WATERTOWN CHARTER TOWNSHIP
12803 S. Wacousta Road, Grand Ledge, MI 48837
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
I. Call to Order - Pledge of Allegiance - Roll Call
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and opened with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Roll Call Richard Turcotte - present
Janice Thelen arrived at 7:05pm
Thomas Hineline - present
George Schriver present
Larry Barr - present
Also present was Andrea Polverento, Planning Director and Amy Kinney, Planning Assistant, George Weitzel, Board of Trustees Member and Chuck Openlander, Planning Commission.
II. Communications Received Polverento outlined the communications received.
III. Agenda Approval
MOTION by THELEN and seconded by SCHRIVER to approve the agenda as presented.
MOTION passed unanimously.
IV. Public Comment - Non Agenda Items - None
MOTION by THELEN and seconded by BARR to approve the minutes as amended
Public Hearing Opened at 7:20pm
VI. Public Hearings
1. Case #08-02 ZBA Request for variance, Capital Area Humane Society, 7095
Grand River Avenue
The subject property is approximately 66.5 acres in size and is currently the location of an existing animal shelter and veterinary facility owned by the applicant. The Capital Area Humane Society (CAHS) facility sits on two parcels. The first parcel is one acre, and zoned commercial. The second parcel is 65.5 acres, and the frontage along Grand River is zoned commercial, with the remainder of the parcel zoned industrial. (See attached zoning map)
Based on Section 28-439 District Regulations of the Watertown Charter Township Zoning Ordinance, the maximum height requirements for a property zoned LI, Light Industrial; require structures to be 50 feet or less. This requirement applies when the parcel in question is adjacent or contiguous to other parcels zoned B-1, B-2, or LI. All facilities on the property currently meet this requirement. However, the applicant would like to erect a device known as an anemometer, which measures wind speed. This device would help the CAHS determine if a wind turbine should be erected to provide supplementary power to the facility.
The applicant is seeking an 82 foot variance from the strict requirements of the Watertown Charter Township Zoning Ordinance, so that this anemometer/wind turbine may be erected.
The anemometer/wind turbine would likely be positioned southwest of the existing parking lot to the west of the building and would be approximately 99 in height. It is bordered to the west entirely by MDOT property. There is an existing facility on the property, which includes office space, kennels, and medical facilities for the treatment of animals. The applicant is taking this first step to apply for a variance which would allow the facility to explore their options for alternative energy sources which may offer a cost savings to the non-profit organization.
Steve Heaven, CAHS Director and Todd St.Clair, Kennel Director, were present to answer any questions on behalf of the Capital Area Humane Society.
Hineline asked about the Doppler tower and if a special land use permit was required and how this might affect the Doppler.
Barr asked if there was a specific turbine that is being considered. Heaven stated that the anemometer is on loan from MSU. They are not looking at any particular type of turbine at this time. Heaven presented information on the anemometer that will be on loan from MSU. Polverento distributed the information to the members.
The Capital City Airport responded to the application and had no issues with the variance but did recommend that they file paperwork with the FAA.
Steve Heaven, CAHS Director, outlined the variance they are requesting. The recent renovations at the facility including HVAC and new lighting. The new lighting has caused the electric bill to double. CAHS is looking at ways to reduce the electric bill and ways to work with the environment and started looking at reusable energy. The anemometer will provide them with data over the next year if a wind turbine will be warranted at the Humane Society site.
Barr asked if the variance was in anticipation of the turbine. St.Clair explained that it is, if the wind speeds are condusive the tower would be 120. St.Clair has been in contact with the Airport Authority and it is his understanding that if the turbine is under 200 a light is not required.
Turcotte asked how the tower is accessed once erected. St.Clair explained the tower could have a mono pole or guide wires. St.Clair feels a monopole would be the best. There would be no ladder on it for access. Turcotte asked if there was a requirement for fencing. Polverento feels for safety reasons that would be a condition that could be added by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Thelen confirmed that the tower from ground to top is no more then 132. St.Clair responded it would be around 127.
Turcotte asked if the effects of the turbine on birds and bats have been looked into. Thelen is concerned about the bird population because of the wetlands that are on the Humane Society property. St. Clair explained that they will have a year to research the affects on the birds before placing the turbine and would be glad to report to the board as the data is being collected.
Turcotte asked if a shadow flicker study has been done. St.Clair responded that it has not been done as of yet. The direct neighbors are behind the overpass, they may see some flicker but most likely will not be able to see the structure. St.Clair explained the measure of the wind speed will determine what model of turbine they will purchase if they can construct one.
Chuck Openlander commented about fencing. He feels that should be a condition of approval. Openlander asked if a noise to size comparison chart is available to review.
George Weitzel, 9320 Looking Glass Brook asked where the location for the turbine will be. St.Clair explained it will be on the southwest side of the building behind the parking lot. The location will be determined if the variance is approved by the placement guidelines from the State of Michigan for Wind Energy. If approved they will have to apply for site plan review and placement will be reviewed by the Planning Director and Planning Commission. Weitzel asked if this is a temporary structure. St.Clair explained the anemomter is a temporary structure to gather data about wind speed.
Public Hearing Closed at 7:54pm
VII. New Business
1. Case #08-02 ZBA Request for Variance, Capital Area Humane Society, 7095
Grand River Avenue
Schriver asked if there is anything beyond the trail project that is being approved tonight. Turcotte explained that the variance request is for both projects. Polverento explained that in a variance from the height requirement you are granting them the opportunity to build anything up to 132 on the property. If you wish to limit what may be built that must be outlined in the conditions of approval. This is a variance for 132 height variance anywhere on the property however that could be conditionalized as well by the ZBA outlining where on the property the variance could be applied.
Thelen asked Polverento how many letters were sent out to properties. She responded that they were sent out to residents within 300 of the proposed project. There were approximately 10 notifications sent out. Polverento has had no response from those notifications.
A non-use or dimensional variance may be allowed by the Board of Appeals only where there is reasonable evidence of practical difficulty in the official record of the hearing and that ALL of the following conditions are met:
28-121 (1) Granting the variance will not be contrary to the public interest and will ensure that the spirit of this ordinance is observed.
Comments: The requested variance will not be contrary to the public interest. The subject parcel is surrounded mostly by vacant land. ZBA concurs
28-121 (2) Granting this variance will not cause a substantial adverse effect to property or improvements in the vicinity or in the district in which the subject property is located.
Comments: The requested variance will not cause an adverse effect to property or improvements in the vicinity or in the B-2 or LI zoning districts. The parcel is mostly surrounded by vacant property. It was noted there is substantial highway noise on the subject property. ZBA concurs
28-121 (3) The variance request is not one where the specific conditions pertaining to the property are so general or recurrent in nature as to make the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions reasonably practicable.
Comments: The variance request is not so recurrent in nature as to require an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance at this time. Reviewing the US Dept. of Energy map for wind power, this area appears to be marginal at best, and the research they conduct may find it to be cost-prohibitive. While an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance may be made in the future, pending interest, at this time, a variance is the most prudent form of appeal.
Thelen recommends that the Planning Commission starts working on an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding alternative energy.
Barr noted the wind power map was distributed in 2004 and still may not be accurate and that wind turbine technology is progressing as well.
ZBA concurs
28-121 (4) That there are practical difficulties in the way of carrying out the strict letter of these regulations which are caused by exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property involved, or to the intended use of the property, that do not generally apply to other property or uses in the vicinity in the same zoning district. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions may include:
(1) exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of a specific property on the effective date of this Chapter
(2) exceptional topographic conditions
(3) by reason of the use or development of the property immediately adjoining the property in question; or
(4) any other physical situation on the land, building or structure deemed by the Board of Appeals to be extraordinary.
Comments: (d) Alternative energy infrastructure is a new and expanding field, and is becoming increasingly more popular. This technology was not available in the past, at the time the ordinance was adopted, and it still is not widely available now. In addition, this property is subject to two different zoning districts. Property is adjacent on all sides to vacant or publicly owned land.
The anemomter is the reason to accept the variance and make for exceptional variance. Turcotte feels the ordinance is silence on this issue, Thelen pointed out that the Ordinance does outline the height variance.
28-121 (5) That granting such variance is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the vicinity in the same zoning district.
Comments: The requested variance is being pursued to allow the non-profit organization to pursue cost-saving energy measures.
ZBA concurs
28-121 (6) That the variance is not necessitated as a result of any action or inaction of the applicant.
Comments: The requested variance is not the result of intentional action taken by the applicant; the existing facility is in compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed anemometer would infringe on the maximum height requirement but was not anticipated until this time. Recent hikes in energy costs have spurred this application.
Thelen does not feel that there is enough general economic conditions and trends to warrant a variance, energy costs should not be factor into this variance. Heaven explained as stewards of other peoples money which they are through donations to the Humane Society, they are held accountable for where the money goes and would like to see it spent more on the care of the animals which is what it is meant for.
Turcotte feels that cellular towers as tall or taller are often approved in this area. Those properties are being rented for profit. This tower is for non profit private use that is not unlike a cellular tower.
Thelen requested that a condition be placed regarding a review being done by the owners of the WLNS Doppler Tower.
Barr is uncomfortable with conditions at this point because the task at hand is an 82 height variance. Conditions should be placed during the Site Plan Review. Turcotte explained that more conditions may be applied above and beyond these at the Site Plan Review level.
Schriver feels that by approving the turbine as well as the anemometer the ZBA is approving an unknown structure at this point. Discussion took place regarding the approval process.
MOTION by BARR and seconded by THELEN that the variance for the Capital Area Humane Society, located at 7095 West Grand River, Case # 08-02 ZBA, a request for an 82 foot variance from the maximum height requirement for a parcel in the LI, Light Industrial District, be approved, based on the findings of fact in accordance with the Section 28-121 and pursuant to the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act (Public Act 110 of 2006), and Section 28-439 of the Watertown Charter Township Zoning Ordinance with the following conditions.
1. The applicant shall meet all other district regulation requirements.
2. The applicant shall position the anemometer/wind turbine in a location which allows for a setback the length of the anemometer/wind turbine from any buildings.
3. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Capital Area Airport Authority.
4. The applicant shall apply for and receive valid zoning, building and requisite trade permits.
5. The applicant shall erect and maintain a fence encompassing the structure.
6. The applicant is limited to a single anemometer/wind turbine not to exceed 132 feet.
7. The applicant must apply for and receive Site Plan review for the anemometer/wind turbine subject to the Michigan Siting Guidelines for Wind Energy Systems.
Hineline, Turcotte, Barr, Thelen Yes
Shriver No
Motion Passed
VIII. Committee Reports
A. Planning Director Staff Report February 2008
B. Planning Assistants Report February 2008
IX. Comments and Questions from Audience, Staff and Commissioners
Openlander feels that the Humane Society needs to ask if the wind turbine will interfere with the Doppler tower. Heaven responded that they would be glad to do that.
X. Adjournment
MOTION by HINELINE and seconded by BARR to adjourn the meeting.
Passed unanimously
Meeting adjourned at 9:38 p.m.
Date approved:
_____________________________ _____________________________
Richard Turcotte, Chair Janice Thelen, Secretary