MARION
TOWNSHIP
ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS
Tuesday September 7, 2004
MEMBERS PRESENT:
John Lowe, Larry Fillinger, Linda Manson-Dempsey, Dan Lowe, and
Dan Rossbach
MEMBERS
ABSENT:
None
OTHERS
PRESENT:
Mike Kehoe, Township Attorney
Annette McNamara
, Zoning Administrator
Phil Westmoreland, OHM, Township Engineer
**********************************************************************************************
CALL TO ORDER
John Lowe called the meeting to order at
7:34 p.m.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
John Lowe asked to have the agenda item for Updating Zoning
Board of Appeals Rules & Procedures just prior to
the last Call to the Public.
Larry Fillinger motioned to approve the agenda as amended.
Dan Rossbach seconded.
Motion carried 5-0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Zoning Board of Appeals,
August 16, 2004
Larry Fillinger motioned to approve the minutes as amended.
Linda Manson-Dempsey seconded.
Motion carried 5-0.
OLD BUSINESS
ZBA Case #4-04—
Jesse Drive
Dan Depner from Boss Engineering, representing Ray
Ward, reviewed the history of this application.
The
applicant has been to the Planning Commission a
couple of times over the past few months.
This item was
tabled at the last ZBA meeting.
The Planning Commission made recommendations for the variances being
requested. As
a result of that meeting, the plans changed slightly from what was
originally submitted. The
change deals with one particular variance for the
centerline radius of the road. At the
last Planning Commission
meeting, the township engineer suggested increasing
the radius in the interest of public safety.
The radius has
been increased to 100 feet, and an approval letter
from the MDEQ has been received. This
is the first variance
request. The
second variance request is for the maximum length of the private road.
The ordinance allows a
maximum length of 2,000 feet.
Jesse Drive
is approximately 2380 feet. The
Planning Commission asked if it
were to recommend this variance to the ZBA, what the
applicant would be willing to give up in return.
The
compromise reached at the Planning Commission
meeting was to include restrictions in the private road
maintenance agreement that would allow only 22 units
to access the private road. The
third variance being
requested is on the western property line.
The 66’ road easement follows the boundary line, where there are
a significant amount of wetlands.
The applicant attempted to follow an existing two-track through the
area to
minimize the impact on wetlands.
The ordinance calls for a 25-foot buffer along the side and rear
development
boundaries. The
total length of the variance requested is approximately 175 feet. The fourth
variance is for the
frontage on parcel 5.
The ordinance calls for 150 feet of frontage, and parcel 5 has
approximately 90 feet due
to the natural features of the site. Kristen
Lundeen from OHM
indicated the revised site plan was reviewed last
week. No
additional items were found. Mike Kehoe said the ordinance requires that for
variance requests that
deal with construction standards, the Planning
Commission makes a recommendation on those variances.
Likewise, on the road construction standards such as
length and radius, the Planning Commission made
recommendations in regard to restrictions.
The ZBA has the power and the authority to establish conditions.
The ZBA can adopt the restrictions as recommended by
the Planning Commission, or the ZBA can alter them
as it feels is appropriate.
Linda Manson-Dempsey asked if this recommendation indicates that the
Planning
Commission is okay with this.
Mr. Kehoe said yes. In
regard to Mr. Kehoe’s September 7 review letter,
Ms. Manson-Dempsey asked what “…no further
parcel splits or lots would be added after station 20+00.”
John Lowe said it means after the curve of the
radius, there will be no further development.
Mr. Kehoe
suggested that the recorded survey and restrictions
should incorporate language that states there will be no
more than the number of parcels shown on the
drawing, and no further splits past the cul-de-sac. Mr.
Kehoe
said he doesn’t like the idea of parcel 2 being
bisected by the road. While the
ordinance doesn’t specifically
prohibit this, he feels it would be contrary to the
intent of the ordinance. Dan
Lowe asked if the applicant ever
applied to have the road run straight through
the center so that the radius was 230 feet.
Dan Depner said the
impact on the wetlands would be too great,
although he wasn’t certain whether it had been applied for.
Mr. Ward said it probably wasn’t because Tom
Kolhoff from the MDEQ said he wanted the two-track to be
followed as closely as possible.
Mr. Ward said he worked diligently with the MDEQ for over a year to
get the
permit. Dan
Lowe said if the road was straighter, it would eliminate the variance
request for the radius and
lot 2 would be all one piece.
John Lowe asked if the change from 50 feet to 100 feet had a change
in the
impact to the wetlands.
Mr. Depner said they were fortunate in that respect.
John Lowe said if that change
doesn’t impact the wetlands, maybe more than 100
feet wouldn’t impact the wetlands either.
He is concerned
about setting a precedent.
Ms. Manson-Dempsey said the ZBA reviews requests on a case-by-case
basis.
Mr. Depner said he could submit a drawing to Tom
Kolhoff, but based on previous conversations, he believes
Mr. Kolhoff wouldn’t approve it.
Dan Lowe said the point is the ZBA doesn’t know that it can’t be
done at
the 235-foot radius, so the ZBA is being asked
to grant a variance for something it doesn’t know can’t be
done. Mr.
Ward said he walked the property with Mr. Kolhoff and he was adamant about
minimizing the
impact to the wetlands.
Mr. Ward said the plan as presented only impacts about 40-50% of the
wetlands.
Mr. Depner said page 4 of the construction drawings
shows the area of wetlands impacted. John
Lowe asked
Phil Westmoreland if he thought there was a
possibility that the MDEQ would be willing to allow more.
Mr. Westmoreland said possibly, although he can
understand why Mr. Kolhoff wanted the road to go where
it is. He
was trying to minimize the impact to the wetlands and not create a small
pocket of wetlands. From a
safety perspective, the 100 feet seems okay.
Mr. Westmoreland explained the calculations used to determine
the necessary radius.
With proper signage, he doesn’t feel that safety is an issue.
Mr. Westmoreland said from
a conservative design engineer’s
perspective, he tries to minimize wetlands impact whenever possible.
Larry Fillinger asked Mr. Westmoreland how much more
he feels the MDEQ might consider allowing.
Mr. Westmoreland said possibly 125-150 foot radius.
John Lowe asked Mike Kehoe if using the standards
for public roads relieves the township from
potential lawsuits if there’s an accident, using
Hidden Valley Road
as an example. Mr.
Kehoe said you’re never able to insulate against lawsuits.
Mr. Kehoe said if there’s a
well-reasoned decision for deviating from the
standards, there might not be any liability, but it would depend
on the facts of the particular situation.
Dan Lowe said that’s exactly why the ZBA should have a denial from
the MDEQ on the 235-foot radius before granting this
variance. Dan Rossbach asked if
it would be possible
to eliminate lot 2 by moving boundary lines to
achieve 150-foot frontage. Ms.
Manson-Dempsey asked if lot 5
is designed as a flag lot.
John Lowe said no, it’s a standard lot with 90 feet of frontage.
Dan Lowe said if lot 2
were eliminated and moved the boundaries, it would
eliminate the variance request for lot 5.
Ms.
Manson-Dempsey said lot 2 is 2.35 acres—how many
acres are in the unbuildable area? Mr.
Depner said it
looks like it’s approximately 50/50.
Mr. Rossbach asked again if the applicant had considered eliminating
lot 2 and moving the property lines.
Mr. Ward said if he considered that option, would the township still
say
the road has to be run 235-foot radius through the
wetlands. Dan Lowe said at the
very least, the township
needs documentation showing MDEQ denied the request.
Mr. Ward said he could provide proof of how
he’s worked with the MDEQ without actually having
to go back and submit all over again. The
Planning
Commission asked for a 100-foot radius, now the ZBA
is asking to eliminate a lot to prevent the road from
bisecting it. Mr.
Ward said he would consider that even though he will lose a lot.
He said they have done
everything possible with the MDEQ.
John Lowe said again that he would like to know the maximum the
MDEQ will allow.
Mr. Depner confirmed that Mr. Ward would not be opposed to
eliminating the bisected
lot to increase the frontage on lot 5. The
Planning Commission has not given final approval for this project.
If the ZBA were to grant the variances, the Planning
Commission would still have to grant final approval.
Mr. Ward said he’s done everything the Planning
Commission asked, and now the ZBA wants something
different. Mr.
Depner said the problem with the process is they were never allowed to
submit the site plan to
the township until an MDEQ permit was issued.
If they could have worked with the township and the MDEQ
concurrently, a lot of time could have been saved. Ms.
Manson-Dempsey asked if there are other options
available for this property, such as site condos.
Mr. Kehoe said that’s a possible, but they would still have to
comply with the private road standards because
that’s how the property is accessed. That
would change the
lot sizes to a minimum of one acre.
Ms. Manson-Dempsey asked Mr. Kehoe his opinion on setting a
precedent.
Mr. Kehoe said it’s on a case-by-case basis,
although someone could argue based on what’s been done in this
case.
Art Mohr, 3012 Sanitorium:
Mr. Mohr said he sat through the Planning Commission meeting.
He listened to
John Lowe moderating the meeting and referring over
and over again about not wanting to set a precedent.
At the end of the meeting, Mr. Ward was essentially
given a checklist of items to comply with that would make
this acceptable to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Mohr was stunned at the “lackadaisical” process used to
arrive at 22 lots—it was like a poker game.
Mr. Ward has complied with the Planning Commission’s
requirement of 100 feet.
John Lowe said he may have met the Planning Commission’s
recommendations,
but this is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Dan
Lowe said the township was sued on a very similar matter.
Linda Manson-Dempsey said the township has hired an
expert; it should follow his advice. Dan
Lowe said it
was a case where the township deviated from the
Livingston County Road Commission’s standards. Larry
Fillinger asked Mr. Ward how much time he would need
to reconfigure the lot sizes and obtain a letter from the
MDEQ. Mr.
Ward said he could certainly have it by the next Planning Commission
meeting. Mr. Depner said
the lot sizes could be changed in a day’s time. Dan
Depner asked if, in the meantime, they could go back to the
Planning Commission for final site plan approval
contingent upon the variances being granted.
Mr. Kehoe said
that seems reasonable. David
Bittner, attorney representing Ray Ward, said there’s no reason the ZBA
couldn’t
make the variances conditional on receiving a letter
from the MDEQ stating the maximum allowed.
Mr. Kehoe
said there’s only about two weeks between the
Planning Commission and ZBA meetings.
Annette McNamara
said the next Planning Commission meeting is
September 28 and the next ZBA meeting is October 4.
Motion
Larry Fillinger motioned to table ZBA Case #4-04—Jesse
Drive until the October 4, 2004 ZBA meeting, allowing Ray
Ward time to obtain a letter from the MDEQ stating it will
not allow 230-foot radius on the road and to advise the
township on the maximum radius the MDEQ will allow, and to
allow time to reconfigure lots to reduce the variance
request on lot #5 and to eliminate the bisected parcel.
Linda Manson-Dempsey seconded. Motion
carried 5-0.
NEW BUSINESS
ZBA Case #6-04—Family Golf
Bill Fulkerson from Family Golf was present to request a
variance on the height requirement. Mr.
Fulkerson provided
an aerial view of the site.
John Lowe asked about changing the location of the building on the
site plan to 100 feet
from the property line. Mr.
Fulkerson indicated he would work with Advantage Engineering.
John Lowe asked
Mike Kehoe if, as part of the height variance from 35 feet to
65 feet, the ZBA could stipulate that the isolation
distance from the lot line has to be 100 feet or 120 feet?
Mr. Kehoe said yes.
Annette McNamara
reminded the
ZBA that Mr. Fulkerson would still have to make a
presentation to the Planning Commission.
Linda Manson-Dempsey addressed Section 5.05 C, items 1-6:
- How
the strict enforcement of the provisions of the township’s 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. Ms.
Manson-Dempsey said there is no unnecessary hardship in her opinion.
Annette McNamara
said this is
a use permitted by Special Use Permit in the
Suburban Residential (SR) zoning district.
- The
conditions and circumstances unique to the property, which are not
similarly applicable to other
properties
in the same zoning district. Larry
Fillinger said there are no other driving ranges in the vicinity, so the
circumstances
are unique to this property.
- The
conditions and circumstances unique to the property were not
self-created.
John Lowe asked Mike Kehoe’s
opinion
on this item. Mr. Kehoe said he
doesn’t believe it’s self-created from the standpoint that it’s
currently being used
as
a golf range and he’s attempting to make it an all-season facility.
- Why
the requested variance would not confer special privileges that are
denied other properties similarly situated
in
the same zoning district.
Linda Manson-Dempsey said that any property owner has the right to
request a height
variance
in the SR zoning district.
- Why
the requested variance would not be contrary to the spirit and intent of
this zoning ordinance. Dan
Lowe said
he believes the intent of the ordinance is for
the health and safety in a residential building.
John Lowe said there was a
Special Use Permit granted to allow the
development of this driving range, which is adjacent to the expressway.
This business is a buffer to the existing
residential area, and this would allow the business to continue.
- The
difficulties shall not be deemed solely economic.
Dan Rossbach said the
difficulties aren’t solely economic;
it’s a combination of
things. John Lowe said again
that the height restriction was established for health and safety for
residential as opposed to
commercial. Dan Lowe said the
establishment is a benefit to the township. Under
the
circumstances, this request is
less burdensome to the township than a high-density housing development.
This would
allow the property to continue
as a viable recreation facility for the residents of the township.
Call to the Public
Leon Steely, 245 Foxfire:
Mr. Steely asked if the dome is closer to
Peavy Road
.
John Lowe asked Mr. Steely to
come
up and take a look at the drawing, which shows it’s about as far away as
you can get.
Motion
Dan Rossbach motioned to approve ZBA Case
#6-04—Family Golf to grant a 30 foot height variance to the
requirement in Section 7.10 of the zoning ordinance,
from 35 feet to 65 feet, with the stipulation that the
air-supported dome be 100 feet from any property
line and the finished floor elevation be no higher than 2 feet
lower than the southwest corner of the parking lot
because the applicant has met the requirements of
Section 5.05 C, items 1-6.
Dan Lowe seconded. Roll
call vote: Dan Rossbach—yes;
Larry Fillinger—yes;
Linda Manson-Dempsey—no; John Lowe—yes; Dan
Lowe—yes. Motion carried
4-1.
ZBA RULES AND PROCEDURES
Larry Fillinger motioned to table this agenda item, and to
place it at the end of the next meeting’s agenda.
Linda Manson-Dempsey seconded.
Motion carried 5-0.
CALL TO THE PUBLIC
Art Mohr, 3012 Sanitorium:
Mr. Mohr had a question related to Northern Materials/San
Marino’s operation of the
gravel pit. Mr.
Mohr asked if the ZBA knows, at this time, of any issues pending or being
discussed to bring before the
ZBA concerning any zoning exceptions, provisions, changes, or
different use of the property. John
Lowe said no.
Mr. Mohr asked if there’s any active discussion with either
of the parties mentioned or their attorneys about bringing
forward any motions. John
Lowe said no.
ADJOURNMENT
Linda Manson-Dempsey motioned to adjourn the meeting at
9:50 p.m.
Dan Rossbach seconded.
Motion carried 5-0.
|