|
MARION
TOWNSHIP
AGENDA and DRAFT MINUTES
SEPTEMBER
12,
2005
CALL
TO ORDER:
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
MEMBERS
ABSENT:
CALL
TO THE PUBLIC: Agenda
Items Only – 3 minute limit
APPROVAL
OF AGENDA:
September 12, 2005
APPROVAL
OF MINUTES FOR:
August 1, 2005
OLD
BUSINESS:
NEW
BUSINESS:
ZBA Case #
07-05 – William & Kristin Lucas
ZBA Case # 08-05 – John & Maria
Hendricks
CALL
TO PUBLIC:
ADJOURNMENT:
DRAFT MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT:
John Lowe, Dan Lowe, Linda Manson-Dempsey, and Dan Rossbach
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Larry Fillinger
OTHERS
PRESENT:
Annette McNamara
, Zoning Administrator
**********************************************************************************************
CALL TO ORDER
John Lowe called the meeting to order at
7:32 p.m.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
NEW BUSINESS
ZBA Case #07-05—William & Kristin Lucas
ZBA Case #08-05—John & Maria Hendricks
The applicants were present to request a variance to Sections
6.11 C 1 and 8.01 F 1 a of the zoning ordinance to allow
them to split their parcel.
The ordinance requires a 2-acre minimum and a minimum of 4 acres to
create a flag lot.
The Hendricks’ parcel is approximately 3.52 acres and the
Hendricks’ are requesting a split of 1.17 acres with the current
house, and a flag lot of 2.35 acres for a new house.
Neighbors from the surrounding parcels support the proposed split.
The ZBA discussed various options and reviewed aerial maps of
the area. There are several parcels in
the immediate area
that are less than 2 acres, which were created prior to the
2-acre minimum.
Linda Manson-Dempsey motioned to grant a variance for ZBA
Case #08-05, to relax Sections 6.11 C 1 and 8.01 F 1 a of
the zoning ordinance, considering the following criteria:
- 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.
The owners are only being deprived
of is the ability to split the property and build on the lot in the back;
other that than,
they could use the property as it
is.
- The
conditions and circumstances unique to the property, which are not
similarly applicable to other properties in
the
same zoning district.
The property is surrounded by
wetlands in the back, so purchasing property from a neighboring landowner
wouldn’t
remedy the situation, because it
would extend the wetlands area, which is well beyond where the house needs
to be
built and where the property
perked.
- The
conditions and circumstances unique to the property were not
self-created.
The Hendricks’ have owned the
property for 11 years. The
variance they are requesting is very similar to the
surrounding area.
There are 6 surrounding parcels under 2 acres, which were split in
the 1970s.
- Why
the requested variance would not confer special privileges that are
denied other properties similarly situated
in
the same zoning district.
Many of the other properties have
already been split and built on. There
are 6 other parcels in the area that are similar to
what’s proposed.
- Why
the requested variance would not be contrary to the spirit and intent of
this zoning ordinance.
The size of the proposed lot is
larger than 6 surrounding parcels. The
property owners are also limited due to
wetlands and the surrounding
properties that restrict the building site.
- The
difficulties shall not be deemed solely economic.
The property owners can’t buy
additional land. They could buy
elsewhere, but they want to stay in the area.
The difficulty is not solely
economic because of the shape of the parcel and the fact that most of the
adjoining
property is wooded, wetlands, etc.,
and can’t be built on.
Dan Lowe seconded. Roll
call vote: Dan Rossbach, Linda
Manson-Dempsey, John Lowe, Dan Lowe—all yes.
Motion carried 4-0.
John Lowe called for a brief recess.
The meeting was reconvened at
8:25 p.m.
with ZBA Case #07-05.
ZBA Case #07-05—William & Kristin Lucas
Mr. Lucas provided the ZBA members with additional
dimensions and a new drawing for his proposed house.
The ZBA discussed various options with the applicant
for locating the house. Mr.
Lucas provided letters of support
from surrounding property owners.
Linda Manson-Dempsey motioned, for ZBA Case #07-05, to relax Section
8.01 F 3 a—front yard setback, to allow a
10-foot variance. If
the applicant demonstrates that a 10-foot variance won’t work, the zoning
administrator can grant an
additional 5-foot variance.
The following criteria was considered in granting the variance:
- 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.
The property owner would like to
build a nice house. There are
some wetlands and some restrictions on septic and drain
fields, and the lot is an irregular
shape.
- The
conditions and circumstances unique to the property, which are not
similarly applicable to other properties in
the
same zoning district.
This property is located on a
cul-de-sac and is off the main road.
- The
conditions and circumstances unique to the property were not
self-created.
The property is the same as is was
when the applicant purchased it. He
would now like to improve the property
and build a home.
- Why
the requested variance would not confer special privileges that are
denied other properties similarly situated i
n
the same zoning district.
The request is due to the site
conditions and location of perks, septic, drain field, etc.
- Why
the requested variance would not be contrary to the spirit and intent of
this zoning ordinance.
The spirit and intent of the
ordinance is that people are allowed to build a home on their property.
The applicant
is trying to build a home on an
irregularly shaped lot.
- The
difficulties shall not be deemed solely economic.
The difficulty isn’t solely
economic because it doesn’t really matter where the house is built, and
the variance is
necessary due to the site
conditions and wetlands.
Dan Rossbach seconded. Roll
call vote: Dan Rossbach, Linda
Manson-Dempsey, John Lowe, Dan Lowe—all yes.
Motion carried 4-0.
CALL TO THE PUBLIC
None heard. Linda
Manson-Dempsey reminded the board members that a joint meeting will be held
on Monday,
September 26, 2005 at 7:15 p.m.
Dan Rossbach asked for opinions on second and/or circular driveways.
Annette McNamara
will discuss the options with the township attorney.
ADJOURNMENT
Linda Manson-Dempsey motioned to adjourn the meeting at
8:53 p.m.
Dan Rossbach seconded.
Motion carried 4-0.
|
