Reference Desk

 

Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - July 14, 2010

THE CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF CHESTERFIELD

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

July 14, 2010

On July 14, 2010, a regular meeting of the Chesterfield Township Zoning Board of Appeals was held at the Township Hall located at 47275 Sugarbush, Chesterfield Twp., MI 48047.

1. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Stepnak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

2. ROLL CALL: Present: Marvin Stepnak, Chairman

James Klonowski, Vice-Chairman

Nancy Orewyler, Secretary Gerald Blake

Thomas Yaschen

Absent: Janice Uglis, Township board liaison, excused

Paula Frame, Planning Commission liaison, excused

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:

Chairman Stepnak explained the procedures to the audience.

4. ZBA PETITION #2010-15: Mike Stern, 47121 Land Drive, Chesterfield, MI 48047. Variance request is a rear yard setback of 25’ for a proposed enclosed patio. Petitioner has an existing 32’ x 13’ deck on the rear of the home now, he would like to remove that structure and replace it to the end of the enclosed patio when completed. Location is stated above.

Mike Stern, 47121 Land Drive, Chesterfield, MI 48047 addressed the board.

Petitioner stated that he was requesting a variance for a 14.5’ rear yard setback for an enclosed patio.

Chairman Stepnak asked if the petitioner was just redoing what he had out there?

Petitioner answered basically yes.

Mr. Yaschen verified that the existing deck was where the proposed patio will be located. He asked the petitioner if then planned to move the deck out further?

Petitioner stated that originally he planned to move the deck out; however, they decided to eliminate the deck totally and just have a patio.

Mr. Yaschen verified that the petitioner no longer planned to have a deck.

Petitioner answered yes. He just wanted to build an enclosed patio and eliminated the deck. The patio would be going out only 13’ 6", but there will be a one foot overhang. Therefore that was why he was requesting a 14’ 5" variance.

Mr. Yaschen asked if at this point the deck was out completely and the petitioner was only requesting a variance for the enclosed patio?

Petitioner answered yes.

Mr. Blake commented that the petitioner just answered his question.

Mr. Klonowski stated that his questions had been answered as well.

Ms. Orewyler stated that she did not have much to add. She mentioned that she was glad that the deck was not being attached to the patio because it would leave the petitioner without a back yard.

Petitioner agreed and joked that was what his dog said.

Mr. Shortt stated that the Building Department had no problems it.

There were no public comments

Chairman Stepnak mentioned that there was no correspondence regarding this matter. He stated that he had no additional comments on the variance.

Mr. Shortt asked if the patio would be 13’ 6" from the house?

Petitioner answered yes. He stated that it would be 13’ 6" with an overhang of one foot; therefore basically it would be 14’ 6".

Mr. Shortt asked about the size of the footing itself?

Petitioner stated that the footing would be 13’ 6".

Mr. Shortt stated that he just wanted the board to know what they would be voting on. He stated because he had to enforce whatever is on paper.

Chairman Stepnak verified so basically the board would be considering a variance for

13’6". He stated that information would be put on record for the Building Department and had the petitioner put his initials by the size on the paperwork.

Motion by Ms. Orewyler to approve Petition #2010-15 at 47121 Land Drive, Chesterfield. The deck will be removed and in its place the petitioner will build an enclosed patio that will come out 13 ½ feet. The petitioner must comply with all the rules and regulations of the Building Department.

Supported by Mr. Blake.

Chairman Stepnak asked if Ms. Orewyler would amend the petitioner to 13’ 6" instead of

13 ½ feet.

Ms. Orewyler agreed to amend the motion.

Mr. Blake continued support.

Ayes: All

Nays: None Motion Granted

5. ZBA PETITION #2010-16: Susan Stoker, 52611 Robins Nest Dr., Chesterfield, MI 48047. Petitioner is requesting a variance for a second drive and concrete pad, 12’ wide on the northeast side of her residence. Located at the address stated above.

Susan Stoker, 52611 Robins Nest Dr., Chesterfield, MI 48047 addressed the board.

Petitioner stated that she was requesting a variance for a 12’ wide cement pad and second driveway on the left side of her home and she was told she needed a variance for that.

Ms. Orewyler stated that there was quite a bit of concrete on the other side of the petitioner’s home. She mentioned that the petitioner had another concrete pad over there.

Petitioner answered yes, she had the driveway extended over.

Ms. Orewyler asked when that concrete pad was put in?

Petitioner answered in May.

Ms. Orewyler asked this year?

Petitioner answered yes.

Ms. Orewyler asked what that concrete pad was for?

Petitioner explained that pad was for when she puts her fence up she has a place to put her garbage cans behind the fence so they do not blow around the neighborhood. She would like that stuff removed from the inside of her garage; but she has no fencing around her house right now.

Ms. Orewyler stated that the concrete pad was large enough to hold a mobile home.

Petitioner answered no, not really with the fence up; there would not be any room to move over there. She stated that her next project would up a privacy fence.

Ms. Orewyler asked why the petitioner felt she needed a driveway up to this?

Petitioner explained that she would like a driveway because she had a recreational vehicle that she would like to park on her property on the left side of her house because there is more space on that side. She added that her deck comes around her home on the right side and there is not enough room to go between where the neighbor put the fence for a recreational vehicle.

Ms. Orewyler asked how wide the pad was on the other side of the petitioner’s home?

Petitioner asked which side?

Ms. Orewyler stated the one that the petitioner had installed in May.

Petitioner stated that it was 14’.

Ms. Orewyler added that that the pad was the length of the petitioner’s home, which is 49’.

Mr. Yaschen stated that the paperwork shows the existing concrete driveway 16’ 3" wide.

He asked if that driveway leads to the petitioner’s garage?

Petitioner answered correct.

Mr. Yaschen asked if there was any concrete on the petitioner’s right side of the home?

Petitioner stated yes there was concrete on the right side of the home.

Mr. Yaschen asked if that concrete ran all the way to the street?

Petitioner answered no it bumps out. She explained that on the left side of the house the concrete goes to the street.

Mr. Klonowski asked Mr. Shortt asked what the board was actually looking at?

Mr. Shortt stated that one concrete pad is allowed on the side of a home for an RV unit. He stated that the petitioner already has a concrete pad on the right side of her home. He explained that the petitioner put in another concrete pad on the other side. He mentioned that the petitioner had a permit from the Macomb County Road Commission on the approach.

Chairman Stepnak stated that the petitioner is looking for a second driveway.

Mr. Shortt stated that he talked to the petitioner stating that some people put in a circle driveway at the front of their home. However, he mentioned that the drive cannot reach to the edge of the person’s property.

Mr. Klonowski stated that he saw a circle driveway down the road from the petitioners. He

asked if the circle drive was permitted because that would essentially be a second driveway?

Petitioner answered that a horseshoe drive is permitted.

Mr. Shortt stated that he was told that the contractor called the girls in the Building Department and asked if a driveway could be extended. The contractor was told yes and that he did not need a permit to extend the driveway. At that point, the petitioner’s started the driveway and the petitioner’s neighbors called up asking what was going on and whether the petitioner planned to land airplanes in their neighborhood. At that time, an inspector from the Building Department went out to the property and told the petitioner’s that they could not have two driveways; they could only have one. The petitioner already has a driveway and an RV pad on one side.

Mr. Blake asked if on the right side the concrete pad went from the front of the house to the back of the house which is 49’.

Petitioner stated that it did not go all the way back to the house; the deck is there.

Mr. Blake stated that it goes very close to the back of the petitioner’s house. He stated that he did not understand why the RV could not be parked there.

Petitioner stated that the neighbor put up a fence and now there is not enough room to back it up. She explained that it is a 25’ trailer.

Chairman Stepnak explained that when he went out he saw a concrete pad on the right side already and he stated that now the petitioner wants another concrete pad on the left side with an additional curb cut. He stated that the curb cut has been permitted by the Road Commission and the roads are controlled by the county as opposed to the Township. However, that does not give any reason for the petitioner’s home being serviced by two driveways.

Petitioner stated that the second driveway would be used for the recreational vehicle; to move in and out.

Public Comments

Sharon Jankowski, 52595 Robins Nest Drive, Chesterfield, MI addressed the board.

Ms. Jankowski mentioned that she would not have objected to the petitioner putting the pad on the other side of her home; however, she objects to a second driveway. She owns an RV that she pays to park elsewhere. She would also like to park her RV on her property, but it would create an eyesore. She mentioned that property values are already down and it looks awful. She mentioned that she had pictures of the property.

Keith Miles, 52603 Robins Nest Drive, Chesterfield, MI addressed the board.

Petitioner stated that he lived next door to the petitioner’s home. He asked Mr. Shortt how many driveways a homeowner was allowed to have on his property?

Mr. Shortt answered one.

Mr. Miles asked if a homeowner was allowed to have a secondary driveway?

Mr. Shortt stated that they would be allowed to have a circle driveway.

Mr. Miles asked if the driveway on the right side that has been poured and completed would be classified a second driveway.

Mr. Shortt answered yes. It would be considered an RV pad with an extended driveway.

Mr. Miles stated so the other driveway that the petitioner wants would be on the left side of the house would be 12’. He stated that he does not want to look out of his kitchen window at an RV. He mentioned that he did not know if the RV belonged to the petitioner or it was something that she would be storing on her property. He stated that he does not want to look out of his kitchen window at an RV. He asked Mr. Shortt if he would like to come by his home and look out of that window.

Chairman Stepnak informed Mr. Miles that Mr. Shortt is not a member of the Zoning Board. He stated that Mr. Shortt was attending the meeting in an advisory capacity and he does not vote on the petitions. He basically brings the board up to speed on codes and ordinances. Therefore, he explained if he had any questions, Mr. Miles should address the board.

Mr. Miles made more comments to the board opposing the granting of the variance.

Chairman Stepnak stated that the board could not speculate whose RV was being parked

at the petitioner’s home; whether it belongs to the petitioner or a friend. The board has entertained in the past fencing or screening in some instances and that would be a possibility if the board went ahead and approved the variance; that would be something the board may consider.

Ms. Jankowski readdressed the board and asked if the board was interested in seeing the pictures of the petitioner’s property.

The board members looked at the pictures on Ms. Jankowski’s digital camera.

Ms. Jankowski stated that the people in the home down the street with the horseshoe drive

have a lot more property. She added that the properties in their immediate vicinity are not big enough to put a horseshoe drive. She explained that if that was what the petitioner’s want; then her assumption would be that all the people in her area with RV’s would be able to put in two driveways.

Chairman Stepnak stated that the petitioner’s are asking for a second driveway 12’ in width. He mentioned that Mr. Shortt stated earlier that there is only one driveway allowed per residence and residences are allowed another curb cut for a horseshoe drive which is not out of the norm. He mentioned that the petitioner’s already had a large concrete pad on the right side of their home.

Petitioner stated that there was nothing in writing in the Township Ordinances stating that a person can not have a second driveway. She reiterated that there is absolutely nothing in writing there. She submitted the driveway in question at this time and she told Mr. Miles that she would be putting up a privacy fence after completion of the concrete pad.

Chairman Stepnak reminded the petitioner to address the board.

Petitioner stated that she mentioned before that her next project would be to put up a privacy fence. She explained that if the board would look at the pictures, they would notice two dark spots which are the places where the posts for the fence would be located. She stated that the Nancy, the Code Enforcement Officer, was out on May 12th, the day the stop work order was issued, and one little section of cement was poured at that time. She claimed that Nancy looked at the cement and said run with it. After that the contractors ordered the cement and poured it from the back of the house to the front of the house. She stated that later Nancy returned and placed the stop work order for the variance. She reiterated that Nancy was on the premises earlier that day for whatever reason and told them to run with the cement and the stop work order was placed later.

Chairman Stepnak reiterated that Mr. Shortt was not a member of the Zoning Board and that he was attending the meeting in an advisory capacity and does not vote on the petitions. He stated that the petitioner was asking for a second driveway because it does not spurt off of the existing driveway. He stated that the ordinance does state that; otherwise the petitioner would not be in front of the board this evening for a variance. He reiterated that the board is looking at a variance for a second driveway.

Motion by Ms. Orewyler to deny Petition # 2010-16 for the second driveway at 52611 Robins Nest Dr. Chesterfield. She stated that the petitioner has shown no practical difficulty.

Supported by Mr. Blake.

Chairman Stepnak requested that the motion include that the second driveway would contradict the way the community was developing. He explained that everyone in the subdivision does have one driveway attached to their garage area and they do not have second driveways spreading off to another part of their property.

Ms. Orewyler agreed to amend her motion.

Mr. Blake continued support.

Mr. Klonowski asked if Ms. Orewyler would include that granting the variance would contradict the spirit and intent of the ordinance.

Ms. Orewyler again agreed to include that in the motion.

Mr. Blake continued support.

Ayes: All

Nays: None Motion Granted

6. OLD BUSINESS:

There was no old business.

7. NEW BUSINESS:

There was no new business

8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETING:

Motion by Ms. Orewyler to approve the minutes from the June 23, 2010 ZBA meeting.

Supported by Mr. Yaschen

Ayes: All

Nays: None Motion Granted

9. COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR:

Chairman Stepnak thanked Mr. Shortt from the Building Department for attending the meeting.

10. ADJOURNMENT:

Motion by Chairman Stepnak to adjourn at 7: 39 PM.

Supported by Mr. Yaschen

Ayes: All

Nays: None Motion Granted

Nancy Orewyler, Secretary Grace Mastronardi, Recording Secretary

Go To Top