View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
October 9, 2007
Chairman R. Hilt called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: E. Fordham S. Brock, B. Larson, L. Gomez-Payne, R. Hilt, J.
Clingman-Scott
MEMBERS ABSENT: C. Carter
STAFF PRESENT: L. Anguilm, C. Brubaker-Clarke, D. Leafers
OTHERS PRESENT: R. Boyd DVM, 930 W. Sherman Blvd.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of August 14, 2007 be approved was made by
B. Larson, supported by E. Fordham and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing Case 2007-006: Request for a variance from Section 2331: Landscaping, Fencing,
Walls, Screens and Lighting, to allow the relocation of the current front fence, with barbed wire,
four feet north from its current location, and to construct sliding gates on the east and west side
of the building with barbed wire on top, at 930 W. Sherman Blvd., by Robert B. Boyd DVM of
Northern Biomedical Research. L. Anguilm presented the staff report. The applicant is
requesting to move the fence to accommodate a new sidewalk, and to install a new gate on the
west side of the building with a new exit from property. Additionally, they would like to
upgrade the gate on the east side of the building to a rolling gate, all with barbed wire. Zoning of
parcels in the area is B-4, General Business, except directly east where the shopping center is
zoned B-2 Convenience & Comparison Business. The property on the south side of Sherman is
in the City of Norton Shores is currently an industrial use. City of Muskegon staff had
approached the applicant for an easement to construct a sidewalk along West Sherman Blvd.
The sidewalk can be put in place without moving the fence, but as part of the discussions, the
applicant expressed concerns about sidewalk maintenance in the winter months with the fence
located literally at the new sidewalk edge and little terrace space along the roadway. A fence
located at the sidewalk edge along such a busy thoroughfare could also be hazardous to bicyclists
and pedestrians, giving them little area to safely maneuver in case of emergency. Northern
Biomedical Research (NBR), has been working with city staff on the reconfiguration of the
existing easterly gate and the creation of a new exit with gate to the west of their building. This
has become a problem for NBR since an intersection was created to serve the Home Depot
development just east of NBR’s only driveway. This new intersection has resulted in greatly
increased traffic congestion in the area of their drive, which makes it very difficult to exit the
facility safely. While there had been blinking traffic lights here, they have recently been
removed. In an effort to decrease congestion at this point, NBR would like to route traffic into
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –10/09/07 1
the existing drive, circle the building and exit to Sherman Blvd. out a new drive on the west of
their building, adjacent to the Checkers entrance. This would require a new gate on the west side
and an upgrade to the gate on the east. NBR is requesting to put barbed wire on top of both gates.
The barbed wire on the fence is currently well maintained and in good condition, but is
nonconforming. If NBR removed their barbed wire fence without a variance it could not be put
back in place. It appears the proposal by NBR would actually result in less linear feet of barbed
wire on the fence than is currently in place; this is due to the fence being moved four (4) feet
closer to the building. Additionally, this could be viewed as moving towards conformity by
reducing the total amount of barbed wire hung on the site. The applicant also mentions in their
application, the expansion of Sherman Blvd. over the years from a two lane roadway to what is
now a five lane roadway. This expansion has continued to narrow the terrace area to its present
configuration and does contribute to the safety concerns for pedestrians and cyclists that may use
the new walkway. When staff made a site visit, traffic was not at its peak but it was difficult to
see oncoming traffic approaching from the west, with the fence in the current location. Before
expansion of the roadway, a vehicle would have been able to pull out past the fence line to see
west down Sherman Blvd. If the fence is moved back the proposed four (4) feet, vision at the
new exit and existing entrance/exit would be vastly improved. Staff has not received any
comments on this case.
B. Larson asked for clarification on the location of entrances and exits to the building. R. Boyd
explained, using the site plan. B. Larson and S. Brock asked why the City was paying for the
sidewalk. C. Brubaker-Clarke stated that, as part of the improvements to the Henry/Sherman
intersection, the Engineering Department had received some grant funds for the work. The
property owners would be required to maintain the sidewalk in the future. R. Hilt asked why
barbed wire was needed. R. Boyd explained the type of work done at the facility, and stated that
NBR was subject to oversight by several governmental agencies. He explained the requirements
for a secure facility and the need for the barbed wire. He stated that the fence was being moved
due to the City wanting to install a sidewalk, and not to benefit the property owner. He stated
that they had considered using black fencing to make it less noticeable.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by S. Brock, supported by E. Fordham and
unanimously approved.
E. Fordham agreed with the need for added security for the building, and believed that the new
location of the fence would also provide better visibility for vehicles leaving the site.
The following findings of fact were offered: a) that there are exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question or to the intended use of the
property that do not apply generally to other properties or class of uses in the same zoning
district, b) that such dimensional variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the
vicinity, c) that the authorizing of such dimensional variance will not be of substantial detriment
to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purposes of this chapter or the public
interest, d) that the alleged difficulty is caused by the Ordinance and has not been created by any
person presently having an interest in the property, or by any previous owner, e) that the alleged
difficulty is not founded solely upon the opportunity to make the property more profitable or to
reduce expense to the owner, and f) that the requested variance is the minimum action required
to eliminate the difficulty.
A motion that the findings of fact determined by the Zoning Board of Appeals be adopted and
that the variance request to allow barbed wire to be replaced on the new fence and gates as
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –10/09/07 2
shown on the provided site plan be approved, subject to the conditions that 1) the additions to the
property must be complete within one year (Sec. 2504) or the variance is void, 2) the overall
amount of barbed wire is not increased from what is currently in place, 3) the variance applies
only to the fence and gates being moved and reconfigured as part of this project, and 4) the
variance is recorded with the deed to keep record of it in the future, was made by E. Fordham
and supported by J. Clingman-Scott, with discussion continuing on the motion.
S. Brock disagreed with the need for barbed wire on the site, especially considering that it was
on a main thoroughfare. E. Fordham stated that there was already barbed wire on the fence, and
this new proposal would reduce the amount of fencing. J. Clingman-Scott appreciated the
applicant’s suggestion of using black fencing on the site.
A vote was taken on the above motion, which passed, with S. Brock voting nay.
OLD BUSINESS
B. Larson stated that the Board had not received an answer on whether member L. Gomez-Payne
could still serve on the ZBA, since she was now a City employee. He requested that Chairman
R. Hilt contact the City Manager for an answer. R. Hilt stated that he would.
OTHER
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:33 p.m.
dl
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –10/09/07 3
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails