[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.