[00:00:02]
>> GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING.
[1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER]
TODAY IS WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19TH, 2025.IT IS 6:30 P.M. AND I WILL CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER.
WE WILL START WITH A ROLL CALL. MEMBER BROOKS.
>> [LAUGHTER] CHAIRMAN IS PRESENT.
WITH THAT, WE ARE GOING TO GET RIGHT TO OUR AGENDA,
[2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA]
AND I'M GOING TO MOVE TO APPROVE TONIGHT'S AGENDA.>> THIS IS A VOTE TO APPROVE TONIGHT'S AGENDA. MEMBER BROOKS.
>> CHAIRMAN SO VOTES. YES. TONIGHT'S AGENDA HAS BEEN APPROVED.
WE DO NOT HAVE ANY MINUTES TO CORRECT OR APPROVE FOR TODAY'S MEETING,
[3. CORRECTIONS, APPROVAL AND RATIFICATION OF MINUTES]
SO WE MOVE RIGHT INTO COMMUNICATIONS.[4. COMMUNICATIONS ]
WE AS THE BOARD, RECEIVED COMMUNICATIONS FROM JONATHAN BURT FROM 6074 COLUMBIA REGARDING ZBA CASE NUMBER 25-10.WE RECEIVED AN ADDITIONAL LETTER SIGNED BY MANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY, THE ANDREWS, DAVIS, MCCARTHY, BASS, HOLLINSHAD, ULRICH, AND DOKES DEXTER WHITE, AND I'M VERY SORRY FOR BUTCHERING THAT NAME, BUT THAT WAS SIGNED BY SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY FOR ALSO REGARDING ZBA CASE NUMBER 25-10.
WE CAN GO INTO THOSE FURTHER DURING THE NEW BUSINESS CASE THAT'S COMING UP IN JUST A MOMENT.
WITH THAT, I WILL HAND IT OVER TO MR. CHAIRMAN.
[6.A. ZBA CASE NO.: 25-10 (6080 Columbia), 6080 Columbia Street, Haslett, MI 48840 ]
MR. CHAIRMAN. WE ARE LOOKING AT CBA CASE NUMBER 25-10.>> THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO CONSTRUCT A BUILDING ADDITION AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO THE EXISTING NON CONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 6080 COLUMBIA STREET.
AT ITS CLOSEST POINT, THE STRUCTURE IS NON CONFORMING BECAUSE IT'S 1.2 FEET FROM THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE AND 2.1 FEET FROM THE NORTH SIDE LINE.
ACCORDING TO ASSESSING RECORDS, THIS PROPERTY WAS BUILT OR THIS HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1936.
IN 1992, THERE WAS A VARIANCE GRANTED TO ADD A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO THE NON CONFORMING HOUSE, AND IN 1999, ADDITIONAL VARIANCES WERE GRANTED TO ADD 400 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE IN ADDITION TO THE NON CONFORMING STRUCTURE AS WELL AS THE LOCK COVERAGE OF 42%.
THE NEW ADDITION IS APPROXIMATELY 322 SQUARE FEET AND IS PROPOSED TO BE ADDED TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE HOME.
ALSO, THE SECOND STORY ROOF IS PROPOSED TO BE RAISED TO EVEN OUT OF THE ROOF LINE.
THE RESULTING INCREASE IN AREA AND EXTENT OF DWELLING REQUIRES A VARIANCE TO EXPAND A NON CONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE PURSUANT TO SECTION 86-681.
THE LAKE LANCING OVERLIGHT DISTRICT REQUIRES A MINIMUM SIDER SETBACK OF 5 FEET.
IT'S CLOSEST POINT, THE ADDITION AND SECOND STORY ADDITION ENCROACHED 2 FEET AND 2.1 FEET RESPECTIVELY INTO THE SETBACK.
TWO AND 2.1 FEET, VARIANCE IS REQUESTED.
ALSO, SECTION 86-4424 ALLOWS 40% MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE.
PREVIOUSLY IN 1999, THE VARIANCE THAT WAS GRANTED ALLOWED FOR 42% LOT COVERAGE.
HOWEVER, WHEN CONSTRUCTED, IT ONLY ENDED UP COVERING 40.4% OF THE LOT.
THE PROPOSED ADDITIONS WOULD COVER 43.7% OF THE LOT.
A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED LOT COVERAGE BY 1.7% AS REQUESTED. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
WOULD THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE LIKE TO COME UP AND SPEAK ON THIS CASE?
SHE'S ON HER WAY. SHE'S [INAUDIBLE]
>> YES, IF YOU WANT TO COME ON.
STATE YOUR NAME AND THE ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD, PLEASE?
>> YES, TAYLOR TECO, I'M THE CONTRACTOR FOR THE PROJECT.
>> WE'RE JUST APPLYING FOR THIS. SHE JUST PURCHASED HOME ABOUT A YEAR AGO, AND LOOKING TO MAKE IT HER OWN.
SHE HAS A FEW KIDS THAT LIVE WITH HER.
[00:05:02]
JUST LOOKING TO OVERALL CLEAN UP THE HOUSE, SO SHE'S GOING TO HAVE US VINYL SIDE IT.CURRENTLY, IT'S ALL WOOD, AND A LOT OF IT'S ROTTED AND NASTY, SO JUST TRY AND CLEAN UP THE HOUSE.
I WASN'T PREPARED TO SPEAK, SO SORRY.
>> THAT'S OKAY. WE APPRECIATE.
>> ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE I WILL BE FREE.
>> I THINK IN LIGHT OF THAT, I WILL GET THROUGH PUBLIC COMMENT A BIT.
USUALLY WE LIKE TO LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK FIRST.
>> I TOTALLY REALIZE WE HAVE TO STICK WITH OUR TIMELINE.
MR. TECO, IF YOU DON'T MIND, WE MAY HAVE QUESTIONS TO OUR BOARD TIME, SO STICK AROUND.
>> TO CALL YOU BACK UP, WE WILL. SINCE THE APPLICANT IS NOT HERE TO SPEAK ON THE CASE, I WILL GO AHEAD AND ASK FOR ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY THAT WOULD LIKE TO COME UP TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE.
ARE WELCOME TO COME UP AND DO SO.
PLEASE, I WOULD ASK ANYBODY FROM THE AUDIENCE OR PUBLIC THAT WANTS TO COME UP AND SPEAK.
THEY KEEP THEIR COMMENT BRIEF.
WE ALSO CANNOT HAVE A BACK AND FORTH BECAUSE THAT WON'T ALLOW OUR BOARD TO CONDUCT THEIR BUSINESS THE WAY THAT WE NEED TO CONDUCT OUR BUSINESS.
YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME UP AND MAKE A STATEMENT.
WE ARE NOT GOING TO ENGAGE OR HAVE ANY ANSWERS FOR QUESTIONS, BUT I DO HOPE THAT YOU CAN RESPECT OUR PROCESS.
IF I NEED TO, I WILL INSTITUTE OUR 3 MINUTE RULE, BUT I DO HOPE THAT EVERYBODY KEEPS THEIR COMMENTS BRIEF, SO WE CAN KEEP CASES MOVING.
WE'D LIKE TO KEEP MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP EFFICIENT AND MOVING ALONG.
WITH THAT BEING SAID, ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO COME UP CAN COME UP TO THE PODIUM.
YOU WILL JUST HAVE TO GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD, AND WE'D LOVE TO HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY.
>> MA'AM, IF YOU DON'T MIND STATING YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
WE WANT YOU TO GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD SO WE KNOW WHO WAS IN ATTENDANCE.
>> TO PASS OUT A PICTURE OF NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, WHAT I'M GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT.
YES. MY NAME IS LILY G. I LIVE AT 6068 COLUMBIA STREET, WHICH IS FOUR HOUSES AWAY FROM THE APPLICANT'S HOUSE.
WHEN THE SITE WAS DEVELOPED 100 YEARS AGO, THERE ARE STREETS THAT COME IN AT THE LAKE, AND BETWEEN EACH BLOCK, THERE'S APPROXIMATELY SIX HOUSES, AND COLUMBIA IS THE MAIN STREET THAT GOES ALONG THE LAKE FRONT.
THE FIRST GROUP OF HOUSES IS BETWEEN PIKE AND BASS.
THE ONE I LIVE ON IS BETWEEN BASS AND PERCH, AND THAT IS WHERE THE APPLICANT'S HOUSE IS.
THE HOUSES WERE BUILT ABOUT 100 YEARS AGO AND ARE UPDATED COTTAGES.
FOR MY HOUSE, MY HUSBAND AND I ARE THE ONLY FOURTH OWNERS, SO THERE HAVE NOT BEEN A LOT OF CHANGES TO OUR HOUSE.
ORIGINALLY, WHEN THE HOUSES WERE DEVELOPED, THE SETBACK WAS 3 FEET OR 6 FEET BETWEEN THE HOUSES.
THE HOUSE WAS GIVEN SEVERAL VARIANCES.
WAS THAT ONE POINT, IT IS ONLY 5.5 FEET BETWEEN THE HOUSES.
THAT MEANS IT'S 3 " WIDER THAN ME.
FROM THE PICTURE, YOU WILL SEE PLANTINGS AND SHRUBS.
LET'S SAY A ROSE BUSH COMES TO HERE, A SHRUB COMES TO HERE.
THAT MEANS ESSENTIALLY FROM MY HIP DOWN TO THE GROUND IS THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE HOUSES.
I FEEL THAT GRANTING ANY LESSENING OF THE SETBACK IS A FIRE HAZARD.
THERE HAVE BEEN HOUSE FIRES AROUND THE LAKE.
THE FIRST ONE IS RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM A HOUSE.
THE HOUSE BURNED DOWN. THERE'S A VACANT LOT.
THEN GOING BACK TOWARD PIKE STREET, THREE HOUSES AWAY.
THE HOUSE BURNED DOWN, AND THERE ARE NOW TWO NEW HOUSES THERE THAT ARE LOCATED AT 6054 AND 6056 COLUMBIA STREET.
LE RIGOS HOUSE IS ON WEST LAKE.
[00:10:02]
IT BURNED DOWN APPROXIMATELY 6 YEARS AGO.THAT LED TO SOME FIRE DAMAGE TO GIL WHITE'S HOUSE, WHICH IS 6005 EAST LAKE.
THERE WAS A HOUSE THAT'S NEXT TO THE BOAT RAMP, THE GARAGE BURNED DOWN APPROXIMATELY ABOUT 8 YEARS AGO.
THE HOUSE WAS TORN DOWN, AND THEN A NEW HOUSE WAS BUILT.
IF YOU LIVE IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP AND YOU WERE OUTSIDE LAST WEEK, YOU KNOW THERE ARE HIGH WINDS IN THIS AREA.
WITH HIGH WINDS WITH THE HOUSES CLOSE BY, I FEEL THAT GRANTING ANY LESSENING OF THE SETBACK WOULD CAUSE A POSSIBILITY OF THE FIRE SPREADING TO OTHER HOUSES.
I AM SORRY THAT OTHER VARIANCES WERE GRANTED THAT LESSEN THE WIDTH, AND I AM HOPING THAT YOU DO NOT GRANT ANY VARIANCE THAT INVOLVES LESSENING THE WIDTH BETWEEN HOUSES.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MA'AM.
ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO COME UP AND SPEAK ON THIS CASE?
>> THANK YOU. I OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT AS WE ARE WAITING FOR YOU, SO PLEASE COME ON UP, AND WE JUST NEED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD, PLEASE.
I LIVE AT MY HOME I OWN, 6080 COLUMBIA STREET, AND HASLET, MICHIGAN.
IN ORDER TO FULFILL THE OPTIMAL SPACE FOR THE HOME.
WE'RE NOT ASKING OR I THINK THE REQUEST OR HOW TO ENCROACH ON ANY OF THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY.
IT'S PRETTY MUCH JUST PRETTY MUCH ON MY OWN.
THE ADDITIONAL SPACE THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR THE BACK IS WHERE THE PREVIOUS OWNER HAD PUT TONS OF DIRT FROM A BASEMENT THAT THEY DUG OUT.
I GUESS IN ORDER TO MAKE IT A BIT MORE SAFE IN A TRUE YARD, JUST ASKING FOR THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY TO GO BACK A LITTLE BIT FURTHER THAN WHAT IT CURRENTLY IS.
THE OTHER VARIANCE IS CURRENTLY LIKE A COTTAGE SLOPE FOR THE ROOF AND THE UP SECOND FLOOR.
JUST LOOKING TO BUMP THAT OUT A BIT TO MAKE MORE OPTIMAL USE OF THAT SPACE, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT'S NOT A USABLE SPACE.
THE OTHER VARIANCES AS FAR AS THE SIDE YARD AGAIN.
AGAIN, A PREVIOUS VARIANCE WAS ALLOWED FOR THAT, BUT THE ADDITIONAL THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS NOT THAT BIG OF A SETBACK.
THE ADVERSE EFFECTS ACTUALLY IS LITERALLY LOW AND VERY LOW RISK TO HOUSE FIRE SPREADING, BECAUSE THE PROPERTY LINE WOULD BE NOWHERE NEAR THE FENCE, NOR WOULD IT BE ENCROACHING ON ANY OF OUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTIES.
>> MS. WILBURN, IF YOU WOULD, WE'LL CONTINUE OUR PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEN WHEN PUBLIC COMMENT IS OVER, WE GO INTO OUR BOARD TIME, WE MAY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
WE MAY JUST ASK YOU OR MR. TECO, WE KNOW IS HERE AS WELL, SO WE CAN ALSO ASK EITHER ONE OF YOU TO COME BACK UP.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, IF YOU DON'T MIND.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS OR HAS A PUBLIC COMMENT? PARDON ME.
NO DISCUSS. PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING THIS CASE CAN COME UP TO THE PODIUM.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD, PLEASE.
I LIVE AT 6082 COLUMBIA STREET, THE PROPERTY NORTH OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.
SEVERAL NEIGHBORS AND I HAD CONCERNS.
WE PUT OUR HEADS TOGETHER ON THE CONCERNS AFTER SEEING THE ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING, IN ADDITION TO THE FOOTPRINT THAT'S UP HERE.
WE'VE NOTICED THAT THE PROPERTY IS ON AN ANGLE ALONG WITH THE PROPERTY LINES, AND IT'S VERY TIGHT BETWEEN, ESPECIALLY WELL, IN BOTH SIDES.
WHEN THE GARAGE ADDITION WAS BUILT TO THE STREET.
TO ME, THAT REQUIRED A RETAINING WALL, AND THAT RETAINING WALL WAS BUILT ON TO THE NORTH OF THAT PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS ON MY PROPERTY.
[00:15:02]
THE RETAINING WALL FOR THE GARAGE IS ON MY PROPERTY.IT'S ALREADY ENCROACHING INTO MY PROPERTY.
>> FOR THESE PRIOR ADDITIONS, IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THERE'S ONLY 2.1 FEET ON THAT SIDE, AND THEN THERE'S ONLY 1.2 FEET ON THE OTHER SIDE.
MY CONCERN IS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AND THE CONSTRUCTION ACCESS.
I KNOW BRIDGET MCCARTHY, WHO IS HERE TONIGHT IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH SIDE.
SHE HAS ALL NEW RETAINING WALLS AND ROCKS ON THAT SIDE, AND DOESN'T WANT ANY EGRESS ACROSS HER PROPERTY.
MY PROPERTY, LIKE I SAID, THERE'S THAT RETAINING WALL THERE.
IT CONTINUES TO GO DOWN IN HEIGHT, BUT IT'S PROBABLY ABOUT 4-5 FEET AT THE HIGHEST.
I'M NOT REALLY QUITE SURE HOW ANY CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WOULD GET BACK BETWEEN THERE.
I'M JUST NOT SURE HOW WHAT THE CONSTRUCTION AXIS WOULD LOOK LIKE.
MS. WILBURN EXPRESSED THAT SHE WANTS TO REMOVE THE DIRT FROM THE LAKE SIDE, WHICH IS ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
WITH TWO FEET ON ONE SIDE AND ONE FOOT ON ANOTHER SIDE, I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT WOULD HAPPEN.
LOOKING AT THE ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING, THERE APPEARS TO BE EXIT WELL ON THAT NORTH SIDE THAT WOULD EXTEND THE WELL, I BELIEVE, WOULD EXTEND TO MY PROPERTY LINE OR TO THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH COULD BE A SAFETY HAZARD ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE.
CURRENTLY, THERE'S A WALKWAY THERE, NOT A WELL.
I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT THAT WILL LOOK LIKE AS FAR AS HOW FAR THAT WELL WILL GO OUT.
THERE'S ALSO SHRUBBERY BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES ON THE NORTH SIDE BETWEEN THE LAKE AND THE DECK, AND CONCERN FOR THE SHRUBS, THE PRIVACY SHRUBS TO STAY INTACT DURING CONSTRUCTION,.
>> WE'RE AT ABOUT THREE MINUTES AND 40 SECONDS OF YOUR COMMENT.
IF YOU COULD CONCLUDE YOUR STATEMENT, THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL FOR OUR TIMELINE.
>> THE ADDITION TO THE BASEMENT APPEARS THAT IT'S COMING OUT TOWARDS THE LAKE AND THE CURRENT DECK IS AT A CERTAIN HEIGHT AND THAT DECK ABOVE THE BASEMENT APPEARS THAT IT'S GOING TO BE HIGHER THAN THE ORIGINAL DECK, WHICH WOULD BE A LINE OF SITE ISSUE, AS WELL AS IF THEY EVER BUILT ABOVE THAT BASEMENT IN THE FUTURE, WHICH IS A CONCERN ABOUT JUST THE PROPERTY VALUES OF ALL OF US FOR THE LINE OF SITE ISSUE AND THE DWELLING CLOSER AND CLOSER TO THE LAKE.
THE SWIM SPA WITH A MECHANICAL ROOM AND PUMPS, AND THAT KIND OF THING IS A CONCERN FOR THE NOISE FOR PEOPLE OUT ON THEIR DECKS THAT ARE CURRENTLY THERE.
>> MS. EGRESS, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU. WE'RE AT FIVE MINUTES.
>> IN CONCLUSION, WE WOULD PLEASE LIKE TO DENY THIS REQUEST.
>> ANYBODY ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT THIS EVENING, I JUST ASK THAT WE REMEMBER OUR TIMELINE AND KEEPING WITHIN THAT THREE MINUTES, THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL.
I LIVE ON 6054 COLUMBIA STREET.
BASICALLY, THIS PROPERTY HAS ALREADY HAD TWO VARIANCES DEVIATING FROM THE FIVE FOOT SETBACKS, AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO TAKE IT FURTHER.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOOD BUSINESS.
IT'S NOT GOOD FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THEY HAVE A BASEMENT WINDOW THAT THEY'RE GOING TO USE AS AN EMERGENCY EXIT.
[00:20:05]
THAT'S NOT EVEN IDENTIFIED AS HOW DEEP THAT IS GOING TO BE.BECAUSE TO GET EGRESS OUT OF THAT WINDOW, THE PERSON IS GOING TO HAVE TO WALK OUT, CLIMB OUT THE WINDOW, AND THEN UP EITHER A LADDER OR WHATEVER.
THAT MEANS THAT'S GOING TO EXTEND EVEN FURTHER INTO HER PROPERTY THAN WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING.
THERE'S NO DIMENSIONS ON THE LAYOUT.
I'VE SEEN THOSE EXIT WINDOWS BEFORE, AND THEY TAKE A LOT OF ROOM IN ORDER TO GET SOMEBODY OUT SAFELY IN CASE OF A FIRE. THAT'S IT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. WE APPRECIATE YOU.
ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE THIS EVENING?
>> I'M SORRY, I GAVE MY RULES EARLIER.
WE'RE NOT GOING BACK AND FORTH IN OUR PUBLIC COMMENT.
ALL OF THE PUBLIC IS WELCOME TO COME AND GIVE THEIR COMMENT.
THE BOARD WILL NOT BE ENGAGING WITH THE PUBLIC, AND I WOULD HOPE THAT WE COULD KEEP IT RESPECTFUL IN THE MEETING.
YOU ALL OUR NEIGHBORS, SO YOU CAN TALK AT HOME ALL YOU WANT.
YOU CAN JUST DEBATE AT HOME ALL YOU WANT.
WITHIN OUR BOARD SPACE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A RESPECTFUL CONVERSATION, AND WE'LL JUST KEEP GOING.
WE CAN TALK TO YOU MS. WILBURN ABOUT IT.
IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT WAS MENTIONED, WE CAN DISCUSS IT WITH YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE THIS EVENING? I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT, AND I WILL OPEN UP OUR BOARD TIME.
AT THIS POINT, FOR YOU, MS. WILBURN, AND FOR MR. TREZISE, IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS, WE'D LOVE FOR YOU TO COME UP SO WE CAN HAVE A CONVERSATION IN CASE WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
ANY BOARD MEMBER THAT WOULD LIKE TO JUMP IN, OR HAS ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
>> WE'RE GOING IN REVERSE ORDER THIS TIME, SO THE QUESTIONS IS WHY I WAS ASKED EARLIER.
>> I'M NOT REAL GOOD AT READING CHARTS AND DRAWINGS.
IF SOMEONE COULD EXPLAIN WHAT'S BEING CHANGED, WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED, WHAT'S BEING ADDED.
>> IS THAT MR. TREZISE OR MR. CHAPMAN MIGHT WANT TO CHIME IN WITH WHAT WE'RE ADDING? I THINK THAT'S A REALLY HELPFUL QUESTION AS FAR AS WHAT'S CHANGING BECAUSE I ALSO HAVE A QUESTION. YOU HEARD THAT.
MY QUESTION TO PIGGYBACK OFF, MEMBER TREZISE'S QUESTION IS, WHERE THE ROOF LINE COMES INTO? MR. CHAPMAN, THE COVERAGE, IS THAT PART OF THE PERCENTAGE?
>> NO. WELL, IT'S PART OF THE HOUSE, WHICH IS PART OF IT.
>> RIGHT. WE TAKE THIS INTO PIECES, RIGHT?
>> ROOF LINE BEING ONE AND THE SWIM SPOT BEING A SECOND PIECE, RIGHT?
>> THE ROOF HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE VARIANCE, OR DID IT NEED THE VARIANCE? [OVERLAPPING]
>> NO, THEY NEED THE VARIANCE BECAUSE IT'S IN THE SETBACK, [OVERLAPPING] AND THEY'RE INCREASING THE HEIGHT OF THE HOUSE BY ADDING THAT ADDITION TO THAT ROOF, RAISING THE ROOF UP BASICALLY.
>> RAISING THE ROOF IS PART OF THE SIDE YARD SETBACK.
>> IT'S ON THE NORTH, YES, THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK.
THERE'S THE FIVE FOOT ON THE NORTH OF THE FIVE FOOT ON THE SOUTH.
>> THANK YOU. THAT PICTURE IS HELPFUL.
THAT'S MY QUESTION, BUT I WILL LET MEMBER TREZISE GET BACK TO HIS QUESTION.
>> JUST ON THE DRAWING THERE, COULD YOU TELL ME WHAT'S BEING ADDED AND WHERE THE OLD HOUSE IS AND THAT SORT OF THING?
>> SURE. FROM THE HOUSE, THE DRAWING, THE ORIGINAL HOUSE IS WHERE IT SAYS, THE 12-INCH BRICK WALL.
THAT'S WHERE THE DECK CURRENTLY IS ON THE HOUSE.
ANYTHING BEYOND THE 12-FOOT BRICK WALL IS WHERE THE ADDITION IS GOING TO OCCUR.
THAT'S BETWEEN THE NUMBER, IS THAT THREE AND THEN THE SIX, THERE ON THE SOUTH SIDE? THERE. THE ROOF PIECE, I DON'T THINK THAT'S PROPERLY REFLECTED IN THIS DRAWING.
IT'S PROBABLY IN THE OVERALL DRAWING.
>> THERE'S ANOTHER RENDERING THAT HAS THE ONE THAT.
>> YOU SAW IS THE [OVERLAPPING] TAKES THE ROOF THAT'S LIKE THIS.
BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS IS IN THE MASTER, IT'S TEN FEET AWAY, BUT YOU CAN'T GET TO IT THERE.
>> YOU'RE RIGHT. IT'S BASICALLY [OVERLAPPING] UNUSABLE SPACE THAT'S CURRENTLY THERE, AND THERE'S A COLUMN THERE.
THEN THE MASTER BATHROOM HAS A WOOD PANEL WINDOW.
[00:25:04]
IT WAS BASICALLY UNUSABLE BECAUSE OF HOW THE CURRENT STRUCTURE IS.THERE'S THE ROOF LINE OR THERE IS BLOCKING THAT WINDOW, SO THEY JUST PUT A PIECE OF PLYWOOD IN THERE.
FOR OPTIMAL VIEWS AND THE PROPER USE OF THE ROOM, JUST WANTED TO BUMP THAT UP A FEW.
IT DOESN'T SEEM TO CONFLICT OR RESTRICT ANY VIEW FROM THAT BY RAISING THAT ROOF THAT I CAN SEE.
THERE'S NO VIEW FROM THE LAKE CURRENTLY, FROM THAT ANGLE OR VIEW OF THE HOUSE, SO BUMPING IT UP JUST A FEW MORE INCHES SHOULDN'T HAVE THAT MUCH OF AN IMPACT FROM MY UNDERSTANDING FOR THAT PIECE.
>> THE ROOF ISN'T BEING EXTENDED BEYOND WHERE IT CURRENTLY IS? > NO, IT'S NOT BEING EXTENDED. IT'S JUST LIFTING UP.
>> HOW MANY [INAUDIBLE] OF INCREASE?
>> I'M SORRY. WE ARE NOT GOING TO DO THAT.
I APOLOGIZE THAT I DIDN'T MAKE MYSELF CLEAR.
YOU CANNOT SHOUT AT A MEMBER OR AT THE BOARD FROM THE AUDIENCE.
>> I APOLOGIZE. I DIDN'T MEAN TO [INAUDIBLE]
>> NO, THAT'S OKAY. WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE THAT.
I'M SORRY, BUT PUBLIC COMMENT IS THE TIME THAT YOU GET TO MAKE A STATEMENT.
BUT NOW IS THE TIME FOR THE BOARD TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE APPLICANT, THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE AND STAFF.
>> WOULD THERE BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS?
>> THERE WILL NOT. THAT IS NOT PART OF PART OF OUR STRUCTURE.
YOU ARE WELCOME TO GIVE ANOTHER COMMENT AT THE END.
WE DO HAVE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT AT THE END.
WE ARE OPEN TO ASK QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, WE CANNOT HAVE A OPEN DISCUSSION THAT WAY.
THAT'S JUST NOT HOW WE'RE FORMATTED.
MY QUESTION IS, JUST SO I'M CLEAR, IT'S MORE DIFFICULT WITH THIS.
I'M ASKING ONLY BECAUSE I'M A VISUAL PERSON.
DO YOU HAVE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS OR ANYTHING THAT YOU CAN SHOW US THAT WILL HELP US TO BETTER VISUALIZE BECAUSE I'M LOOKING AT THIS, AND THE EAST ELEVATION IS WHAT FACES THE LAKE.
>> RIGHT. I HAVE IT ON MY PHONE, THE DRAWING.
LET ME SEE IF YOU ACTUALLY PUT ON THERE THE ACTUAL HEIGHT OF THE ROOF BEFORE AND AFTER.
>> THAT VISUAL OF THE ROOF BEING RAISED HELPS ME UNDERSTAND THE-
>> -THE SIDE YARD SETBACK. I'M CURIOUS.
>> I CAN SEND IT TO KEITH, TOO.
>> I WONDER IF KEITH CAN PUT THIS.
>> I THINK THAT HE'S GOING TO SWITCH ON OUR CAMERA HERE AT THE PODIUM.
>> YOU CAN SEE THAT'S THE BEDROOM RIGHT HERE.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THOUGH, FROM APPROXIMATE THERE TO THE CORNER IS UNUSABLE.
THERE'S A BEAM IN THAT BEDROOM.
WE WOULD LITERALLY BE RAISING THIS SECTION HERE UP 7.5 FEET.
>> THAT'S THE SETBACK. GOT IT.
>> JUST RAISING IT STRAIGHT UP?
>> CAN YOU DO THAT ONE MORE TIME, SORRY.
>> ON THE SET BACK. [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT'S IN THE SETBACK NOW, BUT ARE THERE ANY FURTHER INTRUSION?
>> IT'S NOT ANY FURTHER. NO, IT'S NOT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE'RE NOT GOING THIS WAY AT ALL.
IT'S LITERALLY JUST TEARING THAT OFF.
WE'RE GOING STRAIGHT UP HERE, AND SO THIS ROOF INSTEAD OF IT BEING SO STEEP WOULD BE MORE SHALLOW.
>> JUST TO CREATE MORE, THIS WHOLE SECTION, YOU CAN SEE THE HEIGHT. IT'S NOT GREAT.
>> OUR ORDINANCE, THE WAY THAT IT READS, ANY INCREASE IN THE NONCONFORMITY REQUIRES A VARIANCE.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT YOU ALSO TALKED ABOUT NARROWING THE SETBACKS, AND WHERE DOES THAT GET IN.
>> I THINK ONE OF THEM HAD MENTIONED WAS THE WINDOW WELL ON THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY? I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE THAT, KEITH.
>> HOLD ON ONE SECOND. [NOISE]. THERE YOU GO.
>> YES, SIR. THOSE STICK OUT FROM THE BUILDING THREE FEET.
WE CAN SHRINK THAT IF NEEDED TO BE.
>> WE JUST WANT EVERYONE TO GET ALONG WITH.
I DON'T WANT TO ARGUE. I'M TRYING TO BE POLITE.
>> I'M JUST TRYING TO GET INFORMATION.
[00:30:01]
[OVERLAPPING]>> OUR RESPONSE IS WE ARE COMING FROM A PLACE OF CURIOSITY.
I'M TRYING TO DO THE BEST TO MAKE THE BEST FOR THE TOWNSHIP.
WE WILL DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE TO MAKE SURE WE ASK AS MANY QUESTIONS POSSIBLE.
IT IS NOT PERSONAL. IT IS JUST TRYING TO GET INFORMATION.
WE CAN MAKE THE BEST CHOICE POSSIBLE.
I HEAR YOU. EVERYBODY WANTS TO GET ALONG.
EVERYBODY WANTS TO MAKE SURE THEY CAN LIVE PEACEFULLY IN THEIR HOME WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS.
WE CAN GET INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE AS A BOARD IN A FEW WHEN WE LOOK AT OUR CRITERIA.
>> I'M TRYING TO TRY TO FORMULATE SOME QUESTIONS, GUYS.
>> THE PLOT OF SURVEY WAS DONE BEFORE.
HE DID THE DRAWING, SO AGAIN, NEW TO THE AREA.
WHEN HE DID THE DRAWING, I ASSUME HE STAYED WITHIN MY PROPERTY LINE AND ALSO LEFT A FEW INCHES SO THAT WE CAN HAVE A WALKWAY.
THE CURRENT WALKWAY FROM MY UNDERSTANDING WAS STILL EXIST.
THAT DIDN'T LOOK LIKE IT, INTRUDED OR REQUIRED THE REMOVAL OF THE EXISTING WALKWAY WITH THAT WINDOW WELL.
>> THANK YOU. BOARD MEMBERS, ANYBODY HAVE ANY FURTHER I KNOW THIS IS.
>> THE WINDOW WELL WOULD BE NORTH SIDE JUST EAST OF THE GARAGE?
>> BECAUSE THERE'S STEPS PRESENTLY THERE.
>> I'M GOING TO ASK IT BECAUSE I HOPE THAT THERE'S A GOOD ANSWER FOR IT.
BUT IF THE VARIANCE THAT EXISTS IS HAS THAT 42 PERCENT? THEY CAN USE UP TO THAT 42 PERCENT.
>> BUT THE CHALLENGES WE'RE GOING TO 43.7 PERCENT.
QUESTION I WOULD HAVE FOR MS. WILBORN AND MR. TICHA, WHY NOT STAY WITHIN THAT 2 PERCENT.
>> WHY THAT ADDITIONAL 1.7 PERCENT? BECAUSE WHEN WE GET INTO OUR CRITERIA, WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT WHAT IS THE MINIMUM ACTION TO HELP TO ALLEVIATE, THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE ORDINANCE? THAT'S GOING TO BE I KNOW THESE GUYS REALLY WELL.
THAT'S GOING TO BE SOMETHING THEY'RE ALL GOING TO ASK A LOT OF.
I'M JUST GOING TO ASK IT STRAIGHT UP.
WHY NOT BUILD WITHIN THAT 2 PERCENT? WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT THAT IS AN ADDITION THAT CAN'T BE DONE WITHIN THAT WITHIN THAT 2 PERCENT? BECAUSE I THINK YOU'RE AT 40.7.
>> SO WHAT CAN WE NOT DO WITHIN THAT? 40.4.
>> SO THAT'S 43.7 IS WHAT THEY WOULD.
>> 43.7 IS WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, BUT THE VARIANCE ALREADY ALLOWS UP TO 42 AND THEY'RE ONLY USING 40.4. CURRENTLY.
>> IT'S 1.6 ROUGHLY? WHAT IS THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE WISE BASED OFF OF THAT LOT? DO WE KNOW THAT?
>> I DON'T TEACH COMPLEX MAIL.
>> THERE IS A ART [OVERLAPPING] I'M CURIOUS WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE AND WHY LANDED ON THAT.
AS OPPOSED TO, I MEAN, DID WE LOOK AT ALTERNATIVE WAYS TO GET THERE? DID WE LOOK AT WHAT WE COULD DO TO KEEP IT WITHIN THAT VARIANCE BECAUSE OUR JOB REALLY IS TO GRANT AS FEW VARIANCES AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE.
IF WE'RE LOOKING AT, WE NEED TO SAY YES TO THE SIDE SETBACK BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO RAISE YOUR ROOF, WHICH, I COULD PROBABLY START TO MAKE A CASE FOR PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES WITH RAISING A ROOF.
BUT IF WE'RE LOOKING AT WE NEED TO GRANT FOR, ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OR ADDITIONAL COVERAGE PERCENTAGE, WE'RE GOING TO NEED A COMPELLING REASON WHY WE'RE GOING FROM 40.4-43.7 WHEN YOU'RE ALLOWED TO BE IN THE 42 RANGE ALREADY WITHOUT GRANTING AN ADDITIONAL VARIANCE.
WHEN WE'RE ALREADY AT, 45 IS THE MAXIMUM,
[00:35:03]
AND WE'RE ALREADY AT 40.4, AND WHY ARE WE PUMPING IT UP AN ADDITIONAL 3.3?>> I HAVE A QUESTION. TO ME, IT LOOKS VERY MINIMAL TO GO FROM 40.4-43.7.
LOOKS LIKE IT'S ONLY ADDING 173, IS THAT CORRECT? SQUARE FEET? SO TO GO TO 42 PERCENT, YOU'RE ADDING ANOTHER 85? SORRY.
>> TO GET TO THE 42. THEN THAT WOULD KEEP EVERYONE HAPPY.
>> WE WOULD NOT BE VARIANCE [LAUGHTER] THERE WILL BE NO VARIANCE REGULAR VARIANCE NECESSARY. THAT'S MY POINT.
>> THAT 85 SQUARE FEET. THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING.
IS THAT IS NECESSARY FOR Y'ALL.
THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. IS THAT NECESSARY.
>> THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES. THAT'S ONE.
BECAUSE WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE CRITERIA.
ONE OF OURS IS MINIMUM ACTION.
THAT'S WHERE MY QUESTION COMES.
THAT'S A COUPLE OF THOUGHTS CAME UP AS LISTENING TO THIS CASE AND LISTENING TO TEETH PRESENTED.
THAT'S WHERE THAT'S WHERE ONE OF MY BIGGEST QUESTION LIES.
MY SECOND LIES AND WHY IT'S NECESSARY.
I CAN HEAR, DEFINITELY, I CAN HEAR THE ROOF LINE.
BEYOND THAT, I'M THE NECESSITY OF THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY.
SO BEING BEING AN UNUSABLE DWELLING IS WHERE WE GET INTO OUR NEXT KIND OF HURDLE WE HAVE TO CROSS TO THAT?
>> WELL THAT I CAN TAKE IT BACK TO THE ARCHITECT AND SEE.
CAN WE MANEUVER IT TO MAKE IT WITHIN THE CURRENT VARIANCES ALREADY APPROVED? THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM.
>> I THINK THAT WOULD SATISFY SOME OF OUR BOARD THOUGHTS AND CURIOSITIES. BUT.
I THINK THE SIDE YARD SETBACK IS THE NEXT CHALLENGE.
>> QUESTION. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY.
YES. IT SAYS BASE ZONING ALLOWS 35 PERCENT.
>> THEY'RE AT WHERE THEY RIGHT. WHERE THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE.
THEY HAVE THE VARIANCE FOR 42, SO THEY COULD GO TO 42.
>> I MEAN, YES, IT'S 1.7 PERCENT ABOVE WHAT THEY ALREADY HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
IS THAT A SMALL AMOUNT? SURE. BUT THEY ALREADY HAVE A VARIANCE.
THE BOARD HAS ALREADY GRANTED THAT VARIANCE.
[OVERLAPPING] WE TALK ABOUT IT A LOT.
EVERY TIME WE GRANT ONE, IT STAYS WITH THE HOUSE.
>> IT STAYS WITH THE PROPERTY. NOT THE HOUSE..
>> WRECK THE HOUSE. THEY COULD REBUILD 42 PERCENT.
>> BOARD MEMBERS, HAVE ANY OTHER THOUGHTS OR ARE WE READY TO GET INTO CRITERIA?
>> KEITH. ONE OF THE VARIANCES THEY'RE REQUESTING IS TWO FOOT EVEN.
WHERE IS THAT TWO FOOT? I WAS TRYING TO FIND I SEE THE 2.1, WHERE IS THE TWO EVEN.
>> IT'S ON THE SOUTH SIDE RIGHT UP THERE.
THAT'S THE CORNER OF THE SWIM SPUR AREA ON THE SOUTH.
>> LET'S STAY THERE NOW. IT SAY TWO FEET.
THEY'RE GOING TO BE TWO FEET IN THAT SETBACK.
>> FIVE FOOT SIR. EVEN THE 2.1 IS ON THE OTHER SIDE WHERE IT SAYS 2.9?
>> GOT YOU. THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING.
>> IS IT POSSIBLE TO BUILD IN BETWEEN THESE HOUSES WITHOUT IMPACT BEING WITHIN THE SET BACK.
>> LIKE IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO BUILD A FENCE IN BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES, WOULDN'T THEY BE WITHIN THE.
>> THERE'S ACTUALLY A SECTION IN THIS FOR THE LIFE LANCING OVERLAY.
YOU CAN ONLY BUILD UP TO THREE FEET IN HEIGHT WITHIN, I THINK IT'S SEVEN FEET OF A STRUCTURE.
>> TWO FEET, SO YOU CAN JUST BE REALLY SMALL.
>> INTERESTING PLACE [LAUGHTER]
>> WE THOUGHT WE WERE DONE WITH LAKE LANSING THEY JUST KEEP PULLING US BACK IN.
>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY, MADAM CHAIR, IS THAT, THIS ISN'T OUR FIRST VARIANCE REQUEST THAT WE'VE SEEN AROUND THE LAKE.
IN THE LAKE DEFINITELY IS THE BAY OF THIS TOWNSHIP BECAUSE EVERY TIME THERE'S SOMETHING THAT COMES TO THE TOWNSHIP,
[00:40:04]
THAT NEEDS A VARIANCE AROUND THE LAKE.THERE'S VARIANCES BEING ASKED, THERE'S NEIGHBORS THAT COME OUT AGAINST IT BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT YOU LOOK AT AN ERA LIKE YOU GUYS HAVE SEEN, EVERY ONE OF THESE HOUSES AROUND THE LAKE ARE SO CLOSE TO ITS NEIGHBOR.
THAT SOMEBODY'S GOING TO GET ANGRY WITH SOMETHING SOMEWHERE.
IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR ANYONE WHO OWNS A PROPERTY THERE TO DO ANYTHING, ESPECIALLY IF THEY'RE TRYING TO GO BEYOND BECAUSE THERE'S JUST NO ROOM.
>> THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I HOPE THAT IF VARIANCES LIKE THIS KEEP COMING UP, THAT THE TOWNSHIP WOULD EVENTUALLY GO.
WAIT A MINUTE HERE. THIS IS OUR 20TH VARIANCE, AND MAYBE WE OUGHT TO LOOK AT THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE.
>> WE HAVE BECAUSE THAT WAS A BIG CHALLENGE, AND WE'VE GONE TO PLANNING AND PETER KNOLLS.
WE GOT THAT LANSING OVERLAY, A MORE ROBUST OVERLAY DISTRICT TO ASSIST WITH SOME OF THAT, BUT WE'RE STILL AT A POINT WHERE, YOU KNOW, WE STILL HAVE A LOT OF NON CONFORMING HOMES, AND MISS WILBORNS HOME IS A PERFECT CASE OF THAT IN BUILT IN 1936.
THERE'S NOT, THIS I MEAN, WE CAN MAKE THE CASE FOR UNIQUENESS FOR EVERY LIKE LANCING HOME.
EACH ONE HAS ITS OWN CIRCUMSTANCES THAT IS CHALLENGING. THAT IS FOR SURE.
I SHOULD SAY, LOOKING AT THIS, AND WE HEARD FROM THE AUDIENCE MEMBER THAT IF IT'S TRUE, THE RETAINING WALL WAS BUILT AT THE SAME TIME AS THE GARAGE IN 1999 OR WHENEVER THEY BUILT IT, DID THEY I MEAN, THEY OBVIOUSLY HAD TO SUBMIT A PERMIT FOR THAT? WAS THE TOWNSHIP OKAY WITH ALLOWING WHOEVER IT WAS TO PUT THAT RETAINING WALL ON THE OTHER PROPERTY? THAT. VERY INTERESTING THAT I DON'T ALLOW THAT I DON'T GOING TO THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNER SAYING, HEY, YOU DON'T HAVE A LOT OF ROOM.
WE NEED TO GET ON YOUR PROPERTY, ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT? I DON'T KNOW I CAN'T GO BACK AND FORTH WITH YOU, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS EVEN ASKED BECAUSE THIS WAS WAS 25 YEARS AGO.
>> IT'S A HEAD SCRATCHER GOING.
>> WOW DID THAT HAPPEN? THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
>> IT DOES BRING UP A GOOD QUESTION AS WELL AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME PRETTY BIG PIECES OF LUMBER AND STUFF GOING BACK THERE.
HOW DO YOU PLAN ON BRINGING THAT BACK TO THAT BACK SIDE OF THE PROPERTY THROUGH THOSE CAUSE LIKE BOTH SIDES OF THE LOTS, LIKE ANY OTHER LOT, IT'S VERY TIGHT.
HOW DO YOU PLAN ON GETTING BIG PIECES OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT STUFF BACK THERE?
>> THERE'S AN EXISTING WALKWAY, WE BRING EVERYTHING BACK THROUGH THERE, BUT.
YOU'LL BE ABLE TO FIT IT ALL THROUGH THERE?
I SENT A PHOTO TO KEITH, BUT THE WALKWAY THAT'S ON THE NORTH SIDE THAT HAS, THE BRICK COBBLES GOING.
THAT'S THE PLACE WHERE YOU'RE PLANNING ON PUTTING A NEW WINDOW WELL.
HOW FAR WILL THE WINDOW WELL EXTEND INTO THAT WALKWAY? LIKE BECAUSE THEY NEED TO BE, OUT FROM THE WALL CONSIDER ARE YOU STILL GOING TO BE ABLE TO USE THAT AS A WORKING PATHWAY WITH THE WINDOW WELL THERE?
>> IT'S THREE FEET. I'D BE VERY MINIMAL, BUT THERE WILL BE, YES.
>> HOW WIDE IS THE WALKWAY, DO YOU KNOW?
>> I MEAN, IT'S JUST OVER THREE FEET.
>> IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO THE HOUSE.
>> THE PROBLEM IS IF WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PLANS, THE BASEMENT BEING FINISHED, THAT'S MORE OF A SAFETY CONCERN THAN USING THE WALKWAY THERE.
>> BEING ABLE TO HAVE THAT EGRESS?
>> THAT'S THE THERE'S A I'M SURE IT'S THERE.
THERE'S A PRINT THAT SHOWS THE BASEMENT BEING FINISHED AND THE REASON FOR THAT.
>> IF YOU GO THERE SHOULD BE A BASEMENT, LIKE A ACTUAL BASEMENT.
>> THAT'S ON THE ACTUAL.I CAN LOOK AT THEM, BUT.
>> LISTEN UP I ANSWER UP TO YOU GUYS.
>>THE EXISTING BASEMENT ON PAGE 2 OF THE DRAWING.
>> THEY DON'T HAVE THAT. THAT LOOKS LIKE THEY DO.
>> THIS IS JUST THE LAST PAGE.
I THINK THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWING OF IT.
>> YOU ONLY GAVE ME LAST PAGE. I HAVE THE WHOLE.
>> MEMBER KEITH CAN GO I CAN. CAN YOU SHOW US?.
>> CAN YOU ADJUST THE BRIGHTNESS, MAYBE [LAUGHTER] IT'S SO BRIGHT.
>> HE DIDN'T DO THAT. I'M SURE YOU CAN TREES.
>> THIS IS THE DEMO PART OF IT, BUT I'M NOT SURE IF HE'S SHOWING THE WALKWAY HERE,
[00:45:03]
BUT THIS IS IN THE INSIDE.THIS IS THE CURRENT BASEMENT WINDOW.
AND THEN HERE IS THE CURRENT WALKWAY WHERE YOU SEE THE STEPS.
HE DOESN'T HAVE THE ACTUAL DIMENSION, BUT I THINK IT'S IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT'S THAT SMALL ON THE HOUSE, THE EXISTING ONE.
IT'S A BIT AWAY FROM THE HOUSE.
IT'S NOT LIKE RIGHT UP ON THE HOUSE?
>> THE DRAWING WE HAVE, IT SHOWS THREE FOOT, 4 INCHES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AND IT'S THERE MAY BE A SMALL GAP BETWEEN IT AND THE HOUSE.
>> IS IT LIKE A SAFETY CONCERN? IS THAT WHERE YOU'RE GET?
>> WELL, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT HOW CLOSE IT WAS GETTING TO THE PROPERTY LINE AND IF YOU'D STILL HAVE ACCESS BECAUSE THE WALKWAY ON THE SOUTH SIDE I BELIEVE BELONGS TO THE NEIGHBOR.
THE ONE THAT HAD LIKE THE LOOSE ROCKS?
>> I HAVE A LOOK AT THE PLOT SURVEY, THAT'S NEWS TO ME.
>> I'M NOT MAKING A STATEMENT, THAT WAS A QUESTION.
>> THAT IS A QUESTION TO ME TOO BECAUSE WHEN WE DID THE PLOT SURVEY, HE SHOULD HAVE MADE SURE THAT HE DREW WITHIN THE LINES OF THE EXISTING PROPERTY LINES.
THERE'S NOWHERE WHERE THAT'S INDICATED THAT THE GARAGE, AND I THINK THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF SOME ROCKS RIGHT THERE AND THAT'S LIKE A STEPS YOU GO DOWN.
IT'S VERY CLOSE TO THE NEIGHBORS.
I SEE SOME OF HER PLANTS ON THE SIDE.
BUT NOWHERE IN THE PLOT SERVER, DID IT SAY THAT THAT WAS ON HER PROPERTY.
>> THE BOTH WALKWAYS ON EITHER SIDE OF YOUR HOUSE BELONG TO YOU, IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?
>> THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO [OVERLAPPING].
>> I THINK I'M FOLLOWING THE LINE OF THINKING THAT DESPITE THE GRASS ON ONE SIDE, THAT THERE WOULD STILL BE ABILITY TO WALK.
AROUND THE HOUSE ON THE OTHER, SO THERE IS SPACE BETWEEN.
>> THE DRAWING I'M LOOKING AT DOESN'T SHOW A WALK ON THE SOUTH SIDE.
WHICH SIDE OF THE REGION [INAUDIBLE]?
>> IF YOU LOOK AT THE PLOT MAP, YOU CAN SEE A LONG WAY.
THAT'S TOWARDS THE END OF THE FIRST CASE.
I CAN SEE ON THAT GOOGLE IMAGE THAT THERE'S A WALKWAY.
>> THERE'S SOME STONES, AND THEN THERE'S LIKE WOOD STEPS GO DOWN HERE.
>> THEY ALSO MAKE COVERS FOR THE WINDOW WELLS THAT CAN BE LIFTED OFF THAT YOU'RE ABLE TO STAND ON.
>> THIS IS WHERE THE EGRESS IS? YES. MEMBER, GO AHEAD.
I'M PRETTY SURE I KNOW THE ANSWER, BUT JUST FOR CLARIFICATION.
MR. CHAPMAN, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND.
YOUR STAFF REPORT SAYS THAT THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, CLOSEST POINT RIGHT NOW TO THE SOUTH SIDE IS 1.2 FEET.
>> THEY ARE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE WITH THE NEW STRUCTURE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF TWO FEET?
>> TECHNICALLY, THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WOULD REMAIN CLOSER TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF PROPERTY LINE THEN THE NEW STRUCTURES BEING BUILT.
>> AGAIN, REMIND US WHY DO THEY NEED TO ASK FOR VARIANCE ON THAT SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
>> IT'S STILL WITHIN THAT FIVE FEET OF THAT SETBACK THERE.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. I FIGURE THAT'S WHAT YOUR ANSWER IS.
PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY OR THE STRUCTURE, AS I SAY, IT IS CURRENTLY 2.1 FEET?
>> THEY'RE ASKING FOR 2.1 FEET?
>> IT WON'T GO ANY FARTHER THAN WHAT'S CURRENTLY ALLOWED? MY POINT, WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS I PERSONALLY, I UNDERSTAND WHERE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND THE NEIGHBORS ARE COMING FROM. I DO.
BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT AS WELL, LOOKING AT THIS, THE SETBACKS THEMSELVES ARE NOT GETTING ANY BIGGER.
NOTHING STRUCTURAL WISE GOING TO BE MORE CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINES ON THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH THAN IT CURRENTLY IS.
I DO HAVE QUESTIONS, AND YOU PROBABLY READ MY WHEN SHE WAS LOOKING AT ME.
I DID HAVE THE SAME TYPE OF QUESTION OF WONDERING IF THERE WAS A WAY TO STAY WITHIN THE 42% LOT COVERAGE. I DIDN'T KNOW.
I DIDN'T DO THE MATH IN MY HEAD AND WORK OUT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, WHAT THAT WOULD EQUATE TO.
BUT YOU SAW IT'S SOMEWHERE AROUND 100 SQUARE FEET OR SOMETHING.
BUT I PERSONALLY, IN MY OPINION, I'M JUST ONE VOTE.
I DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE SETBACKS
[00:50:01]
BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GET ANY BIGGER THAN WHAT THEY ALREADY ARE NON CONFORMING.I KNOW THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO MAKE EVERYBODY HAPPY, AND I KNOW THEY ALREADY HAVE VARIANCE FOR THOSE THINGS.
HERE WE ARE ANOTHER VARIANCE. I UNDERSTAND THAT.
BUT THE VARIANCE ISN'T GETTING IN MY MIND AND GETTING ANY BIGGER.
THAT'S WHERE I WOULD HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT.
THE LOCK COVERAGE IS GETTING BIGGER, AND THAT'S WHERE I HAVE POTENTIALLY THE ISSUE.
IS THERE A WAY TO MAKE THAT LOCK COVERAGE SMALLER SO THAT YOU CAN STAY WITHIN THAT VARIANCE? I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD. I'M GLAD YOU CLARIFIED THAT.
I KNEW THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE GOING TO SAY, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE UNDERSTOOD.
WHEN THEY SEE THAT, AND THEY GO, WAIT A MINUTE, WHY ARE THEY REQUESTING THIS VARIANCE WHEN IT'S NOT GOING TO BE AS FAR AS WHAT THE CURRENT STRUCTURE IS, AND THAT'S WHY? BECAUSE THEY'RE STILL WITHIN THAT SETBACK.
>> WHICH WAS MY QUESTION ABOUT THE ROOF LINE. THAT'S WHY I SAID WHAT?
>> IT DOESN'T APPEAR [OVERLAPPING].
>> BECAUSE WE'RE STILL WITHIN THE SETBACK.
>> IT DOESN'T APPEAR THAT THE NEW ROOF IS GOING TO BE ANY TALLER THAN THE EXISTING ROOF.
IT'S GOING TO BE THE SAME HEIGHT, CORRECT?
>> THE SAME HEIGHT. YOU'RE JUST BRINGING UP THE PITCH TO MATCH THE OPPOSITE SIDE.
>> IT'S NOT LIKE THE BUILDING IS GOING TO NECESSARILY GETTING TALLER.
IT'S JUST THE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOT ON THE BACK SIDE BECAUSE OF THAT ADDITIONAL STRUCTURE PIECE.
>> THAT WAS MY THING. I KNOW THERE'S ONE THAT WAS WORRIED ABOUT FIRES.
THERE'S ALREADY A STRUCTURE THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TOWARDS ANY [OVERLAPPING].
>> WELL, IF I OWNED A PROPERTY ON A LAKE LIKE THIS, EVEN WITHOUT YOU WANTED TO DO ANYTHING, I WOULD BE WORRIED ABOUT FIRES BECAUSE EVERY ONE OF THESE HOUSES ARE SO CLOSE TO EACH TOGETHER.
BUT UNFORTUNATELY, THAT'S HOW THEY WERE BUILT.
WHAT CAN YOU DO ABOUT IT UNLESS YOU WANT TO TEAR IT DOWN AND BUILD SOMETHING SMALLER, WHICH NOBODY WANTS TO DO.
IT'S HOPE AND PRAY THAT NOTHING LIKE THAT EVER HAPPENS.
BUT THAT'S ALL SPECULATION AT THIS POINT, WE CAN'T SAY SOMEBODY'S HOUSE IS GOING TO GET ON FIRE, AND SOMEBODY ISN'T.
BUT THAT WAS THE QUESTIONS AT THE POINT SO I HAD MS. CHAIR. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR ARE WE READY TO TACKLE THE CRITERIA? ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? I THINK THE WAY THAT I'D LIKE TO APPROACH IT BECAUSE I THINK THAT MEMOCHINIC IS TO EXACTLY MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT IS THAT I'D LIKE TO TRY TO APPROACH THE TWO VARIANCES SEPARATELY.
IF THAT'S OKAY WITH YOU GENTLEMEN, I'M GOING TO TAKE IT THAT WAY BECAUSE I CAN SEE THEM AS TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES.
>> THAT'S COOL WITH YOU GUYS. I'M GOING TO TRY THAT.
REGARDING THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS.
CRITERIA NUMBER 1 IS THAT UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST THAT ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND OR STRUCTURE THAT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LAND OR STRUCTURES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT, AND THESE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SELF CREATED.
I KNOW I SAY IT A LOT, AND THAT EVERYONE IS UNIQUE MAKES NONE OF THEM UNIQUE.
HOWEVER, EVERY TIME I LOOK AT LANSING AND HOW DID THESE GET BUILT, I HAVE NO IDEA.
I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS [OVERLAPPING].
>> [LAUGHTER] IT'S A MASS. THERE A MASS.
BUT IT EXISTS. MS. WILBURN DID NOT CREATE THIS.
SHE BOUGHT THIS HOUSE THAT CAME WITH THESE VARIANCES, THAT CAME WITH THE STRUCTURE THAT CAME WITH THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES.
I CAN MAKE A CASE FOR UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES.
ANYBODY HAVE CHALLENGES WITH THAT IN REGARDS TO THE SETBACKS?
>> NO. BUT I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE APPLICANTS UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES.
THEY CLAIM THE AMOUNT OF DIRT IN THE BACKYARD, WHICH WAS CREATED BY A PRIOR OWNER.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WOULD QUALIFY AS A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE.
IT'S A LOT ITSELF THAT COULD QUALIFY BECAUSE IT IS SO SMALL.
>> NO, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.
I THINK THAT TO ME, THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES REGARDING THE SETBACKS ARE THAT THIS PROPERTY EXISTS AS IT WAS WHEN SHE BOUGHT IT.
BUT IT BEGAN ITS LIFE AS NOT CONFORMING IN 1936.
WE'RE LOOKING AT NEARLY 100-YEAR-OLD SITUATION.
I WOULD AGREE WITH THE PRIOR [OVERLAPPING].
>> IT MAY HAVE BEEN FORMED IN 1996.
>> IT MAY HAVE CONFORMED IN 1936.
BUT CLEARLY IN 1991, DURING THE FIRST VARIANCE, IT DIDN'T CONFORM NOR IN 1999, AND HERE WE ARE ANOTHER 30 YEARS LATER, AND IT'S STILL NON-CONFORMING.
I CAN REACH THAT CIRCUMSTANCE REGARDLESS OF THE DIRT, MS. WILBURN.
[LAUGHTER] WHICH IS PROBABLY VERY INCONVENIENT, BUT NOT UNIQUE.
NUMBER 2 IS THAT STRICT INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE LITERAL TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER WOULD RESULT IN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES THAT
[00:55:02]
WOULD PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR PERMITTED PURPOSE.AS MEMBER KAIN POINTED OUT, SHE'S NOT SHIFTING, THE SETBACKS ARE NOT GROWING.
THEY ARE SAYING WHERE THEY ARE.
WE'RE NOT ENCROACHING ANY FURTHER ON THE SETBACKS.
THE SETBACKS ARE WHAT THEY ARE, WE'RE WORKING WITHIN WHAT THE SETBACKS CURRENTLY ARE.
THAT SAID, I DO THINK THAT STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THIS ORDINANCE WOULD NOT ALLOW HER TO CHANGE THE HOUSE IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, WHICH AGAIN, IS DEFINITELY A CHALLENGE FOR THE NEIGHBORS.
HOWEVER, EVERYBODY IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WANTS TO DO SOMETHING ON THEIR HOUSE THEN HAS THE SAME CHALLENGE.
IS THAT EVERY HOUSE IS SO CLOSE TOGETHER.
COULD I FIND A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WITH THAT? IF THEY WANT TO DO ANYTHING TO THE HOUSE, IT'S NEW SIDING.
IT'S A ROOF LINE. IT'S THINGS THAT THEY'RE DOING THAT ARE NORMAL.
I'M TAKING OUT ANY OF THE PERCENTAGE AND TALKING JUST ABOUT THE SETBACKS.
THOSE THINGS THAT SHE NEEDS APPROVAL FOR THAT ARE WITHIN THE SETBACKS ARE THINGS THAT ARE PRETTY NORMAL MAINTENANCE OUT OF A NEARLY 100-YEAR-OLD HOUSE.
I CAN MAKE A CASE FOR PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES FOR THOSE SETBACKS.
I THINK, BASED ON THE FACT THAT THEY'RE NOT GETTING ANY LARGER, THEY'RE STAYING WHERE THEY ARE.
THE HOUSE AS IS RIGHT NOW IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE THOSE SETBACKS.
>> ONE CAN ARGUE THAT THE ADDITION OF A SWIM SPA ON THE PROPERTY WOULD NOT RESTRICT THE PROPERTY OWNER FROM USING IT FOR PRIMED PURPOSE, WHICH IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE.
HOWEVER, THE CURRENT SHAPE OF THAT HOUSE, THERE WAS A CASE ON THE RECORD THAT IT IS PUTTING A RESTRICTION ON WHAT THE PROPERTY OWNER CAN USE INSIDE THAT HOUSE.
IT'S NOT FORCING HER, BUT IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO USE THAT OR ROOMS, AS SHE STATED THE BEDROOM IN THE BATHROOM, SHE FEELS THE NEED THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE CONSTRUCTION TO BE ABLE TO RAISE THAT ROOF LINE.
IT COULD BE ARGUED THAT THERE IS SOME DIFFICULTIES ON THAT STRUCTURE JUST BECAUSE OF THE PREVIOUS SHAPE OF IT.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE PREVIOUS OWNER HAD THE SAME PROBLEMS, AND DOESN'T MEAN A NEW OWNER WOULD HAVE THE SAME PROBLEMS. BUT WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US TODAY IS THAT THERE'S AN ISSUE WITH THE CURRENT OWNER BEING ABLE TO USE THAT TO HER ABILITY, THEREFORE, SHE FEELS THE NEED THAT SHE HAS TO DO SOMETHING WITH THAT TO IMPROVE THAT.
THAT COULD BE SEEN AS A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WITH THAT CURRENT STRUCTURE BEING THAT'S A 90 SOME YEARS OLD.
>> I COULD DEFINITELY ACCEPT THAT ARGUMENT.
>> SWIM SPOT, THAT'S A DIFFERENT STORY.
BUT IT IS PART OF THE PETITION.
>> HOWEVER, I THINK TO ME, THE SWIM SPOT ALMOST FALLS MORE ON THE COVERAGE BECAUSE IT'S AN ADDITION.
>> IT IS. IT'S NOT WITHIN THE FIVE FEET SETBACK.
[OVERLAPPING] IT'S NOT GOING TO BE CREATING THE SETBACKS ON EVEN SMALLER FROM THE SIDE.
>> THOUGH, IT'S NOT A REQUIRED.
>> YOU'D BE ASKING, TEE. TEE, DOES HIS JOB OVER THERE.
SORRY. I'M SPEAKING I'LL TURN MY PHONE.
>> NO, YOU'RE GOOD. HE DOES A GOOD JOB.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR THOUGHTS ON PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES ON CRITERIA 2.
I THINK WE COULD PROBABLY MAKE THE CASE FOR THAT AS COUNCIL KNICK STATED.
CRITERIA NUMBER 3 IS GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE MINIMUM ACTION NECESSARY, WHICH WOULD CARRY OUT THE SPIRIT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECURE PUBLIC SAFETY, AND PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.
AGAIN, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT JUST FOR SETBACKS, I DO THINK A MINIMUM ACTION IS ALLOWING THE SETBACKS TO STAY WHERE THEY ARE.
YOU'RE NOT HOLDING IT OUT WHERE YOU'RE WITHIN INCHES, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT KEEPING IT THE SAME.
FRED, NOT GOING OUT, WE LIKE AS MINIMUM AS POSSIBLE.
IF IT'S NO ADDITION TO THE SETBACKS, I CAN FIND THAT TO BE A MINIMUM ACTION.
ANY THOUGHTS ON CRITERIA NUMBER 3? OTHER THAN TAKING AWAY AND SWIMMING DOWN THE HOUSE, WHICH WE WOULD STILL NEED A VARIANCE.
[LAUGHTER]. YES MEMBER CAME IN.
>> MY ONLY QUESTION, AND I APOLOGIZE IF YOU MENTIONED IT, AND I DIDN'T HEAR IT.
THAT'S BOUND TO HAPPEN SOMETIMES.
I UNDERSTAND THE REASON FOR GOING TO THE 43.7% BECAUSE OF THE ADDITION TO THE SWIM SPA AND YOU'RE STRETCHING THE COVERED PART,
[01:00:01]
I ASSUME OVER THAT OVER THE TOP OF THE SWIM SPA.WHAT I DIDN'T HEAR IS THE REALLY COMPELLING REASON OF WHY IT NEEDS TO BE THAT SO BIG TO NEED 43.7 FEET.
IF YOU WERE TO SAY, MAYBE YOU DID, AND PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.
BUT IF YOU SAID, THE SWIMS SPA IS A CERTAIN SIZE, PUSH IT UP AGAINST THE HOUSE AS FAR BACK AS IT CAN GO IN ORDER TO BE ALL COVERED TO BE OUT OF THE WEATHER, WE NEED A DECKER COVERING THAT'S A CERTAIN SIZE, AND THAT CERTAIN MINIMUM SIZE IS GOING TO EQUATE TO 43.7%.
>> I'M GOING TO MAKE YOU WAIT. DON'T ANSWER THAT YET, BECAUSE WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT SETBACKS.
>> OH, YOU'RE RIGHT SORRY. I AM ON A LINE.
>> DON'T LISTEN TO HIM FOR A MOMENT.
>> WE WILL COME BACK TO THAT. I'M SORRY.
BUT JUST ON MINIMUM ACTION FOR THE SETBACKS ONLY, IS THERE ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON SETBACKS ONLY, MINIMUM ACTION? CRITERIA NUMBER 4 IS GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND OR THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY.
THOUGHTS, CONCERNS ON THIS CRITERIA.
ARE WE ABLE TO MEET THIS CRITERIA?
>> I THINK WHEN I LOOKED AT SOME OF THESE HOUSES AND GOOGLE MAPS, I DON'T REALLY KNOW HOW YOU COULD ACTUALLY MODIFY ANY OF THESE.
WITHOUT GOING BY THE OTHER HOUSES.
I FEEL LIKE YOU HAVE TO TALK TO YOUR NEIGHBORS AND BE CONSIDERATE OF PEOPLE WHO YOU LIVE CLOSE TO AND WORK WITHIN THOSE MEANS, GIVEN THE SITUATION THAT WE HAVE HERE.
>> THEY'RE ALREADY THERE. WHAT IS EXISTING THERE NOW, AND I FEEL FOR THE NEIGHBORS, THAT THE HOUSES ARE CLOSE TOGETHER.
ANYONE THAT WANTED TO PUT NEW SIDING, THAT WANTED TO CHANGE A ROOF LINE, THAT WANTED TO ADD A RETAINING WALL OR DO ANY DECK IMPROVEMENT OR ANYTHING, YOU ARE RIGHT ON TOP OF EACH OTHER.
THIS MAKES FOR A VERY TENSE SITUATIONS AND WE HAVE DEALT WITH A LOT OF TENSE [LAUGHTER] SITUATIONS HERE WITH LAKE LANSING AND I VERY MUCH UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS.
THE FIRE SAFETY. ABSOLUTELY. THAT IS ALSO WHY THOSE SETBACKS COME WITH THOSE NON-COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS.
THERE'S A REASON THAT THE TOWNSHIP HAS REQUESTED THAT.
I HEARD ONE GENTLEMAN TALK ABOUT THE EGRESS, AND I BELIEVE YOU ADDRESSED THAT.
IT NEEDS TO BE LARGE ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO GET SOMEBODY OUT, AND THAT IF THAT IMPACTS THE WALKWAY YOU HAVE THE ACCESS ON THE OTHER SIDE TO BE ABLE TO GET AROUND THE HOUSE.
I HOPE THAT WHAT MEMBER BROOKS IS SAYING TO GET TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AS FAR AS THE NEIGHBORS ARE CONCERNED BECAUSE EVERYBODY'S GOT TO LIVE THERE ON THE LAKE.
HOW CAN WE LIVE TOGETHER AND STILL APPRECIATE THAT PEOPLE ARE COMING IN, THIS IS THEIR NEW HOME.
HOW DO WE ALLOW THEM TO CHANGE IT UP, MODIFY?
>> WHAT I'M SAYING THIS FROM BOTH DIRECTIONS.
>> ONE DAY YOU MIGHT WANT TO DO SOMETHING ON YOUR PROPERTY AS WELL.
>> RIGHT. WHO KNOWS? YOU MIGHT NEED SOME NEW SIGHTING. WHAT HAPPENS THEN?
>> THERE'S THE POSSIBLE THAT SOME OF THESE UPDATES COULD ACTUALLY IMPROVE FIRE ROOFING GIVING NEW CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL FOR OTHERS.
>> THAT'S WHAT'S REQUIRED, REGARDLESS THAT'S REQUIRED NOW.
MEMBER BROOKS, DOES THAT SAY THAT YOU CAN MEET CRITERIA NUMBER 4?
>> YES. THE ONLY QUESTION I HEARD WAS RAISED BY ONE OF THE SPEAKERS TONIGHT AS FAR AS A RETAINING WALL IN THE BACK.
BY REMOVING THE DIRT TO BUILD IN THIS ADDITION, WHETHER THAT RETAINING WALL WOULD BE AT RISK.
I WOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.
>> IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD ADDRESS, MS. WILBURNE? THE RETAINING WALL, WHERE THE DIRT PILE IS CURRENTLY, HOW IS THAT BEING ADDRESSED?
>> WELL, THE STRUCTURE THERE IS ALREADY FALLING APART.
IT WAS BUILT WITH LOOKS LIKE OLDER WOOD.
I DON'T THINK IT WAS EVEN TREATED WOOD.
THERE'S ALREADY SOME WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE FOR THAT RETAINING WALL.
I'M ALREADY SEEING HOLES IN THE GROUND WHERE IT'S SINKING IN BECAUSE OF THAT DIRT MOUND.
EITHER WAY, I HAVE TO ADDRESS IT.
>> I HAVE TO REPLACE THOSE STEPS REGARDLESS BECAUSE THEY'RE WORN DOWN. THEY HAVE HOLES IN THEM.
>> IS THAT PART OF THE PLAN THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US[OVERLAPPING]?
[01:05:03]
>> THE PLAN IS REPLACING THAT OLDER DECK, AND PART OF THOSE STEPS WILL BE REMOVED AS WELL.
>> DOES THAT SATISFY THE QUESTION MEMBER [INAUDIBLE] OR DO YOU WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT WERE?
>> I GOING TO ASK MR. CHAPMAN, IF THAT CAN BE PART OF THE GRANT THAT THE RETAINING WALL BE REPAIRED TO BE EFFECTIVE.
>> YOU COULD DO IT AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL.
>> I WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE THAT COULD IMPACT THE NEIGHBORS RATHER SIGNIFICANTLY.
>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME RETAINING WALL.
THE ONE THAT'S BY THE DIRT IN THE HOUSE THAT STAIRS TO GO DOWN? IS THAT THE RETAINING WALL YOU'RE REFERRING TO?
>> THE RETAINING WALL IN THE ON THE LAKE SIDE OF THE HOUSE ON THE SOUTH.
>> IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO MEMBER [INAUDIBLE]?
>> THE RETAINING WALL ON THE SOUTH SIDE.
>> WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT ONE.
UNDERNEATH THIS EXISTING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE HOUSE. IT'S A WALK OUT.
>> THAT IS SLIGHTLY RIGHT NEXT THAT THE RETAINING WALL.
>> THAT'S BEYOND THAT WHERE THAT THOSE STAIRS, YOU GO A LITTLE BIT FURTHER WHERE THE ACTUAL YARD IS.
THERE'S A STAIR THAT GOES DOWN.
THAT GOES INTO A CEMENT WALKWAY AFTER THE LAKE.
THERE'S ANOTHER WALL THERE BY THE STEPS, AND THOSE WHERE THOSE STEPS ARE ROTTING.
THE REMODEL WOULD HAVE TAKEN CARE OF THAT PART.
>> HOW FAR DOES THAT RETAINING WALL GO BACK TOWARD THE LAKE?
>> NOT FAR BECAUSE I'M TALKING ABOUT THE RETAINING WALL, I'M THINKING OF THIS RIGHT THERE WHEN YOU GO TO THE LAWN.
TO ME IS NOT EVEN NEAR THE LAKE.
THERE'S A WALL THAT'S FROM THE DIRT MOUND.
THEN THERE'S ANOTHER RETAINING WALL IN THE MIDDLE OF THE YARD THAT GOES DOWN TO THE LAKE.
NOW, THAT MIDDLE RETAINING YARD.
IF WE DO THE FACE TWO AND PUSH BACK, THAT PART WILL BE REMOVED AS WELL AS THE OTHER RETAINING WALL.
BOTH ARE OLD, AND THEY HAVE NOT BEEN WELL MAINTAINED.
THERE'S MORE DAMAGE TOWARDS THE ONE CLOSER TO THE HOUSE BECAUSE OF THE DRAINAGE THE SPOUTS.
I GUESS GOING OUT TO THE YARDS THEY SHOULD FOR THE WATER.
ONE OF MY RETAINING WALLS, THE ONE HE'S TALKING ABOUT, THAT'S ABOUT THE FALL OVER.
>> THAT'S THE ONE UP CLOSER TO THE HOUSE.
>> THAT'S RIGHT THERE BY THE STAIRS, BY THE WALKOUT.
>> I WOULD WONDER WHICH ONE WE'RE REFERRING TO THAT WE WANT TO BE SPECIFIC CONDITION.
>> THE ONE'S THAT BUILD OUT IN THE COMMENTS.
>> IT WAS A CONCERN TO A NEIGHBOR THAT THE RETAINING WALL.
I ASSUMED IT WAS BETWEEN THE PROPERTIES.
>> THAT'S THE ONE YOU QUESTIONED WHY WAS IT BUILT ON SOME ELSE'S PROPERTY?
>> I'M GOING OFF THE REGULAR, BUT THERE'S A THERE'S SHRUBS THERE IS A WALL THERE, BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS ON THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS WALL.
>> I DON'T KNOW. IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE ON THEIR LAND. [LAUGHTER]
>> I DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS MINE.
[LAUGHTER] I THOUGHT MY WALKWAY FROM THERE WAS MY PROPERTY.
THAT I DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS MINE.
IT COULD BE. I MEAN, WE COULD LOOK AT AND GET THAT REPAIRED.
>> I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT.
>> THERE'S NOT THAT MUCH DAMAGE THERE BECAUSE THERE'S A WALKWAY THERE.
>> YOU CAN SHOW HE HAS IT ON THIS PHONE.
>> THE WALL, I THINK THAT WHAT SHE WAS REFERRING TO THAT WAS THAT BACK ON.
>> THAT'S THE ONE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
>> THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THOUGH.
>> I'M GOING TO BREAK MY ROLE, BUT MRS. DAVIS, IS THAT THE ROTATING WALL YOU WERE DISCUSSING?
>> THAT IS THE RETAINING WALL THAT'S ON MY PROPERTY.
[01:10:03]
I WANT TO PUMP OUT THE BASEMENT ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THAT, RICHARD MCCARTHY SITTING NEXT TO ME, JUST LIVES ON THE SOUTH SIDE AND THEY BUILT A RETAINING WALL THAT PULLS BACK ALL THAT DIRT THAT BETWEEN SIDE.>> IT GOES ACROSS THE BACK OF THE YARD?
>> IT GOES ALONG THE SOUTH EAST PROPERTY.
>> IT'S IN THE MIDDLE OF THE YARD.
>> I JUST HAVE A QUESTION THOUGH.
>> THAT'S THE ONE I WAS LOOKING AT.
>> WE'RE REFERRING TO A PHOTO THAT MEMBER [INAUDIBLE].
>> VISITED THE PROPERTY AND WAS ABLE TO TAKE A PICTURE.
IF YOU COULD CONFIRM, THAT'S THE WALL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
JUST BECAUSE WITHOUT BEING SPECIFIC.
>> THIS IS A FENCE IT'S NOT A WALL. IT'S A FENCE.
OKAY. THAT FENCE, I DEFINITELY WANT TO RE-FENCE.
THE FENCE IS MINE. FROM MY UNDERSTANDING.
>> I RECALL THE RETAINING WALL.
IS THIS WHAT WE'RE REFERRING TO? MRS. MCCARTHY.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME UP TO THE PODIUM, MRS. MCCARTHY AND JUST GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, ONLY BECAUSE I'M DOING THIS AND BREAKING MY ROLE BECAUSE I THINK MEMBER [INAUDIBLE] WOULD LIKE TO ADD CONDITION THAT WILL SATISFY MAYBE THE CONCERNS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WILL ALSO ALONG THE RELIEF FOR MS. WILBURNE.
>> I'M BRIDGET MCCARTHY 6076, COLUMBIA.
TERESSA IS RIGHT, THE FENCES, WELL, I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE, BUT I ASSUMED IT'S ON HER PROPERTY.
WHEN WE MOVED IN, HER MOUND WAS THERE.
WE HAD TO BUILD A RETAINING WALL ON OUR SIDE, ON THE RIGHT SIDE.
WE HAD TO BUILD THE RETAINING WALL.
>> THAT'S HELPFUL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MRS. MCCARTHY. THANK YOU, MS. WILBURNE.
>> SEEING THAT, IT APPEARS THAT REMOVING THE DIRT MAY REMOVE THE NEED FOR THE RETAINING NEED FOR THE RETAINING WALL.
>> THERE MIGHT NOT BE A CONDITION NECESSARY.
>> IT'S NOT HER RETAINING WALL ANYWAY. RIGHT.
>> IT MAY BE MORE OF THE CONDITION OF REMOVING THE DIRT?
>> YES, AND MAKE SURE THAT SHE DOESN'T UNDERMINE THE RETAINING WALL THAT'S THERE.
>> I HAVEN'T EXPERIENCE THIS ON THIS COMMITTEE.
ARE WE ABLE TO ADD A CONDITION LIKE THAT? IN THIS CASE BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE WE DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT ALL THIS TO SAY THAT BECAUSE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PHOTO THAT WE HAVE RIGHT HERE, THE THERE'S A BASEMENT WITH A WALKOUT, WHICH MAY PUT THE ELEVATION OF THAT AREA BELOW THE NEIGHBOR'S YARD.
IS IT A MOUND OF DIRT OR IS IT THAT THE ELEVATION IS IN THE SOUTH PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY BELOW IT.?
>> THEY LOOP THE BACK YARD TO LOOK AT THIS ABOUT THE SAME HEIGHT.
I THINK THE EXPLANATION WAS THE RETAINING WALL WAS PUT IN THERE BECAUSE THERE WAS A MOUND OF DIRT? BECAUSE THERE WAS A WAY.
I DON'T THINK WE PUT A CONDITION IN THERE.
IT'S JUST THAT NEEDS TO BE ALERT TO NOT DAMAGING HER NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY.
THAT'S ALL. IT'S NOT A CONDITION.
>> I THINK THE CONDITION WAS IN THINKING THAT THE RETAINING WALL WAS MS. WILBURNE TO MAINTAIN OR IMPROVE, BUT IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT HER RETAINING.
>> FOR WHAT I'M HEARING, THAT CONDITION IS NOT NECESSARY.
TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, NO, I DON'T THINK WE CAN PUT A CONDITION ON MOVING DIRT [LAUGHTER].
[01:15:03]
I DON'T THINK THAT'S A CONDITIONS THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.IT LOOKS LIKE WE ARE AT CRITERIA 5, WHICH IS GRANTED THE VARIANCE WILL BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS CHAPTER.
>> THIS PARTICULAR ONE, I THINK, PROBABLY MEETS THAT.
>> WITH REGARDS TO SET SEVERANCE ONLY.
>> ALLOWING THEM TO RAISE THE ROOT PRIMARY TALKING.
>> TO ME, I CAN I CAN MEET THAT CRITERIA.
I THINK THAT IT IS KEEPING WITHIN WHAT WE ALREADY ARE ESTABLISHED ON THIS PROPERTY WITHIN WITHIN THE VERY NON CONFORMING SITUATION WE FIND OURSELVES IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
I THINK THAT DESPITE ALL OF OUR BEST EFFORTS WITH THAT LAKE LANSING OVERLAY DISTRICT, THERE'S STILL GOING TO BE CHALLENGES.
I DO THINK THAT I CAN MEET THAT CRITERIA.
IF I'M ESTIMATING PROPERLY WITH ALL OF THE DISCUSSIONS IN BETWEEN, THAT WE ARE ABLE TO MEET THE FIVE CRITERIA.
GENTLEMEN, ANYBODY HAVE A MOTION? NOR DO WE NEED TO WE HAVE ANY THOUGHTS?
>> I WOULD MOVE TO GRANT A VARIANCE AS REQUESTED WITH REGARD TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK INCURSION AND THE MODIFICATION TO RAISE THE ROOF AND BUILD A DECK.
PURSUANT TO 86-442 (5)(D) THAT PARTICULAR VARIANCE.
>> THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE FOR THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS MEMBER TREZISE BROUGHT FORTH AND MEMBER NAHUM HAS SUPPORTED.
>> CAN I ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION?
>> IN YOUR MOTION, YOU MENTIONED THE WORD DECK.
>> THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT BUILDING A DECK OVER THE SUNROOM.
THAT ONE IS PART OF ANY CHANGE TO SOMETHING OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE SO I JUST THREW THAT IN.
IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE 42%, WHATEVER.
IT HAS TO DO WITH THE MODIFICATION TO THE STRUCTURE ITSELF WITH THOSE LIMITATIONS.
>> MAKES SENSE. THANKS FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
>> IF THERE'S NO FURTHER QUESTIONS REGARDING THE MOTION, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND PUT IT UP FOR A VOTE.
THIS IS A VOTE FOR THE SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO REMAIN WITHIN THE [INAUDIBLE] THIS WOULD BE A VARIANCE THAT WOULD BE OF TWO FEET AND 2.1 FEET ON EITHER ONE OF THOSE SIDES.
THIS IS A VOTE FOR THE MOTION.
>> SORRY, CAN WE JUST AMEND THAT JUST TO SAY THAT IT'S TWO FEET ON WHICH SIDE?
>> SOUTH SIDE, AND 2.1 FEET ON THE.
>> I SUPPORT, IF YOU'RE STILL ASKING.
>> MEMBER BROOKS. [LAUGHTER] THIS IS A VOTE FOR THE MOTION WITH 2.1 SETBACK ON THE SOUTH SIDE, TWO FEET ON THE NORTH SIDE.
>> I'M GOING TO DO THIS ONE MORE TIME. MEMBER KAN, [INAUDIBLE] FOR YOU.
>> I'M SORRY. I SHOULD HAVE ASKED THIS QUESTION BEFORE YOU GUYS MADE THE MOTION, BUT I WAS THINKING, FOR SOMEBODY DOWN THE ROAD, WE'RE LONG GONE, AND IF KEITH IS STILL HERE NOW AND THEY LOOK UP THIS PROPERTY AND THEY SAY, WHAT ARE THE VARIANCES ON THIS PROPERTY? SOMEONE SAYS TWO FEET AND 2.1. WHAT DOES THAT RELATE TO? IT DOESN'T RELATE TO THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE.
IT RELATES TO THE NEW STRUCTURE BEING BUILT, CORRECT? BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THE SETBACKS ON THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE ARE 2.1 AND 1.2.
SHOULD WE CLARIFY THE MOTION TO MEAN TWO FEET ON THE SOUTH, 2.1 ON THE NORTH IN RELATION TO THE NEW STRUCTURE THAT'S TO BE BUILT?
>> WOULD IT MAKES SENSE TO DO THAT, I GUESS I'M ASKING.
[01:20:01]
OTHERWISE, I THINK IT CAN BE CONFUSING BECAUSE TECHNICALLY WE HAVE A NONCONFORMING USE, AND THEN WE HAVE ANOTHER NON. DO YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF NONCONFORMING SETBACKS.I JUST DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO BE CONFUSED IN THE FUTURE IF SOMEONE NEEDS TO LOOK AT THIS PETITION OR LOOK AT THE PROPERTY AND GO, WHAT IN THE WORLD ARE THE VARIANTS PERTAINING TO?
>> MR. CHAPMAN, FROM STAFF PERSPECTIVE, IS THAT HELPFUL TO HAVE THE CLARITY?
>> I APOLOGIZE FOR BRINGING THAT.
>> THEN MOTION TO APPROVE WITH STATE MEMBER KOENIG, MOTION TO APPROVE VARIANCE OF 2.1 FEET.
>> NORTH PROPERTY OF NEW DWELLING?
>> STRUCTURE. I WOULD SAY STRUCTURE.
NUMBER 2 SIZE IS TWO FEET ON THE SOUTH.
[OVERLAPPING] ON THE NEW STRUCTURE.
>> MOTION TO HAVE TWO FEET ON THE SOUTH.
>> ONE OF THE EARLIER VARIANCES THEY STATED, THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WAS BASED ON THE SITE PLAN INFORMATION AS SUBMITTED.
ANY MODIFICATION THAT WOULD AFFECT THE INTENT OF THE VARIANCE WOULD REQUIRE THE APPROVAL OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.
>> IT'S IN OUR APPROVAL LETTER.
>> IT'S IN THE APPROVAL LETTER ANYWAY, IT IS A STANDARD.
>> THAT'S THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN THE ORDINANCE.
>> HOWEVER MIGHT THIS CAUSE A CHALLENGE WITH THE NEXT VARIANCE.
BUT MY QUESTION WOULD BE, IF THEY GO BACK AND WE DISCUSS PERCENTAGE AND PLANS CHANGE.
>> IF THE PLANS CHANGE, THEY'RE PROBABLY GOING TO BE LESS INCURSION BECAUSE IT'S THE POINT OF THE ADDITION THAT GOES THE MOST INTO THE SETBACK.
>> IT WOULDN'T BE INCREASING IF YOU'RE GOING DOWN IN SQUARE FOOTAGE.
>> IT WON'T IMPACT. THAT'S MY QUESTION.
GUESS, THINK YOU'RE READY TO VOTE.
>> LET'S DO IT. THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE OF 2.1 FEET ON NORTH OF THE NEW STRUCTURE AND TWO FEET ON THE SOUTH OF THE NEW STRUCTURE. MEMBER BROOKS?
>> THE CHAIR HOLDS YES. THE VARIANCE FOR YOUR SETBACKS HAS BEEN GRANTED.
WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO THE PERCENTAGE, BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S WHERE A LOT OF US FELT THAT WE HAD SOME THOUGHTS AND CONCERNS.
MOVING INTO THE VARIANCE FOR THE PERCENTAGE.
I WILL GET RIGHT INTO CRITERIA, AND THEY CAN GO ALONG THAT WAY.
CRITERIA 1, UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST THAT ARE PECULIAR TO MINOR STRUCTURE THAT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LANDER STRUCTURES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT, AND THESE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SELF-CREATED.
WE'RE GOING FROM 40% MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE.
THERE IS A VARIANCE ALREADY AT 42%, AND THE PROPOSED ADDITION WILL COVER 43.7.
THIS IS WHERE YOU HAVE A CHALLENGE WITH UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES BECAUSE THERE IS ALREADY THE ABILITY TO GO UP BY THAT 2%.
>> I WOULD SAY IT'S UNIQUE BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS STILL UNIQUE.
I CAN GO WITH NUMBER 1 BECAUSE IT HASN'T CHANGED THE SHAPE OF THE PROPERTY.
>> IT HASN'T CHANGED THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE SHAPE, THE NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE.
THE OTHER CHALLENGES THAT HAVE.
>> I AGREE. IT'S ALSO DIAGONAL.
>> RIGHT ON THE SIDE. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL, BUT.
WE CAN MEET UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES.
NUMBER 2, STRICT INTERPRETATION, ENFORCEMENT OF THE LITERAL TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER WOULD RESULT IN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES THAT WILL PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR THE PERMITTED PURPOSE.
>> I DON'T THINK WE CAN MEET THIS ONE.
>> BECAUSE SHE'S ALREADY GOT A VARIANCE TO 42%, THE ADDITIONAL VARIANCE THAT'S REQUESTED.
I DON'T SEE THAT. IT HASN'T SHOWN ME
[01:25:01]
THAT STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE VARIANCE SHE HAS TO PREVENT HER FROM DOING WHAT SHE WANTS TO DO.I'VE BEEN RACKING MY BRAIN TO TRY TO COME UP WITH A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY THAT WOULD APPLY TO THIS.
THE DIFFICULTY WITH THE ROOF LINE, THAT IS EASY TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT FOR.
BUT GOING OVER THAT MAX COVERAGE, WHEN YOU ALREADY HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO OVER QUITE A BIT MORE THAN THE NEIGHBORS.
IF EVERYBODY'S HELD TO THAT 40% STANDARD, AND YOU'RE GOING UP TO 43.7, BUT YOU ALREADY HAVE A GRACE PERIOD.
YOU ALREADY GOT A LITTLE BIT OF ROOM BECAUSE YOU ALREADY HAVE THAT 42%.
>> FOR THE ZONE, YOU'RE SAYING THE BASE IS 35% OR FOR THAT AREA, THE BASE IS 40%?
>> FOR THE LANCING OVERLAY, IT'S 40%.
>> IT IS 40% FOR ALL THE NEIGHBORS.
>> WE DON'T KNOW FOR A FACT AT THE MOMENT THAT NONE OF THE OTHER PROPERTIES MIGHT HAVE ZONING CLEARANCES. WE DON'T KNOW.
>> THAT'S ANOTHER REALLY FUN ONE.
[LAUGHTER] WE TRY TO LOOK AT THAT.
IT'S LIKE, HOW LONG DO YOU GOT TO HAVE KEITH IN THE RECORDS LOOKING FOR ALL THE VARIANCES IN ALL THESE HOUSES? NEVER CAN IT GO.
>> SORRY. THAT GOES BACK TO MY ORIGINAL QUESTION THAT I JUMPED THE GUN WHEN I WAS ASKING, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
THE QUESTION THAT I HAD WAS IT'D BE DIFFERENT IF I FELT THE APPLICANT CAME UP AND SAID, I WANT TO BUILD THIS, I CANNOT BUILD IT IN A WAY THAT REQUIRES ANYTHING LESS THAN DECREASE THAT COVERAGE, 43.7%.
YOU MAKE ME DO 43.6, I CAN'T BUILD IT AT ALL.
THEREFORE, YOU CAN ARGUE THERE'S A HARDSHIP.
I DIDN'T HEAR A REASON WHY IT NEEDS TO BE 43.7 AND WHY IT CAN'T BE CUT BACK TO 42.
>> I CAN PROVIDE ONE. I THINK THE CURRENT SIZE THAT HE BUILT AROUND IT, I THOUGHT HE SAID THERE WAS A RULE THAT IT HAD TO BE SO MUCH FEET FROM THE SWIMS BALL TO WALK AROUND IT.
I THINK THAT'S WHY ROGER, THE ARCHITECT BUILT ADDITIONAL SPACE.
THEN ALSO YOU HAVE TO EXIT FROM IT FROM A SAFETY PERSPECTIVE FROM THE SWIMS BALL.
THERE'S A EXIT SLIDING DOOR THERE.
>> YOU'RE SAYING THE SPA ITSELF NEEDS TO BE A CERTAIN DISTANCE AWAY FROM THE MAIN HOUSE?
>> I THINK WHAT I HEARD WAS WALKING AROUND.
WALKING AROUND AND NAVIGATING.
>> IT'S GOT TO BE A CERTAIN DISTANCE AWAY FOR THE INSTRUCTORS TO GO AROUND.
>> IS THAT CODE, MR. CHAPMAN? IS THAT BUILDING CODE?
>> IT'S PROBABLY A BUILDING CODE, I'M NOT SURE.
>> ALL I CAN SAY IS IT WASN'T PRESENTED IN ANY WAY TO ARGUE IT HERE AND NOW.
IF SHE WANTS TO PUT THIS IN ADVANCE AND COME WITH FURTHER INFORMATION, WE COULD DO THAT, AND GIVE HER THE CHANCE TO DO THAT.
>> I CAN TAKE IT BACK TO THE ARCHITECT AND ASK WHY HE DESIGNED IT THAT WAY.
LET ME GO BACK HERE BECAUSE WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO MEET ALL FIVE OF OUR CRITERIA IN ORDER TO GRANT A VARIANCE.
IF WE CAN'T GET PAST PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, I'M GOING TO SAY IN NUMBER 3, GRANTING THE VARIANCE OF THE MINIMUM ACTION, I WOULD ALSO HAVE A STRUGGLE WITH.
>> I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PROOF THAT IT IS THE MINIMUM ACTION.
THAT'S [OVERLAPPING] TO THE CAUTION.
>> EVEN IF WE CAN MEET FOUR AND FIVE, THAT WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT, AND IT WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC INTEREST, NOT BEING ABLE TO MEET THAT PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES IN THE MINIMUM ACTION BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION ON IT.
THE NEEDING THAT SPACE BECAUSE IT IS WITHIN THAT BUILDING CODE, THAT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT TELLS US, WELL, WE'RE BUILDING THIS, AND WE HAVE TO DO THIS FOR SAFETY STANDARDS, JUST LIKE THE EGRESS WINDOW.
THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE CAN CONCRETELY LOOK AT AND SAY, THERE'S A LEGITIMATE REASON WHY WE NEED TO HAVE THIS SPACE, VERSUS, WELL, IT LOOKS PRETTY.
YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? WE JUST DON'T HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF US TO USE TO MAKE OUR DECISION. YES, MEMBER BROOKS?
>> I DIDN'T THINK THAT THE SWIMMING PART WAS PART OF THE 43.7% THOUGH.
I THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS ALREADY COVERED BY THE SETBACKS?
>> NO. THAT IS THE BASEMENT [OVERLAPPING] IT'S THE EXTENSION OF THE BASEMENT, THAT WAS THE ROOF.
THAT'S GOING TO BE UNDER IT. THAT'S WHERE THE COVERAGE IS.
IS THE ADDITIONAL ROOF THAT COVERS THAT.
[01:30:01]
>> I'M ACTUALLY READY TO MAKE A MOTION, MISS CHAIR.
IF NOBODY ELSE HAS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, YOU MAY CHECK FIRST.
>> ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY THOUGHTS? GO AHEAD.
>> I WOULD MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE POSTPONE THIS SECTION OF ZBA CASE NUMBER 25-10 RELATED TO THE VARIANCE REQUEST TO EXTEND THE BLOCK COVERAGE IN ORDER TO GIVE THE APPLICANT AND OR/HER REPRESENTATIVE A CHANCE TO DISCUSS TO SEE IF THERE'S A WAY TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF COVERAGE DOWN TO THE ALREADY APPROVED 42%.
>> THOUGHTS ON THE MOTION? GO AHEAD, MEMBER BROOKS?
>> I SUPPORT THAT AS WELL. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A REQUEST THAT IF YOU DO COME BACK UP, CAN YOU TRY AND PROVIDE AS MUCH DETAIL AS POSSIBLE ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE REQUESTING AND WHY YOU'RE REQUESTING IT AND TELL US A STORY ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT. THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
>> ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON POSTPONEMENT? THE MOTION THAT WAS PUT FORWARD TO POSTPONE THAT PORTION OF THE CASE.
NOT TO DENY IT, GIVE YOU THE CHANCE TO COME BACK WITH INFORMATION REGARDING IT SO THAT YOU CAN TAKE A LOOK AT IT.
WITH WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US, IT WOULD BE A DENIAL.
I THINK THAT THIS IS A WAY TO GIVE YOU MISS WILBORN THE CHANCE TO BE ABLE TO COME BACK AND SAY THIS IS WHY, BUT ALSO MAYBE TO GO BACK TO THE ARCHITECT AND SAY, CAN WE KEEP THIS WITHIN THAT 42%, OR IF NOT, WHERE CAN WE MAKE SOME OF THOSE CONCESSIONS SO THAT WE CAN SEE THAT IT FALLS WITHIN WHAT'S ALREADY ALLOWED?
>> THAT'S THE 374D OR IS THAT THE 86442.
IF WE LOOK BACK DOWN, THAT IS THAT SITE PLAN THAT HAS THAT ADDITIONAL SQUARE FEET, THAT COVERAGE, THAT'S WE'RE DISCUSSING.
>> DON'T MIND MS. CHERRY. I'M SORRY.
>> I'M WANT TO ROLL,I'M SORRY.
>> I BELIEVE THE DEADLINE FOR SOMEONE APPLYING FROM DECEMBER MEETINGS PROBABLY ALREADY COME AND GONE AS YOU SAID WE'RE NOT HAVING ONE.
>> THE EARLIEST WOULD BE IN JANUARY.
>> TO BRING THAT BACK SO THAT'LL GIVE YOU [OVERLAPPING].
>> GIVE YOU SOME TIME TO TALK AND DO YOUR RESEARCH AND SEE WHAT YOU CAN COME UP WITH AND COME BACK.
>> NOW WE'RE GOING TO ASK ABOUT THE ROOF BECAUSE THAT I WANTED TO GET STARTED ON.
>> CAN WE DO THIS IN TWO PARTS? BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, RAISING THAT ROOF DOES NOT ENCROACH ON THE 42 OR 43.
IS THERE A WAY TO LOOK AT THIS TO HAVE A MORE COMPELLING STORY FOR THE JUST TWO PHASE THIS FOR JUST THE SAUNA ADDITION?
>> THE SIDE YARD SETBACK WAS ALLOWED SO WE DID GRANT THE VARIANCE FOR THE SIDE YARD SETBACK.
>> THAT INCLUDES THE ROOF, YEAH.
>> I'M SORRY. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT. OKAY..
>> REGARDING THE [OVERLAPPING].
>> THE KEYS WOULD BE SENDING OUT A PARTIAL APPROVAL.
>> APPROVAL FOR ONE OF THE TWO VARIANCES.
>> THIS IS A VOTE TO POSTPONE ZBA CASE NUMBER 02,510 IN REGARDS TO SECTION 86-4424, MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE.
>> THE CHAIR VOTES, YES. WE ARE GOING TO POSTPONE THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE PART OF THE CASE.
GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK AND MAKE A MORE COMPELLING CASE FOR THAT AND YOUR SETBACK VARIANCE HAS BEEN APPROVED.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO THE COMMUNITY.
WE REALLY DO APPRECIATE, AND I APPRECIATE YOU FOLLOWING MY STRICT RULES AND ALSO COMING UP WHEN ASKED.
IT'S DIFFICULT. IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT THING KNOWING THAT ALL THE HOUSES ARE SO CLOSE TOGETHER, KNOWING THAT EVERYBODY IS CONCERNED AND WANTS TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S SAFE.
I JUST ENCOURAGE ALL OF YOU TO TALK TO EACH OTHER, TALK TO YOUR NEIGHBORS, GET TO KNOW EACH OTHER, REACH OUT.
I THINK MS. WILBURN HAS GOOD INTENTIONS TO BRING HER HOUSE UP TO A NICE HOME THAT CAN BE PART OF THAT AREA, SO I'M SORRY.
>> WE WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT
>> WE DO HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT AT THE END OF THE MEETING.
[01:35:02]
>> NO, WE HAVE TWO MORE CASES.
>> CAN I ASK FOR CLARIFICATION THAT 2.1 FEET, IS THAT ALL THE WAY ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE IS IT JUST AT THAT POINT?
>> ACCORDING TO THE SITE PLAN.
>> IT'S WHAT IS SHOWN ON THE PLAN.
>> ACCORDING TO THE SITE PLAN THAT IS IN THE PACKET.
THAT 2.1 FOOT IS ON THE SOUTH SIDE.
>> THE EXIT 1 OF THIS WITHIN THAT 2.1 FEET OR IT NEEDS TO BE WITHIN THAT 2.1 FOOT?
>> BECAUSE THAT'S ALREADY ON THE LINE?
>> ACCORDING TO THE SITE MAP IS WHAT WE HAVE GRANTED.
WHAT'S CURRENTLY THERE IS IT'S NOT GETTING BIGGER THAN WHAT IS CURRENTLY THERE.
WHAT'S LISTED ON THE SITE PLAN.
>> CAN I MAKE A REQUEST FOR BRIEF RECESS?
CAN YOU SEE MY FRIEND IN THE HALL?
>> NO. HE WALKED BACK TO HIS OFFICE.
>> NO. I KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON.
I DIDN'T KNOW IT'S GOING TO BE ONE, BUT I KNEW IT'S GOING ON.
BUT THEY'RE FEW AND FAR BETWEEN.
>> I THINK THAT HELPED. I THINK THE CHANGE IN THE OVERLAYS.
>> BECAUSE THE REGULAR RV ZONE.
WHICH IS THE ZONE AND THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH IS 65 FEET.
THEY WOULD BE NON CONFORMING TO LOT WIDTH.
THE OTHER ZONE DID DO A LOT OF THAT.
>> I'M GOING TO CALL THIS MEETING BACK TO ORDER.
WE'RE GOING BACK INTO A REGULAR, SESSION WITH OUR NEXT CASE IN NEW BUSINESS THAT WILL BRING US TO ZBA CASE NUMBER
[6.B. ZBA CASE NO.: 25-11 (4650 Moore), 4650 Moore Street, Okemos, MI 48864 ]
25-10454650 MOORE STREET, OKEMOS MICHIGAN, 48864.>> THE APPLICANTS REQUESTING TO INSTALL A 16 SQUARE FOOT 5.6 FOOT TALL FREESTANDING SIGN AT 4650 MOORE STREET.
PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 0.3 ACRES IN SIZE AND HIS OWN PROFESSIONAL OFFICE.
IT'S AN EXISTING 3,088 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING BUILT IN 1973.
SECTION 86686 2A STATES FREE STANDING SIGN SHALL BE PERMITTED IN THE FRONT YARD LOCATED AT LEAST TEN FEET FROM THE FRONT.
INSIDE PROPERTY LINES, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO INSTALL A FREE STANDING SIGN APPROXIMATELY ONE FEET FROM THE STREET RIGHT AWAY.
THEREFORE, A NINE FOOT VARIANCE IS REQUESTED.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. CHAPMAN.
WOULD THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE LIKE TO COME UP AND TALK ABOUT THIS CASE? WHICH ONE OF YOU IS THE SIDE? [LAUGHTER] GO UP ON THE SIDE.
>> BOTH SIDES. I KNOW. WHICH SIDE COMPANY DO WE HAVE TODAY?
>> I'M RON HOLDSWORTH FROM FORESIGHT SUPERSIGN, I'M THE CONTRACTOR ON THE PROJECT AND YES, WE'RE LOOKING FOR A NINE FOOT VARIANCE FOR THIS FREE STANDING SIGN.
IT IS LOCATED ON A 90 DEGREE CORNER ON THE OUTSIDE OF THAT CORNER BACKING UP TO WOODLANDS AND THE RIVER, SO WE DON'T EXPECT IT TO BE AN IMPEDANCE TO ANY OF THE SURROUNDING AREA.
THERE'S A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF DRIVEWAY THERE THAT WE WOULD HOPE TO AVOID AND TEAR UP HENCE THE VARIANCE REQUESTS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. HOLDSWORTH, RIGHT?
>> GREAT. ANYBODY WANT TO GET STARTED? I DROVE PAST THE PROPERTY, AND I COULDN'T SEE ANYWHERE ELSE WHERE YOU COULD POSSIBLY PUT A SIGN THAT WASN'T IN CONCRETE.
BASED ON THAT ALONE, I WAS LIKE, THAT SOUNDS PRETTY DOABLE TO ME.
I GUESS THE ONLY QUESTION I REALLY HAD WAS WHAT HAPPENED TO THE OLD SIGN.
>> THE OLD SIGN FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN IN OLD VIEWS IN AERIALS WAS ACTUALLY IN THE U SHAPE PART OF THE DRIVEWAY.
I'M NOT SURE WHEN IT WAS REMOVED, BUT APPEARED TO BE SEVERELY INSIDE THE RIGHT AWAY.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS EVER PERMITTED OR NOT.
THAT WOULD BE WAY INSIDE TWO FOOT.
>> I WAS JUST CURIOUS. WHERE DID THAT COME FROM?
[01:40:03]
NOBODY'S CLAIMING THAT ONE.NOBODY'S CLAIMING THAT SIGN OF THE MIDDLE NOWHERE. GOT IT.
>> PROBABLY PUT WITHOUT A PERMIT WOULD BE MY GUESS.
>> LET ME JUST PUT THAT SIGN RIGHT UP THERE.
WELL, THAT WAS MY QUESTION BECAUSE I WAS AS I WAS DRIVING, I SAID, WELL, WHERE WOULD THE OLD SIGN?
>> IT SEEMED LIKE A GOOD SPOT, BUT, YEAH, IT'S TOO CLOSE.
>> BUT IT'S WAY TOO CLOSE AND WHERE IT COULD DO SOME DAMAGE.
THAT WAS MY QUESTION. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS CONCERNS, QUESTIONS? YES.
>> I ALSO VISITED THE SITE AND ACTUALLY TALKED WITH SOME OF THE PEOPLE IN THE OFFICE COMPLEX, AND THE REASON THEY WANT TO LOCATE IT RIGHT THERE IS THAT SITES ALSO VISIBLE FROM THE CROSS STREETS AS WELL.
I THINK IT'S A VERY REASONABLE PLACE TO PUT IT.
I ACTUALLY HAD A HARD TIME FINDING THE PLACE FIRST DRIVING TO IT.
>> I DROVE PAST THINKING IT WAS A HOUSE.
I THOUGHT, WHY DON'T I KNOW THAT THERE'S AN OFFICE BUILDING BACK THERE BECAUSE I WAS THINKING IT WAS THE ONE THAT WAS ON HAMILTON.
I CAME AROUND TO THE YELLOW HOUSE AND I WENT, THAT'S A HOUSE.
WAIT, WHAT'S THAT? IS THAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? I DROVE PAST IT THREE TIMES.
>> I'M SURE THAT THE NEIGHBORS IN THE YELLOW HOUSE WERE LIKE, WHAT IS THIS PERSON DOING? I JUST KEPT DRIVING BY.
>> BUT YEAH, IT IS VERY NECESSARY, SO I COULD DEFINITELY MAKE THE CASE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST.
>> I WAS JUST WONDERING HOW FAR IS THAT OFF THE PAVED ROAD.
IT'S HARD FOR ME TO PICTURE THAT.
>> I KNOW IT'S 33 FEET FROM THE CENTER OF THE ROAD TO THE RIGHT AWAY.
>> YOU'RE WITHIN YOUR PROPERTY LINE, THOUGH?
>> IF I LOOK AT THE PICTURE WITH THE RED SURROUND.
THE LINE IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING WOULD BE YOUR PROPERTY LINE, AND THAT LOOKS QUITE A WAYS FROM THE ROADWAY ITSELF.
>> THAT RED AREA WOULD BE THE TYPICAL REQUIRED SETBACK ANYWHERE THERE AND FURTHER TOWARDS THE STRUCTURE.
WE'RE WE'RE JUST INSIDE OF THAT?
>> WELL, I'M GOING TO TAKE A LOOK AT CRITERIA THEN.
HERE WE GO. NUMBER 1, IS UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST THAT ARE PECULIAR TO THE LANDER STRUCTURE, THAT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LANDER STRUCTURES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT, AND THESE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SELF CREATED.
ANY THOUGHTS ON NOT BEING UNIQUE? YES.
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD THAT IF YOU TAKE THAT SIGN AWAY FROM WHERE IT WAS BEING PROPOSED, AND PUT IT AT THE CLOSEST PLACE WITHIN THAT TEN FEET.
LOOKING AT THAT, IT'S BASICALLY AT THE TOP OF THE BANK.
IT'S WHAT IT SAYS, TOP OF BANK.
LOOKING AT THESE PICTURES I THINK IT COULD BE PRETTY MUCH BE ALMOST IN THE WOODS.
>> YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE IT FROM THE ROAD.
>> YOU'D BE WORRIED ABOUT 20 YEARS FROM NOW IS THE THING GOING TO FALL OVER BECAUSE THE GROUND IS GOING WET YET AGAIN.
>> DEFINITELY, TO ME, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE OR ANYTHING ELSE IS JUST BEHIND THE DRIVEWAY AND WHERE YOU CAN'T SEE IT, SO I WOULD AGREE WITH YOUR ASSESSMENT OF UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE.
I WAS GETTING WORRIED. WE GET ANY FURTHER BACK, YOU'RE GOING TO GET INTO THE FLOODPLAIN.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A WHOLE OTHER VARIANCE IN OUR HANDS.
>> OR IT'S FAR BACK TO THE BUILDING WHERE YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE IT.
PUT IT BEHIND THE BEHIND THE PARKING LOT, AND THEN YOU'RE 50 FEET OFF ROAD AND LIKE DON'T MAKE MUCH SENSE TO PUT IT RIGHT SIDE BACK THERE.
>> IT COULD BE PUT IN THE PARKING.
>> IT COULD BE PUT IN THE PARKING LOT.
THEN YOU'D BE DRIVING AND GO THAT'S OKAY.
>> ONCE YOU HIT YOU KNOW THAT YOU'RE AT THE RIGHT SPOT.
WELL, LET'S TRY TO AVOID THAT ONE, SHALL WE? CRITERIA, NUMBER 2, STRICT INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE LITERAL TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER WOULD RESULT IN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES THAT WOULD PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR THE PERMITTED PURPOSE.
I DO THINK WE NEED A SIGN TO TELL PEOPLE WHERE TO GO.
>> AGAIN BECAUSE OF THE TOP OF THE BANK IS THE CLOSEST AREA.
IT WOULD BE BE VERY DIFFICULT TO PUT A SIGN [OVERLAPPING].
>> I WOULD MAKE IT ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE TO PUT A SIGN THERE TO REPRESENT AND GIVE THE SIGHT LINES THAT ARE NEEDED TO BE SAFE AND NOT RUN INTO IT IN THE PARKING LOT.
>> OR TO LET PEOPLE KNOW THAT IT IS A BUSINESS.
>> IT IS A BUSINESS AND NOT A HOUSE.
>> BASED ON THE IMAGE ON THE SCREEN, SO WHY CAN'T THE SIGN GO WHERE THE ORIGINAL ONE IS?
>> IT'S IN THE ROAD RIGHT AWAY.
>> THE ORIGINAL ONE WAS [OVERLAPPING].
[01:45:02]
>> THE SMALLEST ISLAND, I GUESS YOU WOULD SAY, WHERE IT WAS LOCATED AND EVEN MORE TO THE LEFT.
>> THIS BLUE LINE IS THE PROPERTY LINE.
YOU CAN'T PUT A SIGN OUT ON YOUR PROPERTY IN THE ROAD RIGHT AWAY.
>> I WAS TRYING TO LOOK AT THE IMAGES ON GOOGLE MAPS.
I'M ALSO LOOKING AT THIS THOUGH.
>> I HAD TO GO BACK TO MAYBE 2012. I THINK THAT SIGN [OVERLAPPING].
>> THERE'S NO SIGN OF IT TODAY.
YOU CAN'T SEE WHERE IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN OTHER THAN THE LITTLE ISLAND FOR THAT THE DRIVE LIKE IN AND OUT OF THE PARKING LOT.
>> I SUPPOSE YOU COULD PUT IT ON THE INSIDE OF ONE OF THOSE ISLANDS, BUT AGAIN, THAT'S RIGHT AWAY AND WHERE YOU'RE PULLING IN TO PARK.
>> IT'D HAVE TO BE RIGHT THERE.
>> BUT EVEN THERE, THAT ONE SPOT.
>> ALL YOU'RE DOING IS YOU'RE JUST KEEPING IT ON THE PROPERTY AND THE GRASS.
YOU'RE STILL GOOD BECAUSE 90% OF THAT GRASS IS OUTSIDE OF THE SETBACK, ANYWAY, SO WOULDN'T HAVE MATTER? KEITH, DO YOU KNOW. DOES THE TOWNSHIP ALLOW OFF SITE SIGNS?
>> I THINK THERE'S AN APPROVAL PROCESS, OFF PREMISE SIGNS.
THERE'S A WHOLE APPROVAL PROCESS TO IT, BUT I THINK IT IS A LOT.
>> BUT IT'S PROBABLY ON PRIVATE PROPERTY AND NOT PUBLIC AREA.
>> A LOT OF MUNICIPALITIES HAVE OFFSITE SIGN OR OFF PREMISES SIGN ORDINANCES, BUT THEY'RE VERY RESTRICTIVE.
YOU HAVE TO GET PERMITS AND EXPLAIN WHY YOU NEED TO PUT A SIGN NOT ON YOUR PROPERTY, BUT TYPICALLY IT'S ON ANOTHER PRIVATE PROPERTY, NOT IN A RIGHT AWAY.
BECAUSE IF YOU TO THE RIGHT AWAY, THE ROAD COMMISSION COMBINE AND JUST TAKE IT OUT THERE, WHATEVER THEY FEEL LIKE IT.
NO THAT THEY'RE GOING TO MOVE A 500 POUND BRICK, NINE FOOT SIGN.
BUT THEY COULD IF IT WAS THERE.
>> EXACTLY. [LAUGHTER] THEY WOULD HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DO THAT.
>> JUST LOOKING AT IT DOESN'T MAKE MUCH SENSE THAT IT COULD GO ANYWHERE ELSE. LET'S SEE.
CRITERIA NUMBER 3 IS GRANTING THE VARIANCE OF THE MINIMUM ACTION NECESSARY THAT WOULD CARRY OUT THE SPIRIT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECURE PUBLIC SAFETY, AND PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, AND I CAN MEET THAT CRITERIA.
THOUGHT, CONCERNS ON THREE? CRITERIA NUMBER 4 IS GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND OR THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY.
I COULD ALSO MEET THAT QUITE EASILY.
CRITERIA 5 IS GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST FOR THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS CHAPTER.
I CAN MEET ALL FIVE CRITERIA QUITE EASILY. ANYBODY GOT A MOTION.
>> [OVERLAPPING] VARIANCE REQUESTED TO SECTION 86-686 P2PA, ALLOWING A FREE STANDING SIGN TO BE BUILT WITHIN THE 10 FOOT SETBACK REQUIRED BY THAT SECTION AND GRANTED A 9 FT VARIANCE TO BUILD 1 FT FROM THE ROAD R OF WAY.
THAT'S ZBA CASE 25-11 AT 4650 MOORE STREET OKEMOS MICHIGAN.
>> ANY OTHER THOUGHTS, CONCERNS, QUESTIONS? THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE AS PRESENTED IN THE PACKET, AT MOORE BROOKS.
>> SORRY. DID WE REQUEST A 1 FT VARIANCE?
>> WITHIN 1 FT, 9 FT VARIANCE WITHIN THE FOOT OF RED WAY.
>> OKAY. JUST WANTED TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE SURE, I SUPPORT.
>> MEMBER CHAIR VOTES, YES. YOUR VARIANCE HAS BEEN APPROVED.
>> THANK YOU FOR BEING SO PATIENT, TOO, THROUGH THAT. [LAUGHTER] MOVING ON.
THE MOST PATIENT ONE OF THE NIGHT.
[01:50:04]
THERE WE GO. THIS IS ZBA CASE NUMBER 25-124990 MARSH BILL CAR SIGNS OUT OF FLINT,[6.C. ZBA CASE NO.: 25-12 (4990 Marsh), Bill Carr Signs, 719 W. Twelfth St., Flint, MI 48503 ]
MICHIGAN, MR. CHAPMAN. GO FOR THAT.>> THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO INSTALL SECOND WALL SIGN AT 4990 MARSH ROAD.
THE PROPERTY IS ZONED C2 COMMERCIAL.
THE CURRENT BUILDING IS GOING TO BE DEMOLISHED FOR A NEW 2,700 SQUARE FOOT AND EXPRESS.
BUSINESSES ARE ALLOWED ONE WALL SIGN ON EACH BUILDING FACADE WITH FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC STREET.
WALL SIGNS ARE ALLOWED UP TO A SIZE EQUIVALENT OF ONE SQUARE FOOT FOR EACH LINEAR FOOT OF BUILDING FRONTAGE, WHERE THERE IS AN INDIVIDUAL MEANS OF PUBLIC ACCESS.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MARSH ROAD.
THE WEST ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING HAS FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC STREET, MARSH ROAD.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO INSTALL TWO WALL SIGNS, ONE ON THE WEST, AND ONE ON THE SOUTH FACADES OF THE BUILDING.
THE ONE ON THE WEST IS PROPOSED TO BE 34 SQUARE FEET, WHICH CONTAINS 42.5 LINEAR FEET OF FRONTAGE ON MARSH ROAD, AND A SECOND SIGN, WHICH IS 36 SQUARE FEET IS PROPOSED ON THE SOUTH FACADE, WHICH CONTAINS 65.66 LINEAR FEET WITH NO ROAD FRONTAGE.
A VARIANCE TO INSTALL AN ADDITIONAL WALL SITE ON THE SOUTH FACADE IS REQUESTED.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAPMAN.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME ON UP HERE? YOU'RE THE LAST PERSON IN OUR AUDIENCE.
JOIN US AT THE PODIUM STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD, PLEASE, SIR.
I'M WITH BILL CAR SIGNS OUT OF FLINT, MICHIGAN.
BASICALLY, I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF PANDA EXPRESS.
THEY'D LIKE TO ADD THE SECOND WALL SIGN TO THEIR LOCATION TO STICK WITHIN THEIR BRANDING GUIDELINES.
>> ANYTHING TO ADD THAT WASN'T ALREADY COVERED OR YOU READY TO TAKE SOME QUESTIONS? [LAUGHTER]
>> IN THAT CASE, I WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND OPEN UP BOARD TIME AND QUESTION AND COMMENTS.
I WILL SAY THE QUESTION THAT'S ALWAYS GOING TO COME UP, AND WE DEAL WITH THIS A LOT WITH ALL OUR NEWER BRANDS HAD COME INTO THE TOWN THAT WHY WE NEED A SIGN ON A NON FRONTAGE ROAD.
DO YOU HAVE ANY GUIDELINES THAT YOU'VE BEEN GIVEN AS TO WHY THEY REQUEST BOTH SIGNS? I WILL ONLY SAY BECAUSE I CAN READ SOME OF YOUR MINDS, ALREADY.
NOT HAVING THE FRONTAGE ON THAT SOUTH SIDE, WE USUALLY MAKE AN ARGUMENT FOR A SECONDARY SIGN BASED ON PUBLIC SAFETY, LIKE WANTING TO BE ABLE TO FIND THE BUSINESS WITHOUT CAUSING ANY TRAFFIC ISSUES, CONCERNS.
APOLOGIES BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THAT WAS CLEAR IN THE PACKET.
IS THERE A FREE STANDING SIGN?
>> SO THERE'S A FREE STANDING SIGN AND THERE'S THE SIGN THAT'S ALLOWED ON THE FRONT EDGE, ON THE MARSH SIGN.
THE ONE WE'RE LOOKING AT NOW, THAT ELEVATION, THAT'S THE WEST ELEVATION?
>> WHAT SEEMS LIKE IT'S THE MAIN ENTRANCE.
THAT'S PROBABLY WHY THEY'RE OKAY WITH THE SIGN THERE BECAUSE THE MAIN ENTRANCE LOOKS LIKE IT FACES SOUTH.
>> THE MAIN ENTRANCE IS SOUTH, WHICH FACES THE PARKING LOT THAT MAKES MORE SENSE WITH THE FRONTAGE BEING ON MARSH.
SIMILAR TO OUR FRIENDS OVER AT THE SPECIALTY GROCERY STORE. [LAUGHTER]
>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY WITHOUT PUTTING THAT ON THE RECORD.
>> SIMILARLY TO OUR SPECIALTY GROCERY STORE FRIENDS.
[OVERLAPPING] THAT'S WHY I'M WONDERING.
THANK YOU FOR ASKING THE QUESTION.
WELL, THAT GIVES A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARITY.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS OR THOUGHTS.
>> I GUESS MY THOUGHT IS THAT THE BUILDING HAD TO BE REDESIGNED BASED ON THIS IS NOT HOW THE BUILDING STRUCTURE WAS THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY THERE.
[01:55:09]
I GUESS I'M LIKE, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS WELL, AND THAT THE BUILDING WAS RESHAPED AND REDESIGNED, AND THEN MORE PARKING LOT SPACES WERE ADDED THAN WHAT SEEMED REASONABLE.IT SEEMED LIKE THERE WAS PLENTY OF SPACE ON THE LOT TO DESIGN THIS HOW IT WAS NECESSARY TO FIT IN THE CODE. SEEING IT NOW IS-.
>> YEAH. BECAUSE NOW WE'RE HERE TALKING ABOUT THIS.
I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND WANTING TO HAVE A SIGN ON THE FRONT OF THE MAIN ENTRANCE.
>> BUT ALSO, THERE'S GOING TO BE A FREE STANDING SIGN.
HAVE WE EVER DONE SOMETHING WHERE WE MOVE A SIGN FROM THE FRONT OF THE STREET FACING SIDE TO THE FRONT OR THE ENTRANCE?
>> TO NOT HAVE THE FRONT, I THINK IT WOULD STILL REQUIRE A VARIANCE.
FOR US TO PERMIT ONE SIGN, BUT FOR IT TO BE ANOTHER.
>> YEAH. THERE'S NO FRONTAGE, SO YOU NEED A VARIANCE REGARDLESS.
>> BUT, ARE YOU SAYING THAT'S THE ONLY SIGN YOU GET? YOU DON'T GET ANOTHER ONE WHERE IT'S PERMITTED?
>> IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?
>> YES. I'M SAYING MOVE WHERE IT'S PERMITTED SIGN TO THE SEEMINGLY MORE IMPORTANT LOCATION.
>> IT LOOKS LIKE THIS PROPERTY WAS DESIGNED TO HAVE A DRIVE THROUGH PRIMARILY.
>> KEITH THE YOU SCROLL UP IN THE PACKET. YOU CAN SHOW.
>> YEAH. THERE WE GO. SIGN 1 BEING THE FRONTAGE.
S2 IS OVER THE ENTRANCE STORE.
YOU CAN SEE S8 OUT THERE IS THE PYLON SIGN, THE FREE STANDING SIGN.
THAT ONE WILL BE, OBVIOUSLY VISIBLE FROM MARSH ROAD FROM BOTH DIRECTIONS BECAUSE I'M ASSUMING THAT FREE STANDING SIGN IS DOUBLE SIDED.
>> YES, AND THIS HAS A DOUBLE DRIVE THROUGH IS PROBABLY.
>> WHICH SEEMS LIKE THAT THAT COULD HAVE BEEN THE THE CASE FOR THE ADDITIONAL PARKING, LIKE WE'RE MOVING VEHICLES THROUGH HERE.
>> IF I HAD TO GUESS, MISS CHAIR, THAT'S PROBABLY BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROPERTY.
LARGER SIDE OF THE PROPERTY IS TOWARD THE BOTTOM.
>> I'M SURE THE TOWNSHIP PROBABLY SAID, MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS IS SO MANY PARKING SPACES YOU NEED TO HAVE WITH THIS, SO IF YOU WERE TO TURN THE BUILDING, 90 DEGREES TO THE RIGHT CLOCKWISE AND MAKE IT THE SAME SHAPE AS WHAT THE CURRENT WHERE THE OLD JEWELRY BUILDING IS.
YOU'D HAVE TO WRAP THAT DRIVE THROUGH AROUND THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING, WHICH WAS PROBABLY CUT A TON OF THAT PARKING OUT.
MY GUESS IS THE TOWNSHIP PROBABLY CAME DOWN ON THEM AND SAID, YOU NEED TO PROVIDE ENOUGH PARKING.
THEREFORE, THEY PROBABLY HAD TO TWIST THE BUILDING.
I'M GUESSING THAT YOUR CLIENT SAID, WELL, WE STILL WANT TO HAVE SOMETHING ON THAT SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
OTHERWISE, YOU GOT 150 FEET OF PARKING IN BETWEEN HERE AND THERE, AND NOBODY'S GOING TO KNOW WHAT THIS BUILDING IS WHEN THEY PULL IN. NOT THAT IT MAKES IT RIGHT.
>> BUT I UNDERSTAND YOU SAT AT THE GLAND?
ESPECIALLY IF THEY LOOKED AT IT.
>> ESPECIALLY LOOKING AT THIS AND SEEING THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPOTS IT'S LIKE, OH MY GOSH.
>> WELL, THERE'S ACTUALLY, I BELIEVE, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, THERE'S MORE PARKING SPOTS THAN THAN THE CODE REQUIRED.
NO, WE JUST REDUCED THE NUMBER THAT THE CODE REQUIRED.
>> BECAUSE THE CODE PROBABLY STILL SAYS MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
SO YOU HAVE TO HAVE A MINIMUM NUMBER. IF THEY GO OVER THEY GO OVER.
>> LET'S GET A VARIANCE TO HAVE MORE THAN THAT AT 702.
>> WE HAD TO GIVE WE HAD TO GIVE TRADER JOES VARIANCE FOR PARKING.
>> REALLY? THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHT ON THE SIGN.
>> UNDERSTANDABLE FRUSTRATION.
>> LIKE A NUMBER OF THE OTHER FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS ALONG MARSH ROAD ALSO HAVE JUST A SINGLE LARGE FRONTAGE,
[02:00:03]
EVEN WHEN THEIR PARKING LOTS ARE TO THE SIDE.I'M JUST NOTING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THAT ISN'T SOMETHING THAT THE OTHER SIMILAR BUSINESSES THAT HAVE REQUESTED.
>> DOES CALLERS HAVE TWO SIGNS?
>> WELL, YOU CAN ARGUE BECAUSE THIS BOARD JUST APPROVED THREE SIGNS FROM A SITUATION FOR ASHLEY FURNITURE.
>> I KNOW CLOVER HAS AN ELECTRONIC MESSAGE SIGN.
>> THEY HAVE AN ELECTRONIC MESSAGE SIGN, I KNOW.
>> WELL, YES. REMEMBER ASHLEY FURNITURE HAS TWO ENTRANCES, BUT THE FRONTAGES IS NOT WHERE THE ENTRANCE IS.
>> I WAS JUST TALKING TO WENDY, THE KFC, THE OTHER ONE RIGHT NEARBY ONLY HAVE A SINGLE SIGN.
OBVIOUSLY, THIS DEVELOPMENT'S ALREADY IN PLACE.
THIS IS GOING UP REGARDLESS OF THE SIGN.
WHAT IS THE DOES? [LAUGHTER] WELL, NO, THAT'S THE FRONTAGE. IT HAS ONE SIDE.
IT DOESN'T HAVE ONE ON THE OTHER SIDE.
DOES THAT HAVE ONE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PARKING LOT?
>> I AM TOO. I JUST DON'T I DON'T RECALL EVER SEEING IT.
[OVERLAPPING] NOW WE'RE GOING TO PAY ATTENTION TO IT NEXT TIME WE GO THERE TO EAT. THAT'S FOR SURE.
>> IT'S TRYING HARD WITH STREET VIEW.
>> STREET VIEW IS JUST NOT LETTING YOU BE GREAT, KEY.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S A SIGN THAT. I DON'T THINK THERE IS, EITHER.
>> KHOL'S MIGHT HAVE JUST DONE IT.
>> BUT WE CAN'T TREAT THAT AS A PRECEDENT. THAT'S MY ARGUMENT.
BUT I'M JUST I MEAN, I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY, ARE THERE ARE OTHER PLACES THAT DON'T.
>> I'LL BE HONEST. I'M AMBIENT EITHER WAY.
I COULD I COULD MAKE A LOOSE CASE FOR SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND GETTING PEOPLE IN THE FRONT DOOR AND COULD PROBABLY GO THAT WAY.
IT'S THE STAYING WITH THE PROPERTY PART OF IT, THAT'S BECAUSE SOMETHING ELSE GOES IN THERE AND IT'S TAKE UP A LITTLE BIT MORE SPACE ON THAT SIDE AND THEY CAN PUT UP THAT SIGN WITHIN THE SQUARE FOOTAGE BASED ON THE FRONT EDGE?
>> WE DID DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS FOR THE ICE RINK.
I FEEL LIKE IT WAS A SIZE CONDITION.
I HEAR REMEMBER BROOKS'S FRUSTRATION ON IT FOR SURE.
IS IT A MINIMUM ACTION? SHOULD I GO THROUGH THE CRITERIA.
>> GO THROUGH CRITERIA, AND YOU'LL PROBABLY ANSWER SOME OF THOSE.
>> IS IT UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, GENTLEMEN? THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT.
IS THIS A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE.
>> THAT'S THE HARDEST PART OF THAT'S NOT SELF-CREATED BECAUSE IF WE KNOW THE PROVIDENCE OF THE PARCEL AND HOW IT CAME TO BE THAT SHINES LIGHT ON IT, IT WAS, IN FACT, SELF-CREATED.
>> THERE WERE A LOT OF WAYS TO DESIGN THIS.
>> BUT IT'S ALSO HERE, AND IT'S BEEN APPROVED OUTSIDE OF SIDE EDGE.
IN EVERY OTHER WAY, THIS HAS BEEN THROUGH PLANNING, THIS HAS BEEN THROUGH THE BOARD.
THIS HAS BEEN THROUGH BUILDING, AND NOW WE'RE AT THIS IS GOING UP THE WAY IT IS, AND IT'S GOT ONE LAST HURDLE TO CROSS.
NOW THAT IT'S BEEN APPROVED IS ITSELF CREATED?
>> I MIGHT ANSWER THAT BUT LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION.
>> KEITH, WITH SITE PLANS, WHEN THE DEVELOPER COMES IN WITH A SITE PLAN FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USE, DO THEY HAVE TO SUBMIT, LIKE, A SIGN PLAN AS PART OF THAT SITE PLAN?
>> THEY DO, BUT IT DOESN'T GET APPROVED.
[02:05:02]
UNTIL THEY SUBMIT FOR PERMITS.WE'LL SEND THEM COMMENTS SAYING, THIS SIGN DOESN'T MEET THE REQUIREMENTS, YOU'RE GOING TO NEED A VARIANCE.
>> WHICH IS WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?
>> EVERYTHING ELSE HAS BEEN APPROVED.
I>> WHAT I FIGURED AND WHAT I WAS HOPING HE WAS NOT GOING TO SAY BY RECOLLECTION.
THAT'S WHAT I'VE SEEN OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS DO AS WELL.
>> BECAUSE THEY DO A LOT OF LOCAL AGENCIES DO WITH LANDSCAPING AS WELL.
YOU HAVE TO SUBMIT A LANDSCAPING PLAN, BUT YOU CAN SAY, I'M GOING TO PUT 10 BUSHES HERE IN 15 THERE, UNTIL THEY GO OUT AND GO OUT AND DO IT ON INSPECTION AS PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT.
BUT IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE MUNICIPALITY. THAT'S BESIDE THE POINT.
>> CAN WE MEET UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES? BAD FAST, I CAN TELL. I KNOW.
CAN WE MEET UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES? GENTLEMEN.
>> HERE'S A QUESTION. WHAT HAPPENS IF THE SIGN ISN'T APPROVED FROM A BUILDING PERSPECTIVE?
>> I DON'T REALLY KNOW UNTIL WE GO BACK TO PANDA AND THEIR BRANDING.
IT'S LIKE IT'S EVERY BUILDING IS COOKIE CUTTER BUILT THE SAME.
I'M SURE AT SOME POINT THEY'VE BEEN DENIED SOMEWHERE.
THEY MIGHT HAVE AN ALTERNATE DESIGN.
>> BEING THE AREA WHERE THIS IS AND THE TYPE OF USE THAT'S BEING PROPOSED, NORMALLY, I WOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS.
THERE'S NO RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS AROUND HERE.
IT'S NOT LIKE NECESSARILY, THIS IS GOING TO NEGATIVELY IMPACT ANYBODY HAVING A PANIC.
I WOULD HAVE CALL GIANT PANA FOR SOME REASON.
PANDA EXPRESS SIGN ABOVE THE FRONT DOOR.
HOWEVER, IF THIS BOARD IS LEGALLY BOUND TO THESE FIVE CRITERIA, THEN I'M NOT SO SURE NUMBER ONE CAN BE MET.
BECAUSE I MYSELF, AS ONE VOTE ON HERE, DO SEE IT'S HARD TO BEAT NUMBER ONE THAT THERE'S A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT REQUIRES THIS USE TO PUT A SIGN WHERE THEY WANT TO PUT IT.
I DON'T SEE THE ARGUMENT FOR THE NEED TO PUT THAT SIGN THERE.
>> I WAS THE SAME WITH NUMBER 2.
YEAH. THE MINIMUM VARIANCE, THAT COULD BE ARGUED THAT'S THE MINIMUM SIZE BECAUSE YOU SIGN THAT PUBLIC BENEFIT.
YOU ALREADY MENTIONED IT MEETS THAT AND I'M NOT TRYING TO SKIP AHEAD, MISS CAB.
I'M GOING TO HAVE A HARD TIME MEETING CRITERIA NUMBER 2.
CRITERIA 3. I CAN ARGUE FOR MINIMUM ACTION.
I CAN SAY, YES, I THINK IT WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE ADJACENT LANDER CHARACTER.
I CAN SAY THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC INTERESTS.
OBVIOUSLY, THIS WAS WHAT THE TOWNSHIP WANTED AND TO BRING IN AND IMPROVED.
I THINK IT CAN MEET CRITERIA 3.4 AND FIVE.
IT'S JUST THE ONE AND TWO IS WHERE I STRUGGLE. I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU.
THAT'S WHERE, THE LEGALLY BINDING OF THE CRITERIA WE GOT TO BE ABLE TO MEET IT.
WITH THAT SAID, DO WE DO WE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION OR DO WE WANT TO.
>> GIVE OUR APPLICANT TIME OR?
>> AT THE VERY LEAST, WE NEED TO IF WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A MOTION, WE NEED TO STATE THE RESULTS FROM EACH CRITERIA AS YOU.
>> WELL, I WILL SAY I I CANNOT MEET CRITERIA NUMBER 1.
>> I THINK THAT WE'RE UNANIMOUS IN WET THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.
THAT CRITERIA NUMBER 2, THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, AGAIN, THAT'S WHERE I'M UNABLE TO MEET THE CRITERIA IS JUST NOT FINDING THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO ALLOW THE OWNER TO USE THE PROPERTY FOR THE PERMITTED PURPOSE.
I CAN'T MEET CRITERIA NUMBER 2.
ANYBODY THAT CAN HANDLE? I WOULD AGREE.
CRITERIA NUMBER THREE, GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE MINIMUM ACTION NECESSARY THAT WOULD CARRY OUT THE SPIRIT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECURE PUBLIC SAFETY, AND PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.
CRITERIA NUMBER 4, GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT OR THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY.
I THINK WE ALL WOULD AGREE ON THAT ONE.
CRITERIA NUMBER 5, GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS CHAPTER.
I THINK THIS IS WHAT I CAN MEET THAT CRITERIA.
I THINK THIS IS WHAT THE TOWNSHIP WAS.
WAS HOPING FOR TO HAVE A NICE NEW BUSINESS IN THE TOWNSHIP?
>> I HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION ON THAT.
I ACTUALLY THINK WE HAVE THE SIGN ORDINANCE IN PLACE IN ORDER TO CREATE A CONSISTENCY.
[02:10:07]
YEAH. ACROSS THE TOWNSHIP.>> YOU CANNOT MEET THAT CRITERIA NOT BECAUSE IT'S NOT CONSISTENT AS WIDTH.
>> IF WE LOOK AT OTHER BUSINESSES OF SIMILAR STYLE ON MARSH ROAD SPECIFICALLY, THERE, CLEARLY, THE SIGNS ARE MUCH.
THEY'RE JUST NOT VERY MANY THERE?
>> WELL, I THINK THAT WAS THAT'S BEEN A VERY INTENTIONAL.
MOVE IN THE TOWNSHIP OVER THE YEARS.
WITH LIGHT OF NOT BEING ABLE TO REACH CRITERIA NUMBER 1 AND 2, I GUESS I WOULD THROW IT BACK TO YOU FOR A MOMENT.
IS IT SOMETHING THAT THERE'S LIKELY A SOLUTION FOR WITH PANDA?
>> ALL THAT CAN DO IS GO TO THEIR BRANDING AND MARKETING AND SEE WHAT THEY SAY.
I DON'T REALLY KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.
>> BECAUSE IF THERE IS A MOTION DENIED, THEN THEY CAN'T COME BACK FOR A YEAR.
>> YOU REAPPLY FOR THE SAME TYPE OF VOTE MOTION.
>> IF THEY CHANGED THE VARIANCE, THOUGH, THEY COULD ASK TO BE REHEARD.
>> THEY CAN'T COME BACK AND ASK FOR THESE.
>> THEY'D HAVE TO MAKE THE SIGN SMALLER OR BIGGER OR WHATEVER.
>> I'M NOT A HUGE FAN OF HAVING LOTS OF OLD BUSINESS.
AS MUCH AS I KNOW YOU POSTPONED EARLIER AND TO GET US A CHANCE TO HAVE MORE INFORMATION.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S GOING TO SERVE WELL IN THIS CASE.
I DON'T KNOW THAT IF WE SAY LET'S PUT A PAUSE ON IT AND COME BACK, THAT IT'S GOING TO BE THAT MUCH DIFFERENT.
SOMETHING'S GOING TO CHANGE IN THOSE AREAS THAT WE CAN'T MEET, THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.
IN LIGHT OF THAT, DOES ANYBODY HAVE A MOTION? THEY COULD CHANGE. COME BACK LIKE YOU SAID AND HAVE A SOLUTION AND SAY, WELL, THEN WE CAN DO THIS VERSION OR WHAT HAVE YOU THOUGHT.
>> THEY COULDN'T THEY COULDN'T REAP REQUESTS [OVERLAPPING].
>> THE SIGN ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
>> I MOVE TO DENY CASE NUMBER 25-12 FOR PROPERTY 4990 MARCH FOR THE VARIANCE REQUEST TO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL SIGN ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PANDA EXPRESS BUILDING.
>> I THINK THAT'S [INAUDIBLE].
ANYTHING ELSE NEED TO BE ADDED? THIS IS A VOTE TO DENY VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ZBA NUMBER 25-12, MEMBER BROOKS?
>> THE CHAIR VOTES, YES TO DENY.
FORTUNATELY, THIS HAS BEEN DENIED.
I WOULD THINK I HOPE THAT PANDA HAS A SOLUTION.
JUST BASED ON THOSE TWO CIRCUMSTANCES, IT BEING THE SELF-CREATED UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES AND BASED ON THOSE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.
WE APPRECIATE HOW PATIENT YOU'VE BEEN ALL NIGHT.
>> THANK YOU FOR COMING AND HANGING OUT WITH US ALL NIGHT.
WE HAD GET OUR FRIEND HERE THE WHOLE TIME.
WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE. THANK YOU SO MUCH, YOUR TIME.
FINALLY, WE HAVE OUR LAST BUSINESS ON THE AGENDA FOR TODAY,
[7.A. 2026 Meeting Calendar]
WHICH IS TO ESTABLISH THE 2026 MEETING CALENDAR.LOOKING AT IT AS PRESENTED, LOOKS GOOD TO ME.
IT'S PRESENTED, BUT WHO KNOWS WHAT 2026 HOLDS FOR ANY OF US.
>> WAS ONE OF THE DATES BEING TAX DAY.
[02:15:02]
>> WELL, IS THAT SOMETHING WE WANT TO DJUST?
>> EVERYBODY'S GOOD WITH TAX DAY.
EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT THEY'RE DOING ON APRIL 15.
OKAY. I DO NOT SEE ANY CHALLENGES WITH THIS IN PARTICULAR.
HERE'S HOPING THAT DOES NOT FALL IN CONFERENCES AGAIN.
I WILL NOT BE HERE. BUT OTHER THAN THAT.
>> THEN MAY BE A LITTLE BIT MORE INTERESTING FOR SOME OF MY FAMILY.
I CAN MOVE TO APPROVE THE 2026 MEETING CALENDAR AS PRESENTED.
>> SUPPORTED BY MEMBER BROOKS.
ANY THOUGHTS, CONCERNS, QUESTIONS. MEMBER CANA.
>> I WOULD JUST ADD TO YOUR MOTION TO APPROVE IT BY RESOLUTION. THAT'S ALL.
>> I WOULD MOVE TO APPROVE THE 2026 MEETING CALENDAR BY RESOLUTION.
THAT WAS SUPPORTED BY MEMBER BROOKS. THANK YOU.
IT'S THERE. I JUST DIDN'T READ IT.
[LAUGHTER] I DIDN'T READ THE WHOLE. GOT IT.
THIS IS A VOTE TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2026 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING SCHEDULE. MEMBER BROOKS.
>> CHAIRMAN SIAVO VOTES. THE 2026 MEETING CALENDAR HAS BEEN ADOPTED.
I THINK WE HAD NOBODY SAY FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.
DONALD, I MISSED OUT ON THAT EXTRA SPECIAL PUBLIC COMMENT.
I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT FLOOR, OPEN IT FOR BOARD REMARKS.
ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING THEY WANT TO ADD?
[9. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS ]
OR IS EVERYBODY JUST READY TO GO HOME? MEMBER.>> I JUST, YOU KNOW, AS USUAL, JUST APPRECIATE ALL THE COMMENTS.
I THINK AS A BOARD, WE DO PRETTY GOOD WITH OUR COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS AND TRYING TO ASK A LOT OF THINGS TO GET MORE CLARITY.
I'M ALWAYS IMPRESSED WITH THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE ASKED BY THIS BOARD.
YOU AND MISS CHAIR, YOU ALWAYS DO A GOOD JOB.
KNOWING THAT THERE'S SOMETIMES VERY POTENTIAL CONTROVERSIAL TOPICS.
YOU DO A GOOD JOB, MAKE A SURE THAT'S ALL WRANGLED IN, SO THINGS CAN GET OUT OF HAND VERY QUICKLY SOMETIMES.
>> IN OTHER WORDS WHEN IT COMES TIME.
>> TIME AROUND FOR THE NOMINATED THE OFFICERS.
YOU KNOW WHERE THAT'S LEADING? [LAUGHTER]
>> HE JUST DOESN'T WANT TO BE IN CHARGE OF TELLING PEOPLE TO STOP TALKING.
ALTHOUGH I DID, I HAD MY STOPWATCH GOING BECAUSE I REALIZED TOO LATE THAT YOU HAD THE TIMER.
>> CAUSE I ASSUME IT WORKS BECAUSE IT'S ON YOU.
>> BUT WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT IT BEFORE, AND THEN I NOTICED I WAS LIKE, THAT'S WHERE IT IS A I LOOKED HERE AND I DIDN'T SEE IT.
I HAD MY STOPWATCH GOING ON MY PHONE, BUT I DO APPRECIATE EVERYBODY.
BEING RESPECTFUL, WE'RE ALL ABLE TO SHARE OUR OPINIONS RESPECTFULLY AND ASK OUR QUESTIONS AND STAY CURIOUS WITHOUT BEING JUDGMENTAL, WHICH IS REALLY HELPFUL.
I THINK IT HELPED TO CALM THE TEMPERATURE IN THE ROOM AND ALLOW PEOPLE TO MEET THEIR NEIGHBORS AND TALK TO EACH OTHER BECAUSE ULTIMATELY THAT'S WHAT IT'S ABOUT.
WE CAN'T SOLVE THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD SQUABBLES.
THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO MAKE IT WORK.
I KNOW MEMBER BROOKS MENTIONED THAT EARLIER, AND I THINK THAT'S KEY.
AT SOME POINT, EVERYBODY'S GOING TO HAVE TO PAINT THE SIDE OF THEIR HOUSE, FIX THEIR SHRUBS OR WHATEVER IT IS, AND YOU GOT TO BE ABLE TO TALK TO EACH OTHER.
I'M GLAD THAT WE CAN SERVE AS THAT BRIDGE TO THAT COMMUNITY BECAUSE WHO KNOWS THAT LAKE GLANCY COMMUNITY CAN BE A LITTLE TENSE, SO.
>> ANY MOTIONS, UNFORTUNATELY.
>> EMOTIONS DON'T COUNT WITH THIS BOARD BECAUSE OUR DECISIONS NEED TO BE BASED ON WHAT'S THE TERM COMPETENT EVIDENCE.
>> IT SLOWS SLATE, THEN WE CAN TAKE EMOTIONS IN THE KEY.
I DON'T LIKE TO COLOR THAT FACTS. I'M GOING TO DENY IT AND REQUEST DENIAL, BUT WE CAN'T DO THAT IN THIS TYPE OF BOARD.
>> ABSOLUTELY NOT. WE'RE LOOKING AT THE FACTS, JUST THE FACTS. ON THAT NOTE.
UNLESS ANYBODY HAS A PROBLEM OR RUNS TO STAY LATER.
[LAUGHTER] THIS MEETING IS OFFICIALLY ADJOURNED, 08:56, GUYS. THAT'S A NEW ONE
>> HE WAS HIGHLIGHTING WITH HIS LIKE COMER [OVERLAPPING] ON THE TIME THERE TO
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.