ZBA Minutes

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 Deschaine; Tyler Korfhage; Randy Smith; Brien Boelens; and Beth Rogers. Also present Tammy Freedman, Recording Secretary.

Charles Deschaine moved and Roger Crabtree supported the motion to remove 4143 Tallman Creek from the table.

Motion carried unanimously.

Property located at 4143 Tallman Creek also known on the tax rolls as 41-13-30-276-023. Hearing requested by Keith & Kirsten Potter.

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

Robert Marz, Chairman reviewed the application and site plan submitted. No other citizen appeared with respect to this request.

Tim Raymer stated that he owns the adjoining property and he shares the fence with the Potters. This was tabled and referred to the Ordinance Committee. We met with Mr. Nelson and asked if we should be at that meeting and Mr. Nelson told us that would not be necessary. We were then informed that they chose not to discuss it so we are back here. 25% of the property is encumbered with easements which is not the norm in the City. We do share a fence so there is a unique situation there. As far as the drainage pipe that is there, in talking with the county drain commissioner, failures with that pipe typically relate to installation and that pipe has been in there for 12 years with no problems. It is estimated to have a 100-300 year life. It does not create any problems with adjacent property. We feel this is a unique situation. This is a piece of property with many easements on it and the Potters cannot use the property. We are willing to share the fence with the Potters and we do not feel this would have to be repeated throughout the City. This would not set a precedent.

Beth Rogers stated that Mrs. Potter had called her and she suggested that she contact people at the City. She went on to say that she talked with Scott Conners and the Ordinance Committee had a subcommittee that looked at the issues brought before them. This was not just set aside. It was taken into consideration by a subcommittee and they reviewed the ordinance. There are two drains there. We have talked about the drain that goes underground but there is one on top of the ground also. In an emergency the fence would have to be taken down to get at it. This involves the drainage for the entire development . Many of the developments in this community are built like this. If the water builds up, someone’s property is going to flood. This does not involve just your property. She went on to say that the Ordinance Committee and the subcommittee have reviewed this.

The applicant stated that there were heavy rains this summer and there was no flooding involved here.

Robert Marz stated that on August 20, 2008 the Engineering Dept. and the Public Works Dept. met with the Ordinance Committee and there was discussion on fences in the drainage easement. Members present were: Barb Holt, Al Parent, Cindy Stek, Cathy VanderMeulen, Darrell Schmalzel, Jeff Nelson, Frank Wash, and Bonnie Broadwater. Scott Connors wrote a memo on 9-2-08 commenting on this.

Mr. Marz stated that the County says you can put a chain link fence over the surface area. With an easement underground the owners would have to take it down and put it up at their expense. Our ordinance says you can do nothing. This is not something that we have not dealt with before. We have granted a few of these.

Tyler Korfhage stated that this comes down to the points that have to be covered; extraordinary circumstances, preservation of rights,and no detriment. Their point under extraordinary circumstances is that 25% of their property is encumbered. He stated he does not agree. You cannot put up a fence that does not mean you cannot use your yard for your enjoyment. It was noted it was only one property. If you look at the map, you can see 4 properties on this plat that have the same thing, so it is not exceptional or extraordinary. If we do this for you, we will have to do it for everybody. We are here to interpret and follow our guidelines.

Mrs. Potter responded that there are not a lot of properties in Walker with this problem. We understand you do not want to set a precedent. Not many neighbors are sharing a fence.

Mr. Potter maintained that the Ordinance Committee should have a meeting with the people involved in this issue.

Tyler Korfhage stated that he felt that the Ordinance Committee should follow the Kent County Drain Commission but they didn’t.

Charles Deschaine stated that the rules we have here are not consistent. He did not feel there is a problem with this chain link fence if it is maintained ,but the next homeowner may not maintain it. The County is apparently more lenient that we are. The Engineering Dept. would like to see some of this activitiy to occur, but it is hard for us to judge whether or not this will be an issue. It is hard to make a determination here.

Robert Marz stated that the Ordinance Committee would like this judged on a case by case basis. He went on to say that there was a petition signed by the neighbors of 46 signatures saying they had no problem with this request.

The applicant stated that the problem came in when the second easement down the side was discovered and then the fence would have to be moved in as well.

Roger Crabtree stated that in the ordinance, a fence is not allowed within an easement, with or without a gate.

Charles Deschaine stated that he felt the Ordinance Committee was also struggling with this on whether or not to allow a fence in a drainage easement.

Roger Crabtree stated that you have to go through the City and look when easements were granted and when they weren’t. Some of the areas where there are sheds, pools, and some fences in the easements, were there before easements were granted. He did not feel this was an extraordinary circumstance where they could not enjoy this property without a fence up. This is not a privacy issue.

Mrs. Potter stated they wanted this to secure their pet.

Charles Deschaine stated that there are conflicting overlaps between what engineering approves and what the ordinance allows.

The Board was of the consensus that there should be some resolution between this group, the Engineering Dept., and the Ordinance Committee to solve this problem. Since permits are not required to put up a fence, this was not done deliberately.

The Potter’s felt that the Ordinance Committee should deal with this.

The Board felt that since this seems to be of a recurring nature, it should go back to the Ordinance Committee.

Roger Crabtree stated that he would like to see a meeting between this Board, the Engineering Dept., the Building Dept. and the Ordinance Committee. These are the people that have to deal with this.

Roger Crabtree moved and Charles Deschaine supported the motion to table this request to construct a chain link fence in the drainage easement until this Board, the Engineering Dept., the Building Dept. and the Ordinance Committee has a meeting to determine how to deal with this request.

Motion carried 7 to 0.

Property located at 4606 & 4620 Burton, SW also known on the tax rolls as 41-17-07-100-034 & 035. Hearing requested by George Schambach.

The applicant’s request is to split existing parcels creating one parcel with 130 ft. of frontage instead of the required 180 ft. and less than one acre. Also one parcel with 50 ft. of frontage instead of the required 180 ft. and exceeding the 4 to 1 depth to width ratio.

Robert Marz, Chairman reviewed the application and site plan submitted. No other citizen appeared with respect to this request.

Mr. Schambach stated that when we built our house, we needed right-of-way on the back of the property and we thought if we went 90 x 500 that would solve the whole thing so that is what we did. We did not realize the consequences down the road that a 90 x 500 ft. lot would be a problem. Now to make the situation better, we would like to sell the house in the next year or so. We want to make everything the way it should be. We want to make the property a little wider and shorter and clean up some flaws. He went on to say that the property immediately west of us has the same property configuration. They have a 45 ft. drive and it widens out in the back to 180 ft.

Robert Marz asked if the 50 ft. would be the driveway area going back?

Mr. Schambach replied yes. There are trees planted along the east edge of the property and by going 50 ft. he will not have to take out a row of pine trees.

Randy Smith stated that the house directly to the west is OK but the next driveway goes to the neighbor’s house in the back.

Mr. Schambach replied they have 40 or 45 ft. right-of-way for their driveway.

Mr. Smith asked if on east side of your property is there a drainage area there?

Mr. Schambach replied that 100 ft. east of us is very low and there is a drainage ditch across Burton ST.

Tyler Korfhage moved and Brian Boelens supported the motion to grant the applicant’s request to split existing parcels creating one parcel with 130 ft. of frontage instead of the required 180 ft. and less than one acre. Also one parcel with 50 ft. of frontage instead of the required 180 ft. and exceeding the 4 to 1 depth to width ratio.

Roger Crabtree moved and Beth Rogers supported the motion to adjourn the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting at 8:20 p.m.

Motion carried 7 to 0.