OSTLOGOL.GIF (2116 bytes)

OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

May 27, 2003

Agenda

HOLLEMAN - SETBACK VARIANCE - 5980 WEST N AVENUE - (PARCEL NO. 3905-36-380-070)

KALAMAZOO AREA CHRISTIAN RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION - SITE PLAN REVIEW - 2920 CRYSTAL LANE - (PARCEL NOS. 3905-25-355-021 AND 3905-25-385-025)

RIDGEVIEW GOLF COURSE - SIGN DEVIATION - 10360 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-18-255-010)

CRYSTAL CAR WASH DETAIL SHOP - SITE PLAN REVIEW - 6775 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-14-305-016)

CRYSTAL CAR WASH - AREA VARIANCE - 6775 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-14-305-016)

HALLI'S AUTO CARE - LIGHTING VARIANCE - 8688 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-16-180-059)

EVERETT - FRONTAGE VARIANCE - 4577 NORTH THIRD STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-05-130-110)

A meeting was conducted by the Oshtemo Charter Township Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday, May 27, 2003, commencing at approximately 3:00 p.m. at the Oshtemo Charter Township Hall.

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

MEMBERS ABSENT: None

Also present were Jodi Stefforia, Planning Director; Mary Lynn Bugge, Township Planner; Patricia R. Mason, Township Attorney; and eight other interested persons.

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m.

MINUTES

The Board considered the minutes of the meeting of April 22, 2003. Ms. Borgfjord moved to approve the minutes as submitted, and Mr. Turcott seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

HOLLEMAN - SETBACK VARIANCE - 5980 WEST N AVENUE - (PARCEL NO. 3905-36-380-070)

The Board considered the application of Matthew Holleman for a 3-foot side yard setback variance from the provisions of Section 64.100 so as to allow the addition of a third stall on an existing garage. The Ordinance requires a 10-foot setback from the side property line, and with the proposed addition, only a 7-foot setback would be maintained. The subject property is located in the "R-2" Residence District, at 5680 West N Avenue, and is Parcel No. 3905-36-380-070.

The Report of the Planning Department is incorporated herein by reference.

Ms. Stefforia stated that the applicant desired to construct a third stall on an existing 2-stall attached garage at the property. The proposed width of the third stall caused the addition to violate the 10-foot setback requirement by approximately 3 feet as measured from the overhang. The applicant's parcel is 100 feet wide and 132 feet deep and is "grandfathered" as to area and frontage requirements. Ms. Stefforia noted that the property contains a home with attached garage, a swimming pool and a shed.

Ms. Stefforia reviewed the standards for approval of a nonuse variance. As to whether conformance was unnecessarily burdensome, it was noted that reasonable use of the property would exist if the variance were denied. The house and garage on the site are currently in compliance with setback requirements.

As to substantial justice, Ms. Stefforia reviewed past ZBA decisions. Concerning the Withee application, a variance had been granted to allow construction of a third stall on an existing garage based upon the fact that the site was a corner lot subject to two 40-foot setbacks. In the application of Laurence Construction, variance approval had been denied, and a segment of the wall of the house had to be moved to satisfy the 10-foot sideline setback requirement. As to Gleason, a variance had been granted to allow building in line with the existing established setback at the site.

Ms. Stefforia stated that Township Staff did not find any unique physical circumstances weighing in favor of the variance. It was felt that the hardship was self-created in that the size of the addition was at the discretion of the applicant.

As to whether the spirit of the Ordinance would be observed, and the public health, safety and welfare secured, Ms. Stefforia stated that the minimum setback requirements were established to provide for light and air circulation between buildings and to protect the use of neighboring properties, among other reasons.

Ms. Stefforia had concern as to setting a precedent with regard to this site in that there were a number of parcels in the area which were also "grandfathered" with two car garages. Further, it was noted that the subject property is similar in size to platted lots, and therefore, could act as a precedent for all lots within the Township.

The applicant was present, and he stated that three builders had looked at the site to see if there were any other options for placement of the third stall of the garage. None seemed feasible except an addition toward the east. Further, he had talked to his neighbor, and the neighbor had no objection to the proposal. The applicant stated that there was over 100 feet between the side of his house and that of his neighbor's house currently. He felt that the neighboring property owner could not establish any additional building between the existing house on the neighboring property and the applicant's house due to the placement of the neighbor's septic tank.

The applicant had talked to the builder about possibly decreasing the size of the proposed addition, and/or reducing the size of the overhang. He stated that he felt, after these consultations, that the side could be moved in approximately six inches.

Ms. Stefforia questioned the applicant as to whether he had attempted to purchase additional land from his neighboring property owner. The applicant stated that the neighbor was reluctant to sell him any property due to the placement of the septic tank and other "underground items". Further, the neighbor was concerned about the loss of frontage and the decrease in his property value which would result.

It was noted that the property in question and the neighboring property would lose their "grandfathered" status unless a variance were granted if boundary lines were changed. However, Board members agreed that a variance to allow adjustment of property lines would be preferable to granting a setback variance.

Mr. Bushouse questioned the applicant with regard to the purpose of the third stall. The applicant stated that it would be for parking of a vehicle and/or storage. Mr. Bushouse expressed concern that neighboring properties generally had two-car garages and that the proposal would be out of character with the area.

There was discussion of possibly tabling the item to give the applicant a chance to talk further with his neighbor about purchasing additional land. The applicant indicated that he would speak with the neighbor but felt that the neighboring property owner would be unwilling.

The Chairperson expressed concern about the variance because he felt it would lead to a "string of variance requests" in the area.

As to the spirit and intent of the Ordinance, and as to substantial justice, Mr. Bushouse commented that retaining the character of the area, with 10 feet on either side of each building was best for the neighborhood and for "fire safety". Mr. Bushouse also was concerned about setting a precedent that would lead to reductions in side setbacks all along the street in this area.

The Chairperson asked for public comment, and none was offered. The public hearing was closed.

The Chairperson agreed that it was undesirable to set a precedent in this case. He felt that the applicant needed to acquire additional property from his neighboring property owner to accommodate the third stall, if desired. Mr. Turcott agreed.

After further discussion, Mr. Bushouse moved to deny a variance based upon the analysis of the nonuse variance criteria. It was felt that past precedence did not support the variance, and it was undesirable to set a precedent out of character with the area. Mr. Turcott seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

KALAMAZOO AREA CHRISTIAN RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION - SITE PLAN REVIEW - 2920 CRYSTAL LANE - (PARCEL NOS. 3905-25-355-021 AND 3905-25-385-025)

The Board considered the application of Howard Overbeek, on behalf of Kalamazoo Area Christian Retirement Association, for a site plan review of a proposed addition to the existing building at Park Village Pines facility on Crystal Lane. The subject property is located in the "R-2" and "R-4" Residence District zoning classifications at 2920 Crystal Lane and consists of Parcel Nos. 3905-25-355-021 and 3905-25-385-025.

The Report of the Planning Department is incorporated herein by reference.

Ms. Bugge stated that, although the parcels are currently zoned "R-2" and "R-4", the Township Board is considering a Planning Commission recommendation to rezone the "R-2" parcel to the west and the adjacent AT&T right-of-way to the "R-4" Residence District. She suggested that approval of the site plan should be subject to the combination of the parcels prior to the issuance of a building permit.

It was noted that the Kalamazoo Area Christian Retirement Association maintains two residential care facilities at the site. The request for site plan review concerned two additions to the Park Village Pines building. One would be an activity room, and the other would add 20 beds to the assisted-living facility. An existing garage would be removed to allow the expansion of the parking lot. It was noted that administrative approval had been granted for construction of a 4,600 square foot maintenance building at the property.

Ms. Bugge noted that a new driveway was proposed to the west of the existing drive. She stated that the driveway placement does exceed the driveway separation requirements of the Access Management Guidelines, although they were not strictly applicable. The new driveway would need a permit from the Kalamazoo County Road Commission.

Ms. Bugge stated that the proposed parking exceeds the requirements of the Ordinance, but indicated that additional landscaping was needed. She discussed the proposed landscaping deviations requested by the applicant. She noted that the plan indicates an existing wooded area adjacent to the current and former AT&T right-of-way. According to Ordinance provisions, a "F" greenspace, 35 feet wide, was required due to the fact that "R-4" zoning would abut "R-2" zoning. The applicant was suggesting a 25-foot wide greenspace to preserve the wooded area. Township Staff concurred with this suggestion.

She also noted that the property abuts undeveloped "R-4" property to the south rather than the road right-of-way. Therefore a "D" greenspace, 25 feet wide, is required. However since it was unlikely that this property would ever develop, Township Staff was suggesting that the Board agree to the applicant's proposal of an "A" greenspace, 10 feet wide, which would be the requirement if the site abutted Crystal Lane.

Ms. Bugge suggested that the applicant should be required to combine the parcels before issuance of a building permit. As to the dumpster, the current location conflicts with fire access. Therefore, the dumpster must be moved and enclosed. No new signs were proposed for the site. Ms. Bugge stated that the revised site plan is still being reviewed by the Township Fire Department and Township Engineer.

Ms. Borgfjord had questions concerning storm water run-off, and Ms. Bugge noted that most water was taken to a natural depression on the east side of the site.

The applicant, Howard Overbeek, architect for the project, was present to answer questions. He stated that the applicant had already secured a driveway permit for the new access point from the Kalamazoo County Road Commission and would provide a copy to the Township.

In response to questions from the Chairperson, Mr. Overbeek stated that the proposed dumpster would be enclosed by a 6-foot wood-slated structure. It would be moved to a location acceptable to the Township Fire Department.

No public comment was offered, and the public hearing was closed.

There was a discussion of landscaping proposed. There was discussion of the parking area and Ms. Bugge's recommendation that a triangular area of paving be eliminated and made greenspace so that there was no tendency for cars to park illegally in this area. Mr. Overbeek stated that he felt that there would be no problem with eliminating paving in that area, and it would not cause truck access difficulties.

Mr. Bushouse questioned Mr. and Mrs. Bonnes, who were present in the audience, and they had no problem with the proposed expansion of the existing facility.

Ms. Borgfjord moved to approve the site plan, noting that the application met the criteria of Section 82.800, with the following conditions, limitations and notations:

(1) That all parking conform to Section 68.000.

(2) That all drive aisles in the parking lot conform to Section 68.300.

(3) That a landscaped area be placed adjacent to the southwest parking space to define the parking area and prevent parking in the access aisle.

(4) That the parcels be combined by a recorded document prior to the issuance of a building permit.

(5) That all site lighting comply with Section 78.700.

(6) That the dumpster be moved to comply with the prior approval, or a new location be submitted for Township review and approval. Further, that the dumpster enclosure comply with Section 75.160, and details be submitted to the Township for review and approval.

(7) That no new signs were proposed.

(8) That all landscaping deviations as requested by the applicant were granted. A "D" 25-foot-wide greenspace would be permitted along the north side of the property subject to the preservation of the existing wooded area. An "A" 10-foot-wide greenspace would be permitted along the south side of the property near Crystal Lane. No additional landscaping was required to the east or west pending future development of the property. Parking lot landscaping must be in accord with Section 75, and a landscaping plan must be submitted to the Township Staff for review and approval. The landscaping must be installed, or a performance guarantee provided in accordance with Section 82.950 prior to any occupancy of the building.

(9) That the property must be developed in accordance with the approved site plan pursuant to Section 82.900.

(10) That the approval is subject to the applicant satisfying the requirements of the Township Fire Department pursuant to adopted codes.

(11) That the approval is subject to the Township Engineer finding that the site engineering is adequate.

(12) That an Earth Change Permit is required to be obtained from the Kalamazoo County Drain Commissioner.

(13) That a Driveway Permit from the Kalamazoo County Road Commission is required.

Mr. Turcott seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

RIDGEVIEW GOLF COURSE - SIGN DEVIATION - 10360 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-18-255-010)

The Board considered the application of Bruce Williams for Ridgeview Golf Course regarding a deviation from the provisions of Section 76.100 so as to allow replacement of an existing sign with a new sign that exceeds the permitted sign area and height. The subject property is located at 10360 West Main Street within the "RR" Rural Residential District zoning classification and is Parcel No. 3905-18-255-010.

The Report of the Planning Department is incorporated herein by reference.

Ms. Stefforia stated that she would not comment on the item since her husband's company was representing the applicant.

Ms. Bugge stressed that the applicant wanted to replace an existing nonconforming sign at the site. The existing sign was a pole type, 78 square feet, 12.5 feet high and set back 10 feet from the right-of-way. Under the Ordinance, the applicant was permitted a ground-mounted sign of 30 square feet, 5 feet in height. Current provisions require a setback of 25 feet from the right-of-way, although the Township Board was considering a revision to allow a 10-foot setback. The Township would be considering first reading on May 27, 2003. The proposed sign was ground-mounted, 50.2 square feet in area, and proposed to be a height of 9.5 feet. The sign would have interior lighting and copy that could be changed by hand, not electronically.

Ms. Bugge reviewed the standards for approval of a sign deviation. As to whether the deviation would be materially detrimental, it was noted that the proposed sign would replace a badly-deteriorating sign. The proposed sign is lower and has less area than the existing sign. Further, pursuant to the Ordinance, sign lighting must be turned off between midnight and sunrise.

In considering the hardship created by literal interpretation of the section, it was noted that a sign in conformance with the Ordinance could be placed at the site. However, the sign would be located behind a 3-foot fence. Moreover, the sign would be approximately 60 feet from the paved area of the right-of-way. Additionally, it was noted that the existing, nonconforming sign could continue indefinitely at the site. Ms. Bugge stated that the Board should consider whether granting the deviation would set an adverse precedent. It was further stated that this would be the only sign on a property with 1,657 feet of road frontage.

In response to questions from Mr. Turcott, Ms. Bugge stated that the applicant did not have any visible wall signage. The applicant's representative was present, stating, in answer to questions from Mr. Bushouse, that he did not know the operating hours of the bar and restaurant, but expected they would be closed when the golf course closed. Ms. Bugge confirmed that this was the discussion that had occurred during a prior hearing concerning this site.

There was a discussion about the changeable lettering and whether the applicant might add a lockable cover to prevent vandalism. Board members agreed that it was important that the copy was changeable by hand and not electronically.

There was discussion of the "alternative designs", and the applicant's representative stated that there were no alternatives which were substantially different from that presented to the Board. Other versions had cosmetic differences.

No public comment was offered, and the public hearing was closed.

The Chairperson observed that the overall height and square footage of the sign was being reduced over that of the existing sign. It was recognized, therefore, that the proposed sign was in closer compliance with Ordinance standards. The Chairperson felt that the proposed sign was better than what was currently existing at the site.

In response to questions from Mr. Bushouse, Ms. Bugge stated that the applicant would be allowed, under Ordinance provisions, either a ground sign or a wall sign. It was noted that this is a somewhat unusual use in that it is a commercial entity located in a residential zone. It was further recognized that typically commercial uses in commercial zones are allowed 60 square foot signs.

Mr. Turcott questioned the applicant's representative about the changeable copy portion of the sign. The representative stated that, since the applicant runs a small business, the changeable copy portion of the signage would allow advertising of "specials".

Mr. McClung stated that he had no problem with the proposed deviation because it was decreasing the size of the existing sign.

Mr. McClung moved to grant deviation to allow a ground-mounted sign with 50.2 square feet, mounted at a height of 9.5 feet, 10 feet from the right-of-way, with interior lighting and copy changeable by hand, and not electronically. The motion was based upon a finding that the standards for approval of sign deviation had been satisfied. Mr. Bushouse seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

CRYSTAL CAR WASH DETAIL SHOP - SITE PLAN REVIEW - 6775 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-14-305-016)

The Board considered the application of Crystal Car Wash (Shashin Kothawala) for site plan approval of a proposed addition to the existing automobile detail shop at the Crystal Car Wash facility. The subject property is located at 6775 West Main Street in the "C" Local Business District zoning classification, and is Parcel No. 3905-14-305-016.

The Report of the Planning Department is incorporated herein by reference.

Ms. Stefforia clarified that the proposed addition would be for retail sales. She noted that previous approvals for this site had allowed the creation of a three-unit condominium on the property. The existing car wash would have been Unit 1, the detail building would have been Unit 2, and Unit 3 was left for future development. However, the site condominium project was not established. The proposal would be to construct an approximately 4,300 square foot addition to the existing auto detail building for retail sales. It was noted that the applicant was seeking to negotiate with Wal-Mart for cross-access and cross-parking as reflected on the attached site plan. Ms. Stefforia felt that any approval would be subject to the necessary legal documents demonstrating the existence of this cross-access arrangement, as well as the cross-parking agreement.

As to the provisions of Section 82.800, it was noted that two of the three existing drives at the site would remain. The southern 9th Street driveway was proposed to be relocated 80 feet south to the north end of the Wal-Mart property. This driveway would be configured for right-in-only movements. This design was approved by the Township and by the Kalamazoo County Road Commission subject to an easement being established between the two property owners. The subject site plan does not reflect the approved design. It was noted that a driveway permit from the Kalamazoo County Road Commission was necessary for closure of the existing driveway and the establishment of a new driveway.

With regard to the driveway which was to be closed, Township Staff recommended that additional parking not be permitted in this area, and that the area become greenspace. Ms. Stefforia stated that, to allow parking as proposed by the applicant in this area, the Zoning Board of Appeals would have to grant a deviation from the Landscaping Ordinance provisions which require establishment of a 20-foot-wide greenspace along the 9th Street property line.

Attorney Lowell Seyburn was present along with the applicant and his architect. Mr. Seyburn stated that the applicant had spent five months negotiating with Wal-Mart, and that these negotiations had not always been fruitful. He stated that the 20 parking spaces indicated on the site plan on the property line of the Wal-Mart property would only be established once the Wal-Mart Superstore was constructed on the site. Board members expressed some concern that Wal-Mart had not definitely stated that a Superstore would ever be constructed. Mr. Seyburn explained that the cross-parking arrangement as negotiated with Wal-Mart would allow the applicant to use the closest 20 spaces established on the Wal-Mart site. This would be until such time as the Superstore was constructed, and the 20 spaces established on the west property line. Mr. Seyburn stated that the applicant had negotiated away the "stairways" first proposed, and now a sidewalk would connect the subject site to the parking spaces. The spaces on the Wal-Mart site would be primarily used for employee parking.

As to the three spaces in the area where the driveway was being closed, Mr. Seyburn stated that the applicant was opposed to greenspace in these areas. The applicant would be willing to give up the southern-most space proposed to greenspace.

In response to questions from the Chairperson, Ms. Stefforia stated that she had computed the entire area of the addition for retail use in determining the parking requirements under the Ordinance. Mr. Bushouse expressed concern that the applicant may not have considered that certain types of uses allowed in the building would require more parking, such as restaurants. Ms. Stefforia stated that each tenant would be reviewed administratively to determine that parking was satisfied. However, the applicant was cautioned that sufficient parking might not exist for all types of commercial use, such as restaurants, which might be established in the building.

Board members returned to a discussion of the proposed 20 parking spaces on the Wal-Mart site. It was recognized that until the Superstore was built, if it was ever built, the parking of the applicant on the Wal-Mart site would be more than 200 feet away from the subject building. There was discussion about the possibility of the applicant scaling back the retail addition so as to provide sufficient parking on site. Mr. Bushouse felt that the Township should not consider the additional parking on the Wal-Mart property as satisfying Ordinance requirements given the distance to the parking spaces on the Wal-Mart site until the Superstore is established.

There was a discussion of the storm water retention for the subject property. Mr. Seyburn stated that the applicant has an existing easement with the "storage facility", which property had been recently acquired by Wal-Mart. Mr. Seyburn stated that the applicant is working out the storm water easement and its possible relocation through the negotiation process with Wal-Mart.

Mr. Seyburn had comments concerning the landscaping at the site, stating that it pre-existed Ordinance provisions. Ms. Stefforia stated that existing sites are only "grandfathered" until floor area, etc. is increased. Mr. Turcott echoed these comments, noting that changes in the building triggered compliance with landscaping provisions.

Ms. Borgfjord felt that the application was premature, given that the applicant was still working out details concerning storm water retention, parking and cross-access agreements.

Mr. Bushouse commented that he would like to see the site comply with the landscaping provisions as closely as possible, given the Township's efforts to require compliance with the Ordinance in this area. Further, as to parking, he again stated that he felt approval should be limited to retail space which could be accommodated with parking on site. He did not feel that the cross-parking as described by the applicant was acceptable in that it would not be established until a Superstore were developed, if ever.

Mr. Turcott moved to approve the application. In describing his motion and its conditions, it was noted that the applicant was required to satisfy parking on site, and the cross-parking arrangement with Wal-Mart would not be considered. Mr. Bushouse seconded the motion. Mr. Seyburn urged the Board to reconsider this condition, stating that employees would be parking in these spaces on the Wal-Mart property. Mr. Seyburn requested that the item be tabled so that the applicant could negotiate further with Wal-Mart. Mr. Bushouse withdrew his second to the motion, and Mr. Turcott withdrew his motion. Ms. Borgfjord moved to table the item to the meeting of June 24, 2003. This motion was seconded by Mr. McClung, and it carried unanimously.

CRYSTAL CAR WASH - AREA VARIANCE - 6775 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-14-305-016)

Mr. McClung moved to table to the meeting of June 24, 2003, the application for a variance from the provisions of Section 66.201 for the property at 6775 West Main Street so as to allow land division. The motion was seconded by Ms. Borgfjord, and it carried unanimously.

HALLI'S AUTO CARE - LIGHTING VARIANCE - 8688 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-16-180-059)

The Board considered the application of Haraldur and Grace Borgfjord of Halli's Auto Care for a variance to use motion-detecting flood lights that exceed the 175-watt limitation of Section 78.720. The subject property is located in the "C" Local Business District at 8688 West Main Street, and is Parcel No. 3905-16-180-059.

The Planning Department's Report is incorporated herein by reference.

Mr. Bushouse moved to allow Ms. Borgfjord to abstain from consideration of the item due to her interest. Mr. Turcott seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

Ms. Bugge reminded the Board that the site is the location of Halli's Auto Care car repair facility. Cars are parked in the parking lot overnight awaiting repair. Ms. Bugge noted that vehicles at the site have been frequent targets for break-in. The applicants were suggesting the use of building-mounted motion detecting flood lights to deter these activities. The lights would be attached to the building, and according to the Ordinance, they should not exceed a height of 15 feet and 175-watts. The applicants were requesting a variance to allow use of 1,500-watt fixtures mounted at approximately 19 feet. The lights would shine toward the east parking lot and remain on for 5 to 12 minutes when activated.

Ms. Bugge reviewed the standards for nonuse variance approval. As to whether conformance was unnecessarily burdensome, Ms. Bugge noted that two pole-mounted light fixtures in conformance with Ordinance standards had been approved for the east parking lot in 1998, but had not been installed by the applicants. She suggested that the Board consider whether other fixtures in compliance with Ordinance standards or other security measures could be used to accomplish the objectives of deterring car break-in.

As to substantial justice, Ms. Bugge noted that the Zoning Board of Appeals had granted a variance for use of two 400-watt spotlights directed at the building facade of Walgreen's. A similar variance had been granted to Kohl's. Ms. Bugge could find no unique physical limitations or conditions that would prevent compliance. It was felt that the hardship was self-created in that the applicants had not pursued lighting in conformance with the Ordinance to deter the unwanted activities.

Mr. Turcott had questions concerning what other security measures might be pursued, and it was noted that other similar uses use fencing as well as lighting.

Haraldur Borgfjord was present on behalf of the application, stating that he had not constructed the lights as approved because woods, which were adjacent to the property, had been removed. Therefore, there was no need for lighting in this area. Additionally, he described the cost involved in constructing pole lighting. He stressed that the lights as proposed would only be used when activated and would only remain on for 5 to 12 minutes. The lights would only be triggered after 10 p.m. or 11 p.m. at night. He stated that a fencing or bullpen would not work at the site because customers and wreckers drop off vehicles after hours.

The Chairperson expressed concern that the lighting in question would shine off-site and might shine onto West Main Street. He was concerned that no photometric plan had been offered by the applicant. There was discussion of whether a reduced wattage in security lighting could be established at the site. Ms. Bugge stated that a similar light at 500-watts was available. The applicant stated a concern that this wattage would not illuminate the entire parking lot. It was stressed that the applicant could establish pole lighting at the site which could be pointed downward. Again, the applicant indicated that the cost was prohibitive.

Mr. Bushouse commented that the Zoning Board of Appeals had been more flexible with lighting east of U.S. 131. However, to the west of U.S. 131, the Board had been conservative. He was concerned about setting a precedent for others. He recalled the action of the Board regarding the Marathon or Total station. He felt that the applicant could use fencing and/or traditional lighting to provide security at the site. He stressed that the Board could not consider finances as a basis for granting the variance.

The Chairperson observed that his 40-watt light fixtures seems to light his entire back yard. He, too, felt that the applicant could establish lighting in compliance with Ordinance standards to provide security and was concerned about setting a precedent based on this high level of wattage.

No public comment was offered, and the public hearing was closed.

The Chairperson agreed that the applicant was seeking more than what was needed at the site. He felt that the applicant should try what was allowed in the Ordinance.

Mr. Turcott observed that the Township, in its lighting provisions, was attempting to strike a balance between the need for security and intrusion on adjacent properties and the highway. He felt that there must be other alternatives that could be pursued at the site.

After further discussion, Mr. Bushouse moved to deny the variance based upon the high degree of the variance sought, noting that this would provide intense lighting west of U.S. 131, and that the applicant had other options for security of the site. It was felt that lights in compliance with Ordinance provisions could be installed and their effectiveness determined prior to a request for variance. Mr. Turcott seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

EVERETT - FRONTAGE VARIANCE - 4577 NORTH THIRD STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-05-130-110)

The Board considered the application of Rick and Deb Everett for a variance from Section 66.201 so as to allow a parcel with less than 200 feet of frontage to be buildable. The subject property is located in the "RR" Rural Residential District at 4577 North Third Street and is Parcel No. 3905-05-130-110.

The Report of the Planning Department is incorporated herein by reference.

It was noted that the subject property is 2.73 acres and that an existing dwelling had been constructed thereon in 1965 when the parcel contained 9.4 acres. The applicants purchased the property in 1978 when it was in its current configuration. The applicants were seeking to construct an attached garage and were requesting a variance so as to make the property buildable. It was noted that Section 66.201 requires parcels to have 200 feet of road frontage. The parcel is nonconforming as it has only 180 feet of road frontage and is not considered buildable. However, the site conforms to other dimensional criteria.

It was noted that several other parcels in the area lack frontage and are not "grandfathered". It was reported that the Planning Commission is now looking at considering a text amendment to provide approval for such sites on a site plan review basis which would not require compliance with the variance criteria.

The standards for nonuse variance approval were discussed.

Applicant Rick Everett was present to answer questions.

It was stated that the proposed attached garage would meet all setback requirements. It was observed that all houses in the area had been built in the mid-1960's, and therefore, the existing structures predate Ordinance provisions. However, the properties had not been recorded until after 1965, and therefore, were not considered "grandfathered".

No public comment was offered, and the public hearing was closed.

There was discussion of past decisions of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Bushouse noted the decision granting the frontage and area variances for Eichelberg on March 25, 2003, and the decision of May 3, 1999, granting the frontage variance in Trowbridge. He felt that these applications were similar to the instant case, and therefore, he made a motion to grant this variance. In his opinion, the grant of a variance would be in keeping with the character of the area. It was noted that all homes in the area predate the Ordinance and that this was a significant difference between this property and others within the Township. Mr. Bushouse's motion was seconded by Mr. McClung, and it carried unanimously.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:50 p.m.

OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

By:
Millard Loy, Chairperson

By:
Duane McClung

By:
Grace Borgfjord

By:
Dave Bushouse

By:
James Turcott
Minutes Prepared:
June 2, 2003
Minutes Approved:
, 2003