| View Agenda for this meeting View Action Summary for this meeting REGULAR MEETING -- ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 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, August 13, 2002. BOARD MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY: MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll call this meeting to order. Sarah, will you please call the roll. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Present. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Here. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Present. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Here. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Here. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Here. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We do have a full quorum, so the meeting is now in session. Ladies and gentlemen, we do publish rules of conduct. It's right on the top of this agenda, and I'd ask that you take a look at that and try to keep with that. The Zoning Board of Appeals is a hearing board empowered by the Novi City Charter to hear appeals seeking variances from the application
of the Novi zoning ordinance. It takes a vote of at least four members to approve a variance and a vote of the majority of the members present to deny. We do have a full board tonight, and the decisions will be final. Any changes to the agenda, Sarah, as published? MS. MARCHIONI: I just want to make sure no one is here for 305 Guana (ph). That one has been tabled to next month. MR. CHAIRMAN: Which case? MS. MARCHIONI: It's not even on here. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Any other changes to the agenda? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Move for approval as submitted. All in favor, say aye. (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Minutes. I believe we had two months, both June and July. Any changes, modifications? MEMBER GRAY: I had some minor ones
to July, and I already gave them to Cheryl. They're just spelling, they're non-substantive. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Anything else? MEMBER SANGHVI: I move the minutes be approved as submitted. MEMBER GRAY: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: All those in favor, say aye. (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Public remarks. This is a public remarks portion of the meeting. All comments related to a case on the agenda should be left until that case is called, but if anyone wants to talk to the Board right now on a matter or a case that's not on our agenda, stick your hand up in the air. If not, we'll move on. CASE NUMBER 02-061 MR. CHAIRMAN: We're going to call our first case, Case Number 02-061, filed by SR Jacobson regarding property at 45588 South Lake Drive. Is the parties here -- are the parties here?
(No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Tell you what we're going to do is call case number two, and we'll look at this again a little bit later on. CASE NUMBER 02-062 MR. CHAIRMAN: Case number two is Value City. Gentlemen, are you here? Come on down. This is Case Number 02-062. Are you Mr. Riddell? MR. RIDDELL: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: You would like to add a sign. And if you'll raise your hand and be sworn, we'll let you fill us in. 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. RIDDELL: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead. MR. RIDDELL: I have an awning on the back of my store. My customers were having a hard time finding my customer pickup. They come several days later after they order furniture and were going Donelson Drive, down through there, and a few
of them couldn't find my store. I put up -- on the customer pickup part I put Value City Furniture above that in our -- in our, you know, signage, and got a letter in the mail saying that wasn't good, which I -- I didn't realize that, so I'm here now. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. There were seven notices sent; no approvals, no objections. Anyone in the audience wish to comment on this case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Seeing none, Building Department? MR. SAVEN: No comment, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Board members? I'll make just an opening comment. This -- I recall similar stores in similar developments having a similar problem, and we have given similar relief, similarly. Any comments, questions of the petitioner? MEMBER REINKE: Well, I think that a sign is needed there, no question about it, but whether it needs to be 52 square feet that you can
see from the other side of Fountain Walk Drive, that's my only question about that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Jerry? MEMBER BAUER: I agree. MEMBER SANGHVI: Not only that, there are signs on the doors itself, painted on the doors, isn't there? MR. RIDDELL: There are small signs. My problem is that they were going around Donelson Drive and- MEMBER SANGHVI: (Interposing) I had no difficulty in finding your place this morning. MR. RIDDELL: I'm sorry? MEMBER SANGHVI: I said I had no difficulty finding your place this morning with the signs on the doors itself, and it's very nice looking and all that; nevertheless, once you start with that kind of sign there, all stores in that area are going to ask for the same thing. You are not the only one with back doors out there for pickup and other things. That's it. MR. RIDDELL: I would think that I'm the only one that has trucks and things like that
in that particular plaza right there coming to pick up loads of furniture. MEMBER SANGHVI: My comment is for citywide. MR. RIDDELL: Sure, of course, I understand. MR. CHAIRMAN: What is the square footage on that sign? MR. SAVEN: Fifty-two square feet. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there a way that you can modify that to make it -- a new awning? MR. RIDDELL: It's vinyl letters on the canvas sign. Certainly we could put- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Like ironed on or something like that? MR. RIDDELL: Yeah, something like that. I don't know how they do it. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that you may be hearing that there's support for that type of identification, but it's too big. Is there a chance that you can make that smaller? MR. RIDDELL: I dealt with Marygrove Awning on it, and they seem to do a very good job.
MR. CHAIRMAN: They've been here before. MR. RIDDELL: I'm sure that they could make that red again and then make it smaller on there if that's what, you know, we think we need to do. I'm certain of that. I hate to mess up the look of the sign, you know, and trying get the colors exact. MR. CHAIRMAN: Unfortunately, you're not the sign guy, you're with Value City, so -- MR. RIDDELL: Exactly. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well then, let's -- not being the sign guy, let's, perhaps, get some recommendation from the Board what we feel is more appropriate and maybe give you a little freedom plus or minus this or that as it works out with the sign company. Gentlemen? MEMBER SANGHVI: I thought ten by four would be quite adequate over there. MEMBER REINKE: I think that's still even big. The thing is, the distance from there is for anybody driving down the street behind there. I don't think you need 40 square feet to
see where that customer pickup is. I'm thinking of something more in the line of 24 to a maximum of 30 square feet. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you think you can live with that range? MR. RIDDELL: Yes, I can live with that, sure. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, we've got some agreement with the petitioner that he needs the recognition in the back and he's willing to cut this back to 30 feet or less, okay. Any other comment? (No response.) MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, in Case 02-062, I move that the petitioner's variance request for a customer pickup sign be granted and not larger than 24 square feet. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you think you can live with that? MR. RIDDELL: Twenty-four? How long would I have to get this accomplished; right away? MEMBER REINKE: How long do you feel
that it would take? MR. RIDDELL: I'm not sure, a few weeks, a month maybe. MEMBER REINKE: I have no problem with 45 days. MR. CHAIRMAN: That work? MR. RIDDELL: Sure. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. We have a motion, we have a second and we have an understanding applicant. MEMBER SANGHVI: I call the question, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Hmm? MEMBER SANGHVI: Said I call the question. MR. CHAIRMAN: You call the question? MEMBER SANGHVI: We can vote on it now. MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, I'm sorry. All right. We have a motion, we have a second. Sarah? MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?
MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir. You do have a- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) Clarification from the Board. Is that a 45-day stipulation? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. RIDDELL: Forty-five days, twenty-four square feet. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. RIDDELL: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. RIDDELL: Have a nice night.
CASE NUMBER 02-063 MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Case 02-063 filed by Richard Tanielian at 1280 East Lake Drive. Sir, you want to raise your 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. TANIELIAN: Yes. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: You've got the floor. MR. TANIELIAN: My name is Richard Tanielian. I've got a representative here with me today. I'd like him to come forward and -- on my behalf. MR. CHAIRMAN: Bring him on down. If he's not an attorney we'll swear him in. Looks like he is. He has a suit on. Sir, you want to give us your name, name and address? MR. PERLMAN: Michael Perlman, 28400 Northwestern Highway, Southfield, Michigan. MR. CHAIRMAN: And you are an
attorney? MR. PERLMAN: I'm an attorney. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Go ahead, whoever's going to present, have at it. MR. PERLMAN: This matter was previously brought before this Board starting in September of 2000. At that time the variance requested was granted. Unfortunately, my client did not proceed with the building plans and came back again the following year. At that time the variance, again, was granted but did not -- he did not follow through as he had to do some work on the site and was interested ultimately in selling the property. He originally had contemplated building his own house on the property. When he came before you in May of this year, the question arose over the variances and the size of those variances. The request was no different than the previous requests made in September of 2000 and again in 2001. During the course of your meeting, there was an indication -- or a concern about the width between buildings and that you wanted to see
basically not less than ten feet. At the time, my client was requesting a five foot variance on each side; however -- and I don't know if the Board was fully aware, five feet did not exist between his lot and lot eight to the north. Likewise, between his lot and lot six there was also a variance of less than five feet between the building and the lot line. My client, at that time, did have a purchaser for a house that would be twenty-five feet wide on a thirty-five foot lot, and the request was for five foot variance. The Board apparently had some concerns about what was deemed ten feet though, as, in fact, it turned out to be a little bit less. My client has had the opportunity to find a new purchaser because the old purchaser didn't want to go through the process of giving up square footage in the house. As a result of finding a new purchaser, we have modified the request of the variance, and as it is indicated on the petition that you have, we have decreased the request so that, as to the north side, it's 4.5 feet instead
of five feet; as to the south, 9.5 feet instead of the original fifteen feet; and then, likewise, on both sides the variance is fourteen feet. We believe that a twenty-four foot width house instead of a twenty-five is the maximum variance and reduction that we can basically support in terms of being able to build the house on the lot. At the same time, what that does is it clearly makes sure that there's more than ten feet between houses on both the north side and the south side of this lot seven. So our request is -- and in taking into account your requirements for obtaining a variance, we'd like you to consider that we have adjusted our request from the previous time. We have talked with the neighbors. The houses all along that short stretch right there average ten feet between houses. We are going to have eleven feet -- or close to eleven feet in our situation, so we ask you to consider this request. This is the last of the unbuilt lots in this area along East Lake Drive.
I'm more than happy to answer any questions relative to this request. The petitioner has basically taken into account the requirements of this Board, has taken the time and the effort through its broker to find someone who would accept building a house less than twenty-five feet in width, and therefore, we ask that -- your consideration -- or reconsideration in this matter. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. There were 31 notices sent. There were no approvals, no objections. Anyone in the audience wish to -- come on down, sir. If there's anybody else that wants to comment, please get in line right behind him. Sir, give us your name and your address for the record. MR. ANDREWS: My name is Bob Andrews and my address is 1262 East Lake Drive. I am the house to the north side. MR. CHAIRMAN: Lot eight? MR. ANDREWS: Lot eight. And I think the -- some of the information you were just given
is not correct. My house is six feet from the property line. When I built my house I got a four foot variance, and that's what it is. I don't know what dimensions -- or what -- where they're getting their figures from. I've never seen anybody survey that lot. That doesn't mean it wasn't done. I've never seen any stakes or survey stakes. But I do believe that five-and-a-half feet is a little close. Last time they asked for five feet. They're moving in the right direction, getting five-and-a-half, but I still don't think that's enough. And the, you know, the houses are very close in that area, I'll certainly agree with that, and I just think that's a little bit close and I would ask for, you know, a little more room than that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. MR. ANDREWS: And they also said that they asked the neighbors. I've talked to my neighbors, and I don't know anybody who's -- who else was talked to.
MR. CHAIRMAN: There were thirty-one notices sent; no approvals, no objections. MEMBER GRAY: Is Mr. Andrews at lot six or lot eight? MR. ANDREWS: Lot eight. MR. CHAIRMAN: He's to the north. MEMBER GRAY: So it's lot six because lot eight is the multiple. MR. ANDREWS: Lot six, I'm sorry. MEMBER GRAY: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Was there somebody else? I thought there was another hand up. Okay. Anyone else in the audience? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: No? We'll move on. Building Department? MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman and the Board, when Mr. Tanielian was before you at previous ZBA hearings, there was a couple concerns the Board brought up. Number one was the issue of the garage. The garage is demolished. The other issue was to try to set the house back far enough from the road -- or the lake for visibility, and I think
he has attempted to do that. And the fact that he has increased the side yard setback, although maybe not to the six feet as the gentleman in the rear has indicated, but he has made attempts to try to work out a situation here with five-and-a-half feet on both sides. What I want to bring up to the Board was, bear in mind, that previously when he was here for the first time with -- five times he's been here before the Board, was that fact that we had a grandfathering clause in affect at the time, which meant that we had -- we were dealing with two side yard setbacks with ten foot on each side. What you're seeing before you now is the fact that the grandfathering provision on the ordinance has been changed. It's no longer there. And, therefore, based upon that particular situation, he has to comply with the current provisions of the ordinance, which is a combined total of twenty-five feet for a total side yard setback, so it's a little bit more of an increase as far as the variance that was granted. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Board Members,
any questions for the petitioner? MEMBER SANGHVI: Question. Is -- 1282 is just behind your property, right? MR. TANIELIAN: Next to it. MEMBER SANGHVI: Is it next door or behind you? MR. TANIELIAN: 1282? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. TANIELIAN: Next to it. MEMBER GRAY: Lot number eight? 1282 is lot number eight? MEMBER SANGHVI: What is right behind you? MR. TANIELIAN: Used to be a garage, and that's gone. MEMBER SANGHVI: I was there this morning. And so you are not going to have any driveway to get into your house? Where is that going to -- MR. TANIELIAN: Off the center of the property from the road. MEMBER SANGHVI: On the north side or the south side?
MR. TANIELIAN: Straight, down the middle. MEMBER SANGHVI: I don't have any lines from your home in this packet. MR. CHAIRMAN: All we have is a sketch. MR. SAVEN: First of all, Mr. Chairman, if I may, there are provisions in the ordinance that also takes the fact that the driveways can be as close as three foot to the side yard lot line. That's how close they can get, so if they stay within that provision, anywhere from three foot of the property line, then you're okay pursuant to the ordinance. MR. CHAIRMAN: So you will have a straight-in driveway coming in off of East Lake Drive? MR. PERLMAN: Correct. MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay, thank you. MR. PERLMAN: And at that point, at East Lake, it's 35 feet wide, so the driveway is going to be basically in the center of that, so there shouldn't be an issue of any side yard setbacks as it relates to the driveway.
MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah? MEMBER GRAY: It's a step in the right direction. One foot is one foot. I still have a concern, because this is new construction, with the closeness to the side yards. I realize that petitioner no longer owns lot number eight, and lot number eight is where the multiple is, and that all the vehicles that are there now at lot eight are using lot number seven for parking, so they're going to have to absorb their own parking on lot number eight. We're not talking about lot number eight, we're talking about lot number seven. I still am uncomfortable with five-and-a-half feet on each side. This is another situation where you play neighbor off against neighbor, and I understand the owner of lot eight doesn't have a problem with this, but I'm not happy with only five-and-a-half feet to the property line on either side. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: I wish we had some more detail on what this proposed house looks
like. What's the square footage, do you have an idea? MR. TANIELIAN: Main floor is about sixteen hundred I think. MEMBER GRAY: Is it a two-story? MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't know. That's why I asked the question. MR. PERLMAN: Sixteen hundred and twenty-five feet. MR. CHAIRMAN: On the main floor. There's a second floor? MR. TANIELIAN: That's the main floor. MR. PERLMAN: That's the main floor. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there a second floor? MR. TANIELIAN: Between that and the garage, it's taking the full footprint, which is allowed. MR. CHAIRMAN: So it's a single-story dwelling? MR. TANIELIAN: No, no. That would be the footprint, what would be allowed in the square footage with a two-car attached garage,
1625. MEMBER REINKE: Is there going to be a two-story home or a single-story home? MR. TANIELIAN: I'm selling the property. I don't know. MR. REINKE: Okay. MEMBER GRAY: 1625 is exactly the size of the last -- in May. It was 65 by 25 in May, and it should be a little bit smaller than 1625 square feet. MR. PERLMAN: It is, it is. It is actually 1601. MEMBER GRAY: On the first floor? MR. PERLMAN: Yes. MEMBER GRAY: With garage? MR. PERLMAN: Yes. When the petitioner was here in May he was asking for a twenty-five foot width house, sixty-five in depth with five foot on each side. Now he's asking for twenty-four width with five-and-a-half foot on each side. It's a decrease of one foot overall in width. MEMBER REINKE: It seems to be closer to lot -- the house on lot six than it is on lot
eight, if I'm reading this correct, although not a great deal of a difference in distance there. The problem is, of course, the width of the lot, there's no question about that. To build something narrower than twenty-four feet represents a problem also. One thought in mind is to maybe put six feet on the lot six side and five feet on the lot eight side, which would give it kind of a balance of space between the two homes and still allow for a twenty-four foot wide house which, to me, is probably the smallest practical size you could build. That's the thought of -- my concern to throw out for the Board's consideration. MR. CHAIRMAN: Did you follow Mr. Reinke's- MR. PERLMAN: (Interposing) Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Does that have any merit, possibility, more centering -- centering the house on the lot rather than how it's laid out? MEMBER REINKE: Well, it's not so much centering on the lot. It's kind of centering it between the homes.
MR. PERLMAN: He wants to make a balance. I believe you have a certificate of survey by Mr. Leiber. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yep. MR. PERLMAN: And you'll note -- and I appreciate exactly what Mr. Reinke was trying to do, in that if you look at lot eight, at one point it's 4.7 feet and 4.4 feet from lot seven, the house, and on the other side it's 4.4 -- this is lot six -- 4.4 and 4.6 from the lot line, so it's a difficult balance there. We obviously would take direction from this Board if, in fact, you wanted us to have it, you know -- when we talk slightly off center in this lot, we're only talking two or three inches. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I'd like to work something a little bit closer to helping out your neighbor on lot six. MR. PERLMAN: And I agree. We don't have a problem with that. And all I'm saying is it is only a matter of a few inches, and we would do that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you prepared to do that right now?
MR. PERLMAN: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Make a proposal. MR. PERLMAN: Well, I think the proposal Mr. Reinke made basically- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) So how does that modify your request then? North side variance request would remain- MR. PERLMAN: (Interposing) Well, his lot -- excuse me. His house is -- MR. TANIELIAN: North side would be six feet, south side would be five feet. MR. PERLMAN: Right. So there would be six feet on the north side of his house. MR. CHAIRMAN: Six foot variance request? MEMBER REINKE: No. It would be four. MEMBER GRAY: Would be four. MR. CHAIRMAN: Four and six. MR. PERLMAN: Would be four foot there, right. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is everyone clear with that? Are you comfortable with that?
MR. PERLMAN: Yes. MR. SAVEN: Would you please explain that to me. I'm not trying to be dumb here or anything, but I have four foot- MR. PERLMAN: (Interposing) Well, what we're trying to do is pull it away from his house, the extra half a foot, so it would be- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) I have six foot on one side and five foot on the other; is that correct? MR. PERLMAN: Yes. MR. SAVEN: Okay. Somebody said four feet, and that's why I- MR. PERLMAN: (Interposing) I'm not sure where that came from. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's five and six. MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman- MR. PERLMAN: (Interposing) Because it is 11. MR. SAVEN: -and members of the committee here, I have to tell you that this is a change in the request that is before you tonight. This will have to be readvertised based upon the differences that we're dealing with. I'm really
sorry to say that, but I don't believe we have the right to modify without advertising to the public. I think this is very good direction that you're giving this gentleman. I think everything that we're looking at right now is fine, but what we have done is we modified the petitioner's request to the south, which is a little bit more stringent than what we're dealing with right now before us, but we have direction. I think this gentleman is very well aware of that. MR. PERLMAN: Well, I guess the issue is we're trying to be as accommodating as possible. We want the opportunity to build on this property. My client's entitled to the opportunity to sell the property and let someone else build on it. I'm not -- fortunately or unfortunately, the neighbor to the other side of lot seven isn't here, and I'm not in a position, and -- nor I don't know if this Board is, to indicate that we should move further away because someone's here than someone who isn't -- who's absent in these proceedings. MR. CHAIRMAN: Might have been nice if we had them here.
MR. SAVEN: Still wouldn't have made any difference. MR. PERLMAN: They had no objection. MR. CHAIRMAN: We would have had some input. Now, if we table this for another month and then we have the people from lot eight here, that's my point. You said that you -- you already indicated you checked with your neighbors. Obviously, the gentleman on lot six you didn't check with and lot eight's not here. MR. PERLMAN: My client has addressed matters with the gentleman -- Mr. Andrews from lot eight. His position is he would like to have it further away than we were proposing. If all things were equal in this situation, I'm sure he'd like to have it ten, twenty feet away, and I recognize that. The houses along that short stretch of lots are all basically ten feet apart, five from each side. Those were the variances that you granted over the last several years. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, you have a couple
options. We can vote on your- MR. PERLMAN: (Interposing) I understand. MR. CHAIRMAN: -submittal tonight or you can look at what we've given you as guidance, or you can withdraw your case. You have lots of options, but let's move on. MR. PERLMAN: Well, if I'm getting- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Hold on a second. MR. PERLMAN: Sure. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bauer has something. MEMBER BAUER: Are you going to be building the house on the lot? MR. TANIELIAN: No. MEMBER BAUER: Then we're not worrying about lot six. MEMBER GRAY: That's right. MR. CHAIRMAN: All we're voting on is the setbacks. MEMBER BAUER: But he's not putting the house there. MR. CHAIRMAN: He's the property
owner and he's trying to get setbacks established so he can sell the property. Right? MR. PERLMAN: Correct. MEMBER GRAY: So it's like the invisible house for spec? MEMBER SANGHVI: No specs to- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) This is just a footprint. MEMBER SANGHVI: We're going to see the owner when he comes to bring all the work again. MEMBER BAUER: What we're going to have is we're going to have the buyer come back here to this Board. MR. PERLMAN: No, I don't think so, because the contract is written based on the fact that it's going to be a 24-foot width house that's going on the property, and with this Board's order, granting a variance, we will be inside this envelope. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Schultz, I'd like some guidance here. MR. SCHULTZ: Well, initially, I agree with Mr. Saven, that if the Board's direction
at this point is to shift it, essentially, six inches, we run into a problem as advertised because it's a difference to the south. To the north it's not a problem because we're increasing. I think, as the Chair had said, it puts the ball squarely in this proponent's court; does he want to have this readvertised with that potential solution that there's some indication of support for, or does he want a decision tonight as is, and then I think he's also seeing where that might be heading, so I think the ball's squarely in the proponent's court. MR. PERLMAN: Our position is we're going to take our lead from this Board, and if this Board is prepared to support what's been discussed -- I've talked with my client in advance in terms of something like this. We're prepared to adjourn it for a month and bring it back. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think you saw enough nodding heads, that if you're back in 30 days you're going to get something out of this. MR. PERLMAN: Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: So we have a motion by the petitioner to adjourn this one month, come back
and we're going to republish it based on the recommendations of Mr. Reinke. We've got that squared away, right, Sarah? You're all set. Thank you. MR. PERLMAN: Thank you. CASE NUMBER 02-064 MR. CHAIRMAN: 02-064, filed by Bret and Christine Miller, 24594 Redwing. They need a setback variance in their backyard to put a covered deck. Raise your 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. MILLER: Yes. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Bret and Christine Miller from Redwing Drive. We were requesting consideration of a setback variance to 2.37 feet so that we can add a three season room to -- addition to our home. As part of our application, we had
provided documentation that we had spoken with all of our neighbors, and in addition to that, we had tried to consider some alternative designs, but were advised against pursuing those by the builder and architect, which brings us before this Board requesting the variance. MR. CHAIRMAN: That it? MR. MILLER: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: If there's a question we'll get to it. There were forty-three notices sent. We had seven approvals and no objections. Anybody in the audience care to talk to us about this case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Seeing no hands, Building Department? MR. SAVEN: Well, my main concern was the issue of the 20 foot easement which is off the back of the proposed structure. There's an (inaudible) easement. I have no objection. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members? MEMBER REINKE: I think the request is minimal, but I have my standard thing in this,
is that we build our lots to the maximum to start with, that you can't throw a two-by-four on a house without having to get a variance. MR. CHAIRMAN: You're right, Mr. Reinke. I recall that the petitioner had to get a variance to put a sidewalk alongside the house, but that's not the case before us tonight. I think the petitioner did a nice job in putting together information. It's clear. You do have subdivision- MEMBER GRONACHAN: (Interposing) No association. MR. CHAIRMAN: No association, but you have a gaggle full of neighbors that are all in favor of this. You did a nice job. UNIDENTIFIED: Notices? MR. CHAIRMAN: Pardon? Seven approvals, no objections. MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir. MEMBER SANGHVI: I like the thing. The only thing I didn't like when I came there today was finding -- did I see Ohio State on the- MR. MILLER: (Interposing) Yes, you
did. MEMBER SANGHVI: Everything else was kosher. MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, in Case 02-064, I move that petitioner's variance be granted due to the size and area required for the addition. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: We've got a motion and a second. Any discussion? (No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah? MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. You've got your variance. See the Building Department for appropriate paperwork. MR. MILLER: Thank you very much. CASE NUMBER 02-066 MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Mongolian Barbeque, come on up. This is Case Number 02-066, and they would like to remove the signs currently on the restaurant and put a nice smaller one up. You want to 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? THE GROUP: Yes. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead. MR. DOWNS: Okay. I'm Billy Downs, 21297 Wheaton in Novi, Michigan, here with Mike Stevenson, general manager of the Mongolian Barbeque. I'm the founder and president of BD's Mongolian Barbeque. Thank you for taking
the time with us tonight. Just to give you a little bit of history, we were one of the first leases in the Novi Main Street development more than five years ago. We, at numerous times, almost left the development prior to its being built, and since its opening, we've had moderate success with our business, and we have six other restaurants in the Detroit area, and this particular restaurant is our lowest volume restaurant of the six. Today the development is not nearly what the City envisioned it or what we envisioned it. Our signage, especially at night, is barely visible from the corner of Grand River and Market, and that was the intent of our original variance, and we were very appreciative of this Board for giving us the original variance for our current signs. We had the support of the landlord, the current management company. And the development management, you may be aware, is in foreclosure and we have the support of the receiver
of that development right now. The receiver, as well as others, recognize us as an anchor tenant currently in the center. And I'd just like to read a little bit of the letter I dated July 15th that you have in your packet. BD's Mongolian Barbeque is seeking a variance of the sign ordinance in attempt to gain higher visibility of our location from Grand River Avenue. In fact, just this afternoon we have a temporary sign on the building. We had some guests who came in just because they saw this temporary sign, and we are trying to draw more attention as -- and as an anchor tenant bring more traffic to the center. Currently BD's is operating in the development that is struggling and has numerous vacancies. We are committed to long-term success of the development. We believe it's going to be there. We know that the short-term is going to be a struggle but we believe in the long-term it will be there.
The company is seeking to exchange its current variance for a sign that's no bigger than the current variance. It's the same size sign really with the current variance. It's the company's position that the sign will not alter the essential character of the building, will positively impact the success of the business and the development, and is reasonable in considering the variance that we already have, and we will not impair the intent or the purpose of the ordinance or the Master Plan. Thank you for all -- everybody's support getting to this point, specially Sarah. Gene Guthrie, our sign guy, made sure I said that. We're very involved in the community as a business. I'm very involved in the community myself, young kids involved in the community, and regardless of what this Board's decision is tonight, we will remain involved with this community. I'd thank you for your time and ask for your help for our business, to help us with this business, and help out the development. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir. There
were 21 notices sent; no approvals, no objections. Anyone in the audience care to comment? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: No. Building Department? MR. SAVEN: Just a couple issues. Number one, you said you have a letter from the receiver indicating this was all right? MR. DOWNS: I do not have a letter from the receiver. I had a verbal meeting with the receiver yesterday. He believes that signs will help this development and is looking forward to helping with marketing. He's only been on the case for about ten days. We met as tenants with him. MR. SAVEN: I would request that as part of your building permit application or your sign permit application, that that be submitted at that time. This Board's- MR. DOWNS: (Interposing) If I could -- I asked for the receiver to come tonight. He said he was unable at this time to come, and I can't commit that he will write in writing right now to support the sign, but I did get a verbal
from him, you know, just letting you know what happened yesterday, so -- I cannot put it as part of this package. MR. SAVEN: The second issue is on your sign application to the Board here, you're indicating that you're taking one sign down. It says remove one existing fifty square foot wall sign. MR. DOWNS: We will actually be removing both 50 foot square foot wall signs. MR. SAVEN: I want to make sure that we have an understanding that both signs will be coming down. MR. DOWNS: And then just one sign will be coming off, same square footage. MR. SAVEN: Okay. MR. DOWNS: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: This -- I know on your mockup you couldn't show it exactly, but it's meant to go right on the corner and project out? MR. DOWNS: It will actually come on a ninety degree angle right off of the building, so the highest visibility will be from the corner of Market and Grand River.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And this will be illuminated as well? MR. DOWNS: Yes, it will be back illuminated. MR. CHAIRMAN: What's the -- is there any -- no issue with illuminating on a projection sign? MR. SAVEN: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: Tell you what, I -- not to jump in front of everyone else here, but when we granted those first two signs I was a little bit irritated because they seemed to be right up on top of each other, and the possibility of getting rid of those just thrills me to no end. You have my support. Board Members? MEMBER REINKE: I think they've done a tastefully and minimal impact, and I think if it's going to get rid of the other two signs, I agree with you. MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Chairman, may I make a motion? MR. CHAIRMAN: Please. MEMBER SANGHVI: In Case Number
02-066 by Mongolian Barbeque, we approve the request of the applicant with the hardship of marketing this day and age being a great consideration. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion. MEMBER BAUER: I have a question. MR. CHAIRMAN: Jerry? MEMBER BAUER: You're also going to put in there that both signs be removed? MEMBER SANGHVI: That is also part of the application. All right. We can add that with the -- that the two signs also be removed. MEMBER BAUER: And the letter from the receiver? MEMBER SANGHVI: All right. And also they will obtain a letter from the receiver. MEMBER BAUER: Now I second. MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, sir. MR. DOWNS: You know, honestly, if I could have a letter from the receiver, I can have him here, I'd -- I just cannot guarantee that I can get a letter. MEMBER SANGHVI: That's okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's move on with
this, and if you have a complication get back to us. MR. DOWNS: Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. I think in spirit you have our backing. If you got a problem with the other side, maybe let Tom know. MR. DOWNS: I just don't understand the position that the receiver's in to put something in writing at this time. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. And that's fine. MR. DOWNS: If I could appeal to this Board to remove that particular part of it, then I -- again, I have a sworn statement here that I met with him and he supports this, but I couldn't get him to put it in writing on the short notice and I can't guarantee- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Maybe he can zip you a little E-mail. Give it a try. MR. DOWNS: Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and support. Any additional comment? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah?
MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. MR. DOWNS: Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Very good. Thanks for coming down. CASE NUMBER 02-067 MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. VIP Tire, come on down. This is Case Number 02-067, and you have a variance regarding storage of licensed and unlicensed vehicles. You want to raise your 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. VALENTINE: I do. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. Well, my name is Ken Valentine. I've owned VIP Tire and Automotive for over 19 years now, same location, and I've just recently come across a problem I wasn't aware of. We do quite a bit of work for the surrounding dealerships close to us, and, of course, their used vehicles are not plated while they're sitting there waiting for us to work on, and that's basically what I'm here for. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. I'm sure if we have some questions we'll get back to you. We did have eleven notices, one approval which came from Lincoln Varsity, and they were pretty strong in their support of you and your business, and if we can't work out an arrangement they'll take it elsewhere. They were very clear on that. Anybody in the audience that wishes to comment on this particular case?
(No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: If not, Building Department? MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, this matter was brought to our attention through the neighborhood services regarding the outdoor storage of vehicles on the property. An investigation into that disclosed this gentleman has been operating the business like this for a considerable amount of time. It was just never brought to his attention until this time now. MR. VALENTINE: Correct. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members? MEMBER BAUER: How many vehicles do you have there at any one time? MR. VALENTINE: Sir, it varies, of course, with business, but it can go anywhere from 15 to 40 vehicles, just depending on how busy we get. MEMBER BAUER: How long are they left there? MR. VALENTINE: The most part, the most -- anywhere -- most of them, between five to
ten days. Normally ten days maximum. It just depends on the vehicle, the job, if we're waiting for parts, that sort of thing. It wouldn't be all the vehicles sitting there at one time. MEMBER REINKE: Is there some way that -- I mean, I understand, and I don't want to see you be put out of business. Is there some way that these vehicles could be shuttled rather than stored on your property to be like -- say, you know, when you've got a list of maybe vehicles from Varsity, just use it as an example, that you need to work on, rather than them being stored at your facility there, you go pick it up when you're ready to work on it? MR. VALENTINE: Sir, for the most part, we -- I mean, they do. They don't bring over fifty cars at one time. For the most part I'll have anywhere from two to five to ten cars at very most to work on at one time. Of course, we can process sometimes three, four, five, six of those in a day. Just if we have a car that needs quite a bit of work, then that has to sit there for a while while we're waiting for parts to work on it. MEMBER REINKE: Is there any way an
area could be dedicated and screened so that the cars wouldn't be visible? MR. VALENTINE: I -- the way my parking lot's set up, I don't know how, but I -- without fencing in the whole business, but I could try to get them out of sight of Grand River somehow, but I just -- without fencing the whole business, I don't see how that's possible. MEMBER REINKE: Just -- I'm going to throw out one more thing. I guess I would like to see -- from my input on this, I would like to see this matter looked into a little further by the petitioner. One is possible screening or fencing in of an area; and, two, a maximum number of vehicles that you would be required to have on site at any one time. Fifty vehicles, I think, is going to be, to me, unacceptable. Maybe twenty or something like that, you know, we might be able, from my opinion, to work with. But I think you need to look at really what you can do, what your minimums are, and give us some more guideline rather than to say a blanket of being able to store fifty cars there at one time.
MR. VALENTINE: Well, the word store -- I mean, it's kind of confusing to me because, like I said, there's not fifty vehicles sitting at one time but I might have two to five to ten at one given time in one week, and there might only be two in there the following week, but I'm not storing them. They're just sitting there while I'm working on them. MEMBER REINKE: My classification of storage is if a vehicle is there overnight it's storage. MR. VALENTINE: Right. That's my understanding of what's in the ordinance. I didn't -- you know, of course I wasn't aware of that before. MR. CHAIRMAN: My comments echo Mr. Reinke's. We've had probably three cases in front of us in the last year-and-a-half that were exact same situations. So to be fair, perhaps it's worthwhile taking Mr. Reinke's recommendation and taking a look at the lot, seeing if there's a way that you can work out arrangements with the dealers that you're only bringing cars over in a time frame that allows you to get them in, work on them and
then get them out, take a look at what kind of screening you can provide, and we'll work with you. You've been here eighteen, nineteen years, sir. I'm not prepared to sit here and deny your request, but we need you to help us. Does that make any sense? MR. VALENTINE: Okay. Sure. MR. CHAIRMAN: So what that means is you doing a little homework, maybe talking to Mike Stanford, explain that we did not deny you nor did we approve you tonight, but we asked you to take a look at how you can make things better, because right now it's been identified as a problem, and to be fair with other businesses in the same business, that we've denied outside storage, overnight storage. MR. VALENTINE: Okay. You spoke of a fenced-in area? MEMBER REINKE: It's just one option. It could be screening, could be fenced in. We're saying is look at different avenues to not make this a highly visible storage lot. MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman and Members
of the Committee, what I would like to say is, basically with this type of a business it isn't just a fencing requirement. It is a screening issue, which is part of this operation of this business. Whether it's this business or any other business, that's one thing that should be looked at. MEMBER GRONACHAN: As opposed to fencing? MR. SAVEN: As opposed to fencing. Some kind of screening which is a fence. MR. CHAIRMAN: Could Mr. Valentine speak to anybody at City Hall about the recommendations? MR. SAVEN: I think you'd probably talk to the ordinance division, Cynthia Uglow. MR. CHAIRMAN: You know who Cindy is? MR. VALENTINE: Yes, I do. MR. CHAIRMAN: Maybe give her a call tomorrow, make an appointment, come on in. MR. SAVEN: Or Lauren McGuire. As far as plan review center, her and Cindy together, it meets the requirements of the ordinance for size and the screening that's appropriate for that type
of business. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we can work with you, and if you have a plan, that you can come back next month and show us this is what I intend to do, we'll get a little closer to getting you out of here. MR. VALENTINE: Okay. MEMBER BAUER: Move to table. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bauer has moved to table. MEMBER REINKE: Support. MR. CHAIRMAN: All those in favor, aye. (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir. CASE NUMBER 02-068 MR. CHAIRMAN: 02-068 is filed by David Lanyon of Yorkshire. He's seeking a setback variance. Mr. Lanyon? MR. LANYON: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: You want to raise your hand to 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. LANYON: I do. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. LANYON: I have a very short statement which sounds like you'll appreciate tonight with all the other people talking. I would like to respectfully request a variance to place a 12 by 23 foot deck on the side of our Michigan room. The variance needed is 2.33 feet. Our house was built in 1980 and the house is built in the center of the lot. We looked at making the deck fit into the City code, but as we measured the furniture, it will not fit and allow for uncongested traffic to flow from the house to the backyard, which would be going across the deck. The additional two feet would allow for unrestricted movement for all of our family to be together on the deck at the same time. The material that the deck is made out of comes in six foot increments, so if we could
not make it twelve feet, we'd be paying for twelve feet either way. In looking at the alternative ways to meet the code, we tried to place the deck in front of the Michigan room, but this would allow the exiting door from the garage not to be able to be used. Our neighbors, which is the Stottlers, which is on the west side and directly affected by this, have no objections, and the letter's in your packet right there. The homeowner's association has approved the plan. And the deck, in our opinion, would be very proportional to the lot and to the neighborhood. I feel that this project would add value to our house and to the subdivision. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: You've got some interesting neighbors here. Twenty-nine notices sent; two approvals, one objection. The most immediate neighbor to your -- next door is the Statlers, and they approve. There's a gentleman on -- or there's a party on
West Ten Mile that seems to have all kinds of conflicts and problems with the City, doesn't seem to address anything that you have raised tonight. You know Felicia Maggio? MR. LANYON: No. She the one on Ten Mile? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah. MR. LANYON: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: You might do us a favor and walk over- MR. LANYON: (Interposing) What address? MR. CHAIRMAN: 44720. You might just fill her in after tonight's meeting. She's got a lot of anxieties. Anybody in the audience care to make comment on this particular case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Building Department? MR. SAVEN: This deck is dealing with projections, not as though it's an enclosure. It's an open, unenclosed deck, and would be -- the variance that he's seeking tonight is that of a projection, not, technically, a setback variance.
As a normal setback, you put this floor in a projection. MR. CHAIRMAN: I should have made note, there is a approval from James Tom Green and the association. Personally, sir, I believe that your request is minimal, and I would only condition my support with a pledge by yourself that you'll go talk to this lady and -- Board Members? MEMBER REINKE: I think the gentleman has done an excellent job of covering everything. The intrusion is an open area of 2.33 feet, which is very minimal. And as far as the setback, you wouldn't even hardly notice that, and I would support the petitioner's request. MR. CHAIRMAN: Other Board Members? MEMBER SANGHVI: Sir, may I make a motion? MR. CHAIRMAN: Please. MEMBER SANGHVI: In Case Number 02-068, petitioner's request be granted because of the peculiar size and shape of the lot which needs this variance. MEMBER BAUER: Second.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? (No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: No discussion. Sarah? MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: You've got a variance. Please see the building department for your permit. MR. LANYON: Thank you very much. CASE NUMBER 02-069 MR. CHAIRMAN: Case 02-069 is filed by Carroll Installations representing Fidelity Investment.
Are you here tonight? This is with respect to the -- what used to be called Novi Crossings on the northwest corner of Novi Road and Grand River. Sir, you want to raise you hand and give your name? MR. GODSMAN (ph): My name is Larry Godsman. I live at 857 Estes Avenue in San Antonio, Texas. 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. GODSMAN: I do. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. GODSMAN: Good evening. I think you probably all have drawings showing the proposed sign, and you also requested that we install a temporary banner to show the exact location of the sign, which we did about a week-and-a-half ago. I don't know whether you've had a chance to go by and look at that. But in looking at this location, this is -- I've been all over Novi today, and this appears to be one of the busiest intersections in
the entire city. In that regard, I think that -- I was going to talk about esthetics first, but I'd like to talk about safety first. I think getting people off of those streets and inside their parking lot is very important. In fact, I -- before I realized I was coming up on the parking lot entrance I already had cars in my rear bumper and I had to go and turn around and come back in on the Grand River entrance. Additionally, from an esthetic perspective, I believe that the signs are very esthetically pleasing. I think they blend in with the building. In fact, I think they enhance the building. We went to great lengths to make sure that these signs were going to architecturally blend with the building, and I believe we did a good job in that regard. People coming from the expressway have no idea that Fidelity Investments is even there until they're at the red light. When -- by placing the sign on the northbound entry, which, in fact, is our entry, it will give them ample notice, ample time to pull into the parking lot and park
near the entry. We've already had some situations where Mr. Randy Hines, the manager, has spoken many times about people walking around one of the buildings on the corner of Grand River and Novi because that corner looks like an entry. And, in fact, it does. And he saw one poor lady with an oxygen tank hooked to her wheelchair who had to walk around the entire -- wheel around the entire building until she was able to find the entrance. He's concerned about ice in the wintertime and people slipping and not realizing until they've walked around the entire building that the entrance is where the sign is not. From a business perspective, this is obviously a retail area, and I don't think what we're doing is taking away in any form or fashion from that area. In fact, I do feel that if you looked at our signs they do definitely esthetically enhance the building and our work done in an architectural element in designing the building. And that's all I have in that regard. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Twenty-one
notices sent; no approvals, no objections. Anyone in the audience? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Seeing none, Building Department? MS. MARCHIONI: Mr. Brennan, just to note for the record, someone from Wonderland Music called me today at about a quarter to 5:00, said they were faxing over a letter. I never received it. So -- he didn't say if it was approving or objecting. WONDERLAND MUSIC: That was us. MS. MARCHIONI: Was it? MR. CHAIRMAN: I just asked if there was anyone in the audience that would like -- okay. Come on down. Give us your name and address, business. WONDERLAND MUSIC: I'm from Wonderland Music, and also Wayne Management Company who's the owner of the property that the sign would be facing towards. The address is 26159 Novi Road. I just came in from Dearborn. First of all, we applied for a sign
on the north side of the building, and that was flatly turned down. We have one sign. Seems to be smaller than their sign. There are two signs on their building, and I would like to hereby ask that if they be allowed we should be allowed a sign on our side -- north side of the building. The sign would promote the unauthorized use of our driveway to get into their property, and we don't like that either, because they've never asked for permission. The owner of the property, or the builder of the building, never asked for permission for them to use our driveway. And apparently, I heard at a very late date, that this was part of their original plan. They didn't have a real good entrance or exit for that parking lot of theirs, so they told somebody they had an agreement to use our driveway. And I didn't even know who the landlord was until the building got itself into serious trouble by dumping so much stuff on the parking lot there that they never reported. So they don't have legal use of the
driveway. That's increased the traffic. Their token driveway and -- on the side doesn't work at all. Most of their customers have to come across our driveway anyways, but this -- people coming down Novi Road are now going to see the sign and more people are going to come across our driveway. If nothing else, we should be allowed the same type of sign that they have on the side of our building. We were flatly turned down. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, sir, you have the right and option to go down to City Hall anytime and pull an application to come before this Board for a sign. That's not what's before us tonight. WONDERLAND MUSIC: Well- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) And if you've got issues with this party using your parking lot and using your driveway, you should probably be addressing it with somebody within the City. We're going to discuss and debate the merits of this sign, and I encourage you to sit and listen. WONDERLAND MUSIC: Okay. But it does
face our building (inaudible), and it would encourage the use of our driveway. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Point made. THE WITNESS: Which is -- which we do not authorize and never have. MR. CHAIRMAN: I recall very vividly there was a lot of discussions about this particular development, and parking was one of them. Okay. Anybody else in the audience? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Building Department? MR. SAVEN: Basically, that he does have two signs on the building as it exists at the present time and they are within the tolerances of the zoning -- or sign ordinance. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members? MEMBER REINKE: No way I can support a third sign on that building. MEMBER GRAY: Technically it would be the fourth. MEMBER REINKE: Right. It's -- there's too much, it's over signage, and I see no justifiable support for it.
MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Chairman, I concur. MR. GODSMAN: Can I add something? MR. CHAIRMAN: Let the Board Members discuss this. If they have questions they'll ask you. Jerry, you have something? MEMBER BAUER: I cannot go along with this, no. MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead. MR. GODSMAN: Well, you mentioned we had too much signage. We actually only used 78.5 of the 100 square feet we were allowed on the two elevations, and if this motion is rejected, I -- will it be clear to the reason for it being rejected as part of the ruling? Is it rejected because you feel it's too many signs? MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that's been the general sentiment, that you have -- as having frontage on two main roads you have the right to have two signs and you have your two signs. We're looking at why you might need a third, and there wasn't evidence brought that
suggested that you did need it. I guess if you were that inclined that you had to have a sign on that north wall, which of the south or the east wall don't you want, because there's not sentiment among the Board Members to give this particular site three signs. MR. GODSMAN: My feeling is, if -- in visiting the site that there is a definite need for a third sign there, and more for safety reasons as anything else. That's a very, very busy intersection. The people coming off the expressway have absolutely no evidence that the Fidelity location is there until it's too late. And I would urge you to consider it for that reason if no others. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's -- I'll extend your rationale then. If people are coming in off the expressway and can find your store with the north sign, why would you need one on the east wall? MR. GODSMAN: Well, because we don't have one on the east wall, then all of that traffic will have no idea we're there. It's a very- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) With
that rationale, sir, you would need a sign on every wall. MR. GODSMAN: That's not true because the sign -- coming from the other direction, you have plenty of time to see the sign because the building is set back far enough to give you notice that the building is there. I've driven every location at least a half a dozen times today. And, no, we do not need another sign on the west side. That sign on the front wall is plenty visible -- on the south wall, excuse me. MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Brennan? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MEMBER GRAY: I would suggest that anybody coming to your office, if that's what it is, an office, is going to know where they're going before they leave their home. Most people do a Mapquest on the Internet before they go anywhere these days. I can't imagine that this is going to be something where people would just walk in off the street or be driving somewhere to say well, hey, there's Fidelity Investment, I think I'll just
drive in. I was quite surprised with the two signs that are already there, that a third is requested, and made the comment when Mr. Reinke spoke earlier that you've asked for three, why not ask for four. I cannot support a third sign. Safety is always an issue on any street in the city of Novi, and if you're trying to direct your clients to your parking area, you're probably going to direct them off Grand River anyhow. Whether your main entrance is at the rear of the building or not, that should be something that you should have some kind of directional signs or something to direct people to come to your entrance as opposed to walking around the building. The potential of people slipping and falling on snow or ice, I mean that's the burden of having built in this location. That's -- I would suggest that if you want a sign on the north, that you have to remove one of them from either the east or the south.
And I think that kind of sums up everything. Thank you. MEMBER SANGHVI: Well, I think the choice is in your court. What would you like to do, have the sign on the south side and remove one of the other two, or you just want us to go ahead and give an opinion about- MR. GODSMAN: (Interposing) We're hoping that the Board will support business in Novi and vote in favor of this tonight. MEMBER SANGHVI: There's nobody here that supports business more than I do, sir. That's not the issue, sir. MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, in Case 02-069, I move that petitioner's variance request be denied due to insufficient hardship. MEMBER GRAY: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: We've got a motion and a second. Any discussion? MR. SCHULTZ: Couple of things? MR. CHAIRMAN: Pardon? MR. SCHULTZ: Couple of things? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yep.
MR. SCHULTZ: Again, this is a non-use variance, so we're talking about the practical difficulty standard, and under the circumstances I think it would be appropriate if there were some findings attached to the motion. I think from at least one of the members we heard that this is a destination point rather than a drive-by point, and- MEMBER REINKE: (Interposing) Well, I totally agree with that, because if somebody's going there they're knowing they're going to be directed to the corner of Grand River and Novi Road, and it doesn't lend itself to a practical difficulty to require the third sign on the building. MEMBER SANGHVI: Make that part of the motion, please. MEMBER REINKE: I have no problem with that. MEMBER SANGHVI: No problem. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah?
MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, sir, but your motion has been denied. CASE NUMBER 02-070 MR. CHAIRMAN: General Filters, 43800 Grand River, Case Number 02-070. 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. REDNER: Yes.
MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: You got it. MR. REDNER: I'm Bob Redner, vice president of General Filters at 43800 Grand River. We manufacture humidifiers and high-efficiency air cleaners for residential homes. We employ about 50 people here in Novi. We've been at this Novi address since 1953. We're in the final stages of completing a 40,000 square foot expansion. This includes a new sign at our Grand River entrance. The sign will replace our existing sign which has been in place for over 20 years. We have also had our name, General Filters, Inc., over our front door where our customers enter since the building was built in 1953. It is my understanding that Novi does not allow both a roadside sign and the name on the building. Our name above the front door is made of 12-inch tall stainless steel letters, and it's an unlit sign. It is 240 feet back from the edge of Grand River.
I'm here tonight to ask that we be allowed to keep the sign at Grand River and our name on the building above the customer entrance, which is our front door. We ask for this variance because Novi required us to eliminate our customer driveway off of Grand River and move the customer parking lot driveway over to proposed Crescent Boulevard. This Crescent Boulevard driveway runs along the east edge of our property, and our customer entrance, which is our front door, is not as clearly visible as it was with our old driveway. With this new entrance to our customer parking lot, we feel it is necessary to keep our name above the front door. We are not asking for anything more than we have had for over 20 years. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir. Fourteen notices sent; no approvals, no objections. Anyone in the audience care -- (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Building Department? MR. SAVEN: It's my understanding
that this proposed sign is to replace an existing sign that's been there for 20 sum years, and the fact that this sign does meet the size and setback requirements pursuant to Allen, as I discussed the issue with him, I have no objection. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members? MEMBER BAUER: Don, when they come through and widen Grand River there, is that going to set this back further? MR. SAVEN: He sets back -- no. I think he'll be all right. If he wasn't all right, then I would say -- I would have been notified, probably be before you myself. I do not want to do that. MEMBER BAUER: I have no problem with it. MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't either. The business does sit substantially off Grand River, and now that the entrance road has been moved -- I mean, you can fly by that and never even see it. MEMBER SANGHVI: It's very hard to see. The only question I have was, when they do any expansion of the bridge, is that going to affect you?
MR. REDNER: No, we don't feel it will. MEMBER SANGHVI: And that was my worry when you put the sign over there, because whichever size sign you put you have to go higher than the bridge. Not many people are going to see it from outside, from Grand River itself, and I just wondered if there were -- if you had any knowledge about what is going to be the impact of the building. MR. REDNER: We fully understand what will happen with the bridge and the widening of Grand River at that point, and we're comfortable with it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Laverne, you have something? MEMBER REINKE: It's really -- it's not an expansion of what's been there, it's kind of an upgrading- MEMBER SANGHVI: (Interposing) Upgrading. MEMBER REINKE: -to make it look more -- I think it looks a lot more esthetically pleasing and makes everything stand out and adds to
the architecture of the lot, and it's basically a direction. People know where they're going. It's just knowing when they get to their final point where you should turn and where you're located at and everything like that. It's not anything in addition to what's already been in existence. I can support petitioner's request. MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Chairman, may I make a motion that in Case Number 02-070 the petitioner's request be granted for identification purposes as well as for the upgrading of the whole sign. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion and second. Any discussion? (No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah? MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?
MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, you've got your variance. See the Building Department. MR. REDNER: Thank you. CASE NUMBER 02-071 MR. CHAIRMAN: Abel Kwang. This is Case 02-071. This is a rear yard setback, a south side yard variance, and a combined total side yard variance, also on Yorkshire. You want to raise your 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. KWANG: I do. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Kwang, go ahead and tell us what you want to do. MR. KWANG: Yes. My name is
Abel Kwang. I live in 45007 Yorkshire Drive. I live at that site for seven years. My family is growing. I need more room to accommodate my family. That's why I propose the one family room in my backyard. The back -- the new house will be expanded to cover just the deck area, so no further than deck area. And, also, my backyard, the south side back yard is wide open, nobody live there, so it's no interference with the neighbor. The most interference neighbor is on the south side. I think it's 14 feet but proposed 11 feet. I talked to my neighbor on south side. I indicate my new building will be no window toward their side, so I think they give me the verbal agreement, said -- told no problem with that. But I don't know any letter they send. Okay. So that's why -- that's why I want to keep the same -- the new proposal size. Also, that if I cut back the two and two -- the 2.27 feet, and also three feet shorter, the room is not meaningful for this house; otherwise, if Board reject, I need to go to find
another room to -- move that other new house to accommodate my family. That's why, therefore, I would like committee to grant my setback variance. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. There were thirty-five notices and there was an approval from Mr. Garden and two letters from Fidora and Stenar. Are any of these three the neighbor directly to the south? MR. KWANG: Two of the south, two families from south. I don't know which one. MR. CHAIRMAN: Who is the neighbor directly behind- MR. KWANG: (Interposing) On the south side? I don't know his name. MR. CHAIRMAN: It wasn't Stenar, it wasn't Fidora or Garden? MR. KWANG: No Fidora, no Stenar. MR. SAVEN: Those are all from Glenda, which is the back. MR. KWANG: Yeah, back side. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Let's keep going. Anybody in the audience care to make comment on this case?
(No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Building Department? MR. SAVEN: Two side yard variances, which is before you, again is one of the issues where we did have grandfathering, and the setback requirements were ten foot at the time that this subdivision was built. With the new ordinance change, those two provisions are now part of the ordinance requested. MEMBER REINKE: So really, if it was by the old part, the only thing he would need is the rear yard setback? MR. SAVEN: That's correct. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members? MEMBER REINKE: I -- you know, 2.27 and 3 foot, somebody walking by there, unless somebody really told them, they'd never see it anyway. It's a minimum intrusion, and there's no objection, he has the association's approval and everything. I can support petitioner's request. MR. CHAIRMAN: I forgot to mention that, the subdivision. All right. Any other Board Member comments? Sarah?
MEMBER GRAY: I also like the fact that it doesn't intrude any farther to the south than the existing line of the garage, so that's not a problem either. MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, in Case 02-071, I move petitioner's request be granted due to lot size and side yard configurations for the addition needed. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and overwhelming seconds. Any discussion on the motion? (No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah? MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes.
MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, you've got your variance. See the Building Department. MR. KWANG: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure. And we've got five cases left, we're going to take a four minute break. (A short recess was taken.) CASE NUMBER 02-072 MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Let's call the meeting back to order. We're going to call Case 02-072, filed by Pollack Design Associates. They have a number of variance requests for the construction of a gas regulator building at 44488 Grand River. You want to give us your right hand and your name 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. PIKE: I do. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you state
your name, please. MR. PIKE: Yeah. I'm Bill Pike. I'm the manager for Consumers Energy for the western metropolitan area. I'm not Kristy Dunbar. They're with Pollack Design who is assisting us on this project. I appreciate the opportunity to be in front of the zoning board this evening to discuss the five variances for the essential services of a natural gas regulator station that we need to build in the city of Novi. We have a station that is there now, has been there since 1966. Due to the population growth and the rapid growth of Novi -- when we initially built it it was Novi Township. Now it's -- I don't have to tell you folks how fast this community is growing. This facility controls the flow and the volume of natural gas to the residential, commercial and industrial customers in the city of Novi. We need to build this station to handle the existing load and the future growth. And we've been to our previous meetings and had approvals. We do have the five
variances that we would like to discuss with you this evening. We have many regulator stations, city gates and/or regulator stations around the state of Michigan that are for communities. They all operate within the same way, and they pretty much look identical to a small degree, some to a large degree. What we would like to do, as we've showed the Planning Commission, is take an existing facility that was just there when Novi was a township, having gone through the rules and regulations of this community now, and we want to make it look better. You can see in front of you that I have here, which shows you the old facility as it is and what we plan to do with it to make it a more modern facility, look a little bit nicer, blend in more with the community. As people drive by -- of course, the traffic there, other than at 6:00 and 7:00 in the morning when they're dead stopped at the light, the traffic usually flows around 45 miles an hour or so through there.
But it's our objective at Consumers Energy to make the facility look nicer. Bottom line, we do have some variances that we certainly need approval on from this Board to go forward. We need to get this station started -- actually, I needed to get it started yesterday, but I need to get this up and done before snowfall. Our deadline for us is around November 15th to the 20th. Pending approvals from this Board, we can meet that date for us to provide the natural gas essential service to this community. And with that I would certainly entertain any questions that you have. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Well, we'll have plenty. MR. PIKE: I'm sure. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I just want the Board to be aware that Mr. Pike, I had no idea was going to be here this evening, is a friend of mine and has been a friend of mine for 23 years, and so with -- I have no association with this and don't feel that it's necessary, although if the Board does, to recuse myself in this matter, I will.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Tom? MR. SCHULTZ: I don't see a financial conflict of interest. It simply becomes a question of is Ms. Gronachan able, in her mind, to fairly judge this and not be biased. If she thinks so -- she's not asking to be recused, but -- and so if she wants to sit she's permitted to sit, that's her call. I think she's offered it to the Board for their opinion and will abide by that, so -- MR. CHAIRMAN: Personally, I don't have any objection. MEMBER BAUER: No problem. MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll continue on. Okay. You've presented -- where are we? MR. PIKE: And I would certainly say the same thing. I was going to until -- I didn't even know she was on the Board. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. We have -- thirteen notices were sent; one approval by Guardian Equipment, also on Grand River, and then an objection by Mr. Cassis. Anyone in the audience -- Victor, I assume that you would like to talk to us a little bit.
MR. CASSIS: Good evening. I'm Vic Cassis, 22186 Bayview Drive, Novi. I just happen to own the building directly east and abutting this particular operation by the applicant. It's what is called the McNish Sporting Goods Building. I cannot understand for the life of me how that station was located in that particular area to begin with, but it's there nevertheless, and I guess we have to deal with it. Seeing that the proximity of this thing is so close to people, to other buildings, and to even traffic -- but I guess it's there and we -- I think we have to deal with it. I don't know about future expansion. He claims that this is anticipated future expansion in the city. The city is not even half built yet, so if this station is going to be expanded even further in the future, maybe they think -- maybe they should think of relocating this. But let me address just some -- a few things that I think you can have control over and I think you can do something about. First of all is safety. As I
encountered, in my little note to you, last year about this time an operator of a bulldozer or a backhoe punctured one of those gas mains, and it was a very hazardous situation. I personally happened to be there at that time and was quarantined in that location for seven hours. Four years ago we had an odor coming from that area, and it kept coming for the entire winter. I personally wrote the company, talked to them. They tried to correct it, and finally I think it was corrected. Liability. What would have happened if my entire building exploded at that time last year, or any of our employees that were there working, which were about 13 or 15 people at that time -- what compensation would this company have in that direction? And I don't know if you have any authority or any power over that kind of a thing. And, finally, esthetics. I'm puzzled how the applicant claims that this is going to blend and this is going to look good and so on. And many of you must have driven by that place. It's nothing but exposed pipes, a fence, cyclone
fence, around it. You can see everything that's in that location, and it does not look good, it does not blend with the surrounding area at all. I do not want to put any obstacles in front of the progress of the community and progress of industry and so on. I'd be the last one to do it because I'm a businessman and I understand what goes on in the lives of industry and companies, but I think maybe you can look into the situation and see -- maybe there should be some improvements in esthetics, either a high wall or some trees, high trees to- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) I was going to say, you might want to look at the presentation. That shows trees and such. MR. CASSIS: Does it? Oh. I thought when I read about trees that they couldn't plant trees because it doesn't grow there or something. If they have tall trees, I don't know. So esthetics is important, and I think there should be also addressing of, really, the danger -- the dangerous situation, whether it should be a wall or -- to divide it from other buildings.
These are some of the things that I have to say about it. I don't know. I didn't see any trees, but I'd like to look and see what they have. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. MR. CASSIS: By the way, I got notified on Friday about this, didn't have the time to come in, except I think yesterday, looked at it, but I didn't look at it very closely, so -- MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, Victor. MR. CASSIS: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else in the audience? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's go through Building Department and some questions from the Board, but at some point in time, sir, I'd like you to address some of the issues that's- MR. PIKE: (Interposing) I'd be more than happy to. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Building Department? MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, one of the things I do want to point
out, assume Mr. Cassis' testimony just recently, he had indicated that he was not notified of the Planning Commission meeting. That was just based on the fact that this did not have to go out for public notice, for the fact is there was no wetlands or woodlands involved in the site, nor was this a special land use approval; therefore, he did not get noticed for the meeting itself. He talked about notices for the Zoning Board of Appeals. He just got notified just recently. That's why I could understand that he hasn't seen the landscaping features that are part of this (inaudible). As far as the property in itself, if you take a look at the property, there's two things apparent to this property: One, the narrowness of the lot; and, two, what that use is all about pursuant to them to be able to do anything reasonable pursuant to the ordinances, and that's why this gentleman is here today. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Tom? MR. SCHULTZ: Just to follow up on that, and answer a couple items to Mr. Cassis' questions about liability insurance and
compensation and for things like that. This is an essential services permitted of right in this district under the ordinance. The reason why it came before the Planning Commission, and ultimately to this body, is that while the use is permitted, the building is subject to review, but it's subject, again, to review in terms of it being a use on the property that's allowed. So in terms of attaching conditions relating to liability or compensation, those are really issues that are -- for this Board anyway, it's a little bit beyond your obligation. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, let's stay focused on what's before us. We have five ordinances in front of us on berming and setback, and while Mr. Cassis has raised good points, I don't want to belabor that, and I would like some quick comments from you at some point in time. At this point in time, I'd like Board Members to start looking at the facilities, the layouts, the variances, and let's start with the east and west sides and address those first. You've got the main building which is
pretty much positioned in the middle of the property, correct? MR. PIKE: Yes. The old building that we're going to tear down is about 155 square feet. The new building that we're putting up is 390 square feet. The property is only 50 foot wide totally. MR. CHAIRMAN: And I would imagine that there are some constraints if you made this building three foot wide and a hundred and twenty foot long to meet all setback requirements? MR. PIKE: That is true, as well as requirements of the Michigan Public Service Commission, the Office of Point Planning Safety, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as far as the design and operability of this facility. MR. CHAIRMAN: What's inside that building? MR. PIKE: There is a series of pipes and valving, monitor regulation. They're known as PVTTs that record pressure, volume, temperature and time. It is -- while there is no -- the electric services will be underground to the
facility. It is not a manned facility at all. It is manned telephonically in our gas control in Jackson, Michigan, and back at 11801 Farmington Road where my office is at. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, let's discuss these two setbacks, the east and west side setbacks. Any questions for the petitioner? MEMBER REINKE: Well, the size of the property dictates the setbacks, and really there isn't anything we can do in respect to that. My issue is the screening, and I'm looking for some response to Mr. Cassis' questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, you want to discuss setbacks and discuss screening and then let the petitioner make some comments about Victor's concerns? MEMBER REINKE: Well, due to the requirements of the building and what they have to follow and what they need mandates the setbacks. MEMBER SANGHVI: This is the smallest building you can deal with, right? MR. PIKE: This is the smallest building, sir, that we can do to handle the growth in this community, and this is planned for many,
many, many years into the future. The first one lasted thirty-six years. MEMBER SANGHVI: What are your bases about protecting the growth requirement of the city? MR. PIKE: Pardon? MEMBER SANGHVI: I said what are the bases of your growth requirement- MR. PIKE: (Interposing) The basics for our -- for the growth of this community are -- is working with the plan that -- the City Plan, that they have a ten-year growth plan. Applications for natural gas for residential, commercial and industrial customers are -- my marketing and engineering folks work constantly with developers and stuff, with the city manager here and others to understand and know the growth of this community, who's planning what. Many, many times when a developer, not only from the state of Michigan, from out of the state of Michigan, comes to look into an area, we, the public -- one of -- the public utilities are one of the first ones that they contact to check into the supply of energy, be it natural gas,
electricity, up to and including cable, fiber optics, et cetera. So we're pretty well appraised and have a pretty doggone good idea how fast this community is growing. MEMBER SANGHVI: Do you have any idea of any kind of dimensions you are talking about? I know you told me all that in very vague and general terms, and that's fine, but- MR. PIKE: (Interposing) As far as economic dimensions, economic development dimensions? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. PIKE: Not off the top of my head, no. We have facts and figures on the volume of natural gas that we need to serve, to bring into that facility to give out to the individual streets. We know the facility -- industrial facilities, whether they're running three shifts, two shifts, if they're a 7/24 operation, we have historical record. We've been in the state of Michigan for about 125, 130 years, what a residential home uses. We're members of the Builders Association. We know the sizes of homes that are built in Novi, and we can calculate the
flow and the volume of natural gas that way. MR. CHAIRMAN: Let me ask it another way, the way Victor asked it. MR. PIKE: Sure. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you expect this will take care of the city of Novi- MR. PIKE: (Interposing) For a long time, yes, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that's about the best you can answer. MR. PIKE: We don't want to come back and build another one, believe me. MR. CHAIRMAN: You've discussed it with the city manager, you know what the city plan is- MR. PIKE: (Interposing) Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: -you know what the build-out is expected to be. It's supposed to be 80,000 people. And that takes care of that question. MR. PIKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Can we get some movement on variance A and B in their letter, which is the first two variances on setbacks? There's
been discussion that this is what they need. Is there any objection by Board Members? Can we get a motion on these two, Board Members? MEMBER GRAY: I will move to approve the variance -- the first two variances for the side setbacks due to the -- well, it's an essential service, and- MEMBER REINKE: (Interposing) It's actually due to the size and shape of the lot. MEMBER GRAY: And it has to do with the width of the lot and the depth of the lot. MEMBER REINKE: Support. MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion and support on those two items. Any discussion? (No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah? MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Two down and three to go. The next two items relate to berming and landscaping, and yet you have some landscaping in your drawing up there. Is that representative of what you're planning on providing? MR. PIKE: Yes, sir. This is the existing, where there is virtually no landscaping, and this is what we plan to do to landscape the facility to esthetically have it blend in more. MR. CHAIRMAN: So you've got a -- you've got -- give me a little detail on that bottom line, the adjoining property. MR. PIKE: We have the trees, arbor bidy (ph) and other tress that are approved to plant all along there. The requirement for the property is approximately 336 square feet of plantings, and we
actually have about 530, so we've exceeded that amount considerably to make it blend in more and more esthetically -- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) And the only spot where you do not have any foliage is actually the driveway which leads in? MR. PIKE: That is correct, yes. MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir. MR. SAVEN: If I may, maybe Mr. Cassis could come forward and take a look and see what he has adjacent to him as far as the plantings are concerned that Mr. Pike mentions. (A discussion was held between Mr. Pike, Mr. Cassis, and Miss Dunbar.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's knock these off one at a time. The next item on the list is relative- MR. CASSIS: (Interposing) May I say something regarding the trees? I mean, that's- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) We're going to get there. We're going to hit these one at a time, Victor. Let's take care of the lack of
the berm or wall along Grand River. Obviously that's in the ordinance. You've taken exception to that, and you want to expand on why? MR. PIKE: Sure. The reason we take an acceptance to that is because of security, and safety as well, and Mr. Cassis mentioned safety, which is absolutely tantamount to everything we do at Consumers Energy. Number one is safety when you're working with natural gas, or any other fuel. MR. CHAIRMAN: So the site is secure? MR. PIKE: We need access to -- we work very closely with the police and fire departments, even more closely now since 9/11. In observation of that facility, as you drive by and stuff, we need access to be able to see in there and to get in there. We don't -- none of our facilities around the state of Michigan are hidden so that you can't see them. We have some that are in residential subdivisions where there are two residential homes on either side of them. MR. CHAIRMAN: This is secured though with fencing I-
MR. PIKE: (Interposing) Yes, it is secured with fencing, and we are going to make the fencing blend in with the area so that you really won't see the fencing that much. It will blend in. We have approval from the gentleman to the west to do some additional planting over there to kind of hide that as well. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. So from a practicality standpoint, a berm or a wall doesn't even give you the same security that you're going to have with the fencing? MR. PIKE: That is correct. And another reason, sir, was we know in time that they're going to widen Grand River. We already have some plans and some things on the widening of Grand River, and we have agreed, without a problem at all, to assist in the cost of that sidewalk in front of there when that time comes, and that would be about where the berm would end or start, so that was another consideration as well. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, can we have further discussion and questions on this line item, the berm or wall along Grand River, which the applicant is seeking a variance for?
MEMBER SANGHVI: Well, I have no difficulty in agreeing to that, the more (inaudible) the better for the security point of view, and I have no problem at all. The fence can keep the kids and stray animals outside, that's fine. MEMBER REINKE: I guess I have a question. It says here quick access and underground gas pipe. Mr. Cassis raised the issue of where someone was in there with a backhoe and hit a line. I guess I would like Mr. Pike to address those kind of situations, what happens. MR. PIKE: I'm sorry, sir. You said- MEMBER REINKE: (Interposing) Mr. Cassis alluded to a situation that happened there previously where a gas line was hit. I would like you to address the issues that he has raised in conjunction with that and the affect on the surrounding area. MR. PIKE: I certainly will. Mr. Cassis is correct. About a year ago we had a gas line that was broke over there, and it was broke by one of our own employees doing some work
in there. He made a mistake that should not have been made. The error was fixed. The facility that Mr. Cassis is the owner of was without gas for about six-and-a-half to seven hours. It was in the summertime. We had to make the repairs. There was no evacuations required. The people could come and go. There was nothing -- no one was evacuated or anything. It was safe at all times. It was broke. We pinched it off. It was in the summer. There was no need for heat immediately to the facility. There was plenty of water in the water heaters that would have lasted in a commercial building for a while. I will grant you that we shouldn't have taken seven hours to go over there and light his appliance back up after we made the repairs. That was an error on our part. It should not happen. To give you an example, today I had -- in the western Metropolitan area that I'm responsible for, I had seven gas mains broken and fourteen gas services broken by different contractors today. We've made all those repairs and fixed all of those repairs and have lit all
those customers up. We did make a mistake on this one incident and not get natural gas lit back up to that facility as soon as the repairs were made. Also, at the time -- we weren't working on this, but at the time we've also talked to the employee that made the mistake, and he did make the mistake in what he was doing, and he knows better. I would also be more than happy at any time to, myself personally, sit down and talk to Mr. Cassis about any concerns that he has separate from the variances that we're asking for here. We certainly are insured and have insurance and have a process for litigation and stuff, as any company does. MEMBER REINKE: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Don, you know, as part of the planning process, the fire department and fire marshal and all that are all involved in the design of this and safety and precautions and all of that, are they not? MR. SAVEN: That's correct. MR. CHAIRMAN: Victor, I'd certainly
want to address your concerns, but it's not something we can do here. Okay? MR. CASSIS: Can I just say one thing? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah. MR. CASSIS: I just don't want to be in the -- I don't want to stop progress or anything. I'm not here to object to this thing going forward. All I'm asking is, right now, if those trees can be higher, you know. I have air condition behind my house and I have ten feet, twelve feet -- foot high trees around them, and I think this is the least that they could do here to at least have a little bit more esthetically pleasing to the side of my building. Now, the terrain comparison, my parking lot is like about four or five feet higher than their property, so if -- the lady here is saying oh, these are hedges, two or three feet high, they're not going to do anything as far as- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) That's actually the next line item we're going to discuss. Sarah?
MEMBER GRAY: I want to jump ahead, if we may, and may I suggest that Mr. Cassis deal with Mr. Pike and, perhaps, Consumers Energy would be willing to make some plantings on your side of the property line to help the screening process at their cost. MR. PIKE: We certainly would take a look. MEMBER GRAY: Maybe that's the way to resolve this part of that issue. MR. PIKE: Sure. And these hedges are about six to seven feet high now. If the City allows us, on that side, within the rules and regulations, we will put them as high as -- we will certainly be happy to work with you on your side of the property to put some stuff in. MR. CASSIS: I don't think the City is going to tell you to do it smaller trees than- MR. PIKE: (Interposing) I have to work within the rules and regulations of the ordinances of the community, but I'll be happy to work with you. We definitely will. MEMBER REINKE: I think that really Mr. Pike has satisfied the situation. He's willing
to work with Mr. Cassis and work out something there. MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's get back, focused, and talk about this berm and wall variance that they've requested. It's -- there's some -- certainly some security reasons for doing what he wants to do. It will be secured by a -- some sort of a chain-link fence, and if there's any further discussions of Mr. Pike on this particular item, let's ask him; if not, let's move on and discuss a motion. MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Chair, in the matter in item C of the variances, lack of a berm or a wall along Grand River right of way, I would move that we approve the requested variances for the reasons stated, additional safety without a berm or a wall. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: We've got a motion and a second. Any discussions? (No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah? MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes.
MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Next item is the landscaping to the adjacent building. I think we talked about Mr. Cassis' building. How do we want to handle this, because there's, obviously, got to be some discussion made between the two parties. Sarah? MEMBER GRAY: This is the interior landscaping to their building. MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh. I just read that. MEMBER GRAY: And I think what the -- the variance they're requesting is not to have landscaping around their building. MR. PIKE: That's correct, yes.
MEMBER REINKE: That's self-explanatory, because the gas lines- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) For the reasons stated there. MR. PIKE: And in time, when you do plant them, then the roots and stuff get down into the lines over the course of time. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. So we have an understanding of your need. Any further discussions of Mr. Pike on this subject? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion, please. MEMBER GRAY: Move to approve the variance requested due to the nature of the business and the -- and that's it. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: There has been a motion and a second made. Any discussion? Thomas? MR. SCHULTZ: Just a note, I guess, that if there is any inclination on the part of the Board, I'm not sure whether there is or not, to require an increase in the height of the trees or require- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) That's
not there. We're talking about any landscaping around that building, the interior building. MEMBER GRONACHAN: The perimeter of the building. MR. SCHULTZ: Are you going to do it in connection with the next one then? MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, it's really not before us, but as- MR. SCHULTZ: (Interposing) I guess what I'm suggesting is, if you're going to be able to tie it to something, this is probably the best. MEMBER GRAY: I'll amend my own motion to request that the petitioner work with the neighbor to the east to provide additional screening on his property, take it into consideration that the topography varies between the two properties, and the intent is to provide maximum screening. MEMBER GRONACHAN: And I will second the amendment. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have a problem with that? MR. PIKE: No, I really don't. I can assure this Board that if we -- I will personally
talk with Mr. Cassis and we will work with him to come up with something. We need to have that facility open to -- and, in fact, Kristy Dunbar from Pollack would like to say a couple of things, myself not being an engineer or a designer. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have your pledge on record that you're willing to work with Victor. MR. PIKE: I'd be more than happy to take a look at some- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) I think if that's your word, that's good enough for me. All right. We have an amended motion and an amended second. Any further discussion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah? MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?
MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Now, let's talk about the unpaved driveway and parking area. MR. PIKE: The reason we proposed to pave the driveway up to the gate, the reason we would not like to pave the driveway inside the thing, is because of the piping and the valving and stuff that we have inside there that is underground and will be underground for safety and security reasons again. Should something happen, we need to get access to that facility as soon as possible. Up to and including, even though we protect all of our pipes for corrosion with our cathodic protection program against rust and stuff underground, mother nature is still much more powerful than science allows us yet to 100 percent protect your pipe forever, and we need to get at that pipe. None of our other facilities in the state of Michigan have paving inside the gate. We pave up to the gate. We're more than pleased to do that, but for safety and security and access to
that pipe, now we propose not to put that there. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Any questions of the petitioner? (No response.) MEMBER GRAY: I'll continue, if I may. MR. CHAIRMAN: Please. MEMBER GRAY: Move to approve the variance requested for paving only to the gate due to the nature of the occupancy, and I'd also like to note that this is not a manned site, so it's not like we have to provide parking spaces for employees. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion and a second. Discussion? (No discussion.) MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?
MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, you have your variances. And, hopefully, Victor, you've got some answers. MR. PIKE: And I assure this Board again that we will work with Mr. Cassis on his facility next door. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you much. MEMBER GRAY: Thank you. MR. PIKE: You're welcome. CASE NUMBER 02-073 MR. CHAIRMAN: Next case is 02-073 filed by Robert Dempster representing Ace Cutting. This gentleman wants to put a nice pretty sign up on the building. You want to raise your 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. DEMPSTER: Yes. Good evening. As you can see, everybody has an illustration of this proposal for a variance. MR. CHAIRMAN: You want to tell us anything about it, or do you want us just to start asking you some questions? MR. DEMPSTER: Well, I -- we are requesting a variance on this signage. Mr. Meizel, Ron Meizel, has offered -- he's -- he would like to improve the look of the building. He hired us to come out and take a look at it. He actually initially wanted to put up two or three signs, and I came out to the location and I looked at it and I go well, if this would fit into the TCI format -- which it does. I believe Allen Amolsch called our office today and explained that they -- it did pass their approval, so there is a letter. I don't know if you have it, Sarah. There is some -- there is a positive on that. And this way it -- by having the sign projecting like this, it becomes part of the TCI, the Town Center area. It's very attractive. He'll put a new brick facade on the front. And it will
look really great with the goose neck lamps, and he's ready to go forward with this. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thanks. There were 11 notices; no objections, no approvals. Anyone in the audience? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Seeing no hands, Building Department? MR. SAVEN: Just as the gentleman had indicated, the Town Center committee looked at this sign, which is a committee of one, I believe, and didn't have a problem with that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members? MEMBER REINKE: It's really a small, non-intrusive sign. I think it's esthetically nice, and it's going to be nice for what they're planning on doing with the facade on the building. I think it would look very good and I support the petitioner's request. MR. CHAIRMAN: Tell your client we were all pleased. MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Chairman, may I make a motion? MR. CHAIRMAN: Please.
MEMBER SANGHVI: In Case Number 02-073, we grant the petitioner's request for the sign as requested in their application. We'd also like to note the design -- note the niceness of the design as well as the very esthetic appearance of the front of the building also. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: We've got a motion and a second. Any discussion? (No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah? MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, you've got your
variance. See the building Department? MR. DEMPSTER: Thank you. Have a great evening. MR. CHAIRMAN: You too. CASE NUMBER 02-074 MR. CHAIRMAN: Next case is 02-074 filed by Greg Hudas representing Regency Center. He's got a marketing sign on the -- at the entranceway to Regency Center on Haggerty and is looking for an extension. Raise your 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. HUDAS: I do. My name is Greg Hudas. I work for Signature Associates, and I represent Ferlito Construction, which is the developer of the Regency Center light industrial project off of Haggerty Road. And we were granted a sign variance for a four foot by eight foot marketing sign in July of last year, and we are requesting a one-year extension on that, for one more year, to continue
marketing the property. It's a great tool for our company to expose the property to prospective tenants, and we would ask, with only seventy feet of Haggerty frontage, that we be allowed to keep that sign for one more year. MR. CHAIRMAN: Seventeen notices; no approvals, no objections. Anyone in the audience? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Building Department? MR. SAVEN: No comment, sir, no problem. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll just ask the quick question, because I reviewed the minutes from the last time. What's your rented out or leased out -- MR. HUDAS: We have two buildings up. We just finished the lease with Underwriters Laboratories for a 25,000 square foot building, a ten year lease actually, so a long-term tenant there, good quality tenant. The buildings that Mr. Ferlito has built so far are gorgeous additions to the park, and we've got two -- Coastal and Underwriters
Laboratories, two good, long-term tenants there, and we're about to go in for site plan approval for two more buildings. MR. CHAIRMAN: And at that point, if you have five, what are you, thirty percent, forty percent? MR. HUDAS: Yeah. Well, it's a 30 acre park, and it would depend, you know, obviously, on -- right now we're going to build another -- probably a 28 and a 22, some variance of the 50,000 square feet. And, you know, there's still an opportunity to get a larger user in there, somewhere in the 50 to 75,000 square foot range. But right now I think we like the look of the park with 20 to 30,000 square foot, kind of class A type light industrial users, which is what we've got so far. MR. CHAIRMAN: And the total square footage, according to the minutes, was 350,000, so- MR. HUDAS: (Interposing) Yeah. MR. CHAIRMAN: -if my math is right here, even if you get the next two tenants here, you're about thirty percent? MR. HUDAS: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MEMBER SANGHVI: Question. Under the current economic condition, you really anticipate that will be filled up in one year? MR. HUDAS: Well, the real estate market has been terrible, obviously, for the last twelve to eighteen months, so the fact that we were able to secure Underwriters Laboratories for a ten-year lease is a real bonus for that park, and obviously we're going to continue marketing it very aggressively, and hopefully things will soften up over the next few months and we'll be able to fill those two units at some point during the 2003 year. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members? MEMBER SANGHVI: I was just going to suggest between two years or later, or as required so that you don't come back next July. MR. HUDAS: Yeah. That would be wonderful. That would be wonderful. MEMBER REINKE: Question to Mr. Saven. Can we go longer than advertised? MR. SAVEN: Mr. Schultz? MR. SCHULTZ: I would say no. MEMBER REINKE: Okay.
MEMBER SANGHVI: I tried. MR. HUDAS: You tried. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Let's move along here. I think we've got a- MEMBER REINKE: (Interposing) Mr. Chairman, in the Case 02-074, I move that petitioner's variance request be granted to assist in marketing and building out the location. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have overwhelming seconds. Any discussion on the motion? (No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah? MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi?
MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: You have your one-year variance extension. MR. HUDAS: Thank you very much. CASE NUMBER 02-075 MR. CHAIRMAN: Next case is 02-075. This is Shemin Nurseries, Beck and 96. Sir, are you an attorney? MR. RATTNER: I'm an attorney, sir. My name is Rick Rattner. Rick Rassel was with me. He's my associate. My name is Rick Rattner. I'm at 380 North Old Woodward in Birmingham. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. MR. RATTNER: May it please the Board, I represent Shemin Nursery. With me tonight is Mr. John Standish, who is the general manager of the Michigan division of Shemin Nursery which operates approximately 31 locations in the northeast, southeast, and the midwest, started business in about 1955, and has been a member of this community by lease on this property since about 1990 -- December 1st, 1998.
We are asking tonight simply that the variance that was granted in 19 -- March of 1999, which allowed us to continue the use of the landscape business at that location, that the temporary nature of that be removed. Actually, we have a two-tiered request. Since this property was purchased by Mr. Vidosh before us, it's our understanding it was used by Mr. Vidosh in his business, and we took over in 1999 -- actually, December of 1998. This business of landscaping and supplying, not retail but supplying institutions, cities, we supply developers, we also supply landscape contractors, so it's a wholesale business and has been operating this way for quite a while. Sometime in the late 1980s, about 1987, actually just before that, the property was rezoned from I-2 to I-1, and then the Michigan Department of Transportation expressed interest and alerted the various powers that be that they were thinking of condemning that property, or parts of that property, although the exact plans were not known. These plans have been going on in one form or another, we understand, since 1987.
And again, in 1999 when Mr. Vidosh came in and Shemin Nurseries came in again for a variance, it appeared that the -- MDOT was going to condemn the property, and it appeared it was going to be eminent at that time. That has not happened now. Our latest indication from MDOT is not certain either. We don't know what they're going to do. If I were to stand here and tell you something, I just -- I couldn't do that because I don't know. We think they're going to do something, but we don't know what they're going to do. So we would ask, first of all, since this has been operated -- since it was I-2 and going through the different iterations of zoning from I-2 to I-1 and now OST, as basically a landscape business, wholesale landscape business, we'd ask that this Board declare that the use that we have going on now, and that Mr. Vidosh had, was a legal nonconforming use, and that actually a variance in itself is not needed, that it is a variance-free situation because of the legal non-conformity of the use.
Secondly, if you will, the second alternative would be, if this Board does not feel that they can make that declaration, we would ask that the temporary nature of the zoning variance be removed so that we can continue to operate there as we have and has been operated there before us for several years. We have -- we are leasing the property, and we have since December 1st of 1998. We would like to, I would say, at least stay through our lease so that we can continue the operations as indicated in our -- or intended in the lease. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Nine notices. Couple of your neighbors give you support, Kicks Up Raidplents (ph), and Mark Wingblah. Anybody in the audience? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Building Department? MR. SAVEN: Basically, if you go to the writeup, the nursery does not propose a single change to its existing operations. There will be no enlargement, extension, expansion, movement, reconstruction or alteration of any use or
structure on the property. Is that correct? MR. RATTNER: That is correct. MR. SAVEN: One of the things that we talked about in the previous minutes -- or the motion was a fact MDOT was a major decision as to this project, and I -- although the gentleman had indicated that you are not sure what the plans are, I was able to acquire a set of plans that went back to February of this past year, but I haven't seen anything else come by since that time indicating what the intersection is going to look like. And you're more than welcome to take a look at this. MR. RATTNER: I might say that we also did that inquiry. We had certain plans, but I believe we were told that the plans were not certain. MR. CHAIRMAN: I have -- maybe it's a simple question. What's your objection to the continuing jurisdiction when the future still is unknown? I mean, that's why we put it on there to begin with, because we didn't know what MDOT's plans were. MR. RATTNER: The continuing jurisdiction issue has to do with the fact that we
would like to be able to have the Board declare that it's a legal nonconforming use. If there is a temporary nature to the variance, which we hope there isn't, but that we could maybe stay at least through our lease. Seeing as we don't know what MDOT's going to do, I can understand the continuing jurisdiction of this Board. MR. CHAIRMAN: Tom, help he out here. MR. SCHULTZ: This is a real procedural mess, this case. Some of the things that you have in the attachment that Don gave that weren't in the applicant's packet I think are the most helpful. I guess the way I kind of look at this is, in 1982 when they were zoned -- rezoned from I-2 to I-1, and outside storage became an issue, there was some existing use of the property for outside storage. In 1987 they came in, first to Planning Commission, which denied their plan to expand their use, and then ultimately to this Board, and got a one-year variance to continue the outside storage. The City had cited them for going
beyond what was a small nonconforming area of outside storage, and then somehow the thing sort of fell off the table and never came back for the yearly variances as was contemplated by the ZBA and have kind of grown into this large thing. And then they came back more recently, in the '90s, kind of acknowledging that they -- in my opinion, that they're not as clearly a nonconforming use in their current state and got some more variances passed. So I guess Mr. Rattner's pointed out, their first request is we just want to be called a nonconforming use and be told to go on our way and you guys have no more jurisdiction, and I'm a little concerned about that with the history. The second half of what they're asking is, if you don't do that, don't make us come back here -- don't tell us we're temporary to some nebulous time frame. We want to at least be out to the year 2010. I guess I kind of look at this as a policy question on the part of the Board. What is it that -- it may be hard to do, just looking at the record here. Why is it that they were allowed
to stay for all these years by the Board during those variances, and what is it that they're really trying to accomplish; what is MDOT going to do that's going to affect their business? MDOT may make Beck inaccessible to them. They still have other access to the property off of a different area of Beck Road, and they want to keep this use up, potentially forever. I mean, they only have a lease to 2010, but they just want to keep going with this. I guess the Board needs to decide what it expects to happen on this property long-term and deal with the variance that way. So the first question is not are they nonconforming, they're not. The first question is what is it that you expect to see long-term on this property as the Board? Based on the history and the past representations, once you decide that, then maybe we can jump into how you accomplish that. MEMBER SANGHVI: No. I'm just wondering, would it be fair to continue the variance until such time as we hear from MDOT about what is going to happen to their area?
MR. SCHULTZ: That's one option. That's essentially what's happened in the last couple of- MEMBER SANGHVI: (Interposing) One year and every year coming back, going back and forth. We just tie it down to the timetable of MDOT so that we all are ignorant at the moment what's going on. By doing so, I think you won't have to come back here every year, and also the other side of the story that we are both ignorant what's going to happen and -- but we are all in the same boat and we want to do the best that's going to happen for this business, and maybe this is a reasonable way out. I'm just putting the proposal for the Board to discuss, if you want to go this route. MEMBER BAUER: Don, is there a limit on that? MR. SAVEN: It's up to the Board. MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, going back to history with this property and usage, I think ever since Shemin took over we haven't had a problem. We had problems with the previous business that was operating there in conjunction
with that. I really don't have any problem in making it a viable nonconforming use. We just maintain continuing jurisdiction over it to give us a lever if we need it and not necessarily having to come back before this Board. MR. SCHULTZ: I guess my -- if I may, Mr. Chair, my concern with that is I'm not necessarily sure what the phrase continuing jurisdiction means. It is kind of a legal phrase. It's not some kind of term of art that I can put a definition to, so it's something you would have to further define in your approval. The second thing is, I think if the Board is interested in going down that route, then we still need some sort of time frame as a reference I think here, unless it's to be open-ended with an explanation of what that continuing jurisdiction is all about. How is it that they would cease operation as a nonconforming use if it's not -- if it's not when MDOT chooses, or it's not a term of years. There's got to be a statement as to what will cause that nonconforming use to stop, and so
that kind of definition needs to be considered when you're- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) So we're talking about -- like if they decide to cease doing business, number one, or MDOT takes their property in the taking? MEMBER REINKE: Well, there's a couple ways we can approach that. We can make the variance to the current occupant only. If MDOT decides that they need the property for their road, interchange or whatever, that's going to take care of it right there at that point. MR. SCHULTZ: I think it's unlikely -- not unlikely. I think it's a good chance that MDOT will not take all that property. They may deprive them of some frontage -- some access along the frontage on Beck, but that use, even after MDOT's done and has built that intersection, there's going to be that property there, there's going to be access to it, and somebody may well want to use it, whether it's this proponent or someone else. MEMBER REINKE: But I think in the past we have restricted usage to a particular
business or occupant. MR. SCHULTZ: I think that's an option in part because Mr. Rattner alluded to that when he said at the very least we want to go through the term of our lease, so I think that's an option. MEMBER REINKE: Or the term could be to the extent of the length of their lease. So we have a lot of different options that can be approached there. I guess I kind of like the term of the lease myself. MR. SAVEN: That's 2010; is that correct? MR. RATTNER: That is correct. We have options until 2010. MR. SAVEN: Okay. So let the Board be aware of it. MEMBER GRAY: So if it's 2010 and MDOT comes in sooner, it's going to be, you know- MEMBER REINKE: (Interposing) Well -- MR. SAVEN: Not necessarily. MR. SCHULTZ: Not necessarily. MEMBER REINKE: But the 2010 is
giving them the length of their lease plus it's giving us a termination or a review point, which is the kind of approach, I guess, in this general discussion that I like myself. MR. SCHULTZ: One reason why I think -- even though it's a little unusual to put a term of years on it and relate it to a particular lease, if you go back in this record, what the City has done, both at the Planning Commission and the ZBA, was take their representation that MDOT is going to affect our business and we're not going to be here forever and we've let them continue. So this is really just kind of a continuation of that with a formal ending period. MR. CHAIRMAN: I see nodding heads here, and a lot of nodding heads here. Let's try a variance and let's have some discussion so we're more comfortable. Want to give it a try, Laverne? MEMBER REINKE: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, in Case 02-075, I move that petitioner's request for a variance be granted to the length of the term of their current lease, which expires in 2010, to conduct the existing business as it's been an
ongoing operation. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. There's a motion, there is a second. Is there any discussion? Tom, are you comfortable with how that- MR. SCHULTZ: (Interposing) I'm comfortable with that. MR. CHAIRMAN: You've got a question now? MR. RATTNER: Yes. I hope I'm not out of order, Mr. Chairman. That lease is until 2010, but I did say it was options until 2010, so you know that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do we need to read that back for you because you were talking? MR. RATTNER: No. I'm comfortable with it. Maybe I should hear it again. I'm sorry. Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Can you read that back. (The motion was read back to the petitioner.)
MR. RATTNER: Thank you very much, except for the -- just to the clarification, the option, that's fine. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's part of it. We have a motion, we have a second, we've had discussion. Sarah, call the vote, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. RATTNER: Thank you very much for your consideration.
CASE NUMBER 02-076 MR. CHAIRMAN: Is case 02-076, Tomco Fabricating, are they here? MR. SAVEN: They will not show up tonight. We received notification. Basically, are we going to bring them on next month, Tom, Tomco? MR. SCHULTZ: I have no problem with it occurring next month. MR. SAVEN: We have been challenged through the petitioning for the variance -- or the granting of the -- not granting but the application for the variance. They feel -- they felt indifferent to how it was sent out. I have had communications with our ordinance division regarding this matter, and we are correct in how we did this; and, therefore, they opted not to show up tonight because they're going to be out of town and not able to make it, so they asked to postpone it to the next meeting. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We will recall case number one, 02-061 filed by SR Jacobson. Are they here tonight? Okay. This is-
MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) Mr. Chairman, if I may, so that we can help reduce the -- our agenda item for the next -- following month, what this is is dealing with fences that are attached from model to model. It's kind of like a direction for people to be able to walk in a particular area. This was part of a violation that was sent to them. It would be good if we could act on it. If it was favorable tonight, if we feel it's favorable tonight, we should give them the opportunity to come back and petition. But like I said, this is dealing with models and directing traffic. MR. CHAIRMAN: I read the case. Why aren't they here? You didn't hear from them, Sarah? MS. MARCHIONI: I left a message for them last night. I don't know. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, Mr. Saven, if you want them back on next month's agenda, we can take that recommendation. I'd like to hear from the Board. I know in the past when we have not heard from an applicant, they don't show, they can
refile. Mr. Harrington had a legal word for that. What was that? He said doesn't show, toss it out. MR. SAVEN: It's your call. I was looking at it from the standpoint of a few of our agendas being very heavy for the next following months. MEMBER REINKE: Well, I think this is going to be a short -- it's not a lengthy case that we're going to deal with, and I agree with Mr. Chairman, that I would like to see the applicant here. MR. SAVEN: Very well. Tom, does this do anything for the- MR. SCHULTZ: (Interposing) Not that I'm aware of. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. We have made it through. Any other matters? MR. SAVEN: Yes, sir. I have been asked to discuss this issue with the Board. Scott Shuptrine received variances for two signs, what I can recall. I'm just asking now, it was our understanding they were going to take down one sign and -- so that they could put up the main sign at the entrance.
Well, they took that one sign that they took down and put it on another end, which Allen was looking for clarification from the Board, do they remember possibly that they did not do this and allowed the three signs to go up. I'm under the impression we were taking down- MEMBER BAUER: (Interposing) Taking down the one and moving it on the other side. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Because of the tree issue. MS. MARCHIONI: Yeah. The minutes are, quote, Mr. Saven, one will be taken down, correct. And the applicant said correct. MR. SAVEN: I just wanted to verify there was no problem in that area. MEMBER SANGHVI: No ambiguity about it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anything else? (Unrelated discussion held.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Next month's meeting is September 10th. MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Brennan? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Saven, what is the status with our friend, Mr. Coon, on West Lake? MEMBER SAVEN: I will let Sarah discuss this issue with you. MEMBER GRAY: We were told last month -- we were encouraging him to come back. MS. MARCHIONI: Okay. He's saying that there was a new survey taken for one of his neighbors and that his setbacks have changed, the surveys that he submitted to you are different, his variance request will be different. He came to me, I think a week or two after the cutoff date. We already had a full agenda. I had already bumped him off because I hadn't heard from him. So he's supposedly coming next month. MEMBER GRAY: Can you encourage him to come next month? MS. MARCHIONI: I send him letters and I will do so. MEMBER GRAY: Tell him we miss his smiling face. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. This meeting is adjourned.
(The meeting was adjourned at 10:07 p.m.) - - - Date approved: November 4, 2002 __________________________ Sarah Marchioni Recording Secretary C E R T I F I C A T E 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 149 typewritten pages, is a true and correct transcript of my said stenograph notes to the best of my ability.
________________________________ Cheryl L. James, CSR-5786 ____________ Date
|