View Agenda for this meeting
View Action Summary for this meeting

REGULAR MEETING -- ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY OF NOVI
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2003, 7:30 P.M.

Proceedings had and testimony taken in the matters of the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS at the City of Novi Civic Center, 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, on Tuesday, September 9, 2003.

BOARD MEMBERS

Cynthia Gronachan, Chairwoman
Gerald Bauer
Frank Brennan
Robert Gatt
Sarah Gray
Laverne Reinke

ALSO PRESENT:
Sarah Marchioni, Building Permit Coordinator
Lisa McDonald, Recording Secretary
Thomas R. Schultz, City Attorney
Donald Saven, Building Department
Timothy R. Schmitt, Staff Planner
Lance Shipman, Landscape Architect
Larry DeBrincat, Woodlands Consultant
Brian Coburn, Engineering Department

REPORTED BY:

Maureen A. Haran, CSR 3606

Novi, Michigan
Tuesday, September 9, 2003
7:30 p.m.

5 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

6 We're going to go ahead and call the 2003

7 Zoning Board of Appeals September meeting

8 to order.

9 Sarah, please call the

10 roll -- I'm sorry. Lisa, please call the

11 roll.

12 MS. McDONALD: That's all

13 right.

14 Member Bauer.

15 MEMBER BAUER: Present.

16 MS. McDONALD: Member

17 Brennan.

18 MEMBER BRENNAN: Present.

19 MS. McDONALD: Member Gatt.

20 MEMBER GATT: Here.

21 MS. McDONALD: Member Gray.

22 MEMBER GRAY: Present.

23 MS. McDONALD: Chairwoman

24 Gronachan.

3

 

 

1 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

2 Here.

3 MS. McDONALD: Member

4 Reinke.

5 MEMBER REINKE: Here.

6 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: This

7 evening on the Agenda there is a list of

8 Rules of Conduct. I'm going to ask the

9 audience that's present before this Board

10 this evening to review them, particularly

11 two rules: One, I'm going to ask that all

12 pagers and cell phones be turned off during

13 the meeting, and also that anyone who

14 wishes to address the Board, if you're

15 doing so as an individual resident, to

16 please adhere to our three-minute rule this

17 evening. And if you're a spokesperson for

18 a group from a subdivision, it will be a

19 ten-minute rule. We will keep a eye on the

20 clock on this.

21 The Zoning Board of Appeals

22 is a hearing board empowered by the Novi

23 City Charter to hear appeals seeking

24 variances from the application of the Novi

4

 

 

1 Zoning Ordinances. It takes a vote of at

2 least four members to approve a variance

3 request and a vote of the majority of the

4 members present to deny a variance.

5 We have six members tonight.

6 We have a full board. Any decisions made

7 this evening will be final.

8 Are there any changes to the

9 Agenda?

10 MS. McDONALD: No.

11 MEMBER BRENNAN: No

12 changes? Move for approval of the Agenda

13 submitted.

14 MEMBER BAUER: So moved.

15 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: All

16 in favor say aye.

17 ALL MEMBERS: Aye

18 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

19 Minutes? We did not get any minutes for

20 review, so we will table that until next

21 month.

22 Public remarks. If there is

23 anyone in the audience at this point that

24 wishes to address the Board on an issue

5

 

 

1 other than what is coming before the Board

2 tonight, you may do so now.

3 Is there anyone in the

4 audiences that wishes to address the Board

5 for anything that is not on the Agenda?

6 Sir? Would you please come

7 to the podium, state your name for the

8 record.

9 MR. WIZINSKI: Good

10 evening. My name is Karl Wizinski and my

11 family and I live at 26850 Wixom Road. I

12 am here tonight, not representing any of

13 the homeowners or residents of Bristol

14 Corners, but here as a person who has

15 experience living next to a commercial and

16 industrial area.

17 Tonight you'll make a

18 decision that will have a profound effect

19 on the lives of some Novi residents living

20 adjacent to Beck North Corporate Park,

21 Phase II.

22 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

23 Excuse me.

24 Mr. Wizinski, this public portion of the

6

 

 

1 Agenda is for issues that are not on our

2 Agenda this evening.

3 MR. WIZINSKI: So this

4 would be more appropriate at the-

5 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

6 (Interposing) This would be Audience

7 Participation at the time we that call that

8 case.

9 MR. WIZINSKI: Thank you.

10 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

11 Thank you.

12 MR. SAVEN: If there is

13 nobody else in the audience, I would like

14 to take a minute if I may.

15 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Yes,

16 Mr. Saven. Go ahead.

17 MR. SAVEN: At this time,

18 I'd like to introduce a couple of staff

19 members and one consultant who is here at

20 your disposal this afternoon.

21 Tim Schmitt is our staff

22 planner -- and if you don't mind, raise

23 your hand. And

24 Brian Coburn is the engineer; Lance

7

 

 

1 Shipman, Landscape Architect; and Larry

2 DeBrincat, the Woodlands Consultant for the

3 City. These

4 people are here if you have any questions

5 regarding any cases tonight.

6 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

7 Welcome, gentlemen. Thank you.

8 Anything else? Okay.

9 Seeing none, we'll move into calling our

10 first case.

11

12 CASE NUMBER 03-067

13

14 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: This

15 is a return from last month, Case Number

16 03-067 filed by Teddy Lee of 26075 Lanny's

17 Road.

18 Mr. Lee, would you please

19 come down to the podium.

20 MR. LEE: Thank you. Teddy

21 Lee, 2065 Lanny's Road.

22 Zoning Board Members, I

23 don't know if I'm out of place, but I'd

24 like to respectfully request you to

8

 

 

1 reconsider the original appeal for 24 by 24

2 detached garage. I'm appealing to the

3 Zoning Board to take a property site visit

4 to this property. This property is over

5 20,000 square feet, and it's twice the R-4

6 zoning property size. It's also adjacent

7 to a commercial property, Hansen Debs

8 office building. It's across the street

9 from Engines of Novi, an industrial

10 property.

11 Lanny's Road is becoming a

12 major thoroughfare between Grand River and

13 Eleven Mile once that Grand River

14 construction is complete. It's the only

15 connecting street that has no turning

16 limitations. Clark Street is the only

17 other street founded between Taft and Novi

18 Road. This property on Lanny's Road it

19 undergoing change, heavy traffic. It's a

20 mixture of commercial, industrial and

21 residential from what it used to be. It

22 used to be an unpaved road and it used to

23 be predominantly residential property.

24 I have personally talked to

9

 

 

1 all the businesses and residential owners

2 on that street, and no one voiced any

3 objection. All were supportive of the

4 request for this 24 by 24 garage. If the

5 Zoning Board made a site visit, this appeal

6 for two variances is not unreasonable or

7 out of line, and it's not offending to

8 anybody.

9 If the Zoning Board will not

10 grant me the two variances, only one

11 variance, a letter has been written and

12 respectfully submitted for the one variance

13 to the Zoning Board for a 16 by 16

14 structure. I do want to point out that

15 when one looks at the property site from a

16 distance in front of the house, this

17 detached garage is recessed in the

18 backyard, and we're about 100-foot looking

19 at the street, you really can't tell the

20 difference between the 24 by 24 garage or

21 16 by 16. I certainly can't. The

22 difference is very -- hardly noticeable.

23 The garage is 100 feet from

24 the street, and behind the garage is over

10

 

 

1 100 foot -- 200 foot to the next property,

2 all wooded area. To my left side is the

3 neighbor. I'm over 100 feet from that

4 neighbor with a fence that's six-foot

5 high. The neighbor really cannot see the

6 garage. To my right side is the office

7 building, commercial property. It's a

8 parking lot, and on the parking lot there

9 is a four-foot brick wall and a six-foot

10 high wood fence. So that's not visible to

11 them either.

12 So this garage really

13 can't -- is not very visible. I'm asking,

14 appealing to the

15 Zoning Board to use your authority at this

16 time for a fair and wise decision. If more

17 time is needed for a site visit, I'm

18 willing to postpone this decision because

19 the impact of your decision will greatly

20 affect my family.

21 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: All

22 right. Thank you. Anything else?

23 Is there anyone in the

24 audience that wishes to make comments in

11

 

 

1 reference to this case?

2 Seeing none, Building

3 Department -- I'm sorry.

4 MR. RUSSELL: I'll make

5 comment.

6 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Come

7 on down, sir.

8 MR. RUSSELL: I didn't come

9 here for this, but you know what -- I'm

10 Randy Russell I live at 44220 Grand River.

11 I'm a resident also.

12 Zoned in a light industrial

13 area, this man wants to put up a garage

14 where he lives. You know, I think that he

15 deserves that right, even though whatever

16 zoning it is, he's next to all sorts of

17 industrial park and industrial, what, this

18 and that. And I think he deserves that

19 right. That's all I want to say.

20 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

21 Thank you. Anyone else?

22 Seeing none. Building

23 Department?

24 MR. SAVEN: At the last

12

 

 

1 meeting there were two issues that were

2 brought before you. One was definitely the

3 square footage, and the other one was the

4 issue of more than one accessory structure

5 in an R-4 zoning district for lots less

6 than 20 some thousand square foot.

7 What Mr. Lee had indicated

8 was correct. The fact that, yes, his

9 property is large, it is zoned R-4. He

10 does have just about twice as much property

11 there as anybody in the R-4 District, and

12 yes, he is adjacent to industrial issues.

13 But it was the Board's wish from the last

14 meeting, that based upon the submittal that

15 he had, that he do something to reduce the

16 variances, and that's why he was here

17 before you with this particular request.

18 Mr. Lee came before me, or

19 he telephoned me not too long ago after

20 this was publicized and asked to go back to

21 his original request, based upon what he

22 was looking at because he wishes to

23 maintain the playhouse in the back; is that

24 correct?

13

 

 

1 MR. LEE: Yes.

2 MR. SAVEN: Unfortunately,

3 this was noticed as only one variance. And

4 this was noticed as one variance for the

5 shear fact that the Board's wish was to try

6 to reduce the amount of variances that were

7 performed.

8 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Thank

9 you. Board Members?

10 Frank?

11 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, Mr.

12 Lee, I thought we had a deal. I thought

13 you were going to walk out of here with

14 your variance for your garage -- not a

15 variance for the garage, but a variance for

16 two accessory structures. We can't

17 consider the 24 by 24, because it wasn't

18 publicized. So you have two options: you

19 can either have us rule on -- or make a

20 decision based on what was published, or

21 you can wait another month and come back

22 with your 24 by 24 which we've already told

23 you, you're not going to get.

24 MEMBER GRAY: Madam Chair?

14

 

 

1 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

2 Member Gray.

3 MEMBER GRAY: I would like

4 to make some comments on the record for

5 those who may not know what exactly we're

6 dealing with. And this is not the fact

7 that Mr. Lee wants to build a garage.

8 There is the fact that Mr. Lee wants to

9 build an additional garage and retain a

10 playhouse. So it's not just wanting to

11 build a garage, it's wanting to build an

12 additional garage, which would give him

13 then two detached structures, because the

14 garage that he has now is attached to his

15 house.

16 When he was before us last

17 month, we basically told him we could give

18 him one or the other. He elected at that

19 time to come back to us when he made a

20 decision whether he wanted to keep the

21 playhouse and build the additional

22 structure, the additional garage, in

23 addition to the attached garage that is

24 already at his house. Since we haven't

15

 

 

1 noticed it, for his original request of

2 last month which is keeping the 24 by 24

3 garage as opposed to what is advertised now

4 for the 16 by 16, I would move that we

5 either postpone or table this until next

6 month until we can, again, renotice this.

7 MEMBER BRENNAN: It's his

8 option.

9 MEMBER GRAY: It's his

10 option? Okay.

11 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

12 Anyone else?

13 MEMBER BAUER: Mr. Lee, you

14 know what we're talking about?

15 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Can

16 you stand up to the podium so we can hear

17 you, please?

18 MR. LEE: You're asking me

19 to either -- if I'm going to ask you to

20 reconsider 25 by 24, I have to resubmit

21 that until next month.

22 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

23 Uh-huh.

24 MR. LEE: I'm willing to do

16

 

 

1 that. Would you be willing to, during the

2 month, just drive by there and take a look

3 at the site? It's on the way to the Town

4 Center. I'm willing to delay this because

5 I guess it has enough impact on me if --

6 and if you're definite about that decision,

7 I'll live with it, you know.

8 MEMBER BRENNAN: Are you

9 aware that it's our job to visit sites

10 prior to this meeting? We have special

11 identification for going on private

12 property and looking at sites that's issued

13 by the police department.

14 MEMBER GATT: Mr. Lee,

15 everybody on the Board has already visited

16 your home at least once, if not twice.

17 MR. LEE: I guess what -- if

18 the decision is you will not grant me the

19 two variances and only one variance is

20 permitted, I guess that's what the request

21 for was. I'll go by the 16 by 16 size.

22 Reduced.

23 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: So I

24 get this straight. You would stand by what

17

 

 

1 you requested this evening and what's been

2 publicly notified to your neighbors, and

3 that would be the one detached accessory

4 building. And you're asking for a variance

5 for a second detached building?

6 MR. LEE: Yes.

7 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: And

8 the garage you're going to build is within

9 the square footage so there's no variance

10 there needed.

11 MR. LEE: Yes. If the

12 decision is final it's only one variance

13 allowed.

14 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: I

15 just -- I would like to make some comments

16 on the record. And I understand, and I

17 spoke with you last month, and it's not

18 something that when we come to this Board

19 and we review these cases, we can't make

20 our decisions or base our decisions on

21 emotion. We have guidelines and rules.

22 And one of the rules that we

23 look at very seriously, and I explained

24 this, and other audience members have heard

18

 

 

1 me say this before, that less is better.

2 Okay? And unfortunately, we don't have, at

3 least this member sitting here looking at

4 this to make a decision, doesn't have

5 enough to qualify going with further

6 variances. So I don't have enough to

7 substantiate your case for me to make a

8 different decision, other than what you've

9 brought us before.

10 And that's why what I tried

11 to explain to you last month, to go back

12 and look at this. Last month we were not

13 on the same page and that's why the Board

14 tried to guide you to go for less is

15 better. Fewer variances is better.

16 So I don't want you to get

17 sidetracked thinking that, let me go back

18 to where I started - we got away from that

19 for a reason.

20 MR. LEE: Okay.

21 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

22 Okay?

23 MR. LEE: All right.

24 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

19

 

 

1 Having said that, I believe we all know

2 what's in front of us. Is there a motion to

3 be made on this case or is there any

4 further discussion?

5 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll make a

6 motion.

7 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: All

8 right.

9 MEMBER BRENNAN: With

10 respect to Case Number 03-067, I would move

11 that the petitioner's request as submitted

12 tonight be approved because of lot size and

13 available space to build a secondary

14 structure.

15 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

16 MEMBER REINKE: Is this for

17 the garage only, or for the garage and

18 playhouse?

19 MEMBER BRENNAN: As

20 submitted. Two detached accessory

21 structures.

22 MEMBER REINKE: I can't

23 support the motion because I don't see a

24 hardship to have the second structure on

20

 

 

1 the land.

2 MEMBER BRENNAN: Call a

3 vote.

4 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

5 Motion was made and seconded.

6 Sarah, could you please call

7 the roll.

8 MS. MARCHIONI: Lisa.

9 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: I'm

10 sorry, Lisa. Old habits die hard.

11 MS. McDONALD: Member

12 Brennan.

13 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

14 MS. McDONALD: Member Bauer.

15 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

16 MS. McDONALD: Member Gatt.

17 MEMBER GATT: Yes.

18 MS. McDONALD: Member Gray?

19 MEMBER GRAY: Yes.

20 MS. McDONALD: Member

21 Gronachan.

22 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Yes.

23 MS. McDONALD: Member

24 Reinke.

21

 

 

1 MEMBER REINKE: No.

2 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Mr.

3 Lee, your variance request has been

4 approved. Please see the Building

5 Department.

6 MR. LEE: Thank you, Board

7 Members.

8

9 CASE NUMBER 03-072

10

11 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: We'll

12 get ready and call the next case, 03-072,

13 filed by Etkin Equities for Residence Inn

14 at 27477 Cabaret Drive, formerly known as

15 Fountains West.

16 Mr. Bednas is requesting

17 eight sign variances to be placed on this

18 building.

19 Mr. Bednas, are you an

20 attorney?

21 MR. BEDNAS: No.

22 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

23 Would you please raise your right hand and

24 be sworn in by our secretary.

22

 

 

1 MEMBER BAUER: Do you

2 solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth

3 regarding Case 03-072?

4 MR. BEDNAS: I do.

5 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you,

6 sir.

7 MR. BEDNAS: My name is

8 Robert Bednas. I'm with Etkin Equities at

9 29100 Northwestern Highway in Southfield,

10 Michigan.

11 The variance request you

12 have before you seems rather onerous with

13 eight requests here. All I'd like to say

14 is the application was, I think, fairly

15 definitive and complete. But the reason

16 that we had asked for the variances that we

17 did, is because the proposed signage for

18 the Residence Inn Hotel essentially

19 consists of the standard brand identity

20 signage that Marriott expects to see on

21 their properties when they're open for

22 business.

23 The signage is intended to

24 be of sufficient size and in a prominent

23

 

 

1 enough location so that the guests can

2 readily see the signs from a distance, and

3 particularly for the first arriving guests

4 that normally arrive in hours of darkness.

5 I'd like to, I guess,

6 reiterate a point that we noted that there

7 were a few other hotel properties and some

8 other buildings in Novi that have more than

9 one sign on the property. And for that

10 reason, we feel that since they have the

11 right, that we should share in the same

12 privilege.

13 Having said all of that, and

14 having gone through the motions of setting

15 up the mockup signs, and in the interest of

16 expediting the process tonight, I think

17 what you identify -- and, I presume, I can

18 work off of the yellow sheet -- what you

19 identify as Sign B, Exhibit C, the east

20 elevation of the gatehouse, we've

21 acknowledged that that sign is virtually

22 invisible from Cabaret. It's not

23 particularly visible when you're on the

24 property, and I guess we'd like to remove

24

 

 

1 it from discussion because we recognize

2 what the ordinance says about basically one

3 sign per property, and hopefully this will

4 make the process a little bit easier.

5 Similarly, Sign A, which is

6 a ground sign-

7 MEMBER BRENNAN:

8 (Interposing) Excuse me, sir. Was the

9 first one that you removed B or C?

10 MR. BEDNAS: It says it's

11 Sign B, but it's identified as Exhibit C in

12 the attachments.

13 MEMBER BAUER: Second

14 request, Frank.

15 MEMBER BRENNAN: All right.

16 I gottcha. Thank you.

17 MR. BEDNAS: This sign that

18 goes on the gatehouse building.

19 Similarly, with Sign A,

20 which is the ground sign, it's depicted

21 there, and the application is depicted here

22 in the photograph, but I'm not sure if you

23 received these or have your own actual

24 mockup signs.

25

 

 

1 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: We

2 have them.

3 MR. BEDNAS: Depending on

4 how the rest of the discussion goes, we

5 acknowledge that that size could be reduced

6 in sign area to comply with the actual

7 specifics of the zoning ordinance, which

8 says 30 square feet of signage versus the

9 51 that's shown. I'm not so sure about the

10 height. We probably need somewhat of a

11 height variance on that, too, to satisfy

12 that. We would be willing to make those

13 adjustments right now before we begin the

14 rest of your considerations.

15 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

16 Anything else?

17 MR. BEDNAS: That's it.

18 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

19 Thank you.

20 Is there anyone in the

21 audience that wishes to address the Board

22 in regards to this issue?

23 Seeing none, there were six

24 notices sent. No approvals, no objections.

26

 

 

1 And our Building Department will pause for

2 a moment and I will turn it over to the

3 Board Members for discussion

4 Member Brennan.

5 MEMBER BRENNAN: I see no

6 reason why we shouldn't handle this like we

7 have handled other sign cases when there's

8 multiple signs. Start with the first one,

9 give some comments, work through, and see

10 where the Board sits.

11 Looking at Item Number 1,

12 Sign A or Exhibit B, the ground sign, we

13 have the square footage removed. We have

14 to discuss height and setback.

15 I don't have -- personally,

16 I don't have an issue with the setback, the

17 layout of the grounds. I'd like to see --

18 you know, you're trying to -- this is on an

19 identification site. People are coming

20 from the airport, they're either on 96,

21 probably most time on 96, and I would give

22 a lot of credit to the sign that's facing

23 the highway. I don't know why you need

24 that thing eight feet in the air. If

27

 

 

1 there's some concession on your part there,

2 I'd like to see it. I don't have any

3 problem with the setback.

4 Sign B is removed. Sign

5 C -- which one is this?

6 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

7 Facing east. Exhibit E.

8 MEMBER GRAY: It's on the

9 building facing east.

10 MEMBER BRENNAN: On the

11 building facing-

12 MR. BEDNAS: Facing

13 Cabaret.

14 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Faces

15 Cabaret. This one faces the freeway,

16 correct? D faces the freeway.

17 MEMBER GRAY: Sign D faces

18 south towards the expressway, Sign E faces

19 east towards Fountain Walk and towards Novi

20 Road

21 MEMBER BRENNAN: Somebody

22 pick up if you're familiar with where we're

23 at here. Give me some help.

24 MR. BEDNAS: Sign C is the

28

 

 

1 one you're talking about right now. The

2 one that's facing Cabaret.

3 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

4 Exhibit E.

5 MEMBER REINKE: This here,

6 right over on top of the ground pole sign,

7 facing right.

8 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: And

9 this is the one facing the freeway.

10 MEMBER BRENNAN: This is

11 another ground sign.

12 MEMBER GRAY: No. These are

13 the ones that are on the building, under

14 the eave.

15 MEMBER BRENNAN: Okay. Just

16 going from geography, the one facing 96, I

17 didn't have a problem with. I don't see,

18 really, why you need the one facing Twelve

19 Mile, because I don't think you can see it

20 that well.

21 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Okay.

22 Anybody else, comments?

23 MEMBER REINKE: Madam

24 Chairman.

29

 

 

1 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

2 Member Reinke.

3 MEMBER REINKE: The ground

4 pole sign, I really don't have a problem

5 with the height; I don't have a problem

6 with the setback, because there is no

7 roadway or anything in conjunction to that

8 that would block line of sight. It's

9 almost a single property area back there

10 that there will be very few developments or

11 buildings on.

12 The sign facing east, I

13 really don't see a value of that. The one

14 facing the expressway on the south side,

15 there's value to the expressway for that

16 sign. I could support that one. And

17 that's my comments.

18 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

19 Member Reinke, just for clarification,

20 you're saying that Exhibit D on our --

21 that's the freeway sign, correct?

22 MEMBER REINKE: Right.

23 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: You

24 don't have a problem with. And Exhibit E,

30

 

 

1 is the one that you don't see the need for.

2 MEMBER REINKE: Correct.

3 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Okay.

4 Thank you for that clarification.

5 Member Bauer.

6 MEMBER BAUER: Sign A,

7 Exhibit B, height, eight feet. You're

8 taking that eight feet from the top of the

9 berm, which is extended -- it's much

10 higher. I'd like to see it down.

11 MR. BEDNAS: Well, the berm

12 was dictated by the Planning Commission to

13 hide the parking -- to hide the vehicles.

14 So it's basically at the grade -- but what

15 you're saying is -- I mean, is it okay-

16 MEMBER BAUER: From the berm

17 up; right?

18 MR. BEDNAS: Right now, the

19 way it's presented it's eight feet.

20 MEMBER BAUER: From the berm

21 up?

22 MR. BEDNAS: Would five feet

23 up be acceptable?

24 MEMBER BAUER: Five feet

31

 

 

1 would be, yes, sir.

2 MEMBER GRAY: That berm

3 gives you the extra height that you need,

4 and it's going to be visible because it's

5 going to be a lit sign, is it not?

6 MR. BEDNAS: Yes, it is.

7 MEMBER GRAY: And I would

8 concur with the variance comments made on

9 the setback and also on the square foot

10 size. As far as the east elevation, I

11 would also agree that that may not be

12 necessary. And to the south facing the

13 expressway, absolutely. And I don't have a

14 problem with that sign or the variance

15 requested.

16 The only thing I do have to

17 say is the sign facing the east, I know

18 that that sign is visible from Novi Road

19 and I would suggest that, you know,

20 depending on the mood of the Board, if you

21 require that sign, I would suggest you ask

22 for a smaller sign. Thank you.

23 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

24 Okay.

32

 

 

1 MEMBER GATT: I would just

2 like to add, I think the sign facing east

3 is necessary. If you're coming from Novi

4 Road area, and you're late at night coming

5 in from the airport, you're going to need

6 some kind of guidance to get to this

7 facility. And I would agree with my

8 colleagues, they may be a little bit

9 smaller though.

10 MR. BEDNAS: Can I interject

11 a comment on that at this point?

12 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Why

13 don't you just wait for the Board to get

14 done and then you'll know where the whole

15 Board is, Okay?

16 Anything else, Member Gatt?

17 MEMBER GATT: No.

18 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: I,

19 too, would like to put my comments on the

20 record. First off, I'm pleased that you

21 came to the podium and knocked two of the

22 signs off of the Agenda. That makes our

23 evening much nicer.

24 I also have to comment that

33

 

 

1 your packet that you presented to this

2 Board was very, very, nice and it was very

3 easy to read except for the exhibits, Sign

4 1, Gate 3, 4 East. It's a little tough

5 when you're doing this and you don't do it

6 on a regular basis. But nonetheless, it

7 was a very nice packet to review.

8 MR. BEDNAS: Thank you.

9 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: I am

10 in agreement with the other Board Members

11 on the setbacks. I'm in agreement with the

12 other Board Members on Sign D as well.

13 This it where I throw a

14 monkey wrench into the works. If you're

15 driving out there -- and I went by there a

16 couple of times -- Sign C for the size that

17 it is, I, too, at first thought this was

18 going to be too big. What happens is these

19 businesses take off, things start growing,

20 and it all gets covered in. This is a new

21 construction area, and I'm concerned that

22 later on down the road, if we make it

23 smaller, it might get eaten up by the

24 ambience of the neighborhood. That's the

34

 

 

1 best way I can put it. Okay?

2 So, if you can picture

3 that. I mean we've had signs come before

4 us in the past, not that I'm using any as

5 an example, but trees grow in, then you

6 can't see the sign. So this is -- that's

7 the only identification on this side of

8 that building, and I just a hate to see

9 it. It's not overly big for the size of

10 the complex, and it is the only

11 identification on that end of the building.

12 I think that the petitioner has been pretty

13 cooperative knocking off the gatehouse sign

14 and being cooperative on the ground sign

15 that I would just like to see a building

16 this size have the proper signage for it.

17 MEMBER GATT: I agree. And

18 again, keeping our quest to do what's

19 right, again we're thinking of the public

20 coming in late at night, tired. Maybe

21 going around the expressway a couple of

22 times and can see the sign from there, but

23 not knowing where they get off on Novi

24 Road, that sign would help them out

35

 

 

1 tremendously. I can support that.

2 MEMBER REINKE: Madam

3 Chairman, I have a question for the

4 petitioner.

5 I'm assuming the building

6 signs are going to be lit also; correct?

7 MR. BEDNAS: Yes, they are.

8 MEMBER REINKE: Okay. My

9 comment then is if we're going to have a

10 large sign on the east elevation of the

11 building, why do we need the ground sign?

12 MEMBER GATT: I would only

13 just say that sometimes, in my former

14 profession, I was always told to look up.

15 Not everybody looks up. Maybe from Novi

16 Road you may be able to see that sign, but

17 if you're coming down Cabaret Drive, that

18 ground sign is the sign that might catch

19 your attention first.

20 MEMBER REINKE: I understand

21 where you are coming from, but you can't

22 miss that sign. Even up as a temporary

23 sign right now, you cannot miss that sign

24 coming down Cabaret Drive, and I really

36

 

 

1 have a problem with two signs on that side

2 of the building.

3 MEMBER BRENNAN: Meaning the

4 ground sign and the-

5 MEMBER REINKE:

6 (Interposing) Right. That's why my

7 approach was if we're going to have a

8 ground sign, we eliminate the wall sign.

9 If we're going to have a wall sign, I think

10 the ground sign needs to be eliminated.

11 MEMBER BRENNAN: Madam

12 Chair, I have one other observation in

13 comparing relatively, not having the

14 information right in my pocket, but

15 comparing the size of the wall signs to

16 other hotels. They seem to be fairly close,

17 at least by the eye.

18 If there's further

19 discussion, great. If not, I'll give a

20 shot at this. I think we're pretty close.

21 Let's go from this as the

22 identifier. Starting with Sign A, Exhibit

23 B, this is the -- I'm sorry, you wanted to

24 talk?

37

 

 

1 MR. BEDNAS: May I add one

2 editorial comment, if I will.

3 I appreciated the

4 conversation about the sign on the east

5 face of the building because -- and we've

6 had quite a bit of discussion about this,

7 recognizing what we may or may not get

8 tonight. For traffic coming from the west

9 exiting on Novi Road, the only way to get

10 to the property, because of the way the

11 streets are signed, is to go north on

12 Novi Road to Twelve Mile, west on Twelve

13 Mile and down Cabaret. For that reason,

14 the wall sign on the building which is -- I

15 guess I'm confused. That would be, I'm

16 sorry, that would be Sign C, Exhibit-

17 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Sign

18 C, Exhibit E.

19 MR. BEDNAS: Right. That

20 one is quite important, just to kind of

21 give you some guideline.

22 If the Board prefers to

23 reduce the size of that sign, I think we

24 all acknowledge that the logo type for

38

 

 

1 Residence Inn and Marriott is readily

2 identifiable and you can see the shapes, so

3 there might be some opportunity to make a

4 concession there.

5 If we had our druthers, we'd

6 rather have the two building signs and the

7 ground sign. If we have to lose one of

8 those, our preference would be to have the

9 two bidding signs, but we feel the ground

10 sign helps to kind of define the driveways

11 to the property.

12 MEMBER BRENNAN: You want

13 to make a recommendation on the east

14 elevation square footage?

15 MR. BEDNAS: I'm not sure

16 how that layout works.

17 MEMBER BRENNAN: Roughly. A

18 hundred square foot?

19 MR. BEDNAS: We could

20 probably make it a hundred, yes

21 MEMBER BRENNAN: Okay. I'm

22 ready to start.

23 Sign A, Exhibit B is the

24 ground sign. The petitioner has been very

39

 

 

1 helpful here in removing the area

2 requested, he's going to make it 30 square

3 feet. He's going to make it five feet off

4 the ground. We're going to grant the

5 variance of the setback, okay?

6 MEMBER BAUER: He's allowed

7 one sign, period. So he has his choice.

8 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'm just

9 trying to summarize what we got here.

10 Where we end up.

11 Sign B, Exhibit C, is the

12 east elevation gatehouse. You've removed

13 that.

14 MR. BEDNAS: Right.

15 MEMBER BRENNAN: That

16 didn't seem to make too much sense.

17 Sign C, Exhibit E is the

18 wall sign on the east side. Petitioner's

19 request is for a 100 square foot sign.

20 Setback variance request is

21 approved. Sign D, which is the south

22 elevation facing 96, petitioner's request

23 for setback and square footage, approved.

24 MEMBER GATT: Is that a

40

 

 

1 motion?

2 MEMBER BRENNAN: That was a

3 motion.

4 MEMBER GATT: For the

5 reason?

6 MEMBER BRENNAN: For

7 building identification and the need for

8 identification from a number of different

9 angles.

10 MEMBER GATT: Support.

11 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: We

12 have a motion and a second. Is there any

13 further discussion on the motion?

14 MEMBER REINKE: Madam

15 Chairman.

16 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

17 Member Reinke.

18 MEMBER REINKE: The two

19 building signs, I think are large enough

20 and adequate. Petitioners that he could, if

21 he had to, live without the ground pole

22 sign. And that's where I feel I'm at right

23 now, and if justifiable down the road, I'd

24 be willing to work with putting in an

41

 

 

1 additional ground pole sign if it was

2 justified to be needed. But at this time,

3 I can't support the motion for the three

4 signs.

5 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

6 Member Bauer -- he took the words right out

7 of your mouth.

8 Anyone else?

9 MEMBER BRENNAN: We have a

10 motion and a second.

11 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: We

12 have a motion and a second. Why don't

13 we -- okay. We have a motion and a second.

14 Sarah, please call the roll -- I'm sorry,

15 Lisa.

16 MS. McDONALD: That's all

17 right.

18 Member Brennan.

19 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

20 MS. McDONALD: Member Gatt.

21 MEMBER GATT: Yes.

22 MS. McDONALD: Member Bauer.

23 MEMBER BAUER: No.

24 MS. McDONALD: Member Gray.

42

 

 

1 MEMBER GRAY: No.

2 MS. McDONALD: Member

3 Gronachan.

4 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: No.

5 MS. McDONALD: Member

6 Reinke.

7 MEMBER REINKE: No.

8 MEMBER BRENNAN: Okay. I

9 guess you shouldn't have let it slip that

10 you'd take that ground sign out.

11 MEMBER REINKE: Madam

12 Chairman?

13 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Yes,

14 Member Reinke.

15 MEMBER REINKE: I'd like to

16 make a motion that Sign A, the ground pole

17 sign, be eliminated; that Sign B be

18 eliminated as per the petitioner's

19 comments. Sign C for the east elevation be

20 approved for 100 square feet, and that Sign

21 D, Exhibit D, the south elevation, be

22 approved for 130 square feet as presented,

23 due to building and business

24 identification.

43

 

 

1 MEMBER GATT: Seconded.

2 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: We

3 have a motion and a second. Is there any

4 further discussion?

5 Okay. Lisa, would you

6 please call the roll.

7 MS. McDONALD: Member

8 Reinke.

9 MEMBER REINKE: Yes.

10 MS. McDONALD: Member Gatt.

11 MEMBER GATT: Yes.

12 MS. McDONALD: Member Bauer.

13 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

14 MS. McDONALD: Member

15 Brennan.

16 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

17 MS. McDONALD: Member Gray?

18 MEMBER GRAY: Yes.

19 MS. McDONALD: Member

20 Gronachan.

21 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Yes.

22 Your request, altered as it

23 is, has been approved. Thank you very

24 much. Please see the Building Department.

44

 

 

1 MR. BEDNAS: Thank you.

2 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

3 Thank you.

4

5 CASE NUMBER 03-073

6

7 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

8 Okay. Let's call our next case. Case

9 Number 03-073 filed by Northern Equities

10 Group for Beck North Corporate Park, Phase

11 II.

12 Matthew Sosin of Northern

13 Equities Group is requesting to appeal the

14 denial of the preliminary site plan and

15 site condominium approval including waiver

16 of the required berm adjacent to the

17 surrounding residential properties for the

18 Beck North Corporate Park, Phase II, Site

19 Plan #00-13J. The property is located east

20 of Beck Road and north of West Road.

21 Good evening.

22 MR. STEWART: Good evening.

23 My name is David Stewart; I'm with Northern

24 Equities Group.

45

 

 

1 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Mr.

2 Stewart, are you an attorney?

3 MR. STEWART: No.

4 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

5 Okay. I'm going to ask that you raise your

6 right hand and be sworn in by our

7 secretary. And also, if you would lift the

8 mike up a little bit so that everybody can

9 hear you.

10 MEMBER BAUER: Do you

11 solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth

12 regarding Case 03-073?

13 MR. STEWART: I will.

14 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you,

15 sir.

16 MR. STEWART: I guess to

17 start out -- I'm going to try and be as

18 brief as I can. We have in front of us

19 this evening one, I think, highly unusual

20 item for a Zoning Board of Appeals to

21 handle, which is the denial of a site

22 plan/site condominium for an industrial

23 park. The other is something I'm sure that

24 you've seen many times before, which is a

46

 

 

1 request for a variance to an existing

2 regulation.

3 Just informationally,

4 because I don't know how many of you were

5 up at two-thirty this morning, but we were

6 in front of the City Council last night for

7 approval of three aspects of this same

8 plan: the wetlands permit, the woodlands

9 permit and the storm water management

10 plan. Those were approved by the City

11 Council last night.

12 So this evening -- and I

13 guess one of the staff would have to

14 explain it -- we're asking for the approval

15 of the site condominium/site plan and a

16 variance to the berm requirement next to

17 single family residential. To deal with

18 the two issues, I'd like to deal with the

19 site plan first.

20 First thing I think that's

21 appropriate, is that this plan has been

22 reviewed by staff and by consultants, and

23 we have recommendations for approval from

24 all of those individuals. This plan as

47

 

 

1 depicted here, is a 63-acre site

2 condominium and -- well, it's divided into

3 30 lots. Our experience has been, such as

4 in the Beck West development, some of which

5 you may have seen portions of, which had 34

6 lots in it originally, but there tends to

7 be a great deal of lot combinations because

8 of the different sizes of the buildings.

9 These lots are configured to allow the

10 maximum amount of flexibility for the

11 combination of those.

12 Some of the buildings that

13 you may be aware of would be the Owens

14 Corning building, which is a combination of

15 three lots. The Alcan Aluminum building,

16 is a combination of three lots. The

17 building next to Owens Corning, is two lots

18 combined amongst others that have came

19 before this.

20 The other things that you

21 should realize in looking at this is that

22 ultimately, as each and every one of these

23 lots develop, this is all going to go back

24 to the Planning Commission. They're going

48

 

 

1 to have an opportunity to look at them,

2 review them and evaluate them on their

3 merits. As pertains to the berm, when we

4 originally presented this, we offered to

5 either do a berm or an alternative. I

6 think there was some thoughts both ways

7 when it pertained to this.

8 The reason that we think the

9 berm works best -- and by the way, I'm

10 still willing to adhere to the ordinance as

11 written -- is that across the north end of

12 this property, this is a fairly heavy

13 woodland. In order to put a berm in there,

14 I've got to cut all the trees down. It

15 seems to be counter-productive and counter

16 to the best interests of the adjoining

17 people and the natural features of this

18 particular property.

19 You'll be hearing from some

20 people tonight from Bristol Corners, which

21 is on the east side of this development

22 over here. There, what we offered to do

23 was to increase the minimum size of the

24 setback to 25 feet, eliminate the berm, and

49

 

 

1 to add a double row of higher than --

2 taller evergreens than what are called for

3 in the ordinance. In other words, going to

4 an eight-foot evergreen instead of six-foot

5 evergreen. And under the provision that we

6 be allowed to count those against our

7 replacement trees on a one-to-one basis,

8 because we're going to have a bunch of

9 replacement trees in conjunction with

10 putting these improvements in.

11 In addition to that, any

12 areas east of those evergreens that aren't

13 currently forested, I would be willing to

14 put some more of those trees in to increase

15 the density of the buffer between the

16 industrial park and the single family

17 residential. As you can see -- the dark

18 line is the proposed evergreen border. As

19 you can see, there are some gaps along the

20 way between that border and the subdivision

21 to the east.

22 And that really covers the

23 two issues. We think that the substitution

24 of the evergreens and leaving the trees as

50

 

 

1 they currently are is the better solution.

2 But whatever you choose would be fine with

3 us.

4 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Thank

5 you very much.

6 MR. STEWART: Thank you.

7 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

8 Before I make my next statement, I've seen

9 several people walk into the audience this

10 evening since I made the original

11 statement. And that is, this evening, on

12 the front of the Agenda are a set of Rules

13 of Conduct. I'm asking that anyone that

14 wishes to partake in audience participation

15 to please adhere to those rules, and

16 stating that three minutes will be allowed

17 for each resident. If you are a member of

18 a homeowners association or a

19 representative of a group, ten minutes will

20 be allowed and the Board will have the

21 discretion to extend it if necessary.

22 At the time that you come to

23 state your case, please do not address the

24 Board. Simply state your matters. If you

51

 

 

1 have questions, the Board will duly note

2 them and we will address with answers, when

3 we open it up for discussion.

4 Having said that, is there

5 anyone in the audience that wishes to make

6 a statement in regards to this case?

7 MEMBER BAUER: Are there

8 notices?

9 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: There

10 were 53 notices. One approval, two

11 objections, and nine returned. And I

12 understand that there were notices that had

13 no opinion, but just wrote back with no yea

14 or nay.

15 I'm not going to read all

16 these letters, but they are in the file for

17 record.

18 Mr. Wizinski?

19 MR. WIZINSKI: Good

20 evening. My name is Karl Wizinski. My

21 family and I live at 26850 Wixom Road. I'm

22 here tonight not on behalf of the

23 homeowners in Bristol Corners, but just to

24 share our experience living next to both

52

 

 

1 commercial and industrial on Wixom Road.

2 Tonight you will make a

3 decision that will have a profound effect

4 on the life of some Novi residents living

5 adjacent to Beck North Corporate Park,

6 Phase II. Our family lives 24 hours a day,

7 seven days a week, with inadequate

8 screening of Target's truck traffic and

9 loading dock next to our home on Wixom

10 Road, resulting from decisions made by the

11 Planning Commission based on incorrect

12 information from a developer and a city

13 consultant, and an appeal process to this

14 Board illegally interrupted by a City

15 Council directive to the ZBA,

16 the City of Novi's failure to enforce

17 compliance with approved site plans on a

18 timely basis, and the lack of any

19 ordinances in the City to regulate truck

20 noise and odors, truck delivery hours and

21 overnight parking of trucks occupied by

22 their drivers.

23 Although we have repeatedly

24 asked the City to develop ordinances to

53

 

 

1 protect citizens from the nuisance of

2 trucks adjacent to residential areas, no

3 initiative has begun to develop such

4 protection. In our case, the fear of

5 litigation created intense pressure to

6 quickly resolve complex issues.

7 Tonight, you are facing the

8 same situation. Our only purpose this

9 evening is to share our real life

10 experience with inadequate screening, and

11 to recommend that appropriate screening be

12 provided to the residents of Bristol

13 Corners. The City's noise ordinance

14 provides no protection for residents from

15 truck noise. The only protection from

16 truck noise is meaningful screening.

17 Meaningful screening must include a berm or

18 wall of appropriate height. Trees alone do

19 not attenuate noise at all.

20 We believe that the Beck

21 North proposal to waive a berm and add two

22 rows of eight-foot evergreens, in addition

23 to the existing woodland buffer, will not

24 be adequate to screen semi truck noise.

54

 

 

1 Semi trucks are over 13-feet tall, and are

2 pulled by noisy and smelly diesel engines.

3 Our home is screened by a six-foot berm and

4 wall, with some eight-foot evergreens. As

5 you can see in these pictures, these are

6 eight-foot evergreens. That's a six-foot

7 wall, and the semi trucks are behind it.

8 The proposed industrial park

9 will probably have tall masonry structures

10 similar to the Wixom Road Target Store.

11 Noise bounces off these hard surface

12 structures. Trees alone will not provide

13 protection from noise morning, noon, and

14 night.

15 Based on our real life

16 experience, a ten to 15-foot brick wall on

17 the industrial park side of the existing

18 woodland buffer, would be the appropriate

19 screening between this project and its

20 residential neighbors. The ordinance

21 allows a wall instead of a berm. One

22 option would be to preserve the 60-foot,

23 minimum 60-foot, woodland corridor between

24 the new wall and the adjacent residences.

55

 

 

1 The 66-foot span is suggested because it is

2 equal to the minimum base required to

3 construct a ten-foot berm. This would give

4 residents the sound attenuation benefits of

5 a wall, but leave the visual benefits of

6 the existing woodland and supplemental

7 evergreens.

8 For this Board to waive a

9 wall or berm entirely is a mistake.

10 Please, do not burden these Novi citizens

11 with the same problems we endure every

12 day. Thank you.

13 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

14 Thank you.

15 Anyone else? Yes, ma'am?

16 MS. ROBERTS: I'm Linda

17 Roberts. I live at 30377 Balfour Drive,

18 and I'm part of Bristol Corners

19 subdivision. And I have a few things to go

20 through here, but first I wanted to mention

21 that this issue is so important to so many

22 people. We have a petition that

23 represents 285 residents of Novi that are

24 very interested in having this appeal

56

 

 

1 denied. And I'll pass that around to you in

2 just a minute.

3 I also have a letter from

4 Arnie Serlin and this is to you:

5 I am writing this as the

6 president of the Bristol Corners Homeowners

7 Association. As you are aware, there are a

8 number of issues that were raised by the

9 Planning Commission in the denial of the

10 applicant's request for the preliminary

11 site plan approval and the condominium

12 approval. It certainly raises enough

13 doubts to send us back to the Planning

14 Commission and not to overturn their

15 decision. Issues of screening lights found

16 in ordinance interpretation must be taken

17 into consideration.

18 As you may know, Bristol

19 Corners existed well before Beck North.

20 There are reasonable expectations that

21 residents of Bristol Corners should be able

22 to rely upon. If you listen to the

23 Planning Commission and the residents,

24 those protections have not been met. There

57

 

 

1 is still too much work to be done, not just

2 to the a letter of the ordinance, but to

3 its intent as well. With regard to the

4 berm waiver, I believe it should be

5 carefully evaluated. Eliminating a required

6 berm that provides screening with its

7 required planting from view, lights, and

8 sound, is a mistake that only those most

9 affected will suffer the consequences of.

10 I understand that an option would be to

11 remove trees which may or may not be

12 desirable, but bear in mind that if the

13 foliage is off the trees, Beck Road can be

14 seen from Bristol Corners.

15 If, in your wisdom, you see

16 fit to waive the requirements, and in its

17 place have evergreens installed, eight-foot

18 evergreens are not the answer. 18 to

19 20-foot high dense evergreens such as

20 Spruce planted in staggered rows at ten to

21 12-foot spacing would provide a

22 substantially better screen.

23 In closing, please listen

24 to the residents, as they are the most

58

 

 

1 affected. As a developer myself, I know

2 there are sacrifices you make to each

3 development goal. The Planning Commission

4 felt that Beck North was too dense. The

5 loss of a lot or two might be the

6 appropriate solution.

7 Also, keep two things in

8 mind as you deliberate. If the tables were

9 turned and the Beck North developers were

10 standing in the shoes of Bristol Corners

11 residents, they would do everything they

12 could to protect their rights, their

13 property and their investment. What would

14 you do if you were living in Bristol

15 Corners? Wouldn't you expect your

16 investment to have reasonable protection by

17 the City whose obligation it is to do no

18 less.

19 Sincerely, Bristol Corners

20 Homeowners Association, Arnold Serlin,

21 President.

22 And, if you don't mind, may

23 I read my letter?

24 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Are

59

 

 

1 you representing the entire homeowners

2 association then or are there still more

3 members from Bristol Corners?

4 MS. ROBERTS: There are

5 more members.

6 MEMBER BAUER: It's over

7 three minutes now.

8 MS. ROBERTS: Then I will

9 hand you all my things.

10 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Is

11 there someone else? Mr. Mutch, would you

12 like to come down?

13 If there's anybody else in

14 the audience that's interested in speaking

15 in regards to this subject, if you would

16 like to move down so we can have everyone-

17 MR. MUTCH: Good evening,

18 Madam Chair and Members of the Zoning Board

19 of Appeals. Andrew Mutch, 24740 Taft

20 Road.

21 My first statement is

22 actually a question, and it's a question of

23 jurisdiction specifically regarding the

24 waiver for the berming requirement. And in

60

 

 

1 the notice that was sent out it indicated

2 that area of jurisdiction dealt with an

3 administrative review. I have a question

4 whether that's actually an accurate

5 assessment of what the developer is

6 requesting, or if that's actually a

7 variance request.

8 Clearly, they're requesting

9 a variance from the zoning ordinance, and I

10 would like that issue addressed at the

11 appropriate time. And I would state that

12 if it is determined that there is a blanket

13 variance request, I would point out that

14 within the zoning ordinance is the Planning

15 Commission, which has the discretionary

16 approval based on specific ordinance

17 standards to grant that waiver. And I

18 don't believe it would be appropriate at

19 this time for the Zoning Board to take

20 action on that variance request.

21 Truly, I think of all the

22 issues here tonight, as Mr. Wizinski so

23 clearly demonstrated, the berm waiver is

24 the one that could cause the most immediate

61

 

 

1 and irreparable harm to the residents, the

2 adjacent homeowners. And I would just like

3 the Zoning Board to take note that on

4 December 7, 1999, the Zoning Board of

5 Appeals heard a very similar blanket

6 variance request from this same developer

7 for the Beck North Corporate Park, Phase I,

8 which the Zoning Board of Appeals

9 unanimously rejected. And that dealt with

10 a very similar situation, which would have

11 resulted in the waiver of the berm

12 requirement for those properties adjacent

13 to the residential properties.

14 And I just want to read a

15 couple of comments from those minutes.

16 Chairman Brennan noted that in response to

17 Mr. Serlin, whose letter was read earlier

18 and who spoke that evening: I think that

19 Mr. Serlin's presentation is very strong.

20 His case was very strong. I would not be

21 interested in any variance request that

22 impacts a residential community that

23 already exits. I see no reason and have

24 heard no hardship that says they can't meet

62

 

 

1 the ordinance.

2 And likewise, Member

3 Harrington noted: I don't know that a

4 blanket variance finds its way anywhere in

5 the Novi code, and if it does, I don't

6 recall ever seeing it. I certainly don't

7 think that we have the power to grant a

8 blanket variance where changes in the

9 statutory terms, the essential character of

10 the real estate that is involved. Nothing

11 could be clearer than the door, if we grant

12 this variance, would be wide open to a

13 whole host of character changes which would

14 otherwise -- which would not otherwise

15 define this residential area. It would

16 appear to me that whatever this hardship,

17 it's self-created to the extent that

18 someone should have known better what the

19 appropriate zoning was, or at least raised

20 the question. I think that the burden

21 falls upon the petitioner who is in the

22 position of seeking a variance and seeking

23 to develop. I think-

24 MEMBER BAUER: (Interposing)

63

 

 

1 Your three minutes are up.

2 MR. MUTCH: Okay. I just

3 want you all to take note that that was a

4 unanimous decision by the Zoning Board.

5 I'm sorry, was that my time?

6 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Yes.

7 MR. MUTCH: Can I just

8 summarize really quick, I've just got a

9 couple of more comments.

10 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Three

11 seconds. MR. MUTCH: Did you all

12 get a copy of the letter from Mr. Howard

13 from Olsen, dated today, September 9th.

14 Okay. I just want to make sure that you

15 all did review his letter.

16 He did address the issue of

17 the Planning Commission's decision and the

18 requirements for overturning that, as well

19 as the issue that was raised at City

20 Council regarding lawsuits and takings, and

21 the Michigan case law regarding that. And

22 I think that addresses a lot of the

23 concerns.

24 Again, I would like you to

64

 

 

1 keep in mind Mr. Wizinski's comments and

2 the comments of all the residents as you

3 make your decision this evening. Thank you.

4 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Thank

5 you. Anyone else?

6 MS. HALLARON: You need to

7 clarify. You were saying if I'm

8 representing the subdivision, do I get ten

9 minutes then?

10 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Yes.

11 MS. HALLARON: Okay. I will

12 be representing the subdivision. My name

13 is Kelly Hallaron and I'm speaking also for

14 myself and my husband Scott. We live at

15 30361 Balfour Drive-

16 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

17 (Interposing) Excuse me. I would just like

18 to clarify for the record that you're

19 representing Bristol Corners then; is that

20 correct?

21 MS. HALLARON: Yes.

22 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

23 That's the subdivision.

24 MS. HALLARON: That's the

65

 

 

1 subdivision. So you don't need my address?

2 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: No,

3 go ahead. I just wanted to make sure what

4 subdivision so we don't-

5 MS. HALLARON: (Interposing)

6 I'm sorry, yes. I'm representing Bristol

7 Corners.

8 I'm here tonight to express

9 our concern for the appeal that's before

10 you for Beck North Corporate Park. We live

11 on that eastern border, right there, as an

12 individual but again I'm representing the

13 whole subdivision, all of our concerns and

14 in particular, I am a special

15 representative because my husband and I

16 became involved in this issue about a year

17 and a half ago, because the impact from

18 this corporate park happened behind our

19 house at that time. And that happened back

20 in April of 2002, and woodlands were

21 removed without permission, which directly

22 impacted our home and our street of the

23 subdivision.

24 And the removal of the

66

 

 

1 woodlands along with the wetlands were

2 assessed by our attorney as violations of

3 the Novi Woodland and Wetland Ordinances.

4 The loss of the woodlands has been reported

5 to be 3.2 acres, which -- I'm not sure you

6 can tell, but from this area to this area

7 all the way across. And if you want to see

8 that later, I can pass that around.

9 The impact has left our

10 homes and street fully exposed to the

11 future development of this large site, 63

12 acres, and without any protection from

13 construction noise, dirt, and dust,

14 garbage, potential security issues and

15 other related effects during the future

16 development of this park. Being such a

17 large site, it may take numerous years to

18 complete or even begin to construct sites

19 that are adjacent to our home. All of

20 these sites along here are adjacent to the

21 subdivision.

22 And we have already noticed

23 this with Phase I. Since we purchased

24 approximately four years ago, there are

67

 

 

1 only four or five buildings in Phase I,

2 it's taken that long. So that's what we

3 are concerned about as a subdivision, is

4 the length of time it probably will take,

5 and that we are exposed right now. Can I

6 have the -- thank you -- the exposure that

7 we have right now. Can you see that up

8 there? Okay, good. Thank you.

9 This is from Bristol Corners

10 side, and specifically from our back yard.

11 This is where the impact is currently.

12 The impact will continue to move as this

13 area is proposed to come down for future

14 site development. This is where the road

15 is proposed. This is from the other side,

16 from Beck North property. Those are our

17 homes. And just another preview. Thank

18 you. I'm done with that.

19 So we are concerned because

20 as you can see we're pretty exposed right

21 now, and if we don't have a berm put up

22 now, we are going to be exposed to this for

23 who know how many years. And again, it's

24 taken four years to get four or five

68

 

 

1 buildings up in Phase I. I realize the

2 economy is an issue, but it's a large site,

3 proposing, what, 30 units.

4 So we find that given this

5 fact and that the berm is required per

6 ordinance because Beck North is abutting

7 residential, we find this to be totally

8 unreasonable for the developer to request a

9 berm waiver. A berm in this situation is

10 absolutely necessary before construction of

11 any type begins, including any roads or

12 utilities.

13 Also we're wondering, are

14 berm decisions even under the jurisdiction

15 of the ZBA? That is a question, I believe,

16 our attorney is raising in his letter. And

17 we're also wondering, how can a berm waiver

18 be decided if a developer claims they can't

19 determine tree removal at this point -- and

20 I'm not refuting that, but how can we

21 decide that right now if they don't know

22 how many trees are going to come down. And

23 looking at the site plan, it appears that

24 most of those trees will come down. And if

69

 

 

1 they can't decide that, how do we know

2 about the opacity, noise and light issues

3 too, because those studies have not been

4 conducted.

5 These issues need to be

6 addressed first before we can decide what

7 kind of screening is required. And again,

8 because right now we're exposed, we know

9 that we need something before any type of

10 construction begins.

11 The suggestion that planting

12 eight-foot pine trees near the residential

13 border would suffice for the opacity, noise

14 and light issues is unfounded. First, the

15 lights to the site will be at least 15 to

16 18 feet high; second, the buildings will be

17 20 to 25 feet high; and third, the trees

18 are not even designated for the areas with

19 the most impact currently, which is this

20 street of Balfour Drive. Here are where

21 the pine trees are designated, right here,

22 and that's the end of the street. So the

23 pictures I showed you are looking out

24 through this set of woodlands here, and

70

 

 

1 there are no pine trees designated right

2 there. So in fact -- as I mentioned

3 they're all to the north of that. So we

4 would need this area -- from the pictures I

5 showed you, they are covering, basically,

6 that street of Balfour Drive -- we need

7 that area addressed at this time.

8 Our second concern is with

9 the proposed road placement of Nadlan Court

10 and the extension of Cartier Drive. This

11 is Nadlan Court, this is Cartier Drive.

12 Our concern is that both of these roads are

13 directed towards the east direction, or

14 towards the west -- directed toward our

15 subdivision. Taking the traffic towards

16 our subdivision with noise and lighting

17 issues, and that these roads also are

18 designed to create future clear cuttings of

19 the woodlands that are remaining, due to

20 access to those lots.

21 So here more woods would

22 come down due to these roads accessing the

23 woodlands. Woodlands here, woodlands here,

24 and especially over here for our

71

 

 

1 subdivision. A pretty significant impact

2 if the road is designated here, and the

3 woodlands are allowed to come down. Then

4 this impact, as you saw from the picture,

5 we were seeing this section, it will

6 continue on through the other side of the

7 street which also will affect this other

8 area here too.

9 We are especially concerned

10 about Nadlan Court, specifically because

11 that road will be running behind Balfour

12 Drive, behind our house, and that's where

13 that cul-de-sac will end. That is where

14 the parking lots will probably be, because

15 that's the bow of the cul-de-sac. So we're

16 also looking at facing a lot of parking and

17 light issues and without a berm, we're

18 going to be seeing lights all the time.

19 Alternatives for the road

20 placement exists. We'd like for that to be

21 considered tonight. These roads are not

22 cast in stone. Also, the storm systems

23 have not been placed yet and can be altered

24 from the plan. That is one of the

72

 

 

1 things -- the developer would like to keep

2 it this way, yet the storm system, as we

3 understand it, to be running through these

4 roads. It's not far into these roads yet

5 and it could be altered, and that's just

6 something we would like to have considered

7 too.

8 Also, Nadlan Court storm

9 system does not have to be directed in the

10 middle of the large regulated woodland

11 area, which is now creating unnecessary

12 destruction of the woodlands and the

13 habitat, and also the road could be moved

14 further north, and that would help out to

15 protect the woodlands, but also it would

16 help direct that traffic into an area where

17 there is much more density of woodlands

18 here, and without houses directly behind

19 there.

20 Overall, this road is not

21 planned in consideration of the site's

22 adjacency to the residential community, the

23 City's own natural resources and the City's

24 ordinances. If you do approve the site

73

 

 

1 plans tonight, the site plan and

2 condominium plan, we would ask that you

3 request conditions on this. One being that

4 you would remove these lots here to protect

5 this woodland area and the Wetland A, since

6 they are interconnected. If the storm

7 water system be directed out of the

8 woodland areas, that Nadlan Court could be

9 moved out and away from the woodlands, and

10 for you to deny the berm waiver. We really

11 need to have some type of screening. What

12 is required by the light industrial

13 ordinance is a berm, when light industrial

14 abuts residential, and it specifies exactly

15 how much.

16 MEMBER BAUER: Your ten

17 minutes are up.

18 MS. HALLARON: Okay, thank

19 you.

20 Well, thank you for your

21 time.

22 MR. BAUER: Do you want to

23 sum up?

24 MS. HALLARON: Just that the

74

 

 

1 berm is needed, especially in this area

2 where the woods were cut. That is what

3 we're really looking at right now. We

4 understand that everyone is talking about

5 looking at it in the future, for future

6 development, but right now we are fully

7 exposed and we really do need to have that

8 berm tonight. Thank you.

9 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

10 Thank you.

11 Is there anyone else in the

12 audience that wishes to address the Board

13 at this time?

14 Seeing none, I'd like to -- Building

15 Department, do you have any comments at

16 this time?

17 MR. SAVEN: No comment.

18 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

19 Planning Department?

20 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you,

21 Madam Chair.

22 We are -- obviously, my

23 colleagues and I have a fairly deep wealth

24 of knowledge on the history and reviews

75

 

 

1 that occurred on this project, both Phase I

2 and Phase II, and what has occurred both

3 last night and previously at the Planning

4 Commission. I feel no need to provide you

5 with an extraordinary amount of

6 information. We prefer, in fact, to answer

7 your questions as they arise.

8 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

9 Thank you.

10 I have a question for Mr.

11 Schultz.

12 Since there were questions

13 raised by the audience in regards to

14 jurisdiction, I'm going to turn that over

15 to you and ask you to explain, not only to

16 the audience here but to the audience at

17 home how this falls into it. And I would

18 like if you could help us with the

19 definition of discretionary and non

20 discretionary, and how this Board fits into

21 that as well. If you would, please.

22 MR. SCHULTZ: Okay, I'd be

23 glad to. Thank you, Madam Chair.

24 Board Members, I think what

76

 

 

1 I might do is start with the letter that

2 was at your place tonight, the letter from

3 the attorney for the Hallarons, Scott

4 Howard. He makes three points in the

5 letter, which have all been sort of touched

6 on during the presentation. The first one

7 relates to the Board's jurisdiction.

8 We heard a couple of

9 different comments so far. The one in Mr.

10 Howard's letter has to do with whether or

11 not this Board can hear an appeal from the

12 denial of the site plan because, as Mr.

13 Howard puts it, he views it as a special

14 land use that was denied by the Planning

15 Commission.

16 The state statute for the

17 Zoning Boards of Appeal says those are not

18 appealed to the ZBA unless the ordinance

19 specifically says so, and Novi's ordinance

20 doesn't give the authority to the ZBA.

21 Our position in response to

22 that is that this Board does have

23 jurisdiction. This is a site plan and not

24 a special land use. It's a condominium

77

 

 

1 plan. It's no different in our view, and

2 from a legal standpoint, and we believe

3 under the Condominium Act, than a

4 subdivision or a land division. This is a

5 decision of the Planning Commission that is

6 absolutely within the jurisdiction of the

7 Board tonight. And as a practical matter,

8 just so we're clear, while it is industrial

9 zoned property, and industrial uses will

10 need special land use if they're adjacent

11 to the residential parcels, there are uses,

12 office uses, that would be permitted

13 without special land use. So there's

14 another reason for a different position on

15 our part than Mr. Howard.

16 There is one issue

17 regarding, as the Chair said, discretionary

18 decision making that relates somewhat to

19 jurisdiction, and that's the waiver of the

20 berm issue. The Landscaping Ordinance

21 allows the Planning Commission to waive the

22 berm that's required along the edge, the

23 residential edge, if it makes some

24 determinations, and if there is an

78

 

 

1 appropriate conservation easement granted,

2 and the requirements of the ordinance are

3 met.

4 In our view, that is a

5 discretionary determination on the part of

6 the Planning Commission in the initial

7 instance in the ordinance. It is different

8 in our view from the other decision that

9 the Planning Commission was charged to

10 make, which was does the site plan itself,

11 aside from the berm issue, meet ordinance

12 requirements. That, in our view, is

13 administerial or a non discretionary

14 decision, and the charge to the Planning

15 Commission was look at the plan, look at

16 the ordinance requirements, does it meet

17 the requirements.

18 What you have before you is

19 an appeal essentially of both

20 determinations by the Planning Commission.

21 The state statute says that you sit as a

22 Board, and I'm just going to quote the

23 language from the statute:

24 That as a Board, you shall have all

79

 

 

1 the powers of the officer or body

2 from whom the appeal is taken.

3 That puts you in the shoes,

4 essentially, of the Planning Commission for

5 purposes of this appeal.

6 Mr. Howard's second point in

7 his letter is that you should not act on

8 the same issues that the Planning

9 Commission acted on. I think he says don't

10 go back to the beginning and start all

11 over. You should review the Planning

12 Commission's decision on a competent,

13 material, substantial evidence basis, like

14 a court would review a decision from this

15 Board.

16 We disagree because we read

17 the statute to mean that as an appeal,

18 particularly on the non discretionary

19 issues, you are given the authority, the

20 same powers, under the statute that the

21 Planning Commission was exercising. So

22 that addresses Mr. Howard's second point.

23 With regard to the last

24 point in Mr. Howard's letter, it has to do

80

 

 

1 with the discussion that's gone on about

2 litigation. I guess I'd like to encourage

3 the Board not to focus on the litigation

4 aspect of this. It seems to me that you're

5 just as likely to see litigation from

6 either side of this decision, and I think

7 what you need to do, and I'm sure you will,

8 is look at the ordinance and apply the

9 ordinance to the plan that's before you.

10 With regard to the berm

11 waiver, just to get back to that issue, I

12 think what's been outlined to the Board is

13 two choices, either grant the berm waiver

14 or don't grant the berm waiver. And our

15 office views it a little bit differently.

16 I think you have a third choice, which is

17 essentially not to require the berm to be

18 placed in connection with this site plan,

19 but to be dealt with as each of the

20 individual lots come in for approval.

21 And I know that this is a

22 difficult issue. I think the residents

23 would prefer the trees to be there, but

24 they also want the potential for a berm to

81

 

 

1 be there. And our view of the ordinance,

2 our office's view of the ordinance in any

3 event, is that those decisions with regard

4 to berm requirements or whether to

5 substitute a wall or whether to waive the

6 berm and the wall, are and ought to be made

7 at the time each of these individual lots

8 come into play. I think that should be

9 within the Board's consideration at this

10 point as well.

11 I think I've hit all the

12 points that have been addressed. If you

13 have any further questions-

14 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

15 Anyone else have any questions for Mr.

16 Schultz?

17 Seeing that there are none,

18 I'm going to open it up to the Board for

19 discussion.

20 MEMBER GATT: Madam Chair, I

21 want to begin and address the people who

22 spoke to us tonight. They referenced this

23 letter from the attorney. I just want the

24 audience to know that this letter was

82

 

 

1 placed on our tables prior to our arrival

2 tonight. We had no time to go over the

3 letter. We had no time to digest what was

4 said. Instead we -- obviously every member

5 of this Board spent hours and hours going

6 over the material that was provided to us.

7 So it would be very difficult for any

8 member of this Board to address anything

9 that's said in the letter tonight.

10 Last and not least, I want

11 the audience to know that this is an

12 emotional issue, and the Board is going to

13 come to a conclusion not based on emotions,

14 but based on the law, based on what's

15 right. And whatever way we come down, I

16 can only speak for myself right now, it

17 will be after a very, very, concerted

18 effort to digest the bulk of information

19 and reach a right conclusion.

20 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Thank

21 you.

22 Member Brennan.

23 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yeah, I

24 have some written notes, some of which I

83

 

 

1 prepared last night and some of which I've

2 jotted down tonight. First, I'll address

3 some of the comments from some of the

4 speakers.

5 We're not considering a

6 blanket variance on this particular case.

7 We're looking at specific areas of the

8 site. So it's different than what was

9 referenced by -- are you still here,

10 Mr. Mutch? Okay.

11 Mr. Wizinski, I think we're

12 looking at something significantly

13 different with respect to your evidence or

14 your findings. We have a petitioner that

15 is now looking at a setback from a property

16 line of 125 feet. I think that's

17 significantly different than your case.

18 Number three, Bobby already hit on it. We

19 got this at four o'clock. I didn't have

20 time other than to skim over it and I'm

21 glad that we asked our attorney to give us

22 some advice with respect to what we got

23 here.

24 The City employs specialized

84

 

 

1 planners and consultants to review these

2 projects. That's all these people to.

3 They're specialized in landscaping, they're

4 specialized in a lot of other fields, and

5 all seven departments determined that this

6 project, as presented to Planning, met the

7 requirements. And I'll note that with

8 respect to woodlands and the wetlands

9 approvals, they had very, very, significant

10 qualifiers. It wasn't just approved,

11 approved. Woodlands and wetlands had

12 significant qualifiers.

13 Based on reading that six

14 pounds of documentation we got, it seems to

15 me that the petitioner has made an attempt

16 to talk to the residents aside. That's not

17 always the case, in fact in a lot of ZBA

18 cases, we put off even discussing the case

19 until a developer does talk to the

20 residents. And it seems like, in reading

21 the minutes and reading that there has been

22 modifications to the original plan, to push

23 the project to the south, to consider

24 leaving trees instead of cutting them down

85

 

 

1 and putting up a ten-foot berm, and for the

2 record, it was the letter of their's from

3 July 25. That's my comment.

4 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

5 Thank you, Member Brennan.

6 Anyone else? Member Reinke,

7 go ahead.

8 MEMBER REINKE: I want to

9 echo Mr. Brennan's comments. I think that

10 the developer has tried to be a good

11 neighbor to the residential areas there.

12 They haven't gotten what they want, I

13 understand that. I think from what's

14 before us, if they went in there and put a

15 berm in right now, they're going to tear

16 everything out. We're going to start over

17 from scratch. I don't think that benefits

18 anybody.

19 If they have a requirement

20 not to put the berm in at this time, but

21 have to address back to the Planning

22 Commission on a lot per lot basis as the

23 development proposals come in, I think

24 we're all going to benefit much better than

86

 

 

1 to go either other way at this point in

2 time. Because not knowing what's there, if

3 we go in and put a berm in now and then

4 building-wise, envelope-wise changes the

5 configuration of things, I think we lose.

6 So in my estimation, I would

7 like to see the berm not go in at this

8 point in time, but as development goes

9 through the Planning Commission on a lot

10 per lot basis, that the woodlands, the tree

11 removal, the screening, whichever works out

12 best, be it additional screening or be it

13 put in a berm, would be much more

14 beneficial all the way around. Thank you.

15 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

16 Thank you, Member Reinke.

17 Member Gray?

18 MEMBER GRAY: I, too, have

19 to echo the comments and sentiments of the

20 Board Members who have spoken previously.

21 Every time there's development in the City,

22 the same issues are raised by the people

23 who are adjacent to them. Contrary to what

24 may be believed, I really do believe that

87

 

 

1 the City and our consultants who are the

2 professionals in this area are not lacking

3 in some sympathy for what's going on.

4 Anytime there's going to be any kind of

5 industrial or commercial development

6 adjacent to residential, there are other

7 criteria that are brought into play. And I

8 think that everybody needs to realize that

9 not for one minute would a granting of the

10 appeal mean that this City is not going to

11 be watching very closely as this

12 industrial, light industrial, development

13 goes in.

14 I've been -- since I live in

15 the area, I've been aware of this property

16 for a long time. I've driven the property

17 many, many, times. I've walked it before

18 even Bristol Corners was a gleam in

19 somebody's eye. I'm very, very, concerned

20 about protection of the subdivision from

21 the point of view that I absolutely believe

22 that berming is necessary, but I absolutely

23 see no point in going in and clear cutting

24 trees at this point to put in a berm. That

88

 

 

1 serves absolutely no purpose. And in fact,

2 it's my opinion that the reason the

3 landscape consultants at various times

4 throughout the project, have recommended

5 that either the Planning Commission or the

6 ZBA grant waivers from berm requirements is

7 in fact to protect the natural features

8 that are on the property and to keep them.

9 I also agree with Mr.

10 Reinke's comments. I don't feel that a

11 blanket variance is in order. And I wanted

12 to just make that comment. I also feel

13 since I was up 'til two-thirty this morning

14 watching the council meeting, and since I

15 was watching the Planning Commission

16 meeting when it was also in front of them,

17 this is not an easy decision for any one of

18 us to make. We're having to balance out

19 the needs and the wants and the protection

20 of one group against another. And

21 unfortunately, it seems to be not a win-win

22 situation. And I remember watching ZBA

23 many years ago when people would come in

24 and they'd say, but I paid a premium for my

89

 

 

1 lot to get the view of that woodlands.

2 Well, unless you own it, and you want to

3 keep the view, you've got to buy it.

4 We cannot, to use a term

5 that was used last night, we cannot be

6 arbitrary and capricious in our enforcement

7 of ordinances. The developers have just as

8 much right to develop their property as

9 Mr. Serlin has a right to develop the

10 subdivision. And so we have to balance out

11 those issues. And I do believe that our

12 consultants did review them to find that,

13 whether we like it or not, the site plan

14 does meet ordinance.

15 Thank you very much.

16 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

17 Thank you.

18 I'll go ahead and add a few

19 more comments onto the record. I concur

20 with all the members at this table. It's

21 very difficult to sit at this table and

22 read 3,000 pages over a two-week period and

23 not get emotionally involved, and think oh,

24 my gosh, what if I lived there, what would

90

 

 

1 I do. But you have to step back as a

2 resident when you're reviewing these cases

3 and look at the entire picture.

4 And so when I look at the residents out in

5 the audience, and I watched all of you last

6 night and listened to every audience

7 participation as well, I want you to know,

8 that as a Board member we have a job to do,

9 and at that job, we have to go to our

10 professionals. So we look at our planning

11 reports, we look at the woodland review, we

12 look at our landscape architect, traffic,

13 the building department, we look at those

14 peoples' reports and take them

15 wholeheartedly, because they are the

16 trained professionals. They, based on

17 their knowledge and expertise, give us

18 advice, or -- I hate to use the word

19 advice -- give us their opinion and we draw

20 from there. So I have to also concur with

21 the other previous speakers and echo Member

22 Gatt's sentiments, that don't think for one

23 minute that there's not any emotion on this

24 side of the table. There's more here than

91

 

 

1 you know.

2 Having said that, would

3 anyone like to make a motion?

4 MEMBER BRENNAN: I think

5 we're looking at maybe two motions, because

6 we're dealing with two separate

7 situations. We're dealing with the site

8 plan, we're dealing with berming. And I'm

9 a little clearer on the former rather than

10 the later. So I'll give this a stab and

11 we'll see how the Board-

12 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: All

13 right.

14 MEMBER BRENNAN: With

15 respect to Case 03-073, I make a motion to

16 grant an appeal to the Planning

17 Commission's denial of the site plan, based

18 on three facts, based on -- well actually

19 four. Based on all of the evidence that we

20 have before us, based on the plans

21 submitted, based on the review of the staff

22 and consultants' recommendations, and going

23 back and looking and reviewing the

24 ordinance.

92

 

 

1 And for the reason, the

2 plans, as previously stated, meet the

3 ordinance requirements.

4 MEMBER REINKE: Support.

5 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

6 Okay. We have a motion and we have

7 support. Do we have any further discussion

8 on the motion?

9 Seeing none, Lisa would you

10 please call the roll.

11 MR. SCHMITT: If I may have

12 just a moment. The Planning staff -- there

13 has been variety of issues raised with

14 this. We want to make sure we're crystal

15 clear on everything with relation to this.

16 As one of the concessions

17 that Northern Equity has offered in this

18 most recent submittal, they offered a

19 minimum of 125-foot building setback from

20 the residential property lines on the

21 Bristol Corners property. This is not

22 typical under the ordinance, it's based on

23 the height of the building. So we would

24 like the motion to simply include that the

93

 

 

1 125-foot setback will be enforced along the

2 Bristol Corners property line.

3 MR. SCHULTZ: Just a brief

4 comment. It's my -- and Mr. Schmitt,

5 you'll correct me if I'm wrong. It's my

6 understanding that that setback is shown on

7 the plans that are approved in the motions;

8 is that correct?

9 MR. SCHMITT: Yes, that's

10 correct.

11 MR. SCHULTZ: And any

12 other, for lack of a better term,

13 concessions that are on the plan that went

14 to the Commission to clarify the Board's

15 intent, are as shown on the plan and will

16 be required. Is that a fair comment on the

17 motion?

18 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

19 Yes.

20 MEMBER GRAY: And may I also

21 ask -- I'm sorry, go ahead.

22 MEMBER BAUER: Such as the

23 extra row of trees that petitioner was

24 asking for.

94

 

 

1 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: The

2 set of trees that they asked for.

3 MR. SCHULTZ: Those are

4 shown on the plan, and I think that could

5 be part of this motion, but as I

6 understand, it looks like you're going to

7 do a second motion on the berm, and we'll

8 address it again in that context.

9 MEMBER GRAY: Would it also

10 be appropriate, Mr. Schultz, at this time

11 to include in our motion, subject to all

12 consultants' reviews and requirements?

13 MR. SCHULTZ: Absolutely.

14 There will be final site plan approval that

15 will all continue on a normal path.

16 MEMBER GRAY: Is that okay

17 with you, Mr. Brennan?

18 MEMBER BRENNAN: I don't

19 have any issue with any of that.

20 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

21 Okay? So we have a motion, a second, an

22 amendment, approval. Lisa,

23 would you please call the roll.

24 MS. McDONALD: Member

95

 

 

1 Brennan.

2 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

3 MS. McDONALD: Member

4 Reinke.

5 MEMBER REINKE: Yes.

6 MS. McDONALD: Member Bauer.

7 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

8 MS. McDONALD: Member Gatt.

9 MEMBER GATT: Yes.

10 MS. McDONALD: Member Gray.

11 MEMBER GRAY: Yes.

12 MS. McDONALD: Member

13 Gronachan.

14 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Yes.

15 Okay. So we got the first

16 request approved. Now let's addressed the

17 berm.

18 MEMBER GRAY: Madam Chair,

19 in the matter of Case Number 03-073, I

20 would move to approve -- or move to grant

21 the appeal from the denial of the waiver of

22 the berm requirement for this site plan

23 only. This would not preclude the Planning

24 Commission reviewing berming requirements

96

 

 

1 on individual site plans as they are

2 submitted for development. This would also

3 recognize the 125-foot setback on the east

4 property line, and would also recognize the

5 petitioner's agreement to plant additional

6 trees for screening at that time.

7 One of the reasons I'm

8 making this motion is as stated previously,

9 that to go in and put a berm around the

10 entire property right now, would be

11 counter-productive and would remove, in my

12 opinion, the screening that already exists

13 with the woodlands on site.

14 MEMBER REINKE: Support.

15 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: We

16 have a motion and a second. Is there any

17 discussion to the motion?

18 MR. SCHULTZ: If I might go

19 first, just a quick clarification. I think

20 the motion is clear, just so we get the

21 underlying concept behind it.

22 The idea is several of these

23 are likely to come in as special land use,

24 and the intent of the motion, as I

97

 

 

1 understand it, would be to indicate that a

2 waiver -- if you're standing in the shoes

3 of the Planning Commission right now for

4 this purpose -- wouldn't preclude treatment

5 of this by the Planning Commission when the

6 individual plans come in.

7 And just that it would also

8 be subject to all of the other requirements

9 that go along with the waiver, like the

10 conservation easement, pending further

11 development, and all the other requirements

12 of the ordinance related to the waiver.

13 MEMBER GRAY: This should

14 not be construed as a blanket waiver.

15 MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you.

16 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Thank

17 you.

18 Mr. Schmitt.

19 MR. SCHMITT: Once again I

20 have a couple of clarifications I'd just

21 like to get.

22 As I understand it, the

23 intent is to plant the double row of

24 evergreens at this time both along the

98

 

 

1 property line and at the end of the

2 cul-de-sacs, or is it the Board's

3 suggestion that these not be planted until

4 such time as proper irrigation is at the

5 site?

6 MEMBER GRAY: I would think

7 that this developer, wanting to be a good

8 neighbor, would want to do that now.

9 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Well,

10 if there's no irrigation out there.

11 MEMBER GRAY: No irrigation?

12 MEMBER BRENNAN: Therefore,

13 no water.

14 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Mr.

15 Shipman?

16 MR. SHIPMAN: If I may,

17 thank you.

18 One of the issues that has

19 been discussed concerning the placement of

20 those evergreens would be the viability of

21 the evergreens.

22 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

23 Correct.

24 MR. SHIPMAN: It's something

99

 

 

1 to consider. As mentioned, there is

2 currently no irrigation out to that area of

3 the site, and no intention of having water

4 available up front to be able to provide

5 irrigation to those.

6 There are measures that can

7 be taken to apply adequate water during the

8 growing period, however the developer would

9 only be required to maintain for a certain

10 number of years -- under the ordinance,

11 it's two years. So past the two-year

12 period, there really is no -- it's going to

13 be harder to maintain that material. So I

14 think that information should be used at

15 your discretion in making your decision.

16 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Thank

17 you.

18 MEMBER BRENNAN: Discussion.

19 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Yes.

20 MEMBER BRENNAN: I want to

21 make sure I understand this. For the

22 purpose of, as an example, Mrs. Hallaron

23 pointed out, that there were some areas

24 that there was heavy vegetation, mature

100

 

 

1 trees, and that there were some areas that

2 were clear cut. As the way we have defined

3 this motion as each lot is developed, it

4 will, hopefully through planning each lot

5 and its unique characteristics, be taken

6 into consideration, and maybe that helps

7 solve some of the residents' issues. Where

8 in certain houses where they back up to the

9 huge stand of trees, there's a chance they

10 stay, and if it's been clear cut, it makes

11 more sense to put up a big old berm.

12 That's how I understand your motion.

13 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

14 Member Reinke?

15 MEMBER REINKE: I think to

16 go in there and put trees in with not

17 knowing what's there, is not going to

18 really accomplish what we're trying to do

19 with the screening, because we don't know

20 what we are screening.

21 If the natural state is left

22 intact now, they have some screening

23 there. To put the roadway in, you're not

24 going to have traffic and lights being

101

 

 

1 generated that need to be screened out. And

2 as the development goes and builds, that

3 the screening and buffers need to build

4 along with it, then they'll be built in an

5 adequate fashion. It would be controlled

6 by the planning process as the buildings go

7 in to be as effective as possible, rather

8 than trying to go in and do something now

9 which would not be maintained or watered at

10 an adequate level, and could end up dying

11 and be in a worse situation of going in and

12 disturbing things than leaving what's there

13 alone until development time.

14 MEMBER BAUER: I agree with

15 you.

16 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

17 Absolutely.

18 MEMBER BRENNAN: I concur.

19 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

20 Okay. So we need to address this issue

21 then.

22 MEMBER REINKE: No. We just

23 need to leave the motion the way it is.

24 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: The

102

 

 

1 way it is, but to address the trees, when

2 they're going to be planted.

3 MR. SCHMITT: That is the

4 question we're asking, whether the Board

5 would like them planted now or whether they

6 would like them planted at the time of each

7 lot-

8 MEMBER BRENNAN: At the time

9 of development.

10 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Time

11 of development.

12 MR. SCHMITT: Okay. Thank

13 you very much concerning that issue.

14 We actually have a couple of

15 other issues we need to clarify as well.

16 You mentioned the

17 conservation easement in your original

18 motion, I believe. Northern Equities had

19 suggested in their response letter of July

20 25, that they would agree to deliver the

21 City a conservation easement over the 50

22 feet west of the habitat corridor, which

23 would essentially be 50 additional feet of

24 setback, which is part of the ordinance

103

 

 

1 requirements. We would just like to

2 clarify that this is the Board's intent

3 that the areas of woodlands in this

4 additional 50 feet would be put under a

5 conservation easement as a result of this

6 approval as well.

7 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Yes.

8 That's correct.

9 MR. SCHMITT: And lastly, I

10 would defer to our woodlands consultant,

11 Mr. DeBrincat on this issue. They have

12 requested that the evergreens that are

13 being planted in the locations at the end

14 of the cul-de-sac and along the property

15 line, be counted as one-to-one

16 replacements. With regard to the tree

17 replacements, typically evergreens are only

18 counted as one-half to one and I believe

19 that

20 Mr. DeBrincat is far more of an expert on

21 this, but we would like some direction on

22 that as well.

23 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: One

24 for one.

104

 

 

1 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you very

2 much. I appreciate all the clarifications.

3 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: We

4 have a motion, we have a second. We have

5 the appropriate amendments and notes to the

6 file. Is there any further discussion?

7 Seeing none, Lisa, would you

8 please call the roll.

9 MS. McDONALD: Member Gray.

10 MEMBER GRAY: Yes.

11 MS. McDONALD: Member

12 Reinke.

13 MEMBER REINKE: Yes.

14 MS. McDONALD: Member Bauer.

15

16 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

17 MS. McDONALD: Member

18 Brennan.

19 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

20 MS. McDONALD: Member Gatt.

21

22 MEMBER GATT: Yes.

23 MS. McDONALD: Member

24 Gronachan.

105

 

 

1 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Yes.

2 Sir, your -- I have to say

3 this right. Your appeal for the denial has

4 been granted.

5 MR. STEWART: Thank you

6 very much for your time and for your

7 consideration.

8 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

9 Thank you. I know we have --

10 Board Members, we only have three more

11 cases. Would the Board like to entertain a

12 break, a short ten-minute break at this

13 time?

14 MEMBER BRENNAN: Sure.

15 (A brief recess was

16 taken.)

17

18 CASE NUMBER 03-050

19

20 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: I

21 will now call the Zoning Board of Appeals

22 meeting back to order. I would like to

23 step aside from the current Agenda for

24 three minutes.

106

 

 

1 Board Members, we have a

2 resident who came before us about -- where

3 are they? They're right there, so help me,

4 please -- approximately 90 days ago, and we

5 granted them a variance. It's Mr.

6 Karakian. He lives on Shawood Drive, and

7 the bottom line is that his permit is about

8 ready to run out. So I would like, if it's

9 okay with the Board for him to just come in

10 front us tonight. Based on Mr. Schultz'

11 advice and Mr. Saven's guidance, it would

12 take about three minutes, and we can help

13 this resident out, if it's okay with the

14 Board.

15 MEMBER GATT: Sure.

16 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

17 Would you like to come forward, please?

18 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Mr.

19 Saven, I realize I'm breaking tradition

20 here, but this was in regards to Case

21 Number 03-050, and I will spell the last

22 name for the record. K-a-r-a-k-i-a-n, the

23 first name is John, at 2450 Shawood Drive

24 in Novi, Michigan.

107

 

 

1 Mr. Saven, if you could

2 help us, please.

3 MR. SAVEN: Okay. I've got

4 a bad memory -- just kidding.

5 As you are well aware, this

6 couple was before us sometime ago, about

7 three months ago, and they had endeavored

8 to add on a second story to their house,

9 which is off of Shawood. It was a very

10 difficult scenario that they had to deal

11 with, in terms of the original ranch unit

12 to a second story, and a configuration of

13 the building was -- based upon even being a

14 stone building, if you can recall this

15 building it was very unique.

16 They had a little problem

17 and difficulty with trying to get a

18 contractor to do the work, as it was

19 explained to me, and they're closing in on

20 their 90-day requirement that we've had by

21 past policy and by ordinance, and they had

22 requested, basically, that they would like

23 to get an extension because they had a

24 great degree of difficulty in trying to get

108

 

 

1 a correct bid on their place. It's

2 fluctuated tremendously as far as cost

3 goes.

4 And I had asked that it

5 probably be to their best interest to come

6 back before the Board so they don't lose

7 their variance, and just continue this for

8 another 90 days, and probably not to exceed

9 that before we come back and publish it.

10 As long as they're coming in with the

11 building permit, we normally don't have

12 this particular problem. And I think we

13 can do this and try to achieve it by that

14 time.

15 MEMBER BRENNAN: Madam

16 Chair, I'll make a motion.

17 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Okay,

18 Member Brennan.

19 MEMBER BRENNAN: I would

20 make a motion that we grant this couple a

21 90-day extension.

22 MEMBER REINKE: Support.

23 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: A

24 motion has been made and seconded. Any

109

 

 

1 further discussion on the motion?

2 Seeing none, Lisa would you

3 please call the roll.

4 MS. McDONALD: Member

5 Brennan.

6 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

7 MS. McDONALD: Member

8 Reinke.

9 MEMBER REINKE: Yes.

10 MS. McDONALD: Member

11 Bauer.

12 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

13 MS. McDONALD: Member Gatt.

14 MEMBER GATT: Yes.

15 MS. McDONALD: Member Gray.

16

17 MEMBER GRAY: Yes.

18 MS. McDONALD: Member

19 Gronachan.

20 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Yes.

21 Your extension has been

22 granted. I'm going to pass this back down

23 to Sarah, and you can see the Building

24 Department. Good luck.

110

 

 

1 MR. KARAKIAN: Thank you

2 members of the Zoning Board. I appreciate

3 it. Thank you very much.

4 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

5 You're welcome.

6

7 CASE NUMBER 03-074

8

9 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Well,

10 the gold star goes to the next petitioner.

11 03-074,

12 David Doiron?

13 MR. DOIRON: That's close

14 enough.

15 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Okay.

16 Of 1750 Paramount. We appreciate your

17 patience in letting that happen.

18 MR. DOIRON: Where is my

19 gold star?

20 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: See

21 Lisa. She's passing them out later.

22 You're requesting four

23 variances for the construction of a

24 proposed garage addition located at 1750

111

 

 

1 Paramount.

2 And you are the homeowner;

3 correct?

4 MR. DOIRON: Yes.

5 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Would

6 you raise your right hand and be sworn in

7 by the secretary.

8 MEMBER BAUER: Do you

9 solemnly swear or affirm to the tell truth

10 regarding Case 03-074?

11 MR. DOIRON: Yes.

12 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

13 MEMBER BRENNAN: Madam

14 Chair?

15 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Yes.

16 MEMBER BRENNAN: I need to

17 interrupt right now. While I just met Mr.

18 Doiron at break, his daughter and my

19 daughter are best of friends, and I

20 wouldn't want somebody to think that I had

21 any influence, and if you would rather have

22 me sit off, I'll sit off.

23 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: I

24 don't. MEMBER BAUER: I

112

 

 

1 don't.

2 MEMBER GATT: I'm sure Mr.

3 Brennan can reach a decision putting aside

4 his daughter's friendship with the

5 petitioner.

6 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Board

7 Members?

8 MEMBER REINKE: Go ahead.

9 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

10 We're ready to go.

11 MR. DOIRON: First of all,

12 let me tell you that I feel like I know you

13 all already because I watch you every month

14 on T.V. Best reality show there is.

15 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Did

16 you know that we needed an alternate?

17 That's how it first starts.

18 MR. DOIRON: My name is

19 David Doiron, of course, and I've been a

20 resident here in Novi for 32 years. About

21 five years ago I purchased this house as a

22 fixer-upper and during this period I've

23 used the basement as my shop, my basic

24 place to work and do all the improvements.

113

 

 

1 It's now time to finish the basement. I

2 need a garage, somewhere to move my tools,

3 materials, a place to secure and park my

4 car. That's my difficulty right now.

5 As you can see in your

6 packet, there is a copy of the plat for

7 Paramount Street. My lot is the smallest

8 one. Most all others are double lots or

9 they were plated across the street at a

10 different time, much larger than mine.

11 Mine is the smallest. It's also non

12 conforming, the north end.

13 I also had in your packet

14 some drawings where I could put a detached

15 garage without any variances. You can see

16 that's just impossible with that small of a

17 backyard. There would be no way to turn a

18 vehicle in there or make a jog around the

19 house to get into a garage. And that's all

20 due to the lot size and topography. If you

21 notice the boulder wall that's back there,

22 the base of that boulder wall is actually

23 about 12 inches higher than the base of the

24 house, which would mean the drainage and

114

 

 

1 everything would run towards the house. I

2 have a basement there and it might create

3 leaks. And the need for yard space,

4 putting one in the backyard would be

5 difficult and take up all the yard.

6 Where I got it proposed is

7 probably the only location, that's probably

8 the best location, and architecturally,

9 once it's done, it will look the most

10 pleasing. I do need a garage. I would

11 hate to come to this with a denial. I know

12 I would have to move because I really need

13 one, but I don't want to. I know you guys,

14 I've watched you for years, and I know

15 you've always had the best interests of the

16 homeowners of the City in mind, and I

17 respect any decision you make, and my fate

18 is in your hands.

19 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

20 Okay. Thank you.

21 There were 56 notices sent.

22 Three approvals. Fernanda Lavago, Stacy

23 Peterson, and Joseph and Nancy, and I'm

24 sorry, Miseron (phonetic), they're all

115

 

 

1 residents of Paramount.

2 Is there anyone in the

3 audience that wishes to speak in regards to

4 this case?

5 Seeing none, Board

6 Members -- I'm sorry, Building Department.

7 MR. SAVEN: Most of you have

8 the site plan in front of you regarding the

9 40-foot lot width. The existing home sits

10 very, very, close to the property line on,

11 basically, the southeast side. The

12 extension he's asking for is for a 12 by 21

13 square foot garage, which is 252 square

14 feet.

15 He also did present the fact

16 that he tried other configurations in the

17 back. He tried to place the garage, which

18 made it very difficult for that space.

19 Bearing in mind, this is one of these

20 things, even though this was existing -- we

21 did have the grandfathering, but

22 grandfathering is no longer part of the

23 ordinance. That's why he's got so many

24 variances that are needed.

116

 

 

1 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

2 Okay. Thank you. Board Members?

3 Member Gatt will go first.

4 We'll break the record here.

5 MEMBER GATT: Thank you. I

6 just have a question for you, sir. You say

7 you've lived in Novi for 32 years and you

8 bought this house as a fixer-upper. This

9 is where you live?

10 MR. DOIRON: Yes.

11 MEMBER GATT: And where you

12 intend on living?

13 MR. DOIRON: Where I plan on

14 staying, hopefully, until I require.

15 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

16 Member Brennan.

17 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, he

18 must watch our proceedings because he did a

19 nice job in preparing the package. We

20 would have typically wanted to explore

21 whether there's other possibilities in the

22 backyard, and you've done a nice job. For

23 the most part, you've presented hardship.

24 I think it's realistic for a person to have

117

 

 

1 a garage. And most of your -- well, I'd

2 say all of your variance requests are very

3 minimal. I'd support your request.

4 MEMBER BAUER: You did a

5 very good job.

6 MR. DOIRON: Thank you.

7 MEMBER BAUER: I can support

8 it.

9 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

10 Member Reinke.

11 MEMBER REINKE:

12 Unfortunately, I guess we don't all totally

13 agree. I can't support the petitioner's

14 motion. It's too far built out on the lot

15 line. I know that may be the ideal

16 condition that the petitioner would like to

17 have, but I can't support that. In my

18 estimation, the garage has got to go in the

19 backyard, but you've got to have some

20 variance along there access-wise, and it's

21 just over built.

22 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

23 Member Gray.

24 MEMBER GRAY: I'll throw the

118

 

 

1 second monkey wrench in the works and say

2 that I agree with Mr. Reinke. Any time I

3 see six-foot privacy fences, and I see

4 somebody wanting to build almost within two

5 feet of the fence, I have a major problem,

6 because I'm anticipating and I've seen in

7 that area also, having lived there for

8 quite sometime, when a house goes that

9 close, there's a real problem with the

10 neighbor. And when I think of our fire

11 protection officers trying to get into the

12 backyard to fight a fire and fully

13 loaded -- we had only 2.4 feet to get back

14 there -- I've got a major problem.

15 One of the criteria, of

16 course, is based on hardship. And you have

17 given us three other options, two of which,

18 I don't find feasible, but the third one,

19 which I'll call Option C, and this is the

20 kind of burgundy ink that you put on

21 showing the garage in the backyard with a

22 12 by 18 configuration, I would find more

23 amenable to the circumstances. It would

24 not take up your entire backyard.

119

 

 

1 I would be willing to, in

2 fact, negotiate on a little bit larger

3 garage, a little bit wider, understanding

4 that contouring can be done to force

5 drainage to the property line and contain

6 it with a small swale.

7 You said the base of the

8 boulder wall is 12 inches above your house

9 and the water runs downhill now. So it's

10 not going to change direction, it's still

11 going to run downhill.

12 I can't support the attached

13 garage, but I can certainly understand your

14 wanting to have a garage. I have a double

15 lot, so I have 80 feet and I don't have a

16 garage. But I would say I'd be willing to

17 consider variances if you were so inclined

18 to build a garage in your backyard. I

19 would be inclined to grant variances to

20 allow that, more than I would attached to

21 the house where you're proposing it.

22 Thank you.

23 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: That

24 leaves me. I should have gone first. I

120

 

 

1 should have jumped out in front of

2 everybody tonight and then I could have

3 just sat here and listened.

4 I, unfortunately, am half

5 that way and half this way, and I'll tell

6 you why.

7 I agree that you did a great

8 job on your packet, and that says a lot

9 when you're looking at these packages, and

10 staying up to three in the morning watching

11 meetings and reading. I'm not trying to

12 make light of it, okay? I appreciate the

13 detail you put into this packet. It helps

14 us look at, if there are options we can

15 maybe come up with something else.

16 My concerns, and this is

17 kind of going over to the members at this

18 table, are: if you put the garage in the

19 backyard as Exhibit C -- I will concur with

20 Member Gray's calling it Exhibit C. My

21 concern is what the petitioner suggests

22 about difficulty entering the garage and

23 having the radius of turning the car

24 around.

121

 

 

1 MEMBER REINKE: (Inaudible)

2 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: No.

3 I'm looking at the last one that Member

4 Gray just talked about, okay, being that

5 there would be no variances-

6 MEMBER GRAY: Well, there

7 might be variances.

8 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

9 Well, okay, there could be some variances

10 on this one. But if there isn't a degree

11 of difficulty getting in -- that's a long

12 way to drive back to your garage.

13 So once I see that there is a chance of

14 building it with a lesser variance then --

15 and I, too, cannot support building that

16 close to the property line.

17 MR. DOIRON: May I just

18 rebut that?

19 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

20 Certainly.

21 MR. DOIRON: The turning

22 into the garage from where it's situated on

23 that drawing getting next to the house, or

24 backing out of the garage, that was the

122

 

 

1 difficulty there. Trying to get around the

2 edge of the house to get straight into the

3 garage and backing out again. Parking it

4 would be fine, but putting it too close to

5 the boulder wall. My lot is actually a

6 little bit higher than the neighbor's lot.

7 There wouldn't be much room to put a swale.

8 If I put a swale, it would be into his

9 yard. I didn't look at all those things,

10 and that's why I put these on there so you

11 could see all of them.

12 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'd ask

13 the Building Department your thoughts on

14 the proposed plan, it being attached. Your

15 opinion on the fire and safety issues.

16 MR. SAVEN: Well, you got a

17 fire and safety issue being that close to

18 the property line, which as far as -- there

19 is certainly an issue with fire safety as

20 it relates to that exterior wall being as

21 close to the property line as it is. That

22 can be achieved in the construction aspect

23 of the issue. I just might want to ask the

24 question. If looking at what you're

123

 

 

1 proposing for a detached garage, as you can

2 see, there's been some comments here that

3 were made. If that garage was cocked in

4 such a manner that you could get closer to

5 the house, maybe by three feet, okay-

6 MR. DOIRON: You mean the

7 variance?

8 MR. SAVEN: Instead of

9 10-foot, come back where you get a

10 three-foot variance -- you follow me on

11 this? If the Board wants to say anything,

12 please jump in, whatever. And then cock

13 that garage such that you can be able to

14 come into the garage, and then be able to

15 back out, with lesser of a variance then

16 you may need to get maybe a two or

17 three-foot variance, depending on how

18 you're going to look at this angulation,

19 okay. In other words -- hold on one

20 second.

21 MR. DOIRON: Okay.

22 MR. SAVEN: It's a

23 combination of basically your second

24 submittal and your last submittal for that

124

 

 

1 size, just angle it out and get closer to

2 the house by about three-foot, and ask for

3 a lesser variance. I think this could be

4 something you could possibly achieve.

5 The Board's really looking

6 at how close you are to the property line.

7 The ability to get firefighters around that

8 wall area, especially with your fence being

9 there. That is a concern for them, and I'm

10 picking that up. I would rather have you

11 have an opening there. Yeah, something

12 like that.

13 MR. DOIRON: Correct, yeah.

14 I thought of that too.

15 MR. SAVEN: And I think you

16 were talking about having a swale

17 available-

18 MR. DOIRON: (Interposing)

19 Well, there is no swale available. That's

20 the lot that is most affected, which is

21 just a tad bit lower than mine, and as you

22 see where the boulder wall actually

23 horseshoes around the backyard?

24 MR. SAVEN: Uh-huh.

125

 

 

1 MR. DOIRON: This sheathing

2 off of the garage roof I would be very

3 concerned about. Any swales, where would I

4 take them to, to the neighbor's yard?

5 MEMBER GRAY: How soft is

6 the -- how much soft do you have between

7 the drive on the south?

8 MR. DOIRON: Right now, that

9 existing eight-foot drive, you're talking

10 about?

11 MEMBER GRAY: Yeah.

12 MR. DOIRON: There's

13 three-foot soft.

14 MEMBER GRAY: So it's not

15 inconceivable though, you can do something

16 to put some kind of drainage, PVC or

17 something, to run the water towards the

18 road?

19 MR. DOIRON: I'm sure, yeah,

20 there is a place to do it.

21 MEMBER GRAY: Well, I would

22 encourage you to explore that avenue. I

23 want to give you your garage. Believe me,

24 I want to give you your garage.

126

 

 

1 MR. DOIRON: I know you guys

2 do. I've watched.

3 MEMBER BRENNAN: If we were

4 looking at something like along these

5 lines, it's got to be renoticed; right?

6 MR. SAVEN: Yes. I would

7 ask that this gentleman take a look at that

8 and see if that's what he really wants to

9 consider.

10 MR. DOIRON: Can I speak on

11 that?

12 MR. SAVEN: Yes.

13 MR. DOIRON: It is not what

14 I would like. I think it would devaluate

15 the property, not increase it, because

16 putting the garage there actually takes

17 away all of the backyard. So the need for

18 yard space would be absolutely gone. If

19 you looked in the back yard, if you stood

20 in the backyard, you'd see that a 12 by 18,

21 a 12 by 20, any kind of garage, you're

22 setting it right in the middle of that very

23 small yard. Respectfully, I would rather

24 you just you deny this one, because there

127

 

 

1 is the best place to go.

2 MEMBER BRENNAN: Let's

3 continue some discussion.

4 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: We

5 usually get petitioners to this point and

6 then we suggest that perhaps you might want

7 to entertain tabling it because in going

8 back and looking at it again -- I know how

9 you feel right now, but if you watch us

10 you'll see that people come back a month

11 later and say, you know, I'm glad I thought

12 about it. Because what you may or may not

13 see tonight you may see in a different

14 light of day. It's that property line

15 that's the problem.

16 MR. DOIRON: I know that.

17 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: You

18 understand that?

19 MR. DOIRON: Sure.

20 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: I

21 mean, it's totally up to you. It's your

22 call, but we're willing to work with you.

23 MR. DOIRON: I know you guys

24 are.

128

 

 

1 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

2 That's what we would -- I don't want to use

3 the word suggest, but you may want to

4 consider that, table it, and maybe have

5 somebody else take a look at this. I'm

6 surprised that every time people do that

7 and they come back the next month, that

8 they usually come back with something

9 better for them and allows us to work with

10 them.

11 MR. DOIRON: And I do have

12 to say that I don't think I would be

13 comfortable living in the house with the

14 garage taking up the whole backyard. And

15 as much as I need one, I still would like a

16 little yard to be able to sit out there in

17 the evening and what not.

18 MEMBER BAUER: And cut a

19 little grass.

20 MR. DOIRON: Yeah, and cut

21 a little grass. Just a little.

22 I understand everything that

23 you said. If it's denied then so be it. If

24 it's not, it's approved, then I can go with

129

 

 

1 that too.

2 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

3 Okay. All right, Board Members.

4 MEMBER BRENNAN: I think

5 we've got a different problem. I think

6 we've got a split Board and we only have

7 six people here tonight.

8 MEMBER REINKE: Let's give

9 it a try and see where we're at. Madam

10 Chairman, I'd like to make a motion in Case

11 03-074, that the variance request be denied

12 due to lot width and shape.

13 MEMBER GRAY: Support.

14 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: The

15 motion has been made and seconded, and the

16 attorney is raising his hand.

17 Mr. Schultz.

18 MR. SCHULTZ: Just a

19 clarification based on the comments that

20 were made by the maker of the motion

21 earlier. As I understand it, there is an

22 alternate use available with the structure

23 in the rear.

24 MEMBER REINKE: That's

130

 

 

1 correct.

2 MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you.

3 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

4 Thank you. Any further discussion on the

5 motion?

6 (No further

7 discussion.)

8 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Lisa,

9 would you please call the roll.

10 MS. McDONALD: Member

11 Reinke.

12 MEMBER GRAY: Yes.

13 MS. McDONALD: Member Gray.

14 MEMBER GRAY: Yes.

15 MS. McDONALD: Member Bauer?

16 MEMBER BAUER: No.

17 MS. McDONALD: Member

18 Brennan.

19 MEMBER BRENNAN: No.

20 MS. McDONALD: Member Gatt.

21 MEMBER GATT: Yes.

22 MS. McDONALD: Member

23 Gronachan.

24 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Yes.

131

 

 

1 4 to 2, so your request for

2 a variance has been denied.

3 MR. DOIRON: Thank you. I

4 respect that, but I'll still keep

5 watching.

6 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

7 Okay. Thank you.

8

9 CASE NUMBER 03-075

10

11 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Case

12 Number 03-075. Radiant Sign Company, LLC

13 for American Home Fitness, located at 44225

14 Twelve Mile Road in Fountain Walk.

15 Are you Mr. Weinstock?

16 MR. WEINSTOCK: Yes, ma'am.

17 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: All

18 right. Mr. Weinstock, would you please

19 raise your right hand and be sworn in by

20 our secretary.

21 MEMBER BAUER: Do you

22 solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth

23 regarding case 03-075?

24 MR. WEINSTOCK: Yes, I do.

132

 

 

1 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Go

2 ahead, please.

3 MR. WEINSTOCK: We're

4 requesting a variance for an additional 16

5 square feet for the main exterior channel

6 letter sign that faces Twelve Mile Road.

7 It's a pretty big distance from the

8 building to Twelve Mile Road. A 24-square

9 foot sign wouldn't hardly be seen. As you

10 could see the mockup, you can read the

11 lettering from Twelve Mile Road now for

12 American Home Fitness. It's not a huge --

13 we're not asking for a lot, I don't think,

14 compared to what I've seen, you know, at

15 that plaza.

16 And as far as the second

17 sign goes, it's nine square feet. It's

18 strictly a corporate identity, their logo.

19 The reason we're asking for that one is the

20 main sign is offset to the left of the

21 door, and normally a sign would be placed

22 over the door and that sign is going to

23 help out people like leaving Galyan's

24 walking on the Fountain Walk sidewalk,

133

 

 

1 instead of looking all the way up at a main

2 sign, they can see a smaller version of a

3 corporate logo and see what's being sold in

4 that store.

5 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: All

6 right. Thank you. Is there anyone in the

7 audience that wishes to make a comment in

8 regards to this case?

9 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

10 Seeing none, there were 20 notices sent,

11 zero approvals and no objections.

12 Building Department?

13 MR. SAVEN: No comment.

14 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

15 Board Members?

16 MEMBER GRAY: I have a

17 question.

18 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

19 Member Gray.

20 MEMBER GRAY: The logo

21 sign, is it going to be above the door

22 where the mockup is, or is it going to be

23 next to the door sticking out of the

24 building at a 90 degree angle?

134

 

 

1 MR. WEINSTOCK: No, it's

2 going to be above the door where the mockup

3 is.

4 MEMBER GRAY: Oh. That's

5 too bad. Okay.

6 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

7 Member Gatt.

8 MEMBER GATT: The second

9 sign, you just answered the same question I

10 was going to ask. It just seems to me that

11 that just kind of negates what you said

12 earlier. People are still going to have to

13 look up to see the second sign. I don't

14 see the need for the second sign.

15 MEMBER BRENNAN: Same here.

16 MEMBER GATT: The first

17 sign I can live with, with the variance you

18 request, but the second sign, I don't see

19 the need for that.

20 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: All

21 right.

22 Member Reinke.

23 MEMBER GRAY: You know, you

24 got signs side by side. I don't see why

135

 

 

1 the American Home Fitness can't go over the

2 door. Gives them a door sign, gives them a

3 recognition sign. Yes.

4 MR. WEINSTOCK: Well-

5 MEMBER REINKE: Wait a

6 minute. The Chairman has discretion.

7 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Go

8 ahead.

9 MR. WEINSTOCK: The reason

10 we're not placing the sign over the door is

11 it recesses back about eight feet, and it's

12 tucked into like a little pocket. It's not

13 flush with the elevation of the front of

14 the plaza. It's kind of kicked black a

15 little bit, about eight feet, and it's

16 recessed back. Therefore, it would just

17 push it back even tighter and you really

18 wouldn't see it unless you were straight

19 on. If you were at an angle, you would be

20 blocked by the elevation that is protruding

21 out. And that's where the landlord, he

22 suggested that we put it on the outer

23 elevation to bring it out closer to the

24 street.

136

 

 

1 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: I'm

2 confused. So if you can't see it anyways

3 from the inside, why the second sign?

4 MR. WEINSTOCK: The second

5 sign, you would see the logo if you were

6 walking from Galyan's towards the store,

7 which is right next to Galyan's. You're

8 going to get to the door before you're

9 going to see that sign. If you're standing

10 in front of the door, the logo is right

11 there. You can see through the window what

12 they're selling. We thought it would just

13 be an added-

14 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: I'll

15 be honest. I don't know who all saw the

16 signs, but when I was out there, I didn't

17 see the second mockup.

18 MEMBER BRENNAN: I saw it.

19 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: I

20 had to really look.

21 MR. WEINSTOCK: Well, it's

22 only nine square feet. We're not asking

23 for a lot. It's strictly really for

24 somebody standing on the sidewalk in front

137

 

 

1 of the store to see it.

2 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Okay.

3 I know it was early, but I was there. I

4 didn't find it, that's why I was just

5 saying. But the other sign, I can

6 understand it. And I drove around and did

7 it from all the other angles, but I had a

8 problem with finding the second one.

9 I'm sorry. Member Brennan.

10 MEMBER BRENNAN: I was

11 struck that these two signs were on top of

12 each other.

13 Question for Don.

14 MR. WEINSTOCK: Many

15 businesses put a decal on the glass entry

16 window, is that considered a sign?

17 MR. SAVEN: Yes, it is.

18 They can put signage in the window up to 25

19 percent.

20 MEMBER GRAY: Is the

21 American Home Fitness sign going to be lit?

22 MR. WEINSTOCK: Yes, it is.

23 MEMBER GRAY: That solves

24 the problem with seeing it.

138

 

 

1 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: No,

2 I'm talking about the big one.

3 MR. WEINSTOCK: Yeah, the

4 big one is going to be lit.

5 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: No

6 matter where you put it, whether it's on

7 the facade that's farther out towards

8 Twelve Mile, or one that's recessed. No

9 matter where you place it, people are going

10 to see it. And some of the comments made

11 about decals in the doors, well that's

12 going to solve the problem with your logo.

13 So I would suggest to you, make a choice

14 between one or the other and let's see how

15 we're inclined.

16 MR. WEINSTOCK: We would

17 definitely rather have the main sign. The

18 40-square foot sign. If it's a choice

19 between the two, absolutely.

20 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Okay.

21 Go ahead, Sarah.

22 MEMBER GRAY: Madam Chair,

23 in the matter of Case Number 03-075, I

24 would move that Sign A, the 40-square foot

139

 

 

1 sign, stating American Home Fitness be

2 approved; that the variance for the

3 16-square feet be approved; and that Sign

4 B, the logo, be denied.

5 And I would say that he can

6 have discretion where he puts his sign,

7 whether it's out towards the front or the

8 recessed area for business recognition.

9 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

10 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: We

11 have a motion and a second. Any further

12 discussion on the motion?

13 Seeing none, Lisa, would you

14 please call the roll.

15 MS. McDONALD: Member Gray.

16 MEMBER GRAY: Yes.

17 MS. McDONALD: Member Bauer.

18 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

19 MS. McDONALD: Member

20 Brennan.

21 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

22 MS. McDONALD: Member Gatt.

23 MEMBER GATT: Yes.

24 MS. McDONALD: Member

140

 

 

1 Gronachan.

2 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Yes.

3 MS. McDONALD: Member

4 Reinke.

5 MEMBER REINKE: Yes.

6 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: All

7 right. At least one of the signs has been

8 approved. Okay?

9 MR. WEINSTOCK: Thank you.

10 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

11 Thank you. Good luck.

12 MR. WEINSTOCK: Thank you.

13

14 CASE NUMBER 03-076

15

16 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: All

17 right. Our next case is 03-076, filed by

18 James Davies, 41771 Aspen.

19 Mr. Davies is requesting two

20 side yard setback variances for the

21 construction of an addition to the existing

22 attached garage at 41771 Aspen.

23 Good evening.

24 MR. POWERS. Good evening,

141

 

 

1 Board Members. I'm not Mr. Davies. My

2 name is Aaron Powers. I own Parkside

3 Property Services, and I'm asked to help

4 represent Mr. Davies before this matter.

5 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

6 You're not an attorney; correct?

7 MR. POWERS: That is

8 correct.

9 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

10 Okay. Will you be sworn in by our

11 secretary, please.

12 MEMBER BAUER: Do you

13 solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth

14 regarding Case 03-076?

15 MR. POWERS: I certainly do.

16 Mr. Davies is present. He

17 is the owner of the property.

18 MEMBER BAUER: Is he going

19 to speak?

20 MR. POWERS: Possibly, if

21 need be.

22 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: You

23 need to be sworn in as well. If you would

24 come up to the mike.

142

 

 

1 MEMBER BAUER: Do you

2 solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth

3 regarding Case 03-076?

4 MR. DAVIES: I do.

5 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you,

6 sir.

7 MR. POWERS: As an

8 explanation, I'm somewhat familiar with the

9 property as my family members have owned

10 the property immediately to the north for

11 over 30 years, and as a city employee for

12 over ten years, I've had the responsibility

13 and pleasure of assisting the Zoning Board

14 of Appeals in the various communities I've

15 worked for.

16 Mr. Davies is before the

17 Board this evening requesting a side yard

18 variance as well as an overall total side

19 yard variance to construct a garage on his

20 residence at 41771 Aspen. Mr. Davies is a

21 motor sports enthusiast and is requesting

22 to be able to enlarge the secured storage

23 area that he has at his residence.

24 First off, I'd like to

143

 

 

1 apologize to the board of review for not

2 pointing out one very important fact. If I

3 may refer to the overhead. As is indicated

4 on the plan that you see, the area outlined

5 that was submitted with the application

6 does show the requested proposed garage

7 addition. One very important fact, I

8 believe that was left off the application,

9 is the importance in the placement of

10 what's indicated here, is the existing

11 tree. That is a 42-inch silver maple tree

12 that's directly behind the applicant's

13 property. Hopefully from the site visits

14 when you were out there, the board of

15 review -- I'm sorry, not the board of

16 review, the Board of Appeals had the

17 opportunity to inspect the rear yard and to

18 see the placement of the tree and how it

19 would severely affect the property.

20 Obviously, the first thought

21 for Mr. Davies to be able to expand the

22 size of the garage that he has out there,

23 is to immediately be able to build the

24 garage directly behind the one that is

144

 

 

1 existing. That would require, from what I

2 can gather, no variances, and the only

3 difficulty, of course, with that would be

4 that it would require the removal of the

5 silver maple tree.

6 As early as September 3 of

7 2002, Mr. Davies had inquired from forestry

8 and arborist professionals to try to

9 determine what his abilities to be to be

10 able to expand the garage directly to the

11 rear of the property -- and it's not

12 recommended, obviously, to build under the

13 canopy of the tree. And the setback from

14 the actual trunk size of the tree would

15 severely limit the ability to be able to

16 increase the garage area to the rear of the

17 property.

18 You will notice that the

19 property to the north does have an existing

20 variance at seven feet from the lot line,

21 and upon request of the subdivision

22 association there in Orchard Hills, they're

23 more than happy to allow Mr. Davies to

24 build within five feet of the lot line.

145

 

 

1 That would allow him an addition to the

2 north side of the existing garage of 6.8

3 feet, and to be able to make that room

4 somewhat usable for Mr. Davies, as he's

5 also requesting to be able to extend the

6 garage in the rear. It's just kind of a

7 proposed option of what the building permit

8 would look like.

9 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: All

10 right. All set?

11 MR. POWERS: Unless there

12 are any questions from the Board, that

13 pretty much sums it up.

14 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Is

15 there anyone in the audience that wishes to

16 speak on behalf of this case?

17 (There was no response

18 from the audience.)

19 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: There

20 were 41 notices sent. No approvals, no

21 objections. However, I will note as the

22 petitioner so stated, there is the letter

23 from the homeowners association dated May

24 31 of 2003, approving from homeowners

146

 

 

1 association.

2 Building Department?

3 MR. SAVEN: I think it was

4 stated very well. I don't see any other

5 issues here.

6 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

7 Okay. Thank you.

8 Board Members?

9 MEMBER REINKE: I commend

10 the petitioner for the job he has done in

11 obtaining what he needs without disturbing

12 the tree, other parts and everything like

13 this. He's done a lot of work and a lot of

14 thought has gone into it. And I think the

15 variance request is minimal. I can support

16 the petitioner's request.

17 MEMBER GRAY: Ditto.

18 MEMBER BAUER: I have no

19 problem with it.

20 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

21 Member Gatt?

22 MEMBER GATT: Did you say

23 you lived just to the north?

24 MR. POWERS: I personally

147

 

 

1 don't. My mother and father-in-law do.

2 MEMBER GATT: And they have

3 no problems with this?

4 MR. POWERS: No.

5 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Is

6 that a motion, Member Reinke?

7 MEMBER REINKE: Madam

8 Chair, in Case 03-076, I move that the

9 petitioner's variance request be granted

10 due to lot size and shape.

11 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

12 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: All

13 right. Motion was made and seconded. Is

14 there any further discussion on the motion?

15 Seeing none, Lisa, would you

16 please call the roll.

17 MS. McDONALD: Member

18 Reinke.

19 MEMBER REINKE: Yes.

20 MS. McDONALD: Member Bauer.

21 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

22 MS. McDONALD: Member

23 Brennan.

24 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

148

 

 

1 MS. McDONALD: Member Gatt.

2 MEMBER GATT: Yes.

3 MS. McDONALD: Member Gray.

4 MEMBER GRAY: Yes.

5 MS. McDONALD: Member

6 Gronachan.

7 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

8 Yes.

9 Your variance request has

10 been granted. Please see the Building

11 Department.

12 MR. POWERS: Thank you very

13 much. Have a good evening.

14 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Thank

15 you. You too.

16

17 CASE NUMBER 03-077

18

19 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: We

20 have our last case of the evening, 03-077.

21 Frederick Raymond for AT&T Wireless.

22 MR. RAYMOND: That's

23 correct.

24 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: At

149

 

 

1 44170

2 Grand River. Mr. Raymond is requesting a

3 four-foot rear yard setback variance to

4 place an accessory structure within the

5 six-foot required rear yard setback for

6 accessory structures.

7 MR. RAYMOND: Thank you.

8 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: You

9 are Mr. Raymond?

10 MR. RAYMOND: I am.

11 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: And

12 you are not an attorney?

13 MR. RAYMOND: I am not an

14 attorney.

15 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

16 Would you please raise your right hand and

17 be sworn in by our secretary.

18 MEMBER BAUER: Do you

19 solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth

20 regarding Case 03-077?

21 MR. RAYMOND: Yes, I do.

22 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you,

23 sir. Go ahead.

24 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

150

 

 

1 Okay. Go ahead.

2 MR. RAYMOND: I represent

3 AT&T Wireless Services and I am a Site

4 Acquisition Manager. And we have what's

5 called a search ring for our sites that is

6 dictated by the Radio Engineering

7 Department, where we need to be to get

8 adequate coverage for a given area.

9 In this search ring, as we

10 call it, there were a number of options.

11 Our preference is to co-locate wherever

12 possible. And we made attempts to

13 co-locate on the two water tanks. One at

14 the Twelve Oaks Mall and the other one at

15 the Expo Center, and we were unable to make

16 that happen. And on this site on Grand

17 River is an existing tower that was

18 originally built by Verizon, I believe, and

19 it's owned by American Tower Company.

20 And so we made application

21 to American Tower and it was granted, and

22 we presented our drawings to Mr. Schmitt,

23 to the Planning Department. And after we

24 all went through it, we discovered that

151

 

 

1 there was this problem with the rear yard

2 setback. We weren't aware of the fact that

3 there was a problem. Apparently when this

4 site was built, I think around 1996 if I'm

5 not mistaken, apparently a variance was

6 given, because the north part of the

7 compound, the fenced-in compound is on the

8 lot line, the north lot line of the

9 property.

10 Our proposal is to put up --

11 first of all, this will be cabinets as

12 opposed to a sheltered building. And we

13 took the platform that the cabinets are

14 mounted on, it's about a foot above the

15 ground, and we placed it as close to the

16 existing shelter as possible, in an attempt

17 to obscure the equipment from being

18 observed either from Grand River or from

19 the back or either side. There is a

20 sufficient amount of plant life there,

21 trees and shrubs that do obscure the

22 facility.

23 It is our hope that you

24 would agree with our plan, and we ask your

152

 

 

1 approval for our petition.

2 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: All

3 right. Thank you.

4 Is there anyone in the

5 audience that wishes to make a comment in

6 regards to this case? I guess we only have

7 one person left. Would you like to make a

8 comment?

9 MR. RUSSELL: Yes, I would.

10 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: All

11 right. Come on down, sir.

12 MR. RUSSELL: My name is

13 Randall W. Russell. I live at 44220 Grand

14 River, right next to this tower. I have no

15 idea how this tower ever got here. I was

16 never notified. One day it's not there,

17 the next day it is there. This is the

18 first time I've ever had a notice sent to

19 me regarding this thing.

20 I don't know anything about

21 the radio waves, I don't know anything

22 about the brain waves, I don't know

23 anything about this cabinet, whether it's

24 going -- I'm telling you, this is affecting

153

 

 

1 my dementia. I don't know why this is

2 happening. You know, maybe it's

3 coincidental with my old age, but -- you

4 know, is there some law, is there some

5 regulation as far as putting a tower like

6 this next to a residence?

7 MR. RUSSELL: I've lived

8 here for over 15 years. You know, I've

9 been before this Board before. And I want

10 to know what the heck is going on. You

11 know, I really seriously am concerned about

12 what this tower is doing to my mental

13 health. And I'm serious. Okay. So you

14 know, I'm here more for a fact finding

15 situation, and why this tower was even ever

16 allowed, and you know, as far as two feet

17 away from the variance or whatever -- you

18 know, what is the purpose of it? Is it

19 going to increase the amplitude? You know,

20 I really would just like some answers.

21 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

22 Okay. Specifically, are you-

23 MR. RUSSELL: I'm going to

24 object to anything being done with this

154

 

 

1 tower until I know what the heck is going

2 on, because I was never notified about this

3 tower being put up, and I want to know why

4 it was allowed right next to a residence.

5 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Are

6 there some questions that we could get

7 answers to you in regards to?

8 MR. RUSSELL: You tell me.

9 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: I

10 mean, is it a health concern; is it

11 something you would like to know about?

12 MR. RUSSELL: It is a health

13 concern.

14 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Mr.

15 Schultz.

16 MR. SCHULTZ: I appreciate

17 the -- levity is always appreciated, but I

18 need to inject one very serious note in

19 here. There is, in terms of regulating the

20 placement of cellular towers, there is a

21 federal statute that governs what kind of

22 regulations a municipality can enact with

23 regard to placement of the towers. One of

24 the clear provisions of that federal

155

 

 

1 statute is that at no time is the

2 municipality permitted to consider health

3 issues which have been found in the act by

4 the federal -- United States Congress, not

5 to be an appropriate consideration for a

6 municipality.

7 I know it's very difficult

8 for residents, property owners, to accept,

9 and I absolutely can believe that, but we

10 are directed by this federal statute that

11 we are not to regulate on the basis of

12 health concerns, and that it's a land use

13 issue. In that respect, the tower is

14 there. The cabinet for the shelter for

15 what's already on the tower is there. The

16 co-location is permitted.

17 The only issue is the

18 cabinet that will relate to the permitted

19 co-location, where that gets placed on the

20 property. So I don't know if

21 Mr. Schmitt's able to comment more on the

22 approval history, but I think the Board has

23 to accept the fact that -- I hate to put it

24 that way -- have to acknowledge the fact

156

 

 

1 that the tower is there, we're just talking

2 about where the placement of the cabinet is

3 going to be.

4 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: So

5 noted. The only thing is, we do have a

6 resident here who had questions and that's

7 what I was just trying to address, what

8 kind of questions he had, and since we do

9 have a board here tonight, if we could get

10 answers to his questions.

11 And, basically, Mr. Schultz'

12 beginning of an explanation, I'm sure will

13 help somewhat.

14 MR. RUSSELL: So let me just

15 clarify here, that there is no regulation

16 as to the health hazards as to placements

17 of a tower?

18 MR. SCHULTZ: I cannot

19 speak to the approval process. It's not in

20 our packet, but that is correct. We do not

21 regulate in our ordinance based on concerns

22 about microwaves and radio frequencies, and

23 it is clear and a preemption in the federal

24 statute.

157

 

 

1 MR. RUSSELL: Just wanted it

2 noted.

3 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

4 Okay. Thank you.

5 MR. RUSSELL: Thank you.

6 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: All

7 right. There were 13 notices sent. No

8 approvals, no objections.

9 Does the Building Department

10 have any comments?

11 MR. SAVEN: No comment.

12 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

13 Planning Department?

14 MR. SCHMITT: Just briefly.

15 I was thinking of the late hour and the

16 lateness of the hour some of us were here

17 last night.

18 I have in front of me the

19 Zoning Board of Appeals file. The variance

20 for the actual pole was granted January 3,

21 '96. It indicated in the minutes the tower

22 did have to go to Planning Commission and

23 City Council for special land use approval,

24 which was done in late '95, both of which

158

 

 

1 were granted.

2 Mr. Russell was noticed for

3 the variance at the time, at least in terms

4 of the records I have in front of me. So I

5 have no evidence of anything that was done

6 incorrectly in the original approval.

7 Obviously, in terms of the

8 specific proposal in front of me this

9 evening, I personally worked with Mr.

10 Raymond, and working on the site we thought

11 we had a done deal with the Expo Center

12 tower, which was going to work out very

13 nicely. Given the possible move of the Expo

14 Center fell through, and we obviously

15 looked at this site located in an

16 industrial district to the rear of the

17 property adjacent to railroad tracks,

18 certainly we felt that this was an

19 appropriate measure to suggest, and as Mr.

20 Raymond did mention, it wasn't until the

21 last minute we realized it was going to

22 require a variance, so that's why we are in

23 front of you this evening.

24 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: All

159

 

 

1 right. Thank you. Board members. Member

2 Gatt?

3 MEMBER GATT: Madam Chair,

4 first of all, I have no problem with

5 granting this variance. The tower is

6 already there, it's just our consideration

7 of a variance of two feet.

8 One comment though. As a

9 young cop I used to have to walk around

10 that building all the time back in the

11 '70s, and I'm shocked at the debris and the

12 ugliness that I find back there. And I

13 asked Mr. Saven to have the Building

14 Department or the ordinance officers to at

15 least take a look and see if some law is

16 being broken or something. There's

17 abandoned cars and all kinds of junk back

18 there. It's just an eyesore.

19 MR. SAVEN: Duly noted.

20 MEMBER BAUER: I have no

21 problem with it. It's been there, so four

22 feet isn't going to make any difference.

23 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: All

24 right. It's four feet instead of two feet,

160

 

 

1 let's clarify.

2 Member Brennan.

3 MEMBER BRENNAN: Just for

4 those that may be watching, this is tucked

5 behind Harold's Frame Shop up against the

6 railroad tracks. So I don't think we have

7 any real big concerns.

8 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: All

9 right. Any further discussion? Is there a

10 motion somewhere?

11 MEMBER REINKE: Hold on a

12 second.

13 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: I'm

14 sorry.

15 MS. McDONALD: The Agenda

16 states site of Harold's Frame Shop at 44170

17 Grand River.

18 MR. SCHMITT: The property

19 owner of record is actually a holding

20 company out of Bloomfield Hills. Grand

21 River Property, LLC.

22 MEMBER REINKE: I wonder if

23 somebody sent them a notice about their

24 property.

161

 

 

1 MR. SAVEN: As indicated, I

2 will contact the ordinance division and I

3 will forward this information to that

4 department.

5 MEMBER REINKE: Thank you.

6 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

7 Thanks.

8 MR. RAYMOND: I'd like to

9 say I don't believe that what you're

10 talking about is within the compound or the

11 area that is occupied by this equipment.

12 MEMBER GATT: It's not.

13 MR. RAYMOND: It's external

14 to it. Okay, thank you.

15 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: It's

16 just an observation the Board Members made.

17 Okay. Motion?

18 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll make a

19 motion. 03-077, I would move that the

20 petitioner's request be granted. This is

21 an industrial site up against a railroad

22 track. It doesn't provide any negative

23 issues to this Board, I don't believe.

24 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

162

 

 

1 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

2 Motion has been moved and seconded. Is

3 there any discussion on the motion?

4 MEMBER BRENNAN: That wasn't

5 as smooth as I would have liked to have

6 said it.

7 MEMBER GRAY: It's just the

8 hour, I think.

9 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Was

10 there something you wanted to add to that

11 -- oh, okay.

12 MR. SCHULTZ: No. I didn't

13 raise my hand.

14 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: We

15 need a little red light on your sign.

16 Lisa, would you please call

17 the roll. MS. McDONALD: Member

18 Brennan.

19 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

20 MS. McDONALD: Member Bauer.

21 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

22 MS. McDONALD: Member Gatt.

23

24 MEMBER GATT: Yes.

163

 

 

1 MS. McDONALD: Member Gray.

2 MEMBER GRAY: Yes.

3 MS. McDONALD: Member

4 Gronachan.

5 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Yes.

6 MS. McDONALD: Member

7 Reinke.

8 MEMBER REINKE: Yes.

9 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Your

10 motion has been granted -- your variance

11 has been granted, I'm sorry. Please see

12 the Building Department.

13 MR. RAYMOND: I shall.

14 Thank you very much. Long day for

15 everybody. Thank you.

16 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

17 Thank you. Okay. We have some other

18 matters. I know it's very late, especially

19 when the night before was to two-thirty.

20 We have this training

21 session. Just so the Board Members know,

22 we did attempt to get training approved for

23 the Board Members that wanted to go to

24 Grand Traverse for the annual conference,

164

 

 

1 and it has been denied, unfortunately. So

2 that's not going to be available to us.

3 And then we also have a Master Plan

4 presentation. Sarah?

5 MS. MARCHIONI: Actually,

6 the first thing was the training session.

7 I asked everyone to check their calendars

8 to see if we could be full blown out with

9 Tom. Was everyone available on that date?

10 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: On

11 the 22nd? MS. MARCHIONI: Yes.

12 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: I

13 am.

14 MEMBER REINKE: Would you

15 send out a confirmation?

16 MR. SCHULTZ: Again, that

17 would be at our office and we would do it

18 around, I think, five-thirty or six-thirty.

19 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Not

20 five-thirty. I can't get there by

21 five-thirty. I thought it was going to be

22 like six-thirty.

23 MR. SCHULTZ: Okay, that's

24 fine.

165

 

 

1 MS. MARCHIONI: Okay, Item

2 2, really quickly. The Plan Review Center

3 would like to make a quick Master Plan

4 presentation. It would take approximately

5 30 minutes. If you have questions, it

6 would obviously take longer. They want to

7 know if you would meet at seven o'clock

8 before the meeting or during the meeting.

9 I believe right now we have about six

10 cases.

11 MR. SCHMITT: I want to give

12 a little extra information here. It's part

13 of our public outreach for the ongoing

14 Master Plan. We decided internally that we

15 thought it's a good idea to go to each of

16 the appointed and elected bodies, and give

17 them their own presentation, frankly, and

18 find out what the specific issues are

19 directly related to, in your case, the

20 Zoning Board of Appeals. In one case,

21 obviously, we will be going to the

22 Beautification Committee, Parks and Rec,

23 and whatnot. But you guys are going to be

24 first. So we would appreciate the

166

 

 

1 opportunity to come forward and let you

2 know how things are going and find out what

3 your views on the City are and the future

4 of Novi.

5 MS. MARCHIONI: Would you

6 prefer to do that before the meeting or

7 during?

8 MEMBER REINKE: I think

9 would it be better to do it before the

10 meeting. We wouldn't have the people here

11 expecting to go on, so I would suggest we

12 start at seven o'clock.

13 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

14 Seven, okay.

15 MS. MARCHIONI: Do you think

16 you would have a lot of questions, should

17 we do it at six-forty-five?

18 MEMBER BRENNAN: No. The

19 ZBA meeting starts at seven-thirty.

20 MS. MARCHIONI: Okay. Well,

21 I just want to make sure we have enough

22 time.

23 MR. SCHMITT: In all

24 honesty, if you have questions, further,

167

 

 

1 the web site that we're starting to work

2 on, I believe it's

3 novimasterplan.org, is going to have the

4 ability -- the same questions. Obviously,

5 we're always available during the Master

6 Plan update. We're really trying to reach

7 out and get good input from the Board,

8 because these are some of the more active

9 members of the Novi community.

10 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

11 Okay. Any other matters for discussion?

12 MEMBER GRAY: I just have

13 another quick matter. Whoever, Sarah or

14 Lisa, whoever is notifying people about

15 signs, the petitioner who was seeking to be

16 on the clock tower at the Town Center, it's

17 still up.

18 MS. MARCHIONI: Was that

19 one of the signs that was approved?

20 MEMBER BRENNAN: No.

21 Denied.

22 MS. MARCHIONI: Okay.

23 MEMBER GRAY: Thank you.

24 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN:

168

 

 

1 Anything else?

2 (No further

3 discussion.)

4 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: With

5 that, I would like a motion to adjourn the

6 meeting.

7 MEMBER BAUER: So moved.

8 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Any

9 opposed?

10 Meeting adjourned.

11 (The above proceedings

12 ended at 10:20 p.m.)

13 _ _ _

14

15 Date approved:

November 6, 2003 __________________________

Sarah Marchioni Recording Secretary

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

169

 

 

1

2 I, MAUREEN A. HARAN, do

3 hereby certify that I have recorded

4 stenographically, the proceedings had and

5 the testimony taken in the above-entitled

6 matter, at the time and place hereinbefore

7 set forth; and I do further certify that

8 the foregoing transcript, consisting of one

9 hundred thirty-nine pages (139), is a full,

10 true and correct transcript of my

11 stenographic notes.

12

13

14

15

16

17 ____________________________________

18 Maureen A. Haran, C.S.R. 3606

19

20

21 _________________

22 (Date)

23

24

170