|
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
February 3, 2003
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
John Lowe, Linda Manson-Dempsey, Dan Lowe, Dan Rossbach,
Larry Fillinger
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
OTHER PRESENT:
Bob Hanvey, Township Supervisor
Annette McNamara, Zoning Administrator
********************************************************************************************
CALL TO ORDER
John
Lowe called the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Dan Lowe motioned to approve the agenda as presented. Larry Fillinger seconded.
Motion carried 5-0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Larry Fillinger motioned to approve the minutes of the January 13, 2003
Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) meeting
as
presented. Linda Manson-Dempsey
seconded. Motion carried
5-0.
OLD BUSINESS
ZBA Case #18-02—Ward
John Lowe presented a letter from
Mr. and Mrs. Ward’s attorney, James Barley. They request to be removed from
the agenda this month
to give them the opportunity to address the issues in the township’s
consultants review letters.
They will advise
when/if they would like to come before the ZBA.
Mr. and Mrs. Ward will address these issues with
the Marion
Township Planning Commission. Hopefully,
these issues can be addressed with the Planning
Commission and
not require a ZBA hearing. Larry
Fillinger motioned to table ZBA Case #18-02 until the
applicant requests to
be placed on the agenda, not to exceed six months.
Dan Rossbach seconded.
Roll
call vote: Dan Rossbach, Larry
Fillinger, Linda Manson-Dempsey, John Lowe, Dan Lowe—all yes.
Motion
carried 5-0.
Jim Barnwell of Desine, Inc. asked that formal notification be done when
this case is again placed on the agenda.
Diane Bockhausen, 1618 W. Coon Lake Road, asked for copies of the letters
submitted by the township’s
consultants.
John Lowe advised her that copies would be available at the township
hall during regular business hours.
ZBA Case #1-03—Cesarz
John Lowe stated the township received a request from Mr. Cesarz’s
attorney, Paul Burns, that this case be tabled
until March.
Linda Manson-Dempsey asked what cases are on the agenda for March.
Annette McNamara said that
Mr. Castle and possibly
Mr. and Mrs. Hill.
John Lowe explained to meeting attendees that if they wish to speak
regarding this case,
and are unable to attend the March meeting, a call to the public would be
made for this issue.
Call to Public
Jim Barnwell, 701 Pleasant Lake
Road:
Mr. Barnwell was present as a member of the Log Cabin Park
Association.
He presented a color-coded map showing the layout of the lots and
ownership. Most people own a
combination
of lots.
This is a private road, there is no organization to maintain the
road, it’s substandard, and there are currently
25 lots on the
road. In 1994, recognition was
made that this type of situation existed and an ERS district was
created.
It allowed for 18,000 square foot lots with 50 foot minimum frontage
in existing platted subdivisions.
This went so far as to
say that if there is a combination of lots, they would be considered as one.
The intent was to
recognize this
situation. Mr. Cesarz’s lots
were under single ownership at the time the ordinance was created.
Together, Mr.
Cesarz’s lots meet the ordinance and therefore conform to the requirements
for the ERS district.
Mr. Cesarz wants to take a conforming lot and make two
non-conforming lots. Mr.
Barnwell is concerned about the
precedent that would be
set if this variance is granted.
Mr. Barnwell stated the following potential ordinance violations if this
request is granted:
Section 8.04 E 1 a—Minimum Lot Area:
requires 18,000 square feet and Mr. Cesarz is requesting
approximately
10,000 square feet.
Section 19.02—Nonconforming Lots:
granting this variance would not be in keeping with the intent
Section
6.19—Access Control and Section 6.19 C—Clear Vision Zone:
the proposed driveway would
not
meet criteria.
Section 6.21 A 2
e—Shorelines/Setbacks: this
requirement can’t be met if a house is built on Lot #10.
Other issues:
¾ mile of substandard private road with no maintenance agreement and
no organization; the
potential of
creating 20 to 30 more lakeside lots. Mr.
Barnwell pointed out that this applies to many lots in the
township. The lots on Coon Lake and Cedar Lake are also combinations of
two and three lots. The purpose of
this zoning
ordinance is to maintain the integrity of the lots that existed at the time
the ordinance was passed.
There are currently 25
lots on this private road, which is typically the maximum allowed on a
private road.
Based
on how the ordinance is written, there could be approximately 40 homes.
Granting this variance could
create the potential
for approximately 70 homes.
John Lowe asked Mr.
Barnwell if he could provide copies of his handouts.
Roger Pashik, 825 Hurley:
Mr. Pashik concurs that the ordinance was in effect before Mr. Cesarz
bought his
property and he
sees no reason to grant the variance and make the situation worse by putting
houses on
two 49-foot lots.
He sees no reason other than economic gain for this variance.
Dan Strong, 771 Hurley:
Mr. Strong purchased two lots on the water.
He came to township hall to discuss his
options.
He feels this variance request is a waste of time and money.
Mr. Strong asked if Mr. Cesarz is granted
this variance, will he
also be able to build on his two lots?
Doug Grossman, 857 Hurley:
His question is what is the process if he is denied? Does it stop at the township
level? John Lowe responded
that if it is denied, the next level would be circuit court.
Question asked:
Has there been any attorney comments on this subject?
John Lowe explained the attorney was
going to be present, but because both cases were postponed, it wasn’t
necessary for him to attend. The
township
will provide the attorney with information from tonight’s
meeting. What is the
township’s relationship to the Health
Department on
setbacks, septic requirements, etc? John Lowe said a letter needs to be submitted stating that
all requirements of the Livingston County Health Department are met.
Did the Health Department give approval
for the existing land
use permit? Annette
McNamara stated that originally, the Health Department didn’t review
it
as a platted sub, and he was only allowed one septic field on each side of
the road. Once the Health
Department
realized this was a platted sub, he was allowed four.
Did he supply a drawing showing where the
septic field is
and whose responsibility is it to assure it’s accurate?
Ms. McNamara said that Amy Adami from
the Livingston County Health Department verifies the information.
Tom Klebba, 1615 Triangle Lake
Road: Mr. Klebba lives on Triangle Lake in a subdivision very
similar to
Mr. Cesarz’s and he
owns three lakefront lots. He intends someday to build a house on one of those three
lots.
He
has a house on one, a garage on one, and his intention is to build a house
on the third someday. Several
people from Coon Lake
have expressed interest in doing the same thing.
When sewers become available, every
one of the lakefront
lots will be built on. When Mr.
Cesarz originally came in, he was instructed to go to the Health
Department for approval
first. We didn’t think he
would get approval. He had a
land use permit approved for
remodeling the existing
house because he did have Health Department approval.
He then asked to rearrange
his lots so there were
separate lots on the lake and two lots joined in the rear with Health
Department approval for
two in the rear, so
there was a land use issued for that. Then
he came in for the third land use permit for the other
front lot, with
Health Department approval, and we consulted with the township planner. The planner advised us
that this was a
pre-existing platted subdivision lot and if Health Department approval could
be obtained, we had
to issue the land use
permit. Immediately after the
land use permit was approved, additional information was
presented (Section
19.02). The planner felt this
was “splitting hairs”, but advised us to rescind the land use permit,
which we did.
If Mr. Cesarz were to sell that lot, it could be built on.
Question asked:
I believe there is an attorney letter that states he concurs with
19.02. Isn’t that true?
Didn’t the
township attorney
already say something about this? Dan
said something about Mr. Ambrose also concurring
with the
attorney. Is that not true? I believe there are letters from the township attorney and
Mr. Ambrose.
John Lowe stated that all of the information submitted at this meeting will
be given to the township attorney for
review and he will be
at the March meeting.
Tom Klebba, 1615 Triangle Lake
Road: If you grant this variance to Mr. Cesarz, you’re not
setting a precedent.
A
variance would still be required if someone with two lots wanted to do this.
Every case would be considered
on its own
merits. If you take this away
from Mr. Cesarz, that’s the whole reason for the variance procedure—
to allow him to use his
property. I couldn’t do this
today because I couldn’t get septic approval.
But we’re going to
get sewers in
there, and if this is denied just on the basis of continuous frontage, I
could sell to my daughter today
and she could build on
it.
Dan Strong, 771 Hurley:
When you read the book, it says what you’re looking at for a
variance. Generally, what
you need is a
hardship. The request for
variance spells out the reasons. If
Mr. Cesarz was living there, where is
the hardship?
I don’t think he meets any of the requirements for a variance.
John Lowe said that’s the purpose of the meeting, to decide whether he
does meet the requirements.
Jim Barnwell, 701 Pleasant Lake
Road:
This Board isn’t here to enforce Health Department rules and
regulations.
By
the same token, they don’t tell you what you have to approve or not
approve. You enforce the
ordinance before
you.
The Health Department has 12,000 square foot minimum lot size.
I can go to the township and get six tax
code IDs and six lots
of record, but that doesn’t entitle me to six building sites because it
doesn’t meet your
ordinance.
This Board should not throw jurisdictional obligations and duties
away because the Health Department
says it’s okay.
That’s not the purpose of the ordinance.
Dan Lowe asked if there was anything in the packet that addresses the eight
criteria. Annette McNamara pointed
out that Mr.
Cesarz’s letter does address the issues, but they aren’t numbered.
(Close the Call to the Public)
Larry Fillinger motioned to table ZBA Case #1-03 until the March meeting.
Linda Manson-Dempsey seconded.
Motion
carried 5-0.
CALL TO PUBLIC
None.
ADJOURNMENT
Larry
Fillinger motioned to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
Linda Manson-Dempsey seconded.
Motion
carried 5-0.
|
