TUESDAY - JUNE 3, 1997


The Meeting was called to order at 7:31 p.m., with Chairman Antosiak presiding.




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


Absent: Members Meyer, Baty (alternate)


Also Present: Donald M. Saven - Building Official

Nancy McKernan - Recording Secretary




Chairman Antosiak indicated I have been informed that Mr. Meyer and Ms. Baty are both out of town this evening. There will be five (5) Members for the Meeting. We have a quorum present.


Chairman Antosiak indicated the Novi Zoning Board of Appeals is a Hearing Board empowered by the Novi City Charter to hear appeals seeking variances from the application of Novi Zoning Ordinances. It takes a vote of at least four (4) Members to approve a variance and a vote of the majority of the Members present tonight to deny a variance. We have five (5) Members here this evening, therefore it will take a vote of three (3) of the five (5) Members to deny a variance. Since we do not have a full Board, I will ask if there is anyone who would like to table their petition to the July Meeting?


Member Harrington inquired of Chairman Antosiak: If I understand; it will take three (3) to deny but in order to approve it will take four (4)?


Chairman Antosiak: That is correct. That is according to the Novi Ordinances.



Approval of Agenda


Chairman Antosiak indicated we have four (4) written requests to table for tonight’s agenda. Case No. 97-015, Case No. 97-041, Case No. 96-098, and Case No. 97-020. Do we have a motion to approve the agenda as amended?


Member Brennan: I have a recommendation; there are two (2) cases that are regarding the fences and perhaps we should hear those one after another.


Chairman Antosiak: That would be Case No. 97-036 and Case No. 97-039; and I would agree, Mr. Brennan, that perhaps we should hear Case No. 97-039 after Case No. 97-036.

Moved by Member Harrington,


Seconded by Member Reinke,





Roll Call: (voice vote) (all yeas) Motion Carried


Approval of Minutes


Chairman Antosiak: Tonight we have minutes from our April 30th and May 6, 1997 Meetings. Are there any comments on the minutes?


Moved by Member Brennan,


Seconded by Member Harrington,





Roll Call: (voice vote) (all yeas) Motion Carried


Public Remarks


Chairman Antosiak indicated this is the Public Remarks portion of the Meeting. Any comments related to a case before the Board this evening will be heard at the time the case is heard. However, if there is anyone in the audience who would like to address the Board on any matter not related to a specific case, now is the time to do so. (No one wished to be heard at this time.)



Case No. 97-034 filed by Alan Dudley


Alan Dudley is requesting side yard setback variances; 5' for the north side ad 5'7" for the south side to allow for an alteration and an addition at 109 Maudlin.


Alan Dudley was present and duly sworn.


Alan Dudley: We are trying to add on. When I moved in, I was single. The house is only 2 bedroom. Since then I have married and have a family. We need more room.


Chairman Antosiak indicated there was a total of 45 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There was one written response received with a tentative approval. (Copy in file).



There was no audience participation.




Don Saven: The expansion of the home on the south side being less than 5 foot there will need to be some fire protection for that particular wall. You have to make sure that you take a look at it.


Jeff Edelstien - J R Building, that will be taken care of.


Member Brennan: My observation was that the lot is relatively deep, the addition is not any wider than the existing footprint and it seems to be an appropriate request and there are no objections from the general community.


Chairman Antosiak: Just to clarify for the record the addition will just follow the existing sides of the home.


Alan Dudley: Yes, it will.


Vice-Chairman Reinke: It is unfortunate that the lot isn’t bigger, but that is something that can’t be changed. As Mr. Brennan has indicated it is not going out further than the existing foot print of the side of the existing home. In understanding the petitioner’s needs, I guess that I can support the petitioner’s request.


Moved by Member Brennan,


Seconded by Vice-Chairman Reinke,




Roll Call: Yeas (5) Nays (0) Motion Carried


Mrs. Dudley: Can we waive the five days?


Member Brennan: You would have to take that up with Don.


Member Harrington: Mr. Chairman on that issue is there or do I remember that we can give a waiver on the waiting period?

Vice-Chairman Reinke: Yes.


Member Harrington: Is that something that the Board has to do?


Don Saven: If the request is there.


Member Harrington: Didn’t they just request it?


Don Saven: Yes, they did.


Member Harrington: Was that a part of the motion?


Moved by Member Harrington:


Seconded by Member Brennan,




Roll Call: (voice vote) (all yeas) Motion Carried


Case No. 97-036 filed by Joseph Rackov


Joseph Rackov wishes to maintain an existing nonconforming fence in the required front yard and in a portion of the right of way for property located at 1740 Paramount. A variance is needed to allow the fence to extend into the required front yard and beyond the front of the house. A variance is also needed for split rail fences more than 20' in length. If the Zoning Board of Appeals grants these variances a separate variance may be needed from the City Council for the right of way portion.


Joseph Rackov was present and duly sworn.


Joseph Rackov: My neighbor and myself installed the fence along the edge of the roadway along my driveway and his driveway in April of 1992. We were unaware of any zoning ordinance regarding fences or the right of way. When we put it up, at that time I had fairly young children and my children are older now. My neighbor does have young children. Children do go into the front yards at times. Our yards are adjoining and this tends to keep the children out of the street. It is a gravel road but there is some high speed traffic that goes down there at times. We put it up originally to beautify the neighborhood but we were just unaware that it was against policy.


Joseph Rackov: On a related matter, we had a drainage problem last year. I had Mr. Kriewall, Mr. Jerome, Mr. Nowicki, and Hiam out for several hours that evening during the large storms that we had last June and they were all aware of the fence and climbed over and back and forth and checked the water depth and they pumped the water out from our yard with the flooding and the back run off problem. Nobody ever said anything regarding the fence, the right of way an in fact they said if the ditch rose that time to clear up the problem they would move it back. Now we find out we were in violation.


Chairman Antosiak indicated there was a total of 42 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There was a total of 7 written responses received all voicing approval. (copies in file.)




James Korte, Shawood Lake Area. I would like to speak as the past "Chair" of Walled Lake Sector Study. I am amazed and I am talking about the whole 1700 block that is 30 and 40 who are both here on a split rail. Neighbors on the South Lake lots 42 and 41, Probst Subdivision, and that is near South Lake and Duana put up an illegal split rail fence more than 20 feet long and this is the third spring. We have had meetings out there with the City. We have had meetings with the attorney. It has been to City Council twice. Tony Nowicki said to get the fence out of there. Bruce Jerome was instructed to take the posts out; he took one post out. Our City Manager said to put it back in. That fence is illegal. We have these 2 parties asking to have a fence that the City deems a legal commodity illegally on their property. I don’t understand why these people are here at all, because the traffic counts are to be out on South Lake and East Lake. South Lake is 6000 plus and East Lake is 5000 plus. This is Paramount! There are signs that say no turn. Paramount does not legally get the traffic that the other people do and the City refuses to do anything about the other illegal fence. Please let these people have their illegal fence. Thank you.




Don Saven had no comment.


Member Harrington inquired of Don Saven: What is the problem with this fence?


Don Saven: The problem with the fence is that it extends into the front yard. Fences are not installed within the front yard setback requirement.


Member Harrington: Is the split rail of significance?


Don Saven: The split rail is, because it has a decorative type of connotation and it can’t be greater than an "x" amount.


Member Harrington: How did they come up with 20' in contrast with 10' or 30'? What does that mean?


Don Saven: It says basically "the requirements of this subsection shall not apply to decorative fencing, ie split rail, or no more than 20' in length and 4' in height. That is what is the allowance for decorative types of fencing. It is also in the right of way.


Joseph Rackov: Originally you may want to go back to the legal description of my parcel number because on August 20, 1990; I did receive a legal description for the parcel and that they consolidated the 2 properties because I am on 2 lots and my house does sit on the center of the lot line. The legal description of it is lots 40 and 41 of Cenequa Shores Subdivision.


Member Brennan: Do you know what the overall length of that fence is?


Joseph Rackov: I am going to say approximately 50 to 55 feet and that is with the edge that goes along my driveway and up to my sidewalk.


Member Brennan: According to your sketch here then you have about 25' of fence per lot.


Joseph Rackov: Approximately. I didn’t go out and actually measure it.


Member Bauer inquired of Don Saven: Do they have to go to Council?


Don Saven: Yes.


Member Harrington inquired of Don Saven: The petition reflects that the petitioner was not aware of any ordinances prohibiting it in 1992 when he put it up, do I correctly understand that there were ordinances that would have prohibited this?


Don Saven: That is correct.


Member Harrington: And do I also understand that had he applied for a permit from the City he would have been informed that the proposed fence was prohibited?


Don Saven: That is correct.


Member Brennan: Do we draw a line between what is considered a decorative split rail fence and what is more commonly a fence?


Don Saven: I think that by virtue of ordinance, decorative addresses a split rail fence. This is what the gentleman does have here.


Vice-Chairman Reinke inquired of Don Saven: If this was on his lot line, the only thing that he would need a variance for is the split rail fence?

Don Saven: If it was on his line, or if you talk about it being on his front lot line the issue would be that the fence is encroaching into the front yard setbacks more than the 30 foot requirement. There is an allowance for a split rail fence of a decorative nature not exceeding 20 feet.


Member Harrington: Do I correctly understand that the fence does not serve a functional purpose other than for decorative purposes?


Joseph Rackov: It is decorative. There is no mesh or any kind of wire or anything. It is open. We have taken a section out to access the front yard for some brush removal in 1994 and we removed the posts in the ground and moved the brush out; it is not cemented in the ground it is just put in the ground dry.


Vice-Chairman Reinke: The biggest problem that I have and I don’t have much of a problem with the decorative nature of the fence; the problem that I have is it being right at the road edge. I think that I understand some of your reasoning behind it but it seems to be awful close to have any kind of traffic going down there and being so close to the edge of the road.


Joseph Rackov: There are others in the neighborhood and the City that are on the edge of the road also.

Vice-Chairman Reinke: I am not saying that I care for those or that situation any better than yours is right there.


Chairman Antosiak: As I understand this, Mr. Saven, our variance tonight should we chose to approve one would be to approve the fence as is with the understanding that the City Council would have to approve any intrusion of the fence into the public right of way.


Don Saven: That is correct.


Chairman Antosiak: So if we were to approve the variance but the City Council not, then Mr. Rackov would have to remove his fence to the point of the right of way.


Don Saven: That is correct.


Member Brennan: I appreciate Mr. Reinke’s comments; but at the same time this is a gravel road and this has been there for 4 or 5 years and it hasn’t created any great deal of problems with neighbors. There is not a cast of thousands here. I would tend to believe that if the City Council deems it is OK to sit on City property, I don’t really have any major objection to it.


Moved by Member Brennan,


Seconded by Member Bauer,



Discussion on motion:


Member Harrington: I am troubled by the absence of any hardship. I am troubled by the fact that there was not an application filed with the City. I think what appropriate. But given the circumstances that the petitioner faces and given that it is his fence and it is his fence only, I can support the motion; otherwise I was going to vote no.


Member Brennan: I would take that question further and it kind of ties to what I was asking before;

is decorative fencing - if somebody is going to put a split rail fence up; you have to pull a permit for that as well. If you are planting shrubs and you are going to put........


Don Saven: No, a permit is not required for a fence if the placement is in order.


Member Brennan inquired of Don Saven: Had he not been in the right of way he would not need a permit to put it up?


Don Saven: It is over the 20' and then it becomes a fence issue.

Roll Call: Yeas (4) Nays (1) Reinke Motion Carried


Joseph Rackov: What do I do about City Council?


Don Saven: As soon as the minutes are prepared you can file with the City Clerk’s office to get on the agenda for the placement of the fence in the front yard.



Case No. 97-039 filed by Nicholas Malles


Nicholas Malles wishes to maintain an existing nonconforming fence in the required front yard and in a portion of the right of way for property located at 1730 Paramount. A variance is needed to allow the fence to extend into the required front yard and beyond the front of the house. A variances is also needed for split rail fences more than 20' in length. If the Zoning Board of Appeals grants these variances a separate variance may be needed from the City Council for the right of way portion.


Nicholas Malles was present and duly sworn.


Nicholas Malles: It is pretty much the same case, the only difference is that I received a ticket and Joe didn’t.

Mrs. Malles: Our lot is on the curve and it seems that people on one side of the curve do not believe that there is something on the other side. I have a 3 year old son and this definitely sets boundaries for him. That is our main concern; with the curve there, it is a speed zone.


Nicholas Malles: If we had known that we were in any violation I am certain that we would have done things differently. We just had no idea we would need a variance for a split rail.


Chairman Antosiak indicated there was a total of 44 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There was a total of 7 written responses received, all voicing approval. (Copies in file.)




There was no audience participation.




Don Saven: Basically this is the same issue as the previous case.


Member Brennan: This is an extension of the same fence, isn’t it?


Nicholas Malles: It is actually connected.


Vice-Chairman Reinke: My objection in this one is basically the same. I don’t like to see a fence in the road right of way. That is my big objection to this case and the previous one.


Nicholas Malles: The yards are so small, that if we put the fence where it was supposed to go we would have about 15 feet. We didn’t know that it was City property.


Vice-Chairman Reinke: I understand, but I am just voicing my opinion. I live up in the area. I know exactly what you are talking about. It is something with that kind of lot size configuration that is really a problem. I understand that. There is only so much that you can do and so much that you can have with that sized lot.


Member Harrington: Where you owners or occupants of the property when the fence was constructed?


Nicholas Malles: Yes we were the owners. We purchased the house in 1989. We paid for our lot and he paid for his.


Member Harrington: And neither one of you thought about going over to see Don about a permit?


Nicholas Malles: We had no idea. If we would have known, we wouldn’t be here now. We have learned a lot. I didn’t know about the right of way or the definition until I received a Notice of Violation in April of 1997. This is our first home and I didn’t know.


Moved by Member Brennan,


Seconded by Member Bauer,




Roll Call: Yeas (4) Nays (1) Reinke Motion Carried


Member Harrington inquired of Chairman Antosiak: I have a question on the affect of the ruling that we just made; if City Council turns them down that portion of the fence that does not extend into the right of way would be approved and they would have to chain saw it up to the right of way line?


Don Saven: You have given them the allowance to be placed in the front.


Member Harrington: So that and as with the prior case, if City Council turns them down; they don’t have to remove the entire fence just up to the right of way line.


Don Saven: That is correct.


Member Harrington: So the right of way issue is basically up to City Council.


Nicholas Malles: How do we schedule that?


Don Saven: See the City Clerk’s office. You need the information that is based upon this meeting.

Chairman Antosiak: Generally the minutes are provided for this Meeting at our July Meeting, we will vote to approve them at that Meeting; if they are approved then July 2nd they would be available to you and you could schedule a meeting. I would just suggest that it may be to your mutual benefit to schedule both of your requests at the same meeting.


Nicholas Malles: I work afternoons, can my wife attend?


Don Saven: Absolutely.



Case No. 97-037 filed by Brian Wobrock


Brian Wobrock wishes to construct a deck with portions that will project into the side yard more than the allowable amount for property located at 45727 Irvine Drive in the Royal Crown Subdivision.


Brian Wobrock was present and duly sworn.


Brian Wobrock: I would like to build a deck that wraps around the house. The main reason for that is the unusual shape of the lot. The deck will be completely concealed behind the house from the front, which is one of the stipulations of the neighborhood. The deck has been approved by the subdivision and I have a copy of that. I also went around to the neighbors 3 on each side going both ways in order to get their signatures or approvals of this deck and was able to obtain that from all but one.


Brian Wobrock: I brought pictures of the house. (Pictures were presented to the Board.) The pictures show the steepness of the side of the lot. I would have to build a retaining wall there in order to keep the land from eroding and to be able to get to the water spigot on the side of the house. My desire is to have the deck go to the retaining wall in order to get from the front of the house around to the back. The grade is so steep that the neighbor that lives next to me has a child cut his lawn and the parents will not allow the child to cut that side of the house due to the steepness in case the mower would fall over. So an adult comes over and cuts that portion.


Brian Wobrock: The shape of the lot; my lot is the smallest back portion with 48 feet across. Most of the lots are anywhere from the smaller ones being 80 up to over 100 feet on the back lot. It is the luck of the draw that I ended up with the short back yard. That is what has caused the difficulty. If I had a slightly larger back yard, then I wouldn’t be brought before you.


Brian Wobrock: My understanding is that my neighbor is the only one objecting to this being put in. I have another picture for you to see. These pictures show lot 157 and 158. His deck is coming down with less than the 10 foot. The other picture shows his side of the house that is facing the deck and the only window that is there is the laundry room.


Chairman Antosiak indicated there was a total of 38 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There was 2 written approvals received. (Copies in file.) In addition, Mr. Wobrock has given me basically what amounts to a petition which includes 13 names and 2 of which have also submitted letters to us. So that would be 11 other people. Ten of which approved and one who recommended rejection of the variance request. Mr. Wobrock has also given me a letter from Royal Crown Homeowners Association approval.




Chung-Yao Tang, I live next door on lot 158. (Voicing an objection). What I am concerned is that I moved into this house and what happened because our location when I sit in family room watching TV ..............I can watch his TV. That does not make me very comfortable. They have a very big window and I also have. Mr. Brian proposes a deck walkway and this will shorten the distance between the homes. On a bright day you can open your windows and see this. I have 3 windows. That is why I think this is for very serious concern; because when the City designed this code they didn’t design it for this situation. If my house was 30 feet away I don’t see so much, I have no problem if I can’t see it. ....................I am the person who has to sit in my family room everyday and every night and I can feel that my privacy is invaded. I feel the City makes this code for 10 feet, not 20 feet, not 5 feet; there has to be a reason for it. If the City can easily break this rule it is because people want to do it for their convenience and change the variance. They want to change the rules, without considering the person who has been affected.




Don Saven: Just one comment, the deck which is going on the side of your property that you wish to have is basically a walkway and not a deck, is that correct?


Brian Wobrock: That is correct. We have a six month old baby, in order to carry her down the slope especially after a rain is very dangerous.


Chung-Yao Tang: I also have a deck and a baby and I go through my kitchen. He has more space on the other side and it is much better.


Brian Wobrock: I have 10 foot on the other side of the house. I have 12 feet on this side of the house.


Member Harrington inquired of Don Saven: If there were barrier free requirements for decks, what would barrier free be? How wide would it have to be? In other words the gentleman has applied for and the issue here is not can he put a wrap around walkway ( he can) but he is limited by the side yard setback. He can put a 20 inch tip-toe railing around and he is asking for another 28 inches for a total of 48 but if it were to be barrier free how wide would it have to be?


Don Saven: Barrier Free, if it were a walkway it would have to be 5 feet.


Chairman Antosiak: Bear in mind that he is 12 feet from the property line on that side. So he could go 2 feet, plus the 20 inches.


Member Harrington: He can as a matter of right do it 3 1/2 feet? Within code how wide can his deck be right now without a permit?


Don Saven: He can project into the required side yard 2 inches for every foot of required setback. So he does have the 10 foot setback and that allows him 20 inches. He can project as long as it is open and unenclosed. So he has 20 inches , plus the 2 feet.


Chairman Antosiak: It sounds like approximately 3 1/2 feet.


Member Brennan: Do you follow all of that? You don’t need a variance if you carve this down to 40 inches on that curve.


Chung-Yoa Tang: (inaudible) .................bay window is there..........


Don Saven: When you deal with a box windows or bays, they don’t have a complete full vertical line that is going down to the foundation; you are looking at what is called a protuberance. Protuberances are allowable and not considered part of a setback requirement.


Chairman Antosiak: So the setback requirement would be from the house itself?


Don Saven: The setback would still be from the house.


Vice-Chairman Reinke: If the window is out 2 feet, he can only go 20 inches past that window.


Don Saven: If it is 2 foot then that would be 10 foot left, yes 20 inches past the window.


Member Harrington: So then are you saying that a bay window and not the wall of the house would be where it is measured from?


Don Saven: No, what I am saying is that the bay window or the exterior of the bay window and the most closest projection to the side property line, if the bay window was 2 foot that would start your 10 foot mark and would allow him 20 inches.


Member Harrington: Then do I correctly understand that without a variance this petitioner would be entitled to 42 inches?


Chairman Antosiak: I believe that what Mr. Reinke was saying is that he would have a deck of approximately 3 1/2 feet, but approximately 2 feet of that would be taken up by the bay window.


Chairman Harrington: I will ask the question, why is it essential that your deck wrap around the corner of your house?


Brian Wobrock: The steepness of the grade. Our house is significantly higher than the neighbor. There was a water problem. (tape inaudible) The grade is very steep and I would like a way to get back to the back yard. There is also water spigot on the side of the house.


Vice-Chairman Reinke: I believe that there is no justifiable requirement needed for the deck to do that. I think that you are going to have to look at a landscape walkway or something of this nature to have access. I see no hardship for that deck to wrap around that house.


Member Harrington: In terms of the functional aspect of the deck, is there a slider or a door which opens onto that area of the walkway, or are you simply effectuating ingress to the deck and egress from the front yard area?


Brian Wobrock: There is a door off of the kitchen going onto the deck.


Vice-Chairman Reinke: But, not from the side?


Brian Wobrock: No, not from the side.


Member Brennan: So, where the walkway begins, there must be a doorway somewhere off of the house.


Vice-Chairman Reinke: There is, off of the back of the house.


Member Brennan: There is nothing up here?


Member Bauer: No, nothing.


Brian Wobrock: I am trying to build a retaining wall in order to get back to a water spigot. There will be a retaining wall there because of the erosion of the earth and so that I can get back to the water spigot and be able to bring that around to the front of the house to wash cars, etc. My desire was to have it go off of the retaining wall.


Member Brennan: Can you explain again, what are you going to do on this? There is no access out onto this walkway!


Brian Wobrock: This will be a retaining wall that is here and that will go around to get to the front of the house. There is a water spigot here. So, I will actually be coming around and then going to this to get to the front of the house. From here to here is an 8 foot or better drop.


Member Brennan: I was just wondering about the functionality of this.


Brian Wobrock: It gets us to a retaining wall and that retaining wall and that retaining wall will be ground level from the front so this will be almost completely one level.

Member Harrington: Is the basic purpose of the deck to facilitate you as the homeowner access to that area of the property in contrast with like sending friends and neighbors who are coming over for parties onto the deck? What are you really seeing it used for? It sounds like the water spigot is pretty important, but you would be the only one using it, right? So, the traffic in that area may be minimal?


Brian Wobrock: Absolutely.


Member Harrington: In fact as I look at the diagram it looks like that area or access to the deck would barely be visible from the street, is that true?


Brian Wobrock: Actually the way my house sits, it is visible to the neighbors directly across the street. It is similar to the pictures where I showed his deck protruding outside, they will be able to see mine.


Member Harrington: But you are behind the garage.


Brian Wobrock: Yes, but if you were to look at the house from right in front of it; no you would not be able to see it. But because I am on the curve the house and the pie shaped lot, as you drive around that curve and coming from the right direction you would be able to see it.


Member Brennan: When we are looking at these variances the whole basis for variances is hardship. While I look at your layout and see the grounds and the position of the house and that significant drop, you have to find some way of maneuvering that. However there may be as Mr. Reinke has said, better ways of doing it that wouldn’t require you to get a variance. Maybe that is with landscape, I don’t know and I am not going to suggest how to do it but there might be other ways. Given that, I don’t know that I am entirely convinced that there is hardship enough to grant a variance.


Chairman Antosiak: Mr. Brennan, my opinion I believe attracts with yours. I have seldom approved variances for new construction or new work construction like this. We have occasionally had decks before us which may have extending into a wetland buffer or into or close to a wooded area; but this is relatively new construction and I have to say that I just don’t see the hardship. There is room in the back for a deck; I can’t speak to whether the lot lends itself to that, but I don’t believe that I could support a variance for this.


Member Harrington: Well it only takes 3 to deny and I think that I am going to be on the other side on this one. I think that the primary opposition comes from what I hear to be neighbor discord. When I look a the variance which is of 28 inches and I look at the drop in grade that the homeowner has there on the property I don’t think that the proposed usage or the proposed traffic will be sufficient as to increase the problem that the neighbor has; which is the neighbors’ problem. I don’t see it as a problem, we are looking t 28 inches and I could support a variance.


Chairman Antosiak: My concern, Mr. Harrington, is that this house was constructed on a lot with an 11.8 foot setback and knowing our ordinances someone should have been able to realized that right from the time that this house was planned that this house wrapping around the corner couldn’t be any more than 40 inches wide or there about. To try to build a wider deck would require a variance and that troubles me.


Member Harrington: I understand that and I generally concur with your position and that is that we don’t give variances on new construction which I agree with; but we have some kind of unique topographical features here which is why I could support it.


Moved by Vice-Chairman Reinke,


Seconded by Member Brennan,




Roll Call: Yeas (4) Nays (1) Harrington Motion Carried


Case No. 97-038 filed by Doris Oliwek


Doris Oliwek is requesting a variance to allow a 6 foot high privacy fence to be installed on the lot line (front yard, corner lot) for property located at 108 Maudlin.


Doris Oliwek was present and duly sworn.


Doris Oliwek: I live on a corner lot. It is a small lot. I have a large dog that I want to keep fenced. Chatman which looks kind of like an alley way but is officially a street although it is vacated to the north and the south of me. It is a very narrow street and there are cars that park there every day of the year because they need a place to park because the houses back up to this street.


Doris Oliwek: My hardships are the fact that I have the small lot, corner lot, and that I have a dog that I want to keep fenced, a large dog and the fact that Chatman is vacated to the north and south.

Chairman Antosiak indicated there was a total of 37 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There was one written response received voicing approval. (Copy in file.)




There was no audience participation.




Don Saven had no comment.


Member Bauer: Is this because they have 2 front yards?


Don Saven: Yes, that is correct. I think it would give you a better idea if you would look at the third page in; the plat gives you an idea of where the location of Chatman comes into Monticello. She had indicated that there are portions of Chatman that are vacated across the street from Monticello and also further back towards Novi Road it is vacated. This is not a highly traveled road.


Member Brennan: I missed this one; I did not see it. Is this fence already up? It is not up and you intend to or want to put a fence up?


Doris Oliwek: I would like to .


Member Brennan: The type of fence is the slatted wood grade?


Doris Oliwek: Yes, but if that is not acceptable a chain link would be fine. I would rather have the privacy fence.


Vice-Chairman Reinke: I understand the reason you want the fence but the problem that I have is with a 6 foot high fence.


Doris Oliwek: I have a big dog.


Vice-Chairman Reinke: I understand that but the thing is we start looking like we are building stockades around there and that is my main concern. Understanding your lot size and your situation there, but putting that high of a privacy fence right up tight to the north edge of that and against Chatman, I have a problem with that.


Doris Oliwek: What about a chain link?


Vice-Chairman Reinke: That I don’t have as much of a problem with. I still don’t like a 6 foot fence personally. But that is my opinion.


Doris Oliwek: I have a Rottweiler and children walk through my yard. I am on a corner lot and they use it and walk all the way up to my living room window. I have a dog that was brought up with children and she is friendly, although don’t want to tempt fate. I want my dog and I want the children to be protected and myself protected too. I don’t want anything to happen. So I would really like my dog to have a 6 foot fence. I feel that the children would be safer and I would feel better.

Member Harrington: What protections are there now, with no fence?


Doris Oliwek: I have a very small dog run.


Member Harrington: And what kind of fences can this Rottweiler leap?


Doris Oliwek: She doesn’t jump fences. She is a very well trained dog. I am a Nanny and I have been taking her with me to work and she has been brought up with 2 little girls. She is good with children. I don’t trust, children are going to try to tease her or something. I would just feel a lot better if she had more room. She needs to run.


Member Harrington: If the dog doesn’t leap fences then you could probably live with a 5 foot fence then.


Doris Oliwek: Yes, I probably could do that. I really need something. Chatman is used for parking every day of the year. It is like an alley way. It is not as wide as a regular street. I know that technically it is a street, but it seems like an alley way. The only people who use it are those who live there. It is not a thorough way.


Chairman Antosiak inquired of Don Saven: Has Chatman been formally vacated or informally?


Don Saven: Only portions have been vacated. Where she is at hasn’t been.


Member Brennan: Would you want to consider tonight altering your request to 5 foot and a chain link, to satisfy some of the concerns that the Board has already expressed?


Doris Oliwek: I would do that, but what would you think about a 6 foot chain link. Are there 5 foot chain links?


Member Brennan: I think that in most subdivisions chain link fences are 4 feet.


Doris Oliwek: That would be fine. I probably don’t even need a variance for this part; but if I were to put a privacy fence up just up in the part between myself and my neighbor, that would probably be OK.


Don Saven: That meets code, but no greater than 6 feet.


Member Brennan: We have an amendment to the petitioner’s request.


Member Harrington: I am looking at this area of the proposed fencing which appears to be fairly narrow between your home and the neighbor, correct?

Doris Oliwek: There isn’t much room between myself and the neighbor. I believe that there is 6 feet from my house.


Member Harrington: Is there magic to that particular strip; does that provide you access or the equivalent? Is there any reason why that portion of the fence is really important to you? For example, suppose that the Board were to consider just bringing that fence up to the back of the home where the garage meets the home?


Doris Oliwek: That is not a problem. I guess that was kind of a personal reason, the people who live next door to me that don’t own the house, they rent it, one of the men who lives there has been in and out of jail for child abuse and they yell a lot and they are angry and it is kind of scary to me so I just thought that I would feel a little better to have a fence..


Member Harrington: For neighbor harmony, you would like the fence the full distance.


Member Brennan: What Mr. Harrington is trying to get to is that we are trying to minimize the impact of the fence. To look for ways to soften it. Mr. Reinke has already said that a chain link in his impression is better than a privacy and if we can reduce it in height and we can cut off a little section it makes it more palatable for some people.


Doris Oliwek: That is acceptable.


Member Brennan: Then it is further modifiied.


Moved by Member Brennan,


Seconded by Member Harrington,




Don Saven: Clarification. Is this contingent upon continuity of the fence? She is only deficient on Chatman, she is allowed to have a 6 foot on the remaining areas which is in accordance with the ordinance.


Chairman Antosiak: I would interpret Mr. Brennan’s motion to say that Ms. Oliwek could put up a 6 foot privacy fence where the ordinance allowed and where the ordinance did not allow, the motion that Mr. Brennan has made would allow for a 5 foot chain link fence.


Roll Call: Yeas (5) Nays (0) Motion Carried


Case No. 97-040 filed by James Korte


James Korte is wishing to construct a second story addition which will encroach into the required front and side yards for property located at 2022 Austin.


James Korte was present and duly sworn.


James Korte: This is my smallest house. The awful sketch that you have in front of you with the diagonal shows you where the addition will go and specifically over the top of the garage. Now, in

conjunction with this there is going to be some restructing of the roof; however, that is not going to give any more living space, it is just getting rid of the awful crud that is there.


James Korte: The reason I have asked for the front, which is 20 foot, be 18 at this point; I want to bring the front of the addition out enough to do lighting out and over the garage door and then when it is finished it won’t look like a box. Structurally I may cantilever 2 feet without major engineering, legally. However, I think that a foot is more than ample. Also that part that sticks out from the existing garage will help me square the roof line. The garage is relatively parallel to the house, but not square. It is structurally sound. By bringing the upper out the bottom angle will be here. Seeing as how this house sits in a hole it’s upper portion that is visually seen by the passerby.


Chairman Antosiak indicated there was a total of 23 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There was a total of 5 written responses received; 3 voicing approval and 2 voicing objections. (Copies in file.)




There was no audience participation.




Don Saven had no comment.


James Korte: My only comment, if I may, to one of the objections, poor Mr. Jacobs still blames me that he can’t build a McDonald’s on the property behind. His complaint that now it is residential and he would like to see the lake, he has to look 150 feet in the wrong direction.


Vice-Chairman Reinke: Are you increasing the footprint of the house?


James Korte: No, the flat awful shed garage which must be restructured and I can’t see doing anything unless I am benefiting. I will be going specifically over the garage and up the side walls. I would like to bring the front out enough to get rid a line that you don’t see. But if I were to continue the line straight up you could certainly see it when you get to a roof that will start to look like this. That is why I would like to come out just a bit visually. But, I am doing no foundation work.


Vice-Chairman Reinke: Clarify for me then; all we are looking at is really front and side yard projections, correct?


James Korte: You are looking at one front yard projection of 1 foot. The side of the garage would go straight up.


Vice-Chairman Reinke: Then why are we looking at a side variance, is it going up past what is there in existence?


Don Saven: That is the issue regarding expansion of a nonconforming structure.


Vice-Chairman Reinke: That is fine, that gives me the understanding.


James Korte: I could go, and it would be much more expensive and I know that cost has nothing to do with this Board to some degree, I could push it to the lake; I have more than enough room down there but all the houses along that portion of the lake are relatively in line. The tragedy that we have is somehow the road is what is crooked and not our houses. It would be a shame to stick that out so much farther; even though I would suffer the worse. It just does not make sense in this situation.

Member Brennan: Similarly to other cases which we don’t reference, this is a building addition that is within the footprint of the existing home. It is a very narrow lot, but it certainly seems a realistic approach to a problem that the petitioner has and that is a tiny house.


James Korte: As all of you know, the tragedy is the 40 foot lot built by a committee and I have said it many times that the whole north end was built by a committee that should have been shot accordingly, but that just never happened. It is very difficult to live within the confines of a small house. This is a rental and I would presume that you understand that.


Moved by Member Harrington,


Seconded by Member Bauer,



Roll Call: Yeas (5) Nays (0) Motion Carried


Case No. 93-110 filed by Blair Bowman, representing Novi Expo Center


Review of the Expo Center sign under continuing jurisdiction of the Zoning Board of Appeals.


Blair Bowman was present and duly sworn.


Chairman Antosiak: Since we called you here, let me briefly summarize and the Board Members can correct or amend my summary if they choose; an issue came up and I think that it was 2 meetings ago where 2 or 3 of us raised the issue of the Pepsi sign on the ground pole sign that is adjacent to the freeway. In doing so, our Building Department got a little assertive and sent you a violation notice. At that point Don brought it back to us after you responded and suggested that we bring you here or ask you to appear here so that we could discuss the variance that you were granted initially in 1993 and our interpretation of that. Really that is how I view our role in this particular matter tonight. An interpretation of the variance you were granted. You, of course, are free to agree or disagree with that interpretation. I couldn’t even tell you for certainty that Mr. Saven is bound to follow our interpretation since he has to make an administrative interpretation of the variance that was granted. Since this is something that we don’t do often, I am not sure that it is appropriate for you to make a statement or for us to make a statement to you.


Chairman Antosiak: Are there any suggestions from the Board?


Member Brennan: What struck me was the letter that accompanied the packet. It seemed to be pretty clear that the variance that was granted in 1994 or the case that was heard late in 1993 spoke specifically of no signage that had commercial use; it was for public events, public nature and it seemed to be pretty clear.


Blair Bowman: What letter are you speaking of?


Member Brennan gave Mr. Bowman a copy of the letter he was referring to.


Blair Bowman: I can clarify this.


Member Harrington: Before you do, perhaps you might want to get a little more sense of where the Board is at. I reviewed the minutes of your various presentations in front of us and it appeared to be quite clear to me what it was that you were interested in doing. Although there was a heavy emphasis in terms of sponsorship and identification; I think of a symbolic nature and that came through real clear. It came through real clear that you are interested in linking specific sponsors with specific events and as I understand it, the Pepsi Cola or Coca Cola or whatever cola it is and as I understand it is in the nature of a group sponsor or a mass sponsor of the events out there. What is a little bit troublesome to me is not so much sponsorship identification, for example you used MUCC Conservation, etc. as various example of sponsors and it turns out now that you have a continuing sponsor of some nature. It is not clear at all that is the sponsor of the events; it is not Coca Cola or Diet Pepsi sponsors this show; it looks like an advertisement. It looks like you have a Pepsi Cola sign up there without clear linkage to the sponsorship issue. That was troublesome to me as I have driven by there and looked at it. I felt that what you were applying for and what we were granting you was that sponsorship linkage and it may be in the translation as to how that linkage is being effectuated to the public. So, that is my concern and there is probably 3 other concerns that are different than mine.


Blair Bowman: I think that I have a sense of the concern of the Board. I have a very clear opinion as to what I believe I clearly outlined as a sponsor panel. There was even discussion proposed and lengthy discussion about the advertising aspect of that sponsor panel and yes, that is exactly what we were looking to obtain and exactly what other facilities have around the country and around this state. We were simply looking for the same type of ability to cross promote an event. Certainly MUCC, I think, was on the potential sign board that I brought in. It was just an event that we had scheduled and I said you may see their name up there or you may see ATT up there. I think that is reflected in the minutes as well.


Blair Bowman: In a later meeting when this particular letter was drafted which talked about the changeable letter portion of the sign only, it wasn’t dealing with the sponsor panel. I, as a matter of fact, did not get the copy of the minutes of this meeting when requested; but I know at that time I even said that we were working with Coca Cola, which we were. We worked for 2 1/2 years to put this deal together.


Blair Bowman: Let me just explain what our arrangement is with Pepsi so that you can clearly, I hope, understand that it is a sponsorship program that we have engaged with them. It is a part of an overall arrangement with Pepsi to sponsor the series of shows that occur at our facility. They will in turn provide tags on radio announcements, tv announcements, on their cube packs you will see Novi Expo Center and a list of events, it will probably be split up into quarters or semi-annual segments of our calendar of events. Ticket backs and direct mailing pieces and all of those types of things will now be available to us and to the shows to use to promote the program. Again, that is exactly the type of sponsorship package which we would have intended to try to put together and instead of having it on a rotating basis, which I assumed and maybe incorrectly, that would be changing that particular panel and there are 3 panels up there and there could have been 3 different sponsors or Farmer Jack, Krogers, etc. and they sponsor all type of events at our place; and these are commercial advertisement opportunities but they are sponsors of the events nonetheless. Many banks do it. Restaurant chains. Beverage companies. All of those do it. Certainly it was exciting to me to have the opportunity to contract with an organization like Pepsi, with a fairly simple logo that had the ability to provide us a very high quality venue in which to cross promote our events and in return for that they got internal signage, the external sponsor panel, they have cross promotion and tags on our advertisement and it is part of a promotional sponsor package.


Blair Bowman: Again, the variance that we received, is pretty clear in it’s terms and the exhibits that were presented included a sponsor panel for that type of purpose. I posed the question, I believe in my letter in response to you folks, if Pepsi is not an acceptable sponsor then who would be or what would be? I think that is where that real difficult gray area that we would get into with where the clear cut lines of authority and reasonableness are. I would strongly contend that we are well within the purviews and the limits of our variance that we were granted, that this Board retained jurisdiction over it for a period of a year and which we are now in process of placing up in the sponsor panel a sponsor of our events.


Member Harrington: What is there on the sponsor panel, which states that they are the sponsor of the particular event?


Blair Bowman: There is nothing on that particular panel that does that. We could put that.


Member Harrington: I was just asking because I may have missed it. What would preclude the ordinary person driving by thinking anything other than 2 out of 3 panels are related to the event and Pepsi Cola has simply bought advertising for that panel, unrelated to the event? That is my concern and I don’t speak for the Board, but that was my concern.


Blair Bowman: There was some discussion as a matter of fact between ourselves and Pepsi of what the content of that sign should be. We felt strongly that there should be sponsored by or show series sponsored by; to be very honest with you that is the second sign that has been put up there. The first sign that was put up was done so on a temporary basis to see what it would look like and how I would react to it because I wanted to make sure of it. It is my belief and I can’t provide the sign to you because it is no longer in existence they have pulled it down and they have since disposed of it; but I believe that it did have sponsored by in the left hand corner. So that could be put on it. There is no doubt about it. But Pepsi when I brought that to their attention that it was not there and that this issue was brought up, they talked in terms very strongly that there is going to be a recognizable attachment with Pepsi to the Novi Expo Center. You are going to see it when you go to your local supermarket and buy a cube 24 pack, you will see the spring schedule of events on there and a dollar off coupon or whatever type of cross promotional type of activity that we have. It is very clear that they are going to be the show sponsors there.


Member Harrington: It is not clear in any fashion to me as I drive by, that they are presenting the event or that they are sponsor of the event. That was my concern.


Vice-Chairman Reinke: You have answered my questions that I have. My feeling and I only speak for myself, I think that some Members of the Board look at it as to be just in our observation without talking to you a leased out panel. In the way that you have presented this now and everything it does seem that it is a sponsorship mutual effort between Pepsi Cola and you in promoting the Expo Center and helping you advertise it and what you are going to be doing, etc. To me that has answered all of the questions that I have about it; that it is a sponsor. I am not concerned that it says sponsor on it because in what they are going to be doing, it is going to show that in it’s own right.


Blair Bowman: We can put that on there. Very honestly, we can put that on there. In fact that was something that I asked them to do in the production of the final sign or the permanent installed sign it was not on there. If you want to require that of me, I would be pleased to commit to do that.


Member Brennan: How long will that sign be up?


Blair Bowman: It depends. They have an option to continue this arrangement for a period of 3 additional years. We are going to look at each other after the first year to see if it if a mutual beneficial arrangement, I am certain of that. One thing that we are going to look to do is not keep it as simply their new Pepsi logo. We would probably look to see some of their additional new products on there and looking to change it maybe once a year on an annual basis reviewing it. Again, they wanted in one of their approaches to me to maybe put up 3 different products and I strongly suggested against that. Again, I would hope that the Board and the community would feel that we are attempting to do something in reasonable taste and not do something that is purely for a commercial purpose. I would hope that Pepsi would be considered to be a real viable and attractive sponsor for this panel.


Member Harrington: Do I correctly understand that in fact for a period of time, whatever that time may be, they are the sponsor for the Expo Center?


Blair Bowman: That is correct.


Member Bauer: And their name may be there no matter if there is something going on or not?


Blair Bowman: Correct.


Member Harrington: Could you see that from my perspective that you don’t have Pepsi presents, you don’t have the Kemper Tournament Players Club Championship; you don’t have all that stuff in terms of the direct linkage which is the concern that I have. I can almost see a scenario where maybe you get a different sponsor down the way and you cut a deal with 2 different people and we are going to have you as a sponsor but you are not going to be on the panel but we have Pepsi behind us financially anyway which will split your burden over here and Pepsi may well stay up there and may not necessarily be the sponsor. I personally would like to see the linkage between the sponsor of the Expo events and that sponsor panel "presents" or "shows" or whatever marketing word that you guys want to use but the linkage is that panel 1 is connected to panels 2 and 3.


Blair Bowman: In both a very direct sense and in a global perspective they are. Pepsi is our sponsor without question. That is an annual obligation for them to provide us certain things as well as for us to provide them certain things. We have tried and are attempting to and will continue to try to make improvements with regards to how do we promote events at the center on a more professional basis. I hate to use the obvious competitors but you look at the Palace of Auburn Hills and every single thing that they do, you see in their advertisements on tv and radio and all their Palace logo is there and their sponsor logos are there and many of those are consistent throughout the course of a period of time and those are done on the basis of arrangements which allows them to expand their promotional capabilities. That is all we are really are going do and to offer our shows then a facility in which their event can prosper in such a way that they may not be able to individually do. Again, I thought would be and maybe I was inappropriately assuming, but I thought that having an individual high quality sponsor would be more attractive then a rotating sign panel. We could do that, and to be honest with you I would probably be financially better off doing it; this is not a windfall for us by any means. We are doing this more for the promotional aspect that we then would otherwise not be able to access. I thought that it would be better having one and if we need to put the language in there to do that, but their commitment is an annual from us to them and from them to us. The Kemper Open is a pretty good one, they don’t stop promoting that; the day that the tournament ends they start promoting it for next year and that tournament location is there. I would bet that if you look close at the tournament location you would find their information and their name there and that is an important aspect, that is an important thing to a sponsor.


Member Harrington: I am sure that if we did we would see they "present" or they "host" or they "sponsor" or they blah, blah, blah and not just the advertiser, it is the concept of them being the sponsor.


Blair Bowman: I have no problem. "Brought to you by", I have no problem with that or "sponsored by"no problem with any of those. If you want to get down to a verbiage right now and pick one, I will do it.


Member Harrington: You can read the lines in between the lines, but I am just speaking for myself.


Chairman Antosiak: I agree with you, Mr. Harrington. My initial concern when I first saw the Pepsi sign that it appeared to be a billboard basically and that was one the reasons and I was one of the persons who raised a concern, because it wasn’t clear. When I did go back and read the minutes, I will be honest, I didn’t get that impression.


Moved by Member Harrington,


Seconded by Member Brennan,




Roll Call: Yeas (5) Nays (0) Motion Carried


Case no. 97-035 filed by Total Petroleum


Total Petroleum, Inc., is requesting a two (2) square foot variance to allow for the construction of a ground sign 8 foot by 4 foot (32 sq. ft.) at 24141 Novi Road. (corner of Novi Road and Ten Mile)


J. Kaatz was present and duly sworn.


J. Kaatz: I am here before you to request a 2 square foot variance due to a change in the sign ordinance since the last time we were before you. At our previous Zoning Board Meeting we had requested a sign variance and were going to request additional signage out front, but after hearing the slaughter that Speedway went through with their request we determined that it would be better if we reduced it to the limits of the Zoning Board at that time. Since then there has been a reduction.


J. Kaatz: I had submitted plans and I also have here a colored rendering that I would like to bring up.


J. Kaatz: The plan that I had submitted had originally called for 3 price signs. Since that submittal Total Petroleum has gone into a situation where they preferred to put one price sign and due to the nature of the beast and with the convenience store attitude with the numerous use they would like to reflect that in their signage; so there is a modification there showing an ATM as well as bringing in Diesel and a Regular price sign.


Chairman Antosiak indicated there was a total of 10 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There was no written response received.




There was no audience participation.




Don Saven had no comment.


Member Harrington inquired of Don Saven: How large is the Speedway sign across the street?


Don Saven: I really don’t know.


Chairman Antosiak: That is 40 square feet.


Member Brennan: That was going to be my comment; I commend you with coming in closer to what ordinance prefers. I am also going to keep this because I have heard from many gas stations that you can’t get everything that they need on a 30 square foot sign. Now you have just showed me and while it is 32 square feet, you can get everything you need. I thank you for cooperating and working with the changing City, the changes in the midst of construction.


Member Harrington: Echoing Mr, Brennan’s comments, but on the other sign; I see that Speedway sign 4 times a day because I work in that area and I think that location and what they did is a terrific job and I think that what you are doing is consistent with really cleaning up and dressing up that corner.


Moved by Member Harrington,


Seconded by Member Brennan,




Roll Call: Yeas (5) Nays (0) Motion Carried


Case No. 97-038 filed by Doris Oliwek


Doris Oliwek: I didn’t realize and I was afraid when Mr. Reinke said what he did in the first comment about the fence; so I kind of backed down; but I am realizing that I have a major hardship here that I didn’t mention and that is that I don’t have the money to put up a chain link fence. I have a gentleman here who is willing to put up a privacy fence for me and he would do it for nothing and a chain link fence is probably a couple of thousand dollars. I just don’t have that kind of money.


Vice-Chairman Reinke: I think the issue that I have addressed was the height up in that corner and I think with the height part I don’t have a problem with the type of fence.


Doris Oliwek: Is there anyway that I could put up a 5 foot privacy fence instead of chain link.


Don Saven: The motion will have to be amended.


Doris Oliwek: It is the money.


Member Brennan: While we don’t generally listen to hardships based on money I would assume that there are also some aesthetics that makes a privacy fence prettier than a chain link.


Doris Oliwek: I think that it is prettier.


Member Brennan: I totally agree, and assuming that there is no one else on the Board that is objectionable, I would amend my variance to A FIVE FOOT PRIVACY FENCE.


Seconded by Member Bauer,


Roll Call: Yeas (5) Nays (0) Motion Carried




Chairman Antosiak: We have one other matter on the agenda. Mr. Saven has given us a recommended fee structure for variance requests. Is there any discussion or comment?


Member Brennan: I wrote Mr. Saven a letter.


Don Saven: I did receive that, thank you.


Member Bauer: Just to let you know the township of Ann Arbor charges $385.00 to go to the ZBA.


Vice-Chairman Reinke: What I thought that was very significant was that there was no community that handles the number of cases that we handle per meeting. I think that the fee structure has a lot to do with that. I think that people come before the Board at times because for what the cost is why not try; or they come before they are really ready to come to the Board. I think that there needs to be a relief mechanism, but it needs to be fair to all people involved including the Building Department. I think that the cost of a lot of these petitions is way past what the fee structure generates. I doubt that even the new recommended fee structure is going to really take care of the administrative costs of putting together the request for a variance to come before the Board. I think it is more realistic and a more practical approach than what we are doing currently.


Chairman Antosiak inquired of Don Saven: We sometimes get a variance request that actually involves more than one variance, would you treat that as one variance request under this fee schedule? For example, if it was a residential variance that had a front yard and side yard setback, it would still be $100.00?


Don Saven: .........I have no preference.....mailing......the administration part is generated the same whether it is one or more........from the commercial standpoint there should be some consideration because I feel that they could try harder.


Member Harrington: I agree with these fee increases.


Moved by Chairman Antosiak,


Seconded by Member Bauer,




1) Residential (single family) variances...................................$100.00

with violation.........................................................$150.00

2) Multiple/Commercial/Industrial variances...........................$200.00

with violation..........................................................$300.00

3) Sign variances.....................................................................$200.00

with violation..........................................................$300.00

4) House Moves......................................................................$200.00

5) Special Meetings.................................................................$500.00


Roll Call: Yeas (5) Nays (0) Motion Carried


Chairman Antosiak: Mr. Saven, please feel free to represent that the Zoning Board of Appeals supports your recommendation for a fee increase.







The Meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.











Date Approved Nancy C. McKernan

Recording Secretary