SCIO TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
827 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48l03
MEETING MINUTES OF THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2002
1)
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Ream called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
2)
ROLL CALL
Present: Hedberg, Collica, Mayo, Ream
Absent: Auth
3)
Swearing in at 7:03 p.m.
4) COMMUNICATIONS AND/OR CORRESPONDENCE
Letter from Robert B. Fulton, Jr., regarding variance #1440. Citizen is prospective purchaser and understands that lot #96 will not be a separate buildable lot, and that it will be added to the lot that he now owns.
1)
Public Hearings
A.
Variance #1440, in the name of Mary Hathaway regarding property code
Number: H-08-24-285-012, Rose Dr. vacant, to sell one (1) of two (2) contiguous lots to a neighbor which would diminish compliance with lot area requirements as lots individually are considered non-conforming pursuant to Section l2.02 of the Township Zoning Ordinance.
Public hearing opened at 7:03 p.m.
Petitioner/representative:
Marcia Major, 117 S. Ashley, Ann Arbor, Mi
The two (2) contiguous lots have been merged, one (1) on Stowe, and the other facing Rose Drive. Lot 94, 013 and 014, are both owned by Mary Hathaway. Both are contiguous non-conforming parcels currently. It makes more sense for the two (2) contiguous lots facing Rose Drive to be combined. Petitioner agrees to join lots 013 and 014.
(Commissioner Mayo arrived at 7:05 p.m.)
Public comment:
Robert Fulton, 859 Rose Drive, Ann Arbor, Mi
Desires to acquire additional lot to his property, lot 97. Plan is to build a garage on from the existing house.
Public hearing closed at 7:06 p.m.
Board comments and concerns:
·
The Township consultant has recommended approval of this variance request.
·
Is there a plan to join lot 94? Would want status of lot 94 to remain unchanged, that lots 013 and 014 are formally joined.
·
There are legally two (2) separate lots, 013 and 014.
·
Favor granting a variance with contingency that lots 013 and 014 be combined as one property; however, this may set future precedence with other like situations.
·
Petitioner is basically asking to have a small non-conforming lot, so she can sell, that makes her lot conforming.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COLLICA, SUPPORTED BY COMMISSIONER MAYO IN THE MATTER OF VARIANCE #1440, IN THE NAME OF MARY HATHAWAY, BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING FACTS, THAT THE VARIANCE WILL BE GRANTED:
I FIND, UNDER ARTICLE 13, SECTION 13.06, THAT:
1.
THERE ARE EXCEPTIONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY INVOLVED OR TO THE INTENDED USE OF THE PROPERTY THAT DO NOT APPLY GENERALLY TO OTHER PROPERTIES OR CLASS OF USES IN THE SAME DISTRICT. THE APPLICANT’S TWO (2) PROPERTIES ARE UNCONVENTIONAL IN THEIR CONFIGURATION; AND THEY ARE PERPENDICULAR TO ONE ANOTHER;
2.
SUCH VARIANCE IS NECESSARY FOR THE PRESERVATION AND ENJOYMENT OF A SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY RIGHT POSSESSED BY OTHER PROPERTY IN THE SAME ZONE OR VICINITY; THAT THE VARIANCE WILL ALLOW PETITIONER’S LOT 97 TO BE COMBINDED WITH LOT 95; THE RESULTING PROPERTY WHICH WILL BE OWNED BY LOT 97 WILL BE 150 FEET; AND THE AREA WOULD BE 34,950 SQUARE FEET; AND THE OWNER OF LOT 97 IS AWARE THAT THE FUTURE SALE OF LOT 96 WILL NOT BE PERMITTED BY SCIO TOWNSHIP ZONING ORDINANCE;
3.
THAT THE GRANTING OF SUCH VARIANCE OR MODIFICATION WILL NOT BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE OR MATERIALLY INJURIOUS TO THE PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS IN SUCH ZONE OR DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED;
4.
THE GRANTING OF SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PURPOSE OR OBJECTIVES OF THE MASTER PLAN OF THE TOWNSHIP; DUE TO THE NON-CONFORMING NATURE OF THE ROSE DRIVE /STOWE STREET AREA IT IS UNLIKELY THAT ONE (1) ACRE PARCELS ARE POSSIBLE;
5.
ABSENCE EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL INJUSTICE , THE CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS UPON WHICH THE VARIANCE IS BASED DO NOT RESULT FROM THE ACTIONS OF THE APPLICANT OR HIS PREDECESSORS IN TITLE; THIS IS A VERY OLD SUB-DIVISION THAT PREDATES THE CURRENT SCIO TOWNSHIP ZONING ORDINANCE; AND THERE ARE MANY, MANY LOTS IN THIS AREA THAT ARE NON-CONFORMING;
6.
THIS VARIANCE IS CONDITIONED UPON MERGING LOTS 013 AND 014 INTO A SINGLE LOT, SO THAT THE RESULTING LOT WILL BE NEARLY CONFORMING IN SIZE TO THE REQUIRED LOT SIZE FOR THIS DISTRICT.
Further Board comments and concerns:
·
Isn’t this area zoned R-1-D, not requiring one (1) acre lots?
·
The Master Plan calls for one (1) acre lots in a medium density area, based on septic; but due to the non-conforming nature of Rose Drive, it is unlikely that one (1) parcel are possible (Township Planner comments.).
YES: 4
NO: 0
MOTION CARRIED
1)
OLD BUSINESS
None
2)
Minutes of November 21, 2002.
MOTION BY COMMISSION MAYO, SUPPORTED BY COMMISSIONER COLLICA TO APPROVE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 21, 2002 AS CORRECTED.
YES: 4
NO: 0
MOTION CARRIED
3)
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
None
4)
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MAYO, SUPPORTED BY COMMISSIONER COLLICA TO ADJOURN AT 7:30 P.M.
YES: 4
NO: 0
MOTION CARRIED
Minute’s preparation by James H. LaVoie
