Marion Township - Livingston County Michigan

Mr. Harden said he is requesting a variance for a side yard setback. Due to the shape of his lot and placement of the house, and the location of the septic and drain field, he is asking for a variance to allow a pole barn with a 5’ side yard setback.

John Lowe said he was unable to accurately measure because there weren’t any stakes. Mr. Harden said he did place stakes, but they were accidently removed. Mr. Lowe said that is a problem because the ZBA needs to verify everything before granting a variance.

Motion

Linda Manson-Dempsey motioned to table ZBA Case #03-07 until the July 9, 2007 ZBA meeting. The applicant will stake the proposed building, drain field, and expose the corners of the septic tank by Sunday, June 10, 2007 , for the ZBA members to inspect on Monday, June 11, 2007 . Dan Rossbach seconded. Motion carried 4-0.

ZBA Case #04-07—Ronald & Lisa Lawhead, 4641 Cedar Lake Road , Tax ID #4710-29-401-012

Mr. Lawhead was present to request a side yard setback variance to build an addition to his house. The proposed addition would be 6’ from the lot line on one end of the house and 7’ on the other end. He said he has an Advantech System and he was concerned about being able to perform maintenance if necessary. Mr. Lawhead talked with the company that installed it and they have no problem with the addition. He talked with the Health Department and they approved the addition. John Lowe said he also talked with Diane McCormick from the Health Department and they aren’t concerned about the accessibility issue. Dan Lowe asked about the For Sale sign. Mr. Lawhead said they have decided to stay if they can put on the addition.

Motion

For ZBA Case #04-07, Ron & Lisa Lawhead, Linda Manson-Dempsey motioned to approve the request for a four (4) foot lot line variance on the south end of the property and a three (3) foot side yard variance on the north end, to build an attached garage, family room and bathroom, and considering the following criteria:

1. How the strict enforcement of the provisions of the Township Zoning Ordinance would cause an unnecessary hardship and deprive the owner of rights enjoyed by all other property owners owning property within the same zoning district. The strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would cause an unnecessary hardship because of the dimensions and layout of the lots in the subdivision.

2. The conditions and circumstances unique to the property, which are not similarly applicable to other properties in the same zoning district. It is a lake lot that was created before the ordinance went into effect.

3. The conditions and circumstances unique to the property were not self created. The situation was not self created.

4. Why the requested variance will not confer special privileges that are denied other properties similarly situated and in the same zoning district. Granting the variance will allow the owners to use their property as people surrounding them do.

5. Why the requested variance will not be contrary to the spirit and intent of this zoning ordinance. The variance would not be contrary to the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance.

6. The difficulty shall not be deemed solely economic. The difficulty is not solely economic.

Dan Rossbach seconded. Roll call vote: Manson-Dempsey, Rossbach, J. Lowe, D. Lowe—all yes. Motion carried 4-0.

ZBA Case #05-07—Craig Whitney, 1442 Old Pinckney Road , Tax ID #4710-02-400-005

Pat Keough from Advantage Engineering was present on behalf of the applicant, Craig Whitney. Mr. Whitney was unable to attend this meeting. The realtor, Ron Sipes, was also present. Mr. Whitney is considering purchasing the RV Center property for purposes of putting in a restaurant. It’s a triangle-shaped parcel across from the Best Western. Mr. Keough showed an aerial view of the property. The difficulty is there is a large right-of-way, 100’ setback off of D-19, an 80’ setback from Old Pinckney Road . With those restrictions, the property isn’t usable. He presented a concept plan for a building approximately 4,000-4,500 square feet. That is the minimum required to make it successful.

If the same zoning was in a situation with a 66’ right-of-way and 100’ setback, the building would be the same dimensions from the corner to the edge of the two-lane road, and therefore, the intent of the ordinance is still being met in terms of how far the building is off the edge of the road. If the variance requests are successful, then Mr. Whitney will move forward on the purchase of the property.

John Lowe asked about managing storm water. Mr. Keough said they would probably have to put in underground detention. Mr. Lowe wanted to make sure the prospective owner was aware of this requirement. Mr. Keough said yes. He feels this would be a big improvement on what is currently on the property. Linda Manson-Dempsey asked if there would be a drive-thru. Mr. Keough said no. Mr. Lowe said that would be an issue for the Planning Commission to discuss. He asked Mr. Keough if they had gotten as far as a floor plan. He said the ZBA would like to see something that shows the minimum impact, the smallest building that can be used. Mr. Keough said the applicant is in a catch-22 situation. If he can’t get the variances, then he doesn’t want to buy the property. Mr. Keough said they looked at five different possibilities, and this is the only thing that seemed to work. Mr. Whitney talked with the restaurant people who have done several of these types of restaurant and they said 4,000-4,500 would be the minimum.

Mr. Lowe asked if the existing building would be used or would they demolish it. Mr. Keough said it would be a demolition. The board members discussed parking and the proposed driveway. They would eliminate the old driveway. The Livingston County Road Commission has approved the proposed driveway. Mr. Lowe asked if delivery trucks would be able to maneuver. Mr. Keough said the restaurant would be open for lunch and dinner and deliveries would be done in the mornings.

Mr. Sipes said he feels this proposal would be an improvement for this parcel. Mr. Lowe concurred.

Mr. Lowe said the township received a letter today from the township’s attorney that said a variance could be granted based on this specific site plan, and it doesn’t go with the property. Linda Manson-Dempsey asked Mr. Keough if the handicapped parking could be moved. Mr. Keough said they could consider that.

Dan Lowe expressed concern over the road that Mitch Harris will be putting in across from the proposed driveway. The board discussed various options. Bob Hanvey asked if these variances are granted, are the previous variances that were granted void. Annette McNamara said the previous variances were specific to On-the-Road Again RV. Mr. Keough read the motion that was granted to the RV center.

Motion

Linda Manson-Dempsey motioned, for ZBA Case #05-07, Craig Whitney, 1442 Old Pinckney Road , Tax ID #4710-02-400-005, subject to the Advantage site plan #07011, for the variance request for Section 14.04 F, to require a minimum 3’ tall buffering between the commercial property and residential property along Old Pinckney Road . Dan Rossbach seconded. Roll call vote: Manson-Dempsey, Rossbach, J. Lowe, D. Lowe—all yes. Motion carried 4-0.

Linda Manson-Dempsey motioned, for ZBA Case #05-07, Craig Whitney, 1442 Old Pinckney Road , Tax ID #4710-02-400-005, subject to the Advantage site plan #07011, for the variance request for Section 14.05, to deny the variance request for loading and unloading area. Dan Rossbach seconded. Roll call vote: Manson-Dempsey, Rossbach, J. Lowe, D. Lowe—all yes. Motion carried 4-0.

Linda Manson-Dempsey motioned, for ZBA Case #05-07, Craig Whitney, 1442 Old Pinckney Road , Tax ID #4710-02-400-005, subject to the Advantage site plan #07011, for the variance request for Section 7.05 C to approve parking in the setback of Pinckney Road . Dan Rossbach seconded. Roll call vote: Manson-Dempsey, Rossbach, J. Lowe, D. Lowe—all yes. Motion carried 4-0.

Linda Manson-Dempsey motioned, for ZBA Case #05-07, Craig Whitney, 1442 Old Pinckney Road , Tax ID #4710-02-400-005, subject to the Advantage site plan #07011, for the variance request for Section 9.01 E 3 (a), to approve a 90’ variance in the setback from the Pinckney Road right-of-way. Dan Rossbach seconded. Roll call vote: Manson-Dempsey, Rossbach, J. Lowe, D. Lowe—all yes. Motion carried 4-0.

Linda Manson-Dempsey motioned, for ZBA Case #05-07, Craig Whitney, 1442 Old Pinckney Road, Tax ID #4710-02-400-005, subject to the Advantage site plan #07011, for the variance request for Section 9.01 E 3 (a) for front yard setback on Old Pinckney Road, to approve the variance for a 29’ front yard setback variance. Dan Lowe seconded. Roll call vote: Manson-Dempsey, Rossbach, J. Lowe, D. Lowe—all yes. Motion carried 4-0.

Linda Manson-Dempsey motioned, for ZBA Case #05-07, Craig Whitney, 1442 Old Pinckney Road , Tax ID #4710-02-400-005, subject to the Advantage site plan #07011, for the variance request for Section 9.01 E 3 (b), to approve the variance request for a 12’ side yard variance on the north side of the property. Dan Lowe seconded. Roll call vote: Manson-Dempsey, Rossbach, J. Lowe, D. Lowe—all yes. Motion carried 4-0.

Linda Manson-Dempsey motioned, for ZBA Case #05-07, Craig Whitney, 1442 Old Pinckney Road , Tax ID #4710-02-400-005, subject to the Advantage site plan #07011, for the variance request for Section 9.01 E 6 (e), to approve the request to allow queued vehicles waiting to enter and/or exit the site to occupy the Pinckney Road right-of-way. Dan Lowe seconded. Roll call vote: Manson-Dempsey, Rossbach, J. Lowe, D. Lowe—all yes. Motion carried 4-0.

Linda Manson-Dempsey motioned, for ZBA Case #05-07, Craig Whitney, 1442 Old Pinckney Road, Tax ID #4710-02-400-005, subject to the Advantage site plan #07011, that all of the above motions relate back to Job #07011 dated May 10, 2007, and if this drawing is not acted on, all variances become void. Dan Lowe seconded. Roll call vote: Manson-Dempsey, Rossbach, J. Lowe, D. Lowe—all yes. Motion carried 4-0.

Linda Manson-Dempsey motioned that these variances are granted in consideration of the following criteria:

1. How the strict enforcement of the provisions of the Township Zoning Ordinance would cause an unnecessary hardship and deprive the owner of rights enjoyed by all other property owners owning property within the same zoning district. The strict enforcement of the township ordinance would not allow them to improve the property by putting in a restaurant that might benefit the general public. The strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would make this property unusable.

2. The conditions and circumstances unique to the property, which are not similarly applicable to other properties in the same zoning district. The conditions and circumstances are unique to the property because of the moving of the roads that’s happened over the years.

3. The conditions and circumstances unique to the property were not self created. The conditions and circumstances were not self created; they are pre-existing, non-conforming.

4. Why the requested variance will not confer special privileges that are denied other properties similarly situated and in the same zoning district. There are no other property similarly situated.

5. Why the requested variance will not be contrary to the spirit and intent of this zoning ordinance. The requested variances are not contrary to the spirit and intent of the ordinance.

6. The difficulty shall not be deemed solely economic. The difficulty is not solely economic.

Dan Lowe seconded. Roll call vote: Manson-Dempsey, Rossbach, J. Lowe, D. Lowe—all yes.

Motion carried 4-0.

Dan Lowe said that he and Bob Hanvey will investigate the proposed road north of the Best Western.

CALL TO THE PUBLIC

None.

ADJOURNMENT

Linda Manson-Dempsey motioned to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 p.m. Dan Rossbach seconded.

Motion carried 4-0.