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, August 10, 2004

Cynthia Gronachan, chairman
Justin Fischer
Frank Brennan
Gerald Bauer
Brent Canup
Siddharth Sanghvi
David Ruyle

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

Machelle Billingslea-Moore, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 Novi, Michigan

2 Tuesday, August 10, 2004

3 At 7:30 p.m.

4 - - - - - -

5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. It's 7:30

6 and I would like to call the August 10th, 2004 Zoning

7 Board of Appeals meeting to order.

8 Denise, would you please call the roll

9 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?

10 MEMBER BAUER: Present.

11 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


13 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


15 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


17 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


19 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


21 DENISE ANDERSON: And Member Ruyle.


23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: The Zoning Board of

24 Appeals is a hearing board, empowered by the Novi City









1 Charter to hear appeals seeking variances from the

2 applications of the Novi Zoning Ordinances.

3 It takes a vote of at least four

4 members to approve a variance request; and a vote of

5 the majority of the members present to deny a

6 variance. This evening, we have a full board.

7 Since five members are present tonight; and at least

8 four votes are required, those Petitioners -- I'm

9 sorry.

10 We have a full board this evening, so

11 any decision made this evening will be final.

12 At this time, were there any changes

13 to the agenda, Denise?

14 DENISE ANDERSON: Yes, there are four

15 changes.

16 First on the agenda is case number,

17 04-056, filed by Carrie Lynch for Allied Signs for

18 McDonald's Restaurant. They have requested that

19 their case be tabled to the September 7th ZBA

20 meeting.

21 And 11th on the agenda, case number

22 04-073, filed by John and Linda Anderson, had

23 requested today that their case be tabled to the

24 September 7th meeting; which was approved by Mr.









1 Saven.

2 And case number, 04-077, which is 13

3 on the agenda, filed by Karen Cameron for a residence

4 at 44908 Huntingcross, to be presented by the first

5 item tonight on the agenda.

6 And under other matters, please add

7 the discussion in case 04-084, which will be heard

8 next month. It was filed by James Tesen for Standard

9 Federal Bank. He would like to make an exception to

10 the mock-up sign requirement.

11 And that's it.

12 MR. SAVEN: Madam Chair?

13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes, Mr. Saven?

14 MR. SAVEN: Excuse me one second.


16 MR. SAVEN: In regards to case number,

17 04-073, filed by Mr. and Mrs. Anderson, this case was

18 before you once before, and the Board requested that

19 they seek a lessor variance in regards to the

20 project; in which they have.

21 But in doing so, we have found that

22 there were several other issues that need to be

23 addressed, besides just what they had petitioned for.

24 And based upon that information, they did not have









1 enough time to prepare themselves for tonight. And

2 based upon my findings, when I went out for a site

3 visit, there are additional items that they need to

4 come before the Board on.

5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Saven, do we

6 need to vote on the tabling of these two cases at

7 this time, or just --

8 MR. SAVEN: Being a matter of

9 formality, yes, but the information was insufficient

10 to bring before the Board, which I wanted to make

11 sure that the Board had all of the necessary in this

12 particular case.

13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I can tie those two

14 cases together to table those?

15 Okay. I just want to mention to the

16 Board Members, in regards to case 04-077, it was my

17 request to move that case first. It was a minimal

18 request, and I really couldn't see the resident

19 sitting through the large case load that we have this

20 evening; per the information that they're requesting

21 from this Board this evening.

22 So I took that liberty to hopefully be

23 able to send that resident home early.

24 All those in favor of tabling the









1 McDonald's case and the Anderson case, both

2 previously

3 stated, say aye.


5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: All opposed?

6 Okay.

7 At this time, I would like to take the

8 liberty to welcome our newest member to the Board,

9 and that is David Ruyle, who was appointed by

10 Council; and to welcome Mr. Fischer as a permanent

11 member, who's no longer an alternate; once since the

12 departure of our vice chair, Sarah Gray, last month.

13 So I'd like to congratulate

14 Mr. Fischer and then welcome Mr. Ruyle.

15 MEMBER RUYLE: Thank you.

16 MR. FISCHER: Thank you very much.

17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: At this time, if

18 there's anyone in the audience that wishes to make

19 remarks to the Board in regards to a case that is not

20 on the agenda this evening, you have the opportunity

21 to do so now.

22 Is there anyone in the audience that

23 wishes to speak to the Board in regards to a subject

24 matter that is not on the agenda?









1 Seeing none, we will go ahead and call

2 our first case.

3 04-077, filed by Karen Cameron for

4 44908 Huntingcross Drive.

5 I have to move back one second.

6 We've been skipping through here, so I

7 forgot to go through all of this.

8 Let's go back to the agenda.

9 All those in favor of the changes in

10 the agenda, say yea or nay.



13 And the Minutes for July, 2004, that

14 are in our packet, are there any changes?

15 No, no changes?

16 All those in favor of the Minutes of

17 the July 6th meeting, say aye?


19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: All opposed?

20 Seeing none.

21 All right.

22 Now, we can call the case.

23 MEMBER BRENNAN: Public remarks?

24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes, we did public









1 remarks.

2 Karen Cameron isn't here?

3 MR. CAMERON: I'm Bob Cameron. I

4 guess I can say, I'm her better half. She's my

5 better half.


7 Would you please raise your right hand

8 to be sworn in by our secretary.

9 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

10 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case 04-077?

11 MR. CAMERON: Yes, I do.

12 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

13 Go ahead.

14 MR. CAMERON: Okay.

15 Good evening. Thank you for taking

16 the time to hear my variance request. I'm Bob

17 Cameron, homeowner at 44908 Huntingcross in Dunbarton

18 Pines. I've been a homeowner since 1998.

19 And if I could turn this on, you'll

20 see on the screen that I have a deck -- do I just

21 press one of the buttons or -- okay.

22 Thank you.

23 It's hard to see from that photo, but

24 this, this is my house and this is the front. The









1 deck goes out the back; that's facing north, and I

2 have neighbors on either side and across the back.

3 And I am requesting a three foot

4 variance to match the existing deck. I purchased the

5 house in 1988. It was built in 1987, and the deck,

6 which extends from the house 14 feet, was the

7 existing deck. I'd like to put a screened-in porch

8 over that deck. And really my hardship is basic. I

9 want to keep the landscaping. I also want to keep

10 the mosquitos out when we're on the deck.

11 And with the sun coming around that

12 side, it can get pretty harsh on the deck, itself;

13 that's why I think I always have to maintain it. And

14 put a screened-in porch that I'm planning to have

15 made by Hoye Construction. I think it will improve

16 the look of the neighborhood and the subdivision.

17 I've taken it to the subdivision and

18 gotten their approval. I've also talked to all of

19 the neighbors on the side of the house that can see

20 the deck, and haven't had any problems. People have

21 even sent in letters of any concerns.

22 Do you have any questions?


24 Thank you.









1 Is there anyone in the audience this

2 evening, that wishes to make comment in regards to

3 this case?

4 Seeing none, there were 38 notices

5 sent; ten approvals, including the letter from the

6 Dunbarton Pines homeowners association approving this

7 request.

8 Building Department?

9 MR. SAVEN: I'd just like to point out

10 open and unenclosed decks are allowed to project out

11 18 foot in the required rear yard setback. I'd like

12 to also point out that it's not located within 12

13 feet of the edge of the property.


15 Board Members?

16 Member Sanghvi?

17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, Madam

18 Chair.

19 I see it as a very straight forward

20 situation, and I personally have no objection to

21 giving this variance as requested by the applicant.

22 And if anybody has any opinion

23 contrary to what I have just stated, but as we can

24 get this further called, I would like to make a









1 Motion, we grant the variance as requested.


3 Member Brennan, do you have anything?

4 MEMBER BRENNAN: No. I was just going

5 to say, quoting Laverne Rinke, similar conditions

6 give us similar results. And we've historically

7 granted variances on conditions like this.

8 So, Matt, if you're ready to go, go.

9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Dr. Sanghvi, would

10 you like to go ahead with your Motion?


12 MEMBER CANUP: I'll second his Motion.


14 It's been moved and 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 Sanghvi?


21 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


23 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?










1 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


3 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?



6 Gronachan?


8 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

9 zero.

10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Your variance has

11 been granted.

12 Please see the Building Department.

13 MR. CAMERON: Thank you very much.

14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Good luck to you.


16 Okay. We'd now like to call our next

17 case, case number, 04-057, filed by Chris Cagle for

18 Glenda's Market at 40575 Grand River Avenue.

19 This case was being tabled from last

20 month.

21 Good evening.

22 MR. HARRINGTON: Good evening, Board

23 Members.

24 James Harrington, attorney for









1 Mr. Cagle and Glenda's Market, 2411 Novi Road, Novi,

2 Michigan.

3 As the Board Members who were here

4 recall, Mr. Ruyle and Dr. Sanghvi will not, but this

5 case was tabled because there apparently had been no

6 meaningful communication between Glenda's and

7 Panoramic regarding their outdoor storage issues; and

8 the adjacent affected subdivision owners at

9 Willowbrook.

10 At my suggestion and direction, a

11 meeting was scheduled and invitations to the meeting

12 at Glenda's were hand delivered by Mr. Cagle and

13 Mrs. Cagle to all 14 persons who expressed an opinion

14 on the issue. Four members of the homeowners

15 association attended that meeting; and communicated

16 certain concerns they had about the outdoor storage

17 and how it impacted them.

18 And mostly they expressed impatience

19 with the fact nothing had been done about it. I

20 think Mr. Cagle will address some of those issues,

21 because to a certain extent, he feels his hands were

22 tied. Until the City says he can move things around

23 out there, it's kind of dicey to go out there and

24 make changes in anticipation of an approval.









1 From that point forward to the present

2 time, a tick list and a punchlist of problems that

3 the homeowners faced with the outdoor storage and

4 related issues, like the berm, the mulch bin, water

5 in the area out there in the backyard were

6 discussed; were reduced to writing. And it's my

7 understanding that an approval of those items on the

8 punch list; an approval of 18 members -- more than

9 those who had objected before -- has been telefaxed

10 over to the City today.

11 The bulk of those requested change and

12 improvements have, in fact, by implement -- have been

13 implemented by tonight's meeting; and this is not to

14 suggest to the Board that this in any way ties the

15 Board's hands, but I think it demonstrates

16 extraordinary communication and cooperation. And

17 the Board may wish to consider, if a variance is

18 approved to continue the outdoor storage,

19 conditioning that upon an inspection by Mr. Amolsh to

20 make sure that any conditions the City has observed

21 have been fixed or will be fixed.

22 But I think that great good faith and

23 cooperation have been shown by Mr. Cagle and

24 Glenda's, in meeting with and communicating with;









1 reducing to writing; and addressing each and everyone

2 of the concerns they had.

3 And if I may, Mr. Cagle, could you

4 explain some of the changes and improvements that

5 have been made on site.

6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Cagle, would

7 you please raise your right hand and be sworn in by

8 our secretary.

9 MR. CAGLE: Yes, ma'am.

10 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

11 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-057?

12 MR. CAGLE: I do.

13 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

14 MR. CAGLE: Evening.

15 Yes, when this was brought in front of

16 me a couple months ago, there were some issues. We

17 were given citations several months ago about the use

18 of -- expanding of a non-conforming use or a variance

19 we needed.

20 When we addressed that concern, there

21 were some concerns from our fellow neighbors behind

22 in the new subdivision, and we've got that list. We

23 have been in communication with them. We have made

24 the attempts. We put approximately 60 evergreens









1 alongside, you know, behind their property, so that

2 they have a nice evergreen appearance now. We have

3 relocated the mulch bins.

4 And how the lay of the land is, it's

5 been that way for 20 years. There was a little

6 pocket of, oh, I'd say, 40 by ten area where we've

7 arranged to have them removed. We've removed that.

8 We've regraded that. I think we've addressed every

9 issue with our neighbors.

10 Our hardship is we've been doing this.

11 This is a big part of our business for over 20 years.

12 I'm hoping we get the blessing of this Board tonight.

13 If there's any questions that I can

14 answer -- I know there's a couple gentlemen from

15 Joseph from the Willowbrook subdivision here tonight

16 on behalf, also, I think for their association.

17 If there's anything I can answer,

18 any questions, I'd like to answer.


20 Is there anyone in the audience this

21 evening that wishes to make comment in regards to

22 this case?

23 Sir, please come down.

24 MR. BIANO(ph): Hello.









1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Good evening.

2 MR. BIANO: I'm Steve Biano. I'm a

3 homeowner in the Willowbrook subdivision.

4 Mr. Harrington's summary was right on

5 target. I think that pretty much summarizes what

6 happened in the last month, since the previous Board

7 meeting.

8 And the only thing I would like to

9 add,is I would like this Board to have continuing

10 jurisdiction over the agreement that the homeowners

11 made with Glenda's. And the reason for that is not

12 all of the items are completed, and there was some

13 concern by the homeowners that after the approval

14 would be given, that some of the items would be left

15 undone. So we just wanted to add that in the

16 agreement.


18 Thank you.

19 Is there anyone else in the audience

20 this evening that wishes to speak in regards to this

21 case?

22 Seeing none, there were 52 notices

23 mailed and 18 signatures on a conditional approval

24 and four objections.









1 Building Department?

2 MR. SAVEN: I have a couple of

3 questions.

4 I'd like to ask Chris, if you don't

5 mind.

6 Chris, you mentioned the fact that you

7 were going to move the mulch bins. Where are you

8 going to move the mulch bins to?

9 MR. CAGLE: Well, on the -- I'm moving

10 them off the Weiss property onto our current, you

11 know, property and address, because we're, you know

12 -- if there's any issues, it's on our property. I

13 don't have an issue with, you know, it being on the

14 Weiss property.

15 MR. SAVEN: I did receive a call from

16 one of your neighbors which indicated that the child

17 was allergic to mulch or whatever, was having a rough

18 time with that. And you've indicated that you're

19 moving the mulch bins. Is there any particular

20 consideration the Board should look at something like

21 this, where would you move that to to get it as far

22 away as --

23 MR. CAGLE: Right. I'm trying to move

24 it to the northern part of the property, which is









1 still going to be, you know, out of the way and, you

2 know, where the kids won't be in it, and it won't be

3 -- the cedar aroma to the neighbors to the south of

4 us.

5 MR. SAVEN: Item number two.

6 Your plan -- your initial plan calls

7 for a berm that really wrapped around the rear of the

8 property, and also proceeded north and south along

9 the western property line.

10 I don't believe you had a berm there

11 to begin with. Your plan did show this earlier on

12 in the development stage. Are you planning on

13 building a berm at that location?

14 MR. CAGLE: Well, the berm on the

15 south part of the property to the corner property is

16 in the berm coming towards the north, toward the --

17 showing our plan was it -- the one berm that was not

18 in was on the northern northwest part of the

19 property; and that has been put in since.

20 MR. SAVEN: The other comment I want

21 to make, I did receive some concern about the parking

22 along the front in the road, right-of-way, of your

23 vehicles in that particular area. There's a

24 visibility concern.









1 What are you planning on doing to take

2 care of that issue?

3 MR. CAGLE: Well, what we're doing,

4 we're reorganizing the whole nursery, and we're going

5 to have, you know, parking, you know, you know, off

6 the road, behind the trees, but not back there by the

7 neighbors. So it's going to be approximately 50 to

8 75 feet, okay, off the road, okay, with evergreens

9 across the front.

10 And also for, you know, for esthetics,

11 for privacy for -- and also for our safety, too.

12 MR. SAVEN: Once again, just to point

13 out to the Board, it's an expansion of a

14 non-conforming use.


16 Board Members?

17 Member Brennan?

18 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, I'll ask the

19 obvious question. You've had a lot of struggle with

20 the City and being in front of the ZBA a zillion

21 times, why would you have this expansion, knowing

22 that you're going to get caught and you're going to

23 have to go through all of this?

24 MR. CAGLE: Well, actually, the









1 expansion, we've used the property for over 20 years.

2 We now have trees on it, where in the past we had

3 produce on it.

4 MR. SAVEN: You had what, I'm sorry.

5 MR. CAGLE: Produce.

6 You know, corn, plums, tomatoes, you

7 know, and we've actually downsized, okay, from what

8 we used to have.

9 When we first originally bought the

10 property, we were using about ten acres; and then we

11 bought almost three acres to the east, the Joseph

12 property, which gave us 13; plus, we've leased over

13 60 acres from Dan Weiss at the time.

14 The parcel that we're over on, is the

15 parcel that we've been leasing from Dan Weiss since

16 '82. So I mean, the trees are located -- we've

17 downsized our land and now the trees are lucidas

18 trees in the plot, versus evergreens, it's more

19 visible and it looks, you know, as far as we've

20 expanded.

21 We've had the trees there in the same

22 location for five, six years. Now, maybe we moved

23 something that was, you know, the trucks were parked,

24 and now the trucks are parked here and there's trees









1 over there, but whether there was a truck parked

2 there or a tree there for a period of time and moved,

3 we're not -- we didn't try to pull the wool over

4 nobody's eyes. Like I said, we've been doing this

5 for 20 years.

6 It is nursery stock. We have, you

7 know, leased the property from Dan Weiss since we

8 started there. And I understand we weren't using

9 nursery stock on the whole area, but we haven't gone

10 over to the neighbor to the west of us and used to;

11 we haven't gone to the south and encroached on

12 Joseph, which at one time, part of that was our

13 property. We sold off to Singh Development.

14 You know, we've tried to put trees up

15 there. We've tried to make, you know, the best of it

16 that we can and make a living. Times have changed.

17 MEMBER BRENNAN: You've answered my

18 question.

19 Madam Chair, my biggest concern was

20 with the neighbors, and as they have come to a

21 written agreement, which we've just got tonight, my

22 own personal view is I'd like to see this business

23 continue. They've been there for awhile. I think

24 they're a good service for the community on the









1 eastside of town.

2 And if the Board was so willing, I

3 would be supportive of the variance request, based on

4 the agreement with Willowbrook, and knowing that we

5 have continuing jurisdiction.


7 Member Canup?

8 MEMBER CANUP: This particular piece

9 of property has not been a benefit to the City of

10 Novi. Quite truthfully, if you drive by the place,

11 it looks like a nightmare out front with parked

12 trucks in the right-of-way. They've got trees stored

13 in the right-of-way.

14 You have -- in my opinion, you have no

15 respect for the Ordinances or the Ordinance

16 enforcement officers who have approached you about

17 cleaning this mess up; and therefore, I have no

18 sympathy in this case for this applicant.

19 And I can see no reason why we should

20 continue to promote a piece of property that is an

21 eyesore -- probably one of the worst eyesores in the

22 city.

23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Sanghvi?

24 MEMBER SANGHVI: I guess the question









1 is to the attorney.

2 How can you tie in this private

3 agreement into a ZBA Motion?

4 MR. GILLIAM: With any variance that

5 the Zoning Board grants, you do have the authority to

6 tie conditions related to public health, safety and

7 welfare to the variance, itself. So if you take --

8 you wanted to go forward and approve the variance

9 tonight with conditions, you could include conditions

10 that are the terms laid out in the agreement the

11 applicant has reached with the adjacent homeowners.

12 One comment I would make is the term

13 continuing jurisdiction. I think we've all heard

14 that term before. In the context of the Zoning

15 Board, that is not a term of art; it is not a legal

16 term, as such.

17 My suggestion would be, if you're

18 interested in maintaining some kind of a hold or

19 control over what's going on at the site, there's

20 concerns about the applicant following through and

21 making all of the improvements that have been the

22 subject of this agreement, what you may want to

23 consider doing is making this a temporary variance;

24 maybe for a period of a year or something like that,









1 to make sure that all of the conditions are met; and

2 the other matter come back to make sure all of the

3 conditions have been complied with.

4 And you could make a determination at

5 that point in time as to whether or not it would be

6 appropriate to make the variance more permanent in

7 nature. If you're going to do that, I would suggest

8 you provide the applicant and his attorney some

9 guidance tonight, as to specifically what kind of

10 issues you'd be looking for when the matter comes

11 back to the Zoning Board; and whether it's a question

12 of the additional trees or the maintenance of the

13 berm or whatever; so everyone has an idea what to

14 expect when the matter does come back.

15 Just one other general comment I would

16 make is this is a use variance request tonight. So

17 in terms of reviewing the request, you're not

18 applying the practical difficulty standard that you

19 normally do when applying the undue or unnecessary

20 hardship standard, which is a little bit tougher.

21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Bauer?

22 MEMBER BAUER: Another question.

23 You have these trucks and they are

24 continually out in front and not where they should









1 be.

2 Does the ZBA or does the police

3 department have jurisdiction on that?

4 MR. GILLIAM: I think on a day-to-day

5 basis, the jurisdiction over there is going to be the

6 authority of the police department; if there's

7 vehicles being parked in the right-of-way. Again, if

8 you saw fit to make that a condition of the variance,

9 you can do that. But I think any enforcement is

10 going to have to be done hand-in-hand.

11 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I have a question

13 for Mr. Cagle.

14 Upon reviewing this case, one of my

15 major concerns -- I concur with Member Canup, as a

16 ZBA Member -- is the front, the condition that Grand

17 River is kept in when the trucks are there and you're

18 unloading the trees and the amount of dirt that's on

19 the road. What's going to change about that?

20 MR. CAGLE: Well, several months ago,

21 actually spring, I wanted to redo the front, put a

22 fence up and, you know, and dress it. I was told,

23 you know, I better not do that until I, you know, get

24 a variance, you know, because it's leased property.









1 And I think I was talking to Alan about this. He

2 said, you know, you're better off to hold off and get

3 a variance, then you can address, you know, putting a

4 fence across it.

5 As far as the trucks, like I said,

6 we're relocating, putting a parking area. I mean, we

7 want to comply. I mean, I've got a multi-million

8 dollar right next door. I've put money into it and

9 built. I won a beautification award. So, I mean, my

10 intents are honest and sincere. We just need, you

11 know, to go ahead and move forward.

12 I mean, we've made some mistakes in

13 the past. I'm here to say, yes, we have. But are we

14 here to also correct those, yes, we are.

15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: So you're saying

16 that there won't be any more debris or dirt or any of

17 that on Grand River; that there won't -- there will

18 not be any more trucks or loading of trees or

19 landscaping in that area.

20 You know what area I'm talking about,

21 as you're coming in Grand River?

22 MR. CAGLE: Yeah, you're talking just

23 to the west part of the --











2 MR. CAGLE: -- of the property.

3 Okay. As far as unloading, we're

4 going to have trucks back down in, okay. We tried

5 to. It was excessive this spring, and I agree. You

6 know, but it appears -- you know, if there's been a

7 violation or someone from the City made a comment to

8 us, we've addressed it.

9 Right now, we put a berm up. I didn't

10 have a berm there. Alan said we needed a berm. The

11 berm's up there. It's above and beyond the size of

12 the trees. Everything we did over there, as far as,

13 you know, the size of the ternal(ph) and the trees,

14 the landscaping, was way above and beyond my

15 specifications.

16 So, you know, if you're kind enough as

17 a Board to grant the variance, then, you know, we can

18 make -- continue, you know, that Grand River's, you

19 know, Avenue, is clean and is kept neat and get a

20 fence put up there. I'm not talking a private fence.

21 Just a vinyl fence, okay, and it looks pretty going

22 down Grand River.

23 I have no problem with that. I wanted

24 to do that.









1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer?

2 MEMBER FISCHER: I am very happy to see

3 that you've worked with your neighbors, and in that

4 way, I support you.

5 However, I echo the comments that the

6 Chairperson and Frank down there made -- I'm sorry,

7 that Brent made; and that is the Grand River side of

8 things. The question she asked, and I want to ask

9 you a follow-up.

10 Do you have any intention of having

11 gravel on your own property or paving that property

12 so the dirt from the tires -- I pulled in, and my car

13 was a mess after that. Do you have any intention of

14 asphalt or gravel or anything that would keep the

15 dirt on your property as opposed to the city's

16 property?

17 MR. CAGLE: Well, there's actually a

18 berm almost, you know, all the way across there, and

19 it's off the curb. If we have a tent on our

20 property, in the near future, yes, yes, we do.

21 MEMBER FISCHER: I'm talking about a

22 rainy day, the trucks are pulling in and out of

23 there, gets dirt on the tires and it gets on Grand

24 River. That's what I'm saying.









1 MR. CAGLE: We have gravel. We gravel

2 them twice -- you know, three times a year to keep

3 that. I can show you receipts of probably $40,000 of

4 gravel in the last three years. So we try to keep

5 the gravel in, you know, for several reasons. Not

6 just for the trucks, but for, you know, customers

7 walking and trying to look at

8 trees.

9 MR. FISCHER: That's where my main

10 concern still lies within this case and this

11 applicant.


13 Member Canup?

14 MEMBER CANUP: I would suggest in this

15 case that we give Mr. Cagle the opportunity to clean

16 up his act down there, which he hasn't done over the

17 years. It's not that this just happened last year.

18 Mr. Amolsh, how long has this been a

19 problem for the enforcement people?

20 MR. AMOLSH: Well, this came to our

21 attention recently because we had a complaint about

22 parking in the right-of-way and trees actually being

23 in the right-of-way. It's been about a year now

24 we've been involved with it.









1 MEMBER CANUP: Has it improved at all

2 since you first --

3 MR. AMOLSH: Well, they've moved the

4 trees back a little bit. The front right-of way is

5 still -- going back, the problem with this whole

6 issue is that the site plan. If he would have come

7 with a site plan, all of these issues would have been

8 taken care of at the time they submitted them to the

9 city.

10 The problem is they moved this stuff

11 onto the property, and now we've got a problem like

12 no berm.

13 MEMBER CANUP: Maybe we need an entire

14 site plan for this whole piece of property, showing

15 the parking area; showing the improvements that are

16 being made; and that would be a suggestion that I

17 would have; to ask the owner to come back or the

18 lessee of the property to come back with a site plan;

19 showing exactly what they intend to do to straighten

20 up that mess there.

21 I'm not in favor of granting a

22 variance when we've got a mess like we've got and it

23 hasn't gotten any better. I think I've noticed that

24 for the past five years that that place is a mess.









1 And it is, it's one of the worse eyesores in the

2 city.

3 And I think we have an opportunity to

4 help Mr. Cagle here clean this up, and I think if the

5 Board saw fit to ask him to come back with a site

6 plan, showing exactly what he intends to do with the

7 plan of that property and with the property adjacent.

8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Any other comments?

9 Mr. Gilliam?

10 MR. GILLIAM: Madam Chair?

11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Where are we within

12 our jurisdiction to ask for a site plan at this

13 point, being that there is some litigation going on

14 with this particular case, as well? I mean, in order

15 to ask for a site plan, that would mean tabling this

16 case once again, would it not?

17 MR. GILLIAM: I believe so, yes.


19 Which would hold up the rest of this,

20 as well?

21 MR. GILLIAM: In terms of the District

22 Court action, yes, it would delay the case further.

23 MR. AMOLSH: I believe it's next week,

24 Dave.









1 MR. GILLIAM: I guess what I would

2 indicate is if the Zoning Board sees fit to grant

3 some kind of a variance -- and I would talk to Mr.

4 Vanarian(ph) and Mr. Harrington about this -- I think

5 if there is a variance granted here, I think

6 basically that would negate the need to go further

7 with the District Court action.

8 And I would defer to Mr. Vanarian as

9 to that. I think that's what the city is looking for

10 in this case, if there's a resolution that is in

11 sight. If the Zoning Board feels that it's

12 comfortable, what my comment would be not to let the

13 District Court action stand in the way of that.

14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. Thank you

15 for clarification.

16 Member Canup, can I ask you -- because

17 this is new for me. I'm inexperienced in asking the

18 Petitioner for a planning -- a plot --

19 MEMBER CANUP: A site plan.

20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: -- a site plan,

21 thank you, I'm sorry. I'm leery because we're

22 approaching fall now. So if we go into this, it's

23 going to look better, and I want to make sure Grand

24 River's cleaned up, so that's my major concern. And









1 you have three Board Members that are already saying

2 that Grand River, the parking in that would be

3 addressed immediately.

4 By next spring is when we're really

5 going to see if it works. Do you see where I'm

6 getting at?

7 MEMBER CANUP: I see what you're

8 getting at. This problem has been going on for quite

9 awhile, and there's no reason that it should be in

10 the shape that it's in. Mr. Cagle has had

11 opportunities to clean this mess up and hasn't done

12 it. And I think this is one opportunity for the City

13 or this Board to be able to help clean this up. And

14 if it takes another 30 days to do so, then so be it.


16 Thank you.

17 Member Sanghvi?

18 MEMBER SANGHVI: If I understood

19 correctly, this is primarily a request for usury.

20 And I think it is quite -- it stands to reason that

21 we would like to know how they are going to use it

22 and what are their plans about how they are going to

23 use the property.










1 MEMBER SANGHVI: You can call it a

2 plot, you can call it a site plan, you can call it

3 what you like, a drawing or anything. But it maybe a

4 good idea to know how they are going to reuse this on

5 a piece of paper, so we all know what we are talking

6 about; rather than showing pie-in-the-sky, oh, yeah,

7 we're doing this, we'll put that and we'll get rid of

8 this and other things.

9 So let's get little more specific

10 before approving anything.


12 MEMBER SANGHVI: That's my view, thank

13 you.


15 Member Brennan?

16 Well, I made some notes here, based on

17 what I heard from the City's Attorney; that

18 potentially we consider conditional approval; and

19 these notes include no trees in the right-of-way; no

20 vehicles in the right-of-way; the Willowbrook

21 agreement is part of it, understanding, there's a

22 fence along Grand River; there's a berm on the west

23 side; and we see in a year; hopefully not before then

24 because you've been brought in by the Building









1 Enforcement.

2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer?

3 MEMBER FISCHER: I'd be skeptical of

4 requesting a site plan, just due to the fact that I

5 want to see this cleaned up as soon as possible, as

6 opposed to sending them back and saying, draw

7 something on a piece of paper for us. I'd like to

8 see it a temporary approval so we can see it,

9 physically. And I would be -- I don't even know if

10 I'd give them a year, you know.

11 I mean, we've had mention of a year.

12 Fall is rainy enough for me to see if this place is

13 cleaned up, so.

14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Brennan?

15 MEMBER BRENNAN: How fast can you make

16 all of this happen?

17 MR. CAGLE: Before your next Board

18 meeting.

19 MEMBER FISCHER: And at that time, it

20 is required that a hundred percent of the homeowners'

21 requests will be taken care of, as well. So one,

22 two, three month max is what I would be willing to go

23 for.

24 How are you feeling about something









1 like that, given the concerns of the Board Members

2 that are still here.

3 MR. CAGLE: You know, I'm going to

4 appreciate anything you're going to do, because this

5 is a huge part of our business. You know, if I can

6 put up a fence and I can clean it up and you want to

7 make that a 30-day, a 60-day, a one year, you want to

8 review it in a year, that's fine. You know, I have

9 no problem with that.


11 Thank you.

12 I think that at this time, if I table,

13 we don't need to make a variance -- we don't have to

14 grant anything this evening, if we table this with a

15 request of a site plan before this Board by next

16 Board meeting. And then --

17 MEMBER CANUP: Yeah, if that's the

18 majority of the Board's feeling.

19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: If that's the

20 majority. That's what I'm trying to get a feel if

21 everybody's in favor of a site plan. And then it

22 would be my suggestion that we -- during that

23 30-days, start this cleaning up, because we're going

24 to be out there again looking at it anyway within









1 30-days.

2 MEMBER CANUP: One thing the site plan

3 does, it's a blueprint. And there is no

4 interpretation, I didn't understand this or I didn't

5 understand that. It's very clear this is what it's

6 going to be. And they show it on the site plan,

7 there's nothing more to discuss. It's done. It's

8 like a blueprint, a road map.

9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I think it would

10 give this Board more guidance, and a little more --

11 and a clearer picture as to -- $40,000 worth of

12 gravel, but yet we still have a road problem with the

13 dirt. So if we see it in front of us, then it's

14 going to tell us exactly what's going to be done and

15 then go on from there 30-days. And I don't think

16 that's going to hurt anybody at this point, in my

17 opinion.

18 MEMBER BAUER: I can go along with

19 that.

20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: So is there a

21 Motion out there?

22 Any further discussion?

23 Mr. Saven?

24 MR. SAVEN: Madam Chair and Members of









1 the Board, I just want to point out, it's not

2 uncommon in terms of temporary use permit, under my

3 authority, what I do locally within my department --

4 it's called Section 30 -- 3004 of the Zoning

5 Ordinance, that I do require a site plan or a plot

6 plan, basically indicating exactly what you're doing

7 now, so that there's no misconception as to what

8 needs to be done.

9 And everybody has a footprint of the

10 plan that they're working off of. And that is --

11 that is something consistent with the temporary use

12 permit.

13 Thank you.

14 MR. AMOLSH: I mean, the problem is

15 you want something cleaned up, but we don't know what

16 that means in the enforcement division. Under the

17 terms of the Zoning Ordinance, nothing should be out

18 there at all. As Mr. Cagle mentioned, that's true,

19 that property has been used for farming for many

20 years. I've been here for 25 years, and I've seen

21 it. It's been used for farming and there was

22 tractors and everything out there.

23 But what's been done there now is not

24 allowed. And so to allow it, we're going to have to









1 put limits on it, how much is allotted. To say

2 clean it up, we don't know what that means.


4 Mr. Harrington?

5 MR. HARRINGTON: Madam Chair, if I

6 may, so the lines of communication are clear, I'm

7 hearing what the Board is saying and I know Mr. Cagle

8 hears what the Board is saying. But in terms of

9 lines of communication, we would specifically request

10 that the liaison for the City be associated with the

11 site plan; so that we don't come back with a plan

12 which doesn't meet the concerns that the Board has.

13 And I know Mr. Cagle has met with

14 Mr. Amolsh in the past. And if he's going to be the

15 guy, I request that we review with Mr. Amolsh or

16 someone else, so we can get whatever additional

17 feedback there is from the Board, because there's

18 multiple issues being raised here tonight, like

19 trucks and dirt and all that stuff.

20 And Chris needs someone to talk to to

21 see if he's going in the right direction, to see if

22 he's doing the right thing.

23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I understand.

24 Okay.









1 Member Canup?

2 MEMBER CANUP: I would make a Motion

3 that we table this case, with the understanding that

4 the applicant will come back with a site plan that

5 has been put together with the aid and direction from

6 our City.

7 Don, is that something you would do?

8 MR. SAVEN: I would like to work in

9 conjunction with Alan --

10 MEMBER CANUP: Between the two of you.

11 Okay.

12 Then, Mr. Cagle, come up with a site

13 plan, a blueprint. That is my Motion.


15 Member Canup, would you accept a

16 friendly amendment to that Motion?

17 MEMBER CANUP: Depends on how friendly

18 it is.


20 To specifically address Member

21 Brennan's statement, in regards to the no trees, no

22 trucks, no nothing in the right-of-way; and that will

23 give him specific enough to get him going, since

24 that's part of the record.









1 MEMBER CANUP: I would accept that

2 amendment.


4 MR. SAVEN: In addition to the

5 Willowbrook agreement.

6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: In addition to the

7 -- yes, I'm sorry.

8 Couldn't read my own handwriting.

9 Thank you.

10 Mr. Saven?

11 MR. SAVEN: Discussion also around the

12 issue of a fence in the front of the property. I'm a

13 little concerned about this issue. Number one, is

14 the type of fencing that may be used, would be one

15 concern. Placement of the fence and certainly, I

16 guess location, placement, location, that's a whole

17 'nother issue, if it's the Board's wish to look at

18 something like this.

19 MEMBER CANUP: Everything.

20 MR. SAVEN: Okay.

21 MEMBER BRENNAN: If I'm not mistaken,

22 there's a fence around another landscaping supply

23 company at the other end of Grand River.

24 MR. SAVEN: Okay.









1 MEMBER BAUER: Motion's been made.

2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. The Motion's

3 been made and seconded.

4 Is there any further discussion on the

5 Motion?

6 Seeing none, Denise, would you please

7 call the roll.

8 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


10 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


12 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


14 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


16 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


18 DENISE ANDERSON: And Member Sanghvi?


20 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

21 zero.

22 MR. CAGLE: Am I understanding that I

23 am to work with Mr. Saven regarding the fence or, you

24 know, just so I -- are we looking at a decorative









1 fence or are we looking at a chain fence. I'm

2 looking at a decorative fence, myself. I'm looking

3 for esthetics, but I just want to be clear on that.

4 MR. SAVEN: That will be part of your

5 plan.

6 MR. CAGLE: That's fine.

7 MR. SAVEN: You're going to submit it.

8 It's going to be part of your plan so the Board can

9 make that decision for that type of a fence.

10 MR. CAGLE: They're going to make a

11 decision at the next meeting or am I to do this now?

12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You're going to

13 come back in 30-days with your plan so we can make a

14 decision in 30-days.

15 MR. CAGLE: Okay. So I'm not to put

16 any fence up until this Board approves it.

17 MR. SAVEN: You're going to show the

18 fence on the property --

19 MR. CAGLE: That's fine.

20 MR. SAVEN: -- on the site plan, and

21 you're going to show essentially what that fence is

22 going to look like.

23 MR. CAGLE: Not a problem.

24 I'll bring samples.









1 Thank you.


3 MR. HARRINGTON: Thank you, Board

4 Members.



7 Okay. We'd like to call our next

8 case, 04-061 filed by Robert Murawski for Programmed

9 Products Corporation at 44311 Grand River Avenue.

10 This case was tabled from last month's

11 meeting.

12 Mr. Murawski is requesting two

13 variances for a building door, loading dock and a

14 truck well to be placed on the portion of the

15 building that faces the abutting residential

16 district; and located on the wall closest to the

17 boundary of the residential district for the property

18 at the above address.

19 The property is zoned I-1, and is

20 located south of Grand River Avenue and south of Novi

21 Road.

22 Good evening.

23 MR. MURAWSKI: Good evening.

24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And you are?









1 MR. MURAWSKI: Robert Murawski,

2 project manager for Programmed Products Corp, 44311

3 Grand River Avenue.

4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I would just note

5 at this time that you were sworn in last month, and

6 it will carry on to this evening's meeting.

7 MR. MURAWSKI: I understand.


9 MR. MURAWSKI: I am here tonight with

10 the owners of the property, and if there are any

11 questions regarding -- directed towards them, they're

12 more than happy to answer any questions the Board may

13 have.

14 We -- last meeting, the Board allowed

15 us to -- a chance to go and talk to the neighbors

16 surrounding the proper ty. And what we've done is,

17 I have actually sent the summary in since then. I

18 hope everyone had -- has a copy of that.

19 We -- my first concern was to

20 basically talk to the people that had written in

21 objections, and I did have a correction to that

22 summary. I did meet with Mrs. Wagner tonight, and

23 she has changed her original position. She's actually

24 supporting it; the actual proposal.









1 What that means right now, as I

2 understand it, we really don't have any objection;

3 and I just wanted to -- since the ZBA last July

4 hearing, we've met with Mrs. Clark at 44260 11 Mile

5 Road. She was under the impression that it was the

6 old door that was denied. And understanding the new

7 scope that we've outlined, she's supporting us.

8 We've met with -- I did talk with Mr.

9 Ulysse at 44240. I also clarified the project for

10 him. His sentiment was basically that he was

11 supporting his neighbors in -- did you have a

12 question, sir?

13 MEMBER BRENNAN: No, I was just going

14 through all of these --

15 MR. MURAWSKI: If it's not necessary,

16 I won't do it.

17 But I did want to point out the

18 clarification that Mrs. Wagner -- that she is now on

19 board with us. I also had a chance to meet with the

20 individuals on Clark Street, and I met with the

21 resident at 26062; explained the scope of our

22 project. They also had no objections.

23 The resident at 44179 Grand River,

24 explained the scope of the project. They also did









1 not have any objection; and also met with Patrick

2 Downey at 26030 Clark Street, and he also did not

3 have any objection.

4 And I also had the good fortune to

5 meet with president of the Clark Street Homeowners

6 Association. I believe he's here tonight, Mr. York.

7 And also had the opportunity to clarify the scope of

8 the project, and I think that was very useful for

9 them, as well.

10 Basically, you know, I really want to

11 thank the Board for the opportunity to meet with

12 these individuals. It was a misunderstanding. I

13 think as they read the notice of what we were asking

14 for, for the most part, most people thought we were

15 trying to reopen that original opening that was a

16 violation or a citation previously, a few years ago.

17 And I think everyone agrees that this

18 is actually going to be a positive thing for all the

19 neighbors, with the reduction of the noise and

20 everything that is attributed with the trash

21 compactor, as opposed to the open dumpster that we

22 were actually running before or operating before.

23 At this time, you know, basically what

24 we've been able to accomplish and met with all the









1 residents that abut the -- our property, and I did

2 want to make a note that we have completed the fence

3 project for the Prices. That has been installed as

4 of last week.


6 Thank you.

7 MR. MURAWSKI: Thank you.

8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is there anyone in

9 the audience that wishes to make comment in regards

10 to this case?

11 No?

12 There were no letters sent out, resent

13 out again, and I do believe that the Petitioner

14 cleaned up any of the objections that we had in our

15 packet, and the record was duly noted.

16 Building Department?

17 MR. SAVEN: I believe the Petitioner

18 has done exactly what the Board asked him to do.


20 Member Brennan?

21 MEMBER BRENNAN: Thank you.

22 Thanks for your work. I got a number

23 of calls. I'm the one that gave you all the hassle

24 last time. I did get a number of calls from









1 residents that were relieved that you spent the time

2 to explain exactly what you wanted to do.

3 There was one last question I had from

4 a resident on Clark Street that sits on the corner

5 right at Grand River.

6 Do you intend to remove any of the

7 trees that are on that eastly -- eastern border?

8 MR. MURAWSKI: I spoke with him

9 tonight, actually.



12 He's a fire fighter for the City;

13 great guy.

14 He had the same question.

15 We are not doing anything, we're not

16 changing anything on Clark Street.

17 MEMBER BRENNAN: Thank you.

18 MR. MURAWSKI: This is facing Lance

19 Street.

20 MEMBER BRENNAN: Thank you.

21 Madam Chair, I'm the one that gave

22 this guy a lot of hassle last month. If there's an

23 agreement with the Board, I'd make a Motion.

24 MEMBER FISCHER: I do have a question.









1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer?

2 MEMBER FISCHER: The abandoned

3 dumpster srea, are you going to put anything to

4 occupy that or --

5 MR. MURAWSKI: I believe we're going

6 to basically take that down.


8 MR. MURAWSKI: We're -- there's no use

9 for it anymore. We're going to leave the slab or the

10 pad that's there. Depending on what the Board wants

11 us to do. We are using --

12 MEMBER FISCHER: I'd just like to see

13 that taken out of the Motion, that fenced-in area.

14 MR. MURAWSKI: Just for the record, we

15 are using it -- we store our pallets in there. And

16 so -- it is being used. It is not a dumpster

17 location anymore, but we are using it to enclose or

18 to shroud unused pallets.

19 MEMBER FISCHER: Is it possible to

20 store those inside?

21 MR. MURAWSKI: It really -- anything's

22 possible, but certainly -- our plant is pretty full

23 right now.

24 MEMBER FISCHER: Well, that's up to









1 the Board Members, if they see dumpster pallets --

2 I'm sorry, not dumpster pallets, pallets being out

3 there --

4 MEMBER BRENNAN: I think we'd prefer

5 to have pallets behind a fence --

6 MR. SAVEN: I think they should be

7 stored within an enclosed area.

8 Thank you.

9 MEMBER BAUER: If it's not a fire

10 hazard.



13 MEMBER BRENNAN: Madam Chair, I'd make

14 a Motion on case 04-061, Motion of approval as

15 requested. Petitioner has relieved any of the

16 inference to adjoining neighbors; and it meets the

17 needs of his business.

18 MEMBER BAUER: Seconded.

19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

20 seconded.

21 Any further discussion on the Motion?

22 Seeing none, Denise, would you please

23 call the roll.

24 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?










2 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


4 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


6 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


8 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


10 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


12 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

13 zero.

14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Your Motion's been

15 granted.

16 MR. MURAWSKI: Thank you very much


18 I'd like to call our next case to

19 order, case number 04-064, filed by Ron Nuechterlein

20 of Superior Diversified Services Corp, for the Novi

21 Site at 26203 Novi Road.

22 Mr. Nuechterlein is requesting seven

23 variances for the construction of this new building

24 located at the Novi Site.









1 Is Mr. Nuechterlein here this evening?

2 MR. HYMAN: Yes.


4 Are you -- are both of you going to

5 speak this evening?

6 MR. HYMAN: Mr. Nuechterlein is here

7 to answer questions that you might have.

8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Why don't you both

9 be sworn in by our secretary, please.

10 MR. HYMAN: I'll introduce everyone

11 after they're sworn.


13 Raise your right hand, please.

14 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

15 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case 04-064?


17 MR. NORBURG(ph): I do.

18 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.


20 MR. HYMAN: Madam Chair, Members of

21 the Board, my name is Norman Hyman and I represent

22 the Petitioner. George Cares is the owner of the

23 property. Ron Nuechterlein is the superintendent of

24 the development. George Norburg is the engineer, and









1 I hope that between us, we may be able to answer any

2 questions you may have.

3 As you may have gathered, this is a

4 problem site. Mr. Cares has been working on this

5 piece of property with the City for three years.

6 It's gone through any number of changes over that

7 three-year period. The building has been reduced in

8 size. A number of changes have been made to the

9 building. Esthetics changes were made at the request

10 of the planning commission, including fenestration on

11 the northwall, because it was a blank wall before.

12 I'm sorry. Not true fenestration, but

13 an appearance of more than just a blank wall, to make

14 it look as if we had the essence of fenestration or

15 other relief in the back of the building.

16 The building as shown on the site plan

17 and the site plan, has now been approved by the

18 Planning Commission, after a number of changes made,

19 working with staff and working with the Planning

20 Commission. As a result of that, several variances

21 required of the City Council, on July 12th, we

22 appeared before the City Council, and the City

23 Council has approved the plan and granted all the

24 waivers that are within the City Council's









1 jurisdiction.

2 We are now here before you with what's

3 left. The property, as I've indicated, is a problem

4 piece. That's why it's taken so long to do this and

5 to get here before you.

6 The frontage is about -- only 58 feet.

7 To the north of the property is the Wendy's

8 Restaurant; and to the south is the abandoned House

9 of Blinds building. So we've got commercial on both

10 sides.

11 If you'll take a look at the site

12 plan, you will see that the building is small. It's

13 been downsized, as I've indicated, from the original

14 plan. It's only 27 feet wide. The frontage of the

15 property is only 58 feet, but when you get to the

16 frontage of the building, itself, you will see that

17 if you add the 27 feet, plus the two foot sidewalk

18 around the building, you've only got 24 feet left on

19 the site.

20 As a result of that, the fact that

21 you've got to put a building on this property and

22 you've got a very narrow piece to start with, you

23 don't have a lot to work with. I can tell you that

24 given the constraints, we are here before you, I









1 think, having done a fairly good job.

2 The landscaping is to the maximum

3 which could have been done with this piece of

4 property. The Ordinance, in terms of open space,

5 requires 3143 feet, and, in fact, Mr. Cares has

6 provided 3491 feet, which exceeds Ordinance

7 requirements for open space.

8 Each one of the variances requested,

9 relates to the same problem that I have just laid out

10 for you. As Mr. Gilliam has pointed out, these are

11 all dimensional variances, so we need to show -- not

12 hardship, but practical difficulties. But I can tell

13 you, I think we're showing hardship, as well.

14 Without these variances, the property can't feasibly

15 be developed at all.

16 We've got a building that's just about

17 as small as you can make it. You know what Mr. Cares

18 does. He's done that very attractive center on the

19 southside of Grand River, on the westside of Novi

20 Road. And that building -- that strip and its

21 esthetics have been praised by both the Planning

22 Commission and the Council.

23 We've done as much as we can. There

24 will be no adverse impact on adjoining properties,









1 and this certainly will not be out of character with

2 the adjoining commercial properties. As a matter of

3 fact, I might suggest that given what you have in

4 front of you, and given Mr. Cares' track-record, this

5 is going to be a better appearing development, than

6 what's either to the north or to the south of

7 Mr. Cares' property.

8 Mr. Cares had done his best dealing

9 with the property owners to the north and to the

10 south, to try and do a common-type development. The

11 owner of the House of Blinds has been approached

12 numerable times. Mr. Cares offered to do a joint

13 development with the House of Blinds owners, so that

14 there would be a joint access to both properties,

15 allowing for a much more comfortable and expansive

16 development.

17 Mr. Cares would have paid for the

18 entire development of that joint approach; including,

19 paving of the House of Blinds property. Mr. Cares

20 was turned down. Mr. Cares offered to buy the House

21 of Blinds property. The owner of the House of Blinds

22 property -- I'm sure you're familiar with that parcel

23 and its condition -- the owner of the House of Blinds

24 property, in his generosity offered to sell the









1 property for $800,000.

2 So we've gotten nowhere. We've done

3 our best. That was recognized by the City Council on

4 July the 12th, and we're asking for your help to get

5 this property finally developed.

6 If you have any questions, we'll do

7 our best to try and answer them.


9 Is there anyone in the audience that

10 wishes to make comment in regards to this case?

11 MR. ISRAEL: Yes, I will.

12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Come on down to the

13 podium and give us your name and address, please.

14 MR. ISRAEL: I am Randy Israel, one of

15 the partners and owner and operator of the Wendy's

16 Restaurant, at 26245, next door.


18 Thank you.

19 MR. ISRAEL: I -- first of all, I have

20 never talked to Mr. Cares, and I am the

21 representative from Wendy's. I've talked to his

22 daughter. There have been some articles and there

23 have been comments made about the Wendy's Restaurant

24 not cooperating, which is very untrue.









1 I've talked to Assistant Chief

2 Johnson, I've tried to talk to him, but did not get a

3 returned call, after I placed a call to him.

4 When I talked to Ms. Cares, and I --

5 and it also said in that article that I've talked to

6 the attorney; and I've never talked to the attorney.

7 So I do take offense at those statements being made.

8 What I had said to Ms. Cares was kind

9 of cold, but I said, I'd be glad to grant you an

10 access -- which is over the -- water over the dam now

11 -- for the fire trucks, bring your checkbook. And

12 the reason I said that is because when we purchased

13 the property from Hardees, and we were not granted a

14 left-turn lane, we had to go out and purchase

15 property on Fonda Drive.

16 We wanted to purchase a smaller home,

17 but we were not allowed to, because we had to abide

18 by the easements, the side setbacks, to a property

19 that's to our west, okay. And we had to abide by the

20 property that was to our east, the home.

21 So we wound up paying about $350,000

22 to get access to Fonda Drive. Now, I appreciate

23 their problem that they have. When have two 20 foot

24 setbacks, side setbacks, and you only have a 55 foot









1 property, I don't know of a business that can operate

2 on 15 feet. So I do understand the problem.

3 Here are the few issues that I do

4 have. There's about a four foot drop in topography

5 from my property on the northside to the southside of

6 his property and the 55 feet. My concern is if the

7 topography is not brought up to my grade, then I'm

8 going to have a lot of erosion problems; and most

9 likely, my asphalt is going to -- you're going to see

10 erosion and you're going to see a collapse in my

11 parking lot.

12 So -- and I have not seen the

13 drawings, and I did not get any letter of a July 12th

14 meeting, so I will take that up with the City and

15 make sure that the information is going to the proper

16 location.

17 However, my concern would be, there

18 needs to be a retaining wall put in over on that

19 side, to prevent that erosion from my property, or

20 the grade needs to be brought up to enough level

21 that's going to prevent erosion.

22 There is also a tremendous amount of

23 landscaping in the way of trees, and fully mature

24 trees, along that northern part of the property that









1 is bordered right up against the property line. If

2 the applicant wants to go within five feet, you're

3 going to see all of that tree material removed. And

4 I understand the dilemma. But if the parking is

5 allowed to go within five feet, we all know that

6 SUV's and trucks are going to overhang on that

7 parking by at least three feet.

8 So now you only have a two-foot parcel

9 there. And when this Hardees -- when this was

10 originally granted as a Hardees, on the -- what would

11 be my south property line, their north property line,

12 there is only about three to four feet left over

13 there. So my concern is we're going to have

14 potentially -- and again, I have not seen the site

15 plan -- but we're going to potentially have issues

16 with parking problems with cars right up against

17 that.

18 And my next question is if we don't

19 change the grade, or even if we do, where are they

20 going to be pushing the snow? Is the snow -- there

21 isn't a big enough belt line in order to push that

22 snow. My property of Mr. Lazel's, that is on the

23 northside, my property, we have that issue because

24 that building had to be put back in the corner so it









1 could meet the side setback off of Fonda Drive, and

2 it could meet the setback off of Novi Road.

3 So there is an issue of where they can

4 park.

5 The other thing I'm concerned about is

6 the esthetics of the lot. We have all kinds of

7 landscaping that we were required to put in around

8 our dumpster area and along our back and at our

9 drive-through lane that we had to put in. And right

10 now, Mr. Lazel's property, the blind store, that's on

11 the corner, my patrons look out over the back of a

12 building; look over a dumpster area and look over gas

13 meters.

14 And there's absolutely no landscaping

15 between the properties.

16 And my concern would be, there's going

17 to be no landscaping or all of the existing

18 landscaping is going to be taken out. So I would ask

19 that, first of all, that it be more than five feet on

20 my side. And again, the concern about the drop off

21 in topography, what it could do to my property.

22 And speaking of which, I would be more

23 than willing to grant an access, but pay for it,

24 because it cost me a lot of money to come in here to









1 Novi.

2 My other concerns, real quickly, about

3 the property is, I'm not allowed to have a left turn

4 or a turn to go to the north out of my property; and

5 I would ask that they also not have that, especially

6 with all the changes that have been made going from

7 two lanes into three lanes down there. If we do,

8 we're going to have just tremendous amounts of

9 problems.

10 Plus, with the narrowness of this

11 property, if they locate their curb cut closer to the

12 north line, and I have my cars coming out there to

13 make a right turn; we've got nothing but a traffic

14 concern. So again, I would hope that their curb cut

15 would be put as far to the south as possible, away

16 from our curb cut; because I -- I don't know the

17 particular Ordinance, but typically, you try and keep

18 at least 150 feet.

19 And I realize this used to be

20 residential and the problems that we face here, but I

21 would ask that the Board make sure that there is

22 plenty of room to that one side. So I feel for the

23 applicant because, what can you do? I wouldn't want

24 to pay $800,000 either. I did pay more than that for









1 our property, with the adjoining property, but I got

2 a lot bigger property than the applicant did.

3 There was also a comment that he --

4 that they would be willing to pay for any damages, if

5 the fire trucks were to go over our curbing; and

6 that's fine, as long as they'd pay for the damage of

7 the curbing, too.

8 So I mean, I just want to double check

9 a couple things here. Setbacks. And on their

10 loading area, if they're going to have that same

11 setback, then that loading area is going to be

12 located again to the north on my property line. I

13 would like it to be as aesthetically pleasing as

14 possible, and have some type of fencing material or

15 landscaping material to try to prevent that; so my

16 patrons don't have to overlook on that area, just as

17 I had to screen my dumpster area and my loading zone

18 with trees and shrubbery.


20 Is there anyone else in the audience

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

22 Seeing none, there were 33 notices

23 mailed; no objections, no approvals.

24 Building Department?









1 MR. SAVEN: There were a lot of issues

2 that were present by the gentleman just recently up

3 at the podium here. Lot of those were part of

4 planning issues, and in the planning stages have been

5 addressed or in the process of being addressed.

6 What these gentlemen are here for are

7 the variances that are before you tonight. One of

8 the issues that I do want to bring up is the fact

9 that I believe they do have their engineer here. I'd

10 ask George to come up to the podium, if it's okay,

11 and to address that issue of the grade; because I

12 think that's important for this gentleman to know

13 that.

14 MR. NORBURG: I was never very good at

15 working this. Is there something I need to hit here,

16 Don?

17 There we go.

18 The -- in order to construct the

19 building, because of the location, how close it is to

20 this north property line, there's actually a wall, a

21 retaining wall that starts here; goes to the corner

22 of the building. And then the building is constructed

23 and will retain earth along this edge of this

24 building.









1 And then the retaining wall picks back

2 up and goes to here. This way we're able to maintain

3 the property line at its current elevation. We won't

4 be doing any removing of dirt or lowering that

5 property line in any way.

6 As you get closer to the rear portion,

7 it begins to match and we no longer need the

8 retaining wall.


10 There is -- in this area, the cars

11 will park -- there's a sidewalk, so there should be

12 no concern about overhang in this area for the

13 trucks. And then down here we have -- I think it's

14 three or four feet for overhang in this area. Five

15 feet, I'm sorry.

16 MR. SAVEN: George, would you please

17 explain that loading area, too? That was another

18 issue that was brought up, was that to the property

19 line.

20 MR. NORBURG: Yeah, that is also --

21 that abuts the property line, but again, there's the

22 retaining wall is at that location right there.

23 MR. SAVEN: Good.

24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Anything else?









1 MR. SAVEN: Other than killing three

2 trees to do this write up, I think I am all set.


4 Board Members?

5 Member Brennan?

6 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, it's too bad

7 that they spent a lot of time with planning, spent a

8 lot of time with City and it's gone this far, but I

9 tell you what, I've got a big problem with a request

10 for one, two, three, four, five, six, seven variance

11 on new construction. And if they've got a small lot,

12 I'm sorry. That's their small lot.

13 Variance request specifically for no

14 screening around the loading zone; variance request

15 for no interior landscape. I'm not too pleased with

16 this plan.

17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Canup?

18 MEMBER CANUP: I guess, like my

19 colleague, I guess I'm surprised to see this come to

20 us in this condition from the Planning Commission.

21 I'm disappointed that they sent this to us, as it's

22 shown. I think he's a good example of a piece of

23 property that is a challenge, if that be the word.

24 And I think what really needs to be done here, is









1 there needs to be an assembly of

2 the two properties.

3 And I think by the fact of allowing

4 something to be built here, you will never have that

5 assembly. Some day someone will assemble these two

6 pieces of property, if this piece is not built.

7 And it is, you know, the variances

8 that are requested, really -- if you look at the

9 people to the north, the restaurant there, the

10 Wendy's, it's somewhat unfair to them that they had

11 to go through what they had to go through to build

12 their properties within the Ordinances; spend

13 $350,000 for an ingress/egress, and now have a

14 building put up next to them that is in noway

15 anywheres near what they had to go through and meet

16 our Ordinances in order to get it built.

17 So with that, I would have a difficult

18 time supporting any Motion that would be supportive

19 of this piece of property.

20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Anyone else?

21 If I can -- if I may, and I apologize,

22 the Wendy's manager, I did not get your name.

23 MR. ISRAEL: It's Randy Israel. I'm

24 the owner.










2 Mr. Israel.

3 All right. I'm surprised that for

4 such an undertaking -- and I did watch the Planning

5 Commission meeting on your -- on this. I caught part

6 of it at the City Council. To put that much effort

7 and not be able to talk to one of your neighbors --

8 MR. HYMAN: Madam Chair, may I respond

9 to that?

10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Just give me one

11 second, okay?

12 MR. HYMAN: Okay.

13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I'm shocked, quite

14 frankly. So unless there is something else that you

15 can shed some light on --

16 MR. HYMAN: Sure.


18 MR. HYMAN: First I want to clear the

19 air. I'm the attorney. I've never -- as Mr. Israel

20 says, I never had any discussions. I don't know how

21 that got in the newspaper. But going beyond that,

22 there have been extensive discussions with the

23 Wendy's people over the course of this.

24 There's a Mr. McGinness, who I believe









1 had something to do with site management. Patricia

2 Cares, who is a grown woman, Mr. Cares' daughter, who

3 is involved in management of Mr. Cares' affairs, had

4 extensive discussions with Mr. McGinness.

5 There have been -- there has been

6 correspondence with Mr. McGinness. There has been

7 correspondence between your fire marshall and the

8 Wendy's people, in an attempt to resolve the fire

9 department issues, which were resolved. That was --

10 that's not before you. That's been done with the

11 Planning Commission.


13 MR. HYMAN: So although Mr. Israel may

14 not have extensive direct discussions, I can tell you

15 that Patricia Cares has had direct and continuous --

16 continuous is a bad word -- and lengthy repeated

17 discussions with the Wendy's people over a long

18 course of time.

19 So I don't believe that there is a

20 basis for shock. I'm sorry that that

21 misunderstanding has occurred, but the Cares people

22 have done everything they can to work with Wendy's.

23 And I don't want to get into discussions about

24 negotiations with respect to some of the things, but









1 there were, I think, discussions about consideration

2 changing hands, as a matter of fact.


4 Thank you.

5 MR. HYMAN: I was not involved in

6 those discussions.


8 MR. HYMAN: I think that Mr. Mc --

9 Gilliam -- McGillam, if you ask, will advise you that

10 you can't turn down a problem situation on the basis

11 that the applicant should combine his property with

12 his neighbors. We have tried, by the way. And we've

13 made some very generous offers to the neighbor for a

14 combined development without success.

15 But the -- Mister -- Mr. McGilliam --

16 Mr. Gilliam if you ask him -- if you ask him will

17 tell you that this application must be judged based

18 on the practical difficulties, with respect to this

19 50 foot site. We're stuck with that piece of

20 property. If you don't permit us to develop it, then

21 we've got a property that's valueless, and that can't

22 be permitted.

23 We've done everything we can. We've

24 made all kinds of changes in working with the









1 Planning Commission.

2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Sir, I'm going to

3 -- excuse me one second.

4 I've turned it over to the Board, and

5 I would like to listen to the other Board Members at

6 this point. Your points are well-taken, and if we

7 have any additional questions, we will --

8 MR. HYMAN: Thank you.


10 I don't think we're anywhere done with

11 this.

12 Member Canup?

13 MEMBER CANUP: I would think that when

14 the people bought this property, they knew what they

15 were getting. It wasn't a surprise that they had a

16 -- what, a 50-foot piece of property or whatever the

17 depth -- 55-foot piece of property. And these people

18 are sophisticated enough and smart enough that they

19 knew what the Ordinances were. If they didn't, then

20 I don't have any sympathy for them.

21 I think probably they're correct in

22 saying that this is a undevelopable piece of property

23 under our Ordinances; and I'm sure that they were

24 smart enough to know that when they purchased the









1 property. So with that, you know, again, I still

2 have my position that I had previously that I can't

3 support this project as I see it here.


5 Member Bauer?

6 MEMBER BAUER: I've been on this Board

7 a number of years. I have never seen this many

8 variances requested, which leads me to believe, the

9 property is not buildable; due to the number of

10 variances needed. I cannot support it at all; not

11 any of them.


13 Anyone else?

14 Member Canup?

15 MEMBER CANUP: Are there any records

16 as to when this property was split? Mr. Saven, can

17 you --

18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you have that

19 information?

20 MR. SAVEN: I don't have that

21 information.

22 MEMBER CANUP: Has it been quite

23 awhile?

24 MR. HYMAN: 16-years that Mr. Cares









1 has owned the property.

2 MEMBER CANUP: 16 years.

3 And 16-years ago you couldn't have

4 built on this either, right?

5 MR. SAVEN: That's correct.


7 MR. HYMAN: The Ordinance has changed

8 in the past 16 years.

9 MEMBER CANUP: I'm sure they have in

10 16 years.

11 MR. SAVEN: But --

12 MEMBER CANUP I want to remind you,

13 sir, that this is the Board's discussion, not yours.

14 Thank you.

15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Ruyle?

16 MEMBER RUYLE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

17 I think that I have the kind of

18 uniqueness of saying this is my third time of hearing

19 about this property, because I served twice. I was

20 serving on the Planning Commission and it came before

21 us twice. And in defense of the Planning Commission,

22 we had no choice but to do what we did in sending the

23 variances on to the ZBA, because that's where they

24 belonged. They didn't belong at the Planning









1 Commission at the time.

2 At the time that I sat on the Planning

3 Commission, I said that I felt that Mr. Cares was an

4 honorable man and I still say that. I liked what he

5 did when he built his two pieces of property on both

6 sides of Novi Road off of Grand River. And he's got

7 basically an unbuildable property, until we give him

8 the variances. But the variances fall to this table,

9 I don't have a vote, but if I had a vote, I'd vote

10 for the variances.

11 Thank you, Madam Chair.

12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you, Member

13 Ruyle.

14 MEMBER CANUP: My comments were not at

15 Mr. Cares' character. I think he is an excellent

16 developer in this City. I think he's done a lot of

17 fine developments, and if there's anybody that can

18 make things work, it's Mr. Cares. He was very

19 successful in the restaurant business. His

20 development business has been a tribute to the City.

21 However, we have to look at each one

22 of his cases individually.

23 MEMBER RUYLE: Agreed. No argument.










1 Anyone else?

2 Member Sanghvi?

3 MEMBER SANGHVI: We have a real

4 problem on our hand. On the one hand, we have all

5 the Ordinances and all the variances that are

6 required to build anything on it. This little

7 band-aid-like property, as I would like to call. By

8 the same token, people who own the property also have

9 some rights and then -- to make use of their property

10 in some way or the other.

11 And I think it's up to us to devise a

12 way of coming out, getting out of this dilemma. On

13 the face of it, yes, there are several variances that

14 have been requested. If you look at it from the size

15 of the property and the variances regarding the

16 parking requirement and other things, they are really

17 not of that great significance. The dumpster

18 location and the loading area setback and other

19 thing, considering the size, considering the plan and

20 the retaining wall on the northside, which, the way I

21 look at it, should provide adequate screening for the

22 people who are going through Wendy's -- customers or

23 clients.

24 And if we believe that property owner









1 has a right to develop his property, which is the

2 essence of American way of life, then we should also

3 believe that yes, they have a right to build up this,

4 in a way which is most practical under the

5 circumstances.

6 It's very easy to say, outright, okay.

7 This can't be built, but that's not my property.

8 It's very easy to say that, when it's not your

9 property. If it's your own property and if you put

10 money down on it, regardless whether you knew what

11 size of the property and all that, whether something

12 can be done with it or not is the issue. And if

13 something can be done, something has been designed,

14 some ways have been devised going through the process

15 of the Planning Commission and everything else, and

16 City Council as well, I think we need to look at this

17 with a little bit of compassion.

18 And I'll never forget what my father

19 used to say, who was an affluent lawyer, and all of

20 his clients are already convicted for murder or

21 something like that, he said the scales of justice

22 must be tempered with mercy.

23 Here we have a situation very

24 difficult. Yeah, there are seven variances and









1 brand-new construction. Why can't they build it

2 within the Ordinances? Well, that's not practical.

3 It's not possible. So we are to find a way. I don't

4 know how any of these variances can be -- the number

5 can be reduced. When you go through all the

6 literature that is along with this, including the

7 Minutes of the Planning Commission and the City

8 Council and other things, you realize that hey, this

9 is the situation. We have a tiny land -- a strip of

10 land belong to somebody and he wants to do something

11 with it. Does he have a right to do it? If he has a

12 right to do it, all power to him, because I believe

13 in that right.

14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Brennan?



17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Am I being --

18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: No, I apologize. I

19 thought you were done.

20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

21 So anyway to cut the long story short,

22 I think we should look at this with a different kind

23 of perspective than we normally look at most of the

24 cases that come before us. I've been around on this









1 Board for quite awhile, and we have seen lot of

2 different kind of things. And I know that this out

3 of the ordinary situation, the number of variances,

4 but then this is an unusual set of circumstances and

5 unusual piece of land.

6 Thank you.

7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you, Member

8 Sanghvi.

9 Member Brennan?

10 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, I'll just point

11 out that we could minimize the variance substantially

12 with a smaller building; and that's our obligation as

13 Board Members, is to minimize the variance request,

14 the number of requests, the size of the request, and

15 I'm not -- I'm not so satisfied that that effort's

16 been done.

17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Canup?

18 MEMBER CANUP: In looking at the

19 drawings, it appears that if the building were

20 flip-flopped -- and again, this goes back to the

21 Planning Commission -- if the building were

22 flip-flopped, it would be somewhat more palatable.

23 If you look at how it sits there and it butts up

24 against Hardees' parking area; and then on the other









1 side -- if you placed it on the southside, it would

2 basically butt up to vacant land, if you want to use

3 that term.

4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer?

5 MEMBER FISCHER: But whose to say that

6 the land isn't going to be occupied? Why would we

7 pick one side over the other, decide where it should

8 be like that?

9 MEMBER CANUP: The impact would be on

10 an existing building, which was already built. And

11 on the other side, there's nothing there. The House

12 of Blinds building is empty; is that correct?


14 It's also for sale or lease, which

15 someone could move right in.

16 MEMBER CANUP: See, there's an

17 example. It's for sale. And realistically, if you

18 look back -- I was on the Town Center steering

19 committee years ago, and one of the things we tried

20 to do was to get somebody to come in and assemble

21 that whole corner, and they said it could never be

22 done. Well, it could have been done, if people would

23 have held their ground; and you'd have a beautiful

24 whole piece of property there right now, instead of









1 -- instead of things like this.

2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer?

3 MEMBER FISCHER: I have to tend to

4 agree with Member Sanghvi, in that I don't feel that

5 some of these numbers can be reduced, due to the fact

6 that you're looking at a 58 foot parcel, and a 27

7 foot building. I don't think that's out of question.

8 We have to also look at economic value of this

9 property. And if you reduce that building, how

10 profitable does each -- you have your set rate per

11 square foot. When you drop down square footage,

12 you're losing total value of the property.

13 And I think that would be unfair to

14 the applicant.

15 The requests that I have a problem

16 with tend to be the screening around the loading

17 zone, because -- and the landscaping, because as we

18 stated before, the buildings previously built by this

19 applicant have been beautiful and an asset to the

20 City. However, I think that landscaping has been a

21 part of that.

22 So I have a little bit of a tangle in

23 my head right now as to where I stand on that, on

24 those two at least.









1 And that's my comments as far as that

2 goes.


4 I also can understand Member Canup's

5 vision, if you will, but I have a problem with saying

6 that this is a not -- an unbuildable lot, and I get

7 into trouble with that. And I've come across that

8 once, since I've been on this Board and we had to

9 create something. I don't think anything's not

10 buildable.

11 I agree with Member Sanghvi in that

12 this Petitioner put a great deal of effort, and has

13 gone before our Planning Commission, and has gone

14 before our City Council; and they saw something.

15 Now, it is unfortunate that the

16 business to the north had to meet our requirements,

17 okay. It is unfortunate. I mean, as far as, if I

18 were this guy, I would feel bad for him, too. I

19 mean, he's sitting there looking at this guy getting

20 away with -- they don't have the same kind of --

21 piece of property that the building to the north,

22 Wendy's, if you will. created. So I can't look at

23 Wendy's or look at this -- you're smiling at me

24 because you know where I'm going.









1 MEMBER CANUP: You don't have to

2 defend yourself to me.

3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: No, I understand

4 that. But I'm saying I tend to agree with Member

5 Sanghvi in that I don't believe that this is not a

6 buildable lot. I think there's a way to work this

7 out. I, too, concur with Member Fischer. I'm

8 concerned about the landscaping, because there's

9 always a problem with the screening, but then again,

10 that was the Planning Commission's issue, and that

11 was -- they sent it to us.

12 MEMBER CANUP: Any time a developer,

13 builder, regardless of who it is, takes on a project

14 where he knowingly knows there's variances, is --

15 he's rolling the dice. Because when it gets to the

16 ZBA, he may go through all this other stuff, and when

17 he gets to the ZBA, the ZBA could say no.


19 MEMBER CANUP: We don't have to say

20 yes because these other people said yes.

21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Well -- and I agree

22 with Member Brennan, that I think less is better; and

23 I'm always preaching that.

24 Sir, you have to wait, because the









1 Board is discussing right now.

2 MR. CARES: That's okay.


4 MR. CARES: I'll wait. No problem.


6 fence, needless to say. I almost think that

7 something else should be done with the building. If

8 the Petitioner could be a little more creative, and

9 I'll tell you why. I'm concerned about the safety

10 concerns that the owner of Wendy's brought up about

11 the left-turn lane; and the pulling out on Novi Road.

12 I don't -- I'm real concerned about

13 that. So that's why -- that's why I'm struggling

14 with this. I'm concerned about the issue of the

15 screening for the loading zone in the back or to the

16 west -- I'm sorry. The loading zone in the back of

17 the building, and also the trash. These issues are

18 just -- in my mind, those can't be resolved, and

19 that's why I'm struggling with this.

20 MEMBER CANUP: With the curb cut,

21 etc., are not something that we're dealing with.

22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: No. But the safety

23 issue.

24 MEMBER CANUP: That's, I guess, the









1 ugliness of this piece of property, is that it's so

2 close to the other and it's so tight with 55 feet --

3 if you look at the drawing -- the map or the drawing

4 there, it's just no room to do anything any different

5 than what's been done.


7 Anyone else?

8 I will say for the record that -- also

9 one thing that Member Bauer -- being a longstanding

10 member on this Board, has great insight and certainly

11 a vast amount of knowledge. And when he comes up

12 with something like this, my ears tend to perk-up, as

13 well. So as well as I understand what Member Sanghvi

14 has to say, I -- unless there's something else that

15 can be done with this, I really can't support this,

16 as well.

17 MR. HYMAN: Madam Chair, there's one

18 fact, I think, that -- perhaps there's apprehension

19 on one fact. Perhaps I can have George Norburg

20 correct, if I may.

21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: If the Board is

22 willing to hear him, yes.

23 MR. HYMAN: Unfortunately, it has to

24 do with a suggestion that Mr. Canup just made.










2 MR. HYMAN: I don't know if he can

3 hear us out there, but perhaps Mr. Norburg can deal

4 with the issue of Mr. Canup's suggestion that the

5 building be flip-flopped, be moved to the southside

6 of the property.

7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Well, at that

8 point, it really can't -- unless you want to table

9 this and go give some other ideas --

10 MR. HYMAN: No, no, no.


12 MR. HYMAN: This -- Mr. Norburg is

13 going to point out that that can't be done.


15 That's what I figured.

16 I think at this point we'll hold off,

17 if you will; unless Mr. Canup wishes to --

18 The engineer wishes to explain to you

19 why the building cannot be flip-flopped, if you're --

20 Okay.

21 MEMBER CANUP: If it can't be, it

22 can't be.


24 Okay. At this point, we'll wait.









1 MR. NORBURG: Could I address the

2 screening on the loading area?


4 Go ahead.

5 MR. NORBURG: Just as a -- just so you

6 know, the loading area actually sits about five feet

7 below the property line at that location, so there is

8 a wall at that spot. It's not that it was completely

9 ignored. The screening deals with the plant

10 material, and the fact that we couldn't -- didn't

11 have any room to put any plantings in that area.

12 There is a wall there that is screened

13 to a certain effect; and if it's necessary -- if

14 there's a problem with some additional screening with

15 Wendy's we certainly could bring that up another

16 three or four feet, to help that situation.

17 With respect to the dumpster, that

18 also is a brick. It's a standard dumpster that used

19 throughout the City of Novi. The brick matches the

20 material that's on the building. So that's screening

21 in and of itself. Again, the other screening, I

22 think, dealt with plant material in that particular

23 location.

24 The other is, there is a five-foot









1 differential, so the first floor of this building

2 sits five feet below the property line, so you can

3 image, I think the building is, I think 18 to 20

4 feet, so it will rise approximately 12 feet above the

5 property line, and act as a screen in and of itself.

6 It's a standard one-story building.

7 It's not a two-story building. So whatever that

8 one-story might produce, and I'm afraid I don't have

9 architectural plans with me right now. So there's

10 some screening that's afforded by the building and by

11 the wall. And right now I can't tell you whether we

12 actually raised that wall up at the loading area or

13 not, but certainly we'd be happy to extend that up a

14 bit, if we needed to.

15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Bauer?

16 MEMBER BAUER: Do you have tenant --

17 idea of a tenant at this time?

18 MR. NORBURG: No, not --

19 MEMBER BAUER: So you have no idea of

20 what kind of retail you're talking about.

21 MR. NORBURG: No, I don't.

22 MR. CARES: Can I say something?


24 MR. CARES: Thank you.









1 So I think you know who I am by now,

2 right? Ladies and gentlemen, George Cares. I've

3 been in this Country for 43 years. And I've been in

4 Novi for 22, and I feel like Novi my hometown, more

5 than whatever it's for you. That's why I did what I

6 did; that's why I'm trying to do what I'm trying to

7 do.

8 Let's be practical, not optimistic,

9 not pessimistic. Let's not play with the game and

10 with the lies. So this property, I bought it 15/18

11 years ago. It was small property like Brent, my

12 friend, there. I wasn't stupid.

13 The owner has one piece, with option

14 to sell me the other piece or the south part, the

15 House of Blinds. Okay. See, this is vacant, you can

16 buy today. I'm going to retire in a few years and

17 I'm going to sell you the other piece, so the

18 building is.

19 It's fine. So a few years later, the

20 owner -- without approaching me, he sold the property

21 to the tenant. That's all right, too. The tenant

22 -- what does he say -- it's fine. So now, what

23 George Cares does, stuck. Right? One year, two

24 year, five years, ten years. Ron here, my production









1 manager -- and I have the papers to prove -- and I'll

2 swear on it 15-times, because I come from old country

3 and I'm a man of word, okay, I'll try with the House

4 of Blinds. I have the plans. I spend about five,

5 six thousand dollars with plans to make it joint

6 property with him. No. I offer him $50,000 on the

7 top, no. I offer, year, year, year, we work this --

8 give me this -- Ron's here and he's trying to.

9 You follow I or not?

10 So nothing happens to prove this,

11 because I knew what I have to face. So I try one

12 way. I try the way, nothing. So now what do. I sit

13 down there, pay the taxes for 13-years. I have to

14 maintain the property. It's a piece of junk there.

15 You see it. I don't have to tell you, okay.

16 The property was Wendy's, I don't have

17 nothing. My daughter try the best whatever these are

18 coming, my daughter, you know, and I offer them, if I

19 do this, another $10,000. And I got papers to prove,

20 too, to let me -- for the fire exit. So whatever. I

21 don't know the whens, whatever -- I don't' know the

22 details. My daughter knows.

23 Unfortunately she not here tonight.

24 She's engaged. Just got married last month. So now









1 what do we do? I make the plans. I went Planning

2 Commission, changed the plans, three times in order

3 to satisfy. I did all this, everything's possible to

4 be done. Everything. Those things you're talking

5 about went through 50 time, between the Planning

6 Commission and the Council.

7 Not the first time. Maybe it's new to

8 you, not to me. The last five -- three years with

9 them, the House of Blinds, and another three years

10 with the plans, six years. So now, we're here now.

11 What do we do? I had for sale. Nobody wants to buy,

12 because who wants to do this? If I cannot develop,

13 nobody else can develop. And to me -- you want me to

14 be honest, right? I'm not develop this property

15 economically. Economically, no way.

16 But because of I love this City and I

17 prove it with City Center -- it was five pieces there

18 -- and I know what it went through to take those five

19 pieces and make one piece; and what I pay everything.

20 And maybe I'm dummy, maybe I'm smart,

21 I'll put all my eggs in this basket in City of Novi.

22 And now after I did this, with the City Center, with

23 the Novi Pavilion, with -- I work with the City from

24 the day and night everything's possible to be done.









1 I'm here tonight -- I stand for me and I have award

2 for the -- if you go back, I have award for City

3 Center, because you know what was there, with the

4 church, with -- with that buildings, five littlest

5 buildings.

6 I did all this for 20 years. I prove

7 it. I'll do whatever. I've been over this with the

8 City. I -- because of this, because I'm a man of

9 pride; not because I make ten dollars or two dollars.

10 That's why I do all this. So now this piece. It's a

11 beautiful piece. I reduce it to minimal. It's only

12 3,000 square feet. 3,000 square feet is cover this.

13 It's all this. That's all it is. What do you

14 think it is? Improve or right or left, you see

15 everything.

16 It's a beautiful building, and I'm

17 here tonight to have a chance to improve this piece

18 so you be proud and I be proud, you be proud; the

19 City of Novi, not me, because I make, it makes no

20 difference. You want to sell it, I offer it to you.

21 What do you want me to do? Just have a piece of junk

22 there? What you want me to tell you?

23 What am I gonna do? I'm 67-year-old.

24 Whose gonna do? I'm the owner. I can do it.









1 Nobody else. Nobody else wants to buy that piece. So

2 now, what you gonna do? You develop or leave like

3 this. And now we're here tonight and playing with

4 games. I understand you. I understand you have

5 Ordinance, but the Ordinance is working for big

6 business, for whoever can do. This is it. That's

7 it.

8 That's all I have to do. 58 by 4,000.

9 And the people right and left, they don't have to

10 cooperate one way. They have their own building.

11 They don't have to do nothing. I'm the one who's

12 stuck with that piece of piece.

13 Wendy's can do their business. I know

14 they're going through with the City. I understand.

15 Fine. I went through ten times worse than they did.

16 But I went through. I know, I work with the City.

17 I'm not against the City. You know, now, the House

18 of Blinds, they have their building. They don't'

19 have to do anything. So now what I'm doing. You

20 hear, that's all.

21 So thank you very much for listening

22 to me.

23 It's up to you.










1 MR. ISRAEL: May I make a suggestion,

2 possibly?

3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Does anyone want to

4 hear from Wendy's?

5 MEMBER FISCHER: I'd like to hear from

6 anyone who'd like to speak, because the Board --

7 MR. ISRAEL: I guess my objection is

8 --

9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Sir, you need to

10 come down to the mic before you start talking.

11 MR. ISRAEL: I think I have a possible

12 solution. I'd be willing to work with the candidate,

13 because from my property, I don't want to look into a

14 dumpster. I also don't want to have a solid brick

15 wall on both sides of my property, which is not

16 aesthetically pleasing.

17 Until I saw the drawing up there, I

18 had never seen this building, okay. If the applicant

19 was willing to put in some landscaping, and possibly

20 make the back of the building -- you've got a

21 retaining wall -- I first of all have a concern is

22 someone were to walk there, they're going to fall

23 over. They're going to hurt themselves dramatically.

24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Can I interrupt one









1 second, please?

2 MR. ISRAEL: I'm just saying if they

3 could put some landscaping --

4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I understand.

5 What I'm going to suggest --

6 MR. ISRAEL: Sure.

7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: -- to the Board and

8 to both of you this evening, is that we table this;

9 and that you, two, sit down and meet, is what I think

10 that should be done.

11 MR. ISRAEL: I would be glad to. And

12 like I said, I -- my feeling -- I understand their

13 problem, I just want it to be aesthetically pleasing.

14 And if we can come up with some landscaping and

15 screening, and prevent anybody from being hurt, and

16 prevent erosion, I'm willing to work with the

17 candidate --


19 MR. ISRAEL: -- to do that.


21 MR. ISRAEL: I'm just offering that as

22 a possible solution.

23 MR. HYMAN: We're not interested.

24 We've had all kinds of discussions with Wendy's.









1 MR. ISRAEL: No, you have not.

2 No, you have not.


4 Hold it.

5 MR. HYMAN: I don't know why --

6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Please, hold it.

7 MR. HYMAN: -- Mr. Israel --


9 Order.

10 MR. HYMAN: -- didn't get notices to

11 the other proceedings.

12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Sir, is it your

13 position, then, to refuse to table this and to work

14 with the neighbor?

15 MR. HYMAN: We can't -- we've done

16 everything we can. We can't do any more for

17 Mr. Israel.


19 MR. HYMAN: We've done everything we

20 can.


22 MR. HYMAN: As Mr. Cares has pointed

23 out, he even offered to exchange consideration with

24 Mr. Israel, that --










2 I'm giving you the last offer. Sounds

3 to me like you have a neighbor to the north that's

4 willing to meet with you. We could table this.

5 MR. HYMAN: There's not landscape back

6 there. We just can't do it.


8 Thank you.

9 MR. HYMAN: The site is not big

10 enough.

11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. Thank you.

12 Board Members, is there a Motion on

13 the table?

14 Would someone like to make a Motion?

15 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yeah, I'll --

16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Brennan?

17 MEMBER BRENNAN: -- I'll take a stab

18 at it. If we need some help, I'm sure I'll get some

19 guidance. But I would make a Motion that the

20 Petitioner's request be denied, due to the excessive

21 number of variances; that it hasn't been demonstrated

22 that there could be an alternate plan that would give

23 us less variances; that the Petitioner has not been

24 able to work out any of the differences with the









1 property owner to the north -- which we always give

2 consideration to; and that there should probably be

3 some more effort in working up a plan that is better.


5 MEMBER CANUP: I'll second it.

6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

7 seconded.

8 Any further discussion?

9 I knew I'd be hearing from you.

10 Yes, Mr. Gilliam?

11 MR. GILLIAM: Just so the record is

12 clear, Member Brennan, that Motion is to all

13 seven of the variances that have been requested

14 in this case?

15 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes, sir, because we

16 haven't heard any concession or any discussion of

17 anything other than what they've presented.

18 MR. GILLIAM: Okay.


20 MR. GILLIAM: Thank you.

21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

22 seconded.

23 Any further discussion?

24 Seeing none, Denise, would you please









1 call the roll.

2 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


4 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


6 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


8 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


10 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


12 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


14 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes five

15 to one.

16 MR. HYMAN: Thank you for your time.


18 At this time, would the Board like to

19 entertain a ten minute break?

20 MEMBER SANGHVI: So moved.


22 The Board will be taking a ten minute

23 break, and we'll be back here at 9:30.

24 (Brief recess taken.)









1 (Back on the record.)

2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: The Zoning Board of

3 Appeals is now coming back to order.

4 And we'll resume our meeting by

5 calling case number, 04-067, filed by Paul Rizzardi

6 of Singh Development for Waltonwood at Twelve Oaks.

7 Mr. Rizzardi is representing Waltonwood at Twelve

8 Oaks, and is requesting a sign extension variance

9 for two marketing signs. Sign A is located in front

10 of the Waltonwood development on Huron Circle Drive.

11 Sign B is located on 12 Mile.

12 Good evening.

13 And are you Mr. Rizzardi?

14 MR. RIZZARDI: Yes, I am.

15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Please raise your

16 right hand and be sworn in by our secretary.

17 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

18 or affirm to tell the truth regarding, case 04-067?

19 MR. RIZZARDI: I do.

20 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

21 Go ahead.

22 MR. RIZZARDI: Currently, I think

23 everyone's aware of the two signs at Waltonwood, our

24 Twelve Oaks facility. Those signs were originally









1 put in place for the facility, and we've had

2 extensions on that due to leasing it out because of

3 the long leases in the housing project. It was there

4 until it was occupied.

5 Then with the 12 Mile Road

6 construction blocking the building, we got an

7 extension for that. We are not asking for this

8 extension for phase two of our project, which started

9 construction on July 22nd of 2003, and we expect our

10 first particularly, hopefully, with a grant from the

11 Building Department sometime after the first of the

12 year.

13 Phase one is a care facility; phase

14 two is an assisted living facility.

15 If you have any questions, I'd be glad

16 to answer them.


18 Is there anyone in the audience that

19 wishes to make comment in regards to this case?

20 Seeing none, there were ten notices

21 sent; four approvals, no objections.

22 Building Department?

23 MR. SAVEN: No comment.

24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Board Members?









1 Member Brennan?

2 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, given that

3 they're just starting phase two, it would seem to be

4 appropriate to grant the extension.

5 Phase one is done, correct?


7 MR. RIZZARDI: Phase one is done.

8 MEMBER BRENNAN: And you're just at

9 the beginning of phase two.

10 MR. RIZZARDI: Just starting phase

11 two.

12 MEMBER BRENNAN: I don't have any

13 problem with it.


15 Anyone else?

16 Was that a Motion?

17 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'd make a Motion

18 with respect to case, 04-067, that the Petitioner's

19 request for extension be granted for --

20 What do you think you need?

21 MR. RIZZARDI: Hopefully a year, but

22 I'm not gonna swear to that one.

23 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, let's make it

24 for a year for the purposes of marketing and selling









1 out the operation.


3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

4 seconded.

5 Any further discussion on the Motion?

6 Seeing none, Denise, would you please

7 call the roll.

8 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


10 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


12 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


14 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


16 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


18 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


20 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

21 zero.


23 MR. RIZZARDI: Thank you.










1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You don't have to

2 go too far.

3 And I will note for the record that

4 Mr. Rizzardi has already been sworn in, and it will

5 carry over to his next case, which is case number

6 04-068, and this is for Brownstones Apartment Homes.

7 Mr. Rizzardi is requesting to erect an additional

8 entranceway sign at 42330 Joyce Lane, south of Holmes

9 and 13 Mile Road.

10 Go ahead.

11 MR. RIZZARDI: Thank you.

12 I think I've been before this Board

13 several months ago for a temporary marketing sign or

14 a construction sign. So at that point, I informed

15 the Board that we'd purchased the Brownstone

16 Apartments in October of last year.

17 Since we purchased it, we're putting

18 together a -- an improvement plan or enhancement

19 plan, how to spruce up the exterior appearance of the

20 property, to make it at least better -- to mock it up

21 better, in hopes of getting better renting of the

22 property.

23 As part of our proposal, we want to

24 put a series of walls along 13 Mile as it appears to









1 fence, and to put a signage on these walls at an

2 angle.

3 We submitted for the Building Permits

4 for the two signs at the two signs at 13 Mile and

5 Hemmingway; one at the corner of 13 Mile and Holmes.

6 One of the signs was rejected, because we were only

7 allowed one sign for the project. The sign which

8 we're asking for a variance on is a permanent sign,

9 at the corner of Holmes and 13 Mile, where our

10 current marketing sign stands.

11 So eventually, the marketing sign will

12 be coming down, and we'll have two permanent

13 monuments on each corner of the site.

14 The site is unique. The practical

15 difficulty of the property is the property,

16 essentially, has no direct access to a major

17 thorough-fare. Access is gained off or Homes or

18 Hemmingway. So we want to put signage on at 13 Mile

19 Road, so we get traffic to see this is an apartment

20 community. It's not part of the adjacent condo

21 community.

22 So we want to differentiate that.

23 The second unique item is the

24 Ordinance does allow a double-faced sign, if it's in









1 the median of a boulevard. Now, there's no boulevard

2 at Holmes or Hemmingway, and that's in a public

3 street, and -- so we can't actually facilitate that

4 at this time.

5 The other difficulty is the property

6 on the other sides of Holmes or Hemmingway, we can't

7 do a sign, like we've done like on Main Street

8 Village or the phase two or -- on a subdivision, you

9 put a sign on both sides of the entry. But the other

10 spot at Holmes and Hemmingway, it's a different

11 property. It's a land usage.

12 So we really don't have that ability

13 to put up one sign -- two signs inside of one street,

14 so we want to do two signs -- excuse me, one sign on

15 the one side of two different streets. So we want to

16 spruce it up a little bit.

17 I do have a rendering of the sign, a

18 monument, if you just want to look at it, what it's

19 going to look like. You have the big packet, just

20 what the sign, itself, looks like. I also have the

21 monument and the wall, and that will be located at

22 each corner of 13 Mile and Holmes and Hemmingway.

23 So if there's any questions, I'd be

24 glad to answer them.










2 Is there anyone in the audience that

3 wishes to make comment in regards to this case?

4 Seeing none, there were 124 notices

5 sent, one approval by Ron Apalla, at 41609 Mitchell;

6 and one objection by Elise Wells -- and I apologize

7 for the mispronunciation, Ordinello. Ms. Ordinello

8 is objecting to all of the signs in that area, with

9 all of the development. She was is indicating that

10 the area does not need, yet, another sign.

11 Building Department?

12 MR. SAVEN: No comment.

13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Board Members?

14 Member Brennan?

15 MEMBER BRENNAN: This is a permanent

16 sign on that corner. When this one is ready, the

17 marketing sign comes down?

18 MR. RIZZARDI: Yes, I believe so.

19 Well, we wanted to keep the marketing

20 sign up until the point where we're 90 percent

21 leased. We're almost there. We're not there yet.

22 So when we're 90 percent leased, we'll take down the

23 marketing sign.

24 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, that leaves it









1 a little ambiguous.

2 MR. RIZZARDI: I'm trying to be a

3 little ambiguous. I don't want to get tied.

4 MEMBER BRENNAN: I heard the

5 ambiguous. I'm trying to nail it down. You don't put

6 up the permanent sign until the marketing sign comes

7 down.

8 MR. RIZZARDI: I really don't want to

9 commit to that at this time, because with the

10 recession. We want to make sure we're getting

11 marketing action.

12 MEMBER BRENNAN: But you're close to

13 90 percent.

14 MR. RIZZARDI: We're close to 90

15 percent. At 90 percent, I will take that sign down.

16 MEMBER BRENNAN: If you were before me

17 with a marketing sign and you were 90 percent sold,

18 it would come down anyways.

19 MR. RIZZARDI: I do recognize that.

20 MEMBER BRENNAN: So, I'll ask you a

21 third time, if you want your permanent sign, will you

22 take your marketing sign down?

23 MR. RIZZARDI: If I have a choice

24 between the two, I'll keep the permanent sign over









1 the marketing sign.

2 MEMBER BRENNAN: Thank you.


4 MEMBER FISCHER: What is close to 90

5 percent?

6 We're 83 percent occupied; 85 percent

7 are moving in or moving out.

8 MEMBER FISCHER: The picture you just

9 showed us, is that to scale?

10 MR. RIZZARDI: That is -- it does have

11 dimensions on there to scale. I do have copies for

12 the Board Members, if you would like to look at

13 copies.

14 MEMBER FISCHER: I wanted to see if

15 that is what it looked like against the background, I

16 guess.

17 MR. RIZZARDI: Yes, that is to scale.


19 And is it possible --

20 This is for the attorney.

21 Can we allow him to keep a marketing

22 sign up until he decides to put the permanent ones

23 up?

24 MR. AMOLSH: I think the Board just









1 approved the marketing sign about two months ago, did

2 you not?

3 MR. RIZZARDI: The sign as to come

4 down when the current extension expires, I believe

5 next spring, anyway.

6 MR. FISCHER: Can we put a condition

7 on it that the permanent signs do not go up until

8 that is down?

9 I'm reversing what you're saying.

10 MEMBER BRENNAN: The net effect is the

11 same.

12 If he wants to put up this permanent

13 sign. He's nearly 90 percent sold out. And if he

14 puts the permanent sign up, the marketing sign comes

15 down.

16 He's already agreed to that.

17 MR. RIZZARDI: If I had my druthers,

18 build the permanent sign. Once they're built, to

19 establish, then take down the marketing sign.


21 That's fine.


23 Anything else?

24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Well, I guess -- I









1 was wondering why we are confusing the two? I don't

2 think one has anything to do with the other sign.

3 Marketing sign is a marketing sign. This is an

4 identifying sign -- and one coming up and one other

5 going up -- down, I don't know why they are both

6 interconnected.

7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer?

8 MEMBER FISCHER: The reason I said

9 that is there would be three signs cluttering up one

10 corner.

11 And I'd also like to mention, there

12 was an objection -- and I understand that person's

13 objection, but the fact is, I think it looks better

14 on that corner with two signs; as opposed to having

15 the one sign that they already have.

16 I just wanted to speak to that

17 person's objection and give a reason for that.

18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Canup?

19 MEMBER CANUP: Are you ready for a

20 Motion?


22 MEMBER CANUP: I would make Motion in

23 case number, 04-068, correct?

24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: That's correct.









1 MEMBER CANUP: Be granted, subject to

2 the previous condition as stated by the Board,

3 dealing with the corporation of the sign.


5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

6 seconded.

7 Is there any further discussion on the

8 Motion?

9 MR. SAVEN: One point of clarification

10 on the Motion.

11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Repeat the Motion,

12 please.

13 MEMBER CANUP: The Motion was to grant

14 the variance, based on the fact of the previous

15 conversation by this Board as to the usage of two

16 signs and one sign had to come down; is that correct?

17 MEMBER BRENNAN: The marketing sign.

18 MEMBER CANUP: The marketing sign had

19 to be removed, either or.

20 Is that totally confusing?

21 MR. AMOLSH: The problem is we had an

22 approval from about two months ago for that marketing

23 sign for one year. I'm pretty sure that was just

24 here.










2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: He's going to take

3 it down once this new sign goes up.

4 So based on those facts?

5 Is that clarification enough?

6 MR. AMOLSH: Yes.


8 MEMBER CANUP: Has it been seconded?

9 MEMBER FISCHER: I seconded it.

10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

11 seconded.

12 Is there any further discussion?

13 Seeing none, Denise, would you please

14 call the roll.

15 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


17 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


19 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


21 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


23 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?










1 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


3 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

4 zero.

5 MR. RIZZARDI: Thank you.

6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Your variance has

7 been granted.

8 Thank you.


10 Okay. Our next case is 04-069, filed

11 John P. Carroll of Carroll Installations for Luna

12 Entertainment, at 42875 Grand River Avenue in the

13 Mainstreet Development.

14 Mr. CAroll is requesting one sign

15 variance to erect a 38 square foot illuminated wall

16 sign at the Luna Building at the above address, which

17 is formerly the Vic's Market.

18 Good evening, gentlemen.

19 TOGETHER: Good evening.

20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: State your names,

21 please.

22 MR. CARROLL: John Carroll.

23 MR. GOOGAMA: Jim Googama.

24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is that a third









1 person there?

2 MR. BLOOM: Ryan Bloom.

3 MR. CARROLL: We brought the whole

4 team.


6 Would you raise your right hand to be

7 sworn in by our secretary, please.

8 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

9 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-069?

10 MR. CARROLL: I do.

11 MR. GOOGAMA: I do.

12 MR. BLOOM: Yes.

13 MEMBER BAUER: Go ahead.

14 MR. GOOGAMA: I'll give a overview and

15 then turn it over to John, any technical questions

16 regarding the sign.

17 My name is Jim Googama. I am the

18 general counsel for Luna Entertainment. We -- Luna

19 has had offices at the Vic's building -- the former

20 Vic's building, which we now call the Luna building,

21 for approximately three years.

22 We started in what used to be office

23 space that Vic's occupied when it was in the

24 building. Approximately eight months ago, we started









1 a project to renovate the second story, the former

2 banquet hall that is up there, and really tie that

3 banquet hall -- which was empty space -- into our

4 office, and create a much nicer, much more formal

5 office up there; which we had done.

6 We now have approximately, a little

7 less than eight thousand square feet up there for

8 Luna's corporate offices. Our company has been

9 growing over the last three years, since we first

10 bought the building and took that space; meaning, we

11 had to make a decision whether we would invest --

12 what ended up being quite a substantial amount of

13 money -- in office renovation; or whether we would

14 simply move and go to a different location and lease

15 space.

16 And as you know, Luna has been very

17 committed to Novi, through it's owner, Tom Zalanay,

18 since we came to Novi approximately three years ago

19 and bought that building. So we did select to spend

20 the money, do the expansion, build the office space,

21 and make the Luna Building our permanent home.

22 We have -- as we have done that, we

23 have obviously some identification needs. Right now,

24 there is no exterior signage on the building for









1 Luna. We are on the second floor. We are in the

2 back portion of the building, so our offices really

3 -- half of it is above the interior portion of the

4 golf store -- Motor City Golf Warehouse -- and the

5 other portion of it is on the exterior portion of the

6 building, up above on the Post.

7 So that's where we're located, and we

8 have had difficulty with people finding us when they

9 need to find us. I'm here today because the current

10 Ordinance does not allow for second floor signage in

11 that space. As Mr. Saven noted, April of 2001, in

12 connection with the Willis sign application down in

13 that very area, this has been a problem. It was --

14 there was consideration given to possibly changing

15 the Ordinance to correct this issue. That has not

16 happened, so we're here today.

17 The sign that we would like to put up,

18 would certainly need, both, to give Luna an

19 identification point, so that our clients could find

20 us; as well as serve as an identification point for

21 the building.

22 We have officially changed the name of

23 the building from the building, formerly known as

24 Vic's Market, to Luna with the City. We'd like to









1 have something on the building that demonstrates

2 that. We think this sign would achieve both the goal

3 of identifying our office space, as well as renaming

4 the building.

5 The sign replaces the old Bitusch sign

6 that was on Market Street. It was an illuminated

7 sign. It was in approximately the same location is

8 what this sign is, and that sign came down when Gus

9 O'Connor came into the building; and there's been

10 nothing in that space since that Bitusch sign came

11 down.

12 From a point of perspective, there are

13 other illuminated signs, both on our building and on

14 the other side of Market Street, and I believe we

15 have sent to you today some support letters from a

16 few of the local businesses that are affected.

17 So that's my kind of brief overview.

18 If there are any questions of --

19 John, did you want to say anything

20 about the about the sign, itself.

21 MR. CARROLL: No. I have nothing to

22 say, other than if you have any technical questions

23 about the sign.










1 Thank you.

2 Is there anyone else in the audience

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

4 Seeing none, there were 16 notices

5 mailed; three approvals, no objections. The first

6 approval is from Bora Bora Bistro at 43155 Main

7 Street; Post Bar at 42875 Grand River; Coffee Trader

8 at 43155 Main Street.

9 I'm sorry, there's no signatures that

10 I see, or an attached letter from Randy Bloom.

11 MR. BLOOM: I was just using that as a

12 cover.


14 There are no signatures that I see.

15 Building Department?

16 MR. AMOLSH: Just to clarify, this

17 building is in the DC-1 zoning district. They're not

18 allowed to have wall signs. The other situation if

19 they had a wall that faced the majority off the

20 parking on the Grand River side, they're allowed to

21 have signs, but they don't have that either.


23 Board Members?

24 Member Brennan?









1 MEMBER BRENNAN: Two things. How do

2 you get into your facility?

3 MR. GOOGAMA: You get into our office

4 through the door on Market Street, located between

5 Gus O'Connor and the Post, that serves as an entrance

6 to our office upstairs. It serves as a fire exit

7 from Gus O'Connor on the backside; and there's also a

8 side entrance into Motor City Golf Warehouse in that

9 same area.

10 MEMBER BRENNAN: Is this not a seven

11 by seven foot -- 49 square foot sign; and not a 38

12 square foot sign?

13 MR. AMOLSH: Well, that's the math we

14 were given.

15 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, I mean, it's a

16 circle. It's seven foot tall and it's round. It's

17 seven foot wide. Seven times seven is 49.

18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Circle is by two and

19 not multiplication of seven by seven.

20 MEMBER CANUP: I think the Ordinance,

21 though, doesn't the Ordinance written the measured

22 off square?

23 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yeah, that's what I

24 thought.









1 I'm wondering if this was posted

2 properly. Signs have always been squared off.

3 MR. AMOLSH: Is that a circle, John?

4 MR. CARROLL: Yes, it is. It's the

5 area of circle. I though you all would allow a

6 circle.

7 MR. AMOLSH: Triangular, circle or a

8 parallelogram. Circle measures up to a pie of

9 square.

10 MEMBER BRENNAN: So it is okay.

11 MR. AMOLSH: Yes.

12 MEMBER BRENNAN: It's posted properly.

13 MR. AMOLSH: Do the math.

14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: So the measurements

15 are correct.

16 MR. CARROLL: That is just the

17 background. We only illuminated part of that sign.

18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Can you step back

19 up to the mic, please.

20 MR. CARROLL: That is just the

21 background. That will be an illuminated panel

22 against the wall for reflection of the letters,

23 because they're reverse channel. It will give a

24 hallo look on the backside of the letter.









1 MEMBER BRENNAN: I didn't have any

2 problem. I just wondered -- I wanted some

3 clarification on that. I don't have any problem with

4 a primary tenant in a big building like that having a

5 sign on their building.

6 I wanted clarification on how in the

7 heck to get in there, so you answered my questions.

8 Thanks.

9 MR. CARROLL: Okay.

10 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yeah, I'll continue

11 on if everybody's nodding their head.

12 With respect to case, 04-069, I file

13 -- I make a Motion that the Petitioner's request for

14 this sign as submitted be approved for business

15 identification.


17 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

19 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 Brennan?










2 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


4 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


6 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


8 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


10 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


12 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

13 zero.

14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Gentlemen, your

15 variance has been granted.

16 Please see the Building Department.

17 MR. GOOGAMA: Thank you.

18 MR. CARROLL: Thank you very much.


20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Let's call case

21 number, 04-070, filed by Thomas Chubb of Comerica for

22 Comerica Bank at 32220 Beck Road at the Shoppes on

23 the Trail. Mr. Chubb is requesting three variances

24 for the construction of Comerica Bank at Shoppes on









1 the Trail at the above address.

2 And you are Mr. Chubb?

3 MR. CHUBB: Yes, I am Thomas Chubb,

4 the project manager for Comerica Bank.

5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You are not an

6 attorney, correct?

7 MR. CHUBB: I am not.

8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is there somebody

9 with you who is also going to be speaking?

10 MR. CHUBB: Perhaps, if questions

11 arise. This is George Estroski, who's a --

12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you both

13 raise your right hand to be sworn in?

14 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

15 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-070?

16 MR. CHUBB: Yes, I do.


18 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Keep in mind that

20 we do have your file before us and we've reviewed

21 most of the information. So if you would give a

22 brief summary, I'd appreciate it.

23 MR. CHUBB: My pleasure.










1 MR. CHUBB: The main reason for the

2 variance on the interior landscaping is the nature of

3 the business of the bank. And that is, on one side

4 of this building, is the canopy for the drive-up

5 services. And because of the drive-up services,

6 logic would tell you that we would not be able to

7 have landscaping on that side of the building.

8 The other area that is in question, as

9 far as the two foot as opposed to the four foot, is

10 on the southeast corner, which is where we have the

11 screening wall to screen the HVAC, the condenser, and

12 the transformer. And because of the radius we need

13 to go around -- for the cars to go around that

14 corner, that reduces it down to the four foot that we

15 would typically have there.

16 Another thing to mention in regards to

17 the plants around the building, is again, the nature

18 of the bank, security is very important. And

19 basically, the bank's security requirements is that

20 nothing can be higher than 30 inches within 50 feet

21 of the front entrance or near where the night

22 depository and ATM is.

23 Now, you'll see that there is caliper,

24 trees with caliper, but they will be also short









1 plants and shrubs, so that the bad guy has no where

2 to hide as they're entering the building or driving

3 around the building to use the night depository.

4 So again, the main reasons for the

5 variances is just the nature of the canopy and the

6 screening wall due to the radius of going around that

7 screening wall.

8 I can elaborate a little bit on that,

9 if you have any questions and if you would like me to

10 move on as far as the loading zone?


12 MR. CHUBB: Again, for security

13 reasons, the rear door of the bank is really not

14 used. All employees and every delivery of anything,

15 comes in through the front door. The rear door is

16 used for the maintenance technicians, if they're

17 servicing the HVAC, and it acts as a secondary egress

18 for the tellers in the back area. Other than that,

19 that back door is alarmed, audibly; and with a

20 contact that goes back to the security council of

21 Comerica Bank.

22 As far as the business work, the

23 business work comes through, what we call a milk

24 chute, that is a pass-through underneath the canopy,









1 where a van driver comes through at off hours and

2 leaves bags of business and picks up business,

3 through a door that only opens one way, under the

4 canopy; and there's no deliveries that way.

5 There's a rare UPS delivery, and then

6 the only other delivery is the armor truck, which

7 comes approximately once a week. Sometimes in the

8 Christmas season, things like that, it could be twice

9 a week. It's only there for approximately 15

10 minutes. That does have to come in through the front

11 door; and you can understand for security reasons why

12 they pull up near the front door.

13 The Ordinance a loading zone in the

14 rear. This really would never be used. Nothing

15 would ever come in through the rear; and quite

16 frankly, we would much rather put landscaping there,

17 than have a courier service.


19 MR. CHUBB: So I think in both

20 situations, it is the nature and the function of the

21 bank. I think your notes probably mention that Barb

22 and Lance support this; and I live in Novi and

23 caught, yet another bank, making a presentation

24 before the Planning Commission. And I think that









1 even with the loading zone again came up.

2 I think it's a regular situation with

3 banks, and I believe they sent it to a committee to

4 be looked at, probably to have the loading zone not

5 be required for the bank, just for your information.


7 Thank you.

8 Is there anyone else in the -- is

9 there anyone in the audience that wishes to make

10 comment in regards to this case?

11 Seeing none, there were seven notices

12 mailed; no approvals, no objections.

13 Building Department?

14 MR. SAVEN: I think the issue at hand

15 really is the drive-up window that creates the

16 problem here; also the security requirement for this

17 particular use.

18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Board Members?

19 Member Fischer?

20 MEMBER FISCHER: Just a quick

21 question.

22 What about shredding documents, those

23 types of non-deliveries --

24 MR. CHUBB: There's one bag of trash









1 that leaves there, basically per day. That is put

2 into document storage, which is a -- it looks more

3 like a transformer. It's a four by four unit. It's

4 screened by ever good eye, but it's shown on the

5 plan. And basically, the janitors still essentially

6 come out the front door. They do have the ability at

7 night to go out the back door and place the one bag a

8 day into that secure document storage. This is --

9 does not have a top on it. It has a door on the

10 front, with a padlock. And then somebody comes in

11 the -- approximately every ten days -- usually in the

12 off hours -- to take those bags out of there.

13 They're not there ten minutes. And

14 then they take them to a -- actually, to a company in

15 Livonia where they're shredded.

16 MEMBER FISCHER: Something I had seen

17 the other day that caught my eye at a different

18 Comerica. Thought I'd question you on that. But

19 other than that --

20 MR. CHUBB: We don't have a dumpster.

21 It's secured documents storage.


23 MEMBER FISCHER: All right.

24 Thank you, sir.









1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Anyone else?

2 Member Sanghvi?

3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Madam Chair, may I

4 make a Motion, in case number, 04-070, we approve the

5 variance as requested by the applicant, because of

6 the nature of the business.


8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

9 seconded.

10 Is there any further discussion on the

11 Motion?

12 Seeing none, Denise, would you please

13 call the roll.

14 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


16 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


18 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


20 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


22 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


24 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?










2 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six

3 to zero.


5 MR. CHUBB: Thank you.

6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: -- your variance

7 has been granted.

8 Thank you very much.


10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Moving along to our

11 next case, 04-07 -- 074 filed by Ted Minasian of

12 Minasian Development.

13 Oh, I'm sorry.

14 Case 04-071, filed by Mr. Fawzi Tomey

15 of Jimmy John's Restaurant at 39765 Grand River

16 Avenue.

17 Woke the Board right up, didn't it?

18 Woke you up, too.

19 MR. TOMEY: Oh, no, I've been here

20 since 7:30.

21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Are you Mr. Tomey?

22 MR. TOMEY: Yes, I am Mr. Tomey.

23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And you're not an

24 attorney?









1 MR. TOMEY: I'm sorry?

2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You are not an

3 attorney?

4 MR. TOMEY: No.

5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Please raise your

6 right hand to be sworn by our secretary.

7 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

8 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-071?

9 MR. TOMEY: I do.

10 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.


12 MR. TOMEY: Well, I'm requesting --I

13 already have a restricted or a three -- a one year

14 authorization to put three tables on the outside. I

15 already have it, last year. So I'm requesting this

16 year, either to continue it or give me a permanent

17 one, as this will enhance the business of Jimmy

18 John's, and will enhance the appearance of the

19 restaurant. And I have every day about 30 or 40

20 customers sits in the outside and enjoy it. And I

21 think Mr. Sanghvi enjoyed that. He visited us one

22 day; and he liked the place.


24 MR. TOMEY: That's all I have.










2 Is there anyone else in the audience

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

4 Seeing none, there were 21 notices

5 mailed; no approvals, no objections.

6 Building Department?

7 MR. SAVEN: Basically, this is

8 consistent with the restaurants that have that type

9 of sit down activity; bearing in mind the Building

10 Department can only do it for one year. Beyond

11 anything like that, they have to come back to the

12 Board.


14 Board Members?

15 Member Bauer?

16 MEMBER BAUER: You've had no problem

17 with them?

18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Brennan?

19 MEMBER BRENNAN: That was my question.

20 We've historically extended these, as long as there

21 hasn't been any problem with trash or anything else.

22 So if there's no other problem, I'll make a Motion.

23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer?

24 MEMBER FISCHER: As I drove by, I









1 noticed -- we got a drawing. It has three tables

2 with three chairs; three chairs, two chairs. When I

3 drove by, there was actually four tables. Are we

4 going to go by what's on the drawing here and okay

5 that, or are we going to go by --

6 MEMBER BAUER: It's three.

7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Three tables.

8 MR. TOMEY: The question was, I had to

9 put a fourth table out, okay, after I put this

10 because I don't have the much space inside, and I had

11 so much business at lunch time, okay. And you could

12 see that the little drawing I did, is -- we are too

13 far from the curb. So about 24 feet from the wall to

14 the curb. And if you take the space, it's about only

15 ten feet.

16 So I'm at least 14, 15 feet away from

17 the curb. So there's no danger, now, you know.

18 MEMBER FISCHER: I just wanted some

19 clarification. I like the idea of eating outside. I

20 love Jimmy John's.

21 MR. TOMEY: If you do, please come.

22 MEMBER FISCHER: I just want to make

23 sure the Board knows how many tables are going to be

24 out there.










2 MEMBER CANUP: I understand that you

3 want a -- the Petitioner wanted a permanent variance.

4 We can't do that, right? They wouldn't let us do it.


6 Building Department won't let us do it

7 anyway.

8 MEMBER CANUP: Well, if there's no

9 further discussion, I'd like to make a Motion that in

10 case 04-071, Mr. Tomey -- Tomey, for Jimmy's -- Jimmy

11 John's Restaurant, that we grant the variance as

12 requested for a period of one year.

13 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved --

15 MEMBER BAUER: For three tables.

16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. It's been

17 moved and approved for three tables, okay?

18 MR. TOMEY: So I have to move the

19 other one?

20 MEMBER BAUER: That's what you

21 requested.

22 MEMBER SANGHVI: That's what you asked

23 for.

24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is there any









1 further discussion on the Motion?

2 MEMBER FISCHER: I'll agree with one

3 year, but I would be willing to go more.




7 MR. TOMEY: I put only three --

8 MEMBER FISCHER: No, I was talking

9 about the number of years.

10 MEMBER SANGHVI: You can't go more

11 than one at a time.

12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I just want to make

13 sure that the Petitioner is clear on the three

14 tables; that four are not allowed. You requested --

15 MR. TOMEY; There is another

16 Petitioner who has four. I may be granted up to

17 four.

18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You requested for

19 three and we advertised for three, so that's what

20 this variance is being granted for; is three tables.

21 MEMBER SANGHVI: We are giving you

22 what you asked for. We can't give you more if you

23 don't ask.

24 MR. TOMEY: Because I did not know,









1 sorry.

2 MEMBER CANUP: Next year, ask for

3 four.


5 Is there -- seeing no further

6 discussion, Denise, would you please call the roll.

7 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


9 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


11 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


13 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


15 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


17 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


19 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

20 zero.


22 Thank you.

23 MR. TOMEY: Thank you.

24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Good luck to you.









1 Have a good evening.


3 Okay. Case number, 04-074 filed by

4 Ted Minasian of Minasian Development for the Karim

5 Boulevard Office Center on Karim Boulevard. Mr.

6 Minasian is requesting a one foot building height

7 variance for the construction of a new building known

8 as the Karim Boulevard Office Center at the above

9 address.

10 Good evening.

11 MR. FONTI: Good evening.

12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Your name, please?

13 MR. FONTI: I am not Mr. Minasian and

14 I am not an attorney.


16 MR. FONTI: My name is Charles Fonti,

17 and I'm a principal employee and associate, so I'm

18 here representing Mr. Minasian.

19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Raise your right

20 hand and be sworn in by our secretary.

21 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

22 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-074?

23 MR. FONTI: I do.

24 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.









1 MR. FONTI: I'd just like to make a

2 brief statement, and I'd be happy to answer any

3 questions about the project.

4 Just briefly, you're probably all

5 aware of Mr. Minasian's other developments. I think

6 he's an outstanding developer and citizen of Novi;

7 built high quality developments and maintains them

8 well.

9 As far as this development is

10 concerned, I'd like to just let you know that we've

11 made efforts to keep the building within the building

12 height. We feel the working, based on his experience

13 and the existing properties and our experience, we're

14 working with a minimum of four foot, and we desire to

15 use the manser style roof, as opposed to straight or

16 a flat roof, because we feel that this plan is more

17 pleasing with the surrounding developments, giving

18 the building -- although it is a foot over the

19 allowed height, it does give the building, I think, a

20 lower profile in appearance, and a softer look, which

21 really relates better to the residential.

22 We have also relied or the mechanical

23 system on this building relative to his other

24 buildings, using multiple lower units to less









1 screening height is required to require those units.

2 But even with that, these units are a basically --

3 these units are basically flush with the top of the

4 mansure, so if we had to lower that mansure, then

5 we'd have to provide additional screening around the

6 units, and I think that would probably defeat the

7 purpose, and we'd have a less attractive building at

8 approximately similar height.

9 The -- also, I'd like to say that we

10 feel that this one foot variance will not have any

11 adverse affect on the neighbors. I mean, there are

12 some mitigating matters because of the way the

13 building is sited. As you can see -- I think you can

14 see from the drawing, without my pointing them out,

15 that the rear setback, is the setback from the

16 residential area, and I think that area of most

17 concern. A 20 foot minimum setback is required.

18 We're providing about -- approximately 160 foot

19 setback. So that distance, I think, will do a lot to

20 reduce the perceived mass of the building.

21 Also, according to shortening the

22 building, is -- rather than the long end, which

23 reduces the apparent size of the building. And the

24 building's finished floor is also two feet lower than









1 the adjacent property. So that also will reduce the

2 height of the building.

3 Let me see if I covered all my points

4 here. I think that's my brief overview. I'd be

5 happy to answer any questions.


7 Is there anyone in the audience that

8 wishes to make comment in regards to this case?

9 Seeing none, there were 267 notices

10 sent; and two very nice approvals.

11 Building Department?

12 MR. SAVEN: Just to point out one

13 issue that this gentleman brought forward, we require

14 screening for roof-tops. What this does is, it also

15 takes that into account.

16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Brennan?

17 MEMBER BRENNAN: I was just going to

18 say if I stood out in the parking lot and looked at a

19 building that was 30 feet and somebody told me it was

20 31, I wouldn't know the difference. I think the

21 variance request is minimal. I think he's within the

22 spirit, and I will support this variance request.

23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Canup?

24 MEMBER CANUP: I would make a Motion.










2 MEMBER CANUP: Okay. In case 04-074,

3 I would make a Motion that we grant the variance as

4 requested, due to architecture of the building.


6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

7 seconded.

8 Is there any further discussion on the

9 Motion?

10 Seeing none, Denise, would you please

11 call the roll?

12 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


14 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


16 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


18 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


20 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


22 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


24 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to









1 zero.

2 MR. FONTI: Thank you.

3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Your variance has

4 been granted.

5 Please see the Building Department.


7 Okay. Our next case, 04-075 filed by

8 Mr. Steven O'Guin of Westwind Companies, LLC, for new

9 construction at 25910 Strath Haven Drive, Lot 96 in

10 Pioneer Meadows Subdivision.

11 MR. O'GUIN: Good evening.

12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You are Mr. O'Guin?

13 MR. O'GUIN: My name is Steve O'Guin,

14 yes.

15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you please

16 raise your right hand and be sworn in by our

17 secretary.

18 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

19 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-075?

20 MR. O'GUIN: Yes.

21 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

22 MR. O'GUIN: Since you guys are so

23 agreeable tonight, I'm going to change that proposing

24 from a new house to a small prison.









1 MEMBER CANUP: You must have walked in

2 late.

3 MR. O'GUIN: The property at 25910

4 Strath Haven is zoned R-A; and the house we're

5 proposing to build exceeds setback requirements in

6 the front, the side and in the rear. We are

7 proposing to build a 2200 square foot, two story

8 house. I would like two variances granted because

9 the lot is R-A, I believe, is usually for one acre

10 lots. This lot is 100 by 120. We'd need these

11 variances to build the house has it is. These lots

12 just opened up the last six months because a new

13 sewer line was installed on Strath Haven.

14 We purchased lot 96 three months ago;

15 lot 95 was purchased four, five months ago, and a

16 similar variance was granted approximately four

17 months ago, I believe, by the same Zoning Board.

18 If you have any questions?


20 Is there anyone in the audience that

21 wishes to make comment in regards to this case?

22 Please, come on down.

23 MR. NELSON: Greg Nelson, 25870 Strath

24 Haven, and I'm part of the chair of the architectural









1 control committee.

2 Do I have to be sworn in?



5 MR. NELSON: I did send a letter today

6 that we did draft in terms of rescinding our

7 approval. We did approved the plan as submitted as

8 for the setbacks. And after further review, we did

9 have an oversight. Initially, the plan and requested

10 variances, as you will note, calls for 35 feet in the

11 front.

12 And after further review of our

13 bylaws, we did notice that we -- the minimum

14 requirement is 40 feet.

15 In addition, the current standard, if

16 I can call it that, on Strath Haven, two parcels to

17 the south sits at 44 feet and as Mr. O'Guin pointed

18 out, another point I wanted to mention, was a

19 variance granted back in February on the lot just to

20 the south, was a setback of 40 feet in the front, 35

21 feet in the back.

22 So based on the letter that the

23 architectural committee submitted today, we would

24 propose -- our proposal is to grant the variances at









1 44 feet in the front and 37 feet in the rear. Which

2 would satisfy the -- both the association bylaws; and

3 in addition to the current construction; also that

4 would put this home -- it would result in variances

5 less than the rear yard setback; greater than the

6 variance approved back in February on the lot just to

7 the south of this proposed location.

8 So the committee, the architectural

9 control committee would recommend a setback of 44

10 feet in the front and 37 feet in the back, which puts

11 the building back nine feet.


13 MR. NELSON: Any questions?

14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Not at this time,

15 thank you.

16 Is there anyone else in the audience?

17 There were 36 notices mailed; one

18 approval and that as from Ellen Napha at 2253

19 Willowbrook Court, Walled Lake; and the new address

20 is 24163 White Plains Drive, Novi; who has no

21 objection. And then the submitted objection is from

22 the homeowners association.

23 Building Department?

24 MR. SAVEN: Just to point out that I









1 do know that we get involved in subdivision, and

2 notifying them of certain issues that we look at, we

3 look for their approval. In this particular matter,

4 if a variance was requested to be a lessor of a

5 variance, I wouldn't have a problem with this. But

6 because of the change in the variance for rear yard

7 is more than what was noticed for, we would -- we

8 would have to renotice for this particular case.


10 Mr. O'Guin?

11 MR. O'GUIN: Yes.

12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Before I turn this

13 over to the Board, I'm going to take the liberty --

14 because of this later hour -- I would suggest that

15 you may want to table this and talk with your

16 homeowners association, or would you like to --

17 MR. O'GUIN: We've reached an

18 agreement already.

19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: We have to table it

20 and we have to remail all of this to do this, because

21 we have to readvertise what was done. So my

22 suggestion would be to table this until next month;

23 let us readvertise and then you could come to see us

24 in September.









1 MR. O'GUIN: Love to.

2 MEMBER CANUP: We want to make

3 absolutely sure that we get the proper request,

4 because from what I understand, there's 44 in the

5 front?


7 MEMBER BRENNAN: There's 44 in the

8 front. The variance was request was for four feet

9 and went on to 15 feet.

10 MR. SAVEN: I believe they should

11 provide us with a revised plot plan, before we do any

12 more. So if it's at all possible -- I know this

13 gentleman is very patient --

14 MEMBER CANUP: (Unintelligible.)

15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You'll be first

16 next month. How's that?

17 Okay.

18 All right. We'll table this. You can

19 work with the Building Department and --

20 All those in favor of tabling case

21 number 04-075 say aye?


23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: All -- any opposed?

24 Seeing none, we'll see you next month.









1 MR. O'GUIN: Okay.



4 Our next case is 04-076, filed by

5 Jeffrey Sobolewski for 1405 West Lake Drive.

6 Mr. Sobolewski -- I hope I'm pronouncing that

7 correctly -- is requesting a 15.57 front lot frontage

8 variance and a 1,654 Square foot lot area variance

9 for parcel B to the address above stated.

10 Gentlemen, are you attorneys?

11 MR. BENNETT: My name is Joseph

12 Bennett. I'm the attorney and friend of Jeff's.

13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I'm sorry. And you

14 are?

15 MR. SOBOLEWSKI: I'm Jeff Sobolewski.

16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Sobolewski, are

17 you going to be discussing anything in regards to

18 this case?

19 MR. BENNETT: He'll be here to answer

20 any questions that you might have.

21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: We need to swear

22 you in, please.

23 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

24 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-076?










2 MR. BENNETT: Good evening, ladies and

3 gentlemen of the Board. My name is Joseph Bennett.

4 I'm an attorney and friend of Jeff Sobolewski; I

5 guess primarily because I was the attorney that

6 represented him back in 1996 with respect to the

7 negotiations that went on with the City Council,

8 which resulted in the present configuration of 1405

9 West Lake Drive.

10 Mr. Sobolewski is requesting

11 dimensional variances for -- in the anticipation of

12 getting a lot split, which was discussed in the City

13 Council Minutes of November 18th, 1996, which I

14 believe Mr. Sobolewski has attached to the

15 application. I don't know if you're familiar with

16 the history of this property, and due to the late

17 hour, I don't want to go into it. Suffice it to say,

18 that it is a very anomalous piece of property, and

19 the problems with it date back to 1914. So it does

20 have a long history.

21 Mr. Sobolewski is requesting this. It

22 was anticipated back in 1996 that we would be coming

23 before you. At this point, I know I have discussed

24 this matter with the City attorney and also with









1 Mr. Saven. I've also discussed it with the

2 accessors, with respect to the anticipated creation

3 of a new tax parcel here, with the lot split. I'd

4 also point out that Mr. Sobolewski's property, with

5 respect to the special assessment district, and the

6 paving, his lot was assessed twice with respect to

7 that. So I believe the City already taxably

8 recognizes that they should be splitting the two

9 lots.

10 I don't believe it will have a

11 negative impact upon the neighborhood, especially

12 with the paving going in. The property to the

13 immediate south of the parcel B is owned by the City,

14 so it doesn't even abut up against another property

15 owner's parcel; and I don't believe that there is any

16 other relief that can be accorded to Mr. Sobolewski.

17 I will provide a buildable lot. So we are here

18 before you today, and unless you want any of the

19 history that I believe creates this such an anomalous

20 parcel, we would request very respectfully that you

21 grant him the dimensional variances that he's asking.


23 Anything else?

24 MR. BENNETT: Only if there are any









1 questions.


3 Is there anyone in the audience that

4 wishes to make comment in regards to this case?

5 Seeing none, there were 34 notices,

6 one approval; five objections. Tim Richardson at

7 1511 West Lake is an approval. Joseph Whitbig at 118

8 Rexton. It's time the homeowners on the lake start

9 respecting the rights of residents around them.

10 Roxanne Allen at 112 Rexton had an objection. I'm

11 going to spell the last name I'm going to spell for

12 the record. D-i-a-n-t-o-n-i-s, at 117 Rexton. And

13 the final objection by Lee Miller at 121 Rexton.

14 Okay. And I'm sorry, Jim and Michelle

15 Wood, 1418 West Lake Drive. One more, I'm sorry,

16 Shirley and R.H. Slater, 1419 West Lake Drive.

17 Building Department?

18 MR. SAVEN: I'd just point out that

19 there is a lot of history with this particular lot in

20 terms of it being presented before Council and with

21 the reconfiguration. This is an piece of property.

22 Ms. Wood has resided there a long time, and I believe

23 that she's to the immediate -- I'm sorry, the

24 immediate south of this parcel they're talking about









1 dividing.


3 Board Members?

4 Member Canup?

5 MEMBER CANUP: Anyway, I don't see a

6 problem with it. It's been hashed over before it

7 got here at Council, and if there's nobody who wants

8 to have a discussion, I'd be glad to make a Motion.


10 MEMBER CANUP: In case number, 04-076,

11 I would make a Motion that we grant the requested

12 variance request as stated, due to the configuration

13 and the size of the lot.


15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: All right. It's

16 been moved and seconded.

17 And I have a question for Mr. Gilliam.

18 Is it important to mention the Minutes

19 from Council as a part of our Motion, or because it

20 was discussed at the table, is that sufficient?

21 MR. GILLIAM: I think the more detail

22 you can make your record the better, so the reference

23 to the Minutes that were in packet, I think would be

24 good.










2 Thank you.

3 Would you accept a friendly amendment?

4 MEMBER CANUP: As long as it's

5 friendly.

6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I would just like

7 to amend that to add to the record the Minutes from

8 the City Council meeting of November 18th, 1996 that

9 helped this Board reach that decision.

10 MEMBER CANUP: So accepted.

11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. Has it been

12 seconded?



15 It's been moved and approved.

16 Any further discussion?

17 Seeing none, Denise, would you please

18 call the roll.

19 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


21 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


23 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?










1 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


3 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


5 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


7 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

8 zero.

9 MR. BENNETT: Thank you very much.


11 Your variance has been granted.


13 Okay. We have our next case, 04-078

14 filed by Bobby Stoyanovich for Manhattan Club at

15 40380 Grand River Avenue. Mr. Stoyanovich is

16 requesting a use variance and a 50 space parking

17 variance, to allow a comedy club to operate in the

18 lower level of the Manhattan Club restaurant located

19 at the above address. The property is zoned I-1, and

20 located east of Seely Road and north of Grand River.

21 Ready, gentlemen?

22 And you are?


24 Stoyanovich.









1 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm the general

2 architect.


4 Would you both raise your right hand

5 to be sworn by our secretary.

6 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

7 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-078?




11 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The first issue,

12 Bobby bought this property as an existing restaurant

13 with a comedy club operating in the lower level. I

14 was the architect at that time, and I was involved in

15 the remolding of the upper level into a night club.

16 We had some discussions with the Building Department,

17 unofficially, about we eventually making the lower

18 level into a comedy club again.

19 He's involved fully, and there's

20 things we knew we had to do to comply to make that a

21 fully acceptable comedy club down there. There's

22 sprinklers in the upper level of the building for

23 further compliance.

24 And all I can say is when you're









1 describing the building, it has two fully operational

2 kitchens in the upper level and in the lower level.

3 The hardship, the important thing is Bobby bought the

4 building with the idea of reopening the comedy club

5 on the lower level.


7 Anything else?

8 MR. STOYANOVICH: And primarily,

9 definitely, the whole intention was to get the place

10 and open the club. My family's owned Joey's Comedy

11 Club and we've been in the comedy business for the

12 last 20 years, and that was primarily what my full

13 intention was, to bring dinning, comedy and dance to

14 the area, so.


16 Thank you.

17 Is there anyone in the audience that

18 wishes to make comment in regards to this case?

19 Seeing none, there were 19 notices

20 mailed, one objection. The objection is from Marie

21 E. Best, at 32330 Robinhood Drive in Beverly Hills.

22 I'm sorry. It doesn't clarify what the relationship

23 to this address is.

24 Building Department?









1 Mr. Saven?

2 MR. SAVEN: No comment.

3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Board Members?

4 MEMBER BRENNAN: I have a question of

5 the Building Department.

6 I've been around, and I don't remember that

7 restaurant ever having a comedy club downstairs.

8 MR. SAVEN: I really don't, either.

9 MR. STOYANOVICH: It was banquets,

10 primarily, but basically for special engagements and

11 stuff like that.

12 MEMBER BRENNAN: I don't even remember

13 being downstairs. I guess my thought, the applicant

14 purchased it based on previous use, which was

15 allowable at some point in time. Where are you in

16 the whole process with the City? The Manhattan Club

17 is open right now?



20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Canup?

21 MEMBER CANUP: I guess I've been

22 around for quite awhile, which is approaching 40

23 years. That restaurant has been through several

24 different things. In fact, I do remember that there









1 were quite a few banquets in the basement, if you

2 want to call it the basement, the lower level,

3 whatever it was. There was some entertainment in

4 there with it, be it comedy or whatever else, and I

5 think with that, it was previously stated the present

6 owner purchased the building based on that

7 information.

8 And I can't see why we wouldn't grant

9 this variance and allow these people to continue

10 their business.

11 So if there isn't any further

12 discussion --

13 MEMBER BRENNAN: I guess the reason

14 for the variance for the parking spaces is because

15 this additional use and they have an existing parking

16 lot.

17 MR. SAVEN: We're dealing with looking

18 for -- because of the comedy club use.

19 MEMBER BRENNAN: Business has grown

20 and there's not enough parking spots, so there's a

21 parking problem.

22 MR. SAVEN: There's not --

23 MEMBER CANUP: I've been to comedy

24 clubs, and there usually is a lot of parking.









1 Anyway, if there's no further

2 discussion, in case 04-078, I would --

3 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I need to get this

4 out. I think we're short 86 parking spaces.

5 MEMBER CANUP: Well, we advertised it

6 as 50. Is that an impact?

7 MR. GILLIAM: I'm sorry. How many

8 spaces did you say?

9 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The way I calculated

10 it in the Zoning and building compliance, we need 86

11 spaces.

12 MR. GILLIAM: You need a variance for

13 86 spaces, not the 50 spaces that were advertised.

14 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We came up with 50

15 spaces --

16 MR. SAVEN: I think we stayed with

17 what the Planning Commission said and we stay with

18 that. Anything that's different, you need to come

19 back to the Board at a later time.



22 MR. SAVEN: It's based upon the uses

23 that are -- whether you've got dining and the comedy

24 club going on at the same time.









1 UNIDENTIFIED: The number I came up

2 with was prior to --

3 MR. SAVEN: I think we should stay

4 with that at this time the 50 parking space

5 requirement and issues of use variance.

6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: The letter that's

7 sent in is dated July 23rd.

8 MEMBER CANUP: Well, let's just do 50.

9 That will work.

10 MR. STOYANOVICH: We have an agreement

11 right now for 50 slots.

12 MEMBER CANUP: That's fine.

13 I'd make a Motion that we grant the

14 variance in case, 04-078, as stated by the

15 Petitioner, due to the past history of the club and

16 the bottom portion being a restaurant or party room,

17 etc., with entertainment.


19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

20 seconded.

21 Is there any further discussion on

22 this case?

23 Seeing none, Denise, would you please

24 call the roll.









1 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


3 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


5 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


7 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


9 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


11 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


13 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

14 zero.

15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Your variance has

16 been granted.

17 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you so much.


19 MR. STOYANOVICH: Thank you.


21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay, let's call

22 our last case, it's case number 04-082, filed by

23 Estaban Cabello, for JRED Engineering, Inc., for

24 Manor Nursing Home at 24500 Meadowbrook Road. Mr.









1 Cabello is requesting a variance to the roof top

2 screening requirements for the climate control

3 equipment to be installed at the Manor Nursing Home,

4 listed at the above address.

5 MR. CABELLO: Good evening. My name

6 is Estaban Cabello. I represent the Manor of Novi;

7 and the administrator, Jim Cole, for the facility.

8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Cabello, would

9 you raise your right hand to be sworn in by our

10 secretary?

11 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

12 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-082?

13 MR. CABELLO: I do.

14 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

15 MR. CABELLO: Thank you for hearing

16 our case. I believe Denise was so kind to pass out

17 photos to help us explain the facility, if you don't

18 know what it looks like by now. It's an existing

19 facility. It was never designed for air

20 conditioning. Built in 1970. It's a nursing home.

21 It's a skilled nursing home. And over the years, the

22 facility has been losing key employees because of

23 non-air conditioned spaces. We face the dilemma of

24 the existing building. It was not necessarily









1 designed for air conditioning.

2 And in order to achieve the air

3 conditioning, we're proposing to install -- as you

4 see in the third to the last page of the pamphlet --

5 very small three-foot high roof-top units to achieve

6 cooling, primarily, and a little bit of heating --

7 although not required -- for the corridors of the

8 facility.

9 The facility is sprawling, 50,000

10 square foot, single story facility. And it was built

11 basically in a valley. And at certain locations --

12 and that's why we have those photographs -- from

13 certain vantage points, you can see the whole roof.

14 And in the fall and winter -- without the leaves of

15 the trees that are surrounding that facility -- you

16 can see the whole roof, at certain vantage points.

17 So, in order to comply with the

18 Ordinance to provide screening for new roof top

19 units, very difficult to do. I'm not sure what we

20 would achieve. Again, these are three-foot units.

21 They will be maintained by the ongoing maintenance

22 staff there. If it ever gets rusted, they can paint

23 it. They can maintain them to appear new and still

24 meet their dire needs for air conditioning.









1 I think there was some past proposals

2 that never got this far some cooling units, very big

3 units. What I'm proposing is very small, three-foot

4 high units.

5 At other vantage points, you will

6 never see them. They're tucked into the corridors of

7 the building. And the corridors of the building are

8 in the center of the building. The building is like

9 an H. The units will be at each wing and in the

10 center, it's very difficult to see a three-foot high

11 unit. But at certain vantage points, you can see it.

12 You can see all the units that are there now.

13 There's only two right now, an about 20 exhaust fans.

14 I think the spirit of that Ordinance

15 was obviously for new buildings. If this was a new

16 facility, I wouldn't be here and we would make sure

17 the building would was properly designed. But given

18 that this facility is approaching 40 years old, the

19 condition of the roof -- I had to get outside the

20 structural engineers just to verify that the roof can

21 hold that. They still question introducing, what

22 he called unnecessary conditions, like screening.

23 The Ordinance says that we have to look at. His

24 calculations show that snow drifting would not









1 necessarily strain the roof so much, but there's

2 always that potential.

3 We don't know what the weather can

4 bring. We don't know -- just because the BOCCA Code

5 says that snow drifting is so much -- what will

6 happen, in Michigan we don't know. We don't want to

7 take that risk.

8 So basically, there's a couple of

9 issues there. I don't want to introduce more risk

10 for snow drifting, with introducing screening, also.

11 I'm not sure what type of screening will be

12 accomplished, with having small units peppered all

13 over the facility. There is -- the front of the

14 building does have some screening. There is a three

15 foot on in front of the whole building. But this

16 building is sunkered in. Maybe 1967, it wasn't an

17 issue, but now with the all the surrounding

18 communities, at least three sides of it are all

19 commercial, I'm sure if they had a problem with that.

20 I suspect they did not.

21 The back of the facility, which is the

22 eastside of the facility is -- there is a four-foot

23 high brick fence and a lot of trees. However, I did

24 speak with one resident. She had some concerns, but









1 none of those residents really know how big the units

2 are. They just hear that we're putting in roof top

3 units -- oh, no, I'm going to be able to see them. I

4 really don't think you will.

5 There are some roof top units serving

6 the kitchen that you can see now, but we're not going

7 to touch those.

8 And I'll be more than happy to

9 entertain any questions.


11 Thank you.

12 It's pretty clear there's no one in

13 the audience that would have any objections.

14 There were 55 notices sent, no

15 approvals, and one objection. And I'm going to --

16 I'm sorry. I said it wrong. There's one approval

17 and one objection, Darlene May at 24367 originally

18 objected and then she refuted her objection. And

19 then we had Danielle Grisley, at 24383 Lebost. I

20 would like to register a conditional complaint in

21 regards to the roof top air conditioning.

22 The current unit is an eyesore is very

23 noisy. I just want to know if the replacement one

24 will have some type of screen that's pleasing to the









1 eye, in line with the unit that's now existing.

2 Since my backyard is directly behind the nursing

3 home, a retaining wall should help with the noise.

4 The improvements will be greatly appreciated.

5 My concern is what the improvements

6 will look like.

7 Building Department?

8 MR. SAVEN: Just want to point out to

9 the Board this building is approximately 40 years old

10 and there are some logistic problems, based upon

11 where it's at in relationship to the road. This

12 young man wants to put in several units, and they're

13 low profile units, you can address it as such.

14 MR. CABELLO: Correct.

15 MR. SAVEN: So the requirement -- the

16 bottomline is, there is screening requirement and

17 that's why he been doing is there requirement and

18 that's why he's here tonight.

19 MR. CABELLO: Correct.


21 Member Sanghvi?

22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Well, I guess I got

23 question.

24 Where how old is this Ordinance about









1 screening climate control or --

2 MR. SAVEN: I would say at least 20

3 years old.

4 MEMBER SANGHVI: But this building is

5 much older than that.

6 MR. SAVEN: Oh, yeah.

7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Is there a

8 grandfathering clause in there?

9 MR. SAVEN: Oh, no.

10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Canup?

11 MEMBER CANUP: Is there a requirement

12 for the noise allowances?

13 MR. SAVEN: Yeah, there is. It's

14 between certain distances. Somebody earlier on

15 mentioned a retaining wall; is that correct?

16 MR. CABELLO: These units --

17 MR. SAVEN: I'm sorry. Normally if it

18 is an air conditioning unit placed on the exterior of

19 the home, which is located inside the yard, you still

20 have that requirement of decibels or something like

21 that and you have to maintain that.

22 MR. CABELLO: Some units are enclosed.

23 MEMBER CANUP: I don't see a problem

24 with this. I don't know that I like it, but I don't









1 know that I dislike it because of the fact the

2 building's 40 years old; and it's built in a hole, if

3 you want to use that term. It's somewhat different

4 grade than the road. And I don't know what real

5 purpose of any kind of screening would, so with that,

6 somebody else can make a Motion. I've done enough

7 for one night.


9 getting used to that.

10 MEMBER FISCHER: I'll make -- may I

11 make a Motion?


13 MEMBER FISCHER: That in case, 04-082,

14 that we grant the Petitioner's request, given the the

15 discussion by the Board tonight, and that the

16 Petitioner has established that the proposed

17 improvements will not be a detriment to public safety

18 and welfare.

19 MEMBER BAUER: Second.


21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

22 seconded.

23 Is there any further discussion on the

24 Motion?









1 SEEing none, Denise --

2 DENISE ANDERSON: I just wanted to

3 clarify. The withdrawal was an objection. She did

4 not approve it so there's still one objection?

5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I'm withdrawing my

6 objection from the case.

7 DENISE ANDERSON: I know, but she

8 didn't say she approved it.

9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. Thank you

10 for that clarification.

11 Denise, would you please call the

12 roll.

13 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


15 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


17 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


19 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


21 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


23 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?










1 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

2 zero.


4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I have something

5 to discuss in regard to other matters, so before

6 everybody dashes out of here, this is a delightful

7 note and it's certainly a memorable one. Earlier

8 this evening, Mr. Bauer mentioned that he and his

9 lovely wife, Carol, have been married for 52 years.

10 52 years.

11 MEMBER BAUER: She can't watch it. We

12 have satellite.

13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Well, at any rate,

14 you can take our well-wishes home to her and

15 congratulations on 52-wonderful years.

16 Is there anything else that wishes to

17 --

18 And I also want to mention, Member

19 Sanghvi and Member Ruyle will not being at next

20 month's meeting.

21 MR. SAVEN: We have another issue.

22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Oh, we have one

23 other issue.

24 MEMBER SANGHVI: It's 04 -- something.









1 DENISE ANDERSON: James Tesen of

2 Standard Federal Bank applied to the ZBA. His case

3 is coming up in September. Now, he wants to put a

4 sign up -- I'm sorry. All it's going to say is

5 Financed by Standard Federal Bank, and he wants to

6 put it at the Novi Expo, at very very western edge of

7 the where the rest area used to be and he needs to

8 get a variance from Section 28-9, that services

9 advertising signs in I-2 district buildings, and the

10 location of the sign in the I-96 right of way.

11 But the issue tonight is the mock-up

12 because of where it's at and it's going to be 16 feet

13 wide, eight feet high, and it's going to be eight

14 feet poles. And the cost to have a mock-up would be

15 extremely high. So what he's asking, can he just put

16 two poles that would be 16 feet high, so you can see

17 where the sign would be.

18 MEMBER CANUP: Tell not to waste his

19 time. A sign that big, that's ridiculous and it's

20 advertising a bank that's financing the project,

21 correct?

22 DENISE ANDERSON: It's only going to

23 say, Financed by Standard Federal Bank.

24 MEMBER CANUP: In my opinion, tell him









1 he's wasting his time. I don't know how the rest of

2 the Board feels.

3 DENISE ANDERSON: He's already

4 applied.

5 What would the decision be about the

6 mock-up? Would you allow two poles with just some

7 paper on them, so you can just get an idea of where

8 it's going to go.

9 MEMBER SANGHVI: How long is this --

10 DENISE ANDERSON: 16 feet.

11 MEMBER SANGHVI: How long are they

12 going to keep it?

13 DENISE ANDERSON: Probably just that

14 week, the week before the meeting.

15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Just for that

16 particular week. It's a temporary sign.

17 MEMBER BRENNAN: No, it's a mock-up.

18 MEMBER FISCHER: The actual sign won't

19 be up for awhile, am I wrong?

20 DENISE ANDERSON: It would just be the

21 poles and he's talking about streamer across the top

22 of it so you can see. Is it the height?

23 MEMBER BRENNAN: And the size?










1 MEMBER BRENNAN: We can tell him no,

2 that's fine.

3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is an Expo sign

4 that big, a temporary sign?

5 New Expo, okay.

6 DENISE ANDERSON: So is it all right?

7 MEMBER BAUER: It's his choice.



10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is there anything

11 else that the Board wishes to discuss at this time?

12 Seeing none, It is 10:51.

13 MEMBER FISCHER: I'd like to make a

14 Motion to adjourn.

15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's 10:51, I would

16 hereby adjourn this meeting.

17 All those in favor say aye?



20 (The meeting was adjourned at

21 10:52 p.m.)

22 - - - - -











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 (170) typewritten

10 pages, is a true and correct transcript of my said

11 stenograph notes.



14 ________________________________________

15 Machelle R. Billingslea-Moore, Reporter.