Planning commission denies oversized accessory building at 7320 Whispering Springs Drive

Cascade Charter Township planning commissioners voted to deny a special-use request for an oversized accessory structure at 7320 Whispering Springs Drive, case number 24-3877, after extended questioning of staff, a presentation from the applicant and public comment from an adjacent neighbor.

Planning staff outlined the site and zoning complications tied to waterfront lots and irregular parcel shape, and noted the proposed accessory building exceeds the township—s by-right accessory structure threshold. Staff described how the township treats front/side/rear yard determinations on waterfront lots and explained that height is measured as an average across the sloped lot.

"I'm Jason Inglesma with Inglesma Homes," the applicant said, describing the proposal as a storage structure and noting the lower level would be concrete storage with about an 8-foot ceiling height. He told the commission that similar two-story accessory structures had been approved elsewhere and that roof-height limits frequently prevent a full second story.

Neighbor Ron Stasilauskas, who lives next door, told the commission he and his wife had lived at 7334 West Enbridge for 46 years and raised concerns about the structure's visibility from bedrooms and a bathroom, potential noise from a reported golf simulator, loss of tree screening and a perceived fire risk from nearby tall pines. "I don't like accessory buildings, but that's needed here," he said after reviewing the plans, while also voicing concern that the new building would appear like "a small house on the same property."

Commissioners focused discussion on three issues: whether the lower-level space should count toward floor area, whether the structure's two-level design was appropriate for an R-1 residential neighborhood, and whether the building footprint and perceived barn-like appearance were compatible with neighboring homes. Commissioners and staff discussed specific numbers shown in the packet: staff and commissioners referenced a lower level of about 1,224 square feet, an upper level of about 945 square feet and a combined total near 2,169 square feet, which exceeds the township's 832-square-foot threshold for by-right accessory buildings.

After deliberation, Commissioner 5 moved to disapprove the request "the way it currently sits," the motion was seconded, and the commission recorded a final determination that the request as presented was denied. Planning staff and legal counsel then explained next steps: because the application was denied as submitted, the applicant may reapply but a new application and fee would generally be required unless changes are minor; the commission also may reconsider a denial with a specific motion to reconsider.

Commissioners advised the applicant to consider a single-level design or a substantially reduced footprint (several commissioners mentioned an informal guidance around a 1,200-square-foot single-level footprint as a starting point), to provide clearer site plans showing driveway access and tree mitigation and to include visual renderings that show sight lines from the neighbor's house. Legal counsel, Laura Genovich, told the commission that a reapplication would need to include substantive changes to be accepted under the township's rules.

The commission did not adopt conditions to approve the current plan. The applicant was advised to return with revised plans if they wish to pursue a smaller, single-level accessory building or other changes that address neighbors' visibility and access concerns.

Next procedural steps: the denial stands unless the commission moves to reconsider; otherwise the applicant may file a new application with substantive revisions and the required fee.