View Agenda for this meeting
View Action Summary for this meeting


Proceedings had and testimony taken in the matters of the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, at City of Novi, 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, Tuesday, January 4, 2005.

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

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

Machelle Billingslea-Moore, Certified Shorthand Reporter.


1 Novi, Michigan

2 Tuesday, January 4, 2005

3 At 7:30 p.m.

4 - - - - - - -

5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. We'll go

6 ahead and call the January, 2005 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.


24 The Zoning Board of Appeals is a









1 hearing board, empowered by the Novi City Charter, to

2 hear appeals seeking variances from the applications

3 from the Novi Zoning Ordinances.

4 It takes a vote of at least four

5 members to approve a variance request, and a vote of

6 the majority of the members present to deny a

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

8 In regards to the agenda, are there

9 any changes?

10 DENISE ANDERSON: Yes, we do have one

11 change.

12 Case Number 04-128, the Cabot Road

13 Technology Center has been withdrawn by the

14 applicant.

15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: That's case number

16 three?



19 Anything else?

20 DENISE ANDERSON: No, that's all.

21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Are there any other

22 -- we're all set with the other matters? There's no

23 additional other matters to be added at this time?

24 DENISE ANDERSON: No, it's just the









1 three are listed in the agenda.


3 Thank you.


5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: All those in favor

6 of the approval of this evening's agenda, say aye?


8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: No -- anyone

9 opposed?

10 Seeing none, the agenda stands as

11 approved.

12 Let's get to the rules of conduct.

13 We'd ask that everyone shut off their cell phones

14 during the meeting, please.

15 Thank you.

16 The Minutes, I don't believe that we

17 have -- oh, the November Minutes, sorry.

18 We had our November Minutes in the

19 packet. Are there any changes to the November

20 Minutes?

21 Seeing none, all those in favor of the

22 November Minutes say aye?


24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Any opposed?









1 Seeing none, the November, 2004

2 Minutes are approved.

3 Just to note on the record, December's

4 are on this evening's table for next month's

5 approval.

6 At this time, if there's anyone in the

7 audience or at the table, that wishes to address the

8 Board in regards to a topic that has nothing to do

9 with any cases in front of us this evening, you may

10 do so at this time.

11 And I see Dr. Sanghvi.

12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, Madam

13 Chair.

14 My name is Mav Sanghvi. I am a member

15 of the Novi Rotary, and a resident of Novi. I live

16 at 22779 Shadow Pine, Novi, Michigan.

17 Thank you very much for your

18 indulgence.

19 I'm here to appeal to all the Members

20 of the Board and the people of Novi, in general, in

21 that our fund-raising efforts to help the victims of

22 the tsunami disaster. As you know, that this has

23 been one the greatest human tragedy of all time, and

24 I think maybe this is almost like a holocaust.









1 And as our President announced the

2 other day, and asked for help from every American to

3 help in this human tragedy, we at Novi Rotary are

4 organizing a fund-raising campaign; and I hope the

5 generous people of Novi will contribute to this

6 effort. And donations can be sent to Novi Rotary

7 Foundation, Post Office Box, 159, Novi, Michigan,

8 48376.

9 And if anybody has any questions, my

10 phone number is 248-349-4726. All the funds raised

11 will be transported directly to these different

12 countries through the local Rotary, thank you, Madam.


14 Dr. Sanghvi.

15 Is there anyone else in the audience

16 that wishes to make comment to the Board this

17 evening?

18 MR. SAVEN: Madam Chair?


20 MR. SAVEN: Members of the Board, it's

21 an honor and a privilege that I have tonight to

22 introduce Gail Backus, who will be the -- our new

23 secretary to the ZBA. Gail comes to us with a vast

24 knowledge of dealing with Boards and Commissions, and









1 at this particular time, I'd like to introduce Gail.

2 Also, along the same line, I'm really

3 sorry to see this young lady go over to the darkside,

4 but that's --

5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I heard rumors.

6 MR. SAVEN: Any how, we do wish her

7 well.

8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Well, welcome,

9 Gail. Congratulations.

10 And I can't even talk about you

11 leaving. I just spoke about this last month. It's

12 going to be some big shoes to fill. Denise did a

13 wonderful job. But I heard -- when I saw that people

14 were spotting her in the Treasury Department and the

15 Accessors Office, every place else in the Building

16 Department, I knew that it was no longer a rumor.

17 So we wish you the best.

18 DENISE ANDERSON: Thank you.

19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And Gail, we look

20 forward to working with you.

21 Anything else?

22 Okay.


24 Seeing none, we'll go ahead and call









1 our first case, 0 -- wait a minute. Did I miss

2 something here?


4 No? All right. We'll go ahead and

5 call our first case, 04-125, filed Amy Davenport of

6 ASI-Modulex for DMC, at 41935 12 Mile Road.

7 Board Members, you will recall that

8 this case is tabled from last month.

9 And you are Ms. Davenport?


11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You were sworn in

12 last month, correct?

13 MS. DAVENPORT: Yes, I was.

14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: So we'll continue

15 on from there.

16 Go ahead.

17 MS. DAVENPORT: Well, basically, at

18 last month's meeting we were requested to submit

19 further information regarding the changes to the

20 existing signage at the property in question. I put

21 together a package which delineates in photographs

22 and verbal descriptions, exactly what is changing,

23 what is staying the same and what is going away

24 altogether.









1 If there's any questions regarding the

2 package, you know, please ask. If it needs any

3 further clarification, I'm basically just here to

4 answer your inquiries.


6 Thank you.

7 Is there anyone else in the audience

8 that wishes to make comment in front of the Board in

9 regards to this matter?

10 Seeing none, there were the same nine

11 notices sent last month. They were not remailed,

12 because there was no changes in the case. There were

13 no approvals, no objections.

14 Building Department?

15 MR. SAVEN: No comment.

16 MR. AMOLSH: No comment.


18 You did a great job.

19 Member Brennan?

20 MEMBER BRENNAN: First of all, than,

21 you for summarizing what's there, what's proposed,

22 what's moving, what's coming.

23 One may look at this case and say it's

24 a request for two variances. The reality is is this









1 particular piece of property has had many variances

2 granted over the years, so we're looking at a whole

3 tub of signs.

4 My first reaction when I went out to

5 the site a couple days ago, was dang, there's signs

6 all over the place. There's proposals for new signs.

7 There's proposals for removal of signs.

8 What I'd like to suggest, Madam Chair,

9 is -- when we had a case like this, that's so large,

10 so involved, it made sense in the past that we take

11 the easy ones out of the equation and get down to the

12 to the tough ones. And I spent probably three or

13 four hours on this case, and if you would -- if you

14 would be in agreement, I'd like to proceed with

15 taking the no-brainers out and then dealing with the

16 difficult ones.

17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Brennan, I'm

18 confused here. There's only two signs in front of us

19 tonight.

20 MEMBER BRENNAN: No, ma'am, no, ma'am.

21 There are -- there's actually four new

22 signs. They are refacing signs. There are signs

23 that stay. There are real estate signs. There's

24 modifications of signs. There is a very, very









1 extensive signing package, which is exactly why it

2 was -- last month that I asked the Petitioner to

3 package it like they have.


5 MEMBER BRENNAN: There are --

6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Can you hang on a

7 second. I need clarification from the Building

8 Department. Before me and the case that I studied,

9 it was the two signs that we were reviewing this

10 evening.

11 In the packet that they gave us, they

12 mentioned that they were removing a bunch of signs,

13 for our information. That's how I took it.

14 So Denise, could you clarify?

15 DENISE ANDERSON: I'd like to hand

16 this to Alan.

17 MR. AMOLSH: The only signs that are

18 -- there are two wall signs that are going to be

19 redone. However, since they are Board of Appeals

20 approved signs under our Ordinance, they can be

21 changed within the square footage parameters

22 permitted by the Board.

23 Therefore, they don't need a

24 variance to change that sign. The only two signs









1 that I understand that they're attempting a variance

2 for, were the two ground signs, the two new ones, the

3 changeable copy and the one up by the building.


5 understood.

6 MR. AMOLSH: And the other refacing of

7 the other existing directional type signs, also since

8 they've already been approved by the Board, do not

9 need a further variance.

10 Did that clarify that a little bit?

11 It's still just the two signs. They other signs

12 their removing --

13 MEMBER BRENNAN: No, ma'am, it does

14 not.

15 If we look at the Minutes from last

16 month, my position was we've got a huge bag full of

17 signs; and I had asked the Petitioner to summarize

18 everything that' son that lot, which is what has been

19 done on this summary. I wanted to review an entire

20 parcel sign review. I didn't want to do this

21 piecemeal, couple here; come back six months; couple

22 here, couple -- which has been the history of this.

23 I wanted her to summarize it, what's

24 there today, what they have proposed to remove and









1 what they have proposed as new, proposed as refacing,

2 and that's what I'm prepared to review. I think I

3 can do it fairly efficiently, if you want me to walk

4 through it.

5 And if somebody else has another way

6 of doing it, I'm open to it.

7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer?

8 MEMBER FISCHER: I guess I just want

9 to make it a little more clear as to why I requested

10 this. And maybe this might give Member Brennan an

11 idea of what maybe some other Board Members agree,

12 disagree -- anyone, please throw-in your comments.

13 I wanted this package put together by

14 the Petitioner so I could oversee a 20,000 foot view

15 of what is already on the property. But I need to

16 understand that, we have only have these two signs

17 that are in need of variances. And in order to make

18 our decision on these two signs, that's why I wanted

19 to see what else they had on the property; that's why

20 I wanted this package that they put together.

21 Now, I can see what's removing, what's

22 being moved, what's staying, what's changing. But as

23 far as what we have in front of us, it's just these

24 two signs.









1 Does that make sense to any other

2 Board Members or --

3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: That's the way I

4 took it.

5 Member Sanghvi?

6 MEMBER SANGHVI: I totally agree with

7 Member Fischer's interpretation. I never for a moment

8 thought that we are going to review all the signs on

9 the entire complex.


11 MEMBER SANGHVI: I thought the

12 Petitioner has requested variances for two signs.

13 It's the new sign we are putting in for an after-

14 hours urgent care, primarily; and that is what we are

15 going to discuss. I don't know whether there's any

16 legal indication in revisiting old approvals, which

17 have already been given in the past. This is a

18 business that has been running for all these years in

19 this City.

20 And so the very question is, as far as

21 I'm concerned, we are only discussing two signs.

22 Thank you.

23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Brennan?










1 clarification, if you will, from the Minutes of the

2 last time we looked at this parcel we very clearly

3 indicated that we wanted continued jurisdiction; that

4 we wanted to clearly have enabling power to look at

5 this whole complex in total. And that's why this

6 document was generated.

7 I thought I asked for it. If others

8 did, that's fine. This is a parcel with a bunch of

9 signs. In total, we're talking over 15, some are

10 coming out; some are going in; some are being

11 refaced; some are moving; some are within over ten-

12 years old that are rusted and decrepit. I think we

13 should be looking at this as a total sign package,

14 and I'll shut-up.

15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Sanghvi?

16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Madam Chair, may I

17 suggest that before going into the details about this

18 particular variances, we should take a vote of all

19 the Members and know our interpretation of this

20 request; to know whether this is for two signs or for

21 the entire package.

22 It is the right thing to do.

23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I think I'm going

24 to refer over to Mr. Gilliam and to Mr. Amolsh. I'm









1 a little on the confused side here. I understand why

2 the package was presented to us, and it did help me a

3 great deal. There are a number of signs being

4 removed, but do we have jurisdiction on the other

5 signs? Or, do we not have those two variances in

6 front of us -- requests for variances, I'm sorry.

7 MR. GILLIAM: What you have in front

8 of you tonight and what was noticed for the public,

9 was a request for two variances. Those are the two

10 that are on the agenda. Above and beyond that, I

11 think -- as with any other variance request -- the

12 Zoning Board has authority to put reasonable

13 conditions, if the Zoning Board sees fit to grant a

14 variance.

15 And I think if the Zoning Board would

16 see fit, as a condition of action on either or both

17 of these two variances, address other signage issues

18 on the property, I think you could do that, but I

19 think the Zoning Board also has to make some very

20 specific findings as to how the existing signage

21 plays into the requests for variances that you have

22 in front of you tonight.


24 So does that help clarify where you









1 were going, Member Brennan?

2 MEMBER BRENNAN: No, I already said I

3 would shut up.


5 MR. SAVEN: Madam Chair, it's normally

6 customary that when the Board makes a decision --

7 when the Board makes a decision in regards to sign

8 variances, they will put that stipulation, as

9 indicated by our attorney here, referencing as to

10 this Petitioner only. And I think you can recall on

11 those particular issues that if there were going to

12 be any changes to the sign, we would lock it into

13 that particular case for that particular case, alone.

14 And I think those are some of the

15 things that we have done in the past, and I don't

16 know whether in this particular case, this is the

17 issue. But if we were looking at approvals that have

18 been granted, as long as they're not increasing the

19 square footage of the sign that was previously

20 approved; or if there were issues that were regarding

21 something that was a condition of the Board, then it

22 wouldn't have to -- it wouldn't have to come back to

23 the Board for that particular approval.










1 Okay. Anybody else?

2 Member Canup?

3 MEMBER CANUP: I would suggest that we

4 carry on with the two signs that the Petitioner asked

5 for. I'm -- although I do agree with Mr. Brennan

6 that they should -- this whole thing has some -- what

7 did you say, 15 signs, Frank?


9 MEMBER CANUP: I -- they didn't ask

10 about any of the other signs. They only asked about

11 two, and I think with that being said,

12 (unintelligible.)


14 So do you want to take them separate,

15 sign one, small entrance sign located at 41935; and

16 then sign two is the building ID in the LED display

17 sign.

18 Board Member comments?

19 MEMBER BAUER: Take them one at a

20 time.


22 So sign one.

23 Member Sanghvi?

24 MEMBER SANGHVI: As I indicated last









1 time, these signs are greatly a need for this

2 establishment literally to stay in business. I

3 personally have no objection whatsoever in being a

4 party to vote for this sign.

5 Thank you.


7 Member Bauer?

8 MEMBER BAUER: Well, this one sign,

9 it's giving a new person coming to the facility the

10 opportunity to find out where the heck they're going,

11 and I think it does enable them to find easily as to

12 where they're supposed to go; to get their therapy;

13 to get whatever; see the doctor.

14 I can't see any problem in it at all.


16 Member Fischer?

17 MEMBER FISCHER: I agree, as well.

18 This is the sign that's tucked in

19 close to the building as it is, correct, right next

20 to the building?


22 Can I make a few comments in regards

23 to this whole situation here?

24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Why don't we let









1 the Board finish.



4 Well, one thing I did want to point

5 out is there are, in fact, two separate parcels here.

6 All 15 of these signs are not on one parcel.


8 Thank you very much.


10 (unintelligible) is specific to one parcel.

11 MEMBER FISCHER: And that's basically

12 what I want to point out.

13 The sign close tucked up to the

14 building, I actually ended up going there this past

15 month because I was sick. And it obviously points

16 out exactly what building I had to go to, so I see no

17 problem with the sign, whatsoever.

18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Canup?

19 MEMBER CANUP: I don't have a problem

20 with the sign. I guess, you know, the sign is

21 directional, after-hours, urgent care. I guess my

22 concern is what is the value of the LED portion of

23 the sign on the bottom. You've got a 57 inch tall

24 sign, and 32 inches of that is consumed by the LED









1 read-out on the bottom.

2 MEMBER FISCHER: We're only looking at

3 sign one right now. That's sign two.


5 Stress that when it comes up.


7 MEMBER CANUP: Okay. On sign one,

8 what is the need for it being as tall as it is? You

9 have a big blank space on the bottom.

10 MS. DAVENPORT: I believe that's just

11 intended to be room for a future expansion.

12 MEMBER CANUP: Future sign, right?

13 MS. DAVENPORT: Well, the urgent care

14 is likely to stay there for quite some time. If

15 there is a possibility of pointing out other

16 practices on that sign that's acceptable to the City,

17 we're leaving room for that expansion.

18 But also, the overall height of the

19 sign is roughly four feet, which is not excessively

20 tall when driving through a parking lot trying to

21 locate a sign. If it were, you know, two feet off

22 the ground, one good snowfall and you're not going to

23 see it.










1 MS. DAVENPORT: Particularly after the

2 lots are plowed. So four feet for any sign is not

3 really considerably tall in the industry.

4 MEMBER CANUP: I guess my

5 recommendation would be if the Board saw fit to

6 approve this sign, that we would see -- the Motion to

7 approve that sign state that the verbiage that is on

8 the sign is the only verbiage that will ever be

9 allowed on that sign.


11 I will put my comments on the record.

12 I will notice that in light of the

13 packet that we've received, it did note that several

14 of the signs were being removed.

15 MS. DAVENPORT: Uh-huh.

16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And in going into

17 the complex -- because of the layout of the complex

18 and the fact that you're coming off a major roadway,

19 so to speak, with that famous 55 mile an hour speed

20 limit that I like to do, you're really on top of it

21 -- you're really on top of it before you know you're

22 there.

23 But I'm glad to see that you're taking

24 upon -- that this organization is taking upon









1 themselves to correct a lot of that signage. I think

2 they're deleting a lot of it; that street sign or

3 address sign, it needs to go, it really does need to

4 clean up that site.

5 I agree with Member Brennan that some

6 of those things are not in such good shape, so I

7 think that this organization is attempting to do so,

8 and I think they're in the process.

9 And in going along with that, that's

10 why I support this sign. I do agree that -- with

11 Member Canup's comment in regards that nothing else

12 should be on the bottom of that sign, ever. If your

13 premise is that it snows, and you want something --

14 you don't want that to be blocked and that's the

15 reason why it has to be that high, then hey, great;

16 then nothing should go on the bottom.

17 But that's not the premise, then it

18 doesn't have to be that high, you can drop it two

19 feet tonight, and that would solve that extra four

20 feet. So I think that that -- and I'm not asking for

21 a (unintelligible.) I'm just letting you know that

22 that's where I think the Board's going.

23 Member Sanghvi?

24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Madam Chair, I would









1 like to make a Motion.


3 MEMBER SANGHVI: I make a Motion that

4 in case number 04-125, sign one, that the

5 Petitioner's request be granted for the purpose of

6 identification of the business, with the provision

7 that no further verbiage be added this sign without

8 the approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals.


10 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Friendly question?

12 Do we need to address it to this

13 business at this time; is that important?

14 MR. SAVEN: Board's decision.

15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is that something

16 that you want to entertain, for this business only?

17 Or, do you want --

18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Just for this

19 particular sign we are talking about.


21 But for this business only. So if

22 they change names, they have to --

23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Oh, yes, oh, yes.

24 This is only particular to DMC here.










2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yeah, the applicants

3 themselves, nobody else.

4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And that's my

5 friendly amendment, okay.



8 It's been moved and approved.

9 Is there any further discussion?

10 Hello.

11 MR. GILLIAM: Good evening, again.

12 Just a point and a withdraw from the

13 Board's consideration, following up on the comments

14 that were made by the Chair about the number of signs

15 that are going to be removed or reduced in terms of

16 the amount of the signage. I think it might be

17 appropriate for the Board to consider making a

18 removal or reduction of the signs, per the

19 applicant's package, a condition of the variance, if

20 it's granted in this case.

21 There's all the signs that the

22 applicant has indicated are going to be removed, have

23 to be removed; the ones where the amount of signage

24 is going to be reduced, they have to be reduced, in









1 order for this variance to be granted.

2 That's just a suggestion.

3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Can we make the

4 comments a matter of record? With everybody shaking

5 their head yes?


7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Or do you want

8 restate it?

9 Go ahead.

10 MEMBER BAUER: Go ahead.

11 MR. GILLIAM: I think if the maker of

12 the Motion is set and comfortable with that as an

13 additional condition, I think that's fine.

14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Oh, I am quite

15 comfortable with the condition. I think it was

16 already assumed that that would be part of this

17 particular sign variance granting.

18 MR. AMOLSH: That would be the rule of

19 your -- if you're (unintelligible.)

20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Right. That's not

21 part of this particular request.

22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Well, that's what

23 we're saying --

24 MEMBER SANGHVI: I'm only confining my









1 comments to this particular sign one, that's it.

2 MEMBER BAUER: May I make a

3 suggestion?

4 I'm going to put you on the spot now.

5 You will live up to these, that you've

6 pointed out to us?


8 That's --

9 MEMBER BAUER: That's on the record.

10 MS. DAVENPORT: This is the nature of

11 the contract, our contract, with DMC, and it

12 requested these changes. We have purchase orders to

13 this effect. It is in process, pending approval of

14 these two signs, so --

15 MEMBER BAUER: Well, that takes care

16 of it.

17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Canup?

18 MEMBER CANUP: Call for a question.


20 question?


22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Oh, for a vote, I'm

23 sorry.

24 Okay.









1 Denise, would you please call the

2 roll.

3 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


5 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


7 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


9 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


11 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


13 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


15 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes five

16 to one.

17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Your variances have

18 been granted -- your first variance has been. We

19 need to go to the second one.

20 Okay. Sign two, the building

21 identification with the LED display, location nine on

22 the plot plan.

23 Board Members?

24 Member Canup, I believe you had--









1 MEMBER CANUP: Now, I can have the

2 concern about the LED on the bottom.

3 What does that going to change to? Is

4 it going to tell you the weather or time it is or is

5 it going to advertise a special on broken legs today,

6 or what?

7 MS. DAVENPORT: Well, it's -- it was

8 my understanding that the function of the LED is

9 primarily to provide information about that office

10 building, particularly the urgent care center.

11 The era in which one physician is in

12 one office continually is gone from the health care

13 industry, and it's largely giving you information

14 about improving the attending physicians in that

15 facility; if there are any changes to the hours,

16 given that it is kind of a limited hour urgent care

17 type facility; things of that nature.

18 And rather than having to produce

19 something permanent in a acrylic or (unintelligible)

20 panel that would have to be changed out and, you

21 know, continually go through the process of, you

22 know, permitting face changes, they would like to

23 have something that would be electronically

24 changeable.









1 MEMBER CANUP: I guess my question was

2 how did this center survive so far without that type

3 of sign? Not one of these other signs have that

4 now. I believe I'm looking at one here, the urgent

5 care, optical pharmacy, etc., is down right on the

6 ground. That's going to get covered up with it

7 snows.

8 MS. DAVENPORT: I'm sure it does.

9 But also if you note that the face

10 changes that we proposed -- I don't know if you have

11 the complete -- if you have the complete package or

12 not, the face changes that we've proposed to some of

13 the existing signs that already have reference to an

14 after-hours urgent care clinic, that clinic has been

15 moved up to the top of the sign to give it

16 prominence; as it is a very important aspect in that

17 facility; and it serves a vital function for the

18 public.

19 And obviously, we want that to be

20 first and foremost what people see if they are, in

21 fact, looking for it in that facility.

22 MEMBER CANUP: So in all of these, I

23 never see a doctor's name anywhere, all of these

24 other signs in here. Are you saying that they're









1 going to change the name of who doctor -- what doctor

2 is anywhere today? I don't see one of these signs

3 that has that on it.

4 And I don't have a problem with the

5 sign. I have a problem with that portion of the

6 sign, and I don't see a need for it.


8 MEMBER BAUER: If I'm coming for

9 urgent care, I really don't care what the doctor is.

10 I'm going to go there. So I see no use for this

11 whatsoever; that is, for the letters running.

12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer?

13 MEMBER FISCHER: I agree. Like I

14 said, to share my experience, I'd actually never been

15 to any DMC, except to see my nephew when he was born.

16 But I didn't care who was treating me when I had a

17 when I had a 103 temperature the other day, and

18 headache, backache -- and I won't bore you any more

19 with the details.

20 And my other concern is the placement

21 of that sign, and that is because it's right in the

22 island. I mentioned this last month. It's right in

23 the island, in the middle of the parking lot, and I

24 fear that the height of this sign can -- could cause









1 some severe traffic problems within the parking lot.

2 And if we were to either get rid of

3 the top portion or the bottom portion, get it way cut

4 in half, I'd be more in supportive. And I see that

5 the LED portion of that could be deleted; ease my

6 concern of traffic, and kind of come to a compromise

7 with the Petitioner, as well as the Mr. Canup.

8 MEMBER CANUP: I got a suggestion.

9 Why don't you make a Motion to that effect.

10 MEMBER FISCHER: Are you sure?

11 Okay.

12 MEMBER BAUER: We'll support you.

13 MEMBER FISCHER: I would move -- let

14 me see. Well, let's discuss the height a little bit,

15 exactly what we want to shoot for.

16 I mean, would it be three inches(sic)

17 for the bottom portion -- I mean, 25 inches for the

18 top portion, actual After-Hour Urgent Care Center

19 part? See what I'm saying?

20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Well, I think the

21 top part is fine, but this --

22 MEMBER BAUER: The top portion --


24 I move that in case number, 04-125,









1 sign number two, that we approve with the condition

2 that the sign will not have the LED portion, in order

3 to bring it into conformance and ease traffic

4 concerns; but also provide for site identification.


6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

7 seconded --

8 MEMBER FISCHER: Also, once again,

9 conditions upon what was presented that the removals

10 and the additions take place, per submitted.

11 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

13 second.

14 Is there any further discussion?

15 Mr. Saven?

16 MR. SAVEN: Just one point of

17 clarification in regards to removal of the LED sign

18 at the base.

19 Are we maintaining the same height

20 elevation or are we going to -- I had a concern about

21 that from the enforcement standpoint, so Alan can

22 permit it accordingly or --

23 MEMBER FISCHER: What exactly --

24 MR. SAVEN: The height requirement, as









1 you had looked it, in terms of removal of the LED --

2 MEMBER FISCHER: I would request that

3 the height would be the total height minus the

4 portion of the LED.

5 Does that answer the question?

6 MR. SAVEN: Alan?

7 MEMBER FISCHER: Just removing the

8 bottom part. We have 57 total inches, take away the

9 32 and nine-sixteenth inches, which would leave us at

10 approximately 25 or 26 inches.

11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You don't want to

12 leave something to keep it up off the ground?


14 What does the Board --

15 MEMBER BAUER: No more than 35 inches.

16 MEMBER FISCHER: Any suggestions from

17 the Building Department on normal height?

18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Like Member Bauer's

19 comment, no higher than 35 inches, total sign height.

20 MR. AMOLSH: The Ordinance allows a

21 five foot high sign.

22 MEMBER FISCHER: I would still go with

23 36 inches be for the additional sign that they're

24 requesting.









1 MEMBER BAUER: Approved.


3 It's been moved and seconded.

4 Any further discussion?

5 Denise, would you please call the

6 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 five

20 to one.


22 Your variance -- now your variance has

23 been granted.

24 MS. DAVENPORT: In a matter of









1 speaking.

2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Good luck to you.

3 MS. DAVENPORT: Thanks.


5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. We'll now

6 call case number 04-127, filed Husam Khoury for the

7 residence at 1935 West Lake Drive.

8 Mr. Khoury's requesting five variances

9 for the extension -- extensive remodeling of his

10 residence located at the above address.

11 Good evening. And you are?

12 MR. KHOURY: I am the property owner,

13 Husam Khoury.

14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. Would you

15 please raise your right hand and be sworn in by our

16 secretary.

17 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

18 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-127?

19 MR. KHOURY: Yes, I do.

20 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.

21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You may proceed.

22 MR. KHOURY: Before I proceed, I have

23 some handouts, which will had some additional

24 clarification to the request. I can hand them out









1 now --

2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Well, why don't you

3 just go ahead so we can speed this up a little bit.

4 MR. KHOURY: Okay.

5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And you can go

6 ahead and -- okay.

7 MR. KHOURY: Okay. As I said, I'm the

8 property owner of 1935 West Lake Road. I'm

9 requesting five variances. The summary of the

10 variances are basically, east yard, six and a half

11 feet for a side yard setback; the west side yard

12 setback of five and a half feet, total, side yard

13 setback of 12 feet; and a front yard setback of five

14 feet.

15 The lot coverage I'm requesting is

16 basically a ten percent increase, going from 25

17 percent to 35 percent.

18 The rational for the variances are the

19 following. The current house condition, which I've

20 owned and lived in for six years, is -- it has a

21 failing structure. It really does need to be

22 updated.

23 The house was built in the 1940's, as

24 a cottage, and the foundation is not supporting the









1 house. Secondly, the current house doesn't meet the

2 Zoning Code as it stands right now. The house is

3 eight and a half feet for the side yard on the

4 eastside lot.

5 And due to practical difficulties of

6 the lot, the lot's 45 feet wide. The proposed width

7 is the minimum size that will allow me to build a

8 reasonable house, with the amenities that you'd

9 expect in today's homes, for a new construction,

10 again on a narrow-width lot.

11 With the help of my architect who's

12 here today, if you have any questions for the

13 architect -- Dino Piscasi(ph).

14 The proposed width of the house has

15 been modified from my original intent, to try to

16 minimize the variances that have been requested; and

17 to minimize the impact of my neighbors. The setbacks

18 that are being requested, if you look at the plans

19 that I've provided you -- are really intended to

20 center the house between the two neighbors;

21 maximizing or addressing any safety concerns of

22 getting fire hoses between the houses; so that the

23 house is not encroaching on one side significantly

24 more than the other side.









1 I have had discussions with my

2 neighbors, the immediate neighbors. My one neighbor,

3 Lideo(ph), is here, who he can also speak, if he

4 chooses to speak. He is on the westside of the -- of

5 my property, and I want him to address the potential

6 concerns that he raised, and we can talk through

7 that.

8 As I said, even though the side yard

9 setback variances are acceptable to the immediate

10 neighbors, I do understand that there's a concern on

11 height from the neighbors behind me. There's some

12 new development right behind the house. If you look

13 at the satellite photo that's included in your

14 packet, at the time the photo was taken, that

15 development wasn't complete, and there are some new

16 homes that would have a view of the lake; they're

17 concerned about the height.

18 And I understand that concern. I just

19 want to make sure that the Board understands that I'm

20 not asking for a height variation. The goal here is

21 to stay within the zoning for the height of the

22 house.

23 And as I've said, the -- on the

24 westside, I've handed out a plan that shows the house









1 footprint, relative to the houses adjoining. And

2 what you'll see on this document here, in the center,

3 you have a lot, a square, a rectangle, that is hash

4 marks. That's the footprint of the current home,

5 okay. And then what you see in the outline is the

6 new home that's being proposed.

7 The way the house is oriented right

8 now, because of the protrusion of the sunroof on the

9 far-right, the top right corner there of the proposed

10 home, there is a concern about a sight line. And to

11 be flexible with my neighbors, I'd be willing to

12 basically mirror the house along it's longest axis,

13 to eliminate that concern, and potentially move it

14 back towards the road another five feet; which would

15 change the front yard setback from five feet to ten

16 feet.

17 And we could address that modification

18 to the variance request. I'd like to see if we can

19 do that this evening.

20 But that's that extent of the proposal

21 here. If we would entertain that modification, the

22 thing I would like to emphasize is that there's still

23 plenty of room for a car to park in front of the

24 garage; and there's still plenty of room for children









1 to be able to ride their bikes without being

2 encumbered by the car.

3 Okay.

4 I think that's the extent of my

5 proposal.


7 Thank you.

8 Is there anyone in the audience that

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

10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. Comes on

11 down, please.

12 MR. McCLOUD: Good evening, Happy New

13 Year.

14 My name is Wayne McCloud. I live at

15 44927. My wife and I just recently moved to Novi

16 from Lathrup Village.

17 Just moved in our house at the end of

18 November; and the 20th of December I got this letter

19 here, stating that Mr. Khoury wants to have a

20 variance on his house.

21 What I'm asking the Board to consider,

22 is that -- my house sits directly behind Mr. Khoury's

23 house; also, I have a neighbor on the left of my

24 house and a neighbor on the right.









1 Since this was just issued on December

2 20th, I would like to have additional time to take a

3 look at his proposed plans before the Board renders a

4 decision on the variances. I know one neighbor of

5 mine has not had a chance to review the plans. The

6 other neighbor called in today and checked in with

7 the Zoning Board.

8 Myself, I came down and took a look at

9 the plans. I don't have any problem with Mr. Khoury

10 building and improving his home whatsoever. The

11 other -- the only thing I want to know is what the

12 impact is on the house, and how that's going to

13 visually impact our sight, as opposed to looking out

14 to the lake.

15 So with that, I'd like the Board to

16 consider tabling it until next meeting and allow my

17 neighbors to take a look at the plans that Mr. Khoury

18 has.


20 Thank you very much.

21 Is there anyone else in the audience

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

23 MR. PISCASI: Good evening.

24 My name Dino Piscasi. I'm an









1 architect and in charge of the project for Sam

2 Khoury. I'm the owner of Millennium Design Group in

3 Ann Arbor, Michigan.

4 I've been in front of this Board

5 before, similar issues relating to Wall Lake, other

6 projects, and I'm very well aware of the concerns

7 that neighbors have relating to sight plot plans,

8 height restrictions and so forth.

9 We do our best to accommodate

10 everybody, but we also want to take care of our

11 customer and make sure that the home is the proper

12 home for the coming future of the Wall Lake

13 community.


15 Excuse me, sir. I didn't realize that

16 you were going to speak on behalf of the Petitioner.

17 And this time I'd like to stop you, ask you to raise

18 your right, and be sworn in by our secretary.

19 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

20 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case 04-127?

21 MR. PISCASI: Yes, I do.

22 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.

23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is there something

24 in regards to this case that you can offer, other









1 than what our Petitioner did at this time?

2 MR. PISCASI: A few things.

3 He did an eloquent job with explaining

4 his case, and I want to make a few comments.

5 One thing that comes to mind

6 initially, based on the comment of a neighbor,

7 relates to the impact of views to the Wall Lake. Of

8 course, everybody wants to have the view, and to be

9 able to address the concerns of their investment they

10 made, even if it was across the street.

11 Mr. Khoury would like to ask the Board

12 to consider the variance based on a few issues that

13 we are addressing in the design process. Many of

14 those issues are not complete yet, they're pending

15 some indication from the Board as to what direction

16 you're' going to.

17 And one of the things that we've found

18 in circumstances with other Petitioners, were that

19 the creation of a front facade that was terracing;

20 that is, stepping back away from the road, was very

21 helpful to provide a viewing source to the lake from

22 neighbors across the street.

23 We've done that successfully in other

24 situations, and intend to derive our design, based on









1 that terracing approach. Terracing approach is a

2 contradiction to just simply creating a front facade

3 that has a massive two-story structure. Terracing

4 approach helps soften up the lines off of the street;

5 as well as soften up the lines from the lakeside.

6 The issue relative to Mr. Khoury's

7 request for the variance, and perhaps the impact of

8 flipping the house, gives him substantially the same

9 terracing effect, whether it's on the left side or

10 the right side. So that shouldn't be an impact for

11 the neighbor. The terracing effect will allow

12 neighbors to view the lake and peripheral, as they

13 would with the garage on the right; which is

14 currently the way it's shown.

15 One of the indications that Mr. Khoury

16 had, to me, initially when were contracted, was to

17 review the original concepts that he created in

18 months past. And we studied those ideas and made

19 recommendations to him, as to how we felt the Board

20 may react with their -- his indication of putting a

21 new home there.

22 One of the things that I felt was

23 important, as it has been in the past, is the ability

24 to create a safety structure between the homes, which









1 he discussed about already. The idea of creating

2 equal sides, helps maximize the safety issue,

3 relative to those fire hoses coming through.

4 One of the things we will address in

5 the design process currently -- we only have the

6 front elevation side -- and there may be some

7 adjustments, the minor tweaking that we will do, once

8 the rear of the house and side of the house is are

9 designed. That will help alleviate the issue from

10 neighbors across the street, hopefully.

11 The terracing effect will ultimately

12 be created to the benefit of the neighbors and to the

13 maximize Mr. Khoury's investment, as well.

14 That's about all we have today for

15 issues relating the architecture. As far as tabling

16 the design -- I'm sorry, tabling the issue at hand

17 here, that's a Board decision based on what you feel

18 is important. Btu we feel that we need to have a

19 some direction from the Board before we can continue

20 with the project, to start laying out the facade

21 issues to the rear and the sides, as well.


23 Thank you.

24 Is there anyone else in the audience









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

2 Seeing none, there were 42 notices

3 sent; three approvals, two objections.

4 The first objection is from Jay Ross

5 at 1911 West Lake. Seems like an awful lot of house

6 for the size of the lot.

7 The second objection is from Rick and

8 Renee Vondrak, and I apologize. I don't believe I

9 have their address available.

10 MR. McCLOUD: I think it's 44937.

11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Oh, here it is.

12 44943 Cobblestone. And that last name

13 is V-o-n-d-r-a-k.

14 Next is an approval. I'm in full

15 support and approve of the Zoning request by John

16 Themopolis, at 1951 West Lake Drive. And we have

17 another approval from Mr. James -- and I believe it's

18 Fairington, at 1931 West Lake Drive.

19 And then we have another approval from

20 Roberta Wendt, W-e-n-d-t, at 1939 West Lake Drive.

21 Building Department?

22 MR. SAVEN: Just want to bring up a

23 couple of issues that came before us today.

24 And Mr. Khoury indicated that he would









1 like to flip the house as a potential for this

2 particular variance; and also I see a greater

3 variance as far as the setback is required, okay.

4 Okay. In regards to Mr. Khoury's

5 request, he had indicated that he was considering the

6 fact of the flipping the house to make it look more

7 advantageous for the setback requirements. One of

8 the things I do want to point out to the Board is

9 that by flipping the house, there would be some

10 increase to the zoning setback requirement that

11 should be requested; and that would be -- I believe

12 you mentioned ten feet instead of the five?

13 MR. KHOURY: Exactly for the --

14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Sir, would you like

15 to come back up to the podium.

16 MR. KHOURY: Sure. I'd be more than

17 happy to do that.

18 That is correct.

19 MR. SAVEN: Okay. And you know, in

20 regards to that particular issue, if you take a look

21 at the plot plan and you look at the angulation of

22 the road, by virtue of that flip, you'll notice that

23 the setback requirement on the far-end is at 31 feet.

24 But we have right now posted for is the setback is at









1 25 feet, at that most closest corner to the road.

2 By flipping that over to the opposite

3 end, you'll notice that we will be getting closer to

4 the road at that time; that's what he's talking

5 about. We're also talking about moving the house

6 forward.

7 MR. KHOURY: I can explain, if you'd

8 like.

9 MR. SAVEN: I think you need to do

10 that for the Board.

11 MR. KHOURY: Sure.

12 If you look at the dimension on the

13 hand-out that I provided you, okay, what you have is

14 a 31 foot dimension, which is really the corner of

15 the house to the lot line at its straight point. If

16 you take a dimension from the front of the house at

17 that point to the worse case line, and that would be

18 the perpendicular line to the property line there,

19 it's actually 25 feet.

20 So even flipping the house doesn't

21 change that. It won't bring the house any closer to

22 the lot line. It'll continue to be 25 feet.

23 What I recommend is to improve the

24 potential concern of -- even with flipping the house,









1 of having a site line issue, I'd be willing to move

2 the house back an additional five feet. That's not

3 -- that's not -- I don't think that's an issue

4 anymore. If we flip the house, I think we address

5 all those site line issues.

6 But I just raised that up, showing my

7 flexibility to try to address any neighbor concerns.

8 MR. SAVEN: I appreciate your concern

9 regarding this matter, but I want to also point out

10 that by moving the house forward an additional five

11 feet, you could not act on this variance tonight.

12 This would have to be reposted.

13 MR. KHOURY: Then I would stick with

14 my original request and just flip the house; and that

15 would maintain the five yard front yard setback.

16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Canup?

17 MEMBER CANUP: It sounds to me like

18 it's premature that these people are here; that they

19 really aren't definite in what they want. I think --

20 I don't see how we can act on something and grant a

21 variance (unintelligible) we might flip the house, we

22 may move it, we may -- you can't do that.

23 Whatever we grant your variance on, if

24 we conclude to grant a variance, that's the way it









1 has to be. And if you want anything other than

2 what's been advertised -- you want to flip the house,

3 different ball game. That's not what's been

4 advertised.

5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And essence you are

6 tabling your own case, by making any kind of changes

7 in front of this Board this evening, other than

8 what's been advertised, we can't hear this case at

9 this point.

10 MR. KHOURY: Can I ask the Board one

11 question? I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt

12 you.

13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: My suggestion to

14 you at this point, in spite of your comments by your

15 architect and yourself, I think you need to go back

16 to the drawing board before we even hear this. You

17 have some members out there that are residents out

18 there that have some concerns that they have some

19 concerns that they evidently have questions that they

20 want time to look at.

21 We've had one member -- one resident

22 make that comment, and given the set of circumstances

23 that you've presented to this Board already, and

24 you're talking about making some changes that are not









1 clear in your own mind what it is you're going to do

2 yet; that would be my suggestion right off the bat,

3 just to table it, meet with everyone in the

4 neighborhood; get with your architect, come back to

5 us next month and we'll put you right up front; and

6 tell us exactly what it is that you want to do.

7 I don't think any of this can be

8 resolved this evening, especially, if you have

9 anything in mind. The only thing we can hear this

10 evening is what's in front of us, what's been

11 advertised to your neighbors. This is what they

12 think we're hearing and this is what we have to vote

13 on.

14 So given what you've already presented

15 to us in the time that you've given it, that would be

16 my suggestion to you.

17 MR. KHOURY: Okay.

18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Brennan?

19 MEMBER BRENNAN: I think we also

20 though have to give the Petitioner some

21 encouragement. Number one, the fact that you're

22 working with the existing foundation or maybe the

23 existing foundation, as I understand it -- until you

24 excavate, you won't know for sure -- but your









1 intention is to basically put it down on in the same

2 general area that centers the new home between the

3 other two homes.

4 MR. KHOURY: That's right.

5 MEMBER BRENNAN: And I think we've

6 always been in agreement; that's the best thing to

7 do. So I don't want him to walk away with nothing

8 but negatives. It's important that you've got your

9 neighbor directly next door and directly next door in

10 favor of improving the site. I've been there. I

11 think anything that you do or end up -- going to do,

12 is going to be an improvement.

13 Whether you flip it, however, you wish

14 -- and personally, I don't care. I think though that

15 given that we kind of had a surprised guest tonight,

16 which is the neighbor with -- behind him, up on the

17 hill, you'd like to have some idea of not only you,

18 but the people next door, of what this is going to

19 look like. And I can appreciate that, because when I

20 was sitting in the driveway, I looked up and it was

21 some brand new houses out there, and I said, you

22 know, I bet those were looking out at the lake, and I

23 had that same question.

24 I think you've done your homework with









1 respect to the neighbors left and right. If you can

2 find the time to talk with the guys behind you, that

3 would help your case. But in general, your approach

4 at building this house on a very narrow lot,

5 positioning it in the middle, is about what we have

6 always historically been supportive of. So I don't

7 want you to walk away with nothing but negatives.

8 You're going down the right path.

9 You've got a couple of other things to get through.

10 MR. KHOURY: Sure.

11 I appreciate the Board's time. I

12 will sit down with the neighbor and go through the

13 plans. I apologize if it came across as somewhat

14 confusing. What I was trying to convey to the Board,

15 my willingness to try to satisfy as many of the

16 neighbors. I think -- I just want to lay this out

17 here -- I think that the concern that the neighbor

18 has about the height of the house, regardless of the

19 width, is going to be a concern for him. But we'll

20 go through. I've got the plans with me. We can go

21 through the details of what I have.

22 As my architect had indicated, a lot

23 of the details aren't there, because we want to get

24 through the Board, before we spent a lot of time









1 working out details. So what I do have, I'd be more

2 than willing to share.

3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I think at this

4 time -- because we can't vote on it, in the thought

5 that you're going to change this, you really need to

6 go back and give us some more definite, because we

7 have to re-advertise it.

8 MR. KHOURY: Sure.

9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I think you'll be

10 better prepared if you meet with all of the neighbors

11 and then come back and have everybody see what

12 exactly you're definitely going to do.

13 MR. KHOURY: Okay.

14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I think it's just

15 going to make better neighbors.

16 MR. KHOURY: I understand.

17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer?

18 MEMBER FISCHER: Motion to table case

19 04-127 to next month, February, 2005.

20 MEMBER BAUER: Support.

21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: All those in favor?



24 Gail, can you put this case as the









1 first case for next month, please.

2 You'll be ready for February, then?

3 MR. KHOURY: Sure.

4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: We'll go ahead and

5 table this case until next month.

6 And we'll see you then.

7 MR. KHOURY: Okay.

8 Thank you.



11 Let's go to case number 04-129, filed

12 by John Dionne of Beacon Sign Company for TCF Bank,

13 located at 47500 Grand River Avenue.

14 Mr. Dionne and friend, are you both

15 going to speak this evening?

16 MR. CLARK: Yes, ma'am.


18 And would you please come up to the

19 podium and be sworn in by our secretary.

20 Would you raise your right hand?

21 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

22 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-129?

23 MR. CLARK: Yes, I do.

24 MR. WALFERSON(ph): I do.









1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: State your names for

2 the record, please.

3 MR. CLARK: My name is Pat Clark. I'm

4 with Beacon Sign Company. John Dionne is not here

5 tonight.

6 And with me tonight is --

7 MR. WALFERSON: Jim Walferson of TCF

8 Bank.


10 All right, gentlemen, you may proceed.

11 MR. CLARK: I believe you have in

12 front of you a packet that shows what we're asking

13 for. I'm here to answer questions that are specific

14 to sign, itself. Mr. Walferson is here to answer any

15 questions you have about the needs of the bank.


17 You don't have anything else to add to

18 your packet then.

19 MR. CLARK: No. Essentially, we're

20 just -- the situation is such that the bank branch is

21 in a shopping center that has traffic approaching it

22 from many different directions. It's not a situation

23 where a retail business is located on a street with

24 one frontage and that's it.









1 And what they're finding as a big

2 problem is that people that are -- or traffic that's

3 coming into to the center from other than Beck Road,

4 which, right now, of course, has some issues with the

5 overpass. But regardless to that, people that enter

6 from the western side don't know who they are. They

7 can't see a sign on a building that's like -- there's

8 a major amount of traffic that might be at Kroger's

9 and not be able to understand that that's a bank over

10 there.

11 So the restrictions against having

12 only one wall sign is probably fair for a lot of the

13 situations where there's one road across the front,

14 but they're surrounded by traffic approaching from

15 different directions. It doesn't necessarily have to

16 be in front.



19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes, please do.

20 MR. WALFERSON: Just to add to that,

21 TCF's been very aggressive in Southeast Michigan; and

22 Novi is one of the places that we've been asked to

23 build a branch. We build about 18 branches a year in

24 Southeast Michigan. And Novi's been -- we've been









1 requested by so many of our customers. So we needed

2 to get into Novi, and this was a location we were

3 excited about and everything else.

4 Obviously, road construction and so

5 forth, has been a little of a hinderance. But aside

6 from that, up to -- I want to say 25 branches we've

7 built over the last three years, this branch is

8 dying. We're getting no new customers. And the

9 customers that are coming in are saying, we didn't

10 even know you were there. We drive down Grand River

11 all the time. We didn't even know you were here.

12 And it's hurt us very much. Without a

13 little more exposure -- and that's really what we're

14 here to look for; just that exposure, just that extra

15 sign, we believe is going to help us to stay here to

16 be, you know, a viable part of the community. We

17 spent millions of dollars to build that branch, and

18 we're just hurting very badly right there without

19 just even one more sign.


21 Thank you.

22 Is there anyone else in the audience

23 -- is there anyone in the audience that wishes to

24 make comment in regards to this case?









1 Seeing none, there were six notices

2 sent; no approvals, no objections.

3 Building Department?

4 MR. SAVEN: That's --

5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Board Members?

6 MEMBER FISCHER: First and foremost,

7 destination location comes to mind, and the

8 Petitioner even mentioned that this was a request

9 that they can -- the customers said to build a

10 branch, and I believe that the customers at that

11 point would then find out where the branch was on

12 their own. It wouldn't take a random sign to draw

13 these customers who requested this to be built-in.

14 Secondly, the hardship basically is

15 built around visibility to the general public and on

16 Grand River. But in my eyes, when I drove passed

17 there, there was no functionality. There was not --

18 there was very little added -- very little added

19 visual contact by that sign to realize that this was

20 TCF Bank. And I'm not in the sign business, but I'm

21 not sure that the south elevation is the place to go,

22 if you were looking for a new sign.

23 So these are my comments having to do

24 with that particular sign that's in front of us









1 today.


3 Member Canup?

4 MEMBER CANUP: I probably pass that

5 thing twice a day, except not on Beck Road. And I

6 knew that was going to be a TCF Bank the day you

7 started building it. And I think I'm as common as

8 anybody in Novi about being cognizant about what's

9 going on around us. I personally think the problem

10 of visibility is the fact that that road is blocked.

11 That's like, you know, building a (unintelligible)

12 across the (unintelligible.) There is no traffic

13 down through there.

14 And I don't think that, long-term, I

15 would like to see this sign go in. When I think what

16 I would suggest to you, is possibly getting with the

17 landlord or the people that own the property on the

18 corner, to come in with -- get some kind of agreement

19 with them and come and see us about a sign, a

20 temporary sign, until that bridge across Beck Road is

21 open.

22 Because there isn't going to be any

23 traffic there. There's probably 50 cars a day

24 without that expressway going south on Beck Road. So









1 that would be my suggestion, because once we put that

2 -- we allow this sign to go up -- it shouldn't be

3 allowed to go up -- it's permanent.

4 MEMBER BAUER: Yep, it would.

5 MEMBER CANUP: And I would be willing

6 to help you enhance your business by putting a sign

7 maybe closer to the intersection of Beck Road and

8 Grand River, with the stipulation that once the --

9 the day the expressway or the bridge over the

10 expressway is open, that sign would come down. So if

11 that was something you would want to entertain -- I

12 don't have a feeling -- at least the comments that

13 I've heard -- that you're going to be successful in

14 what you've asked for.

15 MR. WALFERSON: May I comment?

16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You need to wait

17 for the Board to finish.

18 Okay.

19 Member Brennan?

20 MEMBER BRENNAN: I must have taken a

21 squirrelly pill today, because I'm on a different

22 wave length than anybody else tonight. I mean, I

23 looked at this and I said, well, this makes sense.

24 He faces Grand River on one side and he faces Beck









1 Road on the other side. He's got two major roads

2 that he's asking for signage. And in fact, the one

3 that he's already got is the big one. He's asking

4 for a little one facing Grand River. I said, that's

5 a no brainer.

6 But like I said, I must be on a

7 different wave length tonight, but I haven't agreed

8 with anybody all night long, so.

9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Well, someone send

10 us the real Frank Brennan back.

11 MEMBER BRENNAN: I will -- I support

12 the Petitioner's request for the purpose of business

13 identification from a major throughway, which is,

14 I'll remind you, 50 miles an hour and 45 to 50 on

15 Grand River. And there's no building identification

16 from that side of the road. Certainly, Beck Road has

17 been closed; that hasn't helped them. It's going to

18 be open at some point, but it's going to be a

19 straight shot through, that's going to be a 40, 45

20 mile an hour road, as well. I didn't think this was

21 anything out of reasonable.

22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Bauer?

23 MEMBER BAUER: They have opened 12

24 Mile Road now, which is, you go up and you can go









1 north and south. And I think that helps. But until

2 this intersection is completed, there's going to be a

3 problem. And to go ahead and put this in, is really

4 not going to do a thing for them. I think what you

5 have suggested of having a temporary sign down where

6 people can see it, is right.


8 I have to add my comments, because I

9 go through that parking lot and the problem was, I

10 could not find the building from your -- from the

11 parking lot; and that's something that I think

12 somebody should think about. When you're pulling

13 into that parking lot, with everything the way it is

14 -- all right, so we established that I can't see long

15 distances at 50 miles an hour (interposing)

16 (unintelligible.)

17 But to be honest with you, there's no

18 identification on that building from the parking lot

19 side. When you're driving through, through Caribou

20 Coffee, and it's all -- you're looking, you're trying

21 to -- you know, you've got your bills in your hand;

22 your check or whatever -- because this is repeat

23 business. Once you find this building -- and like

24 Member Fischer mentioned, this is a destination









1 location. I don't see where this sign from Grand

2 River is going to help you.

3 But I concur with Member Canup. I

4 think he needs some help within that parking lot to

5 tell you that that's there. Because when you go in

6 and you're doing your meat for lunch and pick up your

7 pharmacy and stop off and pay -- you know, pick up

8 the ink jet at Staples, and you look up and you're

9 thinking, I've got to go to the bank, now where is

10 it, you've got 50,000 things on your mind -- sorry,

11 I'm speaking like a consumer -- but that's the way we

12 all operate.

13 You look up -- where in that parking

14 lot do you see that it says TCF Bank? I know, it was

15 a dark dreary day. The bank was open. The lights

16 were on. I didn't see the sign until I went around

17 to the front of the building. And that sign did me

18 no good coming in from Grand River, because I wasn't

19 looking for it at that point. I knew it was in the

20 parking lot.

21 Okay. I'm sorry. I won't be a

22 consumer any more.

23 MEMBER CANUP: Did you get a clue when

24 you saw all the drive-through's?










2 understood that, but you know what -- well, I was

3 hoping it was a drive-through dry cleaners, but it

4 was raining, it was cold. But I mean, you know,

5 really, seriously when you're driving and you're not

6 sure where TCF Bank is, that's why I was thinking

7 about the temporary sign right in that area to help

8 people identify.

9 He's saying people didn't even know

10 they were there, and that's what my -- nothing jumped

11 out at me that it was TCF Bank. I knew it was a

12 bank, but it could have been Standard Federal.

13 MEMBER CANUP: If you look at the

14 proposed sign locations, you can look at the site

15 plan for the future, it shows a future service

16 station; and there's an existing outlet there. And

17 that's -- in the future, it will be blocked from view

18 from Grand River anyway, in the future.


20 MEMBER CANUP: And I don't doubt you

21 need some help. The problem is Beck Road being

22 closed. And I think once Beck Road gets open and you

23 can get your business on track, you'll see it go

24 right straight up. It's just a fact of the problem.









1 And you know, there's people on Grand River that work

2 on Grand River for the past two years have been -- I

3 don't know how those people survive down through

4 there.

5 But any way, my suggestion is that we

6 not approve the sign as requested. And I would make

7 that a Motion; that we deny the request as stated,

8 and that was case number --


10 MEMBER CANUP: -- 04-129.

11 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

12 But I guess in an off statement to you

13 folks is, get with the landlord, see what you can

14 work out on maybe a temporary sign, and then come

15 back and see us.

16 MR. WALFERSON: May I address that?

17 MEMBER CANUP: Well, that's up to the

18 --

19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: We need to finish

20 here.

21 It's been moved and seconded.

22 Is there any further discussion?

23 Denise, would you please call the

24 roll.









1 DENISE ANDERSON: I'm sorry. I didn't

2 hear the second.


4 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


6 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


8 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


10 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


12 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


14 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


16 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes five

17 to one.


19 Now, you had some questions?

20 MR. WALFERSON: Oh, I do have a

21 temporary sign with the developer, and I'd have to

22 double check with the legal department, but when we

23 went through that with that developer, we're not

24 allowed to do any temporary signs or anything with









1 the development. It's my understanding -- and I

2 could be wrong -- I just wanted to state that,

3 because we tried with the developer to help us,

4 because we weren't getting any cooperation.

5 But Mr. Canup, I just want to thank

6 you for recognizing our bank, in spite of everything

7 there. At least the building with green roofs that

8 -- and six drive-through's, that people recognize it.

9 Thank you for that.

10 As far as developer, would couldn't

11 get anywhere.


13 Good luck, gentlemen. And I think

14 we've given it plenty of advertisement this evening.

15 I sure everybody's at home watching this, so there's

16 four more customers.

17 MR. WALFERSON: Thank you.

18 MR. CLARK: Thank you for your time

19 this evening.



22 Okay. We'll go on to case number 04-

23 130, filed by William R. Lutz of Signgraphix for

24 Lewis Medical Office Center at 39475 Lewis Drive.









1 Good evening.

2 MR. LUTZ: Good evening.


4 MR. LUTZ: I'm Bill Lutz.

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 04-130?

10 MR. LUTZ: I will.

11 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.

12 MR. LUTZ: Well, since you all have

13 been by this property, you know that it sits on the

14 intersection of two roads, Lewis Drive and Haggerty.

15 Because the main frontage is on Haggerty, we felt

16 that the primary I.D. sign -- since that is where the

17 majority of the traffic is going to be -- needs to be

18 on Haggerty. So that's our one sign that we're

19 allowed.

20 The curb cuts are on Lewis Drive. And

21 because of the heavy landscaping -- I don't know if

22 you had a chance to really study that, this land --

23 this developer landscaped the daylights out of these

24 sites, which is, you know, from a planning









1 perspective makes a lot of sense. It makes it a

2 little difficult to see the building, once these

3 trees get leafed out, and to see curb cuts and things

4 like that.

5 So we do have this curb cut on Lewis

6 Drive that we think it really needs to be identified.

7 There is an exit only curb cut off of Haggerty;

8 secondary to the north, but that is an exit only. We

9 will not allow traffic through there. That's more of

10 an emergency exit, than anything else. We wanted to

11 direct the primary traffic on this side into that

12 Lewis Drive entrance.

13 So that's the reason for the secondary

14 sign. We need two variances just for this sign, but

15 because it becomes a secondary sign, there's a

16 setback issue, in addition to the fact that it's a

17 secondary sign, a second sign.


19 Is there anyone in the audience that

20 wishes to make comment in regards to this case?

21 Seeing none, there were 11 notices

22 mailed; no approvals, no objections.

23 Building Department?

24 MR. AMOLSH: No comment.









1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Board Members?

2 Member Fischer?

3 MEMBER FISCHER: I went out there and

4 I looked. Of course, as usual, we try to find lessor

5 variance. And I got out my tape measure. I put it

6 back 20 feet, and I didn't see how it could be -- it

7 would be hidden, as the Petitioner said by the

8 landscape increased site ID and visibility, would be

9 reasons why I would be willing to support this

10 Motion, and if there's no more comment, I'd like to

11 make that Motion; that in case, 04-130, we grant

12 Petitioner's request due to increased site ID and

13 visibility.


15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

16 seconded.

17 Is there any further discussion?


19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Bauer?

20 MEMBER BAUER: Do you want the same

21 size, 17 feet -- or 17 inches high, 48 inches wide

22 for a secondary sign?

23 MEMBER FISCHER: Given that the

24 Petitioner mentioned that this is basically -- it's a









1 secondary sign, but it's going to be the primary

2 entrance, I could see why the Board would entertain

3 bringing it down a bit.

4 And I would, as the Motion maker,

5 definitely entertain any comments, although I was

6 willing to go with it.


8 MEMBER CANUP: The sign is six feet

9 tall. I guess the only thing I would ask as an

10 amendment to the Motion, is the fact that the

11 verbiage as depicted in the presentation be the only

12 verbiage allowed on the sign, period.

13 MEMBER FISCHER: I accept that

14 friendly amendment.


16 MEMBER CANUP: Which, in turn, would

17 mean that if the sign would change in anyway, it

18 would then become and illegal sign. If somebody

19 would come out and say I'm an attorney. I want to

20 put my name on the sign, because I'm in this

21 building, that won't work.

22 MR. LUTZ: This developer who's

23 (unintelligible), and he's very tough on these

24 things.









1 MEMBER CANUP: The thing is, he sells

2 the (unintelligible) and the next guy has a different

3 attitude.

4 MR. LUTZ: He hasn't been selling

5 buildings, though.

6 MEMBER FISCHER: Are we in agreement

7 with the six feet, then, gentlemen, lady?

8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

9 seconded.

10 Is there any further discussion?

11 Denise, would you please call the

12 roll.

13 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


15 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


17 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


19 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


21 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


23 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?










1 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

2 zero.

3 MR. LUTZ: Thank you very much.

4 Thank you Mr. Brennan. We appreciate

5 your being on board.

6 MEMBER BRENNAN: What was that guy's

7 name?


9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Call the next case,

10 case number 04-131, filed Joseph Dahki of Northstar

11 Signs, for 46820 Magellan Drive.

12 Good evening.

13 MR. HASH: Good evening.

14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And you are?

15 MR. HASH: I'm Rod Hash of Northstar

16 Signs.


18 Would you please raise your right hand

19 and be sworn in by our secretary.

20 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

21 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-131?

22 MR. HASH: I do.

23 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.










1 You may proceed.

2 MR. HASH: I guess the case is rather

3 simple, or at least the argument is. It's 36,000

4 square foot building. My client and the owner of

5 that property agree that a six square foot sign does

6 not adequately represent that property.

7 It's difficult enough to move that

8 kind of square footage. And with a sign that small,

9 it increases the difficulty.


11 Anything else?

12 MR. HASH: (No verbal negative

13 response.)

14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is there anyone

15 else in the audience that wishes to make comment in

16 the matter of this case?

17 Seeing none, there were 11 notices

18 mailed; no objections, no approvals.

19 Building Department?

20 MR. AMOLSH: No comment.

21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Board Members?

22 Member Fischer?

23 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, Madam

24 Chair.









1 I drove up and down Magellan Drive,

2 and saw signs for buildings that were up to 100,000

3 square feet that were -- once again, I got out there

4 with my tape measure -- that were only four by four,

5 16 square feet. And I think they might be cheating a

6 little bit. They were about five and a half feet off

7 the ground, but I guess I'll let that go.

8 So personally, I wouldn't be willing

9 to support -- to support anything over 16 square

10 feet, and maybe five and a half, six feet off the

11 ground.

12 Thank you, Madam Chair.

13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Canup?

14 MEMBER CANUP: I think it -- I would

15 agree that if the sign was condensed -- I think --

16 call Jeff Lamanski and Matt Able who do the

17 advertising for (unintelligible) to tell people this

18 property's for sale, and tell them what phone number

19 to call. I guess, if you have a four by four sign,

20 you can get the proper message on it.

21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer?

22 MEMBER FISCHER: I'd like to make a

23 Motion that in case 04-131, we approve a variance for

24 four feet by four feet.









1 Member Canup, do you have any

2 suggestions for height?


4 MEMBER FISCHER: And deny the height

5 variance requested for the site identification.

6 Would one year be sufficient, sir?

7 MR. HASH: Yes, thank you.

8 MEMBER FISCHER: For one year.


10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

11 seconded.

12 Is there any further discussion on the

13 Motion?

14 Member Canup?

15 MEMBER CANUP: What's the height

16 again?




20 MEMBER CANUP: From grade to top of

21 sign.

22 MEMBER FISCHER: With a foot of

23 clearance for snow.

24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: We know what Member









1 Fischer did during Christmas break, he got a new tape

2 measure.

3 Okay. So is there any further

4 discussion?

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 to

20 zero.


22 MR. HASH: Thank you.

23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Your variance has

24 been granted with those adjustments.









1 Okay?

2 MR. HASH: Okay.


4 Good luck to you.


6 Okay. We have our next case, 04-132,

7 filed by Robert Wineman of Fountains West, LLC.

8 Mr. Wineman is requesting a 20 foot

9 side yard parking lot setback variance, along the

10 north property line for the Sallie Mae project on

11 Unit 4, existing at the Residence Inn on Unit 3.

12 Good evening.

13 MR. WINEMAN: Good evening.

14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And you are?

15 MR. WINEMAN: Robert Wineman, Etkin

16 Equities.

17 MR. DEVRY(ph): And Randy Devry of

18 Cunningham Limited.

19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And neither one of

20 you are attorneys, correct?

21 MR. WINEMAN: Correct.


23 Would you please raise your right hand

24 and be sworn --









1 MR. WINEMAN: At least, I'm not.

2 MR. DEVRY: I'm not.

3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you please

4 raise your right hand and be sworn in by our

5 secretary.

6 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

7 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-132?

8 MR. WINEMAN: I do.

9 MR. DEVRY: I do.

10 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.


12 You may proceed.

13 MR. WINEMAN: Thank you very much,

14 Madam Chair.

15 We're before you this evening as a

16 result of Sallie Mae, who is a prospector looking to

17 come into the Novi community, giving consideration to

18 a 42,000 square foot building now known as Unit 4,

19 Temper Creek Development.

20 And what arose during the permit

21 process with the Building Department was that, in

22 fact, we have a variance that is required in light of

23 the establishment of a property line within what was

24 formerly known as Unit 2, for purposes of









1 constructing the Residence Inn Hotel, which we did a

2 couple of years ago.

3 So I'm before you this evening to

4 state our case as to why we should, in fact -- why we

5 need the variance; and it really comes down to a

6 situation where we are not altering in any way, shape

7 or form, the site plan approval that has been granted

8 and is in place by the City of Novi.

9 And further to that, in having this

10 property line established, the property, itself, is

11 govern by a master deed, which was reviewed and

12 approved by the City and their attorney. And within

13 that master deed, it addresses things, such as

14 circulation, ingress and egress, as well as parking;

15 that is shared amongst all of the inhabitants of this

16 development, which includes the Telcom Credit Union

17 Office Building.

18 So again, the two variance requests

19 that are before you this evening are imperative to

20 our ability, or in this case, Sallie Mae's ability,

21 to construct the 42,000 square foot office building,

22 that has been, in fact, approved.

23 We don't see any damaging effects to

24 any of the neighbors. And again, it is consistent









1 with a previously approved site plan.

2 I can let Randy saw a few words. He's

3 with Cunningham Limited. He represents Sallie Mae in

4 their site search.

5 MR. DEVRY: Thank you.

6 Just a little bit of history. Sallie

7 Mae came to us several months ago, and asked us to

8 evaluate a number of locations in the City of Novi

9 and surrounding communities. After a evaluation of

10 about eight sites, the site became the preferred

11 site. And they liked the location, liked the size

12 of the building, and we've been moving forward with

13 this in mind.

14 The decision as to where we're going

15 to go exactly has not been finalized, but the site is

16 still under consideration. And as Rob stated, this

17 is a important consideration that we don't change

18 from the approved site plan. We've been striving to

19 do that and that's our intent.


21 MR. WINEMAN: I can answer any

22 questions that the Board may have.


24 Thank you very much.









1 I take it that there's no one else in

2 the audience that wishes to make comment on this

3 case?

4 There were seven notices mailed; no

5 approvals, one objection. One objection from

6 Marcos M. Madias. The spelling is M-a-d-i-a-s, at

7 12850 Evergreen Road. Mr. Madias is the owner of

8 parcel 502215126016. Which for the record, these are

9 parcels, 21 and 22 respectively.

10 I object to the requested variance on

11 the basis that it would detract from any further --

12 any future developments on my site.

13 That's are Mr. Madias' comments.

14 Building Department?

15 MR. SAVEN: I guess I'd point out the

16 fact that was part of a previously approved site

17 plan. What's taking place right now, is that we've

18 plopped a property line in there, okay. In other

19 words, now we have a property line that's dividing

20 Unit -- our Unit 3 from Unit 4.

21 And by this, in itself, has created a

22 Ordinance violation. It's condominiumizing property

23 and breaking down property that we wouldn't even be

24 getting involved in, in parcels that have maybe a









1 main tenant in a large tenant building, for example,

2 Kohl's or Toys R Us or Mervyn's or something within a

3 complex, where they want their own separate property

4 -- identified property line.

5 For us, from a Building Code

6 standpoint, you base it upon what is presented here.

7 This is not a -- this is not a problem, as it is.

8 This is an issue that regards parking and the

9 landscaping that is required adjacent to that

10 property line that is now established.

11 This was -- like I said before, this

12 is part of a previously approved site plan; and with

13 the exception now that that property line is there,

14 so that means that they need to provide landscaping

15 on both sides. Whatever effected parcel Unit 4 would

16 also effect Unit 3 now.


18 Okay. Don't everybody jump out at

19 once here.

20 Member Sanghvi?

21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, Madam

22 Chair.

23 From all that I have heard and what I

24 went and saw there, this looks like more of a









1 technical or a formality issue, and I personally have

2 no objections in supporting this application.


4 Member Bauer?

5 MEMBER BAUER: I have no objections

6 whatsoever.

7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is that a Motion?


9 In case 04-132, I make a Motion to

10 approve the variance due to the fact that they are

11 connecting units.


13 MR. SAVEN: Establish a property line.

14 MEMBER BAUER: Pardon?

15 MR. SAVEN: Establishing a property

16 line.

17 MEMBER BAUER: Establishing a property

18 line.

19 MR. SAVEN: On an existing approved

20 site plan.


22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Like you said.

23 MR. SAVEN: I'm sorry. I do apologize

24 to the Board. I'm sorry.









1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: That's okay.

2 Thank you.

3 Okay.

4 It's moved and seconded.

5 It must be the air in here.

6 Is there any further discussion on the

7 Motion?

8 Seeing none, Denise, would you please

9 call the roll.

10 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


12 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


14 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


16 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


18 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


20 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


22 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

23 zero.

24 MR. WINEMAN: Thank you very much.









1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It was tough, but

2 we got through it.

3 MR. WINEMAN: Thank you.

4 MR. DEVRY: I appreciate it.


6 MR. WINEMAN: Thank you.


8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: While our next

9 Petitioner is setting up, I'm going to entertain a

10 Motion that we take a quick minute -- five minute

11 break, tops, and we'll be back.

12 (Brief recess taken.)

13 (Back on the record.)


15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. For our

16 final case this evening -- we saved the best for last

17 -- we have case number, 133, filed by Michael Kahm of

18 Singh Development Company, for the Residential Unit

19 Development known as Legacy Parc, previously known as

20 Quail Hollow on the southside of Ten Mile and east of

21 Napier.

22 And I know that you are not Mr. Kahm.

23 MR. HOUSER: That's right.

24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And your name is?









1 MR. HOUSER: John Houser with Singh

2 Development.


4 Please raise your right hand and be

5 sworn in by our secretary.

6 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

7 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-133?

8 MR. HOUSER: I do.

9 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.

10 MR. HOUSER: Good evening.


12 You may proceed.

13 MR. HOUSER: Thank you very much.

14 I'd like to give you a brief history

15 of how the plan has gotten to this point. An RUD

16 plan was approved in December of 2003. The plan was

17 refined to meet requirements of the City staffing

18 consultants; and we recently received unanimous site

19 plan approval from City Council on December 20th of

20 2004. In addition to the vast preservation, if you

21 look at the plan, of open space and the construction

22 and dedication of over a mile and a half of asphalt

23 pathway of Legacy City Parc lane. We felt we needed

24 to provide a centralized location for active









1 recreation to remain competitive with other

2 attractive developments in the area.

3 As you can see, the location of the

4 club house is positioned such that it is easily

5 accessible by all of the lots in the development.

6 This location has situated the amenities adjacent to

7 three internal roadways. A plan, that was

8 conditioned by Council -- by a Council approved

9 development and RUD agreement.

10 The setback variances that we are

11 requesting, as highlighted in our application, are

12 for the tennis court, basketball court, and tot lot.

13 I'd like to point out that the club house, the pool

14 and the parking area are all within the required

15 setbacks.

16 I can go on and on about why we think

17 that these active amenities would be a huge plus for

18 the development and for the future residents and for

19 the community.

20 But I'll end it at that and entertain

21 any questions.


23 There were -- there obviously isn't

24 anyone, for the record, left in the audience to make









1 comment.

2 There were 30 notices mailed; no

3 approvals, no objections.

4 Building Department?

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

6 a couple of things. If you look at the plan, on the

7 immediate right, the area that's shaded leading into

8 the property that we're looking at right now, these

9 are the amenities that they're seeking variance for.

10 These are also located between three

11 streets, internal streets, that are part of this

12 particular area. This makes it very difficult,

13 because you know on a corner lot, we have a setback

14 requirements that you deal with. But in this case,

15 they have three streets (unintelligible.) But it

16 also deals with the side yard, front yard and again,

17 a rear yard.


19 MR. SAVEN: This case is a very

20 difficult situation. This is also part of an

21 approved development agreement for the lots in

22 question, and I'm sure the people in lot 198, which

23 is adjacent to that; and the other lot, which is on

24 the opposite side -- I can't remember what number









1 that was in particular, excuse me -- that would have

2 been 5.

3 These people, they would also be

4 notified, by virtue of our Zoning Ordinance, that

5 deal with disclosure notices, you know, that they

6 have activity, they have a site plan. They'd be able

7 to deal with it. So in this particular case, yeah,

8 it's very peculiar in nature, but this is something

9 that I think you can take into consideration.


11 Thank you.

12 Board Members?

13 Member Canup?

14 MEMBER CANUP: You know, when I look

15 this, the problem that I see here is it's an over-

16 building of a site for the amenities that they want

17 to add. For instance, you know, I think being 30

18 feet from the lot line on lot number 198, my personal

19 feeling is it's unacceptable. The house that close,

20 30 feet. Do you know how far 30 feet is?

21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Can you say that

22 ten times?

23 MEMBER CANUP: Member Fischer, get

24 your tape measure out and show us. I wouldn't want









1 to have a lot that close to people playing tennis --

2 it is a tennis court, yeah. I think, you know, the

3 way that I would recommend that we look at this is,

4 my opinion, that lot number 198 is actually

5 eliminated and become a part of -- a part of the

6 green area, including the tennis court.

7 Also, if you look at where you're

8 adjacent to the road here, you're 13 feet off of the

9 sidewalk. This is an example of trying to squeeze

10 too much into a too small space. And I think that,

11 my opinion is, that if the developer wants to provide

12 these amenities, he's going to have to provide them

13 with -- somewhat within our Ordinance.

14 And you know, if you look at the

15 request for variances, 27 feet on the basketball

16 court area; 35 feet, you know, 67 feet? Surely you

17 people could have done a better job of designing this

18 and asking -- you know, being that far off. You

19 know, five fee is one thing, but you know, that kind

20 of variance to me is unacceptable; that's my feelings

21 and my solution for the problem.


23 Member Brennan?

24 MEMBER BRENNAN: All three of these









1 amenities, pleasures --

2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: These extras.


4 Were you anticipating screening and

5 fencing around all three of these?

6 MR. HOUSER: On -- the tennis court

7 for sure, would be fenced.


9 MR. HOUSER: I suppose standard for a

10 fence, I think about 20 feet.

11 MEMBER BRENNAN: Basketball court?

12 MR. HOUSER: At the ends.

13 The basketball court, individually,

14 would not be fenced, by itself. The people certainly

15 would be.


17 MR. HOUSER: The tot lot, that kind of

18 -- the basketball court, if I can expand. We had

19 entertained -- and a final landscape plan for

20 construction hasn't been finished -- but we

21 entertained fencing the entire amenity area to create

22 -- it's really -- there will be some physical

23 separation; but just to kind of create a barrier

24 between with appropriately, you know, appropriately









1 located gates and such for maintenance and

2 pedestrian.

3 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, that's the root

4 of my question was, you've got these potentially

5 large traffic, large child frequented areas that are

6 right -- abut up against major thoroughfares; and my

7 overwhelming concern is safety. If you'd have a

8 means where traffic can only get into that tennis

9 court through a gated area, likewise, basketball,

10 likewise, tot, that takes care of some of my most

11 immediate concerns.

12 In addition, to what Mr. Canup has

13 already said. I think you've got some problems with

14 the layout from a security and safety perspective.

15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I have a comment,

16 because I saw your partner/co-worker do the

17 presentation in front of City Council.

18 MR. HOUSER: Uh-huh.

19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And I understand

20 that there's another plan that does not need any

21 variances.

22 My question to you is where's the

23 degree of practical difficulty here? You haven't

24 established to us, to this Board, why? What's the









1 hardship? What's the -- and I have to -- I want to

2 tell you that when I saw the presentation, I was very

3 excited about this. I think they're doing a great

4 job. They're putting in a great trail system.

5 There's been a lot of work.

6 This program or this development has

7 been on the table, so to speak, and being worked on

8 for a couple years now, if I'm not mistaken. You've

9 been working with the City. You addressed issues

10 that the residents wanted, giving them the trail

11 system, and so I understand all of that, and I

12 commend this particular development for doing that

13 and going to the fore front.

14 However, this is the ZBA, and we can't

15 vote based on what we like. We have to vote on,

16 based on the cold-hard facts of why do we -- why are

17 we going to approve this, what's the purpose.

18 MR. HOUSER: Well, the layout has been

19 derived over time to conform with the staff and

20 ourselves, to preserve as much of the natural

21 features on the property as possible. The site has

22 evolved, the location that they chose, the central

23 location of the clubhouse, as Mr. Saven had

24 mentioned, the three road -- the three internal









1 roads that surround the property, that's the best

2 location for the clubhouse.

3 Prohibit -- providing the type of

4 amenities and the amount of amenities that a 439 lot

5 development could use, quite frankly. And you are

6 correct that the City Council and Mr. Kahm did

7 mention and alternate plan, but given lot 198, lot 5,

8 that clubhouse is going to be the first thing --

9 it'll be under utilities, the roads and the clubhouse

10 -- is going to be the first thing that's constructed

11 on the site. Those residents or future residents are

12 going to know, you know, immediately which lot; and

13 some of them will chose that lot specifically for

14 that purpose.

15 And anyone who has a resale, is going

16 to realize that that amenity is there, they're going

17 to think about and does it fit their lifestyle, do

18 they want to be there. Some people will want to be

19 there, so.

20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Canup?

21 MEMBER CANUP: It goes back to the

22 question of what's the hardship.


24 MEMBER CANUP: The hardship is that









1 there is no hardship. There's a hardship where they

2 designed this way, (unintelligible) design, and this

3 is not totally done yet, right?

4 Is that right, Mr. Saven?

5 MR. SAVEN: This -- the plan, the

6 developer's agreement has already been signed for

7 those amount of lots and where they're located. So

8 that's one of the things I want to make sure that we

9 know, as we're going into this thing, we're dealing

10 with this particular situation, where -- I think I'd

11 like to point out to the Board, also, is if you could

12 imagine a dotted line, which is on your packet, which

13 shows on here, this is the only area that is

14 available for this -- any kind of -- any kind of

15 improvements that are part of this package.

16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Canup?

17 MEMBER CANUP: There was a -- that was

18 their decision to make it that way, knowing what the

19 Ordinances are.

20 MR. SAVEN: I'm just trying --

21 MEMBER CANUP: This whole thing could

22 have been built within the Ordinance, if they would

23 have read the Ordinance, before he went into the

24 design; or maybe he read the Ordinance and figured,









1 oh, we'll go to ZBA and get a variance to get around

2 it.

3 I don't see it that way.

4 You know, I think -- again, looking

5 back at the same -- number one, it's too close to the

6 road, the tennis court. You're 15 feet off the road

7 there. You're 30 feet from a lot line of the house

8 there on that side. And then over on the tot lot,

9 tot lots are just that, they're tot lots. They're

10 courses for kids to play, and 42 feet -- there's a

11 reason the Ordinance was written at 80 feet -- two

12 feet from the parking lot.

13 They just squeezed too much in to this

14 area. And apparently, you didn't read the Ordinance

15 or you didn't care what the Ordinance when you

16 designed this; and again, I have got no sympathy for

17 you. And I'm having a difficult time -- I'm not

18 having a difficult time. I'm not having a difficult

19 time at all with voting against what the variances

20 requested here.

21 This whole thing could be restructured

22 and some how brought into compliance with the

23 Ordinance; whether you've got to lose a couple of

24 lots, which would be lot number -- what's that, five









1 there?

2 MEMBER BRENNAN: Five and --

3 MEMBER CANUP: 5 and 198; or maybe

4 four lots, maybe the lots adjacent to them. That

5 could all be put in there, and all of this would be

6 made to work within these lots; except the builder's

7 just trying to squeeze too many things into the area.

8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer?

9 MEMBER FISCHER: I guess I'll be the

10 Frank Brennan on this one. And --

11 MEMBER BRENNAN: Only I can do that.

12 MEMBER FISCHER: -- go against the

13 Board a little bit.

14 I mean, just to clarify, there's a RUD

15 agreement between Council and these developers. It's

16 not our decision to say remove these lots. That's

17 what -- point blank, what we're down to, correct?

18 MR. SAVEN: That's because the

19 developing agreement has been signed.


21 MR. SAVEN: The agreement is there,

22 that's correct.

23 MR. GILLIAM: That's correct.

24 I have some other comments I'd like to









1 make.

2 MEMBER CANUP: How can an agreement be

3 reached on something that doesn't meet the Ordinance?

4 MEMBER FISCHER: Because this --

5 MEMBER CANUP: Who could approve --

6 MEMBER FISCHER: What we're looking at

7 is not part of the Ordinance yet or part of the

8 development yet.

9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: This isn't part of

10 the agreement.


12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: This is not part of

13 agreement. They're just trying to fit in more

14 amenities. They have another plan with less

15 amenities, okay, without any variances. So I think

16 without changing anything, I mean, it's either --

17 this either has a degree of practical difficulty or

18 it doesn't.

19 MEMBER CANUP: What's the hardship,

20 that's my question.

21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Right, exactly.

22 MEMBER CANUP: The hardship is self-

23 created. It's very simple.










1 Mr. Gilliam, do you have something to

2 offer?

3 MR. GILLIAM: Well, I'm just going to

4 provide the Zoning Board with a little bit more

5 background.

6 In terms of the history, as it's been

7 indicated there was a previous RUD agreement that was

8 approved; that was signed for 439 units on this

9 particular site. It did not contain any kind of

10 recreational facilities, any of the amenities that

11 are the subject of the variance tonight.

12 In fact, if you look on the diagram

13 that was contained in your packets, at lots 90, 91

14 and 92, which are over in this area right here, those

15 lots essentially were in the area where the amenities

16 are now. And then after that agreement had been

17 through all the processes here at the City and the

18 agreement was signed, it was recorded with the

19 Registrar of Deeds. There, essentially, is a binding

20 contract between the City and the developer for that

21 particular proposal. Then the developer, in an

22 effort to -- as I understand, improve what they felt

23 they were offering, to -- in terms of the

24 development and also as contribution to the









1 community, decided to modify their plan -- propose

2 to modify their plan, by shifting those three lots to

3 be able to include the recreational facilities.

4 That's the proposal that's been

5 working its way through the process. I think out of

6 everybody in the room here, I was the only one who

7 was actually at the Planning Commission meeting the

8 night that this came in front of the Planning

9 Commission, the first part of last month, for the

10 Planning Commission to review the proposed amendment

11 to the RUD, and the revisions to the preliminary site

12 plan.

13 The comments that the Planning

14 Commission made were almost identical to the comments

15 that a lot of the Zoning Board Members have made

16 tonight, in terms of the flow of traffic, parking,

17 the residents, children, things like that being in

18 the area of the clubhouse, the basketball court, the

19 swimming pool, the tot lot, all those things.

20 And based upon those things, those

21 concerns, the Planning Commission made as negative

22 recommendation to Council, as far as the revision to

23 the agreement and the revisions to the preliminary

24 site plan. And I wasn't at the Council meeting, but









1 it's my understanding from talking with Tom Schultz

2 that Mr. Kahm did come to the Council meting with an

3 alternative plan that -- I don't know if it didn't

4 include any amenities or included less.

5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It included less.

6 MR. GILLIAM: Less. Yeah.

7 And essentially, Council was prevented

8 -- was presented with alternative of the revised plan

9 for what's in front of you tonight; and as it was

10 indicated, Council's unanimous opinion was that this

11 was a superior plan to what the alternative plan that

12 had been presented. And also was a superior plan to

13 the agreement that was already in place for the same

14 number of units, without any of these kinds of

15 amenities.

16 It's my understanding that there was

17 discussion at Council table that if they had the

18 authority to grant the relief that the Petitioner is

19 requesting tonight, they would have done it. In

20 fact, there has been some discussion with our office

21 -- and I think it -- not specifically because of this

22 development, but just generally terms of City's RUD

23 Ordinance, as to whether or not really the RUD

24 Ordinance should be revised to allow Council to go









1 ahead and have the authority to grant the kind of

2 relief that's being requested tonight.

3 So that's a little bit more of a

4 history of this particular case. The approval that

5 Council gave was conditioned upon the variances that

6 are in front of you tonight. You're obviously not

7 obligated to do what Council would do, if they have

8 the authority that you folks have. You're an

9 independent body. In terms of where some difficulty

10 is, getting back to the comments that Don made, given

11 the fact that there really is no other location for

12 these kinds of facilities on the site -- if these

13 kind of facilities are going to exist, this is where

14 they have to go.

15 With the road location, there are --

16 is an (unintelligible) some claims to be made as to

17 what the of practical difficulty is.

18 That's just a little bit more of a

19 background in terms of how this comes to be in front

20 of you tonight.


22 Council did, in fact, make a comment that they -- and

23 I want to stress this to the Board, that they wanted

24 to check the Ordinance to make sure that it, in fact,









1 had to come to ZBA. They didn't even want it to come

2 because the RUD agreement (unintelligible.) Because

3 the RUD agreement doesn't include that yet; that's

4 why it's here. Then it's in our lap, and I still

5 have a problem with the degree of practical

6 difficulty. There's safety concerns. I mean, I can

7 support this in terms of yeah, this a great place to

8 live and this is a great thing to offer. But I need

9 some help, and I don't have Board Members that are

10 concurring. They're on the same page.

11 Member Bauer?

12 MEMBER BAUER: I live in Village Oaks.

13 We have a clubhouse. (Unintelligible.) The parking

14 is probably about this, and cars park all over

15 everybody else's lawn, because it's not enough.

16 MEMBER FISCHER: And then they park

17 around the other side. People really shouldn't be

18 parking their cars. It's to drop off or something.

19 MEMBER BAUER: This is for more than

20 ten parking spots (unintelligible.)

21 MEMBER FISCHER: I don't think there

22 is. I've been hearing (unintelligible) 15.


24 But there's just no room for parking









1 with what you've got here. There are 400-some --

2 homes. I mean, this is ridiculous.

3 MEMBER CANUP: What it is the

4 amenities which helps them sell homes. If you could

5 do a study and find out how many people are really

6 going to use this thing, you'd be surprised.


8 MEMBER BAUER: If you go to it, they

9 have Halloween party in there, I mean, they're

10 parking all over the place. You can't get cars

11 through.

12 MEMBER FISCHER: Look at this, this

13 case in front of us, gentlemen, they're not looking

14 at parking. Parking is not our concern. Our concern

15 is the variances and the setbacks that we are asked

16 to look at, first and foremost. Secondly when

17 looking at these setbacks from these condos that they

18 are allowed to have, and they are contracted into,

19 the setback variances don't tell me that you don't

20 know when you're moving in, that that's how close you

21 are to the tennis courts and that's how close you are

22 to the tot lot.

23 I don't think we have any safety

24 concerns about people on the tennis court, because









1 198 is going to fall on them, I think the Ordinance

2 is based around the fact that you don't want the

3 noise from the tennis courts going to 198. But if

4 198's built and you're looking to buy it, you are

5 going to know that.

6 When you move a little bit over to the

7 15 -- the 67 foot variance request, I agree with you.

8 There is a concern, because I think that that is too

9 close to the road. I would like to see that second

10 tennis court taken out of there. But as far as

11 basketball court, I think there is still a

12 significant setback. We're not looking at hardship.

13 We're looking at practical difficulty, which is less

14 stringent than hardship; if I'm correct?

15 MR. GILLIAM: Correct.

16 MEMBER FISCHER: So, this shouldn't be

17 as hard to get as a use variance. Now, we need to

18 look at things, is it in strict compliance with the

19 restrictions, will it unreasonably prevent the owner

20 from using their property for a permitted purpose.

21 Is this a permitted purpose, Mr. Saven?

22 MR. SAVEN: Yes, it is.

23 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you.

24 I mean, going down the check list,









1 it's a unique circumstance, but another criteria we

2 need to look at -- because of the three roads -- I

3 guess I can't see not supporting a lesser -- a plan

4 that's lesser than this, but I guess I -- this

5 Petitioner is also, you know, giving us this trail

6 system. And I'm sure they could have done a lot with

7 that land, but they're not. They're -- this is --

8 they're are basically coming in here and increasing

9 the quality of life for the residents that are going

10 to move in there; and we're looking at saying no.

11 And I think that there's the practical difficulty

12 degree that I will be wiling to support on this.

13 Thank you, Madam Chair.

14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Sir, I apologize.

15 I don't remember your name.

16 MR. HOUSER: John Houser.

17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. Mr. Houser

18 in regards to the second tennis court --

19 MR. HOUSER: Yes.


21 possibility of having one of those removed? I mean

22 I think that the 13 feet, that variance, if one those

23 tennis courts were removed okay, and again, I

24 appreciate the spirit, but 13 feet (unintelligible).









1 There's some safety concerns there.

2 MR. HOUSER: Well, 13 feet to the

3 sidewalk or 14 feet to the sidewalk, and there

4 wouldn't be, you know, a typically fence around the

5 tennis court. It would protect balls, people going

6 in.

7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: So, you're saying

8 that the entire tennis court is going to be fenced

9 around?

10 MR. HOUSER: Yes.

11 MEMBER CANUP: Yeah, you'd have a 14

12 foot fence around it.

13 You're not talking about a three foot

14 high fence. You're talking about a 14 foot high

15 fence.

16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I thought -- okay.

17 MEMBER CANUP: At a tennis court.

18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Canup?

19 MEMBER CANUP: I'm going to say my

20 piece one more time. I think this is too much

21 crammed into small space. I think our Ordinance

22 allows for these type things, as long as they are

23 within the setback areas that are provided in the

24 Ordinance. And with that, I'm not going to say any









1 more.

2 But I'll make a Motion. If it passes,

3 fine; if it doesn't, it means go further.

4 I'd like to make a Motion that we deny

5 the request as stated in case number 04-131.




9 MEMBER CANUP: 04-133.


11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

12 seconded.

13 Is there any further discussion in

14 regards to this?

15 MR. GILLIAM: Madam Chair?

16 We need to get some basis for the

17 Motion, in terms of record.

18 MEMBER CANUP: The reason for the

19 Motion is because there is not a demonstrated

20 hardship.

21 MR. GILLIAM: Thank you.

22 MEMBER CANUP: Lack of a demonstrated

23 hardship.










1 Any other discussion?

2 Denise, would you please call roll.

3 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


5 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


7 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


9 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


11 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


13 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


15 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion fails three

16 to three.

17 MEMBER CANUP: My reason for making

18 the Motion to that effect was that fact that if we

19 turn it down, they will come back with something that

20 is more acceptable. It wasn't just to completely say

21 no, you can't build this. It said -- what my Motion

22 was for, was to say, you can't build it with these

23 variances.

24 MEMBER BRENNAN: I thought that there









1 was also a discussion that this was another plan on

2 the table.

3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Well, I brought

4 this up that there was another plan.

5 Do you have that other plan with you?

6 MR. HOUSER: No, I don't actually.

7 MEMBER BRENNAN: Then we can't look at

8 it.

9 MR. HOUSER: I mean, it's pretty

10 simple. It's just simply the pool and the clubhouse.


12 MR. HOUSER: The other three amenities

13 that were discussed this evening aren't on this plan.

14 MEMBER BAUER: But this is in front of

15 us.

16 MEMBER BRENNAN: And I keep raising my

17 hand.

18 MEMBER FISCHER: I can feel your pain.

19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: My ankles are black

20 and blue from everybody kicking me under the table.

21 Go ahead, Member Brennan?

22 MEMBER BRENNAN: You know, it would be

23 nice to say that this is an appropriate and

24 worthwhile amenity to offer to potential homeowners.









1 But you're squeezing ten pounds of stuff in a five

2 pound can. And unfortunately, we don't have the

3 liberty of negotiate, you know, take this out; take

4 that out, take that out. Especially when we know

5 there's some other options.

6 I petition the Board Members to

7 consider a re-vote on the Motion made by Mr. Canup,

8 only because it will force it back into the system to

9 come back with something that is more in line with

10 acceptable -- personally, I -- in addition to what

11 Brent, his comments were made, I think you've got

12 some huge safety concerns. I mean, sure, put a 14

13 foot fence around a tennis court; what are you going

14 to do about the basketball court. That wasn't really

15 defined.

16 And you're talking about three and

17 four year-old kids in the tot lot that are two feet

18 from a parking structure. There's nothing identified

19 -- I mean, I read through that damn thing. There's

20 nothing in there that says how are we protecting

21 these tots that are two feet from a parking lot.

22 I think that we're not doing our job

23 if we don't deny this as it's laid out. And I would

24 make a Motion again with respect to case number 133,









1 that the plan as presented tonight be denied because

2 there has not been hardship or practical difficulties

3 presented.



6 It's been moved and seconded.

7 Is there further discussion?

8 Member Fischer?

9 MEMBER FISCHER: I guess my concern if

10 you did watch that Council meeting, they pushed this

11 case to us very quickly. They had a time line that

12 they're working on, and I would like to give some

13 resolution, as opposed to just denying this off the

14 bat, some type of resolution we can come to a

15 conclusion of what we would approve of -- maybe take

16 out the tennis court.

17 We approve that, and then that gets

18 them back to Council, and hopefully get pushed back

19 on their agenda. I'm trying to work with this guy a

20 little bit, because they have a time line and I don't

21 think they're very far off -- especially in my eyes

22 -- they're not very far off from having a perfect

23 affirmative vote from me, first and foremost.

24 Second of all, back to you rasing that









1 question about the parking lot and the tot lot, once

2 again, just like the parking, that's not in front of

3 us. That setback -- there is no setback to correct

4 the problem with where that is to the parking. And

5 so I need to look at what's in front of me, not to

6 say, well, what's around the corner.


8 BOARD MEMBERS: (Interposing.)

9 MEMBER FISCHER: That is to the condo

10 number five. It has nothing to do with the parking.

11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: We're not talking

12 about the parking.

13 MEMBER FISCHER: That's what he was

14 talking about.

15 He is talking about this area right

16 here, this is where are variances that we need to

17 look at; not here. That's what I'm saying.

18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: With all due

19 respect, Member Fischer, Member Brennan is looking at

20 the safety feature of the tot lot being this close in

21 proximity with this road.

22 MEMBER FISCHER: That's not a road.

23 That's a sidewalk.

24 MEMBER BRENNAN: They're two feet from









1 the parking lot.

2 MEMBER FISCHER: This is what he's

3 concerned about. This sidewalk and then the cars

4 parking.



7 And I understand that concern, but I

8 don't feel that that's what's in front of me with the

9 variance request. Somewhere in our Ordinance allows

10 it to be that close.

11 Thank you, Madam Chair.

12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Sanghvi?

13 MEMBER SANGHVI: I just have a couple

14 of questions. Maybe Don can answer it.

15 Isn't there some kind of requirement

16 to screen off a tot land from the parking lot area?

17 MR. SAVEN: It would be something that

18 would be part of a condition of your variance;

19 additional screening, and all of the other issues,

20 that can act as a barricade, you know, hedges and

21 whatever you wish to be done. That could be an

22 alternative that you could be looking at.

23 MEMBER BRENNAN: That's all design.

24 MEMBER SANGHVI: But you have -- I









1 think that's a legitimate issue; that how are you

2 going to protect young children, even though they are

3 expected to be watched by their parents or somebody

4 else, they still do strange things, and we need to be

5 particularly responsible to make sure that they don't

6 come to any harm; and something should be done about

7 it.

8 But apart from that, I also want to

9 remind you, we had a similar situation where we had a

10 recommendation from Council, and if your memory

11 serves you right, you know what I'm referring to.

12 And you also know want can happen.

13 And I don't like history repeating

14 itself, but we need to have a really good look and

15 find any kind of strong reason to turn down something

16 which has been accepted by the Council. I know that

17 they are -- because of the technically --

18 technicality, the revision is in front of the ZBA to

19 grant the variances, and that is why this case is

20 here; even though it's been approved by Council.

21 And then I look at the situation from

22 that perspective, I'd like to think that people in

23 the Planning, people at the Council, also have

24 people's interest at heart, not just the ZBA. And I









1 would -- the other way around is to reconsider their

2 vote and let this pass.

3 Thank you.


5 We still have a Motion on the table.

6 MEMBER BRENNAN: We have a Motion and

7 a second.

8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is there any

9 further discussion?

10 Denise, would you please call the

11 roll.

12 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?

13 MEMBER BRENNAN: This is the Motion to

14 deny, yes.

15 DENISE ANDERSON: It was seconded by,

16 Member Bauer?


18 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


20 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


22 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


24 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?










2 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion fails three

3 to three.

4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I need to ask

5 Mr. Gilliam a question.

6 Can this be tabled from this evening?

7 I realized that this is tied is like a denial. So

8 can we send back some recommendations that, because

9 it's a 50/50 thing here. We have some part of the

10 practical difficult met, but we still have some

11 serious safety issues that I don't want to approve,

12 but I also don't want this to go back and say this is

13 a total denial.

14 So how do we get that point across,

15 and who do we send that message to?

16 Member Brennan had some very good

17 points that he brought up again, and I don't think

18 that this is this whole picture is a bad thing, but I

19 know that there's another plan out there. It was

20 worked up without any amenities, and I wish they

21 would have brought both of them. But based on that

22 point, I want to send a message back to Council, back

23 to the Petitioner, that I am -- I would like to

24 support this, but that there are too many safety









1 issues involved here that prevent us from coming to

2 an agreement on this.

3 Can I make that any clearer?

4 MR. GILLIAM: If there are issues that

5 you don't feel that can be addressed by way of

6 imposing conditions, then yeah, of course, as always,

7 you have the option to table this. As to where they

8 go from there, I guess would remain to be seen. I

9 suppose it would be a question of what revisions, if

10 any, the applicant is willing to make to the plan.

11 The question of how if there were any revisions that

12 are to be made, whether or not those revisions would

13 be considered major or minor. If they're major, then

14 the process has to go in one direction. If they're

15 considered to be minor, the process has to go into a

16 different direction.

17 But you always have the option of

18 tabling.

19 MEMBER BRENNAN: Madam Chair, I make a

20 Motion to table.

21 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer?

23 MEMBER FISCHER: I just like to remind

24 the Board that there's a time line that I believe was









1 brought up. In fact, if I have the floor, I'd like

2 to have him to explain -- Mr. John, I believe.

3 MR. HOUSER: Yes, John Houser.

4 MEMBER FISCHER: Can you explain?

5 Because I thought I heard something about a time

6 line, and I'd like to work with the Board and you to

7 accommodate anything --

8 MR. HOUSER: That's correct.

9 We're committed to close on the

10 property the middle of this month. A non-fully

11 compliant site plan, they won't allow us to do that,

12 including the variances that the Council asked us to

13 get.

14 MEMBER FISCHER: (Unintelligible)

15 special meeting.

16 MEMBER BAUER: Timing (unintelligible)

17 Assuming --

18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You can't. We

19 don't have a re-notice. We don't have enough time

20 for it to happen. We can't meet on Saturday morning

21 at 9:00.

22 Member Sanghvi?

23 Sorry.

24 MEMBER FISCHER: If it's less, we









1 don't need to re-notice.


3 MEMBER SANGHVI: I'm going to try and

4 see if I can -- we can an amendment to a Motion to

5 see if we can get around this safety problem, by

6 suggesting that we request a four feet high

7 separating fence between the parking lot and the tot

8 area for safety concerns.

9 And let's see if that Motion has any

10 merit for (unintelligible.)

11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Then we have the

12 tennis court problem.


14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: We've got the

15 tennis court problem.

16 Are you in any position to change?

17 MR. HOUSER: Well, excuse me, I

18 mentioned our position on the tennis court with the

19 fencing, we don't feel that it is a safety issue, but

20 if it's a part of losing a tennis court to get to

21 that point to get an approval --

22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: So one tennis

23 court?

24 MR. HOUSER: That's correct. I look









1 for recommendation on the location of the one

2 remaining or can we keep it where it is and simply

3 remove the east one. I look for recommendations.


5 anything?

6 MEMBER SANGHVI: I was going to make a

7 Motion.

8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I was hoping to

9 move this a long a little bit.

10 Member Canup?

11 MEMBER CANUP: I feel that we have

12 reached an impasse. And I think to keep sitting here

13 and malingering . We're up to a third Motion now.

14 And I'd just ask counsel, what is the

15 procedure when a Board cannot reach a decision. We

16 obviously are split and we are getting no where and

17 going no where?

18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I'd like to call to

19 table one more time.

20 All those in favor of tabling the case

21 number 04-133, say aye?


23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: All those opposed?










1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Your case has been

2 tabled at this time four to two.

3 MR. GILLIAM: I'd like some

4 clarification. Is it tabled for next month's

5 meeting?


7 MEMBER BAUER: Or sooner.

8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I will put on

9 record, if they can do -- if the Board Members would

10 agree to a special meeting -- if that's possible, if

11 Mr. Saven's listening?

12 MR. SAVEN: I don't know what the

13 position is going to be.


15 MR. SAVEN: And what they're going to

16 propose. This is what City Council has to look at.


18 MR. SAVEN: Whether it's got to go

19 back to City Council again, based upon the revisions;

20 whether they're minor in nature, whatever -- this is

21 --

22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And the other plan

23 may --

24 MR. SAVEN: These are issues that have









1 to be reviewed; not only legally, but from the

2 standpoint of you, as well as --

3 MEMBER CANUP: Well, if these

4 variances were required as part of this, none of this

5 stuff should have been approved yet. You can't

6 approve something that doesn't meet Ordinance, and it

7 required --

8 MEMBER FISCHER: It's approved subject

9 to our approval of the variance. They had --

10 MEMBER CANUP: It's not been approved,

11 then.



14 We'll go on.

15 Chairman, take over.


17 All right.

18 We now have a -- this case has been

19 tabled at this point.

20 MR. HOUSER: I understand that.

21 What type of table and recommendation

22 to -- what's our next step. There sounds like there

23 are some sensitive issues --

24 MR. SAVEN: I would hope that the









1 Board would have given you some direction in this

2 particular area. You picked up a couple things.

3 Number one, first and foremost, is safety issues that

4 were behind certain areas of tot lot; number two,

5 was that fact that the setback requirement possibly

6 -- I'm taking up -- this is my point of view, is the

7 size of that particular tennis court area. What can

8 be done, even to take into consideration those

9 proposed occupants on lots 198 and 5, with additional

10 protection or whatever it is, screening or whatever

11 you can come up with.

12 But as some of the members here have

13 indicated, they have some concerns on the overall

14 plan for the number things that are there. I'm not

15 sure what the resolve is. Maybe those issues will be

16 further discussed. I have no idea.

17 MEMBER CANUP: Madam Chair, may I just

18 make one statement and then I'll stop.


20 MEMBER CANUP: Solve all of your

21 problems, remove those two lots and reconfigure the

22 whole thing and you'll be out of trouble. I mean, if

23 you look at the thing, that would -- as I said,

24 you've got too much in a -- ten pound in a five pound









1 can.

2 MR. HOUSER: Thank you.

3 MEMBER CANUP: And if you just take

4 and remove those two lots and reconfigure things, you

5 know, it'll fit a lot better.

6 MR. HOUSER: Can I ask a question of

7 counsel, perhaps?


9 Go ahead.

10 MR. HOUSER: How can we determine --

11 if we have to go back to Council, what's the

12 (unintelligible) significant change. I know you may

13 not be able to answer that question now, but can we

14 work with the City in the coming days to determine --

15 that'll change our decision in how willing we are to

16 rework the plan, I suppose.

17 Do you understand what I'm trying to

18 say?

19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Based on -- I'm

20 sorry, but based on the Council's plan that evening,

21 the agreement was if you were turned down by ZBA,

22 that you would be going back to Council. We're

23 tabling it, so it's up to you where you want to go.

24 We're really leaving it up to you. We've listed our









1 issues on why we can't pass this: Safety, tennis

2 court, too much in a small area.

3 You can take that back to the powers

4 that be and try to come back to us; or you can take

5 that other plan back to Council and have them approve

6 it. That's where -- that's how I understood how

7 Council was leaving it with you.

8 MR. HOUSER: Okay. So that's -- I

9 appreciate that.


11 MR. GILLIAM: If I could just comment.


13 I'm sorry.

14 MR. GILLIAM: In terms of the point

15 that I initially made and comments that Mr. Saven has

16 made tonight as being major and minor; the

17 significant difference there is that this is -- if

18 the changes determine to be a major change to what's

19 been approved, then we have to go as far back as the

20 Planning Commission.

21 What's been talked about tonight, I

22 don't think is something that would deemed to be a

23 major change. I don't think we're talking about

24 having you go all the way back to the Planning









1 Commission stage for additional review and additional

2 public hearing.

3 I agree with the Chair, I think this

4 is something that if there is any revisions to what's

5 been before Council before, it's going to have to go

6 back to Council for their approval. Whether or not

7 somebody's going to make you come back before the

8 Zoning Board, I guess that'll have to determine or

9 have to be worked out. Because if it is very

10 possible that there are variances that are still

11 required, then it is going to have to come back in

12 front of --

13 MR. HOUSER: So regardless, we're back

14 at City Council.

15 MR. GILLIAM: Yes.

16 MR. HOUSER: That's what I needed to

17 know.

18 Thanks.



21 All right.

22 We'll move on to other matters.

23 Mr. Saven, first thing is case number

24 04-001 for Harold's Frame Shop. That light's not









1 shutting off. That's light's on -- I won't tell you

2 the hours that I'm out on Grand River; but then it

3 goes into that speeding and the not seeing, but I do

4 see that sign bright at night at ten, eleven, one in

5 the morning.

6 MR. AMOLSH: We'll take appropriate

7 measures.

8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I don't know --

9 Mr. Amolsh or Mr. Saven, if this -- if they're in

10 litigation with the sign company and they can't hold

11 their agreement to the variance that they were

12 granted, can't they just pull the plug on that sign?

13 That sign is on 24-hours a day, seven days a week.

14 And when the Petitioner was here,

15 there were residents that were concerned about that

16 light being on all the time.

17 MR. SAVEN: I think it's possible we

18 can bring them back before the ZBA for

19 reconsideration. Is that -- we could do that?

20 MR. GILLIAM: I think the problem you

21 run into at this point in time is that the variance

22 was granted and -- with conditions, as I understood.


24 MR. GILLIAM: There was action that









1 was taken by the applicant, by Harold's Frame Shop,

2 in reliance upon that. So you can't -- because of

3 the fact that there's been action in reliance upon

4 the variance that was granted; technically, you can't

5 bring them back for reconsideration.

6 I think the remedy that you have now

7 is for Alan and his department to take enforcement

8 action through the District Court. Because it was a

9 variance that was granted with conditions. The

10 variance having to do with the height of the sign.

11 MR. AMOLSH: Right.

12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And the hours the

13 light sign was on.

14 MR. GILLIAM: Illumination.

15 Well, the issue -- I think the

16 variance dealt with the height of the sign.

17 MR. AMOLSH: We don't have

18 illumination standards in our sign Ordinance.

19 MEMBER BRENNAN: We conditioned that

20 sign.

21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: We put conditions

22 on it.

23 MR. GILLIAM: The height of the sign

24 was conditioned upon the hours of illumination.










2 MR. GILLIAM: And if the business is

3 not in compliance with the hours of the illumination

4 with that particular condition, then, in fact, the

5 variances that they -- they're not -- by not

6 complying with the conditions of the variance, they

7 essentially don't have a variance at all. So the

8 sign, based upon the height, is not conforming to the

9 Zoning Ordinance; just as if they had just put the

10 sign up and never come in for a variance in the first

11 place.


13 MR. GILLIAM: So I think the

14 appropriate measure is to handle it through District

15 Court, and -- because that would be a Municipal/Civil

16 infraction. And also what the City can ask for is

17 some kind of Injunctive Order, an Order from the

18 District Court, to provide that they can only

19 illuminate the sign during certain hours.

20 If they continue to do it, the City

21 can take additional enforcement action; in terms of

22 filing additional tickets, and also the business

23 would be violation of a Court Order and be found in

24 contempt. Those are the options the City has at this









1 point in time.


3 So we're going to turn it over to

4 Mr. Amolsh.

5 MR. AMOLSH: Yes.


7 The second item for this evening under

8 other matters is the mock-up sign. We've received

9 correspondence from your office with the

10 recommendation we asked you to review it.

11 MR. GILLIAM: If you recall at the

12 last meeting, in reference to (unintelligible) over

13 in the former Vic's Market. There was a question

14 about what the status of the mock-up sign was

15 subsequent to an approval.

16 The Zoning Board Rules of Procedure

17 provide that if a request for a variance is denied,

18 within five days after the denial, the mock-up has to

19 come down.

20 The Rules of Procedure don't address

21 what happens if, A, the variance is approved as

22 requested; or B, if a lesser variance is granted. So

23 I think taking a look at all of those things, what

24 I've done is drafted a couple of alternatives for









1 your consideration. Alternative one, which is on

2 page two of the letter, would provide that, if a

3 variance was granted, then the mock-up sign would

4 allow it to remain in place, while it was maintained

5 in good condition, and complied otherwise with the

6 applicable City Ordinances.

7 If a lesser variance was granted or if

8 the variance was flat-out denied, the mock-up would

9 have to come down within a five-day period of time.

10 Then alternative two, is regardless of

11 the nature of the decision the Zoning Board makes,

12 within five days after that that decision, the mock-

13 up sign would have to come down. I guess the

14 rational would be that that would encourage the

15 applicant to get their permanent sign up as quickly

16 as they could; which would be more aesthetically

17 pleasing than the mock-up.

18 Really, as I indicated in the letter,

19 this is a question more of policy than it is a

20 question of law. I think you have the authority to

21 go either way, in terms of the authority that you

22 have to grant variances and the condition variances

23 are granted, and things like that. So either one of

24 these would be at your discretion.









1 If there's one of these in particular

2 that you're comfortable with, more comfortable with,

3 what you would need to do would be to, I think, just

4 indicate that and then a formal amendment of your

5 Rules and Procedures could be placed on the agenda

6 for action at the next Zoning Board meeting. And

7 that's required under your Rules of Procedure. It

8 has to be a month's notice before you can actually

9 amend your rules, because you can't technically do it

10 tonight.

11 We can get some kind of a consensus as

12 to what you want to do --

13 MEMBER BRENNAN: Somebody can make a

14 Motion as to one or the other, and see where we go.

15 MR. GILLIAM: And the formal amendment

16 comes next month.


18 Member Fischer?

19 MEMBER FISCHER: More so just for

20 discussion, I actually like alternative one about

21 that they can leave it up, but I'd like to see a 30-

22 day time limit. To give a business -- they spend a

23 lot of money sometimes on these mock-ups. They

24 should be able to keep it up for a little bit, up to









1 30-days, possibly, to give them some incentive to get

2 the permanent one.

3 So that's what I would like to see, as

4 a third alternative, I guess.

5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. I have a

6 question.

7 MEMBER FISCHER: Please, ask.


9 Don, has there been a problem with

10 these mock-up signs?

11 MR. SAVEN: I think we had a couple of

12 them that were tattered and it was blowing around in

13 the wind.

14 MR. AMOLSH: Yes. (Unintelligible)

15 look terrible.

16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: So if we put this

17 30-day thing -- I mean, you've obviously been with us

18 for a long time. And I'd rather -- I don't like

19 creating something that's going to tax the

20 Enforcement Department even more; driving around and

21 filing tickets for 30-day signs, could be pretty

22 cumbersome. I mean, how bad is this?

23 MR. AMOLSH: It's not that big of a

24 problem. The only problem was that it wasn't









1 addressed in the Rules and Procedures.


3 MR. AMOLSH: Right. Where it was

4 approved. We need something in writing that the

5 Petitioner knows that he has to take it down or he

6 doesn't have to take it down.

7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Alan, I kind of

8 take you as a field expert.

9 Do you feel that 30 days is something

10 that's important out there? Or do you feel that if

11 we clarified that after five days then, you know, or

12 after the new sign?

13 MR. AMOLSH: I'd actually be more

14 comfortable with alternative two, myself. They just

15 have to take it down period, no matter what. That's

16 the easiest way, but it's up to the Board's

17 discretion.

18 MEMBER FISCHER: I guess why I chose

19 alternative one with the 30 days, was that it would

20 give you -- I guess five days, would give you more

21 stuff to do, driving around for everything. I mean,

22 whatever would make your job easier, that's

23 definitely.

24 MR. AMOLSH: Whatever you want to do.









1 I just want it spelled out, so that the Petitioner

2 knows what he can and can't do.


4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I'm comfortable.

5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Can I ask a question?

6 Can we go into any statistics about

7 how many mock-up signs stay up there after they've

8 been denied for what length of time?

9 MR. AMOLSH: Most stay up. But most

10 of the time, they're removed. I work with sign

11 companies all the time. They're pretty good about

12 it.

13 MEMBER SANGHVI: The point is this,

14 are we really trying to bring an issue when it's not

15 more than an issue? Is there any way in doing that?

16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Well, I think this

17 alternative one is a good thing. It gives the sign

18 --

19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Well, you should have

20 some alterative on the books.




24 MEMBER SANGHVI: And to put it on the









1 book as a procedure, yes, (unintelligible) that's

2 fine. But I'm looking from the practical point of

3 view for an Enforcement Officer, which he is the only

4 one.


6 MEMBER SANGHVI: For the whole thing.

7 How many things are we going to do?


9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Effectively.

10 MEMBER FISCHER: He is the one who

11 brought it up, though, that you wanted something in

12 the books, so he can turn --

13 MEMBER SANGHVI: I thought we could do

14 that.

15 MR. GILLIAM: It would be less of a

16 problem, that's clear. Everybody would know right --

17 MR. AMOLSH: Wherever you want to go,

18 we'll do whatever you want.


20 MEMBER BRENNAN: So just to move on,

21 if that's a Motion, I'm accepting that Motion and

22 take it to vote.

23 MEMBER FISCHER: (Interposing)

24 (unintelligible) we change our policy, or we move to









1 put it on the agenda for next month and change our

2 policy that a mock-up needs to be removed within 30

3 days if it's approved completely. If it's a lesser

4 variance or it's denied, it needs to be removed

5 within five days.

6 And any that stay up, need to be in

7 good maintained condition.



10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Canup?

11 MEMBER CANUP: Discussion on the

12 Motion. We've got two types here now that Alan has

13 to look at. You've got a 30 day and a five day.


15 MEMBER CANUP: You should have it one

16 way. I don't agree with 30 days. I think five

17 days, and that's my opinion. And I would ask you to

18 amend your Motion to five days all the way around.

19 MEMBER FISCHER: I guess I'd ask Alan.

20 I mean, I'm just trying to do what's easiest on them,

21 as well. If he tells me to do five days total, then

22 I'll do five days total.

23 MR. AMOLSH: Doesn't matter.

24 MEMBER FISCHER: I think he's just









1 shooting for any type of policy, so he can say, yes,

2 this is policy.

3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: The 30 and the five

4 days creates more work.

5 MR. AMOLSH: It doesn't come up that

6 often. But we can handle it.

7 MEMBER CANUP: But general, people if

8 you have a policy, in general, most people will

9 comply.

10 And then you've got a few of the

11 people, you've got 30 days. It doesn't matter,

12 they're still not going to comply. And a good

13 example is the rug guy on the corner. He still does

14 what he wants anyway, even after we denied it. You

15 go by there every weekend and it looks like a circus

16 out there.

17 Anyway, that's my discussion on the

18 Motion. I would request that you change it to five

19 days across the board.

20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Are you wiling to

21 do that?

22 MEMBER FISCHER: I'm asking

23 (unintelligible.)

24 MEMBER BRENNAN: I -- whatever works









1 best for Alan.

2 MEMBER FISCHER: Oh, please, just give

3 me an answer so we can wrap this up.

4 MR. AMOLSH: Five to 30 is fine with

5 us.

6 MEMBER FISCHER: I'm going to stick

7 with five to 30 days.


9 I second the Motion.

10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: So it will come up

11 next month of our --

12 Do we need to call roll, because we're

13 going to change it and make it part of our amendment

14 (unintelligible.)

15 MR. GILLIAM: I guess what I'm looking

16 for is the consensus from the Board. Here's the

17 consensus as to that. It becomes final. We don't

18 need a formal action. Just the consensus of the

19 Board.

20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: So all those in

21 favor of moving to put Amendment 1 on the agenda for

22 next month to make it part of the Ordinance --

23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Repeat the Amendment.










1 Say aye.



4 See it next month.

5 Okay. The last thing, case number 04-

6 057 for Glenda's Market, an update on the letter sent

7 December 16th inquiring about the status of the

8 fence.

9 And we talked to --

10 DENISE ANDERSON: We have a letter on

11 the table just outlining.


13 Anything further?

14 MEMBER FISCHER: Do we want to let the

15 audience know what they said about Glenda's or not?


17 Mr. Saven, do you have anything else?

18 MR. SAVEN: Nothing else.


20 Then it is 10:15 and I will adjourn

21 the ZBA Meeting.

22 See you next month.

23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.










1 Have a good evening.

2 (The meeting adjourned

3 at 10:15 p.m.)

4 - - - - - -






























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 (142) 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