BRADY TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

MINUTES OF MEETING HELD APRIL 18, 2006

 

 

A meeting of the Brady Township Zoning Board of Appeals was held on April 18, 2006 commencing at approximately 7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Chairman James Dyke

                               Vice-Chairperson Aileen Greanya

                               Ed Haberle

                               Kevin Allgaier

                               Mike Oswalt

      

Absent was James Laure.

                         

Also attending were Brady Township Attorney Craig Rolfe, Zoning Administrator Bob Logan and 16 concerned citizens.

 

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

Aileen Greanya made a motion to approve the minutes of March 21, 2006 as published.  Kevin Allgaier supported the motion, and it was passed unanimously.

 

 

REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE BY GARY GRAY

 

Chairman James Dyke opened the Public Hearing. 

 

Gary Gray has submitted 4 variance requests in order to build and operate a restaurant on the commercially zoned property he recently purchased at 5216 East V Avenue in Brady Township.  He has provided a site plan and correspondence from Kalamazoo County Road Commission and Ingersol Engineers about the project.

 

Mr. Gray stated that his variance requests are based on what would be allowed in the Future Land Use Plan adopted by the Brady Township Board.  Currently, the properties on either side of his are zoned residentially, but the Future Land Use Plan shows the entire area in question as being commercially zoned.

 

 

 

There were several questions from different Zoning Board Members and the following statements from those in attendance:

 

  1. Bev Haas, 7177 East UV Avenue, asked if the Zoning Board’s decisions will be based on economics.  Jim Dyke responded no.  She asked if the future land use plan is binding. Attorney Craig Rolfe responded no.  She asked if the County Drain Commissioner would be involved in this project.  Attorney Rolfe stated that yes; Mr. Gray would have to deal with that office.

 

  1. Mike Dee, 5280 East V Avenue, an adjacent neighbor, stated that he is concerned      about the increase in traffic causing safety problems and about the protection of the county drain to prevent flooding.

 

  1. John Burns, 13081 S. 24th Street, a second adjacent neighbor, stated the following concerns:

A.     Increased traffic to this area.

B.     Overflow parking—will people park along the road?

C.     Protection of the wetlands on the property

D.     Land sloping so that nothing flows into the wetlands.

E.      Personal impact:  noise, garbage, etc.

F.      Self-generated problem—if smaller building planned, perhaps no variances need.

 

  1. Bob Logan, representative from SCMCCI, noted that if any soil is disturbed within 500’ of the county drain, that a soil erosion permit would have to be issued from Kalamazoo County.

 

 

Chairman Dyke thanked each person for his or her imput.

 

 

The Zoning Board of Appeals considered each variance request with the variance standards as published in Article XXIII, Section 23.8 of the Brady Township Zoning Ordinances.

 

  1. Mr. Gray is requesting a variance for the west side yard setback of 16’ instead of the required 25’ for the last 4 feet of the proposed building. He stated that most of the proposed building sets back 100’ on the west side, but because of the shape of the land, the back corner of the proposed building would be only 16’ from the property line.

 

 

After further discussion, the board members agreed that:  item (a) of the variance standards are met due to the exceptional narrowness and shape of the parcel and because of the exceptional topography—much of the parcel is wetlands;  item (b) is met because there will not be substantial detriment to adjoining properties nor impair the public health, safety or welfare;  item (c) is met due to the narrowness, shape, and topography of the land;  item (d) is met by the idea that Mr. Gray should be able to have a commercial enterprise on a commercially zoned parcel.   After further discussion, Aileen Greanya made a motion to approve the variance request to allow a 16’ side yard setback on the west side of the property.  Kevin Allgaier seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.

 

  1. Mr. Gray is requesting a variance for the driveway setback.  Mr. Gray distributed a letter from the Kalamazoo County Road Commission stating that the driveway should be located as close to the western boundary as possible for traffic safety.  This would create a 3’ setback from the western property line.

 

The board members agreed that: item (a) of the variance standard is met due to the physical location of the property (near to Sprinkle Road and a sharp curve); item (b) is met in that there should be no detriment to the neighbors, especially if screening is used around the driveway; item (c) is met for reasons stated in (a) as well as the difficulty with guide wires and telephone poles on the property; item (d) is met in that this is a commercial property desiring safe access to its business.

 

James Dyke made a motion to approve the variance request to allow a 3’ driveway setback, with the condition that the Planning Commission impose screening the driveway for the adjoining property owner.  Mike Oswalt seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.

 

  1. Mr. Gray is requesting a variance for off-street parking and screening of 10’ setback rather than the 30’ required.  He noted that by placing the parking lot in front of the business, the wetlands to the rear would not suffer from run-off from the parking lot.

 

After discussion, the board members agreed that item (a) of the variance standard is met because of the odd shaped parcel; item (b) is met in that the placement of the off-street parking is to benefit the neighbors and the wetland; item (c) is met for the same reasons as item (a); item (d) is met in that a restaurant is a commercial use which requires off-street parking.

 

Mike Oswalt made a motion to approve the variance request to allow a 10’ setback for the off-street parking and screening.  Aileen Greanya seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.

 

  1. Mr. Gray does not believe he requires a variance for the 100’ setback requirement from the wetlands because the definition of wetlands is not a lake, river, stream, pond or other natural or artificial watercourse as contained in Article XV (Section 15.3.2).  However, the Zoning Board decided to proceed with a variance request to whatever extent the variance applies to the wetlands. 

 

After discussion, the Zoning Board of Appeal agreed that item (a) of the variance standard is met because the topography of the parcel is primarily wetlands and a 100’ setback would preclude any development of this commercial parcel.  Items (b), (c), and (d) are met by the reasons cited in the preceding three variance requests.

 

James Dyke made a motion to grant a variance relief to the 100’ setback from the wetlands based on the site plan as submitted this evening.  Aileen Greanya seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.

 

 

 

REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE BY LEE MONROE

 

Lee Monroe, 315 East Street, Mendon, MI  49072, is requesting a variance to build a deck on the front of a house he owns at 12034 S. 29th Street in Brady Township.  The proposed location for the deck does not meet the required front yard setback. 

 

A letter received from neighbor, Beverly Haas, 7177 East UV Avenue, was read. 

 

Mr. Monroe explained the location of the proposed deck.  The house is 33’ from the property line fence, and the deck will not exceed the front line of the house.  Two doors to the house will directly access the deck. 

 

The Zoning Board of Appeals agreed that due to the extraordinary location of the house to the road, the variance standards have been met.

 

Kevin Allgaier made a motion to grant a variance relief to the front yard setback.  Mike Oswalt seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.

 

 

 

REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE BY BRYAN VISSER

 

Bryan Visser is requesting variances for rear yard setback, lot coverage, and height on property he owns at 11294 East Indian Lake Drive in Brady Township.  His builder, Mr.Glas, represented Mr. Visser.   Mr. Glas stated that the proposed house and garage meet more of the zoning ordinance requirements than the old house.  Mr. Glas presented the use of the lot after demolition of the present house and made the following requests:

 

1.      A rear yard (roadside) setback variance for 18’ from the lot line.

2.      Lot coverage of 33.5% instead of the required 20%.

3.      Height variance to incorporate a “widow’s watch” on the proposed house.

 

Township Attorney Craig Rolfe noted that this non-conforming lot size and width is the hardship in this case. 

 

After further discussion, it was decided that Mr. Visser would not seek variance relief for the height requirement, but would scale back the height of the house.

 

The variance standards were applied to both the rear yard setback and the percent of lot coverage variance requests:

(a)    is met due to the exceptional narrowness of the lot

(b)   is met in that there is no detriment  to the neighbors—the proposed plan gives the neighbors more view of the lake, and the proposed house is an improvement to the property.

(c)    is met due to the non-conforming narrowness and size of the lot

(d)   is met by Mr. Visser’s right to have a home on the property

 

Kevin Allgaier made a motion to approve Mr. Visser’s variance requests for both an 18’ rear yard setback and 33.5% lot coverage.  Aileen Greanya seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.

 

There was a motion by Aileen Greanya to adjourn the meeting a 10:00 P.M., supported by Kevin Allgaier and passed unanimously.

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

_____________________

James Dyke, Chairman

 

 

 

Brenda Brock,

Recording Secretary