| View Agenda for this meeting View Action Summary for this meeting REGULAR - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Proceedings had and testimony taken in the matters of the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS at City of Novi, 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, on Tuesday, July 6, 2004. PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY: 1 Novi, Michigan 2 Tuesday, July 6, 2004 3 At 7:30 p.m. 4 - - - - - 5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. We'll now 6 call the July, 2004, Zoning Board of Appeals meeting 7 to order. 8 Denise, would you please call the 9 roll. 10 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer? 11 MEMBER BAUER: Present. 12 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan? 13 MEMBER BRENNAN: Here. 14 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup? 15 MEMBER CANUP: Here. 16 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gray? 17 MEMBER GRAY: Present. 18 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? 19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Present. 20 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi is 21 absent excused. 22 And Member Fischer? 23 MEMBER FISCHER: Present. 24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 3
1 The Zoning Board of Appeals is a 2 hearing board, empowered by the City -- Novi City 3 Charter to hear appeals seeking variances for the 4 application of the Novi Zoning Ordinances. 5 It's takes a vote of at least four 6 members to approve a variance request; and a vote of 7 the majority of the members present to deny. Please 8 note that we do have a full board with the alternate 9 present. 10 The agenda, any changes? 11 DENISE ANDERSON: No, there's no 12 changes to the agenda. 13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Minutes. We had -- 14 Oh, I'm sorry. All those in favor of 15 the agenda say aye? 16 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: All opposed? 18 None. 19 Minutes, we had three packets of 20 minutes for review in the packet. 21 Member Fischer? 22 MEMBER FISCHER: I have a change to 23 the April minutes, April 6th, 2004, page 41, line 23. 24 The word says mood, however I said move, M-o-v-e. I 4
1 don't think we should be approving anything on our 2 moods. 3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: All right. 4 Anything else? 5 All in favor of the minutes, say aye? 6 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: At this time, if 8 there's anyone in the audience that wishes to make a 9 public remark to the board in regards to a case, 10 other than what's appearing in front of us this 11 evening, you can do so now. 12 Is there anyone in the audience that 13 wishes to -- Mr. Harrington, good evening? 14 MR. HARRINGTON: Member Gronachan, 15 Board Members, I've been informed by the City that 16 this would be an appropriate time to discuss tabling 17 a matter until next month's meeting. It is the 18 Glenda's case, number 04-057. 19 And in short, the background for the 20 tabling is that my client inspected the City files 21 and learned that there was pending objection to the 22 relief he's seeking here. And in contacting the Novi 23 City Homeowner's Association, as well as Singh 24 Development, realized that there was a major 5
1 misunderstanding about what they were trying to do 2 with respect to both the berm, the storage bin, etc. 3 There is currently a homeowners 4 meeting scheduled for -- between now and next 5 meeting, and Mr. Cagle, who's here in the second to 6 the last row, as well as three of the homeowners, 7 have met and discussed; all of whom wish to meet 8 further to attempt to reach a consensus on the 9 changes that should be made, including the case that 10 we present to you as a packet at next month's 11 meeting. 12 So we are respectfully requesting that 13 the Glenda's matter be tabled until August. The 14 three homeowners who I did talk to, sitting in the 15 back, have no objection and support that; Singh 16 Development had no objection to that, as well. 17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 18 Thank you. 19 MR. SAVEN: I think, members of the 20 board, I would like to bring to your attention that 21 this is -- this matter is under litigation at this 22 time, and that there's a decision that the board will 23 have to make in its entirety for this particular 24 request. 6
1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is there any 2 discussion with regards to this request for tabling? 3 Yes, Member Canup? 4 MEMBER CANUP: Is the -- I guess my 5 question is the litigation on hold until it appears 6 before the board? 7 MR. GILLIAM: Yes. 8 I spoke with Mr. Pinarian(ph) from our 9 office who handles the Ordinance prosecution in the 10 District Court. He advised that the matter has been 11 adjourned a couple times, pending a hearing in front 12 of the Zoning Board of Appeals. It's currently 13 scheduled for hearing next Tuesday, as well. 14 MEMBER CANUP: What impact with us not 15 hearing this case this evening have on that court 16 date? 17 MR. GILLIAM: Well, I think the City's 18 position will be that we'll be prepared to go forward 19 with the hearing next Tuesday. I didn't speak with 20 Mr. Harrington, but I would guess he'll be asking the 21 Court to postpone next Tuesday's Hearing. 22 Ultimately, it will be the Court's decision, but I 23 would not be surprised if that's, in fact, what the 24 Judge did next week. 7
1 MR. HARRINGTON: I will be asking for 2 an adjournment. I hope Mr. Pinarian, as well as 3 Judge Vonnie(ph) are very cooperative in that regard. 4 And actually granting or a denial of the variance 5 will directly impact on the criminal proceeding, a 6 ticket, for an Ordinance violation. So I have some 7 confidence that the Court will be moving that until 8 after next month's meeting. 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Board members? 10 All those in favor of tabling case 11 number 04-056, indicate by saying aye? 12 MEMBER BRENNAN: Aye. 13 MEMBER BAUER: Aye. 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I'm sorry. 15 057. 16 Let me just correct that. 17 04-057, Christopher Cagle for Glenda's 18 Market. 19 All those in favor say aye? 20 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: All opposed? 22 MEMBER CANUP: Aye. 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Let the record 24 show, one opposed. 8
1 Okay. Anything else from the audience 2 this evening? 3 Seeing none -- Member Fischer, I'm 4 sorry. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: On that same note, 6 what do you, as a board -- I'm not sure if we can 7 actually go back now, but what would you think about 8 saying that we will decide at the next meeting. 9 Would that have any impact? Would 10 that be a possibility? 11 MR. GILLIAM: I think as a board, you 12 can clearly express your feeling that this is the 13 last time you would table, regardless of what the 14 District Court status is. You intend to move forward 15 to make a decision on the matter at the next meeting. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Just to make sure 17 there will be no more tabling or forwarding of this 18 case. 19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Good point. 20 Okay. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Motion to table case, 22 04-057 with the inclusion that the case will be 23 decided by this Board at the August, 2004 meeting. 24 MEMBER BAUER: The case will be heard. 9
1 The case will be heard. 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: The case should be 3 heard. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: The case should be 5 heard. 6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And it's 04-057. 7 Well, all right. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: I will accept his 9 amendment there. 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: All right. 11 All those in favor of the amended 12 Motion, say aye? 13 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: All opposed? 15 None. 16 Okay. 17 So we'll hopefully see Glenda's next 18 month then. 19 Mr. Harrington, your case has been 20 tabled. 21 22 All right. 23 Let's call the first case to order. 24 04-026 filed by Gordon T. Wilson of 10
1 1322 East Lake Drive. This case was tabled from our 2 April meeting. Mr. Wilson is requesting six 3 variances for the construction of a new home on the 4 existing foundation at the above address, and you are 5 -- 6 MR. HARRINGTON: James Harrington 7 representing Mr. Wilson, then I'm going home after 8 this one. 24101 Novi Road. 9 After the first visit to the Board, 10 Mr. Wilson came to visit with me, and my plan of 11 action was to first inspect the property, which I 12 did. I had immediate visceral reaction to the unique 13 configuration of the lot. He's got this garage, 14 almost like a sublot when he came on board. 15 There's not much he can do with the 16 footprint of that property. In fact, it's really 17 very little he can do with the footprint of the 18 property. But the most striking feature to me was 19 the carport and the front driveway area; which I'm 20 surprised it's existed as long as it has and not been 21 knocked down by a car. 22 Mr. Wilson, at my request -- and his 23 architect, who's here this evening to answer any 24 questions you have on the schematics and the drawings 11
1 -- and my instruction to Mr. Wilson, which I think 2 in conjunction with his architect, which he's 3 succeeded in doing is, don't give the Board what you 4 want; give the Board what they need, what you need, 5 what is the minimum you can live with in terms of 6 moving that garage away from the traffic area, 7 bicycle area, the pedestrian area. 8 What's the minimum you could live with 9 and still build your house and produce a quality 10 house. 11 The drawings and schematics, which 12 have been submitted to the Board in the interim, 13 represent some significant shrinkage of the original 14 variances -- and we've outlined that in a letter to 15 the Board. Mr. Wilson's Petition for these 16 revised schematics are supported by his neighbor to 17 the north; and he has just handed me the written 18 approval from his neighbor to the south. 19 Member Gronachan, if we could submit 20 those? 21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes, thank you. 22 MR. HARRINGTON: The mean distance, as 23 I recall from the drawings is 19 feet from the 24 roadway, which is a substantial increase in the 12
1 buffer and the safety factor. There's not much 2 Mr. Wilson can do on the lake side, other than he's 3 clearly within the same view and perspective of his 4 other neighbors, who support him, by the way. And 5 he's not doing anything about asking for a variance 6 for a deck tonight. He wants to get his house up, 7 and we'll deal with the deck at some point in time 8 when everything's in place. 9 If he ever needs to come back, he can 10 come back on that issue. 11 At this time, I would introduce the 12 architect, if you could step forward. 13 MR. MCKOSE(ph): Good evening. 14 Dino(ph) McKose, president land design 15 architects in Ann Arbor, Michigan. 16 There's -- 17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I'm sorry. 18 Would you raise your right hand so you 19 can be sworn in by our secretary. 20 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear 21 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case 04-026? 22 MR. MCKOSE: I do. 23 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 24 Go ahead. 13
1 MR. MCKOSE: Good evening. 2 There are several issues that we 3 discussed, Mr. Wilson and I, prior to presenting 4 tonight. The schematics that were sent to you last 5 month reflect what Mr. Harrington has said, it's a 6 considerable change from this original request. 7 We have made an adjustment from nine 8 foot -- it was nine foot in his earlier request, to 9 19 foot front street way. 19 foot is allowable for a 10 car to park along the front side of his new garage, 11 his proposed garage, and still offer the ability of a 12 bicycle to drive by in front of that car. 13 So offering the ability of pedestrians 14 to safely go by the car in front of the home. The 15 existing carport, as Mr. Harrington has said, has 16 been eliminated from our concept. And it did pose a 17 -- currently poses a safety issue because of the 18 encroachment into the pedestrian walkway. 19 So it was our goal to set the house 20 back, allow the design to terrace from the front 21 building envelope toward the back of the home, 22 terracing first to stepping from -- instead of a 23 vertical plane at the front building line, to terrace 24 it back -- set the floor further back, the porch even 14
1 further back from that. 2 In addition, setting the porch entry 3 back, allows the gathering of a guest to -- that 4 arrive at the home to congregate quite a distance 5 from the street; improving the safety issue, as well. 6 That was the main reason for our location of the 7 porch. 8 The building, itself, we designed 9 according to the specifications of Mr. Wilson; what 10 he needed to have for a saleable project and nothing 11 more. We have created what we feel is a very 12 saleable product for Mr. Wilson; and a future 13 investor of the home, should he decide to sell it 14 later on. 15 The depth of the garage as we have 16 indicated now on the schematic, I believe, it's 19 17 feet, and that would be within limitations, minimum 18 limitations of bringing a SUV or mid-sized car into 19 the garage. Any further movement of the garage 20 toward the back of the lot to gain additional footage 21 from the street line, would make the garage nonusable 22 -- not usable, excuse me. 23 The rear of the house, as 24 Mr. Harrington pointed out, is designed along a 15
1 boundary that's consistent with the site line of the 2 adjacent neighboring properties. And in fact, it's a 3 few feet beyond that. So we've met our requirement 4 there, as to the ability to maintain a nice view from 5 one side of the lake to the other. 6 The issues of side yard setbacks are 7 simply looking at the existing foundations, we are 8 planning on utilizing the existing foundation line, 9 and measuring the square footage of the home based on 10 those existing parameters. 11 The requirements of the city to 12 utilize setbacks in accordance with the current 13 zoning would not be feasible for this project. There 14 are several other safety issues that I will touch on, 15 regarding fire, access to the lake, etc. There is 16 one issue relative to the fire requirements that we 17 feel is advantageous for Mr. Wilson's property that 18 is, that it's right on the lake, and that could be 19 used as a plus for any situation that may occur -- 20 may occur in that regard. 21 Other safety issues relative to the 22 site line are simply relative to the pedestrian 23 walkway from one side of the street to the other, and 24 the utilization of the appropriate amount of space 16
1 for people to walk on by and still allow a front yard 2 to have a car parked in front of the garage. 3 At this time, that's all I have. 4 MR. HARRINGTON: That's all we have. 5 Does the Board have questions for the 6 architect or Mr. Wilson? 7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: We'll let you know. 8 Thank you. 9 Board Members, just to let you know, 10 that this case was not re-noticed to the residents. 11 So as a reminder, back in April, there were 37 12 notices sent, two approvals, two objections. 13 However, now there's one new approval. So we've got 14 three approvals, along with any approval that Mr. 15 Harrington -- this is from Robert S. Salanon(ph). 16 I'm sorry if I'm mispronouncing that last name, 1326 17 East Lake Drive. 18 Is there anyone in the audience that 19 wishes to make comment in regards to this case? 20 Please, sir, come on down. 21 MR. KOSIAN(ph): Good evening, Board. 22 My name is Brian Kosian. I, too, live on Walled 23 Lake, 1523 West Lake Drive. I've spoken to Gordy. 24 I've had a chance to review both the first set of 17
1 plans he submitted and the new scaled back plans that 2 he's posing tonight. 3 I feel his requests are nominal. He's 4 not asking for any further side yard setbacks, which 5 I know this Board is very sensitive to. Gordy has 6 also advised me that both of his neighbors on the 7 immediate sides, the south and the north, have given 8 the Board written approval, and I think that's what's 9 most important here tonight. 10 I think the design is awesome. It's 11 much needed for the area. I'd like to see it approved 12 tonight, and I'd like to see it approved the way that 13 he's proposes today. 14 Thank you very much. 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 16 Anyone else? 17 Come on down. 18 MR. NELSEL(ph): Good evening. My 19 name is Rick Nelsel. I'm at 1314 East Lake Drive. I 20 am three homes north of the proposed residence. 21 I've lived there with my family for 22 over 16 years at 1314 East Lake Drive. In those 23 years, I've seen many homes falling down around me. 24 Many conform, at least, within the Codes, as far as 18
1 the rear setbacks, side yard setbacks, and different 2 things like that. However -- and the total lot 3 coverage they may be correct, however, they're not 4 often good for the health, safety and welfare of this 5 community. 6 They're dangerous. They keep property 7 values lower, preventing some people from moving into 8 this area, which is a concern of ours. 9 I've reviewed Mr. Wilson's plans and 10 do support his proposal with all the variances to 11 build a quality home in our community. Although in 12 need of variances, the size of the proposed home is 13 certainly not unreasonable to us. He's doing the 14 best, I think he can, to work within that lot size. 15 The lots out there -- many of the lots out there, are 16 very difficult, as you know. 17 I have known Mr. Wilson for some time 18 on East Lake Drive. He's always been helpful to 19 those around the lake. He's a wonderful neighbor, an 20 asset to the community. And as a concerned citizen 21 that cares deeply about the future of the City of 22 Novi, I'm asking you to grant Mr. Wilson's variances 23 to build this proposed home. 24 Thank you. 19
1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 2 Anyone else? 3 MR. SMITH: My name is Dennis Smith. 4 I live at 1320 East Lake Drive. I agree with 5 everything that Mr. Nelsel said. My house -- I live 6 right adjacent to Mr. Wilson. I have looked at the 7 plans, and I think he's certainly made a good 8 conscious effort to do the best thing he can do on 9 that piece of property. 10 I fully agree with what he's doing and 11 I hope you grant the variances. 12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 13 Anyone else? 14 Seeing none, Building Department? 15 MR. SAVEN: Based on the fact of the 16 Board had requested that the variances be reduced, he 17 did do that, the amount of the variance requested. 18 The only suggestion I would have is to 19 the architect to be certainly aware of the fire 20 protection that's needed on the north side of this 21 building, and we'll be looking at that in the plan 22 review process for this building, with all of your 23 opening penetrations to that particular wall. 24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 20
1 Board Members? 2 Member Gray? 3 MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Wilson, thank you 4 for doing what we asked you to do. I know there are 5 going to be some comments made about the north side 6 yard with the one and a half foot, I'm presuming. 7 I'm also concerned about that, but I also know that 8 that house has been there at that one and a half foot 9 setback forever; as is the house to the north. 10 And I have no problem supporting your 11 variances, because you've done what we asked you to 12 do, and that's to decrease the variances requested. 13 Thank you. 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 15
REGULAR - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY OF NOVI
TUESDAY, JULY 6, 2004
REGULAR - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY OF NOVI
TUESDAY, JULY 6, 2004 looking at a ten percent requested variance 23 for lot coverage. I think you just have too much 24 house. Again, as we said last time, you've got too 21
1 much house for the size of property that's there. 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Anyone else? 3 Member Brennan? 4 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, I'm struggling 5 with this one. 6 My biggest concern last month was the 7 location of the garage with respect to the road, and 8 you kind of fixed that problem. I am pleased to see 9 that -- well, he's not the variance -- or not at the 10 setback to the water, he is in line with the other 11 houses, so I don't have as much pain with that. 12 We're really talking about three feet 13 in this little section here; is that correct? 14 MEMBER CANUP: That's what it appears. 15 MEMBER BRENNAN: Which looks like it 16 is the northern corner of the garage for maybe ten 17 feet, there's three-feet clearance, which may be is 18 enough for people to walk through, but nothing else. 19 How do they typically handle fire 20 equipment? Is everything from the road with the 21 pumpers and -- 22 MR. SAVEN: Correct. 23 MR. CANUP: Well, actually you have, 24 from the lot line, you have one and a half feet. 22
1 It's nice now with the people that live there are 2 cooperative. That could change. The average family 3 moves every three years in this Country. 4 So if we grant a variance, it's 5 permanent. And if you get a bad neighbor, you've 6 only got a foot and a half through there. 7 MEMBER GRAY: With all due respect, 8 that's what's there now, but he's closer to the road, 9 so. 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer and 11 then Member Bauer. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: I agree. I have a 13 concern about the foot and a half, however, it has 14 been there for this long, and you know, I don't -- I 15 think that anyone moving into that house would be -- 16 would see that, and they would -- that's something 17 they would take into consideration in the purchase of 18 the house. 19 Also, I mean, this strikes cords with 20 me that this sheet that you sent talks about how much 21 less you went in in each of the variances. We asked 22 you to do something. You did your homework and now 23 you've come back in front of us; and therefore, I 24 would be willing to support this. 23
1 I will ask you one question. 2 There's an existing building on your 3 -- that would be the southwest corner there's an existing 4 building, probably a shed. How would you feel about 5 removal of that? 6 MR. WILSON: I have no objection. 7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You have to come 8 up, please, and speak into the microphone so they can 9 hear you. 10 MR. WILSON: Gordon Wilson, 1322 East 11 Lake Drive. 12 I have no objection to eliminating the 13 shed. By backing up the garage, that gives me plenty 14 of storage, so I have no objection to that 15 whatsoever. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: And if I were to make 17 a Motion, it would say that after the construction is 18 done, is when I prefer the shed be removed. So you 19 could use that until that time. 20 That's how I feel about that. 21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you, Member 22 Fischer. 23 Member Bauer? 24 MEMBER BAUER: I'm looking at the same 24
1 -- the same foot print is being used. I think it's 2 adding considerably to the neighborhood with it being 3 replaced. And since he's done exactly what we 4 requested last time, I can certainly go along with 5 it. 6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 7 Member Fischer? 8 MEMBER FISCHER: With that, I would 9 like to make a Motion, if there's no further 10 discussion. 11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is there any 12 further discussion? 13 I'd like to put one thing on the 14 record, if that's okay? 15 MEMBER FISCHER: That would be great. 16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 17 I do concur half and half. I've been 18 sitting on the fence in this case. I, like Member 19 Canup, am not happy with the lot size coverage; that 20 we're going over lot size coverage. I'm making my 21 comment because people in the future are going to 22 come up and say well, you did this on such and such. 23 So this is a case-only basis, and I want to 24 make that a very strong point. This is an unusual 25
1 lot size, granted the building on the existing 2 foundation. 3 The house that's there now, causes the 4 same safety concerns that we would have on a new 5 construction; however, a new construction, I would 6 like to think is going to be brought up to better 7 Code; and therefore offer better safety. 8 I don't buy that because it's on a 9 lake that gives it more safety. I work in the 10 insurance field, water can be frozen, a lot of things 11 can happen. So I'm not buying that at all. 12 I am -- because you did do what the 13 Board asked you, I'm taking this under serious 14 consideration and I have major concerns for lot size 15 coverage. And I have very strong feelings on lot -- 16 exceeding lot size in the City of Novi. 17 However, you did do your homework, so 18 I will be supporting this. 19 Member Fischer? 20 MEMBER FISCHER: I would like to make 21 a Motion that in case number 04-026, filed by Gordon 22 T. Wilson at 1322 East Lake Drive that we grant the 23 Petitioner's request due to the uniqueness of the 24 land size and configuration; and for the fact that he 26
1 has shown that he is asking for the least possible 2 variances. 3 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And the amendment, 5 the existing building? 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Yes. 7 Also, with the understanding that by 8 completion of construction the shed on the southeast 9 corner will be removed. 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and 11 seconded. 12 Any further discussion on the Motion? 13 Seeing none, Denise, would you please 14 call the roll. 15 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer? 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Yes. 17 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer? 18 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 19 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan? 20 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 21 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup? 22 MEMBER CANUP: No. 23 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gray? 24 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 27
1 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 3 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes five 4 to one. 5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 6 Your variance has been granted. 7 Please see the Building Department. 8 MR. WILSON: Thank you for your time, 9 ladies and gentlemen. 10 11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. Moving right 12 along, we'll call case number 04-046, Tadian Homes 13 signage for Saratoga Circle and Camden Drive, 14 requesting a one-year extension on a real estate 15 sign. 16 Good evening. 17 MS. LYNDMEIR(ph): Good evening, 18 Board. 19 20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you state 21 your name? 22 MS. LYNDMEIR: My name is Shelly 23 Lyndmeir, and I am the sales representative for these 24 two communities in Novi. 28
1 The models -- 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Excuse me. 3 Could you raise your right hand and be 4 sworn in by our secretary? 5 MS. LYNDMEIR: I'm sorry. 6 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear 7 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case 04-046? 8 MS. LYNDMEIR: I do. 9 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 10 Go ahead. 11 MS. LYNDMEIR: The models are located 12 at 42575 Whitman Lake, and I am asking permission for 13 the extension of these two signs to remain for one 14 year. One is located on the south -- on the 15 southwest corner of 13 Mile and Novi Road; and the 16 other is located on the north corner of Novi Road and 17 Old Novi Road. 18 We do project that these communities 19 will be sold out in a year. 20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 21 MS. LYNDMEIR: That's all I have. 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Anything else? 23 Is there anyone in the audience that 24 wishes to make comment in regards to this case? 29
1 Seeing none, there were 123 notices 2 sent back in June. There were two approvals, no 3 objections; and this was not renotified. 4 Building Department? 5 MR. SAVEN: No comment. 6 MR. AMOLSCH: This request for a 7 variance was originally given to the Cobson Building 8 Company. Tadian Homes took them over. They painted 9 them. It's about the same time period as it was 10 expiring. 11 MR. GRONACHAN: Okay. 12 Board Members? 13 Member Brennan? 14 MEMBER BRENNAN: Do you know what the 15 percentage of build out it is right now? 16 MS. LYNDMEIR: We have -- we're about 17 95 percent -- we are about 95 percent sold and I have 18 about 15 available. So there's 15 remaining. 19 MEMBER BRENNAN: I can tell you that 20 historically when you get up to that percentage of 21 build out, we ask you to put up a permanent sign; 22 take the real estate sign down. I'll also point out 23 that this sign was granted in 1999, so we're going on 24 five and a half years. I think that we're well- 30
1 beyond the period that that real estate sign needs to 2 be there, but that's just my thoughts. 3 FOREPERSON: Okay. 4 Thank you. 5 Anyone else? 6 Member Fischer? 7 MEMBER FISCHER: Was this a violation, 8 can you tell me? 9 MR. AMOLSCH: No, this -- it was to 10 expire around the same time. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 12 That's all I have for right now. 13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 14 Board Members? 15 Member Brennan? 16 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll make a Motion, 17 if there's no other comment. 18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 19 MEMBER BRENNAN: With respect to case 20 04-234. Pardon me, 04-046, I would move to deny the 21 Petitioner's request for extension of the variance, 22 due to the fact that they have noted that they're at 23 95 percent build out. 24 MEMBER GRAY: Second. 31
1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and 2 second. 3 Any further discussion on the Motion? 4 Seeing none, Denise, would you please 5 call the roll? 6 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan? 7 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 8 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gray? 9 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 10 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer? 11 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 12 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup? 13 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 14 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer? 15 MEMBER FISCHER: Yes. 16 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? 17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 18 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to 19 zero. 20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Sorry. 21 Your request has been denied. 22 MS. LYNDMEIR: Thank you. 23 24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Now calling case 32
1 number 04-047, Douglas W. Teubert from -- is 2 requesting an accessory building on adjacent lot 3 prior to building a home. This case was tabled from 4 our June 2004 meeting. 5 Good evening. You were sworn in last 6 month. It will carry over this month, okay? 7 MR. TEUBERT: All right. 8 Thank you. 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Tell us what's 10 different? 11 MR. TEUBERT: Did you get a copy? 12 That's what's different. I have a drawing in -- 13 something you can visually look at. The -- when we 14 get done, it will be a little bit different than 15 that. Instead of a brick chimney, it'll probably 16 have a coupelon(ph) on top, because it's an accessory 17 building. 18 Instead of the doors that open, that 19 slide open, it'll probably be a garage-type door that 20 goes inside. But I mean, outside of that, pretty 21 much what you're looking at there is what you'll see. 22 This shows brick. It's going to be 23 either vinyl or aluminum or it might even be wood. 24 We're not sure yet. 33
1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 2 MR. TEUBERT: And then the other thing 3 that I would ask you, when you're making this 4 decision, as you are aware, this was spurred on 5 because of the problem I ran into with Multi-Building 6 and the lot line on the back of my property; and I 7 had storage back there. And it was like two-feet 8 over, so I have to move it. 9 A request that I have tonight, I would 10 want to know if it would be okay if when I'm building 11 this, I have no place to keep the antiques that we 12 have that are in the lean-to. Would it be okay if I 13 put like a semi-trailer in the lot that we'll be 14 building on, so that I can move the stuff that's 15 encroaching on Multi's property. And then when I'm 16 finished building this building, move the stuff in 17 the building. 18 I'm not sure if that's -- 19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You know, we're 20 here this evening in regards to this barn. 21 MR. TEUBERT: Okay. 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I think you're 23 going to have to see the Building Department in 24 regards to the trailer. 34
1 MR. TEUBERT: Okay. 2 Yeah, I talked to -- 3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: But that's not 4 before us this evening. 5 MR. TEUBERT: Okay. 6 All right. 7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is there anyone in 8 the audience that wishes to make comment in regards 9 to this case? 10 Seeing none, Board Members, for the 11 record, there were ten notices mailed back in June. 12 As a reminder, there were no approvals, no 13 objections. 14 Building Department? 15 MR. SAVEN: This was for a request for 16 replacement for accessory use, prior to principle 17 building being constructed on the property. That was 18 the first issue, and the Board had requested that 19 they take a look and see what type of structure was 20 going to be built; based on the fact of new 21 development. I believe that's what the gentleman 22 did. 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 24 Board Members? 35
1 Member Brennan? 2 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, Brent got his 3 request of what it's going to look like. I think I'm 4 satisfied with my concerns that this barn was going 5 to go there and we'd never see a house. 6 I would be very suspicious of that 7 being the case if that barn was located in the middle 8 of the lot. But it is located in the back of the 9 lot. I understand that he'd like to keep an option 10 of maybe selling that property in the future, and he 11 should have that right. He owns the property. 12 So I guess he satisfied my interest, 13 and I will support your request. 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 15 Oh, hands are up. 16 Member Gray? 17 MEMBER GRAY: Well, originally, I was 18 not -- I didn't care one way or another whether you 19 submitted a proposal to show what it was going to 20 look like, but not that you have, it raises a whole 21 bunch of other questions. 22 And the first thing I thought when I 23 saw this was a studio barn, and I thought, studio, 24 does that mean that the storage loft is going to be 36
1 turned into an apartment at some time. And the only 2 way I would support this is if there's a clear 3 understanding that that garage/barn is never used for 4 an apartment above it; once a house is potentially 5 built on there, because that would make a multiple, 6 which this is not. This is R-A, so I want that 7 understood. 8 And presumably, it will be used for 9 storage. You will have storage up there. And that 10 is the only comment I had at this time. 11 MR. TEUBERT: Yeah, we have no 12 intention of having anybody live up there or have an 13 apartment. It's called a loft, because we got the 14 design off the internet from a place in -- out on the 15 eastcoast; and that's just the title of their -- what 16 they called that building. 17 MEMBER GRAY: It was called a studio 18 barn. 19 MR. TEUBERT: I understand. 20 MEMBER GRAY: People do this illegally 21 in the northend, make multiples out of garages. 22 That's one thing I don't want to happen here. 23 MR. TEUBERT: Sure. 24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Anyone else? 37
1 Member Bauer? 2 MEMBER BAUER: I don't want any 3 occupancy, other than storage, period. 4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 5 Anyone else? 6 Is there a Motion out there somewhere, 7 folks? 8 MEMBER GRAY: I have another question. 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 10 I'm sorry. 11 MEMBER GRAY: To Mr. Gilliam, I think, 12 this property on which this building is going to be 13 built is zoned R-A; is it not? 14 MR. GILLIAM: That's my understanding, 15 yes. 16 MEMBER GRAY: Okay. 17 So if we're allowing him to build this 18 structure that will be a pertinent to nothing; 19 another thought that came up was at any point in time 20 would there be a preclusion or some kind of 21 stipulation we could make that would say that this 22 barn could not be used for anything but storage; and 23 could not be used as a future selling area; that is, 24 the adjacent property which has an overlay zoning. 38
1 MR. GILLIAM: Yes. 2 You could put that condition as part 3 of your -- 4 MEMBER GRAY: Thank you. 5 MR. TEUBERT: So what exactly does 6 that mean? There would be no occupancy, no people? 7 MEMBER GRAY: No residential use 8 whatsoever. 9 MR. TEUBERT: Okay. 10 MEMBER GRAY: It can never be used for 11 anybody to live in; the third floor or second floor. 12 MR. TEUBERT: Okay. 13 MEMBER GRAY: And I would make a 14 Motion that, that it also not be used -- you can't 15 have people come in there and buy things. This would 16 strictly be for storage. 17 MR. TEUBERT: Okay, sure. 18 MEMBER GRAY: Because of the zoning. 19 You have a zoning variance on your existing barn. 20 MR. TEUBERT: Right. 21 MEMBER GRAY: Okay. But that does not 22 extend to this property. 23 MR. TEUBERT: Absolutely. I 24 understand. 39
1 MEMBER GRAY: Okay. 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And just as 3 clarification, this building is being built prior to 4 a house, not to be used in any kind of business in 5 the future. I think that's what Member Gray is 6 trying to cover. 7 MR. TEUBERT: Yeah, we're not going to 8 put anything in there and have people walking over 9 there buying things or anything like that. 10 Logistically, it's kind of impossible, because the 11 buildings are way too far apart for people to be -- 12 yeah. 13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 14 Is there a Motion? 15 MEMBER GRAY: And with that being 16 said, maybe I do have a Motion. 17 In the case -- in the matter of 04-047 18 -- boy, are we having a problem with case numbers 19 tonight -- filed by Douglas Teubert for the vacant 20 lot adjacent to 48120 Eight Mile, the variance 21 requested to build an accessory structure to be 22 pertinent to nothing at this point, subject to, it 23 will not be used for residency of any sort. It will 24 be used for storage only; and it will not be used for 40
1 business purposes. 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved. 3 Is there a second? 4 MEMBER BRENNAN: Second. 5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and 6 seconded. 7 Is there any further discussion on the 8 Motion? 9 Member Bauer? 10 MEMBER BAUER: He still has his 11 business. 12 MEMBER GRAY: He still has his 13 business there, but he is not going to use it for 14 business purposes. 15 MEMBER BAUER: Okay. 16 That's still -- 17 MEMBER GRAY: Well, he's not going to 18 use it in the selling of. 19 MEMBER BAUER: Fine. 20 Go ahead. 21 MEMBER GRAY: It's not going to be 22 open for retail. 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: There you go. 24 MEMBER GRAY: Okay? 41
1 MEMBER BAUER: Okay. 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Gilliam? 3 MR. GILLIAM: If it works for Member 4 Bauer, it works for me. 5 MEMBER GRAY: All right. 6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 7 No further discussion, Denise, would 8 you please call the roll? 9 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gray? 10 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 11 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan? 12 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 13 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer? 14 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 15 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup? 16 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 17 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer? 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Yes. 19 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? 20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 21 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to 22 zero. 23 MR. TEUBERT: Thank you very much. 24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 42
1 You're variance has been granted. 2 Please see the Building Department. 3 MR. TEUBERT: Okay. 4 Thank you. 5 6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 7 Our next case is 04-048, filed by Kyle 8 Bach of Site Enhancement Services for Fidelity 9 Investment Signage. 10 Are you, in fact, Mr. Bach? 11 MR. SHALOT: No, actually, I'm Charlie 12 Shalot from Site Enhancement Services. 13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 14 You are not an attorney; is that 15 correct? 16 MR. SHALOT: That's correct. 17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you please 18 raise your right hand and be sworn by our secretary. 19 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear 20 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case 04-048? 21 MR. SHALOT: I do. 22 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Go ahead. 24 MR. SHALOT: Madam Chairperson, Members 43
1 of the Board, good evening. 2 My name is Charlie Shalot of Site 3 Enhancement Services. 4 First of all, thank you for allowing 5 us to come before you and speak this evening. I do 6 apologize, as this was a continued case from last 7 week. 8 We had the opportunity to put mock-ups 9 up on the building, and before the meeting last week, 10 it was determined by myself that the signage that was 11 being respectfully requested at that time was in 12 excess of what was purely needed. 13 So after the meeting last week, I 14 returned and reported my findings to Fidelity 15 Investments, and strongly encouraged them reduce 16 their request from what you had, which was the sign 17 on the northwall being 32.8 square feet, for a total 18 square footage, 98.4 for the facade signage and two 19 entry identifiers; one 1.16 square feet; 2.2 -- or 20 2.32 square feet total. 21 That was our original request. And 22 what we're allowed, per Code, one sign at 40 square 23 feet, per elevation, since we're on the corner, for a 24 grand total of 80 square feet. 44
1 What we've done through the reduction 2 is gone back and evaluated what we needed, and we've 3 decided that we can make the same impact with 4 redefined signage. The three facade signage or the 5 three facade signs; the two that are allowed and the 6 one that we're proposing on the north wall, at 26.02 7 square feet a piece, therefore, totalling, 78.06 8 square feet. 9 And then the two entry identifiers at 10 1.16 square feet each, for a total of 2.32 square 11 feet; and a total of proposed signage at 80 square 12 feet. 13 The same is allowed per Code, the only 14 thing that would be modified would be the number -- 15 the sign on the northwall and the two non-illuminated 16 entry identifier signs over the awnings. 17 The reason that we're requesting this, 18 is because as you all know, Novi Road and Grand River 19 Avenue are both very busy and highly traveled 20 roadways. The Fidelity Investment branch lies 21 directly at the corner of this very busy, often 22 contentious, intersection. 23 The purpose of the existing signage 24 and the proposed, is to notify motorists of the 45
1 entrances and of the intersection. The more 2 motorists that we can keep out of that intersection, 3 obviously the better. 4 We were out there today, with the 5 construction we were sitting at the stop light for 6 five minutes during the rush period. If we have the 7 ability to notify motorists traveling south on Novi 8 Road the opportunity to enter into the Fidelity 9 Investments branch, that would eliminate traffic on 10 the roadways. 11 In addition, it would eliminate the 12 number of people traveling through the intersection; 13 therefore, taking away the possible traffic maneuvers 14 that would have to be occurred in that intersection. 15 In addition, the proposed signage on 16 the northwall would allow motorists traveling south 17 not only to view that sign, but the entrance 18 identifiers, once inside the parking lot, would allow 19 patrons the opportunity to be notified that that's 20 the entrance to Fidelity. 21 There are multiple doors on that 22 building. There's multiple different areas in which 23 our patrons have said, well, we thought your -- that 24 the entrance to the property was on the front of the 46
1 store, on Novi Road; well, we thought it was on Grand 2 River. Actually, it's on the back. It's on the 3 northeast corner of the property -- or, the northeast 4 corner of the building. It's actually very tricky to 5 see. 6 Right now, there's a green awning on 7 it, and if you've been out there, we do have mock-ups 8 up there with the non-illuminated identifiers. 9 They're subtle. They're not intended to be viewed 10 from public roads or actual public property. They're 11 only legible to people who are already inside the 12 parking facility. 13 So that's what those are requested 14 for. 15 I apologize for the length -- and the 16 sign that's up there now, the mock-ups sign that's up 17 on the northwall, is actually the original requested 18 at 32.8. It would be drastically reduced sign to 19 what is there now. 20 The two signs that are there currently 21 on the building that are permanent signs, are both 22 at, I believe, 38 square feet a piece, therefore, 23 those signs would also be reduced in square footage. 24 The total square footage staying very similar to 47
1 Code, which is 80 square feet. The only thing that 2 would be modified would be the number, and the number 3 is just being modified so that it would just be an 4 ease of access to our patrons; and to ease the 5 vehicular traffic on Novi Road and Grand River 6 Avenue. 7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 8 MR. SHALOT: And we do have some 9 illustrations. I apologize. We do have some 10 illustrations. We'll walk you through this. Novi 11 Road, Grand River; the proposed sign would only be 12 visible to motorists traveling south. 13 The proposed sign on the northwall 14 would only be visible to motorists traveling south. 15 These are the two existing signs; one on the eastwall 16 and one on the southwall, excuse me. No two signs -- 17 other -- these two signs are visible at one time, but 18 only from this part of the intersection. These two 19 signs would be from here, but no -- at no time are 20 the three signs all visible at one time. 21 The entrance identifiers, like we 22 stated, are only visible to the motorists once they 23 are inside the parking structure. 24 Currently, this is what the awning 48
1 looks like. There's no identification of the 2 Fidelity branch; other than the graphics that are 3 often shaded by the awnings, and I don't even believe 4 they have the Fidelity logo on them. 5 These are the entrance identifiers. 6 They're six inches in height; and therefore, 7 obviously not visible on any public roadway. They're 8 1.16 square feet a piece. Very subtle, very small. 9 And then -- I apologize -- this sign -- or this 10 illustration actually shows you the reduction -- or 11 the size of the proposed northwall sign. This is at 12 26.02 square feet. 13 This would be the exact size. If we 14 were allowed, we would reduce the two existing signs 15 to a size of 26.02; therefore reducing from 38 to 16 26.02, in order to receive approval for that sign. 17 As you can tell, it's uniform with the 18 rest of the building. We have three exposed 19 frontages -- or actually, three exposed facades. 20 That's our request. I appreciate it. 21 Do you have any questions? 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 23 Is there anyone here in the audience 24 that wishes to make comment in regards to this case? 49
1 Seeing none, there were 35 notices 2 mailed; no approvals, no objections. 3 Building Department? 4 MR. SAVEN: No comment, sir. 5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Board Members? 6 Member Brennan? 7 MEMBER BRENNAN: Boy, deja vu all over 8 again. 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Uh-huh. 10 MEMBER BRENNAN: You may know the 11 history of this building. You may know that there 12 was a case before us a couple years ago. I've heard 13 nothing different. This is still a destination site. 14 People aren't driving down Novi Road 15 and saying, Good gosh, there's Fidelity Investment. 16 I need to pull in there. They're coming there 17 because they have an appointment. They're coming 18 there because they've called and are going there. 19 That is the most prominate corner. 20 That building is most prominate; the two signs are 21 most prominate. Given your basis for hardship, I'll 22 expect that you'll be in in another six months and 23 wanting a sign on the westwall, because certainly 24 you've got traffic that's eastbound and they can't 50
1 see the other three signs. 2 So I've heard nothing different. I've 3 seen no documentation of hardship. As I did 4 vehemently a couple years ago, I will not support 5 this sign, nor the lawn sign. 6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I concur with 7 Member Brennan. I mean, this is definitely a 8 destination location. And for the life of me, I 9 think somebody needs to go back to the table and do 10 your homework. If the problem is getting into the 11 parking lot, coming down Novi Road, signs on the 12 building isn't going to help. 13 Now, I work in Novi. I live in Novi. 14 I spend a great deal of time at Grand River and Novi 15 Road; and particularly when this case came up in 16 front of me -- your building identification is not 17 the problem. It's seriously not the problem. I've 18 sat on all four corners, and have had to do it, 19 unfortunately, as my other Board Members did, in the 20 height of construction; and that just gave us more 21 time to stare at that building. 22 It's not an identification problem. 23 My suggestion would be to make sure that anyone -- I 24 have a question for you. 51
1 Are there any other businesses in that 2 building, besides Fidelity? 3 MR. SHALOT: I don't believe so. 4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 5 That didn't help you either. 6 When they're making appointments, 7 people need to take care into identifying where it is 8 that they came come into assisting their client for 9 the location. They're not going to Sears. They're 10 making an appointment. 11 I work in the area. I have the same 12 problem. Clients call me. They can't find my 13 building. We're not going to go and ask for a 50 14 foot sign. It's not going to help. We assist our 15 clients day in and day out, telling them exactly 16 where we are. 17 So I can -- and you have far much -- I 18 mean, you've got the number one intersection in Novi. 19 You said Novi Road and Grand River. I can't believe 20 that anybody can't find your building. 21 My suggestion to you is if you have 22 clients that are coming in and saying, I can't find 23 the door, that's not a building identification 24 problem. So you need to go back and do your 52
1 homework. 2 Okay. Sorry. I got fired up. 3 Member Canup? 4 I spent 25 minutes in the intersection 5 one day looking at that sign. 6 MEMBER CANUP: I get a feeling that 7 just from looking at the expressions that we'll vote 8 in favor of not approving this case. 9 Therefore, if there's no further 10 discussion, I'd be glad to make a Motion. 11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Gray? 12 MEMBER GRAY: I would like Member 13 Canup to include in his Motion, since it was a 14 problem last time this request was heard, to remind 15 the Petitioner that the temporary signs are to be 16 removed immediately, should the variance be denied. 17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 18 MR. SHALOT: Do -- 19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Go ahead. 20 MEMBER CANUP: I would like to make a 21 Motion then in case number 04-048, that we deny the 22 request as stated on the grounds that have been made 23 evident by the Board Members. 24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. 53
1 Is there any further discussion on the 2 Motion? 3 MR. SHALOT: It's -- 4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Denise, please call 5 the roll. 6 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup? 7 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 8 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 10 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer? 11 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 12 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan? 13 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 14 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer? 15 MEMBER FISCHER: Yes. 16 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gray? 17 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 18 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to 19 zero. 20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 21 Yes? 22 MR. SHALOT: It's too late. 23 Thank you for your time. 24 54
1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. We've got 2 case number 04-054, filed by Richard S. Tuttle of 3 Great Oaks Landscape Associates for 47885 Milan 4 Court, lot number 36, in Bellagio Subdivision. 5 Mr. Tuttle is requesting one variance 6 to allow decorative landscaped wall to be placed 7 within a front yard setback at the residence located 8 as stated. 9 And you are? 10 MR. TUTTLE: Good evening. 11 Richard Tuttle of the Great Oaks 12 Landscape. 13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you please 14 raise your right hand and be sworn in by our 15 secretary. 16 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or 17 affirm to tell the truth regarding case 04-054? 18 MR. TUTTLE: Yes, I do. 19 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Go ahead. 21 MR. TUTTLE: Richard Tuttle of Great 22 Oaks. I also represent the owner of the property, 23 James Stocal(ph), who is also here in attendance 24 tonight. 55
1 We are respectfully requesting a 2 variance under Section 2503, accessory structures to 3 allow the construction of a decorative landscaped 4 wall within the front yard setback for this R-A 5 district, 45 feet. 6 We originally applied for a building 7 permit for this project back in April of 2004; a 8 portion, of which, was approved when we went into 9 construction. The wall, ultimately was objected by 10 the Building Department, and that's why we're here 11 tonight. 12 The wall in front is a functional 13 wall. It'll take up the grade between the driveway 14 -- I have pictures, also, of the house today. It has 15 been designed to be as low as possible and to be 16 architecturally pleasing and architecturally 17 modernizing with this house. 18 We also received two support letters, 19 one of which was from the couple just down the street 20 and I have a copy of the other one from 21 Mr. Abnelly(ph) who lives directly across the street 22 from this property, both in support. 23 I received a copy of the letter from 24 Mr. Abnelly with Mr. Vulfari(ph) for the Board. 56
1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 2 Thank you. 3 MR. TUTTLE: If you approve the 4 process, the plans were also sent over to the 5 Engineer counter-part for the City of Novi, and the 6 plans were approved, in terms of engineering. A copy 7 of which I here, also. 8 I have pictures which I can circulate, 9 which show the condition of the house today with the 10 area, the front, where we got the wall, side view and 11 front view. 12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Anything else? 13 MR. TUTTLE: That's all. 14 Thank you. 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is there anyone in 16 the audience that wishes to make comment in regards 17 to this case? 18 There were 22 notices mailed, two 19 approvals, no objections. One from Mr. Abnelly, 20 which indicates they have no objection whatsoever. 21 Building Department? 22 MR. SAVEN: This is an R-A zoning 23 district, and it's allowed to have two entries or 24 driveways, and I'll point out that is not an 57
1 easement, which is shown on the plan. 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 3 Board Members? 4 MEMBER CANUP: I guess number one my 5 question is what's the hardship; and number two, why 6 would you want to build a wall like that around 7 there? What's the reason for that? You've got just a 8 beautiful home. You've got a drive-through also. I 9 see that over all, this thing is about seven feet 10 tall; is that correct? 11 MR. TUTTLE: No, not the wall, itself. 12 It's only about 18 inches and the wall above that, 13 the baluster is only 30 inches. It's right on the 14 ends. Right on the ends. 15 MEMBER CANUP: Okay. 16 MR. TUTTLE: The wall extends to right 17 here, 18 inches of brick right here and 18 approximately, looks like 35 inches of baluster 19 before that. 20 MEMBER CANUP: You go to the road, 21 the manhole, at 961. 22 MR. TUTTLE: Correct. 23 MEMBER CANUP: And the grade looks like 24 it's 964, so roughly three feet up. 58
1 MR. TUTTLE: Yes. 2 What we're trying to do is not have a 3 big slope, and trying to alleviate this slope down 4 here by putting a 18 inch wall here. The brick will 5 actually take up the grade so that the front of this 6 can be flat, not on the slope. And this wall will 7 provide kind of an enclosure, so you will not see the 8 cars from the street, to help screen off any cars. 9 It will also provide him somewhat of a safety factor, 10 as to not just drive off the driveway. 11 MEMBER CANUP: That answers my 12 questions. Thank you. 13 MEMBER BRENNAN: So it's a fence, call 14 it what you want, in the front yard, at Nine Mile and 15 Northrop. That is quite contentious; and there 16 they're pleading a safety issue. I've heard nothing 17 tonight from the Petitioner that was anything other 18 than, because you want it. 19 Legally, we are bound to enforce the 20 Ordinance, unless a hardship is presented, and I 21 didn't hear a hardship. 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 23 Member Fischer? 24 MEMBER FISCHER: I agree with what 59
1 those guys said, not so much as whether or not you 2 want to -- whether or not it would distract the house 3 or whatnot, but exactly what Mr. Brennan said, we 4 have Ordinances to enforce, and unfortunately, I have 5 not seen a hardship tonight. 6 I think Ms. Gray had something to say. 7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: No, I don't think 8 so. 9 You want to give it a shot? 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Yes. 11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I think your two 12 partners may help you. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: That in the case of 14 04-054, filed by Richard Tuttle of Great Oaks 15 Landscape, that we deny the variance, due to the fact 16 that the Petitioner has not established a hardship. 17 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 19 It's been moved and seconded. 20 Is there any further discussion on the 21 Motion? 22 Seeing none, Denise, would you please 23 call the roll. 24 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer? 60
1 MEMBER FISCHER: Yes. 2 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer? 3 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 4 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan? 5 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 6 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup? 7 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 8 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gray? 9 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 10 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? 11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 12 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to 13 zero. 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Sorry, sir, but 15 your variance has been denied, due to lack of 16 hardship. 17 18 Okay. Moving right along. 19 Case number 04-055, filed James 20 Cerretani for 47725 Bellagio in Bellagio Subdivision. 21 Mr. Cerretani is requesting a variance 22 for a 88 square foot variance for the construction of 23 an attached garage, located at the above address. 24 Good evening. 61
1 And you are? 2 MR. CERRETANI: Good evening. 3 James Cerretani. 4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you please 5 raise your right hand and be sworn in by our 6 secretary. 7 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear 8 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-055? 9 MR. CERRETANI: I do. 10 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You can proceed. 12 MR. CERRETANI: Hi. 13 The reason I'm here tonight is I'm 14 requesting an 88 square foot variance and garage. 15 Basically, the approved plot plan shows the size of 16 the garage. What I'm attempting to do is just to 17 extend that four feet; in so, what that does is it 18 brings it over the allowance of 1,000 square feet. 19 And the reason for this, as most 20 people know, is to get enough cars into the garage, 21 without being a hazard or hitting other cars. 22 That's basically why I'm here. 23 The turning radius also, you know, to 24 get the cars in. It is a four-car garage, and that 62
1 would give us a wider room for each door. 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: All right. 3 MR. CERRETANI: That's it. 4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. Is there 5 anyone in the audience that wishes to make comment in 6 regards to this case? 7 Seeing none, there were 20 notices 8 sent, one approval, no objections. The approval is 9 from Janet and James -- Jim Compo at 26860 Drake in 10 Farmington Hills. 11 Building Department? 12 MR. SAVEN: This falls in line with 13 all the other variances that were granted for this 14 particular site. 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 16 Member Fischer? 17 MEMBER FISCHER: I agree that similar 18 cases yield similar results. 19 Sorry to make your -- 20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: That's Member 21 Brennan's -- 22 MEMBER FISCHER: Sorry for taking your 23 wording, but that's about it. 24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Gray? 63
1 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. This is a R-A 2 zoned property and four-car garages in this gated 3 community are not out of line. They are in 4 proportion to the houses being built, and we have 5 granted site variances before, and in fact, the 6 Ordinance is being amended for the R-A zoning 7 district. 8 So if Member Fischer was going to make 9 a Motion, I could seriously support it. 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is there anything 11 else? 12 Down here? 13 Okay. 14 Go ahead. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: In the case of 04-055 16 filed by James Cerretani for 47725 Bellagio, that we 17 grant the Petitioner's request due to the comments 18 made by the Board tonight concerning the rest of the 19 area and the neighborhood. 20 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 22 It's been moved and seconded. 23 Any further discussion in regards to 24 the Motion? 64
1 Seeing none, Denise, would you please 2 call the roll. 3 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer? 4 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 5 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer? 6 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 7 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan? 8 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 9 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup? 10 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 11 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gray? 12 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 13 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 15 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to 16 zero. 17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 18 MR. CERRETANI: Thank you very much. 19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Your variance has 20 been granted. 21 MR. CERRETANI: Thank you. 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: All right. 23 24 Case number 04-059, filed by James 65
1 Fern -- filed by Mr. James Fern. 2 MR. FERN: Jason. 3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I'm sorry. 4 Jason Fern of 125 Maudlin Road. 5 MEMBER GRAY: First I'd ask that I be 6 allowed to recuse myself because Mr. Fern lives 7 immediately next door to me. And I'd like to recuse 8 myself from the discussion and the vote. 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: All Board Members 10 in favor of Member Gray recusing herself to this case 11 say aye? 12 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 13 MEMBER GRAY: See you later. 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 15 Mr. Fern, you're seeking a -- let's 16 get back on track here. 17 You're seeking three variances. 18 Would you please raise your right hand 19 to be sworn in by our secretary. 20 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear 21 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case 04-059? 22 MR. FERN: Yes, I do. 23 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 24 MR. FERN: Good evening. 66
1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Go ahead. 2 Good evening. 3 MR. FERN: Good evening. 4 Basically, I'm looking for these 5 variance setbacks, because of the narrowness of my 6 lot. I want to build new construction there. And 7 since my lot is so narrow, I've actually played with, 8 you know, plans and everything else. And the house 9 that I originally wanted to build was 40 feet, and I 10 brought it down to 35 feet. 11 I mean, basically, this is the house 12 I'd like to build there. You know, I'm here to see 13 if I can get granted to build that. 14 I guess my hardship's going to be -- 15 I'm a little nervous. 16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: That's okay. 17 We don't bite. 18 MR. FERN: I know, I know. 19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Despite what you've 20 heard. 21 MR. FERN: Basically, you can see 22 what I've got planned out there. Basically, I've 23 built -- or I've designed the house with the garage 24 in the front. I've tried to make my garage as big as 67
1 I could, just for, you know, I plan on having a boat, 2 stuff like that. 3 I want to move on or build the house, 4 I can keep that in the garage. And I don't know. 5 That's pretty much it. 6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 7 Is there anyone in the audience that 8 wishes to make comments in regards to this case? 9 Seeing none, there were 52 notices 10 mailed, one objection -- I apologize for the delay. 11 Let's strike that last comment. 12 There were 56 notices mailed; nine 13 approvals, no objections for Mr. Fern. 14 Building Department? 15 MR. SAVEN: Basically, in your file 16 you'll find a letters for, I believe, seven of those 17 nine approvals. You'll see that. And with the 18 addresses associated, Mr. Fern has requested that his 19 lot be centered on the property, which is a plus to 20 try to keep it away from the side property line as 21 much as possible. 22 And even though there's three 23 variances that are shown, there's actually two 24 variances that's associated with the side yard 68
1 setback. One being the aggregate total of both 2 sides. 3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 4 Board Members? 5 Member Brennan? 6 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll just make a 7 point for the audience, that unlike the previous 8 case, there's 18 feet between the property line and 9 one house, and 40 feet from the property line to the 10 other house. 11 So it's not sitting on top of those 12 two other houses. 13 I'm pleased to see that you've got a 14 nice long driveway, 35 feet; and I think he's done 15 the best he can do with the site that he has. 16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I concur, very 17 creative. You've done your homework. It's very 18 refreshing to see. 19 Member Canup? 20 MEMBER CANUP: Make the garage bigger. 21 You've never got enough garage. I don't care how 22 much you've got, it's not big enough. 23 MR. FERN: I know. 24 MEMBER CANUP: But the only thing, I 69
1 guess if this were my home, I'd look at making that 2 garage a little bit bigger in the front. But that 3 won't impact your variance request. 4 You're allowed about 800 square feet 5 in garage? 6 MR. SAVEN: It'll be 850 square foot. 7 MR. CANUP: And you've got roughly 8 about 400. 9 MR. FERN: Well, that's another thing 10 that I actually wanted. From the road as you look, 11 you know -- yeah. 12 MEMBER CANUP: You made a 3000 square 13 foot garage and a 800 square foot house. 14 MR. FERN: Right. 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: All right. 16 Let's not open up any more cans of 17 worms here. 18 Member Fischer? 19 MEMBER FISCHER: I just wanted to 20 stated on the record that I applaud you because of 21 the fact that you did get this letter to us from your 22 neighbors, and you know, unlike some other cases 23 you've just said you're looking at some different 24 things that would have been bigger; however, you 70
1 scaled back before you came before us, and we had to 2 tell you that. 3 So with that, I will definitely be 4 approving this. 5 MEMBER BAUER: You know, we usually 6 say to cut it down, and you already did it. 7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer? 8 MEMBER FISCHER: With that, I'll move 9 on case 04-059 filed by Jason Fern for 125 Maudlin 10 Road, that we grant the Petitioner's request due to 11 the uniqueness and narrowness of the lot size. 12 MEMBER CANUP: Second. 13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and 14 seconded. 15 Is there any further discussion on the 16 Motion? 17 Seeing none, Denise, would you please 18 call the roll. 19 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer? 20 MEMBER FISCHER: Yes. 21 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup? 22 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 23 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer? 24 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 71
1 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan? 2 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 3 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? 4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 5 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes, five 6 to zero. 7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Your variance has 8 been granted. 9 See, I told you we didn't bite. 10 Please see the Building Department. 11 MR. FERN: Thank you. 12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 13 At this time, would the Board want to 14 entertain a ten minute break? 15 All right. The Board will entertain a 16 five minute break at this time. 17 (Brief recess taken.) 18 (Back on the record.) 19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: All right. 20 At this time, I would like to call the 21 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting back to Order. 22 Yes? 23 DENISE ANDERSON: Madam Chair, I would 24 like to add one time to the agenda under other 72
1 matters, the election of officers. 2 Okay. 3 Thank you for reminding me on that. 4 Okay. 5 Let's move it right along. 6 Now we can go to case number, 04-061 7 filed by Robert Murawski for Programmed Products 8 Corp, at 44311 Grand River Avenue. 9 Mr. Murawski is requesting to 10 variances for a loading door/loading dock, and truck 11 well, to be placed on the portion of the building 12 that faces the abutting residential district, and 13 located on the wall closest to the boundary of the 14 residential district. 15 Good evening. 16 Are you, in fact, Mr. Murawski? 17 MR. MURAWSKI: Robert Murawski, 18 Programmed Products, project manager; and I'm also 19 here with Lou Rusker, one of the principle owners. 20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 21 And are you both going to be 22 testifying at this time, or just -- 23 MR. MURAWSKI: Just myself tonight. 24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: All right. 73
1 Would you please raise your right hand 2 and be sworn in by our secretary. 3 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear 4 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-061? 5 MR. MURAWSKI: I do. 6 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 7 MR. MURAWSKI: Thank you. 8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Proceed. 9 MR. MURAWSKI: Members of the Board, 10 we respectfully request an addition of an overhead 11 for the sole purpose of access to an existing front- 12 loading trash compactor that we now operate. 13 We're asking to relocate the trash 14 compactor unit closer to the building, in order to 15 gain back use of one of our two existing dock doors. 16 Our pad shop manager had made efforts 17 which resulted in previous violations. And we've 18 realized our mistakes and we're here in good-faith 19 tonight. 20 We now ask the Board to grant this 21 request. And basically, the management that was 22 previously in charge over 18 months ago -- we've gone 23 through a management change -- and our condition 24 financially, as well as from a business aspect, has 74
1 been greatly impacted by the way that they ran the 2 business. 3 Obviously, it was more than just the 4 poor choices that were brought them to the attention 5 of the Board some couple years ago, with the input of 6 the door that faced the south of the building, which 7 we've since moved or -- removed or covered up. 8 Obviously, this is in a different location than we're 9 asking for this overhead door. It's not that 10 location. We've permanently abandoned that and we 11 apologized for that mistake. 12 We are, however -- our business is 13 starting to pick up and we are coming back. We 14 really, really missed the use of this extra overhead 15 door; and tonight we're asking you to gain -- or to 16 grant this so we can gain back our other truck dock. 17 We accept any type of statement, 18 basically saying that we'd never use this as an 19 actual truck dock. This is only for the purpose of 20 the trash compactor that we now operate. 21 And I've included photos in your 22 packet, so you can get a before and after feel of 23 what we're actually asking for. And at this time, we 24 do understand that -- this is two variances, 75
1 obviously, one for a ramp and one for a door, but 2 again, it's not an actual truck dock. I want to make 3 that very clear. 4 And that's really all I have. 5 Do you have any questions for me? 6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 7 Thank you. 8 Is there anyone in the audience that 9 wishes to make comment in regards to this case? 10 Seeing none, there were 49 notices 11 sent; three objection and one indifferent. 12 The objections are from Phyllis and 13 Wayne Wagner, at 44275 11 Mile. 14 "For the Board Members' pleasure, as a 15 resident of 11 Mile, I'd like to express my concern 16 regarding Programmed Products, Corp's request to add 17 a loading door and loading dock onto their building. 18 Whenever trucks load and unload at 19 these particular businesses, the noise is unbearable. 20 Loud banging is complex. With any further 21 development, the noise would emphatically result in 22 further loud noises. 23 I should hope, the Zoning Board, would 24 follow the vote and not allow a loading dock and door 76
1 to be added by a residential area." 2 The second letter is from Tom and 3 Claudia Clark, 44260 West 11 Mile. 4 "We, Tom and Claudia Clark, strongly 5 oppose this request for a door and a dock and truck 6 well, as our property is directly behind Programmed 7 Products. 8 The Code of Ordinance, Section 1905.4 9 as states, the guidelines for residents versus 10 business. We trust the Zoning Board would once again 11 come to our aid with this matter and -- I'm sorry -- 12 and deny this request." 13 The next letter is from John D. 14 Ulisse. I apologize if I mispronounced the last 15 name. Its' at 44240 11 Mile. Last name's spelled, 16 U-l-i-s-s-e. 17 Mr. Ulisse states disagree with the 18 addition of the loading dock, appeal. My property 19 adjoins the said property." 20 And I'm reading this final letter, 21 only because I would like for us to address this. 22 This is for Patrick Downey at 26030 23 Clark Street. 24 "Our Clark Street, Grand River and 77
1 Whipple Road residents, comments were invited 2 regarding the closing of Clark Street and our 3 unanimous consensus was discounted. Our comments, 4 concerns, the height appeals non-compliant claims 5 carried less weight than a fluff of feathers. Why do 6 you once again patronize us by pretending that the 7 residents concerns actually matter to the powers that 8 be." 9 Well, Mr. Downey, I can assure you 10 that these letters are very important to the Board. 11 That's why we take the time to read them, and 12 sometimes our hands our tied given the current 13 Ordinances and laws of this city. 14 Building Department? 15 MR. SAVEN: I want to point out to the 16 Board that this -- I'll point out to the Board that 17 this project went before the Planning Department, 18 plan review center, for the installation of this 19 trash compactor. These were the two issues that were 20 pointed out, referencing that that particular 21 location -- this is on the westerly wall. It's 22 directly to the south, which is normally facing the 23 subdivision in the rear. 24 I think there is a distance to that 78
1 residential development, and I think that there's a 2 sound screen that will go on in that particular area 3 that will heighten the dumpster location. 4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Board Members? 5 Member Canup? 6 MEMBER CANUP: Listening to the 7 letter, I think some of the people maybe that wrote 8 those letters really didn't understand totally that 9 this was going to be, not a dock but basically a 10 dumpster tie-up; if you want to use that word. 11 MR. MURAWSKI: That's correct, sir. 12 MEMBER CANUP; And I think that in 13 essence looking at the pictures, that it'll be more 14 aesthetically pleasing than what is there presently. 15 So with that, I would have no problem with it. 16 And we're going to have to -- if the 17 Board sees fit to approve this, I think we're going 18 to have to put in a stipulation that can never ever 19 be used -- I don't know if it's a deed restriction or 20 what -- that can never be used as a doorway. 21 MR. MURAWSKI: We'd be happy to 22 facilitate whatever is necessary. 23 MEMBER CANUP: Maybe our attorney can 24 direct us. 79
1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Brennan? 2 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, Brent, once 3 again, I have a different twist on this. 4 The houses on 11 Mile, in fact, the 5 Clarks' home, was built 85 years ago. So that's been 6 residential for some time. This particular site's 7 had problems over the years. There are still 8 problems. There are still problems with trash 9 blowing out of this existing trash container. 10 This company has a lot of paper 11 products, and I have been approached by a number of 12 residents along that 11 Mile, that they are not happy 13 with any changes to that building, that will enhance 14 either traffic or noise. 15 And if you've got another loading 16 dock, if you've got another door, that means you've 17 got another 30 percent of truck traffic. And so, I 18 guess I'm struggling with where is the hardship? If 19 you're telling me that you need that additional door 20 because your business is growing, that's not a 21 hardship. Congratulations. Get a new building. 22 I think that we, to be fair to the 23 Petitioners, I think that he needs to talk to these 24 people. They've been there -- the Clarks, in 80
1 particular, have been there for over 30 years. Some 2 of the other neighbors, that or longer. And I think 3 we need to listen to their concerns. 4 And I would propose that Mr. Murawski 5 -- 6 MR. MURAWSKI: Murawski. 7 MEMBER BRENNAN: -- take the time to 8 do so. And maybe Brent's right. Maybe what they 9 have here is better; but that's not what they believe 10 to be the case. 11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Gray? 12 MEMBER GRAY: I have some concerns 13 about this, as well. 14 When we originally denied the use of 15 the doors in 2001 -- are these the same doors that we 16 denied them the use of? 17 MR. SAVEN: No. That was the one in 18 the rear, which is facing the residential development 19 in the southern area. 20 MR. MURAWSKI: That's correct. 21 MEMBER GRAY: Okay. 22 So these doors face residential, too. 23 MR. SAVEN: These doors actually face 24 the continuation of property which is adjacent to 81
1 Grand River or fronts on Grand River and the west 2 property line. 3 MEMBER GRAY: But they also face 4 residential, and we have fairly strict standards when 5 it comes to loading doors and bay doors facing 6 residential, do we not? 7 MR. SAVEN: That's correct. 8 MEMBER GRAY: I have a problem with 9 this, too, because it is abutting residential. And 10 by adding a third door for the specific and sole 11 purpose of a trash compactor, it's not going to 12 increase truck traffic 30 percent, it's going to 13 increase it by 50 percent; because now they're going 14 to have two doors when they just now have one. 15 So other concerns that I have are, if 16 you do get approval for this, what are you going to 17 do with the existing stockade for the old roll off 18 that appears to be sitting empty with the doors 19 hanging open. 20 And then, what is this storage rack in 21 the back, just by the arrow designated C on your 22 plan, here? 23 MR. MURAWSKI: That's on the far 24 adjacent property. We don't own that property. 82
1 That's adjacent commercial property we do not own. 2 My property swings around to the D 3 area. 4 Just to clarify, as far as the 5 dock/loading, those two doors were also variances 6 when the building was renovated. 7 MEMBER GRAY: Okay. 8 MR. MURAWSKI: And they were approved. 9 MEMBER GRAY: I also agree that you 10 need to talk to some of these neighbors, besides 11 Mr. and Mrs. Price, and discuss what your proposal 12 is. 13 Thank you. 14 MR. MURAWSKI: Thank you. 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer? 16 MEMBER FISCHER: There's been no 17 mention tonight of the Prices. Have any of their 18 views changed from what I got in my packet? 19 MR. MURAWSKI: Actually, I'm going up 20 and -- 21 MEMBER FISCHER: I'm sorry. 22 What's that? 23 MR. MURAWSKI: I actually met with 24 them tonight, and, you know, I do apologize to the 83
1 other residents. 2 We were trying to be respectful of the 3 people that were actually facing this door, and so 4 that's my fault. We did not mean to exclude anybody. 5 The Prices, we're taking care of a 6 fence. It's referenced in your packet, a privacy 7 fence, so it can alleviate some of the pressure that 8 they've experienced. So -- 9 MEMBER FISCHER: Now, with the Prices, 10 there's a mention of an eight-foot fence. That will 11 have to come before us, too, won't it? 12 MR. SAVEN: They're voluntarily 13 putting it up. 14 MR. MURAWSKI: We're voluntarily 15 putting up a eight-foot high fence. That's 16 commercial. It will be installed on commercial 17 property. It's actually compliant commercially. 18 It's not a residential fence. It would be on this 19 adjacent property, where that storage rack is 20 located. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 22 MR. MURAWSKI: We worked that out with 23 the neighbors there. 24 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 84
1 And Mr. Taylor, the guy that used to 2 be there, is he the one that you had talked about a 3 management change? 4 MR. MURAWSKI: Actually, he was the 5 shop manager at the time. We're talking the 6 president and vice president are no longer with the 7 organization who worked in conjunction with Mr. 8 Taylor. So, the directors that they had followed, 9 the whole entire management has changed. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Oh, okay. 11 Also, with the loading doors, what are 12 the hours that you use those doors? 13 MR. MURAWSKI: The trucking hours are 14 normally business hours. We do have an afternoon 15 carpentry shift, but beyond that. This would 16 actually reduce traffic and noise, because right now 17 -- because we've lost the use of one of our dock 18 doors, we've had to stage a lot more trucks. This 19 would actually allow us to receive and load. 20 We're actually seeing this as a 21 positive to the neighbors, to allow less pressure, I 22 guess, would be the best way to put it. So from the 23 stand point of the two dock doors being utilized, it 24 would be normal business hours. 85
1 MEMBER FISCHER: Which are? 2 MR. MURAWSKI: For shipping and 3 receiving, it would be eight to five. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: And then on the trash 5 door, that should alleviate that a little bit, too? 6 And what time do the trash people come? 7 MR. MURAWSKI: That's also -- again, 8 for the pick-up for the container, that would be 9 normal business hours, as well, eight to five. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: How many shifts are 11 you running right now? 12 MR. MURAWSKI: We're actually running 13 one shift right now, and we do have an afternoon in 14 our carpentry department, like I said. But that is 15 not the whole plant. It's only a skeleton crew, in 16 one of our support centers. 17 MEMBER FISCHER: As far as I'm 18 concerned -- and I don't know if this would be 19 agreeable to the applicant, but I wouldn't have a 20 problem with the stipulation on it that these doors 21 can never be used before eight or after five; and I 22 could support something to that effect. 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Bauer? 24 MEMBER BAUER: Question. It's not the 86
1 building department; it's the police department. 2 That's what we're doing. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: As far as should they 4 use it and it would have to be -- (interposing.) 5 I can see that, but I also feel that 6 putting conditions on other ones, you know. Take the 7 Designer Rugs, one. We said that they can't have 8 stuff outside, and you know, that's putting those 9 guys in a police-power type of position, if you want 10 to call it that. 11 MEMBER CANUP: That didn't work 12 either. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: Well -- 14 MR. SAVEN: He also didn't put the 15 sign up there. 16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: No, he didn't put 17 the sign up after that. 18 Member Brennan? 19 MEMBER BRENNAN: Clarification. This 20 wall that you offered to put up between your property 21 and Carol Price's, is that on her property, or that's 22 on your leased rented property? 23 MR. SAVEN: It's on her property. 24 MEMBER BRENNAN: Pardon? 87
1 MR. SAVEN: I believe that's on her 2 property. 3 MR. MURAWSKI: Actually, it would be 4 installed in the adjacent commercial property. 5 MEMBER BRENNAN: Which they are 6 renting or leasing. Which means, that if they they 7 lose that lease and the owner of that property 8 decides to do something else, that wall is gone. 9 That's my point. This is not a permanent fix. It's 10 a short-term fix to a bigger problem, and it 11 satisfies one homeowner. It's no wonder she's -- 12 MEMBER GRAY: That she's happy. 13 MEMBER BRENNAN: I again will say, 14 that until -- and we have this condition with 15 residential versus residential issues. We've always 16 Petitioned the Petitioners to work it out, or at 17 least discuss it; have an understanding of what 18 they're proposing. I don't think that has been done. 19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I concur with Member 20 Brennan. Especially, if there's residents out there 21 that still have concerns or objections; and then we 22 have another disillusioned resident that thinks that 23 we go through the procedures and nothing is done in 24 favor of the resident. 88
1 My suggestion, I feel that you haven't 2 done enough homework before you came here. And what 3 I mean by that, is I think you needed to go talk to 4 all the residents. This is a very well-known case. 5 This isn't the first time in front of the ZBA, as 6 you've mentioned, as it's been discussed. And I 7 would try to make more residents my friends before I 8 would try to make the ZBA my friend. 9 Those are the people that are going to 10 make or break your business, seriously. And if this 11 can't be resolved, then you need to go look at other 12 options. 13 But my concerns are with these 14 residents, and I cannot support this request, based 15 on the fact that we have just three, but there could 16 be more out there that are not aware of it; given the 17 time of year and vacations and that sort of thing; or 18 didn't take the time to write their letter. Because 19 last time you were before the Board, it was quite a 20 heated neighborhood, given the history. 21 And I'm not using that, but I'm -- in 22 making my decision tonight -- although I'm letting 23 you know that the residents in the area do voice 24 their opinions. 89
1 So I'm going to side with the 2 residents at this point, and I will not be able to 3 support your request. 4 MR. MURAWSKI: Can I make one comment? 5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Certainly. 6 MR. MURAWSKI: I just want to -- you 7 know, a lot of us -- you may be right on the homework 8 side. I was looking at the plan and with the berm. 9 And the reason that -- and I apologize for, you know, 10 not taking these other residents into consideration, 11 but the Prices were the last people that the berm was 12 not extended to. 13 The berm and the landscaping and all 14 of the shielding or screening types of things that 15 were done on the improvement of the property 16 originally; now that the uses have changed on the 17 adjacent property; they were the ones that were left 18 out, and that's why that focus had taken place. It 19 really wasn't to slight anyone else. It was more to 20 continue or complete the actual screening that was 21 already built in the design of the lot. 22 So -- 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Board Members? 24 What if Mr. Murawski tabled this case 90
1 at this time and goes to talk to the neighborhood? 2 Would anybody be more willing to listen? 3 MEMBER BRENNAN: It would be my 4 recommendation. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: Make sure that the 6 applicant is willing to do that, as well. 7 MR. MURAWSKI: Oh, of course. I 8 appreciate the opportunity. 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: My suggestion then 10 is that this case be tabled till August. 11 MR. MURAWSKI: Thank you very much. 12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: All those in favor 13 of tabling? 14 All those in favor of tabling 04-061 15 till the August meeting, so that the Petitioner can 16 contact the rest of the residents on 11 Mile; and 17 then come back and see if we can get the 18 neighborhood, all those in favor, say aye? 19 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: All -- any opposed? 21
REGULAR - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY OF NOVI
TUESDAY, JULY 6, 2004
REGULAR - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY OF NOVI
TUESDAY, JULY 6, 2004 ONACHAN: Yes. 4 MR. SAVEN: Just a follow-up to Member 5 Canup's question and for future reference to the 6 Board. 7 Obviously, if you put any conditions 8 on any variance that you grant, compliance with those 9 conditions is going to be necessary in order for a 10 variance to continue to be valid and legitimate. 11 In terms of maybe something extra -- 12 this may be what Member Canup was looking for -- in 13 extreme cases, if the Zoning Board wants, you can 14 make a condition of your approval that a copy of the 15 variance or a copy of the Zoning Board action be 16 filed at the Oakland County Register of Deeds. That 17 way, the action is on file out at the County. 18 It will provide protection in case 19 someone comes along and purchases the property or 20 someone comes along and leases the property, you may 21 have a loop-hole there. But really, that's about the 22 only thing you can do to provide to someone who's 23 coming in and considering purchasing the property, 24 about the restrictions. It's the same effect as a 92
1 deed restriction, but you're not in a position to 2 require a specific deed restriction. 3 So that is an option that you have. 4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 5 Thank you. 6 7 All right. Moving right along to case 8 number, 04-062, filed by Debra Robertson for 44645 9 Kerri Court in Cedar Springs Subdivision. Mrs. 10 Robertson is requesting one variance for a 7.2 foot 11 rear yard setback variance for the construction of a 12 deck and a screened porch. 13 Good evening. 14 MR. ROBERTSON: Hi. My name's Alex 15 Robertson. I'm her husband. 16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. And are you 17 sharing the speaking this evening? 18 MR. ROBERTSON: I'm sorry? 19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Are you the only 20 one speaking this evening? 21 MR. ROBERTSON: I don't know if she's 22 going to come up and speak with me. 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: If she's going to 24 come in, she's got to come on down and be sworn in 93
1 with you. 2 Please raise your right hand and be 3 sworn in by our secretary. 4 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear 5 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case 04-062? 6 MR. ROBERTSON: I do. 7 MRS. ROBERTSON: I do. 8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 9 Go ahead. 10 MR. ROBERTSON: Okay. First of all, 11 we are asking for a variance of 7.2 feet to rebuild a 12 deck. As it stands right now -- I don't know if you 13 have the plot in front of you -- but we're only 14 actually going to be extending the deck out two more 15 feet. 16 So it's not actually 7.2 feet; it's 17 more like two more feet. 18 The reason we are going to be doing 19 this is actually, my wife has wanted to have a 20 screened in porch for years and years and finally 21 now, financially, we can do that. But in order to do 22 that, we've been told by two different people that 23 we've had estimates from, that we have to tear down 24 the initial deck that's there now in order to -- 94
1 because of the weight load and things like that and 2 the support. 3 And in addition to that, the underside 4 of that, underneath that portion of the deck we're 5 going to tear down, is really unusable space, because 6 my wife can barely walk underneath it; nobody else 7 can in my family. We're all too tall to walk 8 underneath it. So it's unusable from that aspect. 9 And as I said, with rebuilding the 10 deck, we're going to put a screened in porch on 11 there, as well. We just want it to be a nice size, 12 so we can put furniture in there and actually use it, 13 because with mosquitos and things like that, you can 14 kind of lose some of that space during the summer. 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 16 Anything else? 17 MRS. ROBERTSON: Another reason I'm 18 building this porch or one reason that I'm excited to 19 build this porch is by going out -- with the way our 20 house is located, in accord with the other houses 21 facing, we have a south facing house, there's really 22 no direct sunlight through the majority of the day. 23 I mean, I had to -- one point when we 24 first moved into this house, this is like I was 95
1 looking for somewhere to sit in the sun and I found 2 like our closet was the only place in the house that 3 had that kind of daytime sun. 4 So I think going out a little bit, I 5 think it will give us one more place in our house 6 where we could see sunlight. 7 This may sound silly, but. 8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Sounds kind of 9 cool. 10 Is there anyone in the audience that 11 wishes to make comment in regards to this case? 12 Seeing none, Building Department? 13 MR. SAVEN: The property is located in 14 a cul de sac. It backs up to a park in the rear, and 15 not located in any easement. 16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 17 There were 25 notices sent; for 18 approvals, no objections. 19 Board Members? 20 Member Gray? 21 MEMBER GRAY: Well, I think if we were 22 looking at a full-sized lot, we would not be having 23 this discussion. So I think their request is 24 minimal. I don't have any problem with it. 96
1 I'd be happy to make a Motion, if 2 that's the Board's pleasure. 3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 4 Go ahead. 5 MEMBER GRAY: In the case 04-062, move 6 to approve the variance requested, due to lot size 7 and configuration. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: Second. 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and 10 approved -- moved and seconded. 11 Is there any further discussion on the 12 Motion? 13 Seeing none, Denise, would you please 14 call the roll. 15 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gray? 16 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 17 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer? 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 19 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer? 20 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 21 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan? 22 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 23 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup? 24 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 97
1 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 3 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to 4 zero. 5 MR. ROBERTSON: Thank you. 6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Your variance has 7 been granted. 8 Please see the Building Department. 9 10 Okay. On this next case, 04-063, 11 before I call Mr. and Mrs. Bodrie, I want the -- I 12 want it to be on record that Mr. and Mrs. Bodrie are 13 my neighbors on Garfield Road. They live about four 14 houses down from me in my neighborhood. And I will 15 not be recusing myself from this case, because I have 16 no personal or financial interest in this matter; and 17 feel that I could be justified in making an 18 appropriate decision. 19 So if the Board doesn't have any 20 problem with that and they're in agreement, we'll go 21 ahead. 22 All those in favor? 23 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Let's call case 98
1 number, 04-063 filed by James and Carol Bodrie for 2 2011 West Lake Drive. Mr. and Mrs. Bodrie are 3 requesting four variances; three side yard setback 4 variances and one lot coverage variance for the 5 construction of a new home at 2011 West Lake Drive. 6 Good evening. 7 You are Mr. Bodrie? 8 MR. BODRIE: Yes. 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you please 10 raise your right hand and be sworn in by our 11 secretary. 12 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear 13 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case 04-063? 14 MR. BODRIE: I do. 15 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 17 Go ahead. 18 MR. BODRIE: My wife apologizes. She 19 had to work tonight, so I get to do it myself. 20 I'll start off with the lot. It's 30 21 feet wide. I assume you can see that from the plot 22 plan. It was platted well before any Zoning 23 Ordinances ever went into effect that are being 24 enforced; that we have to ask for the zoning. 99
1 That's my hardship. These setbacks 2 are not self-created, obviously. If they're 3 enforced, I'd be able to build a five-foot wide 4 house, so that's why I'm here. 5 When we purchased the property on West 6 Lake, we've explored both renovating it and/or 7 tearing it down. We've chose to tear it down, if I 8 can achieve the variances, because the property sits 9 on one foot off of one side and two foot off on the 10 other property line. 11 You can see from the original survey 12 it's cocked sideways. It's kind of awkward, but on 13 these old lake lots, the survey is not very accurate, 14 back when they did them, when they built the homes. 15 The new house makes a lot more sense. 16 If you look at the neighborhood, almost every house 17 has been torn down and replaced or renovated nicely. 18 I believe there's -- including mine, there's three 19 left; and there's another one following that this is 20 -- well, the other two have already been sold, and I 21 believe that both of those are on the same agenda. 22 When we looked at doing the house, 23 I've talked to, obviously, my adjacent neighbors. 24 I've talked to many other neighbors. With the advice 100
1 of Mr. Saven, I looked into the drainage to make sure 2 that we had -- that we have four foot of pitch from 3 the road to the lake; which will allow us to have the 4 drainage come off the house, because of the side, you 5 know, side setbacks. 6 You know, drainage is an issue. I've 7 talked to the neighbors about that. They're both 8 satisfied with that. Another concern was where the 9 house was located, as far as how far it set back from 10 the lake. It's a tricky situation because if you 11 line up all the houses directly, then if you can 12 imagine a 30 foot wide lot, we basically have two 13 lots right here. And if we both have parties on our 14 patio and it directly lines up, we're having two 15 parties at one party, instead of two. 16 So what we've done is, I've drawn a 17 line across and staggered the houses so -- in such a 18 way that we can afford ourselves a little bit of 19 privacy on the houses -- on our patios, so when we're 20 on our patios, we can have some privacy. 21 The -- on the north side, I do not 22 show it on the plot plan, but my neighbor on the 23 northside, Bill, he's asked me to mention to you that 24 we'll have a covered porch. You can see it on 101
1 elevation, and it's a slight notch. It can be 2 knocked out. I didn't provide a floor plan. I guess 3 I should have at that point, but he brought it up to 4 me a few minutes ago, so -- and I'm more than happy 5 to stipulate that we will be doing a covered porch on 6 the northside of the building, on the lake side, if 7 that's necessary. 8 My neighbor, Ron, who is to the south 9 of us, his main concern is the drainage. And we 10 believe that we've discussed it and I'm confident 11 that we can accomplish drainage that will not cause 12 any problems for either -- for anybody involved. 13 I know that by building a new home, 14 even though it's only four-foot off the property 15 line, fire is an issue, fire safety. And currently, 16 the house is only one foot off the property line on 17 one side, two foot off on the other. We want four 18 foot between the one side and about six foot on the 19 other. 20 When we're done, we'll have seven foot 21 and nine foot on the two side lots, which will 22 increase it substantially. Plus, I plan on putting 23 fiber cement board siding on it, which is non- 24 combustible; and I have the literature on that, as 102
1 far as the ATSM number that they reference. It 2 really doesn't mean a whole lot to me. The non- 3 combustible part means something to me. 4 So -- 5 MR. SAVEN: Me, too. 6 MR. BODRIE: What's that? 7 MR. SAVEN: Me, too. 8 MR. BODRIE: So that's how I have 9 attempted to address that. I don't think there's 10 anything else I can do, as far as doing that. If you 11 can imagine trying to design a 22 foot narrow -- a 22 12 foot house. If you take the wall thicknesses and if 13 try to put a hallway down the middle, you'll have a 14 six foot wide room on one side and a ten foot wide 15 room on the other side. It's awful narrow. 16 So I truly feel that the 22 feet is 17 the bare minimum that I can achieve this. 18 Realistically, if I'm not able to get a 22 foot -- 19 I'd have to revisit just renovating the existing 20 building within it's own foundation. It just doesn't 21 make it realistic, as far as a decent layout for a 22 house. 23 In my research, I've found there's 24 been a couple variances granted on West Lake. My 103
1 direct neighbor to the north of me at 2009 West Lake, 2 a 2002 case, 02-042, he was granted a five foot two 3 south variance -- south yard variance, which left him 4 with 4.8 side yard and -- on both sides. 5 The second is 2105 West Lake, which 6 was granted in '03, case number, 03-057, Debra 7 Blashfield(ph). She was granted 18.68 north yard 8 variance and a 10.68 south yard variance; as well as 9 a seven percent lot coverage variance. 10 The -- she was allowed to build within 11 two feet of the property line on that property there. 12 MEMBER CANUP: Madam? 13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Canup? 14 MEMBER CANUP: Can we get on with 15 this? 16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 17 MR. BODRIE: Okay. 18 MEMBER CANUP: Petitioner, you've got 19 us sold, okay? 20 MR. BODRIE: Okay. 21 I'm done. 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is there anyone 23 else in the audience that wishes to make comment in 24 regards to this case? 104
1 MR. OLIVER: Good evening, Board. 2 I'll try and hustle my comments along 3 for Mr. Canup and the Board. 4 William Oliver, 2009 West Lake Drive. 5 I'm immediately to the north of Nick -- Mick, sorry. 6 He did come over and discuss everything. It's tough 7 building on these lots. So as he indicated, I was in 8 front of the panel a couple years ago. I fully 9 support the 22 foot wide house. I know it's slightly 10 wider than what I have. 11 If I could have had my drothers, I'd 12 have a 22 foot wide house myself. There's a few 13 things I would have changed. 14 I don't think what he's asking for is 15 out of question. I think he's made reasonable 16 attempts to comport with the current requirements of 17 the Ordinance with what he's got to work with. 18 As far as the fire, I mean, like he's 19 indicated, my neighbor and I on the other side is six 20 feet apart. I don't really have any concerns about 21 fire. I'd rather have a new structure there, than 22 the old one that sits there. It's a fire trap, 23 animal trap. It's terrible. 24 I hope that the Board grants him this 105
1 variance. I'd hate for him to have the visit the 2 issue of doing a remod there. As he indicated, that 3 house is one foot off the side yard. That's my side 4 yard. His overhangs currently over hang mine; and 5 the footprint, he's actually tried to accommodate me, 6 by pulling the home back about 12 feet from the 7 current footprint; that's going to improve my view . 8 If he were to go straight up with a remod, it would 9 really hurt my view. 10 As he's indicated, we did talk about 11 having the notched-out porch, which would put his 12 front entrance slightly in front of my porch. It 13 gives me privacy on my porch; gives him privacy on 14 his. So I think he's made all of the attempts in the 15 world that he can possibly make to comply with his 16 neighbors, to comport with the Code; and I'm in full 17 support and I hope the Board is, too. 18 Thank you. 19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 20 Is there anyone else? 21 MR. COON: Good evening, Board. 22 Ronald Coon, 2012 West Lake, 23 immediately south of the proposed project. 24 I'm in support of it. I like the way 106
1 the man has come to his neighbors and asked us how 2 we'd like things done and addressed our concerns. 3 He's done a fantastic job that way. He'll actually 4 make the house farther away from mine. That's a 5 plus, but that wasn't something I was looking for. 6 I've been there for 35 years. I got 7 no problem with what's there now, in that respect. 8 The house is -- it's junk. That's the best way to 9 put that. I opted not to buy it back in 1970, 10 because I thought it was junk back then. It's 11 certainly no better today than it was then. It's 12 only been band-aided up by owners as the time has 13 gone along. 14 It's time that that house was gone and 15 we need to get rid of it. 16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 17 Thank you. 18 MR. COON: His concern about the 19 water, he talked to me in detail about that, and I 20 think we've come up with several different solutions 21 that work just fine in the drainage around the 22 property. 23 So there should be no problem with 24 things. 107
1 Thank you. 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 3 Anyone else? 4 There were 47 notices sent; six 5 approvals; one including the member that just spoke. 6 But the rest of the addresses I will give you at 2105 7 West Lake, Debra Blashfield. I apologize, Mr. Coon, 8 your letter's in here, 2117 West Lake; Patrick 9 Kennedy at 2023 West Lake; Jeff Haggar at 2109 West 10 Lake; William Cruse at 101 Penhill; and William 11 Oliver, who earlier spoke. 12 Building Department? 13 MR. SAVEN: All has been said. 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 15 Board Members? 16 Member Canup? 17 MEMBER CANUP: This is one of the 18 better applications for these narrow lots. I think 19 that we've seen them come down. Of all of them that 20 we've seen, this one probably fits better than any 21 that we've done. 22 And I guess my reason for asking you 23 to shorten up his presentation is because of the 24 fact, we don't really pay attention to what has been 108
1 done in the past. We set precedents on lots that 2 have already been approved. Every one stands on its 3 own. Yours stands very well on its own. 4 The only thing I think is obvious here 5 is the setback from the road is 37 inches -- 6 MR. BODRIE: 37 feet. 7 MEMBER CANUP: Yeah, 37 feet. That's 8 what it appeared, but this one plan I think I would 9 endorse without any problem. 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 11 Member Gray? 12 MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Bodrie, are you 13 planning to build a garage? 14 MR. BODRIE: It's in that. 15 MEMBER GRAY: I was going to say that, 16 you know, I couldn't understand a 22 foot width and a 17 66 foot length. I would only hope that would include 18 a garage. 19 Okay. 20 Thank you. 21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Anyone else? 22 Member Canup? 23 MEMBER CANUP: I'd make a Motion that 24 in case 04-063; is that correct? 109
1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 2 MEMBER CANUP: That we grant the 3 variance as requested due to comments of -- from the 4 Board. 5 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and 7 seconded. 8 Any further discussion on the Motion? 9 Seeing none, Denise, would you please 10 call the roll. 11 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup? 12 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 13 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer? 14 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 15 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan? 16 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 17 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer? 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 19 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gray? 20 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 21 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 23 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to 24 zero. 110
1 MR. BODRIE: Thank you. 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You're all set. 3 Please see the Building Department. 4 5 Okay. Our next case is 04-065, filed 6 by Douglas R. Necci of JCK & Associates, for 2117 7 West Lake Drive. Mr. Necci is requesting three 8 variances for the construction of a new home with an 9 attached garage, located at the above address. 10 And are you, in fact, Mr. Necci? 11 MR. NECCI: Yes, I am. 12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you please 13 raise your right hand, after you get to the stand 14 there, and be sworn in by our secretary. 15 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear 16 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-065? 17 MR. NECCI: I do. 18 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Go ahead. 20 MR. NECCI: Thank you. 21 Doug Necci, JCK & Associates, I'm 22 representing Jay Rosenthal, the purchaser of this 23 property. We work as architects and engineers. 24 The property in question is actually a 111
1 double lot, 150 foot wide, approximately 180 feet 2 deep. So like last go, this is a very large lot. 3 What's unique about this particular 4 lot is that there's a corner slip off the southwest 5 corner of the property for the South Lake Drive cul 6 de sac, which is barely a remnant of the old South 7 Lake Drive that used to continue on that part of the 8 lake; that was vacated, I think, in approximately 9 1980. 10 So that cul de sac -- maybe even 11 before that -- that's the best information we had, as 12 far as when it was vacated. At any rate, the road is 13 gone. What you have left there is gravel cul-de-sac, 14 which, with respect to the people I've talked to, we 15 did approach the property owner that actually owns 16 this property that occupies about 80 percent of that 17 cul-de-sac. 18 He indicated that he really has no 19 knowledge of what its use is. It's kind of a dead- 20 end turn around for people living directly along 21 South Lake Drive; without having to go into the 22 subdivision, you can go back out to West Park Drive. 23 At any rate, we've researched this 24 thing inside out, and we're having trouble finding 112
1 any really recorded easements or right of way for 2 that road anyhow. South Lake Drive is really -- goes 3 back in history, I guess to when there was no right 4 of way for that road. So this particular parcel 5 really doesn't have a right of way. 6 So we're being asked to measure a 7 front yard setback from a road, which isn't really a 8 rod. And I think that's the unique challenge here 9 for this site. All we're really asking here is that 10 we shouldn't -- I think you have pictures there of 11 the house, the floor plan and the elevations that 12 we're proposing. 13 From an architectural point of view, 14 we don't want to design a house around an obstacle 15 that's going to some day disappear, and leave us with 16 kind of a strange house design. The implication is 17 that sometime in the not too distant future, this 18 cul-de-sac might actually be vacated. 19 And in fact, this application, the 20 personal representative is willing to initiate that, 21 along with Mr. Surling, the representative for the 22 Bristle Corner, the subdivision that adjoins us, 23 would be willing to initiate that, if the City would 24 welcome him. 113
1 But from an timely point of view, we 2 would like to actually build a house actually this 3 season. So recognizing that there's a drainage rail 4 through that area, a guardrail, and some 5 infrastructure that's there, we really have to build 6 around that. 7 So what we've proposed is a ten foot 8 setback from the top of the bank, which is the 9 northerly most edge of any of the existing features 10 in that area. It preserves all the trees, the 11 drainage, all the things you really need there; and 12 it gives an extra ten feet for you to maintain that. 13 And we feel that that's consistent with us designing 14 a house that fits, and is logical for 150 foot wide 15 lot. 16 I'll just add that the house that 17 we're proposing is a ranch-style home. Mr. Rosenthal 18 has a physical disability, so the entire plan has to 19 be a barrier-free design. So it's -- while we're 20 asking for a variance on lot coverage, in terms of 21 square footage, we could actually put a lot in your 22 house on that rather large lot, if we went two- 23 stories, but we're not proposing to do that. 24 So the it's large in the square 114
1 footage, it could be even larger if we exercised the 2 full extent of that 25 percent maximum. 3 So with that, I'll answer any 4 questions. 5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is there anyone in 6 the audience that wishes to make comment in regards 7 to this case? 8 Seeing none, there were 60 -- I'm 9 sorry. 28 notices mailed; six approvals, no 10 objections. 11 Building Department? 12 MR. SAVEN: I'll point out that this 13 property was before us one time before with a very 14 similar scenario, in which they did receive approval. 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 16 Board Members? 17 Member Gray? 18 MEMBER GRAY: This is one of the 19 better plans I've ever seen for this piece of 20 property, and I don't have a problem with the 21 percentage of lot size, because I'm sure Mr. 22 Rosenthal -- if there's any vacation of the road, 23 they would have to initiate it, if I understand the 24 Michigan Subdivision Control Act, because it's in "X" 115
1 amount of feet of the water. 2 But at one time, the road did go 3 around the lake and that was used all the time. 4 I don't have a problem with this 5 layout, and I don't even have a problem with the size 6 of the garage on this, because this would take the 7 boat storage out from outside and put it behind 8 doors, so. 9 Thank you 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Canup? 11 MEMBER CANUP: I guess I concur with 12 Ms. Gray. It looks like a good use for the lot. 13 You've got the water system on one side. It may have 14 been some work up. Usually it shows on the drawing, 15 your's really isn't. 16 I guess, with that, I would support 17 your variance as requested. 18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: How about a Motion? 19 Member Fischer? 20 MEMBER FISCHER: Regarding the lot 21 coverage, as well as drainage, the proportion to the 22 other houses around there -- this maybe a really 23 unintelligent question, but what is feasibility of 24 them building up eventually? Is that a possibility? 116
1 Would it be too expensive or structurally unsound? 2 MR. NECCI: The design is such that it 3 would be very difficult. Obviously, a future owner 4 might choose to do that, but this plan is entirely 5 designed with a barrier-free. And in fact, there's 6 real key issues in terms of the Code actually 7 requiring a forward step between the garage and the 8 house. We will have to ramp that up. 9 My guess is that this will remain -- 10 plus, they're showing a very step pitch roof. A lot 11 of the character of the house is going to be off the 12 roof design. So those kinds of things kind of 13 preclude somebody coming in and putting a second 14 story on part of the house, I think. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: I agree with Member 16 Gray about the storage of the boat and stuff. 17 So with that, I'll let her make her 18 Motion. 19 MEMBER GRAY: In the matter of case 20 04-065, move to approve the variance as requested due 21 to lot size and configuration. This is on the 22 corner, therefore it has two front yards. And the 23 owner's physical limitations require a one-story. 24 MEMBER FISCHER: Second. 117
1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and 2 seconded. 3 Is there any further discussion in 4 regards to the Motion? 5 Seeing none, Denise, would you please 6 call the roll. 7 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gray? 8 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 9 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer? 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Yes. 11 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer? 12 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 13 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan? 14 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 15 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup? 16 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 17 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? 18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 19 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes sis to 20 zero. 21 MR. NECCI: Thank you very much. 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Your variance has 23 been granted. 24 Please see the Building Department. 118
1 Okay. Our next case is case number 2 04-066 filed by Dianne Hersey, Chief Litigation 3 Attorney for Road Commission of Oakland County and 4 Nancy McClain, City Engineer for City of Novi. And 5 I'm not seeing those people that I'm calling. 6 MR. KELLY: I'm neither of those 7 people. 8 However, my name is Douglas Kelly and 9 I'm here on behalf of Dianne Hersey of the Road 10 Commission. 11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 12 And are you an attorney? 13 MR. KELLY: I am an attorney, yes. 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 15 Nancy McClain, is she going to be here 16 or -- 17 MR. SAVEN: She was going to be here, 18 but unfortunately she could not make it today. 19 MR. KELLY: That is news to me. 20 Since I have to help, I will explain 21 while we're here -- while I'm here today. 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 23 MR. KELLY: Obviously, this has to do 24 with the road construction project at Grand River and 119
1 at Novi Roads. Under the Uniform Condemnation 2 Procedures Act, the Act allows participating agencies 3 to Petition a local Zoning Board of Appeals to grant 4 variances. 5 And that's why we're here today, for a 6 simple -- it's hard but it's both simple -- simple 7 variance for the parking lot setback on the southside 8 of the building; and your agenda does explain it, 9 your City Ordinance, I believe, Section 1602 requires 10 a 20 foot site, parking lot site setback. Because of 11 the road widening project, the setback has been 12 reduced to 15 -- well, we're asking for a reduced 13 variance of 15 feet. 14 I think the hardships are fairly 15 obvious. We require -- if the variance is not 16 granted, the parking will be reconstructed and there 17 also maybe an additional project cost of the project. 18 So we'd ask that -- this is why we 19 requested the variance. 20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 21 Anything else? 22 MR. KELLY: No. 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is there anyone in 24 the audience that wishes to make comment in the 120
1 matter of this case? 2 Seeing none, there were 34 notices 3 mailed; no approvals, no objections. 4 Building Department? 5 MR. SAVEN: I'd just point out in your 6 packet there is a letter of an acquisition sketch, 7 that talks about the setback from the road to the 8 parking lot area, which is required to be 20. 9 They're going to go 15; therefore, we're looking at a 10 five foot setback requirement. 11 This is basically no different than 12 the issues that were brought before you from the 12 13 Mile Road right-of-way and the Grand River right-of- 14 way. 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Board Members? 16 Member Gray? 17 MEMBER GRAY: I see this as a City or 18 a County imposed hardship, and I think it should be a 19 slam-dunk to approve this. 20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer? 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Is the variance five 22 feet or is the setback that's going to be five feet? 23 MR. SAVEN: The variance is going to 24 be five feet. 121
1 MR. KELLY: Yeah. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 3 I agree with Member Gray. 4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 5 Member Canup? 6 MEMBER CANUP: I would make a Motion 7 then in case number, 04-066 that we grant the 8 variance as requested due to hardship imposed by 9 previous ordinances. 10 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and 12 seconded. 13 Is there any further discussion on the 14 Motion? 15 Seeing none, Denise, would you please 16 call the roll. 17 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup? 18 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 19 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer? 20 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 21 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan? 22 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 23 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer? 24 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 122
1 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gray? 2 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 3 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? 4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 5 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to 6 zero. 7 MR. KELLY: Thank you. 8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 9 Your variance has been granted. 10 Thank you very much. 11 MR. GILLIAM: Madam Chair? 12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 13 MR. GILLIAM: I have a very quick 14 questions. 15 Doug, is this case actually in 16 litigation at this point or just -- 17 MR. KELLY: Yeah. When the 18 acquisition issues are resolved, so we -- the road 19 commission owns the property, right-of-way. 20 MR. GILLIAM: It's my understanding 21 from speaking with Mr. Schultz, there's been some 22 conversation between Mr. Akram(ph), who's one of the 23 representatives for the Tatube(ph) Group at this 24 point. Tell Mr. Akram I'm disappointed he didn't 123
1 want to come see us. 2 MR. KELLY: I will do that. 3 He's always fun to be around. 4 MR. GILLIAM: And just so the record 5 is clear and to alleviate some concerns that were 6 raised in those discussions, what the Zoning Board 7 has done tonight does not affect the variances that 8 have previously been granted relative to that 9 particular site. Those variances will continue to 10 run at the site. 11 A specific concern that Mr. Akram 12 expressed was that if there was some catastrophic 13 loss of a building, they might not be able to rebuild 14 on the footprint as it exists right now. And just so 15 the record is clear, the property owners would be 16 able to rebuild on that footprint. If they wanted to 17 expand further or encroach further into the parking 18 setback, they'd have to come back before the Board. 19 But with the footprint as it stands 20 right now, they would be able to build again. 21 MR. KELLY: Thank you for your 22 clarification. 23 Is that something that will appear in 24 some document that's generated? 124
1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Our Minutes. 2 It's going to be in the Minutes, yeah. 3 MR. KELLY: Okay. 4 Thank you. 5 6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 7 Our final case this evening, is case 8 number 04-060, filed by Mike Baker of Schonsheck, 9 Inc., for Millennium Technology Center Development, 10 located in section 12, between Haggerty Road and 11 Cabot Drive, south of 13 Mile and north of Lewis 12 Drive. 13 And Board Members, you may recall, 14 this case was heard before us back in June, and we 15 needed to reschedule a rehearing -- I'm sorry, 16 scheduled a rehearing, due to the fact that the 17 proper notification wasn't complete. 18 Yes, Mr. Gilliam. 19 MR. GILLIAM: I see Mr. Baker here 20 from Schonsheck. Maybe we can expedite things here. 21 As you've indicated there was a 22 problem with the notice. To my understanding, 23 specifically, that the notice that was sent to the 24 principles for the Ridgeview Center, which is the 125
1 property directly adjacent, wasn't received in a 2 timely manner. 3 As to how it happened, why it 4 happened, we don't need to worry about that. The 5 bottom line is did happen. They expressed some 6 concerns about the actions that the Zoning Board had 7 taken, without their opportunity to provide any input 8 at the meeting last month. 9 Based upon that issue, we had asked 10 that the matter be brought back in front of the 11 Zoning Board. In the meantime, our office, the City 12 Engineering staff, have been in contact with the 13 principles at Ridgeview, with their attorney. In 14 fact, I know Mr. Schultz had some conversations with 15 them probably right up until about 4:30, 5:00 this 16 afternoon. 17 Based upon all of those conversations, 18 the concern that the principles of Ridgeview had 19 about a point -- a second point of access to their 20 site have been resolved. There's been an agreement 21 in principle that would allow for access to their 22 site from the east. 23 And based upon those conversations, 24 the agreement was reached with the principles. It's 126
1 my understanding that they were not going to appear 2 tonight; that they had no objections to the relief 3 that's been requested by Mr. Baker. 4 Thank you. 5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. So I'm going 6 to ask you to assist me on this. We've already heard 7 that. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: Motion to suspend the 9 rule, would that work? 10 I thought we'd just stick to voting. 11 MEMBER BRENNAN: Do we need a revote? 12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do we need a revote 13 at this point or -- 14 MEMBER GRAY: How about we vote to 15 concur on the previous vote? 16 MR. GILLIAM: I think it's necessary 17 for you to take a vote, because the matter's back on 18 the agenda. 19 MR. SAVEN: Before you take a vote, 20 let's see does he have any other input he'd like to 21 give us. 22 MR. BAKER: Not at this time, no. 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 24 MEMBER BRENNAN: Case 04-060, I'd move 127
1 that we reaffirm our positive Motion to this 2 Petitioner. 3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. 4 It's been moved and seconded. 5 Is there any further discussion on the 6 Motion? 7 MR. GILLIAM: Point of labor. 8 If the Motion can just reference the 9 discussion that the Zoning Board had at the previous 10 meeting which supports the Zoning Board's actions. 11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 12 As so stated by Mr. Gilliam, in the 13 June, 2004 Minutes. 14 Okay. 15 Anything else? 16 Denise, would you please call the 17 roll. 18 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan? 19 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 20 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? 21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 22 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer? 23 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 24 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup? 128
1 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 2 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer? 3 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 4 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gray? 5 MEMBER GRAY: Yep. 6 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to 7 zero. 8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 9 MR. BAKER: Thank you. 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you for your 11 patience. 12 And in other matters, Sarah Gray is 13 leaving the Board for other endeavors, I guess. 14 MEMBER GRAY: I'm moving out of the 15 community, which would preclude me from continuing 16 unfortunately. 17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: So we need a new 18 vice chair as of August of 2004, and before I get 19 into that, I would like to take a moment to thank 20 Member Gray for her time on the Board. Now, I'm 21 really going to be at a disadvantage, being the only 22 woman on the Board. 23 But I have to say that I've worked 24 closely with Sarah over the last four years. She has 129
1 a vast knowledge of the history of Novi, and that is 2 going to be a big loss to this Board; and we have 3 lost six members in the last three and a half years. 4 The rate of turn-over is getting affected. And so 5 now we're taking our historian. I'm truly sadden by 6 that. 7 So I would like to take this time on 8 behalf of all the Board Members to wish you well. 9 MEMBER GRAY: Thank you. 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And thank you for 11 your commitment to this Board. 12 And also to -- at this time, open the 13 floor for nominations for the new vice chair, and if 14 I could be so bold as to nominate Member Canup, if 15 anyone -- 16 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and 18 seconded. 19 Any further discussion? 20 MEMBER FISCHER: I'm voting in this? 21 MEMBER BAUER: Uh-huh. 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yeah, you're here 23 and your in line as a voting member in this. 24 MEMBER FISCHER: All right. 130
1 Although I am uncomfortable with the 2 fact that Mr. Sanghvi being the permanent, I feel he 3 should be doing this. 4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I understand. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: However, if you have 6 enough, I'll go with you guys, to hurry this process 7 up. 8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 9 Justin, thank you. 10 Any further discussion? 11 Seeing none, all in favor of Member 12 Canup as vice chair, say aye? 13 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: All -- any opposed? 15 Okay, none. 16 Congratulations, Member Canup. 17 MEMBER GRAY: Can I mention one thing? 18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 19 MEMBER GRAY: I'd like to bring up one 20 more item. I want to thank everybody who I've worked 21 with over the many years as a Petitioner, and as a 22 audience participation member; to the point that when 23 I was appointed and sat down at the chair, it felt 24 like home. 131
1 And I'm going to miss all of you an 2 awful lot. But I'm also going to let you know that 3 if you need me for the August meeting, I'll make 4 myself available. So just let me know. 5 MEMBER BAUER: I'm sure it'll be 6 noted. 7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 8 MEMBER GRAY: Thank you all. 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Anything else at 10 this time? 11 Nothing? 12 All in favor of adjourning, say aye? 13 MEMBER BAUER: Adjourn. 14 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: The Zoning Board of 16 Appeals meeting has been officially adjourned. 17 (The meeting adjourned 18 at 9:58 p.m.) 19 - - - - - - 20 21 22 23 24 132
1 1 C__E__R__T__I__F__I__C__A__T__E_ 2 3 I do hereby certify that I have 4 recorded stenographically the proceedings had and testimony 5 taken in the above-entitled matter at the time and place 6 hereinbefore set forth, and that the foregoing is a full, 7 true and correct transcript of proceedings had in the 8 above-entitled matter; and I do further certify that the 9 foregoing transcript, consisting of (130) typewritten 10 pages, is a true and correct transcript of my said 11 stenograph notes. 12 13 14 ________________________________________ 15 Machelle R. Billingslea-Moore, Reporter. 16 17 __________ 18 Date 19 20 21 22 23 133
|