APPRAISAL Thomas Sharwarko

Appraisal of 203 E 25th StreetMTT Docket Number: 15-001541

APPRAISAL OF 203 E 25TH ST, HOLLAND, MI 49423SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY

MTT DOCKET #: 15-001541

DATE OF VALUE: DECEMBER 31, 2014DATE REPORT WRITTEN: JUNE 10, 2015

DATE OF INSPECTION: N/A

WRITTEN BY: DEVIN GOULOOZE, MCATREVIEWED BY: JOSEPH AREVALO, MCAO

1 | P a g e


June 10, 2015Michigan Tax Tribunal Ottawa State Office Building611 W Ottawa Street2nd FloorLansing, MI 48913

RE: MTT Docket #: 15-001541

Dear Michigan Tax Tribunal:

Attached is the appraisal of 203 East 25th Street, located within the City of Holland. The subject property is a single family residential property.

The City of Holland Assessor’s Office attempted to schedule an on-site interior and exterior review of the subject property by letter on Friday, June 5, 2015. The homeowner did not respond to the request, thus no review was completed. As of the date of valuation, December 31, 2013, no permits have been taken out and thus no remodeling is believed to have been done.

The Subject property is located in ECF neighborhood I05. The comparables chosen were done so with a focus on similarities first, and location second.

This report is presented as a proof of valuation for Tax Tribunal proceedings. The purpose of the report is to estimate the market value of fee simple title to the subject property as of:

December 31, 2014

Market value is defined by the International Association of Assessing Officers as “the most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus” (Property Assessment Valuation, Third Edition, pg. 15).

On the basis of my analysis, I estimate the market value of the subject property, 203 East 25th Street, Holland, MI 49423, as of the appraisal date of December 31st, 2014, to be:

One Hundred Twenty Three Thousand Six Hundred Dollars ($123,600)

Sincerely,

Devin Goulooze, MCATAppraiser │ Assessor’s Office | City of Holland

2 | P a g e


Table of Contents

3 | P a g e


Summary of Salient Facts and Conclusions

Purpose of Appraisal: Estimate Market Value for Michigan Tax Tribunal Proceedings

Property rights appraised: Unencumbered, Fee Simple Interest

Address of Subject Property: 203 E 25th Street, Holland, MI 49423

School District: Holland Public, Ottawa County Intermediate

County: Ottawa County

Improvement Description: Single Family, 1.25 Frame with Detached Frame Garage

Lot Size: 75’ x 132’ – Rectangular City Lot

Zoning: R-1 – One Family Residential District

Assessed Value for 2015: $58,700

Taxable Value for 2015: $58,700

Highest & Best Use: Residential

Actual Age: Built 1950 (64)

Effective Age: 27 Years

Cost Approach Valuation: $117,400

Sales Approach Valuation: $123,600

Final Opinion of Value: $123,600

Date of Appraisal Valuation: December 31, 2014

Date of Inspection: N/A

Date Report Written: June 10, 2015

1 | P a g e


Definition and Explanation of Market Value

Market Value Defined

Market value is defined by the International Association of Assessing Officers as “the most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specific date and passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby:

1. Buyer and seller are typically motivated;2. Both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what he considers his own best interest.3. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market.4. Payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and5. The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold, unaffected by special or creative

financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale.”

(Property Assessment Valuation, Third Edition, pg. 15)

Foreclosure Sales Considerations

Special care should be taken in light of sales where a financial institution has taken a property back through foreclosure proceedings, facilitated the “short sale” of a property to satisfy a failing mortgage arrangement, or is selling a property to an end-user after already having taken the property back through the foreclosure process. These circumstances illustrate abnormal conditions whereby the sale price of the property may be, and often is, affected by financing considerations that yield a sale price that is usually substantially less than what the arms-length market normally pays for a similar property.

The standard practice of reviewing foreclosure sales is that the circumstances of the sale must be reviewed and validated through. This process is pursued through requests for submission of a “Real Property Statement – Financial Institution – Previously Foreclosed Property” (Michigan Department of Treasury Form 4546) and site visits to properties to review and consider the physical conditions of the property at the time of the sale. Both of these issues present obstacles to determining the usability of foreclosure sales. Real Property Statements are difficult to attain due to lack of cooperation of buyers and a misunderstanding of the requirements of the form. The City of Holland sent 70 Financial Institution RPS’s out in 2009 and received only one back. The one that was returned had a note that no information would be shared. This illustrates the difficulties in determining the specifics surrounding a particular distressed sale and whether or not the sale price is indicative of the property’s market value.

Site visits on foreclosure or bank-owned properties are sometimes hard to arrange due to vacancy, out of town banks, or transition periods in ownership. Regardless, the major issue brought to light by this part of the process is that typical foreclosure sale properties are in poor condition and in need of repairs and maintenance. In the circumstances of rental properties, they are usually remodeled and repaired in preparation for listing and rent. This remodeling usually immediately returns value to the property for items of obsolescence and curable deferred maintenance that have been updated and corrected. Therefore, there is usually money spent on the property after the purchase that substantially affects the value of the property as of the forthcoming Tax Day, December 31st. This rehabilitative work will enhance the value of the property and make the sale price less relevant to the market value of the property.

2 | P a g e


3 | P a g e


Site DescriptionThe subject property is a typical residential lot located in the City of Holland. The lot is a rectangular city lot that has a flat topography and serves a highest and best use as the location of a residential home in a residential neighborhood. The lot has 75 feet of frontage and 132 feet of depth. The residential lots in this area, as well as the majority of the city, are valued on a “front foot basis.” This property has a lot value of $17,540, derived from a front foot rate of $215/FF, which is the standard rate used in this neighborhood.

Improvement DescriptionThe subject property is a 1.25 story frame single family home with a full basement, one third of which has recreational finish. It is similar in design, style, and layout to many of the homes in the neighborhood that were built in the same era of the mid-twentieth century. The property record card indicates that the home was originally built in 1950. The home is 1,047 square feet above grade and features three bedrooms and one bathroom. The house has a forced heat and cool system. The home has a 467 square feet rear wood deck that was built in 2010. The quality of construction classification on the home is C+10, which is ten percent above average. This is typical for a home of this age and style in this area of the city.

Improvement ConditionThe subject property home was built in 1950 and has no recorded remodeling work, regular maintenance is assumed. The depreciation for the condition of the home is currently set at 80% good, i.e. 20% depreciated.

Neighborhood AnalysisThe subject property’s neighborhood is a well-established, residential neighborhood surrounding E 25th St in the City of Holland. The property values in the neighborhood steadily decreased from 2008 through 2011 but were level for 2012 and have been increasing in 2013, 2014 and 2015. This is generally typical for the housing market in Western Michigan and beyond.

Utilities in the subject property neighborhood are typical for residential properties and include: city water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, municipal electric, natural gas, telephone, and cable (including internet). Max transit authority offers a fixed route bus service in the surrounding areas. There are several churches in the area as well as shopping and commercial districts. This home is in the Holland Public School District with an elementary school and high school in the general vicinity.

All subject and comparable properties listed within this report are in the same general vicinity of the core neighborhoods of the City of Holland. Each of these neighborhoods has similar utilitarian value and desirability.

4 | P a g e


Legal DescriptionE 25 FT OF LOT 13, & W 50 FT OF LOT 14, BLK 1 SOUTH PROSPECT PARK PLAT SEC 32 T5N R15W

Sales HistoryThe subject property was purchased on 4/18/2014 and transferred from Staci McMillian to Thomas P. Sharwarko. This last transfer does constitute a typical, “arm’s length” transaction.

Assessment HistoryAs of December 31, 2012, the 2013 assessed value was $46,200 with a true cash value of $92,400. As of December 31, 2013, the 2014 assessed value was $49,800 with a true cash value of $99,600. The 2015 assessed value was increased to $58,700 with a true cash value of $117,400.

Year Assessed Value True Cash Value Act 252013 $46,200 $92,400 $02014 $49,800 $99,600 $02015 $58,700 $117,400 $0

5 | P a g e


TWO APPROACHES TO VALUE

COST APPROACH

MARKET APPROACH

6 | P a g e


Cost Approach

Cost Approach Introduction

The cost approach for the subject property was developed using BS&A Software’s Assessing program. We use this software to appraise all properties city-wide. All residential properties are appraised using the cost approach so that we can maintain consistency based on various units of comparison. Some of those units of comparison include, but are not limited to, land size (front footage and depth), square footage of the home, size of the garage, basement finished area, number of bathrooms, porches, decks, accessory buildings, condition/depreciation, etc. This valuation method is updated annually by local (County) multipliers for material costs as well as neighborhood market changes through using an Economic Condition Factor (ECF) in each neighborhood. The ECF is developed by comparing the sales price of properties that have sold with the appraisal system’s valuation and taking of average of those ratios to determine the change in the market for the year. This change is applied to all properties in the neighborhood. Through this method, the appraisal software is a market adjusted cost approach.

The cost approach is illustrated in the property record card and sketch of the subject property home as shown on the following pages.

7 | P a g e


8 | P a g e


9 | P a g e


10 | P a g e


Cost Approach Analysis

Based on the condition of the home, the depreciation of the house as of 12/31/2014 was 80% good. This valuation yields a total value of $117,378 (land of $17,540 and building of $98,851).

The subject property is located in the I05 ECF neighborhood; this ECF neighborhood had an ECF of .951 which is similar to the surrounding area. This neighborhood has 15 sales in 2014.

Based on the cost approach as illustrated on the property record card details, the City Assessor’s Office has determined the market value of 203 E 25th St, Holland, MI 49423, rounded to the nearest $100, to be:

$117,400

11 | P a g e


Sales Approach

Sales Approach Introduction

For determination of the subject property’s market value by means of the market (sales) approach to value, the appraiser looked for all sales of residential properties with the following criteria:

*Sold at arms-length with no financial hardship involved (short sales and foreclosures removed).

* Sold within the 1-year sale window used for 2015 County Equalization plus any sales through June of 2015 (6 months past the date of valuation), with time adjustments made as needed. Sales between 10/1/2013 and 6/1/2015.

*Sale properties located within general area of East 25th St, where like amenities, public utilities, and comparable market demand and desirability exists.

*Comparables were between 1,000 square feet and 1,100 square feet, and frame built.

*Style was 1.0 to 1.25 Story over basement.

Based on the above criteria, the sales analysis grid on the following pages was established by the appraiser using what he felt were the most comparable sales available.

Adjustments were made to the comparable to reflect the characteristics of the subject. In other words a comparable with a larger lot was adjusted downward with a minus adjustment to better reflect the smaller lot of the subject.

All comparables were reviewed. Adjustments for date of sale, location, sales or financing concessions, building condition, layout, and age, were considered, but none were made.

Adjustments were considered and made for each of the following characteristics.

Square foot adjustments were made based on the premise that the marginal square foot cost is approximately fifty percent or less of the total square foot cost of the building without land. In this case we are reviewing homes that average $117,100 dollars, less an estimated $17,500 per lot for land value. $52,400 building value divided by an average square foot of 1,100 equals $45.27 per square foot for the improvements. To use a marginal square foot of $40.00 for each variance in square foot is appropriate because at this point the mechanical and plumbing and kitchen cabinets are not being addressed.

Next, building quality was also considered. This appraiser is familiar with the neighborhoods, construction and quality of the various comparables and again allowed an adjustment of $3,500.00 for each increment in quality grading as found in the comparable sales.

The subject does have air conditioning and comparable #1 does not have air conditioning. Comparable #1 was adjusted up to reflect the value as if it did not have air conditioning with a plus $2,000.

The value of a garage stall is estimated at approximately $4,500 per stall.

12 | P a g e


This appraiser has estimated the adjustment for each additional bedroom to be an extra $1,800. One would have to do a very complex study to prove this estimate right or wrong.

Adjustments were made to reflect differences in condition, $1,000 dollars for every 1% change to depreciation. All comparables were between 79% and 83% good, i.e. between 21% and 17% depreciated.

All comparables as well as the subject have at least one bathroom. The value difference between a one or two bathroom home in this price ranges is believed to be $4,500.00 per full bathroom and $2,500 per half bathroom.

Most of the homes of this vintage have the ceiling height to allow for viable living space in the basement if it is finished. The value adjust per square foot of basement is believed to be $12.00.

Porches and decks were considered, the comparables were adjusted up or down $7.00 per square foot as the case may dictate.

13 | P a g e

Appraisal of 203 E 25th Street MTT Docket Number: 15-001541

14 | P a g e


Sales Approach Analysis

For the market (sales) approach analysis grid that was provided in this review, the average sales price of the six comparable properties is $117,100. The average adjusted sales price of the six comparable properties is $125,750.

Based on the sales approach analysis, the appraiser has determined that the most comparable properties are comparables #2, #3, #4, and #5. The average adjusted sales price of the four comparables given the most consideration is $120,300.

A value was determined by using a weighted average of all six (6) of the comparable sales. Comparables two, three, four and five were given the most weight at 20% each followed by comparables one and six at 10% each. The appraiser has determined the market value of the subject property based on the sales approach, located at 203 E 25th St, Holland, MI, 49423, as of December 31st, 2014, to be:

$123,600

15 | P a g e


Final Conclusion of Value

Based on reviewing the subject property via two approaches to value, the appraiser has determined the following market values as of December 31st, 2014:

Cost Approach: $117,400Sales Approach: $123,600

The indication of value as determined by review of the market approach indicates that the highest and best use of this single-family home would be for an end user. The cost approach is deemed the least reliable indicator of value due to the age and condition of the property. For this reason, the sales approach has been used as the final determination of the value of the property.

By this approach, the 2015 assessed value of $58,700 and the 2015 true cash value of $117,400 is a low representation of value.

The market value of the subject property as of December 31st, 2014 is:

One Hundred Twenty Three Thousand Six Hundred Dollars($123,600)

_____________________________________ __________Devin Goulooze, MCAT, T-1115 Date

16 | P a g e


Certification

DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE: The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently, knowledgeable and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: (1) buyer and seller are typically motivated; (2) both parties are well informed or advised and each acting in what he considers his own best interest; (3) a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; (4) payment is made in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and (5) the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions* granted by anyone associated with the sale.

Adjustments to the comparables must be made for special or creative financing or sales concessions. No adjustments are necessary for those costs which are normally paid by the sellers as a result of tradition of law in a market area; these costs are readily identifiable since the seller pays these costs in virtually all sales transactions. Special or creative financing adjustments can be made to the comparable property by comparisons to financing terms offered by a third party institutional lender that is not already involved in the property transaction. Any adjustment should not be calculated on a mechanical dollar for dollar cost of the financing or concession but the dollar amount of any adjustment should approximate the market’s reaction to the financing or concessions based on the appraiser’s judgment.

CERTIFICATION AND STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS

CERTIFICATION: The appraiser certifies and agrees that:

1. The appraiser has no present or contemplated future interest in the property appraised; and neither the employment to make the appraisal, nor the compensation for it, is contingent upon the appraised value of property.

2. The appraiser has no personal interest in or bias with respect to the subject matter of the appraisal report or the participants to the sale. The “Estimate of Market Value” in the appraisal report is not based in whole or in part upon the race, color, or national origin of the prospective owners or occupants of the properties in the vicinity of the property appraised.

3. The appraiser has personally inspected the exterior of the subject property, and has made an exterior inspection of all comparable sales listed in the report. To the best of the appraiser’s knowledge and belief, all statements and information in this report are true and correct, and the appraiser has not knowingly withheld any significant information.

4. All contingent and limiting conditions are contained herein (imposed by the terms of the assignments or by the undersigned affecting analyses, opinions, and conclusions contained in the report).5. This appraisal report has been made in conformity with and is subject to the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct of the appraisal organizations with which the appraiser is affiliated.

6. All conclusions and opinions concerning the real estate that are set forth in the appraisal report were prepared by the appraiser whose signature appears on the appraisal report, unless indicated as ‘review

17 | P a g e


appraiser.’ No change of any item in the appraisal report shall be made by anyone other than the appraiser, and the appraiser shall have no responsibility for any such unauthorized change.

CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS: The certification of the appraiser appearing in the appraisal report is subject to the following conditions as are set forth by the appraiser in the report.

1. The appraiser assumes no responsibility for matters of a legal nature affecting the property appraised or the title thereto, nor does the appraiser render any opinion as to the title, which is assumed to be good and marketable.

2. Any sketch in the report may show approximated dimensions and is included to assist the reader in visualizing the property. The appraiser has made no survey of the property.

3. The appraiser is not required to give testimony or appear in court because of having made the appraisal with reference to the property in questions, unless arrangements have been previously made therefore.

4. Any distribution of the valuation in the report between land and improvements applies only under the existing program of utilization. The separate valuations for land and building must not be used in conjunctions with any other appraisal and are invalid if so used.

5. The appraiser assumes that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures, which would render it more or less valuable. The appraiser assumes no responsibility for such conditions or for engineering which might be required to discover such factors.

6. Information, estimates, and opinions furnished to the appraiser, and contained in the report, were obtained from sources considered reliable and believed to be true and correct. However, no responsibility for accuracy of such items furnished the appraiser can be assumed by the appraiser.

7. Disclosure of the contents of the appraisal report is governed by the Bylaws and Regulations of the professional appraisal organizations with which the appraiser is affiliated.

8. Neither all, nor any part of the content of the report, or copy thereof (including conclusions as to the property value, the identity of the appraiser, professional designations, reference to any professional appraisal organizations, or the firm with which the appraiser is connected), shall be used for any purposes by anyone but the client specified in the report, the borrower if appraisal fee paid by same, the mortgagee or its successors and organizations, any state or federally approved financial institution, any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States, of any state or the District of Columbia, without the previous written consent of the appraiser; nor shall it be conveyed by anyone to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media, without the written consent and approval of the appraiser.

9. On all appraisals, subject to satisfactory completion, repairs, or alterations, the appraisal report and value conclusion are contingent upon completion of the improvements in a workmanlike manner.

18 | P a g e


Addenda

19 | P a g e


Subject & Comparable Photographs

Subject – 203 E 25th St.

20 | P a g e


Sales – Comp 1: 111 W 31st St, Holland, MI 49423

Sales – Comp 2: 639 Central Ave, Holland, MI 49423

21 | P a g e


Sales – Comp 3: 183 E 25th St, Holland, MI 49423

22 | P a g e



23 | P a g e



24 | P a g e


Sales – Comp 6: 69 E 32nd St, Holland, MI 49423

25 | P a g e


26 | P a g e


Supporting Documents

Sales & Other Supporting Documents

All deeds, property transfer affidavits, property record data, and sketches were taken from public records. They can be referenced via the appropriate County Register of Deeds Office or the local Assessor’s Office.

27 | P a g e


203 E 25th St – Warranty Deed

203 E 25th St – PTA

28 | P a g e


29 | P a g e


Comparable Sale 1 – 111 W 31st St – Deed

30 | P a g e


31 | P a g e


Comparable Sale 1 – 111 W 31st St – PTA

32 | P a g e


Comparable Sale 2 – 639 Central Ave – Deed

33 | P a g e


34 | P a g e


35 | P a g e


Comparable Sale 2 – 639 Central Ave – PTA

36 | P a g e


37 | P a g e


Comparable Sale 3 – 183 E 25th St – Deed

38 | P a g e


39 | P a g e


Comparable Sale 3 – 183 E 25th St – PTA

40 | P a g e


41 | P a g e



42 | P a g e



43 | P a g e



44 | P a g e


45 | P a g e


46 | P a g e



47 | P a g e



48 | P a g e


49 | P a g e



50 | P a g e


Thomas Patrick Sharwarko

203 E 25th St.

Holland, MI 49423

RE: DOCKET NUMBER: 15-001541

PARCEL NUMBER: 70-16-32-426-023

Dear Mr. Thomas P. Sharwarko,

The City of Holland is responding to the petition filed on the property located at 203 E 25th St. Holland, MI 49423 (Parcel Number: 70-16-32-426-023). The City Assessor’s Office is requesting to visit the property to perform a physical inspection of the interior of the home. You retain the right to deny this request at your discretion however it is beneficial in achieving an accurate assessment of the property.

We appreciate your open communication and cooperation.

Please respond to the City Assessor’s Office request by contacting Devin Goulooze, Appraiser, City of Holland Assessor’s Office, at (616) 355-1353.

Best regards,

Devin GouloozeAppraiser │ MCAOCity of Holland Assessor's OfficeDirect: (616)-355-1356Main: (616)-355-1350Mobile: (269)[email protected]

51 | P a g e


Neighborhood ECF Analysis

The subject property is located in the ECF Neighborhood I05. The comparable properties are located in ECF Neighborhoods I02 and I05.

Subject Property ECF Neighborhood

I05: State, E 25th

ECF: .951

Sales: 15

Comparable Properties ECF Neighborhoods:

I02: Core 23rd and State to Michigan Ave.

ECF: .786

Sales: 44

I05: State, E 25th

ECF: .951

Sales: 15

52 | P a g e


53 | P a g e


Holland, MI Code of Ordinance – R-1

One Family Residential District

SEC. 39-210: Permitted Uses

The R-1 One-Family Residential District is intended primarily for single-family residential use, but also allows church, school and public uses. The following uses are permitted therein:

(A) One single-family residence on each lot used as a single dwelling unit. In addition, no more than a total of two roomers and boarders are permitted when approved as a special exception under Section 39-407.

(B) Church uses and other places of worship.

(C) Public and private preschool, K-12, and community education-type school uses.

(D) Municipal administrative and municipal service uses.

(E) Municipal parks, municipal recreation areas, municipal community centers and gardens.

(F) Gardening or other farming, excluding the keeping of animals or fowl contrary to the provisions of Section 4-1.

(G) Public library, public museum, and public art gallery.

(H) Accessory uses that are customarily incidental to any principal use permitted by Subsections (a) through (g) of this section; provided, however, that such uses are in conjunction with an existing permitted principal use on the premises; and provided further, that such accessory uses shall not constitute, create or increase a nuisance in fact which adversely affects a legal use of adjoining or nearby premises. Such accessory uses shall include home occupations and home businesses as defined and limited in Section 39-2 and regulated in Section 39-192, and signs as specified in Article IX of this Code.

(I) Family day care home. A private family home in which not more than six minor children are received for care and supervision for periods of less than 24 hours a day, unattended by a parent or legal guardian. This home must comply with the provisions of Act No. 116 of the Public Acts of 1973, as amended, and the regulations adopted pursuant to said Act.

SEC. 39-211: Child Care; Family Day Care Home; Group Day Care Home

(A) Definitions.

(1) FAMILY DAY CARE HOME — A private home in which one but less than seven minor children are received for care and supervision for periods of less than 24 hours a day, unattended by a parent or legal guardian, except children related to an adult member of the family by blood, marriage, or adoption. Family day care home includes a home that gives care to an unrelated minor child for more than four weeks during a calendar year.

(2) GROUP DAY CARE HOME — A private home in which more than six but not more than 12 minor children are received for care and supervision for periods of less than 24 hours a day, unattended by a parent or legal guardian, except children related to an adult member of the family by blood, marriage, or adoption. Group day care home includes a home that gives care to an unrelated minor child for more than four weeks during a calendar year.

54 | P a g e


(B) Family day care home; permitted. A family day care home shall be permitted in all residential zone districts as long as the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Act No. 116 of the Public Acts of 1973, as amended. (MCLA § 722.11 et seq.)

(C) Family and group day care; registration. In addition to compliance with Act 116, it shall be the responsibility of any licensed provider of day care, whether as a family or group day care home, to register the use and location of such home with the "911" central dispatch office within 30 days after the issuance of a license, provided that this requirement may be satisfied by the periodic registering of all licensed day care facilities on behalf of the individual licensees by the State Department of Social Services, Four C's, or other agency that may be qualified to provide and maintain current such information.

(D) Group day care; allowable as special exception. The use, conversion, or expansion of an existing residence or a family day care home to a group day care home may be permitted in all residential zone districts as a special exception use, subject to a public hearing before the Zoning Board, and findings of compliance with the following standards:

(1) An applicant seeking permission to operate a group day care home shall file an application, in a form approved by the Zoning Board, with the City Clerk, and shall pay the fee as prescribed for a special exception use. A public hearing shall be conducted by the Zoning Board and notice mailed to interested parties in accordance with Section 39-409 of this chapter and applicable provisions of state law.

(2) The applicant shall file with the application for a special exception use a sketch site plan, sufficient in scale and detail to indicate all of the following:

A. The overall shape and size of the parcel;

B. A sketch floor plan of floors and rooms proposed for use in the day care operations;

C. Location of drives and parking areas serving the premises;

D. Location of all outside play areas to be used in the day care program, and identification of any portion of the exterior premises which will be specifically excluded from use or access by day care activities;

E. Location and heights of any walls, fences, or landscape barriers, including location of gates and types of construction material.

(3) The Zoning Board may grant a special exception permitting the use of the residence as a group day care home if it finds, based upon the evidence submitted by the applicant and at the public hearing, that all of the following exist:

A. The applicant and premises comply or will comply with Act 166 of the Public Acts of 1973, as amended, prior to the commencement of operations.

B. The group day care home shall be located on a site with at least 5,000 square feet of gross lot area and the proposed site must contain not less than 100 feet per child of usable out-of-doors play area. For purposes of this section, usable out-of-doors play area shall be defined as the area located on the lot behind the established front yard setback of the home which is available or devoted to outdoor activities, exclusive of any area occupied by a swimming pool. The area shall be free from sharp gravel, glass, or cinder, and shall be well drained.

55 | P a g e


C. The access drive for the group day care home shall not be a joint or shared driveway unless the applicant shall file the written consent of the abutting property owner.

D. The proposed group day care home shall be inspected for compliance with the housing property maintenance code of the City. Additional code inspection may be required as is necessary to determine compliance with regulations that are now or may be determined to be specifically applicable to group day care, and for which the City is determined to be the enforcing agency.

E. The proposed use of the residence for group day care shall not change the essential character of the surrounding residential area, and shall not create a nuisance in fact or law relating to vehicular parking, noise, additional congestion, or density in excess of residential uses of the property in the zone district.

F. The grant of the special exception shall not impair the health, safety, welfare, or reasonable enjoyment of adjacent or nearby residential properties.

SEC. 39-212: Prohibited Uses

Within any R-1 District, no building, structure or premises shall be used and no building or structure shall be erected or altered which is intended or designed to be used in whole or in part for any use not permitted by Section 39-210.

SEC. 39-213: Off-Street Parking

Off-street parking shall be provided in R-1 Districts in accordance with the requirements of Sections 39-45 to 39-59.

SEC. 39-214: Height and Area Regulations

The following height and area regulations shall apply within R-1 Districts:

(A) Height. No building shall exceed a maximum of 35 feet in height.

(B) Front yard. There shall be a front yard of not less than 30 feet from the street line.

(C) Side yard. For single-family dwellings there shall be two side yards totaling at least 18 feet, and no side yard shall be less than seven feet; provided, that where a side lot line adjoins a side street, a minimum yard of 20 feet is required. For all other buildings, minimum side yards of 20 feet on each side are required.

(D) Rear yard. There shall be a rear yard of at least 25 feet.

(E) Lot area and width. There shall be a lot area of at least 8,400 square feet, and a minimum lot width along the front building line of 70 feet.

(F) Exceptions. For height and area exceptions, see also Section 39-185.

SEC. 39-215: Reserved

56 | P a g e

http://www.ecode360.com/27627255#27627255




Qualifications of Appraiser

Devin Goulooze, MCAT(616)355-1356

EDUCATION:

Western Michigan University – Bachelor’s DegreeMajor in Finance

Board of Real Estate AppraisersLimited Real Estate Appraiser

I.D. # 1201074583

Michigan State Assessor’s BoardMichigan Certified Assessing Technician

Cert #: T-1115

WORK HISTORY:

2013 – Present Appraiser City of Holland Assessor’s Office270 River AveHolland, MI 49423

OTHER PROFESSIONAL DESIGNATIONS:

Michigan Assessor’s AssociationMember: 2013 – Present

57 | P a g e


Qualifications of Appraiser

Joseph Arevalo, MCAO(616)355-1352

EDUCATION:

Calvin College – B.S. in GeographyMinors in History and International Development Studies

Michigan State Assessor’s BoardMichigan Certified Assessing Technician

Cert #: T-1110Michigan Certified Assessing Officer

Cert #: R-0320

WORK HISTORY:

2013 – Present Appraiser City of Holland Assessor’s Office270 River AveHolland, MI 49423

OTHER PROFESSIONAL DESIGNATIONS:

Michigan Assessor’s AssociationMember: 2013 – Present

Michigan Communities Association of Mapping ProfessionalsMember: 2014 – Present

58 | P a g e


59 | P a g e

Date post:	15-Aug-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	devin-goulooze
View:	212 times
Download:	0 times