Zoning Board of Appeals

Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda Commission Chambers 4243 Remembrance Rd NW Wednesday, September 11, 2024 6:30 PM 1. Call the meeting to order 2. Review Meeting Minutes 2.1. Review Meeting Minutes from July 24, 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-24-003 - 3259 Abington Dr NW - Dimensional Variance, Section 15.03 - Walls and Fences, Kristen Braxmaier 4.2. Election of Officers 5. Zoning Board of Appeals member/Staff Comments 6. Adjournment Page 1 of 36  ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES Wednesday, July 24, 2024 6:30 p.m. Members present: Chair Brian Boelens, Randy Smith, Greg Gaastra, Dan Harland, Mark Ratering, Thom Burke, Jeff Portko Members absent: None Staff present: Planning Director Paula Priebe 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 Portko made a motion to approve the minutes from June 26, 2024. Supported by Smith. 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-24-002 - 1350 Granada Dr NW - Dimensional Variance, Section 15.03 - Walls and Fences, Philip Yeiter Chairman Boelens explained this case was tabled from June 24, 2024, pending Planning Director Paula Priebe's communication with the City Attorney regarding whether this fence could be determined to be a trellis. MOTION Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 7-24-24 Page 2 of 36  Smith made a motion to take the item off the table. Supported by Portko. Motion carried unanimously. Boelens invited Priebe to present. Priebe recapped the case: 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. 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. The applicant's fence is in the rear yard but it is taller than the 6 foot allowed and is made of materials that are not in the list of approved materials in our ordinance- particularly the wire lines across. The only wire permitted through the ordinance is chain-link. Wood is an acceptable material, the posts in this fence are wood, however they are more than the 6 foot tall that is allowed. At the last public hearing, we ended up with an ask of the City Attorney as to whether or not this could be considered a "trellis" and if so, what that would change if anything with this case. Priebe shared the comments provided by the City Attorney: First to define fence vs. trellis. Fence – an enclosure or barrier used as a boundary, means of protection, privacy screening, or confinement, composed of materials other than hedges, screen plantings, or other planted landscaping materials. (from the Walker Zoning Ordinance) Trellis – a frame of latticework used as a screen or as a support for climbing plants; a construction chiefly of latticework. (from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary) Note: when the Zoning Ordinance does not include a definition for a term, we look to the ordinary dictionary definition. When reviewing the photos considering the definitions, it is the opinion of the City Attorney that this is a fence. It could also be a trellis, making it possibly both a fence and a trellis, but it would still need to meet the requirements for a fence. Section 15.03.B of the Zoning Ordinance reads as follows: “Decorative fence tops, lattice, and rails are allowed but shall be included in the overall fence height measurement.” However, it is the Zoning Administrator who makes official determinations as to what is a fence. The City’s Zoning Administrator has determined that the construction in question is a fence, both with the initial determination and again after the case was tabled. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 7-24-24 Page 3 of 36  According to the City Attorney, the Zoning Administrator determined that this was a fence and the Property Owner did not appeal that determination. Thus, it is the ZBA’s job to make a decision on the variance request regarding the fence height and materials. The ZBA should use the four standards in the Ordinance to make that decision. Priebe shared photos she took July 24, 2024. In the photos she described that about half the fence is covered in grape vines. The board went over the City Attorney's comments and the definitions. Priebe shared 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. Boelens invited the applicant to the podium. Mr. Yeiter shared that he has lived in the home 27 years. The past 4-5 years the deer have moved in and gradually eaten his plants. He and his son constructed the fence after trying other remedies. Portko asked if the deer are jumping over the neighbor's 6 ft fence. Yeiter stated no, because that neighbor doesn't have anything they want. Smith asked if any deer had visited since the last meeting. Yeiter responded no - they've come to the yard but not over the fence. David Levandoski, 4001 Granada Ct, stated his chain link fence is the back of Mr. Yeiter's property. It's always had the grapes there. He stated he used to have a garden but doesn't any more. The deer devoured everything. He shared it does not bother him to have the grapes go up or over the fence. It is working, because there is no evidence of deer. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 7-24-24 Page 4 of 36  Elaine Yeiter, 1936 Beard Dr, applicant's daughter, shared that deer don't go into the neighbor's yard because they have pools, and nothing the deer want. Feeling that this is not going to go in favor for her father, she would request that the fence could stay until the gardening season - next year they could help him put up something else that meets the requirements. Priebe shared there were no new comments received since the last meeting. She reviewed the public comments that were shared at the last meeting. Two were in support of the fence. One was not in support of the fence. Burke mentioned it may be time for the Planning Commission to review the deer problem as discussed in the previous meeting. Could he move the fence back? It would buy time for the season to end. Harland stated that unfortunately this doesn't meet the code, and if the City Attorney agreed that in this case it is a fence, then he has to deny the variance. Portko stated he would support the variance in this case and consider this a trellis. The deer population explosion is not accounted for in the ordinance. Smith stated if we go by the four criteria, he cannot approve this. He does agree that the deer situation needs to be looked at. Burke stated regarding criteria #4, he would argue that it is becoming a recurring problem, it may not meet the criteria for ZBA, but does meet the criteria to have Planning or City Commission take a look at it. People should be able to have a garden if they want one. Portko agrees with Burke that the homeowner should be able to enjoy their property as long as it doesn't offend neighbors. Only one neighbor has voiced an objection. Looking at the photos he doesn't see anything offensive. He sides with the homeowner and would like to grant the variance. Ratering concurred that this doesn't meet the criteria. There is ample room for creative solutions. MOTION Smith made a motion to 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 for the reasons listed below: Findings of Fact: A. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances B. Preservation of rights C. No substantial detriment D. Not a general or recurring request Conditions of DENIAL: Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 7-24-24 Page 5 of 36  The applicant must remove the fence by November 1, 2024. Supported by Ratering. Yays: 6 Nays: 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBER/STAFF COMMENTS Election of Officers to occur next meeting. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn by Smith, Second by Burke. Brian Boelens, Chair Laura Lundy, Recording Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 7-24-24 Page 6 of 36  MEMORANDUM To: City of Walker Zoning Board of Appeals From: Paula Priebe, AICP – Planning Director Date: September 5, 2024 RE: Case # 24-003 Dimensional Variance Request for 3259 Abington Dr NW Applicant: Kristen Braxmaier Property Address: 3259 Abington Dr NW, Grand Rapids MI 49544 Parcel Number: 41-13-02-278-004 Zoning District: SA, Suburban Residential, Single Family Size of Subject Parcel: 0.24 acres Type of Appeal: Dimensional Variance Request Relief Requested from 15.03 – Walls and Fences (secondary front yard fence) Ordinance Section: Summary of Request and Property Kristen Braxmaier, co-owner and resident of 3259 Abington Dr NW, submitted an application for a dimensional variance from Section 15.03, Walls and Fences. She is asking for variances from the Section 15.03.A front yard fence height and transparency, to be allowed to keep an existing 6’ tall, wood privacy fence in the secondary front yard, where the Ordinance permits fences of up to 4 feet and with minimum transparency of 50% on fences over 3 feet tall. The property is Lot 45 the English Hills plat which was approved in January 1963, located off Coventry Dr NW, west of Alpine Avenue and north of I-96. The neighborhood is zoned SA, Suburban Residential Single-Family. 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. Excerpts from the Zoning Ordinance 3. Notice of Violation Letter 4. Email correspondence between the applicant and the former Planning Director 5. Application for Dimensional Variance and Applicant statement Page 1 of 9 Page 7 of 36 Zoning Ordinance Section 2.02 Article 2 of the Zoning Ordinance is the definitions chapter. Section 2.01 provides definitions for uses and Section 2.01 provides definitions for other terms used in the Ordinance. A few of the relevant definitions are included below. Lot frontage, street frontage, and frontage mean the borders or boundaries of a lot or a parcel of land which abut an improved public street (or a private street approved in connection with a site condominium development). Yard means an open space on a lot, unoccupied and unobstructed except as specifically permitted by this chapter. Yard, front means that minimum distance between the principal building, excluding steps and unenclosed porches, and the nearest edge of the street right-of-way, extending for the full width of the lot and unoccupied between the principal building and the nearest edge of the street right-of- way, except as permitted by this chapter. A lot which abuts two or more improved public streets (such as a corner lot or a through lot) shall have one front yard, which shall be the yard agjacent to the street included in the lot’s address. All other yards meeting this definition, but not designated as the address of the lot, shall be considered “secondary front yards”. Yard, side means an open unoccupied space on the same lot with the building extending between the building and the side lot line from the front yard to the rear yard. In the case of through lots, side yards extend from the rear lines of the required front yards. Page 2 of 9 Page 8 of 36 Zoning Ordinance Section 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 “SA” suburban residential single-family district. In areas zoned SA – Suburban Residential Single-Family, 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. Staff Remarks and Case History The Zoning Ordinance permits fences on residential properties according to the regulations found in Section 15.03. When the fence in question was put up, the City used our previous Zoning Ordinance, where fence regulations were located in Section 94-337. That section is included in full at the end of this report, and a key section is included below. Section 94-337. Fences and walls (2) The following requirements apply to fences and walls in residential zoning districts and the AA-Agricultural district: (a) In residential districts, fences and walls located in a required front yard setback shall not exceed four feet in height. (b) Fences used for nonagricultural purposes that are above three feet in height and are located in the required front yard setback shall not exceed 50 percent opacity, as measured as the distance between slats, boards, pickets, split rails, iron posts or similar structural material. The City of Walker does not have a fence permitting process. The FAQs section of the City website’s Zoning page includes “Can I construct a fence on my property?” with the following response: “While the City of Walker does not require a permit to construct a fence, you must adhere to the setbacks and regulations as set forth in the zoning ordinance. Fences are not permitted on any type of easement. Failure to adhere to the ordinance standards could result in a code enforcement violation.” Community Development Department staff received a complaint about the fence in question at Page 3 of 9 Page 9 of 36 3259 Abington Dr NW. When inspected after the complaint, it was found that the fence was not in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and the property owner received a Notice of Violation letter from the City Zoning Administrator. Upon receiving the Notice of Violation, the property owner shared emails from 2022 between them and the previous Planning Director. The emails are included at the end of this report. In summary, the property owner asked about installing a taller fence in their secondary front yard. The previous Planning Director stated that while “the ordinance technically does not allow a 6’ fence within the secondary front yard” she was “fine with it”. She further stated that the City was working on amendments to the ordinance which “would allow for a privacy fence in the secondary front yard, as long as there are no clear vision obstructions”. The Zoning Ordinance amendment process wrapped up in early 2024 with the adoption of the updated Zoning Ordinance. The updated Ordinance does not permit privacy fences in the secondary front yard. The request before the ZBA is for • a secondary front yard fence variance of 2’ (allowing the fence to be 6’ tall, when the Ordinance limits front yard residential fences to 4’), and for • a secondary front yard fence to be fully opaque (when the Ordinance requires at minimum 50% transparency). 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 Page 4 of 9 Page 10 of 36 variance to be granted. A. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances Applicant Response: The subject property is a corner property and, per the current Ordinance, the side yard is considered a secondary front yard. However, as evidenced by the attached email communication, I followed the appropriate channels to obtain approval and was informed by then Planning Director Tricia Anderson that the Ordinance was going to be amended and that what we were proposing for the location of the new fence was acceptable. There is an existing deck on the property, present when we purchased the home that presumably met the Zoning requirements at the time it was constructed. If the new fence were placed as permitted by the current Ordinance it would require removal of a large portion of the existing deck and such fence placement would render the north side yard basically useless as enjoyable, usable greenspace within the fence. 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 “SA” neighborhoods or corner lots have in other parts of the City? B. Preservation of Property Rights Applicant Response: If a permit was necessary for the installation of a fence, based on the email communication, presumably it would have been granted and I would have a record of said permit. If it wasn’t possible for a permit to be issued prior to the actual adoption of the Zoning amendment, we would not have risked making the investment until such amendment was adopted or we would have opted for a fence that met the Ordinance at the time. Based upon the direction provided by the Planning Director, in good faith we proceeded with the investment in our property and installed the fence at a significant expense. Because the Ordinance was not amended as anticipated, we are not technically in violation. The remedies staff has offered would: • Separate out the north side yard, which is where we have the majority of useable space for outside enjoyment, from the remainder of the yard space residents typically utilize for their outside enjoyment or, • Require additional financial resources to alter the existing fence to the permitted height or, • Require removal of the existing fence and replacement with a chain link fence, causing loss to us financially in terms of the existing fence and further investment would be necessary for the chain link fence. The right commonly enjoyed by residential property owners is the enjoyment of their yards/greenspace as an extension of their living environment. Another right commonly enjoyed is the security and privacy a fence of this nature provides. Being required to remove or alter the fence would deprive us of one and/or both of those rights. 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. What substantial property rights do other “SA” suburban residential single-family lots enjoy that this property would not also enjoy without the variance? Page 5 of 9 Page 11 of 36  What height and opacity fences do other corner lots in this neighborhood have? C. No Substantial Detriment Applicant Response: The installation of the existing fence has not caused detriment to any adjacent property. The public right of way/street is what is adjacent to the fence in question. Also, per the attached email, there are no line-of-sight concerns with the location of the existing 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: Admittedly, corner parcels are prevalent throughout the city. However, receiving guidance and written approval by the Planning Director for the fence placement, and height, as installed is not a common condition. Additionally, the advice we were given was that the Ordinance was going to be amended to permit exactly what we have done. Perhaps formulation of a general regulation for such condition or situation should be further explored. 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: Kristen Braxmaier- Applicant Page 6 of 9 Page 12 of 36 Excerpt from the Zoning Map: Site is currently zoned SA. Excerpt from the Community Character Map: Site is designated Residential Existing Density. Page 7 of 9 Page 13 of 36 Excerpt from Google Earth – facing south (imagery date 6/24/2022) Excerpt from Kent County Parcel Mapper – (basemap 2023 Aerial) Page 8 of 9 Page 14 of 36 Photos from September 2024 Page 9 of 9 Page 15 of 36  - CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 94 - ZONING ARTICLE XII. SUPPLEMENTARY DISTRICT REGULATIONS ARTICLE XII. SUPPLEMENTARY DISTRICT REGULATIONS Sec. 94-336. Visibility at intersections in residential and agricultural districts. On a corner lot in any residential or agricultural district nothing shall be erected, placed, planted or allowed to grow in such a manner as materially to impede vision between a height of 2½ feet and ten feet above the centerline grades of the intersecting streets in the area bounded by the street lines of such corner lot and a line joining points along the street lines of such lot 50 feet from the point of their intersection. Cross reference(s)—Vegetation, ch. 90. Sec. 94-337. Fences and walls. (1) The following requirements apply to all fences and walls: (a) No fence shall be constructed of a material which is of such low strength as to be likely to collapse under the weight of a child or other person weighing up to 100 pounds. (b) All contiguous fencing shall have uniform spacing between any slats, posts, or other repeating elements. (2) The following requirements apply to fences and walls in residential zoning districts and the AA-Agricultural district: (a) In residential districts, fences and walls located in a required front yard setback shall not exceed four feet in height. (b) Fences used for nonagricultural purposes that are above three feet in height and are located in the required front yard setback shall not exceed 50 percent opacity, as measured as the distance between slats, boards, pickets, split rails, iron posts or similar structural material. (c) Fences and walls located in a required side or rear yard setback shall not exceed six feet in height. (d) Fence posts shall not extend above the top of the fence; however, decorative post caps can project a maximum of four inches above the top of the tallest adjacent fence section. (e) Decorative fence tops, lattice and rails are allowed but shall be included in the overall fence height measurement. (f) Fences used for nonagricultural purposes shall not be constructed of a woven wire, chain link or similar material which has spaces larger than two and a half inches between the wires or chain link. This requirement shall not apply to wrought iron, split rail or similar fences. (g) Fences shall be installed with the "good" side facing outwards. The good side will be the finished side, which does not show the supports, posts or similar structural components. (h) Residential fences in excess of 50 percent opacity shall be primarily composed of one or a mix of the following materials: 1. Stained, painted, or comparably finished lumber 2. Vinyl or composite plastic 3. Pressure treated lumber Walker, Michigan, Code of Ordinances Created: 2022-06-28 16:45:43 [EST] (Supp. No. 49) Page 165 of 264 Page 16 of 36  4. Other materials as deemed compatible with the intent of this chapter after review by the Walker Board of Zoning Appeals. (i) Residential fences not exceeding 50 percent opacity shall be primarily composed of one or a mix of the following: 1. Wrought iron or a similar metal alloy. 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. Other materials as deemed compatible with the intent of this chapter after review by the Walker Board of Zoning Appeals. (j) Residential walls shall be primarily faced with one or a mix of the following materials: 1. Brick. 2. Stone. 3. Stucco. 4. Other materials as deemed compatible with the intent of this chapter after review by the Walker Board of Zoning Appeals. Created: 2022-06-28 16:45:41 [EST] (Supp. No. 49) Page 166 of 264 Page 17 of 36 (3) The following requirements apply to fences and walls in nonresidential and nonagricultural zoning districts: (a) Fences and walls located in a required front yard setback shall not exceed six feet in height. (b) Fences and walls in a required side or rear yard setback shall not exceed ten feet in height. (c) Fences shall not be constructed of a woven wire, chain link or similar material which has spaces larger than two and a half inches between the wires or chain link. This requirement shall not apply to wrought iron, split rail or similar fences. (4) No fence, wall or other structure in any zoning district shall be constructed or located within a drainage easement described in a final subdivision plat or a final site condominium project plan, or within a drainage easement of the city or other governmental entity which is recorded with the Kent County Register of Deeds or otherwise established by law. (5) No planting of trees or other vegetation shall be made or located in any zoning district to materially impede the flow of surface water within a drainage easement described in a final subdivision plat or a final site condominium project plan, or within a drainage easement of the city of other governmental entity which is recorded with the Kent County Register of Deeds or otherwise established by law. (Ord. No. 72-164, 2-22-72; Ord. No. 94-456, § 5, 12-13-94; Ord. No. 98-512, § 1, 4-13-98; Ord. No. 08-558, § 3, 7- 14-08; Ord. No. 11-602, § 2, 9-26-11; Ord. No. 16-632 , § 1, 9-26-16; Ord. No. 17-635 , § 2, 7-10-17) Created: 2022-06-28 16:45:41 [EST] (Supp. No. 49) Page 167 of 264 Page 18 of 36  Sent via certified mail on July 3, 2024 BRAXMAIER AARON & KRISTEN 3259 ABINGTON DR NW GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49544 Re: NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND ORDER TO ABATE Dear BRAXMAIER AARON & KRISTEN: You are receiving this notice because you are the record owner and/or occupant of the property located at 3259 ABINGTON DR NW (“Property”) in the City of Walker (“City”). This letter serves as notice that the property is in violation of Article 15 Section 15.03, of the City Code, which regulations construction materials, location, and type of fence that can be constructed. YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO ABATE THE VIOLATION BY REMOVING THE UNLAWFUL FENCE OR CONSTRUCTING IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH CITY CODE WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS LETTER. If you fail to bring the property into compliance within seven (7) days, the City may issue you a municipal civil infraction citation. Upon the issuance of a citation, the matter is transferred to the 59th District Court. If you are found responsible for the violation, the City may ask the Court to impose a fine, in addition to the costs of prosecution (up to $500). Further, the City may seek a court order requiring you to bring the property into compliance with the Ordinance and authorizing a lien on the property for any costs incurred by the City in bringing the property into compliance should you fail to do so. The City may, under Chapter 50 of the City Code, also impose a special assessment against the property for such costs. Each day that the violation continues constitutes a separate offense that may subject you to additional sanctions. Thus, your prompt attention to this matter is required. A copy of Section 94-337 of the City Code is enclosed for your reference along with photograph(s). If this code has been incorrectly interpreted, does not fully apply, or there are any questions, please contact Meghann Gorby at (616) 791-6214 or mgorby@walker.city. Your cooperation is appreciated. Sincerely, Meghann Gorby Zoning Administrator 4243 Remembrance Rd NW . Walker . MI 49534 . t 616.791.6214 f 616.791.6881 . www.ci.walker.mi.us Page 19 of 36 2|Page Section 15.03 Walls and Fences A. The following requirements apply to fences and walls: 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 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 2) Vinyl or composite plastic 3) Split rail Page 20 of 36 3|Page 4) Chain link, subject to the limitations of this section 5) Pressure treated lumber. 6) Brick 7) Stone 8) Stucco 9) 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 withn 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. Page 21 of 36 4|Page This section of the ordinance does not allow for a privacy fence within the secondary front yard (max height 4’ foot high with 50% transparency). A privacy fence can only be placed within the green area. Page 22 of 36 From: kristen braxmaier To: Meghann Gorby Subject: Re: fence at 3259 Abington Date: Saturday, July 6, 2024 8:59:48 AM Attachments: image008.png image009.png image010.png image011.png image012.png image013.png image014.png image008.png image009.png image010.png image011.png image012.png image013.png image014.png image006.png image007.png image008.png image009.png image010.png Hi Meghann I hope you had a nice 4th! I rec'd your letter yesterday regarding our fence in the secondary front yard. I am sharing the communication between Tricia and myself showing I reached out prior to the construction for approval and it was approved. She mentions the code was being amended to allow for this type of fence as well. I hope this helps clear things up. Thank you! Kristen ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: kristen braxmaier <kbraxmaier@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Aug 30, 2022, 1:36 PM Subject: Fwd: line of sight for new fence To: <Geoffrey@superiorfencemi.com> Forwarded Conversation Subject: line of sight for new fence ------------------------ From: kristen braxmaier <kbraxmaier@gmail.com> Date: Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 3:21 PM To: <tanderson@walker.city> Hi Tricia I am replacing my current fence and would like to build a taller one if possible. I live on a corner so I want to make sure the line of sight is not disrupted. My address is 3259 Abington Dr NW, Grand Rapids, MI 49544. I am not looking to push the fenceline East into the front yard, just have a taller 6' fence, either chain link or privacy. Can you please let me know the next steps or if you need any further information from me? Thank you! Kristen Braxmaier ---------- From: kristen braxmaier <kbraxmaier@gmail.com> Date: Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 10:47 AM To: <tanderson@walker.city> Hi Tricia I am reaching out again to see if you have a few minutes to review this for me? We are eager to get this done as soon as possible Thanks Kristen ---------- From: Tricia Anderson <TAnderson@walker.city> Date: Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 12:04 PM To: kristen braxmaier <kbraxmaier@gmail.com> Hi Kristen, I think since you are proposing the privacy fence behind the front face of the house on Abington St., the clear vision of that corner is maintained. I’m assuming you would like to do something similar with what is shown below? If so, I’m fine with it. The ordinance technically does not allow a 6’ fence within the secondary front yard, however, we’re working on amending that section of the ordinance to add language that would allow a privacy fence in the secondary front yard, as long as there are no clear vision obstructions. Page 23 of 36 No permit is needed to erect the fence. Tricia Anderson Planning Director | Zoning Administrator City of Walker 4243 Remembrance Road NW | Walker, MI 49534 Page 24 of 36 616.791.6879 | walkermi.gov          From: kristen braxmaier <kbraxmaier@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2022 3:21 PM To: Tricia Anderson <TAnderson@walker.city> Subject: line of sight for new fence You don't often get email from kbraxmaier@gmail.com. Learn why this is important ---------- From: kristen braxmaier <kbraxmaier@gmail.com> Date: Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 12:23 PM To: Tricia Anderson <TAnderson@walker.city> Hi Tricia That is exactly what we had hoped to do, thank you so much! Kristen ---------- From: Tricia Anderson <TAnderson@walker.city> Date: Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 12:31 PM To: kristen braxmaier <kbraxmaier@gmail.com> No problem! ---------- From: kristen braxmaier <kbraxmaier@gmail.com> Date: Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 12:58 PM To: Aaron Braxmaier <abrax916@gmail.com> Page 25 of 36  ZONING BOARD OF APPEALSVARIANCE APPLICATION CITYOF WALKER COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 4243 REMEMBRANCERD NW Cltyof N WALKERMl 49534 WALKER (616 791-6858 cdd@walker,city APPLICATIONPART 1 DATE OF APPLICATION: 07/18/24 1. PROPERTYOWNER NAME: (if property owner is applicant check here: m) NAME: Kristen Braxmaier PHONE: 616-419-8597 EMAIL: kbraxmaier@gmail,com ADDRESS: 3259 Abington Dr NW CITY: Grand Rapids STATE: Ml ZIP: 49544 2. PROPERTY ADDRESS: (address of requested variance) ADDRESS:3259 Abington Dr NW CITY:Grand Rapids STATE: Ml ZIP: 49544 PPN: 41-11- 41 -1 3-02-278-004 3. APPLICANT: (if other than property owner) NAME: PHONE: EMAIL: ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: ZIP: 4. ZONING DISTRICT:Walker 5. CITYOF WALKERZONING ORDINANCE SECTION BEING APPEALED:Article 15 Section 15.03 Page 26 of 36 6. PLEASEDESCRIBETHE NATURE OF YOURAPPEAL: to construct a 6' privacy I rec'd fence. photos from the Planning depictinq Director what was allowed and had the fence constructed a few months later In July | rec'd notice that the code was not amended as originally intended and that I would need to bring my fence into compliance. I acted in good faith based on the information | rec'd and believed to be factual and truthful. Had I been asked to waIt mm the code was amended, I would—Rave. 7. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS: Does land use conform to current zoning? IZIYESEINO Does existing structure conform to current zoning? EIYES [ZINO Who will represent applicant? Self What is applicant‘s interest in property? Owner Is this requested setback the minimum variance needed? Yes 8. PLEASEATTACH THE FOLLOWING: El Legal Description El Survey of Property D Elevation drawings of proposed construction — El Proposed site plan (all plans must be folded rolled plans will not be accepted) " ' ' ' - - Si 9. |Responses natureofA to PROPERTY. Elg p” Part2 GRANTPERMISSION theFORapplication licant:ofKristen ZONING BOARD MEMBERS TO MAKEAN Date: INSPECTIONOF THE ONSITE07/18/24 Braxmaner335:22:35:3221252533?“  APPLICATIONPART 2: Per Section 94—59Granting 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 ”DimensionalVariance” complete sections A-D. For a ”Use Variance” complete sections A-E. DESCRIBEHOW THE PROPERTY/ REQUESTDEMONSTRATESTHE FOLLOWING CRITERIA. USE ADDITIONAL SHEETSAS 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. 5 ..| 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. .. E C. That authorizing such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially Page 27 of 36 impair the intent and purposes of this chapter or the public interest. Seeaitanhedjdditional sheet 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. 5 l" l 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. Applicant'ssmnawre and The correct. undersigned hereby Kristen that the information representsBraxmaier contained in thls application Batfitztsmrté?r.8.3m“ and in attachments is true moms/24  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. The subject property is a corner property and, per the current Ordinance, the side yard is considered a secondary front yard. However, as evidenced by the attached email communication, Ifollowed the appropriate channels to obtain approval and was informed by then Planning Director Tricia Anderson that the Ordinance was going to be amended and that what we were proposing for the location of the new fence was acceptable. There is an existing deck on the property, present when we purchased the home that presumably met the Zoning requirements at the time it was constructed. Ifthe new fence were placed as permitted by the current Ordinance it would require removal of a large portion of the existing deck and such fence placement would render the north sideyard basically useless as enjoyable, usable greenspace within the fence. 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. Page 28 of 36 If a permit was necessary for the installation of a fence, based on the email communication, presumably it would have been granted and I would have a record of said permit. If it wasn’t possible for a permit to be issued prior to the actual adoption of the Zoning amendment, we would not have risked making the investment until such amendment was adopted or we would have opted for a fence that met the Ordinance at the time. Based upon the direction provided by the Planning Director, in good faith we proceeded with the investment in our property and installed the fence at a significant expense. Because the Ordinance was not amended as anticipated, we are now technically in violation. The remedies staff has offered would: 0 Separate the north sideyard, which is where we have the majority of useable space for outside enjoyment, from the remainder of the yard space residents typically utilize for their outside enjoyment or, o Require additional financial resources to alter the existing fence to the permitted height or, o Require removal of the existing fence and replacement with a chain link fence, causing a loss to us financially in terms of the existing fence and further investment would be necessary for the chain link fence. The right commonly enjoyed by residential property owners is the enjoyment of their yards/greenspace as an extension of their living right not The That right materially public fence email, would authorizing there impair no of deprive ofare installation line-of»sight such theus way/street isone intent variance existing theof what is fence concerns will and and/ornot of purposes adjacent be both has notoftoof location thisfence the the those caused with substantial question. inof rights. chapter or detriment detriment to the to any the xisting public Also, property. interest. per fence. adjacent the attached and Thewill  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. Admittedly, corner parcels are prevalent throughout the city. However, receiving guidance and written approval by the Planning Director for the fence placement, and height, as installed is not a common condition. Additionally, the advice we were given was that the Ordinance was going to be amended to permit exactly what we have done. Perhaps formulation of a general regulation for such condition or situation should be further explored. Page 29 of 36 Page 30 of 36 Page 31 of 36 Page 32 of 36  July 17, 2024 To Whom It May Concern: Re: Personal Character Reference for Kristen Braxmaier Good Morning: I have known Kristen well for about four years and have found her to be honest and helpful. She looks out for people in our neighborhood, letting us know about an open door or a loose dog. Kristen is reliable and respectful. She is a well-grounded individual. Kristen and her husband have graciouslywatched our house multiple times while we were away for extended periods. Her trustworthiness is unquestionable, and I'm grateful for her friendship. Finally,I recognize in Kristen someone who adheres to protocols set forth in her job, neighborhood and within her city. She is dedicated to her employer and honors her commitments. She is a giving person who donates her time to a charitable organization. We Page 33 of 36 are fortunate to know her. Sincerely, JulieFisher 3256 Ipswich Dr. NW  Zoning Board of Appeals Sample Motion – Case 24-003 Property Description 41-13-02-278-004 Property Address 3259 Abington Dr NW, Grand Rapids MI 4953 Applicant Kristen Braxmaier, Property Owner Sample Motion I make a motion to APPROVE / DENY the request for 3259 Abington Dr NW (PIN 41-13-02- 278-004) by Applicant/ Property Owner Kristen Braxmaier, for a dimensional variance from Section 15.03 the Zoning Ordinance to permit a 6’ tall, privacy fence in the secondary front yard, where the Ordinance allows for a 4’ tall, at least 50% transparent fence in secondary front yards, 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: The subject property is a corner property and, per the current Ordinance, the side yard is considered a secondary front yard. However, as evidenced by the attached email communication, I followed the appropriate channels to obtain approval and was informed by then Planning Director Tricia Anderson that the Ordinance was going to be amended and that what we were proposing for the location of the new fence was acceptable. There is an existing deck on the property, present when we purchased the home that presumably met the Zoning requirements at the time it was constructed. If the new fence were placed as permitted by the current Ordinance it would require removal of a large portion of the existing deck and such fence placement would render the north side yard basically useless as enjoyable, usable greenspace within the fence. 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: If a permit was necessary for the installation of a fence, based on the email communication, presumably it would have been granted and I would have a record of said permit. If it wasn’t possible for a permit to be issued prior to the actual adoption of the Zoning amendment, we would not have risked making the investment until such amendment was adopted or we would have opted for a fence that met the Ordinance at the time. Based upon the direction provided by the Planning Page 1 of 3 Page 34 of 36  Director, in good faith we proceeded with the investment in our property and installed the fence at a significant expense. Because the Ordinance was not amended as anticipated, we are not technically in violation. The remedies staff has offered would: • Separate out the north side yard, which is where we have the majority of useable space for outside enjoyment, from the remainder of the yard space residents typically utilize for their outside enjoyment or, • Require additional financial resources to alter the existing fence to the permitted height or, • Require removal of the existing fence and replacement with a chain link fence, causing loss to us financially in terms of the existing fence and further investment would be necessary for the chain link fence. The right commonly enjoyed by residential property owners is the enjoyment of their yards/greenspace as an extension of their living environment. Another right commonly enjoyed is the security and privacy a fence of this nature provides. Being required to remove or alter the fence would deprive us of one and/or both of those rights. 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: The installation of the existing fence has not caused detriment to any adjacent property. The public right of way/street is what is adjacent to the fence in question. Also, per the attached email, there are no line-of-sight concerns with the location of the existing fence. Findings: 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: Admittedly, corner parcels are prevalent throughout the city. However, receiving guidance and written approval by the Planning Director for the fence placement, and height, as installed is not a common condition. Additionally, the advice we were given was that the Ordinance was going to be amended to permit exactly what we have done. Perhaps formulation of a general regulation for such condition or situation should be further explored. Findings: Page 2 of 3 Page 35 of 36 Conditions of Approval 1. _____________________________________________________ 2. _____________________________________________________ 3. _____________________________________________________ Motion made by ______________________ with support from ___________________. Ayes _________________ Nays _________________ Motion CARRIED / FAILED. Page 3 of 3 Page 36 of 36