OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES

January 19, 1998

______________________________________________________________________________

Agenda

ROBINSON, ALVIN AND MARTHA (JAMES RUSSELL REPRESENTING) - VARIANCE FROM 200' ROAD FRONTAGE - 1373 S. 4TH STREET

_____________________________________________________________________________

A meeting was conducted by the Oshtemo Charter Township Zoning Board of Appeals on Monday, January 19, 1998, commencing at approximately 3:00 p.m. at the Oshtemo Charter Township Hall, pursuant to notice.

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Brian Dylhoff, Chairperson
David Bushouse
Lara Meeuwse
Thomas Brodasky
William Saunders (after 3:04 p.m.)

MEMBERS ABSENT: None

Also present were Mike West on behalf of the Planning and Zoning Department, Scott Paddock, Building Inspector, Patricia R. Mason, Township Attorney, and one (1) other interested person.

CALL TO ORDER

The Chairperson called the meeting to order at 3:02 p.m.

MINUTES

The Board considered the minutes of the meeting of January 5, 1998. Mr. Brodasky moved to approve the minutes as submitted, and Ms. Meeuwse seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

ROBINSON, ALVIN AND MARTHA (JAMES RUSSELL REPRESENTING) - VARIANCE FROM 200' ROAD FRONTAGE - 1373 S. 4TH STREET

The next item had been tabled from the meeting of January 5, 1998, and was the application of James E. Russell, representing Alvin and Martha Robinson, for variance approval from the 200' road frontage requirement established by Section 66.201 of the Zoning Ordinance. The subject 43.8 acres is located at 1373 S. 4th Street and is within the "AG"-Rural Zoning District classification.

The applicant proposed the division of a 44.8-acre parcel which has 266.5' of frontage on South 4th Street. An existing residence is located on the subject site. The division would result in two separate parcels. One parcel, which was designated parcel #9, would be dimensioned at 218' x 330'. This parcel would encompass the existing residence. The remaining parcel would have 114.5' of frontage and 2,310' of depth and would be vacant. at the present time. The applicant did not propose development of the 43▒ acres, and no development would occur until a public road was extended into the parcel.

Mr. Saunders entered the meeting.

The applicant was present, stating that he might explore the open space community option for developing the acreage in the future. It was noted that, due to the Land Division Ordinance, a variance was necessary in order to allow the division to take place, even though the applicant did not propose development until the Ordinance requirement as to frontage was satisfied by extension of a public road.

In response to questioning by Ms. Meeuwse, Mr. West stated that there is an existing 66'-wide easement which is a part of the 114.5' of frontage which would be provided to the 43▒-acre parcel. The public road would be extended along the 66' easement. However, there was no plan to combine access with the access existing on parcel #9.

Ms. Meeuwse noted that the remainder of the area toward the front of the parcel outside of the 66' easement would be very usable. The applicant indicated that this would be retained as greenspace.

In response to questioning by Ms. Meeuwse, the applicant indicated that parcel #9 had been configured with 218' of frontage/width to give the existing structures room for compliance with Ordinance setback and other standards.

Mr. West noted that the future road extension into the parcel could potentially provide access to parcels #4 and #5 which were created prior to the Land Division Ordinance and which are presently landlocked.

There was no public comment offered, and the public hearing was closed.

The Chairperson noted that this application was similar to that of "Dovetail" which had previously been granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Mr. Bushouse expressed concern with the number of driveways in this area. He noted that, unlike the Dovetail proposal, the number of curb cuts would not be reduced. He would prefer to see a combination of the driveway from parcel #9 onto the future public road when developed. Mr. Saunders stated that he would agree if the development on parcel #9 were not presently existing.

Mr. West pointed out that the property could be platted or divided by site condominium first and then parcel #9 in its present configuration split off; this would result in the same number of curb cuts which would result from the proposed land division. It appeared to be a matter of timing as to whether or not the land division would be allowed prior to the extension of the public road into the acreage and division through platting or site condominium development. The applicant indicated that his time line for development was probably late 1998.

Mr. Saunders moved to grant the variance with the following reasoning:

(1) That compliance was not unnecessary burdensome in that the applicant had other development options. However, variance approval to allow for the reservation of 43▒ acres for future residential development would be consistent with the available development options and would not be intended for the immediate creation of a building site.

(2) That substantial justice would require the variance in that a similar application had been granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals.

(3) That there were no unique physical circumstances and the hardship was self-created.

(4) That the variance would be consistent with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance and public health, safety and welfare would be secured through the variance in that the proposed land division would have complied with Township Ordinances in effect prior to the adoption of the Land Division Act and Ordinance and as based upon the conditions which would be imposed.

The variance was conditioned as follows:

(1) That a 66'-wide easement be established through written documents executed, recorded and on file with the Township for purposes of a future road extension to serve the 43▒-acre parcel.

(2) That no building permit would issue for building upon the 43▒-acre parcel until the parcel is in compliance with Zoning Ordinance frontage requirements through extension of a public road or otherwise.

Ms. Meeuwse suggested noting that future development of the acreage should consider providing public road access to the currently landlocked parcels.

Ms. Meeuwse seconded the motion, and, upon a vote on the motion, it carried unanimously.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m.

OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS