ZBA Minutes
MEETING
CITY OF WALKER
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Thursday, June 12, 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; Charles Deshaine John Tuffelmire; and Beth Rogers.
Member absent: Randy Smith. Also present: Jeff Nelson, Building
Official; and Tammy Freedman, 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.
Motion by Tyler Korfage support by Jim Hickey to remove this from the
table. Motion carried unanimously.
Robert Marz explained the reason this application was tabled was to
have the applicant provide a copy of the type of fence they would be
using.
Jeff Nelson explained they were also to provide a site plan for the
location of the fence.
Ann Puckett showed pictures of the two different types of privacy
fences.
Robert Marz asked if the applicant brought a site plan?
ZBA 6-12-2008
Ann Puckett stated that she thought they were suppose to rope off the
area which is what they did and someone from the City would go to their
location and review it.
Beth Rogers stated it was the Boards request to stake out the area
for the location of the fence.
Robert Marz stated that he thought they would have a site plan, but
the visual was ok.
Jerry and Joyce Huizenga 4209 Hall St. stated that at the last Zoning
Board Meeting they brought up 2 major reasons for not putting up a 6’
privacy fence. The first reason was that the fence would not blend in
with the natural setting and could become an eyesore if not properly
maintained. The second reason was that the privacy fence would shield
yard debris or worse hide an ongoing business activity. Mr. Huizenga
stated that their evidence for this is an employee truck parked daily on
their property. Mr. Puckett’s brother brings in windows that are stored
in the garage or transferred from truck to truck. The City Commission
has passed ordinances prohibiting this type of business activity and
depends on the citizen’s input to identify violations. If you allow this
fence you will then in effect prevent us from monitoring these
activities. Mr. Huizenga stated that both neighbors have privacy
concerns. He explained that the major source of irritation involves the
twenty to thirty vehicles which daily traverse they’re shared drive,
which in effect has changed their quiet driveway into a street. Much of
this traffic is business generated and they would like it stopped. Their
privacy issues regards pool seclusion the solving of these issues is not
only desirable but also obtainable. Therefore, the Huizengas encourage
the Zoning Board of Appeals to do the following: Allow the Puckett’s to
build a privacy fence around their pool, but hold in abeyance the
variance along the shared property lines. In the mean time they will
find out if the Puckett’s are serious about yard maintenance and see if
a joint solution can be found to excessive driveway traffic.
Mrs. Huizenga showed the Zoning Board copies of pictures she has
taken which displays their lifestyle for the last 2 or 3 years. She
stated that the first picture shows what the Board saw because they did
clean up their act because they knew the Zoning Board of Appeals members
would be visiting the site.
Jeff Nelson displayed the pictures for the Board.
Mrs. Huizenga explained that one of the pictures shows that they put
up plastic in front of their garage door to make an attempt to a
doorway. She doesn’t understand what the purpose of this was maybe to
make their basement warmer. She thought most people put cars and
supplies in their garage. The second picture shows where they put some
kind of façade in front of their garage door with some windows, etc. The
pictures show things that are in their yard all winter long. In the back
of the corner lot they have a
ZBA 6-12-2008
camper that has been sitting there with some junk and has been that
way ever since they have moved into the house. She doesn’t think it is
right that they have to put up with the debris in their yard constantly.
Maybe they need to go somewhere where they are in total isolation, maybe
on 5 of 6 acres where there are no people they can disturb. The car was
at their address for a very long time and the camper is probably still
there, but she is not sure she has not looked this spring. The pictures
are evidence of what they see. She explained the next pictures show
little pylon barriers. She has explained to the Pucketts they cannot
turn around in their driveway because they have 13 grandchildren under 7
and they love to come to the farm and play. The Puckett’s have large
vehicles and when they turn in around in the Huizenga’s driveway it
might be hard for them to see the grandchildren. She’s raised four kids
and she does not feel like she needs to raise her neighbors.
John Puckett responded by asking what all of this has to do with
getting the variance for the fence?
John Puckett stated that they are here for the variance on the fence
not if someone he works with parks his car in his driveway. As far as
putting plastic on his garage door or building something in his the
front of his house there is nothing wrong with that. This is his house
he owns it; they keep their yard clean. Mr. Puckett stated that Mrs.
Huizenga had a problem with a camper shell sitting in the yard so they
moved it to the backyard.
Ann Puckett stated this is what they live with. They are trying to do
their best. Her husband is not running a business out of their house.
They do not have 20 to 30 cars going up the driveway, but this has
nothing to do with the fence. She stated she needs to retain some of her
privacy and their home is in a different position. We’ve tried to keep
peace with the neighbor. The photos show a personal matter and have
nothing to do with the reason they are there for the fence variance.
Ann Puckett stated that they have chosen two different fences they
are willing to let the Huizenga’s choose the fence. They will keep up
the fence make it look nice; she just wants to maintain her privacy.
Beth Rogers stated that City officials have been called to the
address in the past. The car is not an inoperable vehicle it is
licensed; the camper is in the backyard, which is in compliance. If the
Puckett’s are putting up plastic there is in nothing in the ordinance,
which states a homeowner, cannot do that. Beth stated that Mrs. Puckett
has a very valid statement that these issues have nothing to do with the
privacy fence variance. Beth stated if she has a neighbor that she does
not like the way their yard looks if they’re in compliance with the
ordinance there is nothing that can be done about it.
Chuck Deschaine stated that the privacy fence might help out with the
issues that Mrs. Huizenga is concerned about. The privacy fence may
solve some of these issues.
Bob Marz stated that if some of the concerns the Huizengas have now
may be resolved if they put up a privacy fence.
Chuck Deshaine stated that they could ask the Building Department to
monitor the area.
Jeff Nelson stated that what is shown in the pictures is not what is
there today. Jeff stated the yard at the time he was there was in
compliance. He also stated that there have been several complaints at
this address that he has not been involved in which might have lead to
this area being cleaned up. The day he was at the site the yard looked
good to him.
Chuck Deschaine asked Jeff what were some violations in the photos
that were submitted?
Jeff Nelson stated there were several violations in the photos the
debris and piles of wood are all rubbish.
Chuck Deschaine stated that the neighbors have concerns with this the
City can take some steps to make sure this type of activity does not
creep back next door to them.
Jerry Huizenga stated he has no problem with someone who is
self-employed and parks his truck on his property next to him if it
meets the ordinance requirements. When you wind up storing the product
that you are selling inside of the dwelling and when you have an
employee that daily shows up this just adds traffic. Mr. Huizenga asked
the Puckett’s for a commitment that they would not let the employee show
up everyday and park their truck. Mr. Huizenga also stated that the
Puckett’s say they are not running a business then there should be no
loading or unloading at all.
Mrs. Huizenga stated that she does not know how Mrs. Puckett would
have any idea of what goes on at their home during the day since she
leaves for work at 7:00 in the morning and comes home at 5:00 of 6:00 at
night. Beth Rogers stated this has nothing to do with this. Mrs.
Huizenga stated that this did have something to do with this because she
is not aware of all of the traffic that is going in and out of their
driveway. It is invading their privacy she cannot work out in the yard
without being harassed and it will be followed through with police
reports.
Robert Marz stated that we need to stick to the variance on the
fence.
Mrs. Huizenga stated that she is more than willing to let them have
the privacy of their fence around their pool. Is there anything about
pool maintenance? It sounds like a cricket pond right now the frogs are
croaking every night. Are there rules about the maintenance of a pool?
The pool is closed, but it is green.
Robert Marz asked Jeff if there was anything about the maintenance of
pools?
Jeff Nelson stated that the Huizenga’s could contact the Kent County
Health Department at anytime if they think they have a problem. Jeff
stated that the day he was there the pool had a full cover on it.
Robert Marz stated that the privacy fence for their pool is
legitimate, but he is not so sure the privacy fence needs to run to the
front driveway.
Tyler Korfhage stated that as a Board they are suppose to look at the
five points of the variance application, he can agree with 4 of them. He
cannot agree with point b Preservation of Rights as it is written. He
does not agree about privacy. He stated that we need to look at the 5
points and make our decision on that.
Robert Marz stated that it depends on how far the Board wants the
fence to run if it is the whole length or half the length for the pool.
Tyler Korfhage stated that this comes down to the site plan.
Robert Marz stated that one was not provided.
Jim Hickey stated that a fence is not going to help the current
situation. One thing he did want to say he didn’t care about the trash
in the yard the cars in the yard or the traffic. The one thing that
strikes him is item b the Preservation of Rights if the Puckett’s want
privacy and the privacy is connected with the pool because they stress
that the Huizengas harass their children and watch them swimming. Why
don’t they put a fence around their pool and whatever they want to do
with the yard they can do with their yard it is their right. If there is
trash within the fenced in area someone can make a complaint about it
and the City will look into it. A fence will not cure this situation,
but a fence around the pool will help.
Roger Crabtree stated that he has put a lot of thought into this
situation. The Board has granted variances for fences in a front yard.
Normally it is a privacy issue the Board is suppose to look at the
ordinance the variance goes with the property not with the people. The
variances for privacy fences in the past were granted because of traffic
noise, corner lots or because they did not have backyards. The excessive
traffic here is self-imposed according to the neighbors. There is no
excess road traffic to get privacy from at this address. Roger asked why
this piece of property is different then any other piece
of property that they should have a privacy fence in the front yard.
He stated that he agreed if they want privacy he would be willing to
support a privacy fence around the pool area, but he cannot see fencing
off the front yard according to the ordinance regardless of who lives
there.
Robert Marz stated he agreed with Roger Crabtree they have the right
to have a privacy in their backyard around the pool area and out to the
side or front of the house, but from there on he has a bit of a problem
with this.
Roger Crabtree asked how do we address the next applicant that comes
in from this area and asks to put a 6’ privacy fence in their front
yard.
Tyler Korfhage stated that we need to look at each individual
situation. The Huizenga’s can build a privacy fence on their private
property line, but the Puckett’s cannot without a variance. This is a
unique situation.
Roger Crabtree stated that the reason for a zoning variance cannot be
self imposed.
Roger Crabtree asked what makes this piece of property so unique that
it should have a fence in the front yard?
Beth Rogers stated that how many lots do we have where the front yard
abuts a backyard?
Robert Marz agrees that there is a need for the privacy fence to go
past front of the house.
Tyler Korfhage stated that if they take all feelings out of this and
go down the 5 points of the variance this is a valid request.
Chuck Deschaine stated that he thought the fence would look good if
they wanted a fence around the pool.
Robert Marz read through the a-d points on the variance application.
Jeff Nelson commented even though the applicant did not answer letter
b correctly the Board could still add to the preservation of rights.
Jeff stated that the Huizengas could put a fence up to the front line of
their house to the back. If the fence is
ZBA 6-12-2008
cut off right where the back yard ends and the house comes out that
would keep the fence approximately 20’ off the road by the barn.
Tyler Korfhage stated that if you took the Northwest corner cut a
90-degree tangent over to the property line that would be about to the
end of where the barn starts.
Jerry Huizenga stated that he only did a boundary survey; he would
request that the Puckett’s have a survey done before they put a fence
up.
John Puckett stated that they could start far enough away from the
boundary line.
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. We currently have no
traffic that crosses in front of our home and only one
neighbor to the South that this would effect. We do not have
a "front yard" we only have a large farm. We live on the
dead end of a shared drive off of Hall Street behind farmers
home. Out of view from general public.
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 fence is allowed to be put up by
the Huizengas then the Puckett’s should allow it.
Authorizations 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 fence will be behind their
garage and covered mostly by tall evergreens. This may help
regarding complaints on property upkeep. The other neighbors
to the North only cross our property (by foot) to access
Hall Street. Property is not adjacent to their property.
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. Unique piece of property,
landlocked and accessed by an easement.
Does not apply.
Motion
Tyler Korfhage moved and Beth Rogers supported the motion to grant
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 imposed the following conditions:
Under b the preservation of rights since the fence is
allowed to be put up by the Huizengas it should be allowed
by the Pucketts.
2. The fence shall not go any farther West on the property line then
the NW corner of the house of the Puckett’s house on that property.
Finished side of the fence towards the Huizenga’s
The slatted fence to be installed.
Preservation of all trees.
The fence to be in good repair at all times.
Motion carried 4 to 3 Beth Rogers, Chuck Deschaine, John Tuffelmire
and Tyle Korfhage voting for the variance and Roger Crabtree, Robert
Marz and Jim Hickey voting against.
DECISION AND ORDER
Legal Description
Property located at 4290 Lake Michigan Dr also known on the tax rolls
as 41-13-30-201-044. Hearing requested by Donald Vos.
The applicant’s request is to judged similar to the permitted uses in
the C-1 and C-3 district to include the sales and service of
motorcycles.
Finding of Facts
Robert Marz, Chairman reviewed the application and site plan
submitted.
Gerald Hague appeared on behalf of this request.
No others appeared on behalf of this request.
Jeff Nelson stated that the C-3 district is the front of the property
and the C-1 district is at the back of the property neither one of these
allow for the outdoor display. Neither district allows for the outdoor
display they are not asking for outdoor display they would have to come
back for that request.
Robert Marz asked what they were asking for?
Jeff Nelson stated that the State does not have any designation for
this type of sales. If Jeff signed the paper from the State they would
be able to sell used cars, etc. They have been brought to the Board to
be judged similar to this type of business in a C-1 and C-3 zoning.
Districts in the C-4 district would have to go to the Planning
Commission to be approved as a special exception in the C-4 district.
Jeff Nelson stated that this variance has to be judged similar to the
retail sales and service in the C-1 and C-3 district and the Board would
have to stipulate what they could sell at this location.
Robert Marz noted the letter dated June 6, 2008, from Planning
Director of the City of Walker.
Robert Marz read the letter date June 10, 2008 from Phil McCormack
from the City of Walker Fire Department.
Jeff Nelson stated that the applicant stated to him if they were
going to sell the 49 cc this does not require a permit and up to the
250cc. When the variance application came in it was motorcycles and
sales of any kind this was not what discussed with him.
ZBA 6-12-2008
Jim Hickey stated that when the DDA instituted the study for the
downtown area they would not allow any outside sales in the DDA
district. When the Planning Commission instituted the Master plan that
there would be no outside sales in this district.
Chuck Deschaine stated that they are not here for any outside sales.
Jeff Nelson stated that Mr. Hague might wish to ask the Board to
table this meeting until he could review this information with his boss.
Mr. Hague asked if they were able to do use the Temporary Use
Ordinance and sell the scooters for the 14 days a year that is allowed?
Robert Marz asked if he would need a permit from the State?
Jim Hickey stated that this would have to be in conjunction with the
annual sidewalk sale that is allowed in the DDA district.
Robert Marz asked if they would have to have a license from the
State?
Jeff Nelson stated that they are allowed to sell the smaller
motorcycles without a license.
Mr. Hague stated they have no interest in selling automobiles.
Robert Marz replied that whatever variance they grant goes with the
property not the applicant.
Chuck Deschaine stated they could specify what would be allowed to be
sold with this variance.
Robert Marz stated that if the applicant wants to the sell the 49 cc
scooters inside the building he does not have a problem with that. If he
wants to set them outside during the sidewalk sale he does not have a
problem with that.
Motion
James Hickey moved and Tyler Korfhage supported the motion to table
the applicant’s request to be judged similar to the permitted in the
uses in the C-1 and C-3 district and to include the sales and service of
motorcycles.
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
Beth Rogers moved and Roger Crabtree supported the motion to approve
the Zoning Board Minutes of May 22, 2008.
Motion carried unanimously.
Motion
Beth Rogers moved and Jim Hickey supported the motion to adjourn the
Zoning Board of Appeals meeting at 8:10 p.m.
Motion carried unanimously.
_____________________
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.
|
