Oct 28, 2020 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting

OH, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.

[00:00:03]

TODAY IS MY GOSH WHAT DAY IS TODAY? WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 28TH 2020.

IT IS 6:30 PM AND I WILL NOW OFFICIALLY CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER.

OUR FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA.

FIRST ITEM IS TO APPROVE OUR AGENDA.

DO I HAVE ANY MOTIONS HERE TO APPROVE OUR AGENDA? I HAVE A MOTION FROM MEMBER HENDRICKSON.

I'LL SECOND.

SECOND FROM MEMBER WISINSKI.

ALL RIGHT, AND NOW I'M GOING TO GO TO A ROLL CALL VOTE.

THIS IS TO APPROVE THE AGENDA FOR THIS EVENING'S MEETING.

MEMBER HENDRICKSON.

YES.

TRUSTEE WISINSKI.

YES. MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER.

YES. MEMBER KULHANEK.

YES. AND THE CHAIR VOTES YES.

ALL RIGHT. AND SECOND ITEM IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM OCTOBER

[Items 1 & 2]

DO I HAVE A MOTION.

MOTION FROM TRUSTEE WISINSKI.

MOTION TO APPROVE, I SHOULD SAY, AND A SECOND BY MEMBER HENDRICKSON.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MINUTES, ANYTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE REVISED OR CORRECTED AS SEEN BY MANY OF OUR MEMBERS. IF NOT, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GO TO A VOTE, THIS IS TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 14, 2020.

MEMBER HENDRICKSON. YES.

TRUSTEE WISINSKI.

YES. MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER.

YES. MEMBER KULHANEK.

YES. AND THE CHAIR VOTES YES, SO THE MINUTES ARE OFFICIALLY APPROVED.

ALL RIGHT, DOESN'T IT LOOK LIKE WE HAVE ANY COMMUNICATIONS TO DISCUSS TONIGHT ON OUR AGENDA OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS SO WE WILL MOVE RIGHT ON TO NEW BUSINESS AND THAT WOULD BE

[3. CORRECTIONS, APPROVAL AND RATIFICATION OF MINUTES ]

AND WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MR. CHAPMAN. HI, EVERYONE, I'M GOING TO SHARE MY SCREEN WITH YOU HERE.

ZBA CASE 20-10-28-1 5937 POTTER STREET L.L.C..

THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AT FIFTY NINE THIRTY SEVEN POTTER STREET, AND THESE ARE THE FIVE VARIANCES THAT ARE BEING REQUESTED.

I'M NOT GOING TO READ THROUGH ALL OF THEM, BUT THERE THEY ARE.

SO THIS PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 0.10 ACRE IN SIZE AND IS ZONED RN MIXED RESIDENTIAL AND

[6.A. ZBA CASE NO. 20-10-28-1 (5937 Potter St, LLC), 4090 Wabaningo Road, Okemos, MI, 48864 ]

IT'S LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF POTTER STREET, JUST SOUTH OF LAKE LANSING ROAD.

IT'S PLATTED AS THE SOUTHERN HALF OF, LOT FIVE OF THE VILLAGE OF NEMOKA SUBDIVISION, WHICH WAS PLATTED IN 1883.

THE SUBMITTED SURVEY SHOWS AN EXISTING EIGHT HUNDRED SIXTEEN SQUARE FOOT TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE, AND THE SUBMITTED SITE PLAN SHOWS A PROPOSED 900 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY, HOME DRIVEWAY AND POSSIBLY DETACHED GARAGE.

SO THIS IS A MAP OF WHERE IT'S LOCATED.

SITE PLAN.

AND THE PROPOSED HOUSE AND SURVEY OF THE EXISTING.

SO EARLIER THIS YEAR, THE PLANNING COMMISSION INITIATED A REZONING TO HAVE THE PROPERTY REZONED FROM C ONE COMMERCIAL TO RN MIXED RESIDENTIAL.

THIS WAS APPROVED BY THE TOWNSHIP BOARD AT ITS MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 1ST.

SO UNDER THE PREVIOUS C1 ZONING, IT WAS NONCONFORMING.

SO THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS PROPOSED TO BE DEMOLISHED.

SO THIS REQUIRES VARIANCES FROM THE MINIMUM DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FROM THE ZBA TO CONSTRUCT THE NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE.

AND BASED ON THE TOWNSHIP INSPECTION, IT APPEARS THE STRUCTURE IS NOT SALVAGEABLE BECAUSE OF EXTENSIVE FIRE AND WATER DAMAGE.

[00:05:02]

THE RB ZONING STANDARDS REQUIRE EIGHT THOUSAND SQUARE FEET PER MINIMUM LOT AREA AND 65 FEET FOR THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH.

SO THIS PROPERTY HAS FOUR THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY SIX SQUARE FEET OF LOT AREA AND THIRTY THREE FEET OF LOT WIDTH.

SO IT DOESN'T MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS OF THAT SINGLE FAMILY PARCEL'S.

SO ADDITIONALLY, IT'S LOCATED IN THE LAKE LANSING OVERLAY DISTRICT, AND THIS AFFORDS SOME RELIEF FROM SOME OF THE STANDARDS OF THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT.

SO FOR LOTS OF RECORD THAT ARE PRIOR TO OCTOBER 5TH OF 1960, THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH IS THIRTY FIVE FEET AND LOT AREA IS FIVE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET.

A LOT OF RECORD IS DEFINED AS A PARCEL THAT WAS CREATED PRIOR TO 1960 AND HAS RETAINED ITS CURRENT CONFIGURATION SINCE ITS CREATION.

SO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, LIKE I SAID.

PROVIDES MEASURES OF RELIEF FOR THOSE REQUIREMENTS AND BASED ON ASSESSING RECORDS DATED FROM 1956 SITE HAS BEEN IN THE SAME CONFIGURATION AND PRIOR TO 1960.

SO BECAUSE IT'S BELOW THE OVERLAY DISTRICT STANDARDS, A VARIANCE OF SIX HUNDRED AND FORTY FOUR SQUARE FEET FOR LOT AREA AND TWO FEET FOR A LOT WIDTH IS NEEDED IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS PROPERTY A BUILDABLE LOT.

THE NEW HOUSE IS PROPOSED TO HAVE THE SAME FIVE FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK AS THE EXISTING HOUSE HAS.

SO THE RN RB ZONING DISTRICT ALLOWS A SEVEN FOOT SIDE YARD SET BACK.

AND THE LAKE LANSING OVERLAY ALLOWS FIVE FEET IF THE BUILDING IS CONSTRUCTED WITH NONCOMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS FOR LOTS OF RECORD.

SO THE HOUSE WILL ALSO HAVE THE SAME 15 FOOT FRONT YARD SET BACK.

THE LAKE LANSING OVERLAY ALLOWS 20 FEET, SO A VARIANCE OF 5 FEET IS REQUESTED.

AND THIS IS JUST A TABLE THAT SHOWS THE DIFFERENT VARIANCES THAT ARE REQUESTED.

AND HERE'S A COUPLE OF PICTURES.

ON ONE SIDE THE SOUTHWEST AND LOOKING NORTHWEST AT THE HOUSE.

THE WEST AND THEN LOOKING SOUTHWEST DOWN THE STREET.

AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAPMAN.

IS THERE A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE APPLICANT THAT IS HERE TODAY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS VARIANCE REQUEST? IF SO, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD.

MY NAME IS DARCIE WHIDDON AND I'M HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT. SURE, WE JUST NEED YOUR ADDRESS PLEASE FOR THE RECORD.

SURE IT'S 4090 WABANINGO OKEMOS, MICHIGAN, FOUR EIGHT EIGHT SIX FOUR.

AND IT'S WHIDDON.

YES, WHIDDON, DARCIE, WHIDDON.

THANK YOU. JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I SAY IT RIGHT.

THANK YOU. MS. WHIDDON GO AHEAD.

OK. MUCH AS MR. CHAPMAN MENTIONED EARLIER TODAY, A FEW THINGS I WANT TO JUST MAKE SOME CORRECTIONS ON, BUT I'LL GO OVER IT PRETTY QUICKLY HERE.

AND OBVIOUSLY I PURCHASED THE HOUSE NOT REALLY IN A CONDITION THAT I CAN FIX UP.

UNFORTUNATELY, I WAS REALLY HOPING TO FIX UP THAT PARTICULAR HOUSE.

BUT DAMAGES WERE QUITE EXTENSIVE DURING THE PREVIOUS OWNERSHIP.

AND SO I'M PROPOSING TO TEAR DOWN AND REBUILD ON THAT LOT.

AS WE MENTIONED BEFORE, THE LOT WIDTH IS TWO FEET SHORT OF WHAT'S REQUIRED OF THE LAKE LANSING OVERLAY. SAME WITH SOME OTHER LOT SIZE IS A QUITE A BIT SMALLER THAN WHAT IS ALLOWED THERE. SO OBVIOUSLY I'M REQUESTING VARIANCES JUST TO BE ABLE TO ALLOW TO BUILD ON THOSE PARTICULAR ISSUES.

IN TERMS OF THE HOUSE, I HAVE NOT FULLY DETERMINED WHICH HOUSE I AM GOING TO GO WITH, OBVIOUSLY, I WAS TRYING TO WAIT TO SEE WHAT VARIANCES WERE GRANTED HERE.

IN MY FORM OR MY LETTER THAT I SUBMITTED, I REQUESTED 16 FOOT HOUSE.

THAT'S WHAT'S CURRENTLY ON THE LOT.

THAT WAS ONLY BECAUSE I JUST DIDN'T KNOW WHAT I COULD DO WITH THE PROPERTY.

WHAT I'M HOPING TO DO IS BUILD AN 18 FOOT WIDE HOUSE, THE LENGTH TO BE DETERMINED, MAYBE 40 TO 50 FEET.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO DO A TWO STORY.

SO I KNOW THAT WASN'T MENTIONED THERE [INAUDIBLE] LIKE A 900 SQUARE FOOT.

THAT MIGHT BE THE BASE FOR THE HOUSE, BUT I'D LIKE TO BUILD A TWO STORY HOME.

[00:10:04]

AND MAKE IT A VERY NICE HOME TO REALLY INCREASE THE VALUE OF THE THE VILLAGE OF NEMOKA DISTRICT THERE.

LET'S SEE. THE REASON WHY I HAVE ASKED FOR THE SET BACK VARIANCE IN TERMS OF THE DISTANCE BACK THAT 15 INSTEAD OF 20 IS JUST I THINK THAT BECAUSE THE HOME ESPECIALLY ON THAT LITTLE BLOCK THERE THAT YOU SAW IN THE PICTURE, THERE GOING TO THE SOUTH, THERE ARE I BELIEVE FIVE HOUSES THAT ARE ALL AT THAT SAME LENGTH THERE.

IF WE START ZIGZAGGING THEM IN AND OUT WITHOUT HAVING A PLAN TO REBUILD EVERYTHING WHICH PEOPLE STILL OWN THOSE WE CANNOT JUST TAKE THEM AWAY.

I JUST WANT TO KEEP IT IN A CONSISTENT MANNER.

LET'S SEE.

THE FINAL THING I WILL MENTION JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS, JUST TO KIND OF ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS AHEAD OF TIME.

WHY AM I ASKING FOR AN EXCEPTION TO THE 20 FOOT WIDTH OF THE THE HOUSE BUILD? ONE OF THE REASONS WHY IS THE LARGE [INAUDIBLE].

IT MIGHT BE MORE DIFFICULT TO KEEP IN CONSISTENCY.

SECOND OF ALL, BECAUSE I HAVE A THIRTY THREE FOOT WIDE LOT AND I HAVE THAT FIVE FOOT SETBACK THAT I'M ASKING FOR ON THE SOUTH LINE, WHICH IS WHERE THE HOUSE CURRENTLY SITS.

I'M DOWN TO TWENTY EIGHT FEET WORTH OF SPACE TO WORK WITH.

IF I PUT UP AN 18 FOOT HOUSE, THAT WOULD GIVE ME ROUGHLY 10 FEET ON THAT NORTH LOT LINE TO WORK WITH, LET'S SAY A DRIVEWAY, AND THAT'S ASSUMING THAT I CAN GET A ZERO LOT LINE DRIVEWAY. AND PART OF THAT REASONING FOR ASKING IS I HAVE RENTALS RIGHT NOW WHERE I KNOW THAT IF YOU PUT IN ANYTHING LESS THAN A 10 FOOT DRIVEWAY ESSENTIALLY YOU PARK NEXT TO IT YOU DRIVE PAST IT, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE DOORS OPENING, HITTING HOUSES.

SO THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING ALSO FOR THE ZERO LOT LINE ON THE DRIVEWAY.

THAT WAY WE CAN HAVE A DRIVEWAY PUT IN THERE THAT IS NOT GOING TO INTERFERE WITH THE HOUSE DO DAMAGE. I PERSONALLY DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT'S GOING TO BE A PROBLEM TO BUILD A ZERO LOT LINE THERE WITH THE DRIVEWAY.

THE FACT THAT THE LOT RIGHT NEXT TO IT WAS PURCHASED, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY YEARS AGO, BUT SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADDING A PARKING LOT FOR THE BLUE GILL.

THERE ARE TREES THERE NOW.

WE OBVIOUSLY THOSE ARE NOT OURS, BUT WE'RE NOT AFFECTING ANY OTHER RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.

TELL YOU MORE ABOUT MY RESEARCH ON DRIVEWAY'S AND CARS BUT I DON'T THINK YOU WANNA HEAR THAT JUST YET. LET'S SEE.

I GUESS I THINK THAT COVERS MOST EVERYTHING THAT I WAS GOING OVER AND I'D BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU, MS. WHIDDON. YES, WE WILL DEFINITELY, AS WE GET INTO OUR BOARD TIME HERE IN A MOMENT, RESERVE THE RIGHT TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS, IF YOU DON'T MIND.

STAY CLOSE BY YOUR MUTE BUTTON THERE.

AND IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE THIS EVENING? I DON'T SEE ANYBODY ELSE.

IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IN THE ATTENDEES SO.

I DON'T SEE ANYBODY ELSE IN THERE EITHER.

OK, WE COULD OFFER TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO DIAL IN IF YOU WOULD CHOOSE TO DO SO.

FIVE ONE SEVEN THREE FOUR NINE, ONE, TWO, THREE, TWO.

AND WE CAN, OF COURSE, TAKE COMMENT BY TELEPHONE.

AND YOU'RE RIGHT THERE. AND THERE'S NO ONE IN THE ATTENDEE AREA BUT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ADMINISTERING THE MEETING. OKAY GREAT.

WE'LL JUST GIVE A COUPLE OF MOMENTS THERE IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO CALL IN TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS CASE.

AND I'M HEARING NO PHONE CALLS RINGING AT ALL.

OK. ALL RIGHT, IN THAT CASE, THEN WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GET INTO OUR BOARD TIME.

AND ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR ANY COMMENTS TO BEGIN? TRUSTEE WISINSKI GO AHEAD.

DIRECTOR KIESELBACH OR MR. CHAPMAN. SO CAN YOU TELL ME WHY THESE LOTS WERE SO SMALL TO BEGIN WITH, LIKE WHAT HAPPENED PRE 1960 THAT MADE THESE LOTS SO ENTIRELY SMALL? WELL, THEY ORIGINALLY WERE PLATTED AT SIXTY SIX FEET IN WIDTH.

THIS ONE WAS SPLIT, AS KEITH SAID, BACK IN THE 50S, BASICALLY IN HALF, CREATING TWO THIRTY THREE FEET WIDTH OF THIRTY THREE FEET, FOR TWO PARCELS.

SO IF THEY HAD REMAINED IN THE SAME SHAPE, EVEN WITH TODAY'S RB ZONING, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN IN COMPLIANCE.

OK, IT WAS ZONED COMMERCIAL, BUT THERE WAS RESIDENTIAL THAT WAS BUILT, CORRECT?

[00:15:05]

THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY AT THAT TIME WAS ASKED IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT REZONED AND HE DECLINED THAT.

SO THEY LEFT IT IN C1.

AND IT'S THE APPLICANT WHO INITIATED THE REZONING TO RESIDENTIAL TO AT LEAST BRING THE HOUSE, THE USE OF THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE.

OK, AND THEN I HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY.

SO CURRENTLY IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS A GRAVEL TYPE DRIVEWAY THAT PEOPLE ARE USING.

AND IS THAT IN COMPLIANCE? KEITH WAS OUT ON THE SITE, I DON'T KNOW IF YEAH, IT'S NOT MUCH OF A DRIVEWAY THAT'S THERE.

IT'S MAYBE YOU CAN PULL ON AND PARK ONE CAR, BUT IT IS LIKE GRAVEL AND GRASS MIXTURE, I GUESS. DO YOU HAVE THAT PICTURE, KEITH, THAT WAS SECOND. I HAD A SIMILAR QUESTION, SO THAT HELPS.

IS THAT ALLOWED BY ORDINANCE TO PARK A CAR IN THAT SPOT, IS THAT AN ALLOWABLE. PARKING WOULD HAVE TO BE ON A HARD SURFACE.

BASICALLY, WHAT OUR ORDINANCE REQUIRES, SO IT WOULD HAVE TO BE GRAVEL, ASPHALT OR CONCRETE. OKAY. AND THEN MY LAST QUESTION IS, SO IS THERE AN ORDINANCE ON HOW WIDE A DRIVEWAY MUST BE THE HARD SURFACE SURFACE OF THE DRIVEWAY, MUST BE.

NO LIMIT ON THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE WIDTH.

IT'S THE SET BACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE TWO FEET.

GREAT. THANK YOU, THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR NOW.

OK, THANK YOU TRUSTEE WISINSKI. AND WHILE WE HAVE THIS PICTURE UP MY QUESTION WOULD BE, I BELIEVE I HEARD MS. WHIDDON SAY THESE TREES THAT ARE TO THE LET'S SEE IF WE'RE LOOKING WEST TO THE NORTH HERE IN THIS PICTURE.

THESE DO NOT THESE ARE NOT ON PROPERTY.

THIS IS ACTUALLY IN THE PROPERTY THAT BELONGS TO WHOM.

I WOULD ANSWER THAT.

OKAY GO AHEAD. MS. WHIDDON GO AHEAD. OK, UNFORTUNATELY, SINCE MY SURVEY WAS DONE, YOU CANNOT SEE THE STAKES THAT WERE PUT IN THERE, THE TREE TO THE VERY FIRST ONE YOU SEE THERE, I BELIEVE THAT ONE, LIKE THE BRANCHES TO THE VERY LEFT SIDE THERE, KIND OF COME OVER ON TO THE DRIVEWAY.

THE ONE BACK FURTHER IS ACTUALLY SITTING, HAS GROWN ON TO THE PROPERTY.

SO BUT A LOT OF IT'S HARD TO TELL BECAUSE THE ANGLE OF THE PHOTO DOES NOT ACCURATELY DEPICT THE MANNER IN WHICH THE PROPERTY SITS THERE.

BUT FOR THE MOST PART, THE TREES, THEY MAY HAVE TO HAVE SOME BRANCHES.

I MEAN, IT'S A NARROW SPOT THERE BECAUSE THE TREES HAVE GROWN SINCE THEY WERE PLANTED ORIGINALLY. BUT I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, ARE THOSE PART OF THIS YOUR PROPERTY OR THAT'S PART OF THE C ONE PROPERTY THAT'S NEXT DOOR? I'M GOING TO SAY THAT THE ONE THAT'S FURTHER BACK IS PART OF MY PROPERTY THAT HAS GROWN ONTO MY PROPERTY. OK, AND THE ONE IN THE FOREGROUND OF THE PICTURE BELONGS TO.

IS CLEARLY ON THE OTHER PROPERTY.

YES. OK.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU FOR THAT.

ANYBODY ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW? THIS IS DON. HI, DON.

GO AHEAD. OK, I JUST A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THE CHART AND YOUR REPORT AND THE FIVE ITEMS THAT THEY'RE SEEKING VARIANCES FOR.

BUT WHEN I LOOK AT THE APPLICANT'S MATERIALS, I THINK I COUNTED SEVEN.

IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE LOOKING FOR A VARIANCE FOR A DRIVEWAY LOT AREA MAYBE I WAS MISUNDERSTANDING THAT AND IT LOOKED LIKE THEY MIGHT BE SEEKING A VARIANCE FOR THE SIDE YARD SETBACK.

AND I GUESS I'M JUST LOOKING FOR SOME CLARITY ON THAT.

THAT'S THE WAY I READ THE, AGAIN, THE APPLICANT'S MATERIALS.

AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE KNOW EVERYTHING WE'RE CONSIDERING RIGHT NOW.

[00:20:04]

SO WE DIDN'T KNOW THAT THE LOT WAS IN THIS CONFIGURATION PRIOR TO THE 1960.

SO WE WEREN'T SURE IF IT WAS A LOT OF RECORD OR NOT.

SO ONCE WE FOUND THAT INFORMATION, THOSE TWO VARIANCES WERE NO LONGER NEEDED.

OKAY. OK, I THINK THAT WAS MY ONLY QUESTION FOR NOW.

OK, THANK YOU, MEMBER KULHANEK.

ANYBODY ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS TODAY? ANYBODY WANT TO TAKE A STAB AT CRITERIA.

MEMBER HENDRICKSON, GO AHEAD. I DO HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION FOR DIRECTOR KIESELBACH.

SURE. THE APPLICANT POINTED OUT THAT THE OTHER HOUSES IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD ON THE STREET ARE ALL THAT 20, WHATEVER THE VARIANCE REQUEST.

I'M SORRY, I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME RIGHT THIS SECOND, BUT THEY'RE ALL 15, 20 FEET BACK FROM THE ROAD. CAN YOU TELL US SORT OF HOW THAT CAME ABOUT? WAS THAT DID THE ORDINANCE CHANGE FOR FRONT YARD SETBACKS AND ALL THOSE HOUSES THAT WERE PRIOR TO THAT OR DID THEY ALL RECEIVE VARIANCES THROUGH THIS BODY? I CAN GIVE YOU A GENERAL ANSWER, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY GOT VARIANCES OR NOT.

IF THESE ARE SIMILAR IN AGE TO THIS HOUSE THAT'S ON THE SITE NOW THAT THEY WERE BUILT IN THE 20S, THE 30S, AND WHAT WAS MENTIONED THIS LOT OF RECORD WAS 1960.

THAT'S THE YEAR THAT THE TOWNSHIP ADOPTED WHAT WE KNOW AND COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS OUR RB OUR RA OUR RAA ALL OUR RESIDENTIAL ZONINGS WERE CREATED AT THAT TIME AND THOSE SETBACKS BECAUSE OF THAT CHANGE.

SO I THINK IT'S DUE MORE TO THE AGE OF THE HOMES THAT WERE SET IN THERE PRIOR TO THAT 1960 ORDINANCE IS THE REASON.

MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER, GO AHEAD.

SO I'VE GOT ONE OTHER QUESTION.

SO ONE OF THE DRAWINGS INDICATED THAT THERE MAY BE A PROPOSED GARAGE IN THE BACK OF THE HOUSE. WOULD THAT BE CONFORMING? DOES THAT THAT FIT INTO SPACE? HOW EXACTLY IS THAT GOING TO WORK IN RELATION TO THE DRIVEWAY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? I GUESS I DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND WHETHER WE'RE CONSIDERING THAT.

IS THAT JUST SOMETHING THAT'S THERE? IS IT GOING TO ACTUALLY BE BUILT? I'M JUST I JUST SEE THIS LITTLE SLIDE THAT SAYS PROPOSED GARAGE IN THE BACK.

AND SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE REALLY ADDRESSED THAT.

PERHAPS MS. WHIDDON CAN HELP US UNDERSTAND, IS THAT SOMETHING BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A REQUEST FOR THAT AS FAR AS A VARIANCE, BUT I DON'T KNOW, AND MAYBE THAT'S A STAFF QUESTION AS FAR AS WHETHER OR NOT A YOU KNOW, A SECONDARY BUILDING THERE WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE.

I'LL DIVE IN RIGHT NOW AND JUST ANSWER IN REGARD TO THE GARAGE.

I WOULD LIKE TO BUILD A GARAGE.

A LOT OF THIS COMES DOWN TO BUILDING COSTS RIGHT NOW.

I KNOW THAT BUILDING COSTS ARE EXTREMELY HIGH.

SO THAT'S GOING TO BE A PART OF MY ASSESSMENT AFTER THIS.

I WILL SAY THE REASON WHY A SPECIFIC GARAGE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN MY PAPERWORK THERE IS I WAS UNDER THE BELIEF AFTER READING THE CODES THAT A PROPOSED GARAGE WOULD BE ABLE TO MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. AND IF I'M MISINFORMED ABOUT THAT, THEN OBVIOUSLY I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND TO INCLUDE THAT.

THAT'S WHAT I CAN SAY RIGHT NOW. OKAY, THANKS, MS. WHIDDON. KEITH, DO YOU HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THAT OR DIRECTOR KIESELBACH.

YEAH, I MEAN, DEPENDING ON WHAT SIZE THE APPLICANT LOOKS INTO, THERE'S IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE FEASIBLE TO HAVE A GARAGE, BUT WITHOUT KNOWING AN EXACT SIZE, I CAN'T REALLY SAY TOO MUCH. BUT I GUESS IF WE'RE PLAYING THE GAME OF, YOU KNOW, MAKING SOME KIND OF FUTURE ASSESSMENT HERE, THAT IT IS POSSIBLE TO BUILD A STRUCTURE THERE THAT'S IN CONFORMANCE THAT WOULD NOT REQUIRE A VARIANCE.

RIGHT. AND THE ONLY OTHER A NORMAL SETBACK FOR A DETACHED GARAGE WOULD BE 10 FEET FROM THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE OF THE HOUSE AND IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A MINIMUM OF FIVE FEET FROM

[00:25:05]

AND AGAIN, IF IT IS IN THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT, IF IT IS, IT'S A LITTLE BIT FLEXIBLE ON THE GARAGE, I WOULD MENTION THAT ON THE PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE, THE FIVE FEET, IF IT IS AT FIVE FEET, IT HAS TO BE CONSTRUCTED OF NON COMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL.

I DON'T KNOW IF THE APPLICANT HAS THOUGHT ABOUT THAT BECAUSE THEN YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE HAVING WINDOWS ON THAT SIDE OF A HOUSE.

AND THAT'S A PRETTY LONG AT FORTY FIVE OR FIFTY FEET.

THAT'S A PRETTY LONG STRETCH WHERE NO WINDOWS CAN BE INSTALLED.

THANK YOU, DIRECTOR KIESELBACH.

GOOD INFORMATION THERE.

I GUESS I HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION.

YEAH, MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER.

GO AHEAD.

THEN THIS IS FOR THE APPLICANT? I THINK SO WE'RE CONSIDERING A 10 FOOT DRIVEWAY.

AND I BELIEVE YOU MENTIONED THE REASON YOU WANTED TO MAKE IT LARGER WAS SO THAT YOU HAD ENOUGH SPACE FOR CARS NOT TO BASICALLY DING THE DOORS AGAINST THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE.

BUT IF THERE IS A PROPOSED GARAGE WHERE A PERSON COULD GET IN AND OUT OF THE CAR, WOULD YOU STILL NEED THE 10 FOOT IN WIDTH DRIVEWAY? I WOULD STILL BE UNDER THE MINDSET THAT I WOULD REQUEST A LARGER DRIVEWAY BECAUSE DESPITE PROVIDING GARAGES, PEOPLE DO USE THEM FOR NON VEHICLE USES, BIKES, RANDOM STORAGE.

PEOPLE TEND TO PARK CARS ON THE DRIVEWAY ALL THE TIME BECAUSE IT'S MUCH CLOSER TO PARK THERE, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S A DETACHED GARAGE.

I WILL SAY IF I HAVE IT IN MY MIND, IT WOULD BE A ONE AND A HALF CAR GARAGE.

SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT GOING BE ABLE TO ALWAYS HAVE EVERY SINGLE VEHICLE.

IF THERE'S TWO VEHICLES TO THE HOME, ONE IS GOING TO BE OUTSIDE.

SO I WOULD STILL REQUEST A 10 FOOT DRIVE EVEN IF I DO PUT UP A GARAGE.

I DO HAVE A QUESTION, AND I BELIEVE THIS IS FOR STAFF AS WELL.

WHEN WE SAY THAT THE TOWNSHIP HAS DEEMED THIS PROPERTY TO BE BASICALLY TO BE BEYOND REPAIR. GIVE ME SOME MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THAT, PLEASE.

IS THAT BASICALLY SAYING THAT THIS PROPERTY AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, IS NOT RECOMMENDED TO BE REPAIRED, BUT THE RECOMMENDATION, RATHER, WOULD BE TO TEAR IT DOWN.

BECAUSE I THINK THAT GOES TO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AS FAR AS WHETHER OR NOT THIS LOT CAN BE USED AS A RESIDENTIAL LOT WOULD REQUIRE IT TO HAVE A HOME ON IT, WHICH, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IF THIS HOUSE NEEDS TO BE TORN DOWN BECAUSE IT'S JUST BEYOND REPAIR, IT WOULD NEED TO BE A HOME WOULD NEED TO BE REBUILT ON IT, SO.

OK.

THAT HAD BEEN DONE TO THE HOUSE AND DUE TO THE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION THAT WAS USED TO BUILD THIS HOUSE, IT WOULD BE MORE COST EFFECTIVE IF IT WAS TORN DOWN AND REBUILT.

CERTAINLY THAT'S UP TO THE APPLICANTS DECISION.

AGAIN, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DOESN'T LOOK AT FINANCIAL ISSUES AND THEY COULD SPEND ANY AMOUNT OF MONEY TO TRY TO REPAIR THE EXISTING HOUSE.

OK, THANK YOU, DIRECTOR KIESELBACH.

ANYBODY ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS TONIGHT? DISCUSSION. MAYBE A QUICK FOLLOW UP QUESTION, AND I APOLOGIZE IF SOMEBODY HAS ALREADY SAID THIS. IS THE HOUSE RED TAGGED RIGHT NOW.

THIS IS MEMBER KULHANEK.

NO, I DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS.

SO AS OF RIGHT NOW, IT'S ACTUALLY CONSIDERED HABITABLE.

WELL, WITHOUT THE NECESSARY REPAIRS, IT WOULDN'T BE HABITABLE.

OK.

I JUST DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW IF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR AND MAYBE THE APPLICANT KNOWS.

I DON'T KNOW IF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ACTUALLY TAGGED THE HOUSE AS UNINHABITABLE.

ACCORDING TO MY RECORDS AND EVERYTHING I'VE SPOKEN TO WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, NO, IT HAS NOT BEEN RED TAGGED, BUT AS WAS MENTIONED, THE STYLE OF BUILD FOR THIS PARTICULAR HOUSE WOULD BE AND I'M GOING TO PUT IT THIS WAY FROM WHAT I KNOW ABOUT LUMBER SHORTAGES

[00:30:05]

SO WHAT I'M LOOKING TO DO, THE REASON WHY I'M LOOKING AND THAT'S WHY I'M HERE ASKING FOR THESE VARIANCES IS BECAUSE I WANT TO BUILD A SAFE HOUSE, NOT JUST I MEAN, IT'S NOT.

I KNOW YOU GUYS DON'T FIGURE COST INVOLVED IN IT, BUT I WANT TO MAKE A SAFE HOUSE.

AND I THINK THE BEST WAY TO MAKE A SAFE HOUSE IS TO BUILD A NEW HOUSE.

THANK YOU, MS. WHIDDON.

DO ANY OF OUR MEMBERS WANT TO ATTEMPT OUR CRITERIA.

I THINK WE'RE THERE UNLESS ANYBODY ELSE HAS ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT.

YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO MAKE ME DO THIS AGAIN, AREN'T YOU? ALL RIGHT, I'LL GO FOR IT.

LET'S BEGIN WITH OUR REVIEW CRITERIA.

WITH THE FIRST BEING 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 DEFINITELY WOULD SAY THIS IS A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE.

I THINK, BETWEEN THE A LOT OF RECORD AND OTHER THE REZONING IN SEPTEMBER AND THE CURRENT CONDITION OF THE HOME.

NOW I REALIZE THAT WE CAN GO RIGHT INTO CRITERIA NUMBER TWO, SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SELF CREATED.

THE PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT CREATE THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.

HOWEVER, SHE DID BUY THE HOME AS IS.

SO I GUESS I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR MS. WHIDDON.

WHEN YOU BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY DID YOU TRY TO FIX IT AND THEN YOU GOT INTO THE WALLS AND GOT INTO THE STRUCTURE AND LEARNED THAT IT WAS UNSALVAGEABLE.

CAN YOU WALK ME THROUGH THAT STORY A LITTLE BIT? YES, QUITE SIMPLY, YES.

I BOUGHT THE HOME, AS IS THE CONDITION THAT IT WAS.

I DID INSPECTIONS WITH A BUILDER.

MUCH LIKE MANY HOUSES YOU GO THROUGH, YOU CAN LOOK AT THE SURFACE, YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DIVE WITHIN.

I NOTICED THAT THE PLUMBING WOULD NEED TO BE UPGRADED, THE ELECTRICAL NEED BE UPGRADED.

SO THOSE THINGS WERE VERY CLEAR FROM THE BASEMENT SECTION, HOWEVER, WHERE THE DAMAGE WAS REALLY SIGNIFICANT, IT WAS UPSTAIRS ON THE SECOND FLOOR, THE PEAKED AREAS THAT WERE IN THE BEDROOMS. I CAN'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS THE FRONT OR BACK, BUT THEY ONCE I HAD MY CONTRACTOR COME IN AND DEMO SOME OF THE WALLS TO SEE WHAT WE NEEDED TO DO TO FIX THEM UP AND MAKE IT NICER, THEY DISCOVERED A FIRE THAT HAD BEEN COVERED UP.

AND THE FIRE WAS ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS WHY THE DAMAGE [INAUDIBLE].

AFTER THAT WATER LEAKS CAME IN AND TERMITE DAMAGE OCCURRED AFTER THAT, SO, I MEAN, THEN WE DISCOVERED UPON IT'S ALL OPEN INSIDE THERE, THE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION THAT IT WAS, WAS NOT TRADITIONAL IT WAS PROBABLY MORE OBVIOUSLY TRADITIONAL BACK IN THE 1920S WHEN LUMBER WAS MORE PREVALENT.

AND FRANKLY, MY ABILITY TO FIX THIS HOUSE, AS IS LIKE I SAID, YES, I PROBABLY COULD DO IT. IT WOULD BE VERY COSTLY AND ALMOST EXTREMELY IMPOSSIBLE OR DIFFICULT TO GET THE MATERIALS TO DO SO.

THANK YOU, MS. WHIDDON. OK, SO I WOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE A CASE FOR NOT SELF CREATED.

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

I KNOW THIS IS USUALLY WHERE WE HAVE OUR NICE, LENGTHY DISCUSSIONS.

SO HOW IS EVERYBODY FEELING ABOUT PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES? I'M VERY OPEN FOR DISCUSSION IN THIS [INAUDIBLE].

I MEAN, I'LL START WITH WE'RE AT A POINT WHERE THE HOUSE IS LIKELY INHABITABLE THE WAY IT IS AND REBUILDING IT VERSUS SO REBUILDING IT ANYWAY AS IT STANDS.

AND STAFF, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, YOU STILL HAVE SEVERAL WAYS THAT IT'S NON CONFORMING, EVEN IF THEY REBUILD, THE STRUCTURE AS IS.

IS THAT CORRECT? SO THAT'S CORRECT, WITH THIRTY THREE FEET AND AT A MINIMUM OF 20 FOOT IN WIDTH FOR THE HOUSE.

SO AS I SAID, YOU CAN'T DO THE SEVEN FOOT SIDE YARDS, WHICH WOULD BE TYPICAL AND STILL GET 20 FEET.

YOU'RE SHORT.

YOU COULD DO A 19 FOOT WIDE HOUSE WITH SEVEN FOOT SIDE YARDS WHICH COULDN'T MEET THE STANDARDS FOR THOSE SETBACKS? SO THAT BEING SAID, SO REBUILDING THIS HOME, SHE WOULD BE ABLE TO RECEIVE PERMITS, BUT

[00:35:08]

THERE ARE DIFFERENT DESIGNS WHERE THE DRIVEWAY COULD BE IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE.

THEY COULD PARK IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE.

YOU KNOW, THEY COULD HAVE AN ATTACHED GARAGE OR ATTACHED CARPORT.

AND I KNOW THERE'S DIFFERENT DESIGNS THAT WOULDN'T NEED A DRIVEWAY ON THE SIDE.

OK, BUT TO REBUILD THIS HOME IN PARTICULAR, SHE WOULDN'T NEED TO HAVE ANY VARIANCES.

SHE COULD JUST REBUILD AS IS.

AND WOULDN'T REQUIRE A VARIANCE? YOU MEAN TO REPAIR THE HOUSE OR BUILD NEW.

TO REPAIR THE HOUSE.

TO REPAIR THE HOUSE IT'S NON CONFORMING BECAUSE OF THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, SO ANY IMPACT TO THAT WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE.

IF THEY ADDED ANYTHING THAT INCLUDED BULK HEIGHT OR AREA TO THE HOUSE BECAUSE IT IS NON CONFORMING, WOULD HAVE TO COME BEFORE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT, SO I'M LOOKING I CAN MAKE A CASE FOR PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, BECAUSE REGARDLESS OF REPAIRING OR BUILDING NEW, SHE'S GOING TO REQUIRE SOME KIND OF VARIANCE JUST BASED ON THE UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS OF THIS LOT AND IT BEING A LOT OF RECORD.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING ELSE ON PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES? THE CRITERIA, NUMBER FOUR, THAT THE ALLEGED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, WHICH WILL RESULT FROM FAILURE TO GRANT THE VARIANCE, WOULD UNREASONABLY PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR THE PERMITTED PURPOSE.

IT'S PERMITTED AS RESIDENTIAL WITHOUT GRANTING THESE VARIANCES SHE CAN'T BUILD A HOME ON A RESIDENTIAL LOT, SO I WOULD SAY THAT WOULD SATISFY CRITERIA NUMBER FOUR.

I'M DEFINITELY, AGAIN, OPEN TO HEARING ANY KIND OF CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE ALL. YEAH, MEMBER HENDRICKSON, GO AHEAD.

SO AS THE STRICT ADHERER TO THE RULES GUY ON THIS PARTICULAR PANEL.

[LAUGHTER] IT MIGHT BE PRUDENT TO ASK A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS.

SO NUMBER ONE, JUST AS A PROCEDURAL QUESTION, BECAUSE I AM RELATIVELY NEW TO THE BODY, DO WE CONSIDER THESE VARIANCES ON BLOCK OR DO WE CONSIDER THEM ONE AT A TIME? HONESTLY, WE CAN AS THE BOARD, WE CAN DECIDE.

PERSONALLY FOR ME, WHEN I LOOK AT THEM TOGETHER, I CONSIDER I CAN SEE THE DRIVEWAY AS BEING A TOTALLY SEPARATE ISSUE THAN THE REST OF THE HOUSE.

SO IT'S UP TO US.

SO YOU ARE WELCOME.

AND WHENEVER WE DO GET AROUND TO A MOTION, WE CAN ABSOLUTELY MOVE TO APPROVE SOME AND NOT THE OTHERS. IT'S YOU KNOW, IT DEPENDS ON THE CASE.

BUT I WOULD SAY THAT IN SOMETHING LIKE THIS, WHERE THERE'S SO MANY, WE CAN ABSOLUTELY TAKE A ONE BY ONE OR KIND OF PUT SOME TOGETHER AND SOME SEPARATELY, WHICHEVER WE WANT TO DO, THAT'S UP TO YOU.

IF YOU WANT TO CONSIDER SOMETHING SEPARATELY, PLEASE LET US KNOW AND LET'S GO FROM THERE.

OK, BUT I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE DRIVEWAY ITSELF BE A SEPARATE ISSUE FROM THE REST OF THE WHOLE. YEAH, I THINK THAT'S FAIR, YOU KNOW, AS I LOOK AT THESE, I'M LOOKING AT WHAT IS. IF WE WERE TO DENY SOME OF THESE VARIANCES, I THINK, YES, THAT ABSOLUTELY WOULD CAUSE UNREASONABLY PREVENT THE OWNER FROM BEING ABLE TO OPERATE THIS PROPERTY AS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FOR ITS PERMITTED PURPOSE.

RIGHT. THE FACT THAT THE LOT AREA ITSELF IS SMALLER THAN THE MINIMUM LOT AREA.

YEAH.

RIGHT. THEY CAN'T PUT A HOUSE ON IT IF THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING ON IT.

RIGHT. SO THAT TO ME IS A SLAM DUNK FOR NUMBER FOUR.

FOR THE LOT WIDTH I SUPPOSE YOU CAN'T REALLY CHANGE THAT EITHER.

RIGHT. YOU ARE GIVEN WHAT YOU'RE GIVEN.

AND THIS IS A RELATIVELY NEW PROPERTY OWNER.

SO THAT ALSO SEEMS LIKE, YOU KNOW, TO LEAVE THAT WITHOUT GRANTING THE VARIANCE ALSO SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD MAKE IT UNABLE TO BE USED FOR THE PERMITTED PURPOSE.

HOUSE WIDTH. I THINK DIRECTOR KIESELBACH MAKES A GOOD POINT ABOUT THE FACT THAT, YES, YOU COULD BUILD A HOUSE ON THIS PROPERTY IF WE DIDN'T GRANT THIS VARIANCE OR IF WE GRANTED A

[00:40:06]

IT WOULD REQUIRE A BIT MORE OF A CASE TO BE MADE THAT A DIFFERENT HOUSE WITH A DIFFERENT CONFIGURATION COULDN'T SATISFY THAT FOR AT BEST, A SMALLER ACTION TAKEN TO GRANT TO BE ABLE TO USE THIS PROPERTY FOR ITS PERMITTED PURPOSE.

AND I'M SORT OF GETTING AHEAD OF MYSELF ON TO OTHER CRITERIA HERE.

TO ENFORCE THE RULES.

BUT I ALSO DON'T WANT TO NEGATIVELY IMPACT OR ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND IF ALL THE HOMES ARE THAT CLOSE TO THE FRONT, THEN I FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD TRY TO BE AS CONSISTENT AS POSSIBLE IN APPLYING THIS.

SO I GUESS TO SUMMARIZE, I THINK WE SHOULD TALK ABOUT THE DRIVEWAY SEPARATELY.

I THINK GIVEN THE INABILITY TO BUILD ON THE PROPERTY, IF WE DON'T GRANT THE LOT AREA AND THE LOT WITH SETBACKS THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER THOSE.

AND FOR HOUSE WIDTH I'D LIKE TO HEAR A LITTLE BIT MORE FROM THE APPLICANT ABOUT WHY A 16 FOOT WIDTH AND WHY NOT A 19 FOOT WIDTH.

SO I GUESS AND LET ME REPHRASE MY QUESTION A LITTLE BIT TO BE A LITTLE LITTLE CLEARER TO THE APPLICANT HERE. SO LET'S JUST SAY, FOR THE SAKE OF HYPOTHETICAL, THAT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECIDES TONIGHT THAT IT CANNOT GRANT A VARIANCE ON THE DRIVEWAY.

OK, IF THAT'S THE CASE, COULD YOU RECONFIGURE THE PROPERTY THAT YOU'RE LOOKING TO BUILD TO MINIMIZE THE VARIANCE REQUESTED TO ALLOW FOR THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS TO BE AS SMALL A VARIANCE AS POSSIBLE SO THAT ONE FOOT THAT DIRECTOR KIESELBACH MENTIONED? WHAT I WOULD SAY AT THIS POINT, I'M WILLING TO TAKE MY 16 FOOT REQUEST OFF THE TABLE BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, I PICKED THAT KIND OF ARBITRARILY JUST BECAUSE IT WAS CURRENTLY A 16 FOOT HOUSE. I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO ARGUE, IF POSSIBLE, FOR AN 18 FOOT HOUSE.

AND THE REASON WHY THAT IS SUFFICIENT SPACE.

THERE'S A LOT MORE OPTIONS WHEN IT COMES TO CREATING THAT HOUSE.

NINETEEN. YES, I CAN WORK WITH THAT.

BUT THE 18 FOOT HOUSE VARIANCE [INAUDIBLE] 2 FOOT FROM THE 20 WOULD ALLOW ME TO DO QUITE A BIT FOR THAT LOT, NOT OVERWHELM THE LOT.

AND LIKE I SAID, I AM TRYING TO KEEP IT AS SEPARATE AS POSSIBLE.

THAT WOULD STILL ALLOW FOR EVEN IF YOU DON'T RENT ON THE OTHER SIDE, THE DRIVEWAY VARIANCES THAT I REQUESTED THAT WOULD STILL GIVE ME SUFFICIENT TO WORK WITH.

YES, COULD I WORK WITH NINETEEN.

YES, BUT I THINK IT JUST POSES MORE PROBLEMS IN THE END.

WHEREAS IF ALLOW ME TO GO TO AN 18 FOOT HOUSE, THAT WOULD GIVE LOTS OF OPTIONS FOR BOTH THE TOWNSHIP TO MAINTAIN THE KIND OF LOOKS AND NOT HAVE TO GRANT AS MANY VARIANCES NECESSARILY AND ALLOW ME OPTIONS AS WELL.

I THINK IT'D BE WIN WIN.

THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR NOW.

[LAUGHTER] THANK YOU.

MEMBER HENDRICKSON.

I COULDN'T AGREE MORE WITH WHAT YOU SAID.

THE HOUSE WIDTH WAS SOMETHING THAT I WAS STILL A LITTLE BIT STRUGGLING WITH.

I WILL SAY I DID DRIVE BY THE PROPERTY TODAY AND I WILL VOUCH FOR THOSE HOUSES ALL BEING LIKE RIGHT IN A ROW, WHICH YOU KNOW, AS A MEMBER HENDRICKSON JUST POINTED OUT, IT'S HARD TO SAY NO, JUST PUSH THE HOUSE BACK WHEN IT IS WITHIN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT SEEMS IT SEEMS FRIVOLOUS, BUT I DO UNDERSTAND THE WANT TO KEEPING WITH THAT SAME LOOK AS THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND KEEP WITH THE CHARACTER OF THAT LITTLE SUB THERE, BUT I AM HAPPY TO HEAR THE APPLICANT SAY GOING UP TO 18 FOOT WIDTH OF HOW SO THAT VARIANCE REQUESTED WOULD GO DOWN TO TWO FEET.

I DO THINK THAT IF WE DO DECIDE TO MOVE FORWARD AND GRANT THIS VARIANCE, THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S PART OF OUR THAT'S AMENDED WITHIN OUR MOTION.

SO KEEP THAT IN MIND, PEOPLE.

I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH, I THINK GOING BACK TO CRITERIA.

SEE IF I CAN MAKE MY WAY BACK HERE.

I THINK THAT CRITERIA NUMBER FIVE GRANTING THE VARIANCE AND I'M GOING TO PUT THOSE FOUR TOGETHER AND THAT WOULD BE HOUSE WIDTH AT THE 18 FEET LOT AREA, LOT WIDTH AND FRONT YARD

[00:45:07]

I'LL GROUP THOSE FOUR TOGETHER FOR THIS CRITERIA.

NUMBER 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 AND WHICH WOULD CARRY OUT THE SPIRIT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, PROCURE PUBLIC SAFETY, AND PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.

I THINK THAT I MEAN, RIGHT NOW, WE'VE JUST ALREADY MADE IT AS MINIMAL AS WE CAN GET IT.

I DON'T THINK THAT THIS IS ASKING FOR TOO MUCH TO GET A HOME ON A RESIDENTIAL LOT.

LET'S SEE, CRITERIA NUMBER SIX, GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND OR THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY.

I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.

AND I THINK WE'VE DISCUSSED THAT AT LENGTH.

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

I THINK THESE LAKE LANSING HOUSES ARE ALL A LITTLE FUNKY.

I MEAN, WE GET LAKE LANSING HOUSES.

THERE'S NOT ANYTHING WE CAN DO AS WE SEE WITH REZONING THIS PROPERTY.

IT'S JUST I MEAN.

THE REZONING IS NOT THE CASE HERE, IT'S JUST THEY'RE UNIQUE, SO I WOULD SAY THAT DEFINITELY THIS PROPERTY MEETS THAT CRITERIA.

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

AND I COULD SATISFY THAT AS WELL FOR THOSE FOUR.

SO DO WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD AND DISCUSS THE DRIVEWAY OR DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR THOSE FIRST FOUR? I'LL BE HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION ON THE FIRST 4 IF WE WANT TO CONSIDER THOSE DONE AND MOVE ON TO THE NEXT THING.

YEAH IF WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE WITH THOSE FOUR, THEN I'D SAY PLEASE MAKE A MOTION.

MEMBER HENDRICKSON. OK, SO THEN I WILL MOVE IN THE MATTER OF ZBA, CASE NUMBER 20, DASH 10, DASH 28, DASH ONE 5937 POTTER STREET, LLC, THAT THE ZBA APPROVE THE VARIANCE AS REQUESTED FOR A LOT AREA, THE VARIANCE OF SIX HUNDRED AND FORTY FOUR SQUARE FEET FOR LOT WIDTH THE VARIANCE REQUESTED OF TWO FEET FOR FRONT YARD SET BACK THE VARIANCE REQUESTED OF FIVE FEET AND FOR HOUSE WIDTH THE AMENDED VARIANCE REQUESTED OF TWO FEET.

AND MOVE TO APPROVE THOSE VARIANCES AS DISCUSSED.

OK, THANK YOU, MEMBER HENDRICKSON.

DO I HAVE SUPPORT. I'LL SUPPORT.

[INAUDIBLE] OKAY TRUSTEE WISINSKI SUPPORTED THAT MOTION.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.

MEMBER HENDRICKSON, GO AHEAD. I THINK THIS IS AN EXCELLENT COMPROMISE TO GETTING TO A MINIMUM ACTION THAT THIS BOARD CAN TAKE TO ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNER TO USE THE PROPERTY AS FOR INTENDED PURPOSE.

AND I THINK THAT THIS COMPLIES WITH ALL OF OUR CRITERIA AS SET FORTH IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.

SO I'M HAPPY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS ONE.

GREAT. I COULDN'T AGREE MORE.

AND ON THAT NOTE, I WILL GO AHEAD WITH A VOTE.

MEMBER HENDRICKSON.

YES. TRUSTEE WISINSKI.

YES. MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER.

YES. MEMBER KULHANEK.

YES. AND THE CHAIR VOTES YES.

SO YOUR VARIANCE HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR LOT AREA LOT WIDTH FRONT YARD SETBACK AND THE HOUSE WIDTH WITH THE AMENDED FROM OUR PACKET TO THE TWO FEET THAT WE AGREED UPON AS THE MINIMUM ACTION. SO NOW LET'S MOVE ON TO THE DRIVEWAY.

MEMBER HENDRICKSON GO AHEAD. YES.

I'D LIKE TO JUST TAKE A QUICK SECOND, GIVEN THE TENOR OF THE CONVERSATION THUS FAR AND THE MOTION THAT WAS JUST MADE AND CARRIED BY THIS BODY.

I'D LIKE TO ASK THE APPLICANT IF THEY'D LIKE TO MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THEIR REQUEST AS IT SITS BEFORE US TODAY, BEFORE WE DIVE INTO THE DRIVEWAY ISSUE.

THANK YOU MEMBER HENDRICKSON. MS. WHIDDON GO AHEAD.

YES. OK, SO FIRST, BEFORE I GO INTO MAKING ANY POTENTIAL CHANGES TO MY REQUEST JUST BASED ON MY RESEARCH LIKE I SAID MOST DRIVEWAY'S AS IT WAS JUST INTERNET RESEARCH.

I CAN'T VOUCH FOR THE VALIDITY OF IT ALL THE TIME.

BUT MOST VEHICLES ARE SIX TO SIX AND A HALF FEET WIDE.

THEY NEED ABOUT TWO FEET DOOR OPENING WITH TWO NOT TO FULLY EXTEND AND NOT HIT SOMETHING.

[00:50:05]

I'VE JUST SEEN IN PAST WHERE DOORS HIT WALLS.

PEOPLE DRIVE OFF DRIVEWAYS IF THEY'RE TOO NARROW.

IF I COULD WORK WITH A NINE FOOT DRIVEWAY, IT IS AT THE BARE MINIMUM OF WHAT I COULD WORK WITH FOR A SINGLE CAR DRIVEWAY.

LIKE I SAID, ALTHOUGH I CANNOT MAKE THE DECISION ABOUT A GARAGE JUST YET, THIS WOULD CERTAINLY ALLOW ME SOME, YOU KNOW, MORE SPACE.

LIKE I SAID, I PREFER THE ZERO LOT LINE, BUT I UNDERSTAND YOUR HESITATION.

SO IF I COULD AMEND MY REQUEST TO MAKE IT ONE FOOT LOT LINE OR ONE FOOT VARIANCE, I WOULD LIKE TO DO SO. THANK YOU.

MS. WHIDDON. OK, ON THAT NOTE, LET'S DISCUSS THAT VARIANCE REQUEST ON ITS OWN.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT PROPOSAL.

I THINK THAT SINCE WE'VE GONE THROUGH THIS, WE PROBABLY COULD JUST HIT THE CRITERIA WITH IT AND DISCUSS IT AS WE GO.

OBVIOUSLY, WE'VE DISCUSSED THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST THAT ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND OR STRUCTURE. I THINK THAT WE CAN STILL, EVEN WITH JUST AS THE DRIVEWAY CAN HIT UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES. MEMBER HENDRICKSON, GO AHEAD.

YEAH, I THINK THAT THERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE WHEN IT COMES TO THE DRIVEWAY, BECAUSE IT IS ABUTTING A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, WHICH IS REQUIRED BY OUR ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE THE ADDITIONAL SCREENING, WHICH IS WHY YOU SEE THOSE TREES THERE.

AND SO I THINK IF THIS WERE ABUTTING AND RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, I MIGHT FEEL DIFFERENTLY. BUT I THINK GIVEN THAT IT IS ADJACENT TO A COMMERCIAL THAT CERTAINLY UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST IN THIS CASE.

I WOULD AGREE, AND I THINK WE MAY MOVE ON TO CRITERIA TWO THESE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SELF CREATED.

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

I THINK WE COULD MAKE A CASE BOTH WAYS FOR THIS, EITHER FOR OR AGAINST.

SO I'M WILLING TO HEAR FROM MY FELLOW MEMBERS HERE ON HOW THEY'RE FEELING ABOUT PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES FOR THIS.

THE WIDTH OF THE DRIVEWAY AND IN AND OF ITSELF AND GRANTING ONE FOOT OF VARIANCE.

YES. MEMBER HENDRICKSON.

SO A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.

CAN YOU TELL ME ABOUT WHAT THE STREET PARKING SITUATION IS ON THAT STREET? WELL, I WILL SAY, UNFORTUNATELY, PANDEMIC HIT SOON AFTER I PURCHASED THE HOUSE, SO I HAVEN'T BEEN OVER THERE AS MUCH AS I'D LIKE TO.

AND RECENTLY THEY HAVE BEEN TEARING UP THE STREET DOING SOME DRAINAGE WORK.

THERE IS A TREE ALSO IN THE FRONT OF THE YARD.

I DO, AS FAR AS I DO KNOW, MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP HAS A PRETTY OPEN POLICY ABOUT PARKING YOUR VEHICLES ON THE MAIN STREETS DURING THE DAY AND NIGHT.

WITH THAT SAID, THOUGH, MY PURPOSE IS TO NOT CLUTTER THE STREETS WITH VEHICLES, EVEN PEOPLE COMING OVER TO VISIT IF SOMEBODY IS LIVING THERE, THAT'S WHY THE DRIVEWAY WOULD BE WONDERFUL TO HAVE THAT EXTRA SPACE.

SO WE'RE NOT PUTTING PEOPLE WHERE THEY DON'T REALLY BELONG, WHICH IS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAYS. YEAH, DIRECTOR KIESELBACH OR KEITH, CAN YOU PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL INSIGHT INTO THE PARKING SITUATION ON THAT STREET? I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A PROBLEM OR NOT, AGAIN, IF THEY PARK OFF ON THE SIDE OF THE STREET AND ARE NOT BLOCKING TRAFFIC, THAT TYPICALLY HAS BEEN OK WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT? YOU'LL FORGIVE ME, I DID PULL UP GOOGLE MAPS AND GO TO STREET VIEW AND GO UP AND DOWN THE STREET A LITTLE BIT JUST TO GET A SENSE OF IT AS WELL.

AND I DID NOTICE THAT ON THAT SIDE OF THE STREET WHERE THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED, THERE IS A PARKING RESTRICTION.

JUST SO AT LEAST AS IT RELATES TO THE AREA JUST TO THE NORTH OF IT, IT MAY CONTINUE DOWN THE ROAD. BUT FRANKLY, I HAVEN'T CLICKED THROUGH THAT FAR.

I WILL SAY AGAIN, I WENT OUT TO THE SITE TODAY.

THE STREET IS NARROW AND IT IS LITERALLY AT LAKE LANSING SOUTH PARK.

I MEAN, IT'S THE HOUSE IN FROM THAT CORNER.

SO THAT'S WHERE THOSE PARKING RESTRICTIONS COME IN BECAUSE OF ALL THAT COMMERCIAL RIGHT THERE. AND ALSO DISCOURAGING PEOPLE TO PARK IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA AND WALK OVER TO LAKE

[00:55:06]

I'M ALSO THINKING OF SAFETY AS FAR AS FIRE TRUCKS AND JUST THAT.

I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THAT THESE THINGS ARE PEOPLE PARK ON THE STREETS ALL THE TIME.

HOWEVER, I'M THINKING PUBLIC SAFETY.

I'M THINKING SNOWPLOWS.

I'M THINKING, YOU KNOW, JUST FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES OF BEING A RESIDENTIAL HOMEOWNER WHERE I CAN UNDERSTAND THE NEED OF HAVING A DRIVEWAY IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

TRUSTEE WISINSKI, GO AHEAD. YOU BROUGHT UP A GOOD POINT, SO I'M THINKING ABOUT SNOW REMOVAL. AND DIRECTOR KIESELBACH AND I KNOW ON CERTAIN STREETS YOU HAVE TO HAVE YOUR CAR OFF THE ROAD AT A PARTICULAR TIME FOR SNOW REMOVAL.

IS THAT THE CASE HERE OR.

THAT'S NOT.

NOT IN THE TOWNSHIP.

THERE ARE COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE THAT RESTRICTION.

THE RESTRICTION IS ONLY IF IT'S DEEMED TO BE AN EMERGENCY DECLARED BY THE CHIEF OF POLICE IS WHERE YOU CAN'T PARK ON THE STREET.

DIFFICULTY WE SEE IN SUBDIVISIONS AND THESE STREETS IS THAT PEOPLE DO PARK ON THEM IN THE WINTER. AND THEN WHEN THE COUNTY DOES DO THE PLOWING, THEY PLOW AROUND THEM.

RIGHT. I CAN SEE THAT THERE'S A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, YOU KNOW, WITH THE PARKING AND PARKING ON THE STREET, THE STREETS BEING NARROW, SO I CAN MAKE THAT ARGUMENT.

OK, I THINK THEN THE CRITERIA NUMBER FOUR THE ALLEGED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES WILL RESULT IN A FAILURE TO GRANT THE VARIANCE WOULD UNREASONABLY PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR THE PERMITTED PURPOSE.

I THINK THOSE TWO WE CAN WE'VE PRETTY MUCH JUST MADE THE CASE FOR.

CRITERIA FIVE. GRANTING THE VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM ACTION THAT WILL MAKE POSSIBLE THE USE OF LAND AND STRUCTURE IN A MANNER WHICH IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST, WHICH CARRY OUT THE SPIRIT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, PROCURE PUBLIC SAFETY, AND PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. I MEAN, WE'RE LITERALLY TALKING ABOUT ONE FOOT.

SO WE CAN ONLY GO TO ZERO, SO WE ARE AT AN ABSOLUTE MINIMUM HERE.

GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND OR ESSENTIAL CHARACTER IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY, IE HAVING A DRIVEWAY THERE I DON'T BELIEVE WOULD NEGATIVELY IMPACT. IF ANYTHING, I THINK THAT HELPS WITH THE ISSUES THAT WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT AS FAR AS SAFETY GOES FOR THE ROAD AND FOR SNOW REMOVAL.

AND CRITERIA SEVEN CONDITIONS PERTAINING TO THE LAND OR STRUCTURE ARE NOT SO GENERAL OR RECURRENT TO NATURE AS TO MAKE THE FORMULATION OF A GENERAL REGULATION FOR SUCH CONDITIONS PRACTICAL. I BELIEVE THAT MEETS THAT CRITERIA.

AND CRITERIA EIGHT.

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

AND I THINK THAT MEETS THE CRITERIA AS WELL.

SO DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THESE CRITERIA FROM OUR MEMBERS? OK. ANYBODY HAVE A MOTION FOR ME? I'LL DO IT, I'M JUST LOOKING FOR IT.

THAT'S OKAY. [LAUGHTER] TRUSTEE WISINSKI.

THAT'S THE PROBLEM THAT I KEEP HAVING.

WHEN YOU SCROLL, AND YOU FIND THE CASE NUMBER, LET US KNOW WE'RE HERE.

SO I'M LOOKING AT THE CASE.

SO I MOVE TO TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE FOR SECTION EIGHT SIX, DASH FIVE, SIX, SIX.

NO DRIVEWAY IN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE SHALL BE LOCATED CLOSER THAN TWO FEET FROM THE SIDE OR REAR LOT LINE.

THIS IS ZBA CASE 20-10-28-1 FIVE NINE THREE SEVEN POTTER STREET, LLC.

4090 WABANINGO OKEMOS MICHIGAN 48864.

OKAY. YOU MAY WANT TO INCLUDE THE ONE FOOT VARIANCE OF ONE FOOT.

AS AMENDED.

AS AMENDED YES. TO A ONE FOOT VARIANCE.

SUPPORT. OKAY SUPPORTED BY MEMBER HENDRICKSON.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? I SECOND IT.

[LAUGHTER] MEMBER HENDRICKSON GO AHEAD, YEAH, I'LL JUST THANK THE APPLICANT, AGAIN, FOR BEING FLUID IN THERE WORKING WITH US AS WE TRY TO COME TO A REASONABLE SOLUTION.

I THINK, AS WE POINTED OUT, THIS VARIANCE MEETS ALL OF THE CRITERIA THAT WE SEEK WHEN

[01:00:03]

AND I LOOK FORWARD TO SUPPORTING IT.

FANTASTIC. OK, IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, I'M GOING TO GO TO A VOTE.

MEMBER HENDRICKSON.

YES.

TRUSTEE WISINSKI.

YES. MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER.

YES. MEMBER KULHANEK.

YES. AND THE CHAIR VOTES YES.

SO YOUR VARIANCE REQUEST HAS BEEN GRANTED FOR THE DRIVEWAY SET BACK FOR THE ONE FOOT SETBACK. OK, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU MS. WHIDDON FOR BEING VERY FLEXIBLE AND FOR UNDERSTANDING THIS PROCESS AND, YOU KNOW, FOR WORKING WITH US, THAT WE REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.

OUR GOAL IS TO GET AS MINIMAL AMOUNTS OF VARIANCES AS POSSIBLE.

AND OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE.

SO WE WERE GLAD TO BE ABLE TO SATISFY THOSE VARIANCE REQUESTS TONIGHT.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH AGAIN.

OH, ABSOLUTELY.

WE WISH YOU THE BEST OF LUCK WITH YOUR HOME.

ALL RIGHT, AND LET'S SEE.

IS THERE ANYBODY THAT'S WHERE AM I.

OK, IT LOOKS LIKE THE NEXT THING ON OUR AGENDA SINCE WE HAVE NO MORE NEW BUSINESS, IS OUR 2021 MEETING CALENDAR.

YEAH, REAL QUICK, I PROVIDED A [INAUDIBLE] FOR EVERYBODY TO LOOK AT THAT SHOWS OUR MEETING DATES FOR TWENTY TWENTY ONE.

I'M NOT SURE IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ANY MORE MEETINGS THE REST OF THE YEAR.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU GUYS GET THIS BEFORE THEN.

YOU KNOW, AS USUAL, TWO REGULAR MEETINGS EACH MONTH.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY WORK SESSIONS PLANNED BUT THE ZBA CAN ADD THEM IF THEY WANT.

ALL THE MEETINGS SECOND AND FOURTH, WEDNESDAY OF EACH MONTH.

NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER WE ONLY DO ONE MEETING FOR EACH MONTH BECAUSE OF THE HOLIDAYS.

BUT THERE WEREN'T ANY CONFLICTS WITH ANY HOLIDAYS.

SO THAT'S IT.

AND IT LOOKS GREAT TO ME.

DO YOU NEED A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS CALENDAR? YES. OK. I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE TWENTY TWENTY ONE MEETING CALENDAR AS IT'S

[7.A. 2021 Meeting Calendar ]

YEAH THE AMENDED.

THIS IS DON I'LL SECOND THAT.

OK, SECONDED BY MEMBER KULHANEK.

AND ANY DISCUSSION ON THE 2021 CALENDAR MEMBER HENDRICKSON, GO AHEAD.

YEAH, SORRY, THIS IS A QUESTION FOR KEITH, AND MAYBE I'M JUST MISSING IT SOMEHOW.

YOU SENT OUT AN UPDATED ONE TO US VIA EMAIL PRIOR TO THE MEETING.

YEAH. WHAT CHANGED ON THIS.

SO I HAD AT THE TOP, I HAD THEY WERE HELD AT THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING INSTEAD OF BEING VIRTUAL. OH OKAY GOT IT.

OKAY THANK YOU.

THAT WAS MY ERROR. OK, THANKS A LOT.

THEN GREAT. OK.

ALL RIGHT, ON THAT NOTE.

MEMBER HENDRICKSON.

YES.

TRUSTEE WISINSKI. SORRY, MY DAUGHTER CAME IN.

YES.

[LAUGHTER]. THAT'S OK. MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER.

YES. MEMBER KULHANEK.

YES. AND THE CHAIR VOTES YES, SO WE ARE ALL SET FOR OUR 2021 CALENDAR AND IT LOOKS LIKE I BELIEVE NOW I'M MISSING MY AGENDA.

I THINK THAT'S ALL WE HAVE FOR TONIGHT.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? I CAN OPEN THE FLOOR TO PUBLIC COMMENT.

IF THERE'S ANY PUBLIC COMMENT.

WE CAN, OF COURSE, TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT AT FIVE ONE SEVEN THREE FOUR NINE ONE, TWO, THREE, TWO. IF ANYONE WOULD CARE TO MAKE IT, THERE IS NO ONE IN THE ATTENDEE AREA TO RAISE THEIR HANDS. SO WE'LL PAUSE FOR ABOUT 30 SECONDS TO SEE IF WE HAVE ANY INCOMING CALLS AND THEN LET YOU CONTINUE WITH YOUR MEETING.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

AND WE'RE HEARING NO TELEPHONES RINGING AT ALL.

ALL RIGHT, APPARENTLY US NOT BEING OUT AT RENO'S EAST MEANS THAT WE'RE NOT THE HOT TICKET ANYMORE. NOBODY'S WATCHING THESE ZOOM MEETINGS.

[LAUGHTER] BUT. NOT THAT WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE THE FOLKS AT RENO'S TO CALL IN.

[LAUGHTER] I DON'T KNOW.

WE WERE ON IT EVERY EVERY TIME FOR A WHILE THERE.

I KEPT GETTING TEXT MESSAGES DURING THE MEETING.

I SEE YOU ON THE BIG SCREEN, TELLS YOU WHO I HANG OUT WITH.

IT'S A SLOW NEWS [INAUDIBLE]. THAT'S RIGHT.

SLOW NEWS DAY EXACTLY. ALL RIGHT.

ON THAT NOTE, WE CAN GO TO BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS IF ANYBODY HAS ANYTHING TO SHARE WITH

[01:05:03]

THANK YOU, CHAIR MANSOUR.

I WILL JUST TAKE A MOMENT TO GIVE MY BRIEF PSA, AS I HAVE BEEN AT EVERY MEETING I'VE BEEN AT FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS.

NEXT TUESDAY IS ELECTION DAY, AND WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE EVERYONE WHO IS A QUALIFIED REGISTERED VOTER TO GET OUT AND EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE, EVEN IF YOU'RE NOT A REGISTERED VOTER. YOU CAN STILL REGISTER TO VOTE BY GOING TO YOUR LOCAL CLERK'S OFFICE IN PERSON. THERE IS STILL TIME PROPOSAL THREE OF TWENTY EIGHTEEN GIVES YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME IN PERSON TO YOUR LOCAL CLERK AND REGISTER TO VOTE RIGHT UP UNTIL EIGHT P.M.

ON ELECTION DAY. IF YOU DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH VOTING IN PERSON THIS YEAR, THAT'S OK. LOTS OF OPTIONS STILL EXIST.

YOU CAN STILL COME DOWN TO THE CLERK'S OFFICE AT THE TOWNSHIP HALL BUILDING AND REQUEST AN ABSENTEE BALLOT IN PERSON.

THEY'LL HAND IT TO YOU RIGHT THERE.

YOU COULD TAKE IT TO ONE OF THE PRIVACY AREAS, FILL THAT BALLOT OUT, REPLACE IT IN THE

[ 9. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS]

THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT IT WON'T GO THROUGH THE TABULATOR UNTIL ELECTION DAY.

SO NO MATTER WHO YOU CHOOSE TO VOTE FOR.

WE DO ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO COME OUT AND VOTE.

WE HAVE GOT A FEW DAYS LEFT BEFORE ELECTION DAY AND THERE'S STILL PLENTY OF TIME TO HAVE YOUR VOICE HEARD. SO PLEASE DON'T FORGET, MAKE A PLAN, TURN YOUR BALLOT.

AND IF YOU HAVE YOUR BALLOT RIGHT NOW AND YOU HAVE FINISHED IT, WE ARE ENCOURAGING PEOPLE NOT TO PUT IT IN THE MAIL AT THIS TIME.

WITH ONLY SIX DAYS LEFT AND POSSIBLE MAIL DELAYS, WE ARE ASKING THAT FOLKS BRING THEIR BALLOTS IN. YOU CAN EITHER HAND IT TO YOUR LOCAL CLERK AT THE CLERK'S OFFICE OR YOU CAN DROP IT IN ONE OF THE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIPS DROPBOX'S, WHICH ARE RIGHT OUTSIDE THE TOWNSHIP HALL BUILDING. SO THANKS TO EVERYONE, WHO HAS ALREADY SUBMITTED THEIR VOTE.

FOR THOSE WHO HAVEN'T YET, PLEASE MAKE A PLAN AND VOTE EITHER IN WITH YOUR ABSENTEE BALLOT PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 3RD OR AT THE POLLS ON NOVEMBER 3RD.

WHICH WILL BE OPEN FROM 7:00 A.M.

TO 8:00 P.M. SO THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

MY PSA FOR THE DAY. VERY GOOD.

THAT WAS GOOD.

I LOVE IT. I LOVE AN IMPASSIONED GET OUT THE VOTE SPEECH.

WE ALL NEED TO EXERCISE THAT RIGHT.

AND I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THAT PSA TONIGHT.

ON THAT NOTE, IF NO OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY, OUR MEETING IS OFFICIALLY ADJOURNED. EVERYBODY GET THEIR VOTE IN.

I'VE ALREADY DONE MINE.

MINE'S THERE. THANK YOU, EVERYONE. ALL RIGHT, EVERYBODY, HAVE A GREAT NIGHT.

AND I DON'T KNOW, KEITH WILL LET US KNOW IF WE WILL BE AROUND IN NOVEMBER.

DECEMBER, YOU WON'T BE IN NOVEMBER.

OH, NO, NOVEMBER.

OK. NO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

WELL, IN THAT CASE, EVERYBODY HAVE A VERY HAPPY THANKSGIVING.

YOU AS WELL. HAPPY ELECTION NIGHT.

AND WE'LL SEE.

IT'LL BE A LONG ONE. YES, IT'S GOING TO BE A LONG WEEK OR SEVERAL.

[LAUGHTER] BUT WE WILL SEE EACH OTHER IN DECEMBER THEN IN THAT CASE.

ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT, EVERYONE.

HAVE A GOOD NIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU TOO.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.