|View Agenda for this meeting
View Action Summary for this meeting
Regular Meeting - Zoning Board of Appeals,
City of Novi
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
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
17 MR. FISCHER: Present.
18 MS. WORKING: Member Gatt?
19 MR. GATT: Here.
20 MS. WORKING: Member
22 MS. KRIEGER: Here.
23 MS. WORKING: Member
1 MR. SANGHVI: Here.
2 MS. WORKING: Chairman
4 MR. SHROYER: Here.
5 MS. WORKING: All members
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
7 MR. SHROYER: Thank you,
8 Member Canup. Anyone else? Member
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
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
7 MR. SHROYER: Back to Member
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
23 MR. CHAWNEY: Not right with
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
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
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
6 MR. CHAWNEY: I can actually
7 remove the extension. That's no
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
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
10 MR. CANUP: I would make a
11 motion in case 07-007 that we grant
12 the variance as requested based on as
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?
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
18 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?
19 MR. CANUP: Yes.
20 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?
21 MR. BAUER: Yes.
22 MS. WORKING: Member
24 MR. SANGHVI: Yes.
1 MS. WORKING: Chairman
3 MR. SHROYER: Yes.
4 MS. WORKING: Member Gatt?
5 MR. GATT: Yes.
6 MS. WORKING: Vice Chair
8 MR. FISCHER: Aye.
9 MS. WORKING: Motion passes
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
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.
6 THE BOARD: Aye.
7 MR. SHROYER: Opposed same
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
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.
15 MR. CARPENTER: John
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
6 MR. CARPENTER: Yes.
7 MRS. CARPENTER: Yes.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
9 MR. CARPENTER: Right,
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
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
1 MRS. CARPENTER: We took
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
20 MRS. CARPENTER: We have
22 MR. SHROYER: We can't
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 --
20 MR. CARPENTER: The
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
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
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
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
3 MRS. CARPENTER: Yeah,
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
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,
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
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
18 MR. SHROYER: Yes.
19 MS. WORKING: Member
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
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
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
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
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,
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
1 MR. GATT: The were 18
2 notices mailed; zero approvals, zero
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
20 MR. SANGHVI: Yes.
21 MS. WORKING: Chairman
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
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
17 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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?
9 MS. CRAIGLE: Yes.
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.
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
2 MR. SHROYER: Thank you.
3 Ma'am, would you care to come
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
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
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
5 MR. GATT: Please raise your
6 right hand. Do you swear to tell the
7 truth regarding case 07-010?
8 MS. ENDICOTT: I do.
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
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
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
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
7 MR. HAW: Yes, the are.
8 MR. CANUP: No one else will
9 have access to that drive except
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
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
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
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
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
9 MS. WORKING: There are
10 aerial views in the file, Member
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
12 MR. SHROYER: From Nine Mile
13 Road all the way to the end of the
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
21 MR. CANUP: Now, is that
22 expansion -- does he now own this
23 property also?
24 MS. WORKING: No, those are
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
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
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
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
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.
10 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE
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.
22 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE
23 MEMBER: So you're going to have four
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
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.
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.
14 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE
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 --
20 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE
21 MEMBER: You're overlooking that our
22 driveway is four feet from their
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.
5 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE
6 MEMBER: You're chitchatting, you're
7 not talking.
8 MR. SHROYER: We're not open
9 to go back to discussion. Quiet.
10 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE
11 MEMBER: Mr. Gatt is whispering to
13 MR. SHROYER: Because Mr.
14 Gatt is going to be leaving after
15 this case.
16 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE
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.
21 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE
22 MEMBER: Then you should have been
23 listening to me.
24 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE
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
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
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
12 MR. GATT: I'll add Member
13 Fischer's comments as a friendly
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
3 MR. SANGHVI: No.
4 MS. WORKING: Chairman
6 MR. SHROYER: No.
7 MS. WORKING: Vice Chair
9 MR. FISCHER: Aye.
10 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?
11 MR. CANUP: No.
12 MS. WORKING: We have a tie.
13 MR. SHROYER: So the motion
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
11 MR. SANGHVI: Yes.
12 MS. WORKING: Chairman
14 MR. SHROYER: Yes.
15 MS. WORKING: Member Gatt?
16 MR. GATT: Yes.
17 MS. WORKING: Vice Chair
19 MR. FISCHER: Aye.
20 MS. WORKING: And Member
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
3 MR. SHROYER: Yes,
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
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
10 MR. GATT: The original
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
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
6 MS. WORKING: That is
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
15 MR. FISCHER: Aye.
16 MS. WORKING: Member
18 MR. SHROYER: Yes.
19 MS. WORKING: Chairman
20 Shroyer. I apologize.
21 MR. SHROYER: That's fine.
23 MS. WORKING: Member
1 MR. SANGHVI: No.
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.
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
7 MR. SHROYER: Is that it?
8 MR. McCURDY: Yeah.
9 MR. SHROYER: Do we have any
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
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
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
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
4 MR. McCURDY: Yes. I have a
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
14 MR. SANGHVI: That's not his
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
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
11 MR. BAUER: Second.
12 MR. SHROYER: Motion has
13 been made by Member Sanghvi, seconded
14 by Member Bauer. Any further
16 MS. WORKING: I heard
18 MR. SHROYER: Counsel
20 MS. OZGA: I was just asking
21 the configuration of the property
22 represents a practical difficulty.
23 MR. FISCHER: Pie-shaped
1 MS. OZGA: The pie-shaped
3 MR. SANGHVI: I said
4 pie-shaped lot.
5 MR. SHROYER: Please call
6 the roll.
7 MS. WORKING: Member
9 MR. SANGHVI: Yes.
10 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?
11 MR. BAUER: Yes.
12 MS. WORKING: Chairman
14 MR. SHROYER: Yes.
15 MS. WORKING: Member
17 MS. KRIEGER: Yes.
18 MS. WORKING: Vice Chair
20 MR. FISCHER: Aye.
21 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?
22 MR. CANUP: Yes.
23 MS. WORKING: Motion passes
1 MR. SHROYER: Thank you,
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
6 MR. FISCHER: Sir, do you
7 swear to tell the truth in ZBA case
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
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
2 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment,
4 MR. SHROYER: At this point
5 I'll open it up to the Board for
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
7 MR. SHROYER: Thank you.
8 Member Krieger, did you have a
10 MS. KRIEGER: Not at this
11 time. Thank you.
12 MR. SHROYER: Member
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.
1 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE
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
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
13 MR. WADE: It's all the same
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
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
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.
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
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
24 MR. BAUER: That's what I
1 said, not one on each side.
2 MR. AMOLSCH: No.
3 MR. BAUER: That's what I
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
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
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
6 MR. SANGHVI: Okay. Let's
7 incorporate that, as requested, both
9 MR. SHROYER: So the two
10 separate sign variances and the
11 overall variance?
12 MR. AMOLSCH: The signs
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
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
5 MR. SANGHVI: Yes.
6 MS. WORKING: Member
8 MS. KRIEGER: Yes.
9 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?
10 MR. BAUER: No.
11 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?
12 MR. CANUP: No.
13 MS. WORKING: Vice Chair
15 MR. FISCHER: Aye.
16 MS. WORKING: Chairman
18 MR. SHROYER: No.
19 MS. WORKING: We're tied
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
4 MR. SHROYER: Yes.
5 MS. WORKING: Member
7 MS. KRIEGER: Yes.
8 MS. WORKING: Member
10 MR. SANGHVI: Yes.
11 MS. WORKING: Vice Chair
13 MR. FISCHER: No.
14 MS. WORKING: Motion passes
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
19 MS. CRAWFORD: Yes, I do.
20 MR. FISCHER: Thank you.
21 MS. CRAWFORD: Our
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
19 MR. SHROYER: Microphone,
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.
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,
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
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
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
22 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?
23 MR. CANUP: Yes.
24 MS. WORKING: Member
2 MR. SANGHVI: Yes.
3 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?
4 MR. BAUER: Yes.
5 MS. WORKING: Vice Chair
7 MR. FISCHER: Aye.
8 MS. WORKING: Chairman
10 MR. SHROYER: Yes.
11 MS. WORKING: Member
13 MS. KRIEGER: Yes.
14 MS. WORKING: Motion passes
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
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
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
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
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.
20 Glenn Miller
21 Certified Shorthand Reporter