001I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> I still think an invocation is needed right now. >> Well, good evening everybody. Um, I'd like to have a roll call, please. Yes. Chair Robert >> present. >> Yes. Here >> so next item would be um approval of our agenda for the night. >> I'll make that motion. We approve the agenda as written. Second. >> Any discussion? Hearing none. If we have a roll call vote to approve the agenda. Mark. >> Yes. So, next item on our agenda is the approval of the July 10th, 2025 minutes. >> July 25 minutes. >> I'll second. >> Any discussion? Hearing none, if we have a roll
002call vote for approval. J. >> Yes. Okay. Um before we get to the public hearing, our attorney, uh Mr. Davis would like to make a couple comments. >> I'll take the podium. Okay. It's been a while since we convened a ZBA hearing. Apparently, the public wanted to see a ZBA hearing as well. We are. >> I want to just You're here, Bob. >> Yeah. >> Nice and loud, Bob. This old gal's got to hear. >> I'm screaming. >> Oh, good. >> Okay. >> I wanted to just remind uh the ZBA board. We we uh have our annual training and we go over some of the legalities of a ZBA and uh we go over our process. We haven't done that in a while. We haven't had a lot of ZVA variance matters, but I wanted
003to remind you of a of a couple of things. Um, tonight you're going to be listening to a dimensional variance request, and I think you're all familiar with that. We still maintain a two meeting process where you're going to get through the public hearing this evening. You're going to hear from the applicant this evening. You'll have a chance to dialogue with the applicant on the uh the applicant's presentation. We'll keep the public from directing comments to the applicant. The public will make all their comments through Mr. Dit as chairperson. We'll maintain that public input is is uh as you know, I'm a huge fan of public input and I think you should listen carefully to all of that. Um, during the public hearing process, when you're hearing from the public, we don't dialogue with the
004public. It's sort of a a one-way conversation, the kind that I have at home. One question one-way conversation and and you don't respond. Um, you just you listen to the public comments. You absorb the public comments. Keep notes about the public comments. when the applicant is making its presentation, feel free to remind the applicant of a public comment and say, "What did you think about that?" or "How do you you know, how do you respond to that?" At the end of the day, the the and I tell you guys when I do your training, you're you're you're the last relief out prior to court. And I tell you that all the time. I think a zoning board is one of the most important boards in all of the communities uh in Michigan because you serve
005as the final step, the judicial branch, if you will, on the on the zoning ordinance. So variance is a request to deviate from an ordinance and you're the hearers and the and the deciders of that issue. And I want to remind you that whether you grant a variance or deny a variance, any agreved party can challenge your decision to the circuit court. And I want to remind you that it it and you know this when it goes to a circuit court, it goes on the record. So the record created here tonight and at your next deliberation meeting is the record that goes to the circuit court for review. The circuit court doesn't hear the case all over again. They rely on your record. And so, one of the things that the case law that we've
006discussed in our training sessions has has come to make clear is that courts who review ZBA variance decisions want to see a supported motion. In other words, they don't want to see I move this. They want to see I make a motion to do this for the following 10 reasons all of which you heard during the course of the ZBA hearing process. So the law says um any agreed party. So that would be somebody who was for the variance, somebody against the variance, any person who doesn't like your decision. Either way, if the court finds standing for that party, they can go to the circuit court and challenge what you did. And when it goes to the circuit court, they only look at four things. They look at whether there's been compliance with the laws
007of the state. Is it based on proper procedure? In other words, did you get notice out? Did people have an opportunity to be heard? Were was it properly advertised and all of those rules? You have a cracker jack clerk staff here who made sure all those procedural matters are are are in in good order. And here's here's the the third one, but I think it's the most important. I is is the decision supported by competent material and substantial evidence on the record. So your decision has to be based on evidence in the record. So I urge you to have paper in front of you. I urge you to have pencils and pens in front of you. I urge you to take notes and listen and balance what you hear against the standards to grant or
008deny a variance. Sometimes the court can look at the record and say, "I don't like the record at all." And so the law says if the court finds that the record is inadequate to make the review required by the court under this section, they can send it back and have you conduct additional hearings. It's very rare. I haven't had a situation where that has happened. Um but it is possible. So bear in mind uh variance no variance yes no anyone agreed by your decision has a right to go to the circuit court. And when you go to the circuit court we have to tender the record. If there was a case file in the circuit court, I have to get together with the clerk and uh all of the materials from the application through the
009end of the public hearing through the deliberations through the motion. I bundle it up with an index and it goes off to the judge. The judge orders a briefing schedule and the judge makes the call. So, it's important that you prepare. Mr. does a great job at maintaining the procedure of this uh process. It's really important that you take notes, be ready to make supportive motions when it's time to do so. And uh I know at training I normally bring you a pizza um that uh that is not happening this evening. Um so let's proceed and I think we follow our process that we have followed. I know Mr. The wit is going to announce the variance that's at issue this evening that was a subject to the public notice. He's going to open up
010a public hearing. We're going to listen to the public. He's going to take notes on what the public is saying. We're going to close that public hearing. We'll ask the public to, you know, let everybody speak once before raising your hand to speak twice. Mr. takes good care on that. And when the public hearing is over, the applicant will stand up and give you a presentation on their version of why they are asking for this variance. At that time, you can ask the applicant your questions. And then I know I know that we normally then adjourn for deliberation until our next meeting. At some point, and this has come up before, we will ask the applicant if the applicant is receptive to your phone calls to potentially visit the site so that you can see
011firsthand what we've been talking about this evening. >> Are we good to go, Mr. Dit? >> I think so. Everybody understand? >> The board understand? Okay. >> You know, I get paid by the word, so I want to draw that out. So, let's have a good hearing. Let's let's uh enjoy the public comments and come to good decisions. >> Okay. Thanks, Mr. Davis. Okay. Um so, following on that, uh tonight is our public hearing on case number 25-2. Just a reminder, we're going to start with the public hearing and then we'll move to the applicant's discussion with the board. Um, so the U applicant is Troutbridge Land Holdings LLC. The owner is Nabil and Loretta Asmer. Sorry if I butchered that. Um, property address is it's vacant property on Rochester Road in section 22. The
012vacant parcel is immediately north and adjacent to 120 Lakeland Lane. And the nearest public crossroad north of the vacant parcel is Army Road. The partial ID is 05.22.426.007. Zoning is residential uh one R-r.1. Parcel size is 10.617 acres. Um like I said, this is our public hearing, so we're going to have a need a motion. Well, I'm going to read off the variance request uh prior to to um opening up the for public hearing. The applicant is seeking a non-use dimensional variance uh from article 4 section 4.19B.15 to allow an ex access way easement within the 60oot setback for land divisions uh application. The variance is the applicant seeks up to a 40 foot variance into a 60- foot setback from the south property line for a distance of 270 ft of the 800 ft
013accessway easement that will place the requested accessway easement 20 ft from the south property line instead of 60 ft as required. Section 4.19B.15. The intersection of a private road with a public road and the intersection of the private road segments with other private road segments intersection to intersection shall be at right angles or as nearly as possible to right angles as conditions permit. Intersections with offsets of less than 125 ft should be avoided where possible. A private road intersection with a public road shall be at least 125 ft from any portion of another private road. Private road and access way at easement should be offset from adjacent property lines at least 60 ft to allow for parallel private roads and minimization of turning conflicts. And before we move to the public hearing part, I just
014want to ask the applicant if that's the correct request that you're making. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, now we need a motion to open up the public hearing. >> I'll make that motion. We open it up at 13. >> Sounds good. >> Okay. Any discussion? Hearing none. If we could have a roll call vote on opening the public hearing. >> Mark, >> Yes. Okay. So this is our public hearing portion where we welcome the uh uh public to come forward and speak on the application. If you could come up one at a time uh announce your name um and I think the that'd be appreciative. So it's up to you guys. There's a lot of you. So one at a time please. And if you you can keep it brief initially that would be good
015but you'll have a second chance if there's >> from 747 gravel. I just have a procedural question. Um if are we able to come back up for another question after he does the presentation? >> No. No. >> We we only get one time to ask a question and that's it. >> You get to talk all you want right now and then >> and then he makes his case and then we come back up. All right. Um my my uh one part that I was going to be bringing up about the variance, we have multiple parcels on the lake that are also going to be developed probably one day and to give this variance at this point and have that far of a setback. We we're just opening it up for somebody else to be able
016to do the same thing. That's my comment. >> Okay. Next. >> Hi, Jeff Bonosinsky 120 Lakeland Lane. Um, Towbridge land holdings applied for land division permit for parcel 0522 4260 resulting in four parcels for future development. I have concerns with the scope of the development plan and believe it will have significant impact on the area from environmental aesthetic and president. I provided a letter to the zoning board. I trust you all have it. I hope you have an opportunity to read it at some point. It goes into a lot more detail detail than I plan on discussing here tonight. and I try and keep my comments related spec to specific um ordinance topics. the township's engineering review of the development and and this will be a little bit out of sequence without being able to
017have heard the presentation of the development first because I'll reference some things in the development that unfortunately won't be disclosed or discussed until after I'm done talking uh council's engineering of the development resulted in three recommendations. Uh the development proposes two docks, one at a 36 foot length and a second at 85 ft length to extend into Lakeville Lake. Uh the four parcels that are being developed have two proposed with frontage on Lakeville Lake and two proposed back off toward Rochester Road. the proposed uh so the township engineering review the proposed docks shall be removed as they're not part of the land division process. So, as a side note, if the docks end up showing up in the later U development or um they would be subject to complying with zoning ordinance article 1303-1 limiting
018their length to 35 ft. The second recommendation out of township engineering department was the common access easements are not permitted uh due to the u requirements of article 13 section 13.07 preparing white rights keyhole development of the zoning ordinance. Uh the development plan shows uh common access easements, two of them, one on each of the lakefront lots to provide access to the off the back lots um for lake access. Um the third recommendation out of the engineering review is that the property owners and/or applicant will need to revise the private access way and easement in order to provide a minimum 60 ft setback from adjacent property line parallel 0522426008. The engineering review did not mention article 13 section 13.03-5 3-5 which states the natural protection strip shall not be filled, excavated and shall remain the
019native trees and shrubs. I don't for some reason uh that particular ordinance in terms of excavating building and uh tree removal and the natural protection trip slips through the cracks and uh it's a it's a specific ordinance with the terminology shell which is construed to mean mandatory. The proposed accessway development will result in excavation, fill, and tree removal of 14,000 square feet, roughly a third of an acre, then designated wetlands and their related natural protection strips. Eagle has issued a draft permit for the road construction contingent on a number of requirements including but not limited to the purchase of wetland credits essentially uh paying the state for to protect wetland somewhere else and allow disruption of the wetland here. Uh secondly, uh compliance with federal, state, and local statutes. Eagle is not aware of and
020does not consider local ordinances in their permitting. Local municipalities have the authority to set requirements that are stricter than the federal and state statutes and can override evil permitting. The parcel has extreme topography, requiring significant excavation and filling to construct a road of a reasonable grade. The excavation and fill will alter storm water runoff, redirecting it toward a contained wetland area to the north and to the neighbor prop neighboring property to the south. At one point, the proposed access way will have an elevated road 25 ft above the natural grade. Between the excavation and fill, there'll be a 45 foot change to the natural grade of the property as it sits. There's one section of the property that is going to be taken down 20 feet and and then right next to it um the
021next section will be filled 25 ft to create the uh grade on the road that we want. Even if uh oh, the Eagle does caution that grade changes resulting in increased runoff to um to adjacent properties are subject to civil damage litigation. So in in Eagle's draft commit, they recognize that there's potential for storm water runoff to the neighboring property. Even if the scope of this proposed access way is replaced by a private driveway, the the amount of excavation, fill, and tree removal needed to access the lake frontage will not change much. Essentially, there's a hill and a valley that they've got to get through. Whether they put a driveway or a road in there, it's going to take excavation and filling, significant excavation or filling. The township ordinance states that the natural grade should
022not be altered and future development should be consistent with the surrounding area. The whole northeast corner of Lakeville Lake from Mac Road to Army Road off along Rochester Road is heavily wooded. The proposed development shows clear cutting of 3 acres of a 10.617 acre parcel. Um the wetlands area contained in this parcel totals 4.04 acres. Back to specific zoning. Whoops. Y back to the specific uh zoning variance request case 25-2 applicant states that the variance will allow the access way construction without causing any any interference on the neighboring property uh parcel 0522 426008 to the southwest. My wife and I own the reference properties off of the subject parcel. Nobody's asked us if we thought there would be any inter interference and we don't agree with the assessment. Reducing the ordinance sidewalk setback by 40
023ft um will result in a roadway 20 ft from our property line. It'll require 40 more feet of trees to be removed. It'll require it'll provide 40 fewer feet of noise isol isolation from our property to that uh road and it'll provide 40 viewer feet of blocking light pollution from vehicle headlights. We have the expectation as defined by the township ordinance zoning to not have a road closer than 60 ft from our property lines and we're not interested in giving up that expectation for the sake of development. The subject partial parcel is 6 I'm sorry 10.617 acres. It's hard to believe that on a lot that size you would need to have a side lot set back. Um, and in fact, it might indicate they're trying to squeeze more into that parcel than it will
024allow. There's no hardship involved here. There are alternatives to the pro proposed development plan that could remove most if not all the nonconformities. U, it would I would encourage you to review the property in person to better understand the disruption involved. Uh, and you're welcome to park on my property at 120 Lakeland Lane for easier access to the parcel. We ask the township uphold their zoning ordinance and our rights as defined by ordinance and decided deny the variance request. >> All right. >> Thank you. Uh, next person >> received my letter and I just kind of I live 200 I have 200 210 and 220 Kingston which is in that across the bay from me where this development is. Uh, my concern is with the lake. I don't see any erosion control here. Okay. I
025don't know where to turn to for that. I know that's not something you're looking at tonight. I understand that. But I'm I'm very concerned that it's in my letter. All the land balancing, the home sites, all that. Very there's a a very large watershed that runs through that. Okay. It it's it drains the swamps down Rochester Road. The curves go around north of that. It comes off Jess property, comes off the North Eisenhard property. Okay. And down the hill into into basically a swamp and then it runs into Lakeville Lake. Okay. Um, with all this earth moving and and I I don't see how it can be controlled the way this is configured, the way it's shown. Furthermore, they they they show, you know, okay, it's it's a minimum of two foot culvers. It's 100
026ft long, whatever it is. Okay. Uh they're going to force that water into a culp, excuse me, >> speed up the water, okay? And right on out into Lake and it's going to fill my bay up with silt. is going to be sediment filled in no time. It's already relatively shallow there. So, it's more than navigable right now. But that's what I see coming with this development. Okay. I don't know how to control it. And when that happens, who do I turn to or who does anybody turn to to correct the problem, okay, down the road. So, I I see that as a real problem on that plan. They have a a northern home site that that really skirts the 25 foot protection zone on both sides. It the the top of the hill is
027as wide as your desk and they want to put a house on. Okay. And it goes just like this. Okay. Uh I don't see that even as a viable option for a home site. But you have the opportunity to look at it and see. So that's kind of where I'm at with the whole thing. I don't agree with this the way it's set right now. I don't know how you control the water coming out. There's a lot of water when it rains hard. It's like a waterfall coming out of it. Okay, you can hear it. Okay. So, I I don't know how you control the sediment, you know, we're going to put silt fences up. We're going to do this. We're going to do that. But it's too much. You're still not going to control
028it. Okay. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Um, next person they did a great job. I can't uh I don't uh they did a great job. Um I I concur. They have a lot more information than I do. I don't know why on earth we would allow four houses on a three house lot there. I don't see one single plus for the lake or the community when you've got uh u things like keyholeing or funneling possibly happening when you've got extra septic fields. You've got huge runoff issues. You're infringing on uh neighbors who are already community members here. Uh you've got more concentrated population in a rural uh setting. I this is not a hardship case. This is seems to me to be an issue where a developer wants something and I don't think that we
029should respect what a developer wants over what's good for the lake and the community and the members here. It also sets a necessary precedence which is a dangerous thing to do. There's no one on this lake who lives here already who wants this to be like Lake Orient. I'm sure you're all familiar with that. So I say that we um respect the residents in the community and uh we do not vote yes on this. >> Thank you. >> Next person. Anybody else want to make address the board? >> Good evening. My my name is Frank Hanky. I'm also a um a homeowner on the lake. I live right across the street from the bay. that the activities proposed to take place on I at 213 Kingston. Um I agree with what everybody said and particularly
030the first gentleman that was up here. I mean this is this could establish a precedent on this lake. There's a lot of undeveloped land on the lakes belt. Um whatever happens here is uh you know is going to set things in motion for the future. So I think it's very important to to take all that into account. Um I I'm I'm an attorney. I work with a large law firm. We have a large environmental group in our firm, environmental land use group. And I had one of our attorneys come out and kind of check out the situation. He was pretty shocked at, you know, the situation and all the variables and groups that are going to have to be jumped over before this can move forward. So, it's there there's a lot there. I would
031really encourage you to go out there and indicated there's a it's it's pretty interesting. So, um I I would just urge you not to take this lightly. Um you know, a lot of people here value the lake and the beauty and uh this could really change things. So, >> thank you. >> Next person. >> Hi. >> Um Senator Berbick, um 705 Grabel Ridge. My I looked at the plans. I heard about this and I looked into it and everybody's said, you know, spoke. There's nothing else they can add to what they said. But what concerns me is the whole idea of this, I'm sure, is so that there'd be lake access and you could have lakefront property. And the only way to get that is to have a dock. And I see that there's a
03235 foot and 85 foot dock or whatever going over wetlands to get that. And I look at what we spent as a township fighting the people who had non-conforming docks in the last few years and how everybody had to go to their 30 or 35 ft or whatever it was. We have 180 feet or something of frontage. Anything over 75 ft, you have to pay extra taxes. We pay a lot of taxes to have a house on this lake. And we get nothing extra having all that frontage. We had to stay with the 35 ft. I know people went through extensive amounts of money to pull their docks out that were over 35 ft or if they had two docks and now here we are. If you don't have lake access because you're not going
033to have a conforming dock, that's something that should be considered before the rest of this because you're looking for a lakefront property, but if you can't get into the lake, then that lakefront property becomes not really lakefront. I mean, it's lakefront, but if you don't have access to the lake and all the people who spent a lot of money fighting and having to deal with fight, you know, they got taken to court and they had to hire attorneys and all of that and all the money that our tax dollars went to because people didn't have under the 35 ft or whatever. And now if you allow an 85 foot dock or whatever was stated 65 or 85, how many more people are going to start fighting to have a bigger dock? I would love our
034house. We have a lot of property and a lot of frontage, but our house is far away from the lake. We wanted to put a big like deck thing into the water so we could be on the water when we were on our dock and we can't have that. And but if you allow this then how many people are going to start coming and asking for variances for their docs and we just I mean I can't even imagine the tax dollars that were spent and the people who had to hire attorneys how much money they spent two years ago to fight for their docks. So that's something that seems like if you're not going to approve the dock access why why is this even a discussion? >> So just wanted to bring that up. Thank
035you. Um, next person, >> Mike, Phil Martin. I live, my wife and I live in 500 Dear Point. Um, everything they said 100%. Um, what I wanted to bring to the table was we moved here three years ago from Rochester. love Rochester because of the way they manage their city, the way that they adhere to varants that make it a great city, the way that they made sure that the reason it people wanted to move there was because they held to what made it great. We moved here because it's great. And so if if you whittle away the greatness, it's no longer great. The reason why they want to get here is because of the predecessors, the fights that Sandra talked about, everybody that said, "Let's keep it great. Let's make sure that this is
036a beautiful place that people want to live." And if we start eroding that because, yeah, okay, that's fair enough. We can do that. That's fair enough. We can do that. Now, what we had before I got here, you know, I'm I'm we're privileged to live here because of all the work that was done before us. Um, I get that. But, you know, if we started roing that, it's gone. You know, people aren't going to want to live here anymore. The reason it's fantastic now is because of the ordinances that they don't want to use anymore. The the ordinances that made it great. You can't cross a private road. You can't get really close to somebody's property. That's common sense. You know, if you're raising your kids and there's a road 20 ft away, probably not
037a good idea. Are you going to want to live there? I don't know if I'd buy that property. So, again, I to me, you know, you guys are just all smart. Um, you get it. That's the thing that we're at the front of. Do we want to keep it great or do we want to see what happens? I would suggest I go and keep it great. >> Thank you. Next person. Anybody else want to make a public comment? >> You beat you to it. >> At my age, I Hi there. I'm Paul Bird and I live off of Lakeland Lane near the Jeff and I'm everything I heard tonight I agree with everything. Um, they just make trouble. But I'm saying that on a different aspect, too, is because when we pull out off of
038Lake Lim Lane to Rochester Road, there's a lot of traffic there. There's a curve. I'm not exactly sure where the driveway is going to come, but there is a nasty curve there. And we have to be extremely careful in regards to any variances that come up to our road just because of the curve and the traffic there. And that's very concerning because it's dangerous. That corner is dangerous. And I want you to know that if you add any extras because you're adding more to the problem of dangerous traffic and everybody knows traffic is an issue here just because of how many curves there are in that area. So I just you know um just think about more traffic in that. >> Thank you. Okay. >> Haj's 825 Code Drive. I not only a resident here,
039I have actually have to be president of the Lakeville Lake Property Association. I've also sat where you're sitting tonight for the city of Brighton on the zoning board of appeals. I understand what you're dealing with. So, I'll keep my comments very brief. I don't see the hardship here. Number two, I would advise you to pay close attention to the requirements of appendix A section 13, the lake lot district. It was specifically put in place to protect the lake and I have concerns about violating that. Number three, the idea of wetlands trading. It may work on a macro basis, but on a local basis, if we lose wetlands on this lake and it gets created somewhere else in a trade, this lake still loses. And I don't think that's right. Number four, I do believe that
040if you grant this, you will be setting a precedent. A president that I oppose. A president that I believe you will regret. Thank you. >> Welcome. Next. Anybody else have any Anybody else want to make a comment to the board? >> Anybody else? >> Okay, one more time. Anybody else want to make a comment? We're we're ready to listen to you. Okay. If there aren't any more public comments, we'll have a motion to close the public hearing. >> I'll make that motion that we close the public hearing at 6:39. >> I'll second the vote here. >> Any discussion about the motion? Hearing none. If we have a roll call vote to close the public hearing, >> pardon me, >> Tony. >> Yes. Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, public hearing on the variance request is
041now closed and now the applicant um gets to make their presentation to the board. >> And just a reminder, the public here is not supposed to be commenting or asking questions of the applicant at this point. >> Thank you. um or making any other outbursts or anything of that nature, you need to listen to the applicant and be respectful of it. So, just mind. Thank you. >> Good evening. My name is Patrick McWills of Keep Engineering working on behalf of Trobridge on this very unique, difficult site. Uh as has been spoken, it is very unique site. Uh just wanted to kind of highlight a few things there with it. I've been doing this kind of work for many years and it is one of the more challenging ones because of the extreme elevational topographical differences
042like where we want are proposing to put our road. Uh there is along that center line variations of 45 ft the big goalie etc. So most of you may know that but that's quite extreme. Uh other things of course are the beautiful wetlands. We've got the stream going the south and later on coming back to the north into a very large pristine high quality wetlands which then eventually empties the lake. So we're well aware of that and we would not be here if there was an option to avoid getting within the uh 60 foot variant easement requirement. Uh the reason we are there are because to do so to construct a road and to provide access to four lots which by the way this is a 10.6 roughly acre site. This is our one zoning
043which allows one acre that we got wetland. But my point is there is no in no way shape or form are we cramming lots in. We're simply trying to get four lots in a 10acre lot. So you're you're talking an average of over two and a half acres each. This is not any type of a cram job. If we could keep the road centered on the site as it comes off Rochester Road. We are standard off the Rochester road right in the middle and we are well aware of concerns of the one uh was brought up about what they what is referred to as sight distance when you come out and you can see properly each direction and that's all been submitted to the road commission. Uh that's a process that's underway but we have
044proper sight distance to be able to see based on speed limit people coming from the south or the north. Anyway, we're centered coming off of Rochester Road. That's not the problem. The problem is, as you know, as we get further back to the uh west toward the lake, we have a huge large pristine wetland on the north side. We have worked uh diligently with Eagle, and I know that's not the only people we have to satisfy, but we've worked with Eagle in an effort to do the minimal amount of disruption, which is crossing each of those streams once. We've done that and we have are on the brink of having wetland permit uh based on purchasing mitigation credits. But the reason we're forced to go further south and get too close to the uh homeowners
045on the south is because we're trying not to fill a large wetland on the north. So, it's a balancing act. That's why we're That's the hardship. If it wasn't there, it'd be easy. We'd be right down the middle. we wouldn't be here. But we are trying to preserve the wetland to the north. Eagle would not allow us to disrupt more wetland when there's an option. And the option is what we've shown on the plan. So there's the elevational issues I mentioned and then there's the large wetland issue I mentioned that we're trying to preserve. When you deal with the road commission, uh the road commission is of course in comes into play where we connect to Rochester Road, but the road commission standards are applicable for the design of the road even though it's a
046private access way. the the standards of the township require that we design it slopewise up and down to road traumition standards and that limits how much you can plummet down the the the gullying if you will and back up. You have to do it with reasonable slopes that are safe and that's what requires what I know one of the gentlemen pointed out the large fill we have across the belly. That's true. We his numbers might not have been exactly right but it's close. There's quite a fill. There's quite a cut to accomplish these safe slopes of the road and then also to accomplish proper slopes off the edge of the road on each side. We don't want a dangerous situation. So all of that is what contributes to why we forced ourselves to uh come
047here and and ask for a variance. Now four lots on the eggs like I mentioned is not an extreme request. We are looking for two lots on the lake and near two lots out the front leg box. Uh just to back up, we originally came in and spoke a year ago nearly December with uh with the planner and and at a pre-application meeting and we discussed the option of having a shorter culde-sac that would only cross one of the streams. I'm not trying to confuse you here. And I'm asking for uh the idea of having a shared driveway for the two lots down the lake. Uh this was next. Uh he said that that is not allowed in the ordinance. Shared driveways are not allowed is what we were told. We would have to construct
048a road all the way back to provide access to the lake lots and that then would require the fire chief was there but we would also have to construct a culde-sac because they have to have a way to turn around. So these are not this is not the way we wanted to go originally but this is the way we were required to go just to get access to two lots on the lake, which is not unreasonable. And uh really it's it is not unreasonable for a for an owner to want to get access to the lake. Uh as long as they do it according to the proper standards and you know, legal requirements and permits, etc., all the necessary permits. So I don't think it's okay to just say someone can't get to the lake
049because there's a beautiful wetland crossing. We know that we want to do the minimal amount of disruption, but that is not really a a realistic thing to say someone can't have access just because there's some difficulties to overcome. So anyway, I don't know if there's anything I missed here, but that's where we got how we got to where we are. Now, just to point out, the road itself, the access way is called it has a 60oot east. The road itself is only 20 foot. Uh as we come down and we get close to the neighbor to the south, we widen out into a culde-sac which that culac the tightest spot the edge of the east culac is 20 ft away. Excuse me. That's done earlier in the week. U and u so the actual edge
050of the colon sack itself is 10 ft. So it's 30 foot. It's not 60 foot. But I'm just telling you it's 30 foot away. The rest of the main road which is 20 foot wide and a 60 foot easement is 40 foot away at the closest. So what I'm getting at if you take that and I don't know if uh people wanted to share but when you look at the where the culac is just to understand it's like 7 ft below the property line elevation along the neighbor's property in the south and we'll have 30 to 40 ft of distance from our edge of our road to that which would allow plenty of room to put a tremendous landscape buffer. Not even counting what all the trees that are already on the neighbor for the
051south and we can't count on that. But we have plenty of room to put a tremendous buffer. We're not talking about a highway here. Talking about two home sites only. So we're not not many cars are going to be driving down this road. So I guess uh I think I've covered the main reason we ended up where we are. We didn't want to end up there, but there's to shift it to the north would be to encroach into the wetlands, which would not be acceptable for the eagle. If there's any questions, I'll do my best to answer them. >> Um, the board has questions. Let's start with Mark. If you have anything right now or >> at the moment, I do not. >> Uh, Mr. Break, >> I'm set right now. Thank you. >> Tony,
052>> it seems like you've locked in on four parcels, four of them. But have you considered a lesser number on that property? >> Uh the homeowner or the owner I should say developer, he may want to speak on some of this, but he felt it was not unreasonable to want two lots on the lake. It's very wide. You got 400 something width. So it's not like you're squeezing. So he belt pours the minimums that we'd want to go over 10 acres. >> Okay, >> Jay. >> Sorry. >> Jay, any questions? >> Not at the moment. >> Oliver, do you have anything? >> Not at the moment. >> Okay. Um, going back around Mark, >> I don't think so. I think Mr. Spin asked a question that kind of on my mind. So Tony >> yeah
053I mean it it is zoned one acre minimum that doesn't mean one you understand not doesn't mean one >> I that's not realistic for this site I >> I guess I do have a question >> have you considered any alternatives to this point >> yes I well I mentioned the first alternative was when we came in last I think it was December initially we had first talks and it was have a shorter cold sack with one shared driveway which by the way I'd like to point out that if you look around your township and I know we tal I heard a lot about president even the one homeowner to the south of us the way they get to their site is by a common drive I mean I've got an area shows there's probably six
054seven lots get off the same drive which is within 30 ft of their own property I'm not saying it's okay I'm just saying it's existing all over the place so this is what what's happening. But what so and they're sh apparently being used as a shared driveway. We would have liked to have done that at a shorter culac with a shared driveway just for two lots down by lake. It would still require significant disruption as was mentioned to cross that wetland road but not as much because one driveway rather than the road and standards are a little less but we still have a signing but less and that's that's the one option we would like to have gone and that's the one we started with and that was turned out by the building >> it
055was it was well it was discussed at length in the meeting and the planner um Justin Frank uh he I have the email he said that he looked through the ordinance and it does not allow or provide for allowing shared drivers so I I mean I know what's happened the conditions existing around I'm not saying it's okay but he's saying for from here on out the future is not allowed >> have you looked at the mitigation ratio that people provided for the wetland disturbance. >> Haven't I looked at it? Well, I specifically Brooks Williamson is our wetland consultant and he's worked with them diligently. I don't think uh to answer your question that it's very feasible to mitigate on the site. Some sites lend themselves easier to doing that, but as you know with extreme
056salts, pretty hard to do. So, I think that's why we'd rather mitigate on site. But because of that, the nature of it, that's where they're forced to go offsite with the wetland. >> Your offsite be 2:1, 3:1, 4 to one. >> Uh I you know what, I know it varies with the type of wetland. And I I don't have that exactly planned, but you're right. It's one of those whatever the mitigation ratio is, that's what we're paying for if we end up going that way. >> I've got one Mr. >> You are aware that and it was brought up that we have been in court. We just settled a lot of lawsuits with 35 foot docks. Why would we give you an 85 ft dock when we just got out of court with holding the
05735T? >> Yeah, that you know that's been this has been pending for months. That was on there. The docks are off our plan but the plan you officially have still has it on there. When we resubmit, the docks will be removed and if if and when the docks come back, they'll be limited to what you allow. 35 foot length. >> But what what I'm getting at is the docks either one are not part of this package. Correct. The docks have nothing to do with the >> Yeah, they're not part of >> Okay. Just land. >> Land division doesn't have anything to do with >> Correct. >> Okay. And we, like I said, when we resubmit, if we go forth with this plan, we won't have the docs on it. Okay. Handled separately if they're going
058to apply for in accordance with your uh your standard 35. >> Any other questions by the board? anyction to them coming to look at the site. >> Oh, could people leave the phone number? I noticed left number. >> He did. No, he didn't need his number. He left his phone number. >> Um, okay. Nothing from the board. Uh, does the applicant have any more comments they want to add or >> Anthony Rando? I'm u as the Kim and um I've heard everything everybody has to say and I think there's a lot of valid concerns would suggest taking another look at it from our perspective looking at that plan that you have there's a possibility of pulling that back to the U east which may require variance. Uh but I think it would be a lot
059less disruptive. It certainly wouldn't bother. It would help out with the neighbor Jeff and everyone. Uh and that would probably be the most intelligent thing to investigate. So I would suggest that we table that for now and we investigate that. And in reference to uh >> hang on a second. Are you suggesting we table the variance request? >> Yes. >> In li of alternative plan. Correct. Okay. Uh in add uh just to point out the potential disruption to the lake and anything like that, we have to submit uh very comprehensive plans and we have to follow them. And if you don't, there's huge costs. So we have no intent to do anything expected. Okay? That's just the way it is. And you know, resting about it. So can I answer any other questions? Mr. >>
060Chair, that you you should act on the request to table. That's your discussion. >> I'll make that motion. >> I'll make a motion that we table uh this agenda item until further notice. >> Is that fair enough? >> Further notice from the applicant. >> From the applicant. >> Okay. >> So in that I'd like to So >> be specific. >> Next month we wouldn't be meeting on anything like that. tableing. >> It's tabled. >> Sounds like the applicant has an alternative plan based on the comments for >> that could be reviewed by staff, >> right? >> And it could come back for the continue. You could continue this variance process whatever you want >> or there could be a plan that doesn't require this variance or other variance. >> Okay. All right. Um, we have
061a motion on floor to table the variance with a support. Uh, any further discussion on it? >> Hearing none, if we could have a roll call vote on the, uh, motion. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Um, that would conclude the public hearing part of this application. It's been tabled. Um, so you're all free to leave or stay for public comments. I would stay for his pizza. Make >> Okay. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. Thanks for coming. >> But if you could please exit exit as quickly as possible so we can finish our meeting. >> Okay. What's next? >> Public forum, right? >> We don't want another public forum. >> No, no, no. Just public. That's where they can address the board on anything they want. >> Reports. Zoning
062board reports. Oh, this is zon board. I don't even know what I did with my package. Mr. Davis is part of the crowd. >> Hey, if we could take our comments out to the hall. >> Get your picture again. >> If we could move out in the hall for our discussions. >> Well, I know you can go. >> We'll dismiss you. >> Yeah. All your nemesis. Okay. If we could If >> we could move out into the hall, please >> politely. You rip the door. >> Thank you. >> We'll never get it done. >> No, don't shoe them out. >> Okay. I I think Can Can we all hear? Hey guys, can we all hear? So, >> yep. Um if uh >> so this is our public forum part of our meeting if anybody wants
063to make >> no good >> any comments. >> Yes. Byebye. >> So >> okay that's >> okay. So it looks like uh this is our public forum. There's no public left to address us. So I guess we can >> no comments. >> Nope. We can move past that one. Our other business is correspondence received by the board. >> We did receive those two letters. >> We received the two letters and I think they've been admitted to the uh record. Okay. >> Um next would be the zoning board reports. Any reports that we want to >> I'm good. >> Nothing. Um then next is report of the planning commission leaison. I think that's Mr. Smith. >> Do we have a leazison officially? >> We do. >> Okay. Earlier this week, we had our first planning meeting
064with the new planner who's joined the township, and that was very encouraging. Um, we are discussing reviews of ordinances for wetlands, um, renewable energy and short-term rentals, among others, >> and we have no plans for review at this point in front of us. >> Okay, good. Good. Um, next would be a motion for a journal. >> I'll make a motion we adjourn. I'll second that motion. >> Okay. Uh any discussion? >> Uh all in favor? I >> I and opposed. >> None. Okay. >> Meeting is concluded. Minutes.