by Elsewhere 22 Replies latest jw friends
It is also interesting that Mr. Vroma(n) lives about 135 miles from the Cascade Congregation; does that mean he moved or that he send the letter as a representative of the Regional Building Committee?
They obviously did not orginally contest the charges.
Here are the minutes from the meeting discussing the building addition.
http://www.cascadetwp.org/ReferenceDesk/Minutes/ZBA/2002/020611.htm
Blondie
ZBA Minutes - June 11, 2002
Chris Vroma responded it is usually a husband and wife. They are assigned to an
area for three to five years. It is never a couple with children. ...
www.cascadetwp.org/ReferenceDesk/ Minutes/ZBA/2002/020611.htm - 45k - Cached - Similar pages
Cached version of above 'hit':
MINUTES
Cascade Charter Township Zoning Board of Appeals
Tuesday, June 11, 2002
7:00 pm
ARTICLE 1. Vice Chair Lewis called the meeting to order.
Members Present: Beahan, Erickson, Lewis, Wilson
Members Absent: Goldberg and Timmons (both unexcused)
Others Present: Planner Otey, Admin. Assistant Thompson and those listed on Supplement #1.
In the absence of the Chairman, Vice Chair Lewis acted as Chairman.
ARTICLE 2.
The agenda was approved on motion by Member Beahan and supported by Member Wilson. The motion carried.ARTICLE 3
. The Minutes of the May 14, 2002 meeting were approved on motion by Member Beahan and supported by Member Wilson. The motion carried.ARTICLE 4.
The following Minutes were received and filed:a. Planning Commission – March 18, 2002
b. Planning Commission – April 15, 2002
c. Planning Commission – May 6, 2002
d. Planning Commission – May 20, 2002
ARTICLE 5. Case #02-2480: Red Roof Inn
(PUBLIC HEARING)
The applicant requested a variance to allow a freestanding sign to exceed the Sign Ordinance at 5151 – 28 th Street in the ES, Expressway Service zoning district.
Planner Otey related the property is located west of the I-96 interchange. The applicant requested a variance that would allow for a sign with more square footage and taller than permitted in the ES zoning district. The current sign is legal, non-conforming. The current sign is too tall and does not meet our square footage requirements. The ES zoning district allows for one freestanding sign not to exceed the height of 30 feet. The square footage is based on the street frontage at the building setback line, not to exceed 125 square feet. The applicant could have a sign 30 feet high and 112 square feet in size. The applicant is proposing to replace the current sign with a new sign that has new dimensions and geometry. The Zoning Ordinance says that when you replace a sign it looses its legal, non-conforming status. The current sign is 53 feet high with 282 square feet in sign area. The new sign would contain 225 square feet in sign area at a height of 53 feet. The applicant would like to remove the top part of the sign and replace it. Planner Otey then went through the findings of fact as listed in the Staff Report. Planner Otey related the Township is attempting to remove all non-conforming signs. MSI gas station removed their taller non-conforming sign. No conditions for this request are unique. Many businesses in the area do not have high rise signs and do conform to our Sign Ordinance. Planner Otey related the variance, if granted, would set an adverse precedent. Planner Otey recommended denial of the request.
Member Lewis asked do I understand that because they are removing the sign and replacing it, that is considered a new sign and they must meet the ordinance in height and square footage of the sign area? Planner Otey responded correct, she recommended denying the whole sign package.
Member Wilson related she recalls we struggled to ask how much a company had to take down to consider it a demolition. She does not recall the outcome.
Planner Otey related if there is more than 50% of the sign face shattered or damaged, if it is removed, rebuilt or replaced it would lose its non-conforming status.
Member Erickson asked do we have anything to see what this would look like to conform. Planner Otey responded no. The largest sign area they could have would be 112 square feet. They are asking for a sign 53 feet high and 225 square feet in sign area.
The applicant was represented by Bob Elierski of North American Signs. Mr. Elierski related he is here to request a variance for a new sign cabinet. The current sign is 53-1/2 feet high at 280 square feet and is of the old style. We are proposing a new sign remaining at the existing height at 224.3 square feet which is a 55 square foot reduction. The current sign is out of date. Red Roof Inn is trying to change their image. This site is under performing. They feel a change to a newer logo will allow the Inn to have a better image in your community.
Member Lewis asked what percentage of your business is return business people that have stayed there before? Mr. Elierski responded he does not know because it is a non-reservation based hotel. He would like to maintain the height of the current sign for patrons coming off the interstate.
Member Wilson asked have you intended what a conforming sign would look like? Mr. Elierski responded no.
Member Lewis asked do you work for Red Roof Inn? Mr. Elierski responded no, he is employed by North American Signs. They build the signs for Red Roof Inn and have other companies throughout the country install them. He spoke with Red Roof Inn today. They could amend the existing drawing and go to another sign at 190 square feet. That would be a reduction of 90 square feet from the existing sign. Planner Otey responded that would still be non-conforming.
Member Erickson asked how under performing is this site? Mr. Elierski responded he does not have any exact numbers.
Member Beahan asked if you would get permission for a height of 53 feet, what are your plans for the 24 square foot directional sign? Mr. Elierski related he has not been directed to change directional signs.
Planner Otey related directional signs are allowed to be two square feet. The site could have two of those.
Member Lewis asked is the address on 28 th street? Planner Otey responded yes.
Member Wilson supported by Member Erickson moved to open the public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.
Planner Otey related she received no comments regarding the request.
Member Wilson supported by Member Erickson moved to close the public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was closed.Member Lewis related most of the time this board’s job is to offer the least amount of a variance as possible. Your offer to make the sign smaller is attractive. The Sign Ordinance itself speaks clearly on the size of signs. Member Lewis related he appreciates the offer of a smaller sign but that still does not meet our ordinance requirements in terms of height or size. Therefore, he has a problem accepting the offer. Member Lewis related Staff has brought out some good points.
Member Beahan related he is concerned about starting a precedent. We have already made other applicants go to a small sign size. Our operation has been to try to get everyone in compliance. Member Beahan related he sees no reason to stray from that policy.
Member Erickson asked if they were to leave the sign as it is, would they lose their status as legal, non-conforming if they were to put a sticker on it with the new company name. Planner Otey related they could pop out the existing sign face and put in another one.
Member Erickson related we would be gaining by allowing them to go to a smaller sign.
Member Beahan related we wouldn’t be gaining enough to warrant it. We would still have a 53 foot high sign when we have already told other people they could not have one at that height. They are at the point where it is get in compliance or stay with what you have.
Member Wilson related it is still non-conforming and we wouldn’t gain anything. It is better to have them leave it as is rather than have a stampede of others coming in that we have previously denied. We would actually be losing if we allow them a smaller sign that is not in compliance. We wouldn’t be able to live with the precedent.
Member Beahan related he is also concerned with the size of the directional sign. He noticed that on the building there is an additional sign.
Planner Otey related she is sure there are a lot of non-conforming issues on that section of 28 th Street. She related we can’t do a whole lot about that until the businesses upgrade their sign packages.
Member Beahan supported by Member Wilson moved to deny the request for a 53-1/2 foot tall high rise sign of 225 square feet for the reasons that there is no hardship, the motion is based on Staff’s recommendation for denial and that it would set an adverse precedent against what we have been trying to do. The motion carried.ARTICLE 6. Case #02-2478: Cascade Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses
(PUBLIC HEARING)
The applicant requested two variances from the Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a new church at 1250 Spaulding Avenue, SE. The requested variances were: 1) lot size is under 2 acres; and 2) home size less than 1,300 s.f.
Planner Otey related the property is on the east side of Spaulding Avenue, one lot south of Cascade Road and Hall Street. Churches in the township are required to get a Type II Special Use Permit. The applicant went before the Planning Commission on June 3 for site plan approval and a recommendation for the Special Use Permit. The Planning Commission did recommend a favorable recommendation to the Township Board for the Special Use Permit.
Planner Otey then addressed the first request regarding lot size. The property is 1.5 acres. The applicant does have an agreement with Consumers Power to use just under an acre. That amount of property would put them over the two acre requirement to 2.4 acres. The easement agreement does meet the intent of the ordinance to accommodate the church building, parking, bufferyards, etc. In researching the other churches in the township, only one has a parcel less than two acres and that is Snow United Methodist Church with a seating capacity of 140. Their lot size is one and a half acres.
Planner Otey then addressed the variance request regarding home size. She related the Zoning Ordinance states a one story home is required to be a minimum of 1300 square feet. The applicant is proposing to have living quarters of 800 square feet attached to the church. There is only one other church in the township that has a parsonage and that is Cascade Fellowship Church. Their parsonage is on the same parcel as the church but is not attached. Their parsonage is 2500 square feet. Living quarters on church grounds are accepted and is a related use to churches. Planner Otey related she feels the variance is needed because the living quarters would be under the 1300 s.f. minimum requirement. Living quarters are considered as separate in the eye of the building code. There is no entrance from the church into the home. If the variance requested is approved, the applicant can proceed to the Township Board for final consideration of the site plan and the Special Use Permit.
Planner Otey then went through the findings of fact as listed in the Staff Report. The property does conform to the zoning requirements of the R1 district for single family homes but does not meet the two acre minimum parcel size required for churches without the land from Consumers Power. Living quarters can be viewed as an exceptional circumstance although fewer churches now provide living quarters on site. If the living quarters are attached to the church building as proposed, it will not appear the living quarters would be smaller than permitted. Exceptional conditions of the site are not the result of actions taken by the applicant. The church bought this property several years ago and the size of the lot has not changed. The church did find a way to meet the intent of the zoning requirement by entering into an agreement with Consumers Power for the lot size. It would not be practical to amend the Zoning Ordinance for this request. The applicant’s comments should be considered before making a decision.
Planner Otey recommended approval of the variance requests.
Member Lewis related we changed the Zoning Ordinance dealing with churches a fewmonths ago. He asked if a variance would be needed for size before the last ordinance change? Planner Otey responded yes, that requirement did not change. Lot size did not change. Seating capacity determined whether or not they needed a Special Use Permit previously.
Member Wilson related in your findings of fact #1 it talks about fewer churches provide living quarters on the church site. She asked what benefit does that provide to the township? Planner Otey responded she is not sure it is a benefit to the township. It may be considered a unique circumstance that may not apply to other properties in the area. We do not have a lot of requests for living quarters.
Member Wilson asked hasn’t the applicant created their circumstances? Planner Otey responded yes.
Member Wilson asked regarding finding of fact #2 the church purchased the lot several years ago. Isn’t it true that if a person buys a piece of property in the past they still have to live within the existing ordinance? Planner Otey responded yes. We have granted variances for businesses on a non-conforming lot with a use that does conform to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. For example, last month we did that for Gordon Food. We have granted quite a few of those throughout the township.
Member Wilson related she is concerned about the lease with Consumers Power. After reading it, Consumers can revoke it at any point in time. Consequently they could be three months into this lease and revoke it. Then where would we be? Planner Otey responded she doesn’t see that happening but it is possible. There are other properties along that stretch of Spaulding Avenue that have agreements with Consumers.
Member Wilson related she is not too worried about the lease but we have to recognize potential problems.
Planner Otey related they can have a dwelling on the property regardless.
Member Erickson asked if the living space is going to include a bathroom and kitchen. Planner Otey responded she believed so.
Member Erickson asked if there would be a basement. Planner Otey related the plans do not show a basement.
Member Beahan commented at the Planning Commission meeting they were fairly comfortable with the lease from Consumers Power and that brought the site into compliance. The Planning Commission really didn’t seem to be concerned about the living quarters. The neighbors were concerned about the screening and the church was willing to work with the neighbors on that. One neighbor was concerned about the drainage.
Steve Kinder of Moore & Bruggink represented the applicant. Mr. Kinder related the proposed building is about 4,250 s.f. not including the living space. Drainage was addressed at the public hearing. The Township Engineer will look at the existing drainage problems. We believe this will help clean up existing problems that are out there. The living quarters will be attached. The living quarters are for the church overseer to live in. He travels around in west the Michigan area and is not there an awful lot. There is no need for a larger space. Not all churches have attached living quarters. The living quarters have a kitchen, bedroom and total living quarters. There will be no basement in the facility.
Member Lewis asked the size of the garage. Planner Otey related 24’ x 28’.
Member Wilson asked is there one person assigned to live there? Mr. Kinder responded yes.
Member Lewis related he read there are two people working there at the church. Is there another full time person working there? Chris Vroma responded it is usually a husband and wife. They are assigned to an area for three to five years. It is never a couple with children. The garage is to keep their car and lawn equipment.
Member Lewis asked does the wife travel with the husband? Mr. Vroma related yes.
Member Erickson asked if it were to be 1,300 s.f. would they need a different kind of variance? Planner Otey responded no. Then they would meet the requirement.
Member Wilson asked what about the setbacks? Planner Otey responded they would be in compliance.
Member Erickson asked what is the purpose of having an 800 s.f. home for two people? Mr. Vroma related because it is just a husband and wife. They do travel to other congregations in the state. It is a home base where they work out of.
Member Erickson asked is this their only residence? Mr. Vroma responded yes, they live there. They are in full time ministry. They are usually a young couple who don’t have children yet, or a older couple with grown children. They take a vow of poverty so they don’t have a lot of possessions. We furnish the living quarters. They have nothing to bring in except their personal belongings.
Member Erickson asked if there is a hardship to meet minimum living standards? Mr. Vroma related if we asked for and tried to raise more funds it could be done. But it is not necessary. It would be over stated for what we need. Being attached gives over all appearance of a larger building.
Planner Otey related 1300 s.f. is a number. It could have been any number in the Zoning Ordinance. But it is 1300 s.f. minimum in the Zoning Ordinance and that is what we have to work with.
Member Beahan asked if could this be grandfathered in. If the church decides it is not big enough and they move somewhere else would that living quarters still remain in effect? Planner Otey responded the variance runs with the property.
Member Wilson supported by Member Beahan moved to open the public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was opened.Ronald Bond related he was at the first meeting. He asked about the first piece of property that is facing Cascade Road and if anything was planned for that. Planner Otey we have not seen any plans for that piece of property.
Mr. Bond related he has talked with the church about his property and the drainage and some types of berm or fence or something like that for a buffer. He related we are pretty much in agreement with that. At this point he really does not have more comments.
Member Wilson asked the normal church hours. Mr. Vroma related two evening a week either Tuesday or Thursday from 7:00 pm – 9:00 or 9:30 pm and then on Sunday. Sunday hours are either morning or afternoon.
John O’Neill related he thinks the Board is puzzled by the traveling guy. He explained that years ago the overseer would travel and stay at a home of someone in the congregation. That was a hardship too. The congregation thought it would be nice to have a smaller apartment in the church. The overseer serves 26 congregations. Every morning he is gone. This will be a home base. There is an apartment in their Grandville building that has been given to a Spanish overseer. This will be for our overseer.
Member Lewis asked if there are 26 buildings? Mr. O’Neill related there are 26 congregations. We share ours with the one on Michigan Street. Some of the others ones are shared also.
Member Erickson asked what are your plans for the property boundary to the south. Mr. Vroma related he discussed that with Mr. Bond and the church wants to be a good neighbor. They have settled on a nice fence which will meet the township requirements.
Member Erickson asked would that be allowed six feet high. Planner Otey responded six feet in the side and rear yards.
Member Beahan asked what is the size of the Grandville living quarters? Mr. Vroma related the same exact size. We pretty much have blueprints of standard designs. We keep it very standard.
Planner Otey related she received no comments regarding the request.
Member Beahan supported by Member Wilson moved to close the public hearing. The motion carried and the public hearing was closed.1. Lot size variance.Member Lewis related one board member expressed concerns regarding the lease with Consumers Power. He asked if there is a guarantee of the lease for more than a one year basis? Mr. Vroma related he talked with Mr. Peterson of Consumers Power. It really isn’t an issue but they won’t give us an absolute guarantee. We don’t think it is a problem but anything is possible.
Member Wilson related her concern is we have not encountered this in the past. Her concerns are now eliminated.
Member Wilson supported by Member Beahan moved to approve the lot size variance in light of having received a lease from Consumers Power. The motion carried.2. Home Size Variance.Member Lewis related he understands that Staff has 1,300 s.f. for the living quarters in the Staff Report. The Chairman is somewhat concerned about this. The Planning Commission seems to have a little more leeway in interpreting the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Board may not have that freedom. There are extraordinary circumstances in this. He would like to hear some comments on this issue.
Member Wilson related she is of the belief that 800 s.f. is only to accommodate the wants of the applicant. We never consider financial hardship for variances. She doesn’t find any uniqueness other than what the applicant has brought upon themselves. Because the applicant wants to live next to the church she does not see it as a reason for granting a variance.
Member Beahan related he is going the other way because the Planning Commission really didn’t seem too bothered by the size. His personal point of view is how it is being utilized as a home base seems to agree with him more than having to go to a larger size. The residents are not going to be raising a family there. For one or two people 800 s.f. seems to be doable.
Member Wilson related one person or a couple doesn’t need a 1300 s.f. home.
Planner Otey related we have attached in-law suites in some homes in the township.
Member Wilson related she doesn’t see enough reasons that we could prevent this from happening again except it is a religious organization.
Member Lewis related could a condition of the motion be to limit the number of people living there to two.
Member Wilson related it doesn’t matter how many people it will be living there. You might have a young couple that says we only want an 800 s.f. home because we don’t have kids.
Planner Otey related we have had inquiries from older couples for smaller homes because they are retired and don’t need the 1300 s.f. of living space.
Member Erickson related we are talking a difference of 500 s.f. The quality of the home would be upscale at 1300 s.f. She finds herself uncomfortable downgrading someone’s life style. It is pretty modest construction and would be an advantageous to your congregation to do that add the 500 s.f.
Mr. Vroma related he agrees. These people take on a vow of poverty. That are elated with a home base. Our headquarters would not allow us to enlarge the living quarters. It would not be built at all if we can’t do it at 800 s.f.
Member Erickson related one of our options would be to table this and have you come back. She related she might be willing to vote for it with a basement included in the 800 s.f. Planning Otey related a one story dwelling has to equal 1300 s.f. A basement cannot be counted as main floor square footage.
Member Wilson related life style is a personal choice that these people have made.
Member Beahan related the living quarters is unique for use by the church. We do need to think about other uses for buildings other than what they were originally intended as. He related for example, it would not be a bad idea to have apartments above the buildings in the Prevo’s development. That would be a good utilization of space. This is a unique opportunity for diversity.
Member Wilson commented regarding in-law homes. She asked if we have any separate ordinance for square footage of those? Planner Otey responded they are attached and part of the home. This also would be attached and is part of the church. Under the definition of dwelling this would fit in. It is a use permitted in residential zoning districts and falls into the definition of dwelling.
A discussion followed regarding the entrance to the dwelling and a connection to the church building.
Member Lewis related people are concerned about the precedent setting nature of this and this is a very unique situation. The living quarters would be attached to a larger building.
Member Beahan supported by Member Wilson moved to recommend approval of the applicant’s request for a variance from Section 18.04 that would allow living quarters in the church to be smaller than 1300 s.f. The living quarters will be 800 s.f. attached to the church building and would contain an entrance between the church and living quarters with an outside entrance to the living quarters also. Member Beahan related he would like to underscore living quarters. It is not a house where you raise children. The living quarters are not owned by those people living there – it is church owned. The motion carried.ARTICLE 7. Any Other BusinessNone presented.ARTICLE 8. AdjournmentMember Beahan supported by Member Wilson moved to adjourn. The motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 8:26 pm.Respectfully submitted,
Jack Lewis, Secretary
JL:MJT
Ooops. Pardon me blondie, I think we were in the search at the same time, and thusly submitted our findings at the same time.
You beat me to it!
sKally
I just have one question...
Isn't it the case that although the congregation members are the ones who pay for the hall they sign over the ownership of it to the WTBT$? In that case if they are suing them would they actually be suing the WTBT$ and they have to pay the costs?
I'm very hazy on these matters...
Unless the congregation is dissolved, the WTS has no ownership. The ownership lies with the congregation where the building rests (in cases there are 2 congregations) and that congregation provides the 3 elders that make up the non-profit corporation. I assume it is that non-profit corporation that is being sued.
The WTS owns nothing legally, until the local non-profit corporation/congregation is dissolved.
Blondie
misspeaches:
The situation in the States seems to be different to what we have downunder.
Down here the Society set up a corporation to hold title to all Kingdom Halls and Assembly Halls. I believe there may still be some (a few?) that are 'locally owned'.
so the Society has much more control of properties in our experience that what seems to be the case 'over there'.
As a footnote, it's interesting to see how in both the United States and downunder, once again the WTS is distanced from legally owning KH and Ass Hall properties.
FYI the corporation that was established to hold all properties nationwide in Australia is "Jehovah's Witnesses Congregations". Its Registered Office is the Sydney assembly hall in Raby Road, which for those who don't know is a very short distance from Australia Branch (Bethel) in Denham Court.
As with commercial corporations, JWC has state branches wheich all report back to "Head Office"
In March 2003, Secretary/Treasurer Chris Vroma promised, in a letter, that Cascade Congregation would reimburse the township for costs to repair the damaged sewer section at the intersection of Spaulding Avenue SE and Cascade Road.
probably he was thinking that Armageddon would be on the corner to prevend paying.
The township claims Cascade Congregation of Jehovah's Witness has failed to reimburse it $64,993.68 for repairs made to municipal sewer lines damaged during construction of an addition to the church, according to court documents. The damage allegedly occurred in late 2002 or early 2003 when the hall, at 1250 Spaulding Ave. SE, built its addition
Wouldn't the KH's property insurance cover this damage? (I'm assuming they have property insurance)
