[0:00] good evening everyone my name is Aaron
tuckfield I'm the chairperson of Macomb
[0:04] Township zoning board of appeals today
is January 5th the time is 6 35 my
[0:09] apologies for the delay we had some
technical difficulties before we got
[0:12] started I've called the meeting to order
and I'm going to move us on to item two
[0:17] on our agenda this evening which is the
Pledge of Allegiance please stand with
[0:19] me for the pledge
[0:22] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the
[0:27] Republic for which it stands one nation
under God indivisible with liberty and
[0:32] justice for all
foreign
[0:36] [Music]
[0:40] next item on our agenda is the roll call
um I think we'll talk later this evening
[0:45] about potential for election of officers
but our current Secretary
[0:49] um
Miss Lawson who will probably talk about
[0:51] later a little bit um has resigned she's
no longer a member of the board so I
[0:55] think I'm going to call the roll call
for this evening and then if we get to
[0:59] officers we can decide that either at
the end of this meeting or the beginning
[1:02] of next meeting
so that was being said I'm going to call
[1:05] the roll
um Mr Piper here Mr decoster here
[1:10] um Mr de Bruin here Mr tuckfield is
present all members are present I should
[1:15] just note that we only have four uh
regular members and they are all in
[1:19] attendance this evening
um and since the only other two members
[1:23] would be alternates I don't think we
have to do a motion to withhold them
[1:27] from Roll calls
all right so we're going to move on to
[1:31] item four which is addressing any
conflicts of interest
[1:34] at this time I'm going to call the role
if ever any member has a conflict of
[1:38] interest please indicate so by saying
yes and if you do not please indicate by
[1:41] saying no and I will call the roll Mr
decoster no Mr Chuck field says no Mr de
[1:46] Bruin no Mr Piper no all right all
members are showing no conflicts of
[1:51] interest that's going to move us on to
the approval of the agenda is there any
[1:55] discussion remote motions on the
approval of tonight's agenda
[2:01] this chairman I'll make a motion to
approve the agenda for tonight's meeting
[2:03] motion by Mr Costa is there a support I
will support that supported by Mr Piper
[2:07] all those in favor please signify by
saying aye aye all those opposed by
[2:11] saying nay that item passes and
tonight's agenda is approved
[2:16] next item is the approval of the
previous meeting minutes that will be
[2:20] those for the regularly scheduled
meeting of December the 1st 2022 is
[2:24] there any discussion or motions on these
minutes
[2:31] Mr chairman hearing no uh
Corrections for any other members I
[2:36] would vote to accept minutes as
presented all right motion by Mr Piper
[2:39] is there support supported by Mr Coster
all those in favor please signify by
[2:43] saying aye aye all those opposed by
saying nay that motion carries and the
[2:48] previous meeting minutes have been
adopted abstain from that wasn't there
[2:53] very good thank you Mr de Bruin um yeah
um next item is the item seven which is
[3:00] old business item 7A which I believe we
had on our agenda once before we moved
[3:04] it around because of a different order
which is why it's an old business and
[3:09] that'll be a variance request from the
zoning ordinance for one seven zero one
[3:13] six two five oh one seven zero one six
twenty five mile road right reading
[3:18] right through the numbers there
um that would be from section
[3:22] 10.1505 g for permanent Parcels zero
eight zero eight one zero one zero four
[3:28] five and zero eight zero eight one zero
one zero four six Mr Box could you run
[3:33] us through this please
uh yeah thank you Mr chair and and board
[3:38] um you should have the PowerPoint in
front of you print it out I apologize if
[3:42] our projector is not working this
evening so I will run through the slides
[3:47] um and hopefully you can follow along
with your printouts in front of you so
[3:51] as you mentioned this did come before
you previously I believe in November uh
[3:55] I was not at that meeting but I believe
the the advice at the time was from Mr
[4:01] skurto to table until after the rezoning
which has now taken place so this
[4:06] property is rezoned recently to C1
a local commercial so they are now
[4:13] seeking the variance to allow an
eight-foot Green Belt along the west and
[4:16] south property lines where 20-foot would
normally be required
[4:21] so again the ordinance does require
20-foot setback area separating any
[4:26] structure or parking of private
passenger vehicles on any access Drive
[4:31] service Drive loading area or
maneuvering lane from any parcel
[4:36] zoned AG r1s R1 r1e R2L R2 r2h R3 CF or
MTC or any other residential use and
[4:47] they are surrounded by R1 properties at
this time so therefore the 20-foot
[4:52] setback would be what is required per
ordinance
[4:57] um so if you look at the following slide
I believe that in your printout should
[5:03] be numbered Slide Five
there's a site plan in there that
[5:08] they'll be moving forward with
potentially uh following this variance
[5:12] request but shown on that is what a
20-foot Green Belt would look like and
[5:16] what how that would impact what they're
trying to accomplish on these two
[5:20] Parcels that they recently rezoned what
what a 20-foot Green Belt would look
[5:24] like there keeping in mind that there
will also be a six foot tall masonry
[5:29] wall that is also required uh so moving
on to the next slide you see what
[5:36] they're proposing in fact being an eight
foot Green Belt uh with with plenty of
[5:40] vegetation and Landscaping to try to
additionally buffer the area along the
[5:46] two residential property lines that are
to the South and to the West
[5:53] our staff did take a look there was an
issue with the legal description I think
[5:57] we've cleared that up now engineering
had no engineering related concerns
[6:02] Melissa did take a look at this for the
planning department and did ask that the
[6:06] applicant demonstrate how compliance
with the strict letter of the ordinance
[6:10] is unnecessarily burdensome
and she did point out that again that
[6:14] there are some additional plannings that
they're offering for the reduced
[6:18] Greenbelt area to help with the
screening purposes
[6:21] so that being said I think we're going
to ask the petitioner to walk walk
[6:27] through
how they view this as as a hardship as
[6:30] you know you have to identify a hardship
in order to Grant a variance and so
[6:35] we're going to ask them to which they
are here tonight to to walk through that
[6:39] all right thank you Mr Box any questions
uh to Mr box from the board
[6:44] uh hearing none if the applicants are
here if you come forward to the center
[6:47] table uh state your name and address for
the record and give any comments you
[6:51] might have yes yeah
[6:58] hi I'm I'm Joe rugerello I'm the owner
[7:05] okay very good uh to our av gentlemen
are they close stuff can you hear the
[7:10] med the microphone good
I'm not hearing them I'm not sure if
[7:15] that microphone's working
can you hear me now
[7:19] I'm Joe rudrell I'm the owner
Catherine satimo big designs very good
[7:24] sorry I wasn't sure if we were having
another issue there just want to make
[7:26] sure okay uh
uh any comments that you make gentlemen
[7:30] and lady have the seating for us
[Music]
[7:34] so where I can
[7:40] view of them uh certainly explain the
thoughts and then Mr Box uh mentioned uh
[7:44] if you have any comments with regards to
practical difficulty that is in play
[7:48] here that you see as being here that'd
be helpful um the first practical reason
[7:51] we would like the eight foot green belt
is the property next to it has an eight
[7:56] foot green belt and we would like to
keep the Aesthetics the same
[8:01] um
we also would like to
[8:04] keep away from undesirable parallel
parking spots which would be required if
[8:09] we have a 20-foot green belt
we would also need to reduce the size of
[8:14] our building
which wouldn't be conducive for very
[8:19] much of anything on this on this site at
all
[8:24] um
but mostly we would like to keep the
[8:26] same Aesthetics that are currently there
so
[8:32] um
I can answer questions if you okay any
[8:36] any questions for the petitioner
my question would be uh you said about
[8:41] the eight foot on the adjacent property
I don't remember how that came about was
[8:45] that something that variants was granted
for them or that's currently
[8:49] um a different Zone it's different which
require which allows it for an eight
[8:53] foot green belt
[8:56] Mr Box you have any yeah I was just
going to add that that that's the reason
[9:00] for the eight foot on the adjacent
property is it's zoned o one which only
[9:03] requires an eight foot Green Belt
um the site plan that you see in your
[9:08] packet
um kind of shows what the existing
[9:11] layout is along with what they're
proposing
[9:15] um and so yes it would be a different
zoning category that has the eight foot
[9:20] but they are proposing to share at this
time to share a driveway with that
[9:26] development next door so it kind of
function as one development
[9:32] and Mr Piper I don't remember if you're
on the board at the time but I know that
[9:35] the adjacent property did get a variance
but I believe I believe it was for the
[9:39] wall not the uh not the green belt yeah
yeah because I didn't remember yeah I
[9:44] couldn't remember if you'd been on at
that particular time or not we I think
[9:47] we looked at that one multiple meetings
if I remember that was a long uh that
[9:50] was a long decision
all right any other questions uh for the
[9:54] petitioner
[9:58] um I have a question for Mr boxer Mr
Brown
[10:00] the zoning at the dentist office next
door being an ozone was there a reason
[10:05] why this property here was not zoned the
same way or so and they followed they
[10:11] rezone this to C1 that's what they're
seeking here and they did get that
[10:14] approved uh according to the master plan
this this whole area is master plan for
[10:19] uh Flex use which would allow C1 or01 so
it the rezoning that they asked for did
[10:25] match the master plan
okay
[10:28] but had it been zoned oh it would have
also matched the master plan being
[10:31] correct correct
[10:38] any questions maybe for Mr Box
because there's a wall because of the
[10:45] butts a residential obviously that's for
sound and noise and things what is the
[10:50] point of the further setback with
regards to commercial as opposed to
[10:53] office I think the intent there is that
typically with office settings
[10:58] um oh look at that we got the the
projector up there
[11:03] um
foreign
[11:05] go back to this so
typically with office settings I think
[11:10] that the idea is that
um people arrive in the morning
[11:15] and leave in the evening whereas in
commercial settings there's constant
[11:19] people in and out for for commercial
type uses therefore it creates a larger
[11:24] noise potential noise disturbance for
The Neighbors
[11:34] thank you
[11:37] so you know the questions I would open
it up to the public but we have no
[11:41] public this evening so I am going to
skip over that and bring it back to the
[11:45] board for any further questions or
motions
[11:51] I guess one more from Mr Box
is I know there's probably nothing set
[11:57] in stone is in your opinion is there
something that
[12:00] the extra vegetation
equals the further setback
[12:06] I know they're going to put in more
which would be essentially buffer the
[12:10] sound and the noise and the light but
yeah so I think extra vegetation can
[12:16] buffer you know additional sound and
light
[12:20] um
keeping in mind that there's already a
[12:23] six foot wall there unless the
vegetation itself goes above that wall
[12:28] I'm not sure how much more buffering it
provides but I would assume that it does
[12:33] provide some yes okay
[12:40] I actually did have a question for the
applicant uh you mentioned that it would
[12:43] be hard to develop this building with
the green belt what would that do to
[12:48] your development is it is it developable
is it a small building that's not
[12:52] practical because of the dollar amount
what would it look like if you if you
[12:54] had to develop with it it shrinks it way
down and makes it
[12:59] unusual do you have do you have an
understanding of approximately what size
[13:02] the building would be if you were to
build it too we've
[13:05] we picked this it would be
[13:08] okay so maybe maybe two units maybe yeah
[13:15] all right thank you
you know their comments or motions
[13:21] was there any consideration to ask I
don't even know if this is possible with
[13:25] the right-of-way test for a sep a front
setback variants to make up the rear
[13:32] um we didn't consider this idea only
because we already had the eight foot
[13:36] Green Belt next to it and the idea was
to keep it aesthetically pleasing once
[13:42] you come into this drive and the other
reason for it is the parking spaces are
[13:47] all in in order with the perk with the
the site that's already existing and it
[13:53] was really just an aesthetic
choosing to choose the back and not the
[13:57] front
and to keep the buildings you know kind
[14:00] of the same
location
[14:16] any any other comments emotions anyone
oh motions as well I think we're sort of
[14:21] in that phase I just I'm not sure if we
have any questions personally I'd like
[14:24] to
Grant this variance except I'm trying to
[14:28] hang my hat on an actual practical
difficulty uh right now I'm not seeing
[14:32] it I mean um I can't use Aesthetics as a
practical difficulty
[14:38] especially if it's possibly developed at
a smaller size footprint we do have a a
[14:43] traffic flow
issue if we have a 20-foot setback
[14:49] we're not able to get trucks in and
trucks out for fire reasons or for
[14:55] ambulance reasons
it renders that whole back portion
[14:59] basically unusable
[15:03] with the current design if you offset
the building to the could you offset the
[15:07] building to the west and have more
accessibility considering you now would
[15:11] now have a shared
um
[15:13] shared Drive area with the building to
the east I believe
[15:17] building is far
[15:21] but to the West
so to the to the left side of the parcel
[15:25] yes yes we might have maybe 18 feet we
could move it to the West
[15:33] doesn't it doesn't help it doesn't help
Services coming in or coming out it
[15:38] doesn't solve it doesn't solve that Mr I
was going to ask Mr eloya and you might
[15:42] have a comment that sounds like if you
have a comma go ahead I guess my
[15:47] um
I guess my only issue is is I don't know
[15:50] that we've seen a site plan which has
measured all these issues I don't know
[15:53] that engineer engineering has evaluated
that aspect as to whether the loading
[15:58] and the parking and how that fits with
the 20-foot Green Belt I I don't know I
[16:03] don't know maybe Josh knows if they see
I mean you do have a draft uh site plan
[16:07] in your packet okay that they're going
to look to to move forward with uh if
[16:12] this variance is granted
um
[16:15] and that kind of shows the
location of what where they're looking
[16:19] to put the building and looking to put
parking they do have a loading zone
[16:23] shown directly on the rear side of the
building
[16:28] but they don't they don't have a site
plan with a 20-foot Green Belt which
[16:31] shows that they can't have a loading
zone right correct right
[16:35] but the there's their site plan shows
that it would cover up a substantial
[16:40] portion of the parking which means the
parking would have to be pushed in
[16:45] correct that was one of the slides that
I showed so this this is kind of what
[16:49] the site plan currently that they're
working with uh and this is kind of what
[16:55] it would look like with a 20-foot green
belt so you can see it would require
[16:59] them to move that parking elsewhere
still have to maintain the drive aisle
[17:04] so she's correct it would shrink the
building
[17:08] which would
a smaller building would be allowed
[17:12] there as well yeah
Mr Mr boy and just a question on that
[17:16] and if you had something further no
don't let me interrupt you typically
[17:20] we're told that
um
[17:24] uh practical difficulties are not
generally Financial they're not it's
[17:29] going to make less is there a point
where the property would not be
[17:35] is there a definable point where they
can't use the property as zoned where it
[17:39] would be considered a practical
difficulty or the or the viability of a
[17:42] building is not generally considered
anything we can consider here
[17:45] right so it's the petitioner's job to
provide material and substantial
[17:50] evidence as to their practical
difficulty that's what the law says they
[17:54] have to put the evidence on the record
so
[17:57] um it can't be the law says it can't be
self-created
[18:01] normally we see
um
[18:05] practical difficulties which have to do
with the dimensions of the lot or an
[18:09] easement that precludes certain things
that are not
[18:13] as a result of either the petitioner's
actions or the petitioner's desires so
[18:19] that's typically what we see
um you're asking me whether Financial is
[18:23] a so one of the items I brought up was
that in order to meet the ordinance they
[18:28] would have to build a smaller building
which would not be which would not make
[18:32] the parcel practicable if I if I am yeah
I don't know what that means I mean
[18:36] they'd have to explain that it's their
duty to explain why a two unit
[18:40] commercial building
I mean versus a three unit Why That's
[18:45] not viable I don't know what that means
so they'd have to explain that
[18:50] could you explain that further do you
have any any other items on that well
[18:54] and and for Mr awoya it is something
they mentioned in their application as
[18:58] well which is partially why I understand
but it's it's their burden so it's up to
[19:01] them to really explain it understood
[19:06] well guys I'm trying to do the best I
can do out there
[19:09] um you know originally we would have had
the space to put this building up but I
[19:13] had to give away some of the my original
lot because of the right away the
[19:16] roundabout for you guys
um I'm just trying to put something
[19:20] that's going to look good aesthetic and
um you know something that's going to be
[19:25] sustainable
you know at this point if we if it gets
[19:31] shrunk down there's no well it's
buildable
[19:34] and it's just that simple
um
[19:38] I mean
you know I if we go to if we go back to
[19:43] office and we it's gonna be the same
layout same parking space all I'm asking
[19:47] for is just a very interest for the all
one
[19:52] that's all I'm asking for
all right any other questions or
[19:57] comments or motions from the board given
the set of circumstances it presented
[20:01] for us here I would make a motion to
deny based on the lack of practical
[20:05] difficulty
all right motion by Mr de Bruin is there
[20:08] support
[20:10] I'll support all right supported by Mr
Koster is there any discussion
[20:15] uh hearing no discussion I will call the
roll Mr de Bruin yes Mr decoster yes Mr
[20:21] Piper yes Mr Chuck Phillips yes
Bush was denied uh or if motion was
[20:26] approved the variance was denied thank
you very much for coming in
[20:31] all right that moves us on to the next
item
[20:36] uh which is item eight new business I
don't believe any new business this
[20:39] evening Mr Box there's no new business
on the agenda but as we mentioned or you
[20:44] mentioned earlier
um
[20:45] typically at the first meeting of the
Year you guys would vote on on uh rolls
[20:50] for chairman Vice chair and secretary
being that we don't have five full-time
[20:57] members I I guess I would leave that up
to you guys to decide if you want to
[21:01] make those votes this evening or wait
until that position is filled and decide
[21:05] then and continue on with the the rules
you have now noting that Miss Lawson who
[21:11] has resigned from the board was one of
those rules
[21:17] and I believe that our alternates could
not vote in that particular I believe
[21:20] our bylaws I believe that's correct
and I guess Mr Box one of the questions
[21:25] I think we asked you this earlier but
I'll just clarify at this time there's
[21:29] no I don't believe there's anybody in a
board agenda that's public knowledge
[21:33] that is going to be appointed we're not
aware of anybody not that I'm aware of
[21:36] no so potentially we might have someone
in another month but we don't know that
[21:40] that's the case correct
all right
[21:44] um typically we talk one to another
before the board I know we didn't in
[21:48] this case
um I guess I would leave it up to the
[21:51] board I know I've been the chair I've
tried to pass it off before and no one's
[21:54] taken it I'm happy to do it again if we
want to do an election on this evening
[21:58] I'm happy if we want to wait for another
member
[22:01] um
I'm fine either way I would leave it up
[22:03] to up to the pleasure of the board I
would suggest to continue on as we're
[22:07] going for now with the present members
until we have a full bird that we can
[22:12] vote to figure out who the secretary
will be I think I agree with that and
[22:16] and just to make sure we're okay doing
that I know our bylaws say to do that to
[22:20] to do the first uh meeting of the year
but I'm assuming we don't have to follow
[22:24] that I I think given the resignation
Miss Slauson that that's caused to be
[22:29] able to deviate from the bylaws for this
very reason okay if it was just for no
[22:35] reason
then it'll be a little more Troublesome
[22:37] but yes but I think you have good cause
to do that at this time okay
[22:42] um Mr Koster do you want to hold off on
all appointments right now or just the
[22:47] secretary because I think we're in
consenting going going forward for now
[22:50] just just continue with our president
we're voting on at least one tonight
[22:55] but we can hold off in Secretary okay
that's fine I wonder if it makes sense
[22:59] to just
um make a motion and support it and vote
[23:03] on it to say that we're we're
maintaining interim as it stands
[23:07] um until such time as we have five
members and we can vote on it as a board
[23:11] if that's the way that I will make that
motion that we maintain our interim
[23:15] board as it stands until we have a full
five-member board to actually vote on
[23:20] David board support motion by Mr Piper
support by Mr de Bruin And to clarify
[23:24] that was to maintain
um our current officers with the
[23:27] exception of Mrs Lawson is gone as an
interim board any discussions to cost
[23:31] her good okay uh although uh I'm gonna
call a roll on this one uh Mr Piper yes
[23:36] Mr Coster yes Mr de Bruin yes Mr
tuckfields yes uh that motion passes uh
[23:43] and we will hold that until
we have a fifth member and I'm assuming
[23:46] Mr Box we can just add that to the
agenda whenever we whenever we get on
[23:51] this number okay
very good
[23:54] um uh we kind of took that a little bit
out of order but um it's probably fine
[23:58] item nine is public comments we have no
uh public uh this evening so I'm going
[24:04] to move on to zba member comments any
comments from the board this evening
[24:07] everybody Happy New Year
I have nothing just my normal do you
[24:12] know if we have a February meeting just
so I can plan I don't know off the top
[24:15] of my head just curious thank you seems
rehearsed
[24:19] I'm not sure if we knew at our last
meeting that Miss Lawson was stepping
[24:25] down I don't think we did no
um I would just like to mention her
[24:29] briefly um since we really didn't have a
chance to send her off
[24:33] um Dawn was on the board for as long as
I've been paying attention and I'm I
[24:38] actually I was talking to Charlie Oliver
on the Planning Commission I think the
[24:42] longest serving board members in order
contiguous Charlie might be longer as
[24:46] Nancy never as Charlie
and Dawn was actually longer than
[24:50] Charlie and shorter than Nancy when it
worked out so she's been serving on the
[24:55] zoning board appeals for a long time
certainly been here as long as I've been
[24:58] paying attention
I always appreciated her
[25:03] she was usually pretty quiet in the
meetings
[25:06] but when I would call her before or
after she put a lot of thought into what
[25:11] she did and I appreciate it she did it
for a long time
[25:15] we had some
uncomfortable uh years over the last
[25:21] decade with some of the other things
that happened in the township and there
[25:25] was a couple of us who we didn't always
have fun meetings with some of the other
[25:29] people who were on the board but she
stuck with it and she was professional
[25:33] and I really appreciate her being there
I know she had she had talked to me a
[25:38] little while ago she was considering
leaving and I told her you know make
[25:41] sure make sure you think about it you
don't don't want to keep you from going
[25:44] but we'd hate to lose you as well and uh
I guess I would just kind of say that
[25:49] I'm glad she is able to to stop if
that's what she wanted to do we'll miss
[25:53] her and uh I'll miss seeing her once
once a month and talking to her so
[25:57] um
not sure if congrats is the correct term
[26:00] for her but I think I think it was a job
well done and she put a lot of effort in
[26:04] and I'm I'm really happy she was here so
well said
[26:08] so I had for that unless there was any
other comments uh we will move on to
[26:12] planning director comments Mr Box
anything for us this evening nothing
[26:15] this evening all right uh Mr William I
know you're on the agenda but still like
[26:18] to ask you anything this evening nothing
at this time okay uh we'll move on then
[26:22] to item 12 which is German and emotions
I will make that motion motion by Mr
[26:26] Piper is their support or supported by
Mr de Bruin all those in favor to
[26:30] adjourn say aye aye aye all those posts
please say nay that motion carries and
[26:36] at 702 We Stand adjourned