ZBA Minutes

MEETING
CITY OF WALKER
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Thursday, April 10, 2008
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., NW, Walker, Michigan.

Members present: Robert Marz, Chairman; Roger Crabtree; James Hickey; Tyler Korfhage; Randy Smith; and Beth Rogers. Member absent: Charles Deshaine. Also present: Jeff Nelson, Building Official; and Bonnie Antcliff, Recording Secretary.

Property located at 4653 Fennessy, SW also known on the tax rolls as 41-13-31-101-002. Hearing requested by Todd Hawkins.

The applicant’s request is to split existing through parcel creating two lots with 150 ft. of frontage on each lot instead of the required 180 ft.

Robert Marz, Chairman reviewed the application and site plan submitted. There was a letter submitted from King & MacGregor Environmental dated March 26, 2008.

Jeff Nelson stated that there was an application for a split on this property on June 10, 2004 and he was denied because there was not a determination made by the DEQ and we were not sure this was a buildable site, so it was denied at that time. He is now back with additional information and a new request. The site plan that the Board has shows that there is a one acre parcel on O’Brien. The applicant is required to have one acre of usable land exclusive of right-of-way. We are only asking for the 150 ft. frontage and not any variance on the land area.

Todd Hawkins stated that we added on an additional 15 ft. to create the one acre. We do not have the description of that with us. We are getting ready to file this once we receive the variance. There is plenty of room here to build a home. There is no sewer or water here.

Robert Marz asked if there was enough room here for the property to perk as far as septic is concerned?

Mr. Hawkins replied no, not on the upland area.

Sue Saigeon 4640 O’Brien stated that in 2003 when the Haung’s were requesting a split here, her husband stated that there is an ANR Pipeline that runs across this property and it is 20 ft. low and the water table is very high. The water runs across the road there. She went on to say that her house is built considerably higher and sits on a hill, and there is an oil well that is used by Jack Goodale down the ANR service road. The service road gets wet in the fall and is always moist. Back then Mr. Hawkins brought in Wm. Konyndyk, Zoning Administrator from Oakfield Twp. who felt that this property would not perk. On 6-10-04 the Board stated that if this property were split, it would create 2 non-conforming lots. She is worried about the water here and the access to the ANR Pipeline and the oil well access. The applicant has to have something from the DEQ. She went on to say that she spoke with the DEQ today and there has been nothing submitted to them. The DEQ has not told Mr. Hawkins that this would be a buildable property. They said it would require a considerable amount of fill to make it buildable. She is worried that the fill would chase the water onto her property and ruin what she has for usable land.

Mr. Hawkins replied that the DNR Pipeline does not run through this property and there is no need for fill here. It is next door to this property. Mrs. Saigeon’s property is up on a hill.

George McCarthur stated that he represents Marlene Hawkins. The only credible documentation here is the letter from Mr. Hawkins that was previously read into the record. There may be a need for a permit here to do some fill but there is absolutely no verifiable evidence here that what Mr. Hawkins is proposing to do here will create any issues regarding drainage. It is speculation. If any fill is required he felt it could be done without creating any drainage problems. He felt the request should be granted.

James Hickey asked what is the side yard requirement?

Jeff Nelson replied that it is 25 total with a minimum of 10 ft.

Mr. Hickey felt that a house could be built here without infringing on any wetlands. A drainage system could also work here.

Beth Rogers stated she was concerned about the neighbor flooding if we allow a house to be built here.

Mrs. Saigeon stated that she has an earth berm home and it is built into a hill. The property runs almost to Fennessy. She pointed our her property on the site plan. She stated that for us to utilize this property we have storage to the back of the lot with a wood pile there. To get to that, there is a considerable dip in the property, where runoff from the neighboring property comes in. The more fill you put in there, the more our water level will increase.

Randy Smith asked if they need a drainage plan for a building permit?

Jeff Nelson replied that they will need a permit from the DEQ, and a soil erosion permit from Engineering, and then they will need a septic and well permit and approval before any building permit can be issued. He went on to say that he did not think they could get a DEQ permit until the property is split. We will also need soil borings.

Mr. McCarthur stated that no house can be built here without proper drainage. He feels the variance should be granted.

Tyler Korfhage moved and James Hickey supported the motion to grant the applicant’s request to split existing through parcel creating two lots with 150 ft. of frontage on each lot instead of the required 180 ft.

There are exceptional and 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 mother parcel from which the proposed split is to be taken is only 150 ft. wide. It is impossible to create a split that is 180 ft. wide without taking an additional 30 ft. from either or both of the adjacent parcels to the east and west. These parcels do not meet the 180 ft. frontage requirement. Taking an additional 30 ft. from either or both of them would only increase their non-conformity.

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. Of the 26 parcels located between Kenowa and Wilson Ave., Fennessey St. and O’Brien St. only 3 meet the 180 ft. width requirement. Sixteen of the 26 parcels are occupied by single family houses. The applicant is seeking to enjoy the same property right enjoyed by others.

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 the mother parcel from which the subject is taken will still meet the one acre minimum requirement. There is no detriment to the value of the mother parcel which will continue to serve it’s purpose as the location of a single family dwelling. The other nearby parcels are largely occupied by single family dwellings and do not meet the 180 ft. minimum width requirement. The proposed split for the future construction of a single family dwelling is in character with the rest of the neighborhood and is therefore not a detriment to the values of nearby parcels.

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. There is a variety of shapes and sizes of parcels in this area. We suggest that the best way to deal with the issues of property splits and zoning variances is on a case by case basis.

Does not apply.

Motion carried 6 to 0.

Property located at 1195 Wilson, NW also known on the tax rolls as 41-13-19-126-05. Hearing requested by Wolverine Building.

The applicant’s request is to build a new medical facility with a 30 ft. 9 in. front yard setback instead of the required 35 ft.

Robert Marz, Chairman reviewed the application and site plan submitted. A letter dated April 3, 2008 was submitted from the Planning Department recommending approval of this variance.

Randy Smith stated that he felt this was an attractive building and a good addition to the City.

James Hickey commented that the canopies on this building will match the canopies on the building to the south and will look nice.

Beth Rogers asked if there was any thought to connecting the two parking lots here?

James Hickey stated that the road in the back connects all 3 lots.

Beth Rogers moved and James Hickey supported the motion to grant the applicant’s request to build a new medical facility with a 30 ft. 9 in. front yard setback instead of the required 35 ft.

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. Parking lot drive aisles are wider than what is common in other cities. To allow for this additional parking lot space and still keep the building owner’s square foot requirements, the building will need to sit as proposed and shown on the site plan layout.

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 right to develop property that is asthetically pleasing and meets the demands of both the owner and tenant. The roof overhangs provide an architectural detail that will blend in nicely and not interfere with the clear line of vision requirement.

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 ordinances or public interest in that the roof eave overhangs as shown on the elevation drawings are at a height that will not obstruct from the clear vision requirement at the intersection.

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 will not be a recurring in nature in that the ordinance should be changed.

e. Does not apply.

Motion carried 6 to 0.

James Hickey moved and Roger Crabtree supported the motion to approve the Zoning Board of Appeals minutes of March 13, 2008.

Motion carried 6 to 0.

Beth Rogers moved and Roger Crabtree supported the motion to adjourn the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting at 8:00 p.m.

Motion carried 6 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 © 2012 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.