Member Login

Lost your password?

Not a member yet? Sign Up!

Plymouth BZA Denies Naylor’s Request for Variance

April 5, 2012
By

   04/06/12 Tuesday night members of the Plymouth Board of Zoning Appeals denied the variance of use request of Bryan Naylor for a banquet hall at 12498 Maple Road in Plymouth.  The property in question is within the city’s 2-mile jurisdiction.

Naylor told the board he would like to create a banquet hall in the rural setting on the 30 acres he owns.  He anticipates parties about the size of 200 people.

BZA member Mark Gidley asked if he planned to use the current lane to access the facility to wit Naylor said yes.  He then asked if Naylor had received a drive-way permit for the roadway and Naylor said no.  Gidley also asked if there had been any investigation into receiving a permit for a septic larger enough to support the banquet hall, Naylor said “not yet.”

The Plymouth Board of Zoning Appeals then opened the meeting for public comments and questions.

Floyd Houin who operates a dairy on 13th Road is concerned of having a banquet hall so close to his operation.  He said they try to control the emissions from the dairy but there is still an odor associated with having a farming operation.  He also noted that he owns property immediately adjacent to the proposed site and does spread manure on the ground just across the fence line from the site.

Mike Delp who lives on Michigan Road was interested in the size of events he planned on having.

Randy Hurford purchased a farm on 13th Road six years ago near the proposed site raises hogs and cattle.  He has concerns on traffic using Maple Road and alcohol being served to patrons.

Brent Marriott who has lived on Maple Road for 50 years has concerns of participants using alcohol and then driving on the narrow curvy roads.

Plymouth Planning Director Bill Neal read the five findings of fact that must be met including 1) the approval won’t be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. 2) The use and value of the area adjacent to the property in questions will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. 3) The need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property.  4) The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance will constitute an unnecessary hardship. And 5)  The approval does not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan.

After a short discussion Member Jim Sherwood motioned to deny the variance request and Keith Wickens seconded the motion.  Other members, Alan Selge, Phil Scott and Mark Gidley made it a unanimous decision.

WordPress Plugin Share Bookmark Email