[00:00:28]
NOT HAVING BEEN A PART OF THE MEETING LAST WEEK. I AM A BIT SHOCKED.
>> YOU REALIZE I WASN'T EITHER.
>> I KNOW. I'M JUST SAYING I'M READING THROUGH THE MINUTES, I'M A BIT SHOCKED THAT THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE LAND DIDN'T GET THEM AGAIN BECAUSE THAT WAS MY PROBLEM WITH THEIR CAR WASH SITE.
[OVERLAPPING] THE FIRST TIME AROUND IS THAT THERE WAS NOTHING UNIQUE ABOUT THAT PROPERTY.
>> THEY BOUGHT THE PROPERTY SINCE THEY [OVERLAPPING] WERE HERE LAST. [NOISE]
>> WELL, THEY GOT YOU, THEY GOT ME OFF OF THE ROSTER THAT DAY AND [OVERLAPPING] THERE YOU GO.
GOT RID OF THE DIFFICULT PEOPLE.
>> ALTHOUGH I'M USUALLY TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO DO IT.
I DO MY BEST TO TRY AND FIGURE OUT A WAY TO DO IT.
>> YOU KNOW WHAT'S FUNNY IS, I TALKED TO TRUSTEE EISENMANN.
>> WAIT A MINUTE, [NOISE] IT'S 6:30, WHAT DO WE DO?
>> I WOULD NOT CALL IT TO ORDER BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A QUORUM.
>> YEAH, WE DON'T HAVE A QUORUM.
>> GIVE HIM AN EXTRA MINUTE OR SO.
>> OKAY. BECAUSE I WAS LIKE,[OVERLAPPING] I JUST WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT IS 6:30 AND WE DON'T HAVE A QUORUM.
>> WE MIGHT FIND OURSELVES ON HOME TV.
>> I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T SEE ANY RED LIGHTS, SO I THINK WE'RE PROBABLY OKAY.
>> NO, I WAS JUST SAYING I TALKED TO TRUSTEE EISENMANN WHEN I FIRST GOT APPOINTED TO THIS BOARD, AND HE SAID, "OH ZBA, THEY'RE THE ONES WHO SAY NO TO EVERYTHING."
>> ARE SUPPOSED TO [OVERLAPPING] BE A RIGID ADHERENCE TO THE CODE AND DON'T GIVE VARIANCES UP.
BUT MY EXPERIENCE HERE HAS BEEN 100 PERCENT THE OPPOSITE.
>> I FEEL LIKE I'M THE ONE WHO'S CONSTANTLY EXTRA SKEPTICAL.
>> I THINK THAT'S BECAUSE BRIAN.
>> THE WAY HE RAN HIS MEETING, YOU COULD TELL HE REALLY DID TRY TO FIGURE OUT.
HE WAS LIKE, "CAN WE DO THIS?" IF WE CAN FIGURE OUT A WAY TO DO IT, WE WOULD DO IT.
IF NOT, THEN YOU KNEW THAT IT WAS LIKE THIS.
>> I WAS WONDERING BECAUSE THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE JUDICIAL BODY.
>> HOW MUCH LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH WE'RE DOING IN SOME OF THESE MEETINGS.
[NOISE] IF SOMEONE TOOK THE TIME TO GO BACK AND DIG INTO THE PRECEDENT THAT HAVE BEEN SET THROUGH SOME OF THESE CASES, THERE REALLY WOULD BE PRECEDENT FOR QUITE A FEW THINGS.
>> IT COULD BE BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE CASE LAW SURROUNDING SOME OF THE VA DECISIONS AND OTHER TOWNSHIPS ARE BEING.
I MEAN, SOME OF THE DECISIONS THAT THEY DO, YOU'RE LIKE, OKAY, WE'RE CONSISTENT. [NOISE]
>> EVEN SOME OF THE STUFF THEY AGREED TO, I WAS LIKE, "HUH? REALLY?"
>> YOU CAN'T BE CAPRICIOUS IN THE EARLY DECISION-MAKING, THAT'S FOR SURE. [NOISE]
>> WHICH I REMEMBER IS ALWAYS WHY WE GO THROUGH EACH ONE OF THESE AND GIVE OUR REASONING BEHIND THEM.
>> IF IT COMES UP, YOU KNOW WHY WE DID IT.
>> I DIDN'T DO IT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'VE KNOWN THAT THERE WERE ONLY SUPPOSED TO BE FOUR, I'D PUSHED BACK A LONG TIME AGO.
>> I THINK FIVE IS PRETTY STANDARD.
>> HOW DO WE TURN THAT? [LAUGHTER]
>> ARE YOU HERE FOR STATE FARM?
>> NO, I'M HERE FOR 5680 MARSH ROAD.
>> WE'RE SORRY, WE DON'T HAVE A QUORUM YET.
>> WE DON'T HAVE A QUORUM YET, THAT'S WHY WE'RE [OVERLAPPING].
[00:05:02]
>> THAT'S WHY WE'RE JUST [LAUGHTER] [NOISE] CHATTING.
>> DOES THAT MEAN YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO APPROVE IT?
>> NO, WE WON'T BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING UNTIL WE HAVE A QUORUM.
WE KNOW WE'VE GOT AT LEAST ONE MEMBER WHO IS ON THEIR WAY.
>> THEIR MEETING WAS AT 6:00 LOOKS LIKE.
HOW LONG THOSE MEETINGS USUALLY RUN? DO YOU KNOW?
>> OVER AT THE SERVICE CENTER.
>> OH, THE REALLY COOL BUILDING.
>> GOT IT. THAT'S WHERE DOES THE CIA MEETINGS.
>> WHAT? [NOISE] THAT DOESN'T SOUND PROMISING.
>> THEY'VE ONLY MET TWICE IN THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF. IS THAT POSSIBLE?
>> THEIR LAST ONE WENT UNTIL 8:02.
>> THE PREVIOUS ONE WENT TO 7:10.
>> THEY MIGHT HAVE MOVED THEIR QUARTER IMPROVEMENT BECAUSE WHEN I WAS THERE, IT WAS AT THE FIRE STATION.
>> I DON'T KNOW. IS THAT NOT THE SAME [OVERLAPPING]?
>> RIGHT NOW, BUT THEY MEET AT THE FIRE STATION.
>> NO, WE'RE ASKING IS THE SERVICE [OVERLAPPING].
>> SERVICE CENTER'S BACK FURTHER THAN THE FIRE STATION?
>> THE FIRE STATION'S UP HERE.
>> WHERE AM I? THE ONE [OVERLAPPING].
>> ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MALL.
>> YEAH. THE ONE OVER THERE? OKAY.
>> IT'S BACK BY INTO THE NANCY MOORE DRIVEWAY ALMOST.
>> ALL RIGHT. BACK OVER BY THE PARK.
>> DID THEY END UP PURCHASING THAT LAND JUST NORTH OF THE DRIVEWAY TO THE NANCY MOORE?
>> IS THE INTENT TO HAVE A MORE STRAIGHT ACCESS ROADS, SO YOU'RE NOT CURVING AROUND ONTO THAT ROAD?
>> THEY HAVEN'T REALLY GIVEN OTHER DETAILS TO ANYONE BUT THEY WANT TO SEPARATE [INAUDIBLE].
>> NOT DROPPING BY SALT TRUCKS.
>> YOU'RE DRIVING AND YOU'RE LIKE, "WHERE DO I GO? WHERE DO I PARK?"
>> I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO DO [INAUDIBLE].
>> ARE WE STILL ON TRACK FOR VILLAGE VOCALISTS THIS FALL?
>> OH MY GOSH, THAT HAS BEEN BLOWING UP ON NEXT DOOR HOUR.
THAT IS JUST LIKE EVERY TIME I OPEN UP THAT APP, THERE'S SOMETHING THAT SOMEBODY'S POSTED.
>> I KNOW THAT AMBER ARE WORKING HARD TO GET INFORMATION OUT.
YOU NEVER KNOW THESE THINGS CHANGE [INAUDIBLE].
[00:10:32]
SIX HUNDRED AND THIRTY NINE WE'LL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.[Items 1 & 2]
FIRST OF ALL, I'M JUST GOING TO SAY I'M HUMBLY STEPPING INTO THE SHOES OF CHAIRMAN ALEXIA MANSOUR.PLEASE I APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE FOR ANY MISSTEPS.
WITH THAT, CAN I GET A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA.
>> ROLL CALL VOTE. MEMBER HENDRICKSON?
>> THE CHAIR VOTES AYE AS WELL.
[3. CORRECTIONS, APPROVAL AND RATIFICATION OF MINUTES]
NEXT IS THE CORRECTIONS, APPROVAL, AND RATIFICATION OF THE MINUTES, AND I GET A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.>> CHAIR FIELD-FOSTER VOTES AYE AS WELL.
DO WE HAVE ANY COMMUNICATIONS?
>> SEEING NONE, WE'LL GO TO UNFINISHED BUSINESS.
IS THERE ANY UNFINISHED BUSINESS? THEN THAT MOVES US ON TO NEW BUSINESS AND WE HAVE ZBA,
[6.A. ZBA CASE NO. 21-08-25-1 (5680 Marsh LLC), 5680 Marsh Road, Haslett, MI, 48840]
CASE NUMBER 21-08-25-1 (568 MARSH LLC), 5680 MARSH ROAD, HASLETT, MICHIGAN 48840.MR. CHAPMAN, WOULD YOU GIVE US THE BACKGROUND.
>> GOOD EVENING. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING VARIANCES FROM SECTION 866863D.
THE FREESTANDING SIGN SHALL NOT BE LOCATED WITHIN 20 FEET OF THE INTERSECTION OF ACCESS DRIVES AND THE STREET DRIVEWAY LINE.
THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO INSTALL A 25 SQUARE FOOT, SIX FOOT TALL FREESTANDING SIGN AT 5680 MARSH ROAD.
THE PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 0.3 ACRES IN SIZE IN ZONE PO, PROFESSIONAL OFFICE.
CURRENTLY ON SITE THERE'S AN EXISTING 2884 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1985.
THERE'S TWO TENANTS THAT OCCUPY THE BUILDING, EAST SIDE TAX AND ACCOUNTING AND STATE FARM.
THE APPLICANT IS LOOKING TO REPLACE A FREESTANDING SIGN THAT WAS DESTROYED IN AN ACCIDENT EARLIER THIS YEAR.
THIS NEW SIGN WILL BE EXCLUSIVELY FOR STATE FARM.
[NOISE] ALSO, TO NOTE, AT THIS TIME, THERE'S NO ADDRESS SHOWN ON THE PROPOSED SIGN, AND PER OUR ORDINANCE, THREE SQUARE FEET NEEDS TO BE ADDED FOR THE ADDRESS.
SECTION 866863D SAYS THAT THE FREESTANDING SIGN SHALL NOT BE LOCATED WITHIN 20 FEET OF THE INTERSECTION OF THE ACCESS DRIVE AND STREET DRIVEWAY LINE.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO INSTALL THE FREESTANDING SIGN APPROXIMATELY FIVE FEET FROM THE INTERSECTION OF ACCESS DRIVE AND THE STREET DRIVEWAY, THEREFORE, REQUESTING A 15 FOOT VARIANCE.
>> IS THE APPLICANT HERE, WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK?
>> PLEASE COME UP TO THE PODIUM.
STATE YOUR NAME AND PROVIDE YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
THE ADDRESS IS 5680 MARSH ROAD, HASLETT, MICHIGAN.
>> AS INDICATED, I'M REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO REPLACE A SIGN THAT WAS DESTROYED BY AN AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT.
THE SIGN IS ABOUT 12 FEET FROM THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY TOWARDS THE STREET AND THERE'S FIVE FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF THE SIGN AS FAR AS CLEARANCE FROM THE DRIVEWAY AND THE PARKING LOT, AND ABOUT SIX FEET AND TOWARDS THE BUILDING FROM THE PARKING LOT.
THE ACTUAL SIGN THAT I'M REQUESTING TO REPLACE WAS 50 INCHES BY ESSENTIALLY THREE FEET.
I'M ONLY REQUESTING THAT WE REPLACE THAT.
IT'S ONLY GOING TO BE ABOUT 12 SQUARE FEET PLUS THE ADDRESS WHICH I'LL HAVE TO ADD PER THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
ONE OF THE ISSUES IS SITE CLEARANCE AND THAT STUFF.
[00:15:03]
I DO HAVE PICTURES THAT REPRESENT THE SITE CLEARANCE AND ANYBODY COMING IN TO THE DRIVEWAY OR GOING OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY IS WELL BEYOND THE SIGN, AS FAR AS A SITE CLEARANCE WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A PROBLEM.THE MAJOR PROBLEM IS AS FAR AS SITE CLEARANCE GOES, IS THE UTILITY POLE THAT'S RIGHT NEXT TO THE DRIVEWAY.
BUT YOU'RE PROBABLY AT LEAST 10 FEET BEYOND THE OUTER EDGE OF THE SIGN WHEN YOU COME IN OR GO OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY.
I'D LIKE THE VARIANCE SO I CAN REPLACE THE SIGN, IF YOU PLEASE.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER? SEEING NONE, WE'LL GO TO BOARD TIME.
ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS BOARD MEMBERS WOULD LIKE TO MAKE? TRUSTEE OPSOMMER.
THIS SEEMS LIKE A FAIRLY COMMON VARIANCE REQUEST, JUST BASED ON LOOKING AT NEIGHBORING SITES LIKE THE ANIMAL HOSPITAL CLEARLY HAS A VARIANCE FOR THIS.
THEN GOING UP TO THE EYE DOCTOR CLINIC THAT WAS BUILT ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO, THAT WOULD HAVE NEEDED A NEARLY IDENTICAL BUT POSSIBLY LESS THAN 10 FEET VARIANCE. IS THAT TRUE?
>> YES. I THINK I DIDN'T LOOK UP THE ANIMAL HOSPITAL, BUT I'M ASSUMING THEY HAD A VARIANCE, THE EYE DOCTOR.
>> IT'S IN THERE, A BUMP OUT, JUST THE SAME AS THIS ONE ISN'T A BUMP OUT IN THERE, PROBABLY 40 FEET AWAY.
THE EYE DOCTOR IS A SET BACK A LITTLE BIT FURTHER, BUT THERE'S NO WAY IT'S 20 FEET.
>> THEY COULD HAVE JUST REFACED THE EXISTING SIGN.
IF THIS SIGN WEREN'T DESTROYED, HE COULD HAVE JUST REFACED THE SIGN AND AS IS, THEN THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN FINE.
BUT SINCE IT WAS DESTROYED, THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.
>> THE PROPERTY DIDN'T HAVE A VARIANCE PREVIOUS BECAUSE IT WOULD STAY WITH THE PROPERTY AND HE COULD HAVE PUT THE SIGN IN, SO THE SIGN PREDATES WHATEVER THE CODE OF ORDINANCES?
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MEMBER HENDRICKSON.
>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. [NOISE] IN LOOKING AT THIS, I THINK THAT TO ME, THIS VARIANCE REQUEST MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.
WE'LL GO THROUGH THE CRITERIA IN A MINUTE, BUT ON ITS FACE, JUST LOOKING AT IT FROM A LOGICAL PERSPECTIVE, I THINK THE APPLICANT SUMS IT UP BEST IN THEIR RESPONSE TO CRITERIA NUMBER, 1 WHICH IS SET BACK CRITERIA WOULD PLACE THIS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PARKING LOT.
HE'S RIGHT. THERE'S REALLY NO OTHER PLACE FOR A SIGN ON THIS PROPERTY TO GO WITHOUT HAVING US THIS SOLUTION BE FAR MORE COMPLICATED.
WE'LL EVENTUALLY START TALKING ABOUT MINIMUM ACTIONS [NOISE] TO RECTIFY THIS SITUATION.
THIS TO ME FEELS LIKE A KNOCKOUT.
I'M INTERESTED TO SEE HOW THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS FEEL ABOUT THE CRITERIA AS WE GO THROUGH THEM, BUT GENERALLY, I FEEL LIKE I WOULD LIKELY TO SUPPORT THIS VARIANCE.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS THIS TIME? I WOULD AGREE WITH MEMBER HENDRICKSON.
I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR YOU MR. JOHNSON, IS THE SIGN GOING IN THE EXACT SAME LOCATION?
>> IT IS, YES AND IT'LL BE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME DIMENSIONS.
I JUST DIDN'T TEND TO REPLACE WHAT WAS THERE ORIGINALLY WITH THE ADDITION OF THE BANNER THAT GIVES THE ADDRESS OF THE PROPERTY.
>> OKAY. WELL, I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR YOU, SO IF YOU'D LIKE TO TAKE A SEAT WHILE WE GO THROUGH OUR CRITERIA, UNLESS YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO ADD?
>> [NOISE] I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF, WHICH IS, IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THIS SIGN IS THE OLD SIGN.
MAYBE YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I'VE GOT THE INFORMATION WRONG.
REFERENCE BOTH BUSINESSES THAT WERE PRESENT IN THAT. IS THAT ACCURATE?
>> I BELIEVE IT WAS JUST FOR THE EAST SIDE.
>> IT WAS JUST FOR STATE FARM.
>> IT WAS JUST FOR STATE FARM. THE PREVIOUS ONE?
>> YEAH. I'M LOOKING AT THE GOOGLE THE STREET VIEW.
IT'S YOUR STATE FARM. I CAN CONFIRM.
>> I CAN LOOK AT THE OLD SIGN.
[LAUGHTER] I GUESS MY MY FUTURE-LOOKING QUESTION IS, ARE WE GOING TO RUN INTO AN ISSUE DOWN THE ROAD WHERE THE OTHER BUSINESS
[00:20:01]
IN THIS PLAZA IS MEETING A SIGN AS WELL, AND HOW WOULD WE ADDRESS THAT? IF WE WERE TO NEED TO.>> THEY WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE ABLE TO ADD TO THIS SIGN. THAT WOULD BE IT.
>> DO WE REQUIRE A VARIANCE FOR THAT OR THEY WOULD JUST BE ABLE TO DO THAT?
>> THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO REFACE IT.
HE COULD DO REFACE IT IF THEY NEEDED TO.
>> WITH THE CONTENT-NEUTRAL NATURE OF THE VARIANCE IS YOU CAN PUT OUR SIGN, HERE.
>> BUT ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT CURRENTLY THE DESIGN OF THE SIGN WILL HAVE ONE THING ON IT AND SHOULD AT SOME POINT DOWN THE ROAD THEY DESIRE TO PUT BOTH BUSINESSES ON THERE.
THEY WOULD ESSENTIALLY HAVE TO READ AS REFACE THE SIGN WITH THE BOTH OF THEM EITHER, THEY COULDN'T ADD TO THE TOP OF THE SIGN. [OVERLAPPING]
>> YOU'RE RIGHT KEEPING SAME DIMENSIONS THAT ARE THERE.
>> JUST A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION TO THAT THEN.
SO THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE SOMETHING THEY WOULD WORK OUT WITH EACH OTHER AS FAR AS THE DIMENSIONS OF THE SIGN OR AT LEAST THE SIZE OF THE FONT THAT IS PLACED ON THE SIGN IF THERE WERE TWO BUSINESSES ON IT?
>> I DON'T BELIEVE THEY'RE MAXIMIZING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE SIGN AND THEY WOULD HAVE A VARIANCE, SO THEY COULD BUILD RATHER THAN REFACE IT.
IF THEY WANTED TO, THEY COULD GO UP TO THE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED FOR THE FACE FONT, CAN THEY?
>> AGAIN, ANIMAL HOSPITAL SIGN I'M JUST LOOKING AT IS DISCERNIBLY BIGGER, AND SO I'M GUESSING THEY PROBABLY [OVERLAPPING]
>> WELL, THAT MIGHT NOT BE, LIKE I SAID, THEY COULD HAVE REFACED AN EXISTING WHICH IS AN IN COMPLIANCE.
THEY COULD GO UP TO THE 25 SQUARE FEET, BUT ANYTHING OVER, THEY'D HAVE TO GET A VARIANCE FOR IT.
>> MR. JOHNSON, IF YOU HAVE A COMMENT, PLEASE.
>> JUST A COMMENT, IF I MAY, I HAVE NO INTENTIONS OF PUTTING BOTH BUSINESSES ON THAT SIDE, JUST STATE FIRM.
I CAN'T SEE ME DOING THAT EVER ACTUALLY.
>> UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU FOR THE INFORMATION.
UNLESS WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, THEN WE CAN GO TO THE CRITERIA.
DOES ANYBODY WHO WANTED TO TAKE A STAB AT THE CRITERIA OR YOU WANT ME TO GO THROUGH IT?
>> SUPPOSE I COULD START WITH NUMBER 1?
>> UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST THAT ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND OR STRUCTURES THAT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LAND OR STRUCTURES.
PARTICULARLY ON THESE SMALLER PARCELS, OLDER PARCELS IN THESE COMMERCIAL AREAS, WE FIND WE DON'T HAVE THAT GREEN BELT OUT IN FRONT THAT ALLOWS FOR FLEXIBILITY AND SIGN LOCATION, IT HAS MEMBER HUNDREDS AND NOTED, THERE REALLY IS NO OTHER SIGN PLACEMENT FOR THE SITE THAT WOULD NOT OBSTRUCT FOLKS AND IT IS HIGHLY WALKABLE.
IT'S IMPORTANT THAT MODERATES BE ABLE TO APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT SETTING THE SIGN BACK SO THAT MODERATES DON'T HAVE TO BE ON THE SIDEWALK IN ORDER TO SEE AND GET VISIBILITY BOTH WAYS ON A ROADWAY.
>> I CONCUR WITH WHAT TRUSTEE OPSOMMER JUST LAID OUT.
WITH REGARD TO CRITERIA 2, THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SELF-CREATED.
I THINK THAT IT SPEAKS TO THE NATURE OF THE PARCELS AND THE SIZE OF THOSE PARCELS THAT TRUSTEE OPSOMMER JUST REFERENCED, THEY DIDN'T MAKE THEM THE WAY THEY WERE.
THE SIGN PLACEMENT PROBABLY CAME AFTER THE PARKING LOT.
WHO KNOWS HOW MANY TENANTS WE HAD BEEN OUT SINCE THEN.
I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH SAYING THAT THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SELF-CREATED IN THIS CASE.
>> I WILL GO THROUGH THREE AND STRICT INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE LITERAL TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER WOULD RESULT IN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.
JUST GOING BACK TO THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE PREVIOUSLY BEEN MADE AS FAR AS NOT BEING SELF-CREATED, THE LOCATION OF THE SIGN, HAVING DRIVEN BY THE PROPERTY AND LIVING IN THAT AREA, I HONESTLY DID NOT KNOW THAT THERE WAS A STATE FARM THERE.
[00:25:03]
HAVING A SIGN WOULD DEFINITELY BE AN IMPORTANT PART OF MAKING SURE THAT YOU'VE GOT CUSTOMERS THAT KNOW EXACTLY WHERE YOUR LOCATION IS.I THINK THE LACK OF HAVING THAT THERE WOULD ULTIMATELY RESULT IN PEOPLE DRIVING BY IT AND NOT REALLY KNOWING THE LOCATION OF YOUR BUSINESS.
NUMBER 4, ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS TO NUMBER 3? NUMBER 4, 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 WOULD JUST ECHO WHAT HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN STATED.
I THINK HAVING A SIGN THERE DEFINITELY WILL ALLOW CUSTOMERS AND BUSINESS TO COME TO THE PROPERTY.
I THINK THERE IS A MATTER OF NOT BEING ABLE TO NOT WANTING YOUR CUSTOMERS TO DRIVE BY THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT KNOWING WHERE IT IS.
I THINK NOT HAVING A SIGN THERE WOULD RESULT IN THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY AND WOULD UNREASONABLY PREVENT YOU FROM USING THAT FOR THE PERMITTED PURPOSE? ANYONE WANT TO TAKE NUMBER 5? I WILL KEEP GOING.
>> [OVERLAPPING] I'M HAPPY TO.
>> GRANTING THE VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM ACTION THAT WILL MAKE POSSIBLE THE USE OF THE LAND AND THE STRUCTURE IN A MANNER THAT IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST, IT WILL PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.
I THINK THAT THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS PUTTING THE PLACEMENT OF THE SIGN IN AN AREA THAT WOULD CREATE THE MOST MINIMAL IMPACT TO BOTH THE BUSINESS AND THE SURROUNDING PEDESTRIANS AND MOTORISTS.
I THINK THIS IS INDEED THE MINIMAL ACTION WE CAN TAKE TO PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE TO THE APPLICANT.
>> I WILL TAKE A NUMBER 6 REAL QUICK.
GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND OR THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY? I WOULD ARGUE THAT IT'S ACTUALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE ADJACENT LAND GIVEN THE NATURE OF THESE COMMERCIAL PARCELS AND JUST THE WAY THAT DOWNTOWN HASLETT WAS PARCEL, SO I THINK IT'S FITTING AND CONSISTENT.
THE CONTRITION'S PERTAINING TO THE LAND OR STRUCTURE ARE NOT SO GENERAL OR RECURRENT IN NATURE AS TO MAKE THE FORMULATION OF A GENERAL REGULATIONS FOR SUCH CONDITIONS, PRACTICABLE.
I KNOW WE'VE GONE THROUGH A LOT OF SIGNED VARIANCES.
BUT HONESTLY, I THINK JUST THE WAY THIS LAND IS AND GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE LOCATION OF THE BUILDING AND THE SMALL GREEN SPACE AS NOTED BY TRUSTEE OPSOMMER, I DO NOT THINK THAT THIS IS SO GENERAL THAT THEY ARE RECURRENT THAT WE NEED TO HAVE A GENERAL REGULATION FOR THIS VARIANT.
>> I THINK THAT WE ARE ALREADY IN THE MIDST OF TAKING A LOOK AT THE SIGN ORDINANCE AS A PART OF ONE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION GOALS FOR 2021.
I KNOW THAT DIRECTOR SCHMIDT IS WORKING ON THAT WITH A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS AS WE SPEAK.
I THINK THAT, THIS PARTICULAR VARIANCE REQUEST, I DON'T RECALL HAVING SEEN MANY OF THEM.
BUT TO TRUSTEE OPSOMMER'S POINT FROM EARLIER, I THINK THAT SHOULD AND IT SHOULD SHOW A SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCE OCCUR WHERE THESE SIGNS ARE DESTROYED OR NEED TO BE REPLACED IN A WAY THAT'S MORE THAN SIMPLE RE-FACING.WE MIGHT SEE THIS AS A RECURRING PROBLEM DOWN THE ROAD.
PERHAPS MR. CHAPMAN CAN TAKE THAT BACK TO DIRECTOR SCHMIDT AS SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT AS THE ORDINATES SIGN ORDINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE CONTINUES THEIR WORK, SO THAT WE CAN ADDRESS SOME OF THESE THINGS BEFORE THEY BECOME RECURRING PROBLEMS.
>> YEAH. I THINK TO MEMBER HENDRICKSON POINT HERE, I THINK THE INTENT OF THIS PROVISION MIGHT HAVE BEEN ON GRAND RIVER AVENUE WHERE YOU HAVE THAT 20-FOOT GREEN BELT IN FRONT OF MOST BUSINESSES ALONG THE CORRIDOR.
YOU'VE GOT A WEALTH OF POSSIBILITIES IN TERMS OF SIGHT LINES AND OBSTRUCTION AND WHERE DO YOU PUT THAT SIGN.
[00:30:01]
SOME PEOPLE WILL ASK FOR A VARIANCE TO THE SIZE OF THE MONUMENT SIGN AND THOSE LOCATIONS DUE TO THE SPEED OF THE TRAFFIC.OPENNESS ROAD WOULD BE ANOTHER ONE WHERE YOU HAVE PRETTY GOOD SETBACKS AND GREEN BELTS IN FRONT OF BUSINESSES.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS PROVISION IS ACTUALLY NECESSARY, SO I MEAN, I THINK THIS COULD BE BECAUSE THEY'RE SUCH FOR THOSE PROPERTIES WHERE IT CAN GO AWAY FROM THE INGRESS AND EGRESS TO THE SITE.
I TRUST THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE BOARD AND STAFF CAN FIND A PLACE TO PUT THE SIGN IN [LAUGHTER] PLUS CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THERE'S A LITANY OF ACTION.
I THINK THIS APPEALED, TO BE HONEST, TO YOUR POINT.
>> NUMBER 8, GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS CHAPTER.
HONESTLY, I THINK TRUSTEE OPSOMMER JUST COVERED THAT WITH HIS ANSWER.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS THAT WE'D LIKE TO MAKE BEFORE WE TAKE THIS TO A VOTE.
WOULD SOMEONE LIKE TO MAKE MOTION? MEMBER HENDRICKSON.
>> I MOVE TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUEST AND ZBA CASE NUMBER 21-08-25-156 MARSH ROAD, LLC, 5680 MARSH ROAD, HASLETT, MICHIGAN 48840.
>> SECONDED BY TRUSTEE OPSOMMER.
ROLL-CALL VOTE, MEMBER HENDRICKSON?
>> THE CHAIR FIELD-FOSTER VOTES YES AS WELL.
MR. JOHNSON, YOUR VARIANCE HAS BEEN APPROVED.
IS THERE ANY OTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE ZBA AT THIS TIME? PUBLIC REMARKED? NO ONE IN THE AUDIENCE.
[9. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS]
BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS? MEMBER HENDRICKSON.>> I JUST WANT TO APPLAUD THE CHAIRS FOR STANDING IN AND DOING AN EXCELLENT JOB RUNNING THE MEETING, AND WISH A BELATED FAREWELL TO MEMBER CONHENEK, WHO I DID NOT GET TO SAY GOODBYE TO BEFORE HE LEFT THIS BODY.
IF YOU'RE LISTENING, THANK YOU.
WE'LL SEE YOU AROUND SOME TIME, HOPEFULLY.
I WON'T KNOW YOUR FACE BECAUSE WE NEVER GOT TO SEE IT.
>> I AGREE. I GOT BACK IN AND SO I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE MET MEMBER CONHENEK AND DID HAVE SEEN HIS FAITH.
IF YOU ARE WATCHING YOU NOW SEE US, IF YOU SEE US OUT IN PUBLIC, PLEASE SAY HELLO.
WITH THAT, UNLESS THERE ARE ANY OTHER COMMENTS, THE BOARD IS NOW ADJOURNED.
>> THAT'S IT, YOU JUST NEED TO CHAIR THE MEETING, AND I'LL GET TO IT EASIER SEAT, POSSIBLY YEAH.
[LAUGHTER]
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.