MEETING
CITY OF WALKER
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Thursday, June 11, 2009
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; Brian Boelens;
Randy Smith; James Hickey; and Beth Rogers. Member absent: Charles
Deshaine. Also present: Jeff Nelson, Building Official; and Bonnie
Antcliff, Recording Secretary.
DECISION AND ORDER
Motion
Beth Rogers moved and James Hickey supported the motion to remove
1920 Stratford Lane from the table.
Motion carried 6 to 0.
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 a rear drainage easement.
Finding of Facts
Robert Marz, Chairman reviewed the application and site plan
submitted. No other citizen appeared with respect to this application. A
letter was received from the City Engineer dated June 4, 2009.
Mr. Riewald stated that Scott Connors did not give any recommendation
but he did not note any objections with the grading or flow of water.
There are no major concerns here. A gate has been used in the past
successfully. He went on to say that he wants a variance for removable
fencing. A gate would be very expensive but he would be willing to do
that. Mr. Connors feels that access is the only concern here. He went on
to say that sleeves could be placed in the ground at 6 ft., 12 ft., and
18 ft. and the fencing could be lifted out of the ground and provide
full access. He then showed pictures of what the fence would look like.
Brian Boelens asked what if the neighbors want to have a fence also?
Nr, Riewald replied that these properties have ditches and are not
suited for fences.
Randy Smith asked how heavy would this fence be?
Mr. Riewald replied it is made of light weight aluminum and the
height of the fence will be 48 inches. The fence would be 24 ft. that is
removable. It will be 4, 6 ft. sections. The drain is 3 ft. from the
property line so the first sleeve in the ground would be 3 ft. away from
it. Each section should not weigh more than 12 pounds.
Robert Marz stated that the City Engineer cannot recommend this
because it is against the ordinance. We also have a letter from one of
the neighbors stated there was no objection here.
Beth Rogers stated that she liked the idea of sleeves where the fence
could be lifted up, if need be, rather than a gate.
Motion
Beth Roger moved to grant the applicant’s request to install a
decorative ornamental fence across rear drainage easement. Motion failed
as there was no support.
Motion````
James Hickey moved and Brian Boelens supported the motion to deny the
applicant’s request to install a decorative ornamental fence across rear
drainage easement because fences are not allowed in easements.
Motion failed 3 to 3. Jame Hickey, Roger Crabtree, and Randy Smith
against.
Beth Rogers asked if anyone else would support her motion if there
were another condition imposed?
Roger Crabtree stated he was bothered by the ordinance where it is
specifically stated that there should be no fences in easements. It also
says that no permanent structure shall be allowed below the top of the
water channel or within any designated easement. Temporary structures
that do not materially impede the flow of storm water are permissible.
After considerable discussion the Board made another motion.
Motion
Beth Rogers moved and Roger Crabtree supported the motion to grant
the applicant’s request to install a decorative ornamental fence across
rear drainage easement.
- 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 main objective will be to provide safety and security
to my family and pets. I have incurred damage to my landscape from a
large deer population which I wish to discourage.
- 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. 4143
Tallman Creek, 3503 Sunrise Lane.
- 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
fence will be ornamental and decorative and will be an enhancement
to adjoining 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. There will be no impact
to land behind property which has no residents currently and is a
completely wild and open area and will not be developed in the
future. Property is a private association and fence will meet
standards and requirements of developer. Developer wil ensure no
negative impact to other association residents.
- Does not apply.
The Board imposed the following conditions:
- The fence to be installed with sleeves in the ground.
- Any removal will be at the owner’s expense.
- The Building Official to approve the fence connections.
Motion carried 6 to 0.
DECISION AND ORDER
Legal Description
Property located at 3174 4 Mile Rd. also known on the tax rolls as
41-13-04-101-011. Hearing requested by Consumers Energy.
The applicant’s request is to split existing parcel creating a parcel
of land with 60 ft. of street frontage instead of the required 180 ft.
exceeding the one to four depth to width ratio for future essential
services.
Finding of Facts
Robert Marz, Chairman reviewed the application and site plan
submitted. No other citizen appeared with respect to this application.
Bill Carlson, Consumers stated that we were told by the City to keep
our facilities near the proposed water tower to keep everything in one
area. We have an agreement with the City of Grand Rapids and there is
only one access to both properties. The City felt it was better to have
a shared driveway than to have two accesses.
James Hickey asked where the water tower was setting in relation to
this property?
Mr. Carlson replied it is directly to the east. We have a flag shaped
property. Grand Rapids and Walker has asked us to share one driveway for
both facilities. We agreed to this.
Motion
James Hickey moved and Brian Boelens supported the motion to grant
the applicant’s request to split existing parcel creating a parcel of
land with 60 ft. of street frontage instead of the required 180 ft.
exceeding the one to four depth to width ratio for future essential
services.
- 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. Two essential services to have shared access off of 4 Mile
Rd.
- 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. Preserve
the agricultural nature of the area and in keeping with the variance
granted to the City of Grand Rapids for a water tower access.
- 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 this
variance will not be a detriment; it will allow for future
development/access along 4 Mile Rd. and it will allow the future
substation to be back off the road.
- 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. This is a unique location for
the proposed substation and is not anticipated to occur routinely.
- Does not apply.
Motion carried 6 to 0.
DECISION AND ORDER
Legal Description
Propeerty located at 515 Clinton, NW also known on the tax rolls as
41-13-19-351-057. Hearing requested by Andrew Rose.
The applicant’s request is to build an addition to existing home 31
ft. from the front property line instead of the required 35 ft. and a 5
ft. side yard instead of the required 7 ft. where fireplace is
cantilevered.
Finding of Facts
Robert Marz, Chairman reviewed the application and site plan
submitted. He then read a letter from the neighbor dated May 14, 2009
stating that they had no problem with this request.
Mr. Rose stated that the front of the garage is 30 ft. from the front
property line and the new addition will be set back from there. Nothing
will come out further from the front property line than what is already
existing. The cantilever from the firplace will enchroach 2 ft. on the
side yard. The foundation of the house will be in compliance of the
ordinance.
Roger Meyers, 539 Clinton stated that he is in support of this
variance.
Kurt DeHaan, contractor, showed the Board the site plan for this
project with explanations. He went on to say that they felt this will
update the house and add to the property evaluation.
Motion
James Hickey moved and Randy Smith supported the motion to grant the
applicant’s request to build an addition to existing home 31 ft. from
the front property line instead of the required 35 ft. and a 5 ft. side
yard instead of the required 7 ft. where fireplace is cantilevered.
- 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. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances
applicable to the property in question as evidenced by the variance
granted in December of 1988 concerning the setbacks. Those same
circumstances exist today and are accentuated by the existing
structure.
- 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. The variance is similar to
other properties in the district, specifically 517 Cummings and 509
Cummings.
- 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 we
are seeking the same variance that has already been granted.
- 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 orrecurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable
for the formulation of a general regulation. The situation of the
piece of property is not a general problem.
- Does not apply.
Motion carried 6 to 0.
Motion
Beth Rogers moved and Roger Crabtree supported the motion to approve
the Zoning Board of Appeals minutes of May 14, 2009.
Motion carried 6 to 0.
Motion
Brian Boelens 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
The City
of Walker, Michigan