[00:00:02]
>> GO AHEAD AND CALL THIS MEETING OF THE JANUARY 21ST, 2026, CHARTER TOWNSHIP AND MERIDIAN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING TO ORDER.
REMEMBER WE NEED TO DO A ROLL CALL FOR THOSE PRESENT.
>> I'M THE VIE CHAIR. MEMBER KOENIG IS PRESENT.
SO THEN WE'LL MOVE INTO THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.
[2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA]
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR CHANGES, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE AGENDA, MR. HERSHISER?>> NO. I'LL SUBMIT A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS WRITTEN.
>> YOU HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE. YOU HAVE A SECOND?
>> MOTION AND A SECOND. I'LL DO A QUICK ROLL CALL.
MEMBER BENOIT IS TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. MEMBER BENOIT.
>> VICE CHAIR VOTES YES. AGENDA IS APPROVED.
MOVING ON TO CORRECTIONS APPROVAL,
[3. CORRECTIONS, APPROVAL AND RATIFICATION OF MINUTES]
AND RATIFICATION OF THE MINUTES.FIRST IS FROM OCTOBER 15TH, 2025.
ANYBODY HOPEFULLY, YOU'LL HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW IT.
ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR CHANGES TO THE MINUTES FROM OCTOBER? MEMBER HERSHISER APPROVE.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 15TH AS RECORDED.
>> FOR SOMEBODY SECONDS, KEITH, MR. CHAIRMAN, CAN WE DO ONE MOTION FOR BOTH MINUTES? YOU NEED SEPARATE.
>> WASN'T THERE FOR THE SECOND.
>> WELL, LET'S KEEP HOLD ON TO THAT FOR JUST A SECOND.
ANYBODY HAVE ANY CHANGES OR ANYTHING WITH THE NOVEMBER 19, 2025 MINUTES?
>> HERSHISER, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO AMEND YOUR MOTION TO INCLUDE BOTH SETS OF MINUTES? I GUESS WE REALLY DON'T HAVE TO SINCE WE HAVE A SECOND TO VOTE ON.
>> BUT I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT MEETING.
>> YOU PROBABLY WON'T HERE FOR IT THEN.
>> LET'S GO WITH THE FIRST MODES DO THEM SEPARATELY. THAT'S FINE.
WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 15, 2025 MEETING MINUTES, AND WE HAVE A SECOND MEMBER BENOIT.
WE'LL DO A QUICK ROLL CALL VOTE ON THAT. MEMBER BENOIT?
>> VICE CHAIR VOTES, YES. THE APPROVE OCTOBER 15, 2025 MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
NEXT, WE'LL GO ON TO THE NOVEMBER 19 MINUTES OF 2025.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER MINUTE.
>> MOTION AND SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 19, 2025 MINUTES.
THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE MEMBER BENOIT?
>> I VOTE, YES. NOVEMBER 19 MINUTES ARE APPROVED AS WELL.
>> I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY WELL, WE DO HAVE COMMUNICATION, BUT WE CAN DISCUSS THAT WHEN WE GET TO THE ACTUAL AGENDA ITEM.
HOPEFULLY YOU GUYS SAW THAT E MAIL.
YOU SENT UP A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU SAW IT. YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A COPY OF THAT FOR MEMBER HERSHISER DO YOU OR COULD YOU PULL IT UP WHEN WE GET TO IT?
>> YES, I COULD PROBABLY PULL IT UP IN MY E MAIL, MAYBE.
>> I WAS A COMMUNICATION ON THE ZBA CASE TONIGHT.
IT WAS JUST ONE, SO I'LL HAVE HIM PULL IT UP AND GIVE A QUICK READ AT IT.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS, I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY, WHICH BRINGS US TO NEW BUSINESS,
[6.A. ZBA CASE NO.: 26-01 (2403 Haslett), Konstantinos Marselis, 1289 Creek Pointe, Rochester, MI 48307 ]
WHICH IS EPA CASE NUMBER 26-01, LOCATED AT 2403 HAZLE ROAD.MR. MISSES, LIKE I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S MISTER OR MISSES.
MS. CONSTANTINO, MR. CONSTANTINOS MARCELLS?
>> HE IS 5 MINUTES WITH MS REALTOR.
I'VE BEEN IN COMMUNICATION WITH KEITH AND TIM AND I'M GOING BACK.
IF YOU WANT ME TO [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE'RE GOING TO LET KEITH, MR. CHAIRMAN GO THROUGH THE SPEEL OF INTRODUCING THE ACTUAL CASE AND THEN AFTER WE'RE DONE, IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HIM, THEN I'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU IF YOUR CLIENT'S NOT HERE.
>> THE APPLICANTS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 86368 D2 MINIMUM MATERIAL ALL LOT WIDTH OF 200 FEET.
THIS VARIANCE IS TO CREATE TWO NEW PARCELS THAT WILL BE UNDER THE 200 FOOT REQUIREMENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
THE PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 1.96 ACRES IN SIZE AND A ZONED RR RURAL RESIDENTIAL.
THE SUBMITTED SURVEY SHOWS AN EXISTING 1,470 SQUARE FOOT.
SINGLE STORY FAMILY HOME CONSTRUCTED IN 1980, CURRENTLY OCCUPIES LOT IS PROPOSED TO BE DEMOLISHED.
THE PROPOSAL WOULD BE TO CREATE TWO EQUAL PARCELS THAT HAVE 117.25 FEET IN LOT WIDTH.
A VARIANCE OF 82.75 FEET IS REQUESTED FOR EACH OF THE PARCELS.
>> DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. CHAIRMAN AT THIS TIME?
[00:05:02]
>> WITH THAT, WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE.
FEEL FREE TO COME UP TO THE PODIUM AND IF YOU CAN, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
>> NICOLE KITZMILLER, AND MY RESIDENCE IS 6290 QUAYLE RIDGE LANE IN DIAMONDALE, ZIP CODE 48821.
>> WHATEVER YOU WANT TO SAY ABOUT THE ACTUAL APPLICATION OF THE PROJECT.
>> BEAUTIFUL. MR. MARCELLUS ORIGINALLY PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY DIRECTLY FROM THE PREVIOUS OWNER WHO HAD LEFT THE PROPERTY FIVE PLUS YEARS PRIOR TO THIS PURCHASE, AND HIS ORIGINAL PLAN WAS TO RENOVATE THIS PROPERTY.
BUT ONCE THEY CLOSED ON THE PROPERTY OFF MARKET..
WHEN HE WAS ABLE TO HAVE FULL ACCESS, AND THEN ALSO WAS ABLE TO BRING IN HIS GENERAL LICENSE CONTRACTOR. THAT'S PROBABLY.
HE BECAME VERY APPARENT THAT, UNFORTUNATELY, DUE TO CODE VIOLATIONS AND THE DISTRESS OF THIS PROPERTY, ANIMALS LIVING IN THERE.
>> GO AHEAD. YOU CAN STAY UP HERE.
YOU WANT TO STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS? KEEP GOING WHERE I'M AT.
>> TWENTY FOUR THREE HAZEL ROAD.
>> NO, YOUR HOME [OVERLAPPING]
>> MY HOME AD. I'M SORRY. 12 89 CREEK POINT DRIVE IN ROCHESTER, MICHIGAN.
>> MY NAME IS CONSTANTINOS MARCELLS.
>> ONCE WE WENT THROUGH WITH THE CONTRACTOR, AND THEN THERE WAS ALSO EVEN FOUR FOOT OF WATER IN THE BASEMENT, AND WHO KNOWS HOW LONG THAT HAD BEEN THERE.
SO IT TRULY BECAME APPARENT AT THAT POINT THAT THE PROPERTY NEEDS TO JUST BE DEMOLISHED.
BASED ON THAT AND THE ORIGINAL PURCHASE OF IT NOW WITH HAVING TO TEAR DOWN, REBUILD, ORIGINALLY ANTICIPATED FINANCIAL COSTS, THIS HAS BECOME A BIT OF A BURDEN TO SAY THE LEAST.
ESSENTIALLY, WE CAME UP WITH A SECOND IDEA THAT DUE TO ALL THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, SITTING ON AN APPROXIMATE 0.96 ACRES IN THE NEIGHBORING LOTS, AND THIS SITTING ON 1.96, WE SAID, WELL, WE CAN GO AHEAD.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE TODAY, HOPEFULLY TO GET APPROVED TO GET THIS DIVIDED IN HALF AND HAVE ALMOST ONE ACRE PARCEL, TWO SEPARATE ONES, AND THEN BUILD TWO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES ON THEM.
ONE BEING A TWO STORY RESIDENTIAL HOME, AND ONE BEING A RANCH HOME, ALL WITH A MINIMUM OF 3,000 SQUARE FOOT ABOVE GRADE.
WE PLAN TO BRING THIS PROPERTY BACK TO LIFE AND THERE IS ALREADY ANOTHER THING THAT IS NICE.
THERE WAS A CIRCLE DRIVE BEFORE SO THERE ARE ALREADY TWO CURB CUTS, WHERE DRIVEWAYS WOULD FIT JUST RIGHT.
WE'VE SUBMITTED A COUPLE OF IDEAS FOR BLUEPRINTS AND SOME PHOTOS FOR SOME IDEAS OF FINISHES.
IT'S DEFINITELY OUR INTENT TO APPEASE AND ACCOMMODATE NEIGHBORS AND NEIGHBORING HOMES AND TO FIT WITHIN THE COMMUNITY AND BUILD TWO BEAUTIFUL HOMES, AND ALSO THESE ARE PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS BASED UPON APPROVAL, THAT'S WHERE WE WOULD HAVE TO GET A FINAL BLUEPRINT BY A LICENSED ARCHITECT, WHICH WE HAVE SOME OF THAT ALREADY.
BUT WE HAVE GUIDELINES THAT ALSO LAY THINGS OUT WHAT WE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW, BUT WE PLAN TO BRING IN A LOT OF PRIVACY TREES SURROUNDING THE NEIGHBORS AND DO SOME BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPING AND REALLY HOPING THAT WE CAN GET THIS PASSED SO THAT WE CAN RECOUP SOME OF THE FINANCIAL DIFFICULTY THAT FELL IN OUR LAPSE HERE, BUT ALSO MAKING SURE THAT THIS DOESN'T NEGATIVELY IMPACT ANYTHING THAT WAS LISTED WITHIN THE GUIDELINES, THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE ABLE TO REQUEST THIS VARIANCE.
WE'D LIKE TO GET OBVIOUSLY, IF YOU APPROVE THIS, WE WOULD LIKE TO MOVE IN WITH A DEMOLITION PERMIT TO DEMO THE HOUSE.
>> WE DON'T WANT TO, WHO KNOW SOMEBODY CAN GET IN THERE AND GET HURT.
A LOT OF THE TREES WERE SAFETY ISSUES THERE AS WELL,
[00:10:03]
SO WE WOULD LIKE TO OBVIOUSLY, WITH YOU OKAY, TO GET PERMISSION TO GET A DEMOLITION PERMIT TO AT LEAST GET THAT OUT OF THE WAY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.>> THEN ALSO, DEFINITELY, WE WOULD BE SUBMITTING PERMITS, ASAP.
WE HAVE EVERYTHING LINED UP TO BEGIN WORK IMMEDIATELY AND ALREADY HAVE OUR CONTACTS OR GENERAL CONTRACTORS TO BE ABLE TO ALSO COMPLETE THIS IN A VERY QUICK TIME FRAME.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING WHERE WE'RE GOING TO BE WAITING ON A LOT OF THINGS, AND IT'S GOING TO TAKE A YEAR FOR THIS TO GET BUILT, WHICH I'M SURE NEIGHBORS WOULD LIKE FOR IT TO GET DONE IN A TIMELY MANNER, AND THAT'S ALSO SOMETHING THAT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT WITH US AS WELL.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE INFORMATION. IF YOU COULD JUST HOLD ON FOR JUST A SECOND.
STAY UP THERE IN CASE THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS.
>> I WILL TURN TO ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS.
ANY OF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME FOR THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE?
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. JUST WALK ME THROUGH THE TIMELINE OF WHEN YOU PURCHASED THE HOUSE AND TO THIS POINT.
HOW LONG HAS IT BEEN, HOW LONG YOU HAD THE PROPERTY?
>> WE PURCHASED IT, I THINK IN SEPTEMBER.
I WANT TO SAY SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER?
>> I WOULD BE THE LAST WEEK OF SEPTEMBER OR OCTOBER.
WE ACTUALLY WITHIN THE FIRST TWO WEEKS WE CONTACTED I THINK NICOLE H CONTACTED THE CITY TO WITH OUR PLANS, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH THIS PROPERTY, AND WE'RE STUCK IN THERE.
>> CAN'T REALLY MOVE FORWARD UNTIL THE VARIANCE.
>> HAVE YOU DONE MANY OTHER RENOVATIONS OF HOMES AROUND.
I'LL LOWER LANSING AND SHE CAN TELL YOU STUFF THAT WE DO, WE TAKE THE STRESS PROPERTIES.
THAT TOTALLY RENOVATE, ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, THE WHOLE THING GRANITE TOPS, AND THAT IS WHAT WE DO.
>> WE CURRENTLY HAVE ONE IN GRAND LEDGE THAT'S ALMOST FINISHED, LANSING THAT'S ALMOST FINISHED, A NEW ONE IN WASHINGTON.
ACTUALLY, THE LANSING AND THE GRAND LEDGE ONE WERE ONES WE WENT TO THE TAX AUCTION.
WE PURCHASED WITH THE TAX AUCTION, SO DONE A LOT OF BEAUTIFUL THINGS WITH THE DISTRESSED PROPERTIES, AND I'VE BEEN IN REAL ESTATE FOR 15 YEARS SO I'VE BEEN HELPING A LOT WITH THE DESIGNS.
SO BEING FROM HERE AND ALSO BEING IN REAL ESTATE FOR 15 YEARS AND WORKING WITH INVESTORS AND DESIGNING, I ALSO WORKED WITH EASTBROOK HOMES OUT OF GRAND LEDGE OR OUT OF GRAND RAPIDS THAT HAS COMMUNITIES.
I'M NOT SURE IF YOU'VE HEARD OF THEM OR NOT, BUT I ALSO HAVE BUILT OVER 100 HOUSES WITH EASTBROOK HOMES OVER A PAN OF TIME WHEN I WAS DOING EXISTING REAL ESTATE AND NEW BUILDS AS WELL, SO BEING ABLE TO KNOW WHAT PROCESSES AND WHAT NEIGHBORHOODS ARE CALLING FOR, AND NOTHING COOKIE CUTTER, AND JUST IT'S A LOT OF TIME, ENERGY, BLOOD SWEAT AND TEARS, TRULY.
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ME NAHUM.
>> ARE YOU NOT ABLE TO BUILD ON THE LAND UNLESS THE VARIANCE IS GIVEN, OR IS IT THAT YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO BUILD THE TWO SEPARATE HOUSE?
>> FINANCIALLY IT MAKES SENSE TO BUILD TWO BECAUSE WE GOT A LOT OF MONEY INTO THIS ALREADY, AND WE DIDN'T KNOW THAT WE WERE BUYING THIS PROPERTY, THINKING THAT THIS HOUSE CAN BE RENOVATED, BUT IT'S IT CAN'T.
WE'D LIKE TO HAVE THAT VARIANCE SO WE CAN ACTUALLY BUILD TWO SO WE CAN MAKE OUR DESIRED PROFIT MARGIN, RIGHT FOR BOTH HOMES.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICANT.
WELL, THANK YOU FOR THAT. YOU GUYS CAN GO AHEAD AND STEP DOWN.
>> WONDERFUL. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.
>> THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WANT TO COME UP AND SPEAK ON THE SUBJECT? IF YOU'D LIKE TO, PLEASE COME ON UP.
IF YOU CAN, JUST AGAIN, PASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
>> TERRY GOLDBERT, 5743 WESTMINSTER WAY, RIGHT ACROSS.
HEARING ALL THIS, I HAVE ZERO PROBLEM WITH HIS PLAN TO DO A SPLIT, IF IT'S ONE ACRE PER PIECE OF PROPERTY, IT MAKES SENSE.
I MEANS THAT HE'S JUST TRYING TO BUILD HOUSES AND MAKE SOME MONEY.
I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT AT ALL.
MY QUESTION IS ONE IS THE HOOK UP, THE WATER HOOK UP OR UTILITY HOOK UP FOR THE SECOND HOUSE.
IS THAT I'M ASSUMING THAT WOULD BE HIS RESPONSIBILITY AS
[00:15:01]
OPPOSED TO FOR THE WATER HOOKUP, NO TAXPAYER RESPONSIBILITY.I KNOW THAT BECAUSE OF THE ROAD CONSTRUCTION PAST PARK LAKE ROAD ON HAS ROAD, SO YOU'RE HEADING WEST? SO THAT ACCORDING TO DAN OSIMER THAT NEW ROAD IS HEADING OUR WAY TOWARD THIS WAY ON HAZEL ROAD, IS GOING TO REDUCE THAT FROM FOUR TO TWO LANES.
WHAT'S THE TIME FRAME ON THAT, AND THEN IS THAT GOING TO BE A PROBLEM WITH HIS TIME FRAME OF TRYING TO GET THOSE HOUSES BUILT? YOU KNOW WHAT I'M GETTING AT BECAUSE AGAIN, ACCORDING TO WHAT DAN SAID, THAT ROAD CONSTRUCTION IS COMING OUR WAY AND THAT'S THE NEXT PHASE HE SAID.
THAT'S MY QUESTION IS DO THEY KNOW ABOUT THAT AND DO WE KNOW WHEN THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN? BECAUSE WITH CONSTRUCTION AND ALL THAT, IS THAT GOING TO BE A PROBLEM FOR EVERETT WOODS TRYING TO GET IN AND OUT OF THERE? WE'LL BE HARD ENOUGH AS IT IS.
>> I DON'T HAVE THE TIME-FRAME.
>> THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC?
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT OPPORTUNITY. MY NAME IS LARRY WICHEL, 5723 WESTMINSTER WAY, DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PROPERTY.
ACCORDING TO YOUR PLANS, I THINK THAT'S GREAT.
I THINK I MORE THAN WELCOME BOTH HOUSES.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THERE WAS NO OPTIONS TO BUILD ANY COMMERCIAL THERE.
I TALKED TO KEITH EARLIER IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, AND HE SAID THAT THERE WOULD BE NO COMMERCIAL TYPE BUILDINGS ON THOSE TWO PROPERTIES, POL BARNS, THAT SORT OF THING.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE PLANS GOING FORWARD IS WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.
IF BY CHANCE, THE VARIANCE DOESN'T GO THROUGH I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE GOT A PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY OR NOT, BUT I'D LIKE TO KNOW IF THE VARIANCE DOESN'T GO THROUGH, WHAT ARE THE PLANS FOR THE PROPERTY?
>> THANK YOU, SIR. ANY OTHERS? MOVING ON FROM THERE, WE WILL GO INTO OUR BOARD TIME.
SO THIS IS THE TIME WHERE BOARD MEMBERS CAN DISCUSS THE PROJECT, AND IF NEED BE, THERE'S MORE QUESTIONS, WE'LL CALL YOU UP ONE OR TIME UP TO THE PODIUM.
BUT WE DO HAVE CRITERIA THAT WE GO OVER.
IT IS IN THE PACKET. MR. CHAIRMAN, IF YOU CAN BRING UP THAT CRITERIA.
>> FOR THEM TO SEE. BUT THERE ARE FIVE REVIEW CRITERIA THAT THE VARIANCE IN THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES US TO GO THROUGH ONE BY ONE, AND WE'LL GO THROUGH THOSE, AND THEN WE'LL DISCUSS EACH ONE OF THOSE.
I FEEL LIKE IT'S BEEN FOREVER SINCE WE'VE DONE THIS AND NOW, IT'S ONLY BEEN A COUPLE OF MONTHS.
SO PLEASE REMIND ME, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>> WE HAVE A QUORUM. IT'S NOT LIKE, I KNOW IN ORDER TO HAVE THREE PEOPLE, THEN ALL THREE HAVE TO VOTE YES.
BUT BEING THAT WE HAVE A QUORUM, DO WE STILL NEED TO HAVE A POSITIVE ANSWER FOR NUMBER 1 THROUGH NUMBER 5, ALL OF?
>> YOU HAVE TO RAY REGARDLESS.
>> BUT WE HAVE TO SEE THE CRITERIA IS MET FOR EACH CRITERIA, CORRECT?
>> SOME REASON I'M BRAIN FARTING ON.
>> WHAT I WAS ASKING HIM IS THAT WITH THESE FIVE CRITERIA, WE'RE GOING TO GO ONE AT A TIME THROUGH THOSE.
EACH ONE OF THOSE CRITERIA, WE HAVE TO FIND EVIDENCE THAT IT'S BEING MET.
IF ONE OF THOSE IS NOT BEING MET OR WE DETERMINE OR HAVE AN OPINION THAT IT'S NOT BEING MET, WE CAN'T APPROVE THE VARIANCE.
THAT'S ONE THING TO KEEP IN MIND.
WITH THAT, I WILL GO INTO THE FIRST CIRCUMSTANCE, WHICH IS UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST THAT ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND OR STRUCTURE, THAT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LAND OR STRUCTURES OF THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT, AND THESE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SELF CREATED.
DOES ANY MEMBER HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OR WANT TO ADDRESS THAT OR HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT CRITERIA.
>> I'LL START. IN THIS CASE, THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE WOULD BE THAT THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, AND THE PROPERTY WAS ALREADY DETERIORATED WHEN THEY GOT THERE AND IN THE CASE THAT THE SURROUNDING AREAS, I ASSUME SURROUNDING HOMES ARE NOT DETERIORATED IN SOME WAY.
WHEN IT WAS GONE INTO THE HANDS OF THE APPLICANTS, IT WAS NOT THEIR OWN CIRCUMSTANCE.
IT WAS JUST THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO ONE THING, AND ONCE THEY GOT DEEPER, AND THEY WERE NO LONGER ABLE TO DO ONE THING.
>> ANY OTHER THOUGHTS OR COMMENTS?
>> APOLOGIES. I HAVEN'T BEEN ON THE SPOT FOR VERY LONG.
SORRY. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF HAVING A DETERIORATED HOUSE.
IS THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT WOULD NECESSITATE A VARIANCE?
[00:20:06]
BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEMOLISH EVEN WITHOUT THIS VARIANCE BEING PROVIDED.IMAGINE I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANT TO BE PROCESSING VARIANCES FOR ALL DETERIORATED HOUSES IN LIKE ZONE RR.
>> IT'S NEGATIVE. I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT IS THAT A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT, IT'S TO SOME DEGREE, SELF CREATED.
NEVER MIND. I'M TAKING THAT BACK. THEY DIDN'T CREATE THE DETERIORATED HOUSE.
>> I DON'T HAVE A COMMENT ON NUMBER 1.
YOU CAN LOOK AT THAT A COUPLE WAYS.
FIRST ONE, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT.
THE OTHER ONE, YOU COULD MAKE A MILD CASE FOR DIFFICULTY BEING SELF CREATED.
BUT GIVEN BOTH VIEWS, I'M NEUTRAL ON NUMBER 1 CRITERIA.
>> IN THE STANDPOINT TO ADD ON THIS.
THEY COULD, IN THEORY, JUST DEMOLISH THE HOUSE, BUT FROM THEIR STANDPOINT, IT WOULDN'T BE FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE.
IT COULD ALSO BE GO BACK ON THE MARKET, SELL A LOT AS IS, AND IT COULD SIT FOR ANOTHER FIVE,10 YEARS AND JUST BE AN EMPTY LOT AND MAYBE THE COMMUNITY SURROUNDING AS BOTH MEMBERS OF THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY THAT ARE HERE STATED THEY HAVE NO ISSUES WITH IT, AND THEY'D PROBABLY PREFER IT TO BE A FAMILY OR TWO IN THIS CASE, IN THAT LOT VERSUS JUST NOT BEING ANYTHING THERE.
>> THANK YOU. GOOD INFORMATION.
>> IN MY MIND, THE APPLICANT FOR THE MOST PART, DOES MEET THE NUMBER 1 CRITERIA.
>> WELL, I'M STUCK ON THAT ONE AS WELL IN THE SAME SITUATION THAT MEMBER NAHUM IS.
I CAN SEE YOUR POINT OF THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE BEING THAT THERE'S A DETERIORATED STRUCTURE ON IT THAT WAS INHERITED WHEN THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, AND IT'S PROBABLY NOT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE, DON'T KNOW IF YOU SAID THAT OR NOT, BUT IT'S NOT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE TO JUST FIX THAT PROPERTY.
IT'S EASIER JUST TO DEMOLISH IT AND START A NEW.
MY BIG THING IS IT'S, REALLY NOT ABOUT THE STRUCTURE.
THE REQUEST IS DEALING WITH THE PROPERTY ITSELF AND THE SPLITTING OF THE LOT INTO TWO LOTS.
WHETHER IT'S CREATING TWO NON CONFORMING LOTS? I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT, BECAUSE, AS YOU'VE SEEN, AS THEY MENTIONED, YOU LOOK AT THE MAP, A LOT OF THOSE LOTS THAT ARE ADJACENT TO IT ARE ALREADY NON CONFORMING WITH THE LOT WITH.
THIS WOULD JUST BE CREATING TWO NON CONFORMING LOTS.
BUT THE KICKER WITH NUMBER 1, AS JUST WHAT MEMBER NAHUM MENTIONED, IS, I STRUGGLE WITH THIS BASED ON NUMBER 2, AS WELL, WHICH IS PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, AND WE'LL GET THERE.
PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES WITH THIS THAT IT'S NOT NECESSARILY SELF CREATED.
I'M STILL HUNG UP ON THIS, BUT MAYBE AS WE GO ON THROUGH THE REST OF THESE, I'LL BE ABLE TO SWAY ONE WAY OR THE OTHER BASED ON MORE INFORMATION ON THE RECORD.
LET'S PUT THAT ONE ON HOLD FOR NOW.
LET'S MOVE ON TO CRITERIA NUMBER 2, WHICH IS STRICT INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE LITERAL TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER WOULD RESULT IN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES THAT WOULD PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR A PERMITTED PURPOSE.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THAT CRITERIA? THIS IS WHERE I TEND TO GET STUCK BECAUSE THE TERM IN THERE THAT WOULD RESULT IN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES THAT WOULD PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR A PERMITTED PURPOSE.
WELL, THERE'S SEVERAL PERMITTED PURPOSES ON THAT PROPERTY.
ONE OF THEM IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
THERE IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THERE NOW.
IT'S VACANT, AND THEY'D LIKE TO DEMOLISH IT.
BUT AGAIN, AS YOU'VE SAID, REMEMBER NAHUM OR I'M THINKING SOCCER HERE.
>>NAHUM, YES. APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.
IT CAN BE USED IF YOU WERE TO DEMOLISH AT HOME, ANOTHER SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE COULD TECHNICALLY BE BUILT ON THAT LOT.
NOTHING WOULD STOP ANYBODY FROM BUILDING THAT LOT.
NOW, FINANCIALLY. YES, I UNDERSTAND.
IT'S DIFFICULT. HE STRESSED THAT IT'S DIFFICULT TO BUILD REBUILD ANOTHER PROPERTY ON THEREAFTER.
BUT THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IN THAT CRITERIA STILL THAT IS A QUESTION MARK FOR ME.
I'M HAVING DIFFICULTY SEEING THAT THIS STILL COULD BE USED IF IT WEREN'T TO BE SPLIT BECAUSE IT'S STILL A BIG LOT.
THERE STILL COULD BE ANOTHER HOUSE BUILT ON THERE.
EVEN IF YOU DECIDED TO SELL IT, SOMEBODY ELSE COULD POTENTIALLY BUY IT AND PUT ANOTHER SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ON THERE,
[00:25:04]
WHERE THEY PUT IT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW THE REST OF THE ZONING LAWS WITH THAT.BUT THAT'S WHERE I'M STILL STUCK IN THAT INSTANCE.
YOU LOOKED LIKE HE HAD SOMETHING. YOU WANT TO COME UP TO THE PODIUM. COME ON UP AGAIN.
>> I WOULD MORE SO THE BIGGEST THING.
I UNDERSTAND THAT, YES, THE ONE LOT COULD BE FEASIBLE.
BUT IF THAT WERE TO BE THE CASE, THEN I BELIEVE THERE MIGHT END UP BEING SOME MORE FINANCIAL HARDSHIPS IN A SENSE THAT, BECAUSE THESE ARE GOING TO BE THROUGH LENDING TO BUILD SOME OF THIS ALSO.
BASED ON THAT TIMELINE, WITH THERE JUST BE.
SORRY, I'M TRYING TO MAKE ALL OF THIS MAKE SENSE IN LAYMAN'S TERMS WITHOUT ME OVERTHINKING IT.
IT WOULD PROBABLY EVEN THOUGH THIS MIGHT SOUND A LITTLE BACKWARDS, IT WOULD PROBABLY END UP TAKING LONGER TO JUST BUILD THE ONE.
THEN ALSO WITH JUST BECAUSE OF PROCESS, BEHIND THE SCENE PROCESS, NOT PHYSICAL PROCESS.
BUT ALSO WITH IT BEING THE ONE AND THAT PROFIT MARGIN, NOT BEING THERE, WHICH THE SECOND HOUSE HELPS WITH THAT BECAUSE OF THE FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES WITH THIS.
THAT IS NOW WHERE IT IS, OKAY, WHAT HOUSE ARE WE GOING TO BE ABLE TO BUILD THEN? HE IS REALLY HOPING TO BUILD TWO BEAUTIFUL HOMES THAT FIT THE CRITERIA AROUND THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS.
WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE COMPS AROUND HERE, THEY'RE ALL 3,000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSES.
FOR HIM WITH THE CURRENT MONIES THAT ARE ALREADY INVESTED IN THERE, AND TO BUILD THE ONE, IT IS TRULY GOING TO MAKE IT HARD TO BE ABLE TO BUILD WHAT I'M SURE NEIGHBORS WOULD ALSO WANT IN THAT COMMUNITY.
WE DON'T WANT TO GO IN THERE AND JUST PUT A SMALL RANCH IN THERE THAT POTENTIALLY CAN BRING IT'S FINANCIAL.
IT'S TRULY WHAT THIS BOILS DOWN TO YOU.
WHAT SHE'S TRYING TO SAY IS THE DEBT TO EQUITY RATIO ON THE PROPERTY.
IT MAKES IT VERY HARD TO GET THE LENDING SITUATION TO BORROW THE MONEY FROM THE LENDERS.
>> WHEN THE DEBT TO RATIO IS NOT AS ATTRACTIVE.
THAT'S WHY WE NEED THE SECOND LOT.
SHE'S ABSOLUTELY CORRECT WHEN SHE'S SAYING, IT MIGHT BE A SMALLER HOUSE THAT YOU CAN BUILD ON IT.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE MEMBERS ON THE CRITERIA NUMBER 2? [LAUGHTER] YOU LOOK LIKE YOU'RE SOMETHING STIRRING OVER THERE.
>> I'M THINKING CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO GET THROUGH ALL OF THESE.
THEN MAYBE COME BACK AND ADDRESS THEM ONE AT A TIME AFTER WE'VE BEEN ALL THE WAY THROUGH.
>> BECAUSE I'VE GOT [OVERLAPPING]
>> FEELS COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. WE CAN DO THAT.
>> WELL, LET'S MOVE ON TO NUMBER 3 THEN.
CRITERIA NUMBER 3 IS GRANTING THE VARIANCE.
IS THE MINIMUM ACTION NECESSARY THAT WOULD CARRY OUT THE SPIRIT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECURE PUBLIC SAFETY, AND PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. COMMENTS ON THAT.
>> I AGREE WITH THAT ONE 100%.
>> BY GRANTING THIS VARIANCE, THE HOUSE OR THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED R R FOR LARGER LOTS.
BY GRANTING THIS VARIANCE, IN A SENSE, WE ARE CHANGING THE ZONE FOR THIS AREA TO ALLOW SMALLER LOTS.
NOW, IT'S TRUE THAT A LOT OF THE NEIGHBORING LOTS ARE NOT HAVE THEIR OWN VARIANCES.
MY ONE OBJECTION WOULD BE, THIS IS DEVIATING FROM THE MASTER PLAN AND INCREASING THE DENSITY HERE MORE SO THAN IT'S CURRENTLY ALLOTTED FOR.
I JUST WANTED TO COMMENT THAT.
I DON'T THINK THIS IS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC SAFETY.
I DON'T THINK IT'S THE SPIRIT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE IS ACTUALLY, I DON'T THINK CARRIED OUT HERE BECAUSE THE GOAL IS TO HAVE FAIRLY LARGE RESIDENTIAL LOTS HERE.
I THINK THE ARGUMENT WOULD BE FOR SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.
DO YOU GUYS AGREE THAT THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE LEANING IN FAVOR OF THIS?
[00:30:04]
>> I WOULD SAY THAT MOST OF THE LOTS IN THE SURROUNDING AREA ARE VARYING OF SIZES, AND THERE'S NO ONE LOT SIZE THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED THE RIGHT LOT SIZE.
KEITH, DO WE KNOW WHAT THE LOT SIZE WIDTHS OF THE HOUSES NEXT DOOR, BY ANY CHANCE?
>> YES. THERE MEETS AND BOUNDS THAT WERE ALL 117.25.
SOME OF THEM HAVE BEEN COMBINED LIKE THIS PARCEL WAS PREVIOUSLY.
THEY'RE ALL PRETTY MUCH THAT SIZE.
>> THIS PARCEL WAS PREVIOUSLY COMBINED?
>> YES. WE DON'T KNOW WHEN AT SOME POINT, BUT SOMETIME AROUND MAYBE 1980 WHEN IT WAS BUILT, THE HOUSE WAS BUILT.
>> THAT IS RIGHT, 2403 WAS COMBINED.
>> IT WAS TWO LOTS PREVIOUSLY? THE SAME AS WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING.
>> JUST TO CONFIRM WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING IS TO SPLIT IT RIGHT DOWN THE MIDDLE FROM THE ROAD ALL THE WAY TO MAKE IT SIMILAR TO LOTS.
>> I DON'T HAVE THE PROJECTOR UP HERE.
>> I BELIEVE ON HERE, ISN'T THERE.
>> THERE'S STILL A MICROPHONE OVER THERE, KEITH, I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU. I DON'T KNOW.
I CAN'T SEE IF THERE'S SILL A MICROPHONE ON THE TABLE IF THERE IF YOU WANT TO COME UP THERE AND SPEAK, SO PEOPLE WATCH IT ONLINE CAN HEAR YOU [OVERLAPPING] THERE THOUGH?
>> THIS ISN'T EXACTLY ACCURATE, JUST TO BE CLEAR, BUT IT'S PRETTY CLOSE.
>> COME ON UP HERE. ARE YOU A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC, MA'AM?
>> TECHNICALLY, THIS WAS OUR BOARD TIME.
IT'S NOT REALLY PUBLIC, BUT SINCE THERE'S NOT MANY PEOPLE HERE, I'LL ALLOW YOU TO SPEAK, TO SAY YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
>> AT C ACID 2429 HAS ROAD, EAST LANSING.
I BOUGHT THAT PARCEL IN BEGINNING OF 1986 AND BUILT ON IT THAT YEAR.
TOM YOUNG, WHO OWNED THE HOUSE THAT'S BEING QUESTIONED HERE AS FAR AS DEMOLISHING IT, HAD SUBDIVIDED THOSE AND GOT A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THAT 117 FOOT FRONTAGE.
EXCUSE ME. THAT WAS WHEN THAT WAS DONE, ALL OF THOSE LOTS, THE CAPE COD TO TO THE WEST OF ME, THE HOUSE TO THE EAST OF ME, AND THEN TOM BUILT AND KEPT ONE EXTRA LOT.
THAT WAS IN 1986. THAT WAS HAPPENING.
>> THANK YOU. WELL, I CAN SEE JUST BASED ON LOOKING AT THE LITERAL LANGUAGE OF NUMBER THREE.
I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THIS ONE.
MY MAIN REASON IS THE CRITERIA IS BASED ON A MINIMUM ACTION, AND I THINK THE MINIMUM ACTION IS THEY WANT TO SPLIT THE PROPERTY, THEY'RE SPLITTING IT RIGHT DOWN THE MIDDLE.
IN MY EYES, IF YOU WERE TO SAY, I WANT TO CREATE A 200 FOOT WIDE PROPERTY, AND THEN ANOTHER ONE THAT'S I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR WIDTH IS NOW.
WHAT'S THE CURRENT WIDTH, I FORGOT IT.
>> WHAT'S THE CURRENT WIDTH OF THE ENTIRE PROPERTY RIGHT NOW? ONE SEVENTEEN TIMES TWO, SO IT'S 334.
JUST BEING LAZY AND NOT LOOKING BACK AT THE PAGE THAT YOU HAD READ.
>> IT'S NOT LIKE YOU WANTED TO PUT 200 FEET HERE AND 100 FEET HERE TO WHERE YOU'D BE.
SO I CAN SEE THAT AS BEING IN MY EYES, YOU MEET THE MINIMUM ACTION OF THE ACTUAL LOSS.
>> I CAN SEE NUMBER THREE AS BEING MET. I WOULD REGARDLESS.
>> ALSO CAN I MAKE ONE COMMENT ALSO?
>> COME BACK UP HERE, IF YOU CAN, PLEASE.
>> ALSO, I JUST WANT TO MAKE A NOTE THAT AGAIN, REALLY, TRULY, JUST BUILDING THESE TWO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES HE'S NOT CHOOSING TO REQUEST TO BUILD TWO DUPLEXES AND SPLIT IT AND BUILD THERE'S MORE THAT COULD BE DONE.
IT REALLY THIS REQUEST IS THE TWO RESIDENTIAL AND IF THE NEIGHBORING LOTS WERE DIFFERENT, THEN I COULD SEE, BUT REALLY WITH THE NEIGHBORING LOTS WAS WHERE THIS CAME FROM.
>> I LIKE THAT THE ZONING CODE VIA SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THIS ZONE DISTRICT ON THIS PROPERTY, TECHNICALLY, YOU COULD APPLY FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AIRPORT ON THIS PROPERTY.
[LAUGHTER] I DON'T THINK THAT OR A SAND AND GRAVEL PIT OR AT LEAST YOU'RE NOT DOING THAT.
WE APPRECIATE YOU FOR NOT PUTTING SPECIAL.
WELL, WE CAN MOVE ON TO NUMBER FOUR THEN.
THE FOURTH CRITERIA IS GRANTING A VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND FOR THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY. ANY COMMENTS ON THAT?
>> I THINK THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE.
[00:35:01]
THE LOTS ADJACENT TO IT ARE ALREADY OF THAT NATURE SO I CAN'T IMAGINE HOW THIS VARIANCE WOULD BE NOT IN THAT SPIRIT.>> THIS VARIANCE BY ITSELF WOULD NOT CREATE ANY ADVERSE EFFECT.
>> MEMBER MAMA. I BELIEVE WE CAN MEET CRITERIA NUMBER FOUR.
GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE PURPOSES INTENT OF THIS CHAPTER.
ANY COMMENTS ON CRITERIA NUMBER FIVE? REMEMBER HERSHISER REFERS.
>> AGAIN, JUST THIS VARIANCE ALONE WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC INTEREST.
>> I WOULD BY SPLITTING IT DOWN THE MIDDLE? CREATING TWO PARCELS OF LAND THAT ARE EQUAL, IT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
>> I WOULD AGREE THAT BY SPLITTING THE PROPERTY AND MAKING IT CONSISTENT WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES, AS WELL AS THE POTENTIAL TO BUILD MUCH HIGHER USE HOME ON THEIR TWO NEWER HOMES, I THINK IT'S IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT HOPEFULLY WOULD RAISE PEOPLE'S PROPERTY VALUES.
I KNOW THEY DON'T WANT THE EXTRA TAXES, BUT PROPERTY VALUES IN THAT AREA WOULD HOPEFULLY GO UP. MEMBER HERSHISER.
>> NOW THAT WE'VE BEEN ALL THE WAY THROUGH THEM, COULD I JUST DO MY LITTLE SPIEL?
>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO START WITH THE CRITERIA? WE CAN GO BACK TO NUMBER 1 AND NUMBER 2.
>> ACTUALLY, I WANT TO GO OVER ALL OF THEM A LITTLE BIT.
I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THE APPLICANT IS DOING.
IF IT'S DONE CORRECTLY, IT DEFINITELY WOULD BE AN ASSET TO THE TOWNSHIP AND THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AND COMMUNITY.
HOWEVER, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IN GRANTING OR DENYING A VARIANCE IS NOT ALLOWED TO CONSIDER COSTS OF ANY KIND.
>> MY THOUGHT IS, IF THIS IS DONE WITHOUT NEEDING A BUNCH OF OTHER VARIANCES FOR THE BUILDING, THEN IT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
BUT WE GET INTO SOME MAJOR SETBACK VARIANCES, AND THEN WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WE'RE GOING TO MAKE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS VERY UPSET.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS THE APPLICANT GO THROUGH A SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO OUTLINE ANY VARIANCES THEY MIGHT NEED FOR THE BUILDINGS THEMSELVES.
I WOULD HATE TO GRANT THIS AND THEN HAVE TO TURN DOWN VARIANCES LATER THAT THEY COULDN'T BUILD ON.
I THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE EVERYTHING AT ONE TIME BEFORE COMING TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.
INSTEAD OF HAVING A MOVING TARGET, WE WOULD GET EVERYTHING DONE IN ONE TIME.
>> THAT MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR MR. CHAPMAN.
DO YOU KNOW THAT IF THESE LOTS WERE TO BE SPLIT, IF THIS VARIANCE WERE TO BE APPROVED, CAN THEY LEGALLY BUILD ON THOSE TWO PROPERTIES WITHOUT REQUIRING ANY OTHER VARIANCES FOR ANY OTHER SETBACKS?
>> THAT'S FAR ENOUGH AWAY FROM THE ROAD. IT'S A 100 FEET.
>> AS LONG AS THEY MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, WHICH IT'S 20 FOOT SIDES AND 40 FOOT REAR.
>> WE ALREADY CHECKED THAT, BY THE WAY.
>> A HUNDRED AND SEVENTEEN FEET, SO 40 FEET ON THE SIDE.
IT'S A 70 FOOT HOUSE; THAT'S PRETTY WIDE FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
THE LOT IS DEEP. I DON'T SEE ANY ISSUES WITH ANY STRUCTURES THEN.
>> THEY COULD GET PLANS DRAWN UP AND WE COULD LOOK AT THEM.
>> YOU DON'T DO SITE PLANS FOR A SINGLE FAMILY, DO YOU?
>> BUILDING PERMIT. UNUSUALLY.
>> THE APPLICANTS SUBMITTED PART OF THE.
IS THAT WHAT THOSE WERE, EXAMPLE FLOOR PLANS YOU PUT IN THE PACKET?
>> I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE GOING TO NEED OTHER VARIANCES OR NOT.
I DON'T THINK ANYBODY ELSE DOES. I'M NOT SURE.
I KNOW THEY HAVE TO MEET THE SIDELINES BUT THEY MIGHT COME.
I NOTICE ONE IS A THREE-CAR GARAGE AND IT'S ACTUALLY IN THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE.
THAT COULD BE A PROBLEM IN ITSELF.
I WOULD RATHER GET EVERYTHING DONE AT ONCE MYSELF.
IF THE BOARD SEES IT THAT WAY, I WOULD MOVE FOR A TABLE.
>> IN MY EYES, THE VARIANCE THAT'S BEING REQUESTED IS JUST THE LOT SPLIT.
IF THIS WERE TO BE APPROVED TONIGHT, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO BUILD WITHIN THE SETBACKS.
NOW, IF THEY DON'T, THEY COULD COME BACK AND ASK FOR OTHER VARIANCES WITH THE SETBACKS.
>> WE WOULD HOPE THAT THEY WOULDN'T, AS YOU MENTIONED.
>> WE GOT TO COMPLY WITHIN WHAT THE CITY REQUIREMENTS ARE.
IF WE DO HAVE TO CHANGE SOMETHING, WE WILL CHANGE IT.
THESE ARE PRELIMINARY SKETCHES THAT WE DID.
[00:40:02]
BUT BY FAR, THESE LOTS ARE JUST, LIKE YOU SAID, SO LONG THAT WE CAN DO WHATEVER WE WANT.>> ALSO, JUST TO REFERENCE WHAT YOU WERE REFERRING TO, ANY OF THE PERMITS, EVERYTHING HAS TO GET APPROVED PRIOR TO US EVEN STARTING THE BUILDING.
THESE ROUGH ESTIMATES THAT WE PUT IN, THEY FIT LOOKING AT IT.
THE ONLY REASON WHY WE DON'T HAVE EXACT BLUEPRINTS FOR BOTH OF THEM THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO BRING TO YOU TODAY IS JUST BECAUSE IT'S VERY EXPENSIVE TO GET BLUEPRINTS DRUMMED UP.
IT'S AT LEAST $4,500-$8,500 PER JUST A DRAWING.
IF WE KNOW THAT WE NEED TWO, THEN WE GET THOSE BLUEPRINTS AND WE SUBMIT THAT OVER.
WE WOULD HAVE IT OVER WITHIN A WEEK.
>>THIS IS BASICALLY THE FIRST STEPSTONE THAT WE NEED TO GO THROUGH TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE NEXT STEP IS.
OBVIOUSLY, WE WANT TO DO EVERYTHING WITHIN THE CITY'S ORDINANCES AND SETBACKS, AND PERMITS.
PERMITS ARE GOING TO BE PULLED CORRECTLY.
WE WANT TO DO EVERYTHING BY THE BOOK.
>> AS MUCH AS I DO SEE YOUR POINT, MEMBER HERSHISER, THAT YOU'RE MAKING.
BUT IN MY EYES, I DON'T BELIEVE WE CAN VOTE ON THIS VARIANCE BASED ON WHAT WE BELIEVE COULD HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE.
IF WE APPROVE THIS AS A BOARD AND THEY COME BACK AND ASK FOR ADDITIONAL VARIANCES, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT.
WE JUST HAVE TO FOCUS ON THIS VARIANCE AT THAT TIME.
BUT I RESPECT AND UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM.
IT'D BE NICE IF THE CITY COULD DO THAT AND SAY, "HEY.
WE WANT TO MAKE YOU LAY THIS ALL OUT SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE ANY VARIANCES WE'RE BREAKING THE LAW ON ANY OF THIS STUFF." NOT BREAKING THE LAW, BUT GOING AGAINST THE ORDINANCE.
BUT, UNFORTUNATELY, I DON'T THINK WE CAN TIE THAT TO THEM RIGHT NOW.
BUT NO, I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND YOUR COMMENT.
BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU HAD A FEW MORE YOU WANTED TO GO THROUGH.
>> NO, I'M GOOD. I'VE EXPERIENCED THIS BEFORE.
>> IT HAPPENS. I KNOW WHAT HAPPENS, UNFORTUNATELY.
BUT THAT IS THE WAY THE CODE IS WRITTEN THAT ALLOWS FOR IT, UNFORTUNATELY.
BUT GOING BACK TO CRITERIA NUMBER 1, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON CRITERIA NUMBER 1?
>> BASED OFF THE LAST PUBLIC REMARK THAT THIS LOT WAS COMBINED OR A LOT OF THEM SURROUNDING WERE SOLD PREVIOUSLY, AND THEN ONE WAS DECIDED TO STAY COMBINED FOR WHATEVER REASON.
IN THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS IS THE ONE LOT THAT IS JUST LARGER THAN EVERYONE ELSE AND IT WOULD BE MORE UNIFORM WITH ALL THE OTHER LOTS SITTING AROUND IT.
NOW THAT THAT'S IN THEIR HANDS, THIS IS WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.
I WOULD HAVE NO ISSUE SPLITTING A LOT IN THAT SENSE, JUST TO BRING IT WITH THE REST OF THE SURROUNDING AREAS JUST SO ALL THE LOTS ARE SIMILAR.
IN THEORY, HOME VALUES STAY THE SAME BECAUSE IF IT'S A LARGER LOT SIZE, IF THEY GET RID OF IT, I DON'T WANT TO SPECULATE, BUT MAYBE A LARGER HOUSE COMES IN AND THEY BUILD THIS THING THAT'S SUPER WITHIN THE ZONING CODE BUT ALSO ISN'T VERY UNIFORM WITH THE REST OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS, AND MAYBE THE PUBLIC WOULDN'T BE VERY IN FAVOR OF THAT.
BY SPLITTING THE LOTS, IT MAKES IT MORE LIKELY THAT A HOUSE THAT IS GOING TO BE MORE WITHIN THE ZONING REGULATIONS OF SURROUNDING HOUSES WOULD BE BUILT.
>> I THINK I HAVE A MILD OBJECTION, WHICH I'M NOT SURE RISES TO THE LEVEL OF SAYING THIS CRITERIA ISN'T MET.
BUT MY CONCERN IS IF WE'RE SAYING THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE THAT THIS WAS A LOT THAT WAS COMBINED AND SAYING, IS THAT OUR UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE? DOES THAT MEAN IF PEOPLE COME FORWARD AND SAY, "HEY, MY LOT WAS COMBINED.
I SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO SPLIT IT." OR, ONCE AGAIN, THE OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE YOU'RE CONSIDERING, IS IT HAVING A DILAPIDATED STRUCTURE? I DON'T THINK WE WOULD FIND THAT THAT IS A UNIQUE ENOUGH CONDITION TO WARRANT A VARIANCE IN AND OF ITSELF.
OF COURSE, WE CAN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT FINANCIAL DECISIONS OR NEEDING TO RECOUP COSTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
I'M STILL NOT QUITE SOLD THAT THESE ARE UNIQUE ENOUGH.
I THINK COMBINED, I'M WILLING TO GO WITH IT.
ONCE AGAIN, I HAVEN'T BEEN TO A LOT OF THESE MEETINGS,
[00:45:02]
SO I APOLOGIZE IF I'M NOT SURE IF THESE ARE APPROPRIATE CRITERIA.BUT THAT WAS ALL I HAD TO SAY.
>> THANK YOU FOR SHARING THAT.
INITIALLY, I WAS ON THE FENCE.
BUT THEN AFTER HEARING THE INFORMATION THAT THESE WERE PREVIOUSLY SINGLE PROPERTIES THAT WERE THE SAME AS SURROUNDING ONE AND AT ONE POINT THEY WERE COMBINED AS FAR BACK AS 1980S, THEY WERE COMBINED BECAUSE THE PREVIOUS OWNER AND THEN A NEW OWNER COMES AND WANTS TO SPLIT THEM.
MY THOUGHT HAD CHANGED TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE WAS MORE IN LINE WITH WHAT MEMBER BENOIT SAID THAT UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES.
THEY BOUGHT A LOT THAT WAS COMBINED WHEN PREVIOUSLY IT WAS SPLIT.
THEY'RE TRYING TO BASICALLY GO BACK AND RE-SPLIT IT TO THE WAY IT WAS.
>> MY OTHER MILD CONCERN IS THIS SPLITTING OF THE LOTS WAS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
WHAT WE'RE DOING IS BASICALLY RESTORING A PREVIOUS VARIANCE BACK.
I THINK THAT'S LESS OBJECTIONABLE TO ME.
>> I JUST WANT TO STATE THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY RECORD OF A VARIANCE EVER BEING GRANTED.
I DON'T KNOW HOW THESE LOTS WERE ACTUALLY CREATED.
WE CAN'T SAY ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
>> YOU SAID THERE WERE MEETS AND BOUNDS.
>> OBVIOUSLY, THEY WEREN'T PLATTED.
THEY WERE JUST MEETS AND BOUNDS.
SOMEBODY BOUGHT IT BACK IN THE WHENEVER IT WAS AND DECIDED TO SUBMIT PAPERWORK TO COMBINE THEM.
>> YOU BRING UP A GOOD POINT. AS MUCH AS I WANTED TO SWAY WITH MEMBER BENOIT AND SAY, "YES, THERE'S A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE.
IT WAS PREVIOUSLY SPLIT AND THEN IT WAS COMBINED." YOU DO BRING UP A GOOD POINT ON IF WE DO THIS, IS IT GOING TO BE THAT, I HATE TO USE THE P WORD BUT THE WHOLE PRECEDENT.
I KNOW WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO LOOK AT THAT BECAUSE WE'RE SUPPOSED TO LOOK AT EACH ONE OF THESE CASES INDIVIDUALLY.
BUT DOES THIS GIVE THE RIGHT FOR ANY OTHER PROPERTY ANYWHERE, INCLUDING AROUND THE LAKE THAT SEEMS TO BE THE PROBLEM CHILD OF THE TOWNSHIP.
IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT'S COMBINED, DO THEY AUTOMATICALLY HAVE A RIGHT TO SPLIT JUST BECAUSE, "MY PROPERTY WAS PREVIOUSLY SPLIT AND THEN IT WAS COMBINED?" PLEASE CORRECT ME IF WE'RE WRONG BECAUSE YOU ALL KNOW A LOT MORE THAN I WOULD.
I DON'T KNOW IF I SEE A LOT OF PROPERTIES THAT GO FROM BEING SEPARATE PARCELS TO BEING COMBINED TO BEING SPLIT AGAIN.
I DO SEE A LOT THAT ARE COMBINED BECAUSE THEY WANT TO BUILD ON THEM OR THEY WANT TO DO THIS SITUATION; THEY'RE BIGGER, THEY WANT TO SPLIT IT BECAUSE THEY WANT TO HAVE TWO BANKS FOR THE BUCK PER SE ON THERE.
I DON'T KNOW IF I'VE REALLY SEEN A LOT GO FROM ONE TO THE OTHER THEN BACK TO THE OTHER.
>> THIS IS THE FIRST ONE I SAW.
>> NOW, IF THAT WAS THE CASE, THEN I DEFINITELY WOULD SAY THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN DONE BEFORE, AND THAT'S NOT WHAT THE INTENT OF THE CODE IN THE FUTURE LANDEES OF THE PROPERTY IS TO KEEP GOING BACK AND FORTH.
BUT IT SOUNDS FOR THIS AREA IN PARTICULAR, THIS TO ME IS SOMETHING THAT IS A UNIQUE SITUATION FOR THIS PROPERTY THAT IT WAS PREVIOUSLY SEPARATED, COMBINED, AND NOW IT WANTS TO BE SEPARATED AGAIN.
IN MY EYES, I CAN NOT SEE THAT CRITERIA NUMBER 1 IS MET.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THAT? NOBODY. AGREED. OKAY. LAST ONE IS CRITERIA NUMBER 2.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR CLARIFICATIONS THEY WANT TO GIVE BASED ON ALL THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE NOW, WHICH IS THIS IS A STRICT INTERPRETATION CRITERIA? MEMBER HERSHISER?
>> I'M HAVING A HARD TIME FINDING A WAY TO APPLY THIS CASE TO THIS CRITERIA.
THE LOT CAN BE BUILT ON, WE KNOW THAT.
I CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT THE APPLICANT WANTS TO DO.
AND IT'S A GOOD THING, I THINK FOR THE COMMUNITY AND THE NEIGHBORS, AS LONG AS A LOT OF OTHER VARIANCES AREN'T ASKED FOR.
WE START GETTING INTO CROWDING AND SETBACKS AND WE HAVE FIRE ISSUES, WE HAVE NEIGHBOR ISSUES.
>> ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR ANYTHING FOLLOW UP WITH NUMBER 2?
>> I CAN SEE YOUR REASONING FOR STILL HAVING AN ISSUE WITH IT BECAUSE, EVEN THOUGH I WAS TEETER TIDING ON UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE, NOW I CAN SEE THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE WITH THE PROPERTY ITSELF.
I STILL HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER THE APPLICANT CAN USE THE PROPERTY FOR THE PERMITTED PURPOSE, WHICH I BELIEVE THEY CAN.
THE HARDSHIP IS MORE FINANCIAL.
I KNOW. WHICH, TYPICALLY, WE DON'T BASE VARIANCES ON FINANCIAL HARDSHIPS.
>> YEAH. I'M NOT HAPPY WITH MYSELF, BUT I STILL CAN'T FIND A WAY TO GET THROUGH IT.
[00:50:01]
>> BUT THERE ARE FOUR OF US, SO THAT'S GOOD.
>> THERE'S FOUR, BUT WE STILL HAVE TO HAVE MET EACH OF THE CRITERIA. ALL FIVE OF THEM.
>> WITH THREE PEOPLE FOR EACH ONE.
>> WITH THREE PEOPLE, YEAH. IS THAT THE WAY, MR. CHAPMAN? I APOLOGIZE FOR GOING BACK.
BUT LET'S SAY FOR PURPOSE OF THIS CONVERSATION, LET'S SAY THREE OF US DECIDE WE WANT TO VOTE YES ON THIS.
ONE OF US SAYS NO BECAUSE I DON'T MEET CRITERIA, WHATEVER.
IF THE OTHER THREE MEET ALL FIVE CRITERIA, DOES THAT FOURTH PERSON TECHNICALLY NEED TO MEET ALL FIVE CRITERIA AS WELL?
>> SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION AT SOME POINT THAT IT MEETS ALL FIVE.
>> AND THEN THE PERSON CAN VOTE NO BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE ONE OF THE CRITERIA ISN'T MET. GOT YOU.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT. YEAH. IT'S STILL A DIFFICULT ONE FOR ME AS WELL TO PROVIDE A FLAT OUT ANSWER THAT'S NOT BLACK AND WHITE.
AND I KNOW TRYING TO BE GRAY WITH IT IS EVEN MORE DIFFICULT.
TRYING TO FIND A GRAY INTERPRETATION.
>> I KNOW SOMETIMES THESE THINGS ARE VERY GRAY OR NOT VERY BLACK AND WHITE, BUT IN THIS CASE IT SEEMS DIFFICULT TO FIND A GRAY RESPONSE FOR THIS.
MAYBE IF I COULD TURN BACK TO THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE.
DO YOU GUYS UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE SAYING AS FAR AS WE'RE HAVING DIFFICULTY TRYING TO FIND OUT A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY FOR THE USE OF THE PROPERTY?
>> CAN I GO AHEAD AND READ? YOU'RE REFERRING TO NUMBER 2.
>> CORRECT. "STRICT INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE LITERAL TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER WOULD RESULT IN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES THAT WOULD PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR A PERMITTED PURPOSE." IT'S SAYING PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.
AND I FEEL THAT JUST THAT WORDING RIGHT THERE, THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT WE'VE MENTIONED THAT CAN FALL INTO THAT.
THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE CAN'T BE BUILT THERE, BUT IT'S MENTIONING PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.
I FEEL OR I'VE BEEN TRYING TO BRING THAT FORTH IN THIS.
I FEEL AFTER EVERYTHING HAS GONE THROUGH AND WHERE YOU ALL ARE SITTING AT RIGHT NOW, THERE ABSOLUTELY IS A BOOK.
THERE ABSOLUTELY ARE CODES, GUIDELINES.
EVERYTHING MUST BE ENFORCED PER THAT.
AND THAT IS WHY YOU ARE PASSING OR QUESTIONING THESE GUIDELINES.
I FEEL, AS ALSO BEING A PERSON WHO OWNS A HOME AND LIVES IN AN AREA AS WELL, THAT YOU CAN'T JUST TAKE WHAT THE PUBLIC SAYS.
THEY DON'T MAKE THE DECISIONS, YOU DO.
I FEEL LIKE THAT SHOULD HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE PULL OR IT SHOULD BE TAKEN A LITTLE BIT INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT PROBABLY THE NEIGHBORS WOULD WANT, WHAT THE COMMUNITY WOULD WANT, AND WHAT IS GOING TO BE BUILT THERE; THAT THAT HAS A LITTLE BIT OF GROUNDS.
AGAIN, OBVIOUSLY, EVERYTHING IS YOU'VE GOT TO BE BLACK AND WHITE. I GET THAT.
BUT JUST BRINGING IN THE COMMUNITY BROUGHT YOU GUYS HERE.
>> BUT I FEEL THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I WANTED TO BRING UP A LITTLE BIT.
>> I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, EXACTLY NUMBER TWO, SO BASICALLY, YOU GUYS ARE SAYING THAT I WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM AS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY GETTING PERMITS?
>> THE WAY I READ THIS IS THAT NUMBER TWO SAYS, THAT IF WE FOLLOW THE CURRENT CODE, SO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE, THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN NOW BASED ON THE PROPERTY, THE WAY IT IS NOW, IT'S GOING TO RESULT IN SOME SORT OF DIFFICULTY ON THE HOMEOWNER OR THE PROPERTY OWNER.
AND THE NEXT LINE AFTER THAT IS THE KICKER, SO IT'S PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, THAT WOULD PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR A PERMITTED PURPOSE.
IN MY EYES, THAT'S ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING FOR A PERMITTED USE AND THERE'S A WHOLE LIST OF PERMITTED USES IN THE ZONING CODE: SINGLE-FAMILY HOME OCCUPATION, BLAH BLAH.
THAT'S WHERE I BELIEVE WE STRUGGLE, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, REMEMBER HERSHISER, IS THAT IF WE DENY THIS,
[00:55:02]
AND YOU'RE STUCK WITH THE TWO LOTS. I'M SORRY, WITH THE ONE LOT.>> TECHNICALLY, THERE'S NOTHING STOPPING ANYBODY WHO OWNS THAT, WHETHER IT'S YOU OR SOMEBODY ELSE, FROM USING THAT AND HAVING A PERMITTED USE ON IT, WHICH IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE.
YOU COULD, IF YOU WANTED TO GO THROUGH THE FINANCIAL HARDSHIP AND THE MONEY OF DEMOLISHING THIS CURRENT HOME, NOTHING STOPPING YOU FROM PUTTING ANOTHER SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON THAT PROPERTY.
I KEEP GOING TO THE TWO. [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S ALSO OTHER THINGS.
YOU COULD INSTALL A GRAVEL PIT THERE INSTEAD.
>> WELL, [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER] THAT'S MY SPECIAL USE.
[OVERLAPPING] GOES TO THE PLANNING BOARD, SO THAT'S EVEN MORE CRITIQUE. [LAUGHTER].
>> OBVIOUSLY, IT'S GOING TO MAKE THE DEAL TREMENDOUSLY HARDER AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE GOING TO DO ANYTHING WITH THIS PROPERTY.
I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU. IT'S GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR US TO MOVE FORWARD.
DO WE MOVE FORWARD? DO WE JUST CUT OUR LOSSES AND THEN MOVE ON? THAT'S WHY THIS IS NECESSARY FOR US.
>> THEN BASED ON THE RESALE TO RECOUP [OVERLAPPING] THE FUNDS, THERE'D BE SOMEONE ELSE THAT WOULD PROBABLY END UP COMING HERE AGAIN.
>> AT THIS POINT, IT'S REALLY SUPPOSED TO BE JUST BOARD TIME.
>> CHAIRMAN KOENIG, COULD WE HAVE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS?
>> REST OF THE BOARD MEMBERS, ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT?
>> OKAY. TAKE FIVE MINUTE RECESS, WE'LL BE BACK AT 7:34 PM.
[BACKGROUND] ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.
SO THE CHARTER TOWNSHIP FOR MERIDIAN ZBA IS BACK IN SESSION.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CRITERIA NUMBER TWO.
SO ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS ON CRITERIA NUMBER TWO? I MAY HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF, IF NOBODY HAS ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, NOT TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT.
>> GO AHEAD, THAT'S WHY I'M HERE.
>> YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD THE FINANCIAL COME UP SEVERAL TIMES TONIGHT, SO DO YOU KNOW, OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD, ANY VARIANCES? HOW DO I SAY THIS? I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF I CAN ASK THIS BUT HOW DOES STAFF VIEW VARIANCES OR ANYTHING BASED ON FINANCIAL HARDSHIP? HAVE YOU GUYS HAVE ANY?
>> CAN I ASK WHAT OTHER PERMITTED PURPOSES, IF ANY, COULD BE DONE ON THIS LOT?
>> YEAH, I CAN PULL UP FOR YOU. LET'S SEE.
>> CAN I ASK? MIGHT BE A SILLY QUESTION.
>> SO I UNDERSTAND ADDRESSING ALL OF THE MATTERS OF WHY YOU POTENTIALLY COULD SAY NO, BUT ARE THERE MAJOR ISSUES THAT WOULD IMPACT IT AS TO WHY YOU COULDN'T SAY YES?
>> WELL, THAT'S TYPICALLY WHAT WE DO IS, WE TRY TO GO THROUGH THESE AND SEE CAN WE SAY YES TO EVERYONE? WE DON'T GO THROUGH THEM AND SAY NO, NO, NO, [OVERLAPPING] WE TRY TO GIVE THE PROPERTY OWNER, BUT REALLY THE PUBLIC AS WELL, WE HAVE TO TAKE CONSIDERATION THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT TO SAY, CAN WE MEET ALL THESE AND SAY YES TO ALL OF THEM?
>> IT'S ALL DEPENDING ON THE CASE.
WE'VE HAD SOME WHERE IT'S CLEAR CUT, NO.
THIS IS DEFINITELY SOMETHING YOU CREATED VERSUS LIKE THIS COULD BE CONSIDERED GRAY, THAT MAYBE IT WASN'T SELF CREATED.
I THINK THAT'S THE SITUATION WE'RE IN HERE IS, WHERE DO WE TAKE IT AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, I'M STILL STUCK ON THE WHOLE TERMINOLOGY OF PERMITTED PURPOSE WITHIN THIS CRITERIA. [OVERLAPPING]
>> CAN THE PROPERTY BE USED AT A PERMITTED PURPOSE IF THIS WERE TO BE DENIED? YOU KNOW, HEARING THAT THE BIGGEST REASON FOR THAT NO, COMING FROM YOU AND FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER, IS BECAUSE OF THE FINANCIAL SITUATION, AND THAT'S WHY I ASKED STAFF.
TYPICALLY, THIS BOARD DOESN'T MAKE DETERMINATIONS BASED ON FINANCIAL SITUATIONS, EVEN THOUGH FINANCIAL HARDSHIP IS A HARDSHIP, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT HAS A BEARING ON THE PROPERTY, LIKE THE VARIANCE, LIKE A USE OR A SPLITTING OF A LOT DOESN'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT.
SO IT'S TOUGH WITH THE ONLY THING THAT WE'RE HEARING IS POTENTIALLY THAT'D BE A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP.
THAT'S WHERE I THINK WE'RE STRUGGLING ON, IS THERE SOMETHING WITH A USE THAT WOULD CAUSE A PROBLEM?
>> SO IF IT WASN'T JUST FINANCIALS,
[01:00:06]
AND IT WAS JUST SAY A HOMEOWNER, HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING, CAME HERE AND THEY PURCHASED THIS HOME AND THEY WANTED TO BUILD A SECOND HOUSE FOR THEIR CHILDREN NEXT DOOR, AND FINANCES ARE OFF THE TABLE, AND THEY WERE SUBMITTING FOR IT, WELL, IT WOULD BE HARDER TO BUILD THAT SECOND HOUSE IF THAT SECOND HOUSE WASN'T ON ITS OWN INDEPENDENT PARCEL, BECAUSE SOMETIMES YOU RUN INTO ISSUES BUILDING MULTIPLE PROPERTIES ON ONE PARCEL?>> SO IF THAT WAS THE HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?
>> YEAH, THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE, AND SPLITTING A LOT, DOESN'T SAY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO IN THEORY, EVEN THOUGH WE ALREADY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO WITH IT.
BUT THEY COULD BUILD A HOUSE RIGHT NOW, AND THEN IT HAS THE OPTION 20 YEARS DOWN THE LINE FOR DOING WHAT THEY EXACTLY ARE SAYING THEY'RE GOING TO DO, MAYBE A PARENT FAMILY MOVES IN AND THEN THEY GO, "I WANT TO BUILD A HOUSE NEXT DOOR FOR MY GRANDPARENTS, GRAND-KIDS MOVE IN." SO IN THAT CASE, I THINK IT WOULD APPROVE NUMBER TWO OF THE CRITERIA.
THAT COULD BE A PRACTICAL USE TO SPLIT THE LOT.
ADDITIONALLY, ONE THING I WAS THINKING ABOUT AND MULLING OVER TOO IS, IT'S A BIG LOT SIZE AND AS FAR AS A HOMEOWNER, IF SOMEONE DOES MOVE IN THERE, AS YOU GET OLDER, IT'S HARDER TO TAKE CARE OF THAT MUCH LAND.
YOU HAVE TO MANAGE THE TREES, THE LEAVES, CUTTING GRASS.
I CUT GRASS FOR AN OLD EMPLOYER WHEN I WAS IN COLLEGE AND HIS LOT WAS MAYBE HALF THE SIZE OF THAT, IT TOOK ME TWO HOURS JUST TO DO, AND WEEKLY TO TRY TO KEEP IT UP WITH THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND MAKE SURE IT'S HITTING THE STANDARD FOR OTHER ZONING STANDARDS.
>> IT COULD BE PRETTY DIFFICULT, ESPECIALLY WITH THE OWNER LIVING CURRENTLY IN ROCHESTER, AS WELL.
SO THAT WOULD BE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OF JUST COMING UP HERE AND MANAGING THE PROPERTY THEMSELVES.
I KNOW IT'S A DIFFERENT LITTLE SPIN ON IT AND IT'S TRYING TO LOOK AT IT IN A DIFFERENT WAY, BUT WE'VE BEEN HUNG UP ON THE FINANCIAL ASPECT OF IT.
>> IT DOESN'T MAKE IT MORE ATTRACTIVE.
THE PROPERTY ATTRACTS MORE FAMILIES, LIKE YOU SAID AND I THINK WE'RE IN A CRISIS RIGHT NOW, WE NEED MORE HOUSES.
SO I THINK, FAMILIES ARE LOOKING FOR SITUATIONS LIKE THIS SO THEY WANT TO PURCHASE.
THEY WANT TO MOVE IN, ESPECIALLY IN MERIDIAN, LIKE EAST LANSING-MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP, IT'S A VERY NICE FAMILY ORIENTED CITY THAT PEOPLE WANT TO MOVE IN AND ATTRACT SOME.
SO IT'S A GOOD THING FOR THE COMMUNITY, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE, AND I HOPE THAT YOU GUYS CAN APPROVE THIS SO WE CAN QUICKLY MOVE ON AND START THIS PROJECT.
>> NO, I SEE WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM.
BUT IN MY EYES, A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO HAVE THAT ISSUE WITH MOWING GRASS AND NOT KEEPING THEIR HOMES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
I'M ONLY 48, AND I'M ALREADY THROWING MY BACK OUT AND [LAUGHTER] HAVING PROBLEMS WALKING UP AND DOWN MY STAIRS, AND I'M LIKE, WHY DID I BUY A TWO BEDROOM? I SHOULD HAVE BOUGHT A RANCH.
BUT IN MY EYES, THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING PARTICULAR BEARING ON THE REQUEST THAT THEY ASKED FOR.
I TOTALLY SEE WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM AND RESPECT WHAT YOU SAID, BUT I'M STILL HAVING DIFFICULTY BECAUSE I'M STILL HUNG UP ON THE ACTUAL PERMITTED PURPOSE PORTION OF IT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE ACTUAL CRITERIA SAYS IS, PERMITTED PURPOSE.
WILL THERE BE DIFFICULTY TO PREVENT THEM FROM A PERMITTED PURPOSE?
>> SO WITH THE HYPOTHETICAL, THE TOWNSHIP DOES ALLOW THE BUILDING OF ADUS AND OTHER STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY, AND THIS PROPERTY ABSOLUTELY WOULD QUALIFY FOR BUILDING A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND A MOTHER IN LAW COTTAGE AND STUFF, TOO.
THAT IS A PERMITTED PURPOSE AND THAT DEFINITELY CAN HAPPEN HERE IF IT IS IMPORTANT TO BUILD MULTIPLE STRUCTURES, TOO.
BUT YEAH, I THINK I'M IN THE EXACT SAME BOAT, WE DON'T WANT TO SAY THAT BUYING A LOT AND THEN
[01:05:05]
REALIZING THAT THE LOT ISN'T AS VALUABLE AS YOU WERE EXPECTING AND NEEDING TO RECOUP FINANCES BEING A PRACTICAL HARDSHIP THAT WE SHOULD BE CONSIDERING.THAT TO ME, SEEMS LIKE THAT WAS THE APPLICANT'S PRIMARY MATERIAL, AT LEAST WITH REGARD TO THIS CRITERIA.
>> I CAN SEE THAT. I CAN SEE WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM.
>> MAY I ASK [INAUDIBLE] QUESTION?
>> LET'S HAVE HER COME UP FIRST.
[OVERLAPPING] COME ON UP HERE.
>> SO I BROUGHT UP THAT HYPOTHETICAL, AND I KNOW THAT IS NOT OURS, BUT IF THAT ACTUALLY WERE THE CASE, HOW WOULD YOU GUYS FIND IT AT THAT POINT, BECAUSE THE ORDINANCE AND REQUIREMENTS AND SETBACKS TO BE ABLE TO BUILD A SECOND ONE ON THE ONE PARCEL IS MORE DIFFICULT TO ADD A BUILDING TO A LOT THAN IT IS TO SPLIT A PARCEL.
IT'S MORE DIFFICULT TO DO THAT AND I KNOW THAT FIRSTHAND.
SO IF THAT WERE THE HYPOTHETICAL, HOW WOULD THAT GO THROUGH? SO JUST REITERATING THAT AGAIN, ONE MORE TIME.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S ANYTHING WE CAN ANSWER AT THIS TIME, JUST BECAUSE IT IS HYPOTHETICAL.
I BELIEVE THIS BOARD HAS SEEN REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES SIMILAR TO THAT IN THE PAST, THAT THERE WAS A BIGGER PROPERTY, PROPERTY OWNER WANTED TO SPLIT IT WITH THE INTENT OF EITHER SELLING THAT PROPERTY OFF TO BUILD SOMETHING.
I DON'T REMEMBER THE OUTCOMES OF THOSE UNFORTUNATELY.
I THINK THERE WAS ONE RIGHT BY THE LAKE IN THE PAST YEAR OR SO. DO YOU REMEMBER? [OVERLAPPING]
>> YEAH, IT WAS A FEW YEARS AGO.
>> I'VE HAD TWO CLIENTS IN THE PAST 10 YEARS THAT HAVE HAD THE PARCEL SPLIT APPROVED, NOT IN THIS TOWNSHIP, BUT IN OTHER TOWNSHIPS, THAT WERE APPROVED BECAUSE OF THAT KIND OF REQUEST.
>> YEAH. I KNOW, IN THIS DAY AND AGE, I'M MORE SUSCEPTIBLE TO WHAT YOU SAID AS FAR AS HOUSING AND THAT.
GRANITE, THIS IS GOING TO BE PROBABLY MARKET RATE HOUSING.
I'M SURE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR ANYTHING ON THERE BUT MARKET RATE IS BETTER THAN NOTHING BECAUSE THE HOUSING SUPPLY IS REALLY BAD IN THIS AREA AND IT'S BAD NATIONWIDE.
>> YEAH, WE HAVE 679 ACTIVE HOUSES IN THE GREATER LANSING AREA RIGHT NOW, AND SIX YEARS AGO, WE HAD 1,700.
SO IT IS, YEAH, THE DEMAND, ABSOLUTELY.
>> NORMALLY, WE DON'T LET THE PUBLIC BUT THERE'S NOT MANY PEOPLE HERE, IF NOBODY OBJECTS, COME ON UP HERE AND [OVERLAPPING].
>> THANK YOU GUYS. I DROVE BY THAT PROPERTY.
I LIVED THERE. I LIVED IN EVERWOODS FOR 10 YEARS NOW.
I DIDN'T KNOW THERE WAS A HOUSE BACK THERE UNTIL THE TREES CAME DOWN.
ONE REASON WHY I'M POSITIVE OF THE SITUATION IS YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TWO HOUSES.
AGAIN, WE DO HAVE A HOUSING CRISIS SO IF THE PROPERTY WAS ALREADY SPLIT IN FOUR.
I KNOW THE CRITERIA AND I APPRECIATE THAT, I REALLY DO WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, WHAT YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH.
BUT IN MY MIND, IF IT'S ALREADY SPLIT, AND ANYTHING THAT CAN BE DONE CAN, BE UNDONE.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP IT IS.
IF WE'VE HAD PROPERTY THAT WE'VE SPLIT LIKE THAT BEFORE TO COMBINE IT.
SO I THINK IT'S A GREAT THING.
THESE GUYS ARE JUST THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD HOUSES ON IT AND SELL THEM.
YOU HAVE TWO NEW FAMILIES, MORE TAX DOLLARS.
I'M NOT A FAN PAYING TAXES IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO GET MORE TAX MONEY.
BUT AGAIN, YOU GUYS, THAT'S YOUR JOB, AND I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU DO, BUT I THINK IT'S A GREAT THING FOR THE COMMUNITY.
SO I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU GUYS CAN DO, BUT I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO THROW THIS OUT THERE TO THE BOARD MEMBERS.
I KNOW THAT EVEN THE WORD LITERAL IS IN THIS THING, AND IF YOU TAKE THIS LITERALLY, THAT'S LOOKING AT IT BLACK AND WHITE AND SOMETIMES IT'S VERY HARD.
BUT GOING BACK THROUGH MY MIND OF EVERYTHING THAT WAS SAID AND EVERYTHING PREVIOUSLY ON THE RECORD, WHAT IF THERE WAS A DIFFICULTY BECAUSE THE INTENT IS, PERSON, THE HOMEOWNER IN THIS CASE, THEY WANT TO BUILD MULTIPLE STRUCTURES, MULTIPLE BUILDINGS? SO INSTEAD OF ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE, THEY WANT TO BUILD TWO.
THEY CAN'T DO THAT ON THIS PROPERTY BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THIS PROPERTY IS ONE BIG PROPERTY, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RR ZONE.
THEY'RE GOING TO BE TOLD NO BY THE TOWNSHIP.
[01:10:03]
SO IN THAT SENSE, COULD THAT BE VIEWED AS A DIFFICULTY FOR THEM BECAUSE THEY WANT TO BUILD A SECOND HOME, THEY CAN'T.IN THEIR EYES, THEY WOULD HAVE TO SPLIT THIS AND MAKE IT A SEPARATE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO BUILD THAT SECOND HOME.
THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY WAY TO LEGALLY BUILD A SECOND HOME, WOULD BE TO SPLIT THE PROPERTY BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, IF THEY WANT TO HAVE TWO PROPERTIES, OR TWO HOUSES, THEY CAN'T, THEY CAN HAVE AN ADU.
BUT IF THEY WANT TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES, THEY CAN DO IT ON THIS PROPERTY, BECAUSE IT'S ONE SINGLE FAMILY LOT.
THE ONLY WAY TO DO IT, THE DIFFICULTY COULD BE SEEN AS, THEY HAVE TO SEPARATE THE PROPERTIES AND HAVE TWO SEPARATE LOTS IN ORDER TO BUILD TWO SEPARATE HOUSES.
>> THAT IS THE ONLY GRAY WAY THAT I CAN SEE THINKING ABOUT THIS, BECAUSE I'M TRYING HARD TO SEE DIFFERENT WAYS OF THINKING ABOUT IT.
AFTER EVERYTHING THAT I'M HEARING, THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT I CAN REALLY COME UP WITH, IS IF SOMEBODY WANTS AND THEY CAN MAKE A REQUEST THEN.
SOMEBODY SAYS, I WANT TO HAVE TWO SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES, CAN I DO IT ON THIS PROPERTY? KEITH'S GOING TO TELL THEM NO, YOU CAN'T.
YOU HAVE TO HAVE A SEPARATE PROPERTY.
AND THEY SAY, I KNOW, THERE'S AN EASY WAY TO DO THAT.
I CAN SPLIT MY PROPERTY. I CAN DO THAT.
IF I DO IT LEGALLY, WHICH IS GOING THROUGH THE VARIANCE PROCESS, OR IF IT'S REALLY BIG, AND I CAN SPLIT IT AND STILL HAVE TWO CONFORMING LOTS, I CAN BUILD ANOTHER THING ON THERE.
MAYBE A HARDSHIP FOR THEM IS IN THE SENSE THAT THIS PROPERTY IS NOT SO BIG TO THAT IF THEY WERE TO SPLIT IT, THEN EVERY SETBACK, AND LOT SIZE, AND EVERYTHING IS WITHIN THE CODE.
IT'S BIGGER THAN THE ONES AROUND IT, BUT BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS A CERTAIN SIZE, IF THEY SPLIT IT, NOW THEY'RE CREATING THE NONCONFORMITY ON THE WIDTH VERSUS IF IT WAS A BIGGER PROPERTY AND THEY SPLIT IT, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO MEET THE 200 FOOT WIDTH, AND NOT HAVE A PROBLEM.
BECAUSE THIS PROPERTY IS A CERTAIN SIZE, THEY CAN'T MEET IT TO DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, WHICH IS TO BUILD THE SECOND HOME.
THAT, IN MY EYES, COULD BE A GRAY WAY OF LOOKING AT THIS AS LONG AS WE HAVE THAT INFORMATION THAT WE SUPPORT AS A BOARD ON THE RECORD, UNLESS THERE'S SOMEBODY WHO DOES NOT AGREE WITH THAT.
THAT COULD BE A WAY, I'M NOT SAYING NUMBER 2 IS SET, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO GET THINKING ON HOW IT COULD BE VIEWED WITHOUT COMING OUT AND SAYING, NO CAN'T DO THIS, PERIOD.
>> I WOULD AGREE IN THAT SENSE AND IF YOU TRIM IT DOWN TO THE VERY SIMPLE TERMS IS THEY WANT TO BUILD TWO HOUSES.
THEY CAN'T DO THAT ON THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY THAT THEY HAVE RIGHT NOW.
LIKE YOU SAID, THEY'RE TRYING TO SPLIT IT FIRST, AND THEN THEY'RE TRYING TO BUILD TWO HOUSES WITHIN THE CODE ON THAT PROPERTY. THAT'S THEIR GOAL.
WHATEVER MOTIVE AFTER THAT DOESN'T MATTER TO ME.
BUT I THINK I'M TOTALLY FINE WITH THAT IDEA AND THEIR CONCEPTS AND HOW THEY'RE GOING ABOUT IT.
SO I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT ASPECT.
>> IT SOUNDS LIKE POTENTIALLY THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, THE ONES THAT ARE HERE SUPPORT THAT AS WELL.
BUT PLEASE, IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY MORE COMMENTS OR DIFFER FROM THAT?
>> I UNDERSTAND. I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT.
FROM WHAT MEMBER BENOIT SAID, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND IT, BUT THEN WHERE WOULD YOU SET THE LIMITS ON HOW SMALL OF A PIECE OF PROPERTY YOU CAN CUT OFF OR BREAK OFF? IT'S VERY DIFFICULT.
>> GOING BACK ON THAT, IF I COULD REAL QUICK.
THAT BRINGS UP A GREAT QUESTION.
I WENT BACK TO MY ORIGINAL EXAMPLE OF LET'S SAY THEY DECIDE TO SPLIT THIS, AND THEY'LL MAKE ONE 250 FEET WIDE AND THE OTHER 70 FEET WIDE.
TO ME, THAT WILL GO AGAINST THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT VARIANCE THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR BECAUSE NOW THEY'RE CREATING SOMETHING HUGE, AND THEN CREATING A REAL SUPER HUGE NEED FOR A VARIANCE, OR THIS, THEY'RE SPLITTING IT RIGHT DOWN THE MIDDLE.
IN MY EYES, THAT'S WHY THE MINIMUM VARIANCE WAS SATISFIED VERSUS IF THEY WERE TO SHIFT THAT CENTER LINE AND MAKE ONE HUGE VARIANCE AND ONE SMALL VARIANCE.
>> IF THEY DID THAT, WHAT WOULD BE CONFORMING AND WHAT WOULD NOT BE?
>> THE VARIANCE THEY'D BE REQUESTING WOULD BE BIGGER THAN WHAT THEY'RE ASKING NOW.
>> I UNDERSTAND THE LINE OF REASONING, AND I WANT TO REITERATE PART OF THE REASON I GOT ON THE ZBA AND PLANNING COMMISSION WAS BECAUSE I WANTED TO INCREASE THE HOUSING STOCK IN BOOMING TOWNSHIP, AND I THINK THAT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT GOAL, AND I REALLY APPLAUD THEM TRYING TO DO THIS.
MY ISSUE IS THAT THE PERMITTED PURPOSE ISN'T TO BUILD MULTIPLE HOUSES ON YOUR LOT.
THE ZONING ORDINANCE, THE PERMITTED PURPOSE IS TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO BUILD A SECOND PROPERTY AND CAME BEFORE US, I THINK WE'D HAVE THE EXACT SAME ISSUE.
WE'RE SAYING BUILDING A SECOND HOUSE ON YOUR LOT ISN'T A PERMITTED PURPOSE AND IT'S NOT THE GOAL OF THE ORDINANCE AND THE ZONE THAT YOU'RE IN.
[01:15:02]
I WOULD IMAGINE THAT IF SOMEBODY CAME, AND THAT WAS THE REASON FOR THEIR HARDSHIP WAS WE WOULD LIKE TO BUILD A SECOND HOUSE AND SELL IT FOR MONEY.THERE'S A PRACTICAL HARDSHIP IF YOU DENY THAT.
I WOULDN'T FIND THAT A COMPELLING REASON.
I THINK FOR A SIMILAR REASON RIGHT HERE, AS MUCH AS I WOULD LIKE THEM TO BUILD TWO HOUSES, WE NEED TO PASS DIFFERENT ORDINANCES TO SAY WE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE SMALLER LOT SIZES, AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
I FEEL THAT THIS DOESN'T MEET ANY SPECIAL NEED FOR A VARIANCE HERE.
THERE'S NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT THE PROPERTY ITSELF.
ONCE AGAIN, AT THIS MOMENT, I'M LEANING "NO" ON CRITERIA TWO.
I SEE IN HERE, I UNDERSTAND BOTH SIDES [LAUGHTER].
I BLAME THE CHAIR FOR NOT SHOWING UP TONIGHT.
I THROW ALL THE PRESSURE ON HER TO MAKE BE THE SWAY AND BE THE DECISION.
BUT SHE HAS A SICK CHILD, SO WE CAN'T KNOCK HER FOR NOT BEING HERE TONIGHT.
IF WE ARE POTENTIALLY AT A STALEMATE, THERE'S THREE OPTIONS THAT WE HAVE.
FIRST ONE WOULD BE SOMEONE TO RECOMMEND MOTION TO DENY, AND WE'D VOTE ON THAT.
THE SECOND WOULD BE SOMEONE TO RECOMMEND A MOTION TO APPROVE.
THEN IF SOMEONE, NOT SAYING ANY NAMES OR ANYBODY, BUT IF ONE OF THE MEMBERS DECIDES, I DON'T THINK THIS CRITERIA OR THIS CRITERIA OR ANY OF THESE HAS BEEN MET, THEY CAN VOTE "NO." THE OTHERS FEEL "YES," THEY CAN VOTE "YES," AND VICE VERSA.
IF THEY SAY, NO WE DON'T BELIEVE ANY OF THESE OR ONE OF THESE, WE CAN VOTE "NO." THE THIRD OPTION WOULD BE TO POSTPONE THIS TO ANOTHER MEETING.
HOWEVER, I DON'T SEE THE NEED TO POSTPONE BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO CHANGE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.
IT'S NOT LIKE THEY'RE TRYING TO BUILD SOMETHING IN A SIDE SETBACK, AND WE SAY, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO WORK WITH LESSENING YOUR 10-FOOT SETBACK TO MAKE IT AN EIGHT-FOOT SETBACK.
NOT MAKE YOUR 45-FOOT WIDE GARAGE.
CAN YOU MAKE IT 43 FEET WIDE AND SAVE THAT TWO FEET TO REDUCE IT AND GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO COME BACK LIKE WE DID WITH THE PREVIOUS ONE? I DON'T SEE THE NEED FOR THAT BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR.
THEN, LIKE I SAID, IF THEIR ONLY VARIANCE THEY'RE ASKING FOR IS TO SPLIT THE PARCEL, IF THEY WERE TO COME BACK AND MOVE THAT BOUNDARY, IN MY EYES IT'S GOING TO MESS WITH THAT WHOLE MINIMUM VARIANCE.
I THINK WE'RE AT THE POINT WHERE PROBABLY THE BEST THING WOULD BE SOMEONE TO MAKE THE MOTION TO EITHER APPROVE OR DENY, AND THEN WE GO THROUGH THE VOTES FROM THERE BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE ALL GOING TO BE ABLE TO COME WITH ALL THE CRITERIA OR NOT, BUT WE WON'T KNOW UNLESS WE VOTE.
OTHERWISE, I DON'T WANT TO KEEP THE APPLICANTS HERE UNTIL MIDNIGHT WITH US [LAUGHTER] TALKING, AND DELIBERATING ON THIS.
I KNOW IT'S NOT AN EASY [OVERLAPPING].
>> CAN THEY COME BACK TO ANOTHER WHEN YOU HAVE A FULL BOARD SO THAT IF TWO SAY NO AND THREE SAY YES, IT WOULD STILL PASS?
>> WE COULD POSTPONE IT AND ALLOW THAT IF OUR CHAIR COMES BACK AND WE HAVE A FULL BOARD.
>> WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY SAY NO TONIGHT. CAN THEY COME BACK THE NEXT?
>> IF WE ALL VOTE ON IT TONIGHT AND THE MAJORITY SAYS NO, THEN THEY CANNOT BRING THIS TOPIC BACK FOR AT LEAST ANOTHER YEAR.
>> WITHOUT NEW FOUNDING SOLUTION?
>> IN THE MEANTIME, THEY COULD SELL THE PLOT.
SOMEONE ELSE COULD BUY THE LOT, PUT UP A SMALLER HOUSE AND A POLE BARN. IS THAT WHAT WE WANT?
>> IF A POLE BARN IS AN ALLOWABLE ACCESSORY USE.
>> IF A GRAVEL PIT IS, I WOULD SAY A POLE BARN IS.
>> TO BE CLEAR, GRAVEL PIT, THEY WOULD REQUIRE A SPECIAL [OVERLAPPING].
>> THAT'S A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
>> A POLE BARN WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED?
>> YOU WANT TO COME UP HERE. YOU MAKE IT MORE OFFICIAL?
>> NORMALLY, WE HAVE A MICROPHONE UP THERE.
>> THERE'S RIGHT HERE. I'M GOING TO ECHO WHAT TERRY SAID.
ALL THE OTHER LOTS ON THAT SIDE OF THE ROAD ARE 117 FOOT WIDE.
THE ONLY REASON WHY THIS ONE'S LARGER IS BECAUSE THE GENTLEMAN THAT BOUGHT THE PROPERTY IN 1980, OR WHENEVER IT WAS, HE COMBINED IT.
THE TWO GENTLEMEN OVER HERE ARE SAYING THAT THEY HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE ORDINANCE, I'M NOT QUITE UNDERSTANDING THAT.
IF SOMEBODY WOULD BUY THE LOT FROM THIS GENTLEMAN AND DECIDE THAT THEY EITHER GOING TO RENOVATE THAT HOUSE,
[01:20:01]
WHICH FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THE INSIDE OF IT IS VERY QUIRKY AND IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S COMPLETELY UNUSABLE; FOUR FOOT OF WATER IN THE BASEMENT, I WOULDN'T WANT TO BUY THAT HOUSE.THEY TEAR IT DOWN AND THEY PUT UP A SMALLER HOUSE AND THEY PUT UP ANOTHER OUTBUILDING.
WHAT'S THAT GOING TO DO THE PROPERTY VALUES, FIRST OF ALL? IF WE'RE GOING TO PUT UP, EVEN IF IT'S $500,000, $400,000 HOUSES, NOT THE $800,000 THAT THEY'RE CLAIMING THEY'RE GOING TO DO.
BY THE WAY, IF YOU DON'T DO THAT, I WILL COME AND HUNT YOU [LAUGHTER].
BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL? IS IT REALLY SETTING A PRECEDENCE? IF YOU SPLIT A PIECE OF A PARCEL AND YOU HAVE THE SETBACKS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO ABIDE BY.
IF SOMEONE WANTS TO SPLIT A SMALLER LOT, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ABIDE BY THOSE SETBACKS ALSO, THOSE SAME SETBACKS.
IS THAT THE SAME FOR THE ENTIRE TOWNSHIP? I'M ASKING.
>> THEY HAVE SETBACKS, BUT THEY'RE NOT ALL THE SAME.
>> BUT STILL, IF IT'S A SMALLER PARCEL, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ABIDE BY THOSE SETBACKS.
IF THOSE OTHER LOTS WERE ALL 200 FOOT WIDE ON THAT SIDE OF THE ROAD, THEN I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU.
THEN LET'S DENY THAT, BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE.
IF WE BRING UP THAT MAP AGAIN, EACH ONE OF THOSE LOTS ON TWO OR THREE ON EACH SIDE ARE ALL 117 FOOT WIDE.
I HAVEN'T MET MR. MARCELLUS BEFORE TONIGHT AT ALL.
I'VE HEARD RUMORS OF WHAT HE WAS GOING TO DO THERE, AND THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. I APPRECIATE THAT.
THEY'RE GOING TO PROVIDE TWO VERY NICE HOMES FOR TWO FAMILIES TO LIVE IN.
THAT'S WHAT WE WANT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
I MOVED INTO A RESIDENT, A RURAL RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT WHEN I MOVED IN.
I MOVED IN THERE FIVE YEARS AGO. I LOVE MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
I WISH I WOULD HAVE MOVED THERE 15 YEARS AGO.
BUT I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS OF WHY WE CAN'T APPROVE THIS.
I'LL BE VERY UPSET IF THIS GETS TURNED DOWN TODAY.
SOMEONE ELSE BUYS A PIECE OF PROPERTY, BUILDS THAT SMALLER HOME, AND THEN PUTS IN SOME SORT OF OUTBUILDING THERE.
I GET UP EVERY MORNING AND I LOOK AT THAT LOT EVERY DAY.
I JUST WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT THAT.
I KNOW IT'S PROBABLY A TECHNICALITY OF THAT NUMBER 2 ITEM THERE THAT YOU'RE HAVING PROBLEMS WITH, BUT IF THEY WOULDN'T HAVE SAID ANYTHING ABOUT FINANCIAL TONIGHT, THAT IT WAS A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP, WOULD THAT HAVE CHANGED YOUR MINDS? I KNOW THAT THERE'S PEOPLE ALL THE TIME THAT BUY PROPERTIES AND THEY WANT TO SPLIT THEM.
HE'S NOT ASKING TO DO ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THOSE OTHER FOLKS DID ON EITHER SIDE OF THEM, TWO AND THREE AND FOUR LOTS DOWN.
>> POINT OF ORDER. POINT OF BOARD DONE.
>> FINE. TOTALLY UNDERSTAND YOUR COMMENTS AND WE THANK YOU FOR MAKING THEM AND PUTTING THEM ON THE RECORD.
BUT WITH RESPECT WITH THE BOARD MEMBERS, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE CODE THAT THEY HAVE AN ISSUE WITH OR WE HAVE AN ISSUE WITH, IT'S THE ACTUAL CRITERIA.
BECAUSE AS A BOARD, WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH AND FOLLOW THESE CRITERIA.
WE HAVE TO VOTE "YES" AND SAY YES, AFFIRMATIVELY, THE APPLICANT HAS MET THIS CRITERIA, AND IT'S THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IN THE CRITERIA THAT TALKS ABOUT A PERMITTED PURPOSE THAT ANY ONE OF US COULD READ IT, FOUR OF US UP HERE, WE COULD READ IT FOUR DIFFERENT WAYS.
I, FOR INSTANCE, SEE THAT AS IS THERE AN ISSUE WITH THE CURRENT PROPERTY NOW THAT DOESN'T ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNER TO USE IT FOR A PERMITTED PURPOSE? IF IT'S TOO SMALL, FOR INSTANCE, IF IT'S 50 FEET WIDE, AND THEY SAY, WITH THE 20 FOOT SETBACKS, I CAN ONLY BUILD A 10-FOOT WIDE HOME BECAUSE I GOT 20 AND 20, THAT'S 40 FEET AND IT'S A 50 FOOT, I CAN'T BUILD A 10-FOOT HOME.
THAT'S A HARDSHIP. MY EYES, THEY'VE MET THAT CRITERIA BECAUSE THAT IS A DIFFICULTY, VERSUS THIS CASE, I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE HARDSHIP IS COMING FROM IS, CAN THEY USE THAT PROPERTY RIGHT NOW? I THINK THE THING GOING AGAINST THEM IS IT IS A BIGGER PIECE OF PROPERTY.
THAT DOES HAVE TWICE AS MUCH PROPERTY ON IT RIGHT NOW VERSUS THE OTHER ONES.
COULD THEY USE IT FOR WHAT IS ALLOWED? SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, HOME OCCUPATION, THE LIST THAT KEITH BROUGHT UP? THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HAVING THE STRUGGLE WITH IS SOME OF US THINK YES, SOME OF US THINK NO.
WHAT WE DO AS A BOARD IS WE TRY TO LOOK AT THAT, NUMBER 1, LITERALLY, EVEN LITERAL AS A WORD IN THERE.
BUT WE ALSO TRY TO GIVE THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT TO THE PUBLIC, AS WELL AS THE HOMEOWNER, THE PROPERTY OWNER, TO SAY,
[01:25:02]
CAN WE VIEW THIS IN A GRAY? THAT'S WHY I SAID MY SPILL ON WHAT I SAID ABOUT SPITTING, KOENIG? KOENIG, IS THERE A WAY FOR US TO ALMOST LOOK AT THAT AND SAY, CAN IT BE VIEWED DIFFERENTLY? SO IF IT DOES GO, IF LET'S SAY WE APPROVE THIS AND SOMEONE DECIDES, NO, I DON'T LIKE THE TOWNSHIP'S RULING, WE'RE GOING TO SUE.DO WE HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION ON THE RECORD THAT SAYS WE MADE OUR BEST KNOWLEDGEABLE INTENT, INFORMED DECISION BASED ON THE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, EVEN THOUGH WE ALL VOTED YES AND SAID, ALL FIVE OF THESE ARE MET.
THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE ON THE RECORD.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
SO IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE CODE THAT THEY'RE STRUGGLING WITH, IT'S THESE DARN CRITERIA BECAUSE THAT'S THE CRITERIA.
AND BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THE CRITERIA USED TO BE WORSE.
THERE USED TO BE SEVEN OR EIGHT OF THEM?
>> SOME OF THEM, WE WRITE THEM AND EVERY TIME WE WRITE THEM, WE WERE LIKE, HOW IN THE WORLD.
YOU CAN INTERPRET IT ANY OTHER WAY YOU WANTED BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT WAS.
AND FINALLY, HIS DIRECTOR SAID WE GOT TO MAKE THESE MORE ALIGNED WITH STATE LAW, AND THEY CHANGED THEM A YEAR OR TWO AGO AND MADE THEM A LITTLE BIT MORE SIMPLER.
WE'RE TRYING TO DO OUR BEST TO FIND SOME SORT OF GRAY AREA THERE, BUT WE'RE REALLY HAMSTRING BY THESE CRITERIA BECAUSE AS A BOARD, WE DO REPRESENT THE TOWNSHIP, YOU GOT TO ULTIMATELY DO WHAT'S BEST FOR THE TOWNSHIP AND NOT NECESSARILY FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER.
I KNOW THAT'S A SUCKY THING TO SAY AND HARD TO HEAR, BUT THAT IS THE GIST OF THAT.
>> HONESTLY, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE THERE'S ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE, TEN PROPERTIES BESIDE THAT ONE.
>> I KNOW. NEVER HEARD A SIDE OF THEM. SORRY TO CUT YOU OFF.
>> WE'RE AT BOARD TIME. THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO SAY.
IF WE WERE TO GRANT THIS VARIANCE, AND THEN THEY WANTED TO BUILD TWO HOMES, AND THEY NEEDED A HUGE VARIANCE, WE WOULD HAVE TO GRANT IT WITH NUMBER 2.
BUT ONE THING I WANT TO DO IS PUT SOME OF THE BLAME ON THE STATE OF MICHIGAN.
THEY'RE THE ONES THAT FORWARD THIS CRITERIA THAT WE MUST USE.
>> KOENIG, DO YOU MIND, I WANT TO ASK A QUESTION.
>> BECAUSE YOU ARE THE APPLICANT OR REPRESENTATIVE, WE WILL GIVE YOU A CHANCE.
THE PUBLIC, THIS IS MORE TIME, BUT WE APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.
>> IS IT SOMETHING WHERE IF WE DO POTENTIALLY TABLE IT SINCE THERE ARE CERTAIN BOARD MEMBERS THAT ARE NOT HERE.
I KNOW THAT IT IS UP TO THE BOARD, BUT ALSO THE BOARD DOES TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE PUBLIC AS WELL.
SO IF WE WERE TO POTENTIALLY TABLE THIS AND WE FILL THIS ROOM WITH ALL THE NEIGHBORS WHO ARE PART OF WHAT THIS BOARD REPRESENTS, AND IF THEY WERE TO HAVE AN INPUT IN THAT AS WELL, THAT THEY WANTED THAT, DOES THAT HOLD ANY PRECEDENCE?
>> TYPICALLY, IF YOU HAVE THIS ROOM PACKED WITH NEIGHBORS AND THEY COME OUT AND SAY THIS GENTLEMEN, PLEASE APPROVE THIS, IT'D BE SILLY IF YOU DIDN'T BECAUSE IT'S GOOD FOR THIS AND THAT, IT HELPS YOUR CASE AND THAT YOU HAVE PUBLIC SUPPORT SO THAT YOU'RE NOT NECESSARILY GOES AGAINST NUMBER FIVE, THAT YOU HAVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
SO YOU HAVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST, YOU HAVE THE PUBLIC SUPPORT.
BUT WE STILL, AS A BOARD, CANNOT BASE SOLELY OUR DECISION JUST ON THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE HERE.
>> WE HAVE TO BASE IT ON THE CRITERIA THAT ARE IN FRONT OF US.
>> JUST THINKING IF THERE IS A TEETER-TOTTER PART BECAUSE WHERE YOU GUYS ARE TEETER-TOTTERING RIGHT NOW, THAT THE PUBLIC WOULD HOLD A PRECEDENCE.
>> JUST MY OPINION IS, MAYBE THESE OTHERS CAN SAY, BUT MY OPINION, IT'S GREAT TO HAVE PUBLIC SUPPORT, BUT TO ME, IT ONLY ENCOURAGES THE PUBLIC INTEREST OF THIS.
SO THAT'S WHY IT WAS MORE EASIER FOR ME TO SAY, I DON'T THINK THIS IS GOING TO HARM THE PUBLIC BECAUSE WE HAVE PUBLIC HEAR SAYING, WHAT'S THE TERM, WE SUPPORT THIS, VERSUS IF YOU HAD NEIGHBORS SAYING, WE DON'T SUPPORT THIS, [OVERLAPPING] THEN WE'D HAVE TO CONSIDER IT.
>> THERE'S NO OBJECTIVES OTHERWISE, THERE WILL BE SOME OTHER NEIGHBORS HERE SAYING, WE DON'T WANT THIS TO HAPPEN.
WE'RE TRYING TO DO SOMETHING GOOD IN THE COMMUNITY AND I REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW IT WOULD TURN DOWN NUMBER TWO.
THIS NUMBER TWO THING IS A PROBLEM AND THEN WE GET TURNED DOWN FOR NUMBER TWO.
>> WELL, IS IT A THING, IF IT'S HALF AND HALF, WHERE TWO IS HALF YES, AND TWO IS HALF NO KIND OF THING?
>> IS THERE A THING WHERE IF THERE IS TWO? LIKE IS I'M HALF YES, HALF, NO, HALF YES.
IS THERE SUCH A THING AS IT'S UNDECIDED? AND THEN YOU GUYS, THERE IS SOMETHING WHERE YOU SAY, OKAY, YOU NEED TO PROVIDE FURTHER INFORMATION WITH THIS OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES FOR IT TO BE APPROVED.
>> YES. [OVERLAPPING] SO IF YOU GUYS HAVE A VOTE TODAY AND FROM WHAT I'M GUESSING,
[01:30:08]
TWO ARE YES AND TWO ARE NO, I'M GUESSING, WHAT HAPPENS IN THAT SITUATION?>> IT'S A NO. IT HAS TO BE THREE OF THE FOUR.
WE HAVE DONE IT BEFORE, WHERE WE'VE POSTPONED.
WE DON'T LIKE TO REALLY TABLE ANYTHING BECAUSE IN ORDER TO UNTABLE SOMETHING, SOMEONE HAS TO MAKE A MOTION AT THE NEXT MEETING TO UNTABLE IT AND TALK ABOUT IT, BUT WE NORMALLY JUST POSTPONE THEM.
WE HAVE DONE THAT TO TRY TO HAVE THE APPLICANT WORK WITH THE CITY TO COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT DESIGN OR SOMETHING, BUT REALLY IT'S MORE IN THE CASE OF THEY'RE ASKING FOR VARIANCES WITH SETBACKS.
SO IF THEY ARE ASKING FOR AN ASTRONOMICAL SETBACK BECAUSE THEY WANT 70 FOOT WIDE GARAGE, AND WE'RE GOING, OKAY, NORMAL GARAGE IS, LET'S SAY, 30 FEET, CAN YOU MAKE YOUR 70 FOOT GARAGE A 65 AND LESSEN THE IMPACT ON THE SIDE? WE'VE POSTPONED TO ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO DO THAT TO SEE IF THEY CAN WORK TO LESSEN THE IMPACT OR MAYBE THEY CAN COME UP AND SAY, WE CAN SHIFT THAT BUILDING SO THAT IT DOESN'T EVEN REQUIRE A VARIANCE ANYMORE.
WE'RE ASKING FOR FOUR VARIANCES, WE CAN MAKE IT SO THAT WE ONLY NEED THREE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR VARIANCE.
I JUST DON'T KNOW IF I SEE YOU GUYS HAVING THAT NEED BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, YOUR MAIN VARIANCE IS SPLITTING THIS PROPERTY.
>> MAYBE WE WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK AFTER ANYWAYS, CORRECT? IF WE WANTED A VARIANCE.
>> IF YOU WANTED TO BUILD TWO SEPARATE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, YES BECAUSE YOU CAN'T CURRENTLY DO IT ON ONE PROPERTY.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS?
>> WHAT WOULD BE THE BOARD'S THOUGHT ON TABLING?
>> IN MY OPINION, THE ONLY POSITIVE I COULD SEE OF POSTPONING THIS WOULD BE TO ALLOW OUR CHAIR TO COME BACK AND TO ALLOW HER TO HAVE A VOTE AS WELL BECAUSE RIGHT NOW GRANTED, WE NEED THREE PEOPLE TO VOTE YES FOR THEM TO GET APPROVAL ANYWAYS.
BUT IF IN THEIR SCENARIO, HE'S SAYING TWO AND TWO, TWO YES, TWO NO, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE CASE, BUT IF THAT IS THE CASE RIGHT NOW, THAT WOULD BE A DENIAL VERSUS IF OUR CHAIR IS BACK AND, I'M NOT SPEAKING FOR HER BECAUSE SHE'S NOT HERE, BUT IF TWO WERE TO VOTE YES, SHE WERE TO VOTE YES, THAT'S THREE YES, TWO NO, IT WOULD BE APPROVED.
SO GRANTED, THAT WOULD MEAN THAT THREE PEOPLE FOUND ALL FIVE OF THESE CRITERIA SUCCESSFUL.
SO THAT'S THE ONLY KICKER AND I CAN'T HYPOTHESIZE WHAT SHE'S GOING TO VOTE OR EVEN WHAT YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO VOTE.
SO THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY BENEFIT IN MY OPINION OF POSTPONING IT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO CHANGE.
THERE'S NOTHING FOR THEM TO CHANGE THE LOT SPLIT, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO MOVE THAT, AND I HIGHLY DOUBT HE'S GOING TO COME BACK AND SAY, WE DON'T WANT TO BUILD TWO HOMES, WE'RE GOING TO SPLIT THIS BUT WE'RE JUST GOING TO BUILD ONE HOME.
THAT'S NOT THE INTENT OF WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO.
>> I AGREE. I THINK THERE IS A CASE FOR THE APPLICANT WANTING A FULL BOARD.
>> SO MY FEELING IS, WE HAVE A QUORUM HERE AND WE'VE HEARD THE APPLICANT AND TABLING IT DOESN'T EVEN GUARANTEE THAT THERE'LL BE A VOTE OF FIVE PEOPLE IN THE NEXT MEETING AND SO MY FEELING IS [OVERLAPPING] THAT WOULDN'T BE APPROPRIATE TO TABLE MOTIONS BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE FIVE MEMBERS PRESENT.
IF THAT WAS THE CASE, THEN WE SHOULDN'T HAVE STARTED THE MEETING UNLESS WE HAD A FULL ALLOTMENT OF PEOPLE HERE.
SO ONCE AGAIN, I APOLOGIES FOR OBJECTING, BUT I DON'T SEE A GOOD ARGUMENT FOR TABLING THIS MOTION ON THOSE GROUNDS.
>> I THINK YOU SAID IT CORRECTLY, AND PREVIOUS, THINGS LIKE THIS, USUALLY, AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING, THE APPLICANT HAS ASKED IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED WITH FOUR PEOPLE OR SINCE YOU PAID FOR A FULL BOARD, WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE A FULL BOARD, BUT WE'RE PAST THAT.
>> HAVE WE EVER DONE THAT? HAS THIS BOARD EVER DONE THAT?
>> NO. WE USUALLY DO THAT IF WE ONLY HAVE THREE.
SO THREE, WE SAY YOU NEED ALL THREE YESES.
>> TYPICALLY, IT'S WITH THREE.
>> YEAH. IT'S A VOLUNTEER BOARD, THERE'S NO GUARANTEE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE FIVE PEOPLE AT EVERY MEETING.
>> ARE WE ABLE TO REQUEST THAT, THOUGH?
>> CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT [OVERLAPPING] I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT CAN REQUEST IT, YES.
>> AGAIN, YOU RUN THE RISK OF NOT HAVING A FULL BOARD AGAIN.
>> WELL, WHAT IF THERE WERE SOMETHING WHERE MAYBE WERE, NOW THAT WE'VE OPENED THIS CASE, BE ABLE TO DO SOME MORE RESEARCH AND FIND SOME MORE FINDINGS AND FIND SOME MORE STATISTICS OR BE ABLE TO PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION OR CHANGES?
[01:35:04]
>> YOU WOULD HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY, YES.
THAT IS UP TO YOU AS AN APPLICANT.
>> IF WE COULD TABLE IT, WE WOULD GREATLY, GREATLY APPRECIATE IT.
AND AS THE APPLICANTS AND PART OF THE PUBLIC WE CAN REQUEST THAT YOU GUYS [INAUDIBLE] PROBABLY TO MAKE IT WORTH YOUR WHILE.
>> YEAH. IF WE CAN POSTPONE IT, I'D LIKE TO HAVE A FULL BOARD, BUT YOU SAID THAT IT DOESN'T GUARANTEE THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A FULL BOARD.
>> SO IF WE DO POSTPONE IT, WHEN IS THE NEXT TIME? WHEN IS THE NEXT DATE?
>> FEBRUARY 18TH. OKAY. SO I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.
IF WE DO COME BACK ON FEBRUARY 18TH, FROM NOW TO FEBRUARY 18TH, COULD WE PROCEED WITH DEMOLING THE HOUSE? IT'S A LIABILITY FOR US, RIGHT? FOR ME TO AT LEAST DEMO THAT HOUSE THAT'S EXISTING THERE.
>> YEAH. I DON'T THINK THE DEMOLITION PERMIT. [OVERLAPPING].
>> YEAH. WE'LL HAVE TO TALK TO TIM BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THAT WOULD BE AN ISSUE.
>> I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE AN ISSUE BECAUSE THAT'S NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THE VARIANCE.
>> WELL, I'LL TALK TO THE DIRECTOR ABOUT IT.
>> I'D LIKE TO HAVE AT LEAST, NEXT TIME I'M HERE, THE CHAIRMAN PRESENT.
IF WE CAN POSTPONE IT, THAT'D BE GREAT.
>> MEMBER HERSHISER, DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT? [OVERLAPPING]
>> OH, I THOUGHT I SAW YOUR FINGER UP. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO POINT OUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TABLING AND POSTPONING.
POSTPONING MEANS IT WILL BE THE NEXT MEETING, TABLING WILL BE WHEN IT DECIDES TO BE TAKEN OFF THE TABLE, WHICH COULD STAY ON THE TABLE UNTIL THERE ARE FIVE MEMBERS.
>> YEAH AND THEN SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION TO UNTABLE IT.
WE ALWAYS RECOMMEND TO POSTPONE INSTEAD OF TABLE.
>> YEAH. YOU'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE A VERY BUSY MEETING.
>> WE CAN DO ABOUT THAT. THAT'S WHAT WE DECIDE.
>> THERE'S BUSY MEETING NEXT MONTH.
>> DON'T LET THAT SWAY YOUR ANSWER, THOSE OTHER ONES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH [LAUGHTER] THE TIMING OF THIS, SO DON'T SAY WE HAVE TO APPROVE OR DENY BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE A BUSY MEETING NEXT MONTH.
THAT'S GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.
SO THE ONLY OTHER THING I CAN DO IS IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION, EITHER TO POSTPONE THIS TO THE NEXT MEETING OR IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO BE BRAVE AND MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE OR DENY BASED ON THE CRITERIA.
>> A MOTION TO POSTPONE TO THE NEXT MEETING SO THEY CAN HOPEFULLY HAVE FIVE MEMBERS AS WELL AS MAYBE A VARYING OPINION TO HELP US MAYBE GET TO CRITERIA 2.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO SUPPORT TO POSTPONE UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE MOTION? MEMBER HERSHISER.
>> THIS IS A TOUGH THING TO DO, BUT I THINK IT'S THE BEST THING TO DO FOR THE APPLICANT, GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO PRESENT ANY NEW INFORMATION THEY MIGHT HAVE AND HAVE FIVE MEMBERS AND A NEW OPINION, AS MEMBER BENOIT SAID.
>> I KNOW WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO GO AND I FEEL YOUR CONCERNS, BUT I DO AGREE, RATHER THAN JUST DENYING OUTRIGHT, WE'D LIKE TO GIVE YOU THE CHANCE TO COMMUNICATE AND SEE IF THERE IS ANY OTHER INFORMATION YOU COME UP WITH THAT WOULD MAYBE SWAY ONE THING OR ANOTHER, OR IF WE HAVE A FULL BOARD, HOPEFULLY HAVE A FULL BOARD NEXT MONTH.
>> SO CLARIFICATION ON THE MOTION.
ARE YOU SAYING WE'LL POSTPONE IT, AND WE WILL TAKE IT UP ON FEBRUARY 18TH, REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE PRESENT?
>> IF YOU POSTPONE IT, YOU WILL TAKE IT UP ON THE NEXT MEETING, [OVERLAPPING] WE CAN KEEP A TABLE FOR HOW LONG WE WANT.
OBVIOUSLY, THEY'RE GOING TO REQUEST TO COME BACK.
>> I WOULD MUCH BE IN FAVOR OF POSTPONING AND HAVING THIS RESOLVED ON THE 18TH, ASSUMING WE HAVE QUORUM AT ALL, THAN TABLING IT AND HAVING THIS WAITING FOR WHENEVER WE HAVE FIVE PEOPLE AND THEY SUDDENLY IT POPS IN.
>> OKAY. WITH THAT, I WILL DO A ROLL CALL VOTE.
SO THIS IS A VOTE TO POSTPONE ZBA CASE NUMBER 26-01 TO THE FEBRUARY ZBA MEETING. SO MEMBER BENOIT?
SO WE WILL POSTPONE THIS UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING.
>> THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING AND FOR BEING PATIENT AND PROVIDING YOUR EMOTIONAL INSIGHTS.
I KNOW SOMETIMES THIS CAN BE A PAIN AND IT COULD BE DIFFICULT, BUT WE HAVE A DIFFICULT JOB UP HERE AS BOARD MEMBERS, BUT WE'RE DOING OUR BEST TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE MOST INFORMED DECISION.
[BACKGROUND] WE'LL PROBABLY SEE AT LEAST THEM THREE PER SE, BACK NEXT MONTH.
>> WE'RE NOT DONE YET. [LAUGHTER]
[01:40:02]
>> ALL RIGHT, SO MOVING ON TO OTHER BUSINESS, THE 2026 ELECTION OF THE OFFICERS.
MR. CHAPMAN, DO WE DO WE WANT TO PER SE [BACKGROUND] POSTPONE THAT AS WELL BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE CHAIR HERE?
>> OR UNLESS SOMEONE IS CONFIDENT THAT THEY WANT TO MAKE A VOTE WITHOUT HER BEING HERE.
>> OKAY. SO WE WILL POSTPONE THE ELECTION OF THE OFFICERS UNTIL MADAM CHAIR CAN BE HERE AS WELL.
[9. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS]
BOARD COMMENT MEMBER REMARKS. MEMBER HERSHISER.WE'VE RUN INTO THESE BEFORE AND POSSIBLY, THE APPLICANT WILL COME BACK WITH SOMETHING THAT WILL SOUND A LOT BETTER TO US, NOT JUST A SPLIT, THEIR PLANS MIGHT BE A LITTLE MORE DEFINED FOR US.
I THINK IF WE KNEW THEY WEREN'T GOING TO BUILD SOMETHING OR BUILD SOMETHING THAT EVERYBODY IS GOING TO LIKE, I THINK THE BOARD WILL LIKE THAT MUCH MORE AND LOOK AT THINGS MAYBE NOT SO BLACK AND WHITE, MAYBE A LITTLE GRAY AND MAYBE I WON'T BE HERE AND HAVE TO PUT UP WITH IT.
>> WE'RE GOING TO MAKE YOU COME BACK BECAUSE YOU WERE ON HERE BEFORE.
SO ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS?
>> YEAH, I SHOULD INTRODUCE MYSELF.
I'M ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND I'VE BEEN APPOINTED AS THE LIAISON TO THE ZBA.
SO HELLO FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
>> YOU WERE HERE FOR THE LAST MEETING OF THE BOARD HERE, [OVERLAPPING] BUT NOT THESE TWO WERE IN.
>> SO I JUST WANT TO SAY, IT'S A PLEASURE BEING A MEMBER OF THE BOARD AND I LOOK FORWARD TO SOME LONG MEETINGS.
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS, MEMBER BENOIT?
>> I HAVE NO COMMENTS. IT'S JUST TOUGH TO DISCERN SOME OF THESE CRITERIA.
YEAH, I UNDERSTAND WE TO TRY TO GET THERE AND SOMETIMES IT TAKES A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT TIME PERIODS FOR PEOPLE TO GET THERE, BUT HOPEFULLY, WE CAN ALL JUST DO WHAT WE CAN TO BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY.
I KNOW WE WANT TO GET OUT OF HERE BECAUSE IT'S BEEN A LONG MEETING, BUT I KNOW IF NOT EVERYONE OUT THERE WHEN IT COMES TO THESE, ARE GOING TO BE SATISFIED WITH OUR DECISIONS.
BASED ON THE COMMENT I HEARD TO YOU, MEMBER NAHUM, IT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS THAT PEOPLE TAKE THIS LITERALLY AND WHEN YOU MESS WITH PRIVATE PROPERTY, IT GETS VERY EMOTIONAL.
BUT I KNOW THAT AS THE BOARD, WE'RE DOING THE BEST WE CAN, OTHERWISE, WE WOULD HAVE PROBABLY NONCHALANTLY VOTED FOR THIS TO APPROVE OR DENY.
IN THAT SENSE, I'M GLAD WE DIDN'T AS MUCH AS I DIDN'T WANT TO SEE THIS POSTPONEMENT BECAUSE FRANKLY, I PERSONALLY I'M UNSURE WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO BRING.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE GOING TO BRING ANYTHING DIFFERENT. I REALLY DON'T.
THE ONLY THING I CAN SEE DIFFERENT AS HE DECIDES, I'M GOING TO DROP THIS SECOND HOUSE.
BUT EVEN THEN, THE QUESTION IS PROBABLY GOING TO COME FROM US, THEN WHY ARE YOU ASKING FOR THE VARIANCE? HOWEVER, WE HAVE TO LET THEM DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE AND COME UP WITH THE INFORMATION, BUT WE KNOW THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO SATISFY EVERYONE.
IT'S DISHEARTENING TO HEAR CERTAIN COMMENTS, BUT I'VE HEARD WORSE, I'VE BEEN TOLD WORSE, ESPECIALLY BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHEN I WAS STAFF SITTING RIGHT NEXT TO ME ON THE DAIS IN FRONT OF A STANDING ROOM ONLY, AND TOLD RIGHT TO MY FACE AND POINTING AT ME LIKE THIS THAT THIS GUY SUCKS AND HIS STAFF REPORT IS CRAP, [LAUGHTER] AND YOU HAVE TO VOTE NO.
I HAD TO SIT THERE AND JUST DO THIS, AND I COULDN'T DEFEND MYSELF.
I UNDERSTAND, EMOTION SOMETIMES WITH THESE, AND PEOPLE ARE GOING TO HAVE THEIR OPINIONS AND THAT'S FINE.
>> ONE REQUEST IS, IF WE THINK THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE TO POSTPONE MOTIONS UNTIL WE HAVE A FULL BOARD BECAUSE WE DIDN'T GIVE THE APPLICANTS THE OFFER OF HAVING A FULL BOARD PRESENT, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT IN THE FUTURE, WHENEVER WE DO NOT HAVE ALL FIVE MEMBERS PRESENT, THAT WE MAKE A POINT OF MAKING THAT OFFER FOR FOUR MEMBER BOARDS AS WELL AS THREE SO THAT THIS DOESN'T COME UP AGAIN AS A MOTIVATION FOR TABLING LATER.
>> IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE WE CAN'T GUARANTEE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE.
WE'VE HAD MEETINGS WITH THREE PEOPLE.
[OVERLAPPING] SO IT'S REALLY NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO GET IN THE HABIT OF DOING.
>> TO MAKING THE OFFER TO ALLOW THEM TO? [OVERLAPPING]
>> YEAH, BECAUSE OTHERWISE, WE'RE GOING TO JUST KEEP TABLING EVERYTHING TO THE MEETING.
>> THAT WOULD BE A SIDE EFFECT IF WE WERE TO AGREE.
>> I THINK THIS IS A FINE ALTERNATIVE WHERE WE JUST WEREN'T ABLE TO GET THERE, LIKE, LAST MONTH THERE WAS THREE MEMBERS, I BELIEVE THAT WE HAD AND THEY WERE ABLE TO APPROVE THOSE.
IT MIGHT BE A CASE BY CASE SITUATION WHERE WE'RE EITHER ABLE TO OR UNABLE AND JUST TRY TO GET THERE THE BEST YOU CAN THROUGHOUT THE MEETING.
IF YOU CAN'T, DELAY FOR MONTH.
>> SO THERE [OVERLAPPING] AREN'T A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE.
>> BETTER DELAYING A MONTH VERSUS MAYBE DENYING THEM HAVING TO WAIT A YEAR INSTEAD.
>> SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE FOR THE DELAY IS A GOOD GREAT WAY TO PUT IT. I CAN SEE THAT.
[01:45:04]
>> SO LAST THING, UNFORTUNATELY, THE AUDIENCE, WHICH IS THE ONLY PART, THEY DON'T REALIZE THAT THE APPLICANTS HERE BECAUSE THE TOWNSHIP ALREADY SAID NO.
>> OKAY. NOTHING ELSE, WE ARE ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.