The Meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m., with Chairman Antosiak presiding.





Present: Members Bauer, Harris, Brennan, Antosiak, Reinke, Harrington

Baty (alternate)


Also Present: Terrance Morrone - Deputy Building Official

Greg Capote - Staff Planner

Alan Amolsch - Ordinance Enforcement Officer

Nancy McKernan - Recording Secretary




Chairman Antosiak indicated we have a full Board tonight. 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. We have a full Board of six (6) Members tonight, therefore any decision made will be final.





Chairman Antosiak indicated we have had no changes proposed to the agenda.


Moved by Member Harris,


Seconded by Vice-Chairman Harrington,





Roll Call: (Voice Vote) All Yeas Motion Carried




Moved by Member Bauer,


Seconded by Member Reinke,





Roll Call: (Voice Vote) All Yeas Motion Carried




Chairman Antosiak indicated any comments related to cases before the Board this evening will be heard at the time that each case is called. However, if anyone in the audience would like to address the Board on any matter not related to a specific case; this is the time to do so. Is there anyone who would like to come forward? (No one wished to be heard at this time.)



CASE NO. 95-124


Continuation of case filed by Margaret Kenny requesting a variance to operate a dog kennel in the RA Zoning District which is not a permitted use in this district, for property located at 40695 W. 13 Mile Road.


Margaret Kenny was present and duly sworn.


Margaret Kenny: I am sorry that I am a little bit husky tonight, I have laryngitis. I live at 40659 W. 13 Mile Rd. It is a rural area. I purchased the property in November of 1977. At that time I purchased 2.8 acres. It was zoned R1F. Subsequent to that time you have changed the zone requirement from R1F to RA. In the change there was no provision made for a kennel allotment or a kennel as provided in the original R1F. At the time that I moved in 1978, I moved in with 2.8 acres and the requirement at that time was 40,00 square feet and having more than 3 dogs and I had 4 dogs; and to this day I still have 4 dogs; Golden Retrievers.


Margaret Kenny: My reason for coming here tonight is not for any other purpose than obtaining a kennel license to satisfy 2 things. I want to satisfy the American Kennel Club, The Golden Retriever Club of America and the Fort Detroit Club by stating to these people that I have a kennel name and therefore can operate a business. In my business, I have 2 females. I breed one once in the spring and the other one in the fall. I have championship blood lines. The male dog that I have, his name is Guinness, his mother’s father retired as the fourth top working Golden in all of the US history; his father is a field champion. My other 3 have championship lines, from the same type of line. For the purpose only of breeding, I have no intention of boarding dogs. I have no intention of putting signs up or anything else; all I want to have is my kennel name and to be able to satisfy the American Kennel Club. I can’t be Margaret Kenny, I have to be Kenny’s Goldens or I have to be Erin’s Goldens or Erin More. That is mainly the purpose.


Margaret Kenny: As far as the requirements that were originally stated in R1F in the procedure manual at 40,000 square feet; I meet those requirements. There is a lady on Fourteen Mile Road at approximately the same address that back in 1979; her name is Sharon and she runs the Aerodobe Kennels and Sharon at that time asked for a licence and I didn’t want one at that time. So that is what I am here for tonight. I don’t know much more than the variance of the RA and they just never brought it along when they changed the procedure book. People were thinking more of a metropolis rather than the rural part of the City.


Margaret Kenny: Since the time that I originally purchased the property, there was a little bit of a swamp land down by the Seeley County Drain and I purchased the property surrounding that and the property off to the east. We have a total of 11 acres on Thirteen Mile Road between Meadowbrook and Haggerty, right where the big road is.


Chairman Antosiak indicated there was a total of 13 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There was one written response received that was conditional. Copy in file.




Richard Herbel: I own the property next to this, approximately 7 acres. At the time that I sent the letter and I would like to modify my stance an little bit; I did not realize that Margaret had planned to just raise the Golden Retrievers. It was my understanding that with a kennel that you might have borders and unhappy campers and things like this. I would remove my opposition to this if it would be understood that there would be the necessary runs and security fences so that any additional animals on the property would be retained on the Kenny property. If this is done I have no objection as long as we can have a residential neighborhood where I can rent my property. Thank you.

Also as long as the dogs aren’t boarded.




Building Department had no comment.


Member Bauer: What kennel did you use to satisfy The American Kennel Club before?


Margaret Kenny: I just used my name as Kenny’s Goldens. But, in order to register my name with

The American Kennel Club I have to have a business license.


Member Bauer: So you weren’t registered with them.


Margaret Kenny: No, you can state a name and have a kennel name, but there all sorts of requirements that you need for The American Kennel Club. If you are doing a d.b.a. at that time that wasn’t my intent. My intent was strictly to have some of the best field champion dogs.


Member Baty: I contacted The American Kennel Club because I was curious on this subject too. The response that I got back from them was that the AKC does not licence, endorse, register or recommend any breeders or kennels and as long as both parents are registered with the AKC then litters can be registered with the AKC. I am trying to understand what your hardship is, if you can register your dogs with the AKC and they.........


Margaret Kenny: First of all I am satisfying a portion of the AKC which will give out names today and I don’t know when you contacted the AKC, but if you call in on their number today, it goes through the computer program and they will say "would you like a list of kennel names?" So if you wanted to go in and purchase a beagle, I expect that they would give you some beagle reference names. But yes they do have kennel names. Secondly the Golden Retriever Club of America does require that. I am a very staunch supporter with them and like I said it is nice to see my dog, Guinness, and his name comes from a kennel of Top Brass, the best in the United States. For me just to come through and say "gee, I really can’t assign my name to the dog until I have business name."


Member Baty: As I understand it, you can assign a kennel name to it but you wouldn’t be able to participate in the advertising of the kennel on that hot line that you are talking about.


Margaret Kenny: Yes, that is right. You see if I have my Guinness dog and I would like to use him as a stud dog at some point up coming, then I would have to have my name too. But, that is not done on my property by the way, that goes over to the female.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: I have a couple of questions for you. The only objection was originally filed by Mr. Herbel who has spoken to us this evening; do I correctly understand that you and Mr. Herbel have spoken and worked out your differences regarding this issue?


Margaret Kenny: I didn’t know that he was objecting to it.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: Well he did and in writing......


Margaret Kenny: Yes, just now. Well I didn’t know that.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: Have you spoken to the gentleman?


Margaret Kenny: No.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: He has made note in his written objection that he has observed up to 6 dogs running loose on the property and there is no real identification that they are your dogs or somebody else. Are your dogs basically secured and contained at all time?


Margaret Kenny: Yes, they are.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: So, if there are dogs running loose on that large property they are not yours, true?


Margaret Kenny: Our dogs are contained.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: Is procedurally how you come before us tonight; you went to the City for what purpose?


Margaret Kenny: Obtaining a business license.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: The business license was denied. Let me back up; you do live on the premises?


Margaret Kenny: Yes.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: That is your home and you are operating a business out of your home although it really sounds like a hobby and we have had a lot of hobby business’ before us in the past; but they didn’t turn you down because it is a hobby business, they turned you down because it is a kennel.


Margaret Kenny: Yes, because there was no provision in the RA requirement.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: I suppose that there is some modest remuneration for what you do, you do get paid?


Margaret Kenny: Yes.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: That is not your primary source of income, is that correct?


Margaret Kenny: That is correct.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: And with the exception of Mr. Herbel, who has withdrawn his objection, there are no other protests from other neighbors that you can tell us about tonight?


Margaret Kenny: No and as a matter of fact, there aren’t any other neighbors.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: Would you be willing, and I speak only for myself and not for the Board, but would you be willing to limit your variance request to the number of dogs that you have right now and the current scope of your business activity?


Margaret Kenny: Yes.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: Do I correctly understand that if the choice were moving into a formal business kennel and renting commercial space that it would affectively mean the cancellation or the termination of what is probably more than a hobby but an important part of your life?


Margaret Kenny: I understand, but that is not my intent.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: If that were the choice you would probably have to close up your hobby because you can’t afford commercial space in Novi to run a kennel, is that true?


Margaret Kenny: That is true.


Member Bauer: One further question along that line, how many in the litter do you usually get and how long are they kept by you?


Margaret Kenny: They are with me from the time that they are whelped for seven weeks. And it varies by litter. It can be anywhere from 4 or it could be up to 10 because Golden Retrievers are the larger dogs. It is all determined on the ovulation of the female and if they are bred like towards the very first part of her cycle or in the middle or the end as to how many.


Member Bauer: How many would you have and how long would you have them on your property?


Margaret Kenny: Lets say an average of 6, for 7 weeks. They are gone at exactly 7 weeks.


Member Reinke: I think that the biggest concern is probably that the number of dogs in the litter is going to vary from point to point, but my main thought would be that it is not going to be a commercial kennel.


Margaret Kenny: No, it won’t.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: I don’t have a real problem with the continuation of the operation as it is. I think that this situation falls into the cracks and the transition between the old ways and progress and development. On the other hand I could envision a scenario in the future where, and I am impressed by the fact that we only have one person who has objected and apparently his concerns have been addressed, and that is very important to me; we don’t have an audience full of people who are protesting about barking dogs at all hours of the day or night. I could support the granting of a variance, this is a use variance not a property variance so I believe that we can attach conditions to it and I am more concerned about a time condition. I don’t think that we should send this lady back here every year, but I don’t know of any law that we can’t approve a 24 or a 36 month use variance and have her come back after 2 or 3 years and let’s see how it is going out there and retain the continuing jurisdiction. But if there has been a serious problem developed or a problem in the future with other neighbors coming in I think that is something that we have to listen to. Right now it sounds like there is minimum impact on the community. Fortunately she didn’t get caught in the dragnet of the home occupation ordinance but she could have and I am inclined to approve the variance subject to conditions.


Margaret Kenny: To my east, where my house is located, we have wetlands. We are on the other side of the wetlands. There is a little bit of property owned by MDOT and the house that is east of that is now property that I just purchased, that is 3 1/2 acres. On the other eastern border is the borderline for the new M5. So, from my home all the way to the east I have no neighbors.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: And the occasional goat, horse or donkey, as expressed in Mr. Herbels’ letter?


Margaret Kenny: I have 1 palomino horse and 1 appaloosa pony.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: The goats or donkey is somebody else?


Margaret Kenny: I don’t have those.


Member Reinke: I echo Mr. Harrington’s comments. I think that better than to make it a time limitation, I think that we should maintain continuing jurisdiction and if we have a problem we could have the petitioner back.


Member Baty: I agree also. Would one of those conditions be the number of adult dogs on the property, could we limit that?


Member Reinke: I have no problem with that. The biggest problem that I see is that I don’t think the petitioner since it is a home occupation that it would be something that would turn into something of a large magnitude. The problem that I would have is if they would turn it into a boarding kennel, then we have no control. We have traffic, we have large number of dogs in a strange area which of course are going to unfamiliar and cause more noise, etc. that would be my strongest concern.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: As a predicate to the motion, I would indicate that one of the reasons that we do maintain specific minutes and retain them on record because in the event that a problem comes up in the future we can refer back to what has occurred this evening and a future Board can obtain the sense of what it was that we were concerned about when we decided to grant or deny a variance.

Moved by Member Harrington,


Seconded by Member Bauer,





Roll Call: Yeas (6) Nays (0) Motion Carried


CASE NO. 96-008


Singh Development Co., Ltd., representing Crescent Oaks Continuum of Care Facility is requesting a variance setback from a body of water and a variance for the total building length to allow construction of Crescent Oaks Continuum of Care Facility located on Twelve Mile Road east of Twelve Oaks Mall.


Michael Kahm was present and duly sworn.


Michael Kahm: Some of you may recall that we were before you probably about a year and a half ago with this site plan. George Norbert from Seiber Keast is here with me to answer any questions that you may have after I get done with our presentation.


Michael Kahm: We have amended our site plan and we have gone back before the Planning Commission and City Council and have received site plan approval subject to your granting the same 3 variances that were asked for the last time. They are somewhat different in magnitude, but essentially the issues are the same. You may recall, this is a contimuum of care complex located east of the Twelve Oaks Mall, south of Twelve Mile Road adjacent to the Woodland Medical Center which is right here. (Plan shown to Board.)


Michael Kahm: Today it consists of an assisted living facility (2 story) which is the orange building on the site plan. There is a central or what we call a common service hub which houses the services that are available to the entire complex; like a commercial kitchen, a housekeeping staff, administration, maintainence and all of the things that are going to be common relative to services provided to both facilities. The cross shaped building to the southeast of the site is an independent apartment, a senior citizen type which we sometimes call a congregrate care facility which houses 120 independent apartments.


Michael Kahm: The site plan that we had presented previously and which we had the approval from th Planning Commission and the City Council included some additional acreage to the east and had 30 patio homes; that property has been not purchased by us. The Taubman Company retained ownership of that property and we omitted that particular portion of the site plan. The site plan that we have presented to the Planning Commission now only contains the assisted living facillity and the independent apartments connected by a common service hub.


Michael Kahm: The issues remain the same. The first item that we are asking for a variance tonight is the length of this building. Since the previous SEH, Senior Citizen Housing Zoning Ordinance was repealed some years ago there is no provision within the zoning ordinance which specifically addresses this particular use. So what we had received approval from Council on is getting an RM1 zoning with a PD1 option which is the best niche that we can find within the ordinance for this use. Unfortunately, there was no provision for the extra building length that you normally find when you connect the uses together, which are really important so that they are integral to the service component of the project. Where this particular building is 653 feet long including the assisted living and the hub and the independent apartment components. So we are asking for a 473 foot variance and that sounds enormous but because the standard length of a normal multi-family building is only 180 feet it is really not consistent with the use of a continuum of care facility so we are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. But, because that is the ordinance that we are able to put this particular use under we are asking for the variance of the building length. Secondly, again due to the unique nature of this particular project, this site as you are well aware, slopes pretty dramatically from north to south down to what is sometimes is known as Twelve Oaks Lake, which is a man made retention pond for the mall area. But by the City’s definitions that particular retention pond is considered a lake under the ordinance provisions. Within the PD1 option which we have on this property if you have any portion of the project over 2 stories you are required to meet a minimum setback from that body of water which is 100 feet. Because of the slope of the property most of the project is only 2 stories. The assisted living facility is 2 stories. The central service hub is 2 stories. The northern portion of the independent apartments is 2 stories, but because of the nature of the sloping ground the southerly portion of this is essentially like a walkout condition and that becomes a 3 story. So, because that happens to be 3 stories and that happens to be the closest proximity to the lake we are closer than the 100 feet to the edge of water to the building and to the closest parking space. The building is 80 feet away and the closest parking space I believe is 43 feet way. So 43 feet is the closest that we get to that body of water. Again it is the nature of the sloping site and we really can’t move the building any further north because there are existing utility lines which run along the northerly property line so it prevents us from moving the building any further away from the lake. So, we are requesting that variance; and again that is similar to what we had presented to you about a year and a half ago. Lastly, although it wasn’t on the agenda I wasn’t sure that this body gives this variance but I will ask anyway: we front on a private road as you probably know the Twelve Oaks Mall Ring Road is a private road and our major frontage is on that road. The Taubman Company has a very extensive maintainence agreement with all of the people who front on that road and it is very well maintained. But, becuase it is of a private nature both this road and the road that goes out to Twelve Mile we are asking for the variance to allow us to front on the private roads.


Michael Kahm: Those are the 3 items and myself or Mr. Norbert will be happy to answer any questions that you might have.


Chairman Antosiak indicated there was a total of 18 Notices sent to adjacent property owners with no written response received.




There was no audience participation.




Greg Capote had no comment.


Terry Morrone: The issue of the road frontage; that had been a variance requested at a previous Board Meeting and granted and it is still valid today, because there has been no final site plan that had been issued at this point. Nothing has changed. That is a variance that is still intact and that is for the road frontage issue. The orientation issue that came up, was approved by the Planning Commission and that will not be an issue here this evening.


Member Harris: Looking at this and it is obviously a full use of the piece of property, but in looking at the plan it is sometime difficult to see; is there sidewalks for the residents to walk around this piece of property or do they have to walk in the parking lot?


Michael Kahm: Yes, they ring the entire site.


Member Harris: Inside the parking or outside the parking?


Michael Kahm: Inside of the parking, they go right along here (site plan shown).


Member Harris: I guess that I am a little confused at the upper end, next to the donut shaped home for the aged; can you get across the outside of that building on a sidewalk or do you need to go through the building there?


Michael Kahm: These particular 2 points here are stair wells which have doors to them and there is a sidewalk that goes from that stair well out to the sidewalk that circles the entire property.


Member Harris: You could walk the complete perimeter of this building on a sidewalk?


Michael Kahm: Yes.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: I think in your presentation that there were certain efficiences associated with a continuous structure some 653 feet long. Could you explain what hardship would be imposed if you were forced to comply with the ordinance? Why is that important for what you are trying to do for your people?


Michael Kahm: Because of the nature of the type of tenants that are living in this facility. They are relatively frail and ederly and all of the services need to be provided within a covered and secured area and safe from the elements. So, we have to have direct connections from the services to the residents on either side so that they can get to the services easily and be protected from the elements. Because of the nature of the occupancy it needs to be connected.


Member Harris: What is the total expected occupancy?


Michael Kahm: There is 110 assisted living units in the home for the aged section and there are 120 one and two bedroom independent apartments in the second phase.


Member Harris: You refer to it as a home for the aged, is that a licensesd home for the aged?


Michael Kahm: Yes, it is.


Member Harris: One of the issues that we have in an assisted living area is security. With the water this close and the buildings this close; would the security of the residents be in any way harmed by the proximity of the water or the closeness of it to the building?


Michael Kahm: Particularly in the assisted living facility those residents are in a secured environment where they are not allowed to leave unless they are physically able to leave and I will say mentally able to leave, otherwise they would be supervised by staff. This is a very heavily staffed component. We have about 6 to 7 units per staff person in this facility. So we have several staff people and that is around the clock, 24 hours a day.


Member Harris: And that is in the assisted home for the aged portion of it. However, the buildings are connected so an individual could wander off to the independent part of it; could they wander off and leave the building?


Michael Kahm: Not without the alarm going off and the staff knowing about it. Knowing that someone had penetrated the security of the building.


Member Harris: I ask those questions because we have recently had and in fact this winter several wander offs of individuals who have not survived out in the cold. You do have an alarmed external system?


Micheal Kahm: Yes.


Member Baty: Are the entrances kept locked also as part of the security system?


Michael Kahm: Yes they are. They only way that any visitors or anybody coming to the building could get in is that they would have to come to the main entry and that is a locked entry and they would have to buzz the security people or the 24 hour staff to be allowed in. So that building is locked 24 hours a day.


Member Harris: Would a resident of the independent portion of the building have to go through a security check to leave the building and to take a walk around the permiter?


Michael Kahm: No, they would not.


Member Harris: How would they leave the building?


Michael Kahm: They could leave and there are 2 secondary entries here which come in from the parking in the south and the east portion of the property. Or they could go out the main entrance.


Member Harris: So, could an individual from the home for the aged, the assisted living portion of it, wander into the independent and walk out of the building through a non-secured entrance?


Michael Kahm: No, because between the assisted living facility itself and the common service hub there are security doors and they can’t get through those without staff knowing that they are coming through.


Member Baty: And the way that the staff would know that they are going through is an alarm system?


Michael Kahm: That area of the building is staffed 24 hours a day at that particular location at the main entry.


Member Baty: I would feel more comfortable if there was some additional security.


Michael Kahm: Normally what we do in the areas of the assisted living facility is that we also put key pads on the inside of the doors which have combinations on them and the staff knows that combination which is changed regularly so that they can get out and people not knowing that combination cannot get out. We put those in areas where we are concerned about the continence of the people and whether they are aware of exactly where they are and so we have to gauge the capibilities of each individual tenant when they come in to apply and we do an assessment to determinewhat level they need to be at and this building is actually divided into 2 different levels so that those who may need a little bit more supervision are put in the area where it is more secure and those who are aware but are just a little bit frail and need a little help with daily assistance like bathing and dressing and that type of thing are put in a separate area. It depends, each one is evalutated individually.


Member Harris: What provisions have you made with the City or any of the emergency response groups for holiday shopping periods of time, in terms of the need for an emergency vehicle?


Michael Kahm: There is and you may be aware that there is a new 24 hour medical facility coming in immediately to the north of us. That site plan has been presented to the City. What we have agreed to do is make a direct connection from our drive into their drive so that we actually have the means or the access to a 24 hour emergency facility without having to go out into the main roads and we can use that connection to get out to Twelve Mile Road if necessary.


Member Harris: Could we recap the variances? It seems to me as we were talking it was about 3, but I wasn’t quite clear that it was the 2 setbacks and the overall length. Is that exactly what you are asking for?


Chairman Antosiak: It is building setback as the ordinance requires 100 feet and they are proposing 80 and needing a variance of 20 feet. A parking area setback, ordinance requires 100 and they are proposing 43 feet, needing a 57 foot variance. The maximum overall length of the building the ordinance allows 180 feet, proposed is 653 for a 473 foot variance.


Member Harris: And the private road acess variance is still in existence from the previous discussion?


Chairman Antosiak: Yes, for the ring road.


Moved by Member Harris,


Seconded by Member Reinke,





Roll Call: Yeas (6) Nays (0) Motion Carried


CASE NO. 96-009


FG-38 Corporation is requesting a variance for temporary use approval to allow farming on property currently zoned I-1 (light industrial) and I-2 (general industrial) for property located east of Beck Road and running both north and south of West Road along the City’s westerly border. (Sidwell Nos. 5022-04-326-007, 5022-09-176-001, 5022-09-176-006 and 5022-09-251-001). Refer to ZBA Cases Nos. 1878, 92-013, 92-142, 93-119 and 95-006.



Brian Hughes was present and duly sworn.


Brian Hughes: I represent FG-38 Corporation and we are applying for a temporary use variance to allow us to farm properties that are currently zoned light industrial and general. The property is east of Beck Road and runs north and south of West Road. It is a variance that we have applied for in the years past. The purpose of it is to allow us to have some income to defray the property taxes.


Chairman Antosiak indicated there was a total of 21 Notices sent to adjacent property owners with no written response received.




There was no audience participation.




Terry Morrone: I contacted our consulting engineers to find out if there had been any problems in the past and they were not aware of any. So with that, we wouldn’t have a problem with continuing the same variance with the same conditions as set forth in the variances previous to this one.


Member Reinke: This has be a recurring request and I can understand the petitioner’s request to off set some of the cost, etc. I think that they have complied with the request and I don’t see any problems with extending.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: Do I have a memory that either you or FG-38 who is the farming entity come before us every year for this?


Brian Hughes: This is, I believe, the sixth year that we have been here.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: I have no problem with the variance. In fact we’ve done it every time. My suggestion is, looking that this is a use and not a property variance, it is similar to a kennel variance; I would be satisfied to grant this use variance and maintain continuing jurisdiction. If and when there is a problem we can deal with it. It is the same variance that we have granted religiously year after year. I don’t think we ought to require this gentleman to come back next year for the identical crops under the identical circumstances especially when no one is objecting and he has complied with all relevant City requirements. That is just my thought.


Member Harris: I agree. I think it really has arrived at something and we see in the petition that it will be several more years and ........


Brian Hughes: It is our intent to develop it sooner than later, but.....


Member Harris: But in the mean time this is a use consistent with something that we believe is correct. It is consistent with the area. If we granted a variance for this petitioner only and indicated that each year he needed to meet the 6 requirements that are laid out as a condition to that, under continuing jurisdiction, I have no problem with that either.


Moved by Member Harris,


Seconded by Vice-Chairman Harrington,





Roll Call: Yeas (6) Nays (0) Motion Carried


CASE NO. 96-010


Brent Beshears is requesting a variance to allow for the reconstruction of a 1 1/2 story home with a new second story, utility room and garage addition for property located at 1101 South Lake Dr.. The total building has been removed with the exception of the foundation.


Brent Beshears was present and duly sworn.


Brent Beshears: I have some more information for you folks. May I present it?


Brent Beshears: This is to clarify, you granted variance for a second story addition and an attached garage and that was contingent on verifying all of the measurements on the site plan that I submitted. With doing that we went ahead with the demolition of the house. After tearing into it and taking the roof off, trying to save the house was our first intention, but once we really got into it we realized that it wouldn’t be in our best interest to build on what was existing, The existing structure was to far gone. To bring your attention to a while ago, before my time I think you folks were actually concerned with condemning that house and I definitely agree with you on that one. There is just no way that we could do that.


Brent Beshears: So with that, nothing has changed since 60 days ago. We are still building the same house. The garage stays in the same place. The stake survey which is provided to you verifies the measurements and for all practical purposes the measurements are correct as they were, I am sure that we will get into going through each measurement precisely but we will put that aside for now.


Brent Beshears: Basically once again, once we got into the project and dealing with our builder he says it is in my best interest to get rid of the whole house. After talking with Terry Morrone, he felt the same way that it would not do myself a justice to keep the existing structure. So, I really feel the only reason why I am here today is because I have been thrown into a different zoning ordinance because now it is not a home renovation, it is new construction. If that is the case, so be it. I have no problem with it. Once again, I am not a builder or a developer. I am trying to build the best home that I can for myself. So, with Terry’s guidance I think that it is more of a technicality that I am here more than anything else. As you can see, the largest question prior to 60 days ago was whether or not the house was 35 feet from the road or 30 feet. OK. With that I went out and did what I was told. I got a stake survey and it shows exactly 35 feet. Wherever the 30 feet came from, I believe that it is from case study or from Parks and Recreation survey as what some of the other people were contesting and in just doing a little research with Parks and Rec the survey done on South Lake Drive has nothing to do with the distance between the road and the houses; it has to do with where the power lines run so that you can disturb the ground to put a sidewalk as well as where the phone poles are. It has nothing to do, that survey has nothing to do with the fact of the distance between the road and the house. OK. I am sure that you are going to have people contesting those measurements again and that is what the proof of what they were saying they had based on that is was 30 feet from the house to the road. When they comment on that, I would just like to hear where their thoughts are and why that survey was actually done.


Brent Beshears: Other than that, like I said, nothing has changed. The foundation is existing. If you would like I do have a letter from Gerry McCallum; we did some test holes around 3 sides of the foundation and it shows good soil conditions and the foundation is 42 inches. We do plan on doing some tuck pointing anywhere needed on the cinder block sitting on the foundation prior to continuing on.


Chairman Antosiak indicated there was a total of 79 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There were 2 written responses received voicing objection. Copies in file.




James Korte, Shawood Lake. I was not going to talk about the 30 versus 35 feet from a Park and Rec survey. I have talked to Gary Foyt on those issues which is not a discussion for here nor is it anything that you can legislate on. There is still a serious problem somewhere. I am not arguing where that 4 foot went. I don’t have the right to argue that. But a $23,000 engineering survey said "it ain’t so". I will argue with that at another level.


James Korte: When we started, we questioned positioning of the house and parking. Now we are to a situation and if you have read what you have, I have even been accused of spending this man’s money. I was asked to back off. Now, you people know me and you know me and you know that I speak a lot; "back off" is not in my vocabulary. So, I will go from there.


James Korte: We have an ordinance that says no such structure may be enlarged or altered in any way to increase the nonconformity. Now, arguing or not arguing is it 6 foot, is it 4 foot from the side lot line and I think that you would have to agree with me because you have done it many time; you allow people to square up what is going on presuming that the 4 foot, 6 foot, 2 feet is already unacceptable but we will allow a square of a situation.


James Korte: I think that we as neighbors and certainly you as a Board and I would like to remind the petitioner that the reason that he is here is so that we never have an "old north end" as it is today. So, this is the new beginning. So, I guess what I am saying is we somehow have to square up that property. So, to jut it another 3 foot over is unacceptable. One comment, all of the measurements are correct. If we get into the new survey and we get into the back we have changed positioning of the garage 24 inches and that still gives us a driveway of 16 feet. So, somewhere either in the first one or somewhere in the second one we still have 2 feet unaccounted for. But, I don’t think that the 2 foot is a problem. I think that if we get into and I am going from a situation of trying to solve the man’s problems such like the awful Jeff Hagar situation on West Lake that bounced around a lot until everyone came to agreements.


James Korte: If you take this 30 by 34 house that sits on a 41 piece of property, it is far to large. What are we going to do with it so that we have a decent house and so what we have a floor plan livable. If we take the attached car garage and place it on the house and give him a 25 foot deep garage with regards to this stake survey we have 32 feet in the back yard. He doesn’t want to back out and he has a problem with a boat. In that 3 car garage, he can park his boat for the duration of the winter and forget about it; wouldn’t that be nice if we could all forget about our aquatic stuff. We also then have a situation of backing straight out into his 30 feet and driving out of his own driveway.


James Korte: Now, let’s talk about the house in square footage. We have a 30 by 34, that is approximately 1000 square feet on the first floor. We do a 2 story, that is 2000 square feet. If we build a house over that 25 feet by 30 we get a viable house at 2700 square feet, we get a 3 car attached garage; no more encumberances to the subdivision, to the street and to anybody. Now, to stick the garage another 3 feet out is unacceptable. I guess it is a tragedy that the house got torn down; I certainly didn’t ask it to happen. But when we are talking a new and we look at many of the new that have arisen in the area it can be a lovely site. Cost, he didn’t want to spend money when he came in the first time; he asked you to help him. Cost is a tragedy, he has a lot more money and that is nobody’s fault least of all ours. But, I think that when we get into no more side lot line encroachment that we have and when you take his measurements of 57 feet in the back and take off a garage 25 feet, that is a lovely deep garage, by 30 foot and we are still squaring we get 2700 square feet of living space which I think for a small lot is a lovely space with a 3 car attached garage. No encumberance to neighbors, no encumberance to street, no encumberance to anything. If we can’t work out some kind of solution then I would hope that you not allow any further encroachments to the side. The back is an interesting situation here, thank God the old house that sits behind it that was moved has a good sized lot.


James Korte: One thing that I will ask and this is rhetorical, most other houses that have come on corners have 2 front yards; so you see his east side is a front and that means that he still should be 30 by new code. If we get into 30 by new code and 10 foot from the other side by new code; we have a house 1 foot wide. So, when you look at 4 feet something or 5 foot something on the east side it is 25 foot on the east side and it makes a big difference. I ask you to not allow this and hopefully we can get a resolution happy for everybody. Thank you.


Sarah Gray, 133 Maudlin. I, too, have a concern about how the side lot use is going to be addressed. With the variance that you gave on the house immediately across Eubank to the east with going forward for 5 feet, it looks like and I haven’t seen any plans and normally we get to look at the plans before we come and then try to address these situations. There is a potential for those 2 driveways to be opposing. That is going to be a problem. That is a problem now. It has always been a problem at that corner. Parking is awful in that area and you all know that. I don’t have a problem with hime rebuilding, I question the methods that he has used so far and I have expressed those concerns to the people who need to know. It is just that it has to be a betterment to the area; tearing down the house really isn’t a hardship; it is self imposed. There has to be a better way to do this. Thank you.


Jayme Thomas, 1105 South Lake Dr. I am directly the neighbor to the west. I am here this evening to express a strong objection to the west variance request the 3 feet towards my home. My objection and my concerns are as follows: first of all, I haven’t been able to review any blue prints because none have been submitted to my knowledge. According to the site plan or the survey that has currently been submitted there is a claim that Mr. Beshear’s property is 3 feet beyond the existing chain linc fence into my backyard. This is the fence that divides our property currently. That is 3 feet into my backyard. This kind of puzzles me and gives me cause for concern. If this is true and accurate then every property owner along South Lake Drive should be notified that it affects them as well as me, by the time that you are done, the people at the end of South Lake Drive will practically have no property at all. So, I really think that should be looked into; it could cause serious problems down the line. His requested setback of 3 feet would allow him to build directly next to the fence all the way across at any time. The fence has incurred some extensive damage when he cleared the lot of all the mature trees that were in the backyard. I would like that repaired or replaced and not removed. I am a gardener and I have pets and by law my pets have to be fenced or leashed. I was present at the last meeting regarding this same property and at that time I expressed my concern and asked to be assured that I would not have a problem when I wanted to build a garage of my own in my yard in the near future. I was told that there wouldn’t be a problem. But, if Mr. Beshear’s builds directly next to the fence and his property extends 3 feet into my backyard as he claims, that is definitely going to be a problem for me in the future. I think that my plans would definitely be compromised. As a Member earlier stated, he said that it is important that these comments be put on record.


Jayme Thomas: The homes in the area, in my opinion, are too close to begin with as built and it is my request to deny the variance to the west towards my home. Thank you.




Terry Morrone had no comment.


Member Reinke: I think that we are looking at a little bit of a different situation since the petitioner’s request before us was taking the first story and adding the second story and putting a garage on. I have a problem with the garage entrance coming off of the side drive because there is really not adequate space to even park a car in front of the garage. Secondarily, with the roof line and the obtrusion to the west side, really all the run off from the garage roof is going to go in the neighbors yard.


Brent Beshears: 60 days ago the house was going to be built or the garage was going to be built 3 feet against the property line and today I am still saying that I would like to build the garage 3 feet from the property line. Virtually nothing has changed. The run off hasn’t changed; it is still provided that within code that if we are 3 feet from the property line that we have adequate run off. Also, to comment on the fence issue; the neighbor west of me is correct. Those property lines are off according to the stake survey. The surveyor tied into the house farthest on the west on South Lake Drive adjacent to the retirement community. Somebody put a fence up in the wrong place by 3 feet starting on the far west side. I think that there is 3 houses west of me. I am the fourth house starting there. So there is a descrepancy of 3 feet for all 3 of those houses. Do I feel that is something that should be addressed here? No. The fact of the matter is that is the property line on the property and I have been told by you folks to provide that. Whether there is a garage put up there or not, that fence is on my property and that fence is going to get taken down and there will be a new fence put up on the property line where it should be. Once again, nothing has changed. We are still building a structure 3 feet from the property line just like we were 60 days ago. The issue of not having adequate room to park a car on the east side of the garage; if you refer back to your notes from 60 days ago it is the same measurement; nothing has changed. So therefore, I am anticipating this same vote to be in my favor to grant the same things. Nothing has changed. I have verified my measurements and the only reason why I am here is because now we are doing a new structure instead of a remodel and that throws me into a different zoning ordinance.


Chairman Antosiak: Just an observation and a comment. This is not the Board that will decide where the property lines are, that is a matter to be resolved between the property owners themselves. Secondly something has changed since you were here before; you have demolished the building. When you were here before you presented a case upon which you would be remodeling. I for one may have looked at the situation differently knowing that you were going to demolish a building and build an entirely new building, than I did believing that you were attaching to the old building and remodeling the old building. I am just speaking for myself. I am not sure what the other Board Members may feel about that.


Brent Beshears: I would like to remind that I do know that I am under oath and my full intentions were to remodel that house. Money is an issue to me. I am over budget because now I have to rebuild the whole house instead of rebuild just 50% of the house. I wasn’t happy with the decision I was forced to make but after communicating with the Building Department of the City of Novi, the carpenter that I hired; it is in my best interest to do that. It is not something that I am happy with. It was a bitter pill to swallow. It is what it is, though. So, I don’t want you folks to be under the impression that 60 days ago I had the full intentions of tearing the house down and building a new house. That is not the case.


Terry Morrone: Just to clarify an issue. The Building Department did not advise Mr. Beshear to tear that house down. There was an issue after the stop work order went on the job and the structure was found to be unsafe. He was given an option to either shore up or take down the remaining chimney and 2 wallls; he choose take them down. That was to make it safe at that point.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: I would like explore a little more how it is that you are before us. Assuming what this Board will do on any given evening on any different case can often be counter productive; so I wouldn’t make any assumptions. I will tell you that when this matter first came up and I was trying to reconstruct this issue and while I was present at the January Meeting the minutes of that Meeting reflect that you were here the month before. At least I believe that you were, seeking 4 variances which included the garage and I wasn’t present there. So, something has changed which I am looking at this with a fresh view because this garage issue is presented to me basically for the first time. I am very concerned about a dramatic difference which is your new construction now. That is significant and I think that it is significant to the Board Members here. I think there is a higher burden when you have new construction involved rather than trying to save a facade that was present before. But, with respect to the tear down; your builder is who?


Brent Beshears: I just hired a carpenter, I am acting as my own builder.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: Who provided you the professional opinion that the second floor could be demolished and the first floor remain intact? The footing and walls adequate to support the structure?


Brent Beshears: The carpenter, Joe Malik. Malik Homes.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: Is he an architect?


Brent Beshears: No, he is a builder himself. I have just hired him to do the rough carpentry work.

Vice-Chairman Harrington: Did he furnish you this opinion in writing?


Brent Beshears: No, but I certainly could get that.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: Isn’t a significant part of your problem in the expense that you face, is that you relied upon his advise in this matter?


Brent Beshears: Correct. My apologies I would like to correct my statement. Nothing has changed as far as the dimensions to the structure and the property lines. Of course, something significant has changed as far as whether or not we are doing a remodel or a new construction.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: Just so the Board is clear, when you made reference to the builder earlier the builder you were referring to was yourself?


Brent Beshears: No.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: It was this guy?


Brent Beshears: Correct, the carpenter.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: The name of his company is what?


Brent Beshears: Malik.......I would have to grab his card, if you would like. I just know him on a first name basis. He is a licensed and insured builder. Just for the record, Joe Malik, carpenter and contractor.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: What is his Novi address?


Brent Beshears: He has a Pinckney address.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: You are working with this guy to rebuild the house yourself?


Brent Beshears: Correct, I have hired him as a carpenter to do the rough framing.

Vice-Chairman Harrington: Are you a builder or an architect?


Brent Beshears: No.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: And what do you do?


Brent Beshears: I am a real estate agent for commercial property.


Member Reinke: I think that the petitioner has a lot more latitude now with starting from where he is at then where the presentation was made without removing the first story. I think that the next door neighbor has a valid concern and I have a concern about the parking and the access to the road. I think that we are looking at a totally different situation.


Brent Beshears: The difference in the situation; I have a little confusion. From the last time that we met there was still a parking problem; there was still concern with the distance between the garage on the east side and the property line. There will probably always be a concern and granted I don’t think that no matter which way a decision gets made in this situation you are not going to please everyone because of the fact that we are still dealing with the property size and the lot size that is smaller than standard use for building a home.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: Have you spoken with Mr. Korte regarding his comments? You heard what he had to say tonight. Have you talked to him before this evening regarding those issues?


Brent Beshears: No.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: Do you think that it might be productive to to speak with Mr. Korte and the other people who have come here tonight to attempt some sort of compromise before we go ahead and vote on this? Do you think that might be productive?


Brent Beshears: I have given the neighbors and Mr. Korte both of my phone numbers; home and work; prior to this meeting 60 days ago. I have not received any contact from them and I personally did that after our meeting or actually before our meeting with Mr. Korte and after our meeting 60 days ago. So they do have a way of contacting me. I haven’t received any contact. I did ask for their numbers and they said "Oh, you will see us around", but they wouldn’t give me a phone number.

Vice-Chairman Harrington: We are not running family court and mediation sessions here this evening, but it seems that it might be; at least from this Board Members’ perspective, Mr. Korte has suggested a specific proposal and he is not in the business of designing your house nor is he in the business of writing your checks out to pay for that house but on the other hand he has specific concerns and apparently the other neighbors do to and for whatever ever reason because you are busy and they are busy no one has spoken, I would suggest at least from this perspective that it might be helpful to see if you could address these issues with him while proceed to other matters. If you don’t feel that is productive, that is fine and I am prepared to continue the discussion and vote when it is appropriate.

Brent Beshears: To build the house the way that Mr. Korte wants me to do build the house, I don’t think is a logical solution. His design was to build the second story and I don’t believe that you were at that meeting, was to build the second story over the garage. My comment was that now we have got to build a free spanding garage. OK. To hold the load of the second floor, which brings your cost of the whole building up 20%. If that is an exact number of 20%, I don’t know but just through my dealings in commercial business usually free spanding buildings do cost 20% more to build.


Vice-Chaiarman Harrington: Cost isn’t really a major issue at least this one before us tonight, but what kind of cost are we talking about that you have blackboarded for this house? What are you talking about?


Brent Beshears: I have $60,000.00 put aside.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: That will be your total build out cost, $60,000.00?


Brent Beshears: That is what I have budgeted.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: Now that you have had to tear the house down, is that the same number?


Brent Beshears: The number has stayed the same.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: $60,000.00?


Brent Beshears: The number has stayed the same, we will probably have to go look for financing somewhere. Where I came from that number, somebody just built a house on East Lake Drive and that is where he is at and his house is 2300 square feet.


Member Harris: When you were here before we debated this issue long and hard and there was a lot of conditions that were attached to it. Whether it was verification of dimensions or understanding or whatever; but what troubles is me is a couple of things: One, is this lot a difficult lot to build on? That is yes. Is there a hardship in the dimensions of it by standard definition? Yes there is. Is this the right answer? I am not sure. The problem that I am having is that deep down inside in this as I have leaned back and debated this is the fact that we seem to be creating a situation that we always endeavor to avoid here on the Board and that is pitting neighbor against neighbor over these kinds of issues. I think that you should take Mr. Harrington’s suggestion to heart and I think that there is a time for you to step back and deal with whether it is Mr. Korte’s design which I think is also a little strange in it’s concept; but I think that there is probably a compromise in here where we can get closer together. I think there is an immediate concern of the neighbors in terms of the 3 feet. I heard you indicate that you are going to tear down the fence and replace it on the lot line, that is obviously going to be a concern for the neighbor. My sense is where it was the last time, that any of the variances were contingent upon the dimension verification. If those dimensions are in fact somewhat different then all of those things are changed as well. The fact that you are down to the foundation, as Mr. Reinke has indicated gives you a great deal more opportunity then you had before. I accept for face value the fact that when you came before us that you were straight forward and honest and said this is what I want to do and I am just going to build up and add on to the house and that didn’t work out. But, I would find myself having a very difficult time supporting the variances that you are asking us for this evening on a rebuild and I would suggest that you ask this Board to table this matter to give you an opportunity to talk with your neighbors and to come up with some alternative that begins to address all of the things that were said. Now whether you will address them all; I doubt it. I don’t think it is possible on this piece of property to address everyone’s concerns but I think that we can get closer than what we are at this point.


Brent Beshears: The issue of, and I am sorry but we are not going to please Mr. Korte no matter how we build this unless we maybe build a 1000 square foot house. The issue of the fence, I can see the concern; but that whole issue came up because I was forced to get a stake survey and I just want to comment on that.


Member Harris: I am not indicating or suggesting that you need to please Mr. Korte. I am not indicating that is in fact not a product of these discussions. What I am saying is that what we have before us this evening is a very difficult lot that needs more attention from my point of view now that building has been torn down then it did when it was reconstruction. As you remember this Board was split and it in fact took at least 3 votes that evening before we got the approval on a 4 to 2 vote. It was a tight call even then. I think to indicate that you would expect other than a tight call again this evening would be naive on your part and I don’t think that you are. As I said, I would suggest that there is some work that you could do as opposed to getting a denial from this Board and having to start completely over. At least a request to table to attempt to do that would give you some opportunity to work with that. That was the basis of my suggestion.


Brent Beshears: The only thing that puzzles me is OK if we table now, where are we headed and what are we looking for? The property line still lies 3 feet past the fence line. I don’t know. Tell me what you are looking for so that I can head in that direction.


Member Harris: The suggestion to table it was to give you the opportunity so that you could come up with a new plan or a compromise plan without having to refile again. That is what the tabling would do for you. The suggestion that I would give you is that you have heard all of the comments, you understand where the Board is at, you understand where the neighbors are at, it would give you an opportunity to take that away, to think about it, to decide whether or not you want to submit another plan. But, my sense of the Board feeling right now is that it doesn’t look very promising with this plan and this piece of property. You have at least the 2 people who voted against you last time against you; you have some new people asking you some questions and if you remember correctly I was leading the variance approvals based upon the circumstance and the situation there and you no longer have me on that side of the discussion. Now, it would seem to be that in a simple vote count it would not be in your best interest to call for a vote from this Board at this point, with this plan.


Brent Beshears: Which I am not doing or requesting. I guess for all blunt purposes you are asking me to change the design which I understand. The only thing that I am trying to do is so that we don’t have to this 30 more days, 30 more days. Am I looking to satisfy the 2 people that had a problem with what I am subimtteing; or am I looking tosatisfy the ZBA. That is what my question is.


Member Harris: Those are not mutually exclusive questions. You are looking to satisy the ZBA. If the ZBA grants a variance, they grant it based upon the uniqueness or the facts that exist in any particular case that you bring forward to us. We know that in this case that there is significant statements being made by the neighbors. There is significant issues being stated by the Board Members and I guess I would stop my comments at that point to indicate to you that it would seem to me that it is your choice or your call.


Member Reinke: I would like to address a question to the Building Department. If the petitioner was granted no variance request he could rebuild on the existing foundation, is that correct?


Terry Morrone: Yes, provided he didn’t expand that foundation.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: Echoing Mr. Harris’ comments, it seems to me that your options are "gentleman I would like you to vote and Ms. Baty if approriate I would like you to vote" or "gentleman I would like to meet with these folks in the back and have you take us again before the evening concluded" and we will certainly stay around for as long as it takes to give you that opportunity or "we could deal with the matter next month if you feel that you need more information"; so you have at least 3 choices there. The easiest one for us would be to simply vote. If you want us to vote, we can do that. The best one may be to read the hand writing and see if you can work out some compromise and if there is no room for compromise then again we can just vote.


Brent Beshears: Are you saying that we can or that I will go and talk to them right now and come back later tonight or we are going to have to do this in 30 days?


Vice-Chairman Harrington: I think that going and talking to them tonight when they are all here and you know the busy schedules and you have yours and they have theirs and no one talks; I think that doing that tonight would be an excellent idea. That would be my suggestion, but I would defer to the Chairman and the rest of the Board.


Member Harris: I would agree to move the case to the end of the agenda and have you come back and indicate what your desire would be....

Brent Beshears: That is what I would like to do.


Chairman Antosiak: We will table your request to the last item on the agenda tonight.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: We only have 3 other items on the agenda, so this is not our usual evening where we are here until all hours. I would anticipate that we would be here at least another half hour or so.



CASE NO. 96-012


Anglin Supply is requesting a vriance to allow the continued placement of the mobile structure from April 1, 1996 through October 31, 1999, for property located at 42750 Grand River Avenue. Refer to ZBA Case Nos. 92-014 and 95-032.


Sue Anglin was present and duly sworn.


Sue Anglin: When we originally came before the ZBA for a variance for this mobile structure, the Board requested that we pursue a permanent building. So since that time we have been pursueing that goal. Currently we are working towards a goal of involving into a year round retail garden center, with offices of which to operate. At this point, we still have many bridges to cross so we are requesting a variance of continuance for this mobile structure.


Chairman Antosiak indicated there was a total of 9 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There was one written response received voicing approval. Copy in file.




There was no audience participation.




Greg Capote had no comment.


Terry Morrone had no comment.


Member Reinke: I think that they need to be able to continue on with the building , the only problem that I have is that we are looking at a lengthy period of time to extend through October 31, 1999. I think that if we go that far it is kind of slowing the process up a little bit and I think that maybe the time frame should be a little shorter to try to move the process along. That is my initial comment to start with.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: This building or the temporary structure was placed on site, when?


Sue Anglin: I believe it was 1990.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: Fiver years, plus or minus. Does that temporary structure solely service the various gardening activities that you have on site.


Sue Anglin: It is basically for our staff, it is our office. It is not for public use. We are a seasonal business so all of our activities are mainly outdoor.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: I agree with Mr. Reinke, I don’t have a problem with extending the temporary use for some period of time but what does concern me and has always concerned me and whenever you come back here I am going to ask you again, is the storage of the commercial vehicles on site, is that an actual business that you operate there that you store other people’s equipment or is that all yours?


Sue Anglin: No, that is all ours.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: In concert with your plans to put in a permanent building, are there some proposals that you have thought of in terms of moving that storage elsewhere?


Sue Anglin: Yes, we have been working on and in fact we have made several offers on other properties for which to move that property to and no offers have been taken at this point. That is really what is hindering us from moving into and renovating that building and using it as our main building.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: So that the concept then would essentially be consistent with building the larger permanent structure would be removal and relocation of the heavy construction equipment?


Sue Anglin: Somewhat, yes. That building is used as a maintenance garage. Obviously we would have to have another place to put that or to do our repair.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: But that is the ultimate plan? When we hear from you that you want to put in a permanent building which we certainly approve and getting rid of the temporary structure which we certainly approve, part and parcel of that whole process with be ultimately the relocation of the commercial storage?


Sue Anglin: That is correct.


Member Brennan: At this point in time there has nothing that has been submitted to Planning in terms of a long term building plan?

Greg Capote: No, we do not. The only plan that is pending will be before the Planning Commission this Wednesday and that is the shade house.


Sue Anglin: We did submit some conceptuals of our future, did you not see that?


Greg Capote: Would that be what you have before us.


Sue Anglin: Yes.


Member Harris: I think in echoing what the fellow Board Members said, it just seems like a long time until October of 1999. My sense would be October of 1997 would make far more sense for me; particularly to see how this is going. I know that there has been progress, there have been changes, there are things going on and I could support the 2 seasons since it has been well maintained and the area has been well maintained and there has been no problems with it. But, I don’t know that I could to the 4 years.


Member Reinke: I agree, I think 2 years will give you a lot of latitude and I think maybe some direction from that point. I have a real problem with going 4 years on a temporary nature because I think that by the time you go through 2 seasons whether they are growth or whatever direction you are going; I think it is pretty much going to establish itself by that point in time.


Member Harris: What happens to the temporary structure between October and May? Is it still there?

Sue Anglin: Yes, it is still in place.


Member Harris: So they would still need a variance to keep it there, wouldn’t they? Ending in October makes no particular sense; it is not like that is the end of the growing season and they stop using and move the trailer inside.


Member Reinke: You have to have and end date some place.


Member Harris: I understand that, but the October didn’t make any particular sense.


Moved by Member Harris,


Seconded by Member Reinke:




Discussion on motion:


Vice-Chairman Harrington: I will support the motion, and it is not a condition of my support but I am also noting the plans to remove and eliminate what I view as a clear safety and health hazard by the continued unfenced and unsecured storage on site. But that is not the issue before us tonight. So I will support the motion.


Roll Call: Yeas (6) Nays (0) Motion Carried


CASE NO.. 96-011


Lyn DePorre, representing Chase Farms, is requesting a variance to allow the continued placement of an 8' x 8' (64 sq. ft.) sign for Chase Farms Development ; sign to be located on lot 50 at Eight Mile and Chase Dr. Refer to Case Nos. 92-075, 93-078, 94-119 and 96-002.


Lyn DePorre was present and duly sworn.


Lyn DePorre: I am here representing Grand/Sawka Development and the residents of Chase Farms. My job with Grand/Sawka is to manage all of Grand/Sawka Developments. I work with all of the builders, the residents and the City Officials. It is my job to make sure that we comply with all City and Township Ordinances and to coordinate things like street cleaning, debris removal and landscape maintenance. I am here tonight to appeal you February 6, 1996 decision to remove the development sign at Eight Mile Road. I have received numerous letters, which I just gave you, from residents at Chase Farms requesting that the sign be permitted to stay. All 4 builders at Chase Farms, John Scaccia, Stewart Michaelson, Harry Potach and Al and Rich Kligman are here with me tonight asking for the same consideration.


Lyn DePorre: It was my understanding from Rob Boggs that our appeal should only be based on non-economic hardships. That was a difficult request because of the tough economic time that we live in right now, but it wasn’t impossible. If Grand/Sawka is forced to remove the sign the driveby, drivein traffic would decrease dramitically. Eight Mile Road is a major thoroughfare in Novi and 99.9% of our interested consumers use the Eight Mile Road entrance. If drivein traffic decreases, new home sales will suffer which means construction within the subdivision would continue indefinately. This is unacceptable to the residents of Chase Farms, especially those with small children and those who enjoy walking through the subdivision.


Lyn DePorre: Grand/Swaka Development would prefer that the construction and sales be allowed to continue at the same rapid pace and thus eliminating the risk of new construction in a more timely manner. Although the sign has been up for 4 years, the subdivsion is only 58% complete. We have 40 some percent left to build. These are upscale homes averaging somewhere between $400 and $450,000.00. They take an average of 10 months to build. Chase Farms is compromised of 331 lots in 3 phases. Between Phase I and Phase II there are still 40 vacant lots. In Phase III there are 101 vacant lots. Chase Farms has been averaging 50 closings per year, which is remarkable in any market and extraordinary in this price range. If we continue at this rapid pace, we estimate that the sub will close out somewhere in late 1998 or early 1999. Which means that we will need the sign for at least another 3 years.


Lyn DePorre: Last but not least, the builder’s models are located at the Eight Mile Road entrance, flanking all 4 corners. These builders have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars show-casing their homes to expected driveby and drivein traffic. We would like them to enter at Eight Mile and not Nine Mile because if they enter at Nine Mile they have to drive one mile through the subdivision along a twisty road, along Chase Drive which will increase more traffic in the subdivision and more hazards for the residents of Chase Farms.


Lyn DePorre: I would like to finish by saying that Grand/Swaka is proud to be associated with the City of Novi, we always make it our business to comply and to cooperate with all City Ordinances and have gone the extra mile to insure that Chase Farms is a development that the City of Novi could showcase as one of their best. The spectacular array of flowers that we plant each year at both entrances have earned us the exceptional Novi Beautification Award 4 years running. We hope that we will earn it again this year. Everything about Chase Farms says first class including the beautifully maintained sign at Eight Mile Road. Please permit us to keep our sign so that Chase Farms can progress at the same pace and eliminate as soon as possible the hazard potential to the children of Chase Farms caused by construction and sales activity.


Chairman Antosiak indicated there was a total of 19 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There was a total of 5 written Notices returned voicing approval and this evening Ms. DePorre handed us 18 approvals; a form letter with all original signatures. Copies in file.




Stewart Michaelson, I am very proud to be one of the four builders in Chase Farms. I think that we have all done a fine job of building nice houses in a community that is an asset to the City of Novi. We have won the beautification award, even though we have had the sign up. It is a very tastefully done sign. I think it is to the benefit of the homeowners to get us out of there as quickly as possible by allowing us to market our houses. We all have furnished models at the Eight Mile entrance; if we have to take the sign down we will have to start all over again and build new models at Nine Mile. There really is no good reason to make us do that because we have already established ourselves at Eight Mile. I hope that you will vote for us. Thank you.




Alan Amolsch had no comment.

Member Baty: The hardship appears to be monetary in this case, because if you moved the models to the back of the sub where the new construction is taking place; wouldn’t that eliminate all of your safety concerns? You wouldn’t have traffic driving through the sub, they would enter off of Nine Mile and see the models at Nine Mile and check out the property at Nine Mile.


Lyn DePorre: The traffic is not necessarily coming from the sales activity. It is coming from the construction activity. The concrete trucks, the brick trucks; there is a lot of activity going on. The hardship that we are proposing here is primarily from construction activity. If the Eight Mile Road sign is removed the traffic from Eight Mile Road, the sales activity which comes in from Eight Mile Road would diminish the sales which means that the construction activity would continue on longer than we would have obviously proposed. The residents feel that it is in their best interest to sell out as quickly as possible so that all of the construction activity would go away. Their kids would be safe, they would be safe, sidewalks could be put in and they would have a built out community in which to live. We are 50 home sales per year, that is remarkable. Especially in this price point. I have worked with Alan and have been working with Nancy, complying with all of the ordinances, trying to keep the subdivision as beautiful as possible. We just recently landscaped Nine Mile Road and duplicated Eight Mile Road in terms of the annuals; which I would imagine earned us our award. We plan on continuing to do this because it is a showcase community in Novi and it is probably one of Novi’s biggest communities. That is why we are asking for your consideration for another year or two.


Member Baty: Your sub permits construction traffic to enter through Eight Mile and the residential area?


Lyn DePorre: Yes.


Member Harris: The point of the sign, we have been in each year that this has been renewed, very complimentary to the sign. This has been a very well maintained, nice looking sign. Both that one and the other one. I don’t think that we had any problem with that, it was the length of time. As it came before us a year ago it was in it’s fourth year; this year it was in it’s fifth year. I, for one, voted against it last year and did again this year based on the belief that it was no longer a temporary sign. You are now indicating that it may be 3 more years that you would be before us which would take it up to 8 plus years; which is way beyond anything that I have ever considered as temporary. I believe that one of the positions that I have regularly taken as a Board Member on sign issues is that once the subdivision identity has been build; which Chase Farms has, it has a very obvious identity and very nice identity, you have done a wonderful job with it; but the need for a temporary sign diminishes. My sense is that there really is no need for a temporary sign under the ordinance as written which basically deals with the first 12 months. The variance extended that because of the size of it, the extensive build out required and the other things. But, I would continue to be on the side of saying that this temporary period of time is over and that the sign should come down.


Lyn DePorre: If I could interject here, the subdivision is at the 50% level. From Eight Mile Road it is very difficult to view new construction activity in the subdivision. With the sign identifying it as a new construction subdivision on Eight Mile Road, it allows people to understand that this isn’t just a built community. In Phase II and in Phase III most of the new construction activity is in the middle and on the north side of the subdivision. So from Eight Mile Road you cannot see that it is a new subdivision. The models are on Eight Mile Road. That is what identifies the subdivision as a new development.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: Let me ask a little bit more about those models. I am one Board Member who does not accept the general concept that economics can’t be a basis for a hardship. I think that economics are the basis of most hardships in life. So, I am not ignoring that as a consideration. But, when I look at the economics associated with this problem that is presented, I am going to assume that those models are not lasting monuments to the Chase Farms Development but that at some point in time the economic decision is going to be made to sell them to the highest bidder. Correct? They are going to be sold, so it is not like those models have been created for a purpose and the purpose will no longer survive. Those models or their substitutes could easily be rebuilt at the Nine Mile end. True?


Lyn DePorre: I wouldn’t say easily. I would say that it takes somewhere between 8 to 10 months to build a model.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: You are building like 400 houses....


Lyn DePorre: These are expensive homes, these are half million dollar homes, some of them are; so to build a show case home like these 4 builders have built at Eight Mile Road will take somewhere between 8 and 10 months to build. If they are forced to close their models at Eight Mile and build them at Nine Mile we are talking about a lull in construction of at least a year in order for them to get.....


Vice-Chairman Harrington: So that from your perspective the minimum hardship that would be imposed or that you would need some relief from would be a 12 month period?


Lyn DePorre: If you force them to build them along Nine Mile Road.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: I am not forcing them to do anything. Let me tell you what my real problem is; which isn’t so much the models but I am struck by the fact that is not like something has been created which will be useless and have no value at the end. Those models can be sold at a price and at a profit at any time that you decide or the companies decide to market those models. That is not my problem though. I am just making that comment. I drove Chase Blvd. before the last meeting and as a result of that visual inspection I concurred with Mr. Harris, I think that he was correct. I did it again today. Now this is not a trick question, this isn’t one of those MEAP questions the kids are doing today; do you know how far it is from Eight Mile Road to Nine Mile?


Lyn DePorre: Probably more than a mile.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: Yes, it is. It is 1.3 miles according to my unofficial speedometer. By observation, the bulk of the houses that have been constructed are within that first mile and right at shall we say Reindeer Drive the open construction area appears where it is clear, these are the vast majority of available sites in the subdivision. The conceptual problem that I had which was just simply mine, was that the models are one mile from most of the vacant lots. The temporary sign which has been there for 5 years is one mile from most of the available lots. We granted the variance for the temporary sign at the Nine Mile end, which is readily identifiable with those lots. It seems that at some point in time no matter how vast the vision on the project, when your temporary sign is over a mile from the area that needs development; I personally don’t feel that those residents really want and we do have 18 plus or minus here and we have 6 here and various people in the audience who I know will tell me I am wrong, but I don’t think that those residents want all that drive thru traffic for safety and health considerations. The problem is that they are caught up in a project which is vast; which is significant, which runs 1.3 miles as the car drives and probably a quarter mile or a half mile either way; and an 8 year sign is not temporary. I don’t think that sign and the distance from the area that needs to be developed; I don’t think that sign is really serving it’s purpose. That is just my opinion.


Lyn DePorre: Even though the bulk of construction is in the latter part of Phase II and in most of Phase III, the sales are conducted from the models at Eight Mile Road. Traffic pulls in at the Eight Mile Road entrance, they pull in front of the models and they walk into the models and deal with the sales people that are in the models.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: In fact, it is really hard to miss that "Model" sign on the side of those houses, correct? There is a sign on there that says "Sales Office" or "Model" or the equivalent, right on the right as you drive in.


Lyn DePorre: I understand that, but what alerts them to the fact that it is a new construction subdivision is the Chase Farms Development sign. However temporary you might think it is, it is a sign that identifies the subdivision as new construction. The fact is that it is only 58% complete, that is like just a little more than half.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: And for orientation purposes, the 101 lots that you describe are in Phase III and Phase III is the most approximate to Nine Mile. True?


Lyn DePorre: Yes.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: And how many models do you have on Eight Mile?

Lyn DePorre: Four.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: And you have no models up on Nine Mile where most of the open land is?


Lyn DePorre: None.


Al Kligman of Superb Homes: I was the first builder to open up in Chase Farms. I am building another model right now, next to my present model; the first one that I opened up. It just makes good sense that the ordinance says that there should be only temporary signs. I can understand that, it is reasonable, it is logical and that is why the ZBA is set up to handle deviations from those ordinances. So that makes good sense to me. Temporary is certainly something that a community would want to look for so that you don’t have a lot of signs that make a community look commercial. I am building another model off of Eight Mile Rd. I have one site that I could use for a model off of Nine Mile. I could have built my second model there and sold my first one. But, the place where the most traffic is, is off of Eight Mile Road. Now, it just happens that I think that the benefit to the community of Chase Farms in terms of the people living there with small children, etc. is that the builders be able to complete this very large subdivision. These are large lots. The homes are very expensive. Temporary signs in a small subdivision would warrant a shorter period of time. This subdivision went up much more quickly than I would have anticipated because of the location, the way that it was laid out. It was done beautifully. The homes that have been built there. It is an ideal situation, I feel. But, if we are forced to build in another location where the traffic is not as heavy it is only going to add to the continued construction activity in that area. It happens that the benefit of the people living there happens also to be a benefit to us, and that is to move homes more quickly. But, if you are representing the people who live in the City of Novi and in this specific case Chase Farms and I think that the greatest advantage to the people living in Chase Farms is that the builders sell out as quickly as possible, get the homes built and take that temporary sign down. Is it a benefit to the community to have this sign taken down and the one at Nine Mile Road stand up for a much longer, than I think, that Eight Mile Road would be there. Why would I be building a second model there, I could go over to the other end. I am doing it because it makes good sense. Eight Mile Road is heavily traveled and I think it would accelerate the sales in the community. From the selfish, I want to accelerate because I would like to move on. But, it also happens to benefit the people living in there and would be the same as ours, that is to complete it sooner and to get out. It is a huge subdivision and to use one year or two years doesn’t seem reasonable to me. I appreciate you listening. I just wanted to make my point. If you were standing here in my position or if you were living in Chase Farms I think that you would want to see construction completed sooner. If the traffic is 3 or 4 times as heavy on Eight Mile Road and I am sure that there are figures that can be brought here to tell the difference in traffic; certainly if it is 3 times as much I don’t know whether you can say that the sales and the construction would go 3 times as fast; but, that is my point. I have made it and thanks very much.


Member Baty asked to see a copy of the letters.


Member Reinke: I think it is the same thing that we have wrestled with in these kinds of situations of when is long enough, long enough? Trying to get a subdivision built and balanced out and phased out and everything is of course to everybody’s best interest. Sometimes it takes more than having a sign up; people get tired of looking at signs because it is really not of a temporary nature when it goes on for that length of time.


Lyn DePorre: But nobody wrote letters saying that they were tired of looking at the sign.


Member Reinke: I am not saying that they did. What I am saying is that the ordinance is set up for a temporary nature. If it goes on for this length of time it is really not temporary.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: Let’s discuss for one more minute, before we make a motion. I could be persuaded to support, if there were a consensus of the Board an extension of the sign for one year and one year only. I think that we have received some new information tonight. For the record purposes for the petitioner, I am regarding this not as an appeal because I don’t think that we are the Board to appeal our own decisions to; but rather this is in the nature of a request for a rehearing procedurally because if it is an appeal maybe some other actions should have been taken. I am looking at this as a request for a rehearing based on new evidence. I would suggest to the Board members that if there is any consensus or any thought that a year might assist this problem, I could support that if there is no such support then I am simply prepared to vote on a motion.


Member Bauer: I could go along with that.


Member Harris: This Board Member would not support Mr. Harrington. Back when we debated this in 1994 I indicated for the record my opposition to the temporary nature of it and indicated that I would not support it in the future.


Chairman Antosiak: You in fact, voted against it in 1994.


Member Bauer: I would go along with it, due to the fact that there are 3 phases in this and that the models are on Eight Mile, they have been built on Eight Mile all along. I can’t see switching to the Nine Mile.


Moved by Vice-Chairman Harrington,


Moved by Member Bauer,




Roll Call: Yeas (3) Nays (3) Harris, Brennan, Antosiak


Chairman Antosiak indicated the motion fails.


Member Brennan: I haven’t made a comment yet, so I will now. Temporary isn’t 4 years, you are asking for 5. I think it is beyond reason.


Chairman Antosiak: That is pretty much my opinion. We are looking at an Ordinance that allows one year, we have been over 4 at this location. I think by my own recollection that is longer than we have every approved a temporary sign before. We typically will approve a second year and occasionally a third if the situation calls for it. I don’t believe that we have ever approved 4 before and now we are looking at 5. I think that this tends to negate the whole intent of the statute.


Member Reinke: Really we haven’t done anything with this yet because we didn’t approve or disapprove. It is a 3 to 3 tie.


Chairman Antosiak indicated Mr. Harrington’s motion failed.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: My only comment on the motion is that I think that there are some real practical difficulties that are facing this petitioner and there is some hardship involved. As I heard the flow of the testimony from the witnesses; if the sign comes down and if there is a business decision made to move models or to pick some spec lots up on the north end at Nine Mile to address the situation there is a lead time involved which is why I thought that the 12 months made sense, if there is to be any relief granted. A simple no when we have granted albeit over Mr. Harris’ objection; we have granted this for 4 prior years and my position is quite clear and the hand writing is there to be seen that something needs to be done to address the north end development and I don’t think that models on the south end or Eight Mile is the way to do it. That is my opinion and as I have said I was prepared to work with 12 months. But the motion fails.


Member Harris: My sense of nonsupport of the motion for the 12 months, includes the fact that in 1994 when we debated, the petitioner was put on notice that there was going to be a future problem and there was not indication that there was an attempt to change the business strategy or structure in the mean time to address that. I don’t believe that it is our responsibility at this point to in fact do it even though I do agree that there could be a financial hardship as a basis for this. I still find myself not approving this because we have exceeded the temporary nature and the petitioner could have made other arrangements over the last variance period of time.


Lyn DePorre: Financial hardship aside; the traffic issue is a big issue. Nine Mile Road virtually has no traffic. It is all residential traffic, people who live along Nine Mile Road, school busses, the community that surrounds that entrance. Eight Mile Road is a 5 lane road. There is a lot of traffic that travels up and down Eight Mile Road. Those people drive in our subdivision. The people that drive up and down Nine Mile Road and I can attest to this because I spent a long time on Nine Mile

Road when we put new sod in, when the moratorium went into affect and we couldn’t run our water and I had $10,000.00 worth of sod on Nine Mile Road and had to hire a water truck, a pool truck, to come in and water my sod. I spent 10 hours on that site in one day. There was no traffic. The traffic was residential traffic only.


Member Harris: I understand that and I also understand that you also petitioned to have a sign placed there, a temporary sign that we approved last month.


Lyn DePorre: We would be more than willing to take the Nine Mile Road sign down, if we could leave the Eight Mile Road sign up.


Member Harris: I understand that and that was said to us last month as well. But there was at least an understanding or and expectation on your part that 2 signs, which is what the petition had originally asked for, was really your main desire. We did indicate and I did vote for the sign on Nine Mile because it is of a temporary nature. Again, it boils down to simply the length of time and the spirit of the ordinance. The spirit of the ordinance takes us way past temporary.


Lyn DePorre: How many communities in Novi are the size of Chase Farms? Are there other communities that 300 plus lots? Do we know of any?


Member Harris: I am not sure of the answer to that, but I can tell you that the discussion in 1993 that was one of the reasons that we extended and voted for it in 1993, because of the size of it. It was also again in 1994 that it was. But you still get to the point of temporary nature of the sign.


Lyn DePorre: It takes between 8 and 10 months to build these homes. This is not your average production subdivision that you can crank out a house in 4 or 5 months, like Pulte. This is a subdivision that requires a lot of attention to these homes, so this subdivision with 330 lots is going to continue for a lengthy period of time in order to build out the subdivision, with an average of 50 closings a year which is pretty remarkable in the price point. That is not, like I said, a production subdivision. It is more of a custom subdivision. Like I said before, Chase Farms is a community that is proud to be in the City of Novi. We have always complied and worked with City Officials every step of the way, doing everything that we can to keep the subdivision clean; the street cleaned, the residents happy, the entrances looking beautiful and well maintained. I have landscapers out there twice a week in the summer time. Our irrigations systems are always fixed and primed, our sod is always green. There isn’t anything that we wouldn’t do to be a showcase community in Novi. All that we are asking is a little consideration so that we can get the subdivision built out in the time frame allotted.


Rich Kligman, you have already heard from my father. I am going along the same lines that he is. I just wanted to make an issue and pose this as a question. Temporary sign, yes. We have had this for 4 1/2 years and we are 58% sold out, 42% is left. If we have 3 times less traffic, and maybe there is going to be a correlation with the sales in the third phase; what is going to happen with the temporary sign issue in another 4 years and we are not going to be sold out then. We are prolonging it and at that point is it no longer a temporary sign and are we going to have to take down all of our signage? That is another issue that you may want to consider also. For the amount of time that we have been there and for the amount of sales and the amount of traffic on Eight Mile; it will be considerably less coming in from Nine Mile. The sign at Nine Mile we could be back here in another 4 years with the same issue. It might be something to consider.


Member Brennan: I think that we can debate all night and argue the merits of the sign. The bottom line though is that it is a temporary use ordinance, it is 4 1/2 years. Anything beyond that is strictly a debate. I could argue that the traffic on Eight Mile is better for you, but the reality is that you are building half million dollar homes and how many people can afford those. Is that the reason why you are not sold out? That is not the point. The point is you have an ordinance and the ordinance says that this is a temporary use and you have had 3 extensions and it has been 4 1/2 years.


Moved by Member Harris,


Seconded by Member Reinke,





Discussion on motion:


Member Reinke: I think that we need to get off dead center here and I totally agree that the temporary nature of the sign has been exceeded and if there is something that needs to address this problem situation it needs to be done in Ordinance Review.


Chairman Antosiak: I certainly concur with that.


Vice-Chairman Harrington: These people certainly have a real hardship and I think that we are ignoring it.


Roll Call: Yeas (4) Nays (2) Bauer, Harrington Motion Carried


CASE NO. 96-013


Singh Development Co., Ltd. is requesting a variance to allow the placement of an entrance sign 8'10" x 4' (35 sq. ft.) to be located in the entry boulevard island at Beck Road and Beckenham Blvd. The License Agreement was approved by the City Council on January 22, 1996.

Michael Kahm was present and duly sworn.


Michael Kahm: I see that we have 2 variances before you this evening. The first one, until I talked to Al, I didn’t know that I had. I’ll address that one first. I learned that the way that sign areas are calculated is as I guess a parallelogram. I wanted to explain to you the way that our sign measures even though I understand the ordinance and it is measured by a parallelogram. This is a blow up of what our sign looks like. This is a calculation and you may have it in your packets. In actuality it would be actual surface area of the sign that measures 23.56 feet which is below your 24 square feet allowed in the ordinance. Unfortunately, in the wisdom of our designer she created 2 diamonds on the top and the bottom as part of our kind of signature logo for the sign. So what those 2 little diamonds do is to increase the size of the parallelogram so all of the area that you count even though it is not in the sign it is in the parallelogram. In actuality our sign is only 23.56 square feet in area but in strict conformance with the way the ordinance is interpreted because of the parallelogram is used for calculation, 2 diamonds create the 35 square feet within the parallelogram. So, we are asking for that variance to allow for this particular sign to be placed as our permanent entry sign in the boulevard. Secondly, we did receive approval of our license approval from City Council in January for placement of our permanent sign in the boulevard of our entry at Beckenham Blvd. off of Beck Road. We are asking the ZBA to grant us permission to place the sign in the boulevard.


Chairman Antosiak indicated there was a total of 2 Notices sent to adjacent property owners with no written response received.




There was no audience participation.




Alan Amolsch had no comment.


Member Reinke: With the License Agreement from Council, I don’t see anything from the Fire Department or about visual checks or possible obstructions.


Alan Amolsch: That was done as part of the license agreement. That would have been checked out by Mr. Jerome before it went to Council.


Member Reinke: That would have been my only comment or question. Thank you.


Moved by Member Harris,


Seconded by Member Reinke,




Roll Call: Yeas (5) Nays (1) Antosiak Motion Carried




James Korte: I guess we have come to an agreement and of course if I am not right he may certainly step in. Driving into the back and parking north and south is not a problem. So we will twist the garage. Now, we have a problem or the only problem that we do have is in a 10 foot, which is in the utility area. According to my calculations if he gets rid of the utility area and puts a 25 foot garage he has 32 feet. So, I guess what we have to break this down to is what is the magic number to back out of that driveway legally between the garage and the back fence. Because that is the magic number that we have to solve. Am I making sense?


Member Brennan: You are talking about a rear entry garage instead of off of Eubank?


Brent Beshears: That is correct. I think that 2 months ago we were talking about what is the minimum number that you can have from the garage to the rear property line. Maybe Terry can help us out on that.


James Korte: This was the original Laverne Reinke idea to come in from that direction.


Terry Morrone: For side entry garages you need 25 foot from the building to the side property line or the rear property line in this case; 25 foot would give 22 feet of hard surface area and 3 feet of area for drainage.


James Korte: So we are talking 28 max?


Terry Morrone: 25.


Member Reinke: That would be 25 minimum.


Brent Beshears: Correct. So that means according to......


James Korte: I think in this is we do.........we are coming up with 25 feet. Now, that is 25 feet meaning; a 34 house, a 22 foot garage and 25 feet to the back lot line. If that fits the deed work which it should then we would be driving in and coming in the "Reinke Syndrome" as I will call it. And if 24 is all that we need and I am starting with 57 and I am subtracting 10 and then I am subtracting 22 then what do I have left; 25.


Brent Beshears: To make it a little bit simpler, if you guys are looking at the drawing or the site plan; that would give you the same dimensions. Right now what I was proposing from the rear of the garage to the south property line was 22'.08" to that corner. So, if we twist the garage around it will make the 25 feet.


Member Reinke: You are gaining the 3 feet, so you really have 25.


Member Harris: And you are going to leave the 34.3, you are going to leave the 10.2 addition and you are going to twist the garage around as a 22 foot garage and leave 25 feet to the back.


Brent Beshears: Correct.


James Korte: Then the next question, I see no reason that if he chooses that the garage shouldn’t be 30 foot wide, which would give him a back entry technically a 3 slip. It would square the whole house out to 43' 10" and 22.


Brent Beshears: I was having trouble, until he drew it out for me and I see what he is saying; so we are just going to build a large rectangle 30 feet by 5 by whatever the dimension will be, and the rear property line will be.......The distance between the rear property and the garage will be 25 feet. Actually that will be starting from the corner of the house and would get a little bit larger as you go to the west.


James Korte: The only problem that he has, and I wish that he would get rid of that 10 feet in the middle, because I think that it would be nicer. But if 25 is the magic number in the back, it will work. Therefore he gets a square house. At this point in time he does not plan to build over the garage, so it will be a 2 story house and a 1 story garage.


Brent Beshears: Correct. The dimensions on the garage then would be 22 feet by 30.5.


Member Reinke: That means that he will not protrude into the west side yard setback.


Brent Beshears: Correct. That keeps the same line as the existing foundation.


Member Reinke: I think that is much more workable and the thing is that I think it makes it safer for the petitioner as well as the residents; namely on Eubank.


Brent Beshears: Does that allow as Korte has asked, 3 bays?


James Korte: A double garage door is 16, is it not? And a single is 8. So you can get a double and a single or 3 singles.


Chairman Antosiak: That is between you and the Building Department, when you go to get your building permit.


James Korte: The neighbor to the west still has lot line problems, but I think that whatever those problems are there is no more encroachment. If it is going to move, if it isn’t going to move, if another one should put it 2 feet that way; we are still squaring and we will won’t be on anybody’s anything else no matter what the outcome of that one is.


Member Harris: Philosophically we have now arrived at what we would normally expect to be done and that is a continuation of the side lines of the house. You have accomplished, I think, at least an acceptance from the neighbors and they seem to be nodding in agreement as you both were talking and certainly from my perspective it takes us back to an issue where we have addressed the parking, the off street parking, we have addressed the issues of encroachment, the issues of the side and I find it a very reasonable compromise.


James Korte: And do I think that the place is over built? Totally! But, I think that it will satisfy all needs and not disturb anymore than it already has disturbed.


Chairman Antosiak: As for the property line, that is an issue that is going to have to be resolved outside of this room between the property owners.


Brent Beshears: That is just fine. It is what it is, whether it stays that’s fine. We will get another surveyor to draw it up and if they disagree....well then fine. We will resolve it.


James Korte: Whatever the survey ends up, the house is obviously sitting on it’s own property and if you go straight back, it is still going to sit on it’s own. It is no farther encroachment except straight back.


Jayme Thomas: I just wanted to ...... will there be another site plan submitted that will show these changes?


Chairman Antosiak: No to us, he will have to submit a plan to the building department for approval.


Jayme Thomas: OK, I am certain that the Building Department will make sure that it doesn’t go past that particular perimeter. Right?


Terry Morrone: You don’t want the line to go past the building, that everything is going to be .....


Brent Beshears: That the line of the house stays straight and there is no jog in the garage. She wants to make sure that I don’t do anything but that.


Chairman Antosiak: If your concern is that you would like to see that, I think that after Building accepts it.....


Jayme Thomas: My only other concern was in regards to myself being able to have a problem after that. After he builds on his property. That was one of my main concerns; am I going to be able to have a garage now because he claims that his property is so far over into mine.


Chairman Antosiak: That is not a question that we can answer. To solve the property line issue, you may have to hire a surveyor and see if he arrives at the same result as the petitioner’s survey.


Jayme Thomas: OK, thank you.


Member Baty: If the neighbor wants to build a garage, is there a certain distance between the 2 garages that would have to be maintained? Regardless of where the lot line is.


Member Reinke: You really can’t say and evaluate that until the petitioner presents a plan.


Member Baty: But from a safety or?


Terry Morrone: No, the codes don’t address buildings and their proximity when they are on adjacent lots; only to property lines and in this case this building line will have to be fire proof construction. And if the other building is closer than 6 foot to the property line, it too will have to be fire proofed. That is part of the building code that they will have to comply with.


Moved by Member Harris,


Seconded by Vice-Chairman Harrington,





Brent Beshears: Just for the record, we can make it on whatever you are proposing. So it will be like you said square up the house, the dimension of the rear of the garage will be 22 feet deep by 30 feet 5 inches and the dimension from the rear of the garage to the property line will be 25 feet.


Member Harris: That is all under consideration in the motion.


Roll Call: Yeas (6) Nays (0) Motion Carried


Brent Beshears: One thing that I can ask and obviously there is a mess on that lake as far as property lines and all that; and if anyone tries to do that just to save them the head ache. Right from the get go you require them a stake survey. I think that would have saved 3 months of my time and obviously your time tonight and the nights prior to.


James Korte: The tragedy that has happened out there, and has happened again when the water main went in, is the markers don’t get put back. Now, the trouble with Walled Lake Heights and Laverne Reinke is lucky because they didn’t tear his end up; when they put the sewer in there was a 16 foot deep hole and 3 days of rain and the mud went up through the whole side of the building and no one ever put any markers back. I was there, it was a mess, it really is impossible out there. Garey Foyt is not happy with me either on the $23,000.00 on the survey that might not be right. Thank you for your time.





Chairman Antosiak: Someone had some questions for Mr. Capote, regarding Glenda’s.


Member Reinke: When is it going to be resolved?


Greg Capote: Chris has called me a couple of times during the week and he has indicated that is working to solve some engineering problems and then submit plans formally to our office. I directed him to write a letter to the Board, through Nancy McKernan, Secretary to the Board and he has done so. But, otherwise this is the only official piece of correspondence that I have received and we await the submission of a final site plan application to our department. That is where it stands.


Chairman Antosiak: I understand that they have been informed that they don’t have a variance to operate their business.


Greg Capote: That is my understanding.







Moved by Member Reinke,

Seconded by Member Harris,





Roll Call: (Voice Vote) All Yeas Motion Carried




Moved by Member Bauer,


Seconded by Member Harris,





Roll Call: (Voice Vote) All Yeas Motion Carried




Moved by Member Reinke,


Seconded by Member Bauer,





Roll Call: (Voice Vote) All Yeas Motion Carried


Member Reinke: Mr. Antosiak, I would like to commend you on a very good year and a very good job. Well done.





The Meeting was adjourned at 10 p.m.





















Date Approved Nancy C. McKernan

Recording Secretary