>> HELLO, IT IS 631. [00:00:03] I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. WELCOME TO THE CHARTER TOWNSHIP. [LAUGHTER] LET ME START OVER. WELCOME TO THE CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF MERIDIAN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING. TODAY IS WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15TH, 2022. LOOKS LIKE, SHALL WE DO JUST A PRESENT ROLL CALL? IS THAT HELPFUL FOR? DOES IT MATTER? YEAH. OKAY. I'M GOING TO GO DOWN THE LINE HERE AND WE HAVE A NEW MEMBER. MEMBER KENNECK. PRESENT. MEMBER, FIELD-FOSTER. HERE. MEMBER DE SHANE. PRESENT. MEMBER PRIMO. [LAUGHTER] GOT IT? PRESENT. CHAIRMAN [INAUDIBLE] IS PRESENT. [2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA] WITH THAT WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE A LOOK AT THE AGENDA. I'M LOOKING FOR APPROVAL OF TONIGHT'S AGENDA. MOVED BY MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER, SUPPORTED BY MEMBER DE SHANE. ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ABOUT THE AGENDA? IF NOT, WE WILL GO AHEAD INTO A VOTE TO APPROVE TONIGHT'S AGENDA. MEMBER KENNECK? YES. MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER? YES. MEMBER DE SHANE? YES. MEMBER PRIMO? YEAH. THE CHAIR VOTES YES SO THE AGENDA IS APPROVED. NEXT ITEM IS CORRECTIONS APPROVAL OF RATIFICATION OF MINUTES FOR WEDNESDAY, [3. CORRECTIONS, APPROVAL AND RATIFICATION OF MINUTES] MAY 18, 2022. ANY CORRECTIONS? YES, MEMBER DE SHANE. I'M OF SUPPORT OF IT. MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MOVED BY MEMBERS DE SHANE SUPPORTED BY MEMBER KENNECK. ANY QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS? THIS IS A VOTE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 2022. MEMBER KENNECK? YES. MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER? YES. MEMBER DE SHANE? YES. MEMBER PRIMO? I'M GOING TO ABSTAIN SINCE I WASN'T HERE. THANK YOU SO MUCH, SIR. CHAIR VOTES YES, SO THE MINUTES FOR WEDNESDAY, MAY 18TH, ARE APPROVED. NEXT ON OUR AGENDA IS COMMUNICATIONS. WE HAVE AN ITEM FROM DON AND BRENDA BEAM, AND I'M SURE MR. CHAIRMAN, WE'LL COVER THAT IN [OVERLAPPING]. YEAH, THERE WAS ANOTHER ONE AS WELL [OVERLAPPING]. OKAY. THAT'S RIGHT. WHERE I HEARD AS WELL. THAT WE HAD AN ADDITIONAL LETTER RECEIVED INNER PACKET, SO NOTED FROM THE AGENDA AND I'M SURE WE WILL COVER THAT DURING MR. CHAIRMAN'S PRESENTATION AND NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS UNFINISHED BUSINESS OF WHICH THERE IS NONE. [6A. ZBA CASE NO. 22-06-15-1 (6089 E. Lake Dr.), Roger Taylor, 6089 E. Lake Dr., Haslett, MI 48840] THAT BRINGS US TO NEW BUSINESS, WHICH IS ZBA CASE NUMBER 22-06-15-16089 EAST LAKE DRIVE ROGER TAYLOR HASN'T MICHIGAN 48840. AND WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO MR. CHAIRMAN FIRST, SIR. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN EXISTING ACCESSORY BUILDING TO PROJECT INTO THE SIDE YARD AND BUILDING SEPARATIONS SETBACK LOCATED AT 6089 EAST LAKE DRIVE. PROPERTIES APPROXIMATELY 3.36 ACRES IN SIZE, IS ZONED RB, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, HIGH DENSITY IN THE LAKE LANSING OVERLAY DISTRICT. THE APPLICANT HAD TWO SEPARATE SHEDS THAT WERE LOCATED IN THE SIDE YARD, WHICH IS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. I'LL PULL IT UP HERE. THE SHEDS THEMSELVES ARE NON-CONFORMING BECAUSE THEY DO NOT MEET THE REQUIRED FIVE-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK AND THE 10-FOOT THE LINK SEPARATION SETBACK. THE APPLICANT CONSTRUCTED AN ADDITION THAT CONNECTED THE TWO SHEDS WITHOUT A BUILDING PERMIT. THIS ADDITION SUBSEQUENTLY EXPANDED THE NON-CONFORMITY, WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE THE ORDINANCE STATES THAT NON-CONFORMING SINGLE-FAMILY STRUCTURES MAY BE ALTERED, EXPANDED, OR MODERNIZE WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PROVIDED THAT SUCH STRUCTURAL ALTERATION OR EXTENSION INCREASE THE EXTENT OF THE NON-CONFORMITY AND SHALL SATISFY ALL OTHER APPLICABLE SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. AT THE CLOSEST POINT, THE ACCESSORY BUILDING IS LOCATED 1.1 FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. THAT'S ON THE NORTH SIDE AND IS APPROXIMATELY TWO FEET FROM THE EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY HOME SO THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A 3.9-FOOT VARIANCE FOR THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF FIVE FEET AND AN EIGHT-FOOT VARIANCE FOR THE BUILDING SEPARATION SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF 10 FEET. ALSO AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, THE TWO SHEDS WERE APPROXIMATELY 8 BY 9 AND 10 BY 12. WE DON'T REQUIRE A BUILDING PERMIT FOR SHEDS THAT ARE UNDER 200 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE. BUT WHEN THE ADDITION WAS ADDED, THAT BUMPED IT UP TO APPROXIMATELY 210 SQUARE FEET IN TOTAL SIZE, [00:05:04] WHICH DOES REQUIRE A BUILDING PERMIT FROM US. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. GREAT. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT CLARIFICATION AND THE PRESENTATION. IS THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE HERE TONIGHT? IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK AND COME UP TO THE PODIUM SIR, JUST NEED YOU TO STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD, PLEASE. OKAY. NAME IS ROGER TAYLOR, 6089 EAST LAKE DRIVE. I'M THE OWNER OF THESE TWO SHEDS. THEY'RE BACK TO BACK AND I'VE BEEN LIVING THERE FOR 12 YEARS AND THOSE SHEDS WERE THERE LONG BEFORE I MOVED YET. THE EARLS GIVE ME THE INFORMATION ON THESE SHEDS. THEY SAID THAT THEY WERE IN EXISTENCE, ONE WAS IN THE 60S AND THE OTHER WAS IN THE 80S. NOW, THE REASON WHY I DID WHAT I DID TO MAKE THE CONNECTION IS BECAUSE ON EACH SIDE OF MY SHEDS, THERE'S RESTRICTED AREAS. I'D LIKE TO SHOW SOME PICTURES, IF I MAY. OKAY. OKAY. THIS IS THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE SHED OVER THE ONE IN QUESTION. IT'S A SOUTH SIDE OF THE SHED AND IF YOU SEE THAT LITTLE CORNER THERE? THAT IS MY HOUSE. THIS HAS BEEN HERE SINCE I LIVED HERE. THAT LITTLE AREA THERE IS VERY HARD TO MAINTAIN BECAUSE OF THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE SHED. CAN I SHOW A PICTURE OF THE SHED? THIS SHED HERE OPENS UP TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. IF YOU COULD SEE THE LITTLE PIECE OF THE GUTTER THERE, THAT IS MY GARAGE, AND ON THE SIDE OF THAT IS THE ONLY OPENING THAT I HAVE IS ON THE NORTH SIDE WHERE THERE IS A FENCE THAT'S THERE, AND I ONLY HAVE EACH BRICK IS ABOUT SIX INCHES, A LITTLE OVER THOSE SIX INCHES TO GET WHATEVER I NEED TO GET INTO THAT SHED. EVERY TIME I HAVE TO MOVE A BIKE, OR A TUBE OR ANYTHING, IT'S A VERY ENCUMBERED TYPE OF LABOR SITUATION. I EITHER GOT TO LIFT IT OVER THE FENCE. MY GRANDDAUGHTER TRIPPED OVER THE FENCE ONE TIME AND WITH HER BIKE TRYING TO GET IT OUT OF THERE. IT'S JUST THE SAFETY ACCESSIBILITY OF THIS IS IN QUESTION. THEN THIS SHED WAS OLD ENOUGH WHERE THE BACK OF IT WAS STARTING TO GET TO AREA OF REPAIR. MY WIFE CAME UP WITH A GREAT IDEA. SHE SAID, IF WE HAD SOMETHING THAT COULD CONNECT THE INSIDE OF IT THEN WE CAN HAVE MORE ROOM TO BYPASS THE SIDE OF IT. I SAID, THAT'S A WONDERFUL IDEA. I STARTED THAT CONSTRUCTION. UNBEKNOWNST TO ME, THE CODE INSPECTOR CAME OVER AND SAID STOP, SO I DID. THEN I WENT TO KEITH. I SAID KEITH, HERE'S WHAT I'M DOING. I DON'T REMEMBER VERBATIM WHAT KEITH TOLD ME. HE SAID, IT SHOULD BE NO PROBLEM. KEITH TOLD ME THIS AND THEN BRIAN ALSO, THE OTHER PLANNER, TOLD ME SHOULD BE NO PROBLEM. THEN THE CODE ENFORCER BROUGHT UP THIS VARIANCE THING, THIS WHAT KEITH HAD RECITED TO YOU. IN THE COMMENCED, [NOISE] THIS IS WHAT I HAVE TO ACTUALLY GET AROUND. THIS IS HOW MUCH ROOM I HAVE ON THAT SIDE OF THE NORTH SIDE. BUT THAT FENCE THERE. THIS WAS THE SHED THAT HAD THE OPENING THAT WE CONNECTED A BREEZE WAY THAT I GUESS I'M IN VIOLATION OF BY MAKING A CONNECTION, AND THAT AREA THERE IS ABOUT TWO FOOT, THREE INCHES. NOW, THIS IS ACTUALLY A TOP VIEW OF WHAT I'M DOING. [00:10:03] IF YOU'RE LOOKING FROM THE TOP OF MY SHED, ON THE NORTH SIDE IS THE WALL OF THE BREEZEWAY THAT I'M PUTTING IT. IT'S JUST TWO FOOT LONG. THAT'S ADDING AND THAT MAKES US GO OVER. THEY'RE ARE 200 SQUARE FEET. THESE SHEDS ARE NON-INSULATED. ALL I DO IS I HAVE A TOOL ROOM AND I GOT LAWN EQUIPMENT IN THERE AND TUBING STUFF FOR MY BOAT. THAT'S ALL I DID. THIS IS ALSO A TOP VIEW OF THE NORTH SIDE. AS YOU COULD SEE, UNLIMITED ACCESS. LIKE I SAID, TO ME, IT'S VERY HARD TO GET ANYTHING. I CAN'T EVEN GET A LAWN MOWER IN THERE. I HAVE A HARD TIME EVEN WEED WHACKING IN THERE. MOSTLY I HAVE TO USE A CHEMICAL SPRAY TO GET ALL THE WEEDS OUT OF THERE. I USED TO BE ABLE TO RUN A LAWN MOWER OFTEN THERE. >> MR. TAYLOR, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO WANT TO SEE SOME MORE OF THESE PHOTOS WHEN WE GET INTO OUR BOARD TIME AND WHEN WE'RE ASKING QUESTIONS. >> OKAY. >> I WOULD WONDER IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE HAVEN'T SEEN THERE THAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR PHOTOS. IF NOT, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU MAYBE TO RETAIN THOSE UNTIL WE'RE GETTING TO OUR BOARD TIME WHEN WE ASK MORE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BUILDING BECAUSE I DO SEE SOME OTHER PEOPLE HERE AND I'M GUESSING THERE'S SOME OTHER PEOPLE THAT HAVE SOME COMMENTARY. >> NO PROBLEM BUT ANYHOW I JUST WANTED TO SHOW YOU THIS LAST ONE. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> THIS IS THE FINISHED PRODUCT OF THE ONE SIDE OF THE SHEDS THAT ATTACKS THE BOTH THE BREEZEWAY. THAT'S 2.3 INCHES THERE. NOT ONLY IS MORE SAFE FOR ME AND MY GRANDKIDS AND MY WIFE BUT AESTHETICALLY, IT LOOKS NICE TOO. >> WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET OTHER PEOPLE'S STATEMENTS AND THEN WE'LL PROBABLY ASK YOU TO COME BACK UP SO WE CAN TALK TO YOU AND ASK YOU SOME MORE QUESTIONS. >> ALL RIGHT. I'LL SEAT. >> YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND HAVE A SEAT. THANK YOU, MR. TAYLOR. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE THIS EVENING? IF SO I'D LIKE YOU TO COME UP TO THE PODIUM. YOU CAN GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD. >> IS THIS STILL ON KEITH? >> YEAH, THAT'S READY TO GO. >> THANK YOU. MY NAME IS BRENDA BEAM. MY ADDRESS IS 6093 EAST LAKE DRIVE. I AM THE NEIGHBOR OF THE TAYLOR'S. I'D LIKE TO SHOW YOU THIS PHOTO. THE RED BUILDINGS ARE HIS SHEDS. THE BLUE IS OUR HOUSE. THAT'S HOW CLOSE THEY ARE AS FAR AS THE LEGAL SETBACKS GO. [NOISE] I HAVE ANOTHER VIEW. THANK YOU, KEITH. YEAH, THANK YOU. ONE FINAL. I HAVE ONLY TWO MORE PICTURES THAT I'D LIKE TO SHOW. THIS IS A VIEW OF THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TAYLOR'S HOME WHERE THEY HAVE A SIDEWALK AND FIVE FEET THAT WOULD GIVE THEM A SAFE PASSAGE TO THEIR LAKESIDE PROPERTY. [NOISE] THIS PHOTO IS TAKEN FROM WHAT I CALL THE MIDDLE SHED. IT'S IN-BETWEEN THEIR GARAGE AND THEIR SHED FACING THE LAKE. WHEN WE INSTALLED OUR FENCE, MY BUILDER IS HERE IF THERE ARE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, BUT THIS LINE HERE IS ACTUALLY THE PROPERTY LINE, WE GAVE THEM EXTRA SPACE SO THAT THEY COULD WALK BETWEEN THE SHED AND OUR PROPERTY. THEY ONLY ACTUALLY HAVE JUST OVER 12 INCHES OF PROPERTY, WHICH IS RIGHT HERE. THE SECOND BRICK THAT HE'S LAID IS ON OUR PROPERTY. I WANTED TO READ PART OF MY LETTER IF THAT'S OKAY. >> OKAY. >> NOT THE WHOLE THING. IT'S TWO PAGES LONG. >> [LAUGHTER] THANK YOU FOR THE BREVITY, BUT YES. >> OF COURSE. >> GO AHEAD. >> WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE ABOVE REFERENCE VARIANTS BE DENIED. WE UNDERSTAND YOUR ROLE IS TO MAINTAIN AND ENFORCE THE INTEGRITY OF THE ORDINANCES IN THE TOWNSHIP WE ALL ENJOY. MR. TAYLOR IS A BULLY AS HE NOT ONLY CALLS 911 TO REPORT US, [00:15:01] HE CALLS TO REPORT OTHERS. OUR OPINION IS THAT MR. TAYLOR HAS NOT ASKED FOR THE VARIANCE OUT OF TRUE NEED FOR STORAGE BUT AS A CONTINUATION OF THE HARASSMENT THAT'S BEEN TAKING PLACE SINCE AUGUST OF 2017. WE WANTED A SIX-FOOT SECURITY FENCE TO BLOCK THE JUNK THAT HE PILES BETWEEN HIS SHEDS. AS THIS SITUATION HAS EVOLVED, WE WANTED A SIX-FOOT SECURITY FENCE TO KEEP MR. TAYLOR OFF OUR PROPERTY AND TO KEEP HIM FROM PEEPING IN OUR WINDOWS AND HARASSING US AT EVERY TURN. HE MAKES DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS. HE THREATENS OUR SAFETY. LAST WEEK, MR. TAYLOR WAS DISCUSSING A NEW METER WITH A CONSUMER ENERGY EMPLOYEE. MR. TAYLOR BEGAN COUGHING WHEN ASKED BY THE CONSUMER EMPLOYEE IF HE WAS OKAY, MR. TAYLOR RESPONDED THAT HE HAD COVID AND HE'S TRYING TO GIVE IT TO HIM, POINTING TO MY HUSBAND. THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN RECORDED. WE WERE FORCED TO INSTALL A SECURITY SYSTEM TO PROTECT OURSELVES FROM BASELESS COMPLAINTS. SOME OF OUR NEIGHBORS ATTEMPTED TO BROKER PEACE IN JUNE OF 2021. MR. TAYLOR'S RESPONSE WAS TO TELL THEM TO STAY OUT OF IT. MR. TAYLOR'S ACTIONS MAKE THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD UNCOMFORTABLE. HOWEVER, NO ONE ELSE HAS MADE A FORMAL COMPLAINT FOR FEAR OF BEING HIS NEXT TARGET. HE HAS BEEN ENCROACHING ON OUR PROPERTY SINCE BEFORE WE PURCHASED IT. I INCLUDED SOME OTHER PHOTOS IN MY FILE WHERE WE HAD TO ASK HIM TO REMOVE HIS TRASH CONTAINER FROM OUR PROPERTY. HE HAD INSTALLED A FENCE ON OUR PROPERTY. HE IS STILL TRESPASSING ON MY PROPERTY. WE WERE GONE IN MARCH, HE CLIMBED OVER OUR FENCE FOR WHAT PURPOSE I DON'T KNOW. ON A SECOND DAY, HE THREW A LADDER OVER OUR FENCE TO WORK ON HIS SHEDS BECAUSE HE CAN'T MAINTAIN THEM UNLESS HE TRESPASSES. THIS IS A PICTURE OF MR. TAYLOR'S PROPERTY ACROSS LAKE DRIVE WHERE HE HAS THREE OTHER SHEDS, A TOTAL OF FIVE, AND ALSO HAS A ONE-CAR GARAGE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU. MS. BEAM. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN THIS CASE THIS EVENING? MR. TAYLOR, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO BACK AND FORTH. I'M JUST GOING TO MAKE SURE WE GET ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WE CAN. >> [INAUDIBLE] TO THIS? >> I'M NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF GETTING INTO AN ARGUMENT BETWEEN NEIGHBORS. WE'RE JUST GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE CASE TONIGHT. IF THERE'S ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE, YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME UP TO THE PODIUM AND GIVE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD. IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK, YOU CAN COME UP AND GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD. IF IT'S GOING TO BE BACK-AND-FORTH TO THE NEIGHBOR, I'M GOING TO STOP YOU THERE. >> OKAY, THAT'S FINE. I'M JENNY TAYLOR AND ROGER'S WIFE. I JUST WOULD LIKE TO ASK WHY SHE COULD DO AND SAY ALL THOSE THINGS. WE HAVE A MOUNTAIN OF LISTS THAT THEY HAVE DONE. WE CHOSE NOT TO DO THAT HERE. WE ARE HERE FOR THE VARIANCE. WE WERE NOT COMING IN HERE TO TELL YOU THE THINGS THAT THEY HAVE DONE. IT IS A PROBLEM THAT WE DON'T GET ALONG AS NEIGHBORS. WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO STAY BY OURSELVES. I'M NOT ASKING TO GO BACK AND FORTH, BUT I REALLY DON'T BELIEVE THAT SHE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >> MRS. TAYLOR, RESPECTFULLY, THIS IS A PUBLIC MEETING. THIS IS A PUBLIC FORUM. ANYONE IS WELCOME TO ATTEND IT, ANYBODY'S WELCOME TO SPEAK. WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE IS WE GAVE MRS. BEAM THE CHANCE TO SPEAK, AS ANYBODY ELSE COULD SPEAK. ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE COULD SPEAK. WE CAN'T SAY WHAT PEOPLE CAN TALK ABOUT. THAT'S FREEDOM OF SPEECH. >> IF I STAND UP HERE AND TELL YOU FOR THE NEXT HALF HOUR OR SO, ALL THE THINGS THAT THEY HAVE DONE. >> RESPECTFULLY, SHE HAD ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE MINUTES TOPS, SO IF YOU'D LIKE TO, YOU COULD. >> INCLUDING THAT I HAD TO CALL THE POLICE BECAUSE INDECENT THINGS WERE DONE IN FRONT OF ME. >> MRS. TAYLOR, LET ME ASK YOU. >> IT'S REALLY BAD >> JUST A MOMENT. LET ME JUST ASK YOU A QUESTION BECAUSE MY BUSINESS HERE AS THE CHAIR OF THIS BOARD IS TO DO BOARD BUSINESS. >> OKAY. >> WHICH WOULD BE TO TALK ABOUT THE VARIANCE. RESPECTFULLY, I HAVE TO GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO SPEAK THEY'RE NEIGHBORS. THIS IS A PUBLIC MEETING. >> RIGHT. >> WE WANT TO GET BACK TO THE CASE, SO IF YOU WANT TO GO BACK AND FORTH ON NEIGHBORS STUFF, WE'RE WASTING TIME TALKING ABOUT THE CASE. >> I UNDERSTAND YOU SAYING THAT BUT I DON'T THINK YOU'RE UNDERSTANDING WHAT I'M SAYING. SHE WAS ALLOWED TO SAY ALL THE NEGATIVE THINGS THAT WE DO. I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO THAT WITH YOU BECAUSE YOU SAID THIS IS NOT THE TIME AND PLACE, BUT THE THING IS, I FEEL THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE TOLD HER THE SAME THING, NOT TO SAY THE THINGS THAT ARE SO NASTY. I'M SORRY, THAT'S HOW I FEEL BECAUSE [INAUDIBLE]. >> THANK YOU FOR SHARING YOUR CONCERNS. ON THAT NOTE, IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE TONIGHT? IF NOT, WE ARE GOING TO GET INTO BOARD BUSINESS. [00:20:03] BOARD MEMBERS, ANYTHING TO ADD OR ANY QUESTIONS? FIRST OFF, I JUST WANT TO THANK STAFF FOR THE PRESENTATION, AND ANSWERING THE INITIAL QUESTIONS I HAD HAD. I APPRECIATE THAT GUYS VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? >> [INAUDIBLE] [LAUGHTER] >> MR. TAYLOR AND MRS. TAYLOR ARE BOTH HERE SO WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS OF THEM AND HE HAS PHOTOGRAPHS IF WE NEED THEM. MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER [LAUGHTER] I'M READING YOUR MIND HERE. I KNOW YOU GOT SOMETHING TO SAY. >>TO MR. CHAPMAN, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I AM GETTING THIS RIGHT. THERE WERE TWO SHEDS THAT WERE ON THE PROPERTY PRIOR TO THE HOMEOWNER PURCHASING THOSE SHEDS. AN ADDITION WAS [NOISE] BUILT BETWEEN THOSE SHEDS TO CONNECT THEM, WHICH ULTIMATELY MADE THE NEED FOR A BUILDING PERMIT, WHICH WAS NOT REQUESTED. AT THAT POINT, THAT FURTHER EXTENDED THE NON-CONFORMITY OF THOSE BUILDINGS. IT'S BASICALLY ALREADY DONE. THAT ADDITION IS BASICALLY ALREADY BEEN BUILT. WE'RE BEING ASKED TO GRANT A VARIANCE FOR SOMETHING THAT DIDN'T GET A BUILDING PERMIT. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> MY QUESTION IS, WHAT ARE OUR ALTERNATIVES? >> YES MR. PRIMO A GOOD QUESTION. I THINK THAT WE CAN ASK THAT OF STAFF BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE IS REALLY AN ALTERNATIVE. THE VARIANCE ARE NOT GRANT OR DENY. >> THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH. >> MAYBE WHAT IS RECOURSE IF WE DENY? OR? >> IF WE DENY WHAT WOULD THE CONSEQUENCES TO THE OWNER BE? >> IF WE DENY THE ADDITION WOULD HAVE TO BE EITHER REMOVED OR THE ENTIRE SHED ITSELF WOULD HAVE TO BE MOVED SO THAT IT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THERE'S A COUPLE OF OPTIONS THERE. >> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. THANK YOU. MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER. >> THEN A QUESTION TO MR. TAYLOR. >> YES. >> IF YOU'D LIKE TO COME UP TO THE [OVERLAPPING] >> YOU BRING YOUR PICTURES [LAUGHTER] TO GO BACK. JUST IN CASE, INSTEAD OF MAKING A WALK BACK AND FORTH WITH US. >> I JUST PUT A SIDE NOTE IN HERE. THE REASON WHY THIS IS STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION, THIS BREEZEWAY, IS BECAUSE I WAS TOLD BY KEITH AND BRIAN THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO PROBLEM TO CONNECT THESE SHEDS. IN IMMEDIATE TIME BEFORE I GOT THE CODE VIOLATION, I WAS WORKING ON THESE THINGS. IT'S NOT THAT I WAS TRYING TO CIRCUMVENT A PERMIT. I WAS TOLD THAT, HEY YOU SHOULD BE OKAY. I WAS TOLD BY KEITH AND BRIAN. I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT I WAS NOT TRYING TO CIRCUMVENT A PERMIT. I WAS JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT A SAFER WALKWAY FOR MY WIFE TO GET THROUGH WHICH HE'D COME UP WITH A BRILLIANT IDEA TO MAKE THIS BREEZEWAY AND MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE SAFELY COMPATIBLE FOR US TO CARRY OUR EQUIPMENT THROUGH. BY HAVING THIS BREEZEWAY, WE WILL NOT AFFECT ANY OF OUR NEIGHBORS, IT LOOKS AESTHETICALLY GOOD. IT INCREASES THE VALUE OF OUR PROPERTY, AND IT DOESN'T DO ANYTHING ELSE EXCEPT FOR ONE THING, IT JUST MAKES IT A LITTLE BIT BIGGER SO I CAN CRAWL THROUGH. I FEEL LIKE I'M TUMBLED IN A RAT AND I JUST MADE A BIGGER HOLE. I DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE TO MAKE AN ANALOGY OF THIS, BUT I JUST WANT IT TO BE SAFE FOR MY WIFE. SHE TAKES HER BIKES THROUGH THERE. I GOT A GRANDDAUGHTER THAT GOES ON INSIDE. THAT'S THE ONLY SIDE OF THE HOUSE THAT WE HAVE ACCESS TO. I CAN'T GO ALL THE WAY AROUND MY OTHER SIDE OF THE HOUSE AND THEN I GET TO STILL COME UP THAT SIDE OF THE HOUSE TO GET TO THAT ONE SHED. THAT SHED ONLY OPENS TO THAT ONE SIDE OF THE NORTH, WHICH HAS THAT FENCE WHICH HAS 26-INCH BRICKS ON EACH SIDE. I'M JUST TELLING YOU IT'S A RESTRICTIVE AREA THAT MAKES IT UNSAFE FOR MY FAMILY, WHICH IS WHAT MY MAIN CONCERN IS OR ANYBODY THAT GOES THROUGH THERE. I MEAN, I'VE HAD MY OTHER NEIGHBORS SAY, WHY IS THIS HERE? [00:25:04] I SAID, WELL, I DON'T WANT TO GO INTO THIS, BUT IT'S HERE. BUT YOU KNOW, THE THING IS, I GOT TO DO WHAT I GOT TO DO. THIS IS THE ONLY WAY THAT I KNEW HOW TO ALLEVIATE RUBBING UP AGAINST THE FENCE. NOW, THEY SAID THAT THEY OWN OTHER HALF OF THE PROPERTY, BUT THEY DON'T BRING IN A SURVEY TO PROVE THAT. >> MR. TAYLOR, CAN I ASK MY QUESTION? >> OH, I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD. >> YOU TALK ABOUT SAFETY OF THESE BUILDINGS AND THE AMOUNT OF SPACE THAT THERE IS, HAVE YOU CONSIDERED TEARING DOWN THAT SHED AND MOVING IT SOMEWHERE ELSE? BECAUSE IT DOES SEEM LIKE THERE'S NOT A LOT OF ROOM THERE. HAVE YOU CONSIDERED PUTTING IT PERHAPS SOMEWHERE ELSE? >> WELL, I TELL YOU WHAT, I'M GOING TO GO WRITE THIS. I'M NOT A RICH MAN. ECONOMICS PREVENTS ME FROM DOING IT. >> COME ON BACK TO THE MICROPHONE JUST SO THEY CAN HEAR YOU ON THAT ONE. >> IT'S JUST THAT THE ECONOMIC OF PLACING A NEW SHED AND PLACING IT 10 FEET AWAY. IT JUST NOT IN MY BUDGET. IT'S NOT IN MY BUDGET. BUT WHAT I DID WAS JUST REACT TO SOMETHING WHERE I WAS TOLD THAT I COULD DO, AND THEN IT'S STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND THAT'S WHY YOU SEE STUFF IN MY YARD BECAUSE I CAN'T PUT STUFF IN MY SHED YET BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THIS IS GOING TO GO THROUGH OR NOT. SO ALL I'M SAYING IS, THIS DOES NOT HURT THIS PROPERTY VALUE. IT DOESN'T HURT MY NEIGHBORS. IT DOESN'T HURT ANYTHING ELSE, AND THAT'S ALL I COULD SAY. I MEAN, I THINK I HAVE NEIGHBORS HERE THAT LOOKED AT THE FENCES AND THEIR QUESTION WAS, WHY IS IT HERE? I GO, WELL, I DON'T WANT TO GO INTO IT. WELL, YOU HEARD THE REASON WHY MOSTLY. BUT I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO THAT TIRADE, BUT LIKE I SAID, HERE'S THE SUN. >> MR. TAYLOR, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. >> YEP. >> WHILE WE'RE ON THE SUBJECT OF NOT BEING ABLE TO MOVE IT, IS IT POSSIBLE BECAUSE WE'VE DONE THIS ON MY OWN PROPERTY TO MOVE THE SHED INSTEAD OF IT BEING UP AGAINST THE HOUSE AND MOVE IT FURTHER BACK INTO THE YARD SO THAT IT IS MORE ACCESSIBLE? >> I HAVE A TREE THERE. I HAVE A TREE AND A GARDEN AND A BERM. THEN I ALSO HAVE THIS OUTSIDE DOOR THAT I HAVE TO COME OUT OF MY SUN ROOM. I MEAN, LIKE I SAID, IT COMES DOWN TO ECONOMICS. THIS IS THE SIMPLEST AND MOST ECONOMICAL WAY THAT I KNEW HOW TO CIRCUMVENT BEING SAFELY ACCESSING THE SHED. WANT TO SEE ANYTHING ELSE? YOU GOT ANY MORE QUESTIONS? >> LET'S SEE, MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER. GO AHEAD. >> DO YOU HAVE OTHER SHEDS ON YOUR PROPERTY? >> I HAVE SHEDS ON MY PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET. YEAH. >> IS THERE SPACE THERE THAT YOU COULD MOVE THIS SHED? >> WELL, I'D HAVE THREE SHEDS OUT THERE. I'D RATHER LEAVE IT WHERE IT'S AT. >> I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS ACTUALLY FOR STAFF. >> YES. >> NUMBER 1, IS THE STATEMENT THAT YOU SAID THERE SHOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM AN ACCURATE STATEMENT. IF IT IS, WERE YOU AWARE THAT IT WAS GOING TO EXCEED THE SQUARE FOOTAGE? >> I WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THIS BUILDING UNTIL AFTER IT WAS ALREADY BUILT. WE SENT HIM A NOTICE TO STOP WORK. HE CAME IN WITH THE PLANS AND THEN THAT'S WHEN I WAS MADE AWARE. THE WORK HAD ALREADY BEEN DONE. I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING AHEAD OF TIME THAT IT WAS GOOD. THAT'S NOT TRUE. >> BUT WAS THE STATEMENT MADE BY SOMEONE FROM STAFF THAT IT SHOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM? >> NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO. IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN AS LONG AS YOU MEET THE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS, THEN IT SHOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM, BUT THAT WOULD BE ALL THAT WAS TOLD TO THEM. >> IT COULD HAVE BEEN AN INITIAL CONVERSATION WITH STAFF THAT WAS DURING THE APPLICATION PROCESS THAT YOU'RE TOLD THAT SHOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM ONCE THE PAPERWORK IS IN. BUT PERHAPS THE BUILDING PERMIT WAS NOT COMPLETED AND ACCEPTED. >> WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE A SURVEY UNTIL WAY AFTER THAT. >> I HAVE A SECOND QUESTION. >> YES, MR. [INAUDIBLE]. >> DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA OF WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS AND ORDINANCES WERE? [00:30:06] I UNDERSTAND YOU DIDN'T OWN PROPERTY AT THE TIME WHEN THE SHEDS WERE ORIGINALLY ERECTED? >> I COULDN'T TELL YOU. NO. >> BUT I THINK THE CLARIFICATION THEY MADE DURING THE PRESENTATION IS KEY THAT THOSE SIZE OF SHEDS WOULDN'T REQUIRE PERMITS. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT IN TERMS OF PROXIMITY, WE DO HAVE [OVERLAPPING] ORDINANCES THAT REGULATE PROXIMITY TO ADJOINING PROPERTY AND I'M WONDERING ORIGINALLY HOW THAT HAPPENED. OBVIOUSLY THAT'S A HISTORY QUESTION BUT IF IT WAS IN COMPLIANCE, ORIGINALLY, HE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY WITH THE BUILDINGS THERE. THAT MAKES IT A DIFFERENT ISSUE THAN IF THEY WERE NEVER IN COMPLIANCE. >> I DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFICS OF THE HISTORY ON IT, IT'S LIKELY OUR ORDINANCE HASN'T CHANGED MUCH BECAUSE OUR ORDINANCE HASN'T CHANGED MUCH. >> ONE SHED WAS BUILT IN THE '60S. DEBORAH EARLS, SHE EMAILED ME THE HISTORY OF THESE SHEDS. ONE WAS BUILT IN THE '60S AND THE OTHER WAS BUILT IN THE '80S. >> YES, MEMBER DE SHANE. >> I'M GUESSING YOU'VE APPLIED FOR BUILDING PERMITS BEFORE THIS BUILDING PERMIT FOR OTHER HOMES YOU'VE OWNED IN THE TOWNSHIP. IS THAT CORRECT? OR IS THIS THE FIRST TIME YOU APPLIED FOR A BUILDING PERMIT? >> I HAVE NEVER APPLIED FOR A BUILDING PERMIT. I NEVER APPLIED. I'M NOT TRYING TO CIRCUMVENT A BUILDING PERMIT, BUT LET ME JUST TELL YOU THE CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF WHAT HAPPENED HERE. I DISAGREE WITH KEITH. WHAT HAD HAPPENED IS I STARTED BUILDING ON THIS, THE CODE ENFORCER CAME OUT AT THEIR REQUEST AND THEN THE CODE ENFORCER SAID STOP. I SAID OKAY, THEN I TOOK THE TIME TO COME DOWN AND TALK TO KEITH. I SAID KEITH, THIS BEFORE I GOT ANYTHING IN WRITING OR ANYTHING TO TELL ME THAT I WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THIS TEN-FOOT LAW. >> BUT MR. TAYLOR, TO BE CLEAR, THE ORDER OF EVENTS IS THAT YOU STARTED BUILDING, THEN CODE ENFORCEMENT CAME, THEN YOU WENT TO BUILDING DEPARTMENT? >> RIGHT. >> DID YOU DO THE WORK YOURSELF OR DID YOU HIRE A CONTRACTOR? >> I HAD SOMEBODY HELPING ME THAT WAS A GOOD FRIEND OF MINE. >> IS HE A LICENSED BUILDER? >> HE'S NOT YET, BUT HE HELPS ME OUT AROUND THE HOUSE. >> SPENDING TIME OUT ON A LOBBY, THERE'S A STEADY STREAM OF PEOPLE GOING UPSTAIRS TO GETTING BUILDING PERMITS ALL SUMMER LONG IN THE ENTIRE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. I'M JUST AMAZED THAT YOU DIDN'T THINK YOU NEEDED A CONSTRUCTION PERMIT. IT'S VERY COMMON. ANY WORK YOU DO ON A HOME IN MERIDIAN TOWN SHOULD GET A BUILDING PERMIT. WHY DID YOU THINK YOU WERE EXEMPT, MY QUESTION? >> IT'S NOT THAT I'M THINKING I'M ABOVE THE LAW. IT'S JUST THAT I DIDN'T TRY TO CIRCUMVENT THIS AT ANY TIME. I JUST TRIED TO SAY, WELL, I GOT TO OPEN THIS UP BECAUSE I HAD A ROTTED PANEL IN THE BACK OF THIS THING, THIS ONE SHED. THEN MY WIFE SAID, WELL, WHY DON'T WE OPEN UP THE BACK OF THE OTHER ONE. I SAID, WELL, GOOD IDEA. WELL, THEN THE CODE ENFORCER CAME OUT AND SAID, HEY, YOU CAN'T DO THIS. I SAID, OKAY. IN MY QUEST TO TRY TO GET EVERYTHING LEGAL, I CAME DOWN AND ASKED KEITH AND BRIAN SAY, "HEY, CAN I CONNECT THESE SHEDS?" HE SAID IT SHOULD BE NO PROBLEM. [NOISE] THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID. >> AT THAT POINT, DID YOU COMPLETE THE APPLICATION PROCESS. >> THE APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE? >> FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT? >> NO. >> THEN YOU WERE TOLD THAT IT WOULD NEED. >> NO, THEY TOLD ME I NEEDED A VARIANCE. >> A VARIANCE. >> NOW, THIS HAS COME UP, THIS VERBIAGE OF A PERMIT. I HAVE NO PROBLEM GETTING A PERMIT. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH GETTING IN THAT. >> BUT YOU DID AT THE START OF THE PROJECT AND YOU TALK ABOUT SAFETY, BUT THE WHOLE REASON WE HAVE ORDINANCES AND PERMITS IS TO PROTECT CITIZENS FROM UNSAFE STRUCTURES. THAT'S WHY I'M SURPRISED YOU DIDN'T THINK FOR A MINUTE TO CHECK WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT BEFORE YOU STARTED CONSTRUCTION ON THIS PROJECT. THE POINT IS TO KEEP YOU SAFE FROM AN UNSAFE STRUCTURE AND TO KEEP YOUR NEIGHBORS SAFE. >> UNDERSTOOD. AS I WAS DOING THIS, I DIDN'T THINK REPAIRING A BACK OF THE SHED WOULD REQUIRE A PERMIT. >> SOUNDS LIKE YOU WERE DOING MORE THAN REPAIR, YOU WERE THEN CONNECTING TWO SHEDS, CORRECT? >> WELL, I WAS THINKING ABOUT WHAT MY WIFE SAID. I SAID, WELL, MAYBE I COULD DO THIS. THEN I GOT STOPPED BY THE CODE ENFORCER. [00:35:02] THE COURT ENFORCER SAID, YOU GOT TO STOP. I SAID, OKAY, THEN I COME AND TALK TO KEITH AND BRIAN THEY SAID IT SHOULD BE NO PROBLEM. THEN I STARTED DOING ONE DAY'S WORTH OF WORK AND THIS IS WHAT I GOT DONE SO FAR. LIKE I SAID, I'M NOT TRYING TO CIRCUMVENT A PERMIT. >> BUT YOU DID CIRCUMVENT THE PERMIT. YOU STARTED CONSTRUCTIONS WITH NO PERMIT, NO PLANS BEFORE OUR BUILDING DEPARTMENT, AND NO SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY. ALL THOSE THREE THINGS ARE WHAT YOU WOULD NORMALLY DO IN A PERMIT PROCESS. I DON'T DOUBT YOUR INTENTIONS WERE GOOD, BUT WHAT YOU DID WAS IN VIOLATION OF ALL OF OUR ORDINANCES. THAT'S WHY YOUR INTENTIONS DO NOT MATTER IF WHAT YOU DID WAS IN OPPOSITION TO WHAT OUR ORDINANCES REQUIRE. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT. I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S NO EXCUSE FOR IGNORANCE. BUT THE THING IS, I DIDN'T THINK THAT WOULD REPLACING THE BACK OF THE SHED AND CREATING AN OPENING. NOW, I DIDN'T THINK THAT IT NEEDED A PERMIT. NOW, THAT'S MY THINKING. NOW, I VALIDATED THIS BY COMING DOWN TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND ASKING KEITH, AND HE SAID THERE SHOULD BE NO PROBLEM. >> MR. CHAPMAN DOESN'T RECALL THAT CONVERSATION THAT HE GAVE YOU THE GREEN LIGHT FOR IT. THAT'S YOUR SIDE OF THE STORY. >> WE GOT TO AGREE TO DISAGREE THEN. >> WELL, YOU'RE ASSERTING IT LIKE HE AGREES WITH IT. HE JUST TOLD US HE DIDN'T REMEMBER THAT CONVERSATION AT ALL. >> WELL, THEN I HAVE TO AGREE TO DISAGREE THEN. >> BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS YOU'RE MAKING ALL THESE ASSUMPTIONS, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT THERE WAS A COMMON AGREEMENT ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED BETWEEN YOU AND KEITH. THERE'S NO COMMON AGREEMENT ABOUT THAT CONVERSATION. >> WELL, WE GOT TO AGREE TO DISAGREE. IF HE SAYS, I DIDN'T DO IT. WELL, I SAID I DID DO IT AND I'M TELLING YOU, I'M TELLING THE TRUTH. THAT'S ALL I COULD SAY, I'M TELLING THE TRUTH. >> I'M GOING TO STOP YOU THERE, MR. TAYLOR. I'M GOING TO LET MR. CHAPMAN TALK BECAUSE THIS IS THE EMPLOYEE OF THE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP THAT IS SITTING FOR A PUBLIC MEETING THAT HE'S HIS SIDE OF THE STORY. MR. CHAPMAN, GO AHEAD. >> MR. TAYLOR CAME IN WITH A HANDFUL OF DRAWINGS THAT WERE NOT TO SCALE, NOT ACCURATE. I SAID THAT AS LONG AS THEY MEET THE ORDINANCE OF FIVE FEET, THEN WE'RE GOOD. HE TOLD ME THE SHEDS WERE FIVE FEET AWAY. I WAS LIKE, "OKAY, THEN YOU SHOULD BE GOOD AS LONG AS THEY'RE FIVE FEET AWAY." THEN AFTER HE LEFT, I TALKED TO OUR INSPECTOR AND GOT A BETTER IDEA OF WHAT WAS GOING ON AND DISCOVERED THAT IT WAS ONLY A COUPLE OF FEET FROM THE HOUSE. WE CONTACTED HIM AGAIN, TOLD HIM YOU'RE STILL IN VIOLATION. THAT WAS THAT. >> I'M ASSUMING THAT CONVERSATION HAPPENED FAIRLY QUICKLY. >> RIGHT AFTER IT, ALMOST IMMEDIATELY. >> THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. >> MEMBER DE SHANE, DID YOU HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS? >> NO MORE QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. >> THANK YOU. >> MEMBER PHIL FOSTER. >> MR. CHAPMAN, I GUESS I HAVE GOT JUST ONE QUESTION. REGARDLESS OF THE BUILDING PERMIT, AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE STRUCTURE WAS GOING TO NEED A VARIANCE BECAUSE OF ITS LOCATION AND THE WAY THAT IT WAS EXTENDED, CORRECT? >> YEAH. >> LN ADDING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. >> IN ADDING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE? >> CORRECT. >> AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE BUILDING PERMIT, WHILE WE STILL WOULD BE HERE BECAUSE OF THIS ADDITION. WITH THAT, I THINK I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS BECAUSE L CAN'T GET PAST NUMBER 1. >> HERE'S MY ISSUE THAT IF WE GRANT VARIANCES AFTER THE FACT, THEN WHAT PREVENTS ANYBODY FROM DOING THE SAME THING, IT OPENS A PANDORA'S BOX IN MY OPINION, AS SOMEONE WHO WAS A LICENSED CONTRACTOR, BY THE WAY, WHO KNOWS ABOUT BUILDING, WHO KNOWS ABOUT GETTING THINGS INSPECTED, GETTING PERMITS, ALL OF THAT, TO MAKE AN EXCEPTION AFTER THE FACT, I THINK OPENS THE DOOR, THEN WHAT PREVENTS YOU FROM BUILDING WHATEVER YOU WANT AND SAYING IT'S ALREADY UP, SO IT'S A DICEY SITUATION. ON THE ONE HAND, [00:40:01] SAINT MR. TAYLOR TEAR DOWN, IS A TOUGH THING TO SAY, I GET THAT. ON THE OTHER HAND TO SAY, WE'RE GOING TO TURN OUR HEADS. THAT SETS A PRESIDENT THAT I'M NOT SURE WHO WE WANT TO SET. I KNOW I'M NEW TO THE BOARD, BUT FROM A BUILDING STANDPOINT, WHEN I WAS DOING THIS FOR A LIVING, THE RULES WERE THE RULES AND WE PAID A PRICE WHEN WE DIDN'T FOLLOW THEM. >> I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION AND I APPRECIATE THAT PERSPECTIVE. THANK YOU, MEMBER OQUIMO. [OVERLAPPING]. LET ME SEE, IS ANYBODY ELSE ON THE BOARD HAVE ANYTHING THEY WANT TO ADD OR QUESTIONS FOR MR. TAYLOR? OTHERWISE, I THINK I'M READY TO GET INTO THE CRITERIA BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE WHERE WE LIE ON THIS ISSUE. I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD WITH CRITERIA NUMBER 1, WHICH 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 UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SELF-CREATED. I WILL SAY JUST RIGHT OFF THE BAR THAT I CAN'T GET PAST THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THEY'RE NOT SELF-CREATED. I UNDERSTAND THE SHEDS ARE PRE-EXISTING TO THE PROPERTY BEFORE YOU OWNED IT, I'M NOT DENYING THAT, BUT IN BUILDING THIS BREEZE WAY EDITION STRUCTURE AND IN THE TIMEFRAME IN WHICH YOU DID IT, THIS IS A COMPLETELY SELF-CREATED PROBLEM. HAJ YOU HAVE COME TO US AND SAID THESE SHEDS ARE EXISTING ON OUR PROPERTY AND GIVING US THE CHANCE TO LOOK AND SAY, WE UNDERSTAND. WE'RE LOOKING AT A DIFFERENT CASE, AND I THINK THAT MEMBER OQUIMO REALLY LAID OUT WHAT I WAS FEELING, WHICH WAS THAT I'M NOT COMFORTABLE GRANTING VARIANCES ON WORK THAT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE WITHOUT THE PROPER STEPS BEING TAKEN, SO I'LL SAY THAT. IS ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY THOUGHTS OR ANYBODY CAN REACH AND CLEAR CRITERIA NUMBER 1, THAT THESE ARE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES AND NOT SELF-CREATED. I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR A CASE FOR THAT, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN MAKE THAT AND IF CAN'T MEET NUMBER 1, THEN I CAN'T SUPPORT A MOTION TO APPROVE. YES, MR. TAYLOR, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD? >> I WANT TO MAKE THIS RIGHT. HOW CAN I MAKE THIS RIGHT? >> UNFORTUNATELY, THIS IS THE CRITERIA THAT WERE GIVEN IN ORDER TO LOOK AT THESE CASES FAIRLY AND EQUALLY. AGAIN, I KNEW THAT I WOULD LOOK AT THIS AND HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE FIRST CRITERIA BASED ON THE LANGUAGE THAT SAYS, THESE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST THAT ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND OR STRUCTURE, THEY ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LAND OR STRUCTURES AND THEY'RE NOT SELF-CREATED. I THINK THAT THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY UNIQUE TO THIS AREA AND I BELIEVE THEY ARE SELF-CREATED. >> WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY ME [OVERLAPPING] >> CORRECT, WHY YOU'RE CREATING THAT BREEZE WAY WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE [OVERLAPPING] PROPER BUILDING PERMITS. >> WELL, THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING. HOW CAN I MAKE THIS RIGHT? I WANTED TO DO SOMETHING TO MAKE THIS RIGHT. >> YES, MEMBER SHEM >> YOU SHOULD WAIT FOR THE OUTCOME OF THIS MEETING AND THEN MEET WITH STAFF AND STAFF WILL TELL YOU HOW YOU CAN MAKE THIS RIGHT. THERE ARE WAYS TO GET IN COMPLIANCE. I THINK THE FIRST WOULD BE TO TURN EVERYTHING TO THE STATE IT WAS BEFORE YOU START THE CONSTRUCTION BUT TALK TO STAFF ABOUT THIS. THIS IS NOT THE BOARD'S ROLE TO TELL YOU HOW TO MAKE IT RIGHT. OUR BOARD'S ROLE IS TO DECIDE IF WE'RE GOING TO GRANT YOU A VARIANCE. >> OKAY. >> CORRECT. THANK YOU, MEMBER SHEM. IS ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD ON THAT? CRITERIA NUMBER 2 WOULD BE STRICT INTERPRETATION ENFORCEMENT OF THE LITERAL TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER WOULD RESULT IN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES THAT WOULD PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR THE PERMITTED PURPOSE. AGAIN, I WOULD HAVE A HARD TIME MEETING THIS ONE. I BELIEVE THAT THE SHEDS EXISTING AS THEY WERE, I REALLY DO APPRECIATE AND UNDERSTAND THE SAFETY ASPECTS YOU TALK ABOUT. [00:45:02] BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THERE'S NOT A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY THAT EXISTS IN DENYING THIS VARIANCE. [BACKGROUND] ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY IN THAT? I CANNOT [OVERLAPPING]. >> I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. >> YES, MEMBER PETER. >> I'M CURIOUS, WAS THE STAFF AWARE THAT THE BUILDING PROCESS WAS STOPPED BECAUSE OF A CODE VIOLATION? >> CAN I SPEAK TO ANSWER THE DIRECTOR PLEASE? >> SURE, COME ON. [INAUDIBLE] [OVERLAPPING] DIRECTOR SMITH, [LAUGHTER] PLEASE STEP UP TO THE PODIUM. PLEASE SHOW IT TO US. >> I WILL. >> HELLO, [INAUDIBLE] >> GENERALLY THE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR THIS WAS, WE RECEIVED A CALL THAT WORK WAS BEING DONE WITHOUT A PERMIT. WE, ZACK, FENNER, OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WENT OUT AND NOTED THAT WORK WAS BEING DONE WITHOUT PERMIT. WE DID NOT RED TAG WITH HIS TIME BECAUSE ZACK IS NOT A BUILDING INSPECTOR, HE IS CODE ENFORCEMENT INSPECTOR, SO IT WAS NOT RED TAGGED IMMEDIATELY. MR. TAYLOR CAME IN, I BELIEVE THE NEXT MORNING, I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY THE TIMING, BUT THAT IS WHEN THE CONVERSATION WITH KEITH INITIALLY HAPPENED AND I BELIEVE BRIAN WAS THERE. THEN WE WENT AND LOOKED AT IT AND WE REALIZED WHAT'S GOING ON CALLED MR. TAYLOR, DISCUSS THE ZBA VARIANTS AT THAT POINT, WE DID OFFICIALLY SAY WORK IS STOPPED, CAN'T CONTINUE BECAUSE WE KNEW THEN WE HAD A PROBLEM WITH RESPECT TO THAT. MR. TAYLOR DID BRING IN A GOOD DEAL OF INFORMATION, SUBMITTED THIS VERY SHORTLY AFTER HE WAS MADE AWARE THAT NEED REQUESTS. IT WAS AN INCOMPLETE APPLICATION. WE MADE HIM AWARE OF THAT THERE WAS SOME MISCOMMUNICATION, WHICH IS WHY IT WAS ON THIS AGENDA, NOT LAST MONTH'S AGENDA. WE DID THEN VERY SHORTLY AFTER THE LAST MONTH'S AGENDA RECEIVE A COMPLETE APPLICATION WHICH INCLUDED A FORMAL SURVEY INDICATING WHEN MR. CHAPMAN HAS POINTED OUT THIS EVENING THAT WE HAVE AN ISSUE WITH BOTH SIDE YARD SETBACK AND SETBACK OFF OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE AND THAT'S BRINGS US UP TO SPEED. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DR. SMITH. >> THANK YOU. >> NO PROBLEM [INAUDIBLE] MR. TAYLOR,. >> IS THERE ANY VERBIAGE ABOUT SHEDS THAT HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR YEARS? >> I WOULD SAID OF MR. CHAPMAN, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT'S NECESSARILY IN THE ORDINANCE. NOTHING ABOUT EXISTING STRUCTURES THAT. >> I MEAN, IS THERE A GRANDFATHER? >> THERE'S NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. >> NO. >> NO. MR. CHAIRMAN IS SAYING NO, THERE'S NOT ANYTHING IN THE ORDINANCE ABOUT STRUCTURES PRE-EXISTING STRUCTURES. OKAY. I'M ASSUMING THIS THIS VARIANCE IS NOT GOING THROUGH AND I'M JUST THAT ASSUMPTION. I WANT TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT, IF I HAVE TO REBUILD THIS AND PUT IT THE WAY IT WAS AND THEN RE-ESTABLISH A PERMIT FOR THESE SHEDS. I THINK, I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU. IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE WE CAN'T MEET THE CRITERIA WHICH IS IF WE CANNOT MEET ALL FIVE CRITERIA, WE CANNOT GRANT THE VARIANCE. WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO MEET THE CRITERIA. THAT SAID, IF THE VARIANCE IS DENIED, THEN HE COULD RESUBMIT A BUILDING PERMIT UNDER DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A DIFFERENT PLAN THAN EXISTING. IS THAT CORRECT STAFF? THIS BREEZE WAY IN AND OF ITSELF AS PRESENTED TO US TONIGHT, WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BE PERMITTED IF WE DENIED THIS VARIANCE. CORRECT? IT WOULD STILL NEED A VARIANCE. IT WOULD STILL NEED A VARIANCE, SO IF WE DENY THE VARIANCE, YOU WOULDN'T, OTHER THAN APPEALING THE VARIANCE, NOT BE ABLE TO REPLY WITH THIS PARTICULAR STRUCTURE AS YOU HAVEN'T HERE SO THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN THE PLAN IN THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND THE DESIGN FOR IT TO BE RESUBMITTED, IS THAT CORRECT? AND THEN IT WILL HAVE TO BE PERMITTED. THEN IT WOULD HAVE TO BE PERMITTED. OKAY. THAT WOULD BE THE ORDER OF OPERATIONS FOR YOU. IT YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH OF A DIFFERENCE, AND THEN IT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND BEFORE ANY WORK WAS STARTED. OKAY. WOULDN'T BE OUT OF LINE FOR ME TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT WITH KEITH? DURING THESE PROCEEDINGS, YES. LET US GET THROUGH A CRITERIA AND OUR MOTIONS BUT I THINK THAT WOULD [00:50:01] BE GREAT TO BE ABLE TO GET WITH THEM AS SOON AS YOU CAN TO RECONNECT AND FIGURE OUT WHAT CAN BE DONE DIFFERENTLY. I KNOW THAT YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR ENOUGH WITH THEM THAT YOU KNOW THAT THEY'RE VERY HELPFUL AND VERY AGREEABLE DEPARTMENT OFFER. OKAY. YES. THEY'RE GOING TO HELP YOU AS MUCH AS THEY CAN. NOW KEEP IN MIND THAT BECAUSE WHERE THIS IS AND BASED ON THE SURVEY THAT YOU HAVE, YOU GOT AN ISSUE WITH HOW CLOSE IT IS TO THE HOUSE AND TO THE SIDEBAR SETBACK. YOU'VE GOT TWO VARIANCES THERE, I'LL GO AHEAD AND GET INTO CRITERIA NUMBER 3, WHICH IS GRANTING THE VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM ACTION NECESSARY WHICH YOU CARRY OUT THE SPIRIT OF THIS ZONING ORDINANCE, SECURE PUBLIC SAFETY, AND PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, WHICH I CAN TELL YOU RIGHT NOW. THIS BODY HERE IS GOING TO HAVE A CHALLENGE WITH HAVING TWO VARIANCES AT SUCH LARGE AMOUNTS. WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A VARIANCE, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A 10 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE MAIN STRUCTURE AND YOU'RE ASKING FOR AN EIGHT-FOOT VARIANCE, MEANING YOU'RE TWO FEET AWAY FROM YOUR HOUSE, THAT IS IN MY OPINION, NOT A MINIMUM ACTION. HOW CAN WE GET THAT TO BE AS MINIMAL AS POSSIBLE WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A FIVE-YEAR-OLD SETBACK AND YOU WANT FOUR FEET OF A VARIANCE, MEANING YOU WANT TO GO ONE FOOT AWAY FROM THE SIDE YARD. THAT ALSO IS REALLY PUSHING IT TO THE LIMIT OF MAXIMUM ACTION VERSUS MINIMUM ACTION SO KEEP THOSE THINGS IN MIND. WE UNDERSTAND IN THESE AREAS HOW TIGHT THOSE LOTS ARE AND WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR JUST A BARE MINIMUM OF WHAT WE CAN ADJUST TO THOSE SETBACKS AND SETBACKS OFF THE MAIN STRUCTURE SO THAT IS WHAT I WILL SAY TO THAT. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD ON THE BOARD HERE ABOUT MINIMUM ACTION. I'M SORRY FOR SPEAKING FOR ALL OF YOU, BUT I KNOW YOU WELL ENOUGH AND MR. WEBER, I'M SURE THAT ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION, YOU HAVE SIMILAR FEELINGS FOR THAT. CRITERIA NUMBER 4, I'M SORRY, WE'RE NOT ABLE TO MEET CRITERIA NUMBER 3, CRITERIA NUMBER 4 GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND OR THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY AND I GO BOTH WAYS. I COULD SEE IT AND I UNDERSTAND MR. TAYLOR'S PERSPECTIVE OF IT BEING INLINE WITH THE OTHER SHEDS AND I CAN ALSO SEE FROM THE NEIGHBORING PERSPECTIVE THAT IT'S ALSO A VERY LARGE CHUNK THERE RIGHT AT THE BACK OF THE HOUSE THAT'S RIGHT ON THEIR PROPERTY LINE. THAT'S IT [OVERLAPPING] YES, I WOULD STRUGGLE TO MEET IT ANYWAY. CRITERIA NUMBER 5, GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS CHAPTER. I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO MEET THAT BASED ON DOING THE WORK OUT-OF-ORDER AND NOT WITH GOING THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNELS IN THE PROPER TIME SO UNFORTUNATELY, I COULD NOT MEET REVIEW CRITERIA. IS ANYONE HAS ANY MOTION FOR ME OR ANY COMMENTARY QUESTION? YES, MEMBER JAMES. I DO FOR THE DENIAL OF ZBA CASE NUMBER 220615-16089 EAST LAKE DRIVE ROGER TAYLOR, 689 EAST LAKE DRIVE, HAZLETT, MICHIGAN. SUPPORT MEMBER. SUPPORT MEMBER, FIELD-FOSTER. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? THE QUESTION OF CLARIFICATION IS WHAT IS IT THAT YOU'RE DENYING THE CURRENT BUILDING OR THE BUILDINGS THAT WERE ALREADY ESTABLISHED? THE VARIANCE PUT FORTH BY THE APPLICANT [OVERLAPPING] TO VARIANCE FROM SECTION 86-5653 AND SECTION 86502. OKAY. FOR THE APPLICANTS BENEFIT IN MIND, WHAT WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE? THIS IS WHY IT'S GREAT. WE'VE GOT TWO STAFF PEOPLE HERE TODAY, SO KEITH OR TOM, WOULD YOU CARE TO COMMENT ON THAT? YES. THANK YOU. DIRECTOR SCHMIDT THE COURSE OF ACTION WHEN THE ZBA DENIES VARIANCES AS FOLLOWS, YOU HAVE DONE A VERY GOOD JOB THIS EVENING AND PUTTING YOUR REASONING FOR THE DENIAL ON THE RECORD, WHICH WE APPRECIATE GREATLY. WE WILL ISSUE A FORMAL LETTER OF DENIAL TOMORROW THAT STARTS AT APPEALS CLERK. IN THEORY, THEY COULD APPEAL TO THE COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION, WHICH IN THIS CASE WOULD BE A CIRCUIT COURT. THERE IS NO APPEAL TO THE TOWNSHIP ORDER PLANNING COMMISSION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IN THIS CASE AND IN ANY CASE WHERE THE VARIANCE LIKE THIS, [00:55:03] WE WOULD SIT DOWN WITH THE APPLICANT AND DISCUSS THEIR OPTIONS. IT WILL NOT BE AN IMMEDIATE, YOU NEED TO TEAR THAT OUT. BUT WE WILL LIKELY FORMERLY NOW ISSUE A BUILDING VIOLATION BECAUSE WORK WAS DONE WITHOUT A PERMIT AND WE HAVE NOT DONE THAT AS OF YET. THERE ARE CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE STEPS THAT WE WILL NEED TO TAKE NOW TO MOVE THIS ALONG. BUT WE WILL GLADLY SIT DOWN MR. TAYLOR AND DISCUSS ANY NUMBER OF OPTIONS FROM SIMPLY TAKING OUT THE BREEZE WAY, ADDITION TO MOVING THE SHEDS, TO MAKING AN ALTERNATIVE REQUESTS TO THE ZBA IN THE FUTURE. OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU. DIRECTOR SCHMIDT. APPLICANT, DID YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT HE JUST SAID? YES I DID. OKAY. I'VE GOT A QUESTION. OKAY. COME ON UP TO THE PODIUM PLEASE, MRS. TAYLOR. I DON'T USUALLY DO THIS BUILDING STUFF FROM THAT. IT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THEN THAT WE EITHER HAVE TO TAKE OFF WHAT WE'VE DONE AND PUT THE SHEDS BACK THE WAY THEY WERE BECAUSE THERE'S NOWHERE ELSE IN OUR YARD WE COULD PUT ANOTHER SHED. I'M SURE YOU GUYS WOULD NOT ALLOW IT. THAT'S WHAT DR. SCHMIDT WAS JUST SAYING. BASICALLY, AS OF NOW, [OVERLAPPING] WHAT WORK NEEDS TO STOP. THEN YOU TOO CAN MEET WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND DISCUSS OPTIONS FOR HOW THIS CAN BE RECONFIGURED OR HOW IT CAN BE EITHER IN WITHIN THE ORDINANCE SO IT WOULD NOT NEED A VARIANCE REQUEST OR THAT IT CHANGES SIGNIFICANTLY ENOUGH THAT YOU COULD BRING IT BACK TO US AS ANOTHER VERSION OF THE COURSE. BECAUSE I WAS GOING TO SAY IF YOU GO OUT JUST A LITTLE FURTHER WITH THEM SHEDS AND WANTS TO GO INTO OUR YARD, THEN YOU'RE BLOCKING THE VIEW OF THE LAKE AND EVERYTHING ELSE. BECAUSE THEY'RE RIGHT ON THE SIDE. YEAH. OKAY. THAT'S ALL I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY. THANK YOU. [OVERLAPPING] THANK YOU, MRS. TAYLOR. ON THAT NOTE, IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION AT HAND, WE DO HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE AND WE WILL GO AHEAD AND VOTE. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE GET OUT? MEMBER KENNECK THIS TO CLARIFY THIS AS A MOTION TO DENY THE VARIANCE APPLICATION. MEMBER KENNECK? YES. MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER. YES. MEMBER JOSEY YES. REMEMBER PRIMO. YES. THE CHAIR VOTES. YES. UNFORTUNATELY, YOUR APPLICATION HAS BEEN DENIED, BUT WE DO HAVE IN PLACE YOU GETTING WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, GOING BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND FIGURING OUT HOW WE CAN GET THIS IN COMPLIANCE. OKAY. MR. TAYLOR AND MR. TAYLOR. GREAT. OKAY. GREAT. ON THAT NOTE, SINCE THAT IS THE ONLY CASE IN OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING, IS THERE ANY OTHER BUSINESS? THERE'S NO OTHER BUSINESS TONIGHT SO WE'LL GO TO PUBLIC MARKETS. [8. PUBLIC REMARKS] IS THERE ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN THIS CASE OR ANY OTHER DB BUSINESS? AND IF SO, YOU CAN COME UP TO THE PODIUM AND WELL, JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD. DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT, MR. TAYLOR? JUST COME ON UP TO THE PODIUM JUST SO WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CLEAR. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE PANEL IN THE PODIUM. YOU LET HER SPEAK THE VITRIOL OF MY BEING A NEIGHBOR TO HER, BUT YOU DID NOT ALLOW MY WIFE TO EVEN MAKE IT A FIVE-MINUTE COMMENT. YOU ALLOWED EVERYBODY FIVE-MINUTES, WHICH YOU DIDN'T ALLOW MY WIFE I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT. SIR. I WANTED TO MOVE IT ALONG SO WE COULD TALK ABOUT YOUR CASE. I FELT THAT IT WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS BECAUSE MR. AND MRS. TAYLOR, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT YOUR HOME COMING, BUT THEIR COMMENTS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT YOU WERE DOING. [NOISE] BUT IT'S PUBLIC RECORDS. I CAN'T CONTROL WHO COME TO A PUBLIC MEETING. THIS IS PUBLIC REVIEWS. YOU'D LIKE TO COME UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND GIVE YOUR FIVE-MINUTE REBUTTAL. IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE CASE. SHE BESUBMERGED MY NEIGHBORHOOD [OVERLAPPING]. WE DID NOT COMMENT ON IT, WE DIDN'T ADDRESS IT. I UNDERSTAND BUT YOU ALLOW HER TO DO IT BUT YOU DIDN'T ALLOW MY WIFE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT. MRS. TAYLOR, IF YOU'D LIKE, YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. YOU CAN SEE WHAT YOU NEED TO SAY FOR THE FIVE-MINUTES THAT WAS GIVEN TO YOUR NEIGHBOR. I HAVE A QUESTION, WILL THIS BE ON THE RECORD? ANYBODY WHO COMES UP TO SPEAK AT THE PODIUM? YEAH. MRS. TAYLOR, GO AHEAD. YOU CAN HAVE YOUR FIVE-MINUTES. [OVERLAPPING] >> WELL, THE THING IS I'M GOING BE HONEST WITH YOU. I HAVEN'T TOLD HER OR ANYBODY WHAT HAS HAPPENED. SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THEM COMING IN, WE TRIED TO WELCOME THEM, WE GOT A REBATTLED IN DIFFERENT WAYS. NOW I HAD TO FILE A FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST HER HUSBAND FOR A VERY INDECENT THING THAT HAPPENED THAT HE DID TO ME. EVER SINCE WE CAN'T EVEN WALK OUT IN OUR YARD OR DO ANYTHING AT ALL. [01:00:05] IT'S BEEN CONTINUOUS HARASSMENT. EVEN WHEN THE GUY WAS OUT DOING OUR SURVEY LAST WEEK, HE COMES OUT AND HE STANDS THREE FEET FROM US. EVERY TIME WE'RE IN OUR YARD, HE COMES OUT, WATCHES EVERYTHING WE DO. MY GRANDKIDS ARE THERE, WATCHES EVERYTHING WE DO. HE'S DONE PERVERTED THINGS, AND THAT, I HAVE NEVER TOLD ANYBODY EXCEPT FOR YOU NOW, AND I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT SHE'S ALLOWED TO STAND UP AND SAY HOW ROTTEN WE ARE. MY HUSBAND OFFERED THEM VEGETABLES FROM OUR GARDEN RIGHT OFF THE BAT, HE JUST BLEW US OFF AND TREATS US LIKE DIRT. WE CAN'T EVEN SIT IN OUR BACKYARD ANYMORE. WE HAVE TO LEAVE IT BECAUSE HE'S OUT THERE WATCHING EVERYTHING WE DO, ANYTIME WE MOVE, EVERY TIME WE GO IN THE YARD, EVERYTHING. IT'S NOT A VERY GOOD ATMOSPHERE. I'M SORRY I HAVE TO SAY THIS. IT'S ON THE RECORD WHAT HE DID. HE SAID THERE'LL NEVER BE PEACE BETWEEN US UNTIL I GO AND TELL THE POLICE THAT I MADE A FALSE REPORT. I'M NOT GOING TO DO THAT BECAUSE IT HAPPENED. >> I DIDN'T WANT HER TO REALLY GO HERE [OVERLAPPING]. >> THANK YOU MRS. TAYLOR. I CAN TELL THAT THIS IS UPSETTING AND I'M SORRY THAT YOU FELT DENIED. I THANK YOU FOR GIVING YOUR COMMENTARY. TO BE COMPLETELY HONEST, MRS. TAYLOR, I FELT LIKE IT IS EMOTIONAL AND IT DIDN'T PERTAIN TO THE CASE. THAT I WANTED YOU TWO TO STAY FOCUSED SO THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT YOUR HOME. THAT'S WHY. >> WE CAN'T EVEN ENJOY OUR HOME, WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING. >> WELL, THAT'S WHAT I WAS UPSET ABOUT. YOU GAVE HER TIME BUT YOU DIDN'T GIVE MY WIFE TIME. I KNOW YOU GAVE HER TIME IN THE END, BUT THAT'S VERY UPSETTING TO ME. >> I'M SORRY THAT YOU FEEL THAT WAY ABOUT HOW I'VE RUN THIS MEETING. MY INTENTION WAS TO GET TO YOUR CASE SO WE COULD FOCUS ON THE TASK AT HAND. OUR TASK IS NOT TO MEDIATE BETWEEN NEIGHBORS. OUR TASK IS TO TALK TO YOU AND YOUR WIFE ABOUT YOUR HOME. THAT IS OUR TASK. THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T WANT YOU TWO GOING INTO A BACK-AND-FORTH OTHER PEOPLE.[OVERLAPPING] >> YEAH. UNDERSTOOD. >> I WANTED TO FOCUS ON WHAT WE CAME HERE TO DO, WHICH WAS THE BUSINESS OF THIS BOARD. >> YES I UNDERSTAND THAT. [OVERLAPPING] >> BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY SHE WAS ALLOWED TO CONTINUE SAYING EVERYTHING SHE WANTED TO SAY, THAT IS THE POINT. >> BEING A PANEL, IT SHOULD BE ON THE EGALITARIAN TYPE PANEL WORK. [NOISE] YOU ALL HAVE A FIVE-MINUTES OF COMMENT. SHE WAS DENIED THAT TO ME. I'M NOT MENTIONING YOU, I JUST WANTED HER TO GO AHEAD. [OVERLAPPING] >> I HAVE GIVEN YOU THAT TIME. [OVERLAPPING] I HAVE GIVEN YOUR WIFE THAT TIME. YOU'VE HAD A LOT OF TIME AT THE PODIUM THIS EVENING. >> OKAY. >> THAT WAS MY INTENTION, WAS TO GIVE YOU THE TIME TO TALK ABOUT YOUR CASE AS OPPOSED TO MEDIATING A DISPUTE BETWEEN NEIGHBORS. >> I UNDERSTAND, BUT FOR THE LIFE OF ME, I DON'T KNOW WHY WASN'T IT STOPPED RIGHT AWAY? JUST FOR THE LIFE OF ME, I DIDN'T GET THAT. >> IT'S A PUBLIC MEETING. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. >> OKAY. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN THIS CASE THIS EVENING? IF NOT, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. >> I JUST WANT. >> COME OUT UP TO THE PODIUM, YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS IN THE PUBLIC RECORD PLEASE. >> MY NAME IS KIMBERLY THOMPSON. I LIVE AT 6098 SKYLINE DRIVE. I GET THAT THIS ISN'T YOUR DEAL, BUT I JUST WANT TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW BECAUSE THIS IS GOING TO BE ON RECORD. >> CORRECT. >> IS THAT THE TAYLOR'S AT EVERY TURN WHEN THEY HAVE THEIR SURVEY DONE THE DAY BEFORE THEY MOVED IN, THE POLICE WERE CALLED. EVERYBODY HAS THEIR OWN PERSPECTIVE. BUT THEY'RE THE ONES WHO ARE HARASSING. THEY ARE THE ONES, WE HAVE IT ON VIDEOTAPE. EVERYTHING THAT THEY'VE DONE HAS BEEN TO MAKE THE ENVIRONMENT RIDICULOUSLY AWFUL. I'M THERE EVERY DAY. I'VE SEEN IT EVERY DAY. I'M ALSO PART OF THIS TOWNSHIP ON ANOTHER BOARD. I UNDERSTAND, NOT GETTING THE EMOTIONS INVOLVED. >> CORRECT. >> HOWEVER, I APPRECIATE YOUR DECISION, THIS HAS ALL BEEN COMPLETELY ON THEM AND I'M GLAD IT'S ON RECORD BECAUSE NOW THE WHEELS CAN START GOING IN ANOTHER DIRECTION. THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN THIS CASE THIS EVENING? ON THAT NOTE, I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC REMARK AND GO INTO BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS. [9. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS] FIRST AND FOREMOST, WELCOME TO [LAUGHTER] RIGHT FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION. WELCOME. >> I'M STANDING HERE ASKING MYSELF WHAT WAS I THINKING. >> RIGHT. [LAUGHTER] >> YOU GOT IN ON A GREAT EXCITING BOARD. [LAUGHTER] WE'VE BEEN WAITING FOR THIS POSITION TO BE FILLED WHEN MR. HENDRICKSON LEFT. WELCOME. WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE. YES. MEMBER SHANE GO AHEAD. >> WELL, MEMBER PRIMO WAS APPOINTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION 2016. IT WAS DONE BY SUPERVISOR STYKA BECAUSE OF HIS MANY YEARS IN THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING INDUSTRY. [01:05:02] >> THAT MAKES SENSE[OVERLAPPING]. >> HE'S GOT GREAT CREDENTIALS AND HE'S SERVED THE BOARD ADMIRABLY THE PAST SIX YEARS AND WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO YOUR CONTINUED PRESENCE ON THERE AS LONG AS YOU CAN CONTINUE TO SERVE AND YOU'RE GOING TO ENHANCE THE SUPPORT MAYBE ON THIS BOARD AS WELL. WE'RE GLAD TO HAVE YOU HERE. >> YES. THANK YOU SO MUCH AND WELCOME. FINAL COMMENTARY WOULD BE JASON HILL. ONCE AGAIN, TO JUST LET EVERYBODY KNOW WHAT WE DO HERE AT THE ZBA. WE DO NOT MEET NEIGHBORHOOD DISPUTE. [LAUGHTER] I JUST WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR ON MY DECISION TO LIMIT COMMENTARY WAS MADE BECAUSE I COULD TELL THAT IT WAS GOING TO BECOME A BACK-AND-FORTH CONVERSATION. I WAS ATTEMPTING TO LIMIT THAT SO THAT WE COULD FOCUS ON THIS. >> THE ISSUE WAS THE VARIANCE AND THAT'S WHERE WE NEED TO STAY. >> THAT IS CORRECT. WE HAVE TO WALK A FINE LINE BECAUSE IT IS A PUBLIC MEETING. PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO SUBMIT COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE BOARD. PEOPLE ARE ALSO ALLOWED TO SPEAK PUBLICLY AND MAKE THEIR COMMENTS ON THE RECORD. THAT SAID, I DIDN'T THINK THAT IT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR MRS. TAYLOR TO REBUTTAL TO THE NEIGHBOR AS PART OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, WHICH IS WHY I MADE THE DECISION I MADE. ANYBODY WHO HAS A PROBLEM WITH IT CAN KINDLY PLEASE SUBMIT A LETTER TO CHAIRMAN OR [LAUGHTER] FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS. BUT THAT IS THE DECISION I MADE. I STAND BY THAT DECISION. MRS. TAYLOR HAD HER CHANCE TO SPEAK AT THE END, AND IT HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CASE AT HAND, WHICH IS WHY I WANTED TO KEEP THEM ON TASK THAT WE COULD DISCUSS THE BUSINESS OF THE BOARD. I SAID WHAT I SAID, MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER. >> ONE YOU DON'T HAVE TO DEFEND YOURSELF, YOU HANDLED THE MEETING VERY WELL. >> THANK YOU. >> AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE LETTER IS PART OF OUR BOARD PACKET WHICH BASICALLY MAKES THAT PUBLIC RECORD ANYWAY. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CRITERIA THAT WE HAD TO GO THROUGH. I APPRECIATE THE WAY YOU HANDLED THE MEETING AS USUAL. IT WAS AN EXCELLENT JOB. JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW YOU DO NOT HAVE TO DEFEND YOURSELF. >> WELL JUST IN CASE FOR ALL FOR ALL FOLKS THAT SPOKE TO ME. [LAUGHTER] >> WELL, I THINK TO BE CLEAR, THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE WOULD NOT HAVE AFFECTED THE VOTE >> NO. >> NO. >> NO. THAT IS TRUE. >> SURE. >> I DO KNOW THAT AS PART OF OUR NOTIFICATION PROCESS, NEIGHBORS ARE NOTIFIED AND THEY HAVE DIFFERENT BITS OF INFORMATION TO GIVE AND TO OFFER REGARDING THE CASES AND THEIR OPINIONS. ULTIMATELY, UNLESS IT'S A SAFETY ISSUE, I HAVEN'T HAD AN OPINION OF A NEIGHBOR DIRECTLY INFLUENCE OR AFFECT OUR DECISION-MAKING PROCESS. WE DO ENCOURAGE NEIGHBORS TO COMMUNICATE WITH ONE ANOTHER AND TRY TO GET ALONG. IT SEEMS THAT THIS IS PROBABLY A VERY DIFFICULT SITUATION IN THAT REGARD. WE JUST HOPE EVERYBODY'S RESPECTFUL AND SAFE, SO YES, MEMBER KANE, GO AHEAD. >> I JUST WANT TO SAY WELCOME, MR. PRIMO. >> THANK YOU. >> IT'S MY FIRST TIME IN A LONG TIME THAT I DID NOT SAY A WORD FOR THE WHOLE MEETING AND IT'S ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC BECAUSE [LAUGHTER] EVERY QUESTION AND EVERYTHING [OVERLAPPING] [NOISE] I DON'T WANT TO GO BACK ON THIS TOPIC, BUT I DID HAVE A TON OF QUESTIONS AND THINGS AND THERE'S ACTUALLY A COUPLE OF MORE QUESTIONS THAT I'M GOING TO ASK STAFF OUTSIDE OF THIS [OVERLAPPING] OKAY MEETING ABOUT THIS BECAUSE I JUST GOING. BUT I THOUGHT YOU GUYS ASKED THE SAME EXACT QUESTIONS I WOULD ASK. AS THE CHAIR, I THOUGHT YOU HANDLED THAT SITUATION, IF I CAN MIMIC MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER, YOU HANDLED THAT SITUATION VERY WELL. EVEN IF IT WAS I HATE TO SAY IT AND I KNOW THERE'S NO COUNCIL HERE BUT MR. SMITH, AND DIRECTOR COULD PROBABLY CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT EVEN IF IT WAS A SAFETY TYPE THING, STILL THAT'S A CIVIL ISSUE THAT WE HAVE A GENTLEMAN IN THE BACK THAT HIS DEPARTMENT HANDLES THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. IT'S NOT AN IMPORTANT ISSUE, EVEN THIS OBSCENE GESTURE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S A SIMPLE THING. IT'S NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ZONING CODE OR AN ORDINANCE. >> YEAH. >> I THOUGHT THE SAME THING THERE RIGHT AWAY THAT EVEN A LOT OF THAT WAS IRRELEVANT FROM THE BEGINNING, EVEN THOUGH PEOPLE ARE FREE TO MAKE THEIR OPINIONS AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT IS EMOTIONAL. YOU SAID THE CORRECT TERM IT AS EMOTIONAL AND THAT'S WHAT YOU GET SOME TIME. I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THE WAY YOU HANDLED THE SITUATION AND TRIED TO STOP THAT. MY OPINION IS THAT A PARTY WAS MORE ANGRY BECAUSE THEY FELT THAT, HOW DO I SAY IT? MY SISTER USED TO DO THIS TO ME ALL THE TIME. SHE WOULD PUNCH ME AND THEN SHE KNEW I WAS GOING TO RETALIATE. SHE WOULD GO AND YELL AT MY PARENTS AND SAY THAT I PUNCHED HER [LAUGHTER] SO THAT MY PARENTS WOULD GET MAD AT ME. I DIDN'T EVEN DO ANYTHING, BUT SHE WAS THE ONE. >> YEAH. >> I FELT LIKE THAT WAS A SITUATION THAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN HERE IS THAT TOWARD THE END, THERE WAS A LITTLE MAD BECAUSE THEY THREW [01:10:02] THE FIRST PUNCH AND THEY FELT THEY DIDN'T REALLY GET THE CHANCE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES. I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT HOWEVER, IT STILL WOULD HAVE BEEN IRRELEVANT. >> BY WAY OF ADDING A LITTLE HUMOR. WHEN MR. HENDRICKSON WENT ONTO THE BOARD OFF THIS COMMITTEE AND THE OPENING CAME UP AND I SAID I VOLUNTEERED. I HAD BEEN SERVING ON THE PRA COMMITTEE. [LAUGHTER] I SAID BUT I WILL NEED TO GO OFF THAT COMMITTEE TO BE ON THIS COMMITTEE, THE RESPONSE WAS "ARE YOU NUTS?". [LAUGHTER]. >> [OVERLAPPING] ON THAT NOTE, THIS MEETING IS NOW ADJOURNED. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US AND THANK YOU AND WELCOME TOO MEMBER PRIMO. >> WELL SEE YOU SOON. >> THANK YOU. >> YOUR FIRST DAY WAS LIKE MY FIRST DAY AS WELL. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.