REGULAR MEETING                                  March 29, 2004                                       6:30 P.M.

_____________________________________________________________________________

 

PITTSFIELD TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES

______________________________________________________________________________

Members Present:                  Robert Grosshans (arrived at 8:10 p.m.), Edward Resha, Ishwar Naik, Alayna Stagg and Kenneth Brostrom.

 

Members Absent:                   None.

 

Others Present:                       Todd Quatro, Jerry Rusinski , Bruce Laidlaw, Robert Jacobs, Jon Caterino, Scott Jacobson, William Anderson, Rod Arroyo, Assistant Planner Paul Montagno, Assistant Planner Jennifer Black, Zoning Administrator Mark Spencer, Marge Burkheiser Recording Secretary, and others who did not sign in.

 

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 Stagg, to approve and move 6.1 of   Old Business to follow   5.1 of New Business; due to the fact they (the applicant) will         not be here until later.

 

            Discussion:

 

            Chairperson Naik noted the item of Old Business would begin following the New          Business as agreed at the last meeting (March 22, 2004).

 

            MOTION CARRIED

 

3.0        Communications and Announcements

 

            None.

 

4.0        Items from the Floor

 

None.

 

5.0        Old Business

 

5.1        ZBA 02-07 Arbor Oaks

            [submitted for court ordered rehearing for a use variance R-1A to R-1B]

 

            Moved to follow 6.1 of New Business.

 

6.0               New Business

 

            6.1        ZBA 04-01 Todd Quatro (State Petro Mart)

                        [submitted to request a variance for the rear yard set back and to permit parking                                    and drives in the required setbacks]

           

Moved to before Old Business 5.1.

 

Chairperson Naik introduced the item and explained that the Board was short one member and thus there was the possibility of a tie vote. He then asked whether the applicant would like to proceed.

 

Todd Quatro, representing the applicant, stated he would like to proceed.

 

Todd Quatro, of T. S. Quatro Co., stated new owners recently purchased this property.   He said the commercial business next door [the glass company on the same property] is talking about moving.   He said they would like to move the building back to gain better mobility on the site, and build a car wash as an auxiliary use.   He said some of the parking encroached into the setback from State Circle and there is no green space between the parking lots and the buildings.   He said they are proposing a brick garden type wall between the parking areas with a concrete or limestone cap.   He said the building would be wood framed with brick veneer, which he felt would enhance the appearance on both State Street and State Circle.   He said the building would have a hip roof to match the current style.   He said they would like to have a different roof line.   The applicant provided photos of suggested roof lines recently completed in other areas.   He said they will be moving the entrance a little further from the intersection and closing one entrance from State Circle.   He said there will be a stormwater management system with storage on site and they will comply with all stormwater regulations.   He noted that currently the stormwater drains into the street.   He also noted that currently there is no restriction for the stormwater coming off the site.

 

Member Brostrom asked if the brick wall runs along the back of the rear property line.

 

Mr. Quatro showed and explained the wall on the site drawings.   He said they were       proposing a three foot high wall.

 

Member Resha asked if they were taking the wall all the way to the end of the property.

 

Mr. Quatro replied the wall will go to the building and the building would be part of        the wall.

 

Member Resha asked about the spacing between the building and wall and said he would          still like to see a wall in the rear of the property to separate the properties.

 

Mr. Quatro stated they want to bring the site into compliance with the zoning ordinance,             as much as possible.

 

Member Resha asked if the applicant has contacted the carpet store and told them this would be on the property line.

 

Mr. Quatro stated they have not.

 

Member Resha said both the drive into carwash and the building appear to be right on   the property line.

 

Mr. Quatro said that is correct.   He said the middle area is where the forebay retention pond would be.

 

Member Brostrom stated that with the one foot setback, he was concerned about the tight         turn coming out of the carwash and the possible damage to vehicles.

 

Mr. Quatro said they have tried to have an extra wide lane (15 feet) with adequate        stacking for the car wash.

 

Member Resha asked the applicant if they were proposing to close the entrance on State           Circle and put in parking spaces.

 

Mr. Quatro replied yes.   He said there currently is not much traffic on State Circle.

 

Member Resha wanted to know if this would meet the Township’s access management             plan.

 

Mr. Quatro replied he checked and the proposed changes complied with the plan.

 

Chairperson Naik asked about not being able to turn left onto State Street.

 

Mr. Quatro said he could post no left turn signs but enforcement would be a problem.     He said he felt this was one of those sites where things are better as is.   He said they            have increased the landscaped areas in the front, and in the areas they felt were important.

 

Chairperson Naik asked what the difference between 1 foot and 10 feet would be, referring to the distance between the buildings.

 

Mr. Quatro said it was mainly for moveability in the middle of the site.

 

Member Resha said he did not see the underground gas tanks shown on the plans.

 

Mr. Quatro stated the tanks are old and would be replaced with new tanks.

Member Resha asked how delivery trucks would get into the site without blocking traffic.

 

Mr. Quatro said the trucks would likely be in the front area and they would arrange to   have night drops, which would be between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m.

 

Mr. Quatro and Member Resha briefly discussed mobility of trucks on the site.

 

Member Brostrom asked if the entrances and exits to State Circle will be closed.

 

Mr. Quatro replied that currently there are two entrances off State Circle and they would           be closing one.

 

Zoning Administrator Spencer stated that more then one variance was being requested including: parking in the front setback along State Circle.   He said the way the Comprehensive Plan has this property listed it could be changed to C-2 (Commercial) zoning, and a zoning change could change some of the setbacks to give more room.   He said staff did not feel limiting delivery trucks to night time was a reasonable solution.   He said the Planning Commission has not allowed parallel parking in the front yard setbacks.   He noted that everything from the driveway to the canopy is the parallel driveway and is located in the front yard setback.   He also said the applicant is requesting an impervious ratio that is greater than that permitted for the district.   He also said the site did not meet access management requirements, but felt this was an improvement that would be addressed by the Planning Commission.   He said the roof design is also a Planning Commission issue.   He said in staff's opinion something better could be designed.   He said staff thought something could be done to provide a buffer to the neighboring property.   He said this site is very tight for everything that is being proposed.

 

Member Resha asked if there was a retention pond on the site now.

 

Zoning Administrator Spencer replied no, the site was probably originally developed in the [19]50’s.

 

Chairperson Naik said he had a question concerning point number 3 of the Zoning         Variance report about reducing the setbacks, and requested Mr. Spencer's opinion      concerning them.

 

Zoning Administrator Spencer stated that he reviews a site for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.   He said the setbacks are designed to create green area and a separation of use.   He said that usually when someone is coming and asking for more impervious surface, they are looking for a higher return from their property.

 

Chairperson Naik asked if there currently is only a gas station on the site.

 

Mr. Quatro said there is a gas station and 4,000 square feet of retail area.   He said they would be reducing the retail space on the site.   He said the underground detention system would cost about $110,000.   The cost of development is continually increasing due to new regulations.   He did note currently there is no green space on the site.

 

Chairperson Naik asked Mr. Quatro if he agreed the site is becoming intense due to the             car wash and is increasing the impervious area significantly.

 

Mr. Quatro said the current tenant has a five year lease and would like to leave.   He said           the building is currently in the setback.   He said the owner would like to demolish the   building and start over instead of remodeling the current site.

 

Zoning Administrator Spencer asked Mr. Quatro which building was in the setback.

 

Mr. Quatro said the existing gas station was in the setback.

 

Zoning Administrator Spencer said the building is encroaching a small amount into the    setback.

 

Mr. Quatro said he thought the encroachment was about 8 feet.

 

Member Resha asked if the building or the canopy was encroaching into the setback.

 

Zoning Administrator Spencer noted the canopy and one pump encroached into the       setback.

 

Mr. Quatro said he calculated they could have more      building on the site, but would not          have enough room for parking.

 

Member Brostrom said it appeared there was not much space for the cars to queue up for the car wash, without blocking traffic on State Street.

 

Mr. Quatro said the cars enter the car wash from the rear with room for stacking of 11 cars and exit onto State Street.

 

Members and Mr. Quatro briefly discussed the traffic direction on the site.

 

Member Brostrom said the entrance/exit off State Road is problematic with the heavy    traffic from I-94.

 

Zoning Administrator Spencer stated this did meet access management requirements for the distance from the intersection of I-94.   If the intensity increases there could be more problems.   He said the roads are under the jurisdiction of the City of Ann Arbor and the Township would probably defer to them on the access points issue.   He said Staff would prefer access off of State Circle only.

 

Member Resha asked about eliminating the entrances from State Street.

 

Zoning Administrator Spencer replied this would be the preference of Staff.

 

Mr. Quatro said that would be disastrous and that in this case, the applicant would keep the project as it is.   He said BP felt that closing the entrances would cut volume by 70%.   He said when an entrance is inconvenient, people will drive an additional block.

 

Members and Staff briefly discussed peak business hours, parking problems, and the problems of trying to enter and exit the site.

 

Zoning Administrator Spencer stated that access management would be a Planning Commission issue and the criteria in the Ordinance would have to be met.   He said the applicant may have to present a traffic study.

 

Mr. Quatro stated he was aware they would be going to the Planning Commission, and if the car wash was determined to be an excessive use, the car wash would be removed.   He said they would have to meet the requirements of the Planning Commission.

 

Zoning Administrator Spencer noted the members the Planning Commission would have some flexibility on this matter since this was an existing site.

 

Member Resha questioned if this petition is premature before the site plan.

 

Zoning Administrator Spencer stated not really.   He said the variances would have to be approved before the site plan would be considered [by the Planning Commission].

 

Member Resha asked for clarification: was the Board considering two variance requests.

 

Mr. Quatro and Mr. Spencer replied there were three (3) requests being made.

 

Member Stagg stated the variances are to reduce the rear setback from 35 feet to 1 foot for the building, to allow 3 parking spaces in the front setback along State Circle and to allow the car wash drive to be less than 10 feet from the north property line.

 

Zoning Administrator Spencer replied that was correct and he noted for the members that the Planning Commission typically did not approve parallel driveways on a site.

 

Member Brostrom asked about the current location of the glass store on the site plan.

 

Mr. Quatro explained the location and where the car wash would be located.

 

Member Brostrom asked if the owners have said they will make more from having the car wash.

 

Mr. Quatro said the lot is odd shaped and they are trying to utilize the area with a car wash.   He said he was trying to do something to improve the view on State Street and State Circle and noted that a ten (10) foot greenbelt in the rear would not be seen.   He said everything on the site is outdated, the site is old and he would like to do something different.  

 

The Members discussed the setbacks from State Street and State Circle.

 

Zoning Administrator Spencer said the applicant could reduce the lot coverage by reducing the building size, and the minimum radius should be 35 feet in the entrance drives.

 

Jerry Rusinski, owner of property behind the site, Ann Arbor Carpets at 553 State Circle, stated he had not seen the plans for this site and would like to see what was being proposed.   He asked about details for the fence, stating he would not like the fence to block his view of the area.

 

Zoning Administrator Spencer stated the fence would be 4 feet high and along the property line.

 

Mr. Quatro showed Mr. Rusinski the plan and explained the site plan briefly.

 

Chairperson Naik asked Mr. Rusinski how he heard about this hearing.

 

Mr. Rusinski said he found out when he received notice of the Zoning Board public hearing.

 

Zoning Administrator Spencer explained the notification process and noted the plans are always available for review.   He suggested the Board allow Mr. Rusinski a brief time to review and provide additional comments.

 

Mr. Rusinski stated his concern with the square footage of the building and said he would like to see the smallest square footage possible.

 

Member Stagg suggested that since there are five (5) variances being requested, she would like to give the applicant time to re-design the site without the need for so many variances. [Upon review the Zoning Administrator discovered that two additional variances would be required].

 

Mr. Quatro said that even if the car wash was removed they would still need all the variances being requested.   He also said State Circle is more like a driveway not a major point of entry.

 

Zoning Administrator Spencer said staff felt the site could be redesigned, and the setback issues could be eliminated by removing the car wash.   He suggested an “L” shape building could be put in the corner and the pumps would still face State Street.

Mr. Quatro said this may be possible, but he felt that it would be a long walk from the vehicles to the store if the building was in the rear corner.

 

Zoning Administrator Spencer stated there are many stations with this distance to the building.

 

Mr. Quarto said he agreed but felt that this would be a problem.   He said that some other options were to leave it as it is; remodel the station, and keep the parking.

 

Zoning Administrator Spencer said if remodeling cost is more than 50% of the value of the structure, the applicant would need a variance to remodel.

 

Mr. Rusinski said he had a problem with the square footage going over what is allowed.   He said he would like it to be what it should be.

 

Zoning Administrator Spencer noted that only the impervious surface is over the allowed lot coverage.

 

Chairperson Naik asked Mr. Rusinski what he thought about the zero setback proposed for the rear of the property.

 

Mr. Rusinski stated the wall would not bother him.   He said he felt it would help to prevent cars from crossing onto his property, which is happening.   He said the visibility would be fine.   He also noted the area has junk on it now and this would be better.

 

Zoning Administrator Spencer noted that the Planning Commission has been asking for cross connection to sites so that people would not have to go onto the street to get access [to neighboring properties].

 

Member Resha also noted that many of the businesses in the area use the station to get gas.

 

Member Brostrom said he felt the responsibility of the ZBA, where possible, is to protect the requirements of the ordinance and not to set precedents that the Township would suffer from for many years to come.   He felt there must be other solutions without granting this number of variances.

 

Member Resha asked whether all the variances would be combined together or if they would be addressed individually.

 

Zoning Administrator Spencer stated they could be done either way.

 

Members, Staff and Mr. Quarto briefly discussed the turning radius of the driveways and tankers being on the site in regards to blocking traffic on State Street.

 

Motion by Member Brostrom, supported by Member Resha, to approve the variance as submitted for ZBA 04-01 [State Street Petro Mart], for a variance to reduce the required rear yard setbacks, Section 32.04 E, from 35 feet to 1 foot; to allow three parking spaces entirely in the State Circle 50 foot yard setback, a variance to Section 32.04 E and allow the carwash drive to encroach less than 10 feet from the rear property line as a variance Section 51.01 F 1.

 

Chairperson Naik read the Findings.

 

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.

 

1.                   That strict compliance with the restrictions governing area, setbacks, frontage, height, bulk or density would unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for a permitted purpose, or would render the conformity with such regulations unnecessarily burdensome.

 

Discussion:

 

Chairperson Naik stated in this case, we must determine if adhering to the yard setback requirement and allowing parking in the setback in any way prevents the owner from using the property.   We know the property is being used right now, and the proposed upgrade would cause problems that there are ways to avoid.

 

Member Stagg said the business is doing fine as it is.

 

Member Brostrom said he would agree. He also said that the lengthy discussion has indicated there are other solutions available on this property.

 

Chairperson Naik stated this would tell us the variance is not necessary.

 

All members agreed this variance is not necessary .

 

2.          That the granting of a variance would do substantial justice to the applicant        as well as to other property owners in the district, or whether a lesser             relaxation than that applied for would give substantial relief to the owner of       the property and be more consistent with justice to other property owners.

 

Discussion:

 

Member Resha said he did not see that it would affect the other property owners other than not having any space at all between properties.   He said that when you put a building on the property line, it will cause problems down the road.   He stated his concern that if someone lost control of their vehicle in the back parking lot, there would be a problem.   He said removing any type of easement in the rear is wrong.

 

Member Brostrom agreed with Member Resha and said there could be access problems for other commercial properties to the west without a direct connection to State Street.

 

Member Resha said he saw no way to create a driveway to the rear without eliminating parking on the south side of the building.

 

Chairman Naik stated the variance is not necessary.

 

All members agreed the variance is not necessary in order to do substantial justice to other property owners.

 

3.          That the plight of the applicant is due to unique circumstances of the       property and   not to general conditions in the area.

 

Discussion:

 

Member Resha said he did not see anything unique about the property, other than it is shaped irregularly and it is next to the exit and entrance of I-94.

 

Member Brostrom said he agreed.   He said that if there were no other solutions to the problem, then it would be a unique problem.

 

Member Resha said several design areas could be addressed to better accommodate the Zoning Ordinances of the Township.

 

Chairperson Naik asked the members if they all agreed that the plight of the applicant is not due to the fact that the property is unique and that better solutions are available.

 

All members agreed the property is not unique.

 

4.                   That the plight is not self-created.

 

            Discussion:

 

Member Resha said the problem is self-created.   He said this has been shown by the drawings which were provided. He said the applicant has created the violations of the ordinances.

 

Zoning Administrator Spencer said this is an existing lot and staff would suggest there are unique circumstances with the existing site conditions that are not self created.

 

Member Resha stated he disagreed with Mr. Spencer. The Board was not discussing an existing site but a proposed site.   He said the lot stood on its own feet and the Board was looking at what the applicant wants to do, not at what has been done.

 

Chairperson Naik said as much as the Board wanted to see all kinds of improvements, it was not here doing aesthetic findings, but reviewing what has been presented to them.

Chairperson Naik asked if everyone agreed that the plight was self-created.

 

All members agreed the problem was self-created.

 

5.                   That no non-conforming use of neighboring lands, structures, or buildings in the same district, and no permitted use of lands, structures or buildings in the other districts shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance.

 

            Discussion:

 

            Member Stagg said she felt the Board had not done this.

 

            Member Resha said the Board did not use anything other than what was provided.

 

Chairperson Naik said the Board had limited its discussion to this property.

 

All the members agreed they did not consider other uses.

 

6.                   That the variance observes the spirit of the Ordinance, secures public safety, and does substantial justice.

 

            Discussion:

 

Chairperson Naik asked by not granting the variance could we be putting public safety at risk.

 

            The members briefly discussed whether this would violate the ordinance.

 

Chairperson Naik restated item number six and said that granting the variance was not in the spirit of the ordinance.

 

All the members agreed that granting the variance was not in the spirit of the ordinance.

 

Chairperson Naik stated they had reviewed all the findings and that the motion was to grant the variance.

 

ROLL CALL VOTE:

Yes:                  None

No:                   Resha, Stagg, Brostrom, Naik

Absent:            Grosshans

Abstain:           None

 

VARIANCE DENIED

(denied)

 

Chairperson Naik called for a recess at 7:55 p.m. until Member Grosshans arrived.

 

Member Grosshans arrived at 8:10 p.m.

 

Item 5.1 of Old Business to follow.

 

Chairperson Naik called the meeting back to order at 8:15 p.m.

 

Mr. Jacobs asked for a moment to clear up something.   He said at the last meeting Mr. Caterino discussed three missing borings and the numbering of them.   Mr. Jacobs stated he located the missing information in his files and contacted McDowell Associates.   He said they do not change anything, and he presented [revised] copies of McDowell's report.

 

Member Resha questioned the location of the three borings on the property.

 

Member Grosshans also noted that some were misnumbered.

 

Mr. Jacobs said yes, they were numbered as three additional borings and they were all mislabeled. He explained the labeling and said if there were any questions Mr. Caterino and Mr. Anderson were available to answer them.

 

Member Grosshans asked about boring number 8, stating the report showed ground water was encountered at five (5) feet and ground water again was encountered at 17 feet.   He asked if at one point the water stopped and the soil went from wet to dry and to wet again and wondered if he was reading the report correctly.

 

Jon Caterino replied yes, it appeared there was a perched water table above the dense clay that started at 6 foot 3 inches and went to 15 feet 6 inches or so and with a water table again below it.

 

Member Grosshans asked if the borings went down to 25 feet or did they go down to 15 feet 6 inches.

 

Mr. Caterino stated the borings must have gone deeper than 15 feet 6 inches since water           was encountered at 17 feet.   He said they must have gone deeper but must have      stopped logging.

 

Member Grosshans said he was having problems with the depths.   He said the County   requires 20 foot depths, the logs show depths of 15 feet 6 inches, but water was located at 17 feet.   He said he would feel more comfortable if the reports had shown depths of 20            feet.

 

Mr. Caterino stated he did not know why they stopped the borings at 15 feet 6 inches and reported a water table at 17 feet.   He said more than likely they dug deeper and measured the deep water table at 17 feet.   He said the depths of the borings are usually measured by the number of drill links (5 feet each) that are used.

 

Member Grosshans noted the borings were done at the lower levels of the terrain and asked if that would have any impact on where water would be found.

 

Mr. Caterino said there was not much relief across the site.   He thought the site averaged about a 5 to 7 foot slope.   He said if the slopes were 20 to 30 feet across the site, that would be considered significant.   He            said if you found water in one spot, you would find a water table at most other spots of the same depth.   He noted the 20-foot rule is from the State for subdivisions and was put into effect to prevent putting sewage into the ground and polluting shallow aquifers.

 

Member Grosshans said that at the Peter’s development (CSPA 03-06 Legacy Heights) there were 43 [46] lots and a boring was done on each lot.   He noted only 10 were done on this site.

 

Mr. Caterino gave an explanation of preliminary site and soil surveys used to determine if the soils were suitable. He said the goal is to spend a reasonable amount of money to determine whether to develop a site with enough lots to succeed.   He said he felt that the borings done in this case covered the site well enough to make a determination.   He said without sanitary sewer this site will remain a cornfield.

 

Member Grosshans said at the last meeting it was stated that the borings were done in two corners of the parcel.

 

Mr. Caterino said he felt the combination of borings and test pits pretty well covered the site.

 

Zoning Administrator Spencer said the three new borings spread out the pattern a little more.   He asked what "ground water after completion" meant. Did it mean how much ground water was in the hole.

 

Mr. Caterino said it usually meant the elevation at that time.

 

Zoning Administrator Spencer asked whether "ground water after completion – none" in the report meant there was nothing in the test pit after completion.

 

Mr. Caterino replied that meant there was nothing in the test pit.   He said if Mr. Spencer was suggesting ground water in some of the holes and not in others, that would not make sense because water levels out.

 

Zoning Administrator Spencer asked if perched water aquifers were an exception to that situation, and if that was what they found in [boring] number 8.   He said that it was likely a perched water table was found at 5 feet and water was again encountered at 17 feet.

 

Mr. Caterino replied that [boring] number 8 contained extremely moist, compact brown fine sand with wet brown silt layers.   He said water does not move through that soil very quickly.   He said that if you put in a perforated tube you will find a water table approximately equal to that of boring number 9, which also has compact sand.

 

Zoning Administrator Spencer asked if this was done, and if so, then why didn't water appear in the hole.   He also noted there were still several things missing from this [revised] report [from McDowell] including surface elevation and ground water after a specified number of hours.   He said that the ground water after completion on two holes says "none."   He said that if the reports said none there was be no water in the hole.

 

Mr. Caterino said that if tubes were put in and left in, you would see water.

 

Zoning Administrator Spencer asked if this was done.

 

Mr. Caterino replied no.   He said these soils are mapped as very poorly drained.   He said that water ponds within a foot or two of the surface, and a high water table would put water on the surface.

Member Grosshans asked if perforated tubes are usually put down and allowed to sit.

 

Mr. Caterino said that in areas where people are trying to find out if any development is possible, you would do that.   He said before the County Health Department would consider on-site sewage systems, more tests would be needed.   He said that if water comes anywhere near the top of the sand layer, the County would not allow drainfields.

 

Member Resha asked if this was done at any of the holes that showed no water at the bottom.

 

Mr. Anderson, of Atwell-Hicks, stated that at the zoning request (RZ 02-09) level they had done more than what was appropriate.   He said they did test borings scattered throughout the site, and McDowell and Associates had stated this was not an appropriate site for septic fields.   He said they sent McDowell out a second time and they did 10 different borings at different depths for a more defined soil classification.   He said they also obtained a second opinion from McDowell concerning the appropriateness of this site for septic fields.   He said they obtained a second opinion from Mr. Caterino and had discussions with the County.   He said they used multiple opinions, soil maps, and topographic surveys to understand the area.   He said it was their opinion this site is not conducive to septic or engineered fields.   He stated he felt they had gone above and beyond what was appropriate for this site at this stage.

 

Member Grosshans said he was looking for information that was conclusive beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

Mr. Anderson replied you will not see it.   He said that the report is the opinion of Jon Caterino and McDowell Associates based on their evaluation of the soils and the site.   He said he did not think the site has the right type of soils for one-acre lots, especially given that utilities are available.

 

Mr. Jacobs said the burden for them is to show there is a hardship that is not of their making.   He said the soils are part of the hardship.   He said currently the hardship is that they are not served by water and sewer, and this interferes with their ability to use this property.   He said they have shown there is sewer capacity and that this hardship is not self created.   Independently retained experts from Atwell-Hicks, McDowell and Mr. Caterino have shown there is a problem and that we cannot develop the property.   He said the fact remains that sewer and water are there, they did nothing to create this problem, and they cannot get a reasonable economic return on investment.

 

Chairperson Naik said he felt that the soil issues had been discussed in detail.   He said the Board had spent at least seven hours on this matter, and he did not think it would discover any additional information.   He reviewed the amount of time in past meetings given to all parties: at the first meeting [February 25, 2004] the applicant was allowed to speak without interruption; at the second meeting [March 22, 2004] time was given to the Township Zoning Administrator and time for rebuttal by the applicant.   He said the memo from the Township attorney indicates that connection to the sewer is not within the authority of the ZBA.   He also suggested that the soil-borings issue not be discussed any further.

 

Chairperson Naik asked the members if they had any further questions.

 

There was no response.

 

Zoning Administrator Spencer suggested to the members that they could entertain new information and said that staff would like an opportunity to analyze and respond to the new information received tonight.   He also said that based on the small amount of additional information, staff still feels the soil data is inconclusive and still lacked information that would prove the applicant could not have septic systems on the site.

 

Chairperson Naik asked Mr. Spencer if there was any additional information he would like to present.

 

Zoning Administrator Spencer said he was willing to review cost estimates or address questions the Board might have, but stated he had no additional information.

 

Chairperson Naik stated the Members had a copy of a proposed motion from Mr. Laidlaw and asked if they had any questions.

 

There was no response.

 

Chairperson Naik asked Mr. Laidlaw if the reference to a sewer line in Platt Road with capacity for 126 units concerned this property.

 

Mr. Laidlaw replied that he was not saying it was available, just that it has capacity.   He was saying the sewer line can handle the effluence from the project.

 

Chairperson Naik asked the Members if there were any other questions concerning Mr. Spencer's cost analysis.

 

There was no response.

 

Chairperson Naik said the drawings from Atwell-Hicks showed 115 lots.   He said the analysis Mr. Anderson prepared was based on 35 lots and to make a 25% return on investment, each lot needed to be sold for $154,768.   He said this analysis was likely biased, and he would say the same about the ALNM analysis.   He said Mr. Laidlaw's letter and memo stated, in his opinion, that we cannot deny; this is not a choice.   He said we need to find some ratio that provides a reasonable return.

 

Zoning Administrator Spencer said he did not believe that is what Mr. Laidlaw said.

 

Member Stagg also stated she did not read Mr. Laidlaw's documents that way.

 

Chairperson Naik accepted these corrections.   He said there is more than one way to develop this property.   He said the most extreme way, with 115 lots, is totally against what the Township had in mind with the R-1A zoning; the other action would be to deny totally.   He wondered what would be a reasonable rate of return. But no one has been able to answer this, and he could not say it should be 25% or something else.   He wondered what a reasonable use of the land would be, while maintaining the general concept of the Comprehensive Plan as well as maintaining the transition between high density and rural areas.   He also said if there is capacity in the sewer, why should the applicant not be able to connect.   He wondered should there be some accounting for loss of capacity.   He said he cannot see why there should be septic tanks and wells on this property.   He said the sewer is available and the sewer has capacity, and he felt the property owner should be allowed to connect.

 

Member Resha questioned Mr. Naik's last statement about the water and sewer line.   He said no one has said they could not have the sewer connection; but they have not applied for it.   He said this point is moot; the ZBA has nothing to do with this connection since this is up to the Township Board of Trustees.  

 

Chairperson Naik stated he agreed, except the matter had arisen because the Board was dealing with R-1A which normally has septic and water.

 

Member Resha said you cannot use this point to make a judgment on the variance; it is not part of the discussion.

 

Chairperson Naik stated he agreed, but that he was expressing an opinion about whether there should be septic tanks and wells or sewer and water.   A sewer line is there.   He said the fact is the State has forced people to connect due to [septic] failure.

 

Member Brostrom stated he did not feel the Board could resolve this question tonight.   He said R-1A zoning does not prohibit or exclude the possibility of water and sewer, if necessary. But he said he was still struck by the fact that after more than 18 months, the issue has remained well and septic versus water and sewer; and not a single boring has been made since the initial borings.   He thought that instead of disputing in court and in this hearing, the applicant would have performed a few more borings to prove that water and sewer was necessary on this property, thereby convincing the Board of Trustees and the ZBA that septic systems are not viable there. But these remain open issues.   He said the Township is not trying to stop development on this property, but there are options other than R-1B density.

 

Member Stagg said we must decide if the applicant confronts an undue hardship in this situation.   She said she would agree with Mr. Brostrom that the evidence is inconclusive. There are many variables involved and both sides have stated that soils can change within 100 feet.   She said that Mr. Spencer has offered several solutions including how to divide the land and how to install septic fields, including joint septic fields. She felt that something reasonable could be worked out.

 

Chairperson Naik stated he would entertain a motion if there was no further discussion.

 

Member Stagg said there are two issues: first, whether the one-acre lots could be sold, and second, the sewer and water issue.   The Township foresees the allotted 4.5 MGD could be exceeded sometime in the future. She said that Mr. Spencer stated the State and Township have the right to interpret whether sewer and water are available, and that the sewer and water lines [on Platt Road] were originally built for the State facility that is due to increase its population by over 300 people soon.   She discussed the desirability of

one-acre lots and noted that the applicant had stated there were no unique features on the land; but there are 20 acres of woodlands and wetlands with paths on the site.   She said the freeway access has been used as an argument against R-1A density, but there are

one-acre lots nearby selling well.   She said the Comprehensive Plan states the land in question should be zoned R-1A, and a majority of people in the Township feel the Township is growing too fast and they would like to see less development, not more.    She said the Comprehensive Plan must look at the long-range good of the Township; but developers come in, build their projects, and then leave.   She said the Township feels the effects of those developments for decades to come.  

 

Chairperson Naik stated to grant a variance the Board must go though the findings and he explained the process.

 

Zoning Administrator Spencer stated that a sample resolution had been prepared by Mr. Laidlaw; it was designed to be used for or against the petition.

 

Member Grosshans asked Mr. Spencer to explain the last sentence on page two "…a variance decreasing the minimum lots size, lot width and lot depth by blank percent.”

 

Several Members stated that this could be from 0% to 250%.

 

Member Grosshans asked about half-acre lots, curbs versus ditches, and the County requirements.

 

Zoning Administrator Spencer replied that half-acre lots are the County cut-off for using curb and gutter.   He said ditches could be used for half-acre and larger lots in a subdivision.

 

Member Grosshans asked what percent would half-acre lots have to be.

 

Zoning Administrator Spencer said half-acre lots would equal a 50% reduction, or if they used clustering, it remained at 100%.   He said you could save half of the area as open space, have half-acre lots, and still not need curb and gutter.

 

Member Grosshans asked if they would have to write in 100% clustering.

 

Zoning Administrator Spencer said no; this would be an option that the developer could take later.   He said when looking at a reasonable use of a property, one of the options is clustering.

 

Member Stagg asked if clustering is an option, whether the ZBA could still say zero.

 

Zoning Administrator Spencer said yes.

 

Chairperson Naik asked Mr. Laidlaw if the ZBA has the option to limit the number of lots.

 

Mr. Laidlaw replied yes, it can place any conditions it feels are necessary to protect the neighborhood.

 

Member Brostrom asked about the form of the motion.

 

Mr. Laidlaw said the motion should be stated the affirmative and the motion should be read in its entirety.

 

Member Grosshans asked if this meant the person maki