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, June 7, 2005.

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

Don Saven, Building Department
Alan Amolsch, Ordinance Enforcement
Thomas Schultz, City Attorney
Gail Backus, ZBA Recording Secretary

Machelle Billingslea-Moore, Certified Shorthand Reporter.

1 Novi, Michigan

2 Tuesday, June 7, 2005

3 At 7:30 p.m.

4 - - - - -

5 MEMBER FISCHER: All right. I'd

6 like to call to order the May 2005 Zoning Board

7 of Appeals meeting -- June, 2005 Zoning Board of

8 Appeals meeting.

9 Mrs. Backus, would you please

10 call the roll.

11 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer?

12 MEMBER BAUER: Present.

13 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan?


15 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup?


17 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer?


19 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan?


21 GAIL BACKUS: And Member Sanghvi?


23 GAIL BACKUS: All present.

24 MEMBER FISCHER: The meeting is



1 now in session. Let's go over some rules of

2 conduct for tonight.

3 Please turn off all cell phones;

4 and remember, five minutes will be allowed

5 for each individual addressing the Board; 10

6 minutes for a group.

7 The Zoning Board of Appeals is a

8 Hearing Board empowered by the Novi City

9 Charter to hear appeals seeking variances

10 from the application of the Novi Zoning

11 Ordinance. It takes a vote of at less four

12 members present to approve a variance

13 request; and a vote of the majority present

14 to deny a request. We do have six Board

15 Members here tonight, so all decisions will

16 be final.

17 Are there any agenda changes?

18 MR. SAVEN: Just under other

19 matters, we do have a request for an

20 extension from the Zoning Board of Appeals,

21 variance request. And it was dealing with

22 case number 04-127, dealing with 1935 West

23 Lake Drive, requesting a 40 day extension.

24 We'll bring it under other matters.



1 MEMBER FISCHER: That sounds

2 good.

3 Are there any other changes?

4 All right. Then we'll move for

5 approval as amended.

6 All in favor, say aye?


8 MEMBER FISCHER: All opposed?

9 The ayes have it.

10 Any changes to the minutes?

11 We do have in our packet from

12 May, 2005, which was last month.

13 Seeing no changes, move for

14 approval as submitted.

15 MEMBER SANGHVI: So moved.


17 MEMBER FISCHER: All in favor

18 say aye?


20 MEMBER FISCHER: All opposed?

21 The ayes have it.

22 We'll move to the public remarks

23 section of the Board Meeting tonight. If

24 anyone wishes to address the Board on any



1 matter not on our agenda tonight, please

2 come forward.

3 However, all comments related to

4 a case on the agenda should be held until

5 that case is called.

6 Is there anyone in the audience?

7 Seeing none, we'll close the

8 public remarks part of the agenda.


10 And we'll move to Case Number

11 05-028, filed by Tracey Shipley, for 25890

12 Strath Haven.

13 Ms. Shipley is present.

14 You were sworn in last month, so

15 you're still under oath.

16 MS. SHIPLEY: Okay.

17 MEMBER FISCHER: Go ahead.

18 State your name for the record.

19 MS. SHIPLEY: My name is Tracey

20 Shipley.

21 MEMBER FISCHER: And present,

22 please.

23 MS. SHIPLEY: Okay. Hello,

24 again. As you, know, I was here last month



1 and we talked about some changes that needed

2 to be made with my property regarding the

3 five foot from the road. You wanted me to

4 move the house back to 40 feet from the

5 road; and the new plans and plot plans you

6 have in front of you show that I have done

7 just that. And I now meet the guidelines of

8 the homeowner's association requires of me

9 or requests of me, I should say; as well as

10 what you requested of me last month.

11 I would like to ask, though, I

12 don't anticipate any objections, but if

13 there are any, I would like to request to

14 speak afterwards, because I'm very well

15 prepared for anything that might come up.

16 MEMBER FISCHER: Excellent.

17 Anything else?

18 MS. SHIPLEY: That's it.


20 Well, as -- there were 31

21 notices mailed; two approvals and zero

22 objections.

23 So, does anyone in the audience

24 wish to address the Board regarding this



1 case?

2 Please come down, sir.

3 And if there is anyone else who

4 will be presenting regarding this case, go

5 ahead and step behind this gentleman, and

6 we'll move along fairly rapidly tonight.

7 Go ahead and state your name for

8 the record.

9 MR. NELSON: Greg Nelson of

10 Pioneer Meadow representing the homeowner's

11 association.

12 I was here last month, as well,

13 and we have worked with Tracey in terms of

14 satisfying the requirements of 40 feet in

15 front and 40 feet in the rear; 15 feet on

16 both sides. The rear is, you know, very

17 close, so that's -- we don't have an issue

18 with that. So I do have one question and

19 that is -- first of all, we do support her

20 plans and her revised plot plan, and so on.

21 The question I have is, if there

22 are changes to the plot plan, and/or

23 foundation plan and so on, what is the

24 mechanism or the process so that the



1 homeowner's association and/or provide the

2 opportunity to, you know, review those

3 after, you know, after approval is given

4 tonight -- assuming that's the case.

5 (Unintelligible) support this.

6 But I'd like to know as you go

7 through the process of review plans and plot

8 plans and foundation plans, floor plans and

9 so on, how do we stay involved with that?

10 MEMBER FISCHER: We'll go to our

11 expert here, Mr. Saven. I'm sure he can address

12 your concerns.

13 MR. SAVEN: Thank you.

14 Couple of things that come to

15 pass, number one, what we're here for now is

16 the Zoning requirement in regards to the

17 building aspect of the building; the

18 construction of the building, the floors,

19 the design of the floors, what have you.

20 These are Building Code issues that we deal

21 with.

22 MR. NELSON: Okay.

23 MR. SAVEN: I cannot --

24 certainly, there are State laws



1 (unintelligible) what they're allowed to do.

2 As far as the design of the home is strictly

3 up to the architect.

4 The parameters of the home, the

5 setback requirements is what we are dealing

6 with here tonight.

7 MR. NELSON: So this is

8 primarily setbacks?

9 MR. SAVEN: If you say the

10 change to the home is the footprint of the

11 building, if it's less than, I certainly

12 don't have a problem. But the only

13 difference that we may have is if it doesn't

14 comply with all (unintelligible), to be

15 compatible with the adjacent homes in the

16 immediate vicinity --

17 MR. NELSON: Right.

18 MR. SAVEN: -- the homes around

19 that area.

20 So if there's a change in the

21 plans, yes, we could have this requirement

22 for you to provide or the applicant to

23 provide a change in plan to us; and with

24 that in mind, the homeowner's association



1 should be (unintelligible) take a look at

2 it, too.

3 MR. NELSON: So that should be

4 the process.

5 MR. SAVEN: That's their

6 prerogative whether they want to do that.

7 Different homeowner's associations have

8 different requirements. Building Code

9 requirements are one thing; structural

10 designing the building means

11 (unintelligible). Setbacks another. And

12 that's why we --

13 RIGHT2: So this is primarily a

14 setback discussion.

15 Okay. Thank you.

16 At this point, we approve the

17 plan. We don't have any issue with -- the

18 only request we have, is to get a new copy

19 of the plan, which she agreed to provide to

20 us.

21 MR. SAVEN: We would request a

22 homeowner's association approval of the plan

23 before we approve the plans, too, okay.

24 MR. NELSON: Okay. So you want



1 that in the form of just a letter or a

2 signed copy of plans?

3 MR. SAVEN: A letter from the

4 homeowner's association is fine. It's a

5 courtesy -- let me repeat -- it's a curtesy

6 that we extend to the homeowner's

7 association, so any homeowner's association

8 in the City, the Building Department nor the

9 City can enforce subdivision restrictions

10 and guidelines.

11 Each subdivision has certain

12 deferences (unintelligent) satellite dishes

13 and accessory structures, we don't get

14 involve with that.

15 MR. NELSON: Sure.

16 MR. SAVEN: We do get involved

17 in extending a courtesy (unintelligible) and

18 say, hey, there's something going on here.

19 Maybe we want to take a look at it

20 (interposing) (unintelligible.)

21 MR. NELSON: Just to be clear, if

22 this is approved tonight, then we would

23 provide yourself and Tracey a copy of a

24 letter that says we've reviewed the final



1 plans and we approve them.

2 MR. SAVEN: (Unintelligible.)

3 MR. NELSON: Okay. So we'll

4 take care of that outside of here.

5 In terms of the setbacks and so

6 on, we don't have an issue with the

7 setbacks, okay.

8 MEMBER FISCHER: Excellent.

9 We do appreciate your comments.

10 Mr. Saven, do you have anything

11 else to share with the Board?

12 MR. SAVEN: No, I'll shut my

13 mouth.

14 MEMBER FISCHER: That's no fun.

15 Board discussion?

16 Member Brennan?

17 MEMBER BRENNAN: Unless there's

18 objections, I would move to make a Motion

19 for approval of the -- the Petitioner has

20 asked -- has done what we asked her to do.

21 She's got the association backing. There's

22 no objections from the neighbors that we had

23 the month previously. I think she's done

24 what we have asked her to do.




2 MEMBER FISCHER: It's been moved

3 and it's been seconded.

4 Ms. Backus, would you please

5 call the roll.

6 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan?


8 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi?


10 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer?


12 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup?


14 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan?


16 GAIL BACKUS: And Member Fischer?


18 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes six

19 to zero.

20 MS. SHIPLEY: Thank you.

21 MEMBER FISCHER: Your variance

22 has just as been granted.

23 MS. SHIPLEY: Thank you.




1 MEMBER FISCHER: Moving on to

2 the second case, Case Number: 05-033, Mr. and

3 Mrs. Szelap.

4 You are the Szelaps, correct?

5 MR. SZELAP: Yes.

6 MEMBER FISCHER: All right.

7 Could -- you were here last

8 month.

9 Will you be speaking, as well,

10 ma'am?

11 MRS. SZELAP: Yes.

12 MEMBER FISCHER: Will you please

13 raise your hand and be sworn in by our secretary.

14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear

15 or affirm that the information that you're

16 about to give in the case before you is the

17 truth?

18 MRS. SZELAP: Yes I do.

19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Please state

20 your name for the record.

21 MRS. SZELAP: Christine Szelap.


23 MEMBER FISCHER: Mrs. Szelap, I

24 apologize --



1 MRS. SZELAP: That's okay.


3 butchering your name, here.

4 Please proceed.

5 MRS. SZELAP: Okay.

6 Since our last meeting with you,

7 we have tried to change all of the requests

8 in remodeling our home, so now, we're only

9 asking for one small variance.

10 The variance that we're asking

11 for is a three foot extension of our

12 existing garage. And we're purposely not

13 going all the way across the front -- only

14 three quarters of the way -- so as not to be

15 a problem with the setback requirements

16 between us and the neighbor next to us;

17 which was a problem previously.

18 By being able to turn our garage

19 -- is what we're trying to do -- we're going

20 to utilize less cement, which is also an

21 issue with our neighbors, as far as the look

22 of the house. We're also not going to use

23 regular cement. We're going to use a

24 stamped type of cement, so it looks much



1 more esthetically pleasing to everybody.

2 And we're also going to put in new

3 landscaping.

4 The landscaping that is there

5 right now -- which there is a very large

6 tree in the front -- will remain; plus,

7 we're going to put in new landscaping. So

8 we feel that -- we're putting in a lot of

9 extra money, but we're trying to make it

10 esthetically pleasing to everybody on the

11 court.

12 I believe that you all -- I

13 believe -- received a diagram similar to

14 this. We have a unique situation in our

15 court, where really only a couple people are

16 going to see what we are trying to do here.

17 The neighbors that approved this, did send

18 in a approval form and are with us this

19 evening; and would like to express their

20 opinions, if you'll allow that.

21 Now, the neighbor next to us,

22 I'll be honest with you, does have concerns.

23 As you see in the diagram, they really don't

24 see as much of what we're doing as the other



1 neighbors do. There has been some

2 miscommunication between us and them, and

3 we'll agree with that.

4 The first thing we're trying to

5 do is it to extend our existing garage

6 further forward; and that seemed to be a

7 problem. So we moved that back, as you see

8 on our new request. The second problem was

9 that our home seemed to be too wide for the

10 lot. So we, again, shrunk everything down

11 this time, to try to accommodate that. The

12 problem now seems to be the (unintelligible)

13 (interposing.) And as I just talked about,

14 we're trying to rectify that so that

15 everybody is happy with that situation,

16 also.

17 Once again, we do have the

18 approval letter from the homeowner's

19 association, as we did last time. Only this

20 time, the president also gave his approval.

21 They would have been with us this evening,

22 but unfortunately had meetings to attend,

23 but they can be reached if you need to

24 contact them.



1 We've also heard from one of

2 other neighbors that maybe we should just

3 move. It's a very tough situation. I'll be

4 honest with you. We did consider this

5 situation after our last meeting with you

6 folks. However, I have been a resident in

7 this home for 22 years. I work for the City

8 of Novi Police Department.

9 My husband and I teach Karate

10 for the Novi Community Education. We also

11 have a beautiful lot. We're very lucky to

12 have a wooded lot, as you see by the

13 diagram, that we really can't duplicate.

14 It's on a court; it's quite; we love it;

15 I'll be honest with you. We're just trying

16 to make some updates in remodeling that we

17 feel are necessary. I was living alone for

18 many years, and the house really needs some

19 updating. So we're trying very hard to work

20 with our neighbors. And as I said, several

21 of them are here tonight, if you would like

22 for them to speak.

23 MR. SZELAP: As I've drove

24 through the neighborhood -- because I wasn't



1 familiar with it as my wife was, and she

2 clued me in on a few things. I'm not asking

3 for anything that hasn't been done in the

4 neighborhood before. There has been a house

5 that has been converted to a court. There

6 is a house that has a separate garage. It

7 has two on it. There are many houses who

8 have added concrete, so that they have

9 circular drives now, or they have additional

10 parking next to their driveway that's been

11 concreted.

12 To try to make the house look at

13 least esthetic from the front, so --

14 especially for people that are driving into

15 the neighborhood (unintelligible) on a

16 court, don't see as much of the garage

17 situation of the house -- we've added an

18 additional $20,000 in expenses to cover that

19 by adding more brick and remodeling that

20 front center using tresses and other things

21 that will allow us do that, so we don't

22 (unintelligible) big garage door facing the

23 front of the road.

24 I don't know if there's anything



1 else we can do to change what we've already

2 done here. We've paired it down just about

3 as far as we possibly can. If we don't get

4 the three foot forward variance, I can't

5 turn that garage door; and then that's going

6 to show no matter what happens. I can go

7 straight up (unintelligible) because that

8 won't require any setbacks. The homeowners'

9 architectural committee would allow me to do

10 that. I don't really think that's the best

11 thing to do; and I don't think that's going

12 to be as pleasing to people.

13 I don't think they realize that,

14 looking at it right now. So, that's my

15 biggest concern. I really want the place to

16 look nice. I don't want it to

17 (unintelligible) and be an eyesore because

18 you have that big situation (unintelligible)

19 to the front.

20 MRS. SZELAP: And again, my

21 husband's a contractor. (Unintelligible.)

22 Thank you for your time.

23 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you very

24 much.



1 Building Department, do you have

2 any comments?

3 Oh, I'm sorry.

4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: The audience.

5 MEMBER FISCHER: Does anyone in

6 the audience wish to address the Board regarding

7 this case?

8 Please come up, state your name

9 and address.

10 MR. BUSSY: Hi, my name is Jerry

11 Bussy. I live at 23415 Duchess Court, and

12 we're the house that's directly opposite to

13 them on the court, so they see our house and

14 we see their house.

15 We've reviewed the plan, and my

16 wife and I, we've looked. They look very

17 nice. This is going to be an esthetic

18 thing. We know that Z is in the

19 construction business, so it's going to look

20 very professional. We had a house next to

21 us where the neighbor built an addition

22 above his garage. He was a jeweler. It

23 came out very nice. A house about a

24 thousand feet to the right of us, they also



1 put an addition above their garage. It was

2 very professionally done. Also looks very

3 nice; and we have a lot of unusual garage

4 situations in our subdivision. Some of them

5 have a drive through garage; and two -- it's

6 a three-car garage on one side that's a

7 drive through; and a one car on the other

8 side that's a drive through -- attached to

9 two different (unintelligible.)

10 So we have some unusual

11 situations. The only thing I can say is

12 they all have been very pleasing. They

13 make the subdivision look different. We all

14 don't have cookie cutter houses. I think

15 it's all very esthetically pleasing. Like I

16 said, Z's in the construction business, and

17 I think it will look very professional.

18 And from my point of view, I

19 think it's very good that we have homeowners

20 in our subdivision that want to improve

21 their houses and invest in our subdivision

22 and keep it a nice subdivision

23 (unintelligible) because it looks very nice

24 when you drive through.



1 Thank you very much.

2 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you.

3 Anyone else in the audience?

4 Please step forward, and state

5 your name and address.

6 MS. MORACO: My name is Beth

7 Moraco. I live at 23467; and we are the

8 adjacent house next to Chris and Ed. And

9 actually we are the home that's going to see

10 the majority of their property. For years

11 they have had some, you know, down to

12 landscaping -- like she said -- told you

13 before, there's a lot of updating that needs

14 to be done. My husband is also a

15 contractor.

16 We have approved the plan -- the

17 very original plan. And our family sat down

18 and looked at it; walk the property with

19 them. They have -- since they're trying to

20 please other people, unfortunately, instead

21 of themselves -- I think that whatever they

22 do is it going to be absolutely beautiful.

23 They have been working very hard

24 in their backyard to make it esthetically



1 appealing. It's going to look beautiful.

2 The home, it does need to be updated. I

3 don't think that the other neighbor really

4 has much to look at. Again, our family has

5 the brunt of it, and we don't see anything

6 wrong with it. We are looking forward to

7 them updating it, so.

8 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you very

9 much for your comments.

10 And anyone else?

11 Go ahead, sir; and also state

12 your name and address.

13 MR. CUTTLER: Hi. My name is

14 Dan Cutler. I'm live at 23401 Duchess

15 Court. I'm basically right down the street.

16 I'm about 50 yards a way from the home.

17 My biggest worry is about the

18 second garage. The fact that there will be

19 one garage and another garage and another

20 garage on the opposite side of the home. I

21 don't feel that it would be esthetically

22 pleasing. I am worried about the amount of

23 concrete that it's going to take. I realize

24 there's other ways to do concrete so that it



1 looks good.

2 I came in tonight because I

3 wasn't able to come last time. And one of

4 the things that kind of got me was, I was

5 basically -- I heard that the comment was

6 made that my objection should be ignored,

7 because my -- you know, you can't see this

8 house from my house, and that's just not

9 true.

10 Also, there's a couple other

11 things. There was some comments made about

12 needing additional parking for multiple

13 cars. As far as I can tell, there's about

14 four cars in the family, just like most of

15 the other families in our sub. So I don't

16 get that one either.

17 That's basically my objection is

18 the second garage.

19 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, sir.

20 And anyone else?

21 Come on down.

22 MS. DJOWA: My name is Nancy

23 Djowa. I live at 23484 Duchess Court. And

24 I am the person that was referred to that



1 lives on the other side. I hope you read my

2 objection letter. It's rather lengthy. It

3 refers to the last meeting with things that

4 were said that weren't true.

5 At this meeting, I just want to

6 talk about the second garage. It's my

7 biggest concern. Our main objection is, if

8 you look at this house, there's a garage

9 here, a garage there. In order to have

10 access to a side entry garage, you need lot

11 of space to be able to pull back out.

12 Then you need garage -- cement

13 space to go out the second garage. The

14 entire front yard -- and I haven't seen the

15 drawings (unintelligible) I do have in my

16 letter -- I didn't see a drawing that stated

17 how this driveway is going to work. My

18 thing is, there lot is extremely narrow.

19 It's pie shaped. It goes down to a very

20 small peak.

21 Already, their driveway is on

22 our property, but it's a (unintelligible)

23 easement. So already they're already like

24 squished in. Now, they're going to have to



1 put a driveway to meet both garages. I

2 don't see how they're going to fit any trees

3 there or any kind of greenery with that much

4 cement that they are going to need.

5 And that's my objection.

6 Thank you.

7 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you very

8 much.

9 And is there anyone else?

10 All right. Ma'am, go ahead.

11 MS. BUSSY: My name is Linda

12 Bussy. My husband, Jerry spoke. I live

13 23415 Duchess Court, and I live directly

14 across the street from them. I have seen

15 the plans. They look extremely

16 professional, and very esthetically

17 pleasing; compared -- especially when you

18 look at the house now. It does need a lot

19 of work.

20 And I would object, myself, if

21 the whole front yard was going to be

22 concrete; but it clearly isn't, if you look

23 at the plan and the diagram; that I'm sure

24 you have in front of you.



1 I've known Chris all the years

2 that she's lived in that house, and I just

3 can't see them doing anything that would not

4 upgrade the neighborhood. She is a very

5 strong member of the community. As she

6 said, she works for the police department.

7 She teaches Karate lessons, etc.

8 We're thrilled that they're

9 going to do something to improve our

10 neighborhood; and we feel that anybody who

11 does anything to make improvements and

12 upgrade our property values, has our

13 recommendation.

14 So we sincerely hope this will

15 be approved.

16 Thank you.

17 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you.

18 Is there anyone else?

19 Mr. Saven, I was so anxious

20 before. Please enlighten me.

21 MR. SAVEN: Okay.

22 As you are aware, there were

23 several variance requests that were before

24 you regarding this particular case at the



1 last meeting.

2 What is before you right now is

3 one variance dealing with the issue of the

4 setback requirement for the front yard,

5 which is three feet. I have met with Edmund

6 at the counter and we went through several

7 of the items and to reduce the number of

8 variances and it did meet the

9 requirements -- or try to reduce the number

10 of variances to the best of his ability to

11 meet the City Ordinance and meet those

12 requirements.

13 Unfortunately, (unintelligible)

14 right now is the concern of some of the

15 residents (unintelligible) talk about two

16 car garage, or a two car application for

17 attached garage. Attached garage or the sum

18 total of attached garages on a pice of

19 property, if it meets the requirements of

20 the Ordinance, it's acceptable. And I'm

21 just saying the sum total of these attached

22 accessory buildings; whether they're

23 attached or detached, must meet the

24 requirements of the Zoning Ordinance; and



1 that's what we have.

2 I'm not sure what the

3 association has, but that's what the

4 Ordinance dictates. That's where we're at.

5 We're down to one variance, which is before

6 you today.



9 MR. SAVEN: No.

10 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you,

11 Mr. Saven.

12 Move on to Board discussion.

13 Member Gronachan?

14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Since I'm one

15 that suggested you guys go back on the

16 table, I'm glad to see that you

17 (unintelligible.) Obviously, you guys did a

18 lot of homework.

19 MRS. SZELAP: Thank you.

20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And I kind of

21 chuckled when I heard the neighbor say, you

22 can't please everybody. From the part of

23 it, I can see that you've obviously have

24 done -- attempted to do that.



1 I would still go back and

2 address the neighbor to make sure to make

3 sure that he sees the plans; that there is

4 not all cement. And I do have a question

5 for that second garage -- and echoing Mr.

6 Saven's comments -- is now you don't need a

7 variance for the garage, but how are you

8 going to get in there; because my plan

9 doesn't show --

10 MR. SZELAP: There should be --

11 if you look in there, there should be two

12 plots; one that shows the driveway going on

13 this one and one that shows the driveway on

14 that one.

15 MRS. SZELAP: If you don't, I do

16 have it right here. One of the issues is

17 our existing driveway, of course, is wide

18 enough for a two car garage.

19 MEMBER FISCHER: Go ahead and

20 just set it on there. It should pop up.

21 Oh, there's the star of show.

22 Board Members, while we are

23 waiting for that to be presented up there,

24 there were three objections -- four



1 objections, one from John and Nancy Djowa,

2 who spoke; one also from Dan Cutler, who

3 spoke; Steven Hudson, 43450 Algonquin has an

4 objection, with no comments. It says four,

5 but I only see three objections here, so.

6 MEMBER BAUER: And how many

7 approvals?

8 MEMBER FISCHER: And there were

9 four approvals. Four approvals, three

10 objections.

11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Including the

12 homeowners association.

13 MEMBER FISCHER: Correct. The

14 homeowner's association did send in a letter of

15 support.

16 MRS. SZELAP: See we are trying

17 to show on here -- excuse my finger here --

18 is right here, there is currently cement.

19 Obviously, you need a large piece of cement

20 to get into the two-car garage we have.

21 Now, this piece of cement will no longer be

22 there. That will be lawn and landscaping;

23 whatever we can do to make that as pleasing

24 as possible.



1 So now we just have the one

2 strip of driveway, with a little more added

3 up here -- and I don't know if you can see

4 it or not there -- there's a big tree

5 currently right here. All of this will be

6 lawn; and we hope to landscape this with,

7 you know, brand-new shrubs and bushes that

8 look a thousand times better than what's

9 currently there.

10 If I may also address the one

11 objection that you had, I believe it was

12 Algonquin. Those are from Sterling Pines,

13 which are behind us, and there is 50 to 75

14 foot woods separating us from them; and they

15 really have no view of our home at all. But

16 I guess they were within so many feet and

17 they received a letter, so.

18 This is what we're proposing is

19 to -- and again, the neighbor over here

20 maybe does not realize, and maybe it's

21 miscommunication on our part, also, that

22 this piece of cement will no longer be

23 there.

24 MR. SZELAP: The tree that's in



1 the front there, that tree is, you know, 30

2 feet tall, and it's 25 feet wide. You can't

3 even see that portion of our home from the

4 front road to begin with. So we don't plan

5 on removing that. Our lot does dip, so

6 we're going to raise that portion up a

7 little bit, and you know, level it off, so

8 that when you're looking at it from the

9 road, you're actually going to see is a

10 stone granite barrier with plantings on top

11 of it. So you won't even see the concrete

12 that's (unintelligible.)

13 And I did give a copy of that to

14 Mr. Djowa. We went over it several times.

15 (Unintelligible.) Especially about removing

16 the existing driveway that's in the front.

17 MRS. SZELAP: I did also speak

18 to Mr. Djowa, individually. I don't know

19 whether Mrs. Djowa was there or not. We

20 spoke and I explained that we were only

21 going for one variance this time to avoid

22 problems between our two homes. And this

23 why we took this one piece out of the

24 garage; (unintelligible) one little piece



1 out of the garage, so that we don't have any

2 problems between us and them.

3 Again, there was a lot of

4 miscommunication, I'm sure, between the two

5 families. We're trying to rectify this, but

6 it's kind of hard, you know, the

7 communication just (unintelligible) there,

8 so.


10 have, Mr. Chair.

11 MEMBER FISCHER: Any other



14 MEMBER FISCHER: Member Brennan?


16 obviously some emotion here, and I think

17 there's also a lack of communication. We've

18 taken advantage of a situation like this in

19 the past and taken a break; moved onto

20 another case, and let some people talk

21 outside in the corridor.

22 I think that the Petitioner

23 needs to better inform some of the

24 neighbors. That one was ready to bolt down



1 the middle aisle. And maybe you ought to

2 take a five to ten minute break and let

3 them talk about this out it the vestibule,

4 and move on to a second case.

5 When they're done, if they

6 haven't resolved their differences, we will

7 make a decision.


9 MRS. SZELAP: Yes, I will talk

10 to Mrs. Djowa most definitely.

11 MEMBER FISCHER: Board Members,

12 how do you feel about that? I see heads shaking,

13 then that is what we'll do. If you'll just pop

14 your head in and give me a wave whenever you're

15 ready. Hopefully you can work things out.

16 MRS. SZELAP: Okay, thank you.

17 MEMBER FISCHER: So we'll move

18 that to later on in tonight's meeting.


20 And we'll move to Case, 05-039,

21 filed by Paul Rizzardi, concerning 25300

22 Constitution in Main Street Village.

23 Are you Mr. Rizzardi?

24 MR. RIZZARDI: Yes, I am.




2 you please raise your hand and be sworn in by our

3 secretary.

4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear

5 or affirm that the information which you are

6 about to give in the matter before you is

7 the truth?

8 MR. RIZZARDI: Yes, I do.

9 MEMBER FISCHER: Please proceed,

10 sir.

11 MR. RIZZARDI: Thank you.

12 We're here asking for an

13 extension for a sign at the intersection of

14 Potomac and Pennsylvania Streets in the Main

15 Street Village development complex.

16 The sign was approved through, I

17 believe, the end of 2002. During

18 construction the sign -- the sign was up

19 prior to our construction. During

20 construction the sign came down, because

21 we've added (unintelligible) intersection of

22 Main and Market; Potomac and Pennsylvania.

23 The intersection realignments

24 took out the (unintelligible) on Potomac to



1 put in the new lines. Put in a bridge over

2 (unintelligible) and Pennsylvania; put the

3 sidewalk in. So the sign came down. At

4 some point I imagine, about six months ago,

5 the sign came back up, and since then, Mr.

6 Amolsch has sent us a notice that the sign

7 -- the original permit expired, and we're

8 here tonight asking for an extension, until

9 (unintelligible) leased up.

10 We are currently at 84 percent;

11 we needed to be in the mid-90's, in order to

12 secure our permanent financing of the

13 project, (unintelligible) the sign to the

14 point when we get completely leased up, so

15 we can secure permanent financing at Main

16 Street Village.

17 Do you have any questions?

18 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, sir.

19 When we get to Board discussion,

20 I'm sure there will be questions.

21 There were 38 notices mailed;

22 zero approvals and zero objections.

23 Does anyone in the audience wish

24 to make any comment regarding this case?



1 Seeing none, we'll go ahead and

2 move to the Building Department.

3 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment, sir.

4 MEMBER FISCHER: No comments.

5 All right.

6 Board discussion.

7 Member Brennan?

8 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, I'm kind

9 of torn on this one. Particularly when we

10 get to 80 percent build out, that's about

11 when we cut-off marketing signs.

12 Petitioner's already said they're at 84

13 percent. They're dang near sold out, leased

14 out, whatever it is.

15 At the same time, this part of

16 the new downtown district, and we're -- I

17 think everyone in the City is looking at how

18 we can help to promote that. So, I'm torn.

19 I'll take some guidance from others.

20 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you,

21 Member Brennan.

22 Member Canup?

23 MEMBER CANUP: I would concur

24 with Member Brennan. That's probably a sign



1 that that sign should come down and an

2 extension not be granted; clean up the area.

3 And we are at 84 percent, if I understood

4 correctly.

5 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you,

6 Mr. Canup.

7 Member Sanghvi?


9 MEMBER FISCHER: I thought your

10 hand was up. I'm sorry.

11 Member Bauer?

12 MEMBER BAUER: Since we have

13 one -- I think Mr. Rizzardi says he gets his

14 final money when he gets 90 percent. He's

15 at 84. Six percent is really a short time.

16 I think 90 days, I think we could give him

17 that.

18 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you,

19 Member Bauer.

20 Okay. Any other comments?

21 I'd like to go ahead and agree

22 with Member Bauer.

23 As Member Brennan said, we do

24 seem to show our up support when we're



1 getting at high percentages, such as that.

2 But considering the size of the development,

3 the importance of downtown being developed

4 and having people down there, to visit

5 downtown; I would be willing to compromise

6 (unintelligible) 90, other even

7 (unintelligible) six months.

8 But no more than that. Maybe

9 also including exceptions that once they

10 secure their funding, then they pull it done

11 and/or 90 percent.

12 So, those are my thoughts;

13 that's what I'd be willing to support.

14 If there is any members who

15 would like to make a Motion?

16 Member Gronachan?

17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: We should ask

18 the Petitioner if he's interested in taking

19 90 days.

20 How quickly do you think

21 (unintelligible)?

22 MR. RIZZARDI: Well, hopefully,

23 we'll get to 90 percent in 90 days. And

24 once we hit 90 percent, then we go through



1 the due-diligence period with our financial

2 institutions. So we really need 90 days

3 from hitting 90 percent to secure it.

4 So I'm happy with six months.

5 The problem that we're seeing, even though

6 we take a lot of leases this time of year,

7 we now start seeing move-outs. So in the

8 past, when we start to lease up, you get --

9 you move a lot of points quick, and now

10 you're getting the people with year leases

11 that are moving out.

12 The last ten percent is the

13 hardest ten percent to lease out a project.

14 I would be willing to (unintelligible) with

15 six months. I beg of you for six months; 90

16 days is just going to make it a little too

17 short for our needs.


19 Member Gronachan?

20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: That's all for

21 me.

22 MEMBER FISCHER: Member Brennan?

23 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll make a

24 Motion in case, 05-039, the Petitioner is



1 requesting an extension of the sign be

2 granted for a period of six months for

3 build-out and obtaining financing.



6 Motion and a second.

7 Any further discussion from the

8 Board?

9 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, would

10 you please call the roll.

11 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan?


13 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer?


15 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup?


17 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan?


19 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi?


21 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer?


23 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes five

24 to one.



1 MR. RIZZARDI: Thank you.

2 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, sir,

3 your variance has been granted.


5 We'll move on to Case Number

6 05-040, for a residence at 117 Charlotte.

7 MR. STREET: Joel Street, 117

8 Charlotte, Novi, Michigan.


10 Please proceed, sir.

11 I'm sorry. Madam Secretary,

12 would you please swear this gentleman in.


14 raise your right hand.

15 Do you swear or affirm that the

16 information that you're about to give in the

17 matter before you is the truth?

18 MR. STREET: Yes.


20 MR. STREET: I'm applying for

21 several variances to keep a shed on the rear

22 portion of the house at 117 Charlotte.

23 MEMBER FISCHER: No further




1 MR. STREET: No, sir.

2 MEMBER FISCHER: All right.

3 There were 31 notices mailed;

4 one approval, with zero objections.

5 Does anyone in the audience

6 wish to address the Board regarding this

7 case?

8 Seeing none, move to the

9 Building Department.

10 MR. SAVEN: There was an

11 existing slab there for this shed, was there

12 not?

13 MR. STREET: Yes, sir.

14 MR. SAVEN: There wasn't a shed

15 on this slab -- or was there a shed on this

16 slab?

17 MR. STREET: No, there wasn't.

18 MR. SAVEN: Did you receive a

19 notice of violation for this?

20 MR. STREET: Yes. I had --

21 after accumulating several other items --

22 bikes, canoes, lawn equipment, lawn mowers,

23 wheel barrels -- the stuff was gathering on

24 the side of the house, and I talked to



1 several of the neighbors, and they stayed

2 errently, of course, but -- it's a

3 Rubbermade Shed.

4 So I put it up and storing stuff

5 there. And after three years, one of the

6 inspectors came by and said it's too close

7 to the house. So they said I would have to

8 apply for a variance in order to keep it

9 there.

10 MR. SAVEN: Okay, I'm done.

11 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you,

12 Mr. Saven.

13 Before we move to the

14 Building -- or, to the Board suggestion, can

15 you clarify -- on the agenda, I believe it

16 gives the difference between the variances

17 that are on the sheet (unintelligible.) We

18 only have one variance request, and Case

19 Number 4 has three.

20 My concern being with the

21 letters that were sent out.

22 MR. SAVEN: Okay. Regarding the

23 initial letter, all of the particular items

24 that are requested for a variance are at the



1 top paragraph; even though the Novi Court

2 Order (unintelligible.)

3 What is necessary, it is also

4 noted that Mr. street is requesting three

5 variances, okay. And in the placement of

6 accessory structures upon existing cement

7 slab located at 117 Charlotte. The

8 applicant is requesting a five foot side

9 yard setback variance on the east property;

10 a four foot rear yard setback variance on

11 the south property line; and an eight foot

12 variance for the distance from the main

13 building. Property is Zoned R-4.

14 Particularly addresses all the

15 particular variances that were required.

16 Is this a problem, Thomas?

17 MR. SCHULTZ: I think the notice

18 is adequate.

19 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you,

20 Mr. Saven.

21 MR. STREET: Can I address the

22 Board?

23 MEMBER FISCHER: I'm sorry?

24 MR. STREET: Can I address the



1 Board?

2 MEMBER FISCHER: If they ask any

3 questions, we'll hear that, but --

4 MR. STREET: Sure.

5 MEMBER FISCHER: -- we'll move

6 on to Board discussion.

7 Member Brennan?


9 MEMBER FISCHER: 31 notices

10 mailed; one approval, zero objections.

11 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'm sorry. You

12 may have said that.

13 A 40 foot wide lot; it's an

14 existing house; it's an existing slab. This

15 piece of concrete has probably been there

16 for quite awhile. I have compassion for

17 people that need storage. I need it myself.

18 I don't see any big deal with

19 this.

20 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you,

21 Member Brennan.

22 Any further Board discussion?

23 Member Gronachan?

24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I think that



1 it's important to note that dispite the fact

2 that this Board is not in support of people

3 doing things without pulling permits and

4 checking on things, I understand, again up

5 at that end of town, it can be misconstrued.

6 So I will support this tonight,

7 if you promise me you won't do anything else

8 at that house without coming to see us

9 first.

10 MR. STREET: Okay. I don't want

11 to go through this again.


13 That's all I have.

14 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you,

15 Member Gronachan.

16 Any other Board Members?

17 Member Brennan?

18 I'll make a Motion that in Case,

19 05-040 that the Petitioner's request for

20 three variances be granted for reasons of

21 lot size.


23 MEMBER FISCHER: There's a

24 Motion and a second.



1 Any further discussion?

2 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, would

3 you please call the roll.

4 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan?


6 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan?


8 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer?


10 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup?


12 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi?


14 GAIL BACKUS: And Member

15 Fischer?


17 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes six

18 to zero.

19 MEMBER FISCHER: Your variance

20 has been granted, sir.

21 MR. STREET: Thank you.

22 MEMBER FISCHER: Please see the

23 Building Department.




1 We'll move on to Case 05-041,

2 Marcos Makohon with K4 Architecture for the

3 proposed Citizen's Bank.

4 Please state your name and

5 address and be sworn in by our secretary.

6 MR. MAKOHON: Good evening.

7 Marcos Makohon, K4 Architecture,

8 26899 Northwestern, Southfield, Michigan.


10 raise your right hand.

11 Do you swear or affirm that the

12 information that you're about to give in the

13 matter before you is the truth?

14 MR. MAKOHON: I do.


16 proceed.

17 MR. MAKOHON: Again, good

18 evening, Chairman and Board Members.

19 I'm here to present actually for

20 two variances requested for this particular

21 site. The first one -- I've been in front

22 of you requesting for another facility for

23 Citizen's Bank; that has to do with the

24 loading and unloading. And it has more to



1 do with business practicality of that

2 particular requirement, and less to do with

3 hardship.

4 The banking business does not

5 require large semi's or any vehicles that

6 occupy any more than a standard parking lot

7 within a parking space within the parking

8 lot.

9 Any exchange of money and so

10 forth happens during off hours. And it's

11 actually -- I don't disclose in public forum

12 how that happens, but it's in the back of

13 the building. The -- anything that happens

14 during the day comes in through small vans;

15 and they will occupy one of the parking

16 spaces temporarily and then move on.

17 The -- all of our suppliers are

18 the standard requirement. They do not sit

19 next to a front door, so, that's the first

20 one.

21 The second one has to do with

22 the request for the variance on the four

23 foot landscaping buffer all the way around

24 the building; which actually presents an



1 impracticality, when we're trying to provide

2 a safe area for our clients to use the ATM

3 and night deposit. That will require

4 vehicles adjacent to the building without

5 having a four foot buffer.

6 What I've shown on the diagram

7 is that we more than have satisfied the

8 landscaping requirement; with the exception

9 of that piece along side of the building.

10 And it's just is necessitated by the use of

11 a drive through facility.

12 Thank you.

13 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you for

14 your comments.

15 There were 14 notices mailed;

16 and zero approvals and zero objections.

17 Is there anyone in the audience

18 that wishes to comment on this case?

19 Seeing none, Mr. Saven or our

20 Building Department?

21 MR. SAVEN: Once again, this is

22 an issue involving a bank. We are looking

23 presently to changing the Ordinance in

24 regards to the four foot greenbelt area



1 around the drive-up window; and also for the

2 unloading and loading zone due to security

3 reasons.

4 And it's a problem with the same

5 issue that has been presented to you time

6 and time again. We're trying to get the

7 Ordinance changed right now.

8 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you,

9 Mr. Saven.

10 Board members?

11 Member Canup?

12 MEMBER CANUP: You know, it's

13 very few times that we see such a

14 illprepared presentation come to us.

15 There's no drawing. There's nothing here.

16 I would make the suggestion that

17 we table this case until the Petitioner has

18 an opportunity to get us a layout drawing of

19 what he's asking for.

20 MEMBER FISCHER: Other Board

21 Members?

22 Member Brennan?

23 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, you know

24 you're right.



1 Board Member Canup is right. I

2 wonder if the Petitioner might have gotten

3 some direction that these types of variances

4 for banks have gotten granted many times. I

5 was going back, and I have got at least nine

6 in the last two years; and the City's

7 already talking about changing zoning.

8 I was prepared to support it,

9 not even realizing that I didn't have the

10 details; but known it's the same old thing,

11 same old. It's the same variance that every

12 other bank has asked for.

13 I guess I -- unless the

14 Petitioner's got something he wants to show

15 us tonight, other than what we have in our

16 packet -- I mean, there's a layout there.

17 Does that give you any detail?

18 MEMBER CANUP: If you're asking

19 me, we haven't had a chance to look at this

20 at all. We don't know what's next door. We

21 don't know what's in back of it. I don't

22 think we have enough information to be able

23 to vote on it.

24 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yeah. I guess



1 we have a lot of people -- okay.

2 MEMBER FISCHER: Any other Board

3 Members?

4 Member Sanghvi?

5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

6 I think the problem we have is

7 we have a lack of information, because there

8 is a lack of communication between the

9 applicant and our Department. I'm sure the

10 Building Department looked at this

11 application (unintelligible.)

12 And on a technicality, yes, we

13 don't have enough information about this

14 thing. In reality, we have a recommendation

15 from the Plan Review Committee, presented

16 from the City, itself. And this

17 (unintelligible) has been approved by the

18 Planning Commission, as well.

19 And for the nature of business

20 they are in, maybe we make a Motion that

21 this only applies to the current applicant,

22 and not (unintelligible.) So that we move

23 for a banking business, this variance will

24 be (unintelligible); rather than come back



1 again with further details.

2 That's my suggestion.

3 Thank you.

4 Thank you, Member Sanghvi.

5 MEMBER FISCHER: I would tend to

6 agree with Member Sanghvi and Member Brennan. I

7 hate to see this Petitioner come back; given the

8 Plan Review Center reports that we did receive,

9 and this has gone through preliminary site

10 approval, correct?

11 MR. SAVEN: Correct.

12 MEMBER FISCHER: So the Planning

13 Commission has seen this interior landscaping --

14 2100 provided, 1944 required; given -- and that's

15 from the preliminary site plan. And we have seen

16 this before, and the City's in the midst of

17 reviewing.

18 Just to deny this applicant or

19 make them come back, purely because of the

20 fact that we don't have map in our packet --

21 although one was provided that we could

22 enter into the record -- I can't see denying

23 this, and I would be in support of approving

24 it.



1 MEMBER SANGHVI: May I make a

2 Motion?

3 MEMBER FISCHER: Member Sanghvi?

4 MEMBER SANGHVI: In Case Number,

5 05-041, we grant the requested. This is

6 only for banking business.


8 Motion.


10 MEMBER FISCHER: There is a

11 second.

12 Is there any further discussion?

13 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes, discussion.

14 I think that's a wise Motion. I

15 remember a bank that's on the corner of 10

16 Mile and -- it used to be bank. It's now a

17 dentist office, and they had to relandscape

18 that. So, smart move.

19 I support that Motion.

20 MEMBER BAUER: He's a smart guy.

21 MEMBER FISCHER: Yes, he is.

22 Thank you, Member Brennan.

23 There is a Motion and a second.

24 Any further discussion?



1 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, would

2 you please call the roll.

3 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi?


5 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan?


7 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer?


9 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan?


11 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup?


13 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer?


15 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes five

16 to one.

17 MEMBER FISCHER: Your variance

18 has been granted. Please see the Building

19 Department.

20 MR. MAKOHON: Thank you very

21 much.

22 And if I may address Board

23 Member Canup.

24 We did request whether we needed



1 a drawing and it was indicated that we did

2 not. That's why they were not provided.

3 So, thank you.

4 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, sir.




8 Moving on to Case Number,

9 05-042, Mark Hacker of Sally Beauty Supply

10 at Novi Town Center.

11 No, I believe we take care of it

12 in back.

13 MR. HACKER: Okay.

14 MEMBER FISCHER: Can you please

15 state your name and address for the record, and

16 be sworn in by our secretary.

17 MR. HACKER: My name is Mark

18 Hacker. I live at 45677 Lakeview Court,

19 Novi, Michigan. And --


21 raise your right hand.

22 Do you swear or affirm that the

23 information that you're about to give is

24 true?



1 MR. HACKER: Yes.


3 MEMBER FISCHER: Please proceed.

4 MR. HACKER: What I have here is

5 the new logo for Sally Beauty Supply; which

6 is an existing store on Crescent View in the

7 corner of the shopping center. They do have

8 a sign now. It does read Sally Beauty

9 Supply, but there -- it's kind of like an

10 old solid block letter; and they're kind of

11 close together.

12 This new logo is little bit more

13 airy, plus they added their new logo, which

14 is -- it's supposed to be (unintelligible.)

15 And it causes -- this is the size they

16 requested at 27 square feet. Because of the

17 logo, it has gone to 27 square feet.

18 Basically, it's the same (unintelligible)

19 letter as they have now; except, for now

20 they have a logo.

21 So we're requesting an

22 additional three square feet near asking and

23 addition a little three feet

24 (unintelligible) go over to their new



1 design.

2 MEMBER FISCHER: Excellent.

3 Any other comments?

4 MR. HACKER: No, I guess not.

5 MEMBER FISCHER: All right.

6 There were nine notices mailed;

7 zero approvals, zero objections.

8 Is there anyone in the audience

9 that wishes to address the Board regarding

10 this case?

11 Seeing none, Mr. Saven?

12 MR. SAVEN: No comment.

13 MEMBER FISCHER: Mr. Amolsch?

14 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment.

15 MEMBER FISCHER: All right.

16 Board Members.

17 This is an interesting sight.

18 Member Canup?

19 MEMBER CANUP: I guess my

20 question is, to get a new sign, a new

21 design, why can't it be made to live within

22 the Ordinance? Number one, what's the

23 hardship? It's a brand-new sign.

24 Any way, it's a brand-new sign.



1 I don't see why it couldn't be made to fit

2 and shrunk down enough to live within the

3 Ordinance. I don't see a hardship in this

4 case.

5 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you,

6 Member Canup.

7 Other Board Members?

8 Member Bauer?

9 MEMBER BAUER: I agree with

10 that, by being a new sign, (unintelligible)

11 three feet. (Unintelligible) it says 24,

12 should be enough.

13 MEMBER FISCHER: Member Sanghvi?

14 Well, I just had a question.

15 What do this kind of sign all

16 along he shopping mall there, the wall

17 signs?

18 MR. AMOLSCH: What was the

19 question?

20 MEMBER SANGHVI: The question is,

21 what is the kind of sign we've been

22 permitting? Have we given any variances on

23 those signs before?

24 MR. AMOLSCH: It goes by the



1 lineal frontage of the business.

2 (Unintelligible) 40 square feet. There are

3 several light variances (unintelligible)

4 that are 45 or 40 square feet. So it

5 goes -- I'm (unintelligible) of the business

6 but most of those signs over there are 24

7 square feet.

8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.


10 Gronachan?

11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Well, I think

12 the Petitioner hit the nail on the head when

13 he said it's the logo that causes the

14 problem; and I don't find that a degree of

15 practical difficulty at this point.

16 So I'm not able to support this.

17 I think they should -- they need to go back

18 to the drawing board and either ditch the

19 logo or work or reduce the sign. But I

20 think there's other things that can be

21 done; without going for a three foot

22 variance. And I know this sounds minimal.

23 But on the signs, there's just no practical

24 difficulty in my opinion.



1 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you,

2 Member Gronachan.

3 MR. HACKER: May I address the

4 Board one more time?

5 MEMBER FISCHER: I'm sorry, sir.

6 It's time for Board discussion right now.

7 MR. HACKER: Oh, okay. I had a

8 answer to the question about hardship.

9 MEMBER FISCHER: We have looked

10 through your packet and we have received some

11 correspondence. I'm sure that it was a long

12 those lines. I do appreciate your willingness to

13 address us, but we are at the table right now.

14 MR. HACKER: Okay, thank you.

15 MEMBER FISCHER: Member Canup?

16 MEMBER CANUP: You know, in

17 looking at the sign, I think again, the

18 problem is the logo. And you can live

19 without the log real easy, and then be able

20 to (unintelligible) within the Ordinance.

21 So really a foot -- actually, you could make

22 the sign a little bit bigger.

23 What purpose does the logo

24 serve? It's really not an (unintelligible).



1 It's an ego.

2 MEMBER FISCHER: It's what?


4 MEMBER FISCHER: I will go ahead

5 and make the mention that safety factor that I am

6 seeing with the neon sign -- I believe the

7 Petitioner has a right to have whatever they want

8 on their sign, including logos. If they want to

9 make it the neon illuminated -- which is referred

10 to in our packet -- they have a right to do that,

11 as well.

12 Am I correct, they have neon

13 signs?

14 MR. AMOLSCH: Yes.

15 MEMBER FISCHER: And in order to

16 do that, they request that the certain bolts are

17 needed or certain things (unintelligible.) And I

18 can appreciate that but, I also have to stick

19 with the fact that, or than that, there's no

20 hardship with this particular case

21 (unintelligible) the store front in this case.

22 And although, you know, driving

23 through there I see some -- I'd like to

24 almost see some Ordinance review in general



1 in the Town Center, because they do seem to

2 be having a lot of vacancies. I guess the

3 point is, is that, that's not our job to

4 make the laws regarding a general business

5 environment.

6 So, I'll support this due to the

7 fact that it is a general business case.

8 So, with those comments I would

9 appreciate someone with a Motion.

10 Member Canup?

11 MEMBER CANUP: I would make a

12 Motion in Case Number 05-042, filed by Mark

13 Hacker, Marquee Sign Company, that we deny

14 the request as stated due to a -- no

15 demonstrated hardship.

16 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

17 MEMBER FISCHER: There is a

18 Motion and a second on the table.

19 Discussion?

20 Mr. Schultz?

21 MR. SCHULTZ: Just briefly.

22 Since this is a denial, the

23 maker of the Motion, if he could just

24 incorporate his earlier comments; that will



1 be on record; lack of hardship, due to the

2 fact it's new sign and there's no stated

3 reason for why it could not comply with the

4 Ordinance.

5 Just in terms of since it's

6 denial, clarify that.

7 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, sir.

8 MEMBER CANUP: Please let those

9 comments be an amendment to the --

10 MEMBER BAUER: I'll second that.

11 MEMBER CANUP: -- change.

12 MEMBER FISCHER: The second does

13 approve of that amendment.

14 All right.

15 Are we all set? No more

16 discussion?

17 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, would

18 you call the roll.

19 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup?


21 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer?


23 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan?




1 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan?


3 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi?


5 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer?


7 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes five

8 to one.

9 MEMBER FISCHER: Your variance

10 has been denied at this time.


12 Case Number, 05- -- unless we

13 want to entertain a recess at this point?

14 Let's go ahead and take a recess

15 at this time for five minutes, and then

16 afterward, we do have the Duchess Court. So

17 we'll see that right after the recess.

18 Ten minutes.


20 (A brief recess was taken.)


22 MEMBER FISCHER: All right.

23 Let's get back to business, and

24 I do see that the second case on the agenda



1 is back in the audience, so let's go ahead

2 and call the Szelaps up.

3 And if you'd give us a little

4 summary of what happened, and please

5 remember that you're still under oath.

6 MRS. SZELAP: Yes, sir.

7 Our association president has

8 arrived. Is it all right for him to add?

9 MR. SZELAP: (Interposing) within

10 the architectural committee. He's been

11 there since the very beginning in the

12 subdivision.

13 MRS. SZELAP: He's the one who

14 gave us approval. He asked if he could

15 speak.

16 MEMBER FISCHER: Do you have

17 anything to add at this time or did you want to

18 give a summary before he gets up to inform the

19 Board as to any discussions or decisions, and

20 then we'll give him an opportunity.

21 MRS. SZELAP: Okay. I'll try.

22 I was the one that talked to the

23 parties, and we tried to keep on a friendly

24 level. Unfortunately, it didn't always stay



1 that way. It's kind of unfortunate. It's

2 one of those things, agree to disagree; or

3 they have to live with what we're doing; we

4 have to live with what they're doing.

5 We explained that we are within

6 the variances, other than this little three

7 foot thing. I tried to explain. My

8 neighbor, Nancy Djowa was listening very

9 well to me, I believe. I explained

10 (unintelligible) take that little piece out.

11 I tried to explain that the driveway is

12 going to be the same width it is now. It's

13 going to be moved over to the left.

14 There will actually be more

15 greenbelt between she and I. She is worried

16 about the front being too much cement. She

17 wasn't aware, I think before, as I recall

18 her saying, that it was going to be a

19 stamped pattern cement, rather than just

20 gray cement.

21 I tried to assure her that we

22 are going to keep the trees and the grass.

23 She does feel our yard is narrow, which it

24 is. I also explained to her that



1 (unintelligible) in order to get into this

2 garage, we're going to have to go forward

3 and then back up; which thus is more of a

4 pain for us, in truth than just going

5 straight in; but the reason we're doing this

6 is to turn that garage; keep the windows to

7 the street.

8 So it actually, from the street,

9 looks more like a den or a room, than a

10 garage. The folks that will see the garage

11 door, will be the Moracos, which spoke

12 earlier. The one garage that will be seen

13 from the street is the smaller one. I did

14 explain that. Again, I don't think -- there

15 was some miscommunication.

16 I explained to Ms. Djowa that we

17 moved the lines so that we are in -- agrees

18 with the variance; and I also explained that

19 whatever we do here -- getting a permit --

20 whatever we do, we are under the guidelines

21 that we draw. I know that everything will

22 be checked, as far as us staying, you know,

23 with what we said we're going to do.

24 They are not in agrees with us.



1 I'm not telling you that they are. We're

2 just trying to work this out the best we

3 can. And I think that we tried our best to

4 come down to just that little three foot

5 variance. But as I explained to Mrs. Djowa,

6 if we don't do that, everything else within

7 the variance -- we can go ahead it, but

8 we're going to have that garage facing the

9 street, which we just don't think is going

10 to look that nice.

11 That's kind of where we're at.

12 Thank you for your time.

13 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you for

14 the update on the meeting, and also the

15 association president, I believe --

16 MR. LIN: No, that's not quite

17 right.


19 Well, if you could please tell

20 us your name and your role, as well as your

21 address.

22 MR. LIN: My name is Lin, i-n.

23 My address is 23496 Winthrop Court in Novi.

24 I am on the Board of Directors of their



1 Orchard Ridge Homeowner's Association. I

2 also happen to be the chairman of the

3 architectural committee.

4 Personally, we moved into Novi

5 1980. We moved into Orchard Ridge. We were

6 the sixth house in that subdivision. We've

7 been here awhile. I have been involved with

8 the association almost entirely for the 20

9 some years, because I'm concerned about the

10 neighborhood; and want to make sure that,

11 you know, that Novi and Orchard Ridge lives

12 up to the standards that we all expect and

13 enjoy here in Novi.

14 My job as -- on the board is to

15 make sure that when people do want to do

16 something in the subdivision, they meet the

17 bylaws of the subdivision. That's primarily

18 my function. I have reviewed the plans for

19 this particular project twice. Both times,

20 as far as we are concerned as a homeowner's

21 association, they met all their requirements

22 of the -- you know, of our bylaws.

23 So there is no objection from

24 any of us on the board as to what they're



1 trying to do. So they have our approval.

2 Me, personally, I also happen to

3 be a licensed builder. I have looked at

4 plans. I think they did a fabulous job of

5 taking what he had and what he wanted to

6 present, and did it in a very professional,

7 very well looking manner. And in my person

8 opinion, it's going to enhance the value of

9 the property; and it's not going to have any

10 detriment on our subdivision whatsoever.

11 So with that, they have my

12 personal vote; and they have the approval of

13 our board. So I just wanted you folks to

14 know that. I sorry I couldn't be here

15 earlier. I had a meeting and I snuck in

16 just before the break.

17 So, well, I appreciate you

18 giving me the opportunity to speak.

19 Does is anyone have any

20 questions for me?

21 MEMBER FISCHER: I don't believe

22 so. But we do appreciate your comments.

23 Thank you.

24 Thank you for your comments,



1 sir.

2 MR. LIN: Thank you, Mr. Fisher.

3 MEMBER FISCHER: And we've gone

4 through the rest of the procedure, so we will go

5 right to Board Member discussion.

6 Member Brennan?

7 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, it's too

8 bad you couldn't hammer out an agreement;

9 and sometimes that works, sometimes it

10 doesn't. But, what the Board is faced with

11 is a single variance in front of us. We're

12 not debating a second garage. We're not

13 debating the percentage of the building on

14 the lot, and we're not debating how much

15 concrete. The only thing in front of us is

16 a three foot variance extension on the front

17 of the building, that actually enables cars

18 to be park from the side; rather, than from

19 the front, which I think is typically viewed

20 as a better arrangement.

21 Given that's the only thing in

22 front us, I would support the Petitioner's

23 request.




1 Motion?

2 MEMBER FISCHER: I think Member

3 Sanghvi has something to say.

4 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right. I'll

5 make a Motion.


7 MEMBER SANGHVI: In Case Number

8 05--33, we grant the applicant's request for

9 the variance of three feet -- a front yard

10 variance of three feet, because of the lot

11 configuration.

12 MEMBER BAUER: Second.


14 MEMBER FISCHER: We do have a

15 Motion and a second.

16 One thing I do want to mention,

17 also, is that I do want to commend the

18 Petitioner -- because of the amount of

19 variances we did see last year or last

20 month; the way that the variances were cut

21 down in size this month, I look to that

22 creativity as a positive.

23 So --




1 Sanghvi, can I make a friendly amendment?



4 variance be granted due to the fact that the

5 Petitioner has substantiated enough proof

6 that this house upon completion will be

7 consistent with the neighborhood; has a

8 minimum impact with the surrounding

9 neighbors; and that the appearance is going

10 to be nothing but improvement, and certainly

11 not a detriment.

12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Well, the point

13 here -- the core issue we're dealing with is

14 a three feet front yard setback. The rest

15 of that is all decoration, and I want to

16 just stick with the core.

17 Thank you.

18 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. We do

19 have a Motion and a second.

20 No further discussion that I

21 see.

22 Ms. Backus, would you please

23 call the roll.

24 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi?




2 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer?


4 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan?


6 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan?


8 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup?


10 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer?


12 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes six

13 to zero.

14 MRS. SZELAP: Thank you.

15 MEMBER FISCHER: Your variance

16 has been granted.

17 MR. SZELAP: Thank you very much.

18 MEMBER FISCHER: Please see the

19 Building Department.

20 MRS. SZELAP: Yes.


22 MEMBER FISCHER: Move now to

23 Case Number 05-043, Colliers International.

24 He has stuck around for the



1 case.

2 All right.

3 Okay. Your name and address.

4 MR. KELLY: Larry Kelly with

5 Colliers International, 2 Corporate Drive,

6 Southfield.


8 raise your right hand and be sworn in,

9 please.

10 Do you swear or affirm that the

11 information that you're about to give is the

12 truth?

13 MR. KELLY: I do.


15 MEMBER FISCHER: Please proceed.

16 MR. KELLY: We are -- I believe

17 this is the third time that we are

18 requesting a year extension. We are the

19 marketing firm for Burton, Katzman

20 (unintelligible) is a high tech development.

21 We have two structures up now that were

22 spec'd originally -- three years ago si when

23 they were first spec'd. They were 55,000

24 square feet each, facing each other, 110,000



1 square feet total; with units ranging from

2 5,000 feet to the entire, which is 110,000

3 feet.

4 We also have room for an

5 additional five buildings. I believe the

6 entire build out of Meadowbrook Corporate

7 Park is to attract high tech businesses is

8 approximately 250,000 square feet in total.

9 We are about 50 percent of the 110,000

10 square feet that's now existing and built;

11 and we are negotiating with tenants now. I

12 believe plans are in for approval. The

13 permits were Sanyo Automotive, which we just

14 signed, for 10,000 square feet; which is one

15 of these two 55,000 square foot buildings.

16 Burton, Katzman is considering

17 (unintelligible) one of the addition five

18 out buildings that were built in the rest of

19 the park; and just need more activity here;

20 as you know, we've been grinding this

21 economy.

22 We're looking for an addition of

23 one year to continue our marketing efforts

24 for the Meadowbrook Corporate Park.



1 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you very

2 much, sir.

3 In this case, there were six

4 notices mailed; there were zero approvals,

5 zero objections.

6 Anyone in the audience that

7 wishes to comment on this case?

8 Seeing none, Building

9 Department?

10 MR. AMOLSCH: No comments.

11 MEMBER FISCHER: No comments.

12 All right. Board Members?

13 Member Brennan?

14 MEMBER BRENNAN: A year ago,

15 according to the record, you were about at

16 53 percent build out; now you're at 50. I

17 guess it's a moot point. You're only half

18 way there. I would support another year.

19 MR. KELLY: Comment on that? Or

20 just --

21 MEMBER FISCHER: Is there a

22 question?

23 MEMBER BRENNAN: That's just my

24 --



1 MEMBER CANUP: I don't have a

2 problem with the sign; except for the fact,

3 you know, it's an advertising sign for

4 Burton, Katzman (unintelligible) associates

5 and Colliers International.

6 I think that sign could be

7 downsized a bit. I don't see a need to

8 advertise the architect and the developer.

9 The main message there is, we've got

10 property we want to lease, phone number and

11 the contact name.

12 I'd make a Motion, if that was

13 acceptable.

14 MEMBER FISCHER: Is that --


16 anything about what's on the sign right now?

17 This is just for an extension, because he's

18 got the sign --

19 MEMBER CANUP: We can do

20 whatever we want, basically, if we want to

21 downsize the sign. Or if we want to make it

22 bigger, we can do that.

23 MEMBER FISCHER: Mr. Schultz?

24 MR. SCHULTZ: If I may.



1 I think it's appropriate to

2 address the size of the sign. I think once

3 you get into the message on the sign, you

4 just have to be careful. And if you're

5 going to reduce the size of the sign, I

6 would suggest that it be limited to

7 particular information.

8 That's a more appropriate Motion

9 than saying remove the architect and remove

10 (unintelligible.) (Interposing) it's got to

11 have sufficient information to convey the

12 typical information that somebody renting

13 that or leasing that space would expect to

14 see.

15 I think you should deal with

16 it -- with the size, rather than the

17 information. If there is specific

18 information you're concerned about, I think

19 maybe (unintelligible) with the Petitioner

20 and see if we can have a discussion about

21 that.

22 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you.

23 MR. AMOLSCH: Mr. Chairman, just

24 to clarify this. The size of the sign --



1 this started out as a construction

2 identification sign; which is allowed to be

3 64 square feet in area and 15 feet in

4 height.

5 The year passed that the

6 construction sign was allowed; therefore,

7 after that, they required a variance to keep

8 the sign there. The size of a real estate

9 sign on a occupied piece of property is only

10 allowed a six square feet area, five feet in

11 height.

12 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, sir.

13 The Board Members?

14 I'm going to have to disagree

15 with limiting what the sign is. We have

16 approved it in the past, and they are

17 allowed certain things on it when it was a

18 construction sign.

19 MR. AMOLSCH: Correct.

20 MEMBER FISCHER: And in front of

21 me I see that they are looking for -- they're

22 looking for an extension of the time that they're

23 allowed. So, I would prefer not stepping on the

24 feet of the ACLU anymore. I think we have had



1 enough of that here, so -- not here, but with

2 other times and with free speech with what

3 they're allowed.

4 So I would not be willing to

5 support something where we were to limit

6 them in what they're allowed.

7 Member Gronachan?


9 clarification, Alan, please.

10 So you're saying that the actual

11 signage size should be six square feet?

12 MR. AMOLSCH: For a marketing or

13 lease sign. (Unintelligible) marketing or a

14 lease sign is six foot (unintelligible.)

15 This sign is larger to begin with, because

16 it's a construction identification sign.

17 (Unintelligible) verbiage of what it says on

18 the sign, except it has to contain verbiage

19 regarding developers and the owners and all

20 that kind of thing.

21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: The verbiage

22 is not -- but the size, and I think that's

23 what Member Canup was going for. At this

24 point, can we ask the Petitioner to go with



1 the regulation sign?

2 Mr. Schultz?

3 MR. SCHULTZ: Just if I may add,

4 the issue before the Board is the extension for

5 the sign that's here.

6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I understand.

7 MR. SCHULTZ: The Board can

8 certainly deny that and articulate reasons for

9 that. Or, it can explore with the Petitioner a

10 reduced size sign. This doesn't have to be the

11 size of a permitted permanent -- like a permitted

12 typical advertising sign.

13 Clearly for a large-scale

14 project like this, it would be very unusual

15 to limit a Petitioner to that small of a for

16 sale sign. So, if the Board is really

17 concerned about the size of the sign, I

18 think it ought to convey that to the

19 Petitioner, and see if there's something

20 less that it can live with.

21 I think there is a certain

22 amount of information on here. This is kind

23 of typical information on one of these

24 signs; and I think it would be appropriate



1 for the Board to say, okay, we're really

2 just going to consider -- this is a typical

3 sign. We want to give them another year.

4 If you don't want to do that, all I'm saying

5 is maybe you can explore with the Petitioner

6 something less.

7 But if you're okay with this

8 sign and the extension, you don't need to go

9 down that road.

10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you for

11 the verification.


13 discussion?

14 MEMBER BRENNAN: Let's see where

15 the Board sits. I'll make a Motion.

16 MEMBER FISCHER: Can I ask one

17 question quickly.

18 You mentioned some more

19 development. Is the further development

20 part of this sign?

21 MR. KELLY: Yeah. See, I think

22 that's where the confusion is. The 50

23 percent and 53 percent -- the Meadowbrook

24 Corporate Park (unintelligible) encompassed



1 property is 250 -- 300,000 square feet

2 (unintelligible) today. So this sign is for

3 the entire park, which -- we should be

4 hopefully breaking ground on one of the new

5 facilities as soon as they can get approval.

6 We were nearing --

7 (unintelligible) Electric and a few other

8 high-tech companies that are sniffing at it

9 and (unintelligible.) We're nearing a point

10 where they're willing to go in and start

11 (unintelligible) one of the other facilities

12 in the park.

13 So, we would -- until this is

14 ugly -- keep this sign. The construction

15 will continue probably for -- I would

16 imagine couple, three years, and hope to

17 have a sign of this size for that time

18 frame; until the development -- in which

19 case, at that point, we would go to a

20 typical leasing sign.

21 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you.

22 Let me go back to the Building

23 Department (unintelligible) additional

24 construction allows another construction



1 sign.

2 MR. AMOLSCH: If it's another

3 phase, they will be allowed another

4 construction sign.

5 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you.

6 MR. AMOLSCH: If there is

7 construction going on.


9 MR. SCHULTZ: I guess I'll ask

10 the Petitioner through the Boards, is this a

11 phase development or is it one site plan with

12 several buildings, but one phase?

13 MR. KELLY: With one phase?

14 MR. SCHULTZ: Was it all

15 approved at one time?

16 MR. KELLY: I don't believe it's

17 all -- I don't believe the other facilities

18 are completely site plan approved; just

19 conceptually approved.

20 MR. SCHULTZ: So the answer

21 without more -- I think it's very possible the

22 sign would be permitted in connection with some

23 other development, but without seeing that site

24 plan, it's really impossible to answer the



1 question.

2 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you,

3 Mr. Schultz.

4 Member Brennan, do you still --


6 just go back to my initial point. They're

7 at 50 percent on this phase. It's an

8 existing sign; and that's consistent with

9 what we've done in the past.

10 So I'll make a mention with

11 respect to case 05-043, that the

12 Petitioner's request be granted for another

13 year.


15 MEMBER FISCHER: There is a

16 Motion and a second.

17 Any further discussion?

18 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, would

19 you please call the roll.

20 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan?


22 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan?


24 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer?




2 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup?


4 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi?


6 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer?


8 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes four

9 to two.

10 MEMBER FISCHER: That's correct.

11 Your variance has been granted

12 for one year.

13 MR. KELLY: Thank you.

14 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, and

15 good luck to you.


17 We'll go ahead and call Case

18 Number 05-044 for a residence 1623 West Lake

19 Drive.

20 Good evening.

21 Can you please state your name

22 and address for the record, and then be

23 sworn in by our secretary.

24 MS. DOAN: I'm Hong Doan, 2554



1 (unintelligible) Howell, Michigan.

2 MR. TRAN: I'm Xuan Tran. I'm

3 her boyfriend.


5 raise your right hand and be sworn in, please.

6 Do you swear or affirm that the

7 information that you're about to give in the

8 matter before you is the truth?

9 MS. DOAN: Yes.

10 MR. TRAN: Yes.

11 MS. DOAN: We're here requesting

12 four site (unintelligible) deviations of 12.2 on

13 one side, four on the south side,

14 (unintelligible) 16.2; and also a lot coverage of

15 two percent.

16 On the side setback, this side

17 would cover (unintelligible.) Basically, these

18 are all a straight perpendicular line across the

19 lot. It is 38.58 feet wide. So if we stay

20 within the allowable zone, then the house would

21 be 13.58 feet wide. We requesting to build a

22 house of 29.78 feet. And this would include --

23 should be wide enough for a two car garage; plus

24 a front entry.



1 And also we are proposing to

2 have one side of the garage large enough for a

3 vehicle to be able to pass through for emergency

4 exit, if necessary. And also, if we would build

5 within the Code or the range, we would have a

6 very narrow and very long house.

7 And also, we would like to

8 address the concerns of the uneven biased for the

9 north side of the lot. And we're doing this to

10 balance the visual space perception. Since

11 currently, our northside neighbor is further away

12 than our southside neighbor. So by doing this,

13 we would -- from house to house -- we would -- it

14 would be 12.8 feet on the north side from our

15 house to our neighbor's house; and then 10 feet

16 from the southside.

17 And also for the southside

18 setback now, there's no access room at all. It

19 would allow for some room.

20 Then the next item we'd like to

21 present is the lot coverage. Because of the

22 narrow lot, it overall would make the lot small.

23 If you -- and what we're proposing to build is a

24 four bedroom. It's slightly less than 3200



1 square feet for six people to live in.

2 And we would like to have a

3 courtyard two manage the two young children that

4 we have; and also, we intended to do was to open

5 the space between -- to the southside; because

6 the gentleman currently has the house and then

7 an open courtyard, and then his detached garage.

8 So right now, there's a fence

9 right there, because the house is no bad looking,

10 so he wants to cover it. (Unintelligible) open

11 it up. And then the courtyard would minimize

12 fire damage, because of the lack of access. And

13 the breezeway is what takes up a lot of the

14 footprint, but we feel it's necessary for the

15 above benefits. And then, of course, the lack of

16 basement, because it's on a -- near water, we

17 need a lot of ground, big footprint for storage.

18 And that would be in the garage; and the

19 breezeway and the main house.

20 We did get one concern from the

21 north side neighbor, and we are going to address

22 it here. I think one concern was blocking of the

23 view. But if you see where we are proposing, our

24 house lines up with the neighbor's house on the



1 board here. And then also she's concerned with

2 the vehicle access. And which -- when I

3 questioned today, I wasn't -- the issue wasn't

4 very clear because there's a fence right now, she

5 has on the border between her house and our

6 house, and that would be not be disturbed.

7 But as I questioned further, I

8 guess -- I think her main concern was she feels

9 that with the more people coming to the

10 neighborhood asking for variances, that this

11 would set a precedence. Which I -- I mean I've

12 told her that is not the case, because I was told

13 this was a case by case situation.

14 In conclusion, we're proposing

15 to build a house for our family of six -- that's

16 two of us, two young children, and my parents;

17 because in our culture, we take care of our

18 parents as they're getting older. It would

19 beautify and sustain the value of the

20 neighborhood. And the -- by tearing down the

21 current house and putting up this new house, it

22 would replace an unsafe structure; which we've

23 received a citation for, for a very

24 unstructurally sound garage, (unintelligible.)



1 And not (unintelligible.) And

2 it would also resolve a (unintelligible) property

3 mistake. See, our garage is actually two feet

4 into the neighbor's yard.

5 And lastly, our families came

6 here after the war as refugees. We've worked

7 very hard to get where we are. And not to sound

8 cheesy, it's our dream to do this.

9 Any questions?

10 MEMBER FISCHER: Not at this

11 time. If there are any questions, the Board

12 will let you know.

13 In this case, 55 notices were

14 mailed out. There were zero approvals and

15 five objections. And a lot of concern has

16 to do with fire Code, ten feet between

17 houses, and the minimum should be kept up

18 within the properties along that -- in that

19 area.

20 (Unintelligible) Seaman of 1653

21 West Lake Drive; Paul and Christie Winthrop

22 of 1641 West Lake, also concerned with the

23 fire code if these variances were to be

24 approved. Ann Boels of 1405 West Lake Drive



1 says that although it's appropriate to

2 accommodate some requests within reason,

3 still has concerns about houses in that area

4 and fires. Three objections that I have in

5 front me.

6 Building Department?

7 MR. SAVEN: Basically, a couple

8 people touched base on the issue about the

9 fire safety requirements. The closer you

10 get to structures, or the closer your

11 structures (unintelligible) fire protection

12 is necessary for the development of that

13 structure. So that you'll be required to do

14 certain things for that side gets closer to

15 the property line.

16 If the Board's decision to

17 approve the variance, we'll require you to

18 take certain precautions for that particular

19 home to be built that close to the property

20 line.

21 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you,

22 Mr. Saven.

23 Is there anyone in the audience?

24 Please, come down.



1 MR. WINDORPH: My name is Paul

2 Windorph. I live at 1641 East Lake Drive.

3 And I was one of the objectioners that you

4 have there.

5 And also (unintelligible)

6 secretary two retractions -- people that had

7 given approvals before, when it was

8 explained that they only had 2.8 feet on one

9 side, they retracted their approvals, so I

10 gave that to the secretary there.

11 Anyhow, I'd like to just point

12 out that I talked with Olga, and she's the

13 neighbor on the northside. I think it's

14 1619, if I remember right. And really, if

15 you think about it, by granting a variance

16 of only 2.8 feet -- which is hardly enough

17 to walk through -- but by granting that

18 variance, you're basically subtracting

19 value, if you will, away from the -- from

20 Olga's property.

21 I can see that the neighborhood

22 is very tight, and there's certainly a lot

23 of variances that have been granted, in

24 fact, in the past. But down to the level of



1 2.8 feet, you're basically taking, you know,

2 dollar value if you will, away from her

3 property. Because in the future, she, or a

4 future owners of the property, can probably

5 have no possibility of ever getting, you

6 know, close to the moving that house any

7 closer than what it is right now.

8 So you're basically taking value

9 away. I can certainly see there's a fire

10 code -- if I remember right -- it's like ten

11 feet. I'm not positive on that. But, you

12 know, splitting the difference and at least

13 put it like a five foot, so it's equal on

14 both sides, so each side could get to that

15 minimum amount in the future. I could see

16 that sort of thing. But to push it back

17 closer to the property line makes it very

18 (unintelligible) and doesn't sound good to

19 me.

20 So that's my comments.

21 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, sir.

22 Anyone else in the audience?

23 Seeing none, yes, we did

24 receive the retractions; three approvals.



1 They are noted.

2 Member Gronachan?


4 square feet.

5 Whenever this Board is looking

6 at new construction -- and basically it's

7 what you are starting here -- okay, it's my

8 understanding that you're going to take down

9 the existing buildings, correct?

10 I know that this is probably

11 your first experience in building a new

12 home, So I'll be easy with you. I cannot

13 support any of this, and the reason why is

14 because of the issues stated, the safety and

15 concerns of the entire neighborhood. You're

16 far too close to that property line. These

17 properties -- these lots up there require

18 creativity and an out-of-the-box thinking.

19 And since I've been on this

20 Board for the last four or five years --

21 I've lost count because it's been so much

22 fun -- we have sent people back to the table

23 and told them to think it over. And I'm

24 amazed at what they come back with. I'm not



1 going to tell you that this is too much

2 house for the lot and to go buy something

3 else. I'm going to tell you to take this

4 lot and go re-look at your lot.

5 Go out to the northend and get

6 some better ideas. There's houses up there

7 that can fit a family of six; they can

8 address the safety concerns. Granted, I

9 understand that you're not going to be able

10 to build without any variances, but when

11 you're doing new construction, my theory is

12 less is better; and I would start out with

13 that right from the beginning. I would

14 start out with -- I have to think safety.

15 Two feet is not going to do it, okay,

16 especially up there.

17 And I wouldn't even want to live

18 in a house two feet -- that close to the

19 property line; and live with the guilt if

20 something happens. There have been fires up

21 there, and they're tremendous. So I'm going

22 to tell you that I fully support your

23 creativity here, but I think you need to go

24 back to the drawing board and think it



1 again.

2 Thank you.

3 MR. TRAN: Can we have a

4 rebuttal, because we never had --

5 MEMBER FISCHER: No, sir, not at

6 this time. But possibly as questions might be

7 asked.

8 So we'll move back to the table,

9 and see if there's are any further Board

10 discussion.

11 Member Canup?

12 MEMBER CANUP: Well, you know,

13 in the long and short of things, it's

14 basically overbuilding a lot. You know, I

15 think by Ordinance, you're allowed 25

16 percent. Here, we're looking at 27, did I

17 see. And if you take and throw in the

18 courtyard -- which is, realistically, really

19 not part of the house, but it does give

20 about 500 square feet in there; that could

21 be used in other areas on the front or the

22 back.

23 And I think, also, I got a real

24 problem with the two and a half feet; two



1 feet on the side of the neighbor. It's just

2 an unsafe situation. I think realistically,

3 what could be done in my opinion, is that

4 courtyard in the middle, the house could be

5 brought together, and make it a little more

6 smaller on the lot.

7 And bring in those sides and

8 move it over a foot on the one side; because

9 I think you've got six feet on one side.

10 You can move it over a foot and then shrink

11 it; maybe six inches on each side, some how

12 or another. (Unintelligible) in order to be

13 able to get it down to where you can at

14 least have five feet on each side, so you

15 can walk through there.

16 Two and a half feet,

17 unfortunately, is just -- it's as wide as

18 this table.

19 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you,

20 member Canup.

21 Board Members?

22 Anyone else?

23 MEMBER CANUP: I would make a

24 Motion that we table this case and give them



1 an opportunity to go back and address the

2 discussion that the Board has had and couple

3 back to us possibly with something that is

4 more suitable.

5 MEMBER FISCHER: Basically at

6 this time, the sentiment of the Board is that the

7 2.8 feet, especially, and maybe even the maximum

8 lot coverage aren't things that can be approved

9 at this time because of the safety concerns and

10 other things that the Board Members have said.

11 And therefore, we would like to

12 give you the opportunity to table this case,

13 and if you could relook at the plans with

14 your architect and rethink things, and

15 possibly bring something with lesser

16 variances. And that is pretty much the

17 sentiment of the Board, from what I see with

18 all these shaking heads. And then come

19 become at next meeting.

20 If that is what you prefer, the

21 we can go ahead and vote on this Motion.

22 MR. TRAN: Having not -- having

23 seen only one objection before the meeting,

24 we actually have the answers to some of



1 these that are really simple, and if I could

2 just talk to --

3 MEMBER FISCHER: The main thing

4 is that it's not even the objections -- in the

5 discussions, the objections weren't even brought

6 up that much. We have our own concerns that we

7 look at every time we look at a case. And I

8 don't remember a time that we have approved

9 something 2.8 feet. And it would be best to

10 table this and look at that and come become

11 before us. That would be my suggestion, as well

12 as most Board Members' suggestion.

13 We're not trying to deny --

14 MR. TRAN: No, I understand.

15 I'm just --

16 MEMBER FISCHER: -- we're going

17 to work with you.

18 MR. TRAN: -- saying that we

19 have some easy fixes. It's just -- not

20 having -- because it's such a narrow lot,

21 and not having the Code really relate to

22 narrow lots, we had no idea what to shoot

23 for. Because like 2. -- I don't like 2.8

24 feet either. The only reason we went that



1 way is because we figured, well, at least we

2 widened one side of it to have access.

3 MEMBER FISCHER: And the best

4 thing is it to take the discussion of the Board

5 tonight, redraw it, and come back to us; and we

6 would be more than willing to look at it at that

7 time. And we feel -- we have compassion for

8 these types of lots. You know, I'm sure that

9 even Don has -- has plenty of ideas in his head,

10 I'm sure he'd be willing to share with you or

11 someone else within the City.

12 But this isn't feasible, given

13 the safety concerns that this Board does

14 see.

15 MR. TRAN: I guess I would like

16 to ask direction, as far as the setbacks,

17 because it is 39 feet. And realistic --

18 theoretically, you know, it's supposed to be

19 13.9 feet. Is there something in between,

20 so we don't have to go back and forth all

21 the time; that the Board would accept? You

22 know what, 13 seems kind of unreasonable,

23 but what's -- you know what I mean? It's

24 hard -- we don't want to waste your time or



1 our time.

2 MR. SAVEN: I would suggest that

3 you listen to what the Board Members

4 (interposing) (unintelligible.) One Board

5 Member gave something, do the adjustment,

6 place the house in the center of the lot; to

7 look at reducing that 2.8 -- extending that

8 2.8 to a certain (interposing)

9 (unintelligible.) That will be a little

10 more palatable, okay?

11 MR. TRAN: Okay. I heard --

12 MR. SAVEN: It's already

13 mentioned. I can't instruct you on what to

14 do to violate the Ordinance. If I tell you

15 this is going to be acceptable here, I just

16 violated the Ordinance. We just heard some

17 recommendations on how the Board looks at

18 lots on the lakeside.

19 And I think if you

20 (unintelligible) it up, and you took a look

21 at the distance between the home and

22 whatever you've got, it might be something

23 that maybe reasonable to the Board but,

24 okay. They've also mentioned too much house



1 on the lot; lot coverage, itself.

2 (Unintelligible.) You may want to take a

3 look at redesigning.

4 MR. TRAN: Okay.

5 MR. SAVEN: I'm just making that

6 a suggestion as to what the Board's been

7 looking at.

8 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you,

9 Mr. Saven.

10 That's pretty much where we're

11 at.

12 Did you have something, Member

13 Sanghvi?

14 MEMBER SANGHVI: I just wanted to

15 address and to tell them that it is in their

16 best interest to let's us table this; rather

17 than go ahead and deny it. Just as simple

18 as that. I think this is an opportunity for

19 you to think again, talk it over, talk it

20 over with your architect, with your future

21 neighbors, if you are not living there; and

22 come to a consensus, and that's the best way

23 to go.

24 And that's why it's the best



1 idea to table it tonight.

2 MR. TRAN: Okay.

3 MEMBER FISCHER: So do you agree

4 to table this at this time?

5 (No verbal affirmative

6 response.)

7 Thank you.

8 There is a Motion. Do we have a

9 second?

10 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

11 MEMBER FISCHER: Seconded by

12 Member Bauer.

13 Any further discussion?

14 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, please

15 call the roll.

16 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan?


18 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer?


20 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup?


22 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan?


24 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi?




2 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer?


4 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes six

5 to zero.

6 MEMBER BRENNAN: Mr. Chairman?

7 MEMBER FISCHER: Yes, and I know

8 where you're going.

9 MEMBER BRENNAN: For the sake of

10 the Petitioner, may we have them up first on

11 the agenda next month?

12 MEMBER FISCHER: That's correct.

13 We will place you right up in front at the

14 beginning of the agenda, so you don't have to

15 wait through the rest of the cases.

16 MR. TRAN: Okay.

17 MEMBER FISCHER: We look forward

18 to seeing you then.


20 Case Number, 05-045, residence

21 at 25610 Arcadia.

22 Would you please state your name

23 for the record, and be sworn in by our

24 secretary.



1 MR. VELICK: Stephen Velick.


3 raise your right hand.

4 Do you swear or affirm that the

5 information that you're about to give in the

6 matter before you is the truth?

7 MR. VELICK: Yes.


9 MR. VELICK: I'm here with my

10 wife, Debra, in the back. And as you said,

11 we live at 25610 Arcadia. We're requesting

12 two variances in order to enclose an

13 existing courtyard back porch, that's in the

14 rear of our home. Our home is located on

15 the corner of Arcadia and Gina Court.

16 We have an unusual lot

17 configuration, as Gina Court is the

18 cul-de-sac, and we're right at the corner,

19 so it does kind of come in a little bit.

20 The notice that was sent out actually said

21 we needed a front yard variance of 5.7, and

22 that was a little confusing to some of my

23 neighbors, so I did clarify that.

24 It was really in the court, and



1 it wasn't Arcadia. We weren't adding five

2 feet to the front of house. And the other

3 variance that we require to do this is a

4 rear yard setback of 7.08 feet.

5 In your review, I'd like the

6 Zoning Board to consider two primary

7 factors. First, as I just mentioned, is the

8 configuration of the lot. And the fact that

9 it -- this porch, which is poured cement and

10 brick, already exists. And all we're trying

11 to do is enclose it.

12 And second, and more important

13 to us, is the use of the room, will

14 really -- is intended to be for

15 rehabilitation for my wife who has multiple

16 sclerosis; had it for 30 years. I did

17 include an addendum to my application, and

18 we truly believe that this addition and

19 the -- what it would provide for her, the

20 functionality will allow her to have greater

21 mobility and maintain some of the gains that

22 she's recently had; and increase the quality

23 of her life.

24 I did run our plans by the



1 architectural committee of our subdivision

2 association. I've talked to my neighbors,

3 especially the ones who would be in direct

4 view of it, although it is landscaped quite

5 well, and there isn't really much of a view

6 of that. They've been supportive, and Debra

7 and I would appreciate your support of this

8 project.

9 And we thank you for your time

10 and consideration, and be happy to answer

11 any questions.

12 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, sir.

13 There were 17 notices mailed.

14 There was one approval and zero objections.

15 Is there anyone in the audience

16 that has any comments?

17 Seeing none, Building

18 Department?

19 MR. SAVEN: You know I get

20 carried away on corner lots and definitions,

21 so you do have two front yards, as far as

22 I'm concerned, I'm sorry.

23 MR. VELICK: Yeah. And

24 maintaining the lawn and the landscaping and



1 two driveways, it is does feel like two

2 front yards.

3 MR. SAVEN: No doubt about the

4 particular one based on a lot configuration.

5 It's a very difficult issue. If you go

6 along, follow the curb of the property --

7 which is on the Gina Court side, you will

8 see where that front yard comes in -- into

9 place for that particular variance. So,

10 just want to bring that to your attention.

11 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you.

12 Mr. Saven does that just to

13 cause trouble. They like to do that to me,

14 too. You should have heard what he said

15 about my tie.

16 Board Members?

17 Member Canup?

18 MEMBER CANUP: I don't see any

19 problem with what they're asking, due to the

20 fact it's a corner lot. Circumstances are

21 very unique.

22 And I would be willing to make a

23 Motion to that effect.

24 MEMBER FISCHER: Please do.



1 MEMBER CANUP: I would make a

2 Motion that in Case Number 05-045 -- yeah,

3 05-045, that we grant the variance as

4 requested, as long as any modifications that

5 are proposed match the existing architecture

6 and the facade of the existing home.



9 MR. VELICK: Absolutely.

10 MEMBER FISCHER: Petitioner?

11 Excellent.

12 There's a Motion and a second.

13 Is there any further discussion?

14 Ms. Backus, would you please

15 call the roll.

16 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup?


18 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer?


20 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan?


22 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan?


24 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi?




2 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer?


4 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes six

5 to zero.

6 MEMBER FISCHER: Your variance

7 has been granted.

8 Good luck to you.

9 MR. VELICK: Thank you very

10 much.

11 MEMBER FISCHER: Please see the

12 Building Department.


14 Move on to our tenth case on the

15 agenda, Case Number, 05-046, for a residence

16 at 23925 East Lebost.

17 And will you both be speaking

18 tonight?

19 MR. WYATT: Yes.


21 MEMBER FISCHER: Please state

22 your names and raise your right hands.

23 MS. RESSEGUIE: I'm Karen

24 Resseguie. I'm the homeowner; and I brought



1 my friend Tom Wyatt with me. He's a little

2 more savvy with the math.

3 MR. WYATT: Tom Wyatt,

4 974(unintelligible) Northville, Michigan, a

5 friend.

6 MEMBER FISCHER: And if you

7 could raise your right hands to be sworn in,

8 please.

9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear

10 or affirm that the information that you're

11 about to give in the matter before you, is

12 the truth?


14 MR. WYATT: Yes.


16 MS. RESSEGUIE: Again, my name

17 is Karen Resseguie, and I thank you today to

18 allow me to present my variance opportunity

19 here.

20 I am requesting to have a

21 attached garage put onto my house, and

22 replace the existing carport that's there.

23 And I would -- I'm requesting some variances

24 that you have in front of you; and I'd just



1 like to take this opportunity to let you

2 know that I'm very happy to be in the Novi

3 community.

4 I -- as a young individual at

5 17, I would drive out here to Novi to work

6 at the nursing home at 10 mile and Novi

7 Road. When I came to this community to work

8 out here, I decided that I would want to

9 live here. So after a lot of hard work and

10 studying, I was able to purchase my first

11 home out here.

12 So with that, I would like to

13 add value to my existing home by putting an

14 attached garage to this. I see this

15 community as an entrepreneur community, as

16 well as myself as an entrepreneur.

17 Therefore, I (unintelligible) at my home by

18 value to it by putting an attached garage.

19 And I'm just asking if you would

20 grant that for me.

21 MR. WYATT: I'd like to add a

22 couple things. Once again, my name is Tom

23 Wyatt. Karen is a single woman who has to

24 come home each night in the dark. And there



1 is her open carport is exposed. There is an

2 old metal shed in the back, also. The added

3 safety of an attached garage would add a lot

4 of comfort to her.

5 A two-car garage which she's

6 asking for, which is only 20 feet wide.

7 Most garages now are 24, 25. She's asking

8 for the minimum, with a two-car garage, as

9 most of homes in the neighborhood now have.

10 The variances -- there are four

11 variances. This is the current plot plan.

12 And the house is already 25 feet from the

13 road. And the one variance asks for -- it

14 says from 30 feet is the required setback.

15 The house as it was built 48 years ago, was

16 already 25 feet from the road. So, she's

17 asking more an additional five feet in front

18 to pull the garage out.

19 The house has no basement; has

20 no place for a laundry. She'd like to be

21 able to put a washer and dryer in the back

22 of the garage, and needs a little depth to

23 be able to do that.

24 The -- also on a side setback on



1 the northwest side setback of 15 feet, is

2 eight; that's already existing. That's

3 arrow shows north, on the northwest side.

4 Again, that was 48 years ago that house was

5 built and had only eight feet. So that --

6 she can't really control that without

7 knocking down parts of the house.

8 The existing house, as it sets

9 right now -- and there is a shed back in

10 this area right here; and it is already very

11 close to the lot line. And the garage that

12 she is proposing -- which would be right

13 here, which would be farther from the lot

14 line than the existing shed is.

15 The carport, the existing

16 carport comes out to this front edge right

17 down here. And she's asking that the garage

18 go to the same distance as the carport has

19 been all along when she bought the house.

20 So she's not asking to come closer to the

21 road, or closer to the lot line. The

22 difference is, this would be a wood

23 structure with very fieldstone facia brick

24 on it, the facia on that, versus the open



1 carport on the side.

2 So the total variance -- the

3 fourth variance, which is total on both

4 sides, becomes difficult because she

5 already has eight feet. She's already seven

6 feet below the total variance from the house

7 being so close on the northwest side as it

8 was built.

9 The front yard is the main one,

10 and it shows a 12 foot front yard, but she's

11 really only asking for a five feet, to stay

12 within where her carport is, and allow for

13 the garage. This is a current picture of

14 the home; and you can see the carport right

15 here. And with the overhang on the front,

16 she's asking to come out to that same point

17 as that carport is right now.

18 All of the homes in the neighbor

19 hood are very close together. It's not an

20 open look view where someone might want to

21 open look, because as you can see, you have

22 trees over on this side. And each of the

23 houses are generally fenced in, closed yard,

24 trees and bushes put along those sides.



1 For safety reasons, she would

2 pull this tree out on this side and pull the

3 fence out so it will be an open backyard

4 back there, rather than closed in fenced.

5 And also the fence on the opposite side by

6 this carport here would come down, which

7 would allow more access and safety; in that

8 it would also allow her lawnboy to get in

9 and get lawn mowers for the backyard.


11 MR. WYATT: I think so.

12 MEMBER FISCHER: All right.

13 There were 42 notices; and there

14 was one approval and three objections. One

15 objection from Michelle and Gary LeBeck at

16 23920 East Lebost. A lot of homes in the

17 subdivision have added garages, but they do

18 not project from the house. They are more

19 often flush with the house.

20 Another concern is the drawing

21 of the proposed garage and the depth of

22 that. Overall, no objections to the

23 addition of a garage; but would like to see

24 closer in alliance with the guidelines.



1 Sean Falkner of 23934 East

2 Lebost would request that the proposed

3 garage be set even with the front of the

4 house; also mentioned depth of the

5 structure.

6 And lastly, Shay and Michelle

7 Lorence, L-o-r-e-n-c-e, of 23911 East Lebost

8 have a concern about the size of the garage

9 and how far it would protrude from the

10 house. We approve of a garage with

11 dimensions similar to other homes in the

12 neighborhood; including the front yard

13 setback, closer to the required 30 feet.

14 Seeing only the next Petitioner

15 in the audience, we'll move to the Building

16 Department.

17 MR. SAVEN: Only for the fact

18 that the side yard setback requests are

19 based upon what the requirements are of the

20 new Ordinance. One of the variance requests

21 are dealing with the existing structure for

22 the side yard setback (unintelligible)

23 violations of the Ordinance, taking in

24 consideration the sum total of both sides



1 (unintelligible) that part of the package.

2 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you,

3 Mr. Saven.

4 Board Members?

5 Member Sanghvi?

6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you,

7 Mr. Chairman.

8 Question, how big is your house?

9 MS. RESSEGUIE: About -- just

10 shy of 1400 square feet.

11 MEMBER SANGHVI: How big is the

12 garage that's going to be, what's going to

13 be square foot of the garage?

14 MEMBER SANGHVI: It's going to

15 be a total of 650 --


17 MS. RESSEGUIE: 620 square feet.

18 So it's basically --

19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Almost 50

20 percent of -- have you talked it over with

21 your neighbors and your neighborhood

22 homeowners association and the

23 architectural committee or anything like

24 that?



1 MS. RESSEGUIE: I did talk with

2 the neighbor across the street of me, who

3 had the concern of how far it was going to

4 come out. I indicated to her that it's

5 coming out no farther than the existing

6 carport currently, that she sees now.

7 The other neighbors, I was not

8 aware there was an issue. I know the

9 neighbor across the street had spoken and

10 said that it was fine.

11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Do you have a

12 homeowner's association?


14 MEMBER FISCHER: Member Sanghvi,

15 if I could clarify that. There was a letter from

16 the homeowner's association, stating that they

17 did not have time to -- not that they didn't have

18 time -- they were too busy, but they didn't

19 receive any plans, and therefore, didn't have an

20 appropriate amount of time to review all the

21 plans; in order to make a approval or a denial.

22 And if more specific

23 instructions would be given to them, then

24 they would proceed with that approval or



1 denial.

2 MEMBER SANGHVI: My only problem

3 is the front yard setback. A carport is one

4 thing; and a closed garage is a totally

5 different thing. And I don't think you can

6 compare the two. It's an open thing.

7 Beyond that, I don't have any

8 problem.

9 Thank you.

10 MEMBER FISCHER: Member Brennan?

11 MEMBER BRENNAN: Along the same

12 lines, do you have anymore detail than this

13 little sketch that we have? I mean, are you

14 at a point where you've gotten any

15 preliminary or elevation drawings or --

16 MS. RESSEGUIE: I'm having my

17 contractor sketch that for me. I wasn't

18 really aware. I was trying to meet the

19 deadline for today to come in.

20 MEMBER BRENNAN: I have a same

21 or similar sentiment with respect to the

22 garage lining up with the front of the

23 house. I think you had two, if not three of

24 the neighbors make that same point. And



1 maybe you ought to consider that, what it

2 does to the backyard. I don't know. Do you

3 have a backyard setback?

4 There seems to be more interest

5 in having that flush along the front of the

6 house than jetting out, and I would support

7 that as well. I don't deny anybody's

8 interest in having a garage. That's for

9 darn sure. I'd like to see a little more

10 detail. I would (unintelligible) front of

11 the house, but that's just my personal

12 observation.


14 Gronachan?


16 would like to help you out. I don't know

17 what kind of time schedule you're on, but I

18 think that this needs to go back and we

19 need -- and taking the neighbors' concerns

20 about it being in front of the house, I

21 think you need to go back to the drawing

22 table; and see what it would do to put it

23 flush with the house and then take from

24 there.



1 I think if you did that, I think

2 you're going to make your neighbors happy.

3 And unfortunately, we couldn't approve it

4 like that, because it would have to be

5 readvertised.

6 MR. WYATT: Would it be your

7 recommendation that we actually make like a

8 frontal elevation view, also? Is that --

9 would that be helpful?


11 detail. We like getting nice thick packets.

12 It's fun for us. The more detail always the

13 better; but --

14 Member Canup?

15 MEMBER CANUP: The own thing

16 that I can see that we asking to change si

17 to move the garage back five feet, and that

18 would extend the rear yard five feet

19 farther. And if that didn't create -- we're

20 actually doing less than what was asked for.

21 Therefore, if my understanding

22 is right from the past lecture from the

23 attorney, that we can do that, we can give

24 less, but we can't give more. So if we move



1 the whole thing back five feet, make the

2 front line up; and then protrude five feet

3 farther in the back. As long as that

4 doesn't get into some rear yard setback

5 problem --

6 MR. SAVEN: May I suggest that

7 you put the plot plan back up on the screen,

8 so we can take a look at it and see if we

9 can resolve it right now.

10 MEMBER CANUP: If we can deal

11 with this tonight -- nothing's going to

12 change between now and next month, except

13 for the fact that, they'll have it drawn on

14 paper --

15 MEMBER FISCHER: The reason I

16 would like to see it is these objections. We can

17 have her work with her neighbors, and hopefully

18 get an association approval, as well. That's the

19 only reason I would like to see her go back. But

20 let's take a look and --

21 MEMBER BRENNAN: How far is it

22 to the back lot, do you know?

23 MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) that's

24 in relationship to the side yard



1 (interposing) (unintelligible.)

2 MEMBER BRENNAN: We're going to

3 have to have her come back.

4 MR. WYATT: But if we are to the

5 front, we still would be five feet less than

6 the 30 foot requirement, because that's how

7 the house already is. Would that be

8 acceptable, because our builder wanted --

9 because of the side variance that he was

10 mostly concerned, because she has to get

11 approval before she proceeded on with the

12 plans and the association.

13 MEMBER CANUP: That's fine.

14 If we agree to table, I don't

15 have a problem with that.

16 MEMBER FISCHER: Would you agree

17 to that, tabling it until next month; given the

18 recommendations that the Board has given?


20 MEMBER FISCHER: All right,

21 then.

22 We'll entertain a Motion.

23 MEMBER SANGHVI: So moved.

24 MEMBER BAUER: See you next



1 month.

2 MEMBER FISCHER: Please call the

3 roll.

4 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup?


6 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi?


8 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer?


10 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan?


12 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan?


14 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer.


16 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes six

17 to zero.

18 MR. WYATT: Thank you.

19 MEMBER FISCHER: Your case has

20 been tabled; and we look forward to seeing what

21 you can bring back and (unintelligible) with your

22 neighbors.


24 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you.




2 And lastly, waiting so

3 patiently, Case Number 05-047, Northern

4 Equities, for an existing construction sign

5 at 39475.

6 Did you enjoy the meeting so far

7 tonight?

8 MR. LUTZ: Good evening.

9 Absolutely. I'm going to write

10 a book some day about these meetings.

11 MEMBER FISCHER: Are you an

12 attorney?

13 MR. LUTZ: No.

14 MEMBER FISCHER: All right.

15 Then if you could raise your

16 hand and state your name and be sworn in by

17 the secretary.

18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear

19 or affirm that the information that you're

20 about to give in the matter before you is

21 the truth?

22 MR. LUTZ: I do.

23 My name is Bill Lutz for Sign

24 Grafix at 39255 (unintelligible) Drive,



1 representing Northern Equities.

2 What they're asking for here is

3 an extension of the variance that was

4 granted about a year ago for a construction

5 site sign for Lewis Medical Center. That

6 facility has just been granted a certificate

7 of occupancy within the last couple of

8 months; and we've started to move a few

9 tenants in. It's about 12 percent leased

10 currently.

11 We are hoping to have it leased

12 within the next year, so we're asking for an

13 additional year for this construction site

14 sign. And I note, it doesn't say anything

15 about the architects or designers or any of

16 the other paraphernalia on it. It's pretty

17 straight forward.

18 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you,

19 sir.

20 In this case, there were five

21 notices mailed; zero approvals, zero

22 objections.

23 No one in the audience.

24 Building Department?



1 MR. SAVEN: No comment.

2 MEMBER FISCHER: Member Brennan?

3 MR. AMOLSCH: Bill, we talked

4 about this earlier, about those right of way

5 problems and (unintelligible.)

6 MR. LUTZ: Absolutely. I'll

7 mention that to Matt tomorrow, and we'll

8 make sure that that's moved,

9 (unintelligible) because it's not located

10 correctly.

11 MR. AMOLSCH: If the Board

12 approves it.


14 MEMBER BRENNAN: I only had one

15 question, build-out, and you answered that

16 12 percent. I have no problem supporting

17 this.

18 I guess we have some little work

19 to do, relocation and --

20 MR. LUTZ: I think the sign was

21 put in before, Alan, the sidewalk was there,

22 was it not?

23 MR. AMOLSCH: Yeah, that's

24 correct.



1 MR. LUTZ: That might have been

2 (unintelligible.)

3 MEMBER BRENNAN: With the nods

4 -- in Case Number, 05-047, I would move that

5 the Petitioner's request be granted for an

6 additional year; with comments by Alan as

7 part of the record.


9 MEMBER FISCHER: A Motion and a

10 lot of support.

11 And seeing no further

12 discussion, Ms. Backus, please call the

13 roll.

14 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan?


16 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan?


18 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer?


20 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup?


22 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi?


24 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer?




2 Congratulations.

3 MR. LUTZ: Thank you very much.

4 MEMBER FISCHER: After all of

5 that. It took two minutes to get your variance.

6 MR. LUTZ: Always nice to see you

7 all.

8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: We're looking

9 forward to the book.

10 A.

11 MEMBER FISCHER: We'll move on

12 to other matters.

13 The Building Department wanted

14 to inform us as to 05-127?

15 MR. SAVEN: Yes.

16 In your packet, you have a

17 request from Mr. Sam Khoury. He had

18 received a variance from the Board February

19 2nd, 2005. He's asking for a 40 day

20 extension, due to the fact that he's

21 (unintelligible) completion of his final

22 architectural plans. And we're taking a

23 look at site (unintelligible) problem

24 (unintelligible) trying to deal with right



1 now, and he's asking for a 40 day extension.

2 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you,

3 Mr. Saven.

4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Do we need to

5 make a Motion?


7 Member Sanghvi?

8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Oh, I'll make a

9 Motion to approve this extension of 40 days

10 in this particular case.

11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: 14 days or 40

12 days?

13 MEMBER SANGHVI: 40 days.

14 MEMBER FISCHER: From today's

15 date?

16 MEMBER SANGHVI: From today's

17 date.

18 MEMBER FISCHER: There is a

19 Motion. Is there a second?

20 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

21 MEMBER FISCHER: Any further

22 discussion?

23 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, please

24 call the roll.



1 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi?


3 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer?


5 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan?


7 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup?


9 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan?


11 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer?


13 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes six

14 to zero.

15 MEMBER FISCHER: All right.

16 Lastly, just a reminder to Board

17 Members, as well as anyone watching at 9:47,

18 that next month's meeting is the second

19 Tuesday, July 12th, because of the holiday.

20 And this Board stands adjourned

21 until July 12th, 2005.

22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

23 (The meeting was adjourned at

24 9:50 p.m.)



1 - - - - - - -


























1 C E R T I F I C A T E


3 I, Machelle Billingslea-Moore,

4 do hereby certify that I have recorded

5 stenographically the proceedings had and testimony

6 taken in the above-entitled matter at the time and

7 place hereinbefore set forth, and I do further certify

8 that the foregoing transcript, consisting of (134)

9 typewritten pages, is a true and correct transcript

10 of my said stenograph notes.



13 ___________________________

Machelle Billingslea-Moore,

14 Certified Shorthand Reporter


16 July 14, 2005.