The Meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m., with Chairman Antosiak presiding.




Present: Members Harrington, Brennan, Antosiak, Reinke


Absent: Members Harris, Bauer, Baty


Also Present: Terrance Morrone - Deputy Building Official

Alan Amolsch - Ordinance Enforcement Officer

Nancy McKernan - Recording Secretary




Chairman Antosiak indicated we have quorum this evening, the Meeting is now in session. The Zoning Board of Appeals is a hearing Board empowered by the Novi City Charter to hear appeals seeking variances from Novi Zoning Ordinances and their application as enforced and reviewed by the Building Department. It takes a vote of at least four (4) Members to grant a variance request. A full Board consists of six (6) Members; since tonight we have four (4) present a vote of all Members will be required to grant a variance; whereas a simple majority will be required to deny a variance. If there is anyone present who has a matter pending before us this evening who would like to request that matter be tabled to a subsequent meeting; would you now step forward please.

(No one came forward.)





Chairman Antosiak indicated there are two (2) changes to the agenda for this evening. Case No. 95-097 and Case No. 95-102, have asked to be tabled to the November Meeting.


Roll Call: Voice Vote (All Yeas) Approved


Chairman Antosiak indicated those two (2) matters will be deferred until November.


Moved by Member Reinke,


Seconded by Vice-Chairman Harrington,








Chairman Antosiak indicated this is the public remarks portion of our Meeting. All comments related to cases before the Board this evening will be heard at the time that each case is heard; however, if anyone in the audience would like to address the Board on any matter not related to a specific case before us, this is the time to do so. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to come forward?

(No one came forward.)



Case Nos. 95-014, 015 and 020


Northwest Industries, Keford Collision and C & H Erectors; update and progress of variance that was granted on March 7, 1995.


William Heinz was present and duly sworn.


William Heinz: Part of our zoning requirement was to pave a parking lot and fence it in. The paving is done and we are waiting for the fence. I talked to the fellow who is going to do the fence, and that turned out to be a bigger deal then we thought because we are going to combine with a new building that has been put next to us. A mini-storage building was put in since we’ve discussed this originally. So rather than having 2 parallel fences, we are going to make one fence; and he said that he would be ready for his fence in 2 weeks. We plan on doing it together then and finish off all of the fencing around there that is required.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: Why has it taken this long?


William Heinz: Soil testing. It has cost us a ton on money, every time that they go in there they clean it out and then they have to take more tests, as you probably know. Then they come up with more problems. So, we have had to have that done 3 separate times and it cost about $70,000.00.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: That has prevented the fencing?


William Heinz: Well, they can’t get their equipment in there and we did want to pave it before we put the fence up. I don’t know if you have driven by there, but the paving was put in last week. Like I said the fence and I do have a sample if anyone would like to see; (sample shown to Board) they wanted some type of barrier in the fence and this is what the proposal is going to be. A cyclone type of fence, then the plastic is inserted. It is not visual.


Chairman Antosiak: Terry, what is the status of their request for a variance? Wasn’t it extended for a certain period of time?

Terry Morrone: Yes, this has been an ongoing problem, I have been told, for about 10 years. There were notices of violation issued approximately in ‘93 and some tickets that followed up in ‘94. Currently I understand that it is in court right now requesting that they take care of the matter. From the last extension they were granted 6 months with the addition of a site plan which had to have been submitted and plans as to what they were going to do to this area. What I would suggest, if the Board was going to grant an extension on this, an additional extension, that it be less than the 6 months that has been previously given on other occasions and that the site plan be submitted for the expansion of the parking area.


Chairman Antosiak: In looking at the temporary variance that was granted in March, the applicant was to return at tonight’s meeting with the final site plan and a statement of what their intentions are and what they were going to do with the area. When will you be prepared to do that?


William Heinz: I wasn’t aware of that, the site plan, were you?


Tom Herrington, representing Keford Collision. We submitted a plan actually back in ‘92, and it was granted in January of ‘93. It has been the same plan all along. That has been basically waiting for the soil test that they have been doing back there. We really haven’t changed anything on the plan that you OK’D in ‘93.


Terry Morrone: Mr. Chairman, I think that they had some soil tests on that property and a certain amount of soil was removed and I think that the additional soil was about 6 inches in depth that had to be removed from the entire site. Am I correct?


William Heinz: They narrowed it down to areas, and as you know that when they do this removal they have to re-take the tests again. Unless you want to pay a premium, you have to wait another 2 weeks before you get those results back and this has gone on 3 or 4 times. It has just dragged and dragged and dragged. As soon as we got the thing OK’D, we had it paved. My contractors have been doing whatever they could and they got it paved within 2 weeks. So, like I said, the paving is done and know our only hold up is the fence.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: What is a reasonable closure period for the fence? Given that we are in October....


William Heinz: I would say a month. He told me 2 weeks, so you know..... the only thing that concerns me is the site plan thing. I don’t remember having to submit a site plan for the fence.


Terry Morrone: I met with a number of members from your company along with our Ordinance Officer and our legal staff and I had mentioned to you right at that meeting that a site plan would be required with the expansion of the new parking area. It was clear at that meeting, that was several months ago, maybe 6 months ago.

William Heinz: That was prior to the last meeting that we attended here?


Terry Morrone: I am not sure if it was prior to the meeting or shortly after. But, I did mention that a site plan would be required.


William Heinz: What is involved in that? Let’s just say that nothing has been done.


Terry Morrone: You do have to prepare or have an engineer prepare a site plan showing the improved area. It would have to be submitted to the Planning Department for a review and I think that it would only have to be reviewed by our engineering staff; I am not so sure that it would have to go through the Planning Commission but they would make the decision on that.


William Heinz: Who do I see about getting started? Who do I bring it to?


Terry Morrone: You would bring it to the Planning Department.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: Mr. Chairman, if I would; because there seems to be some confusion here with the petitioner and what he has to do to comply with the City code requirements, Planning Commission and the like; I would suggest that we table this for 60 days until the December Meeting at which time the fence will have long since been put in place and whatever requirements that have to be gone through with respect to the Planning Commission presumable can be done and we can look forward to approving the petitioner’s compliance with our requirements set forth in our prior decision. That is only my suggestion.


Chairman Antosiak: I would concur with that.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: Sir, do you have any problem with coming back and seeing us in December when all these administrative hoops have been cleared?


William Heinz: I would be glad to come back and to say that it is all done. Believe me.


Moved by Vice-Chairman Harrington,


Seconded by Member Brennan,





Roll Call: (Voice Vote) (All Yeas) MOTION CARRIED


Chairman Antosiak: We have tabled your request until our December Meeting, which should be the first Tuesday in December.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: However, stay in contact with the City as to what you need to do to get through Planning Commission so that we can give a stamp of approval on what you have done.



Case No. 95-095


Patrick O’Leary is requesting a front yard setback variance of 10 feet to allow for the construction of a single family residence on Parcel "A" in the Deer Run Subdivision, located off of Garfield Road between Eight and Nine Mile Roads.


Patrick O’Leary was present and duly sworn.


Patrick O’Leary: Does everybody have this layout? (Copy of print shown.) This is a drawing of the lot with a 35 foot setback which is what I am requesting versus a 45 foot setback. As you can see, I have a house that fits into the building envelope without it encroaching into the wetlands buffer. However, that house is only 35 feet deep; which is a very, very narrow house; certainly half as shallow of a house of what would be typical. It took us a very, very long time to find that house that would both be a marketable house and that would fit into that envelope. If we were 45 foot, I don’t think that you would have a buildable lot because I think it would be impossible to find a 25 foot wide house that wasn’t a trailer of some sort or to encroach into the wetlands buffer. I did meet Sue Tepatti out there and discussed the wetland buffer and she was pretty adamant on wanting to not encroach onto that. So, with what I have here and the 10 feet we have a buildable envelope. I do have the house plans if you would want to see those.


Chairman Antosiak indicated that there was a total of 29 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There was no written response received.




There was no audience participation.




Terry Morrone had no comment.


Member Brennan: What is the square footage of the anticipated house?


Patrick O’Leary: This home is 3263 square feet.


Member Brennan: I also have a brief comment. If I am not mistaken this is very similar to a previous case that we had before us with the same or similar conditions where we wanted to maintain that setback from the wetlands and the water and felt that it was a better trade off than requiring the full 45 foot in front of the home. I don’t have any problems with this request.


Chairman Antosiak: If I recollect correctly, this is consistent with the last request that we had.


Member Reinke: I don’t like to refer to a previous case. I think that each case has to stand on it’s merit. There are no 2 cases that are identical. They might be similar. With the buffered area and everything I think that it stands for some variation to protect that. Due to the size of the lot and there is not anything that is really on top of one another that I think that what is proposed is probably the best way that they can go with it.


Moved by Member Reinke,


Seconded by Vice-Chairman Harrington,





Discussion on motion:


Vice-Chairman Harrington: My only comment and this is sort of in the nature of a standing discourse is that I do believe that similar facts should produce similar results not abhorrent results. I believe that this case is in line with other cases and I think that when petitioners come before us and there has been similar decisions on similar facts, not necessarily identical, they should expect a similar result. I think that the decision in this case will represent that principle.


Roll Call: Yeas (4) Nays (0) MOTION CARRIED



Case No. 95-096


Paul Ricca, representing Howard Ternes is requesting a variance to allow a new home to be built with a 760 sq. Ft. (3 car garage) and a variance to allow the cupolas on the existing pole barn for a total peak height of 23 ft., for property located at 41600 Nine Mile Road.


Paul Ricca was present and duly sworn.


Paul Ricca: Mr. Ternes has recently purchased a 3 acre parcel on Nine Mile Road west of Meadowbrook. The property had an existing one story home brick ranch home, which w have since demolished. There is one building remaining on the property that is a pole barn, located at the west property and we propose to make improvements to that building. One of the variances that we are requesting is that we be permitted to build 2 cupolas on the roof of the higher structure. The apparent variance that we are asking for is that the cupolas are considered to be a part of the total structure and therefore the height of the ground exceeds the limits with your current zoning ordinance and we are asking for a variance on that to allow us to build those cupolas on the roof. They would be approximately 5 feet high and they would be functional as well as to visually improve the property. We do intend on using them to ventilate the upper area of the inside of the pole barn area.


Paul Ricca: The second variance that we are asking for relates to the single family residence that will be built on the property. That residence will be approximately 3500 square feet in area and we propose to have an attached 3 car garage. We understand that we need a variance in order to do that because of the existing nonconforming pole barn that we are making improvements to.


Paul Ricca: Mr. Ternes, his plan is to improve the property for an estate sized residence for himself. Quite frankly, I would express to you his desire to have an attached garage to the main residence, rather than have to walk to the pole barn area which will be located approximately 80 feet from the proposed residence. We do not plan on starting construction on the main house until next spring, but we would like to make the improvements to the pole barn yet this year.


Paul Ricca: I do have some photographs with me that I can pass along to you. They are mounted to a board to give you, in case you folks are unfamiliar with the property, it will give you an idea of what the existing structure looks like today. (Pictures presented to the Board.)


Vice-Chairman Harrington: Sir, is this a duplicate set?


Paul Ricca: No, one set of pictures was taken last spring, the other was taken about 3 weeks ago. They are the same building obviously, but taken at different times of the year.


Member Brennan: The red building is the pole barn? What is the white building?


Paul Ricca: The white building is an existing barn located on property immediately adjacent to this parcel.


Member Brennan: That is not part of this parcel?


Paul Ricca: No, it is not.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: So, these photographs mean what?


Paul Ricca: Just an idea to convey the existing conditions for you folks that may be unfamiliar with the property.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: But, you are going to dramatically improve with your construction.


Paul Ricca; Yes, we are. Our intent is to, quite frankly and we have discussed this in some detail with Mr. Morrone, is that the projected cost for the improvements to the pole barn will probably exceed 50% of the value of the structure itself. The reason for that is that we need to put foundations and a new floor in the building. The current building was built as a pole barn and just has timbers that were placed 3 1/2 feet below the grade. We are going to be putting in a concrete foundation, which is rather expensive. The reason for that is that we anticipate that with frost action we may get damage to the concrete slab that we are going to put in the building. In fact, that is exactly what has happened to the slab that is in there now, it is broken up rather severely. Our plan is to remove that and to replace it with new.


Chairman Antosiak indicated there was a total of 35 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There was no written response received.




There was no audience participation.




Terry Morrone: The Building Department has no problem with this.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: Could you clarify for me, it says on the Notice here that the maximum storage area is 850 square feet and your proposed total aggregate area is 4 times that, 3600 square feet, is that accurate?


Paul Ricca: The existing pole barn is about 2880 square feet in area. The 3 car attached garage that will be built to the main structure next year, is approximately 760 square feet. The 2 were added together to give you the total aggregate square footage.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: So the pole barn will be retained?


Paul Ricca: That is correct.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: With respect to the cupolas, what do they do?


Paul Ricca: They are aesthetic and they also provide ventilation, natural ventilation in the upper portions of the existing pole barn. Rather than put metal ventilators on the roof we choose to do something more decorative.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: What about ridge vents or the equivalent, so that we wouldn’t have to deal with that 5 foot variance?


Paul Ricca: We could do that, but aesthetically we feel that the cupolas will dress the building up and perhaps make it look as part of the estate rather to let the building stand on its’ own as is.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: You will have a 3 car garage, correct? And what will the pole barn be used for?


Paul Ricca: That is correct. The pole barn will be used for storage of classic vehicles.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: How many?


Paul Ricca: Six to seven, it varies. Mr. Ternes is an avid classic car collector. The pole barn will be used to store some of his more collectible automobiles.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: Will there be any commercial activities on site, such as the buying or selling of these vehicles?


Paul Ricca: No, absolutely not.


Member Reinke: Looking at the drawings to the proposed renovation of the pole barn, it doesn’t look like the same building whatsoever. I think it is a vast improvement. The size of the lot and the configuration there, I don’t think that it makes anything look obtrusive. Since the use is for personal use I really don’t have a problem with the petitioners’ request.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: I do, I think that it is excessive. We have used the term over building, I think that we have over storage on site; but, I am persuaded by Mr. Reinke’s comments as well as the fact that this is not a situation where we have neighbor objection or really anyone who seems to take a particular dis-interest to this proposed use. So, I could go along with a motion. I do have a concern, it is 4 times what the code provided for and that is something of a problem for me. But, I can concur with Mr. Reinke on this one.


Moved by Member Reinke,


Seconded by Member Brennan,





Roll Call: Yeas (4) Nays (0) MOTION CARRIED



Case no. 95-098


Keith Bond is requesting a variance to allow existing poles to remain on property located at 290 Shamrock Hill.


Keith Bond was present and duly sworn.


Keith Bond: I have a volley ball court in my side yard. It is kind of close to my neighbors’ yard and my neighbor has a fenced in back yard. She keeps a pedigreed dog in there. Occasionally when we are playing volley ball we will hit a ball over her fence into her back yard and then it is not so much when the adults are playing but the children in the neighborhood will go in the back yard to retrieve the ball and potentially leave the gate open and let the dog out. So, as an accommodation to keep that from happening we put up 2 15 foot poles and put a net up between them that we could raise up as we played volley ball and then when we weren’t playing volley ball we would put the net down and raise flags up on those poles. What I am here for tonight is to ask for a variance on the setback of those poles from my property line.


Chairman Antosiak indicated there was a total of 30 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There was a total of 3 written responses received, all voicing approval. Copies in file.




Gary and Susan Domonokos, 2416 Shawood. We are neighbors, we only live one short block away. We have no problems with the poles. In fact we drove by even tonight and had to look very hard even to see them. With the flags waving on them, we wouldn’t even notice. It is not like they are a nuisance or an eyesore. In fact, from what I understand, the neighbor appreciates them there because it does save their yard from the nuisance. We would voice our approval to just leave them alone.


James Korte, over on Austin. You have heard me a lot of times and this is the dumbest ones that I have ever talked on. There is nothing obtrusive about this. They are aluminum in color and as they age they will get grayer. Now let’s talk about a hardship. If I was Swan, next door and that is her name, and the ball came in my yard I would puncture it regularly. This screening solves the problem when they play on their yard. I have been there and I have played in the sand pit. Small properties are difficult. This solves the problem it is not a problem to her. With all of the problems in Shawood/Walled Lake Heights we are looking at 2 poles that you have to walk through to see. Please approve.



Vice-Chairman Harrington: Sir, I assume by virtue of their being no objection here that your neighbor approves of this problem solving approach that you have undertaken.


Keith Bond: My neighbor appreciates the effort that we went through to solve the problem of the balls.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: I would like to commend you for your efforts.


Member Brennan: I have the impression that this has been up for some time?


Keith Bond: It has been up for almost a year.


Terry Morrone: It is my understanding, that this variance originates as a complaint, which our Ordinance Officer issued a Notice of Violation for a fence that exceeded the allowable height. Mr. Bond’s response was that it was not a fence but a volley ball net and when not used as a volley ball net it becomes flag poles. The second notice was sent in violation of the flag pole ordinance which states that the poles have to be set back a distance from the property line so that if they were to fall that they wouldn’t fall on someone else’s property. That is where we are at.


Chairman Antosiak: As I understand your explanation, sir, you only have the net up when you are using the volley ball courts and then when you are not there are flags on them.


Keith Bond: That is correct.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: Mr. Chairman let me tell my comment, I think that this is an excellent accommodation and I think that the petitioner has attempted to find a practical solution; the City has done what it is supposed to do; if there was a violation to bring it to his attention or to our attention. It has been brought to our attention, my only concern is that if we were to approve this that it be personal to this petitioner because in the event that there would be a change of ownership and a different usage for those flag poles or volley ball poles or whatever they are, then I think that is an issue that should be brought before us again. Right now it is a practical accommodation to a real difficulty which the City has property brought to our attention. I think that this is reasonable.


Moved by Member Harrington,


Seconded by Member Reinke,




Roll Call: Yeas (4) Nays (0) MOTION CARRIED



Case No. 95-099


David Dowling, representing Jeffery Soblewski is requesting a 23.5' front yard setback on the Eubank side, a 30' rear year setback variance, a 4.5' side yard setback variance and a lot coverage variance of 17% to allow for the construction of a single family home at 1099 South Lake Drive.


Larry Brady appearing on behalf of David Dowling the contractor on this project, Clint Edwards the builder and also the owner Jeff Soblewski.


Larry Brady was present and duly sworn.


Larry Brady: What is being proposed here is that Mr. Soblewski is in the process of buying this property which is located on Lake Shore Drive. At the present time it is a rental cottage that is 47 years old and in bad repair at the present time. What he would like to do is to build a new structure and to move from his present home right here in Farmington and to move out to Walled Lake and make it a full time residence. What his desire is; is to build the new structure on exactly the same or almost exactly the same foot print as the present cottage is built on. In order to do so, we need some variances as listed.


Larry Brady: We feel that the new structure; number one, will be owner/occupied instead of a rental property. Number two, we feel that it will increase and enhance the values of the surrounding homes and there has been several properties that we have pictures of here that have been improved along the same road. We would like to present these pictures of the existing cottage to the Board and also a couple of pictures of some right in the area that have had similar improvements.


Larry Brady: We have brought along for your review the existing foot print of the home, the property line, etc. if you would like me to bring it up. We had a rough sketch made as to what we propose to build on that site.


Chairman Antosiak indicated there was a total of 65 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There was one written response received voicing objection. Copy in file.




James Korte, Shawood Lake Area. Talking from the direction of the Walled Lake Sector Study which of course ended several years ago, I have talked to you many times about parking. Eubank is a 30. How are we going to park vehicles around that place? At this point in time it is all fenced in and parking has never particularly been a problem. I am presuming that they are building a lovely structure. This house or piece of property does not come cheap. There is going to be a time in the near future that there is going to be no parking on the street bed of the 30 foot roads. This is a 30 foot road. When you are asking for the Eubank setback to be 6 1/2 feet, you cannot park a car off of the road decently in 6 1/2 feet. I would presume that there is a 2 car garage, you can’t even get a car in 6 1/2 feet on the apron for a driveway. Therefore, I think that is unacceptable.


James Korte: What is, may I ask, the back yard setback in the situation. They are asking for 30. Does that mean a zero lot line or are they at 35.


Chairman Antosiak: The requirement is at 35. They are asking for 5.


James Korte: Then I think that parking is part of the problem and it is as simple as that. If you don’t do something and if you look the gentleman mentioned ZBA, if you look at 1190 that is South Lake and Henning that is the lovely little blue one on the worst lot on the face of the earth and it was architecturally designed to be beautiful and it works and it has had no problems whatsoever. If you go to 325 that is Betty and Jim Cooper/Dixon that you just let totally tear down; and that house sold for $229,000.00 and it is not as encompassing as this would be encompassing.


James Korte: I could go on and on. That side is a parking problem and I think if you have driven through and how many times have you heard all of us scream in the subdivision, that soon there will be no parking on the 30's. It is an impossible situation.


James Korte: It would be lovely to see that mess bulldozed under; but, I think that there is a little better usage to the Eubank side. Thank you.




Larry Brady: Mr. Soblewski just pointed out that the parking along the garage area at the present time is 16 1/2 feet from the road.


Chairman Antosiak: Will that remain with the new structure?


Larry Brady: Yes.


Member Brennan: Just for clarification, the new garage is where the old garage is; so the apron or the distance from the garage door to Eubank is 16 some feet?


Larry Brady: 16 1/2 feet at present and it will stay the same.


Member Brennan: Another clarification, sir, I am not reading this clearly; the enclosed porch area that has added or that has been part of the additional lot coverage is this the striped in area on the new plan?

Larry Brady: Yes, it is.


Terry Morrone: These plans appear to be a little vague. When I look at the existing foot print you are at 3 1/2 feet from the and I am not sure if it is the north property line, (clarification given that is the east) OK 3 1/2 feet from the east property line and that line would go straight on through to the garage. Yet on the proposed plan it appears that he is pushing it or the whole foot print forward by almost 2 feet toward Eubank Road. It is really not the same foot print, he actually is pushing the building closer to Eubank than what his original building is at 3 1/2 feet. He is showing existing at 3 1/2 and proposed at 5 1/2.


Larry Brady: That was at the request of the Building Department.


Terry Morrone: At 3 1/2 feet the building codes become a lot more restrictive than at 5 feet. Your window areas are limited to a percentage of the wall and from that point of view it would be better for building purposes and for light and ventilation meeting code requirements, but it also has an impact on the distance from Eubank to the front of this building on the opposite side. So, your are going to get a slight trade off and I am not sure which is worse. At 5 foot you would end up having a fire rated wall and the closer you get to the property line you would be restricted in openings until you hit 3 feet and then you are not allowed any openings at all. Again, that is your call. I am just making the point that you have stated that it is the same foot print, and actually I don’t think that it is, you are actually moving the whole structure forward to the Eubank side of the road which causes a parking problem.


Larry Brady: If we move the garage as well. Which is how it is drawn on that proposed one. Which we discovered and said that maybe we could leave the garage and move the house over a couple of feet. Which we are more than willing to do.


Member Reinke: Do you know what the actual footage is from the lot line to the house next door?


Larry Brady: I have 4.2. Actually there is 9.3 evidently from the other house for their lot line, I am just going by ours; from 4.2. The house to our lot line is 4.2. I don’t know how close the other house is to their side of the lot line; on this sketch here it shows 9.3 and whether this is old and he has re-done the house, I don’t know.


Jeff Soblewski: It shows 9.3 feet from house to house.


Larry Brady: We have also actually made the house smaller to bring it into the small lot that we have there. If you look at the existing as to what we have proposed it is shortened a little bit to put it in there.


Member Reinke: What is the square footage of the home that you are proposing to build?

Larry Brady: Under 3000. 2684 total.


Member Reinke: Number one, the problem being with the size lots there and number two the problem is that you have 2 front yards on 2 streets. I think that the lot is over built. It is just to big of a house that doesn’t fit with that sized lot.


Larry Brady: Well, it is actually smaller in size than the one that is existing.


Member Reinke: I understand that, but what I am saying is that we are continuing a problem that is there and we are just adding to it. As much as I would like to see the house replaced that is there, but I think that we are just creating an additional problem and adding to it.


Larry Brady: The actual square footage of the house, by the way, is 2126, the balance of that is in the garage area.


Terry Morrone: Did I understand that there would be 16 1/2 feet from the garage building line to the right of way?


Larry Brady: To the lot line.


Terry Morrone: To the lot line, which is what is there currently.


Larry Brady: If we don’t move the garage. If we move the garage over the 2 feet then we are at 14 1/2 feet.


Terry Morrone: That hardly leaves enough room for a car to park right in front of the garage without causing the car to extend into the right of way or even the people walking from one side of the building to the other may not be able to ......


Chairman Antosiak: 16 1/2 feet would be tight. 14 1/2 feet would be impossible.


Terry Morrone: I would have some concern over this project.


Member Brennan: One thing that really jumps off of the sheet as far as I am concerned is the proposed lot coverage of 42%, that is near half of this entire lot that has a house on it.


Larry Brady: And that is less than what is currently there, right now. We are proposing less, the 42 is less than what is there now.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: Let me see if I get this straight. What you want to do is either duplicate the existing foot print of this home and replace it with new construction or even have a smaller unit and that the original construction obviously would have been in substantial violation of code when it was built and you want to upgrade but maintain the current basic lot usage, square footage, etc.?

Larry Brady: That is right.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: I don’t have a problem with that. I think it is a lot better than what is there. I think to require these gentleman to cut the house down by a third or continue what has been there for a number of years; I don’t think that is reasonable.


Chairman Antosiak: I would concur with Mr. Harrington. Primarily for the reasons that he has stated. This is not an enlargement of what has now become a nonconforming use. I look at it as an improvement. For that reason I could support it.


Moved by Vice-Chairman Harrington:


Seconded by Chairman Antosiak:





Discussion on motion:


Member Brennan: I think that we still need to discuss the concerns raised by the Building Department over the parking issue.


Larry Brady: Would you like us to move the house and leave the garage so that there is adequate parking or would you rather us to build in the existing foot print in which case the house is 9.3 feet from the other house? I think the garage needs to stay where it is, so that we can park. The question is whether we should move the house over the extra couple of feet or leave it where it is? I would be willing to move the house over a couple of feet. That is fine.


Member Brennan: Does that gain us anything? If they move the house forward 2 feet, and leave the garage where it is further east which does then open up additional parking in the front as I look at this. That would give them an extra 2 1/2 or 3 feet in the front.


Terry Morrone: It would give more parking area on the Eubank side and take car of that problem but, the building code requirements would then severely restrict his openings on that side of the building. On the east side your openings would be limited severely. You may have to come in with sky lights and that type of thing.


Member Brennan We are just talking about the garage being left at that 3.3.


Larry Brady: I could move the house and just leave the garage how it is sitting now. Leave it on the existing foot print, the garage portion, so that the parking would be exactly the same as what is there now 16 1/2 feet.


Member Brennan: I am suggesting that they leave the garage where it is, but move the house forward.

Larry Brady: Move the house forward and leave the garage where it sits.


Jeffrey Soblewski: I hadn’t planned on putting many windows on that side anyway, because there is nothing to look at expect the other house. I thought maybe some block window or none at all.


Chairman Antosiak: Would that restriction apply to the entire side of the house, or just the section of that house that was that close to the property line? In this case just the garage.


Terry Morrone: Anything that he is rebuilding or altering, if he is rebuilding that wall even though it is on the existing foundation it would be subject to the new code requirements and he may have to have openings limited. So, even though it is on the same foundation he would still be impacted by the code requirement if he were to rebuild those walls.


Larry Brady: Which would be more fire retardant walls, is that what we would need?


Terry Morrone: Yes, you would just have to take the exterior walls and fire rate them for one hour and you would lose some windows or openings on that side of the house, depending on how may you would have. You are limited to a percentage.


Larry Brady: That is not a problem.


Member Reinke: I think that anything that is moved closer to Eubank is creating more of a problem.

Terry Morrone: It would depend on how you look at it. Is the parking of a car in front of the garage in the right of way going to be a problem? Or the distance to the property line on the east side; the building code will take care of that in terms of fire protection. So you would have to decide which you like best, or what you think is the best for the community.


Member Reinke: If he is going to extend the wall across from where it jettisons in on the east side at the present time, he actually has to have a variance for that section too, doesn’t he?


Terry Morrone: Yes.


Member Reinke: Then he would have to have a variance on all 4 sides. All of them are not listed on here, we only have 3 sides.


Terry Morrone: You have the front yard setback which is a 30 foot requirement facing South Lake and that front yard does not need a variance because he would be in compliance. So it is only 3 sides of the house that do need the variance and the lot coverage.


Member Reinke: I was confused on the front yard because you are actually looking at 2 front yards, because of the side street.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: I will withdraw my motion and permit Mr. Brennan to make his motion which reflects the understanding reached with the petitioner.


Moved by Member Brennan,


Seconded by Vice-Chairman Harrington,





Discussion on motion:


Member Reinke: I still have 2 problems. One in moving anything closer to Eubank and the lot is over built.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: Mr. Reinke, is there a suggestion that you could make which perhaps could be accommodated by the petitioner’s that we could address the Eubank issue because I am not sure that we could address the over building.


Member Reinke: No, to me, in looking at the foot print and rebuilding exactly what is there is not putting any ingenuity into trying to do something creative to be built on that lot. It is just taking and going on what is there and I can’t really condone the continued problem that we are having up there in that area with those sized lots and everything that is there. It is just creating and continuing the same problem.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: Mr. Chairman, it seems that we could go through the exercise of voting on the motion; on the other hand we have a short board this evening and my suggestion would be if the petitioner agrees to table this until we have a full board next month. Otherwise, they will not get their required votes.


Chairman Antosiak: Mr. Brennan, are you willing to withdraw your motion?


Member Brennan: Yes, I will withdraw.


Larry Brady: He has the property on a contingency.


Jeffrey Soblewski: I have a contingency based upon this meeting tonight. The contingency states that if there is no decision reached then the seller has the option has the option to close the offer. He does have the option to extend this contract condition, but I don’t know if he would be willing to extend if for another month or not.


Larry Brady: We have already been extended to get here.


Chairman Antosiak: Mr. Brennan, will you re-instate your motion?


Member Brennan: I will do whatever you like. You can see what the position is here. If we vote that is it.


Larry Brady: So, if you vote how many have to agree?


Chairman Antosiak: In order for you to get a variance this evening, it will require the vote of 4 Members and we have only 4 here this evening.


Member Brennan: My motion is re-instated.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: I will second.


Roll Call: Yeas (3) Nays (1) Reinke


Chairman Antosiak: We have a situation where the variance is neither granted nor denied. Which may result in the same issue should the petitioner choose to request a rehearing at the next ZBA Meeting.


Jeffrey Soblewski: If I get a contract extension, I will be back. I appreciate your time.


Chairman Antosiak: Please talk to the Building Department, if you wish to be placed on the November Agenda.



Case No. 95-100

Ronald Wisniewski is requesting a rear yard setback variance of 10.8 feet to allow for the construction of a patio enclosure at 24018 Glen Ridge Ct. in the Willow Brook Estates Subdivision.


Ronald Wisniewski was present and duly sworn.


Ronald Wisniewski: I just wanted to put this patio enclosure in, because I think that it would add value and looks to the house. My neighbor on lot number 352, also has a patio enclosure and it is similar to the one that I am putting on which I don’t even know if it would fit the same code as the variance I am going for. That is basically it.


Chairman Antosiak: There was as total of 49 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There was 2 written responses received, both voicing approval. Copies in file.




There was no audience participation.




Chairman Antosiak: Is your next door neighbor 24012 Glen Ridge. Marian Simpler.


Ronald Wisniewski: Yes, it is.


Chairman Antosiak: That was one of the approvals that was returned.



Terry Morrone had no comment.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: Sir, what is the nature of the enclosure that you are going to put on. I don’t have a building plan, just your sketch.


Ronald Wisniewski: I have a copy of the plans, do you want to see them?


(Plans were given to the Board.)


Vice-Chairman Harrington: This is being done by a professional contractor?


Ronald Wisniewski: Yes, Temo.


Member Brennan: This is a year round addition?


Ronald Wisniewski: They call it a 3 season sun room. Not heated, but it would be 3 seasons.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: Your intention would be to put a hot tub?


Ronald Wisniewski: Possibly in the future.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: Mr. Morrone, in that kind of situation and assuming that we approve this which may or may not be a valid assumption, but assuming we approve this and the structure goes up are there any City inspections requirements relative to the hot tub that would go in?


Terry Morrone: The hot tub is going to go inside?


Ronald Wisniewski: Yes, if I was going to do it, it would be at a later date. This would be the first thing or the first step.


Terry Morrone: There may be electrical, depending on the unit. And there may be a requirement for safety glazing depending on how close it is to the outer wall which I am assuming is glass.


Ronald Wisniewski: Yes, it would be part glass, the bottom part would be like aluminum or whatever that material would be.


Terry Morrone: There may be a need for safety glazing, this all has to be inspected.


Vice-Chairman Antosiak: Sir, I think that what you are hearing is that your ultimate plans you may want to run through the City on a preliminary basis anyway, so that you don’t have to re-do any of the work that you are doing. Were your variance to be approved this evening, do not interpret that to be an approval of whatever the hot tub proposal is.


Chairman Antosiak: I know that we have seen several zoning variance requests from this neighborhood simply because the houses are generally smaller than other houses in the City.


Ronald Wisniewski: It also doesn’t have a basement, either.


Chairman Antosiak: For that reason I would have no problem with this.


Member Reinke: That has to be one of the tightest laid out subdivisions, I think, that I have ever seen.

Chairman Antosiak: It may also be one of the oldest, with the exception of the lake area.


Member Reinke: I don’t see any problem with it.


Moved by Vice-Chairman Harrington,


Seconded by Member Brennan,





Roll Call: Yeas (4) Nays (0) MOTION CARRIED



CASE NO. 95-045


Continuation of case filed by Allied Signs, Inc., representing the Novi Hilton requesting a variance to replace the two (2) existing directional signs at 22111 Haggerty Road. Proposed signs are to be 8'1" x 6" (48.75 sq. ft.) in area and 7'10" in height.


Mack McCormick was present and duly sworn.


Mack McCormick: By the number 95-045, it is very evident that I should thank the Board for their patience in allowing Hilton to deviate from some health problems and some scheduling problems. Thank you very much for your patience.


Mack McCormick: I, along with Michael O’Callahan, who is the general manager here at the Novi Hilton have a new presentation to make representing our proposal for a new square footage. May I present to you some sketches.


(Sketches were given to the Board.)


Mack McCormick: Now testing your memories, over the last 6 months I believe that is has been; here is the original proposal which had the identities of both the official dining facility and the sport lounge which is in the facility. This was an additional panel on the bottom. To make brevity out of something that might become complex, the present signage is approximately 4 and 1/3 feet off of the ground and 10 feet wide, which equals 43 square feet. Each one of the signs.


Mack McCormick: As you take a look at the presentation here with the elimination of DaVicni’s and Sports Edition it is 8 feet wide as it originally was, but now merely 5 and 3/4 feet high. Which is also

43 square feet in square footage of signage. The proposal for the placement of the existing signage is in fact in equality to that which is present as opposed to increasing it. Before each sign was 64 square feet which included the restaurant and the sports lounge.


Mack McCormick: Our request is to permit the erection of the proposed signage as presented to you this evening.

Chairman Antosiak indicated there was 10 Notices sent to adjacent property owners, there was no written response received.




There was no audience participation.




Alan Amolsch had no comment.


Member Reinke: I think that this is a nice, tastefully done sign. I think it would be helpful. It is very clear. It is not obtrusive. I think that they did a very good job.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: I certainly would not oppose a sign that is even simpler than the one that was before us before. Although I would indicate, because I do have a memory of the initial presentation and I wasn’t particularly offended by the identification of the restaurant or sports bar facility. Apparently that portion has been withdrawn.


Mack McCormick: No, sir. It has been withdrawn primarily because the square footage was contested by the Board. We would much rather place those 2 signs to identify the entire facility.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: But, what you are telling us is that the practical difficulties of putting all that on sign won’t work so that when push comes to shove you are satisfied with the Hilton rendering that you have submitted to us tonight.


Mack McCormick: We are satisfied merely because my impression, and not having been here, was and our sign erector said that the Board disapproved of the square footage.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: We did. It was to big. So we said go back to the drawing boards and come back with something that you can live with.


Mack McCormick. But, had we reduced it to the size that it is now and incorporated the restaurant and the lounge it would have been not visible from the traffic that is driving by.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: It looks like Hilton pretty much takes up the whole sign here, doesn’t it?


Mack McCormick: Yes, sir. That is the proper identity but it would have been very nice to have a larger sign which would have been fair to both.


Chairman Antosiak: I for one, am satisfied with the petitioner’s response to the concerns that we raised in July.


Member Brennan: Refresh my memory. Was there any objection to the 2 sign issue? Was that because of the condition of the roadway going north and southbound?


Mack McCormick: As I recall from communications that I had and the correspondence, the reason for the dual signage was due to the direction of the street, the curve and not having visibility to the entrances.


Chairman Antosiak: I for one am not concerned about the signs for that very reason that Haggerty turns in front of the hotel and you can’t see one entrance from the other entrance.


Member Reinke: The total height now is going to be what?


Mack McCormick: The sign presented will be 5'9".


Member Reinke: 5'9" rather than the 7'10" as was originally stated on the application.


Mack McCormick: That is correct. We removed the 2 foot panel basically from the bottom of the identification sign. The square footage and the height and the width cross sectioned is in fact the same as the existing sign, 43 square feet.


Moved by Member Brennan,


Seconded by Vice-Chairman Harrington.





Discussion on motion:




Member Brennan: Good point, so moved.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: Seconded.

Roll Call: Yeas (4) Nays (0) MOTION CARRIED



Case No. 95-084


Continuation of case filed by The Maples Club, Inc., requesting a variance to allow a business sign at the corner of Fourteen Mile and Wakefield Drive.


There was no one present for this case, this will be recalled at the end of the Meeting.



Case No. 95-094A, B, C & D


Continuation of case filed by Stanley Tkacz, representing Marty Feldman Chevrolet requesting a variance to allow the placement of four (4) wall signs for property located at 42355 Grand river Avenue. A) sign to be 2'1" x 18" (37.8 sq. ft.) verbiage to be "MARTY FELDMAN"; B) sign to be 2'8" x 7'1" (19.3 sq. ft.) To be "bowtie"; C) sign to be 1'10" x 7'10" (14.4 sq. ft.) verbiage to be "GEO"; D) sign to be 2'4" x 10'11" (48.9 sq. ft.) Verbiage to be ‘CHEVROLET".


There was no one present for this case, this will be recalled at the end of the Meeting.



Case No. 95-101


Tim Dearman is requesting a variance to allow a 19'6" x 36" (58.5 sq. ft.) Wall sign with the verbiage ‘LITTLE CAESARS" for property located at 41467 W. Ten Mile Rd.


Tim Dearman was present and duly sworn.


Tim Dearman handed out a 3 part color copy of photos to the Board.


Tim Dearman: With a 24 square foot sign being allowed this new sign that we are proposing requires a variance of 34 feet, which is why I am here this evening. However, I think it is important in mind what we are not typically prepared to do; but we are in this instance, is to give up in lieu of this sign to give ourselves an improved image at this location which we hope will carry out throughout the center. We have been in this store for 25 years. We opened in April of ‘71 and the "Caesarman" has been standing tall for quite a long time and we hate to see him go; however, we need to improve our image and this is the new type of sign that we are using. Our existing sign box that is there right now underneath the "Caesarman" is a 16 foot long sign, 42 inches high. Most of the signs are box signs that range from 3 to 4 feet, totaling 56 square feet. In addition to that, of course, we have the nonconforming roof sign which we call the "Caesarman", he stands 8 feet tall which doesn’t even include the spear; with the spear and the pizza it is 10 feet total. The diameter of the base is 6 feet. We usually calculate 6 by 8 so that is a 48 square foot additional sign.


Tim Dearman: The size that we are proposing is consistent with that of adjacent tenants, we are only proposing to increase our sign by 2 feet, that is just the wall sign that we are proposing versus what is there right now. At the same time, of course, taking down our beloved "Caesarman". The new sign would be centered on our lease space and we would still have one foot of space on the right as you look at the picture and 3 1/2 on our left between us and the adjacent party store. The proposed sign is the new individual letter type sign mounted on a raceway which is painted to match the building facade. This type of sign is now the standard for most new retail centers being constructed today, for instance 10 Mile and Beck, 9 and Novi and not to mention across the street and behind us the Farmer Jack Center across the street.


Tim Dearman: The TV repair shop within the center has already does have individual letters mounted on a raceway, they have 2 different lines. Also at the far end Ah Wok, the Chinese restaurant, has channel letter type of signage. If not immediately, hopefully, the rest of the center goes to this route and it becomes something that catches on, if not right now maybe at the time the landlord remodels the center and all of the signs come down.


Chairman Antosiak indicated there was a total of 19 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There was one written response received voicing objection. Copy in file.




There was no audience participation.




Alan Amolsch: There are 3 issues that the Board is going to be dealing with. There is square footage, the common style issue for signs in a shopping center and the lineal frontage issue where they want to extend the sign past the lineal frontage of the business. There are 3 things that you are looking at here.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: You are proposing to remove as you call it "The Beloved Caesarman"?


Tim Dearman: Yes, I have never said that in my life, but yes.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: When I say remove, I mean simply take him down from that location.


Tim Dearman: Yes, he would be taken down from that location.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: You would agree with me that is in fact a sign that you are taking down, true?


Tim Dearman: That is a nonconforming sign, I have been told.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: We had quite a theoretical and intellectual debate sometime back as to whether our "Beloved Big Boy" is a sign and we couldn’t get the concession from the applicant that it was a sign. But, it is refreshing to hear candor in front of us.


Tim Dearman: It was referred as an icon in the past. It depends on who you ask.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: That is true, and what they are looking for from us. The existing Little Caesar sign is what dimension?


Tim Dearman: The existing sign is 16 feet lone by 42 inches high which is total square footage of 56 square feet.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: And quick math is that you are looking to replace that with .....


Tim Dearman: 58 square feet.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: So you are just a tad over the existing sign, correct? And in exchange for that we get removal of the Caesarman. Right?


Tim Dearman: Yes.


Member Reinke: I think that this is a significant reduction in signage and it cleans it up. I think it is time to retire the "Pizzaman". I like the style of the new sign. I think it looks very clean and crisp and very distinctive. I could easily support the petitioners’ request.


Member Brennan: A question of clarification, the existing neon sign is in the inside of the shop, is it not?


Alan Amolsch: That sign is not there. The window sign that is indicated on the print, as you see in the picture, but there are no signs in the window. They did have one, and they were in violation and removed it.


Tim Dearman: I can say this because he did not show up, but that is a simple case of an architect not visiting a store before he finishes the drawing. The color photos that you have were just taken a couple of weeks ago. There is no sign in the window.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: I agree with Mr. Reinke, I think the proposal makes sense. I would only comment that in terms of aesthetics the photograph that you have given us of Twelve Mile and Farmington, I think that sign is a first class sign. It is very attractive. The signs in the window advertising the specials that you are running and the like is contrary to the aesthetic argument that you are making before us tonight.


Moved by Member Brennan,


Seconded by Vice-Chairman Harrington,





Roll Call Yeas (4) Nays (0) MOTION CARRIED





There was no one present for this case.


Chairman Antosiak indicated Mr. Harrington has suggested that we vote on a motion and I support, because the petition was originally filed in August for the September and they requested to be tabled and have not appeared.


Moved by Vice-Chairman Harrington,


Seconded by Member Reinke,





Roll Call: Yeas (4) Nays (0) MOTION CARRIED



RECALL OF CASE NO. 95-094A, B, C & D


There was no one present for this case.


Chairman Antosiak indicated this was a request that was heard at last month’s Meeting and tabled to tonight. Did the applicant call you, Nancy?


Nancy McKernan: I have not talked to him since he submitted the new plans. That would have been on September 20th.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: I don’t think that we should be moving forward and even considering petitions where we do not have a live person in front of us to explain and also to the public who also has an interest in these matter, without a representative and the failure of a representative to appear without the professional courtesy of a phone call or other arrangements, and we routinely table these motions; suggests to me that we should call the question and vote appropriately.


Moved by Vice-Chairman Harrington,


Seconded by Member Brennan,





Roll Call: Yeas (4) Nays (0) MOTION CARRIED


Chairman Antosiak indicated that Case No. 95-099 I am not sure where we left this; we voted on a motion to grant the variance which failed and there was no motion to deny. My personal opinion is that this issue still remains open should the petitioner choose to come back to the next meeting to re-present his case. He would not have to be assigned a new number. It is in the petitioner’s hands at this point as to whether or not he chooses to come back.





Chairman Antosiak indicated as you may or may not know, the Council and the Planning Commission are in the process of adopting what I will call Summary Minutes for their Meetings as opposed to what amounts to nearly verbatim minutes of the Meeting. Nancy and I had a brief conversation about this today. I know that Mr. Harrington is concerned and I know and suspect what his concern is. Would you like to raise it very briefly?


Vice-Chairman Harrington indicated my thought is that before changing the procedure that has been in place in this Board for decades is that we obtain some input from the City Attorney as to the extent to which, under State Law, we are required to have a written record of fact finding by this body. I think that is our starting point. With that as a starting point, we can then deal in our own view and make recommendations to Council from our perspective as to what if any justifications would exist for continuing our verbatim minutes.


Vice-Chairman Harrington indicated my initial reaction, and I only heard about this today, is that we are as I understand it a quasi judicial body and appeal from this body lies directly to the Oakland County Circuit Court or other court of competent jurisdiction; whereby the decisions of this Board are the subject of judicial review. It seems to me that we are inviting potential difficulties with a court either approving or disapproving what we have done and thereby exposing the City to liability without a record in some form as to what has occurred. It could well be that the simple, having available a tape recordings, could meet that problem. But, there is a second problem that I have a concern with and that is the issue of governmental accountability. Not all people have the opportunity to go and order tapes and not all people can be present and I think that in a situation such as we find ourselves there should be a written record of what our respective positions are and what the factual basis for our findings are so that we are accountable to the electorate of this City ultimately.


Vice-Chairman Harrington indicated those are concerns that I have and obviously I haven’t made up my mind on the issue and no one has asked me to make up my mind on the issue. But, those are concerns. I think that those are wide ranging policy issues and I also think that given that this Board sits on a regular but limited basis of once a month, that whatever the efficiencies that would be saved by not producing minutes of this meeting would be minimal; but the potential cost to the City in the event of a law suit or a challenge to our failure to keep a record of what we are doing here could far exceed those minimal costs. That is my initial reaction.


Chairman Antosiak indicated I understand your concern and I am a bit concerned too for the first reason that you mentioned that we are a quasi judicial board and that appeals on our decision will be based on our record. Our record should be as complete as possible for fairness to both parties involved. After I spoke with Nancy today and thought about it, I agree that we should put this question to the City Attorney and I will do so sometime within the next month. Whether or not I can get a response from his is another issue. If you can believe what you read in the paper, I am not so sure that summary minutes are going to hold at the other Boards and the Council either.


Vice-Chairman Harrington indicated there is another issue there too, which is that when you have a person summarizing and presumably it is not going to be the Board Member who is summarizing, someone is going to have and perhaps an unwanted task delegated upon them to summarize what some Board Member meant to say or what some person not a Board Member thought was significant which presents an additional difficulty. That may create more problems than it solves.


Chairman Antosiak indicated I sense that our minutes would not be so easily approved as they are today. As Nancy so adroitly pointed out to me, it would probably be her who would be doing the summarizing and I am not sure that she wants to put herself into that position also of basically deciding what the Board’s position was on given matters and making sure that all of the appropriate issues were mentioned in the summary. So far that reason, I have a little bit of a concern. I thing that the first hurdle is to approach the City Attorney and raise our issues with him and see what his response is.


Member Reinke indicated I also voice a concern that because you are having someone else summarize what your input and direction was, that could very easily be not the point that you were trying to present or were presenting at that time. You could end up really turning it around at that time with the point that you were making or what was actually being discussed.


Vice-Chairman Harrington indicated we have had on multiple occasions and I am not sure what the Planning Commissions particular practice is in this regard, but we have a very efficient staff here that assists us that when there is an issue that comes up from prior meetings, we are given copies of those prior meetings and it would be impossible, I think, to go and listen to a tape recording of that. If we are put to the same task and it has come up before and someone has to go type up what was in a prior tape from several years back, that is a fairly complicated situation. We have a situation that works here and if it ain’t broke, I don’t think that we ought to fix it just yet.


Chairman Antosiak indicated I concur and I question after I heard your comment, the ability of someone 6 months, 1 year or 2 years later to listen to a tape and attempt to construct it in its’ entirety particularly if the person who is now doing the transcribing is not the person who originally did the summary. I am not going to suggest for a minute that the City supply us with tapes of these Meetings when we have an issue before us that has been discussed at the Council or the Commission. I much appreciate having the minutes of those Meetings in our packets when we got them. I am afraid that if summary minutes prove to be inadequate we will just be delaying hearing issues and going back to the Planning Commission and the Clerk for Council minutes to be transcribed in their entirety. There are a lot of concerns, legal, practical and otherwise. It is not an issue that we are ready to resolve yet. I wanted to raise the issue, because it is happening with other Boards and the Council and it has been suggested that it happen with the ZBA also. For now, I am going to say that it is not going to happen until we resolve our issues and concerns.




The Meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m,










Date Approved Nancy C. McKernan

Recording Secretary