| View Agenda for this meeting View Action Summary for this meeting CITY OF NOVI The NOVI ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS taken before me, Darlene K. May, CSR-6479, a Notary Public, within and for the County of Oakland, State of Michigan, at 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, on Tuesday, October 7, 2003. PRESENT: Members: ALSO PRESENT: Terry Morrone, Building Official Novi, Michigan CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: It's 7:30 and I would like to call the October 2003 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to order. Would you please call the roll. MS. MCDONALD: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Present. MS. MCDONALD: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Here. MS. MCDONALD: Member Gatt? MEMBER GATT: Here. MS. MCDONALD: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Here. MS. MCDONALD: Member Gronachan? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Present. MS. MCDONALD: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Here. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: The Zoning Board of Appeals is a board empowered by the Novi city charter to hear appeals seeking variances from the application of the Novi zoning ordinances. It takes a vote of at least four members to approve a variance request and a vote of the majority of the members present to deny variance. We have a full board this evening. I will also remind the members of the audience there are rules of conduct on your agenda this evening. I ask that you review them, especially if you would please shut off cell phone and pagers to cut down on any distractions. The agenda, we have -- I'm sorry. Are there any changes to the agenda, Lisa? MS. MCDONALD: None that I know of. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you. The minutes -- the only set of minutes we have were for August. Were there any changes? MEMBER BRENNAN: Move for approval. MEMBER GATT: I second. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: It's been moved and approved that the notes have been approved. All those in favor say "Aye". MEMBER GATT: Aye. MEMBER BRENNAN: Aye. MEMBER BAUER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Aye.
MEMBER GRAY: Aye. MEMBER RENKE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: At this time I would like go to the audience for any kind of public remarks. Anyone in the audience that wishes to make comments in regards to items that are not on tonight's agenda, you can come down to the podium and say a few words. You'll have five minutes. Again, this is in regards to anything that is not on the agenda this evening. A gentleman in the back had his hand raised. MR. PALISE: My name is Nick Palise, 150 New Court, Novi. I came in to the July 8th zoning meeting and I was granted a variance for my properties. Due to the scheduling conflict with my contractor I was unable to get the house demo'd until the 28th of September and I was looking for a 60-day extension on my variance. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Actually, I do have your file here, and I have it as the 90 days did expire and he did call building department, and they suggested that he come in front of us this evening to see if we could grant him an extension. MEMBER BRENNAN: These things happen. We've been consistent in the past, and I
think the gentleman is due a 60-day extension. And I make that a motion. MEMBER BAUER: Second. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Lisa, will you please call the roll. MS. MCDONALD: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Gatts? MEMBER GATT: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Reinke. MEMBER REINKE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I've been passed. MS. MCDONALD: Member Gronachan? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Mr. Palise, your building permit has been extended for 60 days -- your variance. Please go back and see the building department.
MR. PALISE: Thank you, again. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Anyone else with public remarks? MR. HUDAS: Well, this is in regards to this evening's agenda. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: No. This is just -- you'll get your opportunity to talk when the case is called at that point. MS. MARCHON: Chairperson Gronachan, he is on the table, but he is wishing to table. He is number -- MR. HUDAS: Six. MS. MARCHON: For Caribou Coffee. MR. HUDAS: We're lacking representation expected this evening and request if we could be moved to the next available meeting, please. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Is it your sign company that is not here this evening? MR. HUDAS: No. That is me. We don't have the corporate people from Caribou that did want to be here for the meeting. A scheduling conflict. I do apologize. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: So you would like to table it until next month, November?
MR. HUDAS: Please, yes. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. MEMBER BAUER: No problem. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Anybody who wants to make a motion on that? MEMBER REINKE: So moved. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: So Case Number 03-083 filed by Allied Signs, Inc. for Caribou Coffee on Grand River and Westmont Center will be tabled until November. Moved and approved by the board. MR. HUDAS: Thank you, very much. I apologize. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Anyone else in the audience this evening with remarks? Seeing none, we will get on our way and call the first case.
Case No. 03-078 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Case Number 03-078, filed by Ken Albers of Charneth Fen Condominums. Are you Mr. Albers? MR. ALBERS: Yes. Good evening, Madam Chairman and Board members. My name is Ken Albers. Myself and my wife are the applicants for the variance request on appeal 03-078. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Mr. Albers, I'm sorry. Thank you but before you get going, I would like you to be sworn in by our secretary. Raise your right hand. Thank you. MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 03-078? MR. ALBERS: I do. MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Mr. Albers? MR. ALBERS: Okay. We're requesting three variances tonight in one interpretation for the Planning Commission, their interpretation regarding whether or not a variance is needed for one of the ordinance items. The site's unique that it's in its shape and size it's been a real challenge to try to
build this thing without any variances or waivers and, you know, because there's a lot of restrictions placed on the property. The three variances we're requesting tonight is far less than what we originally had in the plans that were submitted. We submitted plans back in October of 2002 and that submittal for the planning staff asked us to withdraw the plans because we had extreme amount of variances. So we withdrew our plans and resubmitted again in February of 2003. And then when we had our meeting, our Planning Commission meeting, on that submittal, the Planning Commission tabled our request for approval and asked us to come back with another submittal trying to further reduce the number of variances. We did that and we came back in June of this year and submitted to the Planning Commission with these three variances. The Planning Commission subsequently recommended favorable approval to the City Council, and council then gave us approval for a preliminary site plan. I tell you this history to show you that we really truly have been working hard to get
down the number of variances that were requested. And the variances themselves are: First one is for the building setback in building number three. The building's the same height as all the other buildings, but when you look at the back elevation, south elevation, this south elevation or this building right here, the grade slopes drastically off there and we used to have a retaining wall across here, which we removed and incorporated a retaining wall into the exterior wall of that building, which gave that elevation a bigger view. Now, we were under the impression that that elevation setback requirement would be based off the rear, which is more than ample, but the Planning Commission has said that because it touches in the corner, that they wanted the setback here. The Planning Commission also said that in their review of this, that they recommended approval, although a variance for this, because it said -- and in essence, the building is not any bigger than the other buildings and it's just this big slope off the building that makes that elevation appear higher. And there's nothing behind the building. If you go all the way back there's a wetland that goes
farther back, too. So it's not visible to anyone. The second variance we are requesting is for excess paving of little over six percent of excess paving in the east side yard setback there. The total amount of paving for the whole project is less than the allowable amount and we have no paving at all to the rear setback. So it's just this one area and, again, because of the confines of the property and the request to make the road a couple of feet bigger than actually was required by the minimum of the ordinance, we got that excess in that site on the east side yard setback. The Planning Commission on that also recommended favorable consideration for that variance. The third item that we're looking at tonight is in regards to a section of the ordinance that says there's no walls in the dwelling that are living areas are allowed to be within 25 feet of a roadway. Now, the Planning Commission after debating itdetermined that that applies to windows and doors on the first floor only and that when you get to the second floor and above, that that ordinance
doesn't come into play. And they were actually ready to not let it go any farther, just make that interpretation, but the city attorney said it would be better to bring it before this board and let this board agree with that interpretation or see -- or whatever they wanted to do. Because this board wouldn't be setting a precedent, whereas the Planning Commission would. So we're looking for agreement from this board for the City Planning Commission's interpretation of that as well. Actually, if they interpret that as upper floors above just about every building in the city would be in violation. I don't know if this was a new interpretation they started with. The development next to us, the condominium project, has 27 locations where this would actually be in violation if that was a true interpretation. The last variance that we're looking for is, again, the Planning Commission had some discussion as to whether or not driveways constituted parking spaces and they determined -- they said that a driveway does constitute a parking space. What that means for us is that on this plan, with the buildings being angled and everything, there is one corner up
here that actually goes into the front yard setback, a little triangle section of that driveway, and they're saying that the driveway's parking makes, in effect, parking spaces -- part of the parking spaces in the front there a setback, which there is no front yard parking setback allowed. So then we would be requesting a variance for that. Now, we said we would put No Parking signs in that area, you know, and they said, well, there's no guarantee they wouldn't park there, so they wouldn't take that as a solution. We even looked at possibly turning the building, rotating it a little bit, you know, but there again, we lose the conformity of this. It puts the driveways in a less desirable position for ingress and egress because they pull right into the road. So we're looking for a variance for the front-yard parking on that situation. We've met the parking requirements for the whole site. We don't need those parking spaces for that particular unit for the entire site. It's just the fact they're saying people are going to park there. That's one of the problems. And again, the Planning Commission gave a favorable recommendation for that based upon
the amount of landscaping we have and they said they would like a little more landscaping to screen there, which we said would not be a problem to do that. As I said, the shape and size of this site makes strict adherence to the ordinance really burdensome on us. If we try to -- well, we have tried. It seems like every time we try to eliminate a variance we come up with another that we need to replace it and it makes for a less desirable situation in the design that we have on the site right now. Some of the restrictions on here -- for example, the side yard setbacks -- are really meant for sites that are much larger and more uniform in size. Seventy-five foot yard setbacks on each side equals 150 feet of our property and only leaves us 130 feet to build on. We have less building in rope than the actual setbacks. And the narrowness of the site really makes it tough. It's two and a half times longer than it is wide. So we're kind of like stuffed in there. That with the other restrictions on the site for environmental issues and the right-of-ways and future right-of-ways it just really gave us an area that is really tight to build on.
We're not requesting these variances for any reason that we're trying to maximize over the property. Contrary to that, we're actually building less than what it is allowable. The ordinance allows 244 rooms. We're building 110. The ordinance allows 25 percent coverage. We're only covering 13.65 percent. So, you know, we're quite the opposite. We're in a situation that the variances are needed because of the severe constraints, but there's a disproportion amount of property that's set aside and what is left to build on. We feel that we've met the intent and spirit of the ordinance and that if we're granted these variances we'll be able to maintain the conformity of the site and build the developments in harmony and enhance the surrounding area. The architects are here ready to speak on it or answer any questions you may have. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in regards to this case at this time? Seeing none. There were 13 notices sent. Three approvals.
Building department? MR. MORRONE: I have no comment. But I would also refer this over to the city planner. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. Ms. Schmitt? MS. SCHMITT: I think he clarified everything pretty much with what he said. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you. Board members? Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, we're right out of the shoot with a tough one, although it's not as tough after some clarification. I'm glad that you went into such detail as you did, because the first variance request was my -- the one I struggled with the most and it's certainly now making sense that you incorporated the retaining wall into the base of the building and so the Building Department is looking at that as additional height. You mentioned, though, in the proposed lot coverage, parking coverage, that overall you're less than allowable. Do you know what that is offhand, just roughly? MR. ALBERS: I think the ordinance,
you're allowed 30 percent in each setback. MEMBER BRENNAN: Yeah. MR. ALBERS: And we are below 30 percent in all of the setbacks. The front of the west setback is below 30. The east setback is the one that is the excess of six plus and there's zero in the rear. So for a total that would be allowable, we're below that. MEMBER BRENNAN: Thank you. I didn't really have any issue with the other two requests. My initial notes were relative to the height and he's clarified that. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. Member Gatt? MEMBER GATT: I just want to comment. Usually, we take the position up here that less is better. Less variance is better. Four is quite a bit, but I will agree with my colleague. I don't see a problem with any of these variances and he's explained it very well with the need and the hardship. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: I watched the
presentations on this site from the original and I'm very pleased that you have scaled back quite a bit. This is a beautiful site and I think it's going to make a very nice setting for your units. I'm glad to see them angled so that even though you do have to observe the setbacks, it's for the benefit of the property, and this makes -- it's going to be a very nice setting. MR. ALBERS: Thank you. It's the natural terrain too. Each building gets a little lower and they're offset, too. So there's not an impact in a large building. It kind of slopes away with the angle and allows for a sense of privacy. MEMBER GRAY: I think the topography as you mentioned against the site and using it that way and I'm also very familiar with what is going on with some of your neighbors. It's going to be enclosed with some of your neighbors. So it's going to fit in well, I think. MR. ALBERS: Thank you. MEMBER GRAY: Do you want to take these one by one? MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll make a motion. Unless, Laverne, do you have any?
MEMBER REINKE: No. I think we should do it one by one, Frank. MEMBER BRENNAN: All right. With respect to case 03-078 item one, the building height, building number 3, I would move for approval because it incorporates a retaining wall and it's strictly a mathematical equation or interpretation of the site. MEMBER BAUER: Second the motion. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: So we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on the motion? All right. Lisa, would you please go ahead and call the roll. MS MCDONALD: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Gatt? MEMBER GATT: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Gronachan? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes.
MS. MCDONALD: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MEMBER BRENNAN: With respect to the second request for the overall. I guess we'll call it concrete on the east side asphalt. MR. ALBERS: Asphalt. MEMBER BRENNAN: East side asphalt, that the petitioner's request be granted due in part to the entire complex is less than what is allowed and we've got some lot configuration issues to deal with. MEMBER BAUER: Support. MEMBER REINKE: Support. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: We have a motion and a second with regards to the second part of this request. Is there any further discussion on the motion? Lisa, would you please call the roll? MS. MCDONALD: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Gatt? MEMBER GATT: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes.
MS. MCDONALD: Member Gronachan? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. Did you call Member Brennan? MS. MCDONALD: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MEMBER BRENNAN: Item three, we're dealing with the setback in building three's support. Again, due to lot configuration, again, a very narrow development which the petitioner tried to deal with. MEMBER BAUER: Second. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: All right. We have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? MEMBER GRAY: Yes, please. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Sarah? MEMBER GRAY: The only comment I want to make on this one is that I would respectfully request that we refer this to the ordinance review committee for resolution of first floor/second floor interpretations. We seem to be getting a lot of these and I think that this is a good time to refer it back so that the house cleaning can be done and make the decision is it first floor or is it second floor.
Thank you. MEMBER BRENNAN: You know, it hardly seems like it would have to go there. Someone is not going to walk out on the second floor and get hit by a car. MEMBER GRAY: This is the second time we have done this. This is the second time in the last couple of months that we have done this. We did a variance- MEMBER BRENNAN: (Interposing) I accept your amendment, though MEMBER GRAY: Thank you. MR. SCHULTZ: Madame Chair? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. MR. SCHULTZ: Very briefly, along those lines I guess I just want to clarify for the record. This is a variance relief the board is granting rather than making a broad interpretation that would apply to other cases. MEMBER BRENNAN: That's not how it was drafted. MR. SCHULTZ: Well, it's an either/or. It's requested as an interpretation or a variance.
MEMBER BRENNAN: We've offered variance. MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Anyone else? Seeing none, Lisa, would you please call the roll. MS. MCDONALD: Yes. Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Gatt? MEMBER GATT: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Gronachan? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MEMBER BRENNAN: And lastly, the two parking spaces located -- that's on the north end, right? Northeast corner; is that correct? MR. ALBERS: Yes. It's right there. The corner of those. The driveways sticks in the
front yard a little bit. MEMBER BRENNAN: I would make a motion that the applicant is granted the variance, again, for block configuration and he is still within the spirit of the ordinance. MEMBER BAUER: Second. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: We had a motion and a second. Any further discussion? MEMBER GATT: Just one comment, Madame Chair. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Gatt? MEMBER GATT: I think the petitioner mentioned in his speech that he didn't think that that ordinance applied to this type of a building? MR. ALBERS: Well, the Planning Commission debated amongst themselves for a while trying to find where it says the ordinance actually says the driveway is parking and they didn't really find a specific statement that says the driveway adds to the parking spot, but they said in reality somebody is going to park there because it is a driveway in front of that. So that's where it came about. MEMBER GATT: I'm going to support.
I thought you said the ordinance didn't apply to that type of configuration or that type of building and I would just take exception to that. The ordinance applies to everybody equally, But I'm going to go ahead and support. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: I'm going to suggest that since there seems to be a difference of opinion or a question maybe this should be also referred to the ordinance review for them to define whether a driveway is indeed a parking area. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Did you have something to offer? MR. SCHULTZ: No. We can certainly address both of those issues at the Planning Commission level, but, I think, you know, their ultimate interpretation was off-street parking is by definition not to include a driveway, but that's something that we can certainly discuss. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: So we have a motion, a second, an amendment and if there is no further discussion, Lisa, could you please call the roll. MS. MCDONALD: Member Bauer?
MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Gatt? MEMBER GATT: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Gronachan? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Sir, your variances have been granted. Please go ahead and see the building department. MR. ALBERS: Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you.
CASE NO. 03-079 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Let's call our next case number, Case 03-079 filed by David Bayon at 25827 Strath Haven. Mr. Bayon is requesting a front yard setback variance of 9.86 feet for a proposed two-story home with an attached garage located on Strath Haven in Pioneer Meadows subdivision. Are you Mr. Bayon? MR. BAYON: Yes, I am. David Bayon, 14412 Stonehouse, Livonia, Michigan. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Could you please raise your right hand and be sworn in by our secretary MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 03-079? MR. BAYON: I do. MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Go ahead. MR. BAYON: I'm here to request a front setback variance on a proposed two-story new home construction with an attached garage. This variance is based on a land survey done by JCK & Associates. I'm looking for the minimum needed for my
construction, which is 9.86 feet. Also in addition, there is a second variance that I was just made aware of today at 4:30. I received a call from Chris from the building department. He advised me that perhaps I will need a variance, a side variance, for the north end of the lot. JCK & Associates made us aware that there was perhaps a revision to the setbacks for the sides. Therefore, they established this survey. And when Chris reviewed it today, he made me aware that we are, perhaps, in need of a side variance as well. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. Before we go any further, I'm going to ask the Building Department if this is true and should we go on any further with this case if there is additional variances going to be needed or do you know anything about this? MR. MORRONE: What the petitioner is stating is correct. We noticed that there was a deficient side yard setback on the north side of the building And would require a variance of 2.37 feet. I don't know how this was missed, but should be part of the case as an additional variance being requested. MEMBER BAUER: There has to be
notification. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Unfortunately, Mr. Bayon, if that's true then we would have to republicize this case and notify the people around the residence to file that procedure. So at this point we are not able to review your case until we get all the information in front of us. So I'm going to suggest to the board, and look to the building department that we could table this until next month and put you possibly as, Lisa, as the first case of the evening. MR. BAYON: If I could speak. Is there a way that I can try to request the first variance. Based on my contact with JCK, they were made aware of by the Building Department that there was a revision to the R-A zoning, and they believe that that's why they set this plot the way they did, because they're aware of some variance or revision to the side setback. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Well, I can take a consensus from the board, but I personally would like the entire case in front of me to look at it as a whole. And I think the rest of the board members feel the same way, with the amount of head
shaking. Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Just for the sake of you building your home in this neighborhood, you better make sure that all of your neighbors are aware of what you're doing. You know, this lot 59 is vacant right now, but we don't know if that homeowner may have an objection with that side yard and while you're here with just one variance tonight, we would typically like to look at the whole plan. MR. BAYON: Okay. I have had the association sign off on both my plot plan and blueprint. They signed this and looked at it. MEMBER BRENNAN: It should be easy next month. MR. MORRONE: Maybe a question. Maybe the petitioner can meet the 20-foot minimum and not even address that but agree to slide the building over closer to the southern property line and I don't see any problem here. It depends on what the petitioner wants and then you can go ahead and hear the case today. MEMBER BRENNAN: What's the setback? MR. MORRONE: A 20-foot minimum.
MR. BAYON: That is another option I was going to go with. MR. MORRONE: Correct. There is a minimal 20-foot side yard setback with a total of 50 foot of both side yards. It would be a total of both sides. MEMBER BRENNAN: It would be about 50 on the button. MEMBER GRAY: He can slide it over, but he would also have to give up something somewhere to meet the 50-foot requirement. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yeah, I think it needs to go back to the drawing table and be tabled so we can have the whole thing in front us next month. Okay. MR. BAYON: Okay. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: And that way we get all the figures right. All those in favor of tabling Case number 03-079 say "Aye". MEMBER BAUER: Aye. MEMBER BRENNAN: Aye. MEMBER GATT: Aye. MEMBER GRAY: Aye. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Aye.
MEMBER REINKE: Aye. MR. BAYON: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you.
Case No. 03-080 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. Let's call case number O3-080 filed by Mark Guidobono represents homeowners at 47890 Ravello Court. Mr. Guidobono is requesting a 193-square-foot variance for the construction of an attached garage to the proposed home located at 47890 Ravello Court, Unit 12, in the Bellagio Development. MEMBER BAUER: Would you raise your right hand to be sworn in. Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding case number 03-080. MAN MAN: I do. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Would you state your name for the record, please. MR. GUIDOBONO: Mark Guidobono with Cambridge Homes. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. MR. GUIDOBONO: We are requesting the customer on a development in Bellagio. He requests a 193 foot square foot variance for his garage. His intention is to be able to park four cars and have enough storage for bicycles, trash, kids' toy, those sorts of things.
I don't know if you have a copy of the floor plan, but I would be happy to share it with you if you would like to see it. MEMBER GATT: We have it. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. Anything else? MR. GUIDOBONO: No. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address this case? Any comments? Seeing none. There were 17 notices sent, zero approvals and zero objections and there were three letters returned. Building department? MR. MORRONE: We have no objection. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Board members? Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: What's the square footage on this house? MR. GUIDOBONO: This house is -- it's probably -- let's see if I have a calculation on the plan. I don't know the exact square footage. MEMBER BRENNAN: You can put most of Cambodia in this.
MR. GUIDOBONO: My guess is about 5500 square feet, 6,000 square feet, in that neighborhood. MEMBER BRENNAN: My point is, for anyone watching that isn't familiar with this development, these are huge, huge lots with huge, huge homes and we have granted similar relief in the past. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Gatt? MEMBER GATT: That was my question. I know these are huge, huge homes with huge, huge lots, but why do we need such a huge, huge garage? I mean, what are the other homeowners saying and doing in regards to this question? MR. GUIDOBONO: Well, it's a thousand square feet. I think when that ordinance was made, it was made for smaller lots and three-car garages was the norm, say, ten years ago for these larger homes. Today on these larger homes people are requesting four-car garages. Also, we're in the one-acre zoning district today. Back in, you know, ten years ago, we were in the R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4. So I think it was a good ordinance at the time when we're dealing with smaller lots. I think it's outdated for the R-A
zoning myself. Because when you really look at a four-car garage, it takes a thousand square feet and doesn't leave you much room for storage. Now, we have been able to get by with some homeowners and it is very tight. Their doors will actually open up and hit the side walls, but I've got some homeowners that demand me to give them a little room for storage. I have a plan of the garage. I can show you an example of what I'm talking about. Here-- and in this instance you can see the two-car garage door in this area right here. Another one here. And if you look, we're talking two feet between the door and outside wall, so that means you open your car door and hits the wall. So that's the problem with a four-car garage. You got another two feet here, another two feet there. So there's not really a lot of room in this garage. So we provided a little extra storage right in this area and that is what is putting us over the ordinance amount. But physically from the front of the house -- which is down here at the bottom of the page. It doesn't make the house look any bigger. It's actually tucked behind.
And so that's kind of my thoughts on it. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. Anyone else? MEMBER BAUER: I have nothing. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Well, again, we're looking at new construction and Mr. Guidobono was very familiar with the ordinance when this development in this whole subdivision was platted and I know we did grant a variance in this subdivision in the past, but that was because of a pie-shaped lot. While I might agree that the square foot area on a garage for such a large home and a large value home is maybe outdated with the ordinance the way it is today, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy. So, thank you. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Gatt? MEMBER GATT: Can you tell me again how many notices were sent out? Did anybody object? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: No objections. Seventeen were sent. None were sent back. Three were returned undeliverable and there
were no approvals. MEMBER GATT: And our building department has no objection? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: No comment. MEMBER GATT: No comment or no objection? MR. MORRONE: No objection. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I will add my comments to the record at this point, since we seem to be torn on this. I think that with the size of the lot and the size of the house, I agree with the petitioner when he says that the ordinance is a little outdated. Although sometimes when you're looking at a variance outdated ordinances aren't necessarily the rule of thumb so you can say it is outdated, so you can, therefore, pass it. However, given the location of the lot, the size of the lot and the size of the home, I think that it meets what this -- and I understand and I'm all for less is better, but given the size of this house, I don't feel that this is an unreasonable request for a variance. And I will be supporting if anyone wants to make a motion. Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Just one last
comment. I've been in this development a couple of different times. In fact, I didn't recognize you without a -- MR. GUIDOBONO: It was soccer practice for my son. I was running late. MEMBER BRENNAN: But this is a unique subdivision in the whole city. There is nothing like this. This subdivision is quite amazing. I think this is a very minimal request. Granted it is a probably a selling feature for the developer, but it also has some practical value to the potential homeowner, and that's why I was moving in that direction. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Gatt? MEMBER GATT: One last comment. I'm going to support the request, but I just want to go on record as I don't feel sorry for anybody that lives in that home with a four-car garage that has to bang the door. Somehow I just don't feel sorry for them. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Was that a motion? MEMBER GATT: Well, I'll make the motion on case number 03-080 that the proposed variance of 193 feet for a larger than allowed garage
be granted because of the lot configuration and the unique circumstances surrounding this property. MEMBER BRENNAN: Second. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Support. So we have a motion and a support. Any further discussion? Lisa, will you please call the roll. MS. MCDONALD: Member Gatt? MEMBER GATT: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: No. MS. MCDONALD: Member Gronachan? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Your variance has been granted. MR. GUIDOBONO: Thank you.
Case No. 03-081 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Moving right along. We have case number 03-081 filed by Stanley -- and please forgive me on your last name -- Golembiewski at 24706 Glenda. Mr. Golembiewski is requesting an 810 square foot variance for the construction of a detached garage located at his residence in Salow's Walnut Hill subdivision property zoned R-4. Good evening. MR. GOLEMBIEWSKI: How do you do? My name is Stanley Golembiewski. I'm the home owner and resident at 24706 Glenda, Novi, Michigan 48375. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Would you raise your right hand, please, and be sworn in by our secretary MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth in case 03-081? MR. GOLEMBIEWSKI: Yes. MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Go ahead. MR. GOLEMBIEWSKI: The reason I'm requesting this variance is I have a handicapped son,
and the attached garage that was on the house when we bought it, I have a lift, a handicapped lift that takes up most of the garage. Plus there's his workout equipment, therapy equipment, that we use down in that area. Now, what I would like is to have a garage -- what I would request is to have a garage to -- that I can put this handicapped van into. I have a van that's eight foot five inches tall and the doorway in the present garage is only seven foot. I would like to be able to have my son go in and out of his van without being exposed to the weather. And -- excuse me, I'm not very good at public speaking. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: You did just fine. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in regards to this case? Gentlemen, would you like to come down to the podium. Come on down, gentlemen. MR. WESTIN: My name is Frederick Westin. I live at 45087 Yorkshire. And I'm here representing the group which is opposed to the current
variance appeal. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. MR. WESTIN: Do I have to -- CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: No. MR. WESTIN: I'm not that familiar with how I present our group. The members are here tonight. They're in the audience. I have some information for you that I obtained from the file at the City, and these documents are in the file, but I made copies to try to organize them so you can get my train of thought as to where we're coming from. MEMBER BRENNAN: Why don't you tell us. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Why don't you tell us. MR. WESTIN: Can I distribute this and we might be able to -- CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: If it's from the file, we all have the file. MR. WESTIN: I was trying to put it in order so you wouldn't have to fumble through. And I have added some items that we want to present to the board. I think it's important. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member
Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Madame Chair, I don't want to sit here and review information tonight. I'd like the gentleman to tell us briefly what the beef is. MR. WESTIN: Well, we're not opposed to the homeowner wanting to add additional square footage to accommodate his hardship. Everyone here tonight agrees that he should have the right and probably does need some extra space or make an adjustment to his property to accommodate his needs. What we're opposed to is, when I looked in the file there is several errors on the documents in the file. There is conflicting dimensions in the file and we're also somewhat concerned with the size of the variance request. Again, we're not here opposing his hardship. We actually are for him, but we would like the file corrected. We would like the mistakes that I found in the file corrected, the differences in the dimensional aspects of the documents in the file corrected and we would also like to bring a few points to the attention of the board, after I maybe present where I found mistakes and the differences.
CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. Sir, first off, we do have the file. The dimensions would be reviewed very closely by the building department. What is in front of us is a variance request for 850 square feet. MR. WESTIN: Right. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: So what you need to address is why you are in opposition of that variance request. MR. WESTIN: Well, when I went to the city and checked the files, I was told that if is anything in the file that is incorrect and a variance is granted, that the items that are shown incorrect on the plans can be proceeded with. And that concerns me, because there are mistakes in the file. There are some differences in plans that have the dimension of the garage addition. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Mr. Morrone? MR. WESTIN: If I could bring up the plan showing -- received by the City of Novi August 12th. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. MR. WESTIN: The shed in the back left-hand corner is in the wrong location. That also
appears on the mortgage survey as a wrong location. I have an aerial view of the present home showing the shed within the hundred-foot lot that exists. So it's misrepresented on the plan and it's an incorrect -- it's an incorrect representation of what is actually there. Did any of the board members visit the site? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. MR. WESTIN: Okay. I have an aerial view here. There was one in the file that shows you where that shed is actually located. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. MR. WESTIN: The shed is 264 square feet. The garage that's in place is 650 square feet. That's 914 square feet, which is already over the 850. The detail of the garage on the document I just brought up to you if for a 720-square-foot addition. There's another detail in the file showing the garage as 26 by 32 on the survey of 832 square feet. We're confused as to what is happening with this matter and why these dimensions are conflicting. We also had a couple of other things to bring up. Of the homeowner should have been aware
of existing conditions which impacted his hardship when he bought the home relatively two years ago. He should have been aware of the existing zoning laws that may have affected him. Has every effort been made to utilize existing garage space? There's modifications to the existing garage space. Does the garage have to be 720 square feet to accommodate a handicapped van? Why are two garage doors shown on the profile view drawing in the file for one vehicle? We feel that the request for a variance of 720 feet is somewhat excessive in this case. The City does recommend that the owner contact adjacent neighbors, limit the size of the request to a reasonable area and be sure that there is no impact on the other neighbors or the land. Once a building is up, it's there forever. People move, people change jobs, people change locations, circumstances change. We would like the board to consider that as something we all have to live with. I've four new neighbors on each side of me in 17 years. Last but not least, we would like to
make three recommendations to the board and make a motion of one of three things. Have the shed eliminated and reduce the garage size to 360 square feet. That would increase the variance by 160 square feet. Or, keep the shed in its current location and reduce the garage size to 360 square feet, which would result in a 360-square-foot variance increase. Or, due to the conflicting information in the files, we would ask that the board table this until another meeting and request that the homeowner meet with the neighbors to try to work with the neighbors. We're in agreement that he has a hardship. We're not here against the gentleman. We ask the board to table it and have him meet with us and come up with some fair solutions and ideas that might help him in any way we can. We're not against to what he is trying to do. We're just opposed to the mistakes in the file, the differences that are listed and it's my understanding if the variance is granted with those mistakes in the file, those can be proceeded with. The red flag came up when we got the letter. And, when I investigated the file, there were a few more red flags that came up and I think it's fair that I'm
addressing those. I do have six families in total here tonight that have read the documents I have here, and it's basically outlined to you. They agree with what I have listed. I'll be glad to give a copy of this to Mr. Golembiewski if he would like to see it or it for any reference. We want to be neighbors. We're not here against him. He didn't talk to any of us. This came in the mail Wednesday. We're disappointed that that didn't happen. We've -- I don't think anyone in this room would not want him to have something for his son. We're not -- and you know, it's hard for me to do this, but I would like the file to be corrected. We would like the board to consider our three suggestions. We're not telling you what to do here. We're giving you some options that we feel are fair. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. WESTIN: Thank you. And I do thank the people of the City for helping. When I had to go through the files and gather information and do all my research they were quite helpful.
CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: That's always nice to hear. Thank you. MR. WESTIN: If you would still like a copy of what I see, if we need that, we'll address that as we get further down the line. MR. WESTIN: Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Is there anyone else in the audience? MS. BARRONS: I'm Ginger Barrons. I live at 24777 Glenda, and I'm opposed to the variance. I do understand handicaps. I have one myself, so I'm very aware of them. However, I agree with the previous speaker that the homeowner was aware of the handicaps and the situation when he bought the home. I sold a home nine houses down from this home at 24425 Glenda. You didn't mention my letter. I did send in a letter, so I'm a little concerned that you don't have my letter in the file opposing this variance, because I did send one in. The form that you send, I wrote on the back and mailed it back in. 24425 Glenda requested a variance about a year and a half ago to build a detached two-car garage on their property. It's 100-by-300
lot, so it's a little bit larger. They were turned down for that variance and ended up having to build a car and a half garage, which seems a little for our -- a two-car garage might have been appropriate for the size of our lots there on Glenda, but this variance is excessive and I am concerned about the potential future homeowners converting the existing building into an unlawful commercial use because of the size of the building. I believe it will be unsightly, in the sense that there was a building built at Taft Road and Ten Mile a few years ago. It required a higher roof because of the size of the building. This will as well. And that blocked sunlight to the neighboring homes and significantly impacted the quality of life for the surrounding neighbors of that building, even though it did meet the ordinance, because that was on a corner and zoned a little differently than our lots. So I'm concerned about the impact of the size of this building. As the previous speaker said, there is a very large shed on the property that is not located on the plan in the correct spot. That, combined with the consisting two-car garage -- there
is a lot of space there, and I do understand the hardship, but I know this home was only recently purchased and they had to have been aware of it and should have researched the allowable square footage for the detached building on the building prior to buying. So I would just significantly -- I would really strongly urge you to stay with variance. You turned down a variance a year and a half ago for someone who only wanted a two-car garage and only allowed them a car and a half. So I'm just asking that you turn down the variance. I'm opposed. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Anyone else? Seeing none. There were 33 notices sent, two approvals, three objections. To address Ms. Barron's concern, yes, we did receive your letter. However, we had not gotten to them yet to read. First objection is from LeAnn Ginger Barrons at 24777 Glenda. The next objection is from -- and I apologize on the pronunciation of the last name. Mr. Attala Tacchella, T-a-c-c-h-e-l-l-a,
at 24759 Glenda. Next objection is from Carol and Terry Ganon at 24741 Glenda. We have an approval from Kim Knight at 24723 Glenda and another approval from Ken Burns at 24560 Glenda. Building Department? MR. MORRONE: Well, as Mr. Westin has pointed out, there are inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the documents that were in the file. I don't know how that happened. I just saw the case myself yesterday for the first time. The document or the plot plan that was submitted date stamped received by the City of Novi shows the shed out in the corner of the lot. That is not correct according to our GS photos, which shows the shed directly behind the house towards the back of the lot and in a substantially different location. Also, the mortgage survey that appeared in the file is not date stamped, but it just showed up. It shows the different-size garage, counted as larger. And the shed which is in the -- that shed is at the incorrect location as well. So I
think that possibly the petitioner needs to get with the builder and get his documents in order and talk with the neighbors. Outside of that, I really don't have an objection. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Gray, anything? MEMBER GRAY: No. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yeah, this got muckier the farther we went along. Where is the sir, can you come up again. On this drawing? Are you proposing that what had been referred to as the existing two-car garage is gone and was replaced with this? MR. GOLEMBIEWSKI: No. The existing two-car garage has a handicap lift in this, and this exercise equipment is therapy equipment. MEMBER BRENNAN: Where is that on here? MR. GOLEMBIEWSKI: It's attached. It's right in part of the house. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: It's the existing garage.
MEMBER BRENNAN: Okay. Is this the size garage you are requesting to build, 32 by 26? MR. GOLEMBIEWSKI: Yes, sir. MEMBER BRENNAN: Now, then define what he wants to build. What we have before us is a request for a variance on the total amount of square footage on his property. The shed, wherever it is in that backyard, is 265 square feet. A 32 by 26 garage is 832 square feet. If you total that up, that is 1,097 square feet. He is allowed 850 square feet. So unless I'm reading this wrong, he has before us a request of a variance of 227 feet. MEMBER REINEKE: Yes. MEMBER BRENNAN: Based on the information before us. MEMBER GRAY: On the square feet and existing two car garage. MEMBER BRENNAN: That's part of the house. That's where I'm getting confused on. MEMBER GRAY: How many square feet is your existing two car garage? MR. GOLEMBIEWSKI: It's two and a half car garage. I don't have know idea how many feet
it is. MEMBER REINKE: Madame Chairman? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. MEMBER REINKE: I think we've got too many parcels here that we're trying to put together here that are not defined. We need to know the exact size of the existing garage. We need to know the exact locations of the current shed and we need to know -- these drawings here. One says 32 by 26. The other one says 30 by 24. This has to be defined and I think he needs to talk with his neighbors. Because they have indicated that they want to support -- that he needs some help and they're willing to work with him. And, you know, I think that this needs to be tabled and these issues need to be addressed by the petitioner. MR. GOLEMBIEWSKI: Should I get it surveyed or what should I do? MR. MORRONE: It's not necessary that you get a surveyor so long as the information that you provide to us is accurate. If you can get out there with a tape measure and measure out from your house and side property line and if you can measure the inside of your garage floor space of your existing
garage and the shed, then I think you can come up with most all the information that you need. MR. GOLEMBIEWSKI: Okay. MEMBER GRAY: And talk to your neighbors. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Gatt? MEMBER GATT: Regardless of the size dimensions that you come back with, unless we can satisfy the neighbors' desires, I would be opposed to this. When I drove down Glenda Street, I was surprised. I know that house very well. A very good friend of mine used to own it, and you obviously bought it from them and, therefore, I know firsthand. I know where the shed sits because I helped build it. But more importantly, I also know that you had a handicapped child when you bought the house? MR. GOLEMBIEWSKI: Yes. MEMBER GATT: And you knew the existing structure as is and you went ahead and bought it and to come before this board and ask for these variances will take a large, you know, approval by your neighbors before I would support that. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. So at
this time we're going to go ahead and table your case until next month. Strong recommendation that you talk to the entire neighborhood. Go back to the drawing board and bring us accurate facts and figures. MR. GOLEMBIEWSKI: Thank you very much. MEMBER BRENNAN: You might even grab them in the atrium while they're here tonight. MR. GOLEMBIEWSKI: Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: It's been moved that case 03-081 be tabled until the month of November. All those in favor say aye. MEMBER GATT: Aye. MEMBER BRENNAN: Aye. MEMBER BAUER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Aye. MEMBER GRAY: Aye. MEMBER RENKE: Aye.
Case No. 03-082 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Moving right along. Case number 03-082, which is Louis Maiberger at 1517 East Lake Drive. Mr. Maiberger is requesting two variances for the construction of an open, unenclosed deck located in the front yard of the residence. MR. MAIBERGER: Good evening. My name is Louis Maiberger. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Just one second. Let them in the back leave so they don't distract us from what you want to tell us. MEMBER BAUER: Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding case number 03-082? MR. MAIBERGER: Yes. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Go ahead. MR. MAIBERGER: My name is Louis Maiberger. I'm co-owner with my father Louis Maiberger, Jr. We reside at 1517 East Lake Drive in Novi and I'm requesting a variance on a front end deck for our home. I just recently purchased the house. I know you have one approval from my neighbor to the north, but I had a fax from my neighbor to the south
that I don't believe you have. Would you like it? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: You can bring it forward, sir. MR. MAIBERGER: I don't know if you had received a plan for the deck either. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes, we have one. MEMBER BRENNAN: This one? MR. MAIBERGER: Yes. Yes. Basically, to improve the value of the home. I purchased the house knowing that it was built incorrectly. Both neighbors agree. There's decks up and down the street. It's the lake side of the house. There's no homes across the lake. I did take some pictures. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Do you have pictures, did you say? MR. MAIBERGER: I do. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: You can just pass them down. Anything else? MR. MAIBERGER: No. That's about it. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Is there
anyone in the audience that wishes to comment on this case? Seeing none. There were 56 notices sent, four approvals. First approval by Reuben Levy at 1509 East Lake Drive. Kimberly Rubin at 1525 East Lake Drive. Margaret Rafnicki, 1513 East Lake Drive and Lupka, Mr. and Mrs. Lupka, at 1515 East Lake Drive. Building Department? MR. MORRONE: We have no objection. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Board members? Member Gatt? MEMBER GATT: This is a very unique home in a very unique neighborhood. It's a very small variance. I support it fully. MEMBER RENKE: Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: This is a sensitive area due to lot size, shapes, uniqueness of the home, and everything like that. Being that the front of this house really faces the lake, I can understand wanting to have the deck in the front yard. I can
support the petitioner's request on a stipulation that it only be a deck and not be something that's covered and closed in. MR. MAIBERGER: No, it's an open, unenclosed deck. MEMBER BRENNAN: Madame Chair? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, Laverne, you took my thunder. That was the one that I had that said for how long because we often get decks that are in the setbacks and next thing we know are enclosed porches because of mosquitoes, but if this petitioner is on board that this is a deck and always will be a deck -- not a duck, a deck -- I've got no problem. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: I don't either have a problem with it and since prevailing winds tend to blow mosquitoes, past the house I don't think he's going to have a problem with mosquitos coming back and asking for it to be screened in. So I would like to, in the case 03-082 move to approve the variance requested, understanding that we don't want it to come back to be enclosed or screened in in the future. If
we could do so to stipulation. MEMBER REINKE: Support. MEMBER GRAY: And due to the existing structure on the lot and the lot size and configuration. MEMBER REINKE: Are you done now? MEMBER GRAY: I'm done. MEMBER REINKE: Support. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: We have a motion, I think, and a second. Is there any further discussion on the roof -- on the motion? Seeing none, Lisa, would you please call the roll? MS. MCDONALD: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Gatt? MEMBER GATT: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Gronachan?
CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. Sir, your variance has been granted. Please see the Building Department. MR. MAIBERGER: Thank you. And as far as the insects go, that like you said with the winds coming in and there's no trees in the front, I don't even realize that there is bugs on there. And I'm coming from Commerce and my Commerce home is just infested with bugs. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Well, welcome to the city. MEMBER BRENNAN: That's Commerce for you.
Case No. 03-084 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Calling next case, Case Number 03-084, filed by Gregory Hudas from Regency Centre. He's requesting a sign variance that was granted back in August of 2002 for a marketing sign located at the entrance of Regency Centre. He's looking for another extension. Good evening. Are you Mr. Hudas? MR. GREEN: I am not. It's Hudas and I am a co-worker with Greg. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Why don't you state your name and raise your right hand and be sworn in. MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding case 03-084? MR. GREEN: I do. David Green. I work at Signature Associates with Greg Hudas. I think the variance is pretty self-explanatory. I've pretty opened it up for question if anybody has any. The sign has been there since the original development of the park and due to economic situations, we're still marketing and doing our best to get some companies in there. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Is there
anyone in the audience that has anything to offer in regards to this case? Seeing none, there were seven notices sent, zero approvals, zero objections. Building Department? MR. MORRONE: No objection. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Board members? MEMBER GATT: Just one comment, Madame Chair. In the notes in the file, in the past transcript, my friend Dr. Sanghi (ph) asked if it was going to be -- did you really anticipate that it would be filled with blown air, an economic term. MR. GREEN: I guess we were all domestic but maybe we've become more realistic. MEMBER GATT: My friend was right. MR. GREEN: Yes. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: What is your occupancy at this time? MR. GREEN: We have two companies located in there and probably -- relatively speaking, you're probably 15 percent of the entire development.
Of a development, you're probably looking at maybe a 40-million-dollar total development when it's all said and done. MEMBER GRAY: So 50 percent of 40 million at this point? MR. GREEN: Relatively speaking. MEMBER GRAY: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Brennan. MEMBER BRENNAN: I think it's a reasonable request. Under different times I would be perhaps reluctant to talk about three years, but it may take three years before we all come out of this, if we can come out of it. MEMBER GATT: Is that a motion? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Is that a motion? MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll make a motion. If you have any other questions of the petitioner, go ahead. If not, with respect to case 03-084, I would move for approval for the purpose of marketing and building out the site. MEMBER BAUER: Second. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. It's
been moved and approved that this variance be granted. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, Lisa, please call the roll. MS. MCDONALD: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Gatt? MEMBER GATT: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Gronachan? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Your variance has been approved.
Case No. 03-085 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. Now we have the fun cases coming up. MS. MCDONALD: Next case is 03-085 filed by Mike Gabriel of State Farm Insurance, and while is he walking down to the podium, I am going to tell the board members that I'm going to recuse myself from this case. MR. GABRIEL: Coward. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I also work for State Farm Insurance at another location. MR. GABRIEL: The wrong office, by the way. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I'm sorry. MR. GABRIEL: The wrong office. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Well, my boss doesn't think so. Nonetheless, I work at another State Farm office and feel that there would be a conflict so I'm turning the table over to my vice chair. MR. SCHULTZ: We can just have a quick vote. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay, members all those in favor of me recusing myself from this
case, please say "Aye". MEMBER GATT: Aye. MEMBER BRENNAN: Aye. MEMBER BAUER: Aye. MEMBER GRAY: Aye. MEMBER RENKE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Is that fine? MR. SCHULTZ: That's fine. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Bye. Fine. (Chairperson Gronachan left.) MEMBER GRAY: I'm also an insurance agent but not in Novi. So we'll just let that one go. You're not an attorney. Would you please raise your hand to be sworn. MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 03-085? MR. GABRIEL: I do. My name is Mike Gabriel. I've been in business in Novi for 23 years. I decided to do a facelift on my office, which is probably the oldest building still standing in Novi. I honestly don't know why I need a variance, but my understanding is
because of a sign that was granted 35 years ago is not conforming with today's society does not allow anybody on my corner to put a sign. So that's why I'm here tonight. Because I used to have a window sign. The window is now a double doors, is now a stone front and I'm requesting approximately about a ten-foot State Farm sign to be put up with the double doors. But there again, someday I'm going to understand the sign ordinance. Because golf season is over, it's going to take the winter to understand it. Because I truly don't believe and know why I'm here tonight. So I'm hoping somebody can explain that to me in my five minutes of time. MEMBER GRAY: Is there anybody else in the audience who wishes to address the Board at this time? Seeing no one. There were 22 notices sent, zero approvals, zero objections. Mr. Morrone? MR. MORRONE: I have no comment, but in answer to the petitioner's request, what I'm reading here is that the sign was not approved on 9-15-03 and what it says here is that no parcel of land shall be allowed more than one sign permitted
under this section. In parentheses under that there is a ground pole sign for Twist and Shake located on the same parcel of land. MR. GABRIEL: Correct. But my understanding is the Twist and Shake is nonconformant with today's rules, which was approved 35 years ago under their rules which makes that corner nonconformant. I mean, what's the difference between my corner which has about six businesses in a strip center across the street. I don't understand that. MEMBER BAUER: Zoning. MEMBER GRAY: Well, how about if we agree to disagree at this point. MR. GABRIEL: Like I said, I'm -- MEMBER GRAY: When you figure it out, you would come back and give us a seminar. MR. GABRIEL: Trust me I will. MEMBER GRAY: Board members? MEMBER Bauer: Madame Chairman? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MEMBER BAUER: It looks lovely. MR. GABRIEL: Thank you. MEMBER BAUER: Much improved. You must have a sign there for your own identification for
people that are your clients. I have no problem with it. MR. GABRIEL: If you notice, when you're driving by, I did the work on it. MEMBER GRAY: Mike, to answer your question, the reason you're here tonight is to join our company. I agree with Member Bauer, you must have a sign. MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: I think you've got some agreeance here. So I'll make a motion to move this along. With case number 03-085, the petitioner requests for this sign be approved for the purpose of identifying his business. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MEMBER GRAY: Any further discussion on the ordinance? I mean on the variance. I would just like to note that you've done a good job. MR. GABRIEL: Thank you. MEMBER GRAY: Lisa, would you call the roll? MS. MCDONALD: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.
MS. MCDONALD: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Gatt? MEMBER GATT: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. GABRIEL: Thank you. MEMBER GRAY: See the Building Department. MR. GABRIEL: Tell Cindy she can come back now. (Ms. Gronachan reenters the room.) MEMBER GRAY: And at this time we'll turn it back over to Chair Gronachan.
Case No. 03-086 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: The only thing I'm doing is getting my work out in this case, because the next case, fellow board members, I'm also asking the board to recuse me off the board. The next case is 03-086 filed by Mr. Raymond Miras of 21801 Garfield Road Road. When the board members reviewed your packet, you will see that my name is on a petition that was signed as a fellow neighbor. At the time that that petition was being sent, it was under the petitioner and the neighbor's belief that it was going to our City Council. However, because of my involvement in this case, I feel that I need to recuse myself and ask the board members to vote. MEMBER BAUER: So moved. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: All those in favor? MEMBER GATT: Aye. MEMBER BRENNAN: Aye. MEMBER BAUER: Aye. MEMBER GRAY: Aye. MEMBER RENKE: Aye. (Chairperson Gronachan left the Grand
Jury room.) MR. MIRAS: My name is Ray Miras. I live at 21801 Garfield Road in Novi. MEMBER GRAY: Would you raise your right hand and be sworn, please. MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding case 03-086? MR. MIRAS: I do. MEMBER BAUER: Please go ahead. MR. MIRAS: I have three lots that I bought on Garfield Road. And I have a garage on one and a house on the other, and this was a broken lot. When I purchased it, it was 120 by 240, which was a buildable lot at the time it was purchased. Since then, the Zoning Board or the variance, something changed. Anyhow, and now they require 150 feet, and I'm asking for a variance to 120 feet, so I can have a buildable lot, and the second variance of four feet six inches on my existing property to -- for the yard setback. MEMBER GRAY: Okay. You'll be available for questions. Anybody else in the audience wish to address this matter? Seeing none, Mr. Morrone?
MR. MORRONE: I don't have a comment on the variance other than -- should the board elect to grant the variance, what I'm not seeing here is a one acre minimum, which is a required in the zoning ordinance. I'm wondering if you wanted to address that for parcel two as well. MEMBER GRAY: Okay. I think we'll enjoin that in the discussion at that time. There were 17 notices sent. Three approvals, one objection. An approval from Mr. Daisy and Ms. Annis. "We live at south parcel two and wish to purchase this lot from Ray and Betty Miras. It is our intent to build a single family home." Mr. Ellsworth supports approval of the variance request because of over 50 percent of the residential lots in the neighborhood are 120-foot wide sites. A few other issues. There's another approval from Mr. Brenton. And the one objection is: "The houses around the pond already appear to be on lots that are too small, because most of the required lot size is underwater. A large portion of this lot is underwater, so the buildable portion of the lot
already appears smaller than the legal description. The variance would make it smaller. We have lot restrictions." And that's from Mr. Shabarrat, I believe is the pronunciation. Board members? MEMBER BRENNAN: I'd like to raise the question of this one-acre requirement for R-A zoning, and why that's not part of this variance request package. Maybe Tom can help us here. Actually, maybe Terry might have a better explanation for that. MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Morrone? MR. MORRONE: Well, I'm not sure why it's not included in the variance. I actually submitted a letter to the city clerk the building official and they show some time ago, August 29th, as a minimum requirement for lots within an R-A district, they require 43,560 square feet, which is, I believe, one acre. On parcel two, it is saying that parcel two contains .689 acres, which was less than the one acre. So -- and I'm not sure. Maybe I'm out
of line -- MR. SCHULTZ: No. MR. MORRONE: -- or incorrect. MR. SCHULTZ: Madame Chair? MEMBER GRAY: I suspect the petitioner -- maybe we ought to ask him -- looked at the reasons for the denial of Mr. Leemon's letter where he denied the last underground setback and failed to have the appropriate frontage and correct width of the lot. Mr. Leemon didn't cite the one-acre minimum and I suspect the petitioner didn't pick that up. But clearly, from this factual review we're having here, it's another issue he would have to resolve. The obviously you're not noticed for that kind of discussion, so. MEMBER GRAY: So we're back to square one. MR. SCHULTZ: Back to square one. MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Brennan, is that -- MEMBER BRENNAN: It doesn't sound like that we can hear this case. MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Gatt? MEMBER GATT: No. We can't hear it, because it's erroneous information.
MEMBER GRAY: Well, I'm very sorry but we're going to have to -- MR. MIRAS: When I bought the lot -- MEMBER GRAY: Sir, sir. Excuse me. We're going to have to renotice this case is because what has happened, we have not noticed the people in your area that this is also a third variance, which is a lot size less than what is required by our current zoning. Is that correct, Mr. Schultz? MR. SCHULTZ: That is correct MEMBER GRAY: So I know when you bought it what it was zoned, and I know what the intent was, but the zoning has changed since then. So I think at this point in all fairness to your neighbors, I believe we have to table this and renotice it. MR. MIRAS: Because of the one fellow that objection? MEMBER GRAY: No, sir. Absolutely not. It's because of a legal technicality that our notice to your neighbors did not say: And lot two will be less than one acre. MR. SCHULTZ: That's correct.
MEMBER REINKE: What will happen is a corrected notice will be sent out to everybody, and you will be at the next meeting, but it will also address the lot width and deficiency in lot size for that zoning. MEMBER GRAY: Do we have a motion to table? MEMBER BAUER: Motion. MEMBER GRAY: And a second? MEMBER BRENNAN: Second. MEMBER GRAY: Lisa, will you call the roll. MS. MCDONALD: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Gatt? MEMBER GATT: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHON: Madame Chair? MEMBER GRAY: Yes.
MS. MARCHON: May I make the suggestion that we put him at number one. MEMBER BAUER: Yes. No objection. MEMBER BRENNAN: Do you follow? Do you understand lot number two is not big enough. It's supposed to be an acre and it's .6, so we're going to do the same thing next month but it's just going to be another variance. MR. MIRAS: My only problem is when I bought it, it was a proper lot. Under R-1 zoning, it was a proper lot and all the houses out there were built on R-1 zoning and all were proper lots. MEMBER BRENNAN: We have to deal with zoning today, though. MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Schultz? MR. SCHULTZ: It would helpful for the applicant to meet with Mr. Morrone or Mr. Saven because there is an awful lot of property left there on the parcel and reducing the lot size variance or area variance. That might be at least worth discussing. MEMBER GRAY: Did you understand Mr. Schultz's comment? MR. MIRAS: Not really.
MEMBER GRAY: Okay. Mr. Schultz, who is our legal counsel, has suggested that you meet with either Mr. Morrone or Mr. Saven to discuss the situation and see if there is any other options available to you between now and then. MR. SCHULTZ: To resolve that potential for a variance. There is an awful lot of property left on there. MEMBER GRAY: Okay. Thank you very much. Ms. Gronachan, we're going to take a five-minute break, if that is all right, and we'll be back in five. MEMBER GATT: Ten minutes. (Momentarily off the record.)
Case No. 03-087 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: We'll reconvene now. Let's call 03-087 filed by John Sherwood at 23980 Meadowbrook Road. MR. SHERWOOD: Good evening. I have a prepared statement. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Before you do that, could you raise your right hand. MR. SHERWOOD: Yes, I can do that. MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding case 03-087? MR. SHERWOOD: I do. MEMBER BAUER: Please go ahead. MR. SHERWOOD: Thank you. My name is John Sherwood, and I live at 23890 Meadowbrook. Thank you for your time in allowing me to present my need with a variance to my home. First, I followed your suggestions and discussed with my neighbors my need for a variance, along with my renovation plan. After discussing building dimensions and viewing elevations with them, I received a hundred percent signed approval from all homeowners of adjacent properties.
As to the list of 30 homeowners you notified, I was able to obtain 22 signed approvals, and of the remaining eight residents, two were rental units, and the renters didn't feel they they had to sign for the absent owners. Five were not contacted, even with repeated visits. And the only dissension of the 30, to my knowledge, is a homeowner that seems to object to the buildout of my new garage. It would only protrude a mere eight feet from the front of my ranch home. I find his displeasure curious, due to the fact that his garage protrudes approximately twelve feet from the front of his ranch-style home. The approvals That I had the homeowners signed are identical to the signed forms I submitted to you. And I am prepared to leave the remaining forms that you don't have at your request. Having lived in my home for the better part of the last 33 years, I have seen the traffic on Meadowbrook increase from 50 cars a day to volumes numbering in the thousands, reducing my quality of life due to the noise. Preserving my backyard space is a necessity. If I'm forced to build further into my
backyard, I'd ruin my backyard area, and the garage would no longer properly deflect road noise. And to recess the addition from the front of my house, the noise would be funneled not only to my house, but also to my neighbor's bedrooms. This was discussed with my neighbors, and they would prefer that I receive the variance. Failure to receive the variance would not only increase my noise problem but also deny access to my family room, which is to be located to the rear of the garage. The additional five-foot setback from the front of my home would put the rear of my garage past the back of my home, thereby making access impossible. This would not be practical for my 84-year-old mother, who will be using this living space in the near future or even later as a family room. In conclusion, I do believe my family's investment in updating our home is a plus for Novi. It could become a model not just for the Willowbrook Community but for older homes as well. I would like to thank you for your time in addressing this issue and my family hopes that you will grant us this variance.
Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: All right. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address this matter? Seeing none. There were 30 notices sent. Five approvals, one objection. An approval from Gerald Beckman at 23851 West Lebost. One objection from Joseph LeFlore. "If you look at the houses on Meadowbrook east side and feel it would be an eyesore and possibly depreciate property if this variance were approved to allow the front yard variance to be approved. It appears not only as the is the request to build to the side and the front, but also up. "Comparing to the neighboring homes, we feel it would be an interruption on the flow and design of these homes." Mr. LeFlore lives at 23889 Meadowbrook Road and I have no idea what happened to the rest of the letters, because they are not in my packet, the approval letters. Somebody needs to enter those. The other reapproval letters that were used in that tally were the ones that Mr. Schultz
was referring to, the plans that he actually had the homeowners sign. MEMBER GRAY: He's got those. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: And you have those as well? MR. SHERWOOD: This looks similar to this. I had the homeowners not only sign their names but their address that they actually seen it. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: And we'll want that as part of the record. You'll need to bring that. MR. SHERWOOD: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Building Department? MR. MORRONE: We have no comment. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Board members. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Brennan. MEMBER BRENNAN: It appears that the party most effected is the one that is looking -- I don't have the north and south on this at all. But on the proposed five-yard setback, your neighbor on that side is either one of
your proponents or opponents. MR. SHERWOOD: Everybody that is immediately around my property. The one objection that you have, the gentleman is from directly across my street, three houses down and on the corner. MEMBER BRENNAN: So the answer to my question then is, yes, you have approval? MR. SHERWOOD: Yes, sir, I do. MEMBER BRENNAN: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Anyone else? Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: I don't have a problem with these variances because he has explained why he wants to encroach on the front as well as the rear. He's answered the questions that I had raised when I was reviewing this packet and as long as he has the okay from his next door neighbor -- I'm not happy with the five foot, but I understand why he's doing that. So I would not have a problem with this. MEMBER REINKE: So moved? MEMBER GRAY: It can be a motion if you would like it to be one. In the matter of case number 03-087, move to approve the variances requested to build the
addition to his house due to lot size and configuration and support of his neighbors. MEMBER REINKE: Support. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, Lisa, please call the roll. MS. MCDONALD: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Gatt? MEMBER GATT: Yes. MS. MCDONALD: Member Gronachan? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. Sir, your variances have been granted and please see the Building Department. MR. SHERWOOD: Thank you.
Case No. 03-088 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. Case number 03-088 filed by Jon Sylva representing Gander Mountain at 43825 West Oaks Drive formerly known as Kmart West Oaks Shopping Center. Mr. Sylva is requesting nine sign variances to erect five wall signs at the Gander Mountain Store. And you are? MR. BARRETT: I'm Larry Barrett representing Gander Mountain. I'm with Hopden Inc. Real Estate Development at 5125 County Road 101 in Minnetonka, Minnesota. I'm here at the request of the Gander Mountain in place of Mr. Sylva. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Would you raise your right hand please and be sworn in by the secretary. MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding case 03-088? MR. BARRETT: I do. MEMBER BAUER: Please go ahead. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. MR. BARRETT: This isn't at all how to start this meeting when I arrived here this
afternoon, but I discovered that with -- in our electronic age with the push of a button, an E-mail of some plans, that the plans sent to Gander Mountain for the erecting of the mock-ups don't match the application we've made here. It was an honest mistake. What I would like to do is explain to you how they differ, and then explore with you what we can and cannot do here tonight. Is that -- would that be the appropriate way to proceed? MEMBER REINKE: Madame Chairman? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes, Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: If we're going to have larger requests before us, then we're not really dealing with what we have here. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Exactly. MEMBER REINKE: I think that's the first question we need to answer. MR. BARRETT: Can I address that? I can do that with each mock-up on each side and it goes one way and it's really a screwed-up situation, but I can resolve it, if you'll indulge me for a second I'll
run through each sign for you very quickly. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Excuse me. Can I just ask for clarification? MR. BARRETT: Sure. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Are any of the things you're going to discuss with us are they going to be larger than what you're discussing this evening? I think that's what Mr. Reinke was saying. MEMBER BAUER: And what we saw. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: And what you saw. MR. BARRETT: No, one would be larger than what you saw but identical to what we requested. Seeing number one up, G-1, we requested that the sign, which is the primary identification sign facing Novi Road, be 339 square feet. What is mocked up in front of you is 215 square feet, which is 37 percent less than what we requested. MEMBER REINKE: You're -- go ahead. We'll discuss it when you're done. MR. BARRETT: The second sign on the east side of the building, which is the Gander Mountain logo, part of what you see on the building is accurate. We originally requested a hundred square
feet. We recalculated and that is -- it's not ten feet square. It's around ten feet. So it's 78.5 square feet and the mock-up on the building is 78.5 square feet. So that is accurate. On the north side of the building or where we're building sign number three, we have requested the 156 square feet of sign and what we have on the building is 78.5 square feet or 50 percent of what we requested. Sign number four is the ATV identification sign. Again Gander Mountain serves the ATV vehicles they sell in the store. We requested 11.25 square feet of sign. The mock-up is 21 feet. I'm not even sure that this file ever was a Gander Mountain file. And on the west side of the building is identical to the north side. We requested 150 square feet of sign. the mock-up shows 78 and a half square feet or half of what we requested. MEMBER BRENNAN: Madame Chair? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: I have a recommendation. If the gentleman has got more
information to give us, I would like to walk through these, because there are some that are addressed tonight and the ones that were not portrayed properly need to be portrayed properly, especially the ones on the front of the building, but I think we can knock some of these out tonight. MEMBER REINKE: Madame Chair? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes, Member Reinke. MEMBER REINKE: I agree with Mr. Brennan and I disagree with him. Number one, if I'm going to go through this I'm going to go through the whole thing. If we can't do the whole package, I'm not interested in doing it. MEMBER GATT: Madame Chair? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Gatt? MEMBER GATT: And to be consistent, tonight even we have turned down people who we could've reviewed part of it and chose not to. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I agree. MEMBER BRENNAN: My suggestion involved only denials. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I don't think that it's -- we haven't gone through our normal
figures so if everybody holds their thought and let me go through my regular procedure here. Building Department, do you have anything to add? MR. MORRONE: We have no comment. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to make any comment on this case? All right. There were eleven notices sent, zero approvals and zero objections. Now back to the board. I concur with the other members. If I'm going to review the case, I would like to review the entire case and have the actual facts in front of me so I can make an honest decision. Square footage is a big enough problem to deal with without guessing, figuring, calculating. Earlier you were here. You learned that I'm an insurance agent and not an engineer. So I need as much professional assistance as possible and I feel my board members feel the same way. So we can make an educated and qualified decision on these variables. So, therefore, I'm going to agree that this be tabled. Given that and it be re-sent
again and that the proper mock-ups be put up next month with the right sizes so we can look at it as a whole and take it from there. MS. MARCHON: Madame Chair? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Sarah. MS. MARCHON: Since he is coming from Minnesota, is there anyway that you can give him any sort of direction on these signs so that he doesn't come back next month and play Let's Make a Deal for a while and have them tabled again and come back for a third time. I would hate for him to have to come back for three times. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Well, it's difficult and I'm speaking as an individual and not for the whole board, But it's difficult withough having all the figures. I understand that he's coming from out of state. I want to be cooperative. However, if all the figures are given to us I don't see why it should be tabled again. If the facts are in front of us next month we can go for it. This board is pretty no nonsense, we'll get right to it. MR. BARRETT: And I appreciate that. I've witnessed that tonight. I would, however, appreciate -- I'm capable of giving you exactly the
facts and figures. I hear you clearly that you're probably not going to give me any decisions tonight, but if you could give me some comments, I'd even -- I'd be willing to start off with what -- I've took the liberty of going back and reading some of your minutes of former meetings and came here prepared for give and take. If we could spend a few moments entering into that to give me some feedback, I would appreciate that, with the understanding that we will have to come back. MEMBER REINKE: Madame Chairman? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: I understand your point, but you have to understand my point too, that you're looking at a mock-up of 339 square feet. You have 215 up there now. So that reflects upon the whole program, and I'm not willing to sit down and negotiate on something that I've not had a chance to look at the size relationship of everything, because I'm not willing to do that. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I mean, you mentioned our minutes, but usually -- this is a rare occasion that we don't have the exacts in front of
us. It's, you know, too bad, but there have been times when mock-ups have not even been up and we will not even hear the case. Those mock-ups are very important in this job. MR. BARRETT: We created the problem. I clearly acknowledge that. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: So I apologize, but there is nothing at this point that we can do. Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: I would like to give the gentleman some guidance. If you have done some research, Novi has a very, very strict sign ordinance. If you look at what is in West Oaks already, you notice see there is limited signage, typically one sign per building. You have I would paraphrase that as an excessive request for signage, if that gives you any indication, if that helps. MR. BARRETT: I understand that word, yes. MEMBER BRENNAN: And I would take a look at is where the signage does you best. Does a sign in the alley do you anything, as an example?
MR. BARRETT: Is that down Wilson that you're referring to? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MEMBER BRENNAN: I'm trying to give you some guidance. MR. BARRETT: Thank you. I appreciate that. MEMBER GRAY: Madame Chair? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: My initial comment, was too many, too big. Working with this board for the last three years that kind of sums it up for probably most of us. However, with the mock-ups you have out there, if you want to decrease the size as to what is up there, I wouldn't have a problem with that. So I just wanted to get those comments on the record too. MR. BARRETT: May I make a comment about that? My recommendation to our client will be to do just that. And to come back here and ask that you grant us some leniency on the front of the building because we're so far from Novi Road and we'll make sure that the right size mock-ups are there well
in advance of the next meeting. MEMBER BRENNAN: Good. MR. BARRETT: Thank you for hearing me. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: So it has been agreed that we are going to table case number 03-088 for November being that the proper mock-up and the accurate figures will be given. All the board members that are in favor, say "Aye". MEMBER GATT: Aye. MEMBER BRENNAN: Aye. MEMBER BAUER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Aye. MEMBER GRAY: Aye. MEMBER RENKE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: None opposed, and we'll see you next month. Okay. That concludes this evening's activities. On to other matters. Ms. Marchon? MS. MARCHON: I just want to remind everyone that next month the meeting will be on a Thursday due to the election. So it's scheduled on Thursday, November 6th.
MEMBER GATT: Is there an election next month? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: And just a remainder also, that we have the training in month in Tom's office at 6:30 and I understand Tom's cooking dinner. MR. SCHULTZ: That's right. MEMBER BAUER: Oh, God. MEMBER BRENNAN: What date is that on, I'm sorry? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: The 22nd at 6:30 in the evening at Tom's office and there was a map in your packet. Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: I hate putting cases off and I think we put at least four or maybe five. And Sarah, maybe spend a little time with Lisa and give her some guidance on how many additional cases are up for next month. I think you can typically try and yo be the judge based on your experience. You know, this might be a quick case, this might be a quick case. Give her some guidance as to what is an acceptable amount of cases we hear next month. MS. MARCHON: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Anything else? MS. MCDONALD: Is 20, 25 acceptable? MEMBER BRENNAN: I'm not going to be at next month's. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I think 35 would probably do it. So we can keep right up there with counsel. Okay. If there is anything else, if everybody is in favor, I will adjourn the meeting. All those in favor? MEMBER GATT: Aye. MEMBER BRENNAN: Aye. MEMBER BAUER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Aye. MEMBER GRAY: Aye. MEMBER RENKE: Aye. MEMBER BAUER: Happy Halloween. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Happy Halloween. This meeting is adjourned. (The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.) - - -
STATE OF MICHIGAN) ) ss COUNTY OF OAKLAND) I, Darlene K. May, Notary Public within and for the County of Oakland, (Acting in Wayne), State of Michigan, do hereby certify that the witness whose attached deposition was taken before me in the above-entitled matter was by me duly sworn at the aforementioned time and place; that the testimony given by said witness was stenographically recorded in the presence of said witness and afterwards transcribed by computer under my personal supervision, and that the said deposition is a full, true and correct transcript of the testimony given by the witness. I further certify that I am not connected by blood or marriage with any of the parties or their attorneys, and that I am not an employee of either of them, nor financially interested in the action. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand at the City of Detroit, County of Wayne, State of Michigan, this 27th day of October, 2003. _______________________________ Darlene K. May, Notary Public Oakland County, Michigan My commission expires: 01-13-08
|