Link

Social

Embed

Disable autoplay on embedded content?

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:31]

AND YOU ARE READY ANY TIME.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

IT LOOKS LIKE WE ARE JUST WAITING FOR MEMBER KULHANEK.

AND I'LL JUST GIVE IT ANOTHER COUPLE MOMENTS.

I'M HERE, I DON'T KNOW WHY MY CAMERA'S NOT ON.

THAT'S ALL RIGHT. WELCOME.

[Items 1 & 2]

ALL RIGHT. IT IS SIX THIRTY, SO WE WILL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.

HELLO, EVERYONE, AND WELCOME TO THE CHARTERED TOWNSHIP OF MERIDIAN.

THIS IS THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING.

TODAY IS WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 14TH.

IT IS SIX THIRTY PM.

OUR FIRST ITEM TONIGHT WILL BE TO APPROVE OUR AGENDA.

DO I HAVE A MOTION? ANYONE? I'LL MOVE.

SECOND. OK, I HAVE A MOTION FROM MEMBER HENDRICKSON AND SUPPORT FROM MEMBER WISINSKI.

AND LET'S SEE, I'VE GOT-- SORRY, LIKE TO MAKE A LITTLE NOTE OF WHO I HAVE SO I CAN JUST GO THROUGH FOR ALL OF OUR-- OH, AND MEMBER SHORKEY IS WITH US TODAY TOO.

HI, MEMBER SHORKEY. HI, THANK YOU.

OK, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON OUR APPROVAL TO OR RATHER MOTION TO APPROVE OUR AGENDA. LET'S SEE.

MEMBER HENDRICKSON.

YES. MEMBER WISINSKI.

YES. MEMBER SHORKEY.

YES.

AND MEMBER KULHANEK, IS YOUR MICROPHONE WORKING? THE CHAIR VOTES YES, AND SINCE WE I CAN'T QUITE GET THROUGH OR HEAR MEMBER KULHANEK, THE MOTION PASSES, WE CAN PASS THAT WITHOUT ALL MEMBERS, CORRECT, MARK? OK. ALL RIGHT.

[3. CORRECTIONS, APPROVAL AND RATIFICATION OF MINUTES]

MOVING ON. WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE OUR MINUTES, CORRECTIONS, ANYTHING THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS WITH THE MINUTES, OTHERWISE I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER TWENTY THIRD, TWENTY TWENTY.

I'LL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER TWENTY THIRD, TWENTY TWENTY.

A MOTION TO APPROVE.

I'LL SUPPORT.

SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER TWENTY THIRD TWENTY TWENTY.

TRUSTEE WISINSKI. YES.

CHAIR VOTES, YES.

MEMBER HENDRICKSON.

YES.

MEMBER KULHANEK, ARE YOU BACK? STILL NOT, OK.

MEMBER SHORKEY.

YEAH.

OK, THE MOTION IS APPROVED.

[4. COMMUNICATIONS]

NEXT ON OUR AGENDA WOULD BE COMMUNICATIONS, AND WE DO HAVE QUITE A FEW COMMUNICATIONS TO ADDRESS THIS EVENING OR RATHER ACKNOWLEDGE, BUT WE ARE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND WE'VE DECIDED WITH STAFF THAT WE'RE GOING TO ADDRESS THOSE WHEN WE GET TO THE INDIVIDUAL CASES SO THEY CAN BE PROPERLY ADDRESSED REGARDING THE CASE THAT THEY ARE IN REFERENCE TO.

AND WITH THAT BEING SAID, WE WILL MOVE ON TO UNFINISHED BUSINESS.

WE HAVE NO UNFINISHED BUSINESS TO ADDRESS TODAY AT TODAY'S MEETING.

[6A. ZBA CASE NO. 20-10-14-1 (Fink), 6239 West Reynolds Road, Haslett, MI, 48840]

SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO NEW BUSINESS, WHICH WOULD BE ZBA CASE NUMBER 20 DASH 10 DASH 14, DASH ONE. AND THAT IS-- FINK 6239 WEST REYNOLDS ROAD, HASLET, MICHIGAN, FOUR EIGHT EIGHT FOUR ZERO.

AND AT THAT, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO MR. CHAPMAN FOR HIS PRESENTATION.

GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. I'M GOING TO SHARE MY SCREEN WITH YOU HERE.

OK, EVERYBODY SEE THAT? OK. YES, SIR. OK, SO THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A PARKING LOT

[00:05:03]

LOCATED AT FIFTY NINE SIXTY FIVE MARSH ROAD, ALONG WITH TWO CURRENTLY VACANT LOTS.

SO. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED C1 COMMERCIAL, AND IT'S APPROXIMATELY POINT NINE FOUR ACRES IN SIZE.

THE SITE PLAN SHOWS AN EXISTING TWO THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND TWENTY SEVEN SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE WATERSHED.

AND THE APPLICANT IS INTENDING TO ADD 19 PARKING SPACES TO THE EXISTING PARKING LOT TO THE NORTH OF THE EXISTING PARKING LOT TO INCREASE THE EXISTING FORTY THREE SPACES TO 62.

AND SO THEY'RE SEEKING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION EIGHTY SIX 403 B THREE, WHICH STATES SIDE AND REAR SETBACK ADJACENT TO A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.

NO BUILDING, PARKING ACCESS DRIVES OR OTHER STRUCTURES SHALL BE LESS THAN 50 FEET FROM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.

EXCEPT A THIRTY FIVE FOOT SETBACK SHALL BE REQUIRED.

IF A SCREEN IS COMPRISED OF A DOUBLE ROW OF INTERLOCKING TREES OR THE EQUIVALENT IS PROVIDED IN ADDITION TO THE NORMAL LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS.

AND SO HERE IS A SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS THE PROPOSED PARKING LOT TO THE NORTH.

SO IN 2009, THERE WAS A VARIANCE GRANTED THAT ALLOWED THE CURRENTLY EXISTING FORTY THREE PARKING SPACES AND AT THE TIME THERE WAS SEVENTY FIVE REQUIRED FOR THE RESTAURANT.

IN SECTION EIGHTY SIX SEVEN FIFTY FIVE OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE STATES THAT RESTAURANTS MUST PROVIDE ONE PARKING SPACE FOR EACH SEVENTY FIVE SQUARE FEET OF USABLE FLOOR AREA, PLUS ONE FOR EVERY FOUR SEATS OR ONE FOR THIRTY SEVEN AND A HALF SQUARE FEET OF USABLE FLOOR AREA, WHICHEVER IS GREATER.

SO THE ADDITION OF THE 19 NEW PARKING SPACES, THE [INAUDIBLE] IS STILL THIRTEEN SPACES SHORT OF THAT REQUIRED SEVENTY FIVE.

SO A VARIANCE IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES.

AND THE NEW PARKING LOT IS PROPOSED TO BE 15 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE NORTH.

THOSE PARCELS ARE CURRENTLY ZONED RB SINGLE FAMILY HIGH DENSITY.

AND LIKE I SAID BEFORE, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO BE SETBACK 50 FEET FOR PARKING LOTS FOR MANY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY UNLESS IT'S SCREENED.

THEN IT GETS THIRTY FIVE FEET.

SO A LITTLE HISTORY, IN TWENTY NINETEEN, THE TOWNSHIP BOARD INITIATED A REZONING OF THOSE PARCELS TO THE NORTH, WHICH I'LL SHOW YOU A MAP OF IN A SECOND.

THOSE WERE ORIGINALLY ZONED C1 COMMERCIAL ALONG WITH THE PROPERTIES THAT WE'RE GOING OVER TODAY. AND THIS WOULD HAVE ALLOWED A 15 FOOT SETBACK FOR THE PARKING LOT.

SO THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THE PARKING LOT TO BE 15 FEET FROM THE RESIDENTIAL ZONE PARCELS TO THE NORTH, WHICH REQUIRES A VARIANCE OF THIRTY FIVE FEET.

SO THIS WAS THE PREVIOUS ZONING PRIOR TO THAT REZONING IN TWENTY NINETEEN.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

IF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECIDES TO APPROVE THE REQUEST, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT COMBINE THE THREE PARCELS INTO ONE.

AND HERE ARE SOME PHOTOS OF THE SITE.

THAT'S IT. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

OK, THANK YOU, MR. CHAPMAN. IS THERE A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE APPLICANT THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE TONIGHT? AND IF SO, YOU CAN LET YOURSELVES BE KNOWN AND I WILL NEED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD PLEASE BEFORE YOU START TALKING WITH US.

THANK YOU. YES.

CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, MR. RUSSELL. OK, IF YOU WOULD JUST GIVE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. IT'S MY FIRST ZOOM.

SO FORGIVE ME HERE.

MY NAME IS ALAN RUSSELL.

I RESIDE AT ONE SIX NINE ZERO [INAUDIBLE] HASLET.

[00:10:02]

I AM A RETIRED BUILDER AND DEVELOPER IN THE AREA AND I'M ASSISTING THE FINK FAMILY IN THIS CASE AS I'VE HELPED THEM IN THE PAST.

ONCE WHEN WE DID THE DECK ON THE BACK OF THE BUILDING AFTER A NUMBER OF YEARS WITH PRIOR OWNERS AND PRIOR APPLICATIONS NOT PASSING AND WE GOT THROUGH AND MORE RECENTLY, PUTTING THE NEW ROOF ON THE BUILDING REQUIRED A VARIANCE BECAUSE THE SETBACK WAS NOT APPROPRIATE.

AND IF YOU'LL INDULGE ME PATTING MY OWN BACK IN THAT HEARING, SOMEONE ASKED, WHY IS THE BUILDING TOO CLOSE? NOT MEANING THE SETBACK.

AND MY ANSWER WAS, I BELIEVE OVER THE YEARS, [INAUDIBLE] MOVED CLOSER TO THE BUILDING RATHER THAN THE BUILDING CLOSER TO THE ROAD, [INAUDIBLE] AND WE GOT IT DONE.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN PROVIDE ANY LAUGHS TONIGHT, BUT I'LL TRY TO REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF MY CLIENTS.

AND ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS AND MAYBE PROVIDE A LITTLE INSIGHT OF MY OWN.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR LISTENING.

MY INTRODUCTION. IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD TO THE CASE OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO JUST WAIT AND LET THE BOARD COME TO YOU WITH THEIR QUESTIONS? WELL, I CAN KIND OF GO BOTH WAYS, BUT I WANT TO ADDRESS SOMETHING THAT OCCURRED.

AND TRUST ME, HEARING IS NOT MY LONG SUIT.

BUT I THOUGHT I HEARD THAT WE WERE LOOKING JUST IN THE LAST DIALOG AT A 35 FOOT DIFFERENTIAL, ABOUT TWENTY FIVE FEET DIFFERENTIAL THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR FROM THE 15 TO THE 40. SO IF I HEARD IT WRONG, SO BE IT OR OTHERWISE, I THINK THAT WE SHOULD CORRECT IT.

I THINK IT WAS A MR. CHAPMAN MAKING THE PRESENTATION.

HE CAN CORRECT ME.

BUT IF ANYONE ELSE HEARD IT OTHERWISE, I JUST WANTED TO REITERATE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT A 25 FOOT. AND IF YOU WANT ME TO GO ON WITH THIS, WHAT WE'RE REALLY LOOKING TOWARDS HERE IS TO REESTABLISH THE SET BACK THAT WAS THERE BEFORE THE REZONING WAS PUT IN PLACE.

AND AT THE TIME OF THE REZONING, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT MR. MANSOUR FROM THE TOWNSHIP APPROACHED MR. FINK. I'M NOT SURE IF WAS IN PERSON OR OVER THE PHONE OR WHATEVER AND INFORMED HIM THAT THEY WERE PURSUING REZONING THE PROPERTIES NEXT DOOR AND ESSENTIALLY SAID THAT THERE WOULD BE NO EFFECT ON THE PROPERTY AT THE WATERSHED.

WELL, THAT WAS TRUE UNTIL DOWN THE ROAD WHEN THE IDEA CAME UP OF DOING THE PARKING LOT AND THEN IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE CHANGE IN THE ZONING HAD CHANGED THE SET BACK. AND IT'S WHAT I CALL UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.

I DON'T THINK THAT ANYONE OVER THERE OVERTLY TRIED TO CLOUD THE ISSUE WITH MR. FINK.

I JUST THINK THAT NO ONE THOUGHT DOWN THE ROAD, WHAT IF AND WHEN IF AND WHAT DIFFERENCE WOULD IT MAKE? WELL, IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE IF YOU'RE TRYING TO LAY OUT A PARKING LOT.

YOU ONLY GOT 19 SPACES.

IF WE GO TO THE OTHER SETBACK, THEN IT'S LIKE FIVE AND NOT WORTH THE TIME OR EFFORT.

AND, YOU KNOW, IN A MARKET WHERE RESTAURANTS, TAVERNS, LOUNGES ARE CLOSING AND DYING OF LACK OF PATRONAGE, WE'VE GOT A SITUATION HERE WHERE WE'VE GOT A STRONG OPERATOR, BEEN IN BUSINESS FOR A LONG TIME, NO HISTORY OF PROBLEMS, TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE PARKING ON THEIR OWN GROUND. WE'VE ALREADY COVERED IN THE INITIAL PRESENTATION THAT THE PARKING HAS ALWAYS BEEN A LITTLE SHORT.

THIS WILL TIGHTEN THAT UP.

AND AT ONE TIME TO HELP THE PARKING SITUATION, THE WATERSHED HAD AN AGREEMENT TO USE AND PARKING ON WHEN THE FORMER AND NOW REESTABLISHED ICE CREAM PLACE WAS CLOSED.

THEY USED THAT FORCE IN THE EXPANSION AND OVERFLOW PARKING WITH PERMISSION.

BUT NOW, THANK GOODNESS WE'VE GOT A STRONG OPERATOR OVER THERE AND THAT'S A VIABLE BUSINESS ONCE AGAIN.

AND WE ALL WANT TO SEE THAT.

NOBODY WANTS TO SEE [INAUDIBLE] HAMILTON ROAD OVER HERE.

YOU KNOW, THAT'S AN AWFUL MESS.

AND HERE WE'VE GOT THE PARK ON THE ONE SIDE, WE'VE GOT QUALITY DAIRY, WHICH IS AN ESTABLISHED QUALITY BUSINESS.

THE ICE CREAM IS STRONG AND WATERSHED WOULD LIKE TO AGAIN REESTABLISH THE SETBACK THAT EXISTED BEFORE AND CLEAN UP THE TRAFFIC PATTERN A LITTLE BIT.

I BELIEVE WE'RE CLOSING THE DRIVEWAY COMING OFF OF, CAN NEVER CAN GET THE NAME RIGHT, IS

[00:15:04]

IT [INAUDIBLE] ROAD, WHATEVER IT IS ON THE SIDE THERE, WHICH IS GOING TO KEEP TRAFFIC FROM GOING THAT WAY AT ALL, THEY'LL COME IN THROUGH THE MAIN EXISTING PARKING LOT AND DRIVE THROUGH KIND OF NEXT TO WHERE THE TRASH CONTAINER AND SO FORTH IS.

NOW, IF YOU'VE BEEN OVER TO SEE THE SITE, YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A PATHWAY THERE AND THAT'LL KEEP THE TRAFFIC CONTAINED, KEEP TRAFFIC OFF OF THAT SMALL SIDE ROAD AND WITH THE NEW PLAN, AND WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY VARIANCE WHATSOEVER IN LIGHTING AND ROAD SERVICE, IN SIZE OF PARKING SPACES.

WANT TO DO IT RIGHT, AND SCREEN IT PROPERLY.

NO VARIANCES AT ALL THEY'RE ASKED FOR AND THIS WILL BE A PLUS IN THE END FOR THE NEIGHBORS. AND I WOULD POINT OUT ALSO THAT THERE ARE ONLY REALLY TWO DIRECTLY ADJACENT NEIGHBORS. ONE OF THOSE HAS SUBMITTED A LETTER.

I ASSUME IT'S IN YOUR PACKAGE.

IF NOT, I'VE GOT A COPY AND I CAN READ IT TO YOU.

IT'S ABOUT THREE SENTENCES LONG.

BUT HE SAYS THAT HE DOES NOT OBJECT TO THE EXPANSION OF THE PARKING NEXT DOOR.

AND WE DIDN'T COUNT THE NUMBER OF TIMES TO CONTACT THE OWNER OF THE OTHER RESIDENCE THAT'S DIRECTLY ON THE LOT LINE TO NO AVAIL.

AND I DID SOME CHECKING AROUND IN MY UNDERSTANDING.

SOMEBODY CORRECT ME IF THEY KNOW OTHERWISE, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE PERSON THAT OWNS THAT RESIDENCE IS GONE.

MOST OF THE TIME, MARK FINK HAS TRIED TO CONTACT HIM SEVERAL TIMES.

HE KNOWS HIM BECAUSE THE PERSON THAT LIVES IN THAT HOME ACTUALLY WORKED IN THE WATERSHED AS AN ENTERTAINER OR A COUPLE OF TIMES.

AND THAT'S OUR SUPPOSITION THAT AS A TRAVELING TROUBADOUR, HE'S TRAVELING AND WE HAVEN'T HAD ANYTHING FEEDBACK FROM HIM, BUT HE'S THE ONE THAT'S FURTHEST AWAY ANYWAY TO THE WEST, I GUESS THAT IS, AND WOULD BE AFFECTED, ESPECIALLY WITH TRAFFIC NOT COMING DOWN ON THAT SIDE ROAD ANY LONGER.

I WOULD TELL YOU, I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH ALL THE POINTS.

MR. [INAUDIBLE] FROM [INAUDIBLE] ENGINEERING AND THE RESPONSE TO THE QUESTIONS FROM STAFF I THOUGHT DID AN OUTSTANDING JOB.

I WANT TO GO BACK TO MY CATCH PHRASE FOR THIS EVENING.

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.

I DON'T THINK ANYONE MEANT TO MISLEAD MR. FINK. I DON'T THINK ANYONE INTENDED FOR THIS ACTION TO IMPEDE HIS ALREADY PLANNED USE FOR THAT PROPERTY IN THE FUTURE.

AND FRANKLY, I DON'T THINK, MARK HAD REASON TO SUSPECT THAT THERE WAS ISSUE THERE THAT WOULD IMPACT HIM. AND WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS CLOSE THE LOOP ON THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE, ALLOW THE PRIOR APPROVAL THE PRIOR SET BACK BEFORE THE ZONING WAS CHANGED AND PUT THAT 25 FEET BACK INTO PLAY AND REVIEW AND HOPEFULLY APPROVE THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS TO BE SUBMITTED BY MR. [INAUDIBLE]. AND WITH THAT, I'LL STOP RAMBLING ON AND ANSWER QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. RUSSELL, WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE, AND WE WILL CERTAINLY ASK QUESTIONS AND WE'LL LET YOU KNOW WHEN WE GET INTO OUR BOARD TIME, WE'LL BE ABLE TO ADDRESS YOU DIRECTLY.

IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS CASE OR THE APPLICANT OR ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS CASE? MR. CHAPMAN, DID YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH THOSE COMMUNICATIONS? I KNOW MR. RUSSELL HINTED ON THE ONE.

IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER-- ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS.

YOU HAVE SOMEONE RAISING THERE HAND.

I DO SEE THAT. BUT I'M GUESSING THAT THAT IS ACTUALLY SOMEBODY WITH THE SECOND CASE.

IS THAT [INAUDIBLE] IS SOMEBODY FROM THE SECOND CASE ? OK, WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK MORE ON THIS CASE ON FINK, THEN I WILL TURN IT BACK OVER TO MR. CHAPMAN IF YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THE COMMUNICATION BEFORE WE GET INTO BOARD TIME.

YES. SO THERE IS ONE LETTER IN SUPPORT FROM THE NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH, RYAN FRY.

SO. OK, THANK YOU AND ALL OF US HAVE THAT IN OUR PACKET.

ALL OF THE BOARD MEMBERS.

I DO WANT TO SAY BEFORE WE GET INTO TO BORROW TIME, JUST TO REMIND EVERYONE I BELIEVE WE HAVE MR. RUSSELL, BUT ALSO IS THERE ANOTHER REPRESENTATIVE?

[00:20:04]

MR. [INAUDIBLE], ARE YOU FROM THE-- ARE YOU ALSO WITHIN THIS CASE THAT WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS OF OR--? YOU CAN UNMUTE IF YOU WOULD LIKE.

YEAH, I AM.

I'M WORK FOR [INAUDIBLE].

I AM A CIVIL ENGINEER AND I WORK ON THE SITE PLAN, SO YEAH, I CAN HELP ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS WELL. OK, THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. IN THAT CASE, SINCE WE ARE ALL DONE WITH ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO BE COMING FROM THE APPLICANT POINT OF VIEW, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND GO TO BOARD TIME TO BEGIN OUR OWN DISCUSSION ON THAT. DO ANY OF THE MEMBERS AND JUST GO AHEAD AND SHOW YOUR HAND IF YOU'D LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION OR HAVE ANY COMMENTS? I KNOW I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, SO.

TRUSTEE WISINSKI, GO AHEAD.

I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ASK MR. CHAPMAN OR DIRECTOR KIESELBACH, CAN YOU CONFIRM THE NUMBER OF FEET SET BACK? IS IT 50 OR 40 FEET FROM THE EXISTING PROPERTY? IT IS 50 FEET.

THERE WAS A MISTAKE IN THE AGENDA AS IT WAS LISTED ORIGINALLY FOR C1'S OWN PROPERTY ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL, THE SETBACK IS 50 FEET.

THE ORDINANCE DOES ALLOW FOR A REDUCTION IF THEY'RE, TO THIRTY FIVE FEET IF THERE IS A DOUBLE ROLL OF INTERLOCKING LANDSCAPING IN THAT REQUEST.

WE HAVEN'T SEEN A LANDSCAPE PLAN.

THIS PROJECT HASN'T WENT THROUGH SITE PLAN APPROVAL YET.

SO I KNOW THE APPLICANT THOUGHT THIS WAS THE LARGEST REQUEST THEY NEEDED AND IF THEY DIDN'T RECEIVE IT, THEN THEY PROBABLY WOULDN'T MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT THIS VARIANCE.

SO IT IS A REQUEST FORM INSTEAD OF 40 FEET IF THE REQUEST IS 15 FEET WITH A 50 FOOT REQUIREMENT. SO.

THIRTY FIVE FEET. THANK YOU.

DIRECTOR KIESELBACH, JUST TO EXPAND ON THAT A LITTLE BIT, BECAUSE THAT WAS ACTUALLY ONE OF MY QUESTIONS AND WELL, FIRST I'LL ASK DIRECTOR KIESELBACH, IF THEY DO SUBMIT A SITE PLAN WITH THAT SCREENING IN PLACE, THE VARIANCE WOULD ONLY BE FOR 20 FEET.

IS THAT CORRECT? RIGHT.

OK, NOW, MR. RUSSELL, I WILL ASK YOU THEN, I'LL GO BACK AND LOOK IT BACK OVER TO THE APPLICANT SIDE OF THINGS. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU ALL ARE WILLING TO COMMIT TO? AND WE WOULD-- CAN YOU ELABORATE MORE ON WHAT THE PLAN IS THERE FOR THAT SCREENING? OR IS IT THAT YOU ARE HOPING TO GET THE VARIANCE FOR THAT ENTIRE THIRTY FIVE FEET VERSUS THE 20 FEET? WELL, I CONFESS THAT I'M CONFUSED ON THE NUMBERS.

RUSSELL. THERE WAS A MISCOMMUNICATION IN THE ACTUAL TEXT OF THE CODE.

WE WERE ALERTED TO THAT.

AND MR. CHAPMAN DID GIVE A AN UPDATE.

THAT WAS THAT WAS JUST A TYPO.

UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S NOT 40 FEET.

THAT'S THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT.

AND IT IS ACTUALLY 50 FEET.

THAT'S JUST THAT'S WHAT THE CODE ITSELF IS 50 FEET, NOT 40.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, MR. [INAUDIBLE] IS ON THE LINE WITH US AND HOPEFULLY HE'S RUN A NUMBERS IN HIS HEAD.

AND IF I KICK IT OVER TO HIM, HE WON'T KICK IT BACK.

IT'S ALWAYS BEEN OUR INTENT TO DO AN A PLUS JOB ON THE LOT [INAUDIBLE] FOR ALL THE REASONS. WE WANT TO BE FRIENDLY NEIGHBORS, WANT SEPARATION THERE.

AND I SAID EARLIER IN MY DISCUSSION THAT I BELIEVE THAT IT WAS OUR INTENT TO NOT ASK FOR ANY VARIANCE IN TERMS OF SURFACE, LIGHTING, SCREENING, LANDSCAPING.

WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY VARIANCE THERE.

THE PLANS THAT WE SUBMIT UNDER MR. [INAUDIBLE] DESIGN TEAM AND SO FORTH.

WELL, WE'RE NOT ASKING THEM TO DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT IS REQUIRED.

I'M CONFUSED ON THE DIFFERENCE IN THE FOOTAGE.

AND HOPEFULLY GREG CAN TELL US IF THIS IS GOING TO CHANGE HIS PLAN, HIS PROPOSED PLAN, WHICH HE'S GOT DONE. AND I THINK SOME DETAILS.

AND IF WE GET THE GO AHEAD FROM YOUR FOLKS TONIGHT, I'M GOING TO GUESS I'M PUTTING A FEW

[00:25:01]

WORDS IN HIS MOUTH THAT HE CAN PROBABLY HAVE IT SUBMITTED IN A WEEK AND A HALF, TWO WEEKS AND MOVE FORWARD.

THE ONLY HOLD UP IS THE APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE.

BACK TO WHAT IT WAS.

GREG AM I CLOSE THERE? YEAH, FOR SURE.

MR. [INAUDIBLE], BEFORE YOU START TALKING, CAN YOU JUST GIVE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD? BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T HAD YOU INTRODUCED BEFORE.

GREG [INAUDIBLE] TWENTY ONE SIXTEEN [INAUDIBLE] ROAD.

[INAUDIBLE].

THANK YOU, GO AHEAD. YEAH, SO I THINK WHEN WE SUBMITTED THIS, WE THOUGHT THE SETBACK, THE ORIGINAL SETBACK OR THE NEW SETBACK WAS 40 FEET INSTEAD OF 50 FEET.

ULTIMATELY, WE WANT TO GET DOWN TO THE 15 FOOT VARIANTS THAT WE-- FROM THE ORIGINAL SETBACK FROM THE RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL, THOUGH.

WHETHER WE'RE ASKING FOR THIRTY FIVE OR TWENTY FIVE, I GUESS WE'RE STILL TRYING TO GET TO THE 15 FOOT.

AS FAR AS THE SCREENING GOES WITHIN THAT 15 FOOT, IT WOULD BE UP TO MARK WHETHER HE WANTS TO PROVIDE WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, BUT I WOULD THINK WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO PROVIDE THE SCREENING LANDSCAPING THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED [INAUDIBLE].

MEMBER SHORKEY, GO AHEAD.

QUESTION FOR STAFF.

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE IN LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN WHAT IS REQUIRED AND WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR THE REDUCED VARIANCE REQUEST? OR REDUCED VARIANCE REQUIREMENT.

YOU SEE WHAT I MEAN? WHAT ARE THEY ACTUALLY REQUIRED TO PUT IN WITHOUT--? THE REQUIREMENT IN THE C1 DISTRICT IS A DOUBLE ROLL OF INTERLOCKING TREES.

TYPICALLY THEY'RE GOING TO USE MAYBE A SPRUCE, SOMETHING THAT IS GREEN YEAR-ROUND AND PROVIDES A SOLID SCREENING.

IN THE-- THAT'S UNDER THE C1 ZONE AND THEN IN THE PARKING STANDARDS, THEY PROVIDE A REQUIREMENT FOR A MINIMUM OF PLANTING NO LESS THAN THREE FEET HIGH, AND IT COULD BE A SHRUB, BUSH ANYTHING THAT GROWS TO A HEIGHT OF THREE FEET TO BUFFER THAT PARKING AREA.

SO THE STANDARD IN C1 IS A LITTLE BIT MORE INTENSE THAN THE STANDARD PARKING.

SO THEY HAVE TO DO THE DOUBLE ROW OF INTERLOCKING TREES ANYWAY? RIGHT.

THEY CAN REDUCE THAT DOWN TO THIRTY FIVE FEET BY PROVIDING THAT DOUBLE ROLL LANDSCAPING.

IF THEY DON'T DO THAT DOUBLE ROLL LANDSCAPING, THE SETBACK IS 50 FEET.

SO THE VARIANCE WOULD BE FROM THAT 50 FEET.

BUT WHAT IS THE MINIMUM LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT ANYWAY? WELL, THAT'S WHAT [INAUDIBLE].

THAT IS THE MINIMUM FOR THE C1.

THE MINIMUM IS THE DOUBLE--.

I'M SORRY, LET ME START OVER.

IF THE SETBACK IS 50 FEET AND THEY MEET THAT 50 FEET, THEN THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT IS BUSHES, SHRUBS, SOME TYPE OF PLANT MATERIAL THAT WILL GROW TO A MINIMUM OF THREE FEET IN HEIGHT ALONG THAT PARKING LOT TO BLOCK IT.

NOW THAT MAY MEAN INTERMIXING OF SOME SPRUCE OR SOME OTHER STUFF.

BUT TYPICALLY WHAT WE SEE IS SOME TYPE OF SHRUB OR BRUSH THAT IS ALONG THAT.

IF THEY WANT TO GO TO THE THIRTY FIVE FOOT STUFF BACK, THEN THE REQUIREMENT IS THIS DOUBLE ROLL OF INTERLOCKING LANDSCAPE.

OK, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. I'M SORRY.

NO, IT'S OK.

IT'S OK. WE GOT THERE, THAT'S ALL THAT MATTERS.

YEAH.

MEMBER HENDRICKSON, GO AHEAD.

OK, I DO SEE THAT WE HAVE MR. FINK ON THE CALL AS WELL.

SO I GUESS, MR. RUSSELL, ARE YOU PLANNING ON ANSWERING ALL THE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR CAN I ADDRESS SOME DIRECTLY TO MR. FINK AS WELL? WELL, MR. FINK ASKED ME TO REPRESENT THEIR INTEREST, AS I HAVE IN THE PAST.

OK. THAT'S REALLY WHY I DID THE INTRODUCTION AND I'VE KIND OF BEEN INVOLVED IN THE GIVE AND TAKE AND THE THREE OF US, GREG [INAUDIBLE] AND MARK FINK AND MYSELF ARE THE ONES TRYING TO MOVE THIS FORWARD.

AND I WOULD INTERJECT, IF I MIGHT, JUST AS LONG AS I HAVE THE MICROPHONE THAT I WAS

[00:30:04]

TRYING TO MAKE PLAIN EARLIER, OUR INTENT TO EXCEED THE SCREENING ALL ALONG THE SITE THERE . WE'VE TALKED ABOUT VARIOUS FENCING TYPES.

WE DON'T WANT LIKE TO SHINE THROUGH SHRUBS OR BUSHES OR TREES.

WE'RE ALL FOR SHRUBS AND BUSHES AND TREES.

BUT I WANT ON THE RECORD THAT WE'RE GOING TO PROPOSE SOMETHING THAT'S MORE OF A LIGHT STOPPER, IF YOU WILL, THAN THAT, WHETHER IT'S AN INTERLOCKING FENCE OR THE NEW STYLES OR AN OLD STYLE, YOU KNOW, SIX FOOT PICKET FENCE OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE.

BUT THE IDEA IS TO HAVE A LIGHT STOPPER THERE AND OUR OWN LIGHTING TO BE ON THAT PROPERTY LINE, SHINING BACK TO OUR SIDE WITH LIGHT SHRUBS, WHICH I DON'T THINK ARE REQUIRED, BUT IT KEEPS IT FROM SPILLING OUT ON THE SIDES, GOING BACK.

WE WANT TO HAVE GOOD PROPER LIGHT SEPARATION.

WE WANT TO ADD, WHETHER IT'S THE HEADLIGHTS OR THE STREETLIGHTS, PARKING LOT LIGHTS THAT WE PUT IN. WE'RE GOING TO NOT ASKING FOR A VARIANCE OR NOT ASKING FOR A VARIANCE ON THE SURFACE. WE HOPE THAT WE CAN COME TO A NUMBER TONIGHT.

AND I'M GOING TO LEAVE THAT IN GREG'S LAP ON WHAT WE NEED TO MAKE PARKING AND DRIVE WORK TOGETHER. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF BEING HERE, IS TO END UP WITH [INAUDIBLE] PARKING, WHICH WHEN THEY GOT THE PROPERTY TO BEGIN WITH, THAT WAS WHERE IT WAS HEADED.

AND AS I SAY, AND I'M GOING TO USE THE PHRASE OVER BECAUSE I LIKE IT'S GOT A GOOD CATCH PHRASE. UNINTENDED CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE COME UP, UNANTICIPATED CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE SOME OF THE SECONDARY AND TERTIARY ISSUES LIKE FENCING AND SCREENING AND SHRUBS AND BUSHES ALL [INAUDIBLE] ONCE MORE UNATTENDED AND FORESEEING CIRCUMSTANCES.

MR. RUSSELL, THINK I'M GOING TO STOP YOU THERE JUST FOR A MOMENT, BECAUSE WE AS A BOARD ARE GOING TO NEED TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE DISCUSSION TIME.

SO IF WE COULD LIMIT ANSWERS JUST TO WHAT THE BOARD MEMBERS ARE ASKING, THEREFORE WE CAN GET TO-- BECAUSE I THINK WHAT WE'RE GETTING TO AND I HOPE THAT YOU ALL CAN BEAR WITH OUR PROCESS IS THAT WE LOOK TO FIND THE MINIMUM ACTION.

THAT'S ONE OF OUR REQUIREMENTS AS FAR AS OUR VARIANCE APPLICATION GOES AND OUR REVIEW CRITERIA. SO WE ARE LOOKING FOR A MINIMUM OF ACTION HERE.

SO FOR ALL OF US, I THINK WHAT I HEAR FROM MEMBER SHORKEY AND MEMBER HENDRICKSON, WE'RE TRYING TO GET TOWARDS WHAT IS THE MINIMUM THAT IS NECESSARY HERE? CORRECT. I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET.

SO IF WE CAN TRY TO GET AND KEEP ON SCOPE THERE FOR OUR BOARD TIME, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. MEMBER HEDRICKSON GO AHEAD.

THANK YOU. SO MY QUESTIONS ARE THESE.

FIRST OFF, HOW LONG HAS MR. FINK OWNED THIS PROPERTY? I CAN'T TELL YOU.

MR. FINK HOW LONG HAVE YOU ON THIS PROPERTY? WELL, LET ME PAUSE YOU THERE.

I'M SORRY, MR. FINK, BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T HEARD YOU BEFORE.

WE NEED THAT FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD.

STATE YOUR ADDRESS.

SORRY TO BE A STICKLER, BUT THAT'S IMPORTANT.

GO AHEAD, MR. FINK. HELLO.

SIXTY ONE FIFTY COLUMBIA STREET HASLET, MICHIGAN.

I'VE OWNED THE PROPERTY NOW THIS NOVEMBER 15TH WILL BE MY 15TH YEAR.

OK, AND DO YOU OWN JUST THIS PROPERTY OR DO YOU OWN ANY OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AS WELL? JUST THE FIVE NINE SIX FIVE, THE FIVE NINE SIX NINE, THE FIVE NINE SEVEN ONE, AND FIVE NINE SEVEN THREE OF MARSH ROAD.

OK, SO THE PARCELS IN QUESTION SOUNDS LIKE PLUS ONE PERHAPS.

BECAUSE THERE WERE THREE PARCELS THAT THE STAFF HAD RECOMMENDED COMBINING INTO ONE.

YOU OWN ALL THREE OF THOSE PARCELS.

YES, SIR. OK, THANK YOU.

CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? I BLANKED OUT.

SORRY, I WAS ASKING HOW LONG HE HAD ON THE PROPERTY AND IF HE OWNED ANY OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AS WELL.

RIGHT.

I'M SORRY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE.

YEAH. THANK YOU. SO NEXT QUESTION.

IN THE 15 PLUS YEARS THAT YOU'VE OWNED THIS PROPERTY, MR. FINK, I PRESUME THAT YOU'VE SORT OF WALKED AROUND, THAT YOU'VE EXPLORED THE SURROUNDING AREA AND YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE FACT THAT THERE WERE A NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL HOMES ON THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES IN THE AREA DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH OF YOUR PROPERTY? YES, SIR, I HAVE. OK, SO.

YEAH. AND YOU WERE NOTICED WHEN THE REZONING WENT INTO EFFECT BACK IN TWENTY NINETEEN, YOU RECEIVED NOTICE OF THAT?

[00:35:01]

I DID, YES. OK, SO I GUESS WHAT I'M GETTING AT IN MENTIONING THIS IS THAT IT DOESN'T SEEM TO ME AS THOUGH I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND MR. ROSS HAS TALKED A COUPLE OF TIMES ABOUT UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AND THAT VERY WELL MAY HAVE HAPPENED ABOUT THAT.

IT SO HAPPENS THAT I WAS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION WHEN THE REZONING CAME BEFORE US LAST YEAR. AND SO I DID SEE THIS REZONING WHEN IT WAS INITIATED BY THE BOARD AND WE HAD A PUBLIC HEARING AND THERE WAS ONE AT THE BOARD AS WELL.

AND I JUST MENTIONED THAT BECAUSE I DON'T RECALL YOU HAVING BEEN A PART OF THOSE PROCEEDINGS, AT LEAST NOT AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION LEVEL, TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

DO YOU RECALL IF YOU WERE THERE FOR THAT PUBLIC HEARING? I WAS NOT THERE FOR THAT PUBLIC HEARING, NO.

OK, SO HERE'S A COUPLE OF MY MY ISSUES RELATED TO THIS PARTICULAR CASE.

AND I'M GOING TO CIRCLE AROUND SOME OF OUR CRITERIA, EVEN THOUGH I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK TO IT IN A FEW MINUTES.

YOU KNOW WHAT, SCOTT? IF YOU WANT TO JUST START ON IT, BECAUSE, I MEAN, JUST DIVE INTO IT BECAUSE WE CAN STILL ASK QUESTIONS WHILE WE'RE GOING THROUGH THEM.

AND I TRUST YOU TO GO THROUGH THEM POINT BY POINT.

THANK YOU. AND [INAUDIBLE].

SO MY FIRST ISSUE HERE IS THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ABUTTING A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IS INDEED A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE.

THAT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.

WE HAVE COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS TOUCHING RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IN A NUMBER OF PLACES.

THERE'S AN ARGUMENT THAT CAN BE MADE THAT THIS IS UNIQUE BECAUSE IT HAPPENED ALL OF A SUDDEN. BUT THIS OWNER HAS OWNED THIS PROPERTY FOR 15 PLUS YEARS.

THERE HAVE BEEN RESIDENTIAL HOMES ADJACENT TO IT.

AND THE REASON WHY, NOT TO PUT WORDS INTO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD'S MOUTH, BUT THE REASON THAT WAS GIVEN WHEN THIS TOWNSHIP BOARD INITIATED REZONING CAME TO US, WAS THAT THESE WERE RESIDENTIAL HOMES THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RESIDENTIAL ZONED FOR ALL THIS TIME.

AND WHAT WE WERE DOING WAS MERELY A CORRECTION TO ADDRESS A SITUATION THAT HAD BEEN EXISTING FOR MANY YEARS, DOZENS OF YEARS.

AND SO I QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES TO THIS PROPERTY THAT WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE IN THIS AREA.

NOW, EVEN SETTING THAT ASIDE, LET ME ASK MR. FINK THE NEXT QUESTION, WHICH IS CAN YOUR BUSINESS OPERATE WITHOUT ADDITIONAL PARKING AT THIS TIME? I'M SORRY YOU CUT OUT THERE, I MEAN, CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION.

I'M SORRY. YEAH, OF COURSE.

IF YOU WERE NOT TO RECEIVE THIS VARIANCE AND THEREFORE WE'RE ONLY ABLE TO ADD, I GUESS I HEARD FIVE PARKING SPACES OR WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS THAT GREG COULD SQUEEZE IN THERE.

WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO OPERATE YOUR BUILDING AS A RESTAURANT? I WOULD BE ABLE TO, SURE.

I HAVE BEEN FOR 15 YEARS, OBVIOUSLY WITH THE HELP OF THE PRIOR [INAUDIBLE] WHO WAS OUT OF BUSINESS, THAT ADDITIONAL ALLOWANCE OF PARKING HELPED OUT OVER THE YEARS AND HAS GOTTEN BUSIER. PARKING IS AN ISSUE AND I BELIEVE THIS WOULD HELP THAT ISSUE.

OK, THANK YOU. SO, YOU KNOW, WHAT I'M SEEING IS THIS.

I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD NECESSARILY SAY THAT THERE ARE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE AS ADDRESSING CRITERIA NUMBER ONE.

FOR CRITERIA NUMBER TWO, THEY'RE NOT SELF [INAUDIBLE].

THAT'S TRUE. THE ZONING CHANGED AND THEREFORE, YOU KNOW, HE DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT. THIS WAS SORT OF IMPOSED UPON HIM.

SO IF WE ACCEPT THAT CRITERIA THAT THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST, I THINK WE CAN SAFELY SAY THAT THEY'RE NOT SELF CREATED.

THESE WERE CHANGED OUTSIDE OF HIS CONTROL.

MY PROBLEM I THINK MY MAIN ISSUE IS THAT I DON'T KNOW THAT THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES EXIST THAT WOULD PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR ITS PERMANENT PURPOSE, WHICH IS AS A RESTAURANT.

HE HAS OPERATED IT SUCCESSFULLY FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, AS WE'VE HEARD.

AND I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WOULD BE A REQUIREMENT TO ADD TO THE PARKING IN THIS CASE IN ORDER TO DO SO. THAT SAID, I'M OPEN TO ADDITIONAL ARGUMENTS AND TO BE PERSUADED BY MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS IF THEY BELIEVE THAT I'VE, YOU KNOW, MISSED SOMETHING AND I WOULD GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO HELP ME TO CHANGE MY MIND, IF THAT'S NOT THE CASE.

THANK YOU, MEMBER HENDRICKSON.

ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? MEMBER SHORKEY GO AHEAD. THIS IS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO CHANGE YOUR MIND.

I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT I ONLY WANT TO POINT OUT THAT EVEN WITH THE ADDITION, THEY HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED A VARIANCE A WHILE AGO ALLOWING LESSER PARKING.

[00:40:07]

ALLOWING THIS VARIANCE, WHILE NOT COMPLYING WITH THAT ENTIRELY, MOVES THEM CLOSER TO COMPLIANCE WITH ANOTHER SECTION OF THE CODE.

SO, SUPPORT OF A NEIGHBOR IS NOT A REASON TO APPROVE, BUT IN THIS CASE, WE HAVE STATED SUPPORT FROM A NEIGHBOR THAT THIS ADJOINS, AND IT'S A AND IT'S A TRADE OFF, AND I'M NOT SAYING FOR OR AGAINST, BUT IT'S A TRADE OFF.

YOU ALLOW THIS VARIANCE, YOU MOVE CLOSER TO THIS REGULATION, THEY COME CLOSER TO PARKING REGULATION. I'M ONLY STATING THAT NOT TRYING TO CHANGE YOUR MIND, BUT I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE POINTED OUT. THANK YOU, MEMBER SHORKEY.

MEMBER HENDRICKSON, GO AHEAD. THANK YOU.

YES. AGAIN, I DON'T MIND.

I AM PERFECTLY WILLING TO ACCEPT A GOOD ARGUMENT BECAUSE I'M RELATIVELY NEW TO THIS BOARD AND SO I'M MORE THAN WILLING TO LEARN AND GROW HERE.

BUT YOU BRING UP THE SUPPORT OF THE NEIGHBOR.

AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK WHILE I APPRECIATE THE NEIGHBORS SUPPORT AND I THINK WE'LL HEAR MORE ABOUT THIS LATER ON TONIGHT, I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN TAKE THIS INTO CONSIDERATION FULLY WHEN CONSIDERING THIS, BECAUSE THIS IS A VARIANCE THAT WILL RUN WITH THE LAND AND IT WILL RUN NO MATTER WHO IS THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER.

AND THAT MAY CHANGE.

AND SO WHILE I KNOW THERE IS SUPPORT FROM THE CURRENT NEIGHBOR, WE HAVE TO BE THINKING ABOUT WHAT IS BEST FOR ANY NEIGHBOR THAT FOLLOWS INTO THE FUTURE.

AND SO I DO I APPRECIATE THAT THE NEIGHBOR REACHED OUT.

AND I CERTAINLY LIKE TO SEE SOMEONE SUPPORTING THEIR NEIGHBORS, ESPECIALLY WITH LOCAL BUSINESSES LIKE THIS.

BUT I'M SURE WHEN THE VARIANCE CAME BEFORE THIS BOARD PREVIOUSLY TO ALLOW FOR LESS PARKING, THAT, YOU KNOW, THESE THINGS WERE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AND.

ULTIMATELY, THE BOARD GRANTED THE VARIANCE FOR LESS PARKING, SO WHILE I THINK IT'S LAUDABLE TO MOVE TOWARD BEING CLOSER TO LIKE TO LESSEN THE VARIANCE THAT WAS ALREADY AFFORDED THEM, THAT VARIANCE WAS GIVEN WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS BOARD, IN WHATEVER VERSION IT WAS YEARS AGO, WAS ACCEPTING OF THAT LESSER PARKING BEING AVAILABLE TO IT. SO ANYWAY, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MEMBER HENRIKSON.

GO AHEAD. TRUSTEE WASINSKI.

CAN I JUST CONFIRM WITH DIRECTOR KIESELBACH, ARE THE DIMENSIONS FOR THE ACTUAL PARKING SPACES PER ORDINANCE OR ARE--? SO IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S 19 10 BY 18 PARKING SPACES.

IS THAT REQUIRED 10 BY 18? THE 10 BY 18 IS ACCEPTABLE SIZE FOR A PARKING SPACE, OR IT COULD BE NINE BY 20.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NINE BY 20 AND THE 10 BY 18 IS THE DRIVE OUT AND THEY'RE SHOWING TWENTY FIVE FEET. AND THAT'S REQUIRED AT 10 BY 18.

THANK YOU. OK, I JUST WANT TO ADD, WHILE I DO DEFINITELY HEAR WHAT MEMBER HENDRICKSON IS SAYING REGARDING JUST THE IDEA THAT IS THIS NECESSARY TO OPERATE THE BUSINESS, AND I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, AS A BOARD WE'RE STILL, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT.

THAT BEING SAID, I DO AGREE WITH MEMBER SHORKEY, THAT THIS HELPS GET THEM TO WHAT THAT PARKING ORDINANCE SHOULD BE, HOW MANY PARKING SPACES THEY SHOULD HAVE.

SO IN THAT REGARD, I FIND THAT TO BE A MINIMUM ACTION.

AS FAR AS TALKING ABOUT THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, I WANT TO ASK AND WE CAN WHETHER IT'S MR. RUSSELL, MR. [INAUDIBLE], MR. FINK, WHOEVER WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THIS.

MY QUESTION IS YOU DON'T HAVE A VARIANCE, YOU HAVE ALL OF THESE OTHER BUSINESSES THAT ARE IN YOUR AREA, WHERE DO YOUR PATRONS PARK WHEN YOUR RESTAURANT IS FULL? A NEW PARKING LOT IS FULL.

WELL, I CAN ANSWER THAT.

THANK YOU, MR. FINK, GO AHEAD.

ALONG THE SIDES OF THE STREET IN FRONT OF PEOPLE'S HOMES.

WE'VE HAD VARIOUS COMPLAINTS FROM HOMEOWNERS IN REGARDS TO.

IT'S AT SOME POINTS THAT THE FILL CAPACITY THEY REACH AROUND THE BUILDING OR AROUND THE ADJACENT [INAUDIBLE] THE BACKROAD AND, YOU KNOW, WE LIKE TO TRY AND CREATE THE PARKING TO

[00:45:05]

ELIMINATE THAT. THE PLACE WHERE PEOPLE PARKED IN FRONT OF THEIR DRIVEWAY, IN FRONT OF THEIR HOME OR COMING OUT OF THE RESTAURANT LATE AT NIGHT AND, YOU KNOW, KIND OF CAUSING A RUCKUS OR SO FORTH.

YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO HELP IN THAT ASPECT, BY KEEPING THEM MORE CONTAINED.

THAT MAKES ANY SENSE.

DEFINITELY. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT.

AND JUST FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION, IS THERE A PARKING ALONG LAKE LANSING OR ALONG MARSH ROAD? THE PARKING LOT WHERE YOU SEE IN THE PLAN, THAT'S THAT'S ALL THE PERSON THAT I HAVE.

OK, I'M THINKING THERE'S NO AND STAFF, IF YOU HAVE IF YOU HAVE ANSWERS FOR US TO THAT, WOULD THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL.

BUT THERE IS NO PARKING ON MARSH ROAD OR ON LAKE LANSING, WHERE THAT CORNER WHERE THE RESTAURANT IS.

SO FOR OVERFLOW PARKING FOR ANY PATRONS OF THE RESTAURANT, REALLY YOU WOULD BE LOOKING TO PARK EITHER ON THE RESIDENTIAL STREET BEHIND.

LIKE YOU SAID BEFORE, THERE WAS A PREVIOUS KIND OF VERBAL ARRANGEMENT WITH THE PEOPLE THAT OWN THE PROPERTY THAT'S NOW AN OPEN ICE CREAM SHOP.

THOSE WERE KIND OF YOUR YOUR OPTIONS.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES MA'AM.

SO IN THIS REGARD, I MEAN, I CAN GET TO PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.

AND I MEAN, WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS RESTAURANT SHOULD HAVE SEVENTY FIVE PARKING SPACES.

IT DOES NOT.

WE'RE LOOKING AT A RESIDENTIAL STREET BEHIND, YOU KNOW, AS YOU SAID, YOU COULDN'T FIND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES.

THAT'S KIND OF MY UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE.

I DON'T THINK ANY OF THE OTHER ADJACENT COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES IN THIS AREA BUTT UP TO, WELL, I TAKE THAT BACK.

I SHOULD NOT MAKE THAT PART OF THE STATEMENT, BUT HAVE WITHOUT THE ADDITIONAL PARKING THAT WOULD REQUIRE PARKING OR, YOU KNOW, COULD YOU DO ONE MORE FAVOR FOR ME, MR. FINK? CAN YOU CLARIFY, IS YOUR RESTAURANT HOW LATE DOES YOUR RESTAURANT STAY OPEN? WE'RE OPEN UNTIL TWO A.M.

. OK. SO, AGAIN, WE CAN'T TAKE THIS I MEAN, THIS VARIANCE STAYS WITH THE BUILDING, SO CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THIS RESTAURANT COULD CHANGE.

IT COULD BECOME A, YOU KNOW, A BRUNCH RESTAURANT THAT'S ONLY OPEN IN THE AFTERNOON.

BUT BEING THAT IT COULD BE ANY FORM TAKE ANY FORM OF A BUSINESS STAYING OPEN UNTIL 2:00 A.M. IS ALSO SOMETHING THAT WE CAN CONSIDER THE STAYING UP UNTIL 2:00 A.M., YOU HAVE PEOPLE PARKING ON THE STREET IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD VERSUS IN THE PARKING LOT.

I WOULD TEND TO GO WITH I COULD MAKE A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES CASE FOR THIS PARTICULAR RESTAURANT, ALTHOUGH I DO HEAR, AND VERY MUCH UNDERSTAND WHAT MEMBER HENDRICKSON IS SAYING ABOUT HAVING HAD THIS PLACE THAT YOU, MR. FINK HAVING OWNED THIS LOCATION FOR 15 YEARS AND KNOWING THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

I DON'T THINK THEY'RE SELF CREATED CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT HAVING BEEN THERE AND HAD THE TIME RATHER BEFORE NOW TO HAVE ADDED THOSE SPACES AS NECESSARY.

BUT MR. HENDRICKSON, OR MEMBER HENDRICKSON, GO AHEAD.

THANK YOU. QUESTION FOR MARK, IF I COULD, DIRECTOR KIESELBACH.

YOU'RE FAMILIAR. YOU'VE BEEN AROUND THIS TOWNSHIP FOR A VERY LONG TIME AND YOU'RE QUITE FAMILIAR WITH THE ZONING DISTRICTS THAT WE HAVE IN THE TOWNSHIP.

WOULD YOU SAY IT'S A RELATIVELY COMMON CIRCUMSTANCE TO HAVE COMMERCIAL ON A BUSY STREET CORNER WITH RESIDENTIAL ADJACENT OR ABUTTING UP INTO IT? WELL, WHAT WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, GOING BACK BEFORE C1 THE ACTUAL NAME FOR THAT DISTRICT WAS NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE, AND THAT'S WHAT THE WHOLE POINT OF THAT WAS, IS TO HAVE COMMERCIAL USES ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL.

AND THEN WE HAD COMMUNITY SERVICE WAS THE OTHER THAT WAS THE ONLY TWO ZONING DISTRICTS.

BUT YOU CAN SEE ON COMMUNITY SERVICE, WHICH WAS C2 ALONG GRAND RIVER, MANY OF THOSE PROPERTIES, ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT ARE TO THE WEST OF [INAUDIBLE] ROAD ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF GRAND RIVER, ALL BACK UP TO RESIDENTIAL.

AT THE TIME WHEN WE HAD NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES, THE STANDARDS WERE A LITTLE BIT MORE RELAXED, I SHOULD SAY, AS FAR AS SETBACKS.

AND THAT BECAUSE OF THE THE IDEA WAS THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BE THERE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD OR ADJACENT TO A NEIGHBORHOOD OVER TIME.

WHEN WE ADOPTED THE C ONE ZONING, WHICH WAS EARLY 2000S, WAS WHERE THAT 50 FOOT SETBACK

[00:50:02]

PERMIT CAME IN TO PROVIDE THAT ADDITIONAL BUFFER.

SO I DON'T THINK IT'S UNCOMMON WHEN WE SEE THE C ONE ZONING THAT IT'S BEEN DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL.

YOU SAID IT'S NOT UNCOMMON? NOT UNCOMMON. YEAH.

AND SO THOSE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THIS NOT UNCOMMON CIRCUMSTANCE THAT WE FIND OURSELVES IN, WOULD YOU SAY THAT THEY GENERALLY MEET THE SETBACKS THAT THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES FOR THAT ZONING WHEN THEY'RE ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS? WITH THE CURRENT C ONE ZONING, I WOULD SAY THEY PROBABLY THERE MAY BE AN ISSUE WITH THE PARKING AT THAT, A 50 FOOT SET BACK ON THOSE.

MANY OF THE YOU KNOW, THE COMMERCIAL PLAN KNOW NOT TO GET OFF THE SUBJECT.

BUT THAT WAS SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN FOR MANY OF THESE PROPERTIES WHO ARE NON CONFORMING, WHO HAVE THESE SETBACKS FROM RESIDENTIAL THAT THEY NEVER CAN MEET AND HAD A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO COME BACK.

IF THEY WERE GOING TO REDEVELOP OR ADD ADDITIONAL ONES, THEY COULD GO THROUGH THE COMMERCIAL PLAN UNITS [INAUDIBLE].

THANK YOU.

YOU'RE MUTED. YOU'RE MUTED.

ANY OTHER OF OUR BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANYTHING THEY'D LIKE TO ADD? MEMBER [INAUDIBLE], GO AHEAD.

I AGREE.

THERE ARE A LOT. IT'S NOT THAT UNIQUE TO SEE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES IN THE TOWNSHIP NEXT TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, BUT I'D BE WILLING TO GUESS THAT MOST OF THOSE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WERE NOT ORIGINALLY ZONED C1.

AND THAT THE UNION-- AND I AGREE WITH THE CHAIR THAT PROPERTY TO THE NORTH WAS REZONED BY THE TOWNSHIP THAT WAS NOT THE FAULT OF THE OWNER.

THAT IS UNIQUE.

WHILE IN COMMERCIAL NEXT TO RESIDENTIAL DOES INDEED EXIST SOMETIMES MORE HARMONIOUSLY THAN OTHERS, THIS CIRCUMSTANCE IS A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE, AND I ACCEPT THAT.

TRUSTEE WISINSKI. I CAN SEE BOTH SIDES, CERTAINLY, BUT, YOU KNOW, I COULD SUPPORT THE FACT THAT IT WAS ZONED COMMERCIAL BECAUSE I WAS ON THE BOARD WHEN WE DID THAT IN POST OWNERSHIP. SO, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND MR. FINK WAS NOTIFIED. HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, THAT'S STILL WITHIN THE ORIGINAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPOTS. AND IT'S NOW IF IT WASN'T REZONED, IT WOULD STILL BE ALLOWABLE.

SO I ALSO SUPPORT THE FACT THAT IT'S SOMEWHAT OF A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE AT THIS POINT FOR THAT REASON. OK, WELL, I THINK I'D LIKE TO TRY TO GO THROUGH OUR CRITERIA, BECAUSE I THINK WE'VE KIND OF GOTTEN ENOUGH INFORMATION HERE AT SOME POINT.

WE DO JUST NEED TO GET THROUGH THE CRITERIA AND SEE IF WE HAVE A LEG TO STAND ON HERE WITH THIS VARIANCE REQUEST.

SO LET'S GO IN AND MAYBE WE'LL GO THROUGH WITH IT.

MEMBER KULHANEK, I HAVEN'T HEARD FROM YOU, BUT GIVE ME A WAVE OR YES. YES, I CAN HEAR YOU, OK.

DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD OR ANYTHING YOU WANT YOU TO ADDRESS? WELL, I PROBABLY DID MISS SOME OF THE DISCUSSION THAT I WAS DEALING.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT I WAS DEALING WITH BECAUSE I DON'T THINK I'VE EVER HAD PROBLEMS ON A ZOOM MEETING LIKE THAT. BUT.

BUT YOU'VE ALL BEEN ASKING ALL THE GREAT QUESTIONS YOU ALWAYS ASK.

I THINK I WANT TO ASSOCIATE MYSELF WITH THOSE OF YOU WHO SAID THAT YOU THINK YOU CAN FIND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE.

I UNDERSTAND THAT IT COMMONLY OCCURS THAT THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING ABUTS THE COMMERCIAL ZONING, BUT.

AND AS MEMBER SHORKEY, I THINK, POINTED OUT THAT THIS SEEMS TO BE A RELATIVELY UNIQUE SITUATION WITH REGARD TO THE ZONING CHANGE THAT OCCURRED, ET CETERA.

I'M NOT SURE IF YOU'RE GOING THROUGH THESE ONE AT A TIME AGAIN, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO WASTE ANYBODY'S TIME EITHER.

I RECOGNIZE WE'RE ALMOST AN HOUR INTO THIS.

HOW DO YOU WANT TO GO? I'M PERHAPS A LITTLE BIT MORE THINKING THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME REAL PRACTICAL, EXCUSE ME, IS THAT THERE REALLY MIGHT NOT BE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES TO THIS IF AS MEMBER HENDRICKSON I BELIEVE AND BELIEVE HAS POINTED OUT.

BUT AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO REPEAT WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN SAID.

AND I KNOW YOU WANT TO GET THROUGH THESE CRITERIA.

SO YOU WANT ME TO STAND OUT OF YOUR WAY SO YOU CAN DO THAT? OH, I APPRECIATE.

YOU KNOW, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ALL HAVE THE ABILITY TO BE HEARD, ALL OF OUR OUR

[00:55:02]

MEMBERS HERE. SO I APPRECIATE YOUR INPUT THERE.

I WILL JUST SAY THEN I WILL LEAVE OUT ON THE TABLE.

OUR FIRST CRITERIA IS UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST THAT ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND OR STRUCTURE THAT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO ANY OTHER LAND OR STRUCTURES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. I THINK WE HAVE TALKED AT LENGTH ABOUT THIS AT THIS POINT.

WE COULD MAKE A CASE FOR EITHER OR.

I'LL LEAVE IT THERE. CRITERIA TWO.

THESE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SELF CREATED.

I THINK WE CAN ALL VERY MUCH GET THERE AND AGREE THAT THESE ARE NOT SELF CREATED.

CRITERIA THREE. STRICT INTERPRETATION ENFORCEMENT OF THE LITERAL TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER WOULD RESULT IN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY.

AND I THINK MEMBER KULHANEK JUST TOUCHED ON IT, I THINK THAT THIS IS WHERE I PERSONALLY CAN FIND PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.

WHETHER WE GET TO AND I THINK I ALREADY PREVIOUSLY STATED, I THINK PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES HAVE TO DO WITH THE PARKING SCENARIO AND WHAT THEIR OPTIONS ARE FOR THEIR PATRONS IN ORDER TO PARK WITHOUT USING RESIDENTIAL STREETS, WITHOUT USING PUBLIC SPACE.

SO THAT BEING SAID, I THINK WE CAN OFTEN AND DO GROUP CRITERIA THREE AND FOUR TOGETHER AND A DISCUSSION, SO WHY DON'T WE OPEN THAT CAN OF WORMS AND GO TO CRITERIA FOUR, THAT THE ALLEGED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, WHICH RESULT FROM A FAILURE TO GRANT THE VARIANCE, WOULD UNREASONABLY PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR A PERMITTED PURPOSE.

AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE ALL OF US ARE GOING.

WELL. CAN YOU USE THE RESTAURANT OR NOT? SO I THINK WE KNOW WHERE MEMBER HENDRICKSON STANDS ON THIS QUESTION, IS THERE ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBER THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADD? TRUSTEE WASINSKI. I WOULD AGREE WITH MEMBER HENDRICKSON THAT, YOU KNOW, IT HAS BEEN FUNCTIONING AS A RESTAURANT OR AT LEAST 15 YEARS FOR MR. FINK. AND AS MUCH AS I UNDERSTAND THE PARKING ON THE EXISTING OR THAT THE RESIDENTIAL ROAD BEHIND IT.

IT COULD CAUSE A COUPLE OF SAFETY ISSUES.

IT REALLY CAN WORK AS A RESTAURANT, AND EVEN IF YOU WERE TO ADD FIVE AND OR IF YOU DO THE MATH, POTENTIALLY NINE ADDITIONAL SPACES WITHIN THE VARIANTS THAT COULD ASSIST IN SOME OF THE PARKING ISSUES YOU HAVE.

SO AND THIS IS THE ONE I'M STUCK ON.

THIS IS WHERE I'M STRUGGLING AS WELL, BECAUSE I CAN MAKE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY'S ARGUMENT. I UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR THE MORE PARKING.

THAT I DO NOT QUESTION WHATSOEVER.

BUT THE PROBLEM IS WHETHER OR NOT THAT CONSTITUTES UNABLE TO USE THE PROPERTY FOR THE PERMITTED PURPOSE. AND I THINK THAT MR. RUSSELL, DID YOU WANT TO ADD SOMETHING? DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY TO THAT? WELL, YEAH, THERE WERE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS THAT I WANTED TO MAKE REAL QUICKLY.

CURRENTLY THERE ARE FORTY THREE SPOTS AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ADDING 19 FOR A TOTAL OF 62 . THE PROPERTY IS LICENSED FOR ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE.

THAT'S GOING TO BE WITHIN ONE CAR, ONE SPOT FOR EVERY TWO PEOPLE LICENSED.

AND I'M NOT SURE LICENSING INCLUDES THE KITCHEN STAFF OR NOT, BUT LET'S JUST SAY THAT THOSE ARE TRUE NUMBERS. ONE FOR EVERY TWO IS NOT EXTRAVAGANT.

THEY'RE TRYING TO DO IT RIGHT.

THEY DID HAVE A PARKING ARRANGEMENT ACROSS THE STREET THAT WENT AWAY TO A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS. NO DOWNSIDE THERE.

A COMMENT WAS MADE THAT MR. FINK DID NOT ATTEND THE REZONING HERE.

WELL, LET ME REMIND YOU, THE TOWNSHIP APPROACHED MR. FINK, TOLD HIM THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE THE HEARING AND TOLD HIM THERE WAS NO IMPACT FOR HIS PROPERTY. NOW, AGAIN, UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.

NOBODY MAYBE THOUGHT OF THAT.

BUT IF SOMEONE CAME AND TOLD YOU THAT AND YOU'VE GOT-- MR. FINK ALSO RUNS A GOLF COURSE.

HE'S GOT A PRETTY BUSY SCHEDULE AND HE'S PROBABLY GOT BETTER THINGS TO DO THAN GO TO SOME NEIGHBOR DOWN THE STREET GET A REZONE WHEN HE'S ALREADY BEEN TOLD IT HAS NO IMPACT ON HIM. MR. RUSSELL, I JUST WANTED TO US TO KEEP TO THE CRITERIA AT HAND BECAUSE WE HAVE EIGHT THAT WE NEED TO MEET.

IF WE CAN'T MEET CRITERIA THREE OR FOUR, IF WE CAN'T MEET ALL EIGHT CRITERIA, THEN THE VARIANCE APPLICATION FAILS REGARDLESS.

SO WE NEED TO KEEP TO THE ACTUAL STATEMENT.

SO I THINK REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THE ZONING, WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE REZONING IS

[01:00:02]

NEITHER HERE NOR THERE FOR THIS PARTICULAR DISCUSSION.

BUT WHAT I GUESS IS THE REAL CRUX HERE IS THAT WE ARE STRUGGLING WITH THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES GRANTING-- FAILURE TO GRANT THIS VARIANCE WOULD UNREASONABLY PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ALL STRUGGLING WITH.

THIS IS A VERY HARD ONE FOR US IN EVERY CIRCUMSTANCE.

IN MOST MOST OF OUR CASES, THIS IS WHERE WE GET INTO THE WEEDS OF OUR DISCUSSIONS.

SO IF THERE IS ANY WAY THAT THIS WOULD-- THAT YOU ARE ADDRESSING UNREASONABLY PREVENTING THE USE OF THIS PROPERTY, THEN THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT.

IF NOT, THEN I GUESS WE GO BACK TO NOT BEING ABLE TO MEET THE EIGHT CRITERIA.

BUT IF WE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT PEOPLE PARKING ON NOT OVERLY WIDE PUBLIC STREETS, LEGAL OR NOT, AND THAT'S NOT THEIRS TO ENFORCE, THEN GRANTING THIS IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND MAKES SENSE.

IN THE PAST, THEY WENT THE EXTRA MILE.

THEY SECURED PARKING ACROSS THE ROAD WHEN IT WAS AN OPTION, NOT AN OPTION NOW.

TRYING TO BE THE ONLY DAMN RESTAURANT AROUND THAT'S GOING TO GO OUT OF THEIR POCKET TO SPEND DISCRETIONARY MONEY IN A DOWN MARKET AND THEY BUMP INTO SOMETHING THAT NOBODY SAW COMING, INCLUDING THE TOWNSHIP, WHEN THEY BROUGHT IT TO HIS ATTENTION THAT THERE WAS A ZONING, THEY NEVER BROUGHT IT TO HIS ATTENTION THAT IT MIGHT IMPACT HIM DOWN THE ROAD, WHEN THEY CLEARLY KNEW THAT THAT'S WHAT THE PROPERTY WAS BOUGHT FOR.

MR. RUSSELL. I'M JUST GOING TO INTERRUPT YOU THERE AGAIN.

THE IMPORTANT FACTOR HERE IS WE CAN'T-- THE ZONING BOARD OR THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, WE DO NOT HAVE MAGIC CRYSTAL BALLS OR KNOW WHAT ANYBODY IS GOING TO DO WITH THEIR PROPERTY IN THE FUTURE.

ALL OF THESE DECISIONS HAVE TO BE MADE WITH BEST INTENTIONS.

AND OF COURSE, THE INTENTION WAS NOT TO HAVE-- BUT THIS IS WHY WE HAVE A ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SO WE CAN DISCUSS THESE THINGS.

BUT WHAT WE REALLY NEED TO GET TO THE HEART OF IS WHETHER OR NOT THAT THIS LACK OF ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES WOULD SOMEHOW HINDER OR PREVENT THE USAGE OF THIS PROPERTY.

I THINK I SAW A HAND.

OK, I GOT TRUSTEE WISINSKI.

GO AHEAD AND THEN WE'LL GO TO MEMBER SHORKEY AFTER.

I WAS JUST AND MAYBE IT'S PREMATURE, I WAS JUST GOING TO MOVE TO NUMBER FIVE BECAUSE NUMBER FIVE SAYS, GRANTED, A VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM ACTION THAT WILL MAKE POSSIBLE USE OF THE LAND STRUCTURE MANNER.

IT'S NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST IN WHICH WOULD CARRY OUT THE SPIRIT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, A SECURE PUBLIC SAFETY AND PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.

AND AGAIN, THERE'S STILL THE ABILITY TO ADD PARKING SPACES, JUST MAYBE NOT THE NUMBER THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S PREMATURE.

NO, I APPRECIATE THAT, BECAUSE I THINK, AGAIN, WE CAN GO DOWN THREE, FOUR AND FIVE.

MEMBER SHORKEY, I WANT TO LET YOU GET IN THERE.

GO AHEAD. OK, I HAD ONE MORE QUESTION.

IF I MAY ASK MR. BANKS SOME STUFF.

OK, GO FOR IT PLEASE.

IS THIS INCREASING YOUR PARKING TRIGGERED BY A POTENTIAL CHANGE IN YOUR BUSINESS, MORE ENTERTAINMENT OR SOME KIND OF CHANGE? BECAUSE I'VE BEEN TO WATERSHED A FEW TIMES, LIKE I'VE NEVER HAD A PROBLEM PARKING, HONESTLY.

IS THERE SOMETHING YOU'RE MOVING FORWARD OR ADAPTING THAT REQUIRES ADDITIONAL PARKING? NO, JUST-- NOT AT THIS MOMENT, NOT AT ALL.

JUST TRYING TO RUN THE BUSINESS AS THEY HAVE BEEN FOR THE LAST 15 YEARS AND I MEAN, PARKING IT'S ALWAYS KIND OF BEEN AN ISSUE AND IT'S-- ON A GOOD NOTE, IT'S GAINED IN POPULARITY, IT'S GOTTEN BUSIER OVER THE YEARS AND PARKING PROBLEMS HAVE INCREASED.

AND I YOU KNOW, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO CURE THAT PROBLEM.

OK, THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT, I APPRECIATE THAT.

THANK YOU. MR. [INAUDIBLE], DID YOU WANT TO ADD SOMETHING? I JUST WANTED TO BRING UP THE FACT THAT WITH THE 50 FOOT SETBACK ORIGINALLY WE THOUGHT IT WAS 40, BUT WITH THE 50 FOOT SETBACK, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO ADD ANY PARKING ON THAT ADDITIONAL LOT. I KNOW WE GET OF MAYBE WE CAN HAVE LIKE FIVE SPOTS, BUT WITH THAT 50 FOOT SETBACK, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE. I THINK THAT--

[01:05:06]

THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE THAT ADDITION, BECAUSE I THINK THAT MIGHT SLIGHTLY CHANGE OUR MINIMUM ACTION IDEA OR CONCEPT.

I SAW TRUSTEE WISINSKI AND I SEE MEMBER HENDRICKSON HANDS.

WHO WOULD LIKE TO GO FIRST? GO AHEAD.

MR. [INAUDIBLE], COULD YOU EXPLAIN A LITTLE FURTHER? SO IF YOU GO 10 FEET BACK, IS IT BECAUSE OF THE ACCESS WAY REDUCING THE TWENTY FIVE FOOT? WE ONLY HAVE LIKE I THINK FORTY EIGHT FEET RIGHT NOW FROM THAT PROPERTY LINE TO WHERE THE PARKING LOT IS NOW.

OH, YEAH, WITH THE 50 FOOT SETBACK, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PUT ANY PARKING IN THERE.

YOU WOULD STILL NEED A VARIANCE, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, TO PUT ANY PARKING? YES. OK. THANK YOU.

MR. HENDRICKSON, MEMBER HENDRICKSON.

THANK YOU. YEAH, SO I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED IN REGARDS TO THAT STATEMENT THAT WAS JUST MADE BY MR. [INAUDIBLE]. THERE'S A SECTION ON IT THAT APPEARS TO HAVE TO BE JUST NORTH OF THE MAIN BUILDING. AND THE TEXT BUMPER BLOCKS OR BOLLARDS IS WRITTEN IN IT.

AND IT IS SORT OF A RECTANGULAR SHAPE.

AND IT APPEARS TO BE ABOUT, GOSH, I DON'T WANT TO GUESS HOW MANY FEET IT LOOKS ACROSS EAST TO WEST. CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THAT IS, PLEASE? YEAH, WE HAD JUST PROPOSED BUMPER BLOCKS ALONG THE SOUTH EDGE OF THAT PARKING [INAUDIBLE].

I'M ASKING, WHAT IS THE RECTANGULAR BOX WITH THE DIAGONAL HASH MARKS IN IT? IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S BETWEEN THE ACTUAL BUILDING AND WHERE THE PARKING BEGINS.

IS THAT THAT'S THE SERVICE DRIVE, THAT'S THE ACCESS AREA? I'M JUST NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, I GUESS.

DO YOU SEE WHERE THE TEXT BUMPER BLOCKS WHERE BOLLARDS PHYSICALLY IS ON THE--.

MR. [INAUDIBLE] DO YOU HAVE THAT MAP YOU CAN PULL UP AND WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT IT? YEAH, I SEE THAT.

THAT'S THE ACTUAL BUILDING WHERE THE PATCHING IS.

THAT'S THE BUILDING? IT'S THAT.

IT'S THE RECTANGULAR SHAPE JUST NORTH OF THE BUILDING BEFORE THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPOSED PARKING LOT. YES, WHERE YOUR CURSOR WAS JUST A MOMENT AGO, MR. CHAPMAN. RIGHT IN THAT AREA.

YES, SO THAT'S AN EXISTING HOUSE.

OH, THAT'S A HOUSE.

THIS AREA RIGHT HERE.

THAT'S A HOME? OK, SO OK, NOW I HAVE QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU MEMBER HENDRICKSON, BECAUSE I HAVE EVEN MORE QUESTIONS.

SO THE PARKING WOULD BE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THAT HOME.

IS THAT HOME OWNED BY MR. FINK OR IS THAT HOME THE ONE THAT WE HAVE--? IT'S OWNED BY MR. FINK, OK.

YES, THAT IS OWNED THAT PART OF THE [INAUDIBLE].

OK, NOW MY NEXT QUESTION ON THAT ONE WOULD BE, IS THAT-- I HAVE SO MANY--.

WHAT IS THE PLAN FOR THAT HOME, I GUESS LET'S START WITH THAT? THAT HOME, IT'S OFFICE SPACE STORAGE.

IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THERE.

BUT WE USE THE FOR WE STORE EXCESS INVENTORY, SO FORTH.

WE HAVE DESKS SET UP IN THERE.

I ACTUALLY HAVE A--.

YEAH, IT'S STORAGE AND THERE'S A GARAGE ALSO BEHIND THAT WE USE FOR EXTRA FREEZER SPACE.

CHAPMAN, CAN I HAVE SOME ASSISTANCE? SO THIS IS NOT WHERE WE'RE CONSIDERING THE SETBACK.

THE SETBACK IS FOR THE OUTER LYING PROPERTIES, IS THAT CORRECT? YOU'RE MUTED. SORRY.

YEAH, SO THIS IS ALL THIS WHOLE AREA SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN IS C1, SO TO THE NORTH IS THE RESIDENTIAL. AND THE HOUSE IS NONCONFORMING, IS THAT RIGHT, KEITH? YEAH, WELL, TO BE USED AS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, YEAH.

BUT IT CAN BE USED AS A ZONE COMMERCIAL, IT COULD HAVE BEEN USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES.

[01:10:01]

IT JUST HAS TO BE MEET COMMERCIAL PURPOSES, BUT IT PROBABLY IS NONCONFORMING BECAUSE OF THE SETBACK FROM MARSH ROAD.

OK, THANK YOU TO STAFF.

ANYONE ELSE? ANY OTHER MEMBERS HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD OR TO THROW OUT THERE? I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS NECESSARILY CHANGES MY PERSPECTIVE AS FAR AS ANYTHING GOES OTHER THAN TO SAY THAT HAVING THAT BUILDING THERE, YOU KNOW THAT AGAIN, I MEAN, IT'S-- THAT COULD ALSO BE PARKING.

OK, WELL, I THINK WE GO BACK TO THE CRITERIA.

THANK YOU FOR SHARING THAT, MR. CHAPMAN. I THINK WE GO BACK TO THE CRITERIA AND I, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, STRUCK BY-- LET'S SEE. I'M STILL I COULD-- CRITERION NUMBER SIX, GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND OR THE CENTRAL CHARACTER IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY.

I COULD SAY I COULD MAKE THAT CASE FOR THAT.

I COULD PROBABLY MAKE A CASE FOR THE CONDITIONS PERTAINING TO THE LAND OR STRUCTURE.

AND NOT SO GENERAL OR RECURRENT NATURE IS TO MAKE THE FORMULATION OF A GENERAL REGULATION FOR SUCH CONDITIONS PRACTICABLE.

I CAN ALSO REACH THAT CRITERIA.

GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE PURPOSES IN THE CONTENT OF THIS CHAPTER.

AGAIN, THIS IS WHERE I'M GOING TO STRUGGLE, BECAUSE IF THE INTENT IN THE REZONING, I MEAN, THERE WAS INTENT IN THE REZONING, I SHOULD SAY.

SO THE INTENT IN THE REZONING IS WE SHOULD BE RESPECTED.

AND CONSIDERING THAT IT WAS NOT THAT LONG AGO AND I DO THINK THAT IT WAS DONE WITH CARE AND WITH THOUGHT THAT I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN NECESSARILY MAKE CRITERIA FOR EIGHT.

MEMBER HENDRICKSON, GO AHEAD. I MOVE TO DENY THE VARIANCE AS REQUESTED IN CASE NUMBER-- OH, GOODNESS, I HAVE LOST IT.

20, DASH 10, DASH 14, DASH ONE FOR FAILURE TO MEET THE EIGHT CRITERIA THAT WE REQUIRE IN ORDER TO APPROVE A VARIANCE.

DO I SEE SUPPORT? I SUPPORT. SUPPORT FROM TRUSTEE WISINSKI.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? I WOULD SAY I WOULD JUST ADD I DO-- I WOULD LIKE TO BE CLEAR.

I HAVE A DIFFICULTY MEETING CRITERIA FOUR, CRITERIA FIVE, AND CRITERIA EIGHT ON THIS VARIANCE APPLICATION.

SO I UNDERSTANDABLY WOULD AGREE WITH THAT MOTION.

ANYONE ELSE WANT TO ADD ANYTHING? THIS IS DON AGAIN. HI, DON.

GO AHEAD. JUST PARACHUTING IN, I ONCE AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO ASSOCIATE MYSELF WITH YOUR COMMENTS. I THINK THE PROBLEM IS I THINK THAT I SEE ARE WITH THOSE CRITERIA THAT YOU JUST LISTED, AND I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S BEEN DEMONSTRATED AT ALL IN PARTICULAR, THAT THEY'LL BE UNREASONABLY PREVENTED FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR ITS PERMITTED PURPOSE.

AND FOR THAT REASON, I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION TO DENY.

THANK YOU, MEMBER KULHANEK.

YEAH, I JUST WANT TO REITERATE, I THINK THAT WE ALL WANT TO SEE BUSINESS IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP SUCCEED AND PARTICULARLY IN LIGHT OF WHAT'S HAPPENING IN OUR COUNTRY RIGHT NOW AND WITH THE RECESSION.

I MEAN, THIS IS WE REALLY DO WANT YOU TO SUCCEED MR. FINK. PLEASE, PLEASE KNOW THAT.

I THINK THAT LOOKING AT THAT AND ALSO WITH THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND MAYBE WE ALL DIDN'T GET A BIG SHOCK, WE LOOKED AT THAT, THE SITE MAP.

BUT I THINK THAT GOING BACK TO THAT SITE AND LOOKING AND I THINK THAT MAYBE THERE'S OTHER OPTIONS AND THAT'S WHY I WOULD LEAN TOWARDS VERY MUCH SUPPORTING THE DENIAL.

THERE LOOKS TO BE LIKE THERE COULD BE SOME OTHER OPTIONS THERE WITH PARKING.

AND I, YOU KNOW, OUR JOB AS THE ZBA IS TO TO CREATE VARIANCES AS MINIMALLY AS POSSIBLE, BECAUSE THIS DOES STAY WITH THE PROPERTY AND NOT JUST THE PARTICULAR BUSINESS OWNER OR THE PARTICULAR BUSINESS AT THE TIME.

SO THAT BEING SAID, IF THERE'S NO OTHER DISCUSSION, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GO TO A ROLL CALL VOTE. OK, I DON'T SEE ANY ANY WAVING HANDS, SO.

ALL RIGHT, THIS IS A ROLL CALL VOTE TO DENY THE VARIANCE APPLICATION IN ZBA CASE NUMBER

[01:15:05]

20, DASH 10, DASH 14, DASH ONE FINK.

MEMBER HENDRICKSON. YES.

TRUSTEE WISINSKI.

YES. MEMBER SHORKEY.

YES. MEMBER KULHANEK.

YES.

AND THE CHAIR VOTES YES.

I'M SORRY, UNFORTUNATELY, MR. FINK, YOUR VARIANCE APPLICATION HAS BEEN DENIED AND WE REALLY DO APPRECIATE YOU AND MR. RUSSELL AND MR. [INAUDIBLE] GIVING US YOUR TIME THIS EVENING.

AND WE CERTAINLY DO WISH YOU THE BEST WITH YOUR BUSINESS.

THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU.

[6B. ZBA CASE NO. 20-10-14-2 (Maniaci), 3957 Palomino Drive, East Lansing, MI, 48823]

OK, WE ARE GOING TO MOVE ON.

NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS IS--.

I'M SCROLLING THROUGH ON MY IPAD HERE, FOLKS.

NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS IS ZBA CASE NUMBER 20 DASH, 10 DASH, 14 DASH, TWO MANIACI.

AND I WILL TURN IT OVER TO MR. CHAPMAN.

OK, ZBA 20, DASH 10, DASH 14 TWO MANIACI.

SO THE APPLICANTS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY BUILDING TO PROJECT ON THE FRONT YARD LOCATED ON A PARCEL NORTH OF THIRTY SIX NINETY HULETT ROAD.

THIS PARCEL IS CURRENTLY ZONED RAA, SINGLE FAMILY, LOW DENSITY.

AND THE PROPERTY IS POINT FOUR THREE ACRES IN SIZE.

REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION EIGHTY SIX FIVE SIX FIVE ONE, NO ACCESSORY BUILDING SHALL PROJECT INTO THE FRONT YARD.

THIS SITE PLAN SHOWS AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING 900 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE THAT IS LOCATED IN FRONT OF THE PROPOSED SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY HOME PRIOR TO THE CREATION OF THIS PARCEL.

THIS NONCONFORMING GARAGE WAS ON A LARGER PARCEL WITH THIS NEIGHBORING SINGLE FAMILY HOME, ALONG WITH THIS [INAUDIBLE].

IN TWENTY SIXTEEN, THIS PROPERTY WAS REZONED FROM R TO RAA.

IN TWENTY SEVENTEEN, THE PROPERTY WAS SPLIT INTO TWO PARCELS AND ALSO IN TWO THOUSAND SEVENTEEN, THE APPLICANT WAS DENIED A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A HOUSE THAT WAS APPROXIMATELY TWENTY ONE HUNDRED SQUARE FEET AT ITS CLOSEST POINT.

AND WITH A SETBACK OF SIXTY EIGHT FEET FROM THE CENTER LINE OF HULETT ROAD RIGHT AWAY WHERE AN EIGHTY FIVE FOOT SETBACK WAS REQUIRED.

PROJECT OVERVIEW. LIKE I SAID, SHOWS EXISTING NONCONFORMING, NINE HUNDRED SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY GARAGE IN FRONT OF THE PROPOSED HOME.

PRIOR TO THE CREATION OF THE PARCEL, WAS ON A LARGER ONE BUILT NINETEEN SIXTY.

SO WITH THE LAND DIVISION THAT WAS DONE ON THE PROPERTY THAT'S ONLY BASED-- THAT WAS APPROVED BASED ON MEETING THE MINIMUM WIDTH OF 90 FEET AND MINIMUM AREA OF THIRTEEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SQUARE FEET, THAT IS REQUIRED FOR THE RAA ZONING DISTRICT.

UM, GO BACK.

SO THE LAND DIVISION DOESN'T TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION IF AN EXISTING BUILDING WILL BECOME NONCONFORMING ONCE THE PARCEL IS DIVIDED.

SO ONCE THAT LAND DIVISION WAS DONE, IT MADE THE EXISTING GARAGE AND PULL BARN NONCONFORMING BECAUSE IN SECTION EIGHTY SIX FIVE OH TWO OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, IT REQUIRES ACCESSORY BUILDINGS TO BE LOCATED ON THE SAME PARCEL AS A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE OR A HOUSE. SO ONCE THE NEW HOUSE OR PROPOSED HOUSE IS CREATED AS CONSTRUCTED, THAT WILL REMOVE THAT NONCONFORMITY BUT WILL CREATE ANOTHER ONE WHICH THIS VARIANCE REQUEST IS FOR.

SO IN SUMMARY, THE GARAGE IS NONCONFORMING BECAUSE IT'S LOCATED FORTY SEVEN FEET FROM THE CENTER LINE OF HULETT ROAD WHERE THEY'RE REQUIRED TO SETBACK OF EIGHTY FIVE FEET

[01:20:04]

AND IT WILL BE LOCATED IN THE FRONT YARD OF THE PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

SO, YEAH, FORTY SEVEN FEET FROM THE CENTER LINE OF HULETT ROAD, 16 FEET FROM IN FRONT OF THE PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND 13 FEET FROM THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE.

THE GARAGE IN TOTAL WILL PROJECT THIRTY SEVEN FEET IN FRONT OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE, WHICH REQUIRES A 37 FOOT VARIANCE.

ALSO IN TWENTY SEVENTEEN, THERE WAS A WETLAND DELINEATION THAT WAS CONDUCTED.

THIS WAS ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.

THE PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY HOME, CURRENTLY IS LOCATED FORTY THREE POINT FIVE FEET FROM THE EDGE OF THE PREVIOUSLY SURVEYED WETLAND BOUNDARY AND THREE AND A HALF FEET FROM THAT, THE REQUIRED 40 FOOT WELL AND SETBACK.

SO IF THIS VARIANCE IS APPROVED, THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE TO GET A DELINEATION UPDATED TO CONFIRM THE LOCATION OF THOSE WETLANDS.

AND HERE'S A COUPLE OF PICTURES FOR YOU.

AND ALSO, THERE WAS THREE LETTERS, I BELIEVE, [INAUDIBLE] ONE IN OPPOSITION AND [INAUDIBLE] TWO THAT WERE IN SUPPORT.

SO, THAT'S IT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAPMAN, VERY MUCH.

IS THERE ANYBODY HERE OR THE APPLICANT OR ANY REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE APPLICANT THAT IS HERE TONIGHT THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? YES, MY NAME IS CHUCK CHUCK MANIACI.

AND I AM THE APPLICANT.

CAN YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE, MR. MANIACI? MY CURRENT ADDRESS IS THREE NINE FIVE SEVEN PALOMINO DRIVE.

AND THAT'S EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, IF YOU'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD OR YEAH, WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD IF YOU WANT TO. OK, WELL, A COUPLE OF THINGS, JUST SOME OVERALL COMMENTS, AS MR. CHAPMAN, AS KEITH, PROVIDED US WITH THE HISTORY OF THE PARCEL.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE.

WE DID AFTER A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE THREE YEARS AGO, WAS REDO THE FOOTPRINT OF THE HOUSE TO MAKE SURE THAT IT HAD ALL THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, THAT WAS WHAT WAS ON THE TABLE IN 2017.

AND IN THE REPORT FOR THE ZBA AT THE TIME, IT INDICATED THAT IF IT WAS APPROVED, THAT IT WOULD ALSO ESSENTIALLY HAVE A GARAGE FORWARD OF THE HOUSE AND THEN THAT WOULD BE NONCONFORMING BECAUSE THE ORDINANCE SAYS YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE AN ACCESSORY BUILDING FORWARD OF THE HOUSE.

SO THAT THAT DID NOT GET APPROVED.

THE THOUGHT WAS THE STATEMENT THAT THE CHAIR MADE AT THE TIME, CHAIR DESCHAINE.

HE STATED THAT THERE'S A BUILDABLE AREA AVAILABLE ON THE PROPERTY WITHOUT THE NEED FOR A VARIANCE. SO WE TOOK THAT TO HEART.

WE PUT THE BUILDING PLAN ON HOLD AND WORKED ON A CUSTOMIZED FLOOR PLAN WITH A FOOTPRINT THAT WOULD MEET THE CRITERIA.

AND THAT PLAN WAS SUBMITTED BY JERRY FEDEWA HOMES IN AUGUST AS PART OF HIS REQUEST FOR A BUILDING PERMIT, AND THAT PERMIT IS PENDING THE RESOLUTION OF THIS VARIANCE REQUEST.

AND BY BUILDING THE HOUSE, WE'RE ABLE TO ELIMINATE THE NONCONFORMANCE ISSUE RELATED TO TWO BUILDINGS BEING ON A PARCEL WITHOUT A PRIMARY RESIDENCE.

AND FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, IT SEEMS LIKE A REASONABLE COMPROMISE AND A BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY, YOU HAVE A HOUSE ON THE PARCEL, EVEN THOUGH THERE'S AN EXISTING BUILDING THAT WILL END UP BEING FORWARD OF THAT HOME.

AND AS KEITH MENTIONED, WE HAD TWO LETTERS IN SUPPORT, AND THAT'S ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDE. NOW, THOSE ARE THE KEY NEIGHBORS FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, BECAUSE THEY'RE RIGHT THERE ON THE ROAD WITH US ON EACH SIDE.

AND THEY WERE SUPPORTIVE OF IT.

AND ON OCTOBER 8TH, JUST LAST WEEK, THE ROAD COMMISSION SUPPORTED THE RETENTION OF THE GARAGE AND ALLOWED US TO KEEP THE DRIVEWAY THERE AND PUT IN AN ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY FOR THE NEW HOME. SO WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING THAT WE NEED TO DO TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS AND BE GOOD STEWARDS OF THE COMMUNITY.

AND THERE WAS ONE LETTER THAT WAS MORE OF A AN ANGRY TONE THAT SAID WE HAD A BUSINESS

[01:25:08]

VENTURE AND ITS PROFIT MOTIVATED AND THAT NEIGHBOR HAS SOME OF THEIR BACKYARD ADJACENT TO A PORTION OF OUR BACKYARD.

AND IT CERTAINLY IS NOT A BUSINESS VENTURE OR PROFIT MOTIVATED ACTION THAT WE'RE TAKING.

IT'S MUCH EASIER AND LESS EXPENSIVE TO TEAR DOWN A GARAGE THAN IT IS TO FOLLOW THESE CHANNELS, TO BE ABLE TO PUT OUR HOME THERE AND KEEP THAT GARAGE.

JUST SOME INFORMATION WE'VE LIVED.

MY WIFE AND I AND MY CHILDREN IN THREE DIFFERENT HOUSES IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP FOR THE PAST THIRTY THREE YEARS, ALL WITHIN ABOUT ONE AND A HALF SQUARE MILE.

WE SCALED UP AS OUR FAMILY GREW AND NOW WE'RE SCALING DOWN.

IT'S THE LAST HOUSE WE PLAN TO BUILD AND LIVE IN AND WE'RE INCORPORATING MANY OF THESE AGING PLACE AMENITIES, WHAT THEY CALL ZERO CLEARANCE ENTRIES, YOU KNOW, STEP ONTO THE FRONT PORCH, NO STEP UP FROM THE PORCH TO GET INTO THE HOUSE.

WIDER DOORWAYS INTO THE BEDROOM AND BATHROOM.

AND IF WE BUILD A HOME ON THE PARCEL, THE GARAGE EXTERIOR WILL BE IMPROVED UPON TO MATCH THE HOUSE. IT WON'T BE AN EYESORE TO THE COMMUNITY, YOU KNOW, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IT'LL BE MORE ATTRACTIVE. AND IT WILL REQUIRE SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT, CERTAINLY A LOT MORE THAN WILL COST TO TEAR IT DOWN.

AND WE HAVE INVESTED ALREADY IN THE ELECTRIC, WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE BUILDING WAS SAFE AFTER WE BOUGHT IT, SO WE BROUGHT THE CODE UP TO DATE FROM THE ELECTRIC STANDPOINT SO THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY CONCERNS BECAUSE WE WERE USING THE GARAGE.

AND THEN I WAS TAKEN FROM A COMMUNITY STANDPOINT, COMMUNITY IMPACT, HAVING THAT GARAGE WHERE IT STANDS AND SHIELDS THE VIEW OF A POLE BARN THAT'S ON THE BACK OF OUR PARCEL.

AND THEN ONCE APPROVED A PLAN TO MATCH THE NEW HOUSE, I THINK IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A MORE ATTRACTIVE OPTION WHEN DRIVING OR WALKING BY VERSUS SEEING THE METAL SIDED POLE BARN WITH A BUNCH OF CONCRETE [INAUDIBLE].

SO THE QUESTION IS, WHY DO WE WANT TO KEEP THE GARAGE? IT'S EASIER, SIMPLER, LESS EXPENSIVE TO GET RID OF IT.

BUT WE'VE OWNED THE PROPERTY FOR FOUR YEARS AND WE'VE BEEN ENJOYING AND USING IT QUITE A BIT. AND IT'S WHAT I IMAGINED THAT WE WOULD DO WHEN I RODE MY BIKE BY THERE FOUR YEARS AGO. AND SAID, I REALLY LIKE THIS PROPERTY.

I SAW IT WAS FOR SALE AND I SAID, YOU KNOW, I MADE A PHONE CALL TO A REAL ESTATE AGENT BEFORE I EVEN GOT HOME AND SAID, I'D LIKE TO PUT AN OFFER ON THIS PROPERTY.

I REALLY LIKE IT. I LIKE THE LOCATION.

I LIKE THAT IT HAS THESE OUTBUILDINGS THAT WE CAN USE FOR.

JUST WE GOT KIDS THAT LIVE IN THE AREA ARE TWO ADULT GROWN CHILDREN, TWO OF THEM OUT OF THREE LIVE IN THE AREA, AND TWO OF OUR GRANDCHILDREN DO AS WELL.

AND MY GRANDCHILDREN GO TO BENNETT WOODS.

SO IT'S WHERE WE MEET UP WITH OUR ADULT CHILDREN, OUR SONS IN LAWS, OUR DAUGHTERS, OUR GRANDDAUGHTERS. WE WORK ON PROJECTS IN THAT GARAGE IN THE POLE BARN WE'VE GOT WEIGHT EQUIPMENT AND WE ALL EXERCISE AT DIFFERENT TIMES WE'RE IN THERE AND OUT OF THERE.

I'M ABLE TO DO WOODWORKING PROJECTS IN THE GARAGE.

AND IT'S WHERE FRIENDS COME BY TO HANG OUT.

WE DO SIMPLE THINGS LIKE WATCHING THE HIGH SCHOOL, THE HOMECOMING PARADE, YOU KNOW, THAT GARAGE IS RIGHT THERE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ACTION.

AND WE FOUND THIS YEAR AND WITH THE SOCIAL DISTANCING RESTRICTIONS WE'VE HAD, IT'S BEEN A GREAT NEUTRAL SPACE FOR FRIENDS OF OURS TO MEET US THERE.

WE SIT OUTSIDE ON THE DRIVEWAY OR JUST INSIDE THE OPEN DOORS OF THE GARAGE AS THE WEATHER GETS COOLER, WE'VE GOT LAWN CHAIRS IN THEIR SMALL REFRIGERATOR TO KEEP BEVERAGES COOL.

IT'S JUST WHAT WE'VE REALLY FOUND THAT WE'VE ENJOYED THAT GARAGE.

PASSERS BY WHEN I'M IN THERE WITH MY SON IN LAW WE'RE WORKING ON HIS 1971 MG THAT HE KEEPS IN THE GARAGE. THEY COME IN, THEY POKE THEIR HEAD IN THE GARAGE.

THEY START TALKING ABOUT THEIR THEIR EXPERIENCE WITH OLD CARS.

IT'S JUST I MEAN, I WAS IN THERE WHEN SOME GUY CAME IN AND HE JUST SAID, HEY, I USED TO HAVE ONE OF THESE AND HE SIT IN THERE FOR ABOUT A HALF HOUR JUST TALKING TO.

AND THEN OTHER PEOPLE STOPPED BY TO TELL US HOW THEY USED TO BRING THEIR LAWN MOWERS AND SNOW BLOWERS TO THE PERSON WHO USED TO LIVE THERE WITH HIS FAMILY, NEIL PATTERSON HE USED TO WORK ON SMALL ENGINES AND APPARENTLY THEY WOULD ALWAYS BRING THEIR LAWN MOWERS AND SNOW BLOWERS THERE TO BE FIXED.

NEIL WOULD OFTEN TAKE OLD ONES AND FIX THEM UP AND HAVE THEM OUT THERE FOR SALE.

SO, YOU KNOW, ALL THIS COMMUNITY INTERACTION WE HAVE AREN'T THINGS WE WOULD DO WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE ON THE HOUSE.

FOR US, IT'S LIKE A LITTLE GETAWAY ON OUR OWN PROPERTY.

AND WHAT WE'VE LEARNED IS JUST USING THE PROPERTY THE LAST FOUR YEARS IS IT'S OUR FRONT PORCH TO THE COMMUNITY.

YOU KNOW, WE GOT THE OKEMOS PRESERVE.

ONE OF THE THINGS THEY FOCUSED ON WERE FRONT PORCHES, GARAGES IN THE BACK OF A HOUSE, SHORT DISTANCES OF THE DRIVEWAYS TO FOSTER THE FEELING OF NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND PEOPLE WALK BY AND THEY CAN TALK TO THE NEIGHBORS ON THE FRONT PORCH, THE HOUSE THAT WE ARE GOING TO BUILD THERE THAT WE WANT TO BUILD.

IT'S GOT TO BE 60 FEET BACK BEHIND THAT SIDEWALK.

[01:30:03]

EIGHTY FIVE FEET FROM THE CENTER LINE OF HULETT.

AND WE DID A FOOTPRINT THAT WOULD FIT THAT AND MEET ALL THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.

BUT IT'S MUCH TOO FAR TO ALLOW FOR THAT IMPROMPTU FRIENDLY INTERACTION THAT WE HAVE WITH PEOPLE PASSING BY.

SO THAT'S THE REASON WE WANT TO KEEP IT.

OUR REQUEST IS TO KEEP THE GARAGE ON THE PARCEL IF WE BUILD A NEW HOME.

THAT'S JUST A LITTLE BIT OF A STORY BEHIND THE GARAGE AND WHY WE'D LIKE TO KEEP IT.

THANK YOU MR. MANIACI WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR INPUT THERE AND [INAUDIBLE] GIVING US ALL THAT THAT INSIGHT INTO THIS CASE.

IF THERE'S ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE, PLEASE MAKE YOURSELVES KNOWN. MY WIFE IS ON ZOOM AS WELL.

I DON'T KNOW IF SHE'S GOT THE ABILITY TO RAISE YOUR HAND.

THAT'S MRS. MANIACI. DO YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING TO WHAT YOUR HUSBAND SAID OR CAN WE GO AHEAD AND GET INTO BOARD TIME? WE KNOW THAT YOU'RE HERE.

WE CAN ALWAYS CALL ON YOU FOR QUESTIONS, TOO, UNLESS YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO ADD THAT YOUR HUSBAND DIDN'T TOUCH ON.

I JUST HAD A COUPLE OF THINGS TO SAY.

OK, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD.

THAT'S MY BEGINNING PART.

[INAUDIBLE] GOING TO BE READING THIS.

AND TRYING TO USE MY FORMER TEACHER VOICE? [INAUDIBLE] TEMPORARILY RESIDE AT 3957 PALOMINO DRIVE IN EAST LANSING WE OWN THE PROPERTY AT 3696 HULETT ROAD IN OKEMOS.

MRS. MANIACI CAN YOU HEAR ME? WE'RE HAVING A VERY DIFFICULT TIME HEARING YOU.

IT SOUNDS A LITTLE GARBLED AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE.

I CAN'T HEAR. ALL RIGHT. WE'VE GOT A LOT OF ECHO RIGHT.

YEAH, I HAVE A LOT OF ECHO HERE.

I CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE HEARD.

ARE YOU IN THE SAME HOME CAN YOU GO IN THE SAME ROOM? [LAUGHTER] I CAN'T HEAR.

MARK, CAN YOU HEAR ME? I CAN HEAR YOU.

WE CAN HEAR YOU, BUT WE CANNOT HEAR YOUR WIFE CLEARLY.

WE HEARD YOUR STATEMENT WHEN YOU HAD YOUR CAMERA UP WE COULD HEAR YOU CLEARLY.

MRS. MANIACI UNFORTUNATELY, I CAN'T UNDERSTAND YOU AND I DON'T WANT YOUR STATEMENT NOT TO BE HEARD.

AND WHEN WE GET INTO OUR BOARD TIME, IF YOU SOMETIMES YOU MAY HAVE TO I DON'T ANYTHING.

SOMETHING HAPPENED.

WE CAN HEAR YOU CLEARLY.

GOT IT. OK SORRY. OK, WE CAN HEAR YOU CLEARLY.

WE CANNOT HEAR YOUR WIFE CLEARLY.

ALL RIGHT. SO LET ME MOVE MY LINE, BECAUSE IT MAYBE [INAUDIBLE].

ARE YOU IN THE SAME LOCATION? CAN YOU GO TO THE SAME ROOM? YOU HAVE THE TWO DEVICES THAT ARE CONNECTED AND YOU'RE GETTING FEEDBACK BETWEEN THE TWO OF THEM. YES IF YOU TWO CAN GO TO THE SAME LOCATION AS OPPOSED TO BEING ON TWO SEPARATE DEVICES, I THINK THAT WILL HELP CLEAR UP YOUR CONNECTION.

WE ARE OK.

I CAN PUT ON MY TECHIE HAT FOR A MINUTE, AND IT MAY BE THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO STREAM TWO VIDEOS AT ONCE.

WHEN WE COULD HEAR THEM PRETTY CLEARLY WHEN THERE WAS ONLY THE ONE VIDEO.

YES. OK, THERE WE GO.

MRS. MANIACI JUST GO AHEAD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

YES. RENEE MANIACI.

I TEMPORARILY RESIDE AT THIRTY NINE FIFTY SEVEN PALOMINO DRIVE IN EAST LANSING.

WE OWN THE PROPERTY AT THIRTY SIX, NINETY SIX, HULETT ROAD IN OKEMOS.

JUST VERY QUICKLY, I DON'T WANT TO TAKE UP A TON OF TIME, YOUR TIME IS IMPORTANT.

I REALLY AM FASCINATED BY EVERYTHING THAT YOU GUYS ARE DOING.

AND I'VE BEEN ASKED TO BE A PART OF THE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP BOARD AT DIFFERENT TIMES.

AND THIS IS REALLY INTERESTING TO ME [INAUDIBLE] I MAY NOT HAVE HAD IN THE PAST.

I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I'VE BEEN RESIDENT FOR OVER 30 YEARS.

I'VE WORKED FOR OKEMOS SCHOOLS FOR 35 YEARS.

AND AGAIN, AS AN EDUCATOR, THIS IS FASCINATING TO ME.

YOU GUYS WORKED TOGETHER SO WELL AND PEOPLE THAT KNOW ME WELL KNOW THAT I DO NOT GIVE COMPLIMENTS EASILY.

BUT IT'S A NICE BALANCE.

SO WHATEVER THE OUTCOME, KEEP DOING WHAT YOU'RE DOING.

THANK YOU. WE APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH.

WE WORK VERY HARD TO COME TO CONSENSUS.

YOU DO. AND WE REALLY ARE THOUGHTFUL ABOUT OUR DECISION.

SO I APPRECIATE THAT. IT'S INCREDIBLE.

[01:35:02]

FOUR YEARS AGO, WHEN MY HUSBAND CAME TO ME TO DISCUSS THE PARCEL, I THOUGHT, OH, BOY, OK, WHAT WHERE IS THIS? YOU KNOW, I WORKED IN THE HIGH SCHOOL, BUT I WASN'T SURE EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT. AND HE WAS EXCITEDLY DESCRIBING TALKING TO THE OWNER AT THAT TIME, NEIL PATTERSON, AND SAID THE FAMILY HAD OWNED THE PLACE SINCE THE 60S AND YEARS BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENTS HAD COME IN ON ALL SIDES OF THEM.

YOU KNOW, HULETT ROAD WAS A DIRT ROAD WHEN I STARTED THAT OKEMOS HIGH SCHOOL RIGHT BEFORE . NEIL WAS READY TO SAY GOODBYE TO THE HOME AND THE PROPERTY AT THAT TIME.

BUT HE TOOK US THROUGH AND YOU COULD SEE THE PRIDE THAT HE HAD IN THE BUILDINGS THAT THEY HAD ON THAT PROPERTY.

HE WAS GIVING INFORMATION, TELLING STORIES ABOUT EXPERIENCES OVER THE DECADES.

HE USED TO BE A PERSON THAT REPAIRED SMALL ENGINES RIGHT THERE IN THAT GARAGE.

AND SO PEOPLE WOULD REGULARLY COME BY AND TALK TO HIM AND APPRECIATE WHAT HE DID.

AND AND IT BECAME A DEEPER MEANING TO ME AT LEAST ABOUT, OH, OK, THE GARAGE.

BUT, YOU KNOW, I GUESS IT'S MORE THAN THAT NOW.

WITHIN THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS, WE FOUND THE LOCATION WAS A VERY POPULAR PLACE TO MEET WITH AND TALK WITH NEIGHBORS.

WE WOULD INVITE FELLOW TEACHERS, FRIENDS AND FAMILY TO JOIN US IN THAT GARAGE AND, YOU KNOW, CHEER ON STUDENTS AND SUCH THAT WE'RE WALKING, PARADING DOWN SOUTH ON HULETT ROAD FOR HOMECOMING. THAT WAS ALWAYS A FUN ONE.

WE'VE GROWN TO EMBRACE THE SOUNDS FROM ON AND AROUND THE FOOTBALL FIELD AND YOU KNOW, TRACK EVENTS AND BAND PRACTICES.

AND THAT HELPED TO SECURE OUR THOUGHT ABOUT BUILDING ON THE AREA THAT WAS VACANT.

WE DIDN'T NECESSARILY AT FIRST HAVE THAT THOUGHT.

WE HONESTLY BELIEVED THAT WE HAD CLEARANCE TO KEEP THE GARAGE OR WE WOULDN'T HAVE PROCEEDED TO THIS POINT.

WE SPENT A FEW COUPLE OF YEARS AT LEAST TRYING TO PERFECT THE BUILDING THAT WE WOULD PUT ON THAT SPOT.

AND WE SINCERELY THOUGHT THAT WE WERE, YOU KNOW, AVOIDED SOME OF RESTRICTIONS.

WE'VE COME TO KNOW IN THE NEIGHBORS ON EACH SIDE OF US, TO THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH, WE KNOW SOME IN THE SANCTUARY AND WE SHARE INTERESTS AND A COMMON RESPECT FOR THE AREA.

MY HUSBAND, CHUCK, HAS REGULARLY WE'VE BEEN PART OF A GROUP TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW WET LANDS AND AREAS AROUND, YOU KNOW, INCOMING DEVELOPMENTS ARE COGNIZANT OF OF THEIR IMPACT. AND SO WE'VE TRIED TO BE THAT AS WELL.

THE FARM HOMES ON EITHER SIDE OF THIS LOT ARE UNIQUE.

WE ABSOLUTELY LOVE THEM.

THEY'RE HISTORICAL REMNANTS OF THE PAST.

AND THE GARAGE IS PART OF THAT HISTORY.

WE BELIEVE.

FOR SOME PEOPLE, GETTING RID OF THIS IS A NON-ISSUE.

IT'S LIKE GET RID OF THE BUILDING AND THEN YOU CAN BUILD YOUR HOME.

AND FOR US, IT'S REALLY BEEN CLOSER TO THE HEART BECAUSE WE FEEL LIKE IT'S AN UNNECESSARY DESTRUCTION OF A VIABLE STRUCTURE THAT WE HAVE.

AND IT ALSO REMOVES US FROM THE CONNECTEDNESS THAT BRIDGES, THE FEW REMAINING OLDER HOMES TO THE NEWER SUBDIVISIONS THAT HAVE COME IN ALL AROUND US.

IT'S JUST A KIND OF A PERSONAL, HEART FELT THING.

SO, AGAIN, I RESPECT YOU AND WHATEVER DECISION YOU COME UP WITH WE WILL ABIDE BY.

BUT I REALLY ASK FOR STRONG CONSIDERATION FOR US TO BE ABLE TO KEEP THAT EXISTING ACCESSORY BUILDING INTACT AND THEN BUILD OUR MODEST HOME ON THE AREA THAT'S AVAILABLE. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MRS. MANIACI, WE APPRECIATE THAT.

IS THERE ANYTHING ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE OTHERWISE WE'RE GOING TO GET INTO OUR BOARD TIME.

OK, IN THAT CASE, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GO TO BOARD TIME.

I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS I'M JUST GOING TO THROW OUT THAT ACTUALLY MS. MANIACI JUST SAID WAS THE UNNECESSARY DESTRUCTION OF A VIABLE BUILDING.

JUST GOING TO PUT THAT OUT THERE.

WE HAVE I BELIEVE THAT IN AND OF ITSELF IS A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE.

THE FACT THAT THIS BUILDING ALREADY EXISTS, THEY'RE DOING EVERYTHING IN THEIR POWER JUST

[01:40:02]

TO BUILD A HOME ON A PARCEL THAT IS BUILDABLE IT'S A BUILDABLE LOT.

I DON'T BELIEVE I MEAN, I'LL LET OTHER MEMBERS CHIME IN AS WELL, BUT I THINK I COULD GO THROUGH THE CRITERIA RIGHT NOW VERY EASILY.

ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO ADD ANYTHING BEFORE WE GO THROUGH CRITERIA? OR ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF OR THE MANIACI'S? MEMBER HENDRICKSON, GO AHEAD.

THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR KEITH IN YOUR PRESENTATION.

YOU MENTIONED THAT THE LAND DIVISION, I BELIEVE YOU SAID IT, ADDED A NONCONFORMITY AND REMOVED A NONCONFORMITY WHERE BUILDING A HOUSE ON THIS WOULD REMOVE ONE, BUT ADD ANOTHER.

IN TRUTH TWO NONCONFORMITY IS EXISTED EVEN PRIOR TO THAT, DID THEY NOT? I MEAN, THE STRUCTURE WAS TOO CLOSE TO THE ROAD AS IT WAS, WASN'T IT? YES. SO IT DIDN'T MEET THAT FRONT YARD SETBACK OR THE SETBACK TO HULETT.

SO, YEAH, I GUESS IT WOULD RIGHT.

RIGHT. SO.

IN 2017, THAT PLAN, NOT THE PLAN THAT'S BEFORE US NOW.

THAT'S RIGHT. THE LAND DIVISION WHAT WAS WHAT CREATED IT, I GUESS IS MY POINT.

SO MY QUESTION TO THE MANIACI'S IS THIS.

YOU OWNED THE PROPERTY IN 2016 AND THE LAND DIVISION OCCURRED IN 2017.

YOU WERE THE ONES THAT APPLIED FOR THE LAND DIVISION, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. AND YOU RECEIVED THAT LAND DIVISION? I'M NOT ENTIRELY CERTAIN ABOUT THE PROCESS THERE, BUT WHAT THAT WENT THROUGH AT YOUR BEHEST. YES.

OK, ON THE PROPERTY AS PROPOSED ON THE SITE PLAN THAT YOU'VE PROVIDED AND THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THAT, IT APPEARS AS THOUGH WHAT I SEE HERE AS PROPOSED HOUSE AND GARAGE BACK TO THE I GUESS THAT WOULD BE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY BACK SETBACK IS YOUR INTENT TO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL GARAGE BACK THAT IS CONNECTED TO THE HOUSE? YEAH, THERE WOULD BE A TWO CAR GARAGE CONNECTED TO THE HOUSE FOR THE CARS TO PARK.

AND SO.

SCOTT, IF I MAY ADD, WHAT I INITIALLY WANTED TO DO WAS USE THAT GARAGE BY THE ROAD AS THE GARAGE FOR THE HOME, WE WANT IT TO BE ATTACHED AND WE COULDN'T DO THAT.

THE CRITERIA IN THE BUILDING OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD NOT ALLOW ME TO ATTACH TO THAT.

OTHERWISE THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE WOULD BE NON-COMPLIANT.

SO THAT'S WHY WE CHOSE TO HAVE JUST A REGULAR SIZE TWO CAR GARAGE ATTACHED TO THE HOME FOR THE CARS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SO IN LOOKING AT THE CRITERIA ON WHICH WE WE MUST MAKE OUR DECISION, I'M HUNG UP ON A COUPLE OF THINGS. NUMBER ONE, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING UNIQUE ABOUT THIS PROPERTY THAT WOULD REQUIRE A GARAGE TO BE SET FORWARD FROM THE BUILDING, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FACT THAT IT HAS EXISTED FOR A WHILE.

AND I DON'T THINK THAT AN EXISTING NONCONFORMITY IS UNIQUE ENOUGH OF A CIRCUMSTANCE TO MEET THE CRITERIA TO QUALIFY FOR THAT CRITERIA.

THAT'S JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION.

THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, WE'RE NOT SELF CREATED.

YEAH, THE LAND DIVISION HAPPENED.

BUT THE REALITY IS, IS THAT WITH REGARD TO THE VARIANCE REQUEST THAT'S BEING PUT BEFORE US, NO, THEY WEREN'T SELF CREATED.

YOU BOUGHT THAT PROPERTY AND THIS WAS EXISTING ON IT.

SO I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THAT PARTICULAR CRITERIA.

IN TERMS OF PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, I STRUGGLE AGAIN, AS WE OFTEN DO ON THIS BOARD WITH THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES OF THIS.

RIGHT. I MEAN, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A GARAGE.

YOUR PROPERTY CAN HAVE A GARAGE THAT DOESN'T PROJECT FORWARD INTO THE FRONT YARD OF THIS OF THIS PROPERTY.

YOU KNOW THAT BECAUSE THE PROPOSED PLAN HAS A GARAGE ON IT.

AND SO I STRUGGLE TO MEET WITH THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES BECAUSE YOU'RE ABLE TO FIND A WAY TO HAVE A GARAGE ON YOUR PROPERTY WITHOUT VIOLATING THE ORDINANCE.

AND SO I COULD GO ON WITH THE ADDITIONAL CRITERIA FURTHER DOWN.

BUT IF I CAN'T GET PAST NUMBER THREE, I STRUGGLE TO SEE HOW I COULD POSSIBLY SUPPORT A VARIANCE OF THIS REQUEST GIVEN THAT.

SURE. ALL RIGHT.

LET ME GIVE YOU MY THOUGHTS ON THAT.

PLEASE. WHAT IS THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE? FIRST OF ALL, I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY EVEN KNOWS HOW LONG AGO THESE EIGHT QUESTIONS HAVE

[01:45:01]

COME OUT.

WHEN WERE THESE QUESTIONS DEVELOPED? BUT THE INTENT, YOU KNOW, IT TALKS ABOUT STRICT INTERPRETATION VERSUS THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE, THE LITERAL TERMS AND STRICT INTERPRETATION.

AND MY THOUGHT IS THAT I EVEN WROTE MYSELF A FEW COMMENTS HERE THAT THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE, THIS IS MY PERSPECTIVE, IS TO PREVENT SOMEBODY FROM ERECTING AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN FRONT OF A PRIMARY RESIDENCE.

AND THINK ABOUT A NEIGHBORHOOD.

PEOPLE HAVE THEIR HOMES. THEY WANT TO PUT IN A SECOND GARAGE OR A SHED.

THE ORDINANCE IS THERE TO PREVENT THAT FROM HAPPENING BECAUSE IT'S NOT A POSITIVE THING FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO IT CERTAINLY MAKES SENSE FROM A STRUCTURAL STANDPOINT TO NOT BEING ABLE TO BUILD A STRUCTURE IN FRONT OF AN EXISTING HOME.

AND I BELIEVE THAT'S THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE.

SO HERE WE HAVE A STRUCTURE THAT'S ALREADY THERE.

WE KNOW IT'S NOT A PUBLIC ISSUE.

IT'S NOT BEEN A CONCERN FOR 60 YEARS.

THE ROAD COMMISSION, FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT, OF THE ROAD DEPARTMENT HAS NO CONCERN AT ALL WITH THAT GARAGE AND EVEN ALLOWED US TO HAVE A SECOND DRIVEWAY, WHICH IS AN EXCEPTION BECAUSE THEY FEEL THAT THAT GARAGE IS ENTITLED TO STAY THERE.

YEAH, AND I DO APPRECIATE THAT.

BUT THEY ARE CHARGED WITH A DIFFERENT MANDATE THAN THIS BODY IS CHARGED WITH.

UNDERSTOOD RIGHT. AND, YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE GENERALLY AND FROM, YOU KNOW, OUR LIST OF CRITERIA INCLUDES NUMBER FIVE, WHICH DOES REFER TO THE SPIRIT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

BUT CRITERIA NUMBER THREE, WHICH IS WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT A MOMENT AGO, REQUIRES A STRICT INTERPRETATION.

I MEAN, THIS BODY IS INTENDED TO MORE OR LESS BE THE ARBITER OF WHAT IS EXISTING AND WHETHER OR NOT STRICT ADHERENCE TO THOSE EXISTING ORDINANCES AS WRITTEN WOULD INDEED CAUSE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.

NOW, I'M NOT HERE TO SAY THAT YOU WOULDN'T BE RIGHT IN ARGUING FOR A CHANGE IN TERMS OF THE INTENT. BUT THAT'S NOT OUR MANDATE.

OUR MANDATE IS TO HAVE A STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE ORDINANCE AS IT EXISTS AND TO MAKE OUR DECISION BASED ON THESE CRITERIA THAT ARE LAID IN FRONT OF US.

OK, SO I'M GOING TO BRING IT BACK TO CENTER, THANK YOU.

MEMBER HENDRICKSON AND MR. MANIACI. I WANT TO BRING IT BACK TO GOING THROUGH THOSE CRITERIA, BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE WHERE WE CAN FOCUS OUR ENERGIES.

CRITERIA NUMBER ONE, 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. I DID HEAR A MEMBER, HENDRICKSON, SAY HE DID NOT BELIEVE THESE ARE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES BECAUSE OF THE LAND DIVISION.

I THINK IT IS UNIQUE BECAUSE OF THE LAND DIVISION.

SO I THINK YOU AND I ARE OPPOSITE SIDES OF THE ROAD HERE.

I DO THINK IT'S UNIQUE IN THAT THE EXISTENCE OF THE PARCEL WITHOUT BUILDINGS, WITHOUT A HOUSE IS A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE.

FOR THAT PARTICULAR PARCEL.

I WELCOME.

YES MEMBER HENDRICKSON, GO AHEAD.

SO THAT'S A FINE ARGUMENT TO MAKE, BUT IF YOU MAKE THAT ARGUMENT, THEN YOU CANNOT TELL ME THAT THESE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT SELF CREATED BECAUSE THEY APPLIED FOR AND RECEIVED FOR LAND DIVISION THEMSELVES.

WELL THERE WE GO THEN WE MIGHT BE MR. MANIACI JUST ONE SECOND.

I'M SORRY FOR TWO REASONS.

ONE, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE BOARD IS HEARD AND WE ARE ABLE TO HAVE OUR DISCUSSIONS SO THAT WE CAN COME TO OUR CONSENSUS, BUT ALSO SO THAT FOR THE AMAZING CLERKS THAT HAVE TO GO THROUGH AND WRITE MINUTES THAT WE KNOW WHO IS SPEAKING, WE CAN GET A CLEAR RECORD OF THAT AND WHAT'S BEING ADDRESSED.

BEFORE I LET YOU SPEAK, MR. MANIACI, I JUST WANT TO GO BACK TO MEMBER HENDRICKSON'S POINT.

I THINK THAT'S WE'RE GOING TO GO RIGHT TO ONE AND TWO IS IT THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG.

RIGHT ONE AND TWO IS CHICKEN AND EGG.

AND SO I HEAR YOU.

I DO HEAR YOU. I MIGHT WANT TO PUT A [INAUDIBLE] IN THOSE TWO OR MAYBE IT'S I'LL LET MY OTHER MEMBERS HERE DECIDE IF WE'D RATHER HEAR MR. MANIACI'S POINT TO THE CRITERIA ONE AND TWO OR IF WE WANT TO MOVE ON DOWN THE ROAD HERE WITH THE REST OF THE CRITERIA.

SHOW OF HANDS. DO WE WANT TO HEAR THE REST OF THE ARGUMENT FOR ONE AND TWO AND THEN MOVE FORWARD. OK, MR. MANIACI, PLEASE. ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION YOU WANT TO GIVE US REGARDING THE UNIQUENESS OF THIS PARCEL AND WHY THESE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SELF CREATED.

[01:50:06]

IN THE UNIQUE STANDPOINT? HOW MANY ARE AA ZONED PARCELS IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP OF EXISTING STRUCTURES ON THEM WITHOUT A PRIMARY RESIDENCE? IS THIS A COMMON OCCURRENCE? I THINK THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR STAFF DIRECTOR KIESELBACH OR MR. CHAPMAN, ANYBODY HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT OR AN IDEA PERHAPS? IS THIS A COMMON OCCURRENCE OR IS THIS A PRETTY UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE? [LAUGHTER] BECAUSE THE ORDINANCE DOESN'T ALLOW IT, WE PROBABLY, OTHER THAN THESE OLDER SITES WHERE IF THE EXISTING BUILDINGS, THEY MAY OCCUR, BUT AS THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OVER THE YEARS, WE'VE HAD REQUESTS BEFORE FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN THE FRONT YARD, BUT THOSE WERE NEW STRUCTURES THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BUILD. RIGHT WHICH I AGREE.

I BELIEVE I'VE SAT ON A COUPLE OF THOSE CASES SINCE COMING TO THIS BOARD.

MR. MANIACI, IF YOU COULD ADDRESS THEN, IRREGARDLESS OF THAT, WHAT EXACTLY OR HOW WE CAN ADDRESS THE SELF CREATED PORTION OF THIS CRITERIA? WELL, THE WAY I WAS LOOKING AT THE GARAGE HAS BEEN THERE.

WE CREATED A SITUATION WHERE THERE WERE TWO PARTS, TWO OUTBUILDINGS ON A PARCEL WITHOUT A PRIMARY RESIDENT. AND THAT WAS STILL ALLOWED, AS KEITH HAD TAKEN US THROUGH WHEN WE CREATED THE SPLIT, BUT THAT GARAGE HAD BEEN THERE.

WE ARE LOOKING TO BUILD A NEW HOME.

THE GARAGE IS ALREADY THERE.

IT'S BEEN THERE FOR 60 YEARS.

AND IT WAS BUILT TO LAST.

YOU KNOW, THE WAY RENEE TALKED ABOUT NEIL PATTERSON AND THE PRIDE THAT HE TOOK IN TALKING ABOUT HOW HIS DAD BUILT THAT GARAGE.

HIS DAD WORKED FOR THE ROAD COMMISSION, HE TOLD ME, AND IT WAS BUILT TO LAST.

THAT'S WHERE I GOT THIS 11 INCH THICK CONCRETE FLOOR.

I THINK HE TOLD ME THAT'S HOW THICK THAT FLOOR WAS IN THAT GARAGE.

SO IT WAS THERE.

WE DIVIDED THE PARCEL, BUT THAT GARAGE WAS THERE WHETHER THE PARCELS DIVIDED OR NOT.

ONE OF OUR OPTIONS WAS TO TEAR DOWN THIRTY SIX NINETY THE HOUSE AND BUILD OUR NEW HOME.

AND WE CHOSE NOT TO DO THAT BECAUSE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY WASTEFUL.

IT JUST DIDN'T MAKE SENSE TO DO SO, WE CREATED A PARCEL THAT HAD TWO NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A HOUSE ON IT.

WE WOULD LIKE TO PUT A HOUSE ON THAT PARCEL.

SO THE SELF CREATION, THE GARAGE WAS ALREADY THERE.

WHETHER WE SPLIT IT OR NOT.

THE GARAGE WAS IN FRONT OF THE HOME THAT WAS THERE.

IF I WANTED TO TEAR DOWN THAT HOUSE.

LET'S JUST SAY TEAR DOWN THE OLD HOUSE AND THAT GARAGE WAS THERE.

THE PARCEL WASN'T SPLIT.

WE MIGHT STILL HAVE THE SAME DISCUSSION.

BUT I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT SOMEBODY WOULD SAY, YOU WANT TO TEAR DOWN THAT HOUSE AND PUT A NEW ONE UP. YOU'VE GOT TO, YOU KNOW, TEAR DOWN THE GARAGE.

SOMEBODY WOULD PROBABLY SPLIT THE PARCEL THEN AND THAT'S PROBABLY WHAT THEY WOULD DO, SO.

YEAH, IT JUST IT SEEMED TO US TO BE THE RIGHT THING TO DO, IT'S DEFINITELY A VERY UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE AND IT WAS THERE WHETHER OR NOT THE PARCEL WAS SPLIT.

THANK YOU, MR. MANIACI.

I THINK TRUSTEE WISINSKI HAD HER HAND RAISED.

GO AHEAD. SO I JUST MAYBE FORGIVE MY IGNORANCE, MAYBE DIRECTOR KIESELBACH CAN ANSWER THIS, BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IT AS IT IS NOT BASED ON THE DECISIONS MADE BEFORE NOT TO SAY THAT THERE COULD BE MOTIVATION, YOU KNOW, TO DO A LAND DIVISION.

HOWEVER, I THINK TODAY WE NEED TO LOOK AT AS IS.

AND FOR ME, I DO SEE IT AS A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT IT IS NONCONFORMING AND TWO AND IT'S NOT SELF CREATED BECAUSE IT WAS ALREADY THERE.

IT'S BEEN THERE 60 YEARS.

AND THE CURRENT PLANS ARE TO PROPOSE A BUILDING AT THE CURRENT ORDINANCE.

SO FOR ME, I'M NOT STUCK ON 1 AND 2 BECAUSE IT TO ME IS VERY UNIQUE.

IT'S AN OLD FARM LAND IN NOW AN URBAN AREA.

SO THAT IS VERY UNIQUE IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

AND EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A LAND DIVISION TODAY THAT BARN OR THAT GARAGE WAS NOT SELF CREATED, SO JUST MY TWO CENTS ON THOSE TWO.

[01:55:01]

I CAN WORK THROUGH THE REST, BUT THAT'S MY THOUGHTS ON THE FIRST TWO.

THANK YOU. TRUSTEE WISINSKI I AGREE.

I AGREE THAT THESE I UNDERSTAND PERHAPS THE IDEA THAT BECAUSE THEY'VE OWNED THIS PROPERTY THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT IT SEEMS TO BE THAT THEY WERE GRANTED THE LAND DIVISION, THIS IS THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE HAVE NOW THIS IS THAT THERE IS TWO NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES ON A PARCEL THAT DOES NOT HAVE A PRIMARY RESIDENCE.

TRYING TO GET TO THAT PRIMARY RESIDENCE WILL BRING THOSE THINGS UP TO MEETING ONE PART OF THE CODE AND THEN THE NEXT ISSUE BEING THAT ACCESSORY BUILDING IN THE FRONT YARD.

SO IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE.

MEMBER SHORKEY MEMBER KULHANEK.

CAN WE MOVE ON? YEAH.

OK. HOW ABOUT LET'S TACKLE CRITERIA NUMBER THREE, STRICT INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE LITERAL TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER WOULD RESULT IN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES. ANYBODY WANT TO TACKLE THAT ONE? MEMBER SHORKEY, GO AHEAD.

IT'S A RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY THEY'RE TRYING TO BUILD A RESIDENCE, IT'S A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. TO REQUIRE THEM TO TEAR DOWN A STRUCTURE THAT THE TOWNSHIP ALLOWED.

I'VE WORKED WHEN THEY ALLOWED THE LAND DIVISION.

I'VE WORKED IN PLACES WHERE WE WOULDN'T HAVE ALLOWED THAT SPLIT TO HAPPEN TO CREATE A NONCONFORMITY. I MEAN.

THIS IS CUT AND DRY.

YEAH. MEMBER HENDRICKSON, GO AHEAD.

SO THIS IS A QUESTION FOR, I GUESS, DIRECTOR KIESELBACH, WHEN THE LAND DIVISION HAPPENED, WOULD YOU HAVE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHETHER OR NOT THAT WOULD HAVE CREATED A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE BY DOING IT? THE LAND DIVISION IS BASED ON MEETING THE MINIMUM LOT AREA AND MINIMUM WIDTH OR FRONTAGE ON THE STREET.

IT DOESN'T CONSIDER SO I COULDN'T SAY, HEY, YOU CREATED THIS NONCONFORMING GARAGE, YOU GOT TO TEAR IT DOWN. THAT'S NOT THE LAND DIVISION.

IF IT MEETS THOSE MINIMUMS, I HAVE TO APPROVE IT.

IF SOMEBODY DOES CREATE A NONCONFORMITY THAT'S BECAUSE OF THE LAND DIVISION.

AND SO IF THE BUILDING IS SETBACK TO CLOSE TO THE LINE OR THE BUILDING, LIKE IN THIS CASE, THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE OF THE GARAGE IS IN THE FRONT YARD WE CERTAINLY CAN ADVISE PEOPLE THAT THEY'VE CREATED A NONCONFORMITY.

AND IN THE APPROVAL LETTER, IT SAYS THAT BECAUSE THIS LAND DIVISION WAS GRANTED DOES NOT MEAN THAT ANY OTHER ORDINANCES ARE NOT APPLICABLE OR THAT A BUILDING PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED FOR THIS PROPERTY AS CREATED.

SO JUST TO TO REITERATE AND RESTATE WHAT YOU JUST SAID RIGHT THERE, WOULD YOU SAY IT'S AN ACCURATE ASSESSMENT THAT THEY WERE NOTIFIED THAT THIS SITUATION THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH TODAY MAY OCCUR AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE IF THEY WERE TO DIVIDE THE LAND IN THE WAY THAT THEY DID? THE WAY THE LETTER IS WRITTEN, DOESN'T WAIVE ANY OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE.

SO, AGAIN, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY OR THAT IT'S BUILDABLE JUST BECAUSE I GRANT A LAND DIVISION DOESN'T MEAN THE LOT IS BUILDABLE.

RIGHT. EXCUSE ME DIRECTOR KIESELBACH TO CLARIFY THAT LETTER IS ISSUED AFTER THE LAND DIVISION IS CREATED.

THE LAND DIVISION HAS TO BE APPROVED BY ME, AND IT'S PART OF THE APPROVAL LETTER THAT'S ISSUED FOR THAT.

SO THE APPROVAL LETTER WOULD COME AFTER YOU APPROVED THE LAND DIVISION.

WHAT WOULD HAPPEN WOULD BE THEY WOULD APPLY FOR THE LAND DIVISION, I WOULD APPROVE IT, AND THEN THEY WOULD GO AND RECORD THE SURVEY OR THE DESCRIPTION FOR THE PARCEL.

OKAY.

SO I GUESS, GET TO THE POINT OF THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST TIME DURING THIS TIMELINE OF EVENTS WHEN THEY WOULD BE CONFRONTED WITH THE REALITY THAT THEIR STRUCTURE IS NONCONFORMING AND THEREFORE THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

WOULD YOU SAY THAT'S AN ACCURATE STATEMENT.

IT IS WE WOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH THIS PROCESS MANY MONTHS AGO BEFORE JERRY FEDEWA APPLIED FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT.

IT CAUGHT US OFF GUARD.

THIS ONE DID.

OTHERWISE WE WOULD HAVE DONE IT WELL BEFORE THE BUILDING PERMIT WAS APPLIED.

SURE.

SO I GUESS I STRUGGLE WITH THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES ON THIS, OR AT LEAST THE INABILITY I

[02:00:05]

GUESS I'LL LUMP THREE AND FOUR TOGETHER AS WE OFTEN DO.

I STRUGGLE WITH THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, BECAUSE IF THEY WERE TO ADDRESS THE NONCONFORMING ISSUE THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY, THEY WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO USE THE PROPERTY FOR A RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE.

RIGHT. THERE IS A WAY ON THIS PROPERTY TO BUILD A HOUSE, EVEN WITH A GARAGE THAT MEETS THE STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE.

YOU COULD SAY, YES, IT'LL COST MORE MONEY, BUT IT IS POSSIBLE.

RIGHT. YOU KNOW, SO THAT'S WHERE I RUN INTO ISSUES WITH THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES SECTION OF THE CRITERIA THAT WE MUST.

UNDERSTOOD AND YOU KNOW, I LOOKED AT THAT AS WELL, AND I THINK WE ALL AGREE THERE'S SOME SUBJECTIVITY TO THIS.

YES. WHAT I MEANT BY NOTE IS IT DOES.

AND TO ME, IT SEEMS IT TALKS ABOUT THE ALLEGED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES RESULT FROM A FAILURE TO GRANT THE VARIANCE WOULD UNREASONABLY PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR COMMITTED PURPOSE.

SO THAT'S IMPORTANT.

I MEAN, WE'RE IN A TOWNSHIP THAT'S THAT'S RECYCLE, REUSE.

WE'RE SENDING THE WRONG MESSAGE TO SAY TEAR DOWN A VIABLE BUILDING THAT'S BEEN THERE 60 YEARS BECAUSE YOU WANT TO PUT, YOU KNOW WE GOT TO LOOK AT THAT TAT REASONABLENESS PIECE OF IT AS WELL THAT'S WHAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT.

MR. MANIACI. LET ME STOP YOU THERE JUST FOR A MOMENT, BECAUSE ONE OF OUR MEMBERS WANTS TO SPEAK. YES.

I DO APPRECIATE YOUR INPUT THERE.

TRUSTEE WISINSKI. GO AHEAD.

I'M STILL GOING BACK TO THE FACT THAT THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN CREATED.

RIGHT. SO I WOULD SOMEWHAT, I FULLY AGREE WITH YOU.

LIKE, THIS IS WASTEFUL, BUT THAT'S NOT PART OF THE ORDINANCE.

RIGHT. WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD WE KNOCK DOWN A VIABLE BUILDING? THAT JUST DOESN'T SEEM. I AGREE WITH THAT, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT WE DO HAVE TO LOOK AT IS IT'S ALREADY THERE.

SO BEING THAT IT'S ALREADY THERE AND NOT BEING ABLE TO BUILD A RESIDENCE AS A RESULT OF IT ALREADY BEING THERE IN A RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PARCEL, I DO SEE THAT AS A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. IT'S ZONED AS A RESIDENTIAL.

THAT BUILDING IS ALREADY THERE.

SO THAT CREATES A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY TO PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING IT AS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.

IT DOES SEEM ABSURD THAT WE WOULD EVER ASK ANYBODY TO JUST TEAR DOWN A VIABLE BUILDING THAT JUST THAT IS ABSURD, BUT THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION HERE, BUT I CAN STILL MAKE THE CASE THAT WITH THAT BUILDING, THERE NOT ALLOWING THIS RESIDENCE WOULD BE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY FOR A RESIDENTIAL PARCEL.

YES, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT, BECAUSE AS STANDS AS THIS PARCEL STANDS WITH THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE ON IT IN THIS MOMENT IT IS A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY TO BUILD A HOUSE THERE.

YOU CANNOT ACCORDING TO.

YOU CAN NOT.

SO I'M SORRY, I DO NOT MEAN TO CUT YOU OFF, MR. MANIACI. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I MAKE THE POINT THAT THEY HAVE GONE BACK FROM BEING DENIED A VARIANCE AND WE CAN GET INTO CRITERIA NUMBER FIVE, GRANTING THE VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM ACTION THAT WOULD MAKE POSSIBLE THE USE OF LAND OR STRUCTURE IN A MANNER WHICH IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND WHICH WOULD CARRY OUT THE SPIRIT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO [INAUDIBLE] PUBLIC SAFETY AND PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.

THEY'VE GONE BACK. WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT ANY ADDITIONAL VARIANCES.

NOW THIS CURRENT PLAN FOR THIS HOUSE IS WITHIN ALL OTHER CODE, ASIDE FROM THE FACT THAT THIS ALREADY EXISTING BUILDING IS ON THE PARCEL.

SO I CAN MAKE A CASE FOR THREE, I CAN MAKE A CASE FOR FIVE, FOUR IS TRICKY, UNREASONABLY PREVENT THE OWNER, I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GOING TO GET INTO THE LANGUAGE.

AND I THINK MR. MANIACI ALREADY MENTIONED IT UNREASONABLY PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR PERMITTED PURPOSE.

AGAIN, AS TRUSTEE WISINSKI POINTED OUT, THIS BUILDING IS ALREADY SERVING ITS PURPOSE.

IT'S ALREADY BEING USED.

IT'S ALREADY IN USE, AS THEY POINTED OUT IN THEIR OPENING STATEMENTS.

AND IT HAS A PURPOSE.

SO WE'RE LOOKING AT WILL IT UNREASONABLY PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY? I COULD START TO CRAFT AN ARGUMENT THAT WOULD SAY, YES, CONSIDERING THIS IS ALREADY BEING USED AS A STRUCTURE WITHOUT THE HOME ON IT, WHICH MAKES IT NONCONFORMING, THIS GARAGE STRUCTURE IS ALREADY IN USE.

THEY HAVE USED IT. THEY ARE, YOU KNOW, USING THIS FOR A PERMITED PURPOSE.

SO TELLING THEM, NO, YOU CAN'T BUILD A HOUSE THERE, BUT YOU'RE JUST GOING TO STILL HANG OUT IN THE GARAGE. I MEAN, I THINK THAT THAT WOULD UNREASONABLY PREVENT BECAUSE IF YOU

[02:05:03]

CAN'T BUILD A HOME ON YOUR PARCEL, YOU JUST LITERALLY HAVE A GARAGE AND A POLE BARN ON A PARCEL. THAT'S UNREASONABLE.

MEMBER HENDRICKSON. AND SEE, I DON'T THINK IT'S UNREASONABLE TO SAY, OF COURSE, YOU CAN BUILD A HOME, BUT YOUR PROPERTY MUST CONFORM WITH OUR ORDINANCE, WHICH WE APPLY ACROSS THE BOARD TO ALL PROPERTIES IN OUR TOWNSHIP.

BUT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

THAT'S WHERE I RUN INTO A REASONABLENESS ARGUMENT.

SO BUT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS IT'S THAT THE MINIMUM ACTION IS TO TEAR DOWN THE GARAGE IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING BY THAT? YES. OK.

SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT'S REASONABLE TO SAY JUST TEAR DOWN THE GARAGE.

YEAH. THAT'S ALREADY IN USE.

THAT'S ALREADY AN ESTABLISHED STRUCTURE ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT HAS NO PRIMARY STRUCTURE. I GUESS MY POINT IS THEY'RE WELCOME TO CONTINUE TO USE IT AS A VACANT LOT WITH TWO NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES.

THEY'RE LOOKING TO BUILD SOMETHING.

THEY'RE LOOKING TO MAKE A CHANGE TO IT.

AND I GUESS MY POINT IS, AS OUR ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN, THEY WANT TO DO THAT.

THE REASONABLE ACTION THAT THEY MUST TAKE IS BRING THE REST OF THE PROPERTY INTO CONFORMANCE WITH OUR EXISTING ORDINANCE.

THAT'S ALL I WAS TRYING TO SAY.

MS. MANIACI, GO AHEAD.

GOT YA. I MEAN, WE'VE GONE THROUGH THIS IN OUR OWN HEADS OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

AND, YOU KNOW, LIKE WE SAID, I MEAN, MANY PEOPLE WOULD SAY IT'S A NON-ISSUE, JUST TEAR THE THING DOWN. BUT, YOU KNOW, IT MAY PREVENT US FROM BUILDING A RESIDENCE THERE.

YOU'RE RIGHT, WE CAN CONTINUE TO USE IT, SO IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED OUT OF COMPLIANCE, I GUESS.

[INAUDIBLE] BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TOWARD, LOOKING TOWARD HELPING THE COMMUNITY IN A WAY THAT, YOU KNOW, WILL ADD ANOTHER RESIDENCE.

I MEAN, AS A FORMER EDUCATOR IN THE DISTRICT, YOU KNOW, FROM MILLAGES AND EVERYTHING ELSE, I'VE GOT GRANDKIDS IN THE SCHOOLS.

IT'S LIKE I FEEL LIKE I MIGHT BE BRINGING A VALUE TO THAT RATHER THAN BUILDING MY RESIDENCE SOMEWHERE ELSE.

YEAH. AND I DO THINK IT'S WORTH POINTING OUT, JUST BECAUSE I KNOW THAT SOMETIMES IT COMES OFF IN A WAY THAT'S UNINTENDED.

YOU KNOW, I TAKE A RATHER STRICT ADHERENCE TO MY JOB ON THIS BOARD AND IT OFTEN COMES OFF AS SNIDE. AND I'M TRYING TO DISMISS YOUR CONCERNS AS RESIDENTS AND HOMEOWNERS WHO ARE APPLYING FOR A VARIANCE TO OUR ORDINANCE.

AND I WANT TO ASSURE YOU THAT I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

AND FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, WHEN I THINK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, HEY IS IT WOULD I LOVE TO JUST SAY. SURE. LIKE THIS GARAGE HAS EXISTED FOR 50 YEARS.

YOU KNOW, WE, OF COURSE, SHOULD ALLOW IT TO CONTINUE.

I CAN SEE WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM IN WANTING TO BOTH HAVE THIS BUILDING AND ALSO BE ABLE TO BUILD ON THE PROPERTY IN A WAY THAT WILL ADD VALUE BOTH TO THE PROPERTY AND TO YOURSELF. IT'S NOT MY JOB TO LEGISLATE WHETHER OR NOT THIS ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN IN SUCH A WAY WITH ENOUGH CAVEATS, YOU KNOW, IF THE ORDINANCE HAD BEEN WRITTEN TO SAY, WELL, EXCEPT FOR WHEN BUILDINGS HAVE EXISTED FOR 60 YEARS, THAT MIGHT BE A PERFECTLY VIABLE THING TO ARGUE IN FRONT OF THE TOWNSHIP BOARD WHEN THEY'RE LOOKING TO MAKE ORDINANCE CHANGES. BUT IT DOESN'T SAY THAT.

AND THAT'S WHERE I'M HUNG UP RIGHT NOW.

BUT I WILL ARGUE WITH THAT MEMBER HENDRICKSON IS WHAT MAKES IT UNIQUE.

AND I WILL JUST SAY THAT I HONESTLY, REALLY DO APPRECIATE, MR. HENDRICKSON, YOUR POINT OF VIEW.

AND THAT IS WHY I'M LOVING THE BALANCE OF OF THIS CURRENT BOARD AND YOU'RE SAYING IN A RESPECTFUL MANNER.

I UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND CAN MAKE A SIMILAR ARGUMENT, I AM HOPING THAT THE BOARD WILL LOOK AT THE PRACTICALITY OF THE MATTER THAT WE HAVE AT HAND AND, YOU KNOW, ABIDE BY WHATEVER YOU FEEL IS THE INTENT AND THE REASONABILITY OF THE ORDINANCE.

THANK YOU, MRS. MANIACI.

MEMBER KULHANEK, DO YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING, OR MEMBER SHORKEY, I KNOW WE'VE BEEN [INAUDIBLE] BACK AND FORTH HERE, WHICH I APPRECIATE AND ENJOY AS WELL.

[02:10:04]

SO DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? I THINK I WILL HOP BACK TO THE.

I'M SORRY [INAUDIBLE].

GO AHEAD, MEMBER KULHANEK.

I KNOW YOU'RE DEPRIVED BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE ME, I CAN SEE YOU, BUT SO I GUESS THIS IS THE WAY THIS WORKS. I JUST JUMP IN PERIODICALLY.

AND I THINK WITH REGARD TO CRITERIA NUMBER FOUR AND I APOLOGIZE, I MAY BE MISSING SOME OF THIS ALONG THE WAY, BUT IF I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY, THE NEW PROPOSED HOUSE IS GOING TO HAVE A TWO CAR ATTACHED GARAGE WITH IT.

AND WHEN THE CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE, THE POLE BARN WILL REMAIN.

THE PURPOSE OF A GARAGE IS TO PARK CARS AND STORE STUFF.

THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE AN ABUNDANT GARAGING IN STORAGE WHEN THIS IS DONE, IF THAT AUXILLARY STRUCTURE THAT WOULD BE IN THE FRONT YARD ISN'T THERE.

SO I DON'T IN MY ESTIMATION, SEE HOW CRITERIA FOUR REALLY CAN BE MET AND.

SO I'M JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE, THERE'S PROBABLY SOME OTHER CRITERIA THAT I MIGHT DEBATE AS WELL. I MIGHT JUST DEBATE THAT WITH MYSELF.

BUT WITH REGARD TO CRITERIA NUMBER FOUR, I GUESS I'M I'M DEFINITELY STUCK ON THAT ONE AND NOT SEEING HOW IT CAN REALLY BE MET WITH SO MUCH GARAGE SPACE ON THIS PROPERTY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MEMBER KULHANEK.

I THINK THAT WE CAN ALLOW MR. OR MRS. MANIACI TO ADDRESS THAT WHAT IS WHAT IS UNIQUE ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR OUTBUILDING VERSUS THE OTHER VERSUS THE TWO CAR ATTACHED, WHICH I MEAN, I THINK YOU GUYS BOTH TOUCHED ON IT AT THE BEGINNING IN YOUR OPENING KIND OF STATEMENT, BUT WHERE WE TALK ABOUT AND LET ME READ YOU THE CRITERIA ONE MORE TIME, THAT THE ALLEGED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES WILL RESULT FROM A FAILURE TO GRANT THE VARIANCE WOULD UNREASONABLY PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR A PERMITTED PURPOSE.

SO THAT UNREASONABLY PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR PERMITTED PURPOSE IS WHERE THAT LANGUAGE IS WHAT WE I MEAN, YOU HEARD IT IN THE LAST ONE AS WELL.

THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE REALLY HAVE TO THINK ABOUT AND GET INTO.

LET ME LET YOU THINK ABOUT THAT FOR ONE SECOND AND LET ME GET TO TRUSTEE WISINSKI.

I'M HEARING WHAT EVERYBODY'S SAYING, BUT WE'RE STILL AT THE POINT THAT THE GARAGE IS THERE . RIGHT. SO THE GARAGE AS IS, IS A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY FROM BUILDING THE RESIDENCE.

SO IT JUST SEEMS THAT'S THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY.

IF THEY KNOCK DOWN THE GARAGE AND THEN BUILD THAT, THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT STORY.

THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN ASK PEOPLE TO DO THAT, TO KNOCK DOWN A BUILDING. THEY'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE, AS IS.

YES. THEY ARE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE WITH THE PERSONAL AS IS WITH THE OUTBUILDINGS AS IS.

YES. SO THAT TO ME IS THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY.

YOU CANNOT BUILD THE RESIDENCE AS THE GARAGE STANDS TODAY.

WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S ENOUGH STORAGE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

THAT I MEAN, THAT'S A GOOD SUGGESTION.

BUT AS IS, THEY CANNOT BUILD THE RESIDENCE AS THE GARAGE STANDS TODAY, SO THAT TO ME, IS A PRACTICAL. AND MAYBE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, BUT I DON'T SEE WHERE FAILURE TO GRANT THE VARIANCE WOULD UNREASONABLY PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR A PERMITTED PURPOSE. THE HOUSE THEY PROPOSED WOULD INCLUDE A TWO CAR GARAGE.

WELL, AND THEY WOULD STILL HAVE.

CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.

GO AHEAD. NO, NO.

MY POINT WAS TO BRING BACK TO WHAT TRUSTEE WISINSKI SAID IS THAT FAILING TO GRANT THE VARIANCE IN THIS CASE MEANS THEY CANNOT BUILD A HOUSE THERE AS IS.

I THINK THAT'S THE UNREASONABLY PREVENT THE OWNER PART THAT TRUSTEE WISINSKI WAS SPEAKING TO. AND I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT AS WELL.

MR. MANIACI GO AHEAD.

YEAH, I MEAN, I AGREE.

IT'S ESSENTIALLY SAYING YOU DON'T GRANT THE VARIANCE I'M NOT ABLE TO BUILD THE HOME ON IT. AND THAT IS WHAT WE'RE FACING HERE RIGHT NOW.

DOES THAT SATISFY EVERYBODY'S QUESTIONING OR ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING ELSE THEY WANT TO ADD? I MEAN, I'M WITH TRUSTEE WISINSKI ON THIS, I THINK THREE AND FOUR, IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THE PARCEL AS IS WE'RE NOT TAKING IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCE.

WE AS A BOARD CANNOT SAY YOU NEED TO JUST TEAR DOWN YOUR GARAGE, FIGURE IT OUT.

[02:15:02]

I THINK THAT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE MINIMUM ACTION, WHICH IS CRITERION NUMBER FIVE, I MEAN, I'M AT A POINT WHERE I CAN SAY YES TO CRITERIA TWO, THREE, ONE, TWO, THREE AND FOUR. CRITERIA FIVE, GRANTING THE VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM ACTION THAT WILL MAKE POSSIBLE THE USE OF LAND OR STRUCTURE IN A MANNER WHICH IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, WHICH WOULD CARRY OUT THE SPIRIT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, PROCURE PUBLIC SAFETY, AND PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.

I CAN ABSOLUTELY MAKE THAT CRITERIA.

NUMBER SIX, GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND OR ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY.

I THINK THEY'VE STAYED WITHIN ALL OTHER CODE.

AND I MEAN, IT IS A RESIDENTIAL PARCEL.

SO WHETHER OR NOT WHATEVER NEIGHBORS DON'T WANT A HOUSE, THERE I DON'T THINK WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE LAND.

THE STRUCTURE THAT IS IN QUESTION IS ALREADY EXISTING ON THE LAND AND IT IS ALREADY AN ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY.

CRITERIA NUMBER SEVEN, THE CONDITIONS PERTAINING TO THE LAND OR STRUCTURE ARE NOT SO GENERAL OR RECURRENT IN NATURE AS TO MAKE A FORMULATION OF A GENERAL REGULATION FOR SUCH CONDITIONS PRACTICABLE.

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT'S THE CASE.

SO I COULD MAKE THAT.

CRITERIA NUMBER EIGHT, GRANTING THE VARIANCE, WILL BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THIS CHAPTER.

AND I COULD ABSOLUTELY SAY YES TO THAT.

SO I THINK IT SOUNDS LIKE FROM JUST OUR BOARD TIME, WE ARE STILL IN THE THREE, FOUR OR FIVE RANGE.

AS FAR AS A CONSENSUS THERE.

MEMBER HENDRICKSON, GO AHEAD. SO WE GOT TO NUMBER EIGHT THERE AT THE END, AND I GUESS I WOULD JUST ASK THE FOLLOWING.

WHAT IS THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES NO BUILDINGS IN THE FRONT YARD OF A PROPERTY, RIGHT, BECAUSE, YES, IT EXISTS, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO GRANT A VARIANCE TO SAY THAT BECAUSE IT EXISTS THAT IT IS OK, THAT IT DOES EXIST AND THEREFORE YOU CAN BUILD ON THIS PROPERTY IN A DIFFERENT WAY.

AND SO. ARE WE IN FACT, VIOLATING THE INTENT OF THIS ORDINANCE TO ALLOW SOMETHING THAT SEEMS PRETTY CUT AND DRY TO ME AS NOT ALLOWABLE? SEEMS LIKE TRUSTEE WISINSKI HAS AN ANSWER TO THAT.

THE POINT, MEMBER HENDRICKSON, I THINK THE INTENT OF THIS ORDINANCE IS NOT TO CONSTRUCT BUILDINGS IN THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.

THIS IS ALREADY EXISTING.

SO TO KNOCK DOWN A HISTORICAL BUILDING IN THE SENSE THAT IT'S ALREADY THERE AND NOT BEING ABLE TO USE THIS RESIDENTIAL LOT AS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY CREATES THAT PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY AND THE INTENT IS NOT TO CREATE A BUILDING IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.

SO I THINK THIS IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN A LOT OF THE CASES THAT WE SEE THAT WANT TO CONSTRUCT A POLE BARN FOR EXTRA STORAGE.

AND WE'VE SEEN QUITE A FEW OF THESE OVER THE LAST YEAR OR TWO.

YOU KNOW, THEY'VE ALREADY GOT A GARAGE.

THEY STILL WANT A POLE BARN AND THEY WANT IT IN THE FRONT OF THEIR PROPERTY.

THOSE ARE THE THINGS I THINK THE INTENT OF THIS AND THIS IS MY OPINION, THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE IS.

THAT IT'S ALREADY THERE, I THINK DOESN'T IMPEDE THE INTENT OF THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE.

MEMBER HENDRICKSON.

AND I APPRECIATE TRUSTEE WISINSKI'S COMMENTS ON THAT, AND I THINK THAT GENERALLY I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT WHEN YOU IMPROVE OR CHANGE A PROPERTY, THE TOWNSHIP DOES HAVE REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU MEET OUR CODE WHEN YOU MAKE THOSE CHANGES.

RIGHT. WHEN WE SEE NEW DEVELOPMENTS COMING IN ON BENNETT ROAD, LET'S JUST SAY WE'RE GOING TO FORCE THEM TO BUILD A SIDEWALK WHERE ONE DIDN'T EXIST BEFORE THAT'S ON THE EDGE OF THE PROPERTY OR PAY FOR IT.

AND IN THAT SAME VEIN, WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING TO IMPROVE A PROPERTY, YOU HAVE TO MEET OUR REQUIREMENTS FOR WHAT WE EXPECT FROM OUR BUILDINGS, WHEN THEY'RE IN THE FRONT YARD.

AND IN THIS CASE, EVEN THOUGH IT ALREADY EXISTS, THEY ARE IMPROVING THIS PROPERTY.

RIGHT. THEY'RE PUTTING A HOUSE WHERE ONE DIDN'T EXIST BEFORE.

AND SO FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, WE ARE JUST FORCING THEM TO COMPLY WITH THE SAME REQUIREMENTS THAT WE ARE REQUIRING OF EVERYBODY ELSE THAT'S LOOKING TO BUILD ON IT ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY. AND SO THAT'S WHERE I KEEP GETTING HUNG UP.

AND I WOULD ARGUE THAT, THAT IS THE INTENT OF OUR BOARD AND BODY, IS TO LOOK AT THE CODE

[02:20:05]

AND BE ABLE TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE CODE CANNOT AND WILL NOT BE AN OVERARCHING ALL APPLYING ALL YOU CONFORM OR YOU DON'T.

YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THIS IS EXACTLY WHY WE HAVE THE EIGHT CRITERIA.

THIS EXACTLY WHY WE HAVE THIS BOARD TO DISCUSS THESE ISSUES IS BECAUSE WE JUST SAYING, JUST LIVE WITH IT JUST CONFORM.

JUST YOU HAVE TO DO WHAT WE SAY ACCORDING TO CODE IS WHY THIS BODY EXISTS SO THAT WE CAN FIND THESE NUANCES WHERE THE CODE WHERE THE INTENT OF WHAT THE CODE IS NOW VERSUS SOMETHING THAT HAS EXISTED FOR 60 YEARS WHERE WE CAN MEET IN THE MIDDLE THERE.

I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY WHY WE EXIST AS A BODY.

SO IN THAT WAY, I COMPLETELY AGREE THAT THE INTENT IS TO NOT CONSTRUCT NEW PROPERTY, NEW BUILDINGS, NEW [INAUDIBLE] BUILDINGS IN A FRONT YARD.

AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE INTENT OF THAT IS.

THIS IS ALREADY EXISTING.

THIS IS HERE. THIS IS AN EXISTING PARCEL.

IT'S AN EXISTING BUILDING THAT DOES NOT HAVE A PRIMARY RESIDENCE ON IT.

THAT'S WHERE I SEE THAT BEING REALLY WHERE THE PRIMARY FOCUS OF THIS VARIANCE IS.

THIS STRICTLY TO BUILD A HOUSE THAT'S IN ORDINANCE THAT DOES MEET ALL THE INTENTS OF THE ORDINANCE IN CHAPTER.

IS THAT IS WHY WE HAVE VARIANCES SO WE CAN SAY, OK, IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS HOUSE, IT'S PERFECTLY WITHIN ORDINANCE, WE WILL ALLOW THIS STRUCTURE THAT'S ALREADY EXISTING TO CONTINUE TO EXIST.

THAT'S HOW I INTERPRET THAT, AND THAT'S WHY I CAN MAKE CRITERION NUMBER EIGHT.

TRUSTEE WISINSKI, GO AHEAD.

I THINK WE ALL HAVE OUR OWN.

I THINK WE'RE READY TO VOTE, SO I'D LIKE TO MOVE TO APPROVE ZBA CASE NUMBER 20-10-14-2.

MANIACI AT 3957 PALOMINO DRIVE IN EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN, 48823.

AND I WILL SUPPORT.

[INAUDIBLE] THAT'LL WORK. THANK YOU.

[LAUGHTER] AND ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, I WOULD WELCOME MEMBER SHORKEY, MEMBER HENDRICKSON OR MEMBER KULHANEK GO AHEAD AND WE CAN DISCUSS BEFORE WE VOTE THAT'S PERFECTLY WITHIN OUR PURVIEW HERE. MEMBER HENDRICKSON, GO AHEAD.

YEAH, THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE THIS SPIRITED DISCUSSION THAT WE'VE HAD ON THIS AND EVERY TOPIC THAT WE COME HAVE COME BEFORE US.

I HAVE A BIT OF A PHILOSOPHICAL DISAGREEMENT, I THINK, ON THIS CASE WITH THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. AND I THINK THAT THE MANIACI'S ARE GOING TO HAVE A POSITIVE RESULT BASED ON MY UNDERSTANDING OF SOME OF THE TENOR OF THE COMMENTS THAT ARE BEING MADE.

I'M NOT GOING TO BE SUPPORTING THIS VARIANCE, BUT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT MEETS A COUPLE OF THE CRITERIA THAT I'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS EVENING.

THAT SAID, THAT'S WHY WE HAVE FIVE VOICES.

THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A FULL BOARD TO DEBATE AND DISCUSS IT.

I DO WISH THE MANIACI'S AS WELL.

AND I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THIS PROPERTY.

AND I LIVE JUST DOWN THE ROAD JUST NORTH OF BENNETT, SO I MAY STOP BY AND COME VISIT YOU IN YOUR GARAGE ONE OF THESE DAYS WHEN WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT.

PLEASE DO. YOU'RE WELCOME TO DO THAT. BUT I LOOK FORWARD TO DOING SO, AND I WISH YOU THE BEST. THANK YOU.

MEMBER HENDRICKSON, I'M A HULETT ROAD RESIDENT TO THE MANIACI'S AS WELL.

I'M WAY NORTH.

I'M ALMOST TO THE CURVE.

I'M PAST THE RAIL ROAD TRACK. OK, SO HI, NEIGHBORS.

THAT BEING SAID, I DO REALLY I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT AND IT'S VITAL THAT WE LOOK AT THE CRITERIA THAT WE GO THROUGH AND WE AND HONESTLY, WE DO NOT HAVE TO COME TO CONSENSUS.

IT'S NICE. IT'S NICE TO COME TO A CONSENSUS.

IT'S NICE TO HAVE TO REACH THAT, YOU KNOW, FULL UNANIMOUS DECISION.

HOWEVER, THAT IS WHAT IS WHY WE HAVE FIVE MEMBERS, LIKE YOU SAID, MEMBER HENDRICKSON.

AND I THINK THAT YOUR BRINGING OUT SOME POINTS, PARTICULARLY ABOUT THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE THAT WE REALLY DO NEED TO FOCUS ON AND THINK ABOUT WHEN WE MAKE THESE DECISIONS . I DO APPRECIATE THAT.

IF WE HAVE DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS OF THAT, THAT'S A WHOLE OTHER STORY.

BUT I THINK WE NEED TO GET THERE.

WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THOSE THINGS.

AND I THINK IT HELPS MAKE OTHER POINTS FINER AS WELL WHEN WE DO DISCUSS THOSE.

SO I DO VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION AND THE PATIENCE AS WELL FOR FOR OUR

[02:25:02]

APPLICANTS AND FOR OUR STAFF AND FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

SO THANK YOU FOR THAT DISCUSSION.

DOES ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO ADD ANYTHING MEMBER SHORKEY OR MEMBER OF KULHANEK.

IF I COULD, I JUST I DID WANT TO ADDRESS THE APPLICANTS VERY BRIEFLY.

I LISTENED TO THEIR STORIES, YOU KNOW, THEY ARE LONG TIME RESIDENTS OF THE TOWNSHIP.

I'VE LIVED HERE FIVE YEARS, MAYBE ALMOST SIX YEARS NOW.

AND I DO LIKE HEARING THOSE STORIES.

AND I JUST REALLY APPRECIATE THEM LEARNING MORE ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNITY I'M IN . SOMEBODY DRIVING BY MIGHT JUST THINK IT'S JUST AN OLD STRUCTURE.

BUT CLEARLY IT'S SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE HAVE NOTED OVER THE YEARS AND REMINDS PEOPLE OF THE RURAL CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY FROM LONG AGO, HOWEVER AS THEY SAY, I STILL CAN'T GET BEYOND CRITERIA FOUR AS I SEE IT.

AND SO I ALSO WON'T BE ABLE TO VOTE YES ON THIS TONIGHT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU MEMBER KULHANEK I APPRECIATE YOUR INPUT AND THOUGHTFULNESS REGARDING THIS CASE, I'M GOING TO GO TO A VOTE BECAUSE I THINK I SEE THAT EVERYBODY HAS KIND OF MADE THEIR CASE, SO THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ZBA CASE NUMBER 20-10-14-2 MANIACI THIRTY NINE FIFTY SEVEN, PALOMINO DRIVE, EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN, FOUR EIGHT EIGHT TWO THREE.

LET'S SEE WHO'S FIRST OF MY SCREEN HERE.

MEMBER SHORKEY. YES.

TRUSTEE WISINSKI.

YES. MEMBER HENDRICKSON.

NO. MEMBER KULHANEK.

NO AND THE CHAIR VOTES YES, SO THE VOTE IS THREE, YES.

2 NO, YOUR VARIANCE REQUEST IS GRANTED.

PLEASE, PLEASE COME BY.

WE'RE VERY SERIOUS.

I WOULD LOVE TO MEET ALL OF YOU IN PERSON.

I'VE TALKED TO PETER.

I KNOW RON.

I MEAN, IT'S A GREAT BOARD.

SO KEEP DOING WHAT YOU'RE DOING.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. YEAH.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU BOTH FOR BEING HERE AND YOUR PATIENCE.

AND ALSO THANK YOU TO THE BOARD MEMBERS FOR STICKING THROUGH THIS ONE AND REALLY GETTING INTO THE WEEDS THERE. DEFINITELY APPRECIATE IT.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, MANIACI'S, AND GOOD LUCK TO YOU IN THE FUTURE.

AND I'LL WAVE WHEN I COME BY WITH MY KIDS.

PLEASE. WE'RE WELL GOOD. ALL RIGHT, WITH THAT IS LOOKING LIKE WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER BUSINESS THIS EVENING.

WAS THERE ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT.

[8. PUBLIC REMARKS]

I CAN LOOK HERE IN THE PARTICIPANTS.

I DON'T HAVE ANY HANDS RAISED.

SO ANY OTHER PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT AT THIS TIME.

WE CAN, OF COURSE, TAKE CALLS AT FIVE ONE SEVEN THREE FOUR NINE ONE, TWO, THREE TWO IF ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO. AND WE CAN PAUSE FOR ABOUT 10 OR 15 SECONDS TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO CALL IN. GREAT.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. JUST ONE MORE THING.

MRS. MANIACI HAS A COMMENT.

I JUST I WAS TRYING TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THE WATERSHED DISCUSSION.

OK. AND AT ONE POINT I KNOW I HEARD THIS IS THE NEXT PERSON THAT'S UP, BUT I STILL HAVE A COMMENT. I'M VERY IN SUPPORT.

I MEAN, IT'S ALREADY PASSED, BUT EXTREMELY IN SUPPORT OF THE WATERSHED IN WHAT THEY WANTED. I KNOW THAT IT'S ALREADY A DONE DEAL.

BUT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE THAT COMMENT AND I COULDN'T GET THROUGH.

AND I APOLOGIZE BECAUSE THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN MY CONFUSION.

I THINK I WAS SEEING YOUR NAME AND SEEING THAT YOU WERE CONNECTED TO THE SECOND CASE.

SO NOT MEANING AT ALL TO CUT YOU OFF, BUT WE WERE HAVING THOSE AUDITORY ISSUES.

BUT SO NOTED AND I DO BELIEVE THAT WE SHOW WE DID HAVE CHAT I DON'T KNOW HAPPENS TO THAT FOR HOMTV OR FOR MINUTES.

RIGHT. BUT YOUR COMMENTS ARE NOTED HERE FOR THE MINUTES.

OKAY THANK YOU. SO WE APPRECIATE THAT AND THANK YOU [INAUDIBLE].

ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING.

AND I DON'T SEE ANYBODY THAT'S CALLED IN.

IF NOT, I'M GOING TO CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND I'LL GO TO ANY BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS.

[9. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS]

BOARD MEMBERS, ANY COMMENTS WE HAVE TONIGHT.

TRUSTEE WISINSKI, GO AHEAD. CHAIR MANSOUR, I KNOW I HAD EMAILED YOU AND I KNOW DIRECTOR KIESELBACH KNOWS, BUT THEY HAVE PASSED THAT WE WILL CONTINUE VIRTUAL MEETINGS THROUGH JANUARY. SO JUST SO THAT WE ALL KNOW THAT ALL OF THESE TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES WILL CONTINUE. YES, I DID SEE THAT.

[02:30:03]

I APPRECIATE YOU SAYING THAT.

THAT WAS ON MY NOTES TO SAY SO I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING IT UP.

WE WILL CONTINUE ZOOM.

WE WILL DO OUR BEST AND WE WILL PERSEVERE.

WE'VE BEEN DOING A PRETTY GOOD JOB SO FAR.

WE'VE HAD SOME LONG MEETINGS, BUT WE'VE BEEN DOING A GOOD JOB GETTING THROUGH OUR CASES AND WORKING THROUGH OUR TECHNICAL ISSUES.

SO AND WE GOT THERE WITH OUR APPLICANTS TONIGHT, WHICH WAS HUGE.

I'M GLAD THAT WE SOLVED THOSE ISSUES SO THAT WE COULD HEAR THEM.

AND THEY HAD PROPER REPRESENTATION SO.

IT'LL BE NICE TO SEE MEMBER KULHANEK'S FACE ONE OF THESE DAYS.

I STILL HAVE NEVER SEEN YOU.

OH, NO NO IT WON'T. YEAH.

ONE OF THESE DAYS WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK DON.

I WAS AT THE TRAINING SO.

I MET YOU. AND I REMEMBER A GOOD NUMBER OF YOU.

I DON'T THINK COMMISSIONER HENDRICKSON WAS THERE BUT.

NO. YEAH. ALL RIGHT.

WELL, YOU'LL SEE HIM ONE OF THESE DAYS WE'LL BE BACK IN PERSON ONE OF THESE DAYS.

SOME DAY.

WE JUST GOT TO STAY SAFE OUT THERE AND KEEP OUR NUMBERS DOWN.

THAT BEING SAID, ANY OTHER BOARD COMMENTS? IF NOT, WE ARE GOING TO WRAP THIS UP AND I'M GOING TO GO PUT MY KIDS TO BED.

I'M GOING TO GO HAVE DINNER.

WELL ME TOO AFTER I PUT THE KIDS TO BED. [LAUGHTER] ALL RIGHT.

IN THAT NOTE, THE MEETING IS HEREBY ADJOURNED.

AND I APPRECIATE YOU ALL AND SEE YOU NEXT MONTH.

ALL RIGHT, GOOD NIGHT EVERYONE. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.