OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

July 26, 2005

Agenda

NEUENS - ACCESSORY BUILDING REVIEW - 7710 WEST KL AVENUE - (PARCEL NO. 3905-22-185-015)

THURSTON - DEPTH-TO-WIDTH RATIO VARIANCE - 7985 WEST KL AVENUE - (PARCEL NO. 3905-22-305-010)

KALINOSKY - ACCESSORY BUILDING REVIEW - 1192 SOUTH 2ND STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-19-470-025)

ENDRES - ACCESSORY BUILDING REVIEW - 4282 NORTH 3RD STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-05-255-020)

A meeting was conducted by the Oshtemo Charter Township Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday, July 26, 2005, commencing at approximately 3:00 p.m. at the Oshtemo Charter Township Hall.

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

MEMBER ABSENT: Dave Bushouse

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

CALL TO ORDER

The Chairman called the meeting to order at approximately 3:00 p.m.

MINUTES

The Chairman said that the first item was consideration of the minutes of June 28, 2005. Mr. McClung made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted, and the motion was seconded by Mr. Turcott. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, and the motion passed unanimously.

NEUENS - ACCESSORY BUILDING REVIEW - 7710 WEST KL AVENUE - (PARCEL NO. 3905-22-185-015)

The Chairman said the next item on the Agenda was review of Mr. Neuens' request for a site plan review for a proposed accessory building with an area larger than the ground floor of the dwelling. He said the subject property is located at 7710 West KL Avenue, Parcel No. 3905-22-185-015. The Chairman asked to hear from the Planning Department. Ms. Stefforia submitted her report to the Planning Department dated July 26, 2005, and the same is incorporated herein.

Ms. Stefforia explained that the applicant wanted to construct a 960 square foot accessory building on an approximately 2.45 acres. She said the applicant already has two accessory buildings, and the total square footage of all three accessory buildings exceeded the ground floor area of the existing dwelling. Therefore, a review by the Zoning Board of Appeals was necessary, pursuant to Section 78.820. Ms. Stefforia pointed out that, at the time she was reviewing the site, she noticed there were more accessory buildings on the site than reflected on the site plan, which needed to be addressed by the applicant.

Ms. Stefforia then took the Board through Section 78.820. She highlighted the fact that the Zoning Board of Appeals should ask the applicant to speak to the color of the building, proposed roofing materials and overall design. She also emphasized the need to confirm that the building would not be used for business purposes. At the conclusion of her report, the Chairman asked if there were any questions. Hearing none, he asked to hear from the applicant.

Mr. Gordon Neuens introduced himself to the Zoning Board. He said that Ms. Stefforia had covered the proposal quite well. He explained to the Board that the additional buildings were three portable storage structures located on the property. He said that two were old truck bodies, where he stored firewood, and one was a storage shed where he stored personal items.

Ms. Borgfjord asked the applicant what the siding would look like and about the proposed roofing. He said it would have wood siding, and the roof would be shingled. In addition, Mr. Neuens said the building would have two overhead doors and a service door.

Ms. Borgfjord asked if the driveway would be extended to the proposed accessory building. Mr. Neuens said that the drive was most of the way there already and would be extended with gravel to the overhead doors.

Ms. Borgfjord asked if Mr. Neuens would be storing all personal items. Mr. Neuens assured the Board that he would be storing only personal items, and there would be no business-related activity at the site whatsoever.

Mr. Turcott asked if the additional storage building would count toward the overall square footage of accessory buildings allowed. Ms. Stefforia indicated that they would, and that the applicant already exceeds those limitations, given the additional buildings which the Planning Department discovered. She said that the proposed building would be the sixth accessory building located on the subject property.

The Chairman asked if there were any comments from the audience, and hearing none, closed the public portion of the meeting. The Chairman asked if the Board members had any questions.

Ms. Stefforia asked if the Board would address the number of accessory buildings and what their principal use was. She asked the Board to consider how somebody could justify having this number of accessory buildings on their property when the principal use is residential.

The Chairman said that two of the buildings were used to store wood. He noted, when the energy crunch first hit, that many in the area began using alternative heating sources such as wood, and they needed a storage area to keep the wood dry. He said he knew these buildings had been there 20 to 30 years.

Ms. Borgfjord said she was concerned about having six accessory buildings on the parcel. The Chairman asked if the applicant if he could get rid of any of the smaller outbuildings. Mr. Neuens said it was possible to get rid of one of the truck boxes, since it was getting bad anyway. The Chairman asked Mr. Neuens if he would agree to get rid of one of them. Mr. Neuens said he would commit to getting rid of one of them. Attorney Porter said he felt better hearing that, since it would reduce the number of outbuildings and total square footage being permitted by the Board. Mr. Turcott suggested that Mr. Neuens attempt to remove two of those older temporary structures. After a brief discussion, Mr. Neuens said that he would agree to remove two of the outbuildings. Mr. Turcott said he was certainly more comfortable with the agreement to remove two of the buildings before approving an additional outbuilding.

Ms. Borgfjord then made a motion to approve the applicant's request for an additional accessory building, resulting in the combined accessory buildings square footage exceeding the ground floor area of the dwelling, pursuant to Section 78.820 on the condition that two of the existing storage units be removed from the site. She said that the removal of the two accessory buildings should be completed by the time the occupancy permit is issued for the new accessory building. Ms. Borgfjord noted, in part, the motion was based on the fact that the outbuildings have been pre-existing for several decades and that two of the older buildings would be removed from the site. Mr. Turcott seconded the motion. The Chairman called for further discussion, and hearing none, called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

THURSTON - DEPTH-TO-WIDTH RATIO VARIANCE - 7985 WEST KL AVENUE - (PARCEL NO. 3905-22-305-010)

The Chairman said the next item on the Agenda was consideration of Mr. and Mrs. Steve Thurston's application for a variance from Section 66.201 to allow a land division resulting in a parcel with a depth greater than four times the width. He said the property is located at 7985 West KL Avenue, Parcel No. 3905-22-305-010. The Chairman called for a report from the Planning Department. Ms. Bugge submitted her report dated July 26, 2005, to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and the same is incorporated herein by reference.

Ms. Bugge explained to the Board that the subject parcel contained 32 acres and was considered grandfathered. She noted that the property had a frontage of 528 feet and a depth of 2,607 feet, excluding the right-of-way. She said the applicant wanted to apply for a land division which would result in two parcels, one conforming to all dimensional requirements, and the other exceeding the 4-to-1 depth-to-width ratio. Ms. Bugge provided overheads of the proposed land division for review by the Board. She then took the Zoning Board of Appeals through a review of the standards for a nonuse variance. At the conclusion, the Chairman asked if there were any questions. Hearing none, he asked to hear from the applicants.

Ms. Sarah Thurston introduced herself to the Board, along with Neil Segerdahl. The Chairman asked if they had anything to add. Ms. Thurston and Mr. Segerdahl indicated they did not. The Chairman asked if there were any questions of the applicant.

Mr. Turcott asked if they would share the existing horseshoe drive on the property. Ms. Thurston indicated they would not share the drive, but that a new drive would be installed on the new parcel being created. Ms. Bugge indicated that they would have to submit a driveway permit from the Kalamazoo County Road Commission with the land division application.

The Chairman asked for comment from the audience, and hearing none, called for Board deliberations. The Chairman began by stating that, as with other parcels in this area, most of these requested divisions had been granted. He pointed out that they had adequate frontage to develop both parcels, and he thought it would be appropriate to approve the proposed split.

Ms. Borgfjord asked what the applicants' time line would be for construction of the home. Carol Segerdahl indicated that they would likely begin construction as soon as the paperwork was completed.

The Chairman asked if all the Board members were in agreement. There being agreement, Mr. McClung made a motion to grant the variance and to approve the land division as requested based on the information provided by the Planning Department. Ms. Borgfjord seconded the motion. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

KALINOSKY - ACCESSORY BUILDING REVIEW - 1192 SOUTH 2ND STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-19-470-025)

The Chairman stated that the next item was a site plan review for a proposed accessory building which was to be established prior to the residence and exceed the ground floor area of the proposed residence. He said that the proposed property was located at 1192 South 2nd Street. The Chairman asked to hear from the Planning Department. Ms. Bugge presented her report to the Zoning Board of Appeals dated July 26, 2005, and the same is incorporated herein by reference.

Ms. Bugge explained to the Board that the applicant wished to place a 60 foot by 44 foot accessory building on the subject parcel prior to the establishment of the residence. She said that the proposed building would be 2,640 square feet and the ground floor area of the future residence was anticipated to be 1,850 to 2,000 square feet. She said that the property consisted of 2.6 acres with 200 feet of frontage and a depth of 565 feet. She asked that the Board note, where similar requests were granted, that the property owner was asked to post a performance guarantee for the removal of the building if the dwelling was not constructed within a specified amount of time.

Ms. Bugge proceeded to take the Board through the provisions of Section 78.820, during which she emphasized the characteristics of the proposed accessory building, its use as stated by the applicant, its placement in relationship to the sides of the property and future residence, as well as existing land uses in the area.

The Chairman asked if there were any questions of Ms. Bugge. Hearing none, he asked to hear from the applicant. Mr. Kalinosky introduced himself to the Board. Mr. Kalinosky presented photographs of his existing home to the Board for its consideration. He said that he and his family liked their current home and would be proposing to build a duplicate of their home on the existing parcel. He said he could build a ranch home large enough that the ground floor would exceed the area of the proposed structure, but he did not think that was practical. He said it was much more efficient to build up rather than out, and, as he stated before, he wanted to duplicate his existing home on Laguna Drive.

The Chairman asked Mr. Kalinosky what he would be using a bobcat for. Mr. Kalinosky said it would be for personal use (landscaping), as with the other items, such as the jet ski, snowmobile, etc. The Chairman asked Mr. Kalinosky if he understood that he would be required to post a performance guarantee similar to those posted by other people requesting to construct an accessory building prior to the construction of the home. Mr. Kalinosky said that he understood that, and he would comply with that requirement. He said they would like to build the pole building this year and planned to start construction on a home next year.

Mr. Turcott asked if he could match the siding on the accessory building to the proposed home. Mr. Kalinosky said that he could, and while it might not be the exact dye lot, they certainly could not tell the difference given the distance between the home and the accessory building.

Mr. Turcott asked if the building would be used strictly for personal use and no business use. Mr. Kalinosky said that was correct; he would use it for his personal workshop and that there would be absolutely no commercial activity on site whatsoever.

Ms. Borgfjord asked if he had any photographs or drawings of the proposed pole barn. Mr. Kalinosky said he did not, but it would be a standard wood pole barn construction with shingled roof and siding to match the house.

Ms. Borgfjord noted for the Board that the neighborhood in which the applicant was building had quite a few large houses with very large pole barns. The Chairman asked if there were any additional comments from the Board. Hearing none, he asked for comments from the audience. Again, hearing none, he closed the public portion of the meeting. The Chairman said he thought the Board members sounded like they were comfortable with this request, provided that the applicant understood that he had to construct the home within one year and post a performance guarantee for security.

Mr. McClung said that the applicant had one year to get a building permit issued. Ms. Bugge said from the time that the building permit was issued, the applicants would have one year to have the basement foundation put in, inspected and backfilled, or they would have to come back to the Board.

The Chairman asked if there was anything further. There being nothing further, Mr. Turcott made a motion to approve the applicant's request to construct a 60 foot by 44 foot accessory building, which is larger than the ground floor area of the residence, prior to the construction of the residence, provided that the applicant post a performance guarantee for removal of the building if the dwelling was not constructed within the required time allotted. Mr. McClung seconded the motion. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, and the motion passed unanimously.

ENDRES - ACCESSORY BUILDING REVIEW - 4282 NORTH 3RD STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-05-255-020)

The Chairman noted that the next item on the Agenda was the site plan review for a proposed accessory building to be established between the house and the street. He said the subject property was located at 4282 North 3rd Street, Parcel No. 3905-05-255-020. The Chairman called for a report from the Planning Department. Ms. Bugge presented her report to the Zoning Board of Appeals dated July 26, 2005, and the same is incorporated herein by reference.

Ms. Bugge explained that the applicant wished to place a 30 foot by 40 foot pole building, 1,200 square feet in size, between the dwelling and the front property line. She said the applicant proposed to locate the accessory building in front, and southwest of, the dwelling, approximately 372 feet from the right-of-way. She suggested the Board address the proposed use with the applicant, which he indicated on the application material was for the repair of farm equipment used on the adjacent property he farms with his father.

Ms. Bugge then proceeded to take the Board through the provisions of Section 78.820 of the Ordinance. Ms. Bugge emphasized the need to discuss the use with the applicant, as well as the specific distance of the building from the road right-of-way.

The Chairman asked if there were any questions of Ms. Bugge. Mr. Turcott asked about the subject property in relationship to the parcel to the south. Ms. Bugge, referring to an overhead, explained where the homes and accessory buildings were located on the properties and where the proposed accessory building would be located in relation to the south property.

The Chairman asked to hear from the applicant. Mr. Endres introduced himself to the Board. He asked to correct one item, and that was the size of the proposed accessory building. He said he was proposing a 32 foot by 40 foot building, not a 30 foot by 40 foot pole building. Mr. Endres explained to the Board that he chose the pertinent location due to the layout of the property, as well as his desire to block his view of his neighbor's pole barn.

The Chairman asked if he would strictly be repairing his own machinery. Mr. Endres assured the Board that is all he would be doing in the proposed structure.

Mr. Turcott asked whether the topography of the property would help hide the proposed structure from the street. Mr. Endres said he did not believe it would, but it was going to be set back 372 feet from the road, and therefore, he did not believe it would have an impact on the neighborhood. Ms. Borgfjord asked if the accessory building would be visible from the road. Mr. Endres said he thought it would, but again, due to the distance it was set back, he did not think it would visually impact the area.

The Chairman asked the applicant if he would be landscaping around the proposed accessory building. Mr. Endres said he had not planned to.

Ms. Borgfjord asked if he was going to be lighting the structure. Mr. Endres said he would have interior, but no exterior lighting.

Ms. Borgfjord asked about the small utility shed shown on the overhead. Mr. Endres said that he would be removing that at the time he constructed the proposed accessory building.

The Chairman inquired as to whether they should consider landscaping around the proposed accessory building. Ms. Bugge said they could consider landscaping, but given its distance from the road, she did not believe it was necessary. She said, in the past, when they had required landscaping, the proposed structures were much closer to the road right-of-way or adjoining properties.

The Chairman asked about the color of the siding. Mr. Endres said his wife would pick the color. He said he believed she was going to choose a color which would match the trim on the house.

The Chairman asked if there was any comment from the audience, and hearing none, closed the public portion of the meeting and called for Board deliberations.

The Chairman began by noting that, while the building was going to be located in front of the home, it was back quite a ways from the road right-of-way. He said, assuming it was not some kind of outrageous color, he did not have a problem with it, but would like to encourage, while not requiring, the applicant to do some landscaping around the proposed accessory building. Mr. McClung said he thought the proposal was reasonable. Ms. Borgfjord said she did not think landscaping should be required due to the distance from the road right-of-way.

Ms. Borgfjord then made a motion to approve the accessory building as proposed due to its distance from the road right-of-way and subject to the removal of the other outbuilding. Mr. McClung seconded the motion. The Chairman called for further discussion on the motion, and there being none, called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Other Business

None.

Adjournment

There being no further business to come before the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Board adjourned at approximately 3:55 p.m.

OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

By:
Millard Loy, Chairman

By:
James Turcott

By:
Grace Borgfjord

By:
Duane McClung

Minutes Prepared:
August 4, 2005

Minutes Approved:
, 2005