MACOMB TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING HELD TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 2015

Transcription

1 LOCATION: PRESENT: ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: MACOMB TOWNSHIP MEETING CHAMBERS BROUGHTON ROAD, MACOMB, MI CHAIRMAN: DINO BUCCI MEMBERS: EDWARD GALLAGHER AARON TUCKFIELD DAWN SLOSSON KRISTI POZZI NONE TOM ESORDI, TOWNSHIP ATTORNEY PATRICK MEAGHER, PLANNING CONSULTANT (Additional attendance record on file with Clerk) Call Meeting to Order. Chairman BUCCI called the meeting to order at 5:00 P.M. 1. Roll Call. Secretary SLOSSON called the roll. All members present. Chairman BUCCI welcomed Kristi Pozzi as a new member to the Zoning Board of Appeals. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 3. Approval of Agenda Items. (with any corrections) Note: All fees have been received and all property owners were notified by mail. Chairman BUCCI stated that item #7 had been requested to be tabled at the petitioners request. MOTION by GALLAGHER seconded by SLOSSON to approve the agenda as amended. 4. Approval of the previous meeting minutes. MOTION by TUCKFIELD seconded by SLOSSON to approve the meeting minutes of February 10, 2015 as presented.

2 PURPOSE OF HEARING: To consider the requests for variance(s) of Zoning Ordinance No. 10 for the following: Agenda Number/Petitioner/ Permanent Parcel No. Zoning Ordinance Section No. (5) Silver Pines #1 Section (D)(3) Permanent Parcel and (N) (6) Silver Pines #4 Section (N) Permanent Parcel (7) Villagio Development LLC Section (b) Permanent Parcel (8) Pat and Dick Wagner Section (D)(3)(b) Permanent Parcel (9) David and Belinda Riddle Section (D)(2)(b) Permanent Parcel and (D)(2)(b) VARIANCE REQUEST FROM ZONING ORDINANCE Section (D)(3)-Request to reduce required rear yard setback from 35 feet to 30 feet for Building 57, Units 113 and 114 Addresses and Garland; Section (N)-Request to reduce required setback from a structure to a private road from 30 feet to 28 feet, Building 57 Located on the west side of Romeo Plank Road, ½ mile south of 24 Mile Road. Section 17. Silver Pines #1, Petitioner. Permanent Parcel No s , , AND Patrick Meagher, Planning Consultant, presented the findings and recommendations of March 5, They are as follows: As per your request we have reviewed and provided a recommendation for the variance request noted above. The property in question is on the west side of Romeo Plank and south of 24 Mile Road. The petitioner is requesting variances for building 57. These variances include section D.3 reducing the rear yard setback from 35 feet to 30

3 feet, and section N reducing the distance of the edge of the structure to edge of paved road from 30 feet to 28 feet. This building was approved by the Planning Commission at the location in which the variances are being sought. At the time this was at the Planning Commission these setback deficiencies went unnoticed by the previous Township Planner and Planning Commission. When the applicant applied for permits, the Building Official called out the inadequate setback for the Zoning District stating they needed variances. There is an inadequacy of 5 feet on the original approved plan that is being proposed in this variance request to have some reduction in both the front and rear yard. Planner s Recommendation: In the light of the chain of events described above, we feel that a variance is warranted. The petitioner submitted a letter dated February 3, 2015 in support of the request and was included into the record as follows: The builder is restricted by the condo documents to building structures exactly like those that exist in Phase one of the development. The site plan was approved showing building 57 with a 35 ft. rear setback (per ordinance) with an undimensioned front setback. The general notes stated that all front setbacks would be 30 ft. (per ordinance), even though the front setback for building 57 is with at least one variance. The fact that this is an approved site plan with need for a variance is unique. The situation was created over 10 years ago during the site plan approval process. This situation is unique and shouldn t apply to any other property. Bill Thompson, representative, was in attendance. Public Portion: None. MOTION by SLOSSON seconded by TUCKFIELD to close the public portion. Member TUCKFIELD asked Patrick Meagher if the ground had been broken. Patrick Meagher, Planning Consultant, stated that no permits have been issued at this point. The following resolution was offered by GALLAGHER and seconded by SLOSSON: Whereas, it has been satisfactorily presented that special conditions prevail that would cause an unnecessary hardship if the request would be denied, and that conditions exist that are unique to the property and the granting of the request

4 would not confer special privileges for the petitioner that would be denied other similar properties, that the variance request would be consistent with the spirit and intent of the Macomb Township Zoning Ordinance No. 10 under the findings and facts herein set forth; Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the action of the Board is to grant the requested variance of Section (D)(3)-Request to reduce required rear yard setback from 35 feet to 30 feet for Building 57, Units 113 and 114 Addresses and Garland; Located on the west side of Romeo Plank Road, ½ mile south of 24 Mile Road. Section 17. Silver Pines #1, Petitioner. Permanent Parcel No s , The following resolution was offered by GALLAGHER and seconded by SLOSSON: Whereas, it has been satisfactorily presented that special conditions prevail that would cause an unnecessary hardship if the request would be denied, and that conditions exist that are unique to the property and the granting of the request would not confer special privileges for the petitioner that would be denied other similar properties, that the variance request would be consistent with the spirit and intent of the Macomb Township Zoning Ordinance No. 10 under the findings and facts herein set forth; Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the action of the Board is to grant the requested variance of Section (N)-Request to reduce required setback from a structure to a private road from 30 feet to 28 feet, Building 57; Located on the west side of Romeo Plank Road, ½ mile south of 24 Mile Road. Section 17. Silver Pines #1, Petitioner. Permanent Parcel No s , VARIANCE REQUEST FROM ZONING ORDINANCE Section (N)-Request to reduce required setback from a structure to a private road from 30 feet to 28 feet for Building 67 Located on the west side of Romeo Plank Road, ½ mile south of 24 Mile Road. Section 17. Silver Pines #4, Petitioner. Permanent Parcel No s , , AND Patrick Meagher, Planning Consultant, presented the findings and recommendations of March 5, They are as follows: The property in question is on the west side of Romeo Plank and south of 24 Mile Road. The petitioner is requesting variances to section N reducing the distance of the

5 edge of the structure to edge of paved road from 30 feet to 28 feet. The adjacent building 66 was built slightly further south than approved, shrinking the building envelope for building 67. This particular building in no way differs from other buildings in corner locations, and the applicant is not seeking privileges unavailable to rest of the development. Planner s Recommendation: In the light of the chain of events described above, we feel that a variance is warranted. The petitioner submitted a letter dated February 3, 2015 in support of the request and was included into the record as follows: Comments for the 0.5 ft. variance for the corner of the building. The builder is restricted by the condo documents to building structures exactly like those that exist in Phase One of the development. The adjacent building (#66) was constructed a little bit too far south, reducing the building envelope available for building 67 so it is not possible to build a replica of the buildings in Phase One. These conditions don t exist for other properties in the area and the conditions were created several years ago by another entity. No special privilege will be granted. Comments for the 1.78 ft. variance for the garage. The approved site plan for Silver Pines Village Condominiums shows a side entrance garage on Lot 67. It is not possible to build a side entrance garage on these buildings without extending the garage about 2 feet outside the normal ft. building envelope. In most cases the side entrance garages don t cause a problem because they are in areas where there is no conflict and this unique circumstance doesn t apply. This situation arises out of the original site plan approval which shows a side entrance garage on this lot. At least one other building in this development has a side entrance garage that extends into the 30 ft. setback. Member TUCKFIELD stated his assumption on granting the variance would be toward the street to maintain the setback between the two units. Patrick Meagher, Planning Consultant, stated that was correct. Member TUCKFIELD then asked if it would possibly make more sense and be more in line with health and safety if make a variance to the sideyard setback as well as to the front yard setback so that the sideyard would have more room where the driveway comes out. Patrick Meagher, Planning Consultant, stated that could be looked at, but that there is a standard 15 foot separation between the buildings and believes it would be less noticeable if it went 2 foot towards the street rather than 2 feet towards the neighbor with the building already being there. However, it is an option.

6 Member TUCKFIELD stated he would rather go towards the center rather than to the street if he had to push one way or the other. Patrick Meagher, Planning Consultant, stated that a variance would be needed for the sideyard. Member GALLAGHER stated the 15 foot between the buildings is in compliance with the fire code. Bill Thompson, representative, stated the building code allows for as much as a 2 foot overhang on each building for bay windows and if by chance both buildings had bay windows and the buildings were moved to 13 feet apart there would be less than 10 feet which is the minimum. Public Portion: MOTION by SLOSSON seconded by GALLAGHER to close the public portion. The following resolution was offered by SLOSSON and seconded by GALLAGHER: Whereas, it has been satisfactorily presented that special conditions prevail that would cause an unnecessary hardship if the request would be denied, and that conditions exist that are unique to the property and the granting of the request would not confer special privileges for the petitioner that would be denied other similar properties, that the variance request would be consistent with the spirit and intent of the Macomb Township Zoning Ordinance No. 10 under the findings and facts herein set forth; Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the action of the Board is to grant the requested variance of Section (N)-Request to reduce required setback from a structure to a private road from 30 feet to 28 feet for Building 67; Located on the west side of Romeo Plank Road, ½ mile south of 24 Mile Road. Section 17. Silver Pines #4, Petitioner. Permanent Parcel No s , , AND VARIANCE REQUEST FROM LAND DIVISION ORDINANCE Section b-Request to allow a landscape easement rather than a dedicated landscape common area Located on the south side of 26 Mile Road, west of Romeo Plank Road. Section 6. Villagio Development, LLC, Petitioner. Permanent Parcel No

7 This item had been tabled at the petitioner s request per his letter dated March 17, VARIANCE REQUEST FROM ZONING ORDINANCE Section (D)(3)(b)-Request to reduce the required rear yard setback from 35 feet to 27.5 feet. Located on the northwest corner of Boreas Drive and Arapahoe Drive, Section 31. Pat and Dick Wagner. Permanent Parcel No Patrick Meagher, Planning Consultant, presented the findings and recommendations of March 5, They are as follows: The property in question is on the northwest corner of Boreas and Arapahoe Drive. The petitioner is requesting a variance from Section D.3.b of the Zoning Ordinance. The variance request is to allow a sunroom to be built with a 27.5 foot rear yard setback as opposed to the required 35 feet. Planner s Recommendation: We are recommending denial of this variance request due to a lack of practical difficulty. There is no practical difficulty present that would make this variance a necessity; this would simply increase the size of the existing dwelling unit and encroach into the rear yard setback allowing a special privilege not permissible to the surrounding properties and other properties within the same Zoning District. The petitioner submitted a letter dated February 23, 2015 in support of the request and was included into the record as follows: The reason for this request, for this appeal, is to increase the quality of our lives as well as to increase the look of our neighborhood, by adding a Four Seasons Sunroom for our remaining years. Together we are asking for a variance of only 7-1/2 so we can build a 12 x 14 sunroom addition, it will be the same size as our current deck. Currently there is a 35 rear yard setback; we want the variance to be Due to the shape of the lot, the practical difficulty is how it will look in the neighborhood. Complying with the current ordinance will allow us to build a sunroom 7 feet from the rear of the home and 12 feet or more out towards the side in the L shape. The look of the neighborhood is a concern, in our opinion this will not blend in as well as fi it were totally on the rear of the home like similar sunroom additions in our neighborhood.

8 A better way of compliance is to approve this 7-1/2 variance request so it can be installed on to the rear of the home. The room will now look like it belongs in the neighborhood. The room we are interested in a Four Season Sunroom brand. These rooms have the most energy efficient (ConservaGlass Plus) with stay clean glass technology. These rooms will not depreciate like other inexpensive ones on the market. The picture of the proposed sunroom addition is a gable style which has a brick base wall to match the home. The shingles will match the home as well, creating a wellblended project. We hope that with these considerations our investment into our quality of life as well as our neighborhood will be granted. Public Portion: None. MOTION by SLOSSON seconded by GALLAGHER to close the public portion. MOTION by SLOSSON seconded by GALLAGHER to deny the variance request of Section (D)(3)(b)-Request to reduce the required rear yard setback from 35 feet to 27.5 feet; Located on the northwest corner of Boreas Drive and Arapahoe Drive, Section 31. Pat and Dick Wagner. Permanent Parcel No The variance was denied due to a lack of practical difficulty. 9. VARIANCE REQUEST FROM ZONING ORDINANCE Section (D)(2)(b)-Request to reduce required sideyard setback from 7.5 feet to 5.1 feet on the east of the home and Section (d)(2)(b)-request to reduce required sideyard setback from 7.5 feet to 6.3 feet on the west side of the home. Located on the north side of Lynnhurst, east of North Avenue. Section 36; David and Belinda Riddle, Petitioner. Permanent Parcel and Patrick Meagher, Planning Consultant, presented the findings and recommendations of March 5, They are as follows: The property in question is on the north side of Lynnhurst and east of North Avenue. The petitioner is applying for a property split which would move the existing lot line of lot 1 ten feet to the east, increasing the width of lot 1 from 80 to 90, and decreasing the

9 width of lot 2 from 80 to 70. The petitioner is requesting two variances from Section D.2.b of the Zoning Ordinance. The variance requests are to allow a 5.1 foot side yard setback on the east of the home, which currently is 4.9 feet over the property line, and to allow a 6.3 foot side yard setback on the west of the home, which is currently the existing setback. Planner s Recommendation: At this point no practical difficulty has been offered by the applicant. If the applicant can provide a practical difficulty tonight that the Board Members find suitable action can be taken, however, with no practical difficulty submitted we cannot recommend approval at this time. The petitioner submitted a letter dated February 25, 2015 in support of the request and was included into the record as follows: Change Lot 1 to: Lot 1 and Lot 2 excluding the east 70.0 ft. Hartway-Stanton Sub. Change Lot 2 to: East 70.0 ft. of Lot 2, Hartway-Stanton Sub. David and Belinda Riddle, petitioners, were in attendance and stated the house had been built in 1956 and at the time the house was built the setback on the west side was 6.3 feet and the house was built over the lot line by five feet on Lot 2. We purchased the house in 2000 with the understanding that there was an encroachment that would have to be resolved for the property line. In order to fix the property line difficulty they believe the best way is to move the property line 10 feet, which would reduce Lot 2 to 70 feet which is the minimum, unfortunately then seeking a variance on the main house of a sideyard setback of 6.3 feet and 5 feet. When the subdivision was built in the 50 s obviously sideyards where not a zoning issue at the time. Lastly, they believe that grandfathering in the house would not affect the aesthetic value of the neighborhood since a majority of the homes have narrow side setbacks. Chairman BUCCI questioned if the reason they want to split the property was to sell it. David Riddle stated yes in the future and that they understood the issue needs to be resolved before it is sold. Chairman BUCCI asked that when you the bought the house did you know about the encroachment. David Riddle stated they did know about it and that it would have to be resolved and that it was not a big deal. Chairman BUCCI stated that when you come before the Zoning Board of Appeals that you need to show a practical difficulty and that a financial difficulty is not one. If the

10 Board allows this to be granted there is a precedence set and there will be no stopping any other request. The main objective is a practical difficulty and one is not provided in this request. Tom Habel, Lynnhurst, stated that he did not have any objection to the request. He further stated that when the home in question was purchased and the variance sought at that time be believes the variance would have been granted because the ordinance allowed for 5 feet in the side yard. However, in the late 1990 s or early 2000 s the zoning ordinance was amended to have 7.5 feet which is causing a practical difficulty because they are unable to use the property at this time except for placing a pool on it. Lastly, conformance with the current zoning ordinance is unnecessarily burdensome and unreasonably prevents the owners from using their property for a permitted use. They can t sell it or build on it. Because of the time it was built it should be grandfathered, the variance will not be noticed since this is an older neighborhood. Patrick Meagher, Planning Consultant, stated that a letter had been received by a resident at Pine Tree Circle which indicated she could not attend the meeting since she was out of state till the Middle of May. MOTION by SLOSSON seconded by TUCKFIELD to close the public portion. Member TUCKFIELD asked as the property currently stands if it was a nonconforming use. Patrick Meagher, Planning Consultant, stated right now you consider the two parcels a tract so it would in fact be a conforming use. Member SLOSSON asked if the variance were to be granted and the property width shortened would that create an issue for future building. Patrick Meagher, Planning Consultant, stated there would a standard 70 foot lot that would be consistent with the R-1 zoning and a single family home could be put on it meeting all the setback requirements and ordinances. Member GALLAGHER stated that the time this house was built the zoning ordinance required 5 foot setback and 10 foot setback on the other side of the home. If the variance is granted as you desire, a variance would still be needed of 2 ½ feet. MOTION by GALLAGHER seconded by POZZI to deny the variance request of Section (D)(2)(b)-Request to reduce required sideyard setback from 7.5 feet to 5.1 feet on the east of the home; Located on the north side of Lynnhurst, east of North Avenue. Section 36; David and Belinda Riddle, Petitioner.

11 Permanent Parcel and The variance is denied since there is no practical difficulty. MOTION by GALLAGHER seconded by POZZI to deny the variance of Section (d)(2)(b)-request to reduce required sideyard setback from 7.5 feet to 6.3 feet on the west side of the home; Located on the north side of Lynnhurst, east of North Avenue. Section 36; David and Belinda Riddle, Petitioner. Permanent Parcel and The variance was denied since there is no practical difficulty. 7. OLD BUSINESS None. 8. NEW BUSINESS None. 9. PLANNING CONSULTANTS COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by TUCKFIELD seconded by GALLAGHER to adjourn the meeting at 5:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dino F. Bucci, Jr., Chairman Dawn Slosson, Secretary

12 Beckie Kavanagh, Recording Secretary BK