ZBA minutes February 28, 2007

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE GEORGETOWN CHARTER TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD FEBRUARY 28, 2007

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

Members Present: John Fanthorpe, Greg Honderd, Joyce Weise, Daniel Lennington and

Carl DeVree

Members Absent: none

Others Present: Mannette Minier, Secretary and Zoning Administrator, and the applicants

#070228-01 - Approval of the minutes

The minutes of the regular meeting held on October 25, 2006 and the minutes of the January 24, 2007 joint Planning Commission/Township Board/ZBA were presented.

Moved by Joyce Weise, seconded by Carl DeVree, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held on October 25, 2006, as presented.

MOTION CARRIED.

Moved by Greg Honderd, seconded by Joyce Weise, to approve the minutes of the January 24, 2007 joint Planning Commission/Township Board/ZBA as presented.

MOTION CARRIED.

#070228-02 – (VAR0702)

Jack Holsem, 505 Jackson St., is requesting to construct a 1500 square foot detached accessory building with an architectural character that is not compatible with and similar to the principal building with respect to materials, scale, design and aesthetic quality, a variance from Sec. 3.4(J), and to have a detached accessory building 20 feet in height, a variance of 6 feet from the maximum of 14 feet in height permitted in Sec. 3.4(G), and to have a door opening of 13 feet, a variance of one foot from the maximum door opening of 12 feet in height permitted in Sec. 3.4(G); in a (RR) Rural Residential district, on a parcel on land described as P.P. # 70-14-36-300-022, located at 505 Jackson St., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan. (picture)

Jack Holsem presented the request and submitted a letter in favor of the variance signed by his neighbors.

The zoning administrator presented a review as follows:

REQUEST

There are three components to this request. First, the applicant is asking to construct an accessory building (not related to an agricultural use) in a RR district that would NOT be architecturally similar to the principle building with respect to materials, scale, design and aesthetic quality as required in Sec. 3.4. The principle building is a house that is designed to look like a castle with turrets and cupolas (see the attached picture). The new accessory building is proposed to have a barn-like design with a gambrel roof. The size of 1500 square feet is permitted in Sec. 3.4(E)(4) because the site is located in the Rural Residential district and the site is larger than 5 acres.

Second, the applicant is requesting to have a mean height of 20 feet which is a variance of 6 feet from the maximum of 14 feet mean height permitted in Sec. 3.4(G). The definition of mean height is in Sec. 2.15 and is provided, as well as the related illustration. According to the ordinance definition, the actual height to the peak of the roof of an accessory building could then conceivably be an additional 3 feet (or more) since the mean height is actually measured to the middle of the roof as shown on the illustration.

Third, the applicant is requesting to have a door opening of 13 feet in height, a variance of 1 foot from the maximum height of 12 feet permitted in Sec. 3.4(G).

If the applicant had proposed to construct the accessory building similar to the existing accessory building already located on the site (see the following pictures) the determination would have been made that it was architecturally similar to the principle structure.

If the applicant was to declare to the Township that the use of the proposed building was related to the AG use of keeping of horses (which I would determine that storing horse trailers, as noted in the application as one of the intended uses of the building, is related to the AG use of keeping of horses), he could pursue obtaining a special use permit and the building as proposed would be permitted. The only difference is that it would be required to be at least 50 feet from the property line. It appears as though the applicant is requesting the exemptions the ordinance provides for AG buildings without obtaining a special use permit for an AG building and without meeting the ordinance requirement for a side yard setback of at least 50 feet. It should also be noted that the application notes that the use of the building is also to potentially store a fifth wheel trailer in the building.

The ordinance differentiates accessory buildings from buildings related to agricultural uses in the following ways.

1. Sec. 7.3(C) permits Customary Agricultural Operations in the RR district with special use permit approval (which includes site plan approval). In addition, buildings for AG operations can either be the principle use (can be located on a lot without a dwelling) or accessory use (in addition to a dwelling). The Planning Commission and Board would review such an application for compliance with ordinances including the requirement of Sec. 7.3(C)(2) that no farm buildings shall be located closer than 50 feet to any lot line, with the exception of roadside stands.

2. Sec. 3.4(E)(5) exempts buildings accessory to agricultural operations in the RR district from maximum floor area requirements.

3. Sec. 3.4(I) exempts AG buildings in the RR district from the number of buildings permitted.

4. Sec. 3.4(J) exempts AG buildings in the RR district from the requirement of being architecturally similar.

5. The Building Code exempts AG buildings from the requirement of a building permit. For the construction of an AG building, the only Township requirement is for a Zoning Compliance Certificate to verify that the setbacks are met and for special use permit approval if located in the RR district. The Township does not enforce height restrictions for AG buildings or height of door openings. The Township’s procedure for AG buildings is consistent with the Right to Farm Act.

The following is the ordinance definition of Building Height and illustrations.

Sec. 2.15 BUILDING HEIGHT .

The building height is the vertical distance measured from the established grade to the highest point of the roof surface if a flat roof; to the deck of mansard roofs; and to the mean height level between eaves and ridge of gable, hip and gambrel roofs. When the terrain is sloping, the ground level is measured from the mean grade of all sides.

HISTORY

The applicant’s parents owned a house on the site and conducted agricultural uses on the site as well. When the original house burned, the applicant obtained the property from his parents and in 1991 built the current house on the site. The property is located in a (RR) Rural Residential district and the site is larger than five acres; therefore, the ordinance allows a 1500 square foot accessory building. An agricultural use of the keeping of horses also exists on the site and has for many years without a special use permit. Although a special use permit is required for an AG use under Sec. 7.3(C), the use has been in existence for many years without special use approval and is considered to be legal nonconforming. A barn is located on the site (which is not designed like a barn but rather is somewhat architecturally similar to the principle building with a gable roof and is located near the side lot line, pictures follow) and another small accessory building on the site, both for the use of keeping the horses. Both of these buildings would also be considered to be nonconforming since there is no special use permit and they are closer to the lot line than 50 feet.

The additional accessory building requested to be constructed by the applicant would be allowed under Sec. 3.4(I) since each site is permitted one accessory building excluding buildings accessory to AG uses.

Last fall the applicant and his builder began contacting the Township in regards to constructing an accessory building at the above noted site. The ordinance requirements were explained and copies of the ordinance were given to both the builder and the applicant. The information was also provided to the applicant that the proposed building would be permitted if a special use permit was obtained for an AG use (for the storage of the horse trailers) and if the building was located at least 50 feet from the property line. The applicant indicated that he is not want to pursue the special use permit for the AG building because he wanted to locate the building only 12 feet from the side lot line.

Sec. 3.4(J) (the requirement for an architecturally similar design) posed a particular problem for the applicant since the principle building (house) is designed to look like a castle (see the attached pictures). During the course of the several month time frame, proposals were submitted to the Township for the accessory building to have a shield added to the wall, or a weathervane added to the roof, or a small cupola added to the roof in an attempt to have the Township make the determination that the barn-like structure with the gambrel roof was architecturally similar to the principle building. (Copies of the proposals were sent with the packet.)

However, as the several letters to the applicant stated, including the letter dated 1/05/2007 (copy attached), the ordinance requires that the architectural character of accessory buildings “shall be compatible with and similar to the principle building with respect to materials, scale, design and aesthetic quality, as determined by the zoning administrator.” Since the design of the principle building is that of a castle, the accessory building would be required to be designed in a similar fashion (or at the least similar to the existing accessory building) which is in no way similar to or compatible with a structure designed as a barn with a gambrel roof, even with the proposed crest or weathervane. It should be noted that the existing barn is more architecturally similar to the principle building than the proposed building with the barn-like design with a gambrel roof.

Consequently, the applicant decided to apply for a variance to construct the accessory building with a barn-like design with a gambrel roof and to additionally request that the mean height be 20 feet (6 feet more than the ordinance allows) and to have the door opening 13 feet in height (one foot more than the ordinance allows). The reason is to allow the applicant to store his horse trailers and a camper trailer (if and when he purchases one) inside the accessory building.

For consideration the requests have been reviewed in two ways, one for the architecturally similar component and the second one for the mean height and door opening since they are similar.

Consideration of the variance request relating to the requirement of architecturally similar

Variance standards in Sec. 28.11(C) are required to be met in order for a variance to be granted. The standards that have objectively been met are noted with an “X” in the “yes” column. The others are open to interpretation by the ZBA and the ZBA should determine if those standards are met.

Variance ID

VAR0702

Applicant

Jack Holsem

Address

505 Jackson St.

Request

Accessory bldg not architecturally similar

Date

Applied for meeting February 28, 2007

#	YES	NO	CONDITIONS (Chapter 28.11-C)
1			Granting the variance(s) will be in the public interest and will ensure that the spirit of the Ordinance shall be observed.
2	X		Granting the variance shall not permit the establishment within a district of any use which is prohibited, nor shall any use variances be granted.
3			That there are practical difficulties in complying with the standards of the Zoning Ordinance resulting form exceptional, extraordinary, or unique circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question, that do not generally apply to other property or uses in the vicinity in the same zoning district; and have not resulted from the adoption of this Ordinance.
4			That the granting of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent properties or improvements in the vicinity; or, that the application of conditions of an approved variance will eliminate or sufficiently mitigate potential detrimental impacts.
5			That granting such variance is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the vicinity in the same zoning district.
6	X		That granting such variance will not cause any existing non-conforming use, structure, or condition to be increased or perpetuated, contrary to the provisions of Chapter 27 of this Ordinance, except in accordance with Section 27.12.
7			That the variance is not necessitated as a result of any action or inaction of the applicant.

The ZBA should determine if standards 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 are met and if they agree with the determination that 2 and 6 are met.

Standard #1 - Granting the variance will be in the public interest and will ensure that the spirit of the Ordinance shall be observed.

The ZBA should make this determination. The whole area is zoned RR and the Future Land Use Map designation is also AG/RR. Neighbors in the area have accessory buildings that are designed as barns with gambrel roofs. Although research was not conducted to determine if the neighbors’ barns were used for AG purposes (in which case they are exempt from the ordinance requirement of being architecturally similar), it appears as though the structures with the barn-like design are compatible with the rural characteristics of the area.

It appears as though the spirit of the ordinance would be observed if the applicant were to construct a building with a barn-like design and gambrel roof, especially if part of the use was to store horse trailers. However, the ZBA should consider that a barn-like structure for an AG use would be required to be located 50 feet from the property line and an opportunity exists to mitigate the impact of such a building by requiring a greater setback than the 12 feet proposed by the applicant.

Standard #2 - Granting the variance shall not permit the establishment within a district of any use, which is prohibited, nor shall any use variances be granted.

Met.

Standard #3 - That there are practical difficulties in complying with the standards of the Zoning Ordinance resulting from exceptional, extraordinary, or unique circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question, that do not generally apply to other property or uses in the vicinity in the same zoning district; and have not resulted from the adoption of this Ordinance.

The ZBA should make this determination. The house constructed on the site has a unique and unusual design which is that of a castle with cupolas and turrets. There are no other houses in the area with such a design. It would seem to be a practical difficulty for the applicant to construct a building with a similar design for an accessory building, especially since this is such a rural area with other structures with similar barn-like designs with gambrel roofs. However, no practical difficulties appear to be present to prevent the applicant from constructing the proposed accessory building with a design similar to the existing barn which is more architecturally similar to the principle building. In addition, no practical difficulties appear to be present to prevent the location of the building on the site with a greater setback than the 12 feet proposed by the applicant since the width of the lot is 426 feet, other than the fact that the applicant just wants to place the building at this particular setback (in which case a special use permit could be obtained for an AG use and the building would be permitted, albeit at least 50 feet from the side lot line).

Standard #4 - That the granting of such variances will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent properties or improvements in the vicinity; or, that the application of conditions of an approved variance will eliminate or sufficiently mitigate potential detrimental impacts.

The ZBA should make this determination. While it would not appear to be detrimental to the neighborhood to have another structure with a barn-like design with a gambrel roof since others are already located in the neighborhood, the proposed location should possibly be considered. Although the applicant is proposing to locate the building 12 feet from the property line and the ordinance requires only 5 feet from the eave line to the property line for an accessory building not related to an AG use, the ordinance minimum of five feet is related to buildings that are architecturally similar to the main structure and that have a maximum of 14 feet mean height.

Standard #5 - That granting such variance is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the vicinity in the same zoning district.

The ZBA should make this determination. While this is a very rural area and many of the neighboring properties do have structures with similar barn-like designs, those buildings could be for AG uses, they could be located further from the side lot like or they could be non-conforming and constructed many years ago.

Standard #6 - That granting such variance will not cause any existing non-conforming use, structure, or condition to be increased or perpetuated, contrary to the provisions of Chapter 27 of this Ordinance, except in accordance in Section 27.12.

Met. The proposed accessory building would be allowed since each site is permitted one accessory building excluding buildings accessory to AG uses under Sec. 3.4(I).

Standard #7 - That the variance is not necessitated as a result of any action or inaction of the applicant.

The ZBA should make this determination. It is appears to be the applicant’s action of constructing the house like a castle has created the situation, in addition to the fact that he wants the accessory building to be designed like a barn and only 12 feet from the property line.

DISCUSSION (This variance should be decided first because if it were to be denied, the other two requests would seem less likely to be necessary. If the variance was to be granted, the design might necessarily call for a higher mean height which would in turn possibly make the taller door opening more likely to be essential.

What are the reasons why the applicant could not build another accessory building like the current building on the site? The current AG building is more architecturally similar to the main structure than the proposed barn-like design with a gambrel roof.

Why doesn’t the applicant declare to the Township that the proposed accessory building is related to the AG use of keeping of horses? The application lists one intended use of the building is to store horse trailers. This use is related to the AG use of keeping of horses. After a special use permit was obtained, the proposed building would be allowed since all the aspects of the variance request would be exempt from ordinance requirements for AG buildings; however, the required setback would be a minimum of 50 feet from the property line. There appears to be room to move the location since the width of the site is 426 ft.

If the ZBA determines that the standards of the ordinance are met and decides to grant the variance, the ZBA could consider mitigating the impact of the structure by requiring that it be located further from the property line than 12 feet since such AG buildings are required to be a minimum of 50 feet from the property line. The subject property is large enough to accommodate a much larger side yard setback than the proposed 12 feet since the parcel is 426 feet wide and 1312 feet deep. It appears as though the applicant is proposing the location simply because his family uses the rest of the area of the backyard as a soccer field.

Consideration of the variance request relating to the mean height and height of the door opening.

Variance ID

VAR0702

Applicant

Jack Holsem

Address

505 Jackson St.

Request

Accessory bldg mean height and door opening height

Date

Applied for February 28 meeting

#	YES	NO	CONDITIONS (Chapter 28.11-C)
1			Granting the variance(s) will be in the public interest and will ensure that the spirit of the Ordinance shall be observed.
2	X		Granting the variance shall not permit the establishment within a district of any use which is prohibited, nor shall any use variances be granted.
3			That there are practical difficulties in complying with the standards of the Zoning Ordinance resulting form exceptional, extraordinary, or unique circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question, that do not generally apply to other property or uses in the vicinity in the same zoning district; and have not resulted from the adoption of this Ordinance.
4			That the granting of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent properties or improvements in the vicinity; or, that the application of conditions of an approved variance will eliminate or sufficiently mitigate potential detrimental impacts.
5			That granting such variance is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the vicinity in the same zoning district.
6	X		That granting such variance will not cause any existing non-conforming use, structure, or condition to be increased or perpetuated, contrary to the provisions of Chapter 27 of this Ordinance, except in accordance with Section 27.12.
7			That the variance is not necessitated as a result of any action or inaction of the applicant.

The ZBA should determine if standards 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 are met and if they agree with the determination that 2 and 6 are met.

Standard #1 - Granting the variance will be in the public interest and will ensure that the spirit of the Ordinance shall be observed.

The ZBA should make this determination. If the variance was granted to have an accessory building not architecturally similar to the principle structure, it would seem that it would serve the public interest to permit the mean height to be higher than 14 feet since the barn-like design calls for a taller peak. In addition, the higher door opening would also fit the barn-like design. Again, the whole area is zoned RR and the Future Land Use Map designation is also AG/RR. Neighbors in the area have accessory buildings that are designed as barns with gambrel roofs and it appears as though the structures with the barn-like design are compatible with the rural characteristics of the area. If the variance is not granted for the accessory building to designed with a barn-like design, it seems that other designs could be drawn (similar to the existing barn on the site) with a mean height that meets the ordinance requirement of a maximum of 14 feet mean height and a door opening of 12 feet.

Standard #2 - Granting the variance shall not permit the establishment within a district of any use, which is prohibited, nor shall any use variances be granted.

Met.

The ZBA should make this determination. If the variance is granted to have the accessory building constructed with a barn-like design, there could be a practical physical difficulty with constructing the building with a mean height of 14 feet. However, if an accessory building were to be constructed similar to the existing accessory building, there would appear to be no unique or unusual circumstances present to facilitate the taller building.

The ZBA should make this determination. If the variance is granted to have the accessory building constructed with a barn-like design, it would appear to be detrimental to the adjacent properties to be taller than the ordinance permits unless the building was to be located a greater distance from the side lot line because the structure would have a greater visual impact if it was taller. Again, it appears as though the higher door opening should be considered less detrimental if the structure is a greater distance from the lot line.

Standard #5 - That granting such variance is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the vicinity in the same zoning district.

The ZBA should make this determination. While this is a very rural area and many of the neighboring properties do have structures with similar barn-like designs that appear to have a height greater than 14 feet, those buildings could be for AG uses, they could be located further from the side lot like or they could be non-conforming and constructed many years ago.

Met. The proposed accessory building would be allowed since each site is permitted one accessory building excluding buildings accessory to AG uses under Sec. 3.4(I).

Standard #7 - That the variance is not necessitated as a result of any action or inaction of the applicant.

The ZBA should make this determination. It is obviously the applicant’s action of constructing the house like a castle has created the situation. However, since the site is located in a rural area with an agricultural use, it appears as though the applicant would not have had any idea that an accessory building would be required to be constructed architecturally similar to the principle building.

DISCUSSION

If the variance is not granted for the structure to be constructed with a barn-like design with a gambrel roof, what are the reasons why the applicant could not build another accessory building like the current building on the site? The current AG building is more architecturally similar to the main structure than the proposed barn-like design with a gambrel roof. In addition, it appears as though the existing accessory building would meet the ordinance requirement for height and door opening.

Again, why doesn’t the applicant declare to the Township that the proposed accessory building is related to the AG use of keeping of horse? The application lists one intended use of the building is to store horse trailers. This use is related to the AG use of keeping of horses. After a special use permit was obtained, the proposed height of the building would be allowed since all the aspects of the variance request would be exempt from ordinance requirements for AG buildings; however, the setback would be required to be a minimum of 50 feet from the property line. There appears to be ample room to move the location since the width of the site is 426 feet.

If the ZBA determines that the standards of the ordinance are met and decides to grant the variance, the ZBA could consider mitigating the impact of the extended height of the structure by requiring that it be located further from the property line than 12 feet since such AG buildings are required to be a minimum of 50 feet from the property line. The subject property is certainly large enough to accommodate a much larger side yard setback than the proposed 12 feet since the parcel is 417 feet wide and 1312 feet deep. It appears as though the applicant is proposing the location simply because his family uses the rest of the area of the backyard as a soccer field.

Dan Lennington stated the following. All the seven standards had to be met in order for the ZBA to grant a variance and there did not appear to be any unusual or extraordinary circumstances pertaining to the property. The only unusual aspect was that the applicant wanted the accessory building one way when there were other options that could meet the ordinance. He understood why the applicant would not want to have an accessory building similar to his main structure since his house was unusual and designed like a castle. He asked why the applicant did not pursue obtaining a special use permit from the Planning Commission since he would be able to have the building he wanted with special land use approval for an agricultural building.

The applicant stated the following. The barn structure would fit in with the area because there were a number of people across the street and less than 100 feet away who had similar structures but they were located in a different Township. Neighbors on both sides have barns that are higher. There is one on the west side. He has been on the property his whole life and there used to be a barn. He wants to comply with the ordinance to the extent possible and practical.

Joyce Weise asked why the ordinance required an agricultural building in an AG or RR district to be at least 50 feet from the property line.

Greg Honderd said that the reason was to be more considerate of the neighbors since AG uses could include uses that would bother neighbors such as the storage of manure.

The applicant stated that he would not store manure in the new building.

Joyce Weise asked why the new building would not look like the existing barn. She was told that the ordinance requires that the accessory building look like the main structure. She asked if the applicant could have followed the procedures for an AG building by obtaining a special use permit and sought a variance to have the building located closer to the side yard.

The applicant said that he was trying to make this as simple as possible and that the AG use has been there for years.

Carl DeVree asked why the applicant could not conform with the ordinance requirement for an AG building by locating it 50 feet from the property line.

The applicant stated the following. If it was located 50 feet from the property line it would be visible from the road and he did not want to put it by his spring-fed pond in the back yard. Also he did not want it to block the way to get to the back of his property. The objective was to be pleasing and not be an eyesore. It would be seen less if it was hidden behind the building. He did not want to bother his neighbors.

Greg Honderd asked how the applicant planned to access the building and was told by the west side.

Joyce Weise said that it was not in line with the sight of the house.

The applicant stated the following. He could live with the lower height, but ideally he would like at least a two foot variance to get his horse trailers inside. He could build a berm but he did not want the dirt there. He wants what his neighbors have and to be able to store the horse trailers inside so that the neighbors did not have to look at them. He wants to build a nice dimensioned barn.

John Fanthorpe said that the applicant could construct the building he wanted without being architecturally similar, along with the extra height and taller door if he obtained a special use permit for an agricultural building. He said that the only thing he couldn’t have was the placement he wanted.

The applicant said that the site used to be a farm and they used to have a barn.

Members of the ZBA asked if a variance had been granted in the past for a similar building near this site. The zoning administrator checked the file on the computer and found that a variance had been granted to have an AG building 25 feet from the property line, but could not find a variance granted for height of an accessory building near the subject site.

Joyce Weise asked why the applicant could not construct the accessory building 50 feet from the west property line.

The applicant said that he would have to pave too much of a drive and it was more efficient to have it where he proposed at 15 feet from the east property line.

Dan Lennington asked if the driveway would be straight and was told yes.

The applicant said that the ordinance allows an accessory building to be located five feet from the property line.

John Fanthorpe said that the ordinance does allow an accessory building to be five feet from the property line but such an accessory building was not allowed to be as high as the applicant requested that it be.

The zoning administrator clarified that the ordinance does allow an accessory building to be located five feet from the property line; however, the ordinance also requires that such an accessory building be architecturally similar to the main structure, as well as not be as high as the applicant requested and without a door as high as the applicant requested because such an accessory building would not be as obtrusive to the neighbors as the structure purposed by the applicant.

Dan Lennington stated the following. He thought that the request to have the building not be architecturally similar made sense and met the ordinance requirements to grant a variance. He did not think that there were any unusual or extraordinary circumstances pertaining to the property pertaining to the request to have the building be constructed higher and to have a taller door other than the fact that the applicant just wanted it and the applicant just wanted it to be located 12 feet from the property line. The ordinance would allow the applicant to construct the building exactly has he wanted it if he obtained a special use permit for an AG building. The only thing is that he could not put it 12 feet from the property line because the ordinance required it to be 50 feet from the property line. There was no trouble determining that the architectural request met the ordinance standards for a variance to be granted due to the unusual circumstances of the design of the house. The height of the building and door were not absolutely necessary because if they were, the applicant could get a special use permit to have the building as he proposed. Variances were granted in the past for situations were there were no other options available. If the ZBA granted variances only because an applicant wanted it, what would they say for the next applicant who did not meet the ordinance standards.

John Fanthorpe said that the applicant could construct the building that he wanted, just not so close to the property line.

Dan Lennington said that there were 12 acres and applicant’s site was not a small lot. If he couldn’t have the building in one spot, there were ample opportunities to place it in another spot that meets the ordinance.

The applicant said that this had been an old farm and it would not be practical to put it where the ordinance required it to be located. He said that there had been an existing building. He said that he did not just want it, but he wanted it where it fits.

Dan Lennington said that he understood that the applicant wanted it in the spot that he thought was the best spot; however, if the applicant were to move and someone else move in, it would be possible that the new owners would move the agricultural use of the keeping of horses into this new building which would be close to the property line. He asked if that could happen.

The zoning administrator said that the Township could never enforce or monitor where the applicant or any new resident of the property located the agricultural use on the parcel.

Dan Lennington said that the applicant could move the agricultural use into the new barn and it would be located close to the neighbor’s property. He said that he was in favor of granting the variance for the structure to not be architecturally similar because it met the standards of the ordinance, but the extra height was not really necessary. He said that if the applicant wanted the extra height, he could have it with a special use permit, just not have it located exactly where he wanted it.

Carl DeVree asked if the horse trailers exceed 12 feet in height.

The applicant said no, but in order to make the building usable, he wanted to have a loft.

Dan Lennington said that it was possible for the applicant to construct an accessory building that met the ordinance.

The applicant said that if he had 14 foot walls, the roof would have to be flat.

Dan Lennington asked how tall the smallest door could be.

The applicant said that the side walls would have to be 10 feet tall to have a 9 foot tall door. He said that the intention of the ordinance was not for him to do whatever he pleased but to protect the neighbors. He said that if the ZBA granted the height variance, the property already slopes down four feet. He said that the ordinance does not prevent the building from being close to the property line.

Carl DeVree said that zoning is to protect properties and to be consistent, and that is why the ZBA had to be consistent.

John Fanthorpe said that previously a person wanted a larger accessory building to store a limo just because he wanted it without meeting ordinance requirements and the request was denied since the standards were not met.

Dan Lennington said that they had to look out for the neighbors and the ordinance gives them seven standards to use to review each variance request. He said that if the standards are met, the variance is granted, but they can’t grant it if the standards are not met. He said that although some of the standards are met for the height, standards number three is not met since there are no practical difficulties in complying the Zoning Ordinance resulting from exceptional, extraordinary or unique circumstances or conditions applying to the property.

The applicant said that the unusual circumstances are that his property borders Jamestown across the street and he just wants what his neighbors have. He said that granting a variance should depend on the circumstances and if it is located near other development. He said that his area is very rural.

Dan Lennington stated the following. Chase Bank applied for the same variance for sign location for two different properties. In one instance, this was the only location for the sign otherwise it would be in the parking lot. That variance was granted. The other location had other places where the sign could be located to meet the ordinance and the variance was not granted for that site because they just wanted to locate it in a spot that did not meet the ordinance.

The applicant said that the ordinance would allow the accessory building anyway, just not so close to the side yard.

No one was present to speak at the public hearing.

Moved by Greg Honderd, seconded by Joyce Weise, to grant the variance request for (VAR0702) Jack Holsem, 505 Jackson St., to construct a 1500 square foot detached accessory building with an architectural character that is not compatible with and similar to the principal building with respect to materials, scale, design and aesthetic quality, a variance from Sec. 3.4(J), to have a detached accessory building 20 feet in height, a variance of 6 feet from the maximum of 14 feet in height permitted in Sec. 3.4(G), and to have a door opening of 13 feet, a variance of one foot from the maximum door opening of 12 feet in height permitted in Sec. 3.4(G); in a (RR) Rural Residential district, on a parcel on land described as P.P. # 70-14-36-300-022, located at 505 Jackson St., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan, based on conformance with the seven standards of the ordinance and with the condition that the building be at least 50 feet from the lot line based on the following findings: the house has a unique character and as long as the building is constructed 50 feet from the property line it would meet the standards of the ordinance for an agricultural building and they would already be able to build an agricultural building because their agricultural use is grandfathered.

There was discussion regarding the fact that the request to have the structure not architecturally similar to the main structure met the ordinance standards for a variance because the house has a unique character and it would be difficult to construct an accessory building that looked like the house. It was noted that the agricultural use was grandfathered in and that they should be allowed to have the taller structure and door so long as the building was located at least 50 feet from the property line, which is the same as the ordinance requirement for a special use permit for such a use. Also, if the building was located at least 50 feet from the property line, the applicant would be able to construct the structure as an agricultural building is a special use permit was obtained.

Greg Honderd said that it was physically possible to construct the building without the height variance with the use of berms and it is not that much more expensive. He said that the building would have to be located in the rear yard. It was noted that the ordinance requires that it be constructed in the rear yard.

The applicant asked that the ZBA act on each request separately. Greg Honderd and Joyce Weise withdrew the motion.

Moved by Greg Honderd, seconded by Carl DeVree, to approve the variance request for (VAR0702) Jack Holsem, 505 Jackson St., to construct a 1500 square foot detached accessory building with an architectural character that is not compatible with and similar to the principal building with respect to materials, scale, design and aesthetic quality, a variance from Sec. 3.4(J), in a (RR) Rural Residential district, on a parcel on land described as P.P. # 70-14-36-300-022, located at 505 Jackson St., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan, based on conformance with the seven standards of the ordinance and the following findings: the house has a unique character and it would be difficult to design an accessory building with the same design.

MOTION CARRIED.

Moved by Greg Honderd, seconded by John Fanthorpe, to grant the variance request for (VAR0702) Jack Holsem, 505 Jackson St., to have a detached accessory building 20 feet in height, a variance of 6 feet from the maximum of 14 feet in height permitted in Sec. 3.4(G), and to have a door opening of 13 feet, a variance of one foot from the maximum door opening of 12 feet in height permitted in Sec. 3.4(G); in a (RR) Rural Residential district, on a parcel on land described as P.P. # 70-14-36-300-022, located at 505 Jackson St., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan, based on conformance with the seven standards of the ordinance and with the condition that the building be at least 50 feet from the lot line based on the following findings: as long as the building is constructed 50 feet from the property line it would meet the standards of the ordinance for a special use permit for an agricultural building and they would already be able to build an agricultural building because their agricultural use is grandfathered.

MOTION CARRIED.

#070228-03 - Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.

Sec. 2.15 BUILDING HEIGHT.

Sec. 2.15 BUILDING HEIGHT .