SO I WILL GO AHEAD AND CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. [1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER] [00:00:03] GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF MERIDIAN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING. TODAY IS WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18TH, 2024, AND IT IS 631 ON THAT CLOCK RIGHT THERE. FIRST I'M GOING TO BE LOOKING FOR AN APPROVAL OF TONIGHT'S AGENDA. [2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA] HOPEFULLY EVERYBODY HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT OVER THE OVER THE WEEKEND. I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. I MOVE TO APPROVE BY MEMBER BROOKS. I'LL SUPPORT SECONDED BY MEMBER TREZISE. ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ABOUT AGENDA? OKAY. WE'LL MOVE TO A OH, YOU KNOW WHAT? I DID NOT TAKE ROLL. WE'LL DO THAT NEXT. THIS WILL BE AN APPROVAL OF TONIGHT'S AGENDA. A VOTE TO APPROVE. TONIGHT'S AGENDA IS APPROVED. AND FOR THE PERSON DOING OUR MINUTES, I WILL GO BACK AND DO A ROLL CALL VOTE SO THAT WE KNOW WHO IS PRESENT. WE WILL MOVE ON TO NUMBER THREE IN OUR AGENDA, WHICH IS A CORRECTIONS, APPROVAL AND RATIFICATION OF MINUTES FROM OUR ZBA MEETING OF JUNE [3. CORRECTIONS, APPROVAL AND RATIFICATION OF MINUTES] 26TH, 2024. I MOVE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING. MOTIONS TO APPROVE. SECONDED BY MEMBER KOENIG. I HAVE ONE CORRECTION. OKAY, GO FOR IT. THERE. THE NUMBER ONE CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER THE SECOND LINE SAYS CHAIR MANSOUR CALLED THE ROLL OF THE BOARD. YOU WERE OUT. I WAS NOT HERE, SO I DON'T KNOW WHO MADE IT. WHO DID IT? ME. OKAY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THAT LOOK GOOD. OKAY. AND I WILL. SECOND MOTION NOW. OKAY. SO SECONDED WITH THE WITH THE NOTE THAT I WAS NOT. IN FACT, HERE I WAS IN ITALY. SO SORRY, BOYS. ALL RIGHT. THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE. UNLESS THERE'S ANY OTHER NOTES ON THE MINUTES. MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE JUNE 26TH, 2024 MEETING. MEMBER. KOENIG. YES. MEMBER. BROOKS. YES. MEMBER. YES. AND AS I WAS NOT HERE, I AM GOING TO ABSTAIN FROM VOTING TODAY. SO WE DO PASS THAT MOTION WITH THREE VOTES. WE ARE GOING TO MOVE ON TO NUMBER FOUR, WHICH IS COMMUNICATIONS, OF WHICH THERE ARE NONE OF NOTE THIS EVENING. WE HAVE NO UNFINISHED BUSINESS. [6.A. ZBA CASE NO.: 24-09 (Playmakers Inc.), Playmakers Inc. 2299 West Grand River Avenue, Okemos, MI 48864] SO WE WILL GO RIGHT DIRECTLY INTO NEW BUSINESS. WHICH BRINGS US TO ZBA CASE NUMBER 20 409, PLAYMAKERS INC., 2299 WEST GRAND RIVER AVENUE IN OKEMOS. THANK YOU. AND MR. SCHALK. OKAY. AS NOTED, THIS IS ZBA CASE 2409 PLAYMAKERS AT 2299 WEST GRAND RIVER AVENUE. THEY ARE LOOKING TWO DIFFERENT FOR TWO DIFFERENT VARIANCES. FIRST, ONE WOULD ALLOW MORE THAN 40% OF A SURFACE AREA OF A OF A SINGLE WINDOW TO BE USED FOR WINDOW SIGNAGE. AND THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE WINDOW INVOLVED IN THAT REQUEST. AND THEN THE SECOND VARIANCE WOULD ALLOW THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF WINDOW SIGNAGE TO EXCEED 10% OF THE BUILDING FACE IN WHICH THE WINDOW IS PARKED. STAFF DID RECEIVE A COMPLAINT FROM A TOWNSHIP RESIDENT ABOUT THE WINDOW SIGNAGE. WE DID HAVE A MEETING WITH THE APPLICANT AND EXPLAIN THE COMPLAINT. THE APPLICANT AT THAT SITE AT THAT TIME DECIDED TO APPLY FOR THE SAID VARIANCES. THEY ARE REQUESTING THAT THE WINDOW SIGNAGE JUST REMAIN IN PLACE IF APPROVED. THERE ARE THREE ROWS OF WINDOWS ON THE FRONTAGE PROPERTY, AND I'LL BRING UP A PICTURE IN A SECOND. THE WINDOWS IN THE BOTTOM TWO ROWS ARE COVERED WITH THE SIGNAGE. IF YOU'VE DRIVEN BY PLAYMAKERS ON GRAND RIVER AVENUE, YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. THE REASON STATED ARE ESTHETICS, BUT ALSO SAFETY. IT'S FROM THE ROAD, FROM THE PARKING LOT. IT'S AN OPAQUE COVERING. PEOPLE CAN'T DRIVE BY, SEE WHAT'S GOING ON INSIDE OF A SHOE, WHAT'S ESSENTIALLY A SHOE STORE. WINDOW SIGNS ARE REPLACED TWICE A YEAR, BUT IT IS A CONSTANT COVERING. THIS IS FROM THE APPLICANT'S INFORMATION, AND THIS IS JUST WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. THERE'RE THREE ROWS OF WINDOWS. IT'S THE BOTTOM TWO WINDOWS THAT ARE COVERED. AND THEN, LIKE I SAID, THE MOTIF CHANGES OVER THE OVER, YOU KNOW, OVER THE YEAR. I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS. THE APPLICANT IS HERE. I'LL GO THROUGH JUST FOR EVERYBODY. THERE'RE OTHER PICTURES HERE. YOU CAN SEE A CLOSE UP OF ONE SECTION OF THE WINDOWS. AND THAT'S WHERE THEY'RE GETTING THEIR MEASUREMENTS FROM AND I THAT'S OTHER PICTURES, TOO. AND THAT'S THE THAT'S WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. THAT'S THE LOCATION. GREAT. [00:05:01] SO, I'LL STOP THERE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. MR. SHARKEY. WITH THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE, LIKE TO COME UP AND SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE CASE, YOU CAN COME UP TO THE PODIUM HERE. I WILL ASK, SIR, THAT YOU JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD. SO I THINK BRIAN SAID BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IS TO CONTINUE DOING WHAT WE'VE DONE AT PLAYMAKER SINCE 2016, COVERING THE TO THE BOTTOM TWO ROWS OF WINDOWS. ON THE FRONT IT IS A WINDOW PERF. MYSELF, I LOVE THE NATURAL LIGHT. I LOVE BEING AT PLAYMAKERS WHERE YOU CAN SEE INSIDE AND OUTSIDE. IT REALLY DOES BRIDGE THE GAP OF IF YOU THINK ABOUT WORKING RETAIL, MAYBE IN AN AREA WHERE YOU DON'T GET A WHOLE LOT OF LIGHT, THE WINDOW PERF ALLOWS THAT LIGHT TO COME IN AND US TO BE ABLE TO SEE OUTSIDE. ON THE FLIP SIDE, IF YOU'RE LOOKING ON THE INSIDE OF PLAYMAKERS, IF YOU HAVE THE ENTRYWAY ON THE LEFT SIDE, WE HAVE A BIG MERCHANDIZING RACK THERE. SO IF YOU'RE LOOKING IN FROM THE OUTSIDE, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THE BACKSIDE OF THAT MERCHANDIZING RACK. SO THIS WINDOW PERF, THE GRAPHICS THAT WE USE REALLY BLOCK THE VIEW OF THAT. YOU CAN'T SEE IT. BUT AGAIN FROM THE INSIDE YOU CAN STILL SEE OUT. ON THE OTHER SIDE IS OUR COUNTER. AND YOU KNOW ORIGINALLY WE ACTUALLY HAD A FOAM CORE BOARDS WITH PICTURES ON THEM IN THERE. BUT WE REALLY WANT TO BLOCK COMPLETELY BLOCK THAT ENTIRE ROW OF VIEWING THE BACKSIDE OF OUR COUNTER FOR SECURITY REASONS, FOR IT JUST DOESN'T LOOK GREAT. I MEAN, YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE BACK OF RACKS AND SHELVES AND ALL OF THAT. SO THAT IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO CONTINUE TO DO. IN THE IMAGERY THAT WE'RE USING, WE KIND OF PARTNER WITH BRANDS AND WE DO BRAND IMAGERY. SO IT'S NOT LIKE A SALE. IT'S NOT LIKE, HEY, SAVE $25 ON MISS OR COME IN AND PURCHASE THIS. WE'RE TAKING LIFESTYLE IMAGERY FROM OUR BRANDS AND REPRESENTING A BRAND ON EACH SIDE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. MARSH. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE THIS EVENING? IF SO, YOU MAY COME UP TO THE PODIUM. OTHERWISE, MR. MARSH, I'LL JUST HAVE YOU STAY UP THERE. HOW ABOUT THAT? IF THERE'S NOBODY ELSE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE, JUST BECAUSE THAT'LL MAKE US MAKE IT EASIER FOR US TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH YOU AS WE GET INTO OUR BOARD TIME. SINCE I DO NOT SEE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THIS CASE, I WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS MOMENT AND GET INTO OUR BOARD TIME. SO THAT GIVES US THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO THE APPLICANT AND MR. SHORKEY FROM STAFF SO WE CAN CLARIFY ANYTHING WE NEED TO CLARIFY AND ASK AS MANY QUESTIONS AS WE'D LIKE. SO ANYBODY WANT TO GET STARTED? I GUESS I'LL GO AHEAD AND I'LL START. ALL RIGHT. FOR STAFF. YOU KNOW, YOU CAN FEEL FREE TO RESPOND IF MR. SHORKEY'S WRONG, BUT I DOUBT HE WILL BE, BECAUSE I KNOW HE KNOWS THIS. BUT IF YOU COULD, IF THERE'S ANY WAY IF NOT FOR PRIVACY REASONS, THAT'S FINE. BUT COULD YOU EMBELLISH US AND TELL US WHAT WAS THE REASONING FOR THE COMPLAINT? I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION. NO. OKAY. I DON'T. HOW ABOUT YOU, SIR? MR. MARSH, DO YOU HAVE. DID THEY GIVE YOU A REASON WHY THEY COMPLAINED ABOUT THE SIZE? DID THEY NOT LIKE THE WAY THEY LOOKED OR. NO. WE ACTUALLY NEVER HEARD FROM THE PERSON WHO FILED THE COMPLAINT. IT WAS TO THE TOWNSHIP. OKAY. I DO, I DID HAVE THE SAME SIMILAR QUESTION. IF WE IF WE HAD MORE INFORMATION AS TO WHAT THE WHAT THE WHAT THE ISSUE WAS THAT WE COULD KIND OF USE THAT TO KIND OF THINK ABOUT THIS, THIS CASE IN PARTICULAR. BUT I, MY QUESTION WOULD BE AND I KNOW GO AHEAD. I'LL JUST PIGGYBACK OFF THAT IS THAT I DO I. THE CHALLENGE WITH THE VARIANCES THAT WE'RE ALLOWING ANY KIND OF WINDOW COVERING SO THAT IF PLAYMAKERS WAS TO MOVE TO A NEW LOCATION OR, YOU KNOW, WE DO NOT WANT YOU TO LEAVE OUR COMMUNITY. WE LOVE HAVING PLAYMAKERS IN OUR COMMUNITY. DON'T GET ME WRONG. BUT IF PLAYMAKERS WOULD GO SOMEPLACE ELSE AND SOMEBODY ELSE TOOK OVER, THIS VARIANCE WOULD GO ALONG WITH THEM SO THEY COULD VERY WELL PUT UP. EVERYTHING MUST GO OR, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING, SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE LESS APPEALING. THAT SAID I DO LOVE THE IDEA THAT YOU DO HAVE THAT WINDOW PURSE. SO I'M ASSUMING THAT THAT MEANS THAT IT'S NOT A FULL, LIKE YOU SAID, SOMETHING ABOUT FOAM CORE. BUT IT'S JUST LIKE A IT ALMOST JUST HAS SMALL, SMALL ENOUGH HOLES THAT THE LIGHT CAN COME THROUGH. YOU CAN SEE OUT, BUT YOU CAN'T SEE IN. EXACTLY. IT'S A 50 OVER 50 WINDOW PERF. SO THAT MEANS IN REALITY, 50% OF THAT WINDOW IS COVERED. SO. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND JUST TO VERIFY WITH MR. SHORKEY, WHAT IS THE AMOUNT I'M TRYING TO LOOK THROUGH THERE? [00:10:02] THOSE IMAGES, WHAT IS THE AMOUNT THAT IS ACTUALLY COVERED RIGHT NOW? I THINK IT'S 16%. SO TOTAL WINDOW. OKAY. SO I CAN SEE THAT THE YEAH, I CAN SEE NO MORE THAN 40% OF THE SURFACE AREA THAT WINDOW WOULD BE USED. BUT I'M TRYING TO FIND WHAT LET ME LET ME BRING THIS UP ON THE. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND I IT WASN'T AT THE TIME I WAS LOOKING FOR IT. OKAY. AND MR. MARSH, YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT HERE'S WHERE I THINK THIS IS COMING FROM. THE 40% IS INDIVIDUAL WINDOWS. OKAY. AND AN INDIVIDUAL WINDOW CANNOT EXCEED 40% WITHOUT THE VARIANCE. SO, YOU HAVE A WINDOW? I SEE. OKAY, SO LOOKING AT THIS YOU ESSENTIALLY HAVE 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 24 SEPARATE. OKAY. BUT FOR OUR PURPOSES IT'S THE WINDOW. THE WINDOWS. AND THIS IS DEFINED AS THE LOWER TWO ROWS OF THE THREE ROWS OF WINDOWS. OKAY. THE OTHER THE OTHER THING IT SAYS IS NO MORE THAN 10% OF THE FRONTAGE. NOW WHEN YOU CALCULATED THE FRONTAGE YOU USE THE ENTIRE BUILDING OF THE FRONTAGE. I BASICALLY USE WHAT'S 2299. OKAY. ORIGINALLY 2299. YOU TAKE THE OLD COFFEE SHOP OR KIDS STORE OFF, AND THEN YOU TAKE THE OLD COUNTRY BUFFET OR THE ASIAN MARKET OFF. I'M SORRY. 2299. JUST THE ADDRESS. JUST THE ADDRESS. ADDRESS. YEAH. SO. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. SO IT'S THE FRONTAGE THAT'S ON PAGE 15 IN THE PACKET. IS THAT CORRECT? YES. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. SO OKAY. SO NOT WITH THE ADDITION OF THE COMMUNITY CENTER ROOM AND THE. THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WAS GETTING. OKAY. THAT'S HELPFUL. AND SO THAT'S WHERE THAT 16.5 COMES FROM. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S HELPFUL FOR ME AS FAR AS SIZE GOES. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE OR SO TO THAT QUESTION. SO WHAT'S THE PERCENT THAT'S ALLOWED TO BE COVERED FOR THE FRONT THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING BY SIGNS. TOTAL FRONTAGE IS 10%. OKAY. I SEE. THAT'S. YEAH. SO ARE WE GRANTING A VARIANCE FOR THE TOTAL COVERAGE AND FOR THE WINDOW? YEAH. YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO APPROVE TWO VARIANCES FOR INDIVIDUAL WINDOWS. AND THIS WOULD BE DEFINED AS THE TWO LOWER TWO OF THE THREE ROWS OF WINDOWS. I WANT TO BE CLEAR ON THAT. RIGHT. OVER 40% ON THOSE INDIVIDUAL WINDOWS, AND THEN THE TOTAL AMOUNT, YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY BEING ASKED FOR A 6.5% IN 16%, 16.5% OF THE TOTAL OF THE FRONTAGE OF THE BUSINESS, RATHER THAN 10% OF THE FRONTAGE OF THE BUSINESS. SO YOU'RE ASKING FOR A 6.5% VARIANCE AS WELL. SO A 20% VARIANCE ON THE TOTAL WINDOW AREA COVERED AND A 6.5% ON THE TOTAL BUILDING FRONTAGE COVERED. CORRECT. IS THAT WHAT I? WELL, THE WINDOWS ARE THE ON THE FIRST. ON THE FIRST ONE IT SAYS NO MORE THAN 40%. FROM THE OUTSIDE IT LOOKS LIKE THOSE WINDOWS ARE COVERED. THAT'S YOU KNOW, IT'S 100% NOT TO GET SUPER TECHNICAL. SORRY IF I'M JUMPING IN. NO, NO. GO AHEAD. BUT. SO HOW DO WE DEFINE A SIGN IN THIS CONTEXT? IT'S THE PART OF THE WINDOW CONVEYING A MESSAGE. SO IS A THIS HAS BEEN DEFINED AS A THESE HAVE BEEN DEFINED AS SIGNS. OKAY. SO A PICTURE LIKE A PHOTO OF NATURE IS A SIGN. IT'S NOT. IT'S NOT ARTWORK. IT'S BRANDING. IT'S PARTNERSHIP WITH BRANDS. IT IS DEFINED AS A SIGN. YES OKAY. MAYBE FROM A PLAYMAKER'S PERSPECTIVE, IF I CAN SPEAK LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO FIT OUR RETAIL BUSINESS IN A BUILDING THAT WAS BUILT IN 1957. AND, YOU KNOW, THROUGH THE YEARS, WE MOVED INTO THAT BUILDING IN 20 2002. WE'VE MET WITH, YOU KNOW, EXPERTS IN MERCHANDIZING, EXPERTS IN RETAIL, EXPERTS IN SECURITY, AND HOW OUR STORE IS LAID OUT REALLY COMES FROM ALL OF THOSE MEETINGS WITH HOW OUR STORES ARE LAID OUT, THOUGH YOU NECESSARILY LIKE BLOCKING THAT SIGHT LINE IN, I THINK IS REALLY IMPORTANT. WELL, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE LEFT SIDE OF THE VESTIBULE, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THE BACK OF A FIXTURE. AND SO IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO WINDOW PERF, THE OTHER QUESTION IS: WHAT ARE YOU ALLOWED TO DO IN THIS SITUATION? BECAUSE YOU'RE JUST GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THE BACK OF A FIXTURE, WHICH ISN'T APPEALING FOR US, IS NOT, I THINK FROM A RETAIL STANDPOINT, THAT'S NOT A GREAT LOOK FOR THE OUTSIDE OF YOUR BUSINESS. FROM A TOWNSHIP STANDPOINT, WHAT CAN WE DO TO MAKE THE BUILDING REPRESENT MAYBE WHAT THE TOWNSHIP WANTS TO REPRESENT AESTHETICALLY? I MEAN, WE WANT IT FROM A PLAYMAKER STANDPOINT TO BE VERY ESTHETICALLY PLEASING, TO DRAW CUSTOMERS IN. [00:15:01] ALSO, AS A MAYBE A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY, AN ACTIVE MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY, WE WANT IT TO REPRESENT WHAT THE TOWNSHIP WANTS AS WELL. SO WE REALLY WANT TO WORK WITH THE TOWNSHIP ON BEING ABLE TO BLOCK THE WINDOWS, BUT HAVE IT LOOK REALLY, REALLY GOOD AND APPEAL TO OUR CUSTOMER BASE. I COULD SEE TO THAT. I AND THIS MAY NOT BE A QUESTION YOU CAN ANSWER NECESSARILY, BUT WITHOUT THIS COMPLAINT, OBVIOUSLY. OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS NOT YOU KNOW, THERE ISN'T AN EXISTING VARIANCE. BUT WITHOUT THIS COMPLAINT, WOULD THIS HAVE BEEN SOMETHING THE TOWNSHIP WOULD HAVE TOUCHED OR JUST WOULD HAVE LEFT ALONE? NO. SO THE COMPLAINT HAPPENED. AND THEN THEY WERE ALMOST, I WANT TO SAY, FORCED. YOU'RE DOING THE RIGHT THING BY COMING TO THE BUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO TAKE CARE OF IT. AND B, YES, GREAT CITIZENS OF THE TOWNSHIP AND GREAT BUSINESS OWNERS IN THE TOWNSHIP. SO THEY'RE DOING THE RIGHT THING BY COMING FORWARD. CORRECT. HEY, WE WANT TO WORK WITH YOU. WE WANT TO BE, YOU KNOW, IN BUSINESS WITH THE TOWNSHIP, IN OUR IN OUR TOWNSHIP. AND THIS IS WHERE OUR HOME IS. AND I THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT THAT TO ME FOR, AS YOU KNOW, AS ANOTHER REPRESENTATIVE OF THE TOWNSHIP THAT I FEEL LIKE IS SOMETHING THAT IS VALUABLE. WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF BUSINESSES THAT ARE COMING FORWARD AND SAYING, HEY, WE WANT TO DO THE RIGHT THING. THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN ALL THE TIME. YES. MEMBER THE AS YOU POINTED OUT, THOUGH, IF THIS IS APPROVED, IT RUNS WITH. IT RUNS WITH THE PROPERTY. YES. WE CANNOT GOVERN THE CONTENT OF THE SIGNS. SO IF ANOTHER. EVEN IF IT CONTINUED IN THE SAME MANNER, THEY COULD CHANGE THE SIGNS TOMORROW. ABSOLUTELY. AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT YOU WOULD DO THAT. I DO LIKE THE APPEARANCE HERE. THE QUESTION IS THE LONG TERM IMPACT IF WE GRANT THE VARIANCE. YEAH. I DID HAVE A QUESTION. YOU'VE GOT TWO LEVELS. TWO LEVELS OF WINDOW. HOW HIGH DO YOU NEED TO GO? SO ON THE LEFT SIDE, OUR FIXTURE ACTUALLY GOES ALMOST PROBABLY RIGHT THROUGH THE A6. IF YOU ZOOM IN ON THAT LEFT SIDE OF THE VESTIBULE. SO ON THE RIGHT SIDE, YOU COULD PROBABLY GET BY THE FIRST ROW, BUT THEN YOU'RE GOING TO BE OFF ON THE TWO WINDOWS. SO YOU'D HAVE TWO ROWS ON ONE AND ONE SIDE ON THE OTHER. SO MAYBE MY QUESTION BACK TO THE BOARD WOULD BE. YOU CAN'T GOVERN THE CONTENTS OF WHAT'S GOING UP THERE. COULD YOU GOVERN? I THINK HISTORICALLY IN HOW WE'VE DONE IT; WE ARE AGAIN REPRESENTING OUR BRANDS THROUGH THE WINDOWS. COULD YOU SAY THAT YOU'D HAVE ONE LOGO PER SIDE WITH THIS VARIANCE REQUEST AND WELL, YEAH. ANYTHING CONTENT RELATED. CONTENT NEUTRAL. OFFLINE. UNFORTUNATELY. UNFORTUNATE. OKAY. YEAH. I LIKE WHAT YOU'RE THINKING. YEAH. OR EVEN IF IT ALL HAD TO BE PICTURES AND NO WRITING OR ANYTHING. NO, THEY CAN'T DO THAT. YEAH. YEAH. UNFORTUNATELY, THAT'S PART OF THE PART OF THE ORDINANCE. ORDINANCE IS THAT WE CAN'T GOVERN ON CONTENT. OKAY. HOWEVER, CAN WE MAKE A STIPULATION IN THE VARIANCE THAT THIS WINDOW PERF, THIS THIS 50% WOULD NEED TO BE USED TO FOR THIS VARIANCE TO BE. IS THAT SOMETHING WE COULD TACK ON TO THE VARIANCE, THE MATERIAL. THE MATERIAL? YES. YOU CAN. YOU CAN REGULATE MATERIAL OF A SIGN. OKAY, SO MY CURIOSITY IN THAT IS THAT I. THIS IS I WILL BE COMPLETELY HONEST THAT MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS THAT IT'S JUST BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT THIS GOES WITH THE BUILDING. WE'VE UNFORTUNATELY HAD SOME CHALLENGES WITH THAT APPROVED SIGNAGE THAT THEN HAS BEEN TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF IN DIFFERENT WAYS. AND LOOKING AT YOU CRUNCH FITNESS. BUT I'M SORRY. PLEASE STRIKE THAT FROM THE RECORD. BUT THAT SAID, WE. WHERE CAN WE GO? WHAT CAN WE DO TO WORK WITH A BUSINESS THAT WANTS TO BE IN THE TOWNSHIP THAT'S DOING THE RIGHT THING, THAT IS COMING TO US SAYING, WE WANT TO BE HERE, WE WANT TO DO BUSINESS HERE, AND WE PLAN TO BE HERE FOR A LONG TIME DOING IT. SO IF IT'S A MATERIAL, IF WE CAN STIPULATE A MATERIAL, IS THAT A WAY TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE NOT GETTING THAT. THE SIGNAGE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID IN THE TOWNSHIP, WHICH IS AND PLANNING AND BOARD MEMBERS WILL KNOW MORE. WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID IT BEING AN EYESORE. WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID IT LOOKING LIKE, YOU KNOW, NOT AS ESTHETICALLY PLEASING, RIGHT? NOT AS ESTHETICALLY PLEASING AS AS YOU KNOW, WE'RE HOPING WE'RE HOPING FOR THE TOWNSHIP TO APPEAR WHEN WE WHEN PEOPLE ARE DRIVING THROUGH THAT CORRIDOR. SO WHAT CAN WE DO AS A BOARD TO GET THERE I GUESS IS MY, MY QUESTION. I CAN LOOK AT THE CRITERIA RIGHT NOW AND I CAN MEET THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR SURE. [00:20:06] I DO THIS IS THIS I'M GOING TO STRUGGLE WITH THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES A LITTLE BIT HERE UNLESS WE CAN GET TO HOW WE CAN MAKE IT MORE NEUTRAL FOR ANY FUTURE BUSINESS IN THIS, THAT POTENTIAL BUSINESS THAT WOULD BE IN THIS STRUCTURE. MINIMUM ACTION. IS ANYBODY ABLE TO REACH MINIMUM ACTION YET OR DOES IT STILL FEEL. LIKE IT'S BEEN TOO BECAUSE I, I THINK WONDERING IF WE COULD MINIMIZE. I UNDERSTAND I COULD I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THE 16.5%. TOTAL USAGE. YEAH. THAT VARIANCE FOR 6.5% FOR THE BOTTOM WINDOWS OR WHATEVER. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. YEAH, IT'S THE SECOND ROW OF WINDOWS AND THE THESE I THINK MR. SHORKEY INDICATED THAT THE RULE IS NO MORE THAN 40% OF A SINGLE WINDOW. THAT IS CORRECT. SO EACH ONE OF THESE WINDOWS IS 100%. OH, RIGHT. WHICH IS A DESIGN FLAW. WELL, IT'S INTERESTING HOW THE HOW IT'S THE CODE IS ACTUALLY WRITTEN BECAUSE IT IS HOW I READ THE CODE IS WE'RE ONLY 10% OVER THE CODE BECAUSE IT'S WINDOW PERF. YOU'RE COVERING THE ENTIRE WINDOW WITH THE IMAGE, BUT IN FACT YOU'RE ONLY COVERING 50% OF THAT WINDOW. SO AND I'M GOING TO YOUR QUESTION, THAT IS AN OPTION. YOU CAN STIPULATE THAT IT REMAINED THE PERFORATED WINDOW VINYL GRAPHIC MATERIAL. THAT'S THE PHRASE THAT THE APPLICANT USES. IS THAT OKAY. AND THEN YOU'RE NOT GETTING, YOU KNOW, POSTER BOARDS. RIGHT. AND SOMETHING OPAQUE. YEAH. YEAH, YEAH OKAY. I THINK THOUGH THAT THEY COULD LOOK THE SAME DEPENDING ON THE COLORATION PATTERNS THAT WE USED. BECAUSE I THOUGHT ABOUT THE WINDOW PERF STUFF TOO. AND IT'S LIKE IT'S ONLY 50% COVERED. SO TECHNICALLY THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT YOU HAVE THAT YOU'RE SHOWING US IS YOU COULD REDUCE THAT BY 50% UNLESS YOU ALREADY DID THAT. NO, I HAVE NOT DONE THAT. I MEAN, AGAIN, WE'RE TRYING TO BE GOOD. YEAH. NO, I DIDN'T THINK YOU WERE. I WAS JUST SAYING LIKE THAT. LIKE, TECHNICALLY, I LOOKED AT IT. YEAH. WITH THAT LENS THAT IT'S TECHNICALLY A 50% WINDOW COVERING PER WINDOW. THEN WE'RE ONLY AT TEN. IF WE'RE ONLY GRANTING A VARIANCE OF 10% PER WINDOW VERSUS THE IDEA THAT WE'RE GRANTING 60% OF A VARIANCE. BUT IF YOU DO THAT, YOU BETTER SPECIFY THE WINDOW PERF RIGHT. BECAUSE STAFF DID NOT READ THAT. YES. AND I WILL AND I. OKAY. SO, AND I WILL SAY I VERY MUCH WOULD NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE GRANTING VARIANCE WITHOUT THE, WITHOUT A STIPULATION FOR WINDOW PERF. SO, IF WE WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. AND THAT GOES BACK TO MY VERY BEGINNING. WE LOVE OUR BUSINESS. WE LOVE THE NATURAL LIGHT THAT COMES INTO IT, AND A LOT OF THAT IS ALLOWABLE BY HAVING WINDOWS ON THERE. IF YOU PUT STRAIGHT VINYL ON THE FRONT, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET ANY LIGHT. IT'S GOING TO DRAMATICALLY CHANGE WHAT THE ESTHETICS THAT WE'RE GOING FOR. ABSOLUTELY, YES. HAVE YOU EXPLORED LIKE CUTTING THE TOP? OF THE DISPLAY IN HALF OR REDUCING IT BY SOME SIZE SO THAT THEN YOU WOULD BE WITHIN THE FIRST VARIANCE. WE HAVE NOT. THAT IS A CUSTOM DISPLAY. THAT WOULD TAKE QUITE A BIT OF WORK TO HAVE THAT ADJUSTED DOWN. AND PART OF WHY WE WOULD WHY OUR INTEREST WOULD NOT BE DOING THAT IS IT IS A FULL HEIGHT DISPLAY. SO IF YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT APPAREL AND ALL OF THAT, YOU WANT THAT HEIGHT THAT GOES ABOVE THAT WINDOW. SO COMING FROM, CAN I ASK MEMBER BROOKS AND MEMBER, COMING FROM A PLANNING BACKGROUND, WHAT IS THE? WHEN YOU THINK OF THE SPIRIT OF THIS ORDINANCE AND WHY FOR THIS WINDOW COVERING IS THAT ARE WE LOOKING AT MORE OF A SAFETY ISSUE? ARE WE LOOKING AT PURELY ESTHETICS AND KEEPING WITH THAT KIND OF LOOK THAT THEY WANT TO SEE ALONG THAT CORRIDOR, OR WHAT IS WHAT IS THE CURIOUS ABOUT THE SPIRIT OF THAT? I THINK THE SAFETY ISSUE IS YOU WANT TO THE POLICE AND WHATEVER MAY NEED TO LOOK INTO THE BUILDING, SEE WHAT'S GOING ON. THAT'S PART OF IT. AND THE ESTHETICS CERTAINLY IS PART OF IT THAT YOU DON'T WANT BASICALLY A BILLBOARD [00:25:05] PUT UP THERE AND AN EVER-CHANGING BILLBOARD WITH THAT SIGN'S UGLY SIGNS, HANDWRITTEN SIGNS. I MEAN, IT, ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAD TO BE CONTENT NEUTRAL, YOU CAN'T CONTROL THAT. ONCE IT'S THERE, IT'S THERE. OKAY. THAT DOES THAT DOES HELP. AND IF YOU DO DRIVE THE CORRIDOR THOUGH, YOU WILL NOTICE THAT THERE IS I MEAN THAT ENTIRE CORRIDOR. IF YOU DRIVE ANYWHERE IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP, ANY BUSINESS THAT'S TRYING TO USE AN EXISTING STRUCTURE TO MOVE INTO. THERE ARE, I WOULD SAY, QUITE A FEW BUSINESSES THAT HAVE FIXTURES RACKING AND ALL OF THAT. AND THERE'S WAYS THAT ARE THERE'S WAYS LIKE THE WINDOW PROOF THAT I THINK WELL REPRESENT WHAT PLAYMAKERS IS ABOUT AND HOPEFULLY REPRESENT IMAGERY THAT THE COMMUNITY CAN STAND BY. AND THERE'S OTHER WAYS TO DO IT THAT I DON'T THINK ESTHETICALLY ARE PLEASING AT ALL, WOULD REPRESENT WHAT PLAYMAKERS WANTS ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING, AND I THINK THE OVERALL LOOK FOR THE TOWNSHIP IS LESS WELCOMING, IF YOU WILL. SO I MEAN, THERE'S OTHER BUSINESSES THAT THAT HAVE ISSUES WITH IT LIKE THIS. SO YEAH. YEAH, I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE, LIKE, THE ORDINANCES OR WHY WE HAVE THEM. EXACTLY. I HAVEN'T BEEN ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION LONG ENOUGH TO KNOW ALL THOSE REASONS, BUT FROM A I MEAN, FROM A MASTER PLAN PERSPECTIVE, I APPRECIATE PLAYMAKERS USE OF AN EXISTING BUILDING AND THAT IT DOES HAVE UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS TO IT. AND THAT THAT MAKES THIS A LITTLE BIT THIS MORE NUANCED THAN SOME BRAND-NEW BUILDING THAT WAS BUILT BEYOND WHAT EXISTING CODE IS. WELL, I GO BACK LONG ENOUGH TO REMEMBER WHEN IT WAS A GROCERY STORE AND THEY HAD SIGNS IN THE WINDOWS WERE NOT NEARLY AS ESTHETICALLY PLEASING AS THESE. RIGHT? AND I WAS EVEN HERE WHEN IT BURNED. SO THERE YOU GO. VISITING MY COUSIN. SO I DO LIKE THE LOOK, AND I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE GET THERE. YEAH. AND I DO LIKE THE IDEA OF FINDING THAT A 50% PERFECT WINDOW REPRESENTS ONLY 50% OF THE COVERAGE, AND WE WOULD GRANT A 10% VARIANCE TO ALLOW THAT. YEAH, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO STATE OUR REASONING TOO, AS FAR AS WHY WE WHY WE ARE INTERPRETING THIS. WELL, AND I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE AND THAT'S WHERE THE CRITERIA COME IN. IF WE CAN MEET THE CRITERIA THEN I THINK THAT SATISFIES WHY WE'RE APPROVING THAT. BUT ALSO I WOULD AGREE. I DO THINK THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT ABSOLUTELY NEEDS TO BE. YEAH. SORRY. GO AHEAD. I HAVE A QUESTION. SO WHEN WE GRANT A VARIANCE LIKE THIS AND THIS, THIS MIGHT BE FOR YOU, MR. SHORKEY. WHEN WE GRANT A VARIANCE LIKE THIS, CAN OTHER APPLICANTS USE THAT IN THEIR RATIONALE? THEY CAN ARGUE IT, BUT LEGALLY SPEAKING, A VARIANCE ON A PROPERTY IS NEVER PRECEDENT SETTING ON ANOTHER PROPERTY. EACH PROPERTY, NO MATTER IF THEY'RE NEXT DOOR WITH IDENTICAL HOUSES. EACH PROPERTY IS UNIQUE. IT'S A REAL ESTATE PRINCIPLE AS WELL. OKAY, THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW. IT'S DIFFERENT IN EVERY STATE. YES. OKAY. WELL, I'M GOING TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE CRITERIA AND SEE IF WE CAN'T SEE WHAT WE CAN AGREE ON. CRITERIA NUMBER ONE STATES THAT UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE PRESENT OR EXIST THAT ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND OR STRUCTURE, THAT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LAND OR STRUCTURES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT, AND THAT THESE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SELF-CREATED. I DEFINITELY CAN TAKE A LOOK JUST AT THE FRONTAGE OF THIS BUILDING, KNOWING THE HISTORY, AS MEMBER POINTED OUT, AND KNOW THAT THIS IS A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE. WE DON'T HAVE ANOTHER BUILDING QUITE LIKE THIS ONE IN THE TOWNSHIP AND COULD NOT HAVE ANTICIPATED THESE INDIVIDUAL WINDOWS BEING, YOU KNOW, IN WRITING A MASTER PLAN AND WRITING THIS ORDINANCE. SO I WILL SAY THAT, YES, I CAN MEET THAT CRITERIA. ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ON I THINK IT'S A STRETCH TO WEIGH IN A WAY, BUT IT IS A UNIQUE BUILDING IN THAT IT'S GOT A LARGE FACADE OF INDIVIDUAL WINDOWS, WHICH MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO APPLY THIS PARTICULAR CODE PROVISION IN SOME WAYS SENSIBLY. RIGHT. WELL, AND I DO THINK THAT ALSO, I THINK AS MUCH AS WE ARE FOCUSED ON THE WINDOWS, I THINK THE INTERIOR OF THE BUSINESS AS WELL ALSO LEADS TO WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOME OF THE RETAIL CHALLENGES. SO REGARDLESS OF THE FUNCTION OF THE RETAIL INSIDE OF THE BUILDING, THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME CHALLENGE. [00:30:03] I MEAN, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT NEEDING THAT THAT COVERAGE FOR, YOU KNOW, CASH WRAP ALL THOSE THINGS ANYWAY. SO THAT'S I WOULD BE ABLE TO FIND THAT UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE PRETTY FAIRLY EASILY. MEMBER I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY AS WELL, I MEAN, EVEN LOOKING AT THIS PICTURE, YOU KNOW, A LARGE PORTION OF THE FRONT OF THIS BUILDING BECAUSE IT IS OLDER IS GLASS. IT'S NOT LIKE YOUR TYPICAL BUILDING LIKE YOU SEE NOW OR, YOU KNOW, JUST HAVE SPECIFIC WINDOWS, SPECIFIC AREAS. IF YOU WERE TO PUT MORE SIGNS UP THERE NEXT TO THAT PLAYMAKERS, IN MY OPINION IT WOULD ALMOST LOOK A LITTLE GAUDY. SO THIS ALLOWS IT TO HAVE THE SIGNS A LITTLE BIT LOWER SO YOU CAN SEE THEM. IN ADDITION, I THINK THE WHATEVER THE TERM IS THAT YOU USE FOR THE 50% WITH THE HOLES IN THE WINDOW FOR THE WINDOW, IT ACTUALLY, I THINK IS A BENEFIT TO YOU BECAUSE YOU'RE BUILDING A SET BACK A LITTLE BIT FARTHER THAN THE TYPICAL BUILDING ALONG THERE OFF FROM THE ROAD. SO IF YOU WERE TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, YOU STILL SEE 100% OF THE PICTURE, ALTHOUGH IT'S ONLY 50% COVERAGE, IT ALLOWS YOU TO STILL HAVE A PICTURE BIG ENOUGH THAT PEOPLE COULD SEE IT FROM THE ROAD. ABSOLUTELY. THIS IS STILL LETTING LIGHT THROUGH. IT'S NOT A FULL SIZE PICTURE BECAUSE THESE WINDOWS ARE SO LARGE, AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF THIS FRONTAGE LOOKS LIKE IN HERE TO ME. I CAN'T SEE THE SIDES, AND I HAVEN'T DRIVEN BY THERE IN SEVERAL WEEKS, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, BUT IT'S NOT IN MY OPINION. IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, ORDINARY TO SEE A LARGE AMOUNT OF GLASS LIKE THIS ON THE FRONT OF A BUILDING UNLESS IT'S, YOU KNOW, A REAL LOWER, LIKE A PAYLESS SHOE STORE WHERE THEY HAD ALL GLASS. BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO AMOUNT TO THE AMOUNT THAT YOU HAD HERE. SO YOU'RE VERY I DON'T WANT TO SAY LIMITED, BUT LACK OF A BETTER TERM, YOU KIND OF ARE LIMITED ON WHERE YOU CAN PUT SIGNAGE UP HERE, UNLESS YOU WANT IT TO BE ALL VERY HIGH AND UP BY THE CURB. PART OF THE BUILDING. JUST AN OBSERVATION. YEAH, I WOULD AGREE. ALL RIGHT. LET'S SEE HERE. LET ME GET BACK TO MY CRITERIA. OKAY. SECOND CRITERIA IS 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 THIS PROPERTY FOR THE PERMITTED PURPOSE. AS I SAID, THIS IS THE ONE WHERE I'M GOING TO FIND A LITTLE BIT OF CHALLENGE. BECAUSE DO THE WINDOW COVERINGS NEED TO EXIST IN ORDER FOR THE BUSINESS TO EXIST? AND THAT'S WHERE CURTAINS WOULD WORK, TOO; RIGHT? SO I GUESS THE QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU, YOU'VE BEEN ON THIS COMMISSION LONGER BOARD LONGER THAN I HAVE. DO WE HAVE TO MEET ALL FIVE CRITERIA? WE HAVE TO MEET ALL FIVE CRITERIA. OKAY. AND NOW, LIKE YOU SAID ABOUT UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, SOME OF OUR CRITERIA MAY BE A LITTLE BIT OF A STRETCH. YES. HOWEVER, WE DO, AND I AND I THINK THAT THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR NOT ONLY FOR THE BOARD TO STAND BEHIND AND FOR LEGAL PURPOSES, BUT ALSO FOR THE APPLICANT TO KNOW THAT, THAT WE'VE REALLY BEEN ABLE TO MEET THOSE. AND WE COULD COME WITH. WE COULD COME UP WITH A LOT OF DIFFERENT A LOT OF DIFFERENT PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES. IT COULD BE. IT COULD BE BRANDING AS [INAUDIBLE] JUST MENTIONED THAT, YOU KNOW, ANY OTHER ATTEMPTS AT BRANDING AT THE OUTSIDE OF THIS BUILDING WOULD LIKELY RESULT IN SOME KIND OF VARIANCE WITH THE LIKELY RESULT IN SOME KIND OF CHALLENGE. AND I'M CURIOUS, YOU MENTIONED CURTAINS. I'M CURIOUS IF THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED WINDOW COVERINGS. IT'S NOT WINDOW COVERINGS. IT'S SIGNS. IT'S NOT SIGNAGE. IT'S NOT SIGNAGE. SO IT'S A WINDOW COVERING. OKAY. SO THAT'S INTERESTING. SO, THE CURTAINS WE HAVE HAD IN THE PAST, MANY BLINDS ON THE INSIDE, AND I THINK FROM A SECURITY STANDPOINT, FROM, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE IS BEING ABLE TO SEE OUT BUT NOT IN IS GREAT. IF THERE WAS SOMETHING GOING TO HAPPEN, IF WE FELT THERE WAS A SECURITY RISK OUTSIDE, WE WOULD POTENTIALLY BE ABLE TO SEE IT SOONER THAN THEY ACTUALLY COME INTO THE BUILDING. THANK GOD THAT HASN'T HAPPENED WHERE WE'VE HAD ANYTHING SIGNIFICANT. BUT THERE IS THAT CONSIDERATION AS WELL FROM OUR STANDPOINT, FROM OUR MANAGERS STANDPOINT, FROM OUR PEOPLE WORKING THE COUNTER STANDPOINT. THEY LIKE THAT ABILITY TO BE BEHIND THE COVERED WALL WHERE THEY CAN STILL SEE WHAT'S COMING IN, WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE PARKING LOT, WHILE ALSO BEING KIND OF BLOCKED FROM VIEW. ON THE FLIP SIDE OF JUST BEING A GOOD RETAILER, I GUESS WE REALLY LIKE THAT WINDOW PERF. IF WE SEE SOMEONE STRUGGLING OUT IN THE PARKING LOT WITH A WALKER OR SOMEONE WITH MOBILITY ISSUES, SOMEONE WHO DROPS SOMETHING AND WE SEE THEM. OUR STAFF DOES ROUTINELY GO OUT THERE AND HELP THEM. AND AGAIN, IF YOU BLOCK THAT WITH CURTAINS, IF YOU BLOCK THAT WITH MINI BLINDS, YOU DON'T HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT, MR. MARSH. MY QUESTION ABOUT THAT THEN RELATES TO CRITERIA. I'M GOING TO PUT A PIN IN CRITERIA TWO FOR A MOMENT, BECAUSE THAT WOULD GET INTO CRITERIA THREE FOR ME, WHICH WOULD BE SECURING PUBLIC SAFETY. [00:35:07] AND IF CURTAINS ARE ALLOWED, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE OF NOT BEING ABLE TO SEE IN. BUT CURTAINS ARE MINI BLINDS ARE ALLOWED. ISN'T THAT THE SAME? AREN'T WE? WHY IS ONE ALLOWED AND NOT THE OTHER? BECAUSE THAT GETS ME BACK TO THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE. IS IT BECAUSE OF SAFETY? AND WE NEED TO SEE IT? BECAUSE IF THAT WAS THE CASE, THEN THE WINDOW COVERINGS SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED EITHER. BUT IS IT MORE ABOUT ESTHETICS? I THINK IT'S MORE ABOUT ESTHETICS. OKAY. BUT I BELIEVE THAT PROVISION HAS MUCH TO DO WITH SIGHT LINES AND BEING ABLE TO MONITOR WHAT'S GOING ON AROUND THE BUILDINGS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BECAUSE THIS THE ZONING OR THE SIGN ORDINANCE APPLIES MORE THAN JUST BUILDINGS, RIGHT? SO BUT AND THE VARIANCE DOES TOO. WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT CRITERIA ACROSS THE BOARD. AND IN SOME PLACES THE VARIANCE WOULD IMPACT, WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SIGNAGE. RIGHT. SO I THINK THAT CAN BE MET FRANKLY. YEAH. AND I THINK FOR NUMBER TWO. A RETAIL STORE WANTS TO AND NEEDS TO HAVE ITS CHECKOUT COUNTERS NEAR AN EXIT DOOR. IN ORDER TO PREVENT SOMEONE GOING THROUGH CHECKOUT, GOING BACK IN AND ABSOLUTELY SHOPLIFTING. IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO CONTROL. SO. AND WITH THIS PLATE GLASS IN FRONT OF THEM. I THINK IT'S A UNIQUE SITUATION THAT MAKES THAT ENCOURAGES US TO ALLOW THIS VARIANCE UNDER OUR CRITERIA TO COUNCIL MEMBER KOENIG AND I WOULD PIGGYBACK ON WHAT YOU SAID. I REMEMBER GOING BACK TO THE 40%. I MEAN, I'M THE 16% I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT. I MEAN, EVEN IF YOU I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO GET INTO THAT, BUT THE 40% ARE. IF YOU WERE TO CUT THOSE WINDOW SIGNS IN HALF, THEY MAY BE VERY DIFFICULT TO SEE FROM THE ROAD. OR NOW YOU WOULD HAVE SIGN OPEN SPACE, SIGN OPEN SPACE. IT WOULD LOOK INCREDIBLY STRANGE JUST BECAUSE A LARGE PORTION OF THAT FRONTAGE IS GLASS. IT'S NOT SOLID WALL TO WHERE IF THEY WERE TRYING TO PUT THIS, I MEAN, PICTURE THIS ALL AS BEING SOLID AND THEY'RE TRYING TO PUT THESE HUGE, YOU KNOW, 20 BY 30 SIGNS ON THEIR RIGHT. THIS BOARD MAY LOOK AT THAT DIFFERENTLY, BUT BECAUSE IN MY EYES, YOU KNOW, THIS IS UNIQUE BECAUSE IT DOES HAVE A LARGE PORTION OF IT. THAT'S GLASS TO WHERE THE SIGNS, UNLESS THEY PUT THEM ALL ON THE TOP, THE SIGNS HAVE TO ALMOST BE THROWN IN THE GLASS OR WAY, ON THE SIDES AND ON THE WINGS. YOU CAN'T REALLY SEE HERE AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S OVER THERE IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING OVER THERE. BUT I THINK THAT'S, YOU KNOW, GOING BACK TO NUMBER ONE. AND THEN AGAIN, TO ME, THE INTERPRETATION OF IT IS IF WE'RE GOING HOME TO THE 40% THAT EACH WINDOW IS GOING TO HAVE ONLY HALF THE SIGN ON THERE, IF THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT. AND I THINK THAT WOULD JUST LOOK A LITTLE STRANGE TO PEOPLE, AND THEN YOU STILL WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE IN THERE IT WOULD AFFECT THE SAFETY OF IT, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. AND IF YOU WERE GOING TO BUILD A NEW BUILDING THAT LOOKS LIKE THIS WITH THE SAME AMOUNT OF GLASS, YOUR PANES ARE PROBABLY GOING TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY LARGER. SO IF YOU DRIVE DOWN LIKE NEW WINDOWS, I MEAN, WE HAVE A LOT OF GLASS IN THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING, BUT THE PANES AREN'T AS LARGE AS YOU WOULD SEE ON A NEW BUILD. SO YOU WOULD GET YOU WOULD GET A LOT BIGGER SIGN. ABSOLUTELY. SO TO TAKE UP THAT 40% MEMBER BROOKS MR., I'M COMING BACK TO YOU AGAIN. SO THE IF THIS IF THESE WERE, IF THIS WAS THE VINYL PERF OR WHATEVER MATERIAL LIKE THAT AND IT WASN'T BRANDED, THEN WOULD THIS BE AN ISSUE? IT'S ATTACHED TO THE WINDOW. YEAH. IT FALLS UNDER THE SIGN CODE. YES. OKAY. SO ANYTHING THAT GOES ON A WINDOW USUALLY FALLS UNDER THIS. I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT OUR SIGN ORDINANCES TO SEE WHAT THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT IS. BUT TYPICALLY, A SIGN ORDINANCE WILL SAY IT'S A WALL SIGN IF IT'S WITHIN A CERTAIN NUMBER OF INCHES. SO JUST SO YOU KNOW, YOU ROUTINELY SEE LIKE SMALL MOM AND POP SHOPS IN DOWNTOWNS, THEY'VE GOT DISPLAYS, RIGHT. THOSE DISPLAYS AREN'T WINDOWS, BUT WHEN THE STUFF GETS RIGHT UP TO CLOSE TO THE GLASS, IT BECOMES DEFINED AS WINDOW SIGNAGE. DOES THAT. OKAY. SO REGARDLESS OF WHAT IT DEPICTS, IT'S ON THE WINDOW. IT'S SIGNAGE. IT'S CONVEYING A MESSAGE OF SOME SORT. AND THIS BOARD DOESN'T HAVE ANY PURVIEW OVER THE CONTENT. RIGHT. YEAH. THAT'S THE THAT'S THE HARDEST PART IS THAT EVEN IF IT LIKE WE CAN'T EVEN SPECIFY THAT IT WE COULD. [00:40:06] THAT'S WHY I ASKED IF WE COULD SPECIFY MATERIAL. WE COULDN'T SPECIFY THAT. IT COULD ONLY BE LIKE LET'S SAY THE MIDDLE ROW WAS JUST A NEUTRAL COLOR OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. WE CAN'T. WE HAVE NO PURVIEW OVER WHAT THE ACTUAL SIGNS ARE. CORRECT. ONLY THE SIGNS HERE ARE NOT PRODUCT RELATED. THEY'RE MORE LIKE ARTWORK AND WALKING AND WHATEVER THEY DON'T REFER TO DIRECTLY. YEAH. BRANDED. YEAH. SO THAT IS NOT THAT'S STILL A SIGN RIGHT? RIGHT. BUT THAT IS AT LEAST FOR WHEN PLAYMAKER SAYS THAT THAT IS USUALLY OUR GOAL IS TO HAVE IT A LITTLE MORE LIFESTYLE THAN PRODUCT. OCCASIONALLY SOME PRODUCT FLOWS INTO IT. BUT AGAIN, AND WE NEVER IT'S NEVER SALESY FOR US, I GUESS. NO, IT'S MEETING THE CUSTOMER LIFESTYLE, WHICH IS YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE HARDEST PART ABOUT THAT IS THAT IT'S ALL THE RIGHT THINGS. BUT YOU KNOW, YOU WOULD HOPE THAT A BUSINESS WOULD DO SO. THAT'S THE BEST PART ABOUT IT. ALSO, THE CHALLENGE IS THAT IT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE WOULD HOPE A BUSINESS WOULD DO. AND YOU KNOW, AND I THINK ESTHETICALLY SPEAKING, I DO, I WILL JUMP TO. SO, I THINK WE CAN MEET CRITERIA NUMBER ONE. I WILL JUMP TO CRITERIA NUMBER THREE WHICH IS 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 DO THINK THAT THIS THAT I COULD MEET THAT CRITERIA AND THAT THIS COULD CARRY OUT THE SPIRIT OF THIS ORDINANCE, WHICH I DO BELIEVE IS TO IS IN OUR DISCUSSIONS. I'M GETTING TO THAT. IT'S MORE IT'S MORE TRULY MORE ABOUT ESTHETICS. AND THIS IS WHAT WE ARE WE ARE LEANING TOWARDS IS SOMETHING THAT IS MORE LIFESTYLE BRANDED WITHOUT THE, YOU KNOW, BIG NEON NOT BEING ABLE TO CONTROL CONTENT. BUT I DO THINK ALSO THAT IN TALKING ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY, THIS IS THIS IS SAFER FOR A BUSINESS OPERATING IN THIS, IN THIS BUILDING ESPECIALLY FOR PURPOSES OF PROTECTING YOUR, YOUR STAFF AND YOUR EMPLOYEES. AND I DO BELIEVE THIS PROVIDES A SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT HAVE BROUGHT US HERE TODAY, THAT WE HAVE A BUSINESS OWNER DOING THE RIGHT THING SO I CAN MEET THAT CRITERIA. MEMBER KOENIG I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID, BUT I ALSO WANT TO JUST STATE MY OPINION. FOR THE RECORD, THE MINIMUM ACTION SATISFIED BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR AN ADDITIONAL VARIANCE. VARIANCE ARE ASKING FOR IS WHAT'S CURRENTLY IN PLACE. SO THE NUMBERS ARE NOT LIKE THEY'RE ASKING FOR ANOTHER 40FT OR WE'RE NOT GROWING ON IT. YEAH. YEP. SO IN MY OPINION, THAT'S A MINIMUM ACTION. I WOULD ABSOLUTELY CONCUR. ALL RIGHT. SO LET'S TRY CRITERIA NUMBER FOUR WHICH IS GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND OR THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY. AND I CAN MEET THAT VARIANCE I DON'T OR I'M SORRY THAT CRITERIA. I DO NOT THINK THAT THERE IS ANY NEIGHBORING BUSINESS THAT WOULD SAY THIS IS SO IMPACTING THEM. YEAH. THIS IS NOT, IT WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORS IN THE VICINITY. AND CRITERIA NUMBER FIVE IS GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE PURPOSES OF THIS CHAPTER. AND I DO THINK THAT I CAN MEET THAT CRITERIA. I THINK THAT WE ARE VERY FORTUNATE TO HAVE PLAYMAKERS AND HAVE A BUSINESS IN OUR COMMUNITY THAT WANTS TO DO THE RIGHT THING, WANTS TO BE IN THE COMMUNITY THAT WANTS TO SUPPORT THE COMMUNITY. AND YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE TOWNSHIP NEEDS. SO I CAN BE CRITERIA FIVE. I WILL JUST GO BACK TO CRITERIA TWO. AND I THINK THAT [INAUDIBLE] MADE A VERY GOOD CASE FOR THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES OF ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY RUNNING THIS OPERATION AND BEING SAFE FOR THE EMPLOYEES, AND WHERE YOU COULD ACTUALLY PUT THINGS LIKE REGISTERS AND CHECKOUT AND BE SAFE AND SECURE FOR THE BUSINESS OWNER THEMSELVES, REGARDLESS OF THE ACTUAL BUSINESS THAT IS THERE. SO WE COULD APPLY THAT BROADLY TO ANOTHER TYPE OF BUSINESS THAT COULD TAKE THAT SPACE IN PERPETUITY. SO I WOULD BE ABLE TO MEET CRITERIA TWO BASED ON THAT. I WOULD CONCUR, GENTLEMEN. OKAY. KIND OF THERE. OKAY. SO IT SEEMS AS IF WE CAN REACH ALL FIVE CRITERIA, WHICH IS FANTASTIC. THAT SAID, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? ANYBODY WANT TO BE ANYBODY WANT TO BE THE KEY IF SOMEBODY KNOWS HOW TO SAY IT? WELL, THAT'S WHERE IT COMES IN GUYS. WHO'S BRAVE ENOUGH TO TRY IT. I WOULD RECOMMEND IN THIS CASE, IN ADDITION TO A MOTION WE HAVE A FINDING OF FACT OKAY. THAT THE OR A CONDITION A CONDITION ON THE MOTION THAT THEY USE 50% PERMEABLE. [00:45:13] PRODUCT THAT WILL ALLOW LIGHT INTO OR OUT OF THE STORE. BECAUSE AT NIGHT, IF YOU TURN THE LIGHTS ON, YOU CAN SEE OUT, BUT YOU CAN'T SEE IN. RIGHT. HOW DOES THAT? THAT'S NOT IN THERE. BUT THAT'S JUST THE NATURE OF WINDOWS AND LIGHTS. BUT WITH THAT RESTRICTION THAT THAT BY USING 50% PERMEABLE, THE ACTUAL WINDOW COVERAGE IS 50%, AND WE'RE GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THAT FOR THE WINDOWS INVOLVED HERE. AND THAT'S ONE. THE SECOND MOTION IS TO APPROVE. ACTUALLY, IF WE GO TO 50%, GO TO 50%, WE DON'T EVEN HAVE TO DO THE 16 DOWN TO TEN. BUT WE PROBABLY SHOULD JUST GO AHEAD. I THINK WE SHOULD JUST APPROVE IT JUST TO BE ON, BECAUSE AGAIN, STAFF DID NOT INTERPRET THAT THE SAME WAY AS THE APPLICANT DID. OKAY. YEAH. SO WE SAW A WINDOW SIGN. OKAY. BUT I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. SO YOU CAN PUT THAT IN SOMETHING THAT'S LOGICAL. YEAH. YOUR CONDITIONING ON THE BASE OF ON YOUR CONDITION IS THAT THEY USE THE. AND I'LL USE THE TERM THAT HE USED IN THIS. YEAH. SO THAT'S MY MOTION THAT WE APPROVE. THE REQUEST FOR THE FIRST ONE. VARIANCE NUMBER ONE THAT HE'S PROPOSED. OKAY. SO THAT'S SO THAT IS A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE STIPULATION OF USING THE 50% WINDOW PERF AS THE ONLY MATERIAL ABLE TO BE USED FOR THIS PARTICULAR VARIANCE. I WOULD SUPPORT. OKAY. SECONDED. OKAY, OKAY, OKAY. SECONDED BY MEMBER KOENIG. AND ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT OR WITH THE STIPULATION, MR. SHORKEY, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YES, THE STIPULATION THERE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT THEN. THIS IS A MOTION. I AM IF WE ARE OKAY WITH THE SECOND VARIANCE AS WELL, THE JUST GOING AHEAD WITH I WILL DO A VOTE JUST BASED ON BOTH OF THEM TOGETHER, IF THAT'S OKAY WITH YOU. IF THAT'S IF THAT. CAN I AMEND YOUR MOTION? THE SECOND IS TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE TO ALLOW WINDOW COVERING IN EXCESS OF 10% OF THE FACADE. OKAY. SO THIS WOULD BE AND I WOULD ASSUME THAT YOU WOULD SUPPORT THAT AS WELL. SO THAT WITH THAT AMENDMENT. SO YES. MEMBER BROOKS, DO WE NEED TO SET A DO NOT EXCEED LEVEL TO THAT? SO YOU JUST SAID, OKAY, IT CAN GO UP TO 16.5%. OKAY. CAN GO UP TO BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT THAT IS THE REQUESTED VARIANCE. THAT'S WHAT WOULD BE THE 16.5%. YEAH, BUT YOU'RE RIGHT. IT SHOULD BE IN THE MOTION. YES. OKAY. SO THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE ON THE FIRST APPLICATION, WHICH IS FOR THE 40% SURFACE AREA WITH THE STIPULATION THAT A, THE MATERIAL, THE ONLY MATERIAL TO BE USED WILL BE THE 50% WINDOW PERF. AND THE SECOND, PART OF THE VARIANCE APPLICATION, WHICH IS THAT THAT APPROVAL OF THE SIGNAGE OF 16.5% OF THE BUILDING FACE. SO YOUR VARIANCE HAS BEEN APPROVED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FROM THE PLAYMAKERS FAMILY. WE GREATLY APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. AND YOU MENTIONED THE GOOD WORK. THANK YOU. YOU MENTIONED THE FIRE IN 1958 OR 950 SOMEPLACE. THERE IS ONE STEEL BEAM IN PLAYMAKERS. ALL OF THEM ARE WOOD. THERE'S ONE STEEL, ONE IN THE BACK FROM THAT FIRE. SO. WOW. I WILL BE SENDING THAT APPROVAL LETTER OUT TO YOU BEFORE THE END OF THE WEEK. OKAY. PERFECT. THANK YOU. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL NOW GO TO ZBA CASE NUMBER. [6.B. ZBA CASE NO.: 24-10 (2020 M-78), B. K. Singh,2020 M-78, East Lansing, MI 48823] OKAY. BACK UP TO THE TOP. OKAY. THERE WE GO. CASE NUMBER 24-10 2020 M 78 BC. SEEING 2020 M 7878 EAST LANSING 48823. OKAY. MR. SHORKEY, LET ME PREFACE THIS WITH THIS IS A VERY WE'RE DEALING WITH A BRAND NEW ORDINANCE. I EXPECT A LOT OF QUESTIONS. IT'S OKAY. ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO. OKAY. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION FROM AN [00:50:07] ORDINANCE THAT WAS CREATED LAST YEAR THAT ENABLED WHAT'S CALLED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF STIPULATIONS TO THEM. COLLOQUIALLY, YOU CAN REFER TO THEM AS GRANNY FLATS, THINGS LIKE THAT. ATTACHED OR DETACHED? AND THEN THERE'S REQUIREMENTS. YOU CAN'T. OKAY. SO PARAGRAPH F IN THE ENABLING SECTION SET. ONE OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS IS THAT AN [INAUDIBLE] SHALL NOT BE LARGER THAN 600FT² AND SHALL NOT BE LARGER THAN THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. OKAY. SO MR. SINGH, WHO IS THE APPLICANT AND HE IS HERE TONIGHT. HE HAS REQUESTED A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION AND SUBSEQUENT RENTAL FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ON HIS ON HIS ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. BUT THE BUT THE ADU IS PROPOSED TO BE 1075FT IN SQUARE FEET IN SIZE. SO THAT'S THE VARIANCE HE NEEDS. HE NEEDS PERMISSION TO EXCEED 600FT² IN SIZE FOR THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. THIS PROPERTY HAD A VARIANCE APPLIED FOR BACK IN 2005. AT THAT IT WASN'T FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, BUT IT WAS. THE REQUEST WAS TO ENCLOSE AN EXISTING CARPORT AND CONVERT THE CARPORT INTO A GARAGE AND CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE ABOVE THAT GARAGE. THAT VARIANCE WAS DENIED, BUT THERE WAS CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE TOWNSHIP AND THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY, AND ULTIMATELY A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE ENCLOSURE AND THE ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE WAS ISSUED IN 2008. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE ADU WOULD BE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE HOUSE FROM THAT. AS I SAID, IN 80 YEARS, WE'RE ENABLED IN 2023 UNDER A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT. IT WAS APPROVED LESS THAN A YEAR AGO NOVEMBER. IT IS AN ALLOWED USE IN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCEL AS LONG AS ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS ARE MET. AND THAT'S BASICALLY IT. THAT'S THE VARIANCE HE'S LOOKING FOR. HE NEEDS A VARIANCE OF 475FT² TO PROCEED WITH THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. NOTE THERE ARE LOTS OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS THAT THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO HAVE TO COMPLY WITH BEFORE THE ADU IS APPROVED. THIS IS JUST ONE OF THOSE. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. SHORKEY. WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO COME UP TO THE PODIUM AND SPEAK ON THE CASE, OR ANYTHING ADDITIONAL YOU WANT TO ADD TO WHAT MR. SHORKEY SAID? IF YOU COULD JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD, PLEASE, SIR. MY NAME IS B.K. SINGH. I LIVE IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP, OF COURSE, AND THE ADU IN QUESTION IS A PROPERTY WE BOUGHT IN APRIL 1995 THAT HAPPENED TO BE A LITTLE OVER 1000FT² BACK THEN, AND WE LIVED THERE ABOUT EIGHT YEARS. AND THEN WE WANTED TO ADD AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING AREA OF THE OLD HOUSE. AND SO NOW THE CURRENT HOUSE, THE ADDITION IS ABOUT 1950FT². THAT'S WHERE WE ARE LIVING RIGHT NOW. THE ADU IN QUESTION. IS THAT THE OLD RESIDENCE PART IN 95, WHICH IS OF COURSE ATTACHED TO THE SAME BUILDING. AND SO WE HAVE ALMOST 3800FT² OF TOTAL AREA. THE ADU IN QUESTION IS ONLY 10,075FT², AND THE REQUEST TO GET A VARIANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 400FT² OVER THE 600FT² LIMIT UNDER THE ORDINANCE. SO THE REASON I'M ASKING YOU IS THAT THAT THE IF ADUS ARE APPROVED, I MEAN, THE VARIANCES ARE APPROVED TO THE ADU, THEN I SAY THIS WILL ADD EXTRA LIVING RESIDENTS FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE LOOKING FOR HOMES IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP. PLUS THIS BEING ON THE COMMERCIAL AREA HIGHWAY, AND MOST PEOPLE CAN LIVE THERE WITHOUT USING THE AUTOMOBILE, FOR EXAMPLE. AND THERE ARE THE OTHER ASPECTS OF THE GOODNESS OF ADU. BY APPROVING THE VARIANCES, I STATED THAT SIX DIFFERENT ITEMS IN MY LETTER. AND IF YOU CAN GO BACK TO MY LETTER, ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS THE CRITERIA ABOUT AUTOMOBILE DEPENDENCY IS NOT REQUIRED. WE CAN LIMIT THAT. AND THEN THE ADU CAN HELP TOWNSHIP COMMUNITY WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING WHILE RESPECTING THE CHARACTER OF THE [00:55:04] NEIGHBORHOOD, STUFF LIKE THAT. SO I WILL ABIDE BY ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ALSO REQUIRED TO HAVE THE DEED CHANGED TO REFLECT THAT THE PORTION I'M LIVING RIGHT NOW WILL BE ALWAYS A PRIMARY RESIDENCE WITH THE ADU COULD BE A RENTAL. SO THAT WILL BE APPLIED TO, IF APPROVED, THE VARIANCE. AND I THINK THAT'S ABOUT ALL. YEAH. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. SINGH. WOULD ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE THIS EVENING? SO YOU CAN COME UP TO THE PODIUM AND STATE YOUR NAME? OKAY. SINCE I DO NOT SEE ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO COME UP AND SPEAK ON THIS CASE, I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. MR. SINGH, IF YOU'D LIKE TO STAY THERE. IF YOU'RE COMFORTABLE STAYING THERE FOR A MINUTE WHILE WE START OUR CONVERSATION SO WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS AS NEEDED. THAT WOULD BE GREAT. YEAH. THANK YOU. OKAY, WE'LL GO INTO OUR BOARD TIME ON THIS CASE. AND LIKE MR. SHORKEY SAID, THERE'S PROBABLY A LOT OF QUESTIONS. I KNOW I HAVE A COUPLE ALREADY. ANYBODY WANT TO START? CAN YOU SHOW THE PICTURE OF THE HOUSES AND. YEAH I WOULD. YEAH, IT'S UP THERE. YEAH. SO THE ON THE EXTREME LEFT SIDE IS THE ONE IN QUESTION FOR ADU, WHERE THE MAIN RESIDENCE IS THE RIGHT SIDE WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY ABOUT 1800 SQUARE FEET. ALSO IT DOESN'T EXCEED THE REQUIRED ADU LIMIT SO FALL UNDER THE SAME PROVISIONS. SO, IF I'M LOOKING AT THIS PHOTOGRAPH, WHAT'S ON THE LEFT PORTION OF THE SCREEN. THAT IS WHERE THE PROPOSED ADU WOULD BE. YES. SO IS THAT AN EXISTING STRUCTURE? THAT IS AN OLD STRUCTURE BUILT, I MEAN, BEFORE YOU BOUGHT IT. BUILT IN 40S. OKAY. BUT IT IS ON THE PROPERTY. YEAH. I'M THE PROPERTY. YES. SO THIS THAT STRUCTURE WOULD BE REMOVED, AND THEN YOU WOULD REBUILD OR YOU'RE USING THE STRUCTURE AS THE PROPOSED ADU. I'M LIVING ON THE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. YOU CAN SEE THAT YELLOW LINE SEPARATING THE LEFT YELLOW ON THE RIGHT YELLOW AND YOU SEE TWO STOREY BUILDING. THAT'S THE TWO STOREY BUILDING. ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE LEFT SIDE IS THE ONE ADU. OKAY. THAT IS AN EXISTING STRUCTURE. YES. THAT THE ORDINANCE DOESN'T REQUIRE THE STRUCTURE TO BE DEMOLISHED AND REBUILT. OKAY. HE'S PROPOSING TO REMODEL THE INTERIOR OF THAT PORTION INTO A SEPARABLE LIVABLE UNIT. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING. SO THAT IS AN ACTUAL EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT WE ARE JUST NOW GOING TO RELABEL AS AN ADU. IF THE VARIANCE AND OTHER BUILDING PERMITS ARE ADUS ARE ALLOWED TO BE ATTACHED. OKAY. THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE LIKE SEPARATE POOL HOUSES OR SOMETHING. OKAY. SO THERE'S NO SEPARATION FROM THE MAIN LIVING STRUCTURE IS NECESSARY FOR AN ADU. OKAY. THAT IS THAT'S HELPFUL. THEY DO HAVE TO BE AUTONOMOUS, THOUGH. LIKE SOMEONE HAS TO BE ABLE TO LIVE IN THAT SECTION OF THE HOUSE WITHOUT HAVING TO RELY ON, YOU KNOW, THE BATHROOM, FOR INSTANCE. OKAY, SO IT HAS TO BE ITS OWN SELF EXISTING STRUCTURE. RIGHT. OKAY. OKAY. QUESTIONS? ANYBODY ELSE? SO, MR. SHORKEY, WHEN THE IN THE HISTORICAL REFERENCE IN LIKE THE 2000, IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE WAS AN ADU BUILT OR THERE WAS A PERMIT FOR SOMETHING AND THAT WAS BUILT. WHAT WAS THAT THING? IT WAS ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE BACK IN 2005. I PULLED THE FILE. THE GARAGE THAT YOU SEE HERE WAS A CARPORT, AND THE REQUEST WAS TO ENCLOSE THAT INTO A GARAGE AND EXTEND THE HOUSE OVER THE GARAGE. AND THE INITIAL DECISION BY THE ZBA, THE VARIANCE REQUEST CAME FROM THE SETBACK. OKAY. OKAY. AND THE INITIAL REQUEST WAS DENIED. THERE WAS CORRESPONDENCE. A BUILDING PERMIT WAS ISSUED IN 2008. I DON'T THAT THOSE ARE THE THOSE ARE THE STEPS I WAS ABLE TO DEFINE RIGHT WHEN INVESTIGATING THIS. I MEAN, IT DOESN'T DIRECTLY RELATE TO THIS. IT'S NOT ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE HOUSE. AND IT WASN'T SPECIFICALLY FOR AN ADU, BUT WE FELT WE SHOULD TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY AND HOW WE GOT HERE. THE EXISTING BALCONY, WHICH IS 20 BY EIGHT IN THE FRONT, YOU SEE IT. IT WAS PART OF THE LIVING QUARTERS BEFORE IT WAS APPROVED. THEN THE I GET IT. [01:00:01] AND THE NEGOTIATION. I THINK THEY ELIMINATED THAT 20 BY EIGHT, 160FT². SO IT BECAME A BALCONY. SO THE AREA WAS REDUCED. SO THAT WAS THE CONSENT. SORT OF. OKAY. YEAH. WHICH MAKES SENSE. THE AREA WAS REDUCED IN ORDER TO COMPLY. SO IT DIDN'T. SO IT PUSHED. IT PUSHED, PUSHED THE LIVING STRUCTURE BACK SO THAT YOU COULD MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT. SURE. THAT MAKES SENSE. YEAH. SO THAT'S THAT. YEAH, I THAT WAS A VERY GOOD PLAN. YES. MEMBER KOENIG I WAS GOING TO SAY IN THIS INSTANCE, I THINK THAT PROBABLY MAY HELP YOU BECAUSE WITHOUT THAT ADDITION ON THERE, THAT WAS MY INITIAL THOUGHT WAS, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT THIS, THIS IS 1075FT². I MEAN, THAT'S ALMOST THE SIZE OF A NORMAL SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE IN SOME AREAS, RIGHT? AND YOU KNOW, BY NATURE, AS YOU'VE PROBABLY BEEN TOLD BY STAFF, YOU KNOW, ACCESSORY USES, THEY HAVE TO BE SUBORDINATE TO BE CONSISTENT, NOT CONSISTENT, BUT SUBORDINATE TO THE, TO THE MAIN PRIMARY USE. SO WHEN I FIRST SAW THIS AS BEING 1075FT, I THOUGHT, WOW, THAT'S PRETTY BIG. HOW BIG IS THE ORIGINAL HOME THAT'S ALREADY ON THERE? SO WITH THIS ADDITION, I KNOW YOU MENTIONED THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. I SHOULD HAVE WRITTEN IT DOWN, BUT WHAT'S THE 1800? YES, THE TOTAL IS THE TOTAL. WHAT'S THE TAKEAWAY FROM YOUR MAP? TAKE AWAY THE ADU PORTION. WHAT'S GOING TO BE THE REMAINING SQUARE FEET OF THE REST OF IT? IT'S ABOUT 1900. 1900. YEAH. SO THAT WAS MY INITIAL QUESTION WAS WHAT WAS THE SIZE? BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GETTING 1000FT². YOU'RE PUSHING. YEAH, I MEAN THAT'S THE LIMITS OF BEING AN ACCESSORY. EXACTLY RIGHT. THAT'S A SINGLE FAMILY. PLUS LOOKING AT THE DRAWING, YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEDROOMS, THERE'S LIVING ROOMS, BATHS, LAUNDRY. YOU KNOW, THAT COULD BE A STANDALONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME. BUT AT LEAST IN THIS SENSE, I THINK THAT ADDITION KIND OF HELPED YOU BECAUSE THAT MADE THAT PHYSICAL HOME STRUCTURE WITH THESE BEING SEPARATE, STILL LARGER THAN THIS ACCESSORY USE, WHICH IS A GOOD THING BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I'VE SEEN IT IN OTHER AREAS IN OTHER STATES, TOO, WHERE PEOPLE TRY TO COME IN AND BUILD. I MEAN, YOU SEE IT NOW WITH PEOPLE BUILDING GARAGES THAT ARE BIGGER THAN THEIR HOMES. AND I DON'T KNOW HOW THESE TOWNSHIPS ALLOW THAT BECAUSE IN MY EYES, THAT'S NOT ACCESSORY. YOUR GARAGE IS BIGGER THAN YOUR HOUSE. IT SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED. BUT THEY GOT AWAY WITH IT. SO BE IT. AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, NOT PART OF THIS, BUT. SO ANYWAYS, I THINK THAT IN MY EYES, I THINK THIS KIND OF HELPS YOUR CAUSE WITH THIS. REMAIN AS AN ACCESSORY USE. THE BIGGEST ISSUE FOR ME IS JUST THE SIZE THAT IS. YOU KNOW, HE'S ASKING FOR AN ADDITIONAL 475FT FROM WHAT WAS APPROVED, RECENTLY APPROVED. SO I HAVEN'T YOU KNOW, I'VE TEETER TOTTER ON. THAT TEETER TOTTERING ON THAT, LET'S PUT IT THAT AND WE'LL GET MORE INTO THAT WHEN WE PROBABLY GET TO THE CRITERIA. YEAH. AND I WILL JUST SAY MY, MY INITIAL THOUGHTS WITHOUT, WITHOUT EVEN REALLY RELATING THEM YET TO THE CRITERIA ARE THAT IT CHANGES THINGS FOR ME, NOT ONLY THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE EXISTING PRIMARY DWELLING, BUT THAT IT'S AN EXISTING STRUCTURE. SO WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT WE'RE COMING IN AND BUILDING A NEW 1075 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING. YES, BUT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE PURPOSE OF THE ADU ORDINANCE. YES. WHICH WAS TO ALLOW SMALL ADDITIONS OR REASONABLY SMALL ADDITIONS, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THEM TO HAVE TWO DWELLING UNITS ON A SINGLE PLAT, WHICH IS NOT ALLOWED IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA. OKAY, SO WHETHER THIS IS AN EXISTING BUILDING OR ADDED ON. IT IS, IN EFFECT SUBDIVIDING A HOUSE AND CALLING ONE AN ADU AND ESTABLISHING IT UNDER AN ACT WHICH REALLY DOESN'T ENVISION THAT CUTTING A HOUSE IN HALF AND CLAIMING IT'S AN ADU. THAT'S A CONCERN I HAVE WITH THIS. WHEN I LOOK AT THE PHOTO THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S TWO ENTRANCES ON THE FRONT IN THE SAME SPOT ALREADY. IS THE HOUSE ALREADY SPLIT? THAT'S THE PART THAT'S JUTTING OUT. THAT'S YOUR QUESTION? YEAH. FOR MR. SANWONG, I BELIEVE ON THIS PHOTOGRAPH. THERE'S IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S TWO DOORS IN THIS KIND OF PORCH AREA THAT'S COMING FROM THE FRONT. ONE HAS THE TWO LIGHTS ON EITHER SIDE AND ONE IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT BUILDING. I THINK THE ONE FACING EAST ADJACENT TO THE CAR, THAT'S THE ENTRANCE. OKAY. AND THEN WHAT'S THE OTHER DOOR? OTHER SIDE. WE HAD AN ACCESS IN CASE OF FIRE HAZARD OR SOMETHING. OKAY, WE PUT IT WE DON'T USE THE DOOR AT ALL. ALTHOUGH THERE IS A SIDEWALK, A SMALL SIDEWALK FOR THREE FEET WIDE. SO FROM THAT. SO WE CLOSED THE DOOR, OBVIOUSLY, AND THEN USED THE ONE DOOR FACING EAST WITH A RAMP IN CASE OF HANDICAP OR MY WIFE WAS HANDICAPPED, SO WE USED IT QUITE OFTEN THAT. SO THAT'S THE ENTRANCE. WE PUT A HOUSE NUMBER THERE. [01:05:02] 2020 RIGHT THERE. SO OKAY, SO YOU PUT TWO DOORS THAT IN THE SAME SPOT. IN THE SAME. WE'LL CALL IT. WE CALL IT BREEZEWAY. THAT ATTACHING WHAT YOU SEE TO TWO DOORS IN A SMALL STRUCTURE. YEAH, TWO DOORS OBVIOUSLY THERE, BUT WE DON'T USE THE DOOR FACING SOUTH. FACING THE ROAD. YEAH. SO. OKAY. JUST ONLY ONE DOOR. WE USE IT BECAUSE THERE'S A RAMP TO IT. THAT'S THE ONE. SO ANOTHER QUESTION I HAD WAS IN THE AERIAL VIEW. THERE'S LIKE A THERE'S A BUILDING BACK BEHIND THE LEFT SIDE OF THE HOUSE. WHAT IS THAT? WHAT SIDE NOW SHOULD BE THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. RIGHT HERE. THAT'S STORAGE. OH, I SEE WHAT YOU MEAN. NO, LIKE A BARN, 30 BY 40 BUS. IT'S A BARN BUILT IN 2008 WITH THE PERMIT. OKAY. SO WAS THAT BARN. WHAT WAS THE PERMIT WAS FOR? FOR IN 2008. NO. NO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S NOT. NO I HAVEN'T. OKAY. OKAY. THAT'S 30 BY 40. YOU SAID SO. THAT'S 1200FT² ITSELF. THAT'S A GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT WITHOUT THAT ADDITION. RIGHT. THAT BARN ALMOST WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ACCESSORY. RIGHT. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BIGGER THAN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. BIGGER THAN THAT WAS PROBABLY PREDATING A LOT OF THE ZONING THAT WAS HERE. SO. RIGHT. THAT'S A DIFFERENT STORY FOR A DIFFERENT DAY. YES. AND THAT'S WHAT THE CASE IS REGARDING. BUT. WELL, I ASK BECAUSE I WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT WASN'T CONNECTED IN ANY WAY. NO, EXACTLY. NOT AT ALL. NO. EXACTLY. NOT AT ALL. BECAUSE THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. FOR THAT REASON, THAT WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED AN ADU, BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THAT'S LIVING SPACE. IT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S STORAGE SPACE. YEAH. IN THE. IN THE BARN. YEAH, THAT'S A STORAGE. OKAY. WE HAVE AN AUTOMOBILE PARKED INSIDE. THE SAME THING. WHAT YOU SEE OUTSIDE THAT'S PARKED INSIDE NOW? OKAY. OTHER THAN THAT, THERE IS NOTHING THERE. OKAY. GO AHEAD, MR. SHORKEY. DOES THIS ZONING FOR THIS SPACE ALLOW FOR A DUPLEX? NO, IT DOES NOT ALLOW FOR A DUPLEX. OKAY. BECAUSE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SIMPLE WAY TO DO THIS. IF YOU THINK REZONING OUR PROPERTY. NO, NO NO, NO. I MEAN, IF IT HAD BEEN ALLOWED, IT HAD BEEN ALLOWED. IF A DUPLEX HAD BEEN ALLOWED IN THIS IN THIS DISTRICT, THEN WE WOULDN'T BE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION. RIGHT? RIGHT. THAT OCCURRED TO ME LOOKING AT THE AERIAL PHOTO THAT WHY DON'T THEY JUST. BUT OKAY. YEAH, THAT MAKES SENSE. SO MR. SHAWKY, LET'S TALK ABOUT THIS. ADU. SURE. A LITTLE BIT MORE. CAN I ASK ONE MORE QUESTION? YEAH. MEMBER BROOKS, GO AHEAD. I'M SORRY. SO FOR THE. YOU SAID THAT THE BACK HOUSE ON THE PROPERTY WAS FOR CARS. IS THERE A IS THERE ANOTHER WAY TO GET BACK THERE? THERE'S NO CARS. THERE'S NO PROPERTY BEHIND THE WELL, THE BARN, THE SHED, THE GARAGE THAT YOU HAVE BEHIND THE HOUSE. HOW IS IT ACCESSIBLE? IS THERE ANOTHER DRIVEWAY? THERE'S NO NO OTHER. YOU CAN SEE THIS EASIER ON GOOGLE MAPS. I SEE WHAT I SEE. HE SAYS THERE WASN'T A MULTIPLE DRIVEWAYS, RIGHT? THEY SAID THERE WAS ONLY ONE. YEAH, I DON'T I DON'T THINK YOU CAN HAVE MULTIPLE IN THAT ZONE. CURRENTLY. THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. HOW DO YOU GET BACK THERE? YOU PROBABLY JUST GOT TO DRIVE IT ON THE GRASS NEXT TO THE HOUSE. IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S THERE. THERE YOU GO. IT'S NOT MY YARD. I DON'T KNOW THERE. THAT'S THAT'S A CLOSE. I THINK THAT'S A NEIGHBOR'S BARN. I THINK THE WAIT. SO THIS IS YOUR NEIGHBOR'S BARN. BUT HOW DO YOU HOW DO YOU ACCESS THAT IS THERE. THAT'S NEIGHBOR'S BARN. THAT YOUR BARN. YOUR YOUR YOUR BARN. HOW DO YOU ACCESS YOUR BARN? THIS ONE. WHERE WHERE HE HAS THE THE IF YOU COULD PUT THE ARROW. YEAH. RIGHT. YEAH. WELL, THAT'S THAT'S THE ONE THAT'S YOURS. YEAH. HOW DO YOU GET THERE? IF YOU IF YOU STORE CARS, YOUR VEHICLES, HOW DO YOU GET TO THE VEHICLE? HOW DO YOU DECIDE? WE HAVE A 25 FOOT ACCESS FROM ADJACENT TO THE GARAGE TO THE PROPERTY LINE, AND THERE IS A DIRT DRIVEWAY THAT LEADS UP TO IT. LET ME SHOW YOU. I MEAN, IF YOU GO FURTHER CLOSE INTO. YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT HERE. YES. YEAH. YEAH. THERE. THERE'S. YEAH, THERE IS A DIRT DRIVEWAY THAT RUNS PARALLEL TO THE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY THAT GOES INTO THE BACK OF THE BUILDING. THE HOUSE INTO THE GARAGE. YEAH. I'M TRYING TO GET OVER. THERE YOU GO. THERE. YOU SEE? [01:10:01] THAT'S THE ONE. OKAY. BACK THERE. I SEE. THAT'S THE PRIMARY DRIVEWAY. NO, 25FT. THAT'S JUST AN ACCESS. IT'S NOT PAVED. HERE'S THE. HERE'S THE PRIMARY DRIVEWAY. AND HERE'S THE GARAGE. OKAY. COULD YOU. IS THERE. THAT'S AWFULLY CLOSE TO THE NEIGHBOR'S YARD. CAN. IT'S BEEN THERE. MR.. CAN YOU GO CLOSER ON THAT VIEW? IF WE CAN SEE THE FRONT OF THE ADU WHERE THE PROPOSED ADU WOULD BE. IS THERE. I KNOW THOSE TREES. YEAH. I KNOW THE TREES ARE THERE. OH, THAT'S THE ONE LIKE THAT. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY, SO THERE'S THE ENTRANCE, RIGHT? YEAH. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THERE. YEAH. THERE'S A THERE'S A LINE IN YOUR PACKET, A FLOOR PLAN. I THINK THE FLOOR PLAN, IT'S JUST HARD TO IMAGINE AND PICTURE IT WHERE HOW IT RELATES TO THE HOME BECAUSE I, I HEAR WHAT MEMBER IS SAYING ABOUT THE DUPLEX, RIGHT? I MEAN, THERE, THERE. IT'S IT'S THE SAME STRUCTURE. THERE'S A DOOR BETWEEN THE TWO AND THEY'RE GOING TO BLOCK THAT. THEY'RE GOING TO BLOCK HOW THEY'RE GOING TO SEPARATE IT. IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A THIRD DOOR. YEAH. THERE'S A DOOR ON THIS STRUCTURE. CAN I. EXCUSE ME. CAN I PASS THIS PHOTO JUST IN CASE? YES. YEAH. IF YOU HAVE ANY PHOTOS, THAT WOULD BE EXTREMELY HELPFUL. THANK YOU, MR. SINGH. HERE. RIGHT. YEAH. YEAH. THIS IS A CLEARER PICTURE OF WHAT YOU'RE CURRENTLY LOOKING AT. THANK YOU. SORRY I MISUNDERSTOOD YOU. YEAH. SO THAT'S A DOOR AND A WINDOW. OKAY. AND THERE'S ONLY THERE'S ONLY ONE ENTRANCE TO THE WITH THE PROPOSED ADU. RIGHT. SO THE THE DRIVEWAY. IS THAT ACCESS BACK TO THE BARN? IT'S THAT THAT DIRT. YEAH. DRIVE. OKAY. THAT'S THE LIMESTONE DRIVEWAY, RIGHT? IT IS. IT'S JUST NOT. IT'S NOT PAVED. SO IT DOESN'T KNOW. IT'S NOT PAVED. IT IS. OKAY. SO IT DOESN'T COUNT AGAINST THAT HAVING THE PAVEMENT IN THE. OKAY. I THINK THE BIGGEST QUESTION THAT EVERYONE HAS IS AND I'LL JUST READ YOUR MINDS RIGHT NOW IS THAT IF THIS IS, IF THIS IS AN ADU AND IF THE SIZE IS APPROPRIATE NOW IT'S EXISTING. SO WHAT IS GOING TO AGAIN, IT'S ALWAYS MY BIGGEST HURDLE TO TO CROSS IS THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES. IT'S EXISTING ACCESS. RIGHT. SORRY. YEAH. MEMBER. MEMBER. I KNOW, I KNOW. YOU BRING UP A GOOD POINT BECAUSE IT IS EXISTING, SO I THINK IT WOULD BE A LITTLE BURDENSOME ON THE APPLICANT IF THE TOWNSHIP WERE TO SAY, OH, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE LIMITED TO 600FT. IT'S A HARD LINE. THEREFORE YOU NEED TO FIRST OF ALL, SPEND THE MONEY TO DEMOLISH THIS AND THEN BUILD 600FT ONTO IT WHEN YOU ALREADY TECHNICALLY HAVE 600FT THERE, YOU HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN 600FT. BUT I THINK JUST HAVING THAT BE A REQUIREMENT THAT THEY HAVE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO REMOVE A PORTION OF THIS, RIGHT. WOULD BE PUTTING IN POTENTIALLY ANOTHER, YOU KNOW, FINANCIAL BURDEN ON THE PROPERTY OWNER WHERE THEY PROBABLY WOULD EVEN GO THROUGH WITH THIS. TO BE HONEST. I MEAN, PUTTING ON HIS FINANCIAL SITUATION, WHICH IS NOT PART OF THE BACKGROUND OF THIS, BUT. RIGHT. YEAH. I MEAN, IT'S A GOOD POINT THAT YOU BRING UP, MR. CHAIR, THAT THIS IS AN EXISTING STRUCTURE, THAT THEY'RE JUST TURNING INTO THIS ADU AND NOT BUILDING SOMETHING. RIGHT. THAT'S MY. THOUGHTS? COMMENTS, CONCERNS ON THE SIZE. OF ONE. ONE ISSUE IN THE ORDINANCE SAYS ACCESS THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE AND THE ADU SHALL SHARE THE SAME VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY. THEY DO NOT. SO THAT IS A QUESTION THAT I HAVE AS WELL. NOW LOOKING AT THESE. YEAH. AND LOOKING AND SEEING THIS PICTURE, WHICH GIVES US A CLEARER VIEW OF THE PROPERTY, BUT ALSO LETS US KNOW THERE IS A SECOND SECONDARY ACCESS. SO THE INTENT IS ANOTHER WAY TO STATE WHAT WHAT THAT MEANS IS IF YOU WANT TO DO AN ADU, IT'S NOT A DUPLEX. YOU CAN'T BUILD IT. YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO BUILD A SEPARATE DRIVEWAY. OKAY. SO WHEN IT SAYS THEY HAVE TO SHARE THE ACCESS, IT MEANS LITERALLY THAT WHOEVER RENTS THAT IS GOING TO HAVE TO USE THE PRIMARY DRIVEWAY, OR IN THIS CASE, HE'S GOT A, I GUESS, AN ACCESS GOING AGAIN. IT'S EXISTING. SO IT'S NOT HE'S NOT. THE POINT IS HE'S NOT BUILDING A NEW DRIVEWAY OR AN ADU. [01:15:02] RIGHT. HE'S NOT IN THAT PHOTO THOUGH. THAT'S A NEW THAT'S A SEPARATE ENTRANCE. CORRECT. WHAT IS AN EXISTING ONE? CORRECT. AND IT'S. AND IT'S THERE. YEAH. IT'S EXISTING. WELL, THE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE ACTUAL THE PHYSICAL ENTRANCE TO THE, TO THE PROPERTY OR THE ACCESS ROAD? THE ACCESS ROAD. SO THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? IT'S HE'S SAYING IT'S IT'S A IT'S EXISTING ALREADY. THEY'RE NOT BUILDING A LITTLE PICTURE A LITTLE PEEK BEHIND THE, BEHIND THE CURTAIN. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HAVE ASKED FOR TO MOVE THIS FORWARD IS THE THE APPLICANT CLAIMS THAT THERE'S AN MDOT PERMIT FOR THAT DRIVEWAY. I'VE ASKED FOR THAT TO MOVE THIS FORWARD. WHEN I SAY THERE'S OTHER REQUIREMENTS, THIS IS ONE HURDLE, BUT I WANT I WANT THAT DOCUMENTATION. SO THAT STILL IS IS YET TO KNOW. HE SAYS IT'S HE SAYS I DON'T I'M NOT QUESTIONING THAT HE HAS IT, BUT I DO NEED A PHYSICAL COPY OF IT AND THAT. SO WITHOUT THAT, WITHOUT THAT, THOUGH, THE ORDINANCE SAYS THAT ANYONE WHO RENTS THIS HAS TO PARK IN THE DRIVEWAY AND WALK ACROSS THE GRASS. OR THEY COULD EXTEND THE PARKING, THE DRIVEWAY TO THE OTHER AROUND THE HOUSE. YOU CAN'T. YEAH. YEAH, YEAH. YOU COULD. YEAH, YEAH. WE ROUTINELY YEAH. WE DON'T HAVE A DRIVEWAY PERMIT. WE ROUTINELY LET PEOPLE EXPAND THEIR DRIVEWAY. RIGHT. UP TO A MAXIMUM OF THEIR FRONT YARD COVERAGE. RIGHT. BUT IT'S NOT A NEW DRIVEWAY, AND THAT'S THE POINT. BUT DOES THIS ACCESS ROAD, DOES THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THAT COVERAGE BECAUSE IT'S NOT PAVED. YEAH. YEAH IT DOES. YEAH A DRIVEWAYS WE DON'T RESIDENTIAL DOESN'T HAVE A REQUIREMENT FOR FOR FOR PAVEMENT FOR PAVEMENT. PAYMENT, SO IT DOES GO TOWARD THE OVERALL PERCENTAGE. I THINK HE'S GOT HE'S GOT PLENTY OF LAKERS. YEAH, HE'S GOT PLENTY OF ROOM. HE'S GOT PLENTY OF ACREAGE. YEAH HE'S GOT A LOT OF SPACE. SO THAT WOULD HE WOULD HE. THAT WOULDN'T BE A VARIANCE. THAT WOULD BE POTENTIAL. NO. OKAY. I COULD TAKE A STAB AT CRITERIA, BUT I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO GO. I THINK I THINK THE PROBLEM IN MY MIND WITH THIS IS, IN EFFECT, WE'RE ALLOWING MR. SINGH TO CREATE A DUPLEX IN AN AREA THAT DOES NOT ALLOW DUPLEXES BY CALLING IT AN ACCESSORY BUILDING, WHICH EXCEEDS THE LIMITS OF OF THE ORDINANCE. I'M STILL REALLY CURIOUS ABOUT WHAT THE INTENT OF THE ADU ORDINANCE IN OF ITSELF IS. IF IT'S IF IT'S MEANT TO BE, I MEAN, IT IF IT'S AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. SO IT'S MEANT TO BE LIVING SPACE, IT'S MEANT TO BE SELF SELF-SUSTAINING OR SELF CONTAINED, CONTAINED LIVING SPACE. AND IT IS AN ORDINANCE ALLOWED TO SHARE WALLS. OVER THE 600FT². BUT WE'RE UNDER THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE HOME, THE EXISTING PRIMARY RESIDENCE. BUT WHAT IS WHAT WOULD BE, I GUESS, THE DEFINITION OR THE THE LINE BETWEEN DUPLEX AND ADU THAT WOULD. THAT WOULD BE MY. WELL, I MEAN, WONDER 600FT². YEAH, 600FT². I MEAN, NO, I'M NOT, I'M NOT. IT'S ONLY IT'S MEANT TO BE A VERY AND THERE'S AND THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT IT'S MEANT TO BE TINY HOME ESSENTIALLY. YES, YES. AND A DUPLEX COMES WITH CERTAIN LIKE OTHER REGULATIONS, TOO. LIKE, NOW YOU'RE DOUBLING THE MINIMUM. PARKING AN ADU DOESN'T CONTRIBUTE TO THE HOME'S PARKING CALCULATION. OKAY, BUT A DUPLEX IS DOUBLES THAT PARKING CALCULATION. THINGS LIKE THAT. YOU KNOW, DOES IT REQUIRE SEPARATE UTILITIES FOR A DUPLEX? YEAH. SO, YEAH. AND JUST LIKE THE ADU, THOUGH, AN ADU DOES REQUIRE SEPARATE UTILITIES. WELL, THEY HAVE TO BE TIED. LET ME LET ME CLARIFY. OKAY. IT HAS TO CONNECT TO THE HOUSE. IT HAS TO CONNECT TO ME. OKAY. INTERESTING. SO THAT'S. YEAH. THAT'S ANOTHER. OKAY. I REMEMBER. I'M STUCK WITH THIS EXERCISE AS WELL. I'M, I'M STILL HUNG UP ON THE SQUARE FEET. [01:20:01] I IN MY EYES YOU KNOW WITH I'VE DONE WHAT MR. SHORKEY HAS DONE IN DIFFERENT STATES AND YOU KNOW, FOR THEIR WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO WITH THOSE BASED ON THE DEFINITIONS IS TRY TO ADD ANOTHER, ALLOW ANOTHER DWELLING TO BE, BE, BE BUILT ON A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING LOT. BUT THERE'S A LOT OF STIPULATIONS PARTICULARLY. AND ONE OF THEM IS IT MUST BE ACCESSORY. IT MUST BE SUBORDINATE TO THE MAIN USE SO THAT IT DOESN'T COMPROMISE AND LOOK LIKE IT IS COMPARABLE TO THE MAIN USE. BECAUSE NOW YOU DO HAVE A DUPLEX SITUATION AND THAT CAN GET OUT OF HAND VERY QUICKLY. YEAH, THAT WAS MY BIGGEST CONCERN WHEN I SAW THIS WAS WHAT WAS WHAT'S THE SIZE OF THE FULL HOUSE BECAUSE I WAS LIKE 1000FT². THAT'S HUGE. THAT'S A THAT'S A REGULAR SINGLE FAMILY HOME. RIGHT? IN MY EYES, IT IS. THIS WILL BE MY OPINION. THIS IS MY OPINION ON THE BOARD. THIS WOULD BE ACCESSORY TO THE MAIN HOUSE JUST BASED ON THE SIZE. HOWEVER, I DO HAVE OTHER CONCERNS, SUCH AS WHAT THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAD BROUGHT UP WITH THE DRIVEWAY AND THE ACCESS TO IT AND THE INTENT. YOU KNOW, THIS IS A BRAND NEW ZONING ORDINANCE THAT JUST WAS PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THIS BOARD LAST YEAR. I DON'T THINK THE INTENT OF THAT ORDINANCE WAS TO SAY, OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THIS RULE, BUT THEN WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW IT TO BE BROKEN RIGHT AWAY ON A CERTAIN SITUATION. HOWEVER, I DO WHERE IT'S TRICKY FOR ME IS YOU BROUGHT UP THE GREAT POINT IS THAT THIS IS AN EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT'S THERE. IT'D BE DIFFERENT IF HE JUST WANTED TO BUILD A SEPARATE STRUCTURE AND SAY, OH, I WANT TO BUILD 1000FT² IN THAT NOT 600. SCREW YOUR 600. I'M SORRY. I SHOULDN'T SAY THAT. FOR THE RECORD. FORGET YOUR 600. I WANT TO BUILD A 1000FT². SEPARATE TO ME. I WOULD BE MORE INCLINED TO SAY NO. I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT. JUST BASED ON THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE, THIS IS ALREADY AN EXISTING STRUCTURE. I DON'T THINK THIS TOWNSHIP HAS IN ITS WILL OR REQUIRED TO TELL SOMEBODY YOU NEED TO DEMOLISH PART OF YOUR HOME TO STICK WITH THIS, STICK WITH THIS ORDINANCE IN ORDER FOR US TO DO THAT. THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE WOULD BE REQUIRING HIM TO DO, OR BUILD A WHOLE NOTHER 600 SQUARE FOOT STRUCTURE SOMEWHERE ON THIS PROPERTY, WHICH, LOOKING AT THIS MAP, GOOD LUCK TRYING TO FIND THAT AND STILL HAVE ACCESS TO IT THROUGH A DRIVEWAY. SO THAT TO ME IS THAT WOULD BE A BURDENSOME ON TO THE APPLICANT. BUT I'M STILL STUCK ON LIKE WHAT YOU SAID, THE SIZE OF THIS. THE SECOND DRIVEWAY THIS IS TO ME IS I WOULD ALMOST FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE TRYING TO GO THROUGH THE CRITERIA AND SEE IF WE CAN EVALUATE THOSE INDIVIDUALLY. AND BECAUSE I'M KIND OF TEETER TOTTERING ON THE BACK AND FORTH OF IT, I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT BEING ACCESSORY BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE, BUT I'M STUCK ON THE SIZE OF THE ACCESSORY AND THE INTENT OF THE ACTUAL ZONING ORDINANCE. JUST REMEMBER THIS KIND OF BROUGHT UP AS WELL. RIGHT, RIGHT. I PROBABLY JUST CONFUSED THE HECK OUT OF WHOEVER'S TAKING THE MINUTES, BUT THEY DO A GREAT JOB. THEY CAN FIGURE THAT ONE OUT. I HAVE A QUESTION. YES. BROOKS. GO AHEAD. WHEN WE DO THIS. SO IF ONE OF US SAYS EVERYONE HAS TO BE ON THE SAME PAGE FOR THIS, RIGHT, FOR THIS TO VARIANCE TO BE APPROVED. NO, IT CAN BE A 3 TO 3. OH, OKAY. WE CAN APPROVE IT. OKAY. THE YEAH, WE CAN APPROVE WITH THREE. I THINK THAT THE WAY THAT I TYPICALLY PREFER AND LIKE TO RUN AND NOT THAT EVERYBODY HAS TO AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT WE DO HAVE SOME KIND OF CONSENSUS, AT LEAST. AND WE DO HAVE A QUORUM OF THREE SO WE CAN APPROVE WITH THREE. ALL RIGHT. I WILL START WITH THE CRITERIA BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S WHERE I END UP ANYWAY. SO CRITERIA NUMBER ONE IS UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST THAT ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND OR STRUCTURE THAT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LAND OR STRUCTURES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. AND THESE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SELF-CREATED. THIS IS ONE THAT'S NOT VERY EASY FOR ME TO MEET BECAUSE MY WORRY IS THAT THERE ARE OTHER POTENTIAL STRUCTURES THAT EXIST THAT COULD GO THIS ROUTE, AS [INAUDIBLE]. POINTED OUT. NOT THAT WE CAN USE THIS AS PRECEDENT FOR ANOTHER ADU CASE, BUT THAT THAT THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE SOMETHING THAT COULD OCCUR. YES. I CAN'T SEE THIS AS A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE. FRANKLY, IT'S A HOUSE. IT'S BEEN A HOUSE. IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. IT'S BECAUSE HE WANTS TO, IN EFFECT, SUBDIVIDE HIS HOUSE AND PROVIDE AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. THAT IS HIS DECISION. THAT IS NOT ANYTHING THAT'S CREATED OUTSIDE HERE. SO THIS IS THIS IS SIMPLY A HOME AND IN RR DISTRICT THAT HE WANTS TO SUBDIVIDE AND SELL OR RENT PART [01:25:03] OF IT. AND I DON'T SEE THAT AS A UNIQUE DIFFERENCE THAN ANY OTHER HOME THAT MAY BE IN A RR OR OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD. IT IS NOT PREVENTING HIM FROM USING IT THE WAY IT WAS BUILT AND WHAT IT WAS DESIGNED FOR. AND I DON'T SEE HOW THIS IS A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE. THE FACT THAT HE'S GOT AN EXISTING BUILDING DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING, BECAUSE ANOTHER LARGE HOME COULD DECIDE THEY WANTED TO DO THIS. THAT'S WHERE I HAVE A CHALLENGE. IT IS NOT UNIQUE. YEAH, THAT'S WHERE I HAVE THE CHALLENGE WITH UNIQUENESS. MR. SINGH, CAN YOU TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE HOME AND WHAT THE DECISION IS TO SEPARATE INTO THAT ADU. LIKE, OBVIOUSLY I'M ASSUMING I'M GOING TO ASK, DID YOU TRY OTHER WAYS OF THINKING ABOUT OR USING THIS STRUCTURE? IS IT CURRENTLY BEING USED AS PART OF YOUR LIVING SPACE OR. IT'S JUST IT'S NOT BEING USED. SO HOW CAN WE USE IT? WHAT WAS THE INTENT BEHIND APPLYING FOR THE ADU. THIS BEING AN INDEPENDENT STRUCTURE WITH ITS OWN LIVING BEDROOM, BATHROOMS AND STUFF. IT COULD BE AN INDEPENDENT STRUCTURE AWAY FROM THE MAIN STRUCTURE I'M LIVING IN. SO IT DOES QUALIFY UNDER THE ADU CUT INTO DEFINITIONS? AND NO ONE IS CURRENTLY WHERE YOU DON'T RESIDE IN IT? NOBODY. NOBODY OCCUPIES THAT SPACE. SO THAT SPACE IS JUST VACANT AND VACANT RIGHT NOW. IT'S ONLY TWO OF US LIVING IN THE HOUSE. SO THOSE TWO, THE MAIN HOME AND THE POTENTIAL ADU STRUCTURE, THEY'RE CONNECTED JUST BY A DOOR, BUT THEY SHARE ONE WALL. BUT THERE'S A CONNECTION BETWEEN WITH JUST ONE DOOR BETWEEN THE TWO STRUCTURES. ONE DOOR THAT COULD BE SHUT OFF WITH THE WALL, YOU KNOW, BY CODE. AND THAT WOULD BE SEPARATE ENTRANCE, SEPARATE MAIN ENTRANCE. AND IS WHAT SINCE BY SO THIS THIS WAS EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY WHEN YOU BOUGHT THE PROPERTY. CORRECT. THIS STRUCTURE WAS EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY WHEN YOU BOUGHT IT. YEAH. THE ONE ADU I BOUGHT IT IN 95. THAT WAS THE WAY IT IS, RIGHT? 10,000FT² BACK THEN AND STILL THE SAME THING, SO WE ADDED THE EXTRA ADDITION TO THE EXISTING ADU. I MEAN, THE ADU IN QUESTION. AND THEN WE ADDED ANOTHER 1900 SQUARE FEET FOLLOWING THAT. SO IT IS A TOTAL OF 3000FT², SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THE TIME MY WHOLE FAMILY MY SON AND DAUGHTER, EVERYBODY LIVED THERE. SO IT WAS USEFUL. NOW THEY'RE ALL GONE AND JUST LIVING ALL ALONE THERE. SO OKAY, SO THE ACTUAL SO WHAT IS THE PROPOSED ADU WAS ACTUALLY THE, THE INITIAL DWELLING ON THE PROPERTY. AND YOU BUILT THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE OVER, OVER THAT TIME. THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE I SHOULD DEFINE AS THE ONE BUILT IN 95, THAT'S THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. THEN I ADDED ON 1900 SQUARE FEET FOLLOWING THAT BACK IN 2008. SO THAT THE ADU IN QUESTION IS THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AND THE ADDITION IS THE ONE I'M LIVING RIGHT NOW. OKAY. SO, TO THE HARD PART ABOUT THAT FOR ME IS THAT THEN IT BECOMES A CAN WE PULL UP THAT THE PICTURE OF THE HOME SO THAT I CAN CLARIFY? NO, NOT IN THE GOOGLE MAPS. THE ONE THAT MR. SINGH HAD IN THE PACKET. OKAY. YEAH. JUST THAT LIKE PAGE 1423 IN THE PACKET. THERE YOU GO. YEAH, THERE WE GO. OKAY. SO JUST SO THAT WE CAN BE BE ON THE SAME PAGE, MR. SINGH, THIS THIS STRUCTURE THAT YOU LIVE IN, THE TWO STOREY STRUCTURE WITH THE BALCONY AND THE GARAGE AND THE ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE. ALL OF THAT IS NEW AS OF WHEN? YES. IS 2008 IS WHEN ALL OF THAT WAS BUILT? YES. OKAY. SO THE PROPOSED ADU WAS INITIAL WHAT YOU BOUGHT ON THE PROPERTY IN 1995? YES. AND THEN YOU BUILT THE OTHER PART OF THAT STRUCTURE WITH THE PORCH AND THE TWO STORY HOME, THE BALCONY, THE GARAGE AND THE LIVING SPACE ABOVE THE GARAGE. THAT IS ALL WHAT YOU'VE BUILT SINCE 2008. YEAH. OKAY. SO THAT IS WHERE THAT'S GOING TO BE. MY CHALLENGE IS GOING TO BE THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE NOT SELF-CREATED, BECAUSE IN BUILDING THE HOMES ATTACHED [01:30:02] AND BUILDING THE HOMES CONNECTED. WE ESSENTIALLY BUILT ONE LARGE HOME. AND I CAN THEN SEE WHERE MEMBER SAYING, THIS IS JUST ONE LARGE HOME WE'RE TRYING TO SUBDIVIDE. SO THAT'S I DO HAVE I DO HAVE ISSUE WITH I ALMOST ALWAYS CAN SAY YES TO CRITERIA NUMBER ONE. I CAN FIND A WAY TO MAKE IT UNIQUE. BUT THIS IS THE CHALLENGE IS THAT IT'S NOT EVEN THE UNIQUENESS, IT'S THAT THESE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SELF-CREATED. BUT I COULD SEE THE NEED TO BUILD ONTO THE TO THE HOME, ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAD OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS LIVING WITH YOU AT THE TIME. BUT THE CHALLENGE THEN BECOMES AGAIN THAT THE ORDINANCE OR THE VARIANCE STAYS WITH THE WITH THE PROPERTY. AND YEAH, WHAT HAPPENS WHAT HAPPENS TO IT IN THE FUTURE. SO I AM NOT ABLE TO MEET CRITERIA NUMBER ONE. AND I DON'T KNOW THAT I DON'T KNOW HOW TO BE CONVINCED OF THAT ONE. SO, IF ANYBODY IS ANYBODY ABLE TO REACH CRITERIA NUMBER ONE. NO, I MEAN, I THINK PART OF THE ISSUE IS THAT IT'S LIKE IT'S 1075FT². SO IT'S ALMOST IT'S NOT DOUBLE, BUT IT'S LIKE 75% OVER, OVER. SO IF IT WAS LIKE 800 OR SOMETHING I COULD. AND THAT'S WHAT THE SHAPE OF THE STRUCTURE WAS. AND I COULD SEE THAT. BUT BASED ON THE SHAPE OF THE STRUCTURE, IF WE PULLED BACK SOME OF THE ROOMS IN SOME WAY, THEN IT WOULD FIT WITHIN THAT ADU CRITERIA. OTHERWISE, I THINK IT'S TOO BIG. YEAH. AND WE START TALKING ABOUT IN COMPARISON TO PRIMARY. BUT THIS WAS PRIMARY AT SOME POINT. SO IT'S, IT IS SIZE OF A OF A PRIMARY RESIDENCE ATTACHED TO A PRIMARY RESIDENCE, WHICH I THINK IS THE WHERE I'M HAVING THE CHALLENGE IN REACHING THAT. I THINK THAT IF WE LOOK AT, I WOULD NOT FEEL GOOD IF I DIDN'T LOOK AT OTHER CRITERIA. BUT 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, AND I WOULD STRUGGLE TO REACH THAT CRITERIA AS WELL, BECAUSE IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AS IT IS, AND THAT IS THE PERMITTED USE FOR IT. CURRENTLY IT MEETS THAT. I DON'T FIND A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WITH THAT INHERENTLY, BECAUSE IT IS A HOME THAT IS LIVABLE AND THAT IS WHAT THE ZONING CALLS FOR. THE ZONING CALLS FOR THAT. ABSOLUTELY. SO IN TRYING TO. TAKE A PORTION OF THIS AND PUT IT INTO THE ADU SHAPED BOX, I'M HAVING A HARD TIME WITH THAT, WITH THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES OF THAT. A QUICK COMMENT. YES, I'M TRYING TO BE AS UNBIASED AS I CAN, SO NOT TAKING ONE SIDE OR ANOTHER. WITH THIS, EVEN THOUGH I'M, YOU KNOW, ON A BOARD FOR A TOWNSHIP. BUT, YOU KNOW, I'M TRYING TO SEE IF THERE'S WAYS THAT THESE CAN BE INTERPRETED DIFFERENTLY. AND IF THERE'S, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS CAN GO EITHER WAY WITH THIS. THE ONLY PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY I COULD POTENTIALLY SEE, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, IF THE GENTLEMAN IF THE APPLICANT SAYS, ALL RIGHT, I'M NOT GOING TO DO THIS, I'M GOING TO STICK WITH MY 3000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE. I GOT A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE. TECHNICALLY, THERE'S NOTHING STOPPING HIM EXCEPT MAYBE FINANCIAL AND CONNECTING WATER AND THINGS LIKE THAT, WHICH WOULD BE FINANCIAL. THERE'S NOTHING STOPPING HIM FROM SAYING, I'M GOING TO RETRACT THIS. I'M GOING TO KEEP MY 3000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE, AND I'M GOING TO BUILD A 600 SEPARATE OR ATTACH WHATEVER. I'M GOING TO BUILD A SEPARATE 600 SQUARE FOOT PAY TO YOU. I'M GOING TO KEEP MY THREE. IT'LL BE ACCESSORY. IT'S WITHIN THE GUIDELINES. FINANCIALLY, THAT MAY NOT BE WHAT HE CAN DO. THAT'S MAYBE WHY HE'S REQUESTING TO DO THIS IN THE CURRENT HOME SO HE DOESN'T HAVE TO DEMOLISH BUILD SOMETHING NEW. SO I COULD SEE THAT AS THE ONLY POTENTIAL DIFFICULTY. HOWEVER, THERE'S AN ARGUMENT TO EVERYTHING. THE ONLY TO ME, THE ARGUMENT AGAINST THAT WOULD BE TAKE HALF OF THAT BUILDING RIGHT THERE AND YOU KNOW YOUR 1075FT². CAN YOU TAKE HALF OF THAT AND CUT THAT OUT OR NOT CUT IT, BUT KEEP IT AS PART OF THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND USE HALF OF THAT FOR THE ADU. THERE'S YOUR 600FT. OR IS THERE ANOTHER WAY TO DO IT, SUCH AS IF YOU'RE NOT UTILIZING THAT BARN FULLY? HE SAID THAT WAS 30 BY 40. THAT'S 1200 SQUARE FEET. [01:35:01] CUT THAT THING IN HALF. THERE'S YOUR 600FT² FOR AN ADU. HOWEVER, NOW YOU GOT TO RUN WATER. AND SO AGAIN IT'S BACK TO THE FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES POTENTIALLY THERE. SO I THINK THERE'S ARGUMENTS ON BOTH SIDES TO BE MADE FOR SOME OF THESE THINGS. BUT I AGREE THAT IT'S HOW THIS BOARD WANTS TO INTERPRET IT IS HOW THE OUTCOME OF THIS IS GOING TO BE. AND I'M NOT YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SIDING ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO SEE FROM ALL SIDES. AND YEAH, THIS IS THIS IS A DIFFICULT ONE, ESPECIALLY FOR ME BECAUSE OF THE SITUATION. IT'D BE DIFFERENT IF THIS WAS A I THINK TO ME, THE BIGGEST DIFFICULTY IS I'M GOING TO BLAME IT ON YOU BECAUSE YOU BROUGHT IT UP. IS THIS BEING USED WITHIN THE EXISTING STRUCTURE? BECAUSE I DIDN'T REALIZE. I DIDN'T REALIZE WHERE IT WAS GOING TO BE. I WAS GOING TO BE ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WAS THAT HAND DRAWING? IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS GOING TO BE A SEPARATE STRUCTURE. RIGHT. AS SOON AS YOU CONFIRM THAT THIS IS AN EXISTING STRUCTURE. OH, THAT CHANGES THE GAME FOR ME. THAT CHANGES THE GAME FOR ME. THAT'S. AND I WAS I WAS PULLING FOR YOU, MR. SINGH, BECAUSE I WAS HOPING THAT IF IT WAS A A SEPARATE STRUCTURE, WE COULD MAKE ARGUMENT FOR SIZE. I COULD, I COULD PROBABLY, EVEN THOUGH MEMBER BROOKS RIGHTLY POINTS OUT THAT IT IS A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN THE 600 SQUARE FOOT OF THE ORDINANCE, IT IS IT'S NOT WHAT I WOULD CALL MINIMUM ACTION BY ANY MEANS, BUT I COULD WE COULD PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, TALK ABOUT IT. I GUESS I DON'T THINK THE INTENT OF THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ORDINANCE WAS TO PROVIDE FOR SOMEONE WHO'S GOT A LOT OF EXTRA AREA IN HIS HOUSE BECAUSE HIS FAMILY HAS GROWN UP TO THEREBY DECLARE A PORTION OF IT AN ADU. WELL, NO, BUT I MEAN, IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, RIGHT? IT COULD BE IN ANY, YOU KNOW CIRCUMSTANCE ASIDE, REGARDLESS OF WHO'S LIVING THERE, IF IF THAT WAS THE INTENT OF THE ADU IS TO PROVIDE TO PROVIDE DWELLING SPACE COULD BE ANY NUMBER OF CIRCUMSTANCES THAT GET THERE. BUT. IS IT IS IT A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY? YEAH. I DON'T SEE THAT. WELL, I THINK THE AND THIS COMING BACK TO MR. SHIRKY'S POINT ABOUT LIKE WHY WE DECIDED ON THE 600FT², EVEN THOUGH I CAN'T REMEMBER WHY. BUT WHEN YOU MENTIONED THE AND I WAS THERE AT THE TIME, BUT WHEN YOU MENTIONED THE DUPLEX OR MULTI-FAMILY ZONED PROPERTIES, THEN THEY COULD HAVE MULTIPLE, I THINK AT LEAST YOU COULD HAVE MULTIPLE PROPERTIES OR MULTIPLE RESIDENCES THAT WERE OF THAT SIZE. SO LIKE THIS MAY IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THIS IS A IS A REZONING REQUEST OR A I DON'T KNOW, IT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DISCUSSED AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS DISCUSSION. I SAID, WE SAT DOWN WITH THE APPLICANT AND DISCUSSED SOME OPTIONS. THAT IS AN OPTION IF YOU LOOK. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE. THE MASTER PLAN, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP LINE IS RIGHT HERE, BUT THIS IS RTD. THAT'S A MULTIFAMILY DESIGNATION WITH WHERE DUPLEXES ARE ALLOWED BY RIGHT AND THAT MR. SINGH OWNS. OH, WELL THAT'S HANDY. BUT THIS IS BUT THIS LINE IS THE DEMARCATION BETWEEN BETWEEN THAT DESIGNATION AND SINGLE FAMILY DESIGNATION. SO BUT IT IS IT IS RIGHT THERE. BUT OKAY, SO I GUESS THIS I'LL ASK THE FIRST PART OF MY QUESTION TO MR. SHIRKEY AND THE SECOND PART TO MR. SINGH. THE FIRST PART WOULD BE SO IT IS POSSIBLE IS AN OPTION TO PURSUE THE AVENUE OF REZONING. ABSOLUTELY, ABSOLUTELY. MR. SINGH, WHY NOT ATTEMPT A REZONING OF THIS PROPERTY AND GO FOR THE ADU KNOWING THAT YOU HAVE SUCH A BIG DISCREPANCY ON SIZE? WELL, I THINK I ACTUALLY WANTED TO REZONE THE PROPERTY. OKAY. AND THEN I WAS TOLD THAT ADU JUST PASSED ABOUT SIX MONTHS AGO OR SO LAST YEAR. SO THEY ASKED ME TO APPLY FOR THAT AS LONG AS THE SQUARE FOOT MEETS THE ZONING REQUIREMENT. I TOLD THEM THAT IT'S 1000FT² AGAINST 600, SO YOU HAD TO GO TO THE ZONING BOARD TO HAVE IT LOOKED AT, APPROVE IT SO BEFORE THEY CAN GET THE BUILDING PERMIT. SO OKAY, SO THAT'S THE WAY IT WAS. SO MAYBE THE ZONING BOARD BEING FIRST AVENUE REZONING BEING A SECOND AVENUE, IS THAT THERE? OR IS IT JUST KIND OF A SIMILAR ENOUGH PROCESS THAT ONE OR THE OTHER. THESE ARE NOT. NO, THEY'RE NOT SIMILAR PROCESS. SO THAT'S WHY. GOT IT. NO. REZONING IS A PUBLIC HEARING. TWO MEETINGS AT PLANNING COMMISSION. THREE MEETINGS AT THE BOARD. YEAH. GOT IT. OKAY. WE'RE STARTING TO MAKE A LITTLE BIT MORE SENSE, BUT THE REZONE, IF IT WAS APPROVED, WOULD ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO DO WHAT THEY REQUESTED WITH THE PROPERTY. [01:40:09] RIGHT. PER SE. RIGHT. THEY WOULDN'T EVEN. YOU WOULDN'T EVEN HAVE TO CONSIDER THAT AN ACCESSORY AND SPLIT THAT AND CALL IT TWO DIFFERENT DWELLING UNITS. AND IT WOULD BE PERMITTED BY RIGHT. BUT ALSO IN THAT RIGHT COULD ALSO ADD ADDITIONAL. AN ADDITIONAL ADD AROUND HERE. I DON'T KNOW IF IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THE TOWNSHIP IF THE TOWNSHIP ALLOWS A TO USE AN RV DIESEL. OKAY. ANY RESIDENTIAL. ANY SINGLE FAMILY. RESIDENTIAL FAMILY? YEAH. A SINGLE FAMILY USE. SO IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY? NO, IT'S A MULTI-FAMILY DESIGNATION. SO YOU WOULD. OKAY. SO YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO. HE WOULDN'T. IT WOULDN'T MATTER. IT WOULD JUST CONSIDER THAT A DWELLING UNIT BECAUSE DUPLEXES ARE ALLOWED. YEAH. THERE'D BE, YOU KNOW, SETBACK RULES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT. RIGHT. BUT IT WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE. SO THERE'S AVENUES. THERE'S AVENUES TO REACH. JEEZ. REACH YOUR GOAL. I DO THINK THIS THIS DOES GIVE ME SOME SHED SOME LIGHT ON THE SITUATION. IT DOES HELP A LITTLE BIT TO UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WANTING TO PURSUE THE ADU FIRST ULTIMATELY. AND IF IF GRANTED, THAT WOULD SAVE US SOME, SOME CHALLENGING WORK TO REZONE. BUT I AM STILL NOT QUITE ABLE TO I JUST THE UNIQUE THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SELF-CREATED IS REALLY MY THE CRUX OF THE CHALLENGE OR THE CRUX OF THE CRITERIA FOR ME. CRITERIA NUMBER THREE IS GRANTING THE VARIANCES, THE MINIMUM ACTION NECESSARY, WHICH WOULD CARRY OUT THE SPIRIT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECURE PUBLIC SAFETY, AND PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. I'M GUESSING MEMBER, BROOKS AND MEMBER ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO MEET THAT MINIMUM REQUIREMENT ON THAT CRITERIA. MEMBER BROOKS IS NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO MEET THAT MINIMUM ACTION. AND WHEN WE GET TO CRITERIA NUMBER FOUR WOULD BE GRANTING THE VARIANCE WOULD. AND I'M NOT MEANING TO LEAVE YOU OUT. MEMBER. OH, I DON'T THINK YOU'D MEET THAT MINIMUM ACTION EITHER NECESSARILY. YEAH. I MEAN THERE'S THERE'S ARGUMENTS FOR EVERYTHING. OKAY. I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. I TEND TO AGREE WITH YOU. I LOVE YOUR YOUR DEVIL'S ADVOCACY THERE. CRITERIA NUMBER FOUR IS GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND OR THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY. I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE AFFECTING THE ADJACENT LAND. IT'S IT'S THEY'RE NOT. NOTHING IS NOTHING IS CHANGING. SO I CAN I CAN VERY MUCH MEET CRITERIA FOR CRITERIA FIVE IS GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS CHAPTER. AND I STRUGGLE WITH THIS ONE BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS IN THE SPIRIT OF THE ADU ORDINANCE. THIS NEW ORDINANCE, I DON'T I JUST IT'S NEW ENOUGH AND IT DOESN'T IT DOESN'T I JUST DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT IT YET. SO I STRUGGLE WITH CRITERIA FIVE SO IT CAN MEET CRITERIA FOUR. BUT I STRUGGLE WITH THE OTHERS. SO IN LIGHT OF THAT, I DON'T THINK THAT I WOULD BE ABLE TO SUPPORT GRANTING THIS VARIANCE THIS EVENING. CAN I ASK A QUESTION TO MR. KOENIG? GO FOR IT. MR. SAWYER IS THERE IS VERY BROAD QUESTION, BUT IS THERE IF WE WERE TO IF THE APPLICANT WERE TO WITHDRAW THIS APPLICATION, DOES THE TOWNSHIP STILL KEEP THE APPLICATION FEE OR DOES IT GO BACK TO THE APPLICANT? IF THEY WERE TO WITHDRAW THIS APPLICATION? NO, NO, NO, WE'VE WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE EXPENSE OF NOTICING THIS AND PUT STAFF TIME INTO THIS. OKAY. SO THE MONEY STAYS. GOTCHA. OKAY. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. YEP. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS OR. HOW WE WANT TO PROCEED? I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST. 24. 104 2020 M 78 EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN. SUPPORT. OKAY, SO THIS WOULD BE A MOTION TO DENY. BASED ON THE INABILITY TO REACH CRITERIAS ONE THROUGH FOUR. YEAH, I THINK 123 AND 112, THREE AND FIVE. PERHAPS. OKAY. [01:45:06] OKAY. ANY SUPPORT MEMBER MEMBER SUPPORT AND DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION. I JUST WANTED TO SAY JUST ONE THING FOR THE RECORD. I WILL SUPPORT THE MOTION THAT WAS MADE. HOWEVER, AS YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD, MR. SINGH, I DO THINK THERE ARE OTHER AVENUES FOR YOU TO GO AFTER. IF YOU REALLY WANT TO HAVE AN ADU ON YOUR PROPERTY. EITHER A REZONING WILL ALLOW YOU TO DO AN ACTUAL. YOU STILL HAVE TO WORK WITH THE TOWNSHIP, BUT A POTENTIAL. I WOULD TALK WITH MR. SHARKEY WHEN WE'RE DONE HERE. POTENTIAL REZONING MIGHT BE AN OPTION THAT YOU WOULDN'T EVEN HAVE TO CONSIDER THAT AN ADU WOULD JUST BE CONSIDERED ANOTHER A SECOND DWELLING, BECAUSE DUPLEXES, TWO DWELLING UNITS, OR A LOT WOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER THAT RTD ZONE DISTRICT. OR IF YOU HAVE THE FINANCIAL RESOURCES, WHICH I DON'T KNOW IF YOU DO. THERE THERE WOULD BE NOTHING STOPPING YOU FROM SAYING, I'M GOING TO KEEP THIS WHOLE 3000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE AND I'M GOING TO BUILD A SEPARATE ADU. THAT'S ALWAYS AN OPTION AS WELL. FIGURING OUT WHERE TO PUT IT, BECAUSE YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE ACCESS WITH WITH THE REGULAR DRIVEWAY. THAT'D BE YOUR CHALLENGE. AND HOW TO CONNECT THE WATER AND SEWER AND ALL THAT THINGS. BUT THAT'S IF YOU HAVE THE FINANCIAL MEANS TO DO THAT. BUT I THINK THE REASON I WOULD DEFINITELY ENCOURAGE YOU TO TRY TO WORK WITH THE TOWNSHIP AND TALK TO THEM ABOUT THE REZONE OPTION AND SEE IF THAT MIGHT BE VIABLE FOR YOU, BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE IT MAY IT MAY GET YOU AT THE END OF WHAT YOU WANT. YEAH. YEAH. BUT I WOULD TONIGHT SUPPORT THE THE MOTION MADE ON THIS VARIANCE REQUEST. YEAH. AND I WOULD I WOULD ADD, MR. SINGH I THINK THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S SOME OTHER CHALLENGES AND HURDLES STILL TO TO CROSS BETWEEN YOU AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. AS FAR AS THE DRIVEWAY AND SOME OTHER ISSUES THAT MAYBE EVEN GET. GRANTING THIS VARIANCE MAY NOT GET YOU TO THAT HAVING THAT ADU. SO PERHAPS THE REZONING IS THE BETTER OPTION HERE FOR YOU IN ORDER TO GET THOSE REQUIREMENTS MET MORE EASILY. NOT THAT EVERY ZONING IS AN EASY PROCESS, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S STILL QUITE A BIT OF WORK TO GO THROUGH WITH PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT. SO WHAT IS THE REASON THAT THIS IS DENIED? SO THE REASON WOULD BE BEGINNING WITH OUR CRITERIA. OUR FIRST CRITERIA IS 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. WE HAVE OUR FINDING. WE ARE NOT ABLE TO REACH THAT CRITERIA, MEANING WE'RE NOT ABLE TO AGREE THAT THESE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST IN THIS HOME AND THAT THEY ARE NOT SELF-CREATED. BECAUSE REMEMBER WE SPOKE ABOUT HOW THE HOME WAS EXISTING, AND THEN YOU BUILT ONTO THE HOME AND BUILT THE NEW, NEWER PRIMARY RESIDENCE TO THE HOME SO THAT IN THAT NOT BEING ABLE TO REACH CRITERIA NUMBER ONE, NOT BEING ABLE TO REACH CRITERIA NUMBER TWO, THREE AND FIVE IS WHY WE'RE STRUGGLING. WE ARE NOT ABLE TO APPROVE THIS. WE HAVE NOT VOTED. BUT THAT'S WHAT THE MOTION IS FOR. BASED ON THOSE CRITERIA NOT BEING ABLE TO BE MET WE DID NOT FIND THAT WE COULD MEET THE CRITERIA OF THAT. THE LITERAL TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER WOULD RESULT IN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES THAT WOULD PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR THE PERMITTED PURPOSE. SINCE YOU ARE IN THE HOME AND YOU'RE DWELLING IN THE HOME. AND IT'S ABLE TO BE USED AS A PRIMARY RESIDENCE. THAT IS, WE'RE NOT FINDING THAT IT'S A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY TO NOT GRANT THE USAGE AS AN ADU PROPERTY FOR THE FOR THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AND CRITERIA. THREE SAYS THAT GRANTING THE VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM ACTION NECESSARY, WHICH WOULD CARRY OUT THE SPIRIT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECURE PUBLIC SAFETY, AND PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. AGAIN, WE WERE NOT ABLE TO MEET THIS AS A MINIMUM ACTION BECAUSE THE ADU SIZE IS 600FT² AND THIS IS AT 1075. IS THAT CORRECT? BEING AT 1075FT², THAT THAT WOULD BE IT'S NOT A MINIMUM ACTION. IT'S AS ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HERE POINTED OUT, WOULD BE A LARGE PERCENTAGE HIGHER THAN WHAT THAT 600FT² MAXIMUM IS FOR THE ADU. AND ALSO THAT WE'RE STILL IN CRITERIA NUMBER FIVE, THAT IT'S GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS CHAPTER. WE ARE BECAUSE THAT ADU DESIGNATION IS SO NEW TO US, AND WE'RE STILL TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS. [01:50:05] WE ARE NOT WE'RE NOT ABLE TO SEE THAT IT MEETS THE SPIRIT OF WHAT THE ADU ORDINANCE STATES AND WHAT IT'S THERE FOR, WHICH IS TO BE A SMALLER, YOU KNOW, DWELLING. THIS IS, AS WE POINTED OUT, A COUPLE OF TIMES DURING OUR DISCUSSION, A LARGER, ALMOST A SINGLE FAMILY HOME EXISTING THAT THEN WAS BUILT NEXT TO, YOU KNOW, ANOTHER LARGER PRIMARY RESIDENCE WAS THEN BUILT NEXT TO IT. AND THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY CONNECTED SO THAT IT'S NOT EXISTING AS ITS OWN. AS AN ADU WAS DESIGNED TO DO, AS WE'RE INTERPRETING IT FROM, FROM THAT ADU ORDINANCE. DOES THAT DOES THAT HELP TO KIND OF UNDERSTAND OUR WAY OF THINKING IN THIS? YEAH, I UNDERSTAND IT. THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE WAS BUILT LIKE THAT. I MEAN, I CAN REDUCE IT, I KNOW, TO 600. I KNOCK IT OFF SOME MAYBE IN THE BACK. RIGHT. AND THAT'S THAT IS SOMETHING I THINK MEMBER KOENIG. IF I HAD TO KNOCK OUT, I PROBABLY HAD TO ELIMINATE ONE BATHROOM. PROBABLY. YEAH. THE 1000. I MEAN, 1200 SQUARE FEET, 120FT² WOULD BE OFF. STILL BE ABOVE 600 LEVEL, RIGHT? SO IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. THIS IS IT'S A GRANDFATHERED IN SQUARE FEET. SO THAT'S WHAT I'M COMING FROM RIGHT. AND THAT'S AND THAT'S KIND OF THE CHALLENGE IS THAT IT WAS BECAUSE IT WAS PREEXISTING TO THE NOW WHERE YOU DO LIVE IN THE, IN THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE. THAT IS THE CHALLENGE THAT WE'RE HAVING IS THAT WHEN YOU BUILD THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE. YOU MADE THIS INTO A VERY, VERY LARGE HOME NOW. SO IT'S 1900 SQUARE FEET ON ONE SIDE AND ALMOST 1100 ON THE SECOND SIDE. SO WE'RE ALMOST AT 3000FT² TOTAL. BUT IN ADDING ON AND MAKING THAT LARGER PRIMARY RESIDENCE THAT YOU LIVE IN, THIS CREATED KIND OF A STRANGE BALANCE BETWEEN THE TWO, AND IT'S JUST NOT QUITE SMALL ENOUGH TO BE AN ADU, BUT ALSO NOT LARGE ENOUGH TO BE AS LARGE AS THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE YOU'RE CURRENTLY LIVING IN. SO IT IS A VERY DIFFICULT AND STRANGE CIRCUMSTANCE, BUT WE DIDN'T FIND IT TO BE, AS POINTED OUT EARLIER, THE HOME ITSELF BEING 300FT², 3000 SQUARE FOOT TOTAL. IF WE ADD THE ORIGINAL SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT WE'RE WANTING TO TALK ABOUT BEING AN ADU WITH THE CURRENT PRIMARY RESIDENCE THAT YOU LIVE IN. WE'RE LOOKING AT A TOTAL OF 3000 SQUARE FOOT. IF SOMEBODY ELSE ALSO IN THE RR DISTRICT SAID, OH, I HAVE A 3000 SQUARE FOOT HOME AND I WANT TO CREATE THIS PART OF MY HOUSE TO BE AN ADU. THAT'S THE CHALLENGE WE'RE HAVING WITH THAT IS THAT IT'S JUST A VERY IT DOESN'T QUITE GO WITH THE SPIRIT OF THAT ADU BEING ITS OWN SMALLER, INDEPENDENT DWELLING UNIT. SO WOULD YOU APPROVE? I CAN WITHDRAW THE APPLICATION AS LONG AS THE MONEY IS RETURNED TO ME SO I CAN GO THE OTHER ROUTE. WELL, MR. KOENIG DID ASK THAT BECAUSE I THINK HE WAS. THAT'S WHAT HE WAS. HE WAS HE WAS WONDERING. AND WHAT HE WAS CONCERNED WITH IS AND UNFORTUNATELY, MR. SHORKEY DID CONFIRM THAT IT WOULDN'T BE AN OPTION BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY BEEN THERE'S TIME AND TIME THAT THE STAFF MEMBERS HAVE SPENT ON PUTTING TOGETHER THIS CASE FOR US, IT HAD TO BE PUT IN THE NEWSPAPER TO PROMOTE IT FOR THE PUBLIC NOTICE, SO THAT'S ALREADY MONEY THAT'S BEEN SPENT BY THE TOWNSHIP ON THIS CASE. SO IT WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BE WITHDRAWN. BUT WE DO. AND AGAIN, WE HAVEN'T VOTED YET, BUT I THINK ALL OF US WOULD REALLY STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO ATTEMPT TO REZONE THAT AREA. SO, THIS DECISION OF THIS THIS BOARD WILL HELP ME TO EXPEDITE THE PROCESS OF REZONING. WE CAN DISCUSS IT FURTHER IN THE OFFICE. OKAY. WE CAN. I'LL BE HAPPY TO SIT DOWN AND TALK TO YOU ABOUT WHAT TO DO FROM THIS. SO SOMEBODY SAID IT'S GOING TO TAKE TWO YEARS TO GET THAT THROUGH. SO I WON'T BE LIVING THAT LONG. IT WILL NOT BE. IT'S NOT A TWO YEAR PROCESS. WE CAN TALK FOR A YEAR. YEAH. SO, THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY IS TO REZONE THE PROPERTY. THEN GET THE ZONING FOR THE DUPLEX. WE CAN TALK FURTHER AND I'LL EXPLAIN THE PROCESS. OKAY. FROM THIS POINT FORWARD, PLEASE. YEAH. UNFORTUNATELY, WE DON'T. YEAH. WE DON'T BECAUSE THAT'S A SEPARATE THAT WOULD BE A SEPARATE ENTITY THAT WOULD HANDLE THAT THAT CASE. BUT WE HAVE TO GO BASED ON WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US. [01:55:03] AND THAT'S WHY WE FIND OURSELVES IN A DIFFICULT SITUATION. IT'S NEVER, NEVER EASY TO DENY A REQUEST BECAUSE WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO HELP AS MANY CITIZENS AS POSSIBLE GET THERE. IT'S THAT WE NEED TO DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE FOLLOWING ALL THOSE CRITERIA. AND IN ORDER TO NOT ONLY BE FAIR, BUT ALSO TO BE JUST AND FOLLOW THE ORDINANCE AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE, AND KNOWING THAT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS THAT NEED TO BE MADE HERE AND THERE. THAT'S WHY THE BOARD EXISTS. BUT WE DO HAVE TO TRY TO ADHERE AS CLOSELY AS WE CAN. WE'VE TRIED WE'VE TRIED TO MAKE WE'VE TRIED TO TRIED TO MAKE SOME ARGUMENTS. MEMBER KOENIG HAD SOME EXCELLENT ARGUMENTS FOR APPROVING THIS VARIANCE. BUT I THINK ULTIMATELY WE WERE GOING TO HAVE A EVEN IF, EVEN IF MEMBER KOENIG AND I COULD GET TO THOSE ARGUMENTS, WE WOULD BE SPLIT IN HALF HOUR. I DO THINK WE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO REACH A YES VOTE. SO IF WE HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS REGARDING THE MOTION ON THE TABLE, WHICH IS TO DENY THIS VARIANCE REQUEST I WILL TAKE THOSE AT THIS TIME. AND IF NOT, THEN I WILL GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE. OKAY. THIS IS A VOTE TO DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST IN ZBA CASE NUMBER 24-10 FOR THE INABILITY TO MEET THE CRITERIA NUMBER TWO, THREE, TWO, ONE, TWO, THREE AND FIVE. EXCUSE ME FOR THE MINUTES. AND THE CHAIR VOTES. YES. SO, UNFORTUNATELY, YOUR VOTE HAS. OR YOUR VARIANCE REQUEST HAS BEEN DENIED. BUT MR. SHORKEY AND STAFF AND THE BUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT WILL BE HAPPY TO TALK YOU THROUGH AND GET YOU TO THE NEXT STEPS TO START GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF HOPEFULLY GETTING THAT REZONED. THANK YOU. YEAH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE TONIGHT. DO YOU WANT TO COME IN ABOUT 11:00 TOMORROW? YEAH. OKAY. I'LL SEE YOU AT 11:00. WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT. WOULD YOU PLEASE COME FORWARD? OKAY. NO. 11:00. I DON'T WANT 11:00 AT NIGHT. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. SINGH. ALL RIGHT. THAT BRINGS US BACK TO. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER BUSINESS? WE DO NOT. WE HAVE NO OTHER BUSINESS ON THE AGENDA. AND SO THEN I WILL OPEN THE FLOOR TO PUBLIC REMARKS IF WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC REMARKS THIS EVENING, AND DON'T ALL JUMP UP AT ONCE TO GO UP THERE AND TELL US HOW ENTERTAINING THESE MEETINGS ARE. ON THAT NOTE, I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC REMARKS AND OPEN IT TO BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS. [9. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS] THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE, AND I APPRECIATE YOU HOLDING DOWN THE FORT FOR A VERY LONG AND CHALLENGING MEETING IN JUNE. SO I APPRECIATE YOU ALL BEING HERE. AND OTHER THAN THAT, I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER WORDS. ALL RIGHT. ON THAT, I WILL CLOSE BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS. AND THIS MEETING IS NOW ADJOURNED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. TWO HOURS. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.