CLAY TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

MINUTES OF JULY 16, 2015

Page 7

MINUTES OF THE CLAY TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING HELD THURSDAY, JULY 16, 2015 IN THE CLAY TOWNSHIP MEETING HALL, 4710 PTE. TREMBLE ROAD, CLAY TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN 48001

1. CALL TO ORDER:

Chairman Treppa called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m.

2. ROLL CALL:

PRESENT: Dennis Szymanski, Anthony Antkowiak, Bonnie McInerney-Slater, Joanne Shirkey, and Brian Treppa

ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Thomas Krueger

A quorum was established.

3. APPROVAL/AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA:

Motion by McInerney-Slater, supported by Antkowiak, to approve the agenda as submitted.

AYES: All NAYS: None MOTION CARRIED.

4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 18, 2015:

Motion by Antkowiak, supported by Shirkey, to approve the Minutes of June 18, 2015, as submitted.

AYES: All NAYS: None MOTION CARRIED.

5. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PREFACE:

Chairman Treppa read the preface explaining the process of the Clay Township Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), including explaining the five standards that must be followed, and the practical difficulty that has to be proven as to the unique reason or cause that exists as to the use of a particular land.

6. NEW BUSINESS:

ZBA APPEAL #2015-005 ADAM PATON, 7301 AQUA ISLE

Adam Paton, 7301 Aqua Isle: The reason I’m here today is fairly simple, and that’s for the safety and wellbeing of my children. The current ordinance allows for a 3’ fence and all I’m asking is for a 1’ variance in the fence. The reason being, if you look up any statistics, the #1 cause of death for children, especially under the age of 2, is drowning and with that being said, we have a 14’ canal behind our house, we have a 30’ boat well and it is a significant hazard for our children. All we’re trying to do, they are outside with lifejackets and under supervision, but we’re trying to create one more measure so that we can help prevent accidents. Any statistics, any website that you go to, the recommendation, especially with pools, anything in the state of Michigan, is a 4’ fence and that’s all I’m asking for is the variance for 1’. It is not a privacy fence, it is nothing that is supposed to be obstructing views, it is not meant to keep anybody out, it is literally to be aesthetic and help protect my children. It will be a wrought-iron aesthetic looking fence. It is meant to be aesthetic, it is not meant to obstruct anybody’s views and that’s pretty much all that I’m asking for. The fence that we’re proposing is not the entire yard, it’s almost, I’d say, half to three-quarters on one side of our yard, and it’s not encompassing our entire yard. We tried to limit it so that it wasn’t too involved, yet gave our children enough room so they could at least run and play. Thank you.

Public hearing was opened at 7:39 p.m.

McInerney-Slater read the letters received:

July 15, 2015

Dear Mr. Treppa: This is in regard to the request for a variance of Clay Township Zoning Ordinance #126, Article 2, Section 2.02, unobstructed yard space, by Mr. Adam Paton of 7301 Aqua Isle in Clay Township for the erection of a 4’ fence in unobstructed yard space. This variance is to be heard at the July 16, 2015 meeting of the Zoning Board. I believe the township has recently gone through a thorough reexamination of this fencing issue and has already amended the ordinance appropriately, therefore, without going any further I am respectfully against any variance that would further impede the unobstructed view of our yard spaces as stated in the current ordinance. We have been residents of Clay Township since 1997 and moved to our neighborhood primarily because of the unobstructed views of our canal in this particular neighborhood. Changing events during the course of our lives come and go, our children grow up, our pets pass on, people move in and out of the sub, but fences tend to stay forever.

Sincerely, Robert Obidzinski 7251 Aqua Isle, Clay Township, Michigan

John Schauerte, 7320 Riverside Drive: I’m against this variance for the fence because our area has been fence free for over 40 years. People have raised children, people have raised pets without any fences. I am not aware of any drownings that have taken place and like in the previous letter, fences tend to stay, and kids grow up. The other thing is, there are some children that have special needs and the parents aren’t requesting any fences, which I think would carry more weight than this. So, I am therefore requesting the Board deny this variance. Also, the people requesting it, just moved into the neighborhood about 2 years ago knowing that there were no fences allowed.

Bernard Kotarski, 7359 Aqua Isle: Going along with the last gentleman, I am one of the folks who raised children, two. I’ve been here for 30 years. Children grew up. Life jackets was just a way of life playing in the backyard. I’ve never heard of an incident. I have to question why if you consider the water a hazard, why would you move into a neighborhood that’s nothing but water? It makes no sense to me. But people have boating and I understand that. I respectfully request that you deny the variance in this case.

Tom Brunzell, 7280 Riverside Drive: 39-year resident of Riverside Drive, right across from the Paton’s. I also ask that you deny this request. If you look at the plans, I think that you can see that he’s only covering part of his yard and he’s got an area in his house where you can walk out of his house, walk across his property and walk into the canal or walk into his boat well. So he’s not protecting the children fully. If you’re going to protect the children, you’d want to do the whole thing. Secondly, he has two bulldogs and I think this is more of a dog fence than anything although he won’t admit to that. I’m thoroughly against this. As the other neighbors have said, been here 40 years, nobody has had an incident, not one incident. And if you want a fence to watch a kid, I think you might be asking for trouble. The system that’s in place, no fence, watch the children, works fine.

Richard Edens, 7291 Riverside Drive: I’m agreeing with most of the people that have been up here. I moved in 2004. I also grew up on the water as a kid and my parents let me know real fast what the water was all about and I was disciplined for it. As a kid growing up, they don’t have the same discipline that they had back when I was a kid. That has a lot to do with it also, it just does. I’d have to say that they just recently moved into a water community, whether they had children or not is beside the point. You’re here, it’s a water community, we don’t have fences and we don’t want fences. You’re more than welcome, but the same token, the majority of the people we do not want fences and I again ask that you deny this variance. Thank you very much.

Ronald Balitzky, 7355 Aqua Isle: I’ve been there 39 years and I’m thoroughly against this fence for the simple reason that once you allow one to do it, you’re going to have a monopoly, the next one is going to do it. I’d like to have a fence next to my house right now. I had renters there for three years and it’s a dump next door. I’d love to build a privacy fence down the whole thing, but I don’t do it because I know what the rules are and I don’t want to hurt other people’s feelings. Once you let one person do it, they’re all going to start. Thank you for your time and I’m thoroughly against it.

Garry Stein, 7279 Riverside Drive: I’d like to reiterate with the rest of the folks, I’m against the fence as well. I think there are a number of alternatives if you need temporary fencing to keep a child safe, I understand that. But to put a permanent fence up, I think once a fence is built, people think that it hides them from everything else and they start stacking stuff against it, it becomes one item after another stacked against the fence and it becomes an issue, unsightly. Thank you.

Caroline Eno, 7362 Aqua Isle: I’m a newcomer, I’ve been here 16 years. No fences when I moved in, happy with it. I love my area. No children, but I had grandchildren. They were small and when they came out and visited, they loved the area, we had them in the boat, and they wore life jackets and knew that when they were in our yard they had to have the life jackets. So, no fences. They knew they wanted a family, they knew the requirements for them, don’t move into our waterfront area. That’s all.

Linda Dekeyser, 7323 Riverside Drive: I’m just trying to understand a little bit more how this fence, when they request unobstructed, what do they mean by placing the fence in the unobstructed area? Because behind our homes there’s a certain area that you can plant so that you are not obstructing anyone’s view. Is this fence planned to go to the canal? So the other question I would have is, the Board recently approved fences to the canal of 3’ in height, so our subdivision is a unique subdivision, we’re a waterfront community as you know, like the Colony and some of the other canal subdivisions, we have lived in our home for almost 15 years. What I love about our community is I can sit out on my patio and I can look up and down the canal and it’s a park-like setting. People that have dogs either come outdoors with their dogs and they have invisible fences or they’re walking their dogs. People with children have their children wear life vests close to the water, even in the front of the house. I have grandchildren and when they come over they wear their lifejackets. My neighbors, their children wear their lifejackets. The thing that I would wonder is, what is the difference between 3’ and 4’ is going to do? If there’s no fence in the front yard, you’re closer the road than the children are to the canal and that road has no sidewalks, there is more risk in the front yard. Believe me, I’ve raised five children and #1, children and child safety is everybody’s business and you guys have a tough decision to make tonight, but I would say that the Township has been very generous by already allowing a 3’ fence to the canal. My other concern would be that if you allow the 4’, like the other neighbor said, everyone else is going to want to do that. The other thing is, is that allowing the fence also might give the children a false sense of security, meaning that they might be left unattended in the yard because you have a fence, and is 4’ going to keep them in? Will 3’ keep them in? Nobody knows. But they should still be in life jackets, they should still be watched over and attended to while in the backyard. I do see the neighbors outside, they’re with their children all the time, and they look like a great family in our subdivision. It’s not about us or them, it’s about what’s right and I don’t really see the difference in the 3’ to 4’. The other thing is that children have to be taught to respect nature and one thing about nature is water safety. The water can be very tame and safe at times and the water can be very dangerous at times. So that’s a lot of the things that you learn when you live in a water community. I really think that maybe door alarms and some other things with a 3’ fence might be more welcome and I hope that you’ll truly consider no variance and just leaving things the way they are because truly, I wasn’t real happy about the 3’ fence to the canal but the Township voted that. Thank you for your time.

G. Roberts, 7295: Neighbor of the Paton’s, a direct neighbor. I really came up here not thinking this would be an issue for 1’. I hear everybody’s opinion, everybody has their yeah we all wear life jackets, we’ve all seen kids die, we’ve all seen everybody hit their head. There are more issues than you should wear a life jacket, of course we should. These people just want 12”? Wow. That’s a shame. Someone said it might be their dog, I’ve lived next door 11 years, and their dog has never been in our yard. There are more dogs barking in the neighborhood than anything else. A 1’ fence, really? I understand, nobody here wants a fence, so who’s going to run out and put a fence up because they got to? They’re just protecting their family, no more than anybody else. And I did hear when I bought my house that a kid did drown at my house, I don’t know that it’s true, but that’s the story I heard. I’m for it. Thank you.

John Schauerte, 7320 Riverside Drive: The comment that I have, is I attending the Planning Commission meeting last August, it was the statement made by that panel was that the canal was not considered a hazard when you buy the house. There was some discussion about somebody else wanting a fence on Flamingo or something else like that and the comment that came up was that the canal is not considered a safety hazard. For the record.

Public hearing was closed at 7:50 p.m. and Board members began deliberation.

Antkowiak: There are three standards, in order to have us approve a fence, two of those three standards have to be met. That was the reason for this.

Szymanski: Why don’t we go ahead and read that.

Antkowiak: All properties abutting a boatable waterway shall maintain an unobstructed yard space beginning at the seawall, bulkhead, or normal high-water mark of the shoreline for the full depth of the minimum yard setback required in the zoning district. The Zoning Board of Appeals may permit fences or similar structures intended for security, safety, or enclosure, to occupy some or all of the unobstructed yard space provided the Zoning Board of Appeals makes at least two of the following findings at a hearing held for that purpose and conforming to the procedures of Section 27.06. The three standards are: A: The fence or similar structure is no more than 10% opaque or obstructing. B: The fence or similar structure is necessary to ensure the health, safety, or general welfare of persons, especially young children, based upon an identified hazard or danger. C: The fence or similar structure is necessary to secure communication or utility infrastructure and to protect the general public from potential hazards associated with communications or utility infrastructure. Section 2 says: Nothing in the section shall prevent the Zoning Board of Appeals from granting a side setback variance or an otherwise lawful accessory structure. And 3: Nothing in the section shall prevent the averaging of the established rear setback line in compliance with Section 3.11 supplementary setback provisions. Now, as I read this, and as it was done, the intent was to clarify the language on the same issue, which said we could this but we had no idea how we could go about doing it. So what we have to do is determine whether or not they meet two of these three standards. I would say yes, let’s start with the fence. Mr. Paton, you had indicated that the fence was 90% open.