View Agenda for this meeting
View Action Summary for this meeting

TUESDAY, JULY 9, 2002 -- 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, July 9, 2002.

Frank Brennan, chairman
Jerald Bauer
Sarah Gray
Cynthia Gronachan
Laverne Reinke
Siddharth Sanghvi

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

Cheryl L. James, Certified Shorthand Reporter

MR. CHAIRMAN: Welcome, ladies and

gentlemen. We'll call this meeting to order.

Sarah, you want to call the roll?

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi, I

have him as absent excused.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We do have a

quorum. This meeting is now in session.

Ladies and gentlemen, on the front

page of our agenda there are rules of conduct, and

I'd ask that you give a quick looksy-over and try

to adhere to them.

The Zoning Board of Appeals is a

hearing Board empowered by the Novi City Charter to

hear appeals seeking variance from the application



of the Novi zoning ordinances.

It takes a vote of at least four

members to approve a variance request and a vote of

the majority of members present to deny a variance.

A full Board consists of six

members. We have five members tonight, so to get a

positive approval of the variance you will need

four votes.

If there's anyone here who would

rather have their case heard before a full Board,

I'd ask you to raise your hand now and we'll put

you on next month's agenda; otherwise, we will

proceed. I see no hands waving.

Next item of business is our agenda.

Are there any changes, comments, issues, items?


MEMBER GRAY: Move to approve.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Move for approval as

submitted. All those in favor, say aye.

(Vote taken.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: We do have a set of

minutes from the May 7th meeting. Any changes to

those minutes?

MEMBER GRAY: I've got two



corrections. Page fifty-three line four, where it

says the word inaudible, what I said was illegal

multiple multiple. And on page fifty-nine line

twenty, instead of the number four, I believe it

should be the word for, f-o-r. That's it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Anything else, other

Boards members?

Move for approval as amended. All

those in favor say aye.

(Vote taken.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Public remarks. At

this portion we'll invite the public to approach

the Board, but all comments related to a case on

our agenda should be held until that case is

called. Is there anyone who wants to talk to the

Board about anything other than items on the


(No response.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We will

proceed and call the first case.




MR. CHAIRMAN: ZBA Case 02-051. This

is the Too Chez signage, please.



Gentlemen, you want to give your

names for the record and then raise your right hand

and be sworn?

MR. HEYN: My name's Jeff Heyn,

Planet Neon, and I'm here with Kenneth Aspinaw and

John Baumgarden from Epic Restaurants, owner of

Too Chez Restaurant.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Raise your right hand.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or

affirm that the information that you're about to

give in the matter before you is true?


MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. You have the


MR. HEYN: Evening, Board. Like I

said, I'm Jeff Heyn, Planet Neon Sign Company. I

reside at 1420 Pettibone Lake Road, Highland,

Michigan, and I'm -- we're here seeking variance to

install a new wall sign that would say Bistro below

the existing Too Chez sign on the east elevation

and a brand-new sign, Too Chez Bistro, wall sign,

individual channel letter sign, which would be on

the south elevation, like the drawing that we

supplied you with.



Unfortunately, you probably got a

chance to see the mockup banners, and they're not

installed -- the positioning isn't exactly like the

drawing because the elevation on the building has

those protruding fascia layers that made it pretty

hard to put the banner up over top of that, so

they're a little bit lower than -- but the actual

drawing is accurate that you have there, the way

they would be installed if you grant permission.

I just want to make a note, too, that

I think there may be a little confusion on the

actual size of the sign, the proposed signs. The

Too -- the existing Too Chez sign that's been up

there, I don't know, three or four years --

UNIDENTIFIED: That's about right,

four years.

MR. HEYN: That's about thirty square

feet, and then the Bistro sign is probably

twenty-six square feet. So, in reality, we're

looking at adding a twenty-six square foot Bistro

to that existing Too Chez sign that's up there now,

and then the identical size Too Chez Bistro on the

south elevation, which would be the freeway side,

so it's not, in my eyes -- I don't know where the



-- it's not a hundred square feet, unless you draw

a complete rectangle around the whole envelope,

which -- it's accurate from that point of view, but

-- I'd really like to have John Baumgardner speak

to the -- some of the other points in this matter.

I'm going to let him take over from here, unless

you have any questions for me on -- or I can get

back with you on that, too.


MR. BAUMGARDEN: Thanks, Jeff. I'm

John Baumgardner. I'm the general manager of

Too Chez Restaurant. I live at 54 Oakdale in

Pleasant Ridge, Michigan. I've been at Too Chez

for over ten years, and I just want to talk to you

a little bit about our reasoning for wanting to do


It's just getting more and more

competitive out there. We're really struggling to

survive. There are more chain restaurants with

their big national advertising coming into Novi.

We've got one going in right next door to us.

And we've always struggled with just

visibility. We have a great location there because

we're near Novi Road and I-96; however, the access



is somewhat difficult because you have to come up

around to the north and in through West Oaks Drive

to get to us. And the traffic we're trying to

appeal to is on Novi Road, but I think the way the

zoning is structured, our setback goes from

Sheridan Drive. Well, there's really no traffic on

Sheridan Drive except for those people that are

already coming to us or to the hotel, the

Double Tree, and there's no signage on the south

side of our building, so the people coming up from

the south on Novi Road has no idea what our

building is really.

And over the years that I've been

there, we've -- we still experience this. People

who have been longtime Novi residents come into the

restaurant and say are you new, we never knew you

were here. It's just -- it's just something we

need to address in order to make our restaurant

more marketable in order to survive.

We need to -- we want to add the word

Bistro because our name, Too Chez, people don't

really know what it is. They -- they're not even

sure it's a restaurant when you look at the sign

the way it sits now, so we needed to make a change



and this seems to be the best change for us to

make. The most affordable change for us to make

was just to add a word that conveys the kind of

restaurant that we want to be.

I think that's the point.

Another person who's here -- I'm not

sure if he has anything to add -- was Kevin Aspinaw

who's from our corporate office at Epic Restaurant

Group, and I'll open it up to him, unless anyone

has questions for me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we might have

some questions later on.


MR. ASPINAW: My name is

Kevin Aspinaw, reside at 4029 Cheryl Drive,

Commerce Township. Again, I just want to support

what John said. He pretty much covered all the


But we've, indeed, had Too Chez --

our company, Epic Restaurant Group and its

predecessor has operated Too Chez at its current

location for close to 18 years. We've struggled at

various times to make it successful. We've had a

couple -- we've had a name change ten years ago



when we changed to Too Chez. We've, at various

times, struggled. We're finding more and more --

it's more and more difficult to run a profitable

operation, and we're trying to address it in the

best way that we can, so we want to get, basically,

more visibility and more name recognition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. There were nine

notices sent to adjoining property owners. There

were no approvals, no objections.

Anyone in the audience care to make a


(No response.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, okay. Building


MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman and Members

of the Board, just as Mr. Heyn had indicated, the

Novi city ordinance can determine the square

footage of sign is to the outmost areas of the

sign. As you can see, Bistro is located within the

sign area, and we go from top to bottom and out to

out, so, in fact, that 101 square -- 100.06 foot

applies for this particular square footage.

MEMBER BAUER: That's strictly for




MR. SAVEN: Including the Bistro;

other -- elsewise, it would have been 33 square

foot, somewhere around that area.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, open

for discussion, questions or comments?

MEMBER REINKE: I have no problem

with adding the Bistro to give it identification.

The problem I have is the second sign because you

already have a road sign out there to direct people

in, and I really don't think the south sign is

going to be of that significant value. I think the

road sign is of more value to them, and I have no

problem, like I say, in adding Bistro on the east

elevation, but I really have a problem in

supporting the second wall sign.

MEMBER BAUER: Those are my


MEMBER GRONACHAN: I share the same

sentiments. I don't know where the second sign is

going to actually help in drawing in the traffic.

Maybe you need to look at another avenue of

advertising or whatever, but the first one with the

Bistro, I totally agree with my other -- with the

previous speaker. I think it does help more so



coming down.

And the rest, I think you're going to

be on your own coming up with some more creativity

on letting people know about your restaurant.

Thank you.


MEMBER GRAY: I am going to disagree

with the previous speakers. I think the word

Bistro is going to make a big difference on the

east side, and because of the site where they are

and where they have been for 18 years, it's always

been a very difficult site to get to. You can't

turn into it. You have to go up to Donelson -- no,

not up to Donelson.

THE GROUP: West Oaks.

MEMBER GRAY: West Oaks. Thank you.

I drew a complete blank for a minute. You have to

go up to West Oaks to make the turn and then turn,

and it's a horrible place to get into.

I think the fact that they have been

here and they've been here for eighteen years, and

under two different names, but the fact that they

-- this used to be the old Lincoln Mercury dealer,

didn't it, when it was originally built? And that



sat vacant for years.

MR. ASPINAW: Never opened.

MEMBER GRAY: Never opened. So I

don't have as much a problem with them having two

signs on their building because they're on a

corner, for all intents and purposes. Maybe a

smaller sign facing the south, but I don't have any

problem adding Bistro on the east elevation, I

don't have any problem with the ground sign that's

up by West Oaks Drive, and I really don't have a

problem with adding a sign facing the expressway.

We've heard all the arguments about other

applicants a little to the west about why they

should have signs facing two ways, and this is just

a continuation of that.

Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would have liked to

have heard a little bit more argument on the need

for the second sign.

MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, if I may,

one of the issues that hasn't been brought up,

there is going to be another building being

constructed adjacent to Too Chez, which may have a

greater height than what the Pizza Hut was, and so



that is another visual -- could be a visual

obstruction in the area. I could not tell you the

entire height.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's to the north?

MR. SAVEN: That is correct, but

there's going to be -- I don't know how much closer

it's going to be to the road because it's at a very

preliminary stage right now that we're looking at,

and I do know that it's higher than what the

Pizza Hut is right now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We seem to have

some commonality with a few members. Maybe we

should try a motion to see where the Board sits.

MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, in

Case 02-051, I move that the petitioner's request

to add the verbiage Bistro to the east elevation of

the building be approved and not approving the

second wall sign.


MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and a

second. Any discussion on the motion?

MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Chair?


MR. SCHULTZ: If the maker of the



motion could articulate the reasons for the denial

with respect to the second sign, or incorporate

your prior comments on the record into the motion?

MEMBER REINKE: The reason would be

that I think the signage on the east elevation

would be adequate to identify the building.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As a restaurant.

All right. We have an amended motion and a second.

Any further discussion?

(No response.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: If not, let's let

Sarah call the vote.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?


MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, you got a

partial victory. If it looks like you've got



problems down the road, come back and see us


I would suggest -- it always helps to

have a little bit more data, if you can present it.

If you've got a financial case that you want to

present, some information, we'll take a look at

that, but at this point you've got a modified east


MR. ASPINAW: May I ask a question,



MR. ASPINAW: When you say provide

more data if possible, you made reference to

financial, I can understand that, but can you --

what other type of data might you suggest we might

provide that might help our case more?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't know.

MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, let me --

one of the issues when that even I, when I was

looking at your place today as I was going back

over Novi Road, I seen that you did have some large

evergreens in that particular area. And like

Mr. Reinke indicated, it was very difficult to see

whether or not Bistro itself would be something



that could be visually seen from Novi Road. The

only thing I could see that would benefit would be

off of 96, and traveling on 96 at 70 miles an hour

you're really not interested in seeing basically

what that sign is, at least I think that -- I think

that maybe the topography, your terrain -- the

existing terrain and your visual site distance, as

you're looking at your building -- and the position

of your building should be something taken into


MR. ASPINAW: I can appreciate that,

Mr. Saven, and I don't know if it would have helped

earlier if I would have presented a stronger case

or argument, but we do recognize topography is a

difficult property. We probably addressed a lot of

it earlier this year, and some of it is difficult

to address because a lot of the trees that are now

maturing are actually either on state land on the

-- between Novi Road and the Sheridan Drive that we

have no control over unfortunately.

MR. SAVEN: And I think that's why

Mr. Reinke was talking about whether or not that

sign would be beneficial for you, because Novi Road

going -- God knows I spend hours on Novi Road in



that stretch anyway -- but anyhow, to make a long

story short, just to be able to see that building,

that's where you need that visual application.

MR. ASPINAW: I agree with you, which

is, again, why we were hoping to get approval. I

appreciate what you gave us and we'll try to come

back another time.





MR. CHAIRMAN: Case Number 02-052 is

filed by Partenie Todor, and you've got a unique

little situation. You want to build a new house

and ultimately rip down the real one.

So why don't you give us your names

and raise your right hand to be sworn. My name

Amelia Todor, this is my husband, Partenie Todor.

We live at 22001 Beck Road, Northville, Michigan.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you both swear

or affirm that the information that you're about to

give in the matter before you is the truth?



MS. TODOR: Yes. We are requesting a



permit to live in our current home until our new

construction -- new house would be built. After

that, the older home would be demolished. That's

all we have to say.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's pretty


MS. TODOR: Yes. That's all we need.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There were thirty

notices, and you've got two approvals from

neighbors. One is a Joe Donbeck, and another

H. Alkema on Nine Mile.

Anyone in the audience care to --

sir, come on down, give us your name and address.

MR. DONBECK: I'm Joe Donbeck, and I

live across the road at 28200 Beck Road, and I

certainly hope you people won't put any roadblocks

in this family. They have been -- I've been on

that property for 50 years, and these folks have

been one of the better neighbors we've had, so I

think it would be an extreme hardship if that

family had to move out while they're building a

home that, I'm sure, will come up equal with the

Biaggio's subdivision just to the north of them, so

I hope that you'll see that the right things are



done tonight. Thanks very much.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Yes,

ma'am. Name and address, please.

MS. CRAWFORD: Carol Crawford,

22135 Beck. As a longtime resident there, and two

other neighbors who were unable to attend tonight,

the three adjoining neighbors to I guess the north,

we have no objections and certainly encourage you

to support them in their effort to stay in their

home with their family and build their new lovely

home. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else in


(No response.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: No. Okay, we'll move

on. Building Department?

MR. SAVEN: If it is the Board's

decision to approve this case tonight, I would ask

that the stipulation would be that upon certificate

of occupancy, within 30 days thereafter the

building comes down.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I see

another neighbor. Did you want to come down and

say something?




MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Are you here

for the case on Beck Road?


MR. CHAIRMAN: But you don't want to

say anything?


MR. CHAIRMAN: You don't want to

comment? You just missed the audience


UNIDENTIFIED: That's okay, I'm all


MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Board

Members, questions?

MEMBER REINKE: What time frame do

you estimate this to completion of your new home?

MR. TODOR: About 18 months.

MEMBER REINKE: I have no problem

with the petitioner's request. I mean, you got to

have some place to live.

MS. TODOR: Right. With five kids

it's hard to move.

MEMBER REINKE: It's right there

where you're building and everything, that way



you've got an eye on everything and everything is

secured and so forth like that, and I can

wholeheartedly support their request.

MEMBER BAUER: I think it's a good


MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a lot of

nodding heads, so let's hear a motion.

MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, in

Case 02-052, I move that petitioner's request be

granted for them to have a place to live while

their new home is being constructed and that their

building should come down within 30 days after

certificate of occupancy is issued.


MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion for

approval and a second. Any discussion?

MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, I stand

corrected. I would ask that person granting the

motion to extend that time. I just realized the

fact that we do have some problems getting

clearances from the utility companies lately. I

would I'd ask that we extend this to 60 days if


MEMBER REINKE: No problem.



MR. SCHULTZ: Just if there's

consideration for the length of time on the

variance, eighteen months, two years as the

motion's made?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Put some time on it?

MEMBER REINKE: Make it two years.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Can you build that

house in two years?

MR. TODOR: Oh, yeah.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. We have an

amended motion. Sarah, you want to call the vote?

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?


MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. You've got your

variance. See the Building Department.

MR. & MRS. TODOR: Thank you.




MR. CHAIRMAN: We will call the next

case, 02-053. This is Central Park, LLC. There's

a familiar face.

Mr. Bowman, you want to raise your

right hand and be sworn?

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or

affirm that the information that you're about to

give in the matter before you is the truth?


MR. CHAIRMAN: You've got the floor.

MR. BOWMAN: Basically what's before

you tonight is a request for a flag pole and an

American flag that was placed on the Central Park

property to remain where it currently is located,

which is, by way of a small error on the part of

the flag pole installing company, is slightly

within the to-be-dedicated-right-of-way per our

site plan.

Tonight though I guess what I would

like to do is maybe alter that a little bit,

because after looking at the situation, there

probably is not a good place for that flag pole to

stay in that region, and we're going to suggest or



look towards moving the flag pole in front of the

clubhouse when it is constructed. Actually, in the

parking structure or parking lot area there's a

landscaped area that would be very appropriate for

the flag pole to be moved. It won't have the same

visual presence or affect that we were hoping to

have in front of the gatehouse, but I think that

that's what we would like to do.

And I guess our request would be

simplified in the fact that we would like to maybe,

for the next month, maybe six weeks, until the

parking lot area in constructed and that area is

staked out and identified, we would to not have to

move it twice or take it down but move it at the

time that that's completed, so hopefully a little

bit more reasonable request.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That makes sense.

There were twenty-nine notices sent; no approvals,

no objections. Anyone in the audience want to talk

about the flag pole?

(No response.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Building Department?

MR. SAVEN: I have to agree with

Mr. Bowman just for the fact that I was out there



just kind of hoofing it off to try to figure out

where that setback was at; and yeah, he does have a

little problem and he's going to have to move it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If you've got some

setbacks in construction and we gave you three

months, do you think that's a window-

MR. BOWMAN: (Interposing) That

would be very fair and that would be adequate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any comments from the


MEMBER GRAY: The only question I

have is, if it's in the road right-of-way, Tom,

does he need a license from the council to keep it

there for that period of time?

MR. SCHULTZ: I guess the question

sounded like Mr. Bowman said

to-be-dedicated-right-of-way, and if it's not yet,

I think we can probably let that slide.

MEMBER GRAY: So as long as it's not

a dedicated right of way then we don't have to

worry about a license?


MEMBER GRAY: Okay, thanks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other comments,




MR. SAVEN: Just to clarify, three


MR. BOWMAN: That would be fine with

us. That would be adequate.

MEMBER GRAY: And then, of course,

Building Department retains jurisdiction?

MR. SAVEN: Yeah, we'll have


MEMBER GRAY: For the three -- for

that three months?

MR. SAVEN: For the three months.

They're coming along quite well on the community

building right now, so I think we'll move along in

the amount of time. It's good weather so far --

MEMBER GRONACHAN: You might as well

do the motion then.

MEMBER GRAY: Move to approve -- in

Case 02-053, move to approve the petitioner's

variance for a period of three months, at such

time -- when at such time it will be moved by the

parking structure.


MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion and a secodn.



Do you swear on that, Tom?

MR. SCHULTZ: Yes, I'm fine.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion on the


(No reponse.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: If not, Sarah, call.

MS. MARDCHIONI: Member Gray?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?


MR. CHAIRMAN: Sweeping vote of


MR. BOWMAN: Appreciate it very much.

Appreciate your patience, too.

MR. CHAIRMAN: See the Building

Department for anything you might need.




MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. 02-054,

Beechforest Park. This is an extension of a

previously granted, I believe, yes.

Give us your name, sir, and raise

your right hand.

MR. FOSSE: Hello. My name is

Chuck Fosse. I'm a principal of Wah Yee

Associates. We're the architects for the project.

Our office is at 37911 West Twelve Mile Road in

Farmington Hills.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you raise

your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm

that the information that you're about to give in

the matter before you is the truth?



MR. FOSSE: I just brought this

rendering along just to refresh everybody's memory.

It's been a long time since we've been before any

of the Boards with this building.

Basically, nothing has changed. The

extension has been requested basically because

there's been, as everyone knows, a significant



softening in the office market in our area, and

Mr. Menosian is simply looking for -- seeking some

more time to market his building so that when he

does break ground he can expect to lease it in a

reasonable amount of time.

All of our construction drawings have

been completed for the building. We're basically

ready to submit for building permit, but we want to

hold off.

Based on continued improvement in the

office market, we're planning -- Mr. Menosian is

planning to seek a building permit and start

construction in the spring 2003.

I'd be happy to answer any questions

that you might have.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There were 11 notices

sent; no approvals, no objections.

Anyone in the audience care to make


(No response.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: No comment. Building


MR. SAVEN: The ordinance allows for

the expiration of the approval from Zoning Board of



appeals basically 90 days after the final setback

and site plan has been approved.

Nothing addresses an extension of the

site plan. Nothing addresses that particular


And I had a discussion with our city

attorney and it was best felt that he come back

before the Board to allow this to coincide with his

extension for final site plan approval.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. There's really

just paperwork housekeeping. I don't have any

questions. I don't have any objections.


Mr. Chairman, you know, I guess, you know, this

dates back -- this is dating back to '99, and I

have a problem with just automatically renewing

something like this without something actually more

firm of what's happening, what's going on.

I mean, here we're going on for

another year with no guarantee that it's going to

go up or even that they're ready to go at that

point in time.

MR. FOSSE: All I can tell you is

that just about everything in the development is



market driven, and as I think you're aware, there

have been several office buildings built in the

area in the last year, six months that are

virtually unoccupied. Mr. Menosian doesn't want to

be in that position; although, like I said, we're

prepared, we could file a building permit tomorrow,

but what he's seeking is just some more time.

Hopefully the market is going to recover and he'll

be able to open his building and lease it in a

timely manner.

MEMBER REINKE: The reason I say

that, in three years time what you actually build

for what you presented at that time can be a whole

different ball game, and I really have a problem

continuing this on automatically every year.

MR. FOSSE: Well, as I said, there

have been no changes to the building since it was

-- since the variances were granted. I guess I

could document that by showing you a set of working

drawings, you can make that comparison. And we

don't anticipate any change. He wants to build the

building as it was approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just for the record,

and maybe from memory, this is a fairly large



building, and the variances that we granted were

side yard setbacks of eleven feet and eleven feet

on the two sides?

MR. FOSSE: That's right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In the overall scheme

of things, that's relatively minor.

MR. FOSSE: And just to add to that,

the side yard setbacks are 59 feet, so they're -- I

think they're quite generous.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other Board

questions, comments, discussion, motions?

(No response.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: I can make a motion,

can't I? I will. Case Number 02-054, I would move

that petitioner's request for an extension be

granted so that it coincides with the Planning

Commission approval.


MR. CHAIRMAN: Discussion.

(No response.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: None. Tom?

MR. SCHULTZ: Just a question, and

maybe this is for Mr. Saven. This is on tomorrow

night's agenda at the Planning Commission?



MR. SAVEN: That is correct.

MR. SCHULTZ: If you wanted to make

your approval subject to their extension for site

plan, just sort of throw that out as consideration,

but that's-

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) We'll

amend the motion to include your recommendation.

Any other discussion?

(No discussion.)


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?


MR. CHAIRMAN: You've got your

extension. See the Building Department if he needs


MR. SAVEN: In a year-and-a-half.



MR. FOSSE: Thank you.




MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Picasso,

02-055. This is an outdoor seating case.

Sir, give us your name and raise your

right hand and be sworn.

MR. ATTEE: My name is Gerald Attee.

I reside at 21253 Woodhill, Northville, Michigan.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you raise

your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm

that the information you're about to give in the

matter before you is the truth?

MR. ATTEE: I do.


MR. ATTEE: As stated in the agenda,

we're looking for approval to put some outdoor

seating and build a brick paver patio in the front

yard section of the property located at

39915 Grand.

We're a fairly new business. We've

been in business for 13 months. When we first

opened we joined the Chamber of Commerce, and my

son attended a meeting where they said they were



looking for ways to beautify that Grand River

corridor as a gateway to Novi.

When my son came back, we talked

about it, and at that same time we were having a

problem with people seeing our restaurant. The way

we're located, we're the end unit on the building,

and people coming from the east can see our

Picasso Cafe sign, but anyone driving west, we're

offset about 60 feet and they have no idea there's

a restaurant there.

So we thought we could pretty much

kill two birds with one stone by enhancing the area

with a brick paver patio and some three umbrellas,

and also to serve as a landmark for our restaurant

so people could see that there's something there.

Even today we still get comments that they don't

know there's a restaurant there.

Our business hours are from 7:00 a.m.

to 7:00 p.m. We are -- so we close fairly early.

There are no residential houses nearby, within a

few blocks. We do not serve alcohol. And we think

this would enhance the city.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. There were

thirteen notices sent; there were two approvals,



one from Tudor Time and one from the owner of the


Anybody in the audience care to


(No response.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Building Department?

MR. SAVEN: Just a couple issues. I

ran this by the plan review center in terms of

landscaping requirements.

Where this gentleman is putting this

brick paver is not within any green belt area. The

green belt is still satisfied by virtue of how far

this sets back.

The other issue is that it is more of

a temporary nature because they're using brick

pavers instead of concrete as the patio. It's

basically a landscape feature.

He's also looking at placing -- I'm

trying to remember how many tables and chairs there

were. Three tables and twelve chairs in this

particular area, which is rather minor for the area

he's going to be serving.

There is no problem with drainage. I

did take a look at that.



So that pretty well much answers any

questions I would have.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Board Members?

MEMBER REINKE: I don't have a

problem. It's -- like Mr. Saven had said, it's

really minor with the tables on the outside. I

think it's going to be a good setup for what he


MEMBER GRONACHAN: I have a question,

Mr. Chairman?


MS. GRONACHAN: Length of time, or is

that seasonal?

MR. ATTEE: We're looking for from

around March 1st to October 31st. It will actually

probably be April, but in case we get a few nice

days in March or October we'd put the tables out


MR. CHAIRMAN: Let me throw something

out for Board Members to consider. We've had a

number of these cases come before us, and this is

your first time in front of us.

MR. ATTEE: Yes, it is. It's a

fairly new business.



MR. CHAIRMAN: What we've done in the

past with first-time users is, if the Board's in

agreement, we grant the variance. If everything

goes okay, your -- the Building Department's got

continuing jurisdiction, so if there's any problems

they'll be aware of it, but if not, you can come

back next year and ask for two or three years.

That's pretty much been the-

MR. ATTEE: And we're also asking,

I'd understand, for a five-day waiver so we can --

if it's approved to start immediately?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members?

MEMBER BAUER: No problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Somebody want to go

through the motion?

MEMBER BAUER: In Case 02-055, grant

approval for the request for the outdoor seating,

three tables, twelve chairs, and for the brick

paver on the patio, and waiving the five-day

waiting period.

MEMBER REINKE: Any limitation?

MEMBER BAUER: From March 1st to

October 31st, for one year.




MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and a

second. Any discussion?

(No discussion.)


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?


MR. CHAIRMAN: See the Building

Department, sir. You've got your variance.

MR. ATTEE: Thank you very much.




MR. CHAIRMAN: We now have a

residential case, 45821 Ashford Circle. This is a

rear yard setback.

MS. NIKSIMAEE: Good evening. My

name is (ph) Niksimaee with Arnim Associates, and



on behalf of the homeowner we are requesting a

variance. There's existing-

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Are

both of you going to talk?

You want to both raise your hands and

be sworn?

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or

affirm that the information that you're about to

give in the matter before you is the truth?



MS. NIKSIMAEE: What we're requesting

is 7.4 feet of variance, rear setback. What they

have right now, there's an existing deck. What --

we are proposing to enclose that, make a sunroom

out of the existing deck and match all the exterior

of the building.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. There were 31

notices sent to neighbors, and we did have an

objection from a neighbor, and he felt that the

houses were awfully close together already and that

this would make it worse.

Anybody in the audience wish to




(No response.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Building Department?

MR. SAVEN: This particular addition

was staying within the confines of the existing

deck. If you notice, it doesn't extend any farther

than what's there already.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members?

MEMBER REINKE: Well, I think that,

unfortunately, for the bugs and trying to enjoy the

backyard, a lot of people have had the same problem

with enclosing something like this, I think really

it's a minimum intrusion into the backyard, and I'm

not usually one to go along with that, but I think

they've done -- since they're working with the

existing deck that's there and not going any

further, I can support petitioner's request.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is consistent

with other projects, very similar, and we try to be


Any other comments?

MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman and Members

of the Board, I just want to point out that the

existing deck will be removed; is that correct?

MS. NIKSIMAEE: That's correct.



MR. CHAIRMAN: So the sunroom is

going to sit on a-

MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) It's going

to be more of a permanent issue on top of its own

foundation, just like it would be part of the deck

but it's -- unfortunately, this will be a little

more elaborate based upon the construction type.

MEMBER REINKE: Like regular


MR. SAVEN: Right. But it will be a


MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Any other

questions of the petitioner?

(No response.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll make a motion

then. With respect to Case 02-056, that we move

for approval based on the fact that this is not

anymore into the backyard as the existing deck for

the purpose of giving the petitioner a place to sit

in the evening hours and not get eaten alive.


MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion?

(No discussion.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: If not, Sarah?



MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?


MS. NIKSIMAEE: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: See the Building

Department for your permits.




MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. We're

going to call the first of two cases on Lemay. The

first is 02-057. This is filed by Chris and

Linda Postma of 905 Lemay, and they're going to put

an addition over an existing one-story building.

So this is Chris and Linda?

MR. POSTMA: Yes, sir.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to raise

your right hand and be sworn?



MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or

affirm that the information that you're about to

give in the matter before you is the truth?



MR. CHAIRMAN: Present your case.

MR. POSTMA: Now, as if you don't

have enough paperwork but I brought some more for

you. Here's a list of the surrounding neighbors

who have looked at the plans and agreed to that,

and here is elevations of the existing and proposed


MR. CHAIRMAN: You said in one of

these packages there is a list of neighbors that

have -- why don't you real quickly go through --

unless you're done?

MR. POSTMA: There's not a whole lot

to say. It's an existing structure, approximately

1000 square feet, 800 square feet of land

surrounding it, and I'm looking for the variance to

the rear. The existing structure is only ten,

ten-and-a-half feet off the rear.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. There were

forty-eight notices sent and -- well, I've got to



take that back now. We've got 11 approvals from

adjoining neighbors, most on Lemay.

Anyone in the audience have any


Come on down and give us your name,

name and address, please.

MR. DIETRICH: My name is

Andy Dietrich. I live at 911 and I'm case number


On Chris and Linda's behalf, they

are, by far, the best neighbors we have in the

neighborhood. We would all ask that you would

approve the variance. They're looking to beautify

their home and help beautify our neighborhood.

It is a neighborhood that it

definitely up and coming in the northwest corner on

the south side of Walled Lake, and what they're

looking to do is going to add tremendous property

value to all of our homes.

On behalf of all the neighbors that

signed that, we would ask that you approve the


MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Anybody else?

(No response.)



MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Building


MR. SAVEN: I'd like to point out to

the Board that the addition -- second story

addition is not exceeding what is part of the

initial building carry-out. It stays on that

particular piece of property.

One of the issues, if you've probably

taken a look at it, is the first floor is going to

have a different type of a roof coverage, and

that's why the request is for the 24.5 feet instead

of taking it back to the second story addition,

because there is some changes to the roof structure

that's in play here.


MR. SAVEN: So they're staying within

the initial building.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members?


MEMBER GRAY: I'm a little hurt that

you didn't bring the petition to me.

MR. POSTMA: I thought that was a

conflict of interest.

MEMBER GRAY: This house has been in



the area '50s, '40s maybe. Chris and Linda have

done a lot of work on the foundation and rehabbing

it and it makes sense to go up. It's a wonderful

little house, and it's only going to get better,

and if it's not out of line, I'd like to make a

motion to approve based on-

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) You

have other nods here?


MEMBER GRAY: Want to hear what it's

based on, just in general?

MR. CHAIRMAN: For the record, go


MEMBER GRAY: Due to lot

configuration, they are limited because of the size

of their lot, although they have a nice lot next

door, they need to go up so they can make use of

their property and make use of their house.

MR. CHAIRMAN: For the record, that

was Sarah's motion and Laverne's support.

Any discussion?

(No discussion.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: If not, Sarah, go




MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?


MR. CHAIRMAN: You've got a second

story addition. You can build it.

MR. POSTMA: Thank you.




MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, Andrew, come on

down. Case Number 02-058, 911 Lemay, and you have

an issue with an existing fence. But first let's-


Raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or

affirm that the information you're about to give in

the matter before you is the truth?





MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Fill us

in. What's going on?

MR. DIETRICH: Ladies and gentlemen,

the issue at hand is regarding privacy for my wife

and I. We've lived in our home at 911 Lemay for

just over a year now. We're looking to beautify

our home, as Chris and Linda are, and the rest of

our neighbors.

Basically what I've done is I have

replaced an existing fence. I have gotten what I

hope is the kind support of several of the

Zoning Board Members so to speak through speaking

with people through the City, such as Miss Cindy

Yuglo. I've expressed the case to Miss Sarah

Marchioni and other people at the Building


We took down an existing chain-link

fence that was well over six feet, depending on how

you look at the topography of the terrain.

The lot that we are on is several

feet lower than my neighbor next door at 913 Lemay,

and what that's created is an erosion problem into

my driveway that, due to the fact that the

retaining wall is on her property I cannot replace



it, she cannot afford to fix it, and basically it's

made the lot line a terrible eyesore; also the fact

that when you're standing on her property, you're

several feet above.

The fence in question faces into our

master bedroom, and it makes my wife feel very

unsecure when I'm not there late in the evenings if

people can walk along her property line late at

night, which they do, and see right into our

bedroom windows.

I have replaced an existing fence

that was eroded and falling over because it was a

terrible eyesore and no one ever maintained it,

partly the neighbor next door to me and partly the

previous homeowner from who I bought my home, I've

replaced it with a beautiful privacy fence. I did

take the liberty to take some Polaroids. If you

folks would like to see them I can show you.

My father and I put the fence up, and

basically -- Chris Postman has helped me put the

fence in also. I have gotten the support of the


I did not take the liberty to go

around and get signatures because they all gave me



verbal support and I knew Chris and Linda would be

here this evening.

The other issue at hand with that is

we tried not to do anything that deviated from what

was existing in the neighborhood being that the

land varies so much. There are several fences

that, myself being about six one, I can walk up to

some fences that tower above me and then walk down

three feet and they're below my chin.

As you can see by pictures across an

existing fence in my backyard, I didn't go nearly

as high as some of the panels on that. I tried to

pick a medium height so it didn't look like I was

building walls around my home, and basically did a

reverse shadow box affect so I could hide some of

the wall that was falling into my driveway and

still make it look beautiful, help beautify the

neighborhood and increase everybody's property


MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone in the

audience? Come on down.

MR. POSTMA: Chris Postma,

905 Lemay. Just to say, Andy did a wonderful job

on the fence, and like the pictures show, there is



a two foot difference in elevation there, so

from her property it's definitely at the six foot

mark. From his property it's over that, but it's

definitely a nice fence, and we support it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else?

(No response.)

MR. DIETRICH: One last note: I did

put the pretty side of the fence to my neighbor.

The neighbor in question is between Chris and Linda

and myself. She is a neighbor that doesn't stay at

her home and basically it's been overcome with

things, so it is a visual site line from our

backyard, and it kind of hides some of that.

Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. There were

50 notices sent; no approvals, no objections.

Building Department?

MR. SAVEN: Building Department has

no objection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members?

MEMBER REINKE: I have no objection

because basically he's following the height of the

fence. It's just where it drops off. And, again,

drop the fence down because then he's losing the



privacy that he's trying to protect there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I've got to applaud

you by making the nice side facing your neighbor.

MR. DIETRICH: Actually, the only --

my side I've got is the existing fence across my

back line, and it's -- absolutely. I would always

offer my neighbors that if they're kind enough to

say we don't have a problem with the privacy. I'd

like to offer them free fence basically, and it's

prettying everybody up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else?

MEMBER GRAY: I think the side that's

showing is a whole lot better than what was there.

And I also know that the neighbor in question has

been a challenge to Miss Yuglo for a number of

years, so with that I'd like to make a motion to

approve due to the topography of the lot and the




MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and

lots of support. Any discussion on the motion?

(No discussion.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: If not, Sarah, go




MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?


MR. CHAIRMAN: See the Building

Department for --




MR. CHAIRMAN: We got another case,

last case, 02-060, filed by Walter Stone of

Summit Pointe. Raise your hand if you're a lawyer.



MR. BRODICK: Actually, my name is

Jim Brodick. I'm with FDI Realty Partners. I'm

one of the owners of the Summit Pointe office

building and corporate campus. I'm partners with



Robert Shaw (ph) and Mark Shaw, both of Novi,

Michigan. This is Walter Stone, who is our tenant

and proprietor of the Cafe Dish Sundry Shop at the

Summit Pointe office building. And with us also is

his mother, Liz Stone, who is actually -- was going

to be the one running the sundry shop. He gave his

mother something to do after she retired from being

a school teacher.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Raise your right hand

and be sworn, please.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or

affirm that the information you're about to give in

the matter before you is the truth?

MR. BRODICK: I do. I have some

handouts here I can give to you, ladies and

gentlemen. It's actually a layout of the office

building, showing the location of the sundry shop,

the sundry shop itself, and Walt-

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) This is

addition to what's in our packet?

MR. BRODICK: This is a addition to

what's in your packet, correct.

MR. BRODICK: Walt came -- I've known

Walt for a number of years, and Walt came to me.



He was looking to open up a sundry shop. He has a

few of them in buildings similar to Summit Pointe.

It's typical of what you find in buildings of that

size in and around the Metropolitan Detroit area.

Walt entered into a lease agreement

with us back in December of 2001. We submitted our

plans to the City of Novi and then made the

appropriate changes with the Building Department so

we could proceed with the construction, which has

now been completed.

Walt did send, upon request to the

City of Novi, sent a letter for the business

registration just stating what the purpose of the

business was. That was back in March of this


It was just recently, probably within

the last three weeks, that -- when we were

finalizing the construction of the suite that we

were notified that were potential problems with his

operation, that it would be considered a special --

a principle use permitted subject to special


And, actually, we were a little

surprised by that because our interpretation of the



zoning ordinance, we felt that that -- what we've

put inside the building was actually -- already met

the criteria for permitted use. That was based

upon my previous experience with putting in the

Westside Deli ten years ago, and also with respect

to the Orchard Hill Cafe which just opened within

the last two weeks in Orchard Hill Place located at

39500 Orchard Hill Place Drive. Both of which are

my understanding -- my understanding is that

neither one of those had requested for special

permit to operate.

We felt very strongly that the use --

the sundry shop itself is a convenience for the

tenants of the building. It's not intended to be

for the general public to use. It's just a small

little space consisting of less than 600 square

feet that someone can grab a sandwich or a soda as

opposed to hiking down the road and grabbing --

going through a drive-thru and getting a number one

on the value meal, because a lot of employees don't

have the time to go out and enjoy places like

Too Chez or Mongolian Grill in Novi, so they're

kind of limited to what is available in the area or

if there is something in the building.



And based upon the zoning ordinance,

we felt that this was customary usage of office

space in that -- in the OSC it does allow things

permitted in OS1 and OS2. In an OS2, the OS2

zoning ordinance does allow for office support

functions such as conference rooms, dining

facilities, and lists some other things. And,

again, this is what we felt was considered

customary incidental use for the property.

Like I said, we've seen many office

buildings around town have the same type of

operation. And it is by no means intended to be

some profit making venture.

In fact, the lease, which I'll be

happy to show you if you'd like, I think I'm

getting a total of -- we're getting a total of

maybe $350 per month, and that was to cover the

operating expenses. It was not intended to be a

profit making venture, unless you can hire the

right accounting firm that can make it look like a

big profit making venture.

So, like I said, it was just strictly

for the convenience of tenants in the building and

that was it.



MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Anyone in the

audience wish to comment with respect to this case?

(No response.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, okay. Building


MR. SAVEN: I think what I would like

to point out, my plan examiner, when he was looking

at this, he was viewing it as something which was

customary and incidental to the operations of the

whole office building based on the fact that it was

dealing with those people within the office. It

was not a restaurant usage, it wasn't type of an

issue where you're having sit-down seating, this

type of thing.

But as the applicant indicated, that

there is -- he was trying to bring it in under what

that customary incidental would be in terms of the

OS districts that were available, and I think

that's how we looked at it, too, until it was

brought to our attention that this is an issue that

could be under principle uses, and that's why

they're here -- principle use subject to special

condition, and that's why they're here today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members? I'll



just -- I tend to agree with the petitioner. I've

been in lots of large office buildings and they

always typically have something like this. The

fact that there aree -- there's additional

facilities in this city that have the same

conditions that tend to make me believe that the

petitioner's request is very reasonable. But

that's just my view.

MEMBER BAUER: Very convenient for

the tenants.

MEMBER REINKE: My only question is,

other than if this was not an OSC district, would

this be allowed, Mr. Saven?

MR. SAVEN: I think -- if it was not

an OSC district, very possibly, sure. If you're

talking about business use, it could fall in that

particular area, B1 -- B1 type of an operation,

building within a building customary within the

building proper.

But if you're talking about an office

service type of a district, there are certain areas

that allude to certain issues that can be placed

within that use, so this one just happened to be a,

quote, gray area that we're looking at. In my



opinion it's a gray area because this is dealing

with the people within that office and would be

incidental to that office, and that's where the

pickup's at.

MR. SCHULTZ: I think the quandry

that the planning director had was not so much the

use, which is not unusual and could certainly be

found by this Board, I would think it could

support, as customary incidental to a large --

pretty large office building like that.

It's just that when you go to the

ordinance you do find the description retail

commercial business uses other than restaurants

serving convenient shopping needs of persons in the

office complex as a description for special land

use, so Mr. Evanco, I think, said well, that sounds

to me like similar to what's here, so let's send it

to the ZBA and see if they've got a use that's

separate enough that -- that it's separate and it's

not customary and incidental or -- and let the ZBA

determine does it fall under that special use, in

this case it goes to the planning commission, or

can the ZBA look at the particular use here, its

size, the items that are being sold and say we



interpret this to be a customary and incidental for

this use, this building and the property.

MR. BRODICK: If I may say something.

Also, too, in looking at this, like every day

that -- every day's a new beginning of something.

People's lifestyles change, and at the time the

ordinance was probably written talked about

conference rooms and dining rooms and things like

that. And I can remember back when companies had

corporate dining rooms, and you see a lot less and

less of that in this day and age, so as we -- as

the future continues to unfold, what people call

one thing today changes, and a good example is just

telephone booths.

You know, when we built Summit Pointe

what, in 2000, we have an alcove just for two pay

telephones. We can't get a telephone company to

put a telephone in because it's an antiquated thing

now, people have cell phones. So everything kind

of evolves, so a dining facility like what's listed

in OS2 really becomes nothing more than just a

place to grab a sandwhich, whether it's where you

have a proprietor like Liz Stone handing it to you

or if you have a vending machine just basically



spitting it out, so I think that's something that

when we were talking about the ordinance, maybe

it's something that's -- it's like law. It's

constantly evolving.

MEMBER BAUER: You have a human being

that's doing it instead of a big machine.

MR. BRODICK: That's a nice thing to

have, service with a smile.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd say Mr. Stone

looks like a fine young man, and I think his mom

deserves a job.

MR. STONE: Thank you.

MEMBER REINKE: I have no problem

with what they're doing. It's just the approach

that we're looking at it, that maybe this is

something that really needs to be addressed in the

ordinance covering an OSC district, because there's

going to be other buildings that are going to want

to have the same kind of use and does this mean

that everyone is going to have to come to the ZBA.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So maybe a

recommendation to ordinance review that they take a

look at this and maybe make some modifications.

MEMBER REINKE: That would be my




MR. SCHULTZ: We'll add that to the

long list.


MR. SCHULTZ: We'll add it to the

long list.

MR. CHAIRMAN: With that noted, can

we get a motion made for these gentlemen?

I'll make a motion. Case Number

02-060, that the applicants' interpretation that

this is customary and incidental be allowed

permitted use, that we agree with that.

MR. SAVEN: For this use only?

MR. CHAIRMAN: For this use only,

this facility only.


MR. CHAIRMAN: My motion has a


Any discussion on that?

MEMBER GRAY: I would suggest we

would maybe want to refer to ordinance review as

Mr. Schultz suggested.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think he's already

added it to the list.




MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Sarah, you want

to call the vote?

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?


MR. CHAIRMAN: You have your

interpretation as requested.

MR. BRODICK: Thank you very much,

ladies and gentlemen.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Next on the agenda,

under other matters, Tom, you've got something to

tell us?

MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, if I may,

we have another gentleman out in the audience. I

don't know-

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Were



you here for a particular case?

UNIDENTIFIED: On the list it was

number six.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we heard number

six quite a while ago, and we granted that



architect. I never -- in less than an hour. We're

efficient here. This isn't planning commission.

Sorry planning commission.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: You'll here about

that one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah. Well, I'll hear

about that one.

All right. Tom?

MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Chair, this was an

issue that actually Member Sanghvi had asked for

some information on. Since he's not here, we'll

probably adjourn it or maybe I'll talk to him

directly and-

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Let's

discuss it next month. I remember that now.

There's an item regarding

Ronald Coon. What's that about?



MR. SAVEN: Mr. Coon was before us

and he was supposed to come back to the Board with

new information. I know that I've seen him out in

the audience after that time with no stipulation as

to what his revision was because it was requested

of the Board to try to work on those side yard


Sarah had continuously tried to

contact him on many occasions indicating for him to

come back before the Board to the point where we

had decided to send him a registered letter

regarding this particular issue. If you look in

the packet you'll see that that letter was sent to

him and it was return receipt requested and we did

get a copy of his signature and he did receive

notification hoping that he'd explain himself

tonight. He is not here and I think the Board

should act on this case regardless.

MS. MARCHIONI: Actually, I didn't

get to tell you, he called me this afternoon.

He just didn't call me for three

months, so I sent him that letter. And he said

that he's been trying to work with the architect to

come up with the new way that you guys had



suggested, so he is working on it and he's going to

hopefully come next month. I gave him all the

dates, the meeting date, the cut off date, so he's

aware, so hopefully he'll be here next month.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Item three is our

discussion about people asking for phone numbers?

MS. MARCHIONI: Yeah. A company

called me regarding their grand opening and they

wanted to call each of you to see if you would be

coming, and I didn't feel comfortable giving out

your phone numbers, and I wanted to know what

policy you would like to establish?

MR. CHAIRMAN: My personal opinion

is -- and it's just that. I'm in the phone book.

If somebody wants to go through the effort to look

me up and call me up, that's their option. I don't

think that you should be obligated in any-

MEMBER REINKE: (Interposing) Well,

it is --

MR. SAVEN: I think it's put Sarah in

a bad position because she needs to be able to

either say yes or no, and if there is a policy that

we can establish here, it would be a good idea.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Personally, I don't



think you are obligated to do that.

MEMBER BAUER: Have them write a

letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals.

MS. MARCHIONI: Yeah. That's what I

said. I said all the correspondence comes to me

and I relay it to the members.

MEMBER BAUER: That's good.

MEMBER REINKE: Because, you know, I

don't have a problem with it because if I have an

unlisted number than I might have. I mean, it's in

phone book so -- I mean --

MS. MARCHIONI: I'll certainly give

them the spelling of your name and they can call


MEMBER GRAY: Well, the other thing

is that we're not elected officials. Elected

officials have to be contactable, if that's such a


I would prefer, you know -- enough

people know how to get in touch with me, both at

work and at home, and if it's important enough that

they -- you know, I don't have any problem with

them giving the information to Sarah, Sarah sending

me an E-mail or Sarah calling me and letting me



know what's going on. I think that would be the

appropriate way to handle it.

MS. MARCHIONI: If it's something

urgent I can E-mail everybody right way.


MS. MARCHIONI: And then -- wait. I

have one more. Mongolian Barbeque is going to be

coming in with a sign package next month. They

have two existing wall signs up right now. They

will be taking both of those down and putting up a

projecting sign which will be six feet six inches

tall, seven feet six inches wide, and he would like

to know how you want him to erect his mockup sign.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Very carefully.

MR. SAVEN: I think if you just put

it on the wall just -- right at that corner just to

get a size to this, I think it would be absolutely

okay. I don't want him erecting anything that puts

anything fastening to-

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) He's

wanting to put it on the corner of the building?

MR. SAVEN: Looks like that's what he

wants to do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If we can get those



two signs down and take another look at it, I would

love to, because I wasn't -- I was very

disappointed that they put those two signs as close

as they did. I had an impression that they were

going to be more centered on that restaurant front.

They're welcome to come back in.

MEMBER REINKE: Well, tell them to

put a mockup on the wall in the area-

MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) Right at

the intersection.

MEMBER REINKE: Right, with the

drawings depicting exactly what they want and we'll

go from that point. I think that's workable.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Frankly, I would love

the chance to go through that one again.

MS. MARCHIONI: I'm sure the Board

would love it.

MR. SAVEN: I think what we need to

do is find out where the City right-of-way is with

that frontage of that building. I want to make

sure we don't have that thing projecting out.

You're talking seven foot six wide. That's pretty

heavy. I want to make sure we're satisfied. Make

sure we check on that. Okay?



MS. MARCHIONI: Will everyone be here

next month?

Mr. Bauer, you're gone in September,


MEMBER BAUER: I'll be here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: When is the meeting

next month, August --

MS. MARCHIONI: August 13th.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Anything else?

MS. MARCHIONI: That's it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll close this


(The meeting was adjourned at

8:42 p.m.)

Date approved:

August 13, 2002 __________________________

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 75 typewritten pages, is a

true and correct transcript to the best of my abilities.






Cheryl L. James, CSR-5786