MEETING MINUTES OF WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 19, 2010
1) CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Van Hoek called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2) ROLL CALL:
Present: Van Hoek, Kubany, Arscott, Murphy, Spencer
3) ADOPTION OF AGENDA
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPENCER, SUPPORT BY COMMISSIONER MURPHY TO ADOPT THE AGENDA FOR AUGUST 19, 2010.
YES: 5 NO: 0 MOTION CARRIED
4) Swearing in.
Chair Van Hoek swore in attendees at 7:05 p.m.
5) COMMUNICATIONS AND/OR CORRESPONDENCE
August, 2010 Planning and Zoning News; Notice from Michigan Association of Planning; e-mail, analysis of Township Planner regarding Variance #1537. (Applicant given an opportunity to review this analysis and recommendation.)
6) Public Hearing
- Variance #1537, by Kathleen Heise, for Gordon and Mavis Hines and William and Kathleen Heise, regarding property code #H-08-15-300-001 and l5-400-011, Green Knolls Lane vacant, request for reconfigure lots without having access to an approved public or private road, pursuant to Section 36-273, of the Scio township Codified Zoning Ordinance.
Public hearing opened at 7:05 p.m.
Applicant/representative:
Kathleen S. Heise, 5124 Green
Scott Hines,
Skip William Heise,
Applicant just received e-mail authored by Township Planner and feels it is caught off –guard in terms of the recommendation, which is different from Applicant’s proposal, and needs some time to digest this recommendation or in the alternative have the Zoning Board of Appeals explain what is different from the original proposal.
Applicant proposes to divide parcel per the map that has been provided. Currently there is joint ownership in the parcel. The request is to divide ownership into two separate deeds, equally in terms of acreage and in terms of the value of the land. The proposal is for a division into four lots, with two lots owned by Heise and two lots owned by Hines, which would provide flexibility going forward. Presently the parcel is not developable, but in the future it could conform to modifications in terms of access and easement(s).
Comments by Board members:
An explanation was offered as to the Township Planner’s report and recommendation. To keep things simple, it seems rather than making four parcels that there be two, one each for Heise and Hines, and take out the division for each, resulting in a total area for each parcel of 9.49 acres for one lot for each, Heise and Hines. In the future the applicant could split those new lots again, depending on what happens and figure out an access easement as well. Future division can be made when a private road is developed to serve the individual parcels as needed by the Applicant. Having four parcels right now basically doubles the number of non-conforming lots. The number should be zero, no non-conforming lots. Applicant could make another proposal in the future with different property lines. Applicant has provided a drawing indicating access lines. Again, Applicant is asking to designate four parcels that will need a variance at some point.
Questions and comments by Board members:
· Applicant is asked to explain the access right now for the Heise lot. (Applicant response: Outlot A is an existing driveway that feeds three houses along the driveway, Mattock, Heise and Hines. The Township is really only talking about two that do not have access.) “Hines blue” would require extending the access line in terms of an access easement. ).
· The Township Planner does not recommend creation of four parcels.
· What is the major objection by the Applicant to the Township Planner’s recommendation? (Applicant response: Creation of two versus four lots; the land could be split easier with four lots, not having to be rezoned again.)
· Under the current ordinance, if somebody wanted to split a property, and the split would cause one portion of the property to be isolated from the road, does that violate the ordinance? (Response by Commissioner Arscott: Yes.)
· Is there a formal process to receive an easement? (Response by Commissioner Arscott: Yes, there would have to be a property description, then declare an easement; and the process would have to go in the public record.)
· There is currently a structure on only one of the existing parcels. (Applicant response: There are two barns.)
· In the application there is the statement that “the families need to create lots of equal value and separate ownership.” The Township Planner’s recommendation meets this goal. It appears in addition that it would be helpful and better, as stated by the Applicant, to have four instead of two lots. (Applicant response: Applicant has met several times with the Township Planner and feels the Township Planner has a full understanding of where the Applicant is coming from.)
· Applicant has stated there is an urgent need at this time to create lots with individual ownership due to estate and tax purposes. The Township consultant feels the recommendation simplifies things from an administrative standpoint, minimizing the number of non-conforming parcels at the same time. Now the Applicant wishes future possibilities to be considered.
· There can be a driveway; but once it starts serving more than one lot, then it becomes a private road, which is not what it is right now.
· Applicant indicates to the Zoning Board of Appeals having had consultation with the Township Planner, who agreed with its position; and now at this hearing Applicant feels there has been a slightly different recommendation presented. Feel it might be appropriate that this matter have another hearing, and the Applicant be referred to have further discussion with the Township Planner.
· If the Zoning Board simply lets the Applicant split the property and create additional properties that are not attached to the road, why then can it not do the same for other property owners who would come before this Board?
· To reiterate, both entities are present tonight and are working together.
· It appears there are quite a few land-locked parcels in this area.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPENCER, SUPPORT BY COMMISSIONER MURPHY TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:30 P.M.
YES: 5 NO: 0 MOTION CARRIED
Discussion by Board members:
· Would it be in the Applicant’s interest that the Zoning Board at least approve a motion to take the two parcels and turn them into two additional parcels as long as it doesn’t violate any other zoning laws, so that they can at least have the estate issue taken care of, or would the Zoning Board rather table this matter?
· The basic question is how important are two versus four parcels to the Applicant. It is important for all parties that there be clarity as to the Township Planner’s recommendation.
· Township Planner does say the four lots as proposed by the applicants are acceptable.
· Township Planner indicates that he would not recommend four parcels.
· Township Planner indicates that he would not deny Applicant the four parcels either, under “Conclusion” in his report.
· Township Planner does not recommend creation of four parcels under “Alternatives” in his report.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ARSCOTT, SUPPORT BY COMMISSIONER SPENCER,
TO TABLE VARIANCE #1537, REGARDING PROPERTY CODE #H-08-15-300-001 AND 08-15-400-011, UNTIL THE APPLICANT MEETS FURTHER WITH CARLISE-WORTMAN AND ASSOCIATES, AND THAT THERE IS CLARITY ON THE RECOMMENDATION BY THE TOWNSHIP CONSULTANT.
YES: 5 NO: 0 MOTION CARRIED
7) OLD BUSINESS
None
8) APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. Minutes of July 15, 2010.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KUBANY, SUPPORT BY COMMISSIONER ARSCOTT, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 15, 2010.
YES: 5 NO: 0 MOTION CARRIED
9) ANY OTHER BUSINESS
None
10) ADJOURNMENT
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ARSCOTT, SUPPORT BY COMMISSIONER SPENCER TO ADJOURN AT 7:38 P.M.
YES: 5 NO: 0 MOTION CARRIED
Minute preparation by James H. LaVoie
