ZBA Minutes
MEETING
CITY OF WALKER
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Thursday, May 22, 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.,
N.W., 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.
DECISION AND ORDER
Legal Description
Property located at 4205 Hall, SW also known on the tax rolls as
41-13-31-400-003. Hearing requested by John Puckett.
The applicant’s request is to install a 6 ft. privacy fence along the
south property line in the front yard of a dwelling without street
frontage.
Finding of Facts
Robert Marz, Chairman reviewed the application and site plan
submitted.
Jeff Nelson stated that this is a land-locked parcel with a Hall St.
address so we consider the front yard to be in the south side of the
property.
Mr. Marz read a petition signed by the neighbors, a letter from
Bernie Kamps, and a letter from David Kidder opposing this request.
Mrs. Puckett stated that their home is not visible to any of the
neighbors. She went on to say that they have lived here for 2 ½ years.
The biggest issue here is privacy. No one will see this fence including
all the people that have signed this petition. This is in a unique spot.
There is no traffic that goes by our house. She then showed pictures to
the Board showing where the fence will be placed. None of the people on
this petition have visited her home. She stated you would have to see
this to understand the situation.
She went on to say that they do not have a lot of privacy in the pool
area. That was the whole beginning of this. She stated she does not feel
that she can go out of her house and enjoy her yard. She stated she does
not want to go outside and feel she is being watched.
Jerry & Joyce Huizenga 4209 Hall St. oppose this request. They feel a
6 ft. high fence would not blend in with the neighborhood. He stated
they have lived here for 35 years and that Mr. Puckett is running a
business out of his home. They feel this request will hide the
continuation of a business in a residential neighborhood. We have seen
Mr. Puckett load windows in and out of his garage and into his work
vehicle. The Pucketts have an easement over our property so his business
uses our driveway. This creates more traffic. The ordinance states that
fences in front yards cannot exceed 3 ft. Mr. Puckett has not presented
any compelling reasons to grant a variance. They then presented pictures
of the property to the Board.
Tyler Korfhage stated that if their address was on Wilson, there
would not be an issue here because they could put the fence up to the
front corner of the house. The house faces southwest and the neighbors
face due west. The only issue here is the driveway and the frontage.
James Hickey stated that there could be a privacy fence around the
pool with no variance required.
Roger Crabtree asked whose property are the large evergreens on?
Mrs. Huizenga replied that they are on her property.
James Hickey stated that he did not think that a fence will cure the
situation here.
Jeff Nelson stated that the pool is also located in the partial front
yard so they could not have a fence without a variance.
Tyler Korfhage stated that these properties are not normal. We do not
grant variances for shared drives anymore. The front yard here is to the
west. If the neighbor was not here this would probably be approved.
Beth Rogers asked how many people on this petition will be able to
see this fence? The applicant has a valid point. If this is a
neighborhood dispute, then a fence will not solve this problem.
Randy Smith stated that he is not in favor of petitions. A lot of
these signatures are duplicate property owners. There seem to be two
signatures per address. These people will never see this fence. He asked
if there have been any written complaints on this address?
Jeff Nelson stated that yes there have been complaints against the
applicant by the neighbors. Our inspector has met with the applicant
several times. They have been very cooperative and have taken care of
everything we have asked them to do.
Beth Rogers would like to see what the fence will look like.
Mr. Puckett stated that it will be a vinyl or treated double sided
fence. He stated that we want it to be attractive.
Jeff Nelson stated that the reason we do not allow 6 ft. fences in
the front yard is because if we had a 35 ft. yard setback in a plat and
you ran a 6 ft. stockade fence, it would be one foot behind the sidewalk
so all the front yard vision would be gone. It is for safety and for
aesthetic purposes.
Tyler Korfhage stated that if the Huizengas wanted to put a fence in
their backyard, where would they put it?
Jeff Nelson replied that their backyard would be where the Pucketts
want to put this fence. He went on to say that the Pucketts were going
to talk to the Huizengas to see if they could put this fence in their
yard and that would be without a variance but the Huizengas did not want
that.
Mr. Puckett stated that the only way you would see this fence is to
come all the way onto our property.
Robert Marz stated that this Board has to look at this on the merits
of the variance and not get into personal problems with the neighbors.
Motion
Beth Rogers moved and Roger Crabtree supported the motion to table
the applicant’s request to install a 6 ft. privacy fence along the south
property line in the front yard of a dwelling without street frontage.
The Board would like to see what type of fence will be put up and where
it will go and what side of the fence the Huizenga’s will see.
Motion carried 6 to 0.
DECISION AND ORDER
Legal Description
Property located at 1488 Gridley also known on the tax rolls as
41-13-17-429-008. Hearing requested by Nicholas Lensinski.
The applicant’s request is to build a 910 sq. ft. addition
maintaining a 5 ft. side yard setback instead of the required 10 ft.
Finding of Facts
Robert Marz, Chairman reviewed the application and site plan
submitted.
Tyler Korfhage feels this is a good idea and they will have the same
setback as the neighbors.
James Hickey stated that this will be an improvement to the
neighborhood.
Motion
James Hickey moved and Randy Smith supported the motion to approve
the applicant’s request to build a 910 sq. ft. addition to home
maintaining a 5 ft. side yard instead of the required 10 ft.
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. Existing home is 5 ft. from the south lot line. This was
the original setback. An addition to this house would beautify the
neighborhood.
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. Due to
the positioning of the existing home, it would be difficult to
maintain the required 10 ft. setback when constructing the
proposed addition. Clearance would be maintained for access and
maintenance.
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
this will not be a detriment to the neighbors because the view is
not obstructed. The addition would be constructed similarly to the
existing structure.
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. The
neighboring house is located relatively close to the existing lot
line. Other houses adjoining the property (to the north & south)
are set forward to the existing house. The front edge of the
proposed addition would be located behind the front edges of
neighboring houses.
Does not apply.
Motion carried 6 to 0.
Motion
James Hickey moved and Tyler Korfhage supported the motion to approve
the Zoning Board of Appeals minutes of April 24, 2008.
Motion carried 6 to 0.
Motion
Roger Crabtree moved and Beth Rogers 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 © 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.
|
