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, August 1, 2006.

Mav Sanghvi, Chairman
Tim Shroyer
Brent Canup
Gerald Bauer
Justin Fischer
Robert Gatt
Linda Krieger

Don Saven, Building Department
Shannon Ozga, City Attorney
Robin Working, ZBA Recording Secretary

Machelle Billingslea-Moore, Certified Shorthand Reporter.


1 Novi, Michigan

2 Tuesday, August 1, 2006

3 7:30 p.m.

4 - - - - - -

5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Good evening.

6 I'd like to call to order the August, 2006,

7 meeting of the City of Novi Zoning Board of

8 Appeals.

9 Will you please rise and join

10 me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

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 Please be seated.

19 Ms. Working, will you please

20 call the roll.

21 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer.

22 MEMBER BAUER: Present.

23 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup.





1 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer.


3 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt.


5 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger?


7 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


9 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer?


11 ROBIN WORKING: All present,

12 Mr. Chairman.

13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

14 We do have a quorum and full

15 board, and the meeting is now in session.

16 I would like to go over the

17 rules of conduct. You'll find them in the

18 agenda. Just a remainder, please turn off

19 all your cell phones and pagers.

20 Individual applicants may take

21 five minutes and groups may take ten minutes

22 to address the Board.

23 The Zoning Board of Appeals is

24 a Hearing Board empowered by the Novi City




1 Charter to hear appeals seeking variances

2 from the application of the Novi Zoning

3 Ordinances. It takes a vote of at least

4 four members to approve a variance request;

5 and a vote of the majority of the members

6 present to deny. Tonight we have a full

7 Board, and so all decisions will be final.

8 (Unintelligible) are there any

9 changes?

10 ROBIN WORKING: No changes.

11 MEMBER SANGHVI: No changes.

12 MEMBER FISCHER: Motion to

13 approve as submitted.


15 have an addition, if I may. I'd like to add at

16 the end of the meeting the item, Bosco(sic)

17 Property. I had a question that I'd like to

18 address under item number three.


20 All right so that will --

21 MEMBER FISCHER: Motion to

22 approve as amended.

23 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.




1 (Unintelligible) by signifying

2 aye.


4 MEMBER SANGHVI: All opposed,

5 same sign.

6 Okay. We got an agenda.

7 And we have Minutes now from

8 previous meeting of June.

9 Are there any changes,

10 additions, deletions to the Minutes?

11 Yes, Mr. Shroyer?

12 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you,

13 Mr. Chair.

14 I have three changes. The

15 first one is on page 14 during a Motion:

16 Case number 06-041 filed by Farmer Jacks,

17 41840 West Ten Mile Road. The applicant was

18 requesting a temporary use permit to display

19 seasonal merchandise as a sidewalk sale.

20 Where it says unintelligible, it should say

21 for the time period from June 6th, through

22 October 31st, 2006.

23 I moved that the request be

24 granted, limited to a four foot by 40 foot




1 size, etc. That's the first change or

2 correction.

3 The second one is on Page 71,

4 which is also a Motion. The first

5 unintelligible, the statement there is the

6 word variance should be in there.

7 Continuing on to that sentence for a parking

8 lot tent sales event, June 22nd, 2006

9 through July 10th, 2006; noting that the

10 applicant has provided, and the second

11 unintelligible should be the word for.

12 I have one last correction,

13 which is on page 82 under the Motion. The

14 first unintelligible -- well, I'll read the

15 whole thing here. 06-049, filed by Mark

16 Kassab for Lenox Park at 40812 Thirteen Mile

17 Road. I moved to permit construction of a

18 mail center building to be included: Number

19 1, that a location is needed for safe

20 delivery of mail; 2 selected location

21 minimizes the impact on the wetland and

22 woodland located -- etc, etc.

23 Those are the corrections I

24 have, Mr. Chair.




1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

2 Anybody else?


4 approve as amended?


6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Motion has been

7 made and seconded.

8 All those in favor, please

9 signify by saying aye?


11 MEMBER SANGHVI: The Minutes are

12 approved.

13 Let's move along.

14 And -- all right. Now at this

15 point in the meeting, we'll open for public

16 remarks. If anybody would like to address

17 the Board which is not in relation to any

18 cases that will be heard this evening,

19 please come forward and do so now.

20 Seeing none, we will close the

21 public remarks section.

22 And this brings us to the

23 first case on the agenda.





1 The first case is Case Number:

2 06-53, filed by Novi Town Center Investors

3 at 26045 Town Center Drive.

4 Is the applicant here?

5 Will you please come forward

6 identified yourself with your name and

7 address, etc., and then be sworn in by our

8 secretary.

9 Thank you.

10 MS. DRUMM: Mr. Chairman,

11 Members of the Board, my name is Janet Drumm. I

12 know you were expecting Matt Quinn here tonight,

13 but I hope I can fill his shoes. Our address is

14 1026 West Eleven Mile road, Royal Oak, 48067.

15 MEMBER BAUER: Would you raise

16 your right hand.

17 Do you solemnly swear or

18 affirm to tell the truth regarding Case,

19 06-53?

20 MS. DRUMM: I do.

21 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Please proceed.

23 MS. DRUMM: Mr. Chairman,

24 Members of the Board, I'm here tonight to




1 ask for a dimensional variance with regard

2 to a practical difficulty existing on the

3 lot, itself. The Novi Township Center,

4 building 3, specifically, which the site

5 plan has been provided for you, is located

6 on Grand River and Town Center Drive.

7 Exhibit C, which has been

8 provided, shows a small site plan; Exhibit D

9 is also a copy of the site plan.

10 The appeal is based upon a

11 practical difficulty existing from the

12 irregular size and shape of the lot. It is

13 not rectangle, but instead it extends all

14 the way in front of the Discount Tire Store.

15 What we are asking for is a

16 490 foot variance with regard to the

17 requirements of the Zoning Ordinance,

18 pertaining to the loading zone. We are

19 providing 370 square feet, is what is

20 proposed on this site. The site itself is a

21 small building. It will only need no more

22 than a truck -- and I'm exaggerating when I

23 say 30 feet in length. It will be much

24 smaller than 30 feet. That's the largest




1 truck that will service this site.

2 That truck will be able to

3 come in -- it will not block any vehicles

4 which need to ingress or egress the sight at

5 any time. The only way to expand the

6 loading zone, would be to move the dumpster

7 into the ten foot set back area where the

8 landscape is proposed. The request is being

9 supported by the Planning Staff and the

10 Planning Commission. It's my understanding

11 that there are also people from the City

12 Council who have looked at the Plan, and are

13 also in favor of the variance.

14 I do have the engineer and the

15 architect with us tonight, if you have any

16 questions.

17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

18 Is that all?

19 MS. DRUMM: Yes.

20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

21 Anybody in the audience who

22 would like to make a comment about this

23 case?

24 Seeing none, I'd like to




1 inform the Board that 85 notices were

2 mailed; zero approvals, zero objections.

3 Building Department?

4 MR. SAVEN: For those of you who

5 have been involved in the Town Center from it's

6 very conception know that we are looking at our

7 (unintelligible) for this particular area. This

8 is an opportunity (unintelligible) to fulfill

9 that site plan process.

10 As the lady indicated

11 (unintelligible) things of that nature were

12 issues that were looked at, and I don't have

13 any problem.

14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

15 I'll open it to Members of the

16 Board now.

17 Yes, Mr. Canup?

18 MEMBER CANUP: Well, I think

19 this one is fairly simple, and if there's no

20 discussion, I would make a Motion.

21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Please go ahead

22 and make a Motion.

23 MEMBER CANUP: I would make a

24 Motion that in Case Number: 06-53, we grant




1 the variance as requested, due to the

2 uniqueness of the facility and the shape of

3 the lot.


5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

6 Motion has been made and

7 seconded.

8 Any further discussion?

9 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you,

10 Mr. Chair.

11 I'd had like (unintelligible)

12 the proposed usage for the site?

13 MS. DRUMM: It will either be

14 retail or a food establishment; therefore --

15 that's why we expanded it to the largest

16 sized truck that would be utilizing the site

17 wouldn't be more than 30 feet.

18 MEMBER SHROYER: I'll ask our

19 attorney.

20 Would it be an advantage to

21 add the limitation to restaurant or retail

22 to our Motion, to ensure that nothing goes

23 in there that would require a longer truck

24 for delivery?




1 MS. OZGA: I don't think at this

2 point you would want to limit that to those

3 two -- those two specific use (unintelligible) or

4 anything like that. So I don't think it's

5 necessary to included that.

6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

7 MEMBER CANUP: Mr. Saven, that

8 usage be limited by zoning, right?

9 MR. SAVEN: That's correct.

10 (Unintelligible) that would be the maximum truck

11 size, she indicated, would be from the restaurant

12 usage. And it is an allowable use in that

13 particular area.

14 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay, thank

15 you.

16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

17 Anybody else?

18 Seeing none, Ms. Working

19 please call the roll.

20 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer?


22 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup?


24 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer?





2 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt?


4 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


6 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer?


8 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes

9 six to zero.

10 MS. DRUMM: Thank you.

11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

12 (Unintelligible.)



15 Next case: 06-057, filed by

16 Nancy Long of A-1 Expeditors for Chase Bank

17 at 39820 Eight Mile Road.

18 Please identify yourself and

19 be sworn by our secretary.

20 MS. LONG: Good evening,

21 Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board. My name

22 is Nancy Long with A-1 Expeditors. My

23 address is 8841 Bubcreek(ph) Road,

24 Indianapolis, Indiana, 46256.




1 MR. SOLTOSKY(ph): My name is

2 Mark Soltosky from MLS Sign Company. Our

3 address is 25776 Dahunt(ph), Chesterfield

4 Township, Michigan, 48051.

5 MEMBER BAUER: Would you both

6 raise your right hand.

7 Do you solemnly swear or

8 affirm to tell the truth regarding Case:

9 06-057?

10 MS. LONG: I do.

11 MR. SOLTOSKY: Yes, I do.

12 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

13 Again, good evening,

14 Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board.

15 First, I'd like to apologize

16 for the way in which we come to the Board.

17 Because apparently we were violated -- given

18 a violation for this bank for a sign that

19 was erected that did not have a permit.

20 We -- there are four different

21 companies that are involved in the

22 permitting process and getting the signs up

23 when Bank One was bought out by Chase. And

24 Permitting Expeditor, the sign company --




1 the sign company that's actually here

2 locally in town, plus Chase Bank. So we had

3 tried to figure out how in the world did the

4 sign get put up without a permit. And we've

5 come to the conclusion that it's just been

6 very bad communication. So we very much

7 apologize for that.

8 It was not intentional to put

9 up the sign and then beg for forgiveness

10 later. We would not have done that.

11 MR. SOLTOSKY: That's true.

12 MS. LONG: So the reason that

13 we are here now, that we are here, given the

14 circumstances, is we would like to request

15 that the sign remain there. And the

16 hardship or the fact -- the thing that's

17 particular to this one site is the fact that

18 when you are driving up -- well, the reason

19 why we want the sign is for better

20 visibility.

21 And there is like four

22 different reasons of why we want to put that

23 out. The number one reason is when you

24 are -- directly across the street is the




1 Meijer's -- the Meijer, the grocery store,

2 the Big Box store. If you're coming up that

3 road and you're facing -- that would be

4 north -- you're coming up that hill and

5 there is a 25 square foot monument sign; but

6 when you come up that hill, all you're

7 seeing is the end cap of it. You're not --

8 all you're seeing is the rectangular

9 (unintelligible) portion of that. You can't

10 see the name Chase.

11 And there's nothing about that

12 building that's really distinguishable that

13 says this is the bank.

14 So that's the -- when you're

15 coming up there, the only thing that

16 distinguishes that to be Chase is that wall

17 sign.


19 (Unintelligible) from Indianapolis, and when

20 she came to that whole area cold -- I live

21 near, somewhat adverse to it -- that area's

22 very highly congested with traffic, and she

23 -- (unintelligible) new and fresh to it to

24 really (unintelligible) the bank site.




1 MS. LONG: I came to the site

2 for the first time today about 2:00 this

3 afternoon. The speed limit out there is 45

4 miles per hour (unintelligible) better than

5 I do for a mile down the road, I-275. And

6 if you're coming on to the Meijer -- and I

7 mean, we would hate to see any kind of

8 accident happen. You're trying to come this

9 way and you realize the bank's over here.

10 And you know, by coming -- if they turn

11 right -- which would be traveling east, and

12 realizing you missed it and having to make

13 U-turns. That would be impossible to do

14 that.

15 So, I mean, we're respectfully

16 requesting a variance to allow for that --

17 it's a 25 square foot wall sign -- for that

18 sign to remain there; for better visibility.

19 And there is a bank that's

20 directly across the street from there,

21 Republic Bank -- and I guess, from my

22 understanding that's not governed by this

23 Township. So -- however there is a wall

24 sign. There is a monument sign; and I




1 noticed also next door where the Chili's is

2 on the corner, there's a monument sign.

3 There's also a wall sign. And there's also

4 a to go on their --

5 MR. SOLTOSKY: Canopy.

6 MS. LONG: -- on the canopy.

7 But the difference, I think,

8 that this bank that makes it bigger hardship

9 is the fact that, every city that I have

10 gone through that has a Chili's, they all

11 look similar to each other. But every Chase

12 Bank does not look the same. So it would be

13 highly recognizable just for the fact that

14 that's the building.

15 MR. SOLTOSKY: It's a very

16 underplayed building. (unintelligible)

17 something not up there. I think the sign is

18 underplayed, too. The signage is kind of

19 small and underplayed. With that additional

20 wall sign (unintelligible) still underplayed

21 identification, still need it, but kind of

22 going toward the look Novi is preferring.

23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Is that all?

24 Thank you.




1 MS. LONG: Thank you very

2 much.


4 anybody in the audience that would like to

5 comment regarding this case?

6 Seeing none, Building

7 Department?

8 MR. SAVEN: No comment.

9 MEMBER SANGHVI: No, comment.

10 Very good.

11 Now, we sent out 12 notices;

12 zero approvals, zero objections.

13 Open it up to the Board.

14 Yes, Member Krieger?


16 myself when I was driving east and westbound

17 on Eight Mile that that's what caught my

18 attention was (unintelligible) sign that

19 she's discussing. That practical difficulty

20 is visibility, and she stated that; so I'd

21 be in support of that.

22 Thank you.

23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

24 Yes, Member Shroyer?




1 MEMBER SHROYER: I agree with

2 the previous speaker. I don't see any difficulty

3 with it.

4 You want to take down the

5 monument sign and just leave the big one?

6 MS. LONG: I don't believe

7 they want to take the monument sign down.

8 MEMBER SHROYER: Oh, don't want

9 to do that?

10 MS. LONG: I had asked

11 somebody if they knew what the square

12 footage allowed was for a ground sign in

13 that area.

14 Does anybody on the Board

15 know? Because I know that's a relatively low

16 key sign. And that's another point, too.

17 Both of the signs are -- they're subtle.

18 This is not -- you know, they're very well

19 manufactured, nicely installed. They blend

20 in with the --

21 MR. SOLTOSKY: Architecture.

22 MS. LONG: Absolutely.

23 MEMBER SHROYER: It's not a

24 problem. (Unintelligible) not here talking about




1 removing that sign.

2 If you'd like, Mr. Chair, I'm

3 prepared to make a Motion.


5 ahead.

6 MEMBER SHROYER: Regarding Case

7 Number: 06-057, filed by Nancy Long of A-1

8 Expeditors for Chase Bank at 39820 Eight Mile

9 Road, I move to approve (unintelligible)

10 permission to continue the use of a wall sign

11 that was erected during the change over from Bank

12 One to Chase; is that correct?

13 MS. LONG: Yes, sir.

14 MEMBER SHROYER: (Unintelligibl

15 e) noting this erection was completed without

16 obtaining a permit, the applicant must pay or

17 have paid for the permit; any penalties issued

18 and any additional cost from the City above and

19 beyond (unintelligible) the sign is justified due

20 to the difficulty of building recognition with a

21 single ground sign being present.

22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Very good.

23 Motion has been made.





1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Seconded by

2 Member Fischer.

3 Any further discussion?

4 Yes, Mr. Canup?

5 MEMBER CANUP: I guess I have

6 a real problem with the Motion

7 (unintelligible) use a sign that was put up

8 illegally. These people are in the sign

9 business. They no better than this. I do

10 not accept any excuse for it. Anybody

11 that's in the sign business knows no matter

12 where you go, the first thing you do is look

13 for a permit.

14 MS. LONG: Agreed.

15 MR. SOLTOSKY: Agreed.

16 MEMBER CANUP: How long as this

17 building been here, long time, right?

18 How did you ever get this far

19 without that sign. That's what --

20 MS. LONG: The bank

21 actually -- Chase Bank took over the

22 ownership --

23 MEMBER CANUP: The building's

24 been there ever since I can remember, 35, 40




1 years. It's always been a bank. There was

2 an NBD bank originally. It's changed

3 several times.

4 MS. LONG: (interposing)

5 (unintelligible.)

6 MEMBER CANUP: I guess I've got

7 a real problem with granting a variance in this

8 case, you know, let you do it and explain later.

9 We will be sending a message to other people to

10 do the same thing. I don't see why this building

11 needs that sign, due to the fact that it's been

12 there 40 years without it. Now all of a sudden

13 it can't survive without it.

14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you,

15 Mr. Canup.

16 MEMBER BAUER: I agree with the

17 previous member. That sign was put up without a

18 permit, and cannot see it. I come across from

19 Meijer's, and I can see the sign, the ground

20 sign. So, I can't see where it's really going to

21 give that much additional identification.

22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Just make my


24 Number one, I'm glad you




1 started with an apology. (Unintelligible)

2 we do not like to do this backwards.

3 MS. LONG: Absolutely.

4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Just so the

5 message is very clear from what Mr. Canup just

6 stated, that this is not going to happen. If I

7 recall, (unintelligible) I would

8 (unintelligible.) But, on the other hand,

9 (unintelligible) that need. (Unintelligible) I

10 agree that that sign is (unintelligible) there.

11 So I can support your Motion.

12 Thank you.

13 Any further discussion?

14 Seeing none, please call the

15 roll.

16 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer?


18 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup?


20 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer?


22 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt?


24 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi?





2 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer?


4 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes

5 four to two?

6 MS. LONG: Thank you very

7 much.

8 I promise you we will be

9 getting a permit for that sign.


11 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right.

12 Moving along. The next case

13 is 06-58, filed by Andrew and Susan

14 Soborowski of 1407 East Lake Drive.

15 Please come to the podium and

16 identify yourself and be sworn in by our

17 secretary.

18 MS. SOBOROWSKI: My name is

19 Susan Soborowski, 1407 East Lake Drive.

20 A.


22 Soborowski, same address.

23 MEMBER BAUER: Would you raise

24 your right hand, please.




1 Do you solemnly swear or

2 affirm to tell the truth regarding Case:

3 06-058?



6 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

7 MS. SOBOROWSKI: We also have

8 some tentative plans, building plans, if

9 you'd like to see them. What we would like

10 to do -- we're on East Lake Drive. We have

11 a 30 by 110 lot. We built 17 year ago and

12 applied for variances on all four sides; and

13 were granted those variances.

14 We would like to apply for a

15 variance on the front yard, and put a deck

16 coming off the second story. We want to

17 take the south -- there's a picture on the

18 backside of the first one -- but we want

19 (unintelligible) south window for the door

20 wall up there, coming (unintelligible) go

21 out to the front to the deck. That's our

22 proposed plan.

23 First of all, our neighbors,

24 as far as I know, have no problem with this.




1 We have spoken to them. And our original

2 (unintelligible) 17 years ago was to have

3 (unintelligible) living space

4 (unintelligible) enjoy the front. And there

5 have been, up and down the street some other

6 decks constructed similar to that.

7 In the wording, I just want to

8 go over that. Because I applied for the

9 variance I was concerned about the front on

10 the south side, it stays we're applying for

11 a south side variance. All that's existing

12 deck on the south side is basically a

13 walkway, where we go up to the property

14 line. What we want to do is come out that

15 door wall (unintelligible) go out to the

16 front and the deck is on the front. And the

17 other side, there's (unintelligible)

18 additional variance. That was granted 17

19 years ago.

20 What we're trying to do is see

21 if we can project second towards the front,

22 and I don't have anything else.

23 MR. SOBOROWSKI: What we're

24 doing here, though, is nothing that hadn't




1 been done on East Lake Drive by our

2 neighbors, either side.

3 So, we do have pictures of

4 houses in the area that are closer than we

5 are even asking for. So it's nothing that

6 would obstruct neighbors either, as that

7 picture kind of shows.


9 proposed variance of (unintelligible) six feet.

10 We're requesting eight feet. (Unintelligible) is

11 eight feet long. We would be willing to work

12 with less, if possible.

13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Are you done?


15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

16 Is there anyone in the

17 audience that would like to address the

18 Board?

19 Seeing none, Building

20 Department?

21 MR. SAVEN: Oh, I'm really picky

22 about setbacks.

23 Couple of things in your

24 packet, you received some notes as to what




1 the previous variance was about. I think

2 (unintelligible) important, there was, I

3 believe, a note from the fire marshal

4 indicating he didn't have any problem with

5 this particular (unintelligible.) And just

6 for knowledge purpose, deck are allowed to

7 project into the front yard up to four feet,

8 as long as they are open, unenclosed.

9 It's not going to be any

10 closer than the second story deck,

11 whatsoever, correct. (Unintelligible)

12 absolutely clear.


14 MR. SOBOROWSKI: It actually

15 looks like the drawing you have in front of

16 you (unintelligible) rails.

17 MR. SAVEN: That's it.


19 Thank you.

20 There were 57 notices mailed;

21 two approvals, zero objections.

22 MEMBER BAUER: David Burton, I

23 hope it looks great. Jeffrey and Carley York, as

24 immediate neighbors, we believe this will be a




1 very nice improvement to the their home; and wish

2 them success on their application.

3 MEMBER SANGHVI: That's it.

4 Very nice.

5 So that's the correspondence.

6 And I'll open it up to the

7 Board.

8 MEMBER FISCHER: Can you read

9 that number one more time, how many notices

10 and the approvals. I'm sorry I didn't

11 (unintelligible) it the first time.

12 MEMBER SANGHVI: 57 notices were

13 mailed; two approvals, zero objections, zero

14 being returned.

15 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you.

16 MEMBER SANGHVI: You're welcome.

17 Looking at -- okay, Mr. Canup?

18 MEMBER CANUP: Seems like this

19 is pretty simple. It's a very uniquely shaped

20 piece of property, very narrow; and I don't know

21 what else you could do.

22 MR. SOBOROWSKI: With the

23 traffic on East Lake Drive, anything at

24 eye-level is not very scenic. So to get up




1 above, that will make a big difference.

2 MEMBER CANUP: So if there's no

3 further discussion, I would make a Motion.

4 I would make a Motion in Case

5 Number: 06-58, that we grant the variances

6 as requested, due to the previously stated,

7 uniqueness of the property.


9 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl

10 e) and seconded.

11 May I have one clarification?

12 There's no variance on the

13 northern side, right? So all we are trying

14 to do is on the south side and also in the

15 front.

16 MEMBER CANUP: The side yard --

17 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl

18 e) deck that you are proposing.

19 MR. SOBOROWSKI: The south

20 side had been previously granted. So it's

21 just going to be an overlay of what's

22 already been granted.

23 MR. SAVEN: I'm sorry. That

24 does not apply in this case, because you're




1 aiding to a non-conforming issue. So that's --

2 different parts of the Ordinance is applied. For

3 anything that you add additional to that, does

4 have to come back before the Board.

5 Thank you.

6 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right.

7 Very good.

8 Clarification has been

9 received.

10 Any further discussion?

11 Seeing none, Ms. Working, will

12 you please call the roll.

13 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer?


15 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup?


17 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer?


19 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt?


21 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


23 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer?





1 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes

2 six to zero.


4 building permit, please.

5 MS. SOBOROWSKI: Thank you

6 very much.

7 MR. SOBOROWSKI: Thank you.


9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Moving along to

10 the next case. Case Number: 06-059, filed by

11 Jurek Baczewski of 2035 North Gully Road for 1945

12 West Lake Drive.

13 Are you Mister --

14 MR. BACZEWSKI: Yes, I am. My

15 name is George --

16 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl

17 e) (interposing) please be sworn in by our

18 secretary -- identify yourself and state your

19 name and address.

20 MR. BACZEWSKI: My name is

21 George Baczewski, 1945 West Lake Drive,

22 Novi.

23 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly

24 swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case




1 06-059?


3 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

4 Mr. Chairman, Members of the

5 Board, I apologize for being here with you

6 guys here again. In preparing for this

7 variance, I spoke with a number of my

8 neighbors, and some were distressed as --

9 the width of house that I was asking for.

10 And he pointed out to me that a house

11 farther down the road was granted a variance

12 -- because I was asking for five feet -- he

13 was granted four feet.

14 And since this gentleman was

15 concerned that he was going to do the same

16 thing; he was displeased by the 20 foot

17 house.

18 But after speaking with Robin

19 and Mr. Saven, I would like to postpone or

20 withdraw my application here for next month,

21 so I can modify the variances to four feet;

22 and hopefully I can succeed in this at this

23 time.

24 If you have any questions --





2 looked at the lot lines (unintelligible) the

3 plot plans?

4 MR. SAVEN: I didn't look at the

5 new plot plans. I just seen what he presented.

6 I do have some other comments

7 that I'll make.

8 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl

9 e)

10 MR. BACZEWSKI: I did speak

11 with a couple of building inspectors, and

12 have asked them what the Fire Code distance

13 was from the house -- the minimum distance

14 from the house to the property line. And I

15 spoke with two inspectors, and they were

16 looking in the orange Fire Code book or

17 whatever, and they said the minimum was

18 three feet.

19 So, I was going to ask for

20 four feet, so I think he said I had one

21 point leeway.

22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Are you done?


24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.




1 I don't see anyone in the

2 audience to make a comment.

3 Building Department?

4 MR. SAVEN: Yeah, I did have a

5 couple of comments that I'd like to make.

6 (Unintelligible) coming before

7 this Board based upon the hardships that are

8 inherit to the property here. Number one,

9 first and foremost, (unintelligible)

10 violation issues on this particular house.

11 Where are you at with the --

12 taking care of issues regarding the initial

13 house?

14 MR. BACZEWSKI: I've agreed to

15 have -- since I'm building a new house, I've

16 agreed to have it demoed as soon as I can.

17 I've already had all the utilities

18 discontinued and waiting for them to be

19 detached from the house. The gas already

20 has been removed. I paid for the city water

21 to come down, and -- so I can attach to it.

22 I've gotten application in the works for a

23 well abandonment. And soon as I get a

24 permit and -- from the well -- from the




1 County, I'll apply for the demo permit.

2 MR. SAVEN: The point that I was

3 trying to make (unintelligible) violation, and

4 the neighborhood residents are concerned about

5 the building. He's here because he wants to

6 build a new building.

7 This is another delay that's

8 associated with it, and I think the Board

9 would probably be looking at some commitment

10 from you -- one way or another, where you're

11 going with the initial building, to ensure

12 that there's going to be piece and harmony

13 out there.


15 wouldn't be here in the first place, if --

16 because last year I was all prepared to go

17 forward with the new house. I did get an

18 estimate from a designer/contractor; and the

19 estimate was, at the end, $100,000 off. So

20 I'm sure you can see where I was a little

21 setback by -- by such a rough estimate.

22 After that fiasco, I hired an

23 architect, and she agreed that I would have

24 some plans three to four weeks, and I paid




1 her $300 retaining fee. And two and a half

2 months later, I still have nothing. So now,

3 she said obviously you want to part company.

4 I already have $800 into this project. So

5 I'm a keep -- I'll waive the $500, and keep

6 your $300 retaining fee.

7 And I'm like, I would like to

8 see what $800 looks like. You've been

9 working on it for over two months, and yet I

10 haven't seen line one. I've given her a

11 survey of the property, so she knew exactly

12 the shape of the property and I have

13 nothing. So, I guess I'm going to have to

14 take her to small claims for $300.

15 But, you know, I had the

16 pleasure of learning how all this all works.

17 MR. SAVEN: One last final

18 comment, George, if I may.

19 One of the things we're

20 talking about, regardless of Building Codes,

21 is how close you could get to property

22 lines. We're dealing with the Zoning

23 Ordinance of this City. It's completely

24 different than a Building Code for the City.




1 Building Codes are dealing with building

2 (unintelligible); zoning deals with

3 (unintelligible) public safety, also.

4 In light of what we

5 experienced on West Lake Drive not too long

6 ago, we lost a life. We had homes which are

7 located very close together. The Board is

8 very sensitive to this. I would advise you

9 very strongly to think about as much setback

10 requirements as you can get to meet your

11 desire that you want to do; because it's

12 very important to you as an individual who

13 wants to build on a smaller lot here, that

14 you're going to need to really convince this

15 board that this is going to work and public

16 safety is at heart.

17 That issue -- that issue in

18 regards to the setback requirements for fire

19 protection purposes doesn't fly with this

20 Board, based upon the close proximity of a

21 lot of homes in the area. We're very

22 sensitive to this (unintelligible) more

23 recent tragedy regarding this issue. Be

24 very careful on this thing; just make sure




1 that your design is going to be what you

2 want.

3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Very good.

4 Yes, Mr. Canup?

5 MEMBER CANUP: I think -- you

6 know, this application for variance appears to be

7 premature. He doesn't have an architect; we

8 don't have an engineer. We don't know where

9 we're going, what we're doing, how we're going to

10 get there.

11 You know, if I understood the

12 applicant correctly, he's asking to us table

13 this case; is that correct?

14 MR. BACZEWSKI: Yes, I am.

15 MEMBER CANUP: Okay. Are you

16 doing -- let me just ask you very bluntly -- are

17 you doing that to avoid prosecution?


19 MR. SAVEN: I have some real

20 concerns about houses that are in need of repair,

21 and really, we need to do something.


23 understanding, in the past, from this Board,

24 when something comes before the Board, it




1 tables prosecution.

2 MR. SAVEN: (Unintelligible.)

3 MEMBER CANUP: And in this

4 case, you've got a problem that's been

5 (unintelligible) for how long?

6 MR. SAVEN: Every since, I

7 assume, the violation was issued.


9 How long has that been?

10 MEMBER SANGHVI: March '03.


12 MEMBER FISCHER: March 23rd,

13 '06.

14 MEMBER CANUP: So, Board Members

15 be aware, that if we table this case, it gives

16 him immunity from prosecution to get this

17 property in order. And there's really no reason

18 that this application is even here, other than --

19 from my opinion -- other than that. Because we

20 have no plan of any kind. (Unintelligible) wants

21 to be built on there; doesn't even have an idea.

22 So I would say for us to table

23 it, is, in my opinion, from a legal stand

24 point, is not something we should do.




1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Well, I would

2 defer it to counsel (unintelligible.)

3 MS. OZGA: There is a question

4 there. Yeah, I mean I believe tabling would

5 postpone any sort of prosecution. So, you may

6 want to go forward, because this has been a

7 problem.

8 If you do agree to table it,

9 like Mr. Saven said, you may want to get

10 some (unintelligible) commitment from the

11 Petitioner. If he's working to rectify

12 this, you can put something like that in

13 your Motion. But as Mr. Saven said, it

14 would postpone the prosecution at this time.


16 Mr. Fischer.

17 MEMBER FISCHER: Is there a

18 way to deny it at this time, but if he comes

19 back with plans for the next meeting, then

20 the fee could be waived?

21 MEMBER CANUP: The point being

22 there, if you come back with plans, it

23 doesn't match what's been advertised. You

24 advertised for five foot on the side; and




1 you're going to come back and ask for three

2 foot. It doesn't match this. It doesn't

3 work.

4 MR. BACZEWSKI: Four foot.

5 MEMBER FISCHER: If we were to

6 table it. (unintelligible) amend it

7 (unintelligible) renotice it. I'm just trying to

8 avoid him having to a pay a fee twice. He's

9 already been jupted(sic) (ph) out of $300.

10 MEMBER CANUP: Well, this has

11 been going on for some time, right, Don?

12 MR. SAVEN: That is correct.

13 If I may.

14 One of the things that I look

15 strongly at, this gentleman is trying to put

16 forth a good faith effort before this Board.

17 Apparently, he's got some concern as to

18 where the setbacks are going to be. He's

19 looking at it (unintelligible) four foot,

20 which is definitely different from what's

21 already been advertised. That means we're

22 doing a whole new advertisement. It's

23 coming -- this is a whole different ball

24 game now.




1 But I think the Board should

2 be aware of this gentleman's commitment. He

3 has, in fact, obtained cut-off for

4 utilities.

5 MR. BACZEWSKI: All utilities.

6 MR. SAVEN: All of the utilities

7 at this time?

8 He's already (unintelligible)

9 I think there needs to be something -- this

10 is my own personal opinion -- something on

11 behalf of this guy that shows a good faith

12 effort that he is very serious about coming

13 before this Board; he wants to be able to

14 construct this building in this particular

15 manner; however it's to be done. But that

16 building that is it on there right now

17 presents a problem. It's a big hiccup.

18 And this is what -- I mean,

19 above all, if the building comes down, I

20 don't have a problem. He can come in

21 anytime after that.

22 MEMBER CANUP: Let me ask you

23 this.

24 When are you planning on




1 tearing that building down?

2 MR. BACZEWSKI: As soon as I'm

3 issued the permits.


5 (unintelligible) permit to destruct?

6 MR. BACZEWSKI: I have to get

7 a well abandoned --

8 MR. SAVEN: Through the County.

9 MEMBER CANUP: You don't have

10 to get that before you tear the house down.

11 You have to get it before you make a new

12 (unintelligible.)


14 MR. SAVEN: You need it at the

15 time of application. All of these are

16 requirements.

17 MEMBER CANUP: It has to be

18 abandoned before (unintelligible?)

19 MR. SAVEN: That permit has to

20 be in hand -- that permit abandoned has to be in

21 the hands of the County.

22 MR. BACZEWSKI: Not only does

23 the permit have to be in hand, but the well

24 has to be filled.




1 MEMBER CANUP: Okay. How long

2 does it take to get that permit?

3 MR. BACZEWSKI: That's up to

4 the County.

5 MEMBER CANUP: I just got one of

6 these permits. It took me about, literally a

7 day.

8 MR. BACZEWSKI: I have not --

9 I applied last week, and I still haven't

10 gotten anything. I mean, I can call the

11 County and ask. I'm sure they would have

12 sent me some kind of -- but I assure you, as

13 soon as I get the permit to abandon the

14 well, I will abandon it. I've already

15 spoken with many well drilling people that

16 I'm ready to have it -- I admit the house is

17 of no value.

18 MEMBER CANUP: My point here is

19 to try to get that house torn down, yet still

20 allow you an opportunity come back to us. But

21 get the house torn down, get the eyesore out of

22 there. If you don't ever come back to us, then

23 that's up to you. But at least we've cleaned up

24 the community.




1 So, I guess that's my comment.

2 And where I was going with it, and if the

3 Board agrees with that, now (unintelligible)

4 figure how to do that.



7 Yes Mr. Shroyer?

8 MEMBER SHROYER: Just a thought.

9 In our Motion, can me make one

10 that would include the applicant providing

11 documentation of all of these steps have

12 taken place, such as: Copies of the

13 application, proof that the utilities have

14 been cut-off, etc, and make the tabling

15 contingent on that?


17 (Unintelligible)

18 MEMBER CANUP: If I may say

19 this.

20 Why don't we do this. Table

21 this case, just flat table it for 30 days as

22 it is, (unintelligible.) If there's no

23 progress in 30 days, (unintelligible.) Very

24 simple. It's going to be acted on in 30




1 days.

2 Don, is that fit?

3 MR. SAVEN: Just a point that

4 needs to be brought up.

5 It is this gentleman's desire

6 not to come back with the same setbacks,

7 side yard setbacks; is that correct.

8 MR. BACZEWSKI: Correct.

9 MR. SAVEN: So (unintelligible)

10 renotice of this whole -- regardless.

11 MEMBER CANUP: We might as well

12 in that case turn it down, because the City's got

13 all of that expense to go through. It's a whole

14 new case.

15 MR. SAVEN: It will be a whole

16 new case. (Interposing) (unintelligible)

17 publicized --

18 MEMBER CANUP: With that, I

19 make a Motion that we deny the application

20 of Case Number: 06-059.

21 MEMBER FISCHER: Based upon?

22 MEMBER CANUP: Due to a change

23 in direction by the owner.

24 MEMBER BAUER: Second.




1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Motion's been

2 made and seconded.

3 MEMBER CANUP: Do you understand

4 what we're doing here?

5 MR. BACZEWSKI: I was willing

6 to withdraw today's --

7 MEMBER CANUP: Go ahead with

8 your movements.

9 But this application that

10 you've made, if you want to change anything

11 on it, it's no good. We have to go back and

12 readvertise everything.

13 MR. BACZEWSKI: That's -- I

14 wanted to withdraw --

15 MEMBER CANUP: We just turn this

16 down and it's done.

17 MR. BACZEWSKI: Yeah, I wanted

18 to withdraw today's --


20 second.

21 MEMBER SHROYER: I don't know

22 how his request to withdraw being

23 (unintelligible) applicant not showing up, seeing

24 he wants to withdraw.





2 withdraw, legally, what does that do? That

3 mitigates the whole application.

4 MS. OZGA: I'm not sure exactly

5 how a withdrawal would be processed. But if you

6 want to do a Motion to deny the request, and put

7 in there for lack of foundation or practical

8 difficulty under the presentation, then he would

9 be allowed to come back at another time and

10 request another variance.

11 But this case, you get rid of

12 this case at this point in time. And once

13 he comes back with something else, then you

14 are able to re notice it.

15 MEMBER CANUP: It's a whole

16 new case.

17 You're absolutely allowed to

18 come back any time you want and apply --

19 make a new case. Be we have to deal with

20 this case and get it out of the way.

21 And again, I made a Motion

22 that -- stay with that Motion that it's due

23 to the lack of -- change of direction of the

24 owner.





2 Motion has been made and

3 seconded.


5 amendment or suggestion for the Motion maker, to

6 take into consideration the comments made by the

7 attorney regarding lack of practical difficulty

8 demonstrated by the Petitioner in this case when

9 the case was being presented.

10 MEMBER CANUP: I can accept

11 that amendment.

12 MEMBER BAUER: Accept.

13 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right.

14 It's been amended and

15 seconded.

16 Any further discussion?

17 Seeing none, will you please

18 call the roll.

19 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer?


21 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup?


23 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer?





1 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt?


3 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


5 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer?

6 MEMBER SHROYER: Motion passes

7 to deny, six to zero.

8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay, sir.

9 Thank you for your time.


11 Okay. Moving along to other

12 matters. Number one, go ahead.

13 MR. SAVEN: I get to be the

14 Petitioner.

15 Okay. Most of you are aware

16 that we went -- the previous years, we had

17 this particular sign brought before the

18 Zoning Board of Appeals. It's a rather

19 large sign. It has certain height and

20 dimension requirements to it, that's -- it

21 would probably not be considered a mockup

22 sign or putting up a mockup sign in this

23 particular area.

24 It's always been the Board's




1 desire to put up a mockup sign. This is for

2 a benefits for Angela Hospice benefit, which

3 we had approved the previous year. And the

4 question comes, do you know wish to have a

5 mockup sign? It is 12 foot in height. We

6 wanted to see whether or not this would be

7 acceptable to you, the Board, so we can get

8 back with the applicant and insure that this

9 is something that would be acceptable, as he

10 would present his case.

11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you,

12 Mr. Saven.

13 Yes, Mr. Fischer?

14 MEMBER FISCHER: This is a

15 nonprofit orgranization; is that correct?

16 MR. SAVEN: That's correct.

17 MEMBER FISCHER: All right.

18 Given that, it's a charity

19 event. I don't want to take away from their

20 profits by having them incur additional cost

21 on a mockup sign.

22 In cases where we have had

23 large signs, I don't see a problem, as long

24 as we have pictures depicting how it will




1 look on the property, such as this.

2 MR. SAVEN: We just need to get

3 back to this individual so they can get on the

4 agenda to (unintelligible.)


6 objection.

7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, Mr. Canup?

8 MEMBER CANUP: I would make a

9 Motion that we send a message to Angela Hospice,

10 whoever the sign people are, the sign is

11 favorable and we require not having a mockup.

12 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

13 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right.

14 Motion has been made and

15 seconded.

16 Any further discussion?

17 Seeing none, all those in

18 favor?


20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Those opposed

21 same sign. The Motion passes six to zero.

22 All right. Moving on to the

23 next matter is ZBA 05-107.

24 What's the deal here?




1 MR. SAVEN: In your packet is

2 just communications that we had received from an

3 adjacent neighbor (interposing) (unintelligible.)

4 MEMBER FISCHER: I can't hear

5 you.

6 MR. SAVEN: In your packet

7 there's a letter from one of the adjacent

8 neighbors to one of the previous cases that we

9 had approved, regarding her concerns in regards

10 to that particular location. She had asked -- I

11 think she asked that we take a strong look at

12 this next time they come back for a variance.

13 So we just placed it in your

14 packet as a means of communication so you

15 have it available. We will keep a copy in

16 the file in the event they come back again

17 for an extension for the sign.

18 MEMBER BAUER: Can I make a

19 comment?

20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Please, go

21 ahead.

22 MEMBER BAUER: On the second

23 from last paragraph, she's talking about police

24 matters.




1 MR. SAVEN: Understood.



4 All I want (unintelligible)

5 make didn't apply to this gentleman. We

6 have receive your communication and the

7 contents have been noted.

8 Thank you very much.

9 That's all I have to say.

10 MR. SAVEN: Good.

11 MEMBER CANUP: Are we all done

12 (unintelligible.)

13 I just would like to address

14 the Board, and if that's okay with

15 (unintelligible.)


17 Mr. Shroyer?

18 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you,

19 Mr. Chair.

20 Just prior to the meeting,

21 there was a (unintelligible) homeowners

22 association meeting going on, and I was

23 approached by a resident concerning the

24 Bosco property and the storage of trucks in




1 the (unintelligible) they received.

2 Can we get a status on that

3 since, there is been an issue raised.

4 Is there a variance that's

5 about to expire or one --

6 MR. SAVEN: We will look into

7 it. I don't have anything available right now.

8 We have to go back to who (unintelligible) and

9 what was it about, was it relative to the owner

10 or do you remember, Brent?

11 MEMBER CANUP: Yeah, I do.

12 Year ago, recent history, I

13 think the only people that would remember

14 this is Mr. Bauer and myself -- I would say

15 probably ten, 15 years ago -- and Mr. Bosco

16 came before us and wanted to be able to run

17 his business. He had a construction

18 business, dirt moving business, and used

19 that garage in the back as (unintelligible)

20 facility. And the Board, if my memory's

21 correct, granted a variance to be able to

22 use that and to have a limited number of

23 pieces of equipment there.

24 And I think that has




1 (unintelligible) number of pieces of

2 equipment has grown. So I think that's my

3 recollection of the history of that.

4 MEMBER SHROYER: Ask the City to

5 look into that.

6 MR. SAVEN: Now based upon the

7 years and all your wisdom and years

8 (unintelligible) long, long, long, time ago, it

9 was greater than 15 years ago; greater than 20

10 years ago.

11 MEMBER CANUP: I would say

12 somewhere between ten and 20.

13 MR. SAVEN: Between ten and 20.

14 We'll check that particular

15 matter out. It may take a little while.

16 MEMBER BAUER: Are you going to

17 hire somebody?

18 MEMBER CANUP: You've got a lot

19 of cases to go through to find that one.

20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, Mr. Canup,

21 you had something to say?


23 Mr. Bauer and I go back a long

24 time on this Board. And I guess one of the




1 things that bothers me is I see this

2 particular Board being very lenient in our

3 sign Ordinance. Our sign Ordinance goes

4 back to being rewritten at the time when

5 (unintelligible) was mayor. And maybe the

6 sign Ordinance is somewhat out of date;

7 maybe it needs updating.

8 And I think that, you know,

9 from watching this Board, I see us being

10 very lenient, like we did in the case

11 tonight of giving away something that there

12 was really no -- in my opinion, there was no

13 justification for. There was no hardship.

14 That building's been there for some 30, 40

15 years; survived without that sign.

16 All of a sudden they decide

17 they need a sign; they put it up and we give

18 them a variance for it. I think that was an

19 atrocity that we approved that. I've seen

20 other cases (unintelligible) they need a

21 sign that we have granted that variance --

22 granted variances for signs.

23 We've got an Ordinance, and

24 unless there's a demonstrated hardship,




1 in -- you know, it's got to be demonstrated.

2 (unintelligible) need more signage. If they

3 didn't have a sign Ordinance, people would

4 want more. I don't know how they'd want it,

5 but they'd want more. If you want to see a

6 good reason why we have a restrictive sign

7 Ordinance, go down Ford Road in Garden City.

8 That is the epiphany of degradation of the

9 sign Ordinance. They couldn't have an

10 Ordinance there. They just absolutely

11 couldn't. Nothing can look that bad with an

12 Ordinance.

13 So anyway, if I've offended

14 somebody with this lecture, I apologize for

15 that, but I think we need to really look

16 hard at why we're giving away variances.

17 And these variances don't go away.

18 In a case where we've got a

19 temporary variance -- maybe a subdivision

20 sign or something, a sale lot -- one of them

21 I think was mentioned here -- that's going

22 away in a year. That sign that we approved

23 tonight, isn't going away. It's going to be

24 there another 30, 40 years from now. And




1 there's been several cases like that

2 (unintelligible) through here not only in

3 signs, other things that people want -- not

4 necessarily a hardship.

5 And again, I don't care how

6 lenient the sign Ordinance is, there's going

7 to be people who want more. I've never

8 heard anybody say (unintelligible) good sign

9 Ordinance. We really do have a very good

10 sign Ordinance.

11 Thank you.

12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Your welcome.

13 Anything else?

14 Yes, Mr. Saven?

15 MR. SAVEN: On that note,

16 everybody was given copy of the proposed new sign

17 Ordinance which is being looked at the present

18 time. It's going through the Sign Ordinance

19 Review Committee. I just want you to be aware

20 there are some movements in this particular area.

21 There's going to be some changes; maybe such that

22 we won't be seeing a lot of signs coming before

23 us anymore, but depends on what takes place.

24 The second issue I want to




1 bring up, also they're taking a look at

2 temporary use permits. Most of you are

3 aware that pursuant to certain provisions in

4 the Ordinance, I am allowed, as the Building

5 Official (unintelligible) to approve certain

6 temporary uses. We're taking a look at

7 those. There's a multitude of temporary

8 users that come before the Board; the time

9 factor that's involved, things of that

10 nature, (unintelligible) probably trying to

11 do something at the direction of the last

12 Council Meeting in terms of trying to come

13 up with better handle on this

14 (unintelligible) of temporary use. So, you

15 will be looking at some changes down the

16 road in regards to that particular issue,

17 too.

18 So, it maybe good. It might

19 be very helpful to us, too, to eliminate

20 lots of people coming before the Board, as

21 long as we follow certain instructions.

22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you,

23 Mr. Saven.

24 (Unintelligible.)




1 Yes, Mr. Bauer?

2 MEMBER BAUER: I wish you would

3 not send attachments. I do not get attachments.

4 I have (unintelligible.)

5 MR. SAVEN: Really --

6 ROBIN WORKING: I did mail those

7 out, as well.

8 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl

9 e) (interposing.)


11 (interposing) (unintelligible) on Thursday and on

12 Friday.

13 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right.

14 Any other business?

15 Seeing none, I'll entertain a

16 Motion to adjourn?

17 MEMBER BAUER: Motion made.

18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Motion made and

19 seconded.

20 (The meeting was adjourned at

21 8:40 p.m.)

22 - - - - - -






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 ({^<___})

9 {^<_____________________ typewritten pages, is a true

10 and correct transcript of my said stenograph notes.



13 ___________________________

Machelle Billingslea-Moore,

14 Certified Shorthand Reporter


16 {^<MONTH__________ {^__}, 2006.