Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - October 28,
THE CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF CHESTERFIELD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
October 28, 2009
On October 28, 2009, 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
Carl Leonard, Vice-Chairman,
Nancy Orewyler, Secretary Brian Scott DeMuynck,
Township board liaison
Paula Frame, Planning Commission liaison
Ms. Christine Anderson, Township attorney from
Seibert & Dloski, attended the meeting.
Mr. Tom Yaschen, newly appointed member to the
ZBA attended the meeting as an observer
Mr. Shawn Shortt from the Building Department did
not attend the meeting that evening.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Chairman Stepnak explained the procedures to the
4. ZBA PETITION #2009-16: Gerald & Tracy Ulewicz
who reside at 49340 Bayshore, Chesterfield, MI
48047. Request is for a 4.80 side yard setback on
the east side of residence and a 4.18 side yard
setback on the west side of said residence, in the
R-1-A zoning District, which requires a 10’ side
setback. Location is above. Approved 8-26-09.
Petition was approved on 8-26-09 but has been
remanded back to the Zoning Board of Appeals in
order to allow the petitioner to submit a plot plan
to the correct scale that is required by the
Chairman Stepnak stated that the petition had
been sent back by the court.
Ms. Anderson stated that was correct. She
explained that Judge Viviano remanded the matter
back to the ZBA in order to correct a procedural
deficiency and that deficiency was the scale that
was used on the plans submitted to the ZBA. The
Zoning Ordinance requires a scale of 1 to 20 and she
believed the original plans were on a scale of 1 to
40. She explained that now, if she was correct, the
petitioner has now brought in drawings with a scale
of 1 to 20 showing all the dimensional requirements
necessary and showing the dimensions between the
adjacent property and the structure.
Petitioner stated that basically that was it, he
was here presenting the paperwork at 1 to 20.
Mr. Leonard had no questions at that time.
Ms. Orewyler asked if the petitioner was planning
to build the house on the exact same foot print as
the previous home?
Petitioner answered that was correct.
Ms. Orewyler asked if the new home would be any
wider to increase the non-conformity with the
Petitioner replied no.
Mr. Blake had no questions at the time.
Mr. Klonowski had no comments.
Ms. Frame asked if the petitioner could clarify
that all he has changed was the scale of the plans?
Petitioner answered yes, that was correct.
Mr. DeMuynck stated that his questions had been
Mr. Gary Gendernalik, 52624 Laurel Oak Lane,
Chesterfield, MI 48047 addressed the board.
Mr. Gendernalik introduced himself and explained
that he was there on behalf of Rebecca Johnson and
Carl Melchior, the neighbors to the northeast.
Mr. Gendernalik stated that with reference to
this matter, he stated it was remanded by the court
not only in reference to the scale that was
inaccurate in the previous submission, but the order
stated that the parties and board members may
address the substantive matter of the variance
request. He stated that was one of the issues he
planned to address that evening. He explained that
in essence, as the note was attached to the board,
once the petitioner's tore down the three floors of
their home; they lost their non-conforming status.
He stated that the ordinance states that once that
occurs, the non-conformance is not to be continued.
He mentioned that the Building Department or the
Planning Department has a form that tells residents
what the side yard setbacks are. He mentioned that
it was asterisked on this document, from the
Planning Department, which stated in the R-1-A
district, the side yard setbacks are 10' on each
side. in essence 20'. He stated that these people
have, in essence, a fifty foot wide lot where their
house sits. So to build on that lot, they would have
to build with 10' side yard setbacks; they could
build a 30' wide house. He stated that was not an
unusual structure for that community or adjacent
communities. He expressed that now, when looking at
their submissions that were given to the Building
Department which he obtained with a FOIA request; he
stated that on the second page of the document it
shows the floor plans for the first floor. He added
that it was noted that the existing walls were to
remain and that was referring to the garage walls
and the wall immediately adjacent to the wall, which
is the common wall between the garage and the house.
So, that notation clearly indicates that the other
walls were going to come down. He continued that
when going to the second page on that submission,
the building plans, it clearly shows that the first
floor decking and the floor joist were going to be
removed. He added that if the petitioners were going
to remove the decking and the joist, then obviously
the walls were coming down because the walls sit on
the joist and the deck.
Mr. Gendernalik brought some drawings, and
paperwork to the board pointing out different
aspects of the plans he obtained with the FOIA.
Chairman Stepnak explained that the board was
fully aware of what was being presented to the
Mr. Gendernalik presented two files with a number
of photographs of the petitioner's and his clients
property at different stages of the building
Ms. Anderson asked if Mr. Gendernalik had copies
of these submissions for the board?
Mr. Gendernalik answered no, he would retain the
items and provide her with copies.
Ms. Anderson stated that if he could not give the
copies to the board, then they could not consider
them in the decision process.
Mr. Gendernalik then stated he would give them to
the board tonight. He could always get them later.
He then presented the board with another file with
additional photographs of before any of the
processes began. There were also photos of the shed,
pictures of the surrounding property, photos of the
demolition process, and photographs of various
stages of construction.
Mr. Gendernalik presented the board with a Chem
Tech survey of his client's property which reflects
the location of his client's property with
relationship to Bay Lane. He stated that it shows
the petitioner's shed 2.9' at one dimension and 3.5'
at the other. He put a star on the plan to show that
location. He explained that the ordinance requires
that the shed should be four feet off the property
line. He stated that was obtained by a variance and
then put in the wrong place. He commented that in
the public notice it referenced that it was allowing
the petitioner to submit a plot plan to scale and it
did not give notice of the fact that people could
come in to speak to the substantive nature of this
proceeding as to granting or denial of the variance
or the granting of the variance with conditions.
Therefore, he thought that the notice may have been
somewhat tardy as to that conclusion.
Chairman Stepnak asked which notice Mr.
Gendernalik was referring to, the public notice that
was in the paper?
Mr. Gendernalik responded that it was on October
Chairman Stepnak stated that it was a standard
Mr. Gendernalik stated that he obtained two
surveys from the file that were submitted by the
petitioner that were 8.5" x 11". He added that the
one has a stamp that it was received on 9-18-09 with
a hand written note that it was received by email
and they would have to bring in the original that
day. He stated that the date on the drawing from
Lehner's is dated 9-22-09. Therefore, he explained
that he does not know if the 9-18-09 date is
accurate or the 9-22-09, but there seems to be some
inconsistencies. He explained that the smaller
drawing does not show all of the significant
structures in proximity to the property under
consideration for the variance.
Chairman Stepnak stated that the board receives
packets and the board is required to visit the
sites. Some individuals knock of people's doors and
others that review from the street. He mentioned
that personally he reviews properties from the
street. He stated that basically it was standard
protocol that the board members review the site
before they come to the ZBA meeting. He commented
that the board has been at the site many times. He
then asked where Mr. Gendernalik was going with the
different dates on the surveys and things of that
Mr. Gendernalik answered that he was just
preserving a record for his client's perspective. He
continued that the notice and the court order stated
that it was to show dimensions for significant
structure. He stated that it does not show all the
significant structures on their submission on either
this one or the larger one. He explained that on the
one submission there is a note that this was the
only reason for the submission to be remanded back
to the ZBA, but he repeated that the remand was as
to the substantive issue of whether or not the
petitioner was entitled to a variance and if he is
not entitled, and/ or if he is entitled to a
variance on one side versus the other and/or whether
or not this board imposes conditions on the granted
variance. He made an additional comment that was
Ms. Anderson stated that Mr. Gendernalik handed
her a Survey A and a Survey B. She asked aren’t
those the surveys from the previous submission?
Mr. Gendernalik stated that they couldn't be
because they have a date from the surveyor of
9-22-09 in their logo box.
Ms. Anderson stated that with respect to the
larger survey, Mr. Gendernalik indicated that there
were some significant structures missing.
Mr. Gendernalik explained that he was getting to
that right now. He then presented that board with an
aerial of the neighborhood that was done by Macomb
County. He stated that the property in question
basically lies on the terminus of Bay Shore Drive
and Bay Lane. He pointed out the home, the shed, the
neighbor's house, the neighbor's garage and various
other structures and properties of the neighborhood.
He stated that from the file, the large survey
drawing dated 9-29-09 shows the garage on the
petitioner's property and the house that was
demolished and rebuilt and the porch. He elaborated
that this submission, shows a portion of his
client's house on Lot 18, the petitioner's house is
Lot 17 and the neighbor to the southwest is Lot 16,
it shows their house, but not their garage. He
thought the judge in his order of remand requested
that it show on the request because the Township's
ordinance states that the drawings be at a certain
scale and that the survey shows structures in that
area. He commented that obviously, the house and the
shed and the garage are significant. He stated that
his client was also concerned with separation of the
properties. He added that was why there are setbacks
with reference to fire and safety issues. He stated
that in a typical variance request there is usually
a reference to an alleged hardship. When they look
back on the August 26, 2009 meeting minutes when Mr.
Robert Kirk, the attorney on behalf of the
petitioners spoke. He stated on page 9 of 15 in
those minutes Mr. Kirk spoke on behalf of the
petitioner and at the end of the minutes on that
paragraph at the top of the page it states, "The
practical difficulty involved was a self-created
hardship in regard to the site and at this time he
requested that the board consideration." He added
that Mr. Kirk stated that, 'The petitioner would not
be enlarging the home size; he would just be
building a second story." Mr. Gendernalik stated
obviously that was not a fact because the petitioner
demolished the first floor and when the demolition
occurred and the Township put in a stop work order
because the petitioner did not have a permit for the
demolition. When the stop work order was entered
there was a directive based on a review of the file
to put the facility in a safe condition, so that
people on the premises would not be confronted with
a hazard. He stated that in the photographs in files
1, 2, and 3, it shows that when the petitioner’s got
to a certain point with the demolition and the stop
work order went into place, the petitioners put down
a blue tarp to preserve the status quo. So, he
reiterated that the board already has the minutes
from August 26th, when the petitioner's attorney
admitted that it was a self-created hardship. If
that is the case, the petitioner cannot get the
variance because the ordinance states if the
hardship is self-created they are not entitled to
it. He added that secondly, if the petitioner
demolished his place or it is changed for any
reason, by more than 50%, than he would not be
entitled to the non-conforming status. He stated
that any building has to be in conformance with the
current zoning requirements. He asked Ms. Anderson
if she also wanted that submission as part of the
Ms. Anderson explained that she wanted anything
he wanted as part of the record.
Mr. Gendernalik gave Ms. Anderson that paperwork.
Mr. Gendernalik stated that on the Building
Department's records from 7-27-09 there is a hand
written note from inspector S.S., he assumes that
would be Mr. Shawn Shortt, that reflects that the
demolition had occurred and the petitioner's were to
put it in a safe condition. Then he notes that the
variance was required and non-conformity was void
now that the exterior walls have been removed.
Mr. Gendernalik submitted that as part of the
record to Ms. Anderson.
Mr. Gendernalik quoted Section 76-567.
Non-conforming structures and buildings. Subsection
2. "Should such structure or non-conforming portion
of the structure be destroyed by any means to an
extent of more than 50 percent of its replacement
cost at a time of destruction, it shall not be
reconstructed except in conformity with the
provisions of this chapter." He stated that it would
be a mandatory provision, and clearly, in this
matter, more than 50 percent of the structure by way
of replacement costs was destroyed as the
photographs clearly show that the only thing
remaining was the garage and part of the foundation.
He continued that at the stop work order stage, part
of the first floor deck was still in place, but then
the petitioners proceeded when they got their first
building permit, they continued the demolition of
the first floor deck and the floor joist. As the
photographs indicate in the three file folders that
were submitted. He explained that during their
initial construction phase, the petitioner's had two
large machines, one an excavator on crawlers and the
other a back hoe with a front end loader. They had
all those things there and they could have continued
to demolish their foundation and build a new home,
because in essence, that was what they were doing.
He thought that the petitioner's might have done it
surreptitiously because that was what it appears has
transpired from his client's perspective. However,
he stated that the petitioner's did not have the
appropriate permits and they demolished the house
and lost their non-conformity. He went on to say
that because of that and the mandatory provisions in
the ordinances the petitioner's should not be
allowed the variance. The petitioner's have asked
for two variances for the side yard setback on each
side and obviously the ZBA now must decide on the
substance as to whether or not to grant one or both
of the variances requests. He reiterated that the
petitioner's created their own hardship and that was
acknowledged by their own attorney. He added that
the ZBA could grant the variance on the other side,
and not on his client's side. He stated that the
petitioner's proceeded at their own peril with the
ongoing construction. The decision was made on
8-26-09. He stated that his client filed her appeal
at the Circuit Court the next day. The Township was
served with papers shortly their after and within a
few days he was retained and he wrote to the
Township as to the procedural and substantive issues
and asked that the work be stopped. He was aware of
the fact that Mr. Kirk represented the petitioner
and any correspondence he sent to the Township was
also sent to Mr. Kirk, so his client would be aware
of the litigation. Therefore, he reiterated that the
petitioner's knew they were proceeding at their own
peril. He explained that when he got a court hearing
in front of Judge David Viviano, they were present
and they did not decide to intervene and their
attorney was there. He stated that the Judge stated
that he was remanding the matter back for
substantive issues and if the petitioner's proceed,
they would be proceeding at their own peril. He
stated that when they were here before, there was
some discussion as to the porch on the lake side. He
stated that the minutes reflect that that porch was
going to be in conformance with the 10' side yard
set backs on both sides. When the petitioner's
construction started on that aspect, he and his
clients were aware of the fact that it was not 10'
off because their submissions show the dimension of
their old house foundation from the side yard and
from the surveys. He stated that when he counted
over the blocks, the concrete blocks, they could see
that they were not over by 10'. He continued that at
that stage, they had only poured the footings for
the porch. They immediately gave notice to the
Township that they were in non-conformance as to
that aspect. That issue came before the ZBA two
weeks ago and they asked that it be tabled because
these things are all inter-twined. The board decided
not to and they have now proceeded to work on the
porch. He reiterated that they have done that at
their own peril. He stated that they do not feel on
a substantive basis that the petitioners have
demonstrated a hardship that was created by anyone
but themselves. So they are not entitled to the
variance. The Township ordinance in Section 76-615
(g) as to the review of a variance request it
states: "The Zoning Board of Appeals shall approve,
with or without conditions, or disapprove the
application and shall communicate its action in
writing to the applicant, the Township Board, the
Building Administrator and the Township Planning
Commission within one week from the time of the
meeting at which it considered the application. He
explained that in other words if the board granted a
variance, that they could grant it with conditions.
He stated that he had been in front of the board on
many occasions when they imposed conditions. In this
particular situation, he reiterated that their
primary argument would be that the petitioners were
not entitled to any variances for the two side yard
setback requests. However, by any chance, the board
does make a contrary determination, they would
suggest that the conditions that would be imposed
would be that the non-conforming shed be moved back
about 62' and that the playscape would also be moved
because there was plenty of room to put them in
closer proximity to the petitioner's home.
Chairman Stepnak asked where Mr. Gendernalik
suggested the shed be moved on the petitioner's
Mr. Gendernalik pointed to a spot on the plans.
He mentioned that the shed sits on a ratwall and it
was a fairly new construction. He stated that the
shed would probably be bolted to the cement floor.
The petitioner's could unbolt the shed, put it on
PVC pipe and roll it across the yard and place it on
a new footing, slab and foundation.
Chairman Stepnak asked if everyone on the board
understood where they proposed the petitioner move
Mr. Gendernalik also suggested that the
petitioner move the porch because the porch sits on
four concrete blocks and they could be moved inward.
Then the petitioner's could comply with the 10'
setback and still have a porch.
Ms. Anderson addressed Mr. Gendernalik and stated
that in order for this board to impose any
conditions on a variance request, the conditions
would have to be related to the variance request
itself. She asked how moving the shed and moving the
playscape have any relation to the variance request?
Mr. Gendernalik answered that because they are
non-conforming structures and they are in the wrong
location. His clients want relief because these
items should be four feet from the property line and
according to the survey, they are not four feet off.
He stated that if someone was asking for relief for
certain things, he has seen the ZBA before impose
conditions that may be directly or indirectly
related to the variance request. He has also seen
situations where people put up a shed and did not
pull the right permits because they were in the
wrong location and a determination was made that the
shed had to be moved. He thought it would be related
because the petitioners have non-conforming activity
on their property.
Ms. Anderson stated that she still did not
understand how the shed was related to the setbacks
for the house. She explained that if the shed is in
the wrong spot that is an enforcement issue all on
Mr. Gendernalik explained on that issue his
clients have brought that to the attention of the
Building Department and they have not taken any
action because the shed is still sitting there in
the wrong place. He stated that it would be related
to the non-conformity of the use of their property.
He repeated that the petitioner's lost their
non-conforming status when they tore down the
Ms. Anderson stated that was why the petitioners
were at the meeting that evening. She also mentioned
that Mr. Gendernalik stated that it was not unusual
to see 30' wide homes on narrow lots. She asked if
he had any documentation he could show the board
with 30' homes on R-1-A lots.
Mr. Gendernalik answered yes, in that
neighborhood there are 40' lots where homes are
meeting the side yard setbacks. He stated that in
his written submission, he referenced the Schaffer
home down the street at the terminus of Schneider
and Bay Lane. He mentioned that in the Ken Smith
situation, twice he went to court and both times he
was successful because, they did not meet the 10'
side yard set backs. as to their submission. Both
times the court stated that they were not entitled
to the variance, maybe on procedural issues, but
that would be part of the substance. He commented
that if someone goes by there now, they finally
built their addition but they put it in 10'. Ken
Smith when he wanted to build on to his house, the
Fire Department wrote a letter stating they did not
want him to build on to the side yard because of
fire safety. He was denied and if you go to his
house, he has a long narrow lot. He acquired more
property to the north east. Therefore, if you visit
the neighborhood, there are long narrow lots with
long narrow houses on them.
Ms. Anderson stated that the procedural problems
in the Ken Smith matter were the same ones that
originally existed in this case that have now been
corrected by the submission of the new survey.
Mr. Gendernalik stated that when the Schaffer’s
built their home, they built in conformance; that
was his point. He stated that after two go rounds,
they built in conformance with the 10' set backs for
their addition with no variance.
Ms. Anderson asked if they were building brand
new or were they building on an existing foundation?
Mr. Gendernalik answered that they had an
existing home and they built towards the water and
they built on new foundation and there may have been
a porch in that area that was eliminated. But in
this situation, he repeated that, the petitioner's
went right down to the foundation and the Township
building inspector indicated that they lost their
Ms. Anderson explained that was not in question.
She stated that was why the petitioner's were here.
If the petitioner's had not done that and lost that
non-conforming status, they would not be in front of
the ZBA for a variance.
Mr. Gendernalik stated that the petitioner's
created their own problem. He reiterated that the
petitioner's created their own hardship and that was
acknowledged by their own attorney and it was in the
ZBA minutes and that cannot be ignored.
Ms. Anderson commented that it could be disagreed
Chairman Stepnak stated that just because an
attorney makes a comment does not mean that the
board would not consider all the issues. He
commented that people say things and basically the
board looks at the whole package. He understood and
Mr. Gendernalik bringing that to the board's
Martin Grashik, 49334 Bayshore Street,
Chesterfield, MI addressed the board.
Mr. Martin Grashik asked why there was a
discussion about a shed being put up. He recalled
signing a petition and the other neighbor also
signed the petition and they both agreed that it was
okay for the petitioners to put up the shed. He
asked how Mr. Gendernalik was now bringing the shed
up in the picture. He thought they were here to
solve a problem, and here we are starting all over
Harold Lemmer, 49300 Bayshore, Chesterfield, MI
addressed the board.
Mr. Harold Lemmer stated that he was confused. He
came down to support the petitioners because of a
technicality and he cannot believe that this thing
is going this way. He has lived on that street his
whole life all 32+ years. He thought that his house,
his brother-in-laws house and Milewski's home are
the only houses that have the 10' side yard
setbacks. The majority of those homes were built
after the tornado and were built on the old
footings. There are some homes down there that are
only 4 or 5 feet apart. He does not understand
because these people did get the approval. If there
is a problem with the shed, that was not a problem
with what the judge said and what the notice was
sent out for. He stated that there is not a neighbor
down there that objects to the variance. The
petitioner's are doing a beautiful job and are not
blocking anyone's view. He made additional comments
in favor of the board granting the petitioner's
Chairman Stepnak stated that the only reason he
brought up the shed was because it was on the
transmittal letter from Mr. Gendernalik's office. He
mentioned that he did get some comments from Ms.
Anderson about how the shed would be taken into
prospective to the project. He explained that Ms.
Anderson informed the board that the shed should not
really be part of the variance because it was a
totally separate issue. He asked if she had any more
comments on the matter?
Ms. Anderson stated that in her opinion, if there
is something wrong with the shed and it is not in
compliance with the ordinance, that would be a
separate enforcement issue. The shed is on the plans
as it needs to be if it is important with respect to
this variance. She explained that if the board feels
that that structure has some relation to their
decision on the variance or it is somehow necessary
that it is on the plan they may take that into
Mr. Gendernalik stated that obviously his clients
object to it and they feel it impacts on their
property. That was why they were there and that was
why they went to court. He commented that when
somebody stands up and states that no one objects to
the variance, obviously his clients are. He stated
that they live directly next to it. He stated that
as Chairman Stepnak mentioned everything was taken
into consideration when making a decision. He
commented that the persons in the closest proximity
obviously have some concern with what the ordinance
states, what has transpired and what their rights
are and the obligations of the Township when they
have mandatory language that states it shall not be
continued unless it is in compliance and the
compliance is a 10' setback.
There were no more public comments.
Chairman Stepnak stated that, at that point, the
board would not entertain any more comments from the
Petitioner stated that he has been completely
opened and has complied with every decision the
board has made. He stated that with regard to the
shed that was decided last year.
Chairman Stepnak stated that they had discussed
the shed because it was brought up in the
information from Mr. Gendernalik's office. He stated
that basically the petitioner was just waiting to go
on with his project.
Mr. Leonard just wanted to address a comment that
was brought up about the 50% rule. In the ordinance
regarding non-conforming structures and buildings.
He quoted that Section 76-576 (4) states: "Nothing
in this chapter shall be deemed to prevent the
strengthening or restoring to a safe condition any
nonconforming building or structure, or part
thereof, declared to be unsafe". One of the comments
he brought up back on August 26th was where the
builders got into the old structure and realized
that there were problems. He stated that was one of
his comments and typically there were reasons for
the petitioners to take things apart. He explained
that no one wants to remove good materials and throw
them into the trash. He commented that for someone
to take out some bad materials there was a reason
why they had to dig into it a little bit. He
explained that out in the field things have a
different look to them, many times a lot of things
are not noticed until the builders are out in the
field and sometimes it can be a can of worms.
Chairman Stepnak stated that the board has always
considered the waterfront as an old cottage
community. The board has always looked favorably on
individuals that wish to remodel or bring their
buildings up to code. He stated that some of these
homes were built in the 20's or 30's and now an
individual comes in and wants to bring the property
the building up to code. He explained that building
codes have changed and materials have changed and
the board feels to protect the health, safety and
welfare of the community, when someone goes in and
wants to rebuild something on the waterfront, they
feel it is a plus/plus for the community.
Mr. Leonard commented that going back to the
shed. He thought that if moving the shed would bring
peace between two neighbors; it might not be a bad
idea. He does not think the board has any reason to
deal with that situation. He just thought that it
might be something good neighbors would try to work
Petitioner stated that he did try to work that
out a year ago before he did anything. He had
proposed the spot that Mr. Gendernalik talked about.
However, his neighbors at that time stated that they
did not like that spot because they planned to build
a gazebo in that area. He then told the neighbor he
would move the shed back toward his home, which he
did to give the neighbor move of a view.
Chairman Stepnak stated that he does not believe
the shed has any bearing on this matter.
Ms. Anderson stated that Mr. Gendernalik has put
it out to the board that the garage on Lot 16 does
not show up on the survey that the board has in
front of them. She explained that if the board
thinks that showing that garage on the survey would
be necessary for their decision, if they feel they
cannot make a decision on the variance without
seeing that garage on that survey, then she
recommended that the board table the matter this
evening. However, if the board feels that they have
enough information, if they feel that they have been
out to the site and have a good working knowledge of
the site, and the depiction of the garage on the
survey lends nothing to the board's decision, then
she would advise the board to make that decision
Chairman Stepnak stated that the board has looked
at this for a third time. They are familiar with the
site and have seen many pictures of the site and if
any of the board members want to review the
pictures, they are in front of him. He understands
the scale question that was part of the judge's
directive, but the board members have been out at
the site numerous times.
Motion by Mr. DeMuynck to approve ZBA Petition #
2009-16 requesting a 4.8 side yard setback on the
east side of the residence and a 4.18 side yard
setback on the west side of the residence. He stated
that based on documentation and information that he
has received that was presented that evening and at
prior meetings, the conformity with the ordinance
would be unreasonably burdensome. The applicant
would not be receiving a privilege not available to
other property owners. The variance would do
substantial justice to the neighborhood and the
applicant. The property is unique in that in most
R-1-A zoned properties in the Township are more than
50' wide. When the home was originally built it
complied with the existing Township zoning
ordinance. The applicants are constructing this home
within the exact same foot print and upon the
existing foundation as the previous home. Narrow
waterfront lots have traditionally presented unique
situations and problems for municipalities. The
strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause a
practical difficulty for the applicant. The strict
enforcement of the ordinance would deprive the owner
of rights enjoyed by other property owners with lots
zoned R-1-A within the Township. When the zoning
ordinance was amended to require 10' side yard
setbacks, the applicants home was already built and
the home to be constructed sits behind the adjacent
neighbor's home farther from the lake and therefore
will not impact the neighbor's view of the lake or
use of their property.
Supported by Ms. Frame
Nays: None Motion Granted
Chairman Stepnak then polled the board for
additional comments or concerns.
Mr. DeMuynck stated that he agreed with his vote.
Ms. Frame had no additional comments and she
agreed with the motion.
Mr. Klonowski stated that he concurred.
Mr. Leonard stated that he concurred.
Ms. Orewyler stated that she also agreed with the
Mr. Blake stated that he agreed.
Chairman Stepnak stated that he agreed with the
motion and believed that it was approved on August
26th and the board was just clarifying their
decision. He commented that all the members were
polled and agreed with the motion that was presented
to them that evening.
5. OLD BUSINESS:
There was no old business.
6. NEW BUSINESS:
There was no new business.
7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETING:
Motion by Ms. Orewyler to approve the minutes
from the 10-14-09 ZBA meeting
Supported by Mr. Blake
Nays: None Motion Granted
8. COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR:
Chairman Stepnak stated that on a sorry note, the
board was going to be losing Mr. Leonard who was
moving to the Planning Commission. He mentioned that
Mr. Tom Yaschen was going to be taking Mr. Leonard's
spot on the board. He also stated that Mr. DeMuynck
would also be leaving the board.
Mr. Leonard thanked the board members. He stated
that he had been on the ZBA for eight years, he
learned a lot and he enjoyed working with his fellow
board members. He would miss the members of this
board, but he was looking forward to his new
position with the Planning Commission.
Mr. DeMuynck stated that he was assigned to the
Parks and Recreation Board. He thanked his fellow
board members and stated that it had been a pleasure
working with everyone. He thanked Mr. Leonard for
helping him learn a lot of things and answering a
lot of questions he had about building.
Chairman Stepnak thanked Ms. Anderson for
attending the meeting.
Motion by Chairman Stepnak to adjourn at 8:09 PM.
Supported by Ms. Frame
Nays: None Motion Granted
Nancy Orewyler, Secretary
Grace Mastronardi, Recording Secretary