Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Fence Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Holland Board of Appeals denies variance for new church fence

6490140 · October 24, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The City of Holland Board of Appeals denied a variance request from Third Reformed Church/EV Construction for a new fence that would sit on the property line and exceed the 4-foot height limit, citing precedent and code compliance.

The City of Holland Board of Appeals voted to deny a variance request from EV Construction on behalf of Third Reformed Church for a new fence at a downtown property listed in the application as 124 West Twelfth Street (also shown in the application as 111 West Thirteenth Street).

The applicant, Brad Loomans of EV Construction, said the new fence was intended to match the adjacent playground fence and “we mimicked what was there,” and described the fence as enclosing a chiller unit. The proposed fence would sit at the property line (0-foot setback where a 1-foot setback is required) and measure 4 feet 4 inches tall where the zoning code caps fence height at 4 feet for the location.

Board members said strict compliance with the 1-foot setback and the 4-foot height limit would not prevent use of the property but noted the project raised questions about precedent and public-safety maintenance needs, including snowplow clearance. Members discussed that an existing adjacent playground fence predates current rules and is effectively grandfathered in; however, they said new fences must meet the updated zoning ordinance. The board referenced the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act in describing the grandfathering and ordinance enforcement framework.

After board discussion, a motion to deny the variance passed on roll call. Board members who recorded votes in favor of denial included Falstad, Lamberts, Peaks, Van Antwerp, Bauer and Jared Bedard (roll-call excerpts in meeting transcript). The board chair reiterated that applicants can ask to table or reapply and that decisions may be appealed to circuit court under state law.

The board’s reasoning emphasized that the fence request failed to demonstrate a unique physical circumstance required for a variance, and members urged applicants to comply with the current setback and height rules when constructing new fences in the historic district.

The clerk then read the next application on the agenda.