MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE GEORGETOWN CHARTER TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD JUNE 22, 2005

The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Daniel Lennington.

Members Present: Daniel Lennington (chairman), John Fanthorpe, Don Upp, Carl DeVree, Joyce Weise

Members Absent: none

Others Present: Scott, Consultant from Langworthy, Strader, LeBlanc, Inc.,

Mannette Minier, secretary and Zoning Administrator, and the applicants

#050622-01 - Approval of the minutes

The minutes of the regular meeting held on May 25, 2005 meeting were presented.

Moved by Carl DeVree, seconded by John Fanthorpe, to approve the minutes of the regular meetings held on May 25, 2005, as presented, with one correction to page 2.

MOTION CARRIED.

#050622-02 - (VAR0506)

Fellowship Reformed Church, 6600 36^th Ave., is requesting to have a sign with a setback of 60 feet, a variance of 25 feet from the 85 feet required in Sec. 25.6(A)(3), in a (LDR) Low Density Residential district, on a parcel of land described as P.P.# 70-14-20-400-117(-119), located at 6600 36^th Ave., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan.

Ed Zwyghuizen, Verburg & Associates, represented the applicant and presented the request. He supplied history of the site including the acquisition of two lots for detention during the construction of the addition. He said that the sign was currently tucked in the corner by trees and they proposed to have the sign in direct view of the church. He said that the request was due to the retention pond and the green space. He said that the pond had been sized according to the size of the parking lot and that had received approval from the Ottawa County Drain Commissioner. He said that a place had been carved out of the pond area to create a landscaped area for the sign to locate it behind the 60 foot mark.

The zoning administrator said that the church had placed a sign on the southwest corner of Baldwin and 36^th Ave. without a permit and in violation of the ordinance because signs were not permitted to be located off-site.

Dan Lennington said that a letter should be sent with the information that the sign was in violation of the ordinance. He said that Port Sheldon has already been widened at this location and the detention was required by the Ottawa County Road Commission.

The planner presented a review and detailed how the request did not meet the seven standards. He presented alternatives for placing the sign in locations that met the ordinance.

The chairman opened the public hearing and no one was present to speak at the public hearing.

Harold Zwyghuizen, church representative, asked where the alternative locations were and the planner pointed them out.

Dan Lennington said that the current sign is non-conforming and tucked in by trees. He said that the trees are the problem and that it is not visible.

The applicant said that the trees block the view of the sign and he explained how the planned to locate the sign in a landscaped area that was part of the landscape plan for the entire site.

The planner asked if the number of parking spaces was in excess of the number required by the ordinance.

The applicant explained that there was an excess number because of the setup of church function that overlaps, creating the need for additional parking spaces. He said that the Ottawa County Drain Commissioner had approved the detention pond to be large enough to accommodate the runoff from the parking lot.

The was discussion regarding the location of the trees on the site and the location of the slopes to the pond. The question was raised of placing the sign on the east side of the driveway; however, the applicant said that the pond could overflow.

Dan Lennington said that there is confusion over the existing sign and asked about alternative locations for the sign.

The planner explained that he had looked at the entire site and that one institutional bulletin board sign was permitted, along with one wall sign. He said that he had taken all sides into consideration and understood that it was the applicant’s preference that the sign be located on Port Sheldon even though an existing sign was located on 36^th Ave. He said that a sign could be located in a landscaped island and the applicant could be creative while still not locating the sign in the pond or possibly not in Port Sheldon at all.

Joyce Weise asked about the sign on 36^th Ave. and was told that it was non-conforming and the applicant had indicated that all other signs would be removed.

The zoning administrator stated that the applicant had agreed to remove all signs other than the one wall sign on 36^th Ave. and institutional bulletin board on Port Sheldon. She said that it had even been indicated that all other signs would be removed on their sign permit.

Joyce Weise asked if the sign could be left on 36^th Ave.

The zoning administrator said that a non-conforming sign could remain until it was moved or changed more than 50%.

Dan Lennington said that they had to figure out the extenuating circumstance and if there were alternatives because they could not grant a variance for no reason.

Harold Zwyghuizen said that there is a problem with placing the sign because they do not want it in the middle of the pond plus they do not want it to create a sight obstruction.

Ed Zwyghuizen said that they wanted to keep the area clean and they are constrained by the requirements of the Ottawa County Drain Commissioner. He said that they had extra parking spaces and all of the parking lot drained to the pond. He said that they specifically designed the pond with a bump-out for the sign.

Joyce Weise said that there are over 56 extra parking spaces that the applicant wanted to have. She said that it was good that they wanted to accommodate all who wanted to attend, but this would limit the greenspace.

Don Upp asked about setbacks and was concerned with the site meeting landscape requirements. He asked how many cars use the Port Sheldon entrance and how many use the one on 36^th Ave.

The applicant explained that the site plan had been approved by the Planning Commission with landscaping that met the ordinance.

Don Upp asked about the landscaping in the hole.

The applicant said that they were not finished planting the landscaping and that the sign would match the church.

Carl DeVree asked if the address was Port Sheldon or 36^th Ave. and was told it was 36^th Ave. He said that 36^th Ave. was the main entrance and people would be looking for that entrance.

The applicant said that with the addition, the focal point had been changed to Port Sheldon and it was beautiful to see from Port Sheldon.

John Fanthorpe asked if the sign was flat or V-shaped and was told flat. He said that the site plan did not appear to be accurate and was told that it was not.

Dan Lennington asked if the sign would be put on a concrete foundation and was told yes. He said that if they moved it back 10 or so feet it would be at the top of the slab and would look like a retaining wall.

The applicant said that they did not want it to look like it was floating on the pond, plus they wanted a firm foundation.

Harold Zwyghuizen asked how the height was determined and was told by mean grade

Joyce Weise said that if it was 6 feet high you could only see 3 feet of it if it were place on the grade.

Dan Lennington said that this was a close call with unique circumstances and the alternatives are not clear cut.

The zoning administrator said that the ZBA had the option of granting a variance for an amount equal to or less than what was requested and advertised.

Joyce Weise said that the situation was self-imposed because they have an overage of parking spaces; however, she said that the retention pond was necessary.

Dan Lennington said that he could make points for the request to meet the standards because Port Sheldon has already been widened. He said that they had made the same point in granting a previous variance that 8^th Ave. had already been expanded and would not be expanded further. He said that they had set a precedent with the mitigating reason being that construction had already taken place. He said that the retention pond was a government requirement and they chose to put it close to the road to accommodate the extra parking that they thought they would fill. He said that they would be reducing a currently non-conforming situation with the exiting sign and using a precedent would make it less non-conforming. He said that the biggest alternatives are to move the retention pond and wipe out the parking. He said that it is not the main entrance and this was a government imposed hardship; however, they could take out the parking and move the pond back.

Joyce Weise said that the drainage is important.

Dan Lennington said that the reason they can’t put it where it is supposed to go is because of the pond.

Joyce Weise said that this is an overall design issue and the signage was an after-thought.

Dan Lennington said that he could make an argument that the request meets the standards.

Don Upp said that this is a problem with Port Sheldon and businesses were non-conforming if put in first. He said that almost every sign on Port Sheldon is non-conforming. He said that the problem is that the signs would be located in the middle of the parking lot if put in according to the ordinance, such as the problem with 5^th 3^rd Bank.

Dan Lennington said that it was the same thing with BP, Rite Aid and Dominos.

Don Upp said that they have seen this before and it is as far as Alward School, although the city and schools don’t have to abide by the ordinance.

The applicant said that the pond had been bumped out and incorporated into the whole plan.

Joyce Weise said that the additional parking necessitated the location of the sign.

Dan Lennington asked how they calculate parking requirements.

The applicant said that the number of parking spaces is calculated per the code per seat and the church is growing fast. He said that they currently have three services and want to reduce it to two services. He said that parking would be at capacity and people come for Sunday School. He said that they can’t accommodate the additional parking.

The planner said that an option would be to ask the Township to review the ordinance that requires the extra distance for some streets. He said that it was adopted in April of 2000 and that some of the improvements to some roads may have been fulfilled. He said that the Township may want to evaluate and take some roads off that may already have been improved. He said that if there are issues all along Port Sheldon it may be time to reevaluate and take Port Sheldon off the list.

Dan Lennington said that the Township Board should make the decision if the extra distance is needed or not.

The planner said that the ordinance is five years old and it may be outdated.

Don Upp asked what the setback requirement would be without the extra distance.

The zoning administrator said that the sign would have to be 25 feet from the property line if it was on a street that was not listed in Chapter 24 footnote b.

Joyce Weise asked it would have to be 25 feet from the centerline instead of 85 feet like now required.

The applicant said that it would have to be 25 feet from the property line.

Dan Lennington said that he was in favor of allowing it if the Township does not need the extra distance, but he said that he did not want to make that assumption.

The zoning administrator said that if the ZBA was going to ask the Board and/or Planning Commission for a review, a formal motion should be made.

There was discussion as to when Port Sheldon was widened and it was determined to be in 1997 or 1998.

There was discussion regarding ordinance requirements.

Moved by Carl DeVree, seconded by Don Upp, to table the request.

MOTION CARRIED.

Moved by Carl DeVree, seconded by Don Upp, to make a formal request from the ZBA to the Planning Commission and/or Township Board to review the ordinance that requires the extra setbacks on Port Sheldon at this location.

MOTION CARRIED.

The applicant wanted the Board to be aware of the conversations held at the meeting and it was noted that the Board gets copies of the ZBA minutes. It was noted that the request would be relayed to the Board and Planning Commission and the intention of the ordinance would be relayed back to the ZBA.

#050622-03 - (VAR0507)

Miedema Metal Buildings Systems, 3620 Highland Dr., is requesting to have a rear yard setback of 20 feet, a variance of 20 feet from the 40 feet required in Chapter 24, in an (I) Industrial District, on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-22-400-032, located at 1811 Chicago Dr., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan.

Tom Miedema, Miedema Metal Building Systems, represented the applicant and presented the request. He explained that there was a triangular piece of property adjacent to the ServiScreen property that no one owned.

The zoning administrator said that the Township has it recorded as no known owner. She said that she had checked with the assessor who said that it was possible that the railroad owned it or else the property descriptions had been written incorrectly in the past which resulted in the points not meeting. She said that the applicant had an attorney looking into who might own the property.

The applicant said that if ServiScreen owned the property there would be no need for a variance because they could meet the setback requirement.

Joyce Weise asked if the building would be 80 by 110 feet and was told yes.

The applicant said that the unique situation was attributed to the triangular shape of the property instead of being square.

The zoning administrator noted that the parcel was also currently non-conforming due to the fact that it had no road frontage. She explained that when 18^th Ave. was constructed, it dissected a parcel leaving a portion of about 40 feet between the ServiScreen property and the road. She said that the owner of this portion of property was the Reitberg Industrial Park and Al Reitberg was anxious to sell this strip of property to ServiScreen to make it a conforming parcel.

The applicant explained that ServiScreen was there before the road was put in and they were currently pursuing the option of obtaining the property since they maintain it anyway.

Dan Lennington asked if they had success with an attorney finding out who owned the triangular strip of property.

The applicant said that they just discovered that the property owner was unknown when they submitted the application at the end of May.

Dan Lennington said that they might not need the variance if the property description was discovered to be incorrect and then there would be no reason to grant the variance.

The applicant said that they would like to obtain the property in that gap but would like to proceed with the construction of the building without waiting to find out the information about the gap.

Dan Lennington said that it would be logical to discover who owned the property because they would not want to grant a variance that they were unsure if it was needed.

The planner agreed and said that the applicant was “putting the cart before the horse.” He said that the ownership of the triangular piece of property had to be made first. He said that this gap had no frontage and was not a useable piece of property except to the adjacent property owners.

In response to a question, the zoning administrator said that this was the only property that she was aware of that had no owner.

The planner said that the building envelope had 13,000 square feet available for an addition to be constructed in accordance with ordinance requirements.

The zoning administrator said that they might also have to be concerned with lot coverage.

The applicant said that since the lots had been combined into one parcel, there was only 29.8% coverage and there was no issue meeting the ordinance in that regard.

No one was present to speak at the public hearing.

Dan Lennington said that he drew a box with the existing building and there was room for another 80 by 80 foot building or room for more if built in an “L” shape, with both ways meeting the ordinance requirements.

The applicant said that there were issues with roof lines and watersheds or snow loads. He said that there were also issues with fire walls and fire separation which involved more costs.

Joyce Weise asked if the metal buildings only came in prefabricated sizes and was told that the buildings come in any size.

Joyce Weise asked about the proposed addition shown on the site plan.

The applicant said that this site plan was inaccurate and the proposed addition had already been built. In response to the question as to the use of the buildings, the applicant said that the uses include screen printing, machine building, promotions such as cups, and piston coating. He said that since they were separate uses, they wanted to keep them in separate buildings.

Joyce Weise said that to the northeast to the south and southwest a 100 by 60 foot building could be built within the ordinance requirements even if it costs more.

Don Upp said that the parcel was land locked.

Carl DeVree asked about the land along 18^th Ave.

The planner explained that this was a non-conforming parcel since that strip along 18^th Ave. prevented this parcel from having street frontage.

Joyce Weise said that the ZBA did not have enough information to make a decision since they did not know who owned the gap.

Dan Lennington said that the ZBA does table items to provide time to get more information so that they would not grant the variance unnecessarily.

Joyce Weise said that they should not come to the ZBA if they do not know if the variance is necessary.

John Fanthorpe said that the variance could be a moot point.

Dan Lennington said that they submitted the applicant and paid, so it should be considered.

The applicant said that they just found out that the property ownership of the gap was unknown when they applied for the variance and that they assumed it was owned by the railroad.

Dan Lennington said that with adverse possession they would own it after 15 years.

Don Upp said that assuming the land in the gap belonged to the railroad, there was no frontage to get to this piece of land and it could only be used for storage. He said that it was unlikely to be used for a railroad station. He said that he had no problem with granting a variance if this gap would not be used. He said that it bothered him that the owner was not known and that it could revert back to the Indians.

Dan Lennington said that it was possible that the legal description had not been recorded right.

Moved by Don Upp, seconded by Carl DeVree, to grant variance (VAR0507) Miedema Metal Buildings Systems, 3620 Highland Dr., to have a rear yard setback of 20 feet, a variance of 20 feet from the 40 feet required in Chapter 24, in an (I) Industrial District, on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-22-400-032, located at 1811 Chicago Dr., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan, because it would not affect the neighboring properties.

Joyce Weise said that she did not agree with granting the variance.

Dan Lennington said that the request should either be tabled or it should be denied because it does not meet the standards of the ordinance.

Don Upp said that generally the situation was unique because the land was unusable except to ServiScreen or DeWent Gravel.

The chairman asked if another motion would be necessary if the motion to approve failed.

The zoning administrator said that if the motion to approve failed, the request would be denied by not being approved, but she recommended that another motion be made so that there would not be any confusion.

The planner recommended that another motion be made to either deny or table to avoid confusion.

Yeas: Don Upp, Carl DeVree

Nays: Joyce Weise, Dan Lennington, John Fanthorpe

MOTION DEFEATED.

Moved by Joyce Weise, seconded by John Fanthorpe, to deny variance (VAR0507) Miedema Metal Buildings Systems, 3620 Highland Dr., is requesting to have a rear yard setback of 20 feet, a variance of 20 feet from the 40 feet required in Chapter 24, in an (I) Industrial District, on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-22-400-032, located at 1811 Chicago Dr., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan, because the request does not meet the seven standards of the ordinance and because there is not enough information about the unknown ownership of the triangular piece of land.

It was noted that there were also road frontage issues.

Yeas: Joyce Weise, Dan Lennington, John Fanthorpe, Don Upp, Carl DeVree

Nays: none

MOTION CARRIED.

#050622-04 – Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.