OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

October 26, 2004

Agenda

HILL - VARIANCE - TWO DWELLINGS ON A PARCEL - 10090 WEST H AVENUE - (PARCEL NO. 3905-06-480-030)

CANTERBURY HOUSE APARTMENTS - DEVIATION - FREESTANDING SIGN - 690 DRAGON FLY DRIVE - (PARCEL NO. 3905-24-280-021)

WALGREENS - DEVIATION - WALL SIGNS - 5030 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-13-280-055)

DAVIS - SITE PLAN REVIEW - 7268 STADIUM DRIVE - (PARCEL NO. 3905-34-205-040)

A regular meeting was conducted by the Oshtemo Charter Township Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday, October 26, 2004, commencing at approximately 3:00 p.m. at the Oshtemo Charter Township Hall.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Millard Loy, Chairperson
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 nine other interested persons.

CALL TO ORDER

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

MINUTES

The Chairperson indicated the next item on the Agenda was the approval of the minutes of September 28, 2004. Mr. Turcott made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. McClung. The Chairperson called for discussion, and hearing none, called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

HILL - VARIANCE - TWO DWELLINGS ON A PARCEL - 10090 WEST H AVENUE - (PARCEL NO. 3905-06-480-030)

The Chairperson said the next item on the Agenda was consideration of a request by Charles and Susan Hill for a variance to allow two dwellings on a parcel. He said the subject property was located at 10090 West H Avenue, being Parcel No. 3905-06-480-030. The Chairperson asked for a report from the Planning Department. Ms. Stefforia submitted her report to the Zoning Board of Appeals dated October 26, 2004, and the same is incorporated herein by reference.

Ms. Stefforia explained to the Board that the property was located on West H Avenue within the "RR" Rural Residential District. She noted that the request was for a variance to allow a second dwelling on the property. She said that the applicant owned 11.6 acres with 398.17 feet of frontage on West H Avenue and 100 feet of frontage on 2nd Street. She noted that a 66-foot-wide easement was put in place in 1974 in order to address the depth-to-width issues on the parcel.

Ms. Stefforia reminded the Board that, in 2003, the Zoning Ordinance had been amended to create the Rural Residential Zoning District out of the Agricultural-Rural District. She said, at that time, the Township eliminated the provision allowing a second dwelling on a parcel and increased the minimum parcel size, but kept the minimum road frontage of 200 feet the same.

Ms. Stefforia went on to explain that, prior to the amendment, if a parcel had twice the minimum frontage and an area of 100,000 square feet, a second dwelling could be established. However, again she noted that this provision was eliminated in 2003. Ms. Stefforia then took the Board members through the standards for approval of a nonuse variance.

In addressing whether the provisions were unnecessarily burdensome, whether options for compliance were available, or there was a reasonable use of the property, Ms. Stefforia noted that compliance could be achieved either through subdividing or condominiumizing the land or through a land division. She also noted that the property could continue to be used in its present manner for a single-family residence.

Regarding the substantial justice standard as applied to the applicant, as well as other property owners, she indicated that there were other similar-sized properties in the immediate area and throughout the zoning district which could be impacted by the Zoning Board of Appeals' decision. She said there were no similar requests for a variance to which the Board could look for a precedent.

Regarding whether there were unique physical circumstances which would prevent compliance, Ms. Stefforia, on behalf of the Planning Department, indicated that there were no obvious limitations or conditions preventing compliance.

With regard to whether the hardship was self-created, Ms. Stefforia noted that it was the applicants' desire to establish a second dwelling that triggered the request for a variance.

Regarding whether the spirit of the Ordinance could be observed and public health, safety and welfare secured, and substantial justice done, Ms. Stefforia noted that the applicants' property could be subdivided in compliance with the Ordinance without the creation of a plat or site condominium if relief regarding continuous road frontage and possibly the 4-to-1 depth to width were granted. She also asked that the Board consider the purpose of the Rural Residential District as set forth in Section 20.100 of the Ordinance and noted that one-third of parcels in the Township are zoned Rural Residential.

The Chairperson asked if there were any questions of Ms. Stefforia. Hearing none, the Chairperson asked to hear from the applicant.

Mr. Charles Hill addressed the Board; he explained that he wished to construct a second home for his daughter and granddaughter. He told the Board he preferred not to split the property because the parcel would be held by he, his wife and his daughter, and the property would eventually be owned by his daughter anyway; therefore, he saw no reason to further divide the property.

Mr. Hill explained to the Board that he had lived at 10090 West H Avenue for 25 years and had no intention to move or to sell the property. He provided an overhead showing the proposed site plan and location of the proposed second house. He said he thought placing the second home on the property would have minimum impact on the surrounding neighbors, given the fact that the property was heavily wooded. He said, if the property were subdivided or condominiumized in order to make it economically viable, it would require creating a much larger number of splits, and he did not want to develop the property in that way. He said that was the reason he was proposing to allow a second home on the property.

The Chairperson asked the applicant if the two homes would share a drive or whether the second home would have a drive off 2nd Avenue. Mr. Hill said that there would be a second drive off 2nd Street. The Chairperson asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Hearing none, the Chairperson called for public comment.

Mr. Dan Humiston said that he owned property on 2nd Street immediately south of the 100-foot frontage of the subject property. He said he was concerned about having a driveway next to his property. However, he noted that he was pleased that Mr. Hill was not proposing neighborhood development. At the same time, he said he was concerned about seeing another home from his back yard and inquired as to the exact location of the proposed second home. A brief discussion ensued during which Mr. Hill explained his proposed plan. Mrs. Jennifer Humiston also commented that other neighbors in the area were concerned about the proposed development, and submitted a letter expressing her and her husband's concerns to the Board.

The Chairperson called for further public comment, and hearing none, closed the public portion of the hearing and opened up the meeting for Board deliberations. The Chairperson began by saying that, since this was the first request of its kind, he did not want to establish a precedent without thoroughly reviewing all of the criteria.

Mr. Bushouse told the Board members that the property had been split by Rod O'Brien under the old Subdivision Control Act. He said it was at that time that the Township had requested the 66-foot easement which currently ran parallel with the west property line of the applicant's property. He said, if the Board members allowed a second structure, they would be setting a precedent, which could have a significant impact on other Rural Residential property. He said his concern was that, (even though the applicants indicated that they did not want to sell,) it was likely there would be a transfer of the property sometime in the future which had the potential for conflicts. He provided an example to the Board regarding homes on 3rd Street which had shared drives and indicated that problems had developed there, which resulted in a request by the residents for the Township to resolve that dispute. He said he thought there were other options available here and thought they should be pursued in lieu of the request for the variance.

Mr. McClung said he agreed with Mr. Bushouse's comments, particularly with regard to the alternatives available. Mr. Bushouse said at sometime the second home would be sold, and he would be uncomfortable in setting a precedent, which would allow this type of development.

Ms. Stefforia asked if it was the zoning of the particular property that caused the concern. Mr. Bushouse said that it did not matter what the zoning was, he would have the same concerns. Mr. Bushouse said he thought the applicant could comply with the Township Zoning Ordinance, and therefore, a variance was not warranted. Ms. Borgfjord agreed with Mr. Bushouse, and said that it did not matter to her what the zoning was, the applicant could do what he wanted to do without a variance, and therefore, there is no basis to grant the variance.

Mr. Bushouse said that, if they granted the variance now, there would likely be a request for a further variance in the future at the time that one of the homes sold, and the new purchasers wanted the property divided.

Mr. Turcott said the zoning classification caused him to look at this matter differently than perhaps other districts. He said the whole intent of the Rural Residential District was to provide for a semi-rural lifestyle, and he thought that the proposal would be contrary to the purpose of the Rural Residential District. He said he thought that allowing such a development would set a bad precedent in the Township.

The Chairperson noted, with regard to substantial justice criteria, that the Board should consider what they have done in regard to granting frontage variances and depth-to-width variances. He said he thought that handling the proposed use by dealing with those issues would be more consistent with what the Board had done in the past and more fair to others in the District. He said to do as the applicant was requesting would be a circumvention of the current Ordinance when there was a much better way to deal with the present issue. He said he would like to see the applicant address other proposed avenues.

The Chairperson asked if there was any further discussion. Hearing none, he said he would entertain a motion. Mr. McClung made a motion to deny the request, in accordance with the findings of the Planning Department report and the factual basis set forth in the comments of the other Board members. Mr. Turcott seconded the motion. The Chairperson asked if there was any further discussion, and hearing none, called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

CANTERBURY HOUSE APARTMENTS - DEVIATION - FREESTANDING SIGN - 690 DRAGON FLY DRIVE - (PARCEL NO. 3905-24-280-021)

The Chairperson said the next item was consideration of the request of Canterbury House Apartments for a freestanding sign. He said the applicant was requesting a deviation from the provisions of Section 76.160 to allow a freestanding sign that exceeds the height and area permitted. He said that the subject property was located 690 Dragon Fly Drive, Parcel No. 3905-24-280-021. The Chairperson called for a report from the Planning Department. Ms. Stefforia submitted her report dated October 26, 2004, and the same is incorporated herein by reference.

Ms. Stefforia informed the Board that the property owner recently had completed Canterbury House Apartments at the end of Green Meadow Drive. She said the apartment complex has 1,700 feet of frontage and two driveways off Green Meadow Drive. She said, in addition, the site abuts the U. S. 131 right-of-way for over 1,200 feet. She said that the Sign Ordinance allowed one identification sign per street entrance, but no more than one per 2,600 lineal feet of continuous road frontage. She said that the applicant was allowed two signs and would like to place one of them along U. S. 131. She noted that one of the real estate signs had recently been removed, and that there were two banners on site which were in violation of the Township Ordinance.

Ms. Stefforia stated that the applicant was proposing an identification sign along U.S. 131 which exceeded both the height and the area allowed for the permitted land use. She said that the Ordinance allows ground signs up to five feet tall and 30 square feet. She said that the bottom of the proposed sign was more than two feet above the ground, and therefore, would constitute a pole sign by definition, not a ground sign. She also said that the request was for a 12-foot tall sign, 96 square feet in area.

Ms. Stefforia then reviewed the criteria for granting a deviation from the Sign Ordinance with the Zoning Board of Appeals. In addressing whether it would be materially detrimental to other property owners, Ms. Stefforia said that the proposed sign would give identification along U. S. 131. Since other developments did not have the same type of signage, the proposed deviation would give more identification to the applicant than other developments in the area enjoy.

With regard to hardship and whether there were conditions unique to the building site, Ms. Stefforia noted that there were other similar residential developments along U. S. 131 with similar conditions, which did not have signs along the highway.

Regarding the third criteria of whether a deviation would be contrary to the general purpose of the section, Ms. Stefforia pointed out that the Sign Ordinance was designed to promote public peace, health and safety, the natural beauty and distinctive character of the Township, as well as eliminating distractions which were hazardous to motorists and pedestrians. She said in determining whether or not to grant a deviation, the Board needed to find some distinguishing characteristic of the property in order to avoid setting an adverse precedent for similarly-situated properties. She said, while the sign might not create visual clutter or distraction, it was likely to trigger similar requests along U. S. 131, which could cause distraction to passing motorists. The Zoning Board of Appeals should determine if the precedent set would be adverse or not.

The Chairperson asked if there were any questions of the Planning Department. Ms. Borgfjord asked Ms. Stefforia if the location of the signs had been indicated during site plan review. Ms. Stefforia said that they had not, but it was not unusual to wait until the development was closer to completion before dealing with the issue of signs. Ms. Borgfjord asked if one of the real estate sales sign had, in fact, been removed. Ms. Stefforia indicated that one of the signs had been removed and that there was currently only one sales sign at the site.

Mr. Turcott asked if this development had at one time been part of a single development and whether the signs had been considered at that time. Ms. Stefforia again pointed out that signs are not usually addressed until such time as the development is at or near completion.

The Chairperson asked if there were any further questions. Hearing none, he asked to hear from the applicant. Mr. Patrick Lennon, with Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, introduced himself to the Board. He also introduced Jeff Ryan with Herman and Kittle Properties. Mr. Lennon told the Board that his client was looking at the property as a whole, and that in doing so, he thought the Ordinance did not make sense because the Ordinance did not contemplate signs along U. S. 131. He said, given the size and height limitations, it is impractical to place a sign along U. S. 131, thereby eliminating the availability to his client of any sign along an existing boundary. He explained that they were requesting a pole sign 12 feet in height, consisting of 96 square feet.

Mr. Lennon said, in reviewing the provisions of Section 76.500, he thought they had satisfied the criteria for a deviation from the Ordinance. First, he said the proposal would not be detrimental to property owners in the area. Second, it was a hardship and unique in that the boundary of the subject property ran along U. S. 131, and without a deviation for height or size, a sign along U. S. 131 could not be seen by passing motorists. Third, the proposal was not inconsistent with what other properties along U. S. 131 were allowed to do. Thereupon he introduced a 131 Corridor Signs one-page document, listing properties that had pole or large wall signs along the U.S. 131 corridor in Oshtemo Township. Mr. Lennon concluded by saying that his client was open to amending the height or sign area, or subjecting it to conditions that the Board felt were reasonable.

The Chairperson asked the applicant if the proposed sign was to be lighted. The applicant indicated that it was, but that if the Township wished to prohibit a lighted sign as a condition, the applicant would be agreeable to such a restriction.

The Chairperson asked if there were any further questions of the applicant, and hearing none, opened the meeting to public comment. There being no public comment, the Chairperson called for Board deliberations.

The Chairperson began the discussion by saying that this was an entirely new type of request and thought that the Board should consider it very carefully. He did note for the applicant that several buildings which were referenced on their 131 Corridor Signs list were located in the City of Kalamazoo, and many of them predated the current Township Ordinance. The Chairperson said that he did not want to see an increase or proliferation in signs because he thought it added to the visual clutter and was unsightly. He also noted that the 4-foot by 8-foot sign currently on the property appeared to him to be sufficient to meet the needs of the developer.

Mr. Bushouse reminded the Board members that they had denied the sign requested by Western Michigan University for its industrial park, which instead simply moved the sign onto City property, which agreed to allow it. Mr. Bushouse also pointed out that many of the properties that had the larger signs in the area were either in the City and/or predated the current Ordinance. Mr. Bushouse also pointed out that none of the signs that the applicant mentioned were constructed to facilitate residential developments but were all directed at commercial operations, which he said were distinguishable. Mr. Bushouse said that he was not inclined to grant the request because he did not want to set an adverse precedent and encourage the development of more signage along U. S. 131.

The Chairperson said he thought they were allowed to create a sign, and while he would not necessarily want to see it lighted, he thought it was allowed under the Township Ordinance. Ms. Stefforia concurred.

Mr. McClung said that he agreed with the Chairperson's comments regarding the limitation of signs along U. S. 131 and did not want to see additional signage, especially signs in excess of that size permitted under the Township Ordinance.

Ms. Borgfjord asked whether there was a limitation as to where the applicant could place the two identification signs. Ms. Stefforia said that there was no limitation in the Ordinance as to where the signs could be placed, just that they would get one sign per entrance to the property.

Mr. Turcott thought there were really two issues before the Zoning Board of Appeals, the first being whether to allow the sign along U. S. 131, and the second being the height and size of the sign. Ms. Stefforia said she did not believe it was an issue of whether the sign could be allowed along U. S. 131 since the Sign Ordinance was not entirely clear, and therefore, she thought it really was just a matter of height and size of the sign.

Mr. Turcott said he thought the Board should stay in compliance, and if the applicant felt there should be an amendment concerning size of sign, it should be handled by the Planning Commission, not by the Zoning Board of Appeals.

The Chairperson said he did not care if the sign was lighted if it met the size limitations provided for in the Ordinance. Mr. McClung asked for clarification from the Planning Department regarding lighting and location of the sign. After a brief discussion, Mr. McClung made a motion to deny the request for the reasons set forth in the record. The motion was seconded by Mr. Turcott.

During the discussion phase, the applicant's attorney, Patrick Lennon, inquired of the Board, whether it would consider allowing a sign in compliance with the size provisions in the Ordinance, but allow the top of the sign to be a height of eight feet so it could be seen from U. S. 131. After a brief discussion, Mr. McClung moved to amend his motion to deny the deviation request with regard to the sign, but to grant a deviation to the applicant to construct a two-post sign similar to the design presented to the Board, provided that the total height at the top of the sign not exceed eight feet from the ground, and that the size was in compliance with the Ordinance, to-wit 30 square feet. Mr. Turcott agreed to the amendment and reaffirmed his second to the motion. The Chairperson asked if there was further discussion on the motion, the hearing none, called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

WALGREENS - DEVIATION - WALL SIGNS - 5020 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-13-280-055)

The Chairperson indicated the next item for consideration was the request for a deviation from the provisions of Section 76.170 to exceed the number and area permitted for wall signs on the Walgreens building. He said the subject property is located at 5020 West Main Street, Parcel No. 3905-13-280-055. Ms. Bugge presented her report to the Board dated October 26, 2004, and the same is incorporated herein by reference.

Ms. Bugge told the Board that the site plan and special exception use was approved by the Planning Commission on May 23, 2002. She pointed out that, in June, 2002, the Zoning Board of Appeals granted a deviation to allow a total of seven signs on the building, three on the south side, four on the east side, due to architectural elements, to-wit: the pilasters of the building. She said that the applicant is now requesting further deviation to allow two additional signs on the building, increasing the total number of signs to nine, and exceeding the sign area permitted on the south wall by approximately four square feet. She said that the request was to add two additional "24-HR" signs, one on the south wall and one on the east wall of the building.

Ms. Bugge reviewed the standards for approval for a sign deviation with the Board. Upon conclusion of her review, the Chairperson asked if there were any questions of Ms. Bugge.

Mr. Bushouse asked if the neon sign in the entrance of the building was included in the total square footage of their sign area. Ms. Bugge indicated that it was.

Mr. Turcott asked what specifically was going to be added to the building. Ms. Bugge said that it was going to be the two signs indicating that the facility would be open 24 hours.

The Chairperson asked to hear from the applicant. Mr. Tom Novak was not present. However, Dan Geiger, Manager of the Walgreens, was present and asked to address the Board. He explained that the store was changing its format to a 24-hour operation, and they wanted to make sure that they were able to notify all of the customers. He specifically noted that they were going to be the only 24-hour pharmacy available on the west side of town.

The Chairperson asked if there were any questions of Mr. Geiger. Hearing none, he asked if there were any comments from the audience. Hearing none, he called for Board deliberations.

The Chairperson began by saying he understood why the Board originally granted the deviation for the number of signs, but said he thought that they should make the applicant stay within the current square footage limitations provided for in the Ordinance. He pointed out the number of times that they had maintained that standard in the past, even when requested to vary from it.

Mr. Bushouse said, if they typically allow four signs and the Board allowed Walgreens to have seven signs, why should the Township now allow the applicant nine signs. He said he did not see any real basis for the current request and did not want to see the signage area increased. Mr. Turcott said he agreed with Mr. Bushouse and said that there was no reason to allow more signs. He said they have a simple remedy when they retrofit their street sign, in that they can provide substantial notice on that sign that the business is running on a 24-hour basis.

Mr. Geiger asked the Board if they would consider allowing them to put "24-hour" in front of the sign entitled "Pharmacy". The Chairperson said he did not have a problem with that suggestion. Ms. Bugge said, if it was added to the Pharmacy sign so as to read "24-hour Pharmacy," there would not be any need for a deviation so long as they met the square footage requirements. The Chairperson said he thought that made quite a bit of sense.

The Chairperson asked what the pleasure of the Board was. Mr. Turcott made a motion to deny the applicant's request, incorporating the rationale set forth in the Planning Department's report and the reasons stated in the record. The motion was seconded by Ms. Borgfjord. The Chairperson called for further discussion, and hearing none, called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Ms. Stefforia indicated that the previous deviation was specific to the signs submitted. Therefore, she asked if the Board might not consider allowing a change to the previous deviation to allow a "24-hour Pharmacy" as part of their permitted signs. Ms. Bugge asked, if the Board was to allow that, if the Board would permit them to use the maximum square footage available per building side under the Ordinance. Mr. Bushouse said that he would not be inclined to do that, but would be inclined to grant the request, provided the applicant maintains the current square footage that it has, even if that required a reduction in the overall size of one or more of the signs.

Mr. McClung made a motion to allow Walgreens to incorporate the "24-hrs" into their pharmacy sign, provided that the applicant maintained the same square footage which currently exists on each side of their building. The motion was seconded by Ms. Borgfjord. The Chairperson called for a discussion on the motion, and hearing none, called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

DAVIS - SITE PLAN REVIEW - 7268 STADIUM DRIVE - (PARCEL NO. 3905-34-205-040)

The Chairperson said that the next item up for consideration was the site plan review of Mr. Kevin Davis for a proposed industrial building. He said the subject property was located at 7268 Stadium Drive, Parcel No. 3905-34-205-040. The Chairperson called for a report from the Planning Department. Ms. Bugge presented a report to the Board dated October 26, 2004, and the same is incorporated herein by reference.

Ms. Bugge pointed out that the property was zoned "I-1" Industrial and contained a nonconforming residential dwelling, which was currently used for rental purposes. She described the properties surrounding the subject property, which included several nonconforming residential homes. She stated that the applicant was requesting site plan approval of a 1,440 square foot building for the storage of trucks and equipment used in his landscaping and property maintenance business. She said this was a permitted use under Section 41.203 within the "I-1" Industrial District.

Ms. Bugge said that the applicant intended to construct an additional building in 2005. However, that would be part of Phase 2 of the development and would be subject to Township review and approval at that time.

She said, in requesting site plan review, the applicant was seeking a deviation to temporarily allow a gravel driveway and parking area.

Ms. Bugge then took the Board through a review of Section 82.800 of the Zoning Ordinance.

The Chairperson asked if there were any questions of Ms. Bugge. The Chairperson began by asking whether or not they could require the applicant to post a bond for completion of the pavement. Ms. Bugge said that the Board could either require a performance guarantee or make paving of the drive a requirement before the installation of the second building on site.

Mr. Bushouse asked about the use of the residence on site. Ms. Bugge indicated it was allowed as a grandfathered use.

The Chairperson asked if there were any questions, and hearing none, asked to hear from the applicant.

Mr. Kevin Davis of Willow Lake Management introduced himself to the Board. He said he was proposing construction of the 1,440 square foot building for purposes of storage and maintenance of the motor vehicles associated with his landscaping business. He said this would be Phase 1 of the development, and he would be resubmitting his site plan for an update in 2005 for construction of an office building.

Mr. Turcott asked Mr. Davis how many employees he had. Mr. Davis said he had six employees. Mr. Turcott asked what his hours of operation would be, and Mr. Davis said normally 8 to 5 except during the snowplowing season. Mr. Turcott asked if there would be disposal of any landscaping materials at the site. Mr. Davis said there would be no disposal of landscape materials at the site. He said the site would be used solely for storage and basic maintenance such as sharpening blades, washing the trucks, etc.

The Chairperson said he wanted to make sure when the second building was put in place that the area was properly landscaped in accordance with the Township Ordinance requirements. Mr. Davis said he would only be removing four trees from the western portion of the property, and the rest would remain generally untouched.

In response to a question from Mr. Bushouse, Ms. Bugge clarified that the applicant would be currently constructing a building for storage, and it was the second building that would not be constructed until 2005. She said the only deviation being requested was for a temporary gravel drive and parking area. The applicant confirmed that all their storage would take place inside, and that there would be absolutely no outdoor storage.

The Chairperson asked if there was any further discussion, and hearing none, he called for a motion. Mr. Turcott made a motion to approve the site plan as requested with the provision that a gravel drive could be used until such time as the second building is constructed on site, and that the following conditions be met:

(1) Approval is subject to obtaining a commercial driveway permit from the Kalamazoo County Road Commission.

(2) Driveway and parking must conform to Section 68.00.

(3) A temporary deviation from paving the driveway and parking area is granted until the second building is constructed in 2005.

(4) All building setbacks shall be in conformance with Section 64.

(5) Any outdoor storage is subject to Township review and approval.

(6) All site lighting shall comply with Section 78.700 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fixture details must be submitted for Staff review and approval.

(7) Pursuant to Section 76.000, a Sign Permit will be required before any signs can be placed on the property.

(8) Site plan approval shall be subject to the applicant satisfying the requirements of the Township Fire Department, pursuant to the adopted codes.

(9) Site plan approval is subject to the Township Engineer finding the proposed site engineering adequate, pursuant to Ordinance.

(10) Approval shall be subject to the applicant submitting the Environmental Permit Checklist and Hazardous Substance Reporting Form.

Ms. Borgfjord seconded the motion. The Chairperson asked if there was any discussion on the motion, and hearing none, called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Adjournment

The Chairperson asked if there was anything further, and hearing nothing further, said he would entertain a motion to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 5:00 p.m.

OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

By:
Millard Loy, Chairperson

By:
Dave Bushouse

By:
Grace Borgfjord

By:
Duane McClung

By:
James Turcott

Minutes Prepared:
November 2, 2004

Minutes Approved:
, 2004