wetlands, floodplain or a pond. The minutes of those previous ZBA meetings had been given to the ZBA members. The variance should only be granted if the standards are met and the ZBA should be consistent with the standards.

Greg Honderd said that it made sense for the ordinance to be brought to the Planning Commission for a review and possible revision to allow portable hot tubs to be exempt from the ten foot distance requirement. He said that the lot design would not be approved by today’s standards.

The applicant explained where the electrical workings of the hot tub were located. He said that many people do not ask about zoning and place hot tubs closer than 10 feet to a house.

John Fanthorpe said that the problems the applicant has encountered seem related to the unusual shaped lot and the hot tub is different from the shed because it is more portable. He said that there are few alternatives.

Joyce Weise said that there are no alternatives for the accessory building.

Carl DeVree asked if the hot tub was required to be fenced or locked.

The zoning administrator said that the fencing and locking requirements were Building Code issues and not zoning issues.

The applicant stated that he did have a fence around his property.

The chairperson opened the public hearing.

Chris Zellers, 1307 Carol Dr., asked if the ZBA could take into consideration that the hot tub was to be used for therapeutic reasons.

Joyce Weise stated that the ZBA does sometimes take those types of reasons into consideration.

The chairperson closed the public hearing.

Moved by John Fanthorpe, seconded by Stanley Sterk, to approve (VAR08050) Robert Stoll, 8240 Mellowwood Dr., for the following variance requests:

1. To locate an accessory use (hot tub) in the front yard, a variance from Sec. 3.4(A) which states that accessory buildings and uses shall not be erected in any front yard;

In a (LDR) Low Density Residential District, on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-10-465-005, located at 8240 Mellowwood Dr., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan, based on conformance with the seven standards of the ordinance. Specifically, the unusual lot design necessitates the variance requests. The following are conditions:

a. That the accessory building is no larger than120 square feet; and

b. That the accessory use is no larger than 72 square feet.

Greg Honderd said that he is in favor of granted the variance for these items because this is a nonconforming lot that would not be approved by today’s standards.

MOTION CARRIED.

The zoning administrator stated the following. In her opinion, for all the same reasons as the previous variances met the standards of the ordinance in order for a variance to be granted, the request to have the hot tub two feet from the house did not meet the standards of the ordinance. The applicant had no physical way to comply with the ordinance standards in regards to the front yard off the court and the setback issues. However, there were no physical reasons why the applicant could not comply with the ordinance requirement to have the hot tub ten feet from the main structure. The hot tub merely had to be moved eight feet to the northeast. The applicant had no reason pertaining to the property as to why he could not locate the hot tub in a spot that met the ten foot distance requirement other than he just wanted it close to a door and in a location where he could not see it out of the windows of his house. One of the standards of the ordinance relats to the applicant being denied a property right that other property owners have. If the variance were to be granted, the property owner would HAVE a property right that no one else has, which is to have the hot tub two feet from the house. Again, if there is no legitimate reason for the ten foot setback, the ordinance should be changed to be fair to everyone and allow everyone to have the same setback. The ZBA would have to review the standards that had to be met in order for a variance to be granted. If the ZBA determined the standards were met, the variance could be granted; if determined to not be met, the ZBA did not have the authority to grant the variance. She presented a review for the second part of the request as follows.

THE FOLLOWING REVIEW IS FOR THE SECOND ASPECT relating to locating the accessory use (hot tub) two feet from the main building, a variance of 8 feet from the 10 feet required in Sec. 3.4(C). This variance could NOT be approved in the proposed location if the previous variances were not granted since the applicant is proposing to locate it in the front yard.

Variance ID

VAR0805

Applicant

Robert Stoll

Address

8240 Mellowwood Dr.

Request

Accessory use two feet from the main structure

Date

Applied for April 23, 2008 meeting

#	YES	NO	CONDITIONS (Chapter 28.11-C)
1		X	Granting the variance(s) will be in the public interest and will ensure that the spirit of the Ordinance shall be observed.
2	X		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	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.
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	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		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	That the variance is not necessitated as a result of any action or inaction of the applicant.

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. The spirit of the ordinance is for accessory buildings and uses to be located at least ten feet from a main structure due to health, safety and welfare reasons. After a discussion with the Building Code Official (who represents many municipalities), it is commonplace for municipalities to consider hot tubs and pools to be considered accessory uses that must meet the same setback requirements from a main structure as an accessory building.

Note the following excerpts of minutes for two ZBA meetings where two variances were denied for the same type of request. One variance was granted for an accessory building to be located closer than ten feet to the main structure, but the reason for approval was related to other situations on the property such as wetlands, flood plain and a pond. The variances that were denied were not granted because of the health, safety and welfare reasons the Planning Commission and Township Board found when adopting the ordinance that requires the ten foot setback. They found that ten feet is needed for fire safety issues and for maintenance-type issues.

If the health, safety and welfare issues are determined to no longer be relevant, either the Planning Commission or Board should initiate an ordinance amendment to change that requirement so that no one is required to abide by that section of the ordinance.

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.

Not met. The only reason the applicant proposed to locate the accessory building two feet from the house is due to convenience for using the sliding door to access it and due to the privacy created from the existing landscaping. Whereas the other variance requests were necessitated due to the reason that physically the applicant had no other options. In this regard, multiple options exist for the applicant to locate the accessory use (hot tub) ten feet from the main structure. The applicant has options to extend the cement patio to the east eight feet (or even less since the hot tub is shown to be 3 to 4 feet from the edge of the existing patio) and also has the option to plant more landscaping to ensure privacy in the location. The applicant could move the hot tub to the north also to keep at least the 23 ft. setback from the road right-of-way.

The ZBA will have to determine if this is met. Landscaping currently exists that would shield the hot tub from the street and the neighbors to the east; however, the same landscaping could provide a sight-obscuring buffer if the hot tub was moved to be located 10 feet from the house or else more landscaping could be added.

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 right to have an accessory building or use located closer than 10 feet to the main structure. Therefore, if the variance was granted, the applicant would be afforded a property right that no one else in the vicinity has.

Met.

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

Not met. The only reason for the variance request is because the applicant simply wants to put the hot tub two feet from the main structure. There is no physical reason to prohibit the applicant from meeting the ten foot requirement. The applicant is proposing to locate the hot tub two feet from the house merely because more privacy would be afforded by the existing landscaping (more could be added) and for the convenience of accessing the hot tub from the sliding door. The sliding door still could be used to access the hot tub, but more steps would be needed to be taken to the east. Therefore, the request is necessitated purely because of the action of the applicant wanting it to be located 2 feet from the main structure.

The applicant stated the following. He understood the line of thought for meeting the ordinance requirement for the ten foot distance, but for certain, real-value reasons he wanted the accessory building to be two feet from the house. At some point the ordinance and policy may change, but for reasonable and straight-forward reasons he asked for the variance. It was common sense.

The zoning administrator stated the following. A similar situation arose at a previous ZBA meeting when Family Fare asked to have two wall signs that would have been much smaller in area than the one single sign permitted by the ordinance. Everyone had been in agreement that the request made sense and would be good for the Township. However, the request did not meet the ordinance standards necessary for a variance to be granted. The variance was denied; however, subsequently, due to the impetus of the variance request, the Planning Commission and Board reviewed the ordinance and revised it to permit two smaller signs rather than one larger sign, if the applicant wanted it. In this way the ZBA upheld the standards of the ordinance and it was changed for everyone.

John Fanthorpe asked about the time frame.

Carl DeVree stated that the ZBA could table the request and wait for the Planning Commission to review an ordinance change.

Stan Sterk said that an ordinance could take between 60 to 90 days to change.

The zoning administrator said that under the new Zoning Enabling Act, the notice for a public hearing for an ordinance revision only had to be published once at least 15 days prior to the hearing; therefore, the revision could be on the Planning Commission agenda for the May 21 meeting. She said that the Planning Commission meeting would be held before the next ZBA meeting on May 28.

John Fanthorpe asked if the patio could be extended and was told that it could.

Stanley Sterk asked what the name of this Board was and what functions it performed.

Joyce Weise said that this is the Zoning Board of Appeals and they review requests for variances from the requirements of the ordinance.

Stanley Sterk stated the following. The book was not thorough enough. They could count on sending this issue to the Planning Commission and it should be done for the future. However, in this instance for this gentleman the ordinance does not make sense. Everyone has agreed that it does not make sense and should be changed. This ZBA is empowered to change that ten foot requirement because it is not correct. They can make a decision now and tell the Planning Commission for the future issues. The ZBA turned down a variance request from the Presbyterian Church on 28^th Ave. to have a larger accessory building and the Board changed the ordinance so that they could have it. The normal process to change an ordinance takes between 60 and 90 days. The ZBA could make the decision now. It does not make sense that the hot tub has to be ten feet from the house. It does make sense that a barn should be ten feet from the house.

The zoning administrator said that Stan Sterk could initiate the ordinance amendment at the Board meeting on Monday, April 28, 2008 which would provide enough time to publish the notice before the Planning Commission meeting on May 21, 2008.

Greg Honderd stated the following. He understood Stan Sterk’s practical opinion. However, it is important that the ZBA follow the decision-making process taking into account consistent past practices and following the standards of the ordinance. Rather than granting a variance that does not meet the standards and is inconsistent with past practices, the right thing to do is to draft language for the ordinance change, advertise the amendment and have the Planning Commission review the change. He asked when the earliest date was that the Planning Commission could review the amendment.

The zoning administrator said that it could be on the agenda for the second Planning Commission meeting in May.

Joyce Weise stated the following. It was the primary responsibility of the ZBA to protect and follow the Zoning Ordinance. It was not the responsibility or job of the ZBA to write ordinances or to change an ordinance. It is the responsibility of the Planning Commission and Board to write ordinances for the health, safety and welfare of the Township. She understood the difficulties of the situation, but the request did not meet the standards necessary for the ZBA to grant a variance. She was concerned about safety and protecting the neighbors, especially for children around pools. She said that there was three feet between her and the person next to her and seven to eight feet between her and the next person down. Ten feet was not a great distance and the extra eight feet was not a far distance for the applicant to walk to get to the hot tub, since the hot tub could be located in a spot that met the ordinance.

There was discussion regarding the concrete pad and it was noted that it would be simple to put in a pad or extend the current cement pad.

The applicant said that his goal was not to see the hot tub from the windows in his house. He said in this location he would not be able to see it from the house, but if he moved it ten feet from the house he would be able to see it from the house. He said that privacy was also an issue out of respect for his neighbors who also sit in their hot tub.

The zoning administrator noted that the applicant could add more landscaping or a solid fence for more privacy if the hot tub was moved to a spot that met the ordinance.

The chairperson opened the public hearing.

Mr. Bassett, 2666 Sun Valley, said if the hot tub was locked it prevent a child from falling into it.

Joyce Weise said that it would.

Tim Bender, 1071 Vos, said that it would present an extreme inconvenience to building more concrete because when his patio was cemented, the yard was ripped up. He said that the two feet should be fine if it was locked and covered. He said that it was not a health hazard because it would not leak or start on fire.

Donna Kotsifas, 8335 Birchwood, said that she has no objections to the variance requests and came just to see how the government works.

The chairperson closed the public hearing.

Moved by Carl DeVree, seconded by Greg Honderd, to deny the request for (VAR0805) Robert Stoll, 8240 Mellowwood Dr., to locate the accessory use (hot tub) two feet from the main building, a variance of 8 feet from the 10 feet required in Sec. 3.4(C), in a (LDR) Low Density Residential District, on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-10-465-005, located at 8240 Mellowwood Dr., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan, based on the findings that the request does not meet the seven standards of the ordinance necessary to be met in order to grant a variance. Specifically, two standards have been met and five have not been met.

Moved by John Fanthorpe, seconded by Stanley Sterk, to table the request to give the Planning Commission the time to review and change the ordinance and to leave the item under unfinished business for the next meeting.

Yeas: Stanley Sterk, Joyce Weise, Carl DeVree, John Fanthorpe

Nays: Greg Honderd

MOTION CARRIED.

Members of the audience questioned the ZBA about the variance process. Information was provided as follows. It is the responsibility of the ZBA to protect the ordinances for the residents of the Township and to grant variances from the requirements of the ordinance only when there are special or unique circumstances which warrant the exception. The ordinances are written to protect the individual’s rights balanced with the rights of the community. They are written to be fair to everyone, but in exceptional circumstances when the ordinance standards are met in order to be granted a variance, a waiver is in order. The ordinance provides for relief from the requirements when seven specific standards are met and they must be met before a variance is granted.

The applicant must prove that the specific standards needed for a variance are met. The ZBA must keep in mind that if a variance is granted, it will affect everyone else because others will want and request the same thing. The neighbors must also be protected because oftentimes they are opposed, but do not want to get involved and are afraid to speak up. It is the ZBA’s responsibility to think of the neighbors.

#080423-04 - Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.