View Agenda for this meeting
View Action Summary for this meeting

Regular Meeting - Zoning Board of Appeals, City of Novi
Tuesday, April 3, 2007

The Proceedings had in the above-entitled matter were taken before me, Glenn G. Miller, Notary Public within and for the County of Oakland, State of Michigan, at 45175 W. Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, on Tuesday, April 3, 2007.


Timothy Shroyer, Chair
Justin Fischer
Gerald Bauer
Mav Sanghvi
Robert Gatt
Brent Canup
Linda Krieger
Robin Working, Recording Secretary
Shannon K. Ozga, Attorney
Chris Fox, Building Department
Alan Amolsch, Ordinance Enforcement Officer
Mark Spencer, Assistant Planner

1 Novi, Michigan

2 Tuesday, April 3, 2007

3 At about 7:30 p.m.

4 MR. SHROYER: Good evening,

5 everyone. I see it's 7:30 by our

6 clock, so I call the Tuesday, April

7 3, 2007 Zoning Board of Appeals

8 meeting to order.

9 Robin, could we have

10 the roll call, please.

11 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?

12 MR. BAUER: Present.

13 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?

14 MR. CANUP: Here.

15 MS. WORKING: Vice Chair

16 Fischer?

17 MR. FISCHER: Present.

18 MS. WORKING: Member Gatt?

19 MR. GATT: Here.

20 MS. WORKING: Member

21 Krieger?

22 MS. KRIEGER: Here.

23 MS. WORKING: Member

24 Sanghvi?






1 MR. SANGHVI: Here.

2 MS. WORKING: Chairman

3 Shroyer?

4 MR. SHROYER: Here.

5 MS. WORKING: All members

6 presents.

7 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. We

8 do have a quorum this evening. We

9 have a full board and an alternate.

10 By our bylaws the alternate is free

11 to participate in all activities this

12 evening; however, she will not be a

13 voting member.

14 Next on our agenda

15 is the Pledge of Allegiance. Member

16 Sanghvi, would you please do us the

17 honor and lead us in the Pledge.

18 (The Pledge of Allegiance

19 recited by those in

20 attendance.)

21 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. At

22 this time I'd like our Vice Chairman

23 Fisher to read the rules of conduct.

24 MR. FISCHER: Thank you, Mr.






1 Chair. The full set of the rules of

2 conduct can be found on the agenda.

3 I will go through an abbreviated

4 version right now.

5 Please turn all off

6 cell phones and pagers during this

7 meeting.

8 Each person desiring

9 to address the Board shall state his

10 or her name and address.

11 Individuals will be

12 given five minutes to address the

13 Board and an extension may be granted

14 by the chairperson.

15 No person shall be

16 allowed to address the Board more

17 than once unless the chairperson

18 grants permission.

19 An a spokesperson

20 for a group shall be allowed ten

21 minutes to address the Board.

22 Thank you, Mr.

23 Chair.

24 MR. SHROYER: Thank you.






1 The Zoning Board of Appeals is a

2 hearing board empowered by the Novi

3 City Charter to hear appeals seeking

4 variances from the application of the

5 Novi zoning ordinances. It takes a

6 vote of at least four members to

7 approve a variance request and a vote

8 of the majority present to deny a

9 request.

10 As mentioned, the

11 Board consists of six regular members

12 and one alternate member. The

13 alternate member has the right to

14 participate in all board discussions

15 and hearings but may not vote with

16 the exception of an absence or

17 abstention of a regular Board member.

18 Is there any

19 additions or corrections to the

20 agenda?

21 MS. WORKING: Through the

22 Chair, I'd like to add under "Other

23 Matters" discussion on Glenda's at

24 Vice Chair Fischer's request at the






1 last meeting, and a second item

2 having to do with ZBA training dates.

3 MR. SHROYER: Okay. I'll

4 entertain a motion to approve this

5 agenda as amended.

6 MR. FISCHER: Move to

7 approve as amended.

8 MR. SANGHVI: Second.

9 MR. SHROYER: It's been

10 moved and amended, or seconded. All

11 those in favor say aye.

12 THE BOARD: Aye.

13 MR. SHROYER: Opposed?

14 All right. At this

15 point we go into our public remarks

16 activity. If there's anyone here

17 that cares to speak on any matter

18 other than an agenda item, please

19 come forward.

20 Seeing no one, we'll

21 move into our first case.

22 Case No. 07-007

23 filed by Harry Chawney of Villagewood

24 Properties, LLC for Villagewood






1 Place. They are requesting a one

2 sign variance for the continued

3 placement of a fifteen foot, six foot

4 high real estate marketing sign for

5 Villagewood Place, located on Kartar

6 Lane west of Haggerty between Nine

7 Mile and Ten Mile and zoned RM-1.

8 Sign variance originally approved in

9 ZBA04-092 for one year and extended

10 for one year in ZBA05-107.

11 I see the applicant

12 is already here. Would you care to

13 be sworn in by our secretary, please.

14 If you could state your name and

15 address.

16 MR. CHAWNEY: Sure. My name

17 is Harry Chawney and I live at 43420

18 West Nine Mile Road in Novi.

19 MR. GATT: Do you swear to

20 tell the truth in Case No. 07-007?

21 MR. CHAWNEY: Yes.

22 MR. SHROYER: Please present

23 your case.

24 MR. CHAWNEY: Well, a couple






1 years ago we converted some apartment

2 complex we own into condominiums for

3 sale and the City of Novi does allow

4 for a certain type of real estate

5 sign to be used in that situation.

6 What we did was

7 apply for a variance so the sign

8 would be the equivalent of a new

9 construction project and what I'm

10 asking for is another one year

11 continuation of that sign. Thank

12 you.

13 MR. SHROYER: You finished

14 too quick. I was digging for

15 something. All right. Do we have --

16 Mr. Secretary, do we have any

17 notices?

18 MR. GATT: Yes. We have 859

19 notices were mailed. We have one

20 approval and nine objections.

21 The approval is from

22 George Mortimer of Villagewood Lane.

23 He states, "I do not object to this

24 sign."






1 An objection from J.

2 Garvey on Renford Road. "This sign

3 is unsightly and ugly. It distracts

4 from the aesthetics around it. I

5 feel it lowers the property value of

6 my complex. This gentleman, even

7 though we opposed it in the past, was

8 given a variance. He has had his

9 turn and it is now our turn to have a

10 good looking main entrance to our

11 complex without distraction. This is

12 his first unsightly condition."

13 Mr. Samuel Pollack

14 of Stonehenge Boulevard objects. He

15 states, "I strongly object. Too many

16 signs already. Tired of looking at

17 signs."

18 We have an objection

19 from Carol Rhoden of Talvert Road.

20 No comments.

21 We have an objection

22 from Robin Wagner of Villagewood

23 Circle. "This sign was already

24 changed and updated two weeks ago.






1 The owner has sold only one unit

2 since the last variance request.

3 There are still approximately 20 of

4 24 units vacant. Will this variance

5 request create sales or will I still

6 be looking at vacant units in

7 February of 2008? The unsold units

8 are spoiling our neighborhood. They

9 are not worth the current asking

10 price."

11 An objection from

12 Margaret Wood on North Rockledge.

13 "If there is an ordinance in place,

14 and clearly there is, it should be

15 followed."

16 And an objection

17 from Stephanie Peg of Stonehenge

18 Boulevard. "Bigger is not always

19 better. The larger sign will not

20 market the property better than the

21 smaller. A 15 square foot sign will

22 overpower the landscape. Just to let

23 you know, this property is for sale."

24 We have an objection






1 from Ellen Helachik of Talpert

2 Street. No comments.

3 We have an objection

4 from Linda and Warren Kolov of

5 Danbury Street. "We object because

6 it has a negative impact upon the

7 appearance of the city. We don't

8 need or want billboards in our

9 community. If this sign variance is

10 again approved, it will encourage

11 other businesses to follow suit. We

12 have an appealing community and we

13 would like to keep it that way."

14 An objection from

15 Judy Groman on North Rockledge. "I

16 think the City of Novi code of

17 ordinances should not be changed for

18 Mr. Harry Chawney." That's it.

19 MR. SHROYER: Thank you.

20 Mr. Chawney, please

21 have a seat. We'll call you when we

22 need you.

23 At this point, is

24 there anyone in the audience prepared






1 to speak?

2 Seeing none, I turn

3 it over to the City. Is there any

4 comments from the City Building

5 Department? Mr. Amolsch.

6 MR. AMOLSCH: We've just

7 given you a copy of a picture of the

8 sign which currently stands, which

9 has a little addition to it, which

10 wasn't part of the

11 originally-approved sign variance,

12 which increases the square footage of

13 the sign but it doesn't follow the

14 legal notices.

15 MR. SHROYER: You're talking

16 about the appenditure, the segment

17 off to the side?

18 MR. AMOLSCH: Yes.

19 MR. SHROYER: At this time

20 I'll open it up to members of the

21 Board. Mr. Canup, Member Canup.

22 MR. CANUP: I think in light

23 of the fact that there's a comment

24 that in one year they sold one unit.






1 Is that correct?

2 MR. CHAWNEY: Yes, last year

3 we sold one unit.

4 MR. CANUP: What could you

5 say? He needs all the help he can

6 get.

7 MR. SHROYER: Thank you,

8 Member Canup. Anyone else? Member

9 Fischer.

10 MR. FISCHER: A question for

11 the attorney. Can we act on this

12 tonight given the fact that this

13 square footage has technically

14 changed and should not be re-noticed?

15 MS. OZGA: Do you know how

16 much the square footage has changed?

17 MR. AMOLSCH: No. It's

18 probably maybe one, one-and-a-half

19 square feet, but it was never applied

20 for.

21 MS. OZGA: Since this is a

22 different -- since this would be a

23 different sign and not technically

24 requesting just an extension, this






1 would be a larger sign, and I would

2 suggest that you re-notice it so that

3 the notice is accurate and exactly

4 what they are requesting. The notice

5 says a 15 square foot, 6 foot high

6 sign.

7 MR. SHROYER: Back to Member

8 Canup.

9 MR. CANUP: If we wanted to

10 act on this this evening, we could

11 act on it within the 15 square feet

12 and it would be their problem to

13 straighten it out and reduce the size

14 of the sign.

15 MR. SHROYER: Member Bauer.

16 MR. BAUER: I will go along

17 with the last member. We got to get

18 rid of that add-on, too.

19 MR. SHROYER: Mr. Chawney,

20 first of all, do you have a picture

21 of the current, the one you're

22 requesting?

23 MR. CHAWNEY: Not right with

24 me.






1 MR. SHROYER: Could you

2 please put this on the overhead so

3 our audience could see what we're

4 talking about. Member Fischer.

5 MR. FISCHER: Can you give

6 us some facts or statistics on your

7 occupancy right now, how many you are

8 marketing and how many you have sold?

9 MR. CHAWNEY: We have 24

10 units in the complex; we've sold six

11 so far.

12 MR. FISCHER: Six units

13 sold, and that is one more than last

14 year; is that correct?

15 MR. CHAWNEY: Yes.

16 MR. FISCHER: If I could add

17 to Member Canup's comments that while

18 this is a little larger than I would

19 like to see, given the hard economic

20 times and in an area of the city

21 where residents aren't always looking

22 for things to be sold, a lot of the

23 times on the west end of the city

24 that's where you'll find a lot of






1 development, a lot of houses for

2 sale, and I think this petitioner

3 does need all the help he can get.

4 If I remember correctly from last

5 year, too, what were the prices at

6 that time, weren't they a little bit

7 higher?

8 MR. CHAWNEY: Yes, sir,

9 between 10 and $15,000 higher. We've

10 been lowering -- we've actually

11 lowered the price twice.

12 MR. FISCHER: So you have

13 been making an effort in price as

14 well, so I believe this is necessary

15 at this time. I would be willing to

16 afford a one year extension. Thank

17 you, Mr. Chair.

18 MR. SHROYER: Before we move

19 on, let me ask a question of the

20 applicant.

21 Knowing what was

22 just stated by our attorney and

23 discussed here with the Board if the

24 additional sign has to be re-noticed,






1 etcetera, do you have a preference as

2 to whether or not we would act on the

3 current size now or not act on it, in

4 other words, deny it and then come

5 back?

6 MR. CHAWNEY: I can actually

7 remove the extension. That's no

8 problem.

9 MR. SHROYER: So you prefer

10 to go ahead and --

11 MR. CHAWNEY: Yeah, let's

12 just do -- we can do it tonight.

13 That would be fine.

14 MR. SHROYER: Okay. Thank

15 you.

16 Another member of

17 the Board. Member Gatt.

18 MR. GATT: I echo Vice

19 Chairman Fischer's comments. I think

20 that with things that are going on

21 right now economically everyone can

22 use all the help they can get. A

23 one-year extension, especially with

24 the reduction in the prices of the






1 condos and the fact it isn't doing

2 very well selling them, I think that

3 this can only help him and this is

4 definitely a need of his to help him

5 sell all the units that he has

6 available. Thank you.

7 MR. SHROYER: Thank you.

8 Prepared to make a motion? Member

9 Canup.

10 MR. CANUP: I would make a

11 motion in case 07-007 that we grant

12 the variance as requested based on as

13 stated.

14 MR. BAUER: Second.

15 MR. SHROYER: It's been

16 moved and seconded. Is there any

17 findings that need to attach to this?

18 Yes.

19 MS. OZGA: Are you saying as

20 stated meaning the petitioner has

21 established a practical difficulty in

22 maintaining the current sign?

23 MR. CANUP: The current sign

24 as stated size-wise was my intention






1 for that. The 15 square foot, take

2 off that loft sign. Is that what you

3 were looking for?

4 MS. OZGA: Yes, I was just

5 clarifying that. Thank you.

6 MR. SHROYER: Is that enough

7 for our motion then?

8 MS. OZGA: If you're

9 including in that the practical

10 difficulty as stated by the applicant

11 and as stated by the Board, then that

12 would be sufficient.

13 MR. SHROYER: Is that okay

14 with you for the second? All right.

15 It's been moved and

16 seconded. Robin, please call the

17 roll.

18 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?

19 MR. CANUP: Yes.

20 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?

21 MR. BAUER: Yes.

22 MS. WORKING: Member

23 Sanghvi?

24 MR. SANGHVI: Yes.






1 MS. WORKING: Chairman

2 Shroyer?


4 MS. WORKING: Member Gatt?

5 MR. GATT: Yes.

6 MS. WORKING: Vice Chair

7 Fischer?


9 MS. WORKING: Motion passes

10 6-0.

11 MR. CHAWNEY: Thank you.

12 MR. SHROYER: Thank you.

13 For those of you

14 that don't know, this is my first

15 meeting chairing and I've already

16 made an error. We missed the

17 approval of the minutes. So I'll

18 have to back up a bit here and

19 address the approval of the minutes

20 for February 6, 2007.

21 Are there any

22 corrections or additions to the

23 minutes?

24 MR. BAUER: I move they be






1 accepted as written.

2 MR. FISCHER: Support.

3 MR. SHROYER: They've been

4 moved by Member Bauer, seconded by

5 Member Fisher. All in favor say aye.


7 MR. SHROYER: Opposed same

8 sign.

9 The motion has been

10 approved to approve the minutes for

11 February 6, 2007. All right.

12 Moving on to the

13 next case. Case number 07-006, filed

14 by John W. Carpenter, for 1328 East

15 Lake Drive. Applicant is requesting

16 nine setback variances for the

17 construction of a new home and

18 unenclosed wood deck at said address.

19 Applicant is requesting an east front

20 yard setback variance of 19 feet, a

21 west rear yard setback variance of

22 12.1 feet, a north side yard setback

23 variance of 6.2 feet, a south side

24 yard setback variance of 11 feet,






1 with an aggregate total of two side

2 yards of 17.25 feet and a total lot

3 coverage variance of ten percent.

4 Additionally, the

5 applicant is requesting a north side

6 yard setback variance of 2 foot 4

7 inches and a 6-foot-6 inch southwest

8 side yard setback for the

9 construction of an unenclosed wood

10 deck.

11 Is the applicant

12 here and would you come forward,

13 please. State your name and address

14 and be sworn in by our secretary.


16 Carpenter. The address is 1021

17 Willow Lane, Howell, Michigan, that's

18 where I live now, and the house that

19 -- we also have a residence at Novi

20 here, 1328 East Lake Drive.

21 MR. GATT: Please raise your

22 right hand.

23 MR. SHROYER: If both of you

24 are going to speak then --






1 MR. CARPENTER: Yes. This

2 is my wife.

3 MR. GATT: Do you both swear

4 to tell the truth in case number

5 07-076?



8 MR. SHROYER: Thank you.

9 Please present your case.

10 MR. CARPENTER: Well, we

11 moved into the area about four years

12 ago and in that house and we talked

13 about it a long time ago, we love it

14 here, we like Novi, and want to

15 retire here. And this house needs to

16 be torn down because we lived in it a

17 couple years and it almost killed us

18 because of the way it's built, it's

19 old. It's a cottage that was

20 remodeled once. And we'd like to

21 tear it down and put a new, nice

22 structure that fits the neighborhood

23 and something that we can live in.

24 MRS. CARPENTER: It was an






1 old cottage that somebody had

2 remodeled. It was so cold in the

3 winter John has to wear a hat to bed

4 because there's no insulation. And

5 we love the lake, but we just have to

6 have something better and all we're

7 asking is to build something that we

8 could be comfortable in for the rest

9 of our life. It sounds so

10 complicated when you read all these

11 variances, but we're really not

12 asking to do anything more than some

13 of the other neighbors haven't done

14 already.

15 MR. SHROYER: Anything else?

16 MRS. CARPENTER: And it's

17 going to be a really pretty house,

18 quite prettier than it is now, and

19 I'm sure you all have pictures of it

20 because we submitted this.

21 MR. SHROYER: Thank you.

22 Mr. Secretary,

23 please tell us about any

24 correspondence.






1 MR. GATT: There were 40

2 notices mailed. Zero approvals; one

3 objection. The objection was from

4 Mr. Robert Salomon. He lives on East

5 Lake Road. He states, "Sirs: I am

6 incensed and outraged that Mr.

7 Carpenter proposes to build a house

8 south of mine in variance of setbacks

9 and lot coverage. Such variances

10 would ruin my privacy and view. What

11 is the purpose of a zoning ordinance

12 if not to protect the rights of

13 property owners and the quality of

14 life in the community. I pay high

15 property taxes based not so much on

16 the size of my 1,800 square foot home

17 but because of the lakefront location

18 and lake view. To allow construction

19 exceeding the required variances

20 would greatly diminish my view and my

21 property value.

22 " I, therefore,

23 vehemently object to the Zoning Board

24 of Appeals allowing any variance and






1 the enforcement of the code of

2 ordinances in this matter."

3 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. Is

4 there anyone audience that cares to

5 come forward and speak?

6 Please come forward.

7 Let him come to the mike, please, and

8 be sworn in. You were sworn in the

9 last meeting. Correct?

10 MR. SALOMON: I don't think

11 I was sworn in because the case

12 wasn't heard officially because the

13 Carpenters weren't able to make the

14 meeting.

15 MR. SHROYER: Please give

16 your name and address.

17 MR. SALOMON: My name is

18 Robert Salomon and I live at 1326

19 East Lake Road in Novi.

20 MR. GATT: Do you swear to

21 tell the truth regarding case number

22 07-006?

23 MR. SALOMON: I do.

24 MR. GATT: Thank you.






1 MR. SALOMON: I came to the

2 last meeting for the same reason I'm

3 coming to this meeting and that is

4 basically to express what I said in

5 the letter, that unfortunately -- the

6 Carpenters are lovely people and I

7 really don't want any kind of bad

8 feelings, but, unfortunately, it

9 would really ruin my southern view.

10 I was foolish enough to allow the

11 building of a large house north of me

12 and now I have -- before I had a

13 great view of the lake and now I have

14 a great view of a brick wall, and I

15 think the same thing would happen.

16 And I, frankly, have

17 a very good southerly view from my

18 home and, unfortunately, even though

19 the variances they are requesting, as

20 they say are not tremendous, to me

21 they are tremendous. They would

22 greatly impair my privacy and my view

23 and I just think that it's wrong.

24 When my house was






1 constructed a number of years ago,

2 this Board did not allow -- I was

3 told that this Board did not allow

4 one millimeter of variance in the

5 zoning ordinance and as a result the

6 house was reconstructed on exactly

7 the same footprint as it was

8 originally built. And I just think

9 that's the way things -- I deserve

10 equal protection under the law, and

11 that's basically all I have to say.

12 MR. SHROYER: Thank you very

13 much.

14 Anyone else in the

15 audience that cares to speak? Seeing

16 none, we will be turning it over to

17 the City. Is there someone that

18 wants to speak on the City's behalf?

19 MR. FOX: If it pleases the

20 Board, I'd like to mention that the

21 north setback that they are proposing

22 is actually less of a setback than

23 the existing house now has by the

24 6.25 feet. It is existing






1 approximately ten feet now. And the

2 south side yard setback is actually

3 going to be increased by about four

4 more inches. They are intending to

5 roughly center the house on the lot,

6 but they are increasing it on the

7 north side and decreasing the setback

8 by a small amount on the south side.

9 MR. SHROYER: Which side is

10 the lake side?

11 MR. FOX: I'm sorry. The

12 north side is adjacent to the

13 homeowner and the south side is next

14 to the empty parcel. The lake is on

15 the west side.

16 MR. SHROYER: The southern

17 view he was referring to bends

18 around.

19 MR. FOX: I'm just giving

20 information that they didn't quite

21 give you as far as what the setbacks

22 were going to be doing.

23 MR. SHROYER: Okay. Anyone

24 else from the City? We'll turn it






1 over to the Board. If they have

2 questions for you, you can address

3 those questions. Member Canup.

4 MR. CANUP: The major

5 question I have is, where are you

6 going to park? The front yard will

7 have 11 feet. The side yard, your

8 north side yard, would have 3.75

9 feet, the south side yard would have

10 four feet. So we got 11 feet from

11 the front of the house to the road,

12 and unless we come up with some real

13 good answers this can't happen.

14 MRS. CARPENTER: That's all

15 we have now with the existing house.

16 MR. CARPENTER: Right now

17 with the existing house there is no

18 garage and this house we can eke in a

19 one-car garage and have two parking

20 spaces out front. Because right now

21 we can park in front of the house

22 long ways and there's one other

23 parking spot to the side. So it's

24 pretty much staying the same as it is






1 now.

2 MR. CANUP: It's 11 feet.

3 Eleven feet is basically maybe less

4 than the length of this table and you

5 cannot get a car in there except

6 crossways.

7 MRS. CARPENTER: That's all

8 we have now then.

9 MR. CARPENTER: Here's what

10 is existing. There's the existing

11 house on the left with the two

12 parking spaces.

13 MR. CANUP: You show a car

14 parked there on the north side. I'm

15 assuming that's the north side where

16 the car is parked parallel to the

17 house.

18 MR. CARPENTER: Yes, that's

19 the north side.

20 MR. CANUP: That obviously

21 is not four feet in there.

22 MR. CARPENTER: No, not now.

23 MR. CANUP: It has 3.75 feet

24 in there.






1 MR. CARPENTER: There will

2 be a garage there when it's done, a

3 garage door when it's done, and the

4 edge of the garage will be four feet

5 from the lot line.

6 MR. CANUP: So that area

7 that we see with the car parked there

8 will actually be a garage area?


10 exactly. Where you see that car

11 parked now will be a garage area.

12 The front will stay pretty much the

13 same as it's there now, 11 feet.

14 MR. CANUP: Okay. Thank

15 you.

16 MR. SHROYER: Member Bauer.

17 MR. BAUER: Yes. You have

18 the garage there. You show a car

19 that's parked there and by the amount

20 of space that I've got you're going

21 to be very, very close being next to

22 that street. I can't go for that.

23 It's got to be back enough place for

24 people to park that are going to be






1 not near the road. This is

2 considered new construction for us,

3 not for what has been there and what

4 you want to tear down.

5 MRS. CARPENTER: The house

6 isn't going to be out any further

7 than what it is now.

8 MR. BAUER: I know, but it's

9 new construction, so you're going to

10 have to move that back because you

11 can't get two cars in there.

12 MRS. CARPENTER: We can fit

13 two cars there.

14 MR. BAUER: But they're

15 still going to be very, very close to

16 the street.

17 MRS. CARPENTER: But they

18 are now. If we cannot build a

19 house --

20 MR. SHROYER: We don't need

21 a discussion back and forth. Keep it

22 simple, please.

23 MR. CARPENTER: We'll just

24 leave it as it is and walk.






1 MR. SHROYER: Anything else?

2 MR. BAUER: Yes, that's all.

3 MR. SHROYER: Thank you.

4 Any other members? As we're waiting,

5 I'll speak.

6 The biggest concern

7 I have is the neighbors' view. Any

8 time we look at lake property, I'm

9 always concerned about blocking off

10 the view because that's one of the

11 main reasons people build on a lake

12 and why they live on a lake. The

13 pictures provided and the statement

14 from the City of only adding an

15 additional four inches on the

16 backside, I'm still getting the --

17 four inches on the south side.

18 How far is the lake side being

19 extended of the house?

20 MR. CARPENTER: I can show

21 you a picture of that roughly. This

22 picture shows -- my finger is the

23 back existing house. It will come

24 back another eight feet to there and






1 then go up and Dr. Bob's window up

2 here, his bedroom window, yes, it

3 will be pretty much looking at a

4 brick wall, yes, but his deck still

5 goes out past ours and be in line

6 with it.

7 Frankly, gentlemen,

8 I just don't know how we put any

9 other structure on there with a

10 garage because if you're going to

11 tear down a house to build a new

12 house you're going to have a garage.

13 Right now this one doesn't. It would

14 be much nicer to have a garage to

15 keep the cars or the car off of the

16 street and there would be one

17 additional space in front.

18 MR. SHROYER: The renderings

19 you provided us does presents us with

20 a very attractive house. As I

21 mentioned, I always do have concerns

22 about blocking any type of view of

23 the lake. Eight foot is a ways to go

24 back.







2 every consideration in reference to

3 Bob Salomon because we made sure

4 there was at least an eight foot

5 variance between the property so that

6 we could landscape the properties.

7 We always wanted that fence removed.

8 We wanted to put a dock out that we

9 could share. We contacted him and we

10 discussed that with him. I know he

11 still disapproves of it, but, you

12 know, we're not asking for anything

13 that three or four other houses down

14 the line haven't done already and

15 they don't have any more parking than

16 we do.

17 MR. SHROYER: We do need to

18 look at each individual applicant

19 separately.

20 MRS. CARPENTER: We have

21 pictures.

22 MR. SHROYER: We can't

23 compare.

24 Any other comment?






1 Member Gatt.

2 MR. GATT: First of all, I

3 think the proposed house that you

4 guys are intending to build is quite

5 lovely, only in my wildest dreams I

6 think, but you never know. I think

7 that we look at this in all the

8 situations on this lakefront

9 property. They're very strange sized

10 lots and I think in this particular

11 situation this is pretty much the

12 best that you're going to get, the

13 proposal that they're offering. I

14 know that everyone isn't going to be

15 happy with every single decision

16 that's made on every case, but I

17 don't know how someone could be

18 really complaining about the proposal

19 in this particular situation.

20 I think that they're

21 going to have a lovely home. I think

22 that the decks of both houses, their

23 neighbor's house and their house, are

24 going to have a beautiful view of our






1 wonderful lake. And I think that

2 considering that these people are

3 going to be constructing another home

4 that is going to be paying taxes,

5 that is going to be living in the

6 city, I think that this is the best

7 scenario for this type of land, this

8 lakefront land.

9 I assume that

10 they've done a lot of different

11 mock-up scenarios, things like that,

12 I can only imagine the different

13 choices that you had, and I think

14 that this is something that's going

15 to kind of work, maybe not the best

16 for every situation in all the

17 different aspects of this, but I

18 think this is the best case scenario

19 for this with building a new home on

20 this property.

21 I'm in favor of the

22 changes or the variances that are

23 being requested, however, I can

24 listen to the other Board members for






1 different points of view, but I think

2 in this particular situation, just

3 like a lot of these situations on

4 this lake, this is going to be one of

5 those best case scenario things.

6 Thank you.

7 MR. SHROYER: Thank you,

8 Member Gatt. Member Fisher.

9 MR. FISCHER: Could you put

10 this rendering back up for me? I

11 have a quick question on it. It's

12 difficult when you're looking at a

13 house this big. That car right

14 there, the picture before we saw that

15 a car could fit next to the house,

16 but now you're going to have four

17 feet to your lot line. Is that

18 technically going to be your property

19 or your driveway or is this --


21 rendering of that car being outside

22 the -- it's in the wrong spot. It

23 really should have been placed in

24 front of the garage then that would






1 be more accurate, sure.

2 MR. FISCHER: Okay. My next

3 question is, with less than four feet

4 on the north side and less than, or

5 just about four feet on the south

6 side, if there is any reason to get

7 behind the house, how are you

8 proposing to do that, with any large

9 pieces of equipment? Or if an

10 emergency happens and emergency

11 personnel need to get back there, how

12 would you propose they get back

13 there?

14 MR. CARPENTER: That lot

15 that is south of us is an access lot.

16 It will probably never be built on

17 because it has shared ownership by

18 three or four, four homes on the

19 other side of the street, and that's

20 always going to be an access lot for

21 them. And the person that claims he

22 owns it says they would never let

23 them build on it because it was too

24 narrow to the water's edge. Besides






1 they couldn't because the other

2 people that own it, too, have an

3 access, have a perpetual easement

4 over that lot.

5 So I guess that's

6 called an access lot on the lake, not

7 that it will ever have a boat launch

8 in it because next to that lot is

9 another lot that's an access lot for

10 the subdivision that's behind there.

11 And we've already contacted the

12 people that have that lot and we told

13 them during construction we were

14 going to want assurances that we can

15 use that lot for staging and we'll

16 bring it back to its original or

17 better condition. So we'll go that

18 route as far as construction goes and

19 if we ever had to get something back

20 behind it, that lot is always going

21 to be open.

22 MR. FISCHER: A question for

23 the city attorney or the City. Is it

24 possible for that lot to ever be






1 built, is it possible at all?

2 MR. CARPENTER: To be honest

3 -- I don't want to interrupt you.

4 MR. FISCHER: I'm asking for

5 clarification from the City at this

6 point. Thank you, though.

7 MS. OZGA: If I may, I don't

8 know the history of the ownership of

9 the lot, if there's any sort of deed

10 restrictions or anything like that.

11 Without knowing that, if just one or

12 two people that own the lot, it may

13 be their word that they're not going

14 to build on that, but without knowing

15 the history and -- there could

16 possibly be a deed restriction on

17 that, but I haven't been given any

18 information so I don't know if there

19 are any restrictions that would

20 prohibit any construction on that

21 particular piece.

22 MR. FISCHER: I guess that's

23 kind of what I -- if I won the

24 lottery yesterday and I walk in with






1 a million dollars, could I buy it

2 from them and build something on it?

3 MR. CARPENTER: I do have a

4 copy of the deed restriction that my

5 neighbor brought to me.

6 MR. FOX: If the possibility

7 does exist that somebody proposed to

8 build on this, they would definitely

9 have to come to this Board for

10 approval. It is a very small lot.

11 There's no dimensions on it so

12 there's nothing really I could say a

13 hundred percent, but it definitely

14 would require setback variances to do

15 any type of construction on it.

16 MR. FISCHER: Understood.

17 MR. SHROYER: Member Canup.

18 Oh, I'm sorry.

19 MR. FISCHER: I'll say thank

20 you from the City.

21 MR. SHROYER: Please, retain

22 the floor.

23 MR. FISCHER: How many

24 square feet are you looking at for






1 this property?

2 MR. CARPENTER: Roughly the

3 first and second floor is about 2,600

4 square feet.

5 MR. FISCHER: In conclusion,

6 after my questions have been

7 answered, Mr. Chair, I'm not sure

8 that this proposal is the right one

9 for this lot. I do still have some

10 safety concerns regarding the north

11 and south lot lines. I feel that the

12 -- there is a way to work around

13 this. We've seen it done before

14 where houses of this nature have been

15 built but have not needed such high

16 variances and such a large number of

17 variances as well.

18 The lot coverage

19 points to me that this is

20 overbuilding the lot. When we look

21 as this Board, we have to make sure

22 that the petitioner themselves, they

23 can reap benefits of owning this

24 property, but we also have to look at






1 surrounding property owners and their

2 rights. And I believe that some of

3 these setback requests are

4 self-created and I think that failure

5 to grant relief does not unreasonably

6 prevent the owner from using the lot

7 as he can. I feel that allowing all

8 these variances will interfere with

9 some of the other property owners,

10 with their rights and with their

11 light and air restrictions and won't

12 result in justice being done for the

13 property owners surrounding this

14 area. So I cannot be in support of

15 this.

16 I believe there are

17 other options that can be looked at

18 where less would meet their needs,

19 meet their rights, but also meet the

20 rights of all other property owners.

21 Thank you, Mr. Chair.

22 MR. SHROYER: Member Canup.

23 MR. CANUP: Every time I

24 walk into the Kroger store or walk






1 out of the Kroger store at Beck Road

2 and Grand River I shutter because of

3 the mistake that was made in the

4 design of that property in reference

5 to cars and traffic that moves

6 through there. And so, with that,

7 every time I walk out of there I

8 think if I have anything to say about

9 it this is not going to happen again.

10 I think until that

11 is addressed, at least from my

12 standpoint, I would not be willing to

13 grant a variance in this case or vote

14 positive for a variance in this case.

15 If there is no

16 further discussion, I'd make a

17 motion.

18 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair, if

19 it would please the Board, perhaps if

20 the Carpenters wanted to request a

21 tabling of this case, maybe they

22 could take a step back, take a deep

23 breath and see if there isn't

24 something they could reconfigure it






1 and come back before you with an

2 alternate plan.

3 MR. SHROYER: Thank you.

4 After hearing

5 comments from the various Board

6 members and the concerns that they

7 raised about some of the setback

8 requests, do you feel you'd like to

9 have the case tabled and come back at

10 a later date with perhaps an

11 alternate plan?

12 MR. CARPENTER: We have so

13 much invested already with the

14 architect fees and all the other

15 things just to get here.

16 MRS. CARPENTER: We'll just

17 rent it out.

18 MR. CARPENTER: I would like

19 Justin to help me, though. If we

20 tabled it for a month, I'd like you

21 to help me figure out what would look

22 good on there and how much because

23 we've already gone through this. So

24 I'd like you to see how hard it would






1 be to remove eight feet here or two

2 feet there and then what would you be

3 left with to build, you know,

4 anything that's liveable.

5 MR. FISCHER: To be quite

6 honest, sir, obviously we can't rent

7 our services out and while I would

8 like to I don't think that would be

9 in the best interest of the City,

10 first of all.

11 Second of all, the

12 burden of these hearings is on the

13 petitioner to prove that they can't

14 do anything less, and that burden has

15 not been met in my eyes. So if you'd

16 like to table it and maybe take

17 another crack from that angle and say

18 this is why we have to protrude in

19 the rear end and block our neighbor's

20 view, this is why it has to happen

21 because it can't be done any other

22 way, maybe you should take Miss

23 Working's recommendation and do that,

24 but until those burdens are met by






1 the petitioner I cannot support this

2 case.


4 but --

5 MR. FISCHER: I'm sorry, Mr.

6 Chair --

7 MR. CARPENTER: Do you know

8 what's there? Have you seen the lot?

9 MR. SHROYER: We are not

10 here to argue. We give you the

11 reasons, the Board has expressed

12 their concerns, we gave you an option

13 to have it tabled. At this point

14 I'll entertain a motion.

15 MR. CANUP: I would make a

16 motion that in Case No. 07-006 that

17 we deny the request as stated due to

18 hardships that are caused on the

19 adjacent properties and to the fact

20 that it grossly lacks in parking

21 space in the front yard which would

22 be on a thoroughfare type of street.

23 MR. BAUER: Second.

24 MR. SHROYER: Can we expound






1 upon that perhaps sighting practical

2 difficulty is not met, the applicant

3 hasn't shown proof, or perhaps

4 another Board member would care to

5 make recommendations for an addendum?

6 MR. CANUP: I would

7 entertain help with that.

8 MR. SHROYER: Thank you.

9 Member Fischer.

10 MR. FISCHER: Mr. Chair, if

11 the petitioner would recognize in the

12 motion that the burden of proof that

13 was looked upon by the Board was a

14 practical difficulty as opposed to a

15 hardship. That would be my first

16 recommendation.

17 I would also state

18 that the petitioner did not meet that

19 burden of proof because they did not

20 prove that the request was not

21 self-created. They did not prove

22 that --

23 MR. CARPENTER: Give us

24 another chance to prove, Tim.






1 Justin, give us another --

2 MR. SHROYER: Hold on,

3 please.

4 MR. FISCHER: They did not

5 prove that failure to grant relief

6 will prevent or limit the use of the

7 property in another manner and will

8 result in substantially more than a

9 mere inconvenience or an ability to

10 obtain a higher economic or financial

11 return, that they did not prove that

12 a substantial justice was done to

13 themselves but also the adjacent

14 property owners.

15 MR. CANUP: Enter those into

16 my motion.

17 MR. BAUER: Second.

18 MR. SHROYER: A motion has

19 been made and seconded.

20 Question for the

21 attorney. The applicants are having

22 second thoughts and would care to

23 speak further. Since a motion is on

24 the floor, do we have that option






1 available to us to allow them to

2 speak?

3 MS. OZGA: Normally when a

4 motion is on the floor, you're

5 restricted to comments of just the

6 Board. If you want to withdraw the

7 motion and allow the petitioner to

8 speak, you could do that, but you've

9 given the petitioner the opportunity

10 to speak, you've given the petitioner

11 the opportunity to request a table to

12 the next meeting. So it's up to the

13 Board if you would like to but you do

14 not have to.

15 MR. SHROYER: Is there any

16 members on the Board that want to

17 request the motion be removed?

18 MR. SANGHVI: Carry on and

19 continue the business of the Board.

20 Thank you.

21 MR. SHROYER: Okay. Robin,

22 would you please call the roll.

23 MS. WORKING: Is there any

24 further discussion, Mr. Chair?






1 MR. SHROYER: The motion is

2 accepted. No further.

3 MR. BAUER: Second.

4 MR. SHROYER: The motion has

5 been passed. There will be no

6 further discussion.

7 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?

8 MR. CANUP: Yes.

9 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?

10 MR. BAUER: Yes.

11 MS. WORKING: Member

12 Fischer, Vice Chair Fischer?

13 MR. FISCHER: Aye.

14 MS. WORKING: Member Gatt?

15 MR. GATT: Yes.

16 MS. WORKING: Chairman

17 Shroyer?

18 MR. SHROYER: Yes.

19 MS. WORKING: Member

20 Sanghvi?

21 MR. SANGHVI: Yes.

22 MS. WORKING: Motion to deny

23 passes 6-0.

24 MR. SHROYER: I'm sorry.






1 Your motion has been denied.

2 MR. CARPENTER: We're sorry.

3 A for sale sign will be up next week.

4 MR. SHROYER: Moving on to

5 the next case, Case No. 07-009, filed

6 by Mark Smith of Gus O'Connor's

7 located at 42875 Grand River Avenue.

8 Whereas the applicant is requesting a

9 variance to a previously granted

10 variance in ZBA 05-091, which

11 stipulated the petitioner remove the

12 14.5 square foot Gus O'Connor gold

13 wall sign over the door located at

14 42875 Grand River Avenue. Property

15 is zoned TC-1 and located south of

16 Grand River and east of Market

17 Street. Petitioner is present.

18 Please state your name and address

19 and be sworn in by the secretary.

20 MR. SMITH: My name is Mark

21 Smith. My address is 3992 May Center

22 Road, Lake Orion, Michigan.

23 MR. GATT: Are you an

24 attorney?






1 MR. SMITH: No.

2 MR. GATT: Please raise your

3 right hand. Do you swear to tell the

4 truth regarding case 07-009?

5 MR. SMITH: I do.

6 MR. GATT: Thank you.

7 MR. SHROYER: Please state

8 your case.

9 MR. SMITH: Well, there's a

10 couple things. First off, I would

11 like to thank the Board for granting

12 our initial variance of our second

13 floor sign. That absolutely

14 increased our business, but it also

15 created some secondary issues that we

16 weren't aware or we didn't think out

17 at that point, and I'll get to that

18 in a moment.

19 Secondly, I would

20 like to apologize for the misstep on

21 replacing the gold letters. I had

22 read an article in the paper that the

23 sign law had been amended and me, not

24 being an attorney, I tried to






1 interpret it and interpreted it

2 incorrectly. I took down a hanging

3 wall sign on the side of the

4 building. I took that down and put

5 the gold letters back up thinking

6 that switching the sign for a sign I

7 would be okay. I was -- I received a

8 letter about three weeks after it

9 went up that was not the case. So at

10 that point we applied to have the

11 variance for that sign.

12 The reasons that we

13 put up that sign or we put the gold

14 letters back up, there's a few

15 different reasons. The biggest

16 reason being that we were having

17 complaints from our customers that if

18 you're driving by in the car or in

19 your car in front of our building you

20 don't see the second level sign on

21 the north exterior there. You have

22 to kind of look up before you see a

23 sign. So we don't have any signage

24 on that front of the building, so by






1 having those gold letters there

2 everybody can see it. If they're in

3 their car, walking into any of the

4 other stores that are in that area,

5 you now can see the Gus O'Connor

6 sign.

7 Secondly, it, in our

8 opinion and the opinion of people in

9 the complex, it increases the

10 appearance of the building. It looks

11 nice, it looks a lot better than the

12 hanging wall that we had on the other

13 side. It's nice gold letters. Even

14 a few members of the Board at our

15 last meeting weren't really excited

16 with us taking down those gold

17 letters.

18 So that is one area

19 that we want. We want to increase

20 the curb appeal. We've had several

21 customers that have told us that it

22 does look much better. It's easier

23 to see. They can find us a little

24 bit easier.






1 Another reason that

2 we kind of did it is our business was

3 down about 15 percent over the first

4 three months year to date. We're

5 basically looking for any way and

6 every way to draw attention to our

7 building. We love it in this area,

8 we want to stay in this area, so

9 we're doing everything we can within

10 reason to increase, you know, foot

11 traffic and revenue into our

12 building. So anything we can do to

13 increase awareness we're trying to do

14 it.

15 Also, the other --

16 we'd spoken with our landlord. They

17 were very much in approval of us

18 adding the sign and they definitely

19 were happy that we put it back. It

20 definitely makes the building look a

21 lot better.

22 So the biggest

23 reason is we want curb appeal, we

24 were trying to increase our business,






1 as I said business was down, we are

2 looking to improve the foot traffic,

3 things of that nature. So those are

4 the reasons we wanted to put it back.

5 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. Is

6 there anyone in the audience that

7 cares to speak to this case?

8 Seeing none, do we

9 have any comments from the City?

10 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment,

11 sir.

12 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. At

13 this point, I'll turn it over to the

14 Board. Member Canup.

15 MR. CANUP: Reading the case

16 minutes from the November 1st, '05

17 hearing, you know, it was very clear

18 that sign was to be removed. I don't

19 think there's any misunderstanding in

20 the actual case that I've read here

21 and I don't see -- they were willing

22 to remove it then, and the fact that

23 their business is down 15 percent is

24 probably a reflection of the general






1 economy in Southeast Michigan. They

2 have a good product. I don't know.

3 I don't have any trouble finding it

4 and I think anybody that's not

5 totally blind would find that place

6 once they got somewheres near it.

7 By looking at the

8 facade of it, the facade itself to me

9 is a sign and would attract

10 attention. I think we did well with

11 them when they were here originally

12 and asked for a variance and my

13 comments are that I wish they would

14 live with that, not wish but I would

15 not vote for anything except that

16 they would live with that variance we

17 gave them originally.

18 MR. SHROYER: Thank you.

19 Anyone else? Member Fischer.

20 MR. FISCHER: I would tend

21 to agree in this case.

22 Unfortunately, I actually like the

23 sign very much, I think it is

24 aesthetically pleasing. Personally I






1 like this sign better than the other

2 one, even though I voted for the last

3 one as well, but in a general sense

4 to have two signs on the same exact

5 side, I have a very difficult time

6 doing that. Pretty soon this Board

7 will have every single residence of

8 that area in front of us asking to

9 have two signs as well.

10 So I'm not sure if

11 the sign on the side can go back up

12 or what, but this is more or less,

13 like Member Canup said, a general

14 economy issue and to have a permanent

15 sign up there forever, a second sign,

16 it's just unfair to the other

17 businesses in that area because I

18 couldn't support a second sign for

19 them. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

20 MR. SHROYER: Thank you.

21 Comments from this side of the house.

22 Oh, yes, thank you very much. Mr.

23 Secretary, please tell us of any

24 correspondence.






1 MR. GATT: The were 18

2 notices mailed; zero approvals, zero

3 objections.

4 MR. SHROYER: Thank you.

5 Now would you care to comment?

6 MR. GATT: Yes. Thank you.

7 I would respectfully disagree with

8 the previous speakers. I think that

9 it's been mentioned before -- first

10 of all, I think the sign is very

11 attractive. I think it's a lot

12 better than what was up there

13 originally. With the economy going

14 down and with businesses struggling

15 for patrons in general, anything

16 would help.

17 I think that this

18 petitioner has come up here and

19 discussed the situation with people

20 not being able to recognize the sign

21 and the entrance of this particular

22 establishment, I think that, like in

23 previous situations, people that

24 aren't from here are going to this






1 establishment. I know where this

2 place is at, I've been there before.

3 People that are around here know

4 where this place is at, however, if

5 you get someone from anywhere else

6 traveling into that area, especially

7 the main street area, there's a lot

8 of different places around there,

9 there's a lot of different

10 establishments, and, you know, if

11 anything else it's a safety issue

12 trying to look up and looking around

13 in your vehicle.

14 I can understand if

15 you're walking that not being a

16 problem, but if you're looking in

17 your vehicle for that particular

18 place, this is going to be a problem.

19 And if this is a situation where the

20 gold lettering and the things that

21 stand out to you that are kind of at

22 car eye level are going to help you

23 find this particular establishment

24 and be able to park and get your way






1 in, I think that's something that's

2 appropriate. It's not like we're

3 going from nothing to something.

4 We're going from something to

5 something a little bit better.

6 I know it's another

7 variance, but in this particular

8 situation I think it's beneficial. I

9 think there is a need for it because

10 of safety concerns and the fact that

11 there are people that are outside of

12 this area that are going to be coming

13 to this establishment, it's a

14 word-of-mouth type of establishment

15 that people are going to want to look

16 at if they're in the area, and I

17 think that that's going to only help

18 them attract business in this

19 economic time and it's also going to

20 be a benefit to the safety of the

21 general area.

22 There's a lot of

23 traffic through there in the evenings

24 and in the dark hours. I think it






1 would save some problem. Even if it

2 saves one problem, I think that's

3 better than nothing. Thank you.

4 MR. SHROYER: Other

5 comments? Member Sanghvi.

6 MR. SANGHVI: Question. Is

7 this the same sign that it used to be

8 before?

9 MR. SMITH: Yes, it is,

10 exact same sign.

11 MR. SANGHVI: So when we

12 granted the previous variance it was

13 with a stipulation that this sign

14 will come down; is that correct?

15 MR. AMOLSCH: That's

16 correct.

17 MR. SANGHVI: But it was

18 never taken down.

19 MR. AMOLSCH: It was taken

20 down and put back.

21 MR. SANGHVI: It was taken

22 down and put back up again when they

23 applied for this variance.

24 MR. AMOLSCH: They applied






1 for the variance after they got the

2 notice violation.

3 MR. SANGHVI: But did they

4 put the second sign up before they

5 applied for the variance or after

6 they applied for the variance?

7 MR. AMOLSCH: They put it up

8 before this variance was asked for.

9 MR. SANGHVI: I see.

10 MR. SMITH: Can I add

11 something? What we did is, when we

12 heard the sign variance for the city

13 had been changed, we thought we were

14 within the guidelines of the signage,

15 to take a sign down from the other

16 elevation on the other side of the

17 building and re-put up the gold

18 letter sign.

19 MR. SANGHVI: Are you trying

20 to tell me you misunderstood what

21 was --

22 MR. SMITH: When I heard

23 there was a variance -- or they

24 re-amended the sign, I went, I looked






1 at it, and I thought if we were

2 taking a sign down for a sign down

3 that we were okay. So, yes, I

4 misinterpreted. We got the notice,

5 or we received the notice of

6 violation, we contacted them, we

7 applied for the variance and here we

8 are today. This all happened within

9 the last six weeks.

10 MR. SANGHVI: Thank you.

11 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. I

12 have a question as well. If they

13 took a sign down on the, I would have

14 to assume it was the west side, and

15 put this one up on the north side, if

16 this one has to come down based on

17 the violation and everything, can

18 they put the one back up on the west

19 side?

20 MR. AMOLSCH: No. There's

21 only one sign permitted per business.

22 They have -- the hanging sign he

23 refers to was a projected sign that

24 was approved by the Board.






1 Projection signs are permitted in

2 addition to the wall sign in the TC-1

3 zoning. They needed a variance from

4 the Board. It is a permitted sign, a

5 projection sign, but it is too big,

6 so that came before the Board. But

7 we're talking about one sign per

8 business with the exception I just

9 stated with the TC-1 situation.

10 MR. SHROYER: Thank you for

11 clarification. Member Krieger.

12 MS. KRIEGER: Thank you for

13 apologizing for your

14 misunderstanding. For the Gus

15 O'Connor's, it is aesthetically

16 pleasing, I agree with that, but to

17 have the Grand River facade to have

18 the two signs would be, as Member

19 Fischer had stated, we'd have more

20 people coming in asking for two

21 signs, but to keep an aesthetically

22 -- since they're on a corner lot, a

23 corner of two streets or into the

24 parking lot, Grand River and Market






1 Street I believe, that it would keep

2 the Gus O'Connor's sign on the west

3 side. That's my thinking. Thank

4 you.

5 MR. SHROYER: Thank you.

6 Anyone else? Member Bauer.

7 MR. BAUER: The one they

8 took down on the west side, he felt,

9 I imagine, that he could then go

10 ahead and put that one up. That is

11 now how it evolved. I can only go

12 along with what they had before on

13 it.

14 MR. SHROYER: Everyone has

15 spoken. I'll add my two cents worth.

16 I agree with everybody. It's one of

17 my favorite establishments. The sign

18 is extremely attractive, it's very

19 aesthetically pleasing. I do

20 understand the safety portion of it;

21 however, it was very, very clearly

22 written, and I agree with the

23 previous speakers that we need to

24 stay with the way it was approved






1 previously. So I am not in favor of

2 granting this variance.

3 I'll entertain a

4 motion if anyone is prepared to --

5 Member Fischer.

6 MR. FISCHER: Thank you, Mr.

7 Chair.

8 I move that in Case

9 No. 07-009, filed by Mark Smith of

10 Gus O'Connor's, located at 42875

11 Grand River Avenue, that we deny the

12 petitioner's request due to the lack

13 of meeting the burden of practical

14 difficulty.

15 The findings include

16 that this is not based upon -- this

17 variance is not based upon

18 exceptional or unique circumstances

19 to the area, as all of Main Street

20 looks similar to this; this will not

21 result in substantial justice to the

22 surrounding area's businesses because

23 other businesses are not allowed two

24 signs; and this will be overwhelming






1 to the facade; and this is not

2 consistent with the spirit and intent

3 of the ordinance as written.

4 MR. BAUER: Second.

5 MR. SHROYER: The motion has

6 been made by Member Fischer and

7 seconded by Member Bauer. Any

8 further discussion?

9 Robin, please call

10 the roll.

11 MS. WORKING: Vice Chair

12 Fischer?

13 MR. FISCHER: Aye.

14 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?

15 MR. BAUER: Yes.

16 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?

17 Mr. CANUP: Yes.

18 MS. WORKING: Member

19 Sanghvi?

20 MR. SANGHVI: Yes.

21 MS. WORKING: Chairman

22 Shroyer?

23 MR. SHROYER: Yes.

24 MS. WORKING: Member Gatt?






1 MR. GATT: No.

2 MS. WORKING: Motion to deny

3 passes 5 to 1.

4 MR. SHROYER: Case No.

5 07-010, filed by Michael Soave of

6 Mandalay Properties, LLC, located on

7 Nine Mile Road between 48315 and

8 48371. Mr. Soave is requesting two

9 101.18 foot wide dimensional

10 variances to the minimum required lot

11 width for frontage on a public

12 street. The subject property is

13 located on Nine Mile Road, as

14 mentioned before.

15 In addition, the

16 applicant is also requesting two

17 86.18-foot width variances for the

18 reduction below 90 percent of the

19 required minimum lot width. Property

20 is zoned RA and located south of Nine

21 Mile Road and east of Garfield Road.

22 Is the applicant

23 present? Please come forward and

24 state your name, address and if






1 you're not an attorney please be

2 sworn in by our secretary.

3 MR. HAW: I am not an

4 attorney. My name is Jeffrey Haw

5 from GLA Surveyors and Engineers.

6 I'm here this evening representing

7 Michael Soave and Mandalay Properties

8 on this matter.

9 MR. GATT: Please raise your

10 right hand. Do you swear to tell the

11 truth in Case No. 07-010?

12 MR. HAW: I do.

13 MR. GATT: Thank you.

14 MR. SHROYER: Please state

15 your case.

16 MR. HAW: The picture you

17 see in front of you is simply a

18 larger version of that material

19 already provided to you, labeled

20 Exhibit B in the packets that were

21 provided.

22 We've presented our

23 case in detail in the request for

24 consideration that was included in






1 your packet, which is three pages

2 long. I'm not going to go through

3 all of that. I'd like to just

4 briefly cover the points that were

5 made in that request and then leave

6 it to the Board for deliberation.

7 As was previously

8 mentioned, the subject property

9 consists of two parcels, currently

10 labeled Parcel 1 and Parcel 2,

11 between Beck Road and Garfield Road

12 on Nine Mile. Parcel 1 is the long,

13 narrow piece that you see there

14 consisting of 1.5 acres. It's

15 approximately 82 feet wide in its

16 entirety.


18 MEMBER: Mr. Chair, can we see it on

19 the video because we can't see it in

20 the audience?

21 MR. SHROYER: Sir, can you

22 possibly put a copy of this, if you

23 have that; if not, I'll give you

24 mine.






1 MR. HAW: We do have that,

2 as a matter of fact.

3 MR. SHROYER: Great. Put

4 that on the overhead so the audience

5 can see it as well.

6 MR. HAW: That should cover

7 the applicable portions of the

8 property.

9 MR. SHROYER: Thank you.

10 Please proceed.

11 MR. HAW: The first piece,

12 the first parcel, Parcel 1, which is

13 the long, narrow piece that you see

14 here, is 82 feet wide by

15 approximately 1,250 feet long and it

16 provides the sole access to Parcel 2,

17 which is the much larger piece,

18 consisting of 3.74 acres in the rear.

19 To further

20 complicate matters, in addition to

21 that Parcel 1 providing sole access,

22 the parcel is only 82 feet wide, as I

23 said, and is already -- even if we

24 left the parcel as it was, we'd still






1 have to come back and get a variance

2 because it is still too narrow for

3 the 150 feet required frontage as

4 mandated by the City of Novi.

5 Therefore, what we're trying to do

6 here is make the best of a somewhat

7 awkward situation.

8 We propose to

9 basically join the two parcels,

10 Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, together and

11 then to divide them into Parcel A and

12 B, two equal parcels, A and B, with

13 equal access on Nine Mile Road

14 through what was formerly Parcel 1.

15 We believe that this is probably the

16 best situation in order to provide

17 equal access to the rear of the

18 property to the two parcels that are

19 -- that Mr. Soave would like to

20 develop. It's clear that the most

21 logical route is to do that as well

22 given that no matter what happens

23 we're going to end up with a required

24 variance.






1 In addition to that,

2 it's also important to note that the

3 proposed variance will not negatively

4 impact the other property owners

5 affected by this, that being the

6 property owners to the east and west

7 of proposed Parcel 1.

8 As you can see on

9 our proposed drawing, and,

10 unfortunately, I don't have a smaller

11 version of that, our proposal is a

12 very small, 15-foot wide, winding

13 drive that is able to weave in and

14 out of the existing natural features

15 and avoid the existing wetlands on

16 Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 to provide

17 access to the rear. Of course, that

18 is our preferred option of entry into

19 the site as compared to a large,

20 private road, which would basically

21 demolish everything on existing

22 Parcel 1 and significantly disturb

23 the existing wetlands and natural

24 features of the area.






1 From a purely

2 aesthetic point of view, our proposal

3 is also the best option given that,

4 again, any other option is going to

5 end up causing more significant

6 damage to the site than our proposal

7 does, which then goes to indicate,

8 again, it will not negatively impact

9 the surrounding neighbors. In fact,

10 it will provide a somewhat

11 better-looking area, if nothing else,

12 because we'll end up cleaning up the

13 site after we're done.

14 There is also not a

15 lesser variance that could remedy the

16 problem. Again, even with the

17 existing site, no matter what option

18 we take to access the site we're

19 still going to have to get a variance

20 because the existing Parcel 1 is too

21 narrow and will not allow access to

22 the rear parcel. So the proposed

23 configuration we've determined and

24 that we proposed to you we feel is






1 the best option.

2 The need for the

3 requested variance is very clearly

4 driven by the unique dimensions of

5 Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. I've given

6 the information there already.

7 Again, Parcel 1 is the sole access to

8 Parcel 2 and so in order to provide

9 equal access to our proposed Parcels

10 A and B we feel that the

11 configuration that is shown here is

12 the best option.

13 Finally, it's clear

14 that the need for the requested

15 variance is not self-created. In

16 fact, it is a function of the

17 existing parcel configuration.

18 So, in conclusion,

19 we feel that the proposed division is

20 the best option given the unique

21 configuration of the two existing

22 parcels, the City of Novi's stated

23 intent to preserve all natural

24 features in the city of Novi, that






1 includes your wetland ordinance and

2 also the natural features protection

3 imperative that you have established.

4 And also that the proposed division

5 will result in a development which is

6 a significant increase to the

7 aesthetics of the existing site and

8 will not be -- or will not negatively

9 impact the nearby neighbors.

10 Given those reasons

11 then, we feel that the proposed

12 layout is probably or is in fact the

13 best option for accessing the site

14 and providing access to the rear

15 area, and that's our presentation.

16 MR. SHROYER: Thank you.

17 Mr. Secretary, is

18 there any correspondence to share?

19 MR. GATT: Yes, there is.

20 There were 39 notices mailed; zero

21 approvals, two objections. The first

22 objection was from Daniel O'Connor on

23 West Nine Mile Road. He writes: "In

24 all, Mr. Soave is requesting four






1 variances of the City of Novi zoning

2 ordinances. Variances are generally

3 requested when there is a hardship,

4 such as compliance is impossible

5 without rendering the property

6 virtually unusable. I strongly

7 believe that there is no such

8 hardship with this property owner.

9 "Therefore, I

10 strongly object to the Zoning Board

11 Appeals Case No. 07-010 being

12 approved by the Zoning Board. I also

13 strongly object to the demolition of

14 hundreds of trees in such close

15 proximity of our community's wetlands

16 and also disturbing the wildlife and

17 aquatic habitat.

18 "This property was

19 intended for single family dwellings

20 and should not be changed for some

21 commercial developer. Nine Mile Road

22 west of Beck Road is a designated

23 Natural Beauty Road with single

24 family homes. There's no reason why






1 Mr. Soave cannot adhere to the same

2 rules and regulations as the rest of

3 the tax-paying citizens in this

4 beautiful community."

5 Ms. Judith Nelson of

6 Nine Mile Road writes: "I feel the

7 variance for the minimum lot width of

8 150 feet should not be allowed to

9 change. Most lots on our street are

10 five acres in size. Many properties

11 have an added real estate value

12 because the houses are spread out.

13 To allow a proposed lot width of

14 48.82 feet would detract from the

15 aesthetics of our neighborhood. This

16 would look cluttered and detract from

17 the rural atmosphere that is

18 maintained by having a large lot

19 width. It is unacceptable. Please

20 don't let this happen." That's all.

21 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. At

22 this point we'll open it up for

23 audience participation. Is there

24 anyone here that cares to speak?






1 First gentleman on the aisle, please.

2 Come forward and give us your name

3 and address and be sworn in by the

4 secretary.

5 MR. O'CONNOR: Good evening.

6 My name is Daniel O'Connor. I

7 represent 48315 West Nine Mile Road.

8 MR. GATT: Are you an

9 attorney?

10 MR. O'CONNOR: No, sir.

11 MR. GATT: Please raise your

12 right hand. Do you swear to tell the

13 truth in Case No. 07-010?

14 MR. O'CONNOR: Yes, sir.

15 MR. GATT: Thank you.

16 MR. O'CONNOR: First of all,

17 I'd like to thank the Board for

18 giving me an opportunity to speak to

19 this zoning situation, and I also

20 appreciate Mr. Soave's representative

21 being here to explain some of the

22 situation to us and the Board

23 members. If I could use his thing

24 here, I may want to use it, so I






1 appreciate him leaving it up here.

2 No, I'm not an

3 attorney, I'm just an average guy.

4 This is my first time here, as it's

5 your first time chairing, and I

6 appreciate -- and you're doing an

7 excellent job, I might add.

8 But when I bought

9 this property a couple years ago, I

10 bought this property because the rest

11 of these homeowners, they like this

12 area. This is a natural beauty area,

13 there's a lot of woods, wildlife,

14 trees, aquatic animals. There's

15 everything there, there's deer,

16 there's everything in this area.

17 Now, when Mr. Soave

18 bought this property, I don't know if

19 he's the original owner or not, but

20 to give you a little history on this

21 property, there was homes on that

22 property and the City of Novi tore

23 these homes down. They gave the

24 owner of the property opportunity to






1 tear these home down, he did not do

2 so, so the City did it and sent him a

3 bill. Now, I understand that there

4 was some back taxes, there was back

5 tax issues on this property also,

6 okay, and they weren't paid. So this

7 property was going to go up for

8 auction. Whether it did, I don't

9 know. Whether he paid the taxes, I

10 don't know.

11 But I'm here to

12 represent just myself because I own

13 the property next door to this

14 property and when I bought the

15 property I bought it for the fact

16 that it's a wildlife area. And if

17 you would -- I hope you give me maybe

18 a minute or two extra. I know I'm

19 limited at five minutes, but I'm just

20 going to express some of my concerns

21 because I'm not a very sharp person,

22 okay, not an attorney or nothing like

23 that.

24 But, anyway, there's






1 supposed to be a hundred year

2 moratorium on the city-owned property

3 which that abuts the property where

4 there's a building site is to start,

5 okay, or where this variance is

6 supposed to be. Now, there needs to

7 be some type of buffer of the

8 proposed building site due to the

9 fact it is encroaching wetlands.

10 Now, the proposed road leading to the

11 building site is going to be -- is it

12 going to be to county specifications?

13 We have no idea. He mentioned 15

14 foot. He mentioned a 15 foot road

15 here.

16 Now, my

17 interpretation, I was told by City

18 officials, this is supposed to be

19 gravel. Now, Mr. Soave is from

20 Livonia. I don't know if they allow

21 gravel roads in Livonia, but I don't

22 know if Novi does either, but anyway,

23 getting back to -- now, since this

24 isn't going to be a hard surface






1 road, it's going to be a gravel road,

2 some of my considerations are

3 emergency vehicles. Are we talking

4 about fire trucks? Can we take a

5 fire truck into these areas and turn

6 them around without a hazard to

7 anyone or are we going to want 2000

8 foot of hose from the fire hydrant

9 from Nine Mile to the back? I would

10 really like to know these things,

11 okay.

12 The original

13 residence on this property was tore

14 down because I think it might have

15 been condemned, I'm not sure. Now,

16 this property was bought from an old

17 man who didn't have a lot of money,

18 okay, and I think he drank a lot.

19 Now, this property was purchased for

20 about $45,000. Now, we're talking

21 five acres. It's a lot of money. I

22 mean, it's a good value, I think. If

23 you can sell me some property in Novi

24 for $45,000, four or five acres,






1 please let me know because I'll buy

2 it tomorrow.

3 MR. SHROYER: Can you try to

4 wrap it up, please?

5 MR. O'CONNOR: Sure. Now,

6 this brings me to another situation

7 that upsets me, okay. This is a

8 developer. This isn't a builder

9 that's going to build a home there.

10 There's no proposal as a home site.

11 Now, is it going to be condominiums?

12 Now, if this variance is approved, is

13 it going to be apartments? Is this

14 Board going to recommend it could be

15 a trailer court.

16 So I'm going to wrap

17 this up because I'm getting a little

18 upset. I'm going to give you two

19 suggestions, on my account, please,

20 for the Board to consider.

21 This gentleman can

22 buy my property and you can put

23 condos all along city property and

24 you can make ten acres of condos






1 there, or I recommend that Mr. Soave

2 donate this property to the City of

3 Novi and leave everything the way it

4 is. Thank you.

5 MR. SHROYER: Thank you, Mr.

6 O'Conner. There's another gentleman

7 that cared to come forward. You want

8 the lady to come first. Okay, ladies

9 first.

10 Please give us your

11 name, address.

12 MS. CRAIGLE: Nancy Craigle

13 and I live at 48689 Nine Mile Road.

14 On this drawing I suspect my house

15 comes around the curve and the back

16 of my property butts in to what was

17 considered unbuildable land because

18 there was no access to it, but it's

19 the trees that we see back here that

20 I think would be affected.

21 MR. SHROYER: Okay. Ma'am,

22 before you begin, you're not an

23 attorney?

24 MS. CRAIGLE: Oh, I'm sorry.






1 I'll get sworn in.

2 MR. SHROYER: There you go.

3 MR. GATT: Please state your

4 name and address.

5 MS. CRAIGLE: Nancy Craigle,

6 48689 Nine Mile Road.

7 MR. GATT: Do you swear to

8 tell the truth in Case No. 07-010?


10 MR. GATT: Thank you.

11 MS. CRAIGLE: We just

12 learned of this request for a

13 variance yesterday so I haven't been

14 able to study any of it. My first

15 question my neighbors and I have is

16 what is the proposed building going

17 on those two parcels, homes, condos,

18 apartments, what?

19 MR. SHROYER: At this point

20 we'll hear everyone speak from the

21 audience and then if the Board elects

22 to we can probably get the answers or

23 the questions answered. Also, before

24 you go further, are you representing






1 your neighbors?

2 MS. CRAIGLE: No, just me.

3 They can speak for themselves.

4 MR. SHROYER: Thank you.

5 MS. CRAIGLE: We've been out

6 there 14 years and obviously someone

7 watched our house get built 20 some

8 years ago, so I don't have a problem

9 with people building on property. I

10 do request that the Board maintain

11 the aesthetics of the Natural Beauty

12 Road; they maintain the one acre

13 minimum required because the property

14 values out there are based on the

15 fact that we all have spacious lots

16 and we are fairly far apart in our

17 lot sizes; and that there would be

18 absolutely minimum tree tear down in

19 the process of construction.

20 My understanding of

21 the rules of the road, none of us out

22 there are allowed to cut down a tree,

23 it's got to fall on its own. So

24 obviously something will need to be






1 cut down there but we really request

2 it's minimum. And that's all I have

3 to say.

4 MR. SHROYER: Thank you, Ms.

5 Craigle.

6 Sir.

7 MR. KAMMAN: How do I start?

8 MR. SHROYER: Name and

9 address and --

10 MR. KAMMAN: My name is Jack

11 Kamman at 48380 Nine Mile, across the

12 road from this place.

13 MR. GATT: Would you please

14 raise your right hand. Do you swear

15 to tell the truth in Case No. 07-010?

16 MR. KAMMAN: I do.

17 MR. GATT: Thank you.

18 MR. KAMMAN: I guess I only

19 got a couple things to say. It's R-2

20 and a minimum is 150 feet and I think

21 they're asking just a little bit too

22 many footage variances. And to worry

23 about what is going to happen to the

24 tax money for you people, somebody






1 owns it and somebody is going to be

2 paying the taxes. And if he was a

3 fool to buy something without

4 checking in and making it legal, then

5 I think he ought to eat it then if

6 that's what the case is, if that's

7 the way it works, you know. Can't be

8 very smart. And most of that is muck

9 back there.

10 You guys got one

11 house on Nine Mile Road now that they

12 can't pump the water out of the

13 basement that they're building down

14 the road on the other side of the

15 road. This place ain't any better

16 than that place is. I wouldn't even

17 walk back there, afraid that I

18 wouldn't come back out. It would

19 have to be winter to do that.

20 So I don't know how

21 anybody would think they could build

22 something decent for somebody? How

23 would you put a septic field in muck,

24 you know? I don't know. But that's






1 it.

2 MR. SHROYER: Thank you.

3 Ma'am, would you care to come

4 forward.

5 MS. O'CONNOR: Alexis

6 O'Connor, 48315 West Nine Mile Road.

7 MR. GATT: Please raise your

8 right hand. Do you swear to tell the

9 truth in Case No. 07-010?

10 MS. O'CONNOR: I do.

11 MR. GATT: Thank you.

12 MS. O'CONNOR: My family

13 owns the property right next door, my

14 dad just spoke, and I think one thing

15 I'd like to touch on briefly, and the

16 woman before me also spoke on it, is

17 just the destruction that I think

18 would take place if this happens.

19 There's hundreds of trees back in

20 that property. There's wetlands,

21 there's so much wildlife. It's a

22 beautiful area, right near Maybury

23 Park.

24 My father and I went






1 for a bike ride this weekend and as

2 we did so, you know, I'm riding my

3 bike down the side of the road and I

4 see this dead deer on the side of the

5 road, just killed like all the other

6 ones, head stuck up in a tree, and

7 I'm riding my bike right next to it

8 and I think, you know, these animals

9 have nowhere to go. They're already

10 running out of space. Thank God we

11 have Maybury Park, but what is that.

12 They can't all live in Maybury Park.

13 If the trees are

14 destroyed in this parcel, which is

15 what they're basically proposing to

16 do, these animals run out of even

17 more space. We lose everything. The

18 people that live in this area bought

19 their property to have the wildlife,

20 to have the privacy, to have these

21 things. They bought acreage. They

22 didn't sign up for a communal road

23 which would run right next to my

24 family's property driveway. I mean






1 right next to it. That road will be

2 feet from our house's driveway where

3 you're going to have multiple cars

4 coming and going and coming and going

5 from this condo complex, this

6 apartment complex, whatever it is.

7 If Mr. Soave would

8 like to build a house on his property

9 in the back, awesome. I think that's

10 great. I think he should do that.

11 That would be beautiful. It's a

12 beautiful, beautiful piece of

13 property. But if he wants to build

14 large apartments, condo complexes,

15 whatever it is, and have multiple

16 cars coming in and out of his

17 driveway, right next to our driveway,

18 disrupts the safety of the people at

19 the house and it disrupts the

20 wildlife and I think that would be a

21 shame.

22 MR. SHROYER: Thank you.

23 Was there one more gentleman back

24 there that wanted to speak? No?






1 Ma'am, please.

2 MS. ENDICOTT: Hi. Rosemary

3 Endicott, 48500 Nine mile, not an

4 attorney.

5 MR. GATT: Please raise your

6 right hand. Do you swear to tell the

7 truth regarding case 07-010?


9 MR. GATT: Thank you.

10 MS. ENDICOTT: First I'd

11 like to start -- this is the first

12 time I've seen you guys in action and

13 I really appreciate the care that you

14 seem to take in these cases. It's

15 very interesting.

16 Also, I didn't

17 receive anything through the mail

18 other than when I was jogging down

19 the road the other day Mr. O'Connor

20 handed me the letter and that's when

21 I found out that rumor there was

22 something going back there, but it

23 was never an official thing that I

24 heard.






1 Anyway, I live -- I

2 would be across the street, I'm not

3 even on that map, but I would just

4 like to voice an opinion that it's a

5 huge variance he's asking for, and

6 because there is large lots back

7 there and that is why we all bought

8 back there and why we stay back

9 there. I'm afraid that this would

10 open the door for other large lots to

11 get their variances changed and it

12 would become a multi-resident or

13 multi-dwelling resident area. So

14 that would be my fear.

15 And this gentleman

16 here, he kept referring to improving

17 the existing aesthetics, and there is

18 no improvement on it. The place is

19 beautiful. And, if you wanted to

20 build a big home on here, this makes

21 a perfect, beautiful driveway, nice

22 long driveway. We don't have any

23 objections to a home back there, but

24 what he's going to build, apartment






1 complexes like somebody else brought

2 up back here, a mobile home park? We

3 don't know. We'd like to have that

4 clarified and at least approved by

5 the neighbors before something like

6 that happens.

7 MR. SHROYER: Thank you.

8 One more gentleman.

9 MR. GOOD: I'm Gary Good,

10 48560 Nine Mile Road.

11 MR. GATT: Please raise your

12 right hand. Do you swear to tell the

13 truth regarding case 07-010?

14 MR. GOOD: Yes.

15 MR. GATT: Thank you.

16 MR. GOOD: Well, my concern

17 is this, like my neighbors said,

18 there's a lot of properties out there

19 that have a lot of property behind

20 them that have potential to be sold.

21 Now, if this person can come in here

22 and open up the back lot to condos or

23 to apartments or whatever, this is

24 designated a Natural Beauty Road.






1 Now, is that natural beauty just the

2 existing lot or is it the natural

3 beauty of the surrounding area, the

4 wetland and the woodlands and all

5 that? And I can see this opening the

6 door just like the last case that we

7 had about the sign. Once you open

8 the door up for somebody to get a new

9 sign, everybody else is going to want

10 a new sign and so you end up having

11 that same kind of a problem here when

12 somebody wants to come in and develop

13 behind these people that have natural

14 beauty in their backyard. That's

15 really all I have to say on this

16 case.

17 MR. SHROYER: Thank you.

18 Anyone else? Anyone else?

19 At this time we'll

20 turn it over to the City. Comments?

21 MR. FOX: Please, if it

22 pleases the Board, I would like to --

23 a little bit of clarification. Page

24 2 of the letter from the surveyor to






1 the ZBA, second to last paragraph,

2 does state that the access road that

3 they're proposing for these parcels

4 is for two single family residences.

5 That is what their proposal is at

6 this time. Also on that same page

7 they are talking about minimal trees

8 removed in the process of doing any

9 access to these two lots. Thank you.

10 MR. SHROYER: If I read

11 everything correctly, the two parcels

12 for the homes to be built, one is

13 2.62 acres and the other one 2.63

14 acres; is that correct?

15 MR. FOX: That's correct.

16 MR. SHROYER: So some of

17 your issues will be addressed

18 obviously as we go forward here.

19 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chairman,

20 I wanted to point out, is it, Ms.

21 Endicott, public hearing

22 notifications are mailed to residents

23 within 300 feet of the proposed

24 variance request and it's possible in






1 acreage like that that you may be

2 outside that area.

3 MR. SHROYER: We had several

4 returned letters and we'll check to

5 make sure it wasn't one of them.

6 MS. WORKING: The entire

7 mailing list is on that side of the

8 file as well.

9 MR. SHROYER: Any other

10 comments? Mr. Spencer, do you have

11 comments on wetlands, woodlands or

12 any information?

13 MR. SPENCER: We'll make

14 some general comments for you, if it

15 pleases the Board here.

16 MR. SHROYER: Please.

17 MR. SPENCER: First we'll

18 mention that part of the intent of

19 the zoning ordinance is not to create

20 flag lots and if you refer to Section

21 2400 (a) 1, there's specific language

22 in there to allow the reduction of

23 lot widths up to 90 percent with --

24 and I'll just quote here: "The






1 purpose of this amendment is to

2 protect against the creation within

3 the city of irregular-shaped flag

4 lots." So our position is that

5 there's other options available,

6 including building one single family

7 home for this site to be within the

8 ordinance requirements.

9 And in addressing

10 the natural features of the area,

11 this is a Natural Beauty Road. There

12 is some recommended Natural Beauty

13 Road characteristics for preserving a

14 50-foot buffer in the city code.

15 This also has substantial woodlands

16 and wetlands that are likely to be

17 city regulated woodlands or wetlands

18 and possibly even state regulated

19 wetlands. I don't have a thorough

20 investigation of that done at this

21 time. So no matter what type of

22 development does go in on this site,

23 they will have to comply with both of

24 those ordinances and make provisions






1 to either mitigate or protect trees

2 and to stay out of wetlands and

3 wetland buffer areas.

4 If you have any

5 other questions, I'll be glad to try

6 to answer your questions.

7 MR. SHROYER: Mr. Fox.

8 MR. FOX: I would also like

9 to add that if they -- if the Board

10 decides to grant this variance, they

11 will be required to have an

12 ingress-egress easement for what

13 they're proposing as a single access

14 for two lots since it does encroach

15 within less than three feet as it

16 meanders from side of the lot to side

17 of the lot. According to their

18 drawing, it will cross the property

19 lines, which would require them to

20 have an easement for a single access

21 for multiple properties.

22 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. At

23 this time I'll turn it over to the

24 Board. Mr. Canup.






1 MR. CANUP: The question is,

2 my question is, on Parcel 1, which is

3 the drive going in and out, the 15

4 foot drive, you show it as a 15 foot

5 wide cobblestone shared driveway; is

6 that correct? Is that for the full

7 length of it?

8 MR. HAW: It can be. The

9 surface material --

10 MR. CANUP: I didn't ask if

11 it could be. That's what your

12 drawing says.

13 MR. HAW: That's correct.

14 MR. CANUP: And that's what

15 your intentions are.

16 MR. HAW: That's what I was

17 trying to say. That surface is

18 negotiable. We put that there as an

19 initial proposal to the City.

20 MR. CANUP: Next question.

21 Who owns that piece of property?

22 MR. HAW: Which piece of

23 property?

24 MR. CANUP: Not now, but if






1 the Board should grant this variance

2 as requested, in other words parcel

3 -- what is it? -- the drive coming

4 in, are those two lots in the back

5 going to be joint ownership of that

6 drive?

7 MR. HAW: Yes, the are.

8 MR. CANUP: No one else will

9 have access to that drive except

10 them?

11 MR. HAW: That is correct.

12 MR. CANUP: Okay. That

13 answers my question.

14 MR. SHROYER: Thank you.

15 Any other comments? Member Gatt.

16 MR. GATT: Personally, I

17 think that this is by far the best

18 case scenario for this situation.

19 With the landlocked lot the way it

20 is, they're avoiding every bit as

21 much of the wetlands as they possibly

22 can with the meandering driveway,

23 keeping it in accordance with the

24 rules and regulations that are going






1 to follow from that.

2 These are going to

3 be two big, beautiful single family

4 homes. They're not going to be

5 condos or apartment complexes. These

6 are going to be two what appear to be

7 massive homes that are only going to

8 increase the property value of the

9 neighboring lands. This isn't going

10 to be anything that is going to have

11 traffic going in and out of it and

12 there's not going to be 400 residents

13 going in and out of it with a, you

14 know, 40 piece apartment complex.

15 This is going to be two families in

16 and out, just like any other street

17 would have or any other driveway

18 would have a family going in and out

19 of it.

20 I'd like to say that

21 we live in Montana and everyone can

22 have 20 acres of land where they can

23 see the deer roaming free and doing

24 all that. I said earlier I went to






1 school in Sault Ste. Marie and I

2 could see moose in my backyard every

3 once in a while, but this is Metro

4 Detroit. This is not possible. This

5 is a property owner that wants to

6 increase the value of the land and

7 the surrounding land with it.

8 This is going to do

9 nothing but help the City providing

10 two taxable homes. This is going to

11 be the best interest of the wetlands

12 and the wildlife surrounding it.

13 There's nothing that they can --

14 there's nothing else they can do to

15 prevent any other wetlands from being

16 destroyed. If we wanted to not have

17 anybody build ever again on any kind

18 of forest in the city of Novi, that

19 would be one thing. That's not the

20 case. This is the best case

21 scenario.

22 This is not -- it's

23 kind of an open and shut case for me.

24 This is definitely the best available






1 option, considering the hardship with

2 a long, skinny lot and a big square

3 lot. This is the best thing that

4 they can do. I understand that it's

5 going to be Mr. Soave himself living

6 there, so he's not going to be

7 renting these homes or anything like

8 that. So it's not going to be

9 problem with that.

10 Personally, I am in

11 favor of these variances requested

12 100 percent, and that's it. I'll

13 open it up to anyone else. Thank

14 you.

15 MR. SHROYER: Thank you.

16 Member Krieger.

17 MS. KRIEGER: Yes. I have a

18 question for the -- in the paperwork.

19 The 451 trees that were listed that

20 are in good shape, how many do you

21 anticipate needing to be removed?

22 MR. HAW: Using the option

23 that you see here, a very minimal

24 number. I can't give you an exact






1 number because the configuration of

2 the drive you see here will vary

3 depending on what our further reviews

4 through the City come up with.

5 As it stands, in

6 existing Parcel 1 we're going to be

7 removing, I believe, three. In

8 existing Parcel 2, which is the --

9 which, as the comments have

10 indicated, is much more heavily

11 wooded, we're going to be removing

12 the minimal number that we can to put

13 basically a driveway in to each of

14 the two single family homes we're

15 proposing.

16 As Mr. Gatt has

17 mentioned, this is the minimal amount

18 of disturbance we can propose in

19 order to provide access to our

20 proposed homes.

21 MS. KRIEGER: And would you

22 be replacing the trees?

23 MR. HAW: Oh, certainly. We

24 would obey the City of Novi tree






1 ordinance in every respect.

2 MS. KRIEGER: Thank you.

3 MR. O'CONNOR: May I say

4 something, Mr. Chairman?

5 MR. SHROYER: No, sir, not

6 at this point.

7 MR. O'CONNOR: Will I be

8 able to?

9 MR. SHROYER: If a -- well,

10 let's hold off. I don't believe so.

11 Member Bauer.

12 MR. BAUER: The road going

13 back is going to be asphalt, it's not

14 going to be any kind of stone. They

15 thought it was going to be

16 cobblestone. I think they did the

17 best they could do and all these

18 other things that are -- that these

19 people, the owners of the property

20 around are thinking, going through

21 the planning stage and so forth,

22 every one of those things would be

23 taken into consideration.

24 The only thing in






1 front of us today is the variance on

2 the lot width and on both sides.

3 MR. O'CONNOR: Mr. Chairman,

4 I have a comment.

5 MR. SHROYER: We're in the

6 Board comments right now. Member

7 Fischer.

8 MR. FISCHER: Sir, if you

9 could come up to the microphone for

10 me. Can you give me the bigger

11 picture of the lot to each side of

12 the proposed driveway? How does that

13 fit in with the -- who owns it, do

14 you know?

15 MR. HAW: I guess I'm a

16 little confused as to what you're

17 asking. Our proposed drive will

18 run --

19 MR. FISCHER: There's a land

20 parcel below it and a land parcel

21 above it.

22 MR. HAW: Here and here. I

23 believe both of those owners are

24 actually here.






1 MR. FISCHER: So it filters

2 around almost in a flag shape as well

3 or is it one single lot, do you know,

4 or the City can help out on that?

5 MS. WORKING: I don't think

6 we understand your question.

7 MR. FOX: Each parcel is

8 individual.

9 MS. WORKING: There are

10 aerial views in the file, Member

11 Fischer.

12 MR. FISCHER: This one lot,

13 does this wrap around down here or is

14 this one lot by itself (Indicating)?

15 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair,

16 you'll find in the file aerial views

17 of the property that is before you

18 for the variance request and the two

19 adjacent properties should be fairly

20 well represented there, although we

21 are looking at the property that is

22 asking for the variances.

23 MR. FISCHER: Yes, this

24 aerial one does. Thank you very






1 much, Ms. Working.

2 MS. WORKING: Do we need to

3 put it up?

4 MR. FISCHER: No, no. I

5 just wanted to see how it fit in. It

6 appears that it's its own lot. I was

7 just kind of wondering if it was the

8 property owner here or if it was

9 someone else, the main fact of what

10 could possibly be done with that in

11 the future, just in my own wild

12 imagination.

13 Just to follow up

14 what Mr. Fox said earlier, this

15 letter to us that is in the file

16 states: "Finally, it should be noted

17 that the access route for the two

18 proposed parcels would serve only two

19 homes, both single family

20 residential."

21 That is the intent,

22 that is the proposal that you plan is

23 going forward to make?

24 MR. HAW: That is correct.






1 As Mr. Gatt mentioned, these are

2 homes intended for Mr. Soave and his

3 family alone.

4 MR. FISCHER: Okay. Thank

5 you. I wanted that purely on the

6 record. I guess these types of

7 cases, and I empathize with the

8 surrounding homeowners, I would be

9 very concerned if I lived in that

10 area and a condominium complex or

11 some other type of multi-use was

12 being planned, but in the end, as

13 Member Bauer said, we have one thing

14 to look at and that's the variance

15 that's in front of us and we can only

16 take that into consideration. The

17 Planning Commission and Council will

18 view other types of plans. So, once

19 again, all we can look at is the

20 variance that is listed.

21 I also wish we

22 could, as you stated, purchase the

23 land and own it as the City, but,

24 once again, that's a petition you






1 have to make to the city council.

2 Our budget is just about zero, so we

3 don't have that option.

4 Going forward also

5 -- you can sit down if you like, I

6 don't think I have any more questions

7 for the petitioner. When we look at

8 something like this, we have to be

9 very careful as a board because the

10 worst thing we could do as a board is

11 call something unbuildable. Once we

12 claim it's unbuildable, then we have

13 legal implications because the City

14 then has to buy it for a certain

15 amount of price and we get into legal

16 situations and something like --

17 well, we all know other cases in the

18 City where that has happened.

19 So we don't want to

20 go down the path of that, and what we

21 have to look at is this variance

22 warranted. And in this case I do

23 believe that with the proposed

24 two-family homes this would present






1 the best option. It would mitigate

2 the woodland and wetland elimination

3 and as long as -- as far as we're

4 even told, no multi-use is being

5 planned, then I could support this as

6 well.

7 One last comment for

8 the City in kind of a broader aspect,

9 and I'm not sure who might be able to

10 answer it, currently this is zoned

11 RA. Can you give me some of the

12 general characteristics, for my

13 knowledge as well as maybe some of

14 the petitioners, as to what the

15 limitations of the buildings are?

16 MR. SHROYER: Mr. Fox or Mr.

17 Spencer.

18 MR. SPENCER: Okay. The

19 limitations are similar to other

20 residential districts. There's a

21 requirement for a maximum lot

22 coverage of 25 percent, there's a

23 limit on height of the buildings at

24 two-and-a-half stories, 35 feet, and






1 in the setbacks that are shown on the

2 plan there look like they represent

3 required setbacks in the district.

4 The RA district is the most

5 restrictive. It has the largest

6 setbacks.

7 MR. FISCHER: Okay. So out

8 of all the residential, this is the

9 most restrictive as opposed R-1

10 through R-4.

11 MR. SPENCER: It requires

12 the largest lots, the largest lot

13 width and is the least dense.

14 MR. FISCHER: Okay. Once

15 again, just trying to point out that

16 there are restrictions within the

17 ordinance that will limit the types

18 of buildings that can be put here.

19 Given the proposal that's in front of

20 us, I can be in support of the

21 variances requested. Thank you, Mr.

22 Chair.

23 MR. SHROYER: Member Sanghvi

24 and then Member Canup.






1 MR. SANGHVI: Thank you. I

2 just have a question for the Planning

3 Department. I see in your note here

4 you cannot support this request at

5 this time. Would you like to

6 elaborate on that statement?

7 MR. SPENCER: I'm not the

8 author of this letter, but I will

9 elaborate to the best of my ability

10 on it.

11 This is a frame of

12 conversation that Tim Schmidt uses on

13 a common basis. You'll probably see

14 it in his letters in the future that

15 he likes to include this statement, I

16 believe, in case something changes or

17 new evidence or new information is

18 presented that, you know, we're not

19 rigid, that if things change, you

20 know, we may change our mind. So

21 it's at this point in time, being

22 presented this evidence and this

23 information, that we do not support

24 it.






1 MR. SANGHVI: Tell me, what

2 are these flag lots for other people

3 to understand, what is a flag lot?

4 MR. SPENCER: A flag lot is

5 usually a lot that will have a narrow

6 access to a larger portion,

7 oftentimes in the rear of other lots.

8 There's a lot of examples of them

9 throughout the state of Michigan.

10 They were developed or used in older

11 subdivisions to allow more density

12 without building the infrastructure.

13 You could build a shorter road and

14 then stack the lots back behind each

15 other to gain more houses with

16 building less roads to the houses.

17 MR. SANGHVI: So why does

18 the Planning does not recommend that

19 anymore?

20 MR. SPENCER: Our zoning

21 ordinance has frowned on it. It has

22 specific language in there against

23 it. It does -- and in this case it

24 probably would not do this because






1 this is the only one proposed in this

2 strip, but imagine if every other lot

3 was set up this way with a flag lot.

4 You'd have a lot and a home and then

5 a driveway, a lot and a home and a

6 driveway, a lot and a home and a

7 driveway. So it changes the

8 streetscape and appearance of the

9 neighborhood.

10 MR. SANGHVI: Thank you.

11 Now another clarification I needed

12 from somebody. Is this going to be a

13 cobblestone drive here or is it going

14 to be something different?

15 MR. BAUER: Is says asphalt.

16 MR. SANGHVI: It says

17 cobblestone in this letter here.

18 That's why I'm asking for

19 clarification. There are two

20 different things in two different

21 places.

22 MR. SHROYER: Mr. Spencer,

23 could you address that?

24 MR. SPENCER: I may be






1 speaking partially for the Building

2 Department on this, but unless

3 there's a condition of approval for a

4 specific size and material of

5 driveway in this request, I believe

6 that the minimum requirements for any

7 residential driveway could be met and

8 be adequately served unless that was

9 included in your conditions.

10 MR. SANGHVI: Thank you.

11 MR. SHROYER: Member Canup.

12 MR. CANUP: I guess my

13 question is to Mr. Spencer. If this

14 variance should be granted, how will

15 granting that variance impact the

16 buildability of the front lots that

17 actually front on Nine Mile Road?

18 There would be two lots left there,

19 right, am I correct? One to the east

20 side and one on the west side of the

21 driveway.

22 MR. SPENCER: If this

23 variance is granted, the proposal is

24 to create two lots only, not four






1 lots. There would not be two lots on

2 Nine Mile. They would be combining

3 the property and splitting it down

4 the middle.

5 MR. CANUP: Mr. Soave owns

6 this property from Nine Mile all the

7 way to the back; is that correct? Is

8 that my understanding?

9 MR. SHROYER: Only the

10 frontage of the strip, the Parcel 1,

11 to Nine Mile.

12 MR. CANUP: In other words,

13 he doesn't own the full width, which

14 is roughly, what is it, 500 feet,

15 between the two?

16 MR. SHROYER: I believe we

17 had neighbors indicate that they

18 owned properties on --

19 MR. CANUP: On this side.

20 MR. SHROYER: Mr. Haw --

21 MR. CANUP: Why are we doing

22 a flag lot then if Mr. Soave owns all

23 the way from Nine Mile all the way to

24 the back the full width of the






1 properties, why are we doing this if

2 he owns the whole thing? He can put

3 a driveway back there if he wants and

4 build a house back there.

5 MR. HAW: I'm sorry. You're

6 asking if he owns the entirety of

7 this property?

8 MR. CANUP: Yes.

9 MR. HAW: Yes, he does.

10 MR. CANUP: Why are we

11 creating a flag lot?

12 MR. SHROYER: He doesn't own

13 either sides of the driveway. He

14 only owns that narrow strip.

15 MR. CANUP: Well, that was

16 my question, does he own both sides

17 of the driveway, from Nine Mile back?

18 MS. WORKING: Member Canup,

19 right now it's two parcels. If these

20 variances are granted, the property

21 owner, Mandalay Properties, will go

22 for a lot split straight down the

23 middle of what you're seeing on your

24 screen this evening, so it will be






1 two parcels again but in a different

2 configuration.

3 The driveway is

4 proposed to meander along the whole

5 portion, if you will, of the flag

6 lot. Right now that's one parcel by

7 city assessing. If this variance is

8 granted tonight, Mr. Soave is going

9 to request a parcel split straight

10 back to the very end of that

11 property.

12 MR. SHROYER: From Nine Mile

13 Road all the way to the end of the

14 property.

15 MR. CANUP: Right, starting

16 here and going here. He owns the

17 strip down the middle and it expands

18 in the back, back here.

19 MR. SHROYER: But he's going

20 --

21 MR. CANUP: Now, is that

22 expansion -- does he now own this

23 property also?

24 MS. WORKING: No, those are






1 private.

2 MR. CANUP: Well, how did

3 this happen?

4 MR. FOX: Currently the

5 narrow lot that you see that goes up

6 to the large parcel in the back is a

7 separate lot from the large parcel in

8 the back. There's a narrow, long

9 parcel from Nine Mile back to where

10 it touches the large, rectangular

11 parcel. They are two separate

12 parcels. The builder owns both

13 parcels. They're not combined at

14 this time.

15 MR. CANUP: When was all

16 this done? I mean, is this something

17 that's been done currently or was it

18 done 20 years ago?

19 MS. WORKING: We can't

20 answer your question.

21 MR. CANUP: It sounds to me

22 like we've been slicked because of

23 the fact they created -- by splitting

24 these they created two flag lots.






1 MR. FOX: No, their proposal

2 is to create the flag lots if they

3 can get the variance for --

4 MR. CANUP: What if they

5 don't get the variance?

6 MR. FOX: The roadways --

7 MR. CANUP: What if they

8 don't get the variance, then what?

9 I'm looking at it from the City's

10 standpoint.

11 MR. SPENCER: They'll have

12 one buildable lot if they don't get

13 the variance.

14 MR. FOX: Well, they would

15 still require a variance for frontage

16 on the street.

17 MR. SPENCER: For frontage

18 on the street but a lesser variance.

19 MR. CANUP: I'm just trying

20 to make absolutely sure I understand

21 all the implications of this.

22 MS. O'CONNOR: Can I point

23 something out to the Board?

24 MR. SHROYER: Not at this






1 time, ma'am.

2 MR. CANUP: I'm less

3 confused but I understand what we've

4 got, but I'm still concerned about --

5 these two pieces of property, they're

6 nonconforming now; is that correct?

7 MS. WORKING: Those are

8 several parcels of land who I think

9 we've established the homeowners are

10 present this evening.

11 MR. FOX: I believe they are

12 currently not conforming with the 150

13 foot lot width.

14 MS. WORKING: I can't answer

15 your question. We'd have to call it

16 up on GIS and actually look at that

17 to answer your question 100 percent.

18 MR. CANUP: Okay. Thank

19 you.

20 MR. SHROYER: To the

21 counsel. Are we out of order if one

22 of our members cares to ask a

23 question to a previous speaker that

24 spoke during the public hearing?






1 MR. FISCHER: Mr. Chair, I

2 would personally not recommend it.

3 It's been our comment that the

4 petitioner has to speak but the

5 audience is allowed to participate at

6 a certain point within the hearing of

7 this case and that is the one time.

8 Our questions, and I believe our

9 scope, would be to ask the petitioner

10 questions and I, as a Board member,

11 would not feel comfortable stepping

12 outside that scope.

13 MR. SHROYER: Counsel.

14 MS. OZGA: You give the

15 public the opportunity to speak.

16 It's up to the Board if the Board

17 wishes to veer from their procedure

18 and ask a specific question, you

19 could certainly do that, but you have

20 given the public an opportunity to

21 speak. So it's basically up to the

22 Board.

23 MR. SHROYER: If the Board

24 has a specific question that they






1 want to address by one of the

2 previous speakers, please say so and

3 we'll look at it.

4 MR. SANGHVI: I don't have

5 any question for the previous

6 speaker. The only thing I'm trying

7 to get straight in my head, as Mr.

8 Canup will say, we are talking about

9 two lots here. One is a narrow strip

10 and the other lot is the big

11 rectangular piece in the back. They

12 are both owned by the same owner, if

13 I understand this correctly, and

14 they're trying to use the neighbor's

15 strip as a kind of conduit to go back

16 into the back rectangular lot where

17 they want to build the homes.

18 MR. CANUP: By ordinance at

19 present, if I understand it, they

20 have access to one lot in the back.

21 MR. SANGHVI: Yes.

22 MR. CANUP: They have that

23 access now. That is No. 1. They are

24 asking us for a variance so they can






1 go for two.

2 MR. BAUER: So they can

3 split that.

4 MR. CANUP: They can split

5 that lot in the back.

6 MS. WORKING: Member Canup,

7 through the Chair, if it would please

8 the Board, Mr. Fox is going to go

9 into GIS right now and call up an

10 aerial view of the adjoining lots

11 that you're questioning as to whether

12 they're conforming or nonconforming.

13 There are areas of the city that are

14 legal nonconforming areas because

15 they were established under an

16 ordinance that was in place at the

17 time and, as you know, ordinances are

18 continually amended and updated to

19 reflect current conditions in the

20 city. You yourself, as a Board, have

21 actually recommended some of those

22 amendments to the ordinance. So I'm

23 not sure about procedure, but we

24 might buy ourselves some time for Mr.






1 Fox to go look up that information if

2 you feel it will be able to clarify

3 your decision or your vote in this

4 case.

5 MR. CANUP: Mr. Chairman,

6 the reason for my concern is, are we

7 creating by doing this -- first of

8 all, I really don't have much of a

9 problem with what's happening here.

10 I just want to make sure that we

11 aren't creating some problems

12 somewhere else by doing this. And if

13 it takes a moment or two, maybe we

14 can take a break and come back.

15 MR. SHROYER: I think we're

16 fine. We're going to take a recess

17 after this case, but I think we're

18 fine. I have some comments to make

19 so I'll take this time to make my


21 Right now we have

22 two lots, two separate lots, one that

23 fronts on Nine that's very narrow, we

24 have one large lot in the back, and






1 there is a possibility of having a

2 driveway that goes back to one

3 residence. That's one option.

4 The applicant is

5 looking at having one driveway go

6 back and splitting the back portion

7 to two different residences, both

8 being over two-and-a-half acres in

9 size, which all fit into the RA

10 category. So it's not like we're

11 change a zoning from RA to R-1 or R-2

12 or R-3 or something like that.

13 Once this is done,

14 if it is approved, and as was

15 mentioned earlier, the only thing

16 we're looking at is the variances

17 requested. We don't address the

18 woodlands, we don't address the

19 wetlands, we don't address the size

20 of the building, the setback of

21 building, etcetera, that is all done

22 through the Planning Commission, and

23 they are very rigorous. They bring

24 in a woodlands expert, they bring in






1 a wetlands expert and they have to

2 work very closely with them. They

3 have to meet all the MDEQ, Michigan

4 Department of Environmental Quality,

5 all their requirements.

6 And so a lot of the

7 issues that were brought up I think

8 have been addressed or will be

9 addressed perhaps not at this forum

10 but at the Planning Commission forum

11 if this goes forward. This isn't a

12 done deal. But if we look at

13 splitting it or looking at approving

14 this variance to allow the driveway

15 to connect that flag lot, then the

16 applicant is requesting to build two

17 houses, according to the information

18 we've received thus far.

19 What he wants to do

20 is not only split the back lot but

21 split the narrow strip as well so the

22 line would run all the way from Nine

23 Mile Road to the back of the lot.

24 You'd have two separate properties.






1 The driveway would meander, as they

2 mentioned, meander back and forth to

3 avoid wetlands and to try to save as

4 many trees as possible going back to

5 the property. And by the meandering

6 it's going to cross from one side to

7 the other side when the lot is split.

8 So hopefully that might clear up some

9 concerns or some questions or issues.


11 MEMBER: Why split the front?

12 MR. SHROYER: To try to

13 avoid -- because they only want to

14 have two lots -- well, you're not

15 supposed to ask questions, but I'm

16 going to answer it anyway. If you

17 don't split the front, then you're

18 going to have three lots. You're

19 going to have the lot in the front

20 and you're going to have a split in

21 the back and have three.


23 MEMBER: So you're going to have four

24 now.






1 MR. SHROYER: No, there's

2 only going to be two lots. There's

3 going to be two lots. Yes, sir.

4 MR. SANGHVI: The attorney

5 wants your attention.

6 MS. OZGA: To the Chair. I

7 just wanted to note that if you were,

8 the Board were inclined to grant the

9 variances, you could condition them

10 on what is being proposed, which is

11 one house per lot.

12 MR. SHROYER: Right, and

13 that's what I was going to bring up

14 next because there was concerns about

15 condominiums, about apartment

16 complexes, etcetera. So we can,

17 through our motion, put that

18 condition on the lot split. Right

19 now the split, if you see the line in

20 the middle of the property, all the

21 way from Nine Mile on your left, the

22 line going all the way back to the

23 back, you have one flag lot at the

24 bottom and one flag lot at the top.






1 So it is only two lots, it's not four

2 lots. That would be the split that

3 they're talking about. Any other

4 comments from the City? Yes.

5 MS. OZGA: I was just going

6 to note that there are specific

7 procedures and rules and regulations

8 regarding lot splits that the

9 Assessing Department I think would

10 look at. So based on what you're

11 asked to do here, is to grant

12 variances, that would have been

13 required for the lot split that was

14 requested. The petitioner would

15 still have to meet the requirements

16 of the ordinance in order to get the

17 lot splits.

18 MR. SHROYER: Absolutely.

19 Any other comments? Well, maybe at

20 this time, since Mr. Fox isn't back,

21 we ought to go ahead and take a ten

22 minute break. We're in a break right

23 now.

24 MR. FISCHER: Mr. Chair, I






1 have a point of order whether or not

2 we can entertain a recess in the

3 middle of a case. I don't believe

4 that's the correct procedure.

5 MR. SHROYER: Okay. Thank

6 you. Counsel.

7 MS. OZGA: You can entertain

8 a motion to table in order to allow a

9 break and then pick it up.

10 MR. SHROYER: Don't need to

11 do it anyway. Thank you. Do you

12 have something to share with us, Mr.

13 Fox?

14 MR. FOX: According to our

15 aerials, both those properties are at

16 least a minimum of 150 foot wide at

17 the west side based on what you're

18 seeing there on the left.

19 MR. SHROYER: Can you go up

20 here and point it out so the audience

21 can see it as well, please?

22 MR. FOX: Both the parcels

23 on either side of the narrow parcel

24 are a minimum of 150 wide at this






1 side. At the street the north parcel

2 is only 67 feet wide; the south

3 parcel is only 130 feet wide. So

4 neither conform to the minimum lot

5 width along the street on either side

6 of the narrow parcel.

7 MR. SHROYER: So if they

8 were to build a new house, they would

9 have to have a variance as well?

10 MR. FOX: Correct. They

11 would require a variance to build

12 anything new on either one of those

13 lots on either side of this parcel.


15 MEMBER: Can I raise a question again

16 as a taxpayer? I have one thing I

17 really would like to discuss, one I

18 think you're overlooking.

19 MR. SHROYER: Ma'am --


21 MEMBER: You're overlooking that our

22 driveway is four feet from their

23 driveway.

24 MR. SHROYER: Ma'am, please.






1 You had your time to speak. You're

2 not permitted to go back and open up

3 this discussion. We're not open to

4 go back to discussion.


6 MEMBER: You're chitchatting, you're

7 not talking.

8 MR. SHROYER: We're not open

9 to go back to discussion. Quiet.


11 MEMBER: Mr. Gatt is whispering to

12 you.

13 MR. SHROYER: Because Mr.

14 Gatt is going to be leaving after

15 this case.


17 MEMBER: He needs to be on record.

18 MR. SHROYER: Because he's

19 leaving after this case. It had

20 nothing to do with this case.


22 MEMBER: Then you should have been

23 listening to me.







1 MEMBER: Put it on record.

2 MR. SHROYER: I will

3 entertain a motion at this time.

4 Member Gatt.

5 MR. GATT: I'd like to

6 entertain a motion to approve the

7 variances requested by the petitioner

8 in case number 07-010, filed by Mr.

9 Soave of Mandalay Properties, due to

10 the fact that he has shown a

11 significant -- there's been a

12 significant hardship in this

13 particular situation due to the lot

14 sizes that are in this particular

15 case. The fact is that there are

16 wetlands and there are woodlands in

17 this property that they have taken

18 into consideration. Every single bit

19 of the woodlands and wetlands will be

20 preserved to the best of their

21 ability.

22 I think that in this

23 particular situation this is the best

24 possible scenario. There's no other






1 way for this petitioner to get to

2 that back lot without having to go

3 through that front lot, that small,

4 narrow lot. The petitioner is going

5 to be building two private residence

6 homes, these aren't going to be

7 condominiums or apartments or

8 anything of the such, and because of

9 that I think that this is going to be

10 a very, very nice addition to the

11 city of Novi.

12 The petitioner has

13 shown, through his representative,

14 that this is a hardship because of

15 the lot dimensions and because of

16 that the variances requested should

17 be allowed.

18 MR. SHROYER: Is there a

19 second to the motion?

20 MR. BAUER: Second.

21 MR. SHROYER: The motion has

22 been made by Member Gatt, seconded by

23 Member Bauer. Any other discussion?

24 Member Canup.






1 MR. CANUP: I guess I'm

2 looking for a hardship and I don't

3 see a hardship except -- and that's

4 what we have to base our votes on or

5 cast our votes on is hardship. And I

6 guess I ask myself can this property

7 be built in any other way and the

8 answer to that is yes, it can be

9 built in another way. So there is no

10 hardship here of a practicality

11 hardship and it's an "I want"

12 hardship and an "I want" hardship

13 isn't allowed for in our ordinances.

14 So I guess I can't support the motion

15 based on the fact that I looked and I

16 don't see a hardship. This property

17 is buildable within the ordinance as

18 it sits.

19 MR. SHROYER: Any other

20 comments? Counsel, please.

21 MS. OZGA: Just a point of

22 clarity. These are dimensional

23 variances so the standard is

24 practical difficulty as opposed to






1 unnecessary hardship.

2 MR. SHROYER: Thank you.

3 One of the other comments that I

4 would like to make is, even though I

5 pointed out earlier that one house

6 can be built on the back lot with a

7 flag, that is the most desirable;

8 however, two houses still on more

9 than two-and-a-half acres still

10 leaves plenty of area. We're not

11 touching the woodlands very much.

12 The wetlands are going to be

13 preserved as much as possible and, as

14 I mentioned, the MDEQ, etcetera, is

15 going to be looking at it very, very

16 closely if this is approved. If it

17 was a hardship, I would be opposed to

18 it as well. Since it is a

19 dimensional variance request, I feel

20 I need to support this. Please call

21 the roll. Yes.

22 MS. OZGA: Just a point of

23 clarity again. Is the motion maker

24 willing to amend the motion to add






1 practical difficulty?

2 MR. SHROYER: I thought he

3 said that at the beginning.

4 MR. GATT: I thought I did,

5 too, but yes, I am willing to amend

6 to include practical difficulty.

7 MR. BAUER: And I'll second

8 it.

9 MS. OZGA: And just another.

10 Was it conditioned on the

11 representation that there's one house

12 per lot? Have you made that a

13 condition? I just didn't hear it.

14 MR. GATT: I don't want to

15 put that as a condition. I don't

16 think that that's really an issue in

17 this particular situation, nor is the

18 driveway in my concern.

19 MR. CANUP: Well, except the

20 zoning ordinances, the way the

21 ordinances are written said within

22 the ordinance you can't do much more

23 than what they're doing here.

24 MR. FOX: Correct.






1 MS. WORKING: Chairman

2 Shroyer, through the Chair, with Mr.

3 Gatt, would you please reiterate what

4 the practical difficulty was for the

5 motion, please?

6 MR. SHROYER: Mr. Gatt.

7 MR. GATT: The practical

8 difficulty in this particular

9 situation is the lacked dimensions,

10 the two lacked dimensions that are in

11 question in this particular case.

12 This is the only way, really, to

13 build in this particular situation.

14 MR. FISCHER: If I might

15 add, that it is unique to this

16 property in the fact that one parcel

17 is landlocked and the other has a

18 short frontage on Nine Mile and it is

19 not resulting from conditions

20 generally existing in the city. The

21 petitioner has also established that

22 it is not self-created. Failure to

23 grant the variance would unreasonably

24 prevent or limit the use of the






1 property and will result in

2 substantially more than a mere

3 inconvenience or ability to attain

4 higher economic or financial return.

5 And lastly, the petitioner's effort

6 to mitigate, and I believe you said

7 this, but mitigate wetland and

8 woodland by this proposal as opposed

9 to some of the other proposals that

10 were presented by the Planning

11 Department.

12 MR. GATT: I'll add Member

13 Fischer's comments as a friendly

14 amendment.

15 MS. WORKING: Thank you.

16 MR. SHROYER: Member Bauer,

17 do you accept it?

18 MR. BAUER: Yep.

19 MR. SHROYER: Okay. Please

20 call the roll.

21 MS. WORKING: Member Gatt?

22 MR. GATT: Yes.

23 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?

24 MR. BAUER: Yes.






1 MS. WORKING: Member

2 Sanghvi?


4 MS. WORKING: Chairman

5 Shroyer?


7 MS. WORKING: Vice Chair

8 Fischer?


10 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?

11 MR. CANUP: No.

12 MS. WORKING: We have a tie.

13 MR. SHROYER: So the motion

14 fails.

15 MS. WORKING: Four is needed

16 to pass, Mr. Chairman.

17 MR. SHROYER: At this point

18 I'll entertain another motion.

19 MR. CANUP: I would make a

20 motion we deny the request as stated

21 due to a non-demonstrated hardship

22 either --

23 MR. SHROYER: Practical

24 difficulty.






1 MR. SANGHVI: Difficulty.

2 That's the buzz word now.

3 MR. CANUP: And the reason

4 being the piece of property can be

5 built on as it sits. We are not

6 taking that property and saying no,

7 you cannot build on it. You can

8 build on it as it sits. If they had

9 to have a variance from us to be able

10 to build on it, period, I would agree

11 with that, but in this case no.

12 MR. SHROYER: Is there a

13 second to the motion?

14 Motion falls by

15 failure to second.

16 MR. SANGHVI: I'll second

17 it.

18 MR. SHROYER: Okay. Member

19 Sanghvi has seconded. Discussions?

20 Member Gatt.

21 MR. GATT: They can't build

22 on it the way it is right now. They

23 can't. There's two parcels of land.

24 It would be impossible for them to






1 build a driveway. It would still

2 require a variance for them to get a

3 driveway back in there and then get

4 those two lots combined into one lot

5 and build something back there.

6 That's the whole point of this. This

7 is a variance to make sure that they

8 can combine those lots, get it back

9 there and build something back there.

10 MR. CANUP: That was not my

11 understanding in previous

12 conversation, that it could be built

13 on as one single lot with that drive

14 being a designated driveway for that

15 lot. Is that correct, Mr. Spencer?

16 Just answer the question. Can that

17 lot be built on as it sits?

18 MR. SPENCER: I believe so.

19 I defer to our attorney for legal

20 advice on that, but, you know, we got

21 two adjoining lots owned by the same

22 owner. A letter to the assessor

23 combines them.

24 MR. FISCHER: But it will






1 still require a variance.

2 MR. SPENCER: I'm not

3 positive of the width of the lot. I

4 don't have that site plan in front of

5 me to know the exact width of the

6 lot.

7 MR. FOX: Based on the

8 dimensions, it's 80 something feet

9 across. They would still need a

10 variance to build on it because it

11 would still not meet the 150 foot

12 minimum requirement. They would

13 still need a variance from the 150

14 foot wide frontage on the road to

15 build on that lot.

16 MR. CANUP: Even though the

17 lot is there.

18 MR. FOX: Correct, the lot

19 is more than an acre and it's less

20 than 150 foot.

21 MR. CANUP: It's already

22 been split as a separate lot, it's

23 platted as a separate lot; is that

24 correct?






1 MR. FOX: Correct. The

2 narrow lot is what we're talking

3 about, the one up along the road?

4 MR. CANUP: Yes.

5 MR. FOX: Yes. It's a

6 separate lot, but it's 1.5 acres.

7 MR. CANUP: The narrow lot

8 meaning the driveway.

9 MR. FOX: Correct. That

10 particular lot, yes.

11 MR. CANUP: That is split.

12 That is already --

13 MR. FOX: It's not split in

14 half, no.

15 MR. CANUP: No, it's not

16 split in half but it's one piece.

17 MR. FOX: One piece.

18 MR. CANUP: And it is an

19 access to the back portion.

20 MR. FOX: No. It is not

21 connected to the back portion at all.

22 There's two separate parcels, Parcel

23 A and B right now. The narrow parcel

24 is its own parcel owned by the same






1 person who owns the parcel behind it.

2 They're separate lots at this time.

3 MR. CANUP: He could use

4 that as a drive without a variance;

5 is that correct?

6 MR. FOX: If he combines it

7 with the parcel in the rear, he would

8 still need a variance because he

9 doesn't have enough width on the road

10 for that parcel. You have to have

11 150 foot of frontage on the road. He

12 will not have that regardless of how

13 he works that property. If he

14 combines it with the property in the

15 back, he still only has 86 feet

16 frontage on the road.

17 MR. BAUER: It's like Grand

18 River. You have to have 200 frontage

19 feet.

20 MR. FOX: I mean, it's

21 possible to build something but not

22 without variances.

23 MR. SHROYER: He could have

24 -- the front lot on Nine Mile Road






1 would still have to have a variance

2 but once that variance would be

3 granted a drive could be built to the

4 back lot that could contain one

5 house. Is that what you're asking?

6 MR. CANUP: Yes.

7 MR. SHROYER: That's

8 correct, right, if the variance was

9 granted --

10 MR. SPENCER: For the lot

11 width, correct.

12 MR. SHROYER: For the lot

13 width, a driveway could be built to

14 the back property to build one house.

15 The applicant was requesting to split

16 it and build two houses.

17 MR. CANUP: Okay. I would

18 withdraw my previous motion then if

19 that's doable. I made a motion that

20 we deny the variances as requested.

21 The person who seconded would have to

22 agree to that.

23 MR. SANGHVI: I agree with

24 you, and I think I want one






1 clarification. The bigger confusion

2 has been instead of presenting these

3 as two separate lots, as the narrow

4 strip and the lot in the back, the

5 presentation appears to say this is

6 one single lot and that is why it has

7 created a lot of confusion. These

8 are two separate lots. It so happens

9 that they are owned by the same

10 people and that is why it looks as if

11 they have presented all things as one

12 single piece but they are really not

13 and that is why the lot in the back

14 had no front area by itself on Nine

15 Mile Road.

16 MR. BAUER: This is the only

17 way of getting back there.

18 MR. SANGHVI: And so the

19 only way you can get there is through

20 this narrow strip. It is literally

21 landlocked, the back lot is.

22 MR. SHROYER: Member Gatt.

23 MR. GATT: That's my whole

24 point. If you look at the variances






1 that are requested, the first part of

2 the variance is because of that

3 minimum lot width. He's got 150 feet

4 that is required, but there's not 150

5 feet there. So if there's one house

6 or 5,000 houses back there, they

7 still need a driveway that still

8 needs a variance. That was number

9 one. That was the first part of it.

10 The second part of

11 it was the minimum lot width that was

12 being dealt with. In this particular

13 situation, they're going to have two

14 acre plots. This isn't like East

15 Lake. This isn't like they're going

16 to have 400 feet. This is two

17 two-acre lots, bam, right next to

18 each other, one driveway that

19 regardless of whether or not, like I

20 said, one house, a thousand houses,

21 they still need that driveway that

22 requires a variance.

23 The whole thing

24 about them splitting the lot in half






1 really doesn't have anything to do

2 with us in this particular situation.

3 It does and it doesn't. They need

4 the variance to get a driveway back

5 there and then they need the minimum

6 lot width and this whole situation is

7 not -- we're looking at it in a

8 smaller view when we really need to

9 look at it in an acreage view. This

10 is a 2.3 and a 2.2 or 2.6 --

11 MR. BAUER: 2.6, 2.6.

12 MR. GATT: 2.6 acres and 2.6

13 acres. These aren't little, tiny

14 East Lake Drive houses that they're

15 talking about doing. This isn't

16 something that's going to be -- these

17 are huge plots of land that's going

18 to have a driveway that isn't going

19 to affect anyone in this particular

20 situation. This is a little, tiny

21 strip that's going to have a driveway

22 on it with two 2.6 acre plots in the

23 back.

24 MR. CANUP: I appreciate






1 that, but the point is what's the

2 hardship on the back piece? I agree

3 with the hardship on the driveway

4 getting there. I agree with that

5 thoroughly. There's a hardship

6 there, there needs to be something

7 done, but what's the hardship on the

8 piece in the back?

9 MR. GATT: The variance

10 requested for these --

11 MR. CANUP: What's the

12 hardship?

13 MR. GATT: What I'm

14 explaining is the variance requested

15 -- the first part of the variance

16 request is the hardship is that the

17 lot is too thin and that needs to

18 have a variance requested to get a

19 driveway back there.

20 The second is that

21 these are 2.6 acre plots of land that

22 they're going to build. The hardship

23 is that it's going to be a situation

24 where it's going to be beneficial,






1 it's going to be beneficial for the

2 entire city to have this the way it

3 is. Taxpayer money, things like --

4 this is going to be a benefit to the

5 community. This is not going to

6 detract from any of the problems that

7 have been considered.

8 MR. SHROYER: All right.

9 Let's move forward. Is there a

10 motion? Is somebody prepared to make

11 a motion? The last one was withdraw.

12 MR. FISCHER: Point of

13 order, Mr. Chair. If one of the

14 applicants, or Board members, who

15 voted no on the last motion, they

16 could move to reconsider. I'm not in

17 that, but we could go from there if

18 someone has changed their mind.

19 MR. BAUER: Move to

20 reconsider.

21 MR. CANUP: Can we split

22 this into two pieces, one piece

23 dealing with --

24 MR. SHROYER: Two motions?






1 MR. CANUP: Two motions.

2 One piece dealing with the driveway.

3 MR. BAUER: It's one case.

4 MR. CANUP: Okay. Somebody

5 make a motion then. I give up.

6 MR. SHROYER: We have a

7 motion to reconsider. All in favor

8 say aye. Can I do that with -- a

9 second. Motion to reconsider and a

10 second, Member Bauer and Member

11 Sanghvi.

12 MR. SANGHVI: Mr. Chair,

13 once we are done with that I would

14 like to point out something.

15 MR. SHROYER: Okay.

16 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair.

17 MR. SHROYER: Yes.

18 MS. WORKING: To reconsider

19 the set aside motion that was voted

20 as a tie?

21 MR. SHROYER: Yes.

22 MS. WORKING: Thank you.

23 MR. SHROYER: To set aside

24 that, can I go with an aye vote or do






1 I need to have roll call?

2 MS. OZGA: I would have a

3 roll call vote. This is a motion to

4 reconsider the past action.

5 MR. SHROYER: Correct.

6 Please call the roll.

7 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?

8 MR. BAUER: Yes.

9 MS. WORKING: Member

10 Sanghvi?

11 MR. SANGHVI: Yes.

12 MS. WORKING: Chairman

13 Shroyer?

14 MR. SHROYER: Yes.

15 MS. WORKING: Member Gatt?

16 MR. GATT: Yes.

17 MS. WORKING: Vice Chair

18 Fischer?

19 MR. FISCHER: Aye.

20 MS. WORKING: And Member

21 Canup?

22 MR. CANUP: No.

23 MS. WORKING: This will be

24 the motion to approve passes 5 to 1






1 -- or motion to reconsider. I'm

2 sorry.


4 reconsider. Member Sanghvi, you had

5 a comment.

6 MR. SANGHVI: Yeah. I just

7 wonder, if I may suggest, that we

8 split this into two different

9 motions, one motion to allow the

10 front lot to be used as an access

11 conduit over to the back lot, and the

12 second one then you decide whether

13 you want to allow that to be split.

14 And, really, technically there

15 shouldn't be any grounds to prevent

16 them from splitting once you accept

17 this as a conduit going back. The

18 thing that's holding it up is the

19 accessibility to the back lot.

20 MR. SHROYER: Counsel.

21 MS. OZGA: What was noticed

22 for today's meeting are the

23 dimensional variances. What you're

24 looking at are the variances. The






1 Board is not looking at the lot

2 splits. The Board is only looking at

3 these variances that are requested.

4 If you wish to look at something

5 different or if the applicant wishes

6 to increase his request, you have to

7 re-notice this for another meeting.

8 My suggestion would be to re-notice

9 it for another meeting. Right now

10 what you have before you are the

11 variances that are listed.

12 MR. SHROYER: Just the

13 variances. Okay.

14 MR. SANGHVI: Okay. I stand

15 corrected.

16 MR. SHROYER: Does the

17 original motion get re-voted or do we

18 need to make a new motion?

19 MS. OZGA: I'm sorry, the

20 question is?

21 MR. SHROYER: Do we re-vote

22 on the original motion or does a new

23 motion --

24 MS. OZGA: Yes, you voted to






1 reconsider so now you vote on the

2 actual motion.

3 MR. FISCHER: I move to call

4 the vote.

5 MR. SHROYER: Okay. We have

6 a move to call, Robin. Please call

7 the vote. Does everybody understand

8 the motion? Maybe I need to ask that

9 first.

10 MR. GATT: The original

11 motion.

12 MR. SHROYER: The original

13 motion. Okay. Please call the vote.

14 MS. OZGA: Just a

15 clarification. This was the motion

16 that was to approve the variances as

17 requested.

18 MR. FISCHER: By Mr. Gatt

19 with amendments from me.

20 MS. WORKING: Seconded by

21 Mr. Bauer.

22 MR. SHROYER: Correct.

23 MS. WORKING: Member Gatt?

24 MR. GATT: This is a motion






1 to approve.

2 MS. WORKING: This is the

3 motion you made.

4 MR. FISCHER: Your motion to

5 approve.

6 MS. WORKING: That is

7 correct.

8 MR. GATT: Yes.

9 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?

10 MR. BAUER: Yes.

11 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?

12 MR. CANUP: No.

13 MS. WORKING: Vice Chair

14 Fischer?

15 MR. FISCHER: Aye.

16 MS. WORKING: Member

17 Shroyer?

18 MR. SHROYER: Yes.

19 MS. WORKING: Chairman

20 Shroyer. I apologize.

21 MR. SHROYER: That's fine.

22 Yes.

23 MS. WORKING: Member

24 Sanghvi?







2 MS. WORKING: The motion

3 passes 4 to 2.

4 MR. FISCHER: Move to recess

5 for ten minutes.

6 MR. SHROYER: We'll do.

7 We'll have a ten minute recess.

8 (A brief recess

9 was held during the meeting.)

10 MR. SHROYER: All right.

11 We're going to call the meeting back

12 to order. I will mention that Member

13 Gatt had to leave us at this point

14 and so Member Krieger will now be a

15 voting member of the Board.

16 The next case is

17 Case No. 07-011 filed by Scott

18 McCurdy of 41051 South McMahon. Mr.

19 McCurdy is requesting three side yard

20 setback variances and one front yard

21 setback variance to construct a 126

22 square foot addition and a thousand

23 square foot second story on an

24 existing home in the Willowbrook






1 Estates. The property is zoned R-4

2 and located south of Eleven Mile and

3 west of Haggerty Road. The existing

4 structure is already a legal

5 nonconforming use. The applicant is

6 present. You're not an attorney.

7 MR. McCURDY: No.

8 MR. SHROYER: Please give

9 your name and address and our Vice

10 Chair will swear you in.

11 MR. McCURDY: Scott McCurdy,

12 41051 South McMahon Circle.

13 MR. FISCHER: Do you swear

14 to tell the truth regarding Case No.

15 07-011?

16 MR. McCURDY: Yes.

17 MR. FISCHER: Thank you.

18 Please proceed.

19 MR. McCURDY: Well,

20 basically I'm looking to construct an

21 addition that would include extending

22 the garage about seven feet and the

23 purpose is to provide the family a

24 little bit more space and at the same






1 time improve the house, both

2 internally and externally. The

3 extension to the garage, I would

4 still have the minimum setback

5 requirement of ten feet on the one

6 side.

7 MR. SHROYER: Is that it?

8 MR. McCURDY: Yeah.

9 MR. SHROYER: Do we have any

10 correspondence?

11 MR. FISCHER: Yes, Mr.

12 Chair. In this case there were 42

13 notices mailed. There were two

14 approvals and zero objections.

15 An approval from

16 David and Amy Mustiner. "An approval

17 of this type of home improvement will

18 help to keep our subdivision a

19 vibrant community that will attract

20 families."

21 And Howard Turick of

22 South McMahon Circle said: "I have

23 no objection to Scott McCurdy

24 requesting a variance. I live on the






1 west side of his house."

2 Mr. Chair, I would

3 also think that it's appropriate to

4 mention that in the packet we did

5 receive from the petitioner several

6 of his other neighbors that agreed

7 with the site plan and that would be

8 on file in the official record.

9 MR. SHROYER: Thank you.

10 Any members of the audience care to

11 speak? Seeing none, does the City

12 have any comments?

13 MR. FOX: If it pleases the

14 Board, I would like to do a little

15 clarification. The applicant has

16 submitted some revised drawings as of

17 April 2nd. I believe you guys have

18 that. The variance requests that he

19 stated is actually, under his new

20 drawing is actually going to be less

21 of a variance requested than

22 previously stated. Originally he was

23 going for a variance for five feet

24 from the 15 foot setback. Under the






1 proposal it would be 4.1 feet, I

2 believe, because he's going to have

3 10.9 feet setback on that one side.

4 MR. SHROYER: On the east

5 side?

6 MR. FOX: On the east side.

7 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. Is

8 that all?

9 MR. FOX: That's it.

10 MR. SHROYER: At this point

11 I'll open it up to the Board. Member

12 Canup.

13 MR. CANUP: In here it

14 refers to an addition of a thousand

15 square foot second story. We have no

16 jurisdiction on that, right?

17 MR. FOX: The second story

18 will be on top of the -- will be

19 built on top of the garage addition

20 so it would also be part of a setback

21 requirement. That's why it's

22 included. Since he will be building

23 up as well as out, it will still

24 require a setback.






1 MR. CANUP: And the

2 homeowners association has approved

3 it?

4 MR. McCURDY: Yes. I have a

5 letter.

6 MR. FISCHER: Do we have

7 that on file?

8 MS. WORKING: It should be

9 in the packet.

10 MR. CANUP: It is. I'm

11 looking at it. I think the minimum

12 that they're asking is not

13 unreasonable. I would support a

14 motion to approve this if somebody

15 should make that motion.

16 MR. SHROYER: Other


18 MR. SANGHVI: I just have

19 one question. I wonder why you call

20 this a nonconforming legal structure.

21 MR. FOX: The current house

22 as it is built, without any

23 modifications to it, does not meet

24 the current setback requirements. It






1 is required to have a ten foot

2 minimum side yard and a 25 foot

3 minimum total side yard. He does not

4 have that on the west side of the

5 property, he has less than ten feet,

6 and he has -- and he does have 17

7 feet on the other side. So one of

8 the side yards and the total side

9 yard setback is nonconforming

10 existing, so it is a legal

11 nonconforming use. It was built

12 prior to the zoning ordinance being

13 --

14 MR. SANGHVI: That's not his

15 fault.

16 MR. FOX: No.

17 MR. SANGHVI: Thank you. I

18 have no problem with this request. I

19 think it will be doing good to

20 everybody all around, as far as I can

21 see. I've been to that property and

22 I have no doubt what they are looking

23 for is going to do good to everybody

24 around and themselves. So I have no






1 difficulty in supporting his request.

2 MR. SHROYER: Any other

3 comments? Member Fischer.

4 MR. FISCHER: Just a simple

5 comment. It's always interesting

6 when a lot is on a curve. It's very

7 difficult to meet the setback

8 requirements and in this case it's a

9 circle, semicircle. Once again with

10 the angle of the one lot line that

11 drives the practical difficulty shown

12 here. One other stipulation for

13 whomever would be interested in

14 making a motion, I don't see the

15 association approval in here so I

16 would recommend that a motion contain

17 the provision that it is contingent

18 upon association approval. Thank

19 you.

20 MR. McCURDY: They stamped

21 the drawings. Is there something

22 else that's needed?

23 MR. SANGHVI: I have a

24 question for the counsel. Before






1 approving or disapproving any kind of

2 variance, I don't think it is a

3 requirement of the law to have that

4 from the association and we are not

5 bound by their recommendations

6 either, are we?

7 MS. OZGA: If I may, you are

8 not bond by the association's

9 approval or disapproval. That can be

10 one thing you consider, but resident

11 opinion are things you would consider

12 but you're not bound by whether they

13 approve or disapprove of this. So

14 that's why I would hesitate

15 conditioning any motion on getting

16 the homeowners' approval, but if

17 you'd like to see a homeowners'

18 approval --

19 MR. FISCHER: There's quite

20 a bit of information that's in there,

21 so it's not even part of this case,

22 so let's proceed.

23 MR. SHROYER: It doesn't

24 mean we can't include it in part of






1 our --

2 MR. SANGHVI: Alright. Then

3 if no further discussion, I'd like to

4 make a motion in the Case No. 07-011,

5 filed by Scott McCurdy, for 41051

6 South McMahon Circle, that we grant

7 the request of the applicant for the

8 addition to his house because of the

9 pie-shaped lot and the lot

10 configuration.

11 MR. BAUER: Second.

12 MR. SHROYER: Motion has

13 been made by Member Sanghvi, seconded

14 by Member Bauer. Any further

15 discussion?

16 MS. WORKING: I heard

17 Fischer.

18 MR. SHROYER: Counsel

19 comment.

20 MS. OZGA: I was just asking

21 the configuration of the property

22 represents a practical difficulty.

23 MR. FISCHER: Pie-shaped

24 lot.






1 MS. OZGA: The pie-shaped

2 configuration.

3 MR. SANGHVI: I said

4 pie-shaped lot.

5 MR. SHROYER: Please call

6 the roll.

7 MS. WORKING: Member

8 Sanghvi?


10 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?

11 MR. BAUER: Yes.

12 MS. WORKING: Chairman

13 Shroyer?

14 MR. SHROYER: Yes.

15 MS. WORKING: Member

16 Krieger?

17 MS. KRIEGER: Yes.

18 MS. WORKING: Vice Chair

19 Fischer?

20 MR. FISCHER: Aye.

21 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?

22 MR. CANUP: Yes.

23 MS. WORKING: Motion passes

24 6-0.






1 MR. SHROYER: Thank you,

2 sir.

3 MR. FISCHER: Good luck.

4 MR. McCURDY: Thank you.

5 MR. SHROYER: The next case.

6 Case No. 07-013, filed by Raymond J.

7 Behling and Schostak Brothers &

8 Company for Olga's Kitchen, located

9 in Westmarket Square Shopping Center

10 at 47996 Grand River. The applicant

11 is requesting three sign variances

12 for Olga's Kitchen and Suncoast

13 Smoothies Restaurant located in the

14 Westmarket Square Shopping Center.

15 The applicant is requesting one 54.73

16 square foot sign variance and one

17 9.94 sign for the east elevation of

18 the building and one 9.94 square foot

19 sign variance for the south elevation

20 of the building.

21 The applicant is

22 present. Please state your name and

23 address and if you're not attorney

24 please be sworn in.






1 MR. BEHLING: My name is

2 Raymond J. Behling. I'm the senior

3 development manager with Schostak

4 Brothers & Company and I am not an

5 attorney.

6 MR. FISCHER: Sir, do you

7 swear to tell the truth in ZBA case

8 07-011?

9 MR. BEHLING: I do.

10 MR. FISCHER: Thank you.

11 MR. SHROYER: Please state

12 your case.

13 MR. BEHLING: I'd like to

14 start out by making a clarification.

15 In your agenda for the evening it

16 indicates --

17 MR. FISCHER: Sir, if I

18 could interrupt you for one second.

19 It's case 013, so as long as you

20 still swear to tell the truth.

21 MR. BEHLING: Whichever case

22 I'm going to swear to. I would like

23 to point out that in the agenda for

24 this evening it indicates we're






1 asking for signage on the east face,

2 which is comprised of two areas, and

3 one area on the side facing Grand

4 River, whereas if you'll notice in

5 the application it is for an

6 identical set of signages on two

7 different frontages. So I don't know

8 if that is a complication that you

9 need to deal with, but we are asking

10 for identical signage on both faces

11 of the corner lot.

12 MR. SHROYER: Was it

13 advertised properly?

14 MR. AMOLSCH: They have two

15 -- they're permitted one sign and

16 they're asking for another additional

17 sign and two smaller signs so that's

18 the way it was advertised. That's

19 what the applicant applied for.

20 MR. SHROYER: So we can move

21 ahead. Thank you.

22 MR. BEHLING: I would like

23 to just go over several of the

24 comments in my letter to the Board.






1 It indicates that in Section 28 52 B1

2 A1, multiple businesses: A business

3 having a first floor pedestrian

4 entrance shall be allowed one quarter

5 square feet of signage per lineal

6 foot of contiguous public or private

7 street frontage up to a maximum of 65

8 square feet.

9 We believe that we

10 have a special situation and although

11 this does apply and comply with that,

12 on either side we have two frontages.

13 We're located at the corner of a

14 shopping center. We face we Grand

15 River on the east side and we face

16 the vast bulk of the shopping center

17 on the other entrance. Both of them

18 have sufficient frontage and both of

19 them have customer entrances to meet

20 that requirement within the code.

21 So what we are

22 asking is that we be allowed to

23 consider that as two frontages and

24 the practical difficulty being that






1 we either face one street and lose

2 half of our exposure or face the

3 other street and lose the other half

4 of the exposure.

5 The only other thing

6 that we're asking for is that

7 normally there's a large block, one

8 rectangle that you put all the signs

9 in. We have two different product

10 entities here, being Olga's Kitchen,

11 which is basically a restaurant, and

12 Suncoast Smoothies, which is a

13 smoothy bar. All we're asking is

14 that, although they collectively are

15 within that square footage, that we

16 just put a couple feet in between

17 them so we're not jamming the two

18 signs together. So that's basically

19 what we're requesting here this

20 evening.

21 MR. SHROYER: Thank you.

22 Any member of the audience care to

23 speak on this matter? Seeing none,

24 does the City have any statements






1 prepared?

2 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment,

3 sir.

4 MR. SHROYER: At this point

5 I'll open it up to the Board for

6 comment.

7 MR. FISCHER: Mr. Chair, if

8 I just might put in the record that

9 nine notices were mailed and there

10 were no approvals and no objections.

11 MR. SHROYER: Thank you.

12 Now we'll open it up to the Board for

13 comments. I'm going to ignore Mr.

14 Canup at this point and ask Member

15 Fischer to speak first.

16 MR. FISCHER: I'll make it

17 brief then Brent can yell at me. I

18 don't see an issue with this one. I

19 see two frontages. Oftentimes when

20 we have a corner store I feel that

21 they do have to show practical

22 difficulty because they are facing

23 two different, completely different

24 areas. They got one on a






1 thoroughfare and one the other

2 parking lot.

3 As far as the two

4 signs go, as long as the combined

5 square footage is within what would

6 normally be allowed -- I know we

7 normally box it altogether but I

8 believe they're meeting the intent as

9 long as they stay within the allowed

10 size for a complete sign for one

11 building. So thank you, Mr. Chair.

12 MR. SHROYER: Member Canup.

13 MR. CANUP: My question to

14 the petitioner is Olga's Kitchen and

15 then you've got the Smoothies

16 portion, Suncoast Smoothies. Is

17 Suncoast Smoothies product they sell?

18 MR. BEHLING: It is a

19 product they sell. It is a smoothy

20 but it's not the traditional Olga's

21 restaurant fare. I don't know if you

22 know Olga's.

23 MR. CANUP: I've been in

24 Olga's, yes.






1 MR. BEHLING: It goes back

2 a long way so we define that as a

3 separate business, but it is owned by

4 Olga's Kitchen.

5 MR. CANUP: You go and sit

6 down at a table and a girl comes over

7 to take your order. Does she take

8 your order for the smoothies, too, or

9 is it a separate business?

10 MR. BEHLING: She takes it.

11 Jim Wade is with Olga's Kitchen.

12 MR. CANUP: I don't have a

13 problem with Olga's Kitchen. I guess

14 I have a problem with Suncoast

15 Smoothies because it's a product that

16 they sell. You know, Kroger could

17 put up that they sell angus meat out

18 front on their sign, too. So we're

19 advertising a product that is sold

20 within there rather than advertising

21 Olga's Kitchen. I don't have a

22 problem with the two signs, Olga's

23 Kitchen on the two locations, which

24 would be on the east and the south.






1 MR. BEHLING: It would be

2 the east and the south.

3 MR. CANUP: East and the

4 south, I don't have a problem with

5 that. I have a problem with Suncoast

6 Smoothies.

7 MR. SHROYER: Thank you.

8 Member Krieger, did you have a

9 comment?

10 MS. KRIEGER: Not at this

11 time. Thank you.

12 MR. SHROYER: Member

13 Sanghvi.

14 MR. SANGHVI: I have the

15 same question. Are these two

16 businesses, separate businesses, or

17 are they both run and operated and

18 owned by different entities?

19 MR. BEHLING: They're owned

20 by the same entity.

21 MR. SANGHVI: The same

22 entity but they are two different

23 businesses. The ownership is the

24 same but the businesses are separate.







2 MEMBER: I would label them as

3 different concepts.

4 MR. SHROYER: Sir, would you

5 please come up and identify yourself

6 and be sworn in. Make everything

7 legal here.

8 MR. BEHLING: He's not a

9 lawyer either.

10 MR. WADE: Jim Wade, 1963

11 Valley Road, New Hudson.

12 MR. FISCHER: Sir, do you

13 swear to tell the truth in ZBA case

14 07-013?

15 MR. WADE: Yes, I do.

16 Suncoast Smoothies and Olga's Kitchen

17 are the same company but they're two

18 separate concepts. You can get

19 smoothies to go, you can get Olga's

20 Kitchen to go. It all comes out of

21 the same building, the same cash

22 registers, we run both concepts

23 within the same building. They are

24 two separate businesses within the






1 same building. So I don't see it

2 quite as angus meat. We're trying to

3 show that we have this other concept

4 within our building that we're trying

5 to promote. This would be our

6 eleventh Olga's Kitchen/ Suncoast

7 Smoothies. It's becoming a part of

8 Olga's Kitchen.

9 MR. SANGHVI: If I order the

10 dinner and I order a smoothy, do I

11 get two separate bills or the same

12 bill?

13 MR. WADE: It's all the same

14 bill.

15 MR. SANGHVI: Thank you.

16 MR. WADE: It would be just

17 like if we had a liquor license.

18 MR. SANGHVI: I know. I

19 didn't want to compare that with a

20 bar and diner at the same time, but

21 it's the same concept.

22 MR. SHROYER: Member

23 Fischer.

24 MR. FISCHER: Can I walk in






1 and just get a smoothy?

2 MR. WADE: Sure.

3 MR. FISCHER: I guess the

4 way I'm doing this is a Dunkin

5 Donuts/Baskin Robbins type of

6 situation. You know, it's the same

7 business, same building, you get

8 everything from the same cash

9 register, but truly you have two

10 unique things you're selling. That's

11 two businesses.

12 MR. BEHLING: That, too, is

13 the same ownership.

14 MR. FISCHER: Exactly. If

15 that helps the Board envision it at

16 all.

17 MR. SHROYER: The building

18 on the corner is currently under

19 construction. There is an entrance

20 off the Grand River side and an

21 entrance off the east side. Correct?

22 So you're looking to putting signs

23 above each entrance and you haven't

24 considered or thought of having






1 Olga's Kitchen over one entrance and

2 Suncoast Smoothies over the other?

3 MR. BEHLING: That would

4 deny half your business to one side

5 or the other. Now, even if we had

6 one sign, it would be a bigger sign,

7 it would be a bigger Olga's Kitchen,

8 but we're just asking to take that

9 and split it up so we can

10 demonstrate, you know, the Dunkin

11 Donuts and the Basking Robbins.

12 MR. SHROYER: That's what

13 I'm trying to envision as well. Any

14 other comment from the Board?

15 MR. BAUER: Yes.

16 MR. SHROYER: Yes, Mr.

17 Bauer.

18 MR. BAUER: The entrance off

19 of Grand River at the Home Depot

20 area, that is not a street.

21 MR. BEHLING: It is not a

22 street, but I believe it is

23 considered a private street if it's

24 part of the parking lot and it's






1 facing off of Grand River.

2 MR. BAUER: I'm not worrying

3 about the sign, but I just wanted to

4 get that correct, it's not a street,

5 facing that street. Only one street.

6 So you're going to have an Olga's

7 Kitchen and the Smoothies on one side

8 and the same thing on the other side.

9 MR. FISCHER: Microphone.

10 MR. SHROYER: Put on your

11 mike.

12 MR. BAUER: Sorry. So you

13 are well over the 65 square feet.

14 That's why you came here.

15 MR. BEHLING: Between two

16 faces, but since we have two

17 frontages this applies to each one of

18 those frontages.

19 MR. BAUER: Total building,

20 not the two. Am I correct?

21 MR. AMOLSCH: The space is

22 allowed one 65 foot square foot wall

23 sign.

24 MR. BAUER: That's what I






1 said, not one on each side.


3 MR. BAUER: That's what I

4 thought.

5 MR. SHROYER: Are you done,

6 Member Bauer?

7 MR. BAUER: Yes, sir.

8 MR. SHROYER: Thank you.

9 That's probably where I'm coming

10 from. At this point I don't believe

11 I'm in favor of approving both sides.

12 I believe you would need to indicate

13 a main entrance and try to operate

14 from that.

15 Does anyone care to

16 make a motion? Member Sanghvi.

17 MR. SANGHVI: I'll make a

18 motion. In Case No. 07-013, filed by

19 Raymond J. Behling of Schostak

20 Brothers for Olga's Kitchen, located

21 in the Westmarket Square Shopping

22 Center at 47996 Grand River Avenue,

23 and I make a motion to grant the

24 request of the applicant for the two






1 signs as he has requested, Olga's

2 Kitchen as well as Suncoast

3 Smoothies, as requested because they

4 have two separate entrances and two

5 separate frontages. Thank you.

6 MS. KRIEGER: Second.

7 MR. SHROYER: Member

8 Krieger. There's a motion by Member

9 Sanghvi, Member Krieger seconded.

10 Further discussion? Member Fischer.

11 MR. FISCHER: If I could

12 just add in this case we see two

13 separate business identities and

14 that's why we're allowing this and

15 they're still meeting the intent of

16 the ordinance by doing so.

17 MR. SANGHVI: I have no

18 problem.

19 MR. FISCHER: All right.

20 Thank you, Mr. Sanghvi.

21 MR. AMOLSCH: I believe the

22 motion is for two signs --

23 MR. SANGHVI: One on each

24 side.






1 MR. AMOLSCH: There's three

2 separate signs though. There's the

3 two 9.4 -- 9.94 and the one 54.74

4 foot. So these are three separate

5 signs.

6 MR. SANGHVI: Okay. Let's

7 incorporate that, as requested, both

8 signs.

9 MR. SHROYER: So the two

10 separate sign variances and the

11 overall variance?

12 MR. AMOLSCH: The signs

13 requested.

14 MR. SHROYER: There's only

15 two signs.

16 MS. WORKING: The applicant

17 applied for four sign permits, one

18 was approved and three of them are

19 requesting variances from you this

20 evening.

21 MR. SHROYER: Everybody

22 understand? We have a motion and

23 second. Any further discussion?

24 Please call the roll.






1 MS. WORKING: Call the roll?

2 MR. SHROYER: Please.

3 MS. WORKING: Member

4 Sanghvi?


6 MS. WORKING: Member

7 Krieger?


9 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?

10 MR. BAUER: No.

11 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?

12 MR. CANUP: No.

13 MS. WORKING: Vice Chair

14 Fischer?

15 MR. FISCHER: Aye.

16 MS. WORKING: Chairman

17 Shroyer?


19 MS. WORKING: We're tied

20 again.

21 MR. SHROYER: Member Canup.

22 MR. CANUP: I would make a

23 motion that we grant the variances as

24 requested with the exception of the






1 removal of the Suncoast Smoothies.

2 MR. SHROYER: Is there a

3 second to that motion?

4 MR. BAUER: Second.

5 MR. SHROYER: There's a

6 motion by Member Canup and a second

7 by Member Bauer. Any further

8 discussion? Please call the roll.

9 MS. WORKING: Will you

10 please clarify who seconded?

11 MR. SHROYER: Member Bauer.

12 MS. WORKING: That would be

13 for a two-sign variance request?

14 MR. CANUP: The signs as

15 stated with the exception of the

16 Suncoast Smoothies.

17 MS. WORKING: It would be

18 one then.

19 MR. CANUP: Yes.

20 MS. WORKING: Because the

21 Olga's Kitchen was approved.

22 Member Canup?

23 MR. CANUP: Yes.

24 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?






1 MR. BAUER: Yes.

2 MS. WORKING: Chairman

3 Shroyer?


5 MS. WORKING: Member

6 Krieger?


8 MS. WORKING: Member

9 Sanghvi?

10 MR. SANGHVI: Yes.

11 MS. WORKING: Vice Chair

12 Fischer?


14 MS. WORKING: Motion passes

15 5-1.

16 MR. BEHLING: Quick

17 clarification of that. If we were to

18 put them together into that one 65

19 foot, would that then be one sign on

20 each face or would -- if they all fit

21 in that same box.

22 MR. AMOLSCH: Within your

23 sign limit of 65 square feet, you can

24 put information as to what products






1 you sell or what services you provide

2 together with the business name, but

3 you still need a variance for the

4 second wall sign.

5 MR. BEHLING: I believe we

6 just got a variance for a second wall

7 sign. If they both fit within the 65

8 square foot rectangle, is that then

9 one?

10 MR. AMOLSCH: That would be

11 up to the Board.

12 MR. CANUP: Excuse me. The

13 motion was with the exception of

14 Suncoast being removed.

15 MR. AMOLSCH: His question

16 was can he do that.

17 MR. CANUP: He can do it on

18 the sign that's allowed; he can't do

19 it on the sign that's not allowed.

20 MR. AMOLSCH: It's per your

21 stipulation.

22 MR. BEHLING: On one wall we

23 can combine the two, on the other

24 wall we can't.






1 MR. SHROYER: Get with the

2 Building Department tomorrow.

3 MR. AMOLSCH: The one the

4 Board just approved, you can only

5 have the name of Olga's Kitchen.

6 MR. BEHLING: Thank you.

7 MR. SHROYER: Thank you.

8 The next case is Case No. 07-014

9 filed by David Compo of Interphase

10 Land Development LLC for lot 4 of the

11 Casa Loma Condominium Development

12 located at 21633 Beck Road. Mr.

13 Compo is requesting one 25-foot rear

14 yard setback variance from the

15 required 50-foot rear yard setback

16 for the construction of a new single

17 family condominium home on lot 4 of

18 the Casa Loma Condominium

19 Development. The property is zoned

20 R-A and located south of Nine Mile

21 and west of Beck Road. Obviously the

22 applicant is here.

23 Please state your

24 name and address and if you're not an






1 attorney be sworn in.

2 MR. WITTE: Board members,

3 my name is Steve Witte. I'm here

4 tonight representing David Compo who

5 is also here. He's the owner and the

6 developer of the property. Neither

7 of us are attorneys.

8 MR. FISCHER: If you could

9 both raise your hands. Do you swear

10 to tell the truth in Case No. 07-014?

11 MR. WITTE: Yes.

12 MR. COMPO: Yes.

13 MR. SHROYER: State your

14 case.

15 MR. WITTE: Board members,

16 once again my name is Steve Witte

17 from Nayer Galsworthy (ph), the

18 engineers for the project. We've

19 been working on it for a couple of

20 years and this is one of the last

21 hurdles, so to speak, that we're

22 trying to achieve.

23 The Casa Loma

24 Development is a ten-lot, single






1 family residential development, which

2 is all very large lot sizes, in the

3 neighborhood of one acre, and there

4 are a number of natural features of

5 the site that were taken into account

6 during the design of the project by

7 minimizing the impact of wetland and

8 woodland that is present at the site.

9 In order to achieve

10 that we pulled the cul de sac further

11 to the east, so we shortened that,

12 and then, as I mentioned before,

13 there's only ten lots that are shown

14 in that or are proposed currently.

15 There's actually enough room that

16 David could have up to 17 lots. So

17 he's really trying to make these very

18 attractive lots, executive-style

19 homes, and then David actually would

20 live on lot 6 and construct his own

21 home on that lot.

22 The City --

23 regarding lot 4, south of lot 4 there

24 is a wetland pocket, and that shows






1 up on the screen. It's actually this

2 lot right here and then the wetland

3 pocket extends a little bit south of

4 our property, but as you can see it's

5 not like an extremely large area.

6 And in order to minimize the impact

7 of that area, we obviously kept the

8 lots where they're shown. The City

9 has stated that since wetland cannot

10 be included on a lot, the rear yard

11 setback for lot 4 must be taken from

12 the edge of the wetland.

13 As you can see on

14 the picture there, the wetland has a

15 finger and they're stating that the

16 setback is from that edge of the

17 wetland as opposed to the original

18 overall property line. And the owner

19 is proposing to keep the building

20 setback at least 25 feet off the

21 wetland, which would in essence be

22 the equivalent of 73 feet off the

23 original lot line.

24 These lots, it's our






1 executive-style homes. The houses

2 that are proposed on these lots are

3 all very substantial in size and to

4 that end we developed a plan that

5 shows what is anticipated to be on

6 lot 4. And just to point a couple

7 things out to you, this is the

8 original property line, this is the

9 edge of the wetland, and what the

10 City is saying is that this wetland

11 has to be on its own separate

12 property. And since this is the rear

13 yard of lot 4, they're saying the

14 setback has to be taken 50 feet from

15 this finger, which by the time you

16 put that in the building site or

17 building width on lot 4 becomes very

18 narrow for the type of house being

19 proposed.

20 Justification for

21 the variance. I'll go through these

22 briefly. The wetlands in question

23 could have been filled in originally

24 with the original plans and approval.






1 There were a number of little pockets

2 that were proposed to be filled in

3 but, as I said before, in an effort

4 to minimize what was proposed we had

5 left this wetland pocket as is. And

6 the developer had made concessions on

7 his layout to appease the City and

8 preserve the environment and he would

9 definitely appreciate flexibility in

10 regards to the setback in this

11 location.

12 If the overall lot,

13 in other words the whole development,

14 was not proposed for a development,

15 the owner could have constructed a

16 house or a building, have the 25-foot

17 setback as we're showing and that

18 we're proposing since a new lot would

19 not be created and that would not

20 necessitate this 50-foot setback.

21 So the only reason

22 this issue comes up is because land

23 is being subdivided and then in

24 addition just because this wetland is






1 in the rear yard of the lot that's

2 why we would have the 50-foot

3 setback. If the wetland were between

4 lot 4 and 5, for instance, the house

5 could be at 25 feet off the wetland.

6 So with the overall property here

7 once again, we're 73 feet off of

8 that. We've got more than the 50

9 feet that's normally required. The

10 intent of a rear yard setback is to

11 provide separation between houses.

12 Since the wetland in question is at

13 the rear of the lot, as I've already

14 mentioned, the house will be 73 feet,

15 the closest 73 feet off the property

16 line.

17 And the building

18 setback of six feet does not affect

19 the 25-foot no disturb area next to

20 the wetland. That 25 feet area will

21 be left undisturbed with this

22 development with the construction of

23 the house. So even without a

24 variance, the disturbance could go to






1 within 25 feet of the wetland. So as

2 far as preserving the trees or the

3 vegetation that's out there, this

4 variance technically doesn't do

5 anything for that because even if you

6 were to deny the variance, we could

7 still grade and do whatever we want

8 up to the 25-foot setback.

9 So I apologize for a

10 being little bit long-winded, but I'm

11 definitely more than happy to answer

12 any questions or if you have any

13 concerns I'm more than happy to

14 answer them.

15 MR. COMPO: As will I as in

16 regard to the construction of the

17 homes, which I will be building all

18 of them.

19 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. Is

20 there any correspondence?

21 MR. FISCHER: Yes, Mr.

22 Chair. In this case 30 notices were

23 mailed. There was one approval with

24 three objections. Did you want to






1 see if anyone in the audience wanted

2 to make comment first, though?

3 MR. SHROYER: I was going to

4 do that next, if that's the proper

5 sequence. I must have wrote it down

6 wrong, so we'll open it up to the

7 audience.

8 Yes, ma'am. Please

9 come forward and state your name and

10 address and be sworn in.

11 MS. CRAWFORD: Good evening.

12 Carol Crawford, 22135 Beck Road. I'm

13 also speaking for my neighbor, Steve

14 Tracey, at 22125 Beck Road.

15 MR. FISCHER: If you'll

16 raise your right hand for me. Do you

17 swear to tell the truth in case ZBA

18 07-014?

19 MS. CRAWFORD: Yes, I do.

20 MR. FISCHER: Thank you.


22 properties are three lots, three

23 pieces of property away, and our land

24 is on the west side of Beck Road and






1 we border along the back yards of

2 most of the people who were here

3 tonight on Nine Mile and we're

4 concerned about any project that

5 comes into our area that wants

6 another variance.

7 The ordinance is 50

8 feet; it should stay 50 feet. When

9 these developments or these people

10 buy this land, they know what the

11 ordinance is and they constantly come

12 in for a variance. If it's such a

13 big piece of land and such a big

14 house, a 25-foot backyard is a pretty

15 pathetically small yard for one of

16 these mansion-type homes.

17 Our wetlands in that

18 area are extremely vulnerable.

19 Between Beck and Garfield, Nine and

20 Eight, we have an extremely high

21 water table. For instance, our

22 property and our neighbor's property,

23 the Tracey's, I think together we

24 have about 12 acres there.






1 Every time a new

2 project comes into the south of us

3 it's built up, the wetlands are

4 encroached upon and we flood, in

5 fact, we're flooding right now. And

6 it isn't flooding from across the

7 land, it's flooding from beneath the

8 land because of the high water table.

9 So we would just

10 like to say, as two neighbors, that

11 we would prefer that the City sticks

12 with their 50-foot ordinance to

13 preserve the wetlands. And, also, we

14 have many, many animals out there,

15 deer and so on, and we feel that it's

16 always an encroachment with every

17 development that comes through. It's

18 nothing personal, it's just every

19 development comes here for some sort

20 of variance when they know well what

21 that ordinance is to start with.

22 Thank you for listening.

23 MR. SHROYER: Thank you, Ms.

24 Crawford. Any other members of the






1 audience care to speak? Now we'll go

2 to the correspondence.

3 MR. FISCHER: We have an

4 objection from Kelly and Pancho Hall.

5 "No, we do not want to give a 25-foot

6 rear setback variance. We require he

7 does 50-foot clearance from our

8 property site or home. Please follow

9 the Novi code." It lists the article

10 and section and also copied their

11 legal counsel.

12 Another objection

13 from Vince and Maria Dedemenico. "We

14 object to this request of the

15 variance because we would like to

16 maintain the natural preservation of

17 the wetlands. We expect the City to

18 adhere to the ordinance that they

19 have set into place and if

20 development cannot follow these

21 ordinances then they should redesign

22 their plans in order to respect these

23 guidelines. Thank you."

24 There's an objection






1 from Richard Bayer. "I believe a

2 25-foot variance would detract from

3 the aesthetics of the existing

4 neighborhood. The builder was well

5 aware of the ordinance when he

6 purchased the property and should be

7 held to those standards."

8 An approval from

9 Ronald Bush. "I have no objection to

10 the setback variance since the

11 building envelope still remains 50 or

12 more feet from my property line.

13 However, I would like to reiterate my

14 concerns expressed as of 9-13-05.

15 Drainage from my property should

16 continue as is with no pooling or

17 flooding. I have been assured by Mr.

18 Compo and the City that my property

19 will remain unaffected and on this

20 basis I concur with the plan."

21 If it so pleases the

22 Chair, I could read his other

23 correspondence. Would you like that

24 read into the record as well, Mr.






1 Chair?

2 MR. SHROYER: Please.

3 MR. FISCHER: 9-13, 2005

4 from Mr. Bush. "As the owner of

5 acreage immediately south of the

6 proposed development on Beck Road, I

7 was hoping to go on record with my

8 concern. Site plans call for filling

9 a low-lying area to make it more

10 suitable for use as home a site.

11 This area currently provides the path

12 for storm water runoff from my

13 property to reach Beck Road.

14 "As long as the

15 storm runoff can continue to be

16 accommodated with no pooling or

17 temporary flooding, I have no problem

18 with the plan to fill it in.

19 "Number 2, there's

20 been some discussion about applying a

21 60-foot road easement from the Casa

22 Loma property to provide connectivity

23 with possible future development on

24 my property. I have no objection to






1 this proposal as it remains unpaved

2 and his position that a connecting

3 road from my property could

4 accommodate the 45-foot setback

5 restriction," and that's not really

6 germane to this procedure so I will

7 end with that.

8 MR. SHROYER: Thank you.

9 Comments from the City. Mr. Spencer.

10 MR. SPENCER: Sure. You did

11 receive a letter that I wrote on this

12 matter. The Planning Department is

13 not opposed to granting this. We

14 would like to clarify a couple facts

15 for you, though.

16 This development was

17 -- it is on 14.9 acres overall,

18 excluding wetlands. It's unlikely

19 more than the ten lots would be able

20 to be developed on this site even

21 with filling wetlands. Typically

22 density is calculated excluding

23 regulated wetlands.

24 The developer did






1 work with us on several concepts for

2 this plan and the result that is on

3 the current plan is using the open

4 space preservation option that is

5 available in the ordinance. So lot

6 sizes were allowed to be reduced by

7 about 20 percent, minimum size, and

8 the frontage was allowed to be

9 reduced. This allowed for reduction

10 in the road length, which exceeded

11 the city standards, and reduced the

12 amount that it was required for a

13 variance on it. So there was some

14 advantages for the developer also on

15 using this option.

16 The rest of the

17 items are basically covered within my

18 letter. The subdivision ordinance

19 does exclude wetlands from plats or

20 site condominiums, therefore it did

21 have to be excluded from it. And,

22 yes, the developer did have the

23 option of applying for a permit to

24 fill this wetland. It may or may not






1 have required mitigation based on the

2 total amount of wetland filled on the

3 site. Several small wetland areas

4 were filled on this site or proposed

5 to be filled on this site to make

6 this development.

7 If you have any

8 questions, I'll be glad to try to

9 answer them.

10 MR. SHROYER: What was the

11 quality of existing wetlands?

12 MR. SPENCER: The wetlands,

13 the largest one that was filled was

14 of very low quality. This particular

15 wetland is of a lot higher quality

16 that's on this lot. There is a small

17 strip of medium quality wetland along

18 the Bellagio border where some

19 partial filling is going to be

20 occurring, but most of that is

21 adjacent to a detention system that

22 incorporates a wetland on the

23 Bellagio property so it is

24 considerably less natural than the






1 wetland on this lot, or adjacent to

2 this lot.

3 MR. SHROYER: Thank you.

4 MR. WITTE: Mr. Chairman,

5 can I correct something that Mr.

6 Spencer has said that is incorrect?

7 MR. SHROYER: You can make a

8 comment.

9 MR. WITTE: Could I just

10 make a comment on something just to

11 clarify? It was mentioned that the

12 open space gave the developer some

13 concessions. That is not true. What

14 is shown and proposed on these lots,

15 the lot widths are 175 feet. He

16 could have gone, under the current

17 zoning, 140 feet wide. And the lot

18 sizes, the minimum that he's showing

19 is .8 acres.

20 This is a layout

21 that we completed showing what the

22 developer could do under the current

23 zoning showing 17 lots. Those lots

24 meet the standards of the zoning






1 ordinance regarding lot width,

2 frontage, dimension areas and

3 everything else. So the developer

4 has made concessions all along.

5 To reiterate,

6 there's going to be no impact to the

7 wetlands, no impact to the 25-foot

8 buffer with this request. The

9 property line, the original property

10 line, the building setback that is

11 proposed is 73 feet off that property

12 line.

13 MR. SHROYER: You've said

14 that. Thank you.

15 MR. WITTE: Just to clarify

16 any confusion there.

17 MR. SHROYER: Okay. Thank

18 you. We'll open it up to the Board

19 for comments and questions. Mr.

20 Fischer.

21 MR. FISCHER: I'd like to

22 hear Mr. Spencer's comments.

23 MR. SPENCER: This is in an

24 R-A zoning district. Unless I






1 totally read my information wrong,

2 R-A is a minimum 43,560 square feet,

3 one acre lots.

4 MR. SHROYER: We'd have to

5 have a zoning variance to make any

6 lot smaller to put more development

7 there. Mr. Fischer, any other


9 MR. FISCHER: Say I buy the

10 house and I want to build a deck back

11 there, I don't have enough money to

12 buy a house, but once again I'll go

13 back to my normal comment, if I won

14 the lottery last night and I buy the

15 house and I want to put a deck,

16 what's going to happen then?

17 MR. WITTE: A couple things

18 along those lines. David, he's a

19 little bit different than most

20 developers because he owns the land.

21 He's a realtor so he's going to be

22 selling these lots and he's going to

23 be the builder out there. The

24 25-foot buffer is a standard that the






1 City has that regardless of whether

2 David is here or not that's still

3 going to be in place. That 25-foot

4 buffer will not be disturbed

5 whatsoever. The same thing could be

6 said if you were to build a deck on

7 the side of your house.

8 Once again, if this

9 wetland were between property lines

10 on the side yard, this wouldn't be an

11 issue because you could build right

12 up to the 25 feet. So the only

13 criteria -- the only reason that this

14 is an issue is because it's a rear

15 yard versus a side yard.

16 The overall

17 development, as it sits right now, is

18 actually a side yard. If he didn't

19 do this development and just said I'm

20 going to build my own mansion out

21 here, he could build right up to 25.

22 The City would have nothing to say

23 about it. He wouldn't be here asking

24 for a variance. So the only reason






1 it's a variance is because this is

2 considered a rear yard. I don't know

3 if that answer your question or not,

4 but the 25-foot buffer --

5 MR. FISCHER: Not really.

6 MR. COMPO: I could answer

7 again. Actually, on this lot 4, I

8 already have a -- we've been

9 two-and-a-half years, quarter of a

10 million. It's a long time trying to

11 do these last couple hurdles. This

12 gentleman who moved in from the other

13 side of the state, I found him a

14 temporary house to live in. His

15 house is already designed and it's

16 not up to the 25-feet buffer, but

17 where the point came up I would have

18 had to create a U-shaped house. It

19 just wasn't working on the particular

20 lot and it gives him enough room to

21 do a deck.

22 But a deck actually

23 is not even going to be required here

24 because the fact that topography is






1 such that the walkout -- this is not

2 a rear walkout lot. The walkout is

3 actually to the east and so he's

4 going to have an east walkout or a

5 side yard walkout on this. So it's

6 not going to be a situation with a

7 deck anyway no matter who is going to

8 build here because of the topography.

9 MR. FISCHER: That better

10 answers my question. Thank you very

11 much for that. I have one other

12 question. If this isn't approved,

13 will the wetland be filled in?

14 MR. WITTE: We haven't

15 really discussed that. We have

16 consulted with an attorney because

17 there's a couple other items, but we

18 haven't really finalized what would

19 happen. We did, as I think was

20 mentioned and might be in your

21 letter, too, we did go to the City

22 Council asking for a waiver to

23 include the property and the lot and

24 that was denied.






1 The other two routes

2 that I'm aware of is either getting

3 approval from you guys tonight and

4 then the third one would be going

5 back to the Planning Commission and

6 proposing that would be filled in.

7 And I guess the fourth is, fourth and

8 fifth, the fourth one is to totally

9 redo our layout, if it works. The

10 fifth one is lawsuit. But we haven't

11 talked beyond tonight about where to

12 go next.

13 MR. FISCHER: Right. I just

14 hear that, you know, another option

15 is to do that and in the grand scheme

16 of things it almost seems a little

17 variance that won't disturb the

18 wetland would be a lot better than

19 forcing you into filling it in or

20 other more drastic considerations,

21 which I'm sure you won't pursue, but

22 that would be my concern.

23 MR. WITTE: We met with the

24 City staff a couple weeks ago and a






1 wetland consultant, we had them on

2 the phone, and Mr. Spencer was there,

3 too, so he can elaborate on this, but

4 that was exactly what the wetland

5 consultant said, that he would rather

6 see this variance approved than us go

7 back to the Planning Commission.

8 MR. FISCHER: That's where

9 the Zoning Board here is between a

10 rock and a hard place. Failure to

11 grant a variance almost seems like it

12 would result in more harm to the

13 wetland. So my thoughts. I will

14 open it up to the other Board members

15 and hear theirs. Thank you, Mr.

16 Chair.

17 MR. SHROYER: Member Bauer.

18 MR. BAUER: Everybody has

19 got a letter on this we were talking

20 about from Elizabeth Kudla.

21 MR. SHROYER: Your

22 microphone, please.

23 MR. BAUER: The final

24 outcome is we see no legal impediment






1 to granting the variance, and that's

2 from a wetlands position.

3 MR. SHROYER: Counsel, would

4 you care to speak to that, please.

5 MS. OZGA: I don't have a

6 copy of it.

7 MR. SHROYER: This is the

8 one you're talking about, right?

9 Pass it around to counsel.

10 MS. OZGA: I'm sorry, I

11 didn't hear the question.

12 MR. SHROYER: He said it

13 said we have no other legal recourse.

14 MS. OZGA: If I can just

15 have a second to look over this.

16 My comment is

17 wetlands create somewhat of a unique

18 situation and in this property it

19 appears that because of the wetland

20 there is an irregular lot line. So

21 the wetland issue does create a

22 unique situation and can be used to

23 establish a practical difficulty to

24 grant a variance. And, as you






1 stated, there could be options to

2 filling in a wetland, but in this

3 case it looks like there's already

4 the 25-foot setback. It doesn't

5 appear there's anything behind it, so

6 you have an open area there, so the

7 wetland does create a unique

8 situation here.

9 MR. SHROYER: Any other

10 comment?

11 MR. BAUER: That's all, sir.

12 MR. SANGHVI: I've got a

13 question. How come you don't have

14 any sign on it or anything to say

15 what it is or nothing? I went up and

16 down the road looking for your place

17 to find the street address and

18 anything.

19 MR. SHROYER: Microphone,

20 please.

21 MR. WITTE: There actually

22 used to be a house on the property

23 but that was demolished.

24 MR. COMPO: And we recently






1 demolished an old school house, an

2 old barn. We're two-and-a-half

3 years. I was hoping to have lots

4 there and been moved into a model

5 there already, but unfortunately,

6 with two-and-a-half years and a

7 quarter of a million dollars we're at

8 a point of being so upside down

9 financially I'm ready to put a sign

10 up there, but I'm just waiting for

11 the approval.

12 MR. BAUER: He's just

13 pulling your leg.

14 MR. SANGHVI: As far as I'm

15 concerned, I will focus in on lot 4

16 and the issue here is that this

17 wetland could have been filled up if

18 they so desire and they haven't and

19 they are trying to keep it. And even

20 though I sometimes question the

21 opinion saying we see no legal

22 impediment to granting a variance, by

23 a known legal expert I presume, but

24 that's another story.






1 I have no problem,

2 really, because you are only talking

3 about lot 4. We are not talking

4 about the entire development here and

5 what that's going to do to the

6 neighborhood of Mrs. Crawford and

7 other people. That's a different

8 issue altogether which,

9 unfortunately, we can't address here

10 now. Thank you.

11 MR. SHROYER: Thank you,

12 Member Sanghvi. Mr. Canup.

13 MR. CANUP: I think we've

14 worn this thing out and it looks like

15 they could have filled that in if

16 they wanted to and this issue

17 wouldn't be here. And I think that

18 that -- and looking at the whole

19 project, it's not like we're building

20 a ghetto here, these are million

21 dollars plus homes, and Mr. Compo is

22 not going to do anything that's going

23 to be detrimental to his financial

24 future with a development like this.






1 So with that all

2 said, I would make a motion in Case

3 No. 07-014 that we grant the setback

4 as required for the backyard in order

5 to preserve the existing wetlands.

6 MR. SHROYER: Second?

7 MR. BAUER: On lot 4?

8 MR. SANGHVI: On lot 4.

9 Second.

10 MR. SHROYER: He's

11 questioning did you say on lot 4?

12 MR. CANUP: The variance

13 refers to lot 4, yes. That pretty

14 much covers it.

15 MR. SHROYER: So are you

16 seconding it or Mr. Bauer?

17 MR. BAUER: Second.

18 MR. SHROYER: Counsel,

19 please.

20 MS. OZGA: Just for clarity,

21 are you saying that there's a

22 practical difficulty because of the

23 unique situation with the wetlands?

24 MR. CANUP: That's exactly






1 what I said.

2 MS. OZGA: Just a

3 clarification.

4 MR. FISCHER: Could we make

5 sure that's part of the motion?

6 MR. SANGHVI: I accept your

7 suggestion, yes.

8 MR. BAUER: Yes.

9 MR. SHROYER: We have a

10 motion by Member Canup and a second

11 by Member Sanghvi and it's been

12 agreed upon. Is there any further

13 discussion?

14 I want to make a

15 comment before we vote and that

16 comment is, I've always been a

17 protector of wetlands and woodlands

18 in all my capacity within the City

19 and I want to do everything I can to

20 try to protect that. In this case it

21 appears through your working with the

22 City and the comments from the

23 various City experts that you've

24 taken that into consideration.






1 You've done as much as you can and

2 you are not filling in the wetland.

3 So it's going to maintain intact --

4 it's going to be kept intact as it is

5 and the 25-yard buffer between the

6 wetland --

7 MR. COMPO: Feet.

8 MR. SHROYER: Twenty-five

9 feet, we can make it 25 yards.

10 MR. BAUER: That's more land

11 than you got.

12 MR. SHROYER: Twenty-five

13 feet between the wetland itself and

14 the buffer isn't going to be

15 developed either. There won't be

16 anything built on that in addition to

17 so -- accessory structure. So in

18 that case I feel that I can support

19 the motion.

20 Please call the

21 roll.

22 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?

23 MR. CANUP: Yes.

24 MS. WORKING: Member






1 Sanghvi?


3 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?

4 MR. BAUER: Yes.

5 MS. WORKING: Vice Chair

6 Fischer?


8 MS. WORKING: Chairman

9 Shroyer?

10 MR. SHROYER: Yes.

11 MS. WORKING: Member

12 Krieger?

13 MS. KRIEGER: Yes.

14 MS. WORKING: Motion passes

15 6-0.

16 MR. WITTE: Thank you very

17 much for your time.

18 MR. SHROYER: Thank you.

19 That concludes the

20 last case of the night. Under "Other

21 Matters" which the item is Glenda's.

22 Do you care to speak on that?

23 MS. WORKING: In your

24 packet, Board members, you found a






1 letter written by the building

2 official to Glenda's reiterating the

3 stipulations of your motion that was

4 granted last year in ZBA case 06-080,

5 and it was noted by Member Fischer

6 that it looked that there were some

7 noncompliance issues regarding the

8 repair of the fence.

9 A courtesy call was

10 also made to Glenda's and we had one

11 of our ordinance officers go out

12 today and it appears they have

13 complied. The fence is in repair

14 and, Member Fischer, I think that you

15 noted that you wanted this brought

16 before the Board for consideration.

17 MR. FISCHER: Yeah. That

18 last item, and I was just hoping for

19 a letter, and thank you very much for

20 all the work you did on it. I drove

21 by it and it looks fine. My issue is

22 that I told them last time I saw the

23 rails falling out and then we granted

24 them another variance and I said






1 there are tools out there that will

2 allow you to pop the rails in and

3 they won't go anywhere, I used to

4 install fences, and it appears they

5 haven't done that so we'll keep our

6 eye on it. Again, thank you very

7 much for your hard work on it, Robin,

8 as always.

9 MS. WORKING: Thank you.

10 MR. SHROYER: Thank you.

11 The second item under "Other Matters"

12 was training dates.

13 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair, Mr.

14 Schultz from Secrest Wardle is

15 recommending that the Board possibly

16 consider April 24th or May 15th for

17 the ZBA training dates. That's for

18 your consideration. Through the

19 Chair you can entertain a vote or you

20 can consider it.

21 MR. SHROYER: What days of

22 the week are those?

23 MS. WORKING: Those would be

24 Tuesdays. Having said that, let me






1 double check my calendar. I'm

2 reasonably certain they are Tuesday.

3 April 24th is a Tuesday, May 15th is

4 a Tuesday. The 24th would be three

5 weeks after a scheduled ZBA meeting

6 and one week prior to the scheduled

7 ZBA meeting and the 15th is one week

8 after a scheduled ZBA meeting.

9 MR. SHROYER: Does the Board

10 have preference?

11 MR. SANGHVI: I would prefer

12 the 24th of April.

13 MS. KRIEGER: What time is

14 it?

15 MS. WORKING: I don't know.

16 It probably would be in the same time

17 as the ZBA meetings because of

18 people's work schedules.

19 MR. BAUER: I'll have to

20 call you.

21 MS. WORKING: 7:30 was the

22 last recommended start time.

23 MR. SHROYER: Could you

24 please send us an e-mail with those






1 dates and potential times and we'll

2 address it at the next meeting.

3 MS. WORKING: Okay. Well,

4 the next meeting is May 8th and the

5 one date is April 24th. I know, it's

6 late. I totally understand. I can

7 send you an e-mail and have you

8 respond no later then and I'll give

9 you a date much prior to the April

10 24th meeting.

11 MR. SHROYER: We would like,

12 if at all possible, to have all

13 members present. I know I would have

14 a problem with the 24th, it's my

15 anniversary, and I don't want to

16 bring my wife to legal training. I

17 don't think she would want to come

18 either.

19 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair,

20 it's being recommended that maybe a

21 vote be taken this evening rather

22 than a vote via e-mail.

23 MR. FISCHER: Mr. Gatt is

24 not here. He's one of the newer






1 members.

2 MR. SANGHVI: He can't come

3 before 7:30 and I don't know what his

4 schedule is.

5 MR. FISCHER: If we get it

6 to you by the end of this week, I

7 mean --

8 MS. WORKING: Ms. Ozga is

9 suggesting she could also possibly

10 come back with another date.

11 MS. OZGA: I could try to

12 get two May dates. That way you

13 could pick one rather than trying to

14 rush a decision.

15 MR. SHROYER: That would be

16 my preference. I know if we had a

17 date other than Tuesday or Thursdays,

18 Member Gatt might be able to make it

19 at an earlier time. He indicated to

20 me he works on those days.

21 MS. WORKING: So would we be

22 asking Secrest Wardle to look at a

23 day other than a Tuesday? I know in

24 the past they've been looking






1 exclusively at Tuesdays.

2 MR. SHROYER: What does the

3 Board feel about that?

4 MR. FISCHER: Just send us

5 any days. Everyone can write back

6 saying which days they're available

7 and the one that has the most people

8 available that's the one we pick.

9 MS. WORKING: I'll be

10 willing to channel that information

11 and bring it down and give it to our

12 attorneys so they can narrow it down

13 in their calendar.

14 MR. SHROYER: Okay. Any

15 other business for this evening?

16 MR. FISCHER: Motion to

17 adjourn.

18 MR. SHROYER: All in favor

19 say aye.

20 THE BOARD: Aye.

21 (The Meeting was concluded

22 at 11:05 p.m.)










3 C E R T I F I C A T E


5 I, Glenn Miller, do

6 hereby certify that I have recorded

7 stenographically the proceedings had

8 and testimony taken in the

9 above-entitled matter at the time and

10 place hereinbefore set forth, and I

11 do further certify that the foregoing

12 transcript, consisting of one hundred

13 sixty (160) typewritten pages, is a

14 true and correct transcript of my

15 said stenograph notes.




19 ---------------------------

20 Glenn Miller

21 Certified Shorthand Reporter

22 ---------------

23 (Date)