MINUTES OF THE CATAWBA ISLAND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
JANUARY 23, 2013
The meeting was called to order on January 23, 2013 at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Paul Shaw, Chairman of the Catawba Island Zoning Commission. Mr. Shaw introduced the following Commission members in attendance: Jordan Davenport, Vice Chair, Patti Piacentino and Keith Fisher. Walter Wehenkel, Township Zoning Inspector / Zoning Commission Secretary and Township Trustee Matt Montowski were also introduced.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Paul Shaw stated that being no members of the public were in attendance, he would dispense with reciting the meeting format. Mr. Shaw suggested the agenda for the meeting be as follows:
1) Application #544628: Scott and Olsie Keils requesting a zoning change from R - 1 Residential District to R - 2 Residential District for property in Section 3, Lot 2 also known as 1906
Northwest Catawba Road.
2) The reading and approval of our last meeting minutes
3) Any old business
4) Discussion of the proposed text amendments (time permitting)
Mr. Shaw asked for any additions or changes to the proposed agenda. There were none.
Mr. Shaw requested a motion to consider Application #544628: Scott and Olsie Keils requesting a zoning change from R - 1 Residential District to R - 2 Residential District for property located in Section 3, Lot 2 also known as 1906 Northwest Catawba Road. Jordan Davenport so moved. His motion was seconded by Patti Piacentino. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote.
Paul Shaw asked for any conflicts of interest by Board members. There were none.
Mr. Wehenkel indicated he wanted to make the Commission aware that the address of the property is confusing. The lot was proposed to be split into two parcels to allow the sale of the big house. Two addresses were assigned at that time by the County. The sale fell through and the lot remains as a single
parcel. The original address of the property was 1906 N. West Catawba Road. The second address assigned to the smaller home was 1894 N. West Catawba Road. That parcel with the smaller home is all that is being rezoned. Jordan Davenport moved to amend his motion to reflect the 1894 address. Patti Piacentino amended her second to the motion. The amended motion was passed. Mr. Shaw noted the application is confusing, even in the Regional Planning Commission letter. Keith Fisher indicated the map should have reflected the addresses. Mr. Fisher questioned if the north parcel was being rezoned based upon the zoning designation on the map with the application. Mr. Wehenkel
stated the map is confusing and the south piece is being rezoned. The map reflects what the applicant is asking for through the rezoning.
Mr. Shaw read the letter from the Ottawa Regional Planning Commission. The Commission's recommendation was for approval of the rezoning request by the Keils to the "R_2" zoning district. Mr. Shaw asked if there was any other written correspondence on this case. Mr. Wehenkel stated he had not received anything in writing. Mr. Shaw stated the south parcel appears to be about an acre in size. Mr. Wehenkel noted the south parcel is 0.38 acres in size. When combined with the north parcel, the site is a little less than one acre in size. Jordan Davenport read the property legal description for the south parcel included with the application. With no members of the public in attendance to discuss the case, Mr. Shaw opened and then closed the public session of the hearing. He called for discussion among the Commission members.
Patti Piacentino asked about the letter from the Keils that was part of the application. Mr. Wehenkel stated it could certainly be read into the record. Ms. Piacentino read the letter from the Keils. Ms. Piacentino asked if they are proposing to add twenty foot of frontage to the north parcel, why is the Commission discussing the south parcel. Mr. Wehenkel noted the twenty feet is being sold and that will reduce the frontage of the south piece to less than 100 feet as required in the "R-1" zoning District. Therefore, the rezoning is required to meet the 80 feet requirement of the "R_2" zoning district. Keith Fisher noted there is a fence running through the middle of the entire lot. Mr. Wehenkel stated the fence goes with the bigger parcel. Mr. Fisher stated the Keils state they have a drive off the private road. Mr. Wehenkel stated he is not an attorney, but the private road is owned by the bank. Mr. Keils may or may not have their permission to use that road. If he were prevented by the bank from using the private road, he could apply to the County for a driveway permit off of West Catawba Road. Mr. Shaw wondered the same thing. Mr. Wehenkel stated the Keils used to own the whole site including the subdivision. The bank foreclosed on the subdivision parcel. Mr. Fisher stated the building on the south parcel was supposed to be a community building for the subdivision. It was then going to be a part of a bed and breakfast. Mr. Fisher wondered if the building on the south parcel is big enough to meet the zoning requirements. Mr. Wehenkel stated that at some point it obtained a non-conforming status and has been grandfathered in. The sale of the big house on the north parcel created that situation. Mr. Wehenkel stated he does not believe it meets the 1,200 square foot requirement established by the zoning district. Mr. Fisher thought it was about 800 square feet. Mr. Fisher asked if it was grandfathered in because it was combined with the bigger piece. Mr.
Davenport stated the buildings were two separate building and they were combined with a breezeway to make it a single structure. At the same time, when the County approves the lot split it becomes an existing situation. So it is a non-conforming structure and if it were destroyed, it would need to comply during the reconstruction process. Mr. Fisher asked about the corner of the house up against the side lot line. Mr. Wehenkel stated it is two feet off the property line. Mr. Wehenkel stated the Board of Zoning Appeals granted Mr. Keils a
side setback variance around September of 2012. It was originally stipulated to be twenty-five feet off the road as required by a corner lot, but suddenly it was discovered to be only two feet. The Appeals Board granted the variance to allow the lots to be split as the County would not approve the split
without the variance. The split was approved, but never recorded. That is why it is still one parcel of land.
Mr. Davenport questioned if the neighbors were notified. Mr. Wehenkel stated he sent out the notices. One gentleman, Mr. Colabianchi did call about the rezoning, but once he understood the rezoning request he had no comments or problems. He didn't call to object or oppose, but get information. Mr. Davenport stated this property has had numerous variances and conditional uses granted in the past. He wondered if any of these approvals need to be revoked or if there was any conflict with those
approvals and the rezoning request. Mr. Wehenkel stated those prior approvals were subject to the conditions stated in the application. If those conditions change, the approval may no longer exist. As zoning inspector, any application needs to be reviewed in light of the decision to ensure the conditions
under which the approval was given still remain. Besides that, the actions by the Board of Zoning Appeals can only be vacated by the Board of Zoning Appeals. He was not aware that the Board has ever done that. Mr. Davenport wanted to clarify that. Mr. Wehenkel stated that conditional uses and variances generally go with the property not with the property owner. Mr. Shaw asked if a representative of the bank was in attendance at the variance request for the side setback in 2012. Mr. Wehenkel stated there were no members of the general public in attendance at the hearing and it was concluded in about fifteen minutes. He concurred if that was Mr. Montowski recollection. Mr. Montowski stated that it was his recollection as well.Mr. Fisher questioned the front yard setback requirements. One is shown as forty feet and one is thirty-five feet. Mr. Wehenkel stated the "R-2" District requirements are lesser than the "R-l" District requirements for lot width and front yard setback. The sketch shows what would occur if the rezoning is approved. The rear yard setback for the south parcel is greater than required. The sketch doesn't get recorded. He would be required to comply with the zoning requirements and not his sketch.
There being no further discussion or questions, Mr. Shaw requested a motion to take action on the Keils rezoning request as made in Application #544628: Scott and Olsie Keils are requesting a zoning change from R - 1 Residential District to R - 2 Residential District for property located in Section 3, Lot 2 also known as 1906 Northwest Catawba Road. Patti Piacentino asked if there wasn't a motion made at the beginning of the discussion. Mr. Wehenkel stated there was a motion to consider the request and that motion was voted on. Now it is time to make a motion on whether the rezoning should be approved or denied. Jordan Davenport moved to approve the request from Scott and Olsie Keils. Patti Piacentino seconded the motion. Mr. Shaw stated a "yes" vote indicates you are in favor recommending the
proposed change in zoning from R - 1 Residential District to R-2 Residential District as requested in Application # 544628 be presented to the Catawba Island Township Trustees for their consideration, a "no" vote indicates you do not favor these proposed change. Keith Fisher - Yes, Jordan Davenport - Yes, Patti Piacentino - Yes
Announce decision: Request # 544628 has been recommended for approval. The proposed application will be submitted to the Catawba Island Township Trustees for the consideration. The date of this meeting is February 12, 2013 at 7:30 p.m.
Mr. Shaw requested a motion to approve the prior meeting minutes from the December 19, 2012 meeting. Patti Piacentino moved to approve the minutes as mailed. Keith. Fisher seconded the motion.
Mr. Fisher noted that the third sentence on page 2 of the mailed minutes was incomplete. Mr. Fisher stated he asked two things. The first is reported, but second part was not. The second part was "or could it be accepted as presented." Mr. Shaw stated he remembers Mr. Fisher's question. Mr. Wehenkel noted he would add that to the minutes. A vote on the minutes as corrected was taken with all members voting for their approval. Mr. Shaw stated there were a number of text amendments that were mailed to each of you. He wondered how prepared the Commission members were to discuss the proposed amendments. Mr. Davenport stated he had reviewed them at some length and felt they were very good proposals. He credited Mr. Gerber for his efforts. Mr. Davenport requested the scenario to be followed for the text amendments.
Mr. Wehenkel stated the text amendments can be initiated by the Zoning Commission by motion, second and vote or they can be initiated by the Township Trustees through a formal resolution. The Trustees prefer the Zoning Commission initiate text amendments. Once initiated, a public hearing is scheduled with proper advertisement. If initiated tonight, the public hearing would be scheduled for the February Zoning Commission meeting. Once the Zoning Commission holds it public hearing and makes a
recommendation, the text amendments would go to the Township Trustees who would also hold a public hearing with appropriate advertisement. They would then vote on the approval of the text
amendments. There is no urgency in initiating the text amendments.
A general discussion followed on the proposed text amendments. The Zoning Commission members preferred to have another month to review the proposed text amendments and have additional
discussion at its February meeting. The amendments could then be initiated with the Zoning Commission public hearing scheduled for their March 27th meeting.
Paul Shaw noted the next scheduled meeting for the Zoning Commission is February 27, 2013.
Mr. Shaw requested a motion to adjourn. Jordan Davenport moved to adjourn the meeting. Patti Piacentino seconded the motion. The motion was passed and the meeting was adjourned at 8:22 p.m.