Oct 19, 2022 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting

[1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER]

[00:00:04]

WELL, I'M GOING TO GET STARTED BECAUSE I HAVE A FEELING MR. PREMOE MAY HAVE FORGOT.

WE HAD A MEETING THIS EVENING.

IT'S BEEN IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE WE'VE HAD A MEETING, SO.

GOOD EVENING. IT IS 6:34 P.M.

AND THIS IS THE MERIDIAN CHARTER TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING.

TODAY IS WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2022, AND I WILL NOW CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER AND STARTING WITH A ROLL CALL.

SO MEMBER KOENIG, PRESENT.

TREASURER DESCHAINE? PRESENT.

AND CHAIRMAN MANSOUR IS PRESENT.

WE HAVE A THREE MEMBER BOARD THIS EVENING TO BEGIN WITH.

HOPEFULLY WE WILL HAVE A FOURTH IF MEMBER PRIMO JOINS US.

AND IF NOT, I DO WANT TO LET THE APPLICANTS KNOW YOU DO NEED A FULL THREE POSITIVE VOTE TO APPROVE YOUR VARIANCE.

LIKEWISE, THREE NEGATIVE VOTES TO DENY YOUR VARIANCE.

SO THEREFORE, WE APOLOGIZE FOR THE BREVITY OF OUR OF OUR BOARD.

BUT I PROMISE WE'LL MAKE FAIR CHOICES AND DECISIONS AS WE ALWAYS DO.

THAT SAID, WE WILL GET STARTED WITH AN APPROVAL OF TONIGHT'S AGENDA.

[2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA]

OK SO MOVED BY MEMBER DESCHAINE AND SUPPORTED BY KOENIG.

SO THIS IS A VOTE TO APPROVE TONIGHT'S AGENDA MEMBER KOENIG? YES. MEMBER DESCHAINE? YES. AND THE CHAIR VOTES YES.

SO THE AGENDA IS APPROVED.

[3. CORRECTIONS, APPROVAL AND RATIFICATION OF MINUTES]

LET'S START WITH JULY 20TH, 2022.

I MOVE TO APPROVE COMMENCING JULY 20TH.

SUPPORT. ALL RIGHT.

AND THIS IS A VOTE TO APPROVE A MINUTES FROM JULY 20TH, 2022.

MEMBER KOENIG.

YES. MEMBER DESCHAINE? YES. AND THE CHAIR VOTES.

YES, MADAM CHAIR? YES. I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU.

MAY I HAVE ONE COMMENT ON THE MINUTES FROM JULY 20? ABSOLUTELY. WHAT DID YOU NOTICE? WELL, IT'S NOTHING TO CHANGE.

AND I'M NOT YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOTHING TO STAFF WHO DOES THE MINUTES.

I KNOW IT'S A TEDIOUS PROCESS.

THIS WAS WAY BACK IN JULY, SO.

RIGHT. I CAN'T EVEN REMEMBER THAT FAR BACK.

REMEMBER WHAT I DID A WEEK AGO.

SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE SECOND PAGE OF THE MINUTES, OR MAYBE IT'S THE FIRST PAGE THERE, IT'S ABOUT SIX OR SEVEN LINES DOWN, IT STARTS WITH MEMBER K TO GO TO THE GARAGE AT 6112 COLUMBIA STREET.

YOU SEE THAT? IT'S ABOUT THE FOURTH OR FIFTH.

YES, I SEE THAT AT THE END OF THAT SENTENCE, IT SAYS SO THERE SHOULD BE NO ISSUE IN GRANTING A VARIANCE IN THIS CASE.

OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO PUT ON THE RECORD THAT.

YEAH, JUST A CLARIFICATION.

I'M NOT KNOCKING THE STAFF FOR DOING THE MINUTES.

IT'S PROBABLY MORE LIKELY WHAT I SAID.

OBVIOUSLY, YOU DON'T REMEMBER ALL THE WAY BACK TO JULY, BUT WHEN I MENTIONED THAT WAS MORE OF A PERSONAL THOUGHT, THAT I BELIEVED AT THE TIME THAT WITH THE INFORMATION ON THE RECORD AND THE FACTS AND THE FINDINGS AND ALL THAT, THAT MY PERSONAL PREFERENCE WAS THAT I DON'T SEE AN ISSUE WITH THE VARIANCE.

THE WAY THAT'S WORDED.

IT COULD BE TAKEN FROM A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT I WAS TRYING TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE WHOLE BOARD.

YES, I WAS NOT MY INTENT ON THAT.

SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY.

I DO NOT HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH ANYTHING ELSE WITH THE MINUTES, OBVIOUSLY, SINCE WE VOTED TO APPROVE MANY WAYS.

YES. SO NO DID.

AND I THINK THAT THAT HELPS.

AND WE ALL WANT TO I MY CHAIR JUST KEEPS GETTING SHORTER AND SHORTER.

EXCUSE ME. WE ALL JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE HEARD PROPERLY AND CLEARLY AND SPEAKING ON OUR OWN BEHALF.

SO I APPRECIATE THAT.

ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON TO THE AUGUST MINUTES, AUGUST 17TH, AND I HAVE A NOTE BEFORE WE MAKE A MOTION, AND THAT IS THAT UNFORTUNATELY, I WAS NOT AVAILABLE THAT DAY.

AND ON THE PUBLIC REMARKS, IT SAYS CHAIRMAN, SO OPEN THE FLOOR REMARKS AND THAT I CLOSED THE PUBLIC REMARKS.

BUT I PROMISE YOU I WASN'T HERE I WAS HAVING SURGERY.

SO CORRECTION TO VICE CHAIR FIELD-FOSTER OPENING THE FLOOR FOR PUBLIC REMARKS AND CLOSING REMARKS IN THAT CASE.

AND WITH THOSE NOTES, I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 17TH MINUTES.

SUPPORT. SUPPORTED BY MEMBER DESCHAINE.

AND THIS IS A VOTE TO APPROVE THOSE MINUTES WITH THE CLARIFICATION.

MEMBER KOENIG YES.

MEMBER DESCHAINE? YES. CHAIR VOTES YES.

SO THOSE MINUTES ARE APPROVED WITH THOSE CLARIFICATIONS.

AND NOW LET'S SEE.

[4. COMMUNICATIONS]

I BELIEVE ALL OF THE COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED WERE IN REGARDS TO THE FIRST CASE.

IS THAT CORRECT? MR. CHAPMAN THAT'S CORRECT.

SO THEREFORE WE DID HAVE THAT SEPARATE ONE FOR THE SECOND SECOND CASE FROM THE TOWNSHIP AND OH, FROM THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION. YES.

SO WE CAN ADD THAT IN DURING THAT CASE AS WELL NOTED THAT WE RECEIVED A POSITIVE COMMUNICATION FROM THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION FOR THE SECOND CASE THIS EVENING.

AND WE ALSO HAVE AN ADDITION THAT YOU WILL ADD IN FROM THE TOWNSHIP, ONE OF THE TOWNSHIP ENGINEERS FOR THE SECOND CASE AS WELL.

[00:05:09]

[6A. ZBA CASE NO. 22-10-19-1 (Schultz), Blaine Schultz, 4496 Oakwood Drive, Okemos, MI 48864]

AND WITH THAT, I WILL GIVE IT TO MR. CHAPMAN. GOOD EVENING.

SO THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 80 63735A FRONT YARD.

THE FRONT YARD SETBACK ON HAMILTON ROAD IS 85 FEET FROM THE CENTERLINE, SO THE APPLICANT IS INTENDING TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING 1302 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND CONSTRUCT A NEW EIGHT 965 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY HOME AT 2205 HAMILTON ROAD.

ACCORDING TO TOWNSHIP RECORDS, THE EXISTING ONE AND THREE FOUR STORY HOME WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1891.

AT ITS CLOSEST POINT, THE THAT EXISTING HOME IS APPROXIMATELY 50 FEET FROM THE CENTER LINE OF HAMILTON ROAD.

THE NEW ONE STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS PROPOSED TO BE 50 FEET AS WELL FROM THE CENTER LINE THE RIGHT OF WAY.

IN YOUR PACKET.

THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED A LETTER OF MAP AMENDMENT THAT SHOWS THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED HOUSE IS OUTSIDE OF THE FLOODPLAIN.

SO A SECTION 80 6367 IS THE TOWNSHIP MAP THAT DESIGNATES SETBACKS.

THAT'S 85 FEET FROM THE CENTER LINE.

THE PROPOSED HOME IS THE CLOSEST POINT.

LIKE I SAID, IT'S 50 FEET, SO A VARIANCE OF 35 FEET IS REQUESTED.

AND IF YOU'LL REMEMBER, AS IN SOME PAST CASES, THERE'S AN ALTERNATIVE ROUTE THAT ALLOWS THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO ESTABLISH THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK.

SO SECTION 86, FIVE, 61 STATES, ANY FRONT YARD IN ANY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT MAY BE REDUCED BELOW THE MINIMUM REQUIRED WHEN THE FRONT YARDS OF THE EXISTING PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES WITHIN 200 FEET OF A PROPOSED PRINCIPAL BUILDING LOCATION ARE LESS THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIRED.

SO I PROVIDED A TABLE THAT SHOWS SOME OF THOSE APPROXIMATE SETBACKS THAT ARE WITHIN THE 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

SO THE BOARD, IF THEY CHOOSE, CAN JUST ESTABLISH THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THIS PROPERTY UNDER THE SECTION, BYPASSING THE NEED FOR THE VARIANCE. AND THERE'S A TABLE THAT SHOWS ALL OF THE SETBACKS.

YEP. IF I CAN FIND IT.

RIGHT THERE. GREAT.

OKAY. AND AS NOTED PREVIOUSLY, WE HAD SEVERAL LETTERS FROM THOSE NEIGHBORS IN SUPPORT OF THIS VARIANCE.

AND THEN I THINK INCLUDED IN THE PACKET, TOO, IS INFORMATION FROM BOTH FEMA AND FEMA.

YES. LOOKS LIKE IT.

THAT'S IT RIGHT HERE. YEP.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

IN THAT CASE, IF THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ANY AND ADD ANYTHING ELSE TO WHAT MR. CHAPMAN SAID, YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME UP TO THE PODIUM.

JUST ASK THAT YOU GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD.

AND THEN ONCE YOU SEE WHAT YOU NEED TO SAY, WE WILL GET INTO OUR BOARD TIME AND TALK ABOUT THE CASE.

GOOD EVENING. BLAINE SCHULTZ.

4496. OAKWOOD DRIVE.

OKEMOS, MICHIGAN. FOUR EIGHT, SIX FOUR.

MR. CHAPMAN DID A GOOD JOB OF SUMMARIZING EVERYTHING THAT WE HAD IN OUR PACKET.

AND AS I SAY, WE WENT AROUND AND TALKED TO ALL THE NEIGHBORS IN IMMEDIATE PROXIMITY.

AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE REQUESTING THIS AS WE BELIEVE IT WILL BE ACTUALLY AN ENHANCEMENT AND NO FURTHER BACK THAN ANY OF THE EXISTING PROPERTIES AND THE PROPERTY THAT IS THERE.

SO IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO TRY AND ANSWER QUESTIONS.

WE'RE GOING TO BE USING MAYBERRY HOMES TO BUILD THE HOME.

WE ALREADY HAVE A DESIGN PICKED OUT.

OKAY, GREAT. IF YOU'D LIKE TO STICK UP THERE WHILE WE GET INTO OUR BOARD TIME, THAT'D BE GREAT.

THEN IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS TO ASK YOU, WE CAN JUST GO AHEAD AND ASK WITH THAT.

IF THERE'S ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE, YOU MAY COME UP AND DO SO NOW.

ALL RIGHT. IF NOT, I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND WE WILL GET INTO OUR BOARD TIME.

ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.

ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING THEY WANT TO ASK OR CHECK? COULD YOU BRING UP THE PICTURE OF THE PROPERTY AGAIN? YEAH, THE SATELLITE VIEW.

[00:10:06]

LET ME SEE IF I CAN. 300 FEET, PERHAPS.

IT IS A DEEP BOND TO 93 TO 94.

MY QUESTION TO YOU WOULD BE, SINCE YOU ARE DOING A NEW CONSTRUCTION, WHY DO YOU WANT TO BUILD IT AS CLOSE TO THE CURB AS YOU HAVE WHEN YOU'VE GOT ALL THIS DEPTH TO WORK WITH TO KEEP IT OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN? THAT WHERE WE'RE BUILDING IT? ESSENTIALLY, WE HAD CABS GO OUT AND SURVEY THE LOT AND ESSENTIALLY WHERE THE FLOODPLAIN LINE IS.

THAT'S WHY THE EXISTING HOUSE IS, I THINK IS WHERE IT IS, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHERE THE FLOODPLAIN LINE IS.

THAT'S WHERE A REASONABLE HOUSE WILL FIT AND BE OUTSIDE OF THE FLOODPLAIN.

BUT ON THIS MAP, WHERE DOES THE FLOODPLAIN APPROXIMATELY START? RIGHT THERE. YEAH, IT'S PRETTY CLOSE TO THE BACK OF THE HOUSE.

OKAY. LIKE TWO FEET FROM THE BACK OF THE HOUSE, I THINK, DEPENDING ON HOW FAR OVER WE PUT IT.

I THINK THAT AT TEN FEET OVER, IT'S NEVER CLOSER THAN FIVE AND ONE HALF FEET FROM THE FLOODPLAIN.

AND ONE SIDE IS LIKE 15 FEET AND THE OTHER SIDE IS NINE BECAUSE THE LINE KIND OF GOES IN AND.

S AND IS THE HOUSE CURRENTLY OCCUPIED? NO, IT'S AN ESTATE.

AND THE HOUSE ITSELF IS IS NOT LIVABLE.

I MEAN, THE THE THE IT'S A TEARDOWN, BUT IT DOES GO BACK TO 1895.

DID I HEAR. 91.

OH. 19 1891.

YEAH. IT WAS ORIGINALLY NEXT DOOR TO THE EAST AND ACTUALLY HAD BEEN MOVED AND THE HOUSE THAT'S TO THE EAST.

IT WAS THE SAME FAMILY.

THEY BUILT A NEW HOME LIKE IN 1920, I THINK.

OKAY. IS THERE ANY HISTORICAL VALUE OF ANYTHING IN THE OLDER HOUSE BEFORE THAT YOU'LL PRESERVE BEFORE YOU KNOW THE FOLKS THAT OWN IT YOU KNOW DIDN'T SAY THAT IT'S AN OLD HOME THAT'S FALLEN APART.

OLD BUT NOT HISTORICAL.

YOU KNOW WE HAVE SO FEW OLDER HOMES IN THIS COUNTRY IN GENERAL AND IT'S SOMETHING GOING BACK TO THE 19TH CENTURY IS REMARKABLE ALL BY ITSELF.

IT'S THE SAME THAT THERE IS NOTHING THAT'S PRESERVED, ABLE OR WORTH PRESERVING.

OKAY. THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. I AM VERY SORRY TO DO THIS.

I HAVE A BABYSITTER EMERGENCY WHO'S CALLING ME REPEATEDLY.

OH, OKAY.

THIS IS WHY I AM VERY, VERY SORRY TO DO THIS.

I NEED TO TAKE A BRIEF RECESS JUST SO I CAN MAKE SURE SHE'S OKAY, BECAUSE [INAUDIBLE] BURN UP ALL SUMMER AS WE KNOW.

WE ARE RAISING GRAND RIVER BY 18 INCHES.

YEAH. YEAH.

AND IT'S NOT EASY TO RAISE A MAJOR STATE HIGHWAY TWO FEET.

BUT IT NEEDS TO BE DONE.

I GOT A SWIFT EDUCATION.

[INAUDIBLE].

SO I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT. I APOLOGIZE, EVERYONE.

OK ALL RIGHT WITH THAT.

THAT WAS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAD, WHETHER THE HOME WAS HISTORICAL IN VALUE OR NOT.

BUT I THINK OTHER THAN THAT, MY MAIN QUESTION IS HAS ACTUALLY ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED, WHICH WAS WHY IT CAN'T BE ANY FURTHER OFF THE ROAD.

AND BEYOND THAT, I THINK I DIDN'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

KOENIG ANYTHING THAT YOU THOUGHT OF? I ALSO HAD THE HISTORICAL QUESTION IN MIND ABOUT THAT.

WHEN YOU SEE THAT NUMBER POP OUT ON THAT MAP THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU THERE, THAT KIND OF SQUIGGLY LINE TO THE UPPER LEFT, IS THAT ABOUT THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF WHERE THE FLOODWAY KIND OF STOPS? YEAH, THAT'S IT. THAT'S WHAT I FIGURED.

AND I THINK EVEN THIS NEXT.

YEAH, THIS ONE IS THE ONE THAT KIND OF GOT ME THIS IMAGE AS TO WHERE THE FLOODPLAIN IS.

I MEAN, YOU'RE RIGHT.

YES. I MEAN AS TIGHT WITHIN THAT.

YEAH THE BREAK IN THE LINE IS JUST WHERE WE HAD TO PUT THE PAPER ON THE YOU KNOW, IT'S ACTUALLY THE IT'S CONTINUING SHOWS THAT IT'S LIKE.

I THINK THAT PARTICULAR ONE WHERE WE'RE TEN FEET OFF THE WEST SIDE IT'S SEVEN AND A HALF FEET IS THE CLOSEST THAT IT GETS.

[00:15:04]

IF ANYBODY ELSE HAS ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE GO FOR IT.

AND ACTUALLY, I AM CURIOUS WHAT BOTH OF YOU FEEL ABOUT THE THE ALTERNATIVE TO THE VARIANCE AND GRANTING A SETTING THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AS OPPOSED TO CREATING A VARIANCE? BECAUSE I DO FEEL LIKE OFTEN AS OPPOSED TO GRANTING THE VERY ENDS, GIVING THIS KIND OF SETTING THIS UP BACK IN THIS WAY, WE CAN ACKNOWLEDGE, I THINK, ALL OF US THAT THIS IS ABOUT WHERE YOU CAN BUILD ON THIS PROPERTY.

SO IF WE SET THE SETBACK, NOT ONLY DO WE NOT HAVE VARIANCE THAT KIND OF IS HANGING AROUND AND FOLLOWING WITH THE HOUSE, BUT WE CAN I THINK ALL AGREE THAT THIS IS ABOUT WHERE WHATEVER HAPPENS WITH THIS PLOT OF LAND IN THE FUTURE IS WHERE SOMETHING IS GOING TO BE BUILDABLE.

WE'RE SETTING IT FOR THIS PLOT OR THE ENTIRE AREA.

IT WOULD BE FOR THE SLOT. YEAH, FOR ONLY THE SLOT.

BUT THAT WOULD STAY WITH THIS PLOT.

SO IT AVOIDS A VARIANCE BUT IT MEANS THAT THIS IS NOW ATTACHED TO THAT GOING FORWARD.

ANY. ARE YOU LOOKING FOR OUR THOUGHTS? YES. THOUGHTS ON THAT VERSUS.

WELL, I JUST WANT TO MAKE ONE OR.

YES, MR. SCHULZ, LET'S GO FOR IT.

YES, GO AHEAD. IF THE ALTERNATIVE METHODOLOGY IS ADOPTED, WHAT EXACTLY IS THAT? IS THAT THE AVERAGE OF THE OTHER FIVE THAT IT SAYS FOR THE SETBACK? WHAT NUMBER? WHAT WE CAN. IT'S WHAT WE CAN SET IT.

OKAY. I'LL BE HONEST MY THOUGHT PROCESS RIGHT NOW IS THAT 50 FEET FEELS LIKE THAT'S GOOD TO ME.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR.

THAT FITS WITHIN THAT AVERAGE.

I MEAN, IT'S THERE'S ONLY ONE HOUSE THAT'S SET A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THE ROAD.

ALL THE REST ARE SETTLED. THE AVERAGE IS 0.4.

SO. RIGHT. SO 50 FELT LIKE A GOOD NUMBER TO ME.

THAT'S WHERE THAT'S WHEN I WAS READING THIS PACKET, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I THOUGHT, WELL IF WE GO THIS ROUTE I FEEL LIKE 50 IS A IS THE, YOU KNOW, MAKES THE MOST SENSE.

AND AGAIN, THAT AVOIDS THAT VARIANCE BEING KIND OF HANGING AROUND.

MADAM CHAIR, MAY I ASK A QUESTION TO STAFF MEMBER KOENIG? GO FOR IT, MR. CHAPMAN.

IF WE WERE TO GO THAT ROUTE, OBVIOUSLY THIS VARIANCE GOES AWAY.

DOES THE APPLICANT GET REFUNDED THEIR MONEY FOR THE VARIANCE? NO, IT'S STILL PART OF THE APPEALS PROCESS, SO IT'S NOT A SEPARATE THING.

SO YEAH. OKAY.

I HAD WONDERED ABOUT THAT WHEN I READ THAT RIGHT.

MY I GUESS THOUGHT ON THAT IS TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, I'VE NEVER SEEN ANY CODE LANGUAGE LIKE THAT, ANY OTHER CODE THAT I'VE EVER WORKED WITH.

I THINK IT'S PRETTY INTERESTING.

AND I'M JUST AFRAID AND THIS IS JUST MY OWN PERSONAL THOUGHT.

I'M JUST AFRAID THAT IT MAKES IT SEEM LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO.

THE BOARD IS COMING UP WITH A NEW SETBACK FOR ONE SINGLE PROPERTY, AND TO ME, IT'D BE DIFFERENT IF THE BOARD HAD THE OPTION OF CHANGING SETBACKS FOR ENTIRE ZONE DISTRICT OR ENTIRE AREA, WHICH OR A BLOCK OR SOMETHING PROBABLY IS NOT EVEN IN THE PURVIEW OF THIS BOARD.

IT'S PROBABLY MORE FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND GOING FORWARD.

SO I KIND OF WAS SCRATCHING MY HEAD A LITTLE BIT ON THAT.

IF IT OBVIOUSLY SAVED THE APPLICANTS SOME MONEY AND THEY WERE TO GET THEIR MONEY BACK AND NOT HAVE TO DO THE VARIANCE, THEN I COULD SEE THE BENEFIT THERE.

YEAH, IF THE PAYMENT AUTHORITY IS GOING TO GO THROUGH, MY PERSONAL PREFERENCE IS I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THIS VARIANCE.

I THINK BASED ON THE RECORDS AND EVERYTHING ON THE FACT WITH WHERE THE BUILDING, THE NEW BUILDING'S GOING TO BE LOCATED AT THE SAME LOCATION, THE EXISTING ONE, WHICH IS AT 50 FEET, I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE MYSELF PERSONALLY.

I CAN SAY THAT AGAIN FOR THE RECORD, JUST CLARIFY WITH THE MINUTES OF VOTING YES FOR THE VARIANCE.

I PERSONALLY DON'T.

I'M VERY IFFY ABOUT THAT OTHER SECTION OF THE CODE.

THAT'S JUST MY PERSONAL THOUGHT, MEMBER DESCHAINE THOUGHTS.

I COULD GO EITHER WAY, BUT I'LL AGREE WITH THE MEMBER KOENIG ON THIS ONE.

EXCUSE ME. I DO.

I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS VARIANCE AND I'M CONTENT SIMPLY GRANTING THE VARIANCE REQUEST AND NOT TAKING THE SECOND STEP.

IT MIGHT BE WORTH LOOKING AT IT AT SOME FUTURE POINT.

IT JUST SAYS WE HAVE A SPECIAL ZONING DISTRICT UP ON THE LAKE THAT WHEN WE HAVE AREAS LIKE WE DO HERE IN HAMILTON TO CONSIDER A SPECIAL ZONING DISTRICT SO THAT IN THE FUTURE WE DON'T END UP WITH THESE APPLICANTS ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FOR SOMETHING THAT ANY SANE BOARD WOULD GRANT AUTOMATICALLY RATHER THAN FORCING THEM TO BUILD IN A

[00:20:03]

YEAH. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, IN THAT CASE, SINCE WE ALL THREE ARE NEED TO VOTE IN A BLOCK IN ORDER TO PASS OR DENY, I AGAIN, EITHER WAY, I THINK IT'S NICE TO HAVE THIS OPTION.

BUT I MEAN FOR ME IT'S EITHER WAY THE SOLUTION IS I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH GRANTING THIS VARIANCE AS WELL.

LOOKING THROUGH THE CRITERIA UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST.

I CAN MEET THAT CRITERIA EASILY.

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

I ALSO AGREE WITH THAT.

I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S ANY WAY TO GET AROUND BUILDING ON THIS PROPERTY WITHOUT NEEDING A VARIANCE OF SOME KIND BETWEEN THE FLOODPLAIN AND THE SPACE AND SHAPE OF THE LOT AND HOW CLOSE IT IS TO THE ROAD THERE SO I CAN MEET THAT CRITERIA.

GRANTING THE VARIANCE IS A MINIMUM ACTION.

AGAIN, I CAN MEET JUST LOOKING AT THIS PHOTO IN FRONT OF US, I CAN MEET THAT CRITERIA THAT'S THE MINIMUM ACTION.

GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE ADJACENT LAND OR PROPERTY.

I CAN MEET THAT CRITERIA AND GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC INTEREST, AND I CAN GRANT THAT AS WELL.

SO I CAN MEET THE VARIOUS CRITERIA.

SO THEREFORE, I WOULD MOVE TO GRANT THE VARIANCE FOR CASE NUMBER 22-10-19-1 SCHULTZ 2205 HAMILTON ROAD AS IS.

I SUPPORT THAT. I SUPPORT THAT MOTION.

AND ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.

YOU SUMMARIZED IT VERY WELL.

I THINK ANYTHING MORE NEEDS TO BE SAID.

IN THAT CASE, THIS IS A VOTE TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE FOR 22-10-19-1 SCHULTZ, MEMBER KOENIG, YES.

MEMBER DESCHAINE YES.

AND THE CHAIR VOTES YES. SO YOUR VARIANCE HAS BEEN APPROVED, SO YOU ARE ALL SET.

THANK YOU. YOU'RE VERY WELCOME.

NOW, BEFORE WE GET STARTED, I'M VERY SORRY.

MY BABYSITTER STILL CANNOT START HER CAR.

YEAH, SO SHE WILL GET AN APPROVAL LETTER.

[6B. ZBA CASE NO. 22-10-19-2 (Smith), Aaron Smith & Jessica Dietrich, 4810 Arapaho Trail, Okemos, MI 48864]

LET'S SEE.

I'LL GET A SCROLL BACK UP TO MY AGENDA.

WHERE ARE WE? CASE NUMBER 22-10-19-2 SMITH.

AND WITH THAT, I WILL GIVE IT TO MR. CHAPMAN. SO THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 86 436.

OUR STANDARDS FOR VARIANCE BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE STRICT INTERPRETATION OF REGULATIONS SET FORTH IN 80 6-4 36.

SO THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTED TO A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A 640 SQUARE FOOT DECK LOCATED IN THE FLOODPLAIN AT 4810 ARAPAHOE TRAIL.

THE PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 0.558 ACRES IN SIZE AND IS ZONED ARE A SINGLE FAMILY LOW DENSITY.

SO THE SITE PLAN SHOWS AN EXISTING TWO STORY 3286 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE BUILT IN 1975.

THE PROPOSED DECK IS 20 FEET BY 32 FEET FOR A TOTAL OF 640 SQUARE FEET.

AND IT'S LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE HOUSE.

THE DECKS APPROXIMATELY 80 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE.

THE REAR YARD SETBACK FOR THAT ZONING DISTRICT IS 30 FEET.

THE PROPERTY THE ENTIRE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE FLOODWAY PORTION OF THE 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN.

THE FLOODPLAIN ACTUALLY CONSISTS OF TWO SECTIONS OF THE FLOODWAY AND THE FLOODWAY FRINGE.

SO THE FLOODWAY IS THE CHANNEL OF THE WATER COURSE AND THOSE PORTIONS OF THE ADJOINING FLOODPLAINS WHICH CARRY AND DISCHARGE THE BASE FLOOD AS DETERMINED BY FEMA.

AND AS INDICATED ON THE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP, THE FLOODWAY FRINGE IS THE PORTION OF THE BASE FLOOD AREA THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THE FLOODWAY, WHICH MAY GENERALLY BE CONSIDERED AS THE BACKWATER AREA OF THE BASE FLOOD.

THIS PROPERTY HAD TWO VARIANCES PREVIOUSLY TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION IN THE FLOODWAY.

IN 1995 THERE WAS ONE FOR GARAGE ADDITION AND IN 2003 THERE WAS ONE FOR AN ADDITION TO THE FRONT PORCH.

THE APPLICANT HAS RECEIVED APPROVAL FROM THE MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, GREAT LAKES AND ENERGY TO CONSTRUCT THE DECK.

THEY STATED THAT IT WILL NEED TO BE ANCHORED TO PREVENT FLOATATION OR LATERAL MOVEMENT.

[00:25:07]

SO THESE THERE'S CRITERIA THAT THE ZBA HAS TO MEET IN ADDITION TO E FIVE REGULAR CRITERIA IN ORDER FOR THE VARIANCE TO BE GRANTED.

SO NUMBER ONE, NO VARIANCE SHALL BE GRANTED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW STRUCTURES.

THE SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT OR RELOCATION OF OLD STRUCTURES OR DEVELOPMENT OF ANY KIND WITHIN THE FLOODWAY AREA WHEN SUCH DEVELOPMENT, CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT OR RELOCATION WOULD CAUSE ANY INCREASE IN FLOOD LEVELS SO ASSOCIATED WITH BASE FLOOD ELEVATION 2A.

SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR GRANTING THE VARIANCE MUST BE SHOWN.

B.

A DETERMINATION THAT FAILURE TO GRANT THE VARIANCE WOULD RESULT IN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OF THE APPLICANT.

C.

A DETERMINATION THAT THE GRANTING OF A VARIANCE WILL NOT RESULT IN INCREASED FLOOD HEIGHTS.

ADDITIONAL THREATS TO PUBLIC SAFETY, EXTRAORDINARY PUBLIC EXPENSE, OR WILL NOT CREATE NUISANCES, CAUSE FRAUD OR VICTIMIZATION OF THE PUBLIC OR CONFLICT WITHIN THIS CHAPTER, AND A DETERMINATION THAT THE VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM NECESSARY TO AFFORD RELIEF.

SO IF THE ZBA DECIDES TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.

THE APPLICANT COMPLETES ALL CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN THE EAGLE PERMIT AND ALSO FROM OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.

THERE'S A FEW CONDITIONS JUST THAT THE DECK IS CONSTRUCTED WITH NO CONNECTION TO THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE.

THE AREA BELOW THE DECK MAY NOT BE ENCLOSED AT ANY POINT AND THE AREA ABOVE THE DECK MAY NOT BE ENCLOSED AT ANY POINT, SUCH AS TURN IT INTO A THREE SEASONS ROOM.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAPMAN. AND WITH THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE TO SPEAK ANYTHING ON THIS CASE.

YOU CAN OR NOT.

IT'S UP TO YOU. BUT HE'S BEEN VERY HELPFUL.

OKAY, GREAT. YES, HE'S VERY GOOD AT THAT.

ALL RIGHT. WE MAY STILL WANT YOU TO COME UP AND ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS IF WE GET IN, BUT WE'LL GET THERE WHEN WE GET THERE.

ALL RIGHT. ON THAT NOTE, IF THERE'S ANYBODY ELSE I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE, PLEASE STEP FORWARD.

AS YOU'RE THE ONLY PERSON HERE.

I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC REMARKS AND I WILL MOVE IN TO OUR BOARD TIME.

I HAVE JUST A CLARIFICATION.

I SUPPOSE SO THE THE ADDITIONAL THIS FOR KEITH I'M SORRY, THE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FROM THE ENGINEER IS ONE THING.

WHAT ARE THE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS OR WHAT IS THE REQUIREMENT FROM EAGLE THAT WOULD ALSO BE RECOMMENDED? IF SO, WE WERE TO APPROVE.

I'LL PULL IT UP HERE.

YEAH. I'M HAVING A HARD TIME TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE PAPERWORK.

YEAH, EXACTLY WHICH ONE IS WHERE WE'RE LOOKING AT STIPULATIONS HERE.

SO RIGHT HERE.

SO 30 GRAND BY THIS POINT IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING LIMITATIONS.

SO THERE'S LIKE TWO PAGES OF.

OH, SO THOSE ARE ALL THE STIPULATIONS FROM.

YEAH. IT'S JUST YEAH, THAT'S JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE ARE ALL FOLLOWED THROUGH WITH.

ALL RIGHT, I GOT IT.

SO IT WASN'T JUST A IT'S A WHOLE LIST OF STUFF YOU GOT TO GO THROUGH.

ALL RIGHT. GOOD TO KNOW.

AND THAT'S PART OF THE PERMITTING PROCESS, MEANING THAT THEY EAGLE WILL COME THROUGH AFTERWARDS AND DOUBLE CHECK.

OR HOW IS THAT MONITORED.

YEAH. SO THEY WOULD INSPECT.

JUST MAKE SURE. YEAH. OKAY.

THAT'S THE FIRST QUESTION I HAD.

ANYBODY ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS COMMENTS.

SO IN PUTTING THIS UP, THIS APPLICATION BEFORE US, THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO THESE CONDITIONS FROM EAGLE AS A IT'S A GIVEN.

WE DON'T NEED TO TIE ANY APPROVAL TO THESE CONDITIONS, THAT IT'S A GIVEN THAT THESE WILL WOULD BE MET IF THIS IS GRANTED.

YEAH. I MEAN THAT'S ONE WAY TO LOOK AT IT.

IT'S JUST KIND OF A SAFE CATCHALL TYPE THING.

WE WOULD JUST ADD IT AS VARIANCE REQUESTED WITH SPECIAL CONSIDERATION THAT ALL OF THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS BE MET AND THESE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS BE MET FROM THE TOWNSHIP ATTORNEY OR ENGINEER.

EXCUSE ME.

OK.

I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.

MR. SMITH, COULD YOU JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR PUBLIC RECORD? AARON SMITH 4810 ARAPAHOE TRAIL OKEMOS 488, SIX FOUR.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. MY QUESTION IS, I GUESS I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED BY ONE THING HERE WITH THE ENGINEER AND ONE THAT WAS IN YOUR

[00:30:05]

CAN YOU EXPAND ON THAT SO I DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE CONDITION ABOUT THE FROM THE ENGINEER SAYING IT SHOULDN'T BE CONNECTED TO THE HOME. SO WHAT I CAN DO IS SIMPLY FOR CARPENTRY PLUS THE CONTRACTOR THAT'S DOING IT, IT WILL JUST APPEAR AS THOUGH IT'S CONNECTED. IT WILL MEET THE HOUSE, BUT IT WILL ATTACH TO THE HOUSE AT A SIMILAR LOOKING PIECE, BUT IT WON'T ACTUALLY BE BOLTED ON TO THE HOUSE.

AND INSTEAD THE PYLONS WILL BE, WELL, JUST WHATEVER THE RULES ARE AND THE STIPULATIONS, HE'LL HAVE TO FOLLOW THOSE AND JUST GIVE HIM A COPY OF THAT AND JUST I'LL MONITOR AS IT'S BEING CONSTRUCTED.

GIVEN THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IF IT'S NOT DONE RIGHT, WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED AND COULD CAUSE A LOT OF EXTRA EXPENSE FOR US.

RIGHT. AND, YOU KNOW, THE CONTRACTOR DIDN'T EVEN THIS IS SOMETHING I HAD TO DO, LIKE WE PRETTY MUCH PAID TO GET THIS STARTED.

AND THEN WE FOUND OUT, AS WE DID THE THREE SEASONS ROOM REMODEL, THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO GET A JOINT PERMIT TO DO THE DECK.

AND SO WE HAD TO LIKE, STOP CONSTRUCTION.

SO WE HAVE MATERIALS ON OUR PROPERTY.

NOTHING HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED, BUT, YOU KNOW, WE OUR CONTRACTOR DIDN'T.

I'VE HAD TO DO ALL THIS MYSELF, WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT FRUSTRATING BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THE PERMITTING IS PRETTY EXPENSIVE.

AND THEN I DON'T KNOW WHAT ALL OF THE OTHER CONDITIONS ARE, BUT I DON'T I JUST HOPE THEY DON'T ADD A LOT OF EXPENSE ON OUR END.

BUT IF THEY DO, I MEAN, I'LL JUST PAY IT BECAUSE WE REALLY WANT TO GET THIS DECK FINISHED.

SO I'LL JUST I DON'T IF THAT'S RELEVANT COMMENT BUT WELL I DO I WILL SAY I APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THAT STOP BECAUSE THAT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO IS TAKE THE STOP, GET THE PERMIT, FIGURE IT OUT.

SO I DO VERY MUCH AND I'M SURE I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE REST OF MY BOARD MEMBERS THAT WE APPRECIATE THAT YOU TOOK THE STOP TO PERMIT.

YES. KEITH, JUST AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION TO THE APPLICANT, I THINK I MENTIONED IT IN MY STAFF REPORT.

THE BIGGEST THING IS IN THE PERMIT IS THE STRUCTURE BEING FIRMLY ANCHORED TO PREVENT FLOATATION OR LATERAL MOVEMENT.

AND SO BY YOUR POST BEING IN THE GROUND, THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR, RIGHT? SO THAT'S THE BIGGEST THING ON YOUR AND IT'S PROBABLY HOW THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT.

I ACTUALLY DON'T THINK HE WOULD CONNECT IT TO THE HOUSE BECAUSE THE MORE I THINK ABOUT IT'S A LOT OF STRESS TO HAVE THAT STRUCTURE BEING PULLED AWAY FROM THE HOUSE BECAUSE OF THE MOVING OVER TIME.

SO I DIDN'T EVEN THINK.

BUT I MEAN, I'LL MAKE SURE I'LL I WILL TRIPLE CONFIRM WHEN HE STARTS BUILDING IT THAT IT CANNOT BE BOLTED OR ANY WAY CONNECTED TO THE HOUSE BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE INSPECTED AFTERWARDS.

I THINK THAT WAS JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION I HAD BASED ON WHAT THE ANSWERS WERE FOR THOSE CRITERIA, WHICH DOES EASE MY MIND A BIT ON THAT QUESTION.

MY SECOND QUESTION IS, IN LOOKING AT YOUR SURVEY, THE CEB SURVEY THERE, THAT AND THIS IS GOING TO GO TO TOWARDS MINIMUM ACTION AND PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES BECAUSE I SEE A DECK HERE AND THEN A NEW PROPOSED DECK AREA AND THEN A PAT AND THEN TWO DIFFERENT PATIO LEVELS.

CAN YOU WALK US THROUGH WITHOUT HAVING MORE VISUAL IMAGES? IT'S HARD TO UNDERSTAND WHY THIS DECK AREA IS NECESSARY.

WHEN I SEE ANOTHER DECK AREA AND A PATIO.

SO THAT'S NOT ENTIRELY TRUE.

SO WHAT YOU SEE IN THAT HASH MARKED AREA IS ESSENTIALLY LIKE OUR WHOLE BACKYARD.

THAT'S LIKE A PLAYABLE BACKYARD THAT DOESN'T HAVE A RETAINING WALL.

AND SO WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE WAS THREE SEASONS ROOM ADDITION THAT HAD LIKE ONE OF THOSE BUBBLE GLASS COVERS AND A HOT TUB IN IT. AND SO WE REMOVE THAT AND THEN WE STOP CONSTRUCTION BECAUSE WE REALIZED, WELL, IF WE BUILD A DECK NOW WE'RE GETTING INTO OUR VARIANCE AND ALL THIS STUFF.

AND THAT'S WHEN KEITH SAID, YOU GUYS GOING TO GET THE JOINT PERMIT.

SO WHEN WE REMOVED ALL OF THAT, ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE IS KIND OF A FLAT AREA, LIKE A CEMENT PAD AND THEN A GRASS AREA, BUT IT'S NOT REALLY LEVEL TO BE ABLE TO PUT TO YOU A HOT TUB AND A DINING ROOM TABLE.

IT'S BACKYARD STUFF THAT.

WE WANT. SO THAT'S WHY WE WANTED TO BUILD THE DECK SO THAT IT WOULD BE LIKE JUST A FLAT AREA.

WE COULD PUT AN ARCTIC ARCTIC SPA FROM HEAT AND SWEEP RIGHT THERE AND A NICE DINING TABLE.

WE HAD A CAST ALUMINUM DINING TABLE AND THEN THAT LOWER PATIO AREA THAT THAT EXISTS NOW, IT'S NOT SUPER FUNCTIONAL BECAUSE OF THE MOSQUITOES AND JUST THE WAY IT IS CLOSE TO THE

[00:35:01]

AND WHAT IS THE OTHER DECK PORTION THAT'S OFF TO THE SIDE THAT'S IN THE GRAY KIND OF NEXT TO THE HATCH AREA? THERE'S ANOTHER I THINK YOU'RE POINTING AT THE THREE SEASONS ROOM, IF I'M CORRECT.

THAT'S RIGHT. HERE. YEAH.

THAT'S THE THREE SEASONS ROOM.

AND THEN THERE'S A LITTLE WALKWAY AND A RETAINING WALL AND THEN IT DROPS DOWN AND THEN IT DROPS INTO THE CREEK.

SO I WISH I WOULD HAVE ACTUALLY TAKEN THIS.

SO THAT DECK IS REALLY A THREE SEASON PASS.

SO THAT IS PART OF THE HOME.

ESSENTIALLY. WE REMOVED IT WHEN WE BOUGHT IT.

SO THERE IS NO DECK.

OK THAT'S I GUESS THAT'S WHERE I'M HAVING A HARD TIME WITH.

WITHOUT SEEING IT AND LOOKING AT THAT, I'M GOING WAIT, IF YOU HAVE A DECK ALREADY AND TWO PATIOS, WHY DO WE NEED THE DECK? NO, THERE'S NO IT'S JUST LIKE STONE.

SO THAT IS A PART OF THE HOME AND THEN A PATIO AND THEN THE SECOND PATIO SHADED AREA IS ACTUALLY JUST THE DROP OFF TO THE CREEK THAT'S DONE AN ACTUAL USABLE SPACE. NO, WE HAVE.

YEAH, OKAY.

I UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT MORE NOW AND THERE IS A SLIGHT QUESTION IF YOU COULD GO TO THE MY LITTLE HOMEMADE MAP THAT I MADE OF THE ACTUAL DECK, I MADE AN ERROR AND I WANT TO CLARIFY IT FOR YOU GUYS.

SO THE DECK ITSELF IS 32 WIDE BY 20 D AND IT DOESN'T GO ALL THE WAY TO THE RETAINING WALL.

THERE'S ACTUALLY A STRIP OF GRASS MAYBE ABOUT THIS THICK THAT YOU COULD DRIVE A LAWNMOWER THROUGH.

AND THAT IS GOING TO BE THERE.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE IT ALL THE WAY TO THE RETAINING WALL.

AND THERE'S A COUPLE OF REASONS FOR THAT.

BUT THE MAIN REASON IS THAT OBVIOUSLY IT SHOULDN'T CONNECT TO THE RETAINING WALL.

IT SHOULD BE LIKE IN THE GROUND AND ROOTED IN AND OF ITSELF RIGHT NOW THAT I'VE LEARNED ABOUT DECK CONSTRUCTION AND HAD A QUICK EDUCATION IN THAT.

AND SO WHEN I ASKED MY WIFE ABOUT IT, SHE SAID, YEAH, THERE'S GOING TO BE A GAP ABOUT THIS WIDE TO DRAW IT.

SO THAT MAP IS A LITTLE BIT INACCURATE.

IT SHOULD BE SET BACK A LITTLE BIT FROM THE THING.

AND AGAIN, I DO I WISH MY CONTRACTOR WOULD HAVE ACTUALLY.

I MEAN, HE'S A GREAT CONTRACTOR, CARPENTRY PLUS HAS GREAT REVIEWS AND THEY DO GREAT WORK SO FAR FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN.

BUT I WOULD HAVE REALLY APPRECIATED A PROFESSIONAL LIKE CAD DRAWING THAT I COULD HAVE PRESENTED TO YOU GUYS.

I'M NOT A DRAFTER, SO THIS IS LIKE, YOU KNOW, VERY SHABBY.

YOU KNOW, IT'S TO SCALE, BUT IT DOESN'T I'M NOT REALLY HAPPY WITH HOW IT LOOKS.

AS BUSY AS CONTRACTORS HAVE BEEN LATELY, GETTING ANYONE TO AGREE TO DO THE WORK IS PROBABLY REMARKABLE IN AND OF ITSELF.

I KNOW THEY EITHER DO THE WORK AND DON'T DO THE DESIGN OR THE DESIGN AND DON'T DO THE WORK.

THAT'S BEEN MY EXPERIENCE. YEAH, I AGREE.

IT'S BEEN A VERY TRICKY TIME FOR BUILDING SO.

AND JUST ON YOUR DRAWING, CAN I CLARIFY THAT THE THE CIRCLES ARE THE PYLONS THAT WILL BE CONNECTED TO THE.

THERE WILL BE THAT AMOUNT AND THAT AMOUNT.

I'M NOT TO SCALE OR ANYTHING.

I'M JUST I'M TRYING TO GET A GOOD IDEA.

SO THAT'S WHAT'S HOLDING THE STRUCTURE UP.

THAT'S WHAT'S CONNECTING TO THE GROUND THAT SO THAT'S WHAT'S MAKING IT NOT.

THATS THE ISSUE WITH THE DISPLACEMENT.

SO WHAT I DID WAS I CALCULATED BASED ON THE SIZE, THE WIDTH AND DEPTH AND THEN ADDED THEM ALL UP AND THAT.

SO IT'S, I THINK, A METER AND A HALF OF DISPLACED FLOODPLAIN MATERIAL.

AND SO THEY SAID THAT'S, I GUESS, ACCEPTABLE BASED ON THAT ALSO THEY DIDN'T NEED US TO REFILL IT ANYWHERE ELSE OR WHATEVER THEIR RULES ARE.

THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL.

BUT THEY DIDN'T GET A FULL LIKE $500 PERMIT.

NOT IT WASN'T LIKE CONSIDERED A SMALL DEAL, BUT THEY APPROVED IT AND MOVE THROUGH RELATIVELY QUICKLY.

SO I REALLY BESIDES THE COST, I HAVE NO COMPLAINTS.

AND I UNDERSTAND YOU KNOW, WE HAD NEIGHBORS TWO DOORS DOWN.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU RECALL, THEY HAD TO HAVE ALL THEIR STUFF PULLED OUT BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T GET ANY PERMITS OR DO ANYTHING.

AND I DO RECALL I WAS ON THAT CASE, THE MORE I THOUGHT ABOUT VERY WELL, I'M KIND OF GLAD THAT WE HAVE THIS BECAUSE THERE IS A PROCESS AND, YOU KNOW, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, WE HAD FLOODING IN THE SEVENTIES AND IT'S REALLY IT'S LIKE THE I'M FROM CALIFORNIA.

IT'S LIKE THE OPPOSITE. WE HAVE TOO MUCH WATER, RIGHT? WE'VE GOT TO FIGURE OUT WHERE IT'S ALL GOING TO.

YEAH, YOU'RE COMING FROM CALIFORNIA.

YOU HAVE NO WATER.

EXACTLY RIGHT.

SO WE DO HAVE WE HAVE THE OPPOSITE PROBLEM IN THE GREAT LAKES STATE HERE.

WE DO HAVE A LOT OF WATER.

WE HAD ONE BIG FLOOD A FEW YEARS AGO AND WE HAD TO REDO REMEDIATION.

SO I AM I DO I HAVE BEEN A VICTIM OF.

SO I KNOW AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE WHATEVER WE DO THERE IS IS GOING TO BE THE RIGHT THING FOR THE CITY AND FOR OUR FUTURE, WHOEVER WE SELL IT TO.

YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.

AND I APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH.

I THINK THAT, YES, THE CONSTRUCTION OF THESE 4X4 OR SIX BY SIX POSTS THAT ARE HOLDING THIS UP.

GREAT QUESTION. THEY ARE 42 INCHES DEEP AND 14 INCHES WIDE.

[00:40:03]

AND THEN THEY GO DOWN INTO THE GROUND ABOUT FOUR FEET.

WOW. OKAY.

AND THEN I ADDED THEM ALL UP.

THAT'S HOW. YEAH, THAT'S SUBSTANTIAL.

YEAH. SO PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL.

SO I FEEL CONFIDENT WITH THAT STRUCTURE AS FAR AS NOT BEING IN RISK OF FLOATING AWAY DURING A 100 YEAR FLOOD. THAT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S SUBSTANTIAL AND STRUCTURE ENOUGH TO PREVENT ANY MAJOR ISSUES. WELL.

ANY OTHER THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS FOR OUR APPLICANT? NO. COULD BE, I GUESS, BESIDES THE ATTACHED TO THE HOUSES OR ANY OTHER THINGS THAT YOU GUYS, THE ENGINEERS NEED US TO DO. I KNOW THEY SAID SOMETHING ABOUT, LIKE A LITTLE WE CAN.

YEAH, WE CAN GO THROUGH.

I CAN OR KEITH, IF YOU WANT TO READ THEM THROUGH THE ENGINEER'S NOTES TODAY.

AND THOSE WOULD BE WE WOULD ASK THAT THOSE BE FOLLOWED IF WE WERE TO APPROVE.

YEAH. SO LIKE I SAID, NO CONNECTION TO THE STRUCTURE.

YOU CAN'T ENCLOSE THE AREA BELOW THE DECK, WHICH IF YOU DID, IT WOULD IMPEDE THE WATER FLOW.

SO IT SHOULD JUST BE LIKE WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT FROM THE SIDE, WHAT ARE THE USUALLY THOSE LITTLE STICKS THAT GO IN OR WHATEVER YOU DON'T WANT THOSE LATTICE? NO LATTICE, NO LATTICE, NOTHING UNDER THERE.

JUST GOT TO BE OPEN.

AND THEN THE AREA ABOVE, YOU CAN'T ENCLOSE LIKE TURN INTO A THREE SEASON ROOM, BUT WE CAN PUT LIKE A HEAT LAMP AND ALL THOSE.

YEAH. YEAH. BACKYARD TOYS.

YEAH THAT'S, YES.

AND THAT'S IT. THAT'S IT.

OKAY. OKAY.

WELL, IF NOBODY ELSE HAS ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, I'M GOING TO TAKE A STAB AT CRITERIA.

AND PLEASE FEEL FREE TO JUMP IN AS I DO.

SO IF SOMETHING.

SOMETHING MAKES YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS.

THE FIRST CRITERIA BEING UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST THAT ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND OR STRUCTURE THAT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LAND OR STRUCTURES.

AND I WILL SAY IT'S THIS.

THIS AREA DOES FEEL TO ME, AS EACH LOT IS VERY PARTICULAR, ESPECIALLY WITH THE RULES AND REGULATIONS WITH THE WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN THERE. SO I WILL EASILY MEET THAT CRITERIA FOR CRITERIA ONE, CRITERIA TWO, BEING STRICT INTERPRETATION ENFORCEMENT OF THE LITERAL TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER WOULD RESULT IN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES THAT PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR A PERMITTED PURPOSE.

I CAN I CAN MEET THAT AS WELL.

I DO. I DO. I DID HAVE SOME QUESTIONS BECAUSE IT FELT LIKE WHERE ARE WE FINDING THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES IF WE HAVE SEVERAL PATIOS AND DECKS AND THINGS? SO SEEING, SEEING IT A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEARLY, I CAN MEET THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OF NOT HAVING A LEVEL SURFACE WITH WHICH TO ACCESS IN YOUR IN THE REAR OF THE HOME.

I CAN, I CAN MEET THAT.

I THINK THAT THAT'S FAIRLY, FAIRLY REASONABLE TO MEET THAT CRITERIA FOR PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.

ANY THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ON THAT ONE? ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON TO CRITERIA THREE, GRANTING THE VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM ACTION NECESSARY, WHICH WOULD CARRY OUT THE SPIRIT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECURE PUBLIC SAFETY, AND PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.

AGAIN, I DO THINK THAT THE APPLICANT IS VERY WILLING TO AND I DO FEEL LIKE THIS IS THIS IS AS AS MINIMAL AS WE CAN GET.

WE'RE NOT GOING OVER THE RETAINING WALL.

WE'RE KEEPING WITHIN JUST A FLAT ANCHORED SURFACE.

AND I DON'T SEE THIS TO BE AN EXTRAORDINARY AMOUNT OF ACTION TAKEN HERE.

ANY THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS ON MINIMUM ACTION? I WOULD CONCUR. ALL RIGHT.

THEN WE'LL BEGIN.

THE CRITERIA NUMBER FOR GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND OR THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OR VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY.

THE FACT THAT WE'VE TAKEN SUCH CARE AND THAT YOU'RE WILLING TO WORK WITH IN THE EAGLE SPECIFICATIONS AND THE ENGINEER'S SPECIFICATIONS TELLS ME THAT IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS, IF THERE IS A 100 YEAR FLOOD, IF THERE IS A BIG ISSUE THAT YOUR PROPERTY IS NOT GOING TO BE THE CAUSE OF ANY CONCERN OR PROBLEM FOR THE AREA, FOR THE CREEK, FOR THE WATERWAY.

SO FOR THAT REASON, I'M COMFORTABLE GRANTING OR MEETING CRITERIA NUMBER FOUR AND CRITERIA NUMBER FIVE, AGREEING TO THE VARIANCE WILL BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND PURPOSES INTENT OF THE CHAPTER.

AND I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.

WE WANT PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO LIVE COMFORTABLY IN THEIR HOMES.

AND WITH THAT, LET'S SEE, THERE WERE A COUPLE OTHER CRITERIA AS WELL, RIGHT?

[00:45:01]

SO NOW LET ME GET BACK TO THOSE ADDITIONAL.

OKAY, HERE WE GO.

THIS IS FROM SECTION EIGHT, 6436 ARE NO VARIANCE SHALL BE GRANTED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW STRUCTURES, THE SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT OR RELOCATION OF OLD STRUCTURES OR DEVELOPMENT OF ANY KIND WITHIN THE FLOODWAY AREA WHEN SUCH DEVELOPMENT, CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT OR RELOCATION WOULD CAUSE ANY INCREASE IN FLOOD LEVELS ASSOCIATED WITH THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION.

I THINK THAT BETWEEN EAGLE AND THE ENGINEER, WE HAVE GOTTEN TO A POINT WHERE WE CAN SAFELY MEET THAT CRITERIA.

CRITERIA NUMBER TWO, A SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR GETTING TO THE VARIANCE MUST BE SHOWN A DETERMINATION THAT FAILURE TO GRANT THE VARIANCE WOULD RESULT IN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY AND A DETERMINATION THAT GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT RESULT IN.

THESE FLOOD HEIGHTS, ADDITIONAL THREATS TO PUBLIC SAFETY, EXTRAORDINARY PUBLIC EXPENSE, AND WILL NOT CREATE NUISANCES CAUSED FRAUD OR VICTIMIZATION OF THE PUBLIC OR CONFLICT OF THIS CHAPTER. AND FINALLY, A DETERMINATION THAT THE VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM NECESSARY TO AFFORD RELIEF.

AND I CAN MEET ALL OF THOSE CRITERIA THERE.

SO WITH THAT, I WOULD MOVE TO APPROVE THIS VARIANCE BASED ON MEETING OUR FIVE CRITERIA.

THE ADDITIONAL CRITERIA FROM SECTION 86436 ARE AND I WOULD SAY WITH MY MOTION TO APPROVE THAT IS WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE APPLICANT WILL MEET ALL OF THE PAGES OF LEGAL DETERMINATION THERE ON PERMITTING.

AND ALSO THE THREE MAIN CRITERIA THAT THE TOWNSHIP ENGINEER HAS SET OUT FOR US.

SO THAT IS MY MOTION.

I SUPPORT YOUR MOTION SUPPORTED BY MEMBER DESCHAINE DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION ON THE TABLE.

OUR CRITERIA ARE NOT EASY TO MEET, AND YET THE APPLICANTS ALSO WILLING TO MEET THE 26 CRITERIA THAT PROPOSE CLEARLY WILLING TO STAY WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF BUILDING IN THE FLOODPLAIN.

SO, I MEAN, EAGLE IS BEING MUCH STRICTER THAN WE ARE IN THIS CASE, AND THEY'RE DOING MUCH OF THE HEAVY LIFTING HERE REQUIRING THAT THIS BE DONE IN THE RIGHT WAY.

SO IF THE APA IS WILLING TO MEET THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AS WELL, CLEARLY SHOW AN INTENT TO STAY WITHIN THE REGULATIONS FOR THIS VARIANCE.

SO I HAVE NO PROBLEM SUPPORTING THIS VARIANCE.

ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.

IN THAT CASE, WE WILL GO TO A VOTE.

THIS IS A VOTE TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION FOR ZBA CASE NUMBER 22 1019 TO SMITH, AND THAT IS WITH THE ADDITIONAL CRITERIA BY THE TOWNSHIP ENGINEER AND BY THE EAGLE PERMITTING CRITERIA.

MEMBER KOENIG YES.

MEMBER DESCHAINE YES.

AND THE CHAIR VOTES YES. SO YOUR VERY VARIANCE HAS BEEN APPROVED.

JUST MAKE SURE YOU FOLLOW THAT, GIVE THAT, GIVE THOSE TWO PAGES TO YOUR CONTRACTOR AND MAKE SURE THOSE ARE FOLLOWED TO THE LETTER AND YOU SHOULD BE IN GOOD STANDING.

NOT THAT YOU WILL PERMIT.

DID YOU GET THOSE 26? I HAVE NOTHING ELSE YOU CAN USE FOR THAT TO ME.

YEAH. YEP. I BELIEVE I GOT THEM.

I JUST. YEAH.

OKAY. YEAH, THAT'S QUITE A BIT.

THAT'S. THAT IS VERY STRICT.

I'LL SEND YOU. THERE'S ACTUALLY THREE PAGES OF IT.

YEAH. THOSE ARE. HE WANTS TO SEND IT TO ME OR THE BUILDING INSPECTOR.

I FEEL VERY PRETTY.

WELL, I DIDN'T TALK TO HIM.

I TALKED TO YOUR WIFE FIRST.

YEAH. SOMETHING I CAN'T THINK OF.

BUT NO FURTHER BUSINESS AND NO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC EYE.

I MOVE, WE ADJOURN.

IN THAT CASE, I WOULD SUPPORT WITHOUT ANY PUBLIC MEMBERS PRESENT AND NO BOARD COMMENTS NECESSARY.

THE MEETING IS THEREFORE ADJOURNED AT 7:24.

BY MYSELF THIS TIME.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.