What time?
>> Okay. to order
» Okay. to order
the August 12th, 2026 meeting of the
City of Walker Zoning Board of Appeals
at 6:30 p.m.
By way of introduction, I'll briefly
explain the purpose of the Zoning Board
of Appeals.
City of Walker has adopted a Zoning
Ordinance. If a property owner wishes
relief from a portion of the ordinance,
the Michigan from the Michigan Zoning
Enabling Act provides for an avenue of
appeal through the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
The Zoning Ordinance provides four
conditions that the board must use in
making a decision. The board may grant a
variance only if they find from
reasonable evidence that all four of
these conditions are met.
The four conditions that must be met are
extraordinary or exceptional
circumstances, which apply to this
parcel and do not apply generally to
other properties in this district.
Preservation and enjoyment of property
rights that other properties in this
district would be the same possess.
The variance will not be of substantial
detriment or adjacent to adjacent
properties.
And the request is not of such general
nature that the ordinance should be
changed.
A decision by the Zoning Board of
Appeals cannot be overturned by the City
Commission. 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 in
the county of which the property is
located.
An appeal of the Circuit Court must be
filed within 30 days of this decision.
Okay. Um
First item on the agenda is to review
the minutes of the 27th
May 27th of 2026.
Everyone have the minutes?
Chance to review them?
Motion to approve?
>> I'll move it.
» I'll move it.
>> Okay, motion by Mary.
» Okay, motion by Mary.
Second?
>> Approve, second.
» Approve, second.
>> Second by John. All in favor, say aye.
» Second by John. All in favor, say aye.
>> Aye.
» Aye.
>> Opposed? Okay, minutes are passed.
Next item on the agenda is um
general public comment. If there's
anyone in the audience that wants to
have any comments not related to this
case, um
you get time to
to uh speak.
Okay, seeing none, we will
move on.
Okay, tonight we have one
um
case on the agenda, and the case number
is
26-002
for 1839 Fessenden Avenue Northwest.
This is a dimensional variance request
seeking relief from section 1503
uh walls and fences.
And just to kind of give you an overview
of what's going to happen, first we'll
have uh
uh Paula speak and fill us in on
everything that
um
she has uh put together here for us.
And then the applicant will speak.
Um and then we'll have a public hearing
of um any other person in the audience
wants to
uh speak to the matter and whatnot. And
then uh
we'll have a um
a public hearing of um
amongst ourselves, amongst the board, so
then we'll make a decision on that. So,
um
with that, Paula, I guess we're ready
for you.
>> Thank you, Chair. I will
» Thank you, Chair. I will
first situate us regarding uh where we
are. So, um
here I'm just zooming in on the screen
here to Walker. This This Richmond here.
And the property in question is on the
corner of Pheasant and this new road
here that came in with a recent
development to the city, this infill
development on Ringneck Drive.
Um is currently still under
construction. They're starting to build
homes back in there. The roads went in
last year, I believe primarily last
year.
Um and the applicant, Mr. Steven
Sherwin, is the resident and owner of
1839 Pheasant Avenue Northwest and he
submitted this application
asking for a variance related to a
secondary front yard fence. So, I will
um walk through my report which
highlights the relevant sections of the
zoning ordinance for the board.
The property in question here is this
one on the corner.
It's lot 57 of Pleasant Hills number two
plat, which was approved in January of
1958.
The property is currently zoned SA,
which is suburban residential single
family.
And so, in my report here, um the first
thing we need to establish is what are
the different lots of a property because
the fence requirements are different for
different sides of the property. So,
um the This is a diagram from our zoning
ordinance. You can see different lots
and showing a front yard fence here,
side yard fences, rear yards, um a
secondary street yard is something that
um All right, I'm going to read from the
definition for a front yard. 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 at the yard adjacent to
the streets included in the lot's
address. All other yards meeting the
definition of abutting a public street
but not designated as the address of the
lot shall be considered a secondary
front yard. And so, these corner lots
here have a front yard, this one has a
side yard, a rear yard, and a secondary
front yard. It might also be called a
secondary street yard.
And so, these secondary front yards have
to follow the same regulations as a
regular front yard.
And this is an excerpt from section 1503
of the zoning ordinance regarding
requirements for walls and fences. I
highlighted here those for the SA
district, which are the relevant to this
property.
In this district, fences in the front
yard may be up to 4 ft in height with a
zero setback, and if 4 ft tall, must be
at least 50% transparent.
Fences in the side and rear yard may be
up to 6 ft in height with a zero setback
from property lines. Privacy fences,
which are those that are fully opaque,
are permitted in side and rear yards
only.
So, that transparency requirement for
front yards, front yards are treated
differently than others
when it comes to fences. This is very
standard um in zoning ordinances in
Michigan.
And so, just a little more history about
the property.
There is an existing fence on the
property. I'm going to pull up
some images from the applicant. Um
So, this is their property. So, here's
Pheasant and the new ring ringneck
drive. The existing fences here shown in
green and the proposed fence the
applicant wants to add is shown in
yellow.
I'm going to change the screen again to
show. This is the existing part of the
fence
on the property.
A few images there. And here it is from
the new secondary street.
So, this fence has been existing for
many years. Pheasant Avenue has had a
stub street adjacent to the property
since the plat was developed in the late
1950s.
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 Ringneck Drive, which connect the
long-established stub streets between
Pheasant and Whitmore. And while the
stub street was long present adjacent to
the property, it was reasonably and
fairly treated by the applicant as a
side yard when there was no street
developed there. The existing fence, as
you can see in the picture, was not
deemed out of compliance with the zoning
ordinance until Ringneck Drive was
constructed, establishing the secondary
front yard on the property. So, there
was always the promise of a secondary
front yard, but it wasn't there. To
illustrate this, I want to show you um
This is an excerpt for an image from
Google Street View from last summer,
June 2025. So, this is across the street
from the applicant's property looking
So, here we are right here. The image is
right here. We're looking east right
now. You can see there's the stub street
where a street could be be placed to
continue. And essentially, a long kind
of shared driveway circumstance for
these two homes. Now, as I pan around,
you can see the applicant's property
here. It used to look like this side
to the east, and now there's
construction happening. This was last
summer, construction happening there,
and that changed the the side yard of
their property and the rear yard
substantially.
So, um just to show again, so this is an
This is Google Earth here. I'm zooming
in. This is the subject property and the
the former stub street that existed for
60-plus years.
And then, when I go here, that has
updated the imagery. You can see the new
road.
The property lines haven't changed, but
the experience of living there has
changed dramatically for our the
applicant. This new road goes through.
It changes what used to be
uh trees and green
um to a neighborhood. And this happens
in as development occurs around a city,
but it does change the experience of
living there, especially for the
immediate neighbors.
So, the applicant is asking
Um wait, I pulled up I want to pull up
some more of his images for you. So, you
can see here is that that fence that
exists and how close it is to the new
road and sidewalk.
Some more images. So, this is their rear
yard where this picture is taken from
used to be trees.
And now it is a street and it turn
changes dramatically. Um
let me just show a few more things and
then I'm almost done here.
Um so, a fence is in the front yard if
it is between the plane of the house and
the property line which abuts up a
street.
This means that the side yard begins at
the house. Normally, that's a 35-ft
setback for a front yard in this zoning
district. But nor if there was a sub
street there or a full street there, a
house wouldn't have been placed within
that 35-ft setback.
This house is already existing, which
means the front yard setback line is
where the house is located, roughly 17
ft from the property line.
And this fence is now
10 ft from the property line. So, in my
estimation, the variance being requested
is about 7 ft. They're asking to put the
fence it's 5 to 7 ft closer to the road
than the plane of the house. If the
fence were in line with the house, it
could be 6-ft tall and fully opaque and
that would not be an issue, but the
applicant is requesting to extend the
fence at its current plane.
I have
Oh, where's that first image here? You
see the existing fence, they want to
extend it along that line and then back
to their accessory building.
So, the request before the ZBA tonight
is to allow for a 6-ft tall opaque
privacy fence located 10 ft from a
secondary front yard property line,
where the ordinance permits front yard
fences to be up to 4 ft tall, 50%
opaque,
50% transparent, with a variance of 2 ft
in height, 50% opacity, and 7 ft in
setback. So, essentially, they're asking
to allow a privacy fence
to continue
um on this regard here, this plane going
north and south along the access drive
to the
uh the accessory building. That fence
doesn't need a variance. You can put a
tall opaque privacy fence there, no
problem. We're really focused for the
the ZBA tonight on this part of the
fence that is technically in a secondary
front yard. So, I know there's a lot of
details there. Um the standards that the
chair went over are in the report as
well. The applicant provided responses
to those standards in his submission.
There's more images, and I'm happy to go
back over any of that um for the board
if I can clarify anything. I try to give
you as many of the details as I can, but
I know they can get confused. So, um I'm
here to help if there's anything I can
do.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
Thank you, Paul.
>> Paul, I just have one question.
» Paul, I just have one question.
Is that you say that the accessory
building, does that belong to the
applicant?
>> Yes, it does.
» Yes, it does.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
So, you can see the dashed line around
here. That is roughly the applicant's
property line.
>> Okay. So, he wants to extend the privacy
» Okay. So, he wants to extend the privacy
fence from the house
to the um accessory
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> Okay.
» Okay. Thank you, Paul.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Okay.
Uh
if I could get the applicant to come to
the microphone and
» I have some handouts if you'd like to
>> That'd be great.
» That'd be great.
>> Paul, is that
» Paul, is that
>> That'd be great. Thank you.
» So, they have
» Give you a chance to look at that.
>> Thank you, Paula.
» Thank you, Paula.
Thank you.
Okay.
>> Well, we are requesting the minimum
» Well, we are requesting the minimum
variance necessary to maintain and
extend the existing lawful fence
line, preserving the walkway between the
driveway and the patio.
The variance required
to continue the historic fence alignment
is approximately like 7 ft. Really,
we're arguing over 5 to 7 ft for about
32 ft is the gist of it.
>> [snorts]
» [snorts]
>> So, basically, what we're looking for is
» So, basically, what we're looking for is
to kind of keep that walkway between the
driveway
and the patio.
And we believe that we met all four
conditions.
» Can I ask a question?
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> I'm a little confused. You want to
» I'm a little confused. You want to
extend um
the height of the fence from 4 ft to 6
ft or 4 ft to 7 ft?
>> The existing fence is currently 6 ft
» The existing fence is currently 6 ft
tall. We are talking about 7 ft variance
between the house and where the fence is
currently that we're kind of arguing
over.
>> so the the new fence would be also 6 ft
» so the the new fence would be also 6 ft
tall?
>> Correct.
» Correct.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> It would have the same height
» It would have the same height
and opacity as the existing fence.
It would just be longer.
» Ma'am, you you'll get your turn.
Thank you.
Go ahead. I'm sorry.
>> Oh, it is just far as the uh stub street
» Oh, it is just far as the uh stub street
goes, there's uh while it was
foreseeable that there may be a street
there at some point, it wasn't
inevitable. The two uh
lots that are on
Pheasant and Whitmore on the other
sides, those were purchased by the uh
existing homeowners. So, they actually
own those stub streets now. So, it
wasn't
um
it's not inevitable that that would have
happened that that fence and that road
or that road would never be there.
It was foreseeable, but not inevitable.
>> Mhm.
» Mhm.
Okay. Anything else or is that
>> No, just that we believe we met all four
» No, just that we believe we met all four
of the conditions.
>> Okay.
» Any questions for him?
>> No questions.
» No questions.
>> Huh.
» Huh.
Guess not. Um I do have one thought
though. Is in this drawing, is this
pretty much
to
as far as the distances and whatnot, um
is it
>> Relatively to
» Relatively to
>> Or is it going to be closer to the
» Or is it going to be closer to the
sidewalk than what it is in this or
>> It's relatively to scale. It should be
» It's relatively to scale. It should be
around
>> It's been a while since I actually
» It's been a while since I actually
looked at the material, but it it's a
17 ft away I think from the road.
>> I mean, here it looks really nice. I'm
» I mean, here it looks really nice. I'm
just curious on where you put it in this
picture, so.
» Yeah, fence is minimum 25 ft away from
the road, 17 away from the sidewalk, and
10 ft from the row.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> That's the kind of the minimum. What
» That's the kind of the minimum. What
happens is my my home is facing one like
kind of angled one direction and now
this new road is is kind of angled
towards it. So, it's a larger distance
at the beginning of the home um towards
the front of the property, the east of
the property, and then it narrows as it
goes towards the back.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> So, there's about a 2-ft discrepancy.
» So, there's about a 2-ft discrepancy.
>> So, this is pretty accurate to what it
» So, this is pretty accurate to what it
will look like when it's done. I mean,
as far as the distances and stuff. Okay.
>> Okay.
» Paula, has this been added to the packet
then?
This new illustration?
>> Uh the applicant did send it to me. I'm
» Uh the applicant did send it to me. I'm
happy to include it in the the final
report or, you know, in the case file.
>> Yeah, that'd be great. Thanks.
» Yeah, that'd be great. Thanks.
>> It's a slightly modified version of the
» It's a slightly modified version of the
one that's currently that came in with
the application. Um so, the applicant
updated it to be more accurate.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
Okay.
>> [clears throat]
» [clears throat]
>> Anyone got any questions for the
» Anyone got any questions for the
applicant?
No? Okay.
Okay. You can sit down. I need a motion
to open a public hearing.
Someone?
>> Motion.
» Motion.
>> Motion by Mike.
» Motion by Mike.
Motion by Mike, second by John. All in
favor, say aye.
>> Aye.
» Aye.
>> Okay. Opposed?
» Okay. Opposed?
Okay. Public hearing's open.
Okay, ma'am. Now you can speak. If you
come to the microphone and state your
name and address, please.
Hi there.
>> Judy Akers at 1 Peasant Street.
» Judy Akers at 1 Peasant Street.
So,
>> [clears throat]
» [clears throat]
>> I know what a problem it is for all the
» I know what a problem it is for all the
people living on Peasant Street and to
have a rule that you only need a 4-ft
fence on that street is
crazy because we all need 10-ft fences
being across the street from Blankfort.
We have hardly any
property left that the deer don't eat.
>> Mhm.
» Mhm.
>> So, all of us would love to have a 10-ft
» So, all of us would love to have a 10-ft
fence around our whole property. And
that's all I can say in support of being
a little bit higher than 4-ft.
Nothing.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> We need 10-ft fences in that area.
» We need 10-ft fences in that area.
>> Okay. Thank you very much.
» Okay. Thank you very much.
Okay. Any other Well, there is no else.
So, okay. I guess we need a motion to
close the public hearing.
>> Motion.
» Motion.
>> Motion by Trevor, second by John. All in
» Motion by Trevor, second by John. All in
favor, say aye.
>> Aye.
» Aye.
>> Aye.
» Aye.
>> Opposed? Okay. Meeting's closed.
» Opposed? Okay. Meeting's closed.
All right. Um
I guess we
should um go into finding some fact
here.
Um
>> Can I ask one one question? Paula, can
» Can I ask one one question? Paula, can
you put those criteria up again, the
four factors that have to be met?
So, it'll be easy for me to
>> Yes, would you like me to put up the
» Yes, would you like me to put up the
version from my report where they're
just stated plainly as in the language
of the ordinance?
>> all I No, that's all I
» all I No, that's all I
>> applicant's responses to the standards.
» applicant's responses to the standards.
>> Uh
» Uh
>> Here, I'll just I'll leave this up and
» Here, I'll just I'll leave this up and
>> Okay, that's fine.
I'm sorry, Brian.
>> No, you're fine. What I and I what I
» No, you're fine. What I and I what I
will do is read his responses into
the record then.
Um
cuz he was very detailed and and it
really does It's kind of an unusual
situation, so it's kind of really
uh it's going to help us, so
um
Okay, so in response to the exceptional
or ordinary circumstances or conditions
applying to this property in question,
his response
is
not to put water all over yourself.
Okay, thank you.
Um his response is although the corner
lot exists 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 the initial development. More
than half a century this subject
property has functioned as a traditional
interior residential lot. That condition
has changed only after the 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
home site. Thank you.
After this after-the-fact change is
unusual, creates a practical
difficulty not generally shared by other
properties in the same zoning district.
Um
Three conditions that make this property
uniquely extraordinary when compared to
even other corner lots are the
government created after-the-fact the
secondary yard designated decades after
initial development.
And existence of a lawful improved
residential privacy fence years before
the secondary front yard fence
designation. And over 50 years of um
reasonable use, privacy and security
once
enjoyed by the owner and has been
significantly reduced. And then B, which
um
says uh that such variance
is necessary for pres- presidential
enjoyment of the substantial property
rights similar to that possessed by
other properties.
He said request the requested variance
is necessary to restore and preserve
reasonable residential privacy,
security, and functional backyard use
consistent with what is commonly enjoyed
[clears throat] 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
secondary back or 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 unique practical
difficulty uh conditions affecting the
property.
And as far as a detriment,
um
I don't think that that's
a detriment to anybody around there.
It's It's
um
This is a fence which he actually has
now, and moving a little closer to the
road is so and it's not going to be a
recurring problem
um
anywhere in the city. So, that's kind of
the
four conditions.
Right?
So, um
with that said, I made a mess over here,
sorry about that.
Um [clears throat]
the board wants to kick it around and
see what the feelings are.
» I'll start off if you'd like.
>> Sure.
» Sure.
>> All right. So, I'll just go through
» All right. So, I'll just go through
these four conditions. So,
uh exceptional and extraordinary
uh the unique circumstances here arises
from the property location and the
city's action, not from the applicant,
in my opinion.
Uh preservation of
substantial [clears throat] property
right
Uh
what I got is due to the city's roadway
construction and the resulting secondary
front yard designation the property is
uniquely restricted. Granting this
variance allows reasonable privacy,
security, and residential use comparable
to neighboring properties.
Uh the request is based on property use
and not a financial gain.
Uh
substantial detriment.
The evidence demonstrates that the fence
will not interfere with traffic safety,
visibility,
or record or excuse me, required
[clears throat] sight distance
standards. If we go back to image six,
I think it was,
where that red triangle is at,
uh
I think the minimum requirement, correct
me if I'm wrong, Paul, is that the legs
of the triangle
are supposed to be at least 50 ft for
visibility as you drive around the
corner.
Correct?
>> Oh, I It's been a while since I pulled
» Oh, I It's been a while since I pulled
it up. Our ordinance states that a clear
vision triangle It starts from the
center point of the intersection and I
believe it goes out 75 ft in in either
way in in regardless, the fence in
question is in no danger of
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> impacting a clear vision for the
» impacting a clear vision for the
intersection.
>> So, in my opinion, you've met that
» So, in my opinion, you've met that
criteria.
And then the condition um will not serve
as uh
or general nature as to require a
general regulation. This is very
specific to this property.
So, in my opinion,
um based on this evidence and the
findings, I conclude that the applicant
has met these requirements. However, um
it is conditional. You've got this very
nice visual right here that you just
passed out.
I would like it to look like that.
It's very nice and this is a drastic
improvement to this neighborhood.
» I'm not doing it myself or anything like
that. It's being contracted and it will
it will be nice.
» Okay.
>> That's what I got.
» That's what I got.
>> All right.
» All right.
Thanks.
>> I don't have anything to add. I would
» I don't have anything to add. I would
echo those words as well.
>> Mary?
» Mary?
>> And I totally join in John's sentiments.
» And I totally join in John's sentiments.
I would vote yes.
>> Okay, Trevor?
» Okay, Trevor?
>> Fully agree.
» Fully agree.
>> I agree with John.
» I agree with John.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
All right.
Can we entertain a motion?
>> Motion to approve.
» Motion to approve.
>> Support.
» Support.
>> Motion by John, support by Mike. All in
» Motion by John, support by Mike. All in
favor, say aye.
>> Aye.
» Aye.
>> Opposed?
» Opposed?
Okay, it's approved.
>> Thank you all for your time.
» Thank you all for your time.
>> Well,
» Well,
sorry about the last time, but uh
>> It all worked out.
» It all worked out.
>> Okay.
» Thank you, Paula.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
Motion to adjourn?
» I move.
>> Okay, Mary.
» Okay, Mary.
>> Second.
» Second.
>> Second by John. All in favor?
» Second by John. All in favor?
>> Aye.
» Aye.
>> Aye.
» Aye.
Motion to adjourn.