Bedford Township,
Michigan                                       

BEDFORD TOWNSHIP
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS (BZA)
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2008 OFFICIAL MINUTES

Present: Korleen Bialecki (Chair), Ron Herr, Richard Brunt, Rick Steiner (Township Board Trustee Representative), and Rollie Abel (Planning Commission Representative). Also Present: Duane Tucker (Planning, Zoning, & Building Administrative Assistant, Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Facilitator, Land Division Administrator, and Recording Secretary), Dennis Kolar (Building Official), and Phil Goldsmith (Township Attorney-Lennard, Graham & Goldsmith P.L.C.). Absent (Excused): None.

Call to Order: Ms. Bialecki (Chair) called the September 8, 2008 “regular” meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

Ms. Bialecki introduced the members of the Board and Township facilitator(s) to the public present. This meeting was held at 8100 Jackman Road, Bedford Township Government Center, in Conference Room “C”.

Citizen Participation Information: Ms. Bialecki welcomed the audience and shared citizen participation guidelines for public commentary.

Approval of Agenda: Motion to approve the “agenda” as submitted was made by Mr. Steiner and seconded by Mr. Abel.  Motion passed.

NEW BUSINESS (CHAIRPERSON): Ms. Bialecki opened the new business and public hearing with the first variance hearing.

First (1st) variance petition:

1.  The Appeal of Mary Ann Coberley, 3281 Chanson Valley Street, Lambertville, MI 48144, requesting the following variances: a front yard(s) fence height variance (Ordinance 400.1912) and a variance for the placement of an accessory building in a front yard (400.1903), on a corner lot, in an R-2A District (One Family Residential District), on land described as 58-02-173-021-00, 3281 Chanson Valley Street (Chanson Valley Estates).

Ms. Bialecki swore in the applicant (Bob Coberley, 3281 Chanson Valley Street) and explained the voting process followed by background information presented by Mr. Tucker. Mr. Coberley opted to continue with the variance process. Background information: Mary Ann Coberley took ownership of this lot on 3-18-2008 per the Monroe County Register of Deeds. For the record, ‘Mary Ann Coberley’ has granted Bob Coberley “Authorization to Act as Agent/Representative” for this variance appeal.

The previously described subdivision lot is approximately .35 ± acres in size while having approximately 132 ± foot frontage on Secor Road and approximately 120.5 ± foot frontage on Chanson Valley Street. The above-described lot is identified as a “corner lot” and lot # 21 of the Chanson Valley Estates Subdivision. The above lot is considered a corner lot, thus having 2 front yards for any proposed residential construction.

Per Bedford Township Ordinance 400.1903 “Accessory Buildings” the following is in effect: Sec. 1903. Accessory buildings, except as otherwise permitted in this Ordinance, shall be subject to the following regulations: 2.  Accessory buildings shall not be erected in any minimum side yard setback nor in any front yard.  The accessory building in question is a 14’ by 12’ or one hundred sixty-eight (168) square feet total area, which does not require a Bedford Township Building permit. Also for the record, per the 2006 Michigan Residential Building Code that went into effect August 1, 2008, Section 105.2 (Permits) the following is in effect: Building permits shall not be required for the following: A (i) One story detached accessory structures if the floor area does not exceed 200 square feet. Per Bedford Township Ordinance 400.201 “Definitions” the following is in effect: Lot, corner. A lot where the interior angle of two adjacent sides at the intersection of two streets is less than 135 degrees. Per Bedford Township Ordinance Department practice and precedent: The fence height is measured from the ground level to the highest point of a support post/brace/fence. In addition, Mary Ann Coberley also needs to successfully petition the Bedford Township Board (scheduled for Tuesday, September 16, 2008) to waive the sidewalk construction requirements before a final Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) can be issued by the Bedford Township Building Department. Due to Bedford Township General Code Ordinance 300.500 “Design and Improvement Standards” the following is in effect: Sec. 5.0. The subdivision design and improvements shall meet the standards established by all approving agencies, the Development Design Standards Ordinance and this Ordinance. All improvements shall be provided by the proprietor in accordance with plans approved by the Township and other applicable agencies. 300.505 Other improvements.  Sec. 5.5.  1.      Sidewalks. Sidewalks shall be provided on the sides of all road right-of-ways in the subdivision being developed. Sidewalks shall be required along the abutting major or secondary thoroughfare if said thoroughfare has or is being improved with curb and gutter. In those instances where no good purpose would be served, the Township Board may waive this requirement. Sidewalks shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards set forth in the Development Design Standards Ordinance. Per the “Chanson Valley Estates Subdivision” existing and recorded deed restrictions on file: 2. Architectural Control: No building, fence, hedge, wall, walk, or other structure, above ground swimming pool, grading or planting shall be commenced, erected or maintained, nor shall any addition to or change or alternation therein be made until the plans and specifications prepared by a competent architect or builder, showing the nature, kind, shape, materials, floor plans, color scheme, location and approximate cost of such structure or work be done and the grading plan of the plot to be built upon shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by Chanson Valley, Inc. or its assignee, and finally and filed permanently with the corporation, or with officers of said assignee. 

11. Fences:  No lot shall have a fence, which extends beyond the rear elevation of the dwelling toward the street.  No man made fence shall be taller than 4’0” in height. Hedge-rows must be maintained no taller the 6’0” in height.  No privacy fences shall be permitted.  All fences shall be maintained and trimmed as not to detract from the general appearance of the subdivision. 13. Term of Restrictions: These covenants, restrictions, and limitation shall be binding on all parties hereto and all owners in said plat for a period of thirty-five (35) years from this date (January 7, 1980, date recorded with the Monroe County Register of Deeds), after which time, such covenants, restrictions and limitations shall be automatically extend for successive periods of ten (10) years unless an instrument in writing signed by a majority of the owners of the lots in the premises has been recorded agreeing to change said covenants, restrictions or limitations in whole, or in part, which agreement shall be specifically enumerate the changes thereof, except restrictions 4-b. This restriction is to be observed in perpetuity and excluded from any time limitation.  The following variance was granted on March 10, 2008: The Appeal of Bedford Construction Inc., 3228 Chanson Valley Street, Lambertville, MI 48144, requesting a 21.00 ± foot front yard set-back variance (Ordinance 400.1800) for a proposed “residential dwelling”, on a corner lot, in an R-2A District (One Family Residential District), on land described as 58-02-173-021-00, 3281 Chanson Valley

Street (Chanson Valley Estates).  For the record, the letter signed August 6, 2008, regarding “The Bedford Township Building Department Issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) for 3281 Chanson Valley (Lambertville, MI 48144, Parcel I.D. #: 58-02-173-021-00)” shall be a part of this variance hearing record.

Seventeen (17) submitted letters of support for the above variance petition have been placed in your informational packet.

Mr. Coberley reviewed his submitted letter of variance application dated August 22, 2008 with the BZA. Mr. Coberley further emphasized that Lot # 21 of Chanson Valley Estates is a corner lot, having 2 front yards with specific front yard set-backs that cause certain construction restrictions/limitations.  The newly constructed white vinyl fence replaced an old 6’ high ragged fence that was irreparable. When the lot was purchased, it was our understanding that we were just making an improvement (being symmetrical and consistent) to the subdivision whereby matching the lot immediately to the north (Lot # 1 with a 6’ concrete wall barrier).  The 6’ concrete wall extends further out to Secor Road than the fence installed at 3281 Chanson Valley Street.  Mr. Coberley referred to other corner lot fence and small accessory building pictures in the front yard(s) located in Bedford Township.  Mr. Coberley noted that the shed is a minimum of 5’ from the property line.

Ms. Bialecki opened the BZA meeting to public commentary. 

Ms. Bialecki closed the public hearing while having no further public comment.

BZA discussion followed. Mr. Kolar stated that since this accessory building is in the Secor Road front yard the accessory building should be behind the face of the dwelling running to the south.  Mr. Brunt noted that the actual problem is that the side yard is actually a front yard although being a minimum of 10’ from the dwelling follows the ordinance. Mr. Kolar further stated that this lot has an extremely large road right of way set-back off of Secor Road. Mr. Coberley stated that he put the accessory building in the front yard in order to block off (create a barrier) Secor Roads traffic and noise.

Mr. Herr emphasized that Mr. Coberley is an experienced residential builder/contractor in Bedford Township and should have done his due diligence before he constructed the fence and accessory building. Ms. Bialecki questioned the maximum fence height standard (42” maximum in a front yard) in regard to the fence (maintenance free) exceeding the maximum.  Mr. Coberley noted that the height needed to vary due to the irregular ground contour, which exceeded 6’ (72”) in spots in order to make the fence appear aesthetically pleasing, effective, and balanced. The other option was to take the ground out and re-grade the lot.

Ms. Bialecki explained that the BZA must find evidence of a proven and unique hardship/practical difficulty regarding the proposed variance petition(s). Possible hardships/practical difficulties could be the following: lot located on a corner lot, a corner lot having 2 front yards, the lot having a very irregular terrain and elevation, and the previous fence was beyond any reasonable repair (dilapidated fence).  On the other hand, the BZA weighs in the decision making process if the applicant could have reasonably complied with existing ordinances and are these variance(s) for a financial gain.   

Mr. Herr added that he is struggling with this variance(s) request because of the 4 “practical difficulty” tests taken from the Michigan Township Association workshop/seminar (February 2007) that should be applied within the variance decision-making process.  Theoretically, the variance must pass all 4 tests for the proposed variance to be approved: First, would the strict ordinance compliance for the variance applicant be an unreasonable or unnecessarily burdensome (the applicant could have placed the accessory building outside the front yard and the fence could have been constructed with a 42” maximum height), secondly, the variance is minimally required to provide substantial justice for appellant and vicinity, thirdly, circumstances are uniquely identifiable to the property, and not the general conditions, and fourthly, the difficulty is not self-created and is only related to the land, not the property owner.

Mr. Abel concurred with Mr. Herr’s previously stated position.

Mr. Steiner stated that the BZA has had similar variance petitions in the past regarding the 2 front yards on a corner lot.  In theory, not by the ordinance definition, where the fence and accessory building were placed may be considered a side yard.  Mr. Steiner further indicated that for privacy, blocking traffic noise, shielding from debris thrown in his yard, block traffic light, and for safety standards along Secor Road (section line major road), this variance petition(s) is logical. In addition, the placement of the accessory building gives the applicant added use and enjoyment of their yard while creating a pleasing subdivision setting.

Ms. Bialecki expressed concern to Mr. Coberley, which he is a builder, professional person, and contractor, that is now petitioning the BZA after the fact (fence and accessory building are already built). Ms. Bialecki used the analogy that this is “like putting the cart before the horse”. Furthermore, the applicant previously petitioned (March 10, 2008) the BZA for a variance regarding dwelling construction on a corner lot.  Thus, this causes the BZA to greatly struggle with the variance(s) decision.

Mr. Goldsmith indicated that Bedford Township does not require fence construction permits and the Michigan Building Code does not require Township Building permits for a residential accessory building being 200 square feet in area or less.  Mr. Herr responded that the applicant’s ordinance “lack of knowledge” is not a reason the BZA should use in approving variance(s).  Mr. Goldsmith totally concurred with Mr. Herr’s statement and re-emphasized that the established “practical difficulty” standard is used within the variance decision-making process. Mr. Goldsmith noted that this is a different situation in that this lot is a corner lot on a major and busy section line road.

Motion by Mr. Steiner to grant/approve the following variance petition/request: 1.  The Appeal of Mary Ann Coberley, 3281 Chanson Valley Street, Lambertville, MI 48144, requesting the following variances: a front yard(s) fence height variance (Ordinance 400.1912) and a variance for the placement of an accessory building in a front yard (400.1903), on a corner lot, in an R-2A District (One Family Residential District), on land described as 58-02-173-021-00, 3281 Chanson Valley Street (Chanson Valley Estates). The normal fence height ordinance is 42” in a front yard whereby the approved fence height variance is 6’, depending on the topography of the lot land itself. The following are noted practical difficulties considered within this variance(s) approval: this fence is replacing a dilapidated (15 year old ±) and un-repairable existing fence; a major portion of the fence is parallel to Secor Road which is a very busy (high traffic and noise) and major section line road; the proposed fence and accessory building in the front yard will provide more usable area for the applicant(s); the fence and accessory building (placed on the rear corner of the lot) does not obstruct or interfere with the corner intersection visibility/traffic; this is a corner lot (2 front yards) within a platted subdivision having 2 front yards and additional restrictions; the granting of the petitioned variances does not create a negative effect or impact within the neighborhood or local surroundings; the proposed privacy fence lines up with the retaining wall to the north (Lot # 1); the positioning of the fence is fairly similar to the southern residences; and the 5’ ordinance accessory building rear yard setbacks are met.  The applicant has presented 19 letters of variance support. The following are conditions of the variance(s) approval: (1) The property owner shall maintain the entire fence in good repair and a neat condition. Any fence that endangers life or property, is not in good repair, or is not being maintained in a neat condition shall be deemed a public nuisance. (2) Due to “Chanson Valley Estates Subdivision” existing and recorded deed restrictions on file, the variance applicant understands they bear the sole responsibility of a “private cause” of action from the “Association” or from any individual lot owner within the subdivision reflective of existing or amended “Deed Restrictions, Reservations, and Easements”.   (3) The privacy fence and accessory building shall not impose or impede any pediment to vehicle or pedestrian ingress/egress. Mr. Brunt seconded the motion for discussion purposes.     

The motion carried on a roll call vote as follows: Voting Aye:  Brunt, Steiner, and Bialecki (Chair). Voting Nay: Abel and Herr.   Absent: None.  

Approval of Minutes: Motion to approve the BZA minutes as revised for July 7, 2008 (regular meeting) made by Mr. Steiner and seconded by Mr. Herr. Mr. Abel abstained. Motion carried. The minutes of July 7, 2008 are approved and official as so noted. 

Public Comment: None.

Board of Zoning Appeals/Township Representative Comments: The next regular BZA meeting is scheduled for Monday, October 6, 2008 with all materials to be submitted by Monday, September 19, 2008. Further BZA discussion followed regarding: “Subdivision Deed Restrictions, Reservations, and Easements” and variance letters of support from residents.  

Adjournment: Ms. Bialecki duly adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Duane L. Tucker,
BZA Recording Secretary & Facilitator

ANY LOT SPLIT/DIVISION VARIANCE GRANTED MUST BE RECORDED WITH THE MONROE COUNTY REGISTER OF DEEDS WITHIN SIX (6) MONTHS OF THIS BOARD’S MEETING MINUTES APPROVAL. SECONDLY, ANY VARIANCE GRANTED ALLOWING THE ERECTION OF ANY STRUCTURE MUST BEGIN WITHIN SIX (6) MONTHS OF THIS BOARD’S MINUTES APPROVAL OR THE VARIANCES GRANTED WILL BECOME NULL OR VOID.

MINUTES APPROVED ON 10-6-2008