MINUTES PARK TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Park Township Hall 52 152 nd Street Holland, MI 49418 Regular Meeting April 28, 2014 6:35 P.M. DRAFT APPROVED COPY CALL TO ORDER: Chair Foster called to order the regular meeting of the Park Township Zoning Board of Appeals at 6:30 P.M., held in the Township Hall at the Park Township Office. ATTENDANCE: Present: John Foster, Joanie Bouman, Doug Dreyer*, Dennis Eade, Sally Pollock*, Mike Toscano Staff: Andy Bowman, Staff Planner, Ed devries, Zoning Administrator *Sally Pollack continued as Zoning Board of Appeals alternate for the Selvius variance request only taking Doug Dreyer s place. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Motion by Pollock, supported by Dreyer, to approve the agenda as presented. Voice Vote: Ayes: 6, Nays: 0. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion by Pollock, supported by Dreyer, to approve the minutes of the March 24, 2014 special meeting. Voice Vote: Ayes: 6, Nays: 0. Motion carried. BUSINESS ITEMS: 1. A request by Thomas and Constance Selvius to build a residence 165 feet east of the bluff that does not meet setback requirements for a rear yard abutting a body of water per section 38-495(1) of the Park Township Code of Ordinances. Said land and premises are located at 4541 N. Lakeshore Dr., Holland, MI 49424. (Parcel #70-15-04-100-013, R-2) Note: Rehearing from February 24, 2014. Bowman explained that due to an inadequately recorded voice vote on this request at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting of February 24, 2014, a repeat hearing will be held to complete an appropriately recorded roll call vote on this request.
Dreyer excused himself from consideration of this variance request since Sally Pollock was taking his place. Tom Selvius, applicant, presented additional information regarding the variance request. He showed the board an illustration where the garage located on their site will be removed from the property. He also pointed out where the new porch will be located on the north side of the house. He explained the reason for the shift from the sight line to the MDNR setback is because building the house in that location would necessitate removing two large maple trees, and he wants to avoid that as much as possible Selvius went on to explain that removing the garage will actually increase the view for one neighbor and the house location will be further away from the other neighbor. He is limited by the proximity to the lake, thus this is why he is requesting for a variance from the setback requirement. Foster asked about the location of the pool. Selvius said it is more feasible to build the pool on the other side from the lake. Toscano asked how far back would the house s location be compared to the neighbors. Selvius said the house would be even but sit slightly back from where the other homes are located. Public Hearing: The public hearing was opened at 6:55 P.M. Frenell Pruden built a lakeshore retirement home four years ago. She expressed concern about the serious erosion problem along the lakeshore in that area. She mentioned she has experienced erosion problems and recalled that the ordinance of 20 years ago stated homes had to be 200 from the water. She claimed two neighbors have lost cottages because of the erosion and she is opposed to the request because of this reason. Selvius explained the front porch will not have a basement to avoid erosion problems. Don Short is a neighbor and noted his family has lived there for 100 years. He stated he had to move his cottage in 1986 because of erosion. He emphasized that erosion is more important than sight lines and that he does not want a large structure interfering with wind patterns. Elizabeth Noble Lee lives next to the Selvius property and stated that her family has also owned lakeshore property for over 100 years. She enumerated many concerns from a prepared letter but summarized that erosion and environmental problems are a serious concern for her. Foster asked Lee if her primary concern was the sight line or setback. Bowman reminded everyone that the MDNR setback requirement is irrelevant to consideration of the application and that the Zoning Board of Appeals is to decide on just the zoning ordinance-based sightline setback location. 2
Toscano said the DEQ permit could be made a reasonable condition regarding the standards. Doug DeHaan, contractor for the Selvius home, clarified that the DEQ setback has been established at 165 and that a recent topographical map has been done by Excel Engineering. He added that in that area there are several properties that are in front of this line noting that the 60 year setback requirement is 160. He concluded by stating he is not compromising any dunes and is trying to comply with all the requirements and concerns. The public hearing was closed at 7:17 P.M. Motion by Toscano, supported by Pollock, to approve the requested setback variance based on meeting the following standards as described below with the conditions that: 1) the detached garage between Lake Michigan and the home be removed, and 2) that the new home will be no closer to the lake than the residence to the north. a. That strict compliance with the zoning ordinance regulating the minimum area, yard setbacks, frontage, height, bulk, or density, or other regulation would render conformity with those restrictions of the zoning ordinance unnecessarily burdensome. The burden created in this case is the required tree removal and the difficult terrain in the required location. b. That granting the requested variance would do substantial justice to the applicant as well as to other property owners in the zoning district. If a lesser relaxation than that applied for would give substantial relief to the property owner and be more consistent with justice to other property owners in the district, the Board of Appeals may grant a lesser variance provided the other standards are met. Substantial justice is done for the applicant by allowing a location closer to the prevailing setback rather than using the sight setback in this case. Justice for other property owners is accomplished by placing the home no closer to the lake than the existing building to the north and by the removal of the detached garage existing on the site between the lake and the home being removed. c. That the plight of the property owner/applicant is due to the unique circumstances of the property (e.g., an odd shape or a natural feature like a stream or a wetland) and not due to general conditions of the zoning district. Unique conditions exist on the parcel in that the neighboring homes are placed much further to the east than the prevailing lake setback and create an unnecessarily restrictive line of sight. d. That the practical difficulties alleged are not self-created. The tree locations, difficult dune terrain and unusual line of sight were not created by the applicants. Roll Call Vote: Foster - yes, Bouman yes, Eade no, Toscano yes, Pollock yes. Ayes 4, Nays 1. Motion carried. 3
2. A request by Ed TerVoort on behalf of the Allen and Helen Shopmaker Trust to construct a front porch that does not meet front yard averaging setback requirements per section 38-494(a) of the Park Township Code of Ordinances. Said land and premises are located at 2415 Interlake Walk, Macatawa, MI 49434. (Parcel #70-15-33-382-029, R-4). Bowman described the application as follows: The applicants property is located in the R-4 Medium Density One and Two Family Residence Zoning District where a 40 front yard setback is required. The current average front yard setback in this area has long been established at about 12. The applicants are proposing the building of an elevated front porch which must meet the currently established front yard setback. The proposed porch would be four feet from the front lot line. Ed TerVoort spoke to the application. He stated the porch is really a deck and won t be covered. He also said it will extends about 4 ½ feet. Dreyer found the height is the reason the elevated porch requires a variance. TerVoort said there are three steps down to the property from the deck. Bowman noted that stairs aren t counted in the variance consideration. Toscano asked if there were other options. TerVoort explained there is no room for any other option. Public Hearing: The public hearing was opened at 7:30 P.M. Nikki Arendshorst said there are four or five major renovations in the area. She finds the applicant s proposed addition is attractive and practical and she supports his request. The public hearing was closed at 7:32 P.M. Motion by Bouman, supported by Dreyer to approve the requested setback variance based on meeting the following standards as described below: a. That strict compliance with the zoning ordinance regulating the minimum area, yard setbacks, frontage, height, bulk, or density, or other regulation would render conformity with those restrictions of the zoning ordinance unnecessarily burdensome. The burden created in this case is that the house is less accessible without the proposed deck. b. That granting the requested variance would do substantial justice to the applicant as well as to other property owners in the zoning district. If a lesser relaxation than that applied for would give substantial relief to the property owner and be more consistent with justice to other property owners in the district, the Board of Appeals may grant a lesser variance 4
provided the other standards are met. Substantial justice is done by allowing for a more appropriate and historical design for the area. c. That the plight of the property owner/applicant is due to the unique circumstances of the property (e.g., an odd shape or a natural feature like a stream or a wetland) and not due to general conditions of the zoning district. The lots in this area were created and built when before zoning existed. d. That the practical difficulties alleged are not self-created. The difficulty was not created by the applicants Roll Call Vote: Foster yes, Bouman yes, Dreyer yes, Eade yes, Toscano yes. Ayes 5, Nays 0. Motion carried. 3. A request by Doug Troost to construct an accessory building that exceeds the allowable square footage for accessory buildings by 28 square feet per section 38-491(b)(1) of the Park Township Code of Ordinances. Said land and premises are located at 4246 Butternut Dr., Holland, MI 49424. (Parcel #70-15-01-300-009, AGR). Bowman noted that the applicant is proposing a second detached accessory building of 40 x 44 (1760 s.f.) and when added to the existing accessory building of 768 s.f., the total detached accessory building floor area on the site would be 2528 s.f., which is 28 s.f. over the maximum allowable residential accessory building of 2500 s.f. Doug Troost, applicant, stated he has constructed a pole barn which is his workshop. He mentioned that he has five acres and works on classic cars. He explained he is retiring and plans to spend more time on his hobby and needs extra space for storage. He also stated he has an RV and classic cars in other locations for lack of storage space and the second accessory building would store these vehicles and expand his workshop. Dreyer asked if the pole barn can be smaller remarking that the applicant needs to present a more substantive reason in order to satisfy the standards. Troost said his property is in the woods and the structure would be 450 from the road. Toscano said there needs to be a stronger rationale to meet the standards. Toscano said he sees the benefit in having an adequate storage building but that alone is not sufficient to meet the ordinance. Foster asked how much of the current building is workshop space. Troost said the entire building is his workshop. Public Hearing: The public hearing opened at 7:45 P.M. Harold Becker, a neighbor, said he supports the proposed building. 5
The public hearing closed at 7:48 P.M. Toscano suggested tabling the request to allow the applicant time to meet with the Zoning Administrator to discuss other options. Bowman asked if there are additional buildings on the property. Troost said there is a small building, a pump house, which measures 10x12 s.f. that will be removed. Toscano asked if that building were removed could that be considered in the application. Bowman said this consideration was already a factor in the application. Dreyer said if you have a lot of property it seems burdensome the applicant cannot add the second building. Toscano asked if the applicant uses the property for agricultural purposes would the variance still apply. Bowman said the property would have to be established as a bona fide farm. Motion by Dreyer, supported by Eade, to deny the requested variance because it does not meet the standards for granting a variance. Roll Call Vote: Foster yes, Bouman - yes, Dreyer - yes, Eade yes, Toscano yes. Ayes 5, Nays 0. Motion carried. 4. A request by Curt Carini on behalf of the Jay and Alma Hamberg Trust to allow a lot line shift that results in a lot not conforming to minimum lot size requirements per section 38-276(4) of the Park Township Code of Ordinances. Said land and premises are located at 1608 and 1612 Woodlawn Avenue, Holland, MI 49424. (Parcel #70-15-35-322- 004 and #70-15-35-322-003, R-3). Bowman described the application as two platted lots co-owned by the Hamberg Trust estate with a home built on each lot. One of the homes cannot be sold separately since a small portion of the dwelling is built on the lot to the west (lots #31). The applicants are asking to be allowed to create a narrow lot split that surrounds only the west side of the larger home thereby making the entire home within a new proposed lot (parcel B). They are also proposing the grant of an access easement for the home left on lot #31 (parcel A). Ron Hamberg spoke to his application which was his parents property. He stated the homes were built 60 years ago and when he listed the homes for sale a required survey revealed this unique problem. He added that the easement is for the larger house which has a septic system to the rear. Bowman found from Hamberg that the easement is needed because the side yard is too narrow for equipment to access the rear yard. Foster asked if the drive is part of the easement. Hamberg confirmed it was. 6
Public Hearing: The public hearing was opened at 8:05 P.M. There was no comment. The public hearing closed at 8:06 P.M. Motion by Toscano, supported by Dreyer, to approve the requested setback and lot size variance based on meeting the following standards as described below: a. That strict compliance with the zoning ordinance regulating the minimum area, yard setbacks, frontage, height, bulk, or density, or other regulation would render conformity with those restrictions of the zoning ordinance unnecessarily burdensome. The applicants cannot sell either of their homes separately due to the lot configuration. b. That granting the requested variance would do substantial justice to the applicant as well as to other property owners in the zoning district. If a lesser relaxation than that applied for would give substantial relief to the property owner and be more consistent with justice to other property owners in the district, the Board of Appeals may grant a lesser variance provided the other standards are met. The least variance possible is being requested to resolve the lot split issue and there will be no real difference known to neighbors other than separate ownership of the homes. c. That the plight of the property owner/applicant is due to the unique circumstances of the property (e.g., an odd shape or a natural feature like a stream or a wetland) and not due to general conditions of the zoning district. Since the lots have long been in the same ownership, building spacing was not considered and now that the homes exist in this manner. d. That the practical difficulties alleged are not self-created. The difficulty stems from inadequate recordkeeping related to lots and building locations. Roll Call Vote: Foster yes, Bouman yes, Dreyer - yes, Eade yes, Toscano yes. Ayes 5, Nays 0. Motion carried. ANNOUNCEMENTS: The next regular meeting is scheduled to be May 26, 2014, which is Memorial Day. Foster asked if an early June date would be satisfactory to make up this meeting date. After discussion the board decided to cancel the May meeting. June 23 will be the next meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was none. 7
ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Foster, and supported by Eade, to adjourn the meeting at 8:17 P.M. Voice vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Judith Hemwall Recording Secretary April 30, 2014 Approved: May 27, 2014 8