BRADY TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

MINUTES OF MEETING HELD MARCH 18, 2008

A meeting of the Brady Township Zoning Board of Appeals was held March 18, 2008. Vice-Chairman Aileen Greanya called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

Members Present: Vice-Chairperson Aileen Greanya

                             Ed Haberle

                             Kevin Allgaier

                             Mike Oswalt

Absent was Chairman James Dyke.

Also attending were Township Attorney Craig Rolfe and 7 citizens.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

A motion was made by Mike Oswalt, and seconded by Haberle, to approve the proposed minutes of the December 18, 2007 meeting as written. The motion was carried.

REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE REQUEST by Robert Moore

Robert Moore of 10300 East T Avenue has requested a variance to Brady Township Zoning Ordinance Article XVII.1, which allows accessory buildings only if a residence is on the parcel. He wants to remove a house and leave a garage and pole building on property he owns at 10608 East T Avenue in Brady Township.

Vice-Chairperson Greanya opened the Public Hearing.

Mr. Moore stated that he bought this 8- acre parcel in January 2008 in order to better access the field behind the house. Mr. Moore owns the adjoining properties to the east and south. He stated that the existing house is collapsing and has moisture damage and mildew. He does not feel that the house is habitable. Mr. Moore stated that the garage is structurally sound and that the 32’ x 40’ pole barn is only 5 years old and is in very good condition.

Mr. Moore further stated that if he combined the newly purchased parcel with his own property, then his residence would allow the accessory buildings, but the accessory buildings would be in front of his residence, which also would require a variance.

Ed Haberle stated that Brady Township Zoning Ordinance Article XVII.1 (4.b) enables the Planning Commission to consider the granting of a special exception use permit for an accessory building to be located in the front yard within 300 feet of the street right-of-way under certain conditions.

After further discussion, Ed Haberle made a motion to table Mr. Moore’s variance request until after he has appealed to the Planning Commission for a special exception use permit. Mike Oswalt supported the motion and the motion was carried unanimously.

REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE by Gary and Jean Galia on behalf of Carl and Betty Young

Gary and Jean Galia have requested a variance for relief for lakeside setbacks to build an addition to property owned by the Youngs at 6937 Hayward in Brady Township. Mr. Galia is requesting that the waterfront setback be changed from the current 119.76’ to 108’. The average of lakeside setbacks taken from the three houses on either side of Mr. Galia does not permit this change. Prein & Newhof calculated the average setback measurements.

Mr. Galia’s architect presented a sketch of the proposed addition, which includes a two- stall garage and a 660 square foot addition. He stated that the proposed addition would not obstruct the lake view of any of the neighbors. He noted that the current residence is 1400 square feet in size and sits on a90’ wide cul-de-sac parcel in an R-1 zoned district.

The Zoning Board of Appeals has received letters from neighbors on either side stating that they do not object to the proposed addition. Mike Henderson, 6925 Hayward, who is an adjacent neighbor, stated that he supports Mr. Galia’s request. Mr. Henderson stated that the sole purpose of the average setback requirements is to preserve the lakeside sight line and that Mr. Galia’s proposed addition does preserve the sight line.

Attorney Craig Rolfe stated that there is no topographical practical difficulty with this parcel. He stated that there is room on the cul-de-sac side of the house for expansion, rather than lakeside, and no variance would be needed.

There was no other public comment, and the Public Hearing was closed.

The Zoning Board of Appeals considered the variance request with the variance standards as published in Article XXIII, Section 23.8 of the Brady Township Zoning Ordinances. After discussion, the members of the ZBA agreed that none of the conditions have been met:

1a. The reason of exceptional topographic conditions or of size, shape, etc. practical difficulties has not

      been met. Kevin Allgaier stated that there is nothing to restrict the growth of this house within the

      zoning ordinances.

1b. A variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjoining properties now, but if the variance were

      granted, future averaging calculations would be affected.

1c. Exceptional circumstances are not proven. This lakeside property is similar to others in the area.

1d. The proposed addition could be built on this parcel within the zoning ordinances.

2. There is no economic hardship requested or presented.

3. This is a self-created difficulty.

Kevin Allgaier made a motion to deny Mr. Galia’s request for variance relief because these plans do not meet all of the variance standards as set forth in Article XXIII, Section 23.8 of the Brady Township Zoning Ordinances. Mike Oswalt supported the motion and the motion was carried unanimously.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

________________________________

Aileen Greanya, Vice-Chairman

Brenda Brock

Recording Secretary