ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
JANUARY 13, 2003
MEMBERS PRESENT: John Lowe, Dan Rossbach, Dan Lowe, Linda Manson-Dempsey, Larry Fillinger,
Mike Kehoe, Township Attorney
Robert Hanvey, Township Supervisor
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
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
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,
Lowe-yes, Manson-Dempsey abstained. Motion carried 5-0-1 abstention.
case # 21-02: Castle
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?
distance, trees must be removed. One tree is on the
adjacent property to the south. A
written consent by this neighbor is required.
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
wants to preserve the area to maintain his value.
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
process in order to build on less than 2 acres.
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,
and Manson-Dempsey-all yes. Motion
case # 22-02: Hill
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.
must be reviewed and approved by Delcor’s engineer, after it is completed.
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
inches above the grade.
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
of the lot coverage. Therefore,
it is considered an accessory structure yet is not calculated in lot
the current plan maintains the same size deck attached to the house.
with rear yard setbacks if they request a pool.
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
for a variance.
affected in this way. Larry Fillinger asked if Mr. Hill would consider a smaller size pool. Mr. Hill stated the pool has been ordered
is in stock.
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
5.05 C 1-8:
a 14 foot by 28 foot pool with a lot size of 35 foot, requiring a 25 foot
rear yard setback.
is a unique circumstance due to the shallowness of the property.
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,
and screenings, signed and approved by Delcor’s engineer for proper
drainage. No second. Motion failed.
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:
difficulty does not exist because it will be recurrent in nature. Hometown
Village has 328 other lots similar in size.
in harmony with the general purpose, it will affect the surrounding
homeowners, and a smaller pool could be proposed.
request is not the minimum amount necessary to negate the practical
Motion carried 3-2.
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
by either the Township Board or the ZBA, within 8 days.
Hometown Village. Linda Manson-Dempsey suggested that some lots will not require a variance because they have the necessary
Linda Manson-Dempsey suggested that the Zoning Administrator deny putting an item on the agenda if the paperwork submitted is