I had like to call to order a special meeting
of the zoning board of appeals for Wednesday,
January 28th at 7:30 PM Please rise
for the Pledge of Allegiance.
Pledge The pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America to the Republic
for which it stands.
One Nation under God, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all.
Roll call Mr. Aya.
Present. Mr. Perry's? Absent.
Mr. Watts
Present.
Mr. Clifft? Good evening. Present.
Mr. Lindsay? Present. Mr. Assessor? Present.
Mr. Green Present. Mr. Jersey's present. Chairman Stevi.
Uh, present? I'd like to make a motion
to excuse Mr. Perry some
More.
Mr. Board, whatever.
Okay. That takes us to, uh, adoption
of the agenda. No. Alright.
Excuse Mr. Perry. Oh, That's right.
Oh. Who's this for?
Bill. Bill. Mr. Mr.
Cliff. Okay. So we had a motion by Mr. Jersey.
Support by Mr. Cliff to excuse Mr. Perry. All in favor? Aye.
Aye. Anybody opposed? Uh, his absences, uh,
excused takes us to adoption of the agenda.
So moved. Okay. Support.
We have a motion by Mr. Green. Support by Mr.
Jersey to approve the agenda as presented. All in favor?
Aye. Aye. Anybody opposed?
Okay. Next was approval of the minutes of January 14th.
I don't remember seeing those.
Mr. Chairman make to like, to make a motion to postpone
approval of the minutes for our regular meeting
of January 14th, 2026.
Due the fact that they have not
yet been published or reviewed. Support.
Support. We have a motion by Mr. Cliff.
Support by I heard Mr.
Assessor to postpone the minutes
of January 14th, uh, to the next meeting.
All in favor? Aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? Okay.
The minutes are postponed. Basis. This item number six.
Item six. Applicant Baker
and Associates Realty Group, LLC.
Representative Faye Baker.
Description, 7 5 6 7 Packard We requested permission
to construct a single family residence with a porch up
to five feet into the front setback.
Hello, Ms. Baker. So if you can, uh, start
by stating your name and address for the record,
uh, for your presentation.
And we're just doing one presentation for all of it,
or we doing separate?
I would say probably a presentation for the first.
Probably break it down into the four items.
'cause they're all, you know, you know, so I guess pre,
you know, present the, i I guess I'll read item six
and seven before you present, pre present, uh,
that aspect of it.
So item seven is also a public hearing. Applicant.
Baker and Associates Realty Group, LLC Count,
representative Faye Baker.
Common description, 75 75 Packard Branch requested
permission to construct a single family residence
with a porch up to five feet into the front setback.
Okay.
There's a, there's a button right
on the front there. There
He is.
Okay. Thank you. Okay. Faye Baker.
Baker and Associates Realty Group address,
8 0 8 6 14 Mile Road, Warren, Michigan.
Okay. And explain your request to us today.
So for the parcels that he just read off, um, it's for me
to have a five additional five feet.
Uh, we have a porch that's on the, um, property originally.
Um, our setbacks did not include the porch,
so we are a little short.
So I'm just coming in to ask that we,
that you guys allow five feet for us
to have a porch on the front of the home.
Okay. Thank you for that presentation.
This is a public hearing. Is there anyone audience wanting
to speak on this item?
Not seeing any or close the public portion
and turn it over to the board for discussions.
Mr. Chair? Yes, Mr. Butts.
Um, this is really more of a point of order.
On January the 15th, we received
our packet by email.
Last Wednesday at our special meeting.
We received our hard copy in person.
And last night at about five
or six o'clock, we received an email
with the impact statement.
Now, we've discussed this before,
and I'm not sure why we're getting these so late.
This is very disrespectful to this board.
Thankfully this is a pretty simple impact statement,
but this is ridiculous.
Now, if it wasn't what it was
and it wasn't simple, I'd be making a motion to postpone.
But I, I really think that we need
to get these in a timely manner so
that we can digest all the information.
And I certainly didn't wanna hold up Ms. Baker with hers,
but, you know, planning needs to, to get with the program.
So thank you.
Thank you Mr. Watts. Mr. Chair, Mr. Green, quick
Question, Ms. Baker, I just wanna
have you help me establish something here.
In your backup. You have the development contributes
to increased home ownership opportunities in the area,
and obviously you think there are
increased home ownership
opportunities based on your project.
That there are in, in fact,
opportunities for people to buy homes.
Mm-hmm. And the need for people to buy home ownership.
Mm-hmm. Okay.
And it fosters neighborhood stability and growth.
I just wanted to go on record
and make a point that there is a need for
home ownership. Home ownership in
That area. Yes. And we
have, we have three up now.
Two of them are sold.
We expect another offer on the third
one by the end of the week.
So people are wanting to put down roots in Warren,
particularly South Warren.
They love the homes.
They're for my, I don't know if you guys
had a chance to see them or not.
We did have an open house today. The homes look amazing.
Um, when they come in, they're, they're, you know,
they're ready to put in their offer and,
and start being, um, you know,
homeowners in the city of Warren.
So it's pretty amazing.
I agree. I just want you to help me make a point.
And you did. Thank you.
Um, Mr. Chair real quick. Yes, Mr. Ey.
Um, before we get too far, um, I just wanna read the,
the impact statement that Mr. Watts, uh, referenced, um,
from the planning department, uh, per
after review of the request agenda item six through 25,
no issues were found to impact the
budding local or general public.
On February 21st, 2025,
the petition received administrative approval
for the planning department for the petition
to reestablish the plat lines for two parcels
and long Peters avenue located between Huff
and Packard avenues, creating 20 new parcels for the purpose
of developing single family re residential dwellings.
This petition was approved with the condition
that the 10 feet wide public easements stay intact.
Reviews of this petition yielded approve approval,
no objections from the en engineering division,
the fire department building division, DT Comcast,
and at t
no yielded floor.
Mr. Chair. Yes, Mr. Correct.
So, um, I've driven by there a couple times only
because it's, it's got my interest
and, um, they're looking good.
Thank you. Um, and I did see your post
today about the open house.
Mm-hmm. Very, very nice on the inside.
So I commend you for taking this project on.
The only other question I got is, um,
and by the way, it's a positive
because it's a buy and not a rental.
Absolutely. Appreciate that. Thank you.
Um, how did we miss the porches on the original variances?
Um, so the civil engineer didn't properly label the,
um, the site plan.
So he had a porch there.
Um, and it was a thought to be a landing.
And when we got in the field, we like, okay,
you have to have a step.
And so in order to build a step, we had
to put a porch in order to put a porch.
We had to make it, you know, compliant.
And so when we did that, we were over the setback.
Okay, well, we gotta have a porch. Gotta
Have a porch.
Okay. All right. Um, Mr.
Watchpoint, do you have something?
Um, She, she said it very well, um,
when the first plans came in,
basically we didn't have renderings
of the houses and everything.
When it first started, it was a whole project
and they had the setbacks and that's where the houses went.
And if the porch was, I mean, not the porch,
it was a platform was there and not a porch with steps.
Okay. It would've been fine.
So the fact that it's raised
and you got steps to get down,
that's included in the setback area.
Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. I yield
Mr. Chairman.
Yes. Mr. Sfa, I just have one question.
I have no problem with granting the variance tonight.
Uh, just on the survey, I'm confused.
The two addresses on item one
and two is 75 67, Packard SE 75.
75. I don't see the addresses on the survey.
I was just curious what parcel numbers on Packard Street
we're talking about now?
Ending in 33 and 34. 33 and 34. Okay. Thank you.
It should be in the Excel
spreadsheet. That should be one of the
First. Well, I, I see that, but
I'm looking at the, the Okay.
Survey and the parcel numbers aren't listed.
It's just, uh, parcel 11 through,
uh, uh, one through 20.
I didn't know how that, um,
Um, I'm trying to get to that.
I can't read it. It's too small.
Okay. I was just curious which one's on the,
which two lots we're talking about.
But nonetheless, I have no problems with it.
Thank you, Mr. Any other questions
or discussion on these items? Or any motions?
Mr. Chair, if nobody else says anything else additional,
say, I'd like, like to make a motion, I'd like
to make a motion to grant the petitioner's request to
construct a single family residence with a porch of up
to five feet into the front setback on 75 67
Packard and 75 75 Packard due to the fact that size
and shape it a lot, and it's not a detriment
to the area support.
We have a motion by Mr. Jersey's, support by Mr.
Cliff to approve the request
for the reason stated in the motion. Mr.
Jersey votes? Yes. For the reason
stated in the motion. Mr. Cliff?
Yes. For the reason stated in the motion. Mr. Green?
Yes. For the reason stated in the
Motion. Mr. Lindsay?
Yes. For
The reason stated in the motion. Mr.
Assessor? Yes.
For the reason stated in the motion. Mr.
Sia? Yes. For the reason. Seated in the motion
Mr. Watts?
Yes. For the reasons stated in Motion and Chairman Kovich?
Uh, yes. For reasons stated in motion.
Uh, the request for the homes that are part of summary one.
Items one and two there are approved,
which takes us to the next group.
It takes us to items three and four.
Applicant Baker and Associates Realty Group,
LLC, representative Faye Baker.
Um, common description
for item three is 75 68 H
and item number four is 75.
76 H Both properties
are looking for variances.
Requested permission to construct a single family residence.
One within a 27 foot rear setback.
Two with 37% lot coverage.
Three with a porch up to five feet into the front setback.
So, Ms. Baker, if you could just start again
with your name, address,
and then the, the request for these two parcels.
Yes. Faye Baker, baker and Associates.
Uh, address 8 0 8 6 14 Mile Road, Warren, Michigan,
4 8 0 9 3.
So for these, we're asking that.
Um, so these lots are a little smaller on h on packer.
They're 1 0 9 on H, they're 1 0 6 0.8.
And so if we were to try
and build the same model that we have, um, it, it would not,
um, we would need a little more coverage on the lots.
Uh, otherwise we'd have to try
and find a different model, which could be, you know,
very time consuming.
So we're asking for, um, a little more coverage on the lot
and also allowing for us to have a porch on there as well
that would extend about, you know, five feet.
Okay. Thank you very much for that explanation
of this is a public hearing.
Is there an audience wishing to speak on these two items?
Not seeing any or close the public portion
and turn it over to board for discussion questions.
And so I just have a quick question.
So basically the, um,
because I know that the only thing that,
'cause when we approved this previously,
it had a 30 foot setback.
Now that's a 27 foot setback.
Rear setback, I mean,
and so increased the lock coverage by 2%.
That's mainly based on the added porch
and the fact that that model
Has a low bump out, like a two foot bump out.
Okay,
Mr. Chair?
Yes, Mr. Cliff, Nobody else
has any comment on the item.
I'd like to make a motion. I'd like to make the motion to
grant permission to construct a single family residence, one
with a 27 foot rear setback.
Two with, with a 37% lock coverage
and three with a porch up
to five feet from the front setback.
Not a detriment to the area
Support, I have a motion by Mr.
Cliff, support by Mr.
Aya to approve the request
for the reasons stated in the motion. Mr.
Cliff? Yes. For the reasons stated in the motion. Mr.
Aya? Yes. For the reasons stated in the motion. Mr. Watts?
Yes. For the reasons stated in the motion. Mr. Green?
Yes. For the reasons stated
In the motion. Mr. Lindsay?
Yes. For
The reason stated in The motion Mr. Assessor?
Yes. For the reason stated in the motion
Mr. Jersey votes Yes. For
the reason stated
motion Chairman Stave,
Uh, yes. For reason stated
motion, not that the request
for those lots is approved.
Thanks. Takes us to the next grouping.
Takes us to items five
through 12 on this sheet.
So Applicant Baker
and Associates Realty Group, LLC, representative Faye Baker.
Common description for the said properties would be
75 0 4 H
75 1 2 H 75 2 0 H
75 28 hup 75 36 H
75, 44 H
75, 52 hub,
and 75 60 Hub
variances Request requested on those properties, permission
to construct a single family residence.
One with a 27 foot rear setback.
Two with 37% lot coverage.
Three with a porch up to five feet into the front setback.
Okay. Uh, so Ms. Baker, if you wanna state again,
your name, address, and then the reasons
behind this grouping of homes. Yep.
Faye Baker, baker and Associates.
8 0 8 6 14 Mile Road or Michigan? 4 8 0 9 3.
So we're asking for these setbacks
again, for the same reasons.
Um, we want to make these homes, um, app appeal, you know,
appealing to homeowners.
We, you know, I didn't ask for, um,
a huge variance in the yards
because I wanna have some yard space.
I think it makes the neighborhood looks really nice.
Um, so we wanted to have a house that
actually functions well for the modern buyer,
which will allow us to have a open floor plan
and have two full bathrooms, have an attached garage.
And in order to do all those things,
we just need a little bit more space on the lots.
So I'm asking for a variance
that, so that we can achieve that. Okay?
Thank you for having explanation.
Um, this is a public hearing.
Is there anyone in audience wishing to speak on this item?
Not seeing any or close the public portion And turn it over
to board for questions and discussion.
Mr. Chair? Yes, Mr. Cliff?
It appears most of this is pretty straightforward.
If nobody else has anything to say, I'd like
to put forward a motion on, on the item items.
I'd like to grant permission
to construct a single family residence, one
with a 27 foot rear setback.
Two with a 30% lot coverage, three with a porch up
to five feet into the front Setback,
not a detriment to the area.
Complimentary to the size and shape of the lot.
I think Point, point of order support.
I just want to, I think you said 30% and 37.
I'll restate item number two in my motion to clarify
with 37% lot coverage
And the support, support from mr.
We have a motion by Mr. Cliff, support by Mr.
SFA to approve the request
for the reasons stated in a motion.
Mr. Cliff? Yes. For
The reasons stated in the motion. Mr.
Sfa? Yes. For the reasons stated in
The motion. Mr. Watts?
Yes. For the reasons stated in motion Mr. Lindsay
Yes. For the reasons stated
in the motion.
Mr. Green? Yes. For the reasons stated
In the motion. Mr. Assessor?
Yes. For the reasons stated in
The motion. Mr. Jersey votes
yes. For a reason
stated in the motion Chairman St. Dovi?
Yes. For the reason stated motion, the request for
that grouping of homes is approved.
Thank you. And take us to the last grouping
for items 13 through 20.
Takes us to items 13 through 20.
Applicant Baker and Associates Realty Group, LLC,
representative Faye Baker Variance has requested permission
to construct a single family residence with a porch up
to five feet into the front setback on the,
on the following properties.
7 5 0 3 Packard 7 5 1 1 Packard,
7 5 1 9 Packard 7 5 2 7 Packard
7 5 3 5 Packard, 7 5 4 3 Packard,
7 5 5 1 Packard and 7 5 5 9 Packard.
Okay, So Ms. Baker, if you just wanted to go
through the same explanation perhaps Sure.
Bay Baker, baker and Associates.
8 0 8 6 14 mile road form Michigan,
8 0 8 4 8 0 9 3.
Um, same thing here.
We needed a little more room to allow for the porch, um,
and, and we are approaching, approaching the,
um, setback a little bit.
Um, so we just need to have a landing so
that when people walk up to the door,
they can actually stand on a landing and open their door.
So, uh, that's what we need this variance for.
Okay. Uh, thank you. Your explanation.
Um, this is a public hearing.
Is there any members of the audience
wishing to speak on this item?
Not seeing any or close the public portion
and turn it over to the board for questions and discussions.
Mr. Chair? I think I read that motion wrong.
Um, and to the record, um, Steve, can you, could you,
could you approach real quick,
I know in items 13 through 20, it said, um,
construct a single family residence with a five foot porch.
But when I'm looking at the, the, the, the agenda itself,
it's got three different variances.
So it's got the one with the 30 foot rear setback, two
with without staggering front building line two feet from
adjacent lots three with 35% lot coverage.
So what I need to, I I,
I'm guessing I would need to reread that.
Um, it's Because it doesn't even relate.
Those were approved. They were
Approved. This is, this
is only the ones on Packard, which is actually
agenda items 18 1 18.
I gotcha. Okay. 24. Gotcha. So you read it. Correct.
All right. Thank you, sir. Okay.
Okay. Any other questions or discussion
or any motions from the board,
Uh, Mr. Chair since
I, I did actually read right.
I'll, I'll make a motion. Um, so I'll grant the permit,
grant the permission to construct a single family residence
with a porch up to five feet into the front setback on the,
on a previously listed, um,
previously mentioned properties due to the fact size
of shape of the last, not a detriment to the area.
We have a motion by Mr. Jersey, support by Mr.
Cliff to approve the request
for the reason. State and motion.
Mr. Jersey votes? Yes. For the reason. State and motion.
Mr. Cliff? Yes. For the reasons
Stated in the motion. Mr. Green?
Yes. For the rein. State of the motion
Mr. Lindsey? Yes.
For the re state And the motion Mr. Assessor?
Yes. For the reason stated in the motion. Mr.
Sfa? Yes. For the reason stated in the motion.
Mr. Watts? Yes.
For the reason State of motion and Chairman
Starch, uh, yes. For a
reason. State motion.
So Ms. Baker, uh, all your request today?
I have been approved. Thank
You so Much. Good
luck building the rest of the homes,
and we're looking forward
to seeing them go up in that area. Great.
Absolutely. Let me know if you guys wanna take a tour.
I'll be happy to show 'em to you. Okay, thank you.
Thank you very much. Thank you.
Mm-hmm. Okay, so that takes us
to item number 26, new business.
And I do think we do need to discuss,
or I wanted to give us all a chance to just maybe
here are some of our opinions of the special meeting
because a number of emails have gone around
and I just, uh, thought it might be good for
Mr. Chair. I I'd
like to lead off by just saying, um, I kind
of expressed a, a little bit of the same, same, um,
same stuff that my, my colleagues were, um, uh,
had mentioned, um, regard, you know, regarding,
we thought we were going to be talking about, you know,
or ordinance changes and things of that nature.
Um, it,
but we, um, you know, we just didn't, you know,
it didn't materialize that way.
So what I think we should do is, um,
as a board, it's just my opinion.
I I I, I'd welcome anybody else's
opinions on this matter as well.
Um, I, I think it was great that we all showed up.
Um, first and foremost, I wanna thank thank every,
every member for taking time outta their, their busy lives
to, to make that special meeting
and, uh, and make it happen.
Um, secondly, I I, I think, um, you know,
as a referee, we kinda have like a 24 hour rule,
like a cooling down period, um, to, to,
before we start making, making decisions on things.
Um, and I think that we, it collectively we should enter in
to, um, kind of
what parameters we'd like to see with that project.
Um, and then take a vote on
that maybe next meeting in February
and send that to counsel.
You know, nothing's gonna be guaranteed that we, we,
that it's gonna be approved what we suggest,
but I think suggesting nothing, um,
is, is not an option.
Um, so I think that we should try to, um, I, I believe
that this project does need some guardrails, what they are.
Um, I have some, some ideas of my own, um,
but I would like to hear everybody else's opinions, um,
maybe during that meeting, or even if you have 'em now,
or express 'em, um, you know how, however, you know,
however you want to.
But I think that, um, we need to, uh, to address it
and then send, um, our recommendations for the project over
to council and hopefully, and see, see where it takes us.
And I wanted to have to share one po
I'm sorry, when you refer
to the project, are you talking about
The overlay district? The hidden overlay?
Yeah. The hidden
middle overlay district.
Yes. Got, sorry about that, Pierce. No, you're fine.
Mm-hmm. But I'll yield the floor.
Go ahead. I, if I could just add in my opinion here,
it was basically, you know,
I would like, I like everybody else.
I was very surprised to see
that a private developer was proposing, uh, you know,
what kind of ordinance changes we should see in our city.
Where, if anything, any kind of those changes.
See, I take a look at the ones we just approved tonight
with the, oh, need one more.
Oh, we need one more. I don't need one.
You know, we just approved some,
you know, variances tonight.
Would these changes all be covered
by the same kind of thing?
Or, because we should come up with one set of
what is the variance for that kind of area, not just geared
to one developer, but
that this development should fall under others
that people wanna do.
There shouldn't be a difference.
And I worry that we're not hearing from what's best
for the city as opposed to what's best for our developer.
And the developer's always
gonna talk about what's best for them.
They bring up other examples
that make their requests look good.
But I, so I felt that we were going into it not
with a good explanation.
'cause again, I also thought it'll be a chance for planning
and zoning to have a discussion.
And we really never had any discussion whatsoever.
So, and I still think that'd a good thing for us to have,
you know, so we could talk about things like, you know,
signs, we could talk about, you know, the other kind
of things that we've always bring up,
but never seem to have a time to do,
You know, to, to be, to be blunt, you know,
we need more than three members on, on the other planning,
a planning commission to show up,
to be able to have these discussions.
And also maybe a director, some kind of,
um, I don't know. So
Steve, you wanted to add something in? Um,
Yes. The, the
original tent on this meeting was, had to do
with the RCC and the grants
and everything that community development has the
opportunity to get.
And it's a requirement for that of this.
Um, and I was talking to a couple people also today,
and I think they do suggest three,
at least three meetings a year.
So I think we're gonna try to do that again.
Um, and my suggestion was to, since, um,
hunter is very active in that realm of the RCC,
have him be the lead on this and invite both groups
and he can set the agenda and talk about the RCC stuff
and the communication between the two in the future.
So I've already talked about that in-house.
So if that helps some of your guys', uh, minds put at ease,
then that's the direction I'm looking at
after that feedback too.
Okay. If that helps anything or any questions on that?
'cause that's how I thought it was
gonna be to start with too. Mm-hmm.
Thanks, Steve. Mr. Chair? Yes, Mr. Cliff.
So I, I passed around a little something
to my fellow board members that ever since Thursday,
I've been real troubled by that whole thing.
Thursday for months,
we hear about this joint meeting going on.
Nobody can get any clear answers of who's even setting it up
or what it's going to be about, or everything was hush hush.
An agenda shows up the day before,
and then we actually get in and get seated.
And to me, it, it felt like a, to me,
it really just felt like a, a sales pitch.
And some of the information I gleaned
or we gleaned from, from that, from that in,
I'm gonna call it an informational session.
I'm gonna be nice and say it was an informational session
because that's how it should have been expressed.
It should have been expressed that way in our backup.
It should have been expressed that way on the agenda.
And we were, when we were asking several months ahead,
when the idea first came to fruition, we should have kind
of had an idea then what we were in for.
Instead, we walk into what appears
to be a phenomenal sales pitch, including color, uh,
glossy graphics to boot from one entity
making a giant presentation.
So I'm just gonna read into the record kind of my takeaway.
Um, I look at this as a governance, ethical ethics
and procedural integrity
of municipal land bank administration
and a case story study for Warrant
Mu municipal land banks play a critical role in stabilizing
neighborhoods, repurposing vacant properties,
and supporting long-term development.
There's no denial in that. They absolutely do.
You can look around different places
and see that that does happen when you have an effective
land bank strategy
and economic development strategy working in tandem.
Their effectiveness depends on transparent governance,
ethical safeguards, and clear separation of powers.
My paper examines best practices
for land bank administration evaluates potential conflicts
of interest when elected officials hold leadership roles
within land bank structures.
And analyzes recent, the recent joint session of Warren ZBA
and Planning Commission held on the 22nd of January at the
rec center cafeteria.
Uh, this session raised concerned about procedural
irregularities, zoning inconsistencies in the appearance
of undue influence.
The analysis integrates professional experience community
feedback in Michigan's municipal ethics principles
to highlight the need for stronger governance,
updated zoning regulations, and clearer ethical boundaries.
Land banks are powerful tool for a community revitalization,
but they require ethical stewardship,
transparent administration, and strict adherence to zoning
and planning processes.
In Warren. Recent events have raised questions whether these
standards are being upheld, particularly regarding the role
of a sitting, a sitting city council member,
serving simultaneously as the leadership chair
of the Warren Land Bank,
as a longtime resident community advocate,
and sitting as vice chairman of this board of appeals,
I've observed growing public concern about the appearance
of impropriety within municipal operations.
Despite a recent mayoral transition, many residents continue
to express skepticism about transparency
and ethical conduct.
These concerns came to sharp focus during a joint session
of the ZBA and the Planning Commission on 22 January,
where a private entity delivered a sales style presentation
advocating for zoning overlay districts that are not
yet supported by adopted regulation.
I've evaluated several of these issues through the lens
of best practices, ethics, and procedural integrity.
And I just wanna share them with everybody.
The purpose and function of a land bank is,
it's a public entity designed to acquire vacant, abandoned,
or tax foreclosed properties.
Clear title, prepare land for redevelopment, support,
community driven revitalization, and prevent speculative
or predatory acquisition.
And this comes from the Centers of Community Progress.
It was a paper I had read.
Best practices emphasize transparency, accountability,
and community benefit.
Effective land banks typically maintain independent boards
separate from elected officials.
They adopt clear conflict of interest policies
and ensure public reporting of acquisitions and dispositions
and operate under consistent statutory authority
and engage in community driven planning.
I got that from the Michigan Municipal League.
Michigan's land bank framework encourages alignment
with local master plans, coordination with planning
and zoning, bodies, zoning, avoidance of political influence
and property disposition
and compliance with state ethic laws.
Public Acts three 17
and three 18 from the Michigan legislature.
That was set back in 1968.
Conflicts of interest Michigan's municipal ethics guidance
stresses, avoiding both actual
and perceived conflicts of interest,
ensuring decisions are made without personal
or political influence,
and maintaining public trust through transparency.
That's, uh, Michigan Association of Municipal Attorneys.
I glean that information from, uh, an article that
that was published.
City Council member serving as chair
of a land bank creates a dual loyalty
between legislative duties
and land bank operations,
influence over zoning
and property disposition,
perceived favoritism toward developers or private entities,
and reduced independence of the Land Bank Board.
I'm not saying that that's happening,
but the perceptions can clearly be made there,
even if technically permissible.
The appearance of impropriety undermines public confidence.
And I speaking for myself, I think that the City
of Warren struggles with some of that
public confidence in their leadership.
Council members vote on zoning ordinances
that directly affect land bank property value may influence
appointments or budgets
and may be perceived by developers
as offering political access best practices,
therefore recommend insulating land bank boards from elected
officials Direct Control Center for community progress
during the joint session
of the ZBA Plan and Planning Commission.
Neither board was informed who requested the meeting.
A private entity delivered a sales pitch style presentation.
And the city council secretary,
who was also the Land Bank chair,
advocated for the proposals.
The presentation centered on two
proposed overlays districts,
the missing middle overlay district
and the Van D**e misuse, I'm sorry,
the Van D**e Mixed Use District.
And we need both. We need both of those.
There's no denying
that we need something like that in place.
I think everybody in our own discussions have, have agreed
that we need something along those lines.
The proposal require, may require proposals,
may require multiple concessions from planning commission
and numerous variances from the ZBA and approval of projects
before adopting zoning regulations.
This contradicts best practices,
which require zoning amendments
before project approvals, public hearings
and alignment with the master plan has put forth.
But with the assistance of the MSU extension,
despite significant investment in Warren's master plan,
little progress has been made.
Updating zoning ordinances overlaid districts were discussed
without regulatory foundation
and boards were asked to bridge the gap in a sense,
through variances and concessions.
That's what we're in for.
If we don't update our ordinances to reflect these,
these special dis districts.
And I write in here that this, this, this place is
undue burden on the ZBA and the planning commission
and risks of inconsistent ad hoc decision making.
In other words, we're not gonna work under a uniform
guidance of a zoning regulation.
We, we see a lot of this already now
where things don't quite fit.
So it's up to us to decide whether it does
or whether it doesn't.
And there's, there's great inconsistencies
with the decisions that are being made.
As a resident former city council candidate,
I've heard repeated concerns about the lack of transparency,
perceived favoritism, ethical inconsistencies,
and administrative irregularities.
The January 22 meeting for me
reinforced these perceptions when elected officials hold
dual roles with private entities present
without clear authorization.
And when the zoning processes are bypassed,
the public will lose confidence.
Ethical governance requires not only following the law,
but avoiding situations that erode trust.
So, um, Mr.
Jersey said he wanted to hear some recommendations.
Here they are separate land bank leadership from elected
officials to avoid conflicts.
The Land Bank should be chaired
by community development professionals, a planning expert
or a neutral appointee, though thus qualified
to perform those duties.
Update the zoning ordinances
before considering overlay projects.
The MMOD and the V-D-M-U-D should not
advance until zoning.
Text amendments are drafted, public hearings are held,
and ordinances are adopted.
Improved transparency in joint sessions,
meeting requests should be clearly identified.
Agendas provided well in advance
and presentations delivered by city staff
or even board members if it warrants it.
Rather than private entities,
the city should adopt stricter conflict of interest.
Rules require recusal when dual roles intersect
and publish annual ethics disclosures.
Municipal governance depends on transparency,
ethical conduct, and procedural integrity.
Warren's recent Joyce session highlighted vulnerabilities in
all of these areas, particular
regarding land bank leadership,
zoning processes, and public trust.
The strengthening ethical boundaries,
updating zoning regulations,
and ensuring independent oversight we can move forward.
We can move toward a more accountable
and community centered future.
Uh, references centered for Community Progress.
Michigan Association Municipal Attorneys,
our own legisl legislature twice from the sixties.
And, uh, Michigan Municipal League, land Bank,
fast Track Act, PA 2 58
of 2003 is amended in the MSU extension.
So I guess basically in a nutshell,
I think we're putting the cart before the horse in a lot
and looking at a lot of these things, it's,
I feel strongly that we need them.
I would just like to see them move forward
and be implemented in a manner consistent with what all
of my education and experience warrants.
And with that gentleman
and Madam Attorney, I will yield the floor.
Thank you Mr. Cliff for those comments.
Mr. Chair? Yes, Mr. Green.
We're all pitching in. I'll be quick.
What I got out of that meeting was,
it was pretty simple for me.
Besides the fact of how the meeting was organized
or who was in charge
or who did the presentations, was this payment in lieu
of taxes is a, is a big deal.
And how, and how that money's figured out.
Uh, the other thing that came up, it seemed to be a point
of emphasis, was there is this, uh,
back and forth about what's more, what's better
for the city rentals or purchase to buy
and that that'll gone on forever.
But I, I'm, I'm on the fence.
I, I still think, and we had a presentation tonight
and that's why I asked her that question.
That home ownership, it, it protects your tax base
and tax bases protect the services you can offer people.
So I, that was pretty, pretty important.
And then what I learned from this cons meeting last night
through talking to somebody who was at the cons meeting is
that this 20%, uh,
plugin that they were going to use
for this particular project could be used
for some other projects.
It doesn't have to come back and dust.
It can be used anywhere now once we approve it.
That was my understanding.
So that's, that concerns me a little bit.
I think there's a semi,
there's something in place already.
The, the PUD development on 13
and Mound, when that development was ca came up,
the variances were, as part of the PT agreement, were
were discussed and set up and used for that PT agreement.
And then, uh, that was it. They're done.
They don't follow anything else.
No, I, I, I'm not sure how that fits into this,
but somewhere it does in my, in my mind.
But those were the things I got out.
It was rental versus home ownership, the importance
of a tax base and who will negotiate to pay to pay in lieu
of taxes and how can we, how can we foresee that?
It would be very difficult.
I was on a DDA before when we built city hall
and the bottom dropped out.
We had these great plans.
And I remember sitting there with God, who was the guy,
was the purchasing guy, I'm not, but anyways,
but laughing about how low we came in with our,
I'm not a finance guy, but we were like,
this will never happen to us.
We, we come in so low that we're always gonna be good.
And five years later we weren't good.
So I, I learned that that can happen on any,
any of these kind of developments.
So that's kind of what I got out of it.
Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Green.
Mr. Chair. Yes. Mr. Watts.
So from the beginning when this was presented,
probably a month or so ago, a council,
I voiced my opinion there.
Under audience, I am opposed to rentals.
We have too many now
and I just, I mean, I, I'm not a,
I'm not opposed to development.
You know, I want development, I want good development
and I want the city moving forward,
but I don't know how
rental is gonna help that.
And everybody, you know, this,
the buzzwords today is affordability,
nothing's affordable, blah, blah, blah.
Houses are selling out there
and you know, fi Bakker is correct
and she's sold the three houses or two and one's on the way.
It's a plus. And when I asked last week what the price
of the rentals was, it was 1700, but likely it'll be 1900.
Well, in my mind, I'm not sure
how you're ever gonna get ahead in life if you're paying
$2,000 a month for a rental.
I, I, I just don't see,
unless I'm living in a different world,
I don't see young people getting over the hump to save money
to, to get into a new home.
So I I, I would rather see money go towards
down payment assistance or something like that.
Something to try to help the people.
So that's where I'm at on that.
And then the other thing, la I was
at the council meeting last night.
I was on the agenda, if I understood correctly,
it may be the city attorney.
I don't know if she watched the meeting or not.
But, um, it, it was my understanding that
they sent this, it was on the agenda
and they sent it back to planning to be written
for the overlay district.
And then it's gotta come back.
And of course it'll come back in a resolution.
It's gotta be read twice. I don't know
how long this is gonna take, but that's,
that was my take from last night's meeting.
So that's where I'm at.
Thank you Mr. Watts.
I just wanted to piggyback on your comment.
'cause I also believe for purchase homes
that are better than just rentals,
especially such a large number of rentals.
But it, I would love
to hear somebody from the city explain to me.
So like Ms. Baker's homes on H
and Packard over there, she's sold the first two.
And to my knowledge, the goal is to sell all of those.
So how is it that her homes are able to be put up for sale
and make money when they're,
I believe they're also modular homes the same way,
but the other ones have to be rentals.
It's like we need to just have one set of an overlay kind
of thing where levels of playing field
amongst all these developers to be able to make
that property enticing enough for, for purchase homes.
You know, it's, I can't, but for that.
But you need to have a city representative
that truly is independent for any pol uh, independent
for any corporations or businesses which have motives
of why they want certain things.
So that's all I wanted to say.
Mr. Chair, you bring up a Yes, Mr. Sofa.
A good point. Um, you know,
Ms. Baker is obviously making money at
what she's doing as she should.
She's doing a good thing for the city.
But the difference is greed, the rentals,
like you mentioned, you know, getting 2000 a month,
that's 24,000 a year versus selling a home.
You know, I think they go for the mid 200 thousands,
but obviously Ms. Baker has a lot into the project.
So she's still able to, like you said, function
and make a reasonable profit.
But it's, it's a much better outcome
for the residents of Warren.
That was my only comment.
So that begs a question, Mr. Chair, if I may. Yes, Mr.
Cliff. Um,
and we don't get into some of the nuances.
We heard the variances and things like that.
And, and I don't mind using Ms.
Baker's project as an example,
but, um, maybe somebody on the board can educate me where
wa was her project granted some kind of, uh, tax abatements
or deal
or cut to keep, uh, to keep, uh,
costs low or, you know, it's just, it's a fair question
because this $850 a parcel for this other thing
that we were talking about, that kind of flies in the face
of people like me who've lived here 20 years
and we're paying upwards
of five grand a year for property taxes.
And, you know, uh, I was,
I was just curious if there was a a, a tax abatement
and it looks like, uh, Madam Attorney can
answer that question for me.
There, there was,
and I believe it was, I mean, it was years ago that
City Council approved.
Um, and my mind is escaping me right now,
um, but the area where her parcels are, um, it was approved
for a much larger project that, that fell through.
Um, so there were, for, for rehabilitations
or for for new development, there is a tax abatement for
believe up to eight years, and she was approved for that.
Fair Enough. That was on the Zillow.
There was some, there's a mention in the Zillow
of a eight year partial tax abatement.
Do you remember the percentage by any chance, Mr.
Sfi? Just outta curiosity,
I just saw the Zillow listing when I
was researching this tonight,
But yeah, I'm, so
I can, I I I can send you, um, the ordinance
and what it says that fair as far as what, um, that's
Fair. I mean, I can look that up
too just as well.
But I, I work full time. A lot of things going on.
I, I can't, you know, I just, I struggle to get done
what I managed to get done and, uh, that, that idea
and thought just actually popped into my head sitting here
discussing some things.
But that, that $800 a parcel thing really stuck out to me
as like, I don't know, Gary, you're fire,
you're pretty fire department oriented.
What's an ambulance run to a private residence
cost the city these days?
Probably 2000 or Better. Well, so there you go.
Well, that's billable. That's what, that's what would be
Billable. I get it. But,
but
You know, and you might collect, you might collect 50%.
That's, that's common practice in the business.
The, the looks of things on the face of things look kind
of good depending on what perspective you're looking from.
I, I suppose I just kind of like to look all the way around,
but based on some
of the information I've acquired over the years, um, I'm,
I'm not a, I, I think I, I think there's big problems.
The more we expand our rental base,
I think there's more problems
and somebody don't want us knowing
what the percentage is in this town.
Because I know people have asked and they've asked
and they've tried to figure it out
and nobody can seem to get a straight answer
on, on what it is.
And if it's such a great thing, it seems to me that
that should be the first thing anybody's wanting to stand up
and show us is, hey, even as just a private resident,
how many, how many rentals are in this town?
Single family? Uh, single family, two family residences.
29.2%. Well, I,
and I don't know where you're getting
your information from right
Off the website.
Our website. Yep. Interesting
Mr. Chair. But
I think it's, I think it's interesting note too that,
that, uh, when we went to that meeting, it was pretty clear
that we're not a part of what's going on.
I mean, we're, we're not, we're not, uh, administratively
or legislatively a part of how this is gonna move forward
or whether it's not gonna move forward.
Everything we're doing is just our opinion.
And it goes back to what we talked
about a couple meetings ago.
I'm just trying to put this in perspective, what,
what's best for the overall citizens in the city?
And that's about it. Because we were pretty much,
uh, they're probably right.
We probably don't have anything to do with, to really
functionally do with this moving
forward or not moving forward.
Right. Miss, miss Attorney, am I right? I mean,
I wouldn't go that far.
I mean, I think everyone, you guys are the ones
that are here reviewing all the petitions
and seeing where the problems lie
and the repeat requests that, that you're getting.
Um, and I, I mean, I just wanna say
that I was brought in on this months and months
and months ago, um, for
two specific parcels.
So it was, it was a test run. We're gonna see how these go.
Um, so no, I, I mean,
I think everyone would welcome everyone's opinions.
The more minds and,
and things that maybe weren't thought of the, the better.
I mean, I believe the city intends on moving
forward with this.
I mean, not just for this developer,
but to create some new standards in,
in this specific area.
And it will expound on the district where,
where phase homes are.
And forgive me right now,
because I, I can't think of, of the name of the program.
Um, was it Patriot Place? Yes, thank you.
Um, so I mean, there is something already
there, but I mean, this is going to impound on it and,
and make it much larger.
But I, I mean I, as far as I know,
I believe the city plans on moving forward,
but I mean, I think they wanted to see
how these two first parcels go, um,
before we make any commitments to any developer.
So, I mean, if you got the impression
that it was full-blown snow blowing moving forward,
I I don't believe that's the case.
I mean, there's negotiations and talks
and I mean, regardless of whether he stays here
and continues with this development, I I,
I think this missing overlay, um, the missing middle is,
is it's gonna happen.
Yeah. But it makes you wonder.
It's like, you know, exactly.
Because when they can approve this without
any approval from us, you know, if council votes on,
but it also stays in place with the property permanently
unless the council votes that await.
So it's not like something
that goes in developers might change,
but this overlay district will stay.
So it's like, it's a shame.
'cause it, you know, if you're making it custom made to
what a helps out one developer, is that going
to make those properties in the long run more, you know,
more enticing for other developers.
That's why I worry 'cause I,
because some kind of overlay is needed.
But the thing is, is they need to have a discussion of
what makes those vacant properties, what would make 'em more
attractive for a developer.
Because I worry that we're making over,
they're making overlay district
and we're still probably gonna see things come up in
that south end where we should say, you know, what is the,
if if we say you,
you can't have more than 35% lock coverage,
then we're gonna see somebody coming and asking for 37.
Probably not because of that 20%, uh, administrative thing.
But the thing is, is like what makes that area good
for all of these developments?
And that's what I don't hear ever discussed. It's,
That's my stance.
Mm-hmm. I think, I think the city needs
to do their due diligence
and put their zoning ordinances in place
accordingly for whatever it is that
planning feels is necessary.
It it, it shouldn't fall on the backs of a couple of boards
to be able to push things through.
Um, I, I'll tell you, developers don't like spending money.
You wanna be attractive to a developer, make it cheap
for him to come here or her to come here
and do development in the city.
Eliminate the red tape and the bureaucracy.
Put things a little more in line
with national best practices
and what other people are doing.
And you're gonna find people that are seeking you out.
You don't have to go find them.
They're gonna come to you because they're already looking
and they're already researching
and they're going through muni code
to see what is and what isn't.
They're doing it right now.
And we're not up to the task as a city to show them
that we're viable enough to come here
and be able to step in, get things
through the planning department done
and not have to mess around waiting weeks
or months for special approvals from a board for things
that are common sense.
I'll call 'em common sense. And I can get off my soapbox.
I could go off.
Mr. Ross, did you have a comment? I
Believe, or I did, but I lost my train of thought.
But I will, I will say this.
Um, while I was on council, I asked numerous times
about the rental and what the numbers were
and I couldn't get, I could never get the number.
Nobody wants to talk about it.
And quite honestly, I think it's more than what we know
what, what they're presenting.
And I'll tell you why. I watch social media
and I think about all of the, the complaints
that I got while I was on council.
99% of the complaints I got was dealing
with rentals, whether it be crime, blight,
houses falling apart.
And it's frustrating. It's very, it was frustrating then.
And it's still frustrating 'cause it's my city.
It's our city and we want our city to stay in good shape
and clean and safe.
So I'm concerned that where's the 29%,
why are the inspections not more thorough?
You know, I'm told that the
inspections take five to 10 minutes.
You can't properly inspect a house in five to 10 minutes
and they're only getting inspected every two years.
I wanted to raise the inspection rate when I was on council
and you couldn't do, couldn't even get any talk about that
because it was gonna pass the rateon to the renter.
Well, okay, so be it.
Everything has a cost of doing business. You want a raise?
Everybody wants a raise in this world. Guess what?
Now they're complaining the prices are going up.
What's, 'cause you got a raise. You know,
look at what happened to the cars.
The automakers got big raises, car prices went up.
It's the way it goes. And,
and we're taking the brunt of it as a city, in my opinion,
to have to deal with this stuff.
And it gets really, really old.
You know, and I think about, I hadn't said much about this,
but I think about the tax break to these people.
Property tax break. I put money into my house every day.
You know, we're always fixing up something.
You, you know, you, whether it's painting
or your grass or your flower beds or new roofs
or furnaces, whatever.
You're putting money into your house
to keep your home up and make it look good.
I don't get no tax break, you know,
and you got all these businesses that are getting tax breaks
and you drive by 'em
and their grass is overgrown, their shrubs are dead.
It's ridiculous. So this stuff kind of sticks in my craw.
I mean, I want development
and I don't honestly know, having been a lifelong resident
of this city, I don't know what you do with
the problem that we have with all these vacant lots.
We're not like any other city.
We have all those small lots from when the sprawl started in
the fifties and now we have to do something with it.
I don't know what the fix is.
'cause a lot of places, we don't have two lots together
where you could build one house on,
on the two lots, you know?
And I certainly don't want any more trucking companies,
dollars stores, Coney Islands or any of that stuff.
But we have to have some, I, I mean,
I wanna see the development,
but I would just like to see a little more input into it.
Um, and I think I heard the number recently that I,
'cause I asked a question to somebody
and I wanna say, we got 500 vacant properties
that the city owns.
You know, and I mean, I agree what they said last week,
if we're paying $2,000 to cut the grass and shovel the snow
and what whatever else goes along
with all the complaints they get on things not being taken
care of, getting something out of it's better than nothing.
But that's not fair to everybody else
that's paying the premium.
So I, you know, I I I agree with everybody's concerns.
I think we're all in the same boat.
You know, um, I, I don't know. I was disappointed last week.
I'll just say this. I was very disappointed
that the planning commission's, uh, attendance was so poor.
Mm-hmm. Um, it's just, it was disturbing.
So that's it on that particular item.
I'll have another when we're done with this.
Thank you Mr. Watts. I just wanted to add in, 'cause
after that meeting last week, I tried
to do some research on the internet.
Did you sort of see like, are there trends of like,
you could see lots of examples of homes, orb, condos
or whatever, converting into rentals.
I couldn't find very much information about rental,
rental rentals being converted into for ownership.
Because let's be honest, most people had that
own rental properties, like the income coming in from 'em.
As long as the property's creating good income,
why would they wanna sell it if they're getting good income?
So there's not a good way
to incentivize rental properties becoming
ownership properties.
And that's one of the concerns about releasing
so many rentals into the city.
I think that that's, we discussed.
I mean, that's all I have.
The One Mr.
Mr. So the one thing I, I thought of is, um, to, not to,
to derail the project.
Um, maybe we put some kind of sunset clause on this, um,
as a board where, you know, could build like crazy for two,
three years, see how many they get.
Then do a study based off of what they build
for the next year or two years
and see what transpires as far as how many
of those rentals they actually do sell and make ownership.
Because I think they, they did actually say
that they were in favor of possibly making these
home ownerships, but they weren't very optimistic
that they would become 'em.
Um, you know, based off the trends
and all the, all the facts that they gave.
Um, so that, that's one thing that I, I recommended.
And then see if it, see if it actually works out.
You know, do, do the study based off the two initial ones.
Tell 'em okay, give 'em, you know, carte blanche to,
you know, go, go, go nuts for two years,
build 'em, whatever they can get built.
See how those develop
or if they don't develop into ownership
and then just go from there, then, you know,
maybe grab another 25 to next year.
But to have some investor come in
and operate with impunity, um, with no guardrails to,
to purchase up as much as they want,
I think is a dangerous pre precedent
to send a dangerous message to send out
to other investors as well.
So that's my thought on it.
Um, that way at least they're kind of
somewhat boxed into a certain degree,
but not derailing the project completely, you know,
and just kind of use this as more of a test run to see how,
how it materializes.
So the only problem is, is like, as we always discuss,
we've never any variances that we actually give
stay with the property and for forever, basically.
And an overlay district that's voted in
by council will stay there until council fills it out,
and you wouldn't be able to put a sunset clause on it
because they'd have to vote it out.
And I can imagine voting something out is a lot harder
than voting something on.
Well, my thing is, if the city administration wants
something like this, then I think the onus is on them
to put whatever needs to be put into place,
be put into place regulatory wise,
in order for it to make it happen.
That that's just, to me,
it feels like a cop out when the,
the city administration doesn't want to create these things,
or, and I'm not saying that they maybe don't want to,
but, um, it, it's just taken an awful long time
to get movement on certain, if they wanted it so bad, then
we, you shouldn't have to be selling it to us.
You should have to be selling it to council.
And those people that are responsible for enacting the, uh,
drafting and enacting the zoning ordinances,
and I refuse to believe that it's
ultra difficult to do that.
I know they've had some challenges.
They expressed that in the meeting
and I was thankful for them being honest about that.
But at the end of the day, um,
if they think it's such a grand
and great idea, let them put the policies in place
and the regulations in the zoning in place to afford it
to happen without having to
get approval from, from a board.
Our, our, we, we shouldn't be seeing half
of what we're seeing already.
And I'm just beating on a dead horse,
but I, I just don't think it's proper.
If, if the administration thinks it's a great idea, sell it
to the rest of your administration and make it ordinance
and then what's gonna happen is gonna happen.
And I don't have to struggle
with it sitting up here at night wondering what's gonna
happen 10, 15 years down the road,
five years down the road if we have to hear it
and grant eight or 10 variances on each parcel in order
for something to happen that that's not, that's not
what the zoning board of appeals, that's not
what our function should actually be.
And we've been growing over the past few years
and we've been changing the way things go.
Old habits I guess are kind of hard to break,
but we're moving in a different direction
as an entity and as a board.
And I'm thankful for that.
'cause I remember the time coming in here sitting down
and nobody asked a thing.
Somebody said something, somebody said something else.
It was a roll call and you walked out the door with
what you came in here wanting.
So I, I thank my fellow board members for
progressing as they have.
Um, I just, I just think that
I really don't want to hear these kind of things.
Create your overlay districts,
put your zoning ordinances in place
to support whatever the city thinks is best to put on 'em
and move on down the road with it.
Mr. Chair, my train of thought is returned.
So going back to the Baker
and Associates, this started when I was on council
and, uh, I've kind of followed the whole program through,
and I've seen her recall that she was seeking state funds
through the governor's office
to also help out with this project.
So that may make more sense.
I don't know what those numbers are,
but I know she was seeking that.
So that's pretty much it.
And if I may, I want to ask one more question
of the city attorney put you to work.
Okay. This thing with this
impact statements not getting to us
in a proper time.
What can we do as a, as the ZBA
to get this straightened out?
I, I, I did wanna mention this
and I was gonna let it go tonight,
but I, I mean, our ordinances state that
planning director has absolutely no
responsibility to send you guys anything.
He may, he may. Okay.
If he, if he believes it's necessary
for you to make a decision.
But I mean, the ordinance says a copy of the application
for variance shall be forwarded
to the planning director for review.
The planning director may provide a written impact statement
to the board prior to the public hearing, uh,
section 20 point 29.
Okay. I mean, it's easy for me if if they don't want
to play, so to speak, it's easy
to just postpone stuff or table.
I just, I don't think it's right.
And I, I, it's, it's discouraging.
I, if I can just say something,
and maybe some of you can disagree,
but I feel like when I first started
as the attorney assigned to this board,
you guys didn't get impact statements for anything. We
Didn't, we, we, we didn't get as many impact statements.
I agree with you, Ms. Pearson. We didn't get, um, you know,
blight reports too.
Like we didn't get tickets
or what, what's on set properties.
You know, we fought to get, to get
that added into our packets as well.
So yes, you are, you are.
I'll, I'll concur with that statement.
I'm, I, I mean, I'm not defending anyone,
but I mean, if there's a, a, a, a challenging
variance request for, I don't know, I, I think that's
where the joint meeting is, is going to come in handy.
So you guys can say, Hey, these are our expectations.
This is what we would like to see.
And planning can say, well, we can't do
that, or we can do that.
I, that's where this joint meeting
and that's what I would like to see happen at the
next joint meeting.
That's a great point. The problem is,
it's like the last meeting, I think it was the last one
is I do my due diligence.
I did it when I was on council for every council,
for every item that needed to be looked at.
If it was a tear down on a house, whatever it was, any kind
of property rezoning, I went and looked at it.
I talked to people in the neighborhood.
And when we get stuff here, I go drive
and I take a peek at it.
And when I find an impact statement that's different than
what I'm finding when I'm out there, that's very disturbing.
And I get it at the last minute that that's a problem.
You know, guys can call me crazy,
but I just don't, I don't find it right
that we have to deal with that.
So maybe the, I I agree.
Maybe the dual meetings, we can hash it out and get it done.
So you answered my question. Appreciate it. Okay.
If, if, if I may. Yes. Oh, sorry.
The processing of the packet
happens in the letter.
The packet goes to council office
and to planning the same day.
Sometimes plan or council office turns it around in a day
or two to get you that packet
and they're just getting it
and not able to have it for the, for the packet at least.
Um, I know being a former chair
and ZBA member, I didn't see many.
I think I saw two or three,
and they were usually on big projects
that were already going through the planning department.
We didn't get it for anything that wasn't going through
planning, commission approval.
And those were the only things we saw back in the day.
So just to give you some historical insight.
Thank you, Steve. Any other comments for today?
Motion to adjourn. So moved. All in favor? Aye. Aye.
Meeting adjourned at 8 41.