REGULAR MEETING July 28, 2003 6:30 P.M. _____________________________________________________________________________
PITTSFIELD TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES ______________________________________________________________________________ Members Present: Kenneth Brostrom, Robert Grosshans, Edward Resha, Ishwar Naik and Alayna Stagg
Members Absent: None
Others Present: Mr. Sniderman, Martin Vila, Tom Curran, Lee Jasinski, Ken Cousino, P. K. Purkayastha, P. Valle, Greg Elliott, Phil Conlin, Assistant Planner Jennifer Black, Zoning Administrator Mark Spencer and Marge Burkheiser, Recording Secretary
1.0 Call Meeting to Order/Determination of a Quorum
Chairperson Naik called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. A quorum was present.
2.0 Approval of Agenda
Motion by Member Resha, supported by Member Brostrom, to approve the agenda, as presented.
MOTION CARRIED
3.0 Communications and Announcements
Chairperson Naik noted that he and other Members confirmed; they had received under separate cover, a package of information from Mr. Curran.
4.0 Items from the Floor
None.
5.0 Old Business
5.1 ZBA 03-03 Conlin/Helmer (CSPA 02-19 Arbortech) [submitted for reversal/modification of the Zoning Administrator's interpretation)
Greg Elliott, attorney for the applicant, reviewed information from the last ZBA meeting stating that this is a permitted use per Section 41 of the Zoning Ordinance. He said this was basically the storing of containers and washing the outsides of them before they returned the container to a construction site. This district allows the most intense uses allowed in the Township and that for an industrial use, would be considered a mild use. He also said he did not agree with the Zoning Administrator and the Township Attorney's contention that this is an "other similar use" that requires a conditional use permit. He felt the Township is fearful of a junkyard use and this is not appropriate. This problem is not about All-in-One Disposal but a type of use that is a permitted or a conditional use within the Zoning Ordinance.
Zoning Administrator Spencer stated some of the information related by Mr. Elliott is accurate. He said previously he stated All-in-One Disposal is not just a trucking and cartage facility or a truck and industrial equipment storage company. He stated he has consulted with the Township Attorney and he agrees that because of the waste component this use requires a Conditional Use Permit. He said the Township attorney believes the "other similar uses" also pertain to the permitted uses and not just the conditional uses.
Phil Conlin, applicant and property owner stated he was previously asked how this use would fit into the ordinance. He said that this is the Township's Ordinance and is already written and it could not be interpreted any other way. He added that this facility has already been approved by a previous administration. He stated that it already operates now in the Township and is strictly the storage of empty containers and waste is not stored in the containers. He said this is a useful productive business that is needed in every community.
Chairperson Naik asked about a previous administration approval and asked for an explanation.
Phil Conlin, said when the State Street site was proposed it was determined the I-2 zoning was compatible and they have been there for six years.
Member Resha inquired if they were currently in violation of Township Zoning Ordinances at the State Street facility.
Zoning Administrator Spencer stated he was not able to find any records indicating the State Street facility use was previously approved. A violation letter was sent.
Phil Conlin stated that was not correct and said the Township at one time was considering the property for a "storage yard". He said when All-in One decided to purchase the property that Township officials inspected the property and gave approval.
Zoning Administrator Spencer stated it was possible someone gave "verbal" approval for this site and if they have been there for six years, the assessing records show personal property for less then six years.
Member Resha asked how long this facility has been at the State Street location.
Phil Conlin replied approximately six years.
Member Grosshans asked for an explanation on how the containers/trucks were cleaned.
Phil Conlin replied they generally just hose down the outside of the container but never the interiors.
Member Grosshans asked if the containers are covered while on site.
Phil Conlin stated they are covered if waiting to leave but normal they are not. He noted this is not "kitchen garbage" but construction site debris.
Member Resha asked about the length of time the waste would be stored on the site before it was removed.
Phil Conlin said the longest would be overnight and the worst case would be a partially filled container of concrete.
Member Resha asked about hazardous materials and how long they would remain on the site.
Phil Conlin stated they would never be returned to the site. They are controlled by State and Federal regulations.
Member Grosshans asked about keeping the waste from penetrating into the Park next door.
Phil Conlin stated that with the fencing, 50 foot transition strip and landscaping required there should not be any problems.
Member Stagg asked what was to prevent the new site from becoming like the old site.
Phil Conlin said nothing. He also said if a site is in violation of the Township Ordinances, they should be cited and be required to clean up the site.
Greg Elliott stated by current standards it is not possible to have yards with the current type of conditions, the standards have changed and the yard must be paved.
Member Resha asked if this site would be required to be paved.
Phil Conlin said he was not sure but the site will be paved.
Member Resha asked what would happen during heavy rains to the wash off from the containers.
Phil Conlin explained that the storm water detention system was designed to keep Lillie Park clean. He said the water flow in the detention ponds would go in the opposite direction to eliminate problems and protect the parks.
There was discussion of when and how often the detention ponds would be cleaned. Members were told they would be cleaned as often as necessary but they are controlled by the Washtenaw County Drain Commissioner.
Phil Conlin explained the cleaning process of the containers and that the water flows into the detention system.
Member Resha asked about soap or chemicals used to clean the containers.
Phil Conlin stated they did not use them; just water to wash down the outside of the containers.
Member Brostrom expressed his confusion with the storage issue. He said the applicant had stated that nothing would be stored overnight on site, but there is the possibility of storage for a day or two. He stated he would like to have a guarantee that storage would not be more than a day or two.
Member Resha stated he is concerned with the various chemicals that are left in containers generated by construction products and then washing into the ground water over the years.
Phil Conlin stated the same problem would exist while the containers are on site.
Members stated their concern about ground water contamination over a period of time on the site.
Zoning Administrator Spencer clarified for the Members and applicant that the use could be permitted on this site. The applicant would have the right to apply for a Conditional Use Permit and conditions could be attached to the Permit to make the site a better and safer site. The Washtenaw County Drain Commissioner does not look at the use of the site but the overall drainage. The site plan currently shows a gravel storage area. He also said the Planning Commission could impose conditions to include things the applicant is saying would not happen; such as no chemical washing on site and storage overnight. The nature of the business is to haul industrial waste. He also said if it was permitted this business could haul other types of waste.
Greg Elliott said this use was permitted and wondered why now it is not permitted. Zoning Administrator Spencer restated that his concern is with the waste component and that this changes the use from the permitted use. This would be a "other similar use", not a permitted use but a conditional use. Also the Township attorney agreed with the opinion of Mr. Spencer.
Member Stagg stated her concern about the wells and groundwater in the area and said she is not reassured the water would continue to be channeled to the intended area. She also said water goes where it wants to.
Motion by Member Brostrom, supported by Member Resha to affirm the decision of the Zoning Administrator, concerning ZBA 03-03 Conlin/Helmer (CSPA 02-19 Arbortech).
ROLL CALL VOTE:
Yes: Resha, Stagg, Brostrom and Naik
No: Grosshans
Absent: none
MOTION CARRIED (decision stands)
6.0 New Business
6.1 ZBA 03-06 7465 Fosdick Road [submitted to appeal the Zoning Administrator's decision]
Tom Curran, applicant, stated some of the past history of the area property (dating back to the early 1970's) and said he was not a big time developer coming to build a subdivision. He has been in the area for over 20 years. He stated he originally bought 24 acres, and later lots were split off and he put in a private road. At the time there were no guidelines for a private road.
In May of 1996, the applicant approached the Township to split a lot into two lots. This was reviewed by Jack Williams and Greg Elliott and after their review the splits were approved and building permits were issued once the County issued their well and septic permits. In 1988, guidelines for a Class A or Class B private roads were developed and the feeling was this road had already been approved. He was told Greg Elliott, who was employed by the Township at the time, drafted the private road ordinance. He said after talking with Mr. Elliott, he felt the road was grandfathered in and was told by Mr. Elliott that if the road was not expanded that any splits along the road would be buildable sites. He referenced a previous ZBA ruling named Pop (BOA 92-5) concerning the Greenhills Road stating it was allowed and grandfathered as a non conforming road. He stated that Jack Williams approved the splits and building permits.
After research at the Washtenaw County Road Commission the applicant was told a permit for a driveway entrance was required; the County did not determine whether this was a private road or not. He related why he let the building permit expire. He felt that if he was told a permit would never be re-issued, he would have renewed it to prevent this problem. He said when he spoke with Mr. Spencer he told Mr. Spencer he was only requesting to have something that was already approved previously.
He stated prior to this meeting being scheduled he received an offer from Mark Pascoe to purchase the property. After discussions with Mr. Pascoe and his agent, the offer was refused, since the offer was below the requested asking price.
He stated he was told by Vern Dumbeck, of WCRC, to put in an approved road, it would cost $160,000. The cost of building the road was more than the value of the property. He said he was asking the Board not to overturn Mr. Spencer's decision but to uphold the decision of Jack Williams and Greg Elliott's decision of the past.
Ken Cousino, engineer, said he has reviewed the construction of the road. It was originally a gravel road and since has been paved to the end of the public right-of-way. It is made of heavy duty asphalt, done in 1996, and is in good condition. The only problem he could see was for a fire truck to turn around and he has made the suggestion of a tee type turn around, or the use of a circular drive to accommodate emergency vehicles, which would improve the overall function of the road. He said that the drainage works and everything drains below Fosdick into the wetland area. He feels the road is safe and there is room for an emergency vehicle to pass if a vehicle was broken down on the road.
Greg Elliott stated he is here not as the applicant's attorney but at the applicants' request as the former Director of Community Development. He said the ZBA has addressed this issue in the past and thought "Pop" was the correct name [of the petition]. When the ordinance was written, it was recognized that it would not be tenable to try to determinate at some future date what a road classification should be. It was determined there would be two classes of roads. Class A and Class B with "B" being gravel and "A" an asphalt road. The principle determination was based on the number of lots that would use the road. If five or less, the road would be Class B and if more then five, then a Class A road. This was written, at the time, so the Zoning Administrator, in reviewing the plan, and in light of the zoning district that was in place, would make a determination of how many lots would be served by the road.
-
Elliot stated that this is a land locked parcel and you can not build on a lot unless you pave or bring the road up to today's standards. He said the lot is not non-conforming; just the road. At the time the road was built; it was legal. He said prior to 1988 there were no Township standards for private roads. If someone wanted to build a private road, you could get a driveway permit from the [WC]RC and the builder of this road did. He stated that "as long as the road didn’t change, in terms of the amount of property that it accessed, or as long as the zoning along that road didn't change so that now more lots were possible, then [access to the existing road] had been previously allowed, then that was a non-conforming road. It could continue to function in its current alignment and do what it did –provide access to all the property along it for so long as those conditions were made". In the past there was time if someone wanted to extend the road and this happened with the "Pop" case. If the rules were applied, Greenhills would have been required to be a Class A road. He said that in the past the ZBA ruled that " if a non-conforming road exists in its current alignment and as long as nothing changes along its boundaries but if it is extended; then the current rules apply". Now if you are building a new segment of road, the current rules apply. He continued, referring to the Greenhills Road that adding more pavement at the end would not make the road any safer then it is/was. The point being that, at the time, the ZBA accepted the premise that non-conforming roads can continue to exist and continue to serve the properties along them as long as it is not physically extended. He said he told the applicant that when he was still here our policy would allow him to build. He was not aware that a building permit was issued and thought it is outrageous the applicant is here. Mr. Elliott said that when he was with the Township, that if the road was not physically extended, the lots were allowed to be built.
Member Resha asked what year the road was built.
Tom Curran replied 1971.
Member Grosshans asked how many lots were originally on the road.
Members and applicant discussed the location of the lots, stating there were five lots.
Bob Spaying related and confirmed past history of the parcels in question. After previous splits the original owners still own a 1.5 acre parcel that is a buildable site. He also said one of the reasons nothing has been done on the lot is because of the question concerning the status of the road. He said you should be able to "grandfather" the construction of the road if you're not extending it. He asked the Members to take all information into consideration before granting the variance.
Tom Curran stated there are five "buildable lots" and when the Access to Public Roads was written the intention was for all Class A roads.
Zoning Administrator Spencer reviewed his report stating that this parcel does not adjoin a public road, that this street is not a public road and that the Washtenaw County has control of all public roads in Pittsfield Township. He further stated the Township Board has never approved the design or construction of this road and did not assign it a name. There was a right-of-way created in 1971 but a right-of-way is not a street. He said that two homes were constructed (1971 and 1972) on the easement according to Assessing records. He also said in 1988 or 1989 the Township amended the Zoning Ordinance (#88-157) to include private road standards and if a road served more than one lot no building permits would be issued until the road access was constructed to the Township standards and approved by the Township. He further said before the Land Division Ordinance (1997) the Township had no formal ordinance for approving or denying land divisions and that this parcel was split into several parcels. Then he said in 1996 the applicant acquired access through the front two lots from the adjoining property owners by agreeing to pave the driveway. He noted there were building permits issued in 1996, one house was built and the other permit has since expired. He also said the property owner has no vested right to build without complying with the Zoning Ordinance but a building permit would be approved after a private road has been constructed to Township standards.
Tom Curran stated there is a warranty deed dated October1971 that the right-of-way is public easement and anyone can use it.
Zoning Administrator Spencer said that this is a private easement and in his opinion this is a private driveway.
Tom Curran said that there is nothing in the records that said a street has to have a name and suggested record keeping within the Township was less then ideal during the early 1970's to keep proper records.
Zoning Administrator Spencer said there are a few things that are in common with all private roads approved in/by the Township. He used Greenhills, as an example, stating there is a recorded maintenance agreement in place, a requirement for a private road, and there are by-laws for the maintenance of the road. He stated he has not seen any evidence of any agreement for this driveway.
Tom Curran stated there was a maintenance agreement between Vila, Sniderman, and another unnamed person. He also said the agreement was not written in a public nature.
Zoning Administrator Spencer said that he has not seen one. He also asked Mr. Curran who maintains the road.
Tom Curran stated he imagined the people who lived on the road and that they have an agreement between themselves. Zoning Administrator Spencer stated he has not seen any recorded documents. He did note he has seen an unrecorded document granting access to the northern property but not a recorded document. He also stated that at this time he was not saying this should be an asphalt road or that the Township will require the road to be asphalt. He further said that going to the Washtenaw County Road Commission, for a cost estimate, was not appropriate since there has not been a design or engineering to complete the road. He also expressed concern for the safety of the road and use by the Fire Department and maintenance of the road for emergency access. He also commented concerning the comments pertaining to Mr. Pascoe and the discussions he had with him. He said Mr. Pascoe had called him about the property and stated he relayed facts concerning the road.
Member Resha asked how wide this road was currently is.
Zoning Administrator Spencer stated it was 12 feet wide.
Member Resha stated with the weight of a fire truck you could not have a fire truck on this road. He also asked about the 66 foot right-of-way stated in the warranty deed.
Tom Curran stated the base was good and likely could have supported 24 foot but they paved only 12 feet.
Member Resha said that the road [from the 1970 Ordinance] "…should be at least 66 feet wide unless the lesser width was duly established" and if it states that it should be paved. He then asked what the standard road width was.
Tom Curran stated that 24 feet is the acceptable width of a two lane highway and the rest is for easements. He also said if this was not approved, why Mr. Vila would make this 66 feet wide then. He speculated approval was given by the Township if the road was 66 feet wide.
Ken Brostrom stated that the Standards in the Ordinances are established for public safety reasons and in his opinion this is a driveway. He said at one time it was a gravel driveway and now it is an asphalt driveway and does not seem to be a safe roadway for the residents.
Tom Curran stated this type of road is all over the Township and felt Pittsfield, as a whole, is a very safe Township. He said there is a hard pack area to turn around, if necessary.
Ken Brostrom asked for clarification as to whether this road has to be asphalt.
Zoning Administrator Spencer said no; it serves five lots or less, it would not have to be paved. Ken Brostrom expressed his concern for a wetland in the area that the road currently "skirts" and wondered if it would be safe if a fire truck was there.
Tom Curran said currently the wetland was not very wet and there is a culvert. He suggested adding eight feet of gravel to the sides to improve the road as a less expensive option.
Member Naik asked if the engineer was proposing to design the road for drainage and safety.
Tom Curran stated what he [the engineer] was proposing is to design a "turnaround" for the fire trucks.
Member Naik asked Mr. Curran if he was proposing only a turnaround for the fire truck.
Tom Curran replied yes.
Member Naik stated he felt there is more involved including a grading issue.
Lee Jasinski, part owner of property, said that originally this was a dirt road. We have talked with the neighbors and made this a safer road. He said one of the wives did not approve and the driveways were paved. He also said this is for only one lot; we are not building a whole subdivision.
Ken Brostrom asked if there have been discussions about the kind of improvements that would need to be made and who gave the estimate for the road improvements.
Tom Curran said he asked the [Vern Dumbeck of the] Washtenaw County Road Commission what the cost of building the road with a cul-de-sac was and was told approximately $160,000. He had thought it would be approximately $80,000.
Zoning Administrator Spencer asked if it was 1,000 feet going back to the last parcel and also said he did not have enough information to determine what improvements would be needed on this road. He further said the applicant has not approached the Township about requesting a variance of the road standard, which could be considered. He continued by saying private roads are usually engineered and that the Washtenaw County Drain Commissioner would be asked to approve the drainage. He also said other safety factors did not just include fire trucks but larger vehicles being able to pass along with the affects of winter weather on the road.
Tom Curran stated he was looking for a $5,000 road improvement but with the suggestions being made, it would add time and money to do this improvement.
Ken Brostrom asked if parcel C [ten acres owned by Mr. Curran that fronts on the access and Fosdick Road] was landlocked.
Tom Curran showed the Board where access was available from Fosdick Road but said this lot was not part of the issue.
Ken Brostrom asked if there are six lots on this driveway.
Tom Curran replied there are five acceptable building sites.
Member Naik requested a motion.
Motion by Member Brostrom, supported by Member Grosshans to affirm the decision of the Zoning Administrator, concerning ZBA 03-6 Curran/7465 Fosdick Road.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
Yes: Resha, Grosshans, Brostrom and Naik
No: Stagg
Absent: none
MOTION CARRIED (decision stands)
7.0 Zoning Administrator’s Report
None.
8.0 Member's Report
None.
-
Secretary’s Report
None.
10.0 Chairperson’s Report
-
11.0 Approval of Prior Minutes
11.1 Minutes of February 26, 2003
Motion by Member Resha, supported by Member Staff, to approve the minutes of February 26, 2003.
MOTION CARRIED
11.2 Minutes of March 19, 2003
Motion by Member Resha, supported by Member Brostrom, to approve the minutes of March 19, 2003, as corrected.
MOTION CARRIED
12.0 Adjournment
Motion by Member Resha, supported by Member Grosshans, to adjourn the meeting.
MOTION CARRIED.
Chairperson Naik adjourned the meeting at 847 p.m.
________________________________________________________________________ s/Alayna Stagg, Secretary July 28, 2003
