Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wetland Setback topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board denies wetland-setback variances for Clintonville Road lot
Summary
The Waterford Zoning Board of Appeals unanimously denied two variances that would have placed a new house and covered deck inside the 25-foot wetland setback on a vacant Clintonville Road lot, citing lack of practical difficulty and concerns from nearby residents about wetlands, runoff and fill.
Stan Moore, chairman of the Waterford Township Zoning Board of Appeals, on March 17 presided over a unanimous (7-0) decision denying a pair of variances that would have allowed a new house and a covered deck to encroach into a 25-foot wetland setback on a vacant lot on Clintonville Road.
The applicant, Onoyom Ekanem, told the board he and Laury Ekanem had pursued wetland delineation and contacted EGLE and designed the house to minimize impacts, but said constraints of the narrow lot and the desire to move the build away from the road motivated the setback requests. "We want to build on the site and took the steps to see if it was buildable," Onoyom Ekanem said.
Neighbors who spoke during the public comment period opposed the variances. Debbie Giles, president of Golf View Estates, said "the plan can be redesigned to meet the setbacks" and warned that approval would set a precedent; she raised concerns about water quality, fill and runoff. Patricia Kustra said in her research "fill permits are required" and called the request self-imposed. David Barkley said the proposed footprint was too large for the site and noted floodplains and wetlands that would require fill and steep slopes. Jacob Barshaw reported that when EGLE visited his property "they stated that the subject property was mostly wetland," and he said he did not believe the lot was buildable.
Board members questioned whether the hardships were self-created. Board Member Sue Camilleri said she was not in support of wetland setback encroachments and emphasized the buffer's role in filtering runoff and mitigating floods. Board Member Art Frasca said a similarly sized house could likely be built without variances on the vacant lot. Citing the evidence and public input, Camilleri moved to deny the variances; Frasca supported the motion. The board voted unanimously to deny the request, finding that practical difficulties had not been demonstrated and that a lesser plan revision could provide relief without violating the ordinance.
The denial was recorded by roll call as 7-0. The board noted that EGLE had been informed of the proposal and that floodplain issues and a building-permit engineering review would be addressed during permit review if the applicant pursues alternate plans.
