ZBA Minutes
MEETING
CITY OF WALKER
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Thursday, June 26, 2008
7:00 p.m.
The meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order by
Tyler Korfhage, Acting Chairman at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 4243
Remembrance Rd., N.W., Walker, Michigan.
Members present: Tyler Korfhage, Acting Chairman; Roger Crabtree;
Charles Deschaine; James Hickey; Brian Boelens, Alternate; and Beth
Rogers. Absent was Randy Smith and Robert Marz. Also present: Jeff
Nelson, Building Official; and Bonnie Antcliff, Recording Secretary.
DECISION AND ORDER
Legal Description
Property located at 2099 Lamont Ct. also known on the tax rolls as
41-13-09-355-003. Hearing requested by Frank Pointe.
The applicant’s request is to build a 10 x 20 ft. addition to
existing attached garage 8 ft. from the side property line instead of
the required 10 ft.
Finding of Facts
Tyler Korfhage, Acting Chair reviewed the application and site plan
submitted.
He then read a signed petition from the neighbors in favor of this
request. No citizen appeared in reference to this request.
James Hickey asked if the applicant was going to move the service as
it is where the garage will be placed.
Mr. Pointe replied that the main electrical unit will be moved and
placed to the side of the garage addition with an 8 ft. door and the
driveway will be extended.
Mrs. Pointe explained that they will not need any new curb cutouts
and it will look nice.
Tyler Korfhage pointed out that there is quite a drop off in the
back.
Mr. Pointe responded that there will be a poured wall placed there.
James Hickey stated that he saw that the people on lot #4 have signed
the petition and they have no problem with this.
Mrs. Pointe stated that they were the ones they talked with first
before starting this venture.
Motion
Charles Deschaine moved and James Hickey supported the motion to
grant the variance to build a 10 x 20 ft. addition to existing attached
garage 8 ft. from the side property line instead of the required 10 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 3rd stall will be 10 ft.
wide. Our property width is narrow in the front (north) and wider
in the back (south) making the west property line run at an angle.
We will have 8 ft. from the corner of the 3rd stall to
the west side property line.
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. Terry
Blom, owner of lot #6 at 2123 Lamont Ct. was granted a variance
for the front yard setback in 1996.
Authorization of the variance will not be of a a substantial
detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the
intent and purpose of the ordinances or public interest in that
there will be little change in outside appearance of home since
the siding and shingles will be the same.
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. We can see the need to control the side yard
setback. Due to the shape of the lot only a small portion of the
garage addition will be less than 10 ft. from the side lot line.
Does not apply.
Motion carried 6 to 0.
DECISION AND ORDER
Legal Description
Property located at 364 Wilson also known as 41-13-30-201-067.
Hearing requested by Tina Potter.
The applicant’s request is to sell perennial and annuals in
conjunction with the permitted temporary outdoor sales of produce May 1
through October 15.
Finding of Facts
Tyler Korfhage, Acting Chair reviewed the application and site plan
submitted.
Jeff Nelson stated that for several years they were across the street
at Ralph’s and the Board did grant a variance for that site, now they
have moved across the street since the DDA parking lot has been taken
back by the owners at Ralph’s.
No citizen appeared with respect to this request.
Charles Deschaine stated that this corner looks nice and adds to the
community. He does not have a problem with this.
Beth Rogers agreed and thought this brightened up this corner.
Motion
James Hickey moved and Brian Boelens supported the motion to grant
the applicant’s request to sell perennial and annuals in conjunction
with the permitted temporary outdoor sales of produce May 1 through
October 15.
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. Our business already is permitted to
sell fruit for the summer months. I would like to expand it to
include flowers. The landlord that we rent from cannot rent out
the building and an outdoor flower market would enhance the empty
parking lot.
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. An
example of another business doing seasonal flower sales is Ace
Hardware located at 4300 Remembrance Rd., Walker. They have a cold
frame set on the asphalt that they sell seasonal flowers in. ZBA
6-26-08 Also, many Target stores and Meijer stores that are zoned
commercial also have outdoor flower sales.
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 I
would not infringe on the other businesses or neighbors in the
area. I feel that my business provides a great service to the
community. They can get great flowers and fruit that is grown
locally. I understand that you need to control outdoor sales, but
there are very few stores in the city selling flowers.
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
enough parking around the area for myself and existing businesses.
Does not apply.
Motion carried 6 to 0.
DECISION AND ORDER
Legal Description
Property located at 1740 Wilson also known on the tax rolls as
41-17-06-400-052. Hearing requested by Robin Teachout.
The applicant’s request is to split existing parcel creating a parcel
of land with 30 ft. of street frontage instead of the required 180 ft.
This new parcel will also exceed the 1 to 4 frontage to depth ratio.
Finding of Facts
Tyler Korfhage, Acting Chair reviewed the application and site plan
submitted.
Douglas Hunderman 1770 Wilson wanted to know what the future on
Wilson is going to be. He wanted to know if it will go to 4 lanes and
will there be water there?
James Hickey replied that the water will only come to Riverbend.
Right now water is just planned to come as far as Riverbend. The bond
issue right now takes it to Riverbend. Four lanes are not planned at
this time.
Mr. Hunderman stated that concrete has been poured on his property
and he is not happy. He went on to say that there is an easement across
his property and that is where the concrete drive was placed. He felt
that Mr. Teachout’s driveway should come off of Burton St. for this new
house.
Jeff Nelson stated that this has been discussed with Mr. Hunderman
many times before. It is a legal problem that he has and not a city
problem. There is no access to Burton because there is no street
frontage on Burton. It is a private property. He needs to confer with
his attorney as this is a civil issue.
Tyler Korfhage informed Mr. Hunderman that he does have 21 days to
file an injunction against what we do here today if it is granted.
Dawn Paauwe 1700 Wilson wants to know if they are going to sell the
land?
Mrs. Teachout replied no, we are not planning on selling.
James Hickey asked if this driveway is 30 ft. wide and they want to
put a private road back there and if they want to put 3 lots back there,
is that driveway wide enough to do that?
Jeff Nelson replied for a private road it would be alright. The
reason we did it this way is because we wanted the frontage on one lot
meet the requirement. He went on to say that he was looking at this as a
10 ft. driveway and enough on each side for snow removal.
James Hickey felt if water goes there in a few years there will
probably be 3 lots developed there. It would then go to the Planning
Commission.
Tyler Korfhage stated that you would need 34 ft. to develop a private
road.
Jeff Nelson stated that this would be the time to get the required
frontage so that 3 lots could be developed there. It would not have to
be renoticed because they still have more than 180 ft. of frontage left
and they would have to go through the Planning Commission with a public
hearing there.
Tyler Korfhage explained that before you could go to the Planning
Commission you would need 34 ft. there to put in a private road if you
wanted to develop this land into 3 separate lots. It would be better to
get that 34 ft. now and you would not have to come back here at a later
date.
Mrs. Teachout agreed that 4 extra feet would be acceptable.
Jeff Nelson stated that you would still only have one parcel but this
would open it up for future development should you want to do that.
Motion
James Hickey moved and Beth Rogers supported the motion to approve
the applicant’s request to split existing parcel creating a parcel of
land with 34 ft. of street frontage instead of the required 180 ft. This
new parcel will also exceed the 1 to 4 frontage to depth ratio.
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. This parcel of land is over 8 acres and limited street
frontage. Existing house sits on back of parcel which leaves
plenty of room for additional single family dwelling.
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.
Property at 1776 Wilson has 16 ft. of street frontage, 1742 Wilson
has no frontage, and property at 4242 Riverbend has required
frontage but parcel is not an acre.
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
currently the area is wildly vegetated. A new home will enhance
the look of the neighborhood.
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 it
is noted that there is a need for frontage on lots that are small
in nature, but due to the size of the property and other existing
houses in the area, this lot will be as big or bigger than most.
Does not apply.
Motion carried 6 to 0.
DECISION AND ORDER
Legal Description
Property located at 930 Kings Row, N.W. also known on the tax rolls
as 41-13-19-275-013. Hearing requested by T & C Builders.
The applicant’s request is to construct a wood deck
and a bridge over ravine in a drainage easement.
Finding of Facts
Tyler Korfhage, Acting Chair reviewed the application and site plan
submitted. He then read a letter from the City Engineer dated 6/24/08.
No citizen appeared with respect to this request.
Mark Raymond, Builder stated that he did not ask the City Engineer to
simply sign off on this request. He went on to say that he was referred
to the Engineer by the Building Inspector and asked for his help in
getting this variance.
Beth Rogers stated that she was concerned about them going over a
drainage ditch. She felt that the drainage ditches are there for a
reason and she did not want to create problems for people upstream of
that ditch.
Charles Deschaine agreed with Beth. He does not know if this will be
able to be cleaned if necessary. He felt that they should have some
professional advice on this.
Roger Crabtree stated that it only shows one easement here. Does that
mean the whole back of his lot is an easement?
Jeff Nelson showed the easement on a drawing.
Tyler Korfhage stated that he does not agree that the yard is
unusable as it sits. There is a boardwalk over the ground there. There
is a lot of drainage that goes through there. He is worried about
setting a precedent here.
Jeff Nelson stated that he does not intend to go to the Ordinance
Committee about this as he did not feel there should be anything in an
easement.
James Hickey stated the he was not in favor of any impediment of
water there.
Motion
Roger Crabtree moved and James Hickey supported the motion to table
the applicant’s request to construct a wood deck and a bridge over a
ravine in a drainage easement. The Board would like to see the applicant
get a licensed engineer to look at this to see what can be done here
without impeding the drainage and then get with the City Engineer.
Motion carried 6 to 0.
Motion
Beth Rogers moved and Charles Deschaine supported the motion to
approve the Zoning Board of Appeals minutes of June 12, 2008.
Motion
Roger Crabtree moved and Beth Rogers supported the motion to adjourn
the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting at 8:15 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.
|
