[00:00:07]
IF YOU WANT TO TRY TROUBLESHOOTING, YOU CAN GO TO YOUR CHEVRON NEXT TO YOUR VIDEO.
AND THEN LIFT YOUR VIDEO [INAUDIBLE].
WHERE DO YOU THINK I SHOULD GO? OK, I AM SEEING MOST OF OUR MEMBERS HERE.
HELLO. IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO LET ME KNOW FROM HOM TV IF WE'RE GOOD TO GO TO GET STARTED.
DID YOU HEAR ME, KEITH? THE MEETING IS LIVE ON HOM TV.
[Items 1 & 2]
THANK YOU SO MUCH.ALL RIGHT, ON THAT ORDER, IT IS 6:31 AND I WILL NOW CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER.
WELCOME TO THE CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF MERIDIAN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING.
TODAY IS APRIL 14TH 2021 AND AS I SAID, IT'S 6:31.
WE ARE GOING TO GET STARTED FIRST WITH A NEW LITTLE BIT OF BUSINESS.
EACH ONE OF OUR BOARD MEMBERS WILL STATE THEIR NAME AND THEIR LOCATION DOES NOT HAVE TO BE AN ADDRESS, BUT JUST A CITY OR WHEREVER YOU HAPPEN TO BE.
I'LL GET STARTED AND JUST KIND OF ROLL CALL THROUGH IT.
ALEXIA MANSOUR, OKEMOS, MICHIGAN.
LET'S SEE WHO DO I HAVE NEXT. YEAH, KEITH, GO AHEAD.
SO YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO SAY ATTENDING REMOTELY FROM.
[INAUDIBLE] OK, FROM MY LOCATION.
OK, ALEXIA MANSOUR ATTENDING REMOTELY FROM OKEMOS, MICHIGAN.
MEMBER HENDRICKSON? SCOTT HENDRICKSON PRESENT AND ATTENDING REMOTELY FROM OKEMOS, MICHIGAN.
MONIQUE FIELD-FOSTER REMOTELY ATTENDING FROM OKEMOS, MICHIGAN.
AND TRUSTEE OPSOMMER? DAN OPSOMMER REMOTELY ATTENDING FOR THE CITY OF LANSING.
OK, LET'S SEE WHO WE HAVE NEXT? MEMBER, KULHANEK. HI THERE, DON KULHANEK REMOTELY ATTENDING FROM OKEMOS, MICHIGAN.
OK, AND NOW THAT WE HAVE THAT LITTLE BIT OF BUSINESS OUT OF THE WAY, OUR FIRST ITEM TONIGHT WILL BE TO APPROVE OUR AGENDA.
SO MOVED. OK, MOVED BY MEMBER HENDRICKSON.
SUPPORT. SUPPORT BY TRUSTEE OPSOMMER.
MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER? YES. TRUSTEE OPSOMMER.
[3. CORRECTIONS, APPROVAL AND RATIFICATION OF MINUTES]
WE WILL MOVE ON THEN TO THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA, WHICH WOULD BE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AND OH. ONE OF THESE DAYS, I'LL GET THESE ZOOM MEETINGS TOGETHER A LITTLE QUICKER.WE'RE GOING TO BE THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA WOULD BE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM MARCH 10TH FROM 2021 MEETING.
MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER HAS A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
SUPPORTED BY A MEMBER KULHANEK? ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MINUTES OR ANY CORRECTIONS THAT ANYBODY SAW.
OK, IN THAT CASE, I WILL GO AHEAD AND START OUR VOTE.
MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER? YES, TRUSTEE OPSOMMER? YES.
MEMBER KULHANEK? YES. AND THE CHAIR VOTES YES, SO THE MINUTES FROM MARCH 10, 2021 MEETING ARE APPROVED AND
[4. COMMUNICATIONS]
I KNOW WE DO HAVE A COUPLE ITEMS. NEXT WOULD BE ON OUR AGENDA WOULD BE COMMUNICATIONS.I DO THINK WE HAVE TWO LETTERS OF SUPPORT.
IS THAT CORRECT, MR. CHAPMAN? YES.
[00:05:01]
SO THE ONE NOTED ON THE AGENDA AND THEN WE GOT AN ADDITIONAL ONE.SO IF YOU WANT, I CAN MENTION THEM AFTER THE PRESENTATION.
DURING YOUR PRESENTATION? YEAH.
OK, SOUNDS GOOD TO ME IN THAT CASE IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION ON THOSE COMMUNICATIONS.
WE WILL MOVE ON. WE DON'T HAVE ANY UNFINISHED BUSINESS, SO WE WILL GO STRAIGHT INTO NEW BUSINESS. WHICH BRINGS US TO ZBA CASE NUMBER 20-04-14-1.
[6A. ZBA CASE NO. 21-04-14-1 (Fillion), 5926 Shaw Street, Haslett, MI, 48840]
IS IT FILLION? I HOPE I'M SAYING THAT CORRECTLY.5926 SHAW STREET, HASLETT MICHIGAN, 48840.
AND WITH THAT, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO MR. CHAPMAN FOR HIS PRESENTATION.
KEITH, YOU'RE MUTED. THANK YOU.
OK, SO THE APPLICANT, REBECCA FILLION, IS REQUESTING VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING [INAUDIBLE] CONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 5926 SHAW STREET.
THE VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED ARE FROM SECTION 866181 AND THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, WHICH STATES NONCONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURES MAY BE ALTERED, EXPANDED OR MODERNIZED WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, PROVIDED THAT SUCH ALTERATION OR EXTENSION SHALL NOT INCREASE THE AREA HEIGHT [INAUDIBLE] USE OR EXTENT OF THE STRUCTURE AND SHALL SATISFY ALL OTHER APPLICABLE SAFE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND THE OTHER VARIANCE REQUEST IS FROM SECTION 86442F9B, WHICH STATES A DRIVEWAY SHALL NOT OCCUPY MORE THAN THIRTY FIVE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL AREA OF THE FRONT YARD FOR RESIDENTIAL LOTS 65 FEET OR GREATER IN WIDTH AT THE STREET LINE.
AND THIS IS THE LOCATION MAP THAT SHOWS WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED 5926 SHAW STREET.
HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW THAT SHOWS THE PROPERTY.
A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1966 AND THE CARPORT WAS BUILT IN 1967.
SO THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS CONSIDERED NONCONFORMING BECAUSE THE CARPORT IS TWELVE POINT EIGHT FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.
WE DID HAVE BUILDING PERMITS THAT WERE FOUND FOR BOTH THE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND CARPORT, BUT WE DIDN'T HAVE A RECORD OF ANY VARIANCE THAT WAS GRANTED FOR THE CARPORT TO BE LOCATED THAT TWELVE POINT EIGHT FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.
AND IN 1967, THAT FRONT YARD SETBACK WAS TWENTY FIVE FEET.
OK, SO THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSING TO CONVERT THE EXISTING CARPORT THAT'S SHOWN IN THE PICTURE BELOW AND ADD A SECOND STORY TO THE EXISTING ONE STORY HOUSE, AND IT WILL ALSO BE OVER THAT NEW GARAGE.
SO THE INCREASE IN SQUARE FEET IS FROM 1,792, INCLUDING THE CARPORT TO 3,584, WHICH INCLUDES THE GARAGE OR THE PROPOSED GARAGE.
THIS RESULTS IN AN INCREASE IN THE BULK AREA, AN EXTENT WHICH IN TURN REQUIRES A VARIANCE TO EXPAND THE NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE.
AND HERE'S JUST ANOTHER PICTURE LOOKING NORTH EAST.
SO THE VARIANCE REQUEST, LIKE I SAID, TO CONSTRUCT THE GARAGE AND SECOND STORY ADDITION, THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE LAKE LANSING OVERLAY DISTRICT, AND THAT REQUIRES A 20 FOOT FRONT YARD SET BACK.
AND THE GARAGE IS PROPOSED TO BE AND SECOND STORY EDITION IS PROPOSED TO ENCROACH SEVEN POINT TWO FEET INTO THAT FRONT YARD SETBACK OR TWELVE POINT EIGHT FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE, WHICH RESULTS IN APPROXIMATELY TWO HUNDRED ONE POINT SIX SQUARE FEET OF THAT ADDITION TO BE WITHIN THAT FRONT YARD SETBACK.
[00:10:04]
SO THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE ADDITION OF THE GARAGE AND SECOND STORY TO THE NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE.SO IN REVIEWING THE APPLICATION THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED, WE DISCOVERED THAT THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL VARIANCE RELATED TO THE DRIVEWAY.
SO IN ORDER TO BRING THAT INTO COMPLIANCE, THERE'S A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR DRIVEWAY COVERAGE, SO THE LAKE LANSING OVERLAY REQUIRES A MAXIMUM OF THIRTY FIVE PERCENT IN THE FRONT YARD AND THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY IS CURRENTLY AT FORTY TWO POINT FOUR PERCENT OF FRONT YARD COVERAGE, SO A VARIANCE REQUESTED TO EXCEED THAT MAXIMUM ALLOWED DRIVEWAY COVERAGE BY SEVEN POINT FOUR PERCENT.
AND THIS IS THE PROPOSED PLAN.
AND HERE IS A SURVEY THAT SHOWS THE PROPERTY.
AND ALSO, THERE WAS TWO LETTERS OF SUPPORT THAT WERE NOTED EARLIER, ONE FROM DOUG AND PAM WINKLER, WHICH IS NOT ON THE AGENDA.
AND THEN THERE IS LET'S SEE, WHAT WAS THE OTHER ONE? CHARLOTTE STAFFORD AND GEORGE BUBOLZ FROM 5896 SHAW AS WELL.
AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE. OK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAPMAN. IS THE APPLICANT OR APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE HERE THIS EVENING? I THINK WE HAVE SOMEBODY HERE FOR HER.
OK, BEFORE YOU GET STARTED, CAN YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND THEN IF YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING TO MR. CHAPMAN'S PRESENTATION, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
ABSOLUTELY. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS REBECCA FILLION AND MY RESIDENCE IS 5926 SHAW STREET HASLETT, MICHIGAN, 48840.
AND IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD TO MR. CHAPMAN'S PRESENTATION? THE FLOOR IS YOURS. I DON'T NEED TO ADD ANYTHING AT THIS TIME.
OK, IN THAT CASE, WE CAN GO AHEAD AND GET INTO OUR BOARD TIME.
IF THERE'S NO ONE ELSE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? I DON'T SEE ANYONE ELSE IN THE ATTENDEE SECTION SO WE CAN GO AHEAD AND GO TO OUR BOARD TIME. AND IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, WE MAY YET BE CALLING ON YOU, MS. FILLION. SORRY, OK.
THANK YOU. OK, IN THAT CASE, WE CAN GO GET INTO OUR BOARD TIME ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I LIKE A LIVELY DISCUSSION.
I SAW MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER'S HAND FIRST.
GO AHEAD. SO I'VE GOT A QUESTION AND I THINK IT PROBABLY GOES TO MR. CHAPMAN, AT LEAST TO START.
SO IN GOING BACK TO THE ORDINANCE 86-618.
AND IT TALKS ABOUT WHEN YOU CAN ACTUALLY EXPAND WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL, BUT THEN IT FURTHER SAYS THAT THE ALTERATION CAN'T EXTEND AND SHALL NOT INCREASE THE AREA HEIGHT, BULK, USE OR EXTENT OF THE STRUCTURE.
SO HOW CAN YOU EXPAND IT AND THEN NOT INCREASE THE EXTENT OF THE STRUCTURE? I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, ACTUALLY THAT ORDINANCE, BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE IF YOU'RE GOING TO EXPAND IT, YOU'RE LITERALLY GOING TO DO ONE OF THOSE THINGS.
SO AND FIRST, TRY AND UNDERSTAND THE ORDINANCE.
YEAH, I THINK MARK HAS A VERY GOOD EXPLANATION FOR THIS.
IT JUST THAT SECTION HAS BEEN IN OUR ORDINANCE A LONG TIME, AND THE IDEA IS I THINK THEY USED ALL THOSE WORDINGS TO CAPTURE THE IDEA THAT IF YOU GO UP IN HEIGHT, IF YOU GO OUT FROM THE BUILDING OR IN THIS CASE, GO TO THE FRONT, THAT YOU'RE AFFECTING THE SETBACKS SO THEY'RE NONCONFORMING.
SO THEREFORE, YOU NEED TO HAVE THAT REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.
SO BASICALLY, ANYTHING THAT YOU DO TO A STRUCTURE, YOU'VE GOT TO GET A VARIANCE FOR IT? IN THIS IN THIS CASE, YES, BECAUSE OF GOING UP AND THAT THE CARPORT AND TURNING IT INTO A
[00:15:05]
GARAGE, IS NONCONFORMING.IF THEY WERE SOMETHING IN THEIR BACKYARD THAT DIDN'T HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THAT NONCONFORMITY THAT SET BACK FROM THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, THEY COULD DO THAT AS LONG AS THEY MET SETBACKS THROUGH THE NORMAL PROCESS.
IT'S ONLY WHILE YOU'RE AFFECTING THAT NONCONFORMING PORTION OF THE BUILDING.
OK, I'VE GOT ANOTHER QUESTION, OR DO YOU WANT ME TO WAIT? SO WE'VE GOT ANOTHER, WE'VE COMBINED, I GUESS, THE VARIANCE FOR MAKING A GARAGE AS WELL AS THE SECOND STORY.
DO THEY HAVE TO BE ONE VARIANCE OR BECAUSE IT KIND OF SEEMS LIKE ON THE ONE HAND THERE'S A CARPORT AND YOU WANT TO BASICALLY MAKE THAT INTO A GARAGE FOR SAFETY PURPOSES.
AND THEN THERE'S THE ADDITION ON THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE, WHICH TO ME SEEMS LIKE A DIFFERENT ISSUE. SO HOW EXACTLY ARE WE SUPPOSED TO LOOK AT THAT? CAN WE SEPARATE THEM OR IS THIS REALLY JUST ONE VARIANCE? NO, IF THE BOARD CHOOSES THEY COULD SEPARATE THE REQUEST INTO TWO PARTS.
AND THEN MY THIRD QUESTION IS, SO THE DRIVEWAY IS HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE NONCONFORMING IN THIS VARIANCES, JUST TO BASICALLY BRING IT IN CONFORMITY.
WHAT IS THE CONSEQUENCE FOR NOT GRANTING THE VARIANCE TO THAT DRIVEWAY? REDUCING THE OVERALL SIZE OF IT TO BRING IT DOWN TO THIRTY FIVE PERCENT.
SO SHE WOULD LITERALLY HAVE TO SPEND MONEY IN ORDER TO BRING IT INTO CONFORMITY IF WE DO NOT GRANT THE VARIANCE? CORRECT. OK.
THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT. THANK YOU, MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER.
MEMBER HENDRICKSON? GO AHEAD. SO THIS QUESTION IS FOR KEITH OR MARK, WHOEVER WANTS TO ANSWER IT HERE, SO THE FIRST VARIANCE THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING IS TO SECTION 866181 ABOUT THE NONCONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE.
RIGHT? AND MY QUESTION WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, ARE THERE NONCONFORMING? IS THERE MORE TO THE NONCONFORMING STATUS THAN THE DRIVEWAY IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK? ARE THERE MORE NONCONFORMITIES THAT WE'RE AWARE OF? NONE THAT AND KEITH MAY OR NONE THAT WE SAW WHEN WE WERE REVIEWING IT.
AND THE REASON I ASK IS WHY WOULD WE RATHER THAN GRANT A VARIANCE TO BRING THIS PROPERTY INTO CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE, WHICH WOULD, I ASSUME, ALLOW THEM TO BUILD WHAT THEY WANT TO BUILD? WHY WOULD WE GRANT THEM A VARIANCE TO THE BROADER PIECE OF THE ORDINANCE THAT ALLOWS THEM TO BASICALLY DO MORE OR LESS WHAT THEY WANT AT A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? COULD GRANT A VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SET BACK AND GRANT A VARIANCE TO THE DRIVEWAY.
AND THEN THEY'D BE CONFORMING AND COULD DO BY RIGHT WHATEVER THEY HAD PLANNED TO DO THAT'S ALLOWABLE IN A CONFORMING STRUCTURE.
RIGHT. AND IT'S BEEN THE PRACTICE OVER THE YEARS FOR THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.
IF WE HAVE A NON CONFORMING STRUCTURE, WE USE THAT SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE TO MAKE ANY APPROVALS FOR ANY CHANGES TO IT SO THAT IF THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE THAT COMES UP LATER THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK IN FRONT OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.
ONE THING, MAYBE A LITTLE BIT MORE ON HISTORY FOR THIS TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHY WE'RE USING THE NON CONFORMING SECTION, WE DON'T HAVE A GOOD RECORD BACK FROM 1967 WHEN THAT CARPORT WAS BUILT. WE HAVE A COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT THAT WAS ISSUED, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY DRAWINGS OR LIKE A PLOT PLAN THAT SHOW WHAT THE DIMENSION WAS.
SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR THAT REVIEWED THAT AND ISSUED THAT PERMIT WAS LOOKING AT. OR THEY MAY HAVE WENT OUT IN THE FIELD AND ASSUMED THAT BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE BY THE SURVEY, THEY HAVE A FAIRLY LONG DRIVEWAY OF QUITE A GOOD PORTION OF IT IS IN THE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. AND THEY MAY ASSUMED IN ERROR, WHERE THAT ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY WAS AND ISSUED THE PERMIT IN ERROR, SO THE IDEA WAS TO KEEP IT NON CONFORMING IF FOR THAT REASON.
CERTAINLY IF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FELT THAT THEY SHOULD GET A VARIANCE FOR THAT SET
[00:20:05]
BACK, THEN THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN CONSIDER.REMEMBER, IT GOES WITH THE PROPERTY.
SO IN THE FUTURE, ANYTHING THERE AT TWELVE POINT EIGHT IS TECHNICALLY MEETS THE ORDINANCE. OK.
AND THEN MY NEXT QUESTION IS FOR THE APPLICANT, AND IT HAS TO DO WITH THE DRIVEWAY VARIANCE, SO YOU'RE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR SEVEN POINT FOUR PERCENT LARGER THAN WHAT IS ALLOWED CURRENTLY IN OUR ORDINANCE.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHY SUCH A LARGE DRIVEWAY IS NECESSARY TO YOUR PROPERTY? TO BE HONEST, I DIDN'T ACTUALLY REALIZE THAT THE DRIVEWAY WAS NOT CONFORMING UNTIL I REVIEWED THE PACKET OF INFORMATION THAT WAS SENT TO ME EARLIER TODAY.
THAT EXISTING DRIVEWAY HAS BEEN THERE SINCE I'VE OWNED THE PROPERTY.
AND I'M ASSUMING THEY IT WAS BUILT THAT WAY BECAUSE IT JUST MATCHES UP DIRECTLY WITH THE FRONT OF MY RESIDENCE AT HOME.
SO THAT AESTHETICALLY LOOKS APPROPRIATE.
SO I DIDN'T ACTUALLY REALIZE THAT IT DIDN'T CONFORM TO THE STANDARDS OF MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP. SO I ASK BECAUSE IN YOUR PLANS THAT YOU HAD PROVIDED, ALONG WITH THE REST OF THE APPLICATION MATERIALS, THE WIDTH OF YOUR GARAGE IS EXPECTED TO BE ROUGHLY TWENTY SEVEN POINT TWO OR TWENTY SEVEN FEET AND TWO INCHES FROM WHAT I CAN SEE. AND SO MY QUESTION TO YOU WOULD BE, DO YOU NEED A DRIVEWAY THAT IS MUCH LARGER ON EITHER SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY OR IS THE NEED FOR THAT BASED ON THE CARPORT THAT'S EXISTING? I GUESS I WOULD DEFINITELY, I GUESS LOOKING AT A MORE FROM AN AESTHETIC VIEW, IT JUST WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE, I THINK, LOOK FOR THE AREA.
OTHERWISE, I GUESS I WOULD BE HAVING A DRIVE THAT WOULDN'T BE COMPLETELY ENCOMPASSING THE WHOLE GARAGE.
YOU'D BE GOING UP PART WAY OR I GUESS WHAT I'M ALSO THINKING OFFHAND IS MAYBE I COULD MAKE THE CERTAIN AREAS MORE NARROW.
AND THEN BECAUSE I GUESS AND I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE OVERALL RULE OF, I GUESS, THE PERCENTAGE AND HOW THAT WOULD WORK OUT, BUT IDEALLY, I DO FEEL LIKE I NEED THAT HOW IT IS EXISTING NOW, JUST BECAUSE IT MATCHES THE FRONT OF THE CARPORT, I DON'T SEE A WAY THAT IT COULD WORK WITHOUT HAVING HOW IT IS EXISTING NOW.
THANK YOU. MEMBER HENDRICKSON.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE A COUPLE WHILE WE'RE AT IT, I DO AGREE, I THINK WITH WHAT MEMBER HENDRICKSON SAID, I GUESS I'M A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED AS TO WHY WE CAN'T JUST GRANT A VARIANCE FOR JUST THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, BUT I DO UNDERSTAND THE HISTORICAL NATURE OF IT, AND I GUESS WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING FROM DIRECTOR KIESELBACH IS THAT THIS IN SPEAKING DIRECTLY TO THIS BUILD MEANING, THIS ADDITION OR GARAGE OR WHATEVER WE MAY AGREE TO LIMITS SOMEBODY IN PERPETUITY, COMING THROUGH AND BUILDING SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
SO THAT'S WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING.
YEAH, AND THE ISSUE IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE A VARIANCE FOR THIS.
AND THEN AGAIN, THEY CAN'T RELY ON A BUILDING PERMIT THAT WAS ISSUED IN ERROR.
THEY SHOULD HAVE HAD A VARIANCE.
THAT'S WHY WE KEPT IT AS A NON CONFORMING.
FOR THAT REASON, AND THAT WAS I THINK THAT WAS THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD, JUST TO CONFIRM, WHEN THIS WAS BUILT IN 1967, IT SHOULD HAVE HAD A VARIANCE.
YES. IT DOES NOT HAVE THE VARIANCE THAT YOU CAN FIND RECORD FOR, BUT IT SHOULD HAVE AT THIS SET BACK EVEN IN 1967, SHOULD HAVE HAD A VARIANCE AND DOES NOT.
[00:25:04]
RIGHT.SO WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW WITH THIS CASE IS ESSENTIALLY JUST SAYING, OK, THIS IS STILL NONCONFORMING. IT WAS NOT CONFORMING IN 1967.
WE'RE JUST VERIFYING THAT IT IS NON CONFORMING AND STOPPING ANY ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL BASED ON THAT NONCONFORMING NATURE.
OK, AND I THINK MY NEXT QUESTION IS BACK TO THE DRIVEWAY, BECAUSE I HEAR WHERE MEMBER HENDRICKSON IS COMING IN AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE, KEITH, DO WE HAVE A PICTURE OF THE PLANS OR WHERE THE DRIVEWAY IS TO THE GARAGE? BECAUSE I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING FROM YOU, MS. FILLION, IS THAT IT'S THE, I ACTUALLY DROVE OUT AND SAW YOUR HOUSE TODAY.
SO SORRY FOR IF YOU SAW A CREEPY LADY IN A BLACK MINIVAN.
THAT WAS ME. BUT FROM WHAT I SAW, THE DRIVEWAY DIRECTLY LINES UP TO THE CARPORT.
SO IS THAT THE FOOTPRINT THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS EXACTLY THAT, RIGHT? IS THAT THE CARPORT IS THE EDGE OF THE GARAGE.
THE DRIVEWAY WOULD GO RIGHT TO THE EDGE OF THE GARAGE.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. OK.
AND THIS DRIVEWAY HAS BEEN THERE FOR HOW LONG HAVE YOU ON THE PROPERTY.
OH, GOSH, APPROXIMATELY IT'S MAYBE NINE YEARS, EIGHT YEARS . SO IT'S BEEN THERE FOR A WHILE, AND IN ALL HONESTY, IT LOOKS LIKE A DRIVEWAY THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR A WHILE. SO IT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE A NEW DRIVEWAY.
SO I WOULD SAY THAT I'M FEELING LESS CONCERNED ABOUT THE DRIVEWAY ASPECT RIGHT NOW, I THINK. HAVING TO REMOVE PORTIONS OF AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY AND THE COSTS THAT WOULD INCUR THERE IS BEYOND A MINIMUM ACTION, BUT THE DRIVEWAY ISN'T REALLY BOTHERING ME AS MUCH AS THIS VARIANCE IS, THE OTHER VARIANCE, BUT MS. FILLION, CAN YOU PLEASE TALK ABOUT THE SAFETY ASPECT TO WHY THIS WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO CLOSE THIS GARAGE AND THEN MAYBE IF YOU CAN ALSO SPEAK TO THE ADDITION PORTION AND THE ADDITION BEING THE ENTIRE SPAN OF THE HOUSE VERSUS JUST AN ADDITION ON THE BACK HALF OF THE HOUSE, OR IF YOU COULD SPEAK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT.
BECAUSE I KNOW YOU DID IN YOUR PACKET A LITTLE BIT.
BUT IF YOU COULD JUST EXPAND ON THAT, I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
YEAH, THE CARPORT IS TO ME, IT FEELS VERY, VERY UNSECURE.
I FEEL VERY UNCOMFORTABLE HAVING IT OPEN FOR VARIOUS REASONS.
ONE OF THEM IS THE THEFT THAT I HEAR THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND JUST THAT IT'S KIND OF WIDE OPEN FOR EVERYBODY TO EASILY ACCESSIBLE.
THE OTHER REASON WHY I FEEL VERY NERVOUS ABOUT HAVING JUST THE CARPORT OPEN IS THE INCREASED FOOT TRAFFIC.
IN MY LOCATION WHERE I RESIDE WE HAVE THE PARK JUST DOWN THE ROAD.
I AM RIGHT NEXT TO THE MSU SAILING CLUB, AND THERE IS, I BELIEVE, A BIKE PATH GOING IN THIS YEAR, LATER THIS SUMMER.
AND ALL OF THAT KIND OF INCREASED FOOT TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC IS AN ADDITIONAL REASON WHY I FEEL LIKE I NEED TO HAVE THE CARPORT CHANGE INTO A GARAGE AND FEEL MORE SECURE WITH MY PROPERTY.
I ALSO HAD AN EXTREMELY SCARY SITUATION HAPPEN ABOUT A YEAR AGO THIS TIME LAST SPRING, SUMMER, WHERE I LEFT MY HOME FOR ONLY LIKE 30 MINUTES FOR LUNCH.
AND WHEN I RETURNED, I OPENED MY HOUSE AND CAME IN TO A STRANGER SITTING INSIDE MY HOME IN MY CHAIR.
AND LUCKILY I REALIZED KIND OF RIGHT AWAY THAT THE PERSON WAS NON COMBATIVE AND JUST VERY CONFUSED. BUT MY FEELING IS STRONGLY THAT IF I HAD A GARAGE, THEN THAT PERSON WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO COME INTO MY CARPORT AND ENTER INTO MY HOME.
AND I HAVE SEEN BESIDES THAT INCIDENT, WHICH WAS EXTREMELY FRIGHTENING NUMEROUS TIMES
[00:30:07]
OVER THE YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN HERE, I FIND PEOPLE IN MY BACKYARD BY THE LAKE KIND OF ENJOYING THEMSELVES.AND SO I THINK JUST THE LOCATION OF MY PROPERTY MAKES IT THAT I REALLY FEEL LIKE TO FEEL SECURE IN MY HOME, THAT I NEED TO ENCLOSE THE CARPORT.
CAN YOU MS. FILLION PLEASE TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE ADDITION PORTION I APPRECIATE YOUR STORY OF THAT PORTION THAT DEFINITELY HELPED.
JUST TALK TO US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE ADDITION AND THE NECESSITY OF THAT, BECAUSE I THINK WHERE WE'RE GOING TO START GETTING INTO OUR CRITERIA HERE, WHICH I KNOW YOU ANSWERED IN OUR PACKET THAT WE RECEIVED, IS THIS IDEA OF THIS PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY AND IN BUILDING THAT ADDITION.
YES, SO IN REGARDS TO THE ADDITION, IT'S SOMETHING THAT I'VE THOUGHT ABOUT DOING FOR A HANDFUL OF YEARS AND BUT REALLY TOGGLING WITH THE IDEA OF IS THIS GOING TO BE MORE OF LIKE MY PERMANENT FOREVER RESIDENCE? AND IF SO, THEN, YOU KNOW, WHAT CAN I DO TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE THE PROPERTY LONG TERM FOR ME? AND THAT'S WHERE THE ADDITION COMES IN, IS JUST WANTING TO HAVE MORE ROOM AS MY FAMILY AND CHILDREN GROW AND GET BIGGER.
I JUST FIND THAT I DO NEED DEFINITELY MORE ROOM.
AND THEN MY INTENTIONS WOULD BE TO STAY IN THIS LOCATION LONG TERM, WHICH MEANS I WOULD DEFINITELY NEED MORE ROOM AS THE CHILDREN GET OLDER.
AND THAT WOULD BE WHY [INAUDIBLE] I WOULD NEED THE EXPANSION OF MORE BEDROOMS AND JUST MORE LIVING SPACE, BASICALLY.
OK, I THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THOSE ANSWERS THAT DEFINITELY HELPS ANY OF OUR OTHER MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
YEAH, JUST I WANT TO CLARIFY SOME MATH BEFORE WE GET INTO OUR DISCUSSION HERE WITH STAFF HERE. MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE MESSAGE THAT PETER HAD SENT TO THE APPLICANT, PETER MENSER HAD SENT TO THE APPLICANT, WAS THAT THE FRONT YARD SET BACK FOR THIS PROPERTY CURRENTLY IS 20 FEET IN THIS ZONING DISTRICT.
IS THAT ACCURATE? THAT'S CORRECT.
OK, AND SO WERE THIS TO BE BUILT AS PLANNED AS PROPOSED.
THE TWELVE POINT EIGHT WOULD BE SEVEN POINT TWO FEET OF VARIANCE REQUIRED FROM THE FRONT YARD SETBACK IF WE WERE LOOKING TO BRING THIS BUILDING INTO CONFORMITY WITH THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. IS THAT ACCURATE? CORRECT. RIGHT.
NOW, SECOND QUESTION TO FOLLOW UP ON THE MATH PIECE IS THE DRIVEWAY UNDERNEATH THE EXISTING CARPORT CONSIDERED DRIVEWAY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE DRIVEWAY VARIANCE.
NO, SO THAT WOULD JUST BE FROM THE FRONT PLANE OF THE CARPORT.
OK, SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS FRONT PLANE OF CARPORT TO THE SIXTY SIX FOOT RIGHT OF WAY LINE ON THIS SURVEY IS THIRTY FIVE IS MORE IS FORTY TWO POINT FOUR PERCENT.
ALL RIGHT. THAT'S MY MATH QUESTION.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MEMBER HENDRICKSON, FOR CLARIFYING THE MATH FOR US, WE ALWAYS NEED THAT.
MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER, I THINK YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP.
NO, I THINK MEMBER HENDRICKSON TOOK CARE OF WHAT I WAS THINKING.
I THINK MY AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS IS A QUESTION COMMENT OR MAYBE SOMEONE CAN HELP ME OUT. SO I DO LIKE THE IDEA THAT MEMBER HENDRICKSON BROUGHT UP AS FAR AS IS THERE ANOTHER WAY TO ADDRESS THIS? I THINK THE ISSUE THAT I'M COMING UP AGAINST IS THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OF THE SECOND FLOOR. I CAN UNDERSTAND THE SAFETY ASPECT OF TURNING A CARPORT INTO A GARAGE. I ALSO DON'T HAVE THAT BIG OF AN ISSUE WITH THE DRIVEWAY BECAUSE I CAN'T IMAGINE A PERSON BASICALLY LIVING IN A STRUCTURE AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN COMING IN TO DO ONE
[00:35:02]
THING AND DISCOVERING YOU HAVE TO SPEND MONEY TO FIX AN ISSUE THAT YOU DID NOT REALIZE EXISTED WHEN THAT WASN'T.AND YOU'RE TRYING TO ACTUALLY BRING IT INTO CONFORMITY WITH THE ORDINANCE.
I'M JUST STRUGGLING WITH HOW TO ADDRESS THE ADDITION OF THE SECOND FLOOR AND MAYBE I MEAN, IS THERE A WAY TO REALLY START, I GUESS, TO FLESH OUT MORE OF THE IDEA OF DEALING WITH THE SETBACK RATHER THAN TREATING THIS AS A CONTINUAL NONCONFORMITY? BECAUSE I GUESS ONE QUESTION THAT I HAVEN'T ASKED, OR MAYBE I MISSED THAT IS IF THIS HOUSE IS DETERMINED THAT IT'S IN CONFORMITY, WOULD SHE BE ABLE TO BUILD THE SECOND STORY WITHOUT GETTING A VARIANCE OR ANYTHING ELSE, WOULD SHE JUST BE FREE TO BASICALLY DO WHAT SHE NEEDED TO DO WITH THIS HOUSE? YOU'RE RIGHT, MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER, IF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECIDES TO GRANT A VARIANCE FOR THE SETBACK, THEN IT'S NO LONGER CONSIDERED NONCONFORMING.
THE SECOND FLOOR ADDITION, AS LONG AS IT MET BUILDING CODE AND GOT A BUILDING PERMIT, IT COULD BE DONE WITHOUT A VARIANCE.
AND JUST I'M GOING TO ADD TO MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER'S QUESTION, SO TO BE CLEAR, IF WE INSTEAD OF GRANTING THE VARIANCE FOR SECTION 866181.
WE COULD GRANT A VARIANCE FOR THE SETBACK FOR THE CARPORT SETBACK, IS THAT CORRECT? RIGHT. OK, NOW THE I GUESS THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE ARGUMENT FOR THAT ONE IS IF WE GRANT THIS BLANKET VARIANCE OF TO THIS NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE.
IT WILL HAVE TO COME BEFORE THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, OBVIOUSLY AS ANY BUILDING PERMIT WOULD, BUT GOING FORWARD, THIS VARIANCE CARRIES THROUGH.
SO THIS TWELVE POINT EIGHT TO SETBACK GOES WITH IN PERPETUITY, REGARDLESS OF WHAT'S BUILT THERE. CORRECT SO IN THE FUTURE, IF THEY WANTED TO DO SOMETHING, CERTAINLY IF THEY'RE GOING TO AFFECT THE SETBACK, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.
BUT IT ALLOWS FOR THE GARAGE, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE MAKE IT A ONE CAR GARAGE WITH STORAGE OR DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT WITHOUT CHANGING THE FOOTPRINT.
THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO COME BACK.
THEY COULD HANDLE THAT THROUGH THE TOWNSHIP THE STAFF.
ALL RIGHT. THAT IS VERY HELPFUL.
IS EVERYBODY ALL SET WITH THE SURVEY? ARE WE DONE LOOKING AT THE IMAGE THAT WAY I CAN SEE ALL OF YOU PEOPLE.
[LAUGHTER] THANKS STEVE. ALL RIGHT.
IN THAT CASE, DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR ARE WE READY TO.
I MEAN, I THINK I'LL JUST PROPOSE AND PLEASE STOP ME IF ANYBODY ELSE HAS ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR OUR APPLICANT HERE, OR OUR STAFF.
I AM WITH MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER IN FEELING LIKE AT THIS POINT, LOOKING AT THE CRITERIA, I'M GOING TO HAVE A VERY HARD TIME GETTING TO THE SECOND STORY ADDITION IS A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. I'M GOING TO HAVE A HARD TIME GETTING THERE.
I THINK ALL OF US ARE GOING TO HAVE A HARD TIME GETTING THERE.
I CAN, HOWEVER, UNDERSTAND THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES OF, IN THIS VERY SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCE WITH THE CARPORT AND SAFETY ISSUES.
AND I THINK THE APPLICANT DID A GREAT JOB OF EXPLAINING THAT.
AND I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THAT.
THAT BEING SAID, IF WE CAN SIMPLIFY AND GET AROUND HAVING TO CREATE PIECEMEAL, TAKE THINGS OUT, PUT THINGS IN, MAKE CONDITIONS AND THIS AND THAT, INSTEAD OF JUST GRANTING A VARIANCE TO THIS PARTICULAR STRUCTURE BEING THE CARPORTS WITH THE 12.8 SET BACK, I KIND OF FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.
AND I COULD PROBABLY MAKE THE ARGUMENT GOING THROUGH THE CRITERIA HERE FOR THAT FAIRLY EASILY. I WILL SAY ALSO, I'M NOT FINDING A LOT TO QUESTION ON THE DRIVEWAY.
I COULD MEET THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES ON THE DRIVEWAY AS WELL, I BELIEVE.
SO. THAT BEING SAID, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD OTHERWISE?
[00:40:02]
I THINK WE CAN. YEAH, MEMBER HENDRICKSON, GO AHEAD.YEAH, I JUST I GUESS CONCEPTUALLY I STRUGGLE WITH THE NOTION THAT WE WOULD KEEP THIS PROPERTY OWNER IN A CONTINUAL STATE OF NONCOMPLIANCE SIMPLY FOR WELL, FOR A REASON THAT I REALLY CAN'T FATHOM.
I FEEL LIKE THERE CERTAINLY IS A CASE TO BE MADE FOR THE SECURITY ISSUES THAT THE APPLICANT LAID OUT.
AND I BELIEVE THAT THERE'S NO REASON THAT I HAVE HEARD YET TONIGHT THAT THIS PROPERTY, IF GRANTED THE SETBACK TO THE FRONT YARD, WOULDN'T BE, SHOULDN'T ENJOY THE FULL RIGHTS OF ANYONE ELSE THAT WAS IN CONFORMANCE.
AND SO I YOU KNOW, IF AS A CONFORMING PROPERTY THEY CAN BUILD A SECOND STORY, THEN I SAY WE BRING HER INTO COMPLIANCE.
AND THAT'S NOT OUR JOB TO SAY.
RIGHT OUR CURRENT ORDINANCES HAVE SAID WE'RE SOLVING THE PROBLEM AT HAND, WHICH IS THE GARAGE ISSUE.
AND WE'RE TRUSTING THAT OUR ORDINANCE TO PROTECT THE COMMUNITY FOR EVERYTHING ELSE THAT THEY DECIDE TO DO ONCE THEY ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH, YOU KNOW, WITH THE VARIANCE.
SO MY THOUGHT WOULD BE RATHER THAN GRANT A SINGLE ONE TIME USE VARIANCE FOR THE BUILDING OF A SECOND STORY, THAT WE MAY WANT TO FOCUS ON THE FRONT YARD SETBACKS AS OPPOSED TO THE BLANKET, THE OTHER VARIANCE THAT WAS PRESENTED TO US TONIGHT.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? WE HAVE A MOTION. ANYONE? NO? ALL RIGHT, WE'LL GO THROUGH THE CRITERIA, LET'S GO THROUGH, OK? OH, MEMBER HENDRICKSON, WHAT DO YOU WANT TO SAY? I'M HAPPY TO TAKE A STAB AT THE MOTION, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR.
WELL, I'M CURIOUS IF WE WANT TO TAKE A STAB AT A MOTION, SEE WHAT WE WANT TO START WITH.
AS FAR AS GOING THROUGH THE CRITERIA.
MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER? RIGHT. DO WE KNOW WHAT THE ORDINANCE NUMBER IS THAT WE? FOR THE SETBACK? YES. I BET YOU MARK KNOWS IT.
I THINK HE'S LOOKING IT UP NOW.[LAUGHTER] KEEP TALKING, KEEP TALKING.
I WAS JUST LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD MAKE A MOTION, BUT WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT THE ORDINANCE IS. AND THEN I THINK MAYBE GOING THROUGH THE CRITERIA AFTER WE'VE MADE THE MOTION TO DO THE CRITERIA BASED ON THE SET BACK RATHER THAN WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW.
SHOULD WE GIVE MARK A MINUTE AND TACKLE THE DRIVEWAY? SURE. OK.
OK, LET'S DISCUSS THE DRIVEWAY.
LET'S GO THROUGH OUR CRITERIA.
THIS WOULD BE IN REGARDS TO SECTION 86442F9B, WHICH STATES THAT A DRIVEWAY SHALL NOT OCCUPY MORE THAN THIRTY FIVE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL AREA OF FRONT YARD WITH LOTS GREATER THAN SIXTY FIVE FEET OR GREATER IN WIDTH.
LET'S SEE, STARTING WITH NUMBER ONE, 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. I WOULD DEFINITELY STATE THIS IS A UNIQUE CASE, THIS DRIVEWAY PERFECTLY ALIGNS WITH THE EXISTING CARPORT AND AS SUCH WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT THE HOMEOWNER DID WITHOUT APPROVAL.
SO AGAIN. CRITERIA NUMBER TWO, THESE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SELF CREATED.
I CAN MEET THAT. CRITERIA THREE, STRICT INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE LITERAL TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER WOULD RESULT IN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.
I SEE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY HERE AS BEING HAVING TO I MEAN.
IF SHE DECIDES TOMORROW, YOU KNOW, AFTER ALL, I DON'T WANT TO DO THIS TO JUST BE IN CONFORMANCE, NEEDING TO REMOVE PART OF HER DRIVEWAY, THAT'S A PREEXISTING STRUCTURE THAT'S BEEN THERE. THAT'S NOT EVER BEEN AN ISSUE PRIOR TO THIS.
I DO FIND THAT TO BE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY AS FAR AS PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES GO, OR ARE WE ALL IN KIND OF AGREEMENT ON THAT? I'M NOT SEEING HANDS, SO I'M GOING FOR IT.
CRITERIA 4 THAT, THE ALLEGED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES WHICH WILL RESULT FROM A FAILURE TO GRANT THE VARIANCE, WOULD UNREASONABLY PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR A PERMITTED PURPOSE. I DO THINK IT'S UNREASONABLE TO REMOVE SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY EXISTING AND COST INCURRED BASED ON SOMETHING THAT WAS ALREADY EXISTING AND THAT SHE HAD
[00:45:02]
NO PRIOR KNOWLEDGE THAT IT WAS AN ISSUE.TO ME, THAT'S ENOUGH TO SATISFY THIS CRITERIA.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD OR ANYBODY FEELING SOME TYPE OF WAY ABOUT THAT? NO? ALL RIGHT, IN THAT CASE, MOVING ON TO CRITERIA FIVE, GRANTING THE VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM ACTION THAT WILL MAKE POSSIBLE THE USE OF LAND OR STRUCTURE IN A MANNER WHICH IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND WHICH WOULD CARRY OUT THE SPIRIT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECURE PUBLIC SAFETY AND PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.
I BELIEVE IT IS THE MINIMUM ACTION.
IT'S ALREADY THERE. IT'S THERE.
MINIMUM. CRITERIA SIX, GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND OR THE CENTRAL CHARACTER IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY.
AGAIN, IT'S BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR AT LEAST THE NINE PLUS YEARS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS OWNED IT. SO THEREFORE, I WOULD SAY THAT IT WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE ADJACENT LAND.
CRITERIA SEVEN, THE CONDITIONS PERTAINING TO THE LAND OR STRUCTURE ARE NOT SO GENERAL OR RECURRENT IN NATURE AS TO MAKE THE FORMULATION OF A GENERAL REGULATION FOR SUCH CONDITIONS PRACTICABLE.
AND AGAIN, I DON'T FIND THIS TO BE A COMMON PRACTICE.
I DO THINK THIS IS A UNIQUE SITUATION.
GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL GENERALLY WILL BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS CHAPTER, AND I DO WHILE I DO UNDERSTAND THE REASON FOR THIS RATIO AND THIS PERCENTAGE, I DO THINK THAT THIS IS AGAIN, THIS IS A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE. AND I DO THINK IT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE ORDINANCE IS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH, WHICH IS TO NOT HAVE AN ENTIRE YARD TAKEN UP BY A DRIVEWAY.
THE FACT THAT THIS MATCHES UP WITH THE HOUSE, I THINK THAT IT DOES ACTUALLY WORK WITHIN WHAT THE PURPOSES OF THE ORDINANCE ARE.
AND SO I CAN MEET ALL THE CRITERIA.
MEMBER HENDRICKSON. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE A VARIANCE OF SEVEN POINT FOUR PERCENT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 86-442 SUBSECTION F9B TO A TOTAL OF FORTY TWO POINT FOUR PERCENT FOR THIS CASE.
I SAW TRUSTEE OPSOMMER'S HAND FIRST, YOU'RE ON FASTEST HANDS ALERT TODAY, GUYS.
OK, ANY DISCUSSION FURTHER ON THIS MOTION? OK, IF NOT GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GO TO A VOTE.
MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER? YES. TRUSTEE OPSOMMER.
YES. MEMBER KULHANEK? YES. AND THE CHAIR VOTES YES.
THE VARIANCE FOR THE DRIVEWAY IS PASSED.
SO THAT'S YOUR FIRST ONE, MS. FILLION. AND LET'S SEE IF MARK'S READY FOR US.
YEAH, I'M READY, THE SETBACK IN THE OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR LAKE LANSING, IT'S SECTION 86-4425A WHICH SAYS FRONT YARD SETBACK SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 20 FEET FROM THE STREET LINE. TWENTY FEET.
OK, SHALL WE TAKE A STAB AT CRITERIA? ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS AS WE MOVE ALONG HERE TO THE NEXT? ALL RIGHT, THEN, I'M JUST GOING TO GET RIGHT INTO IT.
CRITERIA NUMBER ONE, UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST THAT ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND OR STRUCTURE THAT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO ANY OTHER LAND OR STRUCTURES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.
I THINK THAT WE'VE BEATEN THIS ONE OVER THE HEAD A LITTLE BIT.
BUT I DO BELIEVE THIS IS A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE AND I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT IT'S NOT. TO CRITERIA NUMBER TWO, THAT THESE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT SELF CREATED BY THE APPLICANT AND WE ARE NOT SURE WHERE THE NONCONFORMITY CAME IN AND WHAT YEAR PERHAPS IT WAS A BUILDING INSPECTOR, PERHAPS IT WAS A BUILDER THAT JUST GOT A LITTLE OVERZEALOUS WITH THE STRUCTURE. BUT EITHER WAY, IT IS SOMETHING THAT EXISTED LONG BEFORE NOW.
CRITERIA NUMBER THREE, STRICT INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE LITERAL TERMS OR PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER WHICH WOULD RESULT IN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.
I THINK SEVERAL OF US HAVE MENTIONED IT IN OUR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS, BUT I DO THINK THAT IN STRICTLY ENFORCING THIS SETBACK WITH AN ALREADY EXISTING STRUCTURE, WITH UNKNOWN PROVIDENCE, THAT WE ARE PREVENTING THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY FROM USING THIS PROPERTY IN
[00:50:08]
A WAY THAT SHE WOULD LIKE, AND THAT WE [INAUDIBLE] WITHOUT THIS VARIANCE HAVING TO COME BEFORE THE ZBA FOR EVERY SINGLE BUILDING ADDITION TO THIS HOME OR UPGRADE OR SOMETHING ADDED TO ANY PORTION OF THE FRONT OF THIS HOUSE IS GOING TO BE AN ISSUE. WE'RE GOING TO KEEP SEEING HER BACK HERE.SO I DO THINK THAT THE STRICT INTERPRETATION WOULD RESULT IN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES AND IS IN THE FACT THAT SHE'S HERE BEFORE US WHEN SHE WANTS TO DO THIS ENCLOSURE AND THIS ADDITION. SO THAT IS WHERE I STAND ON THAT PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD OR ANY QUESTIONS OR MAYBE? NO? ALL RIGHT. I LOVE THAT WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE WITH THESE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES TODAY.
CRITERIA NUMBER FOUR, THAT THE ALLEGED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES WHICH WILL RESULT FROM A FAILURE TO GRANT THIS VARIANCE WOULD UNREASONABLY PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR A PERMITTED PURPOSE.
IT DOES UNREASONABLY PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY AND BUILDING ONTO THE PROPERTY AS SHE SEES FIT AND GOING FORWARD HAVING THIS VARIANCE WITH THE PROPERTY.
AGAIN, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE FOOTPRINT OF THE HOUSE AS IT IS NOW.
ANYTHING IN ADDITION TO THAT WOULD HAVE TO COME BEFORE US.
SO I DO FEEL THAT WE ARE AS A BOARD AND THE TOWNSHIP IN GENERAL IS STILL PROTECTED FROM ANYTHING THAT EGREGIOUS.
AND LIKE MEMBER HENDRICKSON SAID EARLIER, WE DO HAVE THE REST OF OUR ORDINANCES AND CODES TO RELY ON HERE TO PROTECT THE TOWNSHIP FROM ANYTHING THAT WOULD BE EGREGIOUS.
SO I WOULD I CAN MEET THAT CRITERIA FOR THIS PARTICULAR VARIANCE.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THAT ONE? ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON.
CRITERIA FIVE, GRANTING THE VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM ACTION THAT WILL MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR THE USE OF LAND OR STRUCTURE IN A MANNER WHICH IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND WHICH WOULD CARRY OUT THE SPIRIT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECURE PUBLIC SAFETY AND PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.
AGAIN, I DO THINK THAT THIS IS THE MINIMUM ACTION, AS OPPOSED TO SEVERAL VARIANCES PIECEMEAL BASED ON DIFFERENT BUILDING PLANS AND WHATNOT, I DO BELIEVE THAT GRANTING THIS PARTICULAR VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM ACTION THAT WILL NOT ONLY PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY FOR THE HOMEOWNER AND OTHERS IN THE VICINITY, BUT IT IS IN THE SPIRIT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT THEN SHE CAN GO FORWARD AND SHE CAN USE HER PROPERTY AS SHE SEES FIT WITHOUT THE INTERFERENCE OF THE OVER USAGE OF VARIANT APPLICATIONS WITH US.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THAT ONE? MOVING RIGHT ALONG, OK.
CRITERIA NUMBER SIX, GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND OR A CENTRAL CHARACTER IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY.
I WILL SAY, BASED ON I KNOW WE DON'T ALWAYS PUT A LOT OF STOCK ON COMMUNICATIONS, BUT JUST BASED ON THE COMMENT, THE TWO COMMUNICATIONS WE RECEIVED FROM NEIGHBORS HAVING SEEN THE PROPERTY MYSELF AND JUST IN THE GENERAL AREA, I DO THINK THAT THIS WILL ACTUALLY POSITIVELY BENEFIT THE ADJACENT LAND AND THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA.
AND I THINK THAT THIS IS IN LINE WITH THE OTHER PROPERTIES THAT ARE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ON THE STREET. SO I WOULD THINK THAT THIS WOULD POSITIVELY AFFECT THE ADJACENT LAND AND THE CENTRAL CHARACTER. AND CRITERIA NUMBER SEVEN, THE CONDITIONS PERTAINING TO THE LAND OR STRUCTURE ARE NOT SO GENERAL OR RECURRENT TO NATURE AS TO MAKE THE FORMULATION OF A GENERAL REGULATION FOR SUCH CONDITIONS PRACTICABLE.
I THINK THAT, AGAIN, BEATING A DEAD HORSE, BUT THIS IS A UNIQUE SITUATION AND WE RUN INTO UNIQUE SITUATIONS ALL OVER LAKE LANSING.
BUT THIS ONE IN PARTICULAR, I DO NOT BELIEVE HAS ANY, IS GENERAL OR RECURRENT.
CRITERIA NUMBER EIGHT, GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC INTEREST AND WITH THE PURPOSES AND INTENT THIS CHAPTER.
I DO THINK BY GRANTING THIS VARIANCE, WE STAY WITHIN THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE AND THE CODE, AND I THINK THAT IS DEFINITELY POSITIVE FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
AND ON THAT NOTE, I WOULD ASK ANYBODY IF THEY HAVE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS.
ALL RIGHT, WELL, IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, LET'S SEE, DO WE HAVE A MOTION?
[00:55:04]
I DON'T THINK WE ACTUALLY HAVE A MOTION.TRUSTEE OPSOMMER? YES, I WILL MOVE TO GRANT A VARIANCE TO SECTION 86-442F5A FOR THE FRONT YARD SETBACK OF SEVEN POINT TWO FEET.
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, GOT TO ME BEFORE I EVEN ASKED, SUPPORTED BY MEMBER HENDRICKSON.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION IN FRONT OF US? ALL RIGHT, IN THAT CASE.
OH, TRUSTEE OPSOMMER, GO AHEAD. YEAH, I JUST HAD A QUESTION FOR MARK.
MARK, I WAS LOOKING AT THE ORDINANCE AND I PULLED IT UP.
AND SO LAKE DRIVE, EAST LAKE DRIVE, WEST LAKE DRIVE AND MARSH ROAD ARE ALL EXCEPTIONS TO THE 20 FOOT SETBACK RULE.
BUT I NOTICED THAT MANY, YOU KNOW, LIKE COLUMBIA STREET AND MANY OF THE OTHER STREETS AROUND THE LAKE HAVE MINIMAL TO PRACTICALLY NO FRONT YARD SETBACKS.
IS THERE, ARE THERE A LOT OF VARIANCES AROUND THE LAKE OR WERE THOSE PEOPLE OR THOSE STRUCTURES PREDATING THE OVERLAY DISTRICT? WELL, I THINK MOST OF THEM DID PREDATE THE OVERLAY DISTRICT, IF YOU REMEMBER THE SET BACK FROM LOCAL STREETS, AND SINCE WE DID, THE OVERLAY DISTRICT WAS TWENTY FIVE FEET AND THEN WE REDUCED THE SET BACK TO 20 FEET BECAUSE OF THAT, WHERE PEOPLE WERE COMING IN TO SEEK VARIANCES BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T MEET THEIR FRONT YARD SET BACK.
BUT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THE OLDER HOMES ALONG THE LAKE THAT ARE VERY CLOSE, CLOSER THAN 20 FEET TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.
YEAH, THERE'S A LOT OF THEM, SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW, IT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE BOARD NEED TO LOOK AT, BECAUSE THERE'S ALL THOSE STRUCTURES THAT PREDATE, THEY WOULD STILL BE NONCONFORMING, CORRECT? CORRECT. OK, THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE THAT.
SO I WILL SAY, SINCE MY TIME ON THE BOARD, WE HAVE HAD A FEW LAKE LANSING PROPERTIES WITH VARIOUS VARIANCE HERE AND THERE FOR SETBACKS.
I DO THINK THAT AS THESE HOMES GET OLDER, WE ARE PROBABLY GOING ARE LIKELY TO SEE MORE UPGRADES, MORE MOVEMENT THERE, MORE BUILDING THERE.
THAT'S SOMETHING DEFINITELY TO CONSIDER IN GOING FORWARD FOR THE BOARD AND MEMBER HENDRICKSON, FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS WELL.
SO IS IT SOMETHING THAT'S AS RECURRENT AT THIS MOMENT FOR US? NOT NECESSARILY, BUT I DO THINK IT'S SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND, AND I DO THINK IT'S SOMETHING TO KEEP IN OUR HEADS WHEN WE GO FORWARD.
IF WE DO START TO HAVE MORE AND MORE CASES COME UP WITH THIS OVERLAY.
WE HAVEN'T HAD A LOT, I WILL SAY THAT IN THE PAST FEW YEARS.
SO HOPEFULLY IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF.
BUT IF WE DO START NOTICING, I MEAN, THIS IS NUMBER ONE, WE CAN GO FROM THERE AND SEE AND THEN WHETHER OR NOT WE TAKE A RECOMMENDATION.
BUT BOTH OF YOU THAT SIT ON THOSE BODIES DEFINITELY COULD BRING THAT UP.
IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD BE DISCUSSED.
I THINK THAT IT'S LIKELY TO START HAPPENING MORE WITH THESE HOUSES BEING FROM THE 50S AND 60S. ALL RIGHT, THAT SAID, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION BEFORE WE VOTE? ALL RIGHT, THIS IS A VOTE TO APPROVE A VARIANCE FOR SEVEN POINT TWO FEET FOR ORDINANCE NUMBER 86-442F5A.
MEMBER HENDRICKSON? YES. MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER? YES.
TRUSTEE OPSOMMER? YES. MEMBER KULHANEK.
SO THE VARIANCE IS APPROVED FOR THE FRONT YARD SETBACK.
SO MS. FILLION THAT GIVES YOU, YOU DON'T, YOU WOULDN'T NEED THE FURTHER VARIANCES FOR YOUR BUILDING PLANS AND CONSTRUCTION.
THANK YOU. BUT DEFINITELY REFER YOU BACK TO OUR WONDERFUL STAFF MEMBERS IN THE BUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT AS YOU GO FORWARD.
BUT WE APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE AND YOU BEING HERE TONIGHT.
[01:00:02]
IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE THIS EVENING? ANY COMMENTARY? I DON'T SEE ANYBODY WAITING IN OUR HOLDING AREA THERE.OK. AND I WILL GIVE HOMTV THE NOD AND WE CAN GET THE PHONE NUMBER OUT THERE FOR THE GOOD PEOPLE AT HOME THAT ARE WATCHING.
TELEPHONE NUMBERS (517) 349-1232, IF ANYONE WOULD CARE TO PARTICIPATE VIA TELEPHONE AND I'LL PAUSE HERE FOR A SECOND TO LISTEN FOR THE PHONE TO RING.
AND WE ARE HEARING NO TELEPHONES RINGING AT ALL.
OK, ON THAT NOTE, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.
THANK YOU FOR COMING TONIGHT, MS. FILLION. GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR BUILD.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
HAVE A GOOD EVENING. YOU, TOO.
OK, AND WE CAN MOVE IN TO BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS, DOES ANY OF OUR BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY
[9. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS]
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS OR STATEMENTS? MEMBER HENDRICKSON. JUST AN ATTENDANCE NOTE.YOU'RE GOING TO NEED SOME ALTERNATES FOR ME FOR PROBABLY THE NEXT MEETING, MAYBE TWO, MY WIFE IS DUE ON TUESDAY.
THANK YOU. YEAH, IT'S OUR SECOND.
SO WE'LL NEED SOME GOOD WISHES AND THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS FOR US AS WE HAVE OUR SECOND WITH A THREE YEAR OLD RUNNING AROUND THE HOUSE.
I WISH YOU TWO ALL THE BEST [INAUDIBLE].
THANK YOU. WE'RE VERY EXCITED.[INAUDIBLE] TWO IS NO BIG DEAL AFTER THE FIRST ONE.
AND WE'RE ALSO HOPING THAT WE CAN GET IN AND OUT OF THE HOSPITAL AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN, GIVEN ALL THE NONSENSE [INAUDIBLE] I'LL LIKELY NOT BE HERE FOR THE END OF APRIL MEETING.
SO I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU A HEADS UP ON THAT.
YEAH WE APPRECIATE THAT AND A VERY, VERY VALID EXCUSE.
[LAUGHTER] WE WISH YOU ALL THE BEST AND KEITH LET US KNOW, IS THERE STUFF COMING DOWN THE PIPELINE HERE? YES.
SO WE HAVE ONE CASE FOR THE 20 WAS IT THE 28TH AND THEN WE'LL HAVE TWO FOR MAY 12TH. OK, SO YEAH, WE'LL GET ALTERNATES THOUGH.
THANKS FOR LETTING ME KNOW. YEAH.
WE APPRECIATE IT. AND EVERYBODY, OUT THERE STAY SAFE AND STAY HEALTHY.
UNFORTUNATELY I LEARNED TODAY WE LOST A GOOD FRIEND OF OURS, ONLY FORTY TWO YEARS OLD.
OH THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT.
EVERYBODY GET YOUR VACCINATIONS IF YOU HAVEN'T GOTTEN YOUR VACCINE YET.
THIS IS A NON POLITICAL ISSUE.
WE NEED TO KEEP US SAFE AND HEALTHY IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP AND TAKE CARE OF ALL OF THOSE AROUND US BY STEPPING UP AND GETTING OUR VACCINE.
SO YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY, GO GET ONE.
I GO TO GET MY SECOND ONE NEXT WEEK AND I COULDN'T BE HAPPIER THAT I GET THE PRIVILEGE OF HAVING IT. ON THAT SIDE NOTE, THIS BOARD MEETING IS OFFICIALLY ADJOURNED.
THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING TONIGHT.
THANK YOU. WE'LL SEE YOU IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS.
GOOD LUCK AND CONGRATS, SCOTT. APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.