View Agenda for this meeting
View Action Summary for this meeting

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2002 -- 7:30 P.M.

Proceedings had and testimony taken in the matters of ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS at City of Novi, 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, on Tuesday, October 1, 2002.

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

Don Saven, Building Department
Thomas Schultz, city attorney
Sarah Marchioni, Building Department

Cheryl L. James, Certified Shorthand Reporter

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen,

I think we can go ahead and get through some of the

early stuff of this meeting.

Sarah, you want to call the roll?

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi?


MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We do have a

quorum, and so this meeting is now in session.

Ladies and gentlemen, we do publish

on the front page of this yellow document rules of

conduct, and I would encourage you to read that and

abide by it. Thank you.

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 six members present, so any decisions tonight

will be final.

Sarah, give me an update on the

agenda. I thought we had some cancellations.

MS. MARCHIONI: We did. Case Number

02-087 will be tabled to the November meeting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And that was, on the

agenda, number what?

MS. MARCHIONI: Number four.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Number four, okay.

MS. MARCHIONI: Number three also

tabled to November 4 for the Novi Party Store,


MR. CHAIRMAN: All right.

MS. MARCHIONI: And I think that's



MS. MARCHIONI: (Interposing) Oh.

305 Guana (ph) last month also got tabled to



MR. CHAIRMAN: Which one?

MS. MARCHIONI: 305 Guana. That was

before the agenda was published.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So it's not on this



MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. So number three

and number four is tabled.

Any other changes?

(No response.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Move for approval as

submitted. All those in favor, say aye.

(Vote taken.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Minutes, we do not

have any minutes to review this evening.

Public remarks. This is a time of

the night that if you have something to present to

the Board, do it now, but if it relates to a

specific case, hold your thoughts until that case

is called. Okay. Anybody want to read us the riot

at this is time?

(No response.)



MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. We will

call the first case, because it is 7:30. Case

02-076 filed by Don Henry of Tomco Fabricating.

Are they here?

(No response.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. I'll tell

you what. We will -- we won't dismiss this. We'll

hold it and we'll call it a little bit later, but

we call the next case, 02-080, filed by

April Scott.


MR. CHAIRMAN: April, as I recall,

has got a piece of property that her mother or

grandmother wants to build a house on, and she had

some problems with the neighbors, and maybe you can

tell us how you got everything all resolved.

I'll add that your testimony --

you're still under oath, okay?

MS. SCOTT: Okay. Did you want me to

kind of go through everything that I went through

last time, since it-

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing)



MS. SCOTT: -because it wasn't part

of the meeting?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No. I want you -- I

would like -- I would prefer you to just give us an

update as to what's transpired since last time.

MS. SCOTT: Okay. Basically what we

were requested to do is go and stake out the

property, which we have done. It was also

suggested that we talk to the neighbors; however, I

only had a chance to talk to a few, wasn't able to

talk to very many, and provided the information

that I received.

At this time am I able to rebuttal

any of their remarks from the objections?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I haven't gotten

that far yet. I want you to keep telling us what

progress you made, if any.

MS. SCOTT: That's pretty much it as

far as progress.

I've done some studying up on some of

the objections, so that's why I was-

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) But

basically what you presented with respect to the


house and if placement-

MS. SCOTT: (Interposing) Oh, excuse

me. Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Did that change?

MS. SCOTT: I did change the

dimensions. You should have new drawings.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Tell us what's


MS. SCOTT: Can everyone make that

out? Okay. The changes that were made is -- one

of the neighbors had that this 113, I had that it

was 114 based on an old survey.

And this variance right here is no

longer needed, so what I'm actually requesting is a

14.25 variance in the rear, which would be right

here. This would be the shortest point. And 14

feet in the front, and that would be the only

variances that we would be indicating right here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. So we've got a

modified footprint of where this house is desired

to be placed?


MR. CHAIRMAN: And let me back up a

second. You said you didn't have a chance to talk


to the neighbors or-

MS. SCOTT: (Interposing) That's

correct. I had spoken with a few previously, but I

didn't get a chance to talk to very many others.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I think we'll

get a chance to talk to them tonight.

MS. SCOTT: I'm welcoming that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Good. At this point,

there were 31 notices sent to adjoining property

owners, there were 22 objections.

Does anyone in the audience wish to

address the Board regarding this case?

If there's more than a couple, would

you please line up so we can expedite matters?

Thank you.

Give us your name and address, sir.

MR. POSTMA: Chris Postma, 905 Lamay.

I'm just here -- you have a sheet of 18 signatures.

It's probably the substantial part of that 22, and

I'm pretty much here to represent the people, just

saying at this point they're be crowding small

manufactured home on a really small lot, and those

of us back there that are improving our properties,

we're spending money, we're spending our time and


they're going to come in and do this and we're all

going to loose. I know my house is going to be

devalued from it, and I know probably another 50 or

60 percent of the houses in that neighborhood are

going to go down because of it. Okay?

We went around, we talked, everybody

talked together, and just nobody can understand why

you'd wanted to jam a manufactured home with those

dimensions onto that property.

That's about it. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: For the record, while

we had 22 written objections, there was also a

transcript hear that I'll read. This letter is

written in regards to the requested variances for

lot 70 and 71 in Idlemere Park subdivision. That's

the homeowner that's near the property in question

would strongly object to the zoning variances. Lot

70 and 71 combined are tiny and irregular.

Building on the site would be nothing but crowd a

small manufactured house next to the existing

homes, leaving almost zero side yard setback and no

room for parking.

The area is steadily improving. This

substantial decrease in the property values would


pass through the years.

Placement of a manufactured home on

this lot would do nothing but cause generalized

property devaluation for the area, and that is

signed by 18 homeowners.

Next up, sir.

MR. GRAVES: My name is

Mike Graves. I live at 903 Lamay. And other than

reiterating what Chris Postma just said, we really

don't object to something being built on that

property; however, the big problem we have is the

devaluation of the property or the structure

itself, and if she was willing to consider a more

-- a nicer type of structure, we wouldn't have such

an objection to it, but we're mainly afraid that

it's going to devaluate our properties. And we

have nothing to gain by that property sitting

empty, so it's -- we have nothing against her and

we have nothing against something being built

there. We just want something that's going to

enhance the property and not devaluate it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Next,


MR. JOSEPHSON: Richard Josephson at


163 Maudlin, adjoining property. I pretty much

feel the same as these people here. If she wanted

to build a stick built house there it would be no

problem. Moving a mobile home in there or a

modular home, or whatever -- and I got the most --

she'd be crowding me the most of any of those

people. I'm right next to it. Her driveway would

go ten feet from my bedroom, so --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thanks.

MR. RUSSELL: My name is

Randy Russell. I was here the last time. I'm a

realtor, I'm a property owner in the city of Novi.

All of you saw what that manufactured

home looked like. It was beautiful. It is far

nicer than many of the homes that are in there. It

will increase the value. I can attest to that.

These people are not realtors. I can. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else in the


(No response.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. You'll get

your chance for discussion.

MS. SCOTT: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Building Department?


MR. SAVEN: Just to bring to the

Board's attention, basically recapping what was

done over the last month was the fact that the

amount of variances have been reduced. This is an

unusual piece of property.

The point of whether or not this is a

mobile home or a manufactured home, there's case

law and case study in regards to mobile homes and

manufactured homes on private property. This could

be attested to by our city attorney.

What's before us today, I think you

should be taking a look at the request for

variances that are before you tonight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like your

input. Thank you.

MR. SCHULTZ: I think, just to, I

guess, to emphasize what Mr. Saven said, this is a

case where you need to be careful to look at the

footprint of the building, the requested variances

from the side and front yard setbacks.

Mr. Saven is absolutely correct,

that good, bad or indifferent, the law in the State

of Michigan is that that manufactured house is not

to be discriminated against by virtue of the fact


that it's a manufactured home rather than a

stick-built home.

And as you consider this, look at the

drawing, look at the setbacks, evaluate it that

way, not based on the quality of the housing, which

will be an issue -- if you were to grant the relief

would be an issue for the Building Department to

worry about when they come to put the structure on

the property.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As I understand it,

and I'm very clear on your guides here, we have

before us a request for two variances on setbacks.

That's what we're dealing with.

The petitioner is obligated to meet

all of the Building Department's requirements with

respect to foundation, with respect to everything

to make this look like, feel like, quack, and talk

like, walk like a regular home, and that debate's

not in front of us. What is in front of us is an

issue of setbacks.

And I'll open it up the questions

from the board members.

MEMBER REINKE: Well, I guess the

comment I make is you have an odd sized lot, and no


matter what is put on there it's going to be a

difficult situation, but I think they have to show

me a little more creativity than just to say that

there's one size can fit the lot.


MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Sarah.

MEMBER GRAY: If I may, I'm glad to

see that your request for variances on the north

has been decreased, has been eliminated. I still

have a problem with the variances you are


I've driven by. I live three houses

away. I've driven by four our five times. I've

seen how you staked it out.

On the original plat that we were

given, Mr. and Mrs. Wesland's garage is less than

five feet from the property line. That's been

existing for many, many years.

Rich, how far is your house off the

property line to the north, two feet maybe?

MR. JOSEPHSON: Very close.

MEMBER GRAY: Very close to two feet

off the property line?

I firmly believe that you have a


right to build here, and putting in a foundation

and bringing in a manufactured home I really don't

think is the best way to accomplish what you're

trying to. I realize that it may be more

economical to do it that way.

What you're also proposing, what some

of the neighbors may not realize, is that you are

also proposing to build a carport. That's going to

require more setbacks.

MS. SCOTT: No. Actually, we're not

requiring the carport.

MEMBER GRAY: You mentioned it last


MS. SCOTT: I mentioned that we were

looking at possibly building a garage.


MS. SCOTT: But then we -- because

you indicated that a variance would also have to be

requested. I struck -- basically I struck that


MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) I firmly

believe that this lot is buildable, that when you

look at any of the small lots in the north end of

the city that were platted in the teens and 20s


that are 30, 35, 40 foot in width and very shallow

in depth in some cases, as is this one, that you

have to be creative and you have to look outside

the envelope.

If I was looking at this to purchase

to build, I would build a garage and build over the

garage. That's just one way of accomplishing that


I really don't think, that with the

variances you are requesting -- I think they're

excessive for this type of a use.

Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Other comments?

(No response.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll plug in my two




MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Chairman, can

I ask Mr. Reinke to expound a little more on his

previous statement? I only caught part of what he

said, I apologize, but if you could explain a

little bit-

MEMBER REINKE: (Interposing) What I


said is that it's an odd shaped lot. It -- as I

agree with what Miss Gray said, I believe it's a

buildable lot, but I think in those kind of things

we have to be even more creative, and you aren't

going to bring in a conventional size building, as

they're proposing, and have it really fit on that

lot without having a lot of problems.

We've had homes that have been built

on small lots. They haven't been a perfect

rectangle or anything for what they've built, but

they've been able to build and they've been nice

substantial homes.

And I think this kind of lot is going

to warrant that type of situation rather than just

bring a box in and set it on the lot.


MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, personally, I'm

still troubled by the number of to-be neighbors

that have an objection to this; although, I will,

again, point out we're not going to deal with the

issue whether this is a manufactured home or not.

That's not on our plate. The issue is setbacks and

whether a manufactured home or a stick house or a

log cabin could be made and built on this lot with


less or least variance needs as that -- is my


April, at some point in time you said

you wanted to comment with respect to the neighbors


MS. SCOTT: (Interposing) Yeah,

actually, I did. Is that my chance, my invitation?

Okay. I appreciate that.

A lot of the neighbors were concerned

about the size of the lot, and based on the

restrictions -- some of the neighbors weren't here

in the last meeting, so I just would like to

reiterate that the home on the piece of property

would justify or cover 19 percent of the piece of

property when the limitations are a maximum of 25

percent, so I am well within the restrictions in

that means.

And, also, I did take some pictures

along the street of the neighboring houses for --

to show you conformity, if -- those of you aren't

familiar with neighborhood, just to kind of give a

few examples. I didn't label these as I was doing

them, but I think I can go through most of them.

This is heading, I guess it would be


westbound on Maudlin from South Lake Drive. And

this is continuing on, just kind of showing how

close the houses actually are for the variances.

I know that some are grandfathered


This is continuing on. This is the

neighboring house to the piece of property. I

can't -- this is Maudlin and Lamay. And this is on

Eubank. And I think this is also on Eubank. Oh,

sorry. This one -- these two are on Eubank and --

sorry. My printer kind of messed up on that one.

But I think that one also is Eubank, just to kind

of give a generalization of the area.

I also have some information in

reference to -- we're not focusing on that, so I

won't do that.

Just in note to a couple of -- in

speaking with a few of the neighbors, they had

mentioned that the owner had offered them the piece

of property to purchase a while back; however,

based on the price they didn't want to go with that

offer, so this home -- or this piece of property is

available to anyone who's willing to pay the price,

provided that the variance is allowed.


And I know that it is a small lot and

we can try and get a little creative with our

variances provided as far as, you know, rotating

the home, but our budget does not hold for other

means, so --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. That was kind

of the direction that I was going to lead you,

whether things can be done by twisting and moving

this, but I won't get into that.

We have before us a request for

variance, and if there are other comments,

questions by board members?

MEMBER SANGHVI: I just would like to

make one comment, Mr. Chairman. What is before us

is a very tricky situation. Neighbors don't like

the kind of house that's going up, and,

unfortunately, that is -- the type of house is

beyond the terms of our domain. We can only decide

whether this kind of variance can be granted or

not, and with that being made very clear by the

city attorney, I know and you know that there are

lots of houses with this kind of variances in the

area, and just strictly on that basis I would have

a great deal of difficulty denying the variance


from the applicant.

Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Well, with that

said, we'll listen to a motion, if there is, and

we'll get a feel for how the board sits.

MEMBER SANGHVI: All right. I will

make a motion that in Case Number 02-080 the

applicant's request for variance be granted because

of the odd shape of the lot.


MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we have a motion

and a second. Any discussion on the motion?


Mr. Chairman, I can't support the motion because I

believe that it's a buildable lot. I think that to

say only one size home -- that size home can fit on

that lot and be done with less intrusive variances

I think is a very good possibility. I can't

support the motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll expand on

Laverne's comments. The petitioner has suggested

that this is the only house that she can build on

this, and part of that is due to financial

restrictions, and this Board -- this ZBA Board


cannot include financial hardship as a condition

for a ZBA variance; is that correct?


Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We have comment

and we have a motion.

Sarah, you want to call the roll and

see how we sit?

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?


MR. CHAIRMAN: What did that end up,


MS. MARCHIONI: Three/three.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Further


discussion is needed.

MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Chair, I feel that

the applicant has not demonstrated that this house,

or any other house, cannot be built with less

variances as requested, and for that reason I could

not support the last motion.

Again, there has to be some meeting

of the minds somewhere along here. Irrespective of

the type of house that's being proposed, I fully

acknowledge that a manufactured home can, in fact,

look like a stick built home. I just don't think

that this particular size is the best for this

particular lot, and will stick to that point of


Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Other comment

by the Board?

(No response.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: I personally don't

believe that we've seen enough examples of options

of different configurations of placing the house.

I think that we should have asked, and I'll ask

right now, the petitioner to consider looking at

other options for a prefab house that gives a


footprint that is less-

MS. SCOTT: (Interposing) May I make

a comment to that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: As soon as I'm done


MS. SCOTT: Excuse me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll go back to my

comment that this is new construction, this is

brand-new construction.


MR. CHAIRMAN: And because this

particular applicant doesn't want to build a stick

house that may enable her to place it positioned so

that it has minimal incurs (ph) into the setbacks,

I don't think that that's a reason for us to grant

a variance.

It's been in her -- it's been her

position that she has a particular house that she

wants to buy and slap on this lot, and to do so

requires the variances. Well, I don't think that

that's within our scope, and certainly isn't

representative of a hardship.


MS. SCOTT: I currently own the home


that I'm trying to get out of a park, and I've been

trying to get out of a park for about four years,

so -- it's a brand-new home that was put in a park

with the intentions of moving it but couldn't find

a piece of property close enough to my family, so I

had -- was given an option to move into my

grandfather's home and take care of it while he

moves up north, and my mom is in an apartment and

she has decided that she wants to get out of the

apartment so she can basically get by on

retirement, but can't do so in an apartment, and

this means would be of assistance to her. So I

offered to sell her my home provided we find some

property in the local area. She wanted to stay in

Novi, and that's what brought me here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. But you haven't

bought this property?

MS. SCOTT: That's correct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. So you could

still shop for property?

MS. SCOTT: We've been shopping for

four years. But, yes, we could still shop.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right.

MEMBER REINKE: Well, I -- to buy


this piece of property, you're creating your own

hardship because of the amount of variances that

would be required, and the thing is it's

perpetuating a problem that's there right now.

The problem that's there right now,

it's an older area, the homes are built too close

to the roads, and for the size lots and everything,

I think we have to very seriously look at variances

that are granted up there and -- not saying it

can't be built, but it really has to be very

creatively looked at.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We may still be

sitting on a tie vote, but I'll throw out another

option for you, because obviously the next motion

is going to be for denial, and I -- I hate to put

cases off. It just bugs the crap out of me, but

given you still got an issue with neighbors that

you have not been able to address or even talk to,

they're here tonight, they're here tonight, and I

bet that they'll spend 20 minutes with you out in

that atrium.

Do we have yesses out there?

MS. SCOTT: I've spoken with all of

them, but I can speak with them again.


MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I'm going to

give you an option, because I'm going to do one of

two things. I'm going to allow you to put this off

another month and see if you can work it out, or

I'm going to make a motion.

MEMBER REINKE: Well, if her house,

what she wants to put on there, is not going to

change, I think we're going against what we can

really deal with.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't know. I don't

know that, Laverne. I mean I -- we were very

specific that we ask the -- we asked the petitioner

to sit down and talk with the neighbors. Now, for

whatever reason, that didn't work out.


MR. CHAIRMAN: And that's been our

mode of operation for many years when we got this

problem with neighbors and building new or adding

on. Let the neighbors work it out, let them come

before us and have them nodding their heads. Well,

they're not nodding their heads.

MEMBER REINKE: Well, what I'm saying

is, that from my position, if the house size,

footprint, is not going to change, my support is


not going to change either.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Sorry to put

you on the spot, but that's what I'm going to have

to do.

MS. SCOTT: Well, if the neighbors

have to make a decision based on the laws, I mean

-- I've argued every point that there is to argue,

but they weren't part of the meetings, so -- I

mean, I can try and talk to them.

MEMBER GRAY: Well, if I may, what

you need to know is even though they may not have

been here for the meeting itself, this is


MS. SCOTT: This is?

MEMBER GRAY: Yep. So I'm sure many

of the neighbors are home watching right now, and

I'm sure some of the neighbors who are here tonight

possibly were home watching last month, so --

MS. SCOTT: Because, I mean, I've got

the pictures and everything of the home, but if

it's based on the size of the lot -- because from

all of the -- the petition and the objections,

everything comes down to it being a mobile home.

MEMBER GRAY: Not true.


MEMBER BAUER: Not true at all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's why you're in

front of us.


MS. SCOTT: (Interposing) Well,

other than the variance, excuse me.

MEMBER GRAY: I would venture to tell

you that the two neighbors whose properties are

adjacent, the Weslands and Mr. -- what's your last

name, Rich?

MR. JOSEPHSON: Josephson.

MEMBER GRAY: -- Josephson are in

opposition to this simply because of the setbacks,

and I think those are two of your biggest concerns

right there. It has nothing to do with it being a

manufactured home.

MS. SCOTT: Well, this is from -- a

quote from Mr. Wesland. Again, I most vehemently

object to this placement of a used mobile home in

my subdivision.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members, I'm

going to make a motion. I'll make a motion with

respect to Case Number 02-080 that petitioner's

request be denied due to no hardship created.



MR. CHAIRMAN: Discussion on the


MR. SCHULTZ: A little. You guys

make great findings before you make the motion and

then the motions are-

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) The

motions suck.

MR. SCHULTZ: All of the discussions

that you had and the comments you put on the


MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) Friendly

amendment, Mr. Brennan?


MEMBER GRAY: Friendly amendment?


MEMBER GRAY: That the petitioner has

not shown that she cannot build without less


MR. SCHULTZ: Incorporate your

previous comments from the record, and that's a

good motion, that's a motion that-

MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) That's

fine. That's my friendly amendment.


MR. CHAIRMAN: And I accept that.

MEMBER REINKE: And I support the

modified friendly motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Further discussion?

(No response)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, please call the


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi?


MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, April, but

maybe we -- maybe you can work it out another way

and we'll see you again.



MR. CHAIRMAN: We're going to call

the next case. This is 02-088. I think this is

CVS Warehouse. This is a sign case.

Sir, you want to give us your name

and be sworn by the secretary?

MR. HAWKINSON: Yeah. Hi. My name

is Jamie Hawkinson. I work for CVS Pharmacy

located at 43800 Genmar Drive.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you raise

your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm

that the information that you're about to give in

the matter before you is the truth?



MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Tell us what

you want to do.

MR. HAWKINSON: We are requesting

permission to change verbiage on the existing sign

that currently reads Arbor Commerce Park to read

CVS Distribution Center. The reason for our

request is to show that our business is located in

the park.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. There were


fifty notices sent; one approval, one objection.

And, sir, I can tell you you've got a pretty

irritated neighbor, and I'm going to let you deal

with that separately because I think you should.

Are you with the sign company or with


MR. HAWKINSON: No, I'm with CVS.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, good. I'm going

to fold this up and give it to you and you can come

get it after the -- after, okay.

MR. HAWKINSON: Sorry about that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Anybody in

the audience wish to make comment on this

particular case?

(No response.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Building Department?

MR. SAVEN: Only that this was a

previous approval under sign Case Number 1568,

which was in your packet, and basically describing

the approval which was granted before.

There's no change in the sign, just

the face of the sign; is that correct, sir?

MR. HAWKINSON: That's correct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is evidence and


pictures in the file for the viewing audience that

we're taking an existing sign and just slapping on

CVS over Arbor?

MR. HAWKINSON: That's correct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any board members

questions, comments?

MEMBER REINKE: I think really it

helps, too, for truck traffic going in and out

better identification so they know where they're

going, with the disruption and noise generated.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And it also makes

sense that it's no longer Arbor Drugs and it's CVS.

All right, Board Members, let's move



like to make a motion in Case Number 02-088,

Jamie Hawkinson of CVS and the CVS sign, being

changed from Arbor Commerce Park to CVS

Distribution Center be approved based on the fact

of the changing market and the operation of the

business changing its name.


MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We have a

motion and a second. Any discussion on that?


(No discussion.)


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi?


MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, sir. You

have your permit to change your sign.

Would you take a look at this and

give it to the boss or -- and maybe somebody can

call your neighbor and find out what her problems

are. It doesn't relate to the sign, but she's got

some other issues.

MR. HAWKINSON: No problem.


MR. HAWKINSON: All right. Thank




MR. CHAIRMAN: 02-089,

Nicholas Malles. You want to raise your hand and

be sworn?

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or

affirm that the information that you are about to

give in the matter before you is truth?



MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. You have the

floor. Tell us what you want to do.

MR. MALLES: I would like to build a

garage, but I'm on a small lot.

It's a thirty-five foot lot on

West Lake Drive, and I'm asking for a side yard

variance -- actually, north and the south, and a

combined, and also the lot coverage, which isn't

right but we can -- my lot's actually larger than

what you guys have it down as.

I'd like to build a twenty-four foot

deep by twenty-two foot wide garage. And to the

north it would be around six feet to the property


line; to the south it would be right around five

feet to the property line.

We got an existing shed there that

I'd like to remove.

I guess that's about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. If there's

questions, we'll get to them. All right. We had

thirty notices sent; no objections and one adamant

thata boy, let him go do it, from your neighbor,

Jeff Haiber. So you owe him a beer.

MR. MALLES: It's good to get along

with your neighbors.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's amazing what a

Labatts will do.

Anybody in the audience wish to

address the board on this case?

(No response.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Seeing none, Building


MR. SAVEN: Just point out the fact

this is a very narrow lot. There's not much you

can do with the property. Where he's placing the

shed, basically adheres to the numbers that were

presented before you.


Again, he is going to remove the


And I just got pretty stingy about

the amount of property that he has based upon the

information I had as far as the plot plan was

concerned. I used figures we had available to us

in computing the lot coverage, although he does

have more property to the high water tapering mark,

which wasn't shown on the plot plan.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So depending on the

weather, it's under water or dry.

MR. SAVEN: There you go.

MR. MALLES: It's dry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You've got lots of

property now.

All right. Board Members?

MEMBER REINKE: He's not -- I think

he's tried to do and fit it in as well as he

possibly could. He's not extending past any

existing side walls on the home. It's setting back

off West Lake Road, which is a problem we have with

a lot of garages up there. I think the

petitioner's done an excellent job with what he's

got to work with, and I can support the


petitioner's request.

MEMBER BAUER: I echo Laverne's --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's hear a motion.

MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, in Case

02-089, I move that petitioner's variance be

granted due to lot size and configuration.


MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and

second. Any discussion?

(No discussion.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, please.

MS. MARCHIONI: Are we going to

figure out the lot coverage?

MEMBER REINKE: It would be less than

what you see, what's there, so that wouldn't be a


MS. MARCHIONI: I'm sorry. Who

seconded that?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?



MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray.


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi?


MR. CHAIRMAN: Nick, you've got your

garage. See the Building Department.

MR. MALLES: Should I have asked for

a larger one? I'm just kidding.


MR. CHAIRMAN: Also up on the Lakes,

is the Heaths here? Come on down.

This is Case 02-090, and you have a

request for a number of variances to build an


MR. HEATH: That's correct. My name

is Doug Heath, 905 South Lake Drive.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you raise

your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm

that the information you're about to give in the

matter before you is the truth?


MR. HEATH: Yes, I do.


MR. HEATH: Go ahead.


MR. HEATH: Basically, if you looked

at the drawings here, we're requesting the addition

to the garage on the west side of the building.

What we tried to do is put it on the

land where we (inaudible). On the front side of

our lot there's some very mature trees, give us a

nice setting, so we really want to go forward of

the site of the mature trees.

Obviously, I can't go east because

there's only six feet to the east. And you look to

the rear, from the back side of our house, what you

see in the back side is actually the living space.

It's like a -- there's a stairway going upstairs,

there's a furnace room, a bathroom, and a bedroom,

so going back would be kind of going through the

middle of your house to try to get to the back side

of your living room.

It's about sixteen hundred square


The garage is -- actually, the


attached garage currently is basically finished on

the inside, so to really raise the floor and take

the garage doors off there will present a problem

on the side. It will work out very well for us.

It will fit very well for us. I've got a three-car

garage going on the side of the building.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Fifty-four

notices sent; one approval and no objections. And,

again, you have a buddy. Bonnie Sepula.

MR. HEATH: Yes. I've also got eight

of my neighbors to sign off and give dates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bring it down.

MR. HEATH: Of the adjoining


MR. CHAIRMAN: That's very helpful.

We'll read this in. I've reviewed the variances

proposed by Doug Heath and have no objections to

the new building. And there are a number of

people, eight. So in total there are nine


Building Department?


MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry. Was there

anybody in the audience that wanted to talk about


-- Building Department?

MR. SAVEN: The existing attached

garage is going to be converted?

MR. HEATH: That's correct. It's to

be made into living space. We want to open up the

kitchen, things like that, kind of open it up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members?

MEMBER SANGHVI: I've been to the

site, I've looked at the place. Very nice looking


MR. HEATH: Thank you.

MEMBER SANGHVI: And everything

maintained in a very neat and very clean manner. I

was quite impressed by the look of the property,

and I think this will give more living space. It's

a lot better to have a lot of living space then

move somewhere else to find the same thing, so I

can support his request.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I'll just point

out, as we've had a previous case tonight where

there were a room full of residents that were

objectionable, this gentleman's got nothing but

support by his neighbors, and that helps me in my



MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir.

MEMBER REINKE: I still got a problem

going out two foot from the lot line. I really got

a problem with that. We got a ninety-one foot lot

by a hundred six foot lot, and you got excessive

lot coverage. Going out to two foot on one side,

six foot on the other side, I got a real problem

with supporting that.


MEMBER GRAY: My initial reaction

when I saw this, and knowing the house and when it

was built, you know -- you're 54 foot back from the

road? My initial reaction is build it in front of

the existing garage.

MR. HEATH: That was our (inaudible)

but, again, backing up to mature trees.

MEMBER GRAY: And -- well -- and

sometimes, you know, you have to do that because

two foot from the property line is just -- it's

just too much. It's way too narrow. And you've

already picked up -- I mean, you've already picked

up five feet of the vacated bylaw core easement, so

that's an additional to your property from when it


was originally platted, and it's just too much.

It's --

MR. CHAIRMAN: If I'm to understand

this layout though, while this new garage is

projected to be two feet from the property line, it

would be twenty-one feet from the next-door


MR. HEATH: That's correct.

MEMBER REINKE: I can't support

utilizing the neighbor's space between that. No

justification for that.

MEMBER GRAY: And there's fences on

both property lines, so if there's a fire, I mean

how are the firemen going to get to the back of the

house? Squeeze through a two foot space?

And even our ordinance, if you put in

a driveway, requires three foot of soft, so -- from

the property line to the cement, so I just think

this is too much.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What was your problem,

sir, with putting the new garage in front of the

existing garage?

MR. HEATH: To be honest with you, it

came down to the mature trees and setting of the


house. That was it, to be basically honest with

you. We kind of want to keep that higher, if we

could. (Inaudible).

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Take it off the

new construction you're saying?

MR. HEATH: Yeah. You're saying I'm

two foot off the line now. If I put a ten-foot

door to get in and out, so maybe I'll take it off

the side. I'm not sure.

MR. SAVEN: How much of an elevation

change would you have from the -- it would be the

east property line -- I'm sorry, west property line

of your garage to your new garage?

How much of a change in elevation

would that be?

MR. HEATH: Actually, it would be the

same as the paved driveway right now.

MR. SAVEN: So there would be a

chance to narrow up the garage?

MR. HEATH: Yes, that's correct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You know, I don't want

to point you in a particular direction, but you've

heard a couple people make -- raise some

interesting questions, and fire protection was one


that I hadn't considered. If you needed to get

fire protection in the back of that house to snuff

out a problem early, there's no way to get back


MR. HEATH: That's valid.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have kids?

MR. HEATH: That's valid.


MR. HEATH: That's valid.

Most of the properties in this lake area, if you

look at most of them, just by law are the same

situation. I mean, they're-

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) And if

we can avoid creating -- do you want to take more

time to look at this?

MR. HEATH: Yes, that would be fine.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, do you

want to-

MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) Table it

for a month --

MR. CHAIRMAN: -table it.

MEMBER GRAY: -- and bring it back?

MEMBER REINKE: I totally agree with

that, because I think we have to -- to build


something out two foot from property line is

perpetuating and getting more of a problem than we

have there in existence today, and to promote that,

I just can't support that measure. I can maybe

work with something, but I can't work with two


MR. HEATH: Can I ask a question?


MR. HEATH: If I come up next time

with (inaudible), what would you like to see there?

If I came off four feet or two more feet or four

more feet, does that make a lot more sense than

what you're trying to accomplish, or-

MEMBER REINKE: (Interposing) I

don't want to say that because then I'm making a

decision for you. I'm saying is you've got enough

lot that you're going to have to be creative.

You're going to have to give it some thought and

not looking at, okay, this is the cheapest way I

can do that, which is something that every

homeowner, when they're increasing their size, of

course, is looking at, but it's not a reason for a


If there's something being done --


but from my perspective, to support it, it would

have to be a minimal intrusion into that side yard


MR. HEATH: Fine.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The good news is all

your neighbors are supportive.

MR. HEATH: That's a good thing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now all you have to do

is come up with something we'll support.

And, really, the former is a lot more

difficult than the latter, so if you want to come

back, we'll see you next month.

Sarah, would you put him at the

beginning of the agenda so you can get in and out

of here and catch the Wings' game?

MR. HEATH: Appreciate that. Thanks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right.


MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Laverne.

That was well placed.


MR. CHAIRMAN: 02-091 is filed by

Dan Relly. This is Mobile Auto Trim located on


Grand River. You're requesting a use variance.

Sir, do 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. RELLY: I do.


MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead.

MR. RELLY: Well, essentially, I'm

already working there and would just like to be

able to continue to do such.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody in the

audience want to make comment?

(No response.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: No. There were nine

notices sent; no approvals, no objections.

Probably no one knows you're there.

Building Department?

MR. SAVEN: I don't -- let me just

add a couple of things here. First of all, this

used to be the old Jackson Landscape Building. It

was actually a house and turned into an office.

The zoning district has changed since that time.


What this gentleman is performing is

basically okay for a district but it requires

special land use approval.

This gentleman's operation is a

one-person operation. He does the work in the

garage. That's all. It's one vehicle in the

garage, no outside storage, nothing along this

line. And I think that's what needed to be

stressed before the Board today, because one of the

things they need to know, exactly what you're doing

and how you perform the business.

The circumstances are that I would

strongly suggest to the Board at looking at

approving this variance, but I would certainly make

it on a temporary basis because there might be

subject to change for that district very shortly or

in the near future.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In other words,

continuing jurisdiction?

MR. SAVEN: Absolutely.

MEMBER REINKE: And probably this

applicant only.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But you've been doing

this business in this particular facility since



MR. RELLY: Oh, no, not since '85,

no, sir. It was probably within a year. I've been

in business since '85, but just at this location-

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Okay.

I misread that.

Board Members, any questions for the

-- all right. Let's hear a motion then.

MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Chairman, may I

make a motion that in Case Number 02-091,

applicant's request be granted for use variance

subject to continued jurisdiction and for this

particular owner only.


MR. CHAIRMAN: Well done. Any

discussion on the motion?

(No discussion.)


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?



MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?


MR. CHAIRMAN: That was painless.

See the Building Department for any necessary


MR. RELLY: Thank you.


MR. CHAIRMAN: Michael Hobbs,

128 Maudlin. This is Case Number 02-092, and Mike

is looking for a couple variances for the repair

and reconstruction of an existing home.

Want to raise your hand and be sworn,


MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or

affirm that the information you're about to give in

the matter before you is the truth?



MR. CHAIRMAN: Tell us what you want


to do.

MR. HOBBS: Well, actually, I just

recently bought a home on Maudlin and I'm trying to

update it as far as the structure's plumbing and

electrical and putting windows and siding.

And the front portion of the house

was added on after the original, and they put an

improper foundation under it, so what I want to do

is basically rebuild what was there.

And there was an existing deck on

there when I got it that I tore off. That was

actually falling down also. So to keep from

falling through it I threw it in the dumpster.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That'll work. Anybody

in the audience care to -- I'm sorry. I didn't

mean to interrupt. Is that all or-

MR. HOBBS: (Interposing) That's my

main goal, is to fix it back up and --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Building Department?

MR. SAVEN: No comment, sir.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry. There were

50 notices sent, and you have an approval from

Bonnie Sepula. Must be -- she's on South Lake

Drive and Maudlin.


I'm sorry. Did you have a comment?




MEMBER BAUER: Are you going to be

living in the home?

MR. HOBBS: Yeah, that's what my

plans are, yes.

MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Brennan?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, ma'am.

MEMBER GRAY: If I may, this is

directly across the street from my house, and Mike

and his crew is doing a fantastic job.

The porch that he referred to, for

the prior tenant, there was a severely disabled

senior citizen. The HCD Committee was going to

make arrangements to redo the porch for him.

Unfortunately, before we could do that, he passed


This is only replacing what has been

there for -- since 1985, '86, and it certainly will

be an improvement to the neighborhood and increase

the value of the properties.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I tell you what,


Sarah, I take your endorsement with a whole lot of


There's -- there's a motion on the

table to be made, go ahead.

MEMBER GRAY: In the matter of Case

Number 02-092, I move that we grant the variances

requested so that Mr. Hobbs may replace what has

been existing for many, many years and bring the

house up to code, which he is doing a remarkable

job doing, and continue to improve his property.


MR. CHAIRMAN: Discussion on the


MEMBER REINKE: Question. You said

you removed the deck. Are you going to replace the

deck, which would bring it back to 11 foot?

MR. HOBBS: Yes, that was my plans.

MEMBER REINKE: That's the only thing

I have a problem with.

MEMBER GRAY: I'd like to make a

comment to that. In the past, with these front

yard intrusions in the area, there's been quite a

bit of problems with parking and off-street

parking. If you look at the size of the property,


there is more than enough off-street parking, even

with that deck.

MEMBER REINKE: I understand that,

and I have no problem in supporting the main

structure. With the size of the lot and the

spacing, I just wonder if that deck could go off at

a side a little bit more rather than coming out the

total front?

MR. HOBBS: Yeah, I could probably

relocate that to try to make everybody happy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That would impact that

19 feet variance for the front yard setback?

MEMBER REINKE: Well, actually, with

the deck he's required, it's down to 11.

MR. HOBBS: Right.

MEMBER REINKE: So he needs 19, where

if that part of that deck was gone it would be less

than the 19 foot. That's my point.

MR. SAVEN: I'd be cautious about

trying to design things for this gentleman based

upon what he has there. I'm just pointing this

out. It may be that he has anticipation of

enclosing that deck.

MR. HOBBS: The deck part, no.


MR. SAVEN: That's cool.

MEMBER GRAY: How about bringing it

back to six feet instead of eight feet and doing a


MR. HOBBS: That would work for me.

MEMBER GRAY: That would work for you?

MEMBER REINKE: And the extra two

foot I think is really crucial at that point.


MEMBER REINKE: It's not hampering

from you having something out there, but a lot of

times that two foot can make a big difference.

MR. HOBBS: Not a problem.

MEMBER GRAY: Shall I amend my



MEMBER GRAY: Move to approve a

lesser variance of nine feet proposed to -- that

variance would be twenty-one feet on the front, and

the same reasons are cited.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Seventeen feet.

MEMBER REINKE: Seventeen feet.

MEMBER GRAY: Seventeen feet? Oh,

wrong way. Okay. Sorry.


MR. CHAIRMAN: You're clear on what

we're doing here?

MR. HOBBS: Yeah. You're letting me

put a foundation under my existing front part of

the house, and you're allowing me to build a six

foot deck on the front of that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's correct.

Which, if you so desired, could wrap around the


MR. HOBBS: Around the side towards

the garage?


MR. HOBBS: Sounds good.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. We have an

amended motion and a second. Any further


(No discussion.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: If not, Sarah, please.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?



MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke.


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi?


MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, you've got your

variances, and see the Building Department.

MR. HOBBS: I thank you.

MEMBER GRAY: Thank you.

MR. HOBBS: Have a good night.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, I had noted

that there was a message from you regarding this

Tomco, that they were having difficulty in getting

quotes on fences and-

MS. MARCHIONI: (Interposing) Yeah.

I talked to them about a week ago, and they were

talking to a few different fence companies and they

were going to get back to him so he could bring

those figures to the meeting. I don't know what


MR. CHAIRMAN: My gut reaction is to

toss these out if they don't show up or call us,

but it does appear apparent that he's trying to get


some information, and I'd be moved to move this

particular case.

MEMBER GRAY: Trying to get our


MR. SCHULTZ: I'm fine with what the

Chair was about to say.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would propose that

we move this into the October-

MEMBER GRONACHAN: (Interposing) How

about November?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We in October already.

Let him know he's just been put off a month and

hopefully he'll get all his stuff together by


MS. MARCHIONI: Okay. I have two


MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. I think we're

at the other business, or other matters.

MS. MARCHIONI: On the table you will

see something from the office development regarding

the Beechforest Office Building.

At their meeting we extended the

variance to coincide with the final site plan

extension, and I had made the mistake -- I just


assumed that their meeting was on the 10th, so I

just said went until the 10th, but their final site

plan actually expires on August 27th, 2003, so I

wanted to get the Board's feeling if we could

change that.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: I don't have a


MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members?

MEMBER REINKE: Not a problem.

MS. MARCHIONI: And then the second

one was Westmarket Square, the leasing sign that's

located at Grand River and Beck. You approved it.

I don't have the date of the meeting. It was Case

01-077, so it was the end of 2001, and he had said

that up to date there were 211,000 square feet,

leaving 25,000 square feet vacant. That was five

spaces vacant, and he had leases out on two

additional spaces, which would leave me with three

spaces vacant. And I'm pretty sure he has all of

those leased out now, and they still have the sign


So Allen wanted me to get

clarification from you, because your motion had

said to grant the petitioner's request for


additional six months or lease.


MS. MARCHIONI: So would you say that

time has expired?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would say that.

Send them a letter, tell them to take it down.

MS. MARCHIONI: Okay. And I have all

the new dates for the 2003 meetings.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I saw that. Thank you


MS. MARCHIONI: That's it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We did have in our

package an update on the Ten and Beck, and I

appreciate you sending this. I really do. I've

read it at length, and glad we didn't screw up.

MR. SCHULTZ: No, it's-

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Circuit

Court was behind us.

MR. SCHULTZ: Always good to see the


MR. CHAIRMAN: It will be appealed


MR. SCHULTZ: Oh, yeah. It's already

been appealed. Our Brief is due in another couple


of weeks. But it's fun to see the result when it

leaves here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I was glad to see

that -- we spent a -- well, this Board spent a lot

of time, I sat out in the audience, but I'm glad to

see that we're thinking clear and doing things

within the law.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: And how important

motions are.

MR. SCHULTZ: That case actually is-

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Is

there a motion to call the meeting?

MEMBER SANGHVI: I want to make a

motion to call the meeting, but I just want to

inform the Board that I will not be able to be here

next month. I will be out of town.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Leads us to a

question. What's City Council doing about getting

appointment here?

MEMBER MARCHIONI: I think the next

interviews are in November or December.

MEMBER REINKE: Any applicants?

MS. MARCHIONI: I put an ad on the TV

station, so if anyone was still interested, they


could call me before they have the official


MR. CHAIRMAN: If there's anyone

still watching tonight and you want to be part of a

most exciting board, come on down.

All right. I think that closes this

meeting. Anything else?

MEMBER SANGHVI: By the way, Tom,

what happened to the meeting you had with the City?

MR. SCHULTZ: On the sign issue?


MR. SCHULTZ: You know what, I should

follow up on that. It's been a while since we

exchanged any kind of discussion about that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, thank

you for your time and all your work.

(The meeting was adjourned at

8:33 p.m.)

Date approved:

December 3, 2002 __________________________

Sarah Marchioni Recording Secretary

- - -



I, Cheryl L. James, do hereby

certify that I have recorded stenographically the

proceedings had and testimony taken in the

above-entitled matter at the time and place hereinbefore

set forth, and I do further certify that the foregoing

transcript, consisting of sixty-seven (67) typewritten

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




Cheryl L. James, CSR-5786