July 16, 2007
Aug 8th, 07
CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF PENNFIELD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MEETING MINUTES
JULY 16, 2007
Chairman Ken Davis called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM.
Members Present: Ken Davis, Lindsay Draime, Julia Newman, Frank Schumacher
and Jerry Robinson. A quorum was met.
Others Present: Sandra Cummings, Recording Secretary; Gary Graber, Assessor and Zoning Administrator, Mr. and Mrs. Dan Haas, Mr. and Mrs. Howard Chism, Shirley and Erin Youmans, and several residents.
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Public Comment: There was no public comment at this time.
Approval of June 7, 2007 ZBA Meeting Minutes:
Motion was made by Julia Newman, seconded by Frank Schumacher to approve the minutes from the previous Zoning Board of Appeals on June 7, 2007. Motion carried.
Unfinished Business: It was stated that Mr. and Mrs. Jeff Wilde are appealing their variance request of June 7, 2007 to the Circuit Court. The variance request had been denied by the Zoning Board.
New Business:
1. Haas Dimensional Variance
A Public Hearing was held for a variance request from Dan and Dena Haas, of 332 Community Drive, Battle Creek, Michigan. The zoning issue is being administered under Appendix B. Zoning, Chapter 18, Zoning Board of Appeals, Section 18.06: Variance Procedures, (b) Granting of Non-Use Variances of the Zoning Ordinance. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. Mr. Haas presented his variance request for relief of front yard fence requirements to allow height of 6 feet instead of 3 feet, and more than 50% solid. He stated that he wished to construct a privacy fence along the north line of the property to end 40 feet from the road. His original request was for relief of the maximum height requirement of 3 feet up to 6 feet for the entire length of the fence, but now wished to revise his request to a height of 6 feet for only part of the length. The reason for this change is for the sake of being neighborly to adjacent homeowners, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Eaton, of 282 Community Drive. The Eatons’ had stated to Mr. Haas that they need to have clear vision from their home down to the school bus stop, as they are caregivers for small grandchildren, and were concerned that a 6 foot high fence would obstruct their visibility of the bus stop. Mr. Haas wishes to accommodate his neighbors in this matter.
Public comment was opened. It was pointed out that no written comments or phone calls were received prior to the meeting. Several residents commented on the variance request.
Robert Eaton, 282 Community Drive: indicated that he would have no objection to the variance request as long as he had clear vision of the school bus stop for his grandchildren. He trusted the Haas’ to honor his visibility requests. He feels that our standard rules should not apply to lake property.
Dave Comstock, 263 Community Drive: wanted clarification on the definition of “front yard” and “back yard” when referring to “Lake Property”: Lindsay Draime pointed out that in some jurisdictions the “Lake frontage” is considered the “Front Yard” of the home, however, in Pennfield Township the “Front Yard” of a home always faces the Road.
Donald Marx, 422 Community Drive: feels that setbacks and rules should not be the same on lake property, and that the Haas’ plan to revise the height requests is a good plan.
Lindsay Draime pointed out two issues concerning this variance: the first issue is the fact that Mr. Haas wants to revise his request of 6 feet high for the entire fence down to 6 feet for only part of the fence and be more than 50% solid. Lindsay also stated that although there is no written ordinance addressing it, it is suggested that the fence be constructed with the good side out as a courtesy to the neighbors.
The other issue is that if this variance is approved as requested for a 6 foot high solid privacy fence for the entire length, it would still be possible for the Haas to build it with a “window” area of only 3 feet high to satisfy the Eaton’s request, but that since the variance follows the property and any future owners, anyone in the future could alter the 3 foot window back to 6 feet high. If the Haas’ wish to revise their request to restrict the variance to include the 3 foot high “window”, they will have to resubmit their request as the Zoning Board are actually creating a legal document to follow this piece of property and the “window restriction” would have to be incorporated in the variance request.
Russell Valvo, 203 Community Drive: asked why the Zoning Board could not approve the variance with “height stipulations”. It was pointed out the special “stipulations” could only be imposed on “Special Use” and “Conditional Use” requests, not on “Dimensional Variances”.
Lindsay Draime pointed out that this specific variance request could either be approved or disapproved as requested, or tabled until the Haas can submit a revised request with the specific height limits written right into the request. Also, if the request was denied as requested, a new request could not be submitted for at least one full year.
Public comment was closed, and Zoning Board comment was opened. The Board stated that this issue could be tabled until a new plan was submitted with new height measurements specifically requested. Julie Newman made a motion to table the Haas variance request, seconded by Lindsay Draime. The motion carried to table this request until new plans are submitted.
2. Chism Dimensional Variance
Public hearing was held to hear comments on a variance request from Mr. and Mrs. Howard Chism, of 235 Pennbrook Trail, Battle Creek, Michigan. The zoning issue is being administered under Appendix B. Zoning, Chapter 18, Zoning Board of Appeals, Section 18.06, Variance Procedures, (b) Granting of Non-Use Variances of the Zoning Ordinance. The request is for relief of a front yard setback from 30 feet to 24 feet, to construct a 12 foot by 24 foot addition to an existing two-car garage. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. Mrs. Chism presented the request, stating that the need for more storage area makes it necessary to build a third bay on to her existing garage. She stated that the addition would match the existing garage and house roofline. The addition of a third bay would be an enhancement to the property, and that many newly built homes now have a three-car garage included.
It was pointed out that since the Chism’s live on a corner lot they have to meet two front yard setbacks. Since front yard setbacks were originally 25 feet when the home was built, this addition would have been allowed with no variance if it had been constructed when old ordinances applied.
No phone calls or written comments were received prior to the meeting in regard to this request. No public comments or objections were presented at this meeting.
Julia Newman made a motion to approve the request, seconded by Jerry Robinson. The motion passed unanimously to approve the request based on section 18.06 Variance Procedures, B. Granting of Non-Use Variances, subsections (1) through (6).
3. Youmans Use Variance
Public hearing was held for a variance request from Shirley Youmans, of 1310 Raymond Road, Battle Creek, Michigan. The zoning issue is being administered under Appendix B. Zoning, Chapter 18, Zoning Board of Appeals, Section 18.06, Variance Procedures, section (c) Granting of Use Variances of the Zoning Ordinance. Shirley Youmans presented her request for the use variance to operate a Beauty Salon at the site of a previously operated Auto Repair Garage, which is located in an L1- Light Industrial zoned area which does not allow a Beauty Salon as a permitted or special use.
The salon will be operated by the owner’s daughter-in-law, Erin Youmans, with a maximum of two chairs, 4 parking spaces, and hour of operation Monday through Friday 9:00 am to 7:00 pm, Saturdays 9:00 am to 3:00 pm, closed Sundays.
The plan is to remodel the existing building to accommodate the chairs and sinks, and make cosmetic improvements to the front of the building. The front half of the building will be used for the salon business, and the rear portion will be used for storage and the repair of family autos. The building is already hooked to public water and sewer. It was pointed out that the business must adhere to state licensing requirements, and that the Youmans’ should consult with the Township Building Inspector who can inspect and provide Service Business requirements to them.
No written comments or phone calls were received prior to the meeting. No residents were present at the meeting who objected to the variance request.
Frank Schumacher asked if there were any environmental issues involved with the auto repair shop to obstruct this variance. It was pointed out that the auto repair shop had a holding tank for oil, and no pending violations were brought up.
Mr. Graber pointed out that if this salon were to be run out of the home instead of the garage, it would be allowed as a permitted use.
Julia Newman made a motion to approve the variance request, seconded by Frank Schumacher. Motion carried unanimously in favor of granting the request, based on Section 18.06; subsection C. Granting of Use Variances, items 1, 2, and 3.
Public Comment: No public comment at this time.
Board Members Personal Privilege
There was no Planning Commission meeting in July, due to lack of agenda items.
Congratulations to Gary Graber, Assessor and Zoning Administrator, on his retirement.
The Wal-Mart land sale has been finalized; construction is scheduled to begin around May of 2008. Construction has begun on the addition to the Township Office for garaging of the new fire truck, and interior remodeling of the office will begin soon.
Zoning duties will be shared by Russ Wicklund, Rob Behnke, and Barbara Darlington.
The Township is still going through the process of hiring a new Assessor.
Julia Newman made a motion, seconded by Frank Schumacher, to adjourn the meeting at 7:48 pm. Motion carried.
|
