REGULAR MEETING October 27, 2003 6:30 P.M.
PITTSFIELD TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES Members Present: Robert Grosshans, Edward Resha, Ishwar Naik (arrived at 6:43 p.m.), Alayna Stagg and Kenneth Brostrom.
Members Absent: None.
Others Present: Steve Leitz, Hanna Kandah, Scott Klaassen, Zoning Administrator Mark Spencer and Marge Burkheiser, Recording Secretary.
1.0 Call Meeting to Order/Determination of a Quorum
Vice-Chairperson Grosshans called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. He noted that Member Naik would be late. A quorum was present.
2.0 Approval of Agenda
Motion by Member Resha, supported by Member Stagg, to approve the agenda, as submitted.
MOTION CARRIED
3.0 Communications and Announcements
None.
4.0 Items from the Floor
None.
5.0 Old Business
5.1 ZBA 03-07 Hanna Kandah [submitted for variance to providing access required in Section 56.05]
Vice Chairperson Grosshans and Member Stagg both explained to the applicant that with four members present, three votes would be needed for approval.
-
Kandah stated he understood and requested the Board to proceed. He stated he felt all the requirements have been met and the Home Owners Association has met and agreed to widen the road to 24 feet, along with providing the additional funds needed to complete the project. He also said the Fire Department has visited the site and approved of the improvements. He further said he would like to receive approval for the variance.
Steve Leitz, resident of Timberview and representing the Home Owners Association, stated he was aware of the site visit by the Zoning Administrator and Township Fire Marshal. He said he agreed with the requested additional work. He also said the road will be repaired to 24 feet wide and the Association is prepared to proceed. He further said the balance of the funds, to cover the cost, have been collected.
Member Resha inquired if a contract has been signed.
Steve Leitz stated not yet; but they would finalize and sign very soon. He also said the work will take about seven days to complete and should be done before November 20th [2003] .
Zoning Administrator Spencer stated Staff, along with the Fire Marshal, have investigated the area and found the turn around is adequate. He said the Fire Marshal is happy with the improvements being made.
Member Grosshans stated at the last meeting discussion concerned the turning circle.
Zoning Administrator Spencer replied yes; typically a turning circle is the standard but “tees” are acceptable. He said Staff would inspect the area when the road is done. He also said it was possible a Soil Erosion Permit (SEC) may be required.
Motion by Member Resha, supported by Member Brostrom, to grant a variance [ZBA 03-07 Hanna Kandah] to Section 56.05C. for parcel no. L-12-34-200-044 to permit the applicant to receive a building permit for a single family home on parcel no. L-12-34-200-044 provided that all other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance are met with the following conditions:
-
Receipt of a copy of a signed contract to improve South Greenhills Drive from the south line of Timberview Subdivision to the “T” turn- around as depicted in the cost estimate from Lukas Land Levelers, Inc., dated September 22, 2003.
-
No Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued until all the above road improvements are completed and verified by the Township Zoning Administrator.
Vice-Chairperson Grosshans read the Findings:
The following is a review of Section 60.04 paragraph B. “Prior to granting a variance the Board of Appeals shall make findings that the following requirements have been met by the applicant for the variance.”
-
The Board must determine if adhering to Section 56.05 D. requiring access on a Class A approved road is burdensome.
The Members answered yes.
-
The Board must decide if granting this variance would do substantial justice to the applicant and other property owners.
The Members answered yes.
-
The Board must determine that their plight is due to the unique circumstance of the property.
The Members answered yes.
-
The Board must decide if the problem is self-created.
The Members answered yes.
-
The Board must not consider other non-conforming uses as grounds for granting this variance.
The Members answered they did not.
-
The Board must decide if granting this variance is in the spirit of the ordinance.
The Members answered yes.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Yes: Resha, Stagg, Brostrom, Grosshans No: None Absent: None Abstain: Naik
MOTION CARRIED (approved)
Vice-Chairperson Grosshans noted Chairperson Naik was present and turned the meeting over to him along with the passing of the gravel.
6.0 New Business
6.1 ZBA 03-09 Nafeth Issa, 2923 Dalton [submitted for a front yard setback to allow construction of a larger garage]
Gamil Issa stated he was the son of the applicant.
Richard Morgan, stated he is a friend of the family and a representative of the RAL Construction Company of Ann Arbor. He said he was originally contacted by the family when the problems started. He stated this project was started without a building permit, and he informed the Issa family they would need to follow the request of the Township to correct the situation. He also said he thought the fines have been paid. He further said the neighbors were polled to see if they objected to the current project [and presented the petition to the Board].
Member Resha asked if more construction was being done other then the work on the garage.
Richard Morgan (while consulting with Gamil Issa) replied no, the project has been “red tagged” because there was not a building permit, and it was not in compliance with zoning. He said the project is approximately 80% complete and if this is not approved they may have to tear the addition down.
Member Resha inquired as to who is doing the construction work.
Gamil Issa replied a couple of friends were doing the work.
Member Grosshans inquired if these people were licensed to do the work.
Richard Morgan replied it was a couple of guys who also had other jobs.
Member Grosshans asked if this is a two story house.
Richard Morgan gave description of the house and stated the garage was not built deep enough to park a full size car.
Discussion continued concerning the size of the garage and the size of cars that are being parked.
Zoning Administrator Spencer stated typically the Township will allow a one-foot roof over hang which is not included in the setbacks. He said the encroachment is 5 feet into the setback. He also said that when the original addition and garage were built, the garage was a large open space and a wall was installed and approved by the Building Department. He said the Building Official, at that time, felt there was sufficient room and a zoning clearance was not required, at that time.
Member Brostrom stated he was confused by the paperwork submitted by the applicant stating the garage was not built to the specifications of the submitted plan. He then asked if the garage was built to these specifications, the [inside of the] garage would be five feet longer and then the garage would not need to be expanded.
Richard Morgan stated that the wall created a sort of sitting room that led to the upstairs apartment.
Member Brostrom asked Mr. Morgan if the appeal was due to an error in construction of the garage.
Richard Morgan replied that this was an error because the garage was not built deep enough. He said the wall was always intended to be there. He said the person who built the garage did not apply for a variance.
Zoning Administrator Spencer stated even if the garage expansion was allowed, they would be violating a deed restriction on the property. He then asked if there is an upstairs apartment and more then one family living in the house. He noted these lots are zoned for single family occupancy with a single kitchen.
Gamil Issa stated his sister visited and stayed one month (including her husband and four children). He also said he has four sisters and they come to visit often, but do not live at the house.
Zoning Administrator Spencer reminded Mr. Issa this is a single family house and there should be only one kitchen for the whole house.
Member Grosshans asked if there were garage doors.
Richard Morgan replied there are garage doors.
Member Stagg questioned how far the additional room extended behind the garage.
Richard Morgan replied the room is approximately 20 feet behind the garage.
Gamil Issa stated that in order to enter the upstairs in the garage apartment, you need to go though the garage and outside to get there.
Members, Staff and Richard Morgan discussed the drawings, location of the wall, stairs and possible solutions to resolve.
Member Brostrom stated he had a problem with this being a self created problem.
Motion by Member Brostrom, supported by Member Grosshans, concerning ZBA 03-09 Nafeth Issa, 2923 Dalton, move to refuse the motion for a variance, a motion to deny.
Member Grosshans questioned if this was a motion to approve.
Zoning Administrator Spencer replied no.
Amended motion:
Motion by Member Brostrom, supported by Member Grosshans, to approve the variance for ZBA 03-09 Nafeth Issa, 2923 Dalton.
Discussion:
Richard Morgan replying to Member Resha stated the garage was a standard garage size and gave general garage sizes. He stated an addition was built was two years ago and asked why something was not done then.
Zoning Administrator Spencer stated the Building Official/inspector can make a “field decision” for something that does not show up on the approved plans. He also noted a Certificate of Occupancy would not be issued if they felt the building was not safe.
Richard Morgan stated he thought the wall was a weight bearing wall.
Zoning Administrator Spencer stated he did not believe so and that it was just a partition.
Richard Morgan stated he knew the Issa family has had many problems with the contractor two years ago.
Member Resha questioned if there was an error made in the construction of the garage, there should be prints and whether it was built according to the prints.
Zoning Administrator Spencer stated the Building Department determined the building was still built to code. He also said structural changes had been made a revised set of plans would be required.
Member Stagg asked how about the length of the garage now and inquired if the request is to extend the garage to 23 feet
Richard Morgan replied 18 feet and yes. Zoning Administrator Spencer offered the suggestion to postpone the meeting and to invite the Building Official to attend and state what happened.
Chairperson Naik read the Findings:
The following is a review of Section 60.04 paragraph B. “Prior to granting a variance the Board of Appeals shall make findings that the following requirements have been met by the applicant for the variance.”
-
The Board must determine if adhering to Section 21.04 E is burdensome.
A majority of the members answered no.
-
The Board must decide if granting this variance would do substantial justice to the applicant and other property owners.
A majority of the members answered no.
-
The Board must decide that their plight is due to the unique circumstance of the property.
All the members answered no.
-
The Board must decide if the problem is self-created.
All the members answered yes.
-
The Board must not consider other non-conforming uses as grounds for granting this variance.
The Members answered they did not.
-
The Board must decide if granting this variance is in the spirit of the ordinance.
A majority of the members answered no.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Yes: None No: Resha, Stagg, Naik, Brostrom, Grosshans Absent: None Abstain: None
MOTION FAILED (Variance Denied.) 6.2 ZBA 03-10 Crane Court Development LLC – Scott Klaassen [submitted for variance to providing access required in Section 56.05]
Scott Klaassen, member of Crane Court Development and owner of the property, stated he was requesting a variance for a private road. He said currently Crane Court has nine lots and this is a non conforming road. He said that after further investigation he found the road cost were twice of what he had previously been led to believe. He said there are three houses that have access to Crane Court and is an "L" shaped gravel road with a cul-de-sac at the end. He further stated he knew a Class “A” road would have to be constructed. He also said he was led to believe that he would be able to construct one home before the road was constructed. He continued by asking to be allowed to build and sell a house to cover the cost of the road. He also stated he did not feel adding an additional house would increase the burden in the area.
Member Grosshans asked if he was putting in a Class “B” road.
Scott Klaassen replied no; this would be a Class “A” road.
Member Grosshans asked if this request was before the Board about two years ago.
Zoning Administrator Spencer replied yes.
Scott Klaassen stated he has since purchased the property. He stated that his time line is to finish by the summer of 2004.
Zoning Administrator Spencer noted for Members and Staff that a letter was received from Nghiep Le of 4700 Crane Court.
Member Grosshans inquired if there is a maintenance agreement for the road.
Zoning Administrator Spencer stated he has not seen a maintenance agreement but said there will have to be one in place for the road.
Member Grosshans asked what would happen if the house is built and the road was not built and then you sold the property.
Scott Klaassen said the other lots would become unbuildable. He also said he was not sure if there is insurance to complete the project.
Member Resha asked if it was possible to have a bond posted to insure that the road is done.
Zoning Administrator Spencer stated the ZBA could attach conditions to their approval.
Member Resha stated he would like to see a bond for protection to the township.
Motion by Member Resha, to table and to give Staff time get the information needed to be satisfactory.
Discussion:
Zoning Administrator Spencer suggested that one condition of approval to receive a Certificate of Occupancy could be a time limit for completion of the road.
Member Resha stated he would like a time limit to see that this project is completed.
Scott Klaassen stated he felt the design is pretty sound and the details are minor and have been addressed.
Member Resha suggested adding a one year maximum to finish the road or lose the bond.
Member Grosshans commented the asphalt could not be laid after next month [November 20, 2003], due to the weather.
Scott Klaassen stated he would not like to be held to a one year completion date; if something happened, he would lose the bond.
Member Resha asked Mr. Klaassen what he would consider a reasonable time period before forfeiting his bond.
Scott Klaassen replied he thought 18 months would be adequate before forfeiting the bond.
Zoning Administrator Spencer suggested to the Members the applicant could return prior to forfeiting the bond, if the road was not finished.
Member Brostrom stated he would agree to a year with the possibility of returning for an extension if necessary.
Chairperson Naik stated the above motion dies, due to lack of support.
Motion by Member Resha, supported by Member Grosshans to grant a variance [for ZBA 03-10 Crane Court Development] to allow a Certificate of Occupancy for a single family home on parcel L-12-25-100-030, with the following conditions:
-
A financial security acceptable to the Township is posted to build a “Class A” road to service the lot. 2. The cost estimate for the above road must be approved by the Township Engineer. 3. The developer/applicant provides a signed statement agreeing to build a “Class A” road within one year of the issuance of a building permit for the above parcel. 4. The developer/applicant must get approval to extend the one year time period to build the road from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Chairperson Naik read the findings.
The following is a review of Section 60.04 paragraph B. “Prior to granting a variance the Board of Appeals shall make findings that the following requirements have been met by the applicant for the variance.”
-
The Board must determine if adhering to Section 56.05 D. requiring access on an approved road is burdensome.
The Members answered yes.
-
The Board must decide if granting this variance would do substantial justice to the applicant and other property owners.
The Members answered yes.
-
The Board must determine that their plight is due to the unique circumstance of the property.
The Members answered no.
-
The Board must decide if the problem is self-created.
The Members answered no.
-
The Board must not consider other non-conforming uses as grounds for granting this variance.
The Members answered they did not.
-
The Board must decide if granting this variance is in the spirit of the ordinance.
The Members answered yes.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Yes: Resha, Stagg, Naik, Brostrom, Grosshans No: None Absent: None Abstain: None
MOTION CARRIED (approved)
7.0 Zoning Administrator’s Report
None.
8.0 Member’s Report
None.
-
Secretary’s Report
None.
10.0 Chairperson’s Report
None.
11.0 Approval of Prior Minutes
11.1 Minutes of October 13, 2003
Motion by Member Resha, supported by Member Brostrom, to approve the minutes of October 13, 2003, as corrected.
MOTION CARRIED
12.0 Adjournment
Chairperson Naik adjourned the meeting at 8:19 p. m.
Alayna Stagg, Secretary Approved February 25, 2004
