[00:00:01]
>> TECHNICALLY, IT COULD BE THREE, RIGHT? BECAUSE THEN ALL THREE HAVE TO VOTE?
>> THREE IS IMPORTANT BUT ALL THREE HAVE TO VOTE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> ALL THREE HAVE TO VOTE POSITIVELY?
>> RIGHT. [FOREIGN] IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
>> YOU'RE GOOD TO GO [INAUDIBLE].
>> LET ME GET MY MICROPHONE. THERE WE GO.
GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF MERIDIAN,
[1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER]
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING.TONIGHT IS WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 18TH. IT IS 6:30.
I'M OFFICIALLY GOING TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER.
WE WILL BEGIN WITH A ROLL CALL. MEMBER BROOKS.
I CAN'T SCROLL ON THAT. LOOKING AT TONIGHT'S AGENDA.
[2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA]
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE JUST NEED AN APPROVAL OF TONIGHT'S AGENDA.>> THIS IS ANY DISCUSSION ON THE AGENDA THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT.
THIS WOULD BE A VOTE TO APPROVE TONIGHT'S AGENDA BROUGHT FORTH BY MEMBER TREZISE AND SECONDED BY MEMBER KOENIG.
>> THE CHAIR VOTES YES, SO TONIGHT'S AGENDA IS APPROVED.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO APPROVAL AND RATIFICATION
[3. CORRECTIONS, APPROVAL AND RATIFICATION OF MINUTES]
OR CORRECTIONS OF THE MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 18TH, 2024.ANY DISCUSSION ON THOSE MINUTES AS PRESENTED? I LOOK THROUGH, I THINK WE ALL CHARACTERIZED VERY NICELY.
[LAUGHTER] IT'S VERY WELL SUMMARIZED.
I WILL MOTION TO APPROVE TONIGHT THE MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 18TH, 2024 AS PRESENTED.
>> THIS IS A VOTE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 18TH, 2024. MEMBER BROOKS?
>> THE CHAIR VOTES YES SO THE MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 18TH, 2024 HAVE BEEN APPROVED.
OUR NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS WOULD BE COMMUNICATIONS OF WHICH THERE ARE NONE OF RECORD AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS OF WHICH THERE IS NONE, THANKFULLY.
WE WILL MOVE RIGHT INTO NEW BUSINESS AND THAT WILL BEGIN WITH ZBA CASE NUMBER 24-11,
[6.A. ZBA CASE NO.: 24-11 (Grand Reserve), Mayberry Homes, 1650 Kendale Blvd. #200, East Lansing, MI 48823 ]
GRAND RESERVE, MAYBERRY HOMES, 1650 KENDALE BOULEVARD, NUMBER 200, EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN, 48823.>> GOOD EVENING. AS NOTED BY THE CHAIR, THIS IS A VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 86-471, PARAGRAPH B, PARAGRAPH 1.
STRUCTURES AND GRADIENT ACTIVITY SHALL BE SET BACK FROM THE EDGE OF A WATER FEATURE AS FOLLOWS AND IN THIS CASE, IT'S A WETLAND SETBACK OF 40 FEET.
THIS IS THE GRAND RESERVE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S HAPPENING ON CENTRAL PARK BOULEVARD BUT THERE'S FIVE BUILDINGS ON THAT PARCEL THAT REQUIRE A DIFFERENT SETBACK FOR THEIR DECKS.
IF YOU'LL INDULGE ME, I'LL EXPLAIN HOW THIS CAME TO BE A LITTLE BIT.
>> THIS IS THE APPROVED SITE PLAN FOR GRAND RESERVE.
IT'S A MIXTURE OF DUPLEXES AND SINGLE-FAMILY STRUCTURES.
AS AN EXAMPLE, UNITS 59 AND 60 RIGHT HERE AND MAYBE I CAN ZOOM IN A LITTLE BIT.
YOU CAN SEE THIS IS A DECK AND THIS IS A DECK AND THEY WERE SET OFF TO THE SIDE ON THE APPROVED SITE PLAN, KEEPING THEM OUT OF THE WETLAND SETBACK.
WHEN WE GOT THE BUILDING PERMITS FOR THEM, THE SURVEY SHOWED THE SETBACKS OFF THE REAR THUS THEY'RE IN THE WETLAND SETBACK AND IN ALL FIVE OF THESE CASES, THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON.
THAT'S REALLY THE GIST OF WHY WE NEED THIS.
THIS CHART SUMMARIZES ALL OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTS AND I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SITE,
[00:05:03]
I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ORDINANCE.THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. SHORKEY.
WOULD THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE, LIKE TO COME UP TO THE PODIUM AND SPEAK ON THE CASE?
>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME ON BEHALF OF MAYBERRY HOMES AND DTN. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'M SORRY, WILL YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD?
>> YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD.
>> NATHAN SMITH AND I ACTUALLY DON'T KNOW MAYBERRY'S ADDRESS BY HEART.
BUT AS HE WAS STATING EARLIER ABOUT THE WETLANDS AND THE BUFFER ZONE, WHAT MAYBERRY IS LOOKING TO DO IS INSTEAD OF KEEPING THE DECKS ON THE SIDE, IS THEY WANT TO PUT THE DECKS INTO THE BUFFER ZONE.
A LOT OF THAT HAS THE DISTANCE BETWEEN IT AND THEN THE DISTANCE FOR EACH POST.
ONE THING ABOUT THE DECKS IS THEY WILL BE ABOUT FIVE FEET OFF THE GROUND AND EACH POST IS A FOUR-BY-EIGHT POST.
THE HOLE IS ABOUT 12 INCHES WIDE, IT WILL GO 24 INCHES DEEP.
WE JUST ARE LOOKING TO MAINTAIN UNITY AND SEAMLINE AND FUNCTIONALITY, BASICALLY.
>> IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE THIS EVENING? IF NOT, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.
MR. SMITH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO STAY UP THERE? [OVERLAPPING]
>> SINCE IT DOESN'T APPEAR THERE'S ANYBODY ELSE TO TALK ABOUT THIS CASE THIS EVENING.
THAT WAY, AS WE GET INTO BOARD TIME, WE CAN ASK YOU QUESTIONS AS THEY COME UP.
I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.
OPEN BOARD TIME FOR THIS CASE.
ANYBODY WANT TO START? I'M GOING TO JUMP IN BECAUSE I'M SURE OTHERS ARE THINKING IT.
I HEARD IN YOUR FIRST STATEMENT, MR. SMITH.
>> THAT THE EFFORT TO MOVE THE DECKS FROM WHERE THEY WERE PLACED ON THE SIDE IN THE SITE PLAN TO THE BACK WAS TO KEEP UNITY?
>> CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE SO WE CAN UNDERSTAND?
>> IF YOU CAN GO BACK TO THE BLUEPRINT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> YES. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE OTHER UNITS, THEY'RE ALL IN THE BACK.
THEY'RE HOPING THAT IF YOU GRANT THEM VARIANCE THAT WE CAN MOVE THOSE TO THE BACK, THEY ALL WILL LOOK THE SAME, ALL IN UNITY.
I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S NOT ACTUALLY IN THE WETLANDS AND JUST THE BUFFER ZONE.
WITH IT JUST BEING A FOUR-BY-EIGHT POST, FIVE FEET OFF THE GROUND, NOTHING IS NECESSARILY AFFECTED.
THEY WOULD BE LIFTED OFF THE GROUND.
>> WHAT I'M HEARING AND THIS IS WHERE WE'RE GOING TO START GETTING INTO OUR CRITERIA THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO START PUTTING THIS UP AGAINST, IS THAT IT'S MORE OF AN AESTHETIC PURPOSE THAN FOR ANY PRACTICAL PURPOSE, WOULD THAT BE FAIR TO SAY?
>> THEN THERE'S A SINGLE-FAMILY UNIT ABOVE, [OVERLAPPING] 50.
>> THAT'S NOT ON THE SCREEN. GOT IT.
I'M GOING TO STRUGGLE RIGHT AWAY WITH JUST THE FACT THAT IT'S AESTHETIC AND NOT PRACTICAL.
BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE THESE WETLAND BUFFERS FOR A REASON AND I THINK THERE'S A MINIMUM ACTION HERE OF YES, THEY ARE JUST POSTS, BUT THE EVEN MORE MINIMUM ACTION OF THAT IS WE DON'T NEED THEM BECAUSE IT'S AN AESTHETIC REASON NOT FOR PRACTICAL.
IF IT WAS A PRACTICAL PURPOSE LIKE SOMETHING WAS SHIFTED IN THE BUILDING OR SOMETHING WAS SHIFTED IN THE DESIGN OR THE SITE PLAN.
BUT THE SITE PLAN AS IS, I BELIEVE AND MEMBER SHORKEY MIGHT CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT WE SAW THIS FOR A DIFFERENT VARIANCE, DID WE NOT?
>> YOU DID. BEFORE THE SITE PLAN WAS APPROVED, THERE WAS A WETLAND BUFFER VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROAD FROM THE BLOCKS. [OVERLAPPING]
>> OF THE ROAD. AGAIN, SO I'M FEELING WE KNEW THAT THE WETLAND WAS GOING TO BE TRICKY AND AN ISSUE BEFORE THE SITE PLAN WAS BROUGHT FORTH AND I DID THINK THAT THIS SEEMED FAMILIAR.
I'M GOING TO STRUGGLE WITH THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, GENTLEMEN.
>> I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR MR. SHORKEY.
THE ROAD THAT'S THROUGH THERE, WHAT'S THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THESE BUILDINGS? IS IT 25 FEET FROM THE CENTER LINE OF THE ROAD?
[00:10:12]
THERE'S NO CONSISTENT SETBACK PER SEC BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT SEPARATE PARCELS.
>> WHEN I LOOK AT THE SURVEY, I DON'T HAVE THAT DISTANCE.
YOU MUST HAVE A COMMON DISTANCE YOU'RE LOOKING TO SET THESE BUILDINGS BACK FROM THE ROAD, RIGHT?
>> RIGHT. WHAT ARE YOU SHOOTING FOR?
>> I BELIEVE 32 FEET FROM CURB.
>> BUT THERE'S NOTHING SPECIFYING THAT PER SEC. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THE REASON I ASKED THAT IS BECAUSE YOU LOOK AT MOST OF THESE AND LOOKING AT THE SETBACK FROM WHAT APPEARS TO BE THE CURB FROM LOOKING ON PAGE 4, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS IS.
THE FIRST DRAWING YOU HAVE IN YOUR PACKET.
>> HERE. I WILL SCROLL DOWN TO THAT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> IF YOU COULD. THERE. [OVERLAPPING] THAT'S 32.6.
THAT I THINK IS ONE OF THE LARGEST THAT I SEE IN THE BUILDINGS, AND THE LOWEST, I THINK IS 29.8.
THEY'RE ALL WITHIN THAT 30 FEET. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I DIDN'T KNOW IF THE SETBACK WAS 25 FEET OR NOT, MY QUESTION AND MORE NOW WITH THAT AND I APPRECIATE THAT NOW STAFF.
FOR THE APPLICANT IS, IF YOU LOOK AT SOME OF IT, TAKE THAT FIRST ONE, YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURE IN THE UPPER RIGHT-HAND CORNER AND THAT ZOOMED IN ON THAT DECK.
SEE UP THERE IN THE UPPER RIGHT CORNER.
KEEP SCROLLING UP. THERE YOU GO.
>> IF YOU WERE TO PULL THAT WHOLE THING DOWN BY 3.42 FEET, THAT DECK WOULD NOW ESSENTIALLY BE OUT OF THAT BUFFER.
>> MOST OF THESE ARE VERY SIMILAR EXCEPT THE LARGEST ONE, I THINK IT IS ABOUT SIX FEET.
WAS THERE ANY THOUGHT OF POTENTIALLY JUST SHIFTING THOSE BUILDINGS THAT MANY FEET CLOSER TO THE ROAD? I KNOW IT WOULDN'T BE UNIFORM WITH YOUR 30-FOOT STANDARD TO 32, BUT JUST SHIFTING THOSE BUILDINGS AND AKA THOSE DECKS OUT BECAUSE YOU'RE TALKING THIS MUCH, TWO OR THREE FEET.
THAT WOULD KEEP YOU OUT OF THE BUFFER AND WOULDN'T EVEN REQUIRE THE VARIANCE TO BEGIN WITH.
OBVIOUSLY, DID MAYBERRY THINK ABOUT THAT OR WAS THAT DISCUSSED DURING THE SITE PLAN REVIEW?
JOE SCHROEDER IS HEADING UP THIS PROJECT, BUT HE'S ON VACATION THIS WEEK, SO I WAS OFFERED TO STEP IN TONIGHT FOR HIM.
BUT I DO KNOW THE MAIN THING ON THEIR THING WAS AESTHETIC AND TO KEEP THEM ALL IN LINE AND NOT HAVE 1, 2 TO 3 FEET OUT FURTHER THAN THE OTHERS.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS A MAYBERRY CHOICE OR A DTN CHOICE, BUT AS FAR AS IF THAT WAS EVER TALKED ABOUT, I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
>> CAN I ASK FOR CLARITY? DTN IS THE DEVELOPER, MAYBERRY IS JUST BUILDING?
>> WHO DEVELOPED THEN THE SITE PLAN WAS DTN, NOT MAYBERRY?
>> CORRECT? AS MR. SMITH, YOU'RE A REPRESENTATIVE OF MAYBERRY, THE TRICKY PART IS FOR US THEN I THINK TALKING TO SOMEBODY FROM DTN WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THAT MR. SMITH CAN ANSWER THAT.
>> BUT THAT DOESN'T HELP US IN THIS EXACT MOMENT. [LAUGHTER]
>> BECAUSE MY POINT IS IF YOU LOOK AT THAT SITE PLAN AND I ASSUME THE SITE PLAN HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE TOWNSHIP?
>> THE APPROVED SITE PLAN DOES SHOW THOSE AS BEING ON THE SIDE.
BUT FOR SOME REASON, THE DEVELOPER OR THE BUILDER OR WHOEVER SUBMITTED THE SITE PLAN, PUT THOSE OFF TO THE SIDE, PROBABLY, PRESUMABLY TO STAY OUT OF THE WETLAND.
IN THE MEANTIME, THEY DECIDED, WE'RE GOING TO SHIFT IT IN THE BACK FOR AESTHETIC OR WHATEVER, KEEP UNIFORM.
THAT PART I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND, BUT NOW IT BRINGS UP THIS ISSUE, WHICH IN THE FIRST PLACE, THAT'S WHY THE SITE PLAN SHOWED THOSE THINGS ON THE SIDE.
THAT WAS MY BIG CONCERN BASICALLY.
I UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE POSTS AND ALL THAT AND IN MY OPINION, I DON'T LIKE PUTTING STUFF IN WETLANDS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT FOUR-FOOT BY FOUR-FOOT WOOD POSTS IS NOT THE END OF THE WORLD TO ME FOR 5, 06, 7 DIFFERENT DECKS.
THAT'S JUST MY OPINION [OVERLAPPING] AND THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION, BUT FOR ME, IF THERE'S A WAY TO BASICALLY TRY TO NEGATE THE VARIANCE BEING REQUESTED, THAT'S THE FIRST THING THAT I'M GOING TO LOOK FOR.
IT ALMOST TO ME APPEARS LIKE THAT COULD BE THE CASE.
NOW, THAT'S MORE OF A QUESTION, LIKE YOU SAID, MAYBE FOR YOUR DTN PEOPLE BECAUSE IF THEY WANT TO KEEP THE FRONT YARDS OF EVERY ONE OF THOSE BUILDINGS AT THE SAME DISTANCE, THAT'S GOING TO BE AN ISSUE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> MY GUESS IS THEY WANT IT TO BE UNIFORMED IN THE FRONT MORE THAN HAVING UNIFORMS IN THE DECK IN THE BACK.
>> MEMBER BROOKS, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT?
>> YEAH. MR. SHORKEY, I'M ASSUMING THAT WE DON'T APPROVE SITE PLANS THAT HAVE VARIANCE.
[00:15:08]
>> YOU WOULDN'T APPROVE OF THIS SITE PLAN IF THOSE DECKS WERE GOING OVER THE WETLAND BOUNDARY, RIGHT?
>> WHEN THE BUILDING PERMITS CAME IN AND I SAW THE SURVEYS, I HAD A VERY PANICKED MOMENT WHERE I THOUGHT, OH, MY GOD, DID I ACCIDENTALLY APPROVE THIS.
>> OKAY. I DIDN'T FIGURE THAT.
SO THE PROCESS HERE IS THAT THEY SUBMIT THE SITE PLAN AND THAT GETS APPROVED, BASICALLY.
THEN THEY REQUEST A VARIANCE SO THAT THEY CAN AMEND THE SITE PLAN.
>> AS NOTED EARLIER, ANY VARIANCE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO APPROVE THE SITE PLAN, THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL WOULD HAVE BEEN PUT OFF UNTIL AFTER THE VARIANCE, AS WAS THE CASE WITH THE VARIANCE FOR THE ROAD.
>> I'M JUST LIKE, YOU'VE ALREADY GOT APPROVAL FOR THE SITE PLAN THAT YOU PUT FORWARD, AND SO I I DON'T REALLY SEE ANY VALIDITY IN THIS REQUEST. THAT'S MY OPINION.
>> THIS IS A TRICKY ONE BECAUSE AGAIN, WHEN I LOOK AT, JUST GOING TO GO RIGHT TO IT BECAUSE I'M PRETTY MUCH IN DISAGREEMENT WITH MEMBER BROOKS ON THIS ONE.
THAT WHEN WE LOOK AT THE CRITERIA, LET ME SEE IF I CAN [OVERLAPPING].
>> I WAS GOING TO SEND AN EMAIL TO STAFF, BUT I FORGOT, MY APOLOGIES.
>> I AM GOING TO PULL UP YOUR EMAIL WITH YOUR PACKET, HERE WE GO.
>> I DO THINK, NOT TO CUT YOU OFF.
>> IF YOU COULD SCROLL UP JUST A LITTLE BIT ON THAT.
SOME OF THESE LIKE ON UNIT 24 AND 23, ONE DECK IS COMPLETELY OUT OF WETLAND BUFFER ZONE, THE OTHER DECK IS IN IT.
I THINK THAT'S A LOT OF WHERE THE UNIFORM IS COMING FROM, NOT SO MUCH THAT FIRST ONE WHERE THEY SHOWED IT ON THE SIDES WHERE BOTH WOULD HAVE BEEN IN IT.
IT'S WHERE THE FACT THAT ONE WILL BE OUT THE BACK, AND THEN THE OTHER ONE WOULD HAVE TO BE BROUGHT AROUND THE SIDES TO GET OUT OF THAT WETLAND BUFFER ZONE.
TWENTY THREE WOULD BE IN IT, AND IT FALLS ON THE SAME LINE FOR UNIT 50,51 BECAUSE 52 WOULDN'T BE IN THE BUFFER ZONE.
THEN ACTUALLY, I THINK THE ONLY ONE THAT HAS MULTIPLE IN THAT WAS UNIT 59 AND UNIT 60, WHICH WE SAW FIRST OR BOTH WERE ON THE SIDE.
I THINK THAT WAS A BIG THING FOR THEM, IS ON THOSE DUPLEXES THAT THEY BOTH BE IN THE BACK, SO NOT JUST ONES AROUND OUT BACK AND THE OTHER ONES AROUND THE SIDE.
SINCE I'M REVIEWING THE BUILDING PERMITS [OVERLAPPING].
>> ABSOLUTELY, GIVE US WHAT YOU GOT.
>> I SUSPECT I KNOW THE ANSWER, BUT I FEEL REMISS IF I DIDN'T ASK THE QUESTION.
WHY CAN YOU NOT JUST TAKE ONE OF THESE AND MOVE IT LATERALLY? I MEAN, THEN THEY'RE BOTH IN THE BACK AND JUST HAVE THEM BOTH COME OFF THE LEFT SIDE OF THE UNIT.
>> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. INSTEAD OF HAVING THEM GOING OUT, LET'S SAY, VERTICALLY FLIPPING THEM SO THAT THEY'RE THE OTHER WAY AGAINST THE BACK OF THE HOME.
>> BOTH OF THOSE, ALL OF THE DUPLEXES, THE SLIDING GLASS DOORS ON THE RIGHT SIDE ARE ON THE ENDS OF THOSE CONDOS, THE WAY IT'S SET UP THE SIDE.
>> CAN YOU SCROLL UP ON THAT IMAGE MR. SHORKEY A LITTLE BIT.
>> SO THESE DECKS ARE, WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT HERE? PROBABLY 10 FEET, HOW BIG ARE THEY?
>> I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT MEASUREMENTS, BUT MY GUESS WOULD BE A 10 BY 10.
>> IN SOME OF THE CASES IT'S ONLY ONE POST IN THE ACTUAL WETLAND BUFFER ZONE, LIKE IN 23.
>> I BELIEVE THEIR HOPE WAS, SINCE THEY ARE RAISED OFF BECAUSE ALL THESE ARE DAYLIGHT THAT EACH DECK IS GOING TO BE AT LEAST FIVE FOOT OFF THE GROUND.
[00:20:02]
>> I'M GOING TO READ THROUGH CRITERIA, GUYS, BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE GOING TO START GETTING STUMPED PRETTY QUICKLY HERE.
OUR FIRST CRITERIA IN DETERMINING WHETHER WE CAN APPROVE A VARIANCE IS THAT UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST THAT ARE PECULIAR TO THE LANDER STRUCTURE, THEY ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LANDER STRUCTURES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT, AND THESE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SELF CREATED.
I'M ALREADY AT, IT'S A SELF CREATED PROBLEM.
ONLY BECAUSE AS WE'VE TALKED THROUGH, THE BUILDING PLAN HAS BEEN APPROVED.
WE'VE GOT, THE PROBLEM IS SELF CREATED.
THIS IS A DTN SITE PLAN THAT IS NOW, IT'S ALMOST LIKE, OH, WAIT, ACTUALLY, WE DIDN'T MEAN THAT BECAUSE WE GOT IT APPROVED, BUT WE WANTED THIS THING INSTEAD.
THAT FEELS LIKE WE'D BE A LITTLE REMISS.
>> MISS CHAIR, WOULD YOU READ THAT ONE MORE TIME?
>> CRITERIA STATES THAT, IF I CAN FIND IT AGAIN.
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.
>> WOULD YOU CONSIDER THAT A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT ONE IS OKAY AND ONE IS NOT?
>> THAT'S THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. MEMBER TREZISE, GO AHEAD.
>> I WOULD NOT BECAUSE THE WETLANDS HAVE BEEN THERE SINCE THE SITE PLAN WAS DEVELOPED AND BEFORE.
>> SO THIS IS ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION, AND THEY CHOSE WHERE TO PUT THE BUILDINGS KNOWING WHERE THE BUFFER WAS AND THE WETLANDS.
THERE ARE OTHER DESIGN POSSIBILITIES THAT I THINK YOU COULD HAVE USED.
>> I DO THINK THAT BECAUSE WE KNOW THEY KNEW WHERE BECAUSE WE HAD THE SAME CONVERSATION BEFORE, SO THAT MIGHT HAVE, OH, THANK YOU.
>> ARE THESE YOUR CURRENT CRITERIA?
>> [OVERLAPPING] NO, THOSE ARE THE OLD CRITERIA.
>> I WILL BRING THAT TO PLANER CHAPMAN'S.
>> YES, I HAVE THE PACKET FROM OUR SEPTEMBER MEETING.
IT IS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET FROM THE SEPTEMBER 18TH MEETING, SO THAT'S WHAT I HAVE UP ON MY SCREEN. SO IF YOU CAN GO, YEAH.
>> WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS BRING THE CRITERIA UP SO EVERYONE CAN SEE.
>> IT'S HELPFUL TO SEE IT. THANK YOU.
I SHOULD HAVE SHARED IT WITH CLASS, I PULLED IT UP.
LAST PACKET. I'M FINDING IT HARD TO BELIEVE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SELF CREATED.
ONLY BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN HERE BEFORE, WE'VE HAD THIS SAME ISSUE WITH APPROVING THINGS BECAUSE THE WETLANDS EXIST HERE.
SO KNOWING THAT IT WOULD HAVE POTENTIALLY BEEN AN ISSUE AND THEN MOVING UP AND SAYING, OH, WAIT, ACTUALLY, HOLD ON, LET'S GET A VARIANCE FOR THAT.
>> PERFECT. THAT'S WHERE I STAND ON ONE, I'M NOT ABLE TO MEET THAT CRITERIA YET.
CRITERIA 2 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 THE PROPERTY FOR A PERMITTED PURPOSE.
AGAIN, I'M GOING TO SAY THE HARDEST PART OF THAT ONE IS THAT IF THIS WAS FOR A PRACTICAL PURPOSE IT WOULD FEEL, I WOULD BE ABLE TO MEET THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE CLOSELY.
BUT FOR HAVING IT BEING AESTHETIC AND MATCHING ACROSS THE BACK OF THE DEVELOPMENT FEELS NOT AS [OVERLAPPING].
>> WELL, IT'S ALSO HARD TO SEE THAT SINCE THEY'VE ALREADY PRESENTED A SITE PLAN THAT ADDRESSES IT WHICH ALLOWS THEM TO GO THROUGH WHERE THEY'VE PRESENTED IT.
>> WE KNOW THAT THERE'S A VERSION OF THAT SITE PLAN THAT EXISTS WHERE IT'S WORTH THE VARIANCE IF NECESSARY.
CRITERIA 3 IS GRANTING THE VARIANCE.
THE MINIMUM ACTION NECESSARY THAT WOULD CARRY OUT THE SPIRIT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECURE PUBLIC SAFETY AND PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.
THAT AGAIN, I THINK, IS IT A MINIMUM ACTION WHEN WE HAVE A SITE PLAN THAT ALREADY HAS NOT IN THE WETLANDS? I THINK THAT THAT'S A HARD ONE FOR ME TO MEET AS WELL.
THE FINAL, OR NOT THE FINAL, SORRY.
CRITERIA 4 IS GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT
[00:25:02]
ADJACENT LAND OR THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY.I DON'T THINK THAT I CAN MEET THIS CRITERIA.
I DON'T THINK IT WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER, BUT DOES IT AFFECT THE FACT THAT IT'S INTO THE WETLAND BUFFER? WE KNOW THAT IT'S POST AND IT'S NOT STRUCTURE, BUT IT'S STILL IS SOMETHING.
>> BUT THAT IS A TREATED WOODEN POST TENDS TO OVER TIME GIVE OFF CHEMICALS.
THAT COULD IMPACT THE WETLAND OVER TIME, AND SO I WOULD BE CONCERNED WITH THAT CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY.
IF THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO DO IT, AND IT COULD BE MET THAT WAY.
BUT IT'S PROBABLY A MINOR IMPACT, BUT IT WOULD POTENTIALLY IMPACT OVER TIME.
>> WELL STATED. THEN THE FINAL CRITERIA WOULD BE GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS CHAPTER.
I THINK THAT IF WE'RE STAYING WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO PROTECT OUR GREEN SPACES IN OUR WETLANDS, IS IT WITHIN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO GRANT THIS WHEN WE KNOW THAT THERE'S A VERSION OF THIS SITE PLAN THAT ALREADY HAS IT REMOVED FROM THE WETLANDS? I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN MEET THAT ONE.
SO I'M WONDERING IF ANYBODY HAS ANY [OVERLAPPING].
>> LET ME ASK YOU THIS, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO, LIKE ON UNIT 59 AND 60, WHERE IT SHOWS IT AROUND THE SIDES.
WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO GRANT THEM ON THE OTHER ONES WHERE THEY'RE BOTH OUT THE BACK? A LOT OF THEM IS JUST ONE POST.
>> SEE THE CHALLENGE THAT I'M GOING TO HAVE, AND I'M GOING TO HAVE MR. SHORKEY CONFIRM THIS.
IS THAT IF WE GRANT THIS VARIANCE BECAUSE IT'S ONE PARCEL, DOES IT GO OR CAN WE PARS OUT WHICH ONES WE APPROVE?
>> NO, YOU ARE SPECIFYING THE UNIT NUMBERS.
THAT IS A POTENTIAL IF YOU'RE OKAY WITH A, B AND C BUT NOT D AND E, YOU CAN SEPARATE THAT OUT.
AS LONG AS YOU SPECIFY THE UNIT NUMBER SPECIFICALLY, THAT WILL CARRY.
>> I THOUGHT WE TALKED ABOUT THIS WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE DECK THAT WENT OVER THE TWO PROPERTIES A COUPLE OF SESSIONS AGO, BUT IT'S ALSO THAT THIS ATTACHES TO THE SPECIFIC DECK OF THE UNIT.
IT'S NOT EVEN THE WHOLE UNIT, IT'S JUST THE DECK ON THE UNIT.
>> YEAH, THIS DOESN'T LET THE UNIT BE BUILT INTO THE SETBACK, IT SPECIFIES THE DECK.
>> BUT I MEAN EVEN IF THEY DECIDED TO MOVE THE DECK TO ANOTHER SPOT, IT DOESN'T APPLY TO THAT.
IT ONLY APPLIES TO THE DECK IN THAT SPECIFIC LOCATION FOR THAT SPECIFIC UNIT.
>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR CONVERSATION WAS A COUPLE OF SESSIONS AGO, I JUST KNOW THAT YOU COULD TIE IT TO THE SPECIFIC UNIT.
>> I THOUGHT IT WAS THAT THE [OVERLAPPING].
>> I WILL SAY IF YOU HAVE A STRUCTURE AND YOU DEMOLISH A STRUCTURE, THE NEW STRUCTURE HAS TO CONFORM TO YOUR CURRENT REGULATIONS.
IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T DECK OR ANYTHING THAT HAS BEEN BUILT IN A SETBACK, KNOB HILL IS A GOOD EXAMPLE.
THOSE BUILDINGS WERE BUILT EXACTLY WHERE THEY HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY, BUT BECAUSE THEY WERE BUILT IN A NONCONFORMING STATUS THEY HAD TO COME IN AND GET VARIANCES TO BUILD EXACTLY THE WAY THEY WERE BEFORE.
SO IF YOU GOT SOMETHING THAT GOT A VARIANCE AND YOU DESTROYED THAT THING, [OVERLAPPING].
>> THAT'S WHAT I MEAN WITH THESE DECKS.
EVEN IF THESE INDIVIDUAL DECKS GOT A VARIANCE, IF THE DECK WERE TO MOVE OR TO BE DESTROYED, THEN IT REQUIRES A NEW VARIANCE FOR THAT DECK. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT.
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WOULD REQUIRE A NEW VARIANCE, OR IT WOULD JUST HAVE TO CONFORM TO THE VARIANCE AS IT EXISTS.
IF LET'S SAY THE VARIANCE IT'S THREE FEET INTO THE BUFFER, YOU COULD ONLY BUILD UP TO THREE FEET INTO THE BUFFER.
YOU HAVE THAT VARIANCE THAT GOES WITH THE PROPERTY, BUT YOU COULDN'T GO FOUR FOOT INTO THE BUFFER WITHOUT HAVING A NEW VARIANCE.
DOES THAT SOUND RIGHT? MR. SHORKEY, AM I EXPLAINING THAT WELL?
>> YOU ARE GENERALLY EXPLAINING THAT WELL.
THE SPECIFIC QUESTION, I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND SEE WHAT THE CONVERSATION WAS.
[00:30:04]
>> NO. I THINK JUST IN GENERAL, TALKING ABOUT THIS CASE IN AND OF ITSELF.
>> YEAH, IF YOU GIVE A THREE FOOT VARIANCE AND THEY WANT TO BUILD A FOUR FOOT YOU NEED A SECOND VARIANCE FOOT.
>> IF THAT ACTIVE GOD DECK WAS DESTROYED THEY COULD REBUILD UP TO THAT THREE FOOT COULD NOT, THEY COULD NOT BUILD BEYOND THAT.
>>THEY COULD BUILD SHORT OF THAT, CAN'T BUILD BEYOND THAT.
>> ANY OTHER THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS OR IDEAS TO PROCEED?
>> I WAS ASKING THOSE QUESTIONS JUST FOR CLARITY, I STILL AM A NO ON THIS REGARDING ANY, THE SAFE PLAN WAS WAS SUBMITTED AND APPROVED.
>> CAN YOU SCROLL DOWN A BIT UNDER, SHORKEY.
CAN WE GO THROUGH THESE UNITS? IS THERE ANY OF THIS UNITS [OVERLAPPING].
>> I'LL START AT THE BEGINNING.
>> THIS IS 24 AND 23, UNIT 23 REQUIRES THIS VARIANCE HERE IN THE CORNER OF THIS DECK.
>> THE CORNER, THAT'S 2.69 FEET.
>> FORTY NINE AND FIFTY, UNIT 50 DECK IS IN THE BUFFER RIGHT HERE.
THIS ONE IS RIGHT ON THE EDGE, BUT IT'S OKAY.
>> IT'S NOT IN IT. THAT'S TWO.
THEN THIS IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND THAT'S THAT ONE AND ONLY DECK RIGHT THERE.
>> DOES THAT SEEING ANY OF THOSE [OVERLAPPING].
>> WELL, SO LOOKING AT THIS, THESE AREN'T THE LAST VARIANCES YOU'RE GOING TO ASK FOR BECAUSE UNIT 54 RIGHT HERE HAS THAT CONCEPTUALLY SHOWN, YOU JUST HAVEN'T SUBMITTED FOR THAT BUILDING PERMIT.
>> I WAS GOING TO ASK THAT QUESTION.
>> I HAVEN'T SEEN THIS PARTICULAR BUILDING PERMIT.
>> YEAH. BUT LOOKING AT IT, AND YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE BUFFER IS THERE, THEN THAT LOOKS LIKE IT WILL POTENTIAL.
I THINK THE TRICKY THING WE PUT UPON OURSELVES IS OPENING IT UP TO MORE BASED ON WHAT I'LL SEE MIGHT BE ADDING ALONG THE WAY.
IS THERE A FULL SITE PLAN THAT YOU HAVE?
>> YEAH, THAT WAS RIGHT HERE. WHAT DID YOU WANT TO SEE?
>> I'M JUST LOOKING TO SEE IF WE'VE GOT ANYTHING ELSE THAT IS POTENTIAL HERE, THAT'S CLOSE ENOUGH.
>> WELL, IF YOU'LL GIVE ME A SECOND, I DO WANT TO LOOK AT, IT'S UNIT 53.
>> I BELIEVE IT WAS [OVERLAPPING].
>> ACTUALLY GOING OFF THAT [OVERLAPPING].
>> THAT DOESN'T [OVERLAPPING].
THAT'S THAT'S A DUPLEX, THAT'S NOT THE SINGLE FAMILY.
>> THAT'S NOT THE SINGLE FAMILY.
>> I DON'T THINK YOU'VE GOT SINGLE FAMILY DESIGN YET, DO YOU? SHOULD BE ON THAT SIDE PLANE RIGHT?
>> THAT UNIT NUMBER DOESN'T DIVE.
>> NO, THAT UNIT NUMBER DOESN'T MESH WITH WHAT'S ON THERE.
>> WELL, GO BACK TO YOUR GRAND RESERVE, BRIAN.
> GO ALL THE WAY OVER TO THE RIGHT.
THE 53 IS A SINGLE FAMILY, [OVERLAPPING] SO IT MIGHT BE HERE, THERE IT IS. YEAH, THERE IT IS.
>> I'M SORRY. [OVERLAPPING]. THAT'S NOT EVEN SHOWING THE DECK ON THAT.
>> THAT'S ALMOST BUILT RIGHT TO THE BUFFER.
>> SO TO GO BACK TO THIS CONCEPTUAL DRAWING, YOU ARE CONCEPTUALLY SHOWING MOVING THAT DECK OVER ON 54 EVENTUALLY WHEN YOU SUBMIT FOR THAT BUILDING PERMIT WHERE THE SITE PLAN YOU'VE GOT ON THE LEFT SIDE.
>> SO I'M ALSO CONFUSED BY THIS BECAUSE 53 DOES NOT HAVE A DECK, SO SITE PLAN WAS SUBMITTED WITHOUT 53 HAVING A DECK?
>> I BELIEVE THAT'S AN OLD COPY, I'M SURE THAT WAS THE FIRST DRAW.
>> THIS IS THE APPROVED SITE PLAN?
>> YEAH, BBT IF THIS IS THE APPROVED SITE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE TOWNSHIP AND THAT THAT YOU'D NEED A VARIANCE.
>> THEN YOU WOULD NEED A VARIANCE.
>> YOU MAY HAVE HAD CHANGES BETWEEN THE SITE PLAN AND THE, BECAUSE DTN DID THE SITE PLAN ENDED OFF TO THE BUILDING COMPANY, WHICH IS MAYBERRY,
[00:35:01]
THUS YOU NEED VARIANCES, BUT THIS IS THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED.>> AS MY QUESTION WAS, I WAS PURPOSEFUL IN THIS IS SAYING THAT THE TOWNSHIP DOESN'T APPROVE SITE PLANS THAT HAVE UNAPPROVED VARIANCES.
>> IT WOULD HAVE TO COME TO US FIRST.
SO TYPICALLY, MR. SHORKEY, THE PROCESS WOULD BE THE SITE PLAN COMES TO YOUR DEPARTMENT, YOU LOOK AND SEE WHAT'S THERE THAT MIGHT BE NECESSARY TO COME EITHER.
BRING BACK TO DTN, HEY, WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS, FIX, WE GOT TO GET THIS IN, OR WE GOT TO APPLY FOR A VARIANCE.
SO WITH THAT NOT HAVING A DECK ON 53 AND THIS BEING APPROVED.
FOR THEM TO ADD IT, IT'S GOING TO STILL FALL UNDER THIS VARIANCE, THERE WOULDN'T BE AN ADDITIONAL VARIANCE.
>> THEY DON'T NEED A VARIANCE TO BUILD THE DECK PER SE, [OVERLAPPING].
>> YOU CAN BUILD IT, IT'S JUST A MATTER OF WHERE IT'S PLACED.
>> I GUESS I WOULD SAY IN THAT REGARD, IF YOU'RE LOOKING, THE RIGHTS ENJOYED BY OTHER PEOPLE IN THE VICINITY CRITERIA THAT, I GUESS YOU COULD ARGUE 53 SHOULD HAVE A DECK.
MAYBE THAT'S, JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE.
>> YEAH, FOR THE UNIFORMITY IN THE IN THE DEVELOPMENT.
YES, IF ALL THE NEIGHBORS HAVE IT, I SHOULD HAVE IT, TOO.
I KNOW WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT WITH GARAGES, BUT I CAN SEE THAT.
I'M CURIOUS ON A PATH FORWARD BECAUSE I THINK WHERE WE STAND, NONE OF US ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE FIVE CRITERIA.
>> SPEAKING OUT OF TURN, SORRY MRS. CHAIR.
>> I'M GOING TO THROW A CURVEBALL, AND I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE TABLE THIS UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS.
NUMBER 1. I REALLY WOULD LIKE, OBVIOUSLY, YOU'RE HERE TO REPRESENT CURY BURY, AND MUCH APPRECIATE YOU GIVING SOME GREAT INFORMATION.
HOWEVER, I'D REALLY LIKE TO HEAR FROM A MEMBER FROM DTM TO SPEAK TO.
BECAUSE I PERSONALLY, SOUNDS LIKE WITHOUT SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS, THIS PROBABLY WOULD NOT BE APPROVED TONIGHT BASED ON WHAT WAS PRESENTED VERSUS THE SITE PLAN.
I PERSONALLY THINK THERE YOU HAVE OPTIONS TO GET THESE THINGS BUILT THE WAY YOU WANT THEM WITHOUT BEING IN THAT WET LAND, WHETHER IT'S PUSHING THE BUILDINGS FORWARD TOWARD THE ROAD A LITTLE BIT, EVEN MOVING THEM SIDE TO SIDE, DEPENDING ON HOW FAR AWAY YOU WANT TO BE FROM OTHER.
I THINK YOU HAVE OPTIONS OF DOING THIS TO GET THESE THINGS OUT OF THERE, AS I MENTIONED.
I WANT TO BE ABLE TO ALLOW YOURSELF AS ONE OF THE CLIENTS AND DTN TO BE ABLE TO THINK ABOUT THAT INSTEAD OF JUST, IF THEY COME BACK NEXT MONTH, AND THEY SAY, NOPE, THIS IS WHAT WAS REQUESTED LAST MONTH IS WHAT WE'RE STILL REQUESTING TODAY, THEN WE CAN TAKE THE APPROPRIATE ACTION THEN.
BUT I PERSONALLY BELIEVE I THINK YOU DO HAVE OPTIONS THERE TO TRY TO GET THIS OUT OF THE WETLAND, AND WE COULD MAKE THIS A WIN WIN FOR BOTH THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE PUBLIC THROUGH GETTING THIS OUT OF THE WETLAND THINGS.
I'D HATE TO SEE THIS JUST GO DOWN BECAUSE OF, THE LACK OF A BETTER TERM, MAYBE THERE'S SOME STUBBORNESS ON ONE OF THE PARTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT DOESN'T WANT TO SEE SOMETHING MATCH THE SITE PLAN.
THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE TO GO BY IT'S WHAT'S BEEN APPROVED, SO I WOULD MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE TABLED THIS UNTIL NEXT MEETING IN ORDER TO ALLOW MEMBERS OF DTN TALKS AMONGST YOURSELVES AND SEE IF THEY'D BE WILLING TO COME BACK AND SPEAK TO MAYBE SHIFTING SOME OF THOSE BUILDINGS OR GOD FORBID SHIFTING ALL OF THEM FIVE FEET FORWARD TO MAKE THEM ALL UNIFORM.
LET'S STILL GET THOSE FIVE OR SIX DECKS OR PATIOS OR WHATEVER YOU HAVE BACK THERE OUT OF THOSE WETLANDS OUT OF ANY WETLAND BUFFER.
>> YEAH, I WOULD SUPPORT THAT MOTION.
THANK YOU FOR PRESENTING THAT IDEA.
I THINK THAT THIS SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD COMPROMISE TO BE ABLE TO KEEP THE BALL ROLLING AND KEEP THINGS MOVING.
I DO THINK, AND MAYBE TAKING THIS BACK TO BOTH YOUR OFFICE AND IN TALKING WITH DTN, I THINK THE BIGGEST HANG UP FOR US IS GOING TO BE THAT WE HAVE A SITE PLAN THAT'S APPROVED, EVERYTHING'S THERE.
WHEN WE LOOK AT THE CRITERIA, WHEN WE LOOK AT SOMETHING LIKE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OR A SELF CREATED CIRCUMSTANCE, WE CAN SEE OPTIONS.
[00:40:02]
BUT THEY MIGHT NOT BE THE MOST ATTRACTIVE OPTIONS TO DTN AND MAYBERRY.BUT, OR I WILL EVEN SAY DTN BECAUSE MAYBERRY IS THE BUILDER.
ULTIMATELY, IT'S DTN WHO GETS TO MAKE THE CALL YOU GUYS GET TO PUT IT TOGETHER.
I THINK THAT IT'S WORTH HAVING THE CONVERSATION AND GIVING EVERYBODY A CHANCE TO TAKE A LOOK, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE WE CAN DO, AND IF WE REALLY NEED THOSE DECKS TO BE THERE, IS THERE A WAY WE CAN SHIFT THEM? IS THERE A WAY TO MINIMIZE THAT? INSTEAD OF HAVING THE SIX OF THEM, CAN WE GET JUST THOSE TWO THAT ARE IN THE BACK MAYBE? CAN WE BRING THEM DOWN? LIKE MEMBER KANACK HAD SAID, LIKE, 02,3 FEET, HOW DO WE SHIFT IT A LITTLE BIT SO WE CAN MAKE IT THE MINIMAL ACTION POSSIBLE? BECAUSE I DO THINK, I TEND TO AGREE THAT POSTS ARE, THERE'S NOT A DIRECT STRUCTURE INSIDE OF THAT BUFFER ZONE, SO I TEND TO GO TOWARDS THAT BEING A MINIMUM ACTION.
BUT I WOULD LOVE TO SEE IF WE CAN SHIFT SOMETHING, IF THERE'S A WAY TO, BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY BUILDINGS THAT ARE FALLING UNDER THIS, AND THEN WE'RE LOOKING AT POTENTIALLY EVEN TAKING BACK TO DTN THAT 54 MIGHT BE A CHALLENGE AS WELL.
>> I'M FAIRLY POSITIVE THEY FLIPPED IT ON 54 TO TO THE LEFT SIDE SO IT GETS OUT OF THE BUFFER ZONE IN [OVERLAPPING].
>> BECAUSE ON THE SITE PLAN, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S OUT OR MAYBE EVEN ON THE EDGE.
>> BUT IT LOOKS CLOSE, BUT IN THAT [OVERLAPPING].
>> THEN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE OF 53, I DON'T THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE ENOUGH ROOM TO OBVIOUSLY PUT A DECK ON THE SIDES OF IT.
>> SO 53 MIGHT BE, THIS IS WHERE WE'VE GOT TO HAVE IT AND THEN WE CAN MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT SAYS, OKAY, 53 LOOKS LIKE, WE CAN UNDERSTAND.
WE CAN'T PULL IT FORWARD ANYMORE, WE CAN'T DO THIS, WE CAN'T PUT IT IN, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH SPACE.
I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE AN UNREASONABLE BOARD AS FAR AS THAT TYPE OF CIRCUMSTANCE GOES, BUT AS A GENERAL OVERALL UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE, I'M NOT FINDING IT WITH ALL OF THE UNITS.
SO THAT'S WHERE I WOULD LOVE TO GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO BACK AND TRY TO SEE IF WHAT ELSE CAN BE SHIFTED JUST SO THAT WE CAN GET THERE TO THE VERY MINIMUM ACTION NECESSARY.
I WOULD WELCOME ANY OTHER IDEAS OR THOUGHTS ON THE MOTION, WHICH IS TO TABLE.
>> [OVERLAPPING] I'M GOING TO SECOND THE MOTION BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THERE WAS A SECOND ON IT.
>> NO, THAT'S OKAY. WE'VE GOT SUPPORT FOR IT, SO I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
MEMBER BROOKS, THIS IS A VOTE TO TABLE THIS VARIANCE REQUEST.
>> THE CHAIR VOTES, YES. THIS HAS BEEN TABLED SO THAT WAY WE CAN COME BACK AND TAKE A LOOK AT IN THE NEW YEAR AND TRY TO SEE WHAT WE CAN FIGURE.
>> OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME, MR.SHORKEY.
>> IN THAT CASE, MEMBERS, SHORKEY, LET'S GET BACK TO THE AGENDA.
>> LET'S GO TO ZBA CASE NUMBER 24-12,
[6.B. ZBA CASE NO.: 24-12 (6499 Heathfield), Maya Murshak & Steven Parks, 2474 Barnsbury Rd., East Lansing, MI 48823]
6499 HEATHFIELD, MAYA MURSHAK AND STEVEN PARKS, 2474 BARNSBURY ROAD, EAST LINDSEY, MICHIGAN 48823.>> APPLICANT IS REQUESTING VARIANCES FROM BASICALLY TWO SECTIONS OF THE ORDINANCE, 86-471B1.
AGAIN, IT'S A WETLAND BUFFER, NOT A WETLAND, BUT A WETLAND BUFFER REQUEST.
THEN 86-372D5A FRONT YARD SETBACK.
IN THIS CASE, THE FRONT YARD REQUIRES, FRONT YARD SETBACK IS 25 FEET.
THEY HAVE REQUESTED THIS VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND GRADING WITHIN THE WETLAND SETBACK WITH A DECK THAT WILL ENCROACH ALSO INTO THE WETLAND SETBACK.
LET'S SEE, I THOUGHT THERE WAS A THING IN HERE.
I APOLOGIZE, I FOUND OUT AT 6:30 THIS MORNING THAT I WAS DOING THIS MEETING.
I WASN'T THE PERSON WHO PUT THIS TOGETHER, SO IF I LOOK LIKE I'M FUMBLING, I AM.
YEAH, THIS IS WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR.
THE DECK ON THE SOUTH CORNER OF THE HOUSE IS PROPOSED TO ENCROACH TWO AND A HALF FEET.
THE GRADING ITSELF NEEDS A NINE FOOT VARIANCE.
WE DO ASK THAT YOU MAKE SURE THAT'S SEPARATED, NOT JUST GRANT A NINE FOOT VARIANCE, IF YOU DO GO THAT ROUTE.
[00:45:01]
I WANT TO BRING UP A MAP AND SHOW YOU WHERE THIS IS.>> THIS IS AN OLDER PICTURE, WHAT IT DOESN'T SHOW IS THERE'S A ROAD HERE NOW, AND MAYBE YOU KNOW WHAT? IF YOU'LL INDULGE ME, I'LL GO TO GOOGLE MAP.
>> RIGHT UNDERNEATH WHERE IT SAYS MUSEUMS. SCROLL UP THERE. GO UP, GO DOWN.
>> CUL DE SAC WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE BROWN CONSTRUCTION.
>> TO THE WEST OF NEWTON ROAD. SEE IT UP THERE? RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF YOU. RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF STREET. [OVERLAPPING]
[LAUGHTER] THE TOWNSHIP LINE IS RIGHT HERE, THAT IS ALSO THE COUNTY LINE.
>> THESE PARCELS ACCESS FROM THE NORTH ON HEATHFIELD DRIVE FROM BATH TOWNSHIP.
THIS IS THE PARCEL IN QUESTION, AND I'M GOING TO TURN ON A WETLAND LAYER.
THE APPLICANT DID PERFORM A WETLAND DELINEATION OCTOBER 2024, AND SO THEY HAD DELINEATED WHERE EXACTLY THE WETLAND IS.
THEY'VE GONE THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND I WILL BRING UP THE SITE THERE.
THAT IS WHAT THEY HAVE FROM THE WETLAND DELINEATION AND THE WETLAND BUFFER, AND THAT IS THE PARCEL SO THAT IS THE ROOM THEY HAVE TO WORK WITH.
THE DRAWING OF WHERE THE HOUSE IS GOING.
>> IT'S FARTHER DOWN. THERE'S LIKE ELEVATION DRAWINGS ON THERE.
THAT'S WHAT THE HOUSE WILL LOOK LIKE.
>> COMING UP. IT'LL SHOW THE LOCATION.
>> THERE WE GO. THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR.
LET ME ZOOM OUT A LITTLE BIT SO YOU CAN SEE.
HEATHFIELD DRIVE, HERE'S THE DRIVEWAY.
HERE'S THE SETBACK LINE FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE SO HERE'S WHERE IT'S ENCROACHING IN THE FRONT.
HERE'S THE BUFFER AND THE GRADING TAKES PLACE AND YOUR CORNER IS IN THIS AREA HERE.
ANYWAY, SO THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE GETTING TO.
YEAH, THERE. I THINK THAT'S BETTER, A LITTLE BIT LESS CLUTTERED.
>> MR. SHORKEY, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING, ANY OTHER INFORMATION WE SHOULD KNOW AS PRESENTED BEFORE WE GET INTO THE APPLICANT'S TIME.
>> THOSE ARE THE FACTS [INAUDIBLE].
>> WELL, I'M CERTAIN WE WILL HAVE QUESTIONS.
IN THAT CASE, WOULD THE APPLICANT OR A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE APPLICANT LIKE TO COME UP TO THE PODIUM.
JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD AND THAT WAY, WE KNOW WHO WE'RE TALKING TO THIS EVENING.
>> THANK YOU. MY NAME IS TIM REZOWSKI.
I'M AN ARCHITECT AND I RESIDE AT 613 GROVE STREET IN EAST LANSING.
I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH MAYA AND STEVE.
[00:50:01]
WE ALSO HAVE THE BUILDER, JOHN ANDRES IS HERE, AT LEAST ONE NEIGHBOR, AND MAYA AND STEVE HERE AS WELL SO IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE.THE SITE WAS PURCHASED IN JULY OF 2024 AND THERE'S A LOT OF HISTORY AT LEAST THAT I'M FINDING OUT ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR SITE.
I MET WITH MR. CHAPMAN, I THINK, FOUR TIMES AS WE WERE DEVELOPING THE SITE PLAN, AND HE LOOKED UP.
I THINK HE WAS EMPLOYED BY THE TOWNSHIP AND THEN LEFT THE TOWNSHIP AND CAME BACK FROM THE TOWNSHIP SO HE KNEW SOME HISTORY OF THIS SITE.
THE SITE, AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND, IT HAS NEVER BEEN PLATTED, SO THERE WAS NO SUBDIVISION PLAT.
THERE ARE SEVERAL SITES ON THE CUL DE SAC, AND THIS IS THE LAST REMAINING SITE ON THE CUL DE SAC.
I PUT TOGETHER A LENGTHY DESCRIPTION ON IF YOU HAD A CHANCE TO READ IT, BUT I'LL JUST HIT SOME OF THE HIGH POINTS.
IT'S A FIVE AND A QUARTER ACRE SITE.
THE WETLAND IS APPROXIMATELY 2.5 ACRES.
THE TOWNSHIP GIS SYSTEM SHOWS ABOUT 1.5 ACRES OF POND ON THIS PARCEL AND THEN THE BUFFER STRIP, OF COURSE, AROUND IT.
THE BUFFER STRIP HAD KEBS, WHO IS THE SURVEYING GROUP, THEY CALCULATED THE PERIMETER OF THE BUFFER STRIP SO THE BUFFER STRIP IS AROUND 1,740 FEET IN LENGTH.
YOU MULTIPLY THAT BY 40 FEET SO WE HAVE ABOUT 70,000 SQUARE FEET OF BUFFER.
I'VE BEEN AN ARCHITECT, WORKING IN ARCHITECTURAL OFFICES FOR, WELL, JUST UNDER 50 YEARS, LIKE A FEW MONTHS UNDER 50 YEARS.
THIS IS PROBABLY THE THIRD MOST CHALLENGING SITE THAT I'VE DEALT WITH.
WE HAVE A LOT OF THINGS GOING ON.
ANY NUMBER OF THEM YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO CITE AS A UNIQUE ASPECT OF THE SITE.
THE SITE IS IN WIDTH IN THE EASTWEST DIRECTION IS JUST UNDER 400 LINEAR FEET, AND IT'S AROUND 527 FEET IN THE NORTHSOUTH DIRECTION.
TECHNICALLY, WE HAVE NO PROPERTY LINE THAT COMES UP TO THE CUL DE SAC.
OUR SITE IS A RECTANGLE AND IF YOU LOOK. I DON'T KNOW.
IF I COULD JUST CHECK HERE, BUT THE SITE TO THE NORTH.
THE ONE TO THE NORTH, YOU CAN SEE THAT THAT PROPERTY LINE ANGLES ACROSS THERE SO TECHNICALLY WE HAVE NO FRONTAGE ON THE CUL DE SAC.
THIS WAS A SIMILAR SITUATION TO THE SITE ON THE WEST.
>> CAN YOU COME BACK TO THE MIC? THERE WOULD BE SOMEONE TAKING MINUTES.
>> DO YOU HAVE A LASER POINTER?
>> WELL, THE BUILDING TO THE WEST, ACTUALLY, I'M NOT SURE IT'S 100% COMPLETE.
I THINK THEY PUT IN SOD MAYBE A MONTH OR SO AGO.
THAT HOUSE IS JUST FINISHED WITH CONSTRUCTION.
THE HOUSE TO THE NORTH LOOKS LIKE IT'S A COUPLE OF YEARS OLD.
>> YOU SPEAK OF THIS, RIGHT HERE.
>> THERE'LL BE A HOUSE TO THE NORTH.
>> THE GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE IS OUT OF DATE.
BUT IT'S A HELPFUL IMAGE BECAUSE IT SHOWS THE EXTENT OF THE FILL.
I BELIEVE THE THE LOTS WERE LAID OUT IN 2014.
THAT'S WHAT MR. CHAPMAN HAD SAID.
THEN IN 2019, THERE WAS A SITE PLAN DONE WHICH ADDRESSED THE HOUSE TO THE WEST AND THIS PROPERTY.
APPARENTLY, THERE MUST HAVE BEEN A WETLANDS DELINEATION AT THAT POINT BECAUSE PHYSICALLY ON THE SITE, THE 2019 BUFFER ZONE IS STAKED OUT ON THE PROPERTY AND THERE'S THE EROSION CONTROL FENCING, WHICH IS ABOUT 50%, IT IS LAYING OVER SO IT HASN'T BEEN MAINTAINED.
PRETTY SIGNIFICANT GRADE CHANGE ON THE SITE.
WE HAVE ABOUT A 23 FOOT GRADE CHANGE FROM THE CURB TO THE WATER LINE.
WE HAVE A STEEP SLOPE, GRADE CHANGE.
FROM 2019 ONWARD, THERE WAS JUST FILL THAT WAS PLACED ON THIS SITE, WHICH FOR OUR PERSPECTIVE, IS A LIABILITY BECAUSE WE HAD A GEOTECHNICAL STUDY DONE, AND REALLY THE FILL THAT WAS PLACED IS NOT CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING THE FOUNDATION LOAD.
WE ALSO HAVE ALONG THE WEST EDGE, THERE'S AN UNRECORDED STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM THAT PICKS UP SOME OF THE WATER FROM THE CUL DE SAC.
THERE ARE STORM SEWERS IN THE CUL DE SAC, IT HASN'T BEEN RECORDED WITH THE COUNTY. IT'S THERE.
WE'RE TREATING IT AS IF IT'S A REAL EASEMENT SIMPLY BECAUSE IT WAS SHOWN ON THE PROPERTY PLAN, BUT FROM WHAT WE CAN SEE IT IT WAS NOT RECORDED.
WHEN THE HOUSE TO THE WEST WAS BUILT,
[00:55:03]
I THINK THE TOWNSHIP TOOK THE APPROACH THAT THERE IS NO FRONTAGE, BUT WE'LL CREATE AN IMAGINARY FRONTAGE IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST TO BE BUILT ON BECAUSE YOU CAN'T REALLY BUILD ON A PROPERTY THAT HAS NO FRONTAGE.I THINK THAT'S WHAT ESTABLISHES THE FRONT SETBACK LINE.
I HAVE THE PLAN FROM 2019 THAT SHOWED IT FOR BOTH OF THE PROPERTIES.
TECHNICALLY, OUR FRONTAGE IS ON NEWTON ROAD.
IT'S NOT REALLY ON THE CUL DE SAC SO SOMEBODY COULD VIEW THE SETBACK AS 10 FEET FOR THE RAA ZONE AS OPPOSED TO 25 FEET.
IF YOU THOUGHT OF THAT AS A SIDE YARD, IT WOULD BE 10 FEET.
IF YOU THINK OF IT AS A FRONT YARD, IT'S A 25 FOOT SETBACK.
IN LAYING OUT THE HOUSE, ONE OF OUR PROGRAM OBJECTIVES IS TO HAVE TO EMPLOY UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR THE MAIN FLOOR.
WE HAVE TO HAVE A FULLY ACCESSIBLE MAIN FLOOR.
I'VE DONE THIS IN A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT PROJECTS WHERE WE TRY TO WORK IT OUT SO THAT WE HAVE A SUBTLE APPROACH TO THE HOUSE SO THAT THERE'S NO RAMP, THERE ARE NO RAILINGS, THAT TYPE OF THING.
WE HAVE AN APPROACH THAT GETS US TO THE MAIN LEVEL, AND THEN ONCE YOU GET INTO THE MAIN LEVEL, IT'S EDGING IN PLACE, A CONCEPT FOR THAT.
THAT WAS PART OF THE DESIGN PARAMETERS.
ANYWAY, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS, AND LITERALLY, I DID 16 DIFFERENT ITERATIONS OF THE SITE PLAN AND ROTATED THE HOUSE MULTIPLE TIMES.
WHAT I FOUND WAS THAT IF I ROTATE THE HOUSE JUST ONE DEGREE, IT MOVES THE EXTREME CORNERS JUST UNDER THREE FEET.
IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT I'VE WRITTEN HERE, I'M SAYING 12.2 MINIMUM AND THEN ALSO I SHOULD POINT OUT AT THE GARAGE, THERE'S A DIMENSION OF 22" MINIMUM.
THE SITE PLAN HERE SHOWS THAT NORTHEAST CORNER IS 12.2", AND THE GARAGE CORNER IS BEYOND 25 FEET.
THE REASON I'M A LITTLE BIT HEDGING ON THAT IS THAT AND JOHN CAN SPEAK TO THIS, WE HAVE TO GET THE BUILDING BUILT, AND IT REQUIRES EXCAVATION.
WE HAVEN'T RED WITH THE EXCAVATOR YET, BUT HE OR SHE MAY WANT A LITTLE MORE PHYSICAL SPACE TO DO THEIR WORK.
THESE ARE THE EXTREMES, THE 12.2.
IF THE EXCAVATOR SAYS, I REALLY NEED MORE THAN 12.2 JUST TO GET MY EQUIPMENT IN THERE, AND THEN I CAN MOVE THAT NORTHEAST CORNER DOWN A DEGREE, THAT PICKS UP ANOTHER THREE FEET.
BUT IN DOING SO, IT SHIFTS THE GARAGE CORNER UP THREE FEET.
NOW THESE ARE THE EXTREME LIMITATIONS.
THAT'S THE REASONING BEHIND THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT FROM THE NORTH.
ON ON THE WETLANDS ONE, AT THIS POINT, I'M NOT ANTICIPATING THAT WE WILL HAVE ANY ROOF OVERHANGS OR ANY DECK CONSTRUCTED IN THE BUFFER ZONE.
THIS SITE PLAN SHOWS NO DECK, NO ROOF OVERHANG IN THE BUFFER ZONE AND WE WON'T EXPAND WHAT WE'VE SHOWN HERE.
BUT ONE OF THE THINGS I WANTED TO COMMENT ON THE LAST APPEAL, BUT IT WASN'T MY APPEAL SO I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS APPROPRIATE.
THERE'S THE PERCEPTION THAT THESE ARE ALL VERY PRECISE LINES, BUT THEY'RE NOT.
I ACCOMPANIED THE DELINEATOR WHEN THE WETLANDS WAS DELINEATED JUST TO SEE HOW THEY WENT ABOUT DOING THEIR WORK.
THIS IS FTC&H, WHICH IS THE CONSULTANT THAT THE TOWNSHIP USES AND SO WE TALKED ABOUT IT.
[INAUDIBLE] BASICALLY, HE HAS A LITTLE BOOK THAT HAS COLORS OF SOIL ON IT, AND SO HE MATCHES UP THE SOIL COLOR, AND THEN OF COURSE, IDENTIFIES SPECIES.
BUT HE SAID HIS GPS IS ACCURATE WITHIN THREE FEET.
AT THIS SITE, ON THE EAST SIDE, WE ONLY HAVE ABOUT 45 FEET IN WHICH TO BUILD HERE SO WE'RE LIKE RIGHT ON THE BUBBLE, RIGHT ON THE EDGE AND SO IT WAS IMPORTANT TO ME.
FIRST OF ALL, IT'S NOT EASY TO LAY OUT THIS SITE.
ON THIS SITE THAT'S COCKEYED LIKE THIS.
IT HAS A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT SLOPE.
THIS WAS MORE OR LESS ASKING FOR PERMISSION RATHER THAN FORGIVENESS.
MY CONCERN HAS ALWAYS BEEN THAT WE START BUILDING THE BUILDING, AND WE FIND OUT THAT WE'RE A LITTLE BIT OVER THE BUFFER LINE, AND WE'RE COMING BACK HERE AND SAYING, OKAY, WE'VE GOT THE SITUATION HERE.
WE WANT TO EXPAND THE DECKS, WE WON'T CHANGE THE ROOF OVERHANGS.
RIGHT NOW ZONE, BUT I CAN TELL YOU IT'S JUST,
[01:00:04]
THIS IS A TOUGH ONE TO PHYSICALLY LAY OUT ON THE SITE.IF WE DO, IF THE DECK OR THE ROOF OVERHANG.
THERE ARE REALLY THREE VARIANTS, THE SETBACK, THEN THERE'S THE DECK OR ROOF OVERHANG, AND THEN THERE'S SOME GRADING IN THE BUFFER ZONE.
LET ME EXPLAIN THE ROOF OVERHANG AND THE DECK.
THE TOWNSHIP ZONING ORDINANCE EXPLICITLY ALLOWS FOR UP TO 2.5 FEET FOR VARIOUS PROJECTIONS OVER SETBACK LINES AND IT DOES THAT FOR THINGS LIKE CHIMNEYS, EAVES, AND SO FORTH.
BUT THAT LANGUAGE IS NOT EXPLICITLY IN THE BUFFER ZONE THING.
IT'S SILENT ON WHETHER AS A RIGHT, SOMEBODY HAS THE ABILITY TO PROJECT 2.5 FEET OVER THE BUFFER ZONE.
WHAT I'VE PLANNED SO FAR IS THAT THE DECK WILL HAVE A 2.5 FOOT OVERHANG.
IT'D BE CANTILEVERED OUT OVER AND AT THIS POINT, THAT CANTILEVER DOES NOT PROJECT FROM WHAT I THINK IS THE BUFFER LINE.
AGAIN, THE WHOLE SYSTEM IS NOT THAT ACCURATE.
OUR PLAN IS THAT THE POSTS WOULD NOT BE IN THE BUFFER LINE, BUT WE COULD POTENTIALLY PROJECT.
>> THE MORE IMPORTANT ONE IS PROBABLY THE ROOF OVERHANG RATHER THAN THE DECK OVERHANG.
I THINK WE COULD PROBABLY LIVE WITH IT.
RIGHT NOW, AS I'VE SHOWN, NOTHING PROJECTS OVER THE BUFFER ZONE.
ON THE THIRD PART, IF YOU SAW THE PHOTOS THAT I PUT IN THE WRITTEN STATEMENT, AND I THINK THE GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE THAT MR. SHORKEY SHOWED WAS REALLY HELPFUL BECAUSE IT SHOWS THE EXTENT OF THE FILL, SO THIS SITE FOR FIVE OR SIX YEARS HAS JUST BEEN DUMPED ON.
IT'S NOT REALLY WETLAND SOIL IT'S JUST STUFF.
IN FACT, I WAS OUT THERE IN NOVEMBER WHEN I TOOK THE PHOTOS, AND PEOPLE ARE STILL DUMPING ON THE SITE, EVEN THOUGH STEVE AND MAY HAVE OWNED THIS SINCE JULY, SO THERE WAS A BUNCH OF SOD THAT HAD JUST BEEN DUMPED ON THE SITE.
IT'S NOT NATURAL BUT IN ORDER TO GIVE THE BUILDER THE ABILITY TO ACTUALLY MOVE EQUIPMENT AND EXCAVATE FOR OUR FOUNDATIONS, WE'D LIKE THE ABILITY TO JUST WORK WITHIN THE FILL ZONE POTENTIALLY UP TO THE 2019 BUFFER LINE THAT STAKED ON THE SITE.
WE'RE NOT REALLY CHANGING THE GRADES OR ELEVATIONS IT'S JUST PRACTICAL.
HE'S GOING TO NEED SOME ABILITY TO MANEUVER EQUIPMENT AND EXCAVATE FORE FOUNDATION.
IT'S NOT GUARANTEED THAT WE'LL NEED THAT.
BUT AGAIN, IF YOUR EXCAVATOR DRIVES A PIECE OF EQUIPMENT OVER, WE DON'T WANT TO BE IN THE POSITION THAT OKAY, WE'VE MADE A MISTAKE.
AGAIN, IT'S ASKING PERMISSION AS OPPOSED TO ASKING FORGIVENESS, IT'S JUST THE PRACTICAL THING OF BUILDING A HOUSE ON THIS COMPLICATED SITE.
I GUESS THE LAST THING IS, IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR UNIQUE SITUATIONS, THERE ARE ANY NUMBER OF THEM, OUR PROPERTY LINE ACTUALLY GOES INTO NEWTON ROAD, SO WE'VE JOKED ABOUT CHARGING TOLLS TO USE NEWTON ROAD.
THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A 400 FOOT FRONTAGE WHERE THERE'S NOTHING THAT ACTUALLY FRONTS ON THE CUL DE SAC, I THINK IT'S A UNIQUE ASPECT.
THE CHANGE IN GRADE, THE PROPORTIONAL AMOUNT OF WETLAND AND BUFFER TO WHAT ACTUALLY IS THE BUILDABLE AREA ON THE SITE AND WE HAVE A SITE THAT'S 110,000 SQUARE FEET, AND I THINK THERE'S ONLY MAYBE ABOUT FIVE OR 6,000 SQUARE FEET THAT'S ACTUALLY BUILDABLE FOR THE PROJECT.
THEN THE FILL, I THINK IS ANOTHER UNIQUE ASPECT, SO I CERTAINLY THINK WE NEED THAT PARTICULAR ONE, SO I'LL STOP THERE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THE APPLICANTS WANT TO SAY ANYTHING MORE OR WHATEVER, OR IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THEM.
>> WELL, WE DO APPRECIATE IT, AND IT'S ROSSOSIK.
>> TRYING TO REMEMBER IT SO WE CAN CALL YOU THE CORRECT NAME AND WE APPRECIATE THAT INFORMATION.
WOULD ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE, AND IF SO, YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME UP AND JOIN MR. ROSSOSIK?
>> YOU COULD JOIN HIM AT THE PODIUM, AND IF NOT, WE WILL GET INTO.
COME ON UP. BEFORE YOU START TALKING SAY YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS SO WE KNOW WHO YOU ARE TOO.
I RESIDE AT 4261 OVER-BROOK DRIVE IN GREEN LEDGE, MICHIGAN AND I ONLY WANTED TO TALK FOR JUST A QUICK SECOND TO
[01:05:02]
SECOND WHAT TIM DID A FANTASTIC JOB OF NOT ONLY PUTTING THE APPLICATION TOGETHER.>> NO, [INAUDIBLE] TIM DID A FANTASTIC JOB PUTTING THE APPLICATION AS A WHOLE TOGETHER AND I THINK HIS PROCESS OF DOING SO REALLY DIALED IN THE FACT THAT ALL OF THE UNIQUE SITUATIONS THAT SURROUND THIS SITE, BUT THE SITE HAS A TREMENDOUS OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A REALLY GORGEOUS HOME WITH A REALLY BEAUTIFUL VIEW LOOKING OVER THAT 2.5 A WETLAND AND JUST THE OVERALL STATIC, EXCUSE ME, FOR MAY AND STEVE AND WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING TO ACCOMPLISH AND THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE ALREADY IN THE AREA.
I JUST THINK THERE'S A LOT THAT CAN BE SAID FOR WHAT'S CAPABLE WITH THIS SITE, EVEN THOUGH IT DOES POSE A FEW CHALLENGES.
I JUST WANTED TO REALLY SPEAK FOR A QUICK SECOND AND JUST REALLY ADD TO WHAT TIM WAS SAYING ABOUT WE'RE NOT TRYING TO NECESSARILY CROSS THE LINE AS MUCH AS WE'RE SAYING, HEY, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE WORKING WITH, DO WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF WIGGLE ROOM ON THAT.
THEN IN REGARDS TO ANY WORK THAT WOULD BE DONE IN THAT BUFFER ZONE.
OUR GOAL WOULD BE TO MINIMIZE THAT AT ALL COSTS IF WE CAN.
BUT THE REALITY IS IS TO CREATE A SAFE WORK ZONE BY THE TIME WE'RE SHELVING SOME OF THIS EXCAVATION AND MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE CREATING THE PROPER ROOM FOR THE EQUIPMENT AND CREATING A SAFE WORKING ENVIRONMENT WHEN WE START FORMING AND PUTTING SOME OF THESE DIFFERENT ELEMENTS IN TOGETHER? THAT'S WHERE WE MAY FIND OURSELVES IN SOME SPACES WHERE WE HAVE TO JUST NOT DO A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF DISTURBANCE TO THAT BUFFER ZONE, BUT WE MAY JUST HAVE TO CROSS IT IN DIFFERENT SPACES LIKE TIM WAS SAYING WITH MOVING EQUIPMENT AROUND, STORING PRODUCT, BECAUSE I THINK IT WAS WHEN WE LOOK AT THE BORING SAMPLES, I THINK IT WAS UP TO IN SPOTS, ALMOST 8.5 FEET OF UNCONTROLLED FILL TO PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE.
THE OTHER BUILDING SITES IN THE AREA, I THINK, HAVE BEEN LITERALLY JUST DEPOSITING THEIR UNUSABLE FILL IN THIS AREA.
I APPRECIATE WHAT TIM ADDED TO HIS APPLICATION.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THE PICTURES, ESPECIALLY WHEN HE REFERENCES IN ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HE BROUGHT UP WITH HAVING TO GRADE THAT AREA, THAT BEGINNING PORTION OF THAT BUFFER ZONE AND CREATE IT JUST MORE APPEASABLE, BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT SOME OF JUST THE EROSION THAT'S HAPPENED, THE SEAL FENCE NOT BEING MAINTAINED, OUR GOAL WOULD BE TO ESSENTIALLY REPAIR THAT AREA ONCE THE HOUSE IS CONSTRUCTED AND PUT IT BACK INTO JUST A BETTER STANDING THAN IT IS CURRENTLY.
>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. ANDRES. WE APPRECIATE THAT.
IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE CASE THIS EVENING? YOU HAVE A LOT OF SUPPORT HERE.
ANYBODY ELSE? [LAUGHTER] HI, NEIGHBORS.
WELCOME. VERY GLAD TO HAVE YOU HERE WITH US TONIGHT.
IF THERE'S NOBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO TALK RIGHT NOW, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND GET INTO BOARD TIME.
MEMBER [INAUDIBLE], GO FOR IT.
>> I ACTUALLY WENT OUT THERE AND LOOKED AT THE SPOT.
I'M AMAZED THAT THEY COULD SELL THAT AS A BUILDING SITE IN IT'S CURRENT CONDITION.
I APPLAUD YOUR EFFORTS TO DEVELOP A HOUSE THERE.
YOU'RE RIGHT. IT WILL HAVE A BEAUTIFUL VIEW.
IF YOU DON'T HAVE FRONTAGE ON THE CUL DE SAC.
>> WHEN THE PLANNING DIRECTOR IN BATH TOWNSHIP APPROVED THIS, IT WAS NOT APPROVED UNTIL THE ACCESSES TO THE TWO PARCELS OVER THE COUNTY LINE WERE VERIFIED. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?
>> WHILE YOU SAY THE ACCESS TO THIS BUILDING SITE.
>> THERE WERE TWO PARCELS HERE THAT KNEW THAT NEEDED TO ACCESS ON ONTO HEATH-FIELD.
WHEN THIS PLAN WAS APPROVED, IT WAS APPROVED WITH THOSE ACCESSES IN MIND.
IT WAS KNOWN BACK IN 2019 BY BOTH BATH TOWNSHIP AND MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP THAT THESE PARCELS WOULD ACCESS OFF OF HEATH-FIELD DRIVE AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS SECTION OF THAT DEVELOPMENT.
[01:10:03]
>> DO THEY HAVE AN EASEMENT? SOMEONE OWNS THE PROPERTY IN BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINE HERE AND THE CUL DESAT.
>> I DON'T THINK IT'S MUCH DIFFERENT TYPICALLY, WHEN YOU HAVE A LOT OR YOU HAVE YOUR LOT, AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE THE STREET LINE HERE, I DON'T THINK IT'S MUCH DIFFERENT THAN A RIGHT OF WAY, BUT I I HAD THE SAME QUESTION, AND I JUST KNOW THAT WHAT MR. SHORKEY DESCRIBED WAS WHAT WAS APPLIED TO THE HOUSE THAT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION OR JUST COMPLETED TO THE WEST.
THAT'S WHAT CREATED THE DECISION THAT THIS WAS THE FRONT YARD AND ESTABLISHED THE 25 FEET.
>> THE ONLY THING I CAN FIGURE OUT IS IT MUST BE PART OF THE ROAD RIGHT OF WAY.
>> HEATHFIELD DRIVE HAS A RIGHT OF WAY.
AND SO YEAH, THESE DRIVEWAYS WOULD JUST GO THROUGH IT.
>> AS I MAY BE CLUMSILY TRYING TO EXPLAIN, THIS DEVELOPMENT IN BATH TOWNSHIP WAS NOT APPROVED UNTIL IT WAS CONFIRMED THAT THESE ACCESSES TO THESE TWO PARCELS WERE GOING TO BE APPROVED.
>> THAT WAS PART OF THE APPROVAL IN 2019 BY THEIR PLANNING DIRECTOR.
>> WE COULD THROW THAT IN AS ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE UNIQUE CONDITIONS.
>> THE 25 FEET WOULD BE BACK FROM APPROXIMATELY THE ROAD RIGHT OF WAY.
>> THE 25 FEET IS IN THIS CASE SET BACK FROM NOT THE RIGHT OF WAY.
>> WELL, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM MEETING NUMBER 1 [LAUGHTER]
>> I HAVE NO PROBLEM MEETING UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ON THIS.
>> I ALSO AGREE THAT THEY AREN'T CAUSED BY [OVERLAPPING]
>> ARE YOU PLANNING ON REMOVING ALL THAT FILL?
>> WE REMOVE MOST OF IT AND IT'S NOT ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE FOUNDATION.
>> IF YOU LOOK AT THE FOUNDATION PLAN THE FOOTINGS IN THE REAR ARE QUITE LOW, THE ONES AT THE FRONT ARE HIGHER.
WE WILL EITHER REMOVE OR STRENGTHEN.
WE'LL HAVE TO COMPACT. WE'LL PROBABLY END UP DOING A COMBINATION OF BOTH.
>> AS YOU POINTED OUT, IN YOUR DESCRIPTION AS WELL AS WHEN I WAS OUT THERE, THERE'S A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF EROSION DOWN INTO THE WETLAND INTO THE BUFFER.
>> JUST FOR A PAR AT STAKE, I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE RESTORED, JUST SO I MEAN, IT LOOKS BETTER, OTHERWISE YOU HAVE THIS WHAT YOU SAW.
>> WELL, I WOULD HOPE THAT THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE PLAN THAT RESTORE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE THE GENERAL GRADE INTO THE WETLAND INTO THE BUFFER ZONE.
>> RIGHT. THAT WAS HALF OF VARIANCE REQUEST NUMBER 3.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MEMBERS, ANYBODY ELSE.
YEAH. MEMBER [INAUDIBLE], GO AHEAD.
>> I WAS GOING TO SAY THE EXACT SAME COMMENT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE GOOGLE MAPS, MY MY GUESS WAS WHEN WHOEVER THE TOWNSHIP UP NORTH OF THERE DESIGNED THAT CUL DE SAC, THEY PROBABLY DIDN'T INTEND THAT THERE WERE GOING TO BE TWO MORE STRUCTURES BUILT UP THE SOUTH SIDE OF THAT THING.
THAT'S WHY THERE ARE PROBABLY PEOPLE DUMP AND FILL IN THERE AND IT'S IN A DIFFERENT COUNTY SO TO ME, I TOOK THAT AS THEY HAD NO INTENTION OF PUTTING TWO MORE HOUSES DOWN THERE.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY DID, AND THEY GOT ACCESS [OVERLAPPING] AGAIN, I MIMIC MEMBERS COMMENT THAT I GIVE YOU KUDOS FOR BEING ABLE TO DESIGN A STRUCTURE AND WORK WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER TO FIT SOMETHING IN THERE.
>> THEY HAVEN'T GOTTEN IT BUILT YET.
>> THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS, THESE AREN'T COOKIE CUTTER HOMES.
THESE ARE LARGER TYPE HOMES THAT HOMEOWNER IS ENTITLED TO BUILD TOO.
I ANTICIPATED THIS TO BE A PRETTY GOOD SIZED HOME GOING IN THERE.
IT MAKES SENSE TO BE THE SIZE OF THE HOME THAT IT IS.
I DID HAVE A CLARIFICATION QUESTION FOR YOU, THOUGH.
EXPLAIN AGAIN, BECAUSE IN THE ONE PARAGRAPH OF THE STAFF REPORT, IT SAYS JUST THE DECK, DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT HE OVERHANG OR ANYTHING IT SAYS THE DECK ON THE SOUTH CORNER OF THE HOUSE IS PROPOSED TO ENCROACH 2.5 FEET INTO THE WETLAND SETBACK.
YOU SAID SOMETHING BEFORE ABOUT IT WASN'T THE DECK.
IT WAS GOING TO BE LIKE THE DECK OVERHANG.
I JUST WANTED CLARIFICATION [OVERLAPPING]
>> I THINK WHEN I COMPLETED THE APPLICATION, I THINK I SAID THE DECK AND OR ROOF OVERHANG.
NONE OF THE DECK POSTS WOULD BE IN THE BUFFER ZONE,
[01:15:03]
AND WE MIGHT CAN LEVER IN THE LAST 2.5 FEET OF DECK, OUT OVER THE BUFFER LINE.RIGHT NOW, THE SITE PLAN DOESN'T SHOW IT.
I DON'T THINK WE NEED IT, EXCEPT.
I WANTED TO EXPLAIN ONE OTHER THING ON THE BUFFER ZONE.
THE GPS SYSTEM IS ACCURATE WITHIN THREE FEET.
AT THE 40TH SCALE, THE THICKNESS OF BY LINE IS ONE FOOT.
WE'RE RIGHT ON THE BUBBLE, RIGHT ON THE EDGE.
I DON'T WANT TO HAVE JOHN BUILD THIS HOUSE AND THEN FIND OUT THAT, WE WERE 6" OVER THE BUFFER LINE WITH THE DECK.
RIGHT NOW, I DON'T THINK IT'S NEEDED, BUT IT COULD BE, PARTICULARLY IF THE EXCAVATOR SAYS, WE WANT TO ROTATE THIS BACK A LITTLE BIT.
THE ROOF OVERHANG IS THE ROOF OVERHANG AT THE SOUTH EAST CORNER AND RIGHT NOW YOU CAN SEE THE DOTTED LINE THERE IS JUST SHORT OF THE BUFFER LINE.
IT WOULD ONLY COME INTO PLAY UNDER TWO CIRCUMSTANCES.
ONE IS I WANTED TO EXPLAIN ON THE BUFFER LINE AS WELL.
THE WETLANDS DELINEATOR FROM FPC AND H, THEY DO PERIODICALLY.
IT'S LIKE EVERY 30 FEET, 40 FEET AND IT DIGS A HOLE TO CONCLUDE WHAT THE SOIL WAS AND THEN MATCHES THE COLOR THERE.
THEY PLANT THAT POINT, AND THEY ACTUALLY PUT A FLAG AT THAT POINT, BUT THEY PUT A FLAG ON A BRANCH.
IF IT'S A WINDY DAY, THE BUFFALO LINE IS OVER HERE, OR THE BUFFALO LINE IS OVER HERE.
THEN THE LINE DOESN'T REALLY EXIST.
THEY DO WHAT IS CALLED A POLY LINE.
THEY TAKE THESE GPS POINTS, WHICH THEY'VE TRIGGERED BACK TO THE TOWNSHIP GIS SYSTEM AND THEN THEY PROJECT THE LINE IN BETWEEN THERE.
ULTIMATELY, THE BUFFER ZONE, I ASSUME, WILL BE STAKED OUT IN THE FIELD, WITH THE WETLANDS CONSULTANT.
THE LINE MAY BE CURVED FROM ONE POINT TO ANOTHER RATHER THAN A STRAIGHT LINE FROM ONE POINT TO ANOTHER.
I THINK WE MISFIRED ON THE HUBBLE SPACESHIP DUE TO A MATH THERE.
THESE LOOK LIKE REALLY HARD LINES ON THE SITE PLAN, BUT THEY'RE REALLY NOT.
AGAIN, THIS WAS MORE OR LESS ASKING PERMISSION RATHER THAN ASKING FOR FORGIVENESS AND WE DON'T WANT TO BE IN THAT SITUATION WE'VE BUILT THE DECK AND IT PROJECTS OVER 6" AND DOUBLE BACK HERE, ASKING FOR FORGIVENESS.
>> I CAN CLARIFY IT. THAT IS IN HIS RIGHT UP AND STAFF WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM IF YOU SAID 2.5' FOR DECK AND OR OVERHANG [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT MAY BE A POLICY DECISION TOO, BECAUSE THE ORDINANCE IS REALLY SILENT ON WHETHER THE 2.5 FEET ENTITLED SETBACK APPLIES TO THE BUFFER LINE.
KEITH AND I LOOK FOR IT, AND IT'S JUST A STRUCTURE, BUT IT DOESN'T GIVE YOU THE SAME RELIEF.
COULD YOU PROJECT YOUR EVE LINE OR YOUR CHIMNEY, YOU LIKE YOU COULD OVER OTHER SETBACK LINES.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT. MEMBER BROOKS.
>> YEAH, I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS.
FIRST, MR. SHORKEY, THERE'S TWO TIMES WE'VE HEARD ABOUT FILTER GETTING DUMPED INTO THIS PROPERTY. IS THAT LEGAL?
OF COURSE, IT'S NOT LEGAL, BUT IF NO ONE SAW IT, NO ONE REPORTED IT.
>> CAN I INTERJECT ON THAT ONE?
>> THAT'S OKAY. [OVERLAPPING] NO, I APPRECIATE THAT. I JUST WANTED TO ASK HIM.
THE SECOND QUESTION IS WHY? IF WE THINK ABOUT, LIKE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THE LAST ZONING ORDINANCE, THEY HAD BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, THEY WERE BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY, OR THEY WERE GETTING READY TO BUILD ON THE PROPERTY, THEN THEY WERE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE, AND WE'RE SKEPTICAL OF THAT.
BUT THEN THIS GROUP HAS BOUGHT THE PROPERTY AND NOW THEY'RE BUILDING THIS LARGE HOUSE.
SO I'M CURIOUS IF THERE'S BEEN ANY CONSIDERATION MADE OF JUST SCALING THE HOUSE BACK SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO REQUEST AS MANY VARIANCES IN THIS INSTANCE.
>> WE SPENT QUITE A LOT OF TIME LOOKING AT DIFFERENT PLAN ITERATIONS SO THAT WE HAVE A BUILDING PROGRAM.
ONE ASPECT OF THE PROGRAM IS TO BE ABLE TO HAVE LARGE FAMILY GATHERINGS, SO THAT'S AN IMPORTANT PIECE.
IF WE DON'T HAVE THE DECKS ON THE BACK, FOR EXAMPLE, THEN THERE LITERALLY IS NO BACKYARD, THERE'S NOTHING.
EVERY HOUSE HAS A BACKYARD, BUT IN OUR CASE, OUR BACKYARD WILL BE THE DECKS BECAUSE THE GRADE CHANGE REALLY FROM THE EDGE OF THE HOUSE IS PRETTY SEVERE.
[01:20:03]
WE CAN'T GRADE IN THAT AREA, SO WE'RE RESTRICTED FROM DOING THAT.WE LOOKED AT A LOT OF DIFFERENT FLOOR PLAN ITERATIONS, AND THEN THIS IS THE ONE THAT MEETS THE PROGRAM THAT WE HAD THE BEST.
AS I SAID, AT THIS POINT, FROM WHERE I THINK THE BUFFER LINE IS, HAVING SAID THAT, THERE'S THIS ACCURACY THING AND THE POLY LINE THING AS WELL.
I DON'T THINK WE ARE PROJECTING OVER THE BUFFER LINE FOR THE DECKS.
BUT IF THE EXCAVATOR SAYS, I NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE ROOM ON THE NORTH, WE NEED TO PULL THIS HOUSE DOWN A LITTLE BIT, THEN WE WOULD GET INTO THAT SITUATION.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION OR NOT, BUT IT REALLY FLOWS FROM THE BUILDING PROGRAM.
>> THE DIFFERENCE IN THE TWO SITUATIONS IS THAT IN THE FIRST REQUEST, THEY HAD AN APPROVED SITE PLAN, AND THEY ESSENTIALLY WANTED TO DEVIATE FROM THAT SITE PLAN.
IN THIS CASE, THEY'VE GOT A LARGE PARCEL WITH A VERY LIMITED BUILDING AREA, AND THEY'RE TRYING TO FIT THIS BUILDING INTO THAT LIMITED BUILDING AREA AND PERFORMING A REALLY DELICATE BALANCING ACT IN THE PROCESS.
>> I'M GOING TO JUMP IN AND JUST SAY, I THINK THAT THERE'S BEEN TREMENDOUS CARE PUT INTO HOW TO BUILD IN A VERY DIFFICULT LOT.
I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE HOME AS MUCH AS I AM THAT THEY SEEMINGLY HAVE GONE THROUGH EVERY ITERATION AND TRYING TO GET BOTH A HOME THAT'S USABLE, SO HITTING THAT PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, A HOME THAT'S USABLE FOR THIS PARTICULAR VERY STRANGE BUILDING SITE WITHIN WITHIN THOSE SETBACKS FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, NOT FROM THE FRONTAGE, AND TO STAY WITHIN THIS WETLAND BUFFER ZONE.
I THINK THAT IT'S DONE TO A DEGREE THAT I DO APPRECIATE THE ASKING FOR PERMISSION, SAYING, WE MIGHT BE TWO-AND-A-HALF FEET OVER VERSUS I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE GOING TO BE, SO WE'RE JUST GOING TO ROLL WITH IT AND NOT ASK FOR THE VARIANCE.
I WOULD RATHER SAY TWO-AND-A-HALF FEET, AND GIVE THEM ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO BUILD AND SAY, OKAY.
I ALSO THINK THAT IN LOOKING AT ALL THREE REQUESTS SEPARATELY, I CAN SEE THAT TWO-AND-A-HALF FEET FOR POTENTIAL OVERHANG IS ALSO A LITTLE BIT OF A GRAY AREA WITH WHETHER OR NOT IS IT OVERHANGING THE BUFFER LINE? IS THAT AN ACTUAL ISSUE OR NOT? BUT WE'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FOR IT.
BUT THEN ALSO FOR THE BUFFER ZONE AND USING THAT AND REPAIRING THAT AND GETTING THAT BACK UP TO WHAT IT NEEDS TO BE TO BE ABLE TO NOT ONLY SUPPORT THAT WETLAND AND LOOK NICER FOR THE TOWNSHIP, BUT ALSO JUST TO DO ITS JOB.
REALLY, IT'S NOT DOING ITS JOB RIGHT NOW, AND IT NEEDS TO BE REPAIRED AND RESTORED TO BE ABLE TO DO ITS JOB.
I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THOSE.
IN LOOKING AT THE SETBACKS, I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT COULD BE ANY DIFFERENT OTHER THAN, AS MEMBER BROOKS POINTED OUT, HAVING A SMALLER HOME JUST GENERALLY.
THEN WE COULD GET INTO THE WEEDS.
I'M LIKE, YOU COULD SQUISH IT, BUT YOU'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE A SETBACK ISSUE BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING FROM THE PROPERTY LINE AND NOT FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY. MEMBER TREZISE.
>> THE ONLY THING I'D SAY IS THIS IS NOT A HUGE HOME.
THIS IS NOT A 2020 2,000 SQUARE FOOT MANSION THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO SQUEEZE INTO A HALF ACRE LOT.
I AGREE THAT THE 12-AND-A-HALF FEET SETBACK REALLY IS A STRANGE NEED HERE, GIVEN THAT THEY'RE WELL OVER 25 FEET FROM ANYTHING THAT WE WOULD NORMALLY USE FOR A SETBACK.
>> THAT'S THE PART WHERE I FIND.
>> THEY'RE THEY'VE GOT THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE HOME NEXT DOOR, THE SETBACKS, ALL OF THOSE.
>> I THINK THE NATURE OF THIS LOT DICTATES THAT THEY HAVE TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS.
[01:25:03]
THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR ALSO HAS THAT TYPE OF VARIANCE BECAUSE THEY HAD THE SAME ISSUE AS FAR AS ACCESS TO THE CUL-DE-SAC.THEY'VE BUILT THERE, SO THAT'S BEEN APPROVED THERE.
I DON'T SEE THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE AS AT ALL CONTROVERSIAL.
I THINK THE OTHER TWO VARIANTS HAVING TO DO WITH THE WETLAND BUFFER, ONE IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO DO THE BUILDING, AND THAT'S THE REPAIR AND RESTORATION, WHICH IS A BENEFIT TO US.
THE OTHER IS FOR BASICALLY AN ELEVATED TWO-STORY DECK OR A ROOF LINE WITHOUT ANYTHING AT LEAST NOW PLANNED ON BEING PLACED IN THE BUFFER, INCLUDING EVEN A POST.
>> THERE'S NO POSTS. THERE'S NOTHING.
IT WOULD JUST BE AN OVERHANG OVER THE BUFFER LINE.
>> THAT WOULD BE ABOUT EIGHT OR 10 FEET OVER THE GROUND LEVEL ANYWAY, EVEN THE LOWER DECK.
>> THE LOWER ONE IS ABOUT THREE-AND-A-HALF FEET AT THE GROUND LEVEL, BUT IT'S A DEEP [INAUDIBLE] [OVERLAPPING]
>> BECAUSE THE SITES TO INVEST.
>> IT'S NOT GOING TO BE PHYSICALLY IMPAIRING THE DRAINAGE.
>> NO. ALL THE SAME WATER THAT WOULD HAVE LANDED ON IT BEFORE WILL STILL LAND ON IT WHEN WE'RE DONE.
>> IF IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY MORE, I'M GOING TO GO FOR IT.
NUMBER 1 WOULD BE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST THAT ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND-USE STRUCTURE THAT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LAND-USE STRUCTURES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT, AND THESE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SELF-CREATED.
I CAN ABSOLUTELY MEET THAT CRITERIA.
THESE ARE NOT SELF-CREATED CIRCUMSTANCES.
IT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE, BUT YOU SEEM TO HAVE ALMOST FOUND THE EXACT ONLY ONE WAY THAT THIS COULD POTENTIALLY WORK, WHICH IS PRETTY ADMIRABLE.
CRITERIA NUMBER 2 WOULD STATE STRICT INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE LITERAL TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER THAT WOULD RESULT IN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES THAT WOULD PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR A PERMITTED PURPOSE.
IF THE PERMITTED PURPOSE IS TO HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, WHICH IT IS, SO IT'S A RESIDENTIAL AREA, THEN I THINK THAT ENFORCING THESE SETBACKS AND THESE BUFFER ZONES IS GOING TO PROVIDE SOME PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES FOR BUILDING THIS PARTICULAR HOME.
>> IF IT WASN'T FOR THE WAIVER, AS FAR AS A SETBACK, YOU COULDN'T BUILD ANYTHING.
>> ABSOLUTELY. YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BUILD, SO I THINK I CAN ABSOLUTELY MEET CRITERIA NUMBER 2.
CRITERIA NUMBER 3 STATES GRANTING THE VARIANCE OF THE MINIMUM ACTION NECESSARY, WHICH WOULD CARRY OUT THE SPIRIT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECURE PUBLIC SAFETY, AND PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.
I CAN'T SEE OTHER THAN JUST TAKING THE HOME AND CRUNCHING IT DOWN, WHICH I DON'T THINK WOULD BE JUST, WE'RE LOOKING AT OVERHANG AS OPPOSED TO POSTS OR SOME STRUCTURE WITHIN THE BUFFER ZONE.
WE'RE LOOKING AT RESTORING THAT BUFFER ZONE TO WHAT IT NEEDS TO BE TO FUNCTION PROPERLY AS A BUFFER ZONE.
WE'RE LOOKING AT A VERY LOOSEY-GOOSEY PROPERTY LINE THERE IN FRONTAGE, THE LACK OF A FRONTAGE IN GENERAL.
I CAN MEET THE MINIMUM ELECTION CRITERIA VERY EASILY ON ALL THREE REQUESTS.
CRITERIA NUMBER 4 STATES GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND OR THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY.
I THINK BY THE LOOKS OF IT FROM HAVING ALL OF THE NEIGHBORS HERE IN SUPPORT, THAT IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE IN SUPPORT OF BUILDING ON THIS LOT, AND THAT IT WILL HELP MAINTAIN AND GROW THEIR PROPERTY VALUES.
SO I COULD SEE WHERE THAT WOULD NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT.
IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE READY TO RESTORE THAT BUFFER ZONE INTO WHAT IT IS.
TAKE OUT THE FIELD THAT'S BEEN PLAGUING THE END OF THAT CUL-DE-SAC THERE AND REALLY SET THIS PROPERTY TO RIGHTS.
>> WELL, IT REALLY IS AN EYESORE PRESENCE.
>> IT LOOKS LIKE IT FOR THE GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE, SO I CAN ONLY IMAGINE WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE IN PERSON.
BUT I APPRECIATE THAT MEMBER TREZISE IS ABLE TO GET OUT THERE AND TAKE A LOOK AND BE OUR EYES ON THE GROUND AS IT WERE.
[01:30:02]
CRITERIA NUMBER 5 STATES GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS CHAPTER, AND I CAN GRANT THAT QUITE EASILY AS WELL.ANY DISCUSSION ON OUR CRITERIA?
>> JUST DO NOTE THERE ARE THREE SUGGESTED CONDITIONS.
>> YES. ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW WHAT, LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT WHILE WE'RE HERE BEFORE WE GET TO ANY MOVEMENT OR MOTION.
THE FIRST THAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDS IS THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL OBTAIN A SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PERMIT FROM MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.
I CAN'T SEE WHY THAT WOULDN'T BE SOMETHING WE HAVE TO HAVE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE HAVE TO DO THAT. THAT'S A THING ANYWAY.
>> THAT'S A THING YOU NEED ANYWAY. GOT IT.
THE NEXT RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL STAKE THE EDGE OF THE GRADING ON THE PARCEL BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION OR CONSTRUCTION BEGINS.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT, MR. SHORKEY, OR IS THAT SELF-EXPLANATORY ON THAT ONE? DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT ONE, SIR?
>> I DON'T KNOW. NOW, IT'S EASY FOR ME TO DRAW A LINE ON THE PLAN, BUT HE'S GOT TO BUILD TO IT.
I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THAT ONE MEANS, BUT WE WILL WORK WITH THE TOWNSHIP STAFF AND DEFINE WHAT THAT CONSTRUCTION ZONE WILL BE.
>> MR. ANDRES SAYS YES. IF THAT IS A CONDITION, AND WE CAN PLACE UPON THE VARIANCE THAT SOMETHING YOU GUYS ARE WILLING TO WORK WITH THE TOWNSHIP AND MEET.
WE KNOW THAT OUR STAFF IS FANTASTIC, AND THEY'RE GOING TO PUT IN WHAT THEY FEEL LIKE IS JUST AND RIGHT FOR NOT ONLY FOR THE HOMEOWNERS, BUT ALSO FOR THE TOWNSHIP, MAKING SURE THAT THAT SITE STAYS IN CONDITION THAT IT SHOULD BE IN.
THE THIRD RECOMMENDATION THAT THEY HAVE IS THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL INSTALL EROSION-CONTROL SILT FENCING AROUND THE BOUNDARY OF THE WETLAND BEFORE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE AND DRIVEWAY TO PREVENT EROSION INTO THE REGULATED WETLAND.
THE SILT FENCING SHALL REMAIN FOR THE DURATION OF THE HOUSE AND THE DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION.
IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S ALREADY THERE, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S GOING TO NEED TO BE REPLACED.
IF THAT'S A CONDITION THAT WE'RE WILLING TO MEET, I FEEL VERY CONFIDENT PLACING THAT RESTRICTION ON THAT JUST SO WE KNOW THAT IT'S A HANDSHAKE.
[LAUGHTER] WE'RE GOING TO TAKE CARE OF THIS PROPERTY AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE RESPECTING THE WETLANDS.
SO THAT SAID, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM STAFF?
>> QUESTION I HAVE IS SHOULD WE APPROVE EACH VARIANCE SEPARATELY?
>> I DON'T THINK THAT'S A BAD IDEA.
WE COULD DO A MOTION TO APPROVE ALL THREE VARIANCES WITH THESE CONDITIONS, OR WOULD YOU PREFER US APPROVE EACH VARIANCE REQUEST? WE CAN DO THEM AS A BUNDLE, WE CAN DO A PACKAGE DEAL.
>> IF YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO DOING IT THAT WAY.
>> I JUST WONDERED FROM A PROCEDURAL STATE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE'LL GET THERE, IT JUST DEPENDS ON HOW MANY TIMES WE WENT ABOUT IT.
MEMBER KOENIG, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION?
>> NO. I WAS GOING TO SAY IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO PACKAGE THEM ALL TOGETHER BEING THAT WE DO HAVE THOSE CONDITIONS.
OTHERWISE, WE DON'T TIE THOSE CONDITIONS JUST ONE OF THE VARIANCES BY MISTAKE IN THE RECORD.
>> IT MAKES SENSE TO HAVE TO HAVE THEM ALL.
>> MY OPINION. IT'S NOT THE REST OF THE BOARD'S OPINION. IT'S MINE.
>> I CAN'T RECALL, SO MY APOLOGIES.
>> DO WE ALL FOUR HAVE TO AGREE ON EACH FIVE, OR IS IT LIKE A THREE OUT OF FOUR CAN AGREE ON ONE OF THE RULES?
>> IN MY INTERPRETATION OF THE CRITERIA, THE CRITERIA IS, EACH OF US INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBER'S JOB TO APPROVE.
IF YOU AS A MEMBER ARE NOT ABLE TO APPROVE ALL FIVE CRITERIA, YOU CAN'T SUPPORT THE VARIANCE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? BUT IF THREE US COULD, WE COULD APPROVE.
BUT I WELCOME ANY CONVERSATION ON THEM.
IS THERE ONE THAT IT IS GIVING YOU A LITTLE?
>> NO, THAT'S MY MAIN QUESTION.
I GUESS MY MAIN POINT I WANT TO MAKE IS, WHEN YOU BUY SOMETHING, YOU DO RESEARCH ON IT, AND THEN YOU BUY IT AND THEN ALSO IT'S RESPONSIBILITY OF WHO'S SELLING IT TO KNOW WHAT THEY'RE ALSO SELLING.
THE DEVELOPER ORIGINALLY GOT THIS AGREEMENT, AND THEN THEY SOLD THE PROPERTY AND THEN NOW WE'RE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE.
[01:35:01]
BUT THEN THERE'S ALSO HOUSES THAT ARE SMALLER THAN THAT ON THIS SAME BLOCK AND SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW IF THE HOUSE COULD BE SMALLER OR THE DECK COULD BE REDUCED IN SIZE, THAT THIS COULD NOT REQUIRE A VARIANCE.EXCEPT FOR, I THINK, IF I'M THINKING ABOUT THIS CORRECTLY, IS THE 25' SETBACK THAT COMES FROM A ROAD THAT'S NOT ACTUALLY FRONTAGE.
THAT ONE I TOTALLY, I THINK THAT MAKES SOME SENSE.
BUT THEN I'M ALSO LIKE, IF A ROAD DOESN'T HAVE FRONTAGE AND YOU CAN'T HAVE A SETBACK, THEN WHY IS IT EVEN A PROPERTY THAT'S LEGITIMATELY ALLOWED TO BE SOLD AND PURCHASED AND THEN BUILT A HOUSE ON AND WHICH NOW WE'RE BEING TOLD THAT IT'S ONE OF THE MOST DIFFICULT PLACES THAT HAS BEEN TRIED TO BE DESIGNED ON.
IT ALSO RAISES THIS QUESTION OF, THERE ARE SOME PLACES THAT JUST AREN'T BUILDABLE.
BUT THOSE ARE THE WAYS THAT I'M THINKING ABOUT THIS.
I'M PROBABLY NOT GOING TO SUPPORT.
IF WE VOTE ON THEM IN A PACKAGE, I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT ALL OF THEM.
BUT IF WE VOTE ON THEM SEPARATELY, I'LL LIKELY SUPPORT.
>> YOU SHOULD VOTE ON THEM SEPARATELY.
>> I THINK THE CHALLENGE FOR US IS THAT THERE'S A LOT OF GRAY AREA.
>> BECAUSE WE GET IT WAY AFTER THE FACT.
WE'RE GETTING IT. IT'S THE PROPERTY'S BEEN SOLD.
THE PROPERTY'S BEEN DEVELOPED TO A POINT WHERE THERE'S ACCESS, THERE'S A DRIVE, THERE'S AN EASEMENT, THERE'S BEEN ALL KINDS OF WORK PUT INTO, WHETHER IT BE THE WETLAND DELINEATION OR THE PLOT MAP, THE SURVEYORS, THE ARCHITECT.
EVERYBODY'S PUT IN TIME AND EFFORT ON THIS PROJECT ALREADY, INCLUDING THE TOWNSHIP.
NOW WE LOOK AT, THIS IS THE BAG THAT WE'VE BEEN GIVEN.
NOW, WE OPEN IT UP AND SAY, WHAT'S INSIDE? WHEN WE OPEN UP THE BAG, [LAUGHTER] WE HAVE TO DECIDE, OKAY, THIS IS ALREADY HERE.
WE COULD GO INTO THE WEEDS AND DEBATE WHETHER OR NOT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SOLD ANYWAY.
THAT'S HOW THE SAUSAGE GETS MADE.
WE ALREADY HAVE THE SAUSAGE IN OUR HANDS.
>> NOW WE GOT TO DECIDE, WHAT WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH AS A BOARD AS FAR AS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW AS VARIANCE GOES.
I'M FINE WITH PULLING THEM APART.
THE TRICK IS THAT I DO THINK THAT WE NEED TO APPLY THOSE THREE CONDITIONS THEN TO EACH INDIVIDUAL AS A BUNDLE.
I'M SORRY. A BUNDLE OF RECOMMENDATIONS ON EACH INDIVIDUAL VARIANCE.
I THINK MEMBER BROOKS, IF YOU'RE GOOD WITH THAT.
>> WE CAN TAKE THEM APART AND DO EACH VARIANCE.
WE'LL NEED A MOTION FOR EACH AND WE'LL NEED A VOTE FOR EACH IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THAT IN A MORE PIECEMEAL STRUCTURE.
>> I'M JUST PREFERENCING THIS BECAUSE I KNOW THAT'S GOING TO TAKE LONGER.
I ALREADY HAVE OFFERED MY COMMENTS.
I'M JUST GOING TO SAY YES OR NO ON EACH THINGS.
>> WE'RE JUST GOING TO VOTE. IS THERE ANY? DO WE WANT TO DISCUSS ANY MORE BEFORE WE GO FOR SOME MOTIONS.
I'LL GET BACK UP TO. DO WE HAVE ANY MOTIONS? WHO WOULD LIKE TO JUMP INTO THE POOL HERE? SORRY. THIS IS A LONG PACKET. GOT IT.
>> SIXTEEN, 17, THE STAFF REPORT.
>> I'LL MAKE THE FIRST MOTIONS.
>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE FOR ORDINANCE 86-372/86367 FRONT YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW THE PLAN HOUSE TO BE LOCATED NO CLOSER THAN 12.2' FROM THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE WITH THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS PROVIDED BY THE STAFF AND OUR PACKET WITH ALL THREE, IF THEY'RE REQUIRED.
[01:40:03]
>> PERFECT. IS THAT SUFFICIENT, MR. SHORKEY?
>> YOU ARE REQUESTING A VARIANCE OF 12.8'.
>> YOU GOT THE NUMBERS BACKWARDS.
>> I WOULD SUPPORT. I THINK WE HAVE EXHAUSTED OUR CONVERSATION ON THIS APPLICATION SO [LAUGHTER] THIS IS A VOTE TO APPROVE THE FIRST VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE 12.8' SETBACK FROM THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE WITH THE THREE CONDITIONS OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MEMBER BROOKS.
>> THE CHAIR VOTES, YES. THAT VARIANCE HAS BEEN APPROVED.
I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ZB CASE NUMBER 24-12, THE 2.5 FOOT ROOF AND/OR DECK OVERHANG INTO THE WETLAND BUFFER LINE, INCLUDING THE THREE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM STAFF.
>> YOU SAID FOR THE DECK AND THE OVERHANG.
>> I'M SAYING FOR THE DECK AND ROOF OVERHANGS 2.5' INTO THE WETLAND BUFFER LINE.
>> SECONDED BY MEMBER TREZISE.
THIS IS A VOTE TO APPROVE THE SECOND VARIANCE FOR THE 2.5' DECK AND ROOF OVERHANGS INTO THE WETLAND BUFFER LINE WITH RECOMMENDATIONS FROM STAFF. MEMBER BROOKS?
>> CHAIR VOTES YES, SO THAT VARIANCE HAS BEEN APPROVED.
I'M GOING TO TAKE ANOTHER SHOT AT. MEMBER TREZISE, GO AHEAD.
>> I PROPOSE APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE TO ZONING ORDINANCE 86-471(B) (1) SETBACK FROM WATER FEATURES TO ALLOW FOR LIMITED EARTHWORK IN THE BUFFER ZONE, IF NEEDED FOR THE EXCAVATION AND INSTALLATION OF THE BUILDING FOUNDATIONS AND DECK POSTS AND TO REPAIR ERODED AREAS AND IMPORTED NON STRUCTURAL FILL THAT HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE SITE OVER TIME SUBJECT TO THE THREE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM STAFF AS PRESENTED IN OUR PACKET.
>> I WOULD SUPPORT THAT MOTION.
THIS WILL BE A VOTE TO APPROVE THE THIRD VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW FOR WORK IN THE BUFFER ZONE FOR EXCAVATION.
>> EXCUSE ME, A NINE FOOT VARIANCE.
>> THEY REQUEST FOR A NINE FOOT VARIANCE INTO THE WETLAND BUFFER ZONE AS NEEDED FOR EXCAVATION INSTALLATION OF BUILDING FOUNDATIONS AND DECK POSTS WITH THE THREE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM STAFF. MEMBER BROOKS.
>> THE CHAIR VOTES, YES. THAT VARIANCE HAS ALSO BEEN APPROVED.
I THINK THAT WILL TAKE CARE OF THAT CASE.
>> I THINK THAT'S ALL OF IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP THIS EVENING FOR THAT CASE.
[BACKGROUND] I DON'T ENVY THAT POSITION, SO GOOD LUCK.
THAT WILL TAKE US TO BACK TO OUR AGENDA.
[7.A. 2025 Meeting Calendar]
WE JUST HAVE ONE MORE PIECE OF BUSINESS THIS EVENING, WHICH IS OUR 2025 MEETING CALENDAR.PLEASE TAKE A LOOK, AND IF ANY OF THAT LOOKS TO BE NOT SOMETHING. WE'LL WAIT JUST A MOMENT.
MAN, NOBODY STAYED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
[LAUGHTER] PLEASE TO SEE YOU GUYS.
[01:45:06]
IF THOSE DATES LOOK GOOD TO EVERYBODY FOR NOW, I DON'T HAVE ANY CONFLICT WITH THOSE DATES FOR NOW BUT IF THAT IS LOOKING OKAY, I WILL GO AHEAD AND TAKE. DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION?>> I WAS GOING TO MAKE A MOTION.
>> I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE 2025 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING SCHEDULED BY RESOLUTION.
>> SUPPORTED BY MEMBER TREZISE.
THIS IS A VOTE TO APPROVE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2025 MEETING CALENDAR AS WRITTEN IN OUR PACKET FOR THIS EVENING'S MEETING.
>> THE CHAIR VOTES, YES. THE MEETING SCHEDULE HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR 2025.
I WILL OPEN THE FLOOR ONE LAST TIME FOR PUBLIC REMARKS.
[8. PUBLIC REMARKS]
ANYBODY? ANYBODY WANT TO COME AND SAY HI?>> MISS CHAIR, WHILE YOU'RE DOING YOUR BOARD COMMISSIONER COMMENTS, IF IT'S OKAY, I THINK BECAUSE IT'S THE END OF THE YEAR, I'M GOING TO RUN UPSTAIRS AND PRINT THIS.
>> ABSOLUTELY. YEAH. DO YOU WANT TO COME UP AND SAY HI? YOU CAN BE ON TV.
[LAUGHTER] WANT TO COME UP AND SAY HI? WE HAVE SOME FRIENDS IN THE AUDIENCE.
GO RIGHT UP THERE. GO RIGHT UP BY THE MICROPHONE, BUDDY.
>> TO YOUR RIGHT, TO THE MICROPHONE BEHIND THE WOOD.
>> HI, THERE. CAN YOU TELL US YOUR NAME?
>> WHAT BRINGS YOU TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING TONIGHT?
>> YOUR DAD'S HERE? THAT'S SO COOL.
>> THAT'S YOUR DAD. [LAUGHTER] THAT'S AWESOME.
WE'RE SO GLAD THAT YOU JOINED US TONIGHT, RILEY.
RILEY DID IT AND RILEY'S LITTLE THAN YOU. COME ON.
GO TO THE MICROPHONE AND SAY HI.
>> RILEY, GUESS WHAT? THERE'S ANOTHER KID HERE, TOO.
COME HERE. THIS KID RIGHT HERE.
CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD?
>> [INAUDIBLE] MANSOUR, THAT'S MY DAUGHTER.
[LAUGHTER] THAT'S MY EIGHT YEAR OLD DAUGHTER.
THANK YOU FOR JOINING US AT THE MEETING TONIGHT.
YOU GUYS WERE AWESOME DURING THIS MEETING.
>> WAS IT COOL SEEING YOUR DAD GET TO DO SOME WORK?
>> WHAT DO YOU THINK ELLIE, IS IT COOL SEEING YOUR MOM DO SOME WORK?
>> WELL, WE APPRECIATE HOW WELL YOU GUYS LISTENED SO THANKS FOR TAKING PART IN DOING YOUR CIVIC DUTY TONIGHT AND ATTENDING A REALLY LONG MEETING FOR YOUR PARENTS.
WELL, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THAT ADORABLE NOTE AND MOVE RIGHT INTO BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS. THANK YOU, GUYS.
[9. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS]
THAT'S NOT ALWAYS EASY. MEMBER BROOKS, I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU BEING UPFRONT AND HONEST WITH US AND STAYING YOUR COURSE AND I THINK THAT THAT'S WHAT WE NEED.THAT'S HEALTHY DISCOURSE IN ANY KIND OF COMMUNITY AND WE NEED IT.
WE NEED TO KEEP THAT UP, SO I APPRECIATE IT, AND I THINK THAT WAS HANDLED REALLY WELL.
I DO SAY SO MYSELF, I THINK WE DID A GREAT JOB, GUYS.
[LAUGHTER] ON THAT NOTE, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS.
I DO NEED TO SIGN THE MEETING SCHEDULE, BUT ON THAT NOTE, UNLESS ANYBODY HAS ANY MORE COMMENTS.
MEETING ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.