A. CONRAD-CHAIR, R. COBB-VICE CHAIR, J. JONES, D. PLASENCIA- SECRETARY, B. ALEXANDER

Transcription

1 EMMET COUNTY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, :00 P.M. EMMET COUNTY COURTHOUSE COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM 200 DIVISION STREET PETOSKEY, MI MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF: VISITORS: A. CONRAD-CHAIR, R. COBB-VICE CHAIR, J. JONES, D. PLASENCIA- SECRETARY, B. ALEXANDER NONE B.MICHALEK, M. LINEHAN JESSICA MOORE, ARCHITECT, DAVID & LISA FAULKNER, DONALD PRIEST, ED STOKEL I Call to Order and Attendance Conrad called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. All members were present. II Minutes of January 16, 2007 Jones made a motion supported by Plasencia to approve the minutes of January 16, 2007 as presented which passed by a unanimous voice vote of the members present. III Cases 1. Case #1-07 Donald Priest, SIDE & REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCES, Botsford Lane, Section 36, Springvale Township Legal Notice: A request by Donald Priest for a rear yard setback variance of up to 25 ft. and a side yard setback variance of up to 5 ft. to apply to an accessory building proposed to be constructed at Botsford Lane, Section 36, Springvale Township. The lot is tax parcel number and is within Supervisor John Roy s Plat of Pickerel Lake Shores, being Lot 37, the West ½ of Lot 36 and the East ½ of Lot 38 and is zoned RR-2 Recreation Residential. The accessory building is proposed 5 ft. from the east side lot line and 10 ft. from the south rear lot line. Packet items: Request & location map, tax parcel map, application, 1/3/07 site plan, 1/15/07 letter from Edwin Landon, 1/22/07 letter from Edwin Landon, 1/13/07 note of support from Birdsall Sandra Trust, fact finding worksheet, Springvale Township minutes from 1/22/07 Additional handouts: Health Department permit showing location of septic. Michalek presented the case using a location map and aerial view of the property. The property is located on the south east shore of Pickerel Lake. A tree line and power line impact the property on the west. The existing shed is proposed to be relocated on the west side of the property and would meet setback standards. Photos of the property were shown. The request is to allow for a 30 x40 pole barn to be constructed in order to store a trailer. A rear yard setback variance of 25 and a side yard variance of 5 are requested. There is a buffer of 50 bordering the rear of the property, owned by the Pickerel Lake Association. The Township recommended approval, but requested proof of the location of the septic. The applicant submitted copies of his septic permit tonight. Conrad stated that Springvale Township had requested the applicant to bring the septic information to the Planning & Zoning office before this meeting. They had questioned whether there was enough room on the parcel for this request. A suggestion brought up at that meeting was to possibly angle the pole barn to keep it away from the property line. She asked the applicant if the house is on a cement slab. Donald Priest, the applicant, stated that no, the house is not on cement, it has a crawl space. Jones asked how big the trailer is. Priest replied that it is a 35 long trailer. Jones commented that it would be very hard to maneuver and that he doesn t think that it would be able to be backed in at all. It would seem that going straight in would be the only possibility. Priest stated that he also has a pontoon boat and a Suburban that he needs to

2 store in this building as well. Plasencia asked about the second small shed shown on the site plan. Priest stated that this will be removed. Cobb asked how wide the trailer is. Priest stated that it is about 8 wide and there is approximately from the house to the property line. Alexander stated that one of the reasons that setback requirements are put in place is for fire protection. In this case he feels that perhaps breaking these setback requirements is not a good idea. Plasencia added that if the neighbor sells their property, there might be a problem as well. Jones asked if there is anything built on either side. Conrad stated that there is not. Jones commented that if someone bought those properties, they would know beforehand what is happening on the applicant s lot. Conrad asked Priest if he had tried to buy any additional property from the surrounding parcels. Priest stated that the neighbors are not interested in selling. Conrad stated that the house could be moved fairly easily to give him more room for the maneuvering. Jones questioned whether the maneuvers he s proposing could be done. Priest stated that he feels that he can maneuver the trailer. He stated that he is proposing storage in the pole barn to avoid neighbors complaining that the trailer is parked outside. Alexander stated that he thinks this is the wrong piece of property for this use. Variances are to be utilized when there is uniqueness to a property. Perhaps the building is too large for the property that he has. Perhaps the trailer could be stored elsewhere or else the buildings on the property reconfigured. Conrad asked Priest if he wished to look again at his plan and see if he could come up with any alternate options. She explained the process that he would have to go through if the case was denied. Priest stated that he has spent a lot of time on this plan, but he would like to look at it again to see if there are alternate options. With the length of the trailer and required maneuvering room, he doesn t think there is another option. There was no public comment on this case. This case was deferred to the next regular meeting to give the applicant more time to review his plan. 2. Case #3-07 David Faulkner, SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE, 5176 Jones Landing Road, Section 31, Bear Creek Township Legal Notice: A request by David Faulkner for side yard setback variances of up to 6 ft (north side) and 8 ft (south side) to apply to an existing single family residential home at 5176 Jones Landing, Section 31, Bear Creek Township. The lot is tax parcel number and is zoned RR-2 Recreation Residential. The request is to widen an existing residential structure and add a second floor. Packet items: Request and location map, tax parcel map, application, applicant completed ZBA variance guide, impact statement, site plan review checklist, 1/29/07 site plan, 1/29/07 zoomed view of site plan, 1/29/07 elevation sketches, location map, fact finding worksheet, 2/9/07 letter from David Faulkner, 2/8/07 site plan with septic and fireplace added to plan. Additional handouts: applicant s answers to variance case review guide questions, 2/15/07 from Timothy Dils, 2/13/07 letter from Glenn Smith, 2/16/07 letter from Bob & Jane Goldsmith, 2/20/07 letter from Dan & Missy Shaheen, 2/15/07 letter from Suzanne Baird, 2/9/07 letter from Mac MacDonald, 2/18/07 letter from Jerry & Margaret Swenor, 2/14/07 from Elizabeth Swenor, 2/19/07 letter from Bill & Helen Meengs. Jones stated that he would like to abstain from discussion or vote on this case as he has an association with the family. Michalek presented the location map showing the parcel located off of Jones Landing Road on Walloon Lake. There is an access drive to get to the property. The parcel is a non-conforming lot with an average length of 290 long and an average width of An aerial view of the property was shown. The existing residence is a flat roof cottage. There is a garage and shed on the property. The site plan was shown. The request is for a side yard setback variance of 6 on the north side of the parcel and an 8 side yard setback variance on the south side of the parcel. The request would widen the existing residential structure and add a second story. The building envelope was shown on the site plan. A home could potentially fit completely within his envelope; however there is a provision in the ordinance that perhaps would apply to this situation. Section 402 states that the minimum width of a building across any location needs to be 20. Due to the narrow lot, this would be very difficult to do. The elevation sketches and photos of the parcel were shown. Alexander stated that the site plan shows the house as 26 wide. Where does the 20 statement from Section 402

3 come in? Michalek explained that to meet the standards of that Section, the residence would have to be at least 20 on two sides. The only reason that they exceed the 20 now is because they are out of the required setbacks. (This would indicate that the structure would be non-conforming even if it met the setback standards.) Conrad asked if the trees on the property would be saved. David Faulkner, the applicant, stated that they are saving as many as possible. Michalek stated that the front lines of the cottages would be pretty much in line if this variance was granted. Conrad asked how far they are from the other cottage. Faulkner stated that they are approximately 37 apart in the front of the home and 39 in the back. Alexander stated that he thought that the packet the applicant presented had all of the required information. He visited the site. It s not the applicant s fault that the lot is so narrow. Cobb asked if there is a hardship in this case. Conrad stated that because they can t do what they want on the parcel doesn t automatically qualify as a hardship. The building on this property is very usable. To say that this is a hardship is inaccurate. Eventually you have to decide what you can put on the lot. Faulkner stated that he is looking for a modest sized house. Jessica Moore, the architect, stated that there is a hardship created because the lot is less than half of what is currently required by the ordinance (100 wide). The house will be 26 wide. Plasencia asked if the residence is livable as it is. Faulkner stated that as a summer home it is. They would only be at 20% lot coverage. Faulkner passed out his answers to the questions asked by the variance case review guide. He noted that if he moved the home forward on the lot to try to keep within the building envelope, he would be affecting the neighbors views. He is trying to keep this as a modest home and is trying to keep it a rectangular shape to save money. He has gotten letters of approval from 9 of the 11 neighbors. He recently put in a new septic system as well. Alexander stated that one of the questions on that variance review is Are there negative impacts for neighboring properties? There would be negative effects if a ladder was needed or if there was a fire because they would have to trespass on a neighbor s property. The lot probably shouldn t have been built on in the first place because it is so narrow. Lisa Faulkner stated that many houses are built close together and in an emergency, would affect neighbors properties. Jessica Moore added that the house is 37 from the neighbor s house. Alexander replied that the current neighbor s house is a distance away; however, the buildings could be reconfigured to within 10 of their lot lines. Plasencia added that the neighbor could put a fence up tomorrow and there wouldn t be access to maintain the house or in case of emergency. A similar case in Levering was required to get and record a maintenance agreement from the neighbor. Michalek added that the edge of the fireplace and chimney would be within 2 of the property line. Plasencia stated that he has a problem with no access and a narrow lot like this. How are things such as boats and recreational items brought down to the lake? Faulkner stated that he has his recreational equipment further down on the lake and leaves it there. Cobb stated that he doesn t think that the improvement makes the house any different than what it is now. The proposal was well thought out and the improvements will increase the lot value of this property and also the rest of the owners around it. The neighbors are in favor of the proposal. He feels that a property owner has some rights to improve their property and this applicant is asking for the minimum variance for what he wants. The intent of the ordinance isn t to deny minimum variances. The property has been this way for years and there is nothing that the applicant can do to change the size of the lot. He feels that there is a hardship in this situation. Alexander stated that he agrees that property owners should be able to improve their lots but is not sure that this lot is the one to do it on. Michalek reminded the board of a previous case in which the applicant was denied and they were able to come back to staff and get approved for their project without a variance at all.

4 Conrad asked if the addition could be smaller. Moore stated that the size of a standard modular house is 28 wide and this residence would only be 26 wide. Faulkner added that the size of their house is minimal. To move the house forward would impact the neighbors. Conrad asked if taking a couple feet off of the addition would make the rooms too small. Faulkner stated that it would make things uncomfortable with the lack of room in the halls. Conrad stated that she does recognize that people have desires of what they want to do with their property, but she does try to follow the ordinance. Conrad opened the floor for public comment. Ed Stokel stated that he is on Resort Township s ZBA and he is here for the discussion. He is neutral in regards to this plan. He feels that the decision hinges on the definition of hardship. Whether it s a design issue, reducing the size of the addition, or putting an oblong second story on the house, it seems to be a hardship. Is the applicant denied use and enjoyment of the property if this proposal is denied? Alexander stated that in regards to use, what is it that they will be using it for? Michalek stated that it is a single family residence. In the RR-2 zone this is the allowed use. Faulkner stated that this would be their permanent residence. They are lucky to have property on Walloon Lake and feels that they do have a hardship because this is a cottage from 1955 and is in need of repair. Conrad stated that it is unfortunate that the original owners didn t have the foresight to add to the lot by purchasing more property. It is a somewhat unique situation. The fact that another story is being added to the home as much as for aesthetics as extra room does create concerns in case of a fire. Plasencia stated that without a variance they could probably put a 2,200 sq. ft. house on the property without expanding the footprint. This is a pretty good size house. Faulkner stated that he doesn t think that would be possible. They would have to pull the house forward and would only have about a 1,600 sq. ft., very narrow, modular looking home. Again, it would impact the neighbors views by being closer to the water. Cobb made a motion supported by Alexander to approve Case #3-07, David Faulkner for side yard setback variances of up to 5ft. 5in. (north side) and 7ft. 8in. (south side) to apply to an existing single family residential home at 5176 Jones Landing, Section 31, Bear Creek Township, tax parcel number as shown on the site plan dated 1/29/07 PZ, based on the size and dimensions limitations of the property, the lot and existing residential structure is a legal nonconforming use, and it will not cause an adverse impact on surrounding property values, or the use and enjoyment of property in the neighborhood or zoning district, and because there is a hardship created by the lot dimensions. The motion failed on the following roll-call vote: Yes; Cobb, Conrad. No; Plasencia, Alexander. Abstain; Jones. Conrad asked the applicant if perhaps he wishes to study the plan further and come up with some more options. Faulkner stated that he has worked on this several times. He is using less than the maximum lot coverage, there is access for utilities and maintenance, and the septic location is not an issue. Moore stated that they are only asking to be able to put on a second story and block off a small corner. The porch on the front will be an open porch so the view will not be blocked. Cobb stated that in looking at the property, he feels that there is a hardship. The problem is not self created, unique physical conditions exist, the variance will not cause an adverse impact on surrounding properties, and the variance is minimal. Based on this interpretation, a hardship exists. Plasencia stated that in reviewing the staff report, all review standards point to the negative. Stokel stated that the role of the ZBA is not to force the applicant to create a conforming house. He shouldn t have to tear the house down and build within the building envelope. Michalek replied that the intent of the ordinance is to permit the nonconformities until they are removed but not to encourage their survival. Stokel stated that the ZBA is supposed to look at the wishes of the public and grant variances. Michalek disagreed stating that the role of the ZBA is to uphold the zoning ordinance and to make concessions when it is shown that a hardship exists. By utilizing staff reports and staff presentations, all attempts are made to be sure that the board has all of the information and is balanced enough to make a good decision. Conrad stated that the applicant didn t start tearing down the building and didn t ask to do so. He could stay within

5 the building envelope and do something with this property. This can be looked at in a different light due to how long it s been there. She stated that although she wants to follow the ordinance, she believes that in this case a variance would be something that she would be comfortable with approving. She stills feels that they could have a home on this property without a variance. Faulkner stated if the building is moved forward, it would only be an 800 sq. ft. building. Putting a second story would block the neighbors views. There is an impractical building envelope on this property. He would be willing to take a foot or so off of the width or length of the building if it would help. He would rather take it off of the length though because taking it off of the width would make the halls very narrow inside. Plasencia stated that he still has a problem with the south side. Possibly a maintenance easement should be obtained. Faulkner stated that the neighbor to the south wrote in his support letter that they could come onto his property to work on the house. Moore stated that there is plenty of room to work on this house and feels strongly that this shouldn t be an issue. Conrad stated that getting the easement in writing and recording it protects both property owners in case of sale. Plasencia stated that he would consider voting in favor if a permanent maintenance easement is recorded. Alexander stated that he was on a fire department for 30 years and it is very hard to fight fires in this circumstance. He is concerned for the safety. Faulkner stated that he has been able to maintain the building and doesn t see an issue with maintenance in the future. Conrad stated that it would also be an easement for fire trucks and equipment to get in as well as other emergency equipment. Plasencia stated that there are setbacks for a reason and the ordinance is like any other law. A variance request is a request to break the law. There was discussion on how much maintenance easement would be required. Cobb made a motion supported by Plasencia to approve Case #3-07, David Faulkner for side yard setback variances of up to 5ft. 5in. (north side) and 7ft. 8in. (south side) to apply to an existing single family residential home at 5176 Jones Landing, Section 31, Bear Creek Township, tax parcel number as shown on the site plan dated 1/29/07 PZ, based on the size and dimensions limitations of the property, the lot and existing residential structure is a legal nonconforming use, and it will not cause an adverse impact on surrounding property values, or the use and enjoyment of property in the neighborhood or zoning district, because there is a hardship created by the lot dimensions and on the condition that a maintenance easement be recorded on the south side of the parcel for a length of 73.2 to extend 5 beyond each side of the residence. The motion passed on the following roll-call vote: Yes; Cobb, Conrad, Plasencia, Alexander. No; None. Abstain; Jones. IV VI OTHER BUSINESS Enforcement Report: Distributed, no discussion. PUBLIC COMMENT: None VII ADJOURNMENT Conrad declared the meeting adjourned at 8:03 p.m. Minutes Certification: Dan Plasencia, Secretary Date