BRADY TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

MINUTES OF MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 20, 2007

CORRECTED

A meeting of the Brady Township Zoning Board of Appeals was held November 20, 2007. Chairman James Dyke called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

Members Present: Chairman James Dyke

                              Vice-Chairperson Aileen Greanya

                              Ed Haberle

                              Kevin Allgaier

                              Mike Oswalt

Also attending were Township Attorney Craig Rolfe, SCMCCI representatives Glenn Lindsey and Chris Hamilton, and 13 citizens.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

A motion was made by Aileen Greanya, and seconded by Haberle, to approve the proposed minutes of the May 15, 2007 meeting as prepared. The motion was carried unanimously.

REQUEST FOR REGRANTING A VARIANCE REQUEST by Howard Hildebrand

Chairperson Dyke opened the Public Hearing.

At the May ZBA meeting, Howard Hildebrand, of 603 E. VW Avenue in Brady Township requested a variance of 30 feet from the required 75’ front yard setback in order to build a new dwelling with a 45’ front yard set back on property he owns at 5501 E. TU Avenue. The variance had a six-month time limit. Mr. Leland McDonald stated that no action has been taken on the variance because the sale of this property was being finalized between Mr. Hildebrand and Mr. Shaw. Mr. McDonald stated that the sale has recently finalized and Mr. Shaw is now ready to begin work on the new dwelling.

Chairman Dyke asked if anything has changed concerning this property since the variance was granted in May 2007. Mr. McDonald stated that there are no changes.

There was neither public comment nor written correspondence.

Chairman Dyke closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Ed Haberle made a motion to regrant the variance request by reference to the minutes of the ZBA meeting of May 15, 2007. Aileen Greanya supported the motion and the motion was carried unanimously.

REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE by Daniel and Lisa Homrich

Daniel and Lisa Homrich, 6585 S Indian Lake Drive in Brady Township have requested a variance for relief from wall and fencing requirements on waterfront property. Brady Township Zoning Ordinance Section 15.5 prohibits walls and fencing in lakeside front yards.

Six items of correspondence have been received from neighboring residents. These items were distributed to the members of the ZBA for consideration.

Chairperson Dyke opened the Public Hearing.

Township Attorney Craig Rolfe explained the purpose of this Public Hearing and defined what public comments would be considered and reflected in the minutes.

Mr. Homrich stated that he wants a patio in his lakeside yard, and a retaining wall is necessary in order to support the patio because of the slope of the land on his property.

Mr. Homrich distributed photos of his land as well as a letter from Ken Murray of Murray Landscaping, LLC, which stated that a retaining wall is necessary to support the patio.

Attorney Rolfe asked Mr. Lindsey if the patio could be “at grade”. Mr. Lindsey stated that the patio would slope so much that furniture and grill could not be used. He stated that there is a slope of 1-2 inches per foot and there has to be a retaining wall to keep the level patio in place.

Mr. Homrich stated that the patio and retaining wall would not interfere with anyone’s view of the lake.

He distributed an assessing map of the area, showing his property in relation to others around this section of the lake.

Attorney Rolfe stated that there is an existing patio attached to the walkout section of the basement of the home. Mr. Homrich responded that carrying items from the kitchen through the entire house to the existing patio (near the walk out basemen) would be very cumbersome.

Mr. Homrich withdrew his request for a variance for the fence. He said he would remove the fencing.

Glenn Lindsey stated that if the retaining wall were permitted, a variance would need to be granted for the side yard setback. He reported that the site of the wall is 4 feet from the side yard property line and 10 feet is required by the ordinance.

Gary Gray, 650 Spruce Street, stated that sloped lots almost always require a retaining wall.

Rick Sedlak, 6647 Hayward Drive, stated that he had objections to the fence, but not to the retaining wall.

Attorney Rolfe asked Mr. Homrich the distance of the retaining wall from the lake. He responded that the retaining wall is 110 feet from the lake.

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

Chairman Dyke re-iterated that the Zoning Board of Appeals is now only considering a variance request for a retaining wall.

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 all conditions have been met as follows:

1a. The reason of exceptional topographic conditions of practical difficulties has been met due to the

      slope of the land.

1b. A variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjoining property because the adjoining properties

      are closer to the lakeshore than the Homrick’s and because the proposed deck is similar to existing

     development on adjoining properties.

1c. Exceptional circumstances are the slope of the lot.

1d. A variance is necessary to build a patio that is functional. The proposed patio is similar to existing

     development on adjoining properties in the same zone.

2. The findings of 1a. above meet this requirement.

3. The Homrich’s did not create the practical difficulty (the slope of the land).

Kevin Allgaier made a motion to grant variance relief to allow a retaining wall to be constructed in the lakeside yard according to the applicant’s plans, with an east side yard setback of not less than 4 feet. Mike Oswalt supported the motion and the motion was carried unanimously.

REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE by Ken and Erin Hammer

Erin and Ken Hammer, 7665 S Indian Lake Drive in Brady Township have requested variances for relief from and lakeside and sideyard setback requirements to construct a deck.

Ken Hammer’s builder, Richard VanWerden, stated that the curvature of Indian Lake along this property creates a hardship for construction within the ordinance requirements. Mr. VanWerden stated that the proposed deck would sit behind the houses on both the immediate right and left.

Mr. Hammer thought that variance requests for both the deck and a new garage were being considered this evening. Chairman Dyke explained that only the variance request for the deck was received and publicly noticed, and that is the only variance request that can be considered this evening.

Mr. VanWerden stated that the house is 114’ from the water’s edge and the proposed deck would be 101’ from the water’s edge. A 13’ variance is needed for the lakeside setback in order to meet the requirement that the lakeside frontyard set back can be no less than the average setback of the three houses on either side.

Mr. Van Werden stated that the house is further back from the lake than the immediate neighbors on either side, so that the deck is not impeding the line of vision of the neighbors.

Orren Barney, 7661 S Indian Lake Drive, stated that he has no objections to the proposed deck.

There was no further public comment and no written correspondence has been received about this project.

Chairman Dyke closed the Public Hearing.

Chairman Dyke stated that if the dimensions of the proposed deck were modified, no variance would be needed.

Mr. Hammer and Mr. VanWerden stated that the stairs coming off of the deck would be moved so that the sideyard setback would be acceptable.

Craig Rolfe stated that the practical difficulty is not created by the characteristics of the land, but by the site where Mr. Hammer chose to build his new house on this property. If the house had been placed farther from the lake, no variance would be needed.

After further discussion, Ed Haberle made a motion to table this variance request, and reconsider the request at the next meeting along with a variance request for a new garage to be constructed on this property. Aileen Greanya supported the motion to table, and it was passed four votes to one.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

________________________________

James Dyke, Chairman

Brenda Brock

Recording Secretary