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, October 5, 2004.

Cynthia Gronachan, Chairman
Justin Fischer
Brent Canup
Gerald Bauer
Frank Brennan
Siddarth Sanghvi

Don Saven, Building Department
Alan Amolsh, Ordinance Enforcement
Denise Anderson, ZBA Recording Secretary

Machelle Billingslea-Moore, Certified Shorthand Reporter.

1 Novi, Michigan

2 Tuesday, October 5, 2004

3 At 7:31 p.m.

4 - - - - -

5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. It is 7:31

6 and I called the September -- the October Zoning

7 Board of Appeals Meeting to order.

8 Denise, would you please call 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: Member Ruyle is

22 absent excused.


24 Thank you.









1 The Zoning Board of Appeals is a

2 hearing board, empowered by the Novi City Charter to

3 hear appeals seeking variances to the application of

4 the Novi Zoning Ordinances. It takes a vote of at

5 least four members to approve a variance request; and

6 a vote of the majority of the members present to deny

7 a variance.

8 This evening we do have a full board.

9 Are there any changes in the agenda?


11 The first item on the agenda, case

12 number, 04-086 filed by Cheryl Murphy for 22798

13 Shadow Pine Way, has requested that her case be

14 tabled until the November meeting.

15 And it is a possibility that case 04-

16 073 filed by John Anderson for 1361 East Lake. He

17 might not be able to be present at the meeting, due

18 to a work schedule and the birth of his grandchild.

19 If that is the case and you call it

20 and he's not here, he's asking that it be tabled

21 until the November meeting.

22 And I'd like to add an item under

23 other matters. Case number, 04-026 filed by Gloria

24 Wilson of 1322 East Lake Drive is requesting a one









1 month extension on his 90 day approval.

2 And that's all.

3 MR. GILLIAM: Madam Chair?

4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes, Mr. Gilliam?

5 MR. GILLIAM: I would also ask if you

6 could add an executive session at the close of the

7 regular agenda for us to meet to discuss

8 attorney/client privileged communication we've

9 received tonight in reference to the Minutes of the

10 closed session at the last Zoning Board Meeting.

11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: At the end of the

12 regular meeting.

13 MR. GILLIAM: At the end of the

14 regular meeting.


16 Sure.

17 All those in favor of tonight's agenda

18 and it's changes, please say aye?


20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Any opposed?

21 Seeing none -- the Minutes, I

22 understand they are not available at this time.

23 There was a delay.

24 So moving ahead.









1 Is there anyone in the audience at

2 this time that wishes to approach the Board and speak

3 on behalf of an item or a matter that is not on the

4 agenda this evening, you may do so now.

5 Is there anyone in the audience that

6 wishes to approach the Board?

7 Seeing none, we will go ahead and call

8 our first case.


10 Case number 04-094 filed by Matt Fill

11 of Oscar W. Larson Company, representing Sunoco Gas

12 Station at 43601 Grand River Avenue. This case,

13 you'll remember, Board Members, was tabled from last

14 month.

15 And you are?

16 MR. FILL: I'm Matt Fill.

17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Could you please --

18 were you here -- I'm sorry. Were you hear last

19 month?

20 MR. FILL: Yes.

21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. You were

22 sworn in by our secretary?

23 MR. FILL: Correct.

24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And that will take









1 over for this month.

2 You may proceed.

3 MR. FILL: All right.

4 I've got some -- we're currently

5 seeking this variance -- for those of you who weren't

6 here last time -- well, the sign at the site -- for

7 those of you who drove by there to see the mock-up --

8 it's already in place.

9 Larson was acting as the GC on the

10 project. The sign company was responsible for the

11 signage; was hired directly by Sunoco. Due to

12 miscommunication from them, we ended up installing

13 the sign base. Thought it was correct, according to

14 the setbacks, due to the information provided to the

15 sign company.

16 At a later date, turned out this

17 wasn't the case. They originally told us we were

18 fine to build the sign base in the location it was.

19 It's on the approved site plan here. The sign was

20 essentially installed in the spot that was shown,

21 which is here.

22 To correct the variance or to meet the

23 variance Ordinance, we would have to move the sign

24 essentially five feet this way. And in essence, that









1 creates other problems or hardships. The fact the

2 sign was installed where it is, we realized that it

3 comes through as a self-created situation. We just

4 need to kind of go through the facts of how it

5 actually got installed where it's at.

6 Last time the question was brought up

7 maybe a way to avoid this. Even though, I'm the

8 contractor; I'm responsible for verifying a lot of

9 this stuff, might be to use it as part of the

10 approval process, getting all the signage in the same

11 package and avoid the confusion in the construction.

12 However, regardless of this other

13 hardship still existent on the site -- and if we are

14 required, indeed to tear out the existing sign base,

15 move it over, due to the configurance(sic) of the

16 property, it's really only one other location, like

17 we said that --


19 Mr. Fill, if you're going to walk away, you need to

20 take that microphone with you, so they can hear you

21 at home.

22 I believe they have it on for you.

23 MR. FILL: All right.

24 There's really only one other location









1 on this site, due to the configuration that this

2 thing could really go. And it's a five foot area it

3 could be moved over. As you can see from the picture

4 I've provided here, creates some problems, because

5 when it is, indeed, moved over, we're talking about

6 an elevation change. The sign essentially drops.

7 Also, if it was moved closer to our

8 landscape retaining wall, there's some issues with

9 the way it's backfilled and engineered up here. In

10 addition, we have a catch basin, which is kind of

11 shown over here. The storm system runs directly

12 along here. May or may not be an issue.

13 Let's see. This easterly movement of

14 the sign, like I said, does reduce the height and --

15 approximately 12 inches or so. In addition, if you

16 don't get our other variance approved for the sign

17 height, we're really now short almost two feet on the

18 essential height of the sign. Which, as you can see

19 in that set of pictures, kind of makes it disappear

20 in the landscaping.

21 We have quite an extensive landscape

22 plan out here. And this picture here is being taken

23 from the westbound traffic on Grand River. And

24 although the sign's -- the picture's a little bit









1 cloudy, essentially, the sign basically disappears in

2 the landscaping.

3 If we lower it another, basically two

4 feet, with the sign shifted over, this thing's really

5 going to disappear. Keep in mind, that this is also

6 new landscaping, and it's going to grow out and

7 mature.

8 The next picture is from the easterly

9 -- I'm sorry, eastbound traffic on Grand River. And

10 as you can see the sign setback from here. The Road

11 Commission is due to put up a six foot guard fence on

12 top of this wall as part of their project. Which

13 again, the sign is really going to disappear; thus

14 creating hardship on the gas station.

15 Price is very important to a service

16 station; hence, to draw a lot of customers in when

17 prices are inexpensive and so forth; and it's good,

18 indeed, to draw people in who are price conscience.

19 I guess, in conclusion, as the sign

20 currently sits on site, it's less intrusive than some

21 of the other fixtures that we have out on the site or

22 will have, eventually. We're due to have two park

23 benches and a trash enclosure -- trash bin, city

24 scape specifications, even further out, towards the









1 right-of-way line.

2 As you see, this is the current

3 situation where it sits. It's going to be sitting

4 over even further. Also, the surrounding property is

5 basically going to be vacant land. As you can see in

6 the photo, and also kind of in this area here, the

7 main drainage culvert runs through here. This area

8 will never really be developed on the other side of

9 the property.

10 And basically, we're kind of at a

11 hardship here, due to the unique characteristics of

12 the property, site grading and the elevations, we

13 feel that by having to tear down the sign and move

14 it, the sign essentially disappears; and it is the

15 only signage on site at this point.

16 And that's pretty much it.


18 Thank you.

19 Is there anyone in the audience that

20 wishes to make comment to the Board this evening, in

21 regards to this case?

22 Seeing none, there were 19 notices

23 mailed; no approvals, no objections.

24 Building Department?









1 MR. SAVEN: Just one second, please.


3 MR. SAVEN: This question, Alan, as

4 far as corner clearance goes, do you have any

5 problem?

6 MR. AMOLSH: I don't think so. We

7 didn't have any idea the other one was going to be

8 that close.

9 MR. SAVEN: Nothing farther back than

10 25 feet, okay.

11 I'm all set.


13 Thank you.

14 Board Members?

15 Member Bauer?

16 MEMBER BAUER: Right as it stands

17 right now, going westbound, you don't have a sign.

18 You can't see it. Going eastbound, you have a sign.

19 And as far as hardship, whoever put the sign in, it's

20 his hardship. And I think everyone should conform to

21 our rules and regulations. I'm still interested in

22 keeping it back the five feet and it's five feet

23 high.

24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Canup?









1 MEMBER CANUP: Some of you weren't

2 here last month. This was before us last month and

3 it didn't get a positive vote on it, that's why it's

4 back here. I don't think it got a negative vote,

5 either. It just didn't get a vote.

6 And in my opinion, nothing has

7 changed. It's still a non-conforming sign. These

8 people are big people. They no better than what they

9 did. And the sign people that came in there are in

10 the sign business, and I don't have any sympathy for

11 them.


13 Member Brennan?

14 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, I wasn't here

15 last month. I was in Chicago. And maybe, I've got a

16 different perspective of this. This has been a site

17 that's been abandoned for probably 15, 18 years.

18 It's a considerable eyesore. As we look at

19 developing the downtown Novi, I think this is a nice

20 addition. I was very much in approval of the gas

21 station to begin with, when we had some variances to

22 the building, itself.

23 The Petitioner -- I mean, it's easy to

24 put a gas station on a corner and just put a lot of









1 concrete down. I think we have to look at a broader

2 picture at what they've invested at this point, in

3 terms of landscaping and greenscape.

4 And yeah, they made some mistakes.

5 This sign has been at six foot since 1998 in their

6 plans. So for six years, it was going to go before

7 the ZBA. It's location is set in a spot that it's

8 self-created, because of their landscaping design.

9 But I think we're getting a bigger bank for our buck

10 with their overall design.

11 So I'm of the opinion that I don't

12 think this is a big deal.

13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer?

14 MEMBER FISCHER: My perception, given

15 the comments made by the Petitioner, as well as the

16 site visit and the information presented to me, leads

17 me to agree that these variances should be requested.

18 The Petitioner's established, in my

19 view, that a hardship does exist; and that it would

20 be burdensome to remove it. Therefore, I would be --

21 I will be supporting any Motion that would approve

22 these variances.


24 Member Sanghvi?









1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, Madam

2 Chair.

3 Just a question. Does this five foot

4 variance cause any kind of hazard? Any kind of

5 safety -- road safety, any kind of problem?

6 MR. SAVEN: Not that I'm aware of.

7 The plot plan shows the location where

8 the sign is. If you take a look at it, if you're

9 coming from the west to -- west to east, the traffic

10 flow, you'll see that it sets back a little farther

11 off the main thoroughfare of Grand River, and I don't

12 see that this becomes a problem in that area.

13 MEMBER SANGHVI: To start with, I

14 wasn't here last time when this was discussed. And I

15 have been going around and I sat in their driveway

16 today, sitting there, looking all around, and seeing,

17 well, if this is any kind of hazard.

18 And to my naive way of thinking, there

19 wasn't any hazard. It's a very nicely, tastefully

20 landscaped area for a gas station. It's a very good

21 looking sign. Yes, they made a mistake. They

22 shouldn't have installed it, but sometimes, it is

23 human to err and it's divine to forgive. And I would

24 be very inclined to support this applicant's request.









1 And at the appropriate time, if nobody

2 else would be, I'll be happy to make a Motion.

3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Brennan?

4 MEMBER BRENNAN: I think there's some

5 new evidence that has been presented tonight, and

6 that's the eastbound Grand River picture, that shows

7 this concrete slab here. And he indicated that there

8 was going to be some fencing on top of that, right?

9 MR. FILL: Yes.

10 The Road Commission has a six foot

11 barrier fence that goes -- it's over the new box

12 culvert.

13 MEMBER BRENNAN: I really think that

14 their variance request are very minimal. And

15 considering what's going to happen to this site when

16 the road construction is done, is even going to make

17 it tougher to see this.

18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer?

19 MEMBER FISCHER: I just wanted to add

20 one last thing, as well. And I think the chairperson

21 said it best last month, when she said that, I'm not

22 going to condone the sign company going in there and

23 presenting a sign, placing a sign where they see fit;

24 and then coming to us.









1 However, when the variances are

2 minimal and like Member Brennan said, we're actually

3 getting our bang for our buck on this one, that is

4 when I would be willing to support something like

5 this. But if it was merely that the sign company had

6 messed up and placed this incorrectly, then no, I

7 wouldn't be.

8 But I see a lot more in this picture

9 than just excuses, if you will.

10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Bauer?

11 MEMBER BAUER: I think if we had the

12 Minutes, they would also show that the sign company

13 that put the sign in, that they could move it. Which

14 leads me right back where I said.

15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Which leads right

16 into my segway.

17 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Right to me.

19 Last month, I was pretty certain about

20 how things like this happen. And my concern is a

21 Board Member and also for the image of the City of

22 Novi, what kind of can of worms are we opening up

23 here, by letting this go.

24 I did not wish for you to be the









1 sacrificial lamb last month, if you recall. However,

2 you did say it could be moved. Someone said that it

3 could be moved last month. I went to the site and I

4 walked it. I share my -- I share the same opinion

5 with Member Brennan, in that he brings up a good

6 point about the landscaping.

7 However, Member Bauer also brings out

8 a good point, that you can't see that sign where it

9 is. So I don't know what -- where it is. Have you

10 looked at moving it anyplace else, other than telling

11 me that it's going to cause elevation and drainage

12 problems? Because, last month it was stated that you

13 could move it.

14 MR. FILL: Well, in the picture number

15 three -- I'll put that back up again -- that is the

16 required setback. That's where the sign sits. And

17 again, as you can see, not only will the sign -- one,

18 disappear in the eastbound traffic, the way it is

19 right now -- but now, we're actually going to be

20 lowering it from another foot from the lowest

21 elevation -- which is where I think you take your

22 elevation height for your variance height of five

23 feet, for your required signage height.

24 And that was in that second location.









1 You can see the -- I can use this one. And this is

2 really the only other location on the site. As you

3 can see, this where five foot would actually move it

4 to. Every place else, I have constraints. This just

5 really no other area that you can move the sign,

6 other than what we're showing here; and still not hit

7 other variance issues.

8 MEMBER BRENNAN: Sir, you can put that

9 sign on a 20 foot pole, stick it up in the air,

10 couldn't you?

11 MR. FILL: No.

12 I think that answered your question.

13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Canup?

14 MEMBER CANUP: I think if we turn this

15 request down, they will find a way to comply with our

16 Ordinances. And I think some of the theory is that

17 sometimes it's better to apologize than to ask

18 permission. I think that's what's happening in this

19 case.

20 The sign company went in and put the

21 sign in where they thought it would go. You cannot

22 tell me that they weren't aware that they were

23 supposed to get a sign permit. If they're a

24 legitimate sign company in the sign business, anybody









1 knows anywhere you go, the first thing you do is ask

2 if you've got to get a permit in the construction

3 business.

4 These people knew better than this.

5 And for that reason, I have no sympathy for them.

6 And there's no reason that that can't be brought into

7 conformance. Last month, I think they were working

8 on their landscaping when they were here. They went

9 right ahead with their landscaping. Didn't slow down

10 a bit. Just went ahead and finished the project;

11 leaning on the fact that they're going to get a

12 variance.

13 And I think it's obvious of what my

14 vote would be on this.


16 With that, if nobody else wants to,

17 I'll be glad to make a Motion.


19 MEMBER CANUP; I would make a Motion

20 that in case number, 04-094, Oscar W. Larson, that we

21 deny the variances as requested.

22 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

24 seconded.









1 Any further discussion in regards to

2 the Motion?

3 MR. GILLIAM: Madam Chair?


5 MR. GILLIAM: If I could ask the maker

6 of the Motion to support some reasons for the denial,

7 just the denial, itself.

8 MEMBER CANUP: The reasons being that

9 there's really no hardship in this case, no

10 demonstrated hardship.

11 Does that suffice?

12 MR. GILLIAM: Thank you, yes.

13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: If there's no

14 further discussion, Denise, would you please call the

15 roll.

16 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


18 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


20 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


22 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


24 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?










2 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


4 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes -- no,

5 I'm sorry. Three to three.


7 Somebody needs to do a lot of talking

8 or do some other plans. And I'm going to caution

9 anyone that comes up to please refrain from telling

10 us it's going to cause financial hardship to take

11 this sign down. Okay. I'm just going to caution

12 somebody.

13 MR. FILL: I think here's the whole

14 thing I think everybody's missing the point on. And

15 I don't know if clarifying further complicates it,

16 but as the GC, I was required to put in the

17 foundation and the mason of the sign, as stated in my

18 summary.

19 This sign company, we were under the

20 guise of a 90-day process trying to get this thing

21 open. The sign company came in -- again, hired

22 through Sunoco -- and they were giving me the

23 information of where the sign based goes.

24 When it came down to dig the









1 foundation, they're the people that said, okay, we're

2 ready for this. Kind of like hiring a mechanical

3 contractor and saying, okay, you have your permit to

4 get started. It's just a bad situation to be in,

5 especially under the speed of a construction project.

6 Like I said, the landscape's been

7 completed. We had a lot of things to do in order to

8 get to the point where we're at today. We finally

9 just received our CCO as of today. So there's still

10 a lot of things going on. It wasn't that this thing

11 was just placed there. The sign company came in and

12 said, you know, go ahead and do it.

13 Under any construction project, it's

14 -- under any construction project there's things that

15 happen with the speed of schedule. This things been

16 going on for almost a year and a half. So, the

17 problem with the gas station business, too, is that

18 everybody's branded differently. We weren't sure

19 what this thing was going to be; whether it was going

20 to be a Sunoco; a BP. And so that's why there's

21 differentiation between signage.

22 They come in. They'll provide the

23 owner with pumps, usually signage, several other

24 things with their own branding, once they sign a









1 contract with them. So that's where the division

2 was. It wasn't like a typical construction project,

3 where you might have a strip mall or something, where

4 the GC is responsible for the signage package and

5 everything else.

6 So I guess with that being said,

7 that's really the differentiation I tried to make in

8 my original summary.


10 MEMBER CANUP: Legal Department.

11 If we can't reach a consensus on this,

12 what else?

13 MR. GILLIAM: Well, a three to three

14 vote is really no vote. I mean, it's not an

15 approval; it's not a denial. So if none of the six

16 of you is willing to change your vote to reach a

17 decision tonight, then probably the appropriate

18 action would be to table it; in the hopes of having a

19 seventh member at next months meeting.

20 MEMBER CANUP: Or the Petitioner could

21 bring the sign in conformance and withdraw the

22 request, right?

23 MR. GILLIAM: Withdraw the request.

24 They can submit a different request, if they had a









1 new proposal they'd like to bring before the Board.

2 MEMBER BAUER: You only have six

3 voting on the ZBA.

4 MR. MATLE(ph): May I speak?

5 MEMBER CANUP: But if we had an

6 alternate, he breaks the tie, correct?

7 MEMBER FISCHER: When I was the

8 alternate and there was a tie vote, and I was not

9 allowed to vote. There's no tie-breaker.

10 MEMBER BRENNAN: But our missing party

11 right now is not our alternate. He's a permanent ZBA

12 member.

13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: No, he's an

14 alternate.

15 MEMBER FISCHER: Incorrect.

16 MEMBER BRENNAN: So tabling, doesn't

17 really matter.

18 MEMBER CANUP: There's no action on it

19 then.

20 MR. GILLIAM: Well, someone's going to

21 have to change their vote.

22 MEMBER BRENNAN: Somebody's going to

23 have to change their vote or he has to come back with

24 something different.









1 MR. SAVEN: Or bring the sign into

2 conformance.

3 MEMBER CANUP: Or bring the sign into

4 conformance.

5 I'll be very up front with you. I'm

6 not willing to change my vote. I've stressed my

7 concerns about how this happened and I have no

8 sympathy for them; due to the fact that, again,

9 they're professional people. They should no better.

10 And they went -- came to us last time, last month,

11 presented their case and went right into their

12 landscaping, just like nothing had happened.

13 I think if it had been my project,

14 somebody would have been moving a sign. Very simple.

15 MEMBER BRENNAN: And as much as I ride

16 motorcycles with this guy, I completely disagree with

17 him.

18 MEMBER FISCHER: Nor am I willing to

19 change my vote, either.

20 I'm requesting some clarification on

21 the variance required.

22 That setback is from Lynch Street; is

23 that correct?

24 MR. AMOLSH: Correct.









1 MEMBER FISCHER: So a less traveled

2 street, as opposed to --

3 MR. AMOLSH: The major road.

4 MEMBER FISCHER: -- the major road.

5 Once again, looking at Member

6 Sanghvi's concern with health, safety and welfare --

7 can you put your blueprint of the area up where the

8 sign is for me?

9 And I'd like you to look at and tell

10 me if you've looked at any possibilities of putting

11 it along Grand River -- not just where the sign is

12 and not just moving the sign closer to landscaping --

13 have you looked at every alternative?

14 MR. FILL: Well, keep in mind that we

15 do have a -- I believe -- it's a 65 foot from center

16 line.

17 MR. AMOLSH: 53 feet.

18 MR. FILL: 53 feet, which -- I mean,

19 we're already maxed out where we're at right now.

20 Shifting it over, will be out in the parking lot at

21 this point.


23 MR. FILL: Here, also, would be the

24 other location, but again, we're looking at a









1 variance requirement from our side yard setback.


3 MR. FILL: From the neighbor's

4 property.

5 Back in here, would do absolutely no

6 good to us. There's fence stacks, a tank and a tank

7 farm, and so forth; and there's --it's just not going

8 to be beneficial.

9 MEMBER FISCHER: Given the fact that

10 the applicant has looked at all alternatives, and

11 given the fact that where the sign is currently

12 pushed over to the east five feet, really isn't going

13 to work with him.

14 And that is why I refuse to change my

15 vote, as well.

16 Thank you.

17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Bauer?

18 MEMBER BAUER: They never did put up a

19 temporary sign.


21 MEMBER BAUER: As required.

22 That would settle all of the --

23 MEMBER BRENNAN: A mock-up.

24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: The mock-up.









1 MR. FILL: Well, the mock-up is the

2 sign in place.

3 MEMBER BAUER: The mock-up is not the

4 original sign.

5 It's a mock-up of what the original

6 will be.

7 MEMBER BRENNAN: So you'd have the

8 means of moving it.

9 MEMBER CANUP: The whole problem is

10 they didn't get a permit. If they'd got a permit,

11 they wouldn't be in this situation. If they needed a

12 variance, they would have come in, put a mock-up up,

13 and this thing could have been handled --

14 MR. FILL: Well, this is not --

15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Excuse me one

16 moment.

17 The Board is talking.

18 MEMBER CANUP: -- it could have been

19 handled in a different way. And we could have taken

20 a look at it -- and quite truthfully, I drive by

21 there almost every day and have looked at that

22 several times. And it's really -- I don't care what

23 you do there, it's crowded with landscaping and the

24 sign is not that visible.









1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Saven, I have a

2 question to you in regards to this statement of, if

3 he moves it and puts it where it's supposed to be,

4 okay, if there's an elevation and landscaping

5 problem.

6 Is he then -- are we to assume -- and

7 I hate that word -- but are we to assume that he's

8 going to be in violation of a landscaping

9 requirement, or can someone answer that for me?

10 MR. SAVEN: The landscaping

11 requirement deals with a number of placements of the

12 landscaping items.

13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: So the fact that

14 the bushes are there, has nothing to do that a sign

15 can go there; is that correct?

16 MR. SAVEN: That's correct.

17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: That's the first

18 thing.

19 The second thing is, do we know what

20 kind of elevation problem there would be? Has anyone

21 come out and actually said, yes, there would be --

22 you know, it's five feet, it's four feet, it's three

23 feet -- is there any proof to substantiate that

24 this sign cannot go there?









1 MR. SAVEN: No.


3 And that's what your homework

4 assignment is. And my suggestion is -- I'm going to

5 take the run of the table here -- I'm going to

6 suggest that you go back and table this one more time

7 and prove to this Board that it cannot go in the

8 required site where it's supposed to be.

9 If you can substantiate that, you will

10 change my vote in November. But at this point, I

11 cannot change my vote, because I do not have it

12 substantiated that that sign cannot go in where that

13 -- where it's supposed to be, and that the sign

14 cannot be put up without a variance. And that's

15 where my problem is.

16 MR. MATLE: May I speak?

17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes, you may.

18 MR. MATLE: I was here last month. My

19 name is Ali Matle, and the developer. I just want to

20 -- I'd like to plead to your common sense here,

21 please, and some of your mercy. I may sound like I'm

22 a little uptight, because I'm a little -- this

23 project has taken a couple years, and I'm sure you

24 guys all know this. The landscaping on this project









1 has cost me well over $55,000. I can't simply just

2 tear out plants and throw them away.


4 MR. MATLE: I just need to speak from

5 the heart, please, let me finish.

6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Excuse me. I'm

7 going to stop you right there. I said before you

8 both came back up to this podium, please do not put

9 financial hardship in front of us -- in front of this

10 Board. It's not something that we can look at. I'm

11 not trying to be difficult. I've done everything to

12 work with you -- both of you.

13 MR. MATLE: Okay.

14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: My suggestion is

15 that --

16 MR. MATLE: I'm not --

17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I'm suggesting --

18 excuse me.

19 I'm suggesting that you go back and do

20 your homework; and that is, come back and tell this

21 Board why that sign can't go where it should be.

22 MR. MATLE: Okay.

23 May I just continue, please, if I can?

24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: If it's regarding









1 financial, I'm sorry, but I'm going to call and end

2 to it.

3 MR. MATLE: Do you mean financial as

4 in moving -- the cost of the sign or meaning

5 financial in moving the whole project?

6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Anything financial.

7 MR. MATLE: I just want to make

8 something clear, please.

9 Can you put the canopy up?

10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Canup?

11 MEMBER CANUP: I would like to make a

12 Motion that we table this case until our next

13 meeting.

14 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved

16 and seconded to move this case until November.

17 All those in favor say aye?


19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: All those opposed?

20 None.


22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: We have one opposed

23 to moving the case to next month.

24 We will see you next November.









1 We will now call case number, 04-057,

2 filed by Christopher Cagle of Glenda's Market at

3 40575 Grand River Avenue.

4 This case was also tabled from July.

5 It was tabled again in August with some

6 specifications.

7 And you are?

8 MR. HARRINGTON: James Harrington,

9 attorney, 24101 Novi Road, representing Mr. Cagle and

10 Glenda's.

11 This matter would have come up in

12 September, except I think it was a short board, so it

13 was tabled to this month for a full consideration.

14 The last time we were here before the

15 Board, I think that Mr. Cagle had addressed the

16 issues associated with the homeowners; and then the

17 discussion took a turn in the direction where the

18 Board expressed significant concerns on the overall

19 scope of the project; what is the plan, what is the

20 site plan, give us something in writing. In

21 conjunction with meeting with the City, that we can

22 understand what you're trying to do, Mr. Cagle, then

23 we'll look at the project as a whole.

24 Thereafter, Mr. Cagle met with both









1 Mr. Saven and Mr. Amolsh, and submitted a preliminary

2 plan for their review. And subject to some

3 modifications, as I understand it, he's now come up

4 with the final plan; primarily involving, for

5 example, the fence that will not be in the right-of-

6 way. It'll be off the right-of-way. It's a three-

7 tiered vinyl fence. Relocation of the mulch bins.

8 the mulch bins, I believe, have not been relocated;

9 because we don't have permission to do it yet. But

10 the relocation of the mulch bins is on there.

11 And perhaps, the most significant

12 issue, is specifically providing on the plans for the

13 turnaround period for the trucks, so they can off

14 load on site; and remove that entire issue from the

15 Grand River area. And I'm also advised from

16 Mr. Cagle that since the last meeting, all of his

17 regular delivery people and all of his employees have

18 been instructed to forget Grand River. It's off the

19 map. You've got to unload and pick-up and deliver

20 inside the facility.

21 But if the Board pleases, I'll have

22 Mr. Cagle go into the specifics that he's asking you

23 to approve as part of the approval of his variance.










1 Members, do you need that?

2 Okay.

3 MR. CAGLE: Good evening.

4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Good evening.

5 MR. CAGLE: Do you need me to state my

6 name?

7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: No. You're fine.

8 MR. CAGLE: Like Jim said, as far as

9 trying to comply and trying to conform, I've met with

10 Mr. Saven and the City, gone over the plans. My

11 first draft was a little rough. Hopefully, this is

12 going to be more precise of what we're trying to look

13 at overall. And I'm here, again, just on behalf of

14 Glenda's for a variance for this use. Been here

15 since '81.

16 I'm here to answer any questions.


18 Thank you.

19 Is there anyone in the audience that

20 wishes to make comment in regards to this case?

21 Seeing none, there were -- the letters

22 were originally sent at the beginning of the case

23 back in July. That was 52 notices mailed and now

24 we've received, as of October 5th of this year,









1 additional support for approval from Brooken Lee and

2 Willowbrook Farms residents.

3 Building Department?

4 MR. SAVEN: Other than the fact that

5 we did meet with Chris Cagle -- both Alan and myself,

6 regarding what the Board's pleasure was from the

7 previous month. Making sure we know what kind of

8 fencing was going to be installed. I think that was

9 one of the things Mr. Brennan was concerned about;

10 where the placement of that fencing was going to be.

11 And also, the accessibility of getting

12 the trucks off the road. That was another main

13 concern of the loading and unloading on the site --

14 not on the exterior, but on the site. And where the

15 bins were, the mulch bins, the placement of the mulch

16 bins. That was pretty much the major concerns that

17 we had.


19 Thank you.

20 Board members?

21 MEMBER BAUER: I have no problem.

22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Brennan?

23 MEMBER BRENNAN: To the best that I

24 can see, Mr. Cagle has done what we asked him to do.









1 I drove by the site this afternoon, and everything is

2 skewed back off the right-of-way. Hopefully we can

3 maintain that. Hopefully, he can maintain that. I'm

4 sure he will.

5 I've long supported this Petition,

6 because I think this is a good business for the

7 eastside of the City. And there have been problems

8 over the years, but we've always worked through it

9 and I think they've made that effort with this, as

10 well.


12 Anyone else?

13 Member Canup?

14 MEMBER CANUP: I think the Petitioner,

15 again, has done what we've asked him to do, and I

16 don't have a problem doing what he's asked us to do.

17 And the one thing that I think that we should do is

18 maintain continuing jurisdiction over this to make

19 sure that it is carried out in the fashion that's

20 promised.

21 Again, I would have no problem with a

22 positive vote on this particular case.


24 Member Fischer?









1 MEMBER FISCHER: I am still hesitant,

2 given the concerns that we have seen.

3 First and foremost, with the

4 continuing jurisdiction, I'm hesitant to grant

5 something permanent, and give that phrase -- and if

6 I'm correct, it's not even a legal phrase, per se.

7 So first and foremost, I would like to see something

8 temporary for a year; make sure all of these concerns

9 have been met. And then approve permanency at that

10 point.

11 That's first and foremost.

12 Second of all, the concern with the

13 neighbors, can you tell me how the -- I know that

14 there was a timeline set-up. Can you tell me how

15 that progress is going?

16 MR. CAGLE: Well, the progress is

17 going, I think, very well. We initially put up

18 approximately 60 to 70, anywhere from eight to ten

19 foot spruce along the -- this particular parcel and

20 some of the residents from that community.

21 We'd also been asked to move the mulch

22 bins, because of the fact that cedar smell, and you

23 know, just being there, we've done that. There was

24 some question regarding that area where we used to









1 have those bins and the building and so forth, I've

2 been in contact with that association, and I told

3 them if I get the approval this evening, that we will

4 proceed with a parking area; and that will be with

5 trees. And that was fine.

6 As far as trying to keep things up and

7 go forward, we're doing that. You know, is there

8 going to be some communications, is there going to be

9 some maintenance, yes, on both parts, okay.

10 You know, I'm sure they're going to

11 want landscape now back to that berm, because they

12 have a beautiful wall of evergreens. Unfortunately,

13 some have just a big vinyl wall fence behind; but the

14 majority behind us have, again, eight to ten foot

15 evergreens that are, you know, touching.

16 Years ago, if you're familiar with our

17 parcel, which our landscape plans shows that we have,

18 those trees were also six to eight foot; now those

19 are 18 to 20 foot evergreens, going almost up to the

20 second floor of some of the houses back there.

21 And that's why I put the spruce in

22 there. Some of the neighbors there, they didn't like

23 white pine; some liked spruce trees. I tried to be,

24 you know, as accommodating as I can be. So I want a









1 relationship with the community. I respect the

2 community. I respect this Board. This is a Board

3 that I've dealt with for 20 years, and I've always

4 done what I said I would do; and they've always done,

5 you know, the same for me.

6 MEMBER FISCHER: I definitely

7 appreciate that communication with your neighbors.

8 The mulch bin on the plan that we got,

9 that is away from the house with the child with the

10 allergies; is that correct?

11 MR. CAGLE: Correct.

12 MEMBER FISCHER: All right. That's

13 what I was --

14 Fence along Grand River. What type of

15 fence are we looking at? And I guess that was your

16 idea or a member had brought that up.

17 MEMBER BRENNAN: I don't know exactly,

18 but what I have seen along Beck Road. On one site is

19 vinyl post with the vinyl strips. I've seen that

20 done at a horse farm just west of my subdivision, and

21 it looked very nice. The strips of the vinyl is

22 very, very tight. It doesn't sag. It looks better

23 than wood; and there's no maintenance involved.

24 Is that what you're planning?









1 MR. CAGLE: Well, actually, if we're

2 approved this evening, I'm going to go one step

3 farther. I'm going to use the regular vinyl slabs,

4 also, so there would any sagging or any tension.

5 It's no maintenance, no painting. I've got probably

6 3,000 linear foot at my house, and it's been there

7 for nine years. I've never had to paint it, never

8 touched it up or anything like that.


10 What height are you looking at for

11 that fence?

12 MR. CAGLE: I believe those are

13 approximately five feet in height.

14 MEMBER FISCHER: Approximately four,

15 five and six.

16 MR. CAGLE: Yes.


18 MR. CAGLE: Nothing real high and

19 nothing obtrusive. I just want something that gives

20 me a little protection, kind of looks nice for the

21 curb appeal; and it'll be some landscaping on the

22 inside of the property abutting that, and then there

23 will be the nursery stock.

24 MEMBER FISCHER: Question for the









1 Building Department.

2 Is he going to have to come back for a

3 variance for that fence? Again, that's in the front

4 of the --

5 MR. SAVEN: If you grant that variance

6 tonight, that's temporary -- that's how you're

7 looking at it -- that would be part of the variance

8 for the final application.


10 I'm not a big fan of fences in front,

11 but given the Board's recommendations and how the

12 Board feels, I will compromise on that. And like I

13 said, I'd like to see a temporary one year, just to

14 make sure everything goes along well. Also noting no

15 further violations from our Ordinance Officer take

16 place, and any violations would result in a non-

17 compliance and your coming back in a year.

18 That's my comments.

19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Canup?

20 MEMBER CANUP: If there's no further

21 discussion, I would make a Motion in this case.

22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Sanghvi and

23 -- Member Sanghvi has something to say.

24 MEMBER CANUP: Oh, sorry.









1 MEMBER SANGHVI: I was just going to

2 make a basic statement and make a Motion, for

3 granting the variance for use for a period of a year.

4 That should be the Motion, and there's no need to go

5 over everything.

6 MEMBER CANUP: Is that a Motion?


8 MEMBER CANUP: I would support that.

9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I think Mr. Saven

10 --

11 MR. SAVEN: Just for a point of

12 clarity, I just want to make this absolutely sure

13 that in regard to the berm that is not shown on this

14 plan on the adjacent property, I think that the

15 resident had a concern about that as to what is the

16 reason as to why the berm is not on the adjacent

17 property that you're leasing?

18 MR. CAGLE: Well, actually the

19 property is not mine, okay. So if the owner of that

20 property decides to not lease to me anymore and I am

21 removed from that property -- it's his property to do

22 whatever he wishes -- as long as we're there -- it's

23 been over 20-some years -- we plan on, you know,

24 keeping it just like I did that. I have no intention









1 of taken the tress down or removing them or changing

2 anything as far as the maintenance of that berm, as

3 long as I have the permission to use the property.

4 If t would be where I would lose a

5 variance, then I would remove the trees, because it

6 was -- the trees were there to help the homeowners,

7 as far as the property and, you know, seeing the

8 nursery. If the nursery is removed, then the trees

9 will possibly be moved, also.

10 MR. SAVEN: The berm on your property

11 will remain?

12 MR. CAGLE: Oh, yes, definitely.

13 MR. SAVEN: Okay.

14 MR. GILLIAM: I think it's important

15 that the Motion references the site plan that's been

16 submitted by the applicant. I think it should be a

17 condition of the Motion that the property be

18 developed in compliance with that site plan, number

19 one. And number two, it looks like most of the

20 issues that were the subject of the July 21st letter

21 from the residents, which was in agreement at that

22 time, between Mr. Cagle and the residents, I think

23 they've been addressed.

24 But my suggestion to cover all your









1 bases would be to make a compliance with all of the

2 conditions of this agreement, an additional condition

3 of the approval in this particular case. And I

4 believe, as Member Fischer indicated, I think the

5 appropriate way to handle this would be to make it a

6 temporary variance for one year or, as opposed to

7 just saying continuing jurisdiction.

8 From our standpoint, making it

9 temporary brings it back for review to make sure that

10 there is full compliance.

11 MEMBER CANUP: That was the Motion,

12 Mr. Gilliam, one year.

13 MR. GILLIAM: With the condition. I'm

14 suggesting there should be additional conditions.

15 MEMBER BRENNAN: Just a friendly

16 amendment, that we incorporate the letter of July

17 21st, 2004, from Willowbrook; that the duration be

18 one year, temporary; and that the site plan, as

19 presented tonight, will be what the guide is, the

20 plan.

21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do I have a second?

22 MEMBER CANUP: Second.


24 seconded it.









1 Okay. It's been moved and seconded.

2 Any further discussion on the Motion?

3 Seeing none, Denise, would you please

4 call the roll.

5 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


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: Motion passes six to

18 zero.

19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Congratulations.

20 MR. CAGLE: Thank you.

21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: We'll see you in a

22 year.

23 MR. HARRINGTON: Thank you, Board

24 Members.










2 Petitioner Anderson here?

3 Board Members --

4 Mr. and Mrs. Anderson, are they

5 present or not?

6 Board Members, I'd like to entertain

7 that we table -- that we move this file to the end of

8 the cases. The Petitioner could still show up.



11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I'm going on to

12 case number, 04-080 filed by Robby Ash of Northstar

13 Signs for real estate sign for Cushman & Wakefield.

14 This case was tabled from the

15 September meeting. Mr. Ash from Northstar Signs is

16 requesting two sign variances to erect a ground real

17 estate sign for the above company.

18 The sign is to be located on vacant

19 property, east of Meadowbrook, north of Bridge Street

20 and facing the I-96 Expressway.

21 Good evening.

22 Are you Mr. Ash?

23 MR. ASH: I am.

24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you please









1 raise your right hand and be sworn in by our

2 secretary.

3 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

4 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-080?

5 MR. ASH: I do.

6 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.


8 MR. ASH: We're requesting a variance

9 for the additional square footage, as a result of the

10 required setback from the highway. In order to

11 advertise this property to the traffic on the

12 highway, we would need the additional 40 square feet,

13 simply just to make the sign visible from the

14 highway.

15 We're requesting the additional height

16 for the same purpose, just to make it visible above

17 the bushes and shrubbery. The elevation of this

18 particular property in that area is sort of lower

19 than normal, so we would need the additional height

20 on that; just so that the traffic would, in fact, be

21 able to see it.

22 MEMBER GRONACHAN; Anything else?

23 MR. ASH: That's it.










1 Thank you.

2 Is there anyone in the audience that

3 wishes to make comment in regards to this case?

4 Seeing none, there were 17 notices

5 mailed; no approvals, no objections.

6 Building Department?

7 MR. SAVEN: No comment.

8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Board Members?

9 Member Sanghvi?

10 MEMBER SANGHVI: I was going to say, I

11 don't know what good that sign is going to do, but I

12 have no problem if they want to put that kind of sign

13 there. And I would be quite happy to support an

14 application.


16 Member Brennan?

17 MEMBER BRENNAN: This sign is

18 consistent with other findings this Board has made

19 with development, especially along freeways with this

20 type of setback, in addition to signage that we've

21 granted on Meadowbrook Road. So I'd make a Motion,

22 if there weren't any other comments.


24 MEMBER BRENNAN: With respect to case,









1 04-080, I would move for approval for the purpose of

2 marketing and the size of the site and location.


4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

5 seconded.

6 I have a question for the Motion

7 maker.

8 Do you want to put a time limit on

9 that?

10 MEMBER BRENNAN: What do you think you

11 need?

12 MR. ASH: We're hoping for a year.

13 MEMBER BRENNAN: One year.


15 It's been moved and seconded.

16 Is there any further discussion?

17 Seeing none, Denise, would you please

18 call the roll.

19 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


21 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


23 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?










1 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


3 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


5 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


7 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

8 zero.


10 Your variance has been granted.

11 Good luck to you.


13 Okay. Now I'll be calling case

14 number, 04-083, filed by Nick Miller for Sam's Club

15 in the Promenade Shopping Center. This was case was

16 tabled from September, as well.

17 Mr. Miller, is requesting three

18 variances for the construction of Sam's Club, located

19 in the Novi Promenade Shopping Center on the

20 southside of Grand River and east of Wixom Road. The

21 applicant is requesting a 30 foot interior side yard

22 setback variance, a 20 foot parking setback variance,

23 along the westerly property line at Outlot 1; and a

24 variance to allow overhead doors to face a major









1 thoroughfare, Grand River Avenue.

2 The property is zoned I-1, and covered

3 by a Consent Judgement with B-2 and B-3 zoning.

4 Good evening, after all of that.

5 Gentlemen, would you please introduce

6 yourselves, and for anyone who's not an attorney,

7 raise your right hand and be sworn in.

8 MR. GALVIN: My name is Joe Galvin.

9 MR. MILLER: My name is Nicholas

10 Miller.

11 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

12 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-083?

13 MR. MILLER: I do.

14 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

15 The other guy doesn't have to swear

16 much.

17 MR. MILLER: I'd like to hand out some

18 more information that wasn't contained in the

19 original packets, and it's also the same that was in

20 the other presentation.


22 Mr. Galvin, you can proceed.

23 MR. GALVIN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

24 We're here tonight asking for three









1 non-use variances, because have practical

2 difficulties in developing this Sam's Club on this

3 site, and in accordance with the Consent Judgement

4 which applies to it.

5 Specifically, the three variances are

6 first, for the zero lot line for the building,

7 portion of the building, which is on the south

8 boundary. The second is to allow the doors, which

9 are located where I am pointing on the building, to

10 face Grand River Avenue. And the third concerns this

11 Outlot 1 and the absence of the 20 foot setback for

12 the parking, located along here.

13 These are the three variances, which

14 we are requesting, and I will take them in order. I

15 know that you have looked at the materials which we

16 have provided to you.

17 First, the zero lot line variance, is

18 occasioned because and solely because Sam's Club

19 wishes to own its property. Functionally, there is

20 no difference in the development of the shopping

21 center, as it will be developed with the variance,

22 from the Consent Judgement, that was originally

23 entered into between the City of Novi and Novi

24 Promenade.









1 The basic issue is that the structures

2 -- and I think -- well, I don't have a big one of the

3 Exhibit B, but Nick if you could show the shopping

4 Center Consent Judgement as it was, you can see on --

5 what's up on the screen, that the two buildings --

6 which the Sam's Club is going to be part of -- are

7 connected buildings. There is no separation.

8 Similarly, there is not to be a

9 separation, since there will be a wall which will be

10 along here, which will be connected to the building,

11 which is going to be built to the south of the Sam's

12 Club.

13 What is going to happen mechanically,

14 is that the square footage of the shopping center

15 buildings is being reshuffled, if you will, on the

16 parcel. But the legally significant fact is the

17 ownership changes. In a word, there are practical

18 difficulties based on the mere change of ownership,

19 without any functional change or any change with

20 respect to the intention of the City into entering

21 into the Consent Judgement.

22 The situation with respect to the

23 doors, is the extraordinarily interesting. I would

24 like to start by showing you what the appearance will









1 be from Grand River Avenue, a person standing at the

2 center line of Grand River Avenue, will -- when the

3 project is built out -- see that, if they can see for

4 600 feet, through the trees from Grand River.

5 And this issue arises, and the

6 practical difficulties are illustrated, by this line

7 of sight diary. To orient you, here is the center

8 line of Grand River. At 410 feet, from the center

9 line, you will recall from the site plan that I

10 showed you, there is an island where this landscaping

11 will be located. A person standing six feet tall in

12 the center line -- if there's anybody crazy enough to

13 do that on the center line of Grand River -- would

14 have this perspective.

15 The point of the rendering is this,

16 the object of the Ordinance, which is an aesthetic

17 desire not to have the doors visible from the road is

18 met, and has been met, by what was a negotiated

19 relocation of the building. I was told, I think it

20 was ten -- nine or ten times, the building

21 orientation is changed; the landscaping was changed;

22 the site plan was very, very carefully renegotiated,

23 but it does require a variance from this Board based

24 upon the practical difficulty with this site -- and









1 I'd like to show you a couple of the others that

2 exist with respect to the Sam's Club.

3 We're located at the intersection,

4 more or less, of Wixom and Grand River. Those doors

5 can't be put anywhere on I'd say, two-thirds of that

6 building, without having a technical violation of the

7 Ordinance, because it is located at the intersection.

8 If you think about the uses which

9 surround this area, the development in the area, the

10 fact that we are going to completely block with the

11 vegetation and the island, again, I hope the Board

12 will find that we have shown practical difficulties

13 and a hardship sufficient to allow the variance.

14 In a very careful discussion, at the

15 Planning Commission, each of these was at least

16 apparently acceptable to the Commission; although I

17 know that this Board strongly values its

18 independence. By the same token, the plan which is

19 being presented to you has gone through a very, very

20 careful bedding process by the City, by the City

21 staff, the Planning Commission and now this Board.

22 The final request is at least from the

23 perspective of the overall plan -- and I'd like you

24 to look at that one again -- a very small request.









1 Fully consistent with the plan that was shown on the

2 Consent Judgement, please direct your attention to

3 his parcel on the screen. The parking has always

4 been continuously shown to be at the Outlot border.

5 Now, again, the question comes down to this. The

6 City's Ordinances -- and I understand that the City's

7 Ordinances are currently under examination on this

8 issue. The City's Ordinances don't deal with this

9 kind of a situation, which is a severance of the

10 ownership of the particular parcel.

11 What was approved in the Consent

12 Judgement, what we are showing in our variance

13 request, shows a continuous, physically integrated,

14 fully functioning shopping center. The ownership of

15 the parcels -- because of the market requirement of

16 the particular uses -- users -- I spent the last

17 weekend in New England, and the accent -- users, the

18 use of the parcel doesn't change.

19 Nothing really does change. What we

20 are asking for are three variances, each of which is

21 supportable, based upon the practical difficulty of

22 developing this site in accordance with the original

23 Consent Judgement. We believe we meet the intention

24 of the Ordinances in every respect, as I've









1 indicated.

2 The City's Zoning Ordinance, is

3 currently under examination to deal with these kinds

4 of situations, because what it comes down to, with

5 the exception of the overhead door, the other two

6 requests wouldn't exist, if these were leases, as

7 opposed to sales. And that kind of a simply little

8 technical distinction, I don't think is the sort of

9 thing that should prevent a development to be

10 constructed in accordance with the original plan of

11 the landowner and the City.

12 I have Nick and others here with me

13 who can answer questions on the specific variances

14 we've requested. But we would ask that these three

15 variances be granted, because we have established

16 practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship

17 within the meaning of the Zoning Ordinance.

18 We did have one question. Id ont'

19 know if anybody can answer it.

20 But during one of the earlier

21 presentations, we were trying to figure out why the

22 City's Ordinance calls for there to be six of you.

23 And we know that it does, does anybody know why?










1 It's being looked into.

2 MR. GALVIN: Is that because --

3 MEMBER BAUER: I think that comes from

4 the State.

5 MR. GALVIN: That could be, Gerry, but

6 I don't remember any State requirement of a --

7 MEMBER BAUER: Initially.

8 MR. GALVIN: Initially, you have a --

9 okay, thank you. I should have known that.

10 MEMBER BAUER: Shame on you.

11 MR. MILLER: I'd just like to add that

12 the doors, the entire mounting facility, were painted

13 to match the building, to also disguise the view, as

14 well. And they'll be closed at all times.

15 Operational procedures.

16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Anything else,

17 gentlemen?

18 MR. GALVIN: Thank you.

19 No, subject to the Board.


21 Is there anyone in the audience that

22 wishes to make comment in regards to this case?

23 Seeing none, there were 40 notices

24 mailed; one approval, one objection.









1 And for the record, I will state that

2 the Petitioner -- so the Petitioner knows, as well as

3 I want it on record, the Board Members were sent

4 letters to their homes. And as a result, the letter

5 was asked to be not read publicly. Unfortunately, as

6 Board Members, we are not able to exclude any

7 documentation whatsoever that we get in regards to a

8 case.

9 And I say that just so if anybody else

10 decides to send anything else to us, it will be

11 treated and reviewed as every case is for the City.

12 Having said that, Building Department,

13 do you have anything to add?

14 MR. SAVEN: If it is the desire of the

15 Board to approve this particular case, I do want the

16 Petitioner to be aware that based upon the fact that

17 the property line has been established for Sam's

18 Club; that that wall is on the direct south wall, to

19 be looked at architecturally for, you know, co-

20 compliance, please.

21 MR. GALVIN: Certainly, Mr. Saven.


23 Board Members?

24 Member Brennan?









1 MEMBER BRENNAN: I have a question for

2 the attorney.

3 Are the first two items, the two

4 setbacks, pretty much validated by the Consent

5 agreement? And there's really no discussion here.

6 We're pretty much bound to approval of those, because

7 of the Consent agreement?

8 MR. GILLIAM: Technically, no. When

9 you're drafting a Consent Judgement, it's really

10 impossible to try to anticipate every single detail

11 that's going to come up; especially, in the context

12 of a development as large as this is, taking the site

13 as a whole.

14 Essentially, there were issues that

15 were addressed within the Consent Judgement, but the

16 Consent Judgement doesn't specifically address those

17 inn the regular Ordinances of the City that are going

18 to apply.

19 A Consent Judgement does not

20 specifically address those setback issues; that's the

21 issue is in front of the Zoning Board tonight. The

22 one thing I would point out is, in terms of looking

23 at the equity and the substantial justice of some of

24 the other criteria that the Zoning Board is supposed









1 to look at, I think you should keep in mind that

2 there is a Consent Judgement that was entered into

3 by the City that reflects a commercial development.

4 And it's not to say that you have to

5 approve the variances as requested, but keep in mind

6 that this is, to a large extent, what was anticipated

7 when the Judgement was approved.


9 Question for Mr. Galvin.

10 Am I to assume that if you were to

11 meet the setbacks and meet variance, that that would

12 present other variance requests, with respect to

13 parking or other issues?

14 MR. GALVIN: You are, Mr. Brennan,

15 precisely.

16 MEMBER BRENNAN: My general sense is

17 that given where this is located and what's behind

18 it, which is what we would always be concerned with,

19 that I wouldn't have any problems with the two

20 setbacks. Additionally, I don't have any problem

21 with the overhead doors; given the setback; and made

22 note that as general business practice, the

23 Petitioner said these doors will be closed.

24 I hope that's the case. It gets









1 pretty hot in the summertime, but I think with the

2 understanding that that's how they're going to

3 operating their business. I guess I -- unless I

4 missed something, I don't have a big problem with

5 this before us.


7 MEMBER CANUP: I guess I would concur

8 with what 's been said, as far as the -- if they were

9 private -- the whole center remained as one personal

10 ownership, one entity ownership, they wouldn't be

11 here looking for these two variances. And it's kind

12 of a technical thing, rather than a practical.

13 So -- and the setbacks -- what is it,

14 600 feet, if I understood it properly, from Grand

15 River --


17 MEMBER CANUP: -- and if you look at

18 the size of the site and what-have-you. Quite

19 truthfully, Sam's Club is a pretty good place to go

20 and it's close to my house.

21 Anyway, with that, if there's no

22 further discussion, I would make a Motion.

23 That in case number, 04-083, for Sam's

24 Club, that we grant the three variances, one is the









1 30 foot variance; a 20 foot variance, and a variance

2 dealing with the garage doors facing the north, which

3 would be Grand River.


5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

6 seconded.

7 Is there any further discussion on the

8 Motion?

9 I knew it that if I look here --

10 MR. GILLIAM: Mr. Canup, if I could

11 ask you to state some reasons in support of your

12 Motion for approval of variances; findings that there

13 are practical difficulties or something along those

14 lines?

15 MEMBER CANUP: The reasons for the

16 Motion?

17 MR. GILLIAM: Correct.

18 MEMBER CANUP: The reasons for the

19 Motion being that the hardship was created by the

20 sale of a piece of property to an individual, not as

21 a part of a holding company that owns the entire

22 site; then there would be no variance requests.

23 Yeah, this would not happen if it was

24 a joint ownership. Single ownership is the reason









1 for that variance.

2 MR. GILLIAM: And as to the doors?



5 MEMBER FISCHER: That the doors, the

6 variance regarding the doors, meets the spirit of the

7 Ordinance and substantial justice was done to meet

8 the spirit of the Ordinance.

9 MEMBER CANUP: Accepted.



12 It's been moved, seconded.

13 Any further discussion?

14 Seeing none, Denise, would you please

15 call the roll.

16 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


18 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


20 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


22 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


24 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?










2 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


4 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

5 zero.

6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Your variance has

7 been granted.

8 MR. GALVIN: Thank you very, very

9 much.


11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. We'll now

12 call, case number, 04-089, filed by Phil Smyka for

13 the Pet Resort proposed for 46871 Grand River Avenue

14 and lot east and south.

15 MR. QUINN: Good evening, ladies and

16 gentleman, and Mr. Gilliam.

17 My name is Matthew Quinn. I'm an

18 attorney representing the applicant. With me is Bob

19 Grant, the architect and co-owner. We'll both be

20 speaking this evening, so if you'd like to swear him

21 in.

22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Sir, could you

23 raise your right hand.

24 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear









1 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-089?

2 MR. GRANT: I do.

3 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.

4 MR. QUINN: Just to let everybody

5 know, I acknowledged Mr. Gilliam, because he worked

6 for me for a number of years before he joined his

7 current law firm; and I'll waive any conflict that he

8 may have in rendering opinions of anything I might

9 say.

10 Just a little tongue-in-cheek.

11 Nothing serious.

12 We're here this evening on kind of a

13 fun topic for you. It certainly, I think, out of the

14 ordinary for your consideration.

15 Mr. Grant and his partners would like

16 to bring to the City of Novi a pet resort, something

17 that is not existing in this area. It will be a

18 24,000 square foot building, that will look like an

19 office building; in a very nice industrial building

20 -- a combination of both. You've been provided some

21 pictures of some existing buildings that this will

22 look like.

23 The area that we're talking about is

24 on the screen. At the top is Grand River Avenue; to









1 the east is Heyn Drive; Beck Road would be to your

2 west. As you can see, this circle that we have, is a

3 300 foot circle from the edge of the building.

4 To give you an idea of what's in the

5 area, in this area is Central Park Apartments; and

6 that goes all the way out to Beck Road. What's

7 interesting to note, is they have left in this corner

8 a natural woodlands area, that is going to remain --

9 according to their site plan.

10 To the east is OS-1 property. It's a

11 long diagonal property. That's the salon that goes

12 all the way out to Beck Road. Again, this rear area

13 is a natural buffered woodland area; and not to be

14 developed in the future.

15 The industrial zone is this property

16 on Grand River, as well as the Heyn's property, that

17 they are proposing to purchase from Mr. Heyn. And

18 then these other buildings are some ideas that Mr.

19 Heyn has for future development along the road;

20 coming in from Grand River.

21 Why is this here for you tonight? It

22 came from directives from the Planning Commission and

23 from Administration. As it turns out, the definition

24 of a kennel does not fit anywhere within the Novi









1 Zoning Ordinance. We have a veterinarian that exists

2 in a B-3 zone; with a special use. There is no

3 kennel location. There is no domestic animal day

4 care definition in placement in your Zoning

5 Ordinance; nor, is there a pet resort definition or

6 location in your Zoning Ordinance.

7 Now, the reason we think it's a good

8 site within the light industrial district, where this

9 piece of property is located, really comes about

10 somewhat because of what the actual Ordinance says.

11 In Section 1900 of the I-1, the introduction says, I-

12 1 is intended to encourage innovations and variety in

13 type, design, arrangement of land uses within the I-1

14 district.

15 Section 1901 talks about permitted

16 uses, offices, research labs, outdoor recreational

17 facilities. 1902 talks about manufacturing, schools,

18 laboratories, greenhouses, indoor recreational

19 facilities.

20 And actually in 1902:16, there's some

21 language, very vague language, that says other uses

22 of similar nature and of no more objectionable

23 character.

24 Now, I'd like you to consider what









1 this pet resort is. Oh, one more thing. Let me back

2 up. Even though Novi doesn't have this defined in

3 the Zoning Ordinance -- let me see if I can zoom in

4 here -- this is a map of some surrounding

5 communities; and all of the hashed marked communities

6 put kennels in light industrial areas. That would

7 include, West Bloomfield Township, Farmington Hills,

8 Northville Township, City of South Lyon, City of

9 Wixom, and Milford Township; and also, Livonia, has a

10 special criteria for them in the light industrial.

11 So it is normal that this use does go

12 in a light industrial district. And if you think

13 about what this building is -- and Mr. Grant's going

14 to describe a little more in detail what this 24,000

15 square foot building is. But it is pretty much like

16 the activity of a light industrial business.

17 You want it to be totally enclosed in

18 the building. You have design standards for the

19 building. Mostly brick; a lot of glass, nicely

20 landscaped. And since this is on Grand River and the

21 main entrance will be off Grand River, that is really

22 what we think the City would like. A classy looking

23 building, nicely landscaped, but provide a purpose.

24 Now, there is nothing like this









1 in this entire area that provides this type of

2 service. I think I'll let Bob tell you the types of

3 services and describe a little bit more about the

4 building.

5 Bob?

6 MR. GRANT: Thank you.

7 It is, as said, it's a totally

8 enclosed facility. And it's to be a first-class vet

9 clinic and a luxury pet resort. There will be a lot

10 of interior amenities, exercise courts and other

11 ancillary uses. There will be a pet day care

12 facility, to board both dogs and cats; and maybe some

13 other pets.

14 But it is intended to be done very

15 well and to appeal to upper level parties, as we

16 would be in. There's a similar facility that we did

17 about ten years ago in Lansing. I think there were

18 photographs that were sent. That was -- that is a

19 smaller-scale facility, but similar in nature to this

20 one. Although, at that facility, they do do outdoor

21 exercising. For this facility, that's not being

22 considered.

23 The -- one other consideration that we

24 have, this is a conceptual layout of the facility.









1 It's one of two or three concepts that we're looking

2 at. This is basically the footprint that shows up on

3 that site plan.

4 Matt mentioned it's about 24,000

5 square feet. That square footage is going to vary,

6 depending on the final concepts and that sort of

7 thing. But we are looking to provide outdoor an

8 relief area for the animals, and that would be in a

9 courtyard. It would be integrated with the building,

10 and it would be enclosed by a six to eight foot high

11 solid wall.

12 But the hope is that it would be open

13 to air, because that's the kind of environment that

14 most pets are familiar with. And it would be better,

15 in terms of care, to be able to do that sort of

16 thing. We do have indoor relief areas, but this

17 would be the preferred approach.

18 To give you an idea of what I'm

19 talking about, this would be the exterior wall of the

20 facility. And what we would do is, in this concept,

21 provide a wall along this that encloses this

22 courtyard that would be used as a relief area.

23 Now, that could be on this side or on

24 the back of the building, and it's flexible and would









1 work in any of those locations. I wanted -- you've

2 seen all of the materials. There was a fair amount

3 of commentary at the Planning Commission meeting that

4 I attended on June 21st that kind of pointed us in

5 this direction, as well. I don't know if you read

6 that.

7 They seemed to be supportive of the I-

8 1 use designation as a potential zoning area that

9 makes sense. I do have an additional letter. There

10 were some letters that were provided from neighbors

11 of the current facility in Lansing. I just -- I'll

12 give you a copy of this. It's an additional letter

13 from Northwood University. It's an adjacent

14 classroom facility. Right next door. I think it's

15 within 75 feet of that facility. They have night

16 classes.

17 And basically it says, that they have

18 no issues at all. There's no concerns at all with

19 noise or any of that sort of thing at the current

20 facility.

21 I wanted to make one other note from a

22 zoning point of view. Most of the traditional Zoning

23 Ordinances where you find kennels mentioned, they

24 speak to the old definition or the older definitions









1 of kennels, where they're considered to have outside

2 runs.

3 And even if many of the Ordinances

4 allow them in I-1 use, so if -- in your

5 consideration, you may wish to make some kind of

6 distinction between indoor facility versus a

7 combination or a outdoor facility. And there's

8 examples of that type of language in other

9 Ordinances. I have one example with me, the one that

10 was presented to the Planning Commission and to the

11 Planning Department, there were examples.

12 I don't have anything else to say.

13 If you have any questions or --

14 MR. QUINN: Just to conclude, we're

15 really here for two alternative answers from you, as

16 stated in the notice of hearing. Number one, is a

17 determination of a use variance; that would allow

18 this use on this particular site. Or in the

19 alternative, a determination that this type of use is

20 so close to the other uses allowed in the

21 industrially -- light industrial district, that this

22 use could go anywhere in the light industrial

23 district.

24 We think that the best for my client









1 and for the City, would be the determination of the

2 use variance that this use can be placed on this

3 particular piece of property; that way, you have the

4 safeguard that it's only in this location. It can't

5 be used any other place.

6 We'll be ready to answer any other

7 questions that you may have this evening.

8 Thank you.


10 Is there anyone in the audience that

11 wishes to make comment in regards to this case?

12 Seeing none, there were 33 notices

13 sent; no approvals, no objections.

14 However, as the Petitioner has just

15 stated, there were letters from Northwood University

16 that you saw on the overhead; and also, from G.G.

17 Metzenger, M.D. up in Lansing, who is close by to

18 this similar site. Along with Court One Athletic

19 Club, which is located within the similar site in the

20 Lansing location; and Lansing Surgery Center. And

21 none of them have any objections on the basis for

22 this type of business.

23 Building Department?

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









1 on the August 27 letter from Tim Scmitt, the City

2 Planner, he points out two very important issues

3 here. Number one -- and it's highlighted in this

4 letter -- it says, the Planning Department

5 recommendation is that use be considered as special

6 land use, regardless of adjacency to the residential

7 zoning, but that it would not be prohibited when

8 adjacent to a residential district.

9 The second issue he points out is that

10 the Planning Commission would recommend that as part

11 of the Motion the Zoning Board of Appeals chooses to

12 make, a provision be included that no activity --

13 including storage of goods or exercising the dogs be

14 permitted outside of the building.

15 Those are the concerns the Planning

16 Department had, should the Board decide for approval.

17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Board Members?

18 Member Brennan?

19 MEMBER BRENNAN: We had a very similar

20 case that went into a industrial park, and I have to

21 say, we have more information with this case, that

22 we had with the last, because we've got some history

23 that the Petitioner's got an existing business. He

24 knows what he's doing, he knows what he wants to do.









1 The fact that this is a totally

2 enclosed operation takes care of Tim's issues, I

3 believe. And I guess I'm prepared -- looking at the

4 Motion I made in August of '03, a very similar case,

5 I'd be prepared to make that same Motion; unless

6 there's other comments.

7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Sanghvi?

8 MEMBER SANGHVI: First of all, I want

9 to thank Mr. Quinn for clarifying why they didn't

10 include the City Attorney as part of the gentlemen

11 group. And he stated because of his association

12 previously with him.

13 Anyway, kidding apart, I am still not

14 quite sure -- I can understand the hospital,

15 veterinary hospital aspect of this; but where does

16 this fun part come in this here? I don't know if I

17 understand the fully concept to me. I'd like a

18 little more information about what you mean by that.

19 MR. QUINN: Well, the idea of dropping

20 off animals can be done in a number of different

21 ways. Number one, it can be a daily domestic animal

22 care. You could -- before you went to work, you

23 could drop your animal off, just like a child. Leave

24 the animal here all day; pick the animal up at night.









1 If you're going on a long vacation, you can leave the

2 animal there for weeks.

3 There are a lot of individuals who are

4 maybe single or both married -- some will leave town

5 for business for two, three, four days at a time.

6 You can leave your animal there. Inside, these

7 animals have their own suite. Some of the suites

8 consist of an actual human-type bed and a television.

9 So the animal can sit on the bed, think they're at

10 home, and watch television.

11 So for the animal, they don't know any

12 difference, if they're visiting for the day or not.

13 Sometimes -- some of the thought is, well, what if

14 your animal doesn't want to leave. You know, they're

15 having more fun there than they are at home. That's

16 what I meant, Dr. Sanghvi, about this being a fun

17 idea; and this is a concept being very fun and

18 different.

19 MEMBER SANGHVI: I still don't

20 understand how it's very different from a kennel.

21 MR. QUINN: Oh, okay.

22 Go ahead.

23 MR. GRANT: Well, there are a lot of

24 amenities that are planned, and Matt spoke of some.









1 There's going to be an inside exercise court. There

2 will be like an obstacle-like course set-up inside in

3 one area. There's -- there will be an elevated track

4 for exercise purposes inside. There will be other

5 opportunities for exercise, treadmills, that sort of

6 thing.

7 We're talking about providing internet

8 access through cameras to view your animals, if you

9 want to check on them to see how they're doing. That

10 type of --

11 MEMBER SANGHVI: So what you are

12 saying, this is a five-star hotel for pets.

13 Anyway --

14 MR. QUINN: If you can fit in six-by-

15 six room.

16 MEMBER SANGHVI: In all of this

17 information, I didn't hear anything about any sound

18 related problems or what kind of problem does it

19 create with so many?

20 MR. QUINN: That was one of the

21 purposes of the letters from Northwood Institute and

22 from the neighboring doctor at their facility in

23 Lansing. They're only 75 feet away, and they have no

24 problem carrying on their business, their classrooms









1 and studies; the doctor's practice.

2 As the architect, he can tell you that

3 this building is constructed in such a manner to hold

4 all of the noise inside. It's not like when you

5 imagine the old-type kennel. I mean, I had that idea

6 where, you know, the dogs are kept in like a cement

7 box, and then they're let out in a chain-linked fence

8 type area, and they just scream all day long, and all

9 the neighbors object.

10 Well, that's not what's going to

11 happen here. This is a totally enclosed structure.

12 MEMBER SANGHVI: My question would be

13 do you ever have any sound analyses at your current

14 facility in Lansing?

15 MR. QUINN: I'm sorry. Have we --

16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Sound analysis.

17 MR. GRANT: No. But there hasn't been

18 a need to do anything. Really no noise escapes that

19 would cause any issues, so it hasn't come up.

20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.


22 Member Canup?

23 MEMBER CANUP: There's a facility

24 similar to this over in, I think it's Commerce









1 Township, Haggerty and Pontiac Trail, and we left our

2 dog there, I don't know, a month ago when we went out

3 of town, and it was like dog summer camp for it. The

4 dog had a great time, said so when we came home.

5 MEMBER BAUER: Wants to go back.

6 MEMBER CANUP: Quite truthfully, I'm

7 very glad to see this come to Novi. It's something

8 that's needed and there's a lot of times we didn't go

9 away, because we wouldn't put our dog in a kennel.

10 You can feel comfortable here, and they have a

11 socializing area where the dogs get together and

12 play. It's again like dogs going to summer camp.

13 I'd be very supportive of this and I

14 welcome it to the City. I'm sure it's going to be an

15 asset for us. A lot of people, again professionals,

16 who just want to go out of town for a day or two on

17 business that have a dog, and you don't want to put

18 them in a kennel; at least we didn't, so.

19 With that --

20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I only have one

21 problem.

22 MR. GRANT: Yes.

23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: They don't have any

24 room for horses. I have two that like their beds in









1 their stables.


3 MEMBER FISCHER: I have a question.

4 And given that I'm the newest member

5 of the Board, I haven't seen any of these cases, so

6 this is sort of for Mr. Gilliam. As far as I know,

7 when approving something like this, we have to take

8 into consideration that the property cannot be used

9 for other purposes allowed under the Zoning

10 Ordinance.

11 Would that be a reasonable question,

12 and can that be used in another way. So before I ask

13 them, I would like you to filter my question, if you

14 will.

15 MR. GILLIAM: Mr. Quinn, nice to see

16 you again.

17 I appreciate the question, because I

18 do want to try to put a -- I have a sense where the

19 Zoning Board is going. And that's not to say you're

20 headed in the wrong direction at all. I just want to

21 kind of give you an idea of what's the frame work

22 here, in terms of the request that the Petitioner has

23 made tonight, the applicant.

24 Mr. Quinn indicated really two









1 different, but somewhat related requests. The

2 purposes for a use variance, which basically sets the

3 same purposes as rezoning. That's the net effect of

4 a use variance.

5 As Member Fischer has indicated, the

6 standard for a use variance is the unnecessary

7 hardship. It's not practical difficulty. It's

8 unnecessary hardship, which he's indicated is -- it

9 has to be established by the Petitioner that the

10 property cannot be reasonably used for a permitted

11 purpose.

12 That is, to be able to get a use

13 variance, the Petitioner has to be able to establish

14 the property cannot be used as zoned, that is I-1.

15 So the alternative request, which I think is more

16 along the lines of what the Planning Commission was

17 talking about and what I think what Member Brennan

18 was talking about, for the Zoning Board to make an

19 interpretation as to within the I-1 classification,

20 which of the different subgroups, if you will, does

21 this most closely fit into.

22 And once you make that determination,

23 then the applicant can go back to the Planning

24 Commission with that determination having been made,









1 as to which of those subgroups it is in and go

2 forward from there.

3 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you.

4 My second question is for the Building

5 Department.

6 Given the fact that they've set-up an

7 outdoor relief area, does that -- how is that taken

8 into consideration with the point that Mr. Schmitt

9 made?

10 MR. SAVEN: I think you can take into

11 account, pursuant to the drawing, there's a wall that

12 was established, and it was within the confines of

13 the wall where the relief area was located; is that

14 correct?

15 MR. QUINN: That's correct.

16 MR. SAVEN: Okay.


18 Questions have been answered and I'd

19 be willing to support any Motion made.

20 I'll turn it back over to the

21 Chairperson.


23 Member Canup?

24 MEMBER CANUP: I'm very supportive of









1 this project. I want to make sure that we don't open

2 the door for others to come without having come

3 before us. So when the Motion is made, which I will

4 not do, I want to make sure that again, it's a one-

5 time use variance, if that fits.

6 This particular location blends itself

7 very well to this application, because of the

8 isolation. It's an industrial area. It's on a main

9 road. There's no residential around it. Another

10 case in I-1 didn't fit so well. And I just want to

11 make sure that we just don't open that door up and

12 make it so that we can put these -- set a precedence,

13 I guess, or change the interpretation of the

14 Ordinance, so that others can come in and set-up

15 somewhere that's not so neighborhood friendly, as

16 this one happens to be.

17 In my opinion, there could not be a

18 better place in Novi for this project than where it

19 is going.

20 MEMBER BAUER: Absolutely.


22 understand or asking or what's in front of us

23 tonight, that if we go back -- this is not an

24 approval. This is strictly an interpretation; and









1 that we are going to make a recommendation to the

2 Planning Commission, basically, is what we're --

3 MR. GILLIAM: You're making an

4 interpretation of where this use falls within the

5 Zoning Ordinance.

6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: That's the way to

7 do it.

8 MEMBER BRENNAN: It has to fall

9 somewhere, and I've been prepared to --

10 MEMBER CANUP; If we do that, if we do

11 that, though, so your first use falls under an I-1

12 district; and that opens up the rest of the I-1

13 districts in the City to be able to put that use in.

14 Mr. Gilliam?

15 MR. GILLIAM: Depending upon where you

16 determine it falls, if it falls under subsection 16,

17 as Mr. Quinn's indicated, then in theory, yeah, this

18 kind of a use could go anywhere in the City, anywhere

19 in I-1. But it would have to meet all the criteria

20 that are contained within that particular subsection

21 of the Zoning Ordinance.

22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Canup?


24 I just want to make sure that we don't









1 open up the door for projects that aren't this user-

2 friendly, as this one.

3 MR. GILLIAM: My suggestion would be

4 that when the Motion is made or before the

5 interpretation that that specific reference be made

6 to the fact that this is all going to be enclosed.

7 It's not adjacent to a residential, whatever findings

8 you think are particularly significant.

9 Because, although you're not closing

10 the door with your determination as to where it falls

11 in the Zoning Ordinance, the basis for that

12 interpretation; that's where you're keeping Pandora's

13 box closed, so to speak.

14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Brennan?

15 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'm prepared to make

16 a Motion.


18 Member Sanghvi?

19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Can I make a point?

20 And this is another question for the

21 attorney here.

22 If you make a Motion stating that

23 this requested is granted pertaining to this

24 particular location, because of it's use variance --









1 rather than opening up the entire I-1 District for

2 this, are you interpreting the way -- what's the

3 difference?

4 MR. GILLIAM: The difference is with

5 the use variance, the Zoning Board would have to

6 determine the property can't reasonably be used for

7 any I-1 purpose.

8 MEMBER BRENNAN: You can build all

9 kinds of stuff --

10 MR. GILLIAM: Then that doesn't work,

11 because it can be used --

12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Sure. It can be --

13 MEMBER SANGHVI: This is a Catch-21.

14 You could open it up for the entire area, so you had

15 to make it water-tight, otherwise.

16 MR. GILLIAM: I think the other I

17 would indicate, and Don, you can correct me if I'm

18 wrong, but I think the implementation committee and

19 Mr. Burton's review, I think the City is in the

20 process of taking a look at this issue brought to the

21 attention of everyone that really, we don't have

22 provisions in the Zoning Ordinance to cover any kind

23 of kennel, even professional kennels.

24 I think everybody sees we need that,









1 and the City is working on it right now. It's a

2 question when -- what happens with this application

3 in the meantime.

4 MR. SAVEN: It was mentioned earlier

5 that it is not adjacent to residential properties.

6 it is very close to residential property, and I'm not

7 sure how that property is going to be divided up.

8 Matt, is this divided up such that

9 we're not going to be adjacent to the R-1 district?

10 Just for verification. I just want to verify that

11 particular issue.

12 I think that's what Mr. Schmit was

13 trying to get at in his letter that even though it

14 may not appear to be pretty close to it and needs to

15 determined in review of the I-1 district.

16 MR. QUINN: Actually, the parking

17 area, as shown in the back, is the part that abuts

18 the RM-1. That's actually --

19 MR. GRANT: It's corner to corner.

20 MR. QUINN: It's corner to corner.

21 It's not a boundary line. It's not an abutting

22 property line, but corners touch.

23 MR. SAVEN: I think Mr. Schmitt's

24 letter, he was just concerned about the -- in terms









1 of the special land use, and that's why he brought it

2 up.

3 MR. QUINN: And, in fact, since we

4 have the ability to modify that boundary a little

5 bit, we will probably make sure it doesn't touch that

6 residential property.

7 MR. SAVEN: Okay.

8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Brennan?

9 You have a Motion?

10 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yeah, I -- given -- I

11 need to find that relief sentence we've been talking

12 about.

13 I will make a Motion with respect to

14 case, 04-089, that the Petitioner's request for

15 variance be approved as we find and have determined

16 that it's our impression and our interpretation that

17 they meet the spirit of Section 1902, Subsection 16;

18 that the operation will be totally enclosed. And the

19 evidence presented implies that they will have a

20 quiet and contained operation; with respect to any

21 potential future residential.

22 Man, I thought I had it knocked.

23 MR. GILLIAM: We'll make a lawyer out

24 of you.










2 MR. GILLIAM: The only part of what

3 you just said which kind of made the hair on the back

4 of my neck stand up, was the fact you're talking

5 about granting a variance. We're not granting a

6 variance. All we're doing is making an

7 interpretation as to what section of the Zoning

8 Ordinance this particularly falls under.

9 MEMBER BRENNAN: Didn't I say that? I

10 was trying to read that exactly.

11 With respect to case, 04-089, I would

12 move that the Petitioner's request be approved as we

13 find and have determined that it's our impression and

14 our interpretation that it meets the spirit of

15 Section 1902, Section 16.

16 MR. GILLIAM: Just so we're all clear,

17 we're not talking about granting a variance. It's an

18 interpretation.



21 MR. GILLIAM: Thank you.

22 MEMBER FISCHER: And that does include

23 that no activity will be outside, correct?

24 MEMBER BRENNAN: It's totally









1 enclosed.

2 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you.

3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is there a second?


5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

6 seconded.

7 Any further discussion on the Motion?

8 Seeing none, Denise, would you please

9 call the roll.

10 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


12 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


14 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


16 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


18 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


20 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


22 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

23 zero.

24 MR. QUINN: Thank you very much.









1 I'll see you at Number 15.


3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: At this time, the

4 Board would like to take a ten minute break, and

5 we'll be back at 9:27.

6 (Brief recess taken.)

7 (Back on the record.)

8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. It's 9:27,

9 and I'd like to call the Zoning Board of Appeals

10 meeting back to order.

11 And proceed by calling case number,

12 04-092, filed by Harry Chawney for Villagewood

13 Properties, LLC, Villagewood Place, located on Kartar

14 Lane, West of Haggerty Road, between Nine and Ten

15 Mile.

16 Mr. Chawney is requesting two sign

17 variances to erect a larger replacement real estate

18 sign for the above named business.

19 And you are?

20 MR. CHAWNEY: Harry Chawney.

21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Could you please

22 raise your right hand and be sworn in by our

23 secretary.

24 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear









1 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-092?


3 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.


5 You can proceed.

6 MR. CHAWNEY: Villagewood Place was a

7 24-unit townhome rental project, that were converted

8 into condominiums for sale. When you sell or resell

9 in the City of Novi, you're allowed a two foot by

10 three foot sign, six square feet under the Zoning

11 Ordinance.

12 What I'm requesting is to be treated

13 like a new development, where I believe you're

14 allowed three foot by five foot sign, or 15 square

15 feet. The two reasons I'm asking for this is because

16 the speed limit on Haggerty Road is 45 miles an hour.

17 And a two foot by three foot sign, I can't put my

18 sales information in a type large enough for people

19 to see as they drive by.

20 People have told me -- I sat them out,

21 myself, on the weekend -- that they haven't been able

22 to see my sign as they drive down Haggerty Road. And

23 the height requirement I need, because the sign if it

24 was three foot by five foot, would allow the snow or









1 whatnot in the wintertime.


3 Is there anyone in the audience that

4 wishes to make comment in regards to this case?

5 Seeing none, there were 775 notices

6 sent, four approvals, 19 objections; and 33 letters

7 returned.

8 For brevity, some of the objections

9 that are indicated from people in Stonehenge,

10 indicating that once we start off with these larger

11 signs on Haggerty, we're opening Pandora's box.

12 Allowing a larger sign, will put out -- will be a

13 safety hazard and cause more traffic accidents.

14 Additionally, once more -- if one larger sign is

15 allowed, then this will encourage others to want the

16 same thing.

17 One resident would like to know what

18 the hardship is. It detracts from the appearance of

19 the surrounding area. This is from a John R. Martin.

20 I strongly object to this variance because I feel

21 there are enough signs on Haggerty. And I feel that

22 permitting this variance will open the door for more

23 requests for variances. I'm the vice-president of

24 the Stonehenge Condo Association, and have had









1 numerous requests from co-owners, to increase the

2 size of our sign to make it easier for guests to find

3 the entrance.

4 Approval of this variance or for us to

5 request a variance to make our entrances more

6 visible, Mr. Chawney knew the restrictions when he

7 purchased the property. And I am unable to attend

8 the meeting, as I'll be out of town the night of the

9 meeting.

10 The president of Lakewood Homes Condo

11 Association, there's no foreseen hardship. Haggerty

12 Road is becoming very commercial and the big signs,

13 for sale signs, are becoming and will detract from

14 the appearance of my home. I'm opposed to this

15 variance on my personal behalf and that of the

16 Lakewood Park Homes Condominium Association.

17 And that is written by Mr. J. GArvey

18 at 22766 Wrenford.

19 And that is basically the shared

20 opinion of the rest of the objection letters that I

21 have.

22 Building Department?

23 MR. AMOLSH: No comment.

24 MR. SAVEN: How many units do you have









1 sold already?

2 MR. CHAWNEY: Have I sold?

3 MR. SAVEN: How many do you have sold?

4 MR. CHAWNEY: Four.

5 MR. SAVEN: Four?


7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Board Members?

8 Member Sanghvi?

9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, Madam

10 Chair.

11 I was there at the site earlier today,

12 and the way the traffic flows there, it's pretty

13 obvious that you can't see a small sign, or read

14 anything that's written on it. I had a hard time

15 reading what is written on the mock-up even sitting

16 there in a stationery car.

17 So I don't think it's too big a sign

18 for the purpose of the sign to sell those townhouses.

19 And so I have no difficulty supporting his request.


21 Anyone else?

22 Member Brennan?

23 MEMBER BRENNAN: I have more of an

24 issue with the height, than the square footage. I









1 don't know why he needs it to be nine feet in the

2 air, especially where it's located. I'm always

3 concerned when we have a number of residents that are

4 objectional.

5 So I would recommend that the

6 Petitioner give some thought to modifying this

7 request, because I don't support it as it's before us

8 tonight.

9 MR. CHAWNEY: I'll take your

10 suggestions.

11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Well, we're hoping

12 you can come up with a -- what could you live with

13 idea?

14 MR. CHAWNEY: Seven feet, six feet. I

15 just want to keep it off the ground because of the

16 weather, that's all.

17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: So you're saying

18 that the height, you want to reduce to -- you'd like

19 to reduce it to six feet? You could live with that?

20 MR. CHAWNEY: That's fine.


22 Board Members, anything else?

23 Member Canup?

24 MEMBER CANUP: You know, if the









1 rendering is an example of what's going to be the

2 sign, it's awful sterile, if you want to use that,

3 industrial looking. That's the only reason I'd have

4 to vote against this sign, because as I said before,

5 it's kind of sterile looking. It has no class.

6 Well, I mean, it's just a sign, and it

7 doesn't really -- if you drive around Novi and look

8 at the other signs that are similar to this, they're

9 done very tastefully.

10 MR. CHAWNEY: Well, I guess I

11 misinterpreted mock-up. I took mock-up to mean, just

12 put the basic sign and the basic height of the sign.

13 My sign that I would produce would look a lot better

14 than that. I misunderstood the word mock-up then.

15 MEMBER CANUP: I guess I'd want to see

16 that sign before I would approve it. You put this

17 up, six feet, and as sterile looking as it is, white

18 background, black lettering -- I don't know if that's

19 what you intend to use. I would find that to be

20 offensive to our sign Ordinance.

21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you have the

22 original -- what your final sign is going to look

23 like with you this evening?

24 MR. CHAWNEY: No, I do not.










2 suggestion would be at this point, given the lateness

3 of the evening, and also you can see where the

4 Board's going, I think we'd like to see what kind of

5 a sign it is that you're putting up. This is not

6 your intent, what we have before us.

7 MR. CHAWNEY: The size and the height.

8 What's on the sign is my intent, but the actual

9 colors and what-not, was not my intent. I took the

10 word mock-up to mean a piece of paper with the type

11 on it.


13 MR. CHAWNEY: So there was no other

14 definition that I found.

15 MEMBER CANUP: The rendering that we

16 receive, in my opinion, should be what you're going

17 to build. And this would not be very attractive to

18 lend itself to the neighborhood. If I lived in the

19 neighborhood and you put a sign up that looked like

20 this, I would not be very happy. And we've had

21 negative response from property owners in the area,

22 and my suggestion would be that if you wanted to

23 receive -- at least from me, a positive vote on it --

24 come back with a sign that is somewhat









1 representative.

2 Not somewhat, exactly representative

3 of what you're going to build. I don't have a

4 problem with the sign. I have a problem with the way

5 it appears.

6 MR. CHAWNEY: Oh, I understand. Is

7 there -- I know the City publishes notices on

8 everything, but do you have a standard that I should

9 -- are you saying it should be exactly like it?

10 MEMBER CANUP: That's -- you have to

11 use your own -- in my opinion, use your own

12 creativeness, to have something that is somewhat

13 appealing.

14 MEMBER BRENNAN: Sir, earlier we

15 approved a real estate sign that was going on

16 Meadowbrook Road.

17 MR. CHAWNEY: Okay.

18 MEMBER BRENNAN: That was the size,

19 the rendering, and what exactly it was going to look

20 like.

21 MR. CHAWNEY: Sure.

22 MEMBER BAUER: Do the same thing.

23 MR. CHAWNEY: Okay.

24 MEMBER BRENNAN: And if you can live









1 with something shorter, 15 square feet is not a big

2 sign.


4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: He's already agreed

5 to six feet in height, so.

6 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'm talking about

7 square feet.

8 MEMBER CANUP: It's still a big sign,

9 plus it's --


11 MEMBER CANUP: -- ugly.

12 And again, not to offend you, but if

13 this sign went up as it appears, it would be ugly.

14 MR. CHAWNEY: So -- I just want to

15 understand so I do it correctly and make everyone

16 happy, I guess. The sheet I give you will be a

17 rendering; but the mock-up I have there is okay. I

18 really thought mock-up was the size and the font, or

19 the type on it. I didn't realize --

20 MEMBER CANUP: I don't get a feeling

21 -- at least from the Board, anyway -- at least I

22 don't get a feeling and I don't have a problem with

23 the size of the sign, three foot by five foot, 15

24 square feet, is not a big sign. But it would be









1 awful big looking like the rendering that you have

2 presented to us.

3 MR. CHAWNEY: I guess I'm asking, do I

4 have to change the mock-up?

5 MEMBER CANUP: Change the what? I'm

6 sorry.

7 MR. CHAWNEY: The mock-up.

8 MEMBER SANGHVI: You don't have to

9 change the mock-up, but give us a sample of something

10 which will be more attractive than what you have

11 presented; this is the sum-total of the conversation.

12 MR. CHAWNEY: All right.

13 MEMBER SANGHVI: And then we'll look

14 at it again so, yes, it is maybe we should table it

15 for another month and give you an opportunity to

16 produce a better looking sign of the same size.

17 MR. CHAWNEY: Sure.

18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: So you're in favor

19 of tabling this until next month.

20 Will that give you enough time?

21 MR. CHAWNEY: Yes. That will be

22 plenty of time.

23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: All those in favor

24 of tabling case number, 04-092, filed by Harry









1 Chawney until the November meeting, say aye.


3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Any opposed?

4 See you next month.


6 Calling case number, 04-095, filed by

7 Mark Carpenter for a residence at 1229 East Lake

8 Drive, located south of 14 Mile, and east of East

9 Lake Drive.

10 Mr. Carpenter is requesting a 590

11 square foot variance of the construction of a 1440

12 pole barn to be located in the rear of the above

13 address.

14 Good evening. You are?

15 MR. CARPENTER: I am Mark Carpenter,

16 and my wife, Linda.

17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you both

18 raise your right hands and be sworn in by our

19 secretary.

20 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

21 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-095?



24 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.










2 Thank you.

3 Proceed.

4 MR. CARPENTER: The street we live on

5 is by the lake, and consequently we don't have a

6 basement. But yet, we have a number of water toys,

7 like a pontoon boat, etc. And what we would like to

8 do is put a pole barn in the backyard that would

9 house the water toys during the winter; and also

10 provide some storage space for the basement that we

11 don't have, basically. That picture's kind of small

12 in there, isn't it?

13 It's actually not going to be quite as

14 tall as in the picture. And the area that we're

15 going to put it -- our lot is very deep. It's about

16 285 feet from the street back. We're going to place

17 it at the back-end of the lot, with a six foot

18 variance in the back; ten on one side; nine on the

19 other. And then 30 wide and 48 long. That's a

20 coverage area of about 19 percent of the total

21 buildings on the lot.

22 And so we're looking for -- because of

23 the lack of a basement and trying to beautify the

24 neighborhood, and instead of having the boats and









1 things sitting out, and lack of a kind of a general

2 workspace, we're looking for the additional

3 variances.


5 Anything else?

6 MR. CARPENTER: Not that I can think

7 of at the moment.


9 Is there anyone in the audience that

10 wishes to make comment in regards to this case?

11 Seeing none, there were 28 notices

12 sent; two approvals. And I believe the Petitioner

13 just brought up --

14 MR. CARPENTER: We have signatures

15 from all of my neighbors.

16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Can we have a copy

17 of that, please, for the file?

18 Okay. Two approval letters and then

19 nine additional approvals. Some people that --

20 MR. CARPENTER: Some owners have

21 multiple lots close by.


23 Building Department?

24 MR. SAVEN: Just to point out, this









1 property does contain a wetland; and a wetlands

2 consultant was out to the property. There was a

3 comment regarding the wetlands. They also need a

4 soil erosion permit for them. As indicated, there is

5 a wetlands located on the property. There are

6 comments from the wetlands consultant regarding this

7 issue where a seal fence is to be placed on the

8 Albert side to improve this; that they take a look at

9 the comments from the wetlands consultant and also

10 the soil erosion permit would be required prior to

11 any building permit being obtained.

12 And you area aware of the soil erosion

13 permit.



16 Board Members?

17 Member Canup?

18 MEMBER CANUP: Question on the

19 rendering or the picture that you brought to us. It

20 shows vertical siding on the barn. Is that what's

21 going to be the intent?

22 MR. CARPENTER: It'll be a painted

23 steel siding with a shingled roof.

24 MEMBER CANUP: I guess I wouldn't have









1 a problem with this building, if it is to match,

2 somewhat, the residence on site. This is going to

3 look like a pole barn sitting in a residential area.

4 And this barn isn't going to go away in a year or two

5 years or three years. It's going to be there 20, 30

6 years from now.

7 I guess I would -- well, my intention

8 would be to see a structured building,

9 architecturally that would match the residence on the

10 property. If it's vertical siding on the house

11 that's made out of steel, so be it. But in my

12 opinion, it should match, and be somewhat an

13 attribute to the rest of the community there.

14 MR. CARPENTER: Well, currently we

15 have vinyl siding on our house, so that would be

16 doable.

17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: In my opinion, it

18 would make your barn a lot of aesthetically pleasing,

19 to somewhat try to match the materials on the home,

20 so that -- believe me, it will make that look a lot

21 better; and more like it belongs, more than looking

22 like a pole barn.


24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer?









1 MEMBER FISCHER: I just want to

2 clarify the use for this pole barn. It appears it's

3 going to be personal. Are there any business-type

4 activities planned?


6 MEMBER FISCHER: I'd like that to be

7 part of the Motion. But other than that -- and

8 including Mr. Canup's position for matching, I would

9 support that.

10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Bauer?

11 MEMBER BAUER: From the diagram you've

12 got six feet in the rear and ten on one side and nine

13 on the other. That's not going to run into a

14 problem?

15 MR. SAVEN: No.


17 MR. SAVEN: For accessory structures,

18 that's what's allowed. Six foot on the side and rear

19 property line in the R-4 District; ten feet away from

20 the principal building.


22 No problem.

23 MEMBER CANUP: It is going to have a

24 shingled roof on it?











3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I just want to

4 confirm that the other garage is coming down upon

5 completion of this?

6 MR. CARPENTER: Yes. Right.

7 We're going to build the pole barn.

8 And what I'd like to do is keep the garage until I

9 could put a cement floor in the pole barn. And it's

10 getting close to winter, so that the two-car garage

11 might come down in the spring, once we can pour the

12 cement. Again, it may not be immediately --

13 MEMBER CANUP: They need a certificate

14 of occupancy for the barn, right?

15 MR. SAVEN: Yes.

16 MEMBER CANUP: And that would be

17 withheld until the other building would come down?

18 MR. SAVEN: That's correct.

19 MEMBER CANUP: I'd be willing to make

20 a Motion.


22 MEMBER CANUP: That in --

23 MEMBER BRENNAN: Can I ask one

24 question?









1 MEMBER CANUP: Certainly.

2 MEMBER BRENNAN: Will the color match

3 the house?



6 MEMBER CANUP: I would make a Motion

7 that in, let's see, 04-095, that we grant the

8 variance as requested, subject to compliance with

9 issues in the wetlands, Don?

10 MR. SAVEN: That's correct.

11 MEMBER CANUP: And the other issue was

12 what?

13 MR. SAVEN: Soil erosion.

14 MEMBER CANUP: Soil erosion permits,

15 be addressed with the City Building Department; is

16 that correct?

17 And that the architecture of the

18 siding conform in color and position with that on the

19 residence, located on the property. And that the C

20 of O be withheld until the existing wood-framed

21 structure is removed and approved by the City.

22 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

23 MEMBER CANUP: Two seconds.

24 And that the -- this is not intended









1 to be used or allowed to be used for the purpose of a

2 business; and is only to be used for personal

3 property storage.



6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: After all of that

7 --


9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

10 seconded.

11 Is there any further discussion on the

12 Motion?

13 Seeing none, Denise, would you please

14 call the roll.

15 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


17 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


19 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


21 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


23 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?










1 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


3 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

4 zero.

5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Your variance has

6 been granted. Please see the Building Department.

7 MR. CARPENTER: Thank you.

8 MEMBER CANUP: You do understand that

9 the siding has to be horizontal and it's to match

10 that of the house? The color is to match the color

11 of the house, somehow as close as you can?

12 MR. CARPENTER: Yes, yep.

13 MEMBER CANUP: Thank you.


15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. Moving right

16 along, to case number, 04-097, filed by Charles Veres

17 for property at 301 Duana, located north of 13 Mile

18 and south of South Lake Drive.

19 Mr. Veres is requesting five variances

20 for the construction of a new home located at the

21 above address.

22 Good evening.

23 And you are?

24 MR. WAYNE: Mr. Wayne, and I'm a









1 builder.

2 And this is Mr. Presley, who's the

3 architect.


5 If everybody would just please raise

6 your right hands and be sworn in by our secretary.

7 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

8 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-097?

9 MR. WAYNE: Yes.

10 MR. PRESLEY: Yes.

11 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, gentlemen.

12 MR. WAYNE: When I first saw the

13 listing of this lot on Duana Street, the property

14 description said cottage with a basement, with a

15 lakeview of Shawood Lake over there behind it.

16 And when I went out to inspect the

17 property, I saw that the cottage had -- was pretty

18 stripped. No partitions and siding. The foundation

19 was about -- kind of weak looking. It looked like it

20 had sediment. And also, the house is shoved to one

21 side of the property, but the lot is a nice lot.

22 It's an irregular shaped lot, and it seemed like a

23 nice place to demolish that house and put a family-

24 type home their, which we have designed and would









1 like to show you.

2 Three-bedroom home, with at least

3 being able to get a one-car attached garage in there.

4 So we tried to lay it out as best we could to get a

5 size and a look that would conform to the -- most of

6 the homes on South Lake Drive and Duana there, are

7 all remodeled, added onto, on fairly small non-

8 conforming lots.

9 And when we got through trying to lay

10 it out per the exact scheduled regulations, it just

11 didn't work and it became a hardship to make anything

12 practical there. So I'm going to let Mr. Presley

13 explain in detail of what we've done.

14 MR. PRESLEY: This is the sign to the

15 right for a moment.

16 The house has a fence on the water.

17 It sits on a curb, so it has a very narrow neck and

18 the property, front property line. The adjacent

19 properties all face or have their rear property lines

20 on Shawood Lake. And they're very narrow lots. All

21 of them probably non-conforming lots.

22 But we have a bit of a unique

23 circumstance in that this property does not back-up

24 to Shawood Lake. It backs up to to Charlotte Right-









1 of-Way, Charlotte Street Right-of-Way. And, in fact,

2 the Charlotte Street comes out to a point where it

3 becomes a private drive; which accesses the home

4 immediately south.

5 Our intent is to try and orient the

6 new house to Shawood Lake, as you see there. I'd

7 like to show you, first of all, a house -- the front

8 side of the house, the foundation is crumbling. It's

9 a 600 square foot house. The backside of the house

10 is 20 by 30, 600 square feet, doesn't meet the

11 minimum code requirement of 1000 square feet.

12 But the one thing it does have,

13 looking over Charlotte unimproved right-of-way, is a

14 nice view of Shawood Lake.

15 The neighbors, to give you some idea

16 of who the neighbors are. The house immediately to

17 the north of us is 1500 square feet. Just north of

18 that, is a house which is about 1500 and some change;

19 and then the largest house on the block, which is

20 about 2400 square feet.

21 And then to the south of us, there are

22 two houses; one that was recently built at about 1700

23 square feet, and then you see the corner of the

24 house, which is immediately to the south and that is









1 about 1200. By doing the math, the average size of

2 the houses immediately north and south within a

3 hundred feet or so, are about 1700 square feet. And

4 that's what we're proposing for this property.

5 If I could go back over and show you

6 what we're proposing to do. But first of all, let me

7 say this. By the unique circumstances of this lot,

8 make it practically difficult for us to comply with

9 the Ordinance. The -- because it has a narrow throat

10 on the front, but quite an extensive rear yard, much

11 of the 35 foot required setback, along with the side

12 setback and the front setback, render a buildable

13 area that you see covered in there. That is fairly

14 small.

15 In fact, if you were to put a

16 rectangular box in that, it would become -- the size

17 of it would be 20 feet by 22 feet, which if you went

18 two-stories, would be less than a thousand square

19 feet. That is the minimum required by Code. What

20 we're trying to accomplish here is something that is

21 -- the house that fits the neighborhood; is the

22 average of the houses in the neighborhood; improve

23 the neighborhood; and yet is sensitive to the unique

24 circumstances that it finds itself in.









1 If we had to build in the buildable

2 area, that house would orient to the house to the

3 south; as opposed to Lake Shawood, which we feel

4 would be the wrong way to go.

5 A couple things to point out. The --

6 we are proposing, first of all, that the building

7 that we're proposing conform to the City Ordinance,

8 in regards to lot coverage. It's about 22 percent;

9 and in regard to front yard setback. In fact, it's

10 setback just a hair farther than that, for reasons of

11 trying to get cars around and into a one-car garage,

12 attached.

13 We are -- so practically speaking,

14 because this lot is adjacent to the Charlotte Street

15 Right-of-Way, unimproved at this point, when you --

16 you can't see, of course, that property line. You're

17 looking over a backyard that effectively, practically

18 speaking, goes back 60 feet from the house.

19 The -- so the 23 feet that we're

20 asking for -- that that is the suggestion of the

21 building, from the Shawood side rear property line,

22 Shawood Lake property line, is 23 feet. So that's

23 the more practical dimension that obtains to this

24 case. The ten feet that is -- we're asking for,









1 seems like a lot. Ten feet -- or 25 feet. I'm

2 required 25 feet -- 25 feet of the required 35 feet,

3 seems like a lot. However, in this case, that is

4 just a corner of the building. The building then

5 falls away on both sides.

6 And it is the way that we can look the

7 thinnest to the neighbor to the south of us. That

8 neighbor does have glass that looks out this way.

9 And to the extent that we can cock the building

10 toward Shawood Lake, they see less of the building.

11 I did take a look at -- we could

12 possible create a detached garage. I'll just point

13 that out to you. If we were to take the same

14 building, but detach that one-car garage and place it

15 in the corner, that corner of the building would then

16 be 16 feet off, and we'd be, you know, farther away

17 from that property line. However, the neighbor would

18 end up seeing more structure from their standpoint.

19 And that back part of the garage would be four foot

20 closer to them, than we are proposing. And all of it

21 or the side of it, would be along the property line.

22 So we think that what we are proposing

23 is a better circumstance toward that neighbor who is

24 the most affected to the south.









1 In regard to the side property lines,

2 we are proposing two foot variances on both sides;

3 and combined sides, four foot variance. We are, in

4 fact, improving the circumstance, with respect to the

5 neighbor to the north. Right now, there's a dotted

6 line that shows the existing house, which was at its

7 narrowing point, a little less than seven feet off

8 the property line. We are now moving that to eight

9 feet off the property line. And because -- it's

10 angling away from that side property line, so that

11 and the back part, is about ten feet.

12 So a slight improvement there. And

13 square variance request we feel is, as we've made --

14 well, let me try to show you what the building is

15 going to look like, if that's of interest to you. We

16 feel that something like this would compliment the

17 neighborhood. It's about the scale and the

18 massity(ph)(sic) of the adjacent houses. The side

19 view of the same house. And this is the side that

20 the neighbor might see to the south.

21 So we're hoping that you'd agree that

22 this would be complimentary to the neighborhood and

23 does represent unique circumstances that -- and a

24 practically difficult lot to develop.









1 Thank you.


3 Thank you.

4 Is there anyone in the audience that

5 wishes to make comment in regards to this case?

6 Seeing none, there were 36 notices

7 sent; three approvals. The first approval is from

8 John Anderson at 207 Charlotte; and the other two

9 approvals are from David -- Dave and Sharon James,

10 Vivian Sandra, 401 Duana in Novi.

11 Building Department?

12 MR. SAVEN: I could only say this.

13 Since 1974 that building that's existing there has

14 been a problem child. And we have an opportunity to

15 do something here, based upon the fact that number

16 one, the building, in itself, does not exceed the

17 maximum allowable coverage of the property, one;

18 number two, the uniqueness of that particular lot, it

19 shows that the rear yard is in a different

20 configuration than the frontage, to which would give

21 them -- which is basically off that small portion of

22 the curb on Duana.

23 I think the fact that the rear yard

24 setback is one that may look exceeding --









1 exceedingly, that this various may be extensive. But

2 I would indicate that it is abutting the street, and

3 that anything that we could do in this particular

4 area -- at least in my Department's standpoint, I

5 really appreciate it.

6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Problem child?

7 Member Brennan and then Member

8 Sanghvi.

9 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, first of all,

10 anything that Mr. Presley has done that I've seen

11 over the last 20 years, especially in Northville, has

12 been nothing but first-class. So I trust him as an

13 architect. If I wanted to do something and could

14 afford you, I'd hire you.

15 The fact is, that that rear setback

16 requirement is a bit deceiving, because you do have

17 an open run to the lake. The ten yard or the ten

18 foot setback is a bit deceiving you've got the

19 Charlotte Right-of-Way, as well.

20 So I'm pretty comfortable with what

21 you've presented. It's a difficult site. It

22 certainly something that we'd want to clean up. I

23 just have two questions. And -- do you own this

24 property already?









1 MR. WAYNE: We've signed a purchase

2 agreement.

3 MEMBER BRENNAN: Okay. Have you met

4 the parties identified as the south neighbors?

5 MR. WAYNE: Yes. I talked to all the

6 neighbors there, and I talked to the south neighbors.

7 We talked about the rear of the property.

8 MEMBER BRENNAN: This one here. I

9 want to know whether you got the okay from this guy

10 and this guy?

11 MR. WAYNE: Let me see which one that

12 is.

13 MEMBER BRENNAN: That's the only two

14 questions I have. Other than that, I'm satisfied.

15 MR. WAYNE: Yes. This neighbor, I met

16 with her. And I walked out and I showed her the line

17 of the house.

18 MEMBER BRENNAN: Do you recognize her

19 name?

20 MR. WAYNE: I never knew --

21 MEMBER BRENNAN: I guess I've answered

22 my own question. If they were that objectionable,

23 they would have sent us a letter or been here

24 tonight.









1 MR. SAVEN: They came to the office.

2 They took a look. Actually, they were interested in

3 the property.

4 MR. WAYNE: I gave her the plans. She

5 had the plans. I gave all of the neighbors the plan

6 ahead of time.

7 MEMBER BRENNAN; Bottom line, anything

8 that this particular architect and builder has done,

9 has been nothing but first-class. I support

10 approval.

11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Sanghvi?

12 MEMBER SANGHVI: I just have one

13 question. Where is the deck going to be?

14 MR. PRESLEY: The deck is proposed to

15 be right behind the house, facing toward Shawood.

16 MEMBER SANGHVI: And how far is that

17 from Charlotte?

18 MR. PRESLEY: From Shawood, it's 13

19 feet. I'm sorry, from Shawood?

20 MEMBER SANGHVI: No, from Charlotte,

21 the street that --

22 MR. PRESLEY: Oh, from Charlotte

23 Right-of-Way, 13 feet, from the edge to the back

24 property line.









1 MEMBER SANGHVI: 13 feet.

2 MR. PRESLEY: Correct. 17 is

3 required. We're asking for a four foot variance.

4 It's going to be a ten foot wide deck.

5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Very good.

6 Thank you.

7 Anyway, the house to the south is for

8 sale. Isn't it the newly built house?

9 MR. PRESLEY: Yes, it is.

10 MEMBER SANGHVI: I saw a sign there

11 yesterday, so that's for sale. So the neighbors may

12 change.

13 Well, this is a very good, an

14 exceptional substitute for what is existing there.

15 And I believe they're doing a great job and I want to

16 commend you and the architect for using a lot of

17 skill and coming up with an excellent idea.

18 And I have nothing but admiration and

19 I'm willing to support this, and may I make a Motion

20 in case, 04-097, that the Petitioner's request be

21 granted because of the whole lot configuration.


23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

24 seconded.









1 Is there any further discussion on the

2 Motion?

3 Seeing none, Denise, would you please

4 call the roll.

5 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


7 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


9 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


11 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


13 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


15 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


17 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

18 zero.

19 MR. WAYNE: Thank you very much.

20 MR. PRESLEY: Thank you very much.

21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Your variance has

22 been granted.

23 Please see the Building Department.










1 Okay. Moving to case number, 04-098,

2 filed by James Hillman for Oscar Larson Company, for

3 BP Gas Station at 43420 12 Mile Road, on the

4 northwest corner of 12 Mile.

5 Member Canup?

6 MEMBER CANUP: For reasons that my

7 family is involved in the ownership of this property,

8 I would ask the Board to excuse me at this time.

9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And you'll be

10 excusing yourself for both cases?



13 All in favor of supporting Mr. Canup's

14 recusal, say aye?



17 You are Mr. Hillman?

18 MR. HILLMAN: Yes.

19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you please

20 raise your right hand and be sworn in by our

21 secretary.

22 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

23 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-098?

24 MR. HILLMAN: Yes, sir.









1 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.


3 Go ahead.

4 MR. HILLMAN: About five years ago,

5 British Petroleum purchased Amoco Oil. Over those

6 past few years, they've been phasing out the Amoco

7 name. In doing so, they've been doing a re-image of

8 the existing Amoco Stations. That's what led us to

9 the sign changes here at this particular location.

10 The existing sign that is out there,

11 you granted a variance back in 1991, that allowed a

12 height of nine foot, and a total square footage of 55

13 feet. What we are proposing there for the sake of

14 visibility, in an attempt to try to comply, or at

15 least bring the sign closer to the standard of the

16 Ordinance; we're proposing reducing that height from

17 nine foot to six foot; and from 55 square feet to 50

18 square feet. In this way, being able to retain some

19 of the visibility of the pricing.

20 Obviously, with gas stations, as was

21 explained earlier, gas stations are driven by that

22 pricing, the visibility of the numbers. We know that

23 if the numbers are not easily seen, someone's going

24 to go passed that station and go on to the next









1 station, where they can see the numbers perhaps a

2 little clearer, so they can compare prices there.

3 So we're attempting to reduce the size

4 here of what is there, and reduce the square footage.


6 Anything else?



9 Is there anyone in the audience that

10 wishes to make comment in regards to this case?

11 Seeing none, there were 14 notices; no

12 approvals, no objections.

13 Building Department?

14 MR. AMOLSH: Just a little bit of

15 history there, ladies and gentlemen, the Board

16 approved this Amoco sign and two wall signs. We were

17 able to approve and change the wall sign.

18 (Unintelligible) far side of the property.

19 (Unintelligible.) We approved it, and the same for

20 the other case, too.


22 Thank you.

23 Board Members?

24 Member Brennan?









1 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, this is

2 actually a reverse of what we typically have, because

3 the Petitioner used the sign, squared it off, to

4 demonstrate a smaller sign, which is fine.

5 The business has changed. It's in the

6 same location. I don't have any issue with this.

7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer?

8 MEMBER FISCHER: You said -- how big

9 is the current sign out there right now?

10 MR. HILLMAN: The current sign is nine

11 feet high and it's a square footage of 55 square

12 feet.

13 MEMBER FISCHER: The reason I ask this

14 is because when this was originally posted -- and I

15 understand the verbiage had changed in that. It said

16 the existing sign, the Amoco sign, was 41.66 square

17 feet. So can someone tell me the misdirection there,

18 I guess?

19 MR. AMOLSH: I think that's the way if

20 you look at the existing Amoco sign and compare how

21 the square footage of the original sign is figure

22 out, this is two separate signs. But that part --

23 this part here -- I think one of the calculations

24 included the brick base and height. But I don't have









1 the original file for 1991. I wouldn't be able to

2 locate it.

3 MEMBER FISCHER: So that's the 55 feet

4 as opposed to 41 that was --

5 Okay. Just constantly looking for

6 lessor variances. That's what we're supposed to do,

7 that's why my question was that. If this is actually

8 going to be smaller than the current sign, then I do

9 not have any objection.

10 And if no one else has any questions,

11 I'll make a Motion that in case number 09-098, that

12 we grant the Petitioner's request due to the hardship

13 shown; that the business has changed, and they have

14 worked to lessen the variances requested.

15 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

17 seconded.

18 Is there any further discussion on the

19 Motion?

20 Seeing none, Denise, would you please

21 call the roll.

22 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


24 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?










2 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


4 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


6 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


8 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes five

9 to zero.


11 MR. HILLMAN: Thank you.



14 So now I'd like to call case, 04-099,

15 filed by the same company for the BP Gas Station at

16 39471 12 Mile Road, on the southwest corner of 12

17 Mile and Haggerty.

18 Mr. Hillman is requesting three

19 variances to erect a new ground sign for the BP Gas

20 Station at the above address.

21 Go ahead.

22 MR. HILLMAN: Do I need to be sworn in

23 again?

24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: No, that's okay.









1 MR. HILLMAN: Once again, it's the

2 same situation where BP has purchased the assets of

3 Amoco, and we're looking at a sign change here. And

4 again, back in 1991, there was a variance that was

5 issued.

6 Again, we're looking at a reduction in

7 the overall square footage of the sign to 50 square

8 feet. We're also looking, once again, to the

9 reduction to six feet. Basically, the same

10 situation, as the other situation we just discussed.


12 Thank you.

13 I'm sure nobody walked in since we

14 last --

15 Building Department?

16 Any further comments?

17 MR. AMOLSH: Same comments apply with

18 the exception of that this location was granted two

19 ground signs.

20 You're requesting just the one ground

21 sign; is that correct?

22 MR. HILLMAN: Yes, that is correct.

23 MEMBER BRENNAN: The one on Haggerty

24 Road is going to be removed then?









1 MR. HILLMAN: I'm sorry. But my notes

2 show that there's only one out there.

3 MR. AMOLSH: There's actually two.

4 There one on 12 Mile and one on Haggerty Road.

5 MR. HILLMAN: The current Ordinance

6 reads that there's only allowable one, correct?

7 MR. AMOLSH: Well, the Ordinance only

8 allows one ground sign.

9 MR. HILLMAN: Yes. Just proposing the

10 one.

11 MR. AMOLSH: So the one that's on the

12 mock-up that's where the location is going to be for

13 this one sign you want?

14 MR. HILLMAN: Correct.

15 MR. AMOLSH: Okay.


17 Board Members?

18 MEMBER FISCHER: I'm assuming that the

19 same issues are exactly the same, I'm prepared to

20 make a Motion?


22 MEMBER FISCHER: That we approve the

23 variance requested in 04-099, requested by BP Gas

24 Station; that this is also for the sign on 12 Mile









1 Road, given that no lesser variance -- no, I'm sorry.

2 The Petitioner has established a proposed use

3 recommended with the minimum variances necessary.


5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

6 seconded.

7 Is there any further discussion on the

8 Motion?

9 Seeing none, Denise, would you please

10 call the roll.

11 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


13 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


15 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


17 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?

18 Member Gronachan: Yes.

19 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


21 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes five

22 to zero.

23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Your variance has

24 been granted.









1 Good luck to you.

2 MR. HILLMAN: Thank you.

3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Please see the

4 Building Department.


6 And now we can call Mr. Canup back in.

7 And call case number, 04-100, filed by

8 Terry Ervinck of Huntington Bank of Novi Promenade,

9 at 27250 Wixom Road, located on the eastside of Wixom

10 Road and south of Grand River.

11 Good evening?

12 MR. SCHNEIDER: Hi. My name is Brad

13 Schneider. I'm the architect for Huntington.

14 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

15 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-100?


17 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.


19 Proceed.

20 MR. SCHNEIDER: Huntington Bank is

21 wanting to put a branch bank at Novi Promenade at

22 Outlot Number 3. And we're requesting two variances.

23 One is for to do away with the requirement for a

24 loading zone. The bank has no requirement for









1 loading or unloading supplies or any materials.

2 And then the second, the variance is

3 for interior landscaping around the building, to have

4 a variance for that along the drive-through; as

5 there's no space there to put the landscaping.


7 Thank you.

8 Anything else?

9 MR. SCHNEIDER: That's it.

10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is there anyone in

11 the audience that wishes to make comment in regards

12 to this case?

13 Seeing none, there were 41 notices; no

14 approvals, no objections.

15 Building Department?

16 MR. SAVEN: Just to point out, this is

17 located in the Novi Promenade. It's the same as what

18 we dealt with with Sam's Club, number one; number

19 two, is this issue has come before the Board before

20 on several occasions. I want you to be aware that

21 this is being reviewed right now for banks, for the

22 loading and unloading zone, because of the security

23 purposes. And number two, it's very difficult for

24 landscaping in the drive-through area.









1 So it's being recognized that this is

2 a problem, we're working on changing the Ordinance

3 for this. Hopefully it will come to pass pretty

4 soon.


6 Thank you.

7 Member Brennan?

8 MEMBER BRENNAN: Exactly what I wrote

9 down. It's consistent with other bank cases,

10 exactly.

11 And if there's not any other

12 discussion, I'll make a Motion.


14 Go ahead.

15 MEMBER BRENNAN: Okay. In case 04-

16 100, that the Petitioner's request for these two

17 variances be granted, due to the nature of his

18 business.

19 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

21 seconded.

22 Is there any further discussion?

23 Seeing none, Denise, would you please

24 call the roll.









1 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


3 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


5 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


7 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


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 MR. SCHNEIDER: Thank you.

18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Good luck to you.

19 MR. SCHNEIDER: Thank you.


21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Before I call this

22 next case, I would like to state on the public record

23 that the next case is involving Asbury Park, which

24 the owner is Morage(ph) Development. Morage









1 Development happens to share an office space in the

2 same building, which I work.

3 I just wanted to put it on the record

4 that there is no conflict; there's not a discussion;

5 I don't even see them; and I have no financial

6 interest, nor input on this next case.

7 So with that, I will call, case number

8 04-101, filed by Terri Simpson of Sign Studio for

9 Asbury Park subdivision, entrance signs located on

10 the north side of 11 Mile and east of Beck Road.

11 Are you Ms. Simpson?

12 MS. BROWN: No, I'm not.

13 Because of personal reasons, she could

14 not attend today. I'm Melissa Brown, and I represent

15 Morage, as well as the Sign Studio.

16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you please

17 raise your right hand and be sworn in by our

18 secretary.

19 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

20 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-101?

21 MS. BROWN: Yes.

22 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Please proceed.

24 MS. BROWN: We are here today to ask









1 for a variance to get additional signage to an

2 additional structure. We already got approve on the

3 east wall of the east entrance and the west wall of

4 the west entrance. And what we're asking for today

5 is to get additional signage on the west wall of the

6 east entrance and the east wall of the west entrance.

7 As well as two logo emblems on all

8 four walls.

9 And the reason why we're asking for

10 the logo signs is, if you're looking at the

11 structure, it's on an angle. So if you're coming

12 from the west direction, the first, or the east

13 entrance, you will not see the lettering on the wall,

14 because it's already facing towards the west. So

15 that's why we're asking for the additional lettering

16 on the walls.

17 The logo emblems is more of a design.

18 There isn't any hardship or anything for that.


20 Thank you.

21 Is there anyone in the audience that

22 wishes to make comment in regards to this case?

23 Seeing none, there were 42 notices

24 mailed; three approvals, no objections.









1 Although, Mr. Saven, I just want to --

2 I don't know if you want to contact this particular

3 resident, Scott Hunt at 46790 West 11 Mile. Although

4 he approves the sign. It says please remind builder

5 that there's a Sound Ordinance, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00

6 p.m.. I've tried to call the police. This is the

7 third time I've had to call.

8 MR. SAVEN: It's already been --


10 Building Department?

11 MR. SAVEN: No comment.

12 MR. AMOLSH: No comment.


14 Board Members?

15 Member Brennan?

16 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, on first glance

17 it looks overwhelming that there's 18 requests for

18 variances. But as I count them up, there's 16 that

19 relate to the -- I won't even call a sign. I'll call

20 it the design accent, which is what we referred to

21 Maybury, very similar.

22 So with that said, I would move that

23 variance request number one, two, three, four, five,

24 six, seven, eight, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen,









1 fifteen, sixteen, seventeen and eighteen, be moved

2 for approval.


4 MEMBER BRENNAN: These, for those in

5 the audience, are two very small signature accent

6 signs that have two initials. And our interpretation

7 the last time that this was before us, that we did

8 not interpret those as signs; but more of a design

9 accent.

10 And I think we should be consistent in

11 this case.

12 MEMBER BAUER: Second.


14 It's been moved and seconded.

15 Member Canup, did you have something

16 else?

17 MEMBER CANUP: Call for a vote.


19 Member Fischer?

20 MEMBER FISCHER: How many design

21 accents were in the Maybury case?

22 MS. BROWN: There's two.

23 MEMBER FISCHER: I just have a concern

24 because now, you know, we're looking at -- you know,









1 going from two to eight, eight different ones. I

2 think we need to look at lesser variances at times,

3 as well as the fact that those crest logo signs make

4 up four of the variances we're looking at so --

5 MEMBER BRENNAN: It makes up actually

6 eight. Eight signs and eight.


8 MEMBER BRENNAN: I just made a Motion.

9 MEMBER FISCHER: I just wanted that --

10 MEMBER BRENNAN: We can vote now.

11 MEMBER FISCHER: I wanted to state why

12 I was voting no.

13 Thank you.

14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I tend to agree

15 with Member Fischer. Actually, I don't -- although

16 it's beautiful, a beautiful wall out there, I don't

17 see the purpose for the crest. Maybury, I'd have to

18 say, is a new subdivision in a new area, setting a

19 new trend. There's subdivisions on 11 Mile that have

20 nice walls and just have their name and no crest.

21 And I feel I'm not -- I can't support

22 the crest, because it doesn't fit in with what else

23 is in the neighborhood. And that's why -- and that's

24 a lot of variances. And I feel that we're setting









1 something here that I think we should -- need to be

2 careful on, because there's going to be other things

3 coming down the pike in the future, and I'm not

4 comfortable with -- and as you said yourself, there

5 really is no hardship, indicating that those crests

6 need to be there.

7 If you look at the subdivision to your

8 west, the southwest -- and I forget the name of it,

9 they have a lovely brick wall and their name; and it

10 looks just as nice. And I'm sorry, but I wont' be

11 supporting the crest.

12 Member Canup?

13 MEMBER CANUP: Call for the vote.

14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Denise, would you

15 please call the roll.

16 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


18 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


20 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


22 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


24 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?










2 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


4 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes four

5 to two.



8 MEMBER BRENNAN: We've got, as I

9 understand it, we've got two entrance ways and we've

10 got two angular signs, okay.

11 And again, we always debate whether

12 it's smarter to have one sign in the middle, if you

13 have the room. It was your option to go to these two

14 angular signs, yet we've got traffic going both ways,

15 so we need that site identification going both ways.

16 And it, again, is consistent with what we've done in

17 the past.

18 With that said, I'll make a Motion for

19 variance requests nine and fourteen, that they be

20 approved for site identification.

21 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

23 seconded.

24 Is there any further discussion in









1 regards to this Motion?

2 Seeing none, Denise, would you please

3 call the roll.

4 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


6 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


8 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


10 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


12 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


14 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


16 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

17 zero.


19 Your variance has been granted.

20 Please see the Building Department.


22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. Let's call

23 case, 04-102, filed by Mr. Quinn, attorney for Gardan

24 LLC representing Hummer of Novi.









1 MR. QUINN: Yes, good evening, once

2 again.

3 It has been a long evening, and I

4 brought the army from Hummer here with me tonight,

5 because we wanted to demonstrate the importance that

6 this appearance here tonight has to this Hummer

7 project. So we have the wetlands consultant; we have

8 the builder; we have the coordinator; we have the

9 owner; oh, we've got a civil engineer.

10 We have everybody here, in case

11 there's any questions regarding our request. And the

12 reason we're here is, Novi, of course, as we said in

13 our application, has an Ordinance that once we

14 receive preliminary site plan approval, it's subject

15 to administrative review for final approval; that the

16 Ordinance does allow the applicant to go forward and

17 begin certain construction onsite, at their own risk;

18 as long as they sign a Hold-Harmless Indemnity

19 Agreement with the City.

20 In reviewing this issue with

21 Mr. Schultz and Mr. Saven, it was determined that

22 they felt they really couldn't sign the normal

23 temporary permit to begin construction, because we

24 still have not yet received one outside agency









1 approval; and that is the approval from the MDEQ.

2 We've applied for the approval with the MDEQ. We are

3 currently just beginning our public response in the

4 public hearing process. And we're expecting that we

5 will have a satisfactory review from them sometime in

6 November.

7 Now, timing on this project is very

8 critical. And part of the timing goes back to the

9 hardship that this site creates itself. You'll

10 recall that this is on the northeast corner of

11 Meadowbrook and Grand River. It's a site that has

12 been filed over the years, beginning with the

13 Interstate construction when fill material was placed

14 there; and other material has been continuously

15 placed there throughout the years.

16 It's been a vacant site because it's

17 almost -- it's very difficult to build upon. But we

18 have a plan now to complete the Hummer Dealership

19 there, and timing is of the essence. Both, because

20 of the weather that's coming in. We really can't

21 afford to wait any longer for the full MDEQ process

22 to occur, to give us that approval.

23 Also, is a somewhat of an aspect that

24 you don't like to hear, but this is a franchise with









1 General Motors. We have a time commitment with

2 General Motors to have this building up by March 30th

3 of next year. We're already on a 90 day extension

4 from them. Originally, it was supposed to be at year

5 end. But we have this extension, and we are in

6 serious jeopardy of not obtaining that franchise, if

7 we don't meet their requirements.

8 So literally, every day is of extreme

9 importance on this project.

10 In that meeting with Mister -- in that

11 phone conference with Mr. Schultz and Mr. Saven, they

12 felt their hands were tied, because of us not having

13 that MDEQ permit. So they recommended that we come

14 to you for you to grant us that variance of this

15 Ordinance requirement of having that one loose-end of

16 the MDEQ permit.

17 We do have, as stated in your

18 documentation, the grating plan permits for soil

19 erosion, woodlands, footing, foundation design. The

20 sods have been approved. Mechanical appurtenances

21 have all been approved. And a preliminary draft of

22 the authorization for partial site construction and

23 indemnity and Hold-Harmless Agreement, was reviewed

24 by Mr. Schultz.









1 I don't know if Dave has had the

2 opportunity to review that. I've kind of updated

3 that agreement, because since it was drafted, albeit,

4 at a moments notice to submit with this application,

5 I've had time to think about some of the language in

6 more detail.

7 And what we're really asking to do

8 here -- and I know you've all been given, have you

9 not, a copy of this drawing? And that drawing is

10 important because it shows you the yellow area -- let

11 me see if I can get this out. It doesn't go out any

12 farther. It's unusual, but we'd do it this way.

13 Meadowbrook Road and Grand River.

14 Again, everything in the hash marked area is a

15 wetland area. Everything in blue is a hundred-year

16 flood plane; and the hash marks are the wetland

17 boundaries.

18 Now, what we're asking to do is to

19 work within the yellow area. What we'd like to do is

20 mass grating. We'd like to be able to construct the

21 onsite water main and sanitary sewer lines; and do

22 any necessary taps. We'd like to perform the

23 necessary rights-of-way work on Meadowbrook Road and

24 Grand River, to install any underground utilities









1 there; put in the two entrances; and the curbs in

2 accordance with the approved plans.

3 For the building itself, right through

4 here, to construct the foundation; including the

5 underground piling, which are very important that we

6 get started on. The grade beams all according to the

7 approved engineered drawings. We'd like to be able

8 to asphalt this area, again, in the yellow, as much

9 as we can. Again, subject to the City Building

10 Department's approval.

11 We do not anticipate going outside of

12 these boundaries, so that we would violate any MDEQ

13 rules or regulations. If -- what we're going to do

14 -- the soil erosion fencing is already up through the

15 entire area. The engineering company is going to go

16 and state that they've got all of these started.

17 This entire area that's in the yellow. So that the

18 Building Department when they come out, they're going

19 to know exactly what area that we requested that we'd

20 be able to work within. And as I said, we state that

21 it will be visible.

22 So that is the work we'd like to do,

23 and we'd like to be able to do it as soon as the

24 agreement is signed. We'd like to request the waiver









1 of your normal Five-Day Rule, so that this agreement

2 can be signed tomorrow, and they can actually begin

3 work on this tomorrow.

4 So we're seeking, as we stated, a

5 request to begin construction prior to obtaining the

6 MDEQ permit; and that you authorize the Building

7 Department to sign the necessary documentation to

8 allow us to do that. And we will submit the required

9 indemnity and Hold-Harmless Agreement, that gives the

10 protection to the City, in case we do anything that

11 -- by error that we're not supposed to do; that we

12 hold the City harmless from any and all -- any

13 violations of the MDEQ, anything that would occur.

14 We're going to be responsible for any fines, costs,

15 attorney fees, whatever it might be for any such

16 error. We don't anticipate anything like that.

17 However, we have a very group of

18 professionals that will make sure that nothing like

19 that happens.

20 But we would -- I guess the other

21 thing is -- just briefly in conclusion -- this whole

22 project was being developed under something brand-new

23 in Novi, under the Gateway new zoning district, under

24 a special development option. So we actually have a









1 contract with the City for this development.

2 The City Council, in their wisdom, saw

3 how important that this location was to the City,

4 because it's been vacant so long; it's the entrance

5 to the downtown. That's the purpose of the Gateway

6 Ordinance, and that was the purpose of why we came

7 here with the new Ordinance provision.

8 And so, it's important to us, and the

9 City has acknowledged that this is important for

10 them, and we'd like to get started as soon as

11 possible; and we'd appreciate your help and favorable

12 consideration in doing that.

13 Thank you.

14 And if there's any questions on

15 anything, we've got an answer for more answers than

16 you could possibly want.


18 MR. QUINN: Thank you.

19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: There is no one in

20 the audience to make comment at this time.

21 There were 78 notices sent; no

22 approvals, no objections.

23 Building Department?

24 MR. SAVEN: Just to point out that









1 there was a plot plan that was submitted to the Board

2 earlier on. And whatever is the decision of the

3 Board, I'd like to make that a matter of record for

4 this particular case, number one. Number two, should

5 the Board decide to approve this case, prior to any

6 work commencing on the site, that we have the

7 approval from our consultant regarding the wetlands,

8 the delineation point, as shown on the plot plan,

9 that they are in approval of that particular

10 location. All the necessary permits be obtained.

11 And I think it's already been done.

12 And with respect to the woodlands

13 verification, soil erosion requirements, and before

14 any work would be started on the site, that all

15 protection for the site be afforded for the

16 environmental concerns that we have available.

17 And it's absolutely pointed out that

18 there will be no work, absolutely no work in the

19 flood plane or in the buffer area of the wetlands.

20 And I want to make sure that that's put on the

21 record.

22 MR. QUINN: Except for the ditch.

23 MR. SAVEN: Except for the ditch.

24 MR. QUINN: On Grand River and Novi









1 Road -- Novi Road and Grand River, I'm sorry.

2 We're not going to -- believe it or

3 not, the ditch, because it was never cleaned out, the

4 roadside ditch, by the County, have grown on some

5 vegetation, that is considered wetland vegetation.

6 So the ditch, technically, is a wetland. We're not

7 going to disturb the ditch, but the buffer, the 25-

8 foot buffer from the ditch, goes actually into our

9 building. So along that area, we are going to be

10 working in the buffer, but no place else.

11 And just one other thing, Don, the

12 City's wetland consultant, as I understand it, cannot

13 -- would not issue the City's wetland permit, because

14 we don't have the MDEQ permit. So that's the only --

15 MR. SAVEN: That's --

16 MR. QUINN: The only permit we don't

17 have, is that one.

18 MR. SAVEN: I stand corrected on that

19 particular aspect, but as far as the delineation of

20 the wetlands boundary --

21 MR. QUINN: Right.

22 MR. SAVEN: -- I still want her

23 actively involved in the review and inspect the

24 woodlands delineation aspect.









1 MR. QUINN: Exactly.

2 MR. SAVEN: I'm not sure that we're

3 out of that area.

4 MR. QUINN: We're already in agreement

5 with that.

6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Sanghvi?

7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, Madam

8 Chair.

9 I just have one question.

10 Whether we have ever had this kind of

11 request before, and if so, what was decided in the

12 past?

13 MR. SAVEN: I think as far as a

14 request like this, I can't think of an unusual

15 circumstance. And this particular case is unusual,

16 for the fact that we are noticing that we're having a

17 little more longevity obtaining outside agency

18 approval, specifically with the MDEQ. It's taking a

19 little bit longer than normal. It's not something

20 that is unusual in nature. It's just something that

21 takes a longer period of time.

22 The property, in itself -- I'm not

23 petitioning for you guys, whatsoever -- the property,

24 in itself, is a very unusual piece of property. And









1 being that there's a flood plane involved; being that

2 there's a wetlands involved, and these are governed

3 wetlands, these are governed flood planes, we have to

4 insure that we make sure that the necessary approvals

5 have been granted in accordance with the Ordinance.

6 Unfortunately, the starting permit

7 requirement for me is I have to, before I do

8 anything, I have to ensure that these issues are

9 provided for. And if there's one outstanding that's

10 necessary, I can't do it. And that's why we're here.

11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Start at the end

12 and work our way up.

13 MEMBER SANGHVI: I just have one

14 question.

15 I want to start at the beginning of

16 this particular project -- it was at the beginning of

17 this project going through the Council and the rest

18 of it. And as a matter of fact, I am very happy that

19 something is being done to that. It's been sitting

20 there for God knows how long, forever and ever.

21 Nobody wanted to touch it with a dodge ball. And I

22 am so happy that something is being done, and I put

23 myself, I have no hesitation with granting the

24 applicant's request to start without the MDEQ permit,









1 which would complicate it nice. And also, at the

2 same time, I also want to put it on record that

3 Mr. Quinn has already accepted the responsibility for

4 any kind of misdoing, if it may happen.

5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Brennan?

6 MEMBER BRENNAN: I second the Motion.

7 Was that a Motion?

8 I'm sorry. I thought that was a

9 Motion.

10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Canup?

11 MEMBER CANUP: I would be very

12 supportive of a positive Motion in this case, subject

13 to Mr. Gilliam's Hold-Harmless Agreement.

14 We have it in place, Mr. Gilliam?

15 MR. GILLIAM: I spoke with Mr. Schultz

16 this afternoon. I think there's a couple pleats that

17 need to be made, but shouldn't be a problem.

18 MEMBER CANUP: Any Motion that should

19 be made, should include that in it that Hold-Harmless

20 is to be agreed to by our attorney. And I can see

21 the amount of urgency here. Black top plants goes

22 in probably 60 days, if you're lucky. And they won't

23 open up again frost thaws drop off, which is about

24 sometime in April, May, depending on how severe the









1 winter is.

2 And I guess I would encourage you, if

3 this Board sees fit to approve this, that you run

4 very fast.

5 MR. QUINN: Everybody's ready to.

6 Everybody's ready.

7 MEMBER CANUP: And I'd like to

8 congratulate you on tackling this challenging piece

9 of property, because I remember when it was filled,

10 and you've got a lot of guts.

11 So good luck to you.

12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Brennan?

13 MEMBER BRENNAN: Is that me?

14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Did you change your

15 name?

16 MEMBER BRENNAN: I have some

17 scribbling for a Motion. If we want to try it, and

18 if I miss something, somebody can amend.

19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I'm sure we'll hear

20 from Mr. Gilliam.

21 MEMBER BRENNAN: I wrote as he talked,

22 so.

23 I would move that the Petitioner's

24 request for this variance be granted to expedite









1 development; that the Petitioner assumes all risk.

2 He agrees to hold the City harmless by an agreement

3 between the City Attorney and the Petitioner; that we

4 would waive the five-day limit; that we would accept

5 this plot plan as the plan, but that no Building

6 Department -- you'll begin no work, until the

7 Building Department approval has been granted, with

8 the exception of the MDEQ. There will be no work in

9 the flood planes or wetlands, ditch exception,

10 excepted.

11 Did I miss anything?

12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Protection of the

13 buffer area.



16 MR. QUINN: And that we do not need

17 the City of Novi's wetland permit either to be

18 contingent upon the MDEQ permit. We have all the

19 permits. It's just that one.


21 Did we cover it?

22 MR. GILLIAM: Just so the record's

23 clear, we're not requiring the applicant to indemnify

24 the City in this particular case. They have









1 graciously offered to do so, and the City's accepting

2 that offer.

3 MR. QUINN: That's correct.

4 MEMBER BRENNAN: That's my Motion, and

5 I'm sticking to it.


7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

8 seconded.

9 Any further discussion on the Motion?

10 Seeing none, Denise, would you please

11 call the roll.

12 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


14 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


16 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


18 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


20 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?

21 Member Gronachan: Yes.

22 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


24 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to









1 zero.

2 MR. QUINN: Thank you all very much.

3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Good luck to you.

4 MR. QUINN: Have a good evening.



7 We're back on the record in case

8 number, 04-073. Mr. Anderson, since he notified the

9 secretary that he may not appear this evening, due to

10 a work conflict, I'm suggesting that we table this

11 until the November meeting.

12 All those in favor, say aye?


14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: No apposed.

15 Duly noted.


17 We need to move to other matters.

18 ZBA case, 04-024, Meadowbrook Office

19 Building, Mr. Friedlaender has requested a variance

20 approval for this case be extended to such time as

21 the final site plan approval remains valid, including

22 any potential extensions.

23 Building Department?

24 MR. SAVEN: No problem.










2 Board Members?

3 Member Canup?

4 MEMBER CANUP: I would want to see a

5 limit put on it, one year, two years, five years,

6 whatever it happens to be.

7 MR. GILLIAM: The period that he's

8 suggesting is to such point as the final site plan

9 remains valid.

10 MEMBER CANUP: I'll make a Motion that

11 we grant the request with a time limit of 24-months.


13 MEMBER CANUP; From this time.

14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

15 seconded.

16 Is there any further discussion?

17 Seeing none, Denise, would you please

18 call the roll.

19 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


21 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


23 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?










1 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


3 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


5 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


7 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

8 zero.


10 Our next subject under other matters

11 is Gordon Wilson, case number 04-0462, who wishes to

12 have an extension.

13 DENISE ANDERSON: He wants a one-month

14 extension.

15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: He wants a one-

16 month extension. This was the house on East Lake.

17 DENISE ANDERSON: 1322 East Lake

18 Drive. And I did include a little packet on your

19 table.


21 For 30 days.

22 MEMBER BAUER: Second.


24 It's been moved an approved.









1 Any further discussion?

2 Seeing none, Denise, would you please

3 call the roll.

4 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


6 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


8 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


10 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


12 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


14 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


16 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

17 zero.

18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: At this point, I

19 would like to call the normal Zoning Board of Appeals

20 meeting to a close, as all Members and the City to

21 move into an executive session at this time.

22 MR. GILLIAM: We'll call the meeting

23 to a close and vote to move into executive session.

24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: We'll close the









1 first meeting and come back out.

2 Denise, would you please call the roll

3 on the Motion to move into executive session.

4 It's been accepted and it's been

5 seconded.

6 Denise would you please call the roll.

7 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


9 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


11 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


13 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


15 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


17 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


19 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes five

20 to one.

21 (The meeting adjourned

22 at 10:49 p.m.)

23 - - - - - - -










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 (164) typewritten

10 pages, is a true and correct transcript of my said

11 stenograph notes.



14 ________________________________________

15 Machelle R. Billingslea-Moore, Reporter.


17 __________

18 Date