Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:21]

IT LOOKS GOOD.

THANK YOU. I NEED A LITTLE SOMETHING AFTER COVID, IT WAS THE TAKE OFF ALL THE WAY TO COVID. OH, I DEFINITELY GET IT.

I'M JUST LIKE, OH, WELL.

IF ONLY LOSING THE COVID WEIGHT WERE THAT EASY.

I WOULD DO IT JUST LIKE YOU DID.

WELL, THAT'S JUST THE ZOOM LOOK.

WAIT FOR OUR SIGNAL FROM HOMTV ARE WE DOING HOMTV.

YOU ARE LIVE ON HOMTV AT THIS TIME.

ALL RIGHT. WE'RE ALREADY LIVE.

OK, GOOD. I'M GLAD EVERYBODY HEAR OUR WITTY BANTER.

WELL, ON THAT NOTE, I WILL GO AHEAD AND CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER.

[Items 1 & 2]

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

TODAY IS THE 23RD OF JUNE 2021.

AND WE'LL JUST GO THROUGH AND EACH OF YOU CAN STATE YOUR NAME AND WHERE YOU ARE REMOTELY JOINING FROM. I AM ALEXIA MANSOUR.

I AM JOINING REMOTELY FROM OKEMOS, MICHIGAN.

MEMBER HENDRICKSON. I'M SCOTT HENDRICKSON.

I'M JOINING REMOTELY FROM OKEMOS, MICHIGAN.

MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER.

MONIQUE FIELD-FOSTER JOINING REMOTELY FROM OKEMOS, MICHIGAN.

TRUSTEE OPSOMMER.

TRUSTEE DAN OPSOMMER ATTENDING REMOTELY FROM THE CITY OF LANSING.

AND MEMBER KULHANEK.

HI THERE, DON KULHANEK ATTENDING REMOTELY FROM OKEMOS MICHIGAN.

GREAT, THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT.

I'M EXCITED TO BE WITH YOU ALL.

AND ON THAT NOTE, THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS TO APPROVE OUR AGENDA.

SO MOVED.

OK, WELL, EVERYBODY GO AHEAD AT ONCE NOW.

SO MOVE BY MEMBER HENDRICKSON AND SECONDED BY MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER DOES THAT WORK FOR YOU TWO. ALL RIGHT, ON THAT NOTE, I WILL GO AHEAD AND WE WILL TAKE A VOTE UNLESS WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE AGENDA.

OK, THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE TONIGHT'S AGENDA.

MEMBER HENDRICKSON.

YES.

MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER.

YES. TRUSTEE OPSOMMER.

YES.

MEMBER KULHANEK.

YES. TONGUE TIED TONIGHT.

AND THE CHAIR VOTES YES, SO THE AGENDA HAS PASSED.

NEXT ON THE AGENDA WOULD BE TO APPROVE.

[3. CORRECTIONS, APPROVAL AND RATIFICATION OF MINUTES]

WE HAVE TWO SETS OF MINUTES TO APPROVE.

I WILL TAKE A MOTION ON EITHER OR BOTH I DON'T KNOW WHICH IS THE TECHNICAL WAY WE SHOULD DO PROBABLY ONE AT A TIME.

IS THAT CORRECT KEITH? YEAH.

OK, SO THIS IS A MOTION TO OR I'M SORRY DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM APRIL 28, 2021.

SOME MOVED.

MOVED BY MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER, SECONDED BY THE CHAIR, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION REGARDING THE MINUTES FROM APRIL 28TH? ANY CORRECTIONS OR ANYTHING THAT WE NEED TO ADD TO THE MINUTES? OK, MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM APRIL 28TH.

MEMBER HENDRICKSON.

YES. MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER.

YES. TRUSTEE OPSOMMER.

YES. MEMBER KULHANEK.

YES. AND THE CHAIR VOTES YES, SO THE MINUTES FROM APRIL 28TH ARE APPROVED.

THIS NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS THE MOTION, OR MINUTES FROM MAY 12TH, 2021'S MEETING ANY CORRECTIONS OR ADDITIONS OR A MOTION.

I MOVE THE ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES FROM MAY 12TH.

OK, I HAVE A MOTION FROM ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MINUTES FROM MAY 12TH 2021.

ALL RIGHT, THIS IS A VOTE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM MAY 12TH.

MEMBER HENDRICKSON. YES.

MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER.

YES.

TRUSTEE OPSOMMER.

YES. MEMBER KULHANEK.

YES. AND THE CHAIR VOTES YES, SO THE MINUTES FROM MAY 12TH ARE APPROVED.

NEXT AGENDA ITEM WOULD BE COMMUNICATIONS, OF WHICH I DON'T HAVE ANY HERE LISTED.

THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA WOULD BE UNFINISHED BUSINESS, OF WHICH NONE IS LISTED.

SO WE WILL MOVE STRAIGHT INTO NEW BUSINESS.

WHICH BRINGS US TO ZBA CASE NUMBER 21-06-23-1 EROP, LLC, 2390 E.

[6.A. ZBA CASE NO. 21-06-23-1 (EROP, LLC), 2390 E. Federal Drive, Decatur, IL, 62526]

[00:05:06]

FEDERAL DRIVE, DECATUR, IL, 62526.

AND WITH THAT, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO KEITH.

OK. GOOD EVENING.

SHARE MY SCREEN HERE.

DID THAT GO? NOT YET SIR . THERE WE GO. OK, SO ZBA 21-06-23-1, EROP L.L.C..

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING VARIANCES IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A DRIVE THROUGH CARWASH AT 2703 GRAND RIVER AVENUE. THERE ARE THREE VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED.

THE FIRST ONE IS SECTION 86 402 1A IS FRONT YARD.

THE FRONT YARD SET BACK ON GRAND RIVER AVENUE IS ONE HUNDRED FEET FROM THE CENTERLINE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY.

SECTION EIGHTY SIX 756 11 IS A 20 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER SETBACK AND SECTION 86 758 TWO IS FOUR FOOT BUILDING PERIMETER LANDSCAPING.

HERE'S A MAP THAT SHOWS THE LOCATION AS WELL AS THE ZONING.

QUICK OVERVIEW AT THE MAY 10TH 2021 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SPECIAL USE PERMIT WAS GRANTED TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 3300 SQUARE FOOT DRIVE THROUGH CAR WASH FACILITY.

ON SITE THERE IS CURRENTLY A 28 HUNDRED 73 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING THAT PREVIOUSLY CONTAINED PAUL REVERE'S TAVERN.

THIS BUILDING IS SLATED TO BE DEMOLISHED IN ORDER TO MAKE WAY FOR THE CAR WASH.

THE PROPERTY IS POINT 88 ACRES IN SIZE AND IS ZONED C2 COMMERCIAL.

AND IT'S LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GRAND RIVER AND DAWN AVENUE.

SO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, THE SITE PLAN SHOWS THAT'S THE PROPOSED BUILDING, NOT EXISTING, HAS AN EIGHTY POINT EIGHT FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM THE CENTERLINE OF GRAND RIVER.

SO THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRES ONE HUNDRED FOOT SET BACK FROM THE CENTERLINE OF GRAND RIVER FOR PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL STREETS.

AND THE PROPOSED BUILDING WILL BE LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 27 AND A HALF FEET FROM THE STREET RIGHT OF WAY LINE ON GRAND RIVER AVENUE.

AND THIS MAP, IF YOU CAN SEE, ILLUSTRATES THE RED DOT, IT IS THE ONE HUNDRED FOOT SETBACK FOR THE PROPERTY. SO THE PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER IS LOCATED ALONG GRAND RIVER AVENUE, THE SITE PLAN SHOWS THAT AT THREE POINT EIGHT FEET AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRES 20 FEET BETWEEN THE BACK OF THE CURB AND THE STREET RIGHT OF WAY LINE.

AND THIS LANDSCAPE BUFFER IS REQUIRED TO CONTAIN A VERTICAL SCREEN.

WHICH CAN CONSIST OF MASONRY WALL, PLANT MATERIAL OR LANDSCAPE EARTH BERM OR A COMBINATION OF THOSE THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THREE FEET IN HEIGHT.

AND YES, SO THIS IS USED TO SCREEN THE PARKING AREA FROM THE VIEW ALONG THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF GRAND RIVER THERE.

AND THIS RED DASH LINE HERE SHOWS WERE THAT 20 FOOT BUFFER IS SUPPOSED TO BE LOCATED AND THE CIRCLED AREA SHOWS THE CLOSEST POINT OF THREE POINT EIGHT FEET FROM THAT STREET RIGHT OF WAY LINE. MR. CHAPMAN, CAN YOU MAKE THAT LARGER? YEAH, I CAN ZOOM IN.

THANKS. YEAH.

AND CERTAINLY WE CAN COME BACK TO IT, TOO, ONCE WE'RE FINISHED HERE.

ARE YOU GOOD? OK. YES, SORRY.

THAT'S ALL RIGHT. SO THE BUILDING PERIMETER LANDSCAPING, THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRES A FOUR FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER, AND THIS WOULD BE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING IN BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE PARKING LOT.

INSIDE THIS BUFFER IS REQUIRED TO BE A MINIMUM OF 50 PERCENT OF LANDSCAPED AREA OF GRASS,

[00:10:06]

GROUND COVER SHRUBS OR OTHER LIVING VEGETATION, SO THIS SUBMITTED PLAN SHOWS ZERO FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER BETWEEN THE PARKING LOT AND THE BUILDING.

AND THIS JUST SHOWS APPROXIMATELY THE AREA THAT I'M REFERENCING.

AND THIS TABLE JUST ILLUSTRATES THE VARIANCES THAT ARE BEING REQUESTED.

AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

OK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAPMAN. I'M SURE WE ARE GOING TO NEED TO SEE THAT PICTURE AGAIN.

I WAS WITH MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER AND WANTING TO SEE IT A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DOING.

BUT ON THAT NOTE, IS THE APPLICANT OR ANY OF THE APPLICANTS REPRESENTATIVES HERE TONIGHT? AND WOULD THEY LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING TO MR. CHAPMAN'S PRESENTATION? YES. PLEASE JUST STATE YOUR FULL NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD WHEN YOU CAN BEFORE YOU START, PLEASE. THANK YOU.

HI MY NAME IS ERIN MCMACHEN I AM REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT.

I AM THE CIVIL ENGINEER.

I WORK WITH STONEFIELD ENGINEERING AND DESIGN.

WE'RE LOCATED AT 607 SHELBY STREET SUITE 200, DETROIT, MICHIGAN.

OK, THANK YOU SO MUCH, AND IF YOU'D LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING TO MR. CHAPMAN'S PRESENTATION OR ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO SAY ABOUT THIS CASE BEFORE WE GET STARTED WITH OUR BOARD TIME DISCUSSING THOSE VARIANCES THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE BOARD TONIGHT FOR TAKING THE TIME TO HEAR OUR REQUEST, AS KEITH HAD MENTIONED. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TOO MUCH OF AN OVERVIEW ABOUT THE SITE, BUT IT'S AN EXISTING VACANT SITE.

IT'S BEEN VACANT, OVERGROWN AND NONCONFORMING FOR QUITE A FEW YEARS NOW.

WORKING WITH THIS UNIQUE PARCEL SHAPE AND SIZE, WE WERE ABLE TO PROPOSE REDEVELOPMENT THAT PROVIDES A GREATER BUILDING SET BACK FROM THAT CENTERLINE OF GRAND RIVER AND A CLEAR SIGHT DISTANCE FROM DAWN AVE TO GRAND RIVER.

WE BELIEVE THAT ALL OF OUR VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED TONIGHT ARE JUSTIFIED BASED ON ALL EIGHT CRITERIA THAT MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP REVIEWS.

AS AN MSU ALUMNI, I AM PROUD TO BE WORKING ON THIS PROJECT AND PRESENTING SOMETHING TO IMPROVE THIS GRAND RIVER CORRIDOR AND THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE.

AND WITH THAT SAID, I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE AND JUST SIT TIGHT AND WE WILL DEFINITELY HAVE QUESTIONS. I CAN ALMOST GUARANTEE THAT.

IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE FOR THE APPLICANT OR ANY OTHER PEOPLE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE.

AND WE'LL REMIND PEOPLE THAT THEY CAN USE THE RAISE HAND FEATURE IF THEY'RE IN THE ATTENDEE AREA AND WE CAN GIVE THEM THE ABILITY TO SPEAK IN THERE.

ALTERNATIVELY, IF YOU'RE PARTICIPATING FROM HOME VIA HOMTV OR ONE OF THE INTERNET STREAMS THAT WE USE, PUBLIC COMMENT CAN BE MADE VIA THE TOTAL NUMBER 517-349-1232.

ONE MORE TIME. THE TELEPHONE NUMBER IS FIVE ONE SEVEN THREE FOUR NINE ONE, TWO, THREE, TWO. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

ALL RIGHT. AND I'LL GIVE THEM JUST A MOMENT.

AS I DON'T SEE ANYONE ELSE IN THE ATTENDEES AREA, NO ONE WITH THEIR HAND RAISED, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THE MOMENT.

AND WE WILL GO INTO OUR BOARD TIME.

SO ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS TO GET US ROLLING AND STARTED ON THIS CASE? MEMBER HENDRICKSON. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

SO A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, IF YOU COULD CLARIFY.

I'M LOOKING AT THE PACKET AT PAGE 28 HERE, AND IT'S ONE OF THE DIAGRAMS THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDED. AND IT APPEARS AS THOUGH THERE IS A DASHED LINE TRAPEZOID IF I USE MY EIGHTH GRADE GEOMETRY THAT INDICATES THE 100 YARD SETBACK.

IS THAT A MORE OR LESS ACCURATE DEPICTION OF THAT SETBACK, THERE.

YEAH, I'M TRYING TO PULL UP AND SEE WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT HERE.

WITHOUT HAVING PLANS TO SCALE IN FRONT OF ME, IT LOOKS ACCURATE.

YEAH, OK. AND THEN WOULD IT BE ACCURATE TO SAY THAT THE REMAINDER OF THAT DASHED LINE PARALLELOGRAM IS RELATIVELY ACCURATE FOR THE BUILDING ENVELOPE OF THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL.

IT CONTINUES AROUND DOWN TO THE SOUTH.

YEAH, YEAH, YEAH, IN TERMS OF LIKE SIDE YARD AND REAR YARD SETBACKS.

YEAH, RIGHT. SO, YOU KNOW, MY QUESTION TO THE APPLICANT IS EYEBALLING THIS, AND THIS IS

[00:15:07]

NOT YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE MY PROTRACTOR OUT HERE, BUT IT LOOKS AS THOUGH IF YOU MOVE THE BUILDING. 15, 20 FEET, WHATEVER THE VARIANCE IS TO THE SOUTH, THERE WOULD BE PLENTY OF ROOM TO HAVE THAT DRIVEWAY AND HAVE CARS ENTER THE BUILDING AND BE IN COMPLIANCE UNDER FOOT SET BACK FROM GRAND RIVER.

AND SO MY QUESTION TO YOU WOULD BE, WHY COULDN'T YOU DO THAT? YES, SO PLANNING COMMISSION, WE HAD THE SAME DISCUSSION WITH THEM IN BOTH OF OUR MEETINGS . BASED OFF OF A PRO-TYPICAL LAYOUT, YOU WOULDN'T SEE SUCH SHORT ENTRANCES AND EXITS AT A CAR WASH. WE WENT AHEAD AND REDUCE TO THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM, WHICH IS 30 FEET AT AN ENTRANCE AND EXIT, AND THAT WOULD PROVIDE A STANDARD PICKUP TRUCK TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT TURN INTO THE CAR WASH AND OUT OF THE CAR WASH.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHY IT IS YOU CAN'T MEET THE CRITERIA FOR THE VEGETATION BUFFER PLEASE? THE FRONT YARD OR THE PERIMETER LANDSCAPING.

THE PERIMETER LANDSCAPING.

YES, SO THAT FOUNDATION LANDSCAPING THERE, JUST AS A BEST PRACTICE, WE DON'T TYPICALLY PROPOSE PLANTING THAT CLOSE TO A FOUNDATION, ESPECIALLY THE FOOTINGS AND FOUNDATIONS PROPOSED HERE AS ARCHITECTS EXPRESSED.

HOWEVER, WE DID RELOCATE THOSE PLANTINGS SOMEWHERE WE THOUGHT WAS MORE SUITABLE, WHICH IS THAT NEXT LANDSCAPING ISLAND TO THE WEST, THEREFORE PROVIDES A LITTLE BIT OF SCREENING FROM THE VACUUM'S TO DAWN AVENUE AND WOULD BE AN INCREASED NUMBER OF PLANTINGS OVER THE 50 PERCENT THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED UP AGAINST THE FOUNDATION.

AND NOT THAT THIS IS NECESSARILY GERMANE TO THE VARIANCES THAT YOU'RE REQUESTING HERE TODAY, ARE YOU CLOSING OFF A CURB CUT TO GRAND RIVER.

WE'RE CLOSING OFF TWO CURB CUTS TO GRAND RIVER. OK.

THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT FOR THE MOMENT.

OK THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MEMBER HENDRICKSON, I SAW TRUSTEE OPSOMMER HAS A QUESTION, GO AHEAD. YES, THANK YOU CHAIR MANSOUR.

SO MY FIRST QUESTION IS FOR KEITH AND TIM.

SO THIS WAS O'REILLY AUTO PARTS SITE.

DID THEY SELL THE PROPERTY OR ARE THEY ANTICIPATING SELLING? I BELIEVE THEY'RE STILL THE OWNERS, THEY'RE STILL THE OWNERS, BUT SO THEY'RE NO LONGER LOOKING AT DEVELOPING IT AS AN AUTO PARTS STORE.

CORRECT. SO I DIDN'T WATCH THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT DISCUSSIONS THEY HAD, BUT MY BIGGEST CONCERN WHEN I LOOK AT THIS IS THE 20 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY BUFFER, BECAUSE ESPECIALLY WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION LOOKING AT FORM BASED CODE IN THIS AREA, WE WANT CONSISTENCY ON THE SERVICE DRIVES IN THAT BUFFER ALONG THE GRAND RIVER AVENUE FRONTAGE. AND WHEN YOU HAVE ONE BUILDING THAT BUILDS OUT BEYOND THOSE BUFFERS, IT THROWS THE ENTIRE PLANNING OFF FOR THE CORRIDOR.

SO I WOULD HOPE THAT THAT DISCUSSION TOOK PLACE AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT THE ONE HUNDRED FOOT BUFFER, I DON'T KNOW, I COULD LIVE WITH SOME DIFFERENTIAL THERE, BUT I'M CURIOUS. I KNOW YOU GUYS WOULD HAVE TO LOOK, BUT KEITH, IF YOU COULD LOOK AT THE ADJACENT SITES, I'M LOOKING AT GOOGLE EARTH AND THEY LOOK TO RELATIVELY ADHERE TO THE 20 FOOT LANDSCAPING AND AT LEAST SOMEWHERE IN THE BALLPARK OF ONE HUNDRED, BUT IF THIS SITE, IF THE DEVELOPMENT JUTS OUT CLOSER TO GRAND RIVER, THAT REALLY DISRUPTS THE ABILITY FOR US TO HAVE THOSE SERVICE DRIVES CONNECT CONTINUOUSLY DOWN GRAND RIVER AVENUE, WHICH WE'VE HAD A VERY YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO DO THAT FOR DECADES.

AND A GREAT EXAMPLE AND A DIFFERENT SEGMENT OF GRAND RIVER WHERE WE'VE HAD SOME FAILINGS AS DISCOUNT TIRE AND MCDONALD'S AND THE STRIP MALL THERE ON THE CORNER OF OKEMOS AND GRAND RIVER. WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO CONNECT THOSE THREE, BUT EVERYWHERE ELSE, THE MALL AREA, BEST BUY, MYER AND ALL THOSE OUTLETS, WE HAVE THAT CONTIGUOUS SERVICE DRIVE.

AND SO I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THIS VARIANCE ON THAT PLANNING ASPECT DOWN THE CORRIDOR IN GENERAL, NOT JUST ON THE SITE.

SO I GUESS ANY REACTION FROM KEITH AND TIM WOULD BE APPRECIATED.

YEAH, SO JUST BRIEFLY, I'M LOOKING AT SOME OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, MEMBER OPSOMMER, I BELIEVE YOU'RE CORRECT, AND THE MAJORITY OF THEM APPEAR TO BE CLOSE TO AT LEAST THE 20 FOOT SETBACK.

[00:20:02]

THERE MIGHT BE A COUPLE THAT AREN'T.

I WILL SAY IN TERMS OF THE LONG TERM DESIRE TO PUT IN THE FRONTAGE ROADS, THE ONE OPTION THAT THE COMMUNITY HAS HERE, GIVEN THAT THEY ARE NOT REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE BUILDING THEY'RE ACTUALLY PUTTING PAVEMENT IN THAT AREA WOULD BE POTENTIALLY TO REQUIRE AN EASEMENT TO ALLOW GIVEN THAT IT IS PAVEMENT.

IT'S CERTAINLY THEY ARE CERTAINLY NOT DESIGNING IT IN SUCH A WAY THAT WOULD ABSOLUTELY PRECLUDE THAT ROAD GOING IN THE FUTURE IN SOME WAY.

POTENTIALLY. BUT THE DENNY'S WOULD BE CONFIRMING WHERE YOU'VE GOT THAT 20, ROUGHLY 20 FOOT GREEN BELT AND THEN THE SERVICE DRIVE IN THAT SERVICE DRIVE FOR LIKE DENNY'S WOULD BASICALLY DEAD END INTO BASICALLY THE CAR WASH.

THE EAST SIDE OF THE CAR WASH.

UNDERSTAND. YEAH, I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT WITH THE DENNY'S THAT THEY WOULD JUST SORT OF PRESUMABLY DEAD END THROUGH THEIR PARKING LOT.

YES. YEAH.

I WAS THINKING MORE OF A TRUE SERVICE DRIVE WHERE IT'S A CONTIGUOUS ROAD ALONG THE FRONT OF THE BUILDINGS WHERE THERE'S NO PARKING BACKING INTO IT.

SO IT CAN LITERALLY BE A DRIVE.

BUT YES, GIVEN THE CURRENT LAYOUT OF DENNY'S, YOU WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM.

I THINK THAT BASICALLY SUMMARIZES MY BIGGEST CONCERNS, I'LL TURN IT BACK OVER TO THE CHAIR. THANK YOU. OK, THANK YOU, TRUSTEE OPSOMMER, ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS. MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER, GO AHEAD.

SO JUST IN LISTENING TO THE DIFFERENT QUESTIONS AND MEMBER HENDRICKSON KIND OF GOT TO, I THINK ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAD AS FAR AS WHAT THAT 20 FOOT SETBACK WAS GOING TO MEAN AS FAR AS CARS COMING IN AND OUT.

BUT THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT THE APPLICANT MENTIONED AS FAR AS THE BUFFERS THE VEGETATIVE BUFFERS WERE CONCERNED.

AND IT WAS NOT YOUR NORMAL PRACTICE TO PUT THE VEGETATION SO CLOSE TO THE FOUNDATION AND YOU WANTED TO PUT THEM SOMEWHERE ELSE.

AND AS I LOOK AT THE CRITERIA, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW NOT PUTTING THEM THERE WOULD UNREASONABLY PREVENT YOU FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR PERMITTED PURPOSE, BECAUSE IT'S ONE THING WHERE YOU JUST YOU KNOW, IT LITERALLY ELIMINATES YOUR ABILITY TO PUT A CAR WASH IN THERE.

IT'S SOMETHING ELSE TO SAY THAT, OK, IT'S JUST NOT YOUR PRACTICE AND YOU WANT TO PUT IT SOMEWHERE ELSE. SO I NEED MORE, I GUESS, CLARIFICATION ON HOW WE CAN OVERCOME THAT CRITERIA FOR THOSE TWO VARIANCES.

AND FEEL FREE, I'M SORRY, IS THAT MS. MCMACHEN? IS THAT IT.

YOU GOT IT. OK, GREAT. AND FEEL FREE TO ANSWER.

I BELIEVE THAT WAS DIRECTED TO MS. MCMACHEN. AND SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE KNOW WHO'S BEING ASKED THE QUESTION.

YES BUT YES, FEEL FREE TO TAKE A STAB AT THAT ONE.

I MEAN, WE JUST ENVISIONED IT AS THE HARDSHIP OF HAVING THOSE PLANTINGS CONFLICT WITH OUR BUILDING FOUNDATION.

BUT IF THAT'S SOMETHING YOU GUYS ABSOLUTELY WANT TO SEE, WE CAN RELAY THAT TO THE APPLICANT AND GET THAT REVISED AND MAYBE PUT IN A FOUR FOOT GRASS STRIP ALONG THAT FRONTAGE. IT DOESN'T REALLY SPECIFY PLANTING, IT JUST SAYS 50 PERCENT.

SO WE CAN LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE AVOIDING SOME OF THE PERCENT OF THAT IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT ABSOLUTELY NEEDS TO BE DONE.

AND NOT BEING AN ENGINEER, SO WHEN YOU MEAN THAT IT IMPACTS YOUR FOUNDATION, WHAT EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE.

SO JUST THE MOISTURE CONTENT ALONG THE BUILDING IS NOT TYPICALLY A GOOD PRACTICE.

TREES WILL TYPICALLY BE 10, 15 FEET AWAY, BUT SMALL SHRUBS AND PLANTINGS WE LIKE TO SEE THREE FEET AWAY. AND ADDITIONALLY, ALL OF OUR UTILITIES ENTER THE BUILDING ON THAT WEST SIDE AND SO AVOIDING UTILITY CONFLICTS ALONG THAT SIDE AS WELL.

[00:25:06]

MAY I ASK TO MS. MCMACHEN AND TO SPECIFY THIS IS IN REGARDS TO THE VARIANCE THAT IS FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT OR LANDSCAPE, NOT NECESSARILY THE PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER, IS THAT CORRECT.

THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO? YES.

OK, SO MY QUESTION WOULD BE REGARDING THE PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER AND IT IS SIMILAR TO WHAT MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER HAS JUST ASKED ABOUT THE BUILDING PERIMETER.

WHAT IS THE THE JUSTIFICATION OR I GUESS THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OF ADDING THAT BUFFER AT ALL, I'M REALLY HAVING A HARD TIME GETTING TO THAT WHY THAT 20 FEET IS NOT ABLE TO BE GRANTED. YOU'RE DIRECTING THAT TOWARDS ME AS THE 20 FOOT BUFFER WHY WE'RE NOT ABLE TO GET TO THAT 20 FEET, WHY WE'RE ONLY AT THREE POINT EIGHT FEET.

YEAH, A LITTLE BIT REPETITIVE ON THE FRONT YARD SETBACK THE SAME REASONINGS THERE.

NOT ONLY DO WE HAVE THIS ODD SHAPED LOT, BUT WE'RE ALSO A CORNER LOT BOUND BY NOT ONE BUT TWO FRONT YARD SETBACKS. SO NOT ONLY DO WE NEED THAT 20 FOOT BUFFER TO THE NORTH, WE ALWAYS NEED IT ON THE WEST AS WELL.

SO ON DAWN AVENUE, WHICH WE PROVIDE THAT 20 FOOT BUFFER ON DAWN AVENUE, WE'RE ABLE TO HAVE THE SITE CONFORM TO THAT.

AND SO, AGAIN, ALONG WITH THE LENGTH OF OUR BUILDING, WHICH WAS BOUND BY THE LENGTH OF A CONVEYER, SO EACH STEP IN THE CLEANING PROCESS OF THE CAR IS THE LENGTH OF THE BUILDING.

SO THAT COULDN'T BE REDUCED.

AND THEN, LIKE I SAID, WE REDUCE THE ENTRANCE AND EXIT TO THAT MINIMUM OF 30 FEET ON EACH SIDE AND THEN KIND OF SPLIT THE DIFFERENCE WITH GREEN SPACE TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH.

AND THAT'S HOW WE ENDED UP WITH THE THREE POINT EIGHT FOOT BUFFER.

ALL RIGHT, I THINK THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING THAT.

MEMBER HENDRICKSON AND ALSO I'M SORRY, MEMBER HENDRICKSON ONE SECOND.

MR. CHAPMAN, CAN YOU PULL UP THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN THAT YOU HAD THERE AGAIN SO I CAN MORE CLEARLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS.

YEAH, DID YOU WANT TO SEE THE ONE FOR THE FRONT YARD SETBACK OR THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER.

LET'S SEE THE ONE FOR THE FRONT YARD BACK? BECAUSE I'M STILL WE'RE. OK.

LET ME ZOOM IN. YEAH, THAT'D BE GREAT.

OK, I THINK OF ME BEING EXCUSE ME, OH, MY GOSH, I'M SO TONGUE TIED TODAY.

I THINK I'M BEGINNING TO UNDERSTAND.

SO IN GREEN IS WHERE THEIR PROPOSED THREE POINT EIGHT PERIMETER LANDSCAPE BUFFER IS, IS THAT CORRECT? SO THAT IS THE EXTENT OF THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER AND WHERE YOU HAVE MARKED THAT BLACK THERE IS WHERE GRAND RIVER AVENUE ACTUALLY.

IS THE ACTUAL ROAD.

IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.

YEP. AND THEN THERE'S A SIDEWALK AND THEN.

THIS ADDITIONAL GREEN SPACE, AND THEN THERE'S THE THREE POINT EIGHT BUFFER THERE.

ALL RIGHT, THAT VISUAL IS VERY HELPFUL.

WITH THAT, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO MEMBER HENDRICKSON I THINK HAD A COMMENT.

THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR. SO A COUPLE OF THINGS I WANTED TO COMMENT ON BASED ON THE DISCUSSION THAT HAS HAPPENED SINCE I FIRST SPOKE.

THE FIRST COMMENT WOULD BE TO TRUSTEE OPSOMMER'S POINT ABOUT THE FORM BASED CODE AND THE RIGHT OF WAY. SO, YOU KNOW, THE VERSION OF FORM BASED CODE THAT WE ARE TRANSMITTING TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD WOULD HAVE THE BUILDING ESSENTIALLY RIGHT UP AGAINST THE ROAD WITH SOME LANDSCAPE IN BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND GREEN SPACE.

BUT THE BUILDING WOULD BE MUCH CLOSER WITH PARKING BEHIND WHERE IT TO BE CONFORMING WITH THAT BASE CODE WITH THE TENANTS OF THE FORM BASE CODE ORDINANCE THAT'S PROPOSED.

I, UNFORTUNATELY WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WHEN THE PUBLIC HEARING OCCURRED ON THIS TOPIC AND GLEANED AS MUCH AS I COULD FROM THE RECORDING IN THE MINUTES OF THAT MEETING.

BUT WHAT HAS SORT OF STUCK IN MY CRAW ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST PROPOSAL.

WELL, FIRST OF ALL, IT'S HARD TO APPLY FORM BASE CODE TENANTS TO THIS SIMPLY BECAUSE IT'S NOT YET ORDINANCE.

ONE DAY IT WILL BE I'D LIKE APPLICANTS TO CONFORM TO IT KNOWING THAT IT'S COMING, BUT

[00:30:02]

THERE'S NO MECHANISM TO REQUIRE THEM TO.

BUT WHAT GETS ME ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL IS IF THE BUILDING WERE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, THERE WOULD BE ALMOST NO VARIANCES REQUIRED.

AND SO I FEEL LIKE A RETHINKING OF THE WAY THIS SITE IS LAID OUT WOULD SOLVE ALL THE PROBLEMS THAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO COME HERE TO TRY TO FIX.

AND IT'S LAUDABLE AND CERTAINLY ONE OF THE TOWNSHIPS GOALS TO REDUCE ACCESS POINTS TO AND FROM GRAND RIVER. AND I UNDERSTAND WHY WE WOULD WANT THAT.

AND YOU KNOW THAT THIS IS A SELLING POINT OF THE CURRENT DESIGN.

HOWEVER. YOU'RE ASKING US TO ESSENTIALLY BREAK THREE RULES FOR YOU HERE WITH THIS WITH THESE VARIANCE REQUESTS, AND GIVEN THAT YOU COULD SOLVE ALL THREE OF THEM SIMPLY BY MOVING THE BUILDING TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, TO THE LONG SIDE OF THE TRAPEZOID, I'M STRUGGLING WITH SEEING THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE IN THE JUSTIFICATION THAT YOU PROVIDED IN THE APPLICATION MATERIALS FOR THE VARIANCE REQUESTS THIS EVENING, YOU MADE AN EFFORT TO ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS AND ALMOST ALL OF THEM WERE SOME VARIATION ON THE SHAPE AND SIZE OF THE PARCEL IS ODD, EXCEPT THAT I'M LOOKING AT THIS AND I'M JUST SLIDING THAT BUILDING OVER TO THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AND SAYING IT'S NOT SO ODD THAT YOU COULDN'T HAVE FOUND A SOLUTION.

SO IT'S NOT REALLY ANY QUESTION UNLESS YOU HAVE SOME WAY TO RESPOND TO THAT AS TO WHY YOU DIDN'T PLACE THIS BUILDING ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, THEREBY ABSOLVING YOU OF ANY VARIANCE REQUESTS THAT WOULD HAVE BROUGHT YOU BEFORE US THIS EVENING.

YEAH, WE DID LOOK AT THAT LAYOUT.

IDEALLY, WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THE LONG EDGE OF THE BUILDING ON THE LONG EDGE OF THE PROPERTY. HOWEVER, THAT ACCESS OFF OF GRAND RIVER IT DOES NOT WORK WITH EXITING THE CAR WASH, THE SAFETY PULLING IN AND OUT OF GRAND RIVER, USING ONE ENTRANCE AND HAVING VEHICLES EXITING THIS CAR WASH AND NOT HAVING ANY STACKING WOULD BE A QUEUE STACKING UP AND BACK INTO THE CAR WASH OR VEHICLES ENTERING THE CAR WASH JUST WITH THE CIRCULATION OF HAVING TO GO THROUGH THE PAY STATIONS AND THROUGH THE CAR WASH AND LEAVE.

AND THEN HAVING THE BUILDING ON THE WEST SIDE ALSO PREVENTS US FROM HAVING ANY ACCESS ON DAWN AVENUE AS THE CURB CUT WOULD BE TO CLOSE TO GRAND RIVER.

SO THIS WAS OVERALL THE LAYOUT THAT WORKED FOR THIS USE.

UNDERSTAND, THOUGH, THAT IT MAY NOT BE THE LAYOUT THAT WORKS FOR THE TOWNSHIP AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE WRESTLING WITH HERE TODAY, OF COURSE.

AND THE OTHER THING ABOUT HAVING THE BUILDING ON THE WEST SIDE IS THAT IT'S UP ON THE CORNER. AND I KNOW PLANNING COMMISSION HAD STRESSED THAT PEOPLE ARE PULLING PAST THE CROSSWALK TO LOOK EAST DOWN GRAND RIVER TO TRY TO TURN.

THERE'S NO SITE CLEARANCE RIGHT NOW WITH LINE. I BELIEVE IT ACTUALLY ENCROACHES OFF THE PROPERTY LINE, BUT WE'RE CLEARING UP THAT SITE DISTANCE AS WELL.

SO IMPROVING SAFETY AND TRAFFIC IN MULTIPLE WAYS.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, ANYTHING ELSE, MEMBER HENDRICKSON, THAT WAS VERY HELPFUL.

OK, ANY OF OUR OTHER MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR SHOULD WE LIKE TO GET STARTED ON THESE CRITERIA? JUST AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, ARE YOU INTENDING TO LOOK AT THESE ON BLOCK, OR ARE YOU TURNING TO LOOK AT THIS ONE BY ONE? I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS ONE BY ONE, IF THAT'S OK WITH EVERYBODY.

I THINK THAT THAT MAKES THE MOST SENSE BECAUSE I THINK EACH ONE HAS ITS OWN KIND OF DIFFERENCES. SO, KEITH, I THINK WE'RE GOOD WITH THE MAP FOR NOW.

IS EVERYONE GOOD WITH THAT OR DO WE NEED THAT FOR ANOTHER MOMENT? I GUESS WE CAN ALWAYS REQUEST THAT, MR. CHAPMAN BRING THAT BACK UP. OK, LET'S DIG INTO THE VARIANCE CRITERIA AND WE WILL START WITH THE FRONT SET BACK.

AND I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE ALL OF THE INPUT, THE DISCUSSION ON THIS SO FAR, BECAUSE WHEN IT COMES TO FORM BASED CODE AND WHERE THIS DIRECT ACCESS TO THAT INFORMATION IN THE SAME WAY THAT MEMBER, HENDRICKSON, AND TRUSTEE OPSOMMER HAVE. SO I DO DEFINITELY APPRECIATE YOU GIVING US THAT INFORMATION AND KIND OF AS AN OVERVIEW TO CONSIDER.

AND AGAIN, I WILL STRESS THAT AS MUCH AS WE DO CONSIDER THOSE THINGS, WE ALSO VERY MUCH

[00:35:04]

NEED TO STICK TO OUR CRITERIA AND TRY TO MEET THAT CRITERIA BASED ON THIS THIS CASE IN PARTICULAR. SO THAT BEING SAID, OUR FIRST CRITERIA IS UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST THAT ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND OR STRUCTURE, THAT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LAND OR STRUCTURES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.

AND THIS IS IN REGARDS TO THE FRONT SET BACK.

I WILL SAY THAT I DO BELIEVE THAT WE ARE IN A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE WITH THIS PARCEL.

IT JUST AS IT IS RIGHT NOW, I THINK IT IS A UNIQUE PARCEL WE HAVE THE THE DOUBLE FRONTAGE AND SEVERAL OTHER ISSUES THAT THIS PROPERTY HAS SEEMED TO BRING UP A FEW TIMES FOR THE ZBA, ANYTHING ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THAT OR YES MEMBER HENDRICKSON.

I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS IS A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE.

I DON'T. EVERY OTHER PROPERTY IN THE AREA HAS FRONTAGE ON GRAND RIVER, EVERY OTHER WELL, MANY OF THE OTHER BUILDINGS, ESPECIALLY AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH AND AS THEY'RE BEING REDEVELOPED, HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING UNIQUE ABOUT THIS PARCEL.

IF TUFFY ACROSS THE STREET, CAN FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET 100 FEET BACK FROM GRAND RIVER, I THINK, AS DEMONSTRATED BY LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN.

THERE IS A WAY TO BUILD A BUILDING THAT'S ONE HUNDRED FEET BACK FROM THE ROAD.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING UNIQUE ABOUT THIS PARCEL.

OK. TRUSTEE OPSOMMER.

I WOULD CONCUR WITH MEMBER HENDRICKSON ON IT NOT BEING UNIQUE, AND I WOULD JUST ADD THAT THE LENGTH NORTH SOUTH OF THIS PROPOSED CAR WASH IS, ONE HUNDRED AND FIVE FEET AND CHANGE, WHICH IS A RATHER LONG CAR WASH.

SO THE SITE CONDITIONS THEY ARE TRYING TO PACK IN THIS PARTICULAR USE INTO THE SITE.

IF YOU VISIT ANY GAS STATIONS FREQUENTLY HAVE 40 OR 50 FOOT CAR WASHES.

SO HAVING A SMALLER USE, I MEAN, PAUL REVERE'S WAS A SMALL TAVERN ON A SMALL PARCEL.

SO, I MEAN, YOU HAVE TO CONFORM WITH THE SCALE OF YOUR FACILITY RELATIVE TO THE PARCEL SIZE. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU BOTH, I APPRECIATE THAT AND I DEFINITELY HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

I THINK WHERE I'M FINALLY UNIQUENESS IN THIS PARCEL IS THE THE GRAND RIVER AND THE DAWN AVENUE ENTRANCES AND CURB CUTS THERE THAT I'M FINDING TO BE UNIQUE VERSUS ANYWHERE ELSE IN THAT DIRECT CORRIDOR OTHER THAN THE TUFFY, I'D BE CURIOUS TO SEE IF THE TUFFY DOES MEET THAT ONE HUNDRED FOOT SET BACK BECAUSE IT SEEMS RELATIVELY CLOSE TO THE ROAD, BUT THAT'S NEITHER HERE NOR THERE, CONSIDERING THAT'S NOT THE CASE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

BUT I MEAN, IF WE AS A WHOLE, IF WE CANNOT GET PAST THE FIRST CRITERIA, WE ARE A SUNK SHIP AS FAR AS PASSING THAT THAT FIRST VARIANCE.

SO THAT SAID, I THINK WE WILL TAKE THE TEMPERATURE AND SEE IF WE ARE ALL IN AGREEMENT OR DISAGREEMENT ON WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE.

SO I'D LOVE TO HEAR FROM DON AND MONIQUE.

WHAT ARE YOUR TAKES ON THIS SCENARIO.

I CAN HONESTLY GO EITHER WAY ON THAT ONE, I THINK, THOUGH, WHERE I'M GOING TO GET HUNG UP IS WHERE WE WE ALWAYS GET HUNG UP AND THAT'S ON NUMBER FOUR.

SO IT AT LEAST AS I'M HEARING IT.

IT DOES NOT SOUND LIKE WE'RE GOING VERY WELL TO A POSITIVE DIRECTION.

SO I HAVE A QUESTION IF I COULD ASK OF MS. MCMACHEN.

GOT IT. BEFORE WE FINISH GOING THROUGH ALL OF THESE VARIANCES.

AND IT DOES GO BACK TO I THINK WHAT MEMBER HENDRICKSON HAS ASKED, WHAT CHAIRMAN MANSOUR HAS ASKED AND SOME OF WHAT I WAS GETTING AT, AS WELL AS TRUSTEE OPSOMMER.

AND IT KIND OF GOES BACK TO THE DESIGN OF THE FACILITY.

AND SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO BACK AND REDESIGN THIS

[00:40:07]

FACILITY? I KNOW YOU SAID YOU LOOKED AT MOVING IT TOWARDS THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. I BELIEVE TRUSTEE OPSOMMER MENTIONED THAT PERHAPS MAKING IT A SMALLER FOOTPRINT COULD HELP.

AND I ASK THIS BECAUSE, LIKE I MENTIONED IF WE'RE HAVING PROBLEMS AT NUMBER ONE AND I ALREADY KNOW I HAVE A PROBLEM AT NUMBER FOUR AND WE ARE TASKED WITH HAVING A UNANIMOUS VOTE ON ALL EIGHT OF THESE CRITERIA, WE'RE NOT HEADED THAT DIRECTION.

SO THE OPPORTUNITY THEN IS TO SEE IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN BRING BACK WITH A DIFFERENT DESIGN THAT EITHER DOES NOT REQUIRE ALL THREE VARIANCES OR MAYBE NOT AS MANY VARIANCES. I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.

PERHAPS YOU DO.

YEAH, WE DID LOOK AT, LIKE I SAID, ALTERNATE LAYOUTS.

IDEALLY, WE WOULD HAVE LOVED AVOIDED EVEN COMING TO ZBA IN THE FIRST PLACE.

TIMELINE IS ALWAYS HUGE ON PROJECTS.

WE LOOKED LIKE I SAID ABOUT PUTTING IT ON THAT WESTERN SIDE AND THE CONFLICT THERE AGAIN IS TRAFFIC AND IT IS 15 REQUIRED STACKING SPACES BEFORE ENTERING THE CARWASH.

THAT'S UNACHIEVABLE IF WE GO WITH THAT ROUTE AS WELL.

THIS LAYOUT PROVIDED THE FURTHEST SETBACK, AS WELL AS MEETING AS MANY OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE CRITERIA AS WE COULD WITH THE SHAPE OF THIS PARCEL.

WE ALREADY ARE AT A MINIMUM, WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S TYPICAL TO A CAR WASH TENANT, THE LENGTH, THE ENTRANCE, THE EXIT, THE NUMBER OF VACUUMS, EVERYTHING IS ALL AT A MINIMUM.

DRIVE AISLES.

EVERYTHING IS MORE OF A MINIMUM THAN WHAT WE WOULD TYPICALLY PROPOSE.

I APPRECIATE THAT, THANK YOU FOR THAT.

OK, SO THANK YOU, MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER AND MS. MCMACHEN.

I BELIEVE. MEMBER KULHANEK, HOW ABOUT YOU? HOW ABOUT WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS.

HI THERE. ABOUT UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES AND OR PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES? WE'LL START THERE BECAUSE I THINK THAT GOING FURTHER THAN THAT WOULD BE FRUSTRATING.

WELL, I THINK ALL THE MEMBERS HAVE GONE THROUGH.

I THINK WE ALL HAVE THE SAME CONCERNS.

AND HERE'S WHY I DON'T THINK THIS IS A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE EITHER.

I HEAR THE DISCUSSION REGARDING IT BEING A TRAPEZOIDAL PARCEL AND CERTAINLY WE COME ACROSS ODDLY SHAPED PARCELS.

BUT THIS IS ACTUALLY A PRETTY LARGE PARCEL.

A SURPRISINGLY LARGE PARCEL.

I'VE BEEN FLIPPING THROUGH MY PACKET AND I DON'T SEE I KNOW IT'S IN HERE SOMEWHERE, BUT AND AS OTHER MEMBERS HAVE POINTED OUT, IT JUST IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S OTHER WAYS THAT THIS FACILITY COULD BE ORIENTED OR MAYBE EVEN OTHER WAYS IT CAN BE SCOPED.

BUT THIS DOESN'T. IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM LIKE A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE BECAUSE THEY HAVE A LOT OF OPPORTUNITIES TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS THAT ARE COMING UP, THAT THE PROBLEMS THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR, THESE VARIANCES FOR.

SO, YOU KNOW, JUST GIVEN THE OVERALL SIZE OF THE PROPERTY.

AND SO FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I TEND TO AGREE THAT IT'S NOT UNIQUE.

AND, YES, I'LL PROBABLY HAVE FURTHER ISSUES WITH SOME OF THE OTHER CRITERIA IF WE WERE TO GET THIS IS REGARDING THE FIRST VARIANCE FOR THE FRONT SETBACK, I WOULD SAY IF WE CANNOT I MEAN, AT THIS MOMENT, I THINK I CAN PROBABLY STILL MEET UNIQUE CRITERIA.

I DO VERY MUCH APPRECIATE AND UNDERSTAND WHERE THE REST OF YOU ARE COMING FROM WITH THAT.

BUT THAT BEING SAID, IF IT'S NOT GOING TO MEET THAT FIRST CRITERIA, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS VARIANCE CAN MOVE FORWARD.

THAT SAID, I WILL GO THROUGH THE OTHER JUST AS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE STILL DOING OUR DUE DILIGENCE AS A BOARD.

THE SECOND CRITERIA IS THESE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SELF CREATED.

THAT IS ONE THAT I ACTUALLY HAVE THE BIGGER PROBLEM WITH HERE, BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE THAT AS A SITE TO BE ABLE TO REIMAGINE THE SITE, THIS IS NOW CREATING AN ISSUE BASED ON THIS DESIGN AND THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSED PLAN.

THESE ARE CREATING THERE ARE SOME CREATIVE ISSUES GOING FORWARD AS FAR AS THESE VARIANCES

[00:45:04]

ARE CONCERNED. YES, WE HAVE THE UNIQUENESS OF THIS PARCEL, IN MY OPINION.

HOWEVER, WHEN IT COMES TO THE FRONT SETBACK, WE'VE DISCUSSED AT LENGTH WAYS THAT THEY HAVE DESIGNED THIS PROPERTY AT THIS MOMENT IN THIS PLAN THAT I DON'T BELIEVE GET INTO PREEXISTING. I BELIEVE IT IS SELF CREATED.

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

AGAIN, I THINK THAT MEMBER HENDRICKSON PROBABLY SAID IT BEST, SAYING THAT THERE ARE MANY PARCELS THAT EXIST IN OUR TOWNSHIP THAT ARE ABLE TO MEET THESE CRITERIA AND ABLE TO MEET THESE SETBACKS THAT ARE ALSO ABLE THAT AS WE MOVE FORWARD TO MEET THE LANDSCAPING AND PERIMETER LANDSCAPING ORDINANCES AND THEREFORE, I'M NOT SEEING HOW NOT MEETING THOSE TERMS AND PROVISIONS WOULD RESULT IN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.

ANYBODY, ANYTHING THAT ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES OR FURTHER CRITERIA FOUR, THAT THE ALLEGED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES WHICH WILL RESULT FROM A FAILURE TO GRANT THE VARIANCE, WOULD UNREASONABLY PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR A PERMITTED PURPOSE. I THINK THAT THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF REALLY HELPFUL SUGGESTIONS HERE AS FAR AS WAYS THAT PERHAPS THIS SITE COULD HAVE BEEN REDESIGNED.

I DO HEAR AND ACKNOWLEDGE THE APPLICANT IN SAYING THAT THEY DID LOOK AT SEVERAL OTHER CONFIGURATIONS AND THAT THIS IS A MINIMUM.

HOWEVER, I'M SEEING.

IF I COMPARE IT TO A DIFFERENT EXISTING CAR WASH IN THE TOWNSHIP THAT HAS TWO VACUUMS AND A FULLY FUNCTIONAL CAR WASH, IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S POSSIBLE AND TO BE A MORE MINIMAL IMPACT AND A MORE MINIMAL SIZE IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE POSSIBLE.

ANYTHING THAT ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO ADD, I THINK MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER HAS ALREADY SAID THIS IS WHERE SHE GOT HUNG UP SO.

ALL RIGHT, I THINK THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD ADD THAT ALSO GETS TO YOUR POINT IS AT THE END OF THE DAY, THESE VARIANCES GO WITH THE PROPERTY.

AND SO JUST THINKING OF FUTURE USE IS KIND OF, YOU KNOW, THAT'S CONCERNING AS WELL.

SO I DEFINITELY WANT TO SAY I RESPECT AND DEFINITELY HEAR THE SAFETY CONCERNS THAT THE APPLICANT WAS TRYING TO ADDRESS AND THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY.

I JUST GO BACK TO AND AGAIN, I'M NOT AN ENGINEER, BUT I GO BACK TO YOUR POINT ABOUT THERE COULD BE SOME OTHER MINIMAL DESIGN THAT COULD GO INTO THIS THAT WOULD NOT IMPACT THE PROPERTY IN SUCH A WAY THAT SHOULD THIS BUSINESS LEAVE FOR ANY REASON, THAT WE NOW HAVE A VARIANCE THAT WE DID NOT NECESSARILY WANT TO BE IN THAT LOCATION.

I THINK THAT'S AN EXCELLENT POINT ABOUT THE LONGEVITY OF THESE VARIANCES, AND THEY'RE IN PERPETUITY STAYS WITH THE PROPERTY.

SO WE DO I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING TO CONSIDER AND THOUGHTFUL.

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

I THINK THAT'S ACTUALLY IN DIRECT RELATIONSHIP TO WHAT MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER WAS JUST SAYING. GRANTING THIS VARIANCE IN PERPETUITY FOR THIS PARCEL WOULD POTENTIALLY OPEN UP THE TOWNSHIP TO OTHER ISSUES DOWN THE LINE, AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT'S MINIMUM ACTION. I THINK THAT THERE IS POSSIBILITIES HERE.

I UNDERSTAND VERY MUCH WHAT THE APPLICANT WAS SAYING.

I JUST HOPE THAT THERE'S SOME OTHER THOUGHTS AND IDEAS THAT CAN GO INTO THIS PROPOSED PLAN. LET'S SEE, CRITERIA NUMBER SIX, GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND OR THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY AND.

I THINK WE'VE HAD SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS REGARDING THE FORM BASED CODE, THE POTENTIAL ADDITION OF SERVICE DRIVE AND THINGS, I KNOW WE CAN'T CONSIDER THOSE DIRECTLY, BUT I WILL

[00:50:01]

SAY THAT WHILE THIS IN PARTICULAR, THIS PARTICULAR DESIGN MAY NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE LAND AND ACTUALLY COULD IMPROVE THAT CORRIDOR AND THAT AREA THAT HAS HAD, YOU KNOW, THE VACANT PARCEL THERE FOR QUITE SOME TIME.

DOWN THE LINE, IT MAY CHANGE.

AND SINCE THIS LASTS WITH THE PARCEL I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER.

CRITERIA SEVEN 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.

I COULD MEET THAT I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S ANYTHING SO RECURRENT THAT WE WOULD NEED TO DISCUSS FURTHER WITH ANY OTHER BODIES.

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

THAT ONE I STRUGGLE WITH A LITTLE BIT, TOO.

SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE WITH THE CRITERIA FOR THIS VARIANCE NUMBER ONE.

I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM ANY OF YOU IF YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS GOING FORWARD WITH A MOTION OR IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GO INTO VARIANCE TWO AND THREE OR SEPARATELY OR IF YOU'D LIKE TO KIND OF COME BACK AND BRING THIS ALL TOGETHER.

BECAUSE I THINK IF WE'RE NOT ABLE TO MEET VARIANCE ONE WITH THE FRONT SETBACK.

THEN VARIANCE TWO AND THREE BECOME A LITTLE BIT LESS.

I WANT TO SAY LESS IMPORTANT I KNOW THAT THAT'S NOT A GOOD WAY TO DESCRIBE IT.

BUT YES, MEMBER HENDRICKSON.

THANK YOU, CHAIR MANSOUR. I THINK IF I COULD, I HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT.

AND I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THIS SINCE WE STARTED GOING THROUGH THE CRITERIA ONE BY ONE ON VARIANCE ONE, WHICH IS IF THE MAJORITY OF US DO NOT AGREE THAT UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST FOR THIS PARCEL, THAT IS TRUE FOR EVERY VARIANCE THAT WE WOULD CONSIDER ON THIS PARCEL, AT LEAST IN MY OPINION.

AND SO IF WE CAN'T GET TO A YES ON CRITERIA ONE FOR VARIANCE ONE, MY THOUGHT IS WE WON'T BE GETTING TO A YES ON CRITERIA ONE AND VARIANCE TWO AND THREE ALSO.

I WON'T PUT WORDS IN ANYONE'S MOUTH.

BUT THAT WOULD BE MY CONTENTION.

AND SO I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU SAID ON THE OTHER CRITERIA THAT WE WENT THROUGH.

I'M PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION IF IT'S SUITABLE AT THIS TIME TO DENY ALL THREE VARIANCES FOR FAILURE TO MEET THE UNIQUE CRITERIA, UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CRITERIA IN EACH CASE.

IF I MAY. IS THERE ANY OPPORTUNITY TO MAYBE TABLE OUR APPLICATION ALLOWING US TO GET ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND JUSTIFICATION TO BRING BACK TO YOU GUYS FOR ADDITIONAL REVIEW? WE'LL GO TO DIRECTOR SCHMITT.

SO I MY ADVICE TO THE BOARD IS THIS ANY TIME I HAVE EVER HAD AN APPLICANT MAKE THAT REQUEST, I HAVE ASKED THE BOARD TO GRANT IT, GIVE THEM AN ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE INFORMATION.

IT'S A GOOD PRACTICE TO FALL INTO.

TYPICALLY, I WILL SAY THAT I ALSO ONLY DO THAT ONCE YOU'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET SOME FEEDBACK AND WANT TO MAKE SOME CHANGES OR PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

THAT'S GREAT. BUT THAT'S A ONE TIME OPPORTUNITY.

AND THAT IS MY PROFESSIONAL ADVICE THAT I WOULD GIVE TO ANY BOARD I'M IN FRONT OF.

THANK YOU, DIRECTOR SCHMITT, WE APPRECIATE THAT AND I WOULD TEND TO AGREE AS CHAIR, I WOULD SAY THAT I THINK THAT THAT'S A FAIR WAY TO APPROACH THIS CASE.

I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO WHAT MEMBER HENDRICKSON WAS SAYING, AND THANK YOU FOR SUMMARIZING WHAT I WAS GETTING TO, WHICH WAS THAT THAT IF WE WERE NOT ABLE TO MEET IT FOR VARIANCE 1, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO REACH THE CRITERIA FOR VARIANCE TWO AND THREE.

THAT SAID, I AM VERY OPEN TO TABLING THIS AS NECESSARY IF THE OTHER MEMBERS WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. HOWEVER, I DO THINK WE HAVE SOME STRONG FEELINGS HERE ABOUT THIS.

SO I WOULD SAY THAT I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR A MOTION ON THAT IF SOMEBODY IS WILLING TO PUT THAT FORWARD, BUT ALSO PERHAPS GIVING A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION TO THE APPLICANT.

AS FAR AS WHAT I HOPE THAT THAT MS. MCMACHEN THAT YOU'VE HEARD KIND OF SOME OF THE CONCERNS AND ISSUES THAT WE SEEM TO BE

[00:55:01]

COMING THROUGH. AND I WILL SAY, AGAIN, EVEN JUST READING THROUGH THE PACKET MATERIALS, THAT A LOT OF THE ANSWERS TO THE DIFFERENT VARIANCE REQUESTS WERE THAT THE EXISTING PARCEL IS NON CONFORMING.

THEREFORE, WE'RE GOING TO BE LESS GRANTED THIS. AND I THINK THAT NOW, HAVING GONE THROUGH THIS PROCESS, YOU CAN PROBABLY SEE THAT WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE STRINGENT OF A REQUIREMENT AS FAR AS WHAT WE ARE INTERESTED IN SEEING, WHAT WE NEED TO HEAR ABOUT PLANNING, ABOUT NUMBERS, ABOUT PARKING SPACES, ABOUT CONFIGURATION, ABOUT THAT BUFFER AND THESE THINGS.

WE DO REALLY LOOK VERY CLOSELY AT THOSE THINGS.

SO I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION THERE FOR US TO BE ABLE TO REALLY DIG IN AND UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS FOR THIS DESIGN.

I THINK MEMBER HENDRICKSON WAS ITCHING UP THERE TO SAY SOMETHING.

SO I'M GOING TO TURN OVER TO HIM. GO AHEAD.

FIRST, I JUST THANK YOU.

I WANTED TO I'LL WITHDRAW MY MOTION TO DENY THE VARIANCE REQUESTS SO THAT WE CAN GIVE THE APPLICANT SOME MORE TIME TO CIRCLE THE WAGONS AND PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT THEY FEEL GERMANE.

I WILL SAY THAT IT'S GOING TO BE TOUGH TO COME UP WITH MORE INFORMATION THAT WILL MAKE THIS PARCEL MORE UNIQUE THAN IT CURRENTLY IS.

HOWEVER, YOU'RE WELCOME TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TRY TO DO SO.

AND WITH THAT, I'LL I'LL YIELD THE FLOOR.

TRUSTEE OPSOMMER. GO FOR IT.

THANK YOU CHAIR MANSOUR.

SO JUST IF WE'RE GOING TO GIVE THE APPLICANT MORE TIME, I DO JUST WANT TO POINT OUT FOR THE APPLICANT THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE TUFFY AUTO SITE, WHICH IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF DAWN AVENUE FROM YOU, YOUR PARCEL IS .88 ACRES THE PERSON ON THE OTHER SIDE OF DAWN AVENUE HAS THE SAME SHAPE, BUT IS ROUGHLY HALF THE SIZE OF YOURS.

IT'S PROBABLY SOMEWHERE BETWEEN .45 AND .5 ACRES.

JUST LOOKING AT THE PARCEL MAP.

SO AS IT RELATES TO CRITERIA ONE, THAT'S ONE THING THAT YOU SHOULD GIVE A LOT OF CONSIDERATION TO.

MY ONLY OTHER QUESTION FOR THE DEVELOPER WOULD BE AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS GERMANE TO ANY OF THE CRITERIA, BUT THIS PAUL REVERE SITE DOES HAVE A LOT OF MATURE TREES.

AND SO I'M CURIOUS IF GIVEN THE SETBACKS THAT YOU'RE REQUESTING, WHICH OF THE TREES WOULD BE CUT DOWN.

WE'RE MAINTAINING. SCREENING AROUND ALL FOUR SIDES TODAY WITH MATURE, YOU KNOW, CANOPY'S.

MS. MCMACHEN YOU CAN GO AHEAD.

YEAH, WE ARE MAINTAINING 10 OF THOSE MATURE TREES AND YOU KNOW, WE'LL HAVE TO TAKE ANOTHER LOOK, BUT THE MAJORITY OF THE TREES ARE REMAINING.

JUST A QUICK QUESTION.

WE WILL LOOK FOR MORE EVIDENCE AND JUSTIFICATION, MAYBE SOME COMMUNICATION WITH MDOT AS WELL. BUT IF WE WERE TO CHANGE ANYTHING WITH THIS LAYOUT, WOULD THAT REQUIRE GOING BACK THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION? I THINK THAT IS A QUESTION FOR DIRECTOR SCHMITT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IF WE TABLE IT HERE, THESE PARTICULAR VARIANCES, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO.

WELL, WE DID LOSE THE CHAIR, SO I WILL STEP INTO BRIEFLY.

MONIQUE IT'S YOUR TIME TO SHINE.

I WILL STEP IN TO BRIEFLY SAY THAT IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THE CHANGES ARE FUNDAMENTALLY.

WE'LL NEED TO SIT DOWN AND GO THROUGH THE CONVERSATION OF WHAT ARE WE CHANGING AS IT RELATES TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S PREVIOUS APPROVAL.

AND WE CAN MAKE A DETERMINATION THERE, CERTAINLY A POSSIBILITY THAT'S AN ENTIRELY ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE.

BUT WE CAN SIT DOWN AND HAVE THAT CONVERSATION MS. MCMACHEN. OKAY, THANK YOU.

AND THE CHAIR IS BACK.

YOU ARE ON MUTE.

THAT'S A REALLY EXCITING WAY TO DO OUR LAST ZOOM MEETING IS JUST FOR MY COMPUTER TO DIE IN MIDSENTENCE. OH, I'M SORRY THAT I MISSED YOUR RESPONSE DIRECTOR SCHMITT AND HOPEFULLY THAT ANSWERED MS.

[01:00:01]

MCMACHEN'S QUESTION. ALL RIGHT, THAT SAID, SINCE I DID MISS THAT.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION AT ALL REGARDING THE TABLING OF THIS DISCUSSION.

I WILL MOVE TO TABLE THIS ITEM.

SUPPORT. I'M SORRY.

I'M ON MY PHONE NOW, SO I CAN'T SEE EVERYBODY SO WHO OFFERED SUPPORT.

SUPPORTED BY MEMBER HENDRICKSON.

MEMBER HENDRICKSON. OK, GREAT.

OK, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO TABLE CASE NUMBER 21-06-23-1 EROP L.L.C..

THIS WOULD BE TO TABLE, ALL THREE VARIANCE REQUESTS TO A LATER DATE TO BE DETERMINED BY STAFF AS APPROPRIATE.

AND I WILL GO THROUGH MY VOTING LIST HERE.

MEMBER HENDRICKSON. YES.

MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER.

YES.

TRUSTEE OPSOMMER.

YES.

MEMBER KULHANEK.

YES.

AND THE CHAIR VOTES YES, SO YOUR VARIANCE REQUESTS HAVE BEEN TABLED FOR THE TIME BEING.

YOU WILL BE IN COMMUNICATION WITH MR. CHAPMAN AND DIRECTOR SCHMITT AS REGARDS TO SCHEDULING TO COME BACK TO THE HEARING WITH US. OKAY MS. MCMACHEN. OKAY GREAT.

THANK YOU, GUYS. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME TONIGHT.

ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU FOR COMING.

AND HOPEFULLY WE'LL BE ABLE TO TALK WITH YOU SOON IN PERSON WITHOUT ALL THE TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE IN THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK THIS EVENING SINCE WE HAVE NO OTHER NEW BUSINESS? AND WE WILL ALLOW A LITTLE BIT OF TIME FOR ANYBODY WHO MAY BE IN THE AUDIENCE TO CALL IN AS WELL. YOU HAVE NO TELEPHONE CALLS RINGING, MA'AM.

OK, ON THAT NOTE, THEN WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND GO INTO BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS. I WILL JUST LIKE TO SAY, AS IT SEEMS THAT WE

[9. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS]

ARE OFFICIALLY COMING TO A ZOOM CLOSE, JUST SUCH A FUN NOTE OF MY COMPUTER TONIGHT.

THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING SO INCREDIBLY AVAILABLE AND PATIENT WITH ALL OF THE TECHNICAL CHALLENGES OF THE PAST.

WHAT IS IT NOW, 13 OR 14 MONTHS WE'VE BEEN MEETING ON ZOOM.

I AM VERY IMPRESSED BY ALL OF MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS OUR ALTERNATE MEMBERS AND OUR COMMUNICATIONS, OUR STAFF MEMBERS, HOW FLEXIBLE WE'VE BEEN, HOW WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO KEEP DOING THE TOWNSHIP BUSINESS WITH THIS NEW TECHNOLOGY.

I'M JUST INCREDIBLY IMPRESSED.

SO AS MUCH AS I'M VERY MUCH LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING ALL OF YOU IN PERSON.

I AM GOING TO MISS OUR COZY LITTLE ZOOMS AND OUR LITTLE MISHAPS THAT KEEP THINGS FRESH AND FUNNY. BUT I REALLY RESPECT AND THANK ALL OF YOU FOR HANGING IN AND STAYING MEMBERS OF THE BOARD DURING THIS CHALLENGING TIME.

SO WITH THAT SAID, I WILL TURN OVER IF ANYBODY ELSE HAS BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS.

AND IF NOT, THEN WE ARE OFFICIALLY.

I GOT ONE. MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER HAS ONE.

FIELD-FOSTER THEN MEMBER HENDRICKSON.

ALL I WANTED TO DO WAS TO BASICALLY THANK YOU, CHAIR MANSOUR.

ABOUT YOUR AMAZING ABILITY TO BE BOTH FLEXIBLE, TO MANAGE ALL OF THESE CASES.

I MEAN THE COMMENTS THAT I HEAR FROM PEOPLE THAT I KNOW THAT WATCH THIS, THEY ABSOLUTELY LOVE YOU. AND, YOU KNOW, JUST YOUR YOUR OPENNESS, YOUR TRANSPARENCY, YOUR ABILITY TO CONNECT WITH THE APPLICANTS AND JUST REALLY HEAR THEM OUT.

SO I WANT TO DEFINITELY LET YOU KNOW THAT YOU HAVE DONE AN AMAZING JOB THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE PANDEMIC, KEEPING ALL OF US ON TRACK, GETTING THE INFORMATION GOING THROUGH ALL OF THE CRITERIA WHEN YOU HAVE SILENCE FROM THE REST OF US.

SO I JUST WANT TO OFFER MY THANKS IN THAT.

THANK YOU THAT MEANS SO MUCH.

THAT'S THAT'S REALLY LOVELY, CONSIDERING THAT THIS HAS BEEN MY ENTIRE EXPERIENCE AS A CHAIR HAS BEEN ON ZOOM.

SO I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. MEMBER HENDRICKSON.

WE LOST HIM IN LIKE THE COOL POSE THERE.

OH, BOY. OH, SEE, IT'S NOT JUST MY INTERNET.

[01:05:06]

NO, MEMBER HENDRICKSON IS, IN FACT, FROZEN UP ON US.

OK? OH, NO.

WHERE DID HE GO. HE'S GOT LIKE THE SEAN CONNERY POSE GOING? OH, MY GOSH.

OK, NOW I GOT FLIP THROUGH AND SEE THIS.

OK, THERE HE IS.

OK, NOW WE CAN SEE YOU SCOTT.

ALL RIGHT, I'M GOING TO GET THIS OUT QUICK BEFORE I FREEZE AND DROP AGAIN.

WHAT SHE SAID TO MONIQUE'S COMMENTS.

ALSO, I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING DON'S FACE.

I KNOW RIGHT.

THAT'S GOING TO BE SO EXCITING.

I KNOW.

EVERYBODY HAS TO GET A LIFE.

WELL, THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH.

THIS ZOOM HAS BEEN A VERY INTERESTING ROAD WE HAVE TRAVELED TOGETHER, BUT I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING YOU ALL IN PERSON. KEITH DO WE HAVE A CASE COMING UP IN JULY.

I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANYTHING FOR THE FIRST MEETING, BUT POTENTIALLY THE SECOND MEETING.

ALL RIGHT. CHAIR MANSOUR, YOU ARE ON MUTE.

I WON'T BE HERE FOR THAT FIRST MEETING IN JULY, SO FINGERS CROSSED, I DON'T MISS OUR FIRST IN-PERSON MEETING.

NOT THAT I WANT TO SEE ALL OF YOU, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE ALL OF YOU.

ALL RIGHT. ON THAT NOTE.

I APPRECIATE YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT.

AND THE MEETING IS OFFICIALLY ADJOURNED.

THANK YOU. GOODBYE FROM ZOOM FOR THE LAST TIME.

YES GOODBYE ZOOM. BYE EVERYONE.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.