ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

Monday, January 7, 2013

7:30 p.m.

AGENDA and MINUTES

  Packet

CALL TO ORDER:

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:            January 7, 2013

INTRODUCTION OF MEMBERS: 

CALL TO PUBLIC:  Agenda Items only – 3 minute limit

APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR:  December 3, 2013 Regular Meeting

OLD BUSINESS:                         

NEW BUSINESS:    ZBA Case # 01-13 – C.D. Okemos 10

                            1442 Old Pinckney Road – Tax ID# 4710-02-400-005

CALL TO PUBLIC:

ADJOURNMENT:

MINUTES

MEMBERS PRESENT:    Dan Lowe, Larry Fillinger, Linda Manson-Dempsey, Greg Durbin,
and Dan Rossbach (alternate)

MEMBERS ABSENT:     John Lowe

***************************************************************************************************************************************************

CALL TO ORDER

Linda Manson-Dempsey called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Larry Fillinger motioned to approve the agenda as presented. Greg Durbin seconded.  Motion carried 5-0.

MEMBERS PRESENT

The members of the Zoning Board of Appeals introduced themselves. 

CALL TO THE PUBLIC

No response.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

December 3, 2012 Regular Meeting:  Linda Manson-Dempsey asked to have wording added to indicate she turned the meeting over to John Lowe when he arrived.  Larry Fillinger motioned to approve the minutes as amended.  Greg Durbin seconded.  Motion carried 4-0 (Dan Rossbach abstained.)

OLD BUSINESS

None.

NEW BUSINESS

ZBA Case #01-13—CD Okemos 10, 1442 Old Pinckney Rd. , Tax ID #4710-02-400-005

Pat Keough from Ace Civil Engineering was present on behalf of the applicant, along with the applicants TJ Lekander and Emily Lekander.  Mr. Keough said the subject property is the old RV center, now owned by Craig Whitney, and they need several variances to make the property usable.  The applicants would like to have a drive-thru fast food restaurant, convenience store, and gas pumps. 

Nick Patel, 1475 Old Pinckney Rd. , said he has concerns about the traffic that will be generated by the gas station.

After discussion, the board members decided to address each variance request separately.

Larry Fillinger motioned for Section 9.01 E (1) to relax the ordinance to allow a building to be constructed on the .97 acre parcel which is less than the 1 acre required by the ordinance.  Greg Durbin seconded.  Roll call vote:  Rossbach, Fillinger, Manson-Dempsey, Durbin, Lowe—all yes.  Motion carried 5-0.

Dan Lowe asked the applicant if the requirement by the Livingston County Road Commission for a left-turn lane would prevent them from proceeding with the project.  Mr. Keough said there has been some discussion that Mr. Lekander could establish an escrow account for future road improvements as there are some improvements already in the planning stages. 

The variance request for Section 9.01 E (4) to allow an increase in the maximum lot coverage from 40% to 100% was discussed.  The zoning administrator said she doesn’t include pavement when calculating lot coverage, so that request was withdrawn.

Dan Lowe had concerns about the detention pond.  Mr. Keough said the detention area will either have to be in the right-of-way or underground.

Dan Rossbach said it’s difficult to consider granting variances based on a conceptual plan.  Ms. Manson-Dempsey said many of the issues will be reviewed by the township’s Planning Commission and the LCRC.

Dan Rossbach motioned for Section 9.01 E (3) a to reduce the front setback requirement for Old Pinckney Road from 80 feet to 0 feet for parking area, and the requirement for D-19 from 100 feet to 0 feet for parking area, eliminating both front-yard setbacks, as depicted in Ace Civil Engineering’s drawing, Job 07011; no structure shall be closer than 15 feet on D-19 and 12 feet on Old Pinckney Road, and the variance granted is not valid for future applicants.  The ZBA members considered 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 parcel has a unique configuration and was not created by the owner.       

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 because of the shape of the parcel, and the overlapping setback requirements.     

3.       The conditions and circumstances unique to the property were not self created.  The owner did not create the lot; the difficulties were created by the relocation of D-19.

4.       Why the requested variance will not confer special privileges that are denied other properties similarly situated and in the same zoning district.  The parcel shape is unique and similar variances have been granted in the past.    

5.       Why the requested variance will not be contrary to the spirit and intent of this zoning ordinance.  Granting this variance is not contrary to the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance because strict adherence would prevent any structure from being built.          

6.       The difficulty shall not be deemed solely economic.   This request is not economically driven.  

Dan Lowe seconded.  Roll call vote:  Rossbach—yes; Fillinger—no; Manson-Dempsey—yes; Durbin—no; Lowe—yes.  Motion carried 3-2.

Dan Rossbach motioned to relax the requirements of Section 9.01 E (3) b on the north side of the property to allow reduction of the side yard setback from 25 feet to 4 feet for the required greenbelt, to allow for the parking area, not a structure, based on Ace Civil Engineering’s drawing, Job 07011, and to allow an 18 foot setback for the canopy.  The ZBA members considered granting the variance based on 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 parcel has a unique configuration and was not created by the owner.       

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 because of the shape of the parcel, and the overlapping setback requirements.    

3.       The conditions and circumstances unique to the property were not self created.  The owner did not create the lot; the difficulties were created by the relocation of D-19.

4.       Why the requested variance will not confer special privileges that are denied other properties similarly situated and in the same zoning district.  The parcel shape is unique and similar variances have been granted in the past.    

5.       Why the requested variance will not be contrary to the spirit and intent of this zoning ordinance.  Granting this variance is not contrary to the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance because strict adherence would prevent any structure from being built.          

6.       The difficulty shall not be deemed solely economic.   This request is not economically driven.  

Greg Durbin seconded.  Roll call vote:  Rossbach, Fillinger, Manson-Dempsey, Durbin, Lowe—all yes.  Motion carried 5-0.

The request for a variance to Section 17.04 A (2) to allow more than two driveways on one site was withdrawn.

Greg Durbin motioned to relax Section 17.04 B (3) to allow gas pumps to be within 28 feet of the road right-of-way.  The ZBA members considered granting the variance based on 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 parcel has a unique configuration and was not created by the owner.       

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 because of the shape of the parcel, and the overlapping setback requirements.    

3.       The conditions and circumstances unique to the property were not self created.  The owner did not create the lot; the difficulties were created by the relocation of D-19.

4.       Why the requested variance will not confer special privileges that are denied other properties similarly situated and in the same zoning district.  The parcel shape is unique and similar variances have been granted in the past.    

5.       Why the requested variance will not be contrary to the spirit and intent of this zoning ordinance.  Granting this variance is not contrary to the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance because strict adherence would prevent any structure from being built.            

6.       The difficulty shall not be deemed solely economic.   This request is not economically driven.

Larry Fillinger seconded.  Roll call vote:  Rossbach—no; Fillinger—yes; Manson-Dempsey—yes; Durbin—yes; Lowe—yes.  Motion carried 4-1.

Dan Rossbach motioned to relax the requirements of Section 17.04 A (5) to allow three driveways, two off of Old Pinckney Road and one off of D-19, as depicted in Ace Civil Engineering’s drawing, Job 07011, 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 parcel has a unique configuration and was not created by the owner.      

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 because of the shape of the parcel, and the overlapping setback requirements.    

3.       The conditions and circumstances unique to the property were not self created.  The owner did not create the lot; the difficulties were created by the relocation of D-19.

4.       Why the requested variance will not confer special privileges that are denied other properties similarly situated and in the same zoning district.  The parcel shape is unique and similar variances have been granted in the past.    

5.       Why the requested variance will not be contrary to the spirit and intent of this zoning ordinance.  Granting this variance is not contrary to the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance because strict adherence would prevent any structure from being built.          

6.       The difficulty shall not be deemed solely economic.   This request is not economically driven.

Greg Durbin seconded.  Roll call vote:  Lowe—no; Durbin—yes; Manson-Dempsey—no; Fillinger—no; Rossbach—no.  Motion failed 1-4.

Dan Rossbach motioned to relax the requirements of Section 17.04 B (1) to waive the additional land requirements due to lack of area, 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 parcel has a unique configuration and was not created by the owner.       

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 because of the shape of the parcel, and the overlapping setback requirements.    

3.       The conditions and circumstances unique to the property were not self created.  The owner did not create the lot; the difficulties were created by the relocation of D-19.

4.       Why the requested variance will not confer special privileges that are denied other properties similarly situated and in the same zoning district.  The parcel shape is unique and similar variances have been granted in the past.    

5.       Why the requested variance will not be contrary to the spirit and intent of this zoning ordinance.  Granting this variance is not contrary to the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance because strict adherence would prevent any structure from being built.        

6.       The difficulty shall not be deemed solely economic.   This request is not economically driven.  

Greg Durbin seconded.  Roll call vote:  Rossbach—yes; Fillinger—no; Manson-Dempsey—yes; Durbin—yes; Lowe—yes.  Motion carried 4-1.

The variance requests for Section 15.3 C to allow signage in the public right-of-way due to the large front setback along Pinckney Road, and Section 17.12 D (4) to allow the maximum number of driveways to exceed two and to allow proposed driveways to be closer than 75 feet to the existing driveways across Old Pinckney Road, were withdrawn.

Larry Fillinger motioned to relax the requirements of Section 9.01 E (6) b to allow the proposed access drives along Old Pinckney Road to be located within 30 feet of the existing adjacent drives across the street, 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 parcel has a unique configuration and was not created by the owner.       

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 because of the shape of the parcel, and the overlapping setback requirements.    

3.       The conditions and circumstances unique to the property were not self created.  The owner did not create the lot; the difficulties were created by the relocation of D-19.

4.       Why the requested variance will not confer special privileges that are denied other properties similarly situated and in the same zoning district.  The parcel shape is unique and similar variances have been granted in the past.    

5.       Why the requested variance will not be contrary to the spirit and intent of this zoning ordinance.  Granting this variance is not contrary to the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance because strict adherence would prevent any structure from being built.            

6.       The difficulty shall not be deemed solely economic.   This request is not economically driven.

Dan Rossbach seconded.  Roll call vote:  Rossbach—no; Fillinger—yes; Manson-Dempsey—yes; Durbin—yes; Lowe—yes.  Motion carried 4-1.

The variance request for Section 9.01 E (6) e was withdrawn.

The requests for Sections 7.05 B and 7.05 C will be reviewed by the Planning Commission.

Larry Fillinger motioned to relax the landscape buffering requirements for Sections 6.13 B, 6.13 C, 6.13 D, 6.13 E, 6.13 F (6), 9.01 E (6) f, 14.05 D, and 17.12 C, except along the north border, where the applicant will possibly put in shrubs, and if the LCRC will allow, plant trees along D-19 and Old Pinckney Road, 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 parcel has a unique configuration and was not created by the owner.       

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 because of the shape of the parcel, and the overlapping setback requirements.    

3.       The conditions and circumstances unique to the property were not self created.  The owner did not create the lot; the difficulties were created by the relocation of D-19.

4.       Why the requested variance will not confer special privileges that are denied other properties similarly situated and in the same zoning district.  The parcel shape is unique and similar variances have been granted in the past.    

5.       Why the requested variance will not be contrary to the spirit and intent of this zoning ordinance.  Granting this variance is not contrary to the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance because strict adherence would prevent any structure from being built.          

6.       The difficulty shall not be deemed solely economic.   This request is not economically driven.

Greg Durbin seconded.  Roll call vote:  Rossbach—no; Fillinger—yes; Manson-Dempsey—yes; Durbin—yes; Lowe—no.  Motion carried 3-2.

Linda Manson-Dempsey read written comments from John Lowe and James Till, which will be attached to the minutes.

CALL TO THE PUBLIC

No response.

ADJOURNMENT

Larry Fillinger motioned to adjourn the meeting at 10:08 p.m.  Dan Rossbach seconded.  Motion carried 5-0.