Jul 16, 2025 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting

OKAY, WELL, I AM OFFICIALLY GOING TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER.

[1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER]

[00:00:04]

WELCOME TO THE CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF MERIDIAN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING.

TODAY IS WEDNESDAY, JULY 16TH, 2025, AND WE WILL BEGIN BY STARTING WITH OUR ROLL CALL.

SO WE'LL START WITH MEMBER BENOIT. HERE. BENOIT.

BENOIT. THANK YOU. I KNEW I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT WRONG.

MEMBER BENOIT IS HERE. NEXT UP, MR. KOENIG? PRESENT.

OKAY. AND MR. BROOKS? PRESENT. GOT IT RIGHT THIS TIME.

MR. HERSHISER. HERSHISER. PRESENT. ALL RIGHT.

AND CHAIR MANSOUR IS PRESENT. THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN, FOR BEING PATIENT WITH ME. I APPRECIATE THAT. ALL RIGHT.

FIRST, IT LOOKS LIKE I NEED APPROVAL OF TONIGHT'S AGENDA.

[2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA]

I LIKE THE WAY YOU WORK, SIR. NICE AND QUICK AND TO THE POINT.

ANY SUPPORT? EXCUSE ME. I'M SORRY. THAT WAS THE MINUTES.

APPROVE THE AGENDA FOR JULY 16TH. PERFECT. SECOND.

YES. MEMBER KOENIG? YES. MEMBER BROOKS? YES. MEMBER HERSHISER?.

YES. AND CHAIR MANSOUR VOTES YES. SO TONIGHT'S AGENDA IS APPROVED.

WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE MINUTES. THIS IS FOR MAY 21ST, 2025´S MEETING.

[3. CORRECTIONS, APPROVAL AND RATIFICATION OF MINUTES]

OKAY. SECOND. SUPPORT BY MEMBER BROOKS. ANY NOTES, ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS REGARDING THOSE MINUTES? I THINK MEMBER BROOKS AND VICE CHAIR KOENIG AND I ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT WERE HERE.

I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING THAT WAS OUT OF ORDER, SO.

NOPE. ALL RIGHT. THIS WOULD BE A VOTE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM MAY 21ST, 2025.

MEMBER BENOIT? YES. MEMBER KOENIG? YES. MEMBER BROOKS? YES. MEMBER HERSHISER? YES. AND CHAIR MANSOUR VOTES YES.

SO OUR MINUTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED. NEXT ON OUR AGENDA WOULD BE COMMUNICATIONS, OF WHICH WE HAVE ONE, WHICH WE COULD DISCUSS DURING THE CASE. DOES THAT SOUND FAIR, MR. CHAPMAN? ALL RIGHT. IN THAT CASE, WE WILL MOVE ON.

WE HAVE NO UNFINISHED BUSINESS. WE WILL GO RIGHT INTO NEW BUSINESS.

[6.A. ZBA CASE NO.: 25-06 (3760 Hulett), Norman & Carmen Gear, 3760 Hulett Road, Okemos, MI 48864 ]

SO THE APPLICANTS REQUESTED A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE WETLANDS SETBACK AT 3760 HULETT ROAD.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A TWO STORY ADDITION TO THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME BUILT IN 1984.

THE WETLANDS ON THE SITE WERE DELINEATED IN MAY OF 2025.

THERE'S ONE LARGE WETLAND ON SITE THAT SURROUNDS THE SITE TO THE NORTH, SOUTH AND EAST.

THE IMPACTED WETLAND BUFFER FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ADDITION IS SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED PLAN.

THERE'S NO DIRECT IMPACT TO THE WETLANDS PROPOSED.

SO THE ZONING ORDINANCE SPECIFIES ACTIVITIES THAT ARE PROHIBITED WITHIN THE 20 FOOT AND 40 FOOT WETLAND SETBACKS.

IN THIS CASE, THE 40 FOOT WETLAND SETBACK PROHIBITS ANY STRUCTURES OR GRADING AT ITS CLOSEST POINT.

THE ADDITION WOULD BE 20FT, EIGHT INCHES FROM THAT WETLAND BOUNDARY.

WHICH WOULD ENCROACH 19FT, FOUR INCHES INTO THE 40 FOOT WETLAND SETBACK.

SO A VARIANCE OF 19FT, FOUR INCHES FOR THE ADDITION IS REQUESTED.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAPMAN. WILL THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE, WOULD LIKE TO COME UP TO THE PODIUM AND SPEAK ON THIS CASE OR ADD ANYTHING TO WHAT MR. CHAPMAN SAID? SIR, I'LL JUST NEED YOU TO SAY YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD, PLEASE.

GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS [INAUDIBLE] WITH [INAUDIBLE] BUILDERS.

I'M REPRESENTING THE BUILDER IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE.

AND THIS IS NORMAN. HI. MY NAME'S NORM GEAR. I'VE BEEN HERE IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP FOR 41 YEARS.

I FIRST MOVED ON HULETT ROAD. THERE WERE SIX HOUSES THERE.

I AM THE OLDEST RESIDENT ON THAT PORTION OF THE ROAD RIGHT NOW.

MR. GEAR. I'M SORRY. JUST TO STOP YOU BOTH, GENTLEMEN, WOULD YOU MIND ADDRESSES FOR, OR YOU COULD THE USE BUSINESS ADDRESS. THAT'S FINE. BUSINESS ADDRESS? THAT'S FINE. YEAH, 7051 WEST PARKS ROAD IN SAINT JOHNS, MICHIGAN.

THANK YOU. AND MR. GEAR, JUST YOUR ADDRESS PLEASE FOR US SIR.

3760 HULETT OKEMOS 48864-3536. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

OKAY. AND MR. NELSON, WAS IT? YES. OKAY. IF YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND OR, IF YOU WANT TO WANT TO USE THE TIME TOGETHER,

[00:05:02]

AND BEFORE WE MOVED IN, WE HAD TO PUT IN A 600 FOOT ROAD.

SO THAT TOOK A LOT OF OUR MONEY BACK THEN. AND THEN I THINK WE HAD TO HAVE A VARIANCE BACK THEN FOR ROAD FRONT FOOTAGE, WHICH WE WERE ALLOWED TO HAVE. BUT SINCE THEN, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TALK.

OUR FAMILY HAS GROWN. WE NEED MORE ROOM. WE HAVE GOTTEN 40 SOMETHING YEARS OLDER.

WE NEED MORE ACCOMMODATIONS. SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR THIS VARIANCE.

SO WE CAN MOVE OUR HOUSE BACK AND ACCOMMODATE OUR GRANDCHILDREN.

OKAY. AND OUR OLD AGE. THANKS, NORMAN. SO, YEAH, BASICALLY THE REQUEST.

YOU KNOW, THEIR HOUSE IS CLOSE TO THIS WETLAND WHERE IT WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT, BEFORE THE CURRENT ORDINANCES WERE PUT INTO PLACE.

SO THE HOUSE CURRENTLY SITS ABOUT 20. LET ME GET TO THE RIGHT PLAN IN FRONT OF ME.

BUT THE HOUSE IS WITHIN 25FT OR LESS FROM THAT WETLAND CURRENTLY.

SO BUILDING AN ADDITION OFF THE HOUSE, REALLY, IN ANY REASONABLE FASHION IS, YOU KNOW, DIFFICULT TO MAINTAIN THAT 40 FOOT BUFFER SINCE THE HOUSE IS ALREADY WITHIN THAT SO FAR. SO THAT'S THE BIGGEST, YOU KNOW, PRACTICAL IMPLICATION OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.

WE WENT OVER THE PERIOD OF THE LAST YEAR OR MORE.

IT'S BEEN OVER A YEAR. WE'VE BEEN WORKING BACK AND FORTH WITH THE HOMEOWNERS TO FIND SOLUTIONS FOR THE HOUSE AND THE ADDITION. AND WE'VE LOOKED AT DIFFERENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR DIFFERENT WAYS TO REMODEL THEIR HOME TO ACCOMPLISH THE GOALS THAT THEY'RE LOOKING TO, FOR THE GOALS THEY'RE LOOKING TO ACCOMPLISH AT THEIR HOUSE.

SO THAT SAID, THERE'S REALLY NO OTHER PRACTICAL WAY TO BUILD OUT AN ADDITION WITHOUT SPENDING, YOU KNOW, EXORBITANT AMOUNTS OF ADDITIONAL MONEY, BASICALLY REBUILDING THE HOUSE.

AT SOME POINT, WE'D GO BEYOND WHAT'S REASONABLE AND WORKING WITH THEIR EXISTING HOUSE AND PROPERTY AND HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, AT SOME POINT YOU'RE NEEDING TO ABANDON THE EXISTING HOUSE.

THEY HAVE THEIR GARAGE OUT TO THE WEST, WHICH IS THE ONE SIDE OF THE HOUSE THAT ISN'T SURROUNDED BY WETLAND.

SO WITHOUT HAVING TO TEAR DOWN OR REBUILD THAT GARAGE OR, YOU KNOW, WHICH WOULD PUT THE ADDITIONS THAT WE'RE WORKING ON, YOU KNOW, FAR AWAY FROM THE CURRENT LIVING AREAS OF THE BEDROOM AND THE LIVING AREAS THAT WE'RE MODIFYING.

SO THAT'S KIND OF THE BIGGEST CONSIDERATION HERE.

OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. NELSON. MR. GEAR, DO YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING ELSE RIGHT NOW? OTHERWISE, I WOULD JUST ASK YOU GENTLEMEN TO STAY UP AND WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS.

WE WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT IN THIS ISSUE.

THAT WETLAND BEING THERE 41 YEARS NOW, I'VE WATCHED IT DRY UP.

YOU COULD WALK ACROSS TO THE OTHER SIDE THREE TIMES.

OKAY, SO IT'S BEEN A MEDAL AT LEAST THREE TIMES THAT I'VE BEEN THERE IN MY 41 YEARS.

OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. WOULD ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? COME ON UP, MA'AM. IF YOU JUST WANT TO GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS.

I ASSUME IT'S THE SAME ADDRESS AS MR. GEAR. CARMEN GEAR, 3760 HULETT ROAD.

OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT WE SENT A LETTER IN SUPPORT OF US TRYING TO BEG YOU FOR THE VARIANCE.

WE ALSO HAD OUR. YOU ASKED FOR A NEIGHBOR TO DO SOMETHING.

IF YOU LOOK AT OUR PROPERTY THERE'S A FIVE ACRE PARCEL IN THE FRONT.

THEN THERE'S OUR DRIVEWAY THAT GOES BACK 600FT.

THE PERSON MOST AFFECTED IS THE FIVE ACRE PARCEL.

HE'S A PHD IN PHYSICS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WETLANDS DO, BUT HE DOES.

AND HE SHOULD HAVE SENT YOU A LETTER. IF YOU DID NOT GET THAT, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU GOT IT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP STIPULATED WHERE WE SHOULD BUILD WHEN WE CAME THERE.

I'M FROM CHICAGO. HE'S FROM DETROIT. WE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND ABOUT PERKING.

AND SO THE PROTEST HAPPENED, AND YOU GUYS SAID WHERE WE HAD TO BUILD BECAUSE I WOULD HAVE PUT IT CLOSER.

SO WE'RE IN A PICKLE, AND I HOPE THAT YOU'LL SUPPORT US.

THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MA'AM. OKAY.

ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE THIS EVENING? IF NOT, WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND GET INTO OUR BOARD TIME.

AND IF YOU WANT TO STICK AROUND, MR. NELSON, I'M SURE WE'LL HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT.

SO I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND IT'S NOW BOARD TIME.

ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR ANY THOUGHTS WHERE TO START? YES. IN REVIEWING THIS CASE, GOING THROUGH THE CRITERIA, SOME OF THE CRITERIA I DIDN'T HAVE TOO BIG OF A PROBLEM WITH THAT IT DIDN'T QUITE MEET THE CRITERIA, BUT IT WAS REASONABLE.

IN THE FIRST ONE, MENTIONING UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES PECULIAR TO THE PROPERTY.

[00:10:02]

THERE'S NEVER ONE THAT'S IDENTICAL. RIGHT. SO I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.

AND ONE I DO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF PROBLEM WITH, IS STRICT INTERPRETATION SAYS YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO USE THE PROPERTY FOR WHAT IT'S DESIGNED FOR OR ZONED FOR. THEY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO USE THAT.

SO THAT'S JUST A LITTLE BIT OF A STICKING POINT.

BUT THE BIGGEST ONE WAS THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE BASICALLY STATED THERE WERE OTHER OPTIONS, BUT THEY WOULD BE COST PROHIBITIVE, AND COST IS NOT CRITERIA THAT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CAN USE TO GRANT A VARIANCE. SO I'LL JUST LEAVE THE OTHER TWO TO SOMEBODY ELSE THAT MIGHT WANT TO SPEAK ON THEM.

I'M A LITTLE BIT UNDECIDED AT THIS POINT. OKAY.

SO I WILL SAY, PART OF THE WAY THAT I LIKE TO GO THROUGH, I DO LIKE TO GO THROUGH ALL THE CRITERIA ONE BY ONE.

USUALLY I LET EVERYBODY KIND OF GET WHATEVER QUESTIONS THEY'D LIKE TO HAVE TO THE APPLICANT OR TO STAFF.

THAT WAY WE CAN KIND OF GET WHAT OUR THOUGHTS ARE OUT OF THE WAY FIRST SO THAT WE CAN REALLY DIG INTO THOSE CRITERIA.

SO I DEFINITELY AM WITH YOU ON THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES AND CRITERIA THREE.

THAT'S USUALLY, I WILL SAY USUALLY WHERE WE GET PRETTY HUNG UP IS TRYING TO DECIPHER IF THERE'S ENOUGH TO SUPPORT THAT CRITERIA. SO THAT USUALLY IS ABOUT EITHER UNIQUE OR CIRCUMSTANCES OR PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES IS USUALLY WHERE WE GET HUNG UP AS A BOARD.

BUT I DO APPRECIATE THAT START BECAUSE I THINK THAT HELPS US TO KIND OF GET THE BALL ROLLING A BIT.

ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR? YES. YEAH, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING LIKE WHAT IS, IT'S A TWO STORY ADDITION? YES. WHAT IS KIND OF GOING INTO LIKE THE TWO STORIES? SURE. YEAH. SO WE'RE DOING A FULL TWO STORY ADDITION WITH A FULL BASEMENT UNDER IT TO EXTEND THEIR BASEMENT SPACE.

THE FIRST LEVEL OF THIS ADDITION WOULD EXPAND THEIR LIVING AREA AND KITCHEN AREA THAT THEY CURRENTLY HAVE, WHICH IS VERY KIND OF UNDERSIZED FOR THE HOUSE.

AND DEFINITELY THE HOUSE IS, YOU KNOW, THAT'S UNDERSIZED FOR THE LOT AND THE PROPERTY AND VALUE THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU WOULD TYPICALLY GET OUT OF A HOUSE OF THIS SIZE.

AND THAT'S KIND OF WHY WE SPOKE TO THE COST PART OF IT, IT'S JUST KIND OF UNDERSIZED FOR THE VALUE OF THE HOME AND EVERYTHING ELSE.

SO THE KITCHEN AND THE LIVING SPACE WOULD BE EXPANDED, AND THEN THE SECOND LEVEL WOULD EXPAND TO GIVE THEM A USABLE MASTER SUITE WITH AN ENSUITE BATHROOM THAT HAS MORE ACCESSIBILITY. WE LOOKED AT METHODS OF REMODELING THE EXISTING BATHROOMS TO GIVE TRUE ACCESSIBILITY TO THE SPACES, AND THEY JUST WEREN'T ABOUT EXPANDING THE HOME OR, YOU KNOW, TAKING AWAY A LIVING SPACE THAT EXISTS IN THE HOUSE.

THERE WASN'T A PRACTICAL WAY TO DO IT WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, PUSHING OUT THE HOUSE.

SAME WITH EXPANSION IN THE KITCHEN. SO. I THINK I WOULD ASK TO JUST TO EXPAND ON THAT, AND MAYBE TO EXPAND A LITTLE BIT ON WHAT YOU TOLD US IN THE BEGINNING THAT THERE WERE OTHER KIND OF CONFIGURATIONS LOOKED AT WITH HOW TO BUILD OUT THIS SPACE AND HOW TO ADD TOO. WHAT WERE SOME OF THE CHALLENGES THAT YOU WERE FINDING WITH THAT, THAT YOU CAME TO THIS PARTICULAR PLAN THAT WORKED? YOU KNOW, AND I TAKE YOU KNOW MEMBER HERSHISER, RIGHT? I SAID THE RIGHT NAME. HERSHISER? YES. OKAY. THAT MEMBER HERSHISER SAID REGARDING FINANCES, UNFORTUNATELY HE IS CORRECT. WE CAN'T TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AS ONE OF OUR CRITERIA OR FACTORS.

HOWEVER, THERE IS, YOU KNOW, I THINK WHAT I HEARD MENTIONED WAS AT SOME POINT ADDING ON IS GOING TO BE JUST AS MUCH WORK AS IT WOULD BE JUST TO BUILD A NEW HOUSE.

SO, IS THAT PRACTICAL? AND THAT'S WHERE I THINK WE CAN GET INTO A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, IS WHERE IF IN TRYING TO STAY WITHIN THAT VARIANCE OR WITHIN THE ORDINANCE RATHER IS MORE WORK THAN MAYBE WHAT IT'S VALUED.

YEAH. IF THERE WAS VALUE IN THAT, SO. 100%, YEAH.

I MEAN, THE ADDITION ALREADY IS FAIRLY COSTLY ADDITION TO DO WHAT WE'RE.

ANY KIND OF TWO STORY ADDITIONS OR ADDITIONS THESE DAYS IS VERY COSTLY, ESPECIALLY COMPARED TO WHAT IT WAS.

BUT, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, THE ONLY DIRECTION IN THE HOUSE THAT ISN'T SURROUNDED BY WETLANDS DOESN'T HAVE THAT POTENTIAL COMPLICATION IS THE SIDE THAT THE GARAGE IS ON.

AND, YOU KNOW, IN THAT ESSENCE, WE'D BE USING THE GARAGE FOR EXPANSION OR TEARING DOWN THE GARAGE TO EXPAND, AND THEN HAVING, YOU KNOW, TO GIVE THEM BACK A GARAGE, WE'D HAVE TO REBUILD THE GARAGE.

YOU'D BE ESSENTIALLY TEARING SOMETHING DOWN THAT EXISTS TO REBUILD IT, WHICH AT SOME POINT, ONCE WE DO THAT AND DO AN EXPANSION,

[00:15:01]

WE'D HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, EXPAND INTO BASICALLY A NEW LIVING ROOM OR NEW AREAS, WHICH AGAIN, THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GETTING TO THE POINT WHERE INSTEAD OF EXPANDING EXISTING AREAS, WE'RE CREATING COMPLETELY NEW ONES. NOW, AT THAT POINT, THAT'S WHERE AT SOME POINT, WE'RE ALMOST TO THE POINT WHERE YOU'RE A LOT BETTER OFF USING THE VALUE IN THE HOUSE AND BUILDING A NEW HOME, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID. ALL RIGHT, THAT KIND OF ANSWERS MY QUESTION.

I APPRECIATE THAT. MR. CHAPMAN. IS THERE ANOTHER.

OH, I GUESS WE HAVE IT IN THE PACKET, WHERE WE CAN KIND OF SEE HOW WHAT THEIR PARCEL LOOKS LIKE.

ONLY BECAUSE THE LINE DRAWING IS. THIS ONE? A LITTLE BIT.

YEAH. I THINK THAT THAT PARCEL DRAWING KIND OF ILLUSTRATES A LITTLE BIT MORE FOR ME VISUALLY ABOUT THE UNIQUENESS OF THIS PARCEL.

AND YEAH. YEAH, I'M, LOOKING AT IT THIS WAY AND SEEING WHERE THE WETLAND IS.

IT IS MORE MORE VISUAL. SURE. WHY THERE'S A LIMITATION THERE WITH WITH BUILDING, SO.

IT'S ALMOST NOT QUITE A PENINSULA THEY'RE BUILT OUT ON, BUT IT'S KIND OF.

YEAH, LOOKS A LOT LIKE OKLAHOMA DOESN'T IT? YEAH.

IT'S IN THAT DIRECTION. IT'S AN INTERESTING SHAPED PARCEL.

SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TODAY. RIGHT. SO I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU THEN, MR. CHAPMAN. REGARDING MRS. GEAR'S STATEMENT ABOUT MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP KIND OF PLACING THE HOME WHERE THEY DEEMED IT APPROPRIATE.

YOU SAID THIS KIND OF TYPE OF SHAPE OF A PARCEL WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED NOW, BUT WHAT WOULD BE THE REASON IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DESIGNED THAT WAY. DO YOU THINK, LIKE, IF YOU COULD MAGIC EIGHT BALL, FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY WERE THINKING? YEAH, I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY. I'M SURE THAT THIS OTHER HOUSE THAT WAS THERE PROBABLY HAD SOME REASONING AS TO WHY IT'S SHAPED THAT WAY. THE ONE THAT'S IN THE. YEAH, THAT'S SOUTH OF IT.

YEAH. BUT WITHOUT GOING BACK AND LOOKING AT WHAT THE PARCELS ALL LOOK LIKE.

I DON'T KNOW THAT I COULD TELL YOU. INTERESTING.

I HAVE A QUESTION. YES. NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE HOUSE.

WHEN YOU BUILT, IT WAS ALL CORNFIELD? YEAH. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. OKAY. MEMBER BROOKS, GO AHEAD. SO ONE OF THE STATEMENTS HERE WAS THAT THE WETLAND MAP WAS REDRAWN? WHEN DID THAT HAPPEN AGAIN? WE PAID TO HAVE IT DELINEATED IN MAY 1ST.

ARE YOU ASKING MAYBE WHEN THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE TOOK EFFECT? NO. WELL, BECAUSE I JUST COULDN'T REMEMBER WHEN THE BLUE LINE WAS.

SO HAS THAT CHANGED DRAMATICALLY IN THE PAST 30 YEARS? IT'S HARD TO SAY BECAUSE OF THE MAPS THAT WE USE AS APPROXIMATION ARE NOT EXACT.

SO, YOU KNOW, THEY DIDN'T REQUIRE A DELINEATION BACK IN 1984.

SO THIS WHOLE PROCESS, LIKE, DIDN'T EXIST THEN.

SO WE WOULDN'T HAVE REQUIRED THEM TO DO A DELINEATION.

RIGHT. I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT WHERE THE HOUSE IS BUILT.

THEY MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT TOWNSHIP REQUIREMENTS, ABOUT HOW WAREHOUSE IS BUILT.

AND SO I'M CURIOUS WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE NOW, BUT.

IT SOUNDS LIKE PROBABLY SOMETHING WITH THE SOIL WOULD BE MY GUESS.

BUT I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW ABOUT IF THEY'RE ON SEPTIC OR WHAT.

YOU ARE.

EVEN WITH WHAT YOU HAD. YEAH. I WANT PEOPLE TO THINK AND TRY TO DO SOMETHING.

SO, MR. AND MRS. GEAR, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND COMING UP TO THE PODIUM.

MY WORRY IS THAT THE PERSON THAT'S DOING THE MINUTES THAT LISTENS TO THE RECORDING WON'T GET YOUR COMMENTARY.

AND I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOUR VOICE IS ON THE RECORD BECAUSE YOU HAVE SOME VALUABLE INFORMATION FOR US OR JUST MR. GEAR. YEP. THAT'S FINE.

[00:20:08]

AND I SAID, WE'VE BEEN THERE 41 YEARS. WE'VE BEEN, FOR 41 YEARS, WE'VE WANTED MORE HOUSE, OKAY? AND THIS LAW WASN'T IN EXISTENCE WHEN WE MOVED THERE.

SO WE NEED HELP. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY HAVE ANY OTHER PRESSING QUESTIONS OR THOUGHTS? YES. MRS. GEAR. I JUST WANTED TO SAY WHAT MAYBE YOU COULDN'T HEAR WHEN I WAS THERE.

YES. THANK YOU. OKAY. THE ORIGINAL HOUSE WAS 1690FT².

AND THE 90 IS A COVERED PORCH. OKAY. SO THERE'S SMALLER ROOMS, YOU KNOW, IN THAT AREA.

THE GARAGE IS SOMETHING THAT WE CONVERTED. SO WHEN MATT WAS SPEAKING ABOUT HOW YOU COULD DO IT DIFFERENTLY AND DIFFERENT DELINEATIONS SO THAT WE WENT OUT TO THE RIGHT.

WHAT THEY PROPOSED WAS THAT WE HAVE OUR BEDROOM.

WHEN YOU IMMEDIATELY COME INTO THE HOUSE AND THAT WOULD BE THE GARAGE AREA AND IT'S NOT VERY WELL INSULATED.

IT'S COLD AND THE WELL CONNECT THAT WE HAVE BECAUSE WE'RE ON SEPTIC.

WELL AND SEPTIC. THE WELL CONNECT IS VERY LOUD.

I DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS GOING TO BE THAT WAY. I THOUGHT GEOTHERMAL, THIS WOULD BE GOOD.

BUT ANYWAY, IT'S EXTREMELY LOUD, SO WE DIDN'T THINK WE WOULD SLEEP WELL.

SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT. AND THERE WILL BE ONE NINE FOOT CEILING IN THAT HOUSE.

AND THAT'S ONLY BECAUSE I HAVE A SUNKEN LIVING ROOM THAT MOST PEOPLE WOULD EVEN OUT.

BUT AT LEAST I WANT TO HAVE ONE NINE FOOT CEILING.

THE REST IS EIGHT FEET. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO DO ANYTHING.

WE HAVE LIMITATIONS WITH WHAT WE HAVE. SO I DIDN'T WANT PEOPLE TO THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A HOUSE LIKE THE 48 ON THE OTHER SIDE OF US, AND THE 101 THAT YOU GUYS BUILT FOR ON THE OTHER SIDE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THOUGHTS? I THINK THEN WE WILL GO TRY TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE CRITERIA.

AND WE'LL BEGIN WITH CRITERIA ONE, UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST THAT ARE PECULIAR TO THE LATTER STRUCTURE, THAT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LAND OR STRUCTURES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.

AND THESE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SELF-CREATED.

AND I THINK GIVEN THE HISTORY AND GIVEN KIND OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN HEARING REGARDING THIS PARCEL OF LAND AND EVEN JUST LOOKING AT THIS PARCEL OF LAND, I COULD MAKE A CASE FOR UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES.

ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT? I THINK WE'RE ALL KIND OF.

GO AHEAD. SORRY. I GUESS I SHOULD ASK THIS FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, KEITH.

OR MAYBE I COULD ASK THE APPLICANT TO WRAP UP.

DID YOU GUYS HAVE THE HOUSE BUILT FOR YOU THERE, OR WAS THE HOUSE? ACRES. AND JUST TO SPEAK ON ONE THING THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN SLIGHTLY CONFUSED ON THAT FACT WHEN THEY BUILT IT.

WHAT THEY'RE SAYING ABOUT THE TOWNSHIP SAYING THEY HAVE TO PUT THE HOUSE WHERE IT IS, IT'S.

IT HAD TO DO, WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN WE BUILD A HOUSE.

I'M SURE YOU'RE FAMILIAR, BUT WE HAVE TO GET THE SEPTIC PLAN APPROVED BY THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT.

YOU'RE VERY LIMITED SOMETIMES ON WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.

SO BECAUSE OF WHERE THE PERK LOCATION WAS FOR THE SEPTIC SYSTEM, THEY HAD TO BUILD THE HOUSE KIND OF WHERE IT IS BECAUSE OF WHERE THE SEPTIC SYSTEM AND WELL FELL. SO THAT'S WHY THE HOUSE IS WHERE IT IS.

BECAUSE AT THE TIME THAT'S WHAT WAS APPROVED THROUGH THROUGH THE TOWNSHIP AND HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT.

OKAY. IF THERE'S NO QUESTIONS ABOUT CRITERIA ONE.

I THINK THAT THAT IS A CRITERIA WE CAN MEET. ALL RIGHT.

CRITERIA NUMBER TWO SAYS 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 THIS IS THE TRICKY ONE, BECAUSE YOU KNOW, WE CAN ALL SAY, YES, THERE'S BEEN A HOUSE HERE SINCE 1984, AND THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO LIVE IN IT, AND IT SERVES THE PURPOSE OF BEING A RESIDENCE.

HOWEVER, SHOULD WE GO A LITTLE DEEPER IN SAYING THAT THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO AGE IN PLACE IN THEIR HOME AND MAKE APPROPRIATE MEASURES TO, YOU KNOW, ADD ON TO A HOME? YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S THE ARGUMENT THAT WE HAVE TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT.

[00:25:06]

YEAH. BECAUSE THIS IS SUCH A UNIQUE LOT [INAUDIBLE] FLAG LOTS BECAUSE THEY LOOK LIKE FLAGS.

BECAUSE THIS IS A FLAG LOT, YOU'RE VERY LIMITED, TYPICALLY WHERE YOU CAN BUILD ANYWAYS.

NORMALLY YOU HAVE THE FLAG JUST FOR THIS REASON BECAUSE YOU HAVE DRIVEWAYS, THINGS LIKE THAT OR UTILITIES GOING BACK TO THE BIGGER PORTION OF THE ACTUAL FLAG. AND THAT'S NORMALLY WHERE THE HOMES ARE BUILT. HOWEVER, THAT'S NOT THE CASE HERE BECAUSE OF THIS UNIQUE WETLAND.

SO IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS A VERY LIMITATION ON WHERE THEY COULD POTENTIALLY EXPAND.

NOW, DELIBERATING WHETHER IT COULD BE OVER BY THE DRIVEWAY, COULD BE ON THE REAR.

TO ME, THAT'S KIND OF IRRELEVANT, BECAUSE WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US IS, WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR IS THE PARTICULAR AREA WHERE THEY WANT TO BUILD.

SO THAT TO ME IS THE MAIN STRICT INTERPRETATION.

I THINK IT BUILDS OFF CRITERIA NUMBER ONE, THAT IT'S A KIND OF A GRAY AREA, BUT.

CAN I? YES, MR. [INAUDIBLE], SURE. SO I KNOW, LIKE, VALUE OR COST IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS PART OF YOUR CRITERIA.

BUT TO THAT, I THINK WHAT TO EXPAND ON WHAT I WAS SPEAKING TO THAT NATURE.

IF YOU LOOK AT THEIR HOUSE, COMPARED TO THE AVERAGE VALUE OF THE HOME IN YOUR GUYS'S COMMUNITY IN THAT AREA, AND THE 100, AS NORM WAS SPEAKING TO THE 100 PLUS HOUSES AROUND THAT, RIGHT IN THAT VICINITY.

IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THOSE HOUSES AND HOW THEY'RE BUILT TO MODERN DAY BUILDING STANDARDS.

AND YOU KNOW, WHAT'S TYPICAL OF THE NEW HOUSE OR WHAT ANYONE'S APPROACHING US WITH BUILDING A NEW HOUSE.

I MEAN, THESE DAYS, I DON'T KNOW OF A SINGLE BUILDER THAT'S BUILDING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN YOUR COMMUNITY OR ANY OTHERS THAT'S IN A SIMILAR FASHION TO THE GEAR´S. THE LIVING SPACES ARE MUCH SMALLER THAN THAT.

AND THE ONLY WAY TO REMEDY THAT FROM ANY CLIENT.

IF ANYONE WOULD COME TO US AND SAY, HOW CAN WE EXPAND THIS PROPERTY TO BE SIMPLER AND MORE MODERN TO MODERN STANDARDS COMPARED TO ANY OF THE HUNDREDS OF HOUSES THAT SURROUND IT? EXPANSION WOULD BE THE ONLY OPTION. SO PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT HELPS MEET YOUR CRITERIA, BUT BECAUSE OF THE HOUSE WHEN IT WAS BUILT, HOW IT WAS BUILT, EVERYTHING ELSE, THEY'RE GOING TO BE LIMITED IN TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS KIND OF OUR THING. WE SAID THEY CAN'T FULLY UTILIZE THEIR PROPERTY FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES, BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT TODAY'S TYPICAL PURPOSE AND THE PURPOSE OF ALL THE OTHER SURROUNDING HOMES, THE ONLY WAY TO EVEN COME CLOSE TO ANY OF THOSE HOUSES OR ANY OF THE MODERN HOUSES BUILT TODAY, WOULD BE TO EXPAND THE HOUSE, SO. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT HELPS, BUT.

YEAH. QUESTION FOR KEITH. KEITH, LOOKING AT THE AERIAL HERE.

IS THERE ANY PROBLEM WITH SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY ADJACENT? LOOKING AT THE AERIAL, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE MIGHT EVEN BE A PAVED AREA THAT'S ON THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY.

SO THESE PROPERTY LINES AREN'T EXACT. SO YOU TAKE THEM AS A GRAIN OF SALT, BECAUSE WHEN THEY DO THE FLYOVERS, THEY'RE NOT PRECISELY OVERHEAD. SO THEY'RE A LITTLE SKEWED.

SO THAT IS NOT EXACT IF YOU GO. SO THERE'S NO PROBLEM.

NO, THERE'S NO PROPERTY LINE PROBLEM. GOOD. YEAH, SO.

I DON'T SHOW THE DRIVEWAY, BUT. YEAH. SEE THE DISTANCES OF THE HOUSE.

THIS MIGHT FEEL. YEAH. THAT'S A LITTLE BETTER.

YEAH. YEAH. THAT SHOULDN'T CREATE AN ISSUE. AS LONG AS THERE'S NOTHING PENDING LEGALLY. NO. ALL RIGHT. YEAH. JUST TO GET BACK TO THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES. I HEAR WHAT MR. NELSON IS SAYING AND AND DON'T DISAGREE THAT, YOU KNOW, IF WE ARE IN A POINT IN OUR COMMUNITY WHERE THE OLDER HOMES ARE GOING TO START, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE AGING IN PLACE, PEOPLE WANTING TO LIVE IN OUR COMMUNITY, AND REMAIN IN OUR COMMUNITY.

THEIR HOMES NEED TO BE ACCESSIBLE TO THEM AND TO OTHERS.

I DO DEFINITELY AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT. I DO.

DO WE FIND IT TO BE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY? I CAN PROBABLY MAKE A CASE FOR IT BEING A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, BASED ON WHAT MEMBER KOENIG WAS SAYING ABOUT IT, RELATING DIRECTLY TO THE PARCEL ITSELF, AND THE INABILITY REALLY TO USE THIS PARCEL IN A LOT OF DIFFERENT CONFIGURATIONS AND NOT REALLY HAVING A LOT OF OPTIONS, WITH REGARD TO THE UNIQUENESS OF THIS PARCEL.

[00:30:09]

I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S ANY OTHER WAY THAT THEY COULD ADD TO THIS HOME IN A WAY THAT WOULD BE PRACTICAL FOR THEM.

AND I DO HEAR THE DISCREPANCY AS WELL, WHEN YOU LOOK OVER AT THE PRESERVE, WHEN YOU LOOK AT OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS AND YOU SEE THE SCALE OF THOSE HOMES, THE SIZE OF THOSE HOMES, YOU LOOK DOWN THE STREET AT COLLEGE FIELDS, YOU LOOK AT THOSE OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS, AND THERE'S A LOT OF REALLY LARGE HOMES AND, YOU KNOW, DO WE ALLOW, YOU KNOW, HOMES THAT HAVE BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR A WHILE TO HAVE A FACELIFT AND UPGRADE? WELL, I THINK WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT IN CRITERIA FOUR.

BUT I SEE THAT THAT COULD BE A GOOD THING FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO I CAN MAKE A CASE FOR A CRITERIA NUMBER TWO.

CURIOUS IF ANYBODY ELSE IS THERE? YES. MEMBER BENOIT.

I GUESS I STRUGGLE HERE WITH YOU KNOW, THE VALUE OF THE HOME VERSUS THE VALUE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND ITSELF.

IT'S A VERY UNIQUE PROPERTY, IN A SENSE I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS, WHERE YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY LIVING IN THE COUNTRY WITHIN A SUBDIVISION.

TO ME, THERE'S A LOT OF VALUE IN THAT. AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK YOU GUYS ARE SUPER LUCKY TO EVEN HAVE THIS PROPERTY TO BEGIN WITH.

TO EXPAND OUTWARD IS SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW IF I FEEL COMFORTABLE AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

FROM WHAT IT ALREADY IS, BECAUSE IF THEY, YOU KNOW, IF WE GRANT THIS SETBACK REQUIREMENT BASED ON, YOU KNOW, IT WAS A LAW THAT WAS PUT IN EFFECT IN 2006 OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES LATER ON.

FOR WHATEVER REASON, TO PROTECT THE WETLANDS FOR 40FT, LIKE PEOPLE THAT ARE WAY SMARTER THAN ME CHOSE 40FT FOR A REASON.

AND YOU KNOW, IF IT'S ALREADY GOING IN 20FT, DOES IT SET A PRECEDENT FOR THE FUTURE OF MAYBE OTHER HOMES TO ENCROACH IN WETLANDS AS WELL? I DON'T KNOW, RIGHT? BUT I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN REALLY COMPARE IT TO THE OTHER HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BECAUSE IT'S THE ONLY HOUSE WHERE IT IS. IT'S ALMOST LIKE IT'S OWN NEIGHBORHOOD, ALONG WITH THE NEIGHBORS.

I THINK IF IT WAS A NEW CONSTRUCTION HOUSE, WE WOULD NEVER BE ASKING THIS QUESTION TODAY.

BUT TO BRIEFLY SPEAK ON YOUR POINT OF THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, THEY DO HAVE UNIQUE PROPERTY, AND THERE IS SOME GREAT VALUE IN THAT, BUT I THINK THE VALUE IS SIGNIFICANTLY DIMINISHED IF THERE'S NO CAPABLE EXPANSION OF THAT PARTICULAR HOME.

SO, SOMEONE THAT'S LOOKING TO BUY A PROPERTY OF THAT NATURE IS ALSO GOING TO BE LOOKING FOR WHAT 95% TO 100% OF AMERICANS ALMOST ARE LOOKING FOR TODAY.

AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, A HOUSE WITH GREAT ACCESSIBILITY AND LIVING SPACE.

SO ALL THAT VALUE KIND OF GETS DIMINISHED FROM LAWS THAT WENT INTO PLACE AFTER THEY BUILT THEIR HOUSE, WHICH I THINK IS THE PRACTICAL, THE BIGGEST PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY BEING THERE'S A WETLAND THERE WHERE THERE WAS NOT WHEN THEY.

IT WAS NOT A WETLAND WHEN THEY MOVED IN. WHEN THEY BUILT, YEAH.

KEITH, I THINK YOU JUST SPOKE TO. MAX, YOU JUST.

DID YOU COME TO THE PROPERTY? WERE YOU OUT THERE? I WAS OUT THERE, NO. OK. I THINK YOU JUST SPOKE TO A SENSE OF FAIRNESS FOR OTHER PEOPLE.

FAIRNESS SHOULD NOT BE LINEAR. IT SHOULD BE NON-LINEAR SO IT SERVES EVERYONE.

JUST A FOOD FOR THOUGHT, OKAY? ALL RIGHT, AND ANYBODY. SHOULD I COME BACK TO PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY? IS THAT ONE THAT PEOPLE ARE STILL HAVING TO CHALLENGE WITH, ANYBODY ELSE? OKAY. LET ME COME BACK TO IT. HOW ABOUT THAT? LET'S GO 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.

AND I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A 19 FOOT VARIANCE.

SO THAT'S WHERE, YOU KNOW, IT GETS A LITTLE HAZY IF THAT'S THE MINIMUM ACTION.

SO THAT'S SOMETHING I THINK THAT WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT IF WE'RE OKAY WITH.

YES. MEMBER KOENIG. AGAIN, I BELIEVE EVEN THOUGH THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OF A GRAY ONE, LIKE MOST OF THESE ARE, THE HOUSE ITSELF. I BELIEVE YOU ALREADY MENTIONED THE HOUSE ITSELF IS ESSENTIALLY LIKE A LEGAL NONCONFORMING BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY WITHIN THE WETLAND SETBACK,

[00:35:05]

AND THAT'S WHERE WE'RE. THE ADDITION WE'RE BUILDING OUT IS ALMOST IN LINE SO THAT IT STARTS WRAPPING.

BUT THERE'S REALLY NO WAY TO. EVEN IF WE WERE BUILT AN ADDITION THAT'S ONE TENTH THE SIZE, IT'S STILL GOING TO BE WITHIN, YOU KNOW, ON THAT END OF THE HOUSE, IT'S STILL GOING TO BE WITHIN 20, 25FT OF THAT WETLAND NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO. SURE.

SO REGARDLESS OF THE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SIZE IS, OF THE ADDITION THAT YOU'RE GOING TO PUT ON, I DON'T THINK THAT'S RELEVANT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF THE TOWNSHIP CAN REGULATE THE SIZE. I THINK THEY CAN PROBABLY REGULATE GROUND COVER OR WHATEVER WHAT'S CALLED.

YEAH. IT'S CALLED COVERAGE. COVERAGE. BUT AS FAR AS THE SIZE, YOU KNOW, IF THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE PLANNING ON BUILDING.

I THINK THEY WOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT IT'S GOING TO BE THE MINIMUM VARIANCE THAT THEY NEED.

SO I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GOING TO GO OUT THERE AND SAY, WELL, WE'RE RIGHT AT 24FT. NOW LET'S BUILD IT TO 24FT OR THEY'RE.

IN THE SAME SENSE, THEY'RE NOT BUILDING. THEY'RE NOT TURNING THIS, YOU KNOW, MAIN HOUSE INTO AN ACCESSORY HOUSE AND BUILDING ANOTHER 2000 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION ON THERE AND REQUIRING, YOU KNOW, ZERO RIGHT UP AGAINST THE WETLAND AND REQUIRING ALL 40FT.

SO AGAIN, IT COULD BE INTERPRETED. BUT, YOU KNOW, FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, I THINK IT COULD BE ARGUED THAT, YEAH, THIS IS THE MINIMUM ACTION NECESSARY JUST BECAUSE BASED ON WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING. YEAH. AND THERE'S NOTHING ELSE TO REALLY COMPARE IT TO OTHER THAN THE HOUSE ITSELF CURRENTLY IS WITHIN THE SETBACK. SO IT'S ALREADY LEGAL NONCONFORMING IN THAT PORTION. RIGHT. YEAH, I AGREE WITH THE POINT ABOUT THE LEGAL NONCONFORMING AND THAT THE SETBACKS WERE ESTABLISHED AFTER THE HOUSE WAS ALREADY BUILT QUITE A LONG TIME AGO. I HAVE A QUESTION, MR. CHAPMAN. SO THERE'S ALSO A DECK THAT'S GETTING BUILT. WILL THE DECK ALSO REQUIRE ANOTHER VARIANCE? NO, BECAUSE YOU'RE GRANTING THE VARIANCE FOR THE CLOSEST POINT.

YEAH. SO AND WHATEVER GETS APPROVED HERE IS, IS, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS SET IN STONE, BASICALLY.

OKAY. SO. SO THEN DOES THAT MEAN THAT. SO IF IT'S THE CLOSEST POINT, DOES THAT MEAN BASICALLY YOU COULD DRAW A 90 DEGREE ANGLE? OR YOU COULD DRAW. AT THAT CLOSEST POINT, YOU DRAW A STRAIGHT LINE BACK AND THEN THEY COULD EXPAND THEIR HOUSE OUT? THEY CAN'T CHANGE ANYTHING ON WHAT'S APPROVED ON THIS PLAN THAT'S SHOWN.

OKAY. YEAH. SO THE VARIANCE IS ONLY FOR. THAT SHADED AREA.

THAT SHADED AREA. YES. OKAY. AND FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, THE DECK IS THE ONE THING WE HAVE PLANNED ON THE ONE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, KIND OF GOING TOWARDS THE BACK OF THE GARAGE WHERE THAT DOES NOT.

I THINK THAT MIGHT BE. THE ONE CORNER IN THE PART THAT ACTUALLY MIGHT BE OUT OF THE 40 FOOT IS THE DECK.

RIGHT. AND THAT'S BECAUSE THAT'S IN AN AREA WHERE WE CAN'T REALLY EXPAND THE LIVING OR KITCHEN IN THAT AREA.

BUT THE DECK MAKES SENSE. SO WE BUILT OFF THAT SIDE AWAY FROM THE WETLAND.

FURTHER AWAY FROM THE MOSQUITOES. YEAH. RIGHT.

THAT'S BY A FEW FEET, NOT THAT MUCH. YEAH, RIGHT.

RIGHT. WELL, IT SOUNDS LIKE, GENTLEMEN, THAT WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT MOST OF US ARE IN AGREEMENT THAT WE CAN MEET MINIMUM ACTION, BUT STILL NOT QUITE THERE FOR PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.

DOES THAT SOUND FAIR? ALL RIGHT THEN. CRITERIA NUMBER FOUR IS GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND OR THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY. AS I SPOKE TO YOU EARLIER, I THINK THAT IT IS A GOOD THING FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND FOR THE ADJACENT LAND AND CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY. I DO THINK THAT THIS PROPERTY DESERVES A CHANCE TO BE UPGRADED, YOU KNOW, BE SUPPORTED. AND THAT, YOU KNOW, I WILL DISCLOSE I DO LIVE ON HULETT ROAD.

I LIVE WAY, I LIVE WAY ON THE OTHER SIDE DOWN BY OKEMOS WHERE ALL THE SPEED BUMPS ARE.

SO WE ARE DIRECT NEIGHBORS. BUT I'M A HULETT ROAD RESIDENT, AND WE HAVE A LOT OF OLD HOMES ON OUR STRETCH OF THE ROAD.

AND SO I DO THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, OUR NEIGHBORHOODS DESERVE TO HAVE THE SAME LEVEL OF BUILDING THAT SOME OF THOSE OTHER NEWER COMMUNITIES GET.

I DO HEAR THAT AND I AM SENSITIVE TO THAT. SO THAT SAID, I COULD GRANT CRITERIA NUMBER FOUR IN CRITERIA NUMBER FIVE. I DO THINK IT'S WITHIN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

I DO HEAR, MEMBER BENOIT, YOUR CONCERN ABOUT THE WETLANDS.

AND I DO THINK THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE ORDINANCE.

IT´S SO THAT GENERALLY SPEAKING, ESPECIALLY WITH, YOU KNOW, NEWER BUILDS AND THINGS LIKE THAT,

[00:40:05]

I DO THINK THAT'S WHERE, UNFORTUNATELY, WHERE WE COME IN AND WE'VE HAD A FEW WETLANDS CASES IN OUR TIME HERE BECAUSE WE HAVE BECOME VERY SENSITIVE TO THAT AS A COMMUNITY.

I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, DO WE TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION OVER CONTINUING TO PROGRESS AS A COMMUNITY? IS THAT THE PROGRESS, AND THAT'S WHERE IT STOPS, JUST PROTECTING THE WETLANDS, OR DO WE ALLOW OUR COMMUNITY TO CONTINUE TO GROW AND CONTINUE TO YOU KNOW, ADJUST TO THE TIMES. I THINK WE HAVE TO FIND SOME KIND OF BALANCE THERE, RIGHT? SO THAT'S KIND OF ARE YOU GUYS KIND OF. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR THOUGHTS OR CONCERNS ABOUT CRITERIA NUMBER FOUR? OKAY. CRITERIA NUMBER FOUR WE CAN MEET FOR YOU.

YES. MR. NELSON? I WOULD JUST SAY AS FAR AS THAT, THE PRACTICAL.

KIND OF GOING BACK TO THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES AND THE NO ADVERSE EFFECTS, I WAS JUST GOING TO MAKE THE POINT THAT THE WAY THAT ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN IS 40FT TO THE TOTAL, AND THEN 20FT IS A BUFFER OF, YOU KNOW, WHERE NO VEGETATION IS SUPPOSED TO BE, YOU KNOW, DISTURBED. AND WE'RE STILL MEETING THAT 24. YEAH, SO THAT'S.

AND THAT'S A VALUABLE POINT. SO THAT 20FT IS TO THE BUFFER.

WE'RE LOOKING NOT FOR INVARIANCE TO BE ALLOWED TO UPSET THE WETLAND.

WE'RE LOOKING FOR A VARIANCE TO JUST WORK CAREFULLY WITHIN THOSE REQUIREMENTS AND STILL PRESERVE THE WETLAND 100%.

SO THAT´S OUR GOAL. ALL RIGHT. CRITERIA NUMBER FIVE IS GRANTED.

THE VARIANCE WILL BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS CHAPTER. AND I CAN MEET THAT CRITERIA. I DO THINK THAT YOU KNOW, IT'S A DEBATE THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE AS A COMMUNITY, HOW TO BALANCE THOSE TWO THINGS.

HOW TO BALANCE THE WETLANDS AND PROTECTING THOSE WITH, STILL ALLOWING OUR COMMUNITY TO GROW.

YES. MR. HERSHISER. I RUN FOUR AND FIVE VERY CLOSELY TOGETHER.

THIS PROPERTY IS SO SECLUDED, I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO AFFECT ANYBODY AS FAR AS A VALUE OR FOR CHARACTER OR LOOKS. HE JUST LOOKS. YEAH. INSTEAD OF THE WORD I'M LOOKING FOR.

SO I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH EITHER OF THOSE.

ALL RIGHT. YES, MEMBER KOENIG. MR. CHAPMAN, IS IT THE NEIGHBOR? THE COMMUNICATION THAT WE HAD, IS THAT THE NEIGHBOR THAT'S DIRECTLY NEXT TO THEMSELF, THAT'S PROVIDED THE COMMUNICATION? YEAH. YEP. DIRECTLY SOUTH. SO THEY´RE AT THE 3720 ADDRESS? YEAH. RIGHT. THAT'S CUT OUT OF THEIR PROPERTY.

AND THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT. YEAH. WITH THAT WE'LL PUT THAT ON RECORD AS HAVING RECEIVED THAT NOTIFICATION. YEAH.

AND I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, IF ANY CHANGES IF ANY.

I MEAN YOU'RE STILL SO FAR AWAY FROM THEIR HOME, BUT IF ANY CHANGES WERE TO IMPACT ANYBODY, YOU WOULD FIGURE IT WOULD BE THEM. AND THEY'RE COMING OUT IN SUPPORT OF THIS. SO I DO AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT ABOUT NUMBER FIVE AS WELL.

AND MEMBER HERSHISER IS THAT, YOU KNOW, AGING IN PLACE IS SOMETHING THAT'S BECOMING MORE AND MORE IMPORTANT IN THE WHOLE COUNTRY BECAUSE OF THE POPULATION.

AND, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, A BIG ISSUE DOWN IN FLORIDA RIGHT NOW IS A LOT OF THE PEOPLE GO DOWN THERE AND THEY WANT TO AGE IN PLACE. AND TRYING TO FIND HOMES AS AN ISSUE.

SO I FULLY SUPPORT, NOT TO GO OFF ON A TANGENT, BUT I FULLY SUPPORT PEOPLE THAT WANT TO TRY TO AGE AND PLACE ON THEIR HOME.

SO I'M NOT HERE TO TELL YOU, NO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT.

BUT OBVIOUSLY THAT'S A SIDE EFFECT OF THIS, WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO. BUT THAT'S WHY I SUPPORT YOUR DECISION THAT WE COULD MAKE A CASE FOR NUMBER FIVE BEING SUCCESSFUL.

THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE THAT. ALL RIGHT, SO WE CAN MEET CRITERIA ONE, THREE, FOUR AND FIVE.

BUT LET'S GO BACK TO NUMBER TWO AND SEE IF WE CAN'T COME TO UNDERSTANDING OR NOT.

SO THE STRICT INTERPRETATION, I THINK IS WHERE WE'RE KIND OF STRICT INTERPRETATION AND THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES PREVENTING THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY. SO AS YOU SAID EARLIER. YES. GO AHEAD.

IN MY MIND, ACTUALLY, THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY SEEMS COMPLETELY SELF-CREATED.

BUT MAYBE WE CAN TALK THROUGH THAT. MAYBE SOMEBODY ELSE GOT SOME THOUGHTS ON THAT.

SURE. MY THOUGHT WOULD BE, IF THIS IS WHERE THEY BUILT AND THIS IS WHERE THEY WERE TOLD THEY SHOULD BUILD BECAUSE OF THE.

THEY GIVE YOU A BUILDING ENVELOPE AND GIVE YOU THE CHOICE.

SURE. BUT THIS IS WHERE THEY HAD. THE SPACE THAT THEY HAD TO WORK WITH AS FAR AS WHERE THE SEPTIC WAS AND WHERE THE WELL WAS AND THINGS LIKE

[00:45:06]

SO THERE'S TWO THINGS. TWO STRIKES, YOU KNOW, FOR THEM NOT BEING SELF-CREATED.

YEAH. YEAH. IN MY INTERPRETATION OF IT. SO I THINK THE WANTING TO BUILD OUT OF THE HOUSE, THAT IS A SELF-CREATED, YOU KNOW, KIND OF CHALLENGE, BUT I THINK THEY'VE GOT THOSE TWO THINGS GOING FOR THEM, SO. BUT SHOULD THEY BE ALLOWED TO BUILD ONTO THEIR HOUSE, SHOULD THEY BE ALLOWED TO USE THEIR HOUSE IN A WAY THAT WORKS FOR THEM? I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE GET INTO THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.

YOU GUYS JUST WANT TO HEAR MY VOICE TONIGHT, DON'T YOU? HAVE YOU HEARD ME TALK TONIGHT? MR. NELSON? I KNOW I'VE KIND OF MADE THIS POINT, BUT I WOULD STILL SAY, LIKE WHAT YOU JUST SAID, WHAT WORKS FOR THEM, AND IT'S SELF NECESSITATED, BUT IT'S REALLY WHAT WORKS FOR THE AVERAGE.

IS SOMETHING FOR US TO CONSIDER AS A BOARD IS THAT THIS VARIANCE STAYS WITH THE HOUSE.

SO IF MR. AND MRS. GEAR DECIDE YOU WANT TO MOVE AND YOU'RE GOING TO GO TO A BEAUTIFUL TROPICAL ISLAND AND LEAVE LOVELY MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP BEHIND, THIS VARIANCE STAYS WITH THE HOME. HOWEVER, IS IT A VALUE TO THE TOWNSHIP TO HAVE A PARCEL OF LAND THAT HAS A HOME THAT IS AT THE SAME STANDARD AS OTHER HOMES IN THE AREA IN THE VICINITY? YOU KNOW, IS THAT VALUE. AGAIN, THAT GOES BACK TO CRITERIAS FOUR AND FIVE.

IS THAT, YOU KNOW, POSITIVELY AFFECTING THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND OF THE COMMUNITY? SO AGAIN, I WOULD THINK THAT IN MY MIND I CAN MAKE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES ARGUMENT THAT THIS IS, YOU KNOW, WHAT THEY CAN DO BASED ON THE UNIQUENESS OF THIS PROPERTY, AND IT STILL ALLOWS THEM TO LIVE IN THEIR HOME AND USE THEIR HOME IN A WAY THAT WORKS BEST FOR THEM, WITHIN THESE SET OF VERY CHALLENGING CIRCUMSTANCES.

SO I CAN MAKE THAT ARGUMENT, BUT DOES ANYBODY ELSE BUY IN THAT? MEMBER KOENIG? THAT'S SORT OF THE WAY THAT I SEE IT AS WELL.

ALL RIGHT. I KNOW IF YOU WERE, AND I KNOW WE'RE SUPPOSED TO LOOK AT THESE INDIVIDUALLY, AND I KNOW I KIND OF ORIGINALLY TIED THIS BACK TO NUMBER ONE, BEING THAT THERE'S UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES. BUT IF YOU READ NUMBER TWO LITERALLY, YOU KNOW, IT BASICALLY SAYS, YOU KNOW, IT'S. ENFORCING THIS CODE IS NOT ALLOWING THEM TO YOU HAVE PERMITTED USE WHICH THE PERMITTED USES OF SINGLE FAMILY HOME. AND WE KNOW THAT'S NOT THE CASE BECAUSE WE'RE DOING THAT NOW. HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, THERE'S STILL LIKE YOU SAID, IT'S ALL HOW YOU.

YOU SEE WHERE I'M GOING? THERE'S A LOT OF GRAY WITH THIS TO WHERE THERE'S DIFFERENT WAYS THAT YOU CAN READ THAT SENTENCE.

AND I'M NOT TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, GO ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, BUT I'M TRYING TO SEE WHERE ALL THE HOLES ARE WITH THE WAY SOMEONE COULD READ THIS BECAUSE SOMEONE COULD TAKE IT LITERALLY AND SAY, WELL, IT SAYS YOU CAN'T DO A PERMITTED USE ON THIS.

THEREFORE I'M SORRY, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN DO THAT.

SO NO VOTE. SOMEBODY COULD SAY ON THE OPPOSITE END LIKE, WHERE I WAS GOING AT AND I BELIEVE YOU JUST HINTED ON IT AS WELL.

BUT HOWEVER, YES, THEY COULD STILL USE THAT AS PERMITTED USE AS A SINGLE FAMILY USE.

WHAT THEY INTEND TO DO IS THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO GROW THEIR FAMILY WITH THAT USE.

AND THEY'RE SAYING THAT IF THEY CAN'T, BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ON THE PROPERTY, WHICH I HATE TYING IT BACK TO NUMBER ONE, BUT IT'S JUST THE NAME OF THE GAME.

THEY'RE VERY LIMITED ON WHERE THEY CAN AFFORD TO EXPAND THAT HOUSE.

SO THERE'S A CHANCE THAT IF THEY CAN'T EXPAND THAT HOUSE AT A CERTAIN LOCATION, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SELL.

BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO EITHER. THEY CAN'T GROW INTO IT, WHICH THEY WANT TO GROW INTO IT, OR THEY CAN'T PUT THE ADDITION ON SOMEWHERE ELSE FINANCIALLY. SO THEY WOULD ALMOST HAVE TO SELL IT, WHICH COULD BE TAKEN AS A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY FOR THE OWNER TO BE ABLE TO USE THAT PERMITTED USE, WHICH IS THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT THEY WANT TO INCREASE. SO IT'S ALL KIND OF IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER OF HOW YOU WANT TO INTERPRET THAT SENTENCE.

AND BECAUSE IT COULD BE TAKEN MORE THAN ONE WAY.

YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHERE I AM. LOOKING AT THE OVERALL PICTURE AND LOOKING AT THAT PROPERTY GOING, THIS IS A FLAG LOT. THEN THE TOWNSHIP DOESN'T ALLOW THESE ANYMORE.

I GUARANTEE YOU THIS THING IS NOT PLATTED LIKE EVERY OTHER SUBDIVISION THAT'S AROUND THERE. IT'S PROBABLY JUST MEETS AND BOUNDS, AND SOMEBODY'S GOING TO PUT A STAKE HERE AND GO 500FT THAT WAY. THAT'S WHY IT'S THAT FUNKY SHAPE.

AND, YOU KNOW, THE FACT IS, YES, WE HAVE THAT WETLAND ORDINANCE THAT MEMBER BENOIT SAID, WHICH IS FOR AN ABSOLUTE GOOD THING TO PROTECT THOSE WETLANDS.

[00:50:06]

TAKE A GUESS. 75% WETLAND, 80%? IT'S A HUGE AMOUNT OF WATER.

SUBSTANTIAL. SO THERE'S ALREADY GOING TO BE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES JUST BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE WETLAND ON THAT PROPERTY AND THE SHAPE OF THAT PROPERTY.

SO THAT'S WHERE I'M MORE LEANING TOWARD SAYING YES, THEY CAN SATISFY NUMBER TWO, EVEN THOUGH THERE IS A LOT OF GRAY IN THERE.

I KNOW THAT WAS A LONG WINDED ANSWER. I'M NOT TRYING TO GIVE YOU A LONG WINDED ANSWER, ESPECIALLY FOR THE GENTLEMAN TAKING NOTES, BUT. RIGHT. THAT'S HOW I WAS, BECAUSE I, YOU KNOW, I WENT BACK AND FORTH ON THAT AS WELL.

AND I BELIEVE MEMBER HERSHISER, I KEEP THINKING ABOUT OREL HERSHISER, THE BASEBALL PLAYER, THAT'S HOW I REMEMBER THE NAME. HE STARTED RIGHT OFF THE BAT WITH THAT.

THAT GOT ME RETHINKING ABOUT IT, SO. YEAH. AND THERE WERE SOME GREAT COMMENTS IN BETWEEN THEM THAT GOT ME TO THE POINT WHERE I'M NOW WITH IT.

ALL RIGHT. MEMBER BROOKS. MR. CHAPMAN, CAN YOU ZOOM IN ON THIS AGAIN AND GO OVER THERE? RIGHT THERE? A LITTLE BIT MORE, PLEASE? YEP. THAT'S AS FAR AS IT GOES.

ARE THERE TWO GARAGES ON HERE? SO THERE WAS ORIGINALLY A GARAGE ON THE FRONT PART, AND THEY DID CONVERT THAT GARAGE INTO A SITTING ROOM.

AND THEN THEY BUILT THE GARAGE ADDITION OFF THE ONE END OF THE HOUSE THAT WAS ALLOWABLE SPACE TO BUILD.

WHEN DID THE GARAGE ADDITION HAPPEN? I WAS ABOUT 12.

IN THE 80S, EARLY 90S. OKAY, SO I THINK THIS GARAGE ADDITION, AND THAT WAS PROBABLY, YOU SAID IN THE 90S? I THINK. SO MAYBE THAT WAS PROBABLY BEFORE THE ORDINANCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AS WELL.

I THINK MY OPINION HERE IS THAT WE HAVE BEEN IN SIMILAR SITUATIONS TO THIS BEFORE, AND WE HAVE GENERALLY BRANDED THE VARIANCE BASED ON CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE THIS. AND I THINK I CAN SUPPORT ALL OF THEM, GIVEN WHERE WE ARE AND THE STATE OF THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES AND THE SETBACKS THAT ARE PRESENT AND GIVEN WHEN THE CODE UPDATES HAPPENED. OKAY. THANK YOU, MEMBER BROOKS.

ANYBODY ELSE? ARE WE READY FOR A MOTION OR STILL NEEDS SOME MORE DISCUSSION ON PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES? ANY THOUGHTS? I FEEL IT ON CRITERIA NUMBER TWO.

ONE MORE QUESTION. ARE YOU THE ONLY TWO THAT LIVE IN YOUR HOUSE? YES. YEAH, I JUST STRUGGLE WITH, LIKE, IS IT LUXURY OF JUST EXPANDING YOUR HOME VERSUS YOU KNOW, IT'S ALREADY LIVABLE? LIKE, I GREW UP IN A HOUSE THAT WAS BUILT IN 1926 THAT MY PARENTS STILL LIVE IN, AND IT'S VERY, VERY SERVICEABLE. AND, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE PROBABLY GOING TO GROW OLD IN THERE AS WELL.

AND ALBEIT DIFFERENT SITUATION, OF COURSE. BUT YEAH, I JUST THINK I JUST KIND OF STRUGGLE WITH THE BACK AND FORTH OF THAT ALONGSIDE IT. CAN I SAY SOMETHING TO THAT? MISS GEAR, YEAH. COME ON UP TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE.

OKAY. OUR DAUGHTER, YOU KNOW, WE SAW THAT OKEMOS PAYS FOR SCHOOLS, AND IT'S ALWAYS IN TAXES, SO WE THOUGHT WE'D GET IN ON THAT.

AND WE DO HAVE A DAUGHTER WHO IS NOW 36, AND SHE WENT TO OKEMOS HIGH SCHOOL.

THEY CAME TO THIS AREA FROM MINNEAPOLIS, AND THEY LIVE IN OKEMOS NOW.

AND I HAVE TWO GRANDCHILDREN, AND I'M VERY BLESSED TO HAVE THEM.

BUT OUR ROOMS ARE SO NARROW. IT´S NOT VERY FUNCTIONAL.

AND IN OUR LETTER, YOU WILL SEE WE GOT A DOG WE THOUGHT WOULD BE A GOOD SIZE, THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN 41 POUNDS, BUT HE WENT TO 80 SOMETHING. OUR NOW THREE YEAR OLD DAUGHTER CANNOT EVEN WALK PAST HIM IN IN THE.

THERE'S NO SPACE FOR THEM TO PLAY. I WOULD LIKE MY GRANDCHILDREN TO COME AND PLAY IN THE HOUSE.

I WOULD LIKE FOR MY DOG NOT TO BACK OUT OF MY BEDROOM.

IF HE COMES TO MY SIDE OF THE BED BECAUSE HE'S TOO LONG, IT'S NOT.

[00:55:01]

I GREW UP IN A SMALL HOUSE TOO, BUT ITS FUNCTION, NECESSARILY SIZE IS JUST.

THE WAY IT IS, IT DOESN'T FUNCTION WELL, BUT THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. YES, MR. HERSHISER? MY HEART GOES OUT TO THESE PEOPLE IN THIS SITUATION.

I THINK ABOUT PUTTING MYSELF IN IT AND I'D BE VERY UNCOMFORTABLE.

AND THEN I THINK WHAT I LEARNED ON THIS BOARD YEARS AGO IS THAT THE VARIANCE GOES WITH THE PROPERTY FOREVER.

BUT PEOPLE DON'T LIVE IN THEIR HOUSES FOREVER.

AND THEY TELL US TO THINK ABOUT THAT. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT THAT I SAID A LITTLE EARLIER.

WHEN I LOOK AT THAT WITH THE VARIANCE GOING WITH THIS PROPERTY IN PARTICULAR AND THINKING ABOUT OUR COMMUNITY, GROWING, OUR COMMUNITY, WANTING TO, YOU KNOW, CONTINUE TO GROW.

CONTINUE TO BE PROSPEROUS AND HAVE, YOU KNOW, LOVELY HOMES AND COMMUNITIES THAT PEOPLE WANT TO COME AND LIVE IN.

IS THIS A NEGATIVE? OR IS THIS, BECAUSE AGAIN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, YOU'RE RIGHT, PEOPLE DON'T STAY IN THEIR HOMES FOREVER.

BUT IS THIS GOING TO BE. IS THIS VARIANCE STAYING WITH THE HOME, GOING TO CREATE A NEGATIVE OR A PROBLEM FOR THE COMMUNITY, OR IS IT GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT WILL BE IN IT, REMAINING WITH THE PROPERTY, BE A POSITIVE? I THINK THAT'S WHERE I GET INTO THE CRITERIA FIVE, WITH MAINTAINING THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

YES. I DON'T SEE IT CREATING A PROBLEM FOR THE COMMUNITY.

THE BIGGEST ISSUE, AND I KNOW THIS TOWNSHIP HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN VERY SENSITIVE ABOUT OUR WETLANDS AND OUR WETLAND SETBACKS, AND. I KNOW WE USED TO ALWAYS TRY TO DO OUR BEST NOT TO DISTURB THINGS.

BUT THIS IS A TOUGH SITUATION. YEAH. ALL RIGHT, WELL, DO WE HAVE.

YES. MR. GEAR. SORRY. I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN ADD OR ENCOURAGE ANYONE, BUT THE WHOLE SOUTH END OF THE HOUSE SITS NEXT TO THE WETLAND RIGHT NOW, OKAY? WE'VE BEEN THERE 41 YEARS. WE HAVE DONE NO DAMAGE.

WE HAVE HAD A COUPLE HUNDRED OF HOUSES BUILT AROUND US.

THEY'RE ADDING TO THE WATER. I COULD WALK BACK 30 OR 40FT FROM MY HOUSE BEFORE THOSE HOUSES WERE BUILT.

AND AGAIN, THAT HAS DRIED UP. YOU COULD PUT A PICTURE UP THERE OF WHEN THAT WAS A MEDAL.

YOU COULD. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS GO THROUGH YOUR FILES.

YOU'LL FIND THAT IT WAS NOTHING BUT DRY LAND.

YOU CAN WALK FROM ONE SIDE OF THE WATER WHERE IT WAS WET, TO THE OTHER.

ONE SHORE TO THE OTHER. I SAID, WE'VE WORKED HARD.

I'VE BEEN A PRINCIPAL FOR 20 YEARS. I WAS IN THE STATE POLICE FOR 13 YEARS.

WE'RE JUST TRYING TO LIVE IN OUR HOUSE. IT'S GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SIZE OF THE FAMILY.

WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO COME IN TO OUR TOWNSHIP AND GET NONLINEAR THINKING, BECAUSE EVERYTHING HAS EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES. AND SOMETIMES, YES, THERE ARE GRAY AREAS, BUT YOU ARE HERE TO SERVE YOUR CONSTITUENTS.

AND, I DON'T KNOW, DIGGING UP STUFF FROM THE PAST, I'M NOT GOING TO GO THERE, BUT WE'VE BEEN THERE 41 YEARS.

THIS PROJECT WILL NOT DAMAGE THE WETLAND. IN THE 41 YEARS THAT WE WERE THERE, WE HAVE NOT DAMAGED THE WETLAND.

BUT ALL THOSE HOUSES AROUND US, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE PUTTING IN THE WATER, OKAY? WE DON'T. WE HAVE NO IDEA. SO, PLEASE, WE NEED YOUR HELP.

WE NEED YOUR HELP. WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT AS A CONSTITUENT IN THIS TOWNSHIP TO EXPAND OUR LIVING SPACE.

WE'VE BEEN THERE 41 YEARS. WE WANTED TO BUILD.

WE HAD TO PUT IN A $10,000 ROAD. WE HAD TO PUT IN A HUGE AMOUNT.

100 BY 100 DRAIN FILL. WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING YOU FOLKS ARE ASKED.

NOW WE'RE ONLY ASKING. JUST LET US HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE ROOM SO WE CAN MOVE AROUND.

THAT'S ALL. THAT'S ALL WE'RE ASKING. IT'S NOT GOING TO HARM ANYTHING.

YOU CAN COME UP WITH ALL KINDS OF WHAT IF, WHAT IF, WHAT IF.

WELL, I WAS THIS, AND I WAS THAT. BUT THE SITUATION HERE IS THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO ANY DAMAGE.

WE LIVE HERE. WE WANT TO STAY HERE MANY 41 YEARS.

BUT ANYWAY, I DON'T KNOW. I JUST WANT THIS. I HOPE YOU CAN SEE THAT.

[01:00:04]

WHAT DAMAGE CAN WE DO? ALL WE'VE DONE IS IMPROVEMENTS.

WE'VE GONE FROM A GRAVEL ROAD TO AN ASPHALT ROAD.

WE'VE KEPT THE DRAIN FIELD INTACT. THAT PICTURE'S OVER BECAUSE THERE'S ACTUALLY SOME SOLDER OUT THERE ON THE BACK END OF THE DRAIN FIELD.

THANK YOU. MR. GEAR., AND MS. GEAR TOO, WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE, BUT I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW WE HAVE TO TAKE THESE CRITERIA ONE BY ONE AND DOING OUR BEST JOB JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE DOING OUR DUE DILIGENCE WITH THE CRITERIA.

BUT THAT'S NOT ALWAYS NECESSARILY THE CASE EITHER.

SOME OF US ARE GOING TO HAVE OUR DIFFERENCES.

BUT YOU KNOW, I THINK AS IN GENERAL, WE'RE ALL TRYING OUR BEST TO DO WHAT'S BEST FOR THE TOWNSHIP.

WE MIGHT COME TO THAT WITH DIFFERENT OPINIONS, BUT WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO DO WHAT WE CAN DO BEST FOR THE COMMUNITY, BUT ALSO FOR THE CITIZENS. SO WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE AND BEING PATIENT WITH US AS WE GO THROUGH OUR PROCESS.

BUT I THINK WHERE WE'RE LANDING THEN IS BACK TO PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.

SO IF WE HAVE A MOTION, WE CAN TRY IT. IF NOT, WE NEED SOME MORE. OH, I´M SORRY. I'M GOING TO PUT FORWARD THE MOTION.

OKAY, MEMBER BROOKS. EXCEPT I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ON WHAT THE EXACT LANGUAGE IS.

OKAY. SO I JUST NEED SOME ASSISTANCE. OKAY. MISTER CHAPMAN, CAN YOU GO UP TO THE? ALL RIGHT. YOU GOT THIS. SO THE LANGUAGE IS, I WOULD LIKE TO PUT, MOVE. WHAT'S THE LANGUAGE AGAIN THAT WE DO WHEN WE SAY THIS? GRANT THE VARIANCE? YEAH.

25-06 FOR 3760 HULETT ROAD, OKEMOS, MICHIGAN 4864 THAT A VARIANCE FOR 19FT, FOUR INCHES INTO THE 40 FOOT WETLAND SETBACK.

ALL RIGHT. YOU DID A GOOD JOB. YOU DID IT. THANKS.

I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION. THOUGHTS ABOUT THE MOTION ON SUPPORT OR NOT SUPPORT? YES, MR. NELSON? I DON'T WANT TO CONTINUE TO DWELL.

BUT FROM SOMETHING YOU SAID EARLIER, I JUST WANT TO SPEAK TO ONE OTHER THING ABOUT. SURE. PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, AND WHEN THEY MENTION THEIR HOUSE DOESN'T WORK FOR THEM NOW. I WOULD JUST KEEP IN MIND BEING VERY FAMILIAR WITH MODERN BUILDING CODES BECAUSE THOSE HAVE ADAPTED AND CHANGED. THEIR HOUSE WAS A LONG WAY FROM ME TO ADA REQUIREMENTS.

HOUSES DON'T HAVE TO MEET ADA REQUIREMENTS, BUT AS YOU AGE IN PLACE, YOU KIND OF HAVE TO AT LEAST WORK TOWARDS SIMILAR.

YOU KNOW, ADA WAS CREATED FOR A REASON, TO GET A WALKER, WHEELCHAIR, THOSE THINGS.

I MEAN, THEY'RE THINKING ABOUT THE FUTURES OF THE INVESTOR´S AMOUNT OF MONEY AND EVERYTHING AND CONTINUE TO LIVE IN THE COMMUNITY OF THEIR PROPERTY. THE HALLWAY SHE'S TALKING ABOUT, I MEAN, I'VE BEEN IN THE HOUSE AND I'VE BEEN IN OTHER HOUSES. I'VE BEEN IN A LOT OF OLD HOMES. WE DO 80 TO 90% REMODELING WORK.

AND THIS HOUSE IN PARTICULAR HAS VERY, VERY NARROW ROOMS AND HALLWAYS.

AND IT WOULD NOT MEET CODE EVEN TO THE STANDARD BUILDING CODES TODAY.

BY THE TIME WE'RE FINISHED, YOU KNOW, 80% OF THIS HOME AND THE MAIN AREAS OF USE WILL MEET ADA REQUIREMENTS, FOR THE MOST PART, AND MODERN BUILDING REQUIREMENTS.

SO IF THEY WERE TO BUILD TODAY, THEY'D BE 40 FOOT AWAY FROM THIS WETLAND BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE A GIVEN.

THEY WOULD KNOW THAT, AND THEY WOULD BE UP TO MODERN REQUIREMENTS, LIKE ALL THE OTHER HOMES AROUND THIS AREA.

AND THERE WOULDN'T BE NEED FOR THIS EXPANSION AND EVERYTHING ELSE. SO NEED FOR EXPANSION HAS TO DO WITH MODERN REQUIREMENTS, WHICH ARE PUT THERE FOR A REAL REASON. SO THAT'S THE LAST THING I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO SAY.

THANK YOU. THAT'S GREAT. GREAT INSIGHT, MR. NELSON.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANY THOUGHTS ON THE MOTION? OKAY, THEN THIS IS A VOTE TO APPROVE ZBA CASE NO.:25-06 FOR A 19 FOOT FOUR INCH VARIANCE INTO THE WETLAND SETBACK. MEMBER BENOIT?. I'M VOTING YES.

[01:05:02]

I THINK IN A DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCE, IF YOU GUYS HADN'T BEEN THERE FOR 40 YEARS, I'D PROBABLY HAVE DIFFERENT THOUGHTS.

BUT I CAN ENVISION IT BECAUSE I CAN SEE MY OWN HOUSE AND MY OWN GRANDPARENTS AS WELL WALKING AROUND, AND IT WAS RATHER DIFFICULT. SO I DON'T WANT THAT FOR YOU GUYS, TRUTHFULLY.

I APPRECIATE THAT. MEMBER KOENIG? YES. MEMBER BROOKS? YES. MEMBER HERSHISER? NO. OKAY, AND CHAIR MANSOUR VOTES YES.

SO THIS VARIANCE HAS BEEN REQUESTED, OR HAS BEEN GRANTED.

SO YOU'RE ALL SET, GUYS. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU. WE DO. THANK YOU. MR. AND MRS. GEAR, JUST FROM MYSELF AND FROM THE BOARD.

THANK YOU FOR BEING PATIENT. WE APPRECIATE YOUR THOUGHTS AND ADDING TO THE CASE.

I WOULD, JUST REMEMBER, WE ARE JUST TRYING TO DO OUR BEST, YOU KNOW, AND SOMETIMES THAT COMES OUT AS WE GOT TO HAVE HARD CONVERSATIONS AND WE GOT TO DIG DEEP. BUT, YOU KNOW, BEING PATIENT WITH US AND BEING, YOU KNOW, AS GENEROUS WITH US AS WE'RE BEING WITH YOU IS ALWAYS RECOMMENDED.

BRANDON. THANK YOU, NICE TO MEET YOU, SIR. YEAH, MISTER GEAR, NICE TO MEET YOU.

NEIGHBORS. THANK YOU. YOU'RE VERY WELCOME. GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR BUILD.

THANK YOU AGAIN. WE APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU, MR. NELSON. OKAY, NOW WE ARE GOING TO KEEP THE BALL ROLLING AND MOVE ON TO ZBA CASE NO:.

MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP, WHERE ARE YOU? ZBA CASE NO: 25-07, MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP, 5151 MARSH ROAD,

[6.B.ZBA CASE NO.: 25-07 (Meridian Township), 5151 Marsh Road, Okemos, MI 48864]

OKAY, SO THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A PATHWAY THAT WILL CROSS THE HOUSE CONSTRAINED.

THIS PATHWAY CONNECTS TO THE SILVERLEAF SUBDIVISION TO THE WEST AND IS OUTLINED IN THE TOWNSHIP'S PATHWAY MASTER PLAN.

IT WILL GO ALONG BENNETT ROAD, AND A BOARDWALK WILL CROSS THE HOSKINS DRAIN.

SO THE ORDINANCE SPECIFIES ACTIVITIES THAT ARE PROHIBITED IN THE 25 FOOT AND 50 FOOT OPEN COUNTY DURING SETBACKS.

WE SAW A SIMILAR CASE TO THIS A FEW MONTHS AGO AS WELL.

AND BASICALLY STATES WHAT'S PROHIBITED WITHIN THOSE SETBACKS.

SO THE PATHWAY AT ITS CLOSEST POINT WOULD BE LOCATED ZERO FEET FROM THE DRAIN, ENCROACHING 25FT INTO THE NATURAL VEGETATION STRIP AND 50FT INTO THE 50 FOOT OPEN COUNTY DRAIN SETBACK.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A 25 FOOT VARIANCE AND A 50 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE DRAIN SETBACK.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAPMAN. COME ON UP.

HOW ARE YOU? JUST NEED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD, PLEASE.

[INAUDIBLE], 5150 OR 5151 MARSH ROAD, OKEMOS.

I'M WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, SO I THINK KEITH GAVE A GOOD OVERVIEW, BUT WE'RE FEELING REALLY A PATHWAY GAP RIGHT NOW.

SO RIGHT NOW ON THE WEST SIDE, AS KEITH MENTIONED, THE SILVERLEAF SUBDIVISION IS BEING DEVELOPED AND THEN FURTHER ON THE EAST, WE'VE GOT BENNETT WOODS ELEMENTARY. SO ONCE THAT SUBDIVISION IS DEVELOPED AND PEOPLE MOVE IN, THERE WILL BE, IF WE DON'T GET THIS, YOU KNOW, BUILT, THERE WON'T BE A SAFE ROUTE FOR THE CHILDREN TO WALK TO SCHOOL.

AND AS FAR AS THE VARIANCE GOES, THERE IS NOT A WAY TO FILL THIS PATHWAY GAP WITHOUT CROSSING THE DRAIN.

THE DRAIN GOES JUST STRAIGHT NORTH AND SOUTH THROUGH ACROSS BENNETT ROAD, UP THROUGH THE WETLAND.

SO THERE REALLY ISN'T AN ALTERNATIVE FOR US TO LOOK AT HERE.

SO ESSENTIALLY IT'S GOING TO BE AN EIGHT FOOT WIDE BOARDWALK THAT SPANS ACROSS THE WETLAND.

AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME CONCRETE ON EACH SIDE WHERE WE TIE INTO THE EXISTING CONCRETE PATHWAY NETWORK.

I THINK IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD, BUT I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU GUYS HAVE REGARDING THE PROJECT.

THANK YOU SO MUCH, MISS [INAUDIBLE]. ALL RIGHT.

QUESTIONS, THOUGHTS, CONCERNS? ANYBODY ELSE FROM THE COMMUNITY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS? OKAY. IF NOT, THEN I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND WE'LL GET INTO BOARD TIME FOR THIS ONE.

MEMBER KOENIG? THANK YOU FOR THAT EXPLANATION.

I WOULD BEG TO DIFFER WITH YOU. I WOULD THINK THAT WHERE THAT SIDEWALK IS, YOU CAN TECHNICALLY GO 90 DEGREES STRAIGHT SOUTH ACROSS THE STREET AND THEN GO AROUND AND THROUGH THAT WETLAND DOWN THERE BY THE GOLF COURSE, WHICH I KNOW IS NOT FEASIBLE.

[01:10:08]

SO I'D LIKE TO SEE SOME ELEMENTARY SCHOOL KIDS DO THAT LITTLE JOG AROUND, OKAY? NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. BUT YOU KNOW, I DID TAKE A LOOK AT THE APPROVED I BELIEVE IT'S YOUR PAVEMENT PLAN OR YOUR PAVEMENT, WHATEVER IT'S CALLED YOUR VISION, YOUR NON-MOTORIZED PLAN. THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED ON THERE. I PERSONALLY DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THIS.

I LIKE THE FACT THAT IT'S A BOARDWALK. IT'S GOING TO BE RAISED TO MAKE IMPACTS OF THAT WETLAND VERY MINIMAL.

THE OTHER, YOU GO RIGHT TO THE EAST, ACROSS THE DRIVEWAY, BACK TO THE BUSSES, AND THAT GOES RIGHT UP AGAINST A WETLAND SIMILAR AS THIS.

SO LIKE IT'S KIND OF LIKE, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? I KNOW WE'RE SUPPOSED TO LOOK AT THESE ALL INDIVIDUALLY, BUT YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? SO OVERALL, I JUST WANT TO PUT IT ON THE RECORD.

I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THIS. I DO BELIEVE IT WILL BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

YOU KNOW, THIS IS ON LIKE I SAID, THE NUMBER IS PLANNED. IT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED. THIS WILL CONNECT FURTHER DOWN AND ALLOW MORE PEOPLE TO USE THIS TO GET TO THAT SCHOOL, WHICH IS A VERY NECESSARY USE IN THIS TOWNSHIP IS TO HAVE GOOD ACCESS TO SCHOOLS AND.

ABSOLUTELY. SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL THEM.

SO I'M IN FULLY SUPPORT OF THIS. SO I JUST WANTED TO ASK YOU A LITTLE BIT SINCE YOU'RE WITH THE TOWNSHIP.

YEAH. THANK YOU MEMBER KOENIG. I MEAN, AGAIN, THIS IS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.

THIS IS MY KID´S SCHOOL, AND I WOULD NOT WANT TO SEE OTHER ELEMENTARY KIDS TRY TO WALK ON BENNETT ROAD AT 45 MILES AN HOUR ON, YOU KNOW, IN A COMMUTE DURING THE MORNING.

I MEAN, AS IT IS, IT'S ALREADY DANGEROUS. AND JUST DRIVING THERE IS TERRIFYING THE MORNING.

SO WALKING FROM THIS, AND WE KNOW WHEN WE BUILD THESE COMMUNITIES, THAT A LOT OF FAMILIES ARE GOING TO LIVE THERE BECAUSE THAT'S THE DRAW.

YOU LIVE NEXT TO THE SCHOOL. I DON'T SEE WHERE ELSE THIS COULD POSSIBLY GO.

SO AS FAR AS PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, AS FAR AS UNIQUENESS, AS FAR AS MINIMAL ACTION.

I DO LIKE THAT IT'S RAISED. I LIKE THAT IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, AS INVASIVE.

AND I CAN SUPPORT THIS. YES. MR. HERSHISER, SORRY.

I LIKE THIS. THE APPLICANT STATED SOMETHING THAT REALLY HITS THE KEY, AND IT'S SAFETY FOR THE KIDS.

AND OF COURSE, THAT'S UTMOST IMPORTANT. THE ONLY THING THAT BOTHERS ME A LITTLE BIT IS WHEN THEY DID THIS MASTER PLAN FOR THE PATHWAYS, DID THEY KNOW THAT THAT WETLAND HAD TO BE CROSSED? AND IF THEY DO, DO THEY JUST SAY, WELL, WE'LL LET THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DEAL WITH IT? OR COULD THEY HAVE FOUND OTHER WAYS TO PARCEL THINGS OFF AND MOVE THAT? YOU MEAN THE DRAIN? THE PAT? WELL, GO AROUND THE DRAIN.

BUT I GUESS THAT'S NEITHER HERE NOR THERE. WE WOULDN'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THAT, BUT.

YEAH, THAT'S. KIND OF THE WAY IT SEEMS. IT'S TRICKY.

BUT WITH SAFETY THAT TAKES PRECEDENT. YEAH. I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT, BUT IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. IF THAT'S CONSIDERED, OR IS IT THESE ARE WHERE THE PATHS HAVE TO GO.

SO WHAT DO WE HAVE TO CROSS TO GET THERE? I DO, YOU KNOW.

YEAH. IT'S A CHICKEN AND AN EGG, RIGHT? RIGHT.

I CAN'T GIVE YOU AN ANSWER EITHER REGARDING THAT, BUT I KNOW THAT ONCE, YOU KNOW.

THIS, I BELIEVE USED TO BE ONE CONTIGUOUS WETLAND ON THE NORTH SIDE AND THE SOUTH SIDE OF BENNETT ROAD.

AND WHEN THEY CONSTRUCTED THE ROAD, THEY CUT THROUGH THAT WETLAND.

SO KIND OF, I MEAN, WITH THE ROAD BRINGS, YOU KNOW, THE ROUTE OF TRAFFIC TO THE SCHOOLS AND PEOPLE NEED TO WALK ON ONE SIDE OF IT.

SO IT KIND OF, LIKE YOU SAID, CHICKEN AND EGG.

HAVE TO CROSS IT SOMEHOW. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS, QUESTIONS FOR MRS. [INAUDIBLE] OR? THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT CRITERIA.

CRITERIA NUMBER ONE IS THE. I SHOULD KNOW THESE BY HEART BY NOW.

UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTED 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. SO I GUESS IT COMES BACK TO THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG COMMENT.

BUT AS MR.. KOENIG POINTED OUT, THERE'S NO OTHER WAY TO GO AROUND THIS, RIGHT? OTHER THAN TO CROSS IT.

PUT A BRIDGE, CROSS THE ROAD, COME BACK, ROUTE THEM DOWN TO THE TRAFFIC CIRCLE, WHICH IS A NIGHTMARE FOR KIDS TO CROSS ANYWAY AND COME BACK THE OTHER WAY.

I MEAN, THESE ARE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE.

[01:15:05]

ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OR THOUGHTS CONTRARY TO? YES. I AGREE WITH YOU 100%. AND JUST TO SPEED THINGS ALONG CRITERIA NUMBER TWO, I DON'T EVEN THINK APPLIES TO THIS CASE.

YEAH, IT'S 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 THE PERMITTED PURPOSE.

I THINK THAT WHERE IT APPLIES IS JUST IN. THERE IS JUST NO OTHER WAY AROUND THIS.

I MEAN, ENFORCING THE LITERAL TERMS WOULD MEAN THAT THERE WOULD BE NO WALKWAY THERE, BUT THERE WOULD BE NO ABILITY TO HAVE A WALKING PATH FROM SILVERLEAF TO THE OTHER SIDEWALK AREA THERE.

WHICH WE'VE ALREADY ESTABLISHED WOULDN'T BE SAFE.

AND THE OWNER ISN'T GOING TO USE THE PROPERTY AT ALL.

SO ANY QUESTIONS ON. CAN WE MEET THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES TODAY GUYS ON THIS ONE? YES. ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO. CRITERIA NUMBER THREE IS GRANTING THE VARIANCE AS THE MINIMUM ACTION NECESSARY THAT WOULD CARRY OUT THE SPIRIT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECURE PUBLIC SAFETY AND PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. I MEAN, I THINK WE'VE ALREADY ESTABLISHED THIS IS A SAFETY CONCERN, SO WE CAN KNOW THAT THAT'S THE MINIMAL ACTION. YES, MEMBER SOUTH AND GOES RIGHT ALONG THE SOUTHERN BORDER OF THAT WETLAND, OR NOT CUTTING DIRECTLY ACROSS AND GOING TEN FEET INTO THE WETLAND. SO IN MY EYES, THAT IS A MINIMUM VARIANCE, BECAUSE THEY'RE TRYING TO KEEP WITHOUT DOING A BIG S-CURVE AT THE END AND GOING DOWN, WHICH IS GOING TO BE COSTLY. TO ME, JUST LOOKING AT THAT IS REQUIRING A MINIMUM VARIANCE.

AND EVEN IF YOU, I HATE TO SAY IT, BUT, YOU KNOW, THE WETLAND IS SO CLOSE TO THE ROAD, I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF YOU PAVED THE SHOULDER OF THE ROAD, YOU'RE PROBABLY STILL GOING TO BE WITHIN THE 40 FOOT SETBACK OR WHATEVER IT IS FOR THE WETLAND, SO. OH YEAH, I'M A WHOLE OTHER ISSUE. BUT YEAH.

YEAH. ALL RIGHT. SO MINIMUM ACTION, WE CAN MEET MINIMUM ACTION? ALL RIGHT. CRITERIA NUMBER FOUR IS GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND OR THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY. AS I SAID, I THINK IT WILL ONLY BENEFIT THE ADJACENT LAND.

IT'S AN IMPROVEMENT. AND I THINK THAT'S BEING BUILT.

SO SILVERLEAF IS BEING BUILT. THAT'S ALREADY CHECKS IN THE MAIL. CHICKEN AND THE EGG.

SO HOW DO WE MAKE THIS MAKE MORE SENSE FOR THE COMMUNITY? AND THIS IS HOW WE CAN DO THAT. SO I THINK THAT I CAN MEET CRITERIA NUMBER FOUR.

CRITERIA NUMBER FIVE IS GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC INTEREST AND PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS CHAPTER. AGAIN, I THINK THAT THIS IS WITHIN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. AND THE INTENT OBVIOUSLY IS TO STAY OUT OF THE WETLAND, BUT THE WETLANDS ON THE ROAD, AND WE GOT TO GET PEOPLE FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER SOMEHOW.

SO I CAN MEET CRITERIA FIVE. ANY QUESTIONS, THOUGHTS, CONCERNS? DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I WOULD MAKE A MOTION, BUT I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN FRONT OF ME.

THAT'S OKAY. I'M LOOKING FOR IT. I'M TRYING TO FIND IT.

I'M SCROLLING AS WELL.

IT. WE HAVE TWO LETTERHEADS. THERE IT IS. OKAY.

HE'S GOT IT UP THERE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. MEMBER HERSHISER.

GO AHEAD. MOTION TO APPROVE ZBA CASE NO.: 25-07 AS PRESENTED.

OKAY. I SUPPORT IT. SUPPORT BY MEMBER KOENIG.

OKAY. THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE. ANY THOUGHTS, QUESTIONS, COMMENTS FOR STAFF OR FOR MS. [INAUDIBLE]? YES. ONE GOOD THING IS WE KNOW THE TOWNSHIP WILL USE THEIR EROSION CONTROL STANDARDS, WHICH WILL BE THE LEAST AMOUNT OF INTRUSION AND DAMAGE POSSIBLE, WHICH IS IMPORTANT.

WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE HOPING FOR, ESPECIALLY WITH.

IT'S STRANGE TO HAVE TWO WETLANDS CASES IN ONE NIGHT, BUT WE'RE.

YEAH, WE'RE LOOKING AT. AND THEY MAY EVEN USE COUNTY DRAIN OFFICE EROSION STANDARDS TOO.

I DO NOT KNOW. YEAH. WE'RE FOLLOWING JUST THE STANDARD MICHIGAN SOIL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES.

AND THEN WE ALSO HAD TO GET A PERMIT THROUGH EAGLE WHICH THEY PUT SOME ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS WHERE WE HAVE TO DO A TURBIDITY CURTAIN AROUND THE THE BOARDWALK WHEN WE INSTALL IT. SO, YEAH, THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY SEDIMENT LEAVING AND INFILTRATING INTO THE WETLAND.

THAT'S GREAT. YEAH. THANK YOU FOR THAT. THAT'S HELPFUL.

[01:20:04]

MEMBER BENOIT? YES. MEMBER KOENIG? YES. MEMBER BROOKS? YES. MEMBER HERSHISER? YES. AND CHAIR VOTES YES.

SO THIS VARIANCE HAS BEEN APPROVED. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. CAN WE HAVE A BRIEF RECESS? YES. PLEASE? YES. WE WILL TAKE A SHORT RECESS. WE'LL TAKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS BEFORE OUR FINAL CASE.

AND THAT WAS ON THE NORTH, EAST AND SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING.

THOSE SIGNS WERE REPLACED IN 2003 WITH YONKERS SIGNAGE.

AND THEN IN 2008, THERE WERE NEW VARIANCES GRANTED WHEN YONKERS UPDATED THEIR SIGNAGE AGAIN FOR SIZE AND LOCATION.

[01:25:06]

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO INSTALL TWO WALL SIGNS ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH ELEVATIONS, WHERE THERE IS NO FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC STREET.

SO A VARIANCE TO INSTALL TWO ADDITIONAL WALL SIGNS WITH NO FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC STREET IS REQUESTED.

[6.C. ZBA CASE NO.:25-08 (1982 Grand River), Dagher Signs & Graphics, 22476 Telegraph Rd., Southfield, MI 48033]

[INAUDIBLE] WITH OWNERSHIP WITH ASTON FURNITURE, 1982 WEST GRAND RIVER ROAD.

THANK YOU. OKAY. OKAY, SO WE GOT APPROVED FOR THE EAST SIGN, BUT.

SO THE STORE IS LOCATED INSIDE OF THE MALL. SO WE'RE TRYING TO GET THE OTHER TWO SIDES OF THE SIGNS JUST TO GET THEM THE VISIBILITY OF THE PEOPLE, TO SEE THEM, JUST TO GUIDE THE CUSTOMERS.

THERE'S ASHLEY ON THAT SIDE. VERY HARD TO SEE FROM THAT AREA.

YEAH. I MEAN, ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? OKAY. I THINK I HAVE A QUESTION RIGHT AWAY.

THAT'S THE SOUTH ENTRANCE. JUST SO THAT WE'RE CLEAR, THIS IS THE OLD YONKERS THAT'S NEXT TO WHAT IS NOW THE OLD SCHULER BOX? YES, EXACTLY. THANK YOU FOR THE CLARITY. I JUST I'M LIKE, WHAT IS IT? THAT IS IT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? OR WOULD YOU LIKE US TO GET STARTED, AND WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS AS WE GO.

IS THAT GOOD? OKAY. THANK YOU FOR BEING PATIENT ALSO.

YOU GUYS HAVE WAITED A LONG TIME, SO I APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE, BUT SO WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND GET INTO BOARD TIME.

THOUGHTS, QUESTIONS, CONCERNS? I ACTUALLY HAVE A THOUGHT RIGHT OFF THE BAT.

IF THERE IS VARIANCES FOR THE YONKERS SIGNS, WHY CAN'T THEY USE THOSE VARIANCES? SO THOSE SIGNS WERE REMOVED, AND THESE ARE DIFFERENT SIGNS.

OKAY. SO BECAUSE THE SIGNS WERE REMOVED THAT VARIANCE IS.

YEAH, YEAH THESE ARE COMPLETELY NEW SIGNS. YEAH.

OKAY. SO THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW. BECAUSE I ALWAYS THOUGHT BECAUSE THE VARIANCE GOES TO THE BUILDING, EVEN IF THE VARIANCE IS THERE, THEY CAN JUST REPLACE THE SIGN.

BUT THE SIGN HAS TO BE IN EXISTENCE. IT'D HAVE TO BE THE EXACT SAME SIGN, BASICALLY.

THE EXACT SAME SIGN OR THE EXACT SAME SIZE? SIZE.

SIZE AND LOCATION. OKAY, SO THIS IS A DIFFERENT LOCATION A DIFFERENT SIZE? SAME LOCATION. SAME LOCATION, DIFFERENT SIZE. YEAH.

OKAY. DO WE HAVE NUMBERS ON THE DIFFERENCE? DO WE KNOW THE DIFFERENCE? DO WE KNOW WHAT THOSE. SO. DO WE KNOW WHAT THOSE SIGNS WERE ORIGINALLY. BECAUSE THERE WAS A NORTH AND A SOUTH SIDE SIGN.

THERE WAS NORTH, EAST AND SOUTH. OKAY. ALL THE WAY AROUND.

HOPEFULLY WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE WITH WHERE THIS IS.

BUT DO YOU GUYS REMEMBER THE LOCATION? THERE'S A ENTRANCE SOUTH ENTRANCE? RIGHT. EAST IS JUST THE SIDE OF. THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING.

YEAH, BUT EAST IS THE ONLY ONE YOU CAN SEE FROM [INAUDIBLE] ROAD.

YOU CAN'T SEE IT. UNLESS YOU'RE.

BUT REALLY, UNLESS YOU'RE. I GUESS IF YOU'RE GOING.

IF YOU'RE ACROSS THE STREET, YOU COULD SEE IT. YOU COULD SEE IT ACROSS THE STREET. YEAH. IF YOU'RE AT THE TARGET, YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE IT. OKAY. BUT IF YOU'RE DRIVING ON THE ROAD, YOU'RE NOT SEEING IT. YEAH, BUT IF YOU'RE DRIVING ON GREEN RIVER ROAD, YOU'RE NOT SEEING.

YOU WOULD SEE IT. YOU WOULD SEE IT FROM FAR AWAY, IF IT'S ON THE NORTH OR SOUTH. OKAY.

SAME THING GOES FROM OKEMOS. INTERESTING. OKAY.

SO I HAVE THE SIZES FOR YOU. YEAH. GO FOR IT.

SO THE 2008 ONES, WHICH WERE THE LAST ONES THAT WERE UP, WERE ON THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH WERE 120 AND THEN THE EAST WAS 174. BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER. YEAH. SO THIS IS ACTUALLY LARGER THAN.

OKAY. SO IT'S LARGER THAN WHAT ZBA APPROVED IN 2008.

YEAH. BUT IN TERMS OF SIZE THERE, ACTUALLY IT FITS THE ORDINANCE NOW.

SO THE SIZE ISN'T A QUESTION. SIZE ISN´T THE QUESTION.

IT'S HAVING TWO. IT'S THREE SIGNS VERSUS THE ONE.

BECAUSE IT ALREADY HAS ONE ON THE STREET FACING SIDE.

CORRECT. ONE FRONTAGE.

OKAY. I DON'T KNOW. OKAY. SO IT'S THE TWO ADDITIONAL SMALL SIGNS.

ALL RIGHT. I AM ALL UP TO SPEED. AND I KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW.

I ALSO WAS UNCLEAR ON THAT. SO WAIT. IF WE HAVE VARIANCES, WHY AREN'T WE. YEAH, IT'S NOT. I GOT IT.

I'M SORRY. I'M SPEAKING OUT OF TURN. OH, NO. IT'S OKAY.

RIGHT. SO IT'S NOTHING WITH THE ACTUAL PIECE OF THE LAND. IT'S FOR THE BUILDING. IT'S FOR THE BUILDING. IF THEY WANT TO TEAR THAT BUILDING DOWN, ESSENTIALLY THE VARIANCE GOES AWAY AS WELL, BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING TIED TO THE LAND. IT'S TIED TO THE BUILDING. BUT BECAUSE THEY REMOVED THE SIGNS TWICE.

[01:30:07]

IT'S LIKE THEY DIDN'T EXIST. OKAY. I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT THIS IS ANOTHER ONE WHERE OBVIOUSLY I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THIS, BECAUSE TWICE NOW WE'VE ALREADY HAD TWO SIGNS UP THERE.

THE SIZE OF THE SIGN, AS MR. CHAPMAN SAID, IS IRRELEVANT.

FRANKLY, TO ME, THE BIGGER THE BETTER. BECAUSE I KNOW THAT YONKERS SIGN WAS KIND OF SMALL. IT WAS A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO SEE. IT WAS HARD TO SEE. IF YOU'RE ON GRAND RIVER, IT WAS TOUGH TO SEE YONKERS UP THERE. YEAH, IT WAS. ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THE COLOR, I THINK IT WAS RED. SO IT KIND OF MESSED WITH LIKE THE BRICK LOOKING BACKGROUND ON IT.

YES. IT WAS FUNKY. SO I CAN FULLY SUPPORT THIS JUST BASED ON THE NEED OF WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO IN THE ADVERTISEMENT.

AND I GET IT. AND PLUS WE'VE ALREADY ALLOWED THIS TWICE IN THE PAST. YEAH. THIS IS, I GUESS, WHERE I'M LIKE, IF IT WAS ALREADY EXISTING AND THE ONLY CHALLENGE WAS THE SIGNS HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY REMOVED.

COULD YOU NOT HAVE COME IN CLOSER TO YONKERS BEING CLOSED? WE TRIED. NO. YEAH, I CAN SUPPORT THIS. I GET THE NEED.

AS FAR AS PUBLIC SAFETY, I THINK IT'S A PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERN TO NOT HAVE SIGNS LIKE THAT THAT YOU CAN READ THAT ARE CLEAR.

I THINK WE'VE ESTABLISHED THAT AS A BOARD IN OTHER CASES THAT NEEDING PROPER SIGNAGE IS, YOU KNOW, PART OF DOING BUSINESS IN THE TOWNSHIP AND PART OF.

AND IF THE SIZE OF THE SIGN ITSELF IS NOT THE ISSUE, IT'S THE PLACEMENT.

I THINK THE PLACEMENT. HOW ELSE DO YOU KNOW WHAT STORE YOU'RE GOING INTO? YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A LITTLE SIGN ON THE FRONT DOOR THAT'S NOT GOING TO TELL YOU WHERE TO PARK, WHERE TO MOVE IN.

AND BEING THAT THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S, YOU KNOW IT'S A BUSY MALL.

SOME DAYS IT'S A BUSY MALL. BUT I THINK HAVING THE SIGNAGE IS, IS HELPFUL FOR SAFETY PURPOSES.

SO I CAN SUPPORT THIS. YES, MEMBER KOENIG? I CAN GO EVEN FURTHER AND SAY THAT THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE HERE IF WE'RE GOING TO GET INTO THE CRITERIA AND I'M JUMPING THE GUN.

BUT THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THIS IS A BUILDING THAT HAS OBVIOUSLY BEEN AROUND FOR A WHILE, THAT HAS ENTRANCES ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDE, DOESN'T HAVE AN ENTRANCE ON THE EAST SIDE WHERE THE ACTUAL FRONTAGE IS. IT'S KIND OF A BIG BLANK WALL THAT YEAH, IT'S TOUGH TO SEE WITH ALL THOSE TREES, UNLESS YOU ARE ON THAT ROAD IN THE MALL, YOU'RE DOING THIS, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE RUBBERNECKING, LOOKING ABOUT 90 DEGREES UP TO SEE THE NAME OF THAT THING. SO, YOU KNOW, I CAN SEE THAT AS A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE, THAT THE ENTRANCE IS NOT ON THE SIDE WHERE THE FRONTAGE IS. AND IF WE WERE NOT TO ALLOW THESE SIGNS ON THERE, PEOPLE WOULD DRIVE BY AND LOOK AT IT LIKE IT IS NOW AND GO, WHAT IS THERE? THERE'S NO SIGN THERE. YEAH. THAT'D BE VERY HARD TO SEE. YEP.

MEMBER BROOKS? MR. CHAPMAN, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT MALL SIGNS.

SO THIS IS THE WHOLE MALL. SO WE AS A BODY, ARE THERE, LIKE STANDARD SIGNS THAT PEOPLE OR THAT BUSINESSES DON'T HAVE TO REQUEST VARIANCES FOR? SO THE MALL IS KIND OF NOT A GOOD FIT FOR OUR ORDINANCE.

YEAH. BECAUSE IT'S TRUE. BECAUSE IT HAS ITS OWN ENTRANCES.

LIKE MAIN ENTRANCES. LIKE A MULTI-TENANT. THEN IT HAS ADDITIONAL ENTRANCES FOR, LIKE, EACH BUSINESS.

SO OUR ORDINANCE DOESN'T REALLY ADDRESS THAT AT ALL.

YEAH. SO THEN EACH INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS THEN IS BASICALLY ON ITS OWN FOR REQUESTING SIGN VARIANCES THEN? I MEAN IF THEY.

SPEAKERS]. IF IT'S NEEDED THEN YEAH. DEPENDING ON WHERE THEIR ENTRANCE IS.

SO WHAT WOULD BE LIKE IF A STANDARD BUSINESS MOVED INTO THIS OR NOT STANDARD.

.IF THEY ACTUALLY WASN'T REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THIS, WHAT IS JUST THIS THING THE SIGN SIZE, OR YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE ORDINANCE DOESN'T HAVE ANY.

OH FOR. FOR SIZE? HOW WE CALCULATE THE SIZE OR THE LOCATION? THE SIZE. BECAUSE, NO, WE'RE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE SIZE.

WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE LOCATION.

THE ENTRANCE WOULD BE ON THE EAST OF THE BUILDING FOR THE.

BUT THERE'S NO ENTRANCE. BUT THERE'S NO ENTRANCE ON THE EAST. IT'S JUST A FLAT. THAT'S THE FLAT WALL.

OH, I SEE. YEAH. SO THAT'S WHERE THEY CAN PUT THEIR SIGN.

BUT LEGALLY. RIGHT. BUT THE THE SIGN IS LEGALLY ALLOWED TO BE ON THE EAST SIDE BECAUSE THAT SIDE IS FACING.

THE ROAD. THE ROAD FRONTAGE, YES. IN COMPARISON, IF THIS HELPS.

THIS IS TRADER JOE'S. YEAH. THE SAME ISSUE WITH TRADER JOE'S BECAUSE TRADER JOE'S FACES NORTHWIND.

SO THAT'S WHERE THEY COULD HAVE THEIR SIDE. BUT IN ORDER TO HAVE SIGNAGE THAT FACE GRAND RIVER AND FACE THE PARKING LOT.

SO YOU KNOW WHAT STORE YOU'RE GOING INTO WHEN YOU GO PULL UP IN THE PARKING LOT, THEY NEEDED TWO ADDITIONAL SIGNS AS WELL.

[01:35:04]

NOTHING ON THE EAST SIDE. RIGHT. THE EAST IS JUST THAT DRIVE.

JUST THE ROAD. IT'S JUST THE SURFACE DRIVE. YEAH.

YEAH. ALL RIGHT, I DON'T. AND SO THE VARIANCE THEN IS JUST FOR THIS LOCATION ABOVE.

IS IT THAT THE SIGN COULD GO ANYWHERE ON THIS WALL OR.

IT'S ONLY GOES ABOVE THE ENTRANCE? JUST ABOVE THE ENTRANCE.

I MEAN, YOU'RE APPROVING AGAIN. YOU'RE APPROVING THIS PLAN THAT'S SHOWN HERE. SO.

RIGHT. THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PUT IT ANYWHERE ELSE.

THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO MOVE IT. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. YEAH.

I DON'T HAVE ANY. I THINK WE CAN MEET ALL THE CRITERIA, AND THIS IS.

YEAH. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES. I JUST KIND OF WANT TO HIT ON EVERYTHING AT ONCE.

YEAH. ABOUT 30 YEARS AGO, MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP ADOPTED A NEW SIGN ORDINANCE.

AND ABOUT 26 YEARS AGO, MCDONALD'S CAME TO THIS BOARD AND THEIR REQUEST FOR A SIGN WAS DENIED.

AT THAT TIME, THEY TOLD THIS BOARD THAT MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP HAD THE MOST RESTRICTIVE SIGN ORDINANCES IN THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES.

WE TOOK IT AS A COMPLIMENT. BUT BACK TO THIS CASE, ONE REASON MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP SIGN ORDINANCE WAS MADE IS, WE DON'T WANT THIS TOWNSHIP TO LOOK LIKE SOME OF THE OTHER NEAR MUNICIPALITIES.

AND IF YOU LOOK CLOSE, SOME OF THE SIGNAGE IN THE NEAR MUNICIPALITIES LOOKS JUNKY.

THIS CASE IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. IT HAS A STREET SIDE AND THEN NORTH AND SOUTH ENTRANCE. AND I SEE A CASE FOR NEEDING SIGNS AT ALL THREE.

HOWEVER, I DON'T SEE A CASE FOR MAKING THEM ANY LARGER THAN THEY PREVIOUSLY WERE WITH YONKERS.

YONKERS WAS GRANTED A TREMENDOUS VARIANCE TO MAKE THOSE SIGNS THAT SIZE, AND I MEAN TREMENDOUS.

BECAUSE I THINK NORMALLY, HAD IT NOT BEEN IN THE MALL, IT HAD BEEN RESTRICTED TO A 25 SQUARE FOOT SIGN. BUT, MR. CHAPMAN. WELL, YOU WERE GOING TO SAY.

YEAH. SO THAT'S NOT TRUE. IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE ONE SQUARE FOOT PER LINEAR FEET OF FRONTAGE.

SO THEY WOULD GET 153FT². OKAY. SO THEY'RE ACTUALLY UNDER WHAT WOULD BE ALLOWED.

SO THEY'RE ONE 138. SO THEY'RE UNDER THE 153.

YEAH. BASED ON THE. AND ALSO WE'VE UPDATED OUR SIGN ORDINANCE COMPLETELY THREE YEARS AGO.

WOULD THAT BE ONE SIGN PER. YEAH ONE SIGN. ONE SIGN ALLOWED.

YEP. YEAH. BUT AGAIN, WE'RE GOING TO THE VARIANCE ON THE NUMBER OF SIGNS, NOT ON THE SIZE. SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, THE SIZE OF IT CAN'T BE CONSIDERED.

AND IT'S WITHIN THE MOST RECENT SIGN ORDINANCE, SO.

I HAVE HEARD THAT ABOUT MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP, BUT BY QUITE A FEW PEOPLE THAT HAVE COME HERE FOR VARIANCES OVER THE PAST EIGHT YEARS.

YES, MEMBER BROOKS? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.

SURE. GO FOR IT. I'D LIKE TO MOVE TO APPROVE.

ZBA CASE NO.: 25-08 FOR DAGHER SIGNS & GRAPHICS AT 1982 GRAND RIVER FOR TWO WALL SIGNS, ONE ON THE NORTH SIDE AND ONE ON THE SOUTH SIDE, AS SHOWN IN THE PACKET.

SUPPORT. SUPPORT BY MEMBER KOENIG. OKAY. I´D LIKE TO ASK THE MAKER OF THE MOTION IF YOU WOULD CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT FOR THOSE THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIGN THAT TO BE ANY LARGER THAN IT PREVIOUSLY WAS WITH THE PREVIOUS TENANT.

FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. SO THAT WOULD GO BACK TO.

SO WHAT WAS THERE WAS 120 SQUARE FOOT.

SO IT'S 18FT². 18FT² SMALLER. SMALLER. WE´RE NOT DECREASING ANYTHING.

SO I MEAN, YOU'D BE OFFERING AN AMENDMENT TO DECREASE IT BY 18FT².

IF THE MAKER WILL ACCEPT IT. YEAH. MR. CHAPMAN, CAN WE.

I THOUGHT THAT THE VARIANCE REQUEST WASN'T FOR THE SIZE.

YEAH. I MEAN, WE REALLY NEED TO LOOK AT WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US HERE, AND WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT THE SIZE OF THE SIGN.

[01:40:01]

SO I'M NOT GOING TO, YOU KNOW, WE NEED A DECISION TONIGHT.

RIGHT. BASED ON WHAT'S THERE. AND I WOULD JUST SAY BECAUSE THE SIGN IS WITHIN THE ORDINANCE AS IT STANDS NOW, I WOULDN'T SUPPORT THAT AMENDMENT. YES. I THOUGHT YOU'D SAID 126FT IS WHAT THEY'D BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE ORDINANCE.

NO, THERE ARE 150. 153. 153, OH, YEAH. THEN I WILL WITHDRAW MY.

YEAH. ALL RIGHT. AMENDMENT. OKAY. OKAY. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MOTION? OKAY. THIS IS A VOTE TO APPROVE ZBA CASE NO.: 25-08 FOR SIGNS ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE BUILDING.

MEMBER BENOIT? YES. MEMBER KOENIG? YES. MEMBER BROOKS? YES. MEMBER HERSHISER? YES. MADAM CHAIR VOTES YES.

SO YOUR VARIANCE HAS BEEN APPROVED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING PATIENT, WAITING.

I TRY TO GET THEM DONE QUICKLY. THIS WAS A LONG ONE.

BUT WE APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE. APPRECIATE YOUR HELP.

HAVE A GREAT NIGHT. YOU TOO. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

TAKING A LOOK AT OUR AGENDA, WE ARE ALL CAUGHT UP AND MANAGED ALL OF OUR NEW BUSINESS.

SO I BELIEVE THERE IS NO OTHER BUSINESS. SO I WILL OPEN THE FLOOR TO PUBLIC REMARKS OF WHICH.

OUR PUBLIC HAS ALL LEFT US. SO WE'LL CLOSE THE FLOOR FOR PUBLIC REMARKS AND OPEN THE FLOOR FOR BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS.

[9. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS]

GOOD TO MEET YOU ALL. I KNOW WE'LL DISAGREE FROM TIME TO TIME, BUT I WILL ALWAYS RESPECT ANYBODY'S DECISION AND WHAT THEY SAY.

THANK YOU. WE'RE GLAD YOU'RE HERE. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US AS AN ALTERNATE. THAT'S VERY HELPFUL.

IT'S HELPFUL TO HAVE GOOD DISCOURSE AND DEBATE.

AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO KIND OF EXPRESS TO THE APPLICANTS EARLIER.

WE ARE ALL DOING OUR BEST, AND I AM CERTAINLY NOT AN EXPERT BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION.

I AM JUST TRYING TO BE AS INFORMED OF A CITIZEN AS I CAN BE.

SO IT HELPS. IT HELPS THAT WE ALL BRING OUR OWN EXPERIENCE TO THE BOARD AND OUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE COMMUNITY MEANS AND WHAT THE ORDINANCE YOU KNOW, SAYS. SO I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE HEALTHY DEBATES, AND THAT'S OKAY.

GOOD. YEAH. YEAH. A DIFFERENT SUBJECT. I'LL TRY TO BE REAL QUICK.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S POSSIBLE, BUT IT SURE WOULD BE HELPFUL IF WE COULD SCROLL OUR OWN SCREENS.

IS THAT A POSSIBILITY? BECAUSE IT WOULD SPEED UP EVERYTHING.

I WISH. YEAH, THAT'S WHY I BRING MY COMPUTER, BECAUSE THEN I JUST HAVE IT UP.

UNFORTUNATELY, THESE ARE NEWER COMPUTERS, SO THIS IS KIND OF WHAT WE'RE STUCK WITH.

YEAH. SO IT'S NOT POSSIBLE? YEAH. NOT ON THESE SCREENS.

NO. YEAH. THAT'S WHY I BRING MINE.

GO BACK TO PAPER. YEAH, I KNOW THAT. YEAH. THESE GUYS PRINT THEIRS OUT I LIKED WHAT WE USED TO GET OUR PACKETS DELIVERED.

THAT WAS REALLY NICE, BUT. RIGHT. YOU MIGHT HAVE OTHER STUFF TO DO NOW.

THAT'S FINE, BUT. I WOULD LIKE TO FORWARD AN IDEA.

IF THE TOWNSHIP WILL GO TO THE EXPENSE OF PRINTING THE PACKETS, I WILL DONATE MY PAY TO SOME TOWNSHIP. I CAN PRINT YOU A COPY IF YOU WANT TO COME PICK IT UP.

THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM. OKAY.

THERE YOU GO. YOU'LL JUST HAVE TO PICK IT UP.

I HAD A FEW OF THEM. GOOD COMPROMISE. YEAH. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT, WELL, ON THAT NOTE.

I'M SORRY TO CONTINUE OUR CONVERSATION. I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT OUR ORDER OF OPERATIONS WHEN WE'RE REVIEWING A CASE.

SO. WHEN WE HAVE DEVELOPERS, OR JUST MULTIPLE CONSTITUENTS ARE REPRESENTING AN INDIVIDUAL CASE, AND THEY ARE SORT OF RESPONDING BACK AND FORTH.

I FEEL LIKE IT CREATES LIKE EXCHANGES, WHICH I'M OKAY WITH FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME. BUT I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S LIKE A WAY TO FIT THEM INTO A CERTAIN LOCATION IN OUR CASE REVIEW AND THEN SEPARATE THAT FROM OUR DIALOG THAT WE MIGHT HAVE BETWEEN US.

SO BETWEEN, LET'S SAY LIKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON A CASE AND THEN BOARD TIME? YEAH. DELINEATION? YEAH. AND ALSO LIKE WHEN WE WERE DOING THE REVIEW OF THE CRITERIA WITH THE FIRST CASE THIS EVENING,

[01:45:02]

I CAN'T REMEMBER IF WE'VE DONE THAT BEFORE, BUT IT JUST.

IT FELT.

ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE AROUND THIS. SO I CAN TIME COMMENTS, I CAN INSTRUCT THE APPLICANTS OR APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE TO, YOU KNOW, I COULD GIVE MORE INSTRUCTIONS.

I DON'T FIND THAT THAT'S BEEN A CHALLENGE A LOT.

I DON'T DISAGREE THAT THAT WAS CHALLENGING WITH THIS PARTICULAR.

YEAH. YEAH. AND I THINK COMING BACK UP AND FORTH AND BACK AND FORTH FROM, YOU KNOW, SEATING, AND IT DOES MAKE FOR A CONFUSING CONVERSATION AS WE'RE TRYING TO HAVE.

SO I DEFINITELY CAN SEE THAT. I CAN LIMIT TIME ON PUBLIC COMMENT.

I CAN PROBABLY DIRECT APPLICANTS MORE CLEARLY THAT DURING BOARD TIME WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS, BECAUSE THAT'S KIND OF. WE DO NEED OUR APPLICANTS TO STAY SOMEWHAT RESPONSIVE SO THAT WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS AS NECESSARY.

BUT IT'S NOT VERY HELPFUL TO OUR CONVERSATION TO HAVE THEM INSERTING WHILE WE'RE DISCUSSING.

DOES THAT? I AGREE WITH. SUM UP WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? I THINK SO, YEAH. THANK YOU. AND I THINK WE DEFINITELY.

I WANT TO HEAR WHAT THEIR THINKING IS AND HAVE THEM RESPOND TO QUESTIONS.

AND I THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE. I THINK THERE'S BEEN ANOTHER INSTANCE WHERE THIS HAS HAPPENED, WHERE IT'S LIKE, SOMEONE AT THE PODIUM RESPONDED TO A QUESTION THAT I DIRECTLY ASKED TO MR. CHAPMAN. AND IT WAS, I MEAN, I THINK I CAN'T REMEMBER THIS INTERCHANGE, BUT I THINK I ASKED MR. CHAPMAN JUST TO RESPOND. BUT I´M WONDERING ABOUT THAT.

LIKE, IS THAT HOW THE ZBA IS MEANT TO FUNCTION, OR IS IT JUST WHAT WE DETERMINE? I DON'T KNOW. YEAH. NO, I THINK IT'S MORE WHAT WE DETERMINE WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH.

AND IF THAT'S SOMETHING LIKE, THAT I CAN DO TO FURTHER DIRECT THE MEETING OR KIND OF FURTHER CONTAIN THE MEETING.

I MEAN. I DON'T THINK SOME PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS. BUT COULD WE JUST LIKE, MAYBE CLARIFY THAT BEFORE TIME AND THEN GO BACK TO LIKE AFTER EACH CRITERIA, LIKE WE GO THROUGH ONE TO AFTER EACH CRITERIA? IS THERE ANY. ANY CLARIFICATIONS OR QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS AND THEN WE CAN EITHER CLOSE IT OR.

YEAH. OPEN IT BACK UP FOR DISCUSSION BASED OFF OF ANYTHING THAT'S ADDED.

SURE, HOW DOES THAT SOUND TO EVERYBODY? YEAH, IT'S VERY EASY TO TELL THE APPLICANT OR EVEN PEOPLE IN THE CROWD THAT WE´RE AT BOARD TIME NOW, IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR YOU, WE'LL CALL ON YOU.

YEAH.

AND I KNOW THAT PAST CASES.

LITTLE CONTENTIOUS. NOT THAT THIS WAS CONTENTIOUS.

YOU KNOW, YOU DID A VERY GOOD JOB OF SAYING, YOU KNOW, THIS IS BOARD TIME.

YOU KNOW, YOU HAD YOUR CHANCE TO SPEAK KIND OF THING, WHEN WAS.

THEY JUST DIDN'T LISTEN. YOU KNOW, AND THIS TIME.

AND I CAN AGREE THAT TO ME, IT'S MORE, YOU KNOW.

YEAH, THERE'S ROBERT'S RULES AND THINGS YOU GOT TO FOLLOW, AND YOU CAN BE VERY STRICT AND SAY, OKAY, YOU KNOW, AT THIS POINT WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO BOARD TIME. YOU ALL SHUT UP UNLESS WE'RE ASKING YOU.

WE COULD BE THAT WAY IF WE NEED TO BE, WE CAN ABSOLUTELY BE THAT WAY.

BECAUSE SHE'S BEEN THAT WAY IN THE PAST. YOU KNOW, I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF YOU WERE ON THE BOARD AT ALL. BUT SHE'S BEEN THAT WAY IN THE PAST, AND IT WAS ALMOST. I DON´T WANNA SAY HYSTERICAL.

THAT'S NOT THE PROPER TERM, BUT IT WAS LIKE SHOCKING BECAUSE THESE PEOPLE WERE NOT EXPECTING HER OF ALL PEOPLE TO BE LIKE, LOOK, YOU HAD YOUR TIME. THIS IS BOARD TIME. PLEASE BE QUIET.

AND THEY WERE ALL LIKE, WHOA. BUT WE ABSOLUTELY CAN DO THAT.

BUT I THINK IT'S ALSO BECAUSE YOU'RE THE CHAIR, YOU KNOW, IT'S SOMETHING YOU'RE DESCRIBING.

YEAH, THAT´S. SO AT THE END OF THE DAY. YES I AGREE.

YOU'VE DONE IT BETTER IN THE PAST. I THINK THIS WAS.

YEAH. YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SAYING THIS WAS A BAD THING.

WE DID WANT TO HEAR HIM. BUT I DO AGREE THAT IT COULD GET OUT OF HAND VERY QUICKLY.

THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE SOME RESPONSIBILITY ALSO, THEY CAN SAY POINT OF ORDER.

YOU KNOW, THE CHAIR WILL ASK THEM AND THEY CAN SAY SO.

WE ALL HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY. YEAH THAT'S TRUE.

AND I'M NOT ADVOCATING THAT WE FOLLOW ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER TO THE LETTER.

YEAH. I AM NOT SAYING THAT. IT'S JUST I THINK I WAS TALKING EARLIER ABOUT HOW I THINK I'VE BEEN HERE ON THIS FOR A YEAR

[01:50:10]

AND THIS ONE, I JUST WANTED TO SEE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THOUGHT ABOUT IT.

YEAH. I THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO, LIKE, HAVE INVOLVEMENT WITH THE PUBLIC COMMENTS SO THAT WE DON'T GET TOO OFF THE RAILS IN A THOUGHT PROCESS, AND THEN THEY'RE LIKE, WELL, THERE'S THIS IS THE ACTUAL INFORMATION. AND THEN WE JUST WASTED, SAY, 5 TO 10 MINUTES ON SOMETHING DISCUSSING THAT WAS WASN'T RELEVANT.

SO THERE'S A FINE LINE AND YEAH, MAYBE WE CAN JUST DO BETTER, A BETTER JOB AS A GROUP THAN JUST.

I THINK ALSO, WE HAD AN APPLICANT THAT WAS FILLING A LOT OF SPACE AND WE DESERVE THE TIME TO THINK AND TO PROCESS, BUT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE OTHER THING WHEN WE'RE HAVING A DISCUSSION AND WE ALL KIND OF GO QUIET, THAT GIVES US ROOM TO START A CONVERSATION THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY NEED TO HAPPEN TO, SO.

BUT I CERTAINLY CAN TAKE THAT NOTE AND KIND OF DIRECT A BIT MORE WITH APPLICANTS AND WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES AND TRY TO KEEP OUR BOARD TIME WHAT IT IS SO THAT WE'RE HAVING DISCUSSION, NOT HAVING A BACK AND FORTH WITH APPLICANTS BECAUSE THAT'S.

WE NEED TO ASK APPLICANTS QUESTIONS OR, YOU KNOW, MAYBE BACKSTORY OR INFORMATION.

BUT ULTIMATELY, WHETHER I HATE TO SAY THEIR FEELINGS ARE NOT RELEVANT, BUT THEIR FEELINGS ARE NOT RELEVANT.

IT'S WHAT THE CRITERIA IS. SO, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IT'S HARD AND I PERSONALLY LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT CITIZENS ARE HEARD BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S FAIR, RIGHT? BUT I ALSO DON'T. WE STILL NEED TO MAKE OUR DECISIONS WITHOUT THE EMOTION OF IT.

SO YEAH. SO I CAN DEFINITELY TAKE THAT NOTE AND KIND OF BE A LITTLE BIT MORE ON TASK AS FAR AS GETTING PEOPLE TO LET US DISCUSS AS A BOARD AND GIVE US THAT SPACE TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION, SO.

WELL, THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO WHAT I WANTED TO SHARE.

ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER THOUGHTSIT WAS A TRICKY ONE. THAT WAS DIFFICULT BECAUSE EMOTIONS WERE GETTING HIGH AND THERE WASN'T A NICE WAY TO SAY, HEY, JUST GIVE US A CHANCE. LIKE, YOU KNOW, OTHER THAN WHAT I TRIED TO SAY WAS JUST, YOU KNOW, LET US GO THROUGH OUR PROCESS BECAUSE WE ARE JUST TRYING TO DO OUR BEST.

AND WE'RE NOT ALWAYS GOING TO AGREE WITH EACH OTHER. WE'RE NOT GOING TO AGREE WITH THE APPLICANTS. SO IT'S JUST. BUT WE'RE ALLOWED TO NOT AGREE.

THAT'S TOTALLY WITHIN OUR RIGHTS AS BOARD MEMBERS, SO.

IF WE ALWAYS AGREED, I DON'T THINK THIS BOARD WOULD LOOK TOO GOOD TO THE PUBLIC.

NO, NO, ABSOLUTELY. IS THIS TELEVISED ANYMORE? IT IS. I DON'T THINK WE'RE NOT ON [INAUDIBLE] ANYMORE.

THEY DON'T COME IN AND DO AN INTERVIEW AFTERWARDS ANYMORE? NO, WE DON'T DO THAT. NO. IT IS ON HOME TV. THAT'S ABOUT IT.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.