Zoning Board of Appeals

Thursday, August 20, 2020 – Extended Meeting Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Remote Meeting on Zoom CALL TO ORDER Chair W. Darbee called the meeting to order with a quorum at 7:00 p.m. INTRODUCTIONS & ROLL CALL Present: W. Darbee, J. Rise, C. Greenleaf, C. Congdon, L. Elliott Absent: Excused: L Dowd Others: Staff Liaison, Scott McKillop APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. PUBLIC COMMENT - NON-AGENDA ITEMS None. NEW BUSINESS Z 20-01 – 1101 28th Street – Dennis L. Ingle Present: Dennis & Colleen Ingle The appellant is requesting a variance from the zoning regulation limiting fences located in side-street side yards to a maximum height of four feet. Mr. Ingle explained they had misinterpreted the code because there was no sidewalk and they thought they were greater than 10 feet from the road. He stated there were two fences one block over that were installed exactly like theirs and they thought they were installing it correctly. He had gone to the neighbors before putting the fence up and had received positive feedback. Mr. Ingle said the fence was needed as a privacy fence because of an adult foster care home and allowing the variance would accommodate their future plans for the property. He stated Fitzhugh Street is a gravel road and he felt safety issues were not an issue as there were only two houses at the end of the road. Mr. Ingle said the fence helped the neighborhood because of the foster care home and the barking dogs. He also said correspondence from the city had referred to beautifying the city and he had collected signatures from his neighbors that agreed the fence enhanced and helped beautify the neighborhood. Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.org 1  Thursday, August 20, 2020 – Extended Meeting Mr. Ingle didn’t understand why a variance wouldn’t be granted since the neighborhood is happy about the fence and they are tucked away in a little corner of the city. He felt it didn’t hinder the city in any way and granting the variance would show appreciation to the heroes of the pandemic since his wife had volunteered to work at McLaren as a nurse manager during the crisis. Mrs. Ingle relayed how she and their children worked at McLaren Bay Region and had all purchased homes in the community. She said they have seen fences that she felt must have received variances or had been allowed to be left as they were for people to have the fences that they do. She reiterated there were only two houses on the gravel end of Fitzhugh Street where only three people resided and said they did not intentionally install the fence in the wrong area. They thought it would be ok to measure from the road. She said they have had neighbors from three blocks away stop and comment on how nice the fence looked. Mrs. Ingle said it did not impede the intersection of the road in any way. She said the fence also halted the incessant barking between their dog and the neighbor’s as they could no longer see each other over the fence. She said this has been a shock because they did not receive any negative comments from the neighbors they had talked to. Mr. Ingle stated he had been told by a neighbor on Fitzhugh Street that an email had been sent to the city on his behalf but was unsure if had had been received. S. McKillop commented an email had been received from the neighbor directly to the north of his property who was very unhappy about the fence being next to his driveway and was against granting the variance. The property owner had stated the fence blocks his view when backing out of the driveway and is a safety hazard for him. S. McKillop explained the fence had been placed west of the lot line within the city’s road right-of-way and would need to be moved depending on the zoning board’s decision to either appoint 10 feet from the lot line in compliance with the regulations, or directly on the lot line if the evidence as stated meets the standards for granting variances. Mr. Ingle disputed the fence was a safety hazard. He had pulled in and out of his neighbor’s driveway with his truck and felt the view was not blocked and said there was no traffic in front of the house with the street being a dead-end street. He stated the gravel in the road had shifted over the years and would have to be moved away from his property by 10 or 15 feet if it were ever paved. S. McKillop said the road runs due north and south and the lot lines are located where they are located. Mr. Ingle agreed but argued the road wasn’t. W. Darbee asked if Mr. Ingle meant the travel portion of the roadway. Mr. Ingle did. He said the road had moved over three feet just since he had lived there, and the neighbor directly north had been driving on the grass. He felt the road would have to be moved to the west because of where the fire hydrant was located if ever paved. W. Darbee commented nothing could be done about where the travelled portion of the road was and asked if the board members had any questions for the Ingles. C. Greenleaf asked if they had looked at where the property lines were when they purchased the property. Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.org 2  Thursday, August 20, 2020 – Extended Meeting Mr. Ingle said they knew exactly where they were. A fence contractor had found their boundary stakes one foot under the ground. S. McKillop stated boundary stakes would not have been found in the city’s right-of-way. Mr. Ingle replied the fence contractor found the stakes and he had no idea they would still be there. He said there was a tree that was about 3/4 on their property and told the contractor to move the fence as close as he could to the tree. S. McKillop asked if the fence had been moved to the west, and how far it had been moved. Mr. Ingle said it had been moved as close as it could be without cutting down the tree which was maybe about eight to 10 inches. Mrs. Ingle added their neighbors, Bob and Jennifer, who lived in one of the two houses at the end of the street had no problems pulling in or out. L. Elliott asked if the fence in the front yard of the property to the north was on the lot line. He was curious because the sidewalk portion that extended out a short distance from the corner going east and west looked like it would go right through the fence. S. McKillop stated the fence was well to the left of the lot line in the city’s right-of-way. Mr. Ingle answered his own lot measured 100 feet and believes the fence on the property to the north is approximately one foot back from the lot line. C. Congdon asked for clarification of what was being requested in the variance. S. McKillop replied they were asking for a variance for a six-foot high fence along a lot-line on which only a four-foot high fence is permitted. According to Mr. Ingle, he misinterpreted, and the fence was placed in the city’s right-of-way by mistake which must be moved, but the regulations require a six-foot high fence to be moved six feet east of the side-street lot-line. C. Greenleaf asked for confirmation that the fence was required by the city to be moved and that it would comply with regulations for a six-foot high fence if moved back 10 feet from the lot line. S. McKillop confirmed it. L. Elliott asked how far back the fence would encroach into the backyard if it was moved the full 10 feet. He thought it looked like it would start one or two feet behind the house according to one of the images in the staff report. S. McKillop answered he did not know how much room there was between the house and the lot line. He said the white line in the illustration on page seven of the staff report was an approximate location. J. Rise asked the likelihood of a sidewalk ever being added on the side street. Both W. Darbee and C. Greenleaf commented it was not relevant to the case. Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.org 3  Thursday, August 20, 2020 – Extended Meeting C. Congdon inquired if building a two-foot burm next to the fence on both sides would put it into compliance if the six-foot fence was moved to the property line. He felt raising the grade would make it appear four-feet tall from the road. S. McKillop replied it would still be a six-foot fence on the lot line and the regulation only permits a four- foot fence. W. Darbee closed the public portion of the hearing after hearing no other questions for the Ingles. C. Greenleaf was against granting the variance. He said it was in the roadway and could hinder traffic and visibility in the area. It would not be unnecessarily burdensome because the fence must be moved anyway. It will not do any injustice to the neighborhood as they will still have a fence. He felt they could move it to keep within the city’s zoning ordinance. J. Rise believed it was a self-created problem and the need for the variance was because of where the fence was installed in the first place. C. Greenleaf agreed. W. Darbee agreed with C. Greenleaf. He said nothing about the property’s physical characteristics warrants the height of the fence being six feet on the property line. He felt there was nothing unique about that particular parcel. L. Elliott thought it was a nice fence but didn’t believe it met the standards that must be met to grant a variance. He agreed with C. Greenleaf that strict compliance is not unnecessarily burdensome in this case and agreed with J. Rise that it was self-created. C. Greenleaf made a motion to deny the motion based on their findings-of-fact, seconded by J. Rise. Roll Call Vote: In favor is to deny the motion J. Rise – Yes; C. Greenleaf – Yes; L. Elliott – Yes; W. Darbee – Yes; C. Congdon – No 4 – Yes; 1 – No Motion passes to deny. S. McKillop explained the circuit court would be the next avenue of appeal. Motion made by C. Greenleaf to adjourn the Zoning Board of Appeals hearing, seconded by L. Elliott. Motion passed. OLD BUSINESS Sign Board of Appeals S 20-01 – 3772 Wilder – Signworks of Michigan The Sign Board of Appeals must make a motion and decision as to whether the relief from sign regulations is warranted based on evidence presented & discussion during the board’s August 11th meeting. Present: Todd & Ann Frass of Signworks of Michigan Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.org 4  Thursday, August 20, 2020 – Extended Meeting S. McKillop explained L. Elliott had made a motion to grant relief, but it had failed, and a subsequent motion had not been made to the contrary. He stated it was up to the chair if the additional information submitted by the applicant would be considered. W. Darbee felt the additional information had been covered at the previous meeting and did not feel it contained anything new. He asked If the board members would like to receive the additional information or hear verbal statements. Roll Call: L. Elliott – No; C. Congdon – No; J. Rise – No; C. Greenleaf – No; W. Darbee – No Todd Frass asked if he could comment. W. Darbee explained the board had decided not to receive any additional information. W. Darbee stated that if they grant the location of the sign for where it was requested, it would not prohibit parking in front of it and cars parking in front of the sign would hinder the visibility from cars coming from west to east. C. Greenleaf felt it wouldn’t do any justice and wouldn’t increase the sign’s visibility or anything else. He felt they were aware of the building’s location when they purchased it. He doesn’t feel granting the variance would improve anything for the applicant. J. Rise didn’t feel anything was exceptional or peculiar about the property that would require a variance. She didn’t feel anything inhibits the sign from being placed in compliance with the sign ordinance or that it is enough of an inconvenience to cause harm to the business or property. L. Elliott felt the impact of the visibility would be from either direction. W. Darbee clarified his statement saying a parked vehicle in front of the sign would effectively remove the visibility of the sign from either direction. Motion to deny based upon the findings of their discussion by C. Greenleaf, seconded by J. Rise. Roll Call Vote: In favor is to not grant the exception L. Elliott – Yes; C. Congdon – No; J. Rise – Yes; C. Greenleaf – Yes; W. Darbee – Yes 4 – Yes; 1 – No Motion passes to deny the exception. OTHER BUSINESS None. ADJOURN Motion made by C. Greenleaf, seconded by L. Elliott, to adjourn the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Meeting adjourned. Prepared by: Lisa Griffiths, Planning & Zoning Administrative Assistant Planning & Zoning Department / Suite 211 / 301 Washington Ave. / Bay City, MI 48708 / 989-894-8180 / www.baycitymi.org 5