Approved______

							                                                                             Approved:______________

MEETING OF            Record of the proceedings of the EVANGELINE TOWNSHIP ZONING
SEPTEMBER 13, 2004    BOARD OF APPEALS meeting held at the Evangeline Township Hall at
                      02746 Wildwood Harbor Road on Monday September 21, 2004 at 5:30 P.M.

CALL TO ORDER         Chair Furge’ called the meeting to order at 5:35p.m.

ROLL CALL             Present:   Mark Fruge’ (Chairman), Todd Wright
                      Absent:    Joel Epstein

                      Staff:    Daniel W. Reed, AICP, PCP, Planning Director and Recording
MEETING ATTENDANCE    Secretary Pat Haver.

                      Public Present: William Stafford (homeowner), Patrick Latcham (homeowner)
                      with his attorney, 29 residents and council.


                      Fruge’ moved
APPROVAL OF MINUTES   Wright seconded
                      Vote: 2 Ayes
                      Absent: 1
                      Motion carried to approve the minutes from June 24, 2004



CITIZEN COMMENTS ON   None at this time.
NON-AGENDA ITEMS
BUSINESS



UNFINISHED BUSINESS   None at this time.


NEW BUSINESS -        Setback Request from William Stafford            03947 Old Horton Bay Road.
PUBLIC HEARING        Parcel ID# 15-005-016-01-00.

                      William Stafford is requesting a front yard setback to 12’ to build an accessory
                      building. Several items were brought up by the homeowner as to why they
                      chose this site. Several trees on other areas of the property, there are many hills
                      on his property that he would need to bring in a lot of extra fill, and a lot of
                      dozing would need to be done to comply. Extra expense on his part if he built
                      in another area. He is asking for a 38 ft variance, which would put the entire
                      accessory building inside the setback. Homeowner admitted that the work was
                      started before a permit was issued.

                      Wright:    Concerned about the roadway when backing the boat into the
                      building. The site is on a blind hill. There is a safety issue with a blind
                      driveway.
         Why this area? Stafford: Best Choice, otherwise a lot of fill would need to
         have been brought in. We plan to have someone watch as we back into the
         building. This only will be used for our boat.

         Fruge: How did you get a permit from the County? Stafford: There is not one,
         we called and were told to pay $250.00 We did that, and have heard nothing
         back, so we thought it was approved.

         Public comments open at 5:48 pm There were none.
         Public comments closed at 5:48 pm.

         Public comments re-opened at 5:51 pm Chris Wellert; neighbor across the
         roadway has no problems with the building. She feels that they will do
         everything that they can in order to ensure the safety of everyone as they back
         the boat into the building twice a year.

         Public comment closed at 5:53 pm.



         Board Deliberations:

         Fruge’: Went right to the Board Decision and Order worksheet. (attached)


         Wright made a motion to deny the request of the setback variance based on the
MOTION   applicant not meeting items on the BOARD DECISION AND ORDER
         worksheet

         Fruge’:           Second to the motion of denial.
                            Vote: Wright Aye
                                    Fruge’ Aye
                                    Epstein Absent

         Motion carries:     Denial of Setback Variance



         Interpretation Requests from Patrick Latcham 04270 Wildwood Harbor
         Road Parcel ID# 15-005-012-006-00.

         Owner Pat Latcham gave a brief presentation of the history of his purchase of
         the (3) distinct pieces of property. He bought them in April 2004. They own
         over 40 acres and have no intentions of changing the “Natural” quality of the
         area. He will be making some sort of donation to the Wildwood Conservancy
         some how in the near future.

         Michael Corcoran attorney for Latcham was also present and spoke on his
         behalf.

         Three different items have been brought before the ZBA; each item will be
handled individually.

Item #1 Interpretation of the ZBA for definitions of Lot or Parcel,
Preexisting Parcel and Parent Parcel.

Corcoran: Memo submitted that was dated 9/13/04, received and added

They feel clearly that these are (3) separate parcels. They have (3) separate tax
id numbers and (3) separate tax bills with different descriptions. They feel that
they have met the standards to declare these separate parcels of record.

Latcham was looking at a map of the area. The parcel in question on the
waterfront is 16.779 acres. Deed is recorded. He purchased this in April of
2004. On another parcel is an existing farm house that dates back to the 1800’s,
and the lake land became part of the founding owners and family sometime in
the 1919’s

Proposed building would fall within the 50ft setback from waterfront, the 10ft
side setback, 25ft wetland area. The build able portion of the land exceeds 5
acres. This falls within the Township Ordinances.

Public comment opened at 6:15 pm

Peter Vellenga and Attorney Jodi Doak. Believe the “checklist” for an
application does not meet the township requirements. Large packet was given
to each board member, asked to have included as a part of the official record.
(received and filed)

Township Attorney: Points 1 and 2 were staff questions and not applicant’s so
no application has been made, so no “checklist” for an application applies.

Doak:      Questions about definitions. Parcel in past has been treated as 1
parcel by the original owner. Warranty deed treats this as one parcel also.

Vellenga:      There is a for sale sign out front of the farm house. Believes that
the property is leased with purchase intent. Latcham. No intent to sell any of
the property. Vellenga feels that it is extremely important to have deed and a
certified survey. This is a 60 foot non-conforming waterfront lot, it has to be
100 ft lot, and he feels the ZBA Staff believes that the 60 ft is ok.

Fruge’    We are straying from the issues on the table. Corcoran: certified
survey has been given by Furgeson. Vellenga admitted that he has seen it
before.

Public comment closed at 6:30 pm

Board Comments

Township Attorney: Are they adjacent? Single ownership
Definitions of Areas of Land, Adjacent areas of land were read. These were
obtained through the internet as a reference.
         Item #36 on page 6 was identified

         Waterfront     4.10 D1 was cited. If these are in fact (3) separate parcels, they
         will meet definition

         Item #53   on page 8 Pre-existing parcel definition looked at.

         Wright: Is there any case law beyond ZBA?

         Fruge’: Has separate id numbers on record. Lake side not conforming, what
         about road frontage?

         Wright: There appears no effort to combine these lots in the past owner or
         present owner. They have (3) separate tax numbers. Latcham was not able to
         produce a copy of the Warranty deed at tonight’s meeting.

         Because this is a decision that would not only impact this specific case, but
         others in the township, I am not comfortable making the decision. Would like
         to have more information on history, case law, how other townships handle this
         before attempting to change or insert definitions.

MOTION   Wright: Move to table interpretation of lot vs. parcel. Needs staff input on
         historic records, applications, and how the existing parcels have been treated.

         Fruge’ seconded. Vote All Ayes, no further discussion.

         Item #2 Stream Definition

         This will also impact not only this property but a lot of others in the township

         August 5, 2004 letter from Voice Environmental - Kimberly Gibson an
         employee of Voice was asked to give her interpretation of this. (Copy of her
         resume was accepted and filed)

         According to Gibson this does not fall into the category of a stream:
             Does not appear on USGS maps
             Does not appear on Soil Conservation maps
             Does not meander as a steam should, it is straight and goes into a culvert
               then into the water. It appears to follow historic fill lines. Believes that
               it is indeed man-made
             There is standing water and running water only after large storm events
             The bottom is muck and has wet land plants. Therefore, no major water
               is flowing through it


         DEQ by their definition of this as a stream. Robyn Schmidt has given her
         interpretation to audience members, however nothing is in writing and is not in
         attendance at tonight’s meeting.
Fruge’ believes that DEQ has precedence in the determination.

Wright: This is all hearsay. DEQ has nothing in writing, and is not present at
the meeting. In making our determination, we are bound by the existing facts as
presented.

Public comment opened at 7:08 pm

Vellenga – Doak: Homeowner has applied for a “stream crossing” permit.
DEQ letters he has received has this as a cold water stream. Would like to
submit an entire packet of material for consideration. (received and filed)

Gibson from Voice Environmental: Yes the homeowner did apply for a stream
crossing permit; however, the site is 400-500 ft away from the building site.
They do have a permit for this. Has site map that shows the exact location of
the requested stream crossing, not in the building site area.

Corcoran:   If you interpret this ditch as a stream, precedence will be made.

Mike Jones – Northwest Michigan Community Health Agency. Issued a permit
to build a home. The area in question did not meet a definition of a stream. He
has also approved a septic permit.

Latcham: The building will not be within 25 ft of any wetlands area

Robert Taylor Eagle Island Rd. (Bay township). Just an observer at tonight’s
meeting DEQ’s definition of a stream is moving water

Stephanie Baldwin – Town and Country Homes. The proposed building is
within all the setback requirements, gutters and French drains will be installed
to decrease the amount of water runoff and erosion. Wetland setbacks have also
been observed.

Public comment closed at 7:26 pm

Board Discussion

Township Attorney: Stream definition again given by reading it from the
internet. Is it a constant flow or seasonal flow?

Wright: Not comfortable in making a decision for the entire township. Wants
to know if USGS map survey with stream titled official?

Was unprepared by staff to decide for the entire township, thought was only this
specific property owner. Has been out to the site. The building pad is dry, lake
flow in by waves, and outflow to lake. The only time he has seen standing
water is after a storm event.

Stream definition: does it have a bed, banks and evidence of continuous flow.
Either natural or man-made.
         Wright: Facts in evidence tonight: Mike Jones with Northwest Michigan
         Community Health Department. Kim Gibson from Voice Environmental, her
         facts have been entered into the record.

         Today there is no flow

         Fruge’: This is acting like water runoff only

         Wright: Using the USGS survey, this is not indicated on it. Applicant is
         observing 25 ft wetlands setbacks. Other than a permit application for a septic
         line and a stream crossing far away from the proposed building site at this time,
         we have nothing in writing or in person from the DEQ being a stream.


MOTION   Wright finds water course in question is not a stream based on the facts
         presented tonight for application for zoning. Finds that it is wetlands area.
         Motion to decline watercourse as a stream by definition.

         Fruge’ second

         Vote (2) ayes
         Absent (1)
         Motion carried

         Vellenga has asked for a copy of the minutes when prepared.

         Copy of the Warranty Deed was located and submitted for record.


         Item #3 Three (3) foot height variance

         Latcham and Baldwin amend variance request to 30” 2 ½ feet.


         Baldwin     without the variance being granted, the homeowner would lose
         approximately 280 sq feet of upper floor living space. The building design
         meets all of the setback requirements. Has a 12x12 pitch roof, and will have
         gutters.

         Public Comment open at 7:45 pm

         Corcoran: The proposed building plan is consistent with other structures on
         Walloon Lake. Second floor would have more usable space with a variance
         being granted.

         Doak: opposed to site plans as submitted by Town and Country, as incorrect
         drawings. Vellenga’s property is 1 1/2 story. Upper story is used for storage
         only. No windows to look out. Snow and water runoff will be a problem. The
         proposed building is too close to property lines. It is within 10 ft setback
          Vellenga believes that criteria’s have not been met. Has evidence that a septic
          permit was issued for two (2) buildings. Per Mike Jones, there is no indication
          of two (2) dwellings with permit was issued.

          Fruge’   We need to stick to the 30” variance that is in front of the board.

          Vellenga wet land area all around – not unique to this site. The homeowner
          has alternative sites that he needs to explore. The proposed building will impair
          view and light of dwelling on Vellenga’s property. Chimney is only 6 ft 6
          inches away. May impact his use of his fire place. Wants the height restrictions
          of 24 ft adhered to because they are so close. Points to 11.01 A2, will change
          the character. Believes that this is an environmentally sensitive area. Cites
          201.20 and 11.01 A1……

          Wright put a stop to this; the height variance is the issue on the table at this
          time.

          Vellenga points to 201 A55 wants board to specifically examine this. Section
          201.20

          Nord Schroeder – local contractor. They do meet setback and other
          requirements. A firewall can be put into place if needed. The building codes
          will impact the neighbors.

          Board went through the Board Decision and Order
MOTION
          Motion by Fruge’
          Seconded by Wright
          To deny the height variance as requested.

          Vote (2) Ayes
          Absent (1)
          Motion carries


          Question of who has ownership of the roadway that runs through a portion of
          the Latcham property? Is it a county road by use? Is it a dedicated road for
          public use? Plat vacated?

          Another meeting needs to be set up to determine Item #1, after staff has a
          chance to gather the information for the board to consider. Latcham will have
          the copy of paperwork that he has on the property (i.e.: warranty deeds, surveys,
          etc).

          Latcham and his attorney asked for a quick follow up meeting to resolve issues
          and begin site work before bad weather hits.


REPORTS   Correspondences/Reports     None
         Wright made a motion to adjourn
MOTION   Fruge’ seconded

         Vote: All Ayes Passed Unanimously.


         Meeting adjourned at 8:17 pm



         Copies of the Board Decision and Order will be attached permanently to the
         minutes.




         _________________________________________
         Pat Haver, Recording Secretary