ZBA Minutes

MEETING
CITY OF WALKER
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Thursday, August 14, 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; Charles Deshaine; Tyler Korfhage; Randy Smith; Beth Rogers; and Brian Boelens, Alternate. Member absent James Hickey. Also present: Jeff Nelson, Building Official and Bonnie Antcliff, Recording Secretary.

Property located at 4143 Tallman Creek, NW also known on the tax rolls as

41-13-30-276-023. Hearing requested by Keith Potter.

The applicant’s request is to construct a chain link fence in drainage easement. The easement involves rear and side yard.

Robert Marz, Chairman reviewed the application and site plan submitted. He then read a letter from the Engineering Department dated July 7, 2008.

Tim Raymer, 4144 Bulrush stated that their property adjoins the Potter’s property. A large portion of their property is encumbered by easements, approximately 25%, which means they cannot fully enjoy the use of this property. He stated we have adjoining

property which allows us to take advantage of a common fence which means there are not two fences there. They then showed pictures of the property. In the view of the Drain Commissioner, this is not a problem. When the property was purchased, the ordinance at that time, did not prohibit fences, that was changed in 1998. There is no system for consistent enforcement. It is done when a complaint is filed. If no complaint is filed, nothing occurs. We found many violations throughout the City. City staff does acknowledge this. The applicant then showed pictures of other fences and swimming pools in easements. They then presented the Board with a petition signed by the neighbors in support of this request. He went on to say that this takes private property for government purposes and they cannot use it. There is no compensation in this. 25% of this property is taken up by easements which creates a difficult situation when you are trying to do things with private property. 92% of the governments in Kent County allow fences within drainage easements. How frequently has the City had to enter a drainage easement for repairs? What has been done with existing fences, sheds and swimming pools if this has occurred? We have studies of the lifetime of cement pipe that is used for drainage at a minimum of 100 years up to 300 years. The failure of that is not a common occurrence.

Chris Pike, 4127 Tallman Creek stated that he would prefer to have one fence instead of separated fences.

Tim Allspach 4040 Tallman Creek stated that the Drain Commission allows fences in drainage easements and they were allowed this when the property was purchased. The chain link fence will not impede the flow of water.

Robert Marz asked how many extra feet were given for the easement here?

Mr. Allspach replied it was between 30 and 50 ft. There was an existing easement there and more was added to it.

Robert Marz asked how long has this fence been in place?

The applicant replied a little over a year. One of the neighbors complained about it.

Robert Marz stated that if this was an unkept yard, there would be growth in these drainage easements and that would impede the flow of water.

Tyler Korfhage stated that he felt this problem was of such a general nature that this should be given back to the Ordinance Committee. If we grant the variance for this particular property it would open up a can of worms. While he does not feel the request is unreasonable, but is the ordinance unreasonable? We are here to determine if what they want is more merited than what the person down the street wants. He felt he could not go against the ordinance if it opens up a can of worms where you are going to have a lot of property owners coming to us next week for the same thing.

Tim Raymer stated that what makes this property unique is that on the Potter’s property there is an additional 10 ft. easement down the north-south side. If that was not there we would have been able to reach an agreement with the City.

Mr. Potter does not feel that they impede the flow of water here.

Mr. Pike stated that they would be able to service this area easily as a chain link fence could be removed easily.

Beth Rogers and Roger Crabtree both felt that this should go back to the Ordinance Committee.

Jeff Nelson stated that he felt this should be looked at by the Ordinance Committee because what the Building Department enforces is different from what the Engineering Department enforces. The Zoning Ordinance and the Soil Erosion Ordinance needs to be looked at so that they work together.

Charles Deschaine stated that he felt this should be tabled and sent to the Ordinance Committee. He felt some of the Board should attend the meeting so that they could have an open discussion about this matter.

Robert Marz stated that anyone here that would like to attend this meeting could feel free to come as this is an open meeting.

Jeff Nelson stated that he did not think that a chain link fence is no different than having bushes there.

Charles Deschaine moved and Tyler Korfhage supported the motion to table the applicant’s request to construct a chain link fence in a drainage easement. The easement involves rear and side yard. The Board is sending this to the Ordinance Committee.

Motion carried 7 to 0.

Property located at 3503 Sunrise Lane, NW also known on the tax rolls as

41-13-20-255-008. Hearing requested by Frank Hockeborn.

The applicant’s request is to place an above ground swimming pool and surrounding deck into the side yard setback. To place same above ground pool into a private easement for public drainage and to install a fence into the private easement for public drainage.

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

Mr. Hockeborn, applicant showed the Board pictures of the property and also letters from the neighbors in support of this request. He stated that the neighbor to the south has no objection to this request. He went on to say that he has placed an 8 in. drain all the way back to the DEQ area behind his house. He was unaware of an easement here when he built the pool. The area the pool is in provided the widest clean space for the pool. This is a private easement and we are at the end of it.

Robert Nawara 857 Kusterer stated that his property backs up to this property. He stated he has no objection to what is being done here.

Charles Deschaine asked how long the pool has been in?

Mr. Hockeborn replied since last year. He stated that he did not realize that he needed a permit. He stated that he has no standing water here and has not had any since he installed the drain here last year.

Tyler Korfhage stated that there is a means for drainage here.

Tyler Korfhage moved and Brian Boelens supported the motion to grant the applicant’s request to place an above ground swimming pool and surrounding deck into the side yard setback. To place same above ground pool into a private easement for public drainage and to install a fence into the private easement for public drainage.

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. As the usable portion of our property is limited in size, the area that the pool is located was the most logical place to put it. It is the flattest part of the property and is furthest away from the wetland and tree roots.

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. Our daughter was born with athrogryposis and has scoliosis and our son diagnosed with ADHD and swimming is a recommended therapy. Other people in the immediate neighborhood enjoy swimming pools with decks in their backyards.

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 as our property is the last on the low side of the easement and I have installed an 8 in. drain in the easement, this area of the property and my neighbor’s property to the south do not have standing water as it did prior to the drain installation.

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 in nature as to make reasonably practicable for the formulation of a general regulation. This is a one time variance applying only to my property and should not require the formulation of additional regulation.

Does not apply.

The Board imposed the following conditions:

1. The deck not go on the low side of the pool.

2. The fence that goes across the easement be raised a foot to allow water to go underneath.

Motion carried 6 to 1. Charles Deschaine opposed.

Property located at 1534 Pannell St., N.W. also known on the tax rolls as

41-13-11-351-021. Hearing requested by Andy Mast.

The applicant’s request is to construct an 1800 sq. ft. office building 33.6f t. from the front property yard setback instead of the required 50 ft.

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

Jack Barr, Nederveld appeared on behalf of the applicant. He showed a map of the proposed office building. The existing office area is very cramped and they need more room. The new office will front on the street and will receive clients easier than existing space. The existing larger cold storage building is 20.8 ft. off the right-of-way and the residence is 42.3 ft. Averaging the two and putting the building there makes sense rather than pushing it back 50 ft. and losing a couple of maple trees.

Andy Mast stated that we are trying to get more parking spaces here. The office is cramped and our business is growing and we need more room. He stated we need to do more and more merchandising and we need more office people and space to put them.

Tyler Korfhage asked what the building will look like.

Mr. Mast stated it will be a stick built building and conventional with some brick. It will be attractive.

Tyler Korfhage stated he has no issue with this.

Charles Deschaine agrees and wants to help the business to grow.

Charles Deschaine moved and Roger Crabtree supported the motion to grant the applicant’s request fo construct an 1800 sq. ft. office building 33.6 ft. from the front property yard setback instead of the required 50 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. The two existing buildings have front yard setbacks of 20.8 ft. and 42.3 ft. respectively. Since ZBA 8-14-08 the proposed building will be used as the corporate office, setting it back 50 ft. to comply with the front yard setback would not present the building well from the street frontage. The proposed building would end up looking hidden from Pannell St. There are existing maple trees south of the proposed building that the applicant would like to preserve. Pushing the building back to 50 ft. front yard setback would require the existing trees to be removed.

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 current office location is within the main greenhouse building and has outlived its useful life. A modern office building is needed to advance the business. Denial of the variance will prevent the business from growing during a time where business growth has been difficult to do due to current economic conditions in the region.

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 use of surrounding properties is industrial. The majority of the surrounding uses have structures that do not meet current 50 ft. front yard setback requirements. The proposed variance will not result in any detriment of the adjacent properties.

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 proposed variance is specific to the proposed office building and is not general or recurrent.

Does not apply.

The Board imposed the following condition:

1. The non-conforming residential use will remain.

Motion carried 7 to 0.

Property located at 2500 Turner, NW also known on the tax rolls as

41-13-12-129-006. Hearing requested by Joel Langlois.

The applicant’s request is to construct a 6,208 sq. ft. addition with a 33 ft. building setback instead of the required 200 ft. front yard setback.

Roger Crabtree moved and Tyler Korfhage supported the motion table this hearing until August 28, 2008. This was not noticed properly and will have to be renoticed.

Motion carried 7 to 0.

Beth Rogers moved and Randy Smith supported the motion to approve the Zoning Board of Appeals minutes of July 10, 2008.

Motion carried 7 to 0.

Roger Crabtree moved and Beth Rogers supported the motion to adjourn the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting at 8:35 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 © 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.