| View Agenda for this meeting View Action Summary for this meeting REGULAR MEETING - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 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, July 11, 2006. BOARD MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY: 1 Novi, Michigan 2 Tuesday, January 10, 2006 3 7:30 p.m. 4 - - - - - - 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: I'd like to 6 call to order the July 2006 Meeting of 7 City of Novi Zoning Board of Appeals. 8 Will you please rise and join 9 me in the Pledge of Allegiance. 10 Thank you. 11 BOARD MEMBERS: I pledge 12 allegiance to the flag of the United States 13 of America. And to the Republic for which 14 it stands, one nation, under God, 15 indivisible, with liberty and justice for 16 all. 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 18 Ms. Working, will you please 19 call the roll. 20 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 21 MEMBER BAUER: Present. 22 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup? 23 MEMBER CANUP: Here. 24 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer?
3
1 MEMBER FISCHER: Present. 2 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt? 3 MEMBER GATT: Here. 4 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger? 5 MEMBER KRIEGER: Here. 6 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Here. 8 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 9 MEMBER SHROYER: Here. 10 ROBIN WORKING: All present, 11 Mr. chairman. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 13 We do have a quorum and the 14 meeting is now in session. 15 I'd like to go over the rules 16 of conduct. You can find them on the 17 agenda. Two friendly remainders, please 18 turn off all cell phones and pagers. 19 Individual applicants may take five minutes 20 and groups may take ten minutes to address 21 the Board. 22 The Zoning Board of Appeals is 23 a Hearing Board empowered by the 24 City of Novi Charter to hear appeals seeking
4
1 variances from the application of the Novi 2 Zoning Ordinance. It takes a vote of at 3 least four members to approve a variance 4 request; and a vote of the majority of the 5 Members present to deny a variance. 6 Tonight we have a full Board, 7 so all decisions made today will be final. 8 Are there any changes to the 9 agenda, Ms. Working? 10 ROBIN WORKING: No, sir. 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: None, very 12 good. 13 And next one, let us approve 14 the agenda. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: Move to 16 approve? 17 MEMBER BAUER: So moved. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 19 All say aye to approve the 20 agenda? 21 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 23 Now we have an agenda. 24 We also have Minutes from May
5
1 of 2006 meeting. 2 Are there any changes or 3 amendments to the Minutes? 4 MEMBER FISCHER: Motion to 5 approve as submitted? 6 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Motion to 8 approve the Minutes and seconded that. 9 All those in favor, signify by 10 saying aye? 11 BOARD MEMBER: Aye. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: All those 13 opposed, same sign. 14 Okay. Now that the minutes 15 are all taken care of. At this point of the 16 meeting, now is time to open the Public 17 Remarks Section. 18 Is there anyone in the 19 audience who wishes to make any comments not 20 pertaining to any matter on the agenda 21 today, please come forward. 22 Seeing none -- 23 Yes? 24 MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, it's
6
1 an honor and privilege that I have to 2 introduce our newest Member to the Zoning 3 Board of Appeals as Robert Gatt. He is the 4 newest Member on the Board we wish to 5 welcome here in the ZBA. 6 MEMBER GATT: Thank you. 7 MEMBER BAUER: Yeah. 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: How about the 9 City Attorney? 10 MR. SAVEN: This is Shannon. 11 Shannon is going to be substituting at the 12 present time for what's his name. 13 MS. OZGA: Tom Schultz. 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Schultz. 15 MR. SAVEN: I think he's 16 vacationing somewhere in the Carribean or 17 something, doing all the good stuff we'd 18 like to do. 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Very good. 20 Thank you. 21 All right. 22 23 Which brings us to the first 24 case on the agenda. And that's Case Number:
7
1 06-052 filed by Smith Group for Providence 2 Park Medical Building Group, L.L.C, on the 3 southeast corner of Beck and Grand River. 4 MEMBER KRIEGER: I'd like to 5 recuse myself on the first item. 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: You're 7 (unintelligible) great. See you soon. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: Motion to Allow 9 Member Krieger to be recused. 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: So moved. 11 MEMBER CANUP: Second. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Seconded. 13 All those in favor? 14 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 16 MEMBER BAUER: Now you can 17 leave. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Now you can 19 leave, very good. 20 All right. I don't see 21 anybody here. 22 (Unintelligible) here for 23 Providence Group? 24 MR. FLUGLEN(ph): Smith Group.
8
1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Please come 2 forward and identify yourself and give your name 3 and address. 4 MR. FLUGLEN: Michael Fluglen 5 representing Smith Group, 500 Griswold, 6 Detroit. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: You are not an 8 attorney, will you be please sworn in by our 9 secretary. 10 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly 11 swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case: 12 06-052? 13 MR. FLUGLEN: I do. 14 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 15 MR. FLUGLEN: Thank you for 16 allowing us to present our case this 17 evening. 18 In my letter -- if you've 19 reviewed it -- the Medical Office Building 20 is a group of 51 physicians that practice at 21 Providence -- 51 physicians and physician 22 groups who are currently either practicing 23 in the existing medical building at 24 Providence or practicing in Southfield at
9
1 the Providence Campus, and have gathered 2 together to build their own building at the 3 Novi Campus. 4 This location -- this is the 5 new hospital which is under construction 6 now. This is the medical office building 7 which we are discussing this evening. This 8 is the Novi -- Novi Orthopedic Building, was 9 is also part of the development. 10 As I said, 51 physicians. The 11 building is completely physician owned. 12 Roughly 70 percent of the doctors are -- own 13 a hundred percent of the building; the 14 remaining 30 percent of the building will be 15 occupied by Providence functions. 16 Originally, there was going to 17 be two buildings, a medical office building 18 and a Neural Science Institute, but the 19 Neural Science Institute is about 40,000 20 square feet. And in discussion with the 21 medical office building doctors, decided to 22 combine the two buildings for economy, but 23 attempt to retain separate entities after 24 the project was completed.
10
1 It's about a 42,000 square 2 foot footprint; 320 feet long, by about 120 3 feet wide; will be physically connected to 4 the hospital by a walkway that has yet to be 5 clearly defined, but will be constructed by 6 the hospital. Five floors at 12 foot eight, 7 floor to floor, which gives us about a eight 8 and a half foot ceiling height; which is 9 typical for a Class A office building. That 10 gave us a roof height of 63 foot, plus roof 11 slope and a couple of feet for parapets 12 around the perimeter, got us to the 65 foot 13 height limitation. 14 However, the mechanical 15 equipment on the roof and the two stairs at 16 either end of the building to access the 17 mechanical equipment and the rest of the 18 roof project 12 to 13 feet above the 65 foot 19 requirement. So the bulk of the building 20 falls within the Ordinance, however the 21 stair covers and the screening for the 22 mechanical equipment project above it. 23 We looked at building a 24 basement to reduce the height of the
11
1 building. However not -- fair to say none 2 of the physicians were interested in being 3 located in the basement without natural 4 daylight for their practice; with the 5 exception of the radiology practice, which 6 is only about 2800 square feet. When we ran 7 the numbers it was cheaper to build up, than 8 it was to build down. 9 So the plan -- the resulting 10 plan represents a balance between what the 11 physicians wanted for office space and what 12 the City of Novi requires for parking, 13 landscaping; and you put those -- the three 14 of those in the pod, and that's what we came 15 up with. It's also in keeping with the 16 Providence Park master plan. Again, the 17 hospital as the center piece of the complex 18 is about 120 feet to the roof; the medical 19 office building about 80; and the Novi 20 Orthopedic Building about 40. So it steps 21 down from the center of the complex to the 22 ring road row to the perimeter. 23 The second issue was the 24 location of the loading area or the service
12
1 area. The main entry to the building is on 2 the west face, facing the parking lot. The 3 east face of the building faces the 4 Greensworth and the hospital. So, both of 5 those elevations are sort of front doors to 6 the building. Again, the main entrance 7 would be where the bulk of the parking is, 8 but there will be patients and doctors 9 coming from the hospital going back and 10 forth from the office building. 11 So this location of the 12 service area is on the southern end of the 13 building, and it's really not a loading 14 dock, it's pair of double doors for FedEx 15 and UPS delivery and whatever. 16 And that pretty much concludes 17 my remarks. I'd be happy to answer any 18 questions. 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 20 Done anyone in the audience 21 wish to address the Board regarding this 22 case? 23 Seeing none, I'd like to 24 inform the Board that there were 47 notices
13
1 mailed; three returns, zero approvals, zero 2 objections. 3 Building Department? 4 MR. SAVEN: Basically, just to 5 point out that gentleman was taking 6 primarily with the roof top screening issue, 7 the mechanical equipment room, which 8 exceeded the specific height requirement, 9 although part of the building is involved, 10 and this creates (unintelligible) whatever 11 for that particular section. But mostly 12 it's mechanical equipment we're dealing 13 with. 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 15 I'll open it up to the Board? 16 Yes, Mr. Canup? 17 MEMBER CANUP: Again, this is a 18 building within a group of the hospital general 19 area, and that whole section in there that is 20 being developed, as I guess, the medical center 21 of Novi -- if you want to use that term -- is a 22 unique situation; compared to what's our 23 Ordinance may call for in heights and loading and 24 unloading, etc.
14
1 And I think the only people in 2 the City that it will effect, if it effects 3 anybody, are those in the surrounding 4 buildings, which are part of the total 5 complex. 6 So if there would be no 7 further discussion, I would make a Motion in 8 this case, if it's appropriate. If not, 9 we'll wait. 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Any comments by 11 anybody else? 12 Go ahead, Mr. Shroyer. 13 MEMBER SHROYER: I have just a 14 couple comments for clarification, and then 15 Mr. Canup, (unintelligible) make your Motion. 16 I'm sure (unintelligible) open to it. 17 The current approved roof top 18 screening is a five foot setback 19 appropriately. Are all of the pieces of 20 equipment ten foot in height. 21 MR. FLUGLEN: Yes. There are 22 four air handling units on either side of 23 the central core that are ten foot eight or 24 something. So the 12 foot screening covers
15
1 the four of those on both sides. 2 MEMBER SHROYER: And you talked 3 about stair wells at each end. You didn't say 4 anything about the equipment, the mechanical 5 equipment for the elevators, which I believe is 6 also above. 7 MR. FLUGLEN: That's in the 8 center of building. That's the same 12 foot 9 eight height. Currently, the 10 (unintelligible) screening and the elevator 11 penthouse are at the same height. 12 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. 13 Initially, I was a little 14 concerned trying to think of 12 foot being 15 setback. I believe it's 35 feet from the 16 roof's edge, when you draw a line of sight, 17 you're going out hundreds and hundreds of 18 feet, so nobody really could see the 19 equipment anyway. But then it dawned on me 20 the other two buildings on the site. You 21 know, if you're on an upper level floor, 22 you're almost looking parallel or looking 23 toward the roof, so that makes sense. And I 24 can understand why you had be looking at the
16
1 12 feet. 2 Those are really the only 3 items I had on the building. I have no 4 problem at all with the change of the 5 loading area, as well. 6 So that's all I have. 7 Mr. Chair, thank you. 8 MEMBER CANUP: If there's no 9 further discussion, in Case Number: 06-052, I 10 would make a Motion that we grant the variances 11 as requested because of the previous statements 12 made my Members of this Board. 13 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Motion has been 15 made and seconded. 16 Any further discussion? 17 Yes, Mr. Fischer? 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Mr. Chair, I 19 would ask that the maker of the Motion or anyone 20 from the Board maybe put some findings of fact in 21 the Motion, and I'll feel more comfortable 22 supporting that Motion. I agree with the Motion, 23 I'd just like to have a little more findings of 24 fact.
17
1 If you'd like, I'd be more 2 than happy to offer some or if you'd like to 3 come up with your own. 4 MEMBER CANUP: The findings of 5 facts in the Motion was as stated, was the 6 recent conversation of Board Members, which 7 (unintelligible) by two different Board 8 Members. The fact are as that we have 9 talked about are those that were presented 10 by the two Board Members. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: Still think 12 that the discussion was something different than 13 the Motion. I would prefer to put some findings 14 of the fact in there. It's up to the Board 15 Members, though. 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes Ms. Ozga? 17 MS. OZGA: I just wanted to say 18 if you wanted to establish that the Petitioner 19 has established some sort of practical 20 difficulty, and this is not going to adversely 21 effect any of the other property owners, things 22 of that nature, that would be sufficient. 23 MEMBER CANUP: That was stated 24 previously in my comments and that comment
18
1 -- those comments were brought in as part of 2 the Motion. 3 However, if it's the desire of 4 the Board (interposing) (unintelligible.) 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: (interposing) 6 (unintelligible) do you have any objection to 7 incorporating the comments into the Motion? 8 MEMBER CANUP: I said that in 9 the Motion. 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: I know that. 11 So it's clear to everybody 12 else. 13 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 15 Mr. Bauer? 16 MEMBER BAUER: Yeah. 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 18 Any further discussion? 19 Seeing none, Ms. Working, 20 please call the roll. 21 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 22 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 23 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup? 24 MEMBER CANUP: Yes.
19
1 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer? 2 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 3 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt? 4 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 5 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 6 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 7 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 9 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes 10 six to zero. 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 12 Well -- 13 MR. FLUGLEN: Thank you. 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: -- your Motion 15 has granted. Please see the Building Department. 16 Thank you. 17 18 Good evening. Moving on to 19 the next case on the agenda, Case Number: 20 06-053, filed by Novi Town Center located at 21 26045 Town Center Drive. 22 Is the applicant here? 23 MR. FOSSEE: Yes. 24 Good evening.
20
1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Would you 2 please identify yourself and your name and 3 address. 4 MR. FOSSEE: My name is 5 Charles Fossee principal of Wah Yee 6 Associates. We're the architects for the 7 project. Our office is in Farmington Hills. 8 I'm am here tonight to request 9 that you table our proposal until your 10 August 1st meeting. We've gotten -- because 11 the agenda was full for the July 10th 12 Council meeting, we've gotten out of 13 sequence. We're now scheduled to go to the 14 Council on the 24th, so we'd like to come 15 back before you on August 1st. 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 17 (Unintelligible) seeing any 18 objection, what is the pleasure of the 19 Board? 20 Yes, Mr. Canup? 21 MEMBER CANUP: I'll make a 22 Motion that we accept the request from the 23 Petitioner. 24 MEMBER FISCHER: Second.
21
1 MEMBER SANGHVI: A Motion has 2 been made and seconded. 3 I don't think there's a lot of 4 discussion on this Motion, so Ms. Working, 5 please call the roll. 6 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 7 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 8 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup? 9 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 10 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer? 11 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 12 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt? 13 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 14 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger? 15 Member Shroyer? 16 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 17 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 19 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes 20 six to zero. 21 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 23 See you next time. 24
22
1 2 Moving along. I like that. 3 Next case is 06-054, filed by 4 Matt Sosin for Northern Equities Group, 5 39475 Lewis Drive. 6 Yes, sir, will you please 7 identify yourself. 8 MR. LUTZ: I can. 9 Nice to see you again. 10 Bill Lutz from SignGraphix. 11 This is a renewal of an 12 existing variance. 13 MEMBER BAUER: Are you an 14 attorney? 15 MR. LUTZ: No, I'm not. 16 MEMBER BAUER: Okay. Raise your 17 right hand to be sworn. 18 Do you solemnly swear or 19 affirm to tell the truth regarding Case: 20 06-054? 21 MR. LUTZ: I do. 22 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 23 MR. LUTZ: This is a renewal 24 of a existing variance that was granted
23
1 about a year ago, June of last year, for a 2 oversized real estate sign. 3 My thought on a real estate 4 sign -- and Mr. Saven can correct me if I'm 5 wrong -- (unintelligible) looking at the 6 entire Ordinance, and real estate signs are 7 one of the things that we come before this 8 Board many times (unintelligible) Northern 9 Equities; real estate signs we think being a 10 little undersized in the Ordinance as it's 11 now written, and probably for too short a 12 period of time. 13 This particular medical 14 building has got some challenges. That 15 market is getting very over built right now, 16 i.e., the last Petitioner, in Novi; which is 17 a property we're very familiar with. 18 There's also a major hospital going up in 19 Farmington Hills. 20 So this building is currently 21 15 percent occupied; and the extra size and 22 the extra advertisement, if you will, for a 23 for-lease building is pretty prime in this 24 market place.
24
1 What's we request is that we 2 extend this variance for those reasons. 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Is there 4 anybody in the audience who would like to make 5 any comments about this case? 6 Seeing none, Building 7 Department? 8 MR. SAVEN: Once again, how 9 much occupancy is in the building? 10 MR. LUTZ: 15 percent. 11 MR. SAVEN: 50 or 15? 12 MR. LUTZ: 15. 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 26 14 notices were mailed; zero approvals, one 15 objection. 16 Would you like to enter into 17 the record? 18 MEMBER BAUER: It's by Gabe 19 Gabriel. I have total objection to this 20 requested variance. This has totally 21 commercialized and deteriorated the residential 22 nature of the neighborhood and subdivision. 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 24 Open it up to the Board for
25
1 discussion. 2 Yes, Mr. Fischer? 3 MEMBER FISCHER: How large is 4 the property in question? 5 MR. LUTZ: That's a good 6 question, Mr. Fischer, I do not know. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: Fair enough. 8 MR. LUTZ: I would say it's 9 about an acre, but I don't know that for a 10 fact. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: (Unintelligibl 12 e) building -- the building it says 45 -- oh, I'm 13 sorry, 4,000 square feet. 14 MEMBER CANUP: 40,000. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: 40,000. 16 MR. LUTZ: It's a two-level 17 building. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Right, right. 19 Given the size of the 20 building, given the fact that -- how long 21 have you been leasing out for? 22 MR. LUTZ: Just for a year. 23 When I came before you last year, that 24 building was just being finished up.
26
1 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 2 And given that the fact that 3 the Petitioner has 15 percent after about a 4 year, I feel that the sign does well there. 5 I believe that the speed of traffic on that 6 property is also taken into the 7 consideration, and I would be willing to 8 support another year for this sign. 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Very good. 10 Thank you, Mr. Fischer. 11 MEMBER BAUER: Is that a Motion? 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, Mr. Canup? 13 MEMBER CANUP: In looking at 14 the sign, I don't have problem with granting 15 an extension on it. Looking at the sign, 16 you've taken up -- looks like maybe about 30 17 percent, maybe 40 percent of the sign with a 18 picture of the building. The building's 19 right there, right? 20 MR. LUTZ: I understand -- 21 MEMBER CANUP: I don't have a 22 problem with extending it. I'm just saying that 23 I think I can find better use of that square 24 footage on that sign.
27
1 MR. LUTZ: I agree. 2 MEMBER CANUP: Right. 3 MR. LUTZ: To increase the 4 size of the text and not have a sign; 5 whether that's economically an issue -- I 6 can certainly make that suggestion. But I 7 (unintelligible) with you. 8 MEMBER CANUP: 9 (Unintelligible) trying to rent that for 10 almost two years, and you've got 15 11 percent -- do whatever you can. 12 MR. LUTZ: I agree. 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, 14 Ms. Krieger? 15 MEMBER KRIEGER: I wanted to -- 16 Thank you, Mr. Chair. 17 -- to agree with Mr. Canup. 18 When I drove by that -- (unintelligible) 19 disagree with not, because it's only 15 20 percent occupancy, to have this sign there. 21 But it seems like the picture 22 (unintelligible) building were right there 23 to (unintelligible) I agree with what 24 Mr. Canup said.
28
1 Thank you. 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 3 All right, Mr. Fischer. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: I would move in 5 Case Number 06-054, filed by Matt Sosin for 6 property at 39475 Lewis Drive, we grant the 7 Petitioner's request for one year, given that the 8 Petitioner has established a practical 9 difficulty; given the speed of traffic on that 10 road, and due to the fact that it is also only 15 11 percent leased out. 12 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. 14 Any further discussion? 15 Seeing none, please call the 16 roll. 17 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 18 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 19 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup? 20 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 21 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer? 22 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 23 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt? 24 MEMBER GATT: Yes.
29
1 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 2 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 3 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 5 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes 6 six to zero. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Well, your 8 variance has been granted. 9 MR. LUTZ: Thank you very 10 much. 11 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Moving on. 13 Next case on the agenda is 14 Case Number 06-055, filed by Dave -- excuse 15 me if I don't say it correctly -- Zaitchik. 16 MR. ZAITCHIK: Very good. 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: -- for Singh 18 Construction Company, located on Old Novi Road 19 near the proposed Bolingbroke Lane. Singh 20 Construction Company is requesting one sign 21 variance for the placement of an additional 22 subdivision entryway sign to be located on Old 23 Novi Road near the proposed Bolingbroke Lane. 24 The property is zoned R-4, and
30
1 will become the Bolingbroke subdivision. 2 Would you please identify 3 yourself, give your name and address, and be 4 sworn in by our secretary, please. 5 MR. ZAITCHIK: Dave Zaitchik 6 representing Singh Construction Company, 7 7125 Orchard Lake Road, West Bloomfield. 8 MEMBER BAUER: Raise your right 9 hand. 10 Do you solemnly swear or 11 affirm to tell the truth regarding Case: 12 06-055? 13 MR. ZAITCHIK: I do. 14 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 15 Go ahead. 16 MR. ZAITCHIK: First of all, 17 I'd like to clear up the statement of what 18 we are asking for, is a little bit 19 misleading or not correct. 20 It says for placement of an 21 additional subdivision entry sign. That's 22 not correct. We're asking for two 23 variances. We're asking, first of all, for 24 the placement of the one and only entry
31
1 sign, instead of being directly adjacent to 2 the entry to the subdivision, as the 3 Ordinance states. We want to move it about 4 two lots away from the subdivision entry in 5 order to get more visibility on Novi Road, 6 as opposed to the less traveled Old Novi 7 Road. 8 The second variance that we're 9 asking for with -- the City of Novi would 10 allow us a back to back sign. With the back 11 to back sign, they allow it to V out a 12 little bit, have a certain amount of 13 separation. I think it's a maximum of two 14 feet, something like that. I'm not sure. 15 We're asking to be able to 16 separate it more into a wide V, because 17 first all with the first variance, we're 18 asking to move the sign over to Novi Road, 19 where there's a lot more traffic, and so it 20 would be better visibilty for marketing 21 purposes, as well as for emergency vehicles 22 to locate the subdivision. And secondly, 23 when we move to the Novi Road position -- if 24 we're allowed -- then, we're on a curve on
32
1 Novi Road. 2 So where normally you'd put a 3 back to back sign perpendicular to the road 4 and get good visibilty from both sides, this 5 is on a curve, and we'd really -- you'd have 6 to V the sign out in order to get good 7 visibilty in both directions. 8 As part of your packet, you 9 should see a sight distance or sight line 10 drawing that will indicate that. 11 So those are the two things 12 that we're we are asking for. We'd 13 appreciate your help. 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Does anyone in 15 the audience wish to address the Board regarding 16 this case? 17 Seeing none, I'll inform the 18 Board that we had sent out 164 notices; zero 19 approvals and two objections. 20 MEMBER CANUP: Mr. Chair, 21 point of order. 22 Is -- was this advertised 23 properly as two signs or was it advertised 24 as one sign? Did the advertisement for the
33
1 Zoning Board of Appeals state it properly? 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Interesting 3 question. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: I think we'd 5 have to defer to Mr. Amolsch and the attorney 6 there, because I would question the same thing, 7 whether the variances they're requesting for 8 wasn't advertised that way, then we can't act on 9 it anyway. 10 MR. AMOLSCH: (Unintelligible) 11 point of clarification. Entryway signs are 12 the only sign that do not have to be back to 13 back. They are allowed (unintelligible) 14 that allows an entryway sign to swing out, 15 so that's not an issue before the Board 16 (unintelligible.) 17 The issue before the Board is 18 the placement of the sign itself, and the 19 word additional should have been struck. I 20 missed that on my last review. 21 MEMBER CANUP: His 22 presentation was made with the question of 23 two sign variances. 24 MR. AMOLSCH: Right.
34
1 MEMBER CANUP: But we're only 2 dealing with one. 3 MR. AMOLSCH: (Unintelligible) 4 one sign (unintelligible) issue of that it's 5 allowed to be V'd out. That's the only sign 6 that's allowed to do that. 7 So the only issue the Board 8 has is the placement of the sign. 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl 10 e.) 11 MR. ZAITCHIK: Also, I'd like 12 to mention I brought a color rendering -- 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Just a moment. 14 MR. ZAITCHIK: Oh, okay. 15 MEMBER CANUP: I think what's 16 they've done is very tasteful. It looks 17 quite well. I personally don't have any 18 problem with this. 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay, thank 20 you. 21 Yes Mr. Shroyer? 22 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, 23 Mr. Chair. 24 (Unintelligible) please read
35
1 (unintelligible.) 2 MEMBER BAUER: We have two 3 objections. One from the Rich -- I can't 4 pronounce (unintelligible) Carlton Way Drive, and 5 A. Matson on Carlton Way Drive. 6 Both objections, not saying 7 what they object to. 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay, thank 9 you. 10 Now we can open for further 11 discussion, thank you. 12 Go ahead, Mr. Shroyer? 13 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you. 14 The first question I have is 15 when I was out at the property and in 16 viewing the site plan, it's not directly 17 adjacent to the subdivision entrance, was 18 mentioned, but what it is adjacent to is 19 part of the park? 20 MR. ZAITCHIK: Yes. 21 MEMBER SHROYER: Part of the 22 park? 23 MR. ZAITCHIK: It's part of 24 the park area.
36
1 MEMBER SHROYER: The question I 2 have (unintelligible) the City then, do we need 3 to have any type of Motion for a park sign? I 4 moon if it's located in the park (unintelligible) 5 put up a separate sign for the park? 6 MR. AMOLSCH: Subdivision has 7 a sign, but it's required to be at the 8 entrance to the subdivision. 9 MEMBER SHROYER: I understand 10 that. 11 MR. AMOLSCH: Anywhere else, 12 it's not allowed. 13 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. So this 14 wouldn't be permitted (unintelligible) park sign 15 in addition to an entrance way sign. 16 MR. AMOLSCH: That's correct. 17 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. 18 I'm not done. I'm sorry. 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Go ahead. 20 MEMBER SHROYER: You answered 21 the first question. 22 If I read the mockup 23 correctly, it appears that there's a 24 distance of about 23 feet between the two
37
1 signs at the V? 2 MR. ZAITCHIK: That sign's 3 about right, yes. 4 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. 5 And the current sign that's at 6 the corner of Novi Road and Old Novi, that's 7 just a mockup? 8 MR. ZAITCHIK: Yes, yeah, it's 9 a mockup. 10 If you look at the color 11 rendering behind you, it's a monument -- 12 it's a monument construction, so there's a 13 combination of brick piers and wall and 14 (unintelligible) and then the sign within 15 those two walls. So it's a little bit 16 deceiving just seeing the mockup sign out 17 there in the middle, without seeing the rest 18 of the monument structure with it. 19 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay, on the 20 sign itself, the same size? 21 MR. ZAITCHIK: Yes. The 22 mockup sign is exactly the sign that would 23 be in the monument wall. 24 MEMBER SHROYER: I think it's an
38
1 attractive sign. I think the rendering -- if it 2 turns out to look anywhere near as good this 3 (unintelligible) in the blueprints you provided 4 us. I think it will greatly enhance the beauty 5 of our wonderful City, and that I'm in full 6 support. 7 I do have a Motion prepared, 8 if you want me to go forward, or continue 9 with the Board comments? 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Any comments 11 coming? 12 MEMBER FISCHER: I have a 13 question. 14 Are you planning something 15 down Novi Road? 16 What you had said during your 17 presentation made me believe that you might 18 be building that way down Novi Road a little 19 bit towards like, 12 Mile area? 20 MR. ZAITCHIK: No, no. We're 21 just looking for the traffic coming north on 22 Novi Road to be able to see the sign to 23 locate -- to locate the position or to 24 identified this subdivision.
39
1 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 2 I agree. I think it's 3 esthetically pleasing. I think it is 4 needing and -- needed although, if it's to 5 allow emergency vehicles to be able to find 6 the subdivision, I think we have a lot 7 bigger problem in our City. I hope they can 8 fine it otherwise than these signs. But 9 either way, I think that other reasons have 10 been established to support this. 11 Thank you. Mr. Chair. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 13 Anybody making a Motion? 14 Go ahead, Mr. Shroyer? 15 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. 16 Regarding Case Number: 17 06-55(sic) filed by Dave Zaitchik for Singh 18 Construction Company, I move to approve the 19 variance requested for one entryway sign, 20 which is not located adjacent to the 21 Bolingbroke Subdivision entry; and to permit 22 a V shaped sign, not to exceed a 23 foot 23 separation. 24 This Motion is it based on the
40
1 need to provide better subdivision 2 identification, for safety and security 3 reasons. 4 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: Second. 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: A Motion has 7 been made and seconded. 8 Any further discussion to the 9 Motion? 10 Seeing none, Ms. Working, will 11 you please call the roll. 12 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 13 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 14 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup? 15 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 16 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer? 17 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 18 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt? 19 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 20 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 21 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 22 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 24 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes
41
1 six to zero. 2 MR. ZAITCHIK: Thank you. 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: You can get 4 your permit from the Building Department. 5 Thank very much. 6 7 Moving along, Case Number 8 06-056, filed by Derrick Kyser of 901 South 9 Lake Drive. Applicant is requesting two 10 front yard setback variances for the 11 construction of a wrap around porch/deck in 12 the front yard of 901 South Lake Drive. 13 (Unintelligible) identify 14 yourself? 15 MR. KYSER: Yes. Derrick 16 Kyser, 901 South Lake Drive. 17 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly 18 swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case: 19 06-056? 20 MR. KYSER: I do. 21 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Proceed with 23 your presentation. 24 MR. KYSER: Pretty much the
42
1 reason for me being here tonight -- I 2 appreciate your time -- is looking to 3 improve my home that I purchased about two 4 years ago. Just recently, I wanted to add 5 on an addition, a small deck -- no more than 6 about ten, maybe 11 inches off the ground, 7 in that there would be no railing. 8 Really, the lot's -- it's 9 facing a Wall Lake, so obviously Novi 10 (unintelligible) but those lots apparently 11 many years ago were cottage style homes and 12 lots. We're just looking to improve the 13 home, it's -- esthetically, how it looks, of 14 course, brings up amount -- value of the 15 property, itself. Hoping that there is 16 something we can do in order to see if we 17 can get this granted. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: That's all? 19 MR. KYSER: Thank you. 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Anyone in the 21 audience that wishes to address the Board 22 regarding this case? 23 Seeing none -- not too many 24 people in the audience -- I'd had like to
43
1 inform the Board that there were 52 notices 2 were mailed, zero approvals and zero 3 objections. 4 Building Department? 5 MR. SAVEN: Just to point out, 6 the deck's open and uncovered -- unenclosed 7 are allowed to project (unintelligible) 8 required front yard up to four feet, as long 9 as there's no roof over them or encloser, 10 what have you. So in this case. So in this 11 case (unintelligible) 26 feet 12 (unintelligible) what the initial starting 13 point is, because that's would be an 14 allowable setback at that time. 15 So, he is on -- he has two 16 frontages. He's on a corner lot. The 17 previous house did receive a Zoning Board of 18 Appeals approval when it was originally 19 constructed. 20 So there's a very tight 21 situation out there. He's trying to 22 maximize his living area in that area. 23 MR. KYSER: I do have a 24 picture, possibly, if that --
44
1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 2 MR. KYSER: The corner of 3 house -- as you can see, there's a double 4 wrap around door walls. Really that's 5 where -- almost at the center where you can 6 see the shaded area from the roof, just a 7 small wrap around; just past the side. Like 8 I said from the beginning, just hoping to 9 kind of improve the house (unintelligible) 10 value of the homes around the area. 11 Hopefully -- it would be nice if everybody 12 else in the neighborhood would take the time 13 to come out and do what they can do to 14 improve the City. 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 16 MR. KYSER: Thank you. 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right. 18 Anything else from the Board? 19 Any other comments? 20 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, Mr. Bauer? 22 MEMBER BAUER: I can see the one 23 on South Lake Drive. The one on Waldon -- you do 24 set down a little bit. And being five feet from
45
1 the yard (unintelligible) there. That's too 2 close. I couldn't go for that one. But I'll go 3 for the one on South Lake Drive. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 5 Okay, yes, Mr. Gatt, would you 6 like to go first? 7 MEMBER GATT: I just have 8 question for you. Have you looked into any 9 other options that are closer to what our 10 requirements are? I mean, your proposed 11 variance is more than 20 feet different than 12 what we would expect from that particular 13 situation. 14 Is there any other options 15 that you've considered that would be any 16 closer to what we would hope for? 17 MR. KYSER: Sure. 18 I have looked into other 19 building structures, whether it's a patio. 20 Of course, cost is going to be a major 21 factor. 22 One thing, too, that forced 23 the problem with the side of the house the 24 (unintelligible) were pretty shoddy. There
46
1 are -- if you don't mind if I put this back 2 up there -- there is -- kind of where you 3 see -- there's a red car right there. The 4 (unintelligible) that whole side where you 5 can kind of turn down Maudlin, that's all a 6 non-parking zone. So there is no traffic in 7 the sense of cars parking there. It's 8 pretty much (unintelligible) dead space. 9 Really what I'm just looking to do is try to 10 maximize the home itself. 11 I'm going to slide this down 12 just a little. Going back to those four 13 door walls, you are able to view the lake 14 from ever end of the house, including the 15 side -- which I'd really liked to, you know, 16 utilize the small space that I do have. 17 Like I mentioned it's a small deck 18 (unintelligible) reaches out, but it's not 19 going to be where there would be staircases 20 or hand rails (unintelligible.) It's pretty 21 much just a (unintelligible) slab, standing 22 zone, (unintelligible) really to take in the 23 view of the lake. 24 Like I mentioned, it's
47
1 viewable from pretty much every window from 2 my home. And -- so I have looked at other 3 structures. (Unintelligible) I spoke to a 4 few contractors, and really this was the 5 best route. 6 Thank you. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. Thank 8 you. 9 Yes, Mr. Fischer? 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Sure. 11 How many square feet is your 12 house currently? 13 MR. KYSER: It's 1000, two 14 bedrooms, one bath. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 16 As we all know, these lots are 17 very difficult in this area. And given the 18 size and configuration; given that he has 40 19 feet of frontage to work with, I can -- I 20 can appreciate this because, I think he's 21 trying to maximize his living space without 22 (unintelligible) on his neighbors; without 23 asking for too much from the City; without 24 asking too much from us here in the Zoning
48
1 Board of Appeals. 2 And I have a question for 3 Mr. Saven. 4 (Unintelligible.) You 5 mentioned that a variance was requested 6 previously. I'm guessing it's the front 7 yard from Maudlin to the house; is that 8 correct? 9 MR. SAVEN: I'm trying to 10 remember. I do know there was some work 11 done on the house a previous time. I don't 12 have the specifics for this. I can't seem 13 to locate them. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: Probably before 15 I was even born, I'm guessing? Sorry. I hate to 16 age you like that. I think that -- despite not 17 having the specifics there, I think the other 18 thing (unintelligible) take into consideration 19 here, is that he is looking at two front yards, 20 given that we're looking at Maudlin and South 21 Lake situation, that not many people, other than 22 those in those corner lots are put in. 23 So, given the fact that I 24 think he's not asking too much from us, the
49
1 City, or his neighbors, as well as the fact 2 that he has two frontages, I would be more 3 than willing to support the variances 4 requested. 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 6 Mr. Canup? 7 MEMBER CANUP: I guess in 8 looking at it, I don't have a problem with the 9 variance where you end up with 21 feet; but I do 10 have a problem (unintelligible) end up with five 11 feet. Five feet from the edge of the property is 12 pretty close. You think of that, we are six feet 13 tall, roughly, think of that area next to a road. 14 So, I don't have problem, 15 again, with the lesser variance, which is 16 the five foot variance; but the other one, I 17 guess I do have a problem with. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 19 Mr. Shroyer? 20 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, 21 Mr. Chair. 22 As Mr. Saven had mentioned 23 earlier, under Section 2107, allows for a 24 four foot unenclosed, uncovered porch or
50
1 paved terrace. We do run into a little bit 2 of difficulty, especially on the Maudlin 3 side. 4 The South Lake side variance, 5 I have no problem. I don't think it's 6 extremely -- definitely not obtrusive. What 7 I would like (unintelligible) possibility 8 (unintelligible) some kind of a compromise 9 or perhaps reducing the Maudlin side request 10 down to the four foot, instead of the eight 11 foot; and then leaving the entire request 12 for the South Lake side open. 13 Because I, too, agree with 14 Member Bauer and Member Canup, that it's 15 little excessive to come within six feet, 16 close to six foot of the roadway on the 17 setback. 18 So, would you be open to 19 something along that line (interposing) 20 (unintelligible?) 21 MR. KYSER: Yeah, I do 22 appreciate that. 23 With that in mind, is there 24 any way to, I guess counter offer to
51
1 (unintelligible) maybe even six 2 (unintelligible) or maybe six foot, opposed 3 to the eight? (Unintelligible) eight foot, 4 just six foot. I'd really like, just so 5 there is a lawn chair or something? I get 6 home from a long day at the bank -- I work 7 at Huntington Bank in West Bloomfield -- 8 just trying to do everything I can to just 9 increase the value of my home; try to make 10 it presentable. 11 This past year, the inside, I 12 put new wood floors in, new carpet. I got a 13 gorgeous saltwater marine fish tank. 14 (Unintelligible.) So trying to do anything 15 I can. 16 MEMBER SHROYER: Doesn't hurt to 17 ask. 18 MR. KYSER: And I thank you. 19 MEMBER BAUER: (Unintelligible) 20 have to come to us for the four foot, does he? 21 MR. SAVEN: Not for the four 22 foot, only when you're dealing with the 26 23 foot setback. (Unintelligible) got anything 24 less than that, you're going to need a
52
1 variance (unintelligible.) 2 MEMBER BAUER: Okay. 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Shroyer? 4 MEMBER SHROYER: What are the 5 rest of the Board's thoughts on the compromise? 6 MEMBER CANUP: Would you state 7 the compromise again? 8 MEMBER SHROYER: The way I was 9 looking at it is, no problem on the South Lake -- 10 South Lake variance request. The Maudlin 11 variance request, I thought it was extreme, and 12 he was requesting too much, and it would be too 13 obtrusive to the neighborhood. And 14 (unintelligible) I had suggested going back to 15 the four foot, which fell within our Ordinance 16 requirements. He had recommended six foot, 17 (unintelligible) the difference between eight 18 foot and four foot. 19 MEMBER CANUP: I guess my 20 comment would be that I -- actually, I would be 21 for nothing, but being it would be allowed four 22 feet, that's fine. 23 Then I would be for denying a 24 variance on that particular side, but
53
1 approve it on the end -- I guess you'd call 2 it the end. 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 4 So what it looks like, it is 5 going be four feet on the Maudlin side; and 6 whatever you're requesting for the other 7 side. 8 Would you like us to go ahead 9 and (unintelligible) (interposing.) 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Mr. Chair, I 11 would actually like to add comments to that. I'm 12 not sure that he -- his comments take the whole 13 opinion of the Board. I think that's a fair 14 compromise, as far as I (unintelligible.) If we 15 brought it down to four or if we were to delete 16 that whole portion, I think it would take the 17 usability away from the deck. 18 And if we brought -- I'm 19 sorry. If we deleted that whole portion, I 20 think the usability of the deck would 21 (unintelligible) down a lot; or if you 22 brought it down to four, I think that is 23 barely enough for a walkway. Nothing, no 24 tables, no chairs, that he had mentioned.
54
1 So I would be willing 2 (unintelligible) six feet. 3 I would be interested, 4 actually, in what the negotiator would say, 5 as well. 6 Thank you, Mr. Chair. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 8 Yes, Ms. Krieger? 9 MEMBER KRIEGER: I would like to 10 know what you have in mind for the trees. 11 Are you going to take the 12 trees down, too? 13 MR. KYSER: Absolutely not. 14 That's an asset (unintelligible) great 15 value. 16 I would actually appreciate if 17 we could meet that six foot. But, no, those 18 trees -- as soon as I figure out what I'm 19 doing with the deck, I'm going to proceed 20 with landscaping and everything else that 21 needs something. 22 I'll looking to really improve 23 the look. As Mr. Fischer had said, the 24 walkway -- I mean, that door wall -- if I
55
1 didn't have a door wall there, then I'd be 2 fine with the four foot or nothing at all. 3 Almost like walking a plank. 4 But yeah, those trees will say 5 where they're at, and (unintelligible) to 6 them, just improve the lot. 7 MEMBER KRIEGER: I again, 8 (unintelligible) concerned with the Maudlin side, 9 that the deck if it was that close to the road -- 10 with the five to six feet, that (unintelligible.) 11 That was my comment. 12 Thank you. 13 MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chair, 14 (unintelligible) would that deck exceed 15 where those trees are now? 16 MR. KYSER: No, huh-uh. 17 MEMBER BAUER: No. 18 MR. SAVEN: So the trees, 19 themselves, would actually act as a buffer. 20 I just wanted to make sure (unintelligible.) 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right. So 22 where are we at? 23 Anybody wants to make a 24 Motion?
56
1 Go ahead, Mr. Fischer. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: I would like to 3 actually try a Motion. 4 I would move that in Case 5 Number: 06-056, filed by Derrick Kyser of 6 901 South Lake Drive that we approve the 7 variance requested in regards to South Lake 8 Drive; and we approve with modifications the 9 variance requested for Maudlin. Instead of 10 a variance of 20.05 feet, he would then 11 receive 18.05 feet, so basically allowing 12 him six feet of usable area for his deck. 13 And I believe we should pass 14 this Motion, because he has established a 15 practical difficulty, showing us that there 16 are two frontages to this lot, and that any 17 proposed deck would not detract from the 18 neighborhood; and, in fact, add value to his 19 house, as well as his neighbors. And 20 lastly, that I feel he has asked for the 21 least possible variance, while still 22 maintaining usability for the deck. 23 MEMBER SHROYER: Support. 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: A Motion has
57
1 been made and seconded. 2 Any further discussion? 3 Seeing none, Ms. Working, 4 please call the roll. 5 ROBIN WORKING: (Unintelligible) 6 for the Motion was Member Shroyer? 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Member Shroyer. 8 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 9 MEMBER BAUER: No. 10 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup? 11 MEMBER CANUP: No. 12 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer? 13 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 14 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt? 15 MEMBER GATT: No. 16 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 17 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 18 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 20 ROBIN WORKING: We have a tie 21 three to three. 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 23 MEMBER BAUER: That's mean no 24 and yes altogether.
58
1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 2 Yes, Mr. Shroyer? 3 MEMBER SHROYER: I'll ask the 4 City, if a four foot deck is approved, would that 5 prevent him from putting stepping stones on the 6 ground level, one step down? 7 MR. SAVEN? No. 8 MEMBER SHROYER: In other words, 9 if a new Motion is made, and they approve -- the 10 Board approves a four foot, this doesn't 11 (unintelligible) creative on the ground level to 12 have a walkway with seating on the deck? Now 13 obviously, you couldn't have a chair 14 (unintelligible) of a table. You'd fall off, but 15 chairs could be on the sides or they could be 16 rocking chairs or folding chairs or something 17 along that line. 18 And I'm leaning toward 19 believing that the Board is going to make a 20 Motion to that effect. So, I just wanted to 21 bring that up as a possible clarification. 22 MEMBER CANUP: Excuse me, does 23 the Board, meaning, you're going to make a Motion 24 to that?
59
1 MEMBER SHROYER: No. 2 MEMBER CANUP: It would be 3 nice if you did. 4 MEMBER SHROYER: I was in favor 5 of the other. 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Go ahead. 7 MEMBER CANUP: I would make a 8 Motion that in Case Number: 06-056, that we 9 grant the variance as requested, with the 10 exception of the Maudlin side. 11 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 12 MS. OZGA: Mr. Chair? 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 14 MS. OZGA: You can do those as 15 two separate Motions, one for each variance. So 16 if you move to approve a variance on the South 17 Lake side -- 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Can we 19 (unintelligible) the previous Motion? 20 MS. OZGA: I'm sorry? 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Can we 22 (unintelligible) the previous Motion? 23 MS. OZGA: If you'd like to 24 withdraw the Motion. If the Motion maker would
60
1 like to withdraw the Motion, then he can do it 2 that way. 3 MEMBER CANUP: I'll withdraw 4 the Motion and make a new one. 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 6 MEMBER CANUP: We would have two 7 separate ones, on Maudlin Drive and South Lake 8 Drive. 9 I would make a Motion to 10 approve the request as stated on the South 11 Lake Drive section. 12 MEMBER SHROYER: Second. 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. Motion 14 has been made and seconded. (Unintelligible.) 15 MEMBER BAUER: I have a 16 question. 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 18 MEMBER BAUER: South Lake Drive 19 goes all the way across into the eight foot 20 Maudlin. You want it to (unintelligible) actual 21 structure itself? 22 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 23 MEMBER BAUER: Okay. 24 MEMBER CANUP: That would be my
61
1 interpretation. That would be on the Maudlin 2 side. And, okay -- 3 MEMBER BAUER: Okay, second. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 5 We have a new Motion. New 6 Motion is only regarding the South Lake 7 side. 8 All right. The Motion has 9 been made and seconded. 10 Will you please call the roll. 11 MS. OZGA: Mr. Chair, I think if 12 I may, I think we need some clarification. 13 In the plan that you have 14 submitted here, it looks like the deck goes 15 out both on South Lake Drive and on Maudlin 16 Drive. 17 MEMBER SHROYER: (Unintelligibl 18 e) within (unintelligible) feet. 19 MS. OZGA: Right. 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 21 Maker of the Motion? 22 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 23 Include that as part of the 24 Motion.
62
1 ROBIN WORKING: On South Lake 2 Drive? 3 MEMBER BAUER: South Lake Drive. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, South Lake 5 Drive. 6 MEMBER BAUER: By 12 feet 7 (unintelligible.) 8 MR. KYSER: Coming out towards 9 -- 10 MEMBER BAUER: (Unintelligible) 11 12 feet. 12 MR. KYSER: 12 feet. 13 MEMBER BAUER: Yeah. 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 15 Now the motion has been 16 clarified and seconded, seconded 17 clarification? 18 MEMBER BAUER: Yep. 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: So, any further 20 discussion? 21 All right. Would you please 22 call roll. 23 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 24 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
63
1 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup? 2 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 3 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer? 4 MEMBER FISCHER: Yes. 5 ROBIN WORKING: Member's Gatt? 6 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 7 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 8 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 9 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 11 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes 12 six to zero for the South Lake side. 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 14 And (unintelligible) Motion 15 for the four feet on the Maudlin side. 16 MR. KYSER: So four feet is 17 all I'm able to do? 18 MEMBER FISCHER: We haven't 19 gotten that far yet. 20 MEMBER CANUP: We haven't gotten 21 -- unless you would want to withdraw that 22 request. 23 MR. KYSER: No way. I've 24 worked way too hard at this, way too hard.
64
1 MEMBER CANUP: I'd make a Motion 2 that we deny the request for the setback on the 3 Maudlin side for the previous reasons as stated. 4 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Any further 6 discussion? 7 Seeing none, will you please 8 call the roll. 9 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 10 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 11 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup? 12 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 13 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer? 14 MEMBER FISCHER: No. 15 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt? 16 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 17 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 18 MEMBER SHROYER: No. 19 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 21 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes 22 four to two. 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 24 MEMBER SHROYER: Clarify it for
65
1 the Petitioner. 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 3 (Unintelligible) the last 4 Motion? 5 ROBIN WORKING: I'm sorry? 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Could you 7 please read aloud the last Motion. 8 ROBIN WORKING: Mr. Canup made a 9 Motion to deny the Petitioner the requested 10 variance for the Maudlin side of 20.05 feet, and 11 the membership voted four to two to approve that 12 Motion to deny for the variance on the Maudlin 13 side. 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 15 MR. KYSER: Is there anything 16 else to do, other than, I mean, going -- 17 trying to reappeal it? Or I mean is there 18 any further -- 19 MEMBER BAUER: You can put up a 20 four foot on the Maudlin side (unintelligible) 21 (interposing.) 22 MR. SAVEN: Hold on a second. 23 He needs 26 feet on that side 24 to put a four foot deck up. You do not have
66
1 that, so he can't put anything there. So 2 until he has that 26 feet, that's the issue 3 that we're talking about right now. So if 4 we're going to allow him to have a four foot 5 deck, so he can open the door wall and walk 6 outside onto something (unintelligible) that 7 was -- I thought that was negotiations you 8 guys were discussing early on to get to that 9 point. 10 But by denying this, you're 11 not allowing him to have that. That's where 12 I got confused. 13 MEMBER SHROYER: May I speak? 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Go ahead, 15 Mr. Shroyer. 16 Mr. Kyser, would you like to 17 have a four foot request approved this 18 evening? 19 MR. KYSER: I'd prefer five or 20 six. 21 MEMBER SHROYER: Six was denied. 22 MR. KYSER: (Unintelligible 23 reason I keep pushing this, I mean, I put 24 everything I have into this home. I mean
67
1 I've paid for college. I'm going to get my 2 Master's degree at Wayne State. I mean 3 everything I do, I put towards this home, 4 the City. I mean, I grew up in this area. 5 I'm not looking to have a big bon fire on my 6 deck. I looking to do anything I can. I'm 7 26 years old. I purchased the home when I 8 was 24. 9 I lived at home until I 10 graduated from college. Worked at Chase 11 Bank for about year and a half. I mean, I 12 just want to have something to this, other 13 than an empty drop off almost, in a sense. 14 I mean it's not that I'm just wanting to 15 build a deck up so it looks nice. I put 16 everything I have into this home. I have 17 done it all myself; paid for college. I 18 paid for college. I bought this home 19 myself. 20 I mean, I just really want to 21 improve it. That's really all I can say. 22 MEMBER SHROYER: If he does 23 not -- if this isn't resolved this evening, if 24 it's all laid with denial and if he wants to
68
1 request it at a later date, it's an additional 2 fee, correct? 3 Would the Board be willing 4 to -- 5 MR. SAVEN: A denial has 6 already been made, correct? 7 ROBIN WORKING: Yes, it was. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: (Unintelligibl 9 e) reconsider the Motion. 10 MR. KYSER: Thank you. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: As long as 12 someone from the -- 13 MR. SAVEN: (Unintelligible) 14 make a suggestion. I don't know whether or 15 not (unintelligible) reconsider. I don't 16 know how soon you were planning on doing 17 this particular issue. 18 Did you have this place staked 19 out (unintelligible) this deck was going to 20 be seen, where that deck was going to be? 21 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 22 MR. KYSER: I put the stakes 23 in the ground (unintelligible) Home Depot. 24 MR. SAVEN: You've done what
69
1 you needed to do, okay. 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, 3 Mr. Fischer. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: Given the facts 5 presented by Mr. Saven, that you cannot even have 6 the four feet -- I'm not sure if all of the Board 7 Members were aware (unintelligible) not fully 8 understood that either. 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: I didn't 10 either. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: I would suggest 12 (unintelligible) we could reconsider the Motion, 13 if the people from the approval side is denying 14 it were to request to reconsider that Motion, I 15 should hope that this Board would do so. 16 We have a Petitioner -- a 17 nice, young Petitioner, that's trying to add 18 value to his house, and our neighborhood and 19 our City, and this Board has denied him of 20 that side variance. We detract 21 (unintelligible) like this. And it's a 22 dissatisfaction to me that we wouldn't even 23 look at it, especially given the new 24 circumstances pointed out by Mr. Saven.
70
1 So I would hope that the Board 2 would consider that reconsideration. 3 MEMBER SHROYER: Are you making 4 a Motion for Reconsideration? 5 MEMBER FISCHER: I cannot. I 6 was on the dissenting side of that Motion. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes? 8 MS. OZGA: I believe the proper 9 procedure would be a Motion to set aside the 10 denial, and then the subsequent Motion with 11 whatever the Board wishes to do. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 13 Anybody can make that Motion. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: One of you four 15 can. I voted to not approve that Motion. I 16 don't think I have that option. 17 MEMBER CANUP: Let me solve 18 this. 19 I move that we set aside the 20 Motion and the vote on that Motion. 21 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 22 MEMBER CANUP: All in favor say 23 aye? 24 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye.
71
1 MEMBER CANUP: I would make a 2 new Motion that we grant a variance to allow a 3 four foot protrusion on the Maudlin side of the 4 home, parallel to the home, for the length of the 5 home. 6 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes? 8 MS. OZGA: I believe there has 9 to be a recall for the first Motion. 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Interposing) 11 (unintelligible.) 12 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup 13 made the Motion to set aside the previous denial. 14 I need a second on the Motion, 15 please. 16 MEMBER GATT: I second it. 17 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt. 18 Roll call. 19 Member Bauer? 20 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 21 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup? 22 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 23 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer? 24 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye.
72
1 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt? 2 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 3 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 4 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 5 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 7 ROBIN WORKING: The denial has 8 been set aside, passes six to zero. 9 MEMBER CANUP: Now, I'll make a 10 variance -- a Motion that we grant a variance on 11 the four feet offset on the Maudlin side of home, 12 parallel to the home, for the length of the home 13 and the length of the deck on the lake side. 14 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 15 MEMBER GATT: Before we do 16 that, can we try it at five foot? 17 MR. KYSER: Thank you. 18 MEMBER CANUP: You can do 19 whatever you want. I'm just telling you I made 20 a Motion for four feet, and I'm not even 21 comfortable with that to be truthful. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: There's a 23 Motion. Let's see if there's a second. 24 MEMBER BAUER: Second.
73
1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. It's 2 been seconded by Mr. Bauer. 3 (Unintelligible) say anything, 4 Mr. Saven? 5 MR. SAVEN: I'll wait until 6 the discussion comes. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right. 8 MEMBER SHROYER: Point of 9 clarification on the Motion. 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Go ahead. 11 MEMBER SHROYER: You said 12 including the length of the deck on the South 13 Lake. You mean the width of the deck? 14 MEMBER CANUP: (unintelligible.) 15 Whichever. The deck is not to exceed further 16 than the deck. What it does is it's going to 17 fill in on that corner. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: There's a door 19 wall here. 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 21 Here we are now for a four 22 foot deck on the Motion. 23 Mr. Fischer? 24 MEMBER FISCHER: I would like to
74
1 point out just the reason I'm denying it is that 2 we're looking at filling in the corner in the 3 door wall that he wants to put a deck to, and 4 we're ignoring that whole part. 5 I will not be in support of 6 this Motion. 7 MEMBER CANUP: No, we are not. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: You said you're 9 filling in this corner. 10 MEMBER CANUP: We're filling it 11 in with deck. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: But what about 13 this? Did you not -- 14 MEMBER CANUP: (Unintelligible) 15 yes, all the way parallel -- 16 MEMBER BAUER: (Unintelligible.) 17 MEMBER FISCHER: All along. 18 MEMBER CANUP: All along the 19 house. 20 How long's your house? 21 MR. KYSER: 24 foot. 22 MEMBER KRIEGER: So that would 23 be 56.5 feet (unintelligible.) 24 MEMBER CANUP: It would be what?
75
1 MEMBER KRIEGER: The length of 2 the house plus (unintelligible.) 3 MEMBER CANUP: Could -- if in my 4 interpretation, he could possibly build a deck 5 that would be 45 feet long plus 12 feet 6 (unintelligible.) 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes? 8 MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, we 9 have to be very careful (unintelligible) 10 advertise here for. What we have is the 11 location of the deck that is presented 12 before us tonight in regard to those -- that 13 particular setback. 14 If we do anything to increase 15 that the, that will require renotification, 16 because it is something that -- this is 17 something that's above and beyond what was 18 presented to us tonight. 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, Mr. Saven? 20 A reduction would be okay. 21 MEMBER CANUP: I would modify my 22 Motion for the length of the deck on the Maudlin 23 side to be as shown on the drawings, which is ten 24 feet to 12 feet to 22 feet; is that correct?
76
1 MR. KYSER: Are we just 2 speaking on the Maudlin side? 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: That's the only 4 (interposing) (unintelligible.) 5 MR. KYSER: That's eight 6 feet -- let me interrupt. This picture may 7 really help out in getting a birdseye view; 8 is that okay? 9 MEMBER CANUP: That's fine. 10 MR. KYSER: Thank you, sir. I 11 appreciate it. 12 (Unintelligible) are little 13 better than Home Depot. 14 Thank you. 15 MEMBER CANUP: I would amend the 16 Motion that I previously stated, parallel length 17 of the home, which that cannot happen due to 18 insufficient advertising in the notices that were 19 sent out. 20 Therefore, I would amend the 21 Motion to say it would be 22 feet in length; 22 ten feet at the house, extra 12 feet 23 (unintelligible) the deck that would be on 24 the South Lake Drive side.
77
1 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Are we clear 3 now? Everybody clear? 4 MEMBER GATT: I'm clear with the 5 length of the deck on the Maudlin side. I'm not 6 clear on the depth. 7 MEMBER BAUER: 12 feet. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: Towards 9 Maudlin, you were going for four feet. 10 MEMBER CANUP: Four feet. 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 12 So there is a Motion on the 13 table and -- Motion has been made and 14 seconded by Mr. Bauer. 15 Any further discussion? 16 Are we all clear what the 17 Motion is? 18 ROBIN WORKING: Mr. Chairman, 19 would you like me to read (interposing) 20 (unintelligible?) 21 Mr. Canup in Case Number: 22 06-056, for 901 South Lake Drive has made a 23 Motion to approve a four foot deep toward 24 Maudlin side by ten feet long deck, that
78
1 would conjoin with the 12 foot previously 2 approved Motion for the South Lake side. 3 MEMBER CANUP: Okay. 4 Correction on that Motion. We didn't 5 approve on the South lake -- whatever we 6 did, that's fine, as long as it -- 7 MEMBER BAUER: Comes out to 22 8 feet. 9 MEMBER CANUP: -- comes out to 10 22 feet. 11 ROBIN WORKING: Correct. Ten 12 plus 12 is 22. 13 Roll call? 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. That 15 sounds good. 16 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 17 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 18 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup? 19 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 20 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer? 21 MEMBER FISCHER: No. 22 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt? 23 MEMBER GATT: No. 24 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer?
79
1 MEMBER SHROYER: No. 2 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 4 ROBIN WORKING: We again have a 5 tie. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Mr. Chair? 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes? 8 MEMBER FISCHER: May I offer a 9 Motion that in Case Number: 06-056, filed by 10 Derrick Kyser of 901 South Lake Drive, we approve 11 the Petitioner's request on Maudlin Drive with 12 the modification that he can protrude from his 13 house five feet, which would give him a variance 14 request of 19.05 feet, due to the fact that he's 15 established a practical difficulty; that he has 16 two frontages; he faces two roads; and that the 17 value of his house, the property, and the City 18 will all be increased due to this variance 19 request. 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 21 Motion has been made. 22 MEMBER GATT: I second that 23 Motion. 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Motion has been
80
1 seconded. 2 Yes, Mr. Shroyer? 3 MEMBER SHROYER: Point of 4 clarification. 5 Could you please review the 6 variance request? You said 19 point some 7 odd feet. Initially, he was requesting 8 eight feet (unintelligible) 20.05. 9 MEMBER FISCHER: That is 10 correct. I'm a finance guy, but I can't 11 subtract. 12 20.05 minus three would 13 actually be 17.05. 14 I bet you want me to work at 15 the bank. I'd give you a withdrawal and 16 leave you with 19 bucks. 17 As the Board Member requested, 18 I would modify to 17.05. 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Member Gatt, 20 you second that? 21 MEMBER GATT: I do, yes. 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 23 Anybody further discussion? 24 Seeing none, would you kindly
81
1 call the roll. 2 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 3 MEMBER BAUER: No. 4 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup? 5 MEMBER CANUP: No. 6 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer? 7 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 8 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt? 9 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 10 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 12 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 13 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 14 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes 15 four to two for a 17.05 variance request on the 16 Maudlin side. 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 18 Go to the Building Department 19 and get your permit. 20 MR. KYSER: That's it? 21 Thank you so much. Appreciate 22 it. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: How long does 24 he have, Mr. Saven, to contact the Building
82
1 Department? 2 MR. SAVEN: 90 days. 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 4 5 All right. Looking at other 6 matters. 7 Are there any other matters to 8 discuss tonight? 9 MR. SAVEN: Yes. 10 Mr. Chair, first thing -- 11 Sir, you will have to resubmit 12 a set of documents based upon the new 13 findings that's were here today. In other 14 words your approval side of your deck is 15 going to be changed. You need to submit 16 that with your application for a building 17 permit. 18 ROBIN WORKING: And the building 19 permit application you've already filed with us, 20 you have to file a new one. The one we have on 21 file is for your original variance request. 22 A. 23 Okay. Thank you all. 24 Have a good evening.
83
1 2 MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, thank 3 you, Members of the Board. 4 As you were well aware, last 5 month we were notified of the changes according 6 to what's called the Michigan Zoning Enabling 7 Act, which our attorney here (unintelligible) 8 more than myself. 9 A couple of things I want to 10 bring to light was certain issues that deal 11 (unintelligible) public notification and making 12 sure that we do the appropriate notification 13 within a specified amount of time. 14 Our next Zoning Board of Appeals 15 meeting, we are only going to have three cases, 16 probably four with the one we tabled today, and 17 this is all due to legalities. Normally, we're 18 hearing from -- anywhere from 12 to 15 cases per 19 month. But this is really, really showing some 20 strain as it exist right now. People have been 21 to be prepared, ready to move quick. Sometimes 22 they can't do this. 23 So other than that, the 24 notification process still has to be met, still
84
1 has to go through the process to put things 2 together -- which is another 15 days -- another 3 five days -- five to seven days just to allow us 4 to be able to do this. That notification issue 5 is a little bit different, plus the fact, not 6 only are we dealing with the local area that 7 we're dealing with right here in the City of 8 Novi, if that property touches (unintelligible) 9 boundaries, (unintelligible) get over in the 10 other section over there and start talking to 11 them. (Unintelligible) 300 foot requirements. 12 So there's some major changes 13 that's are involved, and this timing is 14 (unintelligible.) So if you remember talking to 15 anybody or somebody who's looking for variances 16 or talking about the Zoning Board of Appeals 17 issues, these are things that should be brought 18 (unintelligible) if they need to come before us, 19 get yourself prepared. You need at least this 20 amount of time to be able to get on. 21 Just real quick. Do you have 22 the agenda that talks about when our cut-off 23 dates are? You should probably keep that just 24 for reference purposes (unintelligible.) We also
85
1 have a change in the monetary requirement. It's 2 going to be an additional $50. That was approved 3 last night by City Council. This is just 4 strictly because now we have to notify in the 5 paper. We use to do it just for temporary use 6 permits. Now we do agendas in the paper. 7 We're kind of feeling our way 8 around this particular area, and boy does it cost 9 some money. I'll tell you that. We're -- this 10 is a little different for us. We're going to get 11 beat up a little bit probably the next few months 12 until we can find our way and make sure we're are 13 doing things right. I'm sure (unintelligible) 14 couple of times. You didn't do it right. We'll 15 get through the process. 16 But I'm just telling you, this 17 was a horrendous change. This is the first time 18 ever doing this in 30 years. Okay. And it 19 involves (unintelligible.) So just bear with us. 20 But if you're talking to people that are 21 developers or builders who approach you or 22 anything along this line, please let them know 23 that it is time sensitive, big time, big time 24 sensitive.
86
1 That's all I have to say. 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 3 Anything else? 4 Mr. Fischer? 5 MEMBER FISCHER: Question for 6 Mr. Saven regarding that. 7 Do you think there's going to 8 be a time after having three cases, four 9 cases, and all of a sudden, you're going to 10 have a backlog of 15 case months? 11 MR. SAVEN: This young lady 12 and myself, it's almost like, we're ready 13 for a panic mode here or something. But 14 this is -- as most of you know -- this is so 15 unusual for this time year. This is 16 something that is not even expected. We 17 should have be having 15 cases probably 18 until about November -- October, November, 19 and this is not happening. 20 ROBIN WORKING: Point of 21 clarification (unintelligible) the August 1st ZBA 22 meeting night is a week ahead due to the election 23 the week after. July 4th, was (unintelligible) 24 behind (unintelligible) deadline is July 3rd to
87
1 get on the agenda for August 1st; the deadline is 2 August 14th to get on the agenda for September 3 12th. 4 I've already sent out Public 5 Hearing notification letters for the August 6 1st meeting before we sat down here tonight. 7 So the system is backlogged 8 (unintelligible), as well. And especially 9 developers, they're scrambling and they're 10 working the best that they can. And we're 11 working with the new legislation. It makes 12 it very difficult for us, as Mr. Saven said, 13 notification (unintelligible) 15 days prior. 14 It was previously five days. That makes a 15 big difference. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Right. 17 MEMBER BAUER: That's not 18 working days. 19 ROBIN WORKING: No, that's 15 20 calendar days. We would have had a June 21 deadline. 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right. 23 Anything else? 24 MEMBER SHROYER: I had a
88
1 question. 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, 3 Mr. Shroyer. 4 MEMBER SHROYER: Did the 5 additional money that were approved permit 6 additional help or resources or additional hours? 7 MR. SAVEN: I don't think so. 8 And the money -- the money 9 that we're collecting right now will 10 probably be for the publications until we 11 can figure out whether or not we're even 12 breaking even or not. We've already -- I 13 think it was probably a few years ago in 14 2004 -- which (unintelligible) went 15 through -- was it one (unintelligible) 16 ROBIN WORKING: 2004. 17 MR. SAVEN: We had an increase 18 in our fees. This one just threw us by 19 surprise. (Unintelligible) publication. 20 I'm not too happy with it, but we got 21 massaged last night on what we can do to try 22 to condense things down a little bit. 23 (Unintelligible) we have to go through that 24 extra size (unintelligible) we're working at
89
1 it trying to make it a little bit better. 2 It's just the idea, my gosh, it has to be 3 certain types of letters. 4 (Unintelligible) Public 5 Hearings for the Planning Commission, you 6 take a look and see how many case we have -- 7 we have 15 cases, that's -- 15 cases is 8 basically what we utilize for the amount 9 that we looked at for the maximum coverage 10 that we have. That's how we base things on 11 and break it down to each individual case 12 that's how it's going to be done. 13 MEMBER BAUER: Does the paper 14 give you a break? 15 MR. SAVEN: Are you kidding 16 me? 17 MEMBER SHROYER: At this point 18 you don't anticipate any special meetings to be 19 called? 20 MR. SAVEN: I doubt very 21 seriously, but I will tell you this, if you 22 have a major project that is in need of 23 (unintelligible) months time, you still have 24 to go through that 15 day requirement. And
90
1 whether you take a day or two days or three 2 days, it's -- special requirement is there. 3 If three days will make that 4 much of a difference, it might, if you're 5 sitting on a couple million dollar project. 6 Time's always money. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 8 Very good. 9 Anything further to discuss? 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Motion to 11 adjourn. 12 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Motion has been 14 made. 15 (Unintelligible) say aye? 16 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: We're 18 adjourned. 19 (The meeting was adjourned at 20 9:00 p.m.) 21 - - - - - - 22 23 24
91
1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 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 (89) 9 typewritten pages, is a true and correct transcript 10 of my said stenograph notes. 11 12 13 ___________________________ Machelle Billingslea-Moore, 14 Certified Shorthand Reporter 15 16 July 21, 2006. (Date)
|