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, Novi, Michigan, on Tuesday, November 9, 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 Wednesday, November 9, 2004

3 At 7:30 p.m.

4 - - - - -

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

6 and I would like to call the November Zoning Board of

7 Appeals meeting to order.

8 Denise, would you please call the

9 roll.

10 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?

11 MEMBER BAUER: Present.

12 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


14 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


16 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


18 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


20 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


22 DENISE ANDERSON: All present.

23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: The Zoning Board of

24 Appeals is a hearing board, empowered by the Novi

1 City Charter, to hear appeals seeking variances from

2 the application of the Novi Zoning Ordinances. It

3 takes a vote of at least four members to approve a

4 variance request; and a vote of the majority of the

5 members to deny a variance.

6 This evening we do have a full board.

7 Are there any -- to the agenda, are

8 there any changes to this evening's agenda?


10 Mr. Saven will be introducing John

11 Hines as the new deputy building official.

12 In with respect to case, 04-106 filed

13 by Jason Sestak of Planet Neon for the Sullivan-

14 O'Brien Funeral Home, located at 41555 Grand River,

15 there are no violations.

16 Case number 04-111 filed by

17 Signgraphix for Northern Equities Group for

18 development at 28550 Cabot Drive. The applicant has

19 requested that their case be tabled to December 7th

20 meeting.

21 And under other matters, we'd like to

22 add the resignation of David Ruyle as alternate to

23 the Zoning Board of Appeals.


1 Anything else?

2 Member Fischer?

3 MEMBER FISCHER: Yes. I would like to

4 discuss Harold's Frame Shop, the sign that we

5 approved there, under other matters, please.


7 Any other changes?

8 MR. AMOLSH: With the Board's

9 permission, I would like to bring in other matters to

10 revisit the Amoco case at 12 Mile and Haggerty Roads.

11 I would like a clarification on the location of the

12 sign.


14 Anything else?

15 Seeing none, all those in favor of the

16 agenda, say aye?


18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Any opposed?

19 None.

20 We had September and October Minutes.

21 Are there any changes to either one?

22 Seeing none, all those in favor of the

23 September and October Minutes, say aye?











2 approved.

3 At this time, I would like to address

4 the audience.

5 Please note on the agenda that there

6 are a set or rules of conduct when approaching the

7 Board. Please review them. If anyone has any cell

8 phones, we'd ask that they be turned off at this

9 time.

10 Also, if there are any public remarks

11 anyone would like to make in regards to matters,

12 other than cases that are in front of the Board this

13 evening, you may do so now.

14 Is there anyone in the audience that

15 wishes to approach the Board?

16 Seeing none, we will call our first

17 case --

18 MR. SAVEN: Madam Chair, at this time,

19 I'd like to introduce John Hines, the new deputy

20 building official for the City of Novi.

21 John has been involved with -- comes

22 from Rochester Hills, where he was the deputy

23 building official there; has ten years of experience

24 with the State of Michigan Plan Review Centers, for









1 all -- several construction of major buildings with

2 the State of Michigan; has also been involved with

3 Canton Township with the role of inspector and plan

4 reviewer with them.

5 And he will be taking over for me when

6 I am not here.

7 MR. HINES: I appreciate that, Don.

8 Don has been very kind to me and has good words for

9 me.

10 I always -- I feel like I'm here --

11 I'm an old hag now. It's my second time up in two

12 days here at the podium and I feel quite at home here

13 in Novi. I am looking forward to working with

14 everybody.

15 I'm excited and enthusiastic about the

16 challenges ahead, and I know a lot of those

17 challenges come here in the Zoning Board of Appeals,

18 and I'm looking forward to that.

19 My -- as Don said, my past experience

20 has been with a lot of the Government, local

21 Government and State Government. And I'm experienced

22 in how the Zoning Board of Appeals works, although

23 I'm not -- I know everybody -- everything has a

24 different agenda, and a little bit different things









1 -- points of view. So I'm looking forward to seeing

2 yours, and see how that compares with my former

3 positions; but I know I'll be looking forward to

4 working with every single person here.

5 Appreciate it, thank you.


7 MR. SAVEN: Item number two, if I may,

8 I just want to indicate that David Ruyle, he did

9 submit a letter of resignation to the City Clerk's

10 Office; also the City Clerk's Office has also sent

11 out packets on November 4th regarding the applicants

12 that had previously applied for it, that there is an

13 opening for alternate.


15 And welcome.

16 Okay. We'll now call our first case,

17 case number, 04-086, filed by Cheryl Murphy at 22798

18 Shadow Pine Way in the Village Oaks Subdivision.

19 Board Members, you will recall, this

20 case was tabled from September. And Mrs. Murphy is

21 requesting a six foot exterior side yard variance for

22 the construction of a two-story addition to her home

23 at the above address.

24 The property is a corner lot, zoned R-









1 4. It's located north of Nine Mile and east of

2 Meadowbrook in the Village Oaks Subdivision.

3 Good evening.

4 You're Mrs. Murphy?

5 MRS. MURPHY: Yes. Good evening.

6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you raise

7 your right hand and be sworn in by our secretary.

8 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

9 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-086?

10 MRS. MURPHY: I do.

11 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You may proceed.

13 MRS. MURPHY: Okay.

14 I'm here tonight with a slight

15 variation in the original request. It has now been

16 reduced from eight feet to six feet, a six feet

17 variance request. And the variance request is only

18 for the first floor additional portion.

19 This reduces the size of the variance

20 down to 47 square feet, which is just over seven

21 percent of the entire square footage that's proposed,

22 very small area in comparison to the original

23 request.

24 The other thing I'd like to do this









1 evening is to discuss the one concern that the

2 Village Oaks board had pointed out the last time.

3 They indicated something having to do with a traffic

4 -- a traffic concern; and I've taken a copy of the

5 City of Novi's corner clearance Code and had my

6 architect map that out.

7 So that it's shown there in the corner

8 in the green area, and you can see it's well within

9 -- the addition is well within the area as defined by

10 the corner clearance for a property of this type.

11 I took additional measures and took

12 some photographs of the area. This is as -- heading

13 down north on Shadow Pine Road, looking towards

14 Village Lake, which would be the area of concern.

15 And if you take a look, you can see clear down to

16 this -- this is a red fence that contains the refuse

17 for the subdivision's clubhouse. You have a clear

18 shot, and the addition is not even in view at that

19 point.

20 In the next picture, you can see here

21 -- this is where the corner flag is posted for the

22 addition. There's still a clear view of that street,

23 the Village Lake Road from Shadow Pine.

24 The final photograph is of the corner









1 of my house, the property, and you can see the amount

2 of space. I feel that the traffic -- the traffic

3 safety concern is not an issue.

4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Anything else?

5 MRS. MURPHY: Not unless there's some

6 other comments.

7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is there anyone in

8 the audience that wishes to make comment in regards

9 to this matter?

10 Seeing none, there were --

11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Come on down. It's

12 a little dark out there. I couldn't see you.

13 MR. JONES: That's all right.

14 Hello. My name is Brent Jones. I'm

15 at -- I live at 22786 Shadow Pine Way. I'm her

16 neighbor. And I'm just -- I came up here to say

17 that, you know, I would hope that you would approve

18 this. She's been a great neighbor and a great member

19 of the community.

20 So I just wanted ya'll to know that.


22 Thank you.

23 Oh, they gave us some light.

24 So is there anyone else in the









1 audience that wishes to make comment?

2 Okay. Seeing none, there were 35

3 notices mailed; 13 approvals, one objection.

4 And this is the one Board Members, you

5 reviewed, no doubt, the objection from the Village

6 Oaks Common Area Association.

7 Building Department?

8 MR. SAVEN: Just to point out that the

9 variance that has been requested is reduced by two

10 feet, number one. Number two, the corner clearance

11 requirements for trafficking is at 25 foot on a

12 diagonal, which this does meet that requirement.

13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Board Members?

14 Member Fischer?

15 MEMBER FISCHER: The one not approval,

16 can you read that for us?


18 The objection is from Keith Smith at

19 41158 Village Lake. I'm objecting to this request

20 for variance on my opinion of a -- of the negative

21 impact it will have on the resale value of my home.

22 This proposed addition will come

23 within 24 feet of the Village Lake, with the north

24 most two-story -- northern most two-story wall facing









1 my southern view front picture window.

2 I believe this potential view will

3 make it difficult to get fair market value for our

4 house when it comes to -- in time to sell.

5 And the rest of the letters were all

6 approvals.

7 Member Sanghvi?

8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, Madam

9 Chair.

10 I think this particular case has

11 generated a lot of beating in our subdivision. And

12 before I go on to any comment about this particular

13 variance, I'd like to ask a couple to the attorney.

14 And the first thing I would like to

15 know, is where does it say that the ZBA needs

16 approval of the homeowner's association?

17 MR. GILLIAM: Approval of the

18 homeowner's association is not required for a

19 variance. In fact, the approval or disapproval, if

20 you will, of the homeowner's association, is

21 something that the Zoning Board can take into

22 consideration; just as you would take into

23 consideration the opinion of any other individual or

24 entity that got up and spoke or provided a comment in









1 reference to a request for a variance.

2 The position of the homeowner's

3 association in and of itself, is not dispositive. I

4 think the rules and procedures indicate to the

5 applicant, if there is a homeowner's association,

6 they're supposed to contact the homeowner's

7 association, so that they have the opportunity to

8 comment.

9 But again, the homeowner's

10 association's position is not dispositive by any

11 means.

12 MEMBER SANGHVI: So am I right in

13 thinking that the ZBA is an independent body that

14 takes decisions regarding variance requests without

15 any kind of fear of failure?

16 MR. GILLIAM: Absolutely correct, yes.

17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

18 Now, as far as this particular case is

19 concerned, I have been living in this area, in that

20 particular neighborhood -- not too far from this

21 particular house -- for 29 years. And I know that

22 street really like the back of my hand. And I don't

23 think it's going to make an iota of difference if

24 this variance is granted.









1 It seemed curious when you look at

2 this thing that the person in charge of the

3 architecture of the homeowner's association says it

4 is okay to have that. And then something happens and

5 you know the rest of the story.

6 So I just wanted to be known that I

7 didn't send in an approval or denial letter, even

8 though I received it because I was going to speak

9 about it here; and speak about it very loudly and

10 clearly to send a message that it is the ZBA that

11 decides whether a particular variance is granted or

12 not.

13 And regardless of what the right on

14 this, the attorney says that this doesn't mean it's a

15 requirement of what we should be doing here; and I'm

16 even surprised at the language of this letter we have

17 received.

18 So I just wanted you to note that I am

19 for this variance, and at the appropriate time I have

20 no hesitation in making a Motion.


22 Member Bauer?

23 MEMBER BAUER: I've lived in the

24 subdivision for 33 years, and I can see no problem









1 whatsoever --

2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

3 MEMBER BAUER: -- in this being

4 approved.

5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Well, now that I

6 know where you all live, I would like to put my

7 comments on the record, for the Petitioner's sake.

8 Last month, you only received two

9 approvals; and this Board offered some suggestions in

10 tabling your case and recommended that you go back

11 and talk to your neighbors. And this month, we have

12 13 approvals, and I think that should be commended.

13 MRS. MURPHY: Thank you.

14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: The fact that you

15 did your homework, you took our guidance, so to

16 speak, pleases us, because it's not something that we

17 want to do, but nonetheless, we need to do our

18 homework.

19 I think I kind of shared that with you

20 last month. And it's difficult when you're looking

21 at a master bedroom and we're looking at five feet

22 and ten feet. We're coming from a different place.

23 So being that you have substantiated

24 all the things that we asked for last month, I also









1 will be in support if someone -- if there's nothing

2 else --

3 Member Fischer?

4 MEMBER FISCHER: I would like to

5 address some of the concerns addressed in the Village

6 Oaks Common Area Association's letter.

7 The yellow tape, that is -- I drove by

8 there today, and there's yellow tape out there.

9 That's the outline --

10 MRS. MURPHY: Yes.

11 MEMBER FISCHER: -- for the addition?

12 MRS. MURPHY: That was to help the

13 neighbors visualize the amount of space.


15 That helped me, as well.

16 In driving by there, the traffic

17 concern around there is very important, because

18 maybe, not as long as you guys, but I've lived there

19 21-years, and many of those years I was younger, I

20 was riding around seeing my friends on my bike, going

21 to the clubhouse, going to the pool. And should this

22 actually inhibit views, then there would be a major

23 concern.

24 However, there is no concern









1 whatsoever as I drove by in every angle possible to

2 make sure that there would be no one in harms way.

3 So the concern about traffic in the

4 letter, I can't substantiate that.

5 Second of all, not meeting our

6 criteria, I can see undue circumstances, given the

7 lot shape. I can see not a detriment to public

8 safety. I can see it won't unreasonably impair

9 visual line of sight. And I don't think it impairs

10 the intent, as there still is a significant setback.

11 And lastly, Member Sanghvi couldn't

12 have said it better, that if we -- if there were no

13 variance requests needed, that would be great.

14 However, we are a Board, empowered to make these

15 requests possible, due to the law. And there are

16 times and there are places were variances are needed,

17 and I believe this is one and I will be supporting

18 this.


20 Thank you.

21 Member Brennan?

22 MEMBER BRENNAN: Real quick.

23 I don't live there. I've never lived

24 there, but I support it.









1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: We know where the

2 Christmas party is going to be though.

3 Anyone else?

4 Is there a Motion?


6 I make a Motion that in case, 04-086

7 that the Petitioner's request be granted because it

8 is very reasonable, and doesn't appear to be in

9 anyway obstructing anybody's view.

10 Thank you.


12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been seconded.

13 It's been moved quadrupled.

14 Is there any further discussion on the

15 Motion?

16 MEMBER BRENNAN: Just one, maybe to

17 note that this is a corner lot, and that the

18 extension in the setback is limited because of this

19 corner lot.

20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I'm sure the maker

21 of the Motion will accept that friendly amendment.

22 Anything else?

23 Denise, would you please call the

24 roll.











3 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


5 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


7 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


9 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


11 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


13 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

14 zero.

15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Congratulations.

16 Please see the Building Department.

17 MRS. MURPHY: Thank you.

18 And I'd like to thank my neighbors who

19 might be watching, as well.


21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. Our next

22 case is 04-073, filed by John and Linda Anderson for

23 a residence at 1361 East Lake Road. Mr. and Mrs.

24 Anderson are requesting three variances for the









1 renovation of this home and the placement of a

2 storage shed on both principle lot and vacant lot,

3 having water frontage under the same ownership.

4 Applicant is requesting a five percent

5 total lot coverage variance for the accessory and

6 principle building on the same lot.

7 Is Mr. and Mrs. Anderson here?

8 MEMBER BRENNAN: Madam Chair?

9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Brennan?

10 MEMBER BRENNAN: As customary when we

11 have no-shows, we typically move them to the end of

12 the agenda.

13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: In this case, we

14 will do so.


16 Moving forward, that will take us to

17 case 04-092, filed by Harry Chawney for Villagewood

18 Properties, LLC at Villagewood Place, located on

19 Kartar Lane, west of Haggerty Road, between Nine and

20 Ten Mile.

21 Mr. Chawney is requesting two sign

22 variances to erect a large replacement real estate

23 sign for the Villagewood Place, which is located on

24 Kartar Lane, west of Haggerty.









1 Good evening.

2 MR. CHAWNEY: Hello.

3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You're Mr. Chawney?

4 MR. CHAWNEY: That's me.

5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You were sworn in

6 last month?


8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It will continue

9 this month.

10 MR. CHAWNEY: I didn't have time to

11 give Denise Anderson a copy of my approved sign

12 layout. I was just wondering if I could give her a

13 copy now and discuss it?

14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You can put it on

15 the --


17 What we're trying to do again is we're

18 selling apartments we've owned since my dad designed

19 them in 1983, had them built. The sign says

20 condominiums for sale, and all I'm asking for is a

21 real estate sign.

22 If it was a new development, I believe

23 you're allowed 15 square feet. But it's a resale,

24 considered a resale under the Novi Code, you're









1 allowed six square feet, or a two by three sign.

2 The problem with having the two by

3 three sign is traffic traveling down Haggerty Road

4 cannot see the sign at 45 miles an hour. So I'm just

5 asking for a variance to allow me to put a for sale

6 sign basically in front of the project at 15 square

7 feet.

8 And I know last month I was told that

9 was sign was sterile. I tried to improve it here a

10 little bit. I tried to add some color here, but my

11 printer didn't work very well.

12 And if there's any questions --


14 Is there anyone in the audience that

15 wishes to make comment in regards to this case?

16 Seeing none, there were 775 notices

17 mailed; four approvals, 19 objections?


19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And 19 objections.

20 Some of the objections are saying that

21 current signs are large enough; keep real estate

22 signage in accordance with current City Codes. This

23 is an objection and a comment.

24 Mr. James Madison at 23617 Stonehenge









1 -- allowing a larger sign put out is a safety hazard

2 -- I'm sorry -- to be put out is a safety hazard and

3 cause more safety accidents. Additionally, once one

4 larger sign is allowed, this will encourage others to

5 want to have larger signs, as well, causing an

6 eyesore and more safety hazards.

7 I think that's the jest of most of the

8 letters.

9 Building Department?

10 MR. AMOLSH: No comment.

11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Board Members?

12 Member Sanghvi?

13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Just a question about

14 the four approvals and 19 objections. That is the

15 same as we had at the last meeting.

16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: That's correct.

17 MEMBER SANGHVI: We haven't received

18 any new ones.

19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: That's correct.

20 DENISE ANDERSON: There were no

21 variance changes, so we did not have to resend --

22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Didn't have to redo.

23 DENISE ANDERSON: No, we didn't.

24 MEMBER SANGHVI: That's what I just









1 wanted to make sure of. Nothing has changed from the

2 previous month.


4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Brennan?

6 MEMBER BRENNAN: Nothing has changed

7 as well with the sign; other than some shading here

8 and there. I guess I would have liked to have seen

9 some consideration to shrink it; certainly in height.

10 I'm not too concerned with the square footage, as

11 much as I am with the height.

12 That's my comment.

13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer?

14 MEMBER FISCHER: In the previous month

15 in the minutes, the Petitioner even said that seven

16 feet, six feet would be possible, and here again we

17 have nine feet in height before us again. So I'm not

18 seeing much of an effort to reduce to what the

19 comments -- as to what we see as fitting for this

20 type of neighborhood in this area.

21 Also, I -- you told me about the

22 Ordinance as to how many signs are out there. This

23 mock-up is also an A-frame sign that's sitting right

24 on Haggerty Road in the median, in the entrance way.









1 Is he allowed those two signs? Is the A-frame sign

2 allowed.

3 MR. AMOLSH: He's allowed a real

4 estate sign, six feet, five feet wide. And in

5 addition, we have what's called substation entry

6 (unintelligible) identify the project.

7 If the Board grants this variance,

8 they can make sure he's not allowed another real

9 estate sign.


11 As it stands in front of us, I'm not

12 willing to support this for those reasons.


14 Anyone else?

15 You guys are quite tonight.

16 Member Bauer?

17 MEMBER BAUER: I'll go along with

18 Frank. It should be lower. The size of the sign

19 doesn't bother me.

20 MR. CHAWNEY: No, I agreed at the last

21 meeting to lower it. It's the same thing. I didn't

22 resubmit any application or anything, so I didn't --

23 but I agree --

24 MEMBER BAUER: It's exactly the same









1 thing.


3 I'll lower it to whatever you ask me

4 to.

5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: We were at the same

6 place last month.

7 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'm sorry. I should

8 have asked this. Can you live with five foot tall,

9 and live with the square footage?

10 MR. CHAWNEY: Well, the sign's five

11 foot tall. If I had it five foot tall in the

12 wintertime, if we had any snow, it would block out --

13 if I went to six feet, it would allow for a foot of

14 snow.


16 So we're talking about a sign that's

17 15 square foot, five feet by three feet, that's six

18 feet off the ground.

19 MR. CHAWNEY: Right.


21 Thank you.

22 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'd entertain a

23 Motion. I notice of nods from the Board, here. I

24 think we got four.









1 I'd make a Motion with respect to this

2 case that the Petitioner's request for a sign of 15

3 square feet, six feet off the ground, be approved for

4 the purpose of marketing.


6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

7 seconded.

8 Member Fischer?

9 MEMBER FISCHER: Did you want to talk

10 about the other real estate signs?

11 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll leave that open

12 to other Board Members. We have a nod, no; nod, no.

13 Okay. We're going to limit this real

14 estate sign to the one we just approved; is that

15 okay?

16 MR. CHAWNEY: Sure.


18 That's my amended Motion with the

19 comment from the attorney.

20 MR. AMOLSH: Is there a time limit?

21 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yeah, that's

22 something we typically ask.

23 What do you think you're going to need

24 for marketing?









1 MR. CHAWNEY: I was hoping for one

2 year, then if I have to --

3 MEMBER BRENNAN: I think a year is

4 reasonable.

5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer?

6 MEMBER FISCHER: Time frame was my

7 question.

8 MEMBER BAUER: Any other questions?

9 MEMBER FISCHER: No, sir. I'm all

10 done.


12 It's been moved and seconded.

13 Is there any further discussion?

14 Seeing none, Denise, would you please

15 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 six to

5 zero.

6 MR. CHAWNEY: Thank you.


8 Good luck to you.


10 All right. Our next case is 04-103,

11 filed by Sharon Hughes of Assemany Pools for

12 residence at 47510 Capri Court. Ms. Hughes is

13 requesting one variance for the installation of a

14 pool located at the residence, which requires a one-

15 foot variance of the requirement of the in-ground

16 pool accessory structure be ten foot from the

17 residence; and the pool is currently installed at

18 nine feet.

19 Good evening, and you are?

20 MR. ASSEMANY: Mike Assemany.

21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would 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 04-103?

2 MR. ASSEMANY: I will.

3 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.

4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You may proceed.


6 We're asking for a variance of one

7 foot. Mainly, there is a 20 foot drainage easement

8 on the back of the property, which doesn't allow much

9 room from the house to the back of the property.

10 Also, to -- there is a fair drop off

11 from the back of the house down to the drainage

12 easement, so that there will have to be some thing

13 retaining this, because retaining along there, which

14 takes you right up to the easement, and really

15 doesn't allow for any concrete on the backside of the

16 swimming pool.

17 So that's why we're asking for the one

18 foot variance up toward the house.


20 Anything else?


22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is there anyone in

23 the audience that wishes to make comment in regard to

24 this case?









1 Seeing none, there were 28 notices

2 sent; no approvals, no objections.

3 Building Department?

4 MR. SAVEN: No objection.

5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Board Members?

6 Okay. We'll start at the end and work

7 our way this way.

8 Member Sanghvi?

9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, thank you,

10 Madam Chair.

11 First of all, I want to commend the

12 inspector who went and saw this place. He noticed

13 the difference of one foot; and it's not very often

14 they get appreciated for doing their job right. And

15 so I want to -- I don't know who it was -- I'll just

16 say inspector -- but I would like to commend him for

17 noticing the difference.

18 Number two, it looks like somebody

19 made a mistake, and I just wondered who? I mean, was

20 it the architect? Was it the builder, because this

21 is all built, this is all set up to be down to be

22 quite honest.

23 And anybody who did this, should have

24 known better that they were violating the









1 requirement. But regardless of everything else, it

2 is in place and I don't think it is causing any great

3 danger; and I wouldn't have any problem supporting

4 the request.

5 Thank you.


7 Member Canup?


9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You're so quite. I

10 forgot you were here. I apologize.

11 MEMBER CANUP: Was there a permit

12 taken out for this pool?

13 MR. SAVEN: Yes. There was a permit

14 for this pool.

15 MEMBER CANUP: Okay. What happened?

16 MR. SAVEN: Well, first of all, first

17 of all, when you deal with a pool, in itself, you're

18 dealing with water drainage, location related to the

19 house. And just like when you're digging a basement,

20 there are over digs. And the placement could have

21 been such that the pool was skewered a little bit and

22 that created the problem, the structure of the pool.

23 And the inspectional procedure is

24 there's a steel inspection that's normally involved









1 in the application for the pool, there's also

2 gonite(ph) that the rest of the construction material

3 that goes into the pool that you don't see at the

4 time of filing, come back again then when it's

5 completed.

6 MEMBER CANUP: Is there typically a

7 staking inspection?

8 MR. SAVEN: Normally, normally there

9 is.

10 It's just like a house. Certainly,

11 there may be variations. It could be as much as an

12 inch or two. It's not that exact of science, because

13 the equipment comes in and over digs, the layout of

14 the pool could be such that the configuration of the

15 pool could be unique in character.

16 MEMBER CANUP: I guess being that it's

17 already there -- even if it wasn't there -- I would

18 still support it; and it's only one foot and none of

19 the neighbors complained, so it can't be too bad.

20 So I would support a Motion to grant

21 the variance for one foot.

22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Brennan?

23 MEMBER BRENNAN: I can remember four

24 or five, maybe six cases over the last ten years









1 where we have this particular issue where the pool

2 was closer to the house. And my own concern, as an

3 18-year-old, I had a buddy that jumped off a garage

4 roof into a pool and broke his neck.

5 Can someone access the top of this

6 house and jump into that pool?

7 MR. ASSEMANY: Not without a ladder.

8 MEMBER BRENNAN: But there is roof

9 available, overhang enough that some knucklehead

10 could do that? And while you're thinking about it,

11 many of the cases that I'm thinking of were much

12 closer to the house, like four feet or five feet; and

13 maybe nine feet's enough that a 16-year-old would

14 say, no, that's too much of a stretch.

15 I'm just thinking about kids will do

16 because kids do it.

17 MR. ASSEMANY: I think in the area

18 where you're talking about, the roof is at such a

19 slant that they'd really have a hard time standing up

20 on it, let alone getting --

21 MEMBER BRENNAN: There's no elevated

22 drawing for this. Is this dimension that we're

23 looking at from --

24 MR. ASSEMANY: Correct.









1 MEMBER BRENNAN: So this is like --

2 MR. SAVEN: It's like a sunroom --


4 Well, I guess if they're going to

5 climb up on top of that and try to make a nine-foot

6 jump into the shallow end --

7 MR. ASSEMANY: It'll be difficult.

8 MEMBER BRENNAN: -- call up the human

9 spirit, I guess.

10 Thank you.

11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Anything else?

12 Is there a Motion?


14 Case number 04-103, that the

15 Petitioner's request be granted for a minimum

16 variance of one foot.

17 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

19 seconded.

20 Is there any further discussion in

21 regards to the Motion?

22 Denise, would you please call the

23 roll.

24 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?










2 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


4 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


6 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


8 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


10 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


12 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

13 zero.


15 MR. ASSEMANY: Thank you.

16 Good evening.


18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Our next case is

19 04-104 filed by Mark R. Johnson of Cornell Sign

20 Company, Inc., for Better Health Market at 42875

21 Grand River Avenue.

22 Mr. Johnson is requesting one sign

23 variance to erect an illuminated wall sign at the

24 above address which is 210 square feet.









1 Good evening.

2 And you are?

3 MR. JOHNSON: Mark Johnson, Cornell

4 Sign Company.

5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you please

6 raise your right hand and be sworn in by our

7 secretary.

8 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

9 or affirm to tell the truth regarding, case 04-104?

10 MR. JOHNSON: I do.

11 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.

12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You may go ahead.

13 MR. JOHNSON: The space in question

14 used to be Vic's Market, with -- a variance was

15 passed previously, quite a few years back when Vic's

16 originally went in, actually for the same sized sign

17 that we are requesting.

18 We -- Better Health Stores, which has

19 taken over the Vitamin Outlet chain, has bought over

20 a dozen locations throughout the STAte, and they have

21 a corporate identity that is consistent throughout

22 those stores.

23 In the calculation of how your sign

24 area is done, you take the outermost dimensions -- as









1 many communities do. But the logo that the customer

2 uses for all of its print advertising, as well as

3 building signage; actually about a third of that, is

4 the actual background.

5 So this sign is calculated out to 210

6 square feet, but in essence, the dead space to the

7 left and right of the market logo portion and above

8 the better and things like that, is actually about 70

9 square feet; that dead space area. I wanted to

10 mention that so that could be taken into account.

11 The other thing that we looked at was

12 the distance from the building to the center of Grand

13 River. It is in excess of 350 feet. In order to

14 have legible copy from that distance, you really need

15 approximately anywhere from a 16 to a 18 inch tall

16 letter on your smallest copy, in order to be read.

17 This obviously is going to be kind of

18 Better Health's, one of the main stores and crown

19 jewel, so to speak. So we wanted to do something

20 sign-wise that would be befitting that. We looked at

21 the existing Motor City Golf sign, next door. That

22 warehouse lettering is actually an 18-inch tall

23 letter and the Golf copy, is 48 inches and 30 inches.

24 So basically in essence, we patterned









1 the Better Health proportionate-wise to the Golf; and

2 then patterned the Market proportionate wise to the

3 Warehouse, feeling that both of those words read well

4 from the distance. Once we did that, that's when we

5 came out with the calculation; realizing that we were

6 well over square footage; even though a third of it,

7 as I said -- stated earlier, is basically wasted

8 space in the background.

9 Our concern is that if we do a sign

10 that meets Ordinance, which is 65 square feet -- and

11 I believe we provided a rendering to you of that, the

12 -- in essence, the sign would get lost on that size

13 of facia. Your Ordinance dictates square footage per

14 lineal foot, but in essence, when you get to a 50

15 foot wide store front, it caps off. This front is

16 over -- is almost 150 feet.

17 So it's, in essence, three of what the

18 typical stores are in the -- the Ordinance was

19 planned for and written for.

20 if you have any other questions, I'd

21 be free to answer them.


23 Is there anyone in the audience that

24 wishes to make comment in regards to this case?









1 Seeing none, there were 19 notices;

2 two approvals -- one approval from Lunar Properties,

3 which is the owner of the Lunar Building. And I

4 believe the letter from Lunar was in our packet.

5 Another letter is from the Post Bar

6 and from Motor City Golf Warehouse.

7 Building Department?

8 MR. AMOLSH: No comment.

9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Board Members?

10 Member Fischer?

11 MEMBER FISCHER: When the Golf Store

12 put up their sign, Board Members, did they come

13 before us for a variance?

14 MR. AMOLSH: I don't think they did.

15 I think they were within the 65 square foot limit.


17 Now, you said that Vic's had the same

18 exact sized sign, and the problem I have with that

19 comment is they also took up more of the building

20 frontage. And lastly, the comment about the dead

21 space, unfortunately there's a way that square

22 footage is calculated, and so I really can't take

23 that into account.

24 And I drove by this. I really felt









1 the sign was too large. And I almost thought if we

2 could crop it up to 90 percent of what it is, that

3 would be more appropriate.

4 And looking through what the

5 Petitioner had given us, with that 65 feet maximum

6 wasn't a requirement, they would be allowed 183 feet,

7 which that is 90 percent, which is how I came up with

8 that number. I feel that that is more appropriate

9 size for this sign.

10 I understand that the building is

11 massive. I understand that the frontage is 147 feet,

12 and in this particular case, 65 feet, I don't think,

13 will do. But I don't think we need to go up to 210

14 feet either. Basically, don't want to take away from

15 other businesses.

16 So that's my comments.


18 Member Canup?

19 MEMBER CANUP: In looking at the

20 rendering that was submitted with this sign that

21 meets Code requirements, I really don't see anything

22 wrong with that. I guess, what's the hardship?

23 There is no real hardship, that I can see.

24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Bauer?









1 MEMBER BAUER: The sign that's up now

2 is the present one that you're showing us here?

3 MR. JOHNSON: Correct.

4 MEMBER BAUER: It's too big.

5 MR. JOHNSON: I have no problem. I

6 mean, we basically proposed the sign on the same

7 square footage Vic's was originally, with the idea

8 and realization that that would be basically our

9 dream sign, so to speak; and realizing that something

10 less than that would be satisfactory.

11 What Mr. Fischer had mentioned, 90

12 percent would be very satisfactory to us. Our

13 biggest concern is that it is a market, and when we

14 go to conform the size of the sign, that market copy

15 goes to six inches tall. They're never going to read

16 that from the street.

17 And with the distance involved and the

18 size, it's going to get lost. But I have no problem,

19 you know -- we just had to start at some point with

20 square footage, and I researched it and realized what

21 Vic's was approved for, so that's our starting point,

22 so to speak.

23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Brennan?

24 MEMBER BRENNAN: I don't understand









1 what you just said.

2 What aren't they going to see if it's

3 at --

4 MR. JOHNSON: If the sign were built

5 the square footage of the actual -- what the Code

6 allows --


8 MR. JOHNSON: Right.

9 The Better Health, the 18 -- the

10 Better Health, itself, would be somewhat difficult to

11 read, just because of the fact, in my opinion, it's

12 somewhat lost on the facia because of the size of the

13 facia. And furthermore, the Market, itself, would

14 never be able to be read from the street.

15 Obviously, because of the size of the

16 store -- as I mentioned earlier, this is a part of

17 the -- what was the Vitamin Outlet Chain, which other

18 stores are smaller. They do have a market -- a

19 couple other markets, one in Lansing -- that it's

20 important for that to be read from the street, for

21 those people who don't know what the Better Health

22 advertising is for; so that they realize that it is a

23 health food market.

24 MEMBER BAUER: This is a destination.









1 People know where they're going, the location, area.

2 MR. JOHNSON: Right.

3 MEMBER BAUER: So I think you can cut

4 it down more than just 183 feet. I could not approve

5 183 feet.

6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Brennan?

7 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'm going to go back

8 to where I was going from. There's another business

9 on the corner that's got a sign that's difficult to

10 see, only because of the height of the sign; not the

11 size of its letters. So I don't buy that completely,

12 but I guess where I would be compelled to move is

13 we're talking about an overall sign; the height of

14 approximately four foot, which meets Code, versus

15 eight foot, which you've proposed. And perhaps, a

16 happy medium is six foot tall, and then you shrink it

17 all proportionately, which is less than 90 percent.

18 MEMBER FISCHER: My 90 was just

19 somewhere to go off of. And to prove to you that I

20 felt it was too big, and just give the Board some

21 indication of where I was going.

22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Canup?

23 MEMBER CANUP: We still haven't

24 arrived at what's the hardship. When granting a









1 variance, it's supposed to be based on some sort of a

2 hardship. I don't see a hardship here.

3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer?

4 MEMBER FISCHER: If I was looking at

5 this from a practical difficulty point of view, I

6 would saying that I can't see how this is completely

7 a destination or the opposite. I feel it's a mixture

8 of the two, unlike other signs we have seen. So I

9 think safety on the road, trying to find this place.

10 This is a 50 mile per hour road we're talking about.

11 I don't want to see people slowing down to 20 to try

12 to find this market.

13 MEMBER CANUP: Put yourself in the

14 situation of looking for this market. If you live in

15 Novi -- most of your people that are going to shop

16 here are from Novi or you get a geographic area that

17 you draw from.

18 MR. JOHNSON: Much further out than

19 Novi.

20 MEMBER CANUP: If you make the sign

21 big enough, you could probably see it from the

22 expressway, and you'd really get a lot of customers.

23 Where do you stop at? And we've got an Ordinance.

24 The Ordinance isn't that obscene here, and there's no









1 reason it can't work here. And there's no hardship.

2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer?

3 MEMBER FISCHER: Madam Chair?

4 Can you tell us more about the type of

5 business, because I'm not -- I think Member Canup is

6 going towards this is an A & P or a Farmer Jack,

7 whereas, I'm not sure that that's the nature of the

8 business.

9 MR. JOHNSON: Actually, Ted Handersman

10 is the owner of the market.

11 MEMBER FISCHER: I think more

12 specifics. It's not just a grocery store, if you

13 will. Could you please --

14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Sir, please

15 approach the podium so they can hear you at home.

16 State your name for the record.

17 MR. HANDERSMAN: Ted Handersman

18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you raise

19 your right hand and be sworn in by our secretary.

20 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

21 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case 04-104?


23 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.










1 MR. HANDERSMAN: Okay. It is a

2 specialty market. And because it is a specialty

3 market, we expect that our draw is going to be much

4 wider than Novi. We hope, and are counting on that.

5 There isn't any competition in terms of the type of

6 market with organic and natural foods within, you

7 know, probably a ten mile radius until you get to a

8 whole foods market or you get to Ann Arbor or West

9 Bloomfield.

10 So we expect to draw, you know, from

11 everywhere, points in between and points west, out

12 way out to Brighton and up in to the Highland area.

13 So the draw we expect is that whole

14 Novi area, the whole 96, Novi Road intersection as a

15 destination point that we expect to pull people in.

16 And I think one point that Mark states, is that, you

17 know, because of our logo, again, not to restate what

18 he just said was obvious, but it elongates the sign.

19 What Motor City did, is they stacked

20 it, you know, on top of it to accommodate the

21 maximum. Ours is elongated, so therefore it takes up

22 more square footage, and not really more of the facia

23 of the building. You know, so when you're restricted

24 to the variance, it's like a postage stamp up there.









1 It's very, very difficult to see.

2 And there is no signage on Grand River

3 at all for it. So, you know, in order for people to

4 even know it's there, it has to be seen plainly from

5 Grand River.


7 MR. HANDERSMAN: Not from 96.

8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Although, it would

9 be nice.

10 MR. HANDERSMAN: It would be good.

11 We'll take it.

12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Anyone else?

13 Member Sanghvi?

14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

15 I just had one question.

16 What you have up, is that the mock-up

17 or the real thing?

18 MR. JOHNSON: Pardon me?

19 MEMBER SANGHVI: The sign you have put

20 up now, is that a mock-up or indeed the real sign?

21 MR. JOHNSON: That's a mock-up.

22 MEMBER SANGHVI: It is a mock-up.

23 MR. JOHNSON: Yes.

24 MEMBER SANGHVI: It's a very nice









1 mock-up. I drove by earlier.

2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I have a comment to

3 make on this, and I think it might help clarify a

4 little bit.

5 When I was driving by there on Sunday,

6 and traffic was pretty heavy -- because of Grand

7 River -- I always say this -- coming in at an angle,

8 so to speak, I think, if anything, it's the size of

9 the building; the A-frame massiveness of that

10 building. And to be honest with you, I'm not going

11 to admit this -- I guess, I am going to admit it on

12 TV, I can't see those letters from Grand River when

13 I'm driving at 50 miles an hour.

14 Okay. Well, we won't tell Novi PD

15 that I do 50, okay. I'm blind and I'm speeding. So

16 I broke all the rules. But in all seriousness, this

17 is a pretty big business center. And the reason why

18 -- although I couldn't support the original request

19 -- when I was driving by there, by having a sign this

20 small, I don't feel adds to continuity of the whole

21 store front.

22 I realize Member Canup's asking about

23 the hardship, I really think it's the store front

24 that presents the hardship and the uniqueness of this









1 sign; and that's why I can support Member Brennan's

2 six foot tall sign, given that information.

3 Member Brennan?

4 MEMBER BRENNAN: I think there's two

5 hardships. Number one, overall from the City's

6 perspective, we want this to be a successful

7 endeavor. Number two, this sits back probably from

8 the road 300 feet?

9 MR. JOHNSON: About 375.

10 MEMBER BRENNAN: Closer to four.

11 MR. JOHNSON: Precisely.

12 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'd like to attempt a

13 Motion and see where the Board sits.

14 With respect to case 04-014(sic), I

15 will state that the Petitioner's sign be reduced to a

16 six foot tall sign, per specifications of the City

17 Ordinance of what makes up a sign; and that

18 proportionately everything be shrunk, for the purpose

19 of proper identification for Grand River.


21 MEMBER BRENNAN: It's been moved and

22 seconded. Is there any further discussion on this

23 Motion?

24 Seeing none, Denise would you please









1 call the roll.

2 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


4 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


6 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


8 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


10 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


12 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


14 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes five

15 to one.

16 MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.


18 Your variance has been granted.

19 Please see the Building Department if you need any

20 assistance on the new sign.

21 MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And good luck to

23 you.

24 When are you opening, by the way?









1 MR. HANDERSMAN: January, hopefully

2 February; January/February.


4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Our next case is

5 number, 04-105, filed by Richard Smith of Sky

6 Development for the CVS Drug Store at 31120 Beck

7 Road, Shoppes at the Trail. Mr. Smith is requesting

8 a variance to eliminate the four foot minimum

9 landscape requirement, adjacent to the drive-up

10 transaction area for the CVS building at -- and this

11 is a B-3 general business district.

12 Good evening. Are you Mr. Smith?

13 MR. SMITH: Yes. I'm Richard Smith

14 from Sky Development.

15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you please

16 raise your right hand to be sworn in by our

17 secretary.

18 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

19 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-105?

20 MR. SMITH: Yes.

21 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You may proceed.

23 MR. SMITH: Just as you said, we're

24 requesting a variance for -- it's a CVS Drug Store;









1 putting up a drive-up transaction area. And it's

2 pretty much impossible to put that four foot green

3 belt in that area, as you happen to drive-up.

4 I drove around the City of Novi and

5 some of the adjacent communities. There's quite a

6 few drive-up areas, whether it's a drug store, a

7 bank; they're all over right now.

8 So it's just really to get rid of that

9 green belt. And if you look at the plan, you'll see

10 that in front of -- it doesn't face either road, Beck

11 or Pontiac Trail. They're -- those green belts are

12 all there. So it's around the side of the building.

13 You'll see it. Pontiac Trail is up at

14 the top; Beck Road is over on this side. The drive-

15 up transaction area is right here -- right there.

16 There's a green -- we have a green island, a lot of

17 green -- a green belt right here, the island.

18 So as far as visual, I don't think

19 it's going to really effect much. And it's quite a

20 bit of planting, new plantings growing up around this

21 whole area and in here. So it's to accommodate the

22 drug store. And obviously, what we need nowadays, to

23 save time in our schedules.










1 Anything else?

2 MR. SMITH: No, that's it.


4 Is there anyone in the audience that

5 wishes to make reference in regards to this case?

6 Seeing none, there were five notices

7 mailed; no approvals, no objections.

8 Building Department?

9 MR. SAVEN: Just as last month, the

10 issue with banks; the drive-through requirement for

11 construction of this particular building has been a

12 problem with regard to landscaping immediately

13 adjacent; and there's no way possible you can do it.

14 So they are working on an Ordinance change for this

15 or to be handled within the Planning Department when

16 they do the reviews.

17 Unfortunately right now, it has to

18 come to us.


20 Thank you.

21 Board Members?

22 Member Brennan?

23 MEMBER BRENNAN: I make a Motion for

24 approval due to practical difficulty.










2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is there any

3 further discussion?

4 Seeing none --

5 Member Fischer?


7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You just wanted to

8 do that.


10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: We know you're here.

11 Denise, would you please call the

12 roll.

13 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


15 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


17 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


19 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


21 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


23 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?










1 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

2 zero.

3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Your variance has

4 been granted.

5 MR. SMITH: Okay.


7 MR. SMITH: I'd also like to request a

8 waiver of the waiting period to the variance.

9 MR. SAVEN: The five-day waiting

10 period, for it to become effective immediately, is

11 what he's asking for.

12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is everybody in

13 favor of the waiver?

14 All those in favor, say aye?



17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Our next case is

18 04-106, filed by Jason Sestak of Planet Neon Signs,

19 representing O'Brien-Sullivan Funeral Home at 41555

20 Grand River Avenue.

21 We'll regroup here in a second.

22 And your name is?

23 MR. SESTAK: Jason Sestak from Planet

24 Neon.









1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. Would you

2 please raise your right hand to be sworn in by our

3 secretary.

4 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

5 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case 04-106?

6 MR. SESTAK: I will.

7 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.


9 You may proceed.

10 MR. SESTAK: Yes. We are presenting a

11 30 square foot sign, mounting on an existing post,

12 over a existing brick base. The sign, itself, is six

13 inches shorter than the existing, but it is eight

14 feet too close from the setback; and one foot higher

15 than the required height.

16 But the only way to move this sign, is

17 we'd have to go into the parking lot for the setback,

18 and it would require a lot more work for tearing

19 everything out and putting it inside of the parking

20 lot. And it would be less visible coming either way

21 north or -- east or west down Grand River.


23 Is there anyone here that wishes to

24 make comment in regards to this case?









1 Seeing none, there were 55 notices

2 sent; one approval from Daniel Jay Wood at 21270

3 Woodfarm Drive, Northville. I approve of the two

4 sign variances for O'Brien-Sullivan Funeral Home,

5 because of the surrounding building and hill. I

6 think the variance is needed. Also, mourners

7 shouldn't have any trouble looking for the funeral

8 home.

9 And I apologize. I don't know what is

10 the relationship between Mr. Wood, being that his is

11 a Northville resident.

12 Board Members?

13 I'm sorry.

14 Building --

15 MR. AMOLSH: No comment.

16 Board Members?

17 Member Bauer?

18 MEMBER BAUER: I'm glad it's getting

19 shorter. I can't see any problem with it.

20 You get my vote on it.

21 MEMBER CANUP: Why don't you make a

22 Motion?

23 MEMBER BAUER: Case 04-106 that we

24 grant the Petitioner's variance due to identification.










2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

3 seconded.

4 Is there any further discussion?

5 Denise, would you please call the

6 roll.

7 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


9 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


11 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


13 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


15 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


17 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


19 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

20 zero.

21 MR. SESTAK: Thank you.

22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You're welcome.

23 Good luck.

24 Thank you.









1 At this time, the Board will entertain

2 a ten minute break. We will resume at 8:41.


4 Okay. At this time, I would like to

5 call the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting back to

6 order.

7 And I'm going to break the order a

8 little bit, so bear with me, please.

9 Earlier this evening, we postponed a

10 case to the end of the evening because the Petitioner

11 wasn't here; and I neglected to ask if there was

12 anyone -- because we didn't hear the case. I

13 normally ask if there's anyone in the audience that

14 wishes to speak on a case.

15 I'm calling -- I'm talking in regards

16 to case, 04-073, on Mr. and Mrs. Anderson.

17 Is there someone here that would like

18 to make comment for the record?

19 Come on down, please. We don't want

20 to make you wait until midnight. And if you're a

21 Country-Western favorite, you can go home and watch

22 the award show for me.

23 MR. WILLIAMS: I don't know if I'll do

24 that, but thank you.









1 My name is Bill Williams. My daughter

2 and I are the owners of the house next to Mr.

3 Anderson at 1359 East Lake Drive. We are located

4 just south of the infamous port-a-potty on East Lake

5 Drive. It's been there for six months, and it's used

6 by construction workers, pedestrians and motorists.

7 I have some concerns that -- and let

8 me take the variance number one. I think I sent you

9 a document and you have it. I just want to again

10 express my concern that there is no access to

11 Mr. Anderson's backyard. It doesn't have a driveway;

12 doesn't have a pathway, and so the construction of

13 such a large building -- which was originally

14 described as detached garage, has been downsized

15 since -- is still a question in my mind.

16 And he has used our driveway without

17 permission on several occasions to bring material

18 into his backyard. And we don't want that to

19 continue, unless he has our permission. So with

20 Mr. Anderson and future owners, we don't want that to

21 be a hardship to us.

22 Let me add that, I want to preface my

23 remarks by saying that Mr. Anderson has done a

24 wonderful job restoring a house that was in need of









1 some work, and it was a fine structure that he has

2 there.

3 We are pleased that he's added to the

4 value of the area.

5 His second variance is a request for

6 three storage bins on the lakefront property. Now, I

7 am not sure -- there is a structure. I think three

8 structures there now, small storage areas. And I

9 believe that this is what the variance is requesting

10 that they be allowed to stay there, because they

11 already are there.

12 I don't have a problem necessarily

13 with those three structures that are currently there.

14 However, my concern is that if this variance was

15 given to go from one to three, then those three

16 structures, small structures, could be taken away,

17 and three large structures put in its place; either

18 by Mr. Anderson or a future owner of that property.

19 And as you know, you know, part of my

20 taxes and assessment is a view of the lake. And that

21 would be destroyed; and therefore my assessment of

22 the property taxes that I pay could be lower.

23 But I think that -- that's my concern

24 with regard to that request; that three small could









1 become three large; over 300 square feet.


3 Thank you.

4 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you.

5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is there anyone

6 else in regards to this particular case that wishes

7 to make comment at this time?

8 Seeing none, we'll continue to hold

9 that case until the end of the meeting.


11 And call our next case, 04-107, filed

12 by Robert E. Moorhouse of R.E. Moorhouse &

13 Associates, representing Carcosutics at 29770 Hudson

14 Drive.

15 Mr. Moorhouse is requesting two

16 variances, two drive identification sign variances,

17 to erect at 29770 Hudson Drive. Property is zoned I-

18 1.

19 Good evening. Are you Mr. Moorhouse?

20 MR. MOORHOUSE: Yes, I am.

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, 04-107?

2 MR. MOORHOUSE: Yes, I do.

3 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.

4 MR. MOORHOUSE: I'm Bob Moorhouse of

5 R.E. Moorhouse & Associates. We're at 725 South

6 Adams in Birmingham, Michigan.

7 Carcosutics is a corporation out of

8 Germany and they've just moved here to Novi. They

9 have another location in Howell and another location

10 throughout Europe.

11 We feel that the variance that we are

12 asking isn't disturbing any of the neighbors in that

13 particular -- industrial neighbors in the particular

14 area. We designed the sign according to their

15 corporate logo; and we would have then have been

16 allowed a sign that would be six feet high. We're

17 going four and a half, four feet high.

18 The sign is solid blue. The reason

19 why that is, that is the corporate image. On this

20 particular sign, the word Carcosutics is only an inch

21 and a half high.

22 The difficulty that they're having is

23 the property is corner front. The entrance is at the

24 far-end of Hudson and Peary. And they want -- they









1 want their visitors that come and the people coming

2 in from Europe and all over, to come in through that

3 front entrance. So there would be an entrance sign

4 there.

5 But in the very back is where

6 employees could come in and park, and there would be

7 deliveries there.

8 Now, the parking lot is so situated,

9 it doesn't cut in all the way through to the back.

10 You have to come in to get to the back of there, and

11 they want someone to be able to see the blue, and an

12 idea that that's going to the back entrance.

13 So they want the visitors to be able

14 to come in through the front; and the employees and

15 deliveries to be able to come in through the back.


17 Anything else?

18 MR. MOORHOUSE: No, that'll be it.

19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is there anyone in

20 the audience that wishes to make comment in regards

21 to this case?

22 Seeing none, there were 23 notices

23 sent; no approvals, no objections, nine letters

24 returned.









1 Building Department?

2 MR. AMOLSH: No comment.


4 Board Members?

5 Member Sanghvi?

6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, Madam

7 Chair.

8 This is a lot on a corner -- it's a

9 corner lot with the two separate entrances and needs

10 two identifying signs. And the way they are located

11 in the parking lot, there is no connection between

12 the back and the front, so they need a sign. And

13 it's a very little request, and I have no problem

14 supporting this request.


16 Member Canup?

17 MEMBER CANUP: I don't have a problem

18 with the fact of the additional signage. I have a

19 problem with the size of the signage. If you look at

20 the rendering that was submitted, it says employee

21 entrance. That sign literally could be cut in half.

22 You've got that -- the dots on the top. I guess

23 that's your logo?

24 MR. MOORHOUSE: That's the logo,









1 correct.

2 MEMBER CANUP: And underneath employee

3 parking, you've got -- or employee entrance, right

4 next to the A there, there's nothing on it. It

5 doesn't serve any purpose. And in my opinion, that

6 sign literally could be cut, height-wise, anyway, in

7 half.

8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Brennan?

9 MEMBER BRENNAN: I have the same

10 observation. Do you know if they have plans for

11 adding more script on the bottom? What's the purpose

12 for that 10-by-32 inch square around --

13 MR. MOORHOUSE: That's the way the

14 corporate logo is, identification package for

15 entrance signs in Europe and in Howell. The sign

16 happens to be actually what we and scaled it down

17 lower.

18 MEMBER BRENNAN: We deal with

19 corporate signage around the world all the time.

20 This is vacant space. I wouldn't have any problem

21 with the sign as presented if it were, I guess it

22 would make it 38 by 32; instead of 48 by 32,

23 eliminating that strip (unintelligible.) that's my










1 Thanks.


3 Member Fischer?

4 MEMBER FISCHER: I'm not sure why the

5 employee entrance needs to be that big. This is a

6 court that we're looking at. When I drove by there,

7 I went straight on Hudson Drive. I had no

8 inclination to turn onto Peary Court. Maybe some

9 people do, but either way, it's a court. And a small

10 employee entrance sign -- smaller than even what

11 Member Brennan suggested, would be more appropriate

12 to me.

13 Thank you, Madam Chair.


15 Member Canup?

16 MEMBER CANUP: I would think that the

17 employee entrance, after the employees' first day,

18 they'd know how to come and go.

19 MEMBER SANGHVI: They should know

20 where to go.

21 MEMBER CANUP: Pardon me?

22 MEMBER SANGHVI: They should know

23 where to go.

24 MEMBER CANUP: Exactly. Especially on









1 Friday, they'd know how to get into the building.

2 And continuing with the entrance sign, that they've

3 also gotten, that could be trimmed down, also.

4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I have my comments

5 for the record.

6 I'm not in support of any of this, and

7 the reason why is that driving through this complex,

8 all the other buildings have the standard sized sign.

9 And it says visitors; one said entrance; one may have

10 said deliveries. It's a pretty -- it's a busy

11 complex -- well, I'm sorry. Not a busy complex, a

12 big complex.

13 Each building has a three foot sign at

14 the entrance; and then they have -- and they're

15 easier to get in and out, where there would be more

16 confusion with this building. So -- and given theses

17 signs, the sizes, I don't feel that there's a big

18 enough hardship presented in this matter; and

19 therefore, unless I hear something different, I would

20 not be able to support this request.

21 MEMBER BAUER: Madam Chair?

22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Bauer?

23 MEMBER BAUER: I agree with you. I

24 can see no reason to have it there. They're not









1 going to go anywhere but down the court. There's

2 only one front.


4 MEMBER CANUP: Seems like we've

5 reached a consensus, if I read the Board properly.

6 And with that, I'd be willing to make a Motion in ZBA

7 case 04-107 that the request for a variance be denied

8 due to insufficient hardship.


10 Is there any further discussion in

11 regards to this Motion?

12 MEMBER BRENNAN: Discussion.

13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Brennan?

14 MEMBER BRENNAN: Sir, do you have the

15 means to negotiate something other than what's been

16 presented, or this is what --

17 MR. MOORHOUSE: The person who was

18 supposed to be with me had to go to Europe. He'll be

19 back the latter part. But, you know, I have no

20 authority --

21 MEMBER BRENNAN: Are you the sign

22 manufacturer?











1 MR. MOORHOUSE: I -- no, real

2 authority, no.

3 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'm reluctant to

4 support a denial, only because the Petitioner isn't

5 here. I think if this party is able to go back and

6 tell his boss that he's got some problems; and we

7 give them the opportunity to come back and tell us if

8 there's any other additional information.

9 I don't think it's right necessarily

10 to turn this down without having the Petitioner be

11 here.

12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer?

13 MEMBER FISCHER: I just -- I support

14 Member Brennan in that, so I would not be supporting

15 a denial at this time.

16 MEMBER BAUER: Table it.


18 We have a Motion on the table,

19 correct?

20 MR. GILLIAM: Yeah.

21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do we need to vote

22 on that Motion? I'm not sure -- I'm unclear here

23 what we're going to do.

24 Instead of denying the Motion -- the









1 request for a variance; we're going to table it.

2 MR. GILLIAM: Well, if there's a

3 Motion to table, the Motion to table would take

4 priority over the Motion that's on the floor.


6 MR. GILLIAM: Otherwise, the Motion to

7 deny would have to be withdrawn.


9 Member Fischer?

10 MEMBER FISCHER: If I may, Madam

11 Chair, I'd like to make a Motion to table case 04-107

12 until the December Zoning Board meeting.

13 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Does that work for

15 you, sir?


17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: All those in favor

18 of tabling case 04-107 until the December meeting,

19 say aye?


21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: None opposed.

22 We'll see you in December.

23 MR. MOORHOUSE: Thank you.










1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Our next case 04-

2 108, filed by Steve Tallman for his residence at 156

3 Penhill. Mr. Tallman's requesting two variances for

4 the construction of a second story addition on a non-

5 conforming structure located at the above address in

6 the Blomfield subdivision. The addition will

7 increase the structure's non-conformity, although it

8 does not increase the footprint.

9 An 11.4 foot rear yard setback is

10 required on the property for the construction.

11 Good evening. And you are?

12 MR. TALLMAN: Steve Tallman.

13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you please

14 raise your right hand and be sworn in by our

15 secretary.

16 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

17 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case 04-108?

18 MR. TALLMAN: Yes, sir, I do.

19 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

20 MR. TALLMAN: Again, my name is Steve

21 Tallman. I do live in a home. The address is 156

22 Penhill Street. We're asking tonight for a 11.4 foot

23 variance. I'm not asking to change my footprint

24 size. I'm just asking to go directly over my house









1 that I have now.

2 You know, we've been here going on ten

3 years and, you know, when we first moved her, it was

4 just my wife and myself. And you know, we've had two

5 children over the time and our house is no longer

6 suitable for our family. So we're asking for that

7 additional -- you know, the variance to go over the

8 existing home that we have.

9 And I guess other than that, that's

10 about it.


12 Thank you.

13 Is there anyone in the audience that

14 wishes to address the Board in regards to this case?

15 Seeing none, there were 53 notices;

16 one approval, no objections. The approval is from

17 James and Nancy Smith at 144 Pickford in Novi.

18 Building Department?

19 MR. SAVEN: This is a legal non-

20 conforming building structure on the land. He's not

21 increasing the footprint of the building. I have no

22 problem.

23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Board Members?

24 Member Brennan?









1 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, this is a tough

2 area to enhance homes. And the fact that he's going

3 up instead of out, I don't have any problem with

4 that, and I'd support a Motion along those lines.


6 Anyone else?

7 Member Sanghvi?

8 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right.

9 Nobody else?

10 I will make Motion in case number, 04-

11 108 that the Petitioner's request be granted because

12 of the peculiar shape of the lot; and also the area

13 of the town.

14 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

16 seconded.

17 Is there any further discussion in

18 regards to the Motion?

19 Seeing none, Denise, would you please

20 call the roll.

21 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


23 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?










1 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


3 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


5 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


7 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


9 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

10 zero.

11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Your variance has

12 been granted. Please see the Building Department.

13 MR. TALLMAN: Thank you.

14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Good luck to you.

15 MR. TALLMAN: Thanks.


17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Our next case is

18 04-109 filed by Taste of Bangkok Cuisine for 43317

19 Grand River Avenue. They're requesting permission

20 for an additional sign at their restaurant.

21 And this evening -- I see a familiar

22 face -- who will be speaking?

23 MR. KASIS: Victor Kasis.

24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Good evening,









1 Mr. Kasis.

2 Would you please raise your right hand

3 and be sworn in by our secretary.

4 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

5 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-109?

6 MR. KASIS: I do.

7 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.

8 MR. KASIS: We're here to get that

9 ground sign on again. This body, in previous times,

10 granted this sign before in your good judgment.

11 The building sets right next to a two-

12 story building, and I think turning the corner

13 sometimes, that building cannot be seen. So we're

14 hoping that this new tenant -- and I'm here actually

15 in consent of Mr. Vue. It's not my sign. It's their

16 sign.

17 And we're hoping that -- I think that

18 we can attract some business to this restaurant and

19 make it viable.


21 Anything else?

22 MR. KASIS: That's it.


24 MR. KASIS: I'm here to answer any









1 questions.


3 Is there anyone in the audience that

4 wishes to make comment in the matter of this case?

5 Seeing none, there were 21 notices

6 sent; one approval, and of course, Mr. Kasis'

7 approval. And the approval is from Bayrouse(ph)

8 Parkway, from 43381 Grand River. I will approve for

9 requesting a variance sign restaurant will help the

10 Bangkok Cuisine see the sign better. Customers see

11 the sign better.

12 Building Department?

13 MR. AMOLSH: No comment.


15 Board Members?

16 MEMBER FISCHER: My first question,

17 Building Department, Mr. Gilliam, don't variances run

18 with the land as it begins, because if this sign

19 would have been approved in the first place -- I

20 guess I'm wondering why it's before us. Can you

21 explain that to me?

22 MR. SAVEN: Just like -- you're right.

23 It does stay with the land normally, but the

24 Ordinance specifically sets certain requirements need









1 to be met. For example, if this is to change the

2 face of the sign, basically is what this is, correct,

3 okay.

4 That is required to have a permit

5 drawn for that sign; which mean, we have new

6 ownership, which means, he has to come back to the

7 Board, based on that particular requirement, because

8 it's required in the Ordinance.

9 Dimensional variances, once they get

10 (unintelligible) stays with the land. For example --

11 MR. AMOLSH: Wall sign.

12 MR. SAVEN: Pardon?

13 MR. AMOLSH: Wall sign.

14 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you.

15 I see no reason to not support this.

16 Obviously, this is a unique-shaped corner, which is

17 one reason I see a hardship. Secondly, we need

18 something to go in there, and this, hopefully, this

19 business will go in there and last on this corner and

20 this property.

21 To the Petitioner, is there a sign on

22 Novi Road, as well?

23 MR. KASIS: There's just a directional

24 sign, which is one foot by two feet, I think.










2 MR. KASIS: It just says enter, that's

3 all.


5 Lastly, Madam Chair, if you're coming

6 up west on Grand River, until you're on top of the

7 building, it's impossible to see where it is. Going

8 south on Novi -- the only good direction, I guess, if

9 you want to call it good, would be -- I'm sorry,

10 south on Novi is where you can see the wall sign.

11 So this is a genuine hardship. It's

12 very unique. And the safety of the residents leads

13 me to support this.


15 Can I ask a question?

16 Mr. Kasis, the lettering that we have

17 in this picture -- since I shared with you that I'm

18 blind now and I'm driving down Grand River. I did

19 not see the mock-up on the one side. But the

20 lettering is going to be actually -- this is what we

21 see; this is what we're going to get.

22 MR. KASIS: Exactly, yes.

23 We put the mock-up up, I think the

24 wind -- it was the 50 hour wind.









1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I echo the previous

2 speaker's comments. Especially, since there's such

3 limited sight for this business, as previously

4 stated. And coming down Grand River, if you're

5 headed out west on Grand River, boy, that's the place

6 to be to see your sign.

7 But those other places -- and I think

8 that's the reason for needing the additional signage,

9 as well. So I'll be in support of this.

10 Member Sanghvi?

11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Go on, make a Motion.

12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You want me to make

13 it?

14 MEMBER SANGHVI: You make it.


16 It's been awhile.

17 MEMBER FISCHER: I'll let those guys

18 do the work. They seem to know what they're doing.

19 I would move that in case 04-109,

20 filed by Taste of Bangkok Cuisine that the

21 Petitioner's request be granted, due to the building

22 location; the lot location, and to assist in the

23 safety of finding the restaurant.

24 MEMBER BAUER: Second.









1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

2 seconded.

3 Is there any further discussion on the

4 Motion?

5 Seeing none, Denise, would you please

6 call the roll.

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: Member Sanghvi?


19 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six

20 to zero.

21 MR. KASIS: Thank you very much.

22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: We grant the

23 variance.

24 MR. KASIS: Very good family, very









1 hard working, and good food.


3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. Our next

4 case, 04-110, filed by William R. Lutz of

5 Signgraphix, representing Haggerty Corporate Office

6 Centers, IV and V.

7 Mr. Lutz is requesting a placement of

8 ground signs -- I'm sorry -- is requesting one sign

9 in the setback area on Cabot Drive. The property is

10 zoned OST.

11 And you are?

12 MR. LUTZ: Bill Lutz.

13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you please

14 raise your right hand and be sworn in by our

15 secretary.

16 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

17 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-110?

18 MR. LUTZ: Yes, I do.

19 MEMBER BAUER: Yes, sir.

20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You may proceed.

21 MR. LUTZ: As you have probably

22 visited the site, this is a developing corporate

23 campus site; and we have a series of buildings that

24 don't always have very typical curb cuts. Now, this









1 particular situation is just that way. We had a

2 common curb cut for two different addresses;

3 buildings that sit kind of angular to the road, and

4 the road curves about at that point.

5 This is a common theme, it seems, in

6 this development and may happen in may developments,

7 in this kind of industrial office kind of a nature.

8 The 63 foot setback tends to push

9 these signs back into the parking area. And we've

10 had this come up numerous times, and you all have

11 heard these variances, I think, before; and probably

12 will continue to hear them, because a 63 foot setback

13 is very difficult to work with in these developments.

14 This is the case. And in this

15 particular case, if you've seen this mock-up -- this

16 prototype -- that's in front of this -- in the island

17 right now, it's really -- the back end of this sign

18 is right against the light pole in the island. So

19 really -- you can't get it back any farther than it

20 is.

21 If you set it off to one side or the

22 other, it doesn't do a very good job of identifying

23 that common entrance of these two buildings. So

24 we're really kind of between a rock and a hard spot









1 here. There's no way to configure this sign. We've

2 got the size of the copy down to the size where it's

3 almost minimal to be read, down to the four-inch

4 range.

5 So we really are below the authorized

6 limit of this sign. Square footage wise, we've got

7 30 square feet to work with. We're down below 24

8 square feet. So we've really tried to minimize the

9 footprint, if you will, but it is what it is,

10 unfortunately.

11 So that's our hardship.


13 Thank you.

14 Is there anyone in the audience that

15 wishes to make comment in regards to this case?

16 Seeing none, there were 17 notices

17 sent; no approvals, no objections.

18 Building Department?

19 MR. AMOLSH: No comment.


21 Board Members?

22 Member Brennan?

23 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, I'm glad we

24 didn't have to deal with the size of the sign, and I









1 think he's presented a compelling case for his

2 position. Where else are you going to put it?

3 I suppose if Planning had been looking

4 at this whole project on the basis of where the sign

5 was to begin with, and put the building where it

6 needs to be, we wouldn't be faced with that. I think

7 we've got other issues to deal with, the position of

8 the building and parking and everything else.

9 I think it's a minimal request for the

10 purpose of site identification.


12 Is that a Motion?

13 MEMBER BRENNAN: I will make that

14 Motion with respect to case 04-110, the sign be

15 approved in it's proposed location for the purpose of

16 site identification.

17 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

19 seconded.

20 Any further discussion?

21 Seeing none, Denise, would you please

22 call the roll.

23 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?










1 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


3 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


5 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


7 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


9 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


11 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

12 zero.

13 MR. LUTZ: Thank you very much.


15 Your variance has been granted.

16 Good luck to you.


18 Okay. Case number 111 has been moved,

19 so we'll move on to our next case, 04-112, filed by

20 Ron Nuechterlein of Superior Diversified Services

21 Corporation.

22 Mr. Nuechterlein is requesting four

23 variances for the renovation of an addition -- and an

24 addition to an existing 3600 square foot building,









1 with a proposed 2,496 square foot addition at 43443

2 Grand River Avenue, formerly known as Antiques and

3 Pines Design.

4 Good evening. And you are

5 Mr. Nuechterlein?


7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you please

8 raise your right hand and be sworn in by our

9 secretary.

10 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

11 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-112?


13 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.

14 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: We're here this

15 evening to request the four noted variances, and I

16 think in my cover letter I've been pretty explicit in

17 laying out the conditions that we're redeveloping

18 this property under. I think it's a great

19 opportunity for the community to be able to integrate

20 this property with the City Center Plaza, and make it

21 work as a whole.

22 Right now as the property stands on

23 its own, it has a very, very restricted access, and

24 probably one of the reasons why it's been vacant for









1 the past couple of years.

2 I know that the furniture tenant that

3 was in there prior had just a real touch time getting

4 people in and out of there. So with the integration,

5 as you can see on the drawings that I've given you in

6 the packets there, we're actually taking the City

7 Center Plaza drive at the front of the building and

8 extending that on down; and that drive then will

9 become an out only, where the existing entrance and

10 out is for that furniture building.

11 The City Center Plaza existing

12 entrance there, would remain as is, and would still

13 be an out and in. But I think that the traffic

14 patterning would much improve by doing this. We're

15 also removing the storage building, which I think is

16 rather unsightly to that focal location of Grand

17 River and Novi Road, which is downtown Novi.

18 And I think this improvement we plan

19 to do on this building would certainly improve its

20 appearance; and would be much improved to the site of

21 the intersection there.

22 So the variances -- and I know I've

23 been here before, and you guys are saying here's this

24 guy with a half a dozen variances. It's -- this is a









1 situation where we've tried in our design to minimize

2 and eliminate as many of the issues as we could, and

3 we did sit down very carefully. As I said, this went

4 before the Planning Commission, and we sat down very

5 carefully to minimize everything we could.

6 The four variances we're dealing with

7 here are pretty much a result of existing conditions

8 with this property. So I'll leave you with that, and

9 I welcome any questions. Hopefully I can answer them

10 for you.


12 Is there anyone in the audience that

13 wishes to make comment in regards to this case?

14 Seeing none, there were 30 notices

15 sent; no objections, no approvals.

16 Building Department?

17 MR. SAVEN: Just to point out, we have

18 an opportunity to get an addition out of the way

19 that's in the back of this particular building,

20 possibly coming up with something pretty nice.

21 But like I said, most of the

22 variances, as Mr. Nuechterlein indicates, is to the

23 existing configuration of the property.










1 Board Members?

2 Member Canup?

3 MEMBER CANUP: This building was built

4 quite a few years ago. It was built for a specific

5 use by a specific owner; and it was a heating and

6 cooling business at the time. If my memory's right,

7 it was called D and G. And the building fit their

8 needs, but it almost wouldn't fit nobody else's.

9 And I think with this particular owner

10 coming in and incorporating into that center, it's

11 probably about the only salvation we'll see for that

12 piece of property. It was developed under old

13 Ordinances years ago, and we got what we got. And we

14 do have an opportunity to do something with it, to

15 clean it up.

16 So I would support a Motion. If it

17 was fitting, I would make a Motion.

18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Go ahead.

19 MEMBER CANUP: ZBA Case Number, 04-

20 112, that we grant the variances as requested due to

21 reasons previously stated.


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 Canup?


7 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


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: Your variances have

20 been granted.

21 Good luck to you.

22 Please see the Building Department.











1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Our next case is

2 04-113, filed by J. Bennett Donaldson Company, for

3 Infinity Medical Building, located at 28455 Haggerty

4 Road.

5 Mr. Donaldson is requesting 34.8 foot

6 south side yard setback variance, for the

7 construction of the Infinity Medical Building located

8 at the above address.

9 MR. QUINN: Good evening, Madam Chair,

10 ladies and gentlemen. My name is Matthew Quinn. I'm

11 appearing on behalf of J. Bennett Donaldson and for

12 the construction of the Infinity Medical Building.

13 Your packet will reflect at the

14 Minutes, that we received a unanimous approval by the

15 Planning Commission, and received positive letters

16 from all consultants. And there was one matter that

17 we had to bring to you, and that was the south side

18 building setback.

19 This practical difficulty is really

20 created because the OST zoning was superimposed on

21 residentially agricultural area previously.

22 The owner of this five-acre parcel

23 sold it to Mr. Donaldson, who was going to build the

24 medical building for approximately 35 doctors that









1 are associated with Providence Hospital.

2 Now, as you saw at the Planning

3 Commission, the president of Providence spoke in

4 support of our request. This is a 42,000 square

5 foot, two-story office building. What's unusual

6 about the office building, is that it's not built to

7 the normal standard of 120 foot width. Because of

8 the narrowness of this five acre site, which is 158

9 feet. This building has been reduced to only 86 feet

10 in width.

11 So the builder has attempted to comply

12 with the difficult site requirements that they had to

13 build with. The other thing that you'll see from the

14 drawing, what they're really doing on this whole site

15 is preserving a significant stand of trees, that lie

16 to the west.

17 This parking could be stretched out

18 more; the building could be stretched out more, but

19 we're saving over 55 percent of the trees. And as

20 the woodland review report says, is that this

21 specific area in the back, goes to the Novaplex site

22 to the north and then to the south; and it's a

23 significant stand of very nice trees that should be

24 preserved. And the doctors that are going to be









1 buying this building wanted these trees to be

2 preserved.

3 So it's in that context that we come

4 to you tonight with the practical difficulty as we've

5 described, and asking you for this variance for the

6 south side setback. There really is just no other

7 way for this building to be built on the site.

8 One might question, well why didn't

9 you try to purchase additional property to make this

10 site bigger and work? Well, that was tried some

11 years ago without success.

12 And then the owner of this property

13 felt that it was time to develop it. The doctors

14 were there to build the medical building on this

15 site, and it is a good use, as verified by the

16 president of Providence Hospital.

17 So I have Mr. Donaldson here tonight.

18 We have Steve Sars, the engineer, if there's any

19 questions at all regarding this site plan.

20 Thank you.


22 Is there anyone else in the audience

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

24 Seeing none, there were 12 notices; no









1 approvals, no objections.

2 Building Department?

3 MR. SAVEN: If the Board decides to

4 approve this variance, I do believe that there was a

5 request to extend this variance for approximately six

6 months; is that correct?

7 MR. QUINN: To extend it for six

8 months?

9 MR. SAVEN: Yes. Beyond the 90 day

10 requirement for permit, I'm sorry.

11 MR. QUINN: Oh, yes.

12 MR. SAVEN: We have a 90 day

13 requirement to obtain permits within the time. I do

14 believe they're requesting a six month extension,

15 based upon --

16 MR. QUINN: Right. And if it's not --

17 obviously, it's not necessary. We're going to move

18 will all due haste.


20 Board Members?

21 Member Brennan?

22 MEMBER BRENNAN: Just a question for

23 the Building Department.

24 Having this 15 foot narrow strip









1 between the back of the building to the southerly

2 property -- and maybe this was covered in some other

3 paperwork at Planning and such. I'll just ask the

4 question.

5 Are there any issues with respect to

6 having fire trucks getting back into there?

7 MR. SAVEN: I do not believe so. The

8 accessibility is there around the building and to the

9 rear of the building. So they have the ability to

10 move around the building.

11 As far as the fire rating that are

12 probably involved with this particular building, I'm

13 not sure. Taking a look at the plot plan, I'm almost

14 positive the building will be fire suppressed; is

15 that correct?

16 MR. QUINN: Correct.

17 MR. SAVEN: So we have a lot of

18 positive features here.

19 MEMBER BRENNAN: Thank you.

20 MR. QUINN: And Mr. Brennan, we did

21 have a favorable letter from the fire department.

22 MEMBER BRENNAN: I figured you did. I

23 just wanted to ask the question.










1 Anyone else?

2 Member Sanghvi?

3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Madam Chair, I have

4 no questions.

5 I'm going to make a Motion in the case

6 number, 04-113, that we approve the request of the

7 applicant because of the lot configuration.

8 MEMBER FISCHER: A friendly amendment?


10 Member Fischer?

11 MEMBER FISCHER: That the Petitioner

12 has 270 days to pick up their permit.

13 MR. QUINN: Yes.

14 MEMBER SANGHVI: I don't have a

15 problem with that.

16 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

18 seconded.

19 Is there any further discussion on the

20 Motion?

21 Seeing none, Denise, would you please

22 call the roll.

23 DENISE ANDERSON: I'm sorry. I failed

24 to hear who made the second?









1 MEMBER BRENNAN: Member Bauer.

2 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer.

3 Dr. Sanghvi?


5 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


7 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


9 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


11 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


13 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


15 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

16 zero.

17 MR. QUINN: Thank you very much for

18 your consideration.

19 Mr. Gilliam, nice sign, by the way.


21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. We will now

22 call case, 04-114, filed by Ronald Mehler for Novi

23 Veterinary Clinic at 43377 Grand River Avenue.

24 Mr. Mehler is requesting to expand a









1 non-conforming use located at 43377 Grand River

2 Avenue, known as the Novi Veterinary Clinic.

3 Applicant is requesting an expansion of approximately

4 890 square feet in a TC-1 district.

5 Good evening. Are you Mr. Mehler?

6 MR. MEHLER: Yes, I am.

7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you please

8 raise your right hand and be sworn in by our

9 secretary.

10 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

11 to tell the truth regarding case 04-114?

12 MR. MEHLER: Yes, sir.

13 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

14 MR. MEHLER: I'm Ronald Mehler. I'm

15 the veterinarian that owns the Novi Veterinary

16 Clinic, and it has been there roughly about 25 to 30

17 years.

18 And the main reasons that we want to

19 expand -- one reason, is that there is an

20 organization, a nationwide organization, that they go

21 to different veterinary hospitals to accredit the

22 hospital. They certify whether they are doing --

23 practicing properly.

24 We have qualified for this for, you









1 know, since I've been a veterinarian, about 24 years

2 or so. And because of changes in veterinary

3 medicine, we simply can't qualify any longer. The

4 building is too small to keep up with all of the

5 modern changes out there, and I'm not sure if you're

6 aware, and if you have particular questions I'd be

7 happy to answer that.

8 Another reason is we just don't have

9 any storage at all. I do have pictures of that, if

10 anybody would like to see. I know you do have a

11 list of some of those things. I'll just try to go

12 through real quickly.

13 We don't have any room for doctor's

14 office. If you want to talk to a client on the

15 phone, there's no place in the building to talk to a

16 client on the phone, you know, that other clients

17 can't overhear what you're talking about. We don't

18 have any room for any modern equipment, things like

19 ultrasound; a desk for monitoring the equipment, lab

20 equipment, those kinds of things.

21 These are things that, you know, all

22 veterinary hospitals really should have, and this

23 building's just too small to have those kinds of

24 equipment. And just to modernize our reception area.









1 Right now, we have one computer. We don't have any

2 room for a second computer, so (unintelligible) a

3 client at the desk and another client calls on the

4 phone, you can't do anything with the computer until

5 that first client is completely checked out and you

6 can go and pull up the second client and go from

7 there.

8 But it's very, very inefficient. You

9 know, there are -- won't be any changes, as far as

10 employees. It's a one-doctor hospital. That's the

11 way it's going to stay. We did survey a lot of our

12 clients over a four or five day period, and we had

13 them sign if they wanted us to do it. And in four or

14 five days, I had over 70 percent sign, and they were

15 ecstatic that we were planning on doing this.

16 And (unintelligible) as far as us

17 going ahead with this, I do have pictures if you want

18 to see the, you know, just some of the, you know, the

19 building. I don't know if you want to see it or not,

20 but if you'd like to see some of the storage. I can

21 put it on here, if you like. And these are

22 essentially pictures of our storage area. We don't

23 have room to store any old files. They're basically

24 all sitting in my garage. You can -- it's just not









1 sufficient room to do anything.

2 I have another picture. This is the

3 entire work area of the hospital. That's in the

4 reception area, looking over at the receptionist's

5 desk; and that is pretty much the whole hospital.

6 There is an exam room in the back, that you can kind

7 of see, you know, back here.

8 There's two exam rooms, and that's the

9 entire hospital.


11 Anything else?

12 MR. MEHLER: Not that I can think of.


14 Thank you.

15 Is there anyone in the audience that

16 wishes to make comment in the matter of this case?

17 Seeing none, there were 24 notices

18 sent; one approval of the property owner of the

19 building, Mr. Parfay(ph). "I understand that the

20 Novi Veterinary Clinic wishes to expand

21 (unintelligible) veterinary services and all that it

22 entails. The Novi Veterinary Clinic is a tenant in

23 good standing."

24 Building Department?









1 MR. SAVEN: Mr. Mehler, would you

2 please explain to the Board whether or not you'll

3 have additional employees. I have heard that you

4 will not. This is strictly a revision to the area,

5 but staying with the same type of operation. Can you

6 just give them more of a --

7 MR. MEHLER: Exactly.

8 MR. SAVEN: No more doctors, no more

9 --

10 MR. MEHLER: No. It's just a one

11 doctor practice and it's going to be staying that

12 way. There's -- you know, there's no plans at all to

13 change anything like that.


15 Member Brennan?

16 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, when you look

17 at the number of businesses that come before us, look

18 at the variances, it's hard to consider saying no to

19 somebody that's been here for 30 years running a

20 business. And sir, I appreciate your interest in

21 expanding your business, making it better as a

22 service to the community, and I support it a hundred

23 percent.

24 MR. MEHLER: Thank you.









1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Board Members?

2 Member Fischer?

3 MEMBER FISCHER: One of the hardest

4 parts of being up here is to kind of leave emotion

5 outside of the door there. And the function of the

6 ZBA is to look at special circumstances. And in this

7 case, we're looking at unnecessary hardship. And

8 with this being as a variance, we need to look at,

9 can the property be reasonably used as it is zoned.

10 And unfortunately, unless the

11 Petitioner can prove to me otherwise, I would not be

12 able to support this. I support the business. I

13 approve of the type of business that he does. He's a

14 service to the community. However, we have legal

15 standards to look at, and because of that, I can't

16 support this.

17 Thank you, Madam Chair.

18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Sanghvi?

19 MEMBER SANGHVI: I think what we need

20 to realize, is that technology has changed so much

21 the practice of any kind of medicine, whether it is

22 veterinary medicine or regular medicine for people.

23 You require a lot more room now, than you needed 20,

24 25 years ago, just to stay in business; it's a lot.









1 And I think regard -- your point is

2 very taken, but under these circumstances, if a --

3 one of the -- a business has been (unintelligible)

4 has been in this community for this length of time,

5 and he needs some accommodation to continue in doing

6 the same business; I think we want to look at it with

7 a little different perspective.

8 And as far as I'm concerned, I have no

9 difficulty supporting his application.

10 Thank you.


12 Anyone else?

13 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll make a Motion

14 and see where the Board sits here.

15 With respect to case 04-114, I would

16 move to approve, for the purpose that he needs

17 additional space to meet the requirements of the

18 State of Michigan.


20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

21 seconded.

22 Is there any further discussion?

23 MR. GILLIAM: Madam Chair?










1 MR. GILLIAM: If I could make a

2 suggestion or a friendly amendment, to follow-up on

3 the comments that Mr. Saven made earlier; and also

4 that materials that were submitted with the

5 Petitioner's application that there'd be no expansion

6 of the business operations, beyond the current

7 operations; including, boarding animals or doing any

8 other animal related business, outside --

9 MEMBER BRENNAN: As was submitted with

10 his letter and such, but I'll certainly add that as a

11 friendly amendment.

12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Denise, would you

13 please call the roll.

14 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


16 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


18 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


20 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


22 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


24 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?










2 DENISE ANDERSON: It's three to three.


4 Motion does not pass.

5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I need to make some

6 comments here.

7 The problem that I'm having with

8 allowing this, Member Fischer brought up some good

9 points. And the part of it, when I first got this

10 case, there's a part of me that's in the backroom

11 that I have to leave back there when I come here to

12 make a decision of this nature of this nature for a

13 business that's been for 30 years. It's very

14 difficult.

15 So if someone can up with how I can

16 bypass, that there's no other business that can fit

17 into this criteria -- I mean, this business could

18 still be viable in Novi. It could go in the proper

19 district. There's a lot more options. This business

20 just outgrew it's space, basically.

21 And I'm reluctant to support this for

22 the reason that there could be other businesses with

23 similar situations that we're not opening up a can of

24 worms; that people come forward and say, I don't fit,









1 but this is where I've been for 30 years. No one

2 should form that I'm not supporting business in Novi;

3 nor, do I want to give that impression.

4 The animals are a love of my life, so

5 -- and I worked as a veterinary assistant, so I know

6 about equipment and x-ray machines. And I've had

7 experience, and I know you need a lot of space. But

8 I -- when I look at this strictly as a member of the

9 Zoning Board of Appeals, and cut out everything else,

10 and I look at my criteria, I can't vote on it based

11 on the fact that that one question cannot be

12 answered. And that's where I'm having a problem.

13 Member Brennan?

14 MEMBER BRENNAN: I think I would

15 differentiate between expansion of the use versus

16 what the Petitioner has presented as his need. It's

17 for storage and some new equipment. That's a

18 requirement for his business in today's world. He's

19 got a non-conforming use variance, I suppose; is that

20 a fair enough statement? I mean, the zoning there

21 has probably changed a zillion times since 1970. So

22 he's legally in business today.

23 And I think that he expansion that

24 he's asked for is minimal. He's not adding people.









1 He's not adding cars. He's not adding -- expanding

2 his working hours. He needs some space for storage

3 and for a couple of machines. I don't think it's a

4 real big deal.

5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer?

6 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, Madam

7 Chair.

8 I lost my train of thought with that.

9 It is going to be a use -- if I can

10 just think about this for a second.

11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You want me to come

12 back?


14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I'll ask the

15 attorney.

16 Mr. Gilliam, is there some sort of

17 grey area here? Am I right in looking at the

18 criteria for this use? I mean, basically, if it was

19 any other business, we'd tell them to move. Find a

20 place to fit, where you better fit your service,

21 although he's got a 30 year history of this

22 particular business. And now (unintelligible) the

23 emotional factor.

24 So that's why I'm sitting on the fence









1 That's where I'm having a problem.

2 MEMBER BAUER: Me, too.

3 MR. GILLIAM: I think you framed the

4 issues very well. Based on the information that was

5 provided with the application, it's my understanding

6 that the applicant does have legal non-conforming

7 status. He came in and wanted to (unintelligible)

8 this particular business in a particular that

9 particular zoning district, he would not be able to

10 do so.

11 But the business pre-dates the

12 classification of that district's TC-1. He's allowed

13 to continue that particular use. However, what we're

14 talking about is from a legal standpoint, you know,

15 the terms of the zoning Ordinance, the expansion of a

16 non-conforming use.

17 And one of the principles or the goals

18 of zoning, is to eliminate non-conforming uses. So

19 you're correct in applying the standard for a use

20 variance. And in fact, the applicant would have to

21 show us unnecessary hardship in order for the Zoning

22 Board to grant the variance.


24 Can I ask the second question.









1 Technically, this Petitioner would

2 have to be in a B-3 district, correct?

3 MR. GILLIAM: Subject to special

4 conditions, I believe.


6 What if he could not find another area

7 in Novi to go to, would that be -- would that require

8 -- would that fill-in some of that requirement?

9 MR. GILLIAM: That's something that

10 the Zoning Board would have to take into

11 consideration, yes.

12 MEMBER FISCHER: Wouldn't that still

13 depend on whether this can be used as is zoned? Not

14 depending on whatever is out there, but depending on

15 what this is zoned as, and if it could be used for

16 something else? Is that still not the standard,

17 despite what else is out there in the City?

18 MR. GILLIAM: Well, there's a couple

19 different factors you need to look at, in terms of

20 evaluating the request for a use variance. There's

21 four factors, and each of the four need to be met.

22 So first, there's whether or not the property can

23 reasonably be used for a permitted purpose; that is,

24 something that's allowed in the TC-1.









1 Whether or not the property is unique;

2 whether or not the variance will alter the character

3 of the area; and whether or not the need for the

4 variance is self-created. And all four of those have

5 to be met.

6 MEMBER FISCHER: And I've looked at

7 those four. It's just that first one that I'm really

8 having a problem with.

9 I don't feel it's self-created. I

10 don't feel, you know, some of those others apply.

11 However, that first one still sticks in my mind; and

12 that's the reason I can't support it, from a legal

13 standpoint.

14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Canup?

15 MEMBER CANUP: That's what we're here

16 for, the Zoning Board of Appeals. This person has a

17 practical problem. If you think he doesn't have a

18 practical problem, you try to move a business that's

19 been there for 30 years. And he's not doing anything

20 to add staff or expand his business. He's doing it

21 to make his business more comfortable to operate and

22 more operational.

23 You take a business that's been here

24 30 years, try to move him, he'll probably lose 20, 30









1 percent of his customers. You don't build a vet

2 every day, hopefully. You may not need to see a vet

3 for two or three years. You know where this place --

4 these people are at. You drive up, he's not there.

5 Oh, he's out of business.

6 This to me is a prime example of a

7 hardship. If there was ever one, this is it.

8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Sanghvi?

9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yeah, my question is

10 how long has this been a non-conforming use?

11 MR. GILLIAM: It would remain a non-

12 conforming use as long as the business would continue

13 operating.


15 When did it become non-conforming?

16 It's been there for all these years.

17 MR. GILLIAM: It would have become

18 non-conforming when the point the current zoning

19 classification took effect.

20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Well, when they

21 changed the zoning classification, isn't there a

22 system of grandfathering-in something, for an

23 existing business?

24 MR. GILLIAM: I think that's the whole









1 idea behind allowing the non-conforming use. In

2 terms of zoning principles, as long as you continue

3 the same use to the same extent in the same location,

4 you're allowed to continue it; even though the

5 current Zoning Ordinance or the new Zoning Ordinance

6 wouldn't allow you to engage in that use, otherwise.

7 MR. SAVEN: Madam Chair?


9 MR. SAVEN: I'd just like to ask the

10 attorney and the Board, one thing that you may want

11 to take a look at, is the fact whether or not you

12 want to determine that this is an expansion and make

13 an interpretation within the definition of a non-

14 conforming use, based upon what was presented

15 (unintelligible) feasible here; based upon what I'm

16 hearing from the Board Members.

17 MR. GILLIAM: To address your

18 question, one of the aspects I think the Zoning Board

19 has to look at if this is not to be an expansion of a

20 non-conforming use, then essentially there would be

21 no need for a variance.

22 MEMBER GILLIAM: That's the answer.

23 That's the answer.

24 MEMBER BRENNAN: That's slippery legal









1 crap.

2 MR. SAVEN: It's not intended to be

3 slippery. I'm just trying to look at all the --

4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: That's the answer.

5 MEMBER BRENNAN: There's no question

6 that this is an expansion of the use, but it wasn't

7 self-created. In order to meet the American Animal

8 Association Guidelines, he needs an expansion of use.

9 He needs additional equipment. I don't see it as a

10 big deal for a business that's been there for 30

11 years. There's nobody on record that's got a

12 complaint. The owner of the building has got no

13 problem with it, and I don't know why we have any

14 problem with it.

15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: The only thing --

16 excuse me. The only thing I will agree to is if this

17 identified as not an expansion of use, and it's not.

18 It's an updating of the system. And if that's a way

19 to get around that clarification just to cover

20 ourselves, then that would be the way.

21 MR. SAVEN: I want to make it very

22 clear that when I look at these things when there's

23 square footage that's involved, and an addition or

24 whatever is part of that particular use, I have to









1 look at it this way. No intention of being slippery

2 here or --


4 Member Fischer?

5 MEMBER FISCHER: The expanded part, or

6 for lack of a better word, what would be going on

7 there?

8 MR. MEHLER: Well, at this point -- I

9 haven't really gone over it with the builder yet, but

10 my guess is that there'll be a surgery area, a staff

11 -- you know, a lounge area --

12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And you have all of

13 those now, correct?

14 MR. MEHLER: Everything doubles for

15 everything.

16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You're doing

17 surgery in your clinic now. You have staff.

18 MR. MEHLER: Yes.

19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You're not going to

20 be boarding dogs.

21 MR. MEHLER: No.

22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You're not going to

23 be raising birds.

24 MR. MEHLER: No.









1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You're not going to

2 be doing anything extensive.

3 MR. MEHLER: Same.

4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Just doing the same

5 day-to-day routine.

6 MEMBER FISCHER: Would your storage be

7 in there?

8 MR. MEHLER: I sure hope so. I'm

9 storing them in my garage right now.

10 MEMBER FISCHER: Storage is allowed in

11 other offices down there, so I can see how this may

12 not be completely an expansion.

13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: We've got it

14 covered.

15 Member Canup?

16 MEMBER CANUP: I would suggest that we

17 deal with this as it was presented, deal with it as

18 business people would deal with it, rather than

19 trying to reinterpret it.

20 So let's deal with it as an expansion

21 of use. That's what it is. Let's vote on it, pass

22 it, and let this guy get back do doing his business.

23 You know, in doing so we may well be

24 creating some other problems down the road for









1 ourselves.

2 And with that, I'm going to make a

3 Motion that we grant the variance as requested in

4 case number 04-114.


6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

7 seconded.

8 Is there any further discussion?

9 Mr. Gilliam?

10 MR. GILLIAM: For any Motion you make,

11 and particular I think a Motion in this case, I think

12 you have to make a finding in support of your Motion.

13 MEMBER CANUP: The finding is the

14 previous discussions; as previously discussed.

15 MEMBER BRENNAN: Friendly amendment,

16 that the Petitioner's business has changed due to

17 State regulations and that for in order for him to

18 meet the State regulations, he has to have some

19 (unintelligible) and changes in the --

20 MEMBER FISCHER: Just a point of

21 information.

22 Are these State regulations or are

23 these association regulations, which would kind of

24 (unintelligible.)









1 MR. MEHLER: I guess I would have to

2 say, they're probably association. I don't think --

3 I'm not sure if it's State.

4 MR. FISCHER: A State agency might

5 deter some people.

6 MR. MEHLER: To be accredited as, you

7 know, to have a certain standard -- I'm not sure

8 whose regulations they are, but I don't think it's a

9 State regulation though.


11 It's been moved and seconded after a

12 lengthy discussion --

13 Mr. Gilliam?

14 MR. GILLIAM: Back to the point I

15 first made, the first time the Motion was made by the

16 Zoning Board, and if I could suggest an amendment

17 that the different functions of the business would

18 not be expanded. It would include, the boarding of

19 animals or any other activities that would exclude

20 any materials the Petitioner had (unintelligible.)

21 MEMBER CANUP: Accepted.

22 I would accept that wording to be

23 entered into the Motion.

24 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?










2 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


4 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


6 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


8 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


10 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


12 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes five

13 to one.

14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Your variance has

15 been granted.

16 Good luck to you.

17 MR. MEHLER: Thank you very much.


19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Case number, 04-

20 115, filed by David GAyner for a residence located at

21 45657 Galway.

22 Mr. Gayner is requesting a nine foot

23 side yard setback variance for the construction of an

24 attached garage.









1 Good evening. Are you Mr. Gayner?

2 MR. GAYNER: Yes.

3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you raise

4 your right hand and be sworn in by our secretary.

5 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

6 to tell the truth regarding case, 04-115?

7 MR. GAYNER: Yes.

8 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

9 MR. GAYNER: I'm Dave Gayner and I own

10 the property at 45657 Galway. And my wife and I are

11 looking for some additional living space for our

12 growing family. And like others in the neighborhood,

13 we're looking to add a two-car garage, and convert

14 the existing garage area into living space.

15 The variance that we're asking for is

16 a nine foot variance. The proposed addition would

17 end within six foot of the edge of the public

18 easement, that runs up along the northwest side of

19 our property. This public easement is 15 foot wide.

20 The proposed addition would be six foot from this

21 easement; and 21 foot from my neighbor's property

22 line.

23 In our particular case, unfortunately,

24 our property is centered on our lot, and it doesn't









1 allow the full usage of the lot for us. The size of

2 this property or the east side of my property is 40

3 foot from the lot line; and the other side of it is,

4 of course, less, about 30 feet.

5 The proposed addition wont' have any

6 impact on the public access where it physically

7 encroaches on the land, you know, is just outside of

8 the variance on the setback from that public access.

9 I brought a letter that my neighbor on

10 the westside did not send in to you, though he handed

11 to be physically, in support of the project.

12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You may submit that

13 letter to us.

14 MR. GAYNER: Yes, I have it here.


16 MR. GAYNER: Well, I had it here.


18 Okay. Are you all set?

19 MR. GAYNER: Yes, thank you.

20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Seeing how there's

21 no one else in the audience, there were 21 notices

22 sent; three approvals, including the Homeowner's

23 Association, which is on the plans.

24 Building Department?









1 MR. SAVEN: I had the honor to work

2 with Mr. Gayner on several occasions. He's coming

3 before the Board. Previously when the plans were

4 submitted and we're very conscientious of what he has

5 been doing and trying to comply with all of the

6 Ordinances.

7 Unfortuatenly, as you can see on the

8 plot plan that there is an easement located directly

9 to the northeast of this property, which gave him a

10 degree of difficulty. So everything's okay and he's

11 ready to proceed We had to put the brakes on because

12 he was too close to that easement (unintelligible)

13 was not, in fact his easement. It's an easement

14 which is part of the subdivision's area.

15 So what happened here is that reduced

16 the size of the setback (unintelligible) he's here

17 right now. The effect is not part of what we're

18 looking at right now. What you're looking at is the

19 setback between his proposed garage and when -- where

20 that easement is for 15 feet. So it is clear beyond

21 that easement for 15 feet. Nothing's being built in

22 that easement, and that's why he's here tonight.


24 Thank you.









1 Member Canup?

2 MEMBER CANUP: I think if you look at

3 the site plan, the aerial view of the house where

4 its' located; the easement that runs along the side

5 of the house, adjacent where he wants to build the

6 new garage; look at the location of the neighbor's

7 home, where it's located at. It's about the maximum

8 as you can get from the lot line. And there is a

9 very generous amount of home space between the two

10 homes.

11 And with that, I'll make a Motion

12 then. I don't see anything other than -- we did make

13 a Motion as to the architecture and the facade of the

14 new addition would have to match that of the

15 existing.

16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is there a second?

17 MEMBER BAUER: Second.


19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer?

20 MEMBER FISCHER: I do have a question,

21 Madam Chair.

22 The current garage to the one that

23 you're going to build, what's the square footage in

24 between those two?









1 MR. GAYNER: Between the two, it's

2 real, real close. They're both two car garages.

3 MEMBER FISCHER: There's a shed on

4 your property. What are you doing with that?

5 MR. GAYNER: The shed's going to stay

6 at this point.

7 MEMBER FISCHER: The shed's going to

8 say at this point?

9 MR. GAYNER: Yeah.

10 MEMBER FISCHER: How close will that

11 be to the new garage?

12 MR. GAYNER: It will back up to the

13 garage, a foot or two behind.


15 MR. SAVEN: We'll discuss that at a

16 later time. We're going to try to make it comply

17 with the Ordinance, accessory structure needs to be

18 ten feet away. I did not advertise for this. I

19 don't want to lead you into anything that will create

20 any problems here.

21 MEMBER FISCHER: I'll verify I'll

22 support any Motion that's on the table.

23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: There's no further

24 discussion, Denise, would you please call the roll?









1 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


3 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


5 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


7 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


9 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


11 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?

12 MEMBER Sanghvi: Yes.

13 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

14 zero.

15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Your variance has

16 been granted.

17 MR. GAYNER: Thank you.

18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I'm sure you'll be

19 seeing the Building Department.


21 Seeing that we no one left, Board

22 Members, what would you like to do in regards to case

23 04-073?

24 Member Fischer?









1 MEMBER BRENNAN: Madam Chair?

2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer?

3 MEMBER FISCHER: Given that we have

4 tabled this in September; we tabled in October -- I

5 think one was our fault; one was at the request of

6 Petitioner; and now a no show, no notice?


8 MEMBER FISCHER: I move that we deny

9 the case, 04-073, given the Petitioner did not show

10 up.

11 MEMBER BAUER: Second.


13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved,

14 and seconded and supported -- Member Bauer?

15 MEMBER BAUER: It's been so much done

16 to this house, I don't really see where we can turn

17 it down.

18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Actually, I kind of

19 feel the same way. If we let it go -- although,

20 under normal circumstances, I agree with Member

21 Fischer. However, the neighbors are on alert, and

22 there's a lot of activity going on in this property.

23 I would like to see this Petitioner -- given the

24 history with the Petitioner in previous cases, I









1 would like to still have this Petitioner come back in

2 front of us.

3 Granted, if it's a denial -- if we

4 deny it, then we're done with it until they come back

5 or the City goes after them. But at least if we

6 table it one more time, I think we can keep a

7 watchful eye.

8 Mr. Saven, am I correct in that?

9 MR. SAVEN: I have some different

10 feelings on the whole issue, because I've dealt with

11 this gentleman in previous cases to which I did have

12 a meeting with him and his wife probably a month ago.

13 DENISE ANDERSON: You have a letter,

14 too.

15 MR. SAVEN: We have a letter in the

16 file regarding this issues; their disregard for the

17 Ordinances of the City, which I find not acceptable

18 to myself and to the City.

19 I appreciate the fact that he's going

20 through the improvements, but he has shunned the

21 responsibility of obtaining the appropriate permits

22 to do the work, when he was duly notified that he

23 needed to do that.

24 And to come before the Board for









1 variances that he sought, he just does the work and

2 then, come on, you need to come to the Board. I

3 can't bring somebody to the Board. And with all due

4 respect to this Board, and I go out there and I see

5 more variances than are required for this property

6 than what he is asking for -- if there are variances

7 on the property that need to be applied for, I'm

8 going to tell you, it needs to be done. Because it

9 just does not work this way.

10 We're not going to just grant one

11 variance and bring him back a month later for another

12 variance. It's not fair. It's not fair to you and

13 it's not fair to the Petitioner.

14 If I see something that's a problem,

15 that's what going to take place. In this particular

16 case, he had accessory structures in the backyard.

17 He put a slab in the back, which you can do that,

18 that's fine, but we had issues about grating and

19 drainage, which I had concerns about right from the

20 very beginning.

21 He wanted to build an addition onto

22 his house, you can recall that. It was too large of

23 an addition. It was too intrusive. It was felt it

24 was too much lot coverage for this particular area.









1 Even so that's not before you today, what was before

2 you today was the issue regarding the storage shed,

3 which I brought to your attention, okay.

4 His was for a storage shed, which was

5 to be placed in the back that was going to be 280

6 square feet. There is -- there are photographs in

7 the file that will show that he does have a shed on

8 the property line. The water -- facing --


10 MR. SAVEN: Waterfront property, and

11 also he is proposing one in the rear, and this is

12 where a lot of concern is. Plus, he still did not

13 address the issue of the house. This expansion or

14 non-conforming issue. He basically took something

15 greater than 50 percent of the physical value of the

16 building, improved it to that percentage, above and

17 beyond, without any regard to does he have

18 foundations here. Is the foundation adequate to

19 support the structure.

20 All of those little things have become

21 concerns that we have, to which I discussed with him

22 and his wife. This is what you need to do, and he

23 hasn't done it.

24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Gilliam, what









1 is your -- what is the best way to handle this case?

2 MR. GILLIAM: I don't know if my

3 opinion is really relevant. But what I can indicate

4 to you is you have really two options that you're

5 looking at right now. You can table this, if you

6 like; or under the Rules of Procedure, there's in

7 place, specifically Rule 8.3, if an Applicant doesn't

8 appear, you do have the right to deny. And then, of

9 course, they have the right to reapply. They have to

10 pay all the fees they paid to get to this point, if

11 they chose to reapply.

12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Call the Motion.

13 Denise, would you please call roll.

14 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


16 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


18 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


20 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


22 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


24 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?










2 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

3 zero.



6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: We had two other

7 matters to discuss this evening.

8 Mr. Saven -- I'm sorry, Mr. Amolsh,

9 you wanted to discuss the BP/Amoco, and you needed a

10 clarification?

11 MR. AMOLSH: Thank you, Madam Chair.

12 This came out the other day. The

13 Board approved the variance for the ground sign at

14 the corner of 12 Mile and Haggerty Road in October.

15 I got a call the other day from -- I

16 don't know if the Board remembers, I asked the

17 Petitioner at the time -- because he had two signs on

18 the property now, if he only wanted one sign and he

19 said yes.

20 I got a call from the franchise owner

21 of the gas station who went ballistic. He was under

22 the impression that it was for two signs. They

23 applied for two signs, and when it was under

24 consideration by the Board, it was not.









1 So the sign director, Mr. Hillman, who

2 appeared before you in October, wanted to know if the

3 Board had a problem with moving the sign that was --

4 because they had a mock-up -- to right by the west

5 driveway at 12 Mile, to the corner of 12 Mile and

6 Haggerty. There won't be any difference in setback.

7 But I told him I would bring it up under other

8 matters. I don't know if you want them to come back

9 and reapply or not.

10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Come back and

11 reapply?

12 MEMBER BRENNAN: Can I ask to clarify

13 the question?

14 They thought that they were getting a

15 sign on west -- on -- (unintelligible.)

16 MR. AMOLSH: No. 12 Mile and Haggerty

17 Road.

18 MEMBER BRENNAN: 12 Mile and Haggerty.

19 The owner thought he was getting two

20 signs --

21 MR. AMOLSH: And then the Petitioner

22 -- I said, are you getting just the one sign on 12

23 Mile and Haggerty, and he said yes.

24 The Petitioner found out, he got a









1 little (unintelligible.) And then the sign guy wants

2 to know if he can move the sign from where the Board

3 approved to the 12 Mile and Haggerty corner; not

4 changing the setback, not changing the sign. Whether

5 you want him to come back for a further variance,

6 because the setback is not a variance; location was

7 not in the Motion, but I'll leave it up to the Board.

8 MEMBER BAUER: When you stop at that

9 red light at 12 and Haggerty, the sign is right

10 there.

11 MR. AMOLSH: That's the one on

12 Haggerty now. They have two, one on 12 Mile and one

13 on Haggerty.


15 driveway.

16 MR. AMOLSH: And that's what the

17 owner's concerned about. When they applied for it,

18 they only asked for the one sign. The one sign is on

19 12 Mile. And now he wants to know if he can move the

20 sign to the corner, to get visibility from both 12

21 Mile and Haggerty Roads.

22 MEMBER BRENNAN: We have in the past,

23 thinking of gas stations on corners -- I think Ten

24 Mile and Novi Road, where we've got smaller signs,









1 and a single sign right on the corner. So my gut

2 feel is yeah, if he wants to move it to the corner,

3 he only gets the one. That's fine with me.

4 MEMBER BAUER: Move it, move it.

5 MEMBER FISCHER: He doesn't want the

6 two, just one.

7 MR. AMOLSH: That's not an issue.

8 What they want to know instead of coming back and

9 asking for another sign on Haggerty Road, if they can

10 move the one that was approved down here.

11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I see a lot of head

12 shaking. We allow them to move the sign, but the

13 sign on 12 Mile Road or the Haggerty Road sign would

14 have to be removed.

15 MR. AMOLSH: They agree to remove it.


17 We're fine.

18 Do we need a Motion?


20 MR. GILLIAM: There was not a setback

21 variance requested.

22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do we need a Motion

23 if there wasn't anything --

24 MR. GILLIAM: The variance hasn't









1 changed.

2 MR. AMOLSH: The location on the

3 property.


5 Thank you.

6 Member Fischer wanted to discuss

7 Harold's Frame Shop or had a question? You had a

8 question in regards to Harold's Frame Shop?

9 MEMBER FISCHER: That's correct.

10 In driving by there on the weekend --

11 when we approved this, we approved the illumination

12 for a certain amount of time. I think 8:00 on

13 weekdays and I'm not sure what on weekends. However,

14 it was 8:55 p.m. on Saturday night that I drove by.

15 The illumination was still on. I'm not sure what's

16 the procedure, but how can we go about stressing

17 this?

18 MR. AMOLSH: I don't 'work that late.

19 MEMBER FISCHER: (Imposing.) But

20 neighbors were concerned about light pollution, and

21 they're not abiding by our decision.

22 MEMBER CANUP: I would suspect that

23 that light is on a timer. And the timer was probably

24 adjusted in midsummer. I don't know if it was or









1 wasn't, but that would be my theory. The timer was

2 adjusted to conform with daylight savings time.

3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: A weekend night?

4 MEMBER CANUP: Timers, typically, it's

5 on a seven-day cycle.

6 MR. AMOLSH: I'll call the sign

7 company and advise them of the concern.

8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: In all honesty, the

9 Petitioner may not know that it's on that late.

10 MEMBER FISCHER: That's why I wanted

11 to bring it up.

12 Thank you.


14 Member Sanghvi?


16 MR. SAVEN: Two additional issues.

17 In regards to Mr. Anderson, your

18 denial was due to lack of representation tonight; is

19 that correct?


21 MR. SAVEN: The second thing is I did

22 forget to -- I did forget to inquire about a six

23 month extension also to the antique building, okay.

24 The same thing, they can obtain the









1 building permit -- it normally is 90 days. They need

2 six months.

3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: That's fine.

4 MR. SAVEN: No problem.

5 Okay.

6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I know everybody's

7 waiting for me to call this meeting, but I just

8 wanted to say this. Happy Thanksgiving everybody.

9 It's been a joy working with all of you this year and

10 I hope everybody has a good holiday.

11 MEMBER FISCHER: Motion to adjourn.

12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Motion accepted.

13 (The meeting adjourned at

14 10:08 p.m.)

15 - - - - - - -


















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 (137) 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