View Agenda for this meeting
View Action Summary for this meeting


Proceedings had and testimony taken in the matters of the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, at City of Novi, 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, Tuesday, November 6, 2007.

Timothy Shroyer, Chairman
Justin Fischer, Vice-Chairman
Gerald Bauer
Brent Canup
Linda Krieger
Mav Sanghvi
Wayne Wrobel

Christian Fox, Community Development Liaison
Elizabeth Kudla, City Attorney
Alan Amolsch, Ordinance Enforcement
Robin Working, ZBA Recording Secretary

Mona L. Talton, Certified Shorthand Reporter.


1 Novi, Michigan

2 Tuesday, November 6, 2007

3 7:30 p.m.

4 - - - - - -



7 call the meeting to order. This is the

8 special meeting of the Zoning Board of

9 Appeals City of Novi for Tuesday, November

10 6th, 2007 in the Council Chambers of the

11 Civic Center.

12 Robin, please call the roll for

13 attendance.

14 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?

15 MEMBER BAUER: Present.

16 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?

17 MS. SANGHVI: Here.

18 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?


20 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer?


22 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?


24 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?



1 MS. KRIEGER: Here.

2 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?


4 MS. WORKING: We have a quorum and all

5 of present, Mr. Chairman.

6 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. That

7 means this meeting is official and it is now

8 in session.

9 At this time, Member Krieger, would

10 you please lead us in the Pledge of

11 Allegiance.


13 allegiance to the flag of the United States

14 of America and to the republic for which it

15 stands, one nation under God indivisible

16 with liberty and justice for all.

17 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. Would

18 the Vice-Chair please read our rules of

19 conduct for the meeting.


21 Chair. Full set of the rules of conduct and

22 rules of procedure can be found in the front

23 of agenda. Please be sure to turn off all

24 cell phones and pagers during the meeting.



1 The Applicant will be asked to come forward

2 and state their name, address and be sworn

3 in by our Secretary.

4 The Applicant will be allowed for a

5 five minute presentation to the Board. An

6 extension is granted upon request by the

7 Chairperson.

8 Anyone in the audience who wishes to

9 address the Board regarding the current case

10 will be asked by the Chairperson to raise

11 their hands and be recognized. Once

12 recognized the audience members addressing

13 the Board will be sworn in and given three

14 minutes to speak if speaking on behalf of an

15 individual or ten minutes to speak if

16 representing a group.

17 Members of the audience will be

18 allowed to address the Board once unless

19 directly questioned by the Board or the

20 Chairperson. The secretary will read the

21 number of public hearing notices mailed

22 pertaining to the case and objection and

23 approval responses will be read into the

24 record.



1 The Chairperson will ask for input


2 from the City staff including the Community

3 Development Department, Ordinance

4 Enforcement, the Planning Department and the

5 City Attorney. The Chair will turn the

6 board at that time over to the Board -- turn

7 the case over to the Board for discussion,

8 clarification and entertainment of motion if

9 and when appropriate.

10 Impromptu statements from the audience

11 will not be tolerated and be considered out

12 of order. A roll call vote will be taken to

13 approve or deny a motion and the next case

14 will then be called.


16 Zoning Board of Appeals is a Hearing Board

17 empowered by the Novi City Charter to hear

18 appeals seeking variances from the

19 application of Novi Zoning Ordinances.

20 It takes a vote of at least four

21 members to approve a variance request and a

22 vote of the majority present to deny a

23 request. The Board consist of seven regular

24 members and one alternate member. The



1 alternate member has the right to

2 participate in all Board discussions and

3 hearings, but may not vote except in the

4 absence or abstention of a regular Board

5 member.

6 We do have our alternate member

7 sitting in as a regular Board member this

8 evening so she has full rights of voting.

9 At this time we have a revised agenda in

10 front of us. I understand that there is no

11 Minutes so we can scratch that from the

12 agenda, correct?

13 MS. WORKING: That is correct.

14 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Is there any other

15 additions or corrections to the agenda?

16 MS. WORKING: I would like you to note

17 that Case Number 8 on your agenda, 07-084

18 has requested to be tabled to the December

19 4th agenda. And case number 10 on your

20 agenda, 07-086, has also requested to be

21 tabled to the December agenda and those

22 requests have been honored.

23 And I would like to add under other

24 matters at the end of our agenda this



1 evening ZBA Case: 07-058, 23820 Linwood.

2 Those are the only changes, Mr. Chair.

3 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: That would be

4 added. We want to ask the attorney, is the

5 tabling the correct verbiage to use on this

6 since it hasn't come in front of the Board

7 for postponement? Or is it just moved to a

8 meeting so no vote is necessary?

9 MS. KUDLA: Tabling is not necessary.

10 The correct term I would say is postponed.

11 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Postponed. I would

12 like to incorporate changing the verbiage

13 from tabled to postponed in both those

14 cases. Is there a motion to approve the

15 agenda?


17 approve as amended.

18 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

19 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We have a motion to

20 approve by Vice-Chair Fischer and seconded

21 by Member Bauer.

22 All in favor of the motion please say

23 aye?




1 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Opposed same sign?

2 We have an agenda.

3 At this time we have

4 our public remarks. Is there anyone that

5 cares to speak to the ZBA on any matter

6 other than one that is going to come forward

7 as a public hearing later on in the agenda?

8 Seeing none, we will move on to our first

9 case.


11 Our first case is Case Number:

12 07-076 filed by Mark Zoltowski of MLS Signs

13 Company, Incorporated, for Oberweis Ice

14 Cream & Dairy to be located at 43168 Grand

15 River Avenue in the Novi Town Center.

16 The Applicant is requesting one wall

17 sign variance to be located at said address.

18 The Applicant is requesting a 45 square foot

19 illuminated rear elevation wall sign on the

20 south elevation of the building. The

21 property is zoned TC and located north of

22 Grand River and east of Novi Road.

23 Per the City Ordinances Section

24 28-5(3)f, the number of on-premises



1 advertising signs permitted states: Where

2 two or more separately owned and operated

3 businesses occupy a building on a single

4 parcel of land, each having a separate

5 exterior entrance, each business is entitled

6 to a single identification wall sign.

7 The Applicant is present, please come

8 forth. Are you an attorney, sir?

9 MR. ZOLTOWSKI: No. I am Mark from

10 MLS Signs.

11 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We will need you to

12 be sworn in by our Secretary, please.

13 MEMBER BAUER: Raise your right hand.

14 Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth

15 regarding Case: 07-076?

16 MR. ZOLTOWSKI: Yes, I do.

17 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.

18 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Your name and

19 address you said it was Mark?

20 MR. ZOLTOWSKI: Mark Zoltowski and I

21 represent MLS Signs and I live in Berkley,

22 Michigan.

23 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. Please

24 present your case.



1 MR. ZOLTOWSKI: The case is Oberweis

2 Dairy is requesting a rear sign at the

3 Oberweis Diary location there at the Novi

4 Town Center. The way the stores are lined

5 out on Grand River, the front entrances face

6 the actual center of the Novi Town Center

7 and the rear faces Grand River which, of

8 course, allows no signage. We are

9 requesting a rear sign just for the fact

10 that there is a lot of traffic on Grand

11 River and in some ways the identification of

12 Oberweis Diary really could be marked more

13 so by the rear sign than on the front

14 entrance side. We believe for the business

15 and the customers, the rear sign is really

16 really needed at that location.

17 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Sir, as you are

18 talking do you happen to have an overhead or

19 a picture that you can put on the overhead

20 so our audience can see?

21 MR. ZOLTOWSKI: That I don't

22 unfortunately.

23 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We will give you

24 one of ours.



1 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair?

2 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Yes. With this

3 being televised we would like our home

4 audience to be able to see the sign and also

5 the audience here.

6 MR. ZOLTOWSKI: In fact, the rear sign

7 is almost going to duplicate what is in

8 front of the business.

9 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: And this one is the

10 front?

11 MR. ZOLTOWSKI: I think it's the

12 front. They're almost identical.

13 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Is that all you

14 wanted to say this evening?


16 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: This is a public

17 hearing, is there anyone in the audience who

18 cares to speak on behalf of this matter?

19 Okay, I will close the public hearing and

20 ask the Secretary if there are any notices

21 or correspondence?


23 this case there were 30 notices mailed with

24 zero approvals and zero objections.



1 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. Any

2 comments from the City or Counsel?

3 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment, sir.

4 MS. KUDLA: No comment.

5 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: All right, we will

6 turn it over to the Board for discussion.

7 Member Wrobel?

8 MEMBER SANGHVI: I yield to Mr. Canup.

9 (Unintelligible.)

10 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Would you yield to

11 Mr. Canup as well, Mr. Wrobel?


13 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Okay. Mr. Canup?

14 MEMBER CANUP: My question is to Mr.

15 Amolsch. The red and white striped awning

16 in the front which kind of seems to blend

17 with the sign that's being requested, would

18 that awning be termed as a sign?

19 MR. AMOLSCH: No, sir. That would

20 have been reviewed separately by the Plan

21 Review Center. I don't know if that they

22 reviewed that or not. But it would not be

23 regarded as a sign.

24 MEMBER CANUP: I don't have a problem



1 with the sign being there as long as it does

2 not exceed the legal size as per our

3 Ordinance. The second sign, legal size

4 being located on the Grand River side; is

5 that correct, sir? I don't have a problem

6 with that and would support a motion.

7 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you, Mr.

8 Canup.

9 Mr. Sanghvi?

10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

11 I just wanted to point out that they also

12 submitted a proper copy (unintelligible),

13 not the one that we have got on the

14 overhead. They need an identification sign,

15 and I agree with Mr. Canup it is too large

16 for that area and there is no reason why it

17 cannot be trimmed down to the requirement as

18 stated in the Ordinance. Thank you.

19 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Member Wrobel, did

20 you have a comment as well?

21 MEMBER WROBEL: Since we approved for

22 a previous tenant, Pei Wei or Pei, whatever

23 it's called, I have no problem with the

24 second sign as long as it's not bigger than



1 that existing sign that we had already

2 approved.

3 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: That was my comment

4 as well. I want to be consistent with the

5 size and not necessarily in the length,

6 because obviously the name of your store is

7 longer.

8 MR. ZOLTOWSKI: It's more verbiage to

9 identify the store.

10 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: But I wouldn't want

11 the primary words to be any higher in

12 height. That would be my only comment on

13 this as well.

14 Any other comments from the Board?

15 Open to a motion? Member Canup?

16 MEMBER CANUP: I would make a motion

17 that in case number: 07-076 that we grant

18 the variance as requested with the

19 restrictions that the sign not exceed the

20 size as allowed by Ordinance.

21 Mr. Amolsch, did have you a question?

22 MR. AMOLSCH: Yes. The sign for the

23 front is 45 square feet as what's allowed by

24 Ordinance.



1 MEMBER CANUP: Is that within

2 Ordinance?


4 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: You're talking

5 about the secondary sign?

6 MEMBER CANUP: The secondary sign would

7 be allowed as long as it's within Ordinance.

8 MR. AMOLSCH: The secondary sign is up

9 to the Board at its discretion whether or

10 not to approve that sign or not. The one on

11 the front is 45 square feet.

12 MEMBER CANUP: The one on the front is

13 the legal size sign?

14 MR. AMOLSCH: It meets the code.


16 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We have a motion by

17 Member Canup. A second by Member Sanghvi.

18 Further discussion?

19 The question I had was the size of the

20 Pei Wei sign. I'm looking, I believe it was

21 18 inches.

22 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair, I provided

23 for you in your packet material the motion

24 that came from the Pei Wei case for your



1 reference on this case.

2 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: That must be where

3 I got that size. The note that I have is to

4 not to have a height maximum of exceeding 28

5 inches. And they were requesting 38 inches.

6 So that would be my comment on further

7 discussion. Is there any other discussion?

8 Okay. There is a motion on the floor.

9 Member Fischer?

10 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Do we have any

11 findings on the motion, Mr. Chair?

12 MEMBER SANGHVI: The reason is

13 identification.

14 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Due to Grand River

15 and --

16 MEMBER SANGHVI: On Grand River, yes.


18 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Is that acceptable

19 by the motion maker?

20 MEMBER CANUP: That's acceptable that

21 the reason for the variance is the fact that

22 they actually have two frontages, one on the

23 Grand River side and one on the shopping

24 center side.



1 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. Please

2 call the roll.

3 MS. WORKING: Can I have clarification

4 on whether or not we stipulated a square

5 footage restriction on that second sign?

6 MEMBER CANUP: The motion that was

7 made there was no restriction other than the

8 fact that it did not exceed the legal amount

9 as allowed by the Ordinance. The intention

10 was that you are allowed one sign of 45

11 square feet.

12 MR. AMOLSCH: That's correct.

13 MEMBER CANUP: The second sign

14 according to the motion that was made would

15 not exceed 45 square feet.

16 MR. ZOLTOWSKI: So we are adhering to

17 that, right?


19 was submitted.

20 MEMBER BAUER: Yes, which was

21 submitted. No problem.

22 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Please call the

23 roll.

24 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?




2 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


4 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?


6 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?


8 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?


10 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?


12 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer?


14 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 6-1.

15 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. Your

16 motion has been granted, sir. Thank you.

17 MR. ZOLTOWSKI: So we are allowed the

18 45 foot square sign?

19 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Not to exceed 45

20 square feet.

21 MR. ZOLTOWSKI: Thank you.


23 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Our second case is

24 Case Number: 07-077 filed by Greg Karr of



1 24099 Wintergreen Circle in the Park

2 Subdivision. The Applicant is requesting

3 one rear yard setback variance for the

4 construction of a proposed deck and a screen

5 deck enclosure to be located at said

6 address.

7 The Applicant is requesting a four

8 foot rear yard setback variance for the

9 required 35 foot setback. The property is

10 zoned R-1 and located east of Beck Road and

11 south of Ten Mile.

12 Per our Ordinance Article 24 Section

13 2400 Scheduled Regulations requires a

14 minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet.

15 The Applicant is present, he came

16 forth.

17 MR. KARR: Yes.

18 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: You are not an

19 attorney; is that correct?

20 MR. KARR: Yes.

21 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Please be sworn in

22 by our Secretary.

23 MEMBER BAUER: Raise your right hand.

24 Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth



1 regarding case: 07-077?

2 MR. KARR: Yes.

3 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

4 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Please present your

5 case.

6 MR. KARR: I need this variance

7 (unintelligible) my porch. Obviously to

8 keep the original order of the house, face

9 the west, keep the sun out, it's too hot to

10 be out on the deck with the bugs and stuff.

11 I can't wait another 20 years for my trees

12 to grow.

13 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Miracle Grow.

14 MR. KARR: I tried that.

15 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Could you put your

16 map on the overhead?

17 MR. KARR: I didn't bring a copy.

18 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: This is more

19 detailed. Thank you, sir.

20 This is a public hearing, is there

21 anyone else in the audience who cares to

22 address the Board in this matter? Seeing

23 none, we'll close the public hearing and

24 turn it over to the Secretary -- I'm sorry,



1 the Vice-Chair.


3 Mr. Chair, there were 30 notices mailed with

4 one approval and zero objections. An

5 approval from Christine Strigger (ph), 24135

6 Wintergreen Circle with no comments.

7 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. Any

8 comments from the City or Counsel?

9 MS. KUDLA: No.

10 MR. FOX: I have no comment.

11 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. I'll

12 turn it over to the Board for discussion.

13 Member Fischer?


15 current deck being expanded at all or are

16 you building on top of a foundation?

17 MR. KARR: Actually I'm coming in

18 three feet, four feet. I am coming in

19 actually instead of out.

20 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: So it would be

21 on top of the existing deck, but not to the

22 extent of --

23 MR. KARR: I'm actually taking four

24 feet of my deck in. I am actually coming in



1 not outward.



3 see any objection with this, Mr. Chair,

4 given the facts that are represented in our

5 packet as well as the comments by the

6 Petitioner. I think it does substantial

7 justice to him as well as his neighbors and

8 is actually less encroaching than previous.

9 So I would be willing to support a motion.

10 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Member Wrobel?

11 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

12 The rear of your lot does that back up to

13 another home?

14 MR. KARR: Yes, it does.

15 MEMBER WROBEL: I can support it also.

16 Thank you.

17 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Member Canup?

18 MEMBER CANUP: I would be willing to

19 make a motion with some stipulations. I

20 would make a motion in case number: 07-077

21 that we grant the variance as requested for

22 reasons as stated by the Petitioner with the

23 limitations that the material and the

24 architecture match that of the existing



1 structure.


3 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: There is a motion

4 by Member Canup. A second by Member Bauer.

5 Further discussion from the Board?

6 Could I ask the Motioner to clarify a little

7 bit about the match? Are you talking about

8 the slope or the growth being the same as

9 the slope of the house?

10 MEMBER CANUP: I'm talking about the

11 basic architecture of the new sun room,

12 porch, etcetera, that it have some of the

13 same materials that the house was made out

14 of. If it has a siding on it that is a

15 beige color then this needs to be a beige

16 color siding. It needs to match the house

17 and look like it's on there not a sore

18 spot.

19 MR. KARR: It is. I wouldn't have it

20 any other way.

21 MEMBER CANUP: Make it look nice.

22 MR. KARR: Yes.

23 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Did this have to go

24 in front of the subdivision for review?



1 MR. KARR: The president signed off on

2 it.

3 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: That's not required

4 but I like to ask because they're the ones

5 that quite often want to make sure that it's

6 not purple if your house is white or

7 something like that.

8 MS. WORKING: It's not required.

9 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: It's not required.


11 copy for the record, though?

12 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Did you bring a

13 copy with you by any chance?

14 MR. KARR: From the subdivision?


16 MR. KARR: It's signed on the plan.

17 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: It's initialed on

18 the plans? On the bottom right.

19 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: All right, any

20 other comments? Please call the roll.

21 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?


23 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?




1 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?


3 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?


5 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?


7 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer?


9 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


11 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0.

12 MR. KARR: Thank you.

13 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Your variance has

14 been granted. Thank you.

15 (Interposing)(Unintelligible).


17 Thursday. She is very busy tomorrow.

18 MR. KARR: Thursday?

19 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: So you can't start

20 until at least Friday.

21 MS. WORKING: Actually it will be five

22 days from the hearing date before you can

23 take any action.




1 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Our next case is

2 Case: 07-078. I have to make sure I read

3 it separately from the one that was just

4 read because it's very similar in nature.

5 MS. WORKING: It is definitely.

6 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: This is filed by

7 Marybeth Mascari of 24081 Wintergreen

8 Circle. The Applicant is requesting one

9 rear yard setback variance for the

10 construction of an enclosed sun room on an

11 existing deck located at said address.

12 They are requesting a 4.57 foot rear

13 yard setback variance from the required 35

14 foot setback. The property is zoned R-1 and

15 located east of Beck and south of Ten. The

16 same Article and Ordinance applies.

17 And the Applicant has presented

18 herself, so please be sworn in by our

19 Secretary.

20 MEMBER BAUER: Raise your right hand

21 please. Do you swear or affirm to tell the

22 truth regarding case: 07-087?

23 MS. MASCARI: Yes, I do.

24 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.



1 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Present your case.

2 And if you have a picture.

3 MS. MASCARI: I don't. May I borrow

4 it, please? I'm sorry.

5 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We're going to have

6 to train our Applicants.

7 MS. MASCARI: I thought if you guys

8 all were set I didn't really need it.

9 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: That's fine, no

10 problem.

11 MS. MASCARI: This is not the same one

12 as this. Is this the one you need up there

13 or do you need the same one?


15 (unintelligible).

16 MS. MASCARI: I thought I shrunk it.

17 I didn't shrink it?

18 MEMBER BAUER: That's why I gave you

19 this one, because you can't put it on there.

20 MS. MASCARI: Yeah.

21 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We can see it's

22 very similar to the previous case.

23 MS. MASCARI: It's very similar. I am

24 also requesting the variance so that we can



1 enjoy our home a little bit more. We love

2 where we live. We love or neighborhood. We

3 are not able to enjoy our deck right now

4 because we have the western sun. It is

5 tremendously hot out there. I have three

6 kids and two of them are allergic to

7 mosquito bites and every time we are out

8 there from here to the wetlands the kids are

9 just getting attacked and I have swollen up

10 kids all the time. So, we wanted to add

11 this.

12 All I'm doing is enclosing my existing

13 deck. I am not building a new -- I am not

14 adding onto it at all to my existing deck.

15 And we want to enclose it so that we can get

16 the fresh air and enjoy the outdoors a

17 little bit better and not get sunburned and

18 eaten up.

19 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. This is

20 a public hearing. Is there anyone in the

21 audience who cares to address the ZBA in

22 this case? Seeing none, we'll close the

23 public hearing.

24 Are there any correspondence?




2 Chair. In this case there were 30 notices

3 with one approval and zero objections.

4 Said approval comes from Christine

5 Stricker (ph) of 24135 Wintergreen Circle

6 with no comments.


8 Comments from the City or Counsel?

9 MS. KUDLA: No.

10 MR. FOX: If it please, the Chair.

11 Just a little clarification. It's an

12 existing deck that she already has here that

13 does meet the City's Ordinance requirements

14 as it stands. By enclosing the deck it

15 makes it an encroachment issue in this case.

16 But the existing deck is not encroaching for

17 the same reasons. It wasn't already an

18 issue before this. It's only because of the

19 enclosure that it's becoming an issue.

20 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. Member

21 Fischer?

22 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Given the fact

23 once again that it is an existing deck, it

24 is no more intrusive than -- I feel it is no



1 more intrusive than the current structure.

2 To Mr. Canup's point, are you planning

3 on using somewhat of the same materials and

4 the same architecture?

5 MS. MASCARI: Absolutely.


7 be willing to make a motion that in Case

8 number: 07-078 filed by Marybeth Mascari

9 that we approve the Petitioner's request as

10 submitted as Petitioner has established

11 practical difficulty --



14 fact that she is doing substantial justice

15 to herself as well as other homeowners and

16 it's no more intrusive than the current

17 structure.

18 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We have a motion on

19 the floor and an early second.

20 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligible.)


22 once again Mr. Canup's concerns that the

23 structure and material be of similar nature

24 to the existing home. And would the



1 Seconder agree?


3 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We have a Motion by

4 Member Fischer and a second by Member

5 Krieger.

6 Any further discussion? Member Bauer?

7 MEMBER BAUER: Didn't you buy this

8 house for the mosquitos back there?

9 MS. MASCARI: I'm sorry?

10 MEMBER BAUER: Didn't you buy the

11 house for the mosquitos?

12 MEMBER SANGHVI: The mosquitos came

13 with the house, right?

14 MS. MASCARI: They absolutely did. And

15 you know, it seems like they're getting

16 worse every year. I don't know why. Like I

17 said we love our sub and we love our home

18 and I think it's going to be a great

19 addition and it's going to be beautiful.

20 It's really going to be beautiful. It's not

21 going to be purple.

22 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Well, with the

23 enclosure, hopefully you won't be feeding

24 the mosquitos anymore so maybe they won't



1 get any bigger.

2 MS. MASCARI: Right.

3 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Please call the

4 roll.

5 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer?


7 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?


9 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?


11 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


13 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?


15 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?


17 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?


19 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0.

20 MS. MASCARI: Thank you.



23 plan our April meeting at these two

24 addresses.



1 MS. MASCARI: Come by and see us when

2 it's done. Thank you.


4 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Our next case

5 is Case number: 07-079 filed by Matt

6 Witkorowski of the City of Novi Parks and

7 Recreation Department for 5100 West Eight

8 Mile Road in the Sports Park.

9 The Applicant is requesting two

10 variances for the construction of an

11 accessory building to be located at the

12 Sports Park. They are requesting one

13 variance for the construction of a fourth

14 accessory building and one variance for the

15 strict application of the accessory use

16 requirement in a residential district which

17 states: The aggregate of all accessory

18 buildings on the property shall not exceed

19 1500 square feet in an R-A District. The

20 property is zoned R-A and is located east of

21 Napier and north of Eight Mile Road.

22 The Applicant has come forward. Did I

23 totally butcher your name or was I close?

24 MR. NEIMAN (ph): My name is Ed



1 Neiman. This is Matt.

2 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Oh. Yeah, I think

3 I ruined your name.

4 MEMBER SANGHVI: You are on a roll

5 aren't you?

6 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Exactly. Are you an

7 attorney, sir?

8 MR. NEIMAN: No, I am not.

9 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Please be sworn in

10 by our Secretary.

11 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm

12 to tell the truth regarding Case: 07-079?

13 MR. NEIMAN: Yes, sir.

14 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Please present your

15 case.

16 MR. NEIMAN: Okay. Thank you. As you

17 clearly stated this is approximately an 80

18 acre park. We are working with the Parks

19 and Rec Department in an effort to on the

20 Eight Mile site to place a facility just

21 large enough to meet the needs. The

22 variance as it clearly points is just

23 slightly over the square footage and because

24 it's a residential space, in fact, at the



1 Planning Commission it was cited that it was

2 more relevant to a residential requirement.

3 We believe it to be consistent with

4 the large expansive space that's out there.

5 The modest amount of square footage that it

6 does add to this location is still in

7 keeping with the character and materials of

8 the other facilities.

9 I can't tell you more. That's what it

10 is, ladies and gentlemen.

11 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. As you

12 are putting it on the overhead, this is

13 public hearing. Is there anyone in the

14 audience who cares to address this regarding

15 this case? Seeing none, we'll close the

16 public hearing and ask the Vice-Chair if

17 there is any notices?



19 there were 20 notices mailed with zero

20 approvals and one objection. Constance

21 Zebon (ph) of 20991 Napier Road states that:

22 I live across the street from the back

23 entrance of the park and there is already

24 constant traffic for my family to enter our



1 driveway and I feel this will only increase

2 the traffic congestion to get into our

3 driveway and get home safely.

4 Furthermore, the size of the building

5 is excessive and will not be in balance with

6 the remainder of the buildings on site.

7 Reject the proposal and the fourth accessory

8 building on the property.

9 Please read these comments on my

10 behalf.

11 Thank you, Mr. Chair.


13 MR. NEIMAN: If it please, as a

14 response. Matt from the Rec Department

15 is --

16 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We'll ask. Please

17 be patient.

18 Comments from the City or Counsel.

19 MS. KUDLA: From Counsel, I just

20 wanted to make sure that everyone received

21 Tom Schultz's letter and has had an

22 opportunity to review that and consider the

23 law that was set forward that your

24 discretion that this case would be withdrawn



1 from consideration and that the City is not

2 subject to the same regulations.

3 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I believe we all

4 received it. Thank you.

5 Any comments from the City?

6 MR. FOX: None from us.

7 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: And we will turn it

8 over to the ZBA and I am sure somebody will

9 ask Mr. Neiman the question that he was

10 going to address.

11 Member Wrobel?

12 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

13 I familiar with this case from being on the

14 Planning Commission. I have no objections

15 to it. We as a Planning Commission obviously

16 approved it and sent it forward based on the

17 ZBA recommendations. Thank you.

18 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Member Canup?

19 MEMBER CANUP: If I understood our

20 legal Counsel correctly, they really don't

21 have to be here?

22 MS. KUDLA: Correct.

23 MEMBER CANUP: What are you doing

24 here?



1 MR. NEIMAN: The wheels turn slow. We

2 are just doing what we were told.

3 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I think it's good

4 policy for the City to follow the laws and

5 the guidance of these Ordinances, et cetera,

6 as well as the general public whether it's

7 required or not. So, I appreciate you being

8 here.

9 MEMBER CANUP: And I agree with you

10 that the City writes the Ordinances, they

11 should live by the Ordinances. Personally I

12 think that's a lousy law, nothing against

13 you. I don't think that it's good that you

14 write rules for other people and don't live

15 by it themselves.

16 MS. KUDLA: We just had to let you

17 know.

18 MEMBER CANUP: If there is no further

19 discussion on this I would be glad to make a

20 motion. However, I will withdraw that and

21 Mr. Sanghvi, I am sure has something has to

22 say.

23 MEMBER SANGHVI: I just wanted to

24 point it out that this is a courtesy shown



1 by the City by coming to the Zoning Board of

2 Appeals asking for this request. They

3 didn't have to. And I want to thank them

4 for doing what they are doing. Thank you.

5 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you, Mr.

6 Sanghvi. I do want to ask a question if I

7 may. The use of the building is for what is

8 going to house?

9 MR. NEIMAN: I will attempt to answer

10 that and if I fail to answer that correctly

11 Matt will correct me from a fully

12 operational standpoint. Because of the

13 remoteness on-site, it was deemed important

14 to him in an operational benefit to keep

15 equipment, mowers and things right there at

16 that site so that they were not shuttling,

17 they were not transporting and spending all

18 that manpower time in preparation and set-up

19 effort. It's essentially that. It's not an

20 operational space. It's a support space in

21 which there may be some minor repairs done

22 there while they are there, but it's

23 essentially a storage space and it was

24 placed in a location so that we could



1 minimize cost to the City in terms of

2 expanding power to it. There are no toilet

3 facilities in it. It's strictly a drinking

4 fountain operation. (Unintelligible).


6 understanding as well. Is he correct in his

7 statements? And if you come forward we need

8 to swear you in as well.

9 MR. WITKOROWSKI: Matt Witkorowski,

10 City of Novi Parks and Recreations.

11 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm

12 to tell the truth regarding Case Number:

13 07-079?


15 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

16 MR. WITKOROWSKI: The building, its

17 main purpose is to eliminate the down time

18 that we spend traveling equipment back and

19 forth to Community Sports Park. We spend

20 anywhere from three to four hours a day

21 trailing our equipment back and forth to the

22 park, loading and unloading back at our

23 operations yard on (unintelligible). We

24 figured by having a site actually at the



1 park, staff could report directly at the

2 park and I guess jump on their duties, if

3 you may.

4 First thing in the morning and our

5 productivity would be greatly increased if

6 adding this facility.

7 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: So, in fact, the

8 traffic may decrease as opposed to being

9 increased which was the concern of the

10 person who wrote the letter of objection?

11 You are not going to be trucking in the

12 mowers every single day or whatever its

13 needed?

14 MR. WITKOROWSKI: We don't expect that

15 it would increase at all.


17 Member Fischer?


19 from when I used to have a job like that the

20 travel time was my favorite part of the job.

21 (Interposing)(Unintelligible).


23 Given kind of the case law that has been

24 referenced in our letter I would be willing



1 to make a motion that in Case Number:

2 07-079 filed by Matt Witkorowski of the City

3 of Novi Parks and Rec, we approve the

4 Petitioner's request given that the proposed

5 improvement in this case has been determined

6 by the City to be in the public's best

7 interest despite the fact of the

8 non-compliance with zoning regulations.



11 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: While we have a

12 motion on the floor by Member Fischer. And

13 seconded by Member Sanghvi?

14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Either of us. It

15 doesn't matter.

16 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Open it up for

17 discussion. Member Krieger?

18 MEMBER KRIEGER: Just a question or a

19 comment. I remember in the past something

20 in the newspaper about four wheelers that

21 were out there that were stolen or

22 vandalized or something. Is that in

23 response to that?

24 MR. WITKOROWSKI: In the past there



1 has been equipment that was taken from the

2 park. We had used freight crates which are

3 essentially semi trailers without wheels and

4 they were simply locked up with just a

5 master lock and the lock was just real

6 easily cut and there were some tractors

7 stolen from the park. That was before I

8 came here. I believe it was six or seven

9 years ago when that happened.

10 Security is of the utmost concern with

11 the construction of this facility and Mr.

12 Neiman has been made aware of that from the

13 beginning and we intend to have lighting

14 steel rollup doors and all kinds of security

15 measures in place to make sure that we can

16 eliminate this from happening again.

17 MR. NEIMAN: At least to deter.

18 MEMBER KRIEGER: For those reasons I

19 will support the motion.


21 Any further discussion? Please

22 call the roll.

23 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer?





1 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


3 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?


5 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?


7 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?


9 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?


11 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?


13 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0.

14 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you again,

15 gentleman, for coming forward.


17 Our next case is Case number:

18 07-080 filed by John Dionne and Patrick

19 Clark of Fairmont Sign Company for ACO

20 Hardware located at 41800 West Ten Mile

21 Road.

22 The Applicant is requesting one wall

23 sign variance for a 192 square foot

24 illuminated wall sign for the ACO Hardware



1 Store at said address. The property is

2 located north of Ten and West of Meadowbrook

3 and is zoned B-3.

4 Under our Ordinances Section

5 28-5(2)b.1.(a)(i)a. Area height and

6 placement regulations multiple business

7 states: A business having a first floor

8 pedestrian entrance shall be allowed one and

9 one-fourth square foot of signage per lineal

10 foot of contiguous public or private street

11 frontage up to a maximum of 65 square feet.

12 The Applicant has come forward. Are

13 you an attorney, sir?

14 MR. CLARK: Nope.

15 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: You had on a tie

16 and a suit, I thought you were. Please be

17 sworn in by our Secretary.

18 MEMBER BAUER: On Case: 07-080, do

19 you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the

20 truth?

21 MR. CLARK: I do.

22 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

23 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: State your name and

24 address for the record.



1 MR. CLARK: My name is Pat Clark and I

2 work for Fairmont Sign Company in Detroit.

3 And with me here tonight is Dave Gronbach

4 (ph) with ACO.

5 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Will he be speaking

6 as well? Perhaps? Come forward and be

7 sworn in as well.

8 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm

9 to tell the truth regarding Case: 07-080?

10 MR. GRONBACH: I do.

11 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Please state your

12 case.

13 MR. CLARK: Well, essentially it's a

14 very very similar situation to the night I

15 was here in 1984 before this same Board, not

16 the same people, but the same Board.

17 MEMBER BAUER: I was here then.

18 (Interposing)(Unintelligible).

19 MR. CLARK: But in 1984 we requested

20 permission to put a reasonable sized sign on

21 the wall of this retail building. The

22 situation hasn't really changed. What's

23 changed is that ACO wishes to do a little

24 remodeling and upgrading and change the sign



1 from one to another. But we're asking for

2 nothing larger, the same size that was

3 approved then.

4 The reason why we want something

5 larger than is otherwise allowed by Code is

6 due to the setback of the building from the

7 road and the difficulty of viewing something

8 that would be constrained to the whole

9 square footage. I can speak to the

10 technical details to the sign, but Mr.

11 Gronbach wants to make a couple of comments

12 to (unintelligible) business.


14 MR. GRONBACH: Well, as Pat indicated

15 we would like to upgrade our image here at

16 the shopping center. We have been

17 remodeling the store interior. If you

18 recall about six months ago we did get

19 approval from the Commission here to build

20 an outdoor display seasonal area, but before

21 it's built we have to get through the

22 approval process with the Building

23 Department. And we hope to have that

24 finished soon.



1 And as part of this we would like to

2 put new signage on the storefront. We did

3 just update the pylon sign with matching

4 signage. That we were able to just do

5 through normal permit process. It didn't

6 require a ZBA. I think as Pat has indicated

7 we would just like to replace it with the

8 same size sign that we have

9 (unintelligible). We do feel that the size

10 that we have there is appropriate. This is

11 a standard size sign that we use. We have

12 one that has already been built. We just

13 like to proceed to use it. We think it will

14 improve the looks of the storefront, upgrade

15 it, update it, make it look more modern.

16 This sign has been here for 23 years. As I

17 said we are just trying to upgrade the whole

18 image and the whole store itself.

19 If you have any questions I would be

20 happy to answer them.

21 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. This a

22 public hearing. Is there anyone in the


23 audience who cares to address the Board on

24 this matter? Then we will close the public



1 hearing.

2 Is there any correspondence?


4 Chair. In this case there were seven notices

5 mailed and somehow we ended up getting 16

6 approvals on those seven notices.

7 MS. WORKING: (Unintelligible).


9 indulge the Board. The vice-president of

10 the real estate, David Gronbach from ACO

11 Hardware sent in an approval. Fantastic

12 Sams. There is a form letter. I am going

13 to read the letter and then I'll read

14 through who did that.

15 As part of the ACO Hardware plan to

16 remodel their store they would like install

17 a new sign and we support the efforts to

18 update their store and install new signage

19 on their storefront.

20 The Fantastic Sams at 41698 West Ten

21 Mile. Dominos Pizza, the same complex.

22 Cartridge World, Nome (ph) Nail, Happy

23 Sushi, Meadowbrook Vet Clinic, Dollar

24 Season, Subway, Rite Aid Store 4534, Pete



1 Gullis (ph) of Honey Tree, Patti's Hallmark,

2 Meadowbrook Cleaner, Pet Supplies Plus,

3 Maria's Italian Bakery and Nevin

4 Pchauouchara, DMD, PC,

5 P-C-H-A-O-U-C-H-A-R-A, is the last name.

6 Service Centers Corporation and Willie

7 Downer, the assistant manager there also

8 submitted the same letter. Thank you, Mr.

9 Chair.

10 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. Any

11 comments from the City or Counsel?

12 MS. KUDLA: No.

13 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment, sir.


15 I'll turn it over to the Board for

16 comment. Member Bauer?

17 MEMBER BAUER: I go by this at least a

18 couple times a day. I think the overall

19 square footage has gone down, has it not?

20 MR. AMOLSCH: That's correct. The

21 original sign was about 32 feet by seven

22 feet due to the peak of the ACO, so some 224

23 square feet.

24 MEMBER BAUER: This is nicer. And I



1 will go ahead and okay it.

2 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Member Fischer?


4 get chastised by the Board for doing this,

5 I'll just remind them back in 1984 I was

6 about one years old. So I wasn't on the

7 Board at the time.

8 MEMBER BAUER: You keep talking.


10 totally echo the comments of Member Bauer.

11 I think it's a great addition. I think it's

12 a nicer looking sign. It's a much needed

13 improvement and I wish you the best of luck

14 given your setback from both Ten Mile and

15 Meadowbrook Road I feel it's needed.

16 And, therefore, I'll make a motion if

17 there is no further discussion that in Case

18 number: 07-080 filed by John Dionne and

19 Patrick Clark of Fairmont Sign that we

20 approve the Petitioner's request given the

21 setback from stated roads for business

22 identification. And the fact that the sign

23 that currently exist has not posed a problem

24 in the last 20 sum odd years, 23, 24 years.




2 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Okay, we have a

3 motion on the floor by Member Fischer.

4 Seconded by Member Bauer. Any further

5 discussion?

6 I would like to make a comment or two.

7 My wife constantly jokes because whenever

8 I'm in ACO people ask me where things are

9 because I'm there so much. But now that you

10 have remodeled the inside, where are the

11 deck screws? What aisle are they in? I

12 cannot find them. Just joking.

13 I obviously will support this. It's a

14 very nice looking sign. I am thrilled that

15 they are fixing up the entire center. I see

16 that the outside has been painted. I am

17 looking forward hopefully down the road that

18 they do something with the rear. Especially

19 the portion behind that backs up to the road

20 that people can see. It has nothing to do

21 with your case this evening. I just had to

22 say that.

23 So, any other comments? Member

24 Sanghvi?



1 MEMBER SANGHVI: I would be very sorry

2 to see the hammer and the paint brush go

3 away. It was quite a nostalgic sign for all

4 of us living around here for a long time. I

5 always wonder like (unintelligible) come

6 back with the peanut, but that's another

7 story. Anyway, I have no problem and wish

8 you all the best. Thank you.

9 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Robin, please call

10 the roll.

11 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer?


13 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?


15 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?


17 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?


19 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?


21 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?


23 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?




1 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0.

2 MR. CLARK: Thank you very much.




6 case, Case number: 07-082 filed by John

7 Carroll of Araneae, Incorporated for Inkstop

8 located at 43350 Grand River Avenue. The

9 Applicant is requesting one wall sign

10 variance for the proposed Inkstop store.

11 Inkstop store, say that fast three times.

12 Inkstop store to be located at said address

13 in the Novi Town Center out lot Building 2.

14 The Applicant is requesting a 17.51 square

15 foot illuminated rear elevation wall sign to

16 the south elevation of the building. It's

17 zoned TC and located north of Grand River

18 and east of Novi Road.

19 Our City Ordinances Section 28-5(3)f

20 states the number of on premises advertising

21 signs permitted states: Where two or more

22 separately owned and operated businesses

23 occupy a building on a single parcel of

24 land, each having separate exterior



1 entrance, each business is entitled to a

2 single identification wall sign.

3 The Applicant has come forward. Are

4 you Mr. Carroll?

5 MR. CARROLL: Yes, I am.

6 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: And you not an

7 attorney, correct?

8 MR. CARROLL: I'm not. I'm not wearing

9 a tie.

10 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Please be sworn in

11 by our Secretary.

12 MEMBER BAUER: Raise your right hand.

13 Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth

14 regarding Case: 07-082?

15 MR. CARROLL: I do.

16 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Please state your

17 name and give us an address for the record

18 and present your case.

19 MR. CARROLL: John Carroll of Araneae

20 Sign, Wixom, Michigan.

21 The same story you have heard for the

22 last four tenants in my building. They want

23 exposure on Grand River. This tenant is

24 asking for less square footage than they are



1 allowed on the front side (unintelligible).

2 That's it.

3 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: That's one of the

4 shortest presentations I have heard.

5 MR. CARROLL: You have heard the story

6 three times.

7 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: This is a public

8 hearing. Is there anyone in the audience

9 who cares to address the Board on this

10 matter? Seeing none, we'll close the public

11 hearing and ask if there is any

12 correspondence?


14 Chair, in this case there were 85 notices

15 mailed with one approval and zero

16 objections.

17 The approval comes from Carol and

18 Donald Tuck, 4313 Grand River, Novi,

19 Michigan: Have no objection to the wall

20 sign variance. Welcome to the neighborhood.


22 Comments from the City or staff or Counsel?

23 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment, sir.

24 MS. KUDLA: No.



1 MR. FOX: No.

2 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I'll turn it over

3 to the Board for comment. Member Canup?

4 MEMBER CANUP: I think the size of the

5 sign is within reasonableness and we have

6 been through this twice this evening

7 already.

8 And I don't see why we shouldn't be

9 able to make a motion that in this

10 particular case: 07-082 that we grant the

11 variance as requested due to a lack of

12 signage on the south elevation and given the

13 visibility from the Grand River is poor.

14 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

15 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. We have

16 a motion by Member Canup and a second by

17 Member Bauer.

18 Further discussion? Seeing none,

19 please call the roll.

20 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?


22 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?


24 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?




2 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


4 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?


6 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer?


8 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?


10 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0.

11 MR. CARROLL: Thank you.



14 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Moving on. Case

15 number: 07-083 filed by Singh Homes

16 Building Company, LLC, for 41336 Clermont

17 Avenue in Willowbrook Farm Subdivision

18 Number 3.

19 The Applicant is requesting a

20 Temporary Special Exception Permit renewal

21 for placement of a temporary construction

22 trailer to be located at 41336 Clermont lot

23 #103 in the Willowbrook Farms Subdivision

24 from November 6, 2007 through November 6,



1 2009. The property is zoned R-4 and located

2 east of Meadowbrook and north of Ten Mile.

3 Our Ordinance Section 3004(3),

4 Temporary Special Exception Permits states:

5 The Building Official or his designee, shall

6 have the power to grant permits authorizing

7 temporary special land uses for temporary

8 building not to exceed two years in

9 undeveloped sections of the City.

10 Member Wrobel?

11 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

12 I currently serve as president of the

13 Willowbrook Homeowners Association so I need

14 to recuse myself from this matter.


16 approve recusal of Member Wrobel.

17 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

18 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We have a motion

19 and a second. Any further discussion from

20 the Board?

21 Can we do this with an aye vote or do

22 we have to do roll call?

23 MS. KUDLA: You can do it with an aye

24 vote.



1 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: All in favor of the

2 recusal please indicate by stating aye?

3 Opposed same sign?

4 You are recused.

5 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you very much.

6 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: But have you to

7 come back after this case.

8 (Interposing)(Unintelligible).

9 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: The Applicant has

10 come forward. If you are not an attorney

11 please be sworn in by our Secretary.

12 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm

13 to tell the truth regarding Case: 07-083?

14 MR. MILLS: I do.

15 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.

16 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: State your name and

17 address and present your case.

18 MR. MILLS: Anthony Mills. I live in

19 Novi, Michigan.

20 We are trying to keep the trailer in

21 the location it is. It's set up ready for

22 actually myself to work out of. We use that

23 for meetings, storage and hopefully we will

24 be able to store some more things there so



1 we can build some more houses here in Novi.

2 And that is it.

3 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Do you have a copy

4 of the map showing the location?

5 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair, we have some

6 pictures that he can put on the overhead.

7 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: That would be good.

8 There is a public hearing. Is there anyone

9 in the audience who cares to address the

10 Board on this matter? Please come forward.

11 I will ask you to be sworn in as well

12 and state your name and address for the

13 record.

14 MR. SHAHEEN (ph): My name is Edmond

15 Shaheen.

16 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm

17 to tell the truth regarding case: 07-083?

18 MR. SHAHEEN: Yes, I do.

19 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.

20 MR. SHAHEEN: My name is Edmond

21 Shaheen. I live in the Willowbrook Farm

22 Subdivision. There is quite a few letters

23 that actually have to be read. Or do I talk

24 now?



1 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: If you care to

2 speak you can go ahead and then we will

3 enter everything into the record afterwards.

4 MR. SHAHEEN: Okay.

5 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: After everyone

6 speaks I'll close the public hearing.

7 MR. SHAHEEN: Okay. The big thing I

8 am looking at here is I have been in

9 Willowbrook Farm since the beginning. I was

10 in Phase 1 and I think all of us know when

11 you are in Novi going through a new

12 construction when you are in the first phase

13 you get to have the trailer and it

14 eventually moves on to each one. And there

15 really is no construction going on in Phase

16 3. It's only about five lots left. Ninety

17 percent completely. Whereas Phase 4 has

18 nearly 15 lots out of the 30 or 25 that are

19 there. I don't see any reason why -- the

20 other thing is we don't want construction

21 traffic going.

22 I have a picture here of the location.

23 If we can show it here. I got a better one

24 here.



1 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: You are getting

2 some help here.

3 MR. SHAHEEN: The trailer is sitting

4 right up here. This is the entrance to

5 Phase 3. Phase 4 is way over here. I can't

6 understand why you would want to put your

7 construction trailer here. We don't want

8 any traffic coming through the subdivision.

9 We have small children in there and it's not

10 safe. And they may say, gee, we'll take

11 Meadowbrook to Ten Mile Road to get to the

12 construction of Phrase 4. The reality is

13 construction traffic goes through our

14 subdivision and we don't want that there at

15 all.

16 We think it would be more convenient

17 for Singh to put the trailer where all the

18 construction is going on. It's more

19 convenient. It's where the buildings are.

20 They are building in Phase 4. In Phase 3 I

21 don't think they have built in the past

22 year. We received no closing development in

23 Phase 4. So, again, it doesn't make any

24 sense to have the trailer located in Phase



1 3.

2 In fact, their trailer has already

3 expired. They should have moved this thing

4 a while ago. We just brought it to the

5 attention of the City of Novi and that's

6 when it started this process right here.

7 I would also move that I don't want to

8 see them have a two year extension. I think

9 a one more renewal is much more fair to see

10 how the construction is going along. The

11 big thing is I don't want to see

12 construction traffic in our subdivision.

13 It's pretty much filled. We only have about

14 five lots left and I don't see a reason for

15 Singh to have that trailer.

16 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. Anyone

17 else care to speak? Please come forward and

18 be sworn in by our Secretary.

19 MEMBER BAUER: Raise your right hand

20 please. Do you swear or affirm to tell the

21 truth regarding Case: 07-083?

22 MR. ANTHONY: I do.

23 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.

24 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Please state your



1 name and address and present your case.

2 MR. ANTHONY: Tony Anthony. My

3 address is 41235 Clermont Avenue. I live

4 just a few blocks down from the trailer. I

5 am going to put this back up here so that we

6 can took a look at this as well.

7 As Edmond pointed out the construction

8 trailer is located in Phase 3. During the

9 last year no further construction has been

10 conducted in Phase 3. In fact, there has

11 really been no marketing effort for Singh to

12 finish completing the vacant lots.

13 An example is if you go onto their

14 home page and you look up Willowbrook Farms

15 you will see that the only homes that they

16 show for selection are homes approved for

17 Phase 4, and not allowed in Phase 3.

18 Part of my objection here is that it's

19 caused a cash flow crunch for the

20 association. Our budget is based on that

21 completely built out. Singh only is

22 required to build 75 percent of the lots and

23 then the association takes over the costs of

24 maintenance of the common ground. It's put



1 a strain on us and yet there is no effort or

2 consistent effort by them selling anything

3 in Phase 3.

4 Now, during their occupancy in Phase 3

5 let's take a look at this trailer a little

6 bit. You can see roughly right here there is

7 a power line that comes in with some

8 temporary wood bracing that holds that up.

9 That temporary wood bracing is two years.

10 And I am not sure what the definition of

11 temporary is.

12 So, now, if we take a closer look at

13 this temporary bracing, this is a black and

14 white photo here, you can see that if you

15 stand underneath this. I am a short person

16 and I can touch that. That also comes down

17 at this post here down to a transformer that

18 you can see roughly here the electrical

19 meter here, transformer here. Any children

20 in that area can touch the connection.

21 Currently it isn't connected, but it is

22 there and accessible by children.

23 Also if we go back to the trailer you

24 will see that the cable comes down to the



1 ground, and it enters the trailer through

2 the back of the ground. This is negligent.

3 This puts a risk to the number of children

4 that are there. Also, right now when you

5 look at this, it looks clean. However,

6 during the last year or two years that I

7 have been there the construction material

8 has been spread out across that vacant lot

9 and it has only recently been tucked in

10 behind the trailer so that you cannot see

11 it.

12 Now, I agree that the trailer, if we

13 look back at this, should be moved to Phase

14 4, not only because that's the majority of

15 the construction, but that the vacant lots

16 that are available are in this area of the

17 trailer. The trailer, the power line and

18 its presentation makes those lots appear

19 undesirable. To finish Phase 3 you have to

20 pull that trailer out.

21 Now, again, I also asked for only one

22 year maximum permit for Singh moving it over

23 to Phase 4, but there have to be other

24 requirements. You can't even move into



1 Phase 4 and run a power line in the same

2 manner that they have. That is still a

3 risk. We have many children in that

4 neighborhood as well as the neighborhood

5 next to ours as well.

6 Also, the advantage in

7 moving that for the citizens there is now it

8 will make those other lots marketable which

9 once sold will help out the association in

10 affording their common grounds as well.

11 Any questions?

12 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. We will

13 call you forward if we have further

14 questions. Thank you.

15 Anyone else in the audience who care

16 to come forward? Seeing none, we'll close

17 the public hearing.

18 We will ask, before go into

19 correspondence we'll ask the Applicant if he

20 cares to respond to either one of those or

21 would you care to wait until after the

22 letters are read?

23 MR. MILLS: I just want to say that

24 the main purpose for us there obviously is



1 to build homes. A comment of not -- we want

2 to build homes there. We want to sell the

3 homes. We want to sell the homes in Phase 3

4 as in 4.

5 As far as the presentation of the lot,

6 we have tried to take care of that, bring

7 that back to standards of where it's not an

8 eye sore. And I have been personally

9 brought over to Willowbrook and I have tried

10 to do so. I am sure there could be more

11 improvements, but this is something that we

12 have tried to maintain. Bring this back.

13 Make it look livable. These kinds of

14 things.

15 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. Turning

16 to the Vice-Chair for correspondence.


18 Chair. In this case there were 16 notices

19 mailed with zero approvals and 24

20 objections. I don't know what Robin did

21 this time, but we keep getting more than the

22 notices mailed. So, if the Board will bear

23 with me.

24 From the Willowbrook Farm Homeowners



1 Association. This letter is written in

2 regards to Singh Home Building Company's

3 request for a temporary special exception

4 permit for the continued placement of a

5 temporary construction trailer through

6 November 5th, 2009. The Homeowners

7 Association strongly objects to this request

8 for the following reasons.

9 Number one, the current trailer,

10 trailer center is poorly maintained and

11 detracts from the appearance of the Phase 3

12 entrance.

13 Number two, there are only five

14 unbuilt lots out of a total of 51 in Phase

15 3. Based upon these figures Phase 3 is 90

16 percent built and homeowner occupied. Singh

17 Homes in its October 5th, 2007 letter to the

18 City of Novi, claims there are six lots.

19 This is incorrect. The sixth lot is not

20 undeveloped. It was a former model home.

21 In addition, there has been no

22 construction activity in the Phase 3 for

23 over one year, hence, no need for a

24 continued construction trailer. As a side



1 note, Singh has moved its sales office

2 completely out of Willowbrook Farm and

3 relocated it to the Churchill Crossing

4 Subdivision.

5 Number three, all current construction

6 activity is only taking place in Phase 4.

7 Phase 4 consist of 25 lots and currently of

8 these 25 only 10 have been completely built

9 and our owner occupied. The remaining 15

10 lots are either undeveloped or in the

11 process of being built. These 15 lots

12 represent the 60 percent total in Phase 4

13 lots. It is the opinion of this Association

14 that the construction trailer should be

15 located in Phrase 4 where current

16 construction is taking place.

17 Singh Homes in its October 5, 2007

18 letter to the City claims there are only 11

19 lots remaining in Phase 4. Their number

20 includes all lots that have been sold. It

21 does not take into consideration the four

22 lots that are in the various stages of being

23 built.

24 Number four, since all construction is



1 only taking place in Phase 4, the

2 construction trailer remaining in its

3 current location in Phase 3 would create

4 additional unnecessary construction traffic

5 through the owner occupied section of the

6 subdivision.

7 This additional traffic creates an

8 undue safety hazard for the current

9 residents, many of whom have small young

10 children who play outside. Additionally the

11 existing trailer location is over one half

12 mile away from Phase 4.

13 Number five, Singh Homes in its

14 October 5, 2007, letter to the City also

15 states: "Trailers are usually best situated

16 near entrance locations as to draw attention

17 to the project. And if one was placed in

18 this location in Phase 4, it would be right

19 in the middle of existing homes." We

20 question this logic, even if this is true,

21 Singh Homes could place this trailer in

22 Phase 4 on Lot 162. Lot 162 was the first

23 lot on the east side of Amanda Lane just

24 north of Ten Mile Road entrance to Phase 4.



1 It should also be noted that Singh

2 Homes currently has a large sign at both the

3 Phase 3 and Phase 4 entrances. In an effort

4 to create a win-win situation for both

5 Willowbrook Farm homeowners and Singh Homes,

6 we the association have no objection to

7 Singh Homes placing and maintaining

8 construction trailer on an undeveloped lot

9 in Phase 4 for a period of no more than one

10 year. We once again strongly object to the

11 construction trailer remaining in its

12 current location and we urge the Zoning

13 Board to consider our concerns and not

14 approve said variance request.

15 An objection from Christopher and Anew

16 Huang, H-U-A-N-G, of 41154 Clermont Avenue:

17 Please do not renew the permit to allow

18 Singh Homes continued placement of their

19 trailer. It has been sitting there without

20 much construction and there are more empty

21 lots in Phase 4.

22 Debbie Waterstratt (ph) of 24578 Acre

23 Court has a strong objection. Once again

24 citing: No current construction activity.



1 The trailer site is not being maintained.

2 Never activity at the trailer. As a current

3 resident I must look at it every day.

4 From G-A-S-S-A-N and Rita Batwo,

5 B-A-T-W-O, of 41082 Clermont. Please note

6 my objection for the continued placement of

7 the trailer.

8 Edmond Shaheen of 24487 Bethany Way

9 also objects citing: The number of lots

10 left in Phase 3 as well as the hazard of

11 traffic on the young children in the

12 subdivision. Also, if anything is

13 entertained it should be a one year

14 exception.

15 Rick Bloomfield of 41111 Scarborough

16 Lane objecting citing the fact that: There

17 has not been much activity as far as

18 construction and it also detracts from the

19 overall appearance of the subdivision and

20 aesthetics.

21 I cannot read the names, but it's

22 40965 Scarborough Lane citing an objection

23 based on the stoppage of construction and

24 the low number of lots to be built left.



1 Jane and Peters Alders of 24567

2 Bethany Way also objects: The trailer

3 detracts from the appearance and aesthetics

4 and there is only five undeveloped lots.

5 Matt Birch of 24447 Bethany has an

6 objection. Five years is long enough.

7 Please remove the trailer from the entrance

8 vehicle.

9 Mark Micale, M-I-C-A-L-E, at, it has a

10 work address of 3601 West Thirteen Mile

11 states that: There is a complete objection

12 to the continued use of the trailer. There

13 are only a few lots left in the phase.

14 Debbie and David Piesc, P-I-E-S-C, of

15 41261 Scarborough Lane strongly objects

16 based on the aesthetics of the entrance and

17 ask the lot that it be moved to phase 4.

18 Georgio Domini, it looks like,

19 D-O-M-I-N-I, of 41300 Clermont request that

20 the trailer be moved to Phase 4.

21 Rajesh and Sereta Verma, V-E-R-M-A, of

22 24607 Bethany Way object.

23 David Chang of 24627 Bethany Way

24 object. Stating that: They're not using



1 it, the trailer and that there is a sign on

2 the Singh's sales billboard and directs the

3 traffic at Churchill Crossing at Ten Mile

4 and Novi Road.

5 Vic Ronsing (ph) of 24951 Bloomfield

6 objects.

7 There is a conditional approval from

8 Terrance Nowack of 41169 Scarborough Lane

9 states: That the trailer is not visually

10 appealing and removing the unit may not

11 improve the appearance of the site.

12 Moving the unit shall be at the

13 expense of Singh. If Singh were to pay all

14 entrance maintenance cost for two years this

15 person would not object to keeping it in

16 place.

17 Jeff Hawking (ph) of 24710 Bethany Way

18 has an objection citing aesthetic reasons.

19 Jeffrey Lamb of 24510 Bethany Way

20 states an objection saying that it should be

21 moved to Phase 4 and states traffic concerns

22 of potential buyers as well construction.

23 Chung Fu and Zay Zang of 24557 Ackert

24 object.



1 Randy Block of 41252 Clermont objects.

2 It's illegible.

3 Erin Connor of 41166 Clermont objects.

4 And Reverend Timothy P. Helbow (ph) of

5 41240 Clermont states: That we moved to

6 Novi due to the upscale neighborhoods and

7 excellent schools and feels that this is an

8 eye sore and it detracts from the appearance

9 and aesthetics of the phase.

10 And also states the concern about the

11 five lots that are currently undeveloped and

12 they hope that Singh would understand this

13 and also take the time to look at the

14 undeveloped lots in Phase 3.

15 Tony Anthony of 41235 Clermont

16 strongly objects for the five or six same

17 reasons as the Homeowners Association

18 relayed in a letter.

19 Virgil Lewis of 31313 Northwestern

20 Highway states an objection to the request.

21 And that appears to be the summary of

22 the letters and they are all on file for

23 anyone's further review. Thank you, Mr.

24 Chair.



1 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. They

2 will be entered into the record.

3 Is there any comments from the City or

4 Counsel? No? I will turn it over to the

5 Board.

6 Member Canup?

7 MEMBER CANUP: I think it's quite

8 obvious that there is a problem here. And I

9 see more than just a problem with moving it.

10 We really can't move that or grant them a

11 variance on a different lot than what has

12 been asked for. So, I think -- do we have a

13 general feeling from the Board that we are

14 not going to allow this?

15 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair, if I may.

16 The Petitioner might consider a

17 re-application to the Community Development

18 Department for a Temporary Special Exception

19 Permit for the trailer to be located in

20 Phase 4.

21 Those permits are now reviewed

22 administratively and they are covered by the

23 Temporary Special Exception Section of the

24 Zoning Ordinance for up to two years and can



1 be renewed by the same Ordinance.

2 The Petitioner in this case wanted the

3 trailer to be located in the current

4 location and extend the already expired

5 Temporary Special Exception Permit.

6 MEMBER CANUP: I am not going leave

7 the trailer, I am not going to vote to leave

8 that there. So, you know, if we want to

9 vote on it and turn it down? That would be

10 my note and it's up to the consensus of the

11 Board. I think with everything that has

12 been said, letters that have been read and

13 the condition of the trailer, the problem

14 with the electrical line hanging down like

15 it is, apparently it's a code violation, I

16 would suspect.

17 And, also, it would just make sense

18 for it to not be there. And there's plenty

19 of room in their Phase 4 to put that and

20 make it an eye sore for kind of in the back

21 in the corner where everybody that drives

22 off Willowbrook Road doesn't have to look at

23 it. That would be my comments.

24 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: To the City. If it



1 was to be denied, the Applicant will have to

2 come back and file a new application for a

3 temporary permit to be located in different

4 location?

5 MS. WORKING: That's correct.

6 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: But under this new

7 guideline you're indicating that there would

8 be no new application filed? That could be

9 resolved with Singh maybe? No, it cannot

10 be?

11 MS. WORKING: Is your mike on, Mr.

12 Chair?

13 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: No, it wasn't.

14 Thank you.

15 MS. WORKING: The Petitioner chose to

16 go before the Zoning Board for a renewal of

17 an existing permit that had exhausted the

18 time frame allowed by the Zoning Ordinance

19 as it's written. The Petitioner could chose

20 to file a new application for a new

21 Temporary Special Exception Permit for the

22 trailer to be located in Phase 4, I am just

23 going to use that as a recommendation and

24 suggestion based on what you have heard



1 tonight. And that would be looked at by the

2 Building Division and either approved or

3 denied based on what the Petitioners submit

4 for their application from the Temporary

5 Special Exception Permit.

6 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: It would not have

7 to come back in front of the Board?


8 MS. WORKING: That is correct.

9 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Further comments?

10 Member Sanghvi?

11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. So, what

12 is the time frame for the new possible

13 permit for them to move this trailer out

14 from here to Phase 4?

15 MS. WORKING: I can read to you from

16 the Ordinance if you would like specifically

17 what it stipulates.

18 MEMBER SANGHVI: I am just trying to

19 figure out is it three months or six months

20 or how long?

21 MS. WORKING: It depends on the phase

22 of the development of the community. The

23 Temporary Special Exception Permit for

24 construction trailers can be approved for up



1 to two years and it would be, like I said,

2 probably require site visits by someone in

3 the Building Division and then input from

4 the Petitioner as to the location and what

5 their plans are for use there. I think I

6 heard them say this evening for storage and

7 to hold meetings.

8 There are criterion that the Building

9 Division will look at for maintenance of the

10 trailer and for it to be reviewed

11 periodically. We have Ordinance officers to

12 monitor that. In part the residents helps

13 the Ordinance officer brings it to our

14 attention and the Applicant came forward to

15 review this current permit which is why you

16 here this evening.

17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Has the City any

18 problem as far as the safety aspect of those

19 cables and everything? Have we done

20 anything about it?

21 MS. WORKING: Our Ordinance officer

22 said she would defer to the Board and their

23 decision on this case after she referred it

24 to me. As you will note your packet that



1 the Petitioner is in violation of renewing

2 this permit in a timely manner.

3 She indicated to me that she would

4 defer to what your decision is on this

5 petition as it exist for renewal for the

6 current permit.

7 Now, safety issues would be

8 re-reviewed in a new application should it

9 be before the Board for another renewal

10 somehow or if it were just for a straight

11 Temporary Special Exception Permit. Safety

12 would be a number one priority, you know,

13 egress --

14 MEMBER SANGHVI: As far as I'm

15 concerned if they don't fix the safety

16 within two weeks they get the whole thing

17 out of there because safety is the primary

18 concern. If there are electrical cables

19 that are most likely to electrocute somebody

20 it's a no no in my book. It's not

21 acceptable under any circumstances. That's

22 number one. So, we should have a time limit

23 and give them a good two weeks to fix it or

24 ship it or ship out.



1 Number two, if they are applying for

2 this new site, they want to put in Phase 4,

3 go ahead and do it and then they can have a

4 permit to keep the -- once they have fixed

5 the safety hazards, they can stay in there

6 provided they have applied for and obtained

7 (unintelligible).

8 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi, I would

9 have to defer to Mr. Amolsch. I am not one

10 hundred percent certain, but it might be

11 required since this current trailer is in

12 violation, that it would need to be removed

13 prior to a new permit being approved for a

14 Temporary Special Exception Permit

15 application for Phase 4.

16 Is that correct, Mr. Amolsch?

17 MR. AMOLSCH: I told you it was

18 (unintelligible).

19 MS. WORKING: Okay. I would have to

20 verify with the Ordinance officer who wrote

21 the violation whether or not that is true or

22 not.

23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

24 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: It appears to me



1 this evening we would be looking at either

2 denying the request or approving the request

3 and then if the Applicant chooses to come

4 forth, then you can pursue that Ordinance,

5 then that would be their choice.

6 Member Fischer?


8 Applicant pursues Phase 4 per administrative

9 review through the City and is rejected,

10 that Phase 4 one would then come before the

11 Board, correct?

12 MS. WORKING: I believe they would

13 have the option to appeal to the Board.


15 City then deny them Phase 4, I'm trying to

16 keep the scope on what we are looking at.

17 MS. WORKING: I believe, and I could

18 be overstating this, but the appeal would be

19 the decision that was made, so it would be

20 an interpretation appeal, I believe. I

21 would defer to counsel on that.

22 MS. KUDLA: On Phase 4, if they were

23 denied direct administrative review?

24 MS. WORKING: Yes.



1 MS. KUDLA: It would be an

2 interpretation appeal which you have seen

3 here before.


5 in on the scope of what we are looking at

6 tonight. And in my eyes we have a trailer

7 in Phase 3. There are five undeveloped

8 lots. There are 51 that are there. It's

9 time for the trailer to come out. It's been

10 there long enough. The Building official

11 has granted permission long enough and it

12 now comes to the Zoning Board. And it's our

13 decision. And when things are to this level

14 of occupancy, it is kind of standard that

15 there really no logic for it to be here

16 anymore.

17 I am sure that they can choose to

18 pursue Phase 4 and I will leave that

19 decision to the City and should it come back

20 here then we can review Phase 4. But at

21 this time I am looking at Phase 3 and the

22 burden of the proof is on the Petitioner to

23 show that they needed to be in Phase 3 and I

24 have not seen that evidence tonight. And



1 for that reason I would support a motion to

2 deny.

3 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Member Krieger?

4 And then we will go to Member Canup.

5 MEMBER KRIEGER: I agree. Our focus

6 would be in this thing, but to take it out

7 of proportion for a moment. It shows on an

8 election night, here is why homeowners do

9 not like developers because developers start

10 something and then walk away and leave

11 people to handle the diaster and here we

12 are.

13 And then to narrow it down again, I

14 agree, it would be not -- considering there

15 is an electrical safety hazard and they're

16 past due, that this temporary trailer in

17 this area is complete so the trailer needs

18 to go. And that they can resubmit to the

19 City regarding relocating it to area 4,

20 Phase 4. And that also only a one year

21 extension (unintelligible).

22 And that whoever needs to review how

23 the cables are, the fire marshall or

24 whoever, that is monitored closely as well.



1 So I also would deny a motion for this

2 case. Thank you.


4 MEMBER CANUP: It sounds like

5 everybody is in agreement that something has

6 to change here and I think the only way to

7 do that is to go ahead and make a motion.

8 I would make a motion in the case

9 filed by Singh Homes in Willowbrook Farms

10 that we deny the request as stated due to

11 the fact of the homeowners in the area

12 voicing their opinions. And that the fact

13 that the site is lacking three homes of

14 being totally built out. And also, there

15 has been poor maintenance and it's an eye

16 sore in the community.

17 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I believe it was

18 five homes.

19 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

20 MEMBER CANUP: Whatever the number

21 happens to be.


23 (Unintelligible).

24 MEMBER CANUP: A large percentage of



1 build up.

2 MEMBER BAUER: Second. But I have to

3 add to that. That is for safety reasons

4 (unintelligible) haphazardly.

5 MEMBER CANUP: I accept that.

6 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I believe we have a

7 comment from the attorney.

8 MS. KUDLA: Just as far as the

9 standards go. Maybe you could clarify

10 whether or not they have established a

11 practical difficulty and whether or not

12 there is a reasonable alternative given that

13 there is Phase 4 to consider. Those would

14 be two filings that maybe should be a little

15 bit more clarified on the record.

16 MEMBER CANUP: We said that.

17 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: That they have not

18 established (unintelligible).


20 enter my comments given that the Petitioner

21 has not met their burden of proof, that

22 being a practical difficulty. The fact that

23 as you stated they're close enough to build

24 out and they have not pursued any



1 alternatives which have been suggested and

2 have not been explained to the Board why

3 those alternatives will not work.

4 MEMBER CANUP: As the maker of the

5 motion I will accept the change.

6 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: What was the second

7 thing, Ms. Kudla?

8 MS. KUDLA: I was just going to read

9 through the standards and I guess ask them

10 these questions. Under the Practical

11 Difficulty Section. I guess something would

12 be whether the property owner, whether he

13 can or cannot use his property for what it's

14 meant to be used for without the variance.

15 A finding would be is he still able to sell

16 homes without this variance.

17 MEMBER CANUP: I am making a motion

18 that (unintelligible) if we're not careful.

19 I think the motion that is stated in my

20 opinion covers pretty much everything

21 because we're including in that the comments

22 from the Board as part of the motion.

23 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I believe we are

24 fine.



1 MEMBER CANUP: I appreciate your

2 comments. We got to stop somewhere and

3 carry on with the motion.

4 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We have a motion on

5 the floor on seconded. And no further

6 discussion, please call the roll.

7 MS. WORKING: I have clarification on

8 who seconded the motion, please?


10 MS. WORKING: Thank you.

11 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?


13 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?


15 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel -- Member

16 Wrobel excused himself.

17 Member Sanghvi?


19 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?


21 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer?


23 MS. WORKING: And Member Krieger?




1 MS. WORKING: Motion to deny passes

2 6-0.

3 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Sir, your request

4 has been denied. You have heard the Board's

5 comments about alternative solutions. You

6 may want to pursue one of those.

7 MR. MILLS: Okay. Thank you.

8 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Also, I would like

9 to request the City expeditiously look at

10 the safety factors of this activity and the

11 location and move forward with that now that

12 we have made the decision on the case.

13 Thank you.

14 MR. SHAHEEN: Just one question?


16 MR. SHAHEEN: I understand that you

17 just denied that. I guess my question

18 because I didn't understand from listening

19 to all this. When does the trailer get

20 moved? They already expired their permit,

21 so.

22 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: What is the

23 standard?

24 MS. WORKING: Following this evening's



1 hearing, I'll contact the Ordinance officer

2 who issued the violation. I will have to

3 contact the Applicant to make sure they are

4 clear on what the decision was this evening.

5 They will have the option to come to the

6 City for application possibly to place the

7 trailer in Phase 4. I don't know if that is

8 what they are going to do or not. I would

9 have to get back to you with how timely of a

10 matter the trailer would be able to be

11 moved. I don't think in the Ordinance it

12 stipulates specifically to that. I would

13 need time to give you a 100 percent answer

14 on that.

15 MR. SHAHEEN: I appreciate that.

16 (Unintelligible).



18 I might add. That's really not the

19 jurisdiction of the Zoning Board. You will

20 want to contact the City during business

21 hours and Robin will followup with you at

22 that time.

23 MR. SHAHEEN: Thank you very much.




1 MEMBER BAUER: I think there is a time

2 line on there. I think it's something like

3 20 days they have to do that.

4 MS. WORKING: I'll follow through with

5 Ordinance on that.

6 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Typically after we

7 met for an hour and a half we take a short

8 break. We are going to do that very short.

9 We have anxious people. A very short ten

10 minute maximum and it will also give our

11 member a chance to return.

12 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair, we have one

13 remaining case on the agenda.

14 MEMBER CANUP: I thought we had two?

15 MS. WORKING: No, we have one.

16 MEMBER CANUP: We could be done in ten

17 minutes.


19 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Okay, our member

20 has returned, so I will yield to the wishes

21 of the Board and move forward. And the

22 wishes of the audience as well.


24 Okay, the next case number: 07-085



1 filed by Butch Friedman of J. Philip Custom

2 Homes for 2117 West Lake Drive.

3 The Applicant is requesting a variance

4 for a previously granted variance from ZBA

5 06-047 for additional construction to an

6 approved accessory structure in the front

7 yard. The Applicant is requesting one

8 variance to construct a portico with

9 limestone columns on top of an existing

10 accessory structure in the front yard. The

11 property is zoned R-4 and is located south

12 of Pontiac Trail and east of West Park Dive.

13 The Section Zoning Ordinance 2503.1 B

14 states: Accessory buildings shall not be

15 erected in any required front yard or in any

16 required exterior side yard.

17 The Applicant has come forward.

18 Please be sworn in by our Secretary. State

19 your name and address.

20 MEMBER BAUER: State your name and

21 address.

22 MR. FRIEDMAN: Butch Friedman of J.

23 Philip Custom Homes of Commerce Township.

24 MEMBER BAUER: Raise your right hand.



1 Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth

2 regarding Case: 07-085?

3 MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes, I do.

4 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.

5 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Please state your

6 case.

7 MR. FRIEDMAN: I will try to make it

8 short and sweet. Basically what we are

9 trying to do is, there was already an

10 accessory building that has been approved

11 for the front yard. What we are trying to

12 do is improve this accessory structure by

13 adding a limestone pergola, or portico as

14 it's written on the paper. And we feel that

15 this is going to add more to the beauty of

16 the home and basically complete our

17 landscape package.



20 comments you have for today?

21 MR. FRIEDMAN: Yeah, basically that's

22 it. We had a variance already granted for

23 the accessory structure which is basically

24 housing a generator which is into a sunken



1 pit. That's the generator pit right there

2 as you see. What we are trying to do on top

3 of that generator pit is to basically

4 beautify the whole area. We have pavers

5 basically surrounding the entire house.

6 The person that we are building the

7 house for is a handicap person and probably

8 will be confined to a wheelchair and that's

9 why we put in the paver. It's not so much

10 room for landscaping. We feel that one to

11 help somewhat hide the generator which is

12 not really going, but we want to put up a

13 nice structure which is a limestone pergola.

14 We have limestone columns with nice crown

15 molding. It's nothing that is a fairly

16 expensive feature and it's not made of wood

17 so it will last and it does enhance the

18 beauty of the area.

19 What I am showing you here is

20 basically what the feature would look like.

21 The eight columns and this is what it would

22 look like. And on top of that we would be

23 putting blinds so that it would look more of

24 a landscape and landscape feature. There is



1 a picture that I did make a copy and I think

2 you have it also in your files. I know

3 these are fairly hard to see. But as you

4 can see a pergola and that's made of

5 limestone is a very nice detailed feature,

6 landscape feature that helps finish it off.


8 we would ask if there is anyone in the

9 audience that wishes to make comment on this

10 case? Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close

11 the public hearing section of the meeting.

12 And I will notify the Board that in

13 this case there were 28 notices mailed with

14 zero approvals and three objections.

15 An objection from Debra Blashfield

16 (ph) of 2105 Westlake Drive. My home is

17 four homes north of the subject property and

18 I am unable to meet tonight due to the

19 election. I would like my comments read.

20 It states that: She wishes to stress a

21 strenuous objection to the requested

22 variance of a portico over the generator in

23 the yard of this residence. There is no

24 hardship which requires a portico over the



1 generator and the generator will be

2 completely functional without said portico.

3 If it was, in fact, necessary it should have

4 been requested June 6th, when the other

5 variance was granted.

6 The reasons stated by the Petitioner

7 are that now it "looks from a decorative

8 standpoint incomplete." "And that portico

9 would help complete this and enhance and

10 beautify the front yard." Those reasons do


11 not justify a variance based on hardship or

12 enhancing the function of the generator. In

13 fact, I disagree that it would enhance and

14 beautify anything, quite the opposite. The

15 concept of installing 7 foot tall pillars on

16 top of the stone wall which already

17 encircles the generator is beyond

18 ridiculous and will look like something from

19 the Roman Baths of Europe.

20 In the Minutes of the ZBA meeting the

21 Petitioner's representatives stated that the

22 stone wall that encircles the generator is

23 there to "make it look nice," and that the

24 generator would not be visible above the



1 wall. The noise containment in the wall was

2 stressed and it was pointed out by the

3 representative that generator was already in

4 a sound proof, weather proof housing of its

5 own. They cited that they were doing a

6 double acoustical treatment of the

7 generator.

8 The neighbors I have spoken with too

9 within five homes of the subject property

10 have agreed with these objections. Many

11 variances have already been granted for this

12 property and there is no justification for

13 this request.

14 Katie Kennedy of 2023 West Lake Drive

15 states an objection with no comments.

16 Matt Gudaitis, G-U-D-A-I-T-I-S, of

17 2115 West Lake also states an objection with

18 no comments.

19 Thank you, Mr. Chair.


21 Any comments from the City or Counsel?

22 MS. KUDLA: No.

23 MR. FOX: No comment.

24 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We'll turn it over



1 to the Board for discussion.

2 Member Krieger?

3 MEMBER KRIEGER: I have a question for

4 the City. Why would pergola come to the

5 Zoning Board? Is it because of the height?

6 MR. FOX: Any time you build some sort

7 of a structure it would be considered an

8 accessory building because it's a structure,

9 it's not a slab. A slab is not considered a

10 structure. But any time you go up and build

11 something like that they are going to put a

12 wood frame over top of it. It's something

13 like you would put on a front porch or

14 something of that nature. So we consider it

15 a structure. And because the Zoning

16 Ordinance only allows an accessory structure

17 in the rear yard is why it's before the

18 Board at this point. They are asking for a

19 variance to actually put the accessory


20 structure in the front yard.

21 MS. WORKING: The accessory structure

22 was approved by this Board to be in the

23 front yard at a previous ZBA hearing in '06.

24 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Member Bauer?



1 MEMBER BAUER: I really can't see

2 where we could even think of giving this

3 variance. There is no hardship. No

4 practical. They didn't say it in here. I

5 think it is strictly an accessory. And as

6 far as functioning, I don't think it has a

7 function except it being on top of the

8 generator. So I would not entertain a vote

9 to okay this.

10 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you, Member

11 Bauer.

12 Member Sanghvi?

13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Just a question. How

14 many times has this particular site been to

15 ZBA for one thing or another in the past?

16 MEMBER BAUER: Two or three.

17 MEMBER SANGHVI: At least I remember

18 going and visiting that place three times.

19 MR. FOX: The site itself has been

20 four times. This particular house has been

21 here three times for a variance request.

22 For the house was one for setbacks. Also

23 for the retaining wall that surrounds the

24 house out near the property line and then



1 for the accessory building in the front for

2 the generator.

3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. I agree

4 with Mr. Bauer's statement, I don't think

5 there is really a need for this and no

6 hardship has been demonstrated. This is

7 just for I guess aesthetic purposes or what,

8 I don't know. But I can't see myself

9 supporting this. Thank you.

10 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Member Wrobel?

11 MEMBER WROBEL: I agree with my

12 colleagues. There is no hardship here by

13 not allowing this, so I cannot support it at

14 this time.

15 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Member Fischer?


17 ask the attorney. Just to kind of review

18 what we have been looking at and the

19 elements that we should be putting forth,

20 this is a practical difficulty case,

21 correct?

22 MS. KUDLA: Correct.


24 all my colleagues. I believe that we are



1 all looking at actually the elements of

2 practical difficulty.

3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Well, yes, it's a

4 matter of semantics.


6 correct. Semantics those get tricky,

7 though. I would tend to agree in general

8 while it may be aesthetically pleasing,

9 there is no practical difficulty. Not

10 allowing this won't unreasonably prevent the

11 owner from using the property for the

12 permitted use.

13 I don't feel that this variance would

14 do substantial justice to this Petitioner or

15 the neighbors and the neighbors have agreed

16 with that point. And nothing is unique to

17 this property that drives the elements of

18 practical difficulty.

19 So, once again, going back to the

20 burden of proof being on the Applicant, that

21 practical difficulty burden has not been met

22 by the Applicant, therefore, I would not be

23 willing to support this as well.

24 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you, Member



1 Fischer.

2 Member Krieger?

3 MEMBER KRIEGER: I agree that it's

4 aesthetically pleasing. But according to

5 the practical difficulty, there is no

6 practical difficulty. What does the

7 homeowner's alternatives be?

8 MS. KUDLA: They don't necessarily

9 have an alternative at this point. I mean,

10 this isn't necessary, so they don't

11 necessarily have to have an alternative.

12 They haven't proven that it's a necessary

13 practical difficulty necessary for them to

14 use the property. So it doesn't necessarily

15 have to be an alternate.

16 MEMBER KRIEGER: I think it's rather

17 sad because it does look nice, but it has no

18 use for the property.

19 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I'll make a quick

20 comment. I agree it looks nice. The

21 architecture whether it be a Doric column or

22 a Corinthian column or whatever, I think

23 it's very attractive.

24 I wrote down questions initially. Is



1 it a gazebo? Is it pergola? Is it a

2 building? Is it landscaping? Or is it a

3 building that's not enclosed? If it's not

4 enclosed is it a building? Is it an

5 accessory structure or accessory building?

6 There is a lot of gray area there in my

7 mind, but as was stated by many of my

8 colleagues and the City, when we are looking

9 at practical difficulty, the burden of proof

10 lies on the Applicant. And I cannot support

11 it the way it is. Even though I like the

12 looks.

13 Member Fischer?


15 comments by the Board I would move that in

16 Case Number: 07-085 filed by Butch Friedman

17 of J. Philips Custom Homes that the Board

18 deny the request as stated due to the fact

19 that Petitioner has not established all of

20 the elements of practical difficulty

21 including the fact that by not allowing

22 this variance that it will not unreasonably

23 prevent the owner from using the property

24 for the permitted purpose nor would it be



1 unnecessarily burdensome as the generator is

2 functional without the portico.

3 The variance would not do substantial

4 justice to the surrounding property owners

5 as there are concerns regarding the

6 aesthetics and that the plight of the

7 property owner is not unique to this

8 particular property.

9 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I will second it.

10 We have a motion by Member Fischer and

11 a second by Member Shroyer, oddly enough.

12 Any further discussion from the Board?

13 Please call the roll.

14 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer?


16 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?


18 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?


20 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?


22 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?


24 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?




2 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


4 MS. WORKING: Motion to deny passes

5 7-0.

6 MR. FRIEDMAN: Thank you.

7 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Yes, sir. Thank

8 you.

9 That is the end of our public hearing.


11 Moving on to other matters. Do

12 we have an update on the Rules and

13 Procedures Subcommittee?


15 update. Once again, the schedules between

16 the busy and important Board members on that

17 subcommittee it's been a little difficult.

18 We have identified the Monday before

19 Thanksgiving as a possibility. So we will

20 plan on that at 7:00 in the City Hall.

21 The request is that we would request

22 that the City attorney talk to Mr. Schultz

23 about attending on that Monday before

24 Thanksgiving at 7:00 in the City Hall as we



1 want to see some of his recommendations


2 given Open Meeting Act and MZEA. I will be

3 in correspondence with him to show him the

4 possibility that the subcommittee has

5 already come up with regarding some of the

6 current rules and procedures that we would

7 suggest so we'll all collaborate and once

8 again hopefully we'll be able to make those

9 recommendations at that time and turn them

10 into recommendations for the entire Board in

11 December. So we are still shooting for that

12 December time frame.

13 Thank you, Mr. Chair.



16 Second item on the agenda is ZBA

17 07-051 an extension to the variance request.

18 MS. WORKING: Members of the Board,

19 you will find in your Board files for the

20 evening an e-mail from Christine Lakeland

21 with Stone City & Brick, a

22 request to extend the variance that this

23 Board granted in ZBA Case: 07-051. The

24 90-day requirement to file for a Building



1 Permit is expiring and she is indicating

2 here that they are working to draw a

3 blueprint and meet engineer specifications

4 and they are requesting an extension to that

5 variance.

6 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Member Fischer?


8 that the Board extend the -- accept the

9 Petitioner's request and extend the

10 requirement for 90 days until, let's say,

11 March 1st, 2008.

12 MEMBER BAUER: I'll second.

13 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Can we go with the

14 date as opposed to the length of time?

15 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: About 90 days,

16 plus or minus.

17 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Which do you

18 prefer?


20 2008. Will that give them enough time?

21 MS. WORKING: I'm sorry?



23 give them enough time, March 1st, 2008?

24 MS. WORKING: It's up to the Board.




2 90 days.

3 MEMBER CANUP: Can we have a yea-nay

4 vote?

5 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We have a motion

6 and a second. Member Bauer seconded. I

7 believe we can go with a yea-nay, correct?

8 MS. KUDLA: I suggest taking a roll

9 call.

10 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Okay. We have a

11 motion by Member Fischer and a second by

12 Member Bauer.

13 Robin, please call the roll.

14 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer?


16 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?


18 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


20 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?


22 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?


24 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?




2 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?


4 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0.


6 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Third item on the

7 agenda regarding our Linwood case. You care

8 to speak on that?

9 MS. WORKING: Yes, thank you, Mr.

10 Chair. ZBA case 07-058 for 23820 Linwood

11 was before the Board just last month in

12 October. I would like to remind the Board

13 that the recommendation was to send the

14 Petitioner for an administrative review by

15 the City, its engineers as well as any

16 appropriate reviews deemed necessary by the

17 City and the any City attorney.

18 The Petitioner should return to the

19 Board for the December 4th, 2007 ZBA meeting

20 to verify the status of the administrative

21 review resolution or the Board will make a

22 determination at that time.

23 I can inform the Board this evening

24 that Mr. Douglas has been working with the



1 City and its engineers. There has been an

2 area staked out of the shrubbery. If you

3 will recall it was a corner clearance issue

4 violation. Mr. Douglas feels that weather

5 permitting and the work travel schedule, he

6 will have been in complete compliance up to

7 the December 4th hearing.

8 The request before you is coming from

9 the City as to whether or not the Petitioner

10 would need to then actually appear before

11 you or would you be able to hear the case

12 under other matters if we provide sufficient

13 documentation that he has complied with your

14 motion from that evening?

15 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Member Sanghvi?

16 MEMBER SANGHVI: As far as I am

17 concerned if they have met with the

18 compliance there is no need for them to

19 appear.

20 MS. WORKING: You would be okay with

21 hearing it under other matters?

22 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I believe that is

23 the consensus.

24 MS. WORKING: The City Attorney



1 informs me that we can do an aye vote on

2 that.


4 to allow the Petitioner to come back under

5 other matters and does not need to be

6 reappearing in front of the Board.


8 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: There is no need

9 for the Petitioner to come back.


11 can hear the case under other matters.

12 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We can hear the

13 case under other matters as presented by the

14 City. There was motion by Member Fischer

15 and seconded by Member Sanghvi.

16 Please call the roll.

17 MS. WORKING: May I bring up one more

18 point as a question to the City Attorney?

19 If the Petitioner has not complied, then you

20 do want to see him back here on December

21 4th; is that correct? Can we incorporate

22 that into the motion?

23 MS. KUDLA: Yes.

24 MS. WORKING: Thank you.





3 with that request.

4 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: It is agreed by

5 both parties. Any further discussion?


7 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Please call the

8 roll.

9 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer?


11 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?


13 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?


15 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


17 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?


19 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?


21 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?


23 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0.

24 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. Is



1 there any further information or comments to

2 be made by the Board prior to adjournment?

3 Member Bauer?

4 MEMBER BAUER: Have a nice

5 Thanksgiving.

6 (Interposing)(Unintelligible).


8 adjourn.


10 (The meeting was adjourned at

11 9:29 p.m.)
















1 C E R T I F I C A T E



4 I, Mona L. Talton, do hereby certify

5 that I have recorded stenographically the

6 proceedings had and testimony taken in the

7 above-entitled matter at the time and place

8 hereinbefore set forth, and I do further

9 certify that the foregoing transcript,

10 consisting of (100) typewritten pages, is a

11 true and correct transcript of my said

12 stenographic notes.






18 _____________________________

19 Mona L. Talton,


20 Certified Shorthand Reporter


22 November 22, 2007