Zoning Board of Appeals
April 5, 2004
John Lowe, Dan Lowe, Larry Fillinger, Dan Rossbach
Robert Hanvey, Township Supervisor
Annette McNamara, Zoning Administrator
CALL TO ORDER
Lowe called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m.
Fillinger made a motion to approve the agenda.
Dan Rossbach seconded. Motion
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
following changes were noted:
First paragraph, first sentence, the word “has” should be inserted in the second sentence to read,
“has” two adjacent parcels….”
Larry Fillinger made a motion to approve the minutes from March 1, 2004 as amended. Dan Rossbach
seconded. Motion carried 4-0.
Call to the
Mary Ellen Finch, 1687 Triangle Lake Road, which is the house south to the Bandys, questioned if the
drawing she has that went to the Health Department is the same and it is. Ms. Finch expressed concern
over the square footage and placement of the new building obstructing her view to the lake. Mr. Bandy
stated it would stick out only five feet further than the existing deck.
Rebecca Mistretta, 2883 Rubbins, stated they moved across the lake to a house that was next to a house
that had been grandfathered in from the original cottage and was built into a house. She stated with the
setbacks their front lake side is even with their door going into their house and stated their house sits all
the way in front of their house which blocks their view and enjoyment of
Tony Mistretta, 2883 Rubbins, asked if this decision will set a precedent? John Lowe explained that issues
that come to the Zoning Board of Appeals are treated individually and has no basis on anything. He also
asked how many bedrooms and whether there would be laundry facilities.
There will be two bedrooms, one bath, no basement, and no laundry
Tom Klebba, 1615 Triangle Lake Road, stated he has no objections to what the Bandys are doing.
His objection is that this is the fourth summer that the burned house has been there and would like to see
it removed. Mr. Klebba asked the Zoning Board of Appeals members if they have the authority to have this
removed and Mr. Lowe stated proceedings had been started through the Township Attorney and if the
structure has not been removed, the attorney will follow through with the process if it is not taken care of
by June first. Mr. Klebba also asked the board why they had not dealt with this before and John Lowe
stated they were not aware of it until recently.
In discussion, it was stated that the existing structure had two bedrooms, one bath, kitchen, living room,
shed. A restriction was imposed by the Health Department through an appeals process regarding a
laundry room due to the engineered drainfield and this system will require yearly inspections by the Health
Department. The drainfield is getting moved to the rear of the property, which is being installed within the
right of way and the Road Commission has the ability to use that right of
Dan Lowe questioned available parking spaces and parking has always been
Mr. and Mrs. Bandy reported that they had contacted Boss Engineering since the last ZBA meeting. They also
received a letter from the Livingston County Health Department (LCHD) stating the letter had been rewritten.
Mr. Bandy also stated they had received a letter from the Township Attorney stating they had to remove the existing
John Lowe reported that he talked to the LCHD who stated they approved the set of drawings the Bandys had
submitted. The Livingston County Road Commission still wants the site plan submitted with final site plan approval.
Mr. Bandy stated they had everything from Boss Engineering. John Lowe pointed out the exact location of the septic
required and had not been submitted to date.
John Lowe stated for clarification that the letter given back to the township in response to the Township Attorney’s,
Mike Kehoe, letter that essentially set a date for the demolition of the existing building and stated the township’s
specifications would only allow the existing building to be reconstructed and further additions would be on a separate
basis. The Township Attorney’s letter states the additional area would only be approved subsequent to the removal
John Lowe once again explained the violation process and stated that process remains in effect on the existing
building and that process is ongoing until the removal of the building. It was clearly stated and understood by all
the removal of the building is to be gone and completed within the first
week of June.
variances were discussed:
- Building lines would remain essentially the same and the Bandys would be going forward to the lake
approximately 21 feet further than what either house on each side is.
house is 28 feet; the new addition toward the south side lot line would be
6-7 feet to
the west side lot line
Added 1 foot
to the north lot line, which would be 8 feet off the lot line
Dan Rossbach made a motion to grant variances for ZBA Case # 2-04-The Bandys. The first variance would be
a 22 and a half foot front yard setback; a second variance would be two and a half feet on the north side; and the
third variance for setbacks would be a
20 foot on the rear yard setback.
Within 60 days the existing building or dwelling shall be raised and removed and cleaned or else all variances
permitted will be void or withdrawn. Subject to the Health Department and subject to the letters from the Health
and Livingston County Road Commission (LCRC)
Dated June 26, 2002, and the Livingston County Department of Public Health, letter dated March 23, 2004, also the
Mike Kehoe dated April 5, 2004 and the third and last letter submitted by
Also provided that the heating and cooling units be placed on the south side of the lot; heating and cooling and the
above ground decks and stairways be restricted to the south side of the lot not to extend beyond the front yard
These variances shall be submitted through the plans provided by Boss Engineering, job number 02096, dated
Practical difficulties would be due to replacement of the structure that’s burned and replacement of the said
and by granting the variances making it conform to the square footage
practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship would be the strict
1. Strict enforcement of the provisions would cause an unnecessary hardship and deprive the owner of rights
other property owners within the same zoning district.
2. The conditions and circumstances unique to the property which are not similarly applicable to other
properties in the same zoning district. They are essentially basically the same in the area because none of the
houses meet the current standards at this point in time. What is being discussed brings it into conformity with
existing surrounding properties would be essentially that one.
3. The conditions and circumstances unique to the property were not self-created; why the requested variance
will not confer special privileges that are denied other properties similarly situated in the same zoning district.
(John Lowe stated the house had burned and the board is allowing it to be replaced and by changing the size
of the house will bring it into conformity with the square footage requirements of the current zoning. Setbacks are
unusual for lake property with the lots that are surrounding it on either
4. Why the requested variance will not be contrary to the spirit and intent of this zoning ordinance. John Lowe
in an attempt to balance the dimensional variations and conformity of the
square footage with the setbacks.
5. The difficulty shall not be deemed solely economic; there’s no discussion about economic feasibility of
the structure back on the property to make it usable.
seconded. Larry Fillinger-yes; Dan Rossbach-yes; John Lowe-yes; Dan
CALL TO THE PUBLIC
Lowe made a motion to adjourn at 9:15 p.m. Dan Rossbach seconded.