BRADY TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

MINUTES OF MEETING HELD DECEMBER 18, 2007

A meeting of the Brady Township Zoning Board of Appeals was held December 18, 2007. 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 Supervisor Lee Philport, Township Attorney Craig Rolfe, SCMCCI representative Glenn Lindsey, and 7 citizens.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Several changes were made to the proposed minutes of November 20, 2007. A motion was made by Mike Oswalt, and seconded by Haberle, to approve the proposed minutes of the November 20, 2007 meeting as amended. The motion was carried.

REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE REQUEST by Paul and Carol Casarez

Paul and Carol Casarez have requested a variance for relief from the front yard setback requirements on property they own at 7967 Hope Street in Brady Township. They want to add a 168 square foot screened porch onto the front of the house, going no closer to the street than the existing attached garage. The proposed addition is to an existing legal, non-conforming structure within the Nazarene Campground. The zoning for this property is R-5.

Vice-Chairperson Greanya opened the Public Hearing.

Mr. Casarez stated that the proposed porch would be within the footprint of the house and attached garage. He stated that he is connecting the house to the garage with an expanded porch. The legal non-conforming house with attached garage conforms to all setbacks except the front yard setback. The structure is 23’ from the edge of the road.

There was a discussion about the standard used for the measurements from the roadway. There is no established width of road right of way in the “old” part of the camp. The roads are private and there is no established easement. The private roads have 12’-13’ widths to 18’-19’ widths. The edge of the roadway has traditionally been used for measuring front yard setbacks in this section.

There was a discussion about he Multiple Use Development in the Nazarene Campground and the R-5 zoning classification.

There was neither public comment nor written correspondence.

Vice-Chairman Greanya closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.

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

exceptional narrowness and small size (80’ x 80’) of the legal, non-conforming parcel,

and there is a lack of standard easement of the road for measuring front yard setback.

1b.The proposed porch would conform to other structures in this area of the Nazarene Campground.

The porch will not extend beyond the existing garage. Due to the narrowness of the road, a 10 mph speed limit is posted. Health and safety are not a concern in relation to the proposed porch.

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

1d. The proposed porch is an improvement to the existing home. The existing house is approximately 1200 sq. ft. and the porch will add another 200 sq. ft. The structure would still not be a large dwelling in comparison to other homes in this area.

2. There is no representation of a financial hardship.

3. The Casarez ‘s did not create the practical difficulty.

Kevin Allgaier made a motion to grant variance relief for the front yard setback based on the applicant’s site plan showing a front yard setback of 23’ from the edge of the roadway. Mike Oswalt supported the motion and the motion was carried unanimously.

Mike Oswalt made a motion that the granting of Mr. Casarez will not extend the life of the existing legal, non-conforming structure. Ed Haberle seconded the motion, and it was carried unanimously.

TABLED REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE by Ken and Erin Hammer

Vice-Chairman Greanya untabled the variance request by Ken and Erin Hammer, who

have requested a variance for relief from lakeside setback requirements on waterfront property. The Hammers want to add a deck and a garage to their property at 7665 S Indian Lake in Brady Township. The variance request for the deck was tabled at the November 20, 2007 meeting. The variance request for the garage has not been presented yet.

One item of correspondence has been received from a neighboring resident. This correspondence was distributed to the members of the ZBA for consideration.

Vice-Chairperson Greanya opened the Public Hearing.

Mr. Hammer distributed aerial photos showing the curvature of Indian Lake in the area that includes his property. He stated that he was initially unaware of the setback requirements. Mr. Hammer stated that using the average lakefront setbacks of the three homes on either side of his property for his lakefront setback presents a practical difficulty due to the curvature of the lake.

He introduced his attorney Steve Sielatycki, who stated that the curvature of the lake and the narrowness of the lot caused practical difficulties to meeting the lakeside setback for the proposed deck. He further stated that there would be no detriment to the adjoining properties; there would be preservation of reasonable sight lines to the lake. Mr. Sielatycki also stated that the granting of the variance request is necessary to preserve Mr. Hammer’s right to enjoy a deck, as do all of the neighboring houses.

Mr. Oren Barney, 7661 S Indian Lake Drive, stated that the curvature of the lake at Mr. Hammer’s property was created when a former owner used a bulldozer to change the shoreline 30 or 40 years ago.

Randy Smith, 11392 E Indian Lake Drive, stated that the narrowness of the lot does not effect the lakeside setback. Mr. Smith voiced concern that if the lakeside setback were changed for Mr. Hammer, then future lakeside setback measurements could be effected for other properties along the lake. Mr. Smith also stated that if Mr. Hammer had set his house closer to the road, then a variance request would be unnecessary.

Garrit VanderKamp, 11412 E Indian Lake Drive, stated that as a builder and as a property owner, ignorance of the zoning ordinances is not an excuse to not follow the setback ordinances.

Glenn Lindsey, zoning officer for SCMCCI, gave a brief history of the site plans submitted by Mr. Hammer and his builder for his new home:

On Aug. 1, 2007 Mr. Lindsey completed a zoning field inspection and took measurements.

Mr. VanWerden, the builder, was notified and met with Mr. Lindsey to confirm the measurements. The site plan for the house and deck was non-conforming. Mr. VanWerden

said that he would shift the house and deck back towards the road so that the deck was conforming.

On Aug. 13, a revised site plan was received showing the deck placed at 114’ from the water’s edge. This site plan was approved by SCMCCI on Aug 14, 2007.

On Aug. 22, a new site plan was received and approved for the home only. Mr. VanWerden shifted the house back toward the lake, but left off the deck. This site plan put the edge of the house 114’ from the water’s edge.

On Oct. 24, a new site plan was received for the addition of a deck, which was referred to the ZBA because the deck did not meet the required set backs established for the R-1 zoning district.

There was a discussion about creating a “tunnel vision” of the lake on Mr. Hammer’s property. Randy Smith stated that numerous residents on the lake share this tunnel vision effect, perhaps 20-30 times along the shoreline. Mr. Lindsey stated that the following measurements were taken of the properties adjoining Mr. Hammer’s property: to the east---101’, 79’, and 93’; to the west---125’, 142’, and 142’.

Mr. Hammer’s house is 114’ from the lakeside.

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

Vice-Chairman Greanya noted that the Zoning Board of Appeals is at this time considering a variance request for the lakeside setback for the proposed deck only.

1a. The reason of practical difficulties has not been met because this lot is no different than many others

in this lakeside neighborhood.

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

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

is why the average of the three structures on both sides are used in determining lakefront setbacks.

1d. The proposed deck is similar to existing development on adjoining properties in the same zone,

but does not meet setback requirements.

2. There is no economic hardship requested or presented.

3. Based on the history given by Mr. Lindsey, this is a self-created practical difficulty.

Kevin Allgaier made a motion to deny variance relief to allow a deck to be constructed in the lakeside yard according to the applicant’s plans, 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.

Mr. Hammer asked that his variance request for a new garage be tabled until the March 18, 2008 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Kevin Allgaier made a motion to table the variance request for setback relief for the proposed garage until March 18, 2008. Ed Haberle supported the motion, and it was carried unanimous

The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

________________________________

Aileen Greanya, Vice-Chairman

Brenda Brock

Recording Secretary