Oshtemo Township - June 24, 2025 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting

Updated about 5 hours ago

The board deliberates on setback and sidewalk variances requested for a property located on Venture Park Drive. The applicant seeks a setback variance for an office building addition and a variance to waive the requirement for a sidewalk installation. The board reviews the criteria for granting variances, considering factors such as unique physical circumstances, unnecessary burdens, and the impact on public welfare. After thorough discussion, the board denies the setback variance, citing available alternatives and self-created hardship. However, the sidewalk variance is approved with a condition that the applicant consents to a future special assessment district for sidewalk construction. The meeting concludes with the board addressing another variance request related to an accessory building on North Ninth Street, which is granted due to unique lot conditions.

Chapters

Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items (00:00:00)
Opportunity for public to comment on items not on the meeting agenda. No comments were made.

The meeting opened up for public comments on non-agenda items to provide an opportunity for members of the public to bring up issues not listed on the agenda. However, no members of the public came forward to comment on any non-agenda items.
Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes (00:00:11)
The minutes from the previous meeting were reviewed and approved with no corrections or objections.

The board reviewed the minutes from the previous meeting. There were no corrections or comments from the board members. A motion was made to approve the minutes, which was supported and passed unanimously with all members voting in favor.
Setback and Sidewalk Variances Discussion (00:00:57)
Discussion on requested variances for setback and sidewalk requirements for a property. Included detailed analysis of criteria for variances.

The board discussed variance requests related to setback and sidewalk requirements for a property. The applicant requested two variances for their property: a reduced setback for an office building addition and a variance for not installing a sidewalk along the property's road frontage. The board reviewed the five principles for granting a variance, including unique physical circumstances, whether conformance is unnecessarily burdensome, substantial justice, self-created hardship, and impact on public health, safety, and welfare. Each criterion was discussed in detail with reference to the specific circumstances of the property.
Public Comments and Board Deliberation on Variances (00:12:08)
Applicant and public comments on variance requests followed by board deliberation. Setback variance denied, sidewalk variance granted with conditions.

The board heard from the applicant, Andrew Rossell, and the property owners regarding the reasons for their variance requests. They discussed the need for the building addition due to joining practices and the challenges of the site layout. The board also received no public comments. During deliberation, the board considered the lack of unique circumstances and the existence of alternatives for the setback request, leading to its denial. The sidewalk variance was granted with the condition that the property owners consent to a future special assessment district for sidewalk construction.
New Variance Request for Front Yard Setback (00:35:00)
Introduction of a new variance request for a front yard setback variance for an accessory building on a designated highway.

The meeting moved on to discuss a new variance request submitted by property owner James St. James. The request was for a variance from the minimum front yard setback requirement for an accessory building along North Ninth Street, identified as a designated highway. The board began reviewing the request by considering the unique physical circumstances of the property and other relevant criteria for variance approval.
Variance Request Discussion (00:36:28)
The board discussed a variance request related to stormwater management and property setbacks, with input from the property owner and board members.

The board reviewed a variance request concerning a property on North Ninth Street, discussing stormwater management issues due to clay soils and existing setbacks. The property owner, James St. James, explained the constraints imposed by a previously installed stormwater basin and setbacks from property lines. Board members questioned the possibility of relocating the proposed building to conform with zoning ordinances. The discussion covered the history of the stormwater issues, the property's unique constraints, and the owner's request for a variance to build an accessory structure closer to the property lines than typically allowed.
Public Comments and Questions (01:03:35)
Board members and the public asked questions about the variance request, including potential alternatives and the impact on neighboring properties.

During the public comment session, board members and neighbors raised concerns about the proposed variance. Questions focused on the necessity of the variance, potential alternatives for building placement, and the impact of the accessory building on neighboring properties. Neighbors expressed concerns about water runoff and the legality of previous construction efforts on the site. A neighbor presented photos and testimony regarding past issues with water management and property boundaries.
Public Comment on Property Dispute (01:08:02)
A resident raised concerns about a neighbor's construction activities encroaching on their property, which included storing construction equipment and obstructing views.

A resident addressed the board regarding issues with a neighbor who allegedly constructed a driveway and stored construction equipment partially on the resident's property. The resident expressed concerns about a red dump truck that was parked in a way that blocked their view when exiting the driveway. They had contacted the police to have it moved after it remained for over two months. The resident also discussed the potential negative impacts of a proposed building variance on their ability to safely exit their property due to blocked views. The board clarified that some issues raised were outside their purview and should be addressed through other channels.
Deliberation on Variance Request (01:13:13)
The board deliberated on a variance request related to property boundaries and agreed to move forward with the approval process.

Following the public comment, the board discussed the request for a variance to allow construction near Ninth Street. The discussion focused on whether approving the variance would impact traffic visibility and safety. The board concluded that the zoning board of appeals could only address the issue of the building and its placement, not the potential illegal activities or obstruction of views. The board moved to approve the variance, considering staff recommendations and the unique characteristics of the property.
Motion to Approve Variance (01:15:13)
A motion to approve the variance was made and supported by board members, considering the unique situation of the lot.

A board member motioned to approve the variance request, highlighting the unique situation of the lot as a significant factor for approval. The motion included consideration of staff's determinations and recommendations. The board voted in favor of granting the variance.
Other Business and Updates (01:16:49)
The board discussed the cancellation of the July meeting due to a lack of agenda items and confirmed the next meeting date.

The board was informed that the upcoming July meeting would be canceled due to no pending agenda items. The chairman confirmed that no additional business was present and thanked the members for their participation.
Board Member Concerns (01:17:16)
A board member expressed concerns about road safety and maintenance issues due to tree cutting and debris on County Road.

One of the board members raised concerns about road safety in the Quail Run area, where the county road commission had cut down trees and left debris on both sides of the road. This has become a hazard for pedestrians and cyclists, as it reduces the available space for safe passage. The board member noted that the debris has not been cleared, making it dangerous for residents.
Adjournment (01:18:39)
The meeting was adjourned after addressing all agenda items and board members' concerns.

The chairman moved to adjourn the meeting after confirming that all agenda items had been addressed and board members' concerns noted. The meeting concluded with a discussion on road maintenance responsibilities, specifically regarding debris and storm drains.