GAINES CHARTER TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS … 2019 ZBA Agenda Packet.pdf · 8119 Hanna Lake Avenue). The approved plan showed a future accessory building would be located to

*Please note that advertised public hearings will not start before the noted time, but may start later due to the length of other agenda items. All interested persons are invited to attend and participate. Persons with disabilities needing accommodation for effective participation in the meeting should contact the Township Office at 616-698-6640 one week in advance to request mobility, visual, hearing or other assistance.

GAINES CHARTER TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS – REGULAR MEETING Township Board Room - 8555 Kalamazoo Ave. S.E. Caledonia, MI 49316

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Tentative Agenda

7:00 p.m. – Wednesday, March 13, 2019

I. Call to Order and Roll Call

II. Consideration of the Meeting Agenda

III. Consideration of Meeting Minutes Wednesday, January 9, 2019 – Regular Meeting

IV. Inquiry of Conflict of Interest

V. Advertised Public Hearing

1. 8121 Hanna Lake Avenue SE (A-R)

Dimensional variance to allow for construction of an accessory building with a 30 ft. front yard setback where a 60 ft. setback is required.

VI. General Discussion Items

VII. Other Reports

VIII. Adjournment

Agenda Item V.1 6590 College Avenue SE

Dimensional Variance from Section 20.2 (C)

Overview Dimensional variance to allow for construction of an accessory building with a 30 ft. front yard setback where a 60 ft. setback is required. Related Documents

• ZBA Application

Meeting Date: March 13, 2019 Report Date: March 6, 2019 File No. 190206JS Applicant: Jim Stegehuis Location: 8121 Hanna Lake Avenue Parcel Number: 41-22-15-400-058 Current Zoning District: A-R Agricultural-Rural Residential Proposed Request: Dimensional Variance Report Prepared By: Matt McKernan Assistant Planner

8555 Kalamazoo

Caledonia MI 49316 Phone: (616) 698-6640 Fax: (616) 698-2490

Zoning Board of Appeals

Gaines Charter Township

Proposed Acc. Bldg Location

Home Currently Under Construction

March 7, 2019 8121 Hanna Lake Avenue – Dimensional Variance

2

Property Information Size: 2.9 acres Current Zoning: A-R Agricultural-Rural Residential Master Plan Designation: Rural Residential Neighboring Land Uses & Zoning: North: Undeveloped Residential Property (A-R) South: Single-Family Home (A-R) East: Undeveloped Residential Property (A-R) West: Single-Family Home (A-R) Overview and Relevant Facts of Request In March 2017 Township Staff approved a request to split a 20 acre parcel (8125 Hanna Lake Avenue) into two 10 acre parcels. The north 10 acres were purchased by Jim Stegehuis. In October 2017, Mr. Stegehuis requested a variance to allow for a home to be built in a narrow portion of the 10 acre lot. This variance would have allowed Stegehuis to split his property into as many as 4 building sites. The Zoning Board of Appeals denied Mr. Stegehuis’ request on the grounds that it was a self-created hardship. In August 2018, the Township approved Mr. Stegehuis’ application to split his 10 acre property into 3 separate buildable parcels. In October 2018 the Township approved an application from Mr. Stegehuis to build a home on the southeast lot (8121 Hanna Lake Avenue). Mr. Stegehuis still owns and controls the other two parcels (8115 & 8119 Hanna Lake Avenue). The approved plan showed a future accessory building would be located to the southwest of the home in a location that conformed to setback requirements. In February 2019, Stegehuis permission to build his accessory building to the east of his home with a setback from the front property line of only 30 feet where a 60 foot setback is generally required. The applicant contends that the building cannot be placed in its originally planned location to the southwest of the home because it will negatively impact drainage on the property.


3

Analysis of Request; Dimensional Variance Staff has reviewed this request using the applicable review standards set forth by Chapter 26, Section 26.8 (D) of the Zoning Ordinance:

1. The variance request, if granted, will be the minimum variance (i.e., the least variation or change from the particular requirement of the Ordinance involved) that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, structure, or building involved. The 2.9 acre property is reasonably flat with many alternative locations that would be suitable for an accessory building, which would not require a dimensional variances. Additionally, the front property line could be adjusted 30 feet to the east, which would also negate the need for a variance. Therefore, it can be said that granting the variance would not be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land.

2. The granting of the variance will not be injurious or detrimental to neighboring properties or residents. The applicant has indicated that the accessory building will be used for residential storage and won’t be related to a commercial business. The accessory building would be separated from the private road that accesses the two adjoining properties by at least 80 feet.* An accessory building located between the house and the front lot line would be required to construct a Type I Buffer. Allowing an accessory building in the proposed located is not likely to be injurious or detrimental to neighboring properties or residents. *Staff Note: It appears that the applicant has built a substantial portion of the private drive outside of the access easement. This will need to be addressed before building permits are issued for adjacent properties.


4

3. The variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or change the essential character of the neighborhood. It is fairly common to find accessory buildings in the front yard of properties in the A-R district. The accessory building would be located approximately 80 feet from the access easement that serves the property to the north. The variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or change the essential character of the neighborhood, provided that a Type I landscape buffer is planted between the building and the front property line.

4. Whether the variance will impair the intent or purpose of this Ordinance. The intent of the 60 front yard setback requirements are to maintain the rural character of the area. This property is somewhat unique in that the access easement/private road for the two adjoining properties runs parallel with the front lot line of 8121 Hanna Lake, but offset by 50 feet. This creates a situation whereby Mr. Stegehuis’ accessory building would have an 80 foot setback from the private road if it were properly placed within the easement. That being said, Mr. Stegehuis has numerous options that would avoid the need for a variance. Granting a variance would impair the integrity of the ordinance if Mr. Stegehuis cannot prove that he has a practical difficulty in complying with front yard setback requirements for accessory buildings.

5. The problem or condition for which the variance is requested is not a self-created problem by the applicant or property owner (or their predecessors in title) as to the property involved. The applicant split the original 10 acre parcel into three building sites. The applicant was aware of all Township setback requirements before he created the lots and chose the location of his home. The applicant’s narrative states that he did not fully consider the topography of his property before choosing the location of home and accessory building. The applicant could relocate the building to other locations on his property or adjust his property lines to avoid the need for a variance. The problem or condition for which the variance is requested is entirely a self-created hardship by the applicant.

6. The condition or situation involved is not of so general or recurrent a nature that it would be more reasonable or practical for the Township to amend the provision of the Ordinance involved rather than to grant a variance for the condition or situation. The zoning ordinance allows for accessory buildings in the A-R zoning district to be located in front yards with a 60 foot setback and the installation of a landscape buffer between the building and front lot line. The applicant has multiple options to avoid the need for a variance, therefore it would not be more reasonable or practical for the Township to amend the provisions of the Ordinance.

7. There are exceptional, unique, or extraordinary physical conditions or circumstances which directly relate to the property itself (including the land or a structure or building thereon) rather than the individual situation or desire of the applicant or property owner. In other words, the problem or exception or extraordinary circumstances or conditions must be inherent in the land, structure, or building involved. The property is property is relatively flat. It is Staff’s understanding, after discussions with the applicant’s contractor and the Township Building Official, that the building could be placed in the originally proposed location to the southwest of the house if dirt was brought in to level the base of the structure. The applicant could also relocate the structure elsewhere on the property or adjust his property lines to remove the need for a variance. Therefore it can be said that there are no exceptional, unique, or extraordinary physical conditions or circumstances which directly relate to the property itself that would preclude the applicant from constructing an accessory building on his property.


5

8. The variance must be necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right which is similar to that possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and vicinity. (NOTE—a possible increased financial return shall not, of itself, be deemed sufficient to warrant a variance.) Large accessory buildings ancillary to a primary residential use represents a substantial property right in the A-R zoning district. However, there are several options (relocation of building, adjustment of property lines etc.) that would allow the applicant to enjoy this substantial property right without the need for a variance.

9. As specified above, the ZBA must also find that the applicant has practical difficulty complying with the Ordinance provision or provisions at issue. Staff has evaluated this request based on the “practical difficulty” standards applied by the Michigan Court of Appeals: • Strict compliance with the standard would unreasonably prevent the landowner from using the property for

a permitted use, or would render conformity necessarily burdensome; It is Staff’s understanding that the building could be built in its originally proposed location if dirt was brought in to level out the base of the building. The applicant could also relocate the building elsewhere on the 3 acre property or adjust the front property line to accommodate the additional setback. Strict compliance with the standard would not unreasonably prevent the landowner from using the property for the permitted use, or render conformity unnecessarily burdensome;

• The particular request, or a lesser relaxation of ordinance standard, would provide substantial justice to the landowner and neighbors; The particular request or a lesser relaxation of the ordinance standard is not necessary for the applicant to construct an accessory building on his property. Therefore, the variance request or lesser relaxation of the ordinance standard would not provide substantial justice to the property owner.

• The plight is due to unique circumstances of property and is not shared by neighboring properties in the same zone; and There are no unique physical characteristics inherent to the applicant’s property that would preclude him from constructing an accessory building that conforms to the front yard setback requirements for properties in the A-R zoning district.

• The problem is not self-created. The applicant chose the layout of the property lines for 8115, 8119, & 8121 Hanna Lake Avenue. The applicant’s narrative indicates that he did not fully consider the topography of his property when choosing the locations of his home and accessory building. The applicant has several options for avoiding the need for a variance. Therefore the problem can be considered self-created.

Staff Recommendations It is recommended the Zoning Board of Appeals move to deny the request for a dimensional variance from Section 20.2 (C) to allow for construction of an accessory building with a 30 ft. front yard setback where a 60 ft. setback is required. The following facts and conclusions can be used as a basis of that decision:

1. The applicant’s request represents a self-created hardship. 2. The particular request, or a lesser relaxation of ordinance standard, is not necessary to provide substantial

justice to the landowner and neighbors. 3. There are no unique physical characteristics inherent to the property itself that necessitated the variance

request.


6

4. Strict compliance with the front yard setback standard would not unreasonably prevent the landowner from constructing an accessory building on the property.

-OR-

If the Zoning Board of Appeals determines the requested variance is justified, it should provide facts and conclusions that support the determination that the applicant has a practical difficulty complying with the standards of Section 20.2 (C). An approval should be subject to the following condition:

1. The installation of a Type I landscape buffer is required along the east side of the building.