Zoning Board of Appeals

Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda Commission Chambers 4243 Remembrance Rd NW Wednesday, June 26, 2024 6:30 PM 1. Call the meeting to order 2. Review Meeting Minutes 2.1. Review Meeting Minutes from March 27, 2024 3. General Public Comment This provision is made to encourage the expression of questions and concerns regarding non-public hearing items and issues not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to identify themselves by name and address. A maximum time of 6 minutes per person is required. 4. Agenda Items 4.1. Case #ZBA-24-002 - 1350 Granada Dr NW - Dimensional Variance, Philip Yeiter 5. Zoning Board of Appeals member/Staff Comments 6. Adjournment Page 1 of 32  ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES Wednesday, March 27, 2024 6:30 p.m. Members present: Brian Boelens, Randy Smith, Thom Burke, Jeff Portko, Rory Byrne, Dan Harland, Greg Gaastra Staff present: Paula Priebe, Planning Director CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Chairman Boelens called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Commission Chambers and explained the purpose of the Zoning Board of Appeals to the members of the public and applicants in attendance. REVIEW MEETING MINUTES Smith made a motion to approve the minutes from January 24, 2024, Burke supported. Motion carried unanimously. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT This provision is made to encourage the expression of questions and concerns regarding non- public hearing items and issues not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to identify themselves by name and address. A maximum time of 6 minutes per person is required. There was no public comment. AGENDA ITEMS Case # ZBA-24-001 - 2441 Hillside Dr NW - Dimensional Variance, Rodney Armstrong Rod Armstrong, prospective buyer of 2441 Hillside Dr NW, submitted an application for a dimensional variance from Section 7.01, Schedule of Regulations. Is asking for variances from the front, secondary front, and rear yard setbacks, to be allowed to construct a new house on a small, platted lot. Boelens invited Priebe to comment. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 3-27-24 Page 2 of 32  Priebe shared her presentation: The property is currently zoned "A" single-family residential district. The lot is 0.15 acres. The applicant is asking for variances from the front, secondary front, and rear yard setbacks. The property in question is off Alpine Ave at the corner of Hillside and Hufford. Priebe presented Section 7.01 Schedule of District Regulations. She also shared community character maps and site images to show orientation of the proposed house to the existing properties for reference. Straightforwardly applying these sections of the code to the property would prohibit a house from being constructed on the property, due to the small lot size and the nature of it being a corner lot which requires both a front yard and a secondary front yard. The standard setbacks for an “A” lot on this property were drawn onto an aerial image of the lot for visualization purposes. According to calculations based on the sketch provided and the dimensions on the survey provided by the applicant, the proposed house and site layout would have a front yard setback of 27’, a secondary front yard setback of 15’, and a rear yard setback of 15’. The smaller lot width and area are permitted under Section 17.09. The proposed house meets the minimum width for a single-family house as required in Section 15.04.A.7. The request before the ZBA is for: • a front yard variance of 4’ (allowing the house to be only 27’ from the front property line when the Ordinance requires 31’, accounting for Footnote 11), • a side street yard variance of 4’ (allowing the house to be only 15’ from the property line when the Ordinance requires 19’, accounting for Footnote 11), and for • a rear yard variance of 10’ (allowing the house to be only 15’ from the property line when the Ordinance requires 25’). Priebe explained the criteria for the board to consider. The board of zoning appeals may grant a variance from the provisions or requirements of the zoning ordinance if the board finds from reasonable evidence that all the following facts and conditions exist: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying 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. B. That such 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. The possibility of increased financial return shall not of itself be deemed sufficient to warrant a variance. C. That authorizing such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the intent and purposes of this chapter or the public interest. D. That the condition or situation of the piece of property or the intended use of such property for which the variance is sought is not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such condition or situation. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 3-27-24 Page 3 of 32  Boelens invited the applicant to the podium. Portko asked Priebe if the current homes in the neighborhood meet the current ordinance or are they grandfathered in? Priebe said in her estimation 95% of the homes are legally non-conforming. They do not meet the current ordinance regulations. Armstrong came to the podium and explained he has a purchase agreement contingent upon approval from the board. Armstrong stated he had the property professionally surveyed. As Hillside runs at an angle, the intention was to set the house slightly forward such that it was in line with all the other houses. Off Hufford, the west side of the house would be in line with all the other houses. The only difference with this house is that it is a single level with an attached garage on the end for storage purposes. The garage would be accessed via driveway from Hufford. Smith asked about Armstrong's intent with the house. The initial intent is to build a "starter home" for his son. A two stall garage intended to have one car and storage. Burke asked about the back porch. Is that counted toward the setback? Priebe stated the porch does not count toward the building setback. As drawn, the porch is 10 feet deep and the house is 13 feet from property line- the requirement for a permanent structure is 5 feet, so that would be addressed through the building permit process. The deck would need to be 2 feet shorter / narrower. Armstrong stated he will have to make a note that the back deck cannot be closer than 5 feet. If it were a patio, in the back then that would be ok? Priebe stated she'd have to confer with the zoning administrator. OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING Smith made a motion to open the public hearing. Supported by Harland. Motion carried unanimously. Boelens invited public comment. Heather Umlor, 2447 Hillside Dr NW, came to the podium. Umlor is the neighbor adjacent to the property. She had concerns about privacy, her front porch, & back yard with the close proximity of the build. Priebe stated the house will sit 14.9 feet from the property line. Armstrong agreed with the potential privacy issues and tight space. He said his thought was to have a patio door out back to a patio and to add a privacy fence with shrubbery such as arbor vitae. Regarding blocking the front porch, the intent of the design is to angle like the other houses along Hillside. Umlor shared that she had concerns regarding "flipping" the house or it becoming a rental. Armstrong stated that is not his intent at this time. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 3-27-24 Page 4 of 32 CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Smith made a motion to close the public hearing. Supported by Portko. Motion carried unanimously. Boelens provided comment on the findings of fact and criteria: • Regarding Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances • Preservation of Property Rights • No Substantial Detriment • Not a Recurrent Request that would Warrant a Change in Zoning Ordinance Boelens asked Priebe about the attached garage setbacks. Priebe stated when a garage is attached, it is considered part of the principal structure. Therefore, must be included in the setbacks. That is where the 25 foot required rear yard and the 15 feet comes into play. If the garage were detached it would need to be at least 10 feet from the house and at least 5 feet from the rear property line. Depending on the size of the garage and where the eaves fall, it is theoretically possible that a detached garage could be constructed and not need a rear yard variance. Boelens does not feel it's a detriment to the neighborhood and it does fit. Portko made a motion to approve the applicant's initial request: to reduce the front yard setback by 4’ (from 31’ to 27’), to reduce the secondary front yard setback by 11.5’ (from 26.5’ to 15’), and to reduce the rear yard setback by 10’ (from 25’ to 15’). He did ask for clarification on the proposed patio off the side of the house. Is it a concrete patio or a deck? Armstrong stated he is proposing a 10x10 composite wood deck off the living / dining area into what would be considered the rear yard. Coming off of that in the corner would be a privacy fence. He might have to consider a stone patio (after being made aware of the required 5 foot setback of a permanent structure from the side property line). The board discussed that when this plat was established in 1941, the lot was intended to have a house built on it. Smith showed the board a similar property layout on a corner lot at 627 Clinton Ave NW. The applicant and board discussed moving the entire structure north to allow extra room for the neighboring property. After much discussion and conferring with applicant and Ms. Umlor, the board did decide to approve the variance request with modifications. MOTION Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 3-27-24 Page 5 of 32 Portko made a motion to APPROVE the request for 2441 Hillside Dr NW (PIN 41-13-12-152- 028) by Applicant/Prospective Property Owner Rod Armstrong, for a dimensional variance from Section 7.01 of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the secondary front yard setback by 11.5', and to reduce the rear yard setback by 15'. Supported by Smith. Yay: 7 Nays: 0 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBER/STAFF COMMENTS There were no further comments. At this time there are no other cases scheduled. ADJOURNMENT Harland made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Supported by Smith. Meeting adjourned. Brian Boelens, Chair Laura Lundy, Recording Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 3-27-24 Page 6 of 32  MEMORANDUM To: City of Walker Zoning Board of Appeals From: Paula Priebe, AICP – Planning Director Date: June 20, 2024 RE: Case # 24-002 Dimensional Variance Request for 1350 Granada Dr NW Applicant: Phillip Yeiter Property Address: 1350 Granada Dr NW, Grand Rapids MI 49534 Parcel Number: 41-13-17-351-013 Zoning District: A, Single Family Residential Size of Subject Parcel: 0.39 acres Type of Appeal: Dimensional Variance Request Relief Requested from 15.03 – Walls and Fences (fence height and materials) Ordinance Section: Request and Background Phillip Yeiter, owner and resident of 1350 Granada Dr NW since 1978, submitted an application for a dimensional variance from Section 15.03, Walls and Fences. He is asking for variances from the 15.03.A fence height limits and 15.03.E materials, to be allowed to keep an existing 8’ tall fence where 6’ is permitted and allow a fence made of wood posts and wire “slats” where wire is not on the list of permitted materials. The property is located in the Old Mission neighborhood which is located on the northeast corner of Leonard St NW and Kinney Ave NW. The neighborhood is zoned A, Single Family Residential, and is near Kenowa Hills Public Schools’ Zinser Elementary School. The following items have been provided for your review and reference in relation to this project: 1. Excerpts from the Zoning and Community Character Maps and site images 2. Application for Dimensional Variance 3. Property Survey and Building Plans Page 1 of 10 Page 7 of 32 Zoning Ordinance Sections 15.03 Regulations for the permitted height, transparency, location, setbacks, and allowed materials for fences are found in Article 15 – General Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, in Section 15.03 – Walls and Fences. Section 15.03.A is a table with regulations for each zoning district. An excerpt of the table is below, including the requirements for the “A” single-family residential district. In areas zoned A – Single Family Residential, fences in the front yard may be up to 4 feet in height, with a zero setback and, if 4 feet tall, must be at least 50% transparent. Fences in the side or rear yard may be up to 6 feet in height and with a zero setback from the property lines. Privacy fences (fully opaque) are permitted in both side and rear yards. Section 15.03.E states that “all fences and walls other than those in commercial front yards shall be primarily composed of one or a mix of the following materials: wrought iron or a similar metal alloy; stained, painted, or comparably finished lumber; vinyl or composite plastic; split rail; chain link, subject to the limitations of this section; pressure treated lumber; brick; stone; stucco; other materials as deemed compatible with the intent of this chapter after review by the Walker Zoning Board of Appeals. Staff Evaluation The Zoning Ordinance permits fences on residential properties according to the regulations found in Section 15.03. Mr. Yeiter has installed a fence which exceeds these allowances in an effort to keep the deer from jumping the fence and eating the produce of the garden he maintains in his rear yard. His fence, in the rear yard, is approximately 8’ in height and made of wooden posts and wire “slats”. The two issues are the height of this fence and materials from which it is constructed. Please see the attached images to see the fence in question and how it is situated adjacent to the fences of the neighboring properties. The request before the ZBA is for • a rear yard fence variance of 2’ (allowing the fence to be 8’ tall, when the Ordinance limits residential fences to 6’), and • an allowance for a fence made of wire, which is not on the list of acceptable materials found in Section 15.03.E. Page 2 of 10 Page 8 of 32 Criteria for Approving a Dimensional Variance Section 19.04 – Variances. The board of zoning appeals may grant a variance from the provisions or requirements of the zoning ordinance if the board finds from reasonable evidence that all the following facts and conditions exist: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying 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. B. That such 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. The possibility of increased financial return shall not of itself be deemed sufficient to warrant a variance. C. That authorizing such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the intent and purposes of this chapter or the public interest. D. That the condition or situation of the piece of property or the intended use of such property for which the variance is sought is not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such condition or situation. Staff Analysis and Findings of Fact The applicant’s responses to the criteria are included below, along with a few questions to assist the Board in making their determination. The Board must determine that all criteria are met for a variance to be granted. A. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances Applicant Response: I have a garden, have had a garden for 46 years (I built the house in 1978), and the deer are destroying it. They jump the existing 4’-5’ fence. I need a taller fence to keep the deer out. I studied how to keep deer out, this should work. Staff Considerations: The standard is that “there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question” that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district. Typically, these are related to peculiarities of the lot, such as challenging topography, odd shape, easements, etc., which is what creates the exceptional or extraordinary circumstance. What unique or challenging circumstances does this lot have that apply to this standard? What types of fences do “A” neighborhoods look like in other parts of the City? B. Preservation of Property Rights Applicant Response: I can’t have a garden without deer destroying it. They eat the flowers off my rose bushes. Staff Considerations: The standard asks if a substantial property right “similar to that possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the vicinity” needs to be preserved or cannot be enjoyed. Page 3 of 10 Page 9 of 32  What substantial property rights do other “A” single-family residential lots enjoy that this property would not also enjoy without the variance? What size fences do other houses in this neighborhood have? C. No Substantial Detriment Applicant Response: You can see through the fence, and I can still talk to my neighbors. The tall fence is in the back yard and is not visible from the street. Neighbors with shared lot lines are ok with the fence. Staff Considerations: Are there ways in which granting this variance would be of substantial detriment to adjacent properties? Would granting this variance negatively impact the public interest? D. Not a Recurrent Request that would Warrant a Change in Zoning Ordinance: Applicant Response: Deer are around all the time. But if you don’t have a garden, you may not mind them as they won’t eat your beans or pumpkins, rosebushes or tomatoes. Staff Considerations: Has the ZBA seen other cases such as this in the recent past? Action The Zoning Board of Appeal members should hear the case, discuss the specifics, evaluate the request against the standards, and decide whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the variance being requested. Section 19.04, Variances, requires that all criteria must be met for a variance to be granted. It is recommended that the Zoning Board of Appeals take all the above information into account when making their decision. Please note that the Zoning Enabling Act states that “the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals shall be final. A party aggrieved by the decision may appeal to the Circuit Court of the county in which the property is located” (MCL 125.3605). An appeal to the Circuit Court must be filed within 30 days of the decision. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this request. Paula Priebe, AICP City of Walker Planning Director CC: Philip Yeiter- Applicant Page 4 of 10 Page 10 of 32 Excerpt from the Zoning Map: Site is currently zoned A. Excerpt from the Community Character Map: Site is designated Retrofit Mixed Use. Page 5 of 10 Page 11 of 32 Excerpt from Google Earth – facing north (imagery date 6/24/2022) Excerpt from Google Maps, Streetview, facing southeast – (imagery date 2024) Page 6 of 10 Page 12 of 32 Excerpt from Kent County Parcel Mapper – (basemap 2023 Aerial) Page 7 of 10 Page 13 of 32 Photos from April 2024 Page 8 of 10 Page 14 of 32  Page 9 of 10 Page 15 of 32  Page 10 of 10 Page 16 of 32  CODE OF ORDINANCES · CITY OF WALKER, MI Section 15.03 Walls and Fences A. The following requirements apply to fences and walls: Front yard Side or Rear Yard District Min. Min. Transparency Min. Transparency Max. Height Max Height Min Setback Setback (<3 feet tall) (>3 feet tall) AA 4 feet None 0% 50% 10 feet None A 4 feet None 0% 50% 6 feet None A-2 4 feet None 0% 50% 6 feet None SA 4 feet 2 feet 0% 50% 6 feet None S 4 feet 2 feet 0% 50% 6 feet None ARM 4 feet 2 feet 0% 50% 6 feet None ARM-1 4 feet 2 feet 0% 50% 6 feet None RMT 4 feet 2 feet 0% 50% 6 feet None RPUD-1 4 feet 2 feet 0% 50% 6 feet None RPUD-2 4 feet 2 feet 0% 50% 6 feet None RPUD-3 4 feet 2 feet 0% 50% 6 feet None C-1 3 feet 2 feet 0% 0% 10 feet None C-2 3 feet 2 feet 0% 0% 10 feet None ORP 3 feet 2 feet 0% 0% 10 feet None CPUD 3 feet 2 feet 0% 0% 10 feet None I-1 6 feet 50 feet 0% 0% 10 feet None I-2 6 feet 50 feet 0% 0% 10 feet None F IPUD 6 feet 50 feet 0% 0% 10 feet None F Front yard fences prohibited unless specifically permitted by MPUD 10 feet None PUD Agreement. P/SP 6 feet 50 feet 0% 0% 10 feet None B. Decorative fence tops, lattice and rails are allowed but shall be included in the overall fence height measurement. C. Fences shall be installed with the finished side facing outwards, which does not show the supports, posts or similar structural components. D. Commercial front yard fences and walls shall be primarily composed of one or a mix of the following materials: 1) Wrought iron or a similar metal alloy. 2) Brick. 3) Stone. 4) Other materials as deemed compatible with the intent of this chapter after review by the Walker Board of Zoning Appeals. E. All fences and walls other than those in commercial front yards shall be primarily composed of one or a mix of the following materials: 1) Wrought iron or a similar metal alloy. Effective February 8, 2024 190 Page 17 of 32  CODE OF ORDINANCES · CITY OF WALKER, MI 2) Stained, painted, or comparably finished lumber. 3) Vinyl or composite plastic. 4) Split rail. 5) Chain link, subject to the limitations of this section. 6) Pressure treated lumber. 7) Brick. 8) Stone. 9) Stucco. 10) Other materials as deemed compatible with the intent of this chapter after review by the Walker Board of Zoning Appeals. F. Drainage Easement. No fence, wall, or other structure shall be constructed or located within a drainage or utility easement described in a final subdivision plat or a final site condominium project plan, or within a drainage or utility easement of the city or other governmental entity which is recorded with the Kent County Register of Deeds or otherwise established by law. No fence, wall, or other structure will be constructed so as to prevent access to a drainage or utility easement which is lawfully established without written consent by the relevant agency maintaining the easement. Section 15.04 Dwelling Unit Size and Design A. Single Family. All dwellings located outside of mobile home parks shall comply with the following requirements: 1) Area. (a) Every dwelling unit shall have, exclusive of porches, garages, breezeways, terraces, attics and basements (except as provided in subsection (1)b.) a floor area of not less than: (1) Single-family dwelling: 960 square feet. (2) Two-family dwelling: 960 square feet per unit. (3) Multiple-family dwelling: square footage as required for unit size as listed in Section 7.01. 2) Finished basement; floor area. Notwithstanding any provision of this article to the contrary, a basement, or a part thereof fully enclosed by four walls, may be used for dwelling purposes and the floor area of the basement, or of the fully enclosed part thereof, as the case may be, shall be included in the floor area of a dwelling unit for the purposes of subsection (1)a., provided that the following conditions are met: (a) The basement, or the fully enclosed part thereof, shall comply with the building code of the city, as amended from time to time; and (b) All walls and the ceiling of the basement, or of the fully enclosed part thereof, shall be covered with an interior finish. For purposes of this section, "interior finish" means wainscoting, paneling, drywall, plaster or other similar finish, excluding paint, applied structurally or for acoustical treatment, insulation, decoration or similar purposes. 3) Foundation. There shall be a foundation of concrete or block around the entire exterior perimeter of all dwellings. The foundation shall have a minimum depth of 42 inches below grade. The foundation shall provide maximum exposed foundation above grade of 16 inches and a minimum exposed foundation above grade of eight inches. A wood foundation is also acceptable provided it meets the standards established for wood foundations contained in the construction code adopted by the city. The requirement of a foundation around the exterior perimeter of a dwelling as set forth in this subsection shall not apply to a "four season" porch used as living space in the dwelling Effective February 8, 2024 191 Page 18 of 32  ZONINGBOARDOF APPEALSVARIANCEAPPLICATION CITYOF WALKER . COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT E©EEI§7E 5 N ?t We 4243 REMEMBRANCE WALKERMI 49534 RD NW MAY2 3 2023 WALKER (616) 791-6858 cdd@walker.city BY: ....................... APPLICATION PART 1 DATE OF APPLICATION: (if property owner is applicant check here?) 1. PROPERTYOWNER NAME. NAME. Timmy \ICIW PHONE. (olkg HST)LOW? EMAIL: (DIOR ADDRESS- \Z?IDMm Lu ClTY \iw?l 0) bwfunb STATE: Wt ZIP: UICI Yb\4 \ L L ’ 2. PROPERTYADDRESS:(address of requested variance)I ADDRESS: ng’) (fanad 0.. CITY: (y/uno' (I) ‘ZWLI STATE: ME ZIP: WISOLI PPN: 41-11- 3. APPLICANT:(if other than property owner) NAME: PHONE: EMAIL: ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: ZIP: 4. ZONING DISTRICT: LOOWIL/ 5. CITYOF WALKERZONINGORDINANCESECTIONBEING APPEALED:Ark; (LI, If SCCT‘U" \\, QB 6. PLEASEDESCRIBETHE NATUREOF YOUR APPEAL: ALVA/f TU UIUDIV» one \NIU‘O\‘ (A ALI/0W «(or \IUITII OE CRUDWAT \30 \Unw ‘NM/C 029/ \WIXH OHM/L (DONAL: lIJK/D Wm J’I?wim TVIIng dew 100/er \RIL W YIIIIIIRI‘R. LIAM Om In Do 1mm \‘YIIIID 1L3 IM>WJIy) I‘m MOW DIRL (MM is (MWYII \IIIIRISWP \m N’\I'\I MW) ;I\(‘(/\ WW WAN NW VIII UM ('UIWM ’ lIlIvII/ICAI OLIWJX OIvIII NVJI§UANW6 IIIL\mlw W [DOLL W HIM «I . ADDITIONAL 7. QUESTIONS. IXNO Does land use conform to current zoning? CIYES (U-/‘ Does existing structure conform to current zoning? EIVES [3N0 Who will represent applicant? <.?"P What IS applicant S interest in property? 'PWKA/ Is this requested setback the minimum variance needed? WI.) 8. PLEASEATTACHTHE FOLLOWING: [:3 Legal Description N/llk I El Survey of Property NIA E] Elevation drawings of proposed construction NIA El Proposed Site plan (all plans must be folded rolled will not be accepted) — plans I‘I’IL‘IIIIIMI El Any maps or photos you wish to include # OWN CI Responses to Part 2 Of the application OF THE 9. I GRANT PERMISSIONFOR ZONINGBOARD MEMBERSTO MAKEAN ONSITE INSPECTION PQOVaPE?TXf/ j» 7” 1};ID Si eo A lican IL Date: J . 'W. / \/ ~ (k) Page 19 of 32 u  APPLICATION PART 2: Per Section 94~59 Granting of Variances. The Board of Zoning Appeals may grand a variance from the provisions or requirements of this chapter if the board finds from reasonable evidence that all the following facts and conditions exist. For a ”Dimensional Variance” complete sections A—D. For a "Use Variance" complete sections AeE. DESCRIBE HOW THE PROPERTY/ REQUESTDEMONSTRATES THE FOLLOWINGCRITERIA, USEADDITIONALSHEETSAS NECESSARY. A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying 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. .,,/22 z? rn/r / Ki cr/VzéééK arm7\w ~ / «’11:itzrri bl 57/rAQZ€/? ”321:"1%? :4 < < 7“?!//’> :2: 5/ ~~ 'K" . m i‘t/ Hi .1 /’”/ 7‘?” , ?/X ( ' 11’ W11(/2 5‘ 1%L? r1 rid/me "Iv ' ,. ,i _ / V ?/nbw Km 1:1 //// B That such variance is forthenecessary ?sewation and enjoyment of a substantial right simIIarto that possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and In the vicinity. The possibility of increased financial property return shall not of itself be deemed sufficient to warrant a variance. {/«K {4257’ - ??lK” a”! (”if {CK/Z 7 / VZ‘2/?Mr; ’J 17‘. 7.512,; .W , want fCDI/wwfr ZEN I I, C. That authorizing such variance will not be ofsubstantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the intent and purposes of this chapter or the public interest. // "W/f $47 z/ 1/ ma )7 r/t .4 I . tab/if “It” ,«m' A 5M,” 7/ 2/ 17/‘K fly“;z/“x/KI' Kw V '2”?W ‘5 2/? . v~ AMA a? D. That the condition or situation ofthe piece of property or the intended use of such property for which the variance is sought is not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such condition or situation. [We/4’ "17M? . ?air i ,1 ’/ MU m», ' .Mfr/t , //i ”9/1977"- LK’ {r // 51M // /’ 7415?. r»: I M," MM.” or it» WM in» E. With respect to the use variance, that the property for which a variance is sought cannot reasonably be used In a manner consistent with existing zoning. LIA Air—r The undersigned hereby represents that the information contained in this application and in attachments is true and correct. , x .%> \ D t ”/aww - *\x I ' ‘Ji/ Page 20 of 32 Page 21 of 32 Page 22 of 32 j W‘ 1|} ?ll] 1|] 1| 1.! «I T ‘W?‘i‘l Page 23 of 32 Page 24 of 32 Page 25 of 32 Page 26 of 32 Page 27 of 32 Page 28 of 32 Page 29 of 32 Page 30 of 32  Zoning Board of Appeals Sample Motion – Case 24-002 Property Description 41-13-17-351-013 Property Address 1350 Granada Dr NW, Grand Rapids MI 4953 Applicant Phillip Yeiter, Property Owner Sample Motion I make a motion to APPROVE / DENY the request for 1350 Granada Dr NW (PIN 41-13-17- 351-013) by Applicant/ Property Owner Phillip Yeiter, for a dimensional variance from Section 15.03 the Zoning Ordinance to permit an 8’ fence made of wood and wire in the rear yard, where 6’ is permitted and wire is not on the list of approved materials, based on the standards found in Section 19.04 of the City of Walker Zoning Ordinance: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying 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. Applicant’s response: I have a garden, have had a garden for 46 years, and the deer are destroying it. They jump the existing 4’-5’ fence. I need a taller fence to keep the deer out. I studied how to keep deer out and this fence should work. Findings: B. That such 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. The possibility of increased financial return shall not of itself be deemed sufficient to warrant a variance. Applicant’s Response: I can’t have a garden without deer destroying it. They eat the flowers off my rose bush! Findings: C. That authorizing such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the intent and purposes of this chapter or the public interest. Applicant’s Response: You can see through the fence and I can still talk to my neighbors. The tall fence is in the back yard and is not visible from the street. Neighbors with shared lot lines are ok with the fence. Findings: Page 31 of 32 D. That the condition or situation of the piece of property or the intended use of such property for which the variance is south is not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such condition or situation. Applicant’s Response: Deer are around all the time. But if you don’t have a garden, you may not mind them as they won’t eat your beans or pumpkins, rosebushes or tomatoes. Findings: Conditions of Approval 1. _____________________________________________________ 2. _____________________________________________________ 3. _____________________________________________________ Motion made by ______________________ with support from ___________________. Ayes _________________ Nays _________________ Motion CARRIED / FAILED. Page 32 of 32