SCIO
MEETING MINUTES OF WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2009
1) CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Van Hoek called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
2) ROLL CALL:
Present: Van Hoek, Kubany, Arscott, Murphy, DeLong
Absent: Spencer
3) ADOPTION OF AGENDA
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DE LONG, SUPPORT BY COMMISSIONER MURPHY TO ADOPT THE AGENDA FOR DECEMBER 19, 2009.
YES: 5 NO: 0 MOTION CARRIED
4) Swearing in.
Chair Van Hoek swore in attendees at 7:06 p.m.
5) COMMUNICATIONS AND/OR CORRESPONDENCE
Michigan Planner, October and November 2009; Planning and Zoning News, November, 2009; letter dated November 30, 2009 from Melody Alfather opposed to Variance #1529, by Louis Johnson, for Wexford-Gallery Park LLC.
6) Public Hearing
- Variance #1528, by William Conlin, for Jackson Madison LLC, regarding property code #H-08-23-400-019,
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MURPHY, SUPPORT BY COMMISSIONER ARSCOTT TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:06 P.M.
YES: 5 NO: 0 MOTION CARRIED
Fax received December 18, 2009 from William Conlin requesting this request for a sign variance be tabled. Applicant is exploring opportunities adjusting its placement.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DELONG, SUPPORT BY COMMISSIONER KUBANY TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:07 P.M.
YES: 5 NO: 0 MOTION CARRIED
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DE LONG, SUPPORT BY COMMISSIONER ARSCOTT TO POSTPONE VARIANCE #1528, REGARDING PROPERTY CODE #H-08-23-400-019, AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT TO NEXT MEETING OF THE ZBA, JANUARY, 2010.
YES: 5 NO: 0 MOTION CARRIED
- Variance #1529, by Louis Johnson, for Wexford-Gallery Park LLC, regarding multiple
Property addresses (even 5570-5578, odd 5591-5597, odd 5601-5615 and even 5602-5610 Gallery Park Drive,) requests 15 foot rather than the required 30 foot end to end setback for multi-family buildings, pursuant to Section 36-132(2)b.2, of the Scio Township Codified Zoning Ordinance.
Public hearing opened at 7:10 p.m.
Applicant/representative:
Craig A. Welch,
Presentation of variance request. Project started in 2003. Todate 11 buildings have been built, with 54 of 56 units sold. Additionally, five new buildings were built in 2009, with three units being sold. There are four buildings left to go. Developer is currently facing a difficult financial environment, resulting in reducing the number of units per building. The current request it to reduce the end to end setback for multi-family buildings to 15 feet. Benefits will include creating more green space; overall unit count will be decreased from 79 to 76 units; aesthetically more pleasing appearance. Applicant hopes in the future to be able to finance the last buildings originally planned for.
Inquiry by Board:
· Middle units in the buildings will be deleted? (Applicant response: Yes, and others are being enlarged, resulting in more ranch and end units.)
· What are dimensions of rear and side yard setbacks? (Applicant response: 35 feet and 20 feet.)
· Has fire protection been reviewed under the proposed new configuration? (Applicant: Under the original plan there was fire protection review.)
· Cautious about granting any variance that will set a precedent.
· Carlisle-Wortman report asks that the ZBA confirms that the architecture will remain the same. (Applicant response: It will. Each building is unique.)
· Is applicant aware of comments in regard to any change in the layout? (Applicant response: Yes.)
· Space between buildings, that 15 feet is a minimum distance including any overhang soffits? (Applicant response: Believe 15 foot distance represents the distance between the vinyl side to vinyl side and does not include the overhang.)
· If variance is granted, it is important to ensure that there are no air conditioning units or anything; that there will be a minimum of 15 feet ground to sky. (Applicant response: Applicant has no objection to this requirement.)
· Neighbor letter assumes a 15 foot rear yard setback rather than an end-to-end building setback. (Applicant response: Applicant will be happy to write the neighbor a letter of explanation.)
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DE LONG, SUPPORT BY COMMISSIONER MURPHY TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:26 P.M.
YES: 5 NO: 0 MOTION CARRIED
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DE LONG, SUPPORT BY COMMISSIONER ARSCOTT,
IN THE MATTER OF VARIANCE REQUEST #1529, FOR MULTIPLE PROPERTIES EVENLY 5570-5578, ODD 5591-5597, ODD 5601-5615, AND EVEN
BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FACTS: THE TESTIMONY BEFORE THIS COMMISSION DURING THE HEARING; THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE APPLICATION, AND THE ANALYSIS PROVIDED BY THE TOWNSHIP PLANNER IN HIS REPORT DATED DECEMBER 11, 2009.
I FIND UNDER SECTION 36-427, ITEM E, OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SCIO:
1. THAT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES OR
CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY THAT DO NOT APPLY GENERALLY TO OTHER PROPERTIES OR CLASS OF USES IN THE SAME DISTRICT: DUE TO THE CHANGE IN ORDINANCE AND EXISTING SETBACKS BETWEEN BUILDINGS FOUND IN THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT I BELIEVE A UNIQUE OR EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED. I ALSO FIND THAT THE REDUCTION OF UINTS AND ADDITION OF GREEN SPACE BETWEEN WHAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE VERY LONG BUILDINGS IS UNIQUE AND DESERVES CONSIDERATION IN THIS CASE.
2. THAT SUCH VARIANCE IS NECESSARY FOR THE PRESERVATION AND
ENJOYMENT OF A SUBTANTIAL PROPERTY RIGHT POSSESSED BY OTHER PROPERTY IN THE SAME ZONE AND VICINITY: IF DENIED I BELIEVE WE WOULD BE DENYING THE PROSPECTIVE PROPERTY OWNER A RIGHT ENJOYED BY THE CURRENT OWNER DURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT, NAMELY THE REDUCED SETBACK BETWEEN BUILDINGS.
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. I DO NOT BELIEVE THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THIS AREA OR ZONING DISTRICT.
4. THAT THE GRANTING OF SUBJECT VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PURPOSE OR OBJECTIVES OF THE MASTER PLAN OF THE TOWNSHIP: I WOULD NOT ANTICIPATE ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS TO THE MASTER PLAN OF THE TOWNSHIP IF THE SUBJECT VARIANCE WERE TO BE GRANTED.
5. ABSENT 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: THE CHANGE IN THE ORDINANCE IS THE PRIMARY REASON FOR THIS VARIANCE REQUEST, WHICH IN THAT REGARD THE APPLICANT HAS HAD NO PART IN.
AND THEREFORE MOVE FULL APPROVAL OF THE SUBJECT VARIANCE WITH THE CONDITION THAT APPROPRIATE CHANGES TO ALL LEGAL DOCUMENTS BE MADE (MASTER DEED AND BYLAWS) AND THAT THE BUILDING ARCHITECTURE (FACADES) REMAIN IN COMPLETE CONFORMANCE WITH THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN.
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT BY COMMISSIONER KUBANY THAT THE APPLICANT WILL ASSURE THAT THE 15 FOOT DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS IS MAINTAINED CLEAR OF ANY OBSTRUCTIONS OVERHEAD, MECHANICAL, LANDSCAPING OR OTHERWISE FOR FIRE PROTECTION.
COMMISSIONER DELONG AND COMMISSIONER ARSCOTT ACCEPT CONDITION TO ORIGINAL MOTION.
YES: 5 NO: 0 MOTION CARRIED
7) OLD BUSINESS
None
8) APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. Minutes of October 18, 2009.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ARSCOTT, SUPPORT BY COMMISSIONER MURPHY, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 18, 2009.
YES: 5 NO: 0 MOTION CARRIED
9) ANY OTHER BUSINESS
None
10) ADJOURNMENT
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MURPHY, SUPPORT BY COMMISSIONER ARSCOTT TO ADJOURN AT 7:35 P.M.
YES: 5 NO: 0 MOTION CARRIED
Minute preparation by James H. LaVoie
