Sep 16, 2026 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting

[00:00:01]

OKAY, SO WE'RE ALL HERE, SO WE CAN GET STARTED. GOOD EVENING, AND WELCOME TO THE

[1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER ]

MEMBER KOENIG? HERE.

MEMBER NAHUM? HERE.

MEMBER BENOIT? HERE.

I'M TRYING TO GET USED TO THE ORDER. IT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING, BUT CHAIR MANSOUR IS HERE. AND ON THAT NOTE, UM, TAKING A LOOK AT THE AGENDA,

[2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA ]

I MOVE TO APPROVE THE AGENDA.

OKAY.

SECOND.

SECONDED BY MEMBER NAHUM. ANY THOUGHTS, CONCERNS REGARDING THE TONIGHT'S AGENDA? WE WILL BE CAUGHT UP ON MINUTES AT THE NEXT MEETING. WE'VE SORTED— SOUNDS OKAY.

WE SORTED THAT OUT INTERNALLY.

OKAY, GREAT. WELL, KNOWING THAT WE'VE HAD SOME, UH, MOVEMENT IN STAFF, THAT PROBABLY IS, UH, NOT EXACTLY THE, UH, FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS DAILY WHEN YOU COME IN.

WE'RE GETTING THERE; WE'RE GETTING THERE.

SO, YEP, GOT IT. ALL RIGHT, THIS IS A VOTE TO APPROVE TONIGHT'S AGENDA.

MEMBER TREZISE? YES.

MEMBER KOENIG? YES.

MEMBER BENOIT? YES.

MEMBER NAHUM? YES.

AND CHAIR, THE CHAIR IS A YES.

GOODNESS, I'M GONNA GET IT TOGETHER, GUYS. ALL RIGHT, NEXT UP IS COMMUNICATIONS. WE

[3. COMMUNICATIONS ]

THEY ARE BOTH DIRECTLY RELATED TO, UH, 26-12.

OKAY, FANTASTIC. WE DID HAVE, WE DID HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMUNICATIONS IN SUPPORT OF CASE NUMBER—ZBA CASE NUMBER 26-12. THAT IS THE 1144 BONANZA, UM, FROM HORJA AND RAUS. UM, WE DID HAVE 2 EMAILS IN SUPPORT OF THAT, UM, VARIANCE APPLICATION. SO I WILL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, AND THE, UM, 2 THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US, I WILL ACKNOWLEDGE WHEN WE, UM, DISCUSS ZBA CASE NUMBER 26-11.

SO, ON THAT NOTE, UM,

[5.A. ZBA CASE NUMBER: 26-12 (1144 Bonanza) Horja and Raus ]

HOPEFULLY I SAID THAT CORRECTLY. I APOLOGIZE IF I DIDN'T, BUT DIRECTOR SCHMITT, TAKE IT AWAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO THE REQUEST, UH, IN FRONT OF YOU THIS EVENING IS FOR 1144 BONANZA, WHICH IS THIS PROPERTY RIGHT THERE. UH, WE'RE TO THE NORTH OF JOLLY ROAD, UM, WEST OF VAN ATTA. UM, AND SO LET ME SHIFT OVER HERE TO THE ACTUAL REQUEST. THEY ARE ASKING THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO APPROVE A PROPOSED GARAGE IN THE FRONT YARD OF THEIR PROPERTY. AS YOU CAN SEE, UH, THE HOUSE IS ACTUALLY SET BACK SUBSTANTIALLY MORE THAN WOULD NORMALLY BE REQUIRED. REAR IS THE, THE AREA OF THE DRAIN FIELD FOR THE SEPTIC SYSTEM, AND, UH, TO THE RIGHT, UM, IN THIS CASE EAST, IS SUBSTANTIAL DROP-OFF, GRADE-WISE. SO REALISTICALLY, THIS IS, UH, WHAT THEY'VE, UH, DETERMINED TO BE THE ONLY UH, VIABLE LOCATION TO ADD A GARAGE ONTO THIS PROPERTY. AND SO THAT IS THE REQUEST IN FRONT OF YOU THIS EVENING. IT'S A SINGLE VARIANCE TO ALLOW A DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE BUILT IN THE FRONT YARD OF THE PROPERTY. UH, APPLICANTS ARE HERE THIS EVENING, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD MAY HAVE.

GREAT, THANK YOU SO MUCH.

WOULD THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE LIKE TO COME UP TO THE PODIUM AND SPEAK REGARDING THIS CASE? OKAY, COME ON UP. SIR, JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD, PLEASE.

ADRIAN HORJA, 1144 BONANZA DRIVE, OKEMOS, MICHIGAN.

AND WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD TO WHAT DIRECTOR SCHMITT SAID? ANYTHING THAT YOU CAN TELL US ABOUT THE CASE OR ANYTHING YOU WANT US TO KNOW ABOUT IT? WE, WE LOOK AT ALL THE, UH, OPTIONS, AND, UM, THIS IS PRETTY MUCH THE ONLY LOCATION WHERE WE CAN INSTALL A, A DEPLOY A NEW, UM, DETACHED GARAGE. UM, WE HAVE SEVERAL VEHICLES ON PROPERTY, AND WE ARE TRYING TO KEEP EVERYTHING SECURE AND PROTECTED BY THE WEATHER. UM... WE ARE TRYING TO GO AS FAR AS WE CAN FROM THE ROAD. UH, WE HAVE UTILITIES ON THAT SIDE ALSO, SO WE CANNOT GO ANY DEEPER THAN THAT, UH, BECAUSE THEY WERE REQUIRED TO RELOCATE THE GAS AND THE POWER LINE. UM... WHAT ELSE? DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? UM, WE WILL TAKE QUESTIONS IN JUST, JUST A MOMENT, IF YOU

[00:05:02]

WOULD ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE TONIGHT? I KNOW WE HAVE 2, UM, NEIGHBORS THAT WERE IN SUPPORT. ANYBODY ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE IS WELCOME TO COME UP TO THE PODIUM. AND SINCE I SEE NOBODY RUNNING UP TO THE PODIUM, I'M GOING TO SAY, UM, CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND GOES INTO OUR BOARD BOARD TIME. SO IF YOU'D LIKE TO STAY THERE, SIR, AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS WE MIGHT HAVE, THAT'D BE REALLY HELPFUL.

SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS SUBMITTED, UM, LETTERS OF SUPPORT.

YES, WE, WE DID RECEIVE SEVERAL LETTERS IN SUPPORT, SO WE DO APPRECIATE THAT THAT WAS, UM, PART THAT YOU, YOU HAVE THAT RELATIONSHIP WITH THE NEIGHBORS THAT YOU'RE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE AND, AND HAVE A POSITIVE, UH, UM, THEY HAVE POSITIVE INPUT ON, ON THE PROJECT, SO THAT, UM, WE DO APPRECIATE THAT. ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GONNA GET INTO BOARD TIME. ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, THOUGHTS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS? DO YOU KNOW WHAT DIMENSIONS FOR THE GARAGE? 24 BY 24. THAT'S A STANDARD SIZE FOR A DOUBLE CAR.

OKAY, YEAH, I JUST DIDN'T SEE THAT IN THE PAPERWORK. GREAT.

YES, MEMBER TREZISE? I'VE BEEN OUT BY THIS HOUSE TO CHECK THE SIDING AND THE PROPERTY, AND THERE ARE SOME SIGNIFICANT, UH, ELEVATION CHANGES ON EACH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. I SUPPOSE IT COULD BE ATTACHED TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE IN FRONT OF YOUR WINDOWS, BUT THAT PROBABLY ISN'T IDEAL EITHER.

BUT, UM, SO, UH, I BELIEVE THAT IS PROBABLY THE ONLY REASONABLE PLACE TO ESTABLISH, UH, A NEW GARAGE.

OKAY. MEMBER NAHUM? I ALSO VISITED, AND THERE ARE A NUMBER OF, UM, ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AT SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS' PROPERTIES THAT ARE VISIBLE FROM THE ROAD. I DON'T THINK THIS YEP.

IT WOULD BE UNTOWARD TO HAVE, UM, ANOTHER STRUCTURE, EVEN IF IT'S NOT IN THE BACKYARD.

AND IT SEEMS LIKE THAT MAY- MIGHT ALSO BE WHY THE NEIGHBORS WERE JUST PRETTY, IT SEEMED, IT SEEMED LIKE THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS PRETTY UNDERSTANDING.

YES, IT WAS A VERY FRIENDLY NEIGHBORHOOD. I WAS JUST DRIVING DOWN BONANZA; I GOT WAVED AT BY LIKE 3 SEPARATE PEOPLE.

THERE YOU GO. A GOOD NEIGHBORHOOD. WE'D LIKE TO HEAR THAT.

IT'S A VERY NICE NEIGHBORHOOD.

YEAH, GOOD, GOOD. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS OR THOUGHTS? UM, IT JUST, I WILL JUST STATE, LOOKING AT IT, UM, LOOK, READING THE PACKET AND LOOKING THROUGH THE INFORMATION, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE IS, LIKE REMEMBER, AS I SAID, I DID, I DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO, TO, UH, MAKE A SITE VISIT, BUT JUST LOOKING AT THIS PLOT, WHERE WOULD YOU PUT IT? SO I, YOU KNOW, I THINK IF, UM, IF ANYTHING, THEY'VE DONE THEIR, THEIR BEST TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT A GOOD SPOT TO PUT A NORMAL-SIZE GARAGE.

THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR A, YOU KNOW, WHOLE BARN.

WHOLE BARN, RIGHT, OR, YOU KNOW, A RV STORAGE FACILITY. I MEAN, IT'S, UH, PRETTY, PRETTY STANDARD-SIZE AT THAT 24 BY 24. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THE SIZE ON THAT ONE. UH, SO I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY CHALLENGES WITH THIS ONE. UM, SEEMS LIKE WE ALL KIND OF FEELS LIKE WE ALL KIND OF HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF THE SAME MINDSET, SO I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GO INTO CRITERIA. UM, I THINK THAT'LL JUST HELP US GET TO WHAT QUESTIONS WE MIGHT HAVE THAT COME UP, BUT, UM, CRITERIA NUMBER ONE IS THAT UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST THAT ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND OR STRUCTURE THAT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LAND OR STRUCTURES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT, AND THESE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SELF-CREATED.

THOUGHTS, COMMENTS ABOUT. I THINK IT'S A UNIQUE PIECE OF LAND, AS EVERY LAND IS, BUT GIVEN THE SITING OF THE HOUSE, WHICH WAS NOT SITED BY THIS INDIVIDUAL, IT WAS BY A PRIOR OWNER, UH, IT REALLY DOES RESTRICT WHERE, SUCH A GARAGE COULD BE BUILT.

YEAH. YEAH, I WOULD AGREE: THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES BEING THE DIFFERENT ELEVATIONS, AS EXPLAINED, THE WHERE, WHERE THAT DRAIN FIELD IS LOCATED, WHERE THE POWER LINES ARE LOCATED. IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM LIKE YOU HAVE ANY OTHER, I MEAN, YOU'RE, YOU'RE REALLY DOWN TO ONE SPOT ON, ON YOUR, ON YOUR PROPERTY, AND THAT'S, I DO APPRECIATE, WE CAN GET INTO THIS FURTHER, UM, IN CRITERIA NUMBER THREE, BUT I APPRECIATE THAT THIS ISN'T A MASSIVE STRUCTURE AND THAT IT'S... WHERE IT IS, IS, YOU KNOW, RELATIVE, YOU KNOW, IN SIZE TO A NORMAL GARAGE IN ANY OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE TOWNSHIP. SO, UM, YEAH, I'M GOING TO SAY I COULD, I COULD MEET CRITERIA NUMBER 1 QUITE EASILY. CRITERIA NUMBER 2 SAYS, "STRICT INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE LITERAL TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER WOULD RESULT IN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES THAT PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR A PERMITTED PURPOSE." I, I, WE, WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND GARAGES OVER THE YEARS, AND WHILE I UNDERSTAND THE ORDINANCE, I THINK IN THIS CASE THAT, THAT IS THE REASON FOR BEING ABLE TO APPLY FOR A VARIANCE, IS THAT REALLY JUST, YOU DON'T HAVE ANYWHERE,

[00:10:01]

RIGHT.

YEAH, I'M I AGREE WITH THAT, AND THE BUILDING OF AN ACCESSORY BUILDING IS ALLOWED IS ALLOWED.

UNDER THE ORDINANCE.

YEAH, IT IS.

IT'S JUST A MATTER OF PLACEMENT IN THIS SITUATION, YEAH.

I THINK.

UH, THAT IS A PERMITTED USE.

YES.

YEAH. YEP, IT'S, IT'S A PERMITTED USE, SO THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD PREVENT HIM FROM BEING ABLE TO, TO ACCOMPLISH THAT. SO I CAN MEET CRITERIA NUMBER 2.

CRITERIA NUMBER 3 IS, "GRANTING THE VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM ACTION NECESSARY, WHICH WOULD CARRY OUT THE SPIRIT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECURE PUBLIC SAFETY, AND PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE." AND AGAIN, JUST BASED ON ONLY NEEDING THE VARIANCE FOR ACTUALLY BUILDING THE BUILDING, NOT, WE'RE NOT IN SETBACKS, WE'RE NOT IN ANY KIND OF OTHER CHALLENGES, WETLANDS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, THAT IT REALLY IS A PRETTY CLEAR-CUT, UH, CASE JUST TO BUILD IT. SO I CAN LEAVE THAT.

QUESTION ON THAT.

NUMBER 9, YEAH.

UM, IS THERE A PLAN TO EXTEND THE DRIVEWAY TO ACCESS THIS GARAGE? NO, IT'S GOING TO BE JUST A SHORT PATHWAY.

MAYBE WE'LL PUT SOME PAVERS JUST FOR THE CARS TO BE ABLE TO GO.

GREAT, YEAH.

THAT WILL JUST MEET THE CURRENT DRIVEWAY? YES.

KIND OF ON, IN BETWEEN THOSE TWO SETS OF RETAINING WALLS? YES.

OKAY.

YEAH, YEAH, THAT SOUNDS GREAT.

YEAH, YEAH. ALL RIGHT. AND I'M ASSUMING ALSO THAT THAT WOULD NOT, UM, INTERFERE WITH THE, UM, WITH THE ORDINANCE FOR PERMEABLE.

CORRECT. SO IT, IT STILL FALLS UNDER A DRIVEWAY AT THAT POINT BECAUSE IT IS IT'S STILL A GOING A PATH.

TO THE STRUCTURE IT'S STILL AS OPPOSED TO A PARKING SPACE, BUT WHICH HAS A DIFFERENT SET OF PROVISIONS IN THE CODE.

RIGHT, OKAY. BUT AS NON-PERMEABLE, IT STILL WOULD NOT BE SURE.

HIT THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD CAUSE IT TO BE A VARIANCE. SO I CAN MEET MINIMUM ACTION PRETTY EASILY. UH, NUMBER 4 IS, "GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND OR THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY." AND I THINK BASED ON THE FEEDBACK THAT WE'VE HAD FROM NEIGHBORS AND FROM MR. HORJA HIMSELF, IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS IS GOING TO ADD TO THE COMMUNITY, UM, AND NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ANYONE ELSE'S, UM, HOME VALUES. AND THEN CRITERIA NUMBER 5 IS, "GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS CHAPTER." AND I CAN MEET THAT CRITERIA, SO.

NO PROBLEM.

YEAH. THOUGHTS? QUESTIONS, CONCERNS? MEMBER KOENIG? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.

ALL RIGHT, DO IT.

I WOULD MOVE TO LET Z- THAT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPROVES ZBA CASE NUMBER 26-12, LOCATED AT 1144 BONANZA, UM, FOR THE VARIANCE TO SECTION 86-565, SUBPART 1, FOR BUILDING AN ACCESSORY BUILDING IN THE FRONT YARD.

SUPPORT.

OKAY. THOUGHTS, QUESTIONS, CONCERNS ON THE MOTION? ALL RIGHT, IN THAT CASE, THIS IS A VOTE TO, UM, APPROVE ZBA CASE NUMBER 26-26-12.

MEMBER TREZISE? YES.

MEMBER KOENIG? YES.

MEMBER BENOIT? YES.

AND MEMBER NAHUM? YES.

THE CHAIR IS YES. SO YOUR BRANCH THANK YOU.

HAS BEEN APPROVED. THANK YOU, SIR. GOOD LUCK. NOW THEY CAN LEAVE.

YEAH. YOU, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO STAY FOR THE NEXT MEETING IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO.

YOU DON'T? YOU HAVE TO STAY. OUR FIRST APPLICANTS, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO, YOU'RE WELCOME TO STAY AND EXPERIENCE THE JOY OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, BUT IF NOT, THAT'S OKAY TOO. WE DON'T TAKE OFFENSE. OKAY, NOW LET'S MOVE ON TO ZBA CASE NUMBER 26-11,

[5.B. ZBA CASE NUMBER: 26-11 (1561, 1581, 1605 Haslett), Shop Town LLC ]

DIRECTOR SCHMITT, TELL US ALL ABOUT IT.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. UM, THIS IS A REQUEST YOU'VE NEVER SEEN BEFORE. IT'S THE FIRST ONE THAT'S HAPPENED IN MY CAREER, AS A MATTER OF FACT. SO, UM, I HAVE INCLUDED THE STATE ENABLING LEGISLATION JUST FOR EVERYONE'S, UH, EDIFICATION THAT WE ARE REVIEWING AN APPEAL MADE FROM A ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION, UH, OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL CHARGED WITH ENFORCEMENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AS ADOPTED UNDER THAT ACT. SO WE HAVE ADOPTED A ZONING ORDINANCE UNDER THE MICHIGAN ZONING ENABLING ACT AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS. WE HAVE A ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CONSTITUTED UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE MICHIGAN ZONING ENABLING ACT.

THEREFORE, THIS IS THE STANDARD UNDER WHICH YOU ARE REVIEWING THIS. YOUR TYPICAL FIVE-PART ANALYSIS DOES NOT APPLY HERE.

THIS IS SIMPLY A YES OR NO, UP-DOWN VOTE. UM, SO

[00:15:01]

SO AT THIS POINT, STAFF IS OF THE OPINION THAT BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL CHANGE IN TRAFFIC PATTERNS AND THE MODIFICATION OF A SITUATION THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR AT LEAST 50 YEARS AT THIS POINT, OBVIOUSLY LONGER, UH, GIVEN THE INFORMATION WHICH MR. WICKENS PROVIDED US TODAY, UM, WE BELIEVE THAT A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED. UH, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE BOARD MIGHT HAVE, AND I KNOW MR. WICKENS IS HERE, AND I BELIEVE, UH, THE ANOTHER, UH, MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC IS HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER.

OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH, DIRECTOR SCHMITT. WOULD THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT'S, UM, REPRESENTATIVE LIKE TO COME UP AND JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC REC- RECORD, PLEASE, SIR? BE HAPPY TO. UM, GOOD EVENING.

UH, MY NAME'S STEVE WICKENS, AND, UH, I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF SHOP TOWN LLC AND OUR TENANTS. UH, MY ADDRESS IS 6226 WEST GOLF RIDGE DRIVE, EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN, AND I AM A RESIDENT OF MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP. ALONG WITH TONIGHT IS ELIZABETH WILBUR. SHE IS ATTORNEY WITH THE GRILL LAW. UH, FIRST, I'D LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR SERVING ON THE ZBA AND HEARING OUR REQUEST. I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THIS BOARD AT THE END OF YOUR DISCUSSION PRIOR TO VOTING. UH, MY RELATIONSHIP WITH SHOP TOWN GOES BACK MORE THAN 55 YEARS. MR. TOWNER FIRST HIRED ME TO WORK THERE WHEN I WAS 14.

APPROXIMATELY 41 YEARS AGO, WE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FROM MR. AND MRS. TOWNER.

FOR MORE THAN 4 DECADES, WE HAVE WORKED COOPERATIVELY WITH MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP. WHEN APPROVALS WERE REQUIRED, WE OBTAINED THEM. WHEN THE TOWNSHIP MADE DECISIONS, WE COMPLIED WITH THEM. WHEN THE TOWNSHIP ISSUED APPROVALS, WE RELIED UPON THEM. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO AGAIN TODAY. I WANT TO BE CLEAR, SHOPTOWN IS NOT HERE REQUESTING A VARIANCE.

THE TOWNSHIP AD- THE TOWNSHIP ATTORNEY ADVISED US THAT THE PROPER PROCEDURE FOR CHALLENGING THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION THAT A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED WAS TO APPEAL THE DETERMINATION TO THE ZBA, AND THAT IS WHAT WE'VE DONE.

THEREFORE, I AGREE THE QUESTION BEFORE THIS BOARD IS NARROW: DOES THIS SPECIFIC PROPOSED PROPERTY-LINE FENCE CONSTITUTE A CHANGE REQUIRING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT? WE RESPECTFULLY BELIEVE THE ANSWER IS NO.

ALTHOUGH THIS IS AN APPEAL AND NOT A VARIANCE OF OUR REQUEST, OUR APPLICATION NEVERTHELESS ADDRESSES THE CRITERIA PROVIDED BY THE TOWNSHIP. WE BELIEVE THE FACTS ARE THERE, AND IF THE BOARD FINDS IT HELPFUL, WE'D BE PREPARED TO ADDRESS THOSE. THE APPLICATION WAS SUPPLEMENTED WITH EXHIBIT ONE, THE HISTORICAL FACTS. I HAVE BINDERS FOR EACH OF YOU TO ASSIST AND LOCATE THE EVENT IN ANY OF THEM ARE NEEDED.

UM, TONIGHT THERE HAVE BEEN ADDITIONS TO THE FACTS THAT WERE PROVIDED EARLIER TO THAT INCLUDED THE SEPTEMBER 10TH MEMORANDUM TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. I WANT TO TELL YOU WHY WE PROPOSE THE FENCE. THE FENCE IS NOT INTENDED TO PUNISH OR INTERFERE WITH BLONDIE'S BARN. IT IS A PROACTIVE RESPONSE

[00:20:01]

SHOPTOWN HAS NEVER ENTERED INTO A FORMAL OR RECORDED CROSS-PARKING AGREEMENT, CROSS-ACCESS AGREEMENT, OR EASEMENT WITH BLONDIE'S BARN OR THE PROPERTY OWNER.

IN 2020, THE TOWNSHIP DIRECTOR OF PLANNING EXPRESSLY CONFIRMED IN AN EMAIL SHOPTOWN'S RIGHT TO ENFORCE ITS NO-PARKING RESTRICTIONS, AND SHOPTOWN COULD TOW UNAUTHORIZED VEHICLES, WHICH MEANS THEY CONCUR THAT NO AGREEMENT OR PRECEDENT EXISTS. WE, WE COULD RELY UPON TOWING, BUT TOWING IS REACTIVE.

SOMEONE MUST FIRST ENTER SHOPTOWN'S PROPERTY, OCCUPY A PARKING S- PLACE FOR OUR TENANTS AND CUSTOMERS, AND THEN SOMEONE MUST DETERMINE WHETHER THE VEHICLE SHOULD BE TOWED. IT CREATES CONFRONTATION AND THE RISK OF TOWING SOMEONE WHO PATRONIZES BUSINESSES ON BOTH PROPERTIES. THE FENCE PREVENTS THE PROBLEM BEFORE IT OCCURS. IT CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY, PROTECTS SHOPTOWN'S PARKING, PROVIDES CERTAINTY FOR ALL THREE PROPERTIES, AND PROTECTS THE CUSTOMERS FROM INADVERTENTLY PARKING WHERE THEY COULD BE TOWED. TOWING IS REACTIVE. THE FENCE IS PROACTIVE. WHY THE HISTORY MATTERS: THE SEPTEMBER 10TH MEMORANDUM PLACES A SIGNIFICANCE ON THE AGE OF BLONDIE'S BUILDING AND SUGGESTS THE CIRCULATION TO THE PROPERTIES HAS EXISTED FOR APPROXIMATELY 50 YEARS. WE BELIEVE THE HISTORY REQUIRES CLARIFICATION. A SMALLER RESTAURANT KNOWN AS THE TELSTAR DINER OPERATED IN THAT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY BEGINNING IN THE 1970, IN 1950S TO THE 1970S, BUT BLONDIE'S BARN DID NOT BEGIN ITS OPERATION AT THAT LOCATION IN TWO- UNTIL 2007. THE TOWNSHIP'S OWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT DESCRIBED BLONDIE'S APPLICATION AT THE TIME AS A NEW BUSINESS PERMIT APPLICATION. WHEN BLONDIE'S OPENED, THE TOWNSHIP IDENTIFIED ITS PARKING DEFICIENCIES AND CONTEMPLATED AGREEMENTS WITH NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS.

AGAIN, SHOPTOWN NEVER GRANTED BLONDIE'S A PERMANENT PARKING OR CROSS RIGHTS AGREEMENT.

HISTORICALLY PERMITTED USE OF SHOPTOWN'S PROPERTY SHOULD NOT BECOME A PERMANENT ZONING OBLIGATION MERELY THROUGH THE PASSAGE OF TIME.

BLONDIE'S CONTINUES TO HAVE ITS OWN VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO MARSH ROAD. MARATHON RETAINS ITS ACCESSES. SHOPTOWN RETAINS ITS TWO ACCESSES. THE ISSUE IS NOT ACCESS TO BLONDIE'S. THE ISSUE IS ACCESS FROM BLONDIE'S ACROSS SHOPTOWN'S PRIVATE PROPERTY.

THESE ARE TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS. CLOSING THE CONNECTION MAY ALSO P- P- PROVIDE BLONDIE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO RECONFIGURE THE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY PRESENTLY DEVOTED TO THAT CONNECTION, POTENTIALLY PROVIDING ADDITIONAL PARKING OR OTHER IMPROVEMENTS SUBJECT TO TOWNSHIP APPROVAL. WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THAT. WE WANT BLONDIE'S TO MAKE THE FULLEST LAWFUL USE OF THEIR PROPERTY. WE'RE SIMPLY ASKING THAT SHOPTOWN BE AFFORDED THE SAME RIGHT. THE HISTORY IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME FENCE WAS—SAME FENCE WAS PRESENTED TO THE TOWNSHIP IN 2017. IN 2017, THE MARATHON PROPERTY WAS BEING REDEVELOPED INTO THE CURRENT SIROKI OPERATION. WE HAD NUMEROUS CONVERSATIONS WITH PETER MENSER OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONCERNING THE PARKING AND THE APPLICABLE ZONING REQUIREMENTS, AND ON AUGUST 2ND, 2017, WE WERE ADVISED AS FOLLOWS IN AN EMAIL: "REGARDING PARKING AT BLONDIE'S, I DISCUSSED THE ISSUE WITH THE PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND HE IN TURN CONSULTED WITH OUR ATTORNEY. WHILE WE INDICATED IN THE PAST THAT WE MAY LIMIT OCCUPANCY OF THE RESTAURANT BASED ON THE AVAILABLE PARKING ON THE SITE, THE TOWNSHIP WILL NOT PURSUE THIS ROUTE." BASED ON THE DECISION BY THE TOWNSHIP PLANNING, I DISCUSSED INSTALLING A FENCE, AND PETER MENSER SENT THE FOLLOWING: "I WAS TALKING TO MARK ABOUT YOUR INTENTIONS OF FENCING THE AREA AROUND BLONDIE'S, AND HE'S SUGGESTING REQUESTING A SKETCH PLAN OF LOCATIONS YOU ARE INTENDING TO FENCE TO VERIFY THERE ARE NO ISSUES RELATED TO THE EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS OR SITE VISIBILITY, PERIOD. WE CERTAINLY DON'T MEAN TO IMPLY THERE WILL BE ANY ISSUES, BUT WOULD LIKE TO SEE A SKETCH OF THE PROPOSED FENCING TO ENSURE THERE ARE NOT. IS IT POSSIBLE TO SHARE THAT WITH US PRIOR TO PROCEEDING?" WE PROVIDED IT. THE TOWNSHIP ASKED US NOT TO PROCEED WHILE IT CHECKED WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND SPECIFICALLY INDICATED THAT IT WAS NOT SAYING THERE WERE ANY ISSUES TO THE PROPOSAL. WE RESPECTED THAT DETERMINATION AND DID NOT INSTALL THE FENCE.

THE FIRE DEPARTMENT OBJECTED BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED THE CONNECTION WAS REQUIRED. I GOT THAT BACKWARDS. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT SUBSEQUENTLY OBJECTED BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED THE CONNECTION WAS REQUIRED FOR AN EMERGENCY ACCESS. WE RESPECTED THAT DETERMINATION AND DID NOT INSTALL THE FENCE.

WHAT- WHAT'S IMPORTANT IS WHAT WE WERE NOT TOLD IN 2017. WE WERE NOT TOLD A SPECIAL USE

[00:25:02]

WE WERE NOT TOLD OUR APPROVED SITE PLAN WAS INVALID. WE WERE NOT TOLD CLOSING THE CONNECTION CONSTITUTED A MAJOR CHANGE, AND WE WERE NOT TOLD THAT HISTORICAL CIRCULATION CREATED A PERMANENT OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE ACROSS, PROVIDE ACCESS ACROSS SHOPTOWN'S PROPERTY. IN NOVEMBER OF 2025, I CONTACTED MR. SCH- SCHMITT REGARDING AN ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION FOR THE ACCESS, AND THE ISSUE IDENTIFIED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WAS REVIEWED.

WE WERE ADVISED THE FIRE CODE NO LONGER REQUIRED THE ACCESS.

THE FIRE CODE NO LONGER APPLIES. THE PROPOSED VENT HAS NOT FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGED.

WHAT HAS CHANGED IS THE TOWNSHIP'S STATED BASIS FOR PREVENTING ITS INSTALLATION. IN THE SEPTEMBER 10TH MEMORANDUM NOW CHARACTERIZED AS CLOSING THIS CONNECTION AS A MAJOR CHANGE, BUT WHAT ACTUALLY CHANGES AT SHOPTOWN? BEFORE THE FENCE, SHOPTOWN HAS TWO APPROVED POINTS OF ACCESS.

AFTER THE FENCE, SHOPTOWN STILL HAS TWO APPROVED POINTS OF ACCESS. THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL TO BUILDING AREA, NOT ONE SQUARE FOOT. THERE IS NO NEW USE. THERE IS NO INCREASE IN OCCUPANCY. THERE'S NO INCREASE IN TRAFFIC.

THERE'S NO REDUCTION IN PARKING. BLONDIE'S RETAINS ITS VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO MARSH ROAD. WHAT CHANGES IS THAT THE UNAUTHORIZED CIRCULATION FROM ADJOINING PROPERTIES ONTO SHOPTOWN'S PRIVATE PROPERTY, WHICH CONTRIBUTES TO UNAUTHORIZED PARKING, IS PREVENTED BEFORE IT OCCURS. THE 25,000-SQUARE-FOOT IN SITE PLAN ISSUES: THE SEPTEMBER 10TH MEMORANDUM ALSO RELIES ON THE ORDINANCE PROVISION APPLICABLE TO BUILDING OR GROUPS OF BUILDINGS EXCEEDING 25,000 SQUARE FEET. THE SEPTEMBER 10TH MEMORANDUM RELIES ON THE 25,000-SQUARE-FOOT PROVISION AND CITES TOWNSHIP ASSESSING RECORDS SHOWING A 1974 CONSTRUCTION DATE. WE HAVE REVIEWED THOSE RECORDS. THE ASSESSMENT RE- RECORDS LIST THE THIR- 31,122-SQUARE-FOOT BUILDING IS CONSTRUCTED IN 1974, BUT THE SUPPLEMENTAL HISTORICAL EVIDENCE WE PROVIDED THE PLAN DIRECTOR INDICATES THAT SHOPTOWN BUILDING EXCEEDED 25,000-SQUARE-FOOT THRESHOLD, EXISTED BEF- AND WERE OPERATING BEFORE 1974. I HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THAT. I BEGAN WORKING THERE IN 1970. I D- I CLEANED THE TRASH CANS OUT IN FRONT OF IT, SO I KNOW IT WAS THERE.

UM, WE PROVIDED THAT TO THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AHEAD OF TIME FOR THE, AND WE PROVIDED A MEMORANDUM TO THIS BOARD. THE PROPOSED FENCE DID NOT CREATE, DOES NOT ENLARGE THAT CONDITION. IT ADDS NO BUILDING AREA, CREATES NO NEW USE, AND DOES NOT EXPAND THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT. MOREOVER, AFTER 1974, THE SITE, THE SHOPTOWN SITE PLAN IN 1995 WAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED AGAIN IN 2019.

THAT SITE PLAN COVERED THE ENTIRE SITE. THE TOWNSHIP'S OWN ORDINANCE FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROCESS SAYS THAT YOU MUST GET THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT PRIOR TO THE SITE PLAN.

BECAUSE WE WERE PUTTING A DRIVE-THROUGH IN, WE GOT THE SITE, THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN 1995, AND THEN WE GOT THE SITE PLAN APPROVED, AND IT DIDN'T JUST COVER THE RITE AID; IT COVERED THE ENTIRE SITE. THE PARKING LOT ISLANDS WERE INSTALLED, PARKING WAS RE- RECONFIGURED, FIRE LANES WERE SET UP, AND EVERYTHING WAS DONE. SO THAT WAS AN IMPORTANT SITE PLAN IN 1995. WE DO NOT CONCEDE THAT SHOPTOWN IS A NON-CONFORMING USE OR THAT THE TERMINATION OF THE RITE AID DRIVE-THRU SPECIAL USE PERMIT AUTOMATICALLY INVALIDATED SEPARATELY APPROVED SHOPTOWN SITE PLANS. FOR THE PURPOSE OF TONIGHT'S APPEAL, HOWEVER, THE QUESTION IS MUCH NARROWER.

WHATEVER THE BOARD ULTIMATELY CONCLUDES ABOUT THE HISTORICAL STATUS OF THE SHOPTOWN DEVELOPMENT, THE CONDITION THE TOWNSHIP IDENTIFIES EXISTED BEFORE THIS FENCE WAS PROPOSED.

THE FENCE ADDS NO BUILDING AREA, CREATES NO NEW USE. WHAT DOES THE FENCE ITSELF CHANGE? TRIGGERS A SPECIAL USE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT TRIGGERS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. THREE QUESTIONS FOR THIS BOARD. FIRST ONE: SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME FENCE WAS PRESENTED TO THE TOWNSHIP IN 2017. WHY WAS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT NOT IDENTIFIED? THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED WAS TO CHECK THE FIRE DEPARTMENT REGARDING EMERGENCY ACCESS. THE TOWNSHIP ASKED US NOT TO PROCEED WHILE THAT REVIEW WAS COMPLETED AND INDICATED IT WAS NOT SAYING THERE WERE ANY ISSUES. NOW THAT PREVIOUSLY STATED FIRE CODE NO LONGER APPLIES. WHAT HAS CHANGED? WHAT HAS CHANGED THAT CAUSES THE SAME FENCE TO REQUIRE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TODAY? IT'S A FENCE IS A USE APPROVED BY RIGHT IN THE C-2 ZONING CLASSIFICATION.

SECOND—AND THERE ARE CONDITIONS FOR IT—SECOND, THE PROVISION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE RECORDED, WHAT PROVISION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, RECORDED EASEMENT, AGREEMENT, SITE PLAN CONDITION, OR OTHER LEGAL INSTRUMENTS REQUIRES SHOPTOWN TO MAINTAIN VEH- VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ACROSS ITS PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR THE BENEFIT OF AN ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER? THE FENCE DOES NOT CHANGE SHOPTOWN'S BUILDINGS, USES, REQUIRED PARKING,

[00:30:02]

BLONDIE AND MARATHON RETAIN LAWFUL ACCESS TO THEIR OWN PROPERTIES.

THIRD, IF THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS NOT REQUIRED, WHAT IS THE PROPER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS FOR SHOPTOWN TO FOLLOW? IF IT IS THE NORMAL BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS FOR A FENCE PERMITTED BY RIGHT UNDER THE ORDINANCE, WE WILL FOLLOW IT. IF THE APPROPRIATE IS A MINOR SITE PLAN MODIFICATION IS REQUIRED, WE WILL APPLY FOR IT. WE SIMPLY ASK FOR CLEAR DIRECTIONS SO THAT WE CAN COMPLY WITH THE TOWNSHIP'S REQUIREMENT AND RESOLVE THIS MATTER WITHOUT A ZBA APPROVAL.

FOR MORE THAN 40 YEARS, WHEN THE TOWNSHIP REQUIRED AN APPROVAL, WE OBTAINED IT. WHEN THE TOWNSHIP MADE THE DECISION, WE COMPLIED WITH IT. WHEN THE TOWNSHIP ISSUED AN APPROVAL, WE RELIED ON IT. WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR SPECIAL TREATMENT, A VARIANCE, OR AN EXCEPTION FROM THE ORDINANCE. WHAT WE ARE ASKING IS THE BOARD TO DETERMINE WHETHER THIS PARTICULAR FENCE REQUIRES A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. THE FENCE ADDS NO BUILDING AREA, CREATES NO NEW USE, REDUCES NO REQUIRED PARKING, DOES NOT ALTER SHOPTOWN'S PRESS ACCESS. BLONDIE'S AND MARATHON RETAIN THEIR ACCESS TO THEIR PROPERTIES. IT SIMPLY ALLOWS SHOPTOWN TO PROTECT ITS PROPERTY PROACTIVELY RATHER THAN TOWING CUSTOMERS AFTER A PROBLEM OCCURS. WE S- RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OVERTURN THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION AND FIND THAT THIS SPECIFIC PROPOSED FENCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CHANGE REGARDING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. WE RESPECT OUR NEIGHBORS' RIGHT TO LAWFULLY USE THEIR PROPERTY.

WE ARE SIMPLY ASKING SHOPTOWN BE AFFORDED THE SAME OPPORTUNITY TO LAWFULLY USE AND PROTECT OUR PROPERTY. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE, AND MISS, MISS WILBUR IS HERE, AND I'M SURE SHE CAN ADDRESS ANY LEGAL ISSUES REGARDING THE ABILITY TO TAKE A PROPERTY THAT WAS EXISTING PRIOR TO A ZONING ORDINANCE AND APPLY THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO IT.

THANK YOU, MR. WICKENS. WOULD ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE THIS EVENING? AND IF SO, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO COME ON UP TO THE PODIUM AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD.

I'D LIKE TO SPEAK.

AND SIR, IF YOU COULD JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD.

HI, MY NAME IS ANWAR EMMANUEL.

I GO BY ANDREW MANUEL. I'M NOT HERE ON BEHALF OF THE LANDLORD. I JUST OWN BLONDIE'S WITH MY WIFE, DAWN.

UM, SORRY, I WROTE SOME NOTES THERE.

HELLO, MY NAME IS ANDREW.

ALONG WITH MY WIFE, DAWN, WE OWN BLONDIE'S BARN. OUR CHILDREN GREW UP WORKING AT BLONDIE'S, AND WE'RE GO- OUR GOAL IS TO SEE OUR GRANDCHILDREN WORK THERE. UM, I'M NOT SURE HOW LONG MR. BOND OWNED THE BUILDING OR HOW LONG MR. WICKENS OWNED THE PLAZA.

ALL I KNOW IS WE'VE BEEN THERE 20 YEARS. WE'VE ALWAYS HAD ACCESS TO, UH, TO THE PLAZA THERE. FIRST, WE WERE TOLD THERE'S A FIRE LANE EASEMENT. THEN WE WERE TOLD RESTRICT PRES- PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT. I'M NOT SURE WE DO WHICH ONES MATTERS OR DOESN'T MATTER, BUT I JUST KNOW WE'VE ALWAYS HAD ACCESS TO THE TRAFFIC THERE. YOU KNOW, I KNOW THE WHOLE ISSUE IS ABOUT PARKING, AND, AND, AND, AND, AND I UNDERSTAND MR. WICKENS' FRUSTRATION WITH THAT, AND I WOULD LOVE TO OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH HIM ON, ON SOME KIND OF COMPENSATION TO, TO, TO WORK THAT OUT. I KNOW THAT BLOCKING THAT WOULD MAKE IT DANGEROUS FOR MY CUSTOMERS, FOR TRUCKS COMING AND GOING.

UH, THERE'S ACCIDENTS CONSTANTLY AT THAT INTERSECTION. TRAFFIC GETS DIVERTED THROUGH THE PARKING LOTS.

THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES THAT, TO ME, CLOSING THAT OFF ON THERE, I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT WOULD HELP THE WHOLE SITUATION. I MEAN, A LOT OF SHOPTOWN'S PARKING CUSTOMERS GO THROUGH OUR DRIVEWAY.

OBVIOUSLY, WE, WE FEED EACH OTHER BUSINESS. I MEAN, WE'RE A SMALL TOWN, AND, AND WE, WE RELY ON EACH OTHER. I RELY HEAVILY ON THE SHOPS IN, IN SHOPTOWN.

WE SHOP THERE LITERALLY EVERY DAY, AND A LOT OF THEM COME TO US EVERY DAY, AND, AND, AND, AND THIS IS HOW IT'S BEEN. AND YOU KNOW WHAT, I, I DO UNDERSTAND AS A BUSINESS OWNER THAT HE HAS THE RIGHT TO, TO, TO THOSE PARKING SPOTS, AND, AND, YOU KNOW, AND I'M NOT SURE HOW TO RESOLVE IT OTHER THAN PUTTING ME, THE FENCE WOULD LITERALLY PUT US OUT OF BUSINESS. I DON'T THINK IT WOULD JUST CAUSE ACCIDENTS AND LIABILITY BECAUSE CARS WON'T BE ABLE TO TURN AROUND, AND I'M NOT SURE HOW IN, IN, IN AN INTERSECTION THAT WOULD GET RESOLVED. UM, YOU KNOW, I, I GREW UP IN, IN BIG CITIES, AND THERE WAS ALWAYS FIGHTING BETWEEN TENANTS AND, AND, AND, AND, AND STUFF ON THERE. AND I, I'VE BEEN IN HASLETT FOR 25 YEARS, AND THIS IS, YOU KNOW, I LOVE BEING IN THIS TOWNSHIP, AND I HOPE I CAN RESOLVE THIS WITH MR. WICKENS, OBVIOUSLY.

[00:35:01]

THANK YOU SO MUCH, SIR. ALL RIGHT, ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE, PLEASE COME UP TO THE PODIUM AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PUBLIC RECORD.

HI, MY NAME IS ELIZABETH WILBUR. UH, MY ADDRESS IS, I GUESS, IS 2401 EAST GRAND RIVER IN LANSING. UM, I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF, UH, SHOPTOWN AND STEVE WICKENS. I JUST HAVE ONE COMMENT ABOUT HOW THIS HAS PROCEEDED.

UM, ESSENTIALLY, MY CLIENT'S BUILDINGS ARE A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE, NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE, AND THAT'S KIND OF WHERE THINGS STARTED TO DIVEST. LIKE, WE DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT, BUT WE'RE NOT SEEKING TO CHANGE THAT, AND WE'RE NOT SEEKING TO CHANGE THE BUILDING, WE'RE NOT SEEKING TO CHANGE THE USE, WE'RE NOT EXPANDING IT, WE'RE NOT MINIMIZING IT. THE NON-CONFORMING IS NOT BEING ALTERED IN ANY WAY. IT IS GOING TO REMAIN EXACTLY WHERE IT WAS, FUNCTION EXACTLY HOW IT W- IS.

IT'S NOT THE PROPERTY ITSELF THAT IS NON-CONFORMING; IT'S NOT THE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY THAT IS NON-CONFORMING; IT'S THE BIG BUILDING, AND THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BIG BUILDING.

YES, IT'S LOCATED ON THE PARCEL, BUT WHEN THE LAW LOOKS AT NON-CONFORMING USES, IT'S LOOKING AT WHAT IS NON-CONFORMING. YOU CAN'T LUMP IT ALL TOGETHER JUST BECAUSE IT'S LOCATED ON THE SAME PROPERTY. IT LOOKS SPECIFICALLY AT IT. IS IT NON-CONFORMING LOT SH- SHAPE? IS THE BUILDING SETBACK NON-CONFORMING? IS IT BEING USED FOR SOMETHING THAT'S NOT APPROVED IN THAT DISTRICT? THE NON-CONFORMANCE LEGALLY REMAINS TO THAT SPECIFIC ITEM. SO WHEN THEY TOLD US THE BASIS OF REQUIRING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THIS REQUEST FELL UNDER 86-129, MY QUESTION WAS, "IF WE ALL AGREE THERE'S NO SPECIAL USE, HOW ARE WE MAKING A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO A SPECIAL USE PERMIT THAT DOESN'T EVEN EXIST?" AND IT'S BECAUSE THAT ISN'T THE PROCESS HERE. THE LAW LOOKS AT IT AS THE NON-CONFORMING ISSUE STAYS WITH THE NON-CONFORMING ISSUE.

SO IF THERE WAS A REQUIREMENT THAT A SPECIAL USE PERMIT WAS NEEDED FOR A FENCE GENERALLY, THEN YES, THAT'S WHERE THAT WOULD COME IN. BUT THE ORDINANCES DON'T REQUIRE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A FENCE. IF WE WERE ALTERING THE NON-CONFORMITY, WE WOULD HAVE TO BRING IT INTO CONFORMANCE. A SPECIAL USE PERMIT WOULD BE REQUIRED, BUT WE'RE NOT ALTERING THAT.

AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR THAT THOSE TWO ISSUES ARE SEPARATE IN HOW THEY'RE LOOKED AT UNDER THE ORDINANCE.

OKAY, THANK YOU SO MUCH. ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? I'D LIKE TO MAKE ONE MORE COMMENT.

SIR, WE GAVE A LOT OF TIME TO TALK, AND WE ARE GOING TO HAVE YOU UP FOR BOARD TIME, I KNOW THAT, BUT, UM, I WOULD LIKE JUST TO KEEP THE PROCEEDINGS MOVING ALONG BECAUSE I WANT TO RESPECT EVERYONE'S TIME. SO I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE FLOOR IF NOBODY ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, AND GET INTO WORK TIME. ALL RIGHT.

WHERE SHALL WE START, GENTLEMEN? I'VE GOT QUESTIONS.

ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO GO FIRST? MEMBER NAHUM.

UH, SURE. UM, I MEAN, I HAVEN'T SEEN AS MANY SPECIAL USE PERMITS AS MEMBER TREZISE, UM, BUT I DO KNOW THAT ONE OF THE PRIMARY REASONS WE PERFORM SUPS IS TO LOOK AT VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN, LIKE, M- MOVEMENT FLOW, INGRESS, EGRESS, LIKE LOOKING AT TRAFFIC PATTERNS, UM, AND THIS SEEMS, THIS PROPOSAL SEEMS WOULD BE DRAMATICALLY AFFECT THAT PATTERN FOR, UM, THIS PROPERTY AND AS WELL AS THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.

AND IT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WE HAVE SUPS FOR THESE VERY LARGE BUILDINGS IN GENERAL SO THAT WE CAN PERF- OR NOT WE, PROBABLY THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN PERFORM THAT ANALYSIS AND MAKE SURE THAT SUCH CHANGES TO, UH, THE PROPERTY ARE ACCEPTABLE.

AND I WOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, THE LOOK, THE LOCATION OF FENCING THAT IS, YOU KNOW, BLOCKING ACCESS THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS IS A PRETTY DRAMATIC CHANGE TO THE PROPERTY. IT'S NOT A CHANGE TO THE, YOU KNOW, THE BUILDINGS THEMSELVES, BUT IT IS A NEW STRUCTURE BEING PUT INTO THE, UM, THE LOT. SO, UM, PERSONALLY, I DID, I THINK THIS SEEMS LIKE A CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE AN SUP WOULD MAKE SENSE, BUT I'M DEFINITELY OPEN TO, UM, THE DISCUSSION OF THE, THE REST OF THE, UM, THE ZBA.

I APPRECIATE THE PERSPECTIVES COMING FROM A PLANNING COMMISSION LENS AS FAR AS WHAT THE, WHAT THAT SUP IS FOR.

MM-HMM.

SO THAT'S, THAT'S HELPFUL.

UM, I DO, UM, HAVE, I GUESS, JUST A CLARIFICATION QUESTION FOR DIRECTOR SCHMITT.

THEY—MISS WILBUR WAS SPEAKING ABOUT NON-CONFORMANCE. I DON'T SEE NON-CONFORMANCE AS A CRITERIA IN THAT SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE. SO CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT AT ALL AS FAR AS I'M, WHAT I'M

[00:40:01]

IF IT- IN SQUARE FOOTAGE.

YEAH.

AND THAT- THE ORDINANCE IS SET UP THAT IF, IF A BUILDING OR GROUP OF BUILDINGS ON A PROPERTY IS GREATER THAN 25,000 SQUARE RIGHT.

FEET, AN SUP IS REQUIRED.

RIGHT.

UM.

AND I DON'T, I, I, SO I, I APPRECIATE THE, THE KIND OF LEGAL LENS OF LOOKING AT IT AS THE NON- IN THE NON-CONFORMANCE PIECE, BUT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT, WE D- WE DEAL A LOT WITH NON-CONFORMANCE, SO WE LOOK AT IT, AND UNFORTUNATELY FROM OUR LENS, IT IS JUST NON-CONFOR- A NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY IS A NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY. IT COULD BE FOR ANY NUMBER OF REASONS. WE WILL LOOK AT IT AND THEN SAY, OKAY, WE HAVE A NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY, THIS IS WHERE WE CAN APPLY DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, PAR- PIECES OF OUR, UM, CRITERIA TO FIGURE THINGS OUT.

HOWEVER, HERE I'M NOT SEEING NON-CONFORMANCE. SO I, WHILE I APPRECIATE THAT KIND OF INFORMATION, READING IT, IT'S PRETTY CLEAR-CUT. IT'S JUST ANY FLOOR, ANY FLOOR AREA GREATER THAN 25,000 SQUARE FEET AND LOCATED ON A LOT SHALL REQUIRE SPECIAL USE PERMANENT, PERMIT. SO THAT'S WHERE I KIND OF GO BACK TO STAFF AND SAY, OKAY, THAT'S JUST APPLYING THAT EVENLY. I THINK MAYBE, UM, AND MR. WICKENS, UM, SHARED, YOU KNOW, THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER DETERMINATIONS IN THE PAST THAT MAY NOT HAVE APPLIED THIS EVENLY, WHICH I THINK IS KIND OF THE FRUSTRATION AND WHERE SOME OF THAT FRUSTRATION IS COMING FROM. AND I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT UNFORTUNATELY THAT PREDATES MYSELF, THAT PREDATES MR. SCHMITT, UM, BUT I DO UNDERSTAND THE FRUSTRATION WITH IT BEING NOT APPLIED EVENLY. UM, SO I HEAR THAT CONCERN FOR SURE. MR. WICKENS, YOU'RE—AND MISS WILBUR, IF YOU WANT, YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME UP TO THE PODIUM. THAT WAY, IF, IF WE ASK QUESTIONS, WE CAN, UM, JUST REACH OUT. UM, BUT THAT'S KIND OF, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M LOOKING AT THIS. I'M JUST TRYING TO, TRYING TO LOOK AT THE ORDINANCE AND SEE, YOU KNOW, WAS IT APPLIED EVENLY IN THIS CASE? AND THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M, I, I HEAR THE HISTORICAL INFORMATION, BUT AGAIN, JUST LIKE WE DO IN OTHER CASES AT, YOU KNOW, THAT ARE BROUGHT BEFORE US, WE DON'T REALLY TAKE THAT HIS- WE CAN, WE CAN LOOK AT IT AND WE CAN, WE CAN USE IT AS, YOU KNOW, KIND OF A WAY TO, TO HELP SHAPE OUR UNDERSTANDING, BUT WE CAN'T REALLY NECESSARILY APPLY IT, UM, WHAT MAY HAVE HAPPENED OR A DECISION THAT ANOTHER PLANNING DIRECTOR WOULD HAVE MADE HERE.

SO THAT'S KIND OF, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M COMING FROM, BUT ANYBODY ELSE HAVE THOUGHTS THEY WANT TO SHARE OR QUESTIONS? MEMBER TREZISE, GO FOR IT.

MY QUESTION TO MR. SCHMITT IS, DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHEN THIS PROVISION WAS ADOPTED? I, I MEAN, I KNOW IT WAS THERE IN 1974. I'VE TRIED TO TRACE IT.

THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT IT WAS TOO.

I TRIED TO TRACE IT BACK PRIOR TO THAT. THE, THE RECORDS, UH, GET PRETTY SPOTTY ONCE YOU GET BACK THAT OLD. UM.

UNLIKE STATE STATUTES, IT DOESN'T YEAH.

CARRY ON THE DATES OF AMENDMENTS TO IT.

THERE WAS A, THERE WAS A '40S-ERA ZONING ORDINANCE THAT I'VE SEEN THAT IT WASN'T IN.

MM-HMM.

SO I CAN TELL YOU IT'S SOMEWHERE BETWEEN THE '40S AND '74.

RIGHT.

I, I CAN HELP OUT WITH THAT. I DID RESEARCH. THERE WAS A 1963 ORDINANCE THAT WAS SUBSTANTIALLY REVISED, I THINK, IN '72 OR '73 BEFORE THE '74, AND IT WAS NOT IN THE '63 ORDINANCE, ACCORDING TO THE RESEARCH THAT I DID.

OH.

SO I THINK IT IS A CRITICAL POINT THAT YOU BRING UP, BECAUSE IF OUR BUILDINGS WERE BUILT BEFORE THE 25,000 SQUARE FEET ORDINANCE WAS IN EFFECT, THEY MAY BE NON-CONFORMING, BUT ARE YOU, BUT WE'RE NOT NON-CONFORMING BECAUSE WE CAN'T, YOU CAN'T RETROACTIVELY APPLY THAT ORDINANCE TO US.

NO.

AND I'M NOT SURE IF THE SUP THAT HE'S ASKING FOR IS FOR US TO BE APPROVED FOR 25,000 SQUARE FEET, OR IF IT'S FOR THE FENCE.

YOU CAN APPLY AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE PROSPECTIVELY.

SO IF SOMEONE IN A NON-CONFORMING USE CAME IN TO MAKE A CHANGE IN THEIR USAGE, WHATEVER, WHATEVER APPLIES.

RIGHT.

THAT COULD BE TRIGGERING THAT YOU NEED TO GET THE SUP AT THAT POINT TO BECOME CONFORMING BEFORE YOU CAN DO THE OTHER STUFF.

I WOULD, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT, AND I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED IN 1995.

WE BUMPED OUT THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING TO PUT IN A DRIVE-THROUGH. A DRIVE-THROUGH REQUIRES IT, AND SO DID THE BUMP OUT. WE GOT THE SUP, THE PROCESS THAT MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP HAD BACK THEN AND STILL HAS TODAY ON THE WEBSITE IS GET THE SUP, GET THE SITE PLAN APPROVED.

THE SITE PLAN DIDN'T JUST APPROVE THE RITE AID AND THE DRIVE-THROUGH; IT APPROVED THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE ENTIRE SITE.

SO I THINK RESPECTFULLY

[00:45:01]

OKAY.

IT SPECIFICALLY STATES IN THE LETTER, "APPROVAL OF THE ADDITION OF A DRIVE-THROUGH WINDOW." YEAH.

WHAT'S THAT? "APPROVAL OF THE ADDITION OF A DRIVE-THROUGH WINDOW." AND THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

AND THE SPEC- THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVED IT, CORRECT? SO, SO WHAT DIRECTOR BUT THAT IS, BUT THAT WAS AN EXPANSION OF THE BUILDING.

SIR, I AM THE, I AM THE CHAIR OF THE BOARD, AND I GET TO TALK FIRST. WHAT THE DIRECTOR IS STATING IS THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS YOU MADE TO THE PARKING LOT WEREN'T PART OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SO WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PARKING LOT SEPARATE FROM THE DRIVE-THROUGH, MM-HMM.

THAT IS THAT THOSE ARE IMPROVEMENTS THAT COULD BE MADE TO A PROPERTY THAT DON'T REQUIRE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

AM I CORRECT, DIRECTOR SCHMITT? IS THAT KIND OF WHERE WHAT... SO HE'S TALKING ABOUT THE IMPROVEMENTS MADE TO THE PARKING LOT, NOT WITH—NOT PART OF THE SUP.

I WOULD HAVE TRIGGERED IT.

YOU WOULD HAVE TR- FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS ON PARKING LOT? I WOULD HAVE TRIGGERED IT WHEN THEY ENCLOSED THE CARELINC BUILDING. I WOULD HAVE TRIGGERED IT WHEN THE DANIEL COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSION PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AT THE SOUTHERN END AND DEMOED THE BUILDING.

RIGHT.

WHICH IS WHAT ENDED UP CHANGING THE FIRE CODE REQUIREMENTS.

OKAY.

IT'S A CHANGE TO THE SITE. I WOULD HAVE TRIGGERED IT.

SO.

THAT'S MY PRETTY STANDARD POSITION.

OKAY. SO THEN, SO, SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT DIDN'T HAVE THOSE IMPROVEMENTS ON THEM, AND THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN AN ISSUE FOR— THEN I'D LIKE TO ASK MY QUESTION AGAIN.

YEAH.

IS THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE FENCE OR TO APPROVE THE BUILDINGS BEING OVER 25,000 SQUARE FEET? IT'S TO APPROVE THE BUILDING OVER 25,000 SQUARE FEET.

YES.

IS THAT, IS THAT, IS THAT, MR. SCHMITT, IS THAT YOUR— THAT IS THE, THE STANDARD IN THE ORDINANCE THAT IS NOT BEING MET CURRENTLY.

SO, SO WE'RE NOT, BUT THAT, BUT THAT TALKS ABOUT, UH, MY POINT WHEN I READ THE ORDINANCE IS IT TALKS ABOUT BUILDINGS, ENLARGING A BUILDING, EXPANDING A BUILDING, CHANGING THE USE OF A BUILDING. WE'RE NOT DOING ANY OF THOSE THINGS. CAN YOU POINT OUT IN THE ORDINANCE WHAT WE'RE DOING THAT TRIGGERS THIS, THAT CHANGES THAT? STAFF'S POSITION IS A CHANGE TO THE SITE, IF IT DOESN'T HAVE THE SUP, WOULD REQUIRE AN SUP. THIS WOULD BE THE SAME WITH ANY OTHER PROPERTY WITH BUILDINGS OF THIS SIZE.

BUT WHAT ORDINANCE TRIGGERS THAT? BECAUSE ALL OF THE ORDINANCES THAT DEAL WITH LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE DON'T SAY THAT.

YES, SO WE HAVE NOT EVEN GOTTEN INTO THE NON-CONFORMING SITUATION.

RIGHT.

OUR POINT IS THAT IT IS A CHANGE TO A SITE UNDER 472, WHERE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT WOULD BE REQUIRED. SO A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SHOULD BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO PROCEEDING. IF THE ZBA SO- DISAGREES, THAT'S CERTAINLY WELL WITHIN THE ZBA.

SO, WHAT ABOUT THE SITE IS REQUIRING THE SPECIAL USE? SO, I, AGAIN, I THINK THE 25,000 SQUARE? IT'S THE 25,000 SQUARE.

OKAY, SO THAT'S THE NON-CONFORMITY, BECAUSE WE ARE A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE BECAUSE THIS ORDINANCE WAS ENACTED AFTER THE BUILDING WAS BUILT.

SO THAT SECTION DOESN'T APPLY TO US UNLESS WE SEEK TO CHANGE THE BUILDING.

OKAY, MISS WILBUR, GO AHEAD.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

MR. SCHMITT, WOULD YOU BE SO KIND TO BRING UP THAT PORTION OF THE CODE THANK YOU.

SO THAT WE COULD SEE IT FOR THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT? HE KNOWS WHAT'S IN THERE.

I KNOW, I HAD A PRINTOUT. I HAVE A WHOLE BINDER OF THE WHOLE ZONING CODE, AND I FORGOT TO BRING IT. GO FIGURE, I KNOW.

HE PRINTED IT HIMSELF.

I D- I DID. I DORKY PRINTED THE 200-SOME PAGES BECAUSE I GO THROUGH IT ALL THE TIME.

PRINTED IT.

TEAR DOWN ONE OF YOUR TREATS.

YEAH.

I, I ACTUALLY PRINTED IT IN MY, MY COMPANY I WORK FOR, SO I WON'T GO THERE AND SAY, PUT THAT ON THE RECORD.

THERE WE GO.

OKAY, SO WHERE... SO YOU'RE IN SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS.

COULD YOU GO...

THERE'S ANOTHER.

YEAH, COULD YOU GO BACK UP TO CHAPTER 86 AND GO THROUGH, I THINK IT'S AN ARTICLE 4, NOT ARTICLE 5.

WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FOR? I'M SORRY.

UM... GO DOWN TO THE SPECIAL ARTICLE 6, I'M SORRY.

YEAH.

SPECIAL USE REQUIREMENTS.

658 IS WHAT IT IS.

YEAH.

86-658, WHICH IS BASICALLY THE RATIONALE FOR REQUIRING THE SUP.

RIGHT.

SO I THANK YOU BOTH, YOU SIR AND YOU, MR. SCHMITT, FOR THIS MASSIVE PACKET, BECAUSE I DID ACTUALLY READ THIS WHOLE THING.

AS DID I.

AND THERE'S A LOT OF GOOD INFORMATION IN THERE.

IT, IT IS ALSO VERY CONFUSING, UM, AS YOU CAN TELL. I AM VERY HUNG UP ON THE NON-CONFORMING USE PART BECAUSE WHEN I DID SOME RESEARCH, AND I DO HAVE A PLANNING BACKGROUND, SO I, I KIND OF KNOW SOME AREAS WHERE TO LOOK, BUT IN MY RESEARCH, A TOWNSHIP CAN GENERALLY REQUIRE

[00:50:01]

THEY DIDN'T, YEAH.

FAST FORWARD TO NOW, YOU KNOW, I'M READING MULTIPLE THINGS IN HERE, AND I GUESS THAT'S ONE THING I WANTED, MR. SCHMITT, IF YOU COULD, COULD YOU PLEASE CONFIRM OR NOT WHETHER THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE THERE NOW, ARE THEY CONSIDERED A NON-CONFORMING USE, A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE? THEY, THEY'RE NON-CONFORMING UNDER THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

SO AGAIN, MY RESEARCH IS TOWNSHIPS TYPICALLY CAN REQUIRE A PROPERTY OWNER TO KIND OF NOT RETROACTIVE, THAT'S NOT THE PERFECT TERM, BUT TO OBTAIN THAT SPECIAL USE PERMIT IF THERE WAS ONE IN THE PAST THAT WAS NOT GIVEN IN ERROR OR OMITTED BECAUSE OF A STAFF PROCEDURE OR THINGS LIKE THAT. THE TOWNSHIPS CAN DO THAT TO PROTECT THEIR ZONING AND THE INTENT OF THE ZONE ORDINANCE AND THE GENERAL WELFARE, YADA, YADA, YADA.

RIGHT.

HOWEVER, EVEN A LETTER AT THE VERY END OF OUR PACKET FROM THE ATTORNEY CALLS THIS A NON-CONFORMING USE. AND I'M UNDER SUSPICION FROM MICHIGAN ZONING ENABLING ACT THAT ANY LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE IS CONSIDERED A VESTED PROPERTY RIGHT. AND IF IT'S A VESTED PROPERTY RIGHT, IT'S BASICALLY GRANDFATHERED.

SO THAT WAS ONE OF MY OTHER QUESTIONS, WAS THE BIG THING THAT I SAW WITH THE CASE LAW AS WELL IS THAT WHAT, WHAT IS CONSIDERED VESTED RIGHTS? WHAT IS GOING TO GIVE YOU THE VESTED RIGHTS? AND IT'S GOING TO BE THOSE BUILDING PERMITS, BECAUSE SITE PLANS ARE NOT, SITE PLANS DON'T GIVE YOU THE, THE LEGAL PART PLACE TO BUILD. THEY JUST SHOW WHERE THINGS ARE GOING TO BE IN CIRCULATION, THINGS LIKE THAT. THEY'RE NOT THE ACTUAL BUILDING PERMIT. SO DID THE, DID THE, DO YOU KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THE BUILDING ITSELF, THE BUILDINGS, EVEN THAT 31,000 SQUARE FOOT, RECEIVED A BUILDING PERMIT? UH, I WAS 11 YEARS OLD. I DON'T.

DO YOU HAVE, DO YOU HAVE ANY RECOLLECTION? 20-SOMETHING AT THAT POINT? YEAH.

I, I, I WOULD SAY THIS, I MEAN, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLE TO GET A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO BUILD THE BUILDING IN 1966 BECAUSE IT WASN'T REQUIRED.

THAT'S TRUE.

RIGHT. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THIS DEFINITION, WHEN, WHEN I, THE THING THAT STANDS OUT FOR ME THE MOST IS THE WORD "CONSTRUCTION." "THE CONSTRUCTION OF ANY BUILDING OR GROUP OF BUILDINGS WITH A COMBINED GFA GREATER THAN 25,000 FEET, LOCATED BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, REQUIRES SPECIAL USE." I AM LEADING WITH THE APPLICANT THAT I DON'T SEE A BUILDING OF 25,000 SQUARE FOOT BEING CONSTRUCTED. IT'S ALREADY THERE. IT'S CONSIDERED A NON-CONFORMING USE. IT'S ALREADY BUILT. IT'S, IN MY EYES, IT POTENTIALLY IS A VESTED USE BECAUSE IT WAS THERE BEFORE THE ZONING CODE IN 1974 REQUIRED THIS SPECIAL USE FOR BUILDINGS OVER 25,000 SQUARE FEET. THAT'S WHERE I GET HUNG UP ON. THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION IS, TOWNSHIP CONSIDERS FENCES STRUCTURES, WHICH IS NOT ABNORMAL. IT'S A LITTLE ODD, BUT IT'S NOT ABNORMAL FOR OTHER MUNICIPALITIES. SO IF THESE BUILDINGS ARE CONSIDERED LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USES, THERE'S CURRENTLY A FENCE ON THE PROPERTY. IS THAT FENCE A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE? BECAUSE THEN I COULD SEE THE HANG-UP BEING, IF YOU ADD THIS NEW FENCE, ARE YOU NOW EXPANDING THAT NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE, RIGHT.

WHICH THE CODE EXPLICITLY SAYS YOU CAN'T DO.

BUT IT DOESN'T ADD ONE SQUARE FOOT OF BUILDING. THAT FENCE CONNECTS TO EXISTING FENCE AT SHOPTOWN AND A FENCE INSTALLED BY MARATHON, AND IT'S OVER 35 FEET AWAY FROM THE CLOSEST BUILDING. IT DOESN'T ATTACH TO A BUILDING.

BUT IT'S, BUT IT'S STILL A STRUCTURE.

BUT IS IT STRUCTURE? AND IF, IF THE CODE SAYS THAT ANY NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE CANNOT BE EXPANDED, CAN LEGALLY—CAN THAT FENCE BE EXPANDED? THAT'S WHERE I GET CAUGHT. BUT IN MY EYES, IF THIS WHOLE PRO- THAT WHOLE BUILDING, 25,000, 30,000-SQUARE-FOOT BUILDING IS A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE, I DON'T KNOW WHY THE TOWNSHIP NECESSARILY... I UNDERSTAND WHERE DIRECTOR SCHMITT'S COMING FROM, AND I AGREE WITH WHAT EVERYONE HAS SAID, THAT YOU BUILD A FENCE THERE, THERE PROBABLY IS GOING TO BE SOME ISSUES WITH CIRCULATION, THINGS LIKE THAT. HOWEVER, I RESPECT THE FACT THAT THAT'S ON YOUR PROPERTY, AND YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHAT YOU WANT WITH YOUR PROPERTY, AND YOU COULD PUT A FENCE THERE. BUT I AGREE THAT IS, IT IS GOING TO POTENTIALLY CAUSE CIRCULATION ISSUES.

AND CIRCULATION IS NOT, I DON'T, I DON'T SEE ANY CIRCULATION ISSUES TO SHOPTOWN. I'M JUST GONNA, I'M GONNA TALK, AND SIR, CAN I, CAN I SAY, SIR? GO AHEAD.

YOU, YOU ARE ALSO IN, IN COMMUNITY, RIGHT? SO SHOPTOWN IS YOUR ENTITY AND YOUR BUSINESS AND YOUR PROPERTY. HOWEVER, YOU ARE IN COMMUNITY IN, IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP WITH OTHER BUSINESS OWNERS, WITH OTHER PROPERTIES WITHIN, YOU KNOW, AND LIKE MEMBER NAHUM SAID, THAT'S WHY THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS THERE,

[00:55:03]

I, I APPRECIATE THAT. I APPRECIATE THAT. I, I BELIEVE THAT, YOU KNOW, LIKE IN, I SEE INSTANCES, AND I BELIEVE YOU HAVE ONE IN ON GRAND RIVER AVENUE WHERE YOU HAVE AN AGREEMENT, A REQUIREMENT TO CONNECT THE PROPERTIES TOGETHER, CORRECT? IN THE ZONING, DO IS THAT TRUE, CORRECT.

MR. SCHMITT? YEP.

OKAY, THANK YOU. THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT HERE. YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE, WHAT ORDINANCE REQUIRES US TO PROVIDE A CROSS EASEMENT TO A PROPERTY THAT HAS A DRIVEWAY AND A SIDEWALK ON A FIVE-LANE ROAD, 125 FEET FROM A TRAFFIC LIGHT? THEIR ABILITY TO GET IN AND OUT OF THAT SHOULD BE, SHOULD BE NOTHING. I MEAN, IT'S, THERE'S A FIVE-LANE ROAD, THERE'S, THERE'S A STOPLIGHT.

SO I- I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, I, WE DIDN'T CREATE THE PROBLEM, YOU KNOW, AND I RESPECT THAT HE DIDN'T CREATE IT, BUT THEY ELECTED TO PUT A 96-SEAT RESTAURANT IN WITH 25 SPOTS SHORT. WE HAVE OUR TWO LARGEST TENANTS THERE, CARELINC, 9,600 SQUARE FEET, AND THE UH, 11,400 FEET OF DOLLAR TREE. I CAN'T GIVE UP PARKING THERE BECAUSE I NEED THOSE TENANTS. THOSE TENANTS, THOSE LARGER TENANTS ARE CRITICAL TO OUR SMALLER TENANTS. THE MAJORITY OF OUR TENANTS ARE SMALL BUSINESS PEOPLE JUST LIKE HIM. WE HAVE, WE HAVE, WE HAVE ONE NATIONAL TENANT, TWO REGIONAL TENANTS, AND EVERY OTHER ONE IS A LOCAL BUSINESS.

MANY OF THEM HAVE BEEN THERE FOR YEARS. WE'RE ON ABOUT THE SIXTH OWNER OF THE HARDWARE. WE'RE ON OUR FIFTH OWNER OF THE BARBER SHOP. SO I, I I HAVE THE SAME ARGUMENT.

I, I AGREE. I AGREE. I THINK THAT IT'S... IT WE'RE, WE'RE SHIFTING FOCUS AWAY FROM THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY IS THAT THE, THE I UNDERSTAND THAT.

OF THE CASE.

I UNDERSTAND THAT PARKING IS AN ISSUE, THAT BLONDIE'S, THEY GOT THEIR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, EVEN THE TEMPORARY ONE, KNOWING THE TOWNSHIP, KNOWING THAT THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PARKING, AND THEN THAT'S NOW OVERFLOWING ONTO YOUR PROPERTY.

I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT FACT, BUT IT, IT, IT IS, EVEN THOUGH IT IS PART OF THIS ISSUE, IT'S NOT THE REALM OF THIS APPLICATION THAT'S IN FRONT OF US. YEAH, THAT PART OF IN FRONT OF US IS BASED ON, "DO WE SEE DIRECTOR SCHMITT'S INTERPRETATION GOING FORWARD OR NOT?" I, I AM STUCK. I AM, I'M LITERALLY STUCK. I'VE TRIED DOING A LOT OF RESEARCH. I'VE LOOKED ALL THROUGH THE CODE. I, LIKE I SAID, I'M A DORK. I HAVE THAT THING PRINTED OUT AT HOME, AND I FORGOT TO BRING IT. BUT I, I AM VERY HUNG UP ON THE NON-CONFORMING USE PART, BECAUSE IN MY EYES, IF IT IS DETERMINED THAT THE TOWNSHIP ATTORNEY SAID IN HIS EMAIL IT IS A NON-CONFORMING USE, HOW COULD THIS, AND THIS IS NOTHING TO SAY ANYTHING TO DIRECTOR SCHMITT. HE'S DOING HIS JOB, BUT IN MY EYES, IF NO OTHER BUILDINGS ARE BEING CONSTRUCTED, THEY'RE ALREADY CONSTRUCTED.

THEY'RE, IN MY OPINION, THEY COULD BE VIEWED AS VESTED.

WHY ASK FOR THE SUP NOW? BECAUSE TO ME, THE, THE TERM HERE THAT'S KEY IS "CONSTRUCTION," THE CONSTRUCTION OF ANY BUILDING.

THE BUILDING'S ALREADY CONSTRUCTED. SO I DON'T KNOW HOW WE LEGALLY WOULD BE ABLE TO ASK THEM FOR, "NOW YOU NEED TO GIVE US A SPECIAL USE PERMIT OR APPLY FOR THIS FOR A NON-CONFORMING USE." MY OPINION, THEY SHOULD ALREADY BE VESTED, ESPECIALLY IF THE INFORMATION THAT YOU PROVIDED US IS ACCURATE, IF THAT 31,000-SQUARE-FOOT BUILDING WAS BUILT BEFORE 1974, BECAUSE AS FAR AS WE SEE, THAT'S AS FAR AS THIS CODE GOES BACK TO IS 1974. IT SAYS IT RIGHT UNDERNEATH THAT 86-658. SO IF THAT BUILDING GOES BEFORE 1974, THAT COULD BE AN EVEN GREATER CAUSE FOR THIS WAS A NON-CONFORMING USE.

BUT I DON'T KNOW, DIRECTOR SCHMITT, DOES THE TOWNSHIP HAVE A PROCESS THAT IF A PROPERTY OWNER WANTS TO REQUEST VESTED RIGHTS, CAN THEY COME TO THE TOWNSHIP AND REQUEST THAT AND GET LIKE TOWNSHIP BOARD APPROVAL? IS THERE A PROCESS FOR THAT? NO, IT WOULD BE REQUEST A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR BUILDINGS GREATER THAN 25,000 SQUARE FEET. I MEAN, SO THAT DOESN'T REALLY HELP.

SO.

SO, THAT'S CIRCULAR.

SEEM TO BE DISPUTED.

I WOULD, I WOULD HAVE A, A QUESTION GOING BACK TO WHAT YOU SAID, MEMBER KOENIG, ABOUT, UM, UNLESS IT, UNLESS AN SUP WAS TRIGGERED PREVIOUSLY. SO THE FACT THAT A, A SUP WAS TRIGGERED IN 1995 FOR THE... WOULD THAT NEGATE THE NON-CONFORMING STANCE SINCE THEY DID APPLY AND RECEIVE AN SUP ALREADY FOR THIS PROPERTY? THAT WOULD BE MY QUESTION. IF IN THAT, IN, IN THAT LINE OF THINKING.

MEMBER TREZISE.

MY FEELING ON THAT IS THEY RECEIVED AN SUP FOR A SPECIFIC CHANGE. THEY SHOULD HAVE ADDRESSED THE 25,000-SQUARE-FOOT THING AT THE SAME AT THAT TIME.

CORRECT.

IT WAS NOT DONE.

CORRECT.

SO RIGHT.

WE'RE STUCK BETWEEN A ROCK AND HARD PLACE.

[01:00:01]

UM, AND BECAUSE IT'S HARD FOR ME TO READ THIS AND SAY THAT THE ADDITION OF THAT DRIVE-THROUGH ON THE END OF THAT BUILDING REQUIRED THE SUP, BECAUSE IN MY EYES, THERE, THERE'S CONSTRUCTION THAT TOOK PLACE THERE, BUT IT WASN'T THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 25,000-SQUARE-FOOT OR GREATER BUILDING. BUILDING WAS ALREADY THERE. SO THAT'S WHERE I GET CONFUSED, BECAUSE I'M, I'M LEAD- I'M READING THIS FOR LITERAL TERMS I SEE.

THAT CAN GO, IN MY OPINION, IS VERY GRAY, BECAUSE SOMETIMES PLANNING RULES, THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, THEY ARE, SOME ARE GRAY, EVEN THOUGH I KNOW DIRECTOR SCHMITT PROBABLY THINKS MOST OF THEM ARE BLACK AND WHITE.

NO.

THAT'S HIS JOB.

NO, I MEAN, I- BUT YEAH.

IT'S HARD, IT'S HARD, AND I TOTALLY GET THE FACT, AND THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION THAT YOU ASKED.

BUT THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I BECAUSE THEY ALREADY HAD AN SUP TRIGGER.

BECAUSE THEY ALREADY HAD ONE.

SO IS THAT PRECEDENT KIND OF SET ON THAT PROPERTY THAT THEY NEED ANOTHER THAT THEY NEED ANOTHER ONE.

THAT'S WHY I GET HUNG UP ON THE NON-CONFORMING USE.

I GUESS I WA- I GUESS I WONDER WHAT THE, AND THIS MIGHT BE MISS WILBUR OR, UM, MR. WICKENS, WHAT IS THE REASON TO NOT APPLY FOR AN SUP FOR THAT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF NOT, UH, FOR, FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAYING NON-CONFORMING OR HAVING THAT? I, I, I GUESS I'M, I GUESS I'M CURIOUS AS TO THE THOUGHT PROCESS OF APPEALING THE DECISION VERSUS APPLYING FOR THE SUP.

FIRST OF ALL, I, MR. SCHMITT, I DON'T HOLD HIM RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY OF THIS BECAUSE HE WAS NOT AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WHEN ANY OF THIS HAPPENED. HE PICKED THIS UP IN 2025 WHEN WE DISCUSSED THE THING, AND MY UNDERSTANDING FROM OUR CONVERSATION WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL, FIRE MARSHAL, UM, WAS THAT THE, UH, CODE NO LONGER EXISTED, AND WE HAD PRESENTED A ALTERNATIVE DRIVEWAY FROM THE MARATHON THROUGH WHERE HE WANTED THE ACCESS POINT. SO REGARDLESS, THAT WAS DONE. UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT. UH, MY POINT IS FOR WE, THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR A LONG TIME, AND IT WAS EXACERBATED IN 2017 WHEN THE GAS STATION WAS REDEVELOPED WITH 3 SERVICE BAYS, 8 GAS PUMPS, AND 4,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE, INCLUDING A LIQUOR STORE, A CONVENIENCE STORE, TAKEOUT CHICKEN, AND TAKEOUT PIZZA.

NOW, YOU GUYS HAVE LOOKED AT SOME NEW GA- GAS STATIONS RECENTLY. I GOT THE OPPORTUNITY TO, I WATCHED THE ZBA MEETING ONLINE TO SEE HOW THIS PROCESS WORKED. I WATCHED SHEETZ.

GREAT.

THEY WENT THROUGH A LOT OF STUFF. I MEAN, WE'VE GOT, WE GOT, WE- WE'VE GOT A LOT OF ACTIVITY AT SOROKI'S ENTERPRISES THERE. HE'S GOT A LOT OF BUSINESSES IN VERY SMALL SPACE. BLONDIE'S HAS GOT A LOT OF BUSINESS IN A VERY SMALL SPACE. IN 2007, I DON'T KNOW WHY THE TOWNSHIP DROPPED THE BALL AND NEVER FOLLOWED THROUGH ON IT, BUT, BUT WE DIDN'T CREATE THIS PROBLEM, AND THAT IT, THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR 19 YEARS, AND NOW I'VE BEEN 9 YEARS, 9 YEARS TRYING TO INSTALL A FENCE TO PROTECT MY PROPERTY. AND I, I RESPECT YOU THAT A SPECIAL USE PERMIT'S REQUIRED, BUT IF WE HAD DRIVEWAYS GOING BACK AND MY DRIVEWAY WENT OUT THE SIDE TO THE SIDE ROAD AND YOU WANTED TO CUT ACROSS MY PROPERTY AND I DECIDED TO FENCE IT, YOU WOULD TELL ME, NO WAY, CHARLIE. SO, I MEAN, ALL I'M ASKING FOR, THERE'S ONLY 21 CARS THERE.

HOW MUCH ACCESS ISSUES CAN THERE BE THAT ACCORDING TO THE TOWNSHIP'S? AND LIKE I SAID, YOU KNOW, MR. BOND, WHO OWNS THE PROPERTY, HAS, HAS NEVER REACHED OUT TO US ABOUT GETTING IT. I THINK MR. MORGAN, THE APPLICANT, NEVER REACHED OUT TO US ABOUT IT, YOU KNOW, AND THEY JUST IGNORED IT, AND THEY'VE USED THAT PARKING FOR 19 YEARS. WE, WE SUFFER THE LIABILITY. OUR TENANTS PAY TO PLOW THE SNOW, PAY THE PROPERTY TAXES.

LIGHT IT, RESTORE IT, AND ALSO FOR THE USE OF THAT PROPERTY. I JUST, THERE'S SOME FAIR, THERE'S GOT TO BE SOME FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE IN THIS BECAUSE WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING WE'VE BEEN ASKED.

WHAT SHOULD WE HAVE DONE DIFFERENT? I, I HEAR, I, AS A, AS A APPEAL, AS A, AS A BUSINESS OWNER, I DO HEAR THAT. I THINK WHAT I'M STILL MISSING, THOUGH, IS WHY NOT JUST APPLY FOR THE SUP? I- I- DO YOU KNOW THE MASSIVE PROCESS THAT GOES THROUGH? I MEAN, THAT'S, YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE ASKING ME TO DO A LOT OF THINGS VERSUS A MINOR.

THIS WAS NOT AN EASY PROCESS EITHER.

WELL, THIS, THIS WAS NOT, BUT, BUT, BUT THERE'S, THERE'S 2 WAYS THAT THE OFFENSE IS APPROVED UNDER THE ORDINANCE. A FENCE IS A STRUCTURE. IT DOESN'T ENLARGE A BUILDING.

IT'S EITHER APPROVED BY A BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS OR IT'S APPROVED BY A MINOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT.

THAT'S GENERALLY TRUE.

REMEMBER.

I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON, WHAT, WHAT, 30 YEARS, IT SEEMS, MAYBE EVEN LONGER. LIKE, WHAT IS THE TYPICAL PROCESS FOR, UH, THE SPECIAL USE PER- PERMIT? IS IT 6 MONTHS? IS IT A YEAR? IS IT 2 MONTHS? DO WE NOT KNOW? 3 MONTHS.

I- SO TO, UH, TO HER POINT, LIKE, WHAT'S REALLY PREVENTING YOU FROM APPLYING THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT? WHAT, WHAT IS THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR? IT- WHAT, WHAT, WHAT IS THE PURP- WHAT IS IT TO APPROVE THE FENCE, OR IS IT TO APPROVE THE BUILDINGS BEING 25,000 SQUARE FEET? HERE'S, HERE'S WHERE I'M KIND OF GETTING HUNG UP IN A SENSE TOO, LIKE, WE'RE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE 2,500 SQUARE, OR EXCUSE ME, 25, UM,

[01:05:01]

LIKE, IF YOU'RE BUILDING SOMETHING TO PREVENT THAT TRAFFIC FLOW THAT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR 50-PLUS YEARS, LIKE, IT, IT ADVERSELY AFFECTS EVERYTHING AROUND, UM, THE SHOP TOWN, AND IN TERMS OF GETTING ONTO THE ROADS, IT, IT, YOU KNOW, AS, UH, AS THEY POINTED OUT, THE, THE PEDESTRIANS WALKING AROUND BLONDIE'S AND TRUCKS GOING IN AND OUT, IT JUST CREATES A, A REALLY, REALLY TIGHT SPACE WHEN, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST KIND OF ALREADY BEEN WHAT IT IS, AND LIKE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE CHANGING IT RIGHT NOW, YOU'RE TRYING TO CHANGE IT BY ADDING A FENCE THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS BEING CHANGED IN THE STRUCTURE OF THE ENTIRE LOT. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE MY HEAD IS KIND OF MOVING RIGHT NOW. LIKE, IT'S NOT JUST THE BUILDING, BUT JUST WHAT HAS BEEN BUILT ON THE PROPERTY.

WHAT, WHAT WAS BUILT THERE FROM 1966 ON THE PROPERTY, AND, AND, YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T KNOW WHY, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT SHOULD WE HAVE DONE DIFFERENT? I MEAN, WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO DO THIS FOR YEARS, AND WHEN SOMEBODY SAID TO, TELLS US THAT WE CAN'T DO SOMETHING, WE'VE COMPLIED, YOU KNOW? WE COULD HAVE JUST, I MEAN, LITERALLY, IT WAS LIKE, "YEAH, YOU CAN PUT THE FENCE UP.

WELL, WAIT A MINUTE, I TALKED TO MARK. HE'D LIKE TO LOOK AT THE SITE VISION AND THE FIRE." THERE, THERE ARE FOUR REQUIREMENTS FOR PUTTING THAT FENCE UP, WHICH IS A, WHICH IS A USE PERMITTED BY RIGHT. I SHOULD BE LETTING HER TALK. SHE'S A LOT SMARTER THAN I AM, AND SHE'S A LOT PRETTIER, AND I'M PAYING HER TO BE HERE.

BUT DARN IT, I'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR A LONG TIME. I MEAN, I'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR A LONG, LONG TIME. WE'VE OWNED IT FOR 41 YEARS. WE'VE TAKEN CARE OF IT. YOU KNOW, THE S- ONE NEXT DOOR TO US HAD TO GET TORN DOWN BECAUSE IT DIDN'T WORK.

WE WORKED HARD TO KEEP OUR TENANTS THROUGH HARD TIMES AND GOOD TIMES, AND WE'RE 100% FULL.

ALL RIGHT.

I DON'T, I DON'T.

MR. WICKENS, I THINK- I'M GONNA GO TO I THINK MEMBER TREZISE.

THE PROBLEM WITH, THAT WE'RE FACING IS THIS PARTICULAR PROVISION OF THE ORDINANCE ANTICIPATES AN SUP BEING GRANTED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING OVER 25,000 SQUARE FEET.

RIGHT.

CORRECT.

IT REALLY IS DIFFICULT TO ADDRESS A BUILDING THAT'S IN EXISTENCE THAT DIDN'T REQUIRE THE SUP PRIOR TO THAT IS MY WHOLE POINT.

BUILDING, AND IT IS YOUR POINT, AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE TO GO WITH THAT SO BECAUSE HERE'S, HERE'S MY, HERE'S MY QUESTION. IF YOU, IN RETROSPECT, CANNOT, CANNOT SEEK OR HAVE A, AN APPLICANT SEEK AN SUP FOR A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING, MM-HMM.

DOES THAT ALLOW THAT PROPERTY OWNER TO MAKE, MAKE CHANGES AND IMPROVEMENTS OR ADD STRUCTURES OR BUILD THERE WITHOUT ANY I WOULDN'T REAL SAY NO.

GUARDRAILS? WHAT ARE THE GUARDRAILS? CAN, CAN I SAY SOMETHING? AT THAT POINT, IF THEY'RE MODIFYING THE BUILDING, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GET AN SUP BECAUSE IT'S BUILDING ON TO THE 25,000.

OKAY, SO.

AND I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THIS ONE.

OKAY.

THIS IS NOT PUTTING ON SOMETHING ON THE BUILDING.

THE REASON FOR THE 25,000-SQUARE-FOOT LIMIT IS TO ALLOW THE TOWNSHIP AND ULTIMATELY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, BECAUSE THIS IS ONE OF THOSE SUPS THAT CANNOT STOP.

EXACTLY, YES.

TO LOOK AND SEE WHAT IS THE IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING AREA.

RIGHT.

RIGHT. IF, AND, AND WE'RE NOT AT THE FENCE.

YEAH.

BUT ON THE BUILDING.

ON THE BUILDING. IF WE'RE RIGHT NOW LOOKING AT THIS AS THE BUILDING, I CAN SEE THE APPLICANT'S POINT THAT AN SUP REALLY DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE FOR THE 25,000-SQUARE-FOOT BUILDING.

EVEN THEY GOT AN SUP.

WELL, THE SUP BEFORE, EVEN ACCEPTING MR. SCHMITT'S OPINION THAT IT APPLIED ONLY TO THE DRIVE-THROUGH WINDOW.

THE DRIVE-THROUGH WINDOW.

RIGHT.

THEY SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN BOTH OF THEM AT THE SAME TIME. THEY DID NOT. THAT'S NOT HIS FAULT.

HE WASN'T REQUIRED TO DO SO.

RIGHT.

UM, BUT WHAT GETS PROBLEMATIC IS WE KNOW THE RAMIFICATIONS IF HE GETS, IF HE'S APPROVED TO GO FORWARD, THEN IT'S A SIMPLE FENCE BY RIGHT THAT HAS RAMIFICATIONS

[01:10:01]

MR. NAHUM MENTIONED, AS WELL AS THE BUSINESS AT BLONDIE'S, WHICH IS ALSO A NON-CONFORMING USE RIGHT.

BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE THE PARKING SPOTS NEEDED.

RIGHT.

SO I, I DON'T KNOW WHERE TO GO WITH THIS.

YEAH. YEAH, I CAN, I, I CAN SEE WHY, WELL, I CAN SEE THE DECISION THAT WAS MADE, AND YEAH, THE, I UNDERSTAND THIS. IT'S NOT, THIS IS NOT, THIS IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE.

THIS IS, THIS IS VERY GRAY-AREA ORDINANCE. YES.

UM, DIRECTOR SCHMITT, CAN YOU MAYBE IN A SEPARATE TAB AGAIN PULL UP 472, THE OTHER REFERENCE TO, UM, THE SUP NEED? SORRY. UM, PART OF THE REASON I'M ASKING DIRECTOR SCHMITT TO DO THAT IS, SO THE OTHER, THE, UM, NO, IT DIDN'T DO WHAT I WANTED.

THE 86-472 SAYS THAT BUILDINGS GREATER THAN 25,000 FEET REQUIRE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, NOT AT CONSTRUCTION, BUT THEY, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THEY NEED. UM, AND SO IT SAYS AS PROVIDED BY 658, RIGHT.

WHICH TALKS CONSTRUCTION, SO.

RIGHT.

YEAH. SO TAX CODE.

YEAH.

OKAY, YEAH, BECAUSE MY READING SEE HERE. NOW SEE HERE. WAIT, WHICH ONE IS IT? BECAUSE, BECAUSE MY THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG, GUYS? YEAH, SO MY READING OF IT IS, UM, THE, THERE ARE CERTAIN ACTIONS THAT CAN TRIGGER, YOU KNOW, A SITE PLAN REVIEW, COULD TRIGGER A, UM, LOOKING AT IF AN SUP IS REQUIRED, AND ONE OF THOSE TRIGGERS, AND I- I WAS TRYING TO FIND IT IN THE ORDINANCE, BUT I CAN'T, BUT IS, YOU KNOW, CHANGES TO THE SITE PLAN IN WAYS THAT, UM, UM, LIKE I WOULD THINK BUILDING A FENCE WOULD BE ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT WOULD CAUSE THE TOWNSHIP TO LOOK AND SEE, YOU KNOW, IS EVERYTHING, UM, CORRECT, AND, YOU KNOW, AND- AND THAT'S, I PRESUME WHAT HAPPENED HERE IS THAT THAT WAS WHEN WE FOUND, "OKAY, AN SUP DOESN'T EXIST FOR THIS LOT." YEAH.

UM, AND I DON'T THINK THE SOLUTION IS TO PERPETUALLY SAY, "WELL, WE DIDN'T DO THIS AT THE FIRST AVAILABLE OPPORTUNITY; YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO NEED AN SUP," AND, UM, YEAH.

AND I WOULD SAY THAT, ONCE AGAIN, THE PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE HERE IS TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE, UM, ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED MM-HMM.

ARE HEARD BY THE APPROPRIATE BODY, BECAUSE, LIKE, WE'RE NOT THE APPROPRIATE BODY TO DECIDE WHAT IS THE PARKING SITUATION, WHAT'S FAIR, UM, BUT THE PURPOSE OF THE SUP IS TO PROVIDE THAT HEARING, UM, AND SO THAT SEEMS TO ME THAT BE A CLEAR REASON WHY, UM, THE ORDINANCE WERE WRITTEN IN THIS WAY TO SAY, "HEY, BUILDINGS OF THIS LIFE SHOULD HAVE AN SUP, AND, UM, CHANGES TO THE SITE PLAN SHOULD BE REVIEWED, UM, APPROPRIATELY." SO I WOULD SAY THE BEST WAY TO ALLOW THEM TO BUILD THEIR FENCE AND STUFF LIKE THAT IS TO HAVE THE, THE APPROPRIATE HEARINGS TAKE PLACE. YEAH.

NUMBER K.

MR. SCHMITT, SORRY I KEEP GOING BACK TO YOU.

PLEASE.

IN YOUR EMAIL ON DECEMBER 10TH, UM, YOU PUT A LINE IN THERE AND SAID, "THAT ASIDE, THE FIRE MARSHAL IS STILL UNABLE TO APPROVE THE CHANGE." WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT? SO AT THE TIME, UH, WE WERE STILL REVIEWING IT SIMILAR TO THE WAY, UH, IT HAD BEEN REVIEWED IN THE 2019, 2017, THAT ERA. UM, UPON FURTHER INVESTIGATION, WHEN THE, THE DRAIN COMMISSIONER PURCHASED THE SOUTHERN TIP OF THE PROPERTY YEAH.

AND TORE DOWN THE STRUCTURE THAT WAS ON THAT PROPERTY, RIGHT.

THAT ACTUALLY CHANGED THE MATH UNDER THE FIRE CODE. IT'S NOT THAT THERE WAS EVER A QUESTION.

THE FIRE CODE ABSOLUTELY APPLIED, AND THE FIRE CODE ABSOLUTELY SAID YOU COULD NOT DO THIS.

RIGHT.

WHAT HAPPENED WAS WHEN THAT BUILDING TORE- WAS TORN DOWN, THE EXITING DISTANCE FROM THE, UH, ESSENTIALLY THE FURTHEST POINTS OF THE PROPERTY WERE SMALL, SMALL ENOUGH THAT AT THAT POINT THEN THE FIRE CODE NO LONGER FORMALLY REQUIRED THAT EASTERN OR WESTERN ACCESS TO REMAIN OPEN. THE TWO ACCESSES OFF OF HASLETT ROAD COULD SUFFICE DUE TO THE REMOTENESS OF THE STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY AT THAT POINT.

AH.

SO AS OF THIS, AS OF THAT EMAIL, WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION YET.

SO THINGS HAVE CHANGED.

YES.

SO YEAH.

YEAH.

AND I HAVE A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION YEP, GO FOR IT.

MR. WICKENS. SO YOU HAD MENTIONED EARLIER THAT PARKING AGREEMENT WAS NEVER GRANTED.

THAT IS CORRECT.

HAS ONE EVER BEEN INTRODUCED OR REQUESTED? I, A COUPLE OF MINOR CONVERSATIONS, BUT NOTHING, NOTHING FORMAL. I WAS NEVER, IN 2007, WE WERE NEVER ADVISED OF ANYTHING UNTIL AUGUST 7TH, AN EMAIL FROM MARTHA WYATT THAT THERE WAS, THAT THEY HAD A TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY THAT HE HAD, THEY'D EXTENDED, AND THAT WAS REQUIRING. I ASKED HER FOR SOME INFORMATION. I CAN PROVIDE YOU THOSE EMAILS. THEY WERE

[01:15:03]

THEY'RE ITEMS C THROUGH H. I THINK YOU CAN READ THEM THERE, UM, IF YOU LOOK THROUGH THERE. UM, HERE'S MY QUESTION. YOU KNOW, WE, WE DON'T DISAGREE THAT IF WE EXPAND A BUILDING THAT WE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO GET A SUP ABOVE 25,000 FEET. WE COULDN'T GET A SUP PRIOR TO THAT BECAUSE IT WASN'T A REQUIREMENT. WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING IS CLEARLY COVERED UNDER THE ORDINANCE.

WE'RE NOT OUTSIDE THE ORDINANCE. WE CAN JUST DO WHAT WE WANT. WE HAVE TO EITHER GET A SITE PLAN MODIFICATION OR A BUILDING PERMIT. WE'RE, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING. I, I, AGAIN, I'M AT A LOSS AT WHAT WE SHOULD DO DIFFERENT BECAUSE WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING WE'VE BEEN ASKED TO DO. WE FOLLOWED IT, AND PROBABLY THE REASON THAT THE SITE, THE 25,000 FOOT WASN'T REQUESTED BEFORE WAS BECAUSE WE WERE, WE WERE GRANDFATHERED IN, WHATEVER WORD YOU WANT TO USE. UM, I, I CAN'T GET A PERMIT WHEN THE, IT DIDN'T EXIST IN THE CODE.

SO, UH, I, I THINK, YOU KNOW, GO AHEAD.

YEAH, MEMBER.

WELL, I WAS JUST GOING TO BUILD OFF MY LAST QUESTION TO YOU, AND THAT'S IF... I KNOW THEY'RE NOT THE, THEY'RE NOT THE PROPERTY OWNER, THEY'RE THE, THEY'RE THE BUSINESS OWNER, BUT IF THE PROPERTY OWNER CAME TO YOU AND SAID, OKAY, I WANT TO WORK WITH YOU AND I WANT TO DO A PARKING AGREEMENT, YOU KNOW, EVEN IF IT'S THAT SECTION RIGHT THERE ACROSS FROM THE, UH, RIGHT BEHIND THAT THE HEALTH PLACE OR WHATEVER.

YEAH.

I MEAN, I'LL BE HONEST, I'VE BEEN GUILTY, WIFE AND I, WE'VE BEEN GUILTY OF PARKING THERE WHEN BLONDIE'S IS UNDERSTAND.

AND I SEE THE SIGN THERE SAYING "SHOPTOWN PARKING," AND I WENT, "WELL, I'LL TAKE MY CHANCE.

THEY COME TELL ME, THEN I'LL, YOU KNOW, I'LL PAY THE FINE. I'LL GO, YEAH, OK." UM, SO I'M GUILTY OF THAT, AND A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE. I CAN'T BELIEVE I JUST PUT THAT ON THE RECORD.

WELL, SHE SAID, "NO, YOU'RE NOT. NO, YOU—" YEAH, SHE'S GOING, "NO, I'M NOT," BUT, YEAH, YEAH, YEAH, YEAH, WE ARE.

SHE'S NOT TAKING CREDIT FOR THAT.

IF THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT TOOK PLACE, IF THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS WILLING TO COME WITH YOU AND WORK WITH YOU AND SAY, "HEY, NOW, NOW'S THE TIME. I DON'T KNOW WHY FOR THE PAST 19 YEARS WE HAVEN'T COME TO YOU AND GOTTEN A PARKING AGREEMENT. NOW LET'S WORK AND GET THIS PARKING AGREEMENT TO WHERE IT WOULDN'T NECESSITATE HAVING THAT FENCE." WOULD THAT STILL REQUIRE YOU, OR, OR WOULD YOU STILL REQUIRE HAVING THAT FENCE IF A PARKING AGREEMENT WAS IN PLACE? THE, THE AMOUNT OF ACTIVITY THAT'S BEEN APPROVED RECENTLY IN THE SIROKI THING AND THE BLONDIE'S THING, AND THE SIZE OF OUR OPERATION, THE OUR TENANTS AT CARELINC AND DOLLAR TREE, THE CLOSEST THERE.

I DON'T HAVE ANY PARKING TO GIVE THEM. I DON'T HAVE ANY PARKING TO LEASE TO THEM. THE OTHER PROBLEM I HAVE IS THAT WE HAVE LEASE RESTRICTIONS. WE HAVE FERNANDO'S CAFE THAT'S BEEN THERE SINCE 1996. I THINK YOU'LL SEE OUR VARIANCE IN THAT PACKET OF INFORMATION THAT I GAVE TO YOU THAT MARTHA WYATT PROVIDED TO US.

FOR A RESTAURANT.

WHEN WE, WHEN THE RESTAURANT WENT IN THERE, WE CAME TO THE ZBA AND GOT A VARIANCE AND GOT OUR APPROVALS. WHY? I, I SYMPATHIZE WITH HIM, BUT WHY HIS LANDLORD NEVER GOT THE APPROVAL, WHY THEY NEVER FOLLOWED THROUGH, WHY THE TOWNSHIP NEVER FOLLOWED THROUGH, THOSE ARE THINGS WELL, WELL BEYOND MY CONTROL, WELL BEYOND MY CONTROL.

UNFORTUNATELY, RIGHT NOW, THE TENANTS WE'VE GOT IN, WE DON'T HAVE ANY PARKING TO LEASE TO THEM IF I WANTED TO. I'VE GONE 19 YEARS. IF I LEASE SPACES TO THEM FOR WHATEVER, WHEN YOU WANT PARKING THAT CLOSE, AT 50 BUCKS APIECE FOR 25, IT'D BE 1,200. I MEAN, THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT THEY'D OWE US WOULD BE IN OVER 100,000 DOLLARS FOR JUST A REASONABLE WHAT, WHAT THE GOING RATE IS FOR LEASE AND PARKING. I THAT I, I NEED TO PROTECT MY PROPERTY. THE, THE PARKING INCOME DOESN'T HELP US. SO WE'VE, WE'VE TRIED. I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO DO, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE WE SHOULD HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY.

HOW OFTEN DOES YOUR PARKING LOT GET FULL? GOOD QUESTION.

IN THAT AREA? FOR THAT SHOP TOWN.

WELL, THE WHOLE SHOP TOWN DOESN'T GET FULL, BUT THE PARKING THAT, THAT, THAT THE PARKING THAT'S PROBABLY NOT FULL IS FURTHER AWAY. IT'S ON, IT'S, IT'S ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. WHERE RIGHT THERE, IF YOU LOOK, WE'VE GOT CARELINC AT 9,600 FEET AND DOLLAR TREE AT 11,400 FEET, AND THOSE ARE OUR TWO BIGGEST, BUSIEST TENANTS.

NEVER BEEN.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH PEOPLE PARKING THERE AND JUST WALKING OVER? THEY WALK A QUARTER MILE IN MEIJER.

WELL, UH, THAT D- BUT YOU KNOW WHAT? THAT'S WISHFUL THINKING.

IS IT, THOUGH? PEOPLE PARK AS CLOSE AS THEY CAN PARK. IF THEY'RE, IF YOU, IF THEY THINK THEY CAN PARK THERE, THEY'RE GOING TO PARK AS CLOSE AS THEY CAN PARK. I- AND, AND I, I HEAR YOU ON THAT, BUT LIKE IF THE CLOSEST PARKING SPOT IS AN EXTRA 100 FEET AWAY.

THE PROBLEM IS THEY COME IN IN THE MORNING AND PARK, AND THEN WHEN, WHEN WE START GETTING BUSY, THERE'S CARS PARKED IN OUR SPOTS ALREADY. UH, IT, IT DOESN'T WORK FOR US.

AND THEN THEY LEAVE? WELL.

LIKE, I, I'M NOT TRYING TO DEFEND ANYONE BEING THERE, BUT LIKE, WHAT I, I DON'T, I DON'T SEE WHAT BUILDING THE FENCE SOLVES TOO, BECAUSE IF SOMEONE WANTS TO GO TO, SAY, WHAT IF THEY WANT TO GO FOR A WALK ON THE TRAIL, RIGHT, ACROSS THE STREET? IF THEY PARK IN THAT SHOP TOWN, LIKE, WHAT'S PREVENTING THE FENCE FROM JUST WALKING AROUND.

YEAH, WALKING AROUND IT, LIKE IN YEAH.

WELL, IT'S KIND OF LET ME JUST

[01:20:01]

IT'S, IT'S, IT'S ABOUT THE PARKING. IT'S NOT ABOUT THE WALKING; IT'S ABOUT PARKING.

WELL, IT'S ABOUT BOTH.

YOUR, YOUR, YOUR PROPERTY, USING YOUR PROPERTY FOR YOU VERSUS WHAT'S, WHAT'S HAVING ANYBODY ELSE PARK ON IT.

I, YEAH.

THE OTHER QUESTION IS SO WHY WOULD YOU GIVE PRIORITY TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY RIGHT.

FROM THE RESTAURANT THAT'S TAKING POSITIONS THAT HIS CLIENTS OR CUSTOMERS ARE USING.

CUSTOMERS ARE YEAH.

LOOKING FOR CLOSER TO THOSE, I MEAN. SO, I MEAN, THERE IS NO EASY ANSWER TO THIS, FRANKLY.

YEAH. YEAH.

I WOULD THINK THAT IF AN SUP WAS APPLIED FOR, IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO TURN DOWN ON A BUILDING THAT'S ALREADY THERE AND IT'S BEEN THERE FOR 50 YEARS.

YEAH. I, I, AND I, I THINK I GO BACK TO, AND, AND I VERY MUCH HEAR THE CASE THAT MEMBER KOENIG MADE FOR, UM, THE NON-CONFORMING ASPECTS THAT MISS WILBUR BROUGHT UP AND WHY THAT'S AN ISSUE IN APPLYING AN SUP. I GET HUNG UP ON THE REASON FOR THE SUP AND WHY THAT WOULD BE REALLY IMPORTANT IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS THAT IS, HAS ALREADY HAS A, A LOT OF HISTORICAL, UM, CHALLENGES, HAS A LOT OF, UM, A LOT OF IMPLICATIONS TO THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY, NOT JUST, NOT JUST SHOPTOWN, BUT THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY. I, MY CONCERN IS THAT WITHOUT AN SUP, THIS IS, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT RESOLVING THE PROBLEM THAT'S BEEN CREATED HERE. SO I- CAN I ASK WHAT ORDINANCE THE SUP WOULD BE REQUIRED UNDER? QUESTION FOR THAT'S DIRECTOR SCHMITT.

STAFF STILL ABSOLUTELY BELIEVES THAT THE SUP IS REQUIRED UNDER 86, UH, 472, AS WE POINTED OUT IN OUR MEMO.

IT IS, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE FENCE ITSELF IS A STRUCTURE THAT EXTENDS A STRUCTURE THAT IS ON THE PROPERTY. THAT'S, THAT'S HOW I'M READING THE STAFF INTERPRETATION OF THAT.

IT, IT, IT TALKS ABOUT BUILDINGS. I DON'T SEE THE WORD STRUCTURE.

I, I THINK ANY CHANGE TO THE PROPERTY IS WHAT IT, WHAT I, WHAT I'M HEARING. I AM, AM I SO BY MYSELF? DOES THIS, LIKE, DISREGARD ALL OF 619 THEN? 619.

619. 619.

NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES AND WHAT YOU CAN DO AND NOT DO ON THE PROPERTY.

I, I... UM, NO, OBVIOUSLY NOT. IT HAS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF NON-CONFORMING.

19, YEAH.

BUT THE, THE KIND, LIKE, HISTORICALLY, IF YOU'RE NON-CONFORMING, YOU DON'T CHANGE, RIGHT? BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE. SO IF, IF THE IDEA NOW IS THAT WE CAN CHANGE A NON-CONFORMITY AS LONG AS WE'RE NOT TOUCHING THE VERY HYPER-SPECIFIC THING THAT WE THINK IS THE NON-CONFORMITY, THEN.

WELL, MICHIGAN LAW LIMITS IT TO THE ACTUAL NON-CONFORMITY; THE SPECIFIC ITEM CAN'T APPLY TO THE WHOLE LOT. IT PREEMPTS THE ORDINANCE IF IT TRIES TO.

SO WE HAVE ONE THAT SAYS THE NON-CONFORMITY IS BUILDING, AND THEN AN OVERALL DECISION THAT BECAUSE THERE'S THIS BUILDING HERE, AN SUP IS REQUIRED FOR A BUILD AS OF RIGHT.

YEAH, THIS IS THE UNIQUE THING ABOUT THIS, THIS PROVISION. I MEAN, I IT KIND OF ADVOCATED THE ORDINANCE I'VE ADVOCATED FOR REPEALING THIS PROVISION.

CHANGING, YEAH.

UH, THE 25,000 SQUARE FEET BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT IS GREAT IN MODERN TIMES, BUT THE FACT IS IT EXISTED AND RIGHT.

PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN TRIGGERED AT LEAST 4 TIMES, UH, THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY OF THIS PROPERTY.

ME TOO.

UM, GIVEN OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE TOWNSHIP WHICH VERY CLEARLY HAD 2 SUPS RUNNING AT THE SAME TIME.

YEAH.

IF IT WAS GREATER THAN 25,000 AND THERE WAS ANOTHER SUP, THEY RAN THEM BOTH AT THE SAME TIME. THIS IS ONE OF THE FEW I FOUND WHERE THEY DIDN'T DO THAT.

YEAH.

AND I DON'T KNOW WHY.

YEAH. WELL, GENTLEMEN, DO WE HAVE MORE QUESTIONS, THOUGHTS, OR CONCERNS? I MEAN, I HAVE LOTS OF THEM. I HAVE LOTS OF QUESTIONS. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S GOING TO BE MORE HELPFUL IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE I THINK I'M JUST GETTING MORE CONFUSED.

ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY WANT TO DISCUSS A MOTION? BECAUSE WE

[01:25:06]

CAN I MAKE A QUICK COMMENT? JUST A COMMENT.

YEAH.

THERE IS A PROVISION WHEN YOU'RE DOING A MINOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT TO HAVE A TRAFFIC STUDY IN THE ORDINANCE.

MM-HMM.

WE'D BE HAPPY TO DO THAT.

AND THERE IS SITE PLAN APPROVAL ON THIS PROPERTY.

YES, THERE'S SEVERAL.

YEAH.

THERE WAS ONE RECENTLY, 19, 2019, 12, UH, SITE PLAN APPROVAL? DOESN'T MEET THE STANDARDS OF THE ORDINANCE. SITE PLAN IS COMPLETELY, IS IS NON-DISCRETIONARY.

OKAY.

IF IT MEETS THE HEIGHT, AREA, BULK REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE LISTED IN THE ORDINANCE FOR THAT ZONING DISTRICT, SITE PLAN'S APPROVED.

AND YOU HAVE TO APPROVE IT, CORRECT? ABSOLUTELY. IT'S A MINI- IT'S A MINISTERIAL DECISION IF IT MEETS ALL THE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS.

ALL RIGHT. I DON'T HAVE A MOTION, SO.

I AM NOT MAKING A MOTION EITHER.

OKAY. OKAY, WE KEEP TALKING.

ALL RIGHT.

IF I MAY.

YES.

I'M JUST READING... I'M READING 619 AND NON-CONFORMING, AND JUST LIKE THE, IT SAYS, "NO EXISTING STRUCTURE DEVOTED TO NON-CONFORMING USE MAY BE ENLARGED, EXTENDED, CONSTRUCTED, RECONSTRUCTED, MOVED, OR STRUCTURALLY ALTERED." LIKE, WOULD THIS BE UNDER THE, LIKE, RECONSTRUCTED, UH, AVENUE OF THAT? LIKE, ARE WE RECONSTRUCTING THE PROPERTY IN SOME REGARD TO BUILD THIS OR ALLOW THIS CHANGE? THE ONLY THING I SEE THAT'S NON-CONFORMING IS THAT MAIN STRUCTURE BECAUSE IT DID NOT RECEIVE THAT SPECIAL USE PERMIT BEING OVER 25,000 SQUARE FEET.

SO IN MY EYES, TO BE.

THAT BUILDING IS WHAT IS THE NON-CONFORMING USE.

MM-HMM.

THE FENCE IS A TOTALLY SEPARATE THING. THAT'S WHY I ASKED DIRECTOR SCHMITT, IS THE FENCE ALSO CONSIDERED NON-CONFORMING AS A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE? BECAUSE THEN YOU COULD ARGUE, WELL, NOW YOU'RE TRYING TO EXPAND THE FENCE BY COMING THIS WAY, AND YOU CAN'T, BY READING THAT, YOU CAN'T EXPAND IT.

EXPAND THAT.

BUT I VIEW IT AS, IN MY OPINION, AND YOU MAY DIFFER, AND DIRECTOR SCHMITT MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION, THAT'S COMPLETELY FINE, BUT IN MY, MY READING AS THE NON-CONFORMITY IS PERTAINING RIGHT TO THAT 25,000, THAT 31,000-SQUARE-FOOT BUILDING BECAUSE IT DID NOT RECEIVE THE SUP.

IF IT WASN'T A NON-CONFORMING USE, THEN IT WOULD FLAT OUT BE AN ILLEGAL USE BECAUSE IT DID NOT RE- IF IT WAS BUILT AFTER 1974, IT WOULD JUST FLAT OUT BE ILLEGAL BECAUSE IT DID NOT RECEIVE THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

BUT MY EYES, BECAUSE IT WAS BUILT BEFORE THIS PROVISION WAS BUILT IN THE CODE, IT'S NON-CONFORMING AND POTENTIALLY HAS VESTED RIGHTS. THAT IS MY WHOLE ARGUMENT. HOWEVER, TO CHANGE THE BUILDING, AND THAT WOULD BE FOR THE BUILDING.

THAT WOULD BE RIGHT.

AND TO ME, THAT'S WHAT IS TRIGGERING WHAT'S THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS THE BUILDING, IS THE BUILDING.

NOT THE FENCE, THE BUILDING.

YEAH.

HOWEVER, I AM CAUGHT UP BECAUSE I DO UNDERSTAND THE REASONS, LIKE BOARD MEMBER NAHUM SAID, IS THIS IS WHY WE REQUIRE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT BECAUSE OF EVERYTHING ELSE THAT IT COULD BE IMPACTED, INCLUDING THE CIRCULATION.

BECAUSE IT'S NOT JUST AND I CAN TOTALLY UNDERSTAND WHY DIRECTOR SCHMITT WANTS TO HAVE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THIS. I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT.

YEAH.

BUT I AM, I AM CAUGHT ON THE ACTUAL LITERAL LANGUAGE OF THE CODE. THAT'S WHERE I'M CAUGHT ON.

MM-HMM.

AND I DON'T WANT TO MAKE ANY, AT THIS BOARD, I DON'T WANT TO BE THAT BOARD MEMBER THAT MAKES A MISINTERPRETATION OF THE CODE AND GET MY NAME IN THE PAPER AND EVERYTHING ELSE.

YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT MY ROLE.

THAT'S, YOU KNOW, NO OFFENSE, BUT THAT'S DIRECTOR SCHMITT'S ROLE. HE CAN SAY THAT STUFF, AND HE'S, HE'S A DIRECTOR. HE CAN GET AWAY WITH IT, BUT, UH, I, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT, BUT I'M, I'M VERY HUNG UP ON THAT NON-CONFORMING USE.

THAT'S THE TOUGH PART FOR ME.

BUT SAYING THERE IS ONE RAMIFICATION OF BEING A NON-CONFORMING USE THAT MIGHT ENCOURAGE HIM TO GET THE SUP.

IF THEY'RE A DISASTER AND MORE THAN 50% OF THE STRUCTURE IS DESTROYED, IT CAN'T BE RESTORED.

SURE.

YEAH.

ABSOLUTELY.

YEAH.

YEAH.

BUT THAT DOESN'T REALLY ADDRESS OUR ISSUE.

NO, IT DOESN'T.

OR IF THEY DECIDE TO EXPAND OR MODIFY OR WHATEVER RIGHT.

THAT 25,000-SQUARE-FOOT BUILDING, NOW DIRECTOR SCHMITT CAN REQUIRE THEM TO GET THAT SUP.

RIGHT.

I'M JUST HAVING A HARD TIME SEEING IT BASED ON WHAT THE ACTUAL SUP IS FOR, WHICH IS FOR THAT BUILDING, WHEN IN THIS CASE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. IT'S THE DEALING IS WITH THE FENCE AND WITH THE CIRCULATION, EVERYTHING ELSE WITH PUTTING UP THAT FENCE.

THAT'S WHERE I'M KIND OF CAUGHT BETWEEN MM-HMM.

A SCHMITT AND A HARD PLACE.

BUT I, I, I DON'T WANT

[01:30:01]

THAT THE APPLICANT SHOULD HAVE THIS. I CAN, I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND IT.

YEAH. YEP.

NOBODY? NOBODY'S GONNA DO IT? I MEAN, I, I, I WILL SAY, THERE'S TWO MOTIONS THAT CAN BE MADE.

THERE'S RIGHT.

YAY OR NAY. THAT'S, YEAH.

SO WHICHEVER GOES ON THE TABLE.

HE GAVE US THE LANGUAGE, THANK GOODNESS, IN RETROSPECT, GAVE US THE LANGUAGE, SO WE CAN QUOTE IT DIRECTLY FROM THERE.

YEAH.

IF SOMEBODY WAS BRAVE ENOUGH TO DO IT.

WAIT, HE, HE GAVE US THE LANGUAGE? YES.

YEP.

THERE YOU GO, PERFECT.

THERE YOU GO, THROUGH 85 PAGES TO GET TO IT.

THAT'S WHAT I STARTED TO DO, SCROLLING. HE HEARD ME SCROLLING, SO HE BEAT ME TO THE PUNCH. I'M, I'M WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION.

ALL RIGHT, LET'S, LET'S GIVE IT A GO. GO AHEAD.

UM, I MOVE TO APPROVE, UH, I'M SORRY, I MOVE TO DENY THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST AND UPHOLD THE COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION MOTION TO FIND THAT A SPECIFIC REQUEST AT HAND TO INSTALL A FENCE BETWEEN THE PROPERTY AT 5640 MARSH ROAD AND 1581 HASLETT ROAD DOES CONSTITUTE A CHANGE TO THE SITE THAT WOULD REQUIRE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT REVIEW UNDER SECTION 86-472 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION.

OKAY. I'LL SUPPORT. SO THIS IS A MOTION TO DENY THE REQUEST AND UPHOLD, UH, COMMUNITY PLANNING AND, UH, DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION. QUESTIONS, THOUGHTS, CONCERNS? ALL RIGHT.

MORE THAN I'VE ALREADY SAID.

READY TO, WE, WE, WE'VE YAPPED A LOT, AS MY TEENAGERS WOULD SAY.

WE'VE BEEN YAPPING FOR A WHILE NOW. OKAY, THIS IS A VOTE TO DENY. MEMBER TREZISE? NO.

UH, MEMBER KOENIG? NO.

MEMBER BENOIT? YES.

MEMBER NAHUM? YES.

AND THE CHAIR IS A YES. SO WE, WE SPLIT QUITE A BIT, BUT I DO, UM, AT THIS POINT WITH THAT HAS YOUR REQUEST HAS BEEN DENIED, SO THAT WOULD THEN GO BACK TO DIRECTOR SCHMITT AT COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT.

WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. I'M DISAPPOINTED IN THE RESULTS. I DON'T AGREE WITH THEM, AND, UH, AGAIN, WE'VE BEEN, UH, SUBJECTED TO ANOTHER LAYER OF REQUIREMENTS THAT ONLY WE'RE BEING HELD TO, AND THAT'S REALLY UNFORTUNATE. I WISH THERE WAS MORE FAIR AND UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT OF THE ZONING CODE OUT THERE ON THAT AREA. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MR. WICKENS. THANK YOU, MS. WILBUR. UM, AT THIS POINT, I WILL CLOSE OUR BOARD TIME AND OPEN THE FLOOR TO PUBLIC COMMENT. IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE, YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME UP TO THE PODIUM. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE, WE HAVE NO ONE

[8. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS ]

YES, MEMBER TREZISE.

I WOULD LIKE TO, PROBABLY SHOULDN'T, BUT I WILL COMPLIMENT THE SUPPORT FOR THIS DISCUSSION TONIGHT. I THOUGHT IT WAS VERY GOOD, UH, VERY IN-DEPTH AND VERY PARTICIPATORY. UM, WHETHER I AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE RESULTS IS IMMATERIAL. I THINK THE PROCESS WE USED WAS LAUDABLE.

I APPRECIATE THAT. I WOULD AGREE. I THINK IT'S, IT'S TOUGH WHEN WE HAVE VERY CHALLENGING CASES, AND WE ALWAYS DO OUR BEST TO BE THOUGHTFUL AND TAKE OUR TIME AND ASK AS MANY QUESTIONS AS WE CAN AND HAVE, UM, AS, AS MEANINGFUL AND SERIOUS A DISCUSSION AS WE POSSIBLY CAN HAVE TO MAKE THE BEST DECISIONS WE CAN MAKE. SO IT, UM, DOESN'T MEAN THAT EVERYBODY IS HAPPY WITH THOSE DECISIONS, BUT IT IS, UM, THE, THE PROCESS THAT WE GO THROUGH, THE INTEGRITY OF THE PROCESS THAT WE GO THROUGH THAT IS IMPORTANT, AND I APPRECIATE ALL OF YOU FOR PARTICIPATING, SO. DOING THE BEST THAT WE COULD. YEAH, YEAH, AND IT, IT THAT IS NOT A, THAT IS NOT CUT AND DRY. SO THAT IS, UH, AS, AS GRAY AS THEY GET. SO I APPRECIATE THE, THE THOUGHTFUL CONVERSATION AND, AND, UM, YEAH. YOU GUYS

[01:35:05]

ALL RIGHT, ON THAT NOTE, THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED AT 8:05.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.