Bulletin Board

Business Directory


Clerk's Corner

Community Events

Contact Information

County Area Websites  


Development Documents


Financial information

General Ordinances

Heritage Days

Meeting Calendar






PropertyTax/Assessing Data

Rental Policy


Township Agreements

Treasurer's Report



                      ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

                  JANUARY 13, 2003


MEMBERS PRESENT:  John Lowe, Dan Rossbach, Dan Lowe, Linda Manson-Dempsey, Larry Fillinger, 

                                          and Mike Smith (alternate)

  MEMBERS ABSENT:                    None

  OTHERS  PRESENT:          Annette McNamara, Zoning Administrator

                                                Mike Kehoe, Township Attorney

                                                Robert Hanvey, Township Supervisor



  John Lowe called the regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals to order at 7:32 p.m.


  Larry Fillinger motioned to approve agenda of January 13, 2003. Linda Manson-Dempsey seconded.  Motion carried 6-0.

  APPROVAL OF MINUTES : December 2, 2002

Dan Rossbach motioned to approve the minutes of December 2, 2002 as presented.  Larry Fillinger seconded.  Motion carried 5-0. 


  ZBA Case #02-01: Currie

  John Lobur is representing Mr. Currie as his attorney.  Mr. Lobur stated Mr. Currie is the sole property owner of a 16 acre parcel 

located 1,700 feet off of Truhn Road accessed by an easement.  This case has previously gone through the litigation process and has

 now returned to the Zoning Board of Appeals.Mr. Kehoe developed a proposal to present which he feels will bring an adequate 

solution.  Mr. Kehoe summarized the proposal, stating the property will be restricted so it cannot be further divided.  No more than 

one single family residence may be built upon the property as long as the property lacks the frontage upon an approved road required 

by the ordinance or otherwise does not meet ordinance requirements. 



Dan Lowe motioned to grant ZBA case #02-01: Currie to build one home on his parcel due to the following criteria met in 

Section 5.05 C 1-8: 1) The length of easement is a difficulty being 1,700 foot long off of Truhn Road. 2) Easement predates ordinance

 that creates this situation. 3) The applicant did not know that he could not build on said property because it was not recorded with the

 deed. 4)  This will only relate to the property under control of the applicant. 5)  Allows for one house to be built, consistent with other

 parcels in the area. 6)  No setback related issue. 7) One house on property with the restrictions and conditions. 8)  Use compatible

 with present zoning. The granting of this variance is conditional upon the applicant agreeing that the property will be restricted so that 

the property cannot be further divided, nor may more than one single family residence be built upon the subject property, as long as the

 property lacks the frontage upon an approved road required by the ordinance or otherwise does not meet ordinance requirements to 

allow for more than 1 single family dwelling on the property, or to be further divided.  In addition, the applicant must acknowledge and 

declare in the restrictive covenant that the Township has no responsibility to maintain, repair or construct the access that serves the

 parcel and connects it to Truhn Road.  The applicant must prepare and record this restrictive covenant at the Livingston County 

Register of Deeds office that contains these conditions before a  land use permit will be issued.  The restrictive covenant must be

 approved by the township attorney before recording. Larry Fillinger seconded.  Roll call vote: Fillinger, Rossbach, Lowe, Smith, 

and Lowe-yes, Manson-Dempsey abstained. Motion carried 5-0-1 abstention.

  Mike Smith completed his agenda item and left the meeting.

  ZBA case # 21-02: Castle

  Mr. Castle is present to request a variance to Section 8.01 F. 1. a., relaxing the minimum 2 acre size lot requirement to build. 

 In December, Mr. Castle was asked to provide a drawing to scale of the proposed split, which he has prepared for today. In addition, 

Mr. Castle was asked to have conversations with his neighbors to see if they would be interested in purchasing a portion of his land.

  Mr. Castle did not engage in any conversation with his neighbors.  Mr. Castle was asked to research split availability.  If splits are 

available can they be transferred to Mr. Castle? Per the Livingston County Road Commission, in order to meet the minimum sight 

distance, trees must be removed. One tree is on the adjacent property to the south.  A written consent by this neighbor is required.

  Mr. Castle plans to sell the proposed vacant lot.


  Doug Murphy 2885 Black Eagle Ridge, Howell, Michigan, Mr. Murphy stated he is opposed to the split of this property. He chose

 his particular lot because Mr. Castle’s lot could not be split.  Mr. Murphy stated he paid a large amount of money for his property 

and wants to preserve the area to maintain his value.

  Mike Mantay 1936 Triangle Lake Road, Howell, Michigan, Mr. Mantay asked why this 1.26 acre parcel can be hooked into the 

adjacent subdivision allowing him to build on less than the 2 acre minimum when he is not part of the subdivision.  He later stated that

 he didn’t think it was right for Mr. Castle to take advantage of what the people around him have because they went through the

 legal process in order to build on less than 2 acres.

  John Lowe commented that this situation was created by the developer when the original farm was split and this was no fault of 

Mr. Castle. Larry Fillinger motioned to table ZBA case # 21-02: Castle until March 3, 2003 meeting, to allow Mr. Castle to follow up 

with developer in regard to split availability, to confirm the tree on neighbor’s property can be removed, and to speak with adjoining

 neighbors to see if they are interested in purchasing this parcel.  Dan Lowe seconded.  Roll call vote: Fillinger, Lowe, Rossbach, 

Lowe and Manson-Dempsey-all yes.  Motion carried 5-0.

ZBA case # 22-02: Hill

  Mr. and Mrs. Hill are present today with a Field Engineer from Aquamarine Fiberglass Pools, to request a variance to 

Section 8.01 F. 3. c relaxing rear lot line setbacks.  Mr. Hill presented a letter from Delcor, dated December 30, 2002, 

stating their approval with 9 conditions. One condition references all construction meets all applicable codes for Livingston County, 

Marion Township and any governing bodies. Lengthy discussion ensued regarding where items are going to be located and specific

 dimensions, such as the equipment pad, the cement pad surrounding the proposed pool, the retaining wall, the deck, and the exact 

elevations around the proposed inground pool. The board asked Mr. and Mrs. Hill to submit a legible set of plans, drawn to scale, 

for their review.  The current copy is not readable.  Also, indicate how erosion control will be handled on all sides of the pool.  

Plan must be reviewed and approved by Delcor’s engineer, after it is completed. 

  The Zoning Administrator had contacted Mr. and Mrs. Hill in regard to the above referenced plans prior to tonight’s meeting. 

Plans were not submitted to the board for their review prior to the meeting.

The plan states the pool will be located 10 foot off the rear line, one side will be 8 inches above grade and the other side will be

18 inches above the grade.


  Michael Gawronsk, 1219 Portsmouth Drive, Howell, Michigan, resident stated he is concerned with the drainage and noise created 

by proposed pool and how it will affect the value of his property. Larry Fillinger asked the Zoning Administrator if the pool is 

considered an accessory structure.  The Zoning Administrator explained a swimming pool shall be considered as an accessory 

structure for the purpose of determining set backs. If it is enclosed by a roof, the enclosed area shall be considered in the 

calculation of the lot coverage.  Therefore, it is considered an accessory structure yet is not calculated in lot coverage.  

  John Lowe clarified the proposed pool does meet the side yard setback of 15 feet on each side. A side yard variance will be needed

 if the current plan maintains the same size deck attached to the house. In addition, all lots in this development will incur this

 problem with rear yard setbacks if they request a pool. Lengthy conversation took place reviewing the criteria met in 

Section 5.05 C 1-8 of the ordinance.  It was deemed that numbers 1, 3, 4, and 6 are met, and 2, 5, and 7 do not meet the criteria

 necessary for a variance. Bob Hanvey suggested that possibly the PUD agreement could be changed because all residents will be

 affected in this way. Larry Fillinger asked if Mr. Hill would consider a smaller size pool. Mr. Hill stated the pool has been ordered 

and is in stock. Larry Fillinger motioned to grant ZBA case # 22-02: Hill relaxing Section 8.01 F. 3. c. rear yard setback to allow 

a 15 foot rear yard setback variance for an inground pool, to be placed 10 foot off the rear lot line. They meet the following items in 

Section 5.05 C 1-8:

·         #1-permitting a 14 foot by 28 foot pool with a lot size of 35 foot, requiring a 25 foot rear yard setback.

·         #2-this is a unique circumstance due to the shallowness of the property.

·         #6-strict compliance with area setbacks would unreasonably prevent them from using a permitted use of a pool.

Conditional approval to return to the March 3, 2003 regular meeting, subject to submitting corrected plans, for each board

 member by February 10, 2003, to include:  side yard elevations, location of the equipment pad, sidewalk dimensions, 

landscape and screenings, signed and approved by Delcor’s engineer for proper drainage. No second.  Motion failed.

  Dan Lowe motioned to deny ZBA case # 22-02: Hill variance request to relax Section 8.01 F. 3. c. rear yard setback to allow a 

15 foot variance for an inground pool, 10 foot off the rear lot line. Request does not meet the following criteria in Section 5.05 C 1-8:

·         #2-Practical difficulty does not exist because it will be recurrent in nature. Hometown Village has 328 other lots similar in size.

·         #5-Not in harmony with the general purpose, it will affect the surrounding homeowners, and a smaller pool could be proposed.

·         #7-variance request is not the minimum amount necessary to negate the practical difficulty.

  Dan Rossbach seconded.  Roll call vote: Fillinger-no, Manson-Dempsey-yes, Rossbach-yes, John Lowe-no, Dan Lowe-yes.

 Motion carried 3-2.

  Zoning Administrator clarified that no rehearing on an application denied by the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) shall be

 reconsidered except upon the grounds of newly discovered evidence or a falsehood previously relied upon. A rehearing could be 

processed in the same manner as the original, including payment of the fee.  A request for rehearing shall be made on behalf of the 

applicant, by either the Township Board or the ZBA, within 8 days.




  Robert Hanvey asked the board to make a suggestion to the Zoning Administrator on how to handle further requests for pools in 

Hometown Village. Linda Manson-Dempsey suggested that some lots will not require a variance because they have the necessary

 rear yard setback. Mr. Ambrose will be asked to review Hometown Village’s bylaws and make appropriate recommendation.

Linda Manson-Dempsey suggested that the Zoning Administrator deny putting an item on the agenda if the paperwork submitted is 

not legible.


  Larry Fillinger motioned to adjourn at 10:45 p.m., Linda Manson-Dempsey seconded. Motion carried 5-0.