 |
Mt. Pleasant Zoning Board of Appeals
November 13, 2003I. Members Present: Curtiss, Laughlin, Murray, Ruggirello, Staples, Tolas
Members Absent: Derry
Others Present: McCracken, Appellant, Community membersII. Petitions and Communications
Tolas called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. and explained the procedure for the hearing to the appellant. Tolas explained that the Board would be hearing one case. A full board was present (Because Wyn Derry was abstaining he did not need to be present).
Case #15-2003 - 1401 Eastpointe Drive - Mike Hofer - request for a variance from Section 154.019 of the Zoning Ordinance. Appellant is seeking approval to continue using a trailer as a sales office. Appellant has used the six-month allowance and the additional six-month allowed extension.
Mr. Hofer, representing Abbey Lane Development, LLC, presented his case to the board. Mr. Hofer gave the history behind his request to leave the office trailer at Lot 45, Eastpointe Subdivision III. Mr. Hofer stated he was appealing Section 154.019 Permitted Temporary Uses, and Mr. McCracken's interpretation of the ordinance.
Mr. Hofer presented the history of the agreement between the City of Mt. Pleasant and Project 2000, Residential Lots. Mr. Hofer stated that the City and he worked out an agreement for deed restrictions (see attached sub-division restrictions). In the Subdivision Declaration of Restrictions, signed by the City officials and Mr. Hofer, a trailer is allowed to be used as an office building/sales office on the site. Mr. Hofer stated that he met with the City Planner, Tony Kulick, and Building Official, Bill McCracken, regarding placement of the trailer, which included the understanding that there was a possibility of continued use through the completion of construction projects on the 30 lots he owned, provided Mr. Hofer proved to be a good neighbor and no complaints were received from the neighborhood. Mr. Hofer, Mr. Kulick, and Mr. McCracken agreed to allow the trailer to be placed at its current location for six-months with the possibility of a six-month renewal. At the end of this time, the situation would be re-evaluated. Mr. Hofer stated he would like to keep the trailer at this location until such time that his 30 lots were sold.
Mr. Hofer stated he felt that his understanding of the agreement was that he could move the trailer around from lot to lot. Mr. Hofer further indicated he felt there was a lack of communication between himself and the City. Tolas indicated his understanding of the zoning ordinance, which the city regulates, is that the trailer could not be moved from lot to lot. Tolas further indicated that a construction trailer would be allowed only as long as the structure was being built, and would have to be removed upon completion.
Murray asked when the project would be completed. Mr. Hofer stated if he built five houses a year, it would take six years.
Tolas explained that even though the subdivision restrictions were signed by City officials, the Zoning Administrator and Building Official do not enforce subdivision laws. McCracken reiterated this statement.
Mr. Tolas asked if Mr. Hofer would have a problem with moving the trailer and using a model house as a sales office. Mr. Hofer replied that he would and further stated that it cost him $10,000 to install the trailer.
Ruggirello stated that if the board granted permission for the trailer to remain for five years, Mr. Hofer would have to build six houses a year.
McCracken presented an overview of Section 154.019 Permitted Temporary Uses, (A) Trailers, (1) and (2), and C, Subdivision Office. McCracken offered his opinion that he had already given Mr. Hofer a break.
Laughlin stated that if the Zoning Board granted the variance, the trailer could potentially remain there for 30 years, if only one house per year was built. Ruggirello asked Mr. Hofer to verify this. Mr. Hofer stated that it could be anywhere from one to thirty years.
Tolas stated that the Zoning Board cannot deviate from what Section 154.019 states regarding temporary uses.
Staples asked if any correspondence or complaints had been received. McCracken replied that our office has received several letters and a petition against the trailer remaining on the lot.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Karen Heydenburg, 1505 Greenbriar, addressed the board. Ms. Heydenburg stated she and her husband do not want the trailer "in their back yard." She indicated they complained when the trailer was moved in, and wishes to see it removed.
There being no one else who wished to address the board, the public hearing was closed.
McCracken shared the letters and petition received.
The board took approximately 15 minutes to review their notes, the petition and letters. Mr. Hofer stated that he did not feel petitions were useful and that people, in fact, sign them even if they don't necessarily agree with it. Laughlin indicated she did not agree with Mr. Hofer's statement, that people generally know exactly what they are signing.
Curtiss stated the Zoning Ordinance does not allow for the continued use. Tolas agreed and stated that the Zoning Board has to go with the ordinance, and by ordinance, Mr. Hofer has used the allowed time of one year. Laughlin stated the board cannot interpret sub-division restrictions - it isn't their job.
M/S Ruggirello/Murray to grant a one-year extension, expiring November 2004.
The vote was: Nay - 6
Yea - 0The motion was denied unanimously.
M/S Lauglin/Ruggirello to grant variance as requested.
The vote was: Nay - 6
Yea - 0The motion was denied unanimously.
Mr. Hofer asked how long he would have to remove the trailer. McCracken indicated he would be given three weeks minimum and would receive a letter regarding the deadline.
Reason for denying request: After reviewing Section 154.019 Permitted Temporary Use (A) Trailers and (C) Subdivision Office, the board felt that the trailer had received its valid 6-month permit and an additional 6-month renewal. The board did not feel any hardship existed, therefore, did not increase the time limit.
III. Old Business
M/S Laughlin/Curtiss to accept minutes from October meeting as written.
The vote was: Nay - 0
Yea - 6The motion passed unanimously.
IV. New Business
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m.