View Agenda for this meeting
View Action Summary for this meeting

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2001 -- 7:30 P.M.

Proceedings had and testimony taken in the matters of ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS at City of Novi, 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, on Tuesday, October 2, 2001.

Laverne Reinke, chairman
Gerald Bauer
Frank Brennan
Sarah Gray
Siddharth Sanghvi

Don Saven, building department
Thomas Schultz, city attorney
Sarah Marchioni, building department

Cheryl L. James, Certified Shorthand Reporter

MR. CHAIRMAN: At this time I would

like to call the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to


Madam Secretary, would you call the

roll, please.



SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?



have excused.

Member Gray?


SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan is


Member Reinke?


SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi?


MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. The Board

consists of six members, and we have -- two members

are absent tonight, one member in Alden.

It takes a vote of four members to

approve a variance.


Is there anyone that would like to

table their case without having the full Board

before us this evening?

(No response.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, we'll

continue on. The Zoning Board of Appeals is

empowered by the City charter to hear appeals

seeking a variance to the application of an

ordinance. It takes at least four members to

approve a variance request and a vote of majority

of the members present to deny a variance.

And since we have five members here

this evening, all decisions this evening will be


Are there any additions or changes or

corrections to the agenda?

SARAH MARCHIONI: Yes. Number six

has been tabled to next month.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other changes?

SARAH MARCHIONI: That would be it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Approval of the agenda

as corrected?

MEMBER BAUER: So motioned.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In favor, signify by


saying aye?

(Vote taken.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Opposed?

(Vote taken.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: We don't have any

minutes for approval tonight, correct?


MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. At this time

I'd like to have a public remarks section. If

there is anything -- anybody that would like to

address the Board that's not on a case this

evening -- the cases we like to have addressed as

they come forward.


MR. STOEKER: Yes. Members of the

Board, Mr. Chairman, my name is Timothy Stoeker

(ph). I'm here on behalf of Jaguar of Novi with


We have submitted to the Zoning Board

of Appeals an application for sign variances which

has been with the City at least for, I want to say,

at least two or three months, and the issue that

was before us will be revised, though it's not

stated in your ordinance, is the policy,


apparently, of the Board not to review zoning

variance applications for signage until such time

as the building is complete.

This dealership is scheduled to open

January 31st -- or January -- at least until the

walls are up. The dealership is scheduled to open

January 31st, 2002.

The application materials that we

submitted to the Board for your review included

architectural diagrams or elevations wherein we

superimposed onto the building the signs that we

were requesting as well as the other signs that

will go on the perimeter of the proper.

If I could figure out how to turn

this on, this is a copy of what we've submitted in

part. This is the elevation that faces

Haggerty Road, and it says Jaguar of Novi, and this

is part of our dilemma. That sign is to be

attached to a glass wall with predrilled holes, and

then the wiring comes from up above through the

construction -- constructural members of the


The problem is, that glass wall will

not be installed until December of this year, and


cannot be even fabricated or ordered until we know

the specific location of the signage that's gonna

go on the wall and the type of signage that's gonna

go on the wall because of the predrilled holes.

So it's kind of we're in a cart

before the horse situation here. We need to get

the wall up. We can't get the wall up and we can't

order it until such time as we know where the holes

are gonna go and how the sign is gonna be placed on

the wall because it is a glass wall.

Once, in fact, the signs are finally

ordered, from the time of ordering it takes eight

to ten weeks to fabricate and then another week of

installation. So based upon the fact that, at the

earliest we could be heard would probably be

January, if the walls could not be up until

December, excluding this wall which we couldn't

install, the earliest we would probably be on your

agenda is January. That means our signage for the

dealership to identify the dealership would not be

installed sometime until March at the earliest, and

the dealership would be located there with no

identification as to who it is that's there, other

than the cars -- the few cars -- as you know, we've


restricted the display of cars on the site.

So that's our dilemma. The

documentation that we submitted, this is the

elevation that faces Ten Mile. Again, the signage

at issue is not -- that's attached to the upper

part of the walls at that location surface,

service sign indicating where the service bay is.

As you know, the service bay is recessed there

actually, looks like a glass window and not a

service bay, and then the Jaguar name itself and

then the logo or trademark in the form of the

leaping Jaguar, which somebody from the Planning

Commission asked me about.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Sir, one minute.

MR. STOEKER: Yes. One minute? I

thought I had ten.

MEMBER BRENNAN: You have five.

MR. STOEKER: I got five left?

MEMBER BRENNAN: You have one minute


MR. STOEKER: I have one minute left.

The balance of the signage is not on the building.

It's a directional sign at Ten Mile and on

Haggerty, and then the internal sign getting you to


and from within the dealership.

So what we are here asking is if, in

fact, the Board will accept the application without

the walls being up and review the sign variance

application based upon the materials submitted and

the mockups.

We've already prepared the mockups,

which will be hung in the exact locations where the

sign will be proposed, and we've made them to

scale. So what we're asking for is to be heard by

you without the necessity of having the walls put

up first. The mockups will be there, so you can

see them in advance of the hearing when you do have

the drawings, would show, in fact, how the signs

would be placed upon the building.

MR. CHAIRMAN: When do you anticipate

to have your basic walls up?

MR. STOEKER: Well, they're being

built as fast as they could, but we were informed

-- a large part of that's glass. In fact, there's

no signage going where there is no glass on the

building. And we have been advised that the

earliest that the glass would go on is sometime

early to mid December. And the balance of the


walls, the sandstone areas, there is no signage.

So even putting those up would not help you from --

if you needed walls, because there is no-

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Well,

it does because it gives us a perspective of the


Board members, comments or


MEMBER BAUER: I would like to see

the mockups put up there.

MEMBER BRENNAN: I would agree with

Mr. Bauer. And the petitioner explained that he

wasn't aware of this, which is not entirely true,

because when you go pull a sign permit you get the

rules of the ZBA on any variance request, which

include very specifically the requirements of

mockups, and whether you do that with strings or

cables or ferries, we have-

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Well, I


MR. STOEKER: (Interposing) We

agreed to do the mockups. That's not the issue.

The issue is you won't process the application,

what we've been told, without the walls. We've got


the full-size mockups. We've already ordered them,

and we'll put them out there.

What we've been told is you won't

accept the application until the walls are

physically up on the building. In other words,

like the drawing that you have here shows the

steel. We have the signs that are actually to

scale that we would put on them the way you see it

now, so you would see service, Jaguar, Jaguar of

Novi and-

MEMBER BRENNAN: (Interposing) Can

you show them in the position they're going to be?

MR. STOEKER: Oh, yeah, absolutely.

And in reference-

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Well,


MR. SAVEN: (Interposing)

Mr. Chairman, if I may, it may try to help the

situation out.

What's being explained is the

difficulty in getting materials there to put on the

exterior of the wall in time for the opening. The

time factor that's -- what he's explaining is the

fact that the walls -- exterior walls are comprised


of glass. This glass is going to go on in a short

period of time, just prior to the occupancy of the

building, so for them to come to the Board within

that 30-day time factor is going to be a very

difficult situation for them to try to understand

what that sign is comprised of, what the variance

would allow them to build, if we're going to be

looking at a difference from what was being

proposed, and it would be a hardship to them to be

able to try to put something together.

I would recommend that -- if at all

possible, that even if we could not get the sign

directly in the place where it's supposed to be, to

probably put it in the area where it's just visible

so you could see the size of the sign.

Would that be agreeable to the Board?

MEMBER BAUER: In close proximity?

MR. SAVEN: Close proximity. Would

that be something you could work with?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let me say, I think

originally we were presented with material that was

just put up on that from a rendering that was

illustration-wise, and we totally objected to

receiving and evaluating material in that fashion.


With a structure there -- and

understanding the applicant's need at this point in

time, if a rendering can be held or suspended in

position as to where it would go, I think that

really gives us a perspective into the building,

the size of the sign, and looking at everything

there that we can make an evaluation and


MR. SAVEN: This is understanding

this is in a glassed area; is that correct?

MR. STOEKER: Right. All the signage

and the -- the signage is on that area away from

the sandstone portion. And we will actually hang

it and display it, and it will be to scale as you

require from the mockup, and the leaper will be

dimensional as well, so you can see that. I mean,

it will all be dimensioned. There would just be --

there's no wall behind it. That's all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members, do you

have any problem with -- Miss Gray?

MEMBER GRAY: I think if they're

going to put the signs where they're going to be

once the glass is up, and as long as we get our

normal packet with renderings as well to make it --


I think we're astute enough, we can make a decision

based on that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further comments

or discussion?

You can proceed. We'll go from


MR. STOEKER: I will assume we need

to send a letter to the recording clerk to say put

us on the November agenda? We'd like to be put on

the November agenda because they're all made up and

ready to go.

MR. SAVEN: You're on the November


MR. STOEKER: Right. Thank you very

much. I appreciate it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anyone

else that would like to address the Board in the

public remarks?


MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, step forward.


Margaret Lorrie and I reside at 1127 South Lake

Drive in the South Pointe Condominiums complex.

We were here earlier in the summer


because our next-door neighbor, Andy Kowal, was

applying for a variance on the property line to

build a garage closer than normal. That was

denied. But also, when we brought in the pictures

it was noted that he had a temporary tent sort of

thing that covered a great deal of stuff very close

to the property line, and one of the council

people, Moore, mentioned that he had gotten a

six-month variance on this two years ago, and oh,

it was still there, and at that time he was asked

to please clean it up. And it's not moved.

So I was wondering, what can you help

us do to correct this situation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Saven?

MR. SAVEN: Thank you, sir. What I

will do is I will forward this information to the

ordinance department and they will follow up on

what the case was, how long he had and notify

Mr. Kowal of the situation. Okay?

MARGARET LORRIE: Thank you very


MR. CHAIRMAN: You're welcome.


MR. CHAIRMAN: Miss Gray?


MEMBER GRAY: I had driven through

South Pointe the other day, and I know that there's

still a dispute over the property line, and I had

talked to some of the residents of South Pointe,

and they may, indeed, have to get another survey,

and I re-enforced that because, you know, surveys

have to be done.

But that tent structure, it's still

-- it's still pretty messy back there, and -- so I

had talked to some of these people and said well,

you know, this is the forum and this is how you do

it, so that's why they're here tonight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MEMBER GRAY: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else

that would like to address the Board in public --

yes, sir, step forward, please.


Roland McMichael. I live at 1127 South Lake Drive,

and having to deal with our neighbor, Andy, I was

over tonight, he's not constructed but built up

bricks twelve to fourteen inches high that,

obviously, are on our property. He has landscape

material, he has odd number of pieces of cement


block strewn throughout the area.

This area, in 1996, my son and I

personally spent four hours cleaning up thinking it

was a good neighbor's act. Well, it backfired.

It's back now as bad as it was before, if not

worse. I don't know what it's going to take to

bring him to his senses and treat us like

neighbors, not like a dump yard.

Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. SAVEN: Same issue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there

anyone else who would like to address the Board at

this time?


MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Can I make a real

quick comment? These people have been here

before. We saw a lot of photographs and we've seen

the evidence of this thing, and I will just go on

record as saying, Mr. Saven, will you have

ordinance enforcement jump on this immediately-

MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) I will,



MEMBER BRENNAN: -for the sake of

these people? They've been here at least two times


And, obviously, it's not an easy

thing for you, ma'am. Don will take care of it.

MR. SAVEN: We'll get with the

ordinance division.

MR. CHAIRMAN: At this time we'll

close the public remarks section.

MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Reinke, can I make

a quick comment from this public-

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Go


SARAH GRAY: Okay. Sarah Gray,

133 Maudlin, not ordinance -- not Zoning Board of

Appeals member at this time.

I wanted to let the Board know, and

some of the neighbors up in the area, that we, as

Walled Lake Western Band and Orchestra boosters,

have obtained a temporary sign variance for some

very large signs that are posted for our

Haunted Woods this weekend and next weekend, and

ordinance enforcement has been made aware of it.

They'll be coming down in two weeks, and we're


doing the Haunted Woods as a fundraiser for band

and orchestra for the Walled Lake School District

-- Western High School band, and if anybody's

interested, we're going to be going from

seven o'clock until 10:30 Friday and Saturday this

week and Friday and Saturday next week, and it's

going to be a lot of fun, so we hope to see you.

Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.


MR. CHAIRMAN: At this time we'll

close the public remarks section and call our first

case, Case Number 01-072, filed by Five --

Fifty Five Marketing Group representing Brownstones

at Vistas.

And, Mr. Bauer, do you want to --


MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

to tell the truth in matter of the case of 01-072?


MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could I have your name

and address?


COLLEEN SLOAN: Colleen Sloan. I

represent -- I'm from Group Fifty Five Marketing,

and I represent Brownstones at the Vistas.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Present your

case, please.

COLLEEN SLOAN: We're looking for an

extension on our permit for the temporary

directional sign at Thirteen Mile and Novi.

Brownstones is not nearly developed yet, and it

would be an economic hardship if we could not

extend our permit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What length of time

are you looking for this extension?

COLLEEN SLOAN: Six months to a year.

MR. CHAIRMAN: At what point are you

at presently?

COLLEEN SLOAN: Right now we have 240

built and 80 units occupied.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What is your total


COLLEEN SLOAN: We have 460, so we

are not at total capacity yet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members,

comments or discussion?


Mr. Brennan?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, I only had two

questions on this. One was the number of homes,

it's 460, and the number sold is 80; is that


COLLEEN SLOAN: That are occupied.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Occupied. How many


COLLEEN SLOAN: Two hundred and

eighty are built.

MEMBER BRENNAN: So you're a little

bit less than half, around half.

Personally, I wouldn't have an

objection to the granting of the extension. I

think -- you know, as far as I recall, the request

was for a year, and -- we'll listen to other board

members, but-

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) The

first request was for a year.

MEMBER BRENNAN: I don't think we --

I don't have any personal issue with this. We're

less than halfway, and economic times are a little

stressed, so a year might be reasonable.

MEMBER BAUER: I can go along with a


year, or until it's sold out.

MEMBER SANGHVI: Whichever is


MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll make a motion,

with the nods that I see, in Case Number 01-072,

that the petitioner's request for a year's

extension be granted for the purpose of selling



MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion

or comments on the motion?

Hearing none, Madam Secretary, would

you call the roll, please.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?








SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi?


MR. CHAIRMAN: Your variance request


has been approved. Please see the Building

Department and we wish you the best of luck.

COLLEEN SLOAN: Thank you, Board.


MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Next case, Case

Number 01-079, filed by Four Seasons Sunroom,

representing the homeowners at 47225 Autumn Park

Court. Rick Hadad?

RICK HADAD: Rick Hadad, yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, would you please

be sworn in.

MEMBER BAUER: Would you raise your

right hand?

Do you solemnly swear or affirm to

tell the truth regarding Case 01-079?

RICK HADAD: Yes, I do.

MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you present your

case, please.

RICK HADAD: Okay. First of all, you

all have drawings up there, and there is an error

in the drawing, not on the size. So what we're

here to do tonight is correct what we're showing


there, but on the -- on the appearance of the


I have a photograph here that would

accurately show the scale and size of the room and

give you a better idea of what we're proposing to

do. That shows the room with the brick-faced

walls. The brick wall is only going to come to

floor level, not up into the knee wall, so that's,

size-wise, accurate.

First of all, I want to mention to --

I want to let the Board know that we were issued a

building permit on this job. And in calling the --

and it was issued in error and the error was our

fault. When I called the City to find out -- I had

a question regarding the distance of a step to the

pool, and it was at that time that it was pointed

out to me that we needed a ten foot setback.

When I submitted the drawings to my

cad department, I asked Mr. Surdu for a copy of his

site plan. He sent an original copy of the

survey. My cad department put that on the drawing

that was submitted to the City, and we simply -- it

was an oversight.

At that time, again -- the State of


Michigan -- I talked to Henry Green in Code

Enforcement for the State of Michigan. There is no

building code requirement as far as a setback to a

pool to a house. It's a zoning issue to this City,

and it's not commonly used in a lot of other


So it's been my experience in the

past that we put pools two, three, four feet --

rooms to a swimming pool quite often.

So, in any case, it was a mistake.

We found it ourselves, and at that time we made

application for building permit. It was an honest

mistake. But in doing so, because we made the

mistake, the permit was issued and the room was

built. It's not erected on site. The room -- it's

a custom room that is modularally built and ready

to be installed.

The reason we're asking for a

variance tonight is I was -- after we were -- after

I found this out I called a number of people I

know, some friends of mine that are in planning and

zoning in other cities, to try to find the

rationale for the setback, and a number of issues

were brought up as far as concerns for building a


structure like this off the house.

One was the lighting, affecting the

natural light going into the house. Well, this

being an all-glass conservatory, that's kind of a

non-issue. We won't be blocking any light.

There will be three doorwalls in this

room as well as all sliding windows. We will not

be blocking any -- or really affecting natural

ventilation at all.

My -- the reason I thought was the

rationale behind the setback was as a deterrent

from children -- kids getting on top of it and try

to jump in the pool, for safety reasons. I thought

that was a concern. But this being a seven twelve

pitch and an all glass roof, it literally -- you

cannot get on this roof. My guys that install this

are young men that do this every day, and they use

specially-constructed roof jacks and they build

their scaffolding system to get up on the roof.

Where the wall and the roof meet, the transition is

smooth to allow the snow to come off, so there

would be no way to grab and grip to get on this.

So as far as that safety issue is

concerned, I don't think anybody would have to


worry about this.

As it is, there is an existing paper

patio there that is closer to the pool than what

we're proposing to do, and it's elevated. We're

going to be actually a foot further away from the

pool than the existing patio is now.

But the primary reason for denial, as

I understand it, is the -- swimming pools are

categorized as an accessory structure, and it's

been my experience, and I've been building for 25

years and installing sunroofs for quite a while,

the reason for that is to stop the spread of flame.

You know, it's primarily combustibility.

Well, I think swimming pools may,

conveniently, have been classified as an accessory

structure, but in reality, they're not. They're


The -- and my structure is all glass

and aluminum. It also is noncombustible, so there

really is no issue with regard to that.

That is the rationale behind the

ordinance as I see it. Enforcement of that --

we're not going to be violating the legislative

intent, and if that -- that being the case, it


would be unnecessary to enforce it, and that speaks

directly to the criteria that unnecessary -- strict

compliance would be unnecessarily burdensome.

And in addressing some of the other

issues as per the information that I got that we

needed comply with to be granted a variance, their

-- enforcement of this would stop the homeowner

from using the property for a use that would be

otherwise permitted, and it would be -- the other

homeowners in the area have, you know -- are they

going to have the right to enjoyment of adding to

their property being denied that use if it's

strictly enforced?

Also, it will not negatively impact

any of the homeowners. That's a beautiful room.

If anything, it will be a nice view from

Nine Mile Road as you pass by it.

Also, it's not going to -- this will

not impair the intent or the purpose of the

ordinance or the City Master Plan.

The need for the variance wasn't

self-created. This was arbitrarily legislated. I

mean, when you lump a swimming pool into an

accessory structure, this was not something that


they did, so I don't think the -- that it was


So, for those reasons, we're

respectfully requesting the Board to consider this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there

anyone else in the audience who would like to input

into this case?

RICK HADAD: You know what -- excuse

me. One other point that I wanted to make is that

I looked over the minutes for the last two years

meetings for the Zoning Board of Appeals, and there

were two other cases, the only two cases that came

before this Board with a similar type issue. Now,

the setbacks were one-and-a-half feet,

three-and-a-half feet respectfully, and both were

granted for the same reasons.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We had

twenty-three notices sent. We received four

responses. All were approval.

Building Department?

MR. SAVEN: Just another issue I'd

like to bring up is, one of the other issues was

the placement of the pool. The placement of the

pool, in reference to the yard, if you look at the


plot plan, this gentleman and young lady's property

has a tremendous amount of easements that are

associated with this, so the location of the pool

was really confined to an area that could not place

the pool back any farther than what it is right

now. That's one of the issues I would give


The other issue is, I need to know

where the stairway is located at on the plan.

RICK HADAD: I think I can show you

that. The stair is going to remain exactly where

it is now, coming off the patio, except it's going

to be brought closer to the -- you know, we're

going to make it -- we're going to bring it-

MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) There is

no door coming off the room?

RICK HADAD: There is a door, yes.

MR. SAVEN: Where is that door at?

GEORGE SURDU: There's actually three


RICK HADAD: There's three. There's

one on the full nose, directly in the front.

MR. SAVEN: Okay.

RICK HADAD: And then there's one on


each side, directly opposite one another. And

there are three existing staircases there now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. One other

thing I want to make note of here is you do have

homeowner's association approval.

Mr. Brennan?

MEMBER BRENNAN: First of all, if I

ever put on a sunroom and if I need a variance,

you've got my business. You did a nice job for

these guys.

RICK HADAD: Thank you.


research. And you're right, while we don't

reference other cases, we try to be consistent, and

given what you have presented tonight, I have no

objection and would endorse your variance request.

RICK HADAD: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members, other


Miss Gray?

MEMBER GRAY: Thank you, Mr. Reinke.

Is there any way that this sunroom can be moved

towards the northwest -- towards the front of the




MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) I

understand the construction, that you probably

wanted just to place it where -- over an

existing, but I see a way -- I see a way to

alleviate some of this by moving it, if it could

be. Now, if it can't, that's a different story.

RICK HADAD: I don't know that it

could not be, but just for the sake of symmetry, it

would be -- it would really be -- it would be kind

of a sin to do that. It's perfectly balanced

centered on that with the two gables.

From the eye -- from the street

appeal and from everything else, I think the

neighbors would object to changing it. It would be

-- it's going to be much more attractive where it


MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, being with the

shape of the pool, I think it would have to be

moved exclusively.


MEMBER GRAY: Well, if it was moved

towards the northwest -- I don't know if there's

any way to do it. This is exactly what I wanted to


see, is something like this.

RICK HADAD: There is a bay window

there with large bays on the side. It would have

to be moved so far because the wall would intersect

the glass.

MEMBER GRAY: And that's what I

wanted to see. I would have liked to have seen

something like this in the packet. It would have

made my -- because I looked at this and I say well,

you know, we can move that, we can move that.

RICK HADAD: In the future I'll make

sure it's included.

MEMBER GRAY: No. I'm just making-

MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) No future.

MEMBER GRAY: -a suggestion.

That was my only question. From an

insurance standpoint, I'd be real concerned about

having all this glass real close to the pool with a

lot of wet feet and people running around.

RICK HADAD: It's all tempered safety


MEMBER GRAY: That's your decision.

If the Chair is in the mood to

entertain a motion, I would move that we approve


the variance due to the lot configuration and the

placement of the pool and the easements that would

be in order.



MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. It's been moved

and seconded to grant the petitioner's variance

request. Is there any further discussion on the


Hearing none, Madam Secretary, would

you call the roll, please.





SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?




SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi?


MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, your variance

request has been approved. See the Building

Department and we wish you the best of luck.


RICK HADAD: Can I ask another thing?

GEORGE SURDU: Thank you, Board.

RICK HADAD: Can I ask that the

five-day waiting period be waived?

Actually, that's not -- on second

thought, that won't be necessary. I don't think

we'll start it before then.

MEMBER GRAY: It's going to be

raining all the rest of this week.


MR. CHAIRMAN: Next case, Case Number

01-080, filed by Blair Bowman, representing

Vision Spa and Salon.

Good evening.

BLAIR BOWMAN: Good evening.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you be sworn in,


MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 01-080?


MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you please

present your case.


BLAIR BOWMAN: Thank you.

Chairman Reinke, I'm Blair Bowman representing

Bowco (ph) Enterprises and Vision Spa and Salon,

concerning a project that we're looking to

construct on Beck Road somewhat south of

Grand River.

We received preliminary site plan

approval and are seeking now a variance that came

out of that process because technically, in the OS1

districts, which this property's now zoned, any

type of, technically identified, loading areas or

delivery areas need to be in the rear yard.

And when we worked with the

consultants and our engineers, we really worked

very carefully to try to preserve the natural

features of the wetlands and the wetland buffers.

And in order to put any type of a delivery area

into the rear yard, we would have intruded into

those natural features.

So it was suggested that we would put

it into the side yard and to come to this body for

and request a variance in order to preserve the

natural features.

Also, I just want to make note, we've


submitted some plans to you this evening. To call

this a delivery area, frankly, is somewhat of a

misnomer. It's a single-entry door that the

employees will access and that they receive very

limited amounts of UPS-style shipments that are

literally hand-carried type of items. And we've

also agreed that we would work with those

deliveries and limit them on the time of operation

and things like that to be least impactful.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there

anyone in the audience that would like input in

this case?

There were 19 notices sent, we

received no approvals, no objections.

Building Department?

MR. SAVEN: Well, I think if you turn

the building at 90 degrees and move -- I'm sorry.

BLAIR BOWMAN: You mean the usual?

MEMBER GRAY: But it works on paper.

MR. SAVEN: Just to point out to the

Board, the wetlands area that's associated with the

project and is one of the issues, and certainly is

a tight site in terms of the natural features that

are there, and the basin that's to the south.


MEMBER BAUER: You make it too easy

for him. I was going do have him replace the


MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members,

comments or discussions?

Miss Gray?

MEMBER GRAY: Well, Mr. Chair, I know

that we have an ordinance that says in commercial

you can't have any loading doors facing any

residential zone, and in here we have R8 to the

north. I don't know what the Master Plan is in

this area.

I know that if the building were made

a little smaller, moved forward, there probably

could have been other things that could have been

done with this; however, that's not -- I'm not

going to second-guess the Planning Commission.

I'm not real happy with seeing

delivery doors facing residential, but it looks

very small, and I would certainly hope that the

hours of delivery would be very limited so that a

person living in that house is not impacted too

much. It seems like the house is real close to the

property line, which is not the petitioner's


fault. I would hope we do not see any requests

like this in the future at all.

Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members,

comments or discussions?

Mr. Brennan?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Just the obvious

observation. This thing's -- the door is tucked

right at the end of the building. They are right

smack up against the wetlands. What's before us is

whether this is a legitimate use. I would suggest

that it is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further comments

or discussion on the request?

MEMBER SANGHVI: Make a motion?


MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Chairman, I move

that the applicant's request be granted for case

number 01-080 due to the presence of wetlands and

the particular terrain and configuration of the



MR. CHAIRMAN: It's been moved and

seconded to grant the variance as requested. Any


further discussion on the motion?

Hearing none, Madam Secretary, would

you call the roll, please.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi?


SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?








MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, your variance

request has been approved. See the Building

Department. We wish you the best of luck.

BLAIR BOWMAN: We appreciate your

consideration. Thank you.


MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Next case, Case

Number 01-081, filed by Robert Loynes.


MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, would you please


be sworn in.

MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 01-081?


MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you please

present your case.

ROBERT LOYNES: Well, to begin with,

I have no basement, and I need a bigger building to

house a pickup and two cars and a few other things

that I need to get in storage.

And it says here I need two

buildings, but I'm only requiring one because of --

the twelve by twelve has already been put up by

somebody else.

Other than that, I mean, I'm just

requesting this variance so I can have a storage


MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there

anyone else in the audience who would like to input

into this case?

Building Department?

MR. SAVEN: Just one question. The

12 by 12 is going to remain?



MR. SAVEN: Okay. So there is two

accessory structures -- detached accessory

structures on your property?

ROBERT LOYNES: Yes, there will be.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. There were

thirty-four notices sent and we received nineteen

approvals and one objection.

The objection states that the

homeowner on Durson, I believe, should stay within

the existing ordinance. The sub is one of the

oldest in Novi. Many projects within this

subdivision over the years are uneven -- oh -- have

created an uneven look in the community. I believe

that this variance he's creating is already against

the existing local ordinance and that the ordinance

was established to protect the area.

Board members, comments or


MEMBER SANGHVI: Are you allowed to

have two accessory buildings?

MR. SAVEN: No, just one.

MEMBER SANGHVI: So there are already

two in existence now already?


MR. SAVEN: No. You have one --

yeah. You have two that's in existence now, one's

going to be torn down or is-

ROBERT LOYNES: (Interposing) Yes.

One will be torn down.

MR. SAVEN: One will be torn down,

the other one is going-

MEMBER SANGHVI: (Interposing) I


MR. SAVEN: Plus this building, so it

will be two.

MR. SANGHVI: I realize that, but the

question, isn't one already standing there now?


MEMBER SANGHVI: And we are making

legal one bigger building?


MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brennan?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Yeah. I have -- I

have a problem with this, only because we're

looking at a substantial variance to the overall

square footage of accessory buildings.

And while I can -- I have some

sympathy. I have a large home in Echo Valley and I


don't have a garage and four kids, and I wish I had

a large thirty-four by twenty-five accessory

building in the backyard to shove all my stuff


The elimination of the twelve by

twelve shed makes your variance request about three

hundred sixty square feet, and I would be more

moved towards something like that rather than the

petition as submitted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members, other

comments or discussion?

Miss Gray?

MEMBER GRAY: The twelve by twelve

shed, when was that built, sir?

ROBERT LOYNES: When was that built?


ROBERT LOYNES: I'm not exactly sure.

MEMBER GRAY: How long have you owned

the property?

ROBERT LOYNES: I bought the property

in 1994.

MEMBER GRAY: And it was there when

you purchased?



MEMBER GRAY: Is it on a slab?

ROBERT LOYNES: Yes, sir -- yes,


MEMBER GRAY: So it wouldn't be real

feasible to ask him to remove the 12 by 12. What

about decreasing the size?

When I look at a twenty-five by

thirty-four, I see at some point in the future

somebody is going to put a second floor on that and

make it into a house, and then you have two houses

on the property. I mean, this is a big building.


MEMBER GRAY: And I do understand

that, you know, people need storage. I'm not

comfortable with that huge building back there,

especially when there's an existing 20 by 18


Would something be done with that

garage that's attached to the house already?

Is that going to be converted to

living space, sir?

ROBERT LOYNES: No. It's for my

wife's car and my car, and there's just enough room

in there for them.



ROBERT LOYNES: May I say something



ROBERT LOYNES: In the subdivision,

there are at least fifteen, sixteen properties that

have oversized garages on them now, or two over --

a big garage and an oversized garage out behind.

And out of sixty homes, I -- that's what I went

around and looked at.

MR. CHAIRMAN: How many of them are

that size?

ROBERT LOYNES: How many are that



ROBERT LOYNES: I'm not exactly

sure. That might be one or two.

MEMBER GRAY: Are some bigger?

ROBERT LOYNES: No, no bigger.

MEMBER GRAY: Most of them are


ROBERT LOYNES: Most of them are

25 and 25, something like that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we hear a couple


options, really, that the Board has discussed. I

think we're going to have to try come to a

consensus. We're going to have to look at

something a little bit different than what your

total request is.

Do you feel you have some flexibility

on the size of the building, do you have -- do you

feel you have some flexibility of giving up the

12 by 12 shed?

ROBERT LOYNES: I really don't want

to do that because, as you see on the plan, I had

the sidewalk going around, which, apparently,

somebody had a pool out there at one time, and the

sidewalk goes out to the shed, and I have my

lawnmowers and stuff like that in there.

I could go smaller around the main

building, but I have a pickup truck that is a crew

cab, dual-wheel, and it's about 23, 24 feet long.

I think it's 23 feet long. I could go smaller if

that's requested.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What do you feel is

the minimum size building that you would need?

ROBERT LOYNES: Twenty-five by

twenty-five or twenty-five by thirty, if that's


feasible, or twenty-four by twenty-five or thirty,

if that's feasible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members?

MR. BRENNAN: Hold on. I'm doing

some quick math. Quick math suggests that if he

had a twenty-five by twenty-five foot new building,

which is six hundred twenty-five square feet, and

kept the twelve by twelve shed, which is a hundred

and forty-four square feet, we have a total of

seven hundred and sixty-nine square feet, which is

within the allowable square footage; therefore, he

would only need a variance for a second building.

MR. SAVEN: No, sir.


MR. SAVEN: He also has an existing

garage attached to the house which needs to be

counted, which is 360 square feet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. You have-

MR. BRENNAN: (Interposing) You

mean, the attached garage is part of the accessory-

MR. SAVEN: (Interposing)

Absolutely. The sum total of all accessory

structures on the site.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. If you take the


garage, which is 20 by 18-

MEMBER BAUER: (Interposing) Three

hundred sixty.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's 360. You take

the 12 by 12, which is 144, you come up with 504

square feet. And we took a 25 by 25 building, you

got 625, so you come up with 1129 square feet.

What's the Board's comments or

discussion on that point?

MEMBER GRAY: Two hundred eighty less

than what he's applying for. I think that would be

a little more livable or acceptable.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Do you feel you

could live with a 25 by 25 and keep your 12 by 12


ROBERT LOYNES: Yes, sir, I could.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What's the Board's

feeling on the consensus of that?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, I'm the one

that objected to the overall square footage. We're

getting closer to something that's within the

allowable -- we're only 300 some square feet over

what's allowable.

The petitioner has made a move to get


closer to what we like to see, and we should

probably make a move to get closer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that a motion?

MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll make a motion

and see how the Board feels with the request,

01-081, the petitioner's request to maintain a

12 by 12 shed, to remove the small shed that's on

the left-hand side of this picture right here-

ROBERT LOYNES: (Interposing) East


MEMBER BRENNAN: -and the new

structure will be 25 by 25 square feet, and

whatever the math works out is what it works out.


MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. It's been moved

and seconded to grant the variance request for a --

maintain the 12 by 12 shed and a new 25 by 25 foot


I have one question of the Building

Department. Can that be built eight foot off the

back property line?



MR. SAVEN: Six. Minimum of six.


MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Board

members, any further comments on the motion?

Hearing none, Madam Secretary, would

you call the roll, please.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?


SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi?








MR. CHAIRMAN: See the building

department for the necessary permits and we wish

you the best of luck.



MR. CHAIRMAN: Moving onto the next

case, Case Number 01-082, filed by

Sandra Marderosian of 23141 Meadowbrook Road, is

requesting an 8.92 foot side yard setback on the


side of the property to allow construction of an

addition to her residence.

Would you please be sworn in.

MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 01-082?


MR. BAUER: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please present your



Sandra Marderosian. I live at 23141 Meadowbrook,

and I've lived there for seventeen years. And I

have three daughters, and we're kind of busting at

the seams a little bit, and we've always thought

we'd do an addition, and we're looking to put an

addition -- we're not wanting to go over our

existing home line, encroaching upon the north lot

line any more than our garage is now.

We had a garage built in 1989, twelve

years ago, and we were allowed to build the garage

ten feet from the lot line. And we've been told

since then it's changed, and to do the addition to

the home, without doing the variance, we would have

to bring in the addition, like, nine feet in the


back, which, architecturally, would look kind of


We just want to extend the addition

out from the existing home line that we have now.

The blueprints have signatures from

neighbors on both sides, and our association.

Nobody's had any objections that I've been told.

We didn't feel this would impact the

neighbors because it doesn't extend past the home

line, and if we did indent it, we felt that would

be more offensive to the neighbors because it

wouldn't be as architecturally nice.

I think that was it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there

anyone else in the audience that would like to

participate or input into this case?

Building Department?

MR. SAVEN: In your packet you

probably received the plot plan that had an 18 foot

structure, which was the existing garage. I asked

our inspector to go out there and remeasure it, and

that is 13 foot, so it might have seemed a little

confusing to you.



the sidewalk in this thing.

MR. SAVEN: There is twenty-two --

twenty-five feet to the property line, so if the

garage was eighteen foot, it would have been three

feet, and that got me kind of concerned, to figure

out why we issued a permit for something that's

close to the property line.

SANDRA MARDEROSIAN: I do have a copy

of the field sheet that has that.

MR. SAVEN: So, anyhow, to make a

long story short, I reviewed it and I sent my

inspector, and it's actually nine -- it's actually

9.5 feet to the property line, but we were pretty

close in that particular area. I assume it's how

the building was situated and the angle of the

property, but that's what it was.

It was ten foot at that time. It was

legal at that time. Now, because of the change of

the ordinance, we have the change of the

requirements, which require more for sum total of

two side yards plus for one side being at a certain


MR. CHAIRMAN: There were twenty-six

notices sent, and we received two objections, and


one letter that was an objection but not an


We have no objection to the requested

variance from across the lake from an appearance

standpoint; however, according to the letter the

Building Department sent, setback is already on a

variance to the allowable amount, hence our


Another one says we know the property

on the north side has been sold and we want to know

what the impact on that would be. And it says make

sure that the -- any discussion in this matter with

the homeowner's association.

Have you done that?


copy of the blueprint that I had them sign.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That they approved



MR. CHAIRMAN: And also take a look

at the impact of the variance on the new homeowners

on the lot on the north side.

Mr. Brennan?

MEMBER BRENNAN: You know, every


three years I get reinterviewed by the council for

the ZBA, and they always ask me what's one of your

strengths, and I say compassion. And if this isn't

a case for compassion.

We have a homeowner that's been in

the same property for fifteen years. The City has

changed the rules and the petitioner is asking to

make an addition to her home that's within this

sphere of the ordinance. She shouldn't be

penalized for this.

I see no objections other than some

very tempered letters. She is up against the


Ma'am, I have no problem with your


MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members,

further comments or discussion?

Doc Sanghvi?

MEMBER SANGHVI: I live in the same

neighborhood, and I've been there for nearly 25

years. I've seen this house being built and what's

happened and how things have changed, and there is

a lot of space between the street and your north

border, and by giving this kind of variance is not


going to make the slightest difference, so I have

no problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Bauer?

MEMBER BAUER: I go by it at least

two or three times a day. I have no problem with

it at all.


MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Chairman, if I

may make a motion?


MEMBER SANGHVI: That Case Number

01-082, the petitioner's request for the variance

be granted because of already peculiar lot

configuration and presence of water on the back



MR. CHAIRMAN: Moved and seconded to

grant the petitioner's request. Any further

discussion on the motion?

Hearing none, Madam Secretary, would

you call the roll, please.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi?





SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?






MR. CHAIRMAN: Your variance request

has been approved. Please see the Building

Department for the necessary permits, and we wish

you the best of luck.



MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Next case, Case

Number 01-085, filed by Al Evers of 109 Penhill.

Homeowner of 109 Penhill is seeking

two variances to construct a second story on top of

existing home, and is requesting side yard variance

of one foot and a variance to enlarge the


Sir, would you please be sworn in.


MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear


or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 01-085?

AL EVERS: I do. I'm seeking a one

foot variance. I would like to thank the Board for

putting me on the docket today on such short


I tried -- this is my first time ever

being involved in this, so I'll be as brief as


I purchased the home in November of

2000. I was supposedly buying a completely

remodeled, renovated ranch home, and my building

inspector, prior to, had pointed out that I needed

to maybe replace some shingles and maybe some roof

borons (ph), some minor roof repair.

So after the closing on November 3rd,

I had my roofing contractor come out there, and he

proceeded to tear off the shingles and do the

necessary roof repair, and upon doing that he

discovered that there was a roof built over the top

of a roof with five layers of shingles, and when he

found that out he immediately contacted me and we

called the City of Novi and had an open roof


The inspector came out the following


Monday and red tagged it, I do believe, that it

wasn't to code.

So in the meantime, since November of

2000, I've been in a legal battle with the former

seller of the house, but in the meantime, since

then, I had to contact a engineer and an architect,

and they came up -- and they came out and inspected

the premises, went through all the rafters and

found that there was cracked rafters in the

structure and that the whole top of the house had

to come off to come to code.

So upon realizing that, what kind of

an investment now I have to make into a house that

was supposedly totally remodeled, I had the

architect draw that -- since the surrounding homes

were -- the cottage style homes are being torn

down, and that new homes two lots from where I

purchased my home tore done and rebuilt the house,

that the current drawing that you see in front of

you will be similar to what's going on in the area.

So that's why I'm asking for a

building variance of one foot and a side yard


MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there


anyone in the audience who would like to input into

this case?

There were fifty-eight notices sent

and we received two approvals.

Building Department?

MR. SAVEN: You talk of compassion.

AL EVERS: I also got -- recently we

got married and I'm living with my mother-in-law.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Miss Gray?

MEMBER GRAY: Well, having purchased

one of these old cottages myself and discovering

that there was a gable roof put on top of a flat

roof, and being in the same circumstances, believe

me, I have compassion.

And I'm going to trump you. I was

five months pregnant at the time, so there.

MEMBER SANGHVI: Eighteen years ago.

MEMBER GRAY: I would like to make a

motion that we grant the variance and waive the

five-day waiting period and let this poor man get

on with his life.


MR. CHAIRMAN: Been moved and

seconded to grant the petitioner's request-


MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) Excuse me.

The purpose?


MEMBER SANGHVI: (Interposing)


MEMBER GRAY: Based on-

MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) Existing


MEMBER GRAY: Existing structure and

based on hardship and the small lots in the area,

and -- although he doesn't have that problem, I'm

sorry. Let's make this correct.

Let's make a motion to grant the

variance based on putting a second story on top of

an existing home that is -- has become his hardship

due to unknown defects when he purchased.

Is that okay, Tom?


MEMBER GRAY: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Support for the


MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, second.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Been moved and

seconded to grant the petitioner's request.


Is there any further discussion on the motion?

Hearing none, Madam Secretary, would

you call the roll, please.


MEMBER GRAY: Definitely yes.



SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?




SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi?


MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, your variance

request has been approved. See the Building

Department for the necessary permits. We wish you

the best of luck.

AL EVERS: Thank you very much.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, is there

something you wanted to address the Board on?

POLICE OFFICER: No, sir. I'm here

to protect the meeting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh. Other matters.

2001 (ph) meeting date schedule. Everybody have


copies of that?

Are there any problems as seen as to

what Sarah has laid out there?

MEMBER GRAY: What about November?

Might we have to move November if

there's an election? We did in August for a

potential primary.

MEMBER BRENNAN: What is the date?

MEMBER GRAY: It says November 4th.

SARAH MARCHIONI: The election would

be on the 5th, so they actually made me move it to

the 4th.

MEMBER GRAY: The 4th is Monday?


MR. CHAIRMAN: The 4th is Monday.

MEMBER GRAY: Doesn't the council

meet the first Monday?

SARAH MARCHIONI: No. They are going

to move to the 12th, the Monday after

Veteran's Day.

MEMBER GRAY: No problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Sarah, any --

Mr. Saven?

MR. SAVEN: Yes. The two issues that


came before the Board for audience participation,

we've been through some restructuring in my

department, and I just wanted to make it known that

I do not have control of the ordinance individuals,

and when we deal with ordinance violations they

should be directed to Cindy Yuglo (ph), who would

follow up on those particular matters.

I like to make sure that by going

through these -- if anybody walks in my office and

sees what I got there, if I just place a paper on

my desk I could probably forget about it in two


I just want to make sure it gets to


SARAH MARCHIONI: (Interposing) I

second that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the Board have

any other matters to bring before us at this time?

Hearing none, we'll adjourn the

meeting at this point.

(The meeting was adjourned at

8:28 p.m.)

Date approved: November 5, 2001 ___________________

Sarah Marchioni Recording Secretary



I, Cheryl L. James, do hereby

certify that I have recorded stenographically the

proceedings had and testimony taken in the

above-entitled matter at the time and place hereinbefore

set forth, and I do further certify that the foregoing

transcript, consisting of sixty-six (66) typewritten

pages, is a true and correct transcript to the best of my




Cheryl L. James, CSR-5786