APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE KENTWOOD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS
JULY 18, 2011, 7:00 P.M.
1. Chair Derusha called the meeting to order.
2. Roll Call
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom Cutts, Les Derusha, Garrett Fox, Mel Halloway, Richard Lenger, Alan Lipner
MEMBERS ABSENT: Walter Wing
OTHERS PRESENT:Planner Joe Pung,Staff SecretaryMonique Collier and the applicant.
3. Approval of the Minutes and Findings of Fact
Motion by Commissioner Lipner, supported by Commissioner Lenger, to approve the minutes of May 16, 2011.
- Motion Carried (6-0) –
- Wing absent -
4. Public Hearing
Appeal #V-10-16
Applicant: Dustin L. Wadsworth
Location: 3851 Model Court
Request: The applicant wishes to operate an indoor recreational facility at 3851 Model Court, SE. The property is zoned I-1 Light Industrial and does not allow for indoor recreational facilities. The request is for a use variance to allow for an indoor recreational facility to operate at this location.
Motion by Commissioner Lenger, supported by Commissioner Lipner, to deny V-10-16
1. That there are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property that do apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district.
2. The condition or situation of the specific piece of property for which the variance is sought is so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonable practical the formulation of a general regulation for such condition or situations.
3. That such a variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right similar to that possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the vicinity. The possibility of increased financial return shall not of itself be deemed sufficient to warrant a variance.
4. The variance will be detrimental to adjacent property and the surrounding neighborhood.
5. The variance will impair the intent and purpose of this Ordinance.
6. That the immediate practical difficulty causing the need for the variance request was created by action of the applicant.
- Motion Carried (6-0) –
- Wing absent -
Appeal #V-11-05
Applicant: R&R Mechanical Services LLC
Location: 1721 Buchanan Avenue SW
Request: The applicant wishes to place (4) air conditioning units in the front yard of each of the existing residential buildings. Section 3.09 of the Kentwood
Zoning Ordinance prohibits air conditioning units from being located in the front yard.
Applicant withdrew their request
Derusha added that they did move the air conditioning units around the back and they look quite nice, they did a very nice job.
Appeal #V-11-06
Applicant: Richard & Laurel Bouma
Location: 3694 Lake Dr. SE
Request: The applicant wishes to construct a gazebo in the side/front yard of the property. Section 3.15.C.1.b of the City of Kentwood Zoning Ordinance requires that accessory structures be located in the rear yard of properties located in R-1 Residential Districts. The requested variance is to permit a gazebo to be located in the side/front yard of the property
Laurie Bouma, 3694 Lake Dr. was present to represent the request. She stated they would like to build a gazebo attached to their wrap-around porch. She stated they have a country style home that sits about 300 feet from Lake Dr. in dense woods. She stated they have one neighbor on each side and they will not see the gazebo when constructed. She stated the neighbors are in favor of the request and signed petitions that have been submitted.
Bouma stated it will be architecturally attractive, it will not be seen by anyone but them. Bouma displayed pictures of her home showing they are in dense woods, pictures showing the view to the neighbors homes and pictures of the wrap around porch to show where the gazebo would be once constructed.
Derusha asked about the optional bridge and if it were attached to the house would there be an issue. Pung stated that will not make it attached to the house. Pung stated it has to be a covered walkway and when it becomes attached there are different building code issues that will come in to play (footings etc).
Bouma stated they will basically be cutting a piece of their railing out of east side of their wrap around porch and there will be a walkway accessing the gazebo which will be separate from the house.
Lenger asked if the gazebo is considered an accessory building. Pung stated it is an accessory structure but it doesn’t count against the two you are allowed by ordinance.
Bouma stated the back of their house is woods and wetlands with deer and raccoons and turkeys. She stated one of the reasons they wanted to put it on the front porch area is because on the other side of the house is a 3 stall garage. She stated they thought it would balance everything out having it on the corner.
Derusha asked about the depth of the entire lot. Mrs. Bouma stated 450 feet. She stated the property goes all the way back to Calvin College
Fox asked in the winter/fall season will the structure be visible to the neighbors. Bouma stated in the winter the neighbor to the west can’t see their house and the other neighbor to the east is down a hill and is pretty far away. She stated they do not live in a standard neighborhood, they do not have houses right in a row.
Derusha stated he is assuming the purpose of the ordinance is to keep the front yard from being cluttered. Pung stated that is correct. Derusha stated he is guessing their property is about 300 feet from the street. Pung stated around 270 feet.
Derusha opened the public hearing.
There was no public comment.
Motion by Commissioner Lenger, supported by Commissioner Fox, to close the public hearing.
- Motion Carried (6-0) –
- Wing absent -
Holloway stated point 1 is met because of the depth of the lot and the fact that there are wetlands in the back and the property is wooded and not seen. Holloway stated point 2 is met, he doesn’t think we will run into this variance very often; we aren’t going to have a secluded lot and being so far from the roadway it will not be visible. Holloway stated point 3 is met.
Fox added the density of the trees make this exceptional, Lipner, Lenger Cutts and Derusha concurred.
Holloway stated point 4 was met there have been 3 letters from the neighbors that states the request is ok. Holloway stated point 5 was met because this is a specific situation. Holloway stated point 6 is met due to the uniqueness of the property.
Lipner, Fox, Lenger, Cutts and Derusha concurred.
Motion by Commissioner Holloway, supported by Commissioner Fox, to approve V-11-06.
1. Due to the density of the trees, the depth of the property, setback of the home from the road and the wetlands in the rear of the property there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district.
2. Due to the exceptional circumstances applying to the property the condition or situation of the specific piece of property for which the variance is sought is not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonable practical the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations.
3. That such a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property right similar to that possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the vicinity. The possibility of increased financial return shall not of itself be deemed sufficient to warrant a variance.
4. The variance will not be detrimental to adjacent property and the surrounding neighborhood. The immediate neighbors sent letters of approval and due to the property condition it will not be visible from the road or by the neighbors.
5. Due to the exceptional circumstances applying to the property the variance will not impair the intent and purpose of this Ordinance.
6. That the immediate practical difficulty causing the need for the variance request was not created by any action of the applicant. The uniqueness of the property and the layout of the home were not created by the applicant.
Motion by Lipner, supported by Fox, to adjourn the meeting.
- Motion Carried (6-0) –
- Wing absent -
Meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Alan Lipner, Secretary