View Agenda for this meeting
View Action Summary for this meeting


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.

Cynthia Gronachan, chairman
Sarah Gray
Frank Brennan
Gerald Bauer
Brent Canup
Justin Fischer

Don Saven, Building Department
David Gilliam, City Attorney
Alan Amolsch, Ordinance Enforcement Officer
Denise Anderson, ZBA Recording Secretary

Machelle Billingslea-Moore, Certified Shorthand Reporter.

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?


14 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


16 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gray?

17 MEMBER GRAY: Present.

18 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


20 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi is

21 absent excused.

22 And Member Fischer?











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?


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









1 don't think we should be approving anything on our

2 moods.


4 Anything else?

5 All in favor of the minutes, say 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









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.


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.









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?


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.









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?




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?


21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: All opposed?


23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Let the record

24 show, one opposed.









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.









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.


11 All those in favor of the amended

12 Motion, say 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.


22 All right.

23 Let's call the first case to order.

24 04-026 filed by Gordon T. Wilson of









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









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









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 --


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.









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









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









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









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









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.


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









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.










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.


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.










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.

























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









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.









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.









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









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.


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.


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









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









1 has shown that he is asking for the least possible

2 variances.


4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And the amendment,

5 the existing building?


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?


17 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


19 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


21 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


23 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gray?










1 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


3 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes five

4 to one.


6 Your variance has been granted.

7 Please see the Building Department.

8 MR. WILSON: Thank you for your time,

9 ladies and gentlemen.


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.


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.









1 The models --


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?


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.


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?









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.


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-









1 beyond the period that that real estate sign needs to

2 be there, but that's just my thoughts.


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.


12 That's all I have for right now.


14 Board Members?

15 Member Brennan?

16 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll make a Motion,

17 if there's no other comment.


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.









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?




10 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


12 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


14 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


16 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


18 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

19 zero.


21 Your request has been denied.

22 MS. LYNDMEIR: Thank you.


24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Now calling case









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.










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.









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.


24 Board Members?









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.


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









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?









1 Member Bauer?

2 MEMBER BAUER: I don't want any

3 occupancy, other than storage, period.


5 Anyone else?

6 Is there a Motion out there somewhere,

7 folks?

8 MEMBER GRAY: I have another question.


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.


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.










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.











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.


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









1 business purposes.

2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved.

3 Is there a 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.


16 That's still --

17 MEMBER GRAY: Well, he's not going to

18 use it in the selling of.


20 Go ahead.

21 MEMBER GRAY: It's not going to be

22 open for retail.

23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: There you go.












3 MR. GILLIAM: If it works for Member

4 Bauer, it works for me.

5 MEMBER GRAY: All right.


7 No further discussion, Denise, would

8 you please call the roll?



11 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


13 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


15 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


17 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


19 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


21 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

22 zero.

23 MR. TEUBERT: Thank you very much.










1 You're variance has been granted.

2 Please see the Building Department.

3 MR. TEUBERT: Okay.

4 Thank you.



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.


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.


24 MR. SHALOT: Madam Chairperson, Members









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.









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









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









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









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.


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









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?


23 Is there anyone here in the audience

24 that wishes to make comment in regards to this case?









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.


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









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.









1 Are there any other businesses in that

2 building, besides Fidelity?

3 MR. SHALOT: I don't believe so.


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









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.


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.


18 MR. SHALOT: Do --


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.










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?


8 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


10 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


12 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


14 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


16 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gray?


18 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

19 zero.


21 Yes?

22 MR. SHALOT: It's too late.

23 Thank you for your time.










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.


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.









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.










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









1 easement, which is shown on the plan.


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.


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.









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.


23 Member Fischer?

24 MEMBER FISCHER: I agree with what









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?


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.


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?










2 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


4 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


6 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?




10 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


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.


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.









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?


10 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.

11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You can proceed.


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









1 would give us a wider room for each door.


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.


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.










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.


22 It's been moved and seconded.

23 Any further discussion in regards to

24 the Motion?









1 Seeing none, Denise, would you please

2 call the roll.

3 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


5 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


7 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


9 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


11 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gray?


13 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


15 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

16 zero.


18 MR. CERRETANI: Thank you very much.

19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Your variance has

20 been granted.

21 MR. CERRETANI: Thank you.



24 Case number 04-059, filed by James









1 Fern -- filed by Mr. James Fern.

2 MR. FERN: Jason.


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?


13 MEMBER GRAY: See you later.


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.










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









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.


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









1 setback. One being the aggregate total of both

2 sides.


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









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.


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









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?


21 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


23 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?










1 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


3 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


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.


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.)


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









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.


21 And are you both going to be

22 testifying at this time, or just --

23 MR. MURAWSKI: Just myself tonight.










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?


6 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

7 MR. MURAWSKI: Thank you.


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









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,









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?


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









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









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









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.









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









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.


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.


22 So these doors face residential, too.

23 MR. SAVEN: These doors actually face

24 the continuation of property which is adjacent to









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.









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.


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









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.


22 MR. MURAWSKI: We worked that out with

23 the neighbors there.










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.









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









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.


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.










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.









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.









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?


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









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?


20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: All -- any opposed?

























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









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.


5 Thank you.


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









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?




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 --









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.


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









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.


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.









1 I'd be happy to make a Motion, if

2 that's the Board's pleasure.


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.


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?


17 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


19 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


21 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


23 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?










1 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


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.


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?


24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Let's call case









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.


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.









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









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









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









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









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.


13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Canup?

14 MEMBER CANUP: Can we get on with

15 this?


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?









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









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.


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









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.


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.









1 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.


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









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.


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?










2 MEMBER CANUP: That we grant the

3 variance as requested due to comments of -- from the

4 Board.


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?


13 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


15 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


17 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


19 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gray?


21 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


23 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

24 zero.









1 MR. BODRIE: Thank you.

2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You're all set.

3 Please see the Building Department.


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.


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









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









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.









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









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.


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"









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?









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.










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.



9 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


11 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


13 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


15 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


17 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


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.









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.


12 And are you an attorney?

13 MR. KELLY: I am an attorney, yes.


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.


23 MR. KELLY: Obviously, this has to do

24 with the road construction project at Grand River and









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.


21 Anything else?

22 MR. KELLY: No.

23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is there anyone in

24 the audience that wishes to make comment in the









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.









1 MR. KELLY: Yeah.


3 I agree with Member Gray.


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?


19 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


21 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


23 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?












3 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


5 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

6 zero.

7 MR. KELLY: Thank you.


9 Your variance has been granted.

10 Thank you very much.

11 MR. GILLIAM: Madam Chair?


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









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?










2 It's going to be in the Minutes, yeah.

3 MR. KELLY: Okay.

4 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









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









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.


24 MEMBER BRENNAN: Case 04-060, I'd move









1 that we reaffirm our positive Motion to this

2 Petitioner.


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.


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?


20 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


22 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


24 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?










2 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?




6 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

7 zero.


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









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.









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.


9 Justin, thank you.

10 Any further discussion?

11 Seeing none, all in favor of Member

12 Canup as vice chair, say aye?


14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: All -- any opposed?

15 Okay, none.

16 Congratulations, Member Canup.

17 MEMBER GRAY: Can I mention one thing?


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.









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.


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.


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 - - - - - -















1 C__E__R__T__I__F__I__C__A__T__E_


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.



14 ________________________________________

15 Machelle R. Billingslea-Moore, Reporter.


17 __________

18 Date