BRADY TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

MINUTES OF MEETING HELD JULY 21, 2009

A meeting of the Brady Township Zoning Board of Appeals was held July 21, 2009. Chairman Jim Dyke called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

Members Present: Chairman Jim Dyke

                                Mike Oswalt

                                Ed Haberle

                                Joe Timko

                                Gerrit Vander Kamp

Absent was Vice-Chairman Aileen Greanya.

Also attending were Township Attorney Craig Rolfe, SCCMI representative Chris Hamilton and nine others.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

A motion was made by Jim Dyke and seconded by Ed Haberle to approve the minutes of the March 10, 2009 meeting as printed. The motion was carried.

REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF A VARIANCE by Noah Funk

The ZBA granted a variance approval to Noah Funk on September 30, 2008 to add a 15’ x 8’ porch to his residence on his corner lot located at 7940 Salem Street in Brady Township (zoned R-5). Mr. Funk stated that he did not realize that the variance was granted for six months. He is asking for a six- month extension. He stated that he would immediately obtain a building permit and begin the project.

Mr. Funk stated that there have been no changes in facts or circumstances of his original request.

There was no Public comment, and there has been no written correspondence on his request.

Jim Dyke made a motion to approve a six-month extension by reference to the identical variance relief described in the minutes of September 30, 2008. Ed Haberle supported the motion, and it was carried unanimously.

REQUEST FOR VARIANCE RELIEF by Wyatt Jay Brown

Wyatt Jay Brown, 9375 East UV Avenue has requested relief from front yard setback requirement, maximum lot coverage, and maximum number of outbuildings allowed on his property.

Chairman Jim Dyke explained that Mr. Brown must show that there is a practical difficulty of his property that prevents building his structures as allowed by the Brady Township Zoning Ordinance.

Attorney Craig Rolfe stated that the first variance request, to place the structure in the front yard, can only be addressed by the Planning Commission as a Special Exception Use as described in Article XVII.1 (4). He stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals could address the request for lot coverage and for maximum buildings allowed this evening.

Chairman Jim Dyke opened the Public Hearing.

Mr. Brown stated that he put a structure up in December 2004 to house his RV. He later bought a fifth-wheel, which was larger, so last year he added a 6’ extension. He stated that he needs the structure to keep his fifth-wheel secure from thieves and to keep dirt and mud off of it.

Craig Rolfe noted that a 12’ x 16’structure was built in 1998 or 1999, and an 8’ x 8’ structure was built in 1999 or 2000.

Joe Timko stated that two outbuildings are allowed and Mr. Brown now has four; and that 2000 square feet of lot coverage is allowed and Mr. Brown has 2,176 square feet of lot coverage before considering the fourth building. Mr. Timko noted that even if the two smaller buildings were removed, there would be 2900 square feet, rather than the 2000 allowed.

Julie Skrzypek, 12855 S. 34^th Street, stated that she supports the Browns and has no objection to their buildings.

Jille Terry, 9370 East UV Avenue, stated that the structure is right outside of her front window. She also stated that the location of the pole barn creates a problem because vehicles have to drive into the side of the road to back into the barn.

Tom Terry, 9370 East UV Avenue, stated that noise generated by traffic to the front of the house is an annoyance for him, since it’s right outside of his front window.

There were no further public comments, and the Public Hearing was closed.

The Zoning Board of Appeals considered the variance request pursuant to the variance standards in Section 23.8 of the Zoning Ordinance. It was determined that the location of the buildings is not an issue, rather the number of buildings and the lot coverage of the combined outbuildings.

 The ZBA agreed that item 1 (a) couldn’t be met because Mr. Brown’s request represents a personal hardship, not a practical difficulty in complying with the Ordinance requirements based on the land itself.

Mike Oswalt made a motion that these two variance requests be denied due to the absence of a practical difficulty, rather than personal circumstances, when considering item 1(a) of Section 23.8. Joe Timko seconded the motion, and it was carried unanimously.

There was a motion by Ed Haberle to adjourn at 8:00 p.m. Gerrit Vander Kamp supported, and the motion was passed unanimously.

Respectfully submitted,

________________________________

Jim Dyke, Chairman

Brenda Brock

Recording Secretary