[00:06:42]
[00:06:44]
>> YEAH, WE CAN AND I CAN TURN IT OVER TO HER.
>> YEAH, IF SHE COMES, YOU CAN SWITCH BACK TO HER [INAUDIBLE] I GUESS FOR THE SECOND TIME, WE'VE GOT A PRETTY FULL AGENDA AND OUR CHAIR ISN'T HERE YET.
BUT I'LL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.
I'M STIM KENNY I'M THE VICE CHAIR.
I LIKE TO CALL TODAY THE ORDER OF THE MEETING FOR
[1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER]
THE CHARTER TOWNSHIP MERIDIAN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR JUNE 26, 2024 WE CAN QUICKLY GO AROUND THE DICE HERE AND DO A ROLL CALL. MEMBER BENNETT.>> I'M VICE CHAIR MEMBER KENNY.
I'LL ACT IN HER PLACE UNTIL SHE GETS HERE, CHAIR [INAUDIBLE].
WITH THAT, WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE APPROVAL AGENDA.
[2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA]
HAS ANYBODY HAD A CHANCE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE? HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING? I'M SORRY ABOUT THE AGENDA HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING WITH THE AGENDA? IF NOT, MOTION WILL BE ORDERED.>> I MOVE TO APPROVE THE AGENDA.
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND.
ANY QUESTIONS TO THE MOTION? IF NOT, I'LL GO AHEAD AND DO ROLL CALL. MEMBER [INAUDIBLE]?
>> VICE CHAIR OF VOTES, YES. MOVE ON TO
[3. CORRECTIONS, APPROVAL AND RATIFICATION OF MINUTES]
THE CORRECTIONS APPROVAL AND RATIFICATIONS OF THE MINUTES FOR MAY 15, 2024.ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OR CHANGES TO THE MINUTES FROM THE MAY 15, ZBA MEETING? IF NOT, I ENTERTAIN ANOTHER MOTION.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE ZBA MEETING FROM MAY 15, 2024.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND DO THE ROLL CALL AGAIN.
>> VICE CHAIR KENNY VOTES, YES.
I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY COMMUNICATIONS, IS THAT CORRECT MR. CHAPMAN?
>> I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY UNFINISHED BUSINESS AS WELL WE WILL MOVE ON TO NEW BUSINESS AND START WITH ZBA CASE NUMBER 24-05,
[6.A. ZBA CASE NO.: 24-05 (2731 Grand River), Meridian Retail Management II LLC30200 Telegraph Road Ste. 205, Bingham Farms, MI 48025]
WHICH ADDRESSES AT 2731 GRAND RIVER SADIAN RETAIL MANAGEMENT 2.I GUESS WE GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED WITH MR. CHAPMAN. TAKE IT AWAY.
>> SO THE APPLICANTS REQUESTING VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANT AT 2731 GRAND RIVER AVENUE.
SPECIAL USE PERMIT WAS GRANTED AT THE FEBRUARY 12, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO CONSTRUCT A 2,560 SQUARE FOOT DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANT.
ON SITE, THERE'S AN EXISTING BANK BUILDING THAT'S GOING TO BE DEMOLISHED.
THE 1.17 ACRE SUBJECT SITE IS ON C2 COMMERCIAL.
THE PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE WEST AND THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE IS SHOWN AT 6.6 FEET AND 12 FEET RESPECTIVELY.
THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES 15 FEET.
THIS IS MEASURED FROM THE BACK OF THE CURB OF THE PARKING LOT TO THE PROPERTY LINE.
WITHIN THIS BUFFER, IT'S SUPPOSED TO HAVE A VERTICAL SCREEN CONSISTING OF MASONRY WALL, PLANT MATERIAL, LANDSCAPE, EARTH BURNER COMBINATION, NO LESS THAN THREE FEET IN THE HEIGHT.
ALSO, THE PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG GRAN AVENUE IS SHOWN AT 9.3 FEET, AND THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES A 20 FOOT PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER
[00:10:01]
IN THAT AREA AND WITH THE SAME RESTRICTIONS AS THE OTHER BUFFER.A FOUR FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER IS REQUIRED TO BE LOCATED BETWEEN THE REST OF THE BUILDING AND THE PARKING LOT.
INSIDE OF THIS BUFFER IS REQUIRED TO BE 50% OF THE LANDSCAPE AREA, MUST BE PLANTED GRASS, GROUND COVER SHRUBS, OR OTHER LIVING VEGETATION.
THE SUBMITTED PLAN SHOWS ZERO FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE PARKING LOT.
SECTION 7581A REQUIRES THAT LANDSCAPE ISLANDS HAVE A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 10 FEET.
A SECTION OF THE PARKING LANDSCAPE ISLAND ON THE PLAN IS SHOWN AT 2.9 FEET NEAR THE NORTHWEST OF THE CORNER OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING.
THERE'S A TABLE THAT SUMMARIZES THE VARIANCE REQUESTS, AND THE SITE PLAN IS PROBABLY THE EASIEST TO SEE ALL OF THIS. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
>> IS THE APPLICANT OR A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE APPLICANT OR A PROPERTY OWNER HERE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING? PLEASE STEP UP IF YOU CAN, PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
>> ABSOLUTELY. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS MITCHEL HARVEY.
I'M A STONE FIELD ENGINEERING, 607 SHELBY STREET, DETROIT, MICHIGAN.
I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT AS WE CIVIL ON THIS JOB.
AS I MENTIONED, WE'RE REQUESTING A FEW VARIANCES HERE FOR THIS.
FAIRLY UNIQUE SITE, THERE'S VARIOUS VARIANCES THAT WE'RE REQUESTING, THEY ALL RELATE TO UNIQUE PROPERTY SHAPE OF THE LOT.
IF YOU COULD ZOOM OUT THAT IMAGE JUST A LITTLE BIT.
WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT WHEN WE'RE DESIGNING THIS IS A FEW THINGS WHEN WE'RE WORKING WITH PLANNING COMMISSION AS WELL AS PLANNING STAFF IS, HOW DO WE GET ENOUGH STACKING SPACES AND HOW DO WE MAKE THE SITE EASY AND ABLE TO CIRCULATE.
WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE DIMENSION OF THE SITE, IN THE EAST WEST DIMENSION, YOU ONLY HAVE ABOUT 140 FEET AT THE BUILDING LINE UP THERE WHERE IT'S ANGLED ALONG THE ROADWAY THERE THAT'S 150 SO IT'S ACTUALLY A FAIRLY NARROW SITE FOR THE OVERALL SIZE THAT IT IS.
ONE OF THE KEY FEATURES WE WANT WANTED TO FOCUS ON WAS ADDING A SUPPLEMENTARY STACKING LANE OVER ON THE WEST SIDE.
I KNEW WE KNEW DRIVE THROUGH STACKING WAS GOING TO BE KEY HERE, SO WE WANTED TO ADD THAT ADDITIONAL LANE TO HOLD ANY OTHER STACKING BEFORE CLOGGING UP THE SITE.
ANOTHER THING THAT WE'RE REALLY, KEEN ON PROVIDING HERE IS A BYPASS LANE FOR THE DRIVE THROUGH, NOT ONLY FOR CUSTOMERS WITHIN THE DRIVE THROUGH TO LEAVE IF THEY DON'T WANT TO, GET THEIR FOOD IT'S ALSO FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLE CIRCULATION THROUGHOUT THE SITE.
THOSE WERE TWO KEY FACTORS THAT, WERE REALLY DRIVING THESE VARIANCES PRIMARILY IN THE EAST WEST DIRECTION.
THERE WERE ALSO IT DOES HAVE A UNIQUE FLAG SHAPE WHERE IF YOU SEE IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER, IT ACTUALLY GOES AND CONNECTS TO THE AWAY TO THE EAST SO IT'S A UNIQUE SHAPED LOT CONFIGURING WHERE WE CAN LOCATE GREEN BELT SETBACKS, THAT THING.
BUT ULTIMATELY, GRANTING THESE VARIANCES, THEY FEEL IN LINE WITH THE COMMERCIAL ORDER.
THEY'RE ALL RELATED TO GREEN SPACE, AND I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT WE'RE ADDING APPROXIMATELY THREE THAN SQUARE FEET OF ADDITIONAL GREEN SPACE COMPARED TO WHAT'S OUT THERE TODAY.
WE'RE GOING TO BE PROVIDING ALL ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRED TREES, AS WELL AS AN ADDITIONAL FOUR TREES ON TOP OF THAT.
THEN OVER ON THE EAST SIDE, WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING A BIORETENTION CELL THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH INGHAM COUNTY ON FINALIZING THAT DESIGN.
BUT OVERALL, WE FEEL THAT THE GRANTING THESE VARIANCES WILL ALLOW FOR A SAFE AND BEAUTIFUL REDEVELOPMENT OF THIS CURRENTLY VACANT LOT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, MR. ARBY. DOES ANYBODY ELSE HERE IN THE AUDIENCE HAVE ANYTHING THEY'D LIKE TO SAY YOU ON THE PETITION? IF NOT, WE CAN GO AHEAD AND GO INTO THE BOARD TIME.
DON'T GO TOO FAR IN THIS CASE.
WE'LL BE ABLE TO CALL YOU BACK UP.
GOING INTO OUR BOARD TIME, DOES ANY BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS,
[00:15:01]
EITHER FOR STAFF OR FOR THE APPLICANT BEFORE WE GO INTO VOTING OVER THE ACTUAL CRITERIA?>> I'VE TOURED THE SITE A COUPLE OF TIMES AND AT PRESENT, THERE'S NO BUFFER ANYWHERE, IF I'M CORRECT.
THERE'S SOME STONE WORK SOMEWHERE OR 4.5 FEET IN THE SOUTH END OR SOMETHING, BUT THAT'S ABOUT IT, AND THEN THE RETAINING WALL.
>> ON THE ON THE WEST SIDE, THERE'S A RETAINING WALL AND TO THE SOUTH, THERE'S JUST A LITTLE GRAVEL STRIP, I THINK IT'S TWO FEET WIDE.
>> YEAH RIGHT UP TO A BUILDING.
I DON'T THINK A LACK OF A GREEN SPACE THERE WILL HAVE ANY NEGATIVE EFFECT TO THAT BUILDING.
>> WHAT ARE YOU PROPOSING TO PUT ON THE BACK IF ANYTHING?
>> ON THE REAR OF THE SITE, WE'RE NOT POSING ANYTHING.
IT'S JUST THAT BYPASS LANE THAT I TALKED TO FOR FALSE CIRCULATION AROUND THE SITE FOR.
>> SO THEY CAN EXIT OUT ON DAWN?
>> THAT FLAG PIECE IS WHAT'S DRIVING, WHERE WE CAN PUT THAT DRIVE, AND THAT'S WHY IT HAS TO BE, LOCATED IN THE REAR THERE.
>> THAT'S THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU MEMBER [INAUDIBLE].
>> IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICANT? WE'RE BOTH THINKING. I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD.
>> WE'RE ABOUT TO AHEAD. QUESTION FOR STAFF.
ARE THERE ANY EXISTING VARIANCES ON THE PROPERTY? BECAUSE I GUESS, SINCE THERE'S NOT ANY BUFFERS EXISTING RIGHT NOW, WHAT DID THEY GET VARIANCES FOR THAT PREVIOUSLY?
>> THAT'S A VERY OLD BUILDING SO I'M ASSUMING IT PROBABLY PREDATES OUR ORDINANCE.
>> THIS BEING MY FIRST MEETING WITH THE ZBA.
HOPEFULLY THIS COMMENT IS WELL PLACED.
WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT, SPECIFICALLY REGARDING THIS PROPERTY WAS WHY WAS SO MUCH TRAFFIC GOING TO BE GOING ON AND OFF OF GRAND RIVER? WE DIDN'T REALLY THINK ABOUT WHAT THE ZONING VARIANCES WERE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO REQUEST AFTER THAT APPROVAL WAS GIVEN.
>> I JUST WANT TO ADD A LITTLE BIT OF THAT CONTEXT TO SAY THAT ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WAS, WHY NOT JUST HAVE THE PRIMARY INTEREST OFF ENTRANCE OFF OF DAWN AVENUE? I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH HERE TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE, BUT I'M JUST CURIOUS WHAT IF THE PRIMARY ENTRANCE WAS ON AND OFF DAWN AVENUE, AND WHAT WOULD THAT DO TO THE ZONING VARIANCE REQUESTS THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO CONSIDER DURING THIS SESSION? I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE, BUT IT DOES MAKE ME WONDER.
>> ESSENTIALLY, FIRST OFF, IF WE'VE LOST OUR GRAND RIVER CURB CUT, THAT PROBABLY BE THE END OF OUR PROJECT HERE.
BUT JUST FOR DISCUSSION SAKE AS WE'RE TALKING THROUGH THIS VARIANCE, IF YOU WRECKED THAT CURVE CUT ON GROUND UP THERE ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER AND YOU HAD ALL YOUR ACCESS COMING IN THROUGH DAWN, YOU'RE STILL FACED WITH THAT SAME CONFIGURATION WHERE YOU HAVE THAT BYPASS LANE.
YOU'RE COMING IN THROUGH DAWN, YOU CAN'T GET RIGHT INTO THE DRIVE THROUGH LANE.
IF YOU SCROLL DOWN A LITTLE BIT, I WISH I HAD A LASER POINTER IT'S HARD TO EXPLAIN.
YOU COME IN, YOU GOT TO TAKE A RIGHT TO GO UP, WRAP ALL THE WAY AROUND THE SITE AND GET INTO THE DRIVE THROUGH LANE.
YOU WOULD STILL HAVE THESE VARIANCES THAT WE'RE REQUESTING IN THAT EAST WEST DIMENSION, EVEN IF YOU WERE COMING IN STRICTLY OFF DAWN.
THE KIRK CUT ON GRAND IS NOT CONTRIBUTING TO ANY OF THESE REQUESTED VARIANCES THIS EVENING.
I DO REMEMBER YOU BEING ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION SINCE THEN, WE HAVE FORMALIZED AN MDOT APPROVAL FOR THAT KIRK CUT.
>> THANK YOU. I ALSO REMEMBER THE LASER POINTER COMMENT AND MAYBE [OVERLAPPING].
>> I WAS LIKE, MAYBE WE LASER POINTER.
>> IF I POINT TO THAT ONE, YOU GUYS CAN'T SEE IT. YOU CAN RUN THEM.
>> WE WILL WORK WITH OUR STAFF BRING ONE NEXT TIME.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, MEMBER BROOKS?
>> NOT AT THIS MOMENT. THANKS.
>> I HAD JUST A COUPLE FOR YOU, MR. HARRY.
I'M SURE WE'D BE ABLE TO ANSWER PRETTY EASILY.
THE 12 FOOT LANE ON THE BOTTOM THERE UP AGAINST THE SOUTH.
IS THAT BIG ENOUGH AND WILL THAT ENTRANCE OR EGRESS AND INGRESS BE WIDE ENOUGH AND TURN RADIUS ENOUGH FOR FIRE TRUCK TO GO THROUGH THERE?
>> YEAH. WE MIGHT HAVE A FIRE TRUCK THROUGH THERE AND NO ISSUES CIRCULATE.
[00:20:02]
>> TO THE MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION.
I'M SURE YOU'VE HEARD THIS BEFORE.
I'M SURE YOU HAVE A GOOD ANSWER FOR IT, BUT JUST TO MAKE IT CLEAR ON THE RECORD.
IS A THOUGHT OF TAKING THAT BUILDING AND SHOVING THAT NORTH? OBVIOUSLY, YOU HAVE SEVEN.
WE HAVE 11 PARKING SPACES UP THERE.
BUT WAS THERE ANY REVIEW OF TAKING THAT BUILDING AND SHOVING IT MORE TOWARD GRAND RIVER, PUTTING MORE OF THAT PARKING IN THE REAR AND MAYBE BEING ABLE TO MOVE THAT EMERGENCY LANE, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT IN THE SOUTH, A LITTLE BIT AWAY FROM THAT WALL TO BE ABLE TO PUT A BUFFER THROUGH THERE? WE LOOKED INTO IT. REALLY, WHAT YOU LOSE IS THAT FRONT PARKING AND THEN THAT FULL CIRCULATION AROUND THE FRONT.
I BELIEVE THERE'S ALSO A SETBACK FOR BUILDING UP THERE THAT WE'D BE FIGHTING PRETTY QUICK.
>> JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS I WANT TO ADD.
THE FIRE MARSHAL LOOK AT THIS, SO HE WAS OKAY WITH THE LANE SIZE AND ALSO THE ZERO FEET ON THE, I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY 0.5 FEET TO THE SOUTH.
THAT SHOULD BE IN THE VARIANCE REQUEST AS WELL, BUT IT WAS NOT IN MY STAFF REPORT.
>> SO YOU HAVE A ZERO POINT NOW?
>> I DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING. I THINK I TOTALLY MISSED THAT, BUT IT SHOULD BE 15 FEET.
I ONLY PUT THE 6.6, SO I ACCIDENTALLY LEFT THAT ONE OUT.
>> I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. THAT'S JUST TO THE SOUTH.
>> I DID DRIVE BY AND OR WITH A CITIZEN DRIVE BY IT AND CHEATED AND LOOKED AT GOOGLE MAPS AND GOOGLE STREET VIEW AND LOOKED AT IT I DO AGREE WITH REMEMBER TO PRECISE COMMENTS THAT THERE'S NOT MUCH OF A BUFFER THERE NOW SO ANYTHING THAT CAN BE DONE, IT SOUNDS LIKE CAN YOU MENTIONED WE'RE ADDING LIKE FOUR TREES ABOVE AND BEYOND OR YOU MENTIONED A SQUARE FOOTAGE, SQUARE FOOT OF LANDSCAPE ABOVE AND BEYOND, WHAT'S REQUIRED OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
I APOLOGIZE FOR GOING BACKWARDS.
>> YES. WE'RE ADDING FOUR TREES BEYOND WHAT IS CURRENTLY REQUIRED UNDER THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
WE'RE STILL MEETING ALL THE ZONING REQUIRED TREES, AND THEN COMPARED TO THE SITE TODAY, WE'RE INCREASING THE GREEN SPACE BY I THINK, APPROXIMATELY 3,000 SQUARE FEET.
>> SO THAT'S THE 3,000 SQUARE FOOT, FOR MEMBER YOU [INAUDIBLE], I BELIEVE ANYTHING YOU PUT OUT THERE IS PROBABLY BETTER THAN ONCE THEY ARE NOW BASED ON WHAT I'VE SEEN.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE GO INTO BOARD TIME.
>> WE CAN GO INTO THE ACTUAL BOARD TIME.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OR WE CAN GO DIVE RIGHT INTO THE ACTUAL CRITERIA. STEP RIGHT IN.
LET'S START WITH NUMBER 1, SO THE FIRST CRITERIA IS UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT EXISTS THAT ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND OR STRUCTURE, BUT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LAND OR STRUCTURES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT, AND THESE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SELF CREATED.
I KNOW THE CHAIR TYPICALLY LIKES TO GO INTO HER EXPLANATION FIRST AND THEN GET COMMENTS FROM BOARD, BUT SINCE SHE'S NOT HERE, I'LL PASS IT ON TO THE OTHER MEMBERS FIRST BEFORE WE MOVE ON.
WITH THAT CRITERIA NUMBER 1, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS REGARDING THAT ONE? DO YOU SEE THAT THIS WOULD SATISFY THAT OR NOT? MEMBER [INAUDIBLE]
>> I THINK DEFINITELY NUMBER 1 JUST BECAUSE THE L SHAPE IS REALLY STRANGE.
I DON'T SEE AN EXACT DIMENSION ON THIS SHEET, BUT IF YOU TAKE THE LANDSCAPE OF FIRST FROM THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDE OF THAT SECTION, YOU HAVE NOTHING.
THERE'S NOTHING YOU COULD DO WITH THAT IF YOU FOLLOW THE BUFFERS ACTIVITY, I CAN DEFINITELY SEE THAT ONE PERSONALLY.
>> I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT ALSO THAT, SINCE THIS IS A RESTAURANT AND A COMMERCIAL BUILDING, THERE'S CERTAIN PARKING MINIMUMS THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH AND TO PUT THE BUFFERS IN, THAT WOULD BE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT.
>> I WOULD HAVE TO AGREE WITH BOTH THE STATEMENTS.
>> JUST A QUESTION. DO WE EACH COMMENT ON EACH OF THESE?
>> IF YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON EACH ONE OF THEM.
>> I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ADDITIONAL.
IT SEEMS THAT WE ARE IN AGREEMENT THAT IN UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE, CRITERIA NUMBER 1 CAN BE SATISFIED WITH THIS.
I'LL MOVE ON TO REVIEW CRITERIA NUMBER 2, WHICH IS STRICT INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE LITERAL TERMS AND REVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER WOULD RESULT IN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES THAT WOULD PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR THE PERMITTED PURPOSE.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THAT ONE? NUMBER 2.
>> IS THE COMMENTS WE MADE WITH REGARD TO NUMBER 1 APPLY TO NUMBER 2.
>> I WAS JUST ABOUT TO SAY THE SAME THING.
REALLY WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO MEET THE BUFFER VARIANCE AND AS WELL AS PARKING SPACE VARIANCE.
I DON'T FORESEE ANY WAY THAT'S POSSIBLE.
IS ONLY ONE DRIVE THROUGH LANE, CORRECTLY?
>> ONE MONEY FOR PICKUP WINDOW AND THEN OUTSIDE, THERE'S A BYPASS LINE.
>> FIRST IT WAS A CHECK FOR LINE, I'D REALLY HAVE SOME ISSUES WITH THAT.
TWO DRIVE THROUGH LANES TRYING TO GO THROUGH THERE.
I WOULD SEE THAT AS THE APPLICATION SATISFIES
[00:25:02]
REVIEW CRITERIA NUMBER 2 AS WELL SO WE CAN MOVE ON TO NUMBER 3, GRANTING THE VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM ACTION NECESSARY, WHICH WILL CARRY OUT THE SPIRIT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECURE PUBLIC SAFETY, AND PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. MEMBER TREZISE.
>> I WOULD SAY GIVEN THE STATUS OF THE LOT NOW AND HOW IT'S CONFIGURED, PUTTING IN BUFFERS AS REQUIRED WOULD MAKE THE LOT CONSIDERABLY SMALLER AND PROBABLY NOT USEFUL FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF ANY KIND, SO I THINK IT MEETS NUMBER 3.
>> I WOULD AGREE AS WELL. I KNOW THAT LOOKING AT THE DESIGN, IT WOULD BE VERY HARD TO MINIMIZE THOSE BUFFERS, LIKE GOING FROM 16 FEET TO 19 FEET OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT SO IN MY EYES, THE MINIMUM VARIANCE IS ACCEPTED OR WHAT'S THE TERM? I'M TRYING TO THINK TOP OF MY TONGUE THERE.
MINIMUM ACTION IS THERE LET'S PUT IT THAT WAY.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON CRITERIA NUMBER 3? WE'LL MOVE ON TO NUMBER 4, WHICH IS GRANTING A VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND OR THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY.
>> [INAUDIBLE] THERE'S NOTHING SO THE FACT THAT THEY ADD BASAL, [INAUDIBLE] I THINK IT IS IMPROVING AND IT'S REALLY MEETING THE SPIRIT OF ORDINANCE AS MUCH AS IT POSSIBLY CAN WITHOUT MEETING THE ORDINANCE.
I WOULD SAY THAT MEET NUMBER 4.
>> THE OTHER THING I'D ADD IS THE BUILDINGS SURROUNDING IT ARE BLANK WALLS SO YOU'RE SCREEN FROM SOMETHING THAT IS THERE AND PARTICULARLY ATTRACTIVE SO THAT SAYS WE DO NEED SOME SCREENING WHERE POSSIBLE, AND THIS DOES IMPROVE IT CONSIDERABLY.
>> GOING ALONG WITH WHAT YOU SAID WHEN I LOOKED AROUND AND LOOK AT THE ADJACENT LAND USES, THEY ARE ALL COMMERCIAL OR EVEN TO THE SOUTH I THINK IT'S AN INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICT KNOWN.
IN TERMS OF THEIR USES ARE PROBABLY MORE INTENSE THAN WHAT THIS USE IS GOING TO BE SO I DON'T THINK ANYTHING IS GOING TO REALLY BE NEGATIVE IMPACT OR ADVERSELY AFFECT ANY ADJACENT LAND USE IS PROBABLY MORE INTENSE THAN THIS IS GOING TO BE.
>> I THINK WE CAN SATISFY NUMBER 4 ON THAT AS WELL. MOVE ON THE LAST ONE.
CRITERIA NUMBER 5, WHICH IS GOING TO BE THE VARIANCE, WILL BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS CHAPTER. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
>> I WOULD JUST SAY GIVEN THE STATUS OF THE PROPERTY AND ITS CURRENT CONDITION, IT DOES.
>> I WOULD AGREE. I THINK IT'S NOT GOING TO AS PUBLIC INTEREST AT ALL TO GO BACK TO [INAUDIBLE] THAT AREN'T EVEN THERE TO BEGIN WITH.
>> I WOULD AGREE AS YOU HEARD FROM TESTIMONY FROM THE APPLICANTS REPRESENTATIVE, THEY ARE GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT THE TREES IN THE GREEN SPACE, SO THEY'RE DOING WHAT THEY CAN TO ENHANCE THAT PROPERTY FROM WHAT IT CURRENTLY IS DEFINITELY ON THE PUBLIC INTEREST, I BELIEVE.
>> I WOULD AGREE IF THEY'RE GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND, EXCEPT WITH THE TREES, BUT THEY ARE IMPROVING THE SITUATION FROM WHERE IT IS NOW AND WHERE IT MIGHT BE WITH A DIFFERENT DEVELOPER.
>> MY ONLY COMMENT ON THIS WHOLE THING, I THINK I MOSTLY AGREE WITH ALL THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE HAVE SAID IS WHAT THE VARIANCES WILL DO TO LIKE THE INTEREST OF MOBILITY ON THE SIDEWALKS.
I DON'T KNOW IF THIS HAS AN IMPACT ON THAT, BUT NAVIGATING THAT SPACE, ESPECIALLY WITH THE ADDITION OF TRADER JOE'S RIGHT THERE ON THE WEST.
THAT'S THE ONLY PUBLIC INTEREST ASPECT THAT I WOULD THINK ABOUT.
BUT I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A DEAL BREAKER OR NOT.
>> I DO SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING BECAUSE YOU'RE ADDING IN A CURB CUT MORE TRAFFIC OR SIDEWALK AREA.
>> ARE YOU? I CAN MISINTERPRET YOU'RE ADDING IN A CURB CUT.
>> I DON'T THINK IT'S ENTERTAINING [INAUDIBLE]
>> BUT YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING TO GET MORE FOOT TRAFFIC BEING A RESTAURANT THAN A BANK PER SE.
BUT YOU'RE NOT A SIDEWALK, IT'S A SIX OR EIGHT FOOT SIDEWALK.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S CHANGING.
IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO THE ROAD SO PUTTING IN BUFFER BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND THE BUILDING DOESN'T CHANGE MUCH.
I THOUGHT THEY HAD APPROVAL FOR A CURB CUT TO MAINTAIN IT.
>> EXISTING CURB CUT WE'RE JUST BREAKING UP TO EMBOUCHURE GEOMETRY.
>> [INAUDIBLE] EQUIPMENT THAT THEY HAVE TO DO THAT.
>> IT'S A GOOD QUESTION THOUGH.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON CRITERIA NUMBER 5?
[00:30:01]
I DO BELIEVE WE'VE GONE THROUGH ALL OF THEM.ANY LAST QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, YOU DEFER THE APPLICANT AND FIRST STAFF BEFORE WE CAN GO TO A VOTE TO A MOTION.
IF NOT, DOES SOMEONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS?
>> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUESTED WITH THE ADDITION THAT MR. CHAPMAN MENTIONED WITH THE REAR SIDE BACK OR BUFFER ZONE.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND ON THE TOTAL.
ANY QUESTIONS TO THE MOTION? IF NOT, MEMBER TREZISE, THIS IS A VOTE FOR TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE. MEMBER TREZISE.
CONGRATULATIONS, YOU ARE APPROVED.
>> THANK YOU. WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT CASE,
[6.B. ZBA CASE NO.: 24-06 (2233 Grand River), Tyler & Emily Dawson,15782 Pastoral Path, East Lansing, MI 48823]
WHICH IS VBA CASE NUMBER 24-06, ADDRESS 2233 GRAND RIVER.>> MR. CHAPMAN, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO YOU.
>> YEAH, SO THE APPLICANTS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A DECK ON AN EXISTING BUILDING AT 2233 GRAND RIVER AVENUE.
ACCORDING TO MARDEN TOWNSHIP ASSESSING DEPARTMENT RECORDS, THE 2,543 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1925.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS 0.23 ACRES AND IS ZONE C2 COMMERCIAL.
THE SUBMITTED SITE PLAN SHOWS THAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO ADD A DECK TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
THIS DECK IS 42 FEET BY 6.5 INCHES BY SIX FEET THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES A SITE AIRED SETBACK OF 15 FEET.
THE SITE PLAN SHOWS AT ITS CLOSEST POINT, THE PROPOSED DECK WILL BE 4.9 FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE, SO A 10.1 FOOT VARIANCE IS BEING REQUESTED. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAPMAN. IS YOUR APPLICANT OR REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE APPLICANT PROPERTY HERE?
>> AGAIN, IF YOU CAN, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
>> MY NAME IS TYLER DAWSON, 15782 PASTORAL PATH, NEST LANSING.
I'M REPRESENTING THE OWNERSHIP, EMILY.
MY WIFE AND I OPERATE THE BUSINESS ALL GRAND EVENTS OUT OF 2233 GRAND RIVER AVENUE.
WE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO.
THIS WAS THE FORMER OKEMOS PHOTOGRAPHY STUDIO.
AS YOU MENTIONED THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE FROM ABOUT 1925, SO WE'VE BEEN WORKING AT MAKING SOME IMPROVEMENTS AND UPGRADES TO FACILITATE US BEING ABLE TO OPERATE OUR BUSINESS OUT OF THE BUILDING, WHICH, BY THE WAY, IS SO WE DO FLORAL AND EVENT DESIGN WE'RE CREATING FLOWER CENTER PIECES AND DIFFERENT THINGS FOR WEDDINGS AND SPECIAL EVENTS IN THE COMMUNITY.
WE'RE ASKING FOR THIS VARIANCE SO THAT WE CAN INSTALL IT'S A DECK, ESSENTIALLY AN EXTENSION OF AN EXISTING DECK THAT IS AT THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY SO THAT WE CAN ACCESS FROM OUR DESIGN STUDIO, WHICH IS IN THE BACK, ALLOW US TO ACCESS TO OUR VEHICLE TO TAKE OUR THINGS TO THE EVENTS AND THEN BRING THEM BACK.
THERE'S CURRENTLY A EXISTING CARPORT THERE ON THE EAST SIDE THAT IS ESSENTIALLY ENDS RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE WITH OUR NEIGHBOR TO THE EAST AND SO WE HAVE A LONG STANDING MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT THAT WE INHERITED WITH THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY WITH OUR NEIGHBORS TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE EXISTING CARPORT THERE.
IT'S AN OLDER STRUCTURE, IT'S NOT IN THE GREATEST SHAPES.
WE'RE WE'RE PLANNING ON MAKING ACTUALLY A SMALLER FOOTPRINT OF A CARPORT SO WE'RE BRINGING IT BACK AWAY FROM GRAND RIVER, FROM THE ROADWAY, BUT KEEPING THE SAME WIDTH, SO IT WOULD STILL BE RIGHT ON THAT PROPERTY LINE, BUT WOULD BE A SMALLER FOOTPRINT THAN THAT IS CURRENTLY THERE, AND THEN HAVE THE DECK OR A RAMP TO ACCESS FROM THAT NEW CARPORT TO OUR DESIGN STUDIO IN THE BACK.
WE DO ALREADY HAVE, AS I MENTIONED AN EXISTING DECK IN THE BACK OF THE BUILDING WE'RE ESSENTIALLY EXTENDING THAT SO WE CAN REACH THE NEW CARPORT.
IT'S BEEN A LITTLE BIT OF A BACK AND FORTH PROCESS WITH US IN DESIGNING WHAT WOULD WORK TO GET ACCESS FROM OUR DESIGN AREA TO VEHICLE AND GET TO DIFFERENT EVENTS AND DIFFERENT CONFIGURATIONS WITHIN THE BUILDING.
[00:35:04]
WE'VE LANDED ON THE CURRENT REQUEST THAT WE HAVE WHERE WE HAVE ACCESS FROM THE BACK STUDIO ALONG THE SIDE, THAT'S REALLY GOING TO HELP US BE ABLE TO OPERATE OUR BUSINESS EFFICIENTLY AND HOW WE WANT TO AND BE ABLE TO COME IN AND OUT OF THE BUILDING WITHOUT HAVING TO GO THROUGH THE FRONT PART AND DOWNSTAIRS AND THINGS THAT ARE MUCH MORE CHALLENGING.>> THE CARPORT AND MAKING IT SMALLER, BUT KEEPING THAT SAME WIDTH TO THE PROPERTY LINE, BUT FURTHER AWAY FROM THE ROAD, AND THEN ESSENTIALLY EXTENDING A DECK FROM THE BACK OF THE BUILDING AS A RAMP TO ACCESS THAT CARPORT. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
>> THANK YOU. DOES ANY MEMBERS FROM THE PUBLIC HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE PETITION? NO. THANK YOU.
WE CAN GO INTO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS.
EITHER FOR STAFF OR FOR THE APPLICANT? MEMBER TREZISE.
>> JUST TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON YOUR APPLICATION.
DO YOU HAVE A DECK ON THE BACK OF YOUR BUILDING ON THE EAST SIDE NEAR THE BACK RIGHT NOW?
>> ON THE SOUTH SIDE OR THE SOUTH END? YEAH.
>> HOW WIDE IS THAT APPROXIMATELY?
>> THAT'S PROBABLY HERE. I'LL PULL THAT UP.
IT'S WIDER THAN WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING.
>> YOU'RE BASICALLY LOOKING FOR A RAMP TO TAKE YOU TO THE CARPORT?
>> THE WIDTH OF A SIDEWALK OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN THAT RANGE.
>> I CAN'T FIND ALL THE MEASUREMENTS ON THIS.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. CHAPMAN.
>> GIVEN THAT THIS CARPORT RIGHT NOW IS WELL WITHIN WHATEVER SETBACKS WOULD APPLY.
IS THIS A NON-CONFORMING USE THAT REQUIRES ANOTHER VARIANCE TO REBUILD IT?
>> NO, THEY'RE MAKING IT SMALLER, SO IT'S NOT EXPANDING ANYTHING.
BUT I'M TRYING TO FIND THE SIZE OF THE EXISTING.
>> IS IT EQUAL TO THE WIDTH OF THE BUILDING, THE EXISTING DECK?
>> IT'S SMALLER THAN THE PROPOSED.
>> THE DECK ON THE SOUTH SIDE EXTENDS FROM THE EAST TO WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING AND THERE'S A HALF HEXAGON TYPE SHAPE THAT COMES OUT FROM IT, SO IT'S PROBABLY EIGHT TO MAYBE 12 FEET OUT FROM THE BUILDING, AND THEN THERE'S A SMALLER DECK ON THE EAST SIDE THAT COMES OUT RIGHT FROM THE DOOR THAT WAS ON THE EAST WALL THERE AND THAT PORTION OF THE DECK IS LESS THAN 6.5 FEET.
THAT PORTION IS PROBABLY THREE OR FOUR FEET WIDE.
THE PORTION IN THE BACK OF THE BUILDING ON THE SOUTH SIDE IS THE PART THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT, THAT WAS A LOT BIGGER.
>> BUT THAT'S NOT ANYTHING YOU'RE MODIFYING.
>> THE EXISTING DECK DOESN'T LOOK VERY DEEP, IT LOOKS MAYBE 6, 7, 6 - 8 FEET DEEP.
>> YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING AT IN THE DESIGN.
>> CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT ON HERE, IT'S SHOWING THAT THE SIDE YARD TO THE BUILDING IS ONLY 11 FEET, CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. IT'S VERY TIGHT.
>> IT WOULDN'T EVEN MEET VARIANCE WITH JUST THE BUILDING THERE.
>> THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION IN 1925, AND THEN THE PART IN THE BACK IS I BELIEVE FROM THE 60S, EVEN SO THE STRUCTURE'S BEEN THERE A LONG TIME.
THE PREVIOUS OWNER OPERATED THE PHOTOGRAPHY STUDIO FOR 60 YEARS THERE.
>> I FOUND SOMETHING THAT SAYS SIX FEET FOR THE DECK.
[00:40:03]
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICANT? POOR, MR. CHAP. YOU PUT HIM ON THE SPOT.
WHERE'S THAT LASER POINTER? KIDDING. [LAUGHTER]
>> I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR MR. CHAPMAN.
>> MR. CHAPMAN, THIS APPLICATION MENTIONED THE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNER.
IS THAT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN WE'RE MAKING DECISIONS AROUND STUFF LIKE THIS?
>> FOR THEM, AS LONG AS THEY HAVE AN AGREEMENT, THAT'S OUT OF OUR HANDS AND IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE REQUIRE.
>> THAT WAS THE QUESTION I HAD ABOUT GETTING A VARIANCE FOR THE WIDTH OF THE CARPORT IF HE REPLACES [INAUDIBLE].
>> BUT IT'S NOT EXPANDING ANYTHING, IT'S ACTUALLY GETTING SMALLER.
>> I ACTUALLY DID HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU.
YOU OBVIOUSLY ALREADY HAVE A PREEXISTING AGREEMENT WITH YOUR NEIGHBOR FOR THE CARPORT.
HAVE YOU TALKED TO THEM ABOUT THE RAMP AND THE ADDITION OF THE RAMP AND JUST TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE, NOT TO SAY, LIKE, YOU NEED IT OR ANYTHING, BUT JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY?
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? WELL, THANK YOU, MR. DAWSON.
>> WE CAN GO INTO OUR BOARD TIME NOW.
ANY DELIBERATIONS AMONGST YOURSELVES, MEMBERS BEFORE WE GET INTO THE ACTUAL CRITERIA.
ANY OTHER FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
>> I WOULD SAY, I'M NOT THE PROPERTY OWNER, BUT I WOULD GET NERVOUS ON AN AGREEMENT WITH THE NEIGHBOR THAT SAYS, I CAN PUT MY BUILDING ON THE LOT LINE, BUT THAT'S BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR NEIGHBORS.
>> THERE'S A WALL THERE, ISN'T THERE? SOME RETAINING WALL BETWEEN THOSE TWO BUILDINGS.
I'M SO SORRY I DIDN'T MEAN TO MAKE YOU SIT DOWN TO GO RIGHT BACK UP AGAIN.
IT'S A TUFFY, BUT I THINK THAT'S THE LAST APPLICATION.
>> A FEW-FOOT-HIGH RETAINING WALL THAT IS ON THE LOT LINE, TOO.
WHEN MITAS, WHICH IS THE NEIGHBOR NEXT DOOR BUILDING WAS BUILT, THE AGREEMENT WAS ESSENTIALLY THEIR BUILDING IS, I BELIEVE, A FOOT OR MAYBE SLIGHTLY LESS FROM THE LOT LINE.
THEN THIS RETAINING WALL ON THE RAMP ON OUR PROPERTY TO GET DOWN TO THE BACK YARD WAS THE TRADE-OFF.
FOR MITAS TO BE ABLE TO BUILD THEIR FACILITY USING A BIGGER FOOTPRINT THEN, WOULD HAVE BEEN OR AT LEAST WOULD BE ALLOWED TODAY.
THAT WAS THE TRADE SO THAT WE COULD STILL ACCESS THE BACK.
THERE'S THAT RETAINING WALL. THAT'S WHY IT'S THERE.
>> IT'S MORE OF A BENEFIT FOR THEM.
>> THE BENEFIT TO OUR PROPERTY WAS NOT REALLY ANYTHING, JUST THE RAMP ALLOWED THE FORMER OWNERS TO NOT HAVE SOMETHING THAT WAS KEEPING THEM FROM BEING ABLE TO ACCESS THE BACKYARD.
BUT EVEN ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, THERE'S AN ADDITION OVER THERE THAT'S ALSO VERY CLOSE TO THE LOT LINE SO THERE'S NO ACCESS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
THEY NEEDED TO KEEP THAT ACCESS ON THE EAST SIDE.
>> MR. CHAPMAN, COULD YOU STROLL DOWN A COUPLE I'LL LET YOU KNOW WHEN TO STOP.
I SAW SOMETHING THERE. I DIDN'T LOOK AT IT THE FIRST TIME WHEN I WENT THROUGH THIS. KEEP GOING.
KEEP GOING. I THINK IT SAYS PARTIAL NORTH VIEW.
SORRY. I THINK IT'S THE NEXT PAGE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THAT THERE WHERE IT SHOWS THE CARPORT OR THE OVERHANG AND IT SHOWS THE NEW BOARDWALK THERE.
IS THAT SUPPOSED TO BE LIKE A ROPE OR SOMETHING HANGING? WHAT IS THAT GOING TO BE? BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S STEPS WALKING UP AND THAT COULD BE LIKE THE WALKWAY, BUT WHAT'S THE REST OF THAT SUPPOSED TO BE? WHAT'S THAT REPRESENTING?
>> OUR VEHICLE WILL BACK UP TO ESSENTIALLY WHAT WAS THE END OF THE DECK OR THE RAMP SO THAT CURVED LINE IS JUST A CHAIN THAT WE WOULD REMOVE IN THE BACK AND YES, THERE'S STAIRS SHOWN THERE ON THE RIGHT, AND THEN THE VAN WOULD BE BACKED UP TO THE PORTION THAT'S ON THE LEFT.
>> ANYTHING ELSE? ARE WE READY TO MOVE ON TO THE CRITERIA, AND REVIEW THE CRITERIA?
[00:45:01]
AGAIN, WE'LL START WITH REVIEW CRITERIA NUMBER 1, WHICH IS UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST THAT ARE PECULIAR TO THE LANDED STRUCTURE, THAT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LANDED STRUCTURES OF THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT, AND THESE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SELF-CREATED.
AGAIN, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS ON REVIEW CRITERIA NUMBER 1.
>> [INAUDIBLE] I CAN DEFINITELY SEE THAT ONE BECAUSE LIKE I JUST SAID, THE BUILDING IS 11 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE SO THE SIDEYARD ITSELF CAN'T EVEN MEET THE VARIANCE WITH NOTHING BUILT ON IT.
TO PUT ANYTHING ON IT WOULD BE TECHNICALLY VIOLATING THE VARIANCE.
I CAN DEFINITELY SEE THAT ONE PERSONALLY.
>> THE BUILDING WAS BUILT WELL BEFORE THE REQUIREMENTS WERE SET AND TO TRY TO IMPOSE THEM RETROACTIVELY ON THAT BUILDING WOULD SEEM INAPPROPRIATE.
HE DIDN'T BUILD IT SO IT'S NOTHING HE CREATED, IT'S SOMETHING HE BOUGHT.
I THINK IT MEETS NUMBER 1 VERY EASILY.
>> I AGREE. I DEFINITELY THINK THERE'S UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES THERE WITH THAT PARTICULAR PIECE OF LAND.
THAT MAKES IT A LITTLE HARD TO DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO WITHOUT REQUIRING A VARIANCE OR YOU NEED A VARIANCE.
ANYWAY, AS MEMBER BENNETT SAID, SO I DEFINITELY THINK IT CAN SATISFY NUMBER 1. MOVING ON TO NUMBER 2.
THAT 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.
COMMENTS ON CRITERIA NUMBER 2. MEMBER TREZISE.
>> WELL, IF YOU REALLY WANT TO BE STRICT, IT DOESN'T PREVENT THEM FROM USING THE PROPERTY THE WAY THEY'RE USING IT NOW AND THE WAY THEY INTEND TO.
BUT IT CERTAINLY PUTS A LIMITATION AND A STRICTURE ON THEIR ABILITY TO USE IT EFFICIENTLY AND APPROPRIATELY SO I THINK IT MEETS TO IN THE PHILOSOPHY BEHIND IT. LET'S PUT IT THAT WAY.
>> I CAN DEFINITELY SEE IT PROVIDES EASE OF USE FOR THE PROPERTY.
>> I CAN SEE THAT. MEMBER BROOKS, ANYTHING?
>> NO. JUST PULLING THOSE PHRASES BACK UP.
>> WE'LL COME BACK TO THIS ONE, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE CRITERIA NUMBER 2 COULD BE SATISFIED AS WELL.
NUMBER 3, GRANTING THE VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM ACTION NECESSARY THAT WOULD CARRY OUT THE SPIRIT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SECURE PUBLIC SAFETY, AND PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.
COMMENTS ON CRITERIA NUMBER 3.
IT IS NOT A SIGNIFICANT INTRUSION INTO THE SETBACK FROM WHAT'S THERE NOW AND IT CERTAINLY IS SAFER THAN TRYING TO RUN YOUR BUSINESS WALKING THROUGH THE FRONT WHERE THEY DO THEIR DISPLAYS DOWN THE STAIRWAY BACK INTO THE CARPORT.
I CAN SEE THAT AS A PUBLIC SAFETY AS WELL AS FOR THE EMPLOYEES OF THE OPERATION.
I'D LIKE TO ADD THAT A TYPICAL WALKWAY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT A TYPICAL WALKWAY IS IF YOU HAVE MINIMUM WIDTH REQUIREMENTS IN THE TOWNSHIP, FOR A SIDEWALK.
>> WHICH IS LIKE TWO PEOPLE WITH A BUGGY WALKING SIDE BY SIDE, HAVE TO IS IT 48 OR? I THINK IT WAS RECENTLY UPDATED.
>> I THINK IT'S FOUR FEET AND SOME OF THEM ARE 6 - 8 FEET.
>> THIS IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE SIX FEET WIDTH, SO IT'S NOT LIKE THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING 10 FEET WIDE BOARDWALK, WHICH WOULD BE REALLY PUSHING ABOVE AND BEYOND.
IN MY EYES, THEY'RE ASKING FOR THE MINIMUM ACTION TO BE [OVERLAPPING] APPROVED.
I THINK WE CAN SATISFY NUMBER 3 AS WELL.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, OR COMMENTS ON THAT? IF NOT WE'LL MOVE ON TO NUMBER 4.
NUMBER 4 IS GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND OR THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY.
>> I CAN DEFINITELY SEE THAT BECAUSE THERE'S ALREADY AN AGREEMENT TO HAVE BUILDINGS CLOSE TO THE LOT LINES AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT SO I DON'T THINK IT'S ADVERSELY AFFECTING ANYTHING.
>> LAST I LOOKED, THE MUFFLER SHOP DID NOT HAVE A BIG PLATE GLASS WINDOW ON THAT WALL TO LOOK OVER THAT SPACE SO I DON'T SEE ANY EFFECT.
>> YEAH, IT'S A SOLID WALL, I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S AS MEMBER BENNETT SAID, BEING THAT THERE'S ALREADY AN AGREEMENT THERE TO PUT THAT OVERHEAD STRUCTURE THAT'S PRETTY DARN NEAR THE ACTUAL LOT LINE NOW, AND THIS WOULD EVEN BE PUSHING BACK AWAY FROM THAT LOT LINE.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S MUCH OF AN IMPACT LET ALONE
[00:50:02]
THE ADVERSE ONE TO THAT PROPERTY OWNER, WHICH IS MITAS.I KEEP WANTING TO CALL THEM TUFFY ALTHOUGH IT'S THE SAME BRAND OR COMPANY, BUT MITAS, THEIR CAR I USUALLY SHOP THERE.
I THINK NUMBER 4, I BELIEVE CAN BE SATISFIED AS WELL.
>> EVERYONE IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT? WE MOVE ON TO NUMBER 5, WHICH IS GRANTED THE VARIANCE WILL BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE PURPOSES INTENT OF THIS CHAPTER. COMMENTS.
I THINK AS A COMMERCIAL OPERATION, THIS ALLOWS THEM TO OPERATE EFFICIENTLY.
DOES NOT IMPACT THE PUBLIC NEGATIVELY.
IT WON'T EVEN BE VISIBLE TO THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL AND IT DOESN'T IMPACT THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, SO I THINK IT MEETS THAT.
>> I BELIEVE REVIEW CRITERIA NUMBER 5 COULD BE SATISFIED AS WELL.
I BELIEVE ALL OF THEM COULD BE SATISFIED.
AT THIS TIME, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE A MOTION.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE ZBA CASE NUMBER 24-06 FOR 2233 GRAND RIVER.
>> MOTION AND A SECOND. THEN WE WILL GO TO AN ACTUAL ORAL CALL. BOARD MEMBER TREZISE.
>> SORRY. THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE ZBA. MEMBER TREZISE?
YOU ARE APPROVED, SIR. THANK YOU.
>> GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO THE NEXT CASE 3/4 WE'RE ALMOST THERE.
[6.C. ZBA CASE NO.: 24-07 (V/L Lake Lansing), Consumers Energy, One Energy Plaza, Jackson, MI 49201]
ZBA CASE NUMBER 24-07, WHICH IS V/L LAKE LANSING.WHAT'S V/L STAND FOR, MR. CHAPMAN?
>> VACANT LOT. THERE YOU GO. FOR CONSUMERS ENERGY, ONE ENERGY PLAZA.
TAKE IT AWAY, MR. CHAPMAN, PLEASE.
>> THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW NATURAL GAS REGULATOR STATION ON A VACANT PARCEL LOCATED THE EAST SIDE OF RUTHERFORD AVENUE AND THE NORTH SIDE OF LAKE LANSING ROAD.
A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS CURRENTLY ACTUALLY, I BELIEVE AT THIS POINT, IT'S PASSED FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ALLOW THE 16-FOOT BY 12-FOOT STATION IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
THE STATION IS GOING TO REPLACE AN OUTDATED STATION THAT'S CURRENTLY LOCATED SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY IN THE LAKE LANSING ROAD RIGHT AWAY.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS 0.19 ACRES IN SIZE AND IS ZONED RV, SINGLE-FAMILY HIGH DENSITY.
THIS SUBMITTED SITE PLAN SHOWS THE PROPOSED BUILDING THAT'S 19 FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE ON RUTHERFORD, THAT REQUIRES A SETBACK OF 25 FEET.
A SIX-FOOT VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT THE BUILDING AS NEEDED.
ALSO, SECTION 86506 A REQUIRES A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A FENCE IN ANY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT BE A MAXIMUM OF SIX FEET IN HEIGHT.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO INSTALL AN EIGHT-FOOT TALL SECURITY FENCE REQUIRING A TWO-FOOT VARIANCE. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAPMAN. IS THE APPLICANT OR THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE APPLICANT HERE AND WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING? COME ON UP.
>> AGAIN, PLEASE JUST STATE BOTH YOUR NAMES AND YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
>> AMY GALPIN, CONSUMERS ENERGY, ONE ENERGY PLAZA, JACKSON, MICHIGAN, [INAUDIBLE].
>> MY NAME IS KATIE LAMBERT, I'M WITH PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMPANY.
OUR ADDRESS IS 540 SOUTH SAGA STREET, FLINT, MICHIGAN.
CONSUMERS WILL BE CONSTRUCTING A NEW NATURAL GAS REGULATOR STATION THAT TAKES THE HIGH PRESSURE TRANSMISSION GAS MAIN DOWN TO LOW PRESSURE GAS IN ORDER TO DISTRIBUTE THE GAS TO THE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY AND THIS FACILITY SERVES OVER 4,000 CUSTOMERS IN THIS AREA.
THE NEW STATION WILL BE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LAKE LANSING ROAD.
AS WAS SAID THE EXISTING STATION IS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE ROAD.
IT'S ACTUALLY AN UNDERGROUND VAULT THAT'S IN THE RIGHT AWAY SO CONSUMERS WILL BE UPGRADING THE FACILITY AND UPGRADING ALL OF THEIR AGING INFRASTRUCTURE TO PROVIDE A SAFER AND MORE RELIABLE FACILITY ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE ROAD.
THE NEW STATION WILL INCLUDE NEW GAS PIPING, ABOVE GROUND GAS EQUIPMENT, FENCING, A DRIVEWAY, AND A 12 BY 16 FOOT BUILDING.
THIS BUILDING IS ONLY USED TO HOUSE GAS EQUIPMENT, IT IS NOT OCCUPIED AND IT'S NOT SERVED BY ANY WATER, SANITARY SEWER.
IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT THIS FACILITY, CONSUMERS WILL BE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE BUILDING SETBACK.
THE PARCEL HAS DUAL FRONTAGE, SO THERE IS A 25 FOOT SETBACK REQUIRED OFF RUTHERFORD AVENUE AND THEN THE OPPOSITE SIDE REAR SETBACK IS 30 FOOT WIDE, SO THE PARCEL IS ONLY 55 FOOT WIDE TOTAL.
[00:55:01]
THIS BASICALLY RENDERS THE PROPERTY UNUSABLE.THEN THEY ARE ALSO REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT THE EIGHT FOOT HIGH SECURITY FENCING AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE FACILITY.
THIS IS TO PREVENT ANY UNWANTED ENTRY INTO THE SITE AS THIS SITE IS GOVERNED BY TSA AND MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION GUIDELINES FOR SAFETY AND SECURITY OF A NATURAL GAS FACILITY.
THIS IS A UNIQUE USE OF THIS PROPERTY, THE SITE NEEDS THIS VARIANCE, OR THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROVIDE A SECURE FACILITY IN THIS AREA.
THAT'S ALL I HAVE. WE'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.
>> THANK YOU. ANYBODY HERE FROM THE PUBLIC WANT TO SPEAK TO IT? NO? THANK YOU.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS FOR THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE, FOR THE APPLICANT ITSELF.
>> YOU SAID THE MPSC, DOES THAT REQUIRE AN EIGHT FOOT HIGH FENCE?
>> SECURITY GUIDELINES SUGGEST A SEVEN FOOT HIGH CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH ONE FOOT OF BARBED WIRE.
THIS PROPERTY, THEY'RE PUTTING IN THE SEVEN FOOT HIGH CHAIN LINK WITH BARBED WIRE ON THE WEST AND SOUTH SIDES, BUT THEY SPOKE WITH THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS AND DISCUSSED PUTTING IN INSTEAD AN EIGHT FOOT HIGH VINYL FENCE ON THAT SIDE SO THE SUGGESTION IS THE SEVEN FOOT WITH ONE FOOT OF BARBED WIRE, BUT THAT WILL ONLY BE ON HALF OF THE FACILITY.
>> I'M CONFUSED. IS THE REQUEST RELATED TO THE EIGHT FOOT OR IS IT THE TYPE OF FENCE?
>> IT'S EIGHT FOOT TOTAL, THE WHOLE SIDE.
>> [INAUDIBLE] FOR THE HEIGHT.
>> THE ACTUAL GUIDELINES FROM THE MPSC IS THE SEVEN FOOT CHAIN LINK WITH ONE FOOT OF BARBED WIRE, SO IT'S EIGHT FOOT TOTAL HEIGHT.
>> THE TOWNSHIP DOESN'T HAVE STANDARDS FOR WHAT TYPE OF FENCE YOU PUT IN.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. CHAPMAN.
I'M LOOKING AT THE [NOISE] GIS MAP AS WELL AS THE MAP THEY'VE GIVEN.
I SEE THIS LOT APPEARS TO BE THE RESULT OF A DIVISION OF ANOTHER LOT.
THERE'S TWO LOTS, ONE ON RUTHERFORD, ONE ON GRAND RIVER THAT LOOKED LIKE THEY USED TO BE A SINGLE LOT, DIVIDED.
THEY DON'T HAVE ADDRESSES, WHICH IS UNUSUAL FOR EVEN A VACANT LOT SO THIS GOES TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE VARIANCE IS CAUSED BY ACTION OF EITHER THE OWNER OR THE PRIOR OWNER THAT MAKES THIS AN UNBUILDABLE LOT AND I'M NOT SURE THAT EITHER OF THOSE LOTS NOW WOULD BE BUILDABLE GIVEN THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT.
>> I DON'T KNOW WHEN THEY WERE SPLIT, BUT I DO KNOW THAT THE PROPERTY ON THE EAST HERE IS ACTUALLY OWNED BY THIS HOUSE RIGHT HERE.
>> BUT IN TERMS OF BEING BUILDABLE OR NOT, IT'S HARD TO SAY IN TERMS OF WHAT LAYOUT WAS PROPOSED.
>> I THINK THE LOT WIDTH ALONE WOULD PREVENT THAT FROM BEING BUILT, THIS LOT FURTHER IN LAKE LANSING, STILL THEY NEEDED 150 FEET OR SOMETHING.
>> FOR THE FRONT YARD [INAUDIBLE], IT'S 100 FEET FROM THE CENTER LINE.
>> NO, I'M THINKING THE ROAD FRONTAGE.
>> I THINK I CAN ANSWER THIS. THE LOT THAT CONSUMERS JUST RECENTLY PURCHASED IS A DUAL FRONTAGE, SO THE OTHER PARCEL NEXT TO IT WILL NOT HAVE THE DUAL FRONTAGE OFF OF RUTHERFORD, 25 FOOT.
THEY WILL JUST HAVE TO COMPLY WITH TWO SIDE YARD SETBACKS.
>> THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION I HAD.
IT'S WHETHER THE LOT ITSELF IS WIDE ENOUGH TO BUILD A HOUSE IN THE ZONING.
>> CONSUMERS IS NOT. [LAUGHTER] [OVERLAPPING]
>> YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A REALLY SMALL ENVELOPE.
IT'S GOING TO BE TINY AND IF YOU FACTOR IN CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS IN TERMS OF LIKE A 20 FOOT MINIMUM FOR A HOUSE, I DON'T THINK YOU'RE LEFT [LAUGHTER] WITH MUCH OF ANYTHING.
>> WELL, YOU DID SAY AT SOME POINT THERE'S A FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT FOR THIS ZONING, AND THE FRONTAGE FOR THAT BACK LOTS, WE'LL CALL IT THAT ON LAKE LANSING ROAD MAY MAKE THAT UNBUILDABLE.
>> IT'S JUST 100 FEET FROM THE CENTER LINE OF LAKE LANSING.
>> WIDE. I'M NOT TALKING DEPTH.
>> THE SIDE YARD [INAUDIBLE]. [OVERLAPPING].
>> NO. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIRED.
>> BUT THAT OTHER PARCEL DOESN'T HAVE A SECOND ROAD FRONTAGE.
>> I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SECOND ROAD.
[01:00:02]
>> IN GENERAL, WHETHER THAT IS A BUILDABLE LOT.
>> BECAUSE WE'RE WONDERING HOW COULD THAT LOT BE SPLIT LIKE THAT IN ZONES LIKE THIS? THAT SEEMS RIDICULOUS THAT IT WAS EVEN A THING TO BEGIN WITH. TOTALLY UNRELATED.
>> IT MAY NOT HAVE BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT A LOT OF THE LOTS ALONG THAT ROAD TO THE NORTH ARE PRETTY SIMILAR IN SIZE, EVEN THOUGH THERE'S A LOT OF SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES THERE, SO IT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN SPLIT.
IT MAY HAVE JUST BEEN PLOTTED LIKE THAT LONG TIME AGO.
>> [INAUDIBLE]. [OVERLAPPING].
>> IT'S A GOOD QUESTION IF IT'S EVEN BUILDABLE.
>> MINIMUM LOT WAS THE 65 FEET IN RV.
IT'S ALREADY NONCONFORMING, YOU'RE SAYING? THAT IS 55 FEET AS WELL.
>> IT HAS TO HAVE 100 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE CENTER LINE OF LAKE LANSING ROAD, CORRECT? CORRECT.
>> IT STILL HAS TO HAVE 100 FOOT BACK WHICH IF YOU LOOK AT THE ONE MAP FOR THIS PARCEL FOR THE SUBJECT APPLICATION, YOU COULD SEE THAT 100 FOOT ON THERE AND JUST DRAW THAT OVER TO THE NEXT PARCEL.
THE QUESTION IS, WHAT ARE THE SIDE SETBACKS THAT THEY NEED TO HAVE? THEY'RE NOT OBVIOUSLY 25 FEET BECAUSE THERE'S NOT THAT ADDITIONAL FRONTAGE LIKE THE SUBJECT PARCEL.
>> SEVEN FOOT AND SEVEN FOOT, THAT'S 14. IT'S 50.
LET'S SAY IT'S 55 FEET SO YOU HAVE ABOUT 40 FEET THAT YOU COULD BUILD IN THERE.
BUT YOU'D HAVE TO GO BACK 100 FEET FROM THE CENTER LINE AND [OVERLAPPING] 40 FEET.
RIGHT OFF THE SETBACKS WITH ABOUT A 40, 41 FT.
>> MR. CHAPMAN'S MEMO, IT SAYS IT REQUIRES A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 15 FEET.
DID I? OH, I'M SORRY. I'M LOOKING AT THE WRONG ONE.
I APOLOGIZE. I WENT BACK TOO FAR.
THAT'S THE TROUBLE WITH THE 130 PAGE.
IT SOUNDS LIKE IF THERE'S SEVEN FOOT SETBACK, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE REAR SETBACK WOULD BE?
>> THIRTY FEET. SO IF YOU HAVE A SEVEN FOOT SIDE SETBACK, YOU'VE ABOUT 40 FEET IN BETWEEN THERE AND YOU'D HAVE TO FIT IT 100-30.
SO IT LOOKS LIKE IT COULD BE BUILDABLE, BUT IT'D [INAUDIBLE] NOW THERE IS TYPE OF HOUSE PEOPLE WANTED ME.
WELL, THAT'S THE PROBLEM. [LAUGHTER] NO.
IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT IT CAME JUMPED OUT I MEAN, WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT THE MAP AND THAT STRUCK ME AS STRANGE.
THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I DON'T WANT TO PUT MR. CHAPMAN ON THE SPOT TO COME OVER.
>> YOU DID ANYWAYS, BUT THAT'S ALL RIGHT. [LAUGHTER]
>> HAVE YOU ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT BEFORE WE LET THEM LOOSE AND WE CAN GET INTO THE BOARD TIME DISCUSSION.
IF NOT, THANK YOU, LADIES. APPRECIATE IT.
>> WE CAN GO AHEAD AND GO INTO THE BOARD DISCUSSION.
IS THERE ANY DELIBERATION AMONGST OURSELVES FOR THE BOARD OR WE CAN JUMP RIGHT INTO THE READER CRITERIA?
>> I HAVE NOTHING TO ADD TO WHAT WE HAD DISCUSSED OR THE QUESTIONS I HAD, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT THE NEED FOR THIS SUBSTATION GAS IS CLEAR.
IN MY MIND, I HAVE DRIVEN BY THERE A COUPLE OF TIMES, AND THE BURIED SHED ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD GOT TO BE A REAL CHALLENGE TO MAINTAIN.
>> THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD, AGAIN, I DID IT AGAIN, DARN IT, FOR THE APPLICANTS I SHOULD HAVE HAD TO STAY UP THERE IS THAT THIS THING IS GOING TO BE ABOVE GROUND, THIS BUILDING THAT'S BUILDING.
I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT GAS, TRANSMISSION. I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THAT.
IS THERE ANY NOISE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT? EVEN IF IT'S INSIDE OF A BUILDING, IS THERE ANY HISSING OR ANYTHING.
>> NOPE, THERE WILL BE NO NOISE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS.
IT'LL MOSTLY BE VALVES USED FOR MAINTENANCE IF THEY NEED TO SHUT THE GAS ON AND OFF AT THIS FACILITY FOR ANY EMERGENCY REASONS.
>> BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW. I DIDN'T DO A SITE VISIT ON THIS ONE, SO I'M NOT SURE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT PROPERTY DIRECTLY NORTH OF IT ADJACENT, I BELIEVE THERE'S A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THERE.
>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT TYPE OF SCREENING THEY HAVE, IF THEY HAVE A FENCE OR NOT.
THIS IS GOING TO HAVE A FENCE AROUND IT, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE CHAIN LINK, CORRECT? IT'S GOING TO BE ESSENTIALLY SEE THROUGH?
>> NO. THIS WILL HAVE VINYL FENCE.
>> YEAH. IT'S CHAIN LINK ON THE FRONT ROAD FRONTAGES.
FOR SECURITY REASONS, THEY WANT TO HAVE A CLEAR LINE OF SIGHT INTO THE FACILITY AT ALL TIMES.
BUT FACING THE PROPERTY OWNERS IT'LL BE VINYL.
>> THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY QUESTION, THEN.. THAT MAKES SENSE, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO ASK IS,
[01:05:02]
HAVE YOU TALKED ABOUT OWNER, GOT THEIR OPINION ON, HEY, YOU'RE GOING TO BE OUT LOOKING AT SOMETHING THERE WHEN THAT HAS BEEN VACANT FOR HOW MANY YEARS? YOU'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT A BUILDING THAT WAS NOT THERE, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS, WHICH I FIGURED THEY PROBABLY WOULDN'T BECAUSE IT'S NOT LIKE THIS IS AN AIRBNB OR SOMETHING BEING BUILT THERE.THIS IS JUST A BUILDING THAT MAYBE HAVE ONE PERSON COME EVERY COUPLE OF WEEKS I THINK YOU HAD IN YOUR APPLICATION.
WELL, THANK YOU FOR THAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? IF NOT, WE CAN MOVE INTO THE ACTUAL CRITERIA FOR THIS ONE.
ONCE AGAIN, PLAZA IS GOING TO READ THESE THINGS FOR THE RECORD.
AGAIN, WE'LL START WITH REVIEW CRITERIA NUMBER 1, ITS UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST THAT ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND OR STRUCTURE, THAT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO WHETHER LAND OR STRUCTURES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT, AND THESE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SELF CREATED.
ANY COMMENTS ON REVIEW CRITERIA NUMBER 1 FOR THIS APPLICATION.
BENNETT, YOU ARE HARD AT THOUGHT.
>> I THINK THE UNIQUE CASE REALLY COMES FROM HOW IT'S ZONED AS SINGLE FAMILY HIGH DENSITY, AND OBVIOUSLY THAT MAKES BUILDING A CONSUMER BUILDING THAT VERY DIFFICULT SO I CAN SEE THAT.
>> I SHOULD HAVE ASKED THIS QUESTION OFF THE BAT.
IS THIS TYPE OF UTILITY PERMITTED USE FOR THIS TYPE OF IT?
>> THEY HAD A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THAT, [INAUDIBLE] [OVERLAPPING] USE IN A RESIDENTIAL.
>> THAT WAS THE ONE SPECIAL USE PERMIT YOU REFERENCED THAT WAS GOING EITHER BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD OR PLANNING COMMISSION ALREADY?
>> I BELIEVE IT WAS PASSED AT THEIR LAST MEETING.
>> PERFECT. THANKS FOR CLARIFYING THAT.
THANK YOU FOR THE COMMENT. I'M SORRY. SEEMED LIKE I WAS CUTTING YOU OFF.
>> I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE SETBACKS THAT ARE ALLOWED THERE NOW, YOU BASICALLY CAN'T REALLY BUILD ANYTHING WITHOUT HAVING A QUESTION OF VARIANCE [LAUGHTER] BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE PROBLEM.
>> IF YOU CAN'T BUILD A 12 BY 20 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING WITHOUT GETTING VARIANCES, THAT'S A UNIQUE LOT. I WOULD AGREE.
>> MEMBER BROOKS, ANY COMMENTS? ARE YOU GOOD WITH THAT?
>> NO, I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE.
>> WE DO AGREE THAT THERE IS UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF LAND FOR THIS USE.
NUMBER 2, 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. COMMENTS.
>> NOW THEY'VE GOT THE ISSUE OR THE VARIANCE.
IT COULDN'T BE DONE IF WITHOUT THE VARIANCES THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, SO SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN THAT.
CLEARLY, IF WE DON'T GRANT THE VARIANCES, THIS DOESN'T GET.
>> I WOULD AGREE. I THINK YOU MENTIONED, YOU MADE THE COMMENT ON THE FIRST APPLICATION ABOUT THIS TIES BACK TO NUMBER 1, SO THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE.
JUST BASED ON THE PECULIARITY OF THE LAND AND THE LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE, I THINK IT'D BE VERY TOUGH TO DO ANYTHING ON THERE ALONE, TRYING TO BUILD WHAT THE APPLICANTS TRYING TO PUT ON THERE.
>> I BELIEVE THAT NUMBER 2 CAN BE SATISFIED BASED ON INFORMATION WE HAVE FOR THE RECORDS. SO MOVING ON TO NUMBER 3.
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.
>> I WOULD SAY FOR THAT, THAT JUSTIFIES THE FENCE, WHICH NEEDS A VARIANCE, AND IT ALSO IS SUPPORTED BY THE NEED FOR THE FACILITY IN THE AREA TO MAINTAIN THE GAS PRESSURE AND I THINK IT CARRIES OUT THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WITH THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT GRANT.
>> I THINK THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE TOTALLY MAKES SENSE BECAUSE IT'S COMPLYING WITH THE MPSC REGULATIONS, SO THAT'S NECESSARY.
BUT THIS DID MAKE ME THINK IF THE, I'M PROBABLY GOING TO BUTCHER THE LANGUAGE HERE, BUT THE SIX FOOT VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT THE BUILDING, I WONDER IF A SMALLER BUILDING COULD BE PUT IN THAT WOULD MAKE THAT VARIANCE LESS IS THE ONLY THING THAT I THINK ABOUT IN THIS CASE, IN TERMS OF THE MINIMUM.
>> WHAT ARE THE ACTUAL DIMENSIONS FOR THE BUILDING AGAIN?
>> I WOULD SAY THAT'S PRETTY DARN MINIMIZED. THAT'S LIKE A SHIT.
>> NO, I DON'T THINK IT'S VERY LARGE.
[OVERLAPPING] THAT'S WHAT IT MADE ME THINK ABOUT THOUGH IN TERMS OF THE BUILDING.
>> I THINK THEY HAVE TO GET INTO THE BUILDING PERIODICALLY TO MAINTAIN, TO CHECK GAUGES, TO MAKE SURE IT'S FUNCTIONING AND TO GET IT MUCH SMALLER THERE.
[01:10:02]
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE EQUIPMENT IS ON THE INSIDE AND HOW MUCH SPACE THEY NEED FOR THAT.THIS IS RELATIVELY SMALL BUILDING FOR THE LOT, A LOT THAT REQUIRES A LOT OF SETBACKS.
>> I THINK WE CAN AGREE THAT REVIEW CRITERIA NUMBER 3 CAN BE SATISFIED WITH THIS.
WE CAN MOVE ON TO CRITERIA NUMBER 4, WHICH IS GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND OR THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY. COMMENTS.
>> I THINK IT DEFINITELY DOES AFFECT IT SOMEWHAT.
YOU'RE PROPOSING CHAIN-LINK FENCE WITH BARBED WIRE ON TOP IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA, WHICH IS DEFINITELY AFFECTING THE CHARACTER OF A RESIDENTIAL AREA.
BUT I EXACTLY DON'T APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THEY WERE WILLING TO CHANGE THE FENCE MATERIAL ON TO THE SIDES TO BETTER ACCOMMODATE A RURAL AREA.
THEY WENT I THINK ABOVE AND BEYOND TO ENSURE THAT IT MINIMIZE THE IMPACT TO THE AREA.
>> YEAH, I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU. THIS WAS THE ONLY ONE WHERE I HAD A HALF QUESTION MARK ON IT JUST BECAUSE OF BEING IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA, BEFORE IT WAS IN THE ROAD RIGHT AWAY.
BUT I DO BELIEVE AFTER WHAT WE'VE HEARD AND YOU BROUGHT UP A GOOD QUESTION, THAT'S WHY I ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THE FENCE, IF THAT WAS GOING TO BE NO MORE FENCE OR NOT.
I DO BELIEVE ALL THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS AROUND THERE RECEIVED THIS APPLICATION, CORRECT? YOU HAVE TO NOTIFY THEM? [OVERLAPPING]
>> EVERYONE WITHIN 300 FEET. [OVERLAPPING]
>> EVERYONE WITHIN 300 FEET? [OVERLAPPING]
>> IF SOMEONE HAD A PROBLEM WITH IT, I'M SURE THEY WOULD HAVE SHOWED UP AND AND GRIPED ABOUT SOMETHING WITH IT, AND THERE'S OBVIOUSLY NOBODY HERE, SO I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS BEING SEEN AT THE TIME.
WHEN IT'S CONSTRUCTED, MAYBE THAT'S A DIFFERENT STORY, BUT FOR RIGHT NOW, IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ANY VERY ADVERSE EFFECTS.
I DO AGREE THAT THERE IS SOME IMPACT BECAUSE IT IS GOING INTO A RESIDENTIAL AREA, BUT IT'S ON THE VERY OUTSKIRT UP AGAINST A BUSIER ROAD, AND THE APPLICANT IS DOING WHAT THEY CAN TO SCREEN THAT FROM THE NEARBY RESIDENTIAL AREA.
>> ADVERSE BEING THE KEY WORD.
>> CORRECT. ADVERSE BEING THE KEY WORD. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THE ONLY OTHER POTENTIAL ADVERSE IS THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT REMOVING FOUR TREES, AND THESE ARE FULL SIZE TREES.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE TWO LOTS TOGETHER, YOU DRIVE BACK, THEY'RE BOTH VACANT.
IT'S A BEAUTIFUL BUILDING SITE IF IT WAS BOTH LOTS.
>> IT'S AN INEFFECTIVE BUILDING SITE IF IT'S SPLIT.
I UNDERSTAND THEY HAVE TO TAKE THE TREES DOWN IN ORDER TO DO THEIR CONSTRUCTION.
WOULD ENCOURAGE THEM TO DO SOME PLANTINGS TO SHIELD THIS, IF POSSIBLE, WITHOUT REQUIRING IT FROM THE ZBA, WHICH WE CAN'T.
>> I WONDERED ABOUT THAT IF WE CAN MAKE REQUIREMENTS.
>> YEAH. YOU COULD MAKE A CONDITION ON HAVING SOME SORT OF PLANTING SCREENING IN FRONT OF THE CHAIN LINK PORTION.
>> WHAT WORKS. I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS WORKS, BUT ONE OF THE THOUGHTS I HAD AROUND THE CHARACTER OF THE BUILDING IN RELATION TO THE RESIDENTIAL AREA WAS TO HAVE SOME SORT OF NATIVE FLOWER AREAS AROUND IT IN THE FRONT TO IMPROVE THE LOOK OF THE PROPERTY.
I'M NOT SURE IF CONSUMER'S COMES AROUND AND MOWS THEIR PROPERTY ALONG THE EDGES THERE.
BUT HAVING SOME NATIVE GARDEN RIGHT THERE WOULD BE POTENTIALLY A NICE IMPROVEMENT.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE'D MAKE THAT THING VERY OFTEN, BUT JUST I'M PUTTING IT OUT THERE.
>> COULD I ASK A QUESTION TO THE APPLICANT, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE IN OUR BOARD TIME?
>> YEAH. IF THEY'RE WILLING TO WORK WITH YOU. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT'S MY QUESTION, IS THAT.
>> THEY SAID THEY NEED TO GET IN OR BE ABLE TO SEE FOR SECURITY REASONS.
ONCE YOU START PLANTING, THEN THEY'RE LOSING THAT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT'S FROM THE ROAD, CORRECT? THAT'S FROM LAKE LANSING IN THE MAIN ROAD?
>> THE TWO FRONT OF IT, SORRY.
>> THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO SEE IN THERE BUT THE BACK AND THE SIDE THAT'S FACING THE HOUSE, THEY COULD POTENTIALLY PUT SOME BUFFER, SOME LANDSCAPING OR SOMETHING?
>> THAT IS ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS I DID WHEN I LOOKED AT THE PROPERTY WAS LOOK AT THE, THEY CALL APPRAISER, I'M SO USED TO FLORIDA WHERE THEY CALLED APPRAISER, BUT I LOOKED AT THE PARCEL OF YOUR WEBSITE TO SEE THAT OTHER PROPERTY, AND THAT'S HOW I FOUND OUT THAT WAS OWNED BY THE GUY NEXT TO THE SIDE BECAUSE I THOUGHT, MAN, IF THEY OWNED THEM BOTH AND THEY COMBINED THEM, THEY WOULDN'T NEED THE VARIANCE PER SE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> YEAH, THEY DON'T OWN THAT, THEY'RE STUCK.
BUT WOULD THE APPLICANT BE AMENABLE TO SOME, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU WANT TO CALL IT, MEMBER BROOKS, SOME VEGETATIVE BUFFER SCREENING OR LANDSCAPING AROUND THAT WHERE YOU SAID AROUND EITHER THE BUILDING OR THE FENCE.
>> SOMETHING THAT WAS WHEREVER IT'S VISIBLE FROM THE STREET THAT'S NOT GOING TO GET IN THE WAY OF THE WORK AND
[01:15:02]
THE NEEDS THAT YOU HAVE AS YOUR DOING WHATEVER IS RELATED TO GAS.>> CONSUMER'S TYPICAL SITE AND YOU CAN SEE IT ON THE SITE PLAN HAS TWO EMERGENCY MANNED GATES IN CASE OF ANY EMERGENCY ON SITE, THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO EVACUATE THE FACILITY IMMEDIATELY, SO WE HAVE LEFT A FIVE-FOOT ZONE AROUND THE OUTSIDE OF THE FENCE FREE SO THE EMPLOYEES CAN EVACUATE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, SO WE PREFER NOT TO PLANT ANYTHING FOR SAFETY REASONS WITHIN FIVE FEET OF THE FENCE.
IT'S ACTUALLY 10 FEET, BUT WE CAN'T MEET THAT STANDARD AT THIS FACILITY BECAUSE THE PARCEL IS SO SMALL.
>> I HEAR THAT, BUT THEN YOU ALSO OWN THE REST OF THE PROPERTY THOUGH, THAT'S RIGHT ALONG THE ROAD IN THIS WHOLE PIECE OF PROPERTY?
BASICALLY RIGHT ALONG WHERE THE WATER MAIN IS WOULD BE.
BUT THERE'S THAT EMERGENCY GATE IS LOCATED RIGHT AT THE CORNER THERE.
>> WELL, ISN'T THERE A 10-FOOT EASEMENT ON ALL PROPERTY THAT PEOPLE OWN?
>> A 10-FOOT WATER MAIN EASEMENT?
THEY CAN'T PUT ANYTHING ON IT.
>> WELL, YEAH, BUT YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR MOWING IT, AND MAINTAINING IT, AND PEOPLE PLANT ON IT, AND DO ALL STUFF, SO I'M JUST SAYING, YES, THERE'S A 10-FOOT EASEMENT, BUT ISN'T THAT PRESENT ON ALL PROPERTY?
>> YEAH. THEY CAN PROBABLY CONTACT THE WATER AUTHORITY AND SEE WHAT THE CONDITIONS ARE WITH PLANTING CERTAIN TYPES OF PLANTS OVER THERE WITHIN THE EASEMENT AND OVER THE WATER MAIN.
BUT AS I SAID, THE FIVE-FOOT BUFFER AROUND THE FENCE IS REALLY THE MOST IMPORTANT THING, AND IT'S ACTUALLY 10 FEET, SO IT WOULD BE 10-FOOT OUTSIDE THE FENCE LINE FOR EMERGENCY EVACUATION SPACE.
>> YOU'RE SAYING THAT AROUND THE WHOLE THING, YOU NEED TO HAVE THAT, AND IT'S GOING TO BE ALL GRAVEL, IS THAT WHAT IT IS?
>> NO, IT'S GRASS OUTSIDE THE FENCE.
IT JUST A 10-FOOT OPEN SPACE OUTSIDE THE FENCE.
>> IS THAT GETTING MOWED ON A REGULAR BASIS? >. YES, THAT WILL BE MOWED.
>> WHAT I'M ASKING IS I'M JUST CURIOUS IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO HAVE SOME NATIVE FLOWERS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT THAT'S IN THIS SPACE RATHER THAN JUST GRASS?
>> AS LONG AS IT'S NOT WITHIN THE WALKING AREA, BECAUSE CONSUMER'S THEY DON'T WANT TO TRESPASS ONTO OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTIES, SO THE FIVE-FOOT GIVES WALKING AREA IF YOU COME OUT THE GATE TO WALK OVER TO THE DRIVEWAY.
>> THEY MAINTAIN AN ACCESS WITHIN FIVE FEET FOR WALKING.
>> OKAY. IS IT A REQUIREMENT THAT THAT FENCE BE PULLED OUT ALMOST TO THE BORDER OF THAT PROPERTY INSTEAD OF CLOSER TOWARD THE ACTUAL BUILDING?
>> YEAH. THEY HAVE DIFFERENT DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR EVERY ABOVE-GROUND STRUCTURE ON THIS FACILITY WITH SAFETY AREAS FOR OPERATING ALL OF THE EQUIPMENT.
THEY HAVE MINIMUM STANDARDS BETWEEN EVERY PIECE OF EQUIPMENT ON SITE, HOW FAR IT IS AWAY FROM OTHER THINGS.
>> INTERESTING. SPECTOR, SORRY. SPECTOR IS QUESTION.
I'M NOT GOING TO PURSUE THIS ANY FURTHER.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON REVIEW CRITERIA NUMBER 4? I BELIEVE WE CAN AGREE THAT CRITERIA NUMBER 4 IS SATISFIED BASED ON WHAT THE APPLICANT IS DOING IN LIEU OF THE PROPERTIES NEXT TO IT.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE LAST CRITERIA, WHICH IS GRANTED THAT VARIANCE WILL BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS CHAPTER. MEMBER BENNETT.
>> I THINK MOST UTILITY WORK IS ABOUT AS MUCH PUBLIC INTEREST AS YOU CAN GET VARIANCE REQUEST, SO I CAN SEE THAT.
I THINK IT'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT'S VERY NECESSARY.
UPDATING OLD INFRASTRUCTURE IS PRETTY MUCH STATEWIDE AND PROBABLY A NATIONWIDE PROBLEM, SO I CAN DEFINITELY SEE THAT. IT'S A GOOD COMMENT.
>> I WOULD AGREE. I THINK WE ALL CAN AGREE TO THAT.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I BELIEVE WE CAN SAY THAT CRITERIA NUMBER 5 IS SATISFIED AS WELL.
WITH THAT, WITH REVIEW OF THE CRITERIA, WE BELIEVE THAT CRITERIA NUMBER 1 THROUGH 5 CAN BE SATISFIED.
IS THERE A MOTION FOR THESE, I HAVEN'T BEEN SAYING THESE, I SHOULD BE SAYING THESE, FOR ZBA CASE NUMBER 2407, IS THERE A MOTION?
>> MOTION TO APPROVE ZBA CASE NUMBER 2407 FOR THE VACANT LOT ON LAKE LANSING ROAD.
>> MOTIONED. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SUPPORT.
[01:20:01]
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE MOTION? IF NOT, WE WILL GO TO THE ROLL CALL ON WHICH THIS IS TO APPROVE ZBA CASE NUMBER 2407.I FINALLY REMEMBERED AFTER THREE CASES IN. MEMBER TREZISE?
CONGRATULATIONS. YOU ARE APPROVED.
THANK YOU FOR COMING. GOOD LUCK.
LET'S GET TO THE FINAL ONE HERE,
[6.D. ZBA CASE NO.: 24-08 (2600 & 2630 Bennett), 242 Church, 2600 Bennett Road, Okemos, MI 48864 ]
ZBA CASE NUMBER 24-08 2600 AND 2630 BENNETT, WHICH IS 242 CHURCH AT 2600 BENNETT ROAD IN OKEMOS.>> THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTING VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE THAT CONNECTS THEIR TWO PROPERTIES AT 2600 AND 2630 BENNETT ROAD.
THE PROPOSED BRIDGE WILL BE 40 FEET LONG AND SIX FEET WIDE.
BOTH OF THE PROPERTIES ARE ZONED RA, SINGLE FAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY.
A PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING BUFFER IS REQUIRED BETWEEN BOTH PROPERTY LINES.
IT'S 15 FEET AS SHOWN IS ZERO FEET.
ALSO, THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 10 FEET WHERE NO STRUCTURES ARE ALLOWED IN THAT SIDE YARD SETBACK.
THE SIDE YARD SETBACK IS SHOWN AT ZERO FEET, SO A 10-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUINCE IS ALSO REQUESTED. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAPMAN. REPRESENTATIVES OR APPLICANT, OR REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE APPLICANT LIKE TO COME UP AND SAY ANYTHING? ONCE AGAIN, JUST PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JAMIE WETZEL, 2370 SEMINOLES DR. IN OKEMOS.
I'M ALSO THE PASTOR OF, AND THEREFORE, REPRESENTING 242 COMMUNITY CHURCH, PROPERTY'S AT 2600 AND 2630 BENNETT ROAD.
WE ARE PARTNERING WITH AN EAGLE SCOUT CANDIDATE FOR A PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PROJECT ON OUR PROPERTIES TO CONNECT THE TWO PROPERTIES.
>> YEAH. MY NAME IS KENNEDY JINCATI AND I AM WORKING ON MY EAGLE SCOUT PROJECT, WHICH WOULD BE TO BUILD THIS BRIDGE.
>> WHAT'S YOUR ADDRESS, KENNEDY?
>> 5910 MACMILLAN WAY, LANSING. MICHIGAN.
>> THE PROJECT WOULD BE A BRIDGE CONNECTING THE TWO PROPERTIES OVER A DRAINAGE DITCH.
WE CURRENTLY OBVIOUSLY HAVE PROGRAMMING IN A LOT OF USE OF BOTH PROPERTIES THAT CURRENTLY REQUIRES EITHER GOING ALL THE WAY OUT TO THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, SIDEWALK, WALKING, AND THEN BACK TO THE NEXT BUILDING'S ENTRANCE.
WE DO CURRENTLY MOW A PATH THROUGH THAT DITCH THAT WE INFORMALLY USE TO CROSS THAT.
THAT COULD BE A HARDSHIP FOR SOME PEOPLE WHO MAYBE AREN'T AS MOBILE, OR IF IT'S, WHATEVER CONDITIONS, AND SO THIS WOULD JUST ALLOW US TO CONNECT THOSE TWO PROPERTIES, ESPECIALLY THE FIELD, WHICH, I HAVEN'T LOOKED INTO THIS, IT'S ABOUT HALF AN ACRE ON THE 2630 PROPERTY THAT WE USE FOR VARIOUS ACTIVITIES, KIDS ACTIVITIES, PICNICS, THINGS LIKE THAT, IT WOULD ALLOW A LITTLE BIT MORE DIRECT ACCESS TO THAT AREA.
THIS WOULD BE OBVIOUSLY A UTILITARIAN PURPOSE, BUT THEN ALSO JUST IN GENERAL, IN THAT AREA OF THE TOWNSHIP, WE DO HAVE DEER, WILDLIFE, THOSE KINDS OF THINGS, AND BIRDS, AND SO I IMAGINE IT WOULD ALSO BE A GOOD FIT WITH THE NATURAL FEEL OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. I THINK THAT'S IT.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICANT? MEMBER TREZISE?
>> YES. DID I READ THAT YOU'RE NOT THE OWNERS OF THIS PROPERTY, YOU'RE RENTING?
>> CORRECT. WE DO HAVE AGENCY TO MAKE ALL DECISIONS, PROPERTY BASED DECISIONS, AS FAR AS THE BUILDINGS AND THE PROPERTY.
THE WAY THAT IT'S SET UP IS WE LEASE FROM WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY A RELIGIOUS FINANCIAL INSTITUTION.
THEY ARE THE OWNERS AND WE LEASE IT BACK FROM THEM.
[01:25:05]
>> YOU'VE RECEIVED THEIR PERMISSION?
>> OKAY. DO YOU HAVE A RECORD OF THAT, MR. CHAPMAN?
>> WELL, IF THEY HAVE AGENCY, THEN YEAH.
>> YOU HAVE PROOF OF THE AGENCY?
>> OKAY. WELL, IT JUST IT'S AN UNUSUAL SITUATION FOR A LESSOR TO BE ASKING FOR A ZONING VARIANCE, AND THAT STRUCK ME AS A LITTLE BIT ODD.
THIS IS A DIFFERENT TYPE OF ZONING VARIANCE THAN WE SEE.
I'VE BEEN HERE FOR A YEAR-AND-A-HALF, AND I HAVEN'T SEEN A BRIDGE YET. I'VE SEEN A DECK.
>> A PATHWAYS THROUGH A NATURE AREA, AND I THINK THAT WAS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WANT TO DO THIS.
IT REALLY STRIKES ME AS STRANGE TO NEED A VARIANCE TO DO SOMETHING THAT IS EIGHT FEET WIDE OVER A DRAINAGE DITCH, BUT I UNDERSTAND YOU GOT TO APPLY THE RULES TO WHATEVER IS BEING REQUESTED. [OVERLAPPING] >. OUR ORDINANCE IS SO STRICT ON THE DEFINITION OF STRUCTURE, SO IT'S LIKE YOU CAN'T REALLY GET AROUND THAT.
ANYTHING THAT'S ATTACHED TO THE GROUND IS BASICALLY CONSIDERED A STRUCTURE.
>> IS THERE A HEIGHT LIMIT FOR WHAT'S CONSIDERED A STRUCTURE, 36 INCHES, 40 INCHES?
>> NO, I DON'T BELIEVE SO. NO.
>> YOU DON'T CONSIDER PATIO STRUCTURES, DO YOU?
>> NO. THERE'S ACTUALLY IS AN EXCEPTION FOR PATIO.
>> BUT THAT IS THE ONLY REASON WHY THEY'RE ASKING FOR THE VARIANCE.
>> BECAUSE OF THE STRUCTURE AND IT'S GOING TO CROSS THIS PROPERTY LINE, IT'S BASICALLY ZERO ON BOTH PROPERTIES.
YEAH. I DON'T SEE THE DIFFICULT. [OVERLAPPING] >. BUT IT IS UNUSUAL. [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT IS UNUSUAL. YEAH. THANK YOU FOR THOSE COMMENTS.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS? I HAD A COUPLE, BUT I WILL WAIT AND SEE IF MEMBER BENNETT OR MEMBER BROOKS HAVE ANY COMMENTS.
>> I THINK THE ONE THING IS THAT STRIKES ME AS DIFFICULT HERE IS THE LASTING NATURE OF THIS.
IF THE ONE PROPERTY IS SOLD OR BOTH ARE SOLD TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE THAN WHAT HAPPENS IN THIS INSTANCE.
BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT I DON'T THINK THAT IT MAKES SENSE WHAT YOU'RE REQUESTING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
THAT'S JUST WHAT I'M THINKING ABOUT IN THIS SCENARIO.
>> VARIANCE WOULD ONLY BE TIED TO THE ONE PROPERTY, CORRECT?
>> VARIANCE IS ON BOTH, THEY OWN BOTH, BUT THEY'RE SEPARATE PARCELS, SO THE VARIANCE WOULD ONLY BE TIED TO THE ONE PARCEL, CORRECT? WELL, NO BECAUSE THE STRUCTURE GOES ON BOTH PROPERTIES.
>> THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING. YEAH.
>> TECHNICALLY, YEAH, IF THEY WOULD HAVE, GOD FORBID, ONE DAY SELL AND SOMEBODY WANTS TO HAVE THAT RESOLVED FOR RESIDENTIAL, THEY COULD BUILD THAT BUILDING RIGHT UP TO THE LINE ON BOTH SIDES BECAUSE IT'D HAVE A ZERO SETBACK.
>> CORRECT? [LAUGHTER] NOT THAT THAT WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.
>> THERE IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY IN THE EVENT THAT THE PROPERTY IS SOLD, THEY COULD REMOVE THE BRIDGE, BASICALLY.
>> HOW OFTEN DOES THE TOWNSHIP SEE THAT THOUGH?
>> THAT'S GOING TO BE THE PROBLEM, HOW DO YOU ENFORCE THAT.
>> THAT'S A GOOD POINT. A GOOD CLARIFICATION OF THE [INAUDIBLE] VARIANCES FOR BOTH PARCELS, BECAUSE THAT STRUCTURE IS STRAIGHT ON THOSE PARCELS.
>> THEN IN 2021-25, WHEN PEOPLE ARE LOOKING AT THIS, THEY'RE LIKE, "WHY IS THIS THING HERE?" [LAUGHTER]
>> MY QUESTION I HAD FOR YOU WAS, OR YOU CAN BRING UP AN AERIAL, MR. CHAPMAN, I'M SORRY, I KNOW THIS IS GOOD, BUT IF THERE IS AN AERIAL OF IT? THERE YOU GO.
THIS IS GOING TO BE AN ACTUAL STRUCTURE, SO HOW FAR ONTO THAT 2630 PROPERTY IS THIS GOING TO GO? LIKE A LENGTH, A FOOTAGE, 50 FEET,100 FEET? IS IT GOING TO CONNECT ALL THE WAY TO THAT SIDEWALK THAT'S RIGHT THERE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PARKING LOT NEXT TO THAT BUILDING?
>> AS FAR AS EXTENDING EAST AND WEST?
>> FORTY FEET. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE THAT CORNER, THAT'S OUR DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE.
THEN THE EDGE OF THE PARKING LOT.
I DON'T EVEN THINK THAT IT GOES TO THE EDGE OF THE PARKING LOT.
>> BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT DID. I THOUGHT IT CROSSED THE PROPERTY LINE.
>> NO. HE'S SAYING THAT ON 2600.
>> AS FAR AS HEADING HEADING EAST.
[01:30:02]
>> OH. HOW FAR DOES IT EXTEND ON 2630? I'M SORRY.
>> YOU CAN SEE JUST TO THE RIGHT OF THE PROPERTY LINE IS A LINE OF PINE TREES, I BELIEVE.
>> THERE'S A GAP IN BETWEEN THERE.
>> [LAUGHTER] I'M NOT A CONTRACTOR.
>> A FEW FEET TO THE LEFT OF THAT TREE LINE.
>> THE AERIAL'S ON AN ANGLE, SO IT'S NOT ACCURATE WITH THE PROPERTY LINE?
>> I'LL SAY THIS. THE TREES ARE ON THE FAR SIDE OF THE DITCH.
THE DITCH IS TO THE EAST OF THE TREES AND IN BETWEEN THE PARKING LOT AND THOSE PINE TREES.
>> THE DITCH IS ALL ON THE 2600 [INAUDIBLE]?
>> HOW OFTEN DOES THAT DITCH FILL UP WITH WATER? IS IT LIKE AFTER EVERY RAIN EVENT OR IS IT JUST PERIODICALLY?
>> NO. I HAVE NOT SEEN WATER IN IT FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.
THEN IT'S DESIGNED SO THAT OBVIOUSLY IT FILLS UP CLOSER TO BENNETT, WHERE THE STORM DRAINS ARE.
I'VE NEVER SEEN IT ANYWHERE NEAR THAT FAR NORTH IN THE DITCH.
>> THE WHOLE PROMISE IS YOU HAVE PEOPLE TRAVELING FROM 2600, FROM THE CHURCH OVER TO THE ACTUAL CENTER, OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT.
>> THIS IS A WAY TO GET THEM FROM HAVING TO WALK ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE SIDEWALK OF BENNETT, AND GO AROUND THE TREES?
>> WHAT TYPE OF ACTIVITIES WOULD SOMEBODY BE COMING FROM ONE BUILDING AND GOING TO THE NEXT? THESE ACTIVITIES TO WHERE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE DRESSED UP, WEARING LIKE CHURCH CLOTHES ON SUNDAYS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
>> YOU SAID EXACTLY WHAT I'M GETTING AT.
IF WOMEN ARE WEARING HIGH HEELS IN THAT, I WOULD JUST BE A LITTLE WORRIED THAT BECAUSE OF THIS THING STOPS IN THE GRASS.
>> WE'RE GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE NOW WALKING ON THAT GRASS, AND GRASS SOMETIMES IS WET.
IS THAT GOING TO BE A HAZARD FOR PEOPLE TO WALK? IT'D BE DIFFERENT IF YOU CONNECTED IT ALL DOWN TO THAT SIDEWALK, WHICH I KNOW IS PROBABLY TRIPLING THE LENGTH OF THE THING, AND THE COST AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
>> SURE. I CAN ONLY SPEAK TO THE CULTURE OF OUR CURRENT CONGREGATION, [LAUGHTER] BUT THERE AREN'T MANY FORMAL DRESSING ISSUES IN THAT REGARD.
GENERALLY WHEN THERE ARE LARGE AMOUNTS OF PEOPLE TRYING TO GET FROM ONE TO THE OTHER, IT'S OFTEN BECAUSE WE'RE DOING SOMETHING IN THAT GREEN SPACE.
IT WOULD BE KIDS ACTIVITIES, A PICNIC, COOKOUT, THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.
>> YOU HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT CUT THROUGH THERE AND USE THAT ANYWAY? THAT GRASS AREA THAT YOU MOWED FOR THEM TO ALLOW TO GO THROUGH THERE NOW?
WE WOULD OBVIOUSLY HAVE MORE IF THERE WAS A BRIDGE, AND IT WAS INTENDED FOR THAT PURPOSE.
>> HOW WAS IT RECEIVED FROM THE TENANTS THERE? YOUR PRACTITIONERS WITH YOUR CONGREGATION, HOW WAS IT RECEIVED TO HAVE THAT GAP AND ALLOW TO WALK THROUGH THERE? ARE PEOPLE IN SUPPORT OF IT? OR DO THEY COMPLAIN ABOUT IT AT ALL? THEY SAY, "NO, I'M STILL WALKING ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE SIDEWALK"?
>> MOST PEOPLE IN GENERAL AVOID IT BECAUSE OF THE SLOPE OF THE DITCH, AT THIS TIME.
>> GOT YOU. IF THERE WAS SOMETHING THERE, THEY'D BE MORE AMENABLE TO?
AS MR. CHAPMAN WAS SAYING, THE LOT LINES HERE ARE NOT NECESSARILY ACCURATE TO THE FOOT.
I'M WONDERING IS IT POSSIBLE TO BUILD THE BRIDGE AND HAVE IT LAND SHORT OF THE 2630 LOT LINE? THAT WOULD ONLY REQUIRE A VARIANCE ON ONE OF THE PROPERTIES, AND TAKES OVER THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER WHAT HAPPENS IF ONE OF THEM GETS SOLD.
YOUR CONGREGATION NO LONGER NEEDS THE 2630 BUILDING, AND SO THE OWNER DECIDES TO UTILIZE IT FOR A DIFFERENT RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION OR WHATEVER.
I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S ENOUGH ROOM THERE TO FIT IT IN ON ONE PROPERTY, SINCE THE DITCH IS ALL ON ONE PROPERTY.
I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.
I'M JUST THINKING THAT THAT MIGHT AVOID SOME FUTURE PROBLEMS IF THINGS DEVELOP DIFFERENTLY.
THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD IS, DO YOU NEED TO CONSULT WITH THE DRAIN COMMISSIONER, IF THIS IS A DEDICATED DRAIN?
[01:35:01]
>> WE HAVE, IN E-MAIL IN WRITING, THEY HAVE REPLIED TO US SAYING THAT THEY CONSIDER THIS A PRIVATE DRAINAGE DITCH, AND SO THEY HAVE NO INTEREST IN THE MATTER.
>> I WAS GOING TO SAY LUCKY YOU. [LAUGHTER]
>> DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY REQUIRED US TO PUT IT IN.
>> YOUR FIRST QUESTION IS INTERESTING THOUGH, MEMBER TRUSS.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT HE WAS ASKING? IF THERE WAS ANY WAY THAT BOARDWALK COULD BE SHORTENED TO STOP AT THE PROPERTY LINE IF IT HAS ENOUGH ROOM TO GET THROUGH THAT DITCH TO MAKE IT FLAT?
>> END AT THE PROPERTY LINE BEFORE IT GOES ON TO 2630?
>> I DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.
>> THAT'S A DESIGN ISSUE THAT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE THE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT WORKS.
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT?
>> NOT GOING THE EXACT PROPERTY LINE.
>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING.
IT'S WORTH I THINK THE EFFORT TO FIND OUT WHAT IS POSSIBLE.
IT DOESN'T CHANGE WHETHER YOU'LL NEED A VARIANCE, BECAUSE YOU'LL STILL BE CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE PROPERTY LINE TO BE WITHIN THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, BUT IT MAY RESULT IN FEWER POTENTIAL LEGAL PROBLEMS DOWN THE ROAD.
EVEN IF IT DOESN'T WORK, IT'S WORTH INVESTIGATING, IN MY MIND ANYWAY. MEMBER BROOKS?
>> IS IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO GRANT A VARIANCE ON ONE OF THE PROPERTIES THIS EVENING? LIKE ON THE 2600 SPECIFICALLY IN RELATION TO THAT.
RATHER THAN HAVE THEM HAVE IT.
BECAUSE IF WE DELAY IT, THEN THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND THEN COME BACK.
BUT THEN IF THEY END UP FINDING OUT THAT THIS IS JUST ON THIS PROPERTY.
>> MY GUESS IS NO, BECAUSE THEY'RE REQUESTING THE VARIANCE FOR BOTH PARCELS, WE WOULD HAVE TO AT A MINIMUM, PROBABLY TABLE IT AND ALLOW THEM TO BRING THAT ISSUE BACK AND CHANGE THEIR APPLICATION, THEIR VARIANCE REQUEST, OR DENY IT, AND THEN THEY HAVE TO WAIT I THINK ANOTHER YEAR.
>> IF IT'S DENIED YOU GOT TO WAIT A YEAR.
>> BUT I BELIEVE THAT [INAUDIBLE] THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE ASKING, IS A VARIANCE FOR BOTH PROPERTIES, SO WE CAN'T SPLIT THIS UP ON OUR OWN, WE'D HAVE TO TABLE IT AND ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO MAKE THAT CHANGE WITH THE TOWNSHIP.
>> YOU COULD ALWAYS PUT A CONDITION SAYING THEY NEED TO RECORD A SHARED-USE EASEMENT.
>> THAT'S THE OTHER WAY TO DEAL WITH IT, WITH A FORMAL EASEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES, EVEN IF IT'S THE SAME OWNER.
ESTABLISH IT. HOW BIG WOULD THAT EASEMENT NEED TO BE?
>> WELL, JUST MEET THE DIMENSIONS OF THE.
>> DIMENSIONS OF LENGTH OF THE BOARD ON BOTH SIDES? INTERESTING.
>> I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT ONE. [LAUGHTER] I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT WOULD WORK, PER SE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
[LAUGHTER] [OVERLAPPING] [INAUDIBLE] MEMBER BROOKS.
>> JUST TO WRAP IT UP. I GUESS MY POINT HERE IS THAT, WE HAVEN'T GONE THROUGH ALL THE FIVE CRITERIA, I THINK THIS IS REASONABLE REQUEST HERE, AND THAT IF WE CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN THIS EVENING THAT I'M INTERESTED IN, HOWEVER, WE COULD DO THAT, SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO SEE IT AGAIN, WOULD BE MY OWN TAKE ON THE ISSUE.
>> THE ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE NOT TAKING ACTION TONIGHT, JUST LEAVING IT AS UNFINISHED BUSINESS AND HAVING SOME FURTHER INVESTIGATION AND WHAT CAN AND CAN'T BE DONE, AND BRINGING BACK AT THE MEETING IN JULY.
>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS SAYING, IS THAT WE COULD TABLE IT, ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO WORK WITH THE TOWNSHIP AND SEE IF THAT'S EVEN AN OPTION TO MOVE THAT BACK.
BUT THAT WOULD REQUIRE IT OBVIOUSLY COMING BACK AT A LATER MEETING, WHICH AS MEMBER BROOKS SAID, IT'S PROBABLY MORE AMENABLE TO TRY TO MAKE A DECISION ON IT TONIGHT.
>> IT'S STRANGE TO USE THE CRITERIA WE HAVE WHERE WE'RE DEALING WITH TWO PROPERTIES.
I'M GOING TO GO EITHER WAY, BUT IT'S JUST THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS IN MY MIND.
>> I KNOW THAT THIS PROBABLY DOESN'T SWAY, NOT SWAY,
[01:40:07]
BUT JUST IN MY MIND I THINK ONE STRENGTH IS THAT THE RARITY OF SPECIFICALLY RELIGIOUS PROPERTY CHANGING OWNERSHIP, AS OPPOSED TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, IT DOESN'T HAPPEN NEARLY AS OFTEN.I GET THAT IN 2100, 24 AND 50, YOU STILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH THESE [LAUGHTER] KINDS OF ISSUES.
>> WELL, I KNOW ONE [OVERLAPPING] PROPERTY IN THE TOWNSHIP THAT'S BEEN UP FOR SALE FOR THREE YEARS.
>> THE PLANNING COMMISSION THREE OR FOUR TIMES TOO.
>> THEY'RE VERY UNIQUE PROPERTIES. T.
THE 2630 BUILDING IS A UNIQUE PROPERTY, BUT NOT JUST FROM A RELIGIOUS STANDPOINT, THE WAY IT'S STRUCTURED IT COULD DO A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS.
>> WHEREAS THE CHURCH BUILDING PROBABLY IS A LITTLE BIT MORE DESIGNED FOR THE PURPOSES BEING USED FOR NOW.
BUT I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
[LAUGHTER] I WOULD LIKE TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO APPROVE THIS IN SUCH WAY IT DOESN'T [NOISE] CAUSE PROBLEMS DOWN THE ROAD.
THAT'S WHY I'M RAISING [INAUDIBLE]
>> SORRY, MICROPHONE IS PICKING UP EVERY PAGE FLIP I DO.
BASED ON THAT DISCUSSION, DO WE WANT AS A BOARD TO GO THROUGH THE REVIEW CRITERIA, OR DO WE WANT TO MAKE THE MOTION TO POTENTIALLY TABLE THIS TO GET SOME MORE INFORMATION SO THAT WE CAN MAKE THE PROPER DECISION ON IT? I GUESS THAT'D BE THE QUESTION. BECAUSE IF WE GO THROUGH THE REVIEW CRITERIA AND WE FIND ONE OF THEM CAN'T BE UNANIMOUSLY JUSTIFIED, THEN THERE IS NO TABLE AND IT'S DENIED.
>> I WOULD PREFER TO TABLE IT UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING.
I'D MAKE A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT.
I THINK LIMITING IT TO ONE PROPERTY, IF POSSIBLE, WOULD BE A LOT BETTER THAN GRANTING IT FOR BOTH, AND JUST HOPING IT WORKS OUT IN THE FUTURE.
>> COULD I ASK A QUESTION REAL QUICK?
>> IS THERE ANY PLACE IF BOTH PARCELS ARE OWNED BY THE SAME OWNER FOR SHIFTING THE PROPERTY LINE SO THAT THE BRIDGE IS ONLY ON ONE PROPERTY?
>> THAT'S A TOTAL SEPARATE PROCESS THAT YOU'D HAVE TO WORK WITH THE TOWNSHIP ON TO DO THAT.
>> IT'S PROBABLY TIME-CONSUMING.
>> BECAUSE THAT REQUIRES THE SURVEY AND SOME OTHER THINGS, MEETS AND BOUNDS AND ALL THAT.
I THINK ULTIMATELY WE CAN GET TO A POINT WHERE A DECISION CAN BE MADE, WHATEVER WE FIND OUT, BUT I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT DECISION IS BEST AT THIS POINT.
THAT'S JUST MY FEELINGS ON IT.
>> DID I HEAR YOU MAKE A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT?
>> I HAD MADE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS.
>> TIL THE NEXT MEETING IN, ARE WE HAVING A MEETING IN JULY? MR. CHAPMAN, DO YOU KNOW?
>> WE HAVE AND WE HAVE A SECOND FOR MR. BENNETT?
>> I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS TO THE MOTION?
>> ARE WE SETTING ANY CRITERIA THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR AT THE NEXT MEETING RELATED TO THIS?
>> YOU CAN PROBABLY STATE THAT FOR THE RECORD IF YOU WANT.
>> DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR? WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO GET TO DO?
>> I DO. OUR HOPE WAS THAT THIS WOULD BE RESOLVED THIS EVENING ONLY BECAUSE AS A MINOR WHO WILL BE RETURNING TO SCHOOL IN THE FALL, WE WERE HOPING TO START CONSTRUCTION A LITTLE EARLIER.
THIS WOULD DELAY OBVIOUSLY A MONTH AT LEAST.
>> IT MAY NOT BECAUSE YOU WOULD HAVE TO DO A FORMAL DESIGN AND GET IT TO THE BUILDING CODE AND ALL THROUGH THAT.
WHICH WOULD REQUIRE TIME IN OUR OFFICE, WHICH MAY HELP YOU ANSWER THE QUESTIONS IF YOU SAT DOWN WITH THE PEOPLE THERE.
[01:45:01]
IT STILL HAS TO GET APPROVAL, BUILDING PERMITS, AND ALL THAT STUFF.>> THEY'VE BEEN WORKING. THAT'S DONE.
>> YEAH, THAT'S DONE. PLANS ARE IN HERE.
>> THAT'S THE PLANS. [LAUGHTER]
>> WE MET WITH JOHN HINES, AT THE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP. HE HELPED US WITH THOSE.
>> THESE ARE THE DRAWINGS, RATHER THAN THE TYPICAL PLANNING.
>> I THINK THAT GOES BACK TO MY QUESTION WHY I WAS CURIOUS WHAT THE SPECIFIC CRITERIA WE'RE TRYING TO GET OUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED SO THAT THEN WE KNOW IT'S UNCLEAR TO ME WHAT.
>> I GUESS THE QUESTION I HAVE IS WHETHER THIS COULD BE CONSTRUCTED AS DESIGNED AND ONLY REQUIRE A VARIANCE ON ONE OF THE PROPERTIES.
>> SOLELY CONSTRUCTED ON THE PROPERTY WITH THE 2600 ADDRESS AND NOT GOING ACROSS THE PROPERTY LINE OF 2630 TO REQUIRE A VARIANCE ON THAT PROPERTY AS WELL.
>> THEN IF IT CAN'T, ARE WE SAYING THAT AN EASEMENT IS A POTENTIAL WAY TO SOLVE FOR US GOING ACROSS BOTH PARCELS?
>> I THINK WE CAN APPROVE THE VARIANCE, AND IF THEY FEEL THE NEED TO GET AN EASEMENT TO MEMORIALIZE THAT THEY CAN DO THAT.
I DON'T THINK WE CAN ORDER TO GET AN EASEMENT IF THE PROPERTY OWNER ON BOTH SIDES WANTS THIS DONE, THEY REALLY DON'T NEED AN EASEMENT UNTIL ONE PROPERTY OR THE OTHER IS SOLD.
>> WELL, I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, WOULD WE FEEL COMFORTABLE APPROVING THE EVENTS TONIGHT FOR BOTH PROPERTIES OR NO? BECAUSE IF WE DID, THAT WOULD SAVE A LOT OF PARCEL FOR THEM.
>> SURE. IF WE CAN MEET THE CRITERIA, YES.
>> FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, I READ THROUGH THIS BEFORE WE COME TO THE MEETING AND HERE IN THE APPLICANT.
MY ONLY CONCERN WAS JUST THE SAFETY OF THE PEOPLE.
I THOUGHT IT'S GOING TO BE ON GRASS.
IT'S NOT CONNECTED TO THE SIDEWALK OF THE 2630 PROPERTY.
I DIDN'T KNOW IF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE WEARING SANDALS OR SHOES OR HIGH HEELS.
IF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO TRY TO TRUDGE ACROSS THAT GRASS, IS IT GOING TO BE A SLIP-AND-FALL PROBLEM OR TOWNSHIP WHERE YOU ARE GOING TO GET A LOT OF COMPLAINTS THAT PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO FALL? THEY'RE TRYING TO CROSS THERE AND THEY'RE WIPING OUT.
BUT THAT SOUNDS LIKE YOU MADE IT CLEAR HEAD ON THE RECORD THAT THAT MIGHT NOT BE THE CASE.
THAT MOST OF THE PEOPLE IN YOUR CONGREGATION ARE PRETTY LAID BACK, THEY'RE WEARING GYM SHOES, THINGS LIKE THAT.
THEY'RE NOT WEARING NON-SLIP HIGH HEELS.
SOUNDS LIKE THIS THING, IT'S AMENABLE TO PEOPLE WANTING TO USE IT.
THEY DON'T WANT TO CROSS DOWN THAT DITCH NOW WITH THAT POTENTIALLY SOMETHING THERE.
THIS MAY BE AN IMPROVEMENT TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY BETWEEN THOSE TWO PROPERTIES INSTEAD OF HAVING THEM WALK ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE PROPERTY.
OTHER THAN JUST THE SAFETY FACTOR OF, THESE PEOPLE GO TO SLIP AND FALL ON THE GRASS.
IS IT GOING TO BE LAWSUITS OF WE'RE GOING TO FIND OUT THEY'RE GETTING SUED BECAUSE SOMETHING WE APPROVED BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T EXPAND IT, AND IT'S GOING TO STOP ON THE GRASS? THAT WAS MY BIG CONCERN OTHER THAN THAT.
I PERSONALLY DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE ACTUAL VARIANCE ITSELF, BEING THAT THE OWNERS, IT'S THE SAME OWNER.
IT'S CROSSING ONE PARTICULAR AREA OF THE PROPERTY.
IT'S FARTHER BACK FROM THE ROAD.
I UNDERSTAND WHY THERE'S A NEED FOR THE ZERO VARIANCE BECAUSE IT'S CROSSING THE PROPERTY LINE.
MY BIG HANG-UP WAS JUST THE PUBLIC SAFETY PORTION OF IT, WHICH IS LIKE A CRITERION NUMBER 5, THE LAST CRITERIA.
THAT WAS MY BIGGEST QUESTION MARK.
I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM, MR. TREZISE ABOUT IF THESE THINGS, IT'S JUST TO HYPOTHESIZE AT THIS POINT, IF THE OWNERS DECIDE, WE'RE KICKING YOU OUT.
WE WANT TO SELL THESE THINGS, WE WANT TO BUILD THAT RESIDENTIAL HOUSING BEHIND THERE OUT AND SELL THIS, THEY'LL PROBABLY END UP SPLITTING THEM EVEN MORE, BECAUSE THESE ARE PRETTY MASSIVE PROPERTIES.
NOW THEY'LL BE ABLE TO BUILD ESSENTIALLY UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE WITH ZERO SETBACK ON BOTH OF THOSE SIDES AND POTENTIALLY CREATE SOME ISSUES THAT WE WOULD BE ALLOWING BY RIGHT WITH THE PROPERTY.
THAT WAS THE QUESTION THAT MEMBER TREZISE SAYS, IS THERE A WAY JUST TO MINIMIZE THAT SO THAT ONLY ONE PROPERTY CAN BUILD TO THE PARCEL LINE INSTEAD OF THE OTHER ONE? BUT OTHER THAN THE SAFETY, WHICH I THINK I GOT MY ANSWERS, I DON'T HAVE PERSONALLY AN ISSUE WITH ANY OF IT.
BUT OBVIOUSLY, IF THERE'S CONCERNS FOR IT, I'M NOT GOING TO TRUMP YOU MEMBER TREZISE TO SAY THAT MY ISSUES ARE GREATER THAN YOURS OR VICE VERSA.
IF YOU FEEL THERE ACTUALLY IS A MOTION ON THE TABLE, SO WE STILL DO HAVE TO TAKE ACTION ON THAT.
BUT IF THE BOARD FEELS THAT'S THE WAY WE WANT TO GO.
>> WELL, I LOOK AT IT BOTH WAYS.
[01:50:02]
WE CAN'T SOLVE ALL THE PROBLEMS HERE.BUT I'M JUST TRYING NOT TO CREATE EXTRA PROBLEMS.
>> I THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT APPROVING A ZERO SETBACK VARIANCE, IT SHOULD BE LIMITED TO THIS CONSTRUCTION ONLY, IF WE CAN DO THAT.
>> YEAH. THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO GET TO.
THIS VARIANCE IS FOR JUST THIS DECK.
IF SOMEBODY PROPOSED TO SPLIT THIS AND BUILD HOUSES, THAT WOULD BE A TOTALLY SEPARATE ISSUE FOR THEM TO COME TO US.
>> THE VARIANCE FOR THIS CONSTRUCTION.
>> BASICALLY THE WIDTH OF THIS DECK, UP AGAINST THE PROPERTY LINE.
THE VARIANCE WOULD BE FOR THAT.
ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THAT DECK FARTHER DOWN, IT'S STILL GOING TO BE ZERO SETBACK.
>> IT'S JUST GOING TO BE IN THE VICINITY OF THAT DECK IS A ZERO SET.
>> THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. JUST THE SIX.
>> THAT MAKES IT PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT EASIER TO UNDERSTAND.
>> I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT UP. I APPRECIATE IT AND THANKS FOR CLARIFYING MR. CHAIRMAN, BECAUSE I WAS LOOKING AT THE MAP, BUT I'M THINKING, THESE ARE PRETTY MASSIVE PARCELS BUT THAT'S A ZERO SETBACK ALONG THAT WHOLE PARCEL LINE.
YOU COULD HAVE A LOT OF BUILDINGS WITHOUT STRETCHES, BUT RIGHT UP TO THAT THING FOR 2, 300 FEET ON BOTH SIDES.
THAT MAKES SENSE IF IT'S JUST THE SIX FEET.
>> BUT ONCE THAT DECK IS GONE, THEN THE VARIANCE IS GONE AS WELL.
>> DO WE NEED A SECOND TO WITHDRAW THE MOTION, THE ORIGINAL MOTION? DOES THAT NEED TO BE SECONDED, DO YOU KNOW?
>> I'M NOT AWARE WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO THAT.
>> WE CAN DO. IT SOUNDS OFFICIAL.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE ORIGINAL MOTION AND A SECOND ON THAT.
YOU WANT TO GO FORWARD THEN WITH THE REVIEW CRITERIA?
>> IT'S BEEN A LONG EVENING ALREADY.
STARTING WITH NUMBER 1, LAST TIME WE GET TO READ THESE THINGS.
I PROMISE YOU GUYS HAD TO WAY THROUGH THESE FOUR TIMES NOW.
NUMBER 1 SAYS UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST THAT ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND OF STRUCTURE, THAT ARE NOT APPLICABLE.
THE OTHER LAND OF STRUCTURES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT, AND THESE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SELF-CREATED.
ANY COMMENTS ON THAT? WE'VE PROBABLY BEAT THAT ONE TO DEATH, BUT MEMBER TREZISE.
I THINK IT IS UNIQUE BECAUSE OF THE USES OF THESE BUILDINGS, THAT THEY'RE OWNED BY THE SAME OWNER, ASKING FOR A WAIVER TO BUILD OR A VARIANCE TO BUILD A BRIDGE, CROSS YOUR OWN LAND BECAUSE THEY ARE SET UP A SEPARATE PARCELS SEEMS LIKE A REASONABLE ACTION.
THESE WERE PLATTED WELL BEFORE THESE BUILDINGS WERE ESTABLISHED AS A RELIGIOUS CO-USE-TYPE SITUATION.
I THINK THAT'S THAT. NOTHING ABOUT THE PROPERTY ITSELF DOES THAT OTHER THAN HAVING A DRAINAGE DITCH IN THE MIDDLE OF IT.
BUT I THINK IT'S UNIQUE IN THAT IT'S OWNED BY A SINGLE PERSON AND IS TO BUILD A BRIDGE ACROSS THAT DRAINAGE DITCH FOR EASE OF ACCESS.
>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO MENTION, WAS FOR ME, THAT PECULIAR THING WAS THIS IS IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE.
I'M GOING TO GUESS THAT A LOT OF THE PROPERTIES IN THIS ZONE DON'T HAVE A 5-10 FOOT WIDE DITCH RUNNING DOWN ONE OF THE SIDE OF THEM LIKE THIS DOES.
THAT PRESENTS A BIG CHALLENGE RIGHT THERE TO THAT DITCH WASN'T THERE, AND IT WAS FLAT.
I'M SURE YOU PROBABLY WOULDN'T NEED THIS BOARDWALK.
PEOPLE JUST WALK THROUGH THERE LIKE EVERYDAY THING.
BUT BECAUSE THAT DITCH IS THERE, IT'S PRETTY UNIQUE TO THIS PROPERTY, AND IT'S A PRETTY LONG DITCH GOING ALL THE WAY BACK PROBABLY FROM THAT WETLAND AREA JUST NORTH OF THERE ALL THE WAY DOWN TO BENNETT ROAD.
THAT WOULD BE MY JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS BEING A PECULIAR ASPECT OF THAT PARCEL.
>> THE AMOUNT OF FOOT TRAFFIC AS WELL.
I WAS JUST GOING TO BE COMPLETELY PECULIAR TO THE SURROUNDING AREA, SO I CAN DEFINITELY SEE THAT.
>> I WOULD AGREE TO THAT AS WELL.
I THINK WE AGREE THAT CRITERIA NUMBER 1 COULD BE SATISFIED. WE'RE ON NUMBER 2.
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.
>> I THINK DEFINITELY THE DRAINAGE DITCH IS THE CHALLENGE FOR USING THE PROPERTY AS THE PERMITTED PURPOSE THERE.
I THINK ENFORCING THIS AND NOT ALLOWING IT TO STREAK IT OVER.
WELL, IT'S ALREADY FORCING PEOPLE TO GO DOWN AND USE THE SIDEWALK, SO IT WILL JUST BE FOR THE CONSTRICTING FLOW THROUGH THE PROPERTY.
>> THAT'S WHAT MAKES THIS CONFUSING BECAUSE IT'S TWO PROPERTIES.
A STRICT INTERPRETATION DOESN'T KEEP EITHER PROPERTY FROM DOING WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
[01:55:04]
IT KEEPS THEM FROM DOING SOMETHING TOGETHER, WHICH MAKES IT A STRANGE BEAST TO DEAL WITH IN A SINGLE VARIANCE, BUT I CAN GO ALONG WITH THAT THOUGH.>> I DEFINITELY CAN GREEN ONCE AGAIN THAT THAT DITCH IS MORE OF A BURDEN THAN IT IS ANYTHING.
I SHOULD HAVE ASKED THE QUESTION.
I KNOW IT'S TOO LATE NOW, BUT I SHOULD HAVE ASKED THE QUESTION OF IS THIS THING GOING TO BE USED IN THE WINTERTIME, IS IT GOING TO BE SNOW REMOVED ON THAT THING? BECAUSE I'M THINKING WITHOUT THIS, OBVIOUSLY, PEOPLE AREN'T GOING ACROSS THAT DITCH IN THE WINTER. I HIGHLY DOUBT THAT.
IN THE WINTER, IT'S GOING TO FORCE EVERYBODY TO DO WHAT THEY DON'T WANT TO DO, WE JUST GO ALL THE WAY DOWN, WALK ON THE SIDEWALK, OR DRIVE OVER THERE, AND THAT COULD BE A PAIN, BUT THIS COULD BE.
>> WELL, AS HE SAID, USUALLY THE CROSSOVER IS TO UTILIZE THE GREEN SPACE AND THERE ISN'T A LOT IN THE WINTER.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON CRITERIA NUMBER 2? I DO BELIEVE WE CAN SATISFY THAT ONE AS WELL.
NUMBER 3, GRANTING A VARIANCE IS A MINIMUM ACTION NECESSARY, WHICH WOULD CARRY OUT THE SPIRIT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECURE PUBLIC SAFETY, AND PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.
I THINK THE SAFETY ASPECT IS PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT WE'VE HAMMERED ON A LOT WITH JUST ENSURING THAT PEOPLE CAN CROSS THAT BITCH SAFETY DUE.
GO BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THOSE TWO PROPERTIES WE HAVE TO WALK ANOTHER 500 FEET OUT OF THE WAY.
>> I'VE NEVER KNOWN WHAT PROVIDES SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IS, BUT IN YOUR SITUATION, THERE'S A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF JUSTICE, AND ALL I NEED A PROPERTY OWNER THROUGH THE AGENCY THAT HE IS GRANTED TO UTILIZE THE PROPERTY AS IT'S BEING USED.
>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.
>> YEAH. I TAKE THAT TO MEAN THAT ALL USERS COULD USE THIS FACILITY.
MEANING PEOPLE IN THE WHEELCHAIR COULD WHEEL ACROSS THE BOARDWALK IF NECESSARY, GRANTED, THEY'D BE ENDING IN GRANTS, BUT THEY ALREADY KNOW THAT.
>> I'LL INTERPRET IT LIKE THAT. IT'S INTERESTING.
>> NO, I'M NOT 100% SURE IF EVEN THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS.
THAT'S JUST THE WAY I WOULD TAKE IT BY READING IT WITH THE WORD JUSTICE.
I'M THINKING LIKE NOT SO MUCH ENVIRONMENTAL, BUT MORE LIKE EQUITY.
>> I THINK IT'S AN EQUITY BETWEEN PROPERTY OWNERS THAT SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IS YOU CAN'T DENY THIS PERSON FROM USING HIS PROPERTY BECAUSE THAT PERSON DOESN'T WANT HIM TO OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
BUT IT REALLY IS NOT DEFINED IN THE STATUTE THAT MAKES THIS A REQUIRED CRITERION.
>> THEY WOULDN'T EVEN HAVE THAT ISSUE BECAUSE IT'S SPOT PROPERTY IS OWNED BY THE SAME ONE.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? OTHERWISE, I THINK WE CAN MEET THE REVIEW CRITERIA NUMBER 3.
MOVING ON, NUMBER 4, GRANTING THE VARIANCE AND NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND OR THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY.
>> DEFINITELY NOT. I SEE NO WAY.
>> I DON'T SEE HOW THIS WOULD ADVERSELY IMPACT ADJACENT LAND, EITHER.
IF ANYTHING, I THINK IT WOULD ENHANCE IT AND PROVIDE.
DEFINITELY, I'M TRYING TO JUMP IT AHEAD AND NUMBER 5 ALREADY, BUT I THINK IT WOULD DEFINITELY INCREASE THE PUBLIC SAFETY FROM ALLOWING PEOPLE TO JUST BE ABLE TO CROSS RIGHT THERE AND NOT HAVE TO GO DOWN TOWARD THE ROAD OR WALKING WAY OUT OF THE WAY IN THE ADVERSE WEATHER AND THINGS LIKE THAT, SINCE WE ARE STILL IN MICHIGAN, AND YOU KNOW HOW WINTERS CAN BE.
BUT I DON'T SEE THIS AS ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ADJACENT LAND MYSELF.
>> I THINK WE CAN AGREE WITH THAT ONE AS WELL.
BUT AT LEAST A VARIANCE WILL BE GENERATE CONSISTENT PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE PURPOSES INTENT OF THIS CHAPTER.
>> I THINK YOU ALMOST SAID THAT DEFINITELY BENEFITS PUBLIC INTEREST.
BEING AROUND THE PEOPLE THAT PROBABLY GO TO THIS CHURCH AND FURTHERMORE TO 2630, I THINK THAT'S CERTAINLY FITTING PUBLIC INTEREST.
>> I WOULD AGREE. I THINK WE HAVE UNANIMOUSLY AGREED THAT ALL FIVE REVIEW CRITERIA CAN BE SATISFIED, SO I WILL TAKE A MOTION AT THIS TIME FOR THIS ZBA CASE NUMBER 24-08.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE ZBA CASE NUMBER 24-08 FOR 2600 AND 2630 BENNETT ROAD. I'LL SUPPORT.
>> ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION THAT SUPPORT.
ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON THE MOTION? IF NOT, WE WILL MOVE TO A VOTE TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE. MEMBER TREZISE?
>> VICE CHAIR VOTES YES, SO YOU ARE APPROVED.
THANK YOU FOR STICKING AROUND AND PROVIDING US THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT REALLY HELPED OUT.
>> WAITING THROUGH THREE OTHER CASES.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY OTHER BUSINESS OR ANY OTHER PUBLIC REMARKS SINCE YOU'RE THE LAST FOUR LEFT.
[9. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS]
>> THIS WAS FUN. I ACTUALLY GOT INTO SOMETHING NEW TONIGHT THAT GENERATED A LOT OF CONVERSATION BACK.
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS TO US.
>> THANK YOU, AGAIN. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>> MY ONLY COMMENT IS MORE OF A QUESTION.
MEMBER BROOKS, ARE YOU FULL-TIME NOW ON?
[02:00:03]
>> YEAH. I RECENTLY APPOINTED ON MONDAY.
NO. I DON'T THINK IT HAPPENED MONDAY.
>> YEAH. BECAUSE I THINK HE CAME TO ONE MEETING, THE LAST MEETING.
>> WHAT WAS THE GENTLEMAN'S NAME? HE TOOK YOUR POSITION BECAUSE HE MOVED UP TO BE A TRUSTEE?
>> THAT'S RIGHT. WELL, I WANT TO SAY WELCOME AND THANK YOU FOR COMING AND YOU HAD SOME GREAT QUESTIONS COMING TONIGHT, SO WE CERTAINLY APPRECIATE IT.
>> I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION DURING THIS PART, WHEN GROUPS ARE REQUESTING VARIANCES, MR. KEITH?
>> YOU CAN'T REPEAT YOUR NAME FROM THIS. I THINK IT'S CHAPMAN.
>> DOES THE VARIANCE STAY THE ENTIRE TIME AND PERPETUITY, OR IS IT ONLY IN EFFECT FOR THIS BRIDGE, BASICALLY? IF THE PROPERTY IS SOLD, DOES THE VARIANCE GO AWAY, OR IS IT IF THE BRIDGE GOES AWAY, THE VARIANCE GOES AWAY?
>> THE BRIDGE GOES AWAY, THE VARIANCE GOES AWAY.
>> THE VARIANCES ARE ATTACHED TO THE OBJECTS.
>> THAT YOU GRANTED THE VARIANCE TO.
>> FOLLOW-UP QUESTION FOR THE SETBACK ONES FOR THE NEW DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANT? THOSE JUST FOLLOW THE PROPERTY, THOUGH, OR WHEN DO THEY GO AWAY?
>> YEAH. THAT'S GOING TO BE A LITTLE DIFFERENT BECAUSE IT'S NOT WITH THE STRUCTURE.
>> THAT WILL STICK WITH THE PROPERTY.
>> THAT WILL STICK WITH THE PROPERTY.
>> THAT'S RIGHT. IT GOES AWAY AND BECOMES A BANK AGAIN.
THEY STILL HAVE THOSE SETBACKS THERE.
>> ONCE THEY HAVE IN THAT ANYWAY.
>> BECAUSE I ACTUALLY DIDN'T KNOW THAT ABOUT STRUCTURES AND THAT IT FOLLOWED THE STRUCTURE, SO YEAH.
>> STRUCTURES ARE INTERESTING.
>> IN THAT CASE WE'RE ALLOWING THEM TO BUILD IN THAT AREA, AND IF THEY CEASE BUILDING, THEN THAT'S GONE.
>> YEAH, THAT MADE ME A LOT MORE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH GRANTING THAT FOR BOTH PROPERTIES, BECAUSE THAT MAKES A LOT MORE SENSE.
>> YEAH, I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT.
BUT THE VARIANCE WILL BE TIED TO THAT BASICALLY WITH THE WIDTH OF THAT BOARDWALK UP AGAINST THAT PROPERTY.
I THOUGHT IT WAS FOR THE WHOLE EASTERN AND WESTERN PROPERTY LINE.
I WAS THINKING, MY GOSH, THAT'S APPROVED. ALL RIGHT.
I WILL DO IT IN FAVOR OF [INAUDIBLE] WHO'S NOT HERE.
>> THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.