| 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, January 7, 2003. BOARD MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY:
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Good evening. It is 7:30 and we will call this meeting to order. Madam Secretary, will you call the roll? MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Present. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Present. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Present. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Present. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Here. MR. CHAIRMAN: We do have a quorum. The meeting is now in session. Ladies and gentlemen, on the agenda, notice there are rules of conduct. I'd like you to take a minute or so and read through those. We'd like you to abide by those. 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 building ordinance. It takes a vote of at least four members to approve a variance and a vote of the majority of the members to deny a variance. A full board consists of six members. Since we only have five tonight and four votes are required for an approval, any member -- or any petitioner that would like to table their request should wave their hand and do so now. I'll put it another way. You need four positive votes from five members. If you don't like those odds, you can come back next month. Anybody? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We'll continue on. So we'll call the cases, and any board decision tonight is final. All right. Approval of the agenda. Do we have any changes, modifications? MS. MARCHIONI: I think everyone's aware that Waltonwood was taken off. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: And also to add election of vice chair under other matters.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, ma'am. Okay. Anything else? I would move for approval of the agenda as modified. (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Minutes for December 3rd. Are there any changes or modifications? MEMBER GRAY: Move to approve. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a second. All those in favor, say aye. (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Public remarks. This is the public remark portion of the evening. Any comments related to a case that we're going to call tonight, please hold your comments until that point; otherwise, if there is anyone who wants to talk to us about another issue, now is the time to wave your hand and come down. Seeing none, we'll continue on. MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Chair? MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry. MEMBER GRAY: May I make a quick comment from the table? MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure.
MEMBER GRAY: I would like to congratulate Member Sanghvi who is not with us this evening on his recent appointment to the city council, and just for the record, let him know that by this member, the newest member, that he will be missed at this table and that I, for one -- and I'm sure we all join in, wish him very well in his tenure as the newest council member. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: So noted. Anybody else?
CASE NUMBER 02-107 MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's call our first case, 02-107, Steven McCann representing Sun Glo. This is a front side yard parking setback variance request. The required setback is ten feet. Petitioner is looking for about half of that. Sir, once you're set up and behind the mic, we'll ask you to give us your name and raise your hand and be sworn. MR. DONALDSON: My name is Bennett Donaldson with JB Donaldson Company. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
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. DONALDSON: I do. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, sir. Keeping in mind that we've had this packet, we've had a chance to review it, why don't you, with that in mind, zero in on what your needs are and why. MR. DONALDSON: Basically, what we're asking for is a five foot side yard setback variance. There's a ten foot side yard setback required. With the width of the site and the, you know, the type of use that this client is, he's more administrative than warehousing and whatnot. There was a need for additional parking, and to enable to facilitate that parking, we're asking for a five foot side yard setback variance. You will notice on the -- a couple items of justification for that, one is you'll notice that the rear yard setback is a hundred foot
rear yard setback, heavily bermed, heavily wooded, heavily treed. I think -- I guess the point is is that we more than meet the green space requirement as far as the site's concerned. The building itself, as far as the front yard setback's concerned, is not right up to the forty foot front yard setback line. It's set back further from that, so giving the building additional green space in front of that. And also the development to the south, which is Janzar (ph), the building that is the phase two part of that project, which is -- phase one has been approved and subsequently built. A parking lot that will go there in the future has a thirteen foot side yard setback for parking. So, you know, there's actually -- we make up another three feet there, so really, you know, if you take the whole development, you know, development to the south and our development to the north, you really got -- instead of four foot, you got seven, almost eight foot there. As far as the client's concerned, Sun Glo Restoration is going in there. It's a
great use for the park as far as abutting residential. They don't have -- there's no emissions from the building, there's very limited light truck traffic. And the only reason I bring that up is it's very difficult to get a use that abuts residential that the -- that's good for the residents and still meets the park's requirements, so we're asking for this variance in an effort to try to facilitate a building that's been vacant for the last two years, and we hope that we can have this variance granted. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. There were twenty-five notices sent; there were no approvals, no objections. Anyone in the audience wish to talk to us about this case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Seeing none, we'll go to the building department. MR. SAVEN: Only as the board can see, that the -- only that the board can see it's an existing building and the placement to where this parking lot area is is rather confining. You can see that they're looking at approximately
twenty-two foot in width for the drive coming in, and certainly the depth would be seventeen foot with the overhang. That's it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that it? MR. SAVEN: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members, any questions or comments to the petitioner? MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, I think that the -- looking at the total development, the variance request is minimal. The total aggregate of what you're going to see as spacing in between is really going to make it fit in the whole scheme of the program, and I don't really see any problem with the total picture as presented. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Anybody else, comments? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Motions? MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, Case 02-107, I move that the petitioner's variance request be granted due to the building placement and the parking requirements. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and a
second. Any discussion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, please. 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. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, you have your variance- MR. DONALDSON: (Interposing) Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: -and see the building department for permits. Okay? MR. DONALDSON: Thank you.
CASE NUMBER 02-108 MR. CHAIRMAN: Next case is Peaco (ph) 02-108, filed by Rock Marasco.
MR. MARASCO: Yes, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: This is Comow (ph) Peaco as regarding their facility on Grand River, which has been there since the late '70s or so. You want to raise your hand and be sworn, please. 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. MARASCO: Yes. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Tell us what's going on. MR. MARASCO: Rock Marasco, 25776 DeHunt. First off, Peaco would like to apologize. There was no disrespect putting the sign up. From what I gather, Peaco is doing a -- it was bought out by a foreign company. They are face-lifting and changing all their facilities across Michigan. Some of the signs have been ordered, some are in place, some are in warehouses. The new owners were coming in for
inspections, basically looking for plants to close down. Plant manager wanted to put his best face forward and he replaced an old, tired existing sign with a new one, hoping that it was pretty close to what the same size was overall. Looks like some measurements were missed by a foot wide and a foot tall. A mistake was made on the measurements, but he -- we feel that it's pretty much the same size, same space is taken up. It's vastly improved from what was there, and we had hoped that the City would grant us a variance. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. There were 22 notices sent. There was an approval letter from Blair Bowman, who's obviously a neighbor. MR. MARASCO: Yes, sir. Anybody in the audience? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Building department? MR. SAVEN: No comment, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: I have a question. MR. MARASCO: Yes, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: Not so much for you but for the building department, or city
administration or whoever. This is very close to that whole area where that bridge is coming down. Is this sign going to be removed during that construction? MR. SAVEN: I believe it will be. MR. CHAIRMAN: You're aware of all that going on? MR. MARASCO: No, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: You're aware of the site? MR. MARASCO: Yes. Oh, yes. I was just there. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. You got the train tracks going through- MR. MARASCO: (Interposing) Yes, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: -and that bridge over that was built in 1926 or '27, and the State's going to rip it down. MR. MARASCO: Oh, okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: So that sign is going to come out of the ground pretty soon anyways. MR. MARASCO: All right. MR. CHAIRMAN: But with that said,
let's speak to what's before us, and that's a variance request. Board members? MEMBER GRAY: I'll start it off, if I may. Driving the length of Grand River, I was struck by the fact that most of the businesses in the city have either one or another. They have a sign on the building or they have a sign on the road and just the address on the building. I also know the difficulty of the location. I don't have a problem with the sign. I think it's a wonderful looking sign. I just wish it hadn't been made larger. And I would certainly be willing to listen to a compromise. Again, it is going to be coming out with the road/bridge reconstruction, but I think it's a very nice looking sign, much better than what it has replaced, and I'm just not happy, the fact that it was enlarged. Thank you. MR. MARASCO: Can I comment to that? MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure. MR. MARASCO: Okay. What I believe happened was they put a tape measure to the entire
-- poles and all on the old one, and the new sign matches what the poles were, but overall it's a wider sign. It's got bigger poles. That basically makes it bigger. The sign area where the letters are, or the graphics, is pretty darn close to the same. It just -- it does look bigger. It's -- because of the type of sign it is. It's not just a couple of aluminum poles in the ground and a plywood -- looks like painted. Yes, it is a foot wider and a foot taller. MR. CHAIRMAN: Let me make two comments, and I'll reiterate -- and I have to admit, because I'm in the automotive business, I'm well familiar with this company, but this is also a company name change. Comow is a huge Italian company that bought Peaco about two years ago, so it is an upgrade to their corporate name. Whatever we end up doing tonight, I think we need to remember that this sign is going to be moved. It's going to be pulled out and it will be reinstalled. Now, I can't assume that you will
have that business of reinstalling it, but we might consider some language that says when it's reinstalled it's at least installed at the proper height. MR. MARASCO: Sure. I understand it's six inches taller than what it was. It probably -- it would be no problem to back it up a little bit also. I guess they tried to put it in the same spot. MR. CHAIRMAN: I can't even tell you what that whole thing is going to look like when they're done. MR. MARASCO: Right. And as you know, if that sign wasn't there, you've got trucks coming, looking for that place, you could never find it without that sign. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's- MR. MARASCO: (Interposing) That's an odd place where it's at. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah? MEMBER GRAY: Don, when we measure the sign, are we -- or the previous sign, did we measure pole to pole? MR. SAVEN: Basically, yes.
MEMBER GRAY: So it's outside diameter versus inside diameter? MR. SAVEN: It would -- I'm not really sure how that was measured, when you talk about outside. It goes to the leading edge of the sign- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) The sign itself? MR. SAVEN: The pole themselves, I don't believe would be counted. It would be something like a monument type of an issue, so- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) With the new sign- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) Would be the leading edge of the sign? MEMBER GRAY: Which is the leading edge of the pole, so that accounts for the size difference too, correct? Again, I think it's a very nice looking sign. MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a question. When this sign is removed, and it's going to be removed for this construction, will they necessarily have to come back to the building department to figure
out where they can put -- reinstall the sign when the demolition is complete? MR. SAVEN: I think what we have to take into account is whether or not the City is going to be interfering with the sign or will be required to put the sign back up. Whatever the conditions are, we're certainly going to be putting it back up where it was and where it's legally going to be approved, wherever that position is at. MEMBER GRAY: They may also have to work with the road commission for placement of the sign. MR. SAVEN: Absolutely. You may find whatever they're going to do there- MR. MARASCO: (Interposing) It may be gone. MR. SAVEN: -it may not -- that elevation may not be the same elevation which you're looking at. I really don't know at this time. And it's a very good point that you brought up. MR. CHAIRMAN: I might make a recommendation for a motion that we consider
granting the petitioner's request, at which time the sign needs to be reinstalled, if that even comes to play, something along those lines. MEMBER BAUER: One thing, if I can say, I know that it's going to be started first of March. MR. CHAIRMAN: The demolition? MR. MARASCO: Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: You might have a two-month variance. But that's fine. That's why you're here. Board members? MEMBER GRAY: I'll make a motion, if you like. MR. CHAIRMAN: Give it a try and if we have a problem, Tom will tell us. MEMBER GRAY: In the matter of Case Number 02-108, I move for approval of the variance as requested- MR. MARASCO: (Interposing) Thank you. MEMBER GRAY: -subject to whatever is going to happen with the City and the County as far as the road relocation and grade and the
possibility that the petitioner may have to come back for a reapplication. MR. SCHULTZ: Is the intention of the motion that the location and size are approved in your grant subject to coming back here if the sign is required to- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) Yes. MR. SCHULTZ: -be moved or removed- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) Yes. MR. SCHULTZ: -because of the road project? MEMBER GRAY: Yes, exactly. MR. SCHULTZ: That's fine. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, all right. Have a motion. Have a second? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: We do have a second. Any discussion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, please. 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. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. You can go back to Comow and tell them what you have. MR. MARASCO: Mr. Brennan, Miss Gray, thank you very much. I appreciate it. MEMBER GRAY: Thanks, Tom.
CASE NUMBER 02-109 MR. CHAIRMAN: Our next case is the Hershey's Shoes Too. This is Case Number 02-109. This is a shop up in the Westmarket Square on Beck Road north of the freeway, and the petitioner is here looking to get a variance for two illuminating signs that he wants to place in the window. Sir, you want to give us your name and raise your hand and be sworn? MR. WELCH: Hi. Name is Tom Welch
and I'm the business at 47750 Grand River, Hershey Shoes Too. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you raise your right hand, please. Thank you. Do you swear or affirm that the information that you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. WELCH: Yes. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. You got the floor. MR. WELCH: Well, we have a retail store, one in Garden City, and I had a lot of calls for one in this area, so I thought I'd put a shoe store in. And I went through all the sign permits for the outside, Hershey Shoes Too, Comfort Shoes, and that was approved. Then I put a couple small neon signs in two of the windows to attract, you know, some customers so they know what kind of brands I carry, SAS and Stride Rite. And -- first of all, when it was just men's and women's comfort shoes I had a lot of calls for children's shoes. Stride Rite is a big name in kids shoes, and the only way I can let them
know that I carry them is to put the sign up in the window and try to catch some traffic driving by. I'm in a little corner in Marketsquare there, and the only traffic I get is, really, from Leo's Coney Island driving by, so -- plus, you know, I do run some cable advertising and that sort of thing. I think the signs are real important to let the people know that I carry these brands. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. We had four notices sent; no approvals, no objections. Anyone in the audience care to comment here? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Seeing none, building department? MR. SAVEN: No comment, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Board members, questions or comments? MEMBER BAUER: Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Jerry? MEMBER BAUER: I don't think I'd have any problem with the signs not illuminated. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah. You hit one of
the Pandora's boxes here in Novi. These illuminated signs is -- it's so clearly spelled out in the sign ordinance, and I'm sure you're well familiar with it. The sign ordinance is one of the toughest ordinances we have in the city. When I look at this, the first thing that just hit me smack in the forehead was that this was advertising. If these were two signs that had your name or something else, it might be different. But that's just my comments. Anybody else? MEMBER GRONACHAN: I concur. That's exactly what I said. If these signs weren't used for advertising, I don't really quite see the purpose of them. It's not really for business identification as it is for advertising, and I'm not too sure, looking over at the building department, that there isn't something else that you could use for advertising purposes. I realize that you -- we have that 25 percent -- am I correct, 25 percent rule of the window, but unfortunately they can't be illuminated signs.
MR. WELCH: Well, they are very small, and the only way for the elderly people to know that I carry this brand is to put some sort of sign in the window. And it is a dark corner, you know, and all I'm getting -- I can't -- they're not putting any signs on Grand River at all. The only traffic I get is what drives by to go to the little stores that are there. And there's no sign on Grand River showing that I even exist. In fact, a lot of the -- in fact, one of your gals, Sarah, thought it was an ice cream store when she drove by, and in order to let them know that I'm a shoe store, they need to recognize these brands. People know it says Hershey's Shoes Too. People don't really see it. It's way up on the building, but they do see the window signs because they're, you know, they're out there. MR. CHAIRMAN: I hope you didn't miss the point that Jerry said. He had no problem with you putting the signs up, just not illuminating them. MR. WELCH: Then they won't see them.
That's the problem. MR. CHAIRMAN: We are obligated by law to grant variance based on hardship, and- MR. WELCH: (Interposing) Okay. Does Home Depot have anything to do with that -- I mean, Home Depot is right around the corner from me and they have this huge tool rental, illuminated sign, and I don't know if you've said anything to them or not, but the thing is four by fifteen. It's huge, mammoth, lit up in their window, along with their Home Depot sign. Ad it says tool rental center. MEMBER BAUER: We'll have to look at that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Pardon? MEMBER BAUER: We'll have to look at that. MR. SAVEN: We will look at that. MR. WELCH: And also the CVS right down the street has all kinds of neon signs in their window. MR. CHAIRMAN: On the inside or the outside? MR. WELCH: Outside -- no, on the
inside but showing, you know, like mine are. Mine are on the inside also. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, there is a party within the city. It's the ordinance enforcement, and if it's been noted tonight that there are other businesses that are in violation of this ordinance, they'll be fined. But that's not what's before us tonight. We've got to deal with what is law. And, unfortunately, it's not always pleasant, but -- any other members of the board? MR. REINKE: Just to reiterate, that with the city ordinance that allows 25 percent window coverage, I cannot support illuminated signs in addition to that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Brennan? MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah? MEMBER GRAY: I have a question. If the petitioner had the signs in his store farther back, are they -- is he allowed to have illuminated signs within the interior of his store but not in the window? MR. SAVEN: That may be subject to
interpretation, as to how far back is adjacent to the window. MEMBER GRAY: Okay. And I understand that, and I know of many complications in the City where there are neon lit illuminated signs, not in the window but farther back, so -- MR. SAVEN: I think the ordinance -- the individual who's enforcing the ordinance at the time would be getting with the city attorney regarding the matter as to how far back it is or whether or not he's in compliance with the ordinance. MEMBER GRAY: Yes. Because I'm aware of the ordinance and that- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) Absolutely. MEMBER GRAY: -and we don't like lit signs in windows. MR. CHAIRMAN: I know you've already got the sign. You've already got the signs? MR. WELCH: Yeah, I have them. MR. CHAIRMAN: We're going to have to deal with what's before us tonight, but I -- you might not entirely give up on this and maybe come
see the building department in a week or so and see if you have some other options, but legally we have to deal with what's before us tonight. You have a variance request to put these in a window, and that's what we have to- MR. WELCH: (Interposing) All right. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other discussion? I'm sorry. MR. WELCH: I wish I wasn't told that I might have a good chance of leaving them there to help my business, because it is -- it's been horrible, the retail business, you know, and- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) You're in good company. MR. WELCH: What's that? MR. CHAIRMAN: You're in good company. MR. WELCH: I know. And so -- I don't know. Now the people aren't going to be able to see what I carry, and I don't know if the store's going to be able to pay the rent. But if you could check out that Home Depot sign that says tool rental center. It's huge. I wish -- I would appreciate that.
MEMBER GRAY: I'm sure it will be checked out tomorrow. MR. WELCH: Because it's just not fair to let, you know, the big, huge conglomerates or whatever use their signs and then the little guy -- screw the little guys as much as you can. MR. SAVEN: Mr. Welch, I assure you that we will be following up. MR. WELCH: Okay. Thanks a lot for your time. I appreciate it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's finish up here. Do we have a motion on the floor? MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Chair, in the case of 02-109, move to deny petitioner's request. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Want to give us a reason there, Sarah? MEMBER GRAY: Because it's an advertising sign. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah? 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 Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, Tom, but maybe there's another way we can work with you. MR. WELCH: Okay, thanks.
CASE NUMBER 02-110 MR. CHAIRMAN: Next case is 02-110. This is filed by Kevin Short representing Intier Automotive, property up on the Haggerty Corridor, another sign case, requesting permission to erect a 30-square foot ground sign. Sir, you want to give us your name and raise your hand and be sworn? MR. SHORT: Hi. My name is Kevin Short for Huron Sign Company at 663 South Mansfield, Ypsilanti.
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. SHORT: Yes, it is. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Present your case. MR. SHORT: Well, they had this ground sign previously before they had the building sign. When they wanted to put the corporate logo on the building, because of Section 28-63, we remove the ground sign. Then they'd like to reinstall the ground sign, removing their corporate logo and just adding -- just putting the seating -- Intier's Enclosures, identifying their products. Because of the building setback of over 500 feet from Haggerty Road and from the drive, they feel that they would need this sign to identify the entrance and location. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. There were 11 notices sent; no approvals, no objections. Anyone in the audience care to discuss this case? If not, building department? MR. SAVEN: No comment, sir.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members? MEMBER BAUER: From where this is located, it's not to be seen from Haggerty Road, if that is what you're trying to do. MR. SHORT: They're saying that the entrance is, most of the time, missed to their building. MEMBER BAUER: But there's a corporate -- for the location of the industrial corporate park where people would normally come in because of that. MR. SHORT: Mainly to identify their entrance to their location once they turn off on the drive. And by removing the corporate logo, it's not advertising but more directional I guess they're trying to say. MEMBER GRAY: Well, there's also a shipping and receiving sign for the west entrance. There's three entrances to that parking lot, so that really gives you three signs; one to direct trucks to shipping and receiving, the middle drive, and then the front drive facing farther east where the ground sign is. MR. SHORT: I'm not sure how the
directionals come into play with where -- the signage, I think it's a different code for directionals, the amount of directionals versus the amount of building signs. MR. SAVEN: Correct. MR. SHORT: So the directional for the deliveries doesn't count as signage for that property. MEMBER GRAY: Well, my comment is though, if you're trying to direct traffic to the site, and the Intier sign does designate shipping and receiving at the west drive is already in place, I don't see where a second ground sign is necessary when you already have a sign on the building and the address. MR. SHORT: Yeah. They hadn't -- this sign was bought and paid for. They're just trying to use it. And the setback being so far -- MEMBER GRAY: Um-hmm. MR. CHAIRMAN: Other board members? MEMBER REINKE: As Miss Gray pointed out, we seem to be getting multiple signs, and just because they have the sign and want to use it does
not create too much of a hardship need. MEMBER GRAY: And the other comment was that temporary sign which points to Magna. Is that a separate tenant in that building or do they own the whole building -- I mean lease the whole building? MR. SHORT: I don't know. I think Magna Intier -- Magna became Intier Automotive. MEMBER GRAY: Because there's also separate- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) They're two divisions. MEMBER GRAY: Well, there's a separate big plastic sign on white board that says Magna on the same address right behind the ground sign that they want, so -- MR. SHORT: I'm not aware of that sign. MR. CHAIRMAN: Intier is part of the Magna Group. MEMBER GRAY: Okay. MR. SHORT: There's, like, three companies in one building. MEMBER BAUER: You're not going to
have three signs. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, Mr. Short, unfortunately it's too bad that the petitioner themselves weren't here, at least a representative. We probably could have gotten a little more information on how they're structured. As best as I know, Intier Automotive is one of the holdings of Magna, so with a Magna sign and a sign on the building and another sign on the back, we've got -- looking up at four different signs identifying the same company. MEMBER GRAY: Plus the Magna sign is definitely a temporary-type thing. It looks like poster board. MEMBER REINKE: I think that if you really want to do something, you need to go back and relook your whole situation and come back with something that is going to cover everything rather than just kind of bit pieces here, there and all over the place, because as what's presented tonight I couldn't support it. MR. SHORT: Yeah. I know the Magna sign -- I'm not sure. That should have been removed probably at a certain time.
MEMBER GRAY: It was there Sunday afternoon. And, like I said, it's a temporary sign. MR. SHORT: It was on their property? MEMBER GRAY: It was behind the ground sign. MR. SHORT: It wasn't there earlier. MR. CHAIRMAN: You may be the bearer of bad news to your- MR. SHORT: (Interposing) The gentleman who was supposed to be here fell sick today. MEMBER GRAY: You want to table it for a month, or ask him to withdraw for a month if he wants to? MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we've got two options obviously. I think you can see where we're going with this, and there are two options. We can vote just to deny this, if that's what we want to do. Alternatively, we can table this and you could go back to your customer and say the board's really looking at an entire sign package that's going to address all of your needs because doing one here and one there and one
-- it's -- creates some problems. MR. SHORT: Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: So I'll leave it up to you, what's the best- MR. SHORT: (Interposing) Yeah. I think that's the best option. MR. CHAIRMAN: You prefer to do that? MR. SHORT: Yeah. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd also encourage you, when you come back, to have somebody from Intier to give us a little overview as to who they are and the affiliations and what their real needs are; are there other Magna facilities that are going to end up back here, whatever. MR. SHORT: No problem. MR. CHAIRMAN: But at this point, if you're comfortable with that- MR. SHORT: (Interposing) Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: -we'll let you go and we'll table it. MR. SHORT: Okay. Thank you for your time. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure.
CASE NUMBER 02-112 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cooper, Case Number 02-112, filed by Jason Cooper of Amson Dembs. This is a request to extend a construction trailer which has been there for some period of time. I guess we'll find out about that. You want to give us your name and raise your hand and be sworn, please. MR. COOPER: My name is Jason Cooper. I represent Amson Dembs Development Company. 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. COOPER: Absolutely. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Tell us what you want to do. MR. COOPER: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the board. I'm here this evening basically requesting an extension on the temporary use permit which we've basically obtained already at one point. The permit has since then expired. With the large amount of construction that we're doing, both in North Haggerty Corridor,
along with other construction that we're doing on the northwest side of the city of Novi, it serves as a very convenient place for us to conduct necessary job sight on-site meetings for the amount of work that's going on between the new buildings that we're doing on North Haggerty Corridor as well as interior alterations for the existing buildings of which we've already built over there in the North Haggerty Corridor. So, more or less, I'm asking at this point to get a continuance. MR. CHAIRMAN: There were 20 notices sent; no approvals, no objections. Anyone in the audience care to speak upon this case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Building department? MR. CHAIRMAN: We have received no objections from anybody regarding this particular matter. This company is involved in building out quite a few areas within the city, and that need for a construction trailer is definitely there, but it's just that I cannot roll through the
temporary use approval for reasons it's reached a point where it's -- I don't have the jurisdiction anymore to do that, so this is the reason why this gentleman is here. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it safe to say that this rendering from December, about -- less than a month ago, which shows all the various properties in this site, that maybe three-quarters are either not developed or not leased? MR. COOPER: That would be correct. MR. CHAIRMAN: Other board members? MEMBER REINKE: I have no problem with extending it. I don't know if I want to extend it for two years. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's why I asked that question about the extent of- MEMBER REINKE: (Interposing) I would rather it be extended for a year and if it was further needed that you could come back at the end of a year's time, and if it was continually warranted and maintained in a proper fashion, I would entertain to extend it, but I really have problems with going with a two-year extension. MR. COOPER: That's completely
understood. I have no problem with that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members; Sarah? MEMBER GRAY: I can support a one-year extension. I was a little concerned with the piles of metal and such that were stacked around the trailer out there. MR. COOPER: Of which, since then, have, I believe, all been removed. That was some masonry scaffolding, of which we are currently building another project right down the street on Louis Drive, which- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) So it got moved yesterday. MR. COOPER: -I pulled out masons to get all that stuff out of there. MEMBER GRAY: Okay. MR. COOPER: I believe it's Maureen Underhill had brought that to my attention, and she'd asked that we get it removed as quickly as possible, and I said that I would do that. MEMBER GRAY: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thanks. MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, if I may, should you so choose to grant a variance, it gets
put under continuing jurisdiction. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. All right. Let's hear a motion. Looks like we've got some agreement here. MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, in Case 02-112, I move the petitioner's variance request be granted for a period of one year for building requirements as he's working on it and that we maintain continuing jurisdiction. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, 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.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. If things go okay, we'll see you this time next January and address it then. MR. COOPER: Wonderful. Thanks very much for your time. MR. CHAIRMAN: You'll need -- you still need to see the building department about a permit. MR. COOPER: Certainly, yes. I appreciate it. Have a nice night. MEMBER GRAY: What's the date on the permit? Is this a retroactive one? MR. CHAIRMAN: Or is it from tonight? MR. SAVEN: It would be from tonight. MEMBER GRAY: From tonight, okay.
CASE NUMBER 02-113 MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Scenic Pines Estates. This is Case 02-113. There is a -- if I'm not mistaken, it's a condominium development, and there is a request for two variances, one involving an existing structure that is placed in a setback, and the other has to do
with the location of planting trees with respect to locations and the driveways. Gentlemen, you want to give us your names and raise your hands and be sworn. MR. OBILOY (ph): My name is Greg Obiloy. I'm here on behalf of Martin Daitch, the developer of Scenic Pines Estates. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Are you the only one speaking tonight? MR. OBILOY: Yes. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. Do you swear or affirm that the information that you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. OBILOY: Yes. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Again, I'll remind you that we've had this packet for a couple weeks and we've visited the site, so you can kind of zero right in on what your needs are and why. MR. OBILOY: Yeah. As you can see, in the northeast corner there is an existing garage structure, and as part of the site plan we do need
to get a variance to have the structure exist because it is within the 75 foot setback. The developer sees this as an amenity. The road, White Pine Trail, is going to be a private road. This will be necessary for maintenance. The developer does plan on updating it, if I may approach, Chairperson, I've got some before and after. MR. CHAIRMAN: That was in our packets. MR. OBILOY: It's in your packets. We think it would be unduly burdensome to have the developer move the structure in that it is a -- it's been there for two decades, and that it's going to be an improvement to the area, it's going to be an asset to the subdivision. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Want to speak of the tree setback? MR. OBILOY: Well, if you want to take them one at a time? MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd like you to give us an overview and we'll take them one at a time. MR. OBILOY: Well, the tree setback is really an issue of your former landscape
architect, Lauren McGuire. And the way the cluster configuration works is that to have a proper tree scape and have trees in the narrow driveways, that the ordinance provides trees have to be ten feet from the driveways. That just can't be reached in the narrow configuration of these detached dwellings. But Miss McGuire, when she made a review, said that well, they are set back thirteen feet from the street, therefore, it does not pose any form of danger to, you know, the public at large, and it creates a nice tree scape, retains thirty-five valuable trees. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that it? MR. OBILOY: That's it. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sure if we have questions we'll get to them. At this point, there were 101 notices sent; and no approvals and six objections. And if I read through these, I summarize, virtually everyone had a problem with the existing structure being retained, and a lot of concerns about trees being planted within five feet of the driveway and what's going to happen to driveways within a few
years as the trees grow. That's a synopsis of the objections. These are on South Lake, Buffington, South Lake, South Lake, Buffington. All right. Anybody in the audience care to address the board on this case? Sir, when you get up there give us your name and your address. MR. DUCHESNEAU: Certainly. Mike Duchesneau, 1191 South Lake Drive. Just to talk about the garage first, it does not meet the setbacks, it is going to be very close to the new road. The council -- or planning commission has, by the majority, per the minutes, at least by six members by my count, unanimously objected to the granting of the variance for the garage to remain. The minutes also state, and this is from the September 25th meeting -- the topic had to be with beautification of the area in general. It also states in the minutes, Mr. Carson assumed his client would work with the City administrators to save any plant life that would be attractive to the City. He is not aware of the plans. He assumed
the garage would end up being removed. And then more about the other topic. So, per the minutes, there's already been substantial discussion about this at the planning commission. So I would oppose keeping the garage, staying with the ordinances as they're written. So that's my first -- my input on the first topic. Second topic, basically is the cluster, are basically either ten feet between drives or twenty feet between drives. He'll still end up with a significant number of trees along the roadway if he chooses to meet the ordinances as it's written for setbacks, and I think that it would be consistent with our ordinances. And my preference is that we stay by the ordinances to meet the setbacks. There are other locations on the property that the trees can be located, at least some of them, once the garage is removed. You'll find that's a nice location for a cluster of trees. And, perhaps, in the case of this particular development, it might be best served by the City that the developer contributes to the tree
fund if they're not located on the site. So my recommendation is we stay by the ordinances as they're written. And then finally, as a side light, you know, this particular development is going to lead to regular appearances at this ZBA table. There's many, many built-in variances to what the planning commission has approved, and it's obviously preliminary, so you're not going to see them all at this time. You know, most notable is they're going to be coming back asking for a sign on their other property on South Lake to direct traffic to the subdivision. I oppose that. And you're also going to find that when the final elevations are done, many of these houses, perhaps 20 to 30 percent, are considered three stories by the ordinances, but these are the kind of thing that will be discussed in the future. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else? Again, name and address, please. MR. COOPER: Sure. Jerry Cooper, 155 Buffington. I just wanted to restate that the planning commission reviewed this, they approved it, and they approved it with the stipulation that
this plan had to come back in front of the planning commission, which was something out of the ordinary, but they're going one at a time, and this was something that was very clearly communicated from the planning commission, that it wasn't something that was going to be acceptable, and I don't know if they have authorization to make that statement, but that was very clear to the people. There was a lot of people within that area that were here that left with the understanding that that building was not going to be allowed to be kept up. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Building department? MR. SAVEN: I think everybody here at the table had an opportunity to read the motion of the planning commission minutes indicating certain issues, especially the issue regarding the trees, the placement of the trees. I will -- also contacted the -- our landscape person regarding the placement of these
trees, and once again, pending that thirteen foot setback is maintained, that's one of the issues he didn't have a problem with it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Board members? MEMBER REINKE: Well -- MR. CHAIRMAN: Laverne. MEMBER REINKE: The first issue I have is the building. This is a completely new development, and I really have a problem with granting a variance for an accessory structure for where it's positioned, and really the required needs. For this total development, I think if they have some kind of storage that's required, I think you have to put it in in a proper area, a proper location. I really can't support an ordinance for a variance request to begin with for that. MR. OBILOY: If I may, this structure has been there for over two decades, if not longer. It's existed there. The developer is going to improve it. It's going to be refacaded, there's going to be, you know, fencing. It's -- you know, it's going to be an improvement to what is there and to what has been there. Really, the only people that see it
are going to be the residents of the subdivision itself. MEMBER REINKE: And the residents have spoke their opinion of it also. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah? MEMBER GRAY: Okay. I need you to tell me what you're going to use this garage for. MR. OBILOY: Well, it's really going to be an amenity for the subdivision association. But, mind you, that this is a private road. It's going to be private maintenance. The City is not taking on the burden of plowing the roads or maintaining the roads or any of the landscaping. MEMBER GRAY: Okay. MR. OBILOY: So it can be used as any sort of storage facility for those uses. MEMBER GRAY: So do you have a contractor that you're going to deal with who's going to come in and do the ground maintenance and the road maintenance and he's going to leave his equipment there? MR. OBILOY: I doubt if he's going to leave his equipment there. I can't -- MEMBER GRAY: Well, you know, let's
be realistic and say -- presume that whoever is going to be doing the maintenance is going to be contracted out. I don't know any landscaper who would leave his equipment on somebody else's property, so if this garage is going to be an amenity for the residents of this subdivision, this condominium association, tell me what the amenity is, because an amenity, to me, and this is only my personal opinion, is a gazebo, a picnic table, something like that. So tell me what this garage is going to be an amenity and how it's going to enhance the residents in the subdivision. MR. OBILOY: Well, it's simply storage of something as simple as rock salt. It's as simple as that. I mean, you're asking me to speculate what it's going to be used for. Any form of storage. MEMBER GRAY: Okay. I have a major problem, even though the building, the garage, has been there for two decades, it's also been used by the house that's there in which people lived, just like the house to the west. Both the houses are being torn down. And to want to leave a structure that's pertinent to nothing, and within the
setback, especially because it's new construction, I have a problem with. I can see if there's a structure that's needed somewhere else on the property, maybe towards the back, which would make more sense for security reasons for storage of items owned by people in this association, but I -- certainly not up on the road up there. And as far as the trees go, I'm not real thrilled with the idea of trees being less than ten feet. Again, this is new construction and it is our ordinance. So that's all at this time. Thank you. MR. OBILOY: If I may respond, Chairperson, with regards to the trees, that is -- that was an issue that was brought forth by the City by Miss McGuire to act in that way, and that's why we are here. And as far as trying to relocate that building in another portion of the site, that's just impossible due to the wetlands. It's a difficult site to -- it took two years in working with the City, didn't know where to put some sort of structure like that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Jerry? MEMBER BAUER: That existing garage is within 75 feet of public highway. People can see it when they're driving by. I cannot go for it. The other people -- I can't go along with it being there. MR. CHAIRMAN: Jerry, as long as you have the floor, you want to give any input with respect to the tree request? MEMBER BAUER: No. There's no reason for them. They should be located as required. MR. CHAIRMAN: My comments are along the same lines. New construction, you should be able to meet ordinance. I don't like the idea of new construction leaving a 20-plus-year-old garage right at the entrance of this new condo development. I haven't heard a lot of real good evidence presented as to its use that would lead me to believe that there is some hardships in place that required it. I think Sarah kind of zeroed in as to most condominium projects are taken care of by contract with respect to landscaping and snow
removal. And that's my comments. MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I think there's a case in point here that needs to be stressed, and the fact is, if you would take a look at build -- between building six and seven, if you may go to your plot plan, please. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yep. MR. SAVEN: And you can see where the driveway is located, and the spacing between that island or those two driveways is very minimal, and I think that what the -- Lauren McGuire was trying to achieve was to insure that we get plantings that are placed within that area, not to space them outside of that particular area, but to space them within those planting areas whereby the driveways are close together. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm surprised that she didn't have any issue with a tree being that close to a driveway. I mean- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) I think though that the condition was, as reading and talking with the now landscape architect, thirteen foot back from the road would give it ample space; and, yes, they did not find a problem with it being
five foot. I assume it was depending on the type of tree they were using in that area. MR. CHAIRMAN: I can tell you if they plant soft maple in there, that driveway's gone in about two years. Tom, please. MR. SCHULTZ: I think maybe to follow up on Don's comments. Two very different kind of variances here, one where the proponent is actually here seeking relief essentially on its own behalf, and I think everybody has spoken to that, and I have no problems with any of those issues. But just to clarify, the issue with regard to the trees is to try and get some trees in areas where they wouldn't otherwise be permitted, because the driveways are the way they are and they're going to stay the way they are, so I don't know that you can call the landscape architect in the City a proponent, but it's a suggestion on the part of the landscape architect- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Without the variance there aren't any trees. MR. SCHULTZ: There wouldn't be any trees.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Let's -- I'd like to propose that we finish off discussion and look at some motions on the accessory building, if there's further discussion on that item. MEMBER GRONACHAN: I have, Mr. Chairman. I would like to just add, I concur with everything pretty much that's been said, and I want to clarify that because of the fact that it's not clearly stated what this building is going to be used -- and storage doesn't, in my opinion, cut it -- I can't support the building. I -- at first when I looked at this I wasn't in support of the trees, and then when I went back and went out there and looked and reread everything, based on some of the recommendations that were made, I am in support of the trees, basically because I came to the conclusion that there would be none if we didn't grant the variance, and so I'm not quite in favor of that at all. But the building -- if you want to take this separately, then I think we'd be asking you to split. MR. OBILOY: Chairman Brennan, if I
may just -- that's a quote from Lauren McGuire in your review of September 20th, she says she's these trees are set back from the road approximately 13 feet or so, and according to our staff engineer, should not pose a safety concern. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, like I said, let's deal with the accessory building first. Board members? MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, in Case 02-113, the application for variance request for the accessory building, I move that the request be denied due to there's other sufficient property to locate a storage facility. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Tom? MR. SCHULTZ: Just to -- maybe just to add to the motion a little bit the comment that was made by both Member Gray and the maker of the motion that because this is new construction, petitioner has not pointed out a reason why compliance couldn't be made, the reference to new
construction. MEMBER REINKE: Right, thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. We'll include that as part of the motion. Any further discussion on that motion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, please. 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. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Let's discuss the trees. MEMBER REINKE: The -- just my input now, first inkling was to say no, but then when you really stop and look at the development and everything, and if you say no there's no trees.
MEMBER BAUER: Just in the back a little bit, that's all. MEMBER REINKE: So I guess with the input we received from the landscape individual, I can support the request for the variance for the trees. MR. CHAIRMAN: We got a lot of heads nodding yes. Can we have a motion? MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Brennan, may I ask a question, please. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure. MEMBER GRAY: It may be rhetorical. Mr. Schultz, I just want to ask, just to get it on the record, if we approve this variance for the trees so that they can plant the trees, the fact that this is a private road, the fact that this is going to be privately owned and maintained, does the City have any liability if we approve this and there's a problem with trees being placed where they are for the proposal? MR. SCHULTZ: I think you hit the nail on the head. It's a private road, it's a private development, and the responsibility for maintenance and upkeep will be the -- essentially
will fall on the association eventually. They'll insure it, take care of it, they'll maintain it, and we maintain we don't have that liability. That will be our position. MEMBER GRAY: That's what I wanted to know. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's part of the record. MR. SAVEN: And Mr. Chairman, also add, in addition to be looked at along which that setback from the road is going to be maintained as requested. MR. SCHULTZ: The 13 feet? MR. SAVEN: The 13 feet, yes. MEMBER GRAY: In that case, Mr. Chair, I will move that in Case 02-113, regarding the trees, that we move to approve the variances requested subject to the conditions that the landscape architect has put on her recommendation. That adequate, Tom? MR. SCHULTZ: Yeah. MEMBER BAUER: Second the motion. MEMBER REINKE: Support. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and
support. Any further discussion? (No further 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. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, you got half of what you wanted. MR. OBILOY: Thank you. MEMBER GRAY: At what time will the garage be torn down, when the house is demolished? MR. SAVEN: Probably. MEMBER GRAY: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: That does conclude our business for tonight. There is an item that we need to discuss as for -- as additional business, and that is the fact that we have lost our
vice chair. And with that noted, given the fact that Laverne and Jerry have substantial years and experience, and we have a treasurer, I would like to nominate Sarah to fulfill that role of vice chair. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion on that motion? (No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: All those in favor, say aye. (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Congratulations, Sarah. You will be our vice chair. MEMBER GRAY: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other business? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll close the meeting. (The meeting was adjourned at 8:33 p.m.) Date approved: February 4, 2003 __________________________ 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 sixty-seven (67) typewritten pages, is a true and correct transcript to the best of my abilities.
________________________________ Cheryl L. James, CSR-5786 ____________ Date
|