Sunday, July 23, 2017
Holland Logo

Minutes - April 25, 2017

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

Regular Meeting
April 25, 2017

Present: Chairman Steve Haberkorn, Members Vern Johnson, Elliott Church, Bob Swartz and Russ Boersma. Also present was Assistant Planner/Zoning Administrator Corey Broersma and Recording Secretary Laurie Slater.

Absent: None

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Haberkorn at 5:30 p.m. Chairman Haberkorn explained the process to the audience.

Hearing declared open to consider a petition for two variances submitted by Justin Misner for vacant property located immediately to the east of 10909 Mason Street, known more specifically as parcel number 70-16-35-100-070. Petitioner is requesting the following variances for the purpose of constructing a new accessory building on the premises: 1) A variance of 1,824 square feet in the maximum allowable size for a detached accessory structure on a residential lot that exceeds two acres in area; resulting in an accessory structure of 2,400 square feet; 2) A variance of 12 feet in the maximum height allowed for detached accessory structures on a residential lot that exceeds two acres in area; resulting in an accessory building height of 28 feet. The subject property is zoned Agricultural (A), the proposed use of the accessory structure is non-farm related.

Present for this request was Justin Misner.

Mr. Misner explained that he would like the oversized accessory building with 16 foot sidewalls and an overall height of 28 feet with a 14 foot door for personal storage of equipment such as tractors and woodworking tools. The size of the property is five acres. The proposed house would be located on the northern portion of the property with views to the creek. The proposed barn would be located southeast of the home; leaving the south end of the property open for a hobby farm.

The style and color of the barn would be similar the neighbor’s barn to the west. They have a barn similar in size to what Mr. Misner has requested 40’ x 60’. There is a wooded ravine between the proposed structure and the properties to the east so no one would be looking directly at the barn. Mr. Misner plans to put Blue Spruce trees along the east property line. There are three barns to the west, two of which are similar in size and style. The barn would be of pole barn construction with metal siding and roofing to match the proposed house.

Mr. Misner further explained that he and/or future owners may not intend to use the barn solely for agricultural purposes, therefore he is not seeking an agricultural exception from building code.

The lot coverage would be less than one percent.

There was no one in the audience to speak to this request.

** It was moved by Mr. Johnson and supported by Mr. Swartz to close the hearing. Motion carried.

The Board went over the eight standards to review when considering an oversized accessory building.

The Board first went over the standards for the size of the accessory building:

1.   The size of the lot or parcel of land - 5 acres

2.   The intended use for the building(s) - personal storage

3.   The size, proposed location, type and construction, and general architectural character of the building(s) Pole barn construction – metal siding with style and color to match the house

4.   The type and kind of other principal and accessory buildings and structures presently located on the lot or parcel of land - None

5.   The type and kind of principal and accessory buildings and structures located on properties which are adjoining and in the same neighborhood – immediately west are 3 large barns, 1 pre-dating our ordinance and 2 built with  agricultural exceptions. Mr. Misner will be attempting to use some of the land as agricultural he needs the barn to store the equipment. The lot coverage is within the guideline of 3% as used in the past

6.   Whether the building(s) will affect the light and air circulation of any adjoining properties or be visible from any adjoining properties – No adverse effect on the light and air circulation. The barn will be visible – trees to the east and other neighbors are farther away – so limited visibility

7.   The effect of the building(s) on the surrounding neighborhood - No adverse effect

8.   The environmental effect of the building(s) or their proposed use – No adverse effect

**   It was moved by Mr. Church and supported by Mr. Swartz to approve the request as presented with the following conditions; 1) the roof and siding match the principle residence; 2) Mr. Minser puts in the screening on the east property line of Blue Spruce trees as discussed; 3) and there are to be no living quarters, business, trade, or industry included within the accessory building. Motion Carried

The Board next went over the standards for the requested addition height of the accessory building:

1.   The size of the lot or parcel of land – 5 acres

2.   The intended use for the building(s) - personal storage

3.   The size, proposed location, type and construction, and general architectural character of the building(s) Pole barn construction – metal siding with style and color to match the house

4.   The type and kind of other principal and accessory buildings and structures presently located on the lot or parcel of land - None

5.   The type and kind of principal and accessory buildings and structures located on properties which are adjoining and in the same neighborhood – immediately west are 3 large barns. The applicant measured Mr. Meiste’s barn to the west to come up with the pitch on his proposed barn. The road is higher than the location of the barn, therefore, the barn would not look like it was towering above everything.

6.   Whether the building(s) will affect the light and air circulation of any adjoining properties or be visible from any adjoining properties – No adverse effect on the light and air circulation. The barn will be visible but not any more so than what is already existing in the neighborhood.

7.   The effect of the building(s) on the surrounding neighborhood - No adverse effect

8.   The environmental effect of the building(s) or their proposed use – No adverse effect

**   It was moved by Mr. Johnson and supported by Mr. Boersma to approve the request for the height variance as presented. Motion carried.

Hearing declared open to consider a petition for two variances submitted by Gerald Veen for property located at 538 Howard Avenue, known more specifically as parcel number 70-16-30-176-018. Petitioner is requesting the following variances for the purpose of constructing a new accessory building on the premises: 1) A variance of 528 square feet in the maximum allowable size for a detached accessory structure on a residential lot of less than one acre in area; resulting in an accessory structure of 768 square feet; 2) A variance in the maximum number of detached accessory structures permitted for a residential lot of less than one acre in area and with an attached garage; resulting in the subject property having two separate detached accessory structures. The subject property is zoned R-1, Residential.

Present for this request was Gerald Veen.

Mr. Veen explained that he would like to construct a second accessory building for personal storage. The existing structure is an approximately 18’ x 22’ one hundred year old building with character. It is land locked between the existing driveway and the property line. He could not rebuild in this location due to constraints from the existing driveway. The building would be an odd shape; narrower at the front then widening at the back. Also, the floor would be uneven as the property drops off there.

The proposed additional accessory building would be located to the south and west, next to the neighbors’ accessory building which is also 24’ x 32’. Mr. Veen did not believe it would affect the view of the lake for others. It would be used for storage of Jet Skis and woodworking tools. The other building has the riding lawn mower, snow blower and a wheel barrel.

The Board asked Mr. Veen if he could add on to the existing shed. He replied that it already violates the side yard setback. It is at 3 feet from the property line. There are wires holding up the rafters and it would go over the existing driveway.

There was discussion about whether there were any other properties in the area with two accessory buildings that did not have an attached garage, as they are allowed two if there is not an attached garage. They could not find any. The Board does not have a problem with the size of the structure as there are others in the surrounding neighborhood similar in size. The issue is that he is requesting a second accessory building.

Mr. Haberkorn read a letter received from Don and Cindy Glennie of 554 Wedgewood in opposition of the second accessory building. (In folder)

There was no one present in the audience to speak to this request.

** It was moved by Mr. Boersma and supported by Mr. Church to close the hearing. Motion carried.

The Board first went over the eight standards to review when considering an oversized accessory building.

The Board first went over the standards for the size of the accessory building:

1.   The size of the lot or parcel of land – ¾ of an acres – making lot coverage 1.7%

2.   The intended use for the building(s) - Personal storage

3.   The size, proposed location, type and construction, and general architectural character of the building(s) – Match the storage buildings on either side – the shingles would match the existing house – Batten Board proposed

4.   The type and kind of other principal and accessory buildings and structures presently located on the lot or parcel of land – one 18’ x 22’ hundred year old accessory building

5.   The type and kind of principal and accessory buildings and structures located on properties which are adjoining and in the same neighborhood – There are several of this size

6.   Whether the building(s) will affect the light and air circulation of any adjoining properties or be visible from any adjoining properties – No adverse effect on the light and air circulation, but it will be visible

7.   The effect of the building(s) on the surrounding neighborhood – No adverse effect

8.   The environmental effect of the building(s) or their proposed use – No adverse effect

**   It was moved by Mr. Church and supported by Mr.. Johnson to grant the request for the oversized accessory building with the stipulation that the existing accessory building comes down and there are to be no living quarters, business, trade, or industry included within the proposed accessory building. The location is to be approved by staff, meet all the required setbacks, and match the style and materials of the other accessory buildings in the neighborhood. Motion carried.

**   It was moved by Mr. Swartz and supported by Mr. Boersma to deny the request for a second accessory building. Motion carried.

Hearing declared open to consider a petition for nonuse variance submitted by Jason Hill on behalf of Chick-fil A, Inc. for property located at 2332 North Park Drive, known more specifically as parcel number 70-16-21-100-046. Petitioner is requesting to locate an accessory building within the front yard, but not within the required front yard setback. The front yard of the subject site is located along the North Park Drive. The subject property is zoned C-2, General Commercial.

Present for this request was Cheryl Scales, Project Engineer with Progressive/AE of Grand Rapids on behalf of Chick-fil A.

Ms. Scales explained to the Board that Chick-fil A would like to have a small structure of 9’ x 10’ and a height of 8’ – same height as the dumpster enclosure – for the storage of rakes, shovels and salt to maintain the site. The proposed location is close to the service area. If it were placed in the rear yard the large garbage trucks that come to empty the dumpsters would interfere with the drive thru area traffic. There is no space within the restaurant to store the equipment. There would be landscaping around the dumpsters. It would be fully bricked to match the building and the dumpster area. The building itself would be cement block with a pitched roof for drainage.

Board comments were that this has never been requested before. It makes sense to keep the equipment there as it is used outside. The properties facing the US – 31 corridor have been treated differently than others because of the front and rear yards seem reversed. One would want the highway side to also be attractive to attract business. It’s harmless, sensible and logical.

Present in the audience for this request was Mr. Nelis of Dutch Village. He was concerned about fly away garbage. He has had a problem in the past with Steak and Shakes’ garbage flying across the highway.

** It was moved by Mr. Johnson and supported by Mr. Boersma to close the hearing. Motion carried.

The Board went over the four standards to review when considering a nonuse variance request.

1.   Would strict compliance with the minimum area, yard setbacks, frontage, height, bulk, density, or other regulations of the Zoning Ordinance be unnecessarily burdensome? – The front yard and back yards are reversed along the US-31 corridor. The property is a skinny property. The building would be inconspicuous.

2.   Would granting the requested variance do substantial justice to the applicant as well as to other property owners in the zoning district? Or would a lesser relaxation than that applied for provide substantial relief to the property owner and be more consistent with justice to other property owners in the district? – The building is already very small so a lesser relaxation is not practical. It’s a closet. There has been nothing like this ever requested. There would be landscaping around the dumpster area that this structure is a part of so it would be out of sight.

3.   Is the plight of the property owner/applicant due to the unique circumstances of the property (e.g. an odd shape or a natural feature, such a wetland or stream) and not to general neighborhood conditions in the area? - Fronts on both US-31 and North Park Drive. The back yard and the front yard appear reversed.

4.   Are the practical difficulties alleged self-created? – Yes it is self-created, but it makes sense to have it.

**   It was moved by Mr. Boersma and supported by Mr. Johnson to grant the request as presented. Motion carried.

There were no public comments

The minutes of the March 28, 2017 meeting were approved as written.

Under other business the Board was asked to make recommendations to the Planning Commission if there were any ordinances they would like to see changes made to such as accessory building.

Mr. Broersma asked for Board input on situations where corner lots desire an accessory building. The example provided was for a property owner wishing to put an accessory building in his side yard because there was not enough room in the back yard or a situation where he could add on to the existing garage. The structure would not be any closer to the road than the neighbor’s house.

It was the consensus of the Board that they would need a hearing on it as they had questions.

The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Laurie Slater
Recording Secretary

six pack abs