Mar 10, 2021 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting

[00:00:04]

YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE THE TECHNOLOGY WORK FOR US DURING THIS TIME.

NO WORRIES ON THAT.

YOU KNOW, I WORKED WITH MY DAUGHTER THIS AFTERNOON AND WE GOT THROUGH.[INAUDIBLE] IF YOU LIKE, YOUR CAMERA MAY BE USED BY ANOTHER APPLICATION ON YOUR LOCAL COMPUTER, BUT I WOULD SUGGEST THAT AT 6:29 WE RUN WITH IT THE WAY THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW AND WE'LL MAKE DUE. OK. THANK YOU.

YOU ARE WELCOME. WELCOME, MEMBER NEWMAN. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

GLAD TO BE HERE. GLAD YOU COULD JOIN US TONIGHT.

WE APPRECIATE IT, FOR STEPPING IN YOURSELF.

AND REMEMBER SHAWKI STEPPING IN TO HELP US OUT TONIGHT.

AND WELCOME TO YOUR FIRST NIGHT OF THE ZBA, RIGHT? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. DON'T WORRY, THIS, THIS WILL BE AN EASY ONE.

A GOOD, EASY WAY TO GET YOUR FOOT WET.

PERFECT. HEY, DON, HOW ARE YOU? HI THERE, I'M WELL, YOU'RE THAT YOU'RE HERE.

NICE, NICE.

OK, IT IS 6:31 WELCOME, THIS IS WELCOME TO THE CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF MERIDIAN.

[Items 1 & 2]

AND I WILL NOW CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER.

WELCOME. IS NOT EJECTED PROPERLY, NO.

MS.[INAUDIBLE]I'M GONNA ASK YOU TO MUTE JUST BECAUSE WE'RE JUST GOING TO START OUR MEETING HERE. YEP. THERE YOU GO.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

OUR FIRST ITEM FOR THE EVENING WILL BE TO APPROVE OUR AGENDA.

HOPEFULLY, EVERYBODY GOT A CHANCE TO LOOK OVER THAT BECAUSE I KNOW I FORGOT ABOUT THAT LAST LAST MINUTE TRUSTEE OPSOMMER.

I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE THE AGENDA.

OK, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.

ANY SECOND? I'LL SECOND.

SECONDED BY MEMBERS SHORKEY.

THIS IS GOING TO BE A ROLL CALL VOTE.

WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND DO ROLL CALL VOTES FOR OUR TWO ALTERNATE MEMBERS.

JUST TO REMIND EVERYONE WE SINCE WE ARE IN ZOOM AND IT'S NOT AS EASY TO TELL FROM THE VIDEO, I WILL JUST VOTE ON EACH MOTION JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE AND SUPPORTED PROPERLY.

ALL RIGHT.

MEMBER SHORKEY? YES TRUSTEE OPSOMMER? YES. MEMBER NEWMAN? YES.

MEMBER KULHANEK? YES, AND THE CHAIR VOTES YES.

SO OUR MOTION TO APPROVE OUR AGENDA HAS PASSED AND WE CAN MOVE ON IN THE AGENDA.

[3. CORRECTIONS, APPROVAL AND RATIFICATION OF MINUTES]

I HAVE A MOTION FROM [INAUDIBLE].

I'LL MOTION. AND THE CHAIR WILL MOTION TO.

TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES FROM THE MEETING.

WE'LL SUPPORT THAT.

AND SUPPORTED BY TRUSTEE OPSOMMER.

MEMBER SHORKEY? YES.

THIS IS I'M SORRY, THIS IS A VOTE TO TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING, TRUSTEE OPSOMMER? YES, MEMBER NEWMAN? YES. MEMBER KULHANEK? YES. AND THE CHAIR VOTES YES.

ALL RIGHT. AND MOVING ON IN OUR AGENDA, LET ME PULL THIS UP HERE WE GO.

[4. COMMUNICATIONS]

IT LOOKS LIKE. KEITH, DO WE WANT TO JUST ROLL THOSE INTO OUR CASE LATER? YEAH, I THINK THERE'S ONE, I BELIEVE.

[00:05:01]

WE ALSO DIDN'T WE ALSO HAVE A COMMUNICATION FROM THE HOA? I THINK THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET.

BUT YEAH, OK. OK, GREAT.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. OK, SO WE WILL ACKNOWLEDGE THE FOL- OF THE OTHER COMMUNICATION.

I'M SORRY. JUST FOR A MOMENT.

I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT MY KIDS DECIDED TO CHOOSE THIS MOMENT JUST TO MAKE THEMSELVES HEARD, SO EXCUSE MY CHILDREN.

MOVING ON, SINCE WE WILL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT COMMUNICATION FROM MR. WILLIAMS DURING THE PRESENTATION, RATHER THE HOA DURING THE PRESENTATION AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT MR. WILLIAMS LETTER WHEN WE ARE IN OUR BOARD TIME, WE HAVE NO UNFINISHED BUSINESS.

[6A. ZBA CASE NO. 21-03-10-1 (Lommel), 5528 Silverleaf Court, Haslett, MI, 48840]

HEY, EVERYBODY, I'M GOING TO SHARE MY SCREEN HERE.

SO THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ENCLOSE AN EXISTING UNENCLOSED PORCH OR DECK AT 5528 SILVERLEAF COURT.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED JUST SOUTH OF SILVERLEAF COURT AND SOUTHEAST WHITE ASH LANE, ITS OWNED RA RESIDENTIAL.

AND THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS FROM SECTION 86373E5C FOR LOTS UP TO ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY FEET IN DEPTH. THE REAR YARD SETBACK SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 30 FEET IN DEPTH.

THIS IS JUST THE AERIAL OF THE SITE.

SO A LITTLE BIT OF OVERVIEW, THERE IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ON SITE THAT WAS BUILT IN 1998. THERE IS AN EXISTING UNENCLOSED PORCH LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER, AND IT MEASURES APPROXIMATELY 12 FEET BY 18 FEET.

SO THE APPLICANT IS LOOKING TO REPLACE THAT EXISTING UNENCLOSED PORCH WITH A NEW ENCLOSED PORCH OR THREE SEASONS ROOM THAT IS ALSO 12 FEET BY 18 FEET.

AND THIS PROPOSED ENCLOSED PORCH WOULD ENCROACH INTO THE REAR YARD, SET BACK ON THE PROPERTY. SO THE EXISTING UNENCLOSED PORCH IS ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 86564B TO ENCROACH UP TO EIGHT FEET INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK.

SO WHEN THE HOUSE WAS BUILT.

THIS WAS ALLOWED TO ENCROACH, AND IT'S LOCATED TWENTY 27.8 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, SO IT'S ENCROACHING 2.2 FEET INTO THAT REAR YARD SET BACK.

AND THESE ARE JUST A COUPLE OF PICTURES.

AND THERE'S ANOTHER ANGLE FOR YOU.

SO THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS TO CONSTRUCT AN ENCLOSED PORCH THAT WILL BE ON TOP OF THAT EXISTING UNENCLOSED PORCH SECTION 86564C STATES THAT ENCLOSED PORCHES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE BUILDING, THUS MEETING THE DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF THAT BUILDING OR PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE.

AND IN THIS CASE, THAT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT IS THE REAR YARD SETBACK AND THE REAR YARD SETBACK IN THE RA ZONING DISTRICT IS 30 FEET, FOR LOTS UP TO 150 FEET IN DEPTH.

AND IN THIS CASE, THIS IS IRREGULAR SHAPED, BUT BOTH SIDES ARE LESS THAN 150 FEET.

AND SO THIS NEW ENCLOSED PORCH WILL BE 27.8 FEET FROM THAT REAR PROPERTY LINE, SO THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS FOR 2.2 FEET TO ENCROACH INTO THAT REAR YARD SET BACK.

THIS IS A DRAWING THAT SHOWS THE SOUTH OF THE, THE SOUTH ELEVATION OF THE THREE SEASON ROOM. AND THIS IS LOOKING EAST.

AND THIS SITE PLAN SHOWS THE LOCATION OF THE DECK HERE.

AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

[00:10:06]

WE WILL HAVE TIME FOR OUR BOARD MEMBERS.

WE WILL HAVE TIME IN JUST A MOMENT JUST TO ASK MR. CHAPMAN AND OTHER MEMBERS OF STAFF QUESTIONS.

BUT FOR NOW, IS THE APPLICANT OR APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE HERE TONIGHT? I BELIEVE WE HAVE MS.[INAUDIBLE].

I WILL JUST ASK YOU TO STATE YOUR NAME, YOUR FULL NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

AND THEN ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD TO WHAT, MR. CHAPMAN SAID. YOU ARE MUTED, THOUGH.

GO AHEAD AND SHOOT YOURSELF.

MS. LAMELL. YOU'RE STILL YOU'RE STILL ON MUTE.

GO TO YOUR LITTLE MICROPHONE THERE IN YOUR LEFT HAND CORNER.

ALL RIGHT, GOT IT. I'M SORRY I JUST GOT USED TO THIS.

IT'S ALL RIGHT. IT'S ALL RIGHT.

WE'RE ALL LEARNING. IT'S OK.

OK. YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.

PLEASE GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR FULL ADDRESS OF THE RECORD, PLEASE.

MARSHA LAMELL.

5528 SILVERLEAF COURT, HASLETT, MICHIGAN.

48840. AND YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND ADD ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD TO WHAT MR. CHAPMAN SAID, OR IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU'D LIKE US TO KNOW ABOUT THE THE VARIANCE REQUEST. WELL, THE PORCH FACES A WOODED AREA, WHICH IS PART OF A WETLAND, SO IT DOESN'T ENCROACH ON ANY NEIGHBORS AT ALL.

THE OTHER THING IS THAT THERE IS A CHIPPEWA.

IT'S PART OF CHIPPEWA WOODS SUBDIVISION.

AND THERE IS A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION THAT REQUIRES APPROVAL FOR ANY CONSTRUCTION OUTSIDE OF THE HOME.

I WENT THROUGH THAT PROCESS.

THEY HAVE AN ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE OF THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION.

IT WENT THROUGH THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE WITH ALL OF THE DESIGN ELEMENTS AND EVERYTHING, AND THEN IT WENT TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND IT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE CHIPPEWA WOODS HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION.

SO THERE'S THAT.

I REALLY THINK THAT THIS WILL ENHANCE MY HOUSE AND THE VALUE AND ALSO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THERE ARE A LOT OF HOUSES IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAVE THREE AND FOUR SEASON ROOMS. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WERE DEVELOPED WITH WHEN THE HOUSE WAS BUILT OR IF THEY WERE ADDED, BUT A LOT OF THEM DON'T LOOK TO BE 30 FEET FROM PROPERTY LINES.

SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S.

THERE REALLY IS ANY IMPEDIMENT IN TERMS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WITH FULL SUPPORT OF THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, I FEEL GOOD ABOUT THAT.

I AM NEW TO MICHIGAN, RELATIVELY NEW.

I MOVED HERE FROM NEBRASKA.

I'VE ALWAYS HAD A THREE SEASON ROOM.

BUT IT'S EVEN MORE IMPORTANT NOW AS I'VE GOTTEN OLDER AND HAVE SOME LIMITATIONS AND DURING THE QUARANTINE FOR ME TO HAVE SOME OUTSIDE SPACE AND OUTSIDE AIR.

SO I'M REALLY HOPING THAT THIS CAN BE APPROVED SO THAT I CAN GET IT BUILT HOPEFULLY THIS SUMMER AT LEAST SOMETIME THIS SUMMER.

I THINK THAT'S ALL.

I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

GREAT, THANK YOU SO MUCH.

YES, PLEASE STAND BY AND WE WILL LIKELY BE ASKING YOU SOME QUESTIONS AS WE GO THROUGH THIS AS A BOARD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MS. LAMELL. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE THIS EVENING? SOMETIMES WE DO HAVE PEOPLE.

I DON'T SEE ANYBODY IN ATTENDEE.

I SEE ONE PERSON IN ATTENDEES, BUT NO OTHER HANDS RAISED.

IN THAT CASE, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED WITH WORD TIME.

CHAIR MANSOUR? YES? I WILL REMIND THAT IF PEOPLE WANTED TO COME IN FROM THE PUBLIC AND ARE WATCHING VIA ON TV, WE CAN ACCEPT CALLS AT (517) 349-1232.

AND WE DO HAVE THAT ONE PERSON IN THE ATTENDEE AREA WHO CAN USE THE RAISED HAND FEATURE IN THE MEETING ITSELF.

IF THEY CARE TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME.

I PAUSED LONG ENOUGH THAT I'M NOT HEARING ANY TELEPHONES RINGING, SO I'LL RETURN THE MEETING TO YOU AND APOLOGIZE FOR THE INTERRUPTION.

OH, THANK YOU. WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR HARD WORK AND HELPING US MAKE THE MEETINGS ACCESSIBLE TO EVERYONE AT HOME.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

ON THAT NOTE, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND GET IN TO OUR BOARD TIME.

AT THIS POINT, ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS WE CAN SPEAK TO STAFF, WE CAN SPEAK TO MS. LAMELL, ANYONE AT ALL, AND WE WILL WORK OUR WAY THROUGH OUR CRITERIA.

SO. YES, THANK YOU, CHAIR MANSOUR.[INAUDIBLE]

[00:15:09]

YEAH, I MEAN, FROM WHAT I CAN TELL, IT LOOKS LIKE MOST OF THE HOUSES HAVE DECKS, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I DON'T KNOW OF ANY OTHER VARIANCES.

OK, AND THEN MY OTHER QUESTION WAS LOOKING AT THE SITE PLANS FOR THE HOME AND I DO APOLOGIZE, I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND NOISE.

I'M ALSO HEARING FROM MY SON THIS EVENING.

THE DECK, IT APPEARS, JUTS OUT FROM THAT SOUTHERNMOST WALL ON THE HOME.

IS THAT EXTENSION OF THE DECK FROM THAT SOUTHERNMOST WALL? IS THAT BASICALLY THE TWO FEET, THREE INCHES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

OK, SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I GUESS THAT STANDS OUT TO ME WITH THIS IS I SEE THIS SUPPORTS THE VERTICAL SUPPORTS BENEATH THE RIM JOIST OF THE DECK.

CURRENTLY OR YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT CANTILEVERED, SO THE SUPPORTS ARE ALL THE WAY OUT AT THE END, SO IN ORDER TO CONFORM, THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO DEMOLISH THE DECK AND RECONSTRUCT IT BECAUSE THE SUPPORT SYSTEM ITSELF IS IN THAT AREA IN QUESTION.

SO THAT'S ONE THING THAT I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM, BUT STOOD OUT TO ME IN THE APPLICATION. THANK YOU.

THAT'S ESSENTIALLY THE REASON FOR THE VARIANCE THAT WOULD BE PROHIBITIVE TO START ALL OVER. THANK YOU.

REALLY GOOD POINT. I DO I DID MAKE A NOTE OF THAT MYSELF AS WE WERE LISTENING TO THE PRESENTATION, AND IT DOES APPEAR THAT WITHOUT BUILDING EXACTLY AS THE STRUCTURE IS, YOU WOULD HAVE TO TEAR OUT THAT ENTIRE STRUCTURE AND REBUILD COMPLETELY IN ORDER TO CONFORM.

YES. SO I DO SEE THAT AS BEING A BIT OF A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY THERE.

DO WE HAVE ANY ANYONE ELSE THAT HAS A QUESTION OR ANY.

COMMENTS OR THOUGHTS? I WILL SAY ONE THING THAT STOOD OUT TO ME IS THAT THIS THIS IS CONFORMING.

UNENCLOSED, BUT WOULD BE NONCONFORMING AND DOES REQUIRE THE VARIANCE IF IT IS ENCLOSED BECAUSE IT'S CONSIDERED A PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE, THAT'S IS THAT CORRECT? YES. SO IN THAT WAY AS WELL, I DO SEE THAT.

WE HAVE A STRUCTURE THAT'S ALREADY THERE.

WE HAVE A HOMEOWNER WHO'S WILLING TO PUT MONEY INTO MAKING IT A, TO IMPROVING THE PROPERTY IN A WAY, AND THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OF NOT, OF NEEDING TO REMOVE THAT ENTIRE STRUCTURE IN ORDER TO CONFORM BY TWO FEET.

SO I DO SEE A, I DO SEE A MINIMUM ACTION HERE, WHICH IS A VARIANCE.

REALLY, WHAT WE'RE WHAT WE'RE BEING REQUESTED TO APPROVE HERE IS TO FEED INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK WITH APPROVAL FROM THE HOA WITH A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM NEIGHBORS, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS ALREADY AN EXISTING STRUCTURE.

IT WILL JUST BE A AN ENCLOSED STRUCTURE VERSUS UNENCLOSED STRUCTURE.

AND FOR THAT REASON, I THINK I'M FAIRLY CONFIDENT THAT WE COULD START GOING THROUGH THE CRITERIA IF NOBODY ELSE HAS ANY PRESSING QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR FOR.

I MEAN.

YEAH, GO AHEAD. THIS IS DON.

I'M HEARING WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

AND CERTAINLY WE'LL GO THROUGH THE CRITERIA.

BUT I GUESS MY CONCERN, I LIVE ON A STREET NOT UNLIKE THIS, WHERE EVERYBODY HAS A DECK OFF THE BACK IS WHERE WE WHERE EXACTLY ARE WE DRAWING THE LINE HERE? I UNDERSTAND THIS IS AN EXISTING DECK AND THERE'S PROBABLY A NUMBER OF EXISTING DECKS THAT PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO ENCLOSE THAT MIGHT ENCROACH INTO THAT 30 FOOT SET BACK AND.

YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I THINK WE CAN GO THROUGH THE CRITERIA, BUT THAT'S THEREIN LIES MY CONCERN. THIS ONE SEEMS VERY MINIMAL WHEN WE LOOK AT IT.

IT'S JUST A COUPLE OF FEET AND A HANDSOME PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT, BUT.

[00:20:06]

AND IN SOME WAY, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE IT REALLY OPENS A BIT OF A DOOR.

AND I MIGHT THROW IN THAT THIS IS A REALLY WINDING NEIGHBORHOOD AND MOST OF THE HOMES BACK ON TO A WOODS, BUT EVERYBODY'S AREA BEHIND THEIR HOUSE TO THEIR YOU KNOW, TO THE THE LOT LINE IS VERY DIFFERENT.

MINE IS LARGER THAN MOST.

YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN, THEY'RE ALL DIFFERENT YARD SIZES.

AND BECAUSE IT'S VERY WINDING, IT'S THEY'RE REALLY IRREGULAR AS WELL.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE, BUT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MISS LAMELL.

I THINK THAT I DEFINITELY APPRECIATE THE KIND OF PERSPECTIVE ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD BOTH.

AND I THINK WHAT MEMBER KULHANEK IS GETTING TO IS THAT IS THAT APPROVING A VARIANCE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD? DOES THAT OPEN UP? BECAUSE THEY ARE I THINK THE HARD PART IS BECAUSE THEY ARE VARIOUS SHAPED LOTS.

DOES THAT OPEN UP MORE CASEWORK NECESSARILY FOR US? IF WE SAY, OH, YEAH, WE APPROVE THIS, DOES THAT GIVE LICENSE TO HAVE A LOT OF OTHER THINGS APPROVED? BUT I THINK IF YOU DON'T MIND, MEMBER KULHANEK, LET'S, I THINK THAT WE CAN KIND OF BRING THAT BACK UP WHEN WE'RE GETTING INTO.

CRITERIA SIX AND SEVEN, MAYBE EVEN.

PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT YOU HAVE A HAVE THEY HAVE A POINT ABOUT PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES HERE.

SO LET ME GET STARTED, IF YOU DON'T MIND, AND WE'LL GET BACK INTO THAT IN JUST A MOMENT, BECAUSE I THINK AS WE GET STARTED, I THINK THERE'S SOME THAT ARE PRETTY.

PRETTY BASIC, AND WE CAN HAVE A LITTLE BIT FURTHER DISCUSSION THERE.

OUR FIRST CRITERIA IS UNIQUE.

CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST THAT ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND OR STRUCTURE THAT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LAND OR STRUCTURES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.

SO I WOULD BE ABLE TO.

CONFIRM THAT I DO THINK THAT THIS IS UNIQUE.

I DO THINK THAT AS WE LOOK AT THAT.

THOSE LOTS ALL IN THAT SUB, EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE PARCELS IS A UNIQUE SHAPE.

JUST BASED ON THAT ALONE, I DO THINK THAT THIS IS A UNIQUE LOT.

I DO THINK THAT I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY, I DO NOT THINK THESE ARE SELF CREATED.

I MEAN, THIS WAS THIS IS A.

AS IT WAS DEVELOPED, NOT AS IT WAS MADE BY THE PROPERTY OWNER, SO I COULD MEET BOTH CRITERIA ONE AND CRITERIA TWO THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SELF CREATED.

CRITERIA THREE, STRICT INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE LITERAL TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER WOULD RESULT IN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.

AND I THINK MEMBER KULHANEK SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S KIND OF WHERE YOU'RE STARTING TO GET A LITTLE WHERE THAT'S A LITTLE NOT AS SOLID OF A CASE, WHICH I DO UNDERSTAND.

SO LET'S TALK ABOUT IT. WHAT CONSTITUTES THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IN THIS CASE? I THINK MEMBER OPSOMMER OR TRUSTEE OPSOMMER.

GO AHEAD. SURE, AND I'M GOING TO TURN MY VIDEO OFF TO TRY TO IMPROVE MY AUDIO QUALITY.

SURE. MY SON IS STREAMING VIDEOS RIGHT NOW, SO THAT IS A CHALLENGE.

UNDERSTANDABLE. AND SO, AGAIN, I KIND OF COME BACK TO THE SUPPORTS ON THE EXISTING DECK BECAUSE IF THE IF IT WAS CANTILEVERED AND THE SUPPORT SYSTEM FOR THE DECK WERE INSIDE, WERE COMPLIANT, THEN THE JOIST COULD JUST BE CUT DOWN AND YOU COULD BRING IT INTO COMPLIANCE READILY.

FAIRLY EASILY, BUT IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, YOU BASICALLY HAVE TO DEMO THE DECK, AND SO WHEN I LOOK AT UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT EXIST TO THE STRUCTURE SPECIFICALLY, NOT SO MUCH THE LAND, I THINK THERE'S ODD ANGLES THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT THE STRUCTURE ITSELF. THERE ARE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES BECAUSE IT COULD THERE ARE MANY DECKS THAT ARE CANTILEVERED WHERE THE DECK WOULD HANG OUT A FOOT AND A HALF OVER THE STRUCTURE, AND IF

[00:25:05]

I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR MS. LAMELL AS WE TALK ABOUT PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, CAN YOU PERHAPS TALK TO US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT YOUR, THE PROCESS OF COMING UP WITH THESE PLANS? AND DID YOU EVER CONSIDER BRINGING IT IN AT ALL SO THAT IT WOULD BE IN IN.

WITHIN OUR ORDINANCE OR WAS THAT JUST.

WHERE DID THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS? I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, SO IF YOU COULD WALK US THROUGH A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THE PROCESS, I UNDERSTAND.

YOU GET INTO ALL KINDS OF THINGS WITH THE STRUCTURE, THE SUPPORT OF THE STRUCTURE.

WHAT YOU WOULD NEED TO DO, I GUESS, IS BRING THE STRUCTURE IN TWO FEET AND THEN HAVE A TWO FOOT. EXTERNAL PART, BECAUSE YOU NEED IT, AS WAS JUST EXPLAINED, BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT WAS BUILT, YOU NEED THE WHOLE STRUCTURE.

SO WE DID LOOK AT THAT AND IT JUST DIDN'T MAKE MUCH SENSE AND IT WOULD LOOK KIND OF WEIRD.

I MEAN, IT WOULD BE A USELESS TWO FEET OF.

OPEN DECKS SPACE, I GUESS YOU WOULD CALL IT, WHICH WASN'T VERY APPEALING TO THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION BOARD EITHER.

DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? I THINK SO I WAS TRYING TO LOOK AT MY TRYING TO KEEP YOU ON MY SCREEN AND LOOK AT LOOK AT THE PLANS THERE AS WELL.

AT THE SAME TIME, I THINK IT DOES ANSWER IT TO A CERTAIN DEGREE.

LET ME SEE IF I CAN IF.

KEITH, DO YOU THINK DO YOU HAVE THE THE STRUCTURAL DRAWING THAT YOU CAN PULL UP? YEAH. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE WITH THIS, BECAUSE WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT THE THE BUILDING ALTERNATIVE TO THIS TO KEEP WITHIN CODE AND COMPLIANCE WOULD BE OK. THANK YOU.

THAT'S PERFECT. OK, WOULD BE WHERE THIS WHERE THIS EXTERIOR, THIS POST IS TO BRING THAT BACK.

AND BRING THE ENCLOSED BACK, BUT THEN HAVE OR ARE YOU SAYING THAT IT WOULD BE TO LEAVE THIS POST EXTERIOR AND BRING THE INTERIOR FORWARD TWO FEET SO YOU WOULD JUST HAVE.

LINK. NON BUILT SPACE? YES, THAT THAT'S WHAT WE CONSIDERED BECAUSE IT WOULD ALSO BE REALLY EXPENSIVE TO START MOVING. IT'S NOT JUST ONE POST TO START MOVING POSTS.

AND I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY.

AND WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK INTO THAT, BUT IT JUST DIDN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME AND JUST WOULD COST MORE MONEY AND LOOK FUNNY.

ALL RIGHT, I THINK I HAVE A HANDLE ON THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS.

I DO FEEL WHEN I LOOK AT THIS, THIS IS THIS IS A MINIMAL ACTION.

I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO FEET THAT IS ALREADY THERE.

THIS ISN'T TWO FEET THAT WE'RE CREATING THAT WE'RE GOING FURTHER INTO.

THAT'S TWO FEET ALREADY EXIST.

IT'S IN COMPLIANCE AT THE MOMENT.

IT'S IT WOULD BE NOT IN COMPLIANCE IF IT WAS ENCLOSED, BUT BE ACTIVE IN CLOSING THE PORCH DOESN'T ADD TO.

ANYTHING THAT DOESN'T ALREADY EXIST OR ANY FURTHER, IT JUST HAPPENS TO BE THE ENCLOSED VERSUS EXPOSED.

THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S CORRECT.

YEAH, I THINK I UNDERSTAND THAT NOW.

I THINK SO.

IN TALKING MORE ABOUT THAT, CRITERIA THREE IS STRICT INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF IT, DOES ANY OTHER IS THERE ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBER THAT HAS ANY QUESTIONS OR IS LOOKING AT THIS AND HAVING ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ABOUT THIS IN PARTICULAR? I DON'T WANT TO STEP OVER ANYBODY.

AND IT'S HARD TO BE FUNNY WHEN WE'RE WHEN WE'RE IN SHARED SCREEN MODE.

OK, I'M GOING TO THEN CRITERIA THREE STRICT INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE LITERAL TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER WOULD RESULT IN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, I WILL SAY.

AND IT'S AND IT'S ALWAYS A GOOD THING TO REMEMBER IN OUR PROCEEDINGS THAT WE CAN'T TAKE FINANCES INTO CONSIDERATION.

THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR.

[00:30:01]

WE UNDERSTAND WE ALL ARE HOMEOWNERS AND PROPERTY OWNERS IN OUR OWN RIGHTS.

BUT UNFORTUNATELY, WE DON'T TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.

AND THIS IS SOMETHING ALSO TO APPLY ACROSS THE BOARD, WHETHER IT'S TO BUSINESSES, TO RESIDENCES TO.

RENTAL PROPERTIES THAT ARE SO FOR ME, THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY REALLY IS THAT THIS IS ALREADY AN EXISTING STRUCTURE, THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OF LITERALLY HAVING TO BUILD A NEW STRUCTURE THAT IS ALREADY IN COMPLIANCE TO COMPLY BY TWO FEET.

I FIND THAT TO BE EXCESSIVE AND NOT WITHIN THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE, MEANING THAT I MEAN, THIS IS THIS.

I DON'T FEEL THAT THIS OPENS UP A BROAD BAND, WELCOME TO THE TO THE ZBA, COME GET YOUR DECK APPROVED, BECAUSE I DO THINK THIS IS A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE.

IT'S A VERY MINIMAL AMOUNT THAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO APPROVE.

AND SO, AGAIN, THAT PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY THAT I'M CITING IS LITERALLY JUST THE EXISTING STRUCTURE BEING THERE AND HAVING TO DESTROY IT AND AN EXISTING STRUCTURE TO CONFORM BY A VERY MINIMAL AMOUNT.

DOES ANYBODY WANT TO DISCUSS THAT ONE? IT WOULD BE THE STRICT INTERPRETATION OR ANY ANYBODY HAVING ANY.

ANY THOUGHTS ABOUT PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES? YES, TRUSTEE? MEMBER KULHANEK CAN GO FIRST.

I WASN'T I'M NOT SURE I HAD ANYTHING REALLY SUBSTANTIAL TO SAY, I THINK I STILL HAVE THE SAME CONCERN AND I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

IT'S VERY, VERY SMALL.

AND YOU DON'T SEE THIS AS NECESSARILY OPENING THE DOOR TO MORE OF THESE KINDS OF APPLICATIONS. AND I'M THINKING ABOUT IT FOR LACK OF A [INAUDIBLE], AND I LOOK FORWARD TO WHAT MEMBER OPSOMMER MIGHT SAY NEXT, BUT IT'S ANOTHER INTERESTING CASE, ISN'T IT? TRUSTEE OPSOMMER, GO AHEAD. THANKS, DON.

YES, I JUST HAD A QUESTION FOR STAFF AS IT RELATES TO THIS IN THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE.

SO AS IT RELATES TO A STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THIS CHAPTER, KEITH AND MARK, I'M SORRY, I'VE GOT QUITE A BIT OF BACKGROUND NOISE FROM MY SON.

AS IT RELATES TO STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THIS CHAPTER.

WHAT IS THE PUBLIC INTENT OF TREATING ENCLOSED DECKS DIFFERENT FROM AN OPEN AND EXPOSED DECK? I'M JUST CURIOUS, NOT HAVING DONE A CASE LIKE THIS AND I'M JUST WONDERING HISTORICALLY WITH THE ORDINANCE WHAT OUR INTENT WAS, IS WHEN I WAS THINKING ABOUT IT THIS AFTERNOON. THE PRO THAT I SEE WITH THE ENCLOSURE IS NOISE POLLUTION BEING RETAINED ON SITE OBVIOUSLY EXPOSED DECKS KNOW ARE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE NOISE TRAVELING FURTHER IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I DIDN'T QUITE SEE THE DRAWBACKS.

I WASN'T SURE IF IT WAS JUST THAT, YOU KNOW, WE TYPICALLY START WITH MODEL ORDINANCES AND IF IT'S GOT A ROOF OVER IT, THEN IT GETS TREATED LIKE, YOU KNOW, A POOR COMPONENT OF THE DWELLING UNIT VERSUS IF IT DOESN'T.

YEAH, YOU'RE RIGHT.

THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE IS THAT AT SOME POINT, AS YOU START ENCLOSING THESE DECKS, PUTTING A ROOF OVER THEM, PUTTING WALLS UP, THAT YOU'VE BASICALLY ADDED ON TO THE STRUCTURE AND IT BECOMES PART OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE.

CERTAINLY THEY COULD AT SOME TIME, YOU KNOW, CLOSE THE LOWER LEVEL AND FINISH IT.

PUT HEAT IN IT, PUT ELECTRIC AND WATER TO IT.

SO THE IDEA IS IT'S GOING TO EVENTUALLY BECOME PART OF THE HOUSE OR IT COULD BECOME PART OF THE HOUSE. SO THAT WAS THE REASON FOR THE SET BACK IN THE SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES THAT. AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO GET BUILDING PERMITS TO FULLY MAKE IT PART OF THE DWELLING UNIT, PUT HVAC AND EVERYTHING ELSE, OK? AND WOULD THERE BE? WHAT WOULD THAT PROCESS LOOK LIKE WITH YOUR OFFICE IN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO GET THOSE PERMITS? WELL, YOU KNOW, ORIGINALLY THIS ONE THIS CAME TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, THE CONTRACTOR FOR THE HOMEOWNER SUBMITTED IT AND THEN IT WAS CAUGHT THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE PART OF THE PRINCIPAL HOUSE AND DID MEET THE SETBACK.

SO, AGAIN, IF THEY COME BACK FOR PLUMBING AND ELECTRIC, HEATING OR AIR, THOSE ARE ALL PERMITS THROUGH OUR DEPARTMENT OR ANY STRUCTURAL CHANGES.

FOR THAT.

WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE ZBA?

[00:35:03]

RIGHT. IS THE ISSUE.

I SHOULD ALSO MENTION, AS YOU WERE TALKING THOSE SUPPORT POSTS, THE CONTRACTORS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO VERIFY THE INTEGRITY OF THOSE POSTS, THAT THEY CAN HOLD THAT ADDITIONAL WEIGHT FOR THIS ROOFED AREA.

SO THOSE MAY HAVE TO BE CHANGED OUT.

WHAT THE CONTRACTOR IS SAYING IS THAT HE MAY NEED TO ADD ONE OR TO DIG DOWN AND PUT MORE CONCRETE IN, AND WE DON'T KNOW THAT YET.

SO THAT WILL BE A CALL IT FROM THE BUILDING INSPECTORS, CORRECT? THANK YOU, TRUSTEE OPSOMMER, THAT, TRUSTEE OPSOMMER, THAT WAS REALLY HELPFUL, I THINK.

SO DIRECTOR KIESELBACH, IF THEY DO NEED TO HAVE THOSE POSTS.

REPLACED.

I THINK WE'RE THAT'S WHERE THAT'S WHERE I'M GOING TO GET NOW AND TO MEMBER KULHANEK'S GRAY AREA HERE WITH WITH HIM, BECAUSE IF THOSE POSTS ARE NOT STRUCTURALLY, STRUCTURALLY SOUND AND THEY DO NEED TO BE REPLACED, THEY COULD BE MOVED IN.

AND I MEAN, IF THEY IF THEY HAD TO BE REPLACED ANYWAYS, THEN THAT WOULD BE THAT WOULD NOT REQUIRE A VARIANCE.

THEY COULD JUST BRING IT IN THE TWO FEET AND NOT REQUIRE THE VARIANCE.

SO IS THAT IS THAT A CONDITION WE COULD PUT ON THAT? IF IF YOU WANT, YES, YOU CAN, AGAIN, UNTIL WE HAVE MORE INFORMATION AND THE BUILDING INSPECTOR IS ABLE TO LOOK AT IT.

WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT THOSE POSTS.

THOSE POSTSSS MAY BE FINE AS LONG AS THEY ARE RIGHT NOW.

TWO CONTRACTORS HAVE SAID THAT THEY'RE FINE, THAT THERE MAY BE A NEED FOR AN ADDITIONAL ONE OR FOR IF THEY DIG DOWN TO PUT MORE CONCRETE IN THE HOLE, BUT THAT THE POSTS ARE FINE, AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE TELLING ME.

THANK YOU, MS. LAMELL. AND THAT WOULD BE VERIFIED DIRECTOR KIESELBACH BY BUILDING INSPECTORS AT THE TIME OF THE TIME, THE INITIAL THE INITIAL PERMIT WAS RELEASED OR THE TIME THAT THE FINAL INSPECTIONS WERE APPROVED? NO, THEY'RE GOING TO THEY'RE GOING TO ASK FOR INFORMATION FROM THE CONTRACTOR TO JUSTIFY THAT THE POST CAN HOLD THE ADDITIONAL WEIGHT.

THEY'LL PROBABLY GO OUT AND LOOK AT IT AND MEET THE CONTRACTOR ON SITE TO DETERMINE THAT BEFORE THE PERMITS ISSUED.

OK, THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW.

THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

APPRECIATE THAT. OK, WELL, IN THAT CASE, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY FURTHER THOUGHTS ON PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, BECAUSE I THINK THAT CERTAINLY ENLIGHTEN ME A LITTLE BIT ON THE, MY ARGUMENT BEING THAT THEY THESE POSTS ARE OF EXISTENCE, THIS DECK IS AN EXISTENCE AND JUST NEEDS TO BE ENCLOSED.

BUT THERE IS THE POTENTIAL THERE THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO BE REPLACED.

WE CAN ADD THAT CONDITION AND STRUCTURE.

KIESELBACH SAID.

WE CAN APPROVE THE VARIANCE WITH THE CONDITION THAT IF THE POST DO NEED TO RE REPLACED THAT THEY COME WITHIN COMPLIANCE AND.

BUT. THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.

MOVING ON TO CRITERIA NUMBER FOUR, THAT THE ALLEGED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, WHICH WILL RESULT FROM A FAILURE TO GRANT THE VARIANCE, WOULD UNREASONABLY PREVENT THE OWNER FROM THE USING THE PROPERTY FOR PERMITTED PURPOSE.

THIS IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE OUR HARDEST CRITERIA TO PASS.

AND THIS IS THE THIS IS THE ONE THAT PERSONALLY, I DON'T.

I DON'T HAVE A ROCK SOLID CASE FOR.

I DO UNDERSTAND, AND I THINK MS. LAMELL GAVE US A REALLY GOOD KIND OF PICTURE OF THAT, HOW THAT WOULD IMPROVE NOT ONLY THE PROPERTY. BUT HER LIFESTYLE, IT WOULD, YOU KNOW, BUT IT DOES THIS WITHOUT WITHOUT

[00:40:02]

SO DOES ANYBODY.

ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD OR ANY ANYONE FEEL LIKE CONVINCING US OTHERWISE? AND THIS IS NOT I JUST WANT TO IF YOU CAN HEAR ME, I JUST WANT TO SAY I AGREE.

YOU KNOW THE HOUSE IS OBVIOUSLY ALREADY BEING USED AND IS FOR ITS PERMITTED PURPOSE.

AND AGAIN, THIS WOULD BE A NICE ENHANCEMENT TO THE HOUSE, BUT I CAN'T SEE WHERE THIS DENIAL IS GOING TO UNREASONABLY PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR ITS PURPOSE. IT'S CURRENTLY BEING USED FOR IT'S PERMITTED PURPOSE.

WOW. I BOUGHT THE HOUSE INTENDING TO DO THIS BECAUSE IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO ME AND I'VE HAD IT, I'VE HAD A THREE SEASON ROOM IN MY HOUSE FOR PROBABLY 30 YEARS.

THAT WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE FOR ME.

NOT TO HAVE ONE. I JUST THOUGHT JUST, MS. LAMELL SO YOU KNOW, WHEN WE GO THROUGH THESE, WE REALLY WE REALLY TRY OUR HARDEST.

THE UNFORTUNATE THING IS OUR CRITERIA ARE THE CRITERIA.

THEY DON'T CHANGE FROM CASE TO CASE, BUT WE DO IN OUR DELIBERATIONS NEED TO FIND JUSTIFICATION IN THOSE THINGS, WHICH THE LANGUAGE IS REALLY STRONG FOR A REASON TO MAKE IT, TO MAKE EACH CASE REALLY, TRULY WORTHY OF HAVING THOSE VARIANCE REQUESTS.

SO WHEN WE SAY.

THE, WOULD UNREASONABLY PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR THEIR PERMITTED PURPOSE, SO THE PERMITTED PURPOSE IN THIS CASE WOULD BE A RESIDENTIAL HOME.

DOES IT I AGAIN, I HEAR YOUR PERSPECTIVE AND VERY MUCH UNDERSTAND YOUR PERSPECTIVE THAT THIS WOULD ENHANCE AND YOUR NOT ONLY YOUR HOME, ITS VALUE, BUT ALSO YOUR YOUR LIFESTYLE.

THE CHALLENGES THAT WOULD, ARE YOU ABLE TO STILL HAVE THAT SAME HOME WITHOUT THE ENCLOSED.

PORCH AND THAT'S WHERE THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE TO DISCUSS AND FIGURE OUT IF, AS OUR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BOARD, WE CAN REASONABLY ACCEPT THAT THOSE REASONS DO WE FIND CAUSE FOR THOSE REASONS. SO PLEASE UNDERSTAND, IT'S NOT PERSONAL.

IT'S JUST. I KNOW, I KNOW THAT AND I UNDERSTAND THAT.

AND WE TRY OUR HARDEST TO TO BE FAIR.

BUT THAT'S YEAH.

THAT'S THE ONE THAT'S THIS IS THE ONE THAT WE GET STUCK ON THE MOST FOR ALL, FOR ALL OF OUR CASES, BECAUSE WE REALLY NEED TO BE REALLY DO NEED TO BE FAIR AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE WE ARE REALLY LOOKING AT.

THESE AS CAREFULLY AS POSSIBLE.

SO ANYONE ELSE HAVE A.

ANYTHING TO ADD TO NUMBER FOUR, WE CAN COME BACK TO NUMBER FOUR.

WHY DON'T WE GO ON TO NUMBER FIVE, WE COME BACK TO NUMBER FOUR.

CRITERIA FIVE IS GRANTING THE VARIANCE AS THE MINIMUM ACTION THAT WILL MAKE POSSIBLE THE USE OF THE LAND OR STRUCTURE IN A MANNER WHICH IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND WHICH WOULD CARRY OUT THE SPIRIT OF THIS ZONING ORDINANCE SECURE PUBLIC SAFETY AND PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.

I COULD VERY EASILY MAKE A CASE FOR THAT.

THIS IS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO FEET.

SO THIS ONE I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH TRULY, YOU KNOW, MEETING THAT CRITERIA.

ANYONE HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD ON NUMBER FIVE? TRUSTEE OPSOMMER? I WOULD CONCUR WITH THE CHAIR AND ALSO JUST.

ADD THAT I DO THINK AND I'M STILL A LITTLE CONFUSED ON THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE, I DO THINK IT'S AN ENHANCEMENT FOR THE NEIGHBORS NEXT DOOR IN TERMS OF THE NOISE CONTAINMENT.

I GET STAFF'S INTERPRETATION OF IT COULD BE A SLIPPERY SLOPE TOWARDS BASICALLY PUTTING, IN ADDITION, FORESEES, IN ADDITION ON THE HOME DOWN THE LINE, WHICH, IF I'M HEARING CORRECTLY, WE COULD CONDITION.

BUT I DO THINK THERE IS A PUBLIC BENEFIT TO NOT ONLY THE HOMEOWNER, BUT TO THE ADJACENT HOMEOWNERS. AND THAT WOULD COVER OUR CRITERIA SIX WHICH BE GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT

[00:45:01]

I THINK THAT THIS ENHANCES NOT ONLY THE PROPERTY BUT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE SUBDIVISION HERE.

I AGREE WITH IT, WITH THE NOISE.

I MEAN, AND AGAIN, THE TRICKY PART IS THAT WE HAVE TO REMEMBER THESE VARIANCES CARRY OVER. SO WHEN AND IF MS. LAMELL WAS TO SELL THE HOUSE, THE VARIANCE WOULD GO, GOES WITH THE HOUSE.

SO ON THE NEXT PERSON WHO MAY COME IN AND BUY THE HOME AND DECIDE TO CLOSE THOSE AREAS, THAT IS KIND OF THE OTHER THING.

THAT'S KIND OF THE SLIPPERY SLOPE THERE WHERE THAT COULD BE ENCLOSED AND.

BUT THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN WE CAN CONDITION.

CRITERIA NUMBER SEVEN, THE CONDITIONS PERTAINING TO THE LAND OR STRUCTURE ARE NOT.

SO GENERAL OR RECURRENT IN NATURE IS TO MAKE THE FORMULATION OF A GENERAL REGULATION FOR SUCH CONDITIONS PRACTICABLE.

I REALLY DON'T BELIEVE THAT.

I DON'T WE HAVEN'T SEEN ANY CASES FROM THIS SUB IN PARTICULAR THAT I CAN RECALL.

WE DO HAVE SEVERAL OF THESE SHAPED, ODDLY SHAPED PARCELS, SUBDIVISIONS WITHIN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP. SO THESE DO COME UP FROM OTHER AREAS OF THE TOWNSHIP.

BUT I THEY'RE NOT OFTEN AND I DO VERY MUCH UNDERSTAND WHAT MEMBER KULHANEK IS SAYING, NOT WANTING TO TO BE TOO FREE WITH GRANTING THESE VARIANCES TO MAKE IT AS IF THE THAT IT'S EASY TO GET A A VARIANCE FOR THIS TYPE OF BUILDING.

BUT AGAIN, AS I WAS TRYING TO EXPLAIN THEM MS. LAMELL, WE HAVE TO TAKE EACH CASE INDIVIDUALLY AS WELL AND LOOK AT EACH CASE'S SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES EACH TIME.

SO I DO. I THINK THAT WE JUST NEED TO CONSIDER THAT, TOO.

THAT WE EACH EACH CASE IS DIFFERENT AND EACH BOARD IS DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW.

TONIGHT, WE HAVE TWO OF OUR ALTERNATE MEMBERS HERE.

WE HAVE TRUSTEE OPSOMMER'S HERE FOR A SECOND MEETING.

I MEAN, WE HAVE A DIFFERENT MAKEUP OF BOARD MEMBERS AS WELL.

SO, YOU KNOW, I DO THINK THAT WE ALWAYS MAKE GREAT DECISIONS, BUT I DO THINK THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENCES WHEN WE DO HAVE THESE VARIOUS CASES COME BEFORE US.

SO I DON'T I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S A IT'S A MATTER OF OPENING THE DOOR TO A LOT OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE IN THE SAME AREA.

BUT I DO UNDERSTAND WHERE THAT KIND OF THOUGHT WOULD WOULD COME FROM . FINALLY, CRITERIA NUMBER EIGHT, GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC INTEREST AND WITH THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS CHAPTER.

I THINK TRUSTEE OPSOMMER TOUCHED ON THIS QUITE A BIT.

THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS ORDINANCE, I DO THINK THAT IF WE WERE TO MOVE FORWARD, I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE CONDITIONING IT AS STAYING A THREE SEASONS ROOM AS OPPOSED TO AND PUTTING THAT CONDITION ON THE VARIANCE SO THAT WE, IN GOING FORWARD, WHETHER IT'S MS. LAMELL, WHETHER IT'S ANOTHER PROPERTY OWNER, THAT WE CONDITION IT TO SAY THAT THIS IS TO REMAIN AN ENCLOSED PORCH, IF ANY, FURTHER.

ANY FURTHER IMPROVEMENTS OR ANY FURTHER ENCLOSEMENT TURNING IT INTO A FULLY INTEGRATED PART OF THE HOME WOULD NEED TO COME BACK BEFORE THE ZBA FOR APPROVAL.

SO I DON'T KNOW HOW THE REST OF YOU FEEL ABOUT THAT, BUT THAT IS JUST AN IDEA I'M THINKING WHERE I COULD GET A LITTLE BIT MORE COMFORTABLE WITH APPROVING.

MEMBER SHORKEY, GO AHEAD. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD TO THAT.

IT CAME UP EARLIER IN THE CONVERSATION, THE POSSIBILITY OF ENCLOSING THE ENTIRE THING, IF WE CAN JUST BLANKET GIVE IT 2.2 FOOT VARIANCE, THE WHOLE THING COULD BE ENCLOSED.

I WOULD LIKE I WOULD HAVE A LOT LESS HEARTBURN WITH THIS IF THIS VARIANCE APPLIED TO THE UPPER DECK ONLY AND ANY FURTHER ENCLOSURE BELOW ON THE GROUND LEVEL WOULD REQUIRE ANOTHER VARIANCE. OK, I DEFINITELY COULD GET BEHIND THAT AS WELL.

[00:50:01]

SO I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR THOUGHTS ON AN.

UNREASONABLY PREVENTING THE PROPERTY FROM BEING USED, I DON'T KNOW WHERE EVERYBODY ELSE IS, KIND OF WHERE THEY'RE LEANING HERE, BUT THAT'S WHERE I'M STILL.

HAVING HAVING SOME TROUBLE COMING TO A YES VOTE.

OH, THIS IS DON AGAIN.

GO AHEAD. HI THERE.

YEAH, I YOU KNOW, I'VE LISTENED CAREFULLY TO EVERYTHING EVERYBODY SAID.

AND, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE TO BE UNANIMOUS.

YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT WHEN WE GO THROUGH AND DO THESE THINGS.

AND, YOU KNOW, I READ THE CRITERIA, I GUESS I WON'T READ IT AGAIN.

AND I DON'T THINK I REALLY HAVE TO REPEAT MY EXPLANATION AGAIN.

MY OPINION REALLY HASN'T CHANGED.

THIS IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE IN A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT THAT'S CURRENTLY BEING USED THAT WAY. AND THIS IS A WONDERFUL POTENTIAL ENHANCEMENT.

BUT I CAN'T SAY THAT THIS PROPERTY IS NOT BEING USED FOR IT'S PERMITTED PURPOSE AND.

YOU KNOW, FOR THAT REASON, I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS.

I ALSO HAVE PROBLEMS STILL WITH CRITERIA NUMBER THREE.

YOU KNOW, THIS COULD BE BUILT TWO FEED SMALLER AND.

THE EXPLANATIONS THAT WE'VE HEARD REGARDING POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS AS WELL.

AS THIS MOVES FORWARD, I THINK THERE'S A GOOD DEAL OF UNCERTAINTY THERE, BUT WHEN I LOOK AT THE SCHEMATIC THAT WE HAVE AND I SEE HOW EXPENSIVE THIS IS GOING TO BE, I'M NO BUILDER OR ANYTHING. BUT I'M NOT THINKING THAT THIS IS.

SHOULD BE A MAKE OR BREAK TWO FEET FOR THIS ADDITION, AND IT'S AN ADDITION, AND IF IT WAS TO 2.2 FEET SMALLER, NO VARIANCE, I BELIEVE IS NEEDED.

AND AND I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST.

BUT WITH REGARD TO CRITERIA THREE AND FOUR, I DON'T THINK I'M GOING TO BE CONVINCED OTHERWISE AT THIS POINT.

AND THAT'S WHERE I'M AT.

THANK YOU, MEMBER KULHANEK FOR YOUR HONESTY AND DEFINITELY FOR SHARING PERSPECTIVE, I DO.

I TEND TO AGREE WITH YOU STILL ON CRITERIA NUMBER FOUR, SO THAT'S STILL WHERE I'M COMING INTO, WHERE I'M COMING INTO ISSUES.

ANY OF OUR OTHER THREE MEMBERS DO.

HOW HOW ARE YOU FEELING? I MEAN, IF YOU'RE ON THE ON THE EDGE AND ON CRITERIA THREE OR FOUR AS WELL, I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW THOUGHTS.

YEAH, I MEMBER SHORKEY. GO AHEAD.

I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU AN ARGUMENT THAT.

MAYBE A LITTLE BIT OF INTERPRETATION, LIBERAL INTERPRETATION.

OK? I'M LISTENING, GO FOR IT. I LIKE IT WHEN.

I'M JUST LOOKING THROUGH THE LANGUAGE AND WHEN IT SAYS I'M LOOKING AT NUMBER FOUR.

RESULT. FAILURE TO GRANT VARIANCE WOULD WOULD PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR A PERMITTED PURPOSE AND.

THE PERMITTED PURPOSE, IT'S PERMITTED TO HAVE ENCLOSED PORCHES.

NOT TALKING ABOUT THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE ITSELF.

THEY CAN YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THIS IS JUST JUST MAYBE SOME LINGUISTICS HERE, BUT THE PORCH.

IS PART OF THIS STRUCTURE, BUT IT'S NOT THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE.

AN ENCLOSED PORCH IS CONSIDERED UNDER THE SAME SETBACKS GRANTED, BUT IT'S I'M READING ON IN, LET'S SAY, ON PAGE TWO OF THE REPORT, UNDER THE UNDER THE PICTURE, ONCE THE PORCH IS ENCLOSED, IT IS REQUIRED TO MEET PRINCIPAL BUILDING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.

THEREFORE, MAYBE YOU CAN THINK OF THE ENCLOSED PORCH AS A PERMITTED USE THAT'S ALLOWED AS PART OF A.

AS A PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE.

IF THAT IF THAT HELPS YOU, YOU SEE WHAT I MEAN?

[00:55:04]

OK, SO. I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING YOU KNOW, AN ORDINANCE MIGHT SAY ACCESSORY BUILDINGS ARE ALLOWED AS IF YOU HAVE A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE IN PLACE.

IN THIS CASE, WHILE AN ENCLOSED PORCH ISN'T A STAND ALONE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, IT'S CERTAINLY NOT A GARAGE.

IT'S NOT A SHED OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

THE LANGUAGE ADDRESSES ON AN ENCLOSED PORCH SEPARATE FROM.

A PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE AND SAYS AN ENCLOSED PORCH SHALL BE CONSIDERED FOR PURPOSES OF SETBACKS, THE SAME AS A.

PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE.

SO MAYBE, YOU KNOW, THE ORDINANCE SEES THEM AS TWO SEPARATE USES AND YOU MIGHT THINK OF AN ENCLOSED PORCH AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO A PERMITTED USE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T HAVE AN ENCLOSED PORCH IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE HOME IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I'M NOT 100 PERCENT BUYING INTO THAT ARGUMENT, BUT IT IS I THOUGHT IT WAS WORTH BRINGING UP. IT'S AN ARGUMENT.

INTERESTING. OK, I GUESS I HAVE A FURTHER QUESTION OF CLARIFICATION FOR EITHER DIRECTOR KIESELBACH OR MR. CHAPMAN WHERE WHEN I'M READING ORDINANCE HERE THAT SAYS.

ENCLOSED PORCHES, EITHER ONE STORY, TRUE STORY OR AN UNDISCLOSED PORCH, HAVING SOLID FOUNDATIONS.

SO SOLID FOUNDATIONS WOULD BE THE WOULD BE THE LOWER LEVEL, IS THAT CORRECT? IS THIS CONSIDERED SOLID FOUNDATIONS THAT IT'S ON? THESE PILLARS OR WHERE DOES THAT WHERE IS IT DIFFERENTIATED BETWEEN THE UNENCLOSED PORCH AND THE ENCLOSED PORCH? AND CAPABLE OF BEING ENCLOSED? BECAUSE IT APPEARS ACTUALLY IN READING THE LANGUAGE A LITTLE BIT MORE CLOSELY, THAT IN AND OF ITSELF AS IT IS NOW, BECAUSE IT IS AN UNENCLOSED PORCH THAT IS CAPABLE OF BEING ENCLOSED. WOULDN'T THIS ALREADY BE CONSIDERED NONCONFORMING THEN? NO.

THE WAY THE ORDINANCE WAS WRITTEN IS TO ALLOW A HOMEOWNER TO HAVE A PORCH OR YOU KNOW THAT'S OLD TERMINOLOGY AND MOST PEOPLE SAY A DECK, YOU KNOW, SO THAT WAS THE IDEA THAT YOU CAN HAVE THAT UNENCLOSED DECK AS PART OF THAT.

IN FACT, THEY GIVE YOU AN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW YOU TO EXTEND A PORCH OUT FURTHER THAN THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE.

IT'S AT THE TIME SOMEBODY DECIDES TO START MAKING THAT.

AS WHETHER IT'S ROUGH OR YOU PUT UP WALLS AND START TO ENCLOSE THAT, THE IDEA IS THAT THAT EVENTUALLY SHOULD MEET THE SAME SET BACK AS THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE BECAUSE AT SOME POINT IT COULD BE MORE HABITABLE SPACE.

IT COULD BE CONSIDERED PART OF A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE.

SO I THINK IT'S THIS YOU KNOW, WE'RE STILL TALKING THE SAME SET BACK ONCE YOU ENCLOSE IT THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN.

SO E. SO IN AND OF ITSELF, THE FACT THAT IT IS UNENCLOSED, IT MEETS A SETBACK REQUIREMENT, EVEN THOUGH THIS PORTION OF THE ORDINANCE IS STATING THAT.

AN UNENCLOSED PORCH, HAVING SOLID FOUNDATIONS AND CAPABLE OF BEING ENCLOSED SHALL BE CONSIDERED AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE BUILDING AND SHALL THEREFORE BE SUBJECT TO ALL YARD AND AREA DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS.

ESTABLISHED FOR PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS.

SO WE BECAUSE BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS AS.

RIGHT NOW, IT'S CONFORMING.

BUT SO THE SO THE OTHER ENCLOSED PORCH, HAVING SOLID FOUNDATION AND CAPABLE, CAPABLE OF BEING ENCLOSED PORTION IS JUST FOR IT'S NOT FOR AS IT EXISTS AT THIS MOMENT, IT'S JUST WITH THE POTENTIAL.

SO THE POTENTIAL IN AND OF ITSELF CHANGES IT TO BEING NONCONFORMING.

SO THAT'S A LITTLE TRICKY.

TRUSTEE? GO AHEAD. DIRECTOR KIESELBACH? WELL, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THEY IF IT MEANT THE SAME SET BACK AS A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE, IT WOULDN'T NEED A VARIANCE.

THEY WOULD NEED A BUILDING PERMIT.

TO ENCLOSE IT.

BUT IT WOULDN'T NEED THE SETBACK VARIANCE.

AND THAT IN TYPICALLY ON A SOLID FOUNDATION, YOU'RE LOOKING AT IF THIS WAS A HABITABLE

[01:00:04]

OK. OK, SO THERE'S SOME THERE'S .

IT'S A VERY SMALL KIND OF VERY SPECIFIC.

IT'S VERY SPECIFIC WORD OF THAT WORD DIRECTLY APPLIES TO CASES EXACTLY LIKE THIS.

YEAH. OK, TRUSTEE OPSOMMER.

I THINK I SAW YOUR HAND.

YES. MY INTERPRETATION OF WHAT MARK IS SAYING IS IT'S THE SLIPPERY SLOPE OF WHAT THIS COULD BE. SO ONCE WE ENCLOSE IT, THEN WE CREATE OTHER SUBSEQUENT STEPS THAT CAN BE TAKEN SIMPLY BY PULLING BUILDING PERMITS.

AND I'M NOT HEARING THE STAFF HAS MUCH DISCRETION AT THAT POINT, BUT OUR OPTION IS TO CONDITION IT AS MEMBER SHORKEY STATED.

AND CHAIR MANSOUR STATED, YOU KNOW, WE COULD CONDITION BOTH BELOW AND THE ABOVE IN TERMS OF RESTRICTING HVAC AND FULL ENCLOSURE ON THE ABOVE STRUCTURE AND RESTRICTING ENCLOSURE BELOW, WHICH IS CURRENTLY COMPLETELY OPEN.

SO THAT WOULD GIVE ME A LOT MORE COMFORT WITH IT.

I'M NEW TO THE ZBA, SO I DON'T I HAVEN'T I'VE CERTAINLY WATCHED THE MEETINGS, BUT I HAVEN'T. SEEN CASES LIKE THIS AS IT RELATES TO PERMITTED PURPOSES, BUT FOR ME, IF I'M LOOKING AT THIS FROM A PRACTICALITY STANDPOINT.

I THINK ONE OF THE OTHER BIG PURPOSES OF PROTECTING THE 30 FOOT SETBACK, REAR YARD SETBACK FOR RESIDENTIAL HOMES IS TO PROTECT THAT BUFFER WHEN YOU HAVE REAR YARDS ADJACENT TO ONE ANOTHER. AND IN THIS CASE, WE HAVE OPEN SPACE ADJACENT AND WE HAVE A WOODED AREA.

AND DUE TO THE NATURE, THE UNIQUE NATURE OF THE LAND AND THE ADJACENT USES, WE KNOW THAT NO HOME IS GOING TO BE BUILT ADJACENT TO YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT GOING HAVE TWO YARDS ABUTTING HERE. THIS IS GOING TO BE A CUL DE SAC AND THE LAND NEXT DOOR ISN'T GOING TO BE CHANGED IN USE IN THAT MANNER.

SO I THINK THAT'S ONE OTHER SPECIAL CONSIDERATION AS IT RELATES TO PERMITTED PURPOSES.

I GUESS I DON'T KNOW HOW THE ZBA HAS HISTORICALLY.

INTERPRETED THAT, ESPECIALLY IN CASES LIKE THIS, BUT IT IS A THREE SEASON ROOM, I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE STRICTLY SAYING THAT PERMITTED PURPOSE IS SIMPLY THAT THE HOME WOULD NOT BE INHABITABLE BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY THE PURPOSE OF RESIDENTIAL.

BUT IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THE PERMITTED PURPOSE OF THE DECK, YOU KNOW, THREE SEASON ROOMS ARE POPULAR IN MICHIGAN FOR A REASON AND IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP DUE TO INSECTS, MOSQUITOES, AND THEN, OF COURSE, WEATHER CONDITIONS FOR MOST OF THE YEAR.

SO BUT I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT INTERPRETATION HAS BEEN APPLIED TO THAT, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COMES TO MY MIND AS LAY NEW ZBA BOARD MEMBER.

BUT I DO THINK THERE ARE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES.

YOU KNOW, THE BUILDER COULD HAVE EASILY BUILT THIS DECK, FLUSH WITH THE SOUTH WALL, THE BUILDER CHOSE TO GRASP FOR AN EXTRA TWO FEET, THREE INCHES.

AND I ACTUALLY WORKED IN BUILDING GROWING UP AND I KNOW OTHERS TWO FEET, THREE INCHES EXTRA, BECAUSE WHEN YOU BUY A 14 FOOT SPANS, YOU TYPICALLY GET AN INCH TO AN INCH AND A HALF EXTRA ON YOUR CHOICES.

SO THOSE CHOICES ARE YOU'RE.

WELL, ACTUALLY, NO, IT'S THE RIM JOIST.

IT'S THE RIM JOIST ON THE HOUSE AND IT'S THE RIM JOIST ON THE EXTERIOR THAT ADDS THREE INCHES SO THE BUILDER GRASP FOR THAT EXTRA TWO FEET AND THEN THROUGH THE TWO BYS ON THE ENDS TO CREATE AN EXTRA THREE INCHES.

THAT'S A TOUGH ONE, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE BUY HOMES ALL THE TIME AND REALTORS ARE NOT FORTHCOMING WITH THAT INFORMATION.

EVEN IF THEY KNOW ABOUT IT, IT'S GOING TO RESTRICT THEIR HOME SALES.

SO. YOU KNOW, I HAVE EMPATHY FOR THE HOMEOWNER ON THAT ONE, BECAUSE I MOST PEOPLE WOULD REASONABLY ASSUME THAT THIS COULD BE ENCLOSED AND THAT TWO FEET, THREE INCHES IS TOUGH, BUT. THE PREDOMINANT FACTORS FOR ME ARE CONSTRAINING IT AND PREVENTING THE SLIPPERY SLOPE AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF NOT IT'S NOT ENCROACHING ON ANOTHER REAR SETBACK OF ANOTHER YARD. THANK YOU.

YEAH, I DEFINITELY AGREE AND I AND I APPRECIATE IT AND AND DON'T THINK WE FORGOT ABOUT YOU MEMBER NEWMAN, BECAUSE WE WANT TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS.

BUT IT'S IT IS TRICKY BECAUSE WE DO EVEN AS MUCH AS I COULD SAY ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, WHAT WE'VE ALLOWED OR WHAT'S BEEN HISTORICAL.

IT'S STILL, AGAIN, IS GOING TO CHANGE BASED ON THE CASE.

I MEAN, I DON'T THINK THAT I COULD SEE PRECEDENT, REALLY.

[01:05:05]

THERE'S A WAY TO REALLY LOOK AT THIS, AND I THINK IT'S AN APPROACH THAT MEMBER KULHANEK AND MYSELF RIGHT NOW ARE BOTH KIND OF GUILTY OF IS LOOKING AT IT AS THE PERMITTED PURPOSE WOULD BE A LIVABLE HOME.

BUT I THINK THERE IS PROBABLY MORE MORE TO THAT THAN WHAT I'M REALLY THINKING OF, WHICH IS THAT YOU'RE ALSO BUYING THE LAND, RIGHT? YOU'RE, YOU OWN THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY.

IT'S NOT JUST A HOME THAT YOU, SHE OWNS THE HOME.

SHE OWNS THE LAND. SHE CAME WITH THE DECK.

IT'S A FULL, FULL PROPERTY.

SO USING THE PROPERTY FOR A PERMITTED PURPOSE.

I DO THINK THERE ARE SOME THERE ARE SOME GIVE THERE WITH WHAT THE PERMITTED PURPOSE FOR THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IS, I DEFINITELY AGREE.

AND AGAIN, WE JOKE TOO ABOUT GARAGES BECAUSE WE'RE IN MICHIGAN.

SO WE KNOW IN MICHIGAN WE'RE GOING TO GET SNOW, WE'RE GOING TO GET RAIN, WE'RE GOING TO GET BUGGED. WE HAVE THOSE ARE OUR THREE SEASONS.

RIGHT. SO BUT BEYOND THAT, IT'S WHAT.

WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPERTY CAN BE USED.

IS I THINK MAYBE IT MAY BE A BETTER WAY TO LOOK AT THIS ONE IS WHETHER IT CAN BE FULLY USED TO THE FULL EXTENT OF WHAT THE HOMEOWNER OR PROPERTY.

WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE, WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO DO WITH THE PROPERTY, [INAUDIBLE] NEWMAN, JOIN US.

COME ON IN. WELCOME.

THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR THOUGHTS.

SO I GUESS DIGESTING THIS, I UNFORTUNATELY, I KEEP KIND OF GOING BACK TO A COMMENT THAT MEMBER KULHANEK MADE. AND THAT'S YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT WE WOULD IF YOU KNOW, IF WE DID TURN THIS DOWN, WE WOULDN'T BE TURNING DOWN THE FACT THAT A THREE SEASONS ROOM COULD BE BUILT.

RIGHT. WE WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY SAYING, YOU HAVE YOU CAN BUILD IT.

THERE HAS TO BE TWO INCHES AND TWO FEET, THREE INCHES SMALLER.

AND I GUESS BEING IN THE I MEAN, MY MAJOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, I'M IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY.

SO IT'S I UNDERSTAND WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO.

YOU KNOW, AS UNFORTUNATE AS IT WOULD BE, PUT FOUR MORE POSTS IN TWO FEET THREE INCHES BACK, BUT I AM PRETTY HUNG UP ON.

THAT WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT YOU CAN'T GO THE THREE SEASONS ROOM, WE WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE SAYING IT'S GOT TO BE TWO FEET, THREE INCHES SMALLER.

AND PROBABLY MOSTLY FOR NUMBER FOUR, I GUESS I INTERPRETED THE PERMITTED USE AS KIND OF WHAT YOU WERE JUST SAYING, THAT IT'S A RESIDENTIAL HOME, SO.

YEAH, THOSE ARE THOSE ARE KIND OF MY THOUGHTS RIGHT NOW.

I APPRECIATE THAT. IT'S NICE TO HAVE A HAVE A CONSTRUCTION PERSPECTIVE FROM YOU AND FROM TRUSTEE OPSOMMER. THAT IS VERY HELPFUL.

I DON'T MEMBER SHORKEY COMES TO US WITH SOME SOME PLANNING AND PERSPECTIVE.

RIGHT. CHAIR MANSOUR, CAN I ASK THE QUESTION? ABSOLUTELY. GO AHEAD, MS. LAMELL. WELL, OK, SO THE WAY THAT I THOUGHT ABOUT IT WHEN I BOUGHT THE HOUSE WAS THAT.

THE DISTANCE OR WHEN I STARTED THIS PROJECT, THE DISTANCE TO THE END OF YOUR LAND. IS I MEAN, WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THAT? I MEAN, WHAT IS THAT? TO ME, THAT'S BECAUSE YOU MIGHT HAVE NEIGHBORS' BACKYARDS FACING YOURS AND YOU DON'T WANT TO BE IN SOMEBODY ELSE'S SPACE.

BUT IF THE BACK OF YOUR HOUSE IS ALL WOODS, WHAT WOULD PREVENT YOU FROM BUILDING ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE WOODS? WELL, I THINK THAT'S WHAT PREVENTS YOU FROM BUILDING ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE WOODS IS THE SETBACKS.

I UNDERSTAND THAT.

BUT, I MEAN, FROM A PRACTICAL POINT OF VIEW, THE WHOLE REASON FOR THAT IS SO THAT YOU DON'T ENCROACH UPON NEIGHBORS, RIGHT? IS THERE ANY OTHER REASON? WELL, I THINK IN THE TOWNSHIP AS WELL, WE HAVE A VERY STRONG HISTORY OF LAND PRESERVATION, OF CONSERVATION.

SO I DO THINK THAT THAT'S PART OF THAT'S PART OF THE ORDINANCE.

AND THE SPIRIT OF THE CHAPTER AS WELL, IS TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE AS MUCH LAND AND GREEN SPACE AS WE CAN AS A TOWNSHIP.

[01:10:03]

WE HAVE A LOT OF WETLANDS.

WE HAVE A LOT OF WILDLIFE HABITATS.

WE HAVE A LOT OF REASONING FOR NOT ENCROACHING AS MUCH AS ABUTTING THOSE NATURAL AREAS.

AND I THINK THAT'S WONDERFUL.

THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS IS REALLY NICE ABOUT MICHIGAN.

BUT IN THIS CASE, THAT DOESN'T APPLY.

IT'S ON A SECOND LEVEL.

IT ISN'T ENCROACHING AT ALL.

SO I WOULD JUST MAKE THAT POINT THAT I REALLY UNDERSTAND THE REASON FOR THAT SETBACK, BUT PRIMARILY THAT REASON WOULD BE NOT TO ENCROACH ON NEIGHBORS IN THIS CASE.

IT CERTAINLY DOESN'T.

AND AS FAR AS SETTING PRECEDENT, I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU NEED TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

BUT GOING THROUGH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION WAS A VERY LONG PROCESS. AND I ANY OTHER NEIGHBORS WHO WANTED TO DO ANYTHING LIKE THIS WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS AS WELL.

AND THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION IS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT.

YOU KNOW, KEEPING THE LOOK OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO I WOULD JUST THROW THOSE TWO THINGS IN, IT JUST SEEMS I DON'T KNOW.

I MEAN, TO ME AND I'M NOT HAVING TO DEAL WITH ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU'RE DEALING WITH AND ALL THE PRECEDENTS, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS IS JUST A NOTHING BURGER.

I MEAN, IT'S IT'S ON THE SECOND LEVEL, IT'S TWO FEET.

IT'S WHAT I WANTED TO BUY THE HOUSE FOR.

AND TO ME, IT'S VERY MUCH A PART OF THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THIS DOMICILE.

THIS IS MY TWO CENTS, AND I KNOW THAT DOESN'T MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS OR YOUR CRITERIA, DOESN'T HELP YOU, BUT IT'S IT JUST SEEMS. IT JUST SEEMS SUCH A SIMPLE DEAL TO ME.

I KNOW IT'S IT IS THIS IS THIS IS A CHALLENGING ONE.

THIS IS THIS IS NOT AN EASY ONE.

I KNOW.

BELIEVE ME, WHEN I, OH, YEAH THIS IS AN EASY ONE.

IT'S IT'S NOT.

AND WE DO WHAT WE DO AGAIN, TRY TO TAKE TRY TO TAKE AS MUCH INTO CONSIDERATION AS POSSIBLE. I HEAR WHAT MS. LAMELL IS SAYING REGARDING THE SETBACKS AND I AND I DON'T HAVE.

ANY I'M IN AGREEMENT, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S AN ISSUE HERE, I DO, I DO.

AND I'M STILL JUST HUNG UP ON AND OUR CRITERIA NUMBER FOUR.

SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, IT DOESN'T I DON'T THINK THAT IT SEEMS LIKE ANYBODY IS MOVING EITHER WAY ON THAT ONE.

SO DOES ANYBODY HAVE A MOTION? DOES ANYBODY WANT TO KEEP GOING ON NUMBER FOUR OR? I'M OPEN TO WHAT WHAT THE REMAINDER OF THE BOARD IS THINKING ON THIS ONE.

ALSO, I HAVE NO INTENTION OF BUILDING BELOW THE DECK AND THAT WOULD BE FINE IF YOU WANTED TO MAKE THAT ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS.

YEAH, I DO.

I DO HOPE THEY UNDERSTAND, TOO, THAT ONE OF ONE OF THE BIGGEST CHALLENGES TRULY IS THAT THESE VARIANCES STAY WITH THE HOUSE.

SO WHEN AND IF YOU SELL, THIS VARIANCE, GO TO THE NEXT PERSON AND WE CAN'T GUARANTEE THE SAME INTENTION. SO WE WE'RE HAPPY TO HAVE YOU WITH US TODAY, MS. LAMELL. BUT WE THE THE HARDEST PART ABOUT THAT IS THESE VARIANCES LAST IN PERPETUITY.

THIS GOES WITH THIS WITH THIS HOME AS LONG AS IT'S AN EXISTENCE.

SO WE DO HAVE TO CONSIDER THAT.

YOUR INTENTIONS ARE VALIANT AND FAIR, BUT WE CAN'T SPEAK FOR ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE. HOMEOWNERS OR PROPERTY OWNERS.

SO. SO, WHAT, YOU WOULD BE WORRIED THAT THEY WOULD EXPAND IT FURTHER? YEAH, AND I DO THINK THAT AS DIRECTOR KIESELBACH EXPLAINED, THAT THAT IS MOST OF THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE HERE IS THAT TO PREVENT THAT SLIPPERY SLOPE OF ENCLOSING AND EXPANDING HOMES INTO THOSE SETBACKS THAT ARE THERE TO PROTECT OUR NOT ONLY THE NEIGHBORS IN THE AS WE HAVE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT, SETBACKS EXIST, BUT THAT WITHOUT WITH THIS VARIANCE, SOMEBODY COULD JUST GO TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND GET PERMITS TO PUT IN HVAC PLUMBING, ET CETERA, AND PULLING [INAUDIBLE] ADD ON TO THEIR HOME WITHOUT NEEDING ANY FURTHER VARIANCE.

[01:15:02]

BUT ONCE THE WALLS ARE UP, WHAT DIFFERENCE WOULD THAT MAKE? THAT WOULD BE I MEAN, FIRST OF ALL, FOR TAX REASONS, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD THAT WOULD BE INCREASING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE HOME, WHICH WOULD THAT NEED TO BE REASSESSED, WHICH WOULD THEN NEED TO BE TAXED.

I MEAN, THERE'S THERE'S A LITANY OF THINGS THAT I THINK COULD COULD FOLLOW FROM THAT.

BUT I DON'T REALLY WANT TO GET HUNG UP ON THAT AS MUCH.

THAT WOULDN'T CHANGE THE VARIANCE.

I MEAN.

NO AND THAT'S THE. ONCE THE WALLS GO UP, YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE TWO EXTRA FEET, THE WALLS ARE THERE. RIGHT, BUT THEN AS SOON AS AGAIN, ONCE YOU SAID WHEN YOU WERE VERY CLEAR THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT A THREE SEASON ROOM VERSUS A FOUR SEASONS ROOM, ONCE THE WALLS ARE UP, IT'S GOING TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND SAYING, OH, I WANT TO PUT I WANT TO PUT H VAC AND I NEED A I NEED A PLUMBING PERMIT AND I NEED A AN ELECTRICAL AND I NEED A HVAC PERMIT AND.

I HAVE A LARGER HOUSE NOW, AND THAT'S A DIFFERENT THAT'S NOT WHAT THE WHAT THIS PARTICULAR VARIANCE IS FOR.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO BE CLEAR ON.

OK. IT'S JUST FOR THREE SEASON RUN, WHICH IS WHAT I'M GOING TO BUILD.

I MEAN, THAT'S NO PROBLEM WITH THAT, RIGHT? I THINK WE'RE JUST ALL TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT IF THAT WAS THE CASE, WE WOULD BE VERY CLEAR ON THAT SO THAT IT WOULDN'T BE FURTHER DEVELOPED INTO THAT AND WOULD NEED TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD IF SOMETHING ELSE WAS GOING TO WAS GOING TO BE ADDED TOO.

SO I WILL JUST SAY TO THE REMAINDER OF THE BOARD MEMBERS.

I THINK.

IF ANYBODY HAS A MOTION, I'M ALL FOR HEARING THOSE.

MEMBER SHORKEY. I HAVEN'T BEEN IN MANY OF THESE MEETINGS, BUT THIS IS THE MOST DIVIDED I FEEL LIKE I'VE SEEN US.

SO IN LIGHT OF THAT. I'LL THROW IT OUT THERE.

MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE TWO FOOT.

THREE, THE 2.2 FOOT VARIANCE FOR THIS THREE SEASON ROOM WITH THE CONDITION WITH TWO CONDITIONS ONE.

ANY BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR HVAC, PLUMBING, HVAC OR PLUMBING OR ELECTRICAL.

WILL TRIGGER A REVIEW OF THIS APPLICATION WITH THE POSSIBLE RELOCATION AND TWO.

THIS VARIANT SHALL APPLY ONLY TO THE CURRENT UPPER CURRENT UPPER STOREY DECK.

AND ANY ATTEMPT TO ENCLOSE ANYTHING ON THE GROUND LEVEL WILL RESULT IN A NEW VARIANCE APPLICATION. DOES THAT GET TO THE POINT YOU WERE RAISING EARLIER? YOUR MUTED. AUDIO WAS MUTED.

YES, THAT ADDRESSES THE CONCERNS THAT I HAD, I WOULD I WOULD ASK DIRECTOR KIESELBACH IF THAT SATISFIES THE SCOPE OF WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, IF THAT WOULD IF THAT IS ENOUGH OF A CONDITION TO PUT ON THIS WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BE IMPOSED AS A FOUR SEASONS ROOM OR AS AN AS A ROOM ADDITION TO THE HOME.

DOES THAT DOES THAT COVER OUR BASES OR DO WE NEED ANY FURTHER LANGUAGE THERE? NOW, I THINK IT COVERS OUR BASES.

JUST OFF, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IT'S UP TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ON THE WORDING, WE CAN FOLLOW THROUGH IF YOU ON THAT.

YOU KNOW, I AGAIN, I WOULD SAY IT'S BASED, FIRST OF ALL, THAT THE VARIANCE IS TO ENCLOSE THE UPPER LEVEL AS A THREE SEASON ROOM SUBJECT TO THE PLANS AS SUBMITTED.

AND ANY FURTHER CHANGES TO THAT PRE-SEASON ROOM MAY BE SUBJECT TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPROVAL.

THAT WOULD BE THE FIRST AND THEN THE SECOND CONDITION.

THE LOWER AREA OF THE DECK SHALL NOT BE ENCLOSED UNLESS APPROVED BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. THAT'S A MUCH MORE ELEGANT WAY OF SAYING IT AND GETS TO WHERE WE WANT TO BE.

YEAH, I WOULD AGREE THAT.

[INAUDIBLE] YOU HAVE YOU YOU HAVE THE THOUGHTS, THOUGH, RIGHT? I MEAN, THERE YOU WERE THERE.

WE JUST NEEDED THE VERBIAGE FOR DIRECTOR KIESELBACH.

ALL RIGHT, OK, THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE.

TRUSTEE OPSOMMER. I WILL SECOND THE MOTION.

OK?. AND WE HAVE SUPPORT FROM TRUSTEE OPSOMMER.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT?

[01:20:03]

JUST THOUGHT I'D BE OPEN ABOUT THAT.

OK, OK.

THAT'S IN THE PLANS AS SUBMITTED, RIGHT? YES, RIGHT. AND I DON'T SEE ANY OUTLETS FOR LIGHTS.

THAT'S NOT A I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S AN ISSUE FOR US.

BUT I THINK THAT TO CLARIFY, I THINK THAT MY CONCERN IS RUNNING HVAC AND PLUMBING OR ANY KIND OF OTHER BUILDING PERMIT OR A PERMIT THAT WOULD CAUSE THAT TO BE LIVABLE SPACE VERSUS A ENCLOSED PORCH.

SO THAT AND SO.

I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT, YEAH, YEAH, OK, I'M OK WITH THAT, LIKE, THE DIRECTOR KIESELBACH THAT'S IN THE THAT'S IN THE PLANS AS SUBMITTED, WHICH IS NOW THE CONDITION.

OK. AND WITH THAT, WE HAVE A SECOND FROM TRUSTEE OPSOMMER.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD HERE ON THOSE ON THIS MOTION? BEFORE WE GO TO A VOTE.

I MEAN, I WILL JUST SAY THAT.

I CAN MAKE A VERY, VERY LOOSE CASE FOR.

USING THE PROPERTY AS WELL AS FULLY AS POSSIBLE, BEING THE PERMITTED PURPOSE, SO NOT JUST THE VERY BAREBONES INTERPRETATION THAT A RESIDENCE IS FOR LIVING INSIDE OF, AND THAT'S THAT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THE EXTERIOR OF THE PROPERTY IS ALSO.

SHE OWNS THE EXTERIOR OF THE PROPERTY AS WELL, AND I CAN WIGGLE MY WAY THERE TO ACCEPTING THAT CRITERIA FOUR CAN BE.

CAN I CAN ACCEPT CRITERIA FOUR WITH THE IDEA THAT USING THE ENTIRE PROPERTY, MEANING USING THE DECK THAT IS ALREADY EXISTING AND ENCLOSING IT SO THAT IT CAN BE USED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE? I CAN GET THERE.

SO I CAN VERY MUCH AGREE WITH THIS MOTION.

I THINK THAT, LIKE MEMBER SHORKEY SAID THIS IS THE MOST DIVIDED I'VE SEEN, BUT WE'RE GOING TO GO TO A VOTE UNLESS WE HAVE MORE DISCUSSION.

ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? ALL RIGHT, IN THAT CASE, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND THIS IS A VOTE TO APPROVE THE MOTION AS AMENDED BY MEMBER SHORKEY WITH THE WONDERFUL LANGUAGE OF DIRECTOR KIESELBACH THAT THE LOWER AREA WILL NOT BE ENCLOSED AND ALSO THAT THE UPPER AREA REMAIN AS THE PLANS DESIGNATED NOW WITHOUT THE ADDITION OF WITH ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL.

WITHOUT ANY OTHER ADDITIONS AND ANY OTHER ADDITIONS TO THIS PLAN OR TO THIS STRUCTURE WOULD NEED TO COME BACK BEFORE THE ZBA TO BE APPROVED.

SO LET'S SEE, WHERE'S MY? WHERE'S MY VOTING LIST? HERE WE GO. HERE WE GO.

OK,. MEMBER SHORKEY? YES.

TRUSTEE OPSOMMER? YES. MEMBER NEWMAN? YES.

MEMBER KULHANEK? NO.

AND THE CHAIR VOTES YES.

SO YOUR VARIANCE HAS BEEN APPROVED WITH SOME VERY STRICT CRITERIA.

SO I DO THANK YOU FOR BEING PATIENT WITH US AND ALLOWING US TO GO THROUGH A PROCESS.

I DO WANT TO JUST REMIND YOU THAT WE, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT A PERSONAL SET OF PERSONAL REASON. THIS IS JUST STRICTLY BECAUSE WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE VARIANCES ARE VERY CAREFULLY CONSIDERED AND ALSO THAT THEY STAY WITHIN THE SCOPE OF WHAT IS IN THE INTERESTS OF THE ORDINANCE IN THE CHAPTER.

SO.

WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU ALL.

THAT WAS FASCINATING DISCUSSION.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE EXCEPTIONS.

I DO NOT INTEND TO BUILD UNDER THAT AND I DID NOT INTEND TO BE A FOUR SEASON ROOM.

I JUST WANT TO BE AWAY FROM THE MOSQUITOES AND TO ENJOY LIFE.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I APPRECIATE IT. YES.

WELL, ENJOY YOUR NEW ENCLOSED PORCH.

THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE AND BEING OPEN TO OUR QUESTIONS THIS EVENING.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE TONIGHT? I WILL ALLOW HOME TV TO STEP IN HERE.

DO I LEAVE NOW? YES, YOU ARE ALL SET. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MS. LAMELL, HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.

[01:25:02]

[8. PUBLIC REMARKS]

THEY HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO SPEAK AND THEY WILL NEED TO UNMUTE.

WE ASK THAT THEY PLEASE BEGIN THEIR COMMENT WITH THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD. AND I'M STILL SEEING YOU MUTED.

SO HERE WE GO.

OK, I AM A REPORTING INTERN WITH HOME TV, AND I JUST WAS ASSIGNED THIS TO KIND OF JUST ATTEND IT, WRITE AN ARTICLE AND MY NAME IS BRIANNA [INAUDIBLE], ADDRESS 207 COLLINGWOOD DRIVE. AND I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ZONING, NONE OF THIS.

SO THIS HAS BEEN VERY INTERESTING FOR ME.

A LITTLE CONFUSING, BUT I JUST WANTED TO ASK.

SO I WAS UNDER I KNOW THE REASONING FOR WHY IT WAS SUCH A DEBATE, BUT I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR, IF IT IS AN OPEN PORCH LIKE SHE HAS NOW, IT THERE IS NO KIND OF LIKE.

YOU KNOW, RESTRICTION FOR HOW FAR IT HAS TO BE FROM THE END OF THE PROPERTY? IS THERE LIKE ANY KIND OF RULES FOR THAT, OR IS IT JUST FOR IF IT'S AN ENCLOSED TYPE THING ? IT HAS TO BE THE 30 FEET OR WHATEVER IT WAS? I THINK I WOULD GIVE THAT OVER.

I WAS GOING TO SAY, I THINK I GIVE THAT ANSWER.

DIRECTOR KIESELBACH, WHO IS OUR ORDINANCE MASTER FOR EVERYBODY IN TOWNSHIP.

THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. WHAT THE AGAIN, WHAT IN THIS CASE WHERE THE HOUSE SETS IS THE ISSUE FOR THE REAR YARD SETBACKS.

THE MINIMUM THAT THEY HAVE TO MEET IS 30 FEET.

THEY COULD ALWAYS HAVE A LARGER REAR YARD IF THEY HAD ADDITIONAL PROPERTY OR MOVED THE HOUSE. THE ORDINANCE SAYS IF THE HOUSE IS BUILT AT 30 FEET, SO IT MEETS THAT SETBACK, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO EXTEND A DECK OR THE ORDINANCE SAYS ENCROACH INTO THAT AREA FOR AN OPEN DECK, EIGHT FEET.

SO YOU CAN USE PART OF THAT FOR A LARGER DECK IN THIS CASE, YOU SEE IT DID ALREADY ENCROACH AND IT WASN'T, IT WAS IN COMPLIANCE AS AS AN OPEN DECK.

BUT WHEN YOU ENCLOSE IT, THEN IT'S CONSIDERED PART OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE OF THE HOUSE AND HAS TO MEET THAT SETBACK OF 30 FEET.

OK, I YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY WHAT THE ACTUAL THE FOOTAGE WAS THAT THEY COULD HAVE WITH OPEN DECK. SO THE REASON IT WAS OK PREVIOUSLY WAS BECAUSE IT WAS WITHIN THAT EIGHT FEET ENCROACHMENT FROM THE 30 FEET.

THEY COULD HAVE UP TO EIGHT FEET.

IF THEY HAD A LARGER REAR YARD, THEY COULD HAVE A BIGGER DECK.

GOT IT. OK, THANK YOU.

THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO KNOW. WELL, THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION.

WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE AND SITTING THROUGH THE MEETING AND HOPEFULLY SOME SOMETHING NEW, WE I, I KNOW I LEARNED SOMETHING NEW TONIGHT.

SO, YES, I KNEW NOTHING ABOUT ANY OF THIS, ACTUALLY.

ALL OF THIS IS INFORMATIVE.

YEAH. GOOD, GOOD.

WE'RE GLAD YOU WERE HERE AND THANK YOU FOR COMING.

IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT HAS ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD OR ANY OTHER COMMENTS? IF NOT, I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

OK, AND WE CAN GO INTO ANY BOARD COMMENTS IF THE BOARD WANTS TO SAY ANYTHING AND

[9. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS]

MR. NEWMAN, WELCOME.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US TONIGHT.

AND I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT YOU'RE IN CONSTRUCTION.

I THINK THAT'S A REALLY STRONG PERSPECTIVE TO HAVE.

ONE THAT I DON'T HAVE. I DO A LOT OF STUFF TO MY HOUSE, BUT I DON'T DO IT BY MYSELF.

SO IT'S NICE TO HAVE SOME PERSPECTIVE THERE.

AND I ALSO WANTED TO THANK DON, BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S LIKE YOU SAID DON, WE WE TRY TO TRY TO COME ON THE SAME PAGE. WE'RE NOT ALWAYS.

BUT I RESPECT YOUR INPUT AND YOUR VALUE ON THE BOARD.

AND I THINK ALL OF YOU FOR HAVING A GOOD AND VERY THOUGHTFUL DISCUSSION AND DEBATE THIS EVENING. YEAH, WITH THAT, ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TONIGHT? ALL RIGHT, WELL, WE WILL SEE YOU ALL I DON'T KNOW, KEITH, IF WE HAVE ANYTHING COMING UP FOR THE END OF THE MONTH OR FOR APRIL, BUT.

I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING AT THE MOMENT, SO.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, IN THAT CASE, WE'LL SEE YOU SOON.

WE'LL SEE YOU WHEN WE SEE YOU AND EVERYBODY, HAVE A GOOD EVENING AND ENJOY TAKING THE SIMPLE SOLO PARENTING TRUSTEE OPSOMMER.

I'M GOING TO HAVE TO GO BRIBE MINE WITH CANDY RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THEY WERE REALLY QUIET FOR THE FOR THE BULK OF THE MEETING.

[01:30:01]

TO EVERYONE. ENJOY THE REST OF YOUR EVENING AND ALL THAT GOOD WEATHER OUT THERE.

BYE BYE.

GOODNIGHT. OK, BYE.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.