Feb 18, 2026 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting

[00:00:01]

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING SO PATIENT. IT IS

[1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER ]

[2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA ]

HOPEFULLY, EVERYBODY GOT A CHANCE TO TAKE A LOOK. I'M GOING TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. ALL RIGHT. I'M SECOND. ALL RIGHT, GREAT. THIS IS A VOTE TO APPROVE TONIGHT'S AGENDA.

MEMBER BEN-HASS? YES. MEMBER KOENIG? YES. MEMBER NAUHAN? YES. MEMBER CHESISE? YES. AND CHAIRMAN SOARES, YES. SO WE

[3. CORRECTIONS, APPROVAL AND RATIFICATION OF MINUTES ]

ALL RIGHT, THIS IS A VOTE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM JANUARY 21ST, 2026. MEMBER BENOIT? YES. MEMBER KOENIG? YES. MEMBER DUNHAM? YES.

MEMBER CUSICK? YES. AND CHAIRMAN SORWELL ABSTAINED

[4. COMMUNICATIONS ]

[5.A. ZBA CASE NO.: 26-01 (2403 Haslett), Konstantinos Marselis, 1289 Creek Pointe, Rochester, MI 48307]

SORRY, MY MOUSE IS... THAT'S OKAY. YOU WENT TOO FAST AND I DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO PULL UP MY PACKET YET. HERE WE GO. GOT IT. ALL RIGHT.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS TONIGHT IS ZBA CASE NUMBER 26-01-2403.

HASLETT, CONSTANTINOS MARSALIS, 1289 FREAKS POINT, ROCHESTER, MICHIGAN. 48307. SO WHO WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN? OH, YEAH, I'LL JUST START QUICKLY. THANK YOU. THIS WAS FROM LAST MONTH'S MEETING. THE BOARD POSTPONED THE REQUEST ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT TO COME BACK TO THIS MEETING TO MAKE A DECISION. SO THE PROPOSAL IS TO CREATE TWO EQUAL PARCELS THAT HAVE 117.25 FEET IN LOT WIDTH. AND A VARIANCE OF 82.75 FEET IS REQUESTED FOR BULK PARCELS. AND THERE'S ALSO THE PREVIOUS PACKETS ALSO INCLUDED. ALL RIGHT. WOULD THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE LIKE TO SPEAK REGARDING THIS CASE? AND IF SO, YOU CAN COME UP TO THE PODIUM. JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD. SO, CONSTANTINOS MARCELLIS. SO, YEAH, SO WE, I BOUGHT THIS LOT. I WANT TO DEVELOP IT. SO I WANT TO ACTUALLY BUILD TWO HOMES ON IT. SO IT WAS AN EXISTING SPLIT, SO THE LOTS WERE ACTUALLY TWO LOTS BEFORE. SO WE'RE ASKING IF WE CAN DO THE SAME THING, KEEP THEM HOW THEY WERE BEFORE, SO TWO LOTS. IT'S A BIG ENOUGH LOT, IT'S ALMOST TWO ACRES.

AND WE BOUGHT THIS HOUSE THINKING THAT WE'RE GOING TO BUILD TWO BRAND NEW HOMES ON IT. THE EXISTING HOME NEEDS TO BE DEMOED, SO WE WANT TO PROCEED BUILDING TWO HOMES ON THAT PROPERTY. AND WITH YOUR BLESSING, WE WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED AND DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY THAT'S BEEN ABANDONED FOR PROBABLY, I DON'T KNOW, THREE, FOUR YEARS. I COULD HOP IN A LITTLE BIT. YEP, JUST NAME AND POP THE CARD. NICOLE KITZMILLER. OKAY. SO HE WENT AHEAD AND HE PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY DIRECTLY FROM THE OLD HOMEOWNER. I WAS NOT A PART OF THE ORIGINAL. TRANSACTION,

[00:05:02]

AND ORIGINALLY, HE PURCHASED THE HOME AND WITH THE INTENT TO BE ABLE TO RENOVATE IT. IT HAS BEEN VACANT FOR OVER FIVE YEARS AND WAS IN EXTREME DISARRAY.

BUT THERE WERE PORTIONS OF THE HOME THAT WAS UNAVAILABLE TO WALK THROUGH.

AND SO THEN ONCE WE GOT A GENERAL CONTRACTOR IN THERE, WE WERE ABLE TO GET IN THE BASEMENT. THERE WAS FIVE FEET OF STANDING WATER IN THE BASEMENT. AND THEN AFTER REVIEWING, GOING THROUGH EVERYTHING, BASED ON, YOU KNOW, BRINGING IT TO CODE. AND ALL THE THINGS THAT WE WOULD NEED TO DO FOR THE TOWNSHIP, WE, THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SAID, YOU KNOW, THIS IS, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SALVAGE THIS. YOU ARE WAY BETTER OFF THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ACTUALLY DEMOLITION THIS PROPERTY. AND THEN ALSO COME TO FIND OUT A LOT OF THE TREES OUT THERE HAD, GOSH, WE HAVE A LETTER FROM THE LANDSCAPER, RIGHT TREE SERVICES, FALLING OVER, ROTTED, AND ALSO HAVING A VERY INTRUSIVE, SUCH AS POISON IVY, BUT OTHER THINGS THAT WERE INTRUSIVE. SO ESSENTIALLY, NOW IT TURNED INTO, WE DO UNDERSTAND THAT PRICE CAN'T BE THE DETERMINING FACTOR AS TO DOING THIS, BUT OVERALL...

WE WANT TO BUILD TWO HOUSES, SO THAT IS. OUR REQUEST IS TO GO AHEAD AND SPLIT THAT, AND WE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO JUST REQUEST A LAND DIVISION.

BUT, YOU KNOW, A LITTLE BIT SHORT THERE.

BUT AGAIN, WITH THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, WE'D FIT RIGHT IN. AND GOSH, I WISH WE WOULD HAVE ALMOST HAD PICTURES OF THE CURRENT PROPERTY.

BUT SO NOW, YOU KNOW, WITH LAND COST AND THAT HOME AND HAVING TO REBUILD THAT PROPERTY, IT'S WE. WE ARE REALLY LOOKING TO ADD THOSE TWO HOUSES THERE AND GO BACK TO. WE ALSO HAVE THE SUPPORT WITH THE NEIGHBORS, NEIGHBORS. THEY WERE, THEY WERE HERE LAST TIME, YEAH, THEY WERE PRESENT AT THE LAST ONE THAT WE HAD, AND THEY CAME UP AND THEY VOICED. AND YOU KNOW, THEY WERE VERY GRATEFUL TO BE ABLE TO BUILD A NEW HOME AND, YOU KNOW, BRING SOME JOBS INTO THE AREA AND BRING TWO NEW NICE HOMES. AND YEAH, THEY WERE NEIGHBORING. AND TO BE ABLE TO DO TWO HOUSES AND THE ZONING ON IT IS A LITTLE UNIQUE AS WELL, SO IT WOULD BE THERE'S ROOM TO BUILD A SEPARATE HOUSE.

BUT IT TRULY MAKES SENSE TO TO SEPARATE THAT PARCEL THERE IN IN THE MIDDLE. AND, YOU KNOW AGAIN, WITH THOSE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES TO, IT WILL FIT RIGHT IN, ALL RIGHT. AND I'M SORRY. OH, NO, I'M GO AHEAD. AND WHEN THEY, WHEN WE WENT THROUGH ALL OF THAT, WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THIS LAST TIME, I'M NOT SURE IF IT SHOWS UP ON THE NOTES. I JUST WANTED TO MENTION EVERYONE WAS ON BOARD AND VOTED TO AGREE TO THREE OUT OF THE FOUR CONDITIONS. AND THEN IT SEEMED AS IF THE ONE OF THE CONDITIONS, NUMBER TWO, IT WAS A SPLIT VOTE. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE ENDED UP WITH THE WITH THE LAST. MEETING. SO WE WANTED YOU TO BE HERE SO YOU CAN HEAR US OUT. YEAH, AND THE BIGGEST THING WE ACTUALLY DIDN'T, DIDN'T KNOW UNTIL THIS LAST MEETING THAT IT USED TO BE TWO SEPARATE PARCELS. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE'RE AT. WE WOULD BE ABLE TO DO JUST REQUEST A LAND DIVISION FOR IT, BUT SINCE WE'RE JUST A LITTLE BIT SHORT.

I SPOKE WITH KEITH AND HE SAID THAT WE NEED TO DO THE VARIANCE FOR THE LAND DIVISION. WELL, I THANK YOU FOR THAT UPDATE.

THAT'S HELPFUL BECAUSE THE MINUTES DON'T ALWAYS FILL IN THE BLANK. SO I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND COMING BACK HERE AND WANTING TO FULL BOARD.

ABSOLUTELY. WE APPRECIATE IT.

WE WILL ABSOLUTELY DO OUR BEST TO MAKE A GREAT DECISION, I HAVE NO DOUBT. SO IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE

[00:10:02]

SO I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT AND GO INTO BOARD TIME. SO, GENTLEMEN, IF ANYBODY WANTS TO UPDATE ME, WHAT I DID SEE FROM THE MINUTES WAS THAT PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES SEEM TO BE OUR CHALLENGE, WHICH HAPPENS QUITE A BIT.

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

AS LONG AS THEY DO THAT, THAT'S THAT'S WHERE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY CAME FROM. SO CAN YOU WALK ME THROUGH WHY THE SPLIT PARCEL IS NECESSARY VERSUS JUST HAVING THAT THAT CYCLE LOT AND REBUILDING, FINANCING THE PROPERTIES, RIGHT? SO THIS IS WHAT I DO I BUILD HOMES AND I REMODEL HOMES. IT'S ACTUALLY CHEAPER TO BUILD TWO HOUSES ON THAT PROPERTY, WE WON'T BE ABLE TO RECOUP OUR MONEY OR GET THE NECESSARY PROFIT MARGIN THAT WE WANT TO DO. YOU KNOW, WHEN WE BUILD TWO HOUSES ON THAT PROPERTY, THE COST WENT UP ALREADY.

BECAUSE NOW WE WENT IN, YOU KNOW, NOW WE HAD A CLEAN LANDSCAPE, WE HAVE TO PLANT TREES, WE GOT TO DO ALL THAT STUFF, RIGHT? SO IT BECOMES A LOT EASIER TO SELL TWO HOMES. RIGHT? CONSTRUCTION WILL COST, BECAUSE THESE ARE BRAND NEW HOUSES, RIGHT, THAT WE'RE GOING TO PUT UP. SO IT WILL BE A LOT EASIER AND A LOT CHEAPER FOR US TO BUILD TWO HOUSES RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER THAN IT IS TO BUILD ONE HOUSE. WE WON'T BE ABLE TO GET OUR MONEY OUT.

ESSENTIALLY, THE PROBLEM THAT WE WILL RUN INTO IS, YOU KNOW, IF WE ARE UNABLE TO DO THIS.

NOW, WITH THE NEW FINDINGS, THERE WON'T BE ANOTHER HOUSE THAT IS BUILT. AND EVEN JUST TO SELL THAT PARCEL BACK.

FROM JUST TO CLEAR, YOU KNOW, I JUST, FOR IT TO SIT THERE THE WAY THAT IT IS, I KNOW THAT THE COMMUNITY WOULD NOT LIKE THAT. AND WE REALLY ARE JUST, I UNDERSTAND THAT THINGS TRY TO BE VERY BLACK AND WHITE WITH THOSE REQUIREMENTS, THE ONE THROUGH FIVE. I PERSONALLY AND PROFESSIONALLY FEEL, ESPECIALLY AS A REALTOR WITH THE HOUSING MARKET, YOU KNOW, THAT HOPING THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF WEIGHT. FROM NEIGHBORS AND THE COMMUNITY, AND BRINGING THESE, YOU KNOW, NEW HOMES INTO THE AREA, AGAIN, WITH THE NEIGHBORS THAT CAME OVER AND SO FORTH. SO IT REALLY IS A MATTER OF THIS IS THE ONLY WAY THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO PROCEED. AND WE ORIGINALLY DID NOT KNOW THAT OR INTEND IT.

BUT, YOU KNOW, THEN WHEN WE RAN INTO CONSTRUCTION ISSUES, THAT'S WHERE THIS, YOU KNOW.

AROSE, AND WE REALIZED, YOU KNOW, HEY, NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES ARE ONE ACRE, SO WE SHOULD BE OKAY TO BE ABLE TO SPLIT THIS PARCEL UP. AND VERSUS, YOU KNOW, BUILDING TWO HOUSES ON THE ONE PROPERTY WITH IT BEING IN ONE PARCEL, YOU CAN RUN INTO ISSUES WITH THE TOWNSHIP WITH THEIR REQUIREMENTS, BUT ALSO ON THE LENDING SIDE WITH THEIR REQUIREMENTS AS WELL. SO IT'S A DIFFERENT BALL GAME IN THE INDUSTRY WHEN YOU'VE GOT TWO HOUSES

[00:15:02]

CORRECT. CORRECT. AND I'M GUESSING THAT'S WHERE WE GOT INTO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES. I DON'T SEE THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE. I'M WONDERING WHAT THE DISCUSSION WAS TO FIND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE IN THE PROPERTY. WELL, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE. SO THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ON ONE AND TWO AND WHERE THE KIND OF CRUX OF THE ISSUE LAY. SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS FOR UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WAS THAT IT IS ACTUALLY UNUSUAL FOR ITS NEIGHBORHOOD IN THAT, LIKE, CUTTING IT IN HALF WOULD ACTUALLY MAKE IT THE SAME SIZE AS ITS NEIGHBORS. OKAY, BEING THAT, IT'S SUCH A LARGE LOT.

RIGHT, YEAH, IT'S DOUBLE THE SIZE OF BOTH OF ITS NEIGHBORS, AND SO ITS NONCONFORMANCE WOULDN'T ACTUALLY BE UNUSUAL FOR THAT STREET. AND THEN THERE WAS ALSO ARGUMENTS THAT THE PLOT HAD A HOUSE THAT WASN'T ABLE TO BE RESTORED, THE OTHER ARGUMENT FOR UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES.

RIGHT, OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I COULD GO WITH THAT FOR UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES. I DID, YOU KNOW, I THINK, AND YOU MENTIONED IT EARLIER WHEN YOU WERE SPEAKING FIRST, THAT, YOU KNOW, UNFORTUNATELY, THE FINANCES OF IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION. ONLY BECAUSE, I MEAN, FOR MANY REASONS, BUT MOST OF WHICH IS THAT ALL KINDS OF CIRCUMSTANCES CAN COME UP.

RIGHT. AND, YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S PART OF OUR... SCOPE THAT WE LOOK AT, BUT ALSO BECAUSE THIS VARIANCE STAYS WITH THE PROPERTY. SO WHEN YOU SELL THOSE TWO LOTS, THAT GOES INTO SOMEBODY ELSE'S HANDS, BUT THE VARIANCE STAYS WITH THAT PROPERTY. SO THAT'S WHERE WE CAN'T TAKE THOSE FINANCES INTO CONSIDERATION BECAUSE THAT WOULDN'T BE FAIR TO THAT VARIANCE GOING DOWN THE ROAD. THAT SAID, I COULD SEE EITHER. I COULD DEFINITELY SEE A SIDE WHERE, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY, IF THIS HOUSE IS NOT HABITABLE, THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IS THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO BUILD SOMETHING, BUT DO THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO BUILD TWO HOMES AND SPLIT THE LOT IN ORDER TO COVER THOSE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES? THEY SAID THAT THEY THINK THE LOT IS BIG ENOUGH FOR TWO HOUSES. THE ZONING IS R.A. ONE UNIT PER ACRE, CORRECT? YEAH, THEY WERE TALKING, SHE WAS REFERENCING MAYBE A MOTHER-IN-LAW SUITE.

IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE? YEAH, IF THERE WERE TO BUILD TWO HOUSES ON ONE PARCEL, IT WOULD ALMOST BE MORE LIKE A MOTHER-IN-LAW SUITE.

VERSUS WHERE WE WOULD HAVE SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING, SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING. SO IF THIS IS GOING TO REMAIN OUR AID. THE WAY THEY'VE GOT IT PLANNED, YOU'D NEED TWO VERNS. ONE FOR THE ACREAGE AND ONE FOR THE FRONTAGE. THIS IS R-A.

IT'S R-R. R-R, SORRY. THIS IS R-R. IT'S R-R. MAPS AT R-A, I THOUGHT. NO, IT'S R-R.

YEAH. YEAH. IT'S R-R. OKAY.

THEY HAVE ENOUGH AREA. IT'S JUST THE FRONTAGE THAT IS THE ISSUE. SO ESSENTIALLY, WITH THAT BEING THE ONLY ISSUE WITH IT, THE REQUEST IS REALLY JUST THAT PORTION OF IT RIGHT THERE. BECAUSE EVERYTHING ELSE FITS WHERE IT SHOULD QUALIFY. AT LEAST I HOPE I'M WORDING THAT, RIGHT.

OKAY, THEN I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION, KEITH. YEAH.

WITH THESE LOTS BEING SMALLER, THE TWO SMALLER PARCELS, WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE FOR...

FOR VARIANCES GOING FORWARD, FOR BUILDING, FOR LOT LINES.

AND YEAH, I THINK WE KIND OF, WE KIND OF TALKED ABOUT THAT THE LAST MEETING IN TERMS OF SETBACKS. AND I MEAN, IT'S HARD, YOU CAN'T TELL. BECAUSE, WELL, I KNOW, BUT THEY SUBMITTED SOME OF THE DRAWINGS THAT THEY RIGHT, THEY HAD THE PLANS. YEAH, AND IT LOOKED LIKE THEY WERE ALL WOULD BE WELL WITHIN THE SEVEN. YEAH, YEAH, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE MY OTHER.

YEAH, YEAH, THAT WAS BROUGHT UP. ARE WE COMING BACK AROUND TO HAVING MORE VARIANCES? AND THEN IT'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, GOING TO SOME OTHER HOUSE. YOU KNOW, AND REALLY, IF THIS WAS IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION, WHERE THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES

[00:20:02]

REGARDING OUR REQUEST. AND I PROMISE YOU, THIS WILL LOOK OUTSTANDING.

YEAH. BLOOD, SWEAT AND TEARS.

LOOKING AT THE PLAT MAP, AND WOULD YOU DIVIDE IT IN HALF FROM NORTH AND SOUTH AND BUILD ONE HOME ON RABY ROAD? OR DOESN'T IT? DOESN'T GO- I DON'T THINK SO. IT'S SOUTH OF US, NORTH. YEAH. TWO DRIVEWAYS ALREADY WHERE THE CURB IS CUT. AND IF WE JUST WE'RE JUST SAYING, SPLIT IT RIGHT DOWN THE MIDDLE, AND AND IT'S BOTH, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S. IT'S LONG DEPTH ONE, SAME AS THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. YES, UM, THEN THE QUESTION I HAVE IS IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE ANY OF THE OTHER LOTS SURROUNDING IT. I HAVE 200 FEET OF FOOTAGE.

CORRECT. AND THAT GETS BACK TO HOW IT WAS PLOTTED. YEAH, AND THE ZONING MATCHING UP TO WHAT'S PLOTTED. YEAH, YEAH.

SO, I MEAN, I'LL JUST, FOR MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS, I DON'T HAVE A HUGE PROBLEM WITH THIS. I CAN MEET THE MINIMUM ACTION I CAN MEET THAT IT WON'T ADVERSELY AFFECT. I CAN MEET... GENERALLY CONSISTENT, AND I COULD SEE WHERE I COULD MAKE THAT CASE FOR UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES. I STILL AM TRYING TO CROSS THE HURDLE FOR PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, BUT ANYTHING, ANYBODY, ANY THOUGHTS YOU HAD FROM LAST MONTH, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER? I MEAN, YEAH, I THINK YOU GOT EXACTLY TO WHERE WE WERE. OKAY, ALL RIGHT. UM, WELL, OKAY, LET'S ASK MORE QUESTIONS.

WHO'S GOT QUESTIONS? I MEAN, JUST JUST LOOKING AT THE AT THE PLOT MAP HERE, I MEAN, I, IT'S. IT'S ABSOLUTELY A DIFFERENT SHAPE THAN EVERY OTHER LOT IN THAT WITHIN THAT BLOCK, RIGHT UP CLEAR TO OAKNESS ROAD. QUICK QUESTION. IS THAT SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE CONSIDERING, WHETHER OR NOT IT IS SIMILAR TO ITS NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, OR SHOULD THEY EACH BE EVALUATED IN ISOLATION? I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE EACH CASE INDIVIDUALLY, BUT EVEN JUST LOOKING, IT'S KIND OF GLARINGLY OBVIOUS WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT, THAT IT'S JUST AN ODD, UNIQUE SITUATION FOR THIS BLOCK, FOR THIS ZONE. SO I DO UNDERSTAND. VERY SORRY IF I'M, I DON'T KNOW IF I'M. I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU GUYS HAVE TO TAKE EACH CASE AND IT ONLY BE ABOUT THAT CASE IN ISOLATION. BUT PART OF THE REQUIREMENTS IS NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, SO EVEN THOUGH IT IS JUST ABOUT THIS LOT, THE CONSISTENCY IS PART OF THE REQUIREMENTS AS WELL.

SO IT IS KIND OF, YOU KNOW? SO, PART OF OUR CRITERIA IS MAKING SURE THAT GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NEIGHBORING PARCELS.

SO IT'S NOT NECESSARILY IT DOESN'T MATCH THE PARCELS, BUT WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT. SO ARE WE GOING TO HAVE A NEGATIVE EFFECT? IS GRANTING THIS VARIANCE GOING TO CREATE A SNOWBALL EFFECT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD? IS IT SOMEHOW GOING TO IMPACT NEGATIVELY? AND I CAN SAY NO. I WOULD AGREE THAT IT WOULDN'T. NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE STATE OF THE WORLD. HOWEVER, THE HARDEST ONE FOR US TO MEET, AND THIS IS THE CHALLENGE, IT'S VERY, OUR SECOND CRITERIA IS VERY GRAY.

IT'S WHAT WE DETERMINE TO BE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.

YOU BUY A PROPERTY AND IT DOESN'T TURN OUT HOW YOU WANT, SO IS THAT A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY? THAT'S KIND OF WHERE, YOU KNOW, IT'S WAY TOO SIMPLIFIED, BUT THAT'S KIND OF THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT. SO NOW IT'S...

IT'S, I MEAN, DO WE WANT PEOPLE TO BUILD IN OUR COMMUNITY? ABSOLUTELY.

DO WE WANT PEOPLE TO BUILD NEW HOMES IN OUR COMMUNITY? DO WE WANT SOMEBODY TO BUILD A NEW HOME ON THIS LOT? INSTEAD OF, LIKE THEY'RE SAYING, IF THEY'RE NOT ABLE

[00:25:02]

NOW THAT YOU CLEARED THE TREES, I'VE SEEN IT QUITE A BIT MORE.

AND, YOU KNOW, DO WE WANT TO CONTRIBUTE TO SOMETHING POSITIVE GOING INTO THAT SPACE? SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I LOOK AT CRITERIA, TOO, IS THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY THAT THEY JUST CANNOT MAKE THIS PARCEL WORK AS A ONE-FAMILY PARCEL. AND I DON'T SEE THAT VERY EASILY. I MEAN, THERE'S NOTHING PREVENTING THEM FROM BUILDING. IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHAT THE LAW CURRENTLY APPLIES. I, I ASKED KEITH, OR I WILL ASK HIM. HAD THEY SPLIT THE LOT BEFORE THEY CAME HERE, THEY WOULD THE LOTS BE CONFORMING, THEN UNDER THE ZONING, THE RR ZONING, NO, THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING. YEAH, I KNOW, BUT THE OTHER LOTS ARE ALSO NON-CONFORMING IN THAT BASIS.

CORRECT. OKAY. YEAH. THAT MAKES IT. CONFUSING. IT DOES MAKE IT CONFUSING BECAUSE THEN ALL THE REST OF THE LABS THERE...

THEY'RE ALL NON-CONFORMING USES. THEY'RE ALL NON-CONFORMING, YEAH. SO THIS WOULD BE THE ONLY CONFORMING.

BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THIS MAKES A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENCE, BUT IN TALKING WITH KEITH ABOUT THIS, TRULY THE BIGGEST THING IS THE REQUEST OF THE VARIANCE OF THE FOOTAGE. SO IF WE HAD A LITTLE BIT MORE FOOTAGE, THEN WE WOULDN'T HAVE NEEDED A VARIANCE. WE WOULD HAVE JUST NEEDED A LAND DIVISION.

RIGHT. SO, YEAH. WHICH, AGAIN, IS WHERE I CAN MEET THE MINIMUM ACTION. FOR SURE, BECAUSE WE'RE JUST AT JUST ENOUGH. I JUST WANT TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE BACKGROUND. I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TOO MUCH UNLESS I SPOKE.

HAD NAUSEA ABOUT THIS MEETING AND I WAS PROBABLY PART OF THE REASON WHY WE POSTPONED THIS.

YEAH, BECAUSE WE'RE GOING BACK AND FORTH ON THIS. UM, I DID ALSO ASK THE QUESTION, AND FOR UH, MEMBER, PRECISE AS WELL, JUST SO YOU KNOW, I DID ALSO ASK THE QUESTION THAT THIS CITY OR THIS BOARD IN PARTICULAR. WE HAVE HAD OTHER INSTANCES IN THE PAST SITUATIONS LIKE THIS WHERE WE HAVE BIGGER PARCELS. PREFEREE COMES IN AND SAYS, I WANT TO SPLIT IT BECAUSE I WANT TO DEVELOP TWO UNITS OR WHATEVER INSTEAD OF ONE. AND THEY HAVE BEEN APPROVED. YEAH, BUT AGAIN, WE CAN'T, I KNOW, WE CAN'T LOOK AT THINGS AND CAN'T LOOK AT A PRECEDENT PROCESS. THE APPROVAL OF THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN UNDER A TOTALLY DIFFERENT SET OF STANDARDS. SO THESE STANDARDS WERE CHANGED, WHEN WERE THEY CHANGED AND UPDATED? 23 THE CRITERIA. OH YEAH, THAT WAS A FEW YEARS AGO.

YEAH, 23. SO THAT MIGHT HAVE EVEN BEEN CHANGED UNDER A DIFFERENT SET OF STANDARDS. THE OLD ONES THAT WERE 8 OR 9, THEY WERE CRAZY.

BUT THANK YOU, DIRECTOR SCHMIDT, FOR UPDATING THOSE.

RIGHT? WE DO THANK YOU FOR THAT. BUT WHERE I WAS HAVING THE DIFFICULTY, AND LIKE YOU SAID, I'M STILL HAVING THE DIFFICULTY, I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND YOUR INTENT AND WHAT YOU WANT TO DO, AND WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO, AND WHY YOU'RE ASKING FOR THIS REQUEST. THE ISSUE THAT I STILL HAVE IS THAT THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY SEEMS TO BE MORE FINANCIAL THAN ANYTHING ELSE. RIGHT. AND IF THE LOT IS SPLIT, I SEE THAT AS THIS IS SELF-CREATED, PER SE. RIGHT.

BECAUSE THE LOT COULD BE USED NOW IF YOU HAD THE RIGHT OWNER.

I'M NOT SAYING YOU'RE NOT THE RIGHT OWNER. IF YOU HAVE THE RIGHT OWNER WHO WANTED TO SPEND THE MONEY, EITHER TO REHAB THE HOUSE OR KEEP THE HOUSE AS IS AND JUST REHABILITATE IT, OBVIOUSLY IT'S PROVEN TO BE DIFFICULT BECAUSE HE MADE THAT CLEAR, IT'S BEING DIFFICULT.

AS YOU SAID, MEMBER TRECISE, I AGREE WITH YOU. THERE'S TECHNICALLY, OTHER THAN FINANCIAL, NOTHING STOPPING THIS PROPERTY OWNER FROM USING THIS PROPERTY FOR WHAT IT'S INTENDED TO BE, WHICH IS A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME.

AND TO ME, THE DIFFICULTY IS LEANING TOWARD BEING SELF-CREATED, EVEN THOUGH MY BIG ISSUE AND WHY I DECIDED, LET'S SEE IF WE CAN POSTPONE THIS, IS THAT THERE IS A LOT OF GRAY IN THERE. AND I WAS TRYING TO FIND LEEWAY ON.

COULD THERE BE AN ARGUMENT AGAINST THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY FOR THE PROPERTY OWNERS. AND I STILL GET STUCK ON, TO ME, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER I UNDERSTAND THAT.

THE PROPERTY USED TO BE TWO AND THEN IT GOT COMBINED. AND THAT HAPPENED BEFORE THEM. RIGHT.

SO THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE. DO WE KNOW THAT FOR SURE? WELL, STAFF, FOLKS. THAT WAS? OKAY.

THAT IS THE CASE. SO WE KNOW THAT THE TWO PROPERTIES AND THE TWO LOTS, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL THEM, WERE SEPARATE BEFORE, SYNONYMOUS WITH THE IMMEDIATE PROPERTIES.

BECAUSE, I MEAN, GOING BACK TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE'S OTHER PROPERTIES IN HERE THAT ARE HUGE, LIKE THIS ONE. LOOK AT THE ONE DIRECTLY TO THE SIDE. RIGHT. SO THAT'S

[00:30:01]

KIND OF STRADDLED ON, YEAH, IT'S UNIQUE, BASED ON THE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT PROPERTIES TO IT. RIGHT, RIGHT. AND IF YOU SPLIT IT, IT'LL BE SYNONYMOUS WITH THE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

BUT THERE'S OTHER PROPERTIES IN THERE THAT ARE JUST AS BIG AS THIS, IF NOT BIGGER. NOT THAT IT'S GOING TO HAVE NECESSARILY IMPACT ON THOSE.

BUT BECAUSE IT WAS COMBINED BEFORE HE PURCHASED IT, THE APPLICANT PURCHASED IT, IT'S THE LOT THAT WE SEE, THAT THE LOT'S IN FRONT OF US TODAY. RIGHT. SO SPLITTING IT, I UNDERSTAND IT WOULD CREATE IT. KIND OF SYNONYMOUS WITH THE SURROUNDING, IMMEDIATELY, BUT STILL, YOU KNOW, MY STANCE AS BEING A MEMBER OF THIS BOARD IS TAKING THESE LITERAL AS WE CAN TO PROTECT THE INTENT OF THE ZONING CODE. AND SPLITTING THAT LOT. I'M STILL TEETER-TOTTERING. MORE ON THE SIDE OF THIS IS MORE SELF-CREATED, JUST BECAUSE THE LOT ITSELF COULD TECHNICALLY BE USED.

OBVIOUSLY, FINANCIALLY, THAT'D BE A DIFFICULTY. HE'S MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT IF...

YOU WERE TO WALK AWAY AND SOMEBODY ELSE WERE TO BUY IT.

SOMEBODY ELSE IS GOING TO HAVE TO CALL ME UP A LOT OF MONEY TO KNOCK DOWN THAT HOUSE, FIX IT UP, REHABILITATE IT, WHATEVER. SO IT WOULD TAKE THE RIGHT PERSON, AND WHO KNOWS WHAT THAT WOULD BE. IT CAN GO BACK TO BEING A PROPERTY THAT SITS FOR SALE FOR FIVE YEARS.

UNTIL SOMEBODY WITH THE RIGHT MONEY, OR THE GENTLEMAN FROM ACACIA, BUYS IT AND BUILDS A MEGA MANSION ON IT.

LIKE THEY DID UP THERE ON LAKE LANSING. A LOT WOULD HAVE TO BE $200,000, AND THAT'S GOING TO BE A HARD SELL.

BUT I JUST WANT TO GET BACK ON THAT. I DID ASK THIS QUESTION BEFORE. WE HAD OTHER LOTS THAT WERE LIKE THIS THAT HAVE BEEN SPLIT, BUT THE MORE I KIND OF LOOK INTO IT, THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN SPLIT UNDER DIFFERENT STANDARDS, SO THAT CAN'T REALLY BE CONSIDERED, EVEN THOUGH IT HAS BEEN DONE.

WE'VE EVEN HAD SOME THAT WE DIDN'T. WE'VE TURNED DOWN, TOO. YES. SO IT GOES BOTH WAYS.

YEAH. I MEAN, THAT'S THE HARDEST PART. IT JUST DEPENDS ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND WHAT WE SEE AT THE TIME. I MEAN, THE HARDEST PART FOR ME IS THAT... THE LOT IS BUILDABLE, AS IS. SO THAT'S WHERE I GET INTO THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES. AND WITH THE FINANCES NOT BEING A CONSIDERATION FOR US, THAT THE LOT IS BUILDABLE. SO IT'S NOT AN IDEAL BUILD, AND IT'S NOT AN IDEAL FINANCIAL RISK, RIGHT? AND THAT'S TOUGH.

AND I DON'T SAY THAT LIGHTLY, BUT YES. SO, I MEAN, I HOPE THAT IT'S UNDERSTOOD THAT WE'RE DEFINITELY TAKING THIS INTO AS MUCH CONSIDERATION AS POSSIBLE.

WITH ALSO UNDERSTANDING THAT IT'S, I'M NOT SEEING A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY THAT THE PROPERTY CAN'T BE BUILT ON.

BECAUSE THE PROPERTY CAN BE BUILT ON, IT'S JUST NOT THE WAY THAT YOU.

WANT TO BUILD IT, AND THAT'S WHERE WE GET INTO.

IF IT'S ZONED, OUR SINGLE FAMILY, RURAL, RESIDENTIAL, THAT'S WHAT YOU CAN PUT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME OUT THERE.

SO NEVER CAME BACK. YEAH.

QUESTION FOR STAFF. UM, I KNOW THERE WAS TALK ABOUT GRANNY FLAT OR WHATEVER IT IS. UM, WHAT IS IT THAT COULD BE ALLOWED ON THERE? IF IT WERE A MAN? THAT'S HIS SCIENCE DEFENSE WITH THE ADU? SO IT'D HAVE TO BE THE 80S, OKAY, SO IT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE RENTED OUT, PER SE, DOES IT HAVE TO HAVE ITS OWN WATER, FOOD, THINGS LIKE THAT, ELECTRICITY, OKAY. YEAH. IF THE INTENT, IF I MAY, MADAM CHAIR. YEP. THANK YOU, STAFF.

NO PROBLEM. ASK THE APPLICANT.

IF THE INTENT IS TO HAVE TWO SEPARATE DWELLING UNITS, WOULD... THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME, IF YOU RECUPERATED THAT SINGLE-FAMILY HOME, REGARDLESS OF PRICE, I KNOW PRICE IS AN ISSUE, BUT IF YOU RECUPERATED THAT SINGLE-FAMILY HOME, AND IF YOU WERE ALLOWED, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S JUST ALLOWED BY RIGHT, OR IF IT'S A SPECIAL USE, WHATEVER IT IS, BUT TO HAVE SOME SORT OF AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ON THERE, YOU TECHNICALLY WOULD HAVE TWO UNITS. YOU'D HAVE THE MAIN UNIT, THE MAIN PERMITTED USE, AND THEN THE ACCESSORY USE.

WOULD THAT SUFFICE FINANCIALLY FOR YOU, INSTEAD OF HAVING TWO SEPARATE SINGLE-FAMILY USES? FINANCING WON'T WORK.

FINANCING WON'T WORK. YOU NEED TO HAVE THEM SEPARATE. YEAH.

OKAY. THAT'S THE ISSUE. YEAH.

AND THE OTHER THING IS, YOU KNOW, THIS HOUSE NEEDS TO BE DEMOED. WE HAD THE, IT WAS A GENTLEMAN THAT CAME OUT FROM MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP. I'M PRETTY SURE THAT WE'RE ALREADY AT A POINT WHERE THE CITY HAS DEMANDED THAT IT NEEDS TO BE DEMOED. YEAH. YEAH.

BUT THEY WANT US TO COME TO THE STREET FIRST. WE CAN'T EVEN RENOVATE IT. WE CAN'T EVEN, YEAH. YEAH, THIS IS TOO MUCH, YOU KNOW. AND THEN SO SITE VIEWING AND SO FOREST WOULD HAPPEN POST THIS. SO IF I MAY, IT SEEMS LIKE, YOU KNOW, IF THEY, I'M TRYING TO LOOK AT THIS AS CUT AND DRY AS POSSIBLE. LIKE, THE GOAL IS

[00:35:02]

AND YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT THE, YOU KNOW, NOT A LOT OF MENTAL GYMNASTICS FROM MY STANDPOINT. BUT THAT'S THEIR GOAL AND THEY WANT TO SPLIT THE PROPERTY. I'M OKAY WITH IT BECAUSE OF THE IT'S GOING TO FIT IN WITH EVERY OTHER PROPERTY SURROUNDING IT, AND IT'S NOT TOO FAR OFF. THE VARIANCE. YEAH. SO I MEAN, AGAIN, I CAN MEET MINIMAL. I THINK MY PROBLEM WITH THAT IS LIKE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WANTING TO BUILD TWO HOMES IS NOT NECESSARILY WHAT'S PERMITTED. I MEAN, IT'S NOT PERMITTED, RIGHT. IT'S ONE LOT.

IT'S ZONED, RURAL, RESIDENTIAL. SO ONE, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN HAVE AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, BUT YOU CAN'T HAVE TWO HOUSES IN THE SAME LOT. SO AGAIN, YEAH, I CAN SEE WHERE, YEAH, IF WE SPLIT IT, IT'S EASY PEASY. IS THERE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY THERE? LIKE, WHAT IS THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY? BECAUSE THEY WANT TO IS NOT A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. I MEAN, YOU CAN DO A LOT OF THINGS WITH YOUR LOT, BUT THAT'S WHERE I'M HAVING A HARD TIME, IS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE THAT JUMP. SO MY QUESTION, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I KNOW THAT, LIKE, YOU TRY TO BE VERY BLACK AND WHITE WITH IT, AND THAT, YOU KNOW... THIS IS ONE OF KIND OF THE GRAY AREA. I GUESS I LOOK AT IT MORE OF LIKE, WE'RE TRYING, THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE, IS TO REQUEST IT, TO DO, YOU KNOW, THE POSITIVE MOVE FORWARD. AND SO IT IS LIKE, I'M LOOKING AT IT IN A WAY OF MORE OF LIKE, HOPEFUL THAT IT WILL BE THAT WAY VERSUS IT JUST BEING SHUT DOWN, YOU KNOW, LIKE, LOOKING FOR OUR, LIKE... ARE WE LOOKING FOR REASONS TO APPROVE IT AS MUCH AS REASONS TO TURN IT DOWN? YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? DOES THAT MAKE... YEAH, NO, I ABSOLUTELY SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. AND I THINK, FOR ME, THE REASON TO APPROVE IT WOULD BE, LIKE MY FRIEND SAID, IT'S REALLY JUST, LIKE, THEY JUST WANT TO BUILD TWO HOUSES. LIKE, IF WE SPLIT IT, THEY CAN BUILD TWO HOUSES, THERE'S NO PROBLEM. AND I THINK THAT'S THE PRETTY... IT'S PRETTY, LIKE, THAT'S THE HOPEFUL... ANSWER BUT THE REALITY IS LIKE, WHEN YOU HAVE A LOT AND YOU CAN BUILD A HOUSE ON IT, DOES THAT COST YOU? I MEAN, WE, WE CAN. WE CAN GO THROUGH A MILLION DIFFERENT VARIATIONS THAT WE HAVE AS A BOARD GONE THROUGH, LIKE, DO YOU HAVE TO HAVE A GARAGE? YOU HAVE TO HAVE THAT, YOU KNOW, AND WE, WE GO THROUGH THIS AND WRESTLE WITH THAT. UM, SO THAT IS KIND OF WHERE I'M STUCK. I WAS JUST GONNA SAY THAT IN MY PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE.

TYPICALLY, WANTING TO BUILD TWO HOMES, SPLIT A LOT TO BUILD TWO HOMES, IS TYPICALLY NOT A REASON FOR REQUESTING A VARIANCE.

THAT'S WHERE I GET HUNG UP ON IT. BECAUSE WITHOUT THE VARIANCE TO SPLIT THE LOT, THEY CAN'T BUILD THE TWO HOMES.

HOWEVER, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE OVERALL CRITERIA, IT SAYS, IS THERE SOMETHING ON THAT PROPERTY THAT'S CAUSING THEM PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, WHERE THEY CAN'T USE THAT PROPERTY FOR WHAT IT'S INTENDED TO BE? SO IT'S NOT COMMON TO SPLIT PARCELS? FOR TO BUILD MULTIPLE, I WORK WITH EASTBROOK HOMES IN NEW DEVELOPMENT, BUILDING A BUNCH OF HOUSES. SO I KNOW WHEN THEY WENT THROUGH PROCESSES, YOU KNOW, WITH THINGS LIKE THAT, I MEAN, TYPICALLY I WOULD AT LEAST 15 YEARS IN REAL ESTATE. LIKE, I HAVE WITNESSED THAT THAT IS THE PURPOSE WHY THEY'RE SPLITTING THINGS UP. OR IF IT'S A PARENT SPLITTING IT UP TO HAVE THE GRANDKIDS HAVE ACREAGE SO THEY ALL CAN BUILD THEIR OWN HOUSE.

IT'S KIND OF SOMETHING LIKE THAT IS WHAT I'VE RAN INTO, AT LEAST. A LOT SPLITSER. LOT SPLITS ARE COMMON.

BUT EVEN LIKE, STATE LAW HAS LANGUAGE PERTAINING TO THE SIZE AND HOW MANY LOTS YOU CAN, HOW MANY YOU CAN SPLIT, LIKE 10 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT THE PROPERTY ITSELF IS USUALLY A SPECIFIC SIZE, TO WHERE THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY ISSUES THAT THEY COULD ALL CONFORM WITH THE ORIGINAL ZONING. SO THIS IS KIND OF UNIQUE BECAUSE YOU WANT TO SPLIT THE LOT. IT'S BIG ENOUGH. THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTIES WOULD BE BIG ENOUGH.

THEY WOULD MEET THE MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR THE ACREAGE. IT'S JUST THE FRONTAGE. IT'S JUST THE WIDTH OF THE LOT, WHICH IS LIKE. YOU KNOW, LIKE YOU SAID, RIGHT, THERE'S

[00:40:01]

IT'S TOUGH BECAUSE, LIKE YOU SAID, 50 MORE FEET, WE WOULDN'T BE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION. SO IS IT WORTH DENYING THE VARIANCE ON WHAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE AN EASY SPLIT IF THERE WAS 25 EXTRA FEET ON EACH SIDE? NOW YOU KNOW WHY? THIS IS BACK ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA. GOSH, YOU GUYS, COME ON. COULDN'T SOLVE THIS WITHOUT ME, WELL, I MEAN, I WILL SAY I CAN START GOING THROUGH CRITERIA. I THINK WE'RE ALL STILL PRETTY HUNG UP ON NUMBER TWO, UNLESS PETER MIGHT HAVE MADE HIS. I HAVEN'T BEEN CONVINCED THAT IT'S PRACTICAL AND DIFFICULT.

YEAH, YEAH. I'M NUMBER TWO, NUMBER TWO IS WHERE I I'M GONNA STRUGGLE. SO, UM, I WILL GO THROUGH THEM JUST TO KIND OF KEEP THE MOMENTUM HERE.

UM, SINCE WE HAVE A FEW OTHER ORDERS OF BUSINESS TONIGHT, UH, CRITERIA ONE IS UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTS THAT ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND OR STRUCTURE THAT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LAND. I DON'T HAVE READ GLASSES. I'M SORRY GUYS, LET ME MAKE THIS AS POSSIBLE.

OTHER LAND ARE STRUCTURES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT, AND THESE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SELF-CREATED. AND I CAN MEET THAT CRITERIA. I DO THINK THAT LOOKING AT THIS, HEARING THEIR STORY, LOOKING JUST AT THE PLOT MAP HERE, THAT I CAN MAKE AN ARGUMENT FOR YOU. I THINK THAT WE COULD PROBABLY ARGUE THE OTHER WAY, TOO. BUT I'M GOING TO ARGUE, YES, I CAN MEET THAT CRITERIA.

WELL, I'LL ARGUE THE OTHER WAY.

OKAY. DO IT, PETER. HAD THIS LOT NOT BEEN COMBINED, IT WOULDN'T BE HERE. YES.

YEAH. THAT WAS DONE BY AN OWNER. RIGHT. THEY TAKE THE LOT WITH THE SAME STUFF THAT THE OWNER ALREADY DID. SO I DON'T SEE, I MEAN.

BUT IT'S NOT SELF-CREATED.

THEY DIDN'T CREATE THIS PROBLEM. IT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU MEAN BY SELF-CREATED. IT WAS CREATED BY THE LANDOWNER.

BUT THEY'RE NOT. THEY ARE NOT THE PEOPLE THAT CREATED IT.

BUT THEY BOUGHT IT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. THEY DID BUY IT UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES. I'M NOT SAYING IT'S A GOOD ARGUMENT. AND THAT'S WHERE I CAN GO INTO NUMBER TWO WITH CHALLENGES. BUT ANYONE ELSE THAT CAN'T MAKE CRITERIA NUMBER ONE? OKAY. I'M GOING TO SKIP TO CRITERIA NUMBER THREE.

CRITERIA NUMBER THREE SAYS GRANTING THE VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM ACTION NECESSARY, WHICH WOULD CARRY OUT THE SPIRIT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECURE PUBLIC SAFETY AND PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. AND I CAN MEET THAT VERY EASILY. I DO THINK THAT AGAIN, WE WOULD NOT BE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION WITH A. YOU KNOW, A COUPLE DOZEN MORE FEET THERE? WELL, IT WOULD NEED TO BE 160 MORE FEET, RIGHT? SO IT IS NOT JUST A FEW FEET. YEAH, OKAY, WE MADE THE ARGUMENT AT THE LAST MEETING, UM, FOR SUPPORT OF NUMBER THREE, BECAUSE THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO SPLIT THE PROPERTY RIGHT DOWN THE MIDDLE. SO IT'S BASICALLY EQUAL SIZES VERSUS WHAT THEY WERE TO SAY. WE WANT TO CREATE TWO LOTS, ONE OF THEM BEING 20 FEET WIDE AND THE OTHER BEING 290 FEET WIDE.

THAT, IN MY EYES, WOULD NOT BE A MINIMUM ACTION.

OKAY. THEY WOULD ALMOST HAVE TO HAVE TWO DIFFERENT VARIANCES OF TWO DIFFERENT TIMES. TWO EQUAL SIZES. PLUS, THE OTHER LOT WOULD ALMOST BE UNBUILDABLE BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF IT. SO THAT'S HOW WE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION, I BELIEVE, AS A BOARD, AND THAT WE'RE HERE FOR MEETING CRITERIA NUMBER THREE. OKAY.

FAIR. I WILL. GO WITH NUMBER THREE, NOT ON THAT BASIS, BUT BASED ON THE FACT THAT IT WOULD PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE ZONING ACT. ALL RIGHT. AND CRITERIA NUMBER FOUR IS GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND OR THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY. I CAN MEET THAT, I THINK. WE CAN ALL PRETTY MUCH MEET THAT CRITERIA. CRITERIA FIVE IS GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS CHAPTER. AND THIS IS, I CAN MEET THIS CRITERIA, BUT GO WITH ME ON THIS JOURNEY, GENTLEMEN. IF WE'RE SAYING THAT THE PURPOSE, WE CAN MEET THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS CHAPTER, COULD WE THEN ALSO ARGUE THAT IN NOT... BEING THE RESPONSIBLE PARTIES FOR SPLITTING THE PROPERTY, THAT RESTORING IT TO WHAT IT WAS BEFORE THE PREVIOUS OWNER HAD JOINED. THE TWO PARCELS COULD ALSO BE

[00:45:01]

INTO THE PROBLEM, UNKNOWING OF WHAT ELSE WAS THERE. THAT'S WHERE I COULD START TO KIND OF MAKE A WAY AT SOME ACTUAL DIFFICULTIES. I THINK THE KEY WORD IN THAT SENSE FOR ME IS GENERALLY, AND I THINK IF YOU WANT TO BE KIND OF LOOKING AT THE GREAT POINT OF IT, TO BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND INTENT OF THAT CHAPTER OF THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL ONE-FAMILY DWELLING WOULD BE TO PERMIT SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS, AND THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT THEY WANT TO DO IS THEY WANT TO PERMIT. THEY WANT TO ASK AND GET PERMISSION FOR TWO SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS INSTEAD OF ONE THERE THAT'S DILAPIDATED. SO FOR ME, THAT WAS THE ARGUMENT FOR SAYING THAT IT'S GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST. IT'S THE REQUEST OF THE VARIANCE, THAT'S MORE GOING TOWARD NUMBER TWO AND NUMBER ONE. BUT FOR NUMBER FIVE, I THINK WE DISCUSSED AS A BOARD THAT GENERALLY THE INTENT OF WHAT THEY WANT, THEY'RE NOT COMING THERE TO PUT A GOLF COURSE OR AN AIRPORT OR WHATEVER IT WAS THAT A SPECIAL USE PERMIT WOULD ALLOW, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. YEAH, YEAH. SO IN THAT SENSE, WITH THE ACTUAL USE, I KNOW THIS IS NOT A USE VARIANCE, BUT THEY'RE TRYING TO REMAIN IN CONSISTENCY WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND WHAT MEMBERS, AND ESPECIALLY THE NATIVES, WILL WANT TO SEE THERE. RIGHT. I CAN SEE THAT. I WOULD SAY IT PROBABLY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE PURPOSES OF THE CHAPTER, ONLY WITH THE RESPECT THAT THE OTHER LOTS SURROUNDING IT ARE ALSO NONCONFORMING. RIGHT. IN AND OF ITSELF, I WOULD NOT AGREE WITH THAT. YEAH. THAT'S A GOOD POINT. OKAY. WELL, NUMBER TWO, 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.

THAT'S THAT VERBIAGE AT THE END, THAT KIND OF LINE AT THE END OF THAT CRITERIA IS WHERE I THINK. SPEAKING FOR THE BOARD IS GOING TO BE THE STRUGGLE THAT IT WOULD PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR A PERMITTED PURPOSE. IF IT'S PERMITTED FOR A SINGLE FAMILY, WE BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY, THAT'S WHERE WE GET KIND OF HUNG UP. THIS WILL BE THE LAST THING I SAY, I PROMISE.

KEEP TALKING. I'M GOING TO FALL ON THE SWORD FOR THIS ONE, FOR THE BOARD.

AND I'LL GIVE YOU MY REASON WHY. AGAIN, READING THIS, I STILL GET HUNG UP ON PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES. YOU PINPOINTED THAT PART OF THE SENTENCE WITH THE PERMITTED PURPOSE. I SEE THIS AS THERE BEING A PERMITTED PURPOSE THAT COULD BE ALLOWED FINANCIALLY. IT'D BE DIFFICULT.

WE ALREADY KNOW THAT.

BUT COULD THAT PROPERTY, COULD YOU BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ON THAT PROPERTY? MY THOUGHT IS, YES, THERE COULD BE. AND I STILL STAND, I HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION. AND I'M STANDING ON THE DECISION THAT I SEE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY AS BEING SOMETHING THAT'S CAUSED BY THE PRACTICE. THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT I DON'T AGREE WITH YOUR INTENT. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. IT'S NOT AN EASY DECISION. IT'S JUST MY DECISION, AND I'M ONLY ONE VOTE. SO BY ME, I'M SAYING THAT I CANNOT SEE, I CANNOT MEET CRITERIA NUMBER TWO. BUT AGAIN, I'M ONLY ONE VOTE IN THIS BOARD. IF THE OTHER FOUR VOTE YES, THEN CONGRATULATIONS, YOU GOT YOUR VARIANCE, AND GOOD FOR YOU GUYS. BUT I HAVE TO PICK A SIDE. I CAN'T, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE ME, TEETER TOTTERHAM, IS WHAT PROBABLY GOT THIS THING POSTPONED IN THE FIRST PLACE. AND, YOU KNOW, FOR YOUR SAKE, I WANT YOU GUYS TO HAVE CLOSURE ON THIS. WE DON'T WANT TO DRAG THIS OUT UNTIL 9 O'CLOCK. YOU KNOW, I'M JUST GOING TO SAY, YOU KNOW, THAT'S MY DECISION, IS THAT I CAN'T MEET CRITERIA NUMBER TWO. I TRIED EVERY LOOPHOLE I COULD FIND, AND I JUST CAN'T FIND SOMETHING. SO, LIKE I SAID, I'M ONLY ONE VOTE. SO IF I GO AGAINST THIS, YOU GOT FOUR OTHER PEOPLE ON HERE. THAT'S HENCE THE REASON WHY WE BROUGHT THE CHAIR BACK, BUT I JUST WANT TO BE HONEST WITH YOU GUYS. I WANT TO BE TRANSPARENT WITH EVERYONE HERE AND GIVE YOU MY, YOU KNOW, MY PERSONAL, MY PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS ON WHERE I THINK I STAND.

ON NUMBER TWO. YEAH, I WAS HOPING THAT YOU WOULD CONVINCE ME OTHERWISE, BUT I, I DO, I KNOW, I KNOW, AND I AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

I. I'VE BEEN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO GET AROUND THAT PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OF BEING ABLE TO, BECAUSE A LOT'S BUILDABLE. YOU KNOW, IF THERE WAS ANOTHER ISSUE THAT MADE. THE LINE AS IT

[00:50:01]

BUT I'M DEFINITELY WILLING TO LISTEN. BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT ANYBODY ELSE HAS EVER BEEN THAT. MAY I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION? I'M JUST CURIOUS, WHAT HAS THE CITY SAID TO YOU ABOUT, LIKE, WHY THEY WANT YOU TO TEAR DOWN THE HOUSE? BECAUSE IT'S IN SUCH DISARRAY. WHAT DOES DISARRAY MEAN? DOES IT LOOK? NO, I MEAN, IT'S IMPLODING.

THE BASEMENT IS, I MEAN, WE WOULD HAVE TO DIG THE ENTIRE BASEMENT OUT.

LIKE, THAT HOUSE COULD IMPLODE ON ITSELF TOMORROW. LIKE, IT'S SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS GETTING... GRANTED, AND BEING ABLE TO HAVE THIS WORK AND GET THIS DONE IMMEDIATELY, LIKE THIS, IT'S IT'S. IF YOU SEE IT, YOU, YEAH, YEAH, ARE THERE. HOW LONG HAS THE HOUSE BEEN UNINHABITED FROM YOUR UNDERSTANDING? WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO WORK WITH THE CITY SINCE WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY IN AUGUST. SO IT'S JUST LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO SUBMIT STUFF, RIGHT? UM, TO, UH, WHAT'S THE GENTLEMAN? WE'RE SUBMITTING IT TO IN THE CITY? IT. IT'S WITH THE CITY, BUT THE VARIANCE IS WHERE, LIKE, THIS WAS LATER ON BECAUSE WE DIDN'T KNOW EVERYTHING THAT WAS GOING ON FIRST, AND NOW THERE'S EVEN A, I DON'T KNOW IF I EVEN WANT TO BRING UP THE FOUR. SO THERE WAS, WERE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE TREES? YEAH, SO THE TREES WERE KIND OF FALLING. WE BROUGHT A COMPANY IN THERE, RIGHT, TO CLEAR OUT, TO MAKE IT SAFE. SO WE CAN SEE WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON WITH THE HOUSE AND THE STRUCTURE.

AND WE FOUND OUT THAT THE STRUCTURE IS LIKE, REALLY, IT'S COLLAPSING. SO, I MEAN. THERE WAS PROBABLY FIVE.

I MEAN, I HAVE SEEN THOUSANDS OF HOUSES. AND THIS HOUSE IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE TOP TWO, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING HOW BIG THE HOUSE IS. YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE A HOUSE THAT'S 850 SQUARE FOOT AND IT'S IN THAT CONDITION, IT'S ONE THING. WHEN YOU HAVE THESE... THIS HOUSE IS FOUR STORIES HIGH. AND SO IT'S ALSO ON THAT SIDE WHERE IT'S LOCATED, IT'S CLOSE TO THAT NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE. IT'S CLOSE TO IT FALLING ON STUFF ON THE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE. AND WE HAVE ALREADY, FOR IT SITTING THERE AND WHERE IT'S BEEN, WE ALREADY HAVE SIGNS THAT ARE, IT'S BEEN A WHOLE PROCESS. AND NOW IT'S JUST TO A POINT WHERE, I MEAN, IF IT'S, I FEEL TERRIBLE.

FOR THE COMMUNITY, IF IT'S JUST GONNA HAVE TO, I JUST, YEAH. HAS THERE BEEN ANY INSPECTIONS ON, LIKE THE PIPES OR THE NATURAL GAS LINES, RIGHT? YEAH, THAT'S WHY WE'VE GOTTEN TO THE POINT WHERE THEY'RE SAYING THAT IT NEEDS TO BE DEMOED. SO I GUESS EVERY THERE, EVERY SINGLE THING IN THERE I'M. I'M VERY CURIOUS AS TO HOW THE PREVIOUS OWNER ACTUALLY WAS ALLOWED TO BUILD THIS HOUSE BECAUSE IT'S VERY, VERY UNIQUE. THERE'S LIKE, UTILIZED. THANK YOU. FULL TREES AND BUILDING CERTAIN THINGS.

WE KNOW PEOPLE DO ALL KINDS OF THINGS. YEAH, WELL, I LOVE CHARACTER IN A HOUSE. I LOVE CHARACTER IN A HOUSE. WE SPENT $7,000 JUST TO CLEAR THE HOUSE SO WE CAN SEE WHAT'S GOING ON. IT WAS JUST LIKE A HOARDER HOUSE. I HAVE A QUESTION, THOUGH. SO YOU BOUGHT THE HOUSE IN AUGUST.

YEAH. FROM WHAT I'M HEARING, IT'S ALMOST AS IF YOU BOUGHT THE HOUSE SIGHT UNSEEN. SO YOU KNEW, GOING INTO IT, THE HOUSE WAS NOT... WE COULDN'T GET INTO THE HOUSE BECAUSE YOU COULDN'T WALK INTO THE HOUSE. YOU EVER SEEN THE SHOW? YOU COULDN'T WALK INTO IT. SO NO INSPECTION, JUST... SO I FIGURED, OKAY, SO THIS HOUSE, I'M JUST GOING TO DO MY THING, RIGHT? LIKE, COME IN THERE WITH OUR CREW AND CLEAN IT UP, GET INTO THE SHELL, STUDS, AND THEN GET NEW ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, AND EVERYTHING, AND THEN START GOING ON. AND THEN, AFTER WE CLEARED EVERYTHING, WE USED THE PROFESSIONAL ADVICE. YEAH, YOU GOT COLLAPSING WALLS, BUSTED PIPES UNDERNEATH, DRAINAGE IS NOT WORKING.

YEAH. MY THOUGHT IS, IF THIS HOUSE SITS, AT WHAT POINT DOES IT BECOME UNBILLABLE FOR ANY FUTURE TENANT? DUE TO THE GROUND. I MEAN, IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY'RE THERE.

BUT I, IT'S, I MEAN, BY.

[00:55:03]

ULTIMATELY, EVEN WITH THE AMOUNT YOU'VE GOT TO PUT INTO IT, YOU CAN'T STILL DEMO BUILD A HOME. IT'S JUST NOT GOING TO COME OUT ON THE OTHER SIDE THE WAY THAT YOU WANT IT TO COME OUT. AND I ABSOLUTELY HAVE HEART FOR THAT AND FEEL FOR THAT. I HAVE A LOT OF FRIENDS THAT ARE IN HOME BUILDING, AND IT'S TOUGH. IT'S NOT AN EASY BUSINESS, AND ESPECIALLY RIGHT NOW, IT'S NOT AN EASY BUSINESS.

GETTING LOANS IS NOT AN EASY BUSINESS. AND THE HARDEST PART ABOUT THAT IS IT'S A GAMBLE, RIGHT? BECAUSE EVERY TIME YOU GO INTO SOMETHING, YOU'RE KIND OF ROLLING THE DICE. IS IT GOING TO BE SOMETHING I CAN DO? IS IT GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO SELL AT THE OTHER END? AND I CAN SEE YOUR PLAN FOR WHAT YOU HAVE, AND EVEN JUST LOOKING AT THE PACKET, IS BEAUTIFUL.

AND IT MAKES SENSE, AND I THINK IT FITS IN WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WITH SOME OF THE OTHER NEW HOMES THAT ARE OVER THERE AND HAVE THAT RIGHT NOW, AND IT FITS. THE PROBLEM FOR US IS THAT SPLITTING THE PARCEL IS SPLITTING THE PARCEL, SOMETHING THAT... WE CAN AGREE TO AS A BOARD BY THE RULES THAT WE HAVE TO AGREE TO. BECAUSE WE CAN ALL LIKE IT, BUT IF WE CAN'T AGREE TO THE RULES, THAT'S WHERE THE DIFFICULTY COMES IN. WE'RE LOOKING AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD PROPERTIES, RIGHT? IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE ASKING. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO BE THE SAME WITH THE OTHER PROPERTIES.

BUT ALSO IN THIS, AND I REALLY DON'T LIKE BRINGING THIS WORD UP, AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF I SHOULD, BUT LIKE, IF IT BECAUSE. YOU KNOW, IF YOU GUYS WERE TO VOTE THIS DOWN TODAY, IT'S LIKE THREE YEARS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT BEFORE YOU CAN BRING IT BACK AGAIN, RIGHT? ONE YEAR.

SO WELL, WELL, LIKE. I ALMOST WONDER IF THERE IS A DIFFERENT ROUTE WHERE IT IS LIKE AN ATTORNEY IS FILING SOMETHING TO UNDO. A. I MEAN, IF THERE'S NOT EVEN A RECORD OF PUTTING THAT THE TWO PARCELS TOGETHER, YOU KNOW, LIKE THERE IS LITERALLY NO RECORD. IT WAS TWO SEPARATE PARCELS. THERE IS NO RECORD OF IT BEING ON ONE, PUTTING THAT PARCEL TOGETHER.

SO AN ATTORNEY COMING IN AND SAYING, ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, HERE'S THEIR BOOK OF ALL THEIR STUFF. THAT IS, THERE'S AN ACTUAL THING IN THERE THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO SAY, HEY, LIKE, ACTUALLY, THIS CAN BE UNDONE THROUGH THIS PROCESS. BECAUSE IT REALLY IS, YOU KNOW, IF IT WASN'T. TWO SEPARATE LOTS BEFORE, OKAY, BUT IT'S TRULY ASKING TO UNDO SOMETHING, SOMETHING, YEAH. AND WITH THERE BEING NO RECORD, I MEAN, THAT WOULD BE THAT WOULD BE MORE OF A STAFF QUESTION. IS THAT EVEN SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE FEASIBLE FOR THEM TO TAKE DOWN? I GOT A QUESTION, IF YOU HAVE A DO YOU HAVE A DEED? THAT SHOWS THE ENTIRE LOT AS A SINGLE LOT? THERE IS A THERE'S A DEED, THERE'S CLOTHING. DOCUMENTS THAT REFLECT ONE PARCEL NUMBER, BUT THERE IS NOT A PAPER TRAIL IN THE TOWNSHIP THAT TRACES IT.

THE MID-MICHIGAN TITLE. I CHECKED WITH THEM, AND IN RECORDING OF DEEDS, WHICH IT'S NOT COMMON, BUT IT'S NOT UNCOMMON. WHEN IT'S IN THE 70S, THAT ERA, WHEN THEY WERE SPLITTING THINGS LIKE THAT. SO THE FACT THAT THESE WERE ALL... SPLIT AND SO THERE'S THE PLOT. MAP SHOWS THE TWO, BUT THERE IS NO RECORDING AND EVIDENCE OF WHEN THAT WAS RECORDED.

THAT SHOWS WHEN THE TWO PARCELS WERE ACTUALLY CONJOINED. IT'S JUST ALL OF A SUDDEN THERE'S TWO PARCELS, TWO PARCEL NUMBERS, TWO SEPARATE PARCELS, AND THEN WE PURCHASE THE PROPERTY AND THERE'S ONE PARCEL NUMBER FOR THE WHOLE THING.

SO, YEAH, I MEAN, I... THERE'S NOTHING IN THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS DOWN IN THE COUNTY? NOPE. WHAT'S THAT SHOW? TWO PARCELS? YEP, THE PREVIOUS THING THAT SHOWS IS THE TWO SEPARATE PARCELS, AND THERE IS NOT A RECORDED DEED WHERE IT CONJOINS THE TWO PARCELS INTO ONE. SO WOULD THAT BE LIKE, A, WHAT WOULD IT BE CALLED, TO AMEND A DEED? YOU'D HAVE TO FILE A NEW DEED TO JOIN THEM. THERE'D BE A DEED TO PUT IN SOMEPLACE. THAT PUTS, YEAH. SO FROM WHAT WE'VE LOOKED AND WE TALKED ABOUT THIS LAST TIME AS WELL,

[01:00:03]

YEAH. BUT IS THAT AN AVENUE THEY COULD PURSUE? I MEAN, IS IT GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT... I MEAN, WE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION HERE, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. RIGHT.

IF THEY WANT TO TAKE FURTHER LITIGATION, THAT'S TOTALLY UP TO THEM.

OKAY. YEAH. I MEAN, I DON'T THINK THAT'S A BAD IDEA. I MEAN, I GUESS... TAKING THE, YOU KNOW, THE ZBA OUT OF THAT DECISION MAKING, I MEAN, IT'S... WELL, YOU GUYS WOULD STILL HAVE TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE, BECAUSE EVEN IF WE UNDO IT, IT'S STILL NON-CONFORMING BECAUSE THE OTHER LOTS ARE NON-CONFORMING. SO I THINK THAT'S WHAT KEITH MEANS BY...

IF IT'S UNDONE, BECAUSE IT NEVER WAS DONE LEGALLY. JUST FOR CLARIFICATION. RIGHT. THE MEETS AND BOUNDS... THAT WE HAVE ON RECORD SHOWS BOTH PARCELS.

OKAY, SO SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE IT WAS COMBINED BY WHOM? EXACTLY? THAT'S JUST THEY DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS DONE BY THE TOWNSHIP. THEY HAD TO HAVE SOME RECORD, THEY SHOULD, BUT THEY DIDN'T, AND THE COUNTY DOESN'T, AS FAR AS WE CAN TELL. CORRECT DEFINITELY AN UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE, UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE. OKAY. AND I CAN MEET THAT. I CAN MEET THE CRITERIA. I JUST CANNOT MEET THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY CRITERIA. WELL, NOBODY HAS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING ON EMOTION? I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE CAN DO UNTIL WE GO THROUGH ALL OF THE CRITERIA SEPARATELY, AND WE DON'T KNOW. WHERE EVERYBODY'S LANDING? YEAH, I'M LEANING AGAINST NUMBER TWO.

YEAH, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS WE COULD MEET CRITERIA FOR ONE, THREE, FOUR, AND FIVE.

CRITERIA IS ONE, THREE, FOUR, AND FIVE THAT WE WERE ALL ABLE TO MEET. OKAY. AND CRITERIA TWO IS WHERE I'M UNABLE TO MEET CRITERIA TWO. I THINK I'M ABLE TO MEET CRITERIA TWO. I THINK I CAN MEET CRITERIA TWO. SO I THINK WE'RE... SO IT'S A NO? YOU HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING. I'LL MAKE A MOTION. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO DENY ZONING VARIANCE REQUEST 2601 FOR 2403 HAZLITT ROAD.

I'LL SECOND THE MOTION. SO THERE'S A MOTION TO DENY THE VARIANCE BY MEMBER TREZISE, SECONDED BY MEMBER NAHUM. ANY THOUGHTS OR FURTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MOTION? ALL RIGHT, THEN THIS IS A MOTION TO, A VOTE, RATHER, ON THE MOTION TO DENY. MEMBER BENOIT? NO.

MEMBER KOENIG? YES. MEMBER NAHEM? YES. MEMBER TREZISE? YES. AND THE CHAIR VOTES YES.

SO, UNFORTUNATELY, YOUR VARIANCE HAS BEEN DENIED.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. ALL

[6.A. ZBA CASE NO.: 26-02 (2843 Grand River), Foresight Supersign, 1200 Marquette Street, Lansing, MI 48906 ]

CASE NUMBER 26-02, 2843, GRAND RIVER, FORESIGHT SUPER SIGN, 1200, MARQUETTE STREET, LANSING, MICHIGAN, 48906. MR. CHAPMAN, TAKE IT AWAY. YEAH.

SO, THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTING TO CONSTRUCT A 47-SQUARE-FOOT FREESTANDING SIGN THAT WILL BE LOCATED FIVE FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.

THE PARCEL IS APPROXIMATELY 1.9 ACRES IN SIZE AND IS ON C2 COMMERCIAL.

ON SITE IS AN EXISTING 21,562 SQUARE FOOT SHOPPING CENTER THAT WAS BUILT IN 1988. THIS NEW SIGN WILL BE FOR 12 TENANTS IN THE SHOPPING CENTER. THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES THE SIGN TO BE A MAXIMUM OF 38 SQUARE FEET IN THE SURFACE DISPLAY AREA, AND THE PROPOSED SIGN WILL BE 47 SQUARE FEET. SO. THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES FREESTANDING SIGNS TO BE 10 FEET FROM THE FRONT

[01:05:01]

OKAY. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAPMAN. WOULD THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE LIKE TO COME UP TO THE PODIUM AND SPEAK ON THIS CASE? COME ON UP.

HELLO. HOW ARE YOU? I'M GOOD, THANK YOU. THANKS FOR BEING PATIENT. YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD, PLEASE. RON HOLSWORTH. ADDRESS IS FOR FORESIGHT. SUPER SIGN IS 1200, MARQUETTE STREET, LANSING, 48906. GREAT, THANK YOU SO MUCH. GO AHEAD, MR. COLTER. YES, MY CLIENT IS REQUESTING TO REPLACE THIS FREESTANDING PLAZA SIGN. THE PLAZA IS A WELL-KEPT UNIT. THE FREESTANDING SIGN, HOWEVER, IS DEFINITELY DUE FOR REPLACEMENT. THE ORDINANCE HAS A VERY SMALL ALLOWANCE FOR SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR PLAZA SIGNS, REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER OF TENANTS. THIS PLAZA HAS A FAIRLY LARGE NUMBER OF TENANTS COMPARED TO NEIGHBORING PLAZAS. ALSO, MUCH SMALLER SIZE COMPARED TO NEIGHBORING SIGNS, WHICH I'M AWARE ARE LEGAL NON-CONFORMING, LIKE THE MAJESTIC PLAZAS RIGHT DOWN PAST IHOP, ALSO IN VIEWING DISTANCE OF THIS.

THERE'S ALSO A LARGE SECTION OF TREES IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY DOWN THAT AREA THAT PREVENTS VIEWING. IF WE WERE NEEDING TO MOVE BACK FROM THE EXISTING SETBACK.

CURRENT SIGN IS FIVE FOOT SETBACK FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY. SO WE'RE HOPING TO MAINTAIN THAT SAME SETBACK WITH THE NEW SIGN, IF POSSIBLE, WITH A SMALL INCREASE IN SQUARE FOOTAGE BECAUSE OF THE LARGE NUMBER OF TENANTS FOR THIS PLAZA. THE ALTERNATIVE, WHICH IS MENTIONED IN THE CRITERIA HERE, WE COULD MOVE IT DOWN TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE PARCEL, BUT THAT WOULD PUT IT EVEN MORE. BEING BLOCKED BY THE TREES IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IN THE NEXT PARCEL, AND WE'RE TRYING TO MAINTAIN A DISTANCE AWAY FROM THE REQUESTED TOWNSHIP SIGN THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE PUT AT THE OTHER END OF THE PROPERTY. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO SHARE WITH THIS CASE? I DON'T BELIEVE SO. OKAY. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE THIS EVENING? ALL RIGHT. IN THAT CASE, I WILL JUST HAVE YOU STAY PUT.

SURE. AND I'M GOING TO CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. WE'LL GET INTO OUR BOARD TIME. MR. CHAPMAN, CAN YOU TALK TO US ABOUT THE TOWNSHIP SIGN? MR. CHAPPELL, OR MR. SMITH. THAT'S WHY YOU'RE HERE. I WAS WONDERING WHY YOU'RE HERE.

IT'S LIKE A VERY SPECIAL VISIT. YOU KNOW, I APOLOGIZE. I HAVEN'T BEEN HERE FOR A WHILE. IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOUR FACE. AND I APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION ON THE LAST CASE. I CERTAINLY HAVE SOME THOUGHTS ON THAT, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT THE TOWNSHIP SIGN IS FRANKLY IRRELEVANT.

CANDIDLY, THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON SO LONG. WE FOUND ANOTHER LOCATION AND WE'RE LIKELY TO MOVE FORWARD AT ANOTHER LOCATION, BUT IT SHOULD NOT PLAY INTO YOUR DISCUSSION THIS EVENING.

THE ONE THING I WOULD ASK THAT HAS POPPED UP SINCE YOUR PACKET WAS PUBLISHED, WE HAVE, ON AGAIN, OFF AGAIN OVER THE YEARS, GOTTEN COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE U-HAUL THAT IS PARKED AT THIS LOCATION, WITH THE GREAT CLIPS ADVERTISING ON IT.

HISTORICALLY, IT POPS UP AND THEN IT DISAPPEARS, AND IT JUST HAPPENS TO HAVE POPPED UP AGAIN. AND SO WOULD ASK THAT IF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DOES CHOOSE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH SOMETHING LIKE THIS. THAT THERE IS A PROHIBITION ON THOSE TYPES OF ADVERTISING VEHICLES ON THE PROPERTY. ADDED AS A CONDITION OF YOUR APPROVAL.

OKAY, BUT THE TOWNSHIP SIGN IS IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSIONS FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE. THAT'S HELPFUL. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

WE'LL DEFINITELY TAKE THAT PROHIBITION INTO AGREEMENT. I HAVE SEEN THAT TRUCK. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S IT. YES, QUESTION FOR MR. CHAPMAN SO THE SETBACKS AND THINGS LIKE THAT ARE THOSE. DUDE IS SAFE HERE. THIS IS ENTIRELY AESTHETICS LIKE A BECAUSE I'M GRANTING, YOU KNOW, THIS IS QUITE A LARGE VARIANCE IN TERMS OF NEARNESS TO THE LINE. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD BE CONSIDERING HERE? YEAH, I MEAN, IT'S

[01:10:02]

ZAIN? THE CURRENT SIGN IS ALSO 5 FEET. CORRECT. SO ARE YOU PLANNING ON REPLACING IT AT THE SAME SPOT, APPROXIMATELY? WITH THE SAME SETBACK AS THE HOPES? NO, I MEAN THE SAME SPOT WHERE THE SIGN CURRENTLY IS. YEP, SAME FOOTPRINT AS WELL. IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE SMALLER BECAUSE THIS IS SLIGHTLY TALLER.

YEAH, IT LOOKS TALLER AND NARROWER. YEP. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

NAVIGATED. $1,000 QUESTION. I HOPE THERE'S NO ENVIRONMENTALISTS IN HERE.

BUT IF YOU WERE TO REMOVE THOSE TREES, WOULD YOU STILL REQUIRE THE VARIANCE? OH, GOOD QUESTION. I WOULD HOPE TO NOT REMOVE THE TREES. I MEAN, THEY'RE BEAUTIFUL. I KNOW, I KNOW. VERY DIPLOMATIC AND WONDERFULLY. YES, THAT'S WHY I SAID, I HOPE THERE'S NO ENVIRONMENTALISTS IN HERE.

BEING A SUN GUY, I STILL VOTE FOR TREES, ALWAYS. RIGHT. I WOULD THINK THERE WOULD STILL BE A REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR THE SQUARE FOOTAGE BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF TENANTS IN THIS PLAZA. RIGHT. BUT FOR THE SPECIFIC LOCATION, THAT IS, IF THE TREES WEREN'T THERE.

IN THAT SPECIFIC LOCATION, WOULD IT BE ABLE TO BE MOVED BACK AND FARTHER AND POTENTIALLY OUT OF THAT SETBACK? OR COULD THE SETBACK BE MINIMIZED? I THINK IT COULD BE MEETING THE 10 FOOT AT THAT POINT. IT WOULD JUST NEED TO BE CLOSER TO THE PARKING LOT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT MEMBER TRUSISE MAY KNOW, BEING ON THE ACTUAL TRUSTEE, WHAT THE TOWNSHIP'S STANCE ARE FOR TREES AND GREEN SPACE AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

OVER THE STUDENT SIGNS, YOU HAVE TO HAVE PERMITS TO CUT THEM DOWN. GENERALLY, THE TOWNSHIP DOESN'T FAVOR CLEAR CUTTING. CLEAR CUTTING TREES, YEAH. AND I THINK A NUMBER OF SIGNS ALONG THAT STRIP OF ROAD ARE ALSO WITHIN THE 10 FOOT SETBACK. I DON'T THINK THIS SIGN IS UNIQUE. I DROVE BY IT THE OTHER DAY AND IT LOOKS PRETTY CLUTTERED ALL THE WAY DOWN. SO AESTHETICALLY, IT MAY NOT BE WHAT WE'D WANT, BUT MOVING, ONE SIGN... AND CUTTING OUT THE TREES ISN'T GOING TO IMPROVE THE AESTHETICS, PARTICULARLY. NO. THANK YOU.

OKAY. WELL, I DO KIND OF HAVE A QUESTION TO POSE TO THE BOARD, JUST GENERALLY SPEAKING, BECAUSE WE DO THESE. NOT THAT FREQUENTLY ANYMORE, BUT ENOUGH THAT IT'S LIKE, OKAY, IS IT WORTH HAVING THAT CONVERSATION? THAT THE SIGN ORDINANCE MAY NEED TO BE ADJUSTED FOR MULTI-TENANT? AS OUR PLANNING REPRESENTATIVE. YES, I THINK THAT WOULD SEEM TO BE VERY APPROPRIATE, AND THAT'S SOMETHING I COULD DEFINITELY BRING TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE.

BECAUSE I... RECALL A COUPLE OF THE ONES THAT ARE IN THE PACKET HAVE BEEN BEFORE US PREVIOUSLY. I THINK AT LEAST ONE OR TWO OF THEM.

YES, MR. SCHMIDT. I ONLY CHIME IN BECAUSE THE SIGN ORDINANCE WAS MY BABY WHEN I STARTED HERE. WE DID UPDATE THIS. IN 2023, WE INCREASED THE ALLOWANCE BY 33%. SO IT WENT FROM 28 TO 38 SQUARE FEET.

OKAY, SO IT WAS INCREASED, OKAY. YES. AND I'M GUESSING THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS TO KEEP THE VISUAL CLUTTER DOWN, KIND OF KEEP THINGS CONSISTENT ALONG THAT CORRIDOR, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M ASSUMING IS THE INTENT. SO THAT'S IT. I HAVE A QUESTION. GO AHEAD. OH, MR. SCHMIDT, IF YOU COULD HELP ME.

IS THERE A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HOW BIG THE SIZE CAN BE AND HOW MANY TENANTS ARE IN EACH PLAZA? AND HE WROTE IT.

HE DOESN'T KNOW THE ANSWER.

NO, SO IT'S JUST ONE SPEC SIZE, NOT REGARDLESS OF TENANTS.

YEAH, CORRECT. WHICH WAS KIND OF MY QUESTION, LIKE, DOES IT NEED TO BE TWEAKED FOR MORE TENANCY? BECAUSE I KNOW THAT'S BEEN AN ARGUMENT PREVIOUSLY

[01:15:01]

TRYING TO READ BEAUTIFUL NAILS ON THAT PREVIOUS SIGN? THEY MIGHT HAVE TO RUBBERNECK AND LOOK AT THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING IF THEY CAN EVEN FIND IT IN THERE. AND THAT'S. IT COULD BE A SAFETY ISSUE ALONG THERE. VERSUS IT WAS, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S OFF THE BEATEN PATH OR SOMETHING ON A 25 MILE PER HOUR ROAD, THEY'RE GOING FASTER, THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO SEE IT EASIER. I MEAN, FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT OF THE SIGN, CONTENT NOT INCLUDED, IS THE SIGN BEING TWO FEET OFF THE GROUND, IS THAT NOT ALSO A SITE ISSUE? AS FAR AS BEING SO CLOSE TO THE GROUND VERSUS THE EXISTING SIGN BEING OFF THE GROUND? THE TWO FOOT WOULD USUALLY BE ABOUT THE MINIMUM WE WOULD DO FOR A SKIRTING ON A LOWER SIGN. OKAY. SO IT'S NOT HABITABLE TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT CLOSE TO THE GROUND? OH, CORRECT, YES. OKAY. ALSO, THAT HAS AN AREA THEN THAT'S REPLACEABLE IF IT GETS DAMAGED BY LANDSCAPERS, WHERE IT'S NOT ACTUAL SIGN CONTENT. IF THE GRASS GROWS TOO LONG, YOU CAN'T SEE THE BOTTOM SHOT.

RIGHT. THAT'S WHY IT'S JUST IT'S. I MEAN, OR THE SNOW GETS TOO LOUD, TOO HIGH. AND THEN YOU CAN'T SEE TENANT NUMBER 12. AND THEN IS THAT, ARE WE PROVING SOMETHING THAT'S NOT ALSO HELPFUL THEN AT THAT POINT? OR YOU'RE RUBBERNECKING BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE THE ONE ON THE VERY BOTTOM OF THE SIGN. IT'S HARD TO READ 12 DIFFERENT SIGNS ON A SINGLE PEDESTAL, ANYWAY.

RIGHT. WHETHER IT'S SPREAD OUT LIKE IT IS IN THE TOP, WITH THREE OR FOUR DIFFERENT STYLES, OR LISTED THE WAY IT IS.

YEAH, IT KIND OF FEELS LIKE SIX OF ONE, HALF DOZEN TOGETHER WHEN I LOOK AT THE SIDE. IS IT MORE AESTHETICALLY PLEASING? PERHAPS. IS IT GOING TO BE EASIER FOR DRIVERS TO SEE IT? SO THE EXISTING SIGN THAT'S THERE IS COMING DOWN AND YOU'RE REPLACING THIS WITH THIS, OR HOPING TO REPLACE WITH THIS NEW SIGN. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.

OKAY. SO OUR VARIANCE IS TO PROVE THE SIZE AND LOCATION. I MEAN, LOOKING AT THIS, I DON'T HAVE A HUGE AMOUNT OF PROBLEM WITH IT, BUT DO WE FIND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES? THAT'S THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE KIND OF WHERE I'M GOING TO... ARE WE OFFICIALLY GOING THROUGH THE CRITERIA? WELL, LET'S TALK. YEAH, LET'S GO THROUGH IT. I CAN READ IT AND WE CAN JUMP OFF SINCE IT'S ALREADY 7.50. GOOD PLAN. ALL RIGHT. CRITERIA NUMBER ONE SAYS... BIG TEXT.

SORRY. THERE WE GO. 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. AN EASY, UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE FOR ME WOULD BE THAT THIS IS A BIG COMMERCIAL LOT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE AREA OF THIS THAT'S IN THE PACKET, OTHER THAN THE BUILDING ITSELF, ABOUT 90% OF THE REST OF THAT LOT IS CONCRETE. AND IT'S PARKING, SO YOU'RE.

YOU'RE VERY LIMITED ON WHERE YOU CAN PUT A SIGN ON THE GRASS UNLESS YOU TAKE DOWN SOME TREES.

BUT YOU'RE VERY LIMITED ON WHERE YOU CAN PUT A SIGN THERE.

THAT'S IT'S GONNA BE CLOSE, YEAH, UP TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.

REGARDLESS, THE APPLICANT IS JUST MAKING A POINT TO KIND OF PUT IT NO CLOSER THAN WHAT THE CURRENT SIGN IS.

BUT MY GOING BACK TO THE NEW SORT OF STATIC UNIT CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THIS IS A COMMERCIAL LOT THAT HAS HEAVY PAVING. AND THERE'S VERY LIMITED OPPORTUNITY. WITHOUT CAUSING AN INTERNAL CONFLICT OF CARS HITTING THE SIGN IN A PARKING SPOT. THE LOCATION OF THE SIGN ITSELF IS BASED ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PROPERTY. AND THE SIZE IS BASED ON THE NUMBER OF TENANTS. SO THAT'S ANOTHER UNIQUE THING. THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. I CAN MEET THAT CRITERIA. ANY QUESTIONS OR THOUGHTS ABOUT CRITERIA ONE? SEEMS LIKE WE CAN ALL MEET CRITERIA NUMBER ONE. CRITERIA NUMBER TWO, STRICT INTERPRETATION.

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

[01:20:01]

AND TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT IS VISIBLE AND OUTSIDE THE SETBACK. YOU'D HAVE TO CUT DOWN MORE THAN ONE TREE. IT WOULD BE A NUMBER. IT WOULD BE, YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. SO FOR BOTH THE SIZE AND THE LOCATION, I CAN MEET THAT THERE ARE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES THERE.

ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT ONE? I AGREE. OKAY.

CRITERIA NUMBER THREE, 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. I THINK... BEING THAT, WE'RE, WHAT DID YOU SAY, KEITH, AFTER ALL? IT WAS NINE FEET IN THE SIZE OF FIVE FEET.

OKAY, SQUARE FEET, THANK YOU. I COULD... JUST AS A COUNTERPOINT, IT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT ALLOWED FOR THEM TO INSTALL TWO SIGNS ON THEIR PROPERTY. THAT'S TRUE.

DO WE AGREE THAT TWO SMALLER SIGNS THAT WERE CONFORMING WOULD... WOULD BE A LARGER VARIANCE THAT WE WOULD WANT TO GRANT, RIGHT? JUST FLOAT OTHER OPTIONS BESIDES JUST A LARGER SIGN CLOSER TO THE ROAD. AND I'M NOT SURE THAT YOU COULD GET AWAY FROM THE FIVE-FOOT SETBACK IF YOU TRIED TO PUT YOUR SIGN THERE.

RIGHT. I DON'T EVEN THINK THAT, YEAH. I THINK, LOOKING AT THE SLOT, WHERE ELSE, YEAH. YOU CAN'T GET AWAY FROM THAT FIVE FOOT. I GIVE THEM CREDIT FOR DESIGNING A SIGN WITH 12 SIGNS ON IT.

BUT IT'S ONLY... 35 SQUARE FEET. BECAUSE THAT'S BEING LARGER NOW. THAT'S TRUE. AND I THINK, LOOKING AT THE PACKET AND COMPARING IT TO OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE CLEARLY BEEN APPROVED HERE, THERE, EVERYWHERE. OR NOT APPROVED. THERE. I'LL TAKE ABSOLUTELY NO CREDIT FOR THE CRUNCH SIDE. IT'S STILL NOT THE RIGHT COLOR. I'LL LEAVE THAT FOR ANOTHER DAY. YEAH, I WOULD AGREE. SO I THINK THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE WE CAN MEET CRITERIA NUMBER THREE.

CRITERIA NUMBER FOUR WOULD BE... CRITERIA NUMBER FOUR IS GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND OR THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY. IT COULD ALSO... IT'S A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY SURROUNDED BY OTHER COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES.

THE CLOSEST RESIDENTIAL IS WAY DOWN THE STREET THERE. AND LIKE MEMBER TRUSSEIS SAYS, THERE'S OTHER SIGNS, STREET SIGNS, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL THEM. NOT A POLE SIGN.

WHAT IS THIS CALLED? WHAT KIND OF SIGN IS THIS? FREESTANDING. FREESTANDING, YES. THERE'S OTHER FREESTANDING SIGNS IN THERE, SO THERE'S NOTHING THAT WOULD BE, IN MY OPINION, NEGATIVE.

IT WOULD STICK OUT AS A, YEAH. AND IT'S REPLACING AN EXISTING SIGN. YEP. IN THE SAME PLACE. I THINK IT'S ALREADY THERE, SAME LOCATION. MAYBE A LITTLE BIT MORE VISIBLE, WHICH MAY ACTUALLY BOOST MY SECURE PUBLIC SAFETY AND PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE FOR CRITERIA NUMBER THREE. SO I THINK WE CAN MEET CRITERIA NUMBER FOUR. AND CRITERIA NUMBER FIVE IS GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS CHAPTER. I THINK I CAN MEET THAT. I DON'T THINK THAT THIS IS GOING TO ADVERSELY IMPACT THE TOWNSHIP. ALL RIGHT.

WELL, IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE IN AGREEMENT ON THIS ONE.

ANYBODY HAVE A MOTION? OKAY. I HAD A QUESTION FOR TIM. OH, OKAY. I MEAN, JUST, YOU WANTED TO... I'VE HEARD YOU SAY THAT IT WAS A PROHIBITION ON ADVERTISING VEHICLES...

YES. .PARKED. ALONG GRAND RIVER ROAD. ON PROPERTY.

ON THE PROPERTY. GREAT. IS THAT APPROPRIATE IN THIS SITUATION WHERE WE'VE GOT A SIGN APPLICATION FROM A CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND NOT FROM ONE OF THE TENANTS? YEAH, SO THE VARIANCE RUNS WITH THE LAND, AND CERTAINLY THIS IS SOMETHING, AN ISSUE THAT HAS... POPPED UP SEVERAL TIMES OVER THE COURSE OF THE HISTORY OF THIS PROPERTY, SO WE'RE TRYING TO TO ADDRESS IT AS DIRECTLY AS WE CAN.

[01:25:07]

RIGHT. WELL, THAT'S TRUE.

IN DOUBLE DIP. ALL RIGHT. DR.

KANE, YOU'VE GOT TO GO FOR THE MOTION. I WAS, AND THANK YOU, MEMBER TRACISE, BECAUSE I WASN'T GOING TO REMEMBER THAT.

BUT I WOULD MOVE TO APPROVE ZBA CASE NUMBER 26-02 FOR THE VARIANCE OF FIVE FEET FOR THE DISTANCE AWAY FROM THE RIGHT WING. NINE FEET.

NINE FEET NINE FEET SIZE 90 SIGNAGE AND NINE FEET SQUARE FEET FIVE FEET FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY, WITH THE CONDITION THAT, UM, NO MOVABLE SIGNS. PROHIBITION OF ADVERTISING ADVERTISING ON VEHICLES ON THE PROPERTY, CONCEPT PROPERTY. OKAY, IS IT ALL SET PROPERTY OR ON ALL C2 PROPERTIES ON SET PROPERTY? I'LL SUPPORT.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE IT CORRECT. SO PROHIBITION ON ADVERTISING VEHICLES ON SAID PROPERTY, NINE SQUARE FOOT SIGNAGE AND FIVE FEET FROM THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. OKAY.

ANY QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, THOUGHTS BEFORE WE VOTE? ALL RIGHT, THIS IS A VOTE TO APPROVE VARIANCE 26-02 WITH THE PROHIBITION ON ADVERTISING VEHICLE SUNSET PROPERTY. MEMBER BENOIT? YES.

MEMBER KOENIG? YES. MEMBER DAHEM? YES. MEMBER TREZISE? YES. AND THE CHAIR IS, YES, SO YOUR VARIANCE HAS BEEN APPROVED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU. HAVE A GREAT NIGHT.

YOU AS WELL. THANK YOU

[6.B. ZBA CASE NO.: 26-03 (5288 Haversham), Cheryl A. Schubel, 5288 Haversham Drive, Haslett, MI 48840]

SLASH THREE SEASON ROOM, WHICH MEASURES ALSO MEASURES 12 FEET BY 12 FEET IN AREA.

THIS PORCH WOULD ENCROACH INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK, SO UNENCLOSED PORCHES LIKE THE EXISTING ARE PERMITTED TO ENCROACH INTO THE REAR AND SETBACK.

EIGHT FEET. IT IS LOCATED 20.9 FEET AT ITS CLOSEST POINT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE AND CURRENTLY ENCROACHES 9.1 FEET INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK.

THE PROPOSED ENCLOSED PORCH IS CONSIDERED TO BE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE BUILDING, SO IT HAS TO MEET ALL THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS IN THAT ZONING DISTRICT. AND SO, ONCE THIS PORCH IS ENCLOSED, IT REQUIRES... IT'S REQUIRED TO MEET THAT REAR ROAD SETBACK OF THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT. IN RA, THAT SETBACK IS 30 FEET FROM THE REAR YARD FOR LOTS LESS THAN 150 FEET IN DEPTH. THIS LOT HAS A DEPTH OF 102.1 FEET FROM THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE AND 123.44 FEET ON THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE.

THIS ENCLOSED PORCH IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED IN PLACE OF THE EXISTING UNENCLOSED PORCH. AND IS SET BACK 20.9 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE.

SO A VARIANCE OF 9.1 FEET TO ALLOW THE ENCLOSED PORCH IS REQUESTED. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAPMAN. WOULD THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE LIKE TO COME UP TO THE PODIUM HERE AND JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS WITH PUBLIC RECORD, PLEASE? GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS CHERYL SCHUBEL. I RESIDE AT 5288 HAVERSHAM DRIVE. I PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN JUNE OF 2024, KNOWING THAT THE DECK ATTACHED TO THE BACK OF THE HOME WOULD HAVE TO BE REPLACED IN THE NEAR FUTURE. KNOWING THIS NEEDED TO BE DONE PROVIDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER CONSTRUCTING A THREE-SEASON ROOM, UTILIZING THE CURRENT FOOTPRINT OCCUPIED BY THE 12X12 DECK. A THREE-FOOT SETBACK, HOWEVER, IS REQUIRED TO BUILD SUCH A STRUCTURE.

CURRENTLY, THE DEPTH OF THE BACKYARD DOES NOT MEET THAT REQUIREMENT, AND A VARIANCE OF 9.1 FEET NEEDS TO BE REQUESTED. THEREFORE, I'M SEEKING A VARIANCE THAT WOULD PERMIT ME TO CONSTRUCT A 12 BY 12, THREE SEASON ROOM IN THE PLACE OF THE DECK. I'VE ALREADY ADDRESSED THE FIVE CRITERIA IN THE BOARD PACKET TONIGHT,

[01:30:02]

N-I-C-K-L-I-P-I-N-S-K-I.

GREAT. I RESIDE IN LANSING, MICHIGAN. SO, THE PROPOSED THREE SEASON ROOM IS A SIMPLE STRUCTURE, 12 BY 12. THE INTENT IS TO MATCH THE EXISTING HOUSE WITH THE SIDING, THE PITCH OF THE ROOF. SO IT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS MEANT TO BE WHEN THEY BUILT THE HOUSE ORIGINALLY. IT ADDS VALUE TO THE HOUSE, TO THE REAL ESTATE, TO THE NEIGHBORS. IT'S IN THE BACK OF THE HOUSE, IT'S IN THE REAR OF THE HOUSE, SO IT DOESN'T AFFECT THE FRONT CURB APPEAL OF THE HOUSE. IT'S GOING TO BE VINYL SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING, ROOF SHINGLES, ARE GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, CLOSE TO EXISTING AS POSSIBLE. I MEAN, YOU'RE GOING FROM 1997 TO, YOU KNOW, TO 2026. THE SHINGLES WILL BE CLOSE, LESS THE FADING. THE SIDING WILL BE VERY SIMILAR AND CLOSE IN COLOR, YOU KNOW, BUT OVER TIME FADING. SO THE INTENT IS SO IT MATCHES THE EXISTING BUILDING, LIKE IT WAS PART OF THE EXISTING HOUSE WHEN IT WAS BUILT. SO IT DOESN'T LOOK...

LIKE AN ADDITION, LIKE A PRE-SEASON ROOM. AND IT'S THE SAME FOOTPRINT OF THE DECK. THE UNIQUENESS OF THIS PROPERTY IS IT'S SMALLER THAN THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. IT'S ONLY 123 FEET, I BELIEVE, VERSUS 102, VERSUS 123, VERSUS OTHER LOTS OF 150 FEET. SO WE GOT JUST A SMALLER LOT. OKAY, ALL RIGHT. IF YOU DON'T MIND, WE'LL LIKELY JUST HAVE YOU STICK CLOSE BY. WOULD ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE THIS EVENING? ALL RIGHT, IN THAT CASE, I'M GOING TO CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND GO INTO BOARD TIME. MR. LIPINSKI, IF YOU WANT TO STICK CLOSE, OR MR. SHUBEL, TOO, IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS. THAT WAY YOU DON'T HAVE TO KEEP GOING AND COMING BACK.

ALL RIGHT, SO LET'S GET INTO BOARD TIME. QUESTIONS, THOUGHTS? COMMENT SURE, UM, SO I WENT AND UM, LOOKED AT THE PROPERTY. UM, ONE OF YOUR NEIGHBORS HAS, LIKE, A THREE-SEASON ROOM, UM, BEHIND THEIR HOUSE, ALREADY.

CORRECT? ALL RIGHT, OKAY, YEAH, IN THE CORNER. YES, ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. UM, I THINK THAT SAID, IT SOUNDS LIKE, AND THIS IS, THIS IS PROBABLY MORE OF A STAFF QUESTION, SO MR. CHAPMAN, IS THERE A REASON THIS LOT WOULD BE NOT CONFORMING? YEAH, I MEAN, IT WAS PLANTED LIKE THIS LONG AGO, SO, I MEAN, IF THIS WERE DONE NOWADAYS, WE WOULD AVOID SOMETHING LIKE THIS, BUT SINCE IT WAS DONE LIKE THIS, SO SMALL AND IRREGULAR SHAPED, YEAH, THAT'S SORT OF THE ISSUE. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD DO NOW.

THAT NEIGHBORHOOD WAS BEING THAT IS DEVELOPED NOW. WE WOULDN'T HAVE NO. BUT THAT HELPS ME AS FAR AS UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES GO. SO, UM, OKAY, QUESTIONS, THOUGHTS THAT WERE GOOD, GO FOR IT. THE CURRENT UM PORCH IS IT? IT'S ELEVATED? IS IT ELEVATED OFF THE GROUND? YES, OKAY, 34 INCHES. OKAY, SO THE CURRENT PORCH, IS THAT SEEN AS A STRUCTURE BY TOWNSHIP, BY THE TOWNSHIP, BY DEFINITION? IT'S NOT PART OF, IT'S A STRUCTURE, BUT IT'S NOT AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING.

OKAY, SO IT'S CURRENTLY NINE, IT CURRENTLY ENCROACHES 9.1 FEET INTO THE REAR END SUB-MAT, BUT THE ZONING CODE ALLOWS FOR EIGHT FEET. CORRECT. SO IT'S TECHNICALLY ALREADY NON-CONFORMING. CORRECT. IF THE HOUSE AND THE PORCH WAS BUILT IN 97, I WOULD ASSUME THAT THE ZONING... ORDINANCE WOULD HAVE BEEN IN PLACE. HOW WAS IT APPROVED TO BE BUILT AND BE NON-CONFORMING FROM THE START? BUT THE HOUSE COULD HAVE BEEN APPROVED AND NOT THE DAC, RIGHT? I'M NOT SURE THERE'S A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE DAC, SO I DON'T KNOW. WAS IT BUILT AT THE SAME TIME? NO, NOT ALWAYS. A LOT OF TIMES, THEY COME IN AFTER THE FACT AND DO IT. DOES THE PROPERTY OWNER KNOW? DO YOU KNOW IF THE PORCH WAS BUILT? IT WAS ALWAYS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PORCH WAS BUILT AT THE SAME TIME THE HOUSE WAS, BUT MAYBE I'M WRONG ON THAT.

YEAH, I MEAN, IT GOES BOTH WAYS. YEAH, I JUST WONDERED HOW IT WOULD HAVE GOT APPROVED. SORRY. RIGHT, RIGHT.

[01:35:01]

OKAY. OKAY, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. VERY GOOD QUESTION.

OKAY. YEAH. I MEAN, I WOULD START TO ARGUE THAT SOME OF THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES HERE WOULD BE THAT YOU ALREADY HAVE AN EXISTING STRUCTURE, BE IT NOT ENCLOSED, BUT TO ENCLOSE IT. AND JUST, YOU'RE NOT, I MEAN, IT'S ALREADY IN EXISTENCE.

SO, I MEAN, ARE WE PREVENTING THE HOMEOWNER FROM... BUILDING SOMETHING ON THEIR PROPERTY BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY THERE.

AT SOME POINT, SOMETHING WAS LIKELY APPROVED AT SOME POINT. SO ARE WE PREVENTING THEM FROM USING IT IN A WAY THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO BECAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY THERE? IT MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT IF WE DON'T HAVE A VARIANCE FOR THE DECK THAT'S ALREADY THERE, BUT THAT IS AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE SETBACK.

OVER WHAT IS ALLOWED FOR A DECK BY A LITTLE LESS THAN A FOOT.

YEAH. THIS IS AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE SAME AREA BY 9.1.

THERE'S SOME REASON BEHIND TREATING A FIXED STRUCTURE ON A FOUNDATION DIFFERENT FROM A DECK. SO THIS IS A MUCH MORE SIGNIFICANT VARIANCE THAN JUST A FOOT. BECAUSE OF THE STRUCTURE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT DOES FOR US, BUT THAT'S JUST WHAT I'M LOOKING AT, AS THIS IS QUANTITATIVELY DIFFERENT THAN JUST REPLACING THE DECK. IF IT WAS TO REPLACE THE DECK, NOT A PROBLEM. CAN I ASK WHY THE DECK NEEDS TO BE REPLACED? THE CURRENT DECK THERE NOW IS NOT IN VERY GOOD SHAPE. I HAVE ROTTED BOARDS ON IT, AND BECAUSE OF THAT, IT SHOULD BE REPLACED. AND BECAUSE I WANT TO REPLACE THE DECK, I THOUGHT THIS MIGHT BE THE OPPORTUNE TIME TO HAVE A THREE-SEASONER CONSTRUCTED, RATHER THAN REPLACING IT WITH ANOTHER DECK. I'D RATHER HAVE AN ENCLOSED STRUCTURE TO ENJOY THE OUTDOORS WITH THAN NOT HAVING AN OPEN DECK.

AT MOST DECKS, YOU'RE NOT DONE. TREATED LUMBER HAS A 25 TO 30 YEAR LIFE EXPECTANCY. THIS IS 30 YEARS.

THIS IS BEYOND THAT. THIS IS PAST ITS LIFE EXPECTANCY. YOU GET 40 YEARS OUT OF IT. IT'S 30. YOU'RE LUCKY. YOU'RE LUCKY.

SO IT'S WHILE WE'RE DOING IT, LET'S JUST DO IT RIGHT. AND IT DOESN'T IMPACT THE NEIGHBORS AROUND THEM. IT'S A LOT OF VALUE ADDED TO THE EXISTING HOUSE.

UNFORTUNATELY, A LOT IS A LITTLE UNIQUE BECAUSE IT'S NOT.

150 FEET, IT'S 102. I MEAN, IF IT WAS 150 FEET, WE WOULDN'T BE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION.

SO THAT'S KIND OF IT, JUST IT'S ON A RADIUS. AND THE BACKYARD IS AN ODD SHAPE AS WELL, BECAUSE IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT HOW THE BACKYARD PROPERTY LINE RUNS, IT RUNS AT AN ANGLE.

YEAH, A LOT. WE'VE GOT A LOT OF ANGLES THERE. OH, THERE ARE A LOT OF ANGLES. WE'VE GOT THOSE STRAIGHT LINES. IT'S FROM THE ENGLISH ESTATE, SO IF THAT TELLS YOU ANYTHING, YEAH. RIGHT. QUESTION FOR MR. CHAPMAN. SO IF THEY REPLACED THEIR DECK, WOULD THEY NEED TO ENSURE THAT THE NEW DECK WOULD BE IN CONFORMANCE? OH, YEAH.

YEAH. IF THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE IT OUT, THEY, YOU KNOW. THE VALUE OF IT IS OVER 50% AND IT'S NOT CONFORMING, SO THEY'D HAVE TO TO BRING IT INTO CURRENT CODE. OKAY, SO IT WOULD EITHER HAVE TO... THEY'D BE HERE ASKING FOR A PLACE VARIANT. YEAH.

YEAH. SO WE'D EITHER HAVE TO SHRINK OR WE'D HAVE TO ASK FOR A VARIANCE, REGARDLESS.

TORNADO CAME AND BLEW IT DOWN.

WHAT'S GOD FORBID. I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THAT? I SAID, UNLESS A TORNADO OR AN ACT OF GOD CAME AND BLEW IT DOWN. I DON'T KNOW WHAT OUR CODE SAYS, BUT TYPICALLY, CODES WILL ALLOW FOR A NON-CONFORMING USE TO BE REPLACED. IF AN ACT OF GOD DESTROYS IT OR SOMETHING, AS LONG AS IT'S NOT INCREASED OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW OUR CODE IS. I HAVEN'T GOTTEN THAT FAR IN NON-CONFORMING. KEITH CAN CONFIRM THAT OR NOT, IF THAT'S ALLOWED. HOPEFULLY, IT NEVER GETS TO THAT. I KNOW.

I'M JUST SAYING. THAT'S YOUR ONLY OTHER OPTION TO REPLACE IT. NOT ON THE TABLE. SO I GUESS I GO BACK TO MEMBER GISELE'S COMMENT. ABOUT THE REASON THAT IT'S A MORE SUBSTANTIAL

[01:40:02]

WELL, I'M NOT SURE THAT I HAVE A TERRIBLE LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT IT. I'M JUST SAYING, IT'S A DIFFERENT VARIANCE THAN...

IT'S NOT JUST A REPLACEMENT.

IT'S A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE UNDER THE CODE. I MEAN, I COULD ARGUE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES HERE, BUT EITHER WAY, IT'S GOT TO BE THIS PLACE, 30 YEARS OLD.

BUT EITHER WAY, THEY'RE LIKELY, ESPECIALLY IF SHE WANTS TO MAINTAIN THE DECK AS IS, EVEN IF YOU WERE TO REPLACE IT JUST AS DECK, YOU'D STILL NEED A VARIANCE.

SO ARE WE PROVIDING JUSTICE BY SAYING, WELL, SHE OWNS THE HOME, SHE CAN BUILD ON THE PROPERTY, AND SHE ALREADY HAS THIS. THIS FOOTPRINT, SO CAN WE ALLOW IT AS A MATTER OF ACTION? IS IT A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A VARIANCE? EITHER WAY, FOR THE WAY THAT IT WAS, FOR WHAT IT IS NOW? I MEAN, I CAN ARGUE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES RIGHT THERE, BUT ALSO I THINK I COULD START TO PAINT A PICTURE FOR PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES BASED ON THAT AS WELL. BASED ON THE DRAWING AND I BELIEVE IN THE NOTES, IT WAS STATED THAT THE PORCH IS WHERE IT IS BECAUSE OF THE EGRESS OUT OF THE HOME. THAT'S WHY THE PORCH IS IN ITS CURRENT POSITION, KIND OF A LITTLE BIT OFF CENTER FROM THE CENTER OF THE HOUSE.

YES. AN ARGUMENT COULD BE MADE THAT THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WOULD BE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURE THAT'S ON THE SCREEN, I THINK YOU KEEP BRINGING THAT UP, YOU CAN SEE THE DASHED LINE, WHICH IS THE REQUIRED SETBACK.

IF SHE WERE TO TEAR THAT DOWN AND REPLACE IT WITH ANOTHER PORCH SIMILAR TO THIS STRUCTURE, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE MOVED ALMOST TO THE COMPLETE SOUTHEAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. AND EVEN THEN, IT COULDN'T BE 12 FOOT AND 12 FOOT. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE, LOOKING AT THAT, I'M GUESSTIMATING, BUT IT WOULD BE PROBABLY 8 FOOT BY 6, 7, 8 FEET, WHICH I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE EVEN HAS AN 8 FOOT BY 8 FOOT DECK ANYMORE.

IT'S PRETTY SMALL. BUT IT WOULD ALMOST CAUSE ANOTHER INGRESS TO BE BUILT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT ROOM IS THERE. IT COULD BE A BATHROOM FOR ALL I KNOW.

YOU'RE NOT GOING TO PUT A SLIDING GLASS DOOR IN A BATHROOM TO COME OUT OF THE DECK JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO DO IT. I HAVE ONE OF THOSE ONES.

ON THE BATHROOM? YES. OH, I RECALL THAT STATEMENT FROM THE RECORD, THEN. AND IT WAS ON THE SECOND STORY. OH MY GOODNESS. I WILL RETRACT THAT STATEMENT FROM THE RECORD. BUT YOU CAN SEE WHAT I'M SAYING.

THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY COULD BE THAT IF THAT WERE TO BE REBUILT AND MOVED, IT WOULD REQUIRE HER TO...

AGAIN, FINANCIALLY, BUT IT WOULD RECREATE A WHOLE OTHER SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT TO THE HOME ITSELF. EITHER DIRECTION I WOULD GO IN, IT WOULD BE A BEDROOM. THIS IS BETTER THAN A BATHROOM. THIS IS THE MOST LOGICAL SPACE TO PUT IT. I MEAN, AS FAR AS CONSTRUCTION, AS FAR AS USABILITY, FEASIBILITY, FIT, FORM, AND FUNCTION. IT'S EVEN FOR TRAFFIC FLOW AND JUST EVERYTHING. RIGHT, THERE'S A REASON IT WAS BUILT THERE.

YEAH, AND THE EXISTING PATIO DOOR THAT GOES OUT TO IT IS A PRETTY GOOD REASON. I MEAN, IT'S ALREADY STRUCTURALLY SIGNED THERE. YEAH, AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S NECESSARILY FINANCIAL. THAT'S A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. THERE'S NOT ACCESS.

WELL, AND A SETBACK IS AN ISSUE BECAUSE OF THE NON-PERFORMING LOT, WHICH IS THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE, NUMBER ONE.

SORRY, I DIDN'T KNOW IF WE WERE GOING OVER THE CRITERIA. NO, NO, GO FOR IT. YEAH. WELL, IT'S JUST MY OPINION. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I'M GOING TO START THE CRITERIA, THOUGH. CRITERIA NUMBER ONE IS UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST THAT ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND OR STRUCTURE THAT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LAND OR STRUCTURES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.

AT LEAST, UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SELF-CREATED. I CAN CERTAINLY MEET THAT CRITERIA.

DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. WE'RE ALL KIND OF THERE. CRITERIA 2, STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE 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. AND THAT'S WHERE WE COULD GO, ANY NUMBER OF ANGLES. THE SETBACK ITSELF BEING AN ISSUE, MOVING THAT ANYWHERE ELSE ALONG THE BACKSIDE OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE BEING A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. IT DOESN'T APPEAR THAT IT COULD BE MOVED TO BE. OUTSIDE THE SETBACK, ANYWAY, TO BE OUTSIDE OF THE SETBACK IN EITHER IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, WITHOUT BEING, WITHOUT BEING SUBSTANTIALLY SMALLER AND THEN NOT BEING USABLE. SO THAT WE GO BACK

[01:45:01]

YES, SORRY, WE GOT A LINE, BUT EVEN EVEN IF THEY APPLICANT DID, I WANTED TO CLOSE IT. I WANTED TO TEAR IT DOWN AND REBUILD IT.

DIFFICULTY'S THERE BECAUSE NOW IT HAS TO CONFORM. I DIDN'T MAKE IT VERY HARD WITH THE SETBACKS. I CAN'T EVEN PUT IT BACK TO WHERE IT IS. I JUST LOOKED UP THE NON-CONFORMING USE LAW. YOU CAN REPAIR, REPLACE, AS LONG AS IT'S NOT OVER 50% OF THE VALUE OF THE BUILDING. SO IT COULD BE REPLACED. AS IS.

WITHOUT THE NEED FOR VARIANCE.

I BELIEVE SO. I MEAN, THAT'S PROBABLY HARD TO ARGUE, JUST BASED ON COST OF HOW BAD THE DUCK IS DETERIORATING AND STUFF LIKE THAT. RIGHT. AND THE POTENTIAL OF POURING NEW FOOTINGS, DOING MORE STRUCTURALLY TYING IN, THOSE KIND OF THINGS, I WOULD IMAGINE. I JUST KNOW FROM PREVIOUSLY THAT THOSE THINGS ADD UP QUICKLY. YEAH.

BUT IT TALKS ABOUT... 50% OF THE STRUCTURE. JUST THE DECK. IT DOESN'T TALK ABOUT DECK PER SE. THE DECK IS A STRUCTURE. IT WOULD BE JUST FOR THE DECK ITSELF.

BUT I THINK IF THEY'RE LOOKING ABOUT THE WHOLE STRUCTURE, I DON'T KNOW. BUT THAT'S NEITHER HERE NOR THERE. I WOULD DEFINITELY GRANT A VARIANCE FOR A FOOT TO REPLACE IT.

NECESSARY. BUT THAT'S NEITHER HERE NOR THERE. WELL, SO...

PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, CRITERIA TWO. THERE'S PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, YES. ALL RIGHT.

CRITERIA THREE IS GRANTING THE VARIANCE AS THE MINIMUM ACTION NECESSARY THAT WOULD CARRY OUT THE SPIRIT OF THIS ZONING ORDINANCE, SECURE PUBLIC SAFETY, AND PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. I WOULD AGREE THAT IT COULD MEET THAT. I WOULD NOT HAVE. JUST FLOATING THIS OUT THERE, WE WANT A SMALLER VARIANCE, BEING JUST TWO. GRANT A VARIANCE FOR THE DECK AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS, THAT WOULD BE A SMALLER VARIANCE. WOULD THAT STILL PROVIDE THE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND DEAL WITH THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES? THAT SEEMS TO ME A SMALLER VARIANCE, THAT, IT'S NOT THE ONE THAT'S BEFORE US NOW, BUT THAT SEEMS TO BE A SMALLER VARIANCE. THAT WOULD ACHIEVE THE SAME GOAL OF ALLOWING THIS DECK TO CONTINUE TO EXIST, AS OPPOSED TO BEING UPGRADED TO A THREE-SEASON ROOM. I THINK WE COULD ARGUE THAT IT WOULD BE A A LESS MINIMAL ACTION, CERTAINLY. SO I GUESS, IF WE'RE LOOKING AT IT AS LITERAL, IS THERE ANY OTHER ACTION THAT'S MORE MINIMAL? WE COULD CONSIDER THAT. I DO THINK, THOUGH, THAT WOULD IT PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, MEANING GRANTING THE APPLICANT THE ABILITY TO BUILD WHAT THEY'D LIKE ON THEIR PROPERTY? WHAT THAT'S THE PRACTICE OF ALL ZONING REQUIREMENTS IS TO RESTRICT YOU FROM BUILDING CERTAIN THINGS ON YOUR PROPERTY. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT CRITERIA ANSWERS ANYTHING. OKAY. THE MINIMUM SETBACK IS THE SAME, IF I'M CORRECT. SO WHAT THEY'RE BUILDING, IT'S THE SAME SETBACK. THE STRUCTURE ITSELF IS GOING TO HAVE THE SAME SETBACK AS THE PREVIOUS CURRENT DECK. AS THE CURRENT. SO THERE'S NO INCREASE, THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR AN INCREASE, THEY'RE JUST, WITHOUT LACK OF A BETTER TERM, THEY'RE JUST ASKING FOR THE CURRENT 9.1 FOOT SETBACK TO BE KIND OF LEGAL ON THE PROPERTY VERSUS RIGHT NOW.

I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT. YEAH, IT'S THE SAME. WELL, BUT THEN I THINK THE ADDITION OF IT. THE DIFFERENCE IS IT'S ENCLOSED. YEAH, AND THE SETBACK APPLIES TO THAT. YOU DON'T HAVE THE LEEWAY ON AN OPEN DECK.

BECAUSE PETER'S ARGUMENT IS THAT THE DECK COULD BE 8 FEET, BUT IT'S 9.1. SO IT'S ONLY...

THE INCURSION IS MUCH LESS BASED ON... IT'S THE 1.1 FOOT VERSUS THE 9.1 FOOT. BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE WHOLE STRUCTURE, THEN, AS OPPOSED TO JUST...

REPLACING THE DECK WOULD ONLY REQUIRE A 1.1 FOOT. I THINK THAT'S WHAT... THEY'RE SAYING THAT WOULD BE MORE, MORE MINIMAL. IT'S JUST REPLACE THE DECK VERSUS A THREE SEASONS ROOM. I MEAN, I SEE IT AS WE'RE JUST WE'RE PUTTING A STRUCTURE WHERE STRUCTURE IS, BUT I THINK THE ARGUMENT BEING THAT TYING IT INTO THE HOUSE CREATES A

[01:50:02]

YES. I'M GOING TO ASK A QUESTION. KEITH ABOUT THIS. SORRY, WE'RE BOMBARDING WITH QUESTIONS TONIGHT, AREN'T WE? SO I'M HERE. IF WE WERE TO GRANT THIS VARIANCE FOR THAT ENCLOSED AND SAY, OKAY, THE VARIANCE ALLOWS IT TO BE 9.1 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, IS THAT VARIANCE ONLY FOR THAT PORTION OF THE HOUSE? SO LET'S SAY WE GRANT THIS. TWO YEARS LATER, THIS YOUNG LADY COMES BACK AND SAYS, OH, I WANT TO EXPAND MY BEDROOM. OUT TO 9.1 FEET BECAUSE I GOT A VARIANCE TO NOW CREATE ESSENTIALLY A NEW REAR YARD OF 9.1 FEET. COULD SHE LEGALLY DO THAT THEN, BECAUSE WE ALREADY GRANTED THE VARIANCE? OR WOULD SHE HAVE TO COME ASK FOR A VARIANCE FOR THAT PORTION OF THE HOUSE? YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? YEAH, I MEAN, IF YOU'RE INCREASING ANYTHING, LOCATION, WHAT IS IT, LOCATION, CHARACTER, EXTENT, IN LIKE, A NON-CONFORMING SITUATION, THEN YOU HAVE TO COME BACK FOR A VARIANCE. SO ANY ADDITIONAL BILLS WOULD NEED TO BE? IT'S SITE SPECIFIC AND PROJECT SPECIFIC. SO SITE SPECIFIC, OKAY. INTERESTING.

PIGGYBACKING OFF OF THAT, IN THE CASE THAT THIS SIDE ROOM DETERIORATES OVER TIME, WOULD THEY STILL HAVE TO COME BACK FOR A VARIANCE TO REBUILD THAT SIDE ROOM? NO, BECAUSE YOU'VE GRANTED THE VARIANCE ALREADY. AS LONG AS THEY'RE NOT EXPANDING IT, THAT'S FINE. SO THIS FOOTPRINT... IS WHAT YOU'RE GRANTING. ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THAT IS GOING TO BE NON-CONFORMING, SO YOU'D HAVE TO GET A VARIANCE. YOU'D HAVE TO, YEAH. I FEEL LIKE I COULD MEET CRITERIA NUMBER THREE.

BASED ON, YES, IT BEING THE SAME FOOTPRINT AS THE EXISTING DECK, DESPITE IT BEING TIED INTO THE HOME, VERSUS JUST REPLACING DECKS. I COULD STILL MAKE THAT. THAT WOULD BE CORRECT AS WELL. ALL RIGHT.

IT'S PROBABLY NOT THERE. I MAY BE. YEAH, I MAY BE. OKAY.

CRITERIA FOUR, GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ITS ADJACENT LAND OR THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER AND VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY. I THINK WE'VE ALREADY HEARD SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS MAY HAVE SOME THREE SEASONS ROOM. NO, I DON'T THINK THAT THIS WOULD BE AN ISSUE THAT NEIGHBORS WOULD HAVE. ADVERSELY AFFECT THE THE UH, HAVE YOU ASKED ANY OF YOUR? JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY? YES, MY NEIGHBOR THAT LIVES TO THE SOUTH OF ME, AND MY NEIGHBOR THAT LIVES TO THE NORTH OF ME. UM, THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA. OKAY, ALL RIGHT, THAT'S IMPORTANT TO ME. YEAH, OKAY, BECAUSE IT DOES CHANGE THE SIGHT LINES.

IT, YES, YEAH, AND AND I BELIEVE, IS WHY THE RULES ARE DIFFERENT FOR A DECK AS A, UH, AS AN ADDITION. YEAH, OKAY, THAT'S HELPFUL. ALL RIGHT, THEN I THINK WE CAN MEET CRITERIA 4. CRITERIA 5 IS GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS CHAPTER. WELL, I DO DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND THE POINT MADE THAT IT'S A MORE SUBSTANTIAL BUILD AT THE SAME TIME WITH THE LOT, SIZE, SHAPE, ANGLE. AS EXISTING, I DO THINK THAT THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE PURPOSES OF THE TIME. I COULD EASILY MEET THE FIVE CRITERIA.

THOUGHTS STILL REMAINING ON ANY, IT SEEMS LIKE WE WERE KIND OF ON NUMBER TWO AND THREE, BUT... IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE UNANIMOUS, BUT... THIS IS TRUE. THIS IS TRUE. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH FIVE. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH FOUR. AND THIS IS A PERMITTED STRUCTURE WITHIN THE ZONE, SO THREE FITS IN THERE. AND I THINK THIS IS PROBABLY WHERE THERE'S NOT A WHOLE ROOM THAT YOU CAN BUILD AND HAVE IT IN A THREE-SEASON. IT'D BE ENCLOSED. YEAH. IT'D STILL BE USABLE. YEAH. YOU KNOW, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I GET BACK TO MINIMUM ACTION. IS IT GOING TO BE FUNCTIONAL? I FEEL LIKE THIS IS PROBABLY THE LEAST FUNCTION, OR THE MINIMAL TO BE FUNCTIONAL. YEAH. IT'S GOING TO BE THE EXACT SAME SIZE AS THE CURRENT DECK. RIGHT.

FOR THE CURRENT DECK PORCH.

WHEN WE SUBMIT FOR A BUILDING PERMIT, IF THIS GETS APPROVED, IT'LL BE 12 FEET BY 12 FEET.

WHAT ARE WE CALLING THE ORIGINAL DECK PORCH? I KEEP CALLING THEM TWO DIFFERENT

[01:55:04]

SO THERE'S NOT A ROOF ON IT, IT'S JUST 34 INCHES WITH A RAILING AROUND IT. SO WHAT, I UNDERSTAND... MY METRIC SIZE IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A 1.1 FOOT VARIANCE VERSUS A 9.1 VARIANCE. I DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND THAT NOW.

I PERSONALLY WOULD SEE THIS AS A MINIMUM ACTION BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT INCREASING THE SIZE OF THAT DECK OVERALL. IT'S STILL GOING TO REMAIN THE 9.1, WHICH IS WHAT IT IS NOW.

ALTHOUGH IT IS A CORK IN THE CODE THAT ALLOWS THE DECK TO GO UP TO 8 FEET. I'VE NEVER HEARD THAT BEFORE, BUT HEY, THAT'S A THING IN THIS CODE, SO THAT'S GREAT. EVERY CODE'S DIFFERENT. THAT'S WHAT IT IS. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT ONE. WE HAVE SUCH FUN WITH LITTLE QUIRKY CODES HERE IN THE INTELLIGENCE. GREAT.

WELL, IS THERE A MOTION? I MOVE TO APPROVE OF THE VARIANCE NAMED ZBA CASE NUMBER 26-03 AT 5288. HAVERSHAM FOR A CHANGE IN THE REAR SETBACK OF 9.1 FEET. OKAY. ALL IN SUPPORT? ANY THOUGHTS, QUESTIONS, FURTHER CONCERNS ON THE MOTION TO APPROVE? ALL RIGHT.

IN THAT CASE, THIS IS A VOTE TO APPROVE ZBA CASE NUMBER 26-03.

MEMBER BENOIT? YES. MEMBER KOENIG? YES. MEMBER NAHUM? YES. MEMBER TREZISE? YES. AND CHAIRMAN SOR SAYS, YES. SO YOUR MOTION HAS BEEN APPROVED.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, EVERYBODY. HAVE A NICE EVENING.

YEAH, YOU TOO. THANK YOU. GOOD LUCK. THANK YOU. OKAY, AND THE

[6.C. ZBA CASE NO.: 26-04 (5384 Van Atta), January Chvala, 5384 Van Atta Road, Haslett, MI 48840]

WOULD THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE LIKE TO COME ON UP? HELLO, I'M JIM JAGUAR. I LIVE AT 1569 OR 15098 SENIORS COURT, BATH, MICHIGAN, AND I'M HERE TO REPRESENT JANUARY. OKAY.

STATE YOUR NAME ONE MORE TIME, SIR? JIM JAGUAR. JAGUAR.

OKAY. OKAY. GO AHEAD, SIR.

WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO TELL US ABOUT THIS CASE? WELL, THERE'S TWO PARCELS. I MEAN, THERE'S THE BIG PARCEL, WHICH IS, I THINK, 16 POINT, ALMOST 17 ACRES OF LAND. AND THEY WERE GRANTED A DRIVEWAY PERMIT BY INGHAM COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION FOR THEIR ACCESS TO BE USED SINCE 2017. AND SO THEY'VE BEEN USING THAT AND THEY GOT VARIANCES FOR THAT AND THAT WAS GOOD.

AND THEN THEY HAVE ANOTHER ACCESS ON THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS KIND OF UNIQUE ON PIPER ROAD, WHICH HAS 207 FEET OF FRONTAGE RIGHT NOW. AND THEY WOULD LIKE TO, THE PARCEL HAS SPLITS AVAILABLE AND WE'RE ASKING FOR TWO PARCELS WHICH ALLOW MORE USE OF THAT. PART OF THAT'S WHAT'S ALLOWED BY,

[02:00:01]

SO WE'RE JUST ASKING THAT WE ARE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE TO USE THAT FOR THE PROPERTY.

AND THEN THIS OTHER PARCEL, WE'RE GOING TO CREATE A NEW PARCEL, WHICH WE DO HAVE A ROAD PERMIT FROM THE INCINERATOR. ROAD COMMISSION FOR THE NEW PARCEL ALSO, SO WE'VE GOT TWO APPROVALS FROM THE ROAD COMMISSION, CURRENT APPROVALS FROM THE ROAD COMMISSION FOR THOSE THOSE TWO SITES. AND WE'D LIKE TO, UH, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE SO WE CAN. WE CAN SPLIT THE PARCEL AND ALLOW THE WELL, THE UH, WELL, THE STATE PLAYER. THAT ALLOW IT INSIDE BY LAW TO BE USED FOR THIS, THIS PROJECT. SO OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. MR. CHIGURH. WOULD ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE THIS EVENING? I'M CATHY JANCICH, I'VE LIVED 14 YEARS AT 809 PIPER ROAD AND I BELIEVE MY PROPERTY BACKS UP TO SOME OF THIS LAND THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. I'M JUST AFRAID IT'S GOING TO AFFECT ME AND MY PROPERTY, THAT THEY'RE GOING TO PUT A DRIVEWAY OR SOMETHING THROUGH MY YARD. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT MEANS FOR ME. AND I WANT SOME ANSWERS BECAUSE THIS IS MY LIFE AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT MEANS. ALL RIGHT. DID YOU, I KNOW WE HAVE TWO COMMUNICATIONS THAT WERE REGARDING THIS CASE. DID YOU, EITHER ONE OF THOSE? OKAY. I GOT THE ONE, THE MOST RECENT ONE. OKAY.

BUT I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ANOTHER ONE. OKAY.

WELL, WE ALSO HAD LETTERS FROM A COUPLE OTHER NEIGHBORS AS WELL REGARDING THIS, BUT WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE TONIGHT, SO HOPEFULLY YOU'LL HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ANSWERED.

JUST TO GIVE MY SPIEL, MY BOARD CHAIR SPIEL, WE DON'T TYPICALLY ANSWER BACK AND FORTH WITH PUBLIC COMMENT. WE ALWAYS WANT TO GIVE EVERYBODY A CHANCE, EVERY NEIGHBOR AND EVERY CITIZEN A CHANCE TO VOICE THEIR OPINION AND THEIR CONCERNS OR THEIR AGREEMENT. BUT WE DON'T TYPICALLY GO BACK AND FORTH.

SO WE HOPE THAT YOU GET SOME QUESTIONS ANSWERED TODAY. WE WON'T BE ABLE TO DIALOGUE WITH YOU, THOUGH, ON THOSE QUESTIONS. SO WE HOPE THAT WE CAN GET SOME ANSWERS FOR YOU. OKAY. BUT JUST AS LONG AS WE ALL UNDERSTAND THAT, WE RESPECT THAT, BUT WE'LL DO OUR BEST TO TRY TO DO OUR BEST TO ASK SOME GOOD QUESTIONS, TOO. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE THIS EVENING? NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE, WHEN YOU GET UP THERE. HELLO, I AM KALEN BRIGGS. I OWN THE PROPERTY DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET, PIPER ROAD, AT 630 PIPER. YEAH, I HAVE A LOT TO DISCUSS ABOUT THIS. FIRST OF ALL, WE HAVE NOT BEEN CONSULTED WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS AT ALL. WE DO KNOW THAT THE TWO EXISTING PARCELS THAT THEY OWN COLLECTIVELY ARE ON THE MARKET FOR SALE. SO THIS IS A MOVE FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE TO JUST MAKE MORE PROFIT OFF THIS PROPERTY. MY NEIGHBOR, JOEL WAS ONE OF THE ONES THAT COMMUNICATED.

WE'VE BEEN TALKING A LOT ABOUT WHAT HE HAD. VARIANCES NOT APPROVED IN THE PAST, AND I THINK THE CRITERIA FOR HIM, HIS DISAPPROVAL, ARE VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT SHOULD BE DISAPPROVED HERE. WE'RE BOTH PRETTY AGAINST THIS MOVE RIGHT NOW FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS THAT I'LL GET INTO. I DON'T SEE UNDUE CIRCUIT RESTRICTIONS REQUIRING RELIEF. THE CURRENT PROPERTY MEETS ALL THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED, SO YOU'RE CREATING A PROPERTY THAT IS NOT WITHIN SPEC. IT WILL NO LONGER BE CONFORMING WHEN THEY DO THIS. REGARDING NUMBER FOUR AND FIVE, THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST SENSITIVE FOR ME. SO I BOUGHT THE HOUSE, I THINK, IN 2021. I BOUGHT THIS FOR THE SIGHT LINES, PRIMARILY. THERE WAS PROBABLY, BETWEEN MY HOUSE AND THE ROAD, THERE WAS PROBABLY, I DON'T KNOW, EIGHT TREES THAT BLOCKED MY, YOU COULDN'T EVEN SEE MY HOUSE.

FROM PIPER ROAD, A LOT OF PINE TREES THAT WERE IN SERIOUS DISREPAIR. SO I REMOVED ALL THOSE.

FOR MY WIFE AND I TO HAVE THE VIEW THAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY, IT'S A BEAUTIFUL VIEW, IT'S SPECTACULAR. WE REALLY, REALLY APPRECIATE THE VIEW. IT WAS ONE OF THE PRIMARY REASONS WE BOUGHT THE HOUSE. SO I DON'T THINK THAT THE CHARACTER WILL REMAIN THE SAME. I ALSO THINK MY HOUSE IS RURAL, RESIDENTIAL.

I DON'T THINK THIS WOULD BE A RURAL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, THE SMALLER PARCEL THERE, WHICH TO ME, THAT'S THE AESTHETIC, THAT'S THE CHARACTER OF THE WHOLE ENTIRE AREA.

TOWARDS THE EAST OF MY PROPERTY, AT THE END OF MY PROPERTY, IT'S A SIGNIFICANT HIGHWAY

[02:05:01]

MORE HOMES IN THIS AREA. THESE PARCELS, SO BOTH THAT MINI PARCEL AND THE PARCEL THAT'S NOT DEPICTED ON THAT SURVEY.

RIGHT NOW, IF THEY BOTH GET DEVELOPED, YOU'RE JUST CONTINUING RESTRICTING FLOW FOR DEER AND WILDLIFE.

SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TURTLES THAT GO ACROSS THIS.

I'LL ALSO SAY THAT, SO I'M A SECTION MANAGER FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, GREAT LAKES, AND ENERGY, SO I AM NOT AN ENVIRONMENTALIST, BUT I AM...

YOU'RE A TREE GUY. I'M NOT A TREE GUY, I'M A GEOLOGIST. I'M AN ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATOR.

YEAH. THAT'S THE...

BY THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE PIPER ROAD AND THE PROPOSED BOUNDARY OF THAT NORTHERN PARCEL, WE'LL BE APPROACHING EXTREMELY CLOSE TO THE WETLANDS. WE WERE TRYING TO FIND INFORMATION ABOUT THE BOARD PACKET WEEKS AGO, AND IT'S BEEN DELAYED. I THINK WE GOT THEM LAST WEEK. SO I WOULD LIKE TO CONSULT INTERNALLY IN MY AGENCY TO TALK ABOUT THAT WETLAND AND HOW MUCH WE MIGHT BE IMPEDING THE INTEGRITY OF THAT WETLAND, ESPECIALLY, LIKE I SAID, A LOT OF WILDLIFE TRAVERSES IT.

DEFINITELY BE A NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL, ECOLOGICAL IMPACT. THAT WOULD BE VERY CONCERNING TO ME AND MY COLLEAGUES. SO, BUT I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF BEING A CITIZEN AND THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOR. SO I READ A COUPLE OF THE CONNERY POINT OF VIEWS OR THE REASONS SHE WANTED IT IN THE BOARD PACKET RECENTLY.

AND HER COUNTERPOINT TO NOT ADVERSELY AFFECTING ADJACENT LAND OR THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER WAS BECAUSE THERE'S ALREADY EXISTING 16 ACRES. AND THIS IS ONLY CREATING TWO NEW PARCELS.

WHEN THIS IS TAKING A CHUNK OF THAT 16 ACRES THAT IS BEAUTIFUL RURAL LAND, ENCROACHING UPON A WETLAND, THE 16 ACRES NOW IS NO LONGER GOING TO BE VISIBLY AVAILABLE TO THE RESIDENTS THAT TRAVERSE THIS ROAD ON A DAILY BASIS.

PERSONALLY ME, PERSONALLY JOEL, WHO ALSO SENT ME A LETTER IN. SO IT COMPLETELY DIMINISHES THE CHARACTER OF MY PROPERTY.

AND I TRULY THINK IT WOULD IMPACT MY PROPERTY VALUE. SO I KIND OF TAKE OFFENSE PERSONALLY OF HER COMMENT OF THERE'S ONLY TWO NEW PARCELS. THERE'S ALREADY 16 ACRES THAT WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE BEHIND. YOU'RE MAKING AN ALREADY CONFORMING PROPERTY INTO A NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY WITH THIS MOVE. SO I JUST THINK IT'S FUNDAMENTALLY TO BE OPPOSED. AND THEN I JUST, A LOT OF THE NOTES I TOOK TODAY, ESPECIALLY THAT FIRST ONE, THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, YOU KNOW, THIS IS SELF-INFLICTED. THIS IS SO THEY CAN DEVELOP THE PROPERTY TO MAKE MORE MONEY AND INVEST, OR GET MORE OUT, ECONOMICAL OUTPUT FROM THIS PROPERTY THAT THEY'RE ALREADY SELLING. SO NOTHING'S CAUSING THEM TO, NO USE OF THIS LAND IS BEING DIMINISHED BY THE CURRENT USE OF THE PROPERTY. IT'S STILL A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THEY JUST WANT TO GET MORE MONEY OUT OF THE PROPERTY. SO TO ME, THIS IS SELF-INFLICTED BECAUSE THEY WANT TO GET MORE. RETURN ON INVESTMENT, ESSENTIALLY. I KNOW THEY'RE GOING THROUGH FAMILY TROUBLES, THEY'RE GOING THROUGH DIVORCE, SO NOW THEY'RE JUST TRYING TO GET AS MUCH AS THEY CAN ON THE PROPERTY. AND I THINK ANY OTHER OWNER COULD COME INTO THIS PROPERTY AND GET THE USE OF IT. THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING USED, AS THE CURRENT OWNER IS ALREADY GETTING OUT OF IT.

THEY DON'T ACCESS THROUGH PIPER, OR PIPER, EVEN THOUGH THERE IS A DRIVEWAY FROM THEIR LOT TO IT. I'VE PERSONALLY TRAVERSED IT BECAUSE I WAS FRIENDS WITH THEM AND THAT'S HOW WE GOT TO THEIR PROPERTY, BUT ANY OTHER OWNER, I THINK, WOULD APPRECIATE MAINTAINING THEIR FRONTAGE ON PIPER, THE ENTIRE ACCESS TO THE ENTIRE LOT. THE WETLAND IS RIGHT THERE, IT'S NOT DEPICTED ON THE FIGURE, BUT THAT WETLAND WOULD BE IMPACTED BY THAT BOUNDARY, AND IT'S GETTING PRETTY CLOSE TO THE REQUIRED DELINEATION THAT MY AGENCY REQUIRES. SO IF NO DECISION COULD BE MADE TONIGHT, I WOULD LIKE TO ARTICULATE MYSELF BETTER IN WRITING BECAUSE I DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE. I HAVE A NEWBORN AT HOME. DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO REALLY PUT ALL MY THOUGHTS INTO WHY. FUNDAMENTALLY, I'M IN DISAGREEMENT WITH THIS PROPOSAL.

BUT THERE'S A NUMBER OF REASONS, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE HEARING THE DIALOGUE ON THE FIRST ONE TONIGHT, LIKE, THIS IS TO ME AN EXTREME VERSION OF THAT. SO I HOPE YOU GUYS TRULY CONSIDER OPPOSING THIS MOTION. SO I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. THANK YOU SO MUCH, SIR. WE APPRECIATE IT. AND YOU HAD A LOT OF VERY COHERENT THOUGHTS. SO FOR HAVING A NEWBORN AT HOME, GREAT JOB. SIR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME UP, NAME AND ADDRESS FOR PUBLIC RECORDS, PLEASE? MY NAME IS CHRISTIAN GOLDONI, 703 PIPER ROAD. WAIT, WAIT, DO YOU GET TO THE MICROPHONE? SORRY. THERE YOU GO.

CHRISTIAN GOLDONI, 703 PIPER ROAD. THANK YOU SO MUCH. SO, ALL I GOT WAS JUST THE INITIAL LETTER OF THIS HEARING. I CAN'T QUITE SEE EXACTLY WHAT YOU GUYS ARE TRYING TO DO UP HERE.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ONLY TWO PARCELS. WHERE ARE WE LOOKING AT? THAT'S UP ON PIPER ROAD, RIGHT THERE? YES. OKAY, YEAH. THE FRONT END OF THE PIPE IS SPLITTING IN HALF. THAT ONE THERE? YEAH, ALL THE PROPERTY ACROSS FROM ME, THAT'S RUBBERY. GOT

[02:10:01]

THERE YOU GO. OKAY, THAT'S IT.

YEAH, THERE YOU GO. YEAH, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE DOING. OKAY, YEAH, I'M GOING TO PIGGYBACK EXACTLY WHAT MY NEIGHBOR IS SAYING OVER HERE, ASIDE FROM PROPERTY VALLEYS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. THE SIGHT LINES AND ALL THE WILDLIFE THAT COMES THROUGH THERE, LIKE ON MY PROPERTY, WE GOT RID OF ALL THAT FENCE SO WE COULD GET MORE WILDLIFE COMING THROUGH.

BUT YEAH, THERE'S SOME WETLAND BACK IN THERE, AND WE'RE STILL SORT OF NEW TO THE AREA, SO I HAVEN'T MET MY NEIGHBORS YET. I'M SORRY, I MAY HAVE MET YOU WALKING MY DOG ONE DAY, BUT THERE'S A SPOT OVER...

TO THE RIGHT, I BELIEVE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S THERE, BUT THERE'S A CEMENT BLOCKADE THERE. IT LOOKS LIKE FROM AN OLD WELL OR SOMETHING.

SO THERE'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING OVER THERE. I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE. NO, EVEN THE PIPERS ARE NICE. I KNOW THE PIPERS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS.

OKAY. SO MY PROPERTY IS THE ORIGINAL SETTLEMENT OF THIS AREA. OKAY. NO ONE KNOWS IT'S A RELIC. NO ONE'S BEEN SIGNED TO BECAUSE IT'S ROBERT CARMAN'S GREAT APARTMENT. RIGHT. OKAY. SO THERE'S SOMETHING EXISTING.

THERE'S SOMETHING THAT'S EXISTING THERE ALREADY. BUT FROM WHAT I CAN TELL, FROM WHAT YOU GUYS ARE LOOKING AT, WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING TO DO, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THERE'S ENOUGH DEPTH TO PUT A HOUSE THERE.

EXCEPT A MOBILE HOME, WHICH THAT WOULDN'T LOOK SO GOOD.

NOBODY WANTS A TIN CAN NEXT TO THEM. SO ANYWAYS, MOSTLY PIGGYBACK OFF OF THEM.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, SIR. WE APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. ALL RIGHT. IF THERE'S SOMEBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AT A MEETING TONIGHT, WE DO APPRECIATE THAT. THE CITIZENS THAT COME OUT, THE NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE COME OUT FOR BEING SO PATIENT AND GETTING THROUGH THIS ENTIRE VERY LONG MEETING. THEN I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND GO INTO BOARD TIME. THOUGHTS, QUESTIONS, CONCERNS. MY FIRST QUESTION WHEN I DROVE OUT WAS, HOW DID THEY GET AN ADDRESS ON VANETTA ROAD? THE ONLY FRONTAGE THEY'VE GOT, WHICH IS NORMALLY THE FRONT OF THE LOT, IS ON PIPER. AND I SEE THAT THERE'S AN APPROVAL FOR THE DRIVEWAY, AND THEN I DON'T KNOW HOW THE POST OFFICE ASSIGNS. YEAH, LIKELY THEY WOULDN'T GET A DRIVEWAY THROUGH THE WETLANDS, SO THAT'S PROBABLY WHY. YEAH, IT'S PIPER. YEAH. SO WOULD THE FACT THAT THEY GOT A VARIANCE...

TO CHANGE THEIR FRONTAGE, BASICALLY TO VAN ATTA, LIKE PUTTING THE DRIVEWAY THROUGH THERE. DOES THAT COUNT AS BEING SELF-CREATED? IN TERMS OF THE SITUATION OF THE FRONTAGE, WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO WHEN THEY SPLIT THE LOTS AND SAYING, HEY, WE ALREADY HAVE FRONTAGE HERE ON VAN ATTA? ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS A QUESTION FOR THE BOARD. I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CONSIDER. AS SELF-CREATED. YEAH. I MEAN, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. THANK YOU. IT LOOKS LIKE TO ME THAT THAT TOP PORTION UP THERE, YOU KNOW, THE DRAGON'S NOSE, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT.

UP THERE, WHERE THE PINE TREES ARE, WHERE THE PARCEL C WOULD BE. I MEAN, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF FRONTAGE THERE THAT COULD, THERE COULD BE A DRIVEWAY THERE FOR THAT PROPERTY. MY GUESS IS THAT, YOU KNOW, JUST WHAT WAS MENTIONED. THEY DIDN'T HAVE THAT FRONTAGE ALONG VAN ETTEN. THE DRIVEWAY WOULD HAVE TO CIRCLE ALL THE WAY AROUND THAT WAY. I MEAN, IT WOULD BE LIKE A 600-FOOT-LONG DRIVEWAY, SO IT MADE SENSE TO GO OUT TO VAN ETTEN. BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THEY HAVE ENOUGH THERE TO PUT POTENTIALLY A DRIVEWAY.

THERE IS A DRIVEWAY. THERE IS A DRIVEWAY. YEAH, THERE IS. I CAN BARELY SEE IT THERE NOW.

ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE.

ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE.

SUBSTANTIAL. I CAN SEE IT WENT THROUGH THE SNOW. YEAH, I CAN SEE IT. I CAN SEE IT RIGHT THERE. SO THERE IS A DRIVEWAY THERE. THERE IS A DRIVEWAY AND EXISTENCE. YEAH, I WOULD BE CONCERNED, AS ONE OF THE COMMENTS IN THE PUBLIC HAD, I WOULD BE CONCERNED. THAT IF THAT PARCEL WAS SPLIT, THAT IN ORDER TO PUT A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME ON THERE, THAT SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK FOR MORE VARIANCES. BECAUSE IT IS, IT'S A GOOD-SIZED POST. I MEAN, THERE'S OTHER POSTURES AROUND THERE THAT HAVE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, JUST THE SAME, BUT WITH THAT WATER KIND OF INTRUDING ON THERE. THEY WOULD BE FORCED TO PUSH THAT BUILDING MORE TOWARDS THE ROAD.

I MEAN, I CAN'T SPECULATE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO BE BUILT THERE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT.

I CAN'T ASK THAT. BUT I WOULD JUST ASK IF IT WOULD BE SPLIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME THERE. MY GUESS WOULD BE TO SELL IT FOR THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME.

BUT THERE MAY BE A REQUIREMENT FOR ANOTHER VARIANCE, MAYBE UP TO THE FRONT, BECAUSE OF THE FRONT YARD, BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO PUSH IT AWAY FROM THAT WETLAND AREA. THAT'S MY ONLY CONCERN WITH IT.

FOR THIS LOCATION, I HAVE EVERYTHING. YEAH.

BUT IT LOOKS LIKE, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE IS A, I DIDN'T REALIZE THERE WAS, BUT YEAH, YOU CAN JUST SEE THE DRIVEWAY THERE NOW. YEAH, THAT KIND OF LIGHTER COLOR. OH, YEAH. REMEMBER, IT'S JUST ICE.

WELL, AS I LOOK AT IT, THE ONLY

[02:15:01]

SEEMS LIKE A, JUST CREATING A NON-CONFORMING USE, UNLESS WE APPROVED THE VARIANCE. DON'T SEE A LOT OF REASON TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE.

YEAH, I... STRUGGLING WITH THIS ONE. SO THE VARIANCE IS FOR THE PARTIAL LEASE FRONTAGE ON THE ROAD, WHERE THE DRIVEWAY GOES OUT.

SO IT LOOKS LIKE JUST TO CREATE. I'M SORRY, MR. AARON SPEAKING ON TERM. NO, GO AHEAD. MY WHEELS ARE REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH IT. THE INTENT LOOKS LIKE IT'S TO HAVE ANOTHER PARCEL.

WHETHER IT BE DOING THE MATH, 675 IS AN ADDRESS OR WHATEVER.

RIGHT. ANOTHER PARCEL THAT HAS FRONTAGE ON PIPER. PIPER.

THEY'RE SAYING THAT POTENTIALLY COULD BE SOLD FOR ANOTHER SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE IF WE DEVELOP THAT KIND OF DEAL.

SORRY IF I MISSED. I HAD TO STEP UP TO THE REST OF IT.

BUT I DID HEAR THAT THAT WAS THE INTENT OF THE PROPERTY OWNER, SO THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE INTENDING TO DO. YOU DON'T NEED TO ANSWER THAT. THAT DOESN'T EVEN MATTER AT THIS POINT. I GUESS I'M REALLY, I MEAN. JUST RIGHT OUT RIGHT AWAY. GOING TO STRUGGLE WITH THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES OF THIS. BECAUSE, AS IS LIKE, REMEMBER? AS I SAID, THE ONLY REASON IT'S BUILDABLE IS BECAUSE OF VIPER ROAD, BECAUSE THE ACCESS THERE. I DON'T.

YEAH, I'VE GOT A STRUGGLE WITH THIS ONE, WITH PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.

BECAUSE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, AS NOTED IN THE BOARD PACKET, IS THAT WITHOUT THIS VARIANCE, THE PARCELS CAN'T BE SPLIT. SO I HAVE A HARD TIME WITH UNDERSTANDING THE...

CIRCUITOUS REASONING, RIGHT? BECAUSE WE'RE ASKING FOR THE FRONTAGE TO BE GRANTED THE VARIANCE FOR THE FRONTAGE FROM 200 FEET TO 68 FEET. WHICH IS A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION BASED ON NOT BEING ABLE TO SPLIT THE LOTS OTHERWISE, AND I DON'T, I MEAN, AND AND I THINK ARE VERY WELL VERSED.

CITIZEN HAS SAID. IT BEST, THAT IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES FOR SPLITTING LOTS, I MEAN, IT'S NOT A SPLITTING LOT CASE, BUT THEY'VE MADE THE ARGUMENT THAT THE REASON FOR THE VARIANCE TO BE GRANTED IS TO SPLIT THE LOTS. SO NEVER CAN. YEAH, I DO LOOK AT THIS VERY SIMILAR TO THE VERY FIRST CASE THAT WE HAD TONIGHT THAT I MYSELF FIND. I THINK THERE'S UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, CERTAIN THINGS IN THE SHAPE OF THE WATER IS CRAZY. WHAT WETLAND IS, I UNDERSTAND THERE'S ISSUES WITH THIS PROPERTY THAT OTHER ONES SURROUNDING IT. BUT THE NOTION THAT I'M SEEING AND HEARING FROM THE STAFF REPORT IS THE CREATION OF THAT PROPERTY TO SECTION THAT PARCEL OFF ON THE TOP IS, AGAIN, IT'S KIND OF SELF-CREATED. SO THERE'S A REASON WHY THEY WANT TO SEPARATE THAT PROPERTY OFF.

COULD THEY CONTINUE TO USE THE PROPERTY WITH THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE AND MAKE SENSE OF THE STRUCTURE THAT'S ON IT WITHOUT THAT SEPARATION? YES.

THAT WAS KIND OF THE ARGUMENT WE HAD WITH THE VERY FIRST CASE TONIGHT.

YEAH. SO I DO SEE THIS AS VERY SIMILAR. IT WOULD ALMOST BE EASIER, AND I'M NOT MAKING THIS RECOMMENDATION, BUT IT WOULD ALMOST BE EASIER TO COMBINE BOTH OF THOSE BECAUSE I BELIEVE THE PROPERTY OWNER OWNS BOTH OF THOSE. AND ALMOST TRY TO SUBDIVIDE THAT BECAUSE IT IS A BIGGER.

BUT THEN AGAIN, SOME OF THOSE PARCELS PROBABLY WILL BE BILLABLE BECAUSE OF THAT WATER. THAT'S A WHOLE OTHER PROCESS. YEAH, RIGHT.

THAT'S NOT WHY WE'RE HERE.

YEAH, SO I ALMOST SEE... YOU ALMOST THINK THAT THERE'S GOT TO BE A DIFFERENT WAY, I MEAN... BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE INTENTION IS OF USING THAT. I MEAN, I COULD SPECULATE ALL DAY THAT THEY WANT TO SELL THE BUILDING OR THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE. I CAN'T SPECULATE ON WHAT THEY WANT TO USE THAT FOR. I'M JUST GOING BY THE FACTS AND WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US. I SEE THE SPLITTING OF THAT, CREATING THAT NEW PARCEL AS BEING SOMETHING THAT'S CREATED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. AND NOT NECESSARILY BECAUSE OF A KIND OF DIFFICULTY. ABSOLUTELY. AND THAT'S JUST NOT THE CASE. SO I

[02:20:01]

TO ME, IT'S A LITTLE BIT VAGUE ON WHAT THE REQUEST IS ACTUALLY FOR. I DON'T NEED TO ASK THAT. ALL I KNOW IS WHAT'S IN FRONT OF ME. I JUST SEE THAT AS BEING KIND OF...

MR. GIGER? DID I SAY THAT, RIGHT? GIGER. GIGER, OKAY. I'M CURIOUS BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE GOING TO STRUGGLE WITH PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES WITH THIS ONE. WE ARE ALREADY STRUGGLING WITH THAT.

BUT WHAT IS... SO, THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY BEING STATED IS THAT YOU CANNOT SPLIT THE LOTS WITHOUT APPROVING THE TOTAL...

WELL, THERE'S LOTS OF SPLITS AVAILABLE ON THIS PARCEL. THIS PARCEL HAS LOTS OF SPLITS AVAILABLE BY LAW.

BUT WE CAN'T USE THE SPLITS, BUT WE DO HAVE APPROVAL FROM THE ROAD COMMISSION FOR A DRIVEWAY TO BE PUT ON PIPER ROAD, WHICH HAS 207 FEET OF FRONTAGE. AND WE ALREADY HAVE A PERMIT FROM THE INGHAM COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION FOR THE EXISTING, WHICH WAS USED FOR NINE YEARS, ON VENETA ROAD. SO WE ALREADY HAVE THE PERMISSION FROM INGHAM COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION. SO THEY HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH GETTING TWO DRIVEWAY PERMITS ON THIS PARCEL. WELL, THERE'S ALREADY TWO DRIVEWAYS ON THE PARCEL. NO, THERE ISN'T.

THERE'S ONLY ONE DRIVEWAY ON THIS PARCEL. THERE'S NO ACCESS FROM PIPER ROAD. NO, NO ACCESS FROM PIPER ROAD, NO.

SIR, WE'RE SEEING IT ON THE MAPS. THERE'S NO ACTORS.

THERE'S ANOTHER PARCEL THAT'S OVER HERE. I REALLY, SIR, JUST A MOMENT. I APPRECIATE THAT YOU ALL HAVE A LOT OF VESTED INTEREST IN THIS.

LET US FIGHT YOUR BATTLES, OKAY? BECAUSE, LIKE I SAID, AND I FORGOT YOUR NAME, MA'AM, BUT LIKE I SAID, WE DON'T REALLY LIKE TO GO BACK AND FORTH. WE CAN'T.

ENGAGE BECAUSE THAT'S NOT FAIR TO THE APPLICANT AND GIVING THEM THEIR FAIR CHANCE, BUT LET US LET US ASK THE QUESTIONS, OKAY. ALL RIGHT. IT'S NOT PAID.

SO IT'S NOT PAVED. OKAY, BUT CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, KEITH. THAT WAS APPROVED FOR A DRIVEWAY PRIOR. NO, OKAY, YEAH, THAT'S THROUGH THE INGHAM COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT. THAT'S A SEPARATE PROCESS. WHAT WE'RE REALLY WORRIED ABOUT IS THE FRONTAGE. YEAH, AND I'M NOT AS CONCERNED WITH WHAT INGHAM COUNTY IS GOING TO SAY BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO SAY WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO SAY. HOWEVER, IF THIS IS CONTINGENT, THE LOT SPLITTING IS CONTINGENT ON GETTING THIS FRONTAGE. WHAT IS PLANNING TO BE DONE WITH LOT D? I'M GOING TO ASK THE QUESTION, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT DIRECTLY RELEVANT. I MEAN, I THINK IT'S FAIR TO ASK.

PARCEL C. PARCEL C. THAT'S A 1.7-ACRE PARCEL. YEAH, PARCEL C. PARDON ME. PARCEL C. THE PIPER ROAD FRONTAGE.

FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME.

OKAY. NOW, YOU'VE GONE TO INGHAM COUNTY. FOR APPROVAL FOR A DRIVEWAY. HAVE YOU TALKED TO THE TOWNSHIP ABOUT PLACING A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN THIS AREA? YES. AND THERE'S NO ISSUES WITH THE WETLANDS THAT ARE THERE OR ANY KIND OF SETBACK CHALLENGES? IT'S 190 FEET DEEP, SO WE'LL BE WELL WITHIN THE, THERE'S A BUFFER OF 40 FOOT THAT'S REQUIRED BY THE TOWNSHIP AND WE EASILY COMPLY WITH THAT. SO I THINK IT'S A 50 FOOT FRONTAGE.

FROM THE STREET AND WE GOT 190 FEET IN IT, THAT THAT WETLAND IS PROBABLY ENCROACHES PROBABLY 50 FEET INTO THE PROPERTY, SO THERE'S STILL 140 FEET BEFORE WE GET TO THE WETLAND.

MR CHAD YEAH, JUST TO CLARIFY. SO IF WE WERE TO SEE A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THIS PROPERTY WITH A HOUSE ON IT? IT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A WETLAND DELINEATION DONE. THAT WOULD SHOW THE EXACT BOUNDARY OF THE THE WETLAND.

AND IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, GIVEN THE SIZE OF THE SWEAT LAND, THERE'S GOING TO BE A 40-FOOT BUFFER SURROUNDING IT. BUT WE'RE NOT THERE YET BECAUSE, OBVIOUSLY, THEY NEED TO GET THE LAND DIVISION BEFORE THEY CAN. THEY HAVEN'T.

YEAH. YEAH. DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON TYE HART? NO. OR SOME KIND OF BACKUP TO TYE HART? TYE HART DOESN'T GO THROUGH? NO. TRUE. THEY'RE REALLY POWERFUL AT FIVE. 575 THAT DOES HAVE ACCESS, THAT THERE'S ABOUT 20 ACRES THERE, SO THAT'S, THAT'S.

THERE'S A ROAD, THERE'S A ROAD

[02:25:02]

THERE WAS AN EXISTING HOUSE THERE. WELL, BACK, OKAY, BUT THAT'S AN ACCESS ROAD, THAT'S THAT'S OFF OF PIPER, ALSO, THE ONE THAT OWNS THAT PROPERTY ALSO. MR. JAGIR YOU SAID THIS IS A LOT BY LAW THAT'S, UH, CAPABLE FOR DIVISION. LOTS ARE AVAILABLE ON ON THIS ON THE 16.85 ACRE PARCEL. YES, UM, HOW MANY I? MORE THAN IT? TWO OR MORE SPLITS. I CHECKED WITH MY SURVEYOR, RON ANGER, AND HE TOLD ME SO.

BUT THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT ALSO TO THE WETLAND SETBACK, AND THIS IS A PRETTY BIG WETLAND.

IT'S A BIG WETLAND. YES, THERE IS A BIG WETLAND, BUT THERE'S A 40-FOOT BUFFER THAT WE COMPLY WITH TO BUILD A BUILDING FROM IT. I FEEL VERY COMFORTABLE THAT WE COULD BUILD A HOUSE ON THAT LOT. OH, I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE FRONT LOT. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE OTHER SPACE. NO, THE ONE ON PIPER ROAD. YEAH, THAT ONE, THEN I THINK YOU'RE PROBABLY RIGHT. YOU COULD STAY AWAY FROM THE WETLAND. I'M LOOKING AT... YOU TALK ABOUT A NUMBER OF OTHER SPLITS. NO, WE'RE NOT DOING ANY MORE SPLITS. THERE'S ALREADY A HOUSE ON THE OTHER PART. SO WE'RE JUST ADDING FOR THE ONE LOT.

SO WE TOTALED TWO HOUSES ON THIS BIG PARCEL, WHICH IS 16.85 ACRES. I CAN MEET UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT I'M GOING TO STRUGGLE WITH IT. PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES. THERE'S AN EXISTING HOUSE. THERE'S ACCESS.

IT DOESN'T APPEAR, EVEN THOUGH OTHER AVENUES OF SPLITTING THE LOT COULD BE TAKEN, THAT THERE IS ANY OTHER REASONING OR PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY THAT'S PREVENTING THE PROPERTY OWNER FROM USING. THIS PROPERTY HAS A, I KIND OF GO BACK TO. IS IT SELF-CREATED? BECAUSE THERE WAS A VARIANCE ALREADY GRANTED TO GIVE THEM THIS BANANA ACCESS.

SO, PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES AREN'T GOING TO BE HARD FOR ME TO MEET. WHAT IS THE SPECIFIC OF THE VARIANCE FOR THE DRIVER? DO YOU REMEMBER? WELL, I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THAT? WHAT WAS THE SPECIFIC VARIANT FROM 2014? YEAH, SO... IT'S IN THE PACKET. IT'S IN THE PACKET. IT JUST SAYS THE DRIVEWAY. HERE'S THE APPROVAL LETTER. IS IT IN HERE? YEAH.

JUST EXISTING TO USE THE, USE THE MANANA ACCESS AS A DRIVEWAY. THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES A, LET ME GET BACK TO THE WORDING. IT'S LATER.

OH, SORRY. SO THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES THE DRIVEWAY TO BE LOCATED ON THE HIGHEST FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION, OR THE LOWEST, SORRY. AND THAT WAS PIPER ROAD. SO THEY GOT A VARIANCE TO ALLOW IT ON THE HIGHEST ROAD. ON THE PIPER ROAD. YES. AND FOR THE ACCESSORY BUILDING. SO YEAH, I MEAN, AGAIN, IT'S CREATED TO HAVE THIS SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A LARGE PARCEL. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE DRIVEWAY, WITH THE DRIVEWAY ON THAT END. IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE TO ME WHY THEY REQUESTED THAT AND WHY THEY GOT THAT.

OH, I DID, TOO. YEAH, YEAH, 100%. BUT AGAIN, I DO SEE THE SPLITTING OF THOSE PARCELS TO CREATE THAT OTHER ONE. AS BEING SELF-CURATED, REGARDLESS OF WHAT IS PLANNED TO GO ON THAT PARCEL C, IN ORDER TO BUILD THERE, IT REQUIRES A PARCEL SPLIT.

AND TO ME, THERE'S NO PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES ON THE PROPERTY ITSELF, OTHER THAN THAT. WETLAND. BUT EVEN THE APPLICANT SAID THERE COULD BE, OR THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE SAID SOMETHING COULD BE BUILT THERE WITHIN THE MEANS, REGARDLESS OF THE 40-FOOT SETBACK OF THE THING. SO THERE'S NOTHING THAT'S PREVENTING THEM NOW FROM HAVING... STRUCTURE ON THAT KERNEL PROPERTY WITHOUT THE VARIANCE. SO, TO ME, THE REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF BEING SELF-CREATED, LIKE THE FIRST EXAMPLE. FIRST EXAMPLE. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS WE KNEW WHAT HE WANTED TO BUILD BECAUSE HE TOLD US.

BECAUSE, HE TOLD US. YEAH, AND THIS ONE, YOU KNOW, THANK YOU FOR TELLING US. BUT YOU KNOW, IT'S IRRELEVANT TO WHAT'S GOING TO GO THERE.

WE'RE JUST BASING IT ON THE ACTUAL SPLIT THAT'S BEING REQUESTED. I SEE THIS AGAIN, EVEN THOUGH I UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION AND WHY THEY WANT TO DO IT. I SEE THIS AGAIN AS

[02:30:01]

YEAH. THAT'S JUST MY OPINION AGAIN. ONE OF THE FIVE. ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO TACKLE CRITERIA. SEE WHERE WE'RE AT. CRITERIA ONE, 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. IT'S A UNIQUE LOT. THAT'S TRUE. WE THOUGHT WITH HAVING THE HYPER FRONTAGE AND THE DRIVEWAY ACCESS GRANTED BY A VARIANCE, IT'S UNIQUE. THERE ARE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES TO THIS PARTICULAR CASE. WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO ARGUE WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE SELF-CREATED, BUT I'LL ALLOW IT. CRITERIA TWO, STRICT INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE LITERAL TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER WOULD RESULT IN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.

THAT WOULD PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR A PERMITTED PURPOSE.

AGAIN, THAT'S THE SAME ONE.

THAT WAS REALLY A HANG-UP FOR ME FROM THE FIRST CASE, FROM SPLITTING THE PARCELS.

THIS, AS IS, IS BEING USED FOR WHAT IT IS INTENDED TO BE USED FOR, AND THAT'S THE STRUGGLE I HAVE WITH PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.

ANY... DIFFERENCES? IT AGREES WITH YOU. IN THE FIRST CASE OF TODAY, IT WAS A DIRECT SPLIT AS WELL.

THIS ONE IS MORE OF A SMALL BIT OFF THE TOP. I'M NOT SURE THERE'S TWO DRIVEWAYS, BUT IT SEEMS VERY, VERY EGREGIOUS IN TERMS OF NOT THE LOCATION, BUT THE VARIANCE BEING ALLOWED. I AGREE. ALL RIGHT. CRITERIA THREE, GRANT TO THE VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM ACTION NECESSARY THAT WOULD CARRY OUT THE SPIRIT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECURE PUBLIC SAFETY, AND PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. I CAN'T MEET THE MINIMUM ACTION.

YEAH. IT'S A FAIRLY LARGE ASK FOR NOT A CONVINCING OR NOT AN INSISTENT PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY.

I NEED A HARD TIME FINDING THE MINIMUM ACTION. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN MEET CRITERIA THREE.

DID YOU SAY YOU COULD MEET NUMBER ONE? IT'S A LITTLE SHAKY. IT'S A UNIQUE LOT. IT'S A UNIQUE LOT. BUT ARE THE CIRCUMSTANCES NOT SELF-CREATED? THE CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRING THE VARIANTS ARE BASED ON THEIR REQUEST TO SPLIT IT.

TO SPLIT IT, YEAH. SO THEY ARE SELF-CREATED. SO IT COULD EVEN BE, YEAH, YEAH, YEAH, IT'S, YEAH, A UNIQUE LOT, BUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES. YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO, WOULDN'T HAVE TO GRANT A VARIANCE IF THEY HADN'T REQUESTED TO SPLIT.

TO SPLIT THE LOT, YEAH. YOU COULD ARGUE THAT THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SELF-CREATED AS WELL BECAUSE OF THE WETLANDS ON THERE.

WITHOUT LOOKING AT THAT PREVIOUS VARIANCE, MY GUESS IS THAT THAT WAS AN ARGUMENT FOR WHY THEY ASKED FOR ACCESS ON VENETA AND NOT BECAUSE OF IT. UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THOSE WETLANDS. I DON'T KNOW. I DIDN'T LOOK AT IT. I DIDN'T REVIEW IT. SO I CAN SEE YOUR... IT'S GREAT. I WOULD SAY IT'S GREAT. IT'S MORE LIKELY CONVENIENCE, TO MY MIND. IF THEY'VE GOT A PATHWAY GOING THROUGH THERE THAT THEY DRIVE THROUGH THAT SOMEONE SAID WAS 20 FEET WIDE, THEY COULD HAVE MADE A DRIVEWAY UP TO PIPER.

SOMEBODY WAS USING IT AT SOME POINT BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE THE MARK IN THE GRASS. OR WAS THE NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET USING IT? HE COULDN'T SEE US, RIGHT? I MEAN, IT'S VISIBLE. IT'S VISIBLE.

IT'S JUST NOT PAID. IT'S SO FUN. SOME OF THE ROADS OVER THERE WERE PAID FOR. I THINK TYHART WASN'T PAID FOR THAT DIRECTION. THERE WAS IN PLACES. RIGHT. CRITERIA FOR GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND OR THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY. I THINK THAT WE'VE HEARD PRETTY COMPELLING ARGUMENTS. WE DID HAVE, I WILL PUT ON THE RECORD, WE DID HAVE TWO LETTERS THAT CAME, EMAILS, RATHER, ONE IN OPPOSITION FROM MR. BUKOWSKI, AND I HOPE I SAID THAT NAME CORRECTLY, AND THE SECOND THAT WAS IN, I WOULD SAY IN APPROVAL, LOOKS LIKE IT WAS A POSITIVE.

FROM A NEIGHBOR ON VAN ALLEN

[02:35:03]

FOR THE RURAL ASPECTS, THE WILDLIFE, THE WETLANDS, THE TREES OF NATURE THAT ARE THERE. I MEAN, I THINK. I'D HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT ONE. MY THINKING IS, HAD THEY BUILT A HOUSE AT THE FRONT ON PIPER ROAD, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN PERFECT.

AND IT WOULDN'T NEED ANY VARIANCE OR WHATEVER. RIGHT.

CHANGING THIS. PUTTING THE HOUSE WHERE YOU PUT IT. YEAH.

SO I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WOULD CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE THEY COULD HAVE DONE THAT. THEY COULD HAVE, YEAH. SO, AND THE OTHER HOUSE IS SO FAR BACK. RIGHT.

I'M NOT SURE IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE. BUT IF IT IMPACTED.

I THINK THERE'S ENOUGH PROBLEMS WITH THIS THAT THAT ONE IS NOT GOING TO BE A MAKE OR BREAK.

YEAH. AND CRITERIA, SO CRITERIA FOUR IS KIND OF A TOSS-UP WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN MEET THAT CRITERIA. AND CRITERIA FIVE IS GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS CHAPTER. AND I THINK THAT BECAUSE THE VARIANCE WAS ALREADY GRANTED FOR THAT DRIVEWAY TO BE AT VAN ATTA, THAT'S WHERE I KIND OF START TO STRUGGLE WITH. IS GRANTING ANOTHER VARIANCE TO MAKE IT FRONTAGE. IS THAT? CONSISTENT WITH OUR PURPOSES AND INTENT. I THINK THIS IS A LONG WORLD. THE INTENT OF HAVING A 200-FOOT FRONTAGE IS SO THE HOUSE IS VISIBLE. THIS IS NOT, THE DRIVEWAY ITSELF DOES NOT AFFECT THAT. AND SO SAYING, WELL, YOU CAN HAVE A 200-FOOT WAIVER HERE, IT'S NOT. CONSISTENT WITH THE CHAPTER.

WITH THE CHAPTER. OKAY. WELL, I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN MEET CRITERIA FIVE EITHER. MR. DEGERE, ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO ADD TO, OR GIVE YOU ANOTHER CHANCE TO COMMUNICATE REGARDING THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES HERE? WE'RE HAVING A HARD TIME MEETING. CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC INTEREST ON THE PURPOSE OF THE INTENT OF THE CHAPTER? I UNDERSTAND. I GUESS THERE'S TWO, THERE'S PARCEL SPLITS AVAILABLE, AND IT WAS, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN'T USE THEIR PARCEL SPLITS THAT ARE ALLOWED BY LAW. SO I GUESS THAT WAS A REASON, ONE OF THE REASONS FOR ASKING FOR IT. AND THEY ALSO HAVE TWO DRIVEWAY PERMITS BY THE DRUG COMMISSION, SAYING IT'S ACCEPTABLE. FAR ENOUGH APART, AND THE PROPERTY IS DEFINITELY CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE AT THE THIS MAP THAT'S ONE OF THE PIPE BELOW IS ACTUALLY QUITE WIDE.

AND A LOT OF THE LOTS THAT EXIST ON PIPER ROAD, I MEAN, JUST LOOKING AT THIS MAP HERE. YOU CAN SEE THAT IT'S QUITE A BIT. ALL THESE LOTS ARE QUITE QUITE AS SMALL AS A HUNDRED IS 207 FEET OF FURNITURE. THE OTHER ONES ARE SOMEWHERE LESS, MUCH LESS THAN I'VE JUST BEEN LOOKING AT.

SO IT'S ACTUALLY A MUCH WIDER FRONTAGE ON PIPER ROAD. SO, ANYHOW, THAT WAS VEGAS. THANK YOU, SIR. WELL, THOUGHTS? THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. THOUGHTS? I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, I COULD SEE. MYSELF MEETING NUMBER FIVE, THAT IT WOULD BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT. BECAUSE IF YOU WERE TO, IF THIS WERE TO BE APPROVED, IT WOULD BE A SINGLE FAMILY.

OR OUR LOT, VERY SIMILAR IN SIZE WITH OTHER ONES IN THAT FACILITY. AND YOU COULD PUT A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ON THERE. SO THAT'S NOT THE VARIANCE. NO. THE VARIANCE IS ON THE OTHER END. RIGHT.

THAT'S WHERE I WAS GOING.

BUT READING THE LITTLE TERMS OF THAT NUMBER FIVE, BY CREATING A SINGLE FAMILY OR OUR NATIVE PROPERTY, THAT'S...

SIMILAR SIZE WITH SURROUNDING. THAT TO ME IS WHAT'S THE NUMBER FIVE? SO THAT, TO ME, IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF THE PROPERTIES AROUND IT.

HOWEVER, YEAH, I HAVE THE INITIAL. STILL, I HAVE THE ISSUE WITH THE SELF-CREATION OF THE NEED FOR THE VARIANCE AND CREATING THAT PART. IF THE PERSON WERE TO BE CREATED WITHOUT THE NEED FOR VARIANCE.

I WOULDN'T HAVE AN ISSUE.

BECAUSE I SEE IT AS BEING SOMETHING THAT JUST FITS INTO THE MOLD OF THE SURROUNDING CHARACTERISTIC. I UNDERSTAND THERE'S, YOU KNOW, COMMENTS ABOUT VIEWS AND THINGS, HOWEVER, YOU'RE NOT NECESSARILY GUARANTEED TO ALWAYS HAVE A VIEW

[02:40:01]

SELF-CREATED ISSUE. YEAH, IT COULD BE ARGUED IN MY CASE FOR NUMBER FIVE, BUT REGARDLESS IF I CAN'T MEET NUMBER TWO, NUMBER FIVE IS IRRELEVANT.

RIGHT. WELL, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD POINT. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT NUMBER FOUR. I CAN'T REALLY MEET NUMBER FOUR. I WAS JUST PLAYING DEVIL'S ADVOCATE.

I COULD SEE JUST ON THE MERITS OF NUMBER FIVE ALONE, I COULD SEE THAT AS BEING SATISFYING. I COULD BE CONVINCED OF THAT AS FAR AS LOT C.

CORRECT. I WAS LOT D.

CORRECT. RIGHT. RIGHT. NOT TO THROW A CURVEBALL IN THERE. YEAH. I AGREE. I'M TRYING TO SEE. EVERY ANGLE TO MAKE SURE WE PUT THOSE ALL TOGETHER. ALL RIGHT, WELL, IS THERE A MOTION? SEEMS LIKE WE COULD MEET CRITERIA ONE. WE CANNOT MEET CRITERIA TWO. AND ONE IS KIND OF IFFY. CRITERIA THREE, DIDN'T SEEM LIKE WE HAD MUCH SUPPORT FOR GRANTING CRITERIA THREE.

AND CRITERIA FOUR. EVEN IF WE COULD CREATE CRITERIA FOUR, CRITERIA FIVE IS SHAKY. SO IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE WE CAN CLEARLY MEET THE CRITERIA.

EVEN IF WE CAN CLEARLY MEET CRITERIA ONE, WE CAN'T CLEARLY MEET. I WOULD SAY THAT IT SEEMS TO BE A CONSENSUS THAT NUMBER TWO CANNOT BE MET. CANNOT BE MET, YEAH. THAT BEING THE CASE.

DUE TO... CRITERIA TO KNOW, RIGHT? YEAH, IN PARTICULAR, BUT I THINK THAT THERE ARE OTHER CRITERIA AS WELL THAT WERE DIFFICULT TO, YES, COME TO A CONCLUSION ON. SO OKAY, SO MUCH. I MOVE THAT WE DENY THE REQUEST FOR FOR ZBA CASE 2603.

ZERO. I'M SORRY, 04. 04, YEP.

AND I'VE GOT TO GET THE ADDRESS AGAIN. 20, OR 5484? YEAH, 5384 VAN ANDER.

5384 VAN ANDER ROAD. IS THERE SUPPORT? SECOND. SUPPORT BY MEMBER OF THE LAW. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, THE MOTION TO DENY.

OKAY, THEN THIS IS A VOTE TO DENY THE VARIANCE FOR ZBA.

CASE NUMBER 26-04, 5384 VANETTA ROAD. MEMBER BENOIT? YES. MEMBER KOENIG? YES.

MEMBER DONAHUE? YES. MEMBER TREZISE? YES. AND THE CHAIR IS A YES, SO THAT MOTION HAS BEEN APPROVED. SO, UNFORTUNATELY, YOUR VARIANCE HAS BEEN DENIED THIS EVENING. ALRIGHT, I'LL GIVE IT A SEC. WE HAVE JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE BUSINESS. I'LL JUST TELL YOU, THE BOARD OFTEN RECESSES WHEN YOU GET THE JOB.

I KNOW, I KNOW, WELL, I JUST THOUGHT THAT BECAUSE THAT POOR JIM HAD TO RUN OUT. YOU COULD HAVE JUST TOLD ME. YEAH, I KNOW, I WAS LIKE, READY TO BURST. YEAH, YOU COULD HAVE TOLD ME. I DIDN'T WANT TO SAY, COULD WE TAKE A RECESS SO I CAN GO TO THE BATHROOM.

YOU WERE OUT OF ROLE. DOES ANYBODY ELSE NEED A RECESS BEFORE WE DO ELECTION OF OFFICERS OR WE JUST CHARGE THROUGH? WE HAVE TO HAVE A PRIMARY FIRST? NO.

THERE'S NO OTHER OPTIONS, UNFORTUNATELY, GUYS. ALL RIGHT.

I DON'T KNOW, GUYS. I'M A TEACHER. I'VE GOT A BLADDER OF STEEL. NO RECESSES. NO

[7.A. 2026 Election of Officers ]

SO, OUR LAST ORDER OF BUSINESS THIS EVENING. OH, I WILL CLOSE BOARD TIME AND GO TO OTHER BUSINESS, WHICH. IT'S THE ELECTION OF THE 2026 OFFICERS, AND I NEVER REMEMBER HOW TO DO THIS. SO WE NEED TO ELECT A CHAIR AND A VICE CHAIR. IS THERE ANY NOMINATIONS FOR CHAIR? WHAT'S SO FUNNY? I MOVE THAT MEMBER ALEXIA MONTSOUR AS OR NOMINATE ALEXIA MONTSOUR AS CHAIR. ALL RIGHT. DO YOU NEED A SECOND? I'LL SUPPORT IT. OKAY. THIS IS A VOTE. DO I HAVE A CHOICE? YOU CAN SPEAK AGAINST IT IF YOU'D LIKE, BUT THERE'S STILL ONLY ONE VOTE.

AS LONG AS YOU STILL HAVE YOUR FAITH IN ME. THIS IS TRUE.

[02:45:01]

CHAIRMAN, SO TO REMAIN CHAIR FOR 2026. MEMBER BENOIT. YES.

MEMBER KOENIG. YES. MEMBER NAHUM. YES. MEMBER TISAY.

YES. OKAY, IT'S APPROVED. AND I HUMBLY NOMINATE VICE CHAIR KOENIG TO STICK AROUND, BECAUSE APPARENTLY YOU ARE AS LONG-WINDED AS I CAN BE ON THOSE NIGHTS. I'M NOT HERE.

I'LL SUPPORT THAT. SUPPORTED BY MEMBER TISAY. OKAY.

THOUGHTS? QUESTIONS? CONCERNS? AGAIN, YOU'RE ONLY ONE VOTE. JUST TO GIVE HIM A CHANCE. YOU'RE ONLY ONE VOTE. NEXT YEAR. GOT THAT ON RECORD. HE SAID THAT. I HEARD IT. IT'LL BE IN THE MINUTES. THAT'S RIGHT.

I'LL BE IN THE MINUTES. OKAY.

THIS IS A VOTE TO APPROVE MEMBER KOENIG REMAINING AS VICE CHAIR. MEMBER BENOIT? YES.

CHAIRMAN SORBO, YES. MEMBER NAHUM? YES. AND MEMBER TREZISE? YES. YOU ARE APPROVED.

NO. OH, I CAN'T VOTE. WELL, YOU'RE OUTNUMBERED. YEAH. YOU CAN VOTE, BUT YOU'RE OUTNUMBERED. SO, ELECTION OFFICER, WE HAVE TO SIGN SOMETHING. NO, YOU'RE GOOD. OKAY, GREAT. THIS IS ALL

[9. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS]

WELL, THEN I WILL OPEN THE FLOOR TO PUBLIC COMMENTS. SO, WHICH THERE IS NONE. SO, I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND OPEN TO BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS.

AND. REAL QUICK, I JUST WANTED TO SAY I REALLY APPRECIATED THE DISCUSSION TONIGHT. I KNOW FROM OUR LAST MEETING, THINGS GOT HEATED, AND I WAS WORRIED THAT THIS WOULD BE A ROUGH MEETING, BUT I REALLY APPRECIATED THE DISCUSSION, AND YOUR PRESENCE WAS GREATLY APPRECIATED. I LIKE THE HARD ONES. I LIKE THE TOUGH MEETINGS. I WOULD GET RIGHT THROUGH THEM, BUT I APPRECIATE THAT. I WOULD, TOO. GO FOR IT. MR. NAHANT SAID IT'S A JOY TO DEAL WITH A BOARD THAT DISCUSSES AND OPENS. AND BASICALLY, WE MAY NOT AGREE, BUT WE STILL GO FORWARD. AND IT ISN'T ALWAYS THAT CASE. SO IT'S A PLEASURE TO SERVE ON THE ZBA. ALL RIGHT. WELL, AND I WILL JUST SAY, WAY TO HOLD DOWN THE FORT, GUYS, BECAUSE IT SOUNDED LIKE THAT WAS A TOUGH ONE. SO I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT WAS DONE DURING THAT MEETING. AND IT JUST, IT'S NEVER A GOOD FEELING TO SAY NO TO, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE'RE, WE ARE VERY STRICTLY FOLLOWING THIS CRITERIA. I APPRECIATE THAT WE'RE DOING A VERY, VERY GOOD JOB, BEING DILIGENT ABOUT FOLLOWING THE CRITERIA AND MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE MEETING THOSE CRITERIA. SO, YEAH. I DEFINITELY APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS AND THE OPINIONS, BOTH FOR AND AGAINST THESE THINGS. BECAUSE I'VE SAID ON BOARDS BEFORE, WHERE, YOU KNOW, ONE PERSON, LIKE THE CHAIR, SAYS, WELL, THIS IS MY OPINION, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, AND THE OTHER ONES ALMOST LOOK LIKE THEY JUST AGREE WITH THE CHAIR BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO LOOK LIKE THE BYSTANDER. INSTEAD OF SOMEONE SAYING, WELL, YOU KNOW, I KNOW YOU FOUR AGREE, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, THIS IS WHY. YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHY I SAID WHAT I SAID AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THAT. WELL, I DIDN'T SAY THE VERY BEGINNING, BUT I WANTED TO, BUT I WAS WAITING TO HEAR WHAT OTHERS HAD. AND, YOU KNOW, EVEN YOU SAID, YOU KNOW, YOU AGREE WITH SOMETHING THAT I DIDN'T, AND I THINK THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE, AND I THINK THAT'S ACTUALLY WHAT. YOU WANT TO SEE ON THIS BOARD IS THE DELIBERATION. AND THERE'S, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NOTHING. AND I'M NEVER GOING TO BE MAD AT YOU FOR NOT AGREEING WITH ME, GOD FORBID, OR VICE VERSA. YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR. SOMETIMES IT'S JUST SOMETIMES YOU YOU BRING UP A POINT THAT I'M LIKE, OH, YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I DIDN'T SEE IT THAT WAY, AND VICE VERSA. SO I'M GLAD THAT YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE ENOUGH WITH EACH OTHER AS A BOARD THAT, YOU KNOW. SOME PEOPLE COULD SAY, WELL, NO, I DISAGREE RESPECTFULLY, OR I COULD SEE IT THIS WAY, OR YES, SO I THINK THAT'S. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD QUALITY THIRD BOARD AND ALSO PLAYING DEVIL'S ADVOCATE, WHICH YOU AND I BOTH DO. THE QUESTIONS THAT WE NEED ANSWERED. YEAH. SO. YEAH. IT'S FUN. YEAH. WELL, GREAT JOB, GUYS. LET'S DO GREAT WORK IN 2026. KEEP IT GOING. ALL RIGHT.

WELL, WITH THAT. I'LL BE MISSING ANY MORE.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.