[1:59] What time?

[1:59] >> Okay. to order

[2:01] » Okay. to order

[2:01] the August 12th, 2026 meeting of the

[2:04] City of Walker Zoning Board of Appeals

[2:06] at 6:30 p.m.

[2:08] By way of introduction, I'll briefly

[2:09] explain the purpose of the Zoning Board

[2:11] of Appeals.

[2:12] City of Walker has adopted a Zoning

[2:14] Ordinance. If a property owner wishes

[2:16] relief from a portion of the ordinance,

[2:19] the Michigan from the Michigan Zoning

[2:21] Enabling Act provides for an avenue of

[2:24] appeal through the Zoning Board of

[2:25] Appeals.

[2:26] The Zoning Ordinance provides four

[2:28] conditions that the board must use in

[2:30] making a decision. The board may grant a

[2:32] variance only if they find from

[2:34] reasonable evidence that all four of

[2:36] these conditions are met.

[2:38] The four conditions that must be met are

[2:41] extraordinary or exceptional

[2:43] circumstances, which apply to this

[2:45] parcel and do not apply generally to

[2:48] other properties in this district.

[2:51] Preservation and enjoyment of property

[2:53] rights that other properties in this

[2:55] district would be the same possess.

[2:58] The variance will not be of substantial

[3:00] detriment or adjacent to adjacent

[3:03] properties.

[3:04] And the request is not of such general

[3:06] nature that the ordinance should be

[3:07] changed.

[3:09] A decision by the Zoning Board of

[3:11] Appeals cannot be overturned by the City

[3:12] Commission. The Zoning Enabling Act

[3:15] states that the decision of the Zoning

[3:17] Board of Appeals shall be final.

[3:20] A party aggrieved by the decision may

[3:22] appeal to the Circuit Court of the in

[3:24] the county of which the property is

[3:27] located.

[3:28] An appeal of the Circuit Court must be

[3:30] filed within 30 days of this decision.

[3:34] Okay. Um

[3:37] First item on the agenda is to review

[3:38] the minutes of the 27th

[3:42] May 27th of 2026.

[3:48] Everyone have the minutes?

[3:51] Chance to review them?

[3:54] Motion to approve?

[3:56] >> I'll move it.

[3:57] » I'll move it.

[3:57] >> Okay, motion by Mary.

[3:59] » Okay, motion by Mary.

[3:59] Second?

[3:59] >> Approve, second.

[4:00] » Approve, second.

[4:00] >> Second by John. All in favor, say aye.

[4:03] » Second by John. All in favor, say aye.

[4:03] >> Aye.

[4:03] » Aye.

[4:03] >> Opposed? Okay, minutes are passed.

[4:08] Next item on the agenda is um

[4:11] general public comment. If there's

[4:13] anyone in the audience that wants to

[4:16] have any comments not related to this

[4:20] case, um

[4:21] you get time to

[4:23] to uh speak.

[4:27] Okay, seeing none, we will

[4:30] move on.

[4:31] Okay, tonight we have one

[4:33] um

[4:35] case on the agenda, and the case number

[4:38] is

[4:39] 26-002

[4:41] for 1839 Fessenden Avenue Northwest.

[4:44] This is a dimensional variance request

[4:46] seeking relief from section 1503

[4:50] uh walls and fences.

[4:52] And just to kind of give you an overview

[4:55] of what's going to happen, first we'll

[4:56] have uh

[4:57] uh Paula speak and fill us in on

[4:59] everything that

[5:01] um

[5:02] she has uh put together here for us.

[5:04] And then the applicant will speak.

[5:07] Um and then we'll have a public hearing

[5:10] of um any other person in the audience

[5:13] wants to

[5:14] uh speak to the matter and whatnot. And

[5:17] then uh

[5:18] we'll have a um

[5:21] a public hearing of um

[5:23] amongst ourselves, amongst the board, so

[5:25] then we'll make a decision on that. So,

[5:27] um

[5:31] with that, Paula, I guess we're ready

[5:33] for you.

[5:35] >> Thank you, Chair. I will

[5:38] » Thank you, Chair. I will

[5:38] first situate us regarding uh where we

[5:40] are. So, um

[5:42] here I'm just zooming in on the screen

[5:44] here to Walker. This This Richmond here.

[5:47] And the property in question is on the

[5:49] corner of Pheasant and this new road

[5:51] here that came in with a recent

[5:53] development to the city, this infill

[5:55] development on Ringneck Drive.

[5:57] Um is currently still under

[6:00] construction. They're starting to build

[6:01] homes back in there. The roads went in

[6:03] last year, I believe primarily last

[6:06] year.

[6:07] Um and the applicant, Mr. Steven

[6:09] Sherwin, is the resident and owner of

[6:12] 1839 Pheasant Avenue Northwest and he

[6:14] submitted this application

[6:16] asking for a variance related to a

[6:18] secondary front yard fence. So, I will

[6:22] um walk through my report which

[6:24] highlights the relevant sections of the

[6:26] zoning ordinance for the board.

[6:29] The property in question here is this

[6:31] one on the corner.

[6:34] It's lot 57 of Pleasant Hills number two

[6:36] plat, which was approved in January of

[6:39] 1958.

[6:40] The property is currently zoned SA,

[6:42] which is suburban residential single

[6:44] family.

[6:46] And so, in my report here, um the first

[6:49] thing we need to establish is what are

[6:52] the different lots of a property because

[6:54] the fence requirements are different for

[6:57] different sides of the property. So,

[7:00] um the This is a diagram from our zoning

[7:03] ordinance. You can see different lots

[7:05] and showing a front yard fence here,

[7:09] side yard fences, rear yards, um a

[7:12] secondary street yard is something that

[7:16] um All right, I'm going to read from the

[7:17] definition for a front yard. A lot which

[7:20] abuts two or more improved public

[7:21] streets, such as a corner lot or a

[7:23] through lot, shall have one front yard,

[7:26] which shall be at the yard adjacent to

[7:27] the streets included in the lot's

[7:29] address. All other yards meeting the

[7:31] definition of abutting a public street

[7:34] but not designated as the address of the

[7:36] lot shall be considered a secondary

[7:38] front yard. And so, these corner lots

[7:41] here have a front yard, this one has a

[7:43] side yard, a rear yard, and a secondary

[7:46] front yard. It might also be called a

[7:47] secondary street yard.

[7:49] And so, these secondary front yards have

[7:52] to follow the same regulations as a

[7:55] regular front yard.

[7:58] And this is an excerpt from section 1503

[8:02] of the zoning ordinance regarding

[8:04] requirements for walls and fences. I

[8:06] highlighted here those for the SA

[8:09] district, which are the relevant to this

[8:11] property.

[8:12] In this district, fences in the front

[8:14] yard may be up to 4 ft in height with a

[8:15] zero setback, and if 4 ft tall, must be

[8:18] at least 50% transparent.

[8:21] Fences in the side and rear yard may be

[8:23] up to 6 ft in height with a zero setback

[8:25] from property lines. Privacy fences,

[8:27] which are those that are fully opaque,

[8:29] are permitted in side and rear yards

[8:31] only.

[8:32] So, that transparency requirement for

[8:34] front yards, front yards are treated

[8:35] differently than others

[8:37] when it comes to fences. This is very

[8:39] standard um in zoning ordinances in

[8:42] Michigan.

[8:44] And so, just a little more history about

[8:45] the property.

[8:46] There is an existing fence on the

[8:48] property. I'm going to pull up

[8:51] some images from the applicant. Um

[8:55] So, this is their property. So, here's

[8:56] Pheasant and the new ring ringneck

[8:58] drive. The existing fences here shown in

[9:01] green and the proposed fence the

[9:03] applicant wants to add is shown in

[9:05] yellow.

[9:06] I'm going to change the screen again to

[9:08] show. This is the existing part of the

[9:09] fence

[9:11] on the property.

[9:13] A few images there. And here it is from

[9:16] the new secondary street.

[9:19] So, this fence has been existing for

[9:20] many years. Pheasant Avenue has had a

[9:22] stub street adjacent to the property

[9:24] since the plat was developed in the late

[9:26] 1950s.

[9:28] Before the new Pheasant Preserve plat

[9:30] was approved in 2024 and constructed in

[9:32] 2025, the subject property had over 60

[9:35] years with a vacant lot behind them.

[9:37] The new Pheasant Preserve development

[9:39] added 18 new single-family lots built

[9:41] off Ringneck Drive, which connect the

[9:43] long-established stub streets between

[9:45] Pheasant and Whitmore. And while the

[9:46] stub street was long present adjacent to

[9:49] the property, it was reasonably and

[9:51] fairly treated by the applicant as a

[9:52] side yard when there was no street

[9:54] developed there. The existing fence, as

[9:57] you can see in the picture, was not

[9:58] deemed out of compliance with the zoning

[10:00] ordinance until Ringneck Drive was

[10:02] constructed, establishing the secondary

[10:05] front yard on the property. So, there

[10:06] was always the promise of a secondary

[10:07] front yard, but it wasn't there. To

[10:09] illustrate this, I want to show you um

[10:12] This is an excerpt for an image from

[10:15] Google Street View from last summer,

[10:18] June 2025. So, this is across the street

[10:21] from the applicant's property looking

[10:24] So, here we are right here. The image is

[10:26] right here. We're looking east right

[10:28] now. You can see there's the stub street

[10:31] where a street could be be placed to

[10:33] continue. And essentially, a long kind

[10:36] of shared driveway circumstance for

[10:38] these two homes. Now, as I pan around,

[10:42] you can see the applicant's property

[10:43] here. It used to look like this side

[10:47] to the east, and now there's

[10:49] construction happening. This was last

[10:50] summer, construction happening there,

[10:52] and that changed the the side yard of

[10:56] their property and the rear yard

[10:57] substantially.

[10:59] So, um just to show again, so this is an

[11:01] This is Google Earth here. I'm zooming

[11:04] in. This is the subject property and the

[11:06] the former stub street that existed for

[11:08] 60-plus years.

[11:10] And then, when I go here, that has

[11:11] updated the imagery. You can see the new

[11:14] road.

[11:15] The property lines haven't changed, but

[11:17] the experience of living there has

[11:19] changed dramatically for our the

[11:20] applicant. This new road goes through.

[11:23] It changes what used to be

[11:27] uh trees and green

[11:29] um to a neighborhood. And this happens

[11:32] in as development occurs around a city,

[11:35] but it does change the experience of

[11:37] living there, especially for the

[11:38] immediate neighbors.

[11:40] So, the applicant is asking

[11:42] Um wait, I pulled up I want to pull up

[11:44] some more of his images for you. So, you

[11:46] can see here is that that fence that

[11:49] exists and how close it is to the new

[11:52] road and sidewalk.

[11:56] Some more images. So, this is their rear

[11:58] yard where this picture is taken from

[12:00] used to be trees.

[12:02] And now it is a street and it turn

[12:04] changes dramatically. Um

[12:06] let me just show a few more things and

[12:07] then I'm almost done here.

[12:10] Um so, a fence is in the front yard if

[12:12] it is between the plane of the house and

[12:14] the property line which abuts up a

[12:16] street.

[12:17] This means that the side yard begins at

[12:19] the house. Normally, that's a 35-ft

[12:22] setback for a front yard in this zoning

[12:24] district. But nor if there was a sub

[12:27] street there or a full street there, a

[12:29] house wouldn't have been placed within

[12:31] that 35-ft setback.

[12:34] This house is already existing, which

[12:35] means the front yard setback line is

[12:39] where the house is located, roughly 17

[12:41] ft from the property line.

[12:43] And this fence is now

[12:45] 10 ft from the property line. So, in my

[12:47] estimation, the variance being requested

[12:49] is about 7 ft. They're asking to put the

[12:51] fence it's 5 to 7 ft closer to the road

[12:54] than the plane of the house. If the

[12:56] fence were in line with the house, it

[12:59] could be 6-ft tall and fully opaque and

[13:03] that would not be an issue, but the

[13:04] applicant is requesting to extend the

[13:06] fence at its current plane.

[13:08] I have

[13:10] Oh, where's that first image here? You

[13:12] see the existing fence, they want to

[13:13] extend it along that line and then back

[13:16] to their accessory building.

[13:19] So, the request before the ZBA tonight

[13:21] is to allow for a 6-ft tall opaque

[13:24] privacy fence located 10 ft from a

[13:26] secondary front yard property line,

[13:29] where the ordinance permits front yard

[13:30] fences to be up to 4 ft tall, 50%

[13:33] opaque,

[13:34] 50% transparent, with a variance of 2 ft

[13:36] in height, 50% opacity, and 7 ft in

[13:39] setback. So, essentially, they're asking

[13:41] to allow a privacy fence

[13:43] to continue

[13:44] um on this regard here, this plane going

[13:48] north and south along the access drive

[13:51] to the

[13:52] uh the accessory building. That fence

[13:54] doesn't need a variance. You can put a

[13:56] tall opaque privacy fence there, no

[13:57] problem. We're really focused for the

[14:00] the ZBA tonight on this part of the

[14:02] fence that is technically in a secondary

[14:05] front yard. So, I know there's a lot of

[14:07] details there. Um the standards that the

[14:10] chair went over are in the report as

[14:11] well. The applicant provided responses

[14:14] to those standards in his submission.

[14:17] There's more images, and I'm happy to go

[14:19] back over any of that um for the board

[14:21] if I can clarify anything. I try to give

[14:24] you as many of the details as I can, but

[14:26] I know they can get confused. So, um I'm

[14:28] here to help if there's anything I can

[14:30] do.

[14:31] >> Okay.

[14:32] » Okay.

[14:32] Thank you, Paul.

[14:32] >> Paul, I just have one question.

[14:35] » Paul, I just have one question.

[14:35] Is that you say that the accessory

[14:36] building, does that belong to the

[14:38] applicant?

[14:39] >> Yes, it does.

[14:40] » Yes, it does.

[14:40] >> Okay.

[14:40] » Okay.

[14:40] >> Yes.

[14:41] » Yes.

[14:41] So, you can see the dashed line around

[14:43] here. That is roughly the applicant's

[14:45] property line.

[14:46] >> Okay. So, he wants to extend the privacy

[14:49] » Okay. So, he wants to extend the privacy

[14:49] fence from the house

[14:51] to the um accessory

[14:55] >> Yes.

[14:56] » Yes.

[14:56] >> Okay.

[14:59] » Okay. Thank you, Paul.

[15:02] >> Thank you.

[15:04] » Thank you.

[15:04] >> Okay.

[15:06] Uh

[15:07] if I could get the applicant to come to

[15:09] the microphone and

[15:15] » I have some handouts if you'd like to

[15:17] >> That'd be great.

[15:18] » That'd be great.

[15:18] >> Paul, is that

[15:19] » Paul, is that

[15:19] >> That'd be great. Thank you.

[15:24] » So, they have

[15:32] » Give you a chance to look at that.

[15:34] >> Thank you, Paula.

[15:36] » Thank you, Paula.

[15:36] Thank you.

[15:48] Okay.

[15:49] >> Well, we are requesting the minimum

[15:51] » Well, we are requesting the minimum

[15:51] variance necessary to maintain and

[15:53] extend the existing lawful fence

[15:56] line, preserving the walkway between the

[16:00] driveway and the patio.

[16:02] The variance required

[16:04] to continue the historic fence alignment

[16:06] is approximately like 7 ft. Really,

[16:10] we're arguing over 5 to 7 ft for about

[16:12] 32 ft is the gist of it.

[16:17] >> [snorts]

[16:18] » [snorts]

[16:18] >> So, basically, what we're looking for is

[16:21] » So, basically, what we're looking for is

[16:21] to kind of keep that walkway between the

[16:23] driveway

[16:24] and the patio.

[16:29] And we believe that we met all four

[16:31] conditions.

[16:35] » Can I ask a question?

[16:36] >> Yeah.

[16:37] » Yeah.

[16:37] >> I'm a little confused. You want to

[16:39] » I'm a little confused. You want to

[16:39] extend um

[16:42] the height of the fence from 4 ft to 6

[16:45] ft or 4 ft to 7 ft?

[16:49] >> The existing fence is currently 6 ft

[16:51] » The existing fence is currently 6 ft

[16:51] tall. We are talking about 7 ft variance

[16:54] between the house and where the fence is

[16:56] currently that we're kind of arguing

[16:59] over.

[16:59] >> so the the new fence would be also 6 ft

[17:02] » so the the new fence would be also 6 ft

[17:02] tall?

[17:03] >> Correct.

[17:03] » Correct.

[17:03] >> Okay.

[17:05] » Okay.

[17:05] >> It would have the same height

[17:08] » It would have the same height

[17:08] and opacity as the existing fence.

[17:11] It would just be longer.

[17:25] » Ma'am, you you'll get your turn.

[17:27] Thank you.

[17:29] Go ahead. I'm sorry.

[17:30] >> Oh, it is just far as the uh stub street

[17:32] » Oh, it is just far as the uh stub street

[17:32] goes, there's uh while it was

[17:35] foreseeable that there may be a street

[17:37] there at some point, it wasn't

[17:39] inevitable. The two uh

[17:42] lots that are on

[17:43] Pheasant and Whitmore on the other

[17:45] sides, those were purchased by the uh

[17:49] existing homeowners. So, they actually

[17:52] own those stub streets now. So, it

[17:54] wasn't

[17:55] um

[17:56] it's not inevitable that that would have

[17:58] happened that that fence and that road

[18:00] or that road would never be there.

[18:02] It was foreseeable, but not inevitable.

[18:04] >> Mhm.

[18:06] » Mhm.

[18:06] Okay. Anything else or is that

[18:11] >> No, just that we believe we met all four

[18:13] » No, just that we believe we met all four

[18:13] of the conditions.

[18:16] >> Okay.

[18:18] » Any questions for him?

[18:20] >> No questions.

[18:21] » No questions.

[18:21] >> Huh.

[18:22] » Huh.

[18:22] Guess not. Um I do have one thought

[18:25] though. Is in this drawing, is this

[18:27] pretty much

[18:28] to

[18:30] as far as the distances and whatnot, um

[18:33] is it

[18:35] >> Relatively to

[18:35] » Relatively to

[18:35] >> Or is it going to be closer to the

[18:37] » Or is it going to be closer to the

[18:37] sidewalk than what it is in this or

[18:39] >> It's relatively to scale. It should be

[18:40] » It's relatively to scale. It should be

[18:40] around

[18:43] >> It's been a while since I actually

[18:45] » It's been a while since I actually

[18:45] looked at the material, but it it's a

[18:48] 17 ft away I think from the road.

[18:50] >> I mean, here it looks really nice. I'm

[18:51] » I mean, here it looks really nice. I'm

[18:51] just curious on where you put it in this

[18:53] picture, so.

[19:01] » Yeah, fence is minimum 25 ft away from

[19:03] the road, 17 away from the sidewalk, and

[19:05] 10 ft from the row.

[19:08] >> Okay.

[19:09] » Okay.

[19:09] >> That's the kind of the minimum. What

[19:11] » That's the kind of the minimum. What

[19:11] happens is my my home is facing one like

[19:14] kind of angled one direction and now

[19:16] this new road is is kind of angled

[19:18] towards it. So, it's a larger distance

[19:20] at the beginning of the home um towards

[19:23] the front of the property, the east of

[19:24] the property, and then it narrows as it

[19:27] goes towards the back.

[19:28] >> Okay.

[19:29] » Okay.

[19:29] >> So, there's about a 2-ft discrepancy.

[19:31] » So, there's about a 2-ft discrepancy.

[19:31] >> So, this is pretty accurate to what it

[19:33] » So, this is pretty accurate to what it

[19:33] will look like when it's done. I mean,

[19:34] as far as the distances and stuff. Okay.

[19:37] >> Okay.

[19:43] » Paula, has this been added to the packet

[19:44] then?

[19:46] This new illustration?

[19:47] >> Uh the applicant did send it to me. I'm

[19:49] » Uh the applicant did send it to me. I'm

[19:49] happy to include it in the the final

[19:51] report or, you know, in the case file.

[19:54] >> Yeah, that'd be great. Thanks.

[19:56] » Yeah, that'd be great. Thanks.

[19:56] >> It's a slightly modified version of the

[19:58] » It's a slightly modified version of the

[19:58] one that's currently that came in with

[19:59] the application. Um so, the applicant

[20:02] updated it to be more accurate.

[20:03] >> Okay.

[20:05] » Okay.

[20:05] Okay.

[20:07] >> [clears throat]

[20:08] » [clears throat]

[20:08] >> Anyone got any questions for the

[20:09] » Anyone got any questions for the

[20:09] applicant?

[20:10] No? Okay.

[20:12] Okay. You can sit down. I need a motion

[20:14] to open a public hearing.

[20:17] Someone?

[20:18] >> Motion.

[20:19] » Motion.

[20:19] >> Motion by Mike.

[20:20] » Motion by Mike.

[20:20] Motion by Mike, second by John. All in

[20:22] favor, say aye.

[20:23] >> Aye.

[20:24] » Aye.

[20:24] >> Okay. Opposed?

[20:26] » Okay. Opposed?

[20:26] Okay. Public hearing's open.

[20:27] Okay, ma'am. Now you can speak. If you

[20:29] come to the microphone and state your

[20:31] name and address, please.

[20:37] Hi there.

[20:38] >> Judy Akers at 1 Peasant Street.

[20:42] » Judy Akers at 1 Peasant Street.

[20:42] So,

[20:43] >> [clears throat]

[20:43] » [clears throat]

[20:43] >> I know what a problem it is for all the

[20:45] » I know what a problem it is for all the

[20:45] people living on Peasant Street and to

[20:48] have a rule that you only need a 4-ft

[20:51] fence on that street is

[20:55] crazy because we all need 10-ft fences

[20:59] being across the street from Blankfort.

[21:04] We have hardly any

[21:08] property left that the deer don't eat.

[21:11] >> Mhm.

[21:11] » Mhm.

[21:11] >> So, all of us would love to have a 10-ft

[21:15] » So, all of us would love to have a 10-ft

[21:15] fence around our whole property. And

[21:18] that's all I can say in support of being

[21:21] a little bit higher than 4-ft.

[21:23] Nothing.

[21:24] >> Okay.

[21:25] » Okay.

[21:25] >> We need 10-ft fences in that area.

[21:28] » We need 10-ft fences in that area.

[21:28] >> Okay. Thank you very much.

[21:31] » Okay. Thank you very much.

[21:31] Okay. Any other Well, there is no else.

[21:34] So, okay. I guess we need a motion to

[21:36] close the public hearing.

[21:38] >> Motion.

[21:38] » Motion.

[21:38] >> Motion by Trevor, second by John. All in

[21:41] » Motion by Trevor, second by John. All in

[21:41] favor, say aye.

[21:42] >> Aye.

[21:42] » Aye.

[21:42] >> Aye.

[21:43] » Aye.

[21:43] >> Opposed? Okay. Meeting's closed.

[21:46] » Opposed? Okay. Meeting's closed.

[21:46] All right. Um

[21:52] I guess we

[21:57] should um go into finding some fact

[22:00] here.

[22:01] Um

[22:02] >> Can I ask one one question? Paula, can

[22:04] » Can I ask one one question? Paula, can

[22:04] you put those criteria up again, the

[22:06] four factors that have to be met?

[22:09] So, it'll be easy for me to

[22:12] >> Yes, would you like me to put up the

[22:14] » Yes, would you like me to put up the

[22:14] version from my report where they're

[22:16] just stated plainly as in the language

[22:19] of the ordinance?

[22:20] >> all I No, that's all I

[22:21] » all I No, that's all I

[22:21] >> applicant's responses to the standards.

[22:23] » applicant's responses to the standards.

[22:23] >> Uh

[22:25] » Uh

[22:25] >> Here, I'll just I'll leave this up and

[22:27] » Here, I'll just I'll leave this up and

[22:27] >> Okay, that's fine.

[22:31] I'm sorry, Brian.

[22:32] >> No, you're fine. What I and I what I

[22:35] » No, you're fine. What I and I what I

[22:35] will do is read his responses into

[22:38] the record then.

[22:40] Um

[22:41] cuz he was very detailed and and it

[22:43] really does It's kind of an unusual

[22:45] situation, so it's kind of really

[22:47] uh it's going to help us, so

[22:49] um

[22:51] Okay, so in response to the exceptional

[22:55] or ordinary circumstances or conditions

[22:57] applying to this property in question,

[23:00] his response

[23:02] is

[23:04] not to put water all over yourself.

[23:07] Okay, thank you.

[23:10] Um his response is although the corner

[23:13] lot exists throughout the city of

[23:14] Walker, not all corner lots are created

[23:16] equal. This property is not similarly

[23:19] situated to a typical corner lot created

[23:22] through the initial development. More

[23:24] than half a century this subject

[23:26] property has functioned as a traditional

[23:28] interior residential lot. That condition

[23:31] has changed only after the construction

[23:33] of a new public roadway on adjacent

[23:35] vacant land in 2025, which newly imposed

[23:39] a government created secondary front

[23:41] yard condition on an already developed

[23:44] home site. Thank you.

[23:48] After this after-the-fact change is

[23:51] unusual, creates a practical

[23:54] difficulty not generally shared by other

[23:56] properties in the same zoning district.

[23:59] Um

[24:01] Three conditions that make this property

[24:03] uniquely extraordinary when compared to

[24:07] even other corner lots are the

[24:09] government created after-the-fact the

[24:11] secondary yard designated decades after

[24:14] initial development.

[24:16] And existence of a lawful improved

[24:18] residential privacy fence years before

[24:20] the secondary front yard fence

[24:22] designation. And over 50 years of um

[24:25] reasonable use, privacy and security

[24:27] once

[24:28] enjoyed by the owner and has been

[24:31] significantly reduced. And then B, which

[24:34] um

[24:35] says uh that such variance

[24:37] is necessary for pres- presidential

[24:40] enjoyment of the substantial property

[24:41] rights similar to that possessed by

[24:43] other properties.

[24:44] He said request the requested variance

[24:47] is necessary to restore and preserve

[24:49] reasonable residential privacy,

[24:51] security, and functional backyard use

[24:54] consistent with what is commonly enjoyed

[24:57] [clears throat] by other properties in

[24:58] the same zoning district and

[25:00] historically enjoyed by the property

[25:02] owner for over 50 years. Because the

[25:04] roadway construction uniquely created a

[25:06] secondary back or front yard condition

[25:10] on this parcel, strict application of

[25:12] the ordinance would prevent the

[25:13] homeowner from maintaining a level of

[25:15] reasonable use, privacy, security, and

[25:17] backyard utility. Allowing the fence to

[25:20] be completed is the most reasonable and

[25:22] proportionate

[25:24] solution to unique practical

[25:27] difficulty uh conditions affecting the

[25:29] property.

[25:30] And as far as a detriment,

[25:34] um

[25:36] I don't think that that's

[25:38] a detriment to anybody around there.

[25:40] It's It's

[25:42] um

[25:43] This is a fence which he actually has

[25:45] now, and moving a little closer to the

[25:47] road is so and it's not going to be a

[25:49] recurring problem

[25:51] um

[25:52] anywhere in the city. So, that's kind of

[25:54] the

[25:55] four conditions.

[26:00] Right?

[26:03] So, um

[26:06] with that said, I made a mess over here,

[26:08] sorry about that.

[26:11] Um [clears throat]

[26:12] the board wants to kick it around and

[26:14] see what the feelings are.

[26:19] » I'll start off if you'd like.

[26:20] >> Sure.

[26:21] » Sure.

[26:21] >> All right. So, I'll just go through

[26:22] » All right. So, I'll just go through

[26:23] these four conditions. So,

[26:25] uh exceptional and extraordinary

[26:28] uh the unique circumstances here arises

[26:31] from the property location and the

[26:33] city's action, not from the applicant,

[26:35] in my opinion.

[26:37] Uh preservation of

[26:39] substantial [clears throat] property

[26:40] right

[26:41] Uh

[26:42] what I got is due to the city's roadway

[26:44] construction and the resulting secondary

[26:47] front yard designation the property is

[26:50] uniquely restricted. Granting this

[26:53] variance allows reasonable privacy,

[26:55] security, and residential use comparable

[26:58] to neighboring properties.

[27:00] Uh the request is based on property use

[27:02] and not a financial gain.

[27:05] Uh

[27:06] substantial detriment.

[27:08] The evidence demonstrates that the fence

[27:10] will not interfere with traffic safety,

[27:12] visibility,

[27:14] or record or excuse me, required

[27:16] [clears throat] sight distance

[27:17] standards. If we go back to image six,

[27:21] I think it was,

[27:23] where that red triangle is at,

[27:25] uh

[27:26] I think the minimum requirement, correct

[27:28] me if I'm wrong, Paul, is that the legs

[27:30] of the triangle

[27:32] are supposed to be at least 50 ft for

[27:34] visibility as you drive around the

[27:36] corner.

[27:37] Correct?

[27:38] >> Oh, I It's been a while since I pulled

[27:39] » Oh, I It's been a while since I pulled

[27:39] it up. Our ordinance states that a clear

[27:42] vision triangle It starts from the

[27:43] center point of the intersection and I

[27:45] believe it goes out 75 ft in in either

[27:48] way in in regardless, the fence in

[27:50] question is in no danger of

[27:53] >> Yeah.

[27:53] » Yeah.

[27:53] >> impacting a clear vision for the

[27:55] » impacting a clear vision for the

[27:55] intersection.

[27:56] >> So, in my opinion, you've met that

[27:57] » So, in my opinion, you've met that

[27:57] criteria.

[27:59] And then the condition um will not serve

[28:01] as uh

[28:03] or general nature as to require a

[28:05] general regulation. This is very

[28:06] specific to this property.

[28:09] So, in my opinion,

[28:10] um based on this evidence and the

[28:12] findings, I conclude that the applicant

[28:15] has met these requirements. However, um

[28:19] it is conditional. You've got this very

[28:21] nice visual right here that you just

[28:23] passed out.

[28:25] I would like it to look like that.

[28:28] It's very nice and this is a drastic

[28:30] improvement to this neighborhood.

[28:34] » I'm not doing it myself or anything like

[28:36] that. It's being contracted and it will

[28:38] it will be nice.

[28:41] » Okay.

[28:42] >> That's what I got.

[28:42] » That's what I got.

[28:42] >> All right.

[28:43] » All right.

[28:43] Thanks.

[28:44] >> I don't have anything to add. I would

[28:45] » I don't have anything to add. I would

[28:45] echo those words as well.

[28:47] >> Mary?

[28:48] » Mary?

[28:48] >> And I totally join in John's sentiments.

[28:51] » And I totally join in John's sentiments.

[28:51] I would vote yes.

[28:53] >> Okay, Trevor?

[28:53] » Okay, Trevor?

[28:54] >> Fully agree.

[28:55] » Fully agree.

[28:55] >> I agree with John.

[28:56] » I agree with John.

[28:56] >> Okay.

[28:57] » Okay.

[28:57] All right.

[28:58] Can we entertain a motion?

[29:00] >> Motion to approve.

[29:02] » Motion to approve.

[29:02] >> Support.

[29:02] » Support.

[29:02] >> Motion by John, support by Mike. All in

[29:04] » Motion by John, support by Mike. All in

[29:04] favor, say aye.

[29:06] >> Aye.

[29:06] » Aye.

[29:06] >> Opposed?

[29:08] » Opposed?

[29:08] Okay, it's approved.

[29:10] >> Thank you all for your time.

[29:11] » Thank you all for your time.

[29:11] >> Well,

[29:12] » Well,

[29:12] sorry about the last time, but uh

[29:15] >> It all worked out.

[29:15] » It all worked out.

[29:15] >> Okay.

[29:20] » Thank you, Paula.

[29:22] >> Okay.

[29:24] » Okay.

[29:24] Motion to adjourn?

[29:27] » I move.

[29:28] >> Okay, Mary.

[29:29] » Okay, Mary.

[29:29] >> Second.

[29:29] » Second.

[29:29] >> Second by John. All in favor?

[29:31] » Second by John. All in favor?

[29:31] >> Aye.

[29:31] » Aye.

[29:31] >> Aye.

[29:32] » Aye.

[29:32] Motion to adjourn.

Zoning Board of Appeals - 12 Aug 2026

Transcript