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, September 12, 2006.

Tim Shroyer
Brent Canup
Gerald Bauer
Robert Gatt
Linda Krieger

John Hines, Building Department
Thomas Schultz, City Attorney
Timothy Schmitt, Planner
Alan Amolsch, Ordinance Enforcement
Robin Working, ZBA Recording Secretary

Machelle Billingslea-Moore, Certified Shorthand Reporter.

1 Novi, Michigan

2 Tuesday, September 12, 2006

3 7:30 p.m.

4 - - - - - -

5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Hello, you're

6 going to be hold on for a few minutes and give a

7 chance to our stenographer to show up before we

8 start the meeting. So I beg for your indulgence.

9 Thank you.

10 (A brief recess was taken.)

11 (Back on the record.)


13 We'll call to Order the

14 September, 2006 meeting of the City of Novi

15 Zoning Board of Appeals.

16 Will you please join me in the

17 Pledge of Allegiance.


19 Allegiance to the flag of the United States

20 of America; and to the Republic for which it

21 stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible,

22 with liberty and justice for all.

23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you,

24 please be seated.


1 Ms. Working, will you please

2 call the roll.

3 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer?

4 MEMBER BAUER: Present.

5 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup?


7 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer?

8 MEMBER SANGHVI: He's excused.

9 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt?


11 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger?


13 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


15 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer?


17 ROBIN WORKING: We have one

18 member absent, Member Fischer.

19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

20 We do have the quorum and the

21 meeting is now in session.

22 I would like to go over the

23 rules of conduct. You can find them all on

24 the agenda.


1 Just a friendly reminder,

2 please turn off all your cell phones and

3 pagers.

4 Individual applicants may take

5 up to five minutes; and the group may take

6 up to ten minutes to present their case.

7 The Zoning Board of Appeals is

8 the Hearing Board empowered by the Novi City

9 Charter to hear appeals seeking variances

10 from the application of the Novi Zoning

11 Ordinances. It takes a vote of at least

12 Members to approve a variance request; and a

13 vote of the majority of the Members present

14 to deny a variance. Tonight we have a full

15 Board, so all decisions made will be final.

16 Let's look at the agenda.

17 Are there any changes to the

18 agenda, Ms. Working?


20 Mr. Chairman.

21 I would like to add under

22 approval of Minutes the August 2006 meeting,

23 please.

24 MEMBER SANGHVI: So noted.


1 Anything else?

2 The Chair will entertain a

3 Motion to accept the amended agenda.

4 MEMBER BAUER: So moved.



7 seconded.

8 Any discussions?

9 Seeing none, those in favor of

10 approving the agenda, please signify by

11 saying aye.


13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Those opposed,

14 same sign.

15 We have an agenda.

16 And as you mentioned, we do

17 have Minutes from the meeting from July, as

18 well as August, 2006.

19 Are there any changes in the

20 Minutes?

21 Anybody would like to make any

22 additions, deletions, corrections?

23 Seeing none --

24 MEMBER BAUER: Move to approve.



2 Minutes from July and August?



5 Anybody seconded?



8 Motion has been made and

9 seconded, without any further discussion,

10 let's go ahead.

11 All those in favor of

12 accepting the Minutes as presented, please

13 signify by saying aye?


15 MEMBER SANGHVI: All those

16 opposed, same sign.

17 Okay. At this point, we will

18 open for public remarks section.

19 Is there anyone in the

20 audience who wishes to make comments not

21 pertaining to any matter on the agenda

22 tonight, you may please come forward now.

23 Seeing none, we will close the

24 public remarks section.


1 And this brings us to the

2 first case on the agenda.


4 Case Number: 06-061, filed by

5 Bart Wingblad for Angela Hospice Annual

6 Fundraiser/Benefit sign.

7 Is the applicant here?


9 Good evening.

10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Good evening.

11 Will you please identify

12 yourself -- your name, address -- and be

13 sworn in by our secretary, thank you.

14 MR. WINGBLAD: My name is Bart

15 Wingblad. My address is 21112 Gill Road,

16 Farmington Hills, Michigan, 48335.

17 MEMBER BAUER: Would you raise

18 your right hand.

19 Do you solemnly swear or

20 affirm to tell the truth regarding case,

21 06-061?

22 MR. WINGBLAD: I do.

23 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.

24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Please proceed.


1 MR. WINGBLAD: I'd like to

2 start out, first of all, by thanking this

3 Board and expressing my sincere gratitude

4 for affording me the opportunity to appear

5 before you on behalf of Angela Hospice.

6 What we're proposing, what

7 we're asking this Board to consider, is a

8 variance to put up our fundraiser sign once

9 again this year. I came before you last

10 year, and I asked you for a one-time only

11 exception. I never -- I truly never

12 believed I would still have possession of

13 the land. I do.

14 The people that are buying the

15 land have been before you many times trying

16 to get final approval on the site approval

17 map; and I'm sure that's moving along and

18 near completion. But I find myself still

19 owning the land, so I'm back again to try to

20 persuade you to allow us one more year to

21 put the sign up.

22 Our event this year, again,

23 it's the Light up the Life. It's our

24 fundraiser; it's our big annual fundraiser.


1 It's going to be held at the Diamond Center

2 at the Rock Financial Showplace on October

3 21st.

4 We're asking to put the sign

5 up from September 13th to October 13th; the

6 same conditions as last year. The lighting

7 to be turned off at midnight; and meet all

8 the requirements, as far as the setbacks.

9 What we exceed is the size of the sign; and

10 that's what I'm back here to -- to beg this

11 Board to allow us to do.

12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

13 Does anyone in the audience

14 wish to speak about this case?

15 Seeing none, I will inform the

16 Board that 16 notices were mailed; zero

17 approval, zero objections.

18 Building Department?

19 MR. HINES: Thank you,

20 Mr. Chairman.

21 We just want to bring to your

22 attention that there were a lot of

23 complaints on this case; and that's really

24 all I can say, but there were several


1 complaints regarding the size of the sign.

2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

3 None specifical.

4 And I'll open to the Board.

5 Yes, Mr. Canup?

6 MEMBER CANUP: Being as it -- we

7 have seen this, what, three years, if my memory

8 is correct; and I think it's a very temporary

9 sign. It's going to go away in a matter of what,

10 30 days, it'll be gone.

11 Angela Hospice supports a lot

12 of people who -- and asks nothing in return

13 from those people. And I think it is a very

14 noble service that they've supplied to the

15 Southeast Michigan community. And I would

16 be in favor of -- in fact I'll make a Motion

17 that we grant the request, as stated.

18 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Motion has been

20 made and seconded.

21 Any further discussion?

22 ROBIN WORKING: Who seconded the

23 Motion, please?



1 Seeing none, will you please

2 call the roll.

3 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup.


5 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt?


7 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger?


9 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer?


11 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


13 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer?


15 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes

16 six, to zero.

17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Well, your

18 variance has been granted. You can get the

19 permit from the Building Department, and good

20 luck.

21 MR. WINGBLAD: Thank you, on

22 behalf of all of us from Angela Hospice.

23 Thank you.

24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you very


1 much.


3 Next case, Number: 06-062,

4 filed by the Synergy Group for DL Biotech,

5 located at 46430 Peary Court.

6 Is the applicant here?

7 Will you please identify

8 yourself with your name and address.

9 MR. WAKIS: My name is Ed

10 Wakis. I'm with the Synergy Group. The

11 address is 39400 Woodward Avenue in

12 Bloomfield Hills.

13 MEMBER SANGHVI: You'll be sworn

14 in by the secretary.

15 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or

16 affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 06-062?

17 MR. WAKIS: Yes, I do.

18 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.

19 MEMBER SANGHVI: You can make

20 your presentation.

21 Thank you.

22 MR. WAKIS: Well, we're here

23 to ask a variance to allow parking on the

24 front yard, and to request a variance


1 regarding the noise of -- I'm sorry. I'm

2 not quite prepared.

3 Of the noise --


5 MR. WAKIS: -- the noise

6 analysis, we'd like to have that waived,

7 because all of our equipment is going to be

8 interior.


10 Anything else?

11 MR. WAKIS: That's basically

12 it. We need the two variances.

13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

14 All right. Anybody in the

15 audience who would like to make any comments

16 about this case?

17 Will you please come to the

18 podium, identify yourself, sir, with your

19 name and address.


21 Richardson, 24574 John Dross, South Lyon.

22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Please go

23 ahead.

24 MR. RICHARDSON: What we're


1 talking about is in the front of the

2 building, we have less -- slightly less than

3 two acres. I think it's 1.33 acres, and

4 that's going to be a paved area. We've been

5 approved for pretty much everything else.

6 Because of the nature of the

7 property, it's on a cul-de-sac against a

8 berm, against a controlled wetland in the

9 back, we really don't have any options as to

10 how to place the property -- the building.

11 So we're asking for a variance based on

12 partially a hardship that we couldn't build

13 a building without doing it in this fashion.

14 As far as the noise analysis,

15 the -- everything we're doing over there is

16 being enclosed and incorporated within the

17 building; and consequently it's almost

18 impossible that there would be any

19 significant noise outside of the building.

20 Thank you for hearing me.

21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. Thank

22 you.

23 Anybody else?

24 No.


1 There were 28 notices mailed;

2 zero approvals, zero objections.

3 Building Department, any


5 MR. HINES: No, sir.

6 I would defer this to the

7 Planning Department.


9 right. Here it comes.

10 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you, ladies

11 and gentlemen of the ZBA. It's good to be back

12 with you again this evening.

13 We have looked through this a

14 couple times now. The final site plan is

15 actually on my desk for this project. The

16 company is -- purchased one of the lots in

17 Beck North Phase One. Staff, in their

18 review of Beck North Phase One and Two

19 mentioned all the lots are under two acres.

20 You might want to look at multiple -- a

21 little bit larger lots. The original

22 developer chose not to do that. There's no

23 requirement to do that. We don't have a

24 minium lot size in this district.


1 So in purchasing the one lot,

2 they laid out their building. We looked at

3 several different options at the pre-app

4 phase. In order to have truck traffic

5 reasonably on this site, there's really no

6 other way to lay out the parking field to be

7 able to get a truck in and out of the site,

8 because they do have full semi-trailers,

9 according to their operations.

10 Frankly the noise analysis is

11 here, because I made an incorrect

12 interpretation at the preliminary phase.

13 Because everything was within a completely

14 enclosed building, including their loading

15 zone, I might add. They supplied me with

16 the information regarding the noise -- the

17 generator. The manufacture's specs did not

18 exceed our requirements, and I made an

19 interpretation, an incorrect one, that they

20 would not need a noise analysis.

21 That's why they're in front of

22 you this evening. We have looked at all the

23 specs for the machinery they are installing.

24 It does fall within our requirements. The


1 generator on site is emergency only; and as

2 I mentioned, the loading's within the

3 building. So Staff's fairly comfortable

4 that adjacent to residential, this will be a

5 relatively minor impact and use.

6 It's a pretty good use for the

7 building; good use for the community,

8 actually. We'd like to see this become a

9 little bit of a technology cluster in that

10 phase of Beck North.

11 But I'm happy to answer any

12 questions that you might have about the site

13 plan or the process, thus far.

14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

15 Opening to the Board.

16 Yes, Mr. Canup?

17 MEMBER CANUP: Can this property

18 be used in any other way.

19 MR. SCHMITT: The property --

20 it's a wide variety of uses you can have in the

21 light industrial district.

22 MEMBER CANUP: The question

23 is, can it be used in any other way, just

24 yes or no.



2 MEMBER CANUP: Okay. So it is

3 not a piece of property that cannot be used

4 with the present zoning and with the present

5 Ordinances.

6 MR. SCHMITT: No, it can be

7 used, yes.


9 guess my question is, if it can be used in

10 the way that it was developed and the zoning

11 and the Ordinances are there, it's a

12 self-created hardship and it's an over-build

13 of a piece of property that is, again,

14 usable in a fashion that it was designed for

15 originally.

16 And as far as the noise thing

17 goes, I think that's something that's in our

18 Ordinances. And unless there's a hardship,

19 a demonstrated hardship for that, I can't

20 see why we should consider overlooking that,

21 or granting a variance not to do it.

22 So that's all I have to say.

23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

24 Yes, Mr. Shroyer.


1 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you,

2 Mr. Chair.

3 I echo what the previous

4 speaker stated. I, too, wanted to ask

5 Mr. Schmitt.

6 Mr. Schmitt?

7 MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir.

8 MEMBER SHROYER: Excuse me. If

9 the building was made smaller, would they be able

10 to provide parking to the rear that would meet

11 the Ordinances?

12 MR. SCHMITT: No. The size of

13 the building has no function on how the site's

14 designed. The site is designed that way because

15 their access point's only 35, 40 feet wide.


17 cul-de-sac?

18 MR. SCHMITT: From the

19 cul-de-sac.

20 And to get a truck in an out

21 of that, you can't circle the property. You

22 can't get a full turning radias(ph) on the

23 property. The fire -- I don't even know if

24 the Fire Marshal could get into it if you


1 turned everything around.

2 MEMBER SHROYER: And how much

3 does a noise analysis cost?

4 MR. SCHMITT: Very good

5 question. We've seen estimates ranging up to

6 $10,000. I would estimate that the middle of the

7 road is going to be somewhere between six and

8 eight thousand dollars. But again, that's based

9 off of things we've -- it's not really based off

10 any RFP or anything that I've done. It's based

11 off secondary data.

12 MEMBER SHROYER: And the last

13 question I had was -- either you could answer it

14 or the applicant -- the schematic that we were

15 provided doesn't give enough detail.

16 Is there any overhead doors

17 that face the residential properties?

18 MR. SCHMITT: There are not.

19 That is not permitted in the light industrial

20 district, adjacent to residential.

21 MEMBER SHROYER: So there's no

22 chance of a door being open and the noise

23 being emitted outside the building that

24 disturbed the residents?


1 MR. SCHMITT: No, sir.


3 That's all I have, Mr. Chair.

4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

5 Yes Mr. Bauer.

6 MEMBER BAUER: Is this building

7 going to be an office building?


9 MR. WAKIS: It's an office

10 building and a lab.


12 MR. WAKIS: About 50-50.


14 Yes, Mr. Canup?

15 MEMBER CANUP: I guess the

16 concerns that I have are not for what

17 today's uses are with it being -- for

18 instance, being a lab. As we've seen

19 buildings turn over, the use changes. And

20 then we still have that building that is

21 non-conforming, that was used for different

22 purpose then the lab maybe. The lab maybe

23 very non-obtrusive, no problems with it at

24 all.


1 For some reason that lab

2 changes hands, the owners move it or who

3 knows what happens, the building becomes a

4 different use and then we still have a

5 building that is non-conforming.

6 So, anyway, those are my

7 reasons for -- comments, and I'll leave it

8 at that.

9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

10 Yes, Mr. Schultz?

11 MR. SCHULTZ: A couple of

12 comments, if I may, Mr. Chair.

13 Really I guess following up on

14 Mr. Schmitt's comments that he made. I want

15 to add to his previous answer.

16 This is a situation where

17 you've got an existing owned unit that was

18 created as part of a site plan approval for

19 the condominium. It's separate and a part

20 from the two uses adjacent to it. It's got

21 some size and configuration issues, being on

22 a court with a minimal frontage. And I

23 think maybe a more complete question to

24 Mr. Schmitt might be, if what the proponent


1 is after is the ability to park in the front

2 of the property, in front of the building,

3 is it really possible to construct a

4 building on this single parcel with parking

5 in the rear.

6 I'll let him answer that

7 question, but just remember we're not

8 talking about a use variance here. This is

9 a practical difficulty, non-use parking

10 issue. In an existing development, I think

11 the use -- and again, Mr. Schmitt might

12 comment on it -- is a special land use. So

13 uses within this area are probably going to

14 have to come to the Planning Commission and

15 get special approval in any event, beyond

16 this one.

17 And the standard isn't whether

18 it can be used -- which is kind of a use

19 variance hardship standard. It's more of a

20 question of does the Ordinance cause a

21 burden, and would the burden -- would

22 varying the Ordinance to allow that burden

23 to be dealt with, be substantially

24 appropriate for this property owner, this


1 use, and adjacent properties.

2 So I mean it's a several issue

3 inquiry by the -- by the Board, but the main

4 issue is going to be, they're asking for

5 front yard parking. Can they really build a

6 building with parking not in the front yard.

7 And I think that's something Mr. Schmitt

8 should comment on.

9 MR. SCHMITT: And then just to

10 respond to Mr. Canup's concerns, it --

11 Mr. Schultz is correct. Everything in here is a

12 special land use; except for just a straight

13 office use. So, any user in the future would

14 have to come to us with the special land use

15 requirements. We take them for a Public Hearing

16 in front of the Planning Commission.

17 So the way the light

18 industrial set-up, I think that concern is

19 very valid, especially when it's adjacent to

20 residential. So that is something that's

21 anticipated. The -- as I said, the property

22 can be used, but the design of the site, the

23 layout of the site, really drives the

24 design, because of how narrow it is in the


1 front.

2 To be able to get in and out

3 of that site, you really couldn't have a

4 proper turning radius for the truck

5 traffic -- and frankly, a fire truck falls

6 within that category -- to go into the site

7 and swing all the way around, if you had the

8 building in the front. It would be it's

9 extraordinarily difficult, especially taking

10 into account the natural features that we

11 tend to try to preserve in the community.

12 So, the way it's laid out

13 really has been directed by the site,

14 itself. The property to the south is in a

15 similar situation, and their building is

16 long and narrow; and theirs was dictated by

17 the site, again, because they couldn't put

18 parking at the time adjacent to the

19 residential. So they put their building in

20 between the parking and the berm.

21 So these four cul-de-sac lots

22 in phase one have posed these interesting

23 difficulties, and luckily it won't be a

24 problem in phase two, because of the amount


1 of natural features that are there. But it

2 has been interesting dealing with these four

3 lots in phase one.

4 MR. WAKIS: One of the reasons

5 we put the parking in the front was to take

6 advantage of the woods and the property in

7 the back. It's a natural area, and we put

8 all the executive -- well, all the offices

9 on the back of the building to take

10 advantage of that feature. And it just

11 seemed like a natural thing to do.


13 Ms. Krieger?

14 MEMBER KRIEGER: Mr. Schmitt,

15 if you could explain regarding the Planning

16 Commission notes. It seems that they are in

17 support of this whole area, so --

18 MR. SCHMITT: Generally, the

19 Planning Commission had few concerns with the

20 site plan as it was proposed. There are some

21 minor alterations that we need to make at the

22 time of final site plan. The applicant has --

23 excuse me -- agreed to make some further

24 modifications along the southern property line to


1 be a good neighbor, to Coordinated Measurements,

2 to the south. It was brought to our attention

3 that Coordinated Measurements has a breakroom,

4 kitchen area that's directly adjacent to the

5 proposed dumpster.

6 So DL Biotech has agreed to do

7 some more plantings there, trying to --

8 Coordinated Measurements was one of the

9 first buildings out there. They've been

10 there a long time, so we're trying to --

11 trying to work with them.

12 The Planning Commission was in

13 support of the variance, I think -- and when

14 the Beck North came in front of the Planning

15 Commission late '90's in phase two, I mean

16 we said, look, you really need to look at

17 this lot size issue; and unfortunately our

18 Ordinance doesn't have a minimum; but then

19 you have a minimum to allow this. So it's

20 something of dichotomy between the two

21 Ordinances.

22 But the Planning Commission

23 did support it. They're pretty happy with

24 the use from a light industry standpoint.


1 We couldn't ask for a whole lot better use

2 coming out there. The State's pretty

3 supportive of it, in terms of their

4 incubation of small companies like this, in

5 terms of the biotech field.

6 But the Planning Commission

7 did approve it, subject to the Zoning Board

8 of Appeals weighing in on these two issues.

9 So that was their final

10 determination.


12 MEMBER GATT: Mr. Schmitt, I

13 understand about the variance for the parking.

14 What I don't understand is now why would we want

15 to grant this company a variance for not

16 submitting a noise analysis? Why now? Why can't

17 they do that now?

18 MR. SCHMITT: They certainly

19 can, and it's well within the purview of the

20 special land use and the Zoning Board of Appeals

21 action.

22 MEMBER GATT: This is something

23 that occurs regularly for a business?

24 MR. SCHMITT: It does not occur


1 regularly. It is a situation that only occurs in

2 this district when you're adjacent adjust

3 residential. So in my time here, I've had three.

4 One of them was a church that requested a

5 variance from it. And frankly, the -- Staff is

6 kind of looking at whether or not across the

7 board we need to require this.

8 Because when churches come

9 forward and have this requirement, it's --

10 they're a little concerned about it usually.

11 Staff's position on this is because

12 everything was within -- they are actually

13 enclosing everything -- the loading zone,

14 the generator, the dumpster, the AC units,

15 we are relatively comfortable saying it's

16 going to be well within our requirements to

17 meet this.

18 They've submitted the

19 manufacture's specs, and given the mufflers

20 and the sound dampening on the generator --

21 even when the generator's in use, it still

22 should be within our requirements. That was

23 our -- that's our position on it, which is

24 what's led us here after some discussion


1 internally as to how to get -- how to frame

2 this, as to whether it was a Planning

3 Commission finding or whether ZBA needed to

4 weigh in on it.

5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, Mr. Gatt?

6 MEMBER GATT: I'd like to make

7 a Motion to approve the variance as

8 requested by the Synergy Group.

9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Motion has been

10 made.

11 MEMBER GATT: For the reason

12 that I believe that they have proposed a

13 significant hardship, based on the dimension and

14 size of the lot that they are on. And that there

15 is no other way for this company to exist with a

16 parking lot.


18 Yes, Mr. Canup?

19 MEMBER CANUP: What about the

20 noise? Is that going to come under a separate

21 Motion, or are you including that?

22 MEMBER GATT: I would include

23 that in the Motion. I believe that

24 Mr. Schmitt has given significant analysis


1 of that it's not going to be an issue.

2 MEMBER CANUP: No, my question

3 was just if it was going to be in that

4 Motion, or is it going to be (interposing)

5 (unintelligible)

6 MEMBER GATT: In this same

7 Motion, all included.


9 clarification.

10 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right.

11 The Motion has been made.

12 MEMBER KRIEGER: I'll second

13 it for discussion.


15 It's been seconded.

16 Any further discussion?

17 Seeing none, will you please

18 call the roll, Ms. Working.

19 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt?


21 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger?


23 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer?



1 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


3 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer?


5 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup?


7 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes

8 four to two.


10 MR. WAKIS: Thank you.

11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Your variance

12 has been approved. All three variances have been

13 granted. Please get a permit from the Building

14 Department; and best of luck.

15 Thank you.


17 Moving on, Case Number:

18 06-063, filed by Richard Connor Riley and

19 Associates for Metro PCS Michigan, Inc.,

20 located at 44170 Grand River.

21 (Unintelligible) will you

22 please identify yourself and -- name and

23 address, and be sworn in by our secretary,

24 please.


1 MR. JURSON: Yes, sir.

2 It's Matthew Jurson,

3 J-u-r-s-o-n. I'm with Richard Connor Riley

4 and Associates. Our address is 30150

5 Telegraph Road. We're in Suite 420; that's

6 in Bingham Farms, Michigan, 48025.

7 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or

8 affirm to tell the truth regarding, Case 06-063?

9 MR. JURSON: I do.

10 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

11 MR. JURSON: Thank you.

12 Metro PCS is asking for

13 permission to install outdoor equipment

14 cabinets. This is an existing wireless

15 facility on Grand River. We had -- we were

16 before this Board back in March for two

17 similar sites, co-locations at existing

18 sites. We were granted the same variance.

19 This sight has an additional variance of a

20 setback.

21 We are proposing the equipment

22 at a location where the Planning -- in fact,

23 we've been working with the Planning

24 Department for the past six or seven months


1 on this particular location. They have

2 asked us to place this equipment behind the

3 Verizon shelter to the north for screening

4 purposes. Thereby, we have a setback

5 variance to contend with here, too.

6 I have brought with me -- if I

7 could show you a few pictures to give you

8 idea of what this site is. It's a site

9 that's not visible practically from Grand

10 River. That's the actual -- this here is

11 the existing equipment shelter. This is the

12 north of the site. Grand River would be to

13 the south.

14 This is the space where we'd

15 be proposing the equipment platform. The

16 platform, itself, would be six feet by ten

17 feet. You can see the edge of Cingular's

18 platform. Cingular has existing outdoor

19 equipment cabinets already installed at this

20 location on this platform here.

21 This is a picture of the Metro

22 PCS outdoor cabinets. They're the exact

23 same cabinets that we had proposed back in

24 March at the two sites. It's the same


1 cabinets that we use at virtually all of our

2 sites throughout the Southeastern Michigan

3 market. The equipment will probably not

4 exceed the height of the fence. It's about

5 five to six feet tall. And its dimensions

6 are given on the site plan. It's less than

7 or near three feet wide.

8 This is a picture that I took.

9 The site is actually right there where I'm

10 pointing. The property line is a half foot

11 from the existing fenced area; and then this

12 is to the north. This is the only land

13 that's there, and then, of course, we have

14 the railroads. So as a practical matter,

15 the site is really not visible.

16 I would also note that the ZBA

17 had originally granted a variance for the

18 location when it was originally installed.

19 So the compound -- we're not proposing any

20 expansion of -- the cabinets would be within

21 the existing fenced area.

22 This is a picture just taken

23 from Grand River, which, if you can see

24 it -- the cabinet would be -- or the


1 existing shelter would be right there. We'd

2 actually be behind that shelter. From the

3 public road, it's not practically visible.

4 A couple of other things that

5 I was going to mention. Most important of

6 which is -- when we were back in March here

7 in front of the Board, we had discussed the

8 actual Ordinance, itself. And I know that

9 the City Attorney and some other people were

10 proposing or talking about some changes to

11 the Ordinance.

12 The way the regulation reads

13 right now, it wouldn't specifically prohibit

14 the cabinets. It simply states that if you

15 have a shelter, it has to be face brick. I

16 had mentioned at that time and I'll mention

17 again, it's the same equipment. This

18 equipment is not designed to be placed

19 indoors. It's for outdoor use only. It's

20 the same equipment that we use at all our

21 sites.

22 So we'd be asking the Board,

23 permission to place outdoor cabinets, as

24 Cingular has, at this site. And to place


1 them within the existing compound with no

2 expansion of that.

3 I'd be happy to answer any

4 more questions the Board might have.

5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, sir.

6 Does anybody in the audience

7 wish to address the Board regarding this

8 case?

9 Seeing none, I'll inform the

10 Board that there were -- 18 notices were

11 mailed, zero approvals, zero objections.

12 Building Department, any


14 MR. HINES: Thank you,

15 Mr. Chairman, I do have a couple comments.

16 I realize the zoning

17 definitions sometimes differ from the

18 Building Code. But I if were to look at

19 this in the Building Code, it would probably

20 not be considered a structure. We look at

21 structure a little differently, i.e., a

22 foundation.

23 A cabinet -- and I believe --

24 The applicant, if you can


1 clarify that these cabinets are designed to

2 be outside.

3 MR. JURSON: That's correct.

4 MR. HINES: And part of that

5 reason is because of heat dissipation that you

6 need?

7 MR. JURSON: Yes.

8 MR. HINES: So to put those in a

9 brick cabinet, first of all, would hinder the use

10 of the equipment; and second --

11 And maybe Mr. Schultz can

12 elaborate on this a little bit more --

13 I think it was brought up as

14 the gentleman said earlier that it may not

15 have been the intent to the Ordinance to

16 enclose a cabinet like this; as opposed to

17 an accessory structure.

18 The other question -- or I

19 should say more of a comment, is that this

20 is basically on a railroad easement. So,

21 really it's in my opinion from the Building

22 Department it's a low impact from the

23 neighborhood communities.

24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.


1 Mr. Schultz?

2 MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you,

3 Mr. Chair.

4 I guess in response to

5 Mr. Hines' comment, you know the last time

6 we suggested that -- when they came forward

7 on the ice arena property with kind of the

8 same set up, that the Board really had two

9 choices. The first -- in response to this

10 first variance, which is enclose it in a

11 brick building -- or that all shelter

12 buildings have to have a brick facade and a

13 gable roof.

14 Our first option to the Board

15 was, you know, the definition of the Zoning

16 Ordinance of a building is something that

17 has a roof, to start with, is enclosed.

18 And, you know, as the gentleman pointed out,

19 this is really designed -- and as Mr. Hines

20 said -- not to have any kind of roof at all.

21 So the Board could certainly say, no

22 variance needed. We interpret the Ordinance

23 to mean they don't have a roof. They're not

24 a building, so, you know, that one isn't


1 required.

2 And we pointed out that the

3 City is in the process of trying to sort of

4 tweak it's Ordinance. I don't think that's

5 come forward yet, but that's the Board's

6 first option. I think the option we took

7 that night was to grant the variance and

8 just say, okay. You need the variance, but

9 it's appropriate.

10 So you're still in that same

11 situation. You have either way to go.

12 But -- and with regard to the setback issue,

13 maybe Mr. Schmitt has a comment on that. I

14 think that's actually something the Planning

15 Staff suggested to the applicant.


17 Mr. Schmitt?

18 MR. SCHMITT: A couple things to

19 sort of wrap up the idea that the shelter -- the

20 Ordinance is currently set-up so that this type

21 of equipment is required to be within a shelter.

22 And it's clear that the intent was originally to

23 screen this equipment from surrounding views.

24 As Mr. Schultz mentioned, the


1 ZBA's previously granted a variance for

2 this. Should the ZBA be so inclined, we

3 would, again, recommend you to grant the

4 variance, as opposed to making an

5 interpretation, because, to be perfectly

6 frank, we've ran into some resistance at the

7 Planning Commission in modifying this

8 section of the Ordinance.

9 It's really been -- it's been

10 brought up as to whether or not it really

11 is -- it really should be modified. So

12 again, we would recommend that should the

13 Board be so inclined to grant the variance

14 so, again, we can take that Planning

15 Commission Committees and discuss the fact

16 that, you know, we have one body that's seen

17 a couple of these now; and sees no real need

18 for these, as long as they're well screened

19 from the public right of way.

20 With regard to the second

21 item, we probably -- we have suggested both

22 to the Cingular pads that were there before

23 and the ZBA did see previously -- and quite

24 interesting meeting, actually, it was one of


1 my first meetings -- to put these behind the

2 existing brick building. The brick building

3 provides a great screening from all the

4 public; and obviously the CSX Railroad Track

5 Property to the north is screened by the

6 existing vegetation.

7 The only condition that we

8 would ask is that should the Board be so

9 inclined to grant that variance, same

10 condition applies, as did the Cingular that

11 none of the existing vegetation is disturbed

12 during the installation.

13 That's the only comments we

14 have, thank you.

15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

16 I'll open it to the Board for

17 discussion.

18 Yes, Mr. Canup?

19 MEMBER CANUP: I guess my

20 question would be, has there been any

21 consideration to giving a -- or writing it

22 or changing the Ordinance? I guess there

23 was consideration of that, changing it to

24 where you could use a block on a -- brick on


1 a block fence around it to esthetically hide

2 it and esthetically make it appealing.

3 If -- you know, all case

4 aren't going to be like this. Where you

5 have it back where you have an industrial

6 area, which is not really going to offend

7 anybody.

8 MR. SCHMITT: That is one of the

9 options that we're considering. We've bounced

10 around a couple of drafts. We took it to the

11 implementation committee. I believe the approach

12 we took originally with the implementation

13 committee was to strike it completely, because

14 that's sort of what we heard from the ZBA's

15 previous Minutes.

16 There really wasn't support

17 for that. I mean, I don't that would have

18 gotten approved. So what we're looking

19 at -- and it's in with a jumble of other

20 Ordinances is we're probably going to bring

21 them all forward at the same time, as sort

22 of another clean up. To do a waiver

23 provision or some sort of administrative

24 waiver, when it is screened and allowing for


1 brick on brick screen wall, allowing for

2 existing vegetation, things of that nature,

3 to do more naturalized -- really, the

4 majority of the cell tower locations in the

5 City aren't as well screened as this one is.

6 Most of them are adjacent to residential,

7 out in a field, visible from the highway,

8 somewhere a long that line.

9 So this one is really unique

10 in that we kind of support where it's going,

11 because it really is screened from every

12 direction. But we are going to address

13 this, we just are trying to structure how

14 we're going to address it.

15 And certainly, Mr. Canup, that

16 is going to be one of the options we take

17 into account.


19 understand the need for air, probably part

20 of keeping these instruments cool and

21 venting them. And if you build a building

22 and you've bring up another whole set of

23 issues about cooling. So, I would -- you

24 know, I'm in favor of not having to build a


1 building; however, maybe we need to have a

2 brick on brick fence, six feet high.

3 What is the height of your

4 equipment?

5 MR. JURSON: It would be no

6 more than six feet.

7 MEMBER CANUP: Yeah, I would

8 be in favor of that, and that would give

9 them the clearance they need on the top for

10 the air movement to keep the equipment cool,

11 and give -- maybe it would set a precedent

12 as to what can be down in the future. I

13 don't think we're going to see, you know,

14 hundreds of these towers go up; so, it's

15 just a very limited problem.

16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you,

17 Mr. Canup.

18 Yes, Mr. Bauer?

19 MEMBER BAUER: I agree with

20 Mr. Canup. (Unintelligible) few years.

21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, indeed.

22 MR. JURSON: If I could just

23 make a comment, if it's appropriate at this

24 time. At this time particular location,


1 because of the amount of space we have

2 there, we wouldn't actually physically be

3 able to have a brick wall built. We're

4 actually -- you know, and that's one of the

5 reasons I showed you the first picture.

6 When we first put in the

7 application, we had actually proposed a

8 location on the south side towards the front

9 of the building, because that's where there

10 was sufficient space.

11 MEMBER CANUP: What if this

12 Board turned you down on your request, what would

13 you do then?

14 MR. JURSON: We'd be in a real

15 predicament, because what we're trying to do

16 is build these facilities on existing

17 locations. That would force us to actually

18 find --

19 MEMBER CANUP: I don't think

20 it's my intent -- at least it's not my

21 intent --

22 MR. JURSON: Oh, no.

23 MEMBER CANUP: -- to run you

24 off, let's put it this way, but we do want to


1 have something that when it's done -- even though

2 this is back somewhere hidden, it may not be

3 hidden in five years or ten years from now. And

4 it's -- and, at least, I think the cell phone

5 business is not going to go away. So I'm sure

6 this equipment will still be there.

7 MR. JURSON: Right.

8 No, these comments are very

9 well taken. I think Mr. Schmitt said,

10 himself, too, this -- actually, the ice

11 arena and the location that was approved on

12 Grand River a little bit to the west of

13 this, is actually -- if anything, those were

14 well-screened locations to begin with, but

15 certainly not as well screened as this one.

16 And I just couldn't see -- I think it's more

17 appropriate, as was suggested, to deal with

18 that issue with the Ordinance, with the

19 changes that are apparently being worked on.

20 In this case, again, there

21 would not be any space to put a brick wall

22 to that back. This Cingular shelter is

23 really butt up -- we only have a half feet

24 -- there's a half a foot between the edge of


1 the equipment platform; and the property

2 line simply isn't -- this is a tight spot.

3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

4 Thank you.

5 Anybody else?

6 Yes, Mr. Shroyer?

7 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you.

8 I have to assume, Mr. Schmitt,

9 that all the other equipment that is housed

10 there had to have some type of setback

11 variance approved, as well.

12 MR. SCHMITT: The Cingular

13 equipment that you see just on the bottom of this

14 picture, did. The brick building, which is

15 actually home to Sprint-Nextel, I believe.

16 MR. JURSON: Verizon.

17 MR. SCHMITT: Verizon, it's

18 Verizon, okay, was built several years ago with

19 the construction of the tower; and it was setback

20 according to the accessory structure provisions

21 at that time.

22 MEMBER SHROYER: The structure

23 was, but the fence around it --

24 MR. SCHMITT: Fences are not


1 regulated in terms of setback in Novi. We tend

2 to turn a deaf ear to fences, as long as they're

3 in the rear yard of the main structure. So the

4 fence is fine. The structure's set back under

5 the previous Ordinances, so -- yes and no.

6 Anything after the original approval has needed a

7 variance; but the original approval did not need

8 a variance for the housing.

9 They did need a variance,

10 obviously, for the tower being that close to

11 the property line, though.


13 concreted gabled roof sufficed in that

14 instance with that brick building, as

15 opposed to --

16 MR. SCHMITT: That building was

17 approved originally.


19 Are we in a position where we

20 could require a applicant to build a wall, a

21 brick-faced wall, when that's not what our

22 charge is this evening, in the

23 advertisement, etc.?

24 MR. SCHMITT: From Staff's


1 perspective -- and perhaps Mr. Schultz'll have

2 more input into this -- the purpose of that

3 section is the screening from public view. Our

4 intension in suggesting that this go beyond the

5 building was to screen from public view. And

6 that's really the spirit in which this was

7 brought forward; is that it is better screened

8 this way.

9 However, it's really -- and

10 Mr. Schultz can further discuss what the

11 relevant condition would be in this case,

12 but that was the purpose of the request.

13 MEMBER SHROYER: Mr. Schultz,

14 do we have a --


16 Mr. Schultz?

17 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the Chair.

18 The Board always has the

19 authority to put a reasonable condition on

20 the grant of a variance. So they're here in

21 front of you -- let's start with the setback

22 variance. They're here in front of you for

23 a setback variance. You're permitted to put

24 reasonable conditions on that. I presume


1 the proponent would say, well, requiring me

2 to put a brick wall in the area where the

3 variance is required is really screening it

4 from the railroad right-of-way, number one;

5 in fact, I'm here asking for a variance only

6 because the City wanted me to be here for

7 screening purposes on the other side of my

8 structure.

9 So the question for the Board

10 is going to be if we say build a wall around

11 this portion where the variance is being

12 granted, is that a reasonable condition

13 under the factual circumstances. That's a

14 policy question for the Board.

15 So, you can do conditions, but

16 you got to make sure you related them to

17 what the variance is that you're granting.

18 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you,

19 Mr. Schultz.

20 Well, my opinion is that a

21 brick wall would be excellent to be around

22 the entire facility, not just one set of

23 equipment that's brought in. And I would

24 hope that the City while they're reviewing


1 various Ordinances, etc., would look at that

2 as a possible for future sites. And if

3 there's any renovations to the existing

4 sites, that that may be a new requirement.

5 I don't think it's practical

6 at this point to require that in this

7 case -- just one person's opinion. I don't

8 like the term good screening. To me piled

9 up wood in the back and a vegetation to the

10 railroad is -- that's okay. But the front

11 side, the major screening is the brick

12 building; that's all right, too. But the

13 amount of trash around there -- there's a

14 dog pen right adjacent to it -- no dog, but

15 a dog pen.

16 The best screening is the

17 large semi-truck that's parked in front of

18 it, so you can't see any of it from the

19 street. If we could require that to stay

20 there, maybe, that would be great.

21 At any rate, I will go ahead

22 and make a Motion.

23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Go ahead.

24 MEMBER SHROYER: In Case Number:


1 06-063, filed by Richard Connor Riley and

2 Associates for Metro PCS Michigan, Incorporated,

3 located at 44170 Grand River Avenue. I move to

4 approve the requested variances, setback variance

5 for another equipment at this site was previously

6 approved by the ZBA. This variance will not

7 negatively impact owners of this or surrounding

8 properties. Novi encourages co-locations to

9 minimize the number of towers in the city.

10 Other equipment is currently

11 located at this site, and is intended for

12 outdoor use, as is this proposed equipment;

13 thus, not needing an enclosed building.

14 Thank you.


16 Motion has been made.

17 MEMBER GATT: Second.

18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Seconded by

19 Mr. Gatt.

20 Any further discussion?

21 Seeing none, Ms. Working, will

22 you please call the roll.

23 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer?



1 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


3 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer.


5 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup?


7 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt?


9 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger?


11 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes

12 six to zero.

13 MR. JURSON: Thank you.

14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Congratulation

15 s.

16 You can get your building

17 permit and --

18 MR. JURSON: I appreciate it.

19 MEMBER SANGHVI: -- good luck.

20 Thank you.

21 MR. JURSON: Thank you.


23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Moving on to

24 the next case, Number: 06-064 filed by William


1 and Tracy Slobin of 26484 Mandalay Court, in

2 Asbury Park.

3 The applicant is requesting

4 six point feet aggregate side yard setback

5 variance for the required minimum aggregate

6 of two side yards for the property located

7 at 26484 Mandalay Court.

8 Welcome.

9 MS. SLOBIN: Thank you.

10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Will you please

11 identify yourself, with your name and address,

12 and then be sworn in by our secretary, thank you.

13 MS. SLOBIN: Thank you.

14 Tracy Slobin, 26484 Mandalay

15 Court, Novi, Michigan 48374.

16 MEMBER BAUER: Would you raise

17 your right hand, please.

18 Do you swear or affirm to tell

19 the truth regarding, Case, 06-064?

20 MS. SLOBIN: I do.

21 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

22 Go ahead.


24 MS. SLOBIN: I am here to


1 request a side yard variance of six and a

2 half feet for a proposed deck with a

3 screened-in porch. As my house sits now --

4 I did bring a picture -- I don't know if

5 that's going to come through, doesn't look

6 like it.

7 The side of our home lot has

8 an easement, and our kitchen door wall --

9 which is where the proposed deck and

10 screened-in porch is to be placed, we would

11 like to have it there -- that's where our

12 door wall sits. So it's the logical,

13 natural place to set a deck and screened-in

14 porch, is on that side of the lot.

15 We do have a wooded lot -- you

16 know, it's all woods behind the house, so

17 there would be no hardship for anybody

18 behind us. I've went to the neighbors on

19 either side, and they were in agreement.

20 They had no problem. I think it would add

21 to the beauty of the home, of the lot. And

22 unfortunately, because the kitchen door

23 wall sits on that west side of the lot, and

24 that is where the easement is, that is the


1 narrowest part of our lot. It's the -- to

2 walk out of your kitchen door wall onto a

3 deck and a screened-in porch would be the

4 logical place -- placement of the deck and

5 porch.

6 MEMBER SANGHVI: That's it?

7 Thank you.

8 Is there anybody in the

9 audience that would like to address the

10 Board regarding this case?

11 Seeing none, 18 notices were

12 mailed; two approvals, zero objections.

13 And approvals, they're from --

14 Mr. Secretary?

15 MEMBER BAUER: From L.N. Lee,

16 26492, approval; from Alex and Lizza

17 L-j-u-c-d-j-o-n-a-k, we have no objections

18 regarding the deck with screened porch. We

19 believe it would only add -- add extra features

20 to the home and it's value.

21 MEMBER SHROYER: (Unintelligibl

22 e) their address?

23 MEMBER BAUER: 26476?

24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Mandalay.


1 MEMBER BAUER: Mandalay.

2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

3 Building Department, any

4 comment?

5 MR. HINES: Yes, sir.

6 Just want to point out that

7 there's plenty of space for the setbacks on

8 either side. It's just the aggregate

9 setback that's in violation. But the

10 individual setbacks, there's plenty of

11 setback for each. If you look at each one

12 separately, they're within the Zoning

13 Ordinance for that.

14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

15 All right. Open it up to the

16 Board.

17 Yes, Mr. Canup?

18 MEMBER CANUP: On the drawing

19 showing -- it says ESE line; is that

20 easement?

21 MS. SLOBIN: Uh-huh.

22 MEMBER CANUP: Is there an

23 easement that goes through there?

24 MS. SLOBIN: There is.


1 I believe it is an electrical

2 easement. (interposing.)

3 MEMBER CANUP: (Interposing)

4 (unintelligible.) I'm sorry.

5 Is that the line that goes

6 underneath your steps?

7 I guess my question is, what

8 is that easement? Is it just thoroughfare

9 easement or is there a sewer line buried

10 under it or a water line buried under it?

11 MEMBER SHROYER: It's a 20 foot

12 easement.

13 MR. SCHULTZ: If I may --


15 Mr. Schultz?

16 MR. SCHULTZ: -- in the meeting

17 that we had with Mr. Saven -- I think it was

18 before Mr. Hines came in -- he confirmed, sort

19 of, among the staff, that there's a ten foot

20 drainage easement on the side; that the labeling

21 of the 20 foot easement is probably miss labeling

22 by their architect. That's the 20 foot setback.

23 The easement, itself, is

24 actually only ten feet from the property


1 line.

2 MEMBER CANUP: But there's no

3 -- nothing buried there.

4 MR. SCHULTZ: I don't believe

5 so. I think it's a --

6 MEMBER CANUP: I don't --

7 MR. SCHULTZ: -- I believe it's

8 a drainage --

9 MEMBER CANUP: I don't have a

10 problem with any of this; along as there's

11 nothing buried there. If there's a water line or

12 sewer line or storm drain --

13 MR. SCHULTZ: In the area -- if

14 I may, through the Chair -- the area where the

15 deck intrudes, it's not an easement at all.

16 That's the 20 feet setback line. Their architect

17 or whoever drew this put 20 foot easement, 20

18 foot setback is what they meant. The easement

19 along that property is only ten feet. So they

20 are not in that easement.


22 MR. SCHULTZ: This is through

23 Mr. Saven. I'm assuming he checked it.

24 MEMBER CANUP: So this is --


1 MR. SCHULTZ: I think

2 mislabeled. It's a ten foot easement. A

3 misprint, ten foot easement; 20 foot setback.


5 Thank you.

6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. Anybody

7 else?

8 Yes, Mr. Shroyer?


10 question or two quick questions.

11 First of all, the shape of the

12 brick patio, I assume that's the same shape

13 as your enclosed porch would be directly

14 above it?

15 MS. SLOBIN: I believe so.

16 No, actually, the brick porch underneath the

17 screened-in -- proposed screened-in porch,

18 actually is a bit larger.


20 larger. So --

21 MS. SLOBIN: Uh-huh.

22 MEMBER SHROYER: -- there's room

23 for the post --

24 MS. SLOBIN: There's room for


1 the -- actually, he's going to dig out those

2 bricks and make room for the posts to go

3 there. But it is -- deck will be smaller.

4 MEMBER SHROYER: So when you're

5 standing at your door wall and you're looking

6 out, there's a large field that's mowed. What is

7 that?

8 MS. SLOBIN: That's a

9 homeowner's property.

10 MEMBER SHROYER: A homeowner

11 that's located on Beck Road or --

12 MS. SLOBIN: It is off of

13 Eleven Mile Road. As far as I know, that is

14 his property.

15 MEMBER SHROYER: And it backs up

16 all the way --

17 MS. SLOBIN: Backs up all the

18 way.


20 really no probability of any additional

21 housing being built in the rear of that lot.

22 This is already a primary residence on 11?

23 MS. SLOBIN: As far as I know.

24 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. Those


1 are the only questions I have. I'm in

2 support of this. It's a lovely home.

3 MS. SLOBIN: Thank you.

4 MEMBER SHROYER: I'm sure the

5 deck and screened-in area will be a lovely

6 addition.

7 MS. SLOBIN: Thank you.


9 Ms. Krieger?


11 Number: 06-064 filed by William and Tracy

12 Slobin at 26484 Mandalay Court in Asbury

13 Park, I move that we approve the six point

14 five foot variance request, because it does

15 not cover the easement line; that it will be

16 intrusive of that or cause any safety

17 issues; and it will add to the property

18 value.

19 MEMBER BAUER: Second the

20 Motion.

21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Motion has been

22 made and seconded.

23 Any further discussion?

24 I just wanted a clarification.


1 You are including the enclosed

2 -- enclosure to deck, right?


4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

5 All right.

6 Yes Mr. Shroyer?

7 MEMBER SHROYER: May we add a

8 friendly amendment that it's also been approved

9 by the Asbury Park Homeowner's Association or

10 Asbury Park Development, LLC?


12 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you.

13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

14 All right. Ms. Working, will

15 you please call the roll.

16 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger?


18 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer?


20 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


22 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer?


24 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup?



2 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt?


4 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes

5 six to zero.

6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Congratulation

7 s. Your variance has been granted.

8 MR. SLOBIN: Thank you.

9 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl

10 e) building permit and good luck.

11 MS. SLOBIN: Thank you so much.

12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.


14 Moving onto the next one, Case

15 Number: 06-064 -- oh, I beg your pardon --

16 065 filed by Athir Y. Yousif of Beech-Beck

17 Properties, LLC, for lot 62 on Pioneer

18 Meadows, Strath Haven Drive.

19 Good evening. Will you please

20 identify yourself -- give your name,

21 address, and be sworn in by our secretary

22 and then make your presentation, thank you.

23 MR. YOUSIF: Athir Y. Yousif,

24 from Beck -- Beech-Beck Properties, LLC,


1 17346 Gateway Circle, Southfield, Michigan

2 48075.

3 MEMBER BAUER: Raise your right

4 hand.

5 Do you swear or affirm to tell

6 the truth regarding Case, 06-065?

7 MR. YOUSIF: I do.

8 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.

9 MR. YOUSIF: Beech-Beck

10 Properties, LLC, have got lot 62, Pioneer

11 Meadows, under contract. And when we looked

12 into the possibility of building a home on

13 this lot, we found out that the whole

14 subdivision is zoned as an R-A, according to

15 the Ordinances of City of Novi; and this

16 requires certain setbacks.

17 This lot is not conforming to

18 any of the regulations of Ordinance for

19 zoning of an R-A. We also noticed that this

20 whole subdivision, each lot of it, does not

21 conform to an R-A zoning. So, according to

22 this, we are requesting variances for the

23 setbacks for this lot, so that it will be

24 buildable, because with the existing zoning


1 setbacks, this lot is not buildable.

2 And we are proposing a home on

3 it which is compatible to most of the homes

4 in this subdivision. We are requesting a

5 variance for a rear yard setback of ten

6 feet, to be 40; instead of 50. For the

7 front yard setback to be 40 feet, instead of

8 45; which is a variances of five feet.

9 If you notice this, 45 and 50

10 is 95. If you take it 120 feet, which is

11 the depth of this lot, then we are left only

12 25 feet; which is not buildable anymore.

13 For the sides we are requesting a 15 foot

14 setback, instead of 20, for the R-A. And

15 the variance request is five feet. For the

16 aggregate, we are requesting a seven feet

17 variance to be 43, instead of 50.

18 All of these are actually

19 variances, which if we take this size of the

20 lot -- 100 by 122, we'll be conforming to

21 your R-3 zoning for this; but we will not

22 conform to an R-A. And as I said, there is

23 no lot in this subdivision which conforms to

24 an R-A zoning.


1 So the hardship in it is that

2 if we want to go with a R-A zoning setbacks,

3 this lot is not buildable; and that's our

4 request for these variances.

5 Thank you.

6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

7 Is there anybody in the

8 audience who would like to address the Board

9 regarding this case?

10 Will you please come forward

11 to the podium, identify yourself.

12 MR. NELSON: My name is Greg

13 Nelson. I'm at 25870 Strath Haven Drive,

14 and I'm the chair of the architect control

15 committee.

16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Please go

17 ahead.

18 MR. NELSON: Oh, I don't need

19 to -- oh, okay.

20 What we primarily look at as a

21 committee -- I think Mr. Yousif did a good

22 job summarizing the -- how the subdivision

23 is zoned and some of the challenges that

24 that presents. One -- the main thing that we


1 look at when we look at new builds, in

2 addition to setbacks and so on is, are the

3 homes consistent with neighboring homes. So

4 we've got homes in the subdivision varying

5 from two years old to 40 years old; so we're

6 very challenged with providing for homes --

7 or supporting or not supporting, frankly,

8 plans that are consistent with homes that

9 have been there forever; yet, allowing new

10 builds, such as the one that Mr. Yousif has

11 proposed; that give them a little bit bigger

12 home for new construction.

13 It's a bit of a challenge at

14 times. We've been here talking about other

15 builds. We've got four successes in the

16 past couple years. We've got another dozen

17 or so lots. And the only reason I came

18 tonight, frankly is just to let you know

19 that we had some pre-discussion with

20 Mr. Yousif. He submitted his plans to our

21 satisfaction the first time; which frankly

22 doesn't happen often. And we've approved

23 his plan. We've put that in writing. You

24 should have a letter.


1 And the only reason I'm here

2 is to ask you to please, if you would -- as

3 long as no one has any objections -- we'd

4 like to see you approve his plans that he

5 could get started. So we appreciate him

6 working with us and look forward to his home

7 being in our association.

8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

9 Anybody else?

10 Seeing none, like to inform

11 the Board that 29 notices were mailed, three

12 approvals, zero objections.

13 MEMBER BAUER: Sandra Height,

14 approval, lot owner of 60. Tim Bleacher,

15 approval on Strath Haven. Greg Nelson on Strath

16 Haven. We look forward to this home in our

17 neighborhood. We have reviewed the plans,

18 design, size, setbacks, looks good.

19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

20 Building Department?

21 MR. HINES: Thank you.

22 I just want to point out that

23 it is a legal plotted lot that the Ordinance

24 allows to be built on; except that now we


1 have to look at all the variances. But it

2 is a legal non-conforming lot in the

3 subdivision.

4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

5 And open up to the Board.

6 Yes, Mr. Bauer.

7 MEMBER BAUER: Was this zoning

8 changed in the last few years?

9 MR. HINES: That's a good

10 question. I'm not sure. I've wondered that

11 myself, when why most, if not, all of the houses

12 in it subdivision really don't meet the --

13 today's code for the R-A.

14 MEMBER BAUER: Yeah, that's why

15 I was asking.

16 MEMBER CANUP: Mr. Chair, I live

17 there.

18 MEMBER BAUER: I know you do.

19 MEMBER CANUP: And that

20 subdivision was platted somewhere, late '50's

21 early '6O's. So I would imagine there's been

22 tremendous amounts of change in the Ordinances

23 since that time. In fact, at that time, I think

24 it was a village, and there was literally not


1 much Ordinance at all. So, you know, my wife has

2 been working with Mr. Yousif to -- and Greg, to

3 get this to where it's at. And Mr. Yousif has

4 been extremely cooperative in trying to make

5 something fit on that property.

6 And being a resident there and

7 as a Member of this Board, I would endorse

8 what has been asked for in this case;

9 because there's really not much -- I guess

10 basically you'd say the property is

11 unbuildable without some type of variances;

12 which we've seen -- in the last two years

13 we've seen maybe three, four homes come in.

14 There's only eight more lots I understand

15 that are buildable, so we're going to see

16 eight more of them come in.

17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you,

18 Mr. Canup.

19 Yes, Mr. Schultz?

20 MR. SCHULTZ: Just to confirm, I

21 don't have the date, but the R-A zoning does come

22 after the lot was platted.

23 MEMBER BAUER: Yes, that's what

24 I thought, but --



2 Anybody else?

3 Yes, Mr. Shroyer?

4 Initially, when I pulled this

5 information, I had quite a few concerns.

6 You know, brand new lot, brand new house;

7 why in the world can't they meet the

8 requirements. They ought to by a bigger lot

9 if they want to build a bigger house. And I

10 drove over there -- I believe it's one of

11 two vacant lots that are side by side --

12 they weren't labeled as to what the number

13 was. I didn't know which one was which.

14 The house that you're

15 proposing, size wise, is it comparable to

16 the one directly across the street?

17 MR. YOUSIF: Well, actually it

18 is a bit smaller in area. I think the one

19 across the street is 2700; this one is

20 roughly 2500 --

21 MEMBER SHROYER: Any idea --

22 MR. YOUSIF: -- square feet.

23 MEMBER SHROYER: -- roughly what

24 the lot size is of the one across the street?


1 MR. YOUSIF: The lot sizes

2 are, I think, similar.

3 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. And is

4 lot either 61 or 63 the same size as this one?

5 MR. YOUSIF: 61 and 62 are

6 exactly the same.


8 going to be looking at another request once

9 somebody comes in to build a house.

10 MR. YOUSIF: Actually, have

11 lot 61 under contract, too.

12 MEMBER SHROYER: Combine the

13 lots and build a duplex. Can't do that. It's not

14 zoned properly for that.

15 Okay. After hearing the

16 comments and the reasons why, I don't have

17 any objections to the variance request.

18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Very good,

19 thank you.

20 Looking for somebody to make a

21 Motion.

22 Yes, Mr. Gatt?

23 MEMBER GATT: I would like to

24 make a Motion in Case Number: 06-065, filed by


1 Athir Y. Yousif of Beech-Beck Properties, LLC,

2 for lot 62 in Pioneer Meadows, Strath Haven

3 Drive. I would like to grant all of the

4 requested variances in the front yard, rear yard,

5 side yard and aggregate setback and rear yard

6 setback. I believe that if these variances

7 weren't granted, this lot would be unbuildable.

8 They are -- the variances, they're very similar

9 to every other house or most every other house in

10 this subdivision, as is now. And I believe that

11 this will be nothing but a nice addition to this

12 neighborhood.

13 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you,

15 Mr. Gatt.

16 Mr. Bauer has seconded it.

17 If there's no further

18 discussion, will you please call the roll,

19 thank you.



22 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger?


24 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer?



2 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


4 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer?


6 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup?


8 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes

9 six to zero.

10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Your variances

11 have been granted. Get your permit from the

12 Building Department and good luck.

13 MR. YOUSIF: Thank you.

14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Very nice.

15 Moving a long. Next case --

16 MEMBER KRIEGER: I would like

17 to ask to be excused from the next case.


19 Somebody make a Motion.

20 MEMBER SHROYER: So moved.

21 MEMBER BAUER: So moved.

22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Seconded.

23 All those in favor say aye.



1 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right. You

2 are excused, thank you.

3 Now that leaves us into a very

4 precarious situation here.

5 Okay. Case Number 6-066,

6 filed by Milton D. Jennings of Barton

7 Malow-White joint venture for Providence

8 Hospital, located at 47601 Grand River

9 Avenue.

10 Good evening. Please identify

11 yourself, with your name, address, and be

12 sworn in by our secretary, thank you.

13 MR. JENNINGS: My name is

14 Milton Jennings, address, 26817 Beck Road.

15 MEMBER BAUER: Okay. Can you

16 raise your right hand.

17 Do you swear or affirm to tell

18 the truth regarding case, 06-066?

19 MR. JENNINGS: I do.

20 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.

21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Go ahead.

22 MR. JENNINGS: Barton

23 Mallow-White on behalf of Providence

24 Hospital is requesting one sign variance due


1 to the following hardships. Currently,

2 there are several ongoing projects on that

3 site, and there's nothing distinguishing our

4 job site from any of the rest. In addition,

5 we want to make the community aware of the

6 new hospital that's being built on that

7 site.

8 And the size of the site is

9 quite large, and we have lot of deliveries.

10 And if you're not familiar with the area,

11 it's very easy to get turned around. And we

12 get a lot of phone calls from guys not being

13 able to find the site very easily. So, it's

14 my opinion that this construction sign would

15 eliminate a lot of the -- I wouldn't say

16 large problems, but a lot of the phone calls

17 we get with guys trying to find the site.

18 MEMBER SANGHVI: That's it?

19 Thank you.

20 MR. JENNINGS: You're welcome.


22 anybody in the audience that would like to make a

23 comment about this case?

24 Seeing none, 48 notices were


1 mailed; one approval, zero objections.


3 Showplace. Regards to the Public Hearing Notice

4 was sent requesting additional construction

5 identification sign for Providence Hospital, we

6 support this request.

7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

8 Building Department?

9 MR. HINES: Thank you.

10 I'd to defer this to our

11 Neighborhood Services Department.

12 MR. AMOLSCH: We have no

13 comment, sir.

14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay, thank

15 you, sir.

16 All right. Open it up to the

17 Board.

18 MR. SCHULTZ: May I make just

19 one comment?

20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Sure, please.

21 MR. SCHULTZ: If I may.

22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Go ahead.

23 MR. SCHULTZ: This is right now

24 all one parcel. But the long-term development


1 plan is several separate developments that are

2 kind of, you know, all working their way through

3 it. There's been no lot splits granted as far as

4 I know at this point; but eventually, there will

5 be some approves some how for these ongoing

6 developments. So there's already a sign for

7 Providence Park, and this one has to go on

8 somewhere in the area where the hospital is; but

9 it's all one parcel.

10 So the one sign theoretically

11 can cancel out the ability of the other

12 developments to show that they're also on

13 their way. So that's really -- it's one

14 parcel, but it's one really big parcel; but

15 it still only gets one sign.

16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you,

17 Mr. Schultz.

18 Open it up to the Board.

19 Yes, Mr. Shroyer?

20 MEMBER SHROYER: I may as well

21 start. I have some confusion. That helped a

22 little bit. But, in driving out last night, I

23 didn't see any sign existing or proposed at the

24 corner of Beck and Grand River.


1 MEMBER SANGHVI: It is there.

2 MEMBER SHROYER: I don't know

3 how I missed it.

4 MR. JENNINGS: There is an

5 existing sign --

6 MEMBER SANGHVI: There's a sign

7 already there. I have seen it.

8 MR. JENNINGS: -- of the

9 hospital.

10 MEMBER SHROYER: Oh, you're not

11 talking about a construction sign.

12 MEMBER SANGHVI: The old golf

13 course.

14 MR. JENNINGS: Right.

15 MEMBER SANGHVI: It is next to

16 the old golf course opening. There is a sign

17 there.


19 it's south on Beck?

20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, it's south

21 on Beck.

22 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay, then. I

23 was looking at the --

24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yeah, well,


1 that is -- that is (unintelligible) correctly

2 drawn, but we won't go into that.

3 MEMBER SHROYER: So you are --

4 you're looking at proposing a second

5 construction sign within 50 feet of the

6 existing one.

7 MR. JENNINGS: Yes. Because

8 the existing sign is separate from what

9 we're doing. That's the existing Providence

10 Hospital. The sign that we are proposing to

11 put in would be for the new Providence

12 Hospital.

13 MEMBER SHROYER: For the new

14 one, which is in the back. It's half mile behind

15 the building --

16 MR. JENNINGS: So give or take

17 a few feet.

18 MEMBER SHROYER: And you're

19 saying that you're construction people are having

20 difficulty finding it, even though it's the

21 tallest thing in Novi?

22 MR. JENNINGS: Yeah. But if

23 you're not familiar with the area -- you're

24 a truck driver and all you see are tall


1 buildings going up.

2 MEMBER SANGHVI: And it would be

3 better located here than at the construction

4 entrance?

5 MR. JENNINGS: I think it

6 would be. It's just a matter of my opinion,

7 only based on the fact that when you say

8 Providence Hospital, you say Grand River and

9 Beck. So, that would give you the general

10 area. And then I guess you would just

11 assume that common sense would take place

12 for a seven story metal frame building going

13 up.

14 MEMBER SHROYER: With five

15 different projects forthcoming -- I don't

16 know what the timing is on the various

17 projects -- but would we -- we're

18 anticipating getting four more request, in

19 other words, from different developers

20 coming forth and wanting construction signs,

21 am I correct on that?

22 MR. SCHULTZ: Okay. If I may

23 through the Chair.

24 Right now, we're sort of in


1 the process of trying to figure out how

2 we're going to make these separate

3 developments exist on separately owned

4 parcels. There's an issue by virtue of the

5 fact that it's a private ring road where

6 they're all going to enter and exit from is

7 private; and the assessor's raised some

8 questions whether or not he can grant lot

9 splits. We're resolving that issue. But a

10 long the same lines, the issue that causes

11 the variance is not -- and Mr. Almosch can

12 further explain -- is not proposed or the

13 existing sign in blue; it's the sign way off

14 this drawing, because this parcel's so big.

15 That's for Providence Park Medical Offices,

16 not the hospital.

17 So you only get one

18 construction sign. There's going to be two;

19 there may be more.

20 MR. AMOLSCH: (Unintelligible)

21 across from Applebee's.

22 MR. SCHULTZ: But it's because

23 it's a big singularly owned parcel that we're

24 having this issue; not where they have it in


1 relation to their sign or the construction

2 entrance. Just the fact that it's anywhere on

3 their property.

4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you,

5 Mr. Schultz.


7 course --

8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Oh, sorry.

9 MEMBER SHROYER: Yeah, I've got

10 a couple more things, if I may.

11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Go ahead.

12 MEMBER SHROYER: And, of course,

13 the need is immediate because of, you're under

14 construction, you're trying to get it up.

15 MR. JENNINGS: Correct.

16 MEMBER SHROYER: People need

17 to find it.

18 I am not opposed to an

19 additional sign; given the size of the

20 property that we're talking about. I would

21 want to be looking at a time frame, because

22 if we need to come back at later date -- if

23 we're going to have five different

24 parcels -- I'd hate to grant this for a two


1 year period and then find out that we

2 probably need to make an adjustment six

3 months down the road.


5 construction sign so it has to be taken down

6 after their (unintelligible) (interposing.)


8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, Mr. Canup.

9 MEMBER CANUP: You know, I

10 guess I got a real problem with this sign.

11 Number one, it's 108 inches wide. It is 126

12 inches tall. That's a big sign. And a lot

13 of the content of the sign is nothing but

14 advertising. It doesn't say where to go,

15 which way, which direction.

16 If this is the sign that

17 you're proposing; is that correct?

18 MR. JENNINGS: Correct.

19 MEMBER CANUP: Okay. There is

20 no direction on there. It just tells you --

21 gives you a nice picture of the hospital -- and

22 which any person that's not blind can see from,

23 you know -- again, your point was well taken,

24 it's the tallest structure in Novi. And I think


1 what needs to be done here is the hospital or the

2 owners of this property need to come up with a

3 sign package that is going to last for the

4 duration of this project; whether it be a year or

5 five years or whatever. But we're going to end

6 up with a hodge-podge of signs that everybody who

7 comes on that piece of property wants their sign

8 out front.

9 And I thin what we need in my

10 opinion, what we need to do is send the

11 applicant back, tell him to come up with a

12 package plan of directional to the

13 construction site and not an advertising

14 sign.

15 MR. HINES: Mr. Chairman, I'd

16 like add to that. The projected dates for this

17 are pretty close, that's altogether; but separate

18 projects. The hospital is -- they are looking at

19 early 2008 to be complete. We have a five story

20 medical office building that would be built as

21 proposed -- actually they're coming in now for

22 plans -- that will be built before the hospital's

23 complete. We have an out-patient surgery

24 building that will be built before the hospital's


1 complete; and also a hotel; all are separate

2 entities within the hospital. The hospital's

3 essentially renting that space out to them. And

4 thus, the problem that Mr. Schultz was talking

5 about is -- it's kind of new situation for us

6 because they've got a -- they're going to lease

7 it, but they will be separate parcels. They need

8 to be separate parcels.

9 But in any rate, they're all

10 going to be done pretty much before the

11 hospital. The hospital's going to be the

12 last building built on the site -- at least

13 with what's been proposed so far; that the

14 M.O.D., the surgery building, and the hotel,

15 will all be built before the hospital, and

16 they all are starting to filter in, as far

17 as permits for those.

18 MEMBER CANUP: Well, still

19 going back to the comments. I feel very

20 strongly that there needs to be an overall

21 package. And again, this is sign that

22 you're proposing is nothing more than an

23 advertising. It has absolutely no direction

24 on it at all. If you put it on the corner,


1 a truck drives up and sees it, yeah, but

2 which way do I go to go get into here.

3 So I, you know, again, I'm in

4 favor of sending him back and giving them a

5 postponement or opportunity to go back and

6 revise their plans and come back with

7 something that is, again, a directional

8 sign; and not advertising that's meant to

9 get people to where they belong on the site.

10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you,

11 Mr. Canup.

12 I'd like to put my comment on

13 record, and that is, I think we need to

14 recognize that this is not just Providence

15 Hospital. It's a campus; and it is going to

16 need lots of different signs; not only for

17 construction, but also other purposes, as

18 well.

19 And unless they've reached

20 that point in planning to know exactly where

21 they're going to put all of their signs; I

22 don't know whether they're going to be able

23 to put a package of signs to be approved all

24 in total at one go. And it is quite


1 possible that they don't have these things.

2 I have know no way of knowing at this point.

3 We can suggest to the applicant at this

4 point that we'd be quite happy to table this

5 until next month if they can come up with a

6 better sign for this particular location

7 they have requested, which is more of a

8 directional sign for construction traffic;

9 rather than a standard B (unintelligible)

10 sign, so to speak, as they are presently.

11 Yes, Mr. Schultz?

12 MR. SCHULTZ: If I may, no

13 comment on whether or not there should be a

14 larger sign package or -- it's kind of a policy

15 decision for the Board. But just a

16 clarification, the size of the sign is under what

17 they would be permitted if they had -- already

18 had lot lines on this large parcel in place; and

19 the language on there is permitted under the

20 Ordinance; if the construction sign is permitted.

21 So, you know, when we start

22 talking about the Board conditioning things

23 on what's on the sign, we start going down

24 the road to regulating content of sign;


1 which is tough enough; but might be harder

2 to do if the Ordinance as it's written

3 permits all the language that's on the sign.

4 So, you know, I'm not

5 commenting on the tabling or what other

6 signs you want to see that's within the --

7 certainly, a policy question of the Board.

8 But size and writing are things that, you

9 know, if they get a sign, those are

10 permitted sizes and permitted messages.

11 So just to comment on that.

12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

13 Yes, what is the pleasure of

14 the Board?

15 Yes, Mr. Canup?

16 MEMBER CANUP: I guess I would

17 ask the applicant if they want an opportunity to

18 rethink this, with -- based on the comments -- at

19 least from my standpoint -- and I don't know how

20 the rest of the Board feels -- but I guess that's

21 something we'll have to decide, if the Board

22 feels that we should ask him to come back to us.

23 That's number one question.

24 MR. SCHULTZ: I might also point


1 out that now you're down to five instead of a six

2 full Board.


4 MR. SCHULTZ: That also should

5 factor into the applicant --

6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, that's

7 also another issue. We don't have a full Board

8 at this point in time.

9 Well, from what you

10 explained -- from what Mr. Schultz explained

11 to me, (unintelligible) of the sign is well

12 within the requirements, and we have no

13 control of it.

14 MEMBER CANUP: If we had no

15 control over, it they wouldn't be here.


17 talking about the wording on the sign.

18 MEMBER CANUP: Okay. But

19 they're asking for a variance to place an

20 additional sign. Now we have control over

21 it. And the reason for the request for the

22 variance -- as stated by the applicant in

23 his presentation -- was to get direction to

24 people who came basically to the corner of


1 Grand River and Novi Road and could not find

2 the hospital.

3 I'm saying, that's fine, maybe

4 you need to -- do need direction. This sign

5 indicates no direction at all. It is

6 nothing more than a advertisement.

7 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right.

8 Here we are. What is the

9 pleasure of the Board? What would you like

10 to recommend next?

11 Mr. Shroyer?

12 MEMBER SHROYER: Can we ask

13 the applicant (unintelligible.) How do you

14 feel about this?

15 MR. JENNINGS: I feel

16 (unintelligible) Mr. Schultz. We meet all

17 the requirements asked of us. I guess if

18 the decision -- you know, asking me what I

19 would do, I guess I would have to go back

20 and rethink it. But as we did meet the

21 requirements, I don't think that the

22 language on the sign would change much.

23 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl

24 e) sign maker.


1 Okay.

2 Yes, Mr. Bauer?

3 MEMBER BAUER: Do you think it

4 would do any good to go to Providence and ask

5 them?

6 MR. JENNINGS. Oh, sure,

7 ultimately that's --

8 MEMBER BAUER: The reason for

9 it -- I mean, as you said you're going to have

10 many people working there?

11 MR. JENNINGS: Sure.

12 MEMBER BAUER: We don't want 60

13 signs if we could have one set by hospital, say

14 one on Grand River, one on Beck Road; that could

15 eliminate a lot of individual signs. It would be

16 better for the hospital to begin with.

17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay, yes,

18 Mr. Shroyer?


20 understand where we're coming from? If you

21 could go back to the hospital itself and

22 say, look at the whole campus and what's

23 going to be the needs all the different

24 developers that are going to be here, the


1 various buildings that are going to be here;

2 and maybe Providence would help you put

3 together a package.

4 Your sign may not change at

5 all, but -- or maybe there'll be an arrow

6 added to it. I don't know. That would be

7 up to you guys. To me, a construction

8 sign -- and that was the term that was used

9 -- a construction sign -- is more than an

10 advertisement. But if Providence could

11 support you and support everybody else, and

12 say we want -- we want to come forward with

13 this package; and it may be two signs; it

14 may be four; whatever, it would be a lot

15 easier to approve at that point, or at least

16 to consider for approval, I should say.


18 Mr. Schultz?

19 MR. SCHULTZ: Just maybe as much

20 for the benefit of the proponent here, four votes

21 of the people sitting here are required. Normal

22 case, there would be another person sitting in

23 the chair. Ms. Krieger stepped aside because of

24 her conflict. But in a different meeting, you


1 may have another body here to make four votes.

2 One of the things that's

3 missing from the package, I think, is some

4 perspective on just how big this piece of

5 property is, as a single site; and where

6 other developments might be proposed. You

7 know, I think the proponent's got to ask the

8 question, you know, am I going to get the

9 four votes based on the comments so far. If

10 not, tabling it to next month -- if you set

11 it for next month --


13 MR. SCHULTZ: -- would not

14 require all the extra public notices and things

15 like that. But ultimately, it is up to you to

16 read the sentiment and see if you're going to get

17 your four votes. If not, certainly other

18 information could come back next month with

19 another person up on the table.

20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. Well, do

21 you want to express any opinion about our

22 proposition, or shall we go ahead and do it

23 ourselves anyway?

24 MR. JENNINGS: Well,


1 ultimately, it's not my decision, so I would

2 definitely have to go back to Providence.

3 MEMBER BAUER: I propose that we

4 table Case: 06-066 --


6 MEMBER BAUER: -- until next

7 month --


9 further discussion?

10 MEMBER BAUER: -- for additional

11 information.

12 MEMBER SANGHVI: For additional

13 information, thank you.

14 If there is no further

15 discussion, will you please call the roll.

16 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer?


18 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup?


20 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt?


22 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer?


24 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi?



2 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes

3 five to zero.


5 MEMBER BAUER: We'll see you

6 next month.

7 MR. JENNINGS: All right.

8 Thanks a lot.

9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

10 All right. We'll take one

11 more before we break.


13 Okay. Case Number 06-067,

14 filed by Tony Nofar of Novi Fine Wine,

15 located at 43340 West Ten Mile Road.

16 MR. RICH: Good evening.

17 I'm Brian Rich, appearing on

18 behalf of Mr. Nofar. My address is 30150

19 Telegraph Road, Suite 245, Bingham Farms,

20 Michigan, 48025.

21 MEMBER BAUER: Are you an

22 attorney?

23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Are you an

24 attorney?


1 MR. RICH: I am.


3 ahead.

4 MR. RICH: Don't hold that

5 against me.

6 I being with some brief

7 overview comments, which apply to both

8 variance requests; and then discuss how

9 they're applicable to these specific

10 requests.

11 First, there is a standard

12 element for determining practical

13 difficulty. I know I've heard the term

14 hardship used earlier this evening; and

15 those factors are what you typically use to

16 identify whether a variance should be

17 granted.

18 And those factors are whether

19 compliance with the strict letter of the

20 restrictions would render conformity with

21 such restrictions; unnecessarily burdensome;

22 whether a grant of the variance would do

23 substantial justice to the applicant, as

24 well as to other property owners in the


1 district. Whether the plight of the

2 landowners due to the unique circumstances

3 of the property; and whether the problem is

4 self-created.

5 The issue before you in any

6 case, is whether the relief requested

7 satisfies the spirit of the Ordinance. A

8 variance request is necessary precisely when

9 the specific limitations provided in the

10 Ordinance should not be strictly applied.

11 That's the basis for the existence of the

12 Zoning Board of Appeals; and that's why

13 we're here to ask this Board to exercise

14 it's discretion and grant the variances

15 requested.

16 Now one issue which the Board

17 is faced with is whether the variance

18 requested is consistent with community

19 standards. In partial answer, we've already

20 presented you with literally hundreds of

21 signatures from those favoring the grant of

22 the variances requested. Since the time

23 we've submitted that to Zoning Staff, we

24 have another 60 or so signatures. So we're


1 certainly 200 plus; in terms of support for

2 the project.

3 I certainly understand that

4 volume of support for something isn't

5 terminative, but certainly it is a strong

6 indication of what the community standard

7 is; and whether this sort of variance would

8 be viewed as adverse to the community. Now

9 let's look at the specifics why the factors

10 are sufficient for finding practical

11 difficulty in this case.

12 The property, itself, is

13 unique in that it was condemned by the

14 Oakland County Road Commission for

15 reconstruction of the Ten Mile/Novi

16 intersection. Now rather than allow for an

17 ugly, abandoned property, the parties --

18 including the Road Commission, the City and

19 Mr. Nofar, decided that the community would

20 be better served by redeveloping the

21 property.

22 An agreement resulting in a

23 consent judgment was reached. And in order

24 to meet the road count -- the Road


1 Commission's needs and serve the community,

2 again, the property had to be redesigned.

3 With respect to the first

4 variance, that's the one with the channel

5 lettering, identifying the various types of

6 services and products that are available at

7 the facility. Mr. Nofar could have tried to

8 use one sign, a long a single run; but, in

9 fact, it was believed that individual

10 channel letter signs would be significantly

11 more attractive.

12 The signs, themselves,

13 identify distinctive businesses. A place

14 that sells cigars, doesn't necessarily sell

15 pizza. In fact, Pizza Marvelous is a

16 separate legal entity, as well. The

17 problem -- one of the problems that we face,

18 is the redevelopment resulted in an

19 attractive limestone facade. But the

20 problem is, that decreased the glass window

21 space where many other advertise what they

22 sell. They put up paper signs in the

23 windows, and just have that identify what it

24 is they sell.


1 In this case, both the City,

2 the Road Commission, and Mr. Nofar believe

3 that an attractive limestone facade would

4 better serve the esthetics of the community.

5 There would be an undue hardship, if the

6 business is not allowed any sort of

7 advertising on the building, itself.

8 Practically, while the existing sign helps,

9 it's simply not enough to promote the

10 business and let people know what's going on

11 there.

12 The building, itself, looks

13 nothing like it looked in the past. People

14 wouldn't know the business from the past;

15 and new people also won't know what's going

16 on at the business. They're just very

17 distinct. So therefore -- I would point out

18 one thing. We understand that asking for

19 signs, you know, something that the Board

20 takes very seriously.

21 And what we've tried to do is

22 come up with the minimum size of signage

23 that we believe would be -- still be able to

24 be visible; but would create as little


1 non-conformity -- minimize any

2 non-conformity. In fact, we have the sign

3 designer. And just since the application,

4 itself was filed, he has redesigned the

5 signs, basically to say same thing; but

6 reduce the size substantially.

7 And if I can hand out the

8 new -- new information -- I do have a copy

9 for each member -- then you will actually be

10 able to see this substantial reduction in

11 the request that was made. I'm not sure who

12 to hand it to, if it's appropriate or --

13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Go ahead.

14 MR. RICH: Just pass it down,

15 down the row?

16 You'll see that the signage

17 request has actually been reduced, with

18 respect to the first sign for cigars from

19 11.66 square feet, all the way down to 5.25.

20 The second -- the second sign for the --

21 Pizza Marvelous has been reduced from 16

22 square feet to 11; the third for liquor,

23 reduced from 11.85 to 7.5; the fourth from

24 Novi Fine Wine reduced from 17 to 11; and


1 the lotto sign reduced from nearly ten

2 square feet down to six square feet.

3 So we really are trying to

4 work both with the City, and certain hope

5 the Board will take that into consideration

6 that we've tried to create both an esthetic,

7 as well as a functional means to produce; so

8 that people know exactly what's going on

9 there. Just as an aside -- well not really

10 an aside -- one of the issues is how the

11 signage will assist in identifying the

12 property at night. We had some pictures

13 taken, just showing the property at night.

14 And I'm not sure how this will work, but

15 I'll give it a try.

16 If you like at this picture,

17 this right here that one little bright

18 light, is the existing sign. The rest of

19 the building, there's some minor up

20 lighting, that when you drive by if the

21 other signage is there, people will actually

22 be able to read what the building has. Of

23 course, a lot of business coming to this

24 store is, in fact, at night.


1 Just as -- let's see if I can

2 give a little better picture. This is --

3 well -- this picture shows the property

4 heading eastbound on Ten Mile. Again, the

5 existing signage just really isn't

6 sufficient to properly identify the

7 business.

8 For those reasons we had ask

9 that our request for variance number one be

10 granted.

11 With respect to the second

12 variance, there's actually a precursor

13 question that the Board should address. And

14 that is the Ordinance itself identifies it's

15 purposes as including the promotion of

16 esthetics, encouraging creativity,

17 effectiveness and flexibility; without

18 creating a detriment to the general public.

19 What Mr. Nofar and folks designing the sign

20 have done, is they have come up with a

21 creative incorporation of colorful, but not

22 gaudy blocks within the limestone facade.

23 The alternative would be

24 simply to have a solid blank wall, which


1 truthfully wouldn't be particularly

2 appealing. The Board can distinguish

3 between esthetic decoration and a sign.

4 While the Ordinance talks about what a sign

5 is, there's also decoration that clearly is

6 not what the Ordinance intended, and doesn't

7 meet the spirit of the Ordinance. We look

8 to the purpose of the alleged sign or the

9 decoration.

10 In this case, the number of

11 individual sports emblems, they're not

12 specifically intended to induce people to

13 buy tickets. They're not intended to induce

14 people to donate to organizations. It's

15 just that people are comfortable seeing

16 familiar and attractive things. And while

17 Mr. Nofar may sponsor various high school

18 events and things like that -- I believe the

19 Novi team logo is up there -- the purpose of

20 that logo is not to specifically encourage

21 other people that that's what they should

22 do. Again, that's just part of the

23 community.

24 The alternative would be


1 simply plain walls with no sort of

2 decoration at all. Similarly, one of the

3 issues was a grapevine representation.

4 Realistically, that's simply art. I mean it

5 doesn't -- it could be a bird; it could be a

6 tree -- that doesn't make it a sign, or at

7 least we're asking the Board that -- to

8 interpret that there's a difference between

9 pure esthetics and representations, and what

10 the Ordinance intended to regulate as a

11 sign, itself.

12 There have been significant

13 improvements made to the property, and

14 unfortunately, it seems like word sign has

15 kind of given a negative connotation. On

16 the other hand, at least with respect to

17 non-word signs, I don't know that people

18 generally believe that sports depictions

19 themselves are offensive -- although I

20 suppose some of the people with Michigan and

21 Michigan State might not want the other

22 person's logo on there -- but I think for

23 the community overall -- you know, we have

24 them both. I think people generally agree


1 that having both from the State is probably

2 a pretty beneficial thing.

3 We've talked about the

4 community standards. These are very

5 tasteful renderings. And there's a

6 practical difficulty simply because the wall

7 called for by the Consent Judgment in their

8 depiction is simply a blank wall. Now there

9 are rectangular spaces where these

10 particular emblems are located; but there

11 wasn't a specific rendering that was put on

12 there.

13 So there's some question

14 whether there was an intent to have

15 something there, other than a blank

16 rectangle; but certainly we believe this to

17 be more attractive.

18 And I'd certainly entertain

19 any questions.

20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

21 Is there anybody in the

22 audience that would like to -- please come

23 on to the podium here, identify yourself,

24 and make your presentation.


1 Thank you.

2 MR. WOLFORD: Good evening.

3 My name is Peter Wolford, and

4 together -- you want my address and

5 everything?


7 MR. WOLFORD: I own the Novi

8 Pizza Company, which is located at 24265

9 Novi Road; which is on the northwest corner

10 of Novi right behind the Novi Fine Wines.

11 I have a number of comments

12 I'd like to make; and I'd just like to

13 sort -- make some comments as to what I just

14 heard the gentleman say. I think it's one

15 thing -- I could have all kinds of customers

16 coming to my store and sign a petition.

17 They're not the person that lives with the

18 sign Ordinance. We, the businesses, are the

19 ones that live with the sign Ordinances.

20 I think in this instance, I

21 think that the people from the businesses

22 that respond, it has a more meaningful

23 response, than just a customer coming in to

24 pick up a bottle of wine; or in my case, you


1 know, coming in to pick up a pizza. So I

2 hope that, you know, we can kind of look at

3 that.

4 There's a 24 foot sign -- 24

5 square foot sign that's approved, based on

6 the Ordinance that stands today. The

7 Ordinance -- the sign that was put up there,

8 once it was granted, contains all the

9 information that's on the top of the

10 building. It's everything. Pizza Marvelous

11 is on there, cigars is on there, lotto,

12 liquor, it's all on that one sign. If you

13 drive down the street -- it's a yellow sign.

14 It's well-lit at night. There is no problem

15 seeing it coming from either direction.

16 That's my response to that

17 one.

18 I think -- did the City -- did

19 the City come back and ask for that facade

20 to be put on the building, or was it is the

21 Novi Fine Wine wanted the facade on the

22 building. If they wanted the facade put on

23 there and it doesn't have enough light, they

24 submitted the plan; they submitted the plan


1 with the limestone clear blocks there on

2 there. It's not bricks. They were on the

3 plan. I saw a copy of the plan and they

4 were on the plan. There was no wording on

5 it.

6 The sign Ordinance, as it

7 stands today, and also as it's proposed to

8 stand in the future, says that a sign is any

9 of those things that are up there -- sports

10 related -- in this case, it's sports

11 related. If a flower shop wants to put a

12 picture of a flower up there, it's a sign.

13 You know, what is a sign. The sign is to

14 draw attention to the building as you drive

15 by. And if you have all those signs lit up

16 there at night, it attracts attention to the

17 building.

18 You know, and that's --

19 therefore, they considered signs. And under

20 the Ordinance, they're considered signs.

21 It's clear cut. On top of that, the signs

22 were already installed. We're now coming

23 back and asking for a variance on sign that

24 are already up there. They'd already been


1 put in place with no permit pulled and no

2 application to put them up. In my mind,

3 they should come down.

4 Just excuse me, because I had

5 some other things written. I just want to

6 make sure I go back on these ones.

7 As far as the sign proposal,

8 you know, the new revised sign proposal with

9 the smaller signs and everything like that;

10 I went to the City and I got all the

11 information I could from them, and I was

12 presented with a copy of the original

13 application that went out with all of

14 dimensions of the building; and the signs as

15 they were shown in there. When they applied

16 for the approval, which was denied by the

17 City, those sign measurements did not

18 represent what was on that plan that was

19 submitted to you. They were larger in the

20 first place.

21 So, you know, now they've been

22 made smaller miraculously the night before

23 or the night of when you want to make the

24 change. You know, it's a substantial


1 increase in the size of signage. If you

2 grant it to one business, you have to grant

3 it or be willing to look at granting it to

4 all businesses. We all have hardship. That

5 sign is three foot back from the, you know,

6 from the easement out by the road. It's a

7 24 square foot sign.

8 You know, I'm -- and a number

9 of other business around here would die for

10 a sign like that. I'm 300 foot back from

11 the road, and I live by the Ordinance. You

12 know, nobody forced them to repurchase the

13 property; nobody forced them to put the

14 facade up the way it is. They did it of

15 their own. So if there's any hardship, it's

16 self-inflicted.

17 You know, I think we -- I'd

18 like to make a comment on the sign

19 Ordinance. I came to a meeting here -- I

20 think it was about the 23rd of last month --

21 and they were reading the new sign

22 Ordinance. It was before the Planning

23 Commission. And I went through the sign

24 Ordinance from top to bottom before all this


1 came up, because I didn't know this was all

2 going to happen. I didn't know these signs

3 were going to go up.

4 But I went through it from top

5 to bottom, and some of the other people in

6 the stripmall went through it. And three of

7 us came to the City, because we had a

8 question with regards to one small item in

9 the sign Ordinance. When it was reread

10 here, there were three business people

11 representing all of the business in Novi.

12 So I think -- I went through the sign

13 Ordinance, the new one, it's good. If it's

14 fairly applied, its really good.

15 And it must be good, because

16 we had one small question and no other

17 questions. So I think the sign Ordinance

18 proves that it's accepted by most of the

19 business. And if it's fairly administered,

20 I think we can all live with it. I mean,

21 without a careful evaluation of what's going

22 on here tonight, we can open a Pandora's

23 box, because I'm sure that if Nofar wants to

24 have some exemption or some further


1 consideration, then there's going to be a

2 ton of people in here to come in looking for

3 it, too.

4 You know, and I'd just like to

5 go back over a couple things. I can tell

6 you -- I see Allen Amolsch, who's known me

7 for a long time, and you know, we've -- I

8 think he knows that we've always lived

9 within the sign Ordinance. When he opened

10 up our business 12 years ago in Novi, you

11 couldn't have an illuminated open sign in

12 the window. Now when that happened -- you

13 know, when all the other townships and

14 cities around here had them in the windows,

15 all of the merchants in Novi didn't start

16 putting open signs in the window.

17 We went to the Chamber of

18 Commerce and working with the Chamber of

19 Commerce -- and at first, I wasn't even a

20 member -- I came down here to sit in here to

21 11:30, 12:00 when the City had their

22 meetings. We went -- it went on long

23 enough, there was a change and there was an

24 election. You know, so it was at least two


1 years. And half the Board Members changed

2 and everything else.

3 And we went through the whole

4 thing. (Unintelligible) went back to the

5 City and the City realized that there was a

6 hardship to all business, not just one

7 business; no all business. And they changed

8 the Ordinance so that we could have open

9 signs. And we all put our open signs up

10 then, after we were given the approval; not

11 before.

12 And I think that's way it's

13 supposed to be anyway. And I guess, in

14 closing, I really feel I'm just asking you

15 to -- you know, if you grant the variance, I

16 feel that you have to ask yourself the

17 question, are you making the new current --

18 the new and the current sign Ordinance null

19 and void; because basically that's where

20 we're starting off back. We're right back

21 to square one. And are you giving an unfair

22 advantage to one business over every -- the

23 hundreds of other businesses in Novi;

24 because I mean, that -- that's a serious


1 question that needs answering.

2 (Unintelligible.)

3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you --

4 MR. WOLFORD: Thank you very

5 much for your time.

6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

7 Anybody else?

8 Please come over, identify

9 yourself, sir.

10 MR. BROOKS: Pardon me?

11 MEMBER SANGHVI: State your name

12 --

13 MR. BROOKS: Oh, I'm Martin

14 Brooks. I live at 24924 Glenda. I'm just a

15 Novi resident; a dad, a father, husband, and

16 a small businessman. I met Rod a few years

17 back shortly after he was robbed and held at

18 gun point. Later on, the guy went and

19 killed some people. I don't even drink.

20 I'm a recovering alcoholic.

21 I just seen this man -- as a

22 small businessman, I watch -- I try to deal

23 with small business, and I've watched what

24 he's been through during this construction


1 period; similar to my aggravation trying to

2 get off Glenda on Ten Mile during it. But I

3 think what he's done with his building is

4 incredible; almost as good as his pizza. I

5 think it's a travesty the driveway that he

6 had to narrow after the County went through

7 last year and puts in one; and he was forced

8 to change the configuration of it; after my

9 tax dollars went to do the street, the curb,

10 and all that.

11 I certainly don't consider the

12 logos on the rather nicely done building

13 that filled what looked to be a dump -- I

14 don't consider that signage. I think it's a

15 beautiful thing as a resident of Novi. I

16 want my town looking nice. And, you know, I

17 think these guys are trying to do a good

18 business and, you know, trying to survive;

19 and I admire them.

20 And I just -- I'm here as a

21 resident to speak on their behalf. I like

22 what they're doing. I like what they've

23 done with that property, and I hope you guys

24 will give them some consideration.


1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you very

2 much.

3 Seeing nobody else, I had a

4 question for Mr. Schultz.

5 I see on my flier here that

6 how many notice were mailed and all that.

7 That is the standard procedure. But I also

8 notes here about this petition signatures.

9 How relevant are that to our

10 Hearing?

11 MR. SCHULTZ: I --

12 MEMBER SANGHVI: And do we need

13 to mention that or not?

14 MR. SCHULTZ: I have not seen

15 the petition signatures. I assume it's document

16 collected by the property owner and submitted to

17 the Board.


19 MR. SCHULTZ: I think the fact

20 that it's been mentioned and exists in the record

21 is sufficient. They're not relevant or

22 irrelevant. They simply are what they are.

23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

24 You answered my question.


1 Okay. 30 notices were mailed,

2 16 -- on 8-22; 16 more on 8-24; five

3 approvals, seven objections; and the note is

4 also made of petition signatures, 149, yes,

5 channel lettering; 145, yes, logo.

6 Yes, Mr. Secretary, would you

7 like to record the summary of the

8 correspondence, please.


10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Point of order,

11 for Mr. Schultz, is it all right just to

12 enumerate the number of people who have approved

13 and those who have objected, rather than read

14 each and every letter that have been received for

15 the saving -- for the sake of savings time? I am

16 just wondering whether it's okay.

17 MR. SCHULTZ: As long as you

18 note that there's some objections, some

19 approvals, you have covered the requirements.

20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

21 MEMBER BAUER: (Unintelligible)

22 done in the past, just come up with the number

23 for each.

24 MEMBER SANGHVI: It's all in the


1 report.

2 MR. SCHULTZ: It's not necessary

3 to read the names or the specific comments, just

4 the approval or --

5 MEMBER BAUER: There was a total

6 of 13 notices were mailed on 8-22; 16 notices

7 mailed, 8-24; five approvals, seven objections, 3

8 mails returned.

9 MEMBER SANGHVI: That's it.

10 MEMBER BAUER: And there was a

11 petition.


13 All right. Building

14 Department?

15 MR. HINES: No comment.


17 comment from Building Department.

18 Before I open it up to the

19 Board, I have a question. Are the logos of

20 Red Wings and Tigers and everything else, is

21 it a sign or not?

22 Mr. Schultz?

23 MR. SCHULTZ: Subject to

24 Mr. Amolsch adding to it, we wouldn't be here on


1 those issues if we didn't believe from a Staff

2 perspective that they fall within the definition

3 of a sign under the Ordinance; which just a

4 little brief reference, is name, identification,

5 description, display, device, flag, pennant,

6 logo, trademark that's affixed to a building; and

7 that -- here's the relevant phrase -- advertises,

8 publicizes, or directs attention to a service or

9 products or a business.

10 Obviously, the Petitioner's

11 suggestion is, you know, we're not

12 (unintelligible) for the Lions or the Tigers

13 or the Wings or anything like that -- and

14 maybe if the signs were smaller and less

15 obviously intended to direct attention, you

16 know, there might be an argument. They have

17 actual words on them, each of the one --

18 most of them, at least, that I've seen, has

19 the name of the team. They've got

20 letters -- I think they fall within the

21 definition of the Ordinance. Ultimately,

22 that's going to be up to the Board to

23 determine.

24 The tougher question I have to


1 say on the grape thing over the door, which

2 has no words; is a decorative things within

3 the architecture of the building that, you

4 know, draws attention in the way

5 architectural features does; but is relevant

6 to the building, unlike the sports logos.

7 So that's a tougher question, whether or not

8 you think that's a sign. But from our

9 perspective, they're signs, they're here

10 and, you know, the question for the Board is

11 going to be whether they're appropriate.

12 On comment on the facade

13 improvements, just so the Board knows, this

14 was -- you know, the County did have to

15 condemn that entire site as part of the Ten

16 Mile improvements. Briefly it owned the

17 building; and theoretically, all the

18 materials in it. It was sold to Mr. Nofar.

19 The City intervened in the case, and Mr.

20 Nofar was very cooperative in terms of what

21 the City wanted to see; which was -- if you

22 recall the way the building was before --

23 nine feet closer to Ten Mile, which is

24 effected their parking, but they had a


1 canopy and they had a lot more window space.

2 And when the City suggested,

3 or required, depending on your point of

4 view, that in order for us to go along with

5 the sale to the Nofar -- Mr. Nofar as a

6 tenant, we want to see that portion removed.

7 That's how that new facade came to be. The

8 City did have to approve it, and worked with

9 Mr. Nofar, who obviously has generally

10 improved the building.

11 I don't believe that they're

12 able to put windows where those other

13 sections are, because of what's located

14 inside. But, again, removal of that part;

15 reconfiguration of the parking lot was all

16 things that -- were all things that the city

17 did impose by virtue of intervening in that

18 case; and which Mr. Nofar did, you know,

19 obviously stepped up to.

20 So I just wanted to make sure

21 that you had the history. I'm not sure that

22 it specifically relates to the sign

23 question.

24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you,


1 Mr. Schultz.

2 Now, I'll open it to the

3 Board.

4 Yes, Mr. Canup?

5 MEMBER CANUP: Question. The

6 property was purchased from condemnation; is

7 that correct? It was condemned, taken

8 over -- basically taken over by the County,

9 and then it was purchase from the County --

10 MR. SCHULTZ: Purchased from --

11 MEMBER CANUP: -- knowing what

12 the difficulties of the site were, if there is

13 any difficulties; is that correct?

14 MR. SCHULTZ: I think it's fair

15 to say the property owner had his knowledge of

16 all the impediments, right.

17 MEMBER CANUP: It wasn't imposed

18 on him through -- in other words, he didn't own

19 the property previous to condemnation.

20 MR. SCHULTZ: No, he was --

21 MEMBER CANUP: He knew what he

22 was getting, he knew what he was getting into.

23 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the Chair.

24 He was the tenant, absolutely.



2 I -- you know, that solved, so

3 the hardship wasn't imposed on him by the

4 fact that -- hey, we came and take your

5 property, and (unintelligible) us a sign.

6 That's a non-valid argument in my opinion.

7 And, you know, I'm looking at

8 the logo signs. I know I drive by there

9 probably -- as everybody in this room does

10 -- more than once a day. And the minute

11 those went up, I said, boy, there's a sign

12 case that's going to be before us. And sure

13 enough, it is. And if you do a tally of the

14 signage that is proposed -- unless I've

15 missed something or miscalculated, which I

16 don't think I have -- I came up with a total

17 of 126 square feet of signage, which would

18 included the signs, logos, whatever you call

19 them; and the liquor, lotto, etc.

20 And Al -- Mr. Almosch, are we

21 still figuring signage as boxed?

22 MR. AMOLSCH: That's correct,

23 sir.

24 MEMBER CANUP: Okay. The


1 applicant didn't quite do it that way. He

2 had his own method of figuring. And, you

3 know, me this looks like something that you

4 would see down on Michigan Avenue with all

5 of these signs on the front of the building.

6 It's knots something that I think we'd want

7 to see in a real with the Ordinances that

8 Novi has in place in order to keep things

9 looking and things presentable.

10 As mentioned by one of the

11 other gentleman, as he sits 300 feet off the

12 road, and would like signs on his building

13 to identify what he does that you could read

14 300 feet away. And I think when our

15 Ordinances were written, they were written

16 trying to solve all the problems. And I

17 think this, in my opinion, falls into that

18 realm of solvable problems with our sign

19 Ordinance as it is written.

20 The arch over the doorway, I

21 guess -- my opinion is the worse thing that

22 could happen is if you painted that --

23 painted the flowers or whatever petals or

24 whatever it is out, that would not be a


1 sign. But I think it's meant to give an

2 architectural look to the entrance of the

3 building. And I really personally don't

4 have a problem with that. I don't think --

5 my interpretation would not be that that's a

6 sign.

7 But the rest of it -- other

8 than the ground sign, which is an allowable

9 sign, I think is not something that I would

10 vote to approve.

11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

12 Yes, Mr. Gatt?

13 MEMBER GATT: I have to echo

14 the last comments made. First of all, let

15 me just start out by saying that I think

16 that the Lions and Tigers and Pistons are

17 very cool, very unique. However, they're

18 signs. They are not part of the Ordinance

19 that is allowed in Novi. I don't know who

20 decided to put those signs up before talking

21 to someone in the City. It would have

22 seemed more logical to me to get some kind

23 of approval before you did it; and then get

24 the answer that it was no then; instead of


1 saying, well, we already put it up, now it's

2 going to be a hardship to take it down.

3 The attorney that was here

4 earlier described the flower petal arch as

5 art, well, regardless whether you can

6 consider it art or not, it's a sign that's

7 artistic. I don't feel that any of this was

8 done in the proper manner. I think that if

9 people would have taken a step back and done

10 things in the appropriate process that was

11 supposed to be laid out, none of this would

12 be an issue, because it wouldn't have gone

13 up in the first place.

14 The sign that is existing is

15 within the Ordinance. That's fine. If you

16 want it take that sign down and try

17 something else that would be more appealing,

18 and you think that that would generate more

19 customers, that's something that you can

20 consider. But adding, you know, a hundred

21 plus square feet of signs on top of the

22 signs that you already have up that

23 technically illegal on top of the sign that

24 is the only legal sign that you have on the


1 road, just seems ridiculous to me.

2 I don't understand why someone

3 would come to the Board and ask us to grant

4 a variance that you already have -- you

5 already have these permanent signs up, and

6 you should have taken the appropriate steps

7 to make sure that these were legal signs to

8 begin with.

9 Thank you.

10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

11 Anybody else?

12 Mr. Shroyer?

13 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you,

14 Mr. Chair.

15 I agree and I don't agree with

16 some of this. The grape vineyard or

17 whatever the decorative touch is over the

18 arch of the entry way, in my opinion is an

19 architectural enhancement that is not a

20 sign. And as we go forward with these, I

21 may recommend that we perhaps review each

22 Ordinance separately or each variance

23 request separately; because I am not opposed

24 to that at all.


1 I think the team logo signs --

2 and they are signs -- I do have to agree

3 with that -- I might be able to be convinced

4 that they're okay, because they do not

5 advertise the business performed within the

6 facility. I think they are decorative.

7 When I first saw the rendering of this

8 building, I thought it was very attractive;

9 and a thousand times better than what was

10 there before.

11 Signs A through E, however, I

12 am totally opposed to. As it was mentioned

13 earlier -- I had already made a note of

14 it -- every single one of those signs is

15 very adequately addressed on the monument

16 sign that's out in front of the building.

17 And you can't miss that bright yellow. You

18 can see it hundreds of feet away. And even

19 at night with it being an illuminated sign,

20 you can't miss it. And all that -- all the

21 information is there. So I would be opposed

22 to any of those signs being placed on the

23 building, in addition to the others.

24 So those are my comments at


1 this time.

2 Thank you.

3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

4 Yes, Ms. Krieger?

5 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you.

6 In regards to the Fine Wine, I

7 would also agree that the wall sign -- or

8 the monument sign is -- describes adequately

9 what is the building, and that I would

10 regard it as a place of destination. If I

11 want a bottle of wine, I know exactly where

12 I'm going to go.

13 And that the other -- I agree

14 A through E that it's excessive in -- to the

15 building.

16 Thank you.

17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

18 Yes, Mr. Bauer.

19 MEMBER BAUER: I guess with the

20 arch over the entrance, stretching a point it

21 might go. But the rest of the signs, the

22 monument sign that's out in front takes care of

23 that. Anybody that can't see that coming and

24 going, better not be any driving on the road.


1 The signs for the different

2 athletic clubs, they don't operate there so

3 they shouldn't be there. So the only thing

4 that I could even come close to would be the

5 vine sign over the door. All the rest, I

6 could not approve.


8 MEMBER SHROYER: Do you want to

9 make any comments?

10 MEMBER SANGHVI: No. I agree

11 with most of the comments that have been made,

12 and now I am waiting for somebody to make a

13 Motion.

14 Yes, sir, Mr. Canup?

15 MEMBER CANUP: I'll make a

16 Motion, but I was waiting for you to make

17 your comments.


19 MEMBER CANUP: I would make a

20 Motion that in Case Number: 06-067, filed by

21 Tony Nofar of Novi Fine Wines that we deny the

22 variances as requested, with the exception of the

23 one 22 square feet grapevine arch sign located

24 above the main entrance of the south side of the


1 building.


3 MEMBER CANUP: And the reason

4 for the denial is for various -- for reasons as

5 stated in the previous comments by the Board

6 Members.


8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

9 Motion has been made and

10 seconded.

11 Yes, Mr. Schultz.

12 MR. SCHULTZ: If I may, and I

13 believe Mr. Canup got most of the way there with

14 the final addition to the Motion, but just by

15 virtue of the fact it's already been in

16 litigation, had denial here, it seems to me that

17 just to distill the comments a little bit, which

18 are incorporated that the sentiment on the signs

19 that are denied is that the existing monument

20 sign is sufficient identification; and that the

21 denial does not -- of the remaining signs, does

22 not constitute a burden on the property owner in

23 terms of identification.

24 Is that a fair distillation of


1 those comments?

2 MEMBER CANUP: I would move that

3 those become my words, and be entered into the

4 record as part of the Motion.

5 MEMBER BAUER: I'll second that.

6 MEMBER SANGHVI: And seconded.

7 Any further discussion?

8 Yes, Mr. Shroyer?


10 my comments, I was hoping to get a little

11 more feedback from the Board regarding the

12 logo signs of the variance sport activities.

13 It is truly unfortunate that they didn't go

14 ahead and corporate those in the

15 construction, without coming forward to the

16 City to find out if, indeed, a variance was

17 needed prior to.

18 And we always want to

19 discourage that. We've seen a couple of

20 those instances in the last several months

21 where people have gone ahead and done

22 something and then come in front of the

23 Board and beg for forgiveness, instead of

24 approval. We definitely don't want to


1 encourage that by any means.

2 But does anybody else on the

3 Board feel that the logo signs are

4 decorative in nature, and does not advertise

5 the business performed within the facility;

6 thus making it, perhaps, permissible?


8 MEMBER CANUP: You know, it's

9 not a question of an opinion. It's question

10 of the Ordinance. And the Ordinance, in my

11 opinion, and in the opinion of our legal

12 counsel, is very clear, that those are

13 made -- put there to draw attention to the

14 building; and therefore, they become a sign.

15 Is that correct?

16 MR. SCHULTZ: That's correct.

17 MEMBER CANUP: Yeah, so -- I

18 like them. I think they look kind of neat, but

19 my liking is not what the Ordinance says.

20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, go ahead.

21 Anything else? Anybody else?

22 Okay. Would you please call

23 the roll, please.

24 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup?



2 ROBIN WORKING: Approving Motion

3 to deny; is that correct?

4 MEMBER CANUP: That's correct.

5 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt?


7 ROBIN WORKING: The Motion is

8 to deny with the exception of the grapevine

9 sign.

10 MEMBER BAUER: Correct.

11 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger?


13 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer?


15 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


17 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer?


19 MEMBER SHROYER: If it would be

20 permissible, may I recall to make sure I have it

21 correct --

22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Go ahead.

23 ROBIN WORKING: -- Mr. Chairman?

24 Mr. Canup voted yes.


1 MEMBER CANUP: That's correct.

2 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt

3 voted no.

4 MEMBER GATT: Correct.

5 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger

6 voted yes.


8 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer

9 voted no. Member Sanghvi voted yes?


11 ROBIN WORKING: And Member Bauer

12 voted yes.

13 MEMBER BAUER: Correct.

14 ROBIN WORKING: Motion to deny

15 passes four to two.

16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. Thank

17 you.

18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. We'll --

19 the time is 9:51 and we'd like to take a ten

20 minute recess. Thank you.


22 (A brief recess was taken.)

23 (Back on the record.)



1 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right. We

2 are all here. Let's begin the session and start

3 with the new case.

4 Case Number: 06-068, filed by

5 Planet Neon for Voestalpine/Polynorm located

6 at 44700 Grand River.

7 All right, sir, please

8 identify yourself -- your name, address --

9 and be sworn in by our secretary and make

10 your presentation.

11 Thank you.

12 MR. OSTOPHER: My name is Dave

13 Ostopher, address is 8846 Cole Street of

14 Holly. I'm representing 8846 Cole, Holly.

15 We are representing Voestalpine Polynorm

16 today.

17 MEMBER BAUER: Raise your right

18 hand.

19 Do you swear or affirm to tell

20 the truth regarding Case: 06-068?

21 MR. OSTOPHER: I do.

22 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.

23 MR. OSTOPHER: Voestalpine is

24 requesting a second sign -- hopefully I'm


1 not following a difficult act -- on our wall

2 near the Grand River entrance. The request

3 to have two signs is shown on your

4 exampletory(sic) (ph) picture there is

5 primarily driven by our parent company,

6 Voestalpine.

7 Voestalpine acquired Polynorm

8 in 2001. It's a European company based in

9 Austria. Under the umbrella are 260

10 companies worldwide. Recently, Voestalpine

11 requested all divisions to apply the

12 Voestalpine One Step Ahead logo to their

13 facade in some way. In addition, they've

14 requested that each division name was

15 revised to include the Voestalpine name in

16 their description.

17 So Polynorm Automotive North

18 America -- which is on our wall right now --

19 is proposed to change to

20 Voestalpine/Polynorm, Inc. The Voestalpine

21 sign, itself, has already been approved.

22 What we're here to propose is to allow the

23 Polynorm -- Voestalpine Polynorm, Inc.,

24 adjacent to that sign.



2 MR. OSTOPHER: And that's just

3 basically it.

4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Is anyone in

5 the audience that would like to make comment as

6 to this case?

7 Seeing none, 19 notices were

8 mailed; zero approvals, zero objections.

9 Building Department?

10 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment, sir.

11 MEMBER SANGHVI: No comments.

12 Open it up to the discussion

13 of the Board.

14 Yes, Mr. Canup?

15 Thank God for Mr. Canup.

16 MEMBER CANUP: I just like to

17 talk a lot.

18 I guess I'm going to have to

19 ask, what's the hardship?

20 MR. OSTOPHER: The hardship

21 would be I think two-fold. Voestalpine is

22 requesting that all of their companies

23 address their facade this way. They're a

24 very large company. We here at Polynorm are


1 the very first foothold in the United

2 States. And (unintelligible) they're coming

3 to visit us here in October. We look at as

4 a very large visit for us.

5 They have a disc that controls

6 their logos and fonts and sizes and what

7 have you. They're very serious about how

8 they want to represent -- not only their

9 company -- but all the companies under the

10 umbrella. So if were not to do it, I think

11 we would feel somewhat not in compliance

12 with their request.

13 MEMBER CANUP: Okay. This is

14 a want, not a hardship --

15 MR. OSTOPHER: Okay.

16 MEMBER CANUP: -- is that right?

17 Would that be your interpretation is that I want

18 this, so it's really not a hardship; it's not a

19 need; there's not a directional problem.



22 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

24 Mr. Bauer?


1 MEMBER BAUER: Seeing the name

2 that took over Polynorm once is enough; not two

3 of them. I can see having their name on it, but

4 I can't see it twice on the front facing Grand

5 River.

6 That's all I have to say.


8 Mr. Shroyer.


10 from -- is it a parent company, is that what

11 you'd call it?

12 MR. OSTOPHER: It's the mother

13 company.


15 company?


17 MEMBER SHROYER: Is there any

18 reason why you can't add the word Polynorm,

19 Inc., to the existing sign, and not request

20 a completely separate secondary sign that

21 says the same, Voestalpine or however --

22 MR. OSTOPHER: Only that it's

23 not our desire here in the United States to

24 have it look that way, it's theirs. It's


1 very explicit in their instructions. It's

2 clearly coming from Voestalpine in Europe.

3 And again, all 260 companies are falling

4 under the same -- I don't want to call it

5 regulation, but the same rule.

6 MEMBER SHROYER: Let me say it

7 differently.

8 Can we replace the original

9 with the new sign, if they're requiring that

10 you do that? Do you have that say there?

11 MR. OSTOPHER: Well, neither

12 sign is in existence right now. Right now

13 it's just Polynorm Automotive, North

14 America.


16 again, please?

17 MR. OSTOPHER: I said right

18 now our wall says Polynorm Automotive North

19 America. So the change is applying

20 Voestalpine, the owner of our company, to

21 the facade; and within their request is to

22 change our name and add it.


24 you change your name to Voestalpine


1 Polynorm, Inc., and replace the sign that is

2 currently there again, as opposed to having

3 two separate signs?

4 MR. OSTOPHER: That's not what

5 they're requesting for us to do. We can

6 certainly propose it, sir.

7 MEMBER SHROYER: If it gets

8 denied tonight, is that what you would do is go

9 back and make that recommendation?

10 MR. OSTOPHER: Actually, we'd

11 probably ask them which they'd rather have;

12 and if we could fall outside of their norm.

13 My bet would be they would rather have

14 Voestalpine on the wall.


16 Thank you.


18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Anybody else?

19 Seeing none --

20 Yes, Ms. Krieger?


22 understand the duplication. That's what

23 confuses me. The name is similar the same,

24 and it's repetitive.


1 MR. OSTOPHER: Well, we'd have

2 to ask Voestalpine why they did it that way.

3 MR. GONZALEZ: I got a little

4 better understanding of this.

5 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl

6 e) identify yourself, sir.

7 MR. GONZALEZ: Luciano

8 Gonzalez, 6120 Glenneagles, West Bloomfield,

9 Michigan.

10 From my understanding with

11 working with Dave, Voestalpine is a company

12 from overseas; and they have put Polynorm.

13 So Polynorm someway, somehow is a different

14 company than Voestalpine. But at the same

15 time, they're one company.

16 The company oversees would

17 like to see their name, obviously, which

18 owns Polynorm on the board; and that's the

19 name that they would like to have; but which

20 Polynorm is asking is that the Board grants

21 them a second sign with the name of the

22 American company; which is

23 Voestalpine/Polynorm, Inc., not just the

24 name for the foreign company. I don't know


1 if I've made any sense, but --

2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, you are

3 making sense. You're trying to say that they

4 want to maintain an American identity apart from

5 the company --

6 MR. GONZALEZ: Correct. Every

7 company that Voestalpine bought, now is

8 called, Voestalpine -- whatever the other

9 name might be. But at the same time they

10 have to carry the name Voestal -- One Step

11 Ahead -- and the name of the current company

12 that was -- that bought --


14 All right. Any other comments

15 by anybody else?

16 Yes, sir?

17 MEMBER GATT: Just looking over

18 your idea for these two signs, isn't it possible

19 that you could just combine them into one sign,

20 and just -- for example, Voestalpine/Polynorm,

21 Inc., and just put it underneath -- the other

22 one -- and then somehow fit it within our

23 Ordinance?

24 MR. GONZALEZ: I could do


1 that. The letters won't be able to lit.

2 You're still not complying with their logo.

3 Their logo is the color one that you see if

4 I -- if anybody else adds, you know,

5 anything else, you're changing the logo.

6 It's not going toe your company logo. Just

7 like the City of Novi has their logo. If

8 you added something else on it, it changes

9 the logo.

10 MEMBER GATT: Uh-huh. For

11 example, if the City of Novi logo right here, if

12 I put it an American Flag underneath it, it

13 doesn't mean that I've combined America and the

14 City of Novi into one huge symbol. It just means

15 their two symbols next to each other.

16 RIGHT2:

17 MR. GONZALEZ: I completely

18 understand, but I don't know how to answer

19 that. But I'm saying they have two

20 different names. It's basically two

21 different companies in there. The head --

22 the main company -- and Voestal/Polynorm,

23 Inc., which is the American company which

24 they bought.


1 MEMBER GATT: And there's no way

2 for you to some how fit both the black and blue

3 -- One Step Ahead Voestalpine sign; and the

4 Voestalpine/Polynorm, Inc., white sign, within

5 one big sign?

6 MR. OSTOPHER: Any provision

7 that we propose to make will have to be

8 approved by Voestalpine. This is explicitly

9 how they had requested it to be. And I'm

10 not saying that's not exactly what we're

11 going to try to do. And if the Board simply

12 cannot agree to the variance that we're

13 requesting, we'll go back to the drawing

14 board; and it will be that company that will

15 choose which we need to propose that --

16 hopefully will be easier for you to approve.

17 But for us to assume that we

18 could simply modify, by our opinion, what

19 they would approve, will not happen. They

20 will choose it themselves. And again, I

21 think it probably comes down to Voestalpine

22 being on the wall.

23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Well, I can

24 understand that this is a corporate logo, and you


1 have no authority to make any changes in it

2 yourself. And that leads me to two alternatives.

3 One, A, we deny or B we table it, until you can

4 find out whether it came be worked with.

5 And (unintelligible), Mr.

6 Canup?

7 And so, I'm quite happy to

8 give you an option. What would you like us

9 to do? Would you like to go back to your

10 corporate sponsor and talk with them and

11 say, this is the feeling of the Board here;

12 and what would -- which direction should you

13 take; or would you like us to take a

14 decision and settle it right now? That's

15 your choice.

16 MR. GONZALEZ: Sir, my

17 question is the Voestalpine One Step Ahead,

18 that sign has been approved.


20 MR. GONZALEZ: We're here to

21 ask for a second sign. I understand they're

22 both in the same presentation.


24 MR. GONZALEZ: We're here to


1 present for -- you know, a second sign; not

2 one. The sign's already being made. It

3 will be put up, you know, probably within

4 two or three weeks. But our question is,

5 and we're here for is, can we get a variance

6 for a second sign. Yes, it has the same

7 name but it's -- you know, at the same time

8 it's a different company.


10 approve the sign, the sign he's talking about?

11 MR. AMOLSCH: They need a

12 variance for a second sign.



15 This is a second sign

16 altogether, so we can't combine it.

17 Yes, sir?

18 MEMBER CANUP: I can solve

19 this problem real easy by -- I make a Motion

20 that we deny the request for a variance as

21 stated due to the lack of a demonstrated

22 hardship.

23 MEMBER GATT: Second.

24 MR. GONZALEZ: Could you


1 repeat that, sir?

2 MEMBER CANUP: It's a denial

3 due to a lack of a demonstrated hardship.

4 That was the Motion.


6 Yes, Mr. Schultz?

7 MR. SCHULTZ: Just the notation

8 that again the standard would not be the

9 hardship; but it would be the practical

10 difficulty standard. I'm assuming from the

11 conversation, it's by virtue of the Board's

12 conclusion that they have sufficient

13 identification with one sign -- whichever one it

14 is they pick -- one sign sufficient

15 identification; is that --

16 MEMBER CANUP: I would again

17 consider that as part of my Motion.

18 MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you.


20 And the seconder --

21 MEMBER GATT: Second.

22 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right.

23 Any further discussions?

24 Saying anything, Mr. Bauer?



2 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right.

3 Yes, Mr. Shroyer?


5 make a quick comment.

6 I don't think that that can be

7 true, in my opinion, because it's two

8 separate companies. And so I don't think

9 one sign does adequately suffice, so I will

10 not be in support of the Motion.

11 Thank you.


13 Anything else?

14 Well, okay, Ms. Working,

15 please call the roll.

16 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup?


18 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt?


20 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger?


22 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer?


24 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi?



2 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer?


4 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes

5 five to one.


7 We'll go from there.

8 MR. OSTOPHER: Thank you.


10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Moving on. The

11 next one is Case Number 06-069, filed by Michael

12 Yamada of Collier International for 26800

13 Meadowbrook Road.

14 Good evening, sir.

15 MR. YAMADA: Yes. My name is

16 Michael Yamada. And my corporate address is

17 2 Corporate Drive, Suite 300, Southfield,

18 Michigan, 48076.

19 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl

20 e) sworn in by our secretary, please.

21 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or

22 affirm to tell the truth regarding Case: 06-069?

23 MR. YAMADA: Yes, I do.

24 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.


1 MR. YAMADA: I am here today

2 to request extension of variance for the

3 corporate leasing sign for the corporate

4 business park, for Meadowbrook Corporate

5 Park, currently located south side -- east

6 side of Meadowbrook Road, north of I- 96,

7 south of 12 Mile Road.

8 The building -- the park is

9 composed -- currently composed of two

10 buildings; each sized 54,000 square feet.

11 So two identical buildings combined, 108,000

12 square feet. The first building has

13 approximately 12,000 square feet of vacancy;

14 and the second building is completely

15 occupied. The largest tenant being Trinity

16 Health Care, which is taking about 30,000

17 square feet. And the second largest tenant

18 is Ikon Office Systems. They are taking

19 about 31,000 square feet. The third largest

20 being the Sanyo (unintelligible) taking

21 about 12,000 square feet.

22 The Corporate Park is

23 scheduled to have the third building, which

24 is currently under review by Building


1 Department of this City. We expecting to

2 receive permit -- construction permit within

3 next month or so. And then we plan to build

4 a fourth building and a fifth building; that

5 will complete the total business park. And

6 the sign says up to 110,000 square feet

7 available. We do not -- the park is

8 developed by (unintelligible) development

9 company, Bingham Farms; and designed by

10 (unintelligible) Associates.

11 The park is not going to

12 overbuild without any tenants. We need to

13 have some tenancy before we start -- well,

14 some prospective tenants in order to start

15 construction. And we are ready to build a

16 third building, and we need to keep market

17 the project, and this is the reason why I'm

18 here today.

19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

20 Is there anybody in the

21 audience who would like to make a comment

22 about this case?

23 Seeing none, we had zero

24 approves, zero objections.


1 And I don't understand this.

2 Zero notices were mailed?


4 probably a typographical error, Mr.

5 Chairman.

6 MEMBER SANGHVI: I thought so.

7 Thank you.

8 The Building Department?

9 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment, sir.

10 MEMBER SANGHVI: No comments.

11 All right.

12 Open to the Board.

13 (Unintelligible) and how long

14 do you think you are likely to take before

15 you fill up your pot, any idea?

16 MR. YAMADA: From today to the

17 --


19 MR. YAMADA: Since building

20 will have three other -- three new

21 buildings, I would expect two years to --

22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

23 Okay. Members of the Board?

24 MEMBER CANUP: Me again.


1 MEMBER SANGHVI: That's okay.

2 MEMBER CANUP: In this case

3 file, I see it goes back to January 10th of

4 '01.


6 MEMBER CANUP: If you add two

7 more years to that, that will be seven years.

8 Don't you think you should

9 just sell this building and forget that

10 rental business?

11 MR. YAMADA: This is a very

12 good location, sir, just north of I- 96.

13 And I studied marketing in 2001. However,

14 as you probably recall, the Meadowbrook Road

15 was not in top shape as it is today. It was

16 completely resurfaced, I think, beginning of

17 this year, north of Grand River, and up to

18 Twelve Mile Road. And the road, the

19 condition of the road, did effect the

20 marketing activity substantially.

21 And other reason for the slow

22 start, it is not only Meadowbrook Corporate

23 Park; other business parks like, Regency

24 Business Park, it's west of Haggerty Road,


1 in front of Acura Honda dealership. That

2 park has been slow -- I'm sorry, slower than

3 our Meadowbrook Corporate Park's

4 development.

5 And Northern Equities Haggerty

6 Corridor Business Park has been very

7 successful. The price -- pricing, I think

8 the quote is higher and the pricing higher.

9 And I think locations better, right off

10 of -- right on M-5, east side of M-5, north

11 of 12 Mile Road up to Thirteen Mile Road.

12 It's already developed; and they are going

13 to develop north side of 13 Mile Road I

14 think into the near future.

15 I think the general economy

16 for the last three, four years effected, as

17 well as the condition of the road on

18 Meadowbrook.

19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

20 All right, Mr. Canup?

21 MEMBER CANUP: You know, I

22 look at this, and it goes back to '01.

23 MR. YAMADA: Yes.

24 MEMBER CANUP: When does it


1 stop? I know the economy is horrible for trying

2 to rent buildings right now, lease or anything.

3 So, you know, I guess I don't -- in

4 (unintelligible) in light of the recent economy

5 or the present economy, got to do what you can to

6 try to rent anything and get the message out

7 there. I think probably in this case -- if there

8 was not too much more discussion on it, I'd make

9 a Motion. We grant the variance for a period of

10 one year as stated; due to the difficulty in

11 leasing with the present economy.

12 MEMBER GATT: Support.

13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Motion has been

14 made and supported.

15 Any further discussion?

16 Yes, Ms. Krieger?

17 MEMBER KRIEGER: What is your

18 occupancy now?

19 MR. YAMADA: About 90 percent

20 for the first two buildings.


22 Thank you.

23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. Will you

24 please call the roll?


1 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup?


3 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt?


5 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger?


7 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer?


9 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


11 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer?


13 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes

14 six to zero.


16 (unintelligible) (interposing.) for one more

17 year.

18 MR. YAMADA: Thank you.



21 Number: 06-071, filed by Howard Campbell of Home

22 Depot, located at 47950 Grand River, Westmarket

23 Square.

24 Please identify yourself, and


1 your name and address and then be sworn in

2 by our secretary, thank you.

3 MR. CAMPBELL: My name is

4 Howard Campbell, address is 3270 South

5 Milford Road, Milford, Michigan, 48381.

6 MEMBER BAUER: Raise your right

7 hand.

8 Do you solemnly swear or

9 affirm to tell the truth regarding Case:

10 06-071?

11 MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, I do.

12 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

13 MR. CAMPBELL: Home Depot is

14 requesting a temporary use permit from

15 September 15th to October 2nd to hold a

16 Second Annual Architectural Rug Event to be

17 held in the parking lot in Westmarket

18 Square.

19 Mr. Chairperson, may I pass

20 these out? These are two more papers that

21 were missing from the actual application,

22 which is landlord acceptance -- or landlord

23 approval, and a letter for the hardship

24 actually.


1 Thank you.

2 We've been given the

3 opportunity to sell area rugs outside of the

4 normal selection that we actually carry

5 inside the store. The company providing the

6 area rugs need a minimum of two weeks to

7 actually set up and bring in the

8 merchandise, which is actually a large

9 variety of outside or inside area rugs.

10 The rug event will drive

11 additional customers into the Westmarket

12 Square Complex to increase revenue to local

13 businesses, as well as our store.

14 MEMBER SANGHVI: That's it?

15 MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, sir.


17 anybody in the audience who would like to make a

18 comment about this case?

19 Seeing none, a total of 13

20 notices were sent; zero approvals, zero

21 objections.

22 Building Department?

23 MR. HINES: We have no comment,

24 sir.


1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

2 All right. Open it to the

3 Board?

4 Yes, sir? Yes, Mr. Gatt?

5 MEMBER GATT: You said this is

6 the Second Annual, so this happened last year, as

7 well?

8 MR. CAMPBELL: Yes. Not the

9 same time frame, but we were actually --

10 held one last year.

11 MEMBER GATT: Okay. Forgive me.

12 I wasn't in the city at the time. Did you

13 request a --

14 MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, we did.

15 It's a identical tent, identical

16 merchandise, the same location in the

17 parking lot. It's going to be held -- same

18 safety cautions.

19 MEMBER GATT: Was there any

20 issues that came up last year, any kind of safety

21 issues that presented itself?

22 MR. CAMPBELL: No, sir.

23 MEMBER GATT: Okay, thank you.

24 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl


1 e) say something?

2 MR. HINES: I do have a comment

3 that -- the only safety issue that we're

4 concerned with is that the tent be -- meet Code

5 requirements, and they do have a flame spread

6 certificate here that shows that it meets the

7 proper standard that's referenced in the Code.

8 MEMBER SANGHVI: You are aware

9 of the fire marshal's requirements?

10 MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, sir, we

11 are. It's the same fire rating and the same

12 manufacturer of the tent as we had last

13 year.

14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay, thank

15 you.

16 Yes, sir, Mr. Bauer?

17 MEMBER BAUER: This is becoming

18 quite often. It's not a temporary anymore, it's

19 becoming a full-fledged thing. I think you need

20 more room for building; rather than continually

21 putting up a tent and putting things out on the

22 sidewalk and so forth.

23 That's my remarks to you.

24 MR. CAMPBELL: May I make one


1 comment on that, sir?

2 Very rarely -- I'm sorry,

3 Mr. Chairperson, may I?

4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Anybody else?

5 Okay. You want to respond to

6 that?

7 MR. CAMPBELL: We have an

8 outside company that provides these rugs for

9 us. And out of overall 1900 stores, you

10 don't necessarily get the opportunity to run

11 them two years in a row. It's based on how

12 successful your store is. So the likelihood

13 of us actually getting it again, being two

14 times in a row, was actually to our

15 advantage.

16 And that's the reason why

17 we're submitting for another temporary use

18 permit. It's not something that actually

19 comes and falls into our laps yearly. It's

20 really based on performance, because they

21 can only assist so many stores out of the

22 entire company.

23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

24 Okay. Yes, Mr. Shroyer?


1 MEMBER SHROYER: I think it's

2 pretty straight forward. I'll go ahead and

3 make a Motion.


5 ahead.

6 MEMBER SHROYER: In Case Number

7 06-071, filed by Howard Campbell of Home Depot

8 located at 47950 Grand River, in Westmarket

9 Square, I move to approve a temporary use permit

10 for a rug event parking lot tent sale, from

11 September 15th through October 2nd, 2006. This

12 Motion is based on the receipt of an approval

13 letter from the property landlord. The submittal

14 of a certificate providing NFPA 701 flame

15 resistant certification for the tent to be used

16 in a 40 foot by 60 foot area; and that the area

17 is appropriately roped off for safety reasons.


19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

20 The Motion has been made and

21 seconded.

22 Any further discussion?

23 Seeing none, Ms. Working, will

24 you please call the roll.


1 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer?


3 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


5 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer?


7 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup?


9 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt?


11 ROBIN WORKING: And Member

12 Krieger?


14 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes

15 six to zero.

16 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl

17 e.)

18 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Which brings us

21 to the last one on the list.

22 (Unintelligible) Case Number

23 06-072, 41730 Crane Way, filed by Singh

24 Homes -- (unintelligible) filed by Singh


1 Homes Building Comm, LLC, for 41730 Crane

2 Way, lot 84, Tollgate Woods Subdivision

3 Number two.

4 I don't see a Petitioner in

5 sight.

6 ROBIN WORKING: Mr. Chairman?


8 ROBIN WORKING: If you'll note,

9 there were 22 notices sent out on this case; and

10 20 of them were returned. I do not believe the

11 notice to the actual applicant was returned,

12 however.

13 MEMBER SANGHVI: So maybe that

14 applicant doesn't know.

15 ROBIN WORKING: Actually -- what

16 I'm trying to clarify is that, maybe we should go

17 through the return notices. I'm fairly

18 confident, however, the applicant is not among

19 the return notices.

20 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Interposing)

21 (unintelligible.) you want to check it out and

22 see (unintelligible) has come back.

23 (Unintelligible) decision on this case, and in

24 the meantime, we'll continue with our other


1 matters.


3 And number one is ZBA 06-073,

4 27000 Sheraton Crown Plaza, mock sign

5 discussion.

6 Building Department?

7 Are you going to talk about

8 it?

9 ROBIN WORKING: Mr. Chairman,

10 the applicant has presented to the Building

11 Department that as a franchise owner, that

12 the parent company prohibits him from

13 placing a mock sign over the current Double

14 Tree sign. He's requesting if he could

15 establish the mock sign at ground level.

16 This would be a case that comes before you

17 in November. Mr. Saven requested that we

18 put it under other matters for the Board to

19 consider and be aware of. So when the mock

20 sign is erected, that you are aware why it's

21 on the ground and not 45 feet above the air.

22 MEMBER SANGHVI: What is the

23 pleasure of the Board? I personally have no

24 objection. It's a lot easier to put it at ground


1 level than to put it up high in the sky.

2 MEMBER CANUP: Invitation to

3 make a Motion?

4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Please, will

5 you?

6 MEMBER CANUP: I would make a

7 Motion that in Case Number 06-071(sic) that we

8 grant the variance as -- wait a minute. Where'd

9 that go? What's the number on that case?

10 MEMBER BAUER: This is on this.

11 MEMBER SANGHVI: It's a mock

12 sign.

13 MEMBER CANUP: What's the number

14 of that case?

15 MEMBER SANGHVI: 06-073.

16 MEMBER CANUP: 073 that we grant

17 the variance as requested.

18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

19 MEMBER GATT: Second.

20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, seconded.

21 The Motion has been made and

22 seconded.

23 Will you kindly call the roll.

24 ROBIN WORKING: Who seconded,


1 please?



4 Member Canup?


6 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt?


8 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger?


10 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer?


12 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


14 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer?


16 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes

17 six to zero.

18 MR. SCHULTZ: And if I may,

19 Mr. Chair, just on the clarification, this is

20 just on the mock sign, right?

21 MEMBER SANGHVI: The mock sign.

22 This is for the mock sign at ground level.

23 MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you.



1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. While we

2 are waiting, we'll talk about the next case,

3 06-91-15A-B Bosco; discussion of violation

4 notice.

5 MEMBER BAUER: That's on the

6 stuff that she gave us.

7 ROBIN WORKING: Mr. Chairman,

8 this was an issue that was brought up under

9 other matters on -- at a previous meeting;

10 and Mr. Saven from the Building Department

11 was going to look into the case. And so

12 this is for your information that a

13 violation letter as been sent out on this

14 particular property.

15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

16 ROBIN WORKING: No action

17 needed. It's for your information.


19 information is noted.

20 Thank you.

21 MEMBER CANUP: In passing by

22 there several times a day, and that was been

23 rectified, it appears.

24 MEMBER SANGHVI: It's been


1 rectified?

2 MEMBER CANUP: So they cleaned

3 it up and --

4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Very good.

5 MEMBER CANUP: At least it

6 appears that way.

7 MEMBER SANGHVI: It did the

8 trick.

9 Very good. (Unintelligible.)


11 Next's item on the agenda, the

12 ZBA proposed meeting date calendar.


14 Okay. Any news?

15 ROBIN WORKING: Mr. Chairman,

16 I would request that the Board do make a

17 Motion to approve the proposed calendar, so

18 that we may submit to the City to be

19 official on their planning calendar.

20 MEMBER BAUER: Move to approve

21 the calendar for 2007 as written.


23 second?



1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Seconded by

2 Ms. Krieger.

3 Any discussion regarding the

4 calendar?

5 Seeing none, please call the

6 roll.



9 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup?


11 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt?


13 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger?


15 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer?


17 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


19 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes

20 six to zero.

21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Very good.

22 Thank you.

23 ROBIN WORKING: Mr. Chairman,

24 may we return to the 11th case on the current


1 agenda?


3 ROBIN WORKING: After going over

4 the returned notices and verifying that the

5 applicant's mailing address, as provided to the

6 City is 7125, Orchard Lake Road, in West

7 Bloomfield, Michigan, 48325. That mailing

8 address was not one of the return notices.

9 MEMBER SANGHVI: So it's no

10 fault of them not being here, so may be we can

11 put them on the agenda next month, with the

12 approval of the Board, shall we do that?

13 MEMBER BAUER: Send them a

14 letter.

15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Make sure the

16 letter goes to the right people.

17 ROBIN WORKING: No, it did.

18 MEMBER BAUER: No, it did. They

19 did.

20 ROBIN WORKING: Mr. Chairman,

21 the letter was sent to the correct address.

22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Well, they

23 didn't make it.

24 That's a good one for Mister


1 --

2 MR. SCHULTZ: I think really to

3 practical options; one to just table it and give

4 them a call and find out why they didn't show up;

5 and that they're -- tell them they are on the

6 next agenda. The other would be to approve it.

7 I don't know if the Board's ready to do that, but

8 I wouldn't recommend a denial without them being

9 here.

10 MEMBER SANGHVI: I would not

11 approve it either without a presentation, so let

12 us table it and let them know that we expect them

13 to be here when they're supposed to be here.

14 Thank you.

15 MEMBER CANUP: Well, anybody

16 look at this Angela Hospice brochure that

17 they have in here, what goes on with this

18 celebration? I haven't read it before, and

19 I did look through it. I would be proud to

20 be able to go and participate in that. It

21 seems like --

22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. It's very

23 nice.

24 MEMBER CANUP: -- a good


1 event.

2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Indeed it is.

3 MEMBER CANUP: With that, if

4 there's no further discussion, I would make a

5 Motion to adjourn.

6 MEMBER GATT: Second.


8 Motion has been made to

9 adjourn, seconded.

10 All those in favor.


12 MEMBER BAUER: Good night.

13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Good night.

14 The meeting is adjourned.

15 Thank you.

16 (The meeting was adjourned at

17 11:00 p.m.)

18 - - - - -








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 (171)

9 typewritten pages, is a true and correct transcript

10 of my said stenograph notes.



13 ___________________________

Machelle Billingslea-Moore,

14 Certified Shorthand Reporter


16 October 3, 2006.