ALL RIGHT. WELL, MY COMPUTER IS DECIDING TO TAKE ITS TIME HERE.
[00:00:04]
I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER AT 6:33.I WILL START WITH A ROLL CALL VOTE [INAUDIBLE] AND VICE CHAIR KOENIG PRESENT.
MEMBER TREZISE PRESENT AND CHAIRMAN MANSOUR IS PRESENT.
THIS MEETING IS NOW CALLED TO ORDER.
GOOD EVENING, AND WELCOME TO THE CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF MERIDIAN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING.
TODAY IS WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 20TH, 2023.
AND WE ARE GOING TO GET RIGHT TO BUSINESS WITH THE APPROVAL OF TONIGHT'S AGENDA.
[2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA]
I MOVE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AGENDA.APPROVE. MOTION TO APPROVE FROM MEMBER TREZISE.
SECOND [INAUDIBLE] SECOND BY MEMBER BENNETT.
THIS IS A VOTE TO APPROVE THE AGENDA FOR THIS EVENING.
SO TONIGHT'S AGENDA HAS BEEN APPROVED.
AND NEXT ON OUR AGENDA, IT LOOKS LIKE, IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 15TH, 2023.
[3. CORRECTIONS, APPROVAL AND RATIFICATION OF MINUTES]
I'LL DEFER TO YOU GUYS BECAUSE YOU ALL WERE PRESENT AT THAT MEETING.ANYBODY WANT TO? I MOVE TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED MINUTES FROM THE NOVEMBER 15TH.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 15TH.
SECOND THAT MOTION. SECONDED BY MEMBER BENNETT AND ANY CORRECTIONS OR ANY ANYTHING OF NOTE.
I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING, BUT I WAS HERE.
ON THAT NOTE, THIS IS A VOTE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 15TH.
MEMBER BENNETT. YES, AND VICE CHAIR KOENIG.
SO THOSE MINUTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED.
ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS COMMUNICATIONS, OF WHICH WE DID HAVE SUE COME IN POST AGENDA.
[4. COMMUNICATIONS]
UM, DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THOSE, MR. CHAPMAN, OR WAIT UNTIL JUST ACKNOWLEDGE WE CAN ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY CAME IN.OKAY. ON THAT NOTE, WE WILL MOVE INTO NEW BUSINESS.
[6.A. ZBA CASE NO. 23-11 (715 Red Cedar), Julia McKenzie, 715 Red Cedar Road, Okemos, MI 48864]
WHICH BRINGS US TO CASE NUMBER 23-11, 715 RED CEDAR, JULIA MCKENZIE.THAT'S, UH, ADDRESS ON RECORDS, 715 RED CEDAR ROAD, OKEMOS, MICHIGAN, 48864.
OKAY, UM, SO THE APPLICANTS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 86368D2, MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OF 200FT.
UH, THE PARCEL IS APPROXIMATELY 3.73 ACRES IN SIZE AND IS ZONED RR RURAL RESIDENTIAL.
UH THE SUBMITTED SITE PLAN SHOWS A 1582 SQUARE FOOT, BI LEVEL SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1958. UM THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRES A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OF 200FT, AND THE SUBMITTED PLAN SHOWS TWO LOTS, ONE WITH A WIDTH OF 128FT AND ONE WITH A WIDTH OF 72FT.
OKAY. WOULD THE APPLICANT OR A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE APPLICANT LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS, UH, THIS VARIANCE? UM, AND IF SO, I WOULD LOVE FOR YOU TO COME ON UP TO THE PODIUM HERE, AND YOU CAN STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD.
HI, I'M JULIA MACKENZIE, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SPLIT MY LOT INTO TWO SEPARATE PARCELS.
[INAUDIBLE] OH, IT'S 715 RED CEDAR ROAD.
UM, I'M ASKING TO SPLIT MY LOT INTO TWO PARCELS.
UH, THEY WOULD BOTH BE VERY LARGE, AND IT WOULD BE IN GENERALLY IN, UH, TUNE WITH THE REST OF THE AREA. AND I THINK THAT IT WOULDN'T IMPACT NEGATIVELY ON THE AREA.
AND IT WOULD, UH THIS VARIANCE WOULD ALLOW ME TO OVERCOME THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY THAT WAS CREATED BY THE SORT OF WINDING NATURE OF THE RED CEDAR RIVER AT THAT POINT.
OKAY. UM, I WOULD SAY WE'LL LIKELY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR YOU WHEN WE GET INTO OUR BOARD TIME.
OKAY. UM, SO DON'T GO TOO FAR.
WE'LL WE WILL LIKELY CALL YOU BACK UP.
ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? I WILL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
[00:05:02]
JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD, PLEASE.AND. MY NAME IS FREDERICK BAKER.
I'M AN ATTORNEY, AND I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE SCHWENDENER FAMILY.
UH, THE THREE BROTHERS SUCCEEDED OWNERSHIP OF THE ADJACENT SCHWENDENER PARCEL ON VANATTA ROAD.
UM, THIS YEAR, WHEN THEIR FATHER, BEN SCHWENDENER, PASSED AWAY.
AND I BELIEVE IT'S HELD BY A FAMILY TRUST AT THIS POINT IN WHICH THEY EACH HAVE AN EQUAL VOICE.
SO PAUL SCHWENDENER IS HERE WITH ME, ONE OF THE BROTHERS, UH AND I'M HERE TO SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF IN OPPOSITION TO THE PARCEL SPLIT AND VARIANCE THAT'S BEING PROPOSED, UM, BECAUSE THE APPLICANT HAS NOT AND I HASTEN TO SAY, UH, MRS. MACKENZIE IS A LOVELY WOMAN.
I SPOKE TO HER BRIEFLY THIS EVENING.
UM, AND I HATE TO GORE HER OX, BUT, UM, AS AN ATTORNEY, I HAVE TO POINT OUT THAT THE STANDARDS UNDER THE ORDINANCE ARE NOT SATISFIED BY THIS APPLICATION. A DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE REQUIRES A SHOWING OF PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY.
PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY REFERS TO PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IN USING THE LOT AND MAKING USE OF IT IN THE WAYS PERMITTED BY THE ORDINANCE.
THE LOT IS ALREADY BEING USED IN A MANNER PERMITTED BY THE ORDINANCE.
IT HAS A RESIDENCE ON IT WITH A 200 FOOT FRONTAGE, AND THAT SATISFIES ALL OF THE, UH, UH, SQUARE FOOTAGE AREA FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE ORDINANCE.
WHAT'S REALLY BEING PROPOSED HERE IS AMOUNTS TO SPOT ZONING.
UM, MISS MACKENZIE HAS SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION.
NOT REALLY FOR A VARIANCE SO MUCH AS AS FOR REZONING OF HER PARCEL TO PERMIT TWO RESIDENCES WITH LESS THAN BOTH OF WHICH WOULD HAVE LESS THAN THE FRONTAGE OR REQUIRED OR THE WIDTH REQUIRED UNDER THE ORDINANCE.
AND I ALSO SENT EARLIER TODAY WHICH MR. CHAPMAN SAID HE HAD CONVEYED TO YOU BY EMAIL, UH, A MEMORANDUM THAT OUTLINES THIS, APPLYING BOTH THE, UH, DEFINITIONS OF PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES AND, UM, THE CRITERIA USED IN PASSING ON A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE IS ORGANIZED IN THAT WAY, UH, USING THE ORDINANCE AS SORT OF AN ORDERING DEVICE.
UM, AND I DON'T WANT TO JUST REPEAT EVERYTHING THAT'S IN THAT MEMO, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, POINT OUT THAT, UM, THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES A 200 FOOT MINIMUM WIDTH FOR A REASON.
IT ALSO REQUIRES A MINIMUM AREA WHICH APPEARS TO BE SATISFIED, UH, BY THE PROPOSAL.
UH, AND THOSE REASONS HAVE TO DO WITH THE MAINTAINING THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
A HIGH DENSITY, UH, WOULD RESULT FROM THIS VARIANCE.
AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS INTENDED TO BE, UM, LOW DENSITY AND LOW DENSITY FOR A REASON.
UM, IT'S FOR, UH, FAMILY, UH, RESIDENTIAL USE.
AND, UM, IT IS ALSO, UH, UNDER THE ORDINANCE, UH, ESPECIALLY ALONG THE BANKS OF THE RED C EDAR AND THE FLOODPLAIN THAT IS PART OF THESE LOT THAT'S UNDER CONSIDERATION HERE, UH, WHICH IS UNBUILDABLE . UH, IT'S TO MINIMIZE THE NEED FOR PUBLIC SERVICES AND THE EXPENSE OF, OF WATER AND SEWER AND SO FORTH, AND, AND IT'S PLANNED AND ZONED FOR USE IN A WAY THAT WOULD INVOLVE THE USE OF WELLS, POTABLE WATER AND SEPTIC SYSTEMS FOR DISPOSAL OF WASTE.
AND WHEN YOU START CONCENTRATING, UM, UH, MORE RESIDENCES ON SMALLER LOTS, YOU RUN INTO PROBLEMS, UH, ON BOTH OF THOSE FRONTS, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE PROPERTY IS, UH, FOR THE MOST PART, UNBUILDABLE.
IF YOU LOOK AT EXHIBIT, I BELIEVE IT'S, UM.
A THE ONE WITH BLUE, YOU'LL SEE OUTLINED IN THAT BLUE, THE RED CEDAR RIVER.
IT'S SUBJECT TO FLOODING EVERY SPRING.
THAT GROUND BECOMES SATURATED.
[00:10:03]
LINE UNDER EXHIBIT A UM, IS AT MOST HALF AND PROBABLY A LITTLE LESS THAN HALF OF THE TOTAL ACREAGE.SO THERE IS NO PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY HERE, AND THERE IS A RISK IF YOU SET A PRECEDENT BY ALLOWING THE DIVISION OF THIS LOT, THAT EVERY OTHER LOT ALONG THERE, ALL OF WHICH YOU CAN SEE, UH, COMPRISES BOTH BUILDABLE HIGHER ACREAGE AND A LARGE PERCENTAGE, A LARGE AREA THAT IS FLOODPLAIN.
YOU'RE GOING TO RUN INTO THE VERY PROBLEM THAT THE ORDINANCE IS DESIGNED TO PREVENT, AND THAT IS HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT, THAT OVER TAXES THE PERMEABLE PART OF THE PARCEL AND CREATES A RISK OF SEEPAGE POLLUTION FROM SEPTIC SYSTEMS AND PROBLEMS WITH POTABLE WATER, UM, THAT COULD RESULT FROM THAT.
THE ZONING HERE IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE USE THAT'S PERMITTED.
AND, UM, THERE ARE NO THERE'S NO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE HERE UNDER THE ORDINANCE.
I'M GOING TO STOP YOU THERE JUST SO THAT WE CAN START GETTING INTO OUR BOARD TIME.
WE USUALLY HAVE HAVE OUR PUBLIC COMMENT A LITTLE BIT MORE BRIEF, BUT I WHILE I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE EXHIBITS HERE BECAUSE I THINK THE VISUALS DO ASSIST US IN COMING TO THOSE CONCLUSIONS, I WOULD LIKE THE BOARD TO BE ABLE TO TALK THROUGH SOME OF THOSE ITEMS THAT YOU MENTIONED, WHETHER IT BE.
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR ME, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.
JUST REPEAT YOUR NAME FOR ME, SIR, ONE LAST TIME.
I'M SORRY. YOUR NAME, SIR? BAKER. BAKER.
AND THAT YOU CAME CAME THIS EVENING TO SPEAK.
IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A SEAT, WE ARE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GET INTO BOARD TIME.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK THIS EVENING OR.
HE'S. HE'S HERE ON YOUR BEHALF.
WHY DON'T YOU CONTINUE YOUR CONVERSATION? YEAH, WE'RE GOING TO. WE'LL GET INTO OUR BOARD TIME BECAUSE WE'LL DISCUSS SOME OF THE THINGS THAT YOU BROUGHT UP SO THAT WE CAN KIND OF MAKE SOME, SOME DETERMINATIONS OURSELVES HERE. SO WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND GET INTO OUR BOARD TIME.
ANY QUESTIONS COMMENTS CONCERNS THOUGHTS? YOU KNOW, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, BUT I'M.
UM, I BELIEVE IT WAS IN THE APPLICANTS MATERIALS WHERE SHE DID STATE THAT A LOT OF THESE, UM, LOTS IN THAT AREA WERE UNDER THAT, THAT THRESHOLD, THAT MINIMUM.
SO I'M, I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THAT.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I WAS, UM, THINKING ABOUT BOTH WHEN, WHEN BOTH, UM, PEOPLE WERE SPEAKING.
AND LOOKING THROUGH THE MATERIALS AND THROUGH THIS SUPPLEMENTARY PACKET THAT I ADMIT I GOT THROUGH PART OF IT TODAY, BUT I DIDN'T GET THROUGH ALL THE EXHIBITS TODAY.
SO THERE'S QUITE THERE'S QUITE A BIT THERE.
UM, HOWEVER, I AM LOOKING A LITTLE BIT MORE TOWARDS THOSE, UM, THAT PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY AND MINIMUM ACTION, BECAUSE THAT SEEMS TO BE WHERE WE TEND TO, UM, SPEND A LOT OF DISCUSSION TIME.
SO I WELCOME ANY THOUGHTS ON THOSE TWO, UM, THAT ANYONE MAY HAVE.
YEAH, I LOOKED AT THE THE LOT DRAWINGS THAT MR. BAKER PROVIDED, AND THERE ARE A NUMBER OF BUILDING SITES, UH, LOTS THAT DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE 200 FOOT FRONTAGE.
RIGHT. BUT I BELIEVE THE ORDINANCE WAS PASSED IN 1974 AND THOSE HOUSES PREDATE AND THOSE LOTS PREDATE THE ZONING CODE. IS THAT SOUND ABOUT RIGHT? CORRECT. UM, I CAN'T SAY DEFINITIVELY.
THE PROBLEM IS HERE IS THERE'S NOT PLATTED LOTS.
SO IT WASN'T LIKE A SUBDIVISION WAS PUT IN.
SO IT'S KIND OF HARD TO SAY WHEN THEY WERE ACTUALLY CREATED.
YEAH. THOSE OKAY THAT THAT ALL LOOK TO ME TO BE VERY INTERESTING SHAPED LOTS TO SAY THE LEAST.
I DON'T KNOW IT'S INTERESTING.
IT'S LIKE PUZZLE PIECES OVER THERE BY THE RIVER.
OKAY. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? I CAN SEE THE THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES JUST BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU WERE JUST SAYING ABOUT THE PLOT SHAPES AND SIZES.
YEAH. UM, AND AS FOR USING IT FOR PERMITTED USE, I THINK THAT YES, THERE'S ALREADY A RESIDENCE ON IT, BUT I THINK I CAN SEE THAT BECAUSE SPLITTING YOUR LOT AND DOING WHATEVER YOU WANT WITH IT, I CAN SEE THAT BEING A PERMITTED USE WITH YOUR LAND THAT YOU OWN.
[00:15:09]
SO I CAN KIND OF SEE THAT, UM, CRITERIA.I GUESS I WOULD DISAGREE WITH THAT.
NEITHER OF THE LOTS WILL COMPLY WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
AND I BELIEVE MR. BAKER IS CORRECT THAT THIS IS MORE AKIN TO A REZONING AND UP ZONING THAN IT IS TO A DEALING WITH A ANOMALY OF THE LOT.
THEY CAN DO WHAT THE CODE PROVIDES, AND CHANGING THE CODE IS NOT A ZONING VARIANCE THAT'S A AMENDED ZONING ACT.
THOUGH WE HAVE AS A BOARD SPLIT PARCELS.
WE HAVE, PREVIOUSLY THAT UNDER THOSE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, IF WE CAN MEET THAT CRITERIA.
UM. I CAUTIOUS TO USE THE WORD REZONING WHEN WE DO TALK ABOUT VARIANCES, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE THAT FUNCTION AS A BOARD TO BE ABLE TO OFFER THOSE VARIANCES AS THEY EXIST IN THOSE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, OBVIOUSLY MEETING OUR CRITERIA.
BUT THAT SAID, UM, I DO WE WE OFTEN TALK ABOUT THIS AND IT'S AND IT'S TRICKY TO WE DON'T HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL TO BE ABLE TO SAY, WELL, IF WE APPROVE THIS, WE'RE GOING TO INSTANTLY I MEAN, LOOK AT WE SAY THAT EVERY TIME WE HAVE A LAKE LANSING CASE, BUT WE DON'T WE DON'T KNOW, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN WITH THE OTHER, UM, 4 OR 5 PARCELS RIGHT HERE IN THIS, IN THIS AREA.
UM, MRS. MCKENZIE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME UP TO TALK A LITTLE BIT? BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR ABOUT THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, ABOUT BUILDING ON THIS ON THIS SITE, AND WHY THIS PARTICULAR SPLIT IS WHY THIS VARIANCE IS REQUIRED.
LIKE, WHAT CAN YOU CAN YOU TALK TO US ABOUT THOSE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES IN BUILDING ON THIS LOT THE WAY IT IS NOW? SURE. YEAH.
UM, EVEN THOUGH IT'S A VERY LARGE LOT AND THERE'S PLENTIFUL SPACE TO HAVE TWO DWELLINGS THERE WITH REGARD TO THE REQUIRED SQUARE FOOTAGE, UM, JUST DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE SHAPE OF THE LOT, THAT ROAD FRONTAGE IS, IS TOO NARROW.
BUT WOULDN'T THE ROAD FRONTAGE BE EVEN MORE NARROW IF IT WAS TWO LOTS, RIGHT.
I GUESS I'M TRYING TO EXPLAIN WHY THE SHAPE OF THE LOT IS CREATING PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.
I GUESS MY COMMENT THERE IS, IT'S NOT THE SHAPE OF THE LOT THAT CREATES THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, IT'S THE FACT THAT IT'S ZONED FOR ONE HOUSE PER LOT IN A 200 FOOT MINIMUM WIDTH.
UM, THAT'S BEEN TRUE SINCE THE HOUSE WAS BUILT, PRESUMABLY.
YEAH. DOES THAT KIND OF HOW HOW MEMBER TREZISE WORDED IT.
I JUST THINK THAT, UM, THE SPIRIT OF THE IDEA OF HAVING THESE ROAD FRONTAGES DOESN'T NECESSARILY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THIS TYPE OF A, OF A TOPOGRAPHY WHERE IT'S WINDING AND AGAINST THE RIVER.
SO, UM, I GUESS JUST THE UNUSUAL SHAPE WOULD MAKE IT A CANDIDATE FOR A VARIANCE. UM, KEITH, WOULD YOU MIND PULLING UP ON, UM, ON THE SCREEN, LIKE SLIDE NUMBER 13? OR PAGE NUMBER 13 AND THAT PRESENTATION.
I JUST WANT TO SAY SO THIS IS THE PROPOSED BUILD.
[INAUDIBLE] THIS IS THE PROPOSED BUILD.
SO THIS WOULD BE THE PROPOSED TWO LOTS.
SO YOUR HOME POTENTIALLY WOULD BE IS THIS A NEW HOME BEING BUILT ON THAT? NO. OR THAT'S THE EXISTING.
[00:20:02]
THAT'S THE EXISTING HOME OKAY.AND IS THE IDEA THEN THAT YOU SPLIT THESE TWO LOTS, THIS EXISTING BUILDING GOES AWAY AND YOU BUILD ON EITHER ONE OF THESE OR WHERE YOU WHERE, WHERE'S YOUR HOME GOING TO BE IN THIS PROPERTY? UM, REMAIN IN THE HOME THAT WE ARE IN.
OKAY. SO THAT'S OUR HOME. THIS WOULD REMAIN.
AND THEN SO THIS I THINK THIS WE'VE RUN INTO THIS PROBLEM BEFORE.
WHATEVER MAY HAPPEN TO THIS SECONDARY LOT IS NOT THE FOCUS OF THE VARIANCE.
SO THAT WE CAN'T FOCUS ON THAT, SPECULATE ON WHAT'S GOING WE CAN'T SPECULATE ON THAT, HOWEVER.
MEMBER BENNETT, DO YOU WANT TO ADD SOMETHING? OH NO. OH, I THOUGHT IT WAS LIKE, GO FOR IT.
SO IT FEELS TO ME THAT WE HAVE TO FOCUS KIND OF ON THAT, ON THIS DIVISION AND WHETHER OR NOT THIS DIVISION IS NECESSARY.
IF THE HOME EXISTS ON THIS PART OF THE PARCEL AS IT IS, AND IT'S GOING TO STAY AS IS W HAT IS THE WHAT IS THE NEED TO SPLIT THE LOT? BECAUSE YOU JUST HAVE AN EXTRA PARCEL OF LAND.
RIGHT. I'M INTENDING TO SELL THAT OTHER PORTION IF I'M ABLE TO GET THIS VARIANCE.
AND I DON'T KNOW, UM, HOW I DON'T WANT TO OVER SHARE, BUT, UM, YEAH, I'VE RECENTLY BEEN THROUGH A DIVORCE, AND I'M TRYING TO BUY OUT MY FORMER HUSBAND BY DOING THIS SO THAT ME AND MY KIDS CAN STAY IN THE HOUSE.
I FEEL YOU BECAUSE I JUST WENT THROUGH THIS EXACT SAME THING.
THAT'S IT DOES IT DOES HIGHLIGHT SOME OF THE SOME OF THE INTEREST.
SO THAT'S WHERE THE, THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OF SPLITTING THE LATTICE, WHEREIN IS WHERE I'M STRUGGLING, NOT BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT I IT'S ABSOLUTELY 1,000% I DO, BUT THAT'S WHERE I'M THAT'S WHERE I'M STILL STRUGGLING, GUYS.
SHALL WE LOOK AT CRITERIA? ALL RIGHT. YEAH. LET'S GO TO CRITERIA NUMBER ONE AND SEE THAT 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.
YEAH. I WAS GOING TO SAY, UM, IT'S VERY BROAD STATEMENT, VERY SUBJECTIVE WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT.
YEAH. BUT JUST READING IT FOR WHAT IT IS I WOULD AGREE TO THAT.
I THINK LOOKING AT THE LOT THE WAY IT'S SHAPED AND AS MR. BAKER EVEN STATED UP THERE AND SHOWED THE PICTURE THAT, YOU KNOW, MORE THAN HALF THIS LOT IS ESSENTIALLY IN A FLOODPLAIN OR A WETLAND, RIGHT.
SO THEY'RE FORCED TO BASICALLY BUILD EVERYTHING UP TOWARD THE ROAD INSTEAD OF IN THE BACK.
YES. UM, REALLY THOSE PROPERTIES THAT BORDER THAT RIVER.
SO I WOULD SAY, UM, JUST ON THE BASIS OF THE WAY THIS CRITERIA IS STATED, I CAN SEE THAT BEING MET.
YEAH. YEAH, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT SENTIMENT.
AND THE RIVER OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T SELF-CREATE THE PARCELS.
IT WAS PROBABLY THERE A LONG TIME BEFORE THE PARCELS.
AND THE APPLICANT DIDN'T CREATE THOSE ISSUES EITHER, BECAUSE THAT HOUSE HAS BEEN THERE FOR A WHILE.
RIGHT. UH, CRITERIA NUMBER TWO 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 A PERMITTED PURPOSE, AND I WOULD.
THIS IS THE ONE THAT I STRUGGLE WITH BECAUSE THE HOME IS EXISTING.
THERE'S NO CHALLENGE WITH THAT THIS, YOU KNOW, THE PERMITTED PURPOSE WOULD BE TO HAVE A HOME.
AND AS MEMBER TREZISE POINTED OUT, IT'S ZONED FOR ONE RESIDENCE ON THIS, ON THIS, UM IN THIS AREA.
SO THAT IS WHERE I'M HAVING A HARD TIME COMING UP WITH THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.
[00:25:03]
RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT I WAS, UH, TOUCHING ON EARLIER, TOO.AND I GUESS IN MY MIND, I WAS TRYING TO REACH THAT, UM, YEAH THAT CRITERIA.
SO TO HAVE A RESIDENCE TO LIVE.
YEAH. UM, I THINK WHERE, WHERE THE EVEN JUST PUTTING A PIN IN IN CRITERIA NUMBER TWO GOING TO CRITERIA NUMBER THREE WHERE 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.
THAT IS THAT IS THE TRICKY PART FOR ME, BECAUSE WHAT ENDS UP HAPPENING THEN IS THAT WE'RE CREATING A VERY SMALL PARCEL WITH THAT 72 FOOT FRONTAGE VERSUS KEEPING WITHIN THAT ZONING ORDINANCE.
AND GOING FORWARD, THIS VARIANCE STAYS WITH THAT.
SO THESE PARCELS, I MEAN, YES, THEY COULD THEY COULD BE JOINED AGAIN.
BUT THAT CREATES A NON CONFORMING BUILDING SITE FOR ANY POTENTIAL UM ACTUALLY CREATES TWO. IT CREATES TWO.
IT WOULD CREATE TWO NONCONFORMING UM PARCELS WHICH THEN GETS INTO ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS ON THAT LOT THEN NEEDS TO, NEEDS TO HAVE A VARIANCE.
YES, MA'AM. UM, REGARDING NUMBER THREE, UM, THIS IS ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE CRITERIA THAT, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE HAVE HEARD FOR YEARS AND IS IT'S UP FOR INTERPRETATION, I GUESS, IS THE EASY WAY.
I KNOW MR. CHAIRMAN PROBABLY DOESN'T WANT TO HEAR THAT, BUT DEPENDING ON HOW YOU SEE THE SITUATION, IT COULD BE INTERPRETED DIFFERENT WAYS.
I SEE IT AS WHEN WHEN SOMEONE'S ASKING FOR A VARIANCE, I'M LOOKING AND GOING, ARE THEY ASKING FOR THE MINIMUM VARIANCE THAT WOULD SATISFY WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING? SO IF TECHNICALLY THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH A 10 FOOT VARIANCE AND THEY'RE ASKING FOR A 20 FOOT.
TO ME, I'M GOING YOU'RE NOT ASKING FOR THE MINIMUM VARIANCE.
MINIMUM VARIANCE WOULD BE A TEN FOOT INSTEAD OF A 20 FOOT.
SO WHETHER IT'S 72 128 129, 71, 100, 100.
I DON'T THINK THAT REALLY, IN MY EYES MAKES A DIFFERENCE AS FAR AS WHAT THE MINIMUM IS.
SO THIS ONE IS KIND OF A IN MY EYES, JUST MY OPINION IS KIND OF A STRANGE CRITERIA FOR THIS TYPE OF REQUEST BECAUSE LIKE YOU SAID, SPLITTING IT UP IN EITHER IN ANY CONFIGURATION IS STILL.
YEAH, THE MINIMUM IS HARD TO, TO EASILY, EASILY DEFINE.
AS MUCH AS, YOU KNOW, THAT COULD BE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS SOMETIMES CASE BY CASE.
BUT THAT'S JUST THE NATURE OF THE BEAST.
[INAUDIBLE] SO I WHAT I HEAR IS THAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU COULD MEET CRITERIA NUMBER THREE AS BEING MINIMUM, BECAUSE IT'S HARD TO QUANTIFY WHAT MINIMUM WOULD BE WITH A 200 FOOT.
LEAVING ALL THINGS ELSE STILL TO BE CONSIDERED.
YES. OKAY. I THINK I COULD FOLLOW ALONG THAT TRAIN OF THOUGHT.
ANYTHING ELSE? THE ONLY THING IS THIS IS A RATHER SIGNIFICANT VARIANCE.
SO SO BEING THAT IT MAY BE THE MINIMUM, BUT IT IS ALSO A SIGNIFICANT VARIANCE OVER ZONING.
THERE IS A HOUSE THERE. SO I DON'T KNOW, AS YOU SAID WE CAN'T LOOK AT WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN TO THE SECOND LOT, BUT PRACTICALLY THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO.
SO I WOULD AGREE WITH HIS STATEMENT.
[00:30:01]
OR WOULD IT? WOULD IT APPLY TO CRITERIA FIVE WHICH IS GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS CHAPTER.THOSE ARE THE TWO THAT I STRUGGLED WITH A LOT BECAUSE LIKE, UH, LIKE MR. BAKER WAS SAYING, IT IS JUST KIND OF THE, THAT AREA IS JUST VERY SECLUDED, YOU KNOW, SETBACK, VERY LOW DENSITY, RESIDENTIAL, RURAL.
SO I THINK THAT WOULD NOT QUITE COEXIST WITH THE OVERALL GOAL OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
YEAH. YES, I THINK MR. BAKER ALSO RAISED AN IMPORTANT ISSUE WITH REGARD TO THE WETLANDS AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS IN THE RIVER IN THAT, UM, IF THIS WAS TO BE DEVELOPED AS A SEPARATE BUILDING SITE, UH, THIS IS NOT WITHIN THE PUBLIC UTILITY BOUNDARIES.
SO THERE WOULD NOT BE WATER OR SEWAGE AND THE IMPACT OF ANOTHER SEPTIC SYSTEM.
UM, AND WE HAVEN'T EVEN DISCUSSED WHERE THE SEPTIC MAY BE ON THE EXISTING, UH, LOT AND WHETHER IT I DON'T SEE IT HERE, I SEE THE WALL, THE WELL A WELL, YEAH.
BUT I DON'T SEE AND I DON'T SEE ANY INDICATION OF WHERE THE SEPTIC SYSTEM MAY BE AND WHETHER IT MAY ALREADY INTRUDE ON THAT OTHER PROPOSED LOT.
FINDING IT WAS WAS INTERESTING.
I DROVE OUT THERE AND UH, IT'S A VERY ROUGH PRIVATE DRIVE.
YEAH. UM, SO WHILE A, UH, DRIVING INTO THE FIRST LOT IN MAY NOT CREATE A LOT OF TRAFFIC THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPED AREA, IT DOES INCREASE THE TRAFFIC ON THAT PIECE OF ROAD.
UM, BUT THIS ONE I THINK THIS IS.
I HATE TO KEEP SOUNDING LIKE A BROKEN RECORD, BUT TO ME, THE WORD ADVERSELY IS WHAT I'M STICKING WITH IS, YOU KNOW, ANYBODY CAN SAY THAT ANY CHANGE ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY COULD HAVE AN EFFECT. IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, THIS SAYS, WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT.
THAT LONG, SNAKY LOOKING THING.
YEAH. MAY I SAY A RESPOND? THAT'S UP TO THE CHAIR.
MY NAME IS PAUL SCHWENDENER, 4084 VANNATTER ROAD.
AND JUST IN RESPONDING TO WHAT YOU MENTIONED, AND ALSO THE FOURTH CRITERIA REGARDING THE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE OTHER, THE NEIGHBORS AND SO FORTH. I WAS THE PERSON OR HAVE BEEN THE PERSON WHO HAS BEEN IN CONTACT WITH NEARLY ALL OF THE NEIGHBORS IN THE AREA, I'VE SPOKEN TO THEM EITHER BY PHONE OR IN PERSON, UH, MAKING THEM AWARE OF THIS HEARING, SHARING THE PROPOSAL THAT WAS SUBMITTED.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE SUBMITTED PETITIONS, UH, 15 PEOPLE HAVE SIGNED FROM VARIOUS PROPERTIES, UH, WHO WERE WANTED TO HAVE THEIR NAMES THERE.
OF THE OTHER PEOPLE I SPOKE TO, I HAVE NOT FOUND A SINGLE PERSON WHO WAS IN FAVOR OF IT.
SOME PEOPLE MAY HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO SIGN THE PETITION FOR VARIOUS REASONS KNOWN TO THEM, BUT HAVING HEARD FIRSTHAND, I BELIEVE THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD IS QUITE ALARMED AT THE IDEA THAT THIS ESTABLISHED CODING, WHICH IS SO CLEARLY DONE AND WHICH THIS VARIANCE DOES NOT CONFORM TO, THAT THAT COULD BE, UH, CHANGED IN THIS SORT OF WAY.
AND THEY ARE WORRIED ABOUT SEEING FURTHER SUBDIVISIONS HAPPENING IN VARIOUS THINGS.
[00:35:01]
GO AHEAD. SO I WILL NOT A COMMENT FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER, BUT AS HE WAS SAYING, AND THANK YOU FOR VERIFYING THAT YOU ARE THE PROPERTY JUST TO THE WEST OF THERE.UM, I'M SURE THERE WAS THERE IS A DEFINITION IN THE ZONING CODE FOR ADJACENT.
MOST PROBABLY MUNICIPALITIES HAVE A DEFINITION FOR ADJACENT, AND I'D BE SURPRISED IF THEY DON'T, SO IT'S IT'S VERY SPECIFIC IN THAT SENSE THAT WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT OR THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER TO ME, THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER IS, YOU KNOW, FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, AND I'M NOT MAKING A MOTION OR VOTING ON THIS, BUT FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, IF THIS BOARD WERE TO APPROVE THIS, I'M GOING TO PROBABLY GUESS THAT IF SOMEBODY BUYS THIS PROPERTY 99 TIMES OUT OF TEN, IT'S GOING TO BE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT'S GOING TO GO THERE.
SO MORE THAN LIKELY A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WOULD BE BUILT THERE.
WOULD THAT BE ESSENTIALLY OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY? IN MY EYES PROBABLY NOT, BECAUSE IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH OTHER SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN THE AREA.
HOWEVER, I DO THINK WHETHER SOMETHING IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED IS DEBATABLE BECAUSE IF THERE'S ANOTHER SINGLE FAMILY HOME THERE, I WAS GOING TO SAY THE NEIGHBOR LIVING RIGHT NEXT DOOR. AS OF RIGHT NOW, THERE'S A PRETTY GOOD SETBACK BETWEEN PROBABLY YOUR HOME AND THIS HOME AS FAR AS FOOTAGE AS FAR, HOW FAR AWAY THAT YOU AWAY FROM THAT.
THAT SETBACK NOW GETS DIMINISHED.
THERE'S PROBABLY SOME TREES THAT ARE PROBABLY TORN DOWN.
THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME POTENTIAL NOISE IF THEY BUILD A DECK OR HAVE A POOL OR SOMETHING OUT THERE.
SO IT MAY ADVERSELY AFFECT THAT NEIGHBOR, BUT MAY NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ANOTHER ADJACENT NEIGHBOR.
SO IT'S ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE WISHY WASHY KIND OF CRITERIA THAT UNFORTUNATELY, YOU KNOW, ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS, THAT'S IT'S IT'S DIFFICULT SOMETIMES TO DETERMINE. BUT THAT'S HOW I KIND OF VIEW IT AS THAT.
NOT SAYING ONE'S GOING TO BE THERE.
THERE'S NO PROPERTY, BUT THAT'S A PERMITTED USE, I BELIEVE, THERE.
UM, BUT MORE THAN LIKELY A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WOULD BE THERE.
AND I THINK THAT WOULD REMAIN WITH THE CHARACTER OF OTHER PROPERTIES, BUT IT'S JUST HOW WELL IT ACTUALLY IMPACTS OTHER ADJACENT PROPERTIES THAT THAT IS DEBATABLE. YEAH.
YEAH, I DEFINITELY I DEFINITELY HEAR THAT THOUGHT PROCESS AND AGREE WITH THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER IN THE IN THE VICINITY, AS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT UM, IS WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OR, YOU KNOW, SEPTIC WELL IMPACT OF OF THIS SECOND SECOND LOT.
RIGHT. IT'D BE DIFFERENT TO PUT A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE THERE WITH . BUT THEN THE QUESTION REMAINS AGAIN, SINCE THAT THAT IS NOT AND CANNOT BE THE FOCUS OF THIS VARIANCE IS THAT RIGHT NOW IT IS JUST STRICTLY ABOUT IS SPLITTING THIS PARCEL.
WILL SPLITTING THIS PARCEL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE ADJACENT LAND OR CENTRAL CHARACTER? THAT'S THE QUESTION.
I'M NOT SPEAKING FOR THE REST OF THE BOARD.
MY OPINION IS THAT IT WOULD HAVE AN EFFECT.
BUT WOULD IT HAVE IT ADVERSELY AFFECT.
I WOULD JUST BASED ON THE SPLIT, I WOULD SAY NO.
YEAH, BUT I WOULD. I DEFINITELY THINK IT WOULD HAVE AN EFFECT.
ABSOLUTELY. YEAH. WOULD I ADVERSELY JUST USING THE TERM ADVERSELY EFFECT I WOULD SAY NO.
I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT WITH BASED ON THE SPLIT.
AND AGAIN THE CHALLENGE FOR US IS THAT WE IF WE'RE LOOKING AND NARROWING IT DOWN STRICTLY TO THE SPLITTING OF THE TWO LOTS WITHOUT TAKING OUT ANY SPECULATION AS TO WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN ON THE SECOND LOT, WOULD IT ADVERSELY AFFECT ANYBODY THIS PARTICULAR VARIANCE AND I CAN MEET THAT CRITERIA.
I DO NOT BELIEVE IT WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT TWO SPLIT THE LOTS.
WELL, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S THE PART THAT WE CAN'T YET WE CAN'T JUDGE IT ON BECAUSE UNFORTUNATELY WE DON'T WE'RE LOOKING AT JUST STRICTLY ON THE SPLIT AND NOT WE WE UNDERSTAND AND KNOW THAT LIKELY SELLING THAT PARCEL WILL RESULT IN A BUILD OF
[00:40:01]
SOME KIND, BECAUSE IT'S VERY UNLIKELY THAT SOMEBODY WOULD BUY A PARCEL OF LAND AND NOT WANT TO BUILD ON IT.BUT IF WE'RE IF WE CAN'T DISCUSS THAT OR THAT IT CAN'T BE IT, THEN THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE SPLIT.
WELL, AND THAT GOES BACK TO PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY.
RIGHT. WELL, IT'S PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IS I THINK THE UNIQUE NATURE OF THIS PROPERTY IS THAT IT IS SO LARGE COMPARED TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THERE AND THAT, UM THEY'VE BUILT ON ONE SIDE OF IT, AND SO THE REST IS VACANT AT THIS POINT.
UM, BUT I COULD I COULD EVEN MEET PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IN A, YOU KNOW, IN A STRETCH TO MEET THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY BEING THAT IT IS HARD TO MAINTAIN A LARGE PROPERTY WHEN YOUR HOME IS ON ONE VERY, VERY SIDE END OF IT.
AND, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE A YOU HAVE A LARGER SPACE THAT IS NOT BUILT UPON.
I IT'S IT'S A STRETCH TO GET THERE BUT I CAN GET THERE.
SO I'M, I'M, YOU KNOW LIKE STRETCHING BUT.
MEETING. IF YOU WOULD TURN TO PAGE SEVEN OF THE MEMORANDUM THAT I PREPARED.
THE ORDINANCE SPEAKS OF PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY SOLELY AND ONLY IN TERMS OF WHETHER THERE IS SOME PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IN MAKING USE OF THE PARCEL AS IT IS ZONED, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
THE APPLICANT HAS SHOWN NO PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHATSOEVER.
THE PARCEL IS BEING USED AS PERMITTED UNDER THE ZONING, AND I WOULD FIRST OF ALL, POINT IN ADDITION, POINT OUT THAT, UM THE THE SPLIT IS ONLY.
IT CAN ONLY POSSIBLY BE FOR A RESIDENTIAL BUILD, A TRUCKING OR A GOLF COURSE, OR ANY OF THE OTHER USES THAT I'VE HEARD MENTIONED ARE NOT PERMITTED USES IN A RESIDENTIAL RR ZONE.
AND THAT TAKES US RIGHT TO THE PORTIONS OF THE ORDINANCE THAT ARE ON PAGE SEVEN.
IN CONSIDERATION OF THE EXCESSIVE COST OF EXTENDING WATER AND SEWAGE SERVICE TO ALL AREAS OF THE TOWNSHIP, THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH SPACIOUS LOTS ARE REQUIRED.
MAKES IT REASONABLY POSSIBLE TO OBTAIN A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF SAFE, POTABLE WATER ON THE IMMEDIATE PROPERTY AND TO TREAT SEWAGE BY SEPTIC TANK, FOLLOWED BY THE DISPOSAL OF THE EFFLUENT ON THE SAME PROPERTY.
THE APPLICANT HAS NOT EVEN SHOWN THAT THE AS HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT THE SEPTIC FIELD FOR THE EXISTING HOUSE DOES NOT, IS NOT IN PART OF THE PARCEL THAT'S PROPOSED TO BE SPLIT.
BUT EVEN IF IT IS THE POINT OF HAVING A REQUIREMENT OF A LARGE PARCEL AND REMEMBER WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT HERE, THE FLOODPLAIN COMES RIGHT UP TO THE FOOT OF THE EXISTING BUILDING.
IF YOU LOOK AT EXHIBIT A, I BELIEVE IT IS.
SO WHAT YOU'RE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IN PERMITTING A VARIANCE IS DEFEATING.
THE PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE WAS TO, WHICH IS TO ENSURE THAT THERE WILL BE A LARGE LOT THAT CAN ACCOMMODATE THE SEPTIC DISCHARGE FROM THE EXISTING USE ON THAT PARCEL.
I'M GOING TO PAUSE YOU THERE BECAUSE I'M LOOKING AT THAT EXHIBIT AND I'M ALSO SEEING THE LOT NEXT ON THE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THAT, I'M SEEING ALSO, IF I LOOK AT OUR PACKET AND I'M SEEING DO YOU MEAN THIS LOT? UM, TO THE TO WHAT WOULD BE TO THE WEST OR EAST OF YES OF THE PARCEL IN.
YES. AND ONCE AGAIN AND I'M SEEING I MEAN, I GUESS YOU'RE MAKING AN ARGUMENT THAT IS ALSO APPLICABLE TO MANY OF THE OTHER LOTS THAT ARE ALREADY BUILT UPON AND LIVED IN ON THIS, ON THIS ROAD.
SO I IT'S I HEAR YOU, I HEAR THE ARGUMENT, I REALLY DO.
[00:45:06]
AND THAT'S THE POINT.THEY ARE ALL REQUIRED TO BE LARGE AND TO ACCOMMODATE THE FACT THAT THEY'RE NEVER GOING TO BE, AND THEY'RE NOT INTENDED TO BE PUBLIC SERVICES EXTENDED, THAT THIS IS AN AREA IN WHICH SEPTIC AND WELL WILL BE THE NORM.
BUT WE'RE HAVING I THINK WE'RE HAVING A DIFFERENCE OF OF UNDERSTANDING ON WHAT LARGE CONSTITUTES, BECAUSE I'M LOOKING AT THESE PLOT LINES AND I'M SEEING VERY DIFFERENT SHAPES AND SIZES OF WHAT COULD CONSTITUTE LARGE.
THE ONE ALL THE WAY TO THE EAST THAT'S A VERY LONG, SKINNY LOT.
WE'RE LOOKING WE'RE LOOKING UP AT.
I MEAN THAT'S IS THAT A LARGE LOT I MEAN THIS AGAIN LIKE MEMBER KOENIG SAID, THIS IS THIS IS KIND OF A HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE? HOW IS THAT QUESTION? SORRY.
I'M. I'M NOT SEEING I'M NOT SEEING A LARGE DIFFERENCE IN SIZE AS FAR AS WHAT'S CONSTITUTED AS LARGE.
I CAN SEE YOUR CLIENTS LOT IN PARTICULAR IS QUITE LARGE, AND THEY WANT TO KEEP IT QUITE LARGE.
HOWEVER, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT IS JUST COMPARING THEM IS NOT MAKING THE CASE FOR ME.
A LOT FURTHER TO THE EAST THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO.
SPEAKERS] IT COULDN'T HAVE BEEN, UH, MADE THAT SIZE.
IF IT HADN'T HAPPENED BEFORE THE ORDINANCE WAS ADOPTED, IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN APPROVED.
WE ARE IN, IN IN THE IDEA, THE IDEA OF THE ZONING BOARD IS TO BE ABLE TO, TO LOOK AT THESE CASES IN PARTICULAR AND SEE IF THEY ARE UNIQUE AND QUALIFY FOR SOME KIND OF A, UM, RELIEF FROM THAT ORDINANCE.
AND TO DO THAT, THERE HAS TO BE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY FOUND.
NOW, THE EXISTING, THE EXISTING, THE EXISTENCE OF A LOT THAT PREDATES THE ORDINANCE AND THE 200 FOOT FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ORDINANCE CAN NOW BE SUBVERTED BY GRANTING A VARIANCE THAT ALLOWS A PARCEL SPLIT THAT UNDERCUTS THE LARGE LOT GOAL.
THAT IS TRUE, BUT THAT DOES GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY, IS THAT WORK FOR EVERY EVERY PARCEL HERE? SO THAT IS THAT'S THAT'S WHAT WE'RE THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT NOW IS DOES DOES THIS.
DOES THAT STILL APPLY? DOES THAT STILL WORK? HOW DOES HOW DO WE APPLY THAT ORDINANCE AND STILL, UM, ALLOW RESIDENTS TO HAVE A CHANCE TO AND, AND DO WHAT THEY WILL WITH THEIR PROPERTY.
THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDINANCE.
RIGHT. BUT UNLESS THERE'S A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, THAT IS.
YES. AND THERE IS NO WE ARE IN AGREEMENT.
THERE NEEDS TO BE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY.
WE'RE ARGUING SEMANTICS ABOUT WE'RE ALREADY HERE.
SO WE'RE BACK TO [INAUDIBLE] PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY MEANS THAT YOU CAN'T USE THE THE PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE. THERE HAS BEEN NO SHOWING THAT THE APPLICANT CANNOT USE THE PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE WITHOUT A VARIANCE.
WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS AND YOU'VE HEARD US.
WE'VE DISCUSSED THAT WE'RE HAVING A CHALLENGE, MEANING PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.
YES. [INAUDIBLE] MR. CHAIR, I WOULD RECOMMEND KEEPING THE COMMENTS THAT MR. BAKER HAD MENTIONED. I WOULD RECOMMEND WE MOVE ON TO CRITERIA NUMBER FIVE, AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK TO CRITERIA NUMBER TWO.
[00:50:02]
MAYBE WE CAN TAKE THOSE IN CONSIDERATION.YES, I APPRECIATE THAT FOR THE SAKE OF TIME.
AND EXACTLY SO I WILL GO BACK TO I DO THINK THAT I AM ABLE TO SATISFY CRITERIA NUMBER FOUR.
AND THAT IS WHERE, YOU KNOW, THAT IS THAT IS A QUESTION.
IS THIS CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST? IS THIS CONSISTENT, CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE ORDINANCE IS TRYING TO UM, TRYING TO ASSIST WITH AND TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE THAT IT IS STAYING CONSISTENT WITH WHAT MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP WOULD LIKE FOR THIS RR ZONE.
IS IT CONSISTENT? IS IT ARE WE MAKING THIS EXCEPTION BECAUSE THERE IS GOOD CAUSE AND IT IS NECESSARY. I WOULD, UH, VENTURE TO SAY NO FOR THAT ONE, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE HEARD AND ALL THE SIGNED PETITIONS THAT, I MEAN, THE MAIN PURPOSE OF THIS AREA IS TO BE RURAL AND SPREAD OUT AND SECLUDED, AND I THINK THAT THIS WOULD ONLY CREATE A HIGHER DENSITY AREA.
BUT I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S IN THE SPIRIT OF THE ZONE AND WHAT IT WAS PROPOSED FOR.
I'D AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT, BUT I ALSO GO BACK TO NUMBER TWO THAT THERE IS NO REASON FOR THIS VARIANCE THAT THERE'S NOTHING THAT PREVENTS HER FROM DEALING WITH HER PROPERTY UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING AS IT IS.
UM, WHAT WE'RE DOING IS CREATING ANOTHER LOT THAT WILL BE A NON CONFORMING TO NON CONFORMING USES.
YEAH. UM, WHICH DOESN'T SEEM TO BE WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THE ZBA IS TO DO.
UM, BECAUSE OF ANOMALIES IN THE PROPERTY.
BUT I DON'T THINK WE CAN CHANGE OR I DON'T BELIEVE WE SHOULD BE GRANTING VARIANCES, WHICH ARE NOT NECESSARY TO ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNER TO COMPLY WITH THE CURRENT ZONING ORDINANCE.
I THINK THAT WAS VERY WELL PUT.
TOWARD BACK AND FORTH WITH NUMBER FIVE AND KIND OF SEPARATING ON NUMBER TWO AS WELL.
AND I CAN AGREE WITH, UH, I ALMOST FORGOT YOUR NAME FOR A MINUTE [INAUDIBLE] I APOLOGIZE.
ALL RIGHT. SO MANY PEOPLE I SEE EVERY DAY.
UM, AND I DO AGREE WITH MR. BAKER'S INTERPRETATION OF PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES THAT THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN, IT ESSENTIALLY SAYS THAT THERE HAS TO BE SOME SORT OF DIFFICULTY THAT A PROPERTY ALREADY HAS WITH THE CURRENT PROPERTY ITSELF THAT WON'T NECESSARILY ALLOWS THEM TO USE, BECAUSE THE TERM USING IS IN THERE ALLOW THEIR USE THAT THEY ARE BY RIGHT ALLOWED TO HAVE ON THERE FROM EXISTING.
AND I DO AGREE WITH MEMBER TREZISE AND WITH MR. BAKER THAT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IS THE CASE.
I BELIEVE THERE IS A USE THAT IS ON THE PROPERTY.
THERE IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
THE APPLICANT IS USING THE PROPERTY TO THIS DAY.
I THINK THE THE ARGUMENT OF WHETHER, YOU KNOW, THE SPLIT IS NECESSARY OR NOT.
I COMPLETELY SEE THE ARGUMENT AND I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THE SIDE.
I THINK I THINK THAT'S KIND OF OUT OF THE PURVIEW OF THIS BOARD, TO BE HONEST, BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH I MAY AGREE WITH YOU AND SAY I DON'T THINK THE SPLIT IS NECESSARY, SHE'S GOT HER REASONS. THE APPLICANT HAS THEIR REASON WHY THEY WANT TO SPLIT IT.
AND THEN THE TOWNSHIP ORDINANCE DOES ALLOW FOUR LOT SPLITS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
HOWEVER, I DO AGREE THAT BECAUSE OF THE SITUATION WITH THE CURRENT PROPERTY.
UM. IT IS BEING USED IN A PRACTICAL MANNER RIGHT NOW, AND THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THAT THE ONLY REASON, THE MAIN REASON WHY SHE WANTS TO SPLIT THE PROPERTY IS TO SELL IT AND PUT ANOTHER, AND HOPE THAT SOMEBODY BUYS THAT AND POTENTIALLY PUTS, HYPOTHETICALLY, ANOTHER SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ON THERE.
UM. BUT DOES THAT REQUIRE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY TO SHOW THAT THERE'S A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY ON THAT PROPERTY IN ORDER TO BUILD THAT OTHER THING ON THERE? MY OPINION IS NO.
[00:55:01]
SO I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MEET NUMBER TWO, UM, JUST ON THAT BASIS.HOPEFULLY THAT THAT MADE SENSE. AND I WAS KIND OF MY MIND IS GOING FASTER THAN MY MOUTH IS.
BUT NO, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.
MR. MCKENZIE, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD ABOUT PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES? BECAUSE THAT'S I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE'RE WHERE WE'RE ALL GOING TO GET HUNG UP.
AND IF WE CAN'T MEET OUR FIVE CRITERIA, WE'RE NOT ABLE TO GRANT THE VARIANCE.
BUT I, I DO WE'RE ALL GOING TO STRUGGLE WITH THIS PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES CONVERSATION BECAUSE IF B ACK TO BACK TO OUR CRYSTAL BALL.
IF THIS WAS A VARIANCE, LET'S SAY YOU WERE INTENDING TO HAVE A NEW BUILDING HERE AND IT WOULDN'T.
YOU KNOW, THE WE TALKED ABOUT THE FRONT EDGE AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
I COULD THINK OF A MILLION DIFFERENT SCENARIOS WHERE THIS COULD COME TO OUR BOARD AND WE CAN SAY, OKAY, WE COULD SEE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IF THE HOUSE IS NOT A SETBACK ISSUE, A SETBACK ISSUE, IF IT WAS A, YOU KNOW, UM, EVEN THE FRONTAGE ISSUE, I THINK WE COULD, WE COULD, WE COULD DEAL WITH, WITH, WITH BUILDING.
BUT HAVING A PROPERTY THAT IS LIVABLE, THAT IS OBVIOUSLY SOMEPLACE YOU CHERISH AND YOU WANT TO KEEP, THAT'S THAT'S WHERE WE'RE STRUGGLING AND I.
I. WE'RE STRUGGLING WITH THAT PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU CAN GIVE US AS FAR AS WHAT? THAT. WELL, I WAS STUDYING THE IDEA OF PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE IMPORTANT.
AND FROM WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING, IT MEANS THERE ARE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES TO THE SITE THAT PREVENT IN A WAY THAT OTHERWISE CONFORMS. SO MY ARGUMENT WOULD BE THAT DUE TO THE NARROW ROAD FRONTAGE, AS YOU CAN SEE, THE LOT ITSELF IS VERY WIDE, BUT THAT ONE AREA SORT OF COMES TO A BOTTLENECK DUE TO THAT UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES CREATED BY THE RIVER AND BY THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE LAND THERE, THAT WHILE THE SIZE OF THE LOT IS LARGE ENOUGH IN ORDER TO CONFORM WITH THE RULES AND DIVIDE IT.
THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE RIVER CREATED A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY TO DIVIDING IT, IN ORDER TO USE IT IN A WAY THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE WITHIN THE RULES.
AND IF YOU DON'T MIND, I'M JUST TO SPEAK TO THE ISSUE OF THE SEPTIC, WHICH I DEFINITELY APPRECIATE THAT BEING A CONCERN. UM, THE LOT SIZE ITSELF WOULD STILL BE SUFFICIENTLY LARGE AND WITHIN THE RULES ESTABLISHED, IT'S ONLY THE ROAD FRONTAGE THAT WOULD BE NARROWER.
SO, YOU KNOW, IT WOULDN'T BE AFFECTING THE THE ROAD FRONTAGE DOESN'T AFFECT THE SEPTIC.
IT'S THE OVERALL, UH, SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT WOULD MATTER.
UM, SO JUST WITH REGARD TO THAT, IT'S IT'S NOT THAT THE LOT WOULD BE SMALL.
IT'S STILL, YOU KNOW, WITHIN THE, THE GUIDELINES, IT'S THAT IT'S MORE NARROW.
SO THE NARROWNESS I DON'T SEE HOW THAT WOULD NECESSARILY IMPACT ON THE SEPTIC AND WELL SITUATION.
BUT ONE ELEMENT IS WILL IT HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT FINANCIALLY ON THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY? AND IN THIS CASE, YES.
THIS, UM, NOT BEING ABLE TO DIVIDE THIS LAND WILL HAVE A VERY DRAMATIC NEGATIVE IMPACT ON ME FINANCIALLY SUCH THAT I WON'T BE ABLE TO STAY IN MY HOUSE WITH MY CHILDREN.
SO THAT FOR ME IS, YOU KNOW, THE REASON THAT I NEED TO DO THIS AND OR AM ASKING TO DO THIS, I SHOULD SAY SO.
SO WE'RE, I THINK IN TWO DIFFERENT SPOTS BECAUSE THE VERBIAGE IN THE PACKET AND IN THE APPLICATION IS A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH.
AND THAT THAT IS JUST IN REFERENCE TO THE FRONTAGE.
OKAY. SO IT'S NOT THE LOT AS A WHOLE.
SO WHAT MISS MACKENZIE IS SAYING IS THAT THESE LOTS ARE AS FAR AS SPATIALLY THEY'RE CONFORMING.
IT'S JUST FRONTAGE THAT WOULD BE REQUIRING A VARIANCE.
[01:00:03]
OTHER REQUIREMENT FOR THE RR ZONE.I DON'T WANT TO BE A STONE IN YOUR SHOE, BUT I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT SECTION 86-2212, WHICH PRESCRIBES THE DEFINES PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY.
UM. YOU HAVE TO, UH, BE ABLE TO FIND THAT ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN, AND I'M QUOTING, PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES THAT WOULD PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR A PERMITTED USE.
THE WHAT THE APPLICANT SEEKS IS TO USE THE PROPERTY FOR A NON PERMITTED USE, THAT IS, TO CREATE A NEW LOT THAT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE WIDTH REQUIREMENT.
IT IS THEREFORE NOT A PERMITTED USE AND SO NO PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY HAS BEEN SHOWN AS THE MANUAL, UH, THAT ALL OF YOU WERE GIVEN WHEN YOU WERE APPOINTED TO THIS BOARD, PROVIDES THAT SECTION 26 VARIANCES ARE NOT INTENDED TO RELIEVE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT ARE SIMPLY PREVENTING APPLICANTS FROM DOING WHAT THEY WISH.
THE ZONING BOARD WAS INTENDED TO SERVE AS A SAFETY VALVE IN THOSE RARE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE APPLICATION OF THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS RESULTS IN A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY.
THERE'S NO PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY SHOWN HERE, BECAUSE THERE'S NO DIFFICULTY PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY USING THIS PARCEL AS PERMITTED UNDER THE ORDINANCE. THE SPLIT WOULD CREATE A NON PERMITTED USE.
MEMBER KOENIG. UM, JUST FOR THE RECORD, COULD YOU VERIFY OR PLEASE CONFIRM THE THE DEFINITION OF PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY YOU JUST READ IS THAT IN THE CURRENT, IS THAT IN THE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE OR IS THAT IN THE ML HANDBOOK.
THAT'S NO, THAT'S IN THE ORDINANCE ITSELF.
OKAY. SO THAT'S THAT IS IN THE ORDINANCE ITSELF.
OKAY. I THINK THE DEFINITION 86-2212 IS MERELY A RESTATEMENT OF OUR CRITERIA, RIGHT.
YES, BUT PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IS NOT DEFINED IN THAT SENSE.
THE DEFINITION IS LITERALLY A LOT OF THESE, UM, CRITERIA ARE LEFT TO BE AMBIGUOUS FOR THE BOARD TO INTERPRET THEIR DECISIONS. CORRECT? YEAH. SO YEAH.
AND THAT'S THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE SPOKEN WITH LAWYERS AND BEEN TRAINED UPON SEVERAL TIMES.
YES. YEAH. SO WE ARE UM, THE FRUSTRATION MR. BAKER COMES FROM, WE HAVE WE HAVE WE'RE MEETING THE DEFINITION OF PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, YOU KNOW, TO DEATH.
BUT THE SIMPLE FACT IS WE GET TO AS A BOARD AND A BODY INTERPRET WHAT THAT IS.
AND I GET THAT YOU HAVE VERY STRONG OPINION ABOUT WHAT THAT IS, BUT YOU ARE SITTING ON THE BOARD.
BUT I WOULD I'M EXPLAINING MY KIND OF FRUSTRATION IF I COULD.
SO, UM, I GUESS I'M STILL AT NOT BEING ABLE TO MEET THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES CRITERIA.
SO WITH THAT, I WOULD WONDER IF ANYBODY HAS ANYTHING THEY WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE OR THINK ABOUT OR. BUT AT THIS MOMENT I, I CANNOT I CAN MEET CRITERIA ONE I COULD WITH THE IDEA THAT THIS IS ONLY GOING ON THAT THIS IS A LOT SPLIT.
I CAN MEET CRITERIA NUMBER THREE AS A MINIMUM ACTION.
[01:05:02]
I CAN MEET CRITERIA FOUR.I HAVE A HARD TIME MEETING CRITERIA TWO AND FIVE.
I AGREE, I'M STUCK ON THE SAME ONES TWO AND FIVE.
YEAH, I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH YOU ON ONE AND THREE, BUT THAT'S OKAY.
I DO AGREE WITH YOU ON TWO AND FIVE, SO YOU CAN'T MEET ANY OF THEM.
UM, I DID WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT I'M SURE EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM, INCLUDING ALL OF US ON THIS BOARD, UNDERSTAND YOUR SITUATION AND UNDERSTAND THE REASON WHY YOU DESIRE TO SPLIT THAT LOT.
YOU KNOW, WE UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE OF US HAS PROBABLY GONE THROUGH THAT SITUATION.
HOWEVER, UNFORTUNATELY FOR THE BARD, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES THESE DECISIONS AREN'T EASY.
AND IN MY EYES, YOUR PARTICULAR SITUATION IS NOT NECESSARILY SOMETHING THAT I BELIEVE THE BOARD TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN IT COMES TO LOOKING AT HOW CERTAIN ASPECTS OF REAL PROPERTY IMPACT OR IMPACTED BY A CODE.
SO I KNOW THAT PEOPLE OUT THERE.
NOW I'M NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT SEPARATION.
BUT YOU KNOW, PEOPLE OUT THERE WANT TO SPLIT LOTS ALL THE TIME JUST FOR THAT REASON BECAUSE THEY WANT TO TRY TO, YOU KNOW, THEY WANT THEY HAVE A LARGE LOT THEY WANT TO SPLIT IT. THEY WANT TO GET MORE MONEY.
THAT'S THEIR THEIR REASON, THEIR DESIRE.
AND THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE. THAT'S THEIR INTENT.
THAT'S THE INTENT THAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH IT.
AND FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, I'M SURE WE ALL UNDERSTAND YOUR SITUATION FINANCIALLY, PERSONALLY, MENTALLY, EVERYTHING YOU'RE GOING THROUGH, WE UNDERSTAND THAT, UM, I'M STILL IN THAT MINDSET OF YOU KNOW I MY EYES I DO UNDERSTAND WHAT IN THIS SITUATION SOME OTHER VARIANTS REQUESTS THAT WE'VE HAD MAYBE NOT SO MUCH, BUT IN THIS SITUATION I UNDERSTAND IN MY EYES IT'S MORE CLEAR FOR THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION THAT THERE IS NOT NECESSARILY A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY BECAUSE THE OWNER TO THIS DAY, IF, GOD FORBID, WE DECIDE TO DENY THIS VARIANCE, THE OWNER CAN STILL USE THAT PROPERTY.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, THERE'S STILL A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THERE.
IT CAN BE USED WHETHER THEY CAN STAY IN IT BECAUSE OF THEIR FINANCIAL SITUATION.
ALL THAT. THAT'S NOT FOR THIS BOARD TO DETERMINE.
BUT OVERALL MY OPINION, SOMEBODY COULD USE THAT HOUSE.
THERE IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE THERE WITHOUT HAVING ANY ISSUES WITH SETBACKS OR ANYTHING ELSE.
UM, SO THEREFORE I THAT'S WHERE IT GOES BACK TO [INAUDIBLE] MEMBER TREZISE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IS IT NECESSARY TO SPLIT THE LOT? AND REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT'S NECESSARY OR NOT UM, LIKE I SAID, THE APPLICANT HAS HER REASONS.
UM, I, I STILL SEE THIS AS NOT NECESSARILY, UNFORTUNATELY, HAVING A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY.
THERE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT LOT SPLIT.
SO IF IT WERE TO BE SPLIT, UM AS THE ATTORNEY SAID OVER THERE, AS WE ALL PROBABLY IMAGINE, A SINGLE FAMILY HOME MORE OR LESS IS PROBABLY WHAT'S GOING TO BE BUILT ON THERE AND NOT SOMETHING ELSE.
FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, IT'S VACANT.
SO FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, IT'S GOING TO BE VACANT AND IT CAN BE BUILT AND BUILT UPON.
IT'S JUST THE ISSUE WITH THE FRONTAGE.
BUT I GET HUNG UP ON IS THERE A TRULY A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IN THERE WITH THE USE OF THE CURRENT PROPERTY THE WAY IT IS NOW, THAT'S ALMOST REQUIRING THIS NEED FOR THE VARIANCE OF A SPLIT.
AND FOR THIS SITUATION UNFORTUNATELY, AS I SAID, THE APPLICANT, I DO AGREE AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR SITUATION, BUT I PERSONALLY I DON'T SEE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WITH THIS APPLICATION.
IT'S NOT THAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE NEED OR THE DESIRE, SO DON'T GET ME WRONG WITH THAT.
BUT I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THERE IS NOT A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY ON THIS.
THAT WAS VERY WELL STATED AND THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M LEANING TO.
I HAVE ALL THE SYMPATHY IN THE WORLD.
I WOULD LOVE TO TALK TO YOU AFTER THIS MEETING IF WE COULD, BUT UM, I DON'T SEE THE THE NEED FOR UM AND CANNOT MEET CRITERIA NUMBER THREE AND CANNOT MEET CRITERIA NUMBER FIVE FOR SURE.
THAT SAID, UM, I KNOW THAT IF THIS WAS IN NEARLY ANY OTHER PLACE IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP OTHER THAN MAYBE LAKE LANSING, UM, THAT LOT SPLIT WOULD BE ABLE TO TO HAPPEN AND WOULD, YOU KNOW, BE ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, GIVE HER THAT FINANCIAL SECURITY.
BUT, UM, IT IS JUST THE, THE TO ME.
[01:10:01]
S MAYBE MORE OF THE PROBLEM FOR YOU BECAUSE IT'S [INAUDIBLE].THIS IS A TRICKY ONE TO MEET THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY.
SO I WOULD MOTION TO DENY THIS VARIANCE BASED ON NOT BEING ABLE TO MEET CRITERIA NUMBER TWO AND FIVE FOR MYSELF. I WOULD SUPPORT THAT MOTION.
OKAY. SUPPORTED BY MEMBER TREZISE.
ALL RIGHT. SHALL WE VOTE, GENTLEMEN? ALL RIGHT. THIS IS A VOTE TO DENY THE VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, CASE NUMBER 23-11, 715 RED CEDAR.
UH, YES. AND VICE CHAIR KOENIG.
SO UNFORTUNATELY, THIS VARIANCE HAS BEEN DENIED.
UM, AGAIN, WE AS AS MEMBER KOENIG VERY ELOQUENTLY SAID, WE I THIS THIS IS HARD FOR ME TO DENY BECAUSE I, I WOULD BECOME A RUBBER PERSON TO STRETCH OUT AND TRY TO FIND THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES HERE.
UM, BUT UM, UNFORTUNATELY, WITH THIS VARIANCE, WE JUST COULD NOT MEET THE CRITERIA.
SO WITH THAT SAID, I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO OUR AGENDA AND TAKE A LOOK AND SEE HERE.
WE DO NOT HAVE ANY OTHER BUSINESS.
UH, AND SO I'M GOING AHEAD AND CLOSE OUR BOARD TIME AND OPEN THE FLOOR FOR PUBLIC REMARKS.
[8. PUBLIC REMARKS]
IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO COME UP TO THE PODIUM AND SPEAK ON PUBLIC REMARKS, YOU'RE WELCOME TO.OKAY, I NEVER ASKED THIS BEFORE KEITH AND I MEANT TO ASK THE PUBLIC REMARKS AND NUMBER EIGHT IS THAT FOR ANY CAN CAN THE PUBLIC SPEAK ON ANYTHING, INCLUDING SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA? CORRECT.
OKAY. CAUSE I HAVE LIKE A PUBLIC REMARK AT THE BEGINNING FOR ONLY AGENDA ITEMS AND ONE AT THE END WHERE IT'S NOT AGENDA ITEMS. CASE THAT WE WERE ACTIVELY DISCUSSING DURING THAT MEETING.
RIGHT. I NEVER HAD A A ROGUE PUBLIC COMMENT.
RIGHT. BUT I NEVER I'VE NEVER KNOWN HOW STRICT I SHOULD HAVE ASKED.
THERE WAS A LOT. THOSE ZOOM DAYS ARE WILD.
ALL RIGHT, I WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC REMARKS.
AND I WANT TO OPEN THIS TO BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS.
[9. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS]
IF WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS.I'LL JUST SAY HAPPY HOLIDAYS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL OF YOU AND SEE YOU IN JANUARY.
ALL RIGHT. ON THAT NOTE, THIS MEETING IS OFFICIALLY ADJOURNED.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.