Minutes: March 9th, 2011

MARCH 9, 2011
The regular meeting of the Catawba Island Township Board of Zoning Appeals was called to order by Chairman Bryan Baugh at 7:30 p.m. in the conference room. Other Board members present were Jack Devore, Tom Anslow, Dale VanLerberghe. Alternate Jack Ziegler was present and asked to join the board. Zoning Inspector Walter Wehenkel was also noted as present. Secretary for the meeting was Sandra Erwin.
The meeting began with the Pledge of Allegiance followed by the introductions of the Board members and a brief overview of the meeting proceedings by Chairman Byran Baugh. All those in attendance were sworn in by the Chairman Baugh.
The Secretary, Sandra Erwin, read the summary of case #543626. Said request is to allow for an area variance from the existing rear yard setback to 5 feet. No correspondence received regarding this case.
Charlie Johnson signed and sworn in. He would like to reduce the variance of the set front (water side) from 36 feet to 27 feet. Thus the rear set back would be 14 feet (Instead of the requested 5 feet). Also, the house would be shifted over on the south side of 7 feet from the line and the garage would be 5 feet. On the north it would be 21 feet from house and 20 feet from garage. Walter Wehenkel made copies of the new drawings and presented them to the board.
Sharon Tuttle sworn in and presented information on the front of the house to be in line with the rest of the sub-division. Garage is also in line with the neighborhood.
Jack Devore questioned the numbers for they did not add up to the lot size of 54 feet. Jim Vacha variance board of the sub division stated that the lot is 54 feet wide.
Tom Anslow commented width of the lot x the length does not match a parallelogram. So then the stated percentage is incorrect percentage coverage for that lot. We have problems in the past with Harbor Park due to the shapes of the lots.
Mr. Tom Corogin was sworn in and stated that the lot size is 50 x 117 measured at the right angle. Because of the angle of the channel, the basic would be 50 x 117. It skews the coverage of percentage because this is really a parallelogram not a rectangle. The numbers don’t add up. Jack and Tom both agree that 4 ft are missing. North lot set back would be 15 not 20. Jack Devore and Tom Anslow stated that only 2 flags were posted at the site.
Charlie Johnson – Harbor Park asked for the 27 feet from the water. This is the number that the park looks for.
Bryan Baugh asked; is there any steps or entrances from the south side. There are no steps planned.
Charlie Johnson would be happy to admen the drawings to have it reflect 50 feet instead of the 54 feet.
Bryan asked if the yellow shed will be staying or going? Kevin Eisenman sworn in and stated that the shed would be gone. Any other sheds going to be placed. Kevin stated no shed.
The White and Black sheds are they the neighbors or yours? Kevin stated that they are the neighbors. Bryan also stated that the property was not marked very well. Marking makes the procedure flow much easier to see what is going to happen.
Jack Ziegler stated the correct address should have been 1570 North Starboard not 1570 Starboard. GPS was not helpful without the correct address.
Bryan Baugh asked; are we comfortable with the setbacks as stated?
Jack Devore commented; would like to see property again marked out with the new plans.
Tom Anslow asked if the property has been surveyed. Charlie answered it was not.
Dale VanLerberghe would like to see the property marked out more clearly.
Tom Anslow – marking only with 2 flags was not sufficient for seeing the plans in action. But the numbers are in accord. 14 off road is generous for Harbor Park and 27 feet off the water is generally accepted. Tom feels that he is on the fence with the variance as it is requested.
Hanna Boger has been sworn in. We were not aware that we needed more that 2 flags we felt that we are well within the plans and did not think there would be any issues of this kind and would like to move ahead with the plans.
Walt Wehenkel stated that the missing flags for the site were his responsibility that he provided to the property owners. Code on page 110 replace a mobile home as long as it is not any closer to the road you need only a single variance such to say they only needed to mark the road setback with the 2 flags that I provided. Missing flags are Walt’s responsibility.
Jim Vacha feels that the basics are covered. The side set backs are fine, water side is in accordance and the road setback of 14 feet is very generous. Wish we had a lot more of that size setback in the Park.
Sharon stated the need of a new drawing that concerns the 5ft corner is kept. AC units where are they going to be? We have problems with units going in after the building is finished and then they are put on the property lines. That angle is the problem and feels all needs to be taken care of here not later when all is said and done.
Kevin the initial drawing of 54 feet wide is wrong. But the setback on the north is off a foot. The front setback is in proper, the side setbacks are proper, so the only variance with the setback is the rear of 14 feet. We are in accordance with all the setbacks. Is the AC part of the setbacks? Tom Anslow, no, the AC is not part of a setback, but stairs would be. Kevin we have plenty of width of the property. Dale do we need to consider the air conditioning in the variance, because we have never done that is the past. It is not attached. The AC is attached through piping. Walt typically stated that the AC units are placed on the site after the occupancy certificate is granted. Then they come back and put it down, because you have not looked at this in the past because most people are not honest.
Charlie stated: we would stipulate that no steps or garbage corals, nothing would be outside the boundaries of the property setbacks.
Jim –states; we just assume that the AC would be within the 5 feet setbacks. Where else would you put the AC unit? Before the compliance committee we have to watch where they put things closer to the line than should have been but since the committee we have had a tighter control on these issues that Sharon was stating.
Bryan asked is there a hardship? Kevin answered, yes there is a hardship. Additional rent and storage and living expenses.
Board comments:
Jack Devore a lot of figures that don’t add up and would like to see it layoff so the correct numbers and flags placed. Jack Ziegler agrees with this comment also.
Hanna – can have drawings to Walt to show everything with the changes within 48 hours. Bryan, I think the issue is that we can visualize where everything is going to be. Are we correct on that? Jack Devore feels that is correct also.
Dale after listening to what Tom has to say, we are looking at something that would be approved a month from now with the paperwork presented. But nothing is going to change the boundaries presented and coupled with the hardship I am ready to move ahead with this variance. But I would like a clean copy for our file; so that we know what is requested is being followed.
Jack’s question of doing that is, I fully trust Walt, but if they bring a drawing in with different numbers on it, we already approved it; I have a problem with that. We are responsible.
Bryan commented; if we approve the variance the drawing has to match what we approve. Or it is not an accepted drawing.
Dale they can’t build it if it is not within the variance that has been approved..
Walt If the board is moved to approve this variance have the motion stated that the: North (water side) no closer than 27 feet , side setbacks no closer than 5 feet, and rear setback back no closer than 14 feet. So the diagram that is presented fits into the approved boundaries. So when the drawings are presented to me, I can see that they are within the approval of the board. Without that approval I cannot interpret what the board is feeling toward the drawing that Hanna has stated, I would not have a warm and fussy feeling on that scene. If you are to take action tonight you would have to specify the number of feet for each setback so when the plans are presented I can determine if they meet the board’s approval to proceed with the plans.
Tom Anslow they are requesting front and rear. They are within the side setbacks and as long as they are under 39% coverage they don’t need a variance. When you revise your drawings you will have to change the coverage. But they will be under 39% so that is within the code also. Charlie even when we change the plans from 54 to 50 we will be not close to that 39%. Tom Anslow you will be at 37% coverage, but it would be nice to have all the drawings cleaned up.
Jim agrees with Dale that we are sitting here saying the same thing over and over. Once the shovel goes into the ground we will know if they are right. We watch that very closely and we will have no problems stopping and telling them they are wrong. I feel bad for Kevin, it is not his fault that the builder did not draw the plans correct. And I think we are punishing the guy when we are talking apples – oranges here. I think Dale and Tom have the right idea.
Dale we need to know exactly what the setback is going to be. Rear 14 feet from starboard, Front 27 feet from the harbor with 2 steps; total would be 25 feet that include the steps. That is what we need because they can’t build closer than 5 feet from the side and they have plenty of room for that. They are not requesting a variance for coverage.
Bryan we can vote to approve or deny. First challenge as Chairman, I think we will close this to the public and call for a vote. Anyone have a motion to be made.
Jack Devore we have to spell it out. Jack Ziegler and Tom coverage numbers are 37.2%. Tom scaled the area off the auditor’s aerial photo. Bryan no other comments;
Dale I moved to approve case #543626 as amended: not less of 14 feet from the right way for Starboard Avenue and not less than 25 feet from the seawall of harbor side.
Tom Anslow seconded the motion:
Vote: Dale ---yes approve
Jack Devore – yes to approve
Tom Anslow – yes to approve
Jack Ziegler -yes to approve.
Your variance has been approved. You will not be able to pick up your permit till April 13th when the minutes have been approved.
January minutes to be approved: Jack Devore motion to approve minutes
Jack Ziegler seconded: all in favor yes.
Finding facts signed at meeting of minutes approved. The Vice Chairman should remember to bring finding of facts up on new cases, and should be signed by all board members. This will not be official till the minutes have been approved and the finding of facts should be dated outward.
Board – lot lines should be marked with flags. That would be helpful to the board members. We would like to see as much as possible marked out. Spray paint and/or flags.
Walt that is way I gave you the aerials to help with the sightings of the property lines. Board feels that they do their best to mark it out so we can see what it would look like. Tom the foot print makes it a lot easier. Bryan what you (Walt) presented to the board is very helpful, but the visuals are very helpful. Walt thank you for what you do for us. Fine Job everyone.
Matt – digital recorder would be looked into. Dale – hours and hours of data can be recorded. Save on space and storage.
Minutes approved:_________________________________________________________