View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
January 10, 2005
Chairman R. Hilt called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: R. Hilt, S. Brock, E. Fordham, J. Clingman-Scott, C. Kufta, K.
Davis
MEMBERS ABSENT: L. Blackmon
STAFF PRESENT: M. Cameron, L. Anguilm, D. Leafers
OTHERS PRESENT: L. Hysell, 1953 S. Harvey; D. Spezia, 888 Terrace; C. West, 1069
2nd St.
R. Hilt welcomed new Board member K. Davis
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of December 13, 2005 be approved was made
by J. Clingman-Scott, supported by E. Fordham and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing, Case 2006-001: Request for a variance from Section 2331: Landscaping, Fencing,
Walls, Screens and Lighting, to erect an 8 foot tall fence up to the property line which exceeds
the maximum allowed height of 6 feet tall in front of a building line at 1953 S. Harvey St. M.
Cameron presented the staff report. The subject property is located at the corner of Keating
Avenue and Harvey Street. Zoning of the adjacent properties in the area is all I-2 General
Industrial, with the property directly across Harvey street being US-31. The site plan that has
been provided indicates that a variance is needed along Keating Avenue. Staff believes that the
variance, if issued, will need to apply to the fence being placed near the guard shack building
facing Harvey Street as well. Depending on the final placement of the fence in that area, it
appears it will be past the front building line of the guard shack. The fencing under
consideration would be located primarily inside the existing perimeter fencing. The plant has a
substantial amount of fencing around the entire outer perimeter of the property that is already
topped with barbwire. The actual plant is located to the east of the parcel with a large wooded
area to the west of the plant but inside the perimeter fence. The majority of the existing fence on
the site appears to be six feet tall. Staff has received no comments regarding this case.
L. Hysell stated that this request was an effort by Honeywell to improve safety at their site, since
they deal with many hazardous and flammable substances. They have also added guards and
video surveillance. He showed on the site plan where the current fencing was and where the new
fence would be. He stated that the 6-foot fence currently in place would remain, and the 8-foot
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –01/10/06 1
sections would be placed mainly inside the current perimeter in an area near the guard shack and
along Keating Ave. S. Brock asked why they were leaving the 6-foot fence instead of changing
all of it to 8-foot fencing. L. Hysell stated that the 8-foot sections would serve mainly as
secondary containment. E. Fordham asked if there would be two parallel fences around the
property. L. Hysell stated that there would not be, and pointed out on the site plan where the
new sections would be. E. Fordham asked why all the fencing was not being changed to the 8-
foot height. L. Hysell stated that it was due to funds. They had already spent a considerable sum
on a new video surveillance system. They would eventually like to replace the 6-foot sections.
E. Fordham asked if the applicant would have to return to the ZBA when they do decide to
replace the 6-foot sections. M. Cameron stated they would, because this request was only for the
specified sections shown on the site plan. J. Clingman-Scott asked about the length of the fence
being considered. M. Cameron stated that it was about 32 feet. K. Davis asked if this was
something that was mandated by the Federal government, or if it was being done voluntarily. L.
Hysell stated that his understanding was that the government has recommended 8-foot fencing.
Honeywell was doing this now in an effort to be proactive.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by J. Clingman-Scott, supported by K. Davis and
unanimously approved.
The following findings of fact were offered: 1) 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, 2) 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, 3) 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, 4) 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, 5) 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 6) that the requested variance is the minimum action required
to eliminate the difficulty.
A motion that the variance request to allow an 8-foot tall fence in front of the building line for
the fencing being constructed as indicated on the included site plan at 1953 S. Harvey Street, be
approved, subject to the conditions that 1) the variance is recorded with the deed to keep record
of it in the future, 2) the additions to the property must be complete within one year (Sec. 2504)
or the variance is void, and 3) the fencing is constructed on the property as indicated on the
included site plan, was made by C. Kufta, supported by E. Fordham and unanimously approved.
Hearing, Case 2006-002: Request for a variance from Section 2331: Landscaping, Fencing,
Walls, Screens and Lighting, to allow the placement of barbed wire on the newly erected fence
as indicated on the included site plan at 1953 Harvey Street. M. Cameron presented the staff
report. The subject property is located at the corner of Keating Avenue and Harvey Street.
Zoning of the adjacent properties in the area is all I-2 General Industrial with the property
directly across Harvey street being US-31. The plant has a substantial amount of fencing around
the entire outer perimeter of the property that is already topped with barbed wire. The actual
plant is located to the east of the parcel with large wooded areas to the west of the plant but
inside the perimeter fence. All of the existing fence on the site appears to be six feet tall with
barbed wire on top. Staff has received no comments regarding this case.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –01/10/06 2
E. Fordham asked if the barbed wire currently in place was grandfathered. M. Cameron stated it
had been there for many years. L. Hysell stated that approval of this request would complete the
project by adding the barbed wire on top of the new sections of fence, and the reasons for the
request were the same as those mentioned in the previous case. C. West asked about the cost of
the new fencing. L. Hysell stated that it was about $27,000.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by J. Clingman-Scott, supported by K. Davis and
unanimously approved.
K. Davis asked M. Cameron if barbed wire in any area needed to be approved by the Planning
Commission. M. Cameron stated that if the ZBA granted the variance, the applicant would not
require Planning Commission approval.
The following findings of fact were offered: 1) 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, 2) 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, 3) 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, 4) 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, 5) 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 6) that the requested variance is the minimum action required
to eliminate the difficulty.
A motion that the variance to allow barbed wire to be placed on the newly erected fencing as
shown in the included site plan for 1953 S. Harvey Street be approved subject to the conditions
that 1) the variance is recorded with the deed to keep record of it in the future, 2) the additions to
the property must be complete within one year (Sec. 2504) or the variance is void, and 3) the
barbed wire is placed on the new fence as indicated in the included site plan, was made by J.
Clingman-Scott, supported by S. Brock and unanimously approved.
OTHER BUSINESS
R. Hilt asked M. Cameron to contact Board member L. Blackmon regarding his two absences.
R. Hilt asked about the house on Peck St. that was being considered for the Rescue Mission
offices. He stated that the Rescue Mission had already purchased the home and was currently
renting it out. He was concerned about the house being converted to offices. L. Anguilm
provided the ZBA with an update of the Planning Commission case regarding the Rescue
Mission’s request for a Special Use Permit for this property. It was currently tabled and awaiting
a decision by the Mission on whether to proceed. Mission personnel were going to meet with the
neighborhood association in January.
M. Cameron reminded Board members about the upcoming training session on February 1 and
asked them to RSVP to D. Leafers.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:31 p.m.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –01/10/06 3
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails