Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

This is very official. Oh, my my clock says that's not right. So, your clock doesn't you can go. All right. Okay. All right. So, we're calling it to order. Uh first item is roll call. Okay. Um we have uh Mr. Rcala present. Mr. F present. Mr. Jackson present. Mr. Howard present. Mr. Posh present. Mr. Hunter present. Miss Deech present.

Okay. Next item of approval of the minutes from July 23rd. Has everyone had a chance to review them? Do we have any comments? Okay. Do we have a movement to approve? So moved. Second. Yeah. So, do we All those in favor? Okay. All those in favor? I opposed. Okay. Carious. Minutes are approved.

Open it up to public comment. Seeing as there's no public present, I think we can close that and jump into our our training brushup session. All right. Go ahead. Floor is yours, Paul. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Uh, I know a number of you have already been through this, but it was three years ago, so I want to make sure that you didn't forget anything. And we've got some new people here as well. Time flies. I can't believe it's been three years already. I think we had like what, two hearings, maybe? Yeah, kidding.

So, um, I will try to make it fairly quick. Uh but if uh anybody has questions as I go, please feel free to stop me. Um what is zoning? Pretty basic. Zoning is the regulation of land use in the city. The uses that can go uh in various districts as well as dimensional requirements for setbacks, height, parking and so on. Uh overall the the purpose of zoning is to balance the property rights of the individual land owner with the public interest of the community. And a lot of our decisions uh especially when it comes to things like reszoning and site plan review are really trying to maintain that balance. Every property owner is entitled to a reasonable use of their land. Uh but it's not necessarily the highest and best use, which is a real estate term. They're not entitled to make the most money uh that they can. They're entitled to what's reasonable given the zoning, given surrounding land use and so on. Um, the zoning board of appeals is one of three bodies responsible for various aspects of zoning and planning in this city and any other community in the state. The planning commission is essentially an administrative body. They're responsible for preparing the master plan and recommending adoption of the plan to city commission. they play a similar role with the zoning ordinance. Um,

sometimes it's the full planning commission working with uh someone like me to prepare the ordinance. Um, in other cases, uh, the planning commission may appoint a steering committee of members of the planning commission, maybe one elected representative, uh, business interests and and residents of the community. so that there's u a variety of input as the ordinance is developed. Uh once the ordinance is developed, the planning commission holds a hearing and then makes a recommendation to city commission. And the planning commission is also given um the authority to have the final say on some zoning decisions. uh in East Grand Rapids, uh site plan review is one of those where um it used to be uh not too long ago that the city commission um not this current commission but in past the city commission felt that they were the elected officials and they should have the final say on all decisions. And so whether it was site plan review, special use permit, um things like that, the planning commission would review it and make a recommendation, but ultimately it would go to the city commission. But just within the last few years, um the city commission, I think, felt like why are we just rubber stamping what the planning commission has done? Because they're doing all the work. They've held the public hearing. They've worked with the developer. They've reviewed the plans. We need to trust our planning commission. So, we amended the the zoning ordinance to allow the planning commission uh or require the planning

commission to make the final decision on site plans and special uses. Uh the one exception to that is um for minor site plan changes and and some minor plans like a small addition things like that. Uh it's delegated to the staff to review. So we don't make somebody go to a planning commission meeting just to get something very simple taken care of. So um those are the responsibilities of the planning commission. The city commission is as the elected body. They're the legislators and by law they're required to adopt the the zoning ordinance because the zoning ordinance is law. Um they're also given the option in the uh planning act to adopt the master plan if they so choose. In some communities, the planning commission is given that responsibility. in East Grand Rapids. Um the planning commission prepares it and recommends it. Uh but it goes on to the city commission for adoption and then the city commission does still have final say on some development reviews. Uh but like I say, site plan and special use have been turned over to the planning commission. And then we get to the most important group and that's the board of appeals. and you are in fact considered a quasi judicial body. um you're given three responsibilities under the zoning act and we'll cover those in more detail later but uh one is to um grant variances for from ordinance requirements and that's what you and probably every every other board of

appeals in the state uh spends your time on. um that's what people come to you for is is variances. Uh but there are other uh duties including uh interpreting the ordinance and hearing appeals of certain uh zoning administrative decisions. So, um we're really going to talk about those things uh here tonight. Your authority comes from the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act that was passed in 2006 and it it replaced um three laws. There was a separate township zoning act, a city village zoning act, and a county zoning act. and um the municipal league, the township association, the planning association uh got together and lobbied very hard to get all of those laws consolidated into one zoning law because some of the notification requirements for townships were different than the ones for cities, which were different from the ones for counties. uh authorities were different for townships versus cities. And so it just got very cumbersome and unnecessary. And so finally in 2006, the legislature consolidated the laws, streamlined the procedures, and adopted one zoning act. In 2008, they did the same thing with the Planning Act. And the planning act is not terribly relevant to what you do, but uh if you haven't looked at it, it's not a bad idea just to familiarize yourself with it because it essentially states what the planning commission authority is,

how a master plan needs to be uh developed, and the process for approving it. Uh, so it's it's informative, but at the very least, you should take a look at the zoning act. So, the zoning board of appeals primary function is to uphold the zoning ordinance requirements except in unusual, rare, extreme, unlikely, exceptional circumstances related to conditions of the property. If you remember nothing else, that's what you have to remember because, and for those of you that have been on the board for a while, you know that you get requests from applicants who aren't arguing that they can't meet the ordinance requirements, but they don't want to meet the ordinance requirements because they've got something that they want to do that goes beyond what's what's permitted. Well, that's not why we grant variances. So, that's important. It's not the ZBA's job to help applicants find a way around the ordinance because of cost or inconvenience uh or because of circumstances of the individual property owner. And that's that's hard to understand because sometimes you'll get uh a request where you really feel badly for the applicant. you'd like to help them out, but they don't meet the the tests, the standards in the ordinance, and that's essential.

Can we leave that slide up for every hearing we ever have in the background? That'd be a good one. We can have that put on a poster board and mount it. Yeah. You just include it with the materials, too, with each application. Yeah.

Yeah. In fact, uh, one of my clients years ago when I, uh, was working with the board of appeals, I was trying to hammer the importance of the review standards, uh, for variances, and uh, they acknowledged it, but they still weren't always using the standards uh, at the meetings. So we actually had the standards printed up on a poster board and put in the the meeting room and from that day on they started looking at the standards and the number of variances approved declined significantly. So um so among the the duties and responsibilities that you are required to to take on I mentioned interpretations there are two types uh one is a map interpretation um in East Grand Rapids um that's unlikely that you're going to uh encounter that because East is a builtout community. It's not like a township where you have 36 square miles, much of an undeveloped land, and the whole zoning map is on an 8 1/2 by 11 sheet of paper. And sometimes it's hard to look at that and figure out where the the boundary lines are. So, um, that would be an example where you might be asked to interpret uh where those lines are. and the z the zoning ordinance here as well as most other communities gives you some um guidelines for interpreting those boundaries. Um

could you think of any recent examples locally somewhere where something like this came into play? Uh yeah, one of the communities I've worked with um had a a parcel that was split into two zoning districts and it wasn't clear from the map. The map wasn't dimensioned. So it wasn't clear where the line actually started and stopped and so it came down to uh the board of appeals uh making a a decision on that. And it's not just in that case, it wasn't just a matter of looking at the the um interpretation in the ordinance, but um going back through minutes trying to find out when that zoning line was drawn and if there's anything in the minutes that said uh it's 300 ft from the road right away or or something like that. So, but again, uh I suspect you will never see uh a request like that here. Um

we've had a couple here. Remember the one house on Hall Street that was in the two zoning districts and was Oh, that's right. Yeah, that was a while ago. That was before the Yeah, it was a while ago, but it was quite contested. Um and I actually know the owner of that property when that happened on Hall Street. Yeah. and over by lake. She friends on hall and then on lake neighbor property of mine. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

So on a case like that you try to use common sense and interpret as narrowly as possible. Well, I'm newer on the board, but so our function is I mean, I know in that case where it's at split zoning, that's a little different, but as long as it's R3, let's say, and we know what R3 is allowed, as long as there's something unusual with the circumstances, then even if they come to us, you said we feel bad for them, we want to help them, but if it doesn't create an encumbrance or anything on the prop, it's it's an automatic no. like if it's if I'm upholding the the the law correctly, even if there's an unusual circumstance, I mean, that's what we got to that's what we got to like debate about or figure out. But outside of the unusual circumstances, if if there's if it says it, here's what it is.

Well, I I think you're talking about a variance, and we'll get into that with with the interpretation. There are no specific standards other than those guidelines for interpreting the boundaries, but like I say, you may have to do some or staff may have to do some digging in past minutes to see when the zoning changed, if there's anything that tells us where that line was meant to be. Um, so that's a a whole different set of decisions. Okay. Uh then the other type of interpretation which is not that uncommon is interpreting the text. And this is sort of a combination of both an interpretation and an appeal because what ultimately happens is Jay tells the owner um you can't do this because the ordinance says such and such. and the owner reads it and says, "Well, you know, I'm I don't read it that way." And so the next step if there's that disagreement, uh, is to come to the board of appeals and ask for an interpretation of that provision. So it it not only can be, but should be by law. That's the next step in in the process.

And the city makes it clear to that applicant that there's a cost, a financial, you know, to come before us. you're paying a a fee to do that because I remember the one woman who came here and she was in tears about how much she had to pay to be here and it was and she was still told no. I'm like I don't I don't know how much information was shared with you about what you're paying to be here and that's not our problem. But I mean we always advise yes if whatever fees are necessary depending on what kind of requests they're making what they are and what they need need to do it. No. Okay. And you also explained that when you do your review, it's highly likely that that will be the outcome from our deliberation.

We do our best. Sometimes people agree. Some people still will say, you know, I understand what you're saying, but we still think we have a good case and we'll still want to I just want that that instance jumps in my mind. If she was told, you're not you're probably not going to win. And by the way, there's a fee. Are you sure you want to go and she still came? Then she can stand here sit here and cry and I feel bad for you. But you were warned, right? Do we make them post the $500 or whatever it is to appeal a decision or interpretation the fee is because I don't think appeals appeals are less than a standard variance request. I don't remember the exact number, but they aren't

they are less than that. It's done we've done an exercise to look at averages for what how much staff time is involved in preparing materials. And so we our fees we review every year annually and I would say we probably every three years we'll give that a hard look to see on average what those different because there there's different level of effort for different applications and so we try to try to tie the the cost of the application to actual city and staff time to put it together. So

my concern is when they're seeking an interpretation that they disagree on a specific ordinance, a reading of the ordinance, whether or not we charge them a fee to access the court, this quasi judicial agency or board, um, to have that determination, I think that there's an issue with making them jump a financial threshold to determine their property rights versus a variance, which I think you absolutely can charge. Any thoughts on that? Um, you know, I would say we don't get that many interpretations. Most of the time it is variances that we're doing. So, um, I don't know that we've given that issue a lot of thought. It's certainly something we could take a look at.

Yeah. Administration fees, I can understand because there's a cost that the city shouldn't have to incur, but anything outside of an administration fee, I think, would be a violation of fifth amendment. I think generally that's what Doug is saying that what they're trying to do. They're looking at the costs of, you know, having the uh hearing and uh getting the materials and notifying the people that need to be notified. And that's really what we're doing. It's certainly not a money maker. Cool.

I would I would add too that you know to the extent we can we do try to talk with such people if they do have questions or concerns just to try and do that and those we don't charge for to give those kind of our opinion, our reasoning for certain things or why we feel certain things. Um, so we make every effort to try and resolve those things without having the need to have a formal hearing. I just don't want the city to get in trouble or find themselves in a bind for putting an undue burden on somebody for trying to find access to an interpretation.

Yeah. And like I said earlier, the the interpretation really becomes an appeal because he's made this a determination. So it ends up being an appeal of his opinion. But we put that in the perspective of a police officer determines that I was speeding. Do I have to pay to go to court to fight that ticket? And I don't know. No, I I I get it. But yeah, um and I would say that Jay does a great job upfront. Everybody's entitled to appeal or ask for a variance. I mean, if you own property, that's your right. Y

but he does a great job at the front end of saying okay you know you can you can apply but here are the standards you have to meet or this is the procedure you have to go through and I don't get a vote and I I can't predict what the board of appeals is going to do. So he's warning them up front that okay go ahead um but it could be a toin cost. Yeah, coin toss. I was tracking you. You come to the appeals though. So they already got denied from the first process and they come back to Jay and say what what are other reperc you know what are other recourse? Yeah. So you just give them full warning then.

Yeah. So they're they're warned up front. So an appeal uh it's a decision on an administrative action. Um it can be a zoning administrator decision that's being appealed. It could be planning commission denying approval of a site plan or planning commission approving a site plan with conditions and the applicant says, "Well, I don't think that condition is fair or applicable to my situation." So, they can appeal those kinds of things, but those are all administrative decisions. Um, obviously, the decision has to have already been made. Um, I I remember in one community I worked with where somebody actually appealed a decision before it had been made and how it even got to the board of appeals. Um, they they said, "Well, we we we can't act on it because that's the zoning administrator's job."

So, it's possible that the PUD is going on right now. If the developer gets a decision he doesn't like from the commission or from the planning commission, they could appeal to We're going to talk about that in just a few seconds. The action is limited to whether a decision was properly

whether the decision was properly made. It's based only on information previously presented. So whatever the planning commission or the zoning administrator was given in order to make their decision, that's all the board of appeals can look at. You can't take new testimony. You can't take a new study that was done uh that they weren't privy to.

And then the the zoning act specifically says that the board of appeals can hear an appeal of planned unit developments and special use special uses only if the ordinance permits it. And in your case, the ordinance specifically prohibits it. So they cannot take an appeal of a PUD decision or a special use decision to the board of appeals. Or can they take is that because our city is that because our city commission makes those particular decisions or

uh or or that's something they would appeal to the court? Yes. Regardless of whether the ordinance said the planning commission could approve it, it still can't appeal uh a PUD. It goes to court if they want to challenge special land use decision or special land use. Yeah.

It basically can't be appealed be appealed. So appeals of administrative decision number one based on the record uh and comes down to a determination of whether the decision was arbitrary and capriccious, whether it was based on erroneous findings, uh whether it was an abuse of discretion, uh or based on erroneous interpretation of the zoning ordinance or zoning law. So those are the things you would look at in an appeal. Uh if you find that the action was wrong, then you are in a position to make a corrective decision. Um, what it doesn't allow is that you may disagree with the zoning administrator's interpretation or decision, but if he did everything according to the book, followed the ordinance, uh, was not arbitrary, um, uh, used his best judgment, then whether you agree with the outcome or not, you're obliged to support his action. So those are the three main responsibilities and like I said variances typically will occupy 90% plus of your time. So for variances there are two types. A non-use variance or I prefer calling them dimensional variances. uh anything that has a numerical value, setbacks, lot size, building height, parking requirements, sign size, those

are all subject to uh a nonuse or dimensional variance. The legal test for granting uh or evaluating a non-use variance is practical difficulty. and we'll talk about what that means in in a minute. The other type of variance is use variance and that's essentially a variance to allow a use of property that's not allowed in the district where that property is located. Um I'll give you an example of well no I'll wait until we get to the standards. Um the legal test for use variances is unnecessary hardship that the property owner uh based on the existing zoning really doesn't have a use of the property uh is placed in a hardship situation. Um so the intent of variances is to recognize that um not all properties have the same physical characteristics. Um back in the 1920s when New York adopted the first zoning ordinance in the country, excuse me. Um their zoning ordinance was about 20 pages long.

You can imagine that. Um, but even in that first zoning ordinance, they created a zoning board of appeals because they recognized that not all properties are alike and we're never going to be able to write regulations that cover every situation. And that's really what the variance process is all about. So, uh, variances not intended, uh, variances are not intended to allow the owner to avoid zoning compliance. Um, a big part of your job is to make sure the ordinance is enforced except in rare, unusual, unique, exceptional, extraordinary circumstances related to the property, not the owner. And then lastly, variances granted with little or no justification may encourage others to avoid compliance. I think East Grand Rapids is a great example of that. Prior to the creation of this board, the city commission was the board of appeals. And the law permits that. I've never understood why, but I think last count there are like a half dozen cities in all of Michigan where the elected officials are still the board of appeals. But we've seen case after case after case where the city commission acting as board of appeals approved variances and never once referenced the standards in the ordinance. if they had those variances never would have been approved. Um it it really uh seems that the elected officials feel a sense of obligation to the voters

and that's understandable but that's not the job of the board of appeals. And back in 2022, finally, one of the the commissioners who was not running for reelection said, you know, uh we really ought to have a separate board of appeals. Um so that's how this all came about. But um yeah, I I think the past history here shows that when the commission was the board of appeals, they had a lot more variance requests than you have had in three years. So variance decisions by law, the decision must be based on the standards in the ordinance. Variance should be the exception, not the rule. The ZBA is not there to disregard ordinance requirements. Conversely, if you find that all the standards are met, you must approve the variance. That's not an option. Likewise, if all the standards are not met, even if they meet four and not the fifth one, the standard the variance must be denied. I'll ask just because the top point up there says by law, it doesn't apply to us because we exist. But in the in the locations where the commission is making the decision, if they don't reference the standards and a neighbor doesn't like a decision that they make, could the neighbor like challenge that on the grounds that they made the decision and disreg

and that's that's outside my my bailey wick, but and a neighbor might because they might be more affected if they're affected by Yeah. Would it go to court then? They would appeal. Yeah, it would go to circuit board.

Uh so with respect to the non-use dimensional variance standards, um I all five are important but the real crux of practical difficulty is the first standard. special conditions or circumstances exist uh which are peculiar to the land structure or building involved and which are not generally applicable to other land structures or buildings in the same district. So, it really comes down to are there unique conditions on the property that prevent either prevent or make it extremely difficult to meet the ordinance requirements. Um, I I think last time I did this, I I gave an example of a community that um I we were hired to redo their zoning ordinance. And one of the first steps is to pull uh board of appeals minutes from the last year to see what kind of things they're dealing with. And if there's a common thread that they're getting variances month after month for the same kind of request, then that's probably a red flag that the ordinance needs to be uh changed in that regard. So, I'm going through the minutes and at every meeting for a year, there was at least one, sometimes two requests for larger accessory buildings than what the ordinance permitted. The ordinance probably said something like maximum of a thousand square foot accessory building. And out of I think there were 14

accessory building variance requests, one was denied. And I felt sorry for that person because they approved every other one, including one that was a 10,000 square foot accessory building, another that was 5,000 square ft, and you know, everything below that. Um, there is no way you can look at that first standard and say there's a special condition of the property that prevents me from having a 1,000 square foot accessory building, but I can have a 5,000 square foot. Um, that can't couldn't be approved if if no matter what. So, that's an important standard. The second one is special conditions or circumstances don't result from the actions of the owner or prior owner. And that comes into play sometimes where the owner has put an addition on the house and didn't think it through and then two years later comes in and wants to do another addition but needs a variance because he screwed up uh the first edition. Well, that's his problem, not yours. And that's not justification for a variance.

It said prior owner. Does it only go back one owner or is it owner? It's owner. No, it's prior owners. Owner because the the little ear if you go back your slide, you said owner with no ass at the end or prior owner. So it's owners. Okay. Yeah. I I don't think we put a a limit on it, but I don't No, I think we haven't. If you look at the wording, I probably should clarify that if that sounds written, right? Yeah.

Um, third standard is the the variance will not be substantial detriment to neighboring property, not be contrary to the spirit and purpose of the ordinance. And that's important, too. Um, you know, by law, everything that's in the ordinance should be there to serve a public purpose. and somebody's variance request may be contrary to what that purpose is. And we often see that with um lot coverage requests. We have limits on the percentage of imperous surface you can put on a a property. Well, there's a reason for that. Part of it is to provide some open space. Part of it is to protect storm water runoff. Um so uh you know you you need to look at what this regulation was intended to accomplish uh as part of your consideration. uh the non-conforming use of uh a non-conforming use of property uh on the subject site or neighboring lands should not in itself be considered grounds for granting a variance. And we'll talk about that a little more later. Uh and then if a variance is granted or considered, it should be the minimum necessary. uh not necessarily what the applicant's asking for, but given the physical conditions of the property, you recognize, yeah, uh we need to give some leeway. But uh one example, we had a case here uh I think a couple years ago where someone wanted to put a home

office edition on the home and the side lot line was kind of caddyywampus and the office addition would encroach a little bit into that sideyard setback. Well, after looking at the floor plan, um what the applicant wanted was a very large home office with a fireplace and room for a couch and and all that. Um and I think the the board ultimately said, you know, we we understand your need for a home office, but you don't need whatever it was 200 or 250 square ft of home office. and by scaling it back a little bit, you won't need a variance anymore. And so those are the kinds of things that you you may look at as as you review a a request. So when we talk about special conditions or circumstances uh again they need to be exceptional um where by reason of the exceptional narrowness, shallowess or shape of a specific piece of property or by reason of exceptional topo conditions or other extraordinary situation or condition. Literal enforcement uh would involve practical difficulties. So that's really the the uh main reason for uh granting or not granting variance. Yes.

I wonder if you could just speak a little bit more to practical difficulties because I think I have I I struggle with that sometimes. I think other people do too. Um you know from coming from a construction background I certainly understand when things are difficult and some things are more difficult than others. That's really not what we're talking about at all. Right. It's Could you give us some examples of

Well, yeah, it I'm not aware of any court decision that involves that defines practical difficulty. Uh just like the courts often use the term reasonable, you know. Um but I think this provides some guidance that uh if twothirds of your building envelope is occupied by wetland um that's a practical difficulty in getting uh a house on that property without a variance things like that. Um but it it doesn't mean you can't do it. Um, you know, we specifically say in the ordinance that uh cost should not be a consideration, but um with enough money, you can make anything buildable. So, you have to kind of take that with um a sense of what's reasonable, what's practical. in in that example where it's majority wetlands or whatever, if there is enough space on the lot for the smallest house that the city would allow to be built, that's still the end of that conversation. It's not a practical difficulty at that point.

Well, yes and no. Because you also take a look at uh whether what they want to do is consistent with the neighborhood. Okay? and if everybody has a 4,000 square foot house and you're telling him uh you can only have a th00and square feet, we're not going to grant a variance. That's probably not reasonable. Okay? Especially, you know, again, depending on what he had to pay for the lot, knowing that it's occupied by wetlands, but uh those are the kinds of questions you'd want to ask. Well, we don't care how much he paid for the lot, right?

Pardon? we don't care how much he paid for the lot, right? That's not something we would take into consideration. It it might be um on the one hand, you could look at that as uh his problem

that the guy paid more than he should have. Uh but if he paid what all the other lots in the area are going for, maybe that's reasonable. Um so you again uh we'll talk about this later but uh every variance request that comes before you is going to be an individual request. They all have to be viewed on their own merits. You can't say well we we approved a side setback variance uh last month so we're compelled to approve all side setback variances. That's not how it works.

But if you do it for one case though, then it makes grounds for it to happen again with other cases of similar nature, right?

They might uh and that's why you've got to follow the standards. You've got to have good reasons. We approve this because it met the standards for this reason, this reason, this reason. Um it's not just um like I said with with the prior board uh it was well you know nobody came to the public hearing to object and uh he's he's a good guy and you know what's what's the harm in approving that. Well that's those aren't reasons to to use. So if you're doing your job, you're using the standards, every case will be individual. So other things to think about, maybe questions to help you uh determine whether the standards are met. How is this property different from others in the same district or neighborhood? Is this situation likely to be encountered often? Um, a lot of areas of East Grand Rapids are over a hundred years old. They predated zoning in the city. So, we have 40 foot lot subdivisions in parts of the city that all the lots are non-conforming. And um if you encounter variance requests from the the same area over and over for the same kind of uh variance, then the appropriate thing to do is with a planning commission representative on the commission on the the board. um that person can go back to the commission and say, you know, uh we really ought to take a look at section such and such because the board is getting in inundated with the same variance request from this provision and we should look

at whether we can make some adjustments or Jay or or Doug uh can come to the planning commission and say, you know, here's the situation. So, if you're seeing the same thing frequently, that might be a red flag that we need to take a second look at at those zoning requirements. Um, if not granted, would the owner still be able to do things other similarly situated owners can do, but maybe not in the same way? So, again, uh, back to to your question, um, that's one thing to look at. you know, we uh we don't want to penalize somebody because he has a condition on the property that prevents him from doing what most other people are doing. That doesn't mean that if everybody has a three stall garage and he only has a two stall that uh you need to grant a variance so he can add another stall. Uh, but if his house size would be substantially less than what everybody else's is, that might be something to consider. That's I feel like I mean, I guess that's that's part of the interpretation we're we're trying to do, right? But I mean, if if somebody came and presented that, you know, all of their neighbors do have three stall garages and they just need that one foot encroachment.

We've seen that, right? We've had two people come, two contractors or developers come in here and say, "It's not practical to build this house without a three-star garage and a and a massive kitchen and four bedrooms that no one's building it any way other than this today, right?" I guess I didn't realize that we were supposed to be taking any of that. I mean, I I think I was probably looking at it very narrowly. So was I. Um, like if if you can build 1,000T house on your property and fall within the requirements of the zoning ordinance, even though all your neighbors have 4,000 foot homes, but your property only allows 1,000T home, you're building a th00andt home. That's how I've been interpreting it, but I'm hearing it a little bit differently now.

Yeah, I I think it it is reasonable to look at the area that they're in. Um but again um you know we've seen a lot of cases come before you where uh it's not a condition of the property, it's a desire of the property owner, right?

Uh you know uh we had one where he wanted to uh uh I think put in a circular driveway when he was already over the lot coverage requirements. had a tennis court or a basketball court or something in the backyard and a pool and a three stall or four stall garage and a big house. Um, you know, enough's enough. Okay. If granted, would the variance compromise the intended purposes of the regulation? Again, look at why those restrictions may be in the ordinance. And if granted, the number and extent of variances should be the minim minimum necessary. Uh each case should be considered on its own merits. A lot of zoning board of appeals that I've been in front of um still use the word precedent and that should not be used. Every case needs to be looked at independently decided based on the standards. Some may get approved, some may not get approved, but don't feel compelled to say, well, we approved this type of variance before, so now we're we're obligated to approve all similar because every property is going to be different. Okay? Uh there is no empirical evidence to support this, but the rule of thumb that uh we use and the Michigan Association of Planning uses is that of every 10 variances you variance requests you hear, eight should be denied. Uh, and that's just a dramatic way of saying most variances

aren't going to meet the standards. Um, like I just said, typically they're based on what the owner would like, not what he can't do. It's not based on the restrictions of the property because of how it's made. It's it's a it's a right feeling or a personal interpretation of what the owner wants,

right? Uh so think about the hundreds of property owners who did comply with the ordinance, hours of effort spent in drafting the ordinance, the effectiveness of the ordinance ordinance if it's commonly known. All you need to do is ask for a variance and it's granted. Going back to my accessory building size example, uh if they had turned down the first couple variance requests, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have had one or two every month after that. Um

Jay, um you you can't grant the some of these things, right? Like I it seems like sometimes your your case is maybe stronger than others or or sometimes you are just like you know I don't necessarily have a clear answer for that or whatever but if somebody brought something to you that you thought met all the standards and everything they would still have to come here right. Of course. Yes. Okay. Yep.

And then the ability of the city to enforce its ordinances uh if variances are readily granted that makes it tough. Well, well, you let him do it. Why are you telling me I can't do it? So, the good news is that since 2022, you have heard 16 variance applications. Three requests have been approved. That's approximately 19% or two out of 10 or to put it another way, eight of 10 have been denied. Nailing it. So, I feel vindicated using that formula.

One of those one of those shouldn't have been approved, but we were creative. But I I think, you know, uh I've said this to to staff and and to uh

the city attorney, I think you are definitely among the best zoning boards of appeals I have ever encountered or worked with. um you are religious about following the standards and really scrutinizing each request and you've had some tough ones and there are some that could easily pull at the heartstrings and I'm confident the city commission would have approved uh when they shouldn't have. Um so I I think you're doing everything right. Just keep it up. So the use variance standards are a little different than the dimensional variance standards. The main criterion is the applicant's property cannot be used for the purposes permitted in the zoning district. Um I'll give you an example of a use variance that shouldn't have even qualified for use variance but was granted. Anybody familiar with the former antique store at Greenwood and Lakewood?

I live on Greenwood. I'm very familiar with I've wondered about that since I was a kid. How that got to be there. Uh that's when the city commission was the board of appeals.

And if they had looked at this standard, it would have been case closed. You can't argue that you meet this standard when the property is zoned for single family residential. There's a house on the property. The owner who's requesting the variance lives in that house. Case closed. Uh the ordinance also says you can't have two principal uses on one lot. And yet that individual was granted a use variance to put a an antique store in the lower level of his home. Um just

did the salon come afterwards then? Pardon? The salon, the hair salon, did that come as another variant? A variant on top of the variance that came as an amendment to the uh use variance. Uh does that run with the land? Are we stuck with that forever now? No. Uh because the new owner uh wanted to put a uh insurance off a real estate office in there where the the antique store was.

And she was uh very surprised when she came to Jay and said, you know, I want a permit and whatever. and he said, "Well, uh, no, because the antique store is and the hair salon are the only uses permitted by the use variance." Good. So, if you want to change that, you have to ask for a use variance, which you're very unlikely to get because now we have a board of appeals that knows the law. Uh, or you can request a resoning. This is what she and

one of the changes in the 2006 zoning law was that we now provide for what's called conditional reszoning. So in East Grand Rapids, we only have one commercial district. That's the Gas Lake Village area. And of course, that district allows retail, it allows restaurants, it allows banks and offices. So, um, when we as a group met with the new owner and her attorney, um, we said, "There's no way you're going to get commercial zoning on that property because we don't want all those uses potentially uh being available. But you could ask for conditional reasonzoning. And under conditional resoning, the applicant has to volunteer conditions that are placed on the property in terms of what uses will or will not be allowed there and whatever other conditions they see fit to try to make it as tight as possible. So that's what they did. And they came back, I think twice, uh, and kept revising the conditions to make them tighter. And so right now that property is zoned commercial, but there is a a deed restriction that goes with the conditional uh the conditions that says it can only be used for offices like real estate,

professional offices. Now that covenant does run with the land. Yes, that runs with the land. Does the special use permit still continue for the purposes of antique shop and hair salon? No, that that use variance is unrescended. So, a new owner could still have a professional office in the lower level of that building. Right. Right. I don't think our commission knows how to say the word no. Yeah. Well, I think legally they may have felt they were in a bind because they had a business and they're ready. the commissions and legislative bodies are allowed to take positions. No, I I get that. I get that. I'm not trying to say that's why we have those guys. Yeah.

Uh but there was a lot of discussion about whether that should be allowed or not and if so, how do we I sat through one of those where the moms were like, "Well, my kids walking that sidewalk and old people are driving through buildings and oh my gosh, that was very entertaining." We we So anyway, um I'm glad I practiced. That's that's an example of what you never see. Are we recording this, by the way? I didn't even know. I'm sure it was. Whoops.

Um, second standard is the applicant's plate is due to unique circumstances peculiar to their property. So, again, maybe there's uh conditions of the property that don't allow the uses that otherwise would be permitted uh in the zoning district where it's located. Um the use would not alter the essential character of the area. Uh the problem was not self-created and there's uh no available administrative relief which may afford a reasonable use of the applicant's property. Which leads me to this slide. Before we ever hear a use variance request, the applicant should be told to ask for reszoning of the property that

or ask for an amendment to the text to either add other uses within the the existing zoning district that would could be uh accommodated on that property or amend the use list to allow the specific use that they want to add. Yeah, I do commercial real estate. So on conditional zoning, when the top property uses the building's empty, if it stays empty for like a derivation, doesn't it then revert back to the original zoning? Like it's not No, it runs with the land forever.

Yep. So forever until the city initiates a reszoning or the the property owner initiates a reasoning. It's kind of like spot zoning or like form based code where it's like

well yes it is. Um but I this was a unique situation like I said that use variance originally should never have been approved. So, I think there was a sense that, well, uh, we've already got a business use there and this owner paid a lot of money for that property, assuming that she could just put another business in there. You could argue, well, that's that's her problem because she didn't do her due diligence. Um, but for whatever reason, the city ultimately said, yeah, okay. uh uh an office use is going to be a benign kind of use and we'll let it happen.

We're not going to really see anything like that on the residential side anyway. Additional zoning. Well, um we already have in that particular neighborhood. We've got town homes that are non-conforming uh or not non-conforming. They they were given a use variance, weren't they?

Yes. uh and we've got two office buildings that were given use variances. So that may have come into play as well that okay this isn't an isolated situation just two lots down we've got similar uses. Okay. So with conditional zoning though uh it may make use variances obsolete. Um, using the example I just used for the the antique store, um, you don't have to, uh, go through all of the criteria to get a use variance. You can propose a conditional reszoning and put strict limits on what can go there or will go there.

If that runs with the land, our city commission should be made aware that they're making permanent changes, semi-permanmanent. Of course, they can be reverted, but it would take an act of the commission. But if you do a use variance, it doesn't run with land, so it automatically reverts upon the cease of the use. Correct. Uh I don't know. Uh I I would say no because any kind of variance, including use variance, if somebody came in three years later and said, I want to put an antique shop in there, they're going to say that use is still available. We have provisions in the code that are contrary to that, but state law cases rule against that and say you can't have an artificial deadline. So both run with the land, right?

Both would run with the land. So the but let's use the antique shop for an example because there was a conditional use. Nope. Am I saying it right? A conditional zoning put into place that would extinguish the variance. That's that extinguished the varian. Now I'm tracking. Okay. Right. I think the other thing too that would extinguish too is the fact that there's a completely different use than what was proposed. So fact again the fact that the actual use of that has changed. There's no longer the antique shop and the the salon. You know that also could have extinguished it to it. It's then I resend my outrage and I think that was probably a good decision. Say to the camera duly duly noted. Yeah.

All right. Uh last thing on on use variances. Uh in 1996 the Michigan Supreme Court um reviewed a case of u Paragon Properties versus the city of Novi. It was a case where the developer owned a large tract of land near a freeway interchange and wanted to reszone it to allow development of a mobile home park. Uh it was denied by the city and the um applicant uh uh immediately went to court and it worked its way up to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court came out with the Paragon rule which of all the land use attorneys I've ever talked to not one of them agrees with this decision but it's a Supreme Court decision and essentially it says resoning means denied by the legislative body can't go to court until the applicant has exhausted all reme all administrative remedies. Well, the problem I have with that is the reasonzoning is a legislative decision. the board of appeals authority is over administrative decisions. And um if we were really looking at the use variance standards, the number one standard is the property can't be used as zoned. Well, uh you know, they were dealing with a lot of acreage next to a freeway. Uh there's no way I'm going to be convinced that the only use they could put there was a mobile home park. Um so it's a bad decision in my opinion for a lot of reasons, but that is the

law right now. So um I don't know if you've encountered it because we don't have a lot of reasonzonings that come up. Um, but in many communities they they are faced with that where they turn down a reasonzoning and the applicant goes to the board of appeals for a use variance. And again, if they're following the standards, they probably won't get it. Uh, but that's just sort of check the box. We've we've taken that step. Now we go to court. All right. Procedures for meetings. Uh, majority must be present. present to conduct business. So in your case, quorum is four. Uh so you can approve minutes and do all that. Um but uh uh if you're reviewing uh variance requests, only those at the public hearing um can vote on the request. So for example um you have the public hearing and one of the members is absent but there's a an alter an alternate here. So the following meeting uh you haven't made a decision you've tabled a request following meeting that absent member comes back to the meeting but wasn't there for the public hearing. um that person should not be participating in that item. The alternate stays with the item until it's resolved. Uh, also if a member of the planning commission or city commission has acted on a request that's now before you in their capacity as a planning commissioner or city commissioner, uh,

the state attorney general has uh, opined that they would have a conflict of interest by participating in the same item. uh when it gets to the board of appeals. So keep that in mind. Is that an opinion letter? Yes, sir. Okay.

Uh voting requirements for interpretations, appeals, and dimensional variances. Uh a vote of the majority of the membership is required. Um so you can conduct business with four members. That's a quorum. But you need a fourzip vote to approve the variance. It can't be three to one. Uh I was sitting in a board of appeals meeting once in another community representing a an applicant and the case before us uh came up and it was a sign variance and there were only four members of the board of appeals present and the applicant's attorney got up and made the presentation and uh they took a vote and 3 to one it was to approve the the sign variance and the chairman of the board said, "Congratulations, you can have your sign." And I was sitting right behind the applicant and his attorney. And the attorney's whispering to his his client, and there was silence, and all of a sudden, the attorney got up and went back to the podium, and he says, "Uh, Mr. Chairman, I I hate to say this, but under the law, uh it would need to be a a four vote in favor of the request

because that's the majority of the seven. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Well, yeah, it's the majority of the membership of the membership. It's not the majority of the ones present that day. Right. Gotcha. And so they ended up uh and I don't know what Robert's rules would say about this, but they revoked the motion and tabled it until the next meeting when they had uh more members so they could hear it again. But that attorney got fired more important.

So anyway, morals new variances on the other hand require a twothirds majority vote. So that would be five. If four out of seven ZBA members are present, how many must vote to approve a setback? Well, I four we we've already covered that and can they approve a use variance? No.

Can I add to that that and Jay, correct me if I'm wrong, but Jay will often uh tell an applicant if because we always ask you folks, are you going to be here? If we find out we're only have five people here, he will tell the applicant that and say we can proceed with it. It's noticed and everything else, but you're going to have to get four of those five people to vote for you. So, if you'd rather wait to have a larger group, you can do that. I think and I think it's only happened once at least since the CBA has been effect. We've had that few and they went ahead with it if I remember. Yes.

I guess they Yeah, they usually they do go ahead but I wanted you to know that he does make that warning to them so that they can't afterwards say, "Well, I had no idea." And I so he he sets that out and that you know kind of your assumption of risk at that point.

Yeah. So making effective decisions um general rule is just be consistent make effective decisions. The ZBA should require complete applications plans and information. Um, and I think Jay does this in advance before you ever see the materials. He's making sure that the application is complete, the drawings are there, uh, the information you need is available. Otherwise, it's going to waste your time and the applicant's time if you say, "Well, we don't understand this or that, and we want you to go back and give us a drawing, what have you." um delay the review until the application is complete. And uh just note that full information helps eliminate misunderstandings and establishes a complete record. Um, and we'll talk about record in a minute, but that's really important because if you ever are challenged, it's challenged to circuit court and the court is going to review the record that was created by you in the meeting. Site visits. Yes, we recommend site visits. Um just uh I think in East Grand Rapids there is a paragraph or a line on the application form that by signing this the applicant is granting you permission to enter the property in the performance of your your duties. Um avoid exparte contacts. So you're out on the property, you want to look around. Uh the owner may come out when he sees you and uh wants to bend your ear and and lobby for

approval of his request. Um you can ask questions of fact. Um but you should not be getting into a dialogue where he's trying to sell you on the idea of the variance. You just say, "Sir, I'm just here to look at the property. We've got a meeting coming up. Um, you'll be there. Anything you have to say really should be said to the whole group because we don't want any individual member having information that isn't available to the whole board. And if you do find yourself in that position and can't get out of it, then at least when you get to the meeting, you say, "Well, I was on the site. I did uh have a talk with the applicant and here's what he told me. um preferably go alone so you're not having um conversations with fellow board members on the site as well. Um in the old days before the current zoning act, it was not uncommon for uh an entire planning commission or board of appeals to do a a group visit to the property to look at it. But um after they were uh made aware that that's a violation of the open meetings act um it it pretty much ended. Uh and know what to look for. Focus on the standards. Look at the conditions of the property. Look at the surrounding area. Look at buffering. Things like that. making effective decisions uh requires uh conducting orderly deliberations. Um there are some rules for public hearings. Um the degree of formality really

depends on how many people you have in the room. You know, we've had uh public hearings for planning commission and city commission with standing room only crowds. And when that happens, you're perfectly the chair is perfectly within his right to say, uh, we're going to limit all speakers to three minutes, which right there on the board. Um,

I would also say that you're within your right to cut them off at the three minute time. Uh, I've found that that doesn't always happen. We let them go and go and go. I sat through one planning commission meeting where it was teachers there many of them and they all had a threeminut segment of the same statement. So they read their three minutes, sat down, the next one stood up and carried on and it was like a 30 minute statement.

All comments should go through the chairperson. Um, again, I've seen at hearings where somebody gets up here and they're looking at the applicant and addressing questions to the applicant or uh accusing the applicant of being, you know, one of those money hungry developers that's only in it for profit. Uh, the chair needs to say, "Excuse me, but um, direct your comments up here." I've even seen them turn around and play to the audience. You know, their backs to you. Um, you can limit speaking time. Uh, limit the number of times people speak. Uh, you know, after the first five or six comments, you're going to hear everything you're going to hear.

And, uh, what what often happens is somebody wants to come up a second time and, uh, take another three minutes to finish what they wanted to say earlier. um you're we're well within your right to say unless you have something new um we we really want to get on with with the meeting. If it's a group like a neighborhood association, if they have a spokesperson, uh you can give them more time, 5 10 minutes, whatever you feel is reasonable as long as the rest of the neighborhood doesn't then come up and do three minutes each. Um, so for decision makers, it's similar. Comments should be through the chair. Deliberate in the open. I've seen meetings where a couple board members at one end of the the table or another are just uh chatting between themselves and maybe pointing to a plan or something. Um, the public needs to know what's going on and the other board members need to know what's going on as well. So deliberate in the open, express your opinions. Um it's a good idea if the chair goes down the line and asks each member uh any questions, any comments to kind of put them on the spot to say something. Um uh I was on a planning commission for a while and um we had a great chairperson that did that. Uh and you know it may be no more than saying no I agree with what's already been said. I'm concerned about traffic so on uh and then move on. But um you know it it's very frustrating for the applicant to

sit through the deliberation and only two people have said anything and then he gets a no vote from people that have not said a word through the the deliberations. They're entitled to know what they did wrong, why they they got a no vote. Um and then again bottom line use the ordinance standards for your decisions. Uh also once the public hearing is closed by all means keep it closed. Um I suggest that at the end of the hearing you've asked if there are any other comments. Nobody gets up. You ask for a motion to close the public hearing. Somebody supports it. You take a vote. that drops the curtain on the public hearing because it's not uncommon as you're you can ask questions of the developer, the applicant, uh to get more information, but then somebody in the audience is going to say, "Well, why does he get to talk?" Um, so you say, "This is our time for deliberation. We have some questions of the applicant. You've had your chance to speak. Uh, we're we're closing the hearing." So abide by decision principles. The board is bound by the standards. Property owners have certain property rights within the limits of the ordinance. Justification for variances must be based on conditions of the land, not circumstances of the owner. It's not the ZBA's job to help find a way around the ordinance requirements because of inconvenience or to make the community better. and then making motions. Uh where you're approving something, you may have conditions attached to the approval. Uh certainly as part of the

motion, you want to site the ordinance standards, why they're met or not met, and document everything. So with motions, there's a person making the motion, someone supporting the motion. Uh it's a good idea for the record to note what the request is and then the action. I'm moving to uh uh approve the variance request. I'm moving to deny or I'm moving to approve with conditions and if so here are the conditions and conditions should relate to the standards. Um, so, um, somebody wants to build an accessory building, uh, within the the side setback area and his neighbor's house is, uh, fairly close to where the accessory building will be. um you may have found that he meets the standards, but um want to add a condition that he put in a privacy fence or uh landscape screening to buffer the accessory building from the adjoining property, things like that that are reasonable conditions to help um make the the variance more acceptable. um statement of relationship to the standards. Again, you guys are great uh at that. You know, I I know I can count on you to come up with uh okay, I'm here are the standards and go through them one by one. That's a great way to do it. Uh but then when you make the motion um especially if you're denying it because that's where you run a greater risk of somebody appealing to circuit court, you should cite the conditions and why

they're not met. U but even if if you are approving, it's not a bad idea to note that they're the reasons why we think they are met. And Paul, if I could, that's one of the reasons why we've developed over time, even when the city commission still was a ZBA. We we provide a worksheet for you all. We we do appreciate it if you hand it in because that that really provides the record. So, if we do end up in court, it shows that you thoughtfully thought through and explain why instead of just saying I don't like something or I like something and just voting on it because you like it or don't like it. You force we're trying to force, you know, another record of uh of of why that you did the analysis. And of course you can change that. You could fill it out before the meeting and then change something based off of testimony in the meeting or from other you know board members. But um that's key because if you just you know uh just talk about why you're for or against something but don't provide any context to those standards that can that can create a problem. So we we're trying to help you all make sure you think through the whole process to make sure you you know like you know maybe you personally don't like something but when you go through the standards you're like I got to approve it.

That's really the essence of what we're trying to do. We're trying to provide some of the tools for everybody to make sure that um that's the the basis of your decision. Right. Right. Okay. Decisions run with the land. decisions are not I don't know if this is accurate anymore because we only meet uh quarterly. So our see our process is the once the decision letter is signed by the chair that starts that's officially when the decision goes into effect. It's

good. Um appeals of a decision go to circuit court. Court review is based solely on the record. So that's why it's important to make sure the minutes catch what what you're doing and why you did it. So none of us will end up in a court hearing, right? Well, I can't guarantee that. Never say never. I think we uh record most of our our meetings. Does that ever get pulled into court kind of things? Uh it can. Uh typically it's the meat the minutes that get reviewed.

But yeah, in this day and age, you know, we used to have like stenographers and stuff come in at a critical hearing. Uh now we'd be more likely to offer up the record, the video.

Okay. And to piggyback on what Doug said a minute ago, top 10 reasons never ever ever to be uttered by any of you as as part of a uh reason for a decision. And I would say I have heard every one of these at board of appeals meetings at one time or another. So it'll make the area better. Uh looks good to me. He won't hurt anybody. Nobody showed up at the public hearing. Uh we know he'll do a good job. He's a great contractor. He's a good guy. He's married to my sister-in-law. Uh they already have a building permit. Give you an example. Um you may think it's really tough once they've got a building permit and started construction to go back and enforce the the rules. Um, one of my clients had approved a site plan for an office building and was on a large parcel. It met all the setback requirements. Uh, they started pouring footings and foundations. The building inspector went out to look at this site and discovered that one of the walls was encroaching a foot into the side setback area. Put a stop work order on the project. uh told the the owner they'd have to go to the board of appeals for a variance. The board of appeals heard the case and said, "Not our problem. You screwed up or your contractor screwed up. You've got plenty of property to meet the ordinance requirements. They made him tear out his footing and foundations and do it right. So, don't be intimidated by uh something like that. We gave this

variance before. Yeah, that's the precedent argument. We don't want to use that. Uh we have it. Uh we have to give it to them or they'll leave. Um chances are you won't get that argument here because you're a builtout community. But um especially in commercial areas where there's uh a highway corridor, an undeveloped property, uh uh a restaurant chain wants to come in or uh big box store or a car dealership and they've got sign standards and they say this is the corporate standard. we can't go any and I can tell you from experience that when a user like that picks that site, they've done their due diligence. They know the traffic counts. They know how many rooftops are in the surrounding area. They know they want to be there. And making them have a smaller sign is not going to make them go elsewhere. So that's just a bogus argument. Uh this is what the ordinance really meant. Again, if you haven't been asked to interpret the ordinance, you don't interpret it as part of a variance request. Uh the ordinance is too strict maybe, but when it was adopted by the city commission and written by the planning commission, maybe they wanted it to be that strict. It's again not your job to second guess. It's the only size they make. Uh and no one came to object. So um we may want to put that on poster board and put it up on the wall to remind you that these are not legitimate

reasons. They have no bearing on any of the standards. So conflict of interest very quickly. um the ZBA, like the planning commission, like the city commission, those are positions of trust in the community and uh the the public needs to have confidence that and you know there is a great deal of skepticism right now about government in general and mistrust. Um so we want to avoid contributing to that uh feeling. So um the public must generally perceive that decisions made are not affected by personal self-interest. And again um conflict of interest is more about perception than reality. But the bottom line is if the folks in the audience perceive you to have a conflict and you don't acknowledge it and you still vote, um that's going to erode their confidence even further. So think about that. So uh a member should recuse he her or himself from a case in which they have a conflict of interest. Uh the typical reasons are a family relation or more importantly financial interest uh in the project. Uh if those and family relation is usually uh close relative, you know, brother, sister, parent, spouse, children, uh maybe cousin, but um you know, we're not going to get into second cousin twice removed

as a family relation. Um clearly financial interest. If uh you work for the engineer that's designing the project or uh the applicant is your business partner, um those are conflicts. Um there's plenty of gray area outside of those. If you have to ask, if you're thinking, I wonder if this is a conflict or not, it's a good idea to check with John to find out because there are um legal standards of what may or may not constitute u uh conflict. Um so if you do find that you have a conflict before the item uh or as the item is coming up on the agenda uh before any discussion occurs declare your conflict to the chair. Uh abstain from any discussion or decision making. Ideally get up and leave the room and not be visible within listening distance. Uh and call an alternate. So, if you know in advance this is on the agenda, I've got a conflict, you're going to call an alternate to come and and sit in your place. Um, just another quick story. I love this one. Um, I was retained by a corporation uh not in this area to represent them for a height variance on an industrial plant. uh they were expanding and they wanted a high high bay uh crane to help load rail cars and the uh plant manager was the chairman of the

board of appeals. So he retained me to come in and represent the project. So the item came up. He did everything right. He said, "Uh, obviously I I have a conflict here, so I won't be participating in this. Um, Mr. Leblanc is here to explain what we are looking for." And I had a couple boards and I'm sitting in the front row and I'm halfway out of my seat and he's coming around and he says, "But before I do, I'd just like to say a few words." They went went to the podium and reminded them of the number of employees they employed, the tax base they generate, how much additional tax base and how many more employees uh would be hired as part of this expansion. And then he said, "Now Mr. Leblanc will present."

Wow.

And you know, I I didn't need to be there. He didn't need to say a word. There was no way in the world they were going to turn down this variance because they were a major employer in the city and it it was a reasonable request. But that's an example of you declared your conflict of interest and then showed that you had a conflict of interest by speaking. So anyway, so a recap, variances are based on unique conditions of the property. Variances are not intended to let property owners avoid compliance. Variance procedures intended to recognize not all properties have the same physical character. Variances granted without justification only encourage others to avoid compliance and you'll be meeting monthly instead of quarterly because word will get out. just pay the hundred bucks or 500 bucks, whatever it is, fill out the form and get your variance. Um, granting unwanted, unwarranted variances has the long-term effect of shifting the policym to you away from the planning commission and the city commission. And that's not what we want to happen. Um, an effective board of appeals uses the review standards, grants variances due to conditions of the land, upholds the integrity of the ordinance, does not make zoning policy even when it disagrees with the ordinance, and does not substitute its judgment for that of the planning commission and city commission. So, just a couple quick things here because um there are a lot of terms that are used in the ordinance that are um often part of a variance request. So, the definitions of corner

lot, through lot, interior lot are important. um yards. Um I think sometimes people think of the sideyard as uh everything along the side lot line. Um that is not the case. It's only that portion between the building footprint and the side lot line. Everything else is a rear or a front yard. Here's one that sometimes does trip people up. You have to be careful when you're reading the ordinance. We have regulations. For example, uh we say that accessory buildings may not be located in the front yard. That means anything from the front of the building to the right ofway line. That's the front yard. But we have other regulations that say you can't do such and such within the required front yard. that's measured from the building envelope to the right ofway line or the building envelope to the rear lot line. So, um sometimes it's easy to gloss over that and think, oh yeah, it's not allowed in the re in the front yard. Well, it may not be allowed in the first 35 ft, which is the required setback, but it could be in front of the building. So, pay attention to those. A building envelope is essentially the space uh after you take away the required minimum setbacks um space that's left over where you can put uh the development building height. Uh here's another one that sometimes uh trips people up, especially people in the audience. Um building height for um gable and hip roofs

is not measured to the peak of the roof. It's measured to the midpoint between the peak and the eve. So the the actual height uh of a structure might be 40 feet but by definition the height limit is measured to that midpoint. So it may be 37 35 ft and that's true for all slope roof. So even if it's a shed roof one direction it's the midpoint right. It's the slope it's a slope roof that has that condition. Yeah. So on the BSNA website it says the story or the height.

It says 16 feet. That's not an interior measurement and that's not to the peak. That's to the eve. Correct. The the midpoint between the eve and the peak. Plus it's a commercial building like the last one. Flat roof slope is to the roof. If you've got a grade that varies. Sorry, I'm going to back up on it's not the roof. It's the top of wall, right? No. The roof. the roof's a little misleading. It's it's to the roof because we allow a parapit parapit wall around the roof. Uh I think it's uh up to 4 feet above the roof. So it is the roof. Yeah.

If the grade varies, how do you determine the the ordinance defines average grade? So you take the average grade around the foundation.

Gotcha. So other key terms you might encounter nonconformities. Um a nonconformity is a condition that was legally established when it was created uh either because the ordinance uh was different and allowed whatever they did or like some of the homes and lots in East Grand Rapids that predated zoning completely. Excuse me. So, um we allow those nonconformities to remain. There are limits on expansion or alteration. Uh but there are three types. Structural nonconformity is a building essentially that um is higher than what the the ordinance allows or doesn't meet setback requirements or it exceeds the lot coverage, things like that. All related to the building. Non-conforming use is a use that's not permitted in the zoning district where it sits. So again, uh property at one point may have been zoned uh multif family and so they built an apartment building uh but then it was downzoned to single family. Uh it's a non-conforming use but it's still permitted. Uh we often find um um commercial uses that uh were established eons ago and then zoning came in and it was you know a little corner drugstore or something but everything else around it was residential. So we zoned the whole thing residential. Well, it can still

uh function as uh a business, but there are limits on expansion. And then non-conforming lots, which we have many of in East Grand Rapids, uh they either meet either don't meet minimum area andor the minimum width requirements uh for the the current zoning district. And that's something we're probably going to take a look at. uh as part of the updated master plan um see where we can eliminate some of those nonconformities with some changes to the zoning. So, let's take a a couple quick examples here. Um here's one where um property is zoned residential. The ordinance requires a 50 foot rear yard setback. Uh the owner Uh the owner wants to build a new home and is asking for a variance to allow a 40 foot setback. Um we've got significant topographic issues running through the front part of the building envelope. Um, the owner wants to build uh a home with a 4,000 square ft footprint and a three stall attached garage, which would be comparable to other homes uh already built in the uh uh in the neighborhood. So before looking at the standards, um are there other things we need to know before we can start making a decision?

Well, I guess I'm a little unclear as to the extent to which uh the other houses are relevant or not, whether if they're all 4,000 square feet, you know, that's directly relevant or if it's irrelevant. uh you know a lot of times the the nature of the house next door whether it's conforming or not is irrelevant. So to what extent do we consider

well one of the standards and I not going to scroll all the way through uh does talk about relationship to the surrounding area. Um you know it's it's for you to decide what extent that's important. I think one of the examples earlier was, well, what if everybody has a 4,000 foot house and this person can only build a thousand square feet, right? You know, is that reasonable to say no to the variance? Um,

would you look at like practical difficulty with the topographic at the back? like if I'm assuming there's other homes that have similar situations. So, why don't you look at that and say, "Okay, is that is that reasonable to is that a standard you would you would apply?"

Yeah, I I that's one of your going to be one of your main considerations in this. You know, the other homes the topo infringes a little bit uh along the the front of the the building envelope, but it left them enough buildable area that they could still build a decent size house and not require a variance. where in this case um you know it it takes that that topographic contour takes up uh easily more than half the the building envelope. Now you could ask um does it have to be that footprint?

Right? Could it you know is it a is it a onetory or is it a twotory? Uh, if it's a onetory, could it be a twostory? And even if it had to infringe a little bit in the rear yard, might be less than a 10T. Yeah. The grades going up, you can do retaining walls. With the grates going down, you can do a walk out. I mean, there are other options, too. The design. Yeah. And again, it it's going to come down to what's reasonable. Yeah. Is this a cliff or is this a nice gradual slope? What's I mean, can it be fixed on an excavator? There's lots of variables that need to be examined as to the practicality of the modification to the land that would be required to build within the ordinance.

Those are 1 foot contours versus 10 foot contours. That's a it seems it could build a house. It just might not be as big as what they're proposing here. So on the previous slide says special conditions or circumstances in an exceptional circumstance or condition exists on the subject property whereby reason of the exceptional narrowness shallowness and that goes down to exceptional topographic conditions. Well, most homes don't have that. So you would say that's an exceptional topographic condition. But if you look at like the rest of the neighborhoods in the house and they're building it, is it then reasonable to ask them to say, "Well, if it's a ranch, can you do two stories?" Is that is that reasonable for us to ask that? Yeah.

Yeah. And if they say, "Well, we don't, let's say, let's say say it's a budget thing, like we don't have the budget for it, like this is this is the most economically way to do it." Then does that still void out the special Yeah. that's probably not a good answer for them to give. No, it's good to know. But in that in that instance, going back to the slide again, I'm I'm newer. Is this would you consider I mean, I know we need more information, but just off off chance, this would this would fall into an exceptional circumstance where we would have to take a little bit more time to review it. When I drew that, I intended it to be an exceptional circumstance because it's just affecting this lot.

Now, you know, if if we had uh all the lots to the east that that ridge is running through and they all complied and built within the the uh building envelope, that's a different story. Then you'd say, "Well, everybody else managed to do it under similar circumstances. Yours isn't all that unique."

But so then that would kill the the case with us. But if it was the only case with this very exceptional, then we could recommend and say like you're kind of doing here, like can you adjust it within that envelope, twotory, ranch it, maybe instead of three stall, do two stall. And if they say yes, that gives them the variance. So we we grant that variance for them to do that with a conditional variance with those exceptions in place. Right. Uh well if if they said yes, we can do a twotory or we can change the footprint then they may not need the variance or they may only need a a much smaller variance.

So if they agree to that, then they go back to the planning board to go and review that again with the architect and engineer or would you say, "Okay, we're done here." like if we if we come to a compromise on this and say, "Hey, can you build a twotory?" And they said, "Well, we didn't think about that." Yeah. Again, I know there's more information needed. What I guess I'm confused as far as uh Well, if you're saying they could build a twotory and comply, then they wouldn't need to be here. They don't need to go to They don't need to go to the planning board or anything. They just submit their plans for per just then go straight to PL. Okay. Often times, um Jay's gone through that. Yeah. oftentimes there's been a lot of vetting to ask a lot of those questions to try to I mean it comes back to what Paul said earlier that it's not your job to kind of solve their problem. It's you only look at what you're presented with.

So So should we therefore try to limit our suggestions even if there's maybe an obvious I think it's our job to determine if there's practical alternatives and if there are then is that that factor is is not satisfied. Um, and then the issue for us to decide is is it practical or not?

I mean, I don't think I think that the practical or at least the minimum required has some room for discretion. Like you're not trying to deter like, you know, 40 is too much. You can probably get away with just a 39 foot or 41 foot setback. So, I don't think you need to get to that granular level to determine if that standard does met or not. Yeah, I think reasonleness of the board comes into consideration quite a bit because let's say that is a cliff. You could still build a canal levered ranch structure. Yeah. That would be within the building envelope, but you're spending like $40,000 more than all these other people just to do that. Yep. But that's not so what,

and I'm sorry if I'm jumping the question to get to my own that's rude if I am, but I'm going to do it anyway because I'm a jerk. Um the issue that I have is hey build build a shoe story and the person says well I'm confined to a wheelchair. We're not supposed to consider the plight of the individual right? So I mean that's there's so many factors. The other thing you'd hear is here is well I've already designed this house with my architect. I've already spent $40,000 engaging architect to design this house that I don't want to go back. I don't want to go to twotory now. Yeah. Is that practical?

Yeah. But in that case, I would say they spent $40,000 with an assumption that they would get a variance. They had no right to make that assumption or a surveyor's mistake, right? Yeah. Yeah. But so in this scenario, these three, this is it. This is all we have to look at. Then that property is unique in this scenario. Yeah. Yeah. There is a quality about this property that no other property has, right? That's unique about this property. So, so then we have to go off through the other standards and we have to go through the rest of the standards. Yeah. Okay.

And you don't get to apologize for being new anymore because you're asking really good questions. Oh, thank

Okay. Let's look at this one. The ordinance says, wait a minute. What would the decision be? Uh-uh. I mean, well, I know that, but you're an expert, so perfect. Um, there are the standards, special conditions of the property. I think you all agree that there are special conditions. Was it self-created? No. No. Wow. They bought the property with the contours, but they didn't they didn't purposely impose that on themselves, right? uh the conditions weren't not substantially detrimental to the surrounding area given the information we have there. Yeah, it's not

um is it contrary to the intent and purpose of the ordinance when we're requiring rear yard setback doesn't mess with that and then the neighboring conformity if everyone's got 4,000 foot homes but you can adjust the envelope so then that standard would say no you don't make it because you can adjust the the floor plan to to that conformity

I'd be inclined to They um the intent and purpose of the ordinance for setbacks is to ensure that there's open space on the property and to make sure that um drainage is taken care of. And even though he'd be encroaching 10 ft into the rear setback, he's not building on over half of the building envelope where he would otherwise be entitled to build. So I wouldn't see this being contrary to the intent and purpose of the ordinance. And then neighboring nonconformity, there aren't any.

Approved. Pardon? approved possibly. I think I'd have to how small would that house be inside the envelope. I think that's what I that's what I'm sort of seeing or wondering as I look at this even if it seemed like it was still sufficient within that. You know who would be here be the neighbor right behind him saying I don't want that house 10 ft closer to me. Can't they can't they build through that whole the white area is the build area right? Yes. So they could stretch that. I mean, there are some other options that they could do. Well, I think that's one of the the questions that everybody has. Is there other than this design, this footprint,

are there other ways to give you the home you want without is necessitating a setback. But based on your opinion, what you just said, and it's it's not, you know, we're not infringing on the rights of the homeowner or the property owner. We're not it's not we're not making it inconvenient and because of this unique exceptional challenge and based on how it's overlay you would say that in your opinion holding you but you would say this is approved you would approve this. Yeah, I given the facts we have right here. Yeah,

I probably would if if there was no alternative to reconfigure the the footprint and stay within the the building envelope and moving the house outside the envelope. This is where again I'm a little confused. Neighboring nonconformity. So that would be with me for a second. That would be well that standard elaborated says that a neighboring nonconformity is not to be used as justification. Right. Right. Say that again. A neighboring nonconformity is not to be used as a justification. So

with creating one though here for future. So if a house gets knocked down the road, this is now non-conforming future use, right? So we're creating one technically. you would be, but in the with what we have here, you don't have anything to even go up. You're legally I think a better way to look at that standard is like if you're in an older neighborhood where there's a pattern of like garages that are non-conforming and the question becomes, you know, just because there's all these non-conforming garages, are you obligated to grant a similar variance for someone else just because there are others? Isn't nonconforming though something that exists before either the zoning law was changed or before zoning? Right. Right. So

granting a variance this this would if if this variance was granted that would not be a nonconforming building. Okay. Because the variance makes it legal, right? But we have all these non-conforming homes or whatever in East Grand Rapids and it's because they were there before the ordinance. Right. Correct. Okay. I just want to get the language. Yep. Yep. Okay. Okay. Anything else on this one?

Okay. This is a request for an accessory building. The ordinance limits the height of the accessory building to 14 ft. The applicant wants to have 16 feet. Uh he needs a taller building for his RV. Um 16 ft would allow him to have the 10-ft door that he needs. The neighbor uh what did I The neighbor is right here. uh he has an accessory building that is 16 ft tall and it's 5 ft from the lot line. So it's a non-conforming structure on two counts, both set back and height. Um however, the proposed location of the applicant's accessory building would not be visible from any adjacent property. It's not visible from the street. It's surrounded by uh uh tree rows and uh he's only asking for um 2 feet of of variance. So, are there other things we need to know?

He builds a house that's flat roof, he gets the 414 ft. Slope of the roof is a question. This one, he could. Yes. Slope the roof. He could build the flat roof. at 14 ft. And this thing I actually learned that something today. That's actually pretty wild. That's cool. I didn't know that. He could also he could probably put a a slider door on the gable end that that might meet that without requiring a tall building. His driveway a lot. This is a no, right? He can't do it because someone else did broke the rules before you. That that that doesn't matter. Yeah. And the fact that it's screened and no one sees it is wonderful, but we're not going to accommodate you for your RV.

Yeah. Yeah. Store somewhere else. I think this is an example of an applicant who wants to do something that just doesn't meet the or unless he built a flat roof accessory building, right? Um, and you know, I I look at these kinds of requests and think, okay,

let's assume you gave them the variance. And after two years of camping in a motor home, he and his wife decide, you know, this really ain't all it's cracked up to be, and we're going to sell the motor home. Um, and he's got a non-conform, well, not a non-conformity, got a variance, but he's got a building that doesn't meet ordinance requirements. Uh, or they sell the house and the new owner, uh, doesn't have a motor home or any large structures that he needs a 10-ft garage door for. Um, so that's that's a a danger of giving weight to what the owner wants for his personal situation.

My understanding was we're never to put a non-conforming use or approve anything that's non we don't want to create any non-conformity when we in our decisions. So in the previous example you had the topography that was very unique exceptional hardship that made sense but in here because doesn't meet the other standards and like you said for all those reasons. If you give that exception then that means if the next neighbor now sees two homes like that he has more of a leverage and they'll say well you gave it to that guy who then got it from the guy before you. And then because we did that if we don't give it to him now we're held viable.

Yeah. So the first standard it doesn't meet the first standard. The first standard is a no special conditions of property. Right. Well, can I So on the one with the topography you you had mentioned um you know the reason for the lot coverage and all that like the intent and the purpose of the ordinance um would you sort of implied would still be met in that case? um in this one and I know you got to look at the rest of the standards as well, but I'm just kind of looking at I heard that when you said it and I was kind of questioning it then as well. But

so number four, the intent and purpose. What is the intent and purpose of a 14t height if it's still covered by the trees and in the back of his property and nobody can see it?

Well, in general, the purpose of the lower height for accessory buildings is to keep it in scale. Um, so it's not dominating the right home, things like that. Uh, to to go back a step and talk about nonconformities of neighboring properties. If we looked at the um Easttown neighborhood and said, "Okay, we've got an entire area of 40 foot lots and uh the majority, and I'm just making this up, so don't say you're all wrong. Um, but the majority of of homes have a garage in the backyard that's 2 ft from the property line and that's nonconforming under the current ordinance. So, we've got a homeowner that comes in and says, "I want to build a garage in my backyard, but I can't, you know, because of whatever, I can't put it directly behind the house cuz I can't get to it." Um, I would argue that those existing nonconformities would be a reason to consider whether that's a reasonable request or not. I'm I'm sorry if I'm confused a little. So, no non-conformity on our use. However, with the house around that garage sample you just gave, I'm creating now a nonconformed use because of the neighboring area. Yeah.

So that what I'm saying is there's a difference between a neighbor that has a non-conforming accessory building versus an entire neighborhood that is pretty much dominated by a non non-conforming condition and is it reasonable to tell this person u you can't have what everybody else has. It's reasonable or not reasonable? In my opinion, it's not reasonable in that scenario. But nonconforming happened before the ordinances. It's not that somebody built something. Well, it may it may have uh or the ordinance was different when they built,

right? That's what I'm saying. So nonconformity doesn't mean there's something wrong on your property. No, it just means that it was there before the ordinance. Before the current current ordinance. Yeah. So the setback was 2 feet in 1990. in 2020 it was 20 ft right those homeowners didn't have a say that's not their fault but then I now have to based on the neighbors for that specific individual for that specific property I I'm okay with putting a non-conforming garage there it's not a non-conforming it's a use granting the variance but if I grant the variance now that's using it's no longer non-conform it's no it's conforming because we gave the grand variance right

in that sort of situation and I I know it's only an example and we we would just have to but in that sort of situation I'm I I would feel pretty comfortable telling that property owner that they're so if those if those sidelines were created for fire reason you know what is the intent and purpose like you just have a less valuable lot there sorry that your garage wasn't built before or whatever right so we shouldn't just look at what the neighbors have or like why was that change made what was you know well that was my next question so would it be to cover our ass nicely we We don't have to give it all.

No, I mean if if you can look at those five standards and say that it doesn't meet all five, then you can't I'm not saying no to be to reduce liability, but it's like, well, if this is the new setback, the new law, and you don't need to have it, or if there's other ways around, then it's a no, move on. But if we did say yes to it, based on what the evidence you're giving us, we're not liable. They they couldn't come back and be liable for us like down the road in a different neighborhood. Like they can't say, "Well, you gave it to those guys." Well, that was a unique circumstance.

That's why you have to look at each case on its own merits cuz they're, you know, if somebody comes in and they've got a 12,000 foot lot with 80 ft of frontage, they're not in the same boat as the person with a 40 foot wide lot and 4,000 square foot. and and we don't need to worry about liability per se as as long as we follow these factors.

Number one, we're doing the right thing. And number two, we're also a deliberative quasi judicial body that's immune from liability. So don't don't let other people's opinions of what we're doing impact our decision based on liability because we're insulated very clearly insulated from it. So we just need to follow the factors. That's why it's important to have reasons why each of those standards is either met or not met. So you've got it on the record. You've deliberated as a body. Doesn't matter if somebody disagrees with you. If you've given good reason for your opinion, then you're good. So the neighboring nonconformity standard is one that we do look at is what that's why it's there, right?

Yeah. Okay. But in in this particular example, the fact that there's one neighbor that has a non-conforming building doesn't, right, you're looking at doesn't set a precedent for granting this variance. Okay. Uh now like I said if it was an entire neighborhood you might look at it differently. Okay. So I can I give an I I'm not trying to suck more time from everyone but that there was a case that we did my first year where can I say it on the record or no or just use generalities. I think you can say it's up to you. It's up to you. It was on Maxwell. There was a home that had a double lot but all the homes were single. Yeah. I remember. Remember that.

Well I know which. I think I go ahead. Yeah. And we denied we denied the use, but at the end of it, I was like, I get why we did, but then I'm like, but the non-conforming, they're all single lots. Like, we could have given it to them, and it made perfect sense. I was I was so confused about that. I was like, I think we did the right thing. But if I'm going based on what Doc's saying, it's like, wait a minute. We technically could have given them that based on the neighborhood conformity because a parking is limited and b all the lots were individual and these guys oddly enough on Maxwell had a double lot. So they were just saying hey let's cut it in half and sell the land. I I remember that that yeah everybody had 50 foot lots and they had 100 but the standard was 75. So yeah.

So in that from what I'm understanding in today's meeting technically because of the nonconformity use and how the law was regulated back then again could be interpreted as we could have given it to them and we still would have been okay with the standards and okay with the non-conforming neighborhood of today. Right. I think you have another problem with that case which is uh that was zoned A2 if I remember correctly. So they needed to have 72 feet which they had and so then you would have been violating a different rule which is that you're not supposed to create a nonconformity when somebody has the conforming lot.

Okay, that makes that okay then I feel all right. I feel better. We're I mean there because the rules have changed over time and all that. I mean, there's going to be tons of examples where the the majority of the neighborhood is non-conforming, but if that change was made with the intent for that not to happen, it's not going to it's not just a blanket reason to approve it just because the rest of the neighborhood is there, right? But I mean, we'll see that a lot, I think. Um, and like I said, I think that's one of the things we're recommending in the master plan is to go back and look at some of these

old neighborhoods that now are the entire neighborhood is nonconforming for one reason or another. And are there ways to create a new zoning district that addresses those conditions or amend the existing zoning district to uh lower the requirements? Um yeah, this was awesome. Thank you so much for being so generous with your time. Seriously. Well, I hope you uh continue on the way you've been doing. and you really are doing a great job as a board of appeals.

While we're still on the record, Jay, I want to say that you do an outstanding job and thank you for all the work that you put into this. It's always a outstanding packet. It's very helpful and Thank you. I want to make sure that's that's known. You make it really easy for us. Thank you so much,

Paul. Paul, this is maybe not a yes or no answer. Um, but the conversation you you you have on on standards, um, if we could pull that into the PUD conversation for just a quick moment. Um, as it relates to the I mean, the PUD is a zoning conversation, right? I mean, this is a

So, I hear you saying, you know, we're we're using here in the ZBA quite a standardsbased approach. Um, we had those six standards. Um, obviously, you know, put put it in context with the other variables at play in in the conversation related to the PUD. I mean, there's the standards, but then there's master plan, there's few other variables that have also been brought up in terms of approval or denial.

What's the question? So where where where do the where do the six standards rank? Um are they are they you know a toz in terms of a decision or are there other things? I mean obviously this conversation's been happening for a good couple of months now but what what's the formula in terms of waiting and you know in terms of those those standards in terms of a final kind of a determination? Well, uh the ordinance lists those standards

and the ordinance says the decision um on the concept plan and the ultimately the final plan needs to be based on those standards. Um you mentioned the master plan. The master conformance with the master plan is one of the standards.

That's right. So, um, you know, I, uh, it's not much different than the standards we've talked about for variances. They're, they're not black and white. you know, the there's subjectivity there and it does take some conversation and debate about whether they're met or not or whether conditions could be added to u an approval that would make them conform to the standards. Yep.

And I think I think if I could too, I think part of what you're getting at is um from a from a process standpoint, um that's why that's why the the the public engagement, the meetings, the feedback from uh from the from the plan commission or city commission, those things tend to change over time because there's there there's some listening there. You get to a point though where you know an applicant may say okay I see your conditions and everything and and if they say I'm not doing anything more then they're basically themselves calling the question of we want a decision now we're not going to bend anymore but if you look at from maybe where they originally started from that feedback has has that changed in how you maybe evolved or not on those standards. So maybe at the beginning they they only met three of the standards but maybe now they meet all of them or maybe they are still short by one. Um, as long as you document your reasoning for that, that's totally fine. I mean, those decisions don't need to be unanimous and they should be your heartfelt that you you believe in each one of those standards or not. Um, but when you go through it and you and if they you think they've met all of them, if that's the case, you have to approve it. Um, but that that's not necessarily going to be the case, you know. But

yeah,

it's really the those standards are really really the basis of the back and forth and interpretation between the developer and the community and the boards that represent the community. That's why there's so much change over time because they may hear they're not meeting the standards. So they they may refine trying to meet them in accordance with what they're hearing from you. Um so that's sort of the interplay there of the process and how that works. One of the things I liked about what this was a great presentation, but one of the things I think about having uh the community really trust us is that you told us we should each one of us tell uh respond to the standards and how we're making a decision.

I think that's something I wish we Yep. And so the the same thing the same thing um is true for um whether it's planning commission or city commission on these. We provide those standards of review and a worksheet too and we that's that's how we lead in from a staff level. Jay really does an excellent job of that's how it's all set up that way. Um and I think sometimes if it's not something that you do often right like some board members or certainly the public unless that's something they do in their professional career um they don't always understand that. So sometimes things that are outside of that though may be important to them are not a basis of why a decision can be made. So you can agree sometimes with maybe a more emotional factor but that's not what you can consider for your decision. No, I get that. It just would be nice to hear.

Yes. And and the thinking of each person. Yes. That's all I'm saying. Yeah. Now that's why that deliberation is so important. It's not beneficial to the group, to the community, to the applicant for members to just sit there and not say anything and then vote no or vote yes. Uh why, you know, what's your thought process? Yeah. Y and the judge will appreciate it on appeal so he can base his opinion on it. All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any other ZBA business tonight? No. Beer.

I see the next meeting is November 26th pending agenda items. So with that, I think we can move to adjourn. So moved. Second. All in favor? I opposed. Meeting's closed.