View Agenda for this meeting
View Action Summary for this meeting

TUESDAY, JANUARY 7, 2003 -- 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, January 7, 2003.

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

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

Cheryl L. James, Certified Shorthand Reporter


MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Good

evening. It is 7:30 and we will call this meeting

to order.

Madam Secretary, will you call the


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?


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.


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


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.


MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry.

MEMBER GRAY: May I make a quick

comment from the table?




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





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. 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


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


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. 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,


(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.


MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and a



second. Any discussion?

(No further discussion.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, please.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?


MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, you have your


MR. DONALDSON: (Interposing) Thank


MR. CHAIRMAN: -and see the building

department for permits. Okay?

MR. DONALDSON: Thank you.




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. CHAIRMAN: Tell us what's going


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


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


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


MR. MARASCO: Yes. Oh, yes. I was

just there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. You got

the train tracks going through-

MR. MARASCO: (Interposing) Yes,


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. 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


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


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. MARASCO: (Interposing) That's

an odd place where it's at.


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


MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) The sign


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


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


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


MR. CHAIRMAN: The demolition?


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


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


MEMBER GRAY: Yes, exactly.

MR. SCHULTZ: That's fine.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, all right. Have

a motion. Have a second?


MR. CHAIRMAN: We do have a second.

Any discussion?

(No further discussion.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, please.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?




MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?


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.




MR. CHAIRMAN: Our next case is

the Hershey's Shoes Too. This is Case Number


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. 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


MR. SAVEN: No comment, sir.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Board

members, questions or comments?

MEMBER BAUER: Mr. Chairman?


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


But that's just my comments. Anybody


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




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


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


MEMBER BAUER: We'll have to look at



MEMBER BAUER: We'll have to look at


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


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.


MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Brennan?


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


MEMBER GRAY: Yes. Because I'm aware

of the ordinance and that-

MR. SAVEN: (Interposing)


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


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.


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.)


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?




MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?


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

maybe there's another way we can work with you.

MR. WELCH: Okay, thanks.




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.


MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Present your


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


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


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 --


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


MR. SHORT: I don't know. I think

Magna Intier -- Magna became Intier Automotive.

MEMBER GRAY: Because there's also


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


MR. CHAIRMAN: Intier is part of the

Magna Group.


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


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


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


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: 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.


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


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.


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. 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.


MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and a

second. Any further discussion?

(No further discussion.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, please.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?




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


MR. COOPER: Certainly, yes. I

appreciate it. Have a nice night.

MEMBER GRAY: What's the date on the


Is this a retroactive one?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Or is it from tonight?

MR. SAVEN: It would be from tonight.

MEMBER GRAY: From tonight, okay.




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?



swear or affirm that the information that you're

about to give in the matter before you is the




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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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?


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


MEMBER REINKE: And the residents

have spoke their opinion of it also.


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.


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


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.




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


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. 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




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.


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


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.



MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and a

second. Any further discussion?


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




MEMBER REINKE: Right, thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. We'll

include that as part of the motion.

Any further discussion on that


(No further discussion.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, please.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?


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


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.


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


MR. CHAIRMAN: That's part of the


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


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?


MEMBER BAUER: Second the motion.


MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and



support. Any further discussion?

(No further discussion.)


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?


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.


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


(The meeting was adjourned at

8:33 p.m.)

Date approved:

February 4, 2003 __________________________

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