MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE GEORGETOWN
CHARTER TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
HELD DECEMBER 10, 2008
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by
Chairperson Joyce Weise.
Members Present: Joyce
Weise, John Fanthorpe, Greg Honderd, Carl DeVree, D. Dale Mohr
Members Absent: none
Others Present: Mannette
Minier, Secretary and Zoning Administrator, and the applicants
#081210-01 - Approval of the
minutes
The
minutes of the regular meeting held on June 25, 2008 were presented.
Moved by Carl DeVree,
seconded by John Fanthorpe, to approve the minutes as presented.
MOTION CARRIED.
#081210-02 – (VAR0808) Ridgewood Christian Reformed
Church, 1571 Baldwin St., is
requesting to have a parking lot five feet from a
property line of a residential district., a variance of 20 feet from the 25
feet of greenbelt required in Sec. 26.3(D), in a (LDR) Low density residential
district, on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-14-171-039, located at
1571 Baldwin St., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan. (submittal material)
The zoning administrator
presented a review as follows.
REQUEST
The church wants
to split land with the house (used as a parsonage) from the overall parcel with
the church building and parking lot. In
order for a land split to be approved, both parcels (the newly created parcel
as well as the remaining parcel), must meet the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance in order to eliminate the creation of non-conforming parcels and
non-conforming situations on parcels.
The parcel widths and area meet ordinance requirement; however, the
ordinance requires a 25 foot green belt with one evergreen tree for each 20
feet of length to screen the parking lot from the residential use.
HISTORY
In 2000, variance request VAR0005 was approved for the
construction of the current parking lot to be located two feet from the eastern
property line and nine feet from the north property line. (Neither of these variances applied to the
subject site because the house was considered to be part of the overall church
site.) In May of 2000, a special use
permit was granted and a site plan approved for an addition to take place.
DISCUSSION
It appears as though the residential use and house
have existing for over 40 years with no detrimental effects. This is an existing situation (rather than
one being created).
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 |
VAR0808 |
|||
|
Applicant |
Ridgewood Christian
Reformed Church |
|||
|
Address |
1571 Baldwin St. |
|||
|
Request |
Five foot greenbelt,
variance of 20 feet from the 25 feet required in Sec. 26.3(D) |
|||
|
Date |
Applied for December 10,
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 |
|
|
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 requires the 25
foot greenbelt with landscaping to provide physical separation and visual
screen between potentially incompatible uses.
In this case, the ordinance requires that the church provide the
screening between the parking lot and the residential area in order to lessen
negative impacts (such as car lights and sounds) produced from the parking
area. The church and residence have
existed since the 1960’s when the residence began being used by the church as a
parsonage. As indicated by the
applicant, the church no longer provides a residence for a pastor, but rather
provides a housing allowance to allow a pastor to purchase a home. The church would like to split the property
with the existing house off from the church parcel. The site has an existing hedge row that
appears to provide good screening and the site existing in this way for over
forty years with no evident negative impacts.
The ZBA should determine if this standard is met.
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.
Appears
to be met. The use of a church and a
single family home are both 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.
Appears
to be met. The church and
parsonage were constructed over 40 years ago at the time when the Zoning
Ordinance dated 1964 appears to have been in effect. After research, there appears to have been no
mention of the greenbelt requirement for parking lots in the 1960’s. At this point in time, the only possible way
for the church to comply would be to remove existing and needed parking spaces.
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.
Appears
to be met. The site has
existed for over forty years with no apparent negative impacts. In addition, a dense row of hedges provides
screening between the two uses.
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.
The ZBA
will have to determine if this standard is met. Other churches in the area have been
constructed many years in the past and may have the same situation.
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.
Appears to be met.
The issue is not currently nonconforming due to the fact that church
owns both properties and uses both in the conduct of the church use. The use and structures appear to meet current
ordinances (other than the elements that the ZBA granted variances for in the
past). If no split was sought, it would
be a moot point and no screening would be required.
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. The action
that necessitated the variance appears to be the construction of the church
prior to the adoption of ordinance that requires the screening.
Todd Stuive, Exxel
Engineering and church member, presented the request and stated that Pastor
Joel Booth and other church members were present.
D. Dale Mohr asked when the
church decided to subsidize the pastor’s housing rather than providing housing.
The application stated that
they have been discussing the change for a few years and made the decision to
proceed in 2008 because it has become the typical trend.
The chairperson opened the
public hearing. No one was present to
speak at the public hearing. The
chairperson closed the public hearing.
The zoning administrator
stated that this was a condition that has existed for many years with
apparently no negative impacts. She
noted that the house, though it belonged to the church, has been used for
residential purposes for many years and that this was a different situation
than one where the church was being constructed.
John Fanthorpe asked if the
variance was granted and if the parking lot was torn up in the future, would
the church be required to put in the 25 foot greenbelt.
The zoning administrator
explained that variances go with the property and that once it was granted the
variance would be in effect forever; therefore, if the parking lot was torn up
in the future the 25 foot greenbelt would not have to be added.
Joyce Weise said that it did
not make sense to eliminate parking spaces and that it would not be safe to add
parking spaces by Ridgewood St. She said
that due to the fact that the parsonage was built 40 years ago and there are no
problems with the current residence, the variance made sense and removing the
parking spaces was not a viable alternative.
Carl DeVree asked about the
walkway that connected the residence to the church property.
The applicant said that the
pastor would own the house and would like it to remain because he uses it. He said that they would like it to remain
unless they were required to remove it or it could be filled in if an unrelated
party moved into the house.
The zoning administrator said
that the ZBA could stipulate a condition of approval that the walkway is filled
in if they determined it to be necessary.
D. Dale Mohr stated the
following. Maybe the next person would
like the walkway to access the church property for their kids to roller blade
or the walkway could be reflected in the price if the next owner wanted it
removed. The hedge was beautiful and
meets the intended spirit of the ordinance.
Standard one is met because there is no gain if the variance is not
granted. Standard five is a moot point
because it would only hurt the one who purchases the house and the situation
would not affect anyone other than the buyer.
The buyer should beware.
Moved by D. Dale Mohr, seconded by Carl DeVree, to approve (VAR0806)
Ridgewood Christian Reformed Church, 1571 Baldwin St., to have a parking lot
five feet from a property line of a residential district., a variance of 20
feet from the 25 feet of greenbelt required in Sec. 26.3(D), in a (LDR) Low
density residential district, on a parcel of land described as P.P. #
70-14-14-171-039, located at 1571 Baldwin St., Georgetown Township, Ottawa
County, Michigan, based on conformance with the seven standards and
meeting the spirit of the ordinance, and with the condition that the church is
required to maintain the landscaping hedge to mitigate any negative impacts
from the parking lot and if the hedge is ever removed or destroyed, the church
must replace and/or repair the screening with landscaping or a fence that would
provide the same screening that currently exists.
John Fanthorpe stated that a
current survey should be kept up-to-day and it should be made clear who
maintains the landscaped screening.
The applicant explained that
the landscaped screening was on the church’s property and the church would
maintain it. He said that in addition,
the maintenance was a condition of approval for the variance and if the church
did not maintain the landscaping the future owner could come to the Township
for enforcement of the variance condition.
John Fanthorpe asked about
the utilities and was told they would be verified.
Joyce Weise said that the
request meets all the standards of the ordinance.
MOTION CARRIED.
#081210-03 – Other Business-ZBA Policy 2008-01 ZBA Procedures
The zoning administrator presented a review as follows.
The proposed policy is
consistent with the Planning Commission policy that has already been adopted by
the Planning Commission and Township Board.
The ZBA policy with make deadline dates consistent with the Planning
Commission deadlines which are noon four weeks prior to a meeting. The new Zoning Enabling Act requires that
notices for public hearings be published at least 15 days prior to the date of
a public hearing (the same as for Planning Commission applications). The deadlines will provide enough time to
comply with this State Law requirement.
The policy also includes the requirement for a pre-application meeting
(the same as is already required for Planning Commission applications). The pre-application meeting has proven
extremely useful by providing an opportunity to review submittal documents
before the deadline to give applicants time to make necessary revisions prior
to submitting an application.
Moved by Greg Honderd, seconded by John Fanthorpe, to
approve the ZBA Policy 2008-01 ZBA
Procedures and to recommend to the Township Board to approve the policy.
MOTION CARRIED.
#081210-04 – Elect Officers for 2009
Moved by
Carl DeVree, seconded by John Fanthorpe, to elect offices for 2009 as follows:
Joyce Weise-chairperson; John Fanthorpe-vice chairperson; and Carl DeVree as
secretary.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#081210-05 – Adjournment
The
meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.