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; Brian Boelens; Randy Smith; James Hickey and Beth Rogers. Also present: Jeff Nelson, Building Official; and Bonnie Antcliff, Recording Secretary.

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

Motion carried 7 to 0.

Property located at 4143 Tallman Creek Dr., N.W., 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 the drainage easement. The easement involves rear and side yard.

Robert Marz, Chairman reviewed the application and site plan submitted. No citizen appeared with respect to this request. He went on to say that the applicant has a lot of information that she has shared with us from the County. We also have a petition of 41 signatures from the neighbors in favor of this request.

Tim Raymer, owner of adjacent property stated that we have met with the Ordinance Committee and the Zoning Board of Appeals. The ordinance changed in 1998 to prohibit fences but there is no fence permit process in place. There are violations thoughout the City. Our neighbor has complained and that is why we are here. We have discussed this extensively with the Drain Commissioner. Kentwood has changed their ordinance and it now goes through the Engineering Department . He then showed pictures of the property with explanations. This fence is on top of the drainage pipes. The cover to the drain is outside of the fence. The applicant did not feel that this would set a precedent. Two homes share this fence. The Potter’s do not have a sump pump because the property drains that well. The drainage pipe is of concrete construction. The company that installed the pipe claims that typically problems with this system would be during the installation and not after. It has been there 12 years with no problem. The City Attorney stated that specific conditions could be imposed if this were granted. We would be agreeable with that. If there is a need to get in there and take the fence out, that would be our responsibility to re-install it at our expense as well as maintenance.

Mrs. Potter thanked the Board for all the time they have spent on this request.

Robert Marz, Chairman stated that the Ordinance Committee did not feel that the ordinance should be changed. They felt this Board should set the standards on a case by case basis.

Charles Deschaine stated he would like to see some sort of gate system installed for easy access should this be approved.

Beth Rogers stated that the applicant has done their homework on this. We have had many meetings on this issue. With the rains that we had this past summer, there was not a problem.

James Hickey stated that if someone does not take care of this drain, the City will be responsible for anything happening there if we grant this variance.

Robert Marz feels that there should be some give and take in these situations. He felt the fence should be gated and not locked.

Randy Smith stated that there are two easements here one on the side and one in back. Do they need two gates? On the west side the fence is in the landscaping. What if another neighbor wants to hook onto this fence? He would like to see a side yard variance but the rear yard fence should be split apart and outside of the easement.

Roger Crabtree asked why is the easement there? Mainly an easement is there for access. If the City needs access, we need the property owners to pay for any damages.

Jeff Nelson stated we need the access to walk through if this is granted. This is an underground pipe with a catch basin so we do not depend so much on surface drainage in this area.

Charles Deschaine moved and Beth Rogers supported the motion to grant the applicant’s request to construct a chain link fence in the drainage easement. The easement involves rear and side yard.

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 percentage of easement and typography on the property are exceptional.

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. Numerous other properties within the same zoning district and City of Walker enjoy the use of fences on their property within drainage easements.

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 there is no detriment to adjacent property. Property owner is willing to accept responsibility to remove fence if requested for necessary maintenance. This is not a detriment to adjacent 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 or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable for the formulation of a general regulation. The fence allows the owner’s and neighbor’s dogs to be kept in the back yard which enhances the front of the property. This is not a general problem.

Does not apply.

The Board imposed the following conditions:

Brian Boelens moved and James Hickey supported the motion to remove 3731 Northridge from the table.

Motion carried 7 to 0.

Property located at 3731 Northridge Dr., N.W. also known on the tax rolls as

41-13-05-127-001. Hearing requested by Design Edge.

The applicant’s request is to add 4, 4 x 16 ft. signs on the west side of the building with 256 sq. ft. instead of the 80 sq. ft. allowed.

Robert Marz, Chairman reviewed the application and site plan submitted. No citizen appeared with respect to this request. When this request was tabled the Board instructed the applicant to bring back samples of the sign and to talk with the Planning Director, Frank Wash.

Charles Deschaine asked the applicant if he had talked to the City Planner and the applicant replied he did not.

Mr. Brown stated that the building inspector told him not to talk to Frank Wash.

Jeff Nelson stated that if this Board directed you to talk to the Planning Department, it should not have been ignored.

Charles Deschaine stated that the Board wanted to hear comments and input from the Planner.

Robert Marz stated that until you speak with the Planner, the Board is not ready to act on this.

Mr. Brown stated that he talked with Jim Hickey and he stated he was aware of this.

Mr Hickey replied that he was aware of the situation because he is chairman of the Planning Commission and we went through this very thoroughly with Roger Lammer and everyone else involved in the meeting on this building. Mr. Lammers knew what was proposed on the signage there. He should have informed you of this. This is four times the signage that is allowed in the ordinance and that is why Mr. Wash was not in favor of this request. Our new sign ordinance just went into effect a year and a half ago. You need to talk to Frank Wash about this because there are going to be a lot more buildings on Northridge Dr.

Mr. Brown stated that this is exceptional circumstances because our building is like no other because it faces Fruitridge and the setback is 130 ft. and no other building on Northridge will have that. He stated that all he is asking is to have signage so that his customers will know where he is.

Robert Marz stated that it is your right to come here and ask for a variance. If you can meet the conditions you are entitled to a variance. We ask our Department heads their opinion.

Mr. Brown stated that he is now asking for 70 sq. ft. for his section of the building. He went on to say that he believed that the ordinance says he is allowed an 80 sq. ft. tenant sign on that wall.

James Hickey replied you are not allowed any sign on that building.

Mr. Brown replied that this is the front of the building.

Mr. Hickey stated that he did not come to meet with the applicant because any conversation with the applicant should be at this meeting. Secondly, we talked about Roger Lammer, and he set up the whole thing on the signs and the Planning Commission stated when this project was approved that the signage would be on the side , which you were told to talk to Mr. Wash about, or on the front of the building.

Mr. Brown replied this is the front of the building.

Mr. Hickey disagrees that this is the front of the building.

Jeff Nelson stated that the front of the building is the street where the most traffic is.

Roger Crabtree stated that he would like to see Mr. Brown’ s space with his proposed sign from the road when he comes back to the Board.

Robert Marz stated that just because a staff member recommends denial of an application does not mean that we are automatically going to deny it.

Roger Crabtree moved and James Hickey supported the motion to table the applicant’s request to add 4, 4 x 16 ft. signs on the west side of the building with 256 sq. ft. instead of the 80 sq. ft. allowed so that the applicant can talk to the City Planner before coming back to this Board.

Motion carried 7 to 0.

James Hickey moved and Randy Smith supported the motion to approve the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals minutes of November 13, 2008.

Motion carried 7 to 0.

Beth Rogers moved and James Hickey supported the motion to appoint Brian Boelens as a full-time member of the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Motion carried 7 to 0.

Roger Crabtree moved and James Hickey supported the motion to adjourn the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting at 8:25 p.m.

Motion carried 7 to 0.

Roger Crabtree, Secretary