ZBA Minutes

MEETING
CITY OF WALKER
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Thursday, May 14, 2009
7:00 p.m.

The meeting of the Zoning Board of appeals was called to order by Randy Smith, Acting Chairman at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall 4243 Remembrance Rd., N.W., Walker, Michigan.

Members present: Randy Smith, Acting Chairman; Roger Crabtree; Charles Deshaine; Brian Boelens; James Hickey; Beth Rogers; and Sandi Howland, Alternate. Member absent: Robert Marz. Also present: Jeff Nelson, Building Official and Bonnie Antcliff, Recording Secretary.

DECISION AND ORDER

Legal Description

Property located at 2137 Orchard Ridge also known on the tax rolls as 41-13-07-302-003. Hearing requested by Paula Leonard.

The applicant’s request is to install a privacy and chain link fence partially in a drainage easement on the north side and rear of property.

Finding of Facts

Randy Smith, Acting Chairman reviewed the application and site plan submitted. He then read a memo from the Engineering Department dated May 8, 2009 and a memo from the DPW Director dated May 11, 2009.

Paula Leonard, applicant stated that she has a letter from her neighbor to the north who is in favor of her keeping that fence there and there is a 10 ft. opening where anyone could get through in case of an emergency. She stated she is willing to sign any kind of wavier should that section of fence have to come down. She went on to say that she was unaware of this problem when she purchased this property. She is willing to do whatever it takes to have an area for her dogs.

Charles Deschaine asked if the bad rains we have had recently has affected this area?

Ms. Leonard replied not at all and yesterday we had a lot of rain and there has been no standing water here. There are several access points for equipment or machinery to get to the back area.

Beth Rogers asked when the home was purchased.

Ms. Leonard replied she moved into the house in April and she was given a survey without any easements on it at the closing, so she was unaware of the circumstances.

Beth Rogers asked if she was installing an additional fence?

Ms. Leonard replied no, she just wants to keep what she already has.

Tracey Hart, 2161 Orchard Ridge stated that we have been watching the flow of water here because of the fencing issue. We have not seen any problems since this fence went up even with the recent hard rains we have had.

Jeff Nelson stated that the A & R pipeline runs in her yard and there is a drainage easement there. The only place that she does not have an easement is about 10 ft. out from the back of her house. The present fence is 10 ft. away from the pipe and the north side is all easement. Her whole side yard is an easement and the fence goes all the way to the property line on the north side. The easement runs from Richmond to the property line. Right now it is accessible from either end of the property.

Charles Deschaine stated that there is a lot of room to get equipment in here if needed.

Brian Boelens stated that he walked out there today and there was no water problem present. The fence is parallel to where the water runs.

Randy Smith stated that there are fences in two areas of the easement. The rear yard is approximately 10 ft. into the easement and the north side looks like it is over the 18 in. storm sewer pipe that is underground.

James Hickey stated that he is against fences in easements. The Planning Commission has worked hard on this ordinance. He stated he did think there could be a compromise on this property.

Charles Deschaine asked how long this fence has been installed?

Ms. Leonard replied just a few weeks. After the posts were cemented in, she received a call from Jeff Nelson informing her of the easements. The fence was then reconfigured to match the back

easement. At that time she did not know anything about the north easement. She stated that her fence installer said he would move the fence if needed.

Randy Smith stated that there have been two variances denied in this neighborhood because of easements.

James Hickey asked the applicant how much room do you have between the fence on the north side and the house? He did think there could be a compromise on this property.

Ms. Leonard replied it is about 30 ft.

Motion

James Hickey moved and Beth Rogers supported the motion to grant the applicant’s request to install a privacy and chain link fence partially in a drainage easement on the north side and rear of property.

1. 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. When I purchased my home I was told I could fence in my yard. I was unaware of the easement that was on the property and the easement was not shown on the survey that was given to me. I would not have purchased the home if I would be unable to fence in my dogs for safety reasons.
2. 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. Other owners on the same street and area have playgrounds, trees, etc. that are closer to the back easement than my chain link fence. 4143 Tallman Creek was granted a variance for the same reason and has not caused drainage issues.
3. 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 this fence is built of high quality construction and enhances the look of the property and the neighborhood. The fence will also help with concealment, safety, and keep children from coming onto the property when the dogs are outside. I have full support of my neighbors.
4. 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. I am willing to sign a waiver to the City in case of an emergency the fence would have to come down at my own expense. The easement is also tiled underground which will assist in the drainage issues if any.
5. Does not apply.

The Board imposed the following conditions:

1. North fence moves 6 ft. south.
2. Fence stays shorter on the west end.

Legal Description

Property located at 1910 Stratford Lane, NW also known on the tax rolls as 41-13-18-125-003. Hearing requested by David Riewald.

The applicant’s request is to install a decorative ornamental fence across rear drainage easement.

Finding of Facts

Randy Smith, Acting Chairman reviewed the application and site plan submitted. He then read a letter from the DPW Department dated May 11, 2009.

David Riewald stated he wants to install an ornamental, aluminum fence. It will be a large enhancement to the property. It is an attractive fence and not very heavy duty. Posts are 2 x 2 and will be installed without concrete. They can be easily lifted out. The pipe is underground so this will not impact the flow of water and the end of the pipe is easily accessible on the lot next door. There is access to the north, as the pipe exits there, and the lot to the south is where the drainage cover is and the pipe exits into there. It can be accessed from there as well. It could be accessed by the north or south without entering my property. If access to my property is needed I will make sure that is provided.

Doug Riewald 1940 Crabtree Lane stated that he works for the City of Grand Rapids and he works with easements everyday. He stated that he has to get into easements all of the time. This fence will not impede the public works from getting to the drain. This drain is underground and is ditched to the north and that should bear some consideration. This is a reasonable request and Mr. Riewald will sign whatever it takes to say that if your equipment ever has to access this property, there will be no liability to the City of Walker for that. He wants to put up a fence to protect his property.

Charles Deschaine asked where does the water flow to get to this drain?

Mr. Riewald replied it is undeveloped on either side of the property and those properties are lower. It was built up to make it more asthetically pleasing in the backyard. The water flows from south to north. Any water on the property to the north runs down directly into the drainage ditch. Any water in the lot on the south runs down into the grated basin. With the ornamental aluminum, there will not be any impediment to water running from south to north. If there were, the only lot flooded would be my own. The water from each of the adjacent properties flows directly down, and my water has to flow to the left and that would only impact my property.

James Hickey stated that the water from Mr. Riewald’s property crosses the road and goes to the retention pond to the west. There is water now setting in the back of unit number six. There is a lot of water there. He went on to say that he is against fences in an easement.

Charles Deschaine stated that he would have a hard time allowing a fence across this easement.

This lot is not very old.

Roger Crabtree stated that this is a 20 ft. easement on this property. He has a 50 ft. backyard and if you move that fence in 20 ft. he would still have a 30 ft. backyard.

Beth Rogers stated that the fence is going to cross the easement as opposed to running perpendicular to it. Crossing it twice is even more difficult if there is a problem there. We have to look at the whole neighborhood and not just one property.

Mr. Riewald asked if the concern here was that we are making an exception by allowing a fence or is it the concern that the fence will impede the water flow?

Beth Roger felt it is whether it will impede the water flow.

Mr. Rielwald stated that maybe we should ask to have this tabled and come back with other photos because he did not feel this fence will impede the water flow. It is ditched to the north and it is lower to the south.

Mr. Hickey stated that there is a retention pond to the north and there is a retention pond across the street to the west. The south is woods.

Randy Smith stated that the overland flow all goes to these catch basins.

Roger Crabtree stated that you are in the middle of this neighborhood and nobody has built on either side of you. If you fence across the easement in two places, and then your neighbors come in and build, and they want to go back to that easement too, then the whole area will be blocked off.

Mr. Riewald responded that the difference is that the neighbors are ditched and so there would be a concern of putting a fence through a ditch because then you would be impacting the flow of water and that is the big difference. I will not be impacting that flow.

Chuck Deschaine felt that the applicant should get together with the City Engineer and if Scott Conners can be convinced the Board will consider this.

Motion

Charles Deshaine moved and James Hickey supported the motion to table the applicant’s request to install a decorative ornamental fence across rear drainage easement.

Tabling Conditions:

1. Applicant to get input from the Engineering Department.
2. The Board would like to see pictures of the property.

Legal Description

Property located at 1019 Cogswell, N.W. also known on the tax rolls as 41-13-11-404-025. Hearing requested by Robert Powell.

The applicant’s request is to split the rear portion of existing lot and combine with existing parcel on Gaynor Ave. on a lot without the required street frontage and creating a lot with less than required area.

Finding of Facts

Randy Smith, Acting Chairman reviewed the application and site plan submitted. Mrs. Cowell, owner, sent a memo allowing Mr. Powell to represent her at this hearing signed by her on April 15, 2009.

Rob Powell, 2215 Gaynor stated that the property he bought from Mrs. Cowell was overrun with trees and bushes and he cleaned it up and does not plan to build anything there. It looks like a yard now.

Jeff Nelson pointed out the parcel on the map and explained the situation. The lot to the north is being squared with the lot to the south and the applicant is buying the property behind there. There is no way that they can create a lot here to build on. We would require the parcel to be combined when it is split. We would not sign off on this split until the two are combined. The applicant came in because they already bought the property before they came to the City.

James Hickey asked if this property could only be used as a residential use. Could they build a house on it?:

Jeff Nelson replied that they could if they tore the existing house down but it still would have to be combined with the front parcel. He went on to say that if the Board approves this split, it would have to be combined with the parcel on Gaynor.

Motion

James Hickey moved and Charles Deschaine supported the motion to grant the applicant’s request to split from 1019 Cogswell to 2215 Gaynor and the two parcels on Gaynor to become one lot.

1. 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. Although the parcel doesn’t have the required street frontage of area after the split, it is still larger than many neighboring parcels in the area.
2. 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. 1013 Cogswell, has 65 ft. of frontage; 1005 Cogswell, has 72 ft. frontage; 2231 Gaynor has 49 ft. frontage; and 1001 Cogswell, has 60 ft. of frontage.
3. 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 parcel will be combined with the house on 2215 Gaynor, so there will be no visible changes to either property.
4. 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 a need to control the size and area of parcels but the split leaves the lot compatible with many other parcels in the area.
5. Does not apply.

Motion

James Hickey moved and Beth Rogers supported the motion to approve the Zoning Board of Appeals minutes of March 26, 2009.

Motion carried 7 to 0.

Motion

Roger Crabtree moved and Brian Boelens supported the motion to adjourn the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting at 8:45 p.m.

Motion carried 7 to 0. ___________________________

Roger Crabtree, Secretary