May 17, 2023 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting

[00:02:51]

MIC] I'M GOING TO GIVE MR. DESCHAINE A COUPLE MORE MINUTES TO SHOW UP.

MAYBE ANOTHER MINUTE OR SO.

HOPEFULLY IT'S JUST SOME OF THAT LOVELY CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC WE'RE HAVING OUT THERE.

[INAUDIBLE] THERE'S YOUR SCROLL.

WELL, I THINK I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.

[1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER]

SO GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF MERIDIAN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING.

TODAY IS WEDNESDAY, MAY 17TH, 2023.

[00:05:02]

AND I WILL OFFICIALLY CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER.

FIRST UP IS THE APPROVAL OF TONIGHT'S AGENDA.

[2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA]

YES. ALL RIGHT.

HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE TONIGHT'S AGENDA BY MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER AND MOTION OF SUPPORT MEMBER TREZISE.

DID I SAY IT CORRECTLY? YES, YOU DID.

OH, I GOT IT. YES, I WAS QUIZZING MYSELF IN THE CAR.

ALL RIGHT. THIS IS A VOTE TO APPROVE TONIGHT'S AGENDA.

VICE CHAIR. YES.

THERE YOU GO SEE YOU LIKE THAT? I HAD. I HAD TO THROW THAT IN THERE.

WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR THIRD ITEM ON OUR AGENDA CORRECTIONS, APPROVAL AND RATIFICATION OF THE MINUTES FROM APRIL 19TH, 2023.

[3. CORRECTIONS, APPROVAL AND RATIFICATION OF MINUTES]

I WILL SUPPORT. SUPPORT BY MEMBERS TREZISE.

ANY QUESTIONS COMMENTS ON THE MINUTES? ON THAT NOTE, THIS IS A VOTE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM APRIL 19TH, 2023.

SO THOSE MINUTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED.

AND NUMBER FOUR ON OUR AGENDA IS COMMUNICATIONS.

[4. COMMUNICATIONS]

THERE ARE FOUR LETTERS THAT WERE RECEIVED BY THE TOWNSHIP IN REGARDS TO TONIGHT'S CASE NUMBER 2 3-01. AND I'M TRYING TO STALL AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE SO THAT MEMBER DESCHAINE DOESN'T HAVE TO SIT THROUGH MR. CHAPMAN'S PRESENTATION AGAIN, BUT HE'S READ THE PACKET, SO WE'LL GET INTO IT.

OKAY. THAT TAKES US TO NEW BUSINESS, WHICH IS ZBA CASE NUMBER 23-01 6206 COLUMBIA [INAUDIBLE].

[6.A. ZBA CASE NO. 23-01 (6206 Columbia), Nikolaj & Carol Oryszczak, 218 Barry Road, Haslett, MI 48840]

[INAUDIBLE] 218 BARRY ROAD HASLETT, MICHIGAN 48840.

MR. CHAPMAN, TAKE IT AWAY.

GOOD EVENING. SO THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING VARIANCES TO CREATE TWO NEW PARCELS.

THESE PARCELS WILL BE UNDER THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT OF 65FT AT 6206 COLUMBIA STREET.

THE SITE IS APPROXIMATELY 0.46 ACRES IN SIZE AND IS ZONED RB SINGLE FAMILY HIGH DENSITY AND IS ALSO LOCATED IN THE LAKE LANSING RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT. SO THE SUBMITTED SURVEY SHOWS THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CONSISTS OF LOTS 14, 15 AND 16 OF LAKE BROOK NUMBER ONE SUBDIVISION THAT WAS PLATTED IN 1930.

SO THOSE THREE LOTS ARE CURRENTLY COMBINED INTO ONE 20,000, 37.6FT² LOT.

THAT HAS A TOTAL WIDTH OF 120FT ON COLUMBIA STREET.

UM, THERE IS AN EXISTING 816 SQUARE FOOT ONE STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1976 AND IS PROPOSED TO BE DEMOLISHED AT SOME POINT.

SO THE LAKE LANSING RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT STATES THAT LOT AREA SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT, EXCEPT FOR LOTS THAT WERE CREATED AND RECORDED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 5TH, 1960.

MAY BE USED FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES, PROVIDED THE LOT IS NOT LESS THAN 5000FT² IN AREA.

AN INTERIOR LOT WIDTH SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT.

SEVERAL LOTS WERE CREATED AND RECORDED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 5TH, 1960 MAY BE USED FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES, PROVIDED THE LOT IS NOT LESS THAN 35FT IN WIDTH AT THE STREET LINE AND THE MINIMUM YARD SETBACKS ARE MAINTAINED FOR THE DISTRICT, FOR THE LOTS LOCATED.

SO THESE THREE LOTS WERE LIKELY COMBINED IN THE 1970S WHEN THE HOUSE WAS CONSTRUCTED, SO THEY EFFECTIVELY LOST THEIR LOT OF RECORD STATUS. SO THE PROPOSAL IS TO CREATE PARCEL A THAT WOULD HAVE 60FT OF LOT WIDTH AND PARCEL B THAT WOULD ALSO HAVE 60FT OF LOT WIDTH.

A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE IS REQUESTED FOR THE CREATION OF BOTH PARCEL A AND B, AND ADDITIONALLY, IF YOU READ THE APPLICANT'S APPLICATION, IT REFERENCES VARIANCE THAT WAS GRANTED ON THE EAST OF THE SUBJECT SITE ACROSS THE VIRGINIA LANE ROAD END.

IN 2017.

ZBA CASE NUMBER 17-10-25-1 ALLOWED THE CREATION OF TWO LOTS, WHICH HAVE 58.09FT AND 57.81FT OF LOT WIDTH. THE INITIAL APPLICATION WAS DENIED FOR THE CREATION OF THREE LOTS, AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

[00:10:06]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M ROBERT MCCARTHY AND I'M AN ATTORNEY IN EAST LANSING.

MY OFFICE ADDRESS IS 411 WEST LAKE LANSING ROAD, EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN.

AND I REPRESENT CAROL ORYSZCZAK WHO IS HERE WITH ME TODAY, AND HER SON, WHO IS THE NIKOLAJ ORYSZCZAK WHO IS THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR HIS FATHER'S ESTATE.

THE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY IS STILL IN THE NAME OF CAROL ORYSZCZAK AND HER RECENTLY DECEASED HUSBAND, GARY.

THE IF YOU COULD PULL UP THE PLAT IT SHOWS THE THREE ORIGINAL PLATTED LOTS THAT WERE PLATTED IN 2013 AND THE HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW FRANKLY NOT VERY WELL BY ME BUT THE HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW AREA SHOWS LOTS 14, 15 AND 16.

ADJACENT TO LOT 14 IS AN UNIMPROVED LANE DEPICTED AS VIRGINIA LANE.

IT IS THE ACCESS LOT FOR ALL OF THE BACK LOT OWNERS AND ANY CONSTRUCTION ON MY CLIENT'S PROPERTY CANNOT AND COULD NOT NEGATIVELY AFFECT VIRGINIA LANE OR THAT ACCESS BECAUSE MY CLIENT DOESN'T OWN THAT PROPERTY AND COULDN'T OBSTRUCT IT OR IN SOME OTHER WAY STOP THE ACCESS FOR BACK LOT OWNERS BY ANY CONSTRUCTION ON LOTS 14 AND 15 AND 16 ON THAT PROPERTY.

THAT IS AT LEAST ONE OF THE CONCERNS RAISED BY A LETTER THAT WAS SUBMITTED.

AND VIRGINIA LANE IS A RIGHT OF WAY PART OF THE 1930S PLAT.

MY CLIENT HAS A HOUSE WHICH IS A ONE STORY HOUSE WITH A WALKOUT BASEMENT ON IT, ON THOSE PROPERTY, ON THAT PROPERTY WHICH HE INTENDS TO DEMOLISH IF THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED.

THE VARIANCE REQUESTED IS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WHICH SETS THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH AT 65FT.

AND WE'RE ASKING THAT THE TWO LOTS BE APPROXIMATELY 60FT IN WIDTH AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE 8637D2, WHICH IS QUOTED IN MY PACKET ON EXHIBIT EIGHT.

I'M SORRY, EXHIBIT F RECOGNIZES THAT A REDUCTION TO 60FT PER LOT IS POSSIBLE WITH THE APPROVAL OF THIS BOARD WHERE THERE ARE TWO ADJACENT LOTS.

AND I THINK IT WAS DESIGNED AT LEAST THAT THAT LANGUAGE OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE FOR THIS PARTICULAR UNUSUAL SITUATION, WHICH IS THE 1930 PLATS THAT HAD RELATIVELY CLOSE BY CURRENT STANDARD LOT WIDTHS.

IN 2018, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IN THE BARTOW MATTER, ALREADY REFERRED TO BY MR. CHAPMAN, GRANTED A SIMILAR REQUEST AND THE REQUEST THAT WAS GRANTED IN THAT CASE WAS A BIGGER REQUEST OR A MORE PROPERTY THAN THAN MY CLIENT IS REQUESTING NOW, AT LEAST SLIGHTLY.

AND IT WAS MUCH CLOSER TO THE CURVE THAT IS SHOWN ON THIS PROPERTY THAN MY CLIENT'S PROPERTY, WHICH IS ON A RELATIVELY STRAIGHT PORTION OF COLUMBIA STREET.

AND THE CONCERNS WITH REGARD TO STREET USAGE AND ACCESS ARE RECOGNIZED BY MY CLIENT.

BUT IN FACT, THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY IS ON A STRAIGHT PORTION AS OPPOSED TO THE CURVE, WHICH MIGHT CREATE A MORE DIFFICULTIES WITH REGARD TO ACCESS THAN WOULD BE ON MY CLIENT'S PROPERTY.

THE ADDITION OF TWO DRIVEWAYS AS OPPOSED TO ONE, AT LEAST IN THAT SECTION, IS NOT GOING TO BE A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE TO THE ACCESS FOR INDIVIDUALS ON THAT ROAD.

[00:15:05]

THERE WERE FOUR LETTERS THAT WERE SUBMITTED IN TODAY'S PACKAGE AND TWO OBJECTED STRENUOUSLY TO THE GRANTING OF THIS REQUEST.

AND TWO, ALTHOUGH EXPRESSING SOME CONCERN, DID NOT HAVE ANY SIGNIFICANT OBJECTION TO THE GRANTING OF THIS REQUEST. AND THOSE TWO OBJECTIONS ARE THE PROPERTIES ON EITHER SIDE OF MY CLIENT'S PROPERTY.

SO THEY ARE THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE ABSOLUTELY THE CLOSEST TO THE ORYSZCZAK PROPERTY AND THOSE ARE THE TWO LETTERS THAT DID NOT HAVE SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS WITH THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE.

WHILE I'M SURE THE ZONING BOARD UNDERSTANDS THIS, THE LAKE LANSING RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT PURPOSE AS EXPRESSED IN THE START OF THAT PORTION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SAYS THAT AT LEAST PART OF THE PURPOSE WAS TO ADDRESS THE DEVELOPMENT ISSUES ARISING FROM EXISTING LOTS CREATED AND RECORDED LONG PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE IN PLACE.

AND AND I THINK THAT GIVEN THE ZONING ISSUES THAT EXIST BECAUSE OF WHAT HAS LONG BEEN IN PLACE SINCE THE 1930S AND THIS PROPERTY, THAT THIS REQUEST IS SIMILAR TO A REQUEST THAT YOU'VE ALREADY GRANTED AND FRANKLY, LESS PROBLEMATIC THAN THE REQUEST THAT WAS GRANTED IN THE BARTOW MATTER.

SIMILARLY, BY THIS BY THIS BOARD, AND I URGE THE BOARD TO GRANT MY CLIENT'S REQUEST FOR A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE ON EACH OF THE TWO PARCELS AS PROPOSED. IF THERE ARE PARTICULAR QUESTIONS, I'D BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ADDRESS THOSE.

GREAT. THANK YOU, MR. MCCARTHY.

AND WE WILL PROBABLY, AS WE GET INTO OUR BOARD TIME, CALL YOU BACK UP TO TO DISCUSS THAT WITH US.

I WILL NOW OPEN THE FLOOR TO PUBLIC COMMENT.

I WILL JUST SAY THAT WE ARE GOING TO KEEP PUBLIC COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES AND WE JUST URGE NEIGHBORS NOT TO TALK BACK AND FORTH TO ONE ANOTHER DURING THOSE THREE MINUTES.

WE WANT EVERYBODY TO BE ABLE TO BE HEARD.

WE DID RECEIVE THOSE LETTERS.

AND WHILE WE WILL ABSOLUTELY CONSIDER EVERYBODY'S FEELINGS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WE DO HAVE TO TAKE EACH CASE BY CASE.

SO WE DO HAVE SOME SOME CASE LAW THAT MR. MCCARTHY HAS BROUGHT UP. BUT WE DO HAVE TO REVIEW EACH CASE INDIVIDUALLY AS OPPOSED TO JUST GOING BASED ON WHAT THE ZBA HAS DONE IN THE PAST.

SO I JUST URGE EVERYBODY TO KEEP THAT IN MIND AND USE YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT TIME TO EXPRESS YOUR OPINION AND NOT TO BACK TALK WITH NEIGHBORS OR TALK BACK AND FORTH WITH NEIGHBORS.

BUT IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS CASE, YOU CAN COME UP TO THE PODIUM AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD AND YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES, SIR.

MY NAME IS DONALD WINCHELL.

I LIVE AT 6203 COLUMBIA STREET DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THIS PROPERTY.

AND I HOPE YOU APPROVE IT.

I WANT YOU TO APPROVE IT.

THE ORYSZCZAKS' ARE GREAT PEOPLE, AS YOU KNOW.

THEY'VE GONE THROUGH A LOT LATELY.

NIKOLAJ SUFFERED A MASSIVE STROKE WHEN HE WAS 36.

CAROL HAS HAD CANCER.

HE'S JUST GETTING OVER IT AND STILL GOT IT.

AND THE HUSBAND JUST DIED UNEXPECTEDLY WITHIN THE YEAR.

SO THEY HAVE GOT A LOT OF THINGS GOING ON.

AND I JUST HOPE, I MEAN, IT'D BE NICE TO HAVE TWO NEW FAMILIES ACROSS FROM US.

OBVIOUSLY, ANYBODY THAT LIVES ON THE LAKE OR NEAR THE LAKE THINKS THEY OWN THE LAKE, YOU KNOW, YOU'LL GET THAT UNIVERSALLY, SO YOU'LL GET THAT ASPECT OF IT.

BUT I JUST HOPE THAT THEY CAN HAVE TWO NEW HOMES THERE AND THEY CAN PROFIT FROM IT BECAUSE THEY DEFINITELY NEED IT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH, SIR.

OKAY. WOULD ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE THIS EVENING? IF SO, YOU CAN COME UP TO THE PODIUM AND STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD.

OKAY. IF NOT, WE'RE GOING TO GET INTO OUR BOARD TIME.

SO I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND OPEN OUR BOARD TIME.

DOES ANYBODY WANT TO GET STARTED?

[00:20:03]

[INAUDIBLE] MR. MCCARTHY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME BACK UP? SURE. JUST SO THAT MAKES IT EASIER FOR US TO BE ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR FOR FOR REPRESENTATIVE.

SO I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR COMING BACK UP AND FOR SHARING ALL OF THIS INFORMATION IS VERY HELPFUL.

ONE THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE I AM CLEAR AND UNDERSTANDING.

SO THIS WAS ORIGINALLY THREE SEPARATE LOTS? IT WAS. AND SO THE APPLICATION SAYS THAT THE LOTS WEREN'T COMBINED IN OUR IN OUR INFORMATION.

IT SAYS THAT THEY WERE COMBINED.

SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THESE LOTS.

YEAH. MR. CHAPMAN IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

THEY WERE COMBINED.

I COULDN'T FIND ANY AT SOME POINT WHERE THEY WERE ACTUALLY COMBINED.

BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY DOUBTS THAT THEY WERE PROBABLY COMBINED AT THE TIME THAT THIS HOUSE WAS BUILT.

OKAY. MR. CHAPMAN. YEAH.

SO WE DIDN'T FIND ANY RECORD EITHER OF AN EXACT DATE.

BUT LIKE I SAID, PROBABLY WHEN IT WAS BUILT, MOST OF THE TIME, IF IT'S NOT, PEOPLE COMBINE THEM FOR TAX PURPOSES ANYWAYS TO MAKE IT EASIER.

SO IT'S HARD TO SAY WHEN EXACTLY.

BUT AS OF NOW IT IS.

IT IS ONE LOT, NOT THREE.

YEAH. THANK YOU. YEAH, I HAD THE SAME QUESTION, SO I'M GLAD THAT WE CAN CLEAR THAT UP BECAUSE THAT WAS A LITTLE.

OKAY. UM, I GUESS I HAVE A COUPLE OF FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS.

YES, GO AHEAD. UM, SO WE'RE COMBINING THIS INTO INTO TWO SEPARATE LOTS.

SO IT'S COMBINED, THEY'RE DIVIDING IT, WE'RE DIVIDING IT INTO TWO SEPARATE LOTS.

AND SO HAVE THERE BEEN ANY TYPES OF, I GUESS, STUDIES OR CONVERSATIONS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT PUTTING TWO HOUSES ON THIS PROPERTY WILL CAUSE ANY TYPE OF IMPACT TO THE FLOODPLAIN? BECAUSE AS I WAS LOOKING AT THE MAPS, IT LOOKED LIKE, YOU KNOW, THERE THE FLOODPLAIN . THERE IT IS. YEAH.

THE SHORT ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS I DON'T THINK ANY STUDIES HAVE BEEN DONE ON THIS.

THE FLOODPLAIN, AT LEAST IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THE SAME PICTURE HERE, APPEARS TO ME TO ONLY GO OUT TO THE A SHORT WAY FROM FROM LAKE LANSING ITSELF AND THE HOUSES.

IF THERE WERE TWO HOUSES BUILT ON THIS PROPERTY WOULD HAVE TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY CLOSER TO COLUMBIA STREET THAN TO THE LAKE.

AND IT SURE DOESN'T APPEAR TO ME THAT THERE'D BE ANY PROBLEM DIRECTLY WITH THAT FLOODPLAIN BASED ON THE FLOODPLAIN PICTURE THAT'S IN THE PACKET.

KEITH, DO WE KNOW IF THAT? YEAH. SO THE FLOODPLAIN ITSELF IS LOCATED AT AN ELEVATION OF 853FT ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL.

WE HAVE AN ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK AS OUR REAR YARD SETBACK.

SO IT WOULD BE 40FT FROM THAT POINT, AND THAT POINT IS 852.29.

SO ESSENTIALLY WHERE THAT FLOODPLAIN IS IS GOING TO BE 40FT FROM THAT IS THE REAR YARD SETBACK.

THE EXISTING HOUSE NOW IS PROBABLY THIS IS JUST AN APPROXIMATION 30 TO 35FT FROM THE FRONT YARD.

SO, I MEAN, I THINK THERE'S THESE LOTS ARE BIGGER THAN YOU THINK THEY ARE.

SO I THINK THERE IS THERE'S ROOM THERE.

OKAY. OKAY. I DO HAVE A COUPLE MORE KEEP GOING. SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I KNOW IN THE I READ THE BARTOW CASE AND ONE THING THAT DIFFERENTIATES IT IS THAT THERE APPEARED TO BE SUPPORT FROM THE LAND BANK, FROM INGHAM COUNTY TO ACTUALLY SPLIT THE LOT.

IS THERE ANY TYPE OF OUTSIDE SUPPORT OTHER THAN WANTING TO DO THIS?

[00:25:02]

AND SO ONE OF MY OTHER QUESTIONS IS SO THERE, YOU KNOW, IN THE LETTERS AND AND EVERYTHING ELSE, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF TALK AS FAR AS SAFETY, DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S ANY CONTROL OVER THE HOUSES THAT ULTIMATELY GET BUILT IN THIS PROPERTY.

AND SO AND MAYBE THIS GOES MORE TO TO KEITH THAN IT DOES YOU.

BUT IN SPLITTING IT, KNOWING THAT THERE WILL LIKELY BE HOUSES THAT WILL BE BUILT ON THIS.

DO WE OPEN THE DOOR FOR HAVING THOSE INDIVIDUALS COME BACK TO DO ADDITIONAL VARIANCES? YEAH. SO, I MEAN, RIGHT NOW WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT THE LOT BEING SPLIT.

IF THE NEXT STEP IN THE PROCESS, IF THIS WAS APPROVED, WOULD BE TO SUBMIT A PLAN THAT SHOWS A PROPOSED HOUSE ON THE LOT, THEN THAT WOULD BE REVIEWED AND IF NEEDED, THEY WOULD COME BACK FOR ADDITIONAL VARIANCES.

JUST KIND OF TRYING TO FOLLOW THE TRAIL BECAUSE WHEN WE GET TO IS THIS THE MINIMUM? I WANT TO KNOW IF WE'RE WE'RE AT THE AND BEING ABLE TO USE IT FOR PERMITTED USE SO.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR AT THE MOMENT.

WELL, YOU. YOU ASKED ALL MY QUESTIONS.

SO DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? YES. I'VE GOT A NITPICKY ONE.

YES, PLEASE GO AHEAD.

THE DEED YOU HAVE PROVIDED ONLY COVERS LOTS 14 AND 15.

I APPRECIATE THAT.

I SAW THAT AS WELL.

AND I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ANOTHER DEED FOR THE OTHER PROPERTIES, BUT WE HAVEN'T GONE OUT AND GOT THE TITLE SEARCH TO GET THE DEED WHICH PRECEDED THE DEED THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

BUT WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT TITLE SEARCH AT THIS TIME.

SO YOU THINK THAT THE OTHER WAS ALREADY ATTACHED? YES. AND THEN 14 AND 15 WAS OKAY.

I'M ASSUMING THAT THE INDIVIDUALS OWN THE PROPERTY.

I JUST WAS WONDERING.

THEY'VE BEEN PAYING THE TAXES ON IT FOR A HECK OF A LONG TIME.

OKAY.

THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD GOING THROUGH THE DOCUMENTATION.

ALL RIGHT.

I JUST HAVE COMMENTS. OKAY, LET'S HEAR SOME COMMENTS.

YOU WANT ME TO GO FIRST.

YES, GO AHEAD. UM, I UNDERSTAND THE REASON THE IDEA FOR WANTING TO SPLIT PARCELS PEOPLE SPLIT PARCELS ALL THE TIME.

UM, AND I ALSO UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR REQUESTING THE VARIANCE DUE TO TRYING TO BE FAIR TO THE PARCEL AND SPLIT THE PARCEL ABOUT AS EVENLY AS YOU CAN SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE A ONE THAT'S, YOU KNOW, 80FT WIDE AND THE OTHER ONE'S 40FT WIDE AND YOU'RE REALLY ASKING FOR A HUGE VARIANCE.

SO AT LEAST I CAN APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT YOU DID TRY TO MINIMIZE THE VARIANCE THAT YOU'RE ASKING TO REQUEST.

I DID AS WELL READ THE PREVIOUS CASE AND THE CASE BEFORE IT.

SO THE FIRST ONE WITH THE THREE LOTS AND THEN THE ONE THAT CAME BACK A YEAR LATER AFTER 2018.

AND I READ THROUGH ALL THE COMMENTS THAT THE PUBLIC HAD AND I READ THROUGH THE COMMENTS THAT THE PREVIOUS ZBA HAD.

I WENT ON TO A SITE VISIT TODAY AND I DROVE OUT THERE AND I CAN DEFINITELY TELL I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY SOME MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ARE WEARY ABOUT ANY OTHER DEVELOPMENT BEING ON THERE BECAUSE OF THE ROAD BEING VERY NARROW.

IT'S VERY CURVY. IT ALMOST SEEMS LIKE IT GOES A LITTLE BIT UPHILL WHEN YOU GO DOWN THAT ROAD.

EVEN FARTHER TO THE SOUTH, IT DEFINITELY GOES UPHILL VERY QUICK.

SO I SEE THE CONCERN THERE.

HOWEVER, MY OPINION WITH THAT IS WHEN I READ BACK THROUGH THESE PREVIOUS ONES, PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SEEMS LIKE COMPLAINING ABOUT SAFETY ISSUES THERE FOR A WHILE, WHETHER IT'S PEDESTRIANS OR IT SEEMS LIKE IN THIS CASE, UNFORTUNATELY THERE WAS A DRIVER WHO WAS INTOXICATED THAT CAME CLOSE TO HITTING ANOTHER HOUSE AND WRECKED BY FLYING ON THAT CURB.

THERE ARE NO SPEED LIMITS OUT THERE.

THERE'S NO WARNING SIGNS. THERE'S NO NOTHING.

FROM WHAT I SAW, I DIDN'T CHECK FOR STREETLIGHTS.

I DIDN'T I SHOULD HAVE, BUT I DIDN'T.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S STREETLIGHTS OUT THERE TO ILLUMINATE IT, SO IT PROBABLY IS.

IS THERE ONE? YEAH, IT PROBABLY IS.

EVEN WITHOUT LIGHT OR LIGHTS, PLURAL.

THAT PROBABLY IS A LITTLE BIT OF A CRAZINESS OF TRYING TO BE A PEDESTRIAN AND WALKING THROUGH THERE.

HOWEVER, KNOWING THAT THE CASE THAT'S BEFORE US TODAY, IT SEEMS TO ME, IN MY OPINION, THAT THE ISSUES WITH TRAFFIC AND WITH SAFETY AND THAT

[00:30:10]

SO IT WOULD BE, IN MY OPINION, KIND OF UNFAIR TO PRESS THESE ISSUES ON THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER IN THIS PETITION BECAUSE THE ISSUES ARE CURRENTLY THERE.

SO IF THIS PROPERTY WERE TO BE SPLIT AND THE OWNER DECIDES, THE NEW OWNER DECIDES IF THEY'RE KEEPING ONE OF THE PARCELS TO WRECK THIS HOME OR ANOTHER SINGLE FAMILY, THEY SELL THE OTHER PARTS, PARCEL GOES TO ANOTHER SINGLE FAMILY, WHATEVER THOSE USES ARE OR WHATEVER PERMITTED, IT WOULD BE KIND OF BELEAGUERED UPON THE TOWNSHIP TO KIND OF POINT A FINGER AND SHAME ON THEM THAT THEY'RE GOING TO CAUSE THE ISSUE.

THE ISSUE IS ALREADY THERE.

THEY MAY BE CONTRIBUTING TO IT MORE, UNFORTUNATELY, BUT THE ISSUE IS ALREADY THERE.

SO I WOULD I WOULD HIGHLY ADVISE IF THERE'S ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE THAT HAVE THOSE ISSUES AND EVEN CREATED THESE LETTERS THAT IT'S A TOWNSHIP THING.

I THINK YOU NEED TO GO TO THE TOWNSHIP AND SAY, LOOK, THERE'S SOME ISSUES OUT THERE THEY'RE BUILDING, SO WE'RE GOING TO BUILD ANOTHER HOUSE HERE.

YOU KNOW, WE'RE WORRIED THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE CARS IN THIS ROAD, ALBEIT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT NUMBER IS.

YOU NEED TO GO TO THE TOWNSHIP AND ARGUE YOUR CASE THAT SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE PUT OUT THERE, WHETHER IT'S MORE LIGHTS OR A SPEED BUMP OR EVEN A SPEED LIMIT SIGN OR AN ARROW SIGN SAYING CURVE AHEAD, JUST TO KIND OF WARN DRIVERS.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S YOU KNOW, THERE'S ENOUGH RIGHT OF WAY IT LOOKS LIKE THERE MAYBE TO PUT A SIDEWALK.

BUT THAT'S PROBABLY A FAR FETCHED FROM THE TOWNSHIP.

IF THE TOWNSHIP I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THE ROAD COMMISSION THAT DOES THAT.

BUT WHAT I'M GETTING AT.

LONG STORY SHORT, LOOKING BACK AT THE SAFETY ISSUES, I DON'T FEEL THE SAFETY ISSUES ARE NECESSARILY GOING TO BE THE FAULT OF THIS OUTCOME OF THIS CASE BECAUSE THERE WERE PREVIOUSLY THERE BEFORE THIS CASE WAS EVEN HEARD OF THIS SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE.

IF WE DENY THIS AND THE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE STAYS THERE, THE ISSUES ARE STILL THERE.

THAT'S WHAT I'M GETTING AT.

THE OTHER ISSUE THAT I HAVE IS WITH THE PREVIOUS CASE THAT WAS APPROVED, YOU KNOW, THE ZBA ALWAYS GOES BACK AND FORTH ON ONE OF THE BIG THINGS.

I THINK IT'S IT MIGHT BE CRITERIA NUMBER FIVE OR IT MIGHT BE NUMBER FOUR.

IT KIND OF DEALS WITH SETTING A PRECEDENT.

AND I WOULD BE LEERY TO EVEN THOUGH I UNDERSTAND THE COMPLAINTS, I WOULD BE LEERY TO THINK ABOUT VOTING POTENTIALLY AGAINST SOMETHING LIKE THIS JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING LIKE THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN BROUGHT UP.

WE HEARD TESTIMONY FROM THE ATTORNEY.

WE READ IT IN OUR PACKET.

THE TOWNSHIP'S ALREADY GONE THROUGH SOMETHING LIKE THIS AND HAD A SAME TYPE PROPERTY AT THE SAME VICINITY RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER THAT WAS SPLIT INTO ONE PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS AND IT WAS APPROVED.

AND I JUST WORRY THAT IF WE WERE TO DENY SOMETHING ON THIS WITHOUT HAVING A VERY GOOD BASIS, IT COULD POTENTIALLY SET UP FOR TO HAUNT US OR POTENTIALLY EVEN A LAWSUIT BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE.

AND I WOULD WANT THE HOMEOWNER, THE PARCEL OWNER OF THIS, TO COME BACK AND SAY, WELL, HOW COME YOU LET THIS GUY DO IT BUT NOT ME WHEN ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'VE HEARD TESTIMONY THAT THEIR VARIANCE WAS ACTUALLY MORE THAN WHAT WAS BEING REQUESTED.

AND IT WAS ON THE CURVE OF THE STREET, WHICH IS ARGUABLY THE MORE DANGEROUS PART OF THE STREET, SO ON AND SO FORTH.

SO AS MUCH AS I DON'T CARE FOR VARIANCES BECAUSE VARIANCES SHOULD BE HARD TO GET, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE ASKING TO BREAK THE LAW ESSENTIALLY.

THERE ARE SOME VARIANCES THAT I'VE COME BEFORE THIS BOARD AND I'VE FLAT OUT SAID RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING, YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM SUPPORTING THIS BECAUSE OF X, Y AND Z.

SO WHAT I'M GETTING TO IS BECAUSE OF WHAT I JUST MENTIONED IN MY TESTIMONY THERE WITH THE CURRENT TRAFFIC PROBLEMS THAT ARE NOT NECESSARILY THE FAULT OF THIS PROPERTY OWNER.

AND THE [INAUDIBLE] SIMILAR TO THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE IN THIS VICINITY.

I WOULD NOT HAVE A PROBLEM SUPPORTING THIS.

SO I KNOW THERE'S OTHER QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS.

AND I KNOW THE THING WITH THE PERSONAL LOTS, YOU KNOW, I HAVE A PLANNING BACKGROUND AS WELL.

SO, YOU KNOW, THE PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT COMING TO REPLAT ANYTHING.

THOSE ORIGINAL PLATTED LOTS ARE THERE 1930.

NONE OF THAT'S CHANGED. THIS IS JUST THE TAX PARCEL THAT'S CHANGING.

AND PEOPLE SPLIT THOSE TAX PARCELS ALL THE TIME FORTUNATELY.

THANK YOU MEMBER KOENIG AND MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER.

YES, JUST ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION, KEITH.

WE CAN'T USE THE BARTOW AS PRECEDENTS, CAN WE? I MEAN, WE USE WE LOOK AT EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE AS, AS ITS OWN RATHER THAN SO THAT THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY POINT OF CLARIFICATION.

THERE IS DIFFERENT WE LOOK AT THEM EACH AS AN INDIVIDUAL.

SO IN THAT RESPECT I'M NOT AS CONCERNED AS OF THE PRECEDENT, SO TO SPEAK, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ESTABLISHING A PRECEDENT.

YEAH. AND I THINK THAT'S THAT'S AN IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION FOR OUR, OUR JOB FOR FOR ALL OF US LISTENING TO THE CASES THAT WE DO, WE WE AS A BOARD WILL COME TO DIFFERENT DECISIONS.

BUT IMPORTANT THAT WE WE HAVE THOSE CRITERIA FOR A REASON.

WE HAVE TO TAKE EACH CASE INDIVIDUALLY.

[00:35:02]

I MEAN IT'S A DESIRABLE PLACE TO LIVE.

THE LOTS PLATTED IN 1930 ARE REALLY HARD TO BUILD ON IN MODERN STANDARDS IN 2023.

THESE ARE VERY TRICKY LOTS TO BUILD ON.

AND I'M LOOKING AT WHAT I SEE.

AND IT'S I MEAN, THESE LOTS ARE CLOSE TOGETHER.

THIS PARTICULAR THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL BEING SPLIT INTO TWO ISN'T I MEAN, I CAN LOOK AT CRITERIA NUMBER FIVE IN OUR IN OUR CRITERIA THERE AND NOTICE THAT OR I'M SORRY FOUR AND NOTICE THAT THIS IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE DIRECT VICINITY BASED ON THE FACT THAT MOST OF THESE LOTS, EVEN LOOKING AT THIS PICTURE ARE SKINNY AND NARROW AND LONG AND YOU'VE GOT TO BUILD ACCORDINGLY TO THOSE LOTS.

WITH THAT SAID, THERE'S A REALLY VERY LARGE HOUSE RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO 6206 THAT I'M SEEING.

THERE'S ANOTHER LARGE HOUSE NEXT TO THAT.

SO I THINK THAT SPLITTING THIS PARCEL UP INTO TWO LOTS IS NOT DIRECTLY AFFECTING THE VICINITY.

I MEAN, I COULD DEFINITELY MEET THAT CRITERIA.

SO I AM SENSITIVE TO AS MEMBER KOENIG I THINK VERY ELOQUENTLY STATED THAT THERE ARE CHALLENGES ON COLUMBIA STREET WITH THE CURVE WITH THE AMOUNT OF VOLUME OF NEW CONSTRUCTION THAT'S GOING IN THERE AND JUST THE SHEER, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY WANTED TO BE ON THE LAKE AND WITH THE OTHER CHALLENGES OF THAT TOPOGRAPHY RIGHT THERE.

BUT I ALSO THINK THAT WE'RE SETTING OURSELVES UP FOR A TRICKY CASE TO SAY NO TO SOMETHING THAT IS SEEMINGLY FAIRLY SIMPLE.

AND I'M NOT REALLY GETTING I'M NOT REALLY SEEING A LOT OF REASONS NOT TO SUPPORT THIS.

SO ANYBODY HAS ANYTHING ADDITIONAL TO ASK OR SHARE? YEAH. NO, I WOULD I WOULD AGREE WITH BOTH YOU AND MR. KOENIG THAT THE ADDITION OF ANOTHER DRIVEWAY IS NOT GOING TO GREATLY IMPACT THE TRAFFIC PATTERN ON COLUMBIA STREET.

UM, WHEN I WENT BY THERE A NUMBER OF TIMES, LOOKING AT THE LOT IS A CHALLENGE, SHALL WE SAY? I'M NOT SURE.

I'M NOT SURE IF YOU DIVIDE IT YOU CAN PUT TWO HOUSES ON THERE ANYWAY, BUT THAT'S NOT BEFORE US NOW AND THAT'S UP TO THE OWNERS. IF THEY GO THROUGH WITH THIS, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THEY BE LOOKING AT DESIGN BEFORE THEY DO THE DEMOLITION TO MAKE SURE AND THE UNIFICATION OR THE SPLIT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE NOT JUST BUILDING THEMSELVES IF THEY SPLIT IT IN THE HOUSE IS ACROSS THE PROPERTY LINE. SOMETHING'S GOT TO CHANGE.

IF THEY DON'T SPLIT IT, THEY'VE GOT A HOUSE THEY CAN AND A LOT THEY CAN BUILD ON WITH A LITTLE BIT MORE EASE.

BUT IF THEY WANT TO BUILD TWO LOTS ON THERE, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THEY THEY DO THEIR RESEARCH FIRST TO SEE IF IT'S POSSIBLE.

OTHER THAN THAT, FIRST TIME I LOOKED AT IT, I DIDN'T THINK THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA.

BUT THE MORE I GO BY THERE, THE LESS I CAN SEE IS A REASON TO DENY IT.

SO I WILL I WILL SUPPORT THIS.

ALL RIGHT. AND I WOULD I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.

I THINK THAT'S A GOOD POINT TO MAKE, IS THAT WE ARE ONLY TALKING ABOUT SPLITTING UP THE PARCEL.

THIS THIS STILL VARIANCE GRANTED OR NOT, IF IT'S GOING TO BE BUILDABLE, WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT TO TAKE INTO VERY CLOSE CONSIDERATION YOU WOULD HAVE TO DEFINITELY WORK WITH THE BUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO REALLY COME UP WITH, YOU KNOW, AND AGAIN, IF IT WERE TO COME BACK BEFORE US, THEN THAT'S A THAT'S A DIFFERENT CASE ALTOGETHER.

SO WE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE THAT CASE INDIVIDUALLY FROM SPLITTING THIS PARCEL.

SO I THINK THAT THAT'S WISE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT IS GOING TO BE BUILT THERE, IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO BUILD THERE, WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, KEEPING WITHIN THE FLOODPLAINS, KEEPING WITHIN THE SETBACKS AND, YOU KNOW, SATISFYING THOSE THOSE REQUIREMENTS TO HAVE ACTUAL BUILDABLE LOTS, I THINK IS GOING TO BE IT'S GOING TO BE CHALLENGING HERE FOR IF THIS IS TWO LOTS.

UM YES.

MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER.

AND THIS MAY BE OUTSIDE THE THE SCOPE OF THIS VARIANCE, BUT I MEAN WE KNOW BASED ON THE APPLICATION

[00:40:01]

BUT THAT'S FOR A DIFFERENT CASE.

I MEAN, THE UNFORTUNATE THING IS THAT'S NOT OUR SUICIDE AT THIS MOMENT.

WELL, IF NOBODY ON THE BOARD HAS THE OBJECTION, I'M GOING TO START READING THE CRITERIA.

AND BY ALL MEANS, IF SOMETHING STRIKES, YOU, LET ME KNOW.

CRITERIA NUMBER ONE 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 THESE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SELF CREATED.

I ACTUALLY THINK MEMBER KOENIG DID A GREAT JOB OF HIGHLIGHTING HOW THESE AREN'T SELF CREATED CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THESE THE ISSUES THAT MAY BE PRESENT HERE HAVE EXISTED FOR QUITE A WHILE AND THAT THIS IS A PRETTY UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE CONSIDERING WE'RE LOOKING AT 1930S PLATTED LOTS AND THREE DIFFERENT LOTS COMBINED INTO ONE AT SOME POINT WITH NO RHYME OR REASON OR PAPER TRAIL TO FOLLOW THEM.

BUT I DO THINK THAT UNFORTUNATELY FOR THE LAKE LANSING OVERLAY DISTRICT, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE LOTS IS UNIQUE IN SOME WAY, SHAPE OR FORM.

SO I CAN MEET THAT CRITERIA, I CAN MEET MEET UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EASILY.

CRITERIA NUMBER TWO WOULD BE STRICT INTERPRETATION AND 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 A PERMITTED PURPOSE.

THIS IS THE TRICKY ONE.

PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES IS ALWAYS THE TRICKY ONE, SO I CAN EVEN LEAVE THAT TO THE SIDE FOR THE MOMENT BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT I CAN MEET CRITERIA NUMBER THREE, WHICH IS GRANTING THE VARIANCE AS THE MINIMUM ACTION NECESSARY, WHICH WOULD CARRY OUT THE SPIRIT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECURE PUBLIC SAFETY AND PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.

I DO THINK IN CREATING LOTS THAT ARE EVENLY SPLIT WITH ONLY A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE ON EITHER SIDE, WITH AS MINIMUM AS WE COULD GET.

AS FAR AS THIS VARIANCE APPLICATION GOES, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT WHAT WE HAVE, THAT IS THE BEST, BEST WAY TO DIVIDE UP THIS LOT AND CERTAINLY THE MINIMUM ACTION IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. SO I CAN MEET THAT CRITERIA.

ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT ONE OR ANYBODY ON MINIMUM ACTION? I KNOW THAT'S A MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER AND I TEND TO GET STUCK ON THAT ONE IN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, I GO BACK AND FORTH, I MEAN, WHICH IS WHY I WAS ASKING SOME OF THE QUESTIONS BECAUSE, BECAUSE IT'S GOT TO MOVE FORWARD TOO.

BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, YOU ALWAYS WANT A PROPERTY OWNER TO BE ABLE TO DO WITH THEIR PROPERTY.

YEAH, IT'S THEIR PROPERTY.

THEY PAID FOR IT. RIGHT? UM, AND SO, YOU KNOW, MY FIRST THOUGHT WAS, WELL, THE MINIMUM ACTION IS BASICALLY LEAVING IT AS IT IS BECAUSE YOU CAN USE IT, THERE'S A HOUSE ON IT.

UM, SO OBVIOUSLY IT IS USABLE AS IT IS.

UM, THEN I GET TO THE PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, WHICH BRINGS ME BACK TO A LANDOWNER SHOULD BE ABLE TO USE THEIR PROPERTY AND AS MEMBER KOENIG INDICATED, THE ISSUES THAT ARE THERE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD ARE THINGS I THINK THAT PERHAPS THE TOWNSHIP OR THE ROAD COMMISSION SHOULD DEAL WITH.

AS FAR AS SIGNAGE, I HAVE BEEN IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, SO THE ROADS ARE TIGHT.

IT IS CURVY.

I MEAN, IT'S A IT'S A LAKE LANSING, UM, ISSUE THAT COMES UP.

SO I'M BACK AND FORTH HONESTLY ON THIS ONE.

[00:45:07]

YEAH. I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT SPLITTING THE PARCEL ISN'T THE VARIANCE.

THE VARIANT, THE VARIANCE IS BEING REQUESTED AS THE FOOT, THE MINIMUM OF THE WIDTH OF THE OF THE WIDTH OF THE LOTS.

SO IN MY EYES, THE MINIMUM ACTION IS JUST WHAT I MENTIONED BEFORE.

IT'D BE DIFFERENT IF THE APPLICANT OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE CAME AND SAID, I'M GOING TO CREATE TWO LOTS WITH THIS OR I WOULD LIKE TO CREATE TWO LOTS, ONE IS GOING TO BE 40FT WIDE AND ONE'S GOING TO BE 80FT WIDE AND REQUESTING A VARIANCE OF 25FT.

TO ME, I'M SURE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, YEAH, ONE'S TOO BIG AND NOT TOO BIG, BUT OVER.

SIZE AND ONES UNDER THE SIZE OF THE MINIMUM WIDTH.

SO BY SPLITTING THAT PARCEL OR PROPOSING TO SPLIT THAT PARCEL RIGHT DOWN THE MIDDLE AND HAVING EQUAL TO ME THAT REPRESENTS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE BECAUSE THEN YOUR VARIANCE IS BASICALLY MINIMIZED ON BOTH SIDES THAT MAKE HAVING ONE REALLY LARGE AND ONE REALLY BIG, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

IT DOES, BUT THAT WOULD STILL ENTAIL SPLITTING THE LOT.

IT DOES. SO I MEAN, THE VARIANCE IS SPLITTING THE LOT AND CREATING, YOU KNOW.

WELL, I THINK WHAT MEMBER KOENIG IS POINTING OUT THAT IT'S NOT WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT GRANTING THEM THE VARIANCE TO SPLIT THE LOTS.

IT'S THE VARIANCE OF THE ACTUAL WIDTHS OF THE NEW PARCELS BEING CREATED.

OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WAS GETTING AT.

IT IS FIVE POINT SOMETHING AND FOUR POINT SOMETHING I THINK IS WHAT YOU HAD.

PRETTY CLOSE TO FIVE FEET ON BOTH OF THEM.

AND I THINK IF WE IF THEY WENT AHEAD WITH THE SPLIT WITHOUT THE VARIANCE, THEY'D END UP WITH TWO LOTS THAT DIDN'T MEET AND THEN IF THEY CAME BACK, IT WOULD BE THEY'RE DOING THAT CREATED THE NEED FOR THE VARIANCE.

RIGHT, RIGHT. SO AND THEN IT'S SELF CREATED THAT IT BECOMES SELF CREATED.

SO THEY'RE DOING THE RIGHT THING BY ASKING, WHICH IS SOMETHING ALSO THAT I THINK THAT YEAH. BECAUSE WHATEVER HAPPENED, WHATEVER HAPPENED IN THE 70S, WHATEVER SOMETHING LOOSE RULES ARE HAPPENING IN THE 70S OBVIOUSLY CREATED SOME, SOME OF THE CONFLICT THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US TODAY.

YEAH. THAT SAID, I DO I DO FIND THAT TO BE THE MINIMUM IN THIS, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE MINIMUM ACTION IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, I MEAN FOR, FOR WHAT WE HAVE, THEY HAVE A TOTAL OF 120 WIDE LOT.

I CAN GIVE THEM THAT. YEAH.

OKAY. WAIT, DID YOU JUST AGREE TO THAT? GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND OR THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY.

I THINK I STATED EARLIER THAT I JUST IN LOOKING AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND I KNOW SEVERAL OF US HAVE DRIVEN BY AND MADE SITE VISITS AND EVEN JUST LOOKING AT IT NOW TO JUST I DO FEEL THAT WITH THE WITH THE WAVE OF NEW CONSTRUCTION IN LAKE LANSING, I THINK THAT THIS FITS IN WITH WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THAT OVERLAY DISTRICT RIGHT NOW.

I DO VERY MUCH UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS, ESPECIALLY WITH THE TRAFFIC, AND I HOPE THAT IS SOMETHING AND I WISH THAT MEMBER DESCHAINE WAS HERE TONIGHT BECAUSE THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN TAKE TO THE BOARD. BUT OBVIOUSLY MEMBER TREZISE CAN TAKE THAT TO PLANNING AND SAYING, WHAT ARE WE DOING IN LAKE LANSING? BECAUSE WE ASK THEM ALL THE TIME, ESPECIALLY REGARDING LAKE LANSING.

THAT IS SOMETHING THAT AS A BODY HERE AT THE ZBA, WE'VE WE'VE ASKED A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON IN LAKE LANSING OVERLAY DISTRICT BECAUSE WE HAVE CONCERNS AS WELL.

I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE DIRECTOR OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS INDICATED A NEED TO LOOK OVER THE OVERLAY DISTRICT AND POSSIBLY CHANGE SOME OF THE STUFF THERE BECAUSE IT'S IT'S ALMOST AS OLD AS THE ORIGINAL PLAT WHEN YOU REALLY THINK ABOUT IT FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT.

IT'S BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR A LONG TIME AND SITUATIONS CHANGE.

TRUE. TRUE.

AND HOW DO WE PROTECT THE LAKE AND PROTECT THOSE THOSE FLOODPLAINS AND PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT? ROAD COMMISSION AND ALL THAT.

SO WE ARE RATHER LIMITED AS TO OUR SCOPE.

YEAH. WELL WHAT WE CAN DO WE CAN DO.

RIGHT. SO IT IS, IT IS SOMETHING SO FOR, FOR NEIGHBORS AND FOR COMMUNITY MEMBERS, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I KNOW THAT WE HAVE ASKED FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO TAKE A LOOK AT.

[00:50:03]

THIS IS WHY AND KIND OF MAKE IT MAKE IT EASIER TO OWN AND ALSO EASIER TO RENOVATE AS NECESSARY WITHIN WITHIN THOSE RESTRICTIONS.

SO THAT SAID, I CAN MEET CRITERIA NUMBER FOUR.

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

AND I DO AGREE THAT AS I LOOK THROUGH THE NEW BUILDS WITHIN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, I FEEL LIKE THIS IS AND THE SIZE OF THE LOTS IN THIS.

IF WE'RE LOOKING STRICTLY AT SPLITTING THE PARCELS, WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THESE THIS PLAT MAP AND WE'RE LOOKING AT THE SIZE OF THESE LOTS, 6196, 61 92, 6190, 6174, ALL OF THESE LOTS ARE LOOK TO BE ABOUT THE SIZE OF WHAT IF NOT A LITTLE SMALLER THAN THE SIZE OF WHAT TWO LOTS WOULD BE HERE.

SO I DO THINK WE'RE IN THE GENERAL CHARACTER OF THIS OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND THAT IT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE TOWNSHIP IS TRYING TO DO WITH THE WITH THE LAKE LANSING OVERLAY DISTRICT.

SO I CAN MEET CRITERIA NUMBER FIVE.

BUT THAT STILL LEAVES US WITH CRITERIA NUMBER TWO, WHICH IS THE STRICT INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE LITERAL TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THE CHAPTER WOULD RESULT IN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.

THANK YOU. I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT.

WHILE TECHNICALLY THE OVERLAY DISTRICT DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE THESE LOTS WERE COMBINED AT SOME POINT, THE INTENT BEHIND THE OVERLAY DISTRICT IS TO ENCOURAGE IMPROVEMENT OF THE HOUSING STOCK AROUND THE LAKE AND TO UTILIZE IT AS A RESIDENTIAL.

AND I THINK OVERALL THIS DOES THAT.

AGAIN, IF WE SAID STRICTLY IMPOSING ONLY THE ZONING LAWS, THEN THEN THAT WOULDN'T APPLY.

BUT I THINK IT SHOWS AN INTENT THAT HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY THE TOWNSHIP OVER THE LAST NUMBER OF YEARS THAT WOULD ENCOURAGE UTILIZATION IN A REASONABLE MANNER.

AND I BELIEVE THIS MEETS THAT CRITERIA.

YEAH, I THINK THAT'S THAT'S VERY WELL SAID.

I THINK THAT THAT IS WHAT THE WHAT THE OVERLAY DISTRICT INTENDS TO DO IS TO MAKE IT TO MAKE IT BUILDABLE, TO MAKE MAKE THOSE THOSE OLDER HOMES BE ABLE TO BE RENOVATED THERE YOU GO. YEAH.

MEMBER KOENIG. GO AHEAD AND BUILD OFF WHAT MEMBER TREZISE SAYS.

YOU KNOW, THE WORDING ON THESE THINGS ARE VERY TRICKY.

SOMETIMES I CAN SEE WHY YOU GET CAUGHT UP ON THAT MINIMAL MINIMUM ACTION NECESSARY.

IT IS DIFFICULT WHEN YOU READ SOME OF THESE THINGS.

I TAKE THE BUILDING OFF WHAT HE SAID AS WELL AND I LOOK AT THE PARCEL.

I TAKE THE STRICT INTERPRETATION OF SOME OF THE TERMS OF THE ZONING CODE SAYING THAT IF EVERY PERSON IN THIS AREA HAS TO HAVE A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 65FT, SO IF THEY WANT TO SPLIT THIS PARCEL, THEY CAN'T MEET THE 65FT INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE SAYS, OH, YES, YOU CAN'T SPLIT THE PARCEL.

AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING IN THE CODE THAT PRECLUDES PEOPLE FROM BEING ABLE TO SPLIT THE PARCEL.

THERE IS A PROCESS THERE THAT ALLOWS FOR HOMEOWNERS TO SPLIT PARCELS.

LIKE I SAID, IT'S DONE ALL THE TIME.

SO IN MY OPINION, BUILDING OFF WHAT HE SAID AS WELL, STRICTLY ENFORCING THE CODE, BASICALLY WOULDN'T LET THIS PROPERTY OWNER SPLIT THAT PARCEL BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE A WAY OF MAKING TWO PARCELS WITH 65 FOOT MINIMUM WIDTHS.

ONE COULD BE 80. BUT AGAIN, GO BACK TO THE 40 STILL IN THE SITUATION AND REQUEST A VARIANCE.

SO WHEN I READ THAT, THAT SAYS TO ME CODE IS A LITTLE STRICT.

IT WOULDN'T ALLOW THEM TO SPLIT THE PARCEL.

AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR IS TO SPLIT THE PARCEL.

THERE'S NOTHING THAT PRECLUDES THEM FROM DOING THAT.

THAT'S TRUE. THAT'S TRUE.

THAT WAS HELPFUL. THAT WAS HE MADE A VERY GOOD POINT ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THE OVERLAY DISTRICT AND THE INTENT OF THE ZONING.

I REMEMBER I BELIEVE IT WAS ONE OF THE PREVIOUS CHAIRS MENTIONED THE INTENT AND ONE OF THE OLDER CASES AS WELL, I THINK.

YEAH. YEAH, I DID.

THOSE WERE GOOD POINTS.

YEAH, WELL, I CAN.

I CAN MEET CRITERIA NUMBER TWO.

I BELIEVE CRITERIA NUMBER TWO CAN BE MET WITH LOOKING AT THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES BASED ON WHAT BOTH MEMBER KOENIG AND MEMBER TREZISE HAVE JUST SO ELOQUENTLY STATED THAT HOPEFULLY WILL BE REFLECTED IN THE MINUTES PROPERLY.

[00:55:08]

ALL RIGHT. AND I WOULD SUPPORT THAT TO THE APPROVAL.

SO THIS WOULD BE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE FOR ZBA CASE NUMBER 23 2 3-01. SO DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION ON THE TABLE.

JUST A COMMENT. YEAH, SO I WILL SUPPORT THIS.

HOWEVER, I RAISE THE, YOU KNOW, JUST THE QUESTION CONCERN THAT I THINK IT GOES TOWARDS SOMETHING MEMBER TREZISE WAS MENTIONING THAT THIS WILL BE HARD TO ULTIMATELY PUT, I THINK TWO HOUSES AND DRIVEWAYS ON.

UM, AND AS A RESULT OF THAT I FORESEE NOT THAT IT WOULD HAPPEN, BUT THAT THIS WILL COME BEFORE US AGAIN.

SO I DON'T PARTICULARLY LOOK FORWARD TO THAT.

THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY TO THAT IS THE LOTS ARE LARGE ENOUGH TO BUILD UPON.

IT MAY PUT SOME CONSTRAINTS ON WHAT THEY CAN BUILD UPON IT, BUT IT IS POSSIBLE, I BELIEVE, LOOKING AT WHAT WE'VE GOT HERE, THAT BUILDING COULD OCCUR.

IT MAY NOT BE WHAT THEY WANT.

NO, I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH YOU.

I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH YOU.

BUT I GUESS TO FOLLOW UP WITH THAT IS WE HAVE HAD SEVERAL, YOU KNOW, LAKE LANSING CASES.

AND SO THAT JUST GOES BACK TO THE HOPE THAT MERIDIAN LOOKS AT THE OVERLAY AND, YOU KNOW, MAKES THE NECESSARY ADJUSTMENTS SO THAT AS PEOPLE ARE MOVING INTO THESE LOTS AND REMODELING AND BUILDING NEW CONSTRUCTION, THAT WE ARE DEFINITELY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE CONCERNS OF THE RESIDENTS THAT ARE THERE, AS WELL AS THE ABILITY TO KEEP UP WITH WITH THE, YOU KNOW, NEW AND IMPROVED, YOU KNOW, VERSIONS THAT PEOPLE LIKE TO PUT ON THEIR PROPERTY.

SO, YES, DEFINITELY WOULD BE BUILDABLE.

I THINK IT WILL BE HARD.

SO SO CAUTIONARY CAUTIONARY TALE.

YEAH IT'S IT'S YEAH AND TO COME COME BEFORE US WITH THAT IS FACING WHAT IS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR VARIANCE.

YEAH IT'S IT'S IT'S IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE JUST AS JUST AS MOVING FORWARD YOU KNOW I THINK THAT THAT'S, THAT'S JUST SOME WISDOM THAT WE CAN SHARE AS A, AS A BOARD THAT WHEN BUILDING HERE IT IS GOING TO BE IT IS GOING TO BE CHALLENGING.

AND IF AND IF THIS IS A CASE THAT COMES BEFORE US, WE DO DEFINITELY LOOK FOR HOW MINIMAL, YOU KNOW, THOSE HOW SMALL WE CAN GET THOSE THOSE REQUESTS FOR SETBACK, YOU KNOW, AND AND SUCH.

SO. YEP.

AND I DO APPRECIATE MEMBER TREZISE AND MEMBER KOENIG COMMENTS THROUGHOUT ALL OF THIS.

IT WAS IT WAS HELPFUL.

WE APPRECIATE YOU. THIS IS A GOOD PLANNING, PLANNING, BACKGROUND TYPE OF CASE WITH THE WITH THE LOTS AND THE PARCELS.

SO ALL RIGHT.

WELL, ON THAT NOTE, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CALL A VOTE.

THIS WOULD BE TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE FOR ZBA CASE NUMBER 23-01.

AND I WOULD JUST LEAVE THAT WITH THE CAUTION OF, YOU KNOW, MAKING A REALLY SMART DECISION GOING FORWARD AS FAR AS WHAT HAPPENS WITH THESE PARCELS, TAKING THE NEIGHBORS INTO CONSIDERATION, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THOSE PRETTY STRICT CODE THAT IS THERE IN THE ORDINANCE AND TRYING TO AVOID COMING BACK TO SEE US, IF AT ALL POSSIBLE.

WE HAVE WE HAVE EXCELLENT PEOPLE IN OUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT, SO THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO HELP GET THAT DOWN TO NOT HAVE TO COME VISIT US AGAIN.

THAT WOULD BE GREAT. AND I APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERN.

YEAH, THANK YOU.

AND I WILL LOOKING AT THE AGENDA, WE HAVE NO OTHER BUSINESS AND WE HAVE.

SO I WILL GO TO PUBLIC REMARKS AND ANYONE ALSO IS WELCOME TO COME UP AT THIS TIME AND MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT.

[8. PUBLIC REMARKS]

[01:00:05]

MICHAEL HARVEY 6216 COLUMBIA.

UM, THE DISCUSSION BETWEEN PARCEL LOT AND TAX BILL.

I LOOK AT THEM AS THREE DIFFERENT THINGS.

YOU SEEM TO BE CALLING ONE A NUMBER OF LOTS ARE TOGETHER ON A TAX BILL.

YOU'RE CALLING THAT A PARCEL TO ME PARCEL IS DESCRIBED LAND, NOT PLATTED LOTS PUT TOGETHER.

IT MAY BE A PARCEL FOR THE TAX SENSE BECAUSE A PARCEL THAT'S PLATTED OR NOT PLATTED LAND DESCRIBED LAND IS ONE TAX BILL.

MY UNDERSTANDING UM, I HAVE SEEN MANY LOTS SOLD OFF ONE AT A TIME FROM A FROM A TAX BILL TO AN INDIVIDUAL.

THAT PERSON THEN COMES IN.

SO THEORETICALLY THERE COULD HAVE BEEN THREE.

THEY COULD HAVE SOLD ALL THREE LOTS.

SO I DON'T THINK YOU I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE DOING.

I'M JUST SAYING THAT YOU WENT THROUGH AN AWFUL LOT OF WORK TO GET THERE.

YEAH. YES, WE DO.

WE DO. WE DO. WE WANT TO WE WANT TO BE AS THOROUGH AS POSSIBLE.

YEAH. NOT ONLY FOR OUR SAKE AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE TOWNSHIP, BUT ALSO FOR THE COMMUNITIES AND FOR THE APPLICANTS.

THERE CAN BE LAWSUITS FROM EITHER SIDE.

RIGHT. AND THAT'S AND THAT'S WHAT WE, WE WOULD LOVE TO AVOID.

WE WOULD LOVE TO BE AS THOROUGH AS POSSIBLE TO AVOID ANY FURTHER CHALLENGES.

SO. YEAH.

THANK YOU, MR. HARVEY.

ANYBODY ELSE? ALL RIGHT.

IN THAT CASE, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND I WILL OPEN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS, ANY BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS FOR THE EVENING.

ALL RIGHT. ON THAT NOTE, THEN, THIS MEETING IS OFFICIALLY ADJOURNED AND WE WILL SEE YOU ALL IN JUNE, I BELIEVE.

MAYBE NOT. MAYBE NOT.

OKAY. WE WILL NOT SEE YOU IN JUNE.

ENJOY CELEBRATE MERIDIAN THEN IN JUNE, INSTEAD OF BEING HERE, WE WILL HAVE A GOOD TIME NO, BUT THAT COULD CHANGE BEFORE TUESDAY.

OKAY, SO THAT'S THE SUBMITTAL DEADLINE.

OKAY.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.