ZBA Minutes

MEETING
CITY OF WALKER
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Thursday, April 13, 2006
7:00 p.m.

The meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order by Robert Marz, Chairman at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall 4243 Remembrance Rd., N.W., Walker, Michigan.

Members present: Robert Marz, Chairman; Roger Crabtree; Charles Deshaine; Jay VanSoestberg; Ken Fex; Beth Rogers, Alternate; and Tyler Korfhage Meember absent: Rebecca Haven. Also present: Jeff Nelson, Building Official; Dick Denney, Building Department and Bonnie Antcliff, Recording Secretary.

Property located at 2600 Miller also known on the tax rolls as 41-13-12-154-002. Hearing requested by Terry Churches.

The applicant’s request is to split existing parcel creating 3 parcels. Parcel 1 – existing single family home with less frontage, lot area and rear yard than required. Parcel 2 – existing non-conforming industrial building with a 4.8 ft. partial front yard. Parcel 3 – existing single family home with less frontage and area than required. Carport to be removed.

Robert Marz, Chairman reviewed the application and site plan submitted.

Jeff Nelson stated that parcel #1 is a home with an office addition off the back. There are two services on the home. If this variance is granted, we ask that the Board stipulate that this be used as a single family home only and not as a commercial/duplex mix.

Robert Barkema, Barkema-Robinson Properties stated that the reason we are applying for this is that if we decide to sell the homes, we would be able to do that. We do not plan on selling the homes tomorrow but we wanted to do this now. We are not in the business of being home rental property owners.

Tom Bouwens 2434 Miller is concerned about parking. When the carport is taken away, where are they going to park their vehicles? On parcel 1, they have to park their cars in front of the house and it does not look good. If they park in the front he is concerned about seeing traffic coming down the road when he is trying to pull out. There is a lot of truck traffic on this road. In 2005 they said that the truck traffic would be minimal but it is very bad. Noise is also a problem with late night noise.

Valerie Bundy 2454 Miller is concerned about parking. She lives in parcel #3. Currently she does not have use of the garage, it is used for commercial. If parcel #3 is separated, she wants the Board to specify where parking will be if the carport is torn down.

Tyler Korfhage asked Ms. Bundy if she owns the property.

Ms. Bundy replied no she rents the property.

Mr. Barkema stated that if the carport comes down, the garage will go with the house.

Jeff Nelson stated that the carport has to come down because it is too close to the property line.

Mr. Barkema stated that as far as the truck traffic is concerned, we get deliveries from UPS everyday and Fed Ex a couple of times a week.

Ken Fex asked what are the hours of operation?

Mr. Barkema replied our normal hours are 8:00 to 5:00 p.m.

Jay VanSoestberg asked how many trucks do you have?

Mr. Barkema replied we have 3 delivery trucks.

Roger Crabtree does not feel that this proposal will make anything better by granting this. The existing site as is, does not conform and is contrary to the way the parcel is currently zoned. The owner is in violation by expanding the commercial into the residential.

Robert Marz asked what kind of driveway do you plan on putting in there?

Mr. Barkema replied gravel, it is gravel right now.

Jeff Nelson stated that this is an old neighborhood with both large and small lots.

Mr. Barkema stated that we are taking two rental properties and converting them into single family homes by breaking off these parcels and whenever a property goes from a tenant occupied to an owner occupied, the outside appearance will improve due to pride of ownership. He went on to say that they do not plan on selling these properties in the near future but would like to have the option to sell.

Roger Crabtree asked how did you decide to divide this property as opposed to making parcel 1 & 3 90 ft. lots which would comform to the width of what the ordinance is now?

Mr. Barkema replied that the reason that the south boundry of parcel 1 ends where it does is because of where the door is that goes into the business. The north boundry of parcel 3 was chosen so that there would be room to get to the back.

Jay VanSoestberg moved and Tyler Korfhage supported the motion to approve the applicant’s request to split existing parcel creating 3 parcels. Parcel 1, existing family home with less frontage, lot area, and rear yard than required. Parcel 2, existing non-conforming industrial building with a 4.8 ft. partial front yard. Parcel 3, existing single family home with less frontage and area than required. Carport to be removed.

a. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property in question as to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district. The parcel is currently being used as non-conforming commercial property with two non-conforming residential homes on the same parcel.

b. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right similar to that possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the vicinity. The property is the only commercial property in the neighborhood. By splitting the houses from the current parcel, there would be two additional single family homes in the neighborhood which is what it is zoned for.

c. Authorization of the variance will not be of a substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the intent and purpose of the ordinance or public interest in that by splitting off the two parcels there would be no immediate visible change to the properties. After the two single family homes are sold, it is highly likely that their appearance would improve.

d. The condition or the situation of the piece of property or the intended use of the property for which the variance is sought is not so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable for the formulation of a general regulation. This property is a unique parcel. There are very few parcels in the city of Walker that commercial and residential buildings share. By adopting the proposed split, we would have two buildings that conform to zoning and one that does not instead of the current three buildings which do not conform.

e. Does not apply.

The Board imposed the following conditions:

1. A fence on parcel 3 to the back defining the rear lot line.

2. New driveway to be paved from the street to the garage.

3. Parcel #1 to be split only for single family residential use.

4. Detached garage to be used only for single family home and not for commercial use.

Motion carried 6 to 1. Roger Crabtree opposed.

Tyler Korfhage moved and Roger Crabtree supported the motion to approve the Zoning Board of Appeals minutes of March 23, 2006.

Motion carried 7 to 0.

Ken Fex moved and Tyler Korfhage supported the motion to adjourn the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting at 7:55 p.m.

Motion carried 7 to 0.

__________________________

Roger Crabtree, Secretary

Government  |  Departments  |  Community  |  Resource Center
Contact Us  |  Search  |  Site Map  |  Home  |  Site Use Policy

The City of Walker, Michigan
4243 Remembrance Rd. NW
Walker, MI  49534
(616)453-6311
City Hall hours: Mon-Thursday from 7:30am to 5:30pm. Closed Fridays
All information © 2010 City of Walker

Contact Us!
If you would like to leave general comments about the website, click here.
Click here to report technical problems with the website.