Cascade Township planning commission tables request for 1,500 sq ft accessory building at 8300 Cascade Road

Cascade Charter Township Planning Commission members on Nov. 3 postponed review of an application for a 1,500‑square‑foot accessory structure at 8300 Cascade Road, citing concerns about the building's size, height and driveway access.

Planning staff told the commission the lot is about 1.6–1.88 acres and the property contains an existing single‑family home. Under the current township ordinance, accessory structures larger than about 832 square feet require a special‑use review. Staff noted the proposed building's footprint would be about 66 percent of the principal building's footprint and said that, based on precedent, this would be among the largest accessory buildings approved for a lot of this size. Staff also said two letters of neighbor support were submitted and that one written concern had been received.

"The accessory building footprint in comparison to the principal footprint is 66 percent," planning staff said, and cautioned the structure "will likely still make it potentially visible to the neighboring properties." Staff recommended the commission consider the structure's intent of use, location, scale, topography and vegetation when weighing compatibility with R‑1 zoning.

Applicant Daniel Woods told the commission he had distributed information to adjacent neighbors and offered to add screening trees and move site utilities if necessary. "I know everyone's fine with it," Woods said, and added he was "open to anything" with respect to placement and landscaping.

Commissioners repeatedly questioned whether the proposed scale and height fit an R‑1 residential district, and raised driveway and traffic safety concerns tied to Cascade Road. Several commissioners said they would expect the applicant to consult the Kent County Road Commission about curb cuts and turnaround options before a final decision. Commissioners also discussed how the township measures building height under existing rules versus a pending new ordinance; staff said the current measurement uses the roof midpoint while the proposed ordinance would measure to the roof peak.

After public testimony and commissioner discussion, the commission voted by voice to open the public hearing, then to close it, and ultimately to postpone (table) the case to the next scheduled planning commission meeting to allow the applicant to submit a clearer survey, revised drawings and to consider reductions in size or height. Planning staff told the applicant postponement would allow him to revise the proposal under the current ordinance rather than immediately resubmitting under the forthcoming ordinance.

Next steps identified by the commission included a more detailed site survey showing the existing well and utility easements, confirmation that required setbacks (including the 60‑foot side setback cited by staff) are met, a driveway plan or evidence of contact with the Kent County Road Commission, and a clearer depiction of proposed screening.