OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

August 24, 2004

Agenda

STERLING UNIVERSITY CENTER- VARIANCE - LANDSCAPING MATERIALS - 5200 CROYDEN AVENUE- (PARCEL NO. 3905-13-230-013)

ROHLFS - ACCESSORY BUILDING REVIEW - 9825 WEST KL AVENUE - (PARCEL NO. 3905-20-301-092)

MAPLE HILL PAVILION - VARIANCE - SITE LIGHTING - 5050 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-13-280-022)

POWELL - ACCESSORY BUILDING REVIEW - 5165 WEST GH AVENUE - (PARCEL NO. 3905-01-430-022)

DOLLAR TREE AT MAPLE HILL PAVILION - DEVIATION - WALL SIGN AREA AND HEIGHT - 5280 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-13-280-022)

A regular meeting was conducted by the Oshtemo Charter Township Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday, August 24, 2004, commencing at approximately 3:00 p.m. at the Oshtemo Charter Township Hall.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Millard Loy, Chairman
Dave Bushouse
Grace Borgfjord
Duane McClung
James Turcott

MEMBERS ABSENT: None

Also present were Jodi Stefforia, Planning Director, Mary Lynn Bugge, Township Planner; James W. Porter, Township Attorney; and approximately six other interested persons.

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. Upon calling the meeting to order, the Chairman noted that Ms. Stefforia had to leave early, and when the representatives of Maple Hill Pavilion arrived, they would be moving Item #7 up in the Agenda to accommodate her schedule.

MINUTES

The Chairman said that the next item for consideration was the approval of the minutes of July 27, 2004. Mr. McClung made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. The motion was seconded by Grace Borgfjord. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, and the motion passed unanimously.

STERLING UNIVERSITY CENTER- VARIANCE - LANDSCAPING MATERIALS - 5200 CROYDEN AVENUE- (PARCEL NO. 3905-13-230-013)

The Chairman stated that the next item on the Agenda was consideration of the request of the Sterling University Center made by Mike Pearson of DMC Builders for a variance to allow the use of rocks in the landscaping islands. The Chairman called for a report from the Planning Department. Ms. Stefforia submitted a report dated July 27, 2004 and August 24, 2004, and the same is incorporated herein by reference.

Ms. Stefforia reminded the Board that this matter had been tabled from the previous meeting at which the Board had asked that the applicant submit a new proposal showing some plantings within the parking lot islands instead of just stone. However, she noted that no new proposal had been submitted, and thus the Planning Department was not able to reach a compromise with the developer. Therefore, Ms. Stefforia recommended that the Board take action to deny the request for a variance and let the Staff handle any new proposal at the time it is submitted.

The Chairman said he believed that the Board was quite clear in making its request for a new proposal. He said he was inclined to deny the variance request unless the applicant came in with a new proposal showing some plantings within the parking lot island areas. He said he thought that the Board had made that quite clear at the last time they met.

Mr. Turcott said, since this is the first variance request of its kind, he thought that the Board should be quite cautious in how it dealt with this issue. He suggested that they deny the request and let the Staff work out a compromise with the applicant if it was appropriate, but that he did not believe there were any distinguishing factors upon which to base a variance in this case.

Ms. Borgfjord was of the opinion that the Board was clear in its request to have this matter worked out, and that due to the applicant's failure to submit a revised landscaping plan, she would support denying the request for a variance.

Mr. Bushouse said that, while he was not at the meeting last month, he understood from a review of the minutes that the developer was supposed to submit a revised landscaping plan. He said, while rocks tend to maintain a nice appearance over a longer period of time, he still believed there had to be some plantings added to the area to bring it into compliance with the Township Zoning Ordinance.

The Chairman, after the discussion of the Board, asked for a motion. Mr. Turcott made a motion to deny the variance based upon the lack of showing of practical difficulty. Mr. Turcott further recommended that the applicant return and work with Staff in order to bring the subject property into compliance by adding the appropriate plantings. Ms. Borgfjord seconded the motion. The Chairman called for a discussion, and hearing none, called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

ROHLFS - ACCESSORY BUILDING REVIEW - 9825 WEST KL AVENUE - (PARCEL NO. 3905-20-301-092)

The Chairman indicated that the next item on the Agenda was the request submitted by Richard Rohlfs for property located at 9825 West KL Avenue, Parcel No. 3905-20-301-092, to construct an accessory building between the dwelling and the street, pursuant to Section 78.820 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Chairman called for a report from the Planning Department. Ms. Bugge submitted her report to the Board dated August 24, 2004, and the same is incorporated herein by reference.

Ms. Bugge explained to the Board that the applicant wished to place a 20 x 28 foot "garage pole building" between the dwelling and the front property line of the subject property. She said the proposed building would be 75 feet from the street right-of-way, north of the dwelling and existing detached garage. She said that the subject property consisted of Lots 9, 10, and Outlot B of the Veracres Plat and an approximately 20-acre parcel, resulting in a total property area of 22 acres. It is located south of KL Avenue and east of 2nd Street.

Ms. Bugge took the Zoning Board of Appeals through the provisions of Section 78.820 of the Zoning Ordinance, highlighting the purpose of that section of the Ordinance to ensure harmonious relationships and minimize conflicts between adjacent uses. The Board was to consider proposed characteristics and uses of accessory buildings in relationship to the criteria set forth in the Ordinance.

Ms. Bugge noted what the characteristics of the proposed accessory building were, to-wit: a 28' x 20' building of approximately 560 square feet with brown pine-groove vertical siding to match the house and driftwood-colored fiberglass shingles, one overhead garage door, a service door and one window on each of the three sides of the building. The approximate building height would be 20 feet.

Ms. Bugge emphasized that the Board should discuss the intended use of the building with the applicant. She noted that the subject property had 318 feet of frontage, consisted of 22 acres and that all buildings would be built upon Lots 9 and 10 of the Veracres Plat. She said the main floor of the dwelling was 1,414 square feet, and the total area was 1,694 square feet. She then reviewed the existing land uses in the area, which were primarily residential or vacant.

The Chairman asked if there were any questions of Ms. Bugge. Hearing none, he asked to hear from the applicant. Mr. Rohlfs introduced himself to the Board and said he thought that the Planning Department had clearly outlined his request, and he asked if the Board members had any questions.

The Chairman asked the applicant what the intended use of the accessory building would be. Mr. Rohlfs said he wanted to add a garage for boat, auto and trailer storage. The Chairman asked what size the overhead door would be. Mr. Rohlfs said it would be a standard seven-foot door. The Chairman asked how dense the foliage was in the area since he had not had an opportunity to drive by the property. Mr. Rohlfs said he thought it was fairly dense, and that the proposed location of the subject building was above the road right-of-way.

Mr. Bushouse asked the applicant if the floor of the proposed accessory building would be approximately 20 feet above KL Avenue. Mr. Rohlfs said he thought it would. Mr. Bushouse said that he had viewed the property and thought it would sit up quite high.

Mr. McClung said he thought, after reviewing the site, that people driving by would not likely see the accessory building at all.

Mr. Turcott asked why the accessory building was not being placed to the rear of the residential structure. Mr. Rohlfs said that his house faced the wooded portion of his property and that it consisted almost entirely of glass. He said he considered the portion of his property abutting the road right-of-way as his rear yard, and the remainder of his property, on the other side of the house, as his front yard.

The Chairman reminded the Board members that, with previous approvals of a similar nature, the Board had required screening. Mr. Bushouse told the Board that the trees in the area were quite large, and given the height of the proposed structure above the road right-of-way, he thought it would be quite visible. However, he said that there were other accessory buildings in the area located in front of the home; and therefore, it would not be totally out of character with the area. Nevertheless, he thought that some sort of screening should still be provided.

The applicant explained to the Board that he thought the house was difficult to see, and it was also much higher than the road right-of-way. Mr. Bushouse pointed out that was due to its distance from the road right-of-way as well as the angle of his home being different than the angle of the proposed structure to KL Avenue.

The Chairman asked if there were any further questions of the applicant. Hearing none, he asked if there were any comments from the audience. There being none, he closed the public portion of the meeting.

The Chairman said he did not have a problem with the applicant's request. However, he said he would like to see plantings along the street side to shield the subject building from the road right-of-way. Mr. McClung said he would also like to see screening, even though he did not believe it would be highly visible. Mr. Turcott noted that it was not visible because it had not yet been constructed, but that once it was constructed, he believed it would be visible, and therefore, screening was necessary.

Ms. Bugge pointed out that the color of the subject building chosen by the applicant would likely mitigate its impact on the area. It was noted that the applicant was choosing a dark brown color, likely to blend in with the environment.

Mr. Bushouse said, to be consistent with other similar approvals, he thought that there should be screening on the north side of the proposed building. Ms. Borgfjord noted that, while the property was quite wooded, she thought that screening should be required in order to be consistent with the previous approvals.

Mr. Rohlfs asked what type of screening would be necessary and what the screening should be comprised of. He also noted a concern about the viability of planting screening vegetation given the large trees existing in the area. The Chairman said that other applicants had encountered similar problems, but were able to work through those. He said in the past the Board had wanted to see evergreens in order to provide year-around screening. The applicant said that he understood.

The Chairman asked if there was any further discussion, and hearing none, said he would entertain a motion. Ms. Borgfjord made a motion to grant the variance with the stipulation that the applicant provide an evergreen, year-around screening along the north side of the proposed structure. The motion was seconded by Mr. McClung. The Chairman asked if there was any further discussion, and hearing none, called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

MAPLE HILL PAVILION - VARIANCE - SITE LIGHTING - 5050 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-13-280-022)

The Chairman stated that the next item on the Agenda was a request by Kimko Realty Corporation for the Maple Hill Pavilion for a variance to allow 1,000-watt light fixtures and exceed 0.1 footcandles at the perimeter of their site. The Chairman called for a report from the Planning Department. Ms. Stefforia submitted her report dated August 24, 2004, to the Board, and the same is incorporated herein by reference.

Ms. Stefforia said that the subject property was located in the "C" and "C-1" Local Business District and formerly known as the Maple Hill Mall, which is currently being redeveloped by Kimko Realty. She noted that, when Hobby Lobby and Value City Furniture were redeveloped in the area, the existing poles and lighting fixtures were used, and no variance was necessary. However, as part of the redevelopment of this area, Kimko Realty is proposing to replace 22 old light poles with 29 new light poles with 1,000-watt fixtures. She noted, while the existing lighting was grandfathered, the current Ordinance requires lights on poles greater than 35 feet tall to be limited to 400-watt bulbs. She also noted that Section 78.720(a) limits the light levels at the property perimeter to 0.1 footcandles. It was because of the applicant's request to exceed those limitations that a variance was being sought.

She reviewed the standards for approval of a nonuse variance, i.e., practical difficulty. With regard to whether conformance was unnecessarily burdensome, she asked that the Board question the applicant regarding their preference for a 1,000-watt light fixtures and the lighting goal they were attempting to achieve. She also suggested that the Board have the applicant address whether or not shields on the light fixtures nearest to the perimeter could be installed in order to achieve compliance with the Ordinance.

Concerning the substantial justice standard, Ms. Stefforia provided examples in which the Board had approved similar lighting variances for six of the seven examples provided.

Regarding the perimeter footcandle limitation, Ms. Stefforia provided numerous examples to the Board in which lighting variances were granted, but noted that in most of those cases, the Zoning Board of Appeals distinguished between developing areas and existing commercial areas and the feasibility of complying with Ordinance limitations. Ms. Stefforia suggested that the Zoning Board of Appeals consider requiring compliance with the 0.1 footcandle requirement along the north property line. She said, if they exceeded the light limitations on the west line and in the southeast, it was likely immaterial, given that there were other commercial properties in those areas. She said she did not believe there were any unique physical characteristics to the property, and it did appear that it was a self-created hardship.

In regard to whether the spirit of the Ordinance would be observed, and public health, safety and welfare secured, Ms. Stefforia asked the Board to consider the fact that this was a long-established commercial area, differing from other commercial properties in the Township, especially those west of U. S. 131, in determining whether substantial justice would be done if the variance were granted.

The Chairman asked if there were any questions of the Township Planning Director. Mr. Bushouse asked if the amount of parking behind the Mall was still necessary, given the demolition and renovations to the subject property. Ms. Stefforia said she did not believe it was required, and that the property owner was simply leaving it vacant at this point in time.

The Chairman asked if there were further questions. Mr. Turcott asked whether the current light poles exceeded current height and light limitations. Ms. Stefforia said she would have to assume that they did, given the applicant's current request and that the existing lighting arrangement predates lighting limitations in the Township.

The Chairman asked to hear from the applicant. Attorney Michael Chojnowski appeared on behalf of the applicant, Kimko Realty Corporation. He introduced himself to the Board. He pointed out that he had spoken to the architect and had reviewed the Staff report. He said the main purpose for making the request was to allow the developer to add additional poles and to brighten the area. He said the purpose was to address safety and security issues, whether real or perceived. He said they wanted to brighten the area to make it more attractive for their customers. While they could reduce the wattage of the bulbs, they would have to add additional poles in order to maintain the lighting level that they wished to achieve. Mr. Chojnowski noted that there was a berm located along the north side of the property, but he thought the applicant could address any spillover, either through adjustment in the height of the poles and/or wattage along the north property line.

The Chairman asked if there were any questions of Mr. Chojnowski. Mr. Turcott said he thought the applicant was asking for more power in order to reduce the number of light poles, and yet they were asking to increase the number of light poles from 22 to 29. Mr. Chojnowski said they were asking to increase both the number of poles and the wattage. He added, if they were to reduce the wattage, they would have to increase the number of light poles beyond the 29 poles currently being requested.

The Chairman asked if there were any further questions of Mr. Chojnowski. Hearing none, he asked if anyone in the audience had questions. Hearing none, he closed the public portion of the meeting and called for Board deliberations.

The Chairman said, in the past, the Board had viewed the commercial area east of U. S. 131 differently from the newly-developed commercial area west of U. S. 131. He said he did not see a problem with what the applicant was proposing, except with respect to the north side. He said there was undeveloped property in that area, as well as the property recently acquired by Township. Mr. McClung said, based on past actions, he was comfortable with what the applicant was proposing.

Mr. Bushouse explained to Mr. Chojnowski that he was trying to get Kalamazoo College and the commercial developer to locate a road along the north property line, and therefore, he did not believe the berm was a factor. However, he thought lighting along the north side of the property should be in compliance with current Township standards.

Ms. Borgfjord asked Ms. Stefforia how they would meet the requirements to bring the north property line into compliance with the Township Ordinance. Ms. Stefforia said that the applicant's engineers would have to reconfigure their lighting model and revise the proposed plan to meet the 0.1 footcandle limitation along the north property line. The Chairman said that could be done by lowering the poles, lowering wattage or using shields, but that they would have to bring it into compliance.

Ms. Stefforia did ask that the Board take note of a letter from Pam Larson, who lived on 8th Street, opposing the request based upon the degradation of the night sky.

Mr. Bushouse asked how late the Mall area was open to the public. Ms. Stefforia said approximately 10 p.m. Mr. Bushouse asked if the number of lighted poles could be reduced. Ms. Stefforia said the owner plans to reduce the lights to one in four after the employees have left the premises, as reflected on the photometric plan.

The Chairman asked if there was further discussion. Hearing none, he called for a motion. Mr. McClung made a motion to grant the variance, provided that the applicant comply with the light limitations in Section 78.720(a) of the Zoning Ordinance along the north perimeter line to bring the subject property into compliance with the 0.1 footcandle limitations. The motion was seconded by Mr. Turcott. The Chairman called for further discussion, and hearing none, called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

POWELL - ACCESSORY BUILDING REVIEW - 5165 WEST GH AVENUE - (PARCEL NO. 3905-01-430-022)

The Chairman indicated that the next item on the Agenda was consideration of the application of Tyrone Powell for property located at 5165 West GH Avenue. The applicant was requesting a review of a proposed accessory building prior to the establishment of the residence. The Chairman called for a report from the Planning Department. Ms. Bugge submitted the report to the Board dated August 24, 2004, and the same is incorporated herein by reference.

Ms. Bugge explained to the Board that the applicant wished to place a 30' x 50' accessory building, approximately 1,500 square feet in size, on the subject property prior to the establishment of the residence. She said the applicant had proposed constructing his home within two to three years. She noted that the property was three acres in size, with 200 feet of frontage and depth of 710 feet. She said the proposed location of the accessory building and future home is approximately 120 feet from the right-of-way and 60 feet from the east property line.

Ms. Bugge reminded the Board members that, in June, they had approved the Reisterer request to establish an accessory building prior to the construction of the dwelling. She said that approval was subject to the posting of a performance guarantee for the removal of the building if construction of the dwelling did not commence within a year. The minutes concerning the Reisterer approval process were attached to her report. Ms. Bugge said that approval of the accessory building prior to the construction of the residence was subject to review, pursuant to Section 78.820.

Ms. Bugge reviewed the criteria of Section 78.820 with the Board, reviewing the characteristics of the proposed accessory building, which would be constructed of silver metal siding, with a height of approximately 14' 3". The front of the building would be the same color as the future house, and the accessory building would have a service door and a 14' x 10' overhead door. No windows were proposed. She said the Board should review the proposed use of the accessory building with the applicant. She noted that the site plan indicates that the future house would be 1,500 square feet, but that the Board should discuss the construction time of the home with the applicant. She said the size of the property was three acres and that the existing land uses in the area were residential and agricultural as indicated in the Master Land Use Plan.

The Chairman asked to hear from the applicant. Mr. Powell introduced himself to the Board. He asked to read his statement to the Board members, which he prepared in letter form dated July 25, 2004, a copy of which is attached to Ms. Bugge's report. After reading his statement to the Board, the Chairman asked the applicant what the color of the front of the accessory building would be. Mr. Powell showed the Board a brochure from U. S. Steel and indicated that the front of the building would have siding identical to that of the future residence.

The Chairman asked the Board if they had any other questions of the applicant. Hearing none, the Chairman noted that the house would be approximately the same size as the proposed structure. He then asked the applicant if he would be able to build within a two-year period. The applicant said yes, within a 2 to 3-year period.

The Chairman and Mr. Turcott both asked the applicant if he understood the requirements for a performance bond. The applicant indicated that it was quite clear to him. Mr. Turcott asked if the applicant understood the purpose for the performance bond, and Mr. Powell indicated that he did.

Ms. Borgfjord said she was uncomfortable with allowing the two-year time period. She said the Board had restricted Mr. Reisterer to a one-year period, and she was concerned about going beyond that time period.

Mr. Bushouse said that at least two of the pole barns in the area had been established a number of years before the residential structures, and like Mr. Powell pointed out, prior to a change in the Ordinance. Therefore, he did not think it would be out of character for the area to allow the longer time period.

The Chairman asked if there were any comments from the audience. Mr. Paul Adams said he owned the property to the west of the subject property , and he did not have any problem with what Mr. Powell was proposing. He encouraged the Board to grant the application as it would be consistent with what he had been allowed to do on his property.

Ms. Bugge asked Mr. Powell if his brother owned the property immediately to the east, and Mr. Powell indicated that he did.

The Chairman said he understood the circumstances involved with being out of the community for a number of years and thought if they allowed the two years, that would not be too long a period in this case.

Mr. Turcott asked Ms. Bugge if they had ever granted an extension for anyone who had been given a one-year period in which to construct their residence. Ms. Bugge said not for the proposed purpose, but in other cases, the Township had allowed for a renewal or extension of various permits granted under a specific time frame.

Mr. Bushouse said that perhaps the Board should consider granting the request for one year and have Mr. Powell come back for renewal. Attorney Porter said he was uncomfortable with the Board granting the permit for a one-year period when, in fact, they knew the applicant would not be able to build for approximately two years. He said he would be more comfortable with them granting the two-year period and if progress was being made, give Mr. Powell an extension at that time.

Mr. Turcott wondered if they should let Staff make the call if the construction of the residence was not commenced within a specified time. Again, Attorney Porter said he was not comfortable with the Board delegating that decision to the Planning Department and thought that the Board needed to make a specific determination.

Ms. Borgfjord asked how long the Reisterers' had owned the property before they made their request to the Board. Ms. Bugge said they had just purchased the property prior to filing the request to construct the accessory building prior to the establishment of the residence.

Attorney Porter said he thought the Board could note that fact that Mr. Powell had owned the property since 1988, and that there had been changes in the Township Ordinance to restrict what he originally wanted to do regarding the building. He also said, while it was not determinative, he thought it was significant that neither of the two adjacent property owners objected, but in fact supported Mr. Powell's request. He also noted that the Board was not giving Mr. Powell the three-year period he was requesting, but was moving toward granting a maximum two-year limitation.

Mr. McClung made a motion to approve the construction of the accessory building prior to the establishment of the residence on the subject property, pursuant to Section 78.820, with the limitation that the residence be built within two-years, and subject to the applicant providing a performance guarantee for removal of the building, and noted the issues raised by Attorney Porter. Mr. Turcott seconded the motion. The Chairman called for discussion. Ms. Borgfjord said she was a bit uncomfortable with the request, and wanted it noted that the only reason she would approve the applicant's request was due to the fact that Mr. Powell had owned the subject property for an extended period of time. The Chairman called for further discussion, and hearing none, called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

DOLLAR TREE AT MAPLE HILL PAVILION - DEVIATION - WALL SIGN AREA AND HEIGHT - 5280 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-13-280-022)

The Chairman indicated that the next item was consideration of a request by Robb Perrin of Burkett Signs on behalf of the Dollar Tree store at the Maple Hill Pavilion. He said the request was for a sign deviation to allow a wall sign that exceeds the area permitted. The Chairman called for a report from the Planning Department. Ms. Bugge submitted her report to the Board dated August 24, 2004, and the same is incorporated herein by reference.

Ms. Bugge identified the location of the proposed store, noted that it was 450 feet from West Main Street, and indicated that the Dollar Tree store, formerly located within the Mall, now had exterior store frontage, which would allow them a wall sign of 80 square feet. Ms. Bugge noted that the Mall currently has a pole sign identifying only the name of the Mall located on West Main. However, she noted that it was being removed, and a new sign listing Maple Hill Pavilion tenants was being installed, which will give the Dollar Tree name some exposure on West Main Street.

Ms. Bugge noted that more than one sign may be placed on the same wall, provided that the combined square footage does not exceed the maximum display area permitted and/or the maximum number allowed. She said, regardless whether the sign was calculated as one sign or two signs, the proposed deviation would result in a sign area of 142 square feet, or 166 square feet, respectively, which would exceed the allowed sign square footage area by 62 square feet or 86 square feet. Ms. Bugge then took the Zoning Board through the standards for approval of a sign deviation, noting in particular the denials for similar requests from the Hobby Lobby, Value City Furniture and MC Sports, at the same location or across the street at West Main 2000.

The Chairman asked to hear from the applicant. Mr. Robb Perrin of Burkett Signs introduced himself to the Board. He said, given the distance from the road right-of-way, the applicant felt the need to request a sign variance. While he understood the Board's position, he felt compelled to make the request.

The Chairman asked what type of sign was being installed near the road on West Main Street. Ms. Bugge explained that the sign was going to have an area of 274 square feet, 30 feet in height, identifying the individual tenants of the Maple Hill Pavilion.

The Chairman said he did not see any basis under the standards to grant a deviation, especially in light of the fact that a new road sign was going to be installed identifying the Dollar Tree as one of the tenants for the Maple Hill Pavilion. The Chairman said he would call for public comments, but there was no longer anyone in the audience. Therefore, he closed the public hearing and called for deliberation and a motion from the Board.

Mr. Turcott made a motion to deny the application due to the fact that there was absolutely no basis upon which to grant the sign deviation, and it would be unfair to the other tenants which were denied similar requests. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bushouse. The Chairman called for further discussion, and hearing none, called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Other Business

The Chairman said he would like to see what the Planning Department could do to avoid the potential conflict between the Zoning Board of Appeals' meetings and the Township Board meetings. There was a general discussion about possibly switching the Zoning Board of Appeals' meetings to the Tuesday on which the Township Board met, but did not have their early 5:00 p.m. work session.

Adjournment

There being no other business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at approximately 4:30 p.m.

OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

By:
Millard Loy, Chairman

By:
Grace Borgfjord

By:
Duane McClung

By:
James Turcott
Minutes Prepared:
August 30, 2004

Minutes Approved:
, 2004