Zoning Board of Appeals

Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda Commission Chambers 4243 Remembrance Rd NW Wednesday, July 22, 2026 6:30 PM 1. Call the meeting to order 2. Review Meeting Minutes 2.1. Review Minutes from May 27, 2026 3. General Public Comment 4. Agenda Items 4.1. Case #ZBA 26-002 - PUBLIC HEARING - 1839 Pheasant Ave NW - Steven Sherwin 5. Zoning Board of Appeals member/Staff Comments 6. Adjournment Page 1 of 34  ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES Wednesday, May 27, 2026 6:30 p.m. Members present: M Burde, B Boelens, G Gaastra, M Owens, T Granger, J Portko Members absent: R. Smith 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 of January 14, 2026 G Gaastra made a motion to approve the minutes from January 14, 2026. Supported by M Burde. 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 #26-001 - PUBLIC HEARING - 4020 Remembrance Rd NW - River City Auto Boelens invited Planning Director Paula Priebe to comment. Priebe presented her staff report: This request is located just down the road from city hall. Zoned C-1 local commercial, just under a half-acre in size. The request is for a dimensional variance to reduce the width of some parking spaces to 7’6” and 8’ where the ordinance requires a minimum of 9 feet. This property has been granted variances in the past by the ZBA. Paula goes over the zoning ordinance section 12.02.I. The applicant is asking for 19, 8 feet spaces and 10, 7 feet 6-inch spaces. The narrow width of the spaces is the discussion for tonight. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 5-27-2026 Page 2 of 34 Paula reached out to the city engineer. He was unable to be with them tonight, but he sent some comments that she read to them. Scott does not support the reduction in parking lot space size. Boelens invited the applicant to the podium. Applicant Chad Tyrell, 4020 Remembrance – Paula covered it well. They need the additional parking spaces to operate their business to its full potential. Having a triangle shaped lot presents its challenges. The variance would allow them to have several more parking spaces which would basically be used as staging areas for vehicles being towed in, vehicles waiting on parts for repair, and still have spaces for customer pickup and drop-off. They are in a significant renovation right now, improving the appearance of the building and property. OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING G Gaastra made a motion to open the public hearing. Supported by M Owens. Motion carried unanimously. Boelens invited public comment on the case. David Netti, 3424 Bonisteel Street NW – Owns the land one lot down from this on Remembrance. As the applicant is a young businessman in this community, it’s hard. The applicant owns a nonconforming lot under today’s standards, but it wasn’t nonconforming way back when they put the garage up. A lot of the vehicles that come in there are smaller vehicles. It’s not a parking lot with cars coming and going like a Meijer. He is here to support Chad. Chad does a great job. No issue with this getting passed. M Owens – With 7 feet stalls, is it even possible to get in and out of the car? C Tyrell – Yes. M Owens – Didn’t understand the problem the engineer had? P Priebe – He had a concern about tow trucks coming in with it being a crowded site. M Burde – What are Chad’s thoughts on the issue of crowding of the site? C Tyrell – We don’t have issues with tow trucks today. These are professional drivers who are familiar with the site and we don’t have concerns about the site being too crowded. Frankie, Kenowa Hills High School – Hope in a Bag for homeless people is a project that she is involved in at the High School. Chad donated to this project. She feels it is very important to assist with the small businesses and is in favor of this request. G Gaastra –He drove by the site today and likes the appearance of the renovations. Spaces are for Chad’s use. Cars are there temporarily for staging while waiting for parts and repairs. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING M Burde made a motion to close the public hearing. Supported by G Gaastra. Motion carried unanimously. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes May 27, 2026 Page 2 of 4 Page 3 of 34 B Boelens - Where did you come up with 7’6 and 8’? C Tyrell – Architect laid it out as best he could. It’s an architectural design. B Boelens – So when you came before us a few years ago, we gave 5 spaces to that variance? P Priebe – The previous variance was about setbacks for a building addition. It didn’t focus on 5 parking spaces. The 5 spaces shown were approved with an administrative site plan last year. B Boelens – Asks the applicant when did he realize you needed more spots as you have been there for a while? C Tyrell – It’s been an issue for years. Parking has been overflowing into the grass. Needed it for a while. It’s with this renovation and repaving of the parking lot that brought him here. B Boelens – If you don’t get the variance, how many cars is that going to eliminate? C Tyrell – Right now they have 17 spaces. Cars may sit there for a few days. They try to get them through quickly. T Granger – Just for clarity sake, looking at the parking spots as proposed, would all of that be freshly paved? C Tyrell – Yes, the whole parking lot is scheduled to be resurfaced with all new striping. There is otherwise no additional parking for his business. M Owens – Fair to state, if you expand any more, you’ll have to find a new location? C Tyrell – Yes, but he would like to stay here in Walker especially after this renovation. T Granger – The proposed layout looks cleaner and neater. Busy business and that’s great. Supports the request with no issues. G Gaastra – Agrees with Trevor and the fact that he is going to use these for his own use. They will be careful in parking the vehicles. Thinks it will work just fine. M Burde – Nothing to add. Supports the proposal. He appreciates Chad’s investment in our community. Reasonable request. M Owens – Nothing to add. She supports it as well. She believes it meets all of the four requirements. B Boelens – Runs through criteria. M Owens – Odd shape lot and he is stuck with the shape of the parcel. She doesn’t believe it is a detriment to any adjacent property owners. This is not a recurrent request or likely to reoccur again. B Boelens – Concerned the request is more of an “I want” instead of leaving the 9-foot spaces and he only using the spots he has. Is the property shape and size really a part of this? Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes May 27, 2026 Page 3 of 4 Page 4 of 34 M Burde – He is trying to run his business and had reached a point where he needs more space. G Gaastra – He is double parking now and he needs to spread out and not clutter. MOTION J Portko - makes a motion to APPROVE the request for 4020 Remembrance Rd NW (PIN 41-13 07-477-019) by Applicant Chad Tyrell, of River City Auto, for a dimensional variance from Section 12.02.I to 1) permit a parking lot with parking stalls of 8’ and 7’6” in width in the C-1 district, where the Ordinance (in Section 12.02.I) requires parking stalls to be a minimum of 9’ in width (a variance of 1’ and 1’6” respectively), based on the findings of fact derived from 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. Findings: Variance Criteria A has been met . 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. Findings: Variance Criteria B has been met. 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. Findings: Variance Criteria C has been met. 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. Findings: Variance Criteria D has been met. Supported by M Owens. J Portko did not vote, as he came into the meeting late, but if he had it would have been Yes. Motion approved unanimously. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBER/STAFF COMMENTS Motion by G Gaastra. Supported by M Burde to ADJOURN. Motion carried unanimously. Brian Boelens, Chair Laura Lundy, Recording Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes May 27, 2026 Page 4 of 4 Page 5 of 34  MEMORANDUM To: City of Walker Zoning Board of Appeals From: Paula Priebe, AICP – Planning Director Date: July 10, 2026 for the July 22, 2026 ZBA Meeting RE: Case # 26-002 Dimensional Variance Request for 1839 Pheasant Ave NW Applicant: Steven Sherwin Property Address: 1839 Pheasant Ave NW, Grand Rapids MI 49534 Parcel Number: 41-13-16-153-001 Zoning District: SA, Suburban Residential, Single Family Size of Subject Parcel: 0.47 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 Steven Sherwin, owner and resident of 1839 Pheasant Ave NW, submitted an application for a dimensional variance from Section 15.03, Walls and Fences. He is asking for variances from the Section 15.03.A front yard fence height and transparency, to be allowed to extend 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 57 the Pheasant Hills No. 2 plat which was approved in January 1958, south of Richmond Street between Elmridge Dr NW and Mullins Ave NW. 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. Application for Dimensional Variance and Applicant statement Page 1 of 7 Page 6 of 34 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 adjacent 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 7 Page 7 of 34 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 side and rear yards. Staff Remarks and Case History The existing fence has been present on the property for many years. Pheasant Ave has had a stub street adjacent to the subject property since the Pheasant Hills No. 2 Plat was developed in 1958. Before the new Pheasant Preserve Plat was approved in 2024 and constructed in 2025, the subject property had over 60 years with a vacant lot behind them. The new Pheasant Preserve development added 18 new single-family lots built off the new Ringneck Dr NW, which connects the long established stub streets between Pheasant Ave and Whitmore Ave. While a stub was long present adjacent to the property, it was reasonably and fairly treated as a side yard when no street was developed. The existing fence was not deemed out of compliance with the Zoning Ordinance until Ringneck Dr was constructed, establishing a secondary front yard on the subject property. The applicant has provided detailed graphics and images to assist in understanding their request. The existing fence is shown to be between 10’ and 12’ from the secondary street property line. Driveway View 1 shows that the existing fence is approximately 5’ to the north of the house. Street View 3 shows a visualization of the proposed new fence but does not show the correct placement. This visualization was intended to show how the new fence will form an L and connect back to the accessory building. The proposed extended fence will be in line with the existing fence. A fence is in the front yard if it is between the plane of the house and the property line. This means that the side yard begins at the house, not at the 35’ front yard setback line. If the house is setback 17’ from the property line and the fence is 10’ from the property line, the requested variance is 7’. The request before the ZBA is to allow for a 6’ tall opaque privacy fence located 10’ from the secondary front yard property line, when the Ordinance permits front yard fences to be up to 4’ tall with opacity of 50%; a variance of 2’ in height, 50% in opacity, and 7’ in setback. Page 3 of 7 Page 8 of 34 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. Applicant Responses and Findings of Fact The applicant’s responses to the criteria are included in the attached application materials. Below are 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 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 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? What height and opacity fences do other corner lots in this neighborhood have? C. No Substantial Detriment Page 4 of 7 Page 9 of 34  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: 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: Steven Sherwin- Applicant Page 5 of 7 Page 10 of 34 Excerpt from the Zoning Map: Site is currently zoned SA. Excerpt from the Community Character Map: Site is designated Residential Existing Density. Page 6 of 7 Page 11 of 34 Excerpt from Google Earth – facing west (imagery date 6/24/2022) Excerpt from Kent County Parcel Mapper – (basemap 2023 Aerial) Page 7 of 7 Page 12 of 34 Page 13 of 34 Page 14 of 34 City of Walker Zoning Board of Appeal 6/8/2026 Steven Sherwin 1839 Pheasant Ave NW Grand Rapids, MI 49534 41-13-16-153-001 616-915-1660 6. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE NATURE OF YOUR APPEAL: This appeal is a request for a dimensional variance to allow the continuation and extension of an existing lawful privacy fence while maintaining its current established setback, height, and opacity. Current Privacy Fence Setback from ROW: = 10’ min – 12’ max Current Privacy Fence Height: = 6’ Current Privacy Fence Opacity: = 100% Requested Setback Variance: = 23’ min - 25’ max Requested Height Variance: = 2’ Requested Opacity Variance: = 50% The existing fence represents a long-standing, previously compliant improvement that functionally defines and secures the primary outdoor living area of the property. Extending the fence along this same established line is necessary to regain and maintain a portion of the reasonable use, privacy, and security significantly reduced by the new road construction and enjoyed by the property owner for over 50 years. This request reflects the minimum variance necessary to maintain continuity of an established condition and avoid disruption to existing improvements. The practical difficulty arises from the property’s reclassification with a secondary front yard due to the recent roadway construction, a condition that was not self-created. The property, originally developed around 1960, was in full compliance prior to these changes. The proposed extension does not introduce a new encroachment pattern but rather continues an existing lawful fence line in a manner consistent with the historical use and layout of the property. 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. Page 15 of 34 Although corner lots exist throughout the City of Walker, not all corner lots are created equal. This property is not similarly situated to a typical corner lot created through initial development. For more than half a century, the subject property functioned as a traditional interior residential lot. That condition changed only after construction of a new public roadway on adjacent vacant land in 2025, which newly imposed a government-created secondary front yard condition on an already developed homesite. This after-the-fact change is unusual and creates a practical difficulty not generally shared by other properties in the same zoning district. Three conditions exist that make this property uniquely extraordinary when compared to even other corner lots: 1. Government-created after-the-fact secondary front yard designation decades after initial development 2. Existence of a lawfully improved residential privacy fence years before secondary front yard designation 3. Over 50 years of reasonable use, privacy, and security once enjoyed by the owner has been significantly reduced 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. The requested variance is necessary to restore and preserve reasonable residential privacy, security, and functional backyard use consistent with what is commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district and historically enjoyed by the property owner for over 50 years. Because the roadway construction uniquely created a new secondary front yard condition on this parcel, strict application of the ordinance would prevent the homeowner from maintaining a level of reasonable use, privacy, security, and backyard utility. Allowing the fence to be completed is the most reasonable and proportionate solution to the unique practical difficulty conditions affecting this property. 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. Page 16 of 34 Authorizing this variance will not result in substantial detriment to adjacent properties nor materially impair the intent and purposes of the zoning ordinance. The request involves the continuation and extension of an existing lawful privacy fence along an already established setback, height, and opacity, maintaining a configuration that has long been part of the property’s layout and use. The fence will not interfere with traffic visibility, access, or public safety, and it will not negatively affect neighboring properties. The proposed fence does not border any adjacent residential property and would not interfere with neighboring property rights. 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. While corner lots exist within the City of Walker, this property is distinct because the secondary front yard condition was created decades after the original construction of the home rather than as part of its initial development. This type of after-the-fact reclassification caused by public infrastructure placement is uncommon and not broadly applicable to other properties in the same zoning district. For that reason, the condition is not so general or recurrent as to make a general regulation reasonably practicable. The three unique and extraordinary conditions identified in Section “A” cannot be replicated by the other properties affected by the recent road construction and resulting government designation. The combination and specificity of these circumstances are distinct to this property and its homeowner. Page 17 of 34  Property/ROW 35’ Setback 24’ Current Fence 180’ Proposed Fence 75’ Sight Triangle 4’ 110’ Page 18 of 34 100’ 35’ Setback Line 52’ 24’ + 32’ = 56’ Fence Minimums: 5’ 25’ from road 17’ 17’ from sidewalk 12’ 10’ 10’ 10’ from ROW 7’ 8’ RINGNECK 185’  Shows New ROW Position Page 19 of 34  Patio View1: Shows Existing Fence and Cement Walkway Driveway View1: Shows Existing Fence and Cement Walkway Page 20 of 34  Patio View 2: Full Patio Fence View With Walkway Page 21 of 34  Street View1: Shows Existing Fence and Secondary Front Yard Area Page 22 of 34  Street View2: Shows Existing Fence and Secondary Front Yard Area Page 23 of 34  Street View3: Shows Proposed Fence and Secondary Front Yard Area Page 24 of 34  Patio View3: Shows Historic View From the Patio Area Page 25 of 34  Patio View4: Patio View5: Shows Current View From the Patio Area Shows Current View From the Patio Area Page 26 of 34  6’ Page 27 of 34 4’ Potential Fence Sightline: Sightline Difference Between A 6’ Privacy Fence VS. A 4’ Fence  Street View4: Shows Current View From Street to Patio Area Page 28 of 34  History View 2011: No Fence. Back Yard Surrounded by Pine Trees Page 29 of 34  History View 2013: 2013 North Pine Trees Removed Due to Disease and Fence Installed Page 30 of 34  History View 2022: 2022 All Pine Trees Removed By This Point Due to Disease Page 31 of 34 Page 32 of 34 Current View 2026: New Road Complete. Shows Fence And House Position  Zoning Board of Appeals Sample Motion – Case 26-002 Property Description 41-13-16-153-001 Property Address 1839 Pheasant Ave NW, Grand Rapids MI 49534 Applicant Steven Sherwin, Property Owner Sample Motion I make a motion to APPROVE / DENY the request for 1839 Pheasant Ave NW (PIN 41-13-16- 153-001) by Applicant/ Property Owner Steven Sherwin, for a dimensional variance from Section 15.03 the Zoning Ordinance to permit a 6’ tall, opaque privacy fence located 10’ from the secondary front yard property line, where the Ordinance permits front yard fences to be up to 4’ tall with opacity of 50%, for a variance of 2’ in fence height, 50% in opacity, and 7’ in setback distance, 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. Findings: Variance Criteria A has been met / has not been met. (Provide supporting details here) 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. Findings: Variance Criteria B has been met / has not been met. (Provide supporting details here) 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. Findings: Variance Criteria C has been met / has not been met. (Provide supporting details here) 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. Page 1 of 2 Page 33 of 34  Findings: Variance Criteria D has been met / has not been met. (Provide supporting details here) Conditions of Approval 1. _____________________________________________________ 2. _____________________________________________________ 3. _____________________________________________________ Motion made by ______________________ with support from ___________________. Ayes _________________ Nays _________________ Motion CARRIED / FAILED. Page 2 of 2 Page 34 of 34