Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:26]

I'M GOING TO GIVE IT JUST A COUPLE MORE MINUTES WHILE WE WAIT FOR OTHER TWO BOARD MEMBERS TO COME IN THIS EVENING, SO WE'LL JUST GIVE IT A MOMENT OR TWO.

BUT AS A SIDE NOTE, THANKS FOR GETTING THOSE BABY PICTURES FOR US, MONIQUE.

BECAUSE HE'S THE DAD.

ALL RIGHT. WELCOME, MEMBER SHORKEY.

WE'RE GLAD TO HAVE YOU HERE TONIGHT.

WE ARE JUST GOING TO GIVE A COUPLE MORE MOMENTS HERE.

I'M SURE TRUSTEE OPSOMMER WILL BE WITH US ANY MOMENT AND THEN WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED. JUST AS A REMINDER, WHEN WE DO GET STARTED, I'M JUST GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH EACH ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS TO STATE THEIR NAME AND WHERE THEY ARE ATTENDING REMOTELY FROM A LOCATION FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD.

SURE. AND THAT'LL HAPPEN JUST AFTER I CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER HOPEFULLY IN ANOTHER COUPLE OF MOMENTS HERE.

KEITH, WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY NOTICE FROM FROM DAN THAT HE WAS NOT AVAILABLE THIS EVENING, DID WE? YEAH, I DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING FROM HIM.

OK? SO AND THIS MAY BE I HAVE NO IDEA, BUT THE LEGISLATURE IS GOING REALLY LONG TONIGHT, THEY'RE STILL DOING BUDGETS AND I KNOW HE AND I WORK DOWNTOWN, SO THAT COULD BE IT.

IF HE DOESN'T JOIN IN THAT COULD BE WHAT'S GOING ON.

HE'S STUCK AT WORK. WE DO HAVE FOUR MEMBERS.

WE HAVE A QUORUM. SO I GUESS I WOULD ASK KEITH, WHAT DO YOU THINK? SHOULD WE JUST GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED? THIRTY THREE. YEAH, YOU CAN.

IT LOOKS LIKE DIRECTOR KIESELBACH IS HAVING TROUBLE LOGGING IN, SO HE'S TRYING TO GET INTO YOU. BUT WE CAN GO AHEAD AND START, IF YOU WANT.

OK, AND WE DO HAVE QUITE A FEW IN THE ATTENDANCE AREA.

SO IF I DON'T, I DON'T, I THINK DAN WOULD HAVE HIS NAME LISTED.

BUT IF FOR SOME REASON HE'S THERE, HE CAN RAISE A HAND AND WE'LL UPGRADE HIM TO PANELIST, BUT, YEAH, I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY FOR THE BEST.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, IN THAT CASE, TODAY IS MAY 12TH, 2021.

WELCOME TO THE CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF MERIDIAN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING.

WE WILL BEGIN BY ALL BOARD MEMBERS STATING THEIR NAME AND WHERE THEY ARE ATTENDING REMOTELY FROM. MY NAME IS ALEXIA MANSOUR AND I'M ATTENDING REMOTELY FROM OKEMOS, MICHIGAN. MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER.

MONIQUE FIELD-FOSTER ATTENDING REMOTELY FROM OKEMOS, MICHIGAN.

MEMBER NEWMAN. ALEX NEWMAN ATTENDING REMOTELY FROM EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN, AND MEMBER SHORKEY LEGLE NAME, BRIAN SHORKEY, ATTENDING FROM HOME IN OKEMOS, MICHIGAN.

ALL RIGHT. ON THAT NOTE, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED WITH OUR AGENDA FOR THE EVENING. IT LOOKS LIKE OUR FIRST ITEM IS THE APPROVAL OF TONIGHT'S AGENDA.

[00:05:01]

DO I HAVE A MOTION? SO MOVED.

OK. OK.

ANY SUPPORT? SECOND.

OK. ALL RIGHT, THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING.

NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA WOULD BE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES, WHICH WE DID NOT HAVE YET.

CORRECT, KEITH? I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING UPDATED.

YES, SO WE'LL HAVE THOSE FOR THE NEXT MEETING.

THEY WEREN'T READY.

ALL RIGHT. SOUNDS GOOD. SO THEN WE WILL MOVE ON.

LOOKS LIKE THE--SORRY, I'M SWITCHING SCREENS BACK AND FORTH FOR MY AGENDA HERE.

THE NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS ON OUR AGENDA IS COMMUNICATIONS, WHICH WE HAVE DONE FOR THE PERTAINING CASE AND NO UNFINISHED BUSINESS, WE MOVE DIRECTLY INTO NEW BUSINESS.

WHICH BRINGS US TO ZBA CASE NUMBER 21-05-12-2 TRAIL OKEMOS MICHIGAN, 48864.

I HOPE I SAID THAT NAME CORRECTLY BECAUSE I WAS DEBATING THAT ALL DAY.

AND WITH THAT I WILL TURN THAT OVER TO MR. CHAPMAN FOR HIS PRESENTATION.

I'M GOING TO HAVE TO PAUSE FOR ONE SEC, I HAVE TO SEND THE EMAIL LINK TO DIRECTOR KIESELBACH TO GET IN THE MEETING.

OK, NO PROBLEM. GIVE ME ONE SECOND HERE.

SORRY. ABSOLUTELY, YOU'RE FINE.

THERE'S DAN, HI, DAN.

SORRY I WAS RUNNING LATE TO THE HOUSE.

THAT'S OK. MONIQUE WAS EXPLAINING TO US THAT THE LEGISLATURE WAS RUNNING A LITTLE BIT OVERTIME TODAY. SO NO WORRIES AT ALL.

BUT IF YOU WILL, SINCE YOU'VE ALREADY STARTED AND APPROVED OUR AGENDA, WILL YOU JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND WHERE YOU'RE CALLING IT REMOTELY FROM FOR THE RECORD.

DAN OPSOMMER COMING FROM MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP VIRTUALLY.

OK. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AND WE ARE JUST WAITING FOR THE AGENDA'S BEEN APPROVED.

SO WE ARE JUST WAITING FOR MR. CHAPMAN'S PRESENTATION.

HE'S ACTUALLY TRYING TO GET DIRECTOR KIESELBACH INTO THE MEETING.

SO WE'RE JUST PAUSING A MOMENT FOR TECHNICAL CHALLENGES AS ZOOM MEETINGS WANT TO GIVE US.

OK, I'M JUST GOING TO GO AHEAD AND HOPEFULLY HE CAN GET AN.

SOUNDS GOOD, GO, GO FOR IT.

HOLD ON A SEC. HE'S CALLING ME.

[00:10:01]

I'VE SENT HIM A NEW LINK AS WELL, SIR.

SO PUBLIC HEARING ZBA #21-05-12-2 THE APPLICANT, IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A

[6.B. ZBA CASE NO. 21-05-12-2 (Usman), 4850 Arapaho Trail, Okemos, MI, 48864]

CONCRETE PATIO, FIREPIT AND STONE WALL AND RIPRAP IN THE FLOODPLAIN AT FORTY EIGHT FIFTY ARAPAHO TRAIL.

SO THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS FROM SEC.

86-436(R) WHICH STATES STANDARDS FOR VARIANCE BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE REGULATIONS SET FORTH IN SECTION 86-436.

AND THIS IS A LOCATION MAP.

THE PROPERTY IS ZONED RAA SINGLE FAMILY.

HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY.

PROJECT OVERVIEW, SO CURRENTLY THERE IS A TWO STORY, FOUR THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY THREE SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ON SITE THAT WAS BUILT IN NINETEEN SEVENTY FIVE.

THE ON SITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE A STONE WALL FIREPIT WITH STONE RIPRAP, BERM, AND WATER FEATURES AND A PATIO WITH STONE RIPRAP.

THESE IMPROVEMENTS WERE MADE WITHOUT A PERMIT, AND ON SEPTEMBER 6TH, TWENTY NINETEEN, A VIOLATION NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE APPLICANT FOR VIOLATING THE TOWNSHIPS FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE BY PLACING FILL WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN.

AND THEN ON APRIL 21, 2021, A COURT ORDER STATED THAT THE APPLICANT MUST BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE TOWNSHIP ORDINANCE.

SO A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE FLOODPLAIN, THE ENTIRE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE FLOODWAY PORTION OF THE ONE HUNDRED YEAR FLOODPLAIN.

THE FLOODPLAIN CONSIST OF TWO SECTIONS, FLOODWAY AND THE FLOODWAY FRINGE.

THE FLOODWAY IS THE CHANNEL, THE WATER COURSE AND PORTIONS OF THE ADJOINING FLOODPLAINS THAT CARRY AND DISCHARGE THE BASE FLOOD.

THESE ARE DETERMINED BY FEMA AND INDICATED ON THE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP.

SO THE FOOTWAY FRINGE IS THE PORTION OF THE BASE FLOOD AREA LOCATED JUST OUTSIDE OF THAT FLOODWAY THAT MAY GENERALLY BE CONSIDERED A BACKWATER AREA OF THE BASE FLOOD.

SO THE PROPOSAL THE APPLICANT HAS RECEIVED VERBAL APPROVAL FROM ENVIRONMENT, GREAT LAKES AND ENERGY, OR EGLE TO ALLOW FOR THE STONEWALL THE FIRE PIT WITH STONE RIPRAP AND PATIO WITH STONE RIPRAP. SO EGLE STATED THAT THE BERM AND WATER FEATURES WILL NEED TO BE REMOVED IN ITS ENTIRETY.

AND THESE CHANGES ARE SHOWN ON THE PLANS THAT WERE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT, ALONG WITH THE DIAGRAMS THAT SHOW THE FLOODPLAIN FILL PHOTO, WHICH IS SEVEN POINT NINE CUBIC YARDS AND A COMPENSATING CUT OF THIRTEEN CUBIC YARDS.

SO. THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS FROM SECTION 86-436(R) THAT ALLOWS THE ZBA TO GRANT A VARIANCE FROM THE INTERPRETATION OF THE REGULATIONS SET FORTH IN THE CONSERVANCY DISTRICT.

SO THE ZBA HAS TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA, IN ADDITION TO THE NORMAL EIGHT CRITERIA THAT ARE STIPULATED IN 86-221.

NUMBER ONE SAYS NO VARIANCE SHALL BE GRANTED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW STRUCTURES, THE SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT OR RELOCATION OF OLD STRUCTURES OR DEVELOPMENT OF ANY KIND WITHIN THE FLOODWAY AREA WHEN SUCH DEVELOPMENT, CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENT OR RELOCATION WOULD CAUSE ANY INCREASE IN FLOOD LEVELS ASSOCIATED WITH THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION.

A SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR GRANTING THE VARIANCE MUST BE SHOWN DETERMINATION THAT FAILURE TO GRANT THE VARIANCE WOULD RESULT IN A PARTIAL DETERMINATION THAT THE GRANTING OF VARIANCE WILL NOT RESULT IN INCREASED FLOOD HEIGHTS, ADDITIONAL THREATS TO PUBLIC SAFETY, EXTRAORDINARY PUBLIC EXPENSE, OR WILL NOT CREATE NUISANCES CAUSE FRAUD OR VICTIMIZATION OF THE PUBLIC OR CONFLICT WITH THIS CHAPTER AND A

[00:15:02]

DETERMINATION THAT THE VARIANCE IS MINIMUM NECESSARY TO SO, THE TOWNSHIP ENGINEER REVIEWED THE APPLICANT'S MATERIAL AND INDICATED THAT THE REMOVAL OF THE FILL, WHICH IS THE BERM IN THE WATER FEATURE ALONG WITH THE COMPENSATING CUT, SUFFICE FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED TO REMAIN AND WILL NOT INCREASE FLOOD HEIGHTS.

STAFF IS SUGGESTING THE FOLLOWING CONDITION IF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECIDES TO APPROVE THE REQUEST, AND THAT IS THE APPLICANT RECEIVES AN EGLE PERMIT AND ADHERES TO ANY AND ALL CONDITIONS OF THAT.

THIS OUTLINES THE PROPOSED PLAN JUST SHOWS WHAT IS PROPOSED TO REMAIN OR BE REMOVED.

THIS IS A PROPERTY SURVEY.

AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

OK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAPMAN. I AM SURE WE WILL HAVE PLENTY OF QUESTIONS AND WELCOME TOO DIRECTOR KIESELBACH.

YOU MADE IT. ALL RIGHT.

ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON THEN, IF THE APPLICANT OR ANY OF THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVES WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK PLEASE GO AHEAD AND RAISE YOUR HAND THERE IN THE ATTENDEES AREAS, SO THAT WE CAN PROMOTE YOU TO A PANELIST, IT LOOKS LIKE WE GOT SOMEBODY HERE.

OK.

OK. OK, LOOKS LIKE SEVERAL PEOPLE ARE JOINING US HERE AND WE WILL LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FIRST, IF POSSIBLE, OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE, WHOEVER WOULD LIKE TO GO FIRST.

YOU'RE WELCOME TO STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD AND THEN WHATEVER YOU'D LIKE TO ADD TO WHAT MR. CHAPMAN PRESENTED FOR US.

WHO'S GOING FIRST? AM I ABLE TO SPEAK? AM I LIVE? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU IF YOU'D LIKE TO STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD AND WHATEVER YOU'D LIKE TO ADD, I'M ASSUMING YOU'RE THE APPLICANT.

SO WHATEVER YOU'D LIKE TO ADD TO WHAT MR. CHAPMAN JUST WENT THROUGH WITH US.

OK. GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS SAM USMAN.

I LIVE AT 4850 ARAPAHO TRAIL AND YEAH, I AM THE APPLICANT THAT DID WORK IN THE FLOODWAY WITHOUT A PERMIT.

AND WE I GUESS WE'VE WORKED WITH D.C.

ENGINEERING TO COME UP WITH A PLAN TO REMOVE THE BERM.

WE SPOKE WITH EGLE AND ALSO WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

IT SEEMS LIKE WE ALL ARE ON BOARD WITH THE PLAN WE HAVE IN PLACE AND WE'RE READY TO TAKE ACTION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

AND WITH EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WE WANTED TO KEEP, THERE ARE SOME SAFETY ISSUES THAT WE WANTED TO ADDRESS AND THAT'S WHY WE PUT SOME THINGS IN PLACE, BUT ULTIMATELY WE JUST DID THAT WITH REMOVING THE BERM WILL TAKE CARE OF IT ASAP.

SO I GUESS I DON'T REALLY KNOW IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE I NEED TO SAY SPECIFICALLY SO.

OK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE, AND I'M SURE WE'LL HAVE SOME QUESTIONS, SO JUST SIT TIGHT. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE THIS EVENING? IF SO, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD BEFORE YOU BEGIN.

MY NAME IS PETER COOK AND I AM THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR JUST TO THE SOUTH, 4830 ARAPAHO, AND I CAN'T SEE REALLY ANY OF THIS FROM MY HOUSE, BUT I DO KAYAK OUT AND I SAW IT LAST YEAR AND THOUGHT IT LOOKED TO BE A VERY NICE IMPROVEMENT.

ONE OF THE THINGS OF BIG CONCERN HERE IS THE EFFECT ON THE FLOOD LEVELS.

AND OVER THIRTY FIVE YEARS I'VE BEEN AT THIS HOUSE.

I FREQUENTLY GO OUT WHEN IT IS FLOODED.

AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE FLOW OF THE RIVER HERE, IT LOOKS MOSTLY ALONG HERON CREEK, OF THE WATER. AND ACTUALLY, IF THE WIND IS BLOWING FROM THE WEST, THE LEAVES AND THINGS TO THE TOP OF THE RIVER WILL ACTUALLY BE BLOWING IN THE OTHER DIRECTION.

THERE'S VERY LITTLE FLOW AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL.

IT'S FLOWING OVER THE ISLAND BY THE GOLF COURSE.

SO REMOVING THE BERM AND THE STONE RIPRAP, I CAN TELL YOU, HAVING OBSERVED

[00:20:02]

THE FLOW OF WATER DURING MANY TIMES DURING FLOOD LEVEL, THERE'S VERY LITTLE MOVEMENT OF WATER. IT'S NOT GOING TO AFFECT FLOODING IN THE LEAST OR ONLY IN THE UNMEASURABLE AMOUNT.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE INGHAM COUNTY FLOOD MAP, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE WATER SPREADS OUT A GREAT DEAL DURING THE HIGH WATER AND, SO I WOULD FROM MY EXPERIENCE AND OBSERVATIONS, I CAN TELL YOU WE'RE REMOVING THAT STONE RAP AND THE BERM IS NOT GOING TO MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE, AND IT'S ALSO GOING TO INVOLVE A GREAT DEAL OF THE STONES. AND THINGS ARE QUITE HEAVY.

IT'S BEEN A LOT OF NOISE AND THINGS OUT ON THE STREET.

I DON'T SEE ANY PURPOSE FOR REMOVING= THOSE PARTICULAR AREAS, THE REST OF IT IS A NICE ADDITION TO THE HOUSE.

I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT I'VE STATED, BUT AS I SAY, FOR OVER THIRTY FIVE YEARS I'VE BEEN THE LAND AREAS THAT FLOOD AND THE FLOW OF WATER NEAR THERE ACTUALLY, THE WATER ENTERS THIS POND NEARBY, ONE HUNDRED YARDS FROM THE HOUSE, AND THE FLOW OF WATER MOVES AWAY FROM THEIR HOUSE. SO I CAN'T SAY THAT ANYTHING I'VE DONE WOULD HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THE FLOW OF WATER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. COOK, WE APPRECIATE YOUR INPUT AND YOUR PERSPECTIVE AS BEING A NEIGHBOR, AND WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE TONIGHT.

AND IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, WE'LL LET YOU KNOW.

YOU'RE WELCOME TO STAY OR EITHER ONE, WHICHEVER WAY.

THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME GIVE MY EXPERIENCE WITH THIS PART OF THE RIVER.

YES, WE APPRECIATE AND VALUE THAT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE THIS EVENING? AM I SPEAKING NOW, WE CAN WE JUST NEED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

I AM KURT KRAHULIK WITH DC ENGINEERING AT 1210 NORTH CEDAR STREET IN LANSING.

AND WE'RE THE ONES THAT DID THE ENGINEERING WORK HERE FOR THE USMANS.

SO I GUESS OFFER UP IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE ENGINEERING OR THE HYDRAULICS OF THE RIVER. FEEL FREE TO ASK.

GREAT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE AND SAY YOUR NAME FOR ME ONE MORE TIME, JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I SAY IT CORRECTLY.

KURT KRAHULIK.

OK. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE, SIR.

ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE TONIGHT WHILE WE'RE STILL OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. ALL RIGHT, IF NO ONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND MOVE INTO OUR BOARD TIME.

PLEASE NOTE THAT FOR ANYBODY THAT SPOKE VIRTUALLY, THE APPLICANTS AND MR. KRAHULIK, HOPEFULLY I SAID THAT CORRECTLY, WE WILL LIKE YOU TO STICK CLOSE BY JUST IN CASE WE HAVE SOME QUESTIONS AS WE DISCUSS THIS CASE.

OK, SO WITH THAT, I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

AND I I WOULD JUST TO ASK ANY OF OUR BOARD MEMBERS IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO GET STARTED WITH OUR DISCUSSION FOR THIS EVENING.

ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING THEY WANT TO ASK? YEAH, I GUESS I'M JUST I'M STILL A LITTLE CONFUSED AND MAYBE MR. CHAPMAN AND KIESELBACH COULD ENLIGHTEN ME WHAT I GUESS WHAT VARIANCE, SO SAY THEY DID THIS WORK, I GUESS VARIANCE WILL BE GRANTING? JUST WORK IN GENERAL AT ALL IN THE FLOODPLAIN OR.

.. I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED.

YEAH, SO JUST KIND OF SUMMARIZE, SO THE WORK THAT WAS ALREADY DONE.

IN THE FLOODPLAIN IS SHOWN ON THAT PLAN THAT SHOWS ALL LIKE WHAT'S TO BE REMOVED AND WHAT'S TO BE KEPT AND STUFF LIKE THAT, SO, BASICALLY, IN ESSENCE, EGLE HAS ALLOWED THEM TO PLACE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF FILL WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN.

WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN OUR ORDINANCE THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO PUT ANY FILL IN THE

[00:25:05]

FLOODPLAIN. SO WE'RE REQUIRING THAT THEY GET THIS VARIANCE IN ORDER TO ALLOW IT, BASICALLY. SO, IT'S LIKE SEVEN POINT SOMETHING IS THE AMOUNT.

SO WE HAVE IN OUR CODE, IT SAYS YOU CANNOT PUT ANY FILL IN A FLOODPLAIN BECAUSE IT WOULD AFFECT LEVELS ELSEWHERE IN 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN IS THAT FLOODWAY AND THOSE CALL OUR CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, WHICH IS THE FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS.

AND THOSE WOULD ALLOW FOR THOSE WAIVERS.

IF YOU CHOOSE TO GRANT THOSE, WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR IS BASICALLY WHERE THAT CONCRETE PAD IS AND THE FIREPIT.

AND THAT'S WHAT THEY CALL A STONE WALL ALONG THE RIVER AND THEN THE RIPRAP OR THAT.

BANK STABILIZATION, YOU'LL SEE, THAT RUNS ALONG THE ONE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.

THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE ASKING TO HAVE REMAINED, IF YOU GRANT THIS VARIANCE.

THE REST OF THOSE THINGS OR BOTH THROUGH EGLE AND THE TOWNSHIP HAVE TO BE REMOVED.

AND THOSE ARE MARKED ON THE PLANS FOR WHAT THINGS HAVE TO BE REMOVED AS PART OF THIS AGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE WITH THE OWNERS.

OK, SO THE VARIANCES FOR THE STRUCTURES RIGHT NOW WOULD BE STAYING? YES. OK, AND SO I'M STILL I GUESS I'M STILL A LITTLE CONFUSED, BUT I GUESS WHY ARE THOSE STRUCTURES OUTSIDE OF WHAT WE ALLOW? BECAUSE THEY AFFECT THE FLOODPLAIN THEORETICALLY? WELL, THAT'S THE POINT THAT THEY CAN'T UNDER THOSE CRITERIA IS THAT ONE OF THEM IS THAT THEY CAN INCREASE THE FLOOD LEVEL IF THEY'RE THERE.

SO, AGAIN, AS I MENTIONED, THIS THIS WAS WRITTEN TO ALLOW SOME TYPES OF STRUCTURES AS A WAIVER IN THE FLOODPLAIN AND IN THIS CASE, THIS FLOODWAY.

OTHERWISE, WITHOUT THIS VARIANCE, THEY COULDN'T HAVE THOSE THERE.

THANK YOU. THESE ARE STRUCTURES THAT HAVE A LOW IMPACT OR A LOW POTENTIAL TO INCREASE FLOODING. YEAH, I SEE I THINK IT WAS EGLE OR MAYBE IT WAS THE D.C.

ENGINEER. THERE WAS SOME STATEMENT THAT SAID THERE CALCULATIONS, YOU KNOW, DIDN'T EXPECT ANY SORT OF FLOODPLAIN OR FLOODING LEVEL IMPACT AND YOU'LL SEE IN THE STAFF MEMO THAT THE TOWNSHIP ENGINEER AND WE HAVE THEY ARE CERTIFIED FLOODPLAIN MANAGERS, OUR ENGINEERS ARE, AND THEY ALSO SAID THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THIS VARIANCE WAS GRANTED.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MEMBER NEWMAN.

TRUSTEE OPSOMMER AND THEN WE DO HAVE A, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD WITH TRUSTEE OPSOMMER FIRST, WE DO HAVE A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK THAT WAS HAVING A CHALLENGING TIME GETTING THROUGH DURING PUBLIC COMMENT.

SO I'M GOING TO GIVE IT TO TRUSTEE OPSOMMER FIRST AND THEN WE'LL GO BACK TO OUR NEIGHBOR HERE THAT'S ACROSS THE WAY FROM THE USMANS IF YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD, DAN.

THANK YOU, CHAIR MANSOUR.

SO, MARK AND KEITH, WHEN DID THE PROHIBITED PUTTING IMPROVEMENTS IN THE FLOODPLAIN? I ASK BECAUSE I BELIEVE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WAS BUILT IN THE 1960S AND OBVIOUSLY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PARCELS ADJACENT TO THIS ONE ARE EITHER ENTIRELY IN THE FLOODPLAIN, AS THIS ONE IS, OR MANY OF THEM ARE PARTIALLY IN.

SO THIS IS JUST ONE THING.

HISTORICALLY, I BELIEVE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WAS BUILT PRIOR TO THAT.

AND IT'S A SYSTEMIC ISSUE ACROSS THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

CORRECT? ONE THING TO WE'VE HAD FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS IN THE TOWNSHIP, EVEN IN THE 60S.

WHAT REALLY CHANGED IT WAS THE FLOOD IN THE EARLY 70S AND THEN THE ORDINANCE WAS REWRITTEN TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION NOT ALLOWING ANY HABITABLE SPACE IN THE FLOODWAY.

[00:30:04]

AND I CAN TELL YOU THE HISTORY OF THIS, THIS SUBDIVISION, BY A MATTER OF TWO DAYS, BEAT THE ORDINANCE AND WAS APPROVED TO ALLOW FOR THOSE STRUCTURES.

OTHERWISE, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE IF THEY HAD WAITED A LITTLE BIT LONGER.

AND AGAIN, THAT WAIVER WAS ADDED AT THAT TIME.

SO THAT WAS RIGHT AROUND 1975.

BASICALLY, IF THEY TRIED TO PUT PATIO OR AN IMPROVEMENT ANYWHERE ON THEIR PROPERTY, THEY WOULD RUN INTO NEEDING THIS VARIANCE.

RIGHT, AS LONG AS IT'S NOT ONE THING THAT IS PROHIBITED THAT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COULDN'T GRANT IS FOR HABITABLE SPACE.

SO THE NON HABITABLE SPACE IS SOMETHING THAT CAN GET A WAIVER.

AND SO THE LET ME SEE WHAT PAGE THIS IS.

PAGE 19 OF OUR PACKET, IT HAS THE VARIOUS CUTS AND FILL.

AND SO THE COMPENSATING CUT OF 7.9, HAS THAT ALREADY BEEN.

HAS THAT ALREADY OCCURRED OR IS THAT PART OF THE WORK THROUGH EGLE TO KIND OF BRING THIS INTO COMPLIANCE? THAT'S GOING TO BE THE WORK TO BRING IT INTO COMPLIANCE.

OK, IN THE SECTION A AND SECTION B FILLS AND SECTION D HAVE OCCURRED.

SO WHAT WOULD NEED TO OCCUR AT THIS POINT IS THAT COMPENSATING CUT THAT'S NOTED ON THE SITE PLAN. RIGHT.

THAT COULD BE INCLUDED AS A CONDITION ALONG WITH THE EGLE APPROVAL.

OK, SO EGLE WOULD APPROVE THIS AND ALL OF THE GRADES AND VARIOUS METRICS THAT THE ENGINEER HAS OUTLINED HERE TO DETERMINE IF THAT IS A TRUE NET ZERO CUT IN TERMS OF IMPACT FOR THE FLOODPLAIN.

RIGHT. WOULD THAT BE A PART OF THEIR APPROVAL PROCESS.

RIGHT AN THE ENGINEER CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE TO CERTIFY BACK THE EGLE WITH SPEND ON.

THOSE ARE ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE FOR RIGHT NOW.

THANK YOU, DIRECTOR KIESELBACH.

THANK YOU, TRUSTEE OPSOMMER.

OK, I'M GOING TO GO TO AND TRY TO ALLOW A CHANCE TO SPEAK FOR MARCIA LEISTER.

I THINK IS HOW WE PRONOUNCE IT.

LEISTER.

OK. CAN YOU HEAR ME? WE CAN HEAR YOU IF YOU WANT TO GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND GO AHEAD.

I KNOW THIS IS KIND OF IRREGULAR, BUT WE'RE ALL DEALING WITH TECHNOLOGY ISSUES.

SO I APOLOGIZE.

I'VE NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE.

WELCOME. YOU'RE DOING GREAT.

GO AHEAD AND GIVE US WHAT YOU WANTED TO SAY ON THIS I'VE LIVED HERE THIRTY YEARS.

I LIVE ACROSS THE RED CEDAR.

I LIVE AT, I HAVE FOUR LOT HERE TWO MOMENT, CAN YOU JUST STATE YOUR FULL NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC.

OH I APOLOGIZE. MY RESIDENCE IS AT 2525 SMALL ACRES LANE OKEMOS MICHIGAN.

I APOLOGIZE. MY NAME IS MARCIA LEISTER.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GO AHEAD.

I ALSO OWN TWENTY FIVE, SEVENTEEN SMALL ACRES AND I ALSO HAVE TWO LOTS ON EITHER SIDE.

I OWN SEVEN ACRES OVER HERE.

AND I AM DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE RED CEDAR FLOWS ACROSS ALL MY PROPERTY.

I AM VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE FLOOD REGULATIONS AND EVERYTHING ON THE RIVER HERE AND ACTUALLY THE BARONS WHO HAD LIVED THERE FOR FORTY FIVE YEARS HAVE ALL THE INITIAL PAPERWORK THAT WAS DONE WHEN THEY DREDGED THAT OUT.

IT USED TO BE MARSH LAND AND THAT POND OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, WAS DREDGED OUT AND THEY PUT A STONE WALL AT ONE END SO IT WOULD MAINTAIN THE NATURAL FLOW OF THE RED CEDAR. THERE IS THAT WAS PART OF THE REGULATION WELL, OVER THE YEARS IT'S BEEN FILLING IN, IT'S GOING BACK TO ITS NATURAL STATE.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WENT DOWN THERE AND LOOKED AT IT, BUT A LOT OF SILT AND SAND IS WASHING OUT.

MY PROPERTY IS GETTING BIGGER AND BIGGER AND BIGGER.

IT'S ACTUALLY TURNED INTO A PENINSULA IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT POND.

I. SAW THE WORK THAT WAS DONE ON THAT PROPERTY, I WAS SURPRISED IT WAS ALLOWED.

YOU KNOW, I SAW IT TOOK ALL SUMMER.

[00:35:01]

A LOT OF TREES WERE REMOVED, SOIL WAS BROUGHT IN.

AND I WAS CONCERNED BECAUSE I HAVE A LOT OF LOWLANDS HERE.

THE ANIMALS ON IT, THE WATER OWNS IT.

I GET EVERYBODY'S WOOD, I CLEAN IT UP.

I CLEANED IT UP LAST YEAR I SPENT A LOT OF MONEY ON IT.

TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS TO TAKE OUT ALL THESE TREES THAT COME DOWN AND HAVE THEM HAULED OUT BECAUSE THEY BUILD DAMS ON THE RIVER.

WELL, AFTER THAT WAS DONE, MY PROPERTY ON 2517 ALMOST FLOODED, IT FLOODED WHEN WE HAD THE BAD. WE HAD THE FLOOD IN IT WAS ALMOST A 100 YEAR FLOOD IN FEBRUARY, I BELIEVE TWO YEARS AGO, MSU AND ALL OF OKEMOS WERE FLOODED, ACTUALLY, GRAND RIVER AND SO FORTH.

BUT AFTER THAT, THE WATER IS ALMOST COMING TO THE HOUSE.

AND SO I'M LIKE, WELL, WHAT DO I DO? YOU KNOW, DO I BUILD A BERM? THE FIRE MARSHAL CAME HERE.

HE SAID I SHOULD CONTACT THE DNR, I GUESS, AND HAVE THEM COME IN AND LOOK AT IT, BUT THERE'S PROBLEMS AND, YOU KNOW, I'M ALL FOR FIREPITS, YOU KNOW, THAT'S GREAT.

IT'S THE CEMENT THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

I SUGGEST YOU RAISE IT, YOU MOVE IT UP THE HILL BECAUSE THAT WATER GETS HIGH.

IT GETS HIGH WHEN IT COMES IT COMES THAT ISLAND IN THERE ALL FLOODS.

YOU'VE SEEN IT.

AND THE EROSION IS BAD.

IT'S ALL GOING INTO THE POND THERE.

SO ALL THOSE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THOSE NICE HOUSES THAT HAD TO BUILD, YOU KNOW, SOLID CEMENT BASEMENTS AREN'T GOING TO HAVE ANY WATER TO LOOK AT PRETTY SOON.

IT'S JUST GOING TO BE MARSHLAND.

SO I WOULD ADVISE THAT AVOID THE CEMENT.

MOVE YOUR STUFF UP SO WHEN THE WATER DOES COME UP, IT DOESN'T CAUSE A PROBLEM EVERYWHERE ELSE. I'M ALL FOR FIREPITS.

I WANT EVERYBODY TO ENJOY THE WATER, FISH BOAT, WHATEVER YOU DO, THAT'S GREAT.

BUT YOU GOT TO PROTECT THE RIVER.

AND THE LAND AROUND IT, IT'S ERODING REALLY BAD.

TREES ARE FALLING YOU KNOW THE EROSION JUST ALONE IS NOT GOOD.

TREES ARE FALLING IN.

AND A FEW YEARS AGO, THERE WAS A LARGE DAM AT THE END OF RED CEDAR.

AND YOU SHOULD BE AWARE THAT I THINK I'D HELP GET RID OF IT.

BECAUSE IT WAS SO EXPENSIVE, REMOTE, SO.

I HAVE FOUR PIECES OF PROPERTY HERE.

I TRY TO MAINTAIN THAT AND PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT, BUT I AM NOT FOR PUTTING IN CEMENT.

AND SO THE WATER CAN'T RAISE UP.

I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT AND I HAVEN'T WENT OUT THERE, I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOUR FIREPIT IS. I CAN'T SEE IT.

BUT IF IT'S LOW ENOUGH WHERE THE WATER IS GOING TO GET THERE, IT'LL COME UP NINE FEET.

ON A NORMAL TIME IT CAME UP NINE FEET, ACTUALLY LAST LAST SPRING OR THE SPRING BEFORE IT WAS UP NINE FEET.

THAT'S HIGH. AND SIX FEET, I BELIEVE, IS FLOOD.

SO I'M NOT TOO EXCITED ABOUT HAVING MORE FILL OR NOT FILL, BUT THINGS THERE SO THE WATER CAN'T FLOW CORRECTLY.

THANK YOU, MS. LEISTER, WE APPRECIATE YOUR INPUT AND WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GET BACK INTO OUR BOARD TIME SO THAT WE CAN TALK MORE ABOUT THIS, BUT WE DO DEFINITELY APPRECIATE YOUR PERSPECTIVE AND THANK YOU FOR SHARING THAT WITH US TONIGHT.

THANK YOU. I'M GLAD I WAS YOU ALLOWED ME TO SPEAK.

ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK INTO OUR BOARD TIME.

DID ANY OTHER MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR ANYTHING AT ALL? I WILL SAY I WAS WITH MEMBER NEWMAN ON NEEDING A LITTLE BIT OF CLARIFICATION ON THE VARIANCE IN AND OF ITSELF, AND I APPRECIATE THAT TRUSTEE OPSOMMER DEFINITELY HAS A BETTER HANDLE ON EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN IT COMES TO THE CUT AND THE FILL.

SO I WILL LEAVE THAT EXPERTISE LEVEL TO YOU TRUSTEE OPSOMMER.

[00:40:05]

BUT I GUESS MY QUESTION IS ONE OF JUST I SUPPOSE PRACTICALITY FOR THE BOARD'S SAKE, AND THIS CAN BE A DISCUSSION POINT FOR US BOARD MEMBERS THAT ARE IN ATTENDANCE.

AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT THESE CHANGES WERE MADE WITHOUT PERMITTING AND THAT WE KNOW THAT ANY HOMES THAT ARE IN THIS AREA ARE GOING TO REQUIRE VARIANCE FOR ANY OF THESE TYPES OF NON HABITABLE STRUCTURES.

SO WHAT I WOULD LIKE US TO CONSIDER IS WHAT THE PRECEDENT WE WOULD BE SETTING BY APPROVING A VARIANCE AFTER THE FACT OF CONSTRUCTION.

THAT BEING SAID, I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK THIS SHOULDN'T BE APPROVED, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT.

I ALSO WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS IT.

WHAT WE FIND TO BE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES HERE.

AND WHEN WE GET INTO THOSE EXTRA THREE, THREE OR FOUR TWO CRITERIA, WE KNOW NOW THAT THE TOWNSHIP ENGINEER HAS SAID THAT THEY DON'T BELIEVE ONCE WE TAKE OUT THE BERM AND WATER FEATURES THAT IT WILL NOT AFFECT THE.

SORRY, I HAVE CHILDREN AT HOME TODAY WILL NOT AFFECT THE FLOODWAY.

HOWEVER I COMPLETELY LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT.

VERY, VERY SORRY ABOUT THAT, BUT I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THOSE EXTRA CRITERIA TO WHAT ANYBODY THINKS ABOUT THOSE. I'M INTERESTED TO HEAR ANYONE'S INPUT ON SO I DON'T KNOW THAT I'M PARTICULARLY COMMENTING, BUT I AM FOLLOWING WHAT YOU WERE SAYING, I THINK WITH SOME MORE QUESTIONS, THAT ALSO GO BACK TO WHAT MEMBER NEWMAN WAS TALKING ABOUT.

AND MAYBE IF I CAN GET SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS ANSWERED, I MIGHT BE ABLE TO KIND OF OFFER COMMENTS, SO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE, ESPECIALLY SINCE THIS IS A VARIANCE ON SOMETHING THAT ALREADY EXISTS.

SO MY QUESTION IS, ARE WE GOING THROUGH THE CRITERIA AS IF THE ADDITIONS WEREN'T THERE OR ARE WE GOING THROUGH THE CRITERIA WITH THE MINDSET THAT THEY'RE ALREADY THERE? I'M A LITTLE BIT LIKE WHAT'S THE FOCUS? BECAUSE IT ALREADY EXISTS.

SO, I MEAN, ONCE YOU LOOK AT HOW WE TEND TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY IF I GET TO THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SELF CREATED AND WE'RE TRYING TO BASICALLY SAY, OK, YOU CAN PUT THESE ITEMS THERE.

WELL, THEN YOU'RE IN A SITUATION WHERE YOU CREATED IT BECAUSE YOU PUT IT THERE.

SO IF WE'RE LOOKING AT IT BASED ON THE LAND ITSELF AND THE DIFFICULTIES OF THAT MEMBER OPSOMMER BROUGHT UP AS FAR AS IT BEING COMPLETELY IN THE FLOODWAY.

SO ANYTHING THAT YOU WANT TO DO IS GOING TO REQUIRE A VARIANCE BECAUSE OF WHAT THE ORDINANCE IS THEN THERE'S TWO WAYS TO REALLY ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS.

AND I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHAT THE RIGHT WAY IS OR HOW WE'RE SUPPOSED TO LOOK AT IT IN THAT RESPECT. SO I DON'T KNOW IF MR. CHAPMAN OR MR. KIESELBACH CAN HELP WITH THAT.

I THINK IT IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE IS TO CORRECT A VIOLATION THAT WAS ALREADY DONE TO SEE IF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WOULD BE WILLING TO ALLOW FOR THOSE TO REMAIN . IF YOU DON'T GRANT THE VARIANCE THEN THOSE WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED.

BUT YOU'RE RIGHT. I MEAN, IT'S AFTER THE FACT.

IT'S ALREADY HAPPENED.

AND WE'RE BACK TRYING TO SEE IF THE ZBA IS SO TO CLARIFY, I THINK FOR MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER'S QUESTION, WE SHOULD CONSIDER THIS AS THIS IS ALREADY EXISTING.

THIS IS SELF CREATED, RIGHT? WELL, WOULD YOU ALLOW IT TO STAY THERE? OK. OK, SO DOES THAT HELP CLARIFY MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER.

[00:45:08]

NOT EXACTLY SO I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT AND DID YOU ACTUALLY DO THE WORK YOURSELF OR DID YOU HIRE A CONTRACTOR? I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW WE GOT HERE.

WE HIRED A LANDSCAPER, AND SO ESSENTIALLY AND I DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE FLOODPLAIN, AND THAT'S OBVIOUSLY MY FAULT AND I SHOULD HAVE DONE MORE DILIGENCE. AND SO I'M MORE THAN ACCEPTING OF WHATEVER HAPPENS TONIGHT.

AND I THINK THAT WE DID IT BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE WANT TO ENJOY OUR BACKYARD AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THE OTHER NEIGHBORS COMMENTS BECAUSE I MEAN, SHE'S OBVIOUSLY HAS BEEN HERE FOR OVER THIRTY FIVE YEARS OR FORTY YEARS OR WHATEVER SHE SAID.

AND SHE'S SEEN THE RIVER GO UP AND DOWN AND WHATNOT.

AND WE WANT TO PROTECT THE RIVER AS MUCH AS WE POSSIBLY CAN AS WELL.

I MEAN, WE'RE BIG NATURE PEOPLE.

WE LOVE WATCHING THE ANIMALS.

WE LOVE WATCHING PEOPLE GO FISHING RIGHT OUT IN FRONT OF OUR HOUSE.

AND THAT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE WITH THE WATER RISING AS MUCH AS IT DOES WE THOUGHT PUTTING A BERM THERE WOULD ACTUALLY PROTECT.

BECAUSE AS YOU CAN SEE, WE HAVE A TWO YEAR OLD DAUGHTER THAT RUNS AROUND THE YARD.

AND I THOUGHT THAT ACTUALLY WOULD KIND OF LIKE SHELTER US FROM SOME OF THE FLOODING THAT HAPPENS. SO BUT ME BEING AN IDIOT DIDN'T REALIZE THAT I COULDN'T DO LANDSCAPING.

AND TO ME, THAT WAS A LANDSCAPING JOB, NOT ANYTHING MORE THAN THAT.

SO, YEAH, I MEAN, WE HIRED SOMEBODY TO DO IT AND THEY DEFINITELY TOOK IT OUT LONGER AND OBVIOUSLY THEY DIDN'T TAKE THE PROPER PRECAUTIONS EITHER.

SO, SORRY ABOUT THAT.

BUT IT'S JUST KIND OF WHAT HAPPENED . OK, I GUESS I GOT ANOTHER QUESTION, SO.

AND THIS COULD JUST BE A LITTLE ALL OVER THE PLACE, BUT THE CONCRETE PATH THAT YOU CREATED FOR SAFETY FOR THE POOL IS THE POOL ATTACHED TO THE HOUSE.

I MEAN, IS THERE A WAY TO GET TO THE POOL FROM THE HOUSE OR WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THAT PATHWAY? SO THE POOL IS, I GUESS IT'S NOT ATTACHED TO THE HOUSE IT'S DETACHED TO THE HOUSE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S PROBABLY FOUR FEET OF CONCRETE FROM THE HOUSE TO THE POOL, BUT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE POOL, LIKE THERE WAS LIKE MAYBE, I DON'T KNOW, TWO FEET OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT WASN'T VERY WIDE. SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE LIKE SO WE JUST TRIED TO EXTEND THAT A LITTLE BIT SO THAT THERE WAS MORE ROOM, BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, WE HAVE NIECES AND NEPHEWS AND KIDS AND THAT ACTUALLY MAKES IT A LOT SAFER BECAUSE THERE'S MORE ROOM TO WALK AROUND THE POOL IF THAT MAKES SENSE. SO, I MEAN, IF YOU CAME OVER AND SAW YOU'D PROBABLY YOU'D UNDERSTAND WHY WE DID IT. NOW, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION OR NOT.

SO THAT CONCRETE IS NOT LIKE A PATHWAY IN THE YARD, IT'S ACTUALLY AN EXTENSION OF THE DECK ON THE POOL. ESSENTIALLY, YES, THAT'S NOT A PATHWAY IN THE YARD.

NO. KIND OF WRAPS AROUND THE POOL.

YEAH, IT'S JUST WE JUST MADE IT LIKE, I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT DIMENSIONS, BUT IT'S LIKE MAYBE LIKE ANOTHER 18 INCHES BIGGER SO THAT IT WAS JUST EASIER TO WALK AROUND.

I MEAN IF YOU HAD TWO PEOPLE WALKING RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER, SOMEBODY LIKE, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY MIGHT FALL IN THE POOL IF WE DIDN'T DO THAT.

SO. AND IF I CAN INTERJECT HERE, THIS IS WE HAVEN'T SEEN A PICTURE OF IT, BUT THAT PART OF THE POOL DECK WAS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO A 20 FOOT DROP DOWN INTO THE RIVER, IT'S ALMOST A VERTICAL RIVERBANK.

SO THEY WERE EXTENDING IT A LITTLE BIT SO THAT YOU CAN HAVE ROOM SO THAT SOMEBODY DOESN'T STEP OFF THAT LITTLE 2 FOOT WALKWAY THAT WAS THERE, A POOL EDGE THAT WAS THERE AND END UP IN HERON CREEK. AND IT IS ESSENTIALLY THE SCENARIO THAT YOU HAD WITH THE POOL DECK.

I'LL ALSO ADD THAT THE POOL DECK ITSELF IS OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN.

SO IT'S REALLY THE LITTLE BIT OF FILL THAT WENT UNDERNEATH OF THAT PIECE OF CONCRETE, THAT IS THE FILL WITHIN THE FLOODWAY, NOT THE POOL DECK ITSELF.

MR. KRAHULIK OR MR. USMAN, DO WE HAVE ANY PHOTOS THAT YOU CAN SHARE WITH US OF THAT DIFFERENCE OR STAFF DO WE

[00:50:04]

HAVE ANY PHOTOS OF THE ACTUAL YARD? I CAN IF YOU CAN LET ME IF I CAN SHARE.

YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO SHARE SCREEN.

IS IT THIS ONE.

WHAT'S SCREEN IS EVERYBODY SEEING AT THE MOMENT? LOOKS LIKE A SCREEN SAVER.

WE SEE OK, LET ME TRY A DIFFERENT ONE HERE.

THERE ARE YOU NOW SEEING SOME SITE PHOTOS WE CAN RUN THROUGH THESE A LITTLE QUICK.

SO THESE ARE SITE PHOTOS, THE FIRST ONE HERE IS NOT THE POOL DECK, THIS IS THE FIREPIT.

YOU SEE OUT THERE PREDOMINANTLY WAS PUT AT GRADE ON EXISTING GRADE HERE, OBVIOUSLY IT'S FLAT, SO YOU HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF FILL HERE AS YOU MOVE TOWARDS THE RIVER.

AND THERE'S THE FIELD STONES THAT WE CALL THE FIELD STONE WALL TO DELINEATE BETWEEN THE YARD AND THE RIVER'S EDGE.

THIS IS THE BERM THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

YOU SEE, THIS IS THE MAJORITY OF THE FILL, AND I'LL ADD THAT DEQ OR EGLE HAS ALREADY SAID THIS HAS TO COME OUT.

SO THIS IS NOT IN QUESTION AS TO WHETHER IT CAN REMAIN OR NOT.

EGLE HAS SAID IT HAS TO GO.

THIS BERM IS ALSO CREATED AND THEY CREATED A LITTLE CALLED IT A DRY RIVERBED ON TOP OF IT, YOU SEE A LITTLE LANDSCAPING POND AND A RIVERBED HERE IN HERE.

I'M STANDING ON TOP OF IT.

AND THAT'S JUST THE VIEW OF THAT SAME THING ON THE RIVER SIDE OF THAT BERM.

AND THEN THIS IS THE POOL DECK EXPANSION THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT YOU CAN SEE BEFORE THIS AREA RIGHT HERE WAS THE ORIGINAL POOL DECK AND THEN FROM HERE DOWN, THAT WAS JUST THE STEP OFF DOWN THIS RIVERBANK HERE.

SO ESSENTIALLY, THEY ADDED A LITTLE BIT MORE TO THAT POOL DECK AND FILLED A FEW FIELD STONES HERE I DON'T KNOW HOW WELL THIS COMES ACROSS.

BUT IF YOU CAN FOLLOW THE HAND, YOU CAN SEE SOME STONES THAT LOOK MORE, WEATHERED IT'S ACTUALLY BROKEN CONCRETE.

AND THAT WAS THE TOP OF AN EXISTING RETAINING WALL THERE THAT WAS SORT OF HOLDING BACK THE EMBANKMENT AT THAT POINT.

AND AGAIN, THIS THIS POOL DECK ITSELF IS OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN, THE FLOODPLAIN ELEVATION SORT OF COMES UP ABOUT THERE ABOUT HALFWAY UP.

THROUGH THAT FIELD STONE WALL THERE, AND THEN THIS WAS A REPLACEMENT OF A PATIO, SO THERE'S NO CHANGE IN VOLUME HERE, THEY RIPPED OUT WHAT WAS THERE, AND THEY PUT NEW CONCRETE BASE IN.

SO THOSE ARE THE PHOTOS SHOWING THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WERE MADE.

WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO SEE ANOTHER ONE IN PARTICULAR? I THINK THAT DEFINITELY HELPS VISUALLY.

BOARD MEMBERS I'LL LEAVE IT UP TO YOU IF ANYBODY NEEDS TO SEE ANYTHING MORE IN DEPTH, BUT I THINK THAT DEFINITELY HELPED MY VISUAL.

YEAH, THAT'S GREAT. THANK YOU.

YEAH. APPRECIATE YOU SHARING THAT.

TRUSTEE OPSOMMER HAS BEEN WAITING FOR A MOMENT WITH A QUESTION, UNLESS IT WAS ALREADY ANSWERED IN SOMEWHERE IN THAT DISCUSSION.

I'M ACTUALLY OKAY RIGHT NOW I'M GOOD.

OK. SO I'VE GOT ANOTHER QUESTION.

MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER GO FOR IT.

AND I DON'T KNOW WHO WOULD ANSWER THIS BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND MR. KRAHULIK. SO I CAN DEFINITELY, APPRECIATE THE PICTURES, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'M WONDERING WITH THAT DECK AND I CAN SEE THAT IT IS NARROW, BUT WOULD A FENCE OR SOME OTHER TYPE OF STRUCTURE NOT HAVE TAKEN CARE OF THE SAFETY ASPECT THAT YOU WERE TRYING TO ADDRESS? WAS THAT A QUESTION FOR THE USMAN FAMILY? IT'S WHAT YEAH.

OR ANYONE, BUT IT'S KIND OF BECAUSE IF MR.

[00:55:04]

KRAHULIK AM I SAYING YOUR LAST NAME RIGHT, MR. KRAHULIK. OK, HE HAD MENTIONED THE DROP OFF DOWN INTO THE RIVER, AND SO THERE WAS AN ISSUE OF SAFETY OF MAKING SURE THAT IF SOMEONE WAS WALKING ALONG THAT CONCRETE THAT THEY DIDN'T STEP OFF AND END UP INTO THE RIVER.

AND SO THE FIRST THING I THOUGHT OF WAS, WELL, COULD YOU NOT HAVE PUT UP A WOODEN FENCE, SOME KIND OF SOME KIND OF STRUCTURE, NOT NECESSARILY SAYING WHAT THAT WOULD.

WOULDN'T THAT HAVE ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF FALLING OFF ON THE OTHER END? WOULD I BE ABLE TO SPEAK HERE? PUTTING UP A FENCE WOULD BE A SAFETY FEATURE, BUT IT WHEN THE WATER IS FLOWING, IT WOULD CATCH A LOT OF THE LEAVES AND OTHER ORGANIC MATERIAL AND BE MUCH MORE DESTRUCTION OF WATER FLOW THAN THE PRESENT ADDITION OF THE FLAT CONCRETE AND IN THE FLAT STRUCTURE, THE WATER WILL FLOW RIGHT OVER ABOVE THE FENCE IS GOING TO FILL RIGHT UP WITH LEAVES AND SMALL BRANCHES THAT FLOAT DURING THESE FLOODS.

FOR THE RECORD, I JUST WANT TO ADD THAT WAS MR. COOK WHO SPOKE.

YES PETER COOK SPEAKING.

THANK YOU. SO, MR. COOK, YOU'RE SAYING THAT A FENCE AT THE POOL WOULD BASICALLY ATTRACT THE DEBRIS FROM THE RIVER? RIGHT.

THE WATER WOULD BE FLOWING THROUGH THE FENCE AND THE LEAVES AND OTHER ORGANIC MATERIAL THAT FLOWS FROM UPSTREAM WOULD BE CAUGHT IN THAT.

AND THAT WOULD CREATE MORE OF AN OBSTRUCTION THAN THE FLAT STRUCTURE THAT THE WATER FLOW DIRECTLY OVER.

SO I'D LIKE TO KIND OF REMIND EVERYBODY THAT EGLE HAS ALREADY, YOU KNOW, SAID THAT THEY DON'T THINK ANY OF THIS WILL AFFECT THE FLOODPLAIN.

AND I'M NOT GOING TO PRESUME TO BE AN EXPERT BY ANY MEANS.

SO I THINK THOSE KINDS OF ASSUMPTIONS ARE HARD TO MAKE.

AND THAT CAN BE A SLIPPERY SLOPE OF YOU KNOW IF'S.

I FIND THE CHALLENGING PART IS THAT EGLE OFTEN HAVE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS AND MAYBE NOT AS STRINGENT AND OR AS ROBUST AS THE TOWNSHIP REQUIREMENTS, AND I DO KNOW THAT WHEN WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THESE THINGS, YOU GET AN EGLE APPROVAL, BUT WE ALSO I MEAN, YOU NEED TO HAVE THAT MERIDIAN APPROVAL.

SO, YES, THE EGLE APPROVAL IS ABSOLUTELY, IN MY MIND, NECESSARY BECAUSE THEY'RE DOING THEIR DUE DILIGENCE ON THEIR LEVEL.

BUT WITHOUT THAT MERIDIAN APPROVAL ON TOP OF IT, WE'RE KIND OF LIKE THIS ONE IS JUST FLAPPING AROUND. WE NEED BOTH.

OKAY THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW.

OF TOP, EVEN WHEN WE LOOK AT LIKE ROADS OR SIGNAGE, THINGS LIKE THAT, INGHAM COUNTY WILL BE HERE AND THEY'LL HAVE THEIR OWN.

AND THEN OUR LAYER WILL KIND OF BE ON TOP OF THAT.

AND I DO. AND SO IT'S A GOOD THING TO KIND OF KNOW THE HIERARCHY FOR OUR PURPOSES.

WE DO LIKE TO SEE THAT, BECAUSE THAT DOES MEAN THAT EGLE HAS TAKEN TAKING A LOOK AT THIS CASE AND IS MAKING THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEN BASED ON THAT KIND OF BOLSTERING OF EXPERT ADVICE, THEN WE GO AHEAD WITH OUR ORDINANCE.

AND DOES IT MATCH WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO FOR OUR TOWNSHIP AND OUR VERSION OF WHAT IS SAFE AND RESPECTFUL OF OUR WATERWAYS? SO THANK YOU. SORRY FOR INTERRUPTING.

OH, NO, NOT AT ALL. I DO APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT BECOMES CONFUSING.

IF WE DID IT THE OPPOSITE WAY, AND IT WAS MERIDIAN ORDINANCE AND THEN EGLE ALWAYS TRUMPED THAT WE WOULD KIND OF BE IN A YOU KNOW, IN A NOT.

WE WOULDN'T HAVE AS MUCH CONTROL.

I FEEL LIKE I DIDN'T MEAN TO TAKE AWAY FROM YOUR QUESTION.

OH, NO, NOT AT ALL. ALL GOOD.

YOU'RE GOOD. I THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE DO NEED TO REMEMBER AND THINK ABOUT BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T HAD TO DEAL WITH EGLE IN A WHILE.

IT'S BEEN A MINUTE. SO IT'S GOOD TO IT'S GOOD TO THINK ABOUT WHERE THEY STAND AS FAR AS WHERE OUR \CONSIDERATIONS COME IN.

BUT I APPRECIATE THAT, BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS IMPORTANT FOR ALL OF US TO CONSIDER WHEN WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THIS VARIANCE IN PARTICULAR.

DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER? YES, TRUSTEE OPSOMMER.

YEAH, I HAD A CLARIFICATION, A FEW CLARIFICATIONS FOR STAFF, MARK, I DIDN'T SEE THIS THE

[01:00:05]

FIRST TIME, BUT WHEN I LOOKED PAGE 19 ON THE CUT OUTLINED ON THE CORRESPONDING MAP THAT THE ENGINEERING CONSULTANT DOES.

BUT THEN BENEATH THAT, THEY LIST A TOTAL AND I'M NOT QUITE UNDERSTANDING THE MATH SO THE FILL COMPENSATION IS SEVEN POINT NINE CUBIC YARDS AND THEN THE CUT DOWN THERE UNDER THE TOTALS, IS LISTED AS 13 CUBIC YARDS.

THEN IT SAYS NET FILL ZERO.

SO IS THAT JUST DENOTING BUT THE CUT UP ABOVE IS ONLY SEVEN POINT NINE.

SO I'M NOT QUITE FOLLOWING THE MATH.

IF I CAN JUMP IN THERE DAN THAT'S A LITTLE TYPO ON OUR PART, WE HAVE SET THE COMPENSATING CUT TO EQUAL THE FILL.

SO THAT'S HOW WE GET OUR NET ZERO FOR FILL.

SO OUR TOTAL CUT IS GOING TO BE THE SEVEN POINT NINE CUBIC YARDS.

OK, THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT.

DIRECTOR KIESELBACH, WHAT CAN WE GLEAN FROM THIS NEIGHBORHOOD OR OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS? THIS HAS TO HAVE OCCURRED AND I'M STILL NEW TO THE ZBA, BUT IN THE PAST DOES EGLE EXCEPT A NET CUT OF ZERO OR DO THEY TYPICALLY I KNOW CITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ARE GOING TO DRIVE A LOT OF THIS, BUT ESPECIALLY IN AN ENVIRONMENT LIKE THIS WHERE WE HAVE VERY HIGH WATER LEVELS. YOU KNOW, WHAT STANDARD DOES EGLE USUALLY SET, WHAT CAN WE EXPECT FROM THEM? AND THE ENGINEER MAY ANSWER.

IT'S REALLY OUR ORDINANCE THAT HAS THE COMPENSATING CUT AND FILL FOR THE WORK IN THE FLOOD PLAIN, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS A SPECIFIC STANDARD OR IF IT'S BASED ON A PROJECT DESIGN THAT EGLE WOULD REQUIRE SOMETHING.

KURT DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT? YEAH, SO GENERALLY SPEAKING, EGLE IS ABOUT THE SAME AS THE TOWNSHIP WHEN IT COMES TO WORK WITHIN THE FLOODWAY AND THEY LIKE TO SEE THE ZERO, THE NET ZERO.

AND ACTUALLY, WHEN YOU'RE DEALING IN THE FLOODWAY FRINGE EGLE WILL ALLOW UP TO ONE HUNDRED CUBIC YARDS OF FILL IN THE FLOODWAY FRINGE BEFORE THEY REQUIRE A COMPENSATING CUT.

NOW, TOWNSHIP IS MORE STRINGENT THAN THAT, EVEN IN THE FLOODWAY FRINGE, YOU GUYS WANT A NET ZERO? THAT'S ONE OF THE EXAMPLES OF WHERE YOUR ORDINANCE IS BEING MORE RESTRICTIVE, BUT THAT'S GENERALLY THE STATE'S POSITION ON IT.

SO WE WOULD EXPECT FILL WOULD PROBABLY ACCEPT THE ZERO FOR ZERO.

IS THERE ANY POTENTIAL FOR IMPROVEMENT BASED ON THE SITE CONDITIONS AND ACTUALLY IMPROVING THE I KNOW WE'RE ONLY DEALING WITH ONE PARCEL SO.

INCREMENTAL PROGRESS CAN BE SMALL.

I DO KNOW, AND I OUTLINED IT BEFORE, HISTORICALLY, WE ALLOWED THESE DEVELOPMENTS AND THEN SINCE THEN HAVE MADE OUR ORDINANCE MUCH MORE STRINGENT.

SO THIS IS THE TOWNSHIP IMPOSING, YOU KNOW, SOMEWHAT UNREASONABLE EXPECTATIONS IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, HENCE THE NEED FOR THE VARIANCE ON PARCELS THAT THE TOWNSHIP APPROVED, THE NOW DEEMED UNREASONABLE DEVELOPMENT.

WE HAVE THIS ON THE SAME BASICALLY JUST ACROSS THE RIVER A LITTLE FURTHER TO THE WEST WHERE WE HAVE AN OLD OFFICE COMPLEX ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE RIVER.

AND WE DID WORK WITH THE SITE APPLICANT RECENTLY AT THE TOWNSHIP BOARD TO REDUCE THE IMPERVIOUS AREA AND SOMEWHAT MITIGATE IMPERVIOUS DEVELOPMENT IN THE FLOODPLAIN.

I'M JUST WONDERING IF THERE'S ANY PROSPECT OF INCREMENTAL IMPROVEMENT ON THE SITE GIVEN SITE CONDITIONS.

I GUESS I'LL JUMP IN AGAIN.

I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE TOUGH TO MAKE ANY MORE IMPROVEMENTS OUT THERE.

THE STEEPNESS OF THE BANKS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE LEFT WITH, EVEN WITH WHAT WE GOT, I CAN'T SEE WHERE I CAN MAKE MORE CUT AND MAKE THOSE BANKS EVEN STEEPER COMING OFF THAT PATIO OR THEIR PORCH DECK.

AND I WILL THROW OUT THAT WHEN YOU'RE DEALING IN THE FLOODWAY AREA.

FLOODWAY IS IMPACTED NOT BY SO MUCH BY TOTAL FILL AS IT IS IMPACTED BY CHANGES IN CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA OF THE RIVER.

AND THROUGH THIS, THE TOTAL, ALTHOUGH WE GOT EIGHT YARDS OF FILL, WHICH IN A RIVER THIS

[01:05:05]

SIZE IS FOR THE MOST PART INSIGNIFICANT.

THE CHANGE IN CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA IS AN INCREASE OF ABOUT FIVE SQUARE FEET.

THE TOTAL CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA AT FULL FLOOD IS ALMOST 12 THOUSAND SQUARE FEET.

SO THE CHANGE IN CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS LESS THAN ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT. JUST TO GIVE YOU AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE OF WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE.

SO YOU SAY.

BOTTOM LINE IS, IT'S REALLY NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THE FLOODPLAIN ELEVATION.

THE FLOODWAY CUT IS MORE FOR YOU THINK OF A RIVER SYSTEM LIKE THIS, ANY RIVER SYSTEM IS, IN EFFECT THE LONG LONGITUDINAL DETENTION BASE WHERE YOU HAVE ACTUALLY STORING OF WATER.

THAT'S WHERE YOU HAVE MORE IMPACT ON THE TOTAL CUT FILL VOLUMES.

BUT EVEN THEN, YOU START LOOKING AT EIGHT CUBIC FEET OR EIGHT CUBIC YARDS OVER THE TOTAL LENGTH AND SIZE OF THIS AREA, IT'S FAIRLY INSIGNIFICANT.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT HELP CLARIFY ANYTHING FOR WHAT YOU'RE YOU'RE LOOKING AT OR NOT, BUT THROW IN SOME OF THE HYDRAULICS ON IT.

OK, ONE FINAL YES, THAT DOES HELP.

THANK YOU. AND A FINAL QUESTION TO SUMMARIZE THE SEVEN POINT NINE CUBIC YARDS OF FILL.

PART OF THAT IS THE EARTH THAT WAS PUT UNDERNEATH THE CONCRETE TO EXTEND THE POOL DECK, CORRECT. YEAH, SO THAT EIGHT CUBIC YARDS 7.9 CUBIC YARDS IS THE FIELD LITTLE BIT OF THE FILL THAT WENT UNDERNEATH THE POOL DECK EXPANSION.

DOES ANY OF THAT THE STONE RIPRAP? IT'LL COME OUT WHEN WE PULL THE BERM OUT.

WHAT I DID TALK WITH EGLE ABOUT WAS THE LAST COUPLE FEET THAT'S RIGHT AT THE WATER'S EDGE, THE KEEPING THAT FIELD STONE IN PLACE SO THAT WE DON'T CREATE AN EROSION PROBLEM WHEN WE REMOVE THAT STONE, THINK OF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE IN HERE WITH HEAVY EQUIPMENT. AND AS SOON AS YOU REMOVE THE STONE, WHICH IS ACTING AS A EROSION CONTROL, YOU SET YOURSELF UP TO HAVING AN EROSION PROBLEM.

SO EGLE WAS ACCEPTABLE WITH KEEPING THAT LITTLE RIBBON RIGHT THERE AT THE RIVER'S EDGE.

EGLE WANTED THE STONE RIPRAP HIGHER UP OUT OR THEY JUST WANTED THE BERM OUT.

I ASKED I WAS GETTING AT THE SOIL EROSION PROBLEM, AND THAT'S WHAT WE HEARD DURING PUBLIC COMMENT AND STONE RIPRAP DOES HELP PREVENT THAT SOIL EROSION BY LOCKING IN THE BANK OF THE RIVER.

RIGHT. ESPECIALLY DURING HIGH WATER TIMES IN THE SPRING.

YEAH. SO EGLE WANTS THE BERM OUT AND WITH THAT, THE MAJORITY OF THAT RIPRAP'S GOING TO GO OUT. AND LIKE I SAID, WE'RE GOING TO KEEP A LITTLE RIBBON ALONG THE EDGE OF THE WATER SO WE'RE NOT OPERATING HEAVY EQUIPMENT RIGHT AT THE WATER'S EDGE.

AND CREATING THE PROBLEM AS WE'RE TRYING TO FIX A PROBLEM AND THEN ON IN ORDER TO KEEP THAT RIVER BANK STABLE, WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK WITH WHAT'S CALLED A TURF REINFORCEMENT MAP. SORT OF LIKE IF YOU SEE IN AN EROSION CONTROL MAP'S WHEN COMPANIES GO TEAR UP A SIDE OF A ROAD AND THEY LAY DOWN SORT OF THAT STRAW MAT WITH THE NETTING.

THIS IS THAT SAME KIND OF STUFF, BUT IT'S LEFT IN PLACE.

SO THE ROOT SYSTEM OF THE GRASS AND ALL THAT INTEGRATES WITH ALL THOSE FIBERS AND IT DOES NOT BIODEGRADE.

SO THAT WOULD BE THE LONG TERM SOIL EROSION CONTROL.

OK, THANK YOU.

THAT IS ALL I HAVE FOR CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.

OKAY GREAT.

MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER. GO AHEAD.

SO THIS KIND OF GETS TO SOME OF OUR CRITERIA AND A COMMENT THAT MEMBER OPSOMMER MADE, AND SO MAYBE STAFF CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION BECAUSE.

I WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS THE I MEAN, ARE ALL OF THE HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IN THE FLOODPLAIN, IN THE FLOODWAY, OR IS THIS HOUSE UNIQUE IN PARTICULAR IN THE FACT THAT THE ENTIRE HOUSE IS IN THE FLOODWAY? BECAUSE OUR SEVENTH CRITERIA SAYS THE CONDITIONS PERTAINING TO THE LAND OR STRUCTURE ARE

[01:10:06]

NOT SO GENERAL OR RECURRENT IN NATURE AS TO MAKE THE FORMULATION OF A GENERAL REGULATION FOR SUCH CONDITION PRACTICABLE.

AND IF ALL OF THE HOUSES ARE GOING TO HAVE THAT SAME ISSUE AS FAR AS NOT BEING ABLE TO BUILD IN THEIR BACKYARDS BECAUSE THEY ARE IN A FLOODWAY AND HAVE TO GET A VARIANCE, THEN THAT IN ITSELF SEEMS THAT IT NEEDS TO GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ACTUALLY CHANGE THE ORDINANCE. SO I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND.

WHAT IS IT THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE? YOU'RE DEALING WITH A FLOODWAY, AGAIN, THE ENTIRE FLOODPLAIN IS MADE UP OF THE FLOODWAY IN A FLOODWAY FRINGE AREA.

THIS NORTHERN PORTION OF A SUBDIVISION THAT'S ALONG THE RIVER AND CLOSEST TO THE THERE IS, BUT THE REST OF THE HOMES ARE QUITE A FEW OF THEM ARE IN THE FLOODPLAIN OR THAT FRINGE AREA, WHICH ISN'T AS RESTRICTIVE.

SO YOU CAN SEE BY THE MAP THAT KEITH PUT UP.

THAT COVERAGE. WHERE IT'S HASHED.

SO BASICALLY, ALL OF THESE HOUSES ARE DEALING WITH VERY SIMILAR SITUATIONS WHERE THERE NEED TO BE A VARIANCE OF SOME TYPE TO MAKE ANY TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT, WOULD THAT BE A CORRECT ASSESSMENT.

IF THEY'RE GOING TO ADD THINGS, STRUCTURES SUCH AS DECKS, PATIOS, THOSE KIND OF THINGS, YES. TRUSTEE OPSOMMER GO AHEAD.

AND JUST TO FILL IN THERE, THIS WOULD NOT BE THE ONLY NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WOULD DEAL WITH THAT. YOU WOULD ALSO TACOMA HILLS OFF OF HAMILTON AND ANY OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS ADJACENT.

I CAN'T SPEAK TO INTENT IN THE 70S WHEN WE STRENGTHENED THESE.

BUT I MEAN, IF YOU WERE TO WEAKEN THE ORDINANCE, THAT WOULD HAVE A BIG IMPACT ON NEW DEVELOPMENT. AND THAT SO I BELIEVE, YOU KNOW, AND DIRECTOR KIESELBACH CAN FILL IN HIS HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE, BUT LOOKING AT THE CHANGES THAT WE MADE TO THE ORDINANCE, IT WAS REALLY LOOKING AT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE WE WERE STILL VERY YOU KNOW, WE HAD NOT BEEN VERY BUILT OUT AT THAT TIME.

AND SO I WAS LOOKING AT DECISIONS LIKE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND WHAT DO WE DO TO PREVENT THAT IN THE FUTURE? NOW, WE'RE KIND OF IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE WE'VE BUILT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE'VE ALLOWED THIS LAND TO BE DEVELOPED.

PEOPLE LIVE ON IT AND THEY HAVE TO USE IT FOR SOME MINIMAL STANDARD.

WHAT THAT MINIMAL STANDARD IS, I THINK IS, YOU KNOW, TOUGH TO COME TO TERMS WITH, YOU KNOW, BUT I THINK. GENERALLY SPEAKING, DO NO HARM IS A CUT AND FILL.

SO EVEN LIKE WHEN WE DO TOWNSHIP PROJECTS LIKE THE OKEMOS ROAD BOARDWALK THAT WAS FILLING IN A WETLAND, WE WILL ACTUALLY GO AND HAVE THE ENGINEERS.

AND SOMETIMES THE SAME CONTRACTOR DOES THE PROJECT WILL GO DO WETLAND MITIGATION AND TAKE A CUT TO EXPAND A WETLAND TO OFFSET WHERE THOSE POSTS ARE IN.

SO THAT'S KIND OF THE STANDARD.

SO I DO THINK THE APPLICANT IS AT LEAST MEETING THE MINIMUM INTENT BASED ON MY UNDERSTANDING OF, YOU KNOW, ZERO NET IMPACT.

AND, YOU KNOW, ADDING THAT BERM WAS A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT BECAUSE YOU'RE JUST BRINGING IN FILL. SO THEN WHEN THE RIVER CRESTS, THAT CREST IS JUST GOING TO EXPAND THAT MUCH FURTHER BASED ON THE CUBIC YARDS THAT YOU BRING IN.

RIGHT. WE SEE THOSE ISSUES, TOO, WITH JUST PEOPLE TRYING TO BUILD A BERM TO GET THEIR ELEVATION UP AND THEIR NEIGHBORS ELEVATION THEREFORE DECREASES.

RIGHT. AND JUST MOVE WATER ONTO YOUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT MARK AND KEITH ALSO SEE QUITE OFTEN FROM TIME TO TIME.

SO I THINK THE NEIGHBOR IS DOING THEIR ABSOLUTE BEST, SOMEWHAT BEST IN THAT REGARD.

I MEAN, WHEN WE DID THE SITE PLAN FOR THE APARTMENT BUILDING FURTHER TO THE WEST, WE PUSHED THEM, BUT THEY WERE TOTALLY DEMOLISHING THE SITE AND STARTING FROM SCRATCH.

SO WE HAD TO COMPLETELY RECONFIGURE THE SITE DO SHARED PARKING AND A NUMBER OF OTHER THINGS. BUT I MEAN, THEY HAVE A PARKING LOT BUILT RIGHT UP AGAINST THE RIVER.

THEY WERE ALMOST ENTIRELY IN THE FLOOD.

[01:15:03]

THEIR ENTIRE PARKING LOT WAS ALMOST IN THE FLOOD WAY THERE.

SO ANYTHING ADJACENT TO THE RIVER IS TOTALLY NONCONFORMING WITH OUR ORDINANCE.

BUT I THINK THAT WAS MORE ABOUT PERSPECTIVE IMPACT THE FUTURE.

AND THEN THERE'S PROBABLY I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE STANDARD IS THERE'S ANY RELEVANT CASES THAT ARE SIMILAR BU.

TRUSTEE OPSOMMER I BELIEVE WE HAD THAT CASE.

MARK FOR THAT PARTICULAR PARKING.

FOR RED CEDAR MANOR.

FOR RED CEDAR. YEAH, WE DID.

WE DID. AND I BELIEVE WE DID APPROVE THAT BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF THE IMPERMEABLE SPACE WE HAD AVAILABLE THERE.

APPLICANT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD JUST RECOMMENDED TO DENY IT.

I THINK THE BOARD TOOK A LOOK AT IT AND SAID, WELL, HERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE THIS COMPLEX EXISTS, THE PARKING LOT EXISTS.

IT MAY BE JUST SITTING VACANT, BUT CAN WE ACTUALLY GET IT REDEVELOPED AND GET SOME OF THIS IMPERVIOUS DEVELOPMENT BACK FROM THE RIVER? RIGHT. SO IT'S A LOT EASIER TO MAKE THOSE INCREMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS WHEN YOU'VE GOT A TOTAL SITE REBUILD.

THIS IS A PRETTY NICE HOME AND IT'S NOT GOING ANYWHERE.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT HELPS WITH OUR CRITERIA NECESSARILY, BUT I DO THINK IT'S A NET ZERO IMPACT. I'VE GOT SOME CHEERLEADING IN THE BACKGROUND, BUT IT'S TOUGH TO MAKE SIGNIFICANT INCREMENTAL IMPACT WITHOUT RECONFIGURING A SMALL SITE.

THANK YOU FOR THAT INSIGHT.

TRUSTEE OPSOMMER. I APPRECIATE THAT.

I THINK I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND JUST GET INTO THE CRITERIA BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME FURTHER QUESTIONS AND MAYBE DISCUSSIONS AND THEN WE'LL GET THE BALL ROLLING A LITTLE BIT. AS FAR AS THAT GOES, BY ALL MEANS, I DON'T WANT TO HINDER THE DISCUSSION, BUT JUST WANT TO KIND OF KEEP MOVING IT FORWARD IF POSSIBLE.

SO I'M GOING TO START WITH OUR REGULAR CRITERIA, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE THOSE EXTRA CRITERIA'S THAT PERTAIN DIRECTLY TO THIS BIT OF ORDINANCE.

BUT LET'S GO THROUGH THESE EIGHT FIRST AND SEE IF WE CAN MEET THOSE BEFORE WE GO INTO THE SPECIAL CRITERIA.

SO BEGINNING WITH UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTS THAT ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND OR STRUCTURE THAT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LAND OR STRUCTURES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER WAS HITTING ON WITH HER QUESTIONING ABOUT WHERE THIS FLOODWAY AND FLOODWAY FRINGE GOES.

I MEAN, WE'RE LOOKING AT UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES JUST BASED ON THE FACT THAT WERE KIND OF DOING A REVERSAL A REVERSE APPROVAL.

WHERE IT'S ALREADY THERE. SO IN AND OF ITSELF, I PERSONALLY FIND THAT TO BE A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE. WE'RE DEALING WITH SOMETHING THAT WE HAVEN'T DEALT WITH IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA BEFORE. AS I TOLD TRUSTEE OPSOMMER, I KNOW WHILE I'VE BEEN ON THE ZBA, WE HAVE DEALT WITH OTHER FLOODPLAIN AND FLOODWAY VARIANCES, BUT NOTHING THAT RESEMBLES THIS PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCE. SO I COULD MEET UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES BASED ON THE FACT NOT ONLY WHERE THEY'RE LOCATED, BUT WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES JUST IN GENERAL ARE.

I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S PECULIAR TO THE LAND OR STRUCTURE BECAUSE THEY'RE IN EXISTENCE ALREADY. WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY, HERE.

SO I CAN MEET THAT CRITERIA.

HOWEVER, THEN I GET TO CRITERIA TWO THESE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SELF CREATED.

AND THAT'S WHERE I HAVE AN ISSUE.

SO I'D LOVE TO HEAR SOME DISCUSSION ON THAT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, EVEN MEETING UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, EVEN BEING ABLE TO.

IN A WAY, JUSTIFY CRITERIA SEVEN, WHICH IS THE CONDITIONS PERTAINING TO THE LAND OR STRUCTURE ARE NOT SO GENERAL OR RECURRING TO NATURE AS TO MAKE THE FORMULATION OF A GENERAL REGULATION FOR SUCH CONDITIONS PRACTICABLE.

BASED ON THE DISCUSSION WE HAD WITH THE HISTORICAL UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT HAPPENED IN SEVENTY FIVE WITH THESE ORDINANCES AND WHY THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE PUT IN PLACE.

I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY WE DON'T WANT TO CHANGE THE CODE NECESSARILY TO ALLOW NON HABITABLE STRUCTURES BEING BUILT JUST WHEREVER.

I MEAN, THIS SHOULD BE A CASE BY CASE BASIS.

AND I DO BELIEVE THAT THE ORDINANCE SUPPORTS THAT.

I DON'T FIND THAT IN THAT WE'VE HAD VERY MANY CASES IT'S BEEN HERE OR THERE.

[01:20:01]

SO I DO FIND THAT ELEMENT WRITTEN IN TO THE ORDINANCE THERE IS WORKING.

I DO THINK THAT I COULD MEET CRITERIA SEVEN AND THEN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.

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

THAT'S THE ONE THAT'S ANOTHER ONE THAT I'M GOING TO GET A LITTLE BIT HUNG UP ON.

SO I'D LOVE TO HEAR FROM MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS IF ANYONE HAS ANY INSIGHT OR INPUT INTO CRITERIA TWO OR THREE ON EITHER GRANTING A VARIANCE OR NOT GRANTING A VARIANCE? SO I THINK I'M STILL STRUGGLING A BIT, I LOOK AT NUMBER ONE MORE IN LINES WITH THE PROPERTY RATHER THAN THE FACT THAT THERE'S A STRUCTURE ON IT, BECAUSE I THINK IN PART I DON'T WANT TO SAY, BECAUSE WHETHER IT IS A PERSON DOES NOT KNOW OR IN A DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCE, THEY'RE JUST ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, DOING SOMETHING INTENTIONAL, WHICH WAS NOT THE CASE HERE, THAT WE'RE MAKING A DECISION BASED ON INCORRECT ACTIONS.

SO I LOOK AT THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES AND I SAY, WELL, OK, THE PROPERTY ITSELF BEING IN THE LOCATION OF THE CORNER OF THAT HERON CREEK AND THE RED CEDAR KIND OF BEING IN THAT CORNER AREA IS UNIQUE.

SO I CAN GET TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THEN THAT IF I LOOK AT IT FROM THE LAND PERSPECTIVE, I CAN SAY, OK, THESE ARE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SELF CREATED, BECAUSE WHETHER IT WAS DREDGED OUT, THE OWNERS DIDN'T DREDGE IT OUT.

SO THEN THEY'RE NOT SELF CREATED IN THAT SENSE.

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

SO ON THE ONE HAND, ANYTHING THAT THE HOMEOWNER DOES AS FAR AS IMPROVEMENT WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE.

I MEAN, THERE'S NOTHING THAT THEY CAN DO ON THAT PROPERTY WITHOUT COMING BEFORE THE ZBA.

SO I GUESS.

THAT WOULD BE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY BUT THE ALLEGED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WILL RESULT FROM A FAILURE TO GRANT THE VARIANCE, WOULD UNREASONABLY PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR PERMITTED PURPOSE.

AND THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M GETTING HUNG UP A LITTLE BIT AND SO I'M OPEN BECAUSE I DON'T SEE HOW BUILDING A FIRE PIT WOULD PREVENT YOU FROM USING THE HOME FOR PERMITTED PURPOSE.

I READ THROUGH THE ANSWERS THAT WERE GIVEN, AND I DEFINITELY APPRECIATE THE TIME THAT WAS PUT INTO THAT. BUT NOT EVERY HOUSE IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP HAS A FIRE PIT.

SO THAT I GET KIND OF HUNG UP ON THAT.

I'M STILL WONDERING ABOUT THE I WAS ASKING ABOUT THE SAFETY FEATURES FOR THE POOL TO TRY TO FIND OUT IF, IN FACT THERE WAS SOMETHING ELSE THAT COULD BE DONE TO PROTECT PEOPLE FROM FALLING OFF ON THE OTHER SIDE.

AND SO THE RIVER ROCK AT THE END MAKES SENSE TO ME.

I'M JUST I'M STRUGGLING ON NUMBER FOUR, BUT DEFINITELY TRYING TO IF ANYBODY'S GOT ANY WAY TO HELP WITH THAT ONE, I AM VERY MUCH OPEN TO THAT.

BECAUSE IT'S THE UNREASONABLY PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR THE PERMITTED PURPOSE. I NEED HELP WITH THAT ONE.

THANK YOU, MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER FOR GOING THROUGH THOSE FIRST FEW CRITERIA, I CAN I APPRECIATE YOUR PERSPECTIVE AND LOOKING AT FOCUSING ON THE LAND ASPECT HERE OF WHERE THE LOCATION IS WITHIN THE RIVER SYSTEM HERE AND WITH THE CREEK BUTTING UP TO IT AND THAT KIND OF CREATING ITS OWN UNIQUE AREA.

[01:25:01]

AND IN THAT WAY I CAN UNDERSTAND AND I APPRECIATE, I COULD SUPPORT NOT SELF CREATED.

AND I COULD EVEN GET TO UNDERSTANDING YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, BUT I WOULD THEN STRUGGLE WITH THE ALLEGED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.

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

I DO THINK I'M SORRY JUST A MOMENT, BUT I'D LIKE ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE THREE CHILDREN TO RAISE YOUR HAND BECAUSE I CAN JUST DELIVER THEM LATER.

OH, THEY'RE QUITE.

GREAT. THERE WE GO. WE'LL KEEP GOING.

OK, SO I WOULD SAY THAT.

AS I'M KIND OF TRYING TO THINK THROUGH IT.

AGAIN, I WILL GO BACK TO THE FACT THAT WE ARE IN A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE, THAT THESE STRUCTURES ARE ALREADY IN PLACE.

SO WHAT ARE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES THAT WILL OCCUR IF WE DIDN'T GRANT THE VARIANCE, SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REMOVAL OF THE FIRE PIT AND CONCRETE REMOVAL OF THE BERM THAT'S ALREADY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REMOVAL OF THE RIPRAP STONE THERE ON THE EDGE OF THE POOL DECK AND THE REMOVAL OF THE EXTENSION OF THE POOL DECK, AND THEN EVEN THE REMOVAL OF THE CONCRETE WHERE THE CONCRETE WAS REPLACED FOR THE PATIO.

AND I THINK I DO FIND THAT'S BECOMING UNREASONABLE.

BECAUSE WE'RE IN A SITUATION WHERE WE THESE THINGS AGAIN THESE THINGS ALREADY EXIST, SO NOW I KIND OF AM LOOKING AT SOME OF THESE CRITERIA GOING, OK.

THESE THINGS ARE HERE.

WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IF WE SAY NO AND THESE THINGS HAVE TO BE REMOVED? AND EVEN IF WE REMOVE ANY KIND OF BECAUSE WE DON'T TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION FINANCES, THAT'S JUST NOT OUR PURVIEW.

JUST IN AND OF ITSELF WHERE WE'RE TALKING TO MR. KRAHULIK THAT WAS SAYING THAT BASICALLY THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO INSTALL ANOTHER VERSION OF A SOIL EROSION WHERE THEY PUT THE STONE IN.

I'M IMAGINING THAT THERE WOULD BE MORE OF THAT THAT WOULD NEED TO OCCUR IF ANY OF THIS AND OR ALL OF THIS WAS SET TO BE REMOVED AND WHETHER OR NOT WE FIND THAT TO BE AN UNREASONABLE USAGE OF THE PROPERTY.

MEMBER SHORKEY GO AHEAD.

FIRST OF ALL, DO YOU HEAR ME, THIS IS A NEW COMPUTER.

WE HEAR. OK.

THE POOL WAS THERE.

AND THE PATIO WAS THERE.

THAT'S TRUE. AND I DON'T HAVE A REAL BIG HEARTBURN OVER IMPROVING EXISTING THINGS.

I FOUND THE EXPLANATION ABOUT WHY A FENCE CANNOT BE THERE REALLY QUESTIONABLE.

NOT GOING TO LIE, BUT WHATEVER, I MEAN, EITHER WAY, IT MADE IT SAFER.

THAT'S FINE. THE FIREPIT IS VERY MUCH A SELF CREATED THING, I MEAN, AND I GOT TO TELL YOU, WHEN I FIRST MOVED HERE.

I LOOKED INTO BECAUSE AT THE TIME I HAD A CAREER, I LOOKED INTO BUYING A HOUSE WITH MY FIANCĂ©E, NOW WIFE.

AND IT WASN'T IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT WE LOOKED AT A HOUSE AND THE VERY FIRST THING WE RAN INTO WAS, OH, DID YOU KNOW YOU NEED FLOOD INSURANCE? THE IDEA.

THAT SOMEBODY BOUGHT A HOUSE OF THIS MAGNITUDE AND DIDN'T KNOW THAT THEY'RE IN A FLOODPLAIN. NO, SORRY, I'M NOT BUYING THAT.

DOES THAT MEAN YOU AUTOMATICALLY KNOW WHAT ALL THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE FLOODPLAIN ARE? NO, NOT NECESSARILY.

AND I'M NOT TRYING TO BE A JERK ABOUT THAT.

BUT NOT ALL THE PROPERTIES IN THE TOWNSHIP ARE IN A FLOODPLAIN.

I GUESS IF YOU WANT TO ARGUE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE FROM THAT STANDPOINT, MAYBE.

BUT AS THE MAPS SHOWED, A LOT OF THE PROPERTIES AROUND THERE THAT ARE NOT THAT'S NOT UNIQUE TO THAT AREA AND THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

I'M NOT SAYING I'M AGAINST THIS.

I FIND MYSELF.

MORE IN FAVOR OF PARTS OF IT THAN THE OTHERS PARTS, BUT I'M STILL WILLING TO LISTEN, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MEMBER SHORKEY, I WOULD ASK YOU WHAT WOULD SATISFY

[01:30:07]

YOU AS FAR AS WHAT A MINIMUM ACTION WOULD BE? WOULD THAT BE KEEPING THE POOL DECK AREA, THAT CONCRETE AND THE PATIO AREA AND REMOVING THE FIRE PIT? IS THAT WHERE ARE YOU AT WITH WHAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE IN YOUR MIND THAT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO IS THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE FIRE PIT.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH.

YOU KNOW, THE CONCRETE PATIO THEY NEEDED TO DO REPAIRS AND WHATNOT, OK? YEAH, WHAT DO YOU WANT TO UNREPAIR IT? YOU KNOW, ARE WE GOING TO TELL THEM, HEY, WE WANT YOUR POOL TO BE LESS SAFE? I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE THAT CALL AT ALL.

THE FIREPIT IS I WANT TO HEAR THAT THAT'S WHERE I'M AT. DOES THAT HELP? YEAH, I DO THINK THAT HELPS ME AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

I DO I AM STILL HEARING, THOUGH, THAT YOU ARE UNABLE TO MEET A COUPLE OF THE CRITERIA WITH THE AS FAR AS UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES AS CRITERIA ONE AND SELF CREATED AS CRITERIA NUMBER TWO. WELL, SEEING.

I UNDERSTAND THE MEMO THAT WE HAVE FROM THE TOWNSHIP ENGINEER, THE FLOODPLAIN ITSELF IS NOT SELF CREATED AND I UNDERSTAND THAT.

THEREFORE, ANYTHING LIKE.

MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER SAID ANYTHING THAT'S DONE, THEREFORE, IS GOING TO BE ANY SHED, ANY GARAGE, ANY DECK, ANYTHING IS GOING TO BE A VARIANCE.

IF I GUESS HERE'S THE QUESTION I'M POSING AND I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER.

AND I'M HOPING THAT IT COMES OUT.

IF EVERYTHING'S A VARIANCE, THEN WHAT'S UNIQUE ABOUT THIS CIRCUMSTANCE REQUIRING A VARIANCE? YOU SEE WHAT I MEAN, LIKE WHAT'S UNIQUE ABOUT THAT? TRUSTEE OPSOMMER. HOPEFULLY HE HAS AN ANSWER.

WHERE I DO FEEL LIKE I HAVE A PRETTY GOOD ANSWER AND I THINK IT'S BECAUSE CRITERIA ONE IS UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST THAT ARE NOT APPLICABLE.

I'M SORRY, I'VE GOT QUITE THE ACTIVE HOUSE THIS EVENING.

NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LAND OR STRUCTURES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.

SO THIS IS RAA AND THERE ARE MANY RAA PARCELS.

THE VAST MAJORITY OF RAA PARCELS ARE NOT AFFLICTED BY FLOODWAY.

IT'S THE RAA PARCELS NEAR THE RIVER.

FOR CRITERIA TWO I'M NOT HAVING A PROBLEM HERE, BECAUSE EVEN THE TOWNSHIP, FOR INSTANCE, WE'RE WORKING ON HOPEFULLY NEXT YEAR A PROJECT THAT WOULD CREATE A BOARDWALK UNDER THE NEW OKEMOS ROAD BRIDGE OVER THE RED CEDAR TO CONNECT WONCH, AND FERGUSON PARKS.

AND SO THAT'LL ACTUALLY RESULT IN FILL GOING INTO THE FLOODWAY OF THE RIVER.

SO, I MEAN, THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH DO CALL FOR IMPROVEMENTS, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND ENHANCEMENTS.

I'M ALSO STRUGGLING WITH THE FIREPIT UNDER CRITERIA FOUR.

THE ONLY THING I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN MAKE IT FIT THE CRITERIA.

I DON'T THINK IT'S PREVENTING A PERMITTED PURPOSE.

I THINK YOU COULD ALSO JUST HAVE A FREESTANDING FIREPIT IN THE YARD.

I THINK THERE'S ALTERNATIVES.

THE ONE THING I WOULD SAY IS BECAUSE I DON'T FROM WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING, THERE WASN'T A GREAT DEAL OF FILL IN TERMS OF THE CUBIC YARD OF FILL THAT WAS BROUGHT IN, IT WAS PREDOMINANTLY THE POOL AND THE RIVERBANK ENHANCEMENTS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE FOR THE FILL. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S IMPACTING THE AREA.

I MEAN, THE FLOODING IN THIS AREA IS PRETTY INTENSE.

WHEN WE HAVE A BAD SPRING FLOOD, WHEN WE HAVE A VERY SERIOUS THAW, IT CAN BE VERY INTENSE. SO I COULD SEE WHY THEY WOULDN'T WANT TO PUT A FENCE IN, IN TERMS OF THE ENHANCEMENTS TO THE POOL DECK.

HOWEVER, I DO THINK YOU COULD PROBABLY PUT A GUARDRAIL IN, BUT, YEAH, THE MORE CHILDPROOF IT BECOMES, THE MORE SPINDLES YOU PUT IN.

I COULD SEE IT DAMMING UP DURING THE MOST EXTREME FLOODING EVENTS THAT OCCUR IN THIS

[01:35:08]

AREA. SO IN TERMS OF CRITERIA FOUR THAT'S WHERE I STRUGGLE WITH THE FIREPIT, ALTHOUGH I DON'T KNOW THAT, I MEAN, THE PREDOMINANT ISSUE THAT I THINK WE NEED TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THIS AREA IS THE FLOODING.

AND I DON'T SEE THE FIRE PIT BEING THE PREDOMINANT FACTOR FOR THAT.

THE CUT IS PREDOMINANTLY OFFSETTING THE POOL DECK AND SOME OF THE OTHER RIVERBANK ENHANCEMENTS, SO I DON'T SEE IT CAUSING ANY SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE, BUT I CAN'T SAY THAT IT'S NECESSARY FOR USING THE PROPERTY FOR PERMITTED PURPOSE.

RIGHT. I DO THINK TWO AND ONE, I CAN DEFINITELY SATISFY THOSE BECAUSE I LIVE IN AN RAA NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY OF THESE ISSUES I DON'T REQUIRE FLOOD INSURANCE.

BUT AGAIN, I MEAN. WE DEBATE THIS A LOT AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE BOARD LEVEL, YOU KNOW, MISTAKES OF THE PAST, BUT THE HOMES ARE THERE.

PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BUY THEM AND PEOPLE ARE GOING TO USE THEM.

THAT WON'T SELF CORRECT ITSELF FOR MANY DECADES.

AND IT'S A COMMON ISSUE THAT WE WORK WITH THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, THIS HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION WITH AND IN TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT, NEW DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO THEM.

SO I'M DEFINITELY GOOD ON ONE, TWO AND THEN STRICT INTERPRETATION FOR NUMBER THREE.

I DEFINITELY SEE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES JUST BECAUSE OF THE IMPLICATIONS OF NOT BEING ABLE TO DO PRACTICALLY ANYTHING WITHOUT REQUIRING A VARIANCE DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER ONE OF BEING IN THE FLOODPLAIN.

AND I DO THINK IT KIND OF SOMEWHAT IMPOSES THIS BECAUSE IT'S NOT REASONABLE TO EXPECT PEOPLE TO UNINHABIT AN ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO THAT'S WHERE I'M AT ON THE FIRST FOUR CRITERIA AND I WILL TURN IT BACK OVER TO THE CHAIR. THANK YOU, TRUSTEE OPSOMMER.

I WOULD DEFINITELY.

WELL, I APPRECIATE YOUR INSIGHT, PARTICULARLY ON THE RAA ZONE.

I DID NOT KNOW THAT SPECIFICALLY, SO I APPRECIATE THAT.

I THINK WE WILL COME BACK TO 4:00 BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE ARE STILL STRUGGLING.

MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER. DID YOU WANT TO ADD SOMETHING? NO, I'VE GOT A QUESTION.

SO AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH THIS AND I KNOW I THINK WE'VE DONE THIS BEFORE.

IS THERE A WAY TO KIND OF DEAL WITH THESE STRUCTURES SEPARATELY? BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE WE CAN KIND OF GET THERE FOR THE DECK.

THAT WAS A REPLACEMENT.

THAT MAKES SENSE.

FOR THE POOL, WHICH WE CAN SAY IS A SAFETY FACTOR.

BUT IT JUST SEEMS THE FIREPIT IS, EVEN IF IT WASN'T THERE BEFORE, IF THE APPLICANT WAS COMING FOR THE VARIANCE FOR JUST THE FIREPIT, I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GET TO NUMBER FOUR ON THE FIREPIT.

AND EVEN IF I COULD GET TO NUMBER FOUR, I DON'T THINK I COULD GET TO NUMBER FIVE AS FAR AS IT BEING THE MINIMUM ACTION, BECAUSE, LIKE TRUSTEE OPSOMMER INDICATED, YOU CAN, YOU KNOW, SET UP A FREESTANDING FIREPIT OR DO OTHER THINGS.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE CEMENT UNDER THE FIRE PIT.

THERE'S PLENTY OF OTHER WAYS TO BUILD A FIRE PIT.

SO IS IT POSSIBLE TO SPLIT THIS OUT OR MAKE IT AS PART OF THE CONDITION, THE REMOVAL OF THE FIRE PIT.

I'LL ANSWER. I THINK SO.

I THINK SO, YES.

YOU CAN SPLIT THE QUESTION.

WELL, IF WE CAN SPLIT IT UP THAT WAY, AND I THINK WE HAVE DONE SOMETHING SIMILAR FAIRLY RECENTLY.

THAT I THINK WE COULD PROBABLY MEET SOME OF THE CRITERIA OR AT LEAST A MAJORITY OF THE CRITERIA FOR THE PATIO AND THE POOL AREA.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHOW OF HANDS FROM OUR MEMBERS? WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND SPLIT UP? SO THE FIREPIT IS A SEPARATE ISSUE THEN? POOL DECK AND PATIO.

SURE.

OK, ALL RIGHT, THEN WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE IT THAT WAY.

I THINK WE'RE ALL UNDERSTANDING AND I BELIEVE HOMEOWNERS AS WELL, APPLICANTS, RATHER, ARE

[01:40:09]

ALSO UNDERSTANDING THAT THE BERM AND THE WATER FEATURE IN THAT AREA IS ALREADY THAT'S ALREADY TO BE REMOVED.

AND OBVIOUSLY, THAT COMPENSATING CUT WE'LL GO BACK TO A NET ZERO.

I WOULD SAY THEN LET'S GO THROUGH CRITERIA FOR PATIO AND POOL DECK.

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 THANK TRUSTEE OPSOMMER FOR SHINING A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION ON HOW THIS PARTICULAR RESIDENCE IS ZONED.

AND I THINK BASED ON WHAT HIS INPUT WAS AND MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER AS WELL, I CAN MEET THAT CRITERIA. CRITERIA TWO THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SELF CREATED.

AGAIN, I DO WILL KIND OF LEAN ON SOME OF OUR OTHER BOARD MEMBER INPUT HERE WHERE TRUSTEE OPSOMMER, I THINK VERY ELOQUENTLY SAID THAT YOU'RE GOING TO NEED A VARIANCE ANYWHERE HERE. SO THAT IS NOT A SELF CREATED CIRCUMSTANCE.

I WILL I CAN MEET THAT CRITERIA BASED ON THAT INFORMATION.

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

I DO THINK IF WE'RE LOOKING AT JUST THE PATIO AND THE POOL DECK, WE ARE BACK TO THE IDEA THAT ANY IMPROVEMENT HERE WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE AND THE SAFETY AND A BUSTED UP CONCRETE PATIO OR WHATEVER CONDITION IT WAS, IT WASN'T A NEW PATIO.

I BELIEVE THAT THOSE COULD BE MET AND AS PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES AND READ AS PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.

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.

SO THIS IS WHERE WE GOT HUNG UP BEFORE, HOW'S EVERYBODY FEELING ABOUT THAT? WELCOME ANY INPUT, MEMBER NEWMAN, GO FOR IT.

I GUESS JUST TO KIND OF SUPPORT THE POOL WALKWAY, A TYPICAL WALKWAY INSTALLED BRAND NEW ANYWHERE AS YOU WANT TO GET 48 INCHES WIDE.

AND THAT'S KIND OF THE STANDARD.

LIKE THE APPLICANT, I THINK MENTIONED IF TWO PEOPLE ARE WALKING SIDE BY SIDE THEN IT'S THE SAFE AMOUNT OF ROOM.

SO I GUESS IN MY MIND, I'M THINKING, WELL, I WANT TO AT LEAST LIKE AT LEAST A FORTY EIGHT INCH RIM AROUND MY POOL TO KIND OF USE IT SAFELY.

I DON'T KNOW THE DIMENSIONS, BUT IN THAT PICTURE IT DIDN'T EVEN LOOK LIKE QUITE 48 INCHES AS IT STANDS WITH THE NEW EXTENSION.

SO THAT'S KIND OF HOW I GOT THROUGH THE POOL ON NUMBER FOUR AND I GUESS NUMBER FOUR FOR THE CONCRETE REPLACEMENT WAS PRETTY EASY FOR ME.

YEAH, I THINK I'M GLAD THAT YOU SAID THAT, BECAUSE I THINK THAT MEETS CRITERIA FIVE AS WELL, BEING A MINIMUM ACTION, BEING ABLE TO EXPAND IT AS MUCH AS THEY COULD EXPAND IT FOR SAFETY PURPOSES.

AND THE SAME WITH THE PATIO.

I WOULD AGREE THAT THAT REPLACEMENT WOULD BE A MINIMUM ACTION.

I GUESS GOING BACK TO CRITERIA FOUR WOULD UNREASONABLY PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR A PERMITTED PURPOSE.

I THINK I COULD STILL ARGUE THAT IN FAILING TO GRANT THIS VARIANCE AND ASKING PEOPLE TO NOT BE ABLE TO BUILD ANYTHING.

I DO THINK THAT UNREASONABLY PREVENTS THE OWNER FROM USING A PROPERTY FOR A PERMITTED PURPOSE, FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO REPLACE BROKEN PATIO OR TO BE ABLE TO, LIKE MEMBER NEWMAN SAID, HAVE THAT WALKWAY FOR SAFETY PURPOSES, ESPECIALLY WITH THE DROP OFF THERE, LIKE WE SAW IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS.

I CAN MEET THAT CRITERIA.

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

AND AS MEMBER NEWMAN JUST POINTED OUT, WHICH IS EVEN JUST MEETING THAT MINIMAL BUILDING STANDARD FOR A WALKWAY, I DO FIND THAT MINIMUM.

[01:45:02]

I THINK REPLACING THE PATIO.

I DO AGAIN FIND THAT TO BE A MINIMUM ACTION.

I CAN MEET THAT CRITERIA.

CRITERIA SIX, GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND OR THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY.

I THINK WE'VE HEARD FROM NEIGHBORS.

I THINK WE'VE ACTUALLY ALSO HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT.

AND I THINK WE'RE ALL IN IN PRETTY FAIR AGREEMENT.

CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THAT THIS GRANTING ALLOWING THESE STRUCTURES TO STAY IS NOT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ADJACENT LAND OR CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

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. AGAIN, I WILL JUST GO ON AGAIN ON THE RECORD AS SAYING I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS ORDINANCE HAS A PURPOSE AND THAT I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT WE IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP TAKE IT VERY SERIOUSLY WHAT IS GOING THERE.

AND AS TRUSTEE OPSOMMER POINTED OUT, KIND OF TRYING TO CORRECT SOME OF THE MISTAKES OF THE PAST AND BEING VERY THOUGHTFUL ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IN THESE AREAS AND NOT WANTING TO OPEN UP THESE ORDINANCES TO CREATE A PROBLEM OF MORE DEVELOPMENTS IN THESE AREAS OR MORE BUILDING AND NON HABITABLE STRUCTURES IN THESE AREAS.

SO I DO THINK THAT I CAN MEET THAT CRITERIA FAIRLY EASILY.

CRITERIA NUMBER EIGHT, GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC INTEREST AND WITH THE PURPOSES OF INTENT OF THIS CHAPTER, AND I CAN MEET THAT CRITERIA FOR THOSE TWO STRUCTURES.

SO ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT OR A MOTION? OK, DON'T GO SILENT ON ME NOW, PEOPLE, IT'S 8:15.

ANYBODY, ANYBODY? CRICKETS. I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER ARE YOU GOT AN ITCHY TRIGGER FINGER? NO, I WAS LITERALLY TRYING TO FIND THE PIECE OF PAPER THAT.

WITH THE NUMBER ON IT. YES RIGHT. SO I WAS JUST LIKE I CAN'T FIND IT.

SO I MOVE TO GRANT THE VARIANCE AND I STILL CAN'T FIND IT FOR THE POOL DECK AND FOR THE PATIO DECK.

AND IN ZBA CASE NUMBER 21-05-12-1.

SOMEBODY HELP ME OUT WITH THE ADDRESS.

WAIT, IT'S DASH TWO.

I THINK IT'S DASH TWO YEAH.

OK. ALL RIGHT, SORRY DASH TWO IT HAPPENS WHEN YOU GOT TOO MANY PAPERS IN FRONT OF YOU.

AT 4850 ARAPAHO TRAIL OKEMOS, MICHIGAN, 48864.

NAILED IT. ALL RIGHT, CHAIR WILL SUPPORT, AND I THINK I WILL JUST ADD FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THAT MOTION THAT THIS MEETS AND HAS COMPLETE EGLE APPROVAL AND PERMITTING THAT WE GO BACK TO THIS IDEA OF THE CUT BEING NET ZERO.

AND THAT I HAD ANOTHER NOTE HERE OH WAIT, BUT THAT'S THE FIRE PIT SO WE'LL DEAL WITH THAT SEPARATELY.

OK.

ANYTHING ELSE DISCUSSION WISE, FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS THAT YOU THINK SHOULD BE ADDED TO THIS MOTION? I KNOW THAT MR. KRAHULIK DID STATE THAT THEY WERE INTENDING TO REMOVE THE BERM AND THE RIPRAP, BUT ALSO REPLACING THAT WITH THE NON BIODEGRADABLE KIND OF FENCING, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE CORRECT TERM FOR IT, BUT DOES ANYBODY FEEL THAT'S NECESSARY TO ADD TO THE MOTION OR THAT THAT WILL BE COVERED BY THE EGLE APPROVAL? I HAD THE IMPRESSION THAT WAS PART OF EGLE'S APPROVAL.

OK, MR. KRAHULIK.

YEAH, OK. MR. KRAHULIK, CAN YOU JUST CONFIRM THAT FOR ME THAT WHAT YOU SPOKE OF THE REPLACING THAT STONE THERE WITH THAT KIND OF SOIL EROSION BARRIER, IS THAT PART OF

[01:50:06]

ENGINEER, I WILL CALL THAT OUT IN THE PERMIT TO EGLE.

AND THAT WILL BE PART OF OUR SOIL EROSION CONTROL PLAN.

OK. DOES THAT SATISFY THE MOTION MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER? YES. OK.

IN THAT CASE, THERE'S ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE FOR THE EXISTING PATIO AREA AND THE EXISTING POOL DECK AREA WITH THE ADDITIONAL MOTION OR ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS, RATHER, THAT IT'S FULL EGLE APPROVAL AND PERMITTING.

AND WE HAVE THAT NET ZERO IN THE ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT, A VOTE ON THIS MOTION, I WILL BEGIN WITH MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER.

YES.

MEMBER NEWMAN.

YES.

MEMBER SHORKEY. YES.

TRUSTEE OPSOMMER. YES.

OKAY AND THE CHAIR VOTES YES, SO YOUR VARIANCE WAS APPROVED FOR THE PATIO AND THE POOL DECK AS THEY STAND.

MR. USMAN AND I, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE ON THE FIREPIT AREA NEXT.

SO LET'S GET RIGHT INTO THE CRITERIA FOR THAT ONE.

SO. CRITERIA ONE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTS THAT ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND OR STRUCTURE THAT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LAND OR STRUCTURES IN THE SAME ZONING, IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. HOW DOES EVERYONE LEAN ON THAT ONE? I CAN MAKE THE SAME ARGUMENT THAT WE DID IN THE FIRST ONE.

OK. I WOULD I WOULD TEND TO AGREE WITH THAT, I THINK THAT I CAN STILL MEET THAT CRITERIA FOR THE FIREPIT AREA.

THESE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SELF CREATED.

I THINK WE'RE BACK TO THE SAME UNDERSTANDING OF THIS BEING.

THE SIMPLE FACT OF EVERYTHING BUILT HERE NEEDING A VARIANCE IN AND OF ITSELF BEING NOT SELF CREATED CIRCUMSTANCES.

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

AND THAT'S WHERE I START TO GO HMM.

HOW'S EVERYBODY FEELING ON CRITERIA NUMBER THREE? WELL, I STILL FOR NUMBER 2, I MEAN, FOR NUMBER TWO, NOT SELF CREATED, OBVIOUSLY, BECAUSE IT'S A FLOODPLAIN, NUMBER THREE WOULD GO TOWARDS THE ARGUMENT AS FAR AS YOU'D STILL HAVE TO GET A VARIANCE FOR EVERYTHING.

I THINK WHERE I HAVE THE PROBLEM IS WHEN YOU GET TO NUMBER FOUR, WHERE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY RESULTS IN UNREASONABLY PREVENTS THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR A PERMITTED PURPOSE, I CANNOT COME UP WITH A REASON THAT A FIRE PIT WOULD UNREASONABLY PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR A PERMITTED PURPOSE.

I JUST CAN'T GET THERE.

OK, I CAN, I CAN, EXCEPT YOUR RATIONALE BEHIND CRITERIA NUMBER THREE, AND I WOULD DEFINITELY AGREE THAT CRITERIA FOUR WOULD BE THE UNREASONABLE PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR A PERMITTED PURPOSE IS WHERE I STRUGGLE TOO. FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS WHAT SAY YOU ALL.

CAN ANYBODY MEET THIS CRITERIA ON THIS ONE? TRUSTEE OPSOMMER GO AHEAD, SORRY, I MUTED MYSELF.

I STILL DON'T THINK I CAN MEET IT BASED ON THE STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE CRITERIA THAT WE UTILIZE.

YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT TO HAVE MORE AMENITIES SUCH AS THIS ON YOUR PROPERTY, YOU REALLY NEED TO INVEST IN A PROPERTY WITH MORE UPLAND, AND THAT'S JUST THE UNFORTUNATE REALITY.

I WOULD JUST REITERATE THAT I DON'T THINK THE FIRE PIT ITSELF IS REALLY A FACTOR IN TERMS OF THE CONTRIBUTION TO THE FILL AND THE NEEDED CUT BASED ON THE METRICS THAT THE ENGINEER GAVE US, SO I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARILY SOMETHING THAT'S

[01:55:01]

GOING TO BE A PROBLEM, BUT I DON'T SEE HOW I CAN FIT THE CRITERIA THAT WE USE.

YEAH, I'M STRUGGLING TO HAVE IT MEET THAT CRITERIA, I'LL KEEP GOING, AND IT JUST OCCURRED TO ME ALSO, KEITH AND MARK THAT WE DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA OF A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE CRITERIA FROM THE STAFF PACKET FOR THE INITIAL MOTION.

SO I THINK WE PROBABLY DO NEED TO GO BACK AND JUST REVISIT THAT JUST TO BE ABOVE BOARD ON THAT. BUT I WILL KEEP GOING ON THIS ONE FOR THE MOMENT.

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 PUBLIC INTEREST AND WHICH WOULD CARRY OUT THE SPIRIT OF THE ZONING INTEREST ZONING ORDINANCE, SECURE PUBLIC SAFETY AND PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.

AND I WOULD STRUGGLE MEETING THAT ONE AS WELL.

THE MINIMUM ACTION, UNFORTUNATELY, IN THAT ONE.

ANYBODY DISAGREE OR IS EVERYBODY IN AGREEMENT ON CRITERIA FIVE AS WELL.

I THINK TRUSTEE OPSOMMER COVERED THAT WHEN HE WAS MENTIONING THERE'S OTHER WAYS TO ADDRESS THE FIREPIT. ALL RIGHT, AND CRITERION NUMBER SIX, GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE LAND OR ESSENTIAL CHARACTER IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY.

WELL, I DO.

I CAN LIKELY MEET THIS CRITERIA, I THINK, NOT BEING ABLE TO MEET CRITERIA FOUR AND FIVE.

AND EVEN MAYBE EVEN MORE SO, FIVE THAN FOUR IS WHERE WE'RE GOING TO GET HUNG UP HERE.

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 PRACTICAL.

AGAIN, I THINK THAT WE CAN MEET THAT CRITERIA.

I THINK THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE AT HAND.

WE BEAT THAT CRITERIA OVER THE HEAD.

CRITERIA NUMBER EIGHT, GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE PURPOSES OF THIS CHAPTER.

HAVING NOT BEING ABLE TO MEET FOUR AND FIVE, I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN GET TO EIGHT.

SO I THINK WE SEPARATED THIS UP FOR A REASON, BECAUSE I THINK ALL OF US WERE KIND OF STRUGGLING WITH THIS ONE TO BEGIN WITH.

SO I WILL, AS WE'RE ALL PONDERING THESE CRITERIA, GO BACK AND TAKE A LOOK AT OUR SPECIAL CRITERIA, THE FIRST OF WHICH IS NO VARIANCE SHALL BE GRANTED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW STRUCTURES, THE SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT OR RELOCATION OF OLD STRUCTURES OR DEVELOPMENT OF ANY KIND WITHIN THE FLOODWAY AREA WHEN SUCH DEVELOPMENT, CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT OR RELOCATION WOULD CAUSE ANY INCREASE IN FLOOD LEVELS ASSOCIATED WITH BASE FLOOD ELEVATION. THIS I WILL GO WITH THE TOWNSHIP ENGINEER ON THIS PARTICULAR CRITERIA AND SAY THAT WE'VE BEEN TOLD BY OUR INDIVIDUAL EXPERT, THAT THIS WILL NOT CAUSE ANY ISSUES, SO I CAN MEET THAT CRITERIA FOR BOTH THE FIRST CASE AND FOR THIS FOR THIS CASE AS WELL.

SO I CAN MEET THAT FOR BOTH.

CRITERIA NUMBER TWO, SPECIAL CRITERIA NUMBER TWO, A SUFFICIENT CASE FOR GRANTING THE VARIANCE MUST BE SHOWN.

AND AGAIN, I THINK I CAN MEET THIS FOR AS WE'VE PARCELED THEM OUT AS CASE NUMBER OR PART NUMBER ONE. I DO BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE SEEN SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF THIS BEING NECESSARY AND OF SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR GRANTING THE VARIANCE.

I AGAIN, STRUGGLED FOR THE SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THIS PART TWO OF THIS VARIANCE REQUEST WITH THE FIREPIT IN PARTICULAR, I WELCOME ANY FEEDBACK ON THAT ONE.

CAN I ASK A QUESTION, SO IF THE EXPERTS SAY THAT THIS DOESN'T THE FIREPIT SPECIFICALLY DOESN'T AFFECT ANYTHING, IT'S A NET ZERO GAIN, ESSENTIALLY.

AND THEN YOU GUYS ARE SAYING THAT I MIGHT BE ABLE TO PUT IN ANOTHER FIREPLACE THAT'S NOT

[02:00:03]

CEMENT OR WHATEVER, I MEAN, THE SAME FUNCTION IS GOING TO HAPPEN.

SO I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THE POINT OF REMOVING SOMETHING IF I'M GOING TO BE ABLE TO ADD SOMETHING AGAIN, THAT'S MAYBE NOT CONCRETE.

I MEAN, THE CONCRETE DOESN'T AFFECT ANYTHING AT ALL, ACCORDING TO THE EXPERTS, NOT ME.

I JUST I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND WHY IT MAKES SENSE TO REMOVE IT IF I CAN JUST MAKE FUNCTION. WHETHER THAT'S A FREESTANDING FIRE PIT OR WHATEVER ELSE, SO.

I THINK THE HARDEST PART FOR US AND FOR APPLICANTS IS GETTING THROUGH THIS CRITERIA, AND IT'S PRETTY STRICT AND PRETTY CHALLENGING TO MEET ALL THE CRITERIA, AND I THINK THAT'S INTENTIONAL, THAT IT'S HARD TO MEET THE CRITERIA BECAUSE OTHERWISE ALL OF OUR VARIANCES WOULD BE GRANTED. I THINK THE PART THAT WE'RE ALL STRUGGLING WITH THE MOST HERE IS THAT THE FIRE PIT, AS IS RIGHT NOW.

AS YOU SAID, IS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE, BUT IN AND OF ITSELF.

IT BEING THERE OR MOVING IT EITHER WAY, IT DOESN'T PERMIT YOU FROM USING THE PROPERTY.

SO WHERE WE WERE ABLE TO KIND OF MEET HALFWAY WITH THE OTHER STRUCTURES, MEANING THE POOL DECK AND THE PATIO WAS UNDERSTANDING THE USAGE OF THOSE WHERE THEY ARE THAT THEY WERE ALREADY EXISTING, THAT YOU'RE REPLACING SOMETHING OR MAKING SOMETHING SAFER IN THE CASE OF THE POOL DECK, BUT THAT THE FIRE PIT IS ALMOST JUST EXTRANEOUS.

AND AS TRUSTEE OPSOMMER POINTED OUT, THAT WHEN YOU BUY IN THIS AREA, THAT'S KIND OF UNFORTUNATELY, THE PRICE PAID IS TRYING TO FIND SOME PLACE ON THE PROPERTY WHERE THOSE THINGS CAN WORK WITHOUT NEEDING A VARIANCE.

I THINK MEMBER NEWMAN, DID YOU WANT TO ADD SOMETHING AS WELL? GO AHEAD. I WAS JUST GOING TO NOTE THAT, YOU KNOW, UNFORTUNATELY, I THINK WE ALL REALIZE THAT IT'S THERE AND IT STINKS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE TO REMOVE IT.

BUT TO SAY THAT BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY THERE, THEN IT'S FINE TO STAY THAT YOU KNOW, THEN EVERYBODY ELSE IN THIS SIMILAR SITUATION WOULD JUST SAY, WELL, I'M JUST GOING TO BREAK THE RULES AND RETROACTIVELY THEY'RE GOING TO APPROVE IT.

YEAH, AND I THINK THANK YOU MEMBER NEWMAN, BECAUSE I DID ALLUDE TO THAT A LITTLE BIT EARLIER WHEN WE FIRST BEGAN OUR DISCUSSION, THAT MY CONCERN BEING ONE OF THE LARGER CONCERNS I HAVE WITH HAVING ALL THIS WORK DONE WITHOUT HAVING ANY KIND OF PRIOR APPROVAL IS THAT JUST AS MEMBER NEWMAN SAID, YOU KNOW, IT'S ALREADY THERE.

JUST, YOU KNOW, LET IT GO.

BUT UNFORTUNATELY, IF WE DO THAT, THEN WE START TO DEVELOP A BAD HABIT OF, HEY, WELL, YOU KNOW, ZBA YOU KNOW IT'S ALREADY HERE, JUST LET IT GO.

SO THAT'S WHY WE REALLY TRY TO TAKE EACH CASE INDIVIDUALLY AND REALLY GO THROUGH WITH A FINE TOOTH COMB ON THIS CRITERIA SO THAT WE'RE REALLY WE'RE MAKING DECISIONS VERY CONSCIOUSLY AND VERY AS INFORMED DECISIONS AS WE CAN POSSIBLY MAKE.

BUT THE FACT IS THAT YOU BUILT THESE WITHOUT PERMITS.

NO DOUBT AND I TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT.

I ACTUALLY DO.

BUT SO THEN LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION.

IF I WAS TO TAKE THE PROPER STEPS AND DO IT QUOTE UN QUOTE THE RIGHT WAY, WOULD YOU GUYS APPROVE A FIRE PIT WHERE IT SITS TODAY? I THINK WHAT MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER POINTED OUT WAS THAT AS IT STANDS, WE LIKELY WOULDN'T HAVE APPROVED IT REGARDLESS IF YOU HAD COME TO BUILDING AND WENT THROUGH THE PERMIT PROCESS THAT AND THEN THEY SAID, OH, WELL, WAIT A SECOND, YOU'RE IN A FLOODWAY.

WE GOT TO GET YOU TO THE ZBA IN ORDER TO DO ANYTHING.

I MEAN, WE'D BE AT THIS PROCESS REGARDLESS ANYWAY WITH YOUR FIRE PIT IS WHAT WE'RE SAYING, WE'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS WHETHER OR NOT.

WE ARE AT THE CHICKEN AND EGG SITUATION, BECAUSE YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN HERE WITH US ANYWAY.

RIGHT. BUT I GUESS WHAT I'M GETTING AT, I MEAN, I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THE BOARD STANDS, BECAUSE IF THERE IS TRULY A NET ZERO GAIN AND I WANT TO PUT A FIRE PIT THERE TO ENJOY MY YARD, I THINK THAT'S YOU KNOW YOU OWN A HOME OR YOU NOT EVEN OWN A HOME YOU LIVE WHEREVER YOU LIVE.

YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO ENJOY WHAT YOU HAVE.

AND THAT GIVES ME THE ABILITY TO ENJOY MY PROPERTY THE WAY I WANT TO.

I THINK I'VE EARNED THAT RIGHT.

I THINK EVERYBODY HAS EARNED THAT RIGHT IN THEIR OWN DOMAIN OR WHATEVER.

BUT LIKE, IF I WENT THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNELS SO AND YOU GUYS WOULD SAY THAT YOU GUYS WOULD ACTUALLY DENY PUTTING A FIRE PIT THERE.

[02:05:02]

MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER.

I GUESS THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS, AS WERE TALKING ABOUT THE MINIMUM ACTION THAT COULD BE TAKEN AND TRUSTEE OPSOMMER MENTIONED A FREESTANDING FIREPIT, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, WHAT I WAS THINKING IS THAT YOU COULD PUT SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT PERMANENT.

WHAT YOU HAVE THERE IS A PERMANENT STRUCTURE THAT IS IN THE FLOODPLAIN.

AND WHILE THERE IS A NET ZERO GAIN, AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE CRITERIA THAT WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH SAYS THAT DENYING IT WOULD UNREASONABLY PREVENT YOU FROM USING YOUR RESIDENCE A FIRE PIT DOES NOT UNREASONABLY PREVENT YOU FROM USING YOUR RESIDENCE.

YOU CAN STILL LIVE THERE. YOU CAN STILL ENJOY THE BACKYARD.

YOU CAN GET A FREE STANDING FIRE PIT THAT YOU CAN MOVE WHEREVER YOU WANT.

YOU CAN PUT CHAIRS AROUND THAT FIRE PIT AND YOU CAN ENJOY YOUR YARD.

AND SO THAT'S KIND OF THE STANDARD THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.

YOU CAN'T I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU I MEAN, THAT IS UNREASONABLE TO HAVE TO MOVE CHAIRS BACK AND FORTH TO MOVE THE FIREPIT HERE AND THERE, WHEREVER LIKE THAT.

THAT IS UNREASONABLE.

I MEAN, HOW CAN YOU ENJOY THAT? SO I TELL YOU, THE FREESTANDING FIREPIT WILL FLOAT AWAY THE CONCRETE ONE WILL STAY PUT.

I JUST I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, THAT I DIDN'T DO THINGS THE RIGHT WAY, BUT TO REMOVE IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME.

I MEAN, THAT'S WHY I THINK THAT THE LOGIC IS FLAWED.

SO, I MEAN, I HAVE NO PROBLEM RIPPING IT OUT AND THEN COMING BACK TO YOU GUYS AND THEN PUTTING ANOTHER ONE THERE, IF I HAVE TO DO IT THAT WAY, WHICH IS I MEAN, WHICH IS THAT'S STUPID TO ME, BUT.

YOU KNOW, IF THE EXPERTS ARE SAYING THAT THERE IS A NET ZERO GAIN, I JUST DON'T GET IT.

WHY WE HAVE TO TAKE IT OUT.

MR. USMAN, I WOULD GIVE YOU THE EXAMPLE OF LIKE LET'S SAY LIKE A SHED.

YOU DON'T NEED A SHED TO LIVE IN YOUR HOME FOR THE THE PERMITTED PURPOSE.

ARE SHEDS NICE TO HAVE OR A GARAGE.

OUR GARAGE IS NICE TO HAVE.

AND I DO THINK YOU DO NEED A SHED IF YOU HAVE LAWN MOWERS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH AND ENOUGH TOOLS OR WHATEVER IT IS.

SO I THINK THAT'S UNREASONABLE FOR YOU TO SAY YOU DON'T NEED A SHED.

BUT HERE'S THE THING.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S. MR. USMAN, HERE'S THE THING, THIS VARIANCE STAYS WITH THE HOUSE.

SO AGAIN, WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS IN A LONG TERM AND WE'RE TRYING TO COME TO WHERE WE CAN MEET THIS STRINGENT CRITERIA AND WE HAVE AN ADDITIONAL LAYER OF CRITERIA THAT WE HAVE TO MEET IN ORDER TO GRANT A VARIANCE.

WHEN WE CAN'T FIND A WAY I MEAN, YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED A FIREPIT TO LIVE IN OKEMOS EXCUSE ME, TO LIVE IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

A FIRE PIT IS NOT THE SOLE PERMITTED PURPOSE FOR OWNING A RESIDENCE IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

YOU HAVE A HABITABLE STRUCTURE.

THAT'S THE PERMITTED PURPOSE.

WE HAVE FOUND BECAUSE WE CAN AGAIN, WE CAN MEET THE CRITERIA FOR THE PATIO THAT WAS EXISTING AND THE POOL THAT WAS EXISTING AND EXPANDING THAT POOL DECK AS AS IT WAS NECESSARY. BUT AGAIN, THIS IS WHERE WE'RE STRUGGLING.

IS THAT THE FIREPIT WAS NOT THERE.

THE FIREPIT IS NOT NECESSARY IN ORDER TO USE THE PROPERTY FOR ITS PERMANENT PURPOSE.

I MEAN, THAT'S AN OPINION.

THAT'S NOT A FACT. I MEAN MY FOOD IS OVER THAT FIREPIT, YOU KNOW, BY USING THAT FIRE.

AND I CAN SAY SOMETHING CRAZY LIKE THAT.

MR. USMAN, I WOULD JUST REMIND YOU THAT IT IS THE OPINION OF THESE FIVE BOARD MEMBERS.

THAT IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS LITERALLY OUR OPINION AS A BOARD.

WE MAKE AS AN INFORMED OPINION AND DECISION AS POSSIBLE.

BUT THAT IS WHERE WE'RE AT.

I MEAN, THIS IS WE ARE ABLE TO APPROVE A PATIO AND THE POOL DECK, BUT WE ARE STRUGGLING WITH THE NECESSARY THE UNREASONABLY PREVENTING YOU FROM USING YOUR PROPERTY BY

[02:10:03]

THIS FIRE PIT EXISTING.

IT'S I MEAN, I THINK YOU HEARD ME SAY EARLIER, I DON'T LIKE TO SAY WE HAVE TO TAKE OUT THINGS THAT ARE ALREADY IN EXISTENCE.

I DON'T LIKE TO MAKE THAT CASE GENERALLY, BUT I'M REALLY STRUGGLING.

AND I THINK ALL FIVE OF US BOARD MEMBERS ARE AT THE SAME SPOT STRUGGLING WITH THE SAME CRITERIA. AND WE.

I MEAN, THIS IS SOMETHING WE HAVE TO WE HAVE TO USE THESE CRITERIA FOR EVERY SINGLE CASE, FOR EVERY SINGLE THING THAT COMES IN FRONT OF US, WHETHER IT'S RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, WHATEVER IT IS.

SO I'M SORRY THAT IT'S NOT GOING THE WAY THAT YOU WANT IT TO GO, BUT WE HAVEN'T FINISHED OUR DISCUSSION EITHER. SO I WOULD URGE YOU TO PLEASE HEAR US OUT, LISTEN TO WHY WE'RE MAKING THE DECISIONS WE'RE MAKING.

AND, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE PROCESS.

DOES ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBER HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO ANY OF THOSE CRITERIA? OK, I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO THE SPECIAL CRITERIA AGAIN, BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE LEFT OFF. I HAVE, LET'S SEE, A DETERMINATION THAT FAILURE TO GRANT THE VARIANCE WOULD RESULT IN A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY TO THE APPLICANT.

AS MR. USMAN JUST POINTED OUT, THERE WOULD BE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OF HAVING TO REMOVE SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY IN EXISTENCE.

I COULD FAIRLY REASONABLY SAY THAT THAT WOULD BE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S NECESSARILY DIRECTLY BY THIS CRITERIA, BUT CONSIDERING THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A STRUCTURE THAT ALREADY EXISTS, I COULD PROBABLY MAKE THAT CASE.

I WELCOME ANY FEEDBACK ON THAT ONE? LET'S SEE, AND THEN THE NEXT CRITERIA WOULD BE.

A DETERMINATION THAT THE GRANTING OF A VARIANCE WILL NOT RESULT IN INCREASED FLOOD HEIGHTS, ADDITIONAL THREATS TO PUBLIC SAFETY, EXTRAORDINARY PUBLIC EXPENSE, OR WILL NOT CREATE NUISANCES CAUSE FRAUD ON OR VICTIMIZATION OF THE PUBLIC OR CONFLICT WITH THIS CHAPTER. I THINK THAT WE CAN MEET THAT CRITERIA AS WELL.

I DON'T THINK ANY OF THOSE APPLY TO THE FIREPIT DIRECTLY.

I ALSO WOULD SAY THAT I COULD MEET THAT CRITERIA FOR THE FIRST CIRCUMSTANCE WITH THE POOL DECK AND THE PATIO.

IS THERE ANY DISAGREEMENT OR QUESTIONS ON THAT CRITERIA? OK, MOVING ON, A DETERMINATION THAT THE VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM NECESSARY TO AFFORD RELIEF. SO I CAN MEET THAT FOR THE FIRST FIRST CASE AS WELL, FOR THE FIRST PART OF OUR VARIANCE HERE TONIGHT THAT WE PASSED.

QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN MEET THAT FOR THE SECOND PORTION.

I THINK IT FALLS WITHIN THE SAME DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD WITH THE INITIAL EIGHT VARIANCES.

YEAH, MINIMUM NECESSARY TO AFFORD RELIEF.

I AGAIN, IT'S BACK TO CRITERIA FOUR AND FIVE THAT IT'S REALLY THAT I'M REALLY STRUGGLING TO MEET. SO DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD FOR FOUR AND FIVE THAT THEY'VE KIND OF THOUGHT OF OR COME TO AND DURING THIS DISCUSSION.

IF NOT, DO I HAVE A MOTION OR ANY OTHER FURTHER DISCUSSION? THIS WOULD BE FOR PART TWO.

WE'RE CALLING IT FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE FIREPIT AREA.

OK, I'M ON.

HOLD ON.

MEMBER SHORKEY, ARE YOU TRYING TO PULL UP THE AGENDA HERE SO YOU CAN LOOK UP THE CASE NUMBER? YEAH.

IN ZBA CASE NUMBER 21-05-12-2 AT 4850 ARAPAHO TRAIL IN OKEMOS, MICHIGAN. I MOVE THAT THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE FIREPIT BE DENIED DUE TO UNABLE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS IN

[02:15:04]

NUMBER FOUR AND NUMBER FIVE.

DOES THE MOTION HAVE SUPPORT. SUPPORT.

SUPPORTED BY MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION TO DENY PART TWO OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR TONIGHT FOR THE FIREPIT AREA.

WITH NO DISCUSSION, I'M GOING TO GO TO A VOTE.

OK, WITH NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, WE'RE GOING TO A VOTE, TO DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR OH, NOW I'M GETTING TRIPPED UP FOR ZBA CASE NUMBER 21-05-12-2.

AND THAT WOULD BE THE FIREPIT PORTION.

MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER.

IT'S A MOTION TO DENY SORRY.

SORRY. DID YOU NOT HEAR ME? YES. MEMBER SHORKEY.

YES. TRUSTEE OPSOMMER.

YES.

AND THE CHAIR VOTES YES.

SO UNFORTUNATELY, THE ZBA HAS DENIED THE VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR THE FIREPIT IN AND OF ITSELF, WE WERE ABLE TO MEET THE CRITERIA FOR THE POOL DECK AND FOR THE PATIO AND WITH THE UNDERSTANDING AND THE AMENDMENT THAT IT IS EGLE APPROVED.

AND THAT CUT REMAINS NET ZERO.

WE AND I VERY MUCH DO UNDERSTAND YOUR FRUSTRATION, MR. USMAN, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE.

THIS HAS BEEN A LONG MEETING, AND I DO HOPE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT WE'VE TAKEN AS MUCH TIME AND CARE AS WE COULD GOING THROUGH THESE AND TRYING TO MEET OUR CRITERIA AND THAT YOU'RE ABLE TO PERHAPS GO BACK AND RETHINK THIS AREA OR WHAT CAN BE DONE DIFFERENTLY THAT WE COULD HELP YOU WITH IN THE FUTURE.

SO I'M VERY SORRY.

I KNOW THAT IT'S FRUSTRATING.

IT'S NOT FUN AND IT'S NOT FUN TO GIVE DENIAL'S EITHER.

BUT WE DO REALLY APPRECIATE YOU BEING PATIENT AND WE UNDERSTAND THE FRUSTRATION.

SO I HOPE THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF RELIEF JUST KNOWING THAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET AS MUCH FOR YOU AS WE COULD, BUT WE HAVE TO STAY WITHIN THAT CRITERIA IN ORDER TO GRANT THESE VARIANCES, SO, IS THERE ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE OR ANY ZBA MATTERS? I'LL OPEN THE FLOOR AGAIN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

AND AGAIN, I WOULD JUST ASK THAT YOU STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, IF YOU'VE ALREADY SPOKEN YOU CAN JUST STATE YOUR NAME AGAIN.

HI. MS. LEISTER, ARE YOU TRYING TO SPEAK RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE STILL HAVE YOU MUTED, I CAN SEE YOUR MOUTH MOVING, BUT I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

SO TRY TO UNMUTE YOURSELF.

HERE WE GO. ALL RIGHT, SORRY.

MY HAND HAS BEEN RAISED THE WHOLE TIME AND I APOLOGIZE.

I DON'T KNOW HOW TO GET IT OFF.

I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT FLOODWAY? IT'S ALL IN THE HUNDRED YEAR FLOODPLAIN AND IT'S MADE UP OF THE FLOODWAY AND THE FLOODWAY FRINGE.

I JUST HAVE A COMMENT ABOUT THAT IN GENERAL, BECAUSE WE'VE RUN INTO THIS BEFORE.

AND DEPENDING WHERE YOU TAKE IT, WHEN YOU PUT IT IN THE HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD WAY, IT DOESN'T HAPPEN AS OFTEN.

SO WHEN THE WATER COMES UP, IT STILL GETS HIGH.

SO WHEN IT'S IN THE HUNDRED YEAR FLOODPLAIN EXCUSE ME, WHEN YOU MAKE THE THERE, THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN AS OFTEN.

THANK THE LORD, BUT WHEN YOU MAKE IT THERE, WHEN THE WATER RISES EVERY SPRING, IT STILL GETS HIGHER. SO, I MEAN, ON THIS ONE, IS IT IN THE FLOODWAY OR IS IT IN THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN OR THE FLOODWAY? IT'S IN THE FLOODWAY. OK, GOOD JUST WANTED TO CHECK ON THAT.

THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD.

THERE IS A GULLEY I CALL IT A GULLEY AN INLET RIGHT NEXT TO MR. USMAN IS IT, PROPERTY IN BETWEEN THEM AND THE GOLF COURSE.

WHO OWNS THAT? IS THAT YOU, MR. USMAN. I DON'T KNOW WHO OWNS IT ANYWAY.

[02:20:01]

I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO.

THERE'S INLET BETWEEN YOUR HOUSE, YOUR PROPERTY AND THE GOLF COURSE, BUT RIGHT NOW IT'S FILLED WITH WOOD, HUGE TREES.

THAT WAS TAKEN OVER BY FAILURE TO PAY TAXES BY THE TOWNSHIP.

RIGHT. OH THE TOWNSHIP OWNS THAT OKAY.

WELL, YOU WERE ASKING WHAT YOU COULD DO.

I BELIEVE ONE OF YOU ASKED WHAT COULD WE DO ABOUT THE WATER AND.

IF THAT WOOD WAS TAKEN OUT OF THERE, THAT WOULD HELP MR. USMAN'S PROPERTY TREMENDOUSLY WITH THE EROSION IT WOULD.

IT USED TO BE NOT FILLED WITH LOGS AND IT'S JUST LOADED.

SO THEN THE WATER GOES ELSEWHERE AND IT GOES UP HIS PROPERTY AND WASHES IT OUT.

AND IT DOES ON MINE ALSO.

I DIDN'T KNOW THE TOWNSHIP HAD OVER, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER WHEN SOMEONE ASKED WHAT WOULD WE DO? THAT'S AN AREA THAT COULD BE LOOKED AT.

FOR THAT. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THOSE STATEMENTS AND ABOUT THE FIRE PIT, I FEEL BAD. I KNOW YOU CAN HAVE A FIREPIT WITHOUT THE CEMENT AND THE WOOD.

AND IT JUST SETS PRECEDENT.

I MEAN, I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE CEMENT AROUND MY FIREPIT.

MINE'S A RING.

YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE CEMENT.

I DON'T HAVE ROCK, YOU KNOW, A NICE FIREPIT I WOULD LIKE ONE.

BUT THERE'S OTHER WAYS AROUND IT.

AND IT WAS APPROVED BY THE TOWNSHIP.

SO IT'S JUST THE METAL RING.

IT'S NOTHING FANCY.

YES I HAVE TO CARRY CHAIRS DOWN THERE OR SIT ON THE GROUND OR WHATEVER, BUT IT DOES WORK AND IT'S JUST PART OF LIVING ON THE RIVER.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MS. LEISTER, FOR YOUR COMMENTS, AND I WOULD URGE YOU WITH THE INFORMATION THAT YOU SHARED WITH US HERE TONIGHT, THAT TALKING OR WRITING TO THE BOARD OR TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD BE A GOOD WAY TO PERHAPS GET YOUR PERSPECTIVE TO THE APPROPRIATE BODIES THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE SOME STEPS USING THE INFORMATION, SUGGESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.

SO. WELL THANK YOU.

PERHAPS TAKE THAT, TOO, AND WRITE A LETTER TO THOSE BODIES AND HOPEFULLY THEY'LL HEAR YOU OUT AS WELL. SO WE APPRECIATE THAT.

IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE TONIGHT? AND I WOULD TURN THAT OVER TO HOMTV TO BE ABLE TO SHARE A NUMBER IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO CALL IN. YEAH, WE CAN, OF COURSE, AND MR. BEAUCHINE, I DON'T BELIEVE HE WANTED TO SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THIS CASE, BUT IF THIS IS GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT, HE MAY WANT TO RAISE HIS HAND AT THIS TIME.

IT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE.

YES, WE ARE IN GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT, SO WHETHER IT'S PERTAINING TO THIS CASE OR ANY ZBA

[8. PUBLIC REMARKS]

BUSINESS IN GENERAL OR JUST HI FROM AN OLD FRIEND WOULD BE NICE TOO.

AND THEN, KEITH, I'M NOT THE HOST TONIGHT, SO IF YOU CAN, THANK YOU.

WELL, HELLO THERE, IF YOU'D LIKE TO STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD. I'M TRYING TO GET THERE.

I JUST WANTED TO SAY A COUPLE OF THINGS.

I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN A LONG MEETING AND I ABSOLUTELY APPRECIATE ALL THAT YOU GUYS DO HERE. A GOOD EVENING, CHAIR MANSOUR.

SO NICE TO SEE YOU.

MY NAME IS BRIAN.

I RESIDE AT 5077 MERIDIAN ROAD.

I WAS FIRST SWORN IN AS A MEMBER OF THE ZBA BY VIRGINIA WHITE IN 1998.

AND IF ANY OF YOU WHEN YOU'RE BACK IN THE TOWN HALL, LOOK, IT'S ONE OF THE VERY FIRST BLACK AND WHITE PICTURES ON THE TOWN HALL ROOM OF TOWNSHIP BOARDS.

I'M HUMBLED TO HAVE SERVED FOR SO MANY YEARS WITH MARK KIESELBACH.

HE HAS LED OUR COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT IN A WAY THAT THIS TOWNSHIP WILL APPRECIATE FOR A VERY LONG TIME.

NOT SURE IF PEOPLE OUT IN THE PUBLIC KNOW THIS IS MARK'S LAST ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AND IT'S STILL THE BEST MEETING AND WE STILL HAVE THE BEST BOARD, JUST SO YOU ALL KNOW.

SO I WANTED TO THANK MARK HE'S PROTECTED OUR TOWNSHIP FOR A LONG TIME.

FORTY ONE YEARS.

AND TRANSITIONING TO A WELL-DESERVED RETIREMENT IS ABSOLUTELY SOMETHING THAT I WANT FOR YOU. SO THE HUGE POSITIVE IMPACT YOU'VE MADE TO OUR TOWNSHIP WILL BE APPRECIATED FOR YEARS AFTER YOU RETIRE. SO THANK YOU, MARK.

THANK YOU, BRIAN. THANK YOU, BRIAN.

[02:25:01]

IT'S REALLY GREAT TO SEE YOUR FACE, WE'RE SO THANKFUL FOR ALL YOUR SERVICE TO THE ZBA AND YOU'RE MISSED, YOU ARE DEFINITELY MISSED, ALTHOUGH I'M SURE YOU'RE NOT MISSING ZOOM MEETINGS. BUT WE APPRECIATE THAT.

AND COMING BACK TO SAY A CONGRATS TO YOUR GOOD BUDDY HERE, DIRECTOR KIESELBACH.

SO WE APPRECIATE THAT.

AND THANK YOU FOR THAT.

AND WE MISS YOU. I ACTUALLY, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, I MISS IT AFTER SO MANY YEARS, I JUST I STILL FOLLOW EVERYTHING.

YOU GUYS DON'T KNOW IT, BUT I'M JUST A LURKER.

THAT'S OK. WE'RE OK WITH THAT.

WE KNOW AND AS I TRIED TO SAY A LITTLE BIT EARLIER, THAT THESE ARE HARD CHOICES TO MAKE BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S ALWAYS SOMETHING INTERESTING.

BEST BOARD IN THE TOWNSHIP.

WELL, THANK YOU, BRIAN. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK THIS EVENING? REGARDING THIS CASE OR ANY ZBA BUSINESS.

YOU HAVE NO TELEPHONE CALLS, MA'AM.

OK.

IN THAT CASE, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND GO TO WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND THANK EVERYONE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WAS ABLE TO SPEAK TONIGHT AND GO IN TO BOARD COMMENTS AND WELL,

[9. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS]

BRIAN TOOK MY ENTIRE COMMENTARY THERE.

BUT I WOULD JUST POINT OUT, AS I WAS RECENTLY TOLD, THAT MARK KIESELBACH HAS BEEN WITH MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP IN SERVICE TO MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP FOR FOUR HUNDRED AND NINETY SIX MONTHS.

SO I THOUGHT THAT NUMBER WAS PRETTY EXTRAORDINARY.

THAT JUST MAKES IT SEEM A LOT LONGER THAN 41 YEARS.

BUT IT'S PRETTY INCREDIBLE.

AND WE ARE SO FORTUNATE TO HAVE HAD YOU FOR SO LONG.

AND I HAVE LEARNED SO MUCH FROM YOU AND FROM ALL OF YOUR INSIGHT AND EVERY SINGLE BOARD MEETING I'VE ATTENDED. AND JUST IT JUST EXTRAORDINARY AMOUNT OF SERVICE THAT YOU'VE GIVEN TO THE TOWNSHIP. AND WE ARE GOING TO BE MISSING YOU VERY MUCH LIKE BRIAN.

I MEAN, I HOPE THAT WE GET TO SEE YOUR FACE POP UP OCCASIONALLY LIKE BRIAN.

THOUGH I WOULDN'T BLAME YOU IF YOU DIDN'T WANT TO JOIN ON ZOOM MEETINGS ANYMORE AFTER THIS. BUT WE JUST WE THANK YOU SO MUCH AND CONGRATULATIONS FOR A VERY, VERY WELL ON YOUR RETIREMENT. AND IT'S JUST INCREDIBLE WHAT YOU'VE GIVEN TO THE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

SO THANK YOU DIRECTOR KIESELBACH.

I WANT TO THANK THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.

YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN A PLEASURE WORKING WITH THE BOARD OVER THE YEARS.

I HAPPENED TO TALK TO BRIAN TODAY ON THE PHONE.

AND I GOT TO THINKING IN MY YOU KNOW, AS A YOUNG PLANNER, MY FIRST ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CASE WAS 1987.

SO IT SORT OF THREW YOU IN AT THE TIME AND YOU SORT OF HAD TO KNOW THE ORDINANCE AND BE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE THAT ORDINANCE.

SO IT WAS A LEARNING EXPERIENCE.

I HAD A LOT OF GOOD MEMBERS ON THE BOARD AND STAFF MEMBERS AND I'VE WORKED WITH SOME REALLY GOOD PLANNING DIRECTORS.

SO IT'S BEEN A GREAT EXPERIENCE WORKING FOR THE TOWNSHIP.

WELL, YOU WILL DEFINITELY BE MISSED AND WE ARE EXCITED FOR YOU, THOUGH, TO TAKE THAT STEP INTO RETIREMENT AND HOPEFULLY RELAXING A LITTLE BIT AND LETTING SOME OF THAT ORDINANCE AND CODE GO OUT OF YOUR BRAIN YOU'VE MEMORIZED OVER THE YEARS.

IT'S GREAT, IT'S REALLY, REALLY AMAZING AND I THINK VERY RARE THESE DAYS TO HAVE SOMEBODY THAT HAS STAYED IN POSITION FOR SO LONG AND WITH A CITY GOVERNMENT AS LONG AS YOU HAVE SO VERY, VERY IMPRESSIVE.

DOES ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY COMMENTARY OR ANYTHING THEY'D LIKE TO ADD.

TRUSTEE OPSOMMER GO FOR IT. OK, I WON'T LET DIRECTOR KIESELBACH OFF THE HOOK.

I DO HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION BASED ON A PUBLIC COMMENT.

THE TOWNSHIP OWNING LAND ADJACENT TO THE RIVER OR AN INLET OVER HERE, I DON'T SEE A PARCEL AND I'M NOT AWARE OF ONE, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT IT'S REFERRING TO AND DOES THE TOWNSHIP OWN ANY LAND ADJACENT TO THIS AREA.

THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK IF IT WAS TAX REVERTED, IT WOULD GO TO INGHAM COUNTY FIRST AND THEN THEY WOULD COME TO THE TOWNSHIP AND SEE IF WE WOULD WANT TO TAKE IT. I DON'T REMEMBER THE TOWNSHIP ACCEPTING ANY LAND IN THAT AREA.

YEAH. AND WE WOULD HAVE VOTED ON THAT AT THE BOARD LEVEL AND WE HAVEN'T VOTED ON THAT.

MR. COOK DO YOU KNOW WHAT PARCEL YOU'RE REFERRING TO.

[02:30:07]

MR. COOK, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE MUTED.

OKAY YEAH. YOU MIGHT OK. I DON'T I WAS ASSUMING IT WAS THE TOWNSHIP.

I KNOW IT WAS PART OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT, SO IT MUST HAVE BEEN THE COUNTY THAT TOOK IT OVER. BUT I REMEMBER THE SIGNS POSTED IN OUR YARD ABOUT THE TAXES BEING UNPAID AND THEY NEVER WERE PAID. I TRIED TO GET A HOLD OF THE OWNER.

THEY WERE OUT OF THE AREA.

BUT ONE OF THE SIGNS. THE PARCEL IN QUESTION.

THE PARCEL IS OUT BY THE GOLF COURSE.

IT'S BEHIND OUR PROPERTY ON HERON CREEK IT IS.

THAT'S NORTH OF OUR PROPERTY NO EAST OF OUR PROPERTY, IT IS NORTH OF THE GOLF COURSE, I GUESS IS THAT DIRECTION.

THE OTHER SIDE OF THE RIVER.

YEAH, IT WOULD BE. YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS HERE, IT'S JUST RIGHT THERE, YEAH, THAT WHOLE AREA WAS OWNED BY SOMEBODY WHO HAD LEFT TOWN, ACTUALLY, THEY LIVED OVER BY THE CEMETERY AND THEY WERE SOME FAMILY MEMBERS BURIED IN THE CEMETERY OVER THERE, JUST OFF SMALL ACRES.

I FORGET WHO IT WAS.

OK, I CAN TALK TO WELL AND DIRECTOR KIESELBACH CAN TALK TO DEPUTY MANAGER PERRY, I KNOW WE HAVE OTHER THERE ARE OTHER EFFORTS TO THE EAST ON THE RIVER TO REMOVE ALL THE LOGS AND OTHER NATURAL DEBRIS THAT IS, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY CAUSING BACKUPS.

BUT SOMEBODY HAD TO COME BY AND REMOVED OR THERE'S A BIG STACK OF LOGS THERE THAT ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE YEARS AGO, SOMEBODY MUST HAVE BROUGHT A MACHINE IN THERE AND PULLED THEM OUT BY THE RIVER AREA.

BUT THEY'RE ALL STACKED, THAT'S OBVIOUSLY SOME MACHINE HAD TO DO IT.

IT'S A DRAIN COMMISSIONER PROJECT.

WE'RE DOING SOME.

TO THE EAST, KIND OF AT THE OTHER END OF THE GOLF COURSE, REALLY, I GUESS FOR VANTAGE POINT SOUTH OF HAMILTON ROAD AND NORTH OF THE RIVER THERE, JUST THE OLDER PART OF TOWN BEHIND PLAYMAKERS.

THAT'S SOMETHING WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE DRAIN COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE ON BECAUSE THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WATERWAYS.

SO THE LOGS IN THE WATERWAY.

BUT WE CAN BRING THAT UP TO DEPUTY MANAGER PERRY, TO LOOK AT THIS SITE AS WELL.

YES, THERE ARE A LOT OF TREES DOWN THERE, BUT SO THEY GET MORE RIGHT ALONG WHERE THE RED CEDAR RUNS, JUST THAT EDGE OF THE.

ACTUALLY, CALL IT AN ISLAND.

THAT IS AN ISLAND SOME OF THE TIME WHEN THE WATERS ARE HIGH AND WHEN THE WATER IS LOW, IT'S YOU CAN WALK FROM THE GOLF COURSE TO IT.

BUT WHEN THE WATER IS HIGH YOU HAVE TO KAYAK.

YEP. WELL, THANK YOU, MR. COOK I APPRECIATE THAT. YOU'RE WELCOME.

OK, YES, MR. COOK, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE TO ADD.

NO I'M SAYING GOODBYE. OK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ATTENDANCE AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR INPUT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. ALL RIGHT, ON THAT NOTE, DOES ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBER HAVE ANY COMMENTS OTHERWISE I WILL GO AHEAD AND CALL IT A NIGHT.

ALL RIGHT, EVERYONE, WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, EVERYONE, FOR YOUR INPUT AND YOUR PATIENCE THIS EVENING.

AND WITH THAT, I WILL OFFICIALLY ADJOURN THIS MEETING AT 9:03.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, EVERYONE.

MARK GODSPEED.

THANKS. ALL RIGHT, EVERYONE, TAKE CARE.

WE'LL SEE YOU IN JUNE.

GOOD NIGHT.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.