|View Agenda for this meeting
View Action Summary for this meeting
REGULAR MEETING - ZONING BOARD
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, January 8, 2008.
1 Novi, Michigan
2 Tuesday, January 8, 2008
3 7:30 p.m.
4 - - - - - -
6 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: After looking at
7 the clock on the wall it's 7 o'clock p.m.
8 The City of Novi regular meeting of the
9 Zoning Board of Appeals, Tuesday, January
10 8th, 2008 is called to order.
11 Before we move into anything else on
12 the agenda I want to welcome aboard our
13 newest member to the ZBA, Mr. Rickie Ibe.
14 MEMBER IBE: Thank you.
15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: And we will move
16 forward and have comments a little bit later
17 to that regard.
18 At this time please call the roll for
20 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?
21 MEMBER BAUER: Present.
22 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?
23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Here.
24 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?
1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Present.
2 MS. WORKING: Vice-Chair Fischer?
3 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Present.
4 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?
5 Member Krieger?
6 MEMBER KRIEGER: Here.
7 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?
8 MEMBER WROBEL: Present.
9 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?
10 MEMBER IBE: Present.
11 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Member Canup is
12 absent excused. He notified me that he
13 would not be present this evening.
14 Okay, we do have a quorum. Thus, this
15 meeting is official and is now in session.
16 At this time if our newest member would
17 please lead us in the pledge of allegiance.
18 MEMBER IBE: I pledge allegiance to
19 the flag of the United States of America and
20 to the Republic for which it stands, one
21 nation under God indivisible with liberty
22 and justice for all.
23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. Now,
24 I would ask that the Vice-Chair please read
1 the rules and conduct of the meeting.
2 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you,
3 Mr. Chair. A full copy of the hearing
4 format as well as the rules of conduct can
5 be found on the front page of the agenda.
6 Please make sure to turn off all
7 pagers and cell phones during the meeting.
8 An Applicant or Representative will be asked
9 to come forth and state their name and
10 address and be sworn in by our Board
12 Applicants will be allowed five
13 minutes to address the Board and present
14 their case. An extension of time may be
15 granted at the discretion of the
16 Chairperson. Anyone in the audience who
17 wishes to address the Board regarding the
18 current case will be asked by the Chair to
19 raise their hand to be recognized. Once
20 recognized the audience members will have
21 three minutes to speak if speaking as an
22 individual or ten minutes to speak if
23 representing a group.
24 Members of the audience will be
1 allowed to address the Board once unless
2 directly questioned by a Board Member.
3 The Secretary will read the number of
4 public hearing notices mailed and objection
5 and approval responses will be entered into
6 the record at that time.
7 The Chair will ask for input from the
8 Community Development Department, the
9 Ordinance Enforcement Officer, the Planning
10 Department and the City Attorney.
11 The Chair will turn the case over
12 to the Board for discussion as well as a
13 motion if appropriate. Impromptu statements
14 from the audience will not be tolerated and
15 be considered out of order.
16 A roll call vote will then be taken to
17 approve or deny the motion on the table and
18 the next case will be called.
19 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. The
20 Zoning Board of Appeals is a Hearing Board
21 empowered by the Novi City Charter to hear
22 appeals seeking variances from the
23 application of Novi Zoning Ordinances.
24 It takes a vote of at least four
1 members to approve a variance request and a
2 vote of the majority present to deny a
3 request. The Board consist of seven regular
4 members and one alternate member. The
5 alternate member has the right to
6 participate in all Board discussions and
7 hearings and may not vote except in the
8 absence or abstention of a regular Board
10 Our alternate this evening is
11 sitting in as a regular member and does have
12 the right to vote.
13 Looking at the agenda is there any additions
14 or corrections to the agenda?
15 MS. WORKING: Yes, Mr. Chair. I would
16 like to add with the Board's consent the
17 approval of the December 4th, 2007 ZBA
18 Hearing Minutes if you have had the
19 opportunity to review them. Should we add
20 them to the agenda for approval this
22 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I believe so.
23 MS. WORKING: Let's do so. On to item
24 number two of the agenda. The Petitioner, I
1 hope you received in your packet via e-mail
2 has requested to postpone his case until the
3 February meeting.
4 Case number three on the agenda. The
5 Applicant will be withdrawing his case from
6 ZBA consideration. He will no longer be
7 required to have a variance.
8 Case number five on the agenda has
9 indicated, has requested to be postponed to
10 February 12th. I wanted to bring that to
11 your attention.
12 And under Other Matters, may we please
13 add number five, nominations for Board
14 positions for the upcoming year. Those
15 would be all the proposed changes.
16 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Motion to
17 approve as amended.
18 MEMBER BAUER: Second.
19 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Motion to
20 approve by Member Fischer. Seconded by
21 Member Bauer.
22 Please call the roll.
23 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?
24 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
1 MS. WORKING: Vice-Chair Fischer?
2 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye.
3 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?
4 MEMBER IBE: Yes.
5 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?
6 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
7 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?
8 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes.
9 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?
10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.
11 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?
12 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes.
13 MS. WORKING: Motion to approve
15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We have an
16 agenda this evening.
17 First item then is to review, approve
18 the minutes for the November 5th, 2007. Any
19 changes, corrections, etcetera to those
21 MEMBER BAUER: Move to approve.
22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second.
23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We have a motion
24 by Member Bauer. A second by Member
2 MEMBER FISCHER: Is that for both
4 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: No, just for the
5 first one.
6 All in favor say aye? Opposed same
7 sign? That one was approved.
8 Now for November 6th, the minutes for
9 November 6th. Changes, corrections,
11 MEMBER BAUER: So moved.
12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second.
13 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: It's been moved
14 by Member Bauer. Seconded by Member
15 Sanghvi. We'll go with the voice vote on
16 that as well.
17 All in favor say aye?
18 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye.
19 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Opposed same
20 sign? November 6th has been approved.
21 Now December 4th, the last one for
22 this evening. Any corrections, additions,
23 changes to those minutes? A motion?
24 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Motion to
2 MEMBER BAUER: Second.
3 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Motion to
4 approve by Member Fischer. Seconded by
5 Member Bauer.
6 All in favor say aye?
7 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye.
8 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: All opposed same
9 sign? All of our minutes have been
11 Are there any public remarks? And
12 what I'm looking for is anyone who cares to
13 speak to the ZBA regarding any case other
14 than one that is currently on the agenda as
15 a public hearing. Seeing none, we move on
16 to our first case.
18 The first case is number: 07-093
19 filed by Kim Capello for 26444 Taft Road.
20 Mr. Capello is requesting seven variances
21 for the proposed use of an existing
22 non-conforming structure and the use of the
23 land for professional office located at said
1 The Applicant is proposing use of an
2 existing residential structure in an I-1
3 district for an office, without structural
4 alterations on a temporary basis until a new
5 structure can be approved and built.
6 The Applicant is requesting one front
7 yard setback variance, one front yard
8 parking setback variance, one off street
9 parking configuration variance, one variance
10 with a number of required parking spaces,
11 one parking space dimension and maneuvering
12 lane area variance, one parking surfacing
13 variance and one variance from the required
14 standards for landscaping.
15 Property is zoned I-1 and located
16 south of Grand River and east of Taft.
17 And for the audience's information,
18 the reason I read these cases is for our
19 viewing audiences at home and those of you
20 in the audience that may not have copies of
21 the agenda. I see the Applicant has come
22 forward and typically if they are not an
23 attorney they need to be sworn in, but I
24 believe this Applicant is an attorney.
1 So you can move forward and present
2 your case.
3 MR. CAPELLO: Thank you. Kim Capello,
4 24406 Nantucket Drive. I find it awkward to
5 be in front of you this evening, not that
6 I'm not used to being in front of public
7 body, but because of my relationship with
8 the City. I did give it some thought to
9 hire somebody to make the presentation on my
10 behalf but assumed that I would be getting
11 up and answering all the questions anyway,
12 so I decided to go ahead and do it myself.
13 I apologize if it makes any of you feel
15 I have lived in the city in access of
16 15 years. My business has been in the City
17 of Novi in access of 11 years. During that
18 period of time I have been leasing office
19 space primarily in JCK Building on Grand
21 During that period of time for the
22 last seven or eight years I have been trying
23 to purchase property or purchase a building
24 to have some investment for my office in the
1 City of Novi. It's been intolerable. I
2 have made several offers on properties and
3 gotten close to closing on a couple of
4 deals. For various reasons the deals fell
5 through. This particular house on Taft Road
6 I have negotiated over a year and a half to
8 Finally got rid of the real estate
9 broker, sat down with the owner at Lowes one
10 morning over coffee. It turned out to be a
11 family business, a great guy. He said we're
12 not selling now. A month later he called
13 and said we're selling. I still overpaid on
14 what we paid for the property, but given the
15 situation and the cost of what I can afford
16 it made more sense to overpay for this then
17 to invest a lot more money in something I
18 couldn't afford.
19 I can't afford to maintain paying rent
20 at the JCK Building or elsewhere and to
21 maintain payments of taxes and insurance on
22 this investment property until such time as
23 we can get a building up and I can occupy
24 the building. In fact, my costs right now
1 are doubled than what they were at JCK and I
2 have or will have if you approve my
3 variances, less space in this house.
4 The space lays out okay. I can deal
5 with it. It's my office. I am an attorney
6 as most of you know. My wife is my very
7 part time secretary. So, there is one and a
8 half of us working. I have no walk-in
9 clients. All of my clients are by word of
11 I might have five or six appointments in my
12 office during the week and that's about the
13 extent of the traffic that will be visiting
14 26444 Taft Road.
15 The Building Department has inspected
16 the house. I have electrical approval,
17 plumbing approval. The construction I have
18 performed most of the work. The few
19 remaining items are outside. Hopefully this
20 weekend with a break in weather my
21 contractor can get out there. They mostly
22 have to do the steps and height of the
24 I will have to go to the Construction
1 Board of Appeals at the State level to get a
2 variance for barrier free. The inside of
3 the house is barrier free. I just put over
4 a thousand dollars into the rest room to
5 make it barrier free. The other issue is
6 whether or not I'm going to have to
7 construct a ramp at the front door to make
8 the front door barrier free. Otherwise I'll
10 I am going to ask for a variance
11 because of my 31 years of practice I have
12 not had a single handicap person come to my
13 office to visit. For what reason I don't
14 know, it just hasn't occurred. I have a
15 partner in this project. Glorall (ph)
16 Brothers, LLC, owns the property. They will
17 be developing the building. I will be the
18 sole occupant. My partner is not occupying
19 the house, it's just myself. He intends to
20 occupy part of the building. I intend to
21 occupy part of the building and lease out
22 another portion of the building.
23 As you can tell from the variances
24 that I have needed in the existing house, in
1 constructing the new building I am going to
2 need just as many variances. This used to
3 be residential. It's a very narrow lot.
4 With the light industrial zoning setbacks,
5 it makes this property practically
6 un-buildable without variances. So to be
7 honest with you, I'll be back here again.
8 I don't know what I am going to ask
9 for at that time. I have already hired a
10 land surveyor. I have already hired an
11 engineer and I'm waiting for the contractor
12 to come up with the architect.
13 So we're moving forward, but it's
14 going to take some work to finish the
15 building for this particular site. That's
16 for another day.
17 The materials that I
18 submitted to you aren't specifically
19 accurate with regard to the parking. A lot
20 of the variances that I am requesting have
21 to do with the parking lot. It is a gravel
22 parking lot. When I realized from the City
23 that I needed to have a plot plan showing
24 the house and the parking area, it was right
1 after our very first snowfall. All the
2 surveyor could go out and survey was where
3 the landscaper had plowed the area for us to
4 have access. When the snow melted actually
5 there was a lot greater area for parking or
6 turnaround. Like I said, if I can get
7 people to park in the proper locations. A
8 lot of the parking issues will be resolved
9 mainly because of the location of the gravel
10 being able to see where you can park and
11 where you can turnaround.
12 I am asking for all of the variances.
13 Hopefully within a five-year period I will
14 have the building up and I will have an
15 occupancy permit. This particular house as
16 it lays out will be in the parking lot so
17 the building can go up, be ready for
18 occupancy. Then the house can come down.
19 Hopefully it will just be a short couple
20 week delay until I can move in.
21 I can't afford to do this project if I
22 can't move into the house and eat some of
23 the cost. It's an existing building and the
24 variances are requested because the building
1 is existing, not that I am doing anything in
2 addition to the building.
3 The last issue is the landscaping. I
4 certainly, if anybody has driven by the
5 house, it does need to be cleaned up in the
6 front. I am going to do that. I don't know
7 what I am going to do yet because I don't
8 know if the State is going to grant me a
9 variance for barrier free. If not, the ramp
10 has to take up a substantial amount of the
11 front yard so I have to determine if I need
12 to put the ramp in and then I'll make my
13 decision on how I am going to landscape the
14 front. I certainly want it to look better
15 than it does now. So I am asking for a
16 variance, I don't intend for it to be
17 permanent. I am asking to be granted
18 variances for a five- year period.
19 If something happens and the
20 project falls through, I will come back to
21 you telling you what I would do to improve
22 the property and the house and pave the lot,
23 hook up to the water, everything that's
24 required under the Ordinance.
1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. This
2 is a public hearing. Is there anyone in the
3 audience who cares to speak on this case?
4 MR. LEVINE: Yes.
5 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Please come
6 forward and state your name and address. If
7 you are not an attorney be sworn in by our
9 MR. LEVINE (ph): Good evening my name
10 is Rodger Levine, 22656 Foxmore Drive, Novi.
11 I have been a resident of the City for
12 nearly 20 years. I am not an attorney.
13 MEMBER BAUER: Raise your right hand.
14 Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
15 regarding case: 07-093?
16 MR. LEVINE: To the best of my
17 knowledge and ability.
18 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.
19 MR. LEVINE: First of all, thank you
20 for giving me this opportunity. Larry
21 Santos and I jointly own the two parcels
22 adjacent to the south of this subject
23 property. And I am here this evening
24 speaking on behalf of both of us. We first
1 would like to thank each one of you for your
2 civic mindedness and your efforts in
3 developing this city. It is our
4 understanding that the Applicant is
5 requesting these variances for a
6 non-conforming structure on a temporary
7 basis until a new plan can be approved and
8 built. We welcome development of the
9 parcel, but we are concerned and justifiably
10 so in that a development plan would ever be
11 approved or built. It appears to
12 us that the past actions of the City Council
13 would prevent a structure to be built on
14 this parcel without the bringing of City
15 water for Grand River at great expense to
16 that development. That was the case with
17 the Winns Dental Clinic application on the
18 property adjacent to the south of this
19 parcel. The physical size of this subject
20 property is so small that it has virtually a
21 2000 square foot or less development
23 If for any reason that a plan is not
24 approved and/or built, we the neighbors and
1 the City would be stuck with this
2 non-conforming structure with these proposed
3 variances. To our knowledge no such plan
4 has been submitted to the City for approval
5 and if these variances are granted, the
6 Applicant and/or future owners or future
7 tenants could operate their business from
8 this non-conforming structure forever.
9 Regardless of the intent and the sincerity
10 of the Applicant which we personally have
11 great respect for, it is for these and more
12 reasons that we respectfully ask that you
13 deny these requested variances for this
14 non-conforming structure. Thank you.
15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. Is
16 there anyone else in the audience who cares
17 to come forward and speak? Seeing none,
18 we'll close the public hearing. And ask the
19 Applicant if you care to comment on anything
20 that was just discussed prior to moving
22 MR. CAPELLO: Yes. Thank you. I did
23 talk with Mr. Levine on the telephone and he
24 really has no rational basis to ask that the
1 variances be denied because the house is
2 going to be there anyway. His property is a
3 vacant property. The fact that my wife and
4 I are going to occupy the house will have no
5 impact on his property at all. What he
6 wants to do is he wants to force me to
7 develop my property in the near future. So
8 that I would bear the entire cost of
9 bringing that water line from Grand River
10 down to the edge of his property. That's
11 what prevented his property from getting
12 developed a few years ago, the extreme cost
13 of running that water line.
14 I explained to him on the telephone
15 that we have got the church across the
16 street that's looking at developing. I am
17 looking at it and possibly he is. Perhaps
18 it will all come together at the same time.
19 The only reason he is asking to deny it is
20 because he wants to force me to bring water
21 to his property at my sole cost.
22 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you.
23 Turning to the Vice-Chair. Are there any
24 notices in this case?
1 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yes, Mr.
2 Chair, there were 30 notices mailed with one
3 approval and zero objections. The approval
4 coming from Robert Lebedder (ph) of 26510
5 Taft Road. No comments.
6 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: You said there
7 was one objection?
8 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: One
9 approval. Zero objections.
10 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Any comments
11 from the City or Counsel?
12 MS. KUDLA: No.
13 MR. FOX: Just a little clarification
14 from the Building Department. He does as
15 the Applicant said he has to get a State
16 variance for barrier free requirements in
17 order to not construct this ramp. At this
18 time we will not issue a C of O for that
19 project until we see that variance or that
20 ramp, whichever one comes first. We will
21 not issue the C of O for occupancy on that
22 until that issue is cleared up.
23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: The C of O is
24 the certificate of occupancy?
1 MR. FOX: Yes.
2 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Making sure we
3 have got the audience's understanding.
4 At this time then we will turn it over
5 to the ZBA for comments and discussion. Who
6 cares to go first?
7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Sure, I will go
9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Member Sanghvi?
10 MEMBER SANGHVI: I am going to try and
11 see if I can call you Mr. Capello.
12 MR. CAPELLO: Mav, Kim is fine.
13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Because I don't think
14 I have very, very often in the past. I was
15 there at your property actually yesterday.
16 And looking at it, how long have you been
17 using it as an office now?
18 MR. CAPELLO: I just moved my stuff in
19 over the holidays. The computers have just
20 gotten set up yesterday and I am hoping to
21 actually start full operations there
23 MEMBER SANGHVI: So you are just
24 moving in, you haven't really started
1 working out there?
2 MR. CAPELLO: Yes. In fact, the
3 balance of my files came over from JCK
4 Friday night.
5 MEMBER SANGHVI: As you very well
6 know, this is a tough situation all around.
7 But if I take your word that you are going
8 to build a new place and do everything else
9 what you just said, we looking at a five
10 year max temporary variance rather than a
11 permanent variance. The situation is a
12 little different and I like to consider it.
13 Thank you.
14 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you.
15 Other comments? Member Bauer?
16 MEMBER BAUER: How soon do you think
17 you would have some prints or something off
18 to the City?
19 MR. CAPELLO: For the building itself?
20 Because of the difficulties in the front and
21 rear setbacks, the architect and the
22 engineer have to work together. The
23 engineer already has a layout of the
24 building and the parking area which I think
1 I have submitted to you. The architect took
2 a look at that and had some other ideas and
3 suggestions. I have hired them now. I have
4 already started paying the engineer and as
5 soon as the architect sends me his contract,
6 they are moving forward.
7 I don't have any control
8 over what they do.
9 MEMBER BAUER: I understand that. I
10 just wanted a ball park figure.
11 MR. CAPELLO: I am moving ahead.
12 MEMBER BAUER: Fine. Thank you.
13 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Member Fischer?
14 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you,
15 Mr. Chair. As far as putting a time limit
16 on it, I am not sure that I would be
17 comfortable putting a five-year limit on it.
18 Would you be willing to compromise and come
19 back in a year, a year and a half, two years
20 and show us where you are with your plans?
21 Is that a comprise that you can --
22 MR. CAPELLO: I don't have any problem
23 with that. I took out a five year mortgage
24 on the property assuming that by the time I
1 got through the planning stages and the
2 construction approval stages and
3 construction. And also the things we need
4 to consider are the water lines. I cannot
5 afford to carry that water line, the burden
6 of the cost of that water line all by myself
7 on that project. Lotus Bank is my bank. I
8 know that the Indian church across the
9 street, there has been talk with Lotus Bank.
10 I have been trying to keep up with how
11 quickly they are moving. They will be a
12 great contributor. Hopefully the property to
13 the south of mine. I talked to the neighbor
14 to the north who sent the letter.
15 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Approval?
16 MR. CAPELLO: Yeah, approval. I am
17 going to move everybody along as quickly as
18 I can. There are so many other factors,
19 Justin, I don't have control over all of
20 them. If you want me to come back I will do
21 that and tell you where I'm at.
22 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Right. I
23 am not looking for here is my plans, here is
24 my approved plans. I am looking for the
1 status update to make sure that things are
2 moving along just because of the concerns
3 that were brought up. I mean, given the
4 fact that the building is already there, I
5 am not sure that temporary approval would be
6 something that I wouldn't be looking into.
7 So, I don't see much of an issue as long as
8 we put some type of time limit, so that the
9 Board can continue to watch over and insure
10 that things are moving forward so all
11 parties involved are treated equally and
13 Thank you, Mr. Chair.
14 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Member Krieger?
15 MEMBER KRIEGER: Can I ask a question
16 for the City? The variances are regarding
17 the road for parking. And then the water
18 would be, this is just -- is going to go on
19 the east side or the west side of Taft? Has
20 it been in the works at all?
21 MS. REINOWSKI: I am not sure about
22 the water situation. Being the planner I
23 think it would be more of a question the
24 engineer would need to answer regarding
1 that. Variances are related to parking as
2 well as the land and the building setbacks.
3 Questions regarding those variances I can
4 answer, but I'm not aware of the situation
5 with the water line. I'm sorry.
6 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Member Wrobel?
7 MEMBER WROBEL: I agree a lot with
8 what Mr. Fischer said. Five year I feel a
9 little bit uncomfortable with, but I know
10 it's going to take time to get the building
11 plans submitted and approved and everything.
12 I just want to make sure that, and I assume
13 it will be knowing you, Kim, that it will be
14 done. But I want to protect the City from
15 the standpoint that we put a date on here
16 saying we have to have the plans by a
17 certain date, a year, year and a half
18 whatever, and that the variances will only
19 be for that specified time. And then at
20 that time if it's still required we would
21 have to re-evaluate them. So, the five year
22 I feel kind of foggy on.
23 But I appreciate the fact that you are
24 going to invest in the City and build
1 something on that area which needs to be
2 done and I would like to accommodate it as
3 much as possible. But I just don't want to
4 leave it open-ended for such a period of
6 MR. CAPELLO: And I understand. If
7 that's the understanding and you just want
8 to make sure I am moving forward, I mean
9 that's fine. Give me a time period and I
10 will bring it to you what I've got in that
11 period of time.
12 MEMBER WROBEL: To our City Attorney,
13 is this something that is acceptable that we
14 could do, give a time period?
15 MS. KUDLA: Yes, you can do that.
16 MEMBER WROBEL: Okay. That's all, Mr.
17 Chair. Thank you.
18 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Member Ibe?
19 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Capello, it appears
20 based on your sworn statement I sense there
21 is a contingency built in to your intent to
22 put together a permanent structure. The
23 water line, you mentioned the water line
24 quite a bit and it appears that you are
1 relying on the neighbor to the south as well
2 as the church that you mentioned to assist
3 with the cost of this water line. Now, is
4 this water line, is that going to be an
5 issue in determining whether or not you go
6 forward with the permanent structure?
7 MR. CAPELLO: Yes. And I honestly
8 told you guys, yes, it is. That's why the
9 property to the south did not develop
10 because the cost of bringing their water
11 line to that property was far in access of
12 percentage wise of the cost of the project
13 that it didn't make sense to do it. And I
14 am telling you that my hope is is to have
15 all of the developments coming on line in
16 close proximity of each other or to try to
17 get the projects and the properties in that
18 area and maybe create an SAD.
19 This project is no different than
20 the Northern Equities project that could be
21 brought to you. There are contingencies
22 that are outside of our control. The cost
23 of infrastructure that are outside of my
1 I am going to do the best I can
2 to get that water line there. I cannot pay
3 for the entire water line myself and make
4 the project financially work.
5 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. I
6 have a couple of questions for the City as
7 well. The property is currently zoned I
8 believe R-1 and is up for zoning change
9 (unintelligible) approximately across the
10 street. Is that where the church is going?
11 Or is that looking at the condominium
12 development or something?
13 MR. CAPELLO: Tim, if I might. That
14 might be where the Brazilians are going to
15 build closer down to to Eleven Mile Road.
16 MS. REINOWSKI: It's sounds like that
17 might be what you are speaking of which is
18 further south and it's on the northwest
19 corner of the street.
20 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: You don't know
21 whether they have water or not?
22 MS. REINOWSKI: Unfortunately I'm not
23 sure what the utility situation is in that
1 MR. CAPELLO: I don't think they have
2 water down at Eleven Mile Road. Father Rome
3 (ph) is another person I will be contacting
4 to see what their intent is. I didn't mean
5 to interrupt.
6 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: That's fine.
7 That's a quite large piece of property and
8 if they are looking at increasing the
9 density there they are looking at the
10 possibility of quite a few units that would
11 require city water as well.
12 MR. CAPELLO: What they want to do is
13 they just want to build one dormitory for
14 the Brazilians, not just the teachers at
15 Catholic Central, but those that are going
16 to actually retire and they would stay
17 there. So it would be a great location for
19 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Also, I wanted
20 to ask the City. What's the anticipated
21 date for widening of Taft Road? Is it in
22 the master plan?
23 MS. REINOWSKI: I don't know a
24 particular date, I'm sorry. I don't know of
1 anything immanent. Again, it would be
2 another question for the engineers if there
3 is any time frame on that or if it's just
4 shown as future for something that may be
5 far out.
6 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. And
7 to our City Attorney. If we do incorporate
8 conditions under -- or do we need maybe is a
9 better way to phrase it, to incorporate
10 conditions for ADA meeting those
11 requirements even on a temporary basis?
12 MS. KUDLA: Well, that would be a
13 separate issue. Even if you didn't make a
14 condition, he still wouldn't be able to get
15 a certificate of occupancy without it. So
16 you wouldn't necessarily have to add that as
17 a condition.
18 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: So that would
19 not be necessary. And I was going to ask
20 (unintelligible) overriding the State or the
21 County to allow a variance for the barrier
22 free ramp.
23 MR. CAPELLO: I wish you could.
24 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: You had
1 indicated initially that you wanted to have
2 the building torn down within three years.
3 Now we're talking five.
4 MR. CAPELLO: Maybe there was a
5 misunderstanding what I said is how it's
6 designed now the new building would be to
7 the north of the existing house.
8 The house sits in a parking lot. So if
9 things work well the building will be up and
10 ready for occupancy except for completion of
11 the parking lot. Then the house could come
12 down and I will just have a short period of
13 time that I am in limbo.
14 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I was trying
15 figure out how you were going to tear down
16 the house and then wait a year or whatever
17 for it to be built.
18 MR. CAPELLO: I am hoping that period
19 of time will be very short.
20 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: And your
21 anticipated number of vehicles I know you
22 were looking at three parking spaces. You
23 had indicated five or six customers per
24 week, so obviously typically there never
1 would be more than two spaces?
2 MR. CAPELLO: There is space right now
3 if people parked in a parking spot for at
4 least five cars without even using the
5 turnaround. What happens is people stop in
6 the middle of the turnaround whether
7 delivery or running in or not, so I need to
8 get them to park back where there is ample
10 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: And those would
11 be signed or some type of signage?
12 MR. CAPELLO: I need to figure out
13 some way to tell people this is where you
14 park. I haven't figured it out yet, Tim.
15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I guess I was
16 looking at three spaces and if you and your
17 part time secretary are both parked there,
18 if you drove separately now you only have
19 one space.
20 MR. CAPELLO: We do drive separately,
21 but there is more, there really is more than
23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Those are all
24 the questions I have. Member Fischer?
1 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
2 I would move that we grant the Petitioner's
3 request as stated in case number: 07-093 on
4 the temporary basis of 18 months given the
5 fact that the Petitioner has established
6 practical difficulty given the narrowness
7 and shape of the lot. Given the Applicant's
8 statements regarding ample parking for
9 people. And given the fact that it would be
10 impractical and burdensome for the Applicant
11 to bring the structure in compliance in
12 order to use said property.
13 I would also ask the condition that
14 light and safety issues identified during
15 the building inspection be addressed within
16 60 days.
17 MEMBER BAUER: Second the motion.
18 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We have a motion
19 by Member Fischer. A second by Member
20 Bauer. Any further discussion?
21 I would like to make one comment. I
22 think 18 months is a little quick with all
23 the work that needs to be done. I prefer to
24 see the motion be 24 months or maybe even
1 three years if we are looking at a five year
2 plan just to minimize the work that the
3 Board has to do in the further if nothing
5 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: The only
6 reason I am comfortable with 18 months is
7 because I am not looking for a full fledge
8 presentation. I am looking for a quick
9 update of the status. So I would assume
10 that given the minutes from this meeting and
11 seeing the plan move forward that Mr.
12 Capello could present in 18 months it would
13 be pretty quick for the Board. Not really a
15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Since the
16 Applicant had indicated that he would be
17 willing to come back and share status
18 updates with us I will support the motion.
19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Well, I was going to
20 say something, but I don't need to anymore.
21 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Robin, are you
22 prepared to call the roll?
23 MS. WORKING: Yes, I am.
24 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Please do so.
1 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer?
2 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye.
3 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?
4 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
5 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?
6 MEMBER IBE: Yes.
7 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?
8 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes.
9 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?
10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.
11 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?
12 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes.
13 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?
14 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
15 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0.
16 MR. CAPELLO: Thank you very much.
17 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you.
18 MR. CAPELLO: Hopefully I will see you
19 before 18 months.
21 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER:
22 Our second case this evening, let me get on
23 the right page here. The second case was
24 removed. The third case was withdrawn. So
1 we're up to the fourth case, correct? 096?
2 MS. WORKING: That's correct. 095 is
3 also going to withdraw. We just haven't
4 gotten that in writing.
5 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: All right. We
6 will move to Case number: 07-096 filed by
7 Tammy Stubbe of Singh Homes Building Company
8 for 41335 Clermont Avenue.
9 Tammy Stubbe of Singh Homes Building Company
10 is requesting one 62.5 square foot ground
11 sign variance renewal for continued use of a
12 9'3" by 6'10" subdivision business sign for
13 the Willowbrook Farm Subdivision Phase IV.
14 The sign is currently located on the
15 northeast corner of Clermont and Meadowbrook
16 Road at the entrance of Phase III of the
17 Willowbrook Farm.
18 The property is zoned R-4 and located
19 north of Ten Mile Road and east of
20 Meadowbrook Road.
21 Member Wrobel?
22 MEMBER WROBEL: Chairman and Board, as
23 I am the president of the Willowbrook Farm
24 Homeowners Association I would ask your
1 permission to recuse myself from this case.
2 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Move to
3 allow Member Wrobel to recuse himself.
4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second.
5 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We have a motion
6 by Member Fischer and a second by Member
7 Sanghvi for recusal.
8 Please call the roll.
9 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer?
10 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye.
11 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?
12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Aye.
13 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?
14 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
15 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?
16 MEMBER IBE: Yes.
17 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?
18 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
19 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?
20 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes.
21 MS. WORKING: Move to recuse is
23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Please leave the
1 And, sir, at this time since we
2 do not have a full Board, it is your option
3 as to whether you want us to proceed or
4 whether you would like the case to be tabled
5 until next month?
6 MEMBER SANGHVI: We have six don't we?
7 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: No, we have to
8 have seven.
9 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Seven is a
10 full Board.
11 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Seven is a full
12 Board. It's your choice, sir?
13 MR. HUMPHERD (ph): What does that
14 mean? I'm not sure how this --
15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Since one member
16 was recused, we are now down to six members
17 being able to vote this evening as opposed
18 to a full compliment of seven. Consequently
19 we made it the process to allow the
20 Applicant if he chooses to wait until we
21 have a full Board it could be set back
22 another month. Obviously the reason for the
23 recusal, next month he would recuse himself
24 that month as well. So I just wanted to
1 make sure you knew this.
2 MR. HUMPHERD: If it's okay I would
3 like to proceed.
4 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Okay. Can you
5 come forward so you are representing this
6 case. If you are not an attorney please
7 state your name and address and be sworn in
8 by our Secretary.
9 MR. HUMPHERD: My name is Russ
10 Humpherd (ph), 5471 Parkside Drive,
11 Brighton, Michigan.
12 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm
13 to tell the truth regarding case: 07-096?
14 MR. HUMPHERD: Yes, I do.
15 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.
16 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Please state
17 your case.
18 MR. HUMPHERD: So, Willowbrook Farms
19 is subdivision which was built in four
20 phases. We are currently still building in
21 Phase III which we have lots available in
22 Phase III which is the entry to Phase III is
23 where the sign is located. And we are also
24 building in Phase IV. And Phase IV I meets
1 the criteria of having less than 80 percent
2 of the lots with a certificate of occupancy
3 and I think we're about just under 50
4 percent and we're asking for a renewal of
5 the sign to keep our exposure to keep the
6 traffic off of Meadowbrook Road and let them
7 know that we are still building in there and
8 we have lots available at both locations.
9 And that's really the basis of what we're
10 asking for.
11 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Okay, thank you.
12 This is a public hearing. Is there anyone
13 in the audience who cares to speak on this
15 MR. SATHE: Yes.
16 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Please come
17 forward. State your name and address and be
18 sworn in by our Secretary if you are a not
19 an attorney.
20 MR. SATHE: My name is Zuhaus Sathe.
21 My address is 41338 Scarborough Lane in
23 MEMBER BAUER: Raise your right hand.
24 Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
1 regarding case: 07-096?
2 MR. SATHE: Yes, I do.
3 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.
4 MR. SATHE: Thank you for the
5 opportunity to speak. This particular sign
6 is fairly large and it's at the entrance of
7 Phase III which is over 90 percent occupied.
8 And the sign portion is on Meadowbrook Road
9 and there is another sign of the same size
10 on Ten Mile.
11 To go from this sign to where Phase IV
12 is located is about half a mile and if one
13 enters the subdivision from this sign, then
14 there are three turns that one has to take.
15 There is no indication when you enter the
16 subdivision about where to go to where the
17 Singh offices are located. So if somebody
18 was to enter, they would likely get confused
19 or that would at least increase the traffic
20 in the subdivision.
21 The other sign which is located is on
22 Ten Mile Road which has a large amount of
23 traffic and has a substantial amount of
1 We do want residents of the
2 subdivision, we do want all the houses to be
3 sold. But at the same time we don't want a
4 sign to be located for a long time and in
5 that area which is more than 90 percent
6 occupied and indicate that maybe things are
7 not selling well in this subdivision. So as
8 for the City ordinances, after a phase is
9 more than 80 percent complete, now I
10 understand it is the Homeowners
11 Association's option to have a sign or at
12 least be approached for that request. That
13 hasn't happened from Singh Homes. In fact,
14 the reason that a Singh Home representative
15 is here is because they have been, they have
16 been called out by a letter from the City of
17 Novi Ordinance Enforcement office on October
18 22nd of this year. So, we would like to
19 have the Singh Homes approach the Homeowners
20 Association since it is over 90 percent
22 Finally, the way the sign is located
23 it covers the monument light. And I believe
24 there is a photograph in the packet that you
1 have received. So it's not ideally located
2 and is (unintelligible) subdivision. That's
3 all I have to say.
4 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you, sir.
5 Anyone else in the audience who cares to
6 speak? Seeing none, we are going to close
7 the public hearing.
8 And ask the Vice-Chair if there was
9 any comments? I'm sorry, Petitioner, if you
10 care to comment on any of his comments, you
11 have the right to do so.
12 MR. HUMPHERD: I would just like to
13 comment that speaking of the two signs and
14 the locations of the two signs, we were
15 really looking to keep the sign over on
16 Meadowbrook Road. So if you look at the
17 layer of the subdivision, if somebody pulls
18 into that location or drives by, we're
19 looking for them to know that there is
20 construction in the area and to get our
21 phone number and then contact us so we can
22 let them that, hey, there are also lots over
23 off of Ten Mile and there are lots available
24 in Phase III also.
1 Some of the same reasons that he
2 didn't like the sign there are the reasons
3 we feel -- we don't think somebody can go
4 through there and drive all the way through
5 the subdivision and find Phase IV. If you
6 look at the map, there are extremities of
7 the entire project. We are looking for that
8 sign to stay so that we can get all the
9 exposure we can because nowadays we need all
10 the help we can get to get a sale. And
11 that's pretty much what we're looking for
12 for the sign.
13 And then, you know, I guess I am not
14 aware of any provisions of contacting the
15 Association for approval of signs and stuff
16 like that. I'm not sure that's the case.
17 But the sign is located on a vacant lot at
18 the entry and it has easements for the sign
19 location that the sign is located in so it
20 is on one of our vacant lots that we own and
21 has not been built on. So it is not in
22 somebody's yard or anything like that.
23 That's all I have to add.
24 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. Now
1 I'll ask if there is correspondence? I
2 believe there is.
3 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yes, Mr.
4 Chair. In this case there were 19 notices
5 mailed with one approval and 20 objections.
6 If it pleases the Board I am going to
7 start with the Homeowners Association
8 letter. After that I am going to go to each
9 of the individual letters and read the name
10 and address, however, I will only touch on
11 the new pieces.
12 This letter is in regards to Singh
13 Home Building Company's request for 62.5
14 square sign variance renewal for continued
15 use of a subdivision business sign at
16 Willowbrook Farm Phase IV. The Association
17 strongly objects to the request for the
18 following reasons: The exiting sign is
19 located at the Phase III entrance for Phase
20 IV of Willowbrook Farm. An identical sign
21 already exist at the Phase IV entrance of
22 Willowbrook Farm at Ten Mile and Amanda
23 Lane. Additionally, the existing sign
24 location at Phase III entrance is over one
1 half mile away from Phase IV.
2 Number two. There are only four
3 undeveloped lots on out of a total of 51 in
4 Phase III. Based on these figures Phase III
5 is greater than 90 percent built and
6 homeowner occupied. This completion
7 percentage is greater than the 80 percent
8 completion level specified in the City of
9 Novi Code of Ordinance. Therefore, it is the
10 opinion of this Association that any sign
11 located at Phase III is not warranted.
12 A side note. Singh has moved its
13 sales office completely out of Willowbrook
14 Farm and is relocated at Churchill Crossing
16 Number three. Most importantly in
17 2005 Singh Development Company turned over
18 Willowbrook Farm III to the Willowbrook Farm
19 Homeowners Association. This included all
20 common areas as well as the Phase III
21 entrance at Clermont and Meadowbrook Road.
22 The existing sign in question is
23 located at the Phase III entrance north of
24 (unintelligible). It is the contention of
1 the Homeowners Association that Singh Homes
2 would be required to get permission from the
3 Homeowners Association prior to placing any
4 sign on Willowbrook III property. Singh has
5 not approached said Homeowner Association.
6 Number four. The location of the
7 existing sign partially blocks the north
8 entrance monument light at the Phase III
10 Number five. Singh Homes did not
11 apply for the sign variance extension until
12 they were notified from Ordinance
13 Enforcement that their permit had expired on
14 October 22nd, 2007. This provides another
15 example of how Singh conducts business and
16 has interacted with our Association.
17 Once again, we strongly object to the
18 request for an extension to keep the
19 existing sign for Phase IV at its current
20 location in Phase III. We urge the Zoning
21 Board to consider our concerns and not
22 approve the request as stated.
23 Daniel Diantonis, D-I-A-N-T-O-N-I-S,
1 Nick and Misty Rallis, R-A-L-L-I-S,
2 4095 Scarborough Lane. Objection. They
3 have completed most of the lots in Phase
5 Timothy Dziewit, D-Z-I-E-W-I-T, of
6 24687 Bethany Way, an objection. Same
8 Debbie Waterstrat (ph) of 24568 Ackert
9 Court objects.
10 Ron Pitlock, P-I-T-L-O-C-K, 24558
11 Ackert objects. One sign is enough.
12 Zuhaus Sathe, S-A-T-H-E, 41338
13 Scarborough objects citing aesthetics as
15 Rajish and Serita Belluha (ph), 2467
16 Bethany Way, objection.
17 Carey Kendall 41118 Clermont Avenue
19 Tod Bosley (ph, 41009 Scarborough Lane
21 Jimmy and Rosalind Crawford, 24963
22 Bloomfield Court has an approval. Says:
23 They live in Phase III and the home is
24 adjacent to three of the four remaining lots
1 and has a clear view of the Singh signage
2 that is the issue. There are no sales
3 office located Willowbrook Farm Subdivision
4 and the signage of Phase III is probably
5 necessary to attract buyers to the remaining
6 lots. I did not find the sign to be
7 unsightly and the vacant lots are more of a
8 distraction if they remain unsold. Chances
9 are the Willowbrook Farm residents that are
10 most opposed live in the other phases.
11 Please allow to remain.
12 Jeffrey Lam, L-A-M, 24510 Bethany Way
13 objects. Cites traffic concerns.
14 Mark Macale, M-A-C-A-L-E, 40971
15 Scarborough Lane objects.
16 Edmond Shaheen, S-H-A-H-E-E-N, 24487
17 Bethany objects.
18 Tom Li, 41021 Scarborough Lane
20 Nellis and Sangarita (ph) Parikh,
21 P-A-R-I-K-H, of 41027 Scarborough objects.
22 Pikoron (ph) Singh,
23 24951 Bloomfield Court objects.
24 Chung Fu and Zow Zang (ph), 24557
1 Ackert object.
2 Reverend Tiffany Halboth,
3 H-A-L-B-O-T-H, 41240 Clermont objects.
4 Randy Block of 41252 Clermont objects.
5 Eric Kurish Ishnov (ph) of 4104
6 Scarborough Lane objects.
7 Fortunately that is all, Mr. Chair.
8 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you.
9 Comments from the City or Counsel?
10 MS. KUDLA: No.
11 MR. FOX: No comment. I do have a
12 comment. If it pleases the Board I would
13 like to make a clarification on the
14 temporary signage from what I heard being
15 stated by some of the letters written. The
16 Ordinance does say that temporary signs for
17 subdivision business signs are valid until
18 80 percent of the final phase of the project
19 is complete, not just the area it's in. So
20 I just want to be clear because I heard some
21 contradiction to that.
22 MS. WORKING: You will find that on
23 your agenda and the public hearing
1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. Turn
2 it over to the Board for comments.
3 Member Sanghvi?
4 MEMBER SANGHVI: I would like this to
5 go up on the screen so people can see what
6 we are talking about, namely Phase III and
7 Phase IV. Because when you look at this
8 map. I don't know how to do it.
9 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Here you
10 are, Mr. Sanghvi.
11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. When you
12 see the entrance and the sign we are talking
13 about in that Meadowbrook almost across from
14 Cherry Hill near the traffic light that's
15 where Clermont is, right? Phase IV which
16 you are talking about is really its primary
17 entrance is on Ten Mile Road, right?
18 MR. HUMPHERD: Correct.
19 MEMBER SANGHVI: So, I don't know how
20 it helps you to have a sign there and not on
21 Ten Mile road and why isn't it enough?
22 MR. HUMPHERD: Well, there is one on
23 Ten Mile as well.
24 MEMBER SANGHVI: That's what I'm
1 saying. Why isn't it enough?
2 MR. HUMPHERD: Well, we are saying
3 anybody that would drive down Meadowbrook
4 Road and not turn in that direction down Ten
5 Mile and see the other sign would never know
6 that two things, that Phase IV is even there
7 or that Phase III still has lots available.
8 So we would miss all Meadowbrook exposure.
9 MEMBER SANGHVI: But there is nothing
10 on Meadowbrook as far as Phase IV is
11 concerned, is it? Tell me honestly
12 yourself, what has Phase IV got to do with
13 Meadowbrook Road?
14 MR. HUMPHERD: It's part of that
15 existing project. I mean, we see that as
16 we're a builder that came in and did this
17 whole site. Phase IV is part of this. You
18 come in and see that subdivision, hey, there
19 is a nice subdivision, oh, but there is a
20 Phase IV over here that's connected to it or
21 part of this 162 lots that are all done by
22 the same builder. It's all one thing.
23 If somebody went over to Phase IV,
24 Phase IV is more of a separate kind of
1 entity to it but it is attached. You know,
2 the way subdivisions are all attached to
3 each other a lot of people wouldn't
4 recognize that. So we feel that helps.
5 MEMBER SANGHVI: To me the way it is
6 laid out it looks more like a separate
7 entity than it is attached to anything.
8 Thank you.
9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you,
10 Member Sanghvi.
11 Member Fischer?
12 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Mr.
13 Amolsch, getting clarification from the
14 City. Can you explain again why this is
15 before the ZBA? What is the variance being
17 MR. AMOLSCH: We have a sign on Ten
19 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: So, it's
20 the additional sign is that the key that
21 makes it come before the Zoning Board?
22 MR. AMOLSCH: Right.
23 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I just
24 wanted to clarify the issue there.
1 I agree with the comments by the
2 previous speaker. When I look at the sign
3 what surprises me is that there is only two
4 key items. Phase IV, Grand Opening and the
5 fact that the sales office has moved. And
6 this is a very, very large sign. Those are
7 the two smallest components on this sign.
8 So to have a 62.5 square foot sign to call
9 out those two little items seems way too
10 large and that is definitely unneeded.
11 Given the fact that they do have
12 identification on Ten Mile I would not
13 support this sign.
14 Thank you, Mr. Chair.
15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you.
16 Member Krieger?
17 MEMBER KRIEGER: Can you explain to me
18 a little more about your practical
19 difficulty or hardship that you need that
20 sign there on Meadowbrook?
21 MR. HUMPHERD: We feel it's a hardship
22 that anybody that might be traveling, you
23 know, we are still trying to market Phase
24 III and we would love to get all these --
1 our plans were to have these lots done years
2 ago. So things have changed and we feel we
3 need all the exposure we can. We feel that
4 it's a hardship for people traveling along
5 there not to know that, hey, there are still
6 lots in Phase III and also over here in
7 Phase IV.
8 If you take it down (unintelligible)
9 other subdivision that maybe
10 (unintelligible) lots that may be owned by
11 not a builder or just privately owned, so we
12 feel it's important to keep it there.
13 MEMBER KRIEGER: What about a
14 directional sign?
15 MR. HUMPHERD: As far as like in place
16 of it? I guess I don't understand.
17 MEMBER KRIEGER: Never mind that.
18 Thank you.
19 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you.
20 I have a couple of comments. First of
21 all, to the City. Help me understand what
22 was addressed several times in the letters
23 and by our speaker previously regarding the
24 association approval? I don't know if that
1 is anywhere in our Ordinance.
2 MS. KUDLA: That wouldn't be
3 something -- at this point more than just
4 their statement that it's a legal question
5 they haven't presented any evidence to that
6 fact, so it's not something that we would
7 really consider as part of our discussion.
8 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I didn't think
9 it was but I wanted to clarify that for
10 audience members. One of the letters or
11 someone also said that there are four lots
12 still available in Phase III; is that
14 MR. HUMPHERD: There is actually one
15 that we are building a spec home on right
16 now. So there is five total. One has a
17 spec home under construction and there are
18 four additional lots available. And three
19 of them are right at the entry where that
20 sign is. So the sign also gives those lots
21 exposure that they are right there. And
22 those may be some of the more challenging
23 lots. A lot of times the challenging lots
24 are right at the entry. Those are the
1 harder ones to get away so it helps with
2 that as well.
3 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I have similar
4 concerns as the other Board Members. I
5 would feel a lot more comfortable if it was
6 a much smaller sign and as a lot of the
7 signs in the City indicate four or five lots
8 still available, something like Phase III,
9 five lots still available at that entrance
10 and keeping the large sign at Phase IV on
11 Ten Mile. Unfortunately this evening we're
12 not here to discuss a different sign. We
13 are here to discuss that sign and I am
14 primarily in agreement with the other Board
15 Members that I don't feel that I could
16 support it.
17 Any other comments? Looking for a
19 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Mr. Chair,
20 may I have the floor?
21 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Certainly.
22 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I would
23 move that in case number: 07-096 filed by
24 Tammy Stubbe of Singh Homes that we deny the
1 Petitioners's request given the fact that
2 the Petitioner has not established practical
3 difficulty and given that the sign is fairly
4 large for Meadowbrook Road and distracting
5 to those people. It is overshadowing to the
6 neighbors who reside in the Homeowners
7 Association. And that approving this
8 variance would not be in the spirit of the
9 Ordinance and allow substantial justice to
10 the homeowners of Willowbrook Farms.
11 MEMBER BAUER: Second the motion.
12 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We have a motion
13 by Member Fischer and a second by Member
15 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I might add
16 one more finding that the Board also found
17 that the Ten Mile sign was sufficient as
19 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: That's been
20 added and approved. I would like to ask if
21 you would be open to adding as a possibility
22 an amendment. I know that you alluded to
23 not being fair to those living in the
24 subdivision. Could we say something like
1 those living in Phases I, II and III that
2 may incur additional traffic and increase
3 safety concerns with people driving through
4 the subdivision?
5 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I would
6 agree to that as a finding of this Board.
7 MEMBER BAUER: Agreed.
8 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Any further
9 discussion? Please call the roll.
10 MS. WORKING: Vice-Chair Fischer?
11 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye.
12 MS. WORKING: Motion to deny.
13 Member Bauer?
14 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
15 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?
16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.
17 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?
18 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes.
19 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?
20 MEMBER IBE: Yes.
21 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?
22 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
23 MS. WORKING: Motion to deny passes
1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Sir, your
2 request was denied.
3 The next request is case number: 07
4 -- that one has been postponed to February.
6 So we'll move up to case number:
7 07-098. Member Wrobel will be rejoining us.
8 Which is filed by William Hass of
9 Thompson-Phelan Group, Incorporated for
10 Lotus Bank located at 44350 Twelve Mile
12 William Hass of Thompson-Phelan Group,
13 Incorporated representing Lotus Bank is
14 requesting one 25.6 square foot illuminated
15 wall sign variance for the placement of a --
16 it says 14" by 22" east elevation logo wall
17 sign for the Lotus Bank located at said
18 address. I believe that's supposed to be
19 14' by 22' and is zoned OS-1 and located
20 north of Twelve Mile Road and east of Dixon
22 Before we move forward with that I do
23 want to point out to the City and ask our
24 attorney. This was advertised both in the
1 written form and in our paper, the Novi News
2 as being 14" and 22". Does that create a
3 problem with us moving forward with this
4 case this evening?
5 MS. KUDLA: I believe it does create a
6 problem because it's a question of a bigger
7 sign. If it was a question of a smaller
8 sign, a smaller sign that was actually being
9 requested I don't think it would be a
11 MS. WORKING: But it's also requesting
12 a 25.6 square foot illuminated wall sign.
13 Does that not indicate that the 14" to 22"
14 was just a clerical typographical error and
15 the Board could move consider a 25.6 square
16 foot sign?
17 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We're prepared
18 to move forward this evening. But I want to
19 make sure that we're okay with the City
20 Attorney's office.
21 MS. KUDLA: Given that additional
22 statement there.
23 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It appears
24 that the notice went out with inches as well
1 to the --
2 MS. KUDLA: There is a total overall
3 square footage clarification there, so I
4 think that would be --
5 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: In the letters
6 to the surrounding community as well?
7 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Correct.
8 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: All right. It
9 looks like we can move forward.
10 MR. FOUNTAIN: I would like to advise
11 the Board that I'm not an attorney and would
12 take your oath.
13 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Please state
14 your name and address and be sworn in.
15 MR. FOUNTAIN: John Fountain, 9834
16 Dixie Highway, Anchorville, Michigan.
17 MEMBER BAUER: Raise your right hand.
18 Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
19 regarding case: 07-098?
20 MR. FOUNTAIN: Yes, sir, I do.
21 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.
22 MR. FOUNTAIN: Thank you for hearing
23 our Petition for a variance from the sign
24 ordinance at the Lotus Bank project which is
1 located at Twelve Mile and Dixon Road
2 approximately. We have a unique condition
3 at our site where our building is on a major
4 thoroughfare and also we share the corner
5 with a natural beauty road which is Dixon
7 We have worked with the City Planning
8 Department, City Engineering to maintain the
9 characteristic of the natural beauty road of
10 Dixon and we're on a major traffic artery of
11 Twelve Mile.
12 The Zoning Ordinance does permit in this
13 zoning district for a commercial zoning
14 building to be permitted two signs. One on
15 each thoroughfare. And that would be Twelve
16 Mile and it would also be Dixon Road.
17 Our finding here is that our elevation
18 that faces Dixon Road is the natural beauty
19 road elevation and also faces a residential
20 zoning RA. We would like to respect that
21 and not to throw our illuminated sign out
22 towards the residential area.
23 So, we're before you tonight to ask
24 for permission via this variance to locate
1 the sign that is permitted on the west
2 elevation and move that sign to the east
3 elevation as is on the rendering that you
4 see in front of you. We have fastened a
5 banner to the building to give you an
6 indication of this ahead of time so you
7 would have the opportunity to drive by and
8 take a look at it for yourself. The size of
9 the sign is within the restrictions of the
10 Ordinance and we seek to move the sign from
11 the west elevation to the east elevation
12 with your permission. Thank you.
13 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. This
14 is a public hearing, is there anyone in the
15 audience who cares to speak on this matter?
16 Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing.
17 It's my understanding that we have no
19 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Correct,
20 Mr. Chair. In this case as always Robin
21 amazes me, there were 440 notices mailed
22 with zero approvals and zero objections.
23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Okay, thank you.
24 MS. WORKING: Did you read into the
1 record how many were returned?
2 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: With 155
3 mails returned.
4 MS. WORKING: Yes, I did, Mr. Chair.
5 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. Any
6 comments from the City or Counsel?
7 MR. AMOLSCH: No comments, sir.
8 MS. KUDLA: No.
9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Moving on to the
10 Board. Member Sanghvi?
11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, Mr.
12 Chairman. From my perspective it makes
13 really a great deal of sense to have these
14 on the east elevation than the west. You
15 don't want flashing lights in front of the
16 people's bedrooms. That is not a kind thing
17 to do and it is a friendly thing to do what
18 you are suggesting. I have really no
19 problem supporting your variance. Thank
21 MR. FOUNTAIN: Thank you.
22 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you,
23 Member Sanghvi. Member Wrobel?
24 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
1 Having seen this project before in the
2 Planning Commission, first off, again, thank
3 you for relocating to Novi. It's a good
4 asset to the City. The building was done
5 tastefully. The signs are not obnoxious in
6 size. They are very small for a building
7 that size. I gave no issue whatsoever with
8 allowing the sign to go on the eastern side.
9 MR. FOUNTAIN: Thank you for your
11 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Member Fischer?
12 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you,
13 Mr. Chair. I too would welcome you to the
14 city -- well, in this office anyway. And I
15 think it looks great as well. I wish I could
16 have been part of the planning so far. It's
17 going to be an illuminated sign, is that
18 what I'm reading?
19 MR. FOUNTAIN: Yes, the logo sign, the
20 logo portion of the sign has light coming
21 through the face of it as well as behind it.
22 The letters "Lotus Bank" are affixed to the
23 building and have an interior source of
24 illumination that is flooding the light on
1 the surface of the building so that the
2 letters are contrast and not illuminated
4 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Will it be
5 illuminated 24/7, is that the intent?
6 MR. FOUNTAIN: I believe that's the
8 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay. I
9 was a little concerned about the 24/7, but
10 given the description of how it's lighting,
11 I don't think it's going to be any affect on
12 any surrounding areas, so I am willing to
13 support as well.
14 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
15 MR. FOUNTAIN: Thank you.
16 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Sir, could you
17 put a copy on the overhead. Perhaps the
18 sign so the audience can see it.
19 MR. FOUNTAIN: Give me just a moment
20 to get this situated. I think we need a
21 little help.
22 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: On the
23 right corner if you push that black button
24 on the left hand side it should zoom out.
1 MR. FOUNTAIN: There we go.
2 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I guess that's
3 the best focus we can get. Point out where
4 the two signs are.
5 MR. FOUNTAIN: This elevation is the
6 Twelve Mile Road elevation which faces
7 south. And this elevation is the main entry
8 of the bank which faces east to the Lotus
9 One District that we adjoined.
10 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you.
11 Member Bauer?
12 MEMBER BAUER: On your plans and
13 drawings you show a monument sign.
14 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: At the corner.
15 MEMBER BAUER: At the corner.
16 MR. FOUNTAIN: We are permitted only
17 one sign, one or the other. We will not
18 have a monument sign.
19 MEMBER BAUER: Okay, thank you.
20 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. Any
21 other comments?
22 I would like to say it's a true
23 pleasure to have an Applicant in front of us
24 not asking for something beyond what the
1 City Ordinance requires or the minimum, I
2 should say maximum. And also someone that
3 has taken the neighborhood in consideration.
4 So, I too welcome you aboard and I would
5 fully support a motion in approval of this.
6 MR. FOUNTAIN: Thank you. We
7 appreciate your support.
8 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Member Krieger?
9 MEMBER KRIEGER: Therefore, in case
10 number: 07-098 filed by William Hass of
11 Thompson-Phelan Group, Inc., for Lotus Bank
12 located at 44350 Twelve Mile Road, I move
13 that we grant the Petitioner's request for a
14 25.6 square foot illuminated wall sign
15 variance. He has shown his uniqueness that
16 they have a corner that they will be taking
17 into consideration the natural beauty road
18 and in regards to the elevations and
20 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I would
21 second that motion.
22 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We have a motion
23 by Member Krieger and a second by Member
24 Fischer. Any further comment? Please call
1 the roll.
2 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?
3 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
4 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer?
5 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye.
6 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?
7 MEMBER IBE: Yes.
8 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?
9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes.
10 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?
11 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
12 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?
13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.
14 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?
15 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes.
16 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0.
17 MR. FOUNTAIN: Thank you. On behalf
18 of Lotus Bank I want to thank you for your
20 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you.
22 Our next case is case number:
23 07-028 filed by William Condon for 1411 West
24 Lake Drive. Mr. Condon is requesting a
1 three side yard setback variances and one
2 total lot coverage variance for construction
3 of a new home in the J.W. Hawthorne
4 Subdivision located at said address. The
5 property is zoned R-4 and located south of
6 Pontiac Trail and east of West Lake Drive.
7 I see the Applicant is here. Please
8 come to the podium. State your name and
9 address and be sworn in by our Secretary if
10 you are not an attorney.
11 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair, if we could
12 before Mr. Condon is sworn in. If you will,
13 Members of the Board, look in your meeting
14 file packet, there was an approval/objection
15 letter that was filed in the Singh Homes and
16 it's really for case number: 07-028, 1411
17 West Lake. If you take the time to transfer
18 that now so when you get to that part of the
19 hearing you'll have it for reference. I
20 appreciate your support. Thank you.
21 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you.
22 MR. CONDON: Hello, my name is Michael
23 Condon. Address, 45694 Marlborough Place in
24 Novi, Michigan. I am the owner of 1411 West
1 Lake Drive.
2 MEMBER BAUER: Would you raise your
3 right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm
4 to tell the truth regarding case number:
6 MR. CONDON: Yes, I do.
7 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.
8 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Please present
9 your case.
10 MR. CONDON: As this lot is on Walled
11 Lake in the City of Novi and as some of
12 these lake lots go, there is a bit of
13 history and some uniqueness to this, okay.
14 I have lived on the lake for 11 years
15 and wanted to build another house on the
16 lake because after a divorce the house ended
17 up going with my children's mother. And so
18 several years ago I found this lot for sale,
19 it was kind of a crazy lot. I knew it had
20 some unique challenges so I came up and at
21 that point I purchased this in early '05. I
22 met with Don Saven at that point and I said,
23 hey, what is this lot? Is it buildable? He
24 went through a lot of paperwork for me which
1 I presume is in the packet or at least an
2 explanation of it. And he told me, yes,
3 this is a buildable lot and this probably
4 realistically what would probably be
5 allowed, but there is no promises. It
6 depends on whether the ZBA gives final
8 Having lived on the lake 14 years, I
9 kind of know what's reasonable and
10 everything. So, anyway, I met with him. I
11 purchased the thing three years ago.
12 Earlier this year I came up and met with the
13 Building Department again and said, hey, I
14 am finally going to get going ahead, is this
15 thing still in line and I kind of followed
16 those guidelines once again with no
17 promises, I understand.
18 As these lake lots go, they are kind
19 of challenging. I met with three
20 architects. I hired three different
21 architects to come up with something and
22 then I finally went with the best overall
23 design and that has gotten us here. I think
24 you all have the plot plan in your packet,
1 but just to point out a couple of points on
2 it, if you will. This one here I have put
3 it up on the thing.
4 In meeting with the architect,
5 and I did go talk to the neighbors before I
6 met with the architect. The adjacent
7 neighbors. This lot immediately to the
8 north here and immediately to the south,
9 these having the greatest two impacts and I
10 went and told them what I was looking at
11 doing and they said they were fine and could
12 live with it. So I went ahead, the
13 architect came up with this design.
14 I have since met with all residents
15 that had adjacent properties. There are
16 these two and then across the road here
17 there is another house, one house here that
18 would be affected that I have met with them.
19 The other gentleman or household I should
20 say here, it really doesn't affect him that
21 much. I went to their door three different
22 times, never got a response. Finally left
23 them a note and said please call me. I am
24 the owner of 1411. I would like to explain
1 what I am requesting.
2 In meeting with these two, I have got
3 approval letters from them. I think one was
4 mailed in directly from the Bowles to the
5 north. The other I have directly to the
6 south here. And then across the road there
7 is one here also. And then another neighbor
8 to the north two houses here. Everybody
9 seemed fine with it. All the letters are
10 approved. Where do these go?
11 MS. WORKING: I did not receive them.
12 MR. CONDON: When I went and explained
13 what was being done I didn't -- did they
14 have to mail them into you?
15 MS. WORKING: No, not necessarily. I
16 just don't want to replicate something.
17 MR. CONDON: Yes, those are the ones
18 you didn't -- those people just gave them to
19 me directly.
20 MS. WORKING: Okay.
21 MR. CONDON: Just to explain some of
22 the reasons to try to make sense on some of
23 the home work that was done, what we did,
24 and I think there are some tradeoffs in
1 building on these lake lots. And what we
2 did is in asking for the side yard setbacks,
3 yeah, we could have not asked for side yard
4 setbacks, but then for every foot we didn't
5 ask for it made the house longer this way.
6 And obviously we didn't want to take away
7 from the views of either of the neighbors,
8 okay. Yes, we have an open space here and
9 we left that a little bit open. There is a
10 telephone pole right in here with wires
11 running to this house right here so we
12 wanted it kind of tucked back from that.
13 Having lived only the lake for 13
14 years, I guess I wanted to go with the type
15 of house and the storage and the garage and
16 everything, because I know one of the
17 variances was the lot coverage was over by
18 two percent. But, I have never had -- I
19 have never stored stuff outside. I would
20 like to keep it clean and in the garage.
21 And even though the property line here shows
22 that it is set back, if you will, the road
23 really runs straight, but the city road
1 Now, the good news is even though I'm
2 five foot off the property line, I am still
3 23 foot from the neighbor's garage wall here
4 if you will. It's just a straight garage
5 wall and I am really 39 foot from their
6 living space on this side and 48 foot from
7 their living space on this side. So what I
8 really did is went ahead and said, okay,
9 there is this city stub street here or a
10 vacant lot or whatever, I am really not
11 going to be interfering with anybody over
12 there, if you will. The tradeoff of, okay,
13 I can narrow it up, but then I would go out
14 further and it's going to take away from the
15 lake view. So, I really think I came up
16 with the best design for the lot. I spent
17 some time. I am planning on dying in this
18 house. So I tried to put some time in it to
19 do it right.
20 I think that tries to explain
21 everything how we got here. I am willing to
22 take any questions that you may discuss. I
23 appreciate your approval and I promise to
24 build a nice house.
1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you.
2 Stick around, I am sure there will be
4 This is a public hearing. Is there
5 anyone in the audience who cares to speak on
6 this matter? Seeing none, we'll close the
7 public hearing and ask if there is any
9 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yes, Mr.
10 Chair. In this case I'm not certain how many
11 notices -- it might have gotten erased --
12 that were mailed, but there were two
13 approvals and one objection and then three
14 approvals which were handed in to us
16 James and Ann Bowles of 1405 West
17 Lake Drive: Mr. Condon has asked us to
18 write this letter in support of requested
19 variances. His lot is immediately to the
20 south of our home and adjacent to our
21 property. He has discussed the plans with
22 us and we have reviewed the variances and
23 believe it's reasonable considering the size
24 and configuration of said lot.
1 Tim Richardson 1311 West Lake Drive
2 says: I approve if the immediate neighbors
3 to the north and south also approve of this
5 And continuing with the approvals, the
6 ones handed in tonight.
7 Hurts Vanshiger (ph) of 1419 West Lake
8 Drive approves.
9 James Wood, III, of 1418 West Lake
10 Drive approves.
11 John Harvey of 1321 West Lake Drive
13 And now to the objection letter from
14 Daniel and Diane Tonus (ph) of 117 Rexton
15 states an objection. Says: That would be,
16 no. When is enough going to be enough? He
17 should be happy with the land that it's
18 currently built on. We have been here over
19 30 years. Out my window I have a great view
20 of the lake until now.
21 I'm sorry, is there an original to
22 this, Robin? This one has been cut off with
23 the copy.
24 MS. WORKING: That was the one that
1 arrived late this afternoon via fax and
2 apparently it got sorted into a different
4 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I'll
5 continue to go through it, but --
6 MS. WORKING: The first time I've seen
7 it was tonight when I heard Chairman Shroyer
8 mention it. So I am not honestly sure. I
9 would have to re-examine it and find out
10 what happened to the original.
11 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay. I
12 will just struggle through with it if the
13 Board will oblige me.
14 For approximately 100 years. I have
15 really enjoyed the lake lot they can build
16 on until around five years ago City
17 officials decided to switch pieces of
18 property around and everyone voted no on.
19 Now the property is deemed ready to build
20 on -- he is referring to the previous case
21 with Jeff Sobolesky (ph) got the first
22 variance. He should be more than grateful
23 for what he has. The officials they need to
24 care about the people around this lake that
1 has helped keep it such a nice place to live
2 at this time than it used to be. Maybe some
3 of the officials could come and take a visit
4 to look at his property and make an offer.
5 And he states several objections with the
6 City of Novi at this point.
7 Thank you, Mr. Chair.
8 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: The full letter
9 is on file?
10 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Correct.
11 And we did receive it in our packet.
12 MS. WORKING: It may be the original
13 because it arrived via fax. I see the fax
14 scroll across the top, so it's highly
15 possible. Is there a red date stamp on that
17 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yes.
18 MS. WORKING: That is the original.
19 So, it is what it is by virtue of the fax
20 machine sending and receiving it.
21 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All I'm
22 saying is that we did receive it in our
23 meeting file tonight.
24 MS. WORKING: Yes, you did.
1 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If the
2 Board Members want to review it they can try
3 to do a better job reading it than I did.
4 Thank you, Mr. Chair.
5 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. Any
6 comments from the City or Counsel?
7 MS. KUDLA: No.
8 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment.
9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I'll turn it
10 over to the Board. Member Bauer?
11 MEMBER BAUER: I have one question.
12 Under both sides setback 25 feet. Proposed
13 side yard setback zero. It should be 10
14 feet? The variance request is 15.
15 MR. FOX: Yes. I believe it's just a
17 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
18 MEMBER BAUER: Do we have to do
19 anything about that?
20 MS. WORKING: I think if we did the
21 math 25 minus 10 would equal 15 as the
22 variance request.
23 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: The 15 is
24 still what's being requested, so I don't see
1 an issue.
2 MR. FOX: The variance request itself
3 was correct.
4 MS. KUDLA: There is no legal issue.
5 You can proceed.
6 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you.
7 Further comments? Member Fischer?
8 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: What is the
9 square footage of the house that's being
11 MR. CONDON: 3,000 roughly.
12 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER:
14 MR. CONDON: The square footage of the
15 house being proposed is, ended up somewhere
16 between 3,000 and 3,300 square foot. I do
17 have it here. Bear with me. Somewhere
18 between 3,000 and 3,300. I know that is a
19 bit of a variance but we started --
20 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I was
21 looking for an estimate. That's more than
22 appropriate for an answer.
23 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer, the
24 Applicant did submit that to me in writing.
1 You will find to left of the file I taped it
2 underneath the map, so flip back a couple of
3 pages to the left side of the file.
4 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: While he is
5 looking for that. Sir, could you put up the
6 drawing of the house for our audience to
7 view as well?
8 MS. WORKING: Is there a handwritten
9 note that he submitted?
10 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Building
11 2282 square feet. Parcel 8346 square feet.
12 That's how he got to 27 percent lot
14 MS. WORKING: Yes.
15 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay.
16 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: 2282.
17 MS. WORKING: Does that answer your
19 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yes, thank
21 To the City can you speak to parcel C at
22 all, do you have any backyard?
23 MR. FOX: I don't know too much about
24 the parcel split that was originally done
1 here. I believe that parcel B and C and
2 actually parts of parcel A were all one lot
3 at one time and then were split into
4 multiple parcels. It was all I believe a
5 lake access lot at one time. It is now just
6 parcel C is the lake access lot that is
7 left. Just a strip of land left there.
8 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Does the
9 City own that then?
10 MR. FOX: I do not know who owns it or
11 who did own it at the time of all the
12 splits. I didn't research that. So I don't
13 know the answer to that.
14 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If you had
15 to guess who owned it --
16 MS. WORKING: Members of the Board, I
17 will draw your attention to the submission
18 in the packet of the City Council minutes
19 from November 18, 1996, page 14 continuing
20 on to page 15. I believe it's addressed
21 there saying that in return Mr. Sobolesky
22 (ph) would have executed deed conveying the
23 20 foot strip to the City to resolve the
24 underlining dispute over the title to that
1 property. And it goes on further to talk
2 about that lake access part of the lot.
3 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Correct.
4 Has there been any changes since 1996?
5 MS. WORKING: If there were any they
6 weren't accessible through the document
7 files that we were able to search.
8 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: So,
9 according to the City the best knowledge
10 that we have is --
11 MS. WORKING: This is what we came up
12 with, right.
13 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: -- of who
14 owns the property.
15 MS. WORKING: Correct.
16 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay. I
17 just wanted to make sure that was still the
18 case, nothing else had come up.
19 I was a little concerned like Member
20 Bauer when I saw the zero feet, but since
21 that has been addressed I am fine with that.
22 This doesn't seem to be an overbuilding of
23 the lot. I think you have done a wonderful
24 job and I definitely applaud you in doing
1 the right thing in talking with your
2 neighbors first. I think that's one of the
3 important things and getting their
5 Another big concern of mine on
6 these lake lots, which is interesting
7 because I was just thinking the other day
8 that we haven't had a lake lot in a while
9 which was actually nice, but --
10 MS. WORKING: Be careful what you wish
12 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It looks
13 like I was penalized for that. Taking into
14 consideration the view of other people. I
15 think that's one of the most important
16 things I look at on these lots. I don't
17 think when people try to block it using
18 their homes. I think you have taken all of
19 the considerations of myself and your
20 neighbors and I applaud you for that. I wish
21 you the best of luck with this. I will be
23 MR. CONDON: Thank you for your
1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you.
2 Further comments?
3 I will echo the comments of Member
4 Fischer and I will go ahead and make a
6 I move that we grant the variance in
7 case number: 07-028 sought by Michael
8 Condon. The Petitioner has established
9 practical difficulty. The Petitioner has
10 established the compliance with the strict
11 letter of the restriction of the Ordinance
12 which would unreasonably prevent the use of
13 the property that would be unnecessarily
14 burdensome because it would prevent the
15 Petitioner from building a reasonably sized
16 residence comparable to others on the
18 Petitioner has established unique
19 circumstances regarding the narrowness and
20 the shape of the subject property because of
21 the lot layout. The Petitioner has
22 established that the proposed use
23 improvements would not be a detriment to the
24 public safety and welfare because it has
1 maintained adequate setbacks to assure
2 safety concerns on that.
3 Petitioner has established that the
4 use improvement will not impair an adequate
5 supply of light and air to adjacent
6 properties and will not unreasonably impair
7 or diminish established property values
8 within the surrounding area based on the
9 submitted drawings and lot layout.
10 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Second.
11 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We have a motion
12 by Member --
13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Shroyer.
14 MS. WORKING: Shroyer.
15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I forgot my
16 name. And seconded by Member Fischer.
17 Further comments or discussions?
18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Proceed.
19 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Proceed. Please
20 read the roll.
21 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?
22 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes.
23 MS. WORKING: Vice-Chair Fischer?
24 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye.
1 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?
2 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
3 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?
4 MEMBER IBE: Yes.
5 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?
6 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes.
7 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?
8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.
9 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?
10 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
11 MS. WORKING: Motion to approve passes
13 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: With the Chair's
14 motion, typically after about an hour and a
15 half of meeting we like to take a short
16 break, so we will adjourn for ten minutes
17 and come back to complete the evening. Thank
19 (A recess was held.)
21 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER:
22 We are going to move ahead, we will call the
23 meeting back to order and move on to our
24 next case which is case number: 07-099
1 filed by Marc O'Rourke of Pointe Park
2 Condominiums, LLC, for 30662 Ardmore.
3 Marc O'Rourke of Pointe Park
4 Condominiums, LLC, is requesting one 54
5 square foot construction identification sign
6 renewal for the continued placement of a 6
7 foot by 9 foot ground sign located at said
8 address. The property is zoned RM-1 and
9 located east of Beck Road and east of Dixon
11 MEMBER SANGHVI: That is not correct.
12 That is south of Pontiac Trail.
13 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes, it is.
14 It's east of Beck Road and south of Pontiac
16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.
17 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Member Fischer?
18 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you,
19 Mr. Chair. I am a homeowner in this
20 Association and it is one of the smaller
21 ones in Novi with 52 units so it's kind of a
22 smaller close-knit relationship that I have
23 with the Association and the Board. I would
24 request that the Board make a motion to
1 recuse myself.
2 MEMBER SANGHVI: So moved.
3 MEMBER BAUER: Second.
4 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We do have a
5 motion and a second. Motion by Member
6 Sanghvi. A second by Member Bauer to
7 approve of the recusal of Member Fischer.
8 Please call the roll.
9 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?
10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.
11 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?
12 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
13 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?
14 MEMBER IBE: Yes.
15 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?
16 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
17 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?
18 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes.
19 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?
20 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes.
21 MS. WORKING: Motion to recuse
22 Vice-Chair Fischer approved.
23 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you.
24 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Sir, before we
1 move forward. If we do not have a full
2 voting Board here you have the option of
3 selecting whether or not you want to have
4 the activity tabled to another month.
5 Obviously with him being a homeowner, every
6 month that he is on the Board it would
8 MR. O'ROURKE: Yeah, hopefully I won't
9 have to come back here twelve times.
10 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: So I assume you
11 want to move forward?
12 MR. O'ROURKE: Please.
13 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Please state
14 your name, address and if you are not an
15 attorney be sworn in by our Secretary.
16 MR. O'ROURKE: Marc O'Rourke of Pointe
17 Park Condominiums, 40440 Grand River, Suite
18 E, Novi, Michigan.
19 MEMBER BAUER: Raise your right hand.
20 Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
21 regarding case: 07-099?
22 MR. O'ROURKE: I do.
23 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. Go
1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Please state
2 your case.
3 MR. O'ROURKE: Pointe Park
4 Condominiums is as Mr. Fischer noted, it's a
5 52 unit condo complex. We are almost done
6 with the project. We still maintain a model
7 on-site and the nature of the layout of the
8 community is that we have a 60 foot
9 right-of-way access easement to Beck Road.
10 So the visibility of the project to the
11 drive-by traffic is pretty much limited to
12 the entrance sign. We track the traffic
13 that we get diligently in all of our
14 communities and this site, internet traffic,
15 advertising, real estate book, Home and
16 Land, all the site activity combined, 60
17 percent of the traffic comes from drive-by
18 signage, so this is our main source of
19 activity to attract purchasers and residents
20 to the community.
21 We also feel that there aren't too
22 many other resale units in the complex, but
23 from time to time there are. This actually
24 helps to identify those resale customers.
1 We will see a little bit of traffic from our
2 sign being available on the entrance. So,
3 we ask that you approve it basically because
4 this is our primary source of business to
5 close out the remainder of this project. We
6 would certainly consider limiting a
7 timeframe too, because we hope that it's not
8 going to drag on. But we would like to keep
9 it as our main source of obtaining the
11 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. This
12 is a public hearing. Is there anyone in the
13 audience who cares to comment? Please come
14 forward. State your name and address. If
15 you are not an attorney please be sworn in.
16 My name is Carol Klausing (ph). I
17 live at 30704 Ardmore Court in Pointe Park
18 Condominiums and I am president of the
19 Pointe Park Condominium Association.
20 MEMBER BAUER: Raise your right hand.
21 Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
22 regarding case: 07-099?
23 MS. KLAUSING: Yes, I do.
24 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.
1 MS. KLAUSING: I would like to express
2 an objection to having this sign continued.
3 The first question I have is the sign that's
4 out there right now, if I can place this on
5 there. According to the Ordinance, the
6 Ordinance is for a construction sign. This
7 doesn't have anything to do with
8 construction. This is obviously a marketing
9 sign. It is 6 feet by 9 feet as the size of
10 the sign. But there is also a portion on
11 the bottom, "Models for sale," that is an
12 additional two and a half feet in addition
13 to the 54 feet that's allowed. So, my
14 question is, this not being a construction
15 sign, is it still included in the Ordinance?
16 We see this as a marketing sign. It
17 was erected at least a year ago. I'm not
18 sure of the exact date. I know that wasn't
19 up there too much before that year ago. The
20 other sign was this one, you can't read
21 what's on it in this case, but that was the
22 original sign. I am sure that's in your
23 packet also.
24 MS. WORKING: It is in your packets,
1 Members of the Board.
2 MS. KLAUSING: My question is again
3 is, did the developer have a permit to
4 change from one sign to the other, from one
5 sign to the other if the other was a
6 construction sign and this is a for sale
7 sign? There are, like I mentioned, the
8 bottom of the sign there is an additional
9 two and a half feet. The sign has a couple
10 of pieces sticking out of the side. That's
11 just additional square footage to the sign.
12 They also have pennant. I have seen
13 as many as two or three in the past. Right
14 now there is a pennant. You can see it
15 right here. It's a flag flying. It says
16 "Open." That's flying today. I don't know
17 if those are included in the signage.
18 Also, in that same vein, the pennant
19 sign is stuck in a hollow pipe in the
20 ground. There is one there where that one
21 is stuck in. There is one over here and
22 there is another one north of Ardmore Court.
23 Two of the three are not being used. I feel
24 that they are hazardous to landscaping
1 equipment and I don't know why they are
2 still there if they are not being used. I
3 would like it to be whether the sign is
4 approved or not approved, I would like those
5 stakes removed so that they are not a hazard
6 any more.
7 According to the
8 Ordinance that you listed, the structure
9 identification is to be valid until the
10 issuance of the first certificate of
11 occupancy. The first C of O was issued on
12 July 15th, 2003. We are currently at 94
13 percent occupied units that are sold and
14 occupied. That's 49 out of the 52 units.
15 And the last unit that was completed and
16 sold was approximately December of 2006.
17 The objections that we have to the
18 sign, coming from the south heading north on
19 Beck Road you can't see the sign for the
20 street Ardmore Court. It's blocked by this
21 sign. I have told many people, turn right on
22 Ardmore Court and they call me and say,
23 where is Ardmore Court? So now I have to
24 say, well, where the big green sign is. The
1 sign partially blocks your view when you are
2 exiting Ardmore Court onto Beck Road turning
3 to the south. There are no lights on the
4 sign. It's not visible a night so it's
5 really doing nothing for any sales traffic
6 in the evenings. Which I would think that a
7 lot of people would look for the sign in the
8 evenings after work on the way home from
10 There are three units
11 left for sale. They are shown by
12 appointment only. There is no sales office
13 located within the complex. They sold that
14 sales office and the new homeowner moved in,
15 I believe it was in November. So we feel
16 that he can use the realtor as the other
17 homeowners, we have had three homeowners put
18 their units up for sale personally. One has
19 sold. They have used realtors. I'm sorry,
20 we have had four units go up for sale
21 personally and two have been sold and two
22 are still available.
23 We also feel that this is
24 aesthetically not pleasing to our
1 Association. The whole complex on Beck Road
2 is a light industrial beautifully
3 maintained, very impressive light
4 industrial, signage, everything is great.
5 One last item I would just like to
6 mention is when you enter Ardmore Court. I
7 don't know if you are familiar, if you have
8 driven into Ardmore Court. The sign is way
9 down here at the bottom. I can't put the
10 whole thing on at one time here. The sign
11 is down here. When you drive up Ardmore
12 Court there are signs along the road. Eight
13 in total. They measure 22 by 32 and each
14 one of these signs has a different saying on
15 it, "Welcome to Pointe Park." The next one
16 says "Award Winning Walled Lake Schools,"
17 and on the opposite side, "Four Acre Nature
18 Preserve." And they say different things.
19 Three of these signs say "Sales Center" with
20 an arrow pointing down the road. There is
21 no sales center.
22 So, those are my objections as
23 president of the Association.
24 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. You
1 were speaking for the entire Association on
2 behalf of?
3 MS. KLAUSING: I am speaking as the
5 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. Is
6 there anyone else in the audience who cares
7 to speak? Please come forward. State your
8 name and address.
9 MS. HIDERMANWINSOR (ph): My name is
10 Bruragon Hidermanwinsor. My address is
11 30707 Ardmore Court, Novi. I also live in
12 Pointe Park.
13 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Please be sworn
15 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear
16 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case:
18 MS. HIDERMANWINSOR: I do.
19 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.
20 MS. HIDERMANWINSOR: Thank you.
21 Without reiterating what Carol Klausing was
22 saying is I also feel -- I want to object to
23 the sign. The sign has been with us for the
24 longest time. We haven't gotten any through
1 traffic at all. Granted it's wintertime,
2 but we have -- I have specifically called
3 that number that is on the sign. The sign,
4 this telephone number will redirect you to a
5 different telephone number and then you have
6 to make an appointment to have the model
8 So I don't know what the purpose of
9 the sign really is, except for us as the
10 people that live there it's an eye sore.
11 Thank you very much.
12 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you.
13 Anyone else care to speak? Seeing none,
14 we'll close the public hearing. And ask the
15 Applicant if he cares to comment on any of
16 the previous speakers' comments?
17 MR. O'ROURKE: I just wanted to add
18 that we do have the model there. We have an
19 office with computers, phones and our
20 staffing isn't full time. But we have
21 existing office. That's all I can add.
22 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. Any
23 comments from the City or staff?
24 MR. FOX: No comment, sir.
1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Counsel?
2 MS. KUDLA: No.
3 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Turn it over to
4 the Board. Member Bauer?
5 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair --
6 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Oh, yeah, we
7 have correspondence.
8 MS. WORKING: Right.
9 MEMBER BAUER: There were 81 notices
10 mailed and two objections. Eight mails
12 Objection from Robert Stanzenio (ph):
13 Contractor has failed to correct any
14 building defects. Does not respond to
15 written communication.
16 Candice Kampg: He has over four years
17 to sell 52 condos. It's time for me to live
18 in a nice neighborhood with no construction
19 signs. He can auction off the last few.
20 Also perhaps he would have something --
21 residents with respect and be happy and
22 allow for sign.
23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. Now
24 we'll turn it over to the Board for
1 comments? Member Sanghvi, did have you a
3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. You have got
4 the white signs all along Ardmore Court.
5 How long have you had them?
6 MR. O'ROURKE: Signs probably since we
7 opened our very first model. They're on our
8 private property, so that are not --
9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Is Ardmore Street a
10 private street?
11 MR. O'ROURKE: Yeah, they are within
12 the community. They are your typical berm
13 shape sign that says, "Brownstones. Welcome
14 to the Community."
15 MEMBER SANGHVI: While we are looking,
16 they appear to be illegal signs. Are they
17 legal signs?
18 MR. AMOLSCH: I am not familiar with
19 the signs that he is talking about --
20 MEMBER SANGHVI: I was in there
21 yesterday. Whatever is there it's all true,
22 I have seen it with my own eyes.
23 MR. O'ROURKE: If they're not
24 permissible we'll certainly remove them.
1 Those are not really a big contentious item
2 from us.
3 MR. AMOLSCH: They're not visible from
4 the right-of-way, we don't go in and look at
5 the signs.
6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.
7 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you.
8 Further comments? Member Bauer?
9 MEMBER BAUER: He has one sign per
10 contract; is that correct?
11 MR. AMOLSCH: I'm sorry, the question
13 MEMBER BAUER: He has one sign --
14 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: It's no longer
16 MR. O'ROURKE: That's the only sign we
17 currently have, sir.
18 MEMBER BAUER: The size of the sign
19 has been extended to some degree and I don't
20 believe he has ever come to us to ask for it
21 to be done. And I would not go along with
22 asking to be renewed.
23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you.
24 Member Wrobel?
1 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
2 To the City. A construction identification
3 sign is that different from a sales sign or
4 is it just a sign to us?
5 MR. AMOLSCH: Well, actually to clear
6 this up a little bit for the Board. This
7 sign was originally approved as a
8 subdivision or a site condo business sign
9 because we were under the impression this
10 was a site condo or condo project. It turns
11 out upon review of this recently when we
12 occasionally look at signs to see when they
13 expire and things like that, it came to our
14 attention that it should have been actually
15 a construction identification sign because
16 it wasn't a site condo. So that's why we
17 put this language in here of what he needs
18 approval of because actually it's a
19 construction identification sign.
20 Construction identification signs
21 generally have name of contractor,
22 developers and whatever information they
23 want on it. They certainly always include
24 real estate information, leasing
1 information, things like that. We don't
2 object to that. But that's why it was
3 approved as one sign but it's actually
4 another. And the removal of a construction
5 identification sign under the old Ordinance
6 was allowed to be the last certificate of
7 occupancy is now the first certificate of
8 occupancy, so that's why there is a little
9 discrepancy here as to what kind of a sign
10 it is.
11 MR. WROBEL: Looking at the picture
12 from what the sign was to what it is now,
13 obviously they are two completely different,
14 different things. Personally, the second
15 sign is hideous to me. And I know we are
16 not concerned with the content of signs as
17 much as sizes and locations, etcetera, but I
18 find the second sign totally offensive if I
19 was a resident there.
20 Based on the number of units that are
21 left and the comments I have heard from both
22 parties, both the Plaintiff and the people
23 commenting on the public hearing, I could
24 not support the extension of the sign.
1 Thank you.
2 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you,
3 Member Wrobel.
4 This side of the table. Member
6 MEMBER KRIEGER: I agree.
7 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: She agrees.
8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Go ahead with your
10 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: You want me to
11 go ahead, all right. Several of my
12 questions were answered already. But I do
13 have a question for Mr. Amolsch. I keep
14 wanting to put this under Section 2862 under
15 the Subdivision Business Sign which
16 advertises subdivisions under development.
17 Is it no longer in that because it's
18 exceeded the capacity the C of Os?
19 MR. AMOLSCH: No, actually it was a
20 result of us approving the sign as a
21 different sign. It was approved as a site
22 condo business sign, but it actually should
23 have been approved as a construction sign
24 because it has different timelines might
1 have to have been removed. It was initial
2 error on our part because when it came in
3 all documentation said condos and it turns
4 out they were actually townhouses.
5 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: The C of O as
6 one of our speakers indicated was in 2003
7 then we are several years behind that.
8 MR. AMOLSCH: Correct.
9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: The comment was
10 made about resale of the condominiums and
11 the sign. That is not one of our concerns.
12 That's out of our bailiwick. So we can't
13 worry about that. I myself was there, in
14 fact, today and did notice the sales office
15 signs as well. I tried to find the sales
16 office to talk to someone because I thought
17 I might be interested in the possibility of
18 one of the units. I couldn't find the
19 office. I drove all the way around the
20 entire unit and I couldn't find anything
21 that was identifying as an office, but that
22 doesn't have anything to do with that
23 either. And the berm signs are different
24 and that's not part of us this evening
2 Another question for the City. With
3 this being so far off the road if the
4 Association wanted to have a permanent sign
5 would they be able to put say a monument
6 sign out on Beck Road?
7 MR. AMOLSCH: There is a monument sign
9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Oh, that's
10 right, there is. (Unintelligible).
11 Short-term memory since I was there today.
12 MEMBER WROBEL: It happens when you
13 get old.
14 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: That's right.
16 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I believe that's
17 all the questions that I have. I can't
18 support it either. I don't see a practical
19 difficulty with only three units left to
20 sell. And I assume that includes the model?
21 MR. O'ROURKE: Right.
22 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: If other houses
23 have sold through realtors, since it's
24 substantially beyond the limitation date, I
1 can't support the continuation of this.
2 Any other comments? Member
4 MEMBER SANGHVI: If nobody has any
5 more comments I would like to make a motion.
6 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Please do.
7 MEMBER SANGHVI: In case number:
8 07-099 we deny the request of the Applicant.
9 The Applicant has failed to demonstrate any
10 great hardship --
11 MEMBER BAUER: Turn on your mike.
12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Oh, I beg your
13 pardon. I will start all over again.
14 Case number: 07-099 we deny the
15 request of the Applicant for the continued
16 presence of this "construction
17 identification sign," because the Applicant
18 has failed to demonstrate hardship. Thank
20 MEMBER WROBEL: Second.
21 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We have a motion
22 by Member Sanghvi and a second by Member
24 Any further comments?
1 MEMBER KRIEGER: Question?
2 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Member Krieger?
3 MEMBER KRIEGER: Shouldn't that be
4 practical difficulty?
5 MEMBER SANGHVI: It is always a
6 practical difficulty.
7 MS. KUDLA: Actually the section for
8 appeals under signs it doesn't specifically
9 state practical difficulty but it's a
10 similar standard, similar issues that you
11 are looking at.
12 MEMBER SANGHVI: If you want to use
13 practical difficulty it's fine with me.
14 It's all semantics. Whatever the legal
15 semantics, whatever you want that's fine
16 with me.
17 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We're okay with
18 the way it is.
19 Any further comments or questions?
20 Please call the roll.
21 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?
22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.
23 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?
24 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes.
1 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?
2 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
3 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?
4 MEMBER IBE: Yes.
5 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?
6 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes.
7 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?
8 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
9 MS. WORKING: Motion to deny passes
11 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Sir, your
12 request has been denied.
13 Yes, ma'am?
14 MS. KLAUSING: I would just like to
15 ask about the three metal posts on the
16 ground that are sticking up maybe 8 inches?
17 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: That's not under
18 our purview.
19 MS. KLAUSING: That he uses for open
21 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I understand
22 that. That's not part of the ZBA. Call the
24 MR. AMOLSCH: Through the Chair. That
1 property is actually in Wixom. Where the
2 flag is located just beyond that sidewalk is
3 where the City of Wixom jurisdiction begins.
4 You need to contact them.
5 MS. KLAUSING: What about the two
6 posts that are in Novi that he is not using
7 now that is hanging out of the ground?
8 MR. AMOLSCH: If they are in our
9 jurisdiction we will look at them. Right
10 beyond that sidewalk there is --
11 MS. KLAUSING: One is just to the
12 north and one is just to the south.
13 MR. AMOLSCH: I believe they are both
14 in Wixom, but I will check it out.
15 MS. KLAUSING: Okay. Thank you very
17 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Mr. Amolsch is
18 one of our sign ordinance officers. Thank
20 And I see our Vice-chair has returned.
21 Welcome back.
22 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you.
24 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Our next case is
1 case number: 07-100 filed by Scott Elliot
2 of CB Richard Ellis for Novi Expo Center
3 located at 43700 Expo Center Drive.
4 They are requesting that the Expo
5 Center be granted a variance for an 80 foot
6 wall sign for a placement of 8 foot by 12
7 foot real estate leasing sign to be located
8 on the building at said address.
9 The property is zoned Expo and is
10 located south of I-96 and west of Novi Road.
11 The Applicant has come forward.
12 Please state your name and address and if
13 you are not an attorney be sworn in.
14 MR. ELLIOT: Scott Elliot, 29741 Fox
15 Club Drive, Farmington Hills, Michigan. I
16 am not an attorney.
17 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm
18 to tell the truth regarding case: 07-100?
19 MR. ELLIOT: Yes, I do.
20 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.
21 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Please state
22 your case.
23 MR. ELLIOT: Yes, I am with CB Richard
24 Ellis Commercial Real Estate Group. We are
1 a large commercial real estate firm. We
2 have been hired by the owners of the former
3 Novi Expo Center to handle the marketing of
4 that property and to locate a suitable
5 tenant to occupy the building. So our
6 request this evening is to seek to have an
7 approval to put a sign on the building, an 8
8 by 12 sign that would be visible to the
9 interstate as you drive past. That's one of
10 the prongs of our marketing program we will
11 be doing mailers and fliers and the typical
12 things that commercial realtors do to market
13 buildings. However, we would like to be
14 able to take advantage of any passing
15 traffic at such a prominent location there
16 by having a sign placed on the building.
17 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Would you please
18 put a copy of your sign on the overhead for
19 the audience?
20 MR. ELLIOT: Sure.
21 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We will point
22 out for the audience that the building is
23 not brick.
24 MR. ELLIOT: That is correct.
1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: So we want to
2 look at the sign and not the building.
3 This is a public hearing. Is there
4 anyone in the audience who cares to make a
5 comment on this case? Seeing none, we'll
6 close the public hearing and ask if there
7 has been any correspondence regarding this?
8 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you,
9 Mr. Chair. In this case there are 28
10 notices mailed with zero approvals and zero
12 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Okay. Is there
13 comments from the Counsel or City? Yes?
14 MS. WORKING: Members of the Board, I
15 would like to point out a document in your
16 meeting file that is highlighted for you. I
17 apologize. In your packets this month that
18 reiterates directly from the current sign
19 ordinance, the findings that are required to
20 make a motion based on practical difficulty
21 in a sign case since this is a sign case.
22 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. It
23 always makes it easier.
24 Turn it over to the ZBA for comments.
1 Member Sanghvi?
2 MEMBER SANGHVI: No. Mr. Fisher had
3 his hand up first.
4 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I'm sorry, Mr.
5 Fischer. Yes, sir?
6 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Mr.
7 Amolsch, didn't the ZBA approve the sign
8 near there that was not on the building at
9 some point?
10 MR. AMOLSCH: Yes.
11 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Do you
12 remember the square footage of that sign?
13 MR. AMOLSCH: Let me find it for you.
14 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I do
15 remember having that case.
16 MR. AMOLSCH: Actually it was 64
17 square feet in area and 7 feet in height.
18 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: This one is
19 a little bit larger, but I know the
20 difficulty that the Applicant has had or
21 whoever is representing has had in getting a
22 tenant in there. So I think that the square
23 footage is justified.
24 How long of a variance are you
2 MR. ELLIOT: We are seeking a one year
3 variance. Our term runs from the first of
4 the year until the end of the year, 31st of
6 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Another
7 comment of mine is the time limit. I think
8 one year would be more than appropriate.
9 So, I know that when you are going down on
10 the off ramp and everything you definitely
11 want to see the building and I can
12 appreciate that and I wish them the best of
13 luck on that and I am willing to support
14 this sign.
15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you.
16 Member Sanghvi?
17 MEMBER SANGHVI: I didn't see any
18 mock-up there. I don't know whether you are
19 aware you are supposed to put up a mock-up
20 sign there?
21 MR. ELLIOT: Right. I think this all
22 unfolded fairly quickly and I believe with
23 our office we had notified them that weren't
24 going to put up a mock-up but that we would
1 prepare this.
2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Which wall and where
3 do you plan to put this?
4 MR. ELLIOT: We would like to put it
5 on the wall that is parallel to the
6 interstate that would be a bit east of the
7 Motor Hall of Fame that is there so it
8 delineates that they are still in business
9 and open. But we put it down far enough so
10 it shows that the balance of the building is
11 for lease.
12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Do you know how tall
13 is that wall?
14 MR. ELLIOT: I would estimate that
15 that wall is -- I don't know exactly, but I
16 would say it's probably about 22 or 23 feet
18 MEMBER SANGHVI: The reason why I ask
19 you, you want to go 12 feet above the
21 MR. ELLIOT: Right.
22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Whether you have
23 enough space in between --
24 MR. ELLIOT: We could always move it
1 up a bit higher on the wall. And I don't
2 know whether the wall is that high. We just
3 thought that would be appropriate height.
4 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Sir, here is an
5 overhead of the building. If you can put
6 that on the overhead to point out where on
7 the wall you might want to place the sign it
8 might help Member Sanghvi and the rest of
9 the Board.
10 MR. ELLIOT: Sure.
11 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: You still have
12 the floor.
13 MR. ELLIOT: I think we would like to
14 place the sign right here on the bend
15 because then the building tails around and
16 you can't see it from this direction. So I
17 think it would go right on the corner where
18 it makes the bend on the building. Can you
19 see that okay?
20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. But I am not
21 sure whether there is a wall there on what
22 you are showing?
23 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yeah.
24 MEMBER BAUER: By the Motor Sports.
1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: It's right
2 beside it.
3 MEMBER BAUER: Right on the corner
5 MR. ELLIOT: The Motor Sports entrance
6 would be just west of that.
7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.
8 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Any further
9 comments from Members of the Board?
10 I had a question or two. First one is
11 to the City. We have obviously a lot of
12 businesses along 96. Do you have an idea as
13 to what the size of some other signs might
14 be along that interstate?
15 MR. AMOLSCH: With regard to real
16 estate signs? They all have been 16 square
17 feet if they are on any property. However,
18 there is two that are just east, east of
19 Meadowbrook Road for the Campus Tech Park
20 and for the Certified Management Eastern
21 sign which were approved by the Board. Both
22 of them are 63 square feet.
23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: And how -- I am
24 trying to remember the size of those
1 buildings in comparison to the Expo.
2 They're a little bit smaller.
3 MR. AMOLSCH: The buildings are
4 smaller. Plus, these are ground signs, they
5 are right on I-96. The building is quite a
6 ways off.
7 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: So the setback
8 is quite a bit more. Thank you.
9 I much prefer the wall sign over
10 free standing pole signs anyway. So I would
11 be more than happy to support are larger
12 sign being set back in the road further, so
13 I would be in support of this as well.
14 Further comments? Member Fischer?
15 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Mr. Chair,
16 I would move that we grant the variance
17 requested in case number: 07-100 filed by
18 Scott Elliot of CB Richard Ellis for
19 property at 43700 Expo Center Drive given
20 the fact that the Petitioner has established
21 a practical difficulty in the size of the
22 property, the size of the building trying to
23 be leased, the difficulty of leasing said
24 property and given the current economic
1 situation. And also that the larger size is
2 required due to the setback from I-96 as
3 well as when you are going down the off
5 MEMBER BAUER: Second.
6 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. We
7 have a motion by Member Fischer and a second
8 by Member Bauer.
9 Any further discussion? Member
11 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you. Should we
12 in the motion specify where the sign should
13 be placed?
14 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yes. I
15 would like to state for a period of one year
16 and that the sign will be placed on the
17 building where the Applicant has pointed
19 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Portion parallel
20 to 96.
21 VICH-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Correct,
22 parallel to 96. Pretty much the western
23 most side of the north side of the building.
1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Just east of the --
2 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: North
3 elevation western most point of the side
5 MS. WORKING: On the record?
6 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Absolutely.
7 As is the seconder?
8 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: The amendments
10 to the motion have been approved by the
11 motioner and seconder.
12 Any further comments? Please call the
14 MS. WORKING: Vice-Chair Fischer?
15 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye.
16 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?
17 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
18 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?
19 MEMBER IBE: Yes.
20 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?
21 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes.
22 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?
23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.
24 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?
1 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
2 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer?
3 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes.
4 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0.
5 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Sir, your
6 request has been granted.
7 MR. ELLIOT: Thank you very much. I
8 appreciate that.
9 MEMBER BAUER: Good luck.
10 MR. ELLIOT: Thank you.
12 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER:
13 Okay, moving on. Case number: 07-101 filed
14 by Betina Brown of the Original Sign
15 Studio, Incorporated, for Lydall
16 Thermal/Acoustical located at 28875 Cabot
18 Ms. Brown of the Original Sign Studio
19 representing Lydall is requesting one 16
20 square foot illuminated wall sign variance
21 for the placement of an 8 foot by 2 foot
22 wall sign to be located on the southwest
23 elevation of said building. The northwest
24 elevation of the same building has an
1 existing wall sign. The property is zoned
2 OST and is located east of M-5 and west of
3 Cabot Drive.
4 I see someone has come forward.
5 Please state your name and address and if
6 you are not an attorney please be sworn in
7 by our Secretary.
8 MS. BROWN: My name is Betina Brown.
9 I am representing the Original Sign Studio.
10 Address, 5931 Ford Court, Brighton, Michigan
11 48116. And I am not an attorney.
12 MEMBER BAUER: Do you sear or affirm
13 to tell the truth regarding case: 07-101?
14 MS. BROWN: Yes.
15 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.
16 MS. BROWN: As stated earlier, I am
17 here representing Lydall which is a new
18 tenant in this building. And we are
19 requesting to get a (unintelligible)
20 illuminated sign facing M-5 on the part of
21 the building that they are going to be
22 occupying. As proposed in the package we
23 are also showing the existing sign that's
24 already existing.
1 The problem we had with Lydall is they
2 do not have the advantage as Temkin to have
3 a sign. Their main entrance is not out by
4 Cabot Drive. Temkin at this time has a sign
5 on Novi as well as on Cabot Drive. If you
6 drive the industrial park on Thirteen Mile,
7 if you come from Thirteen Mile, the only
8 sign that's up there is Cabot Drive is a
9 street sign.
10 When you drive down towards the
11 building the only sign that's out by the
12 road is the address and it also says, I
13 believe it says Lasalle Technology Park.
14 There is no sign out there that has spacing
15 for the tenants for said building. It's
16 only the name of the Technical Park at that
17 park. If you come from Twelve Mile, I do
18 not remember the exact name there, but it's,
19 I think it's Corridor Park, it's a
20 commercial park or something like that as
21 well. It seems to be that there is multiple
22 parts within the park. None of them has
23 actual tenant signs out by Cabot Drive.
24 The one problem that Lydall is running
1 into is that their entrance to their offices
2 is going to be inside of the parking lot
3 facing southbound, so it would actually be
4 facing towards Twelve Mile. They do not
5 have an entrance out by Cabot Drive,
6 therefore, we have been asking to ask for an
7 additional sign facing M-5. We know that
8 your Ordinance states that there can only be
9 one sign. But since there is multiple
10 tenants and Temkin and Lydall is the only
11 two tenants that's actually going to be
12 occupying part of the building that's facing
13 M-5, there will be no other ones that will
14 have sign availability out towards M-5. So,
15 therefore, we are asking to get that so that
16 it will be easier. Also people that's
17 driving on M-5 can see when they're coming
18 to either Thirteen Mile or Twelve Mile that
19 when they are coming in on Cabot Drive they
20 are located in the same building as Temkin.
21 Since there are no tenants out by Cabot and
22 that's why we are asking for this.
23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you.
24 MS. BROWN: I'm sorry, I forgot to
1 add. It's going to be a solar sensored sign
2 so it will not be lit 24/7. It will only be
3 lit (unintelligible).
4 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: And during a
5 full moon.
6 MS. BROWN: Depending on how sensitive
7 the photo cell is.
8 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Okay. Thank
9 you. This is a public hearing. Is there
10 anyone in the audience who cares to speak on
11 this matter?
12 Seeing none, we'll close the
13 public hearing.
14 Is there any correspondence?
15 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Mr. Chair, in
16 this case there were eight notices mailed
17 with zero approvals and zero objections.
18 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you.
19 Comments from the City or staff?
20 MR. AMOLSCH: No comments, sir.
21 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: City attorney?
22 MS. KUDLA: No.
23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We'll turn it
24 over to the ZBA for comments and discussion.
1 Member Krieger?
2 MEMBER KRIEGER: Question. I was
3 looking for the Lydall sign on the south
4 entrance. Is it there?
5 MS. BROWN: No, it's not put up yet.
6 That is in the process of being asked for a
7 permit application, that's why there is no
8 sign there at the moment. But that's why we
9 put it in the package here so that they can
10 see that there is a request for a sign above
11 the main entrance.
12 MEMBER KRIEGER: I was driving around
13 and around. So I can support this motion.
15 MR. BROWN: They are just in the
16 middle of, they got their C of O, so they
17 are just in the middle of moving in. There
18 has only been external signs put up for it.
19 There has only been internal signs to be put
20 into the building. There will be a permit
21 coming asking for the sign above the main
22 entrance. But we wanted to make sure that
23 it was in this package that there was also
24 going to be a request for a sign above that
1 main entrance.
2 MR. AMOLSCH: Member Krieger, we have
3 approved the permit for the south elevation
4 wall sign.
5 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you. That's it
6 for now.
7 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I found the sign
8 that said Temkin.
9 Member Sanghvi?
10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, sir.
11 Can we put up that sign on the screen so
12 people can see what we are talking about
13 even though there was no sign there?
14 Looking at the booklet that you have
15 provided where I might add that you have
16 done a very good job of demonstrating your
17 signs and I don't have any difficulty in
18 approving the sign for the identification.
19 Thank you.
20 MEMBER BAUER: You want to put that
21 one up?
22 MS. BROWN: I have that one, I
24 That is the one that is what's going to be
1 facing M-5. And as you can see the building
2 is shaped like a U so there is actually
3 going to be space in between the two areas
4 of the building that has Temkin and has
5 Lydall. So people that will be driving down
6 M-5 at a quick glance and they will see
7 signs. But they wouldn't necessarily -- --
8 the first time I drove I actually thought it
9 was two individual buildings until I
10 actually came in on Cabot and I realized it
11 was a U-shape building. There won't be any
12 question where is Temkin? And where does
13 Lydall belong? And that was the other
14 reason too why Lydall is not going to put
15 any sign out by Cabot because their main
16 entrance is not out there. It is on the
17 south side of the building and that was
18 where we were running into the issue if we
19 are only putting the sign on the south side
20 of the building nobody is ever going to find
21 it. They are going to be calling and
22 saying, where are we?
23 MEMBER BAUER: Where are you?
24 MS. BROWN: So that's why we are
2 MEMBER SANGHVI: You need a business
3 identification sign and I appreciate your
4 request. My only question was, does anybody
5 at any point, can we have a huge sign at the
6 entrance of the Cabot Drive listing all of
7 the businesses which are inside?
8 MR. AMOLSCH: They have a choice in
9 multi-tenant buildings. They can either have
10 a ground sign that lists all tenants and no
11 wall signs, or all wall signs and what we
12 call a business center sign which identifies
13 the name of the center only, but cannot have
14 any tenant names on it.
15 MEMBER SANGHVI: I see. So I have no
16 way of knowing what is inside of Cabot?
17 MR. AMOLSCH: That's correct. There
18 is a center sign directing you to direct
19 people to where the center is and then the
20 wall signs direct them to where the
21 businesses are at.
22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.
23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you,
24 Member Sanghvi?
1 Other comments? I have no objection.
2 I think it is an attractive sign, well
3 placed, proper size and definitely see the
4 need, so I will support it.
5 Member Sanghvi?
6 MEMBER SANGHVI: If nobody has any
7 other comments I might make a motion that in
8 case number: 07-101 filed by Betina Brown
9 of the Original Sign Studio, Inc., for
10 Lydall Thermal/Acoustical located at 28875
11 Cabot Drive, we approve the request for the
12 variance for this particular sign for the
13 business identification.
14 MEMBER BAUER: Second.
15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I have a motion
16 by Member Sanghvi and a second by Member
18 Any further discussion? Please call
19 the roll.
20 MS. WORKING: You said Member Bauer
22 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes, ma'am.
23 MS. WORKING: Thank you.
24 Member Sanghvi?
1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.
2 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?
3 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
4 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?
5 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes.
6 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?
7 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes.
8 MS. WORKING: Vice-Chair Fischer?
9 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye.
10 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?
11 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
12 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?
13 MEMBER IBE: Yes.
14 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0.
15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. It's
16 been approved.
18 Our next case is case number:
19 07-102-A filed by Kathy Wichman of Innerface
20 Architectural Signage, Incorporated, for
21 Henry Ford Health System located at 40000
22 Eight Mile Road.
23 You are requesting two variances for
24 the placement of an 8'8" by 5'7" illuminated
1 ground sign to replace the existing ground
2 sign located at said address. The
3 property is zone OSC and is located north of
4 Eight Mile and west of Haggerty Road.
5 The Applicant has come forward.
6 Obviously you're not -- I don't believe you
7 are Kathy?
8 MR. CAPIONI (ph): I am not Kathy.
9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Please state
10 your name and address and if you are not an
11 attorney be sworn in.
12 MR. CAPIONI (ph): My name is Marco
13 Capioni. My address is 835 Pine Hill Drive,
14 in Bloomfield Hills and I am the
15 vice-president of Henry Ford Health System
16 and I am not an attorney.
17 MEMBER BAUER: You are not an
19 MR. CAPIONI: No.
20 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm
21 to tell the truth regarding case: 07-102?
22 MR. CAPIONI: Yes, I do.
23 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.
24 MR. CAPIONI: Thank you for this
1 opportunity this evening and appreciate that
2 we are towards the end of your agenda, so I
3 will try to make sure this is as brief as
5 As a health care system we are not
6 your typical commercial entity. We actually
7 serve a public good so we consider ourselves
8 a quasi public institution. As Henry Ford
9 Health System is a non-profit system, we do
10 actually participate in the network that
11 provides indigent care as well as
12 uncompensated care in the State of Michigan
13 and we do that to the tune of 150 million
14 dollars a year.
15 Why is signage so important to us?
16 Signage is very important to us because it's
17 a matter of safety. Everyone who comes to
18 our facility has undergone some type of
19 handicap. And what we mean by that, they
20 are stressed or they have some kind of other
21 disability, they are sick. Even if you are
22 coming to our facilities healthy, most
23 people are a little nervous about
24 approaching their doctor. So we feel that
1 when you approach our facilities that most
2 of the people coming to our facilities are
3 not normally relaxed and usually is alert as
4 they might be if they were going to visit
5 let's say some other facility.
6 As part of our studies we have done
7 extensive focus group studies. We are
8 actually changing all of our signs
9 throughout Southeast Michigan. And part of
10 that change was to make sure that we took a
11 look at the demographics of our patients.
12 In particular the older patients to make
13 sure that they are able to easily identify
14 our signs and to make sure that they are
15 able to see them at a distance. So that
16 they are able to make the necessary course
17 changes, lane changes and other things to
18 make sure that they are lined up with our
20 As part of that our customers feel
21 it's very important in certain situations,
22 the height of the sign that they will be
23 able to see over cars in front of them, the
24 sign coming up ahead. They felt that it was
1 very important to be able to see the address
2 because many times they feel that that's
3 their final indicator that they have the
4 right building and as a part of this back
5 lighting of the signs.
6 Also, one of the reasons why we
7 went with the blue colors that the told us
8 that earth tones and other greens make it
9 very difficult to distinguish between
10 background sometimes if you have any type of
11 eye deficiencies.
12 Our Eight Mile and Haggerty facility,
13 also we did a study on the traffic in that
14 area and we know that the intersection of
15 Eight Mile and Haggerty has about 73,000
16 vehicles per day traveling through there.
17 We did have a traffic study done by Wade,
18 Trim, Martin, Parker. I have copies of that
19 if you would like to see those.
20 As part of that they indicated that
21 this intersection has a higher than expected
22 crash rating of 1.91 crashes per million.
23 The standard for an intersection of this
24 type would be .83 crashes and that typically
1 we see about 1.14 crashes per million for a
2 five year period. That equates to basically
3 one accident per week on that intersection.
4 The facility that we have here has
5 been in our possession since 1996 and quite
6 honestly is undergoing a number of different
7 changes in terms of the services that are
8 being provided there. This is one of our
9 under-performing locations and we were
10 having a hard time maintaining the volume
11 that we need to keep this facility open. So
12 it is under consideration as we look at our
13 opportunities for cost cutting in the future
14 for possibly changing the location of that
15 site because it is very difficult to see.
16 Basically from a practical standpoint
17 when you are approaching the site, you don't
18 have much time from the intersection to
19 identify its location and the height of the
20 sign we think is a very important part of
21 that. We understand that that is a variance
22 to your Ordinance which we understand is
23 very helpful to maintaining the aesthetic
24 beauty of the City, but we think that this
1 is a matter of safety for our patients and
2 visitors who come to the site.
3 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Is that it?
4 MR. CAPIONI: Yes.
5 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. This
6 is a public hearing. Is there anyone in the
7 audience who cares to speak on this matter?
8 Seeing none.
9 Is there any correspondence?
10 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yes. Mr.
11 Chair, in this case there were 18 notices
12 mailed with two approvals and zero
13 objections. An approval from Paul J. Parent
14 at 20820 Turnberry Boulevard. And James and
15 Loretta Morman at 20790 Turnberry. No
17 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I do need to
18 close the public hearing. I will do that
19 and make it official.
20 Any comments from the Counsel or the
22 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment, sir.
23 MS. KUDLA: No.
24 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. I'll
1 look to the Board for discussion. Member
3 MEMBER SANGHVI: One question. The
4 new sign you are proposing is the same size
5 as the one that is existing?
6 MR. CAPIONI: No, it's not.
7 MEMBER SANGHVI: How much bigger it is
8 and why do you need it bigger?
9 MR. CAPIONI: I know you can't see it
10 completely there in the background, but let
11 me see if there is a better sign than this
12 one here. The existing sign is much lower.
13 It actually is within your restrictions, I
14 believe. The height of the sign is
15 basically elevated so that when other cars
16 are passing by you would be able to see the
17 top of the sign. And the address as you can
18 see is very prominent which again our
19 customers told us was a very important part
20 of identifying our location.
21 The existing sign is probably --
22 I believe it's 32 square feet and only about
23 a half the size.
24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.
1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you.
2 Member Wrobel?
3 MEMBER WROBEL: I don't think it was
4 answered. What is the height of the
5 existing sign?
6 MR. CAPIONI: I am going to guessing
7 at this that the height of the sign
8 requested is 8.7 inches. It appears that
9 the existing sign is probably about half
10 that, about four feet. I am taking a guess
11 at that.
12 MEMBER WROBEL: What type of offices
13 are in this medical center?
14 MR. CAPIONI: This medical center has
15 ear, nose and throat, complimentary
16 medicine, family practice, physical therapy
17 and our integrated medicine which includes
18 chiropractic and acupuncture.
19 MEMBER WROBEL: So, non-emergency type
21 MR. CAPIONI: That's correct, these
22 are non-emergency services.
23 MEMBER WROBEL: I do understand the
24 need for sign. I drive by this road all the
1 time. And it does come up on you quickly
2 when you are heading west on Eight Mile Road
3 from Haggerty and 275, but I am leery of
4 going to this height. I can understand the
5 need for a higher sign, but this seems in
6 excess to me of what is really needed. And,
7 again, not judging content or something, it
8 seems like playing with the sign you can get
9 it across. It just seems like -- for
10 example where it says Henry Ford up at the
11 top it just seems excessive for me just to
12 place a logo up there. You could reduce the
13 sign, get the same medical center
14 information on a little lower sign.
15 I understand the need for the address,
16 that's good, but I am just leery of the
17 height. I will wait to hear what my other
18 ZBA members think of that.
19 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you,
20 Member Wrobel.
21 Member Fischer?
22 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: The traffic
23 study that you mentioned what five year
24 period was that?
1 MR. CAPIONI: That was 2002 to 2006.
2 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: So it was
3 somewhat recent. I just know that they have
4 made several improvements to that
5 intersection. I just wanted to get the
6 context of it.
7 Alan, looking at the
8 square footage of the sign is the base of
9 this sign as shown here included in that
10 square footage?
11 MR. AMOLSCH: No, it is not.
12 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It is not?
13 MR. AMOLSCH: No.
14 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Why am I
15 confused on that? Does that mean that we do
16 include --
17 MR. AMOLSCH: The sign area that we
18 calculate is not a sign structure that is
19 located on is not included in the square
21 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay.
22 MR. AMOLSCH: That's under area under
23 the Ordinance.
24 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Got you.
1 All right.
2 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Even though they
3 placed an address on it?
4 MR. AMOLSCH: The address is required
5 by Ordinance and we don't regard it as a
7 MS. WORKING: It's like a foundation.
8 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: How large
9 is the square footage of the building?
10 MR. CAPIONI: The building is
11 approximately 63,000 square feet.
12 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I am leery
13 of the height of the sign as well. I have
14 no problem with the area of the sign. It
15 seems okay with me. I am glad that the
16 address is more prominent, but it almost
17 seems like if you drop that foundation, if
18 you will down, then we would be able to
19 bring the height of the sign down. Have you
20 considered keeping the foundation primarily
21 to the size of the address in order to bring
22 the size down?
23 And just some background there. There
24 is another sign that we approved recently in
1 that same area that we allowed quite a large
2 height on further down that road. And now
3 that I have gone by, and maybe the
4 renderings weren't as good as they should
5 have been or what, but I have gone by that
6 sign and I am kind of upset with myself for
7 approving that sign. So height in that area
8 is a large, large concern because I think it
9 looks un-tasteful now. I just feel like 8
10 foot 7 inches would be too high.
11 Have you considered anything with the
13 MR. CAPIONI: Obviously we are trying
14 to keep the foundation up to keep the snow
15 from getting up to the height of the
16 letters. But I think we could take it
17 twelve inches off and lower that base by
18 twelve inches.
19 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: How big is
20 the foundation currently?
21 MR. CAPIONI: It's 34 and a half
23 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: So it would
24 leave about a foot of clearance for snow
2 MR. CAPIONI: Yes.
3 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I would be
4 much more willing to approve the sign if
5 they were to take that down and take it to
6 about 7 feet 7 inches. Still a little tall
7 in my mind, but I will leave that up to the
8 Board for discussion. Very tasteful sign
9 and I appreciate you being there. I think
10 it's a great business.
11 MR. CAPIONI: Thank you.
12 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Member Bauer?
13 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. Taking it down
14 that will help greatly because they do have
15 a big sign on the wall of the building. So
16 that height can come down.
17 MR. CAPIONI: We do not currently have
18 any sign on the wall of the building.
19 MEMBER BAUER: Pardon?
20 MR. CAPIONI: We do not have a sign on
21 this building.
22 MEMBER BAUER: Facing Eight Mile Road?
23 MR. CAPIONI: That's correct. We do
24 have them on other of our buildings. But I
1 did verify this.
2 MEMBER BAUER: Okay.
3 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Other comments?
4 Member Ibe?
5 MEMBER IBE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
6 Sir, aesthetically I think your sign looks
7 very nice. However, I re-echo the concern
8 the other Board Members have about the
9 height. Now, looking at the picture that
10 you provided, the one that is on the
11 overhead projector. If a 6 foot person is
12 standing next to this structure you are
13 about to put up, this structure itself is 8
14 feet and 7 inches; is that correct?
15 MR. CAPIONI: Yes, that's the
16 dimension that we are planning on minus the
17 12 inches.
18 MEMBER IBE: Given the 12 inches you
19 want to take away, it comes to about 7.7?
20 MR. CAPIONI: Yes.
21 MEMBER IBE: Which is still, for me I
22 have a huge problem with anything that is
23 over 6 feet tall because really now you are
24 talking about it blocks the view for
1 traffic. I don't know how based on the way
2 it's going to position compared to the ones
3 you had before. See, anything that is over
4 7 feet tall for someone who is feet 6 feet
5 standing you can't really see above it. So
6 if you are 5 feet it becomes even a huge
7 problem. Aesthetically it just does not
8 look very good at all in terms of size. But
9 in terms of the lettering and the colors and
10 all of that I have absolutely no problem
11 with it at all. I do like it. However, I
12 am almost incline not to support this just
13 because of the height, (unintelligible) just
14 for the height. If you think you can come
15 below that 7 feet or at least get it under
16 7. But 7 and 7 just doesn't make it easy
17 for me to support this.
18 MR. CAPIONI: I think you are
19 absolutely right about the height of the
20 signs and the impact that they have in most
21 normal locations. This one in particular
22 doesn't cause from the driveway, actually
23 you are pulling in on the road, the road
24 that's right next to there. It's very much
1 isolated. So this is one of the reasons
2 why we felt the height was one more
3 acceptable than other circumstances.
4 The second reason is that when -- I
5 drove back and forth along this facility
6 along Eight Mile a number of times, and it
7 really comes very fast. The traffic is
8 moving very quickly and I did that primarily
9 because a lot of our customers told me that
10 I should take a look at it and they said
11 it's very difficult to see. Really, it's
12 for those reasons. I personally believe the
13 Ordinance is to try to get the signage done
14 is the best thing for most cities. In this
15 case we're really at a particular location
16 where we think this is very appropriate.
17 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: You still have
18 the floor.
19 MEMBER IBE: Sir, as much as you are
20 concerned about safety, isn't possible that
21 this can also be a distraction because of
22 the height for, say, potential motorists
23 going down Eight Mile and even for your own
24 patients who come to your facility? I am
1 looking at it from a liability point of view
2 as well. The height is something to be very
3 concerned about. You are talking about 8
4 feet, almost 8 feet tall. If someone gets
5 into an accident around that area they can
6 blame the sign for maybe distracting their
7 view or it was something that was just
8 setting up there, it's unusual. Do you have
9 similar signs in any other facility that is
10 8 feet tall?
11 MR. CAPIONI: Yes, we do. Actually at
12 the majority of our hospitals the signage is
13 8 foot and taller. Actually it's the same
14 height of the sign I believe is for
15 Providence Park Hospital, the entrances at
16 their entrances, I know they are above 6
17 feet. Probably about the same height.
18 Probably under a different Ordinance because
19 they are probably different zoning. But
20 those signs are also above the size.
21 We do have lots of experience with
22 signs at this height at other locations.
23 All I can say is that I can't say about
24 whether or not it has caused other
1 accidents. I can say that our patients have
2 said that they find it much easier and this
3 was one of the recommendations. For us it's
4 much cheaper just to make the sign smaller.
5 We actually are looking forward to making
6 our signs bigger, but that was one of the
7 reasons that we did that.
8 MEMBER IBE: Thank you.
9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. Any
10 other comments? I have a question or two.
11 If I may address the attorney here,
12 and ask her a question. We don't have --
13 well, first of all and maybe it's not the
14 attorney, maybe it's the City. He has
15 indicated, the Applicant has indicated that
16 if the business doesn't go and they may have
17 to move, if we granted a larger sign and a
18 new person comes in and we see a new
19 business comes into that address, are they
20 permitted to use that size sign?
21 MS. KUDLA: No.
22 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Would they have
23 to start over again?
24 MS. KUDLA: Right. They would have to
1 ask for a sign.
2 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I wanted to make
3 sure of that.
4 Secondly, if we don't have a problem
5 with the new sign but want to restrict it to
6 meet the Ordinance requirements or something
7 smaller because I know we are trying to make
8 it smaller, is it better to deny the request
9 or to approve the request and add the
10 conditions for approval?
11 MS. KUDLA: If you are talking about
12 that 12 inch height distance you are talking
14 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Well, even if we
15 liked the current sign that's there.
16 MS. WORKING: Oh, you meaning existing
18 MS. KUDLA: That would probably be a
19 motion to deny then.
20 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: That would be a
21 denial. But if we go one foot making the
22 sign smaller --
23 MS. KUDLA: Right, you could do a
24 motion to approve.
1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: With conditions?
2 MS. KUDLA: Yes. If the Applicant is
3 amenable to that 12 inch change.
4 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. I
5 obviously am not in favor of the big one
6 either. The only difference I see between
7 the two, the old one and the new one trying
8 to look at them side by side and having
9 driven by the old sign, the logo is much
10 larger on the old one. So, my first thought
11 would have been to make the logo the size of
12 the logo on the new sign and put the address
13 underneath it since that was a major thought
14 that people have trouble finding the
15 address. In other words, I think there is
16 plenty of room on the existing sign to
17 update it and make it work.
18 I do like the new logo with the slash
19 across or whatever that is. I don't agree,
20 again, with the size. The bottom portion of
21 the blue that's outlined in white on the new
22 sign to me would be a place where you could
23 put the address as well. So even if you
24 took a foot out of the foundation or
1 actually even if you used the existing
2 foundation of the old sign, reduced the size
3 of the new sign you would reduce it probably
4 a foot.
5 So there are a couple of things there.
6 I just want to throw out for comment for
7 Board discussion or whatever. I would not
8 be in favor of approving it as is, but I
9 would be open to some type of modification.
10 Member Sanghvi?
11 MEMBER SANGHVI: I think you have been
13 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Member Krieger?
14 MEMBER KRIEGER: I do find the sign
15 aesthetically pleasing, but I am also 5'3"
16 and if I stood by the sign I would totally
17 disappear behind it. And also if you need a
18 sign that big and you have a little elderly
19 person driving a car I would be frightened
20 to be on the road with my car and their car.
21 Because it's not an emergency center area,
22 if you could take into consideration
23 proportion. That would be all my comments.
24 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you.
1 Member Sanghvi?
2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. I was
3 just going to suggest a kind of a compromise
4 and this is just a suggestion for the Board
5 as well as for the Applicant. If you make a
6 sign 8 foot by 8 foot and other dimension 6
7 foot 7 inches and keep the height at 7 foot
8 7 inches this is acceptable.
9 If we change the dimensions of the
10 sign you have requested to (unintelligible)
11 you have got 104 inches, that is really 8
12 foot 8 inches, that's exactly what I am
13 suggesting. I am not suggesting anything
14 smaller. But we are talking about is
15 shrinking the height by one foot which we
16 have already talked about. And then you can
17 leave everything as it is. (Unintelligible)
18 the same way as 6 foot 7 inches. That is
19 what you have there is 6 foot 7 inches. Is
20 it acceptable? Is it acceptable with the
21 Board and to the Applicant?
22 MR. CAPIONI: I just want to make sure
23 I am following your number --
24 MEMBER SANGHVI: If you look at your
1 picture here you have got the same
2 dimensions which I have suggested except
3 that reducing the height of your base and
4 making the total height one foot smaller.
5 MR. CAPIONI: Okay.
6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Do you see what I
7 mean now?
8 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member
9 Sanghvi, I believe that's what we had
10 discussed and what I had discussed, but I
11 don't think that the rest of the Board felt
12 that that was enough taken off of the sign.
13 MR. CAPIONI: If I could just make
14 just one comment to the Chair's comment
15 about the logo. The reason the logo is
16 actually not any bigger but it is higher up,
17 is that was something that people said
18 without being able to read it's kind of like
19 the, it's not quite the blue oval, but it's
20 kind of like almost the white oval was
21 scripted and people said they could see that
22 at a much longer distance. So the idea was
23 to move that up the sign to be in the upper
24 most corner so it would be the most visible.
1 So, you are right in terms of
2 visibility. We actually liked the way the
3 old logo looked where it was. The problem
4 is people told us they couldn't see it.
5 As far as the setback here is, we are
6 well behind the sidewalk and the
7 right-of-way on this road is very large. So
8 we are actually probably a good 25 to 30
9 feet from the curb at that point.
10 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: If I may.
11 Member Sanghvi, did you indicate 8 foot by 8
12 feet? Did I hear you correctly?
13 MEMBER SANGHVI: One hundred and four
14 inches that comes to 8 by 8 foot, yeah.
15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Eight foot by 8
16 is 64 square feet. Right now they are only
17 requesting --
18 MEMBER SANGHVI: No, no. Eight foot by
19 8 inches is the total line from the top even
20 if you go by what they have drawn here.
21 Height is reduced by, their height is 8 foot
22 by 8 inches and we are talking about 7 foot
23 by 7 inches.
24 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Okay, just
1 rounding it, 8 foot by 7 foot rounding it
2 down is 56 square feet. Right now they are
3 requesting 48 square feet so, in fact, you
4 would be making the sign larger.
5 MR. CAPIONI: The reason --
6 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Sir, I have the
8 MR. CAPIONI: Oh, I'm sorry.
9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: And the reason
10 why I believe is because the sign here is
11 not taking the base into account as the City
12 indicated earlier. I think we're on the
13 same page.
14 Member Fischer?
15 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Might I
16 offer one attempt at a compromise and see
17 where the Board sits? Looking at the sign
18 on the overhead, the Applicant has agreed to
19 take a foot off of the base and there are
20 several recommendations such as moving the
21 address up in the blue area, that might
22 allow them to take another foot off the
23 base. Or if they wanted to scale it down,
24 and leave the foundation at maybe around two
1 feet and scale the size of the top sign
2 down, that could allow for another foot
3 taken off the height. I would almost
4 suggest that given the recommendations, we
5 approve the variance at 6 foot 7 inches as
6 height and leave it up to the Applicant as
7 to how they want to accomplish that 6 foot 7
9 We could also approve the area because
10 they can either go up to that or if they
11 want to scale, they choose the option to
12 scale down they can go smaller than that
13 variance. Does that make sense? Does that
14 sound okay to you?
15 MS. KUDLA: Yes.
16 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Six foot 7 from
17 the ground?
18 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Correct.
19 And they can have a one foot foundation,
20 move the address up and have the size sign
21 they want, or they can take one foot off the
22 sign and one foot off the foundation and I
23 think it gets closer to the 6 feet that we
24 are all trying to accomplish.
1 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair, I might
2 recommend being the person who does the
3 motion tomorrow that the Board makes
4 tonight, that since they are asking for an
5 area as well as a height variance, you can
6 also break the motion up that way as well
7 because it sounds to me like Member Fischer
8 is suggesting on the height section of the
9 variance request, they are right now
10 requesting 8 feet 7 inches and he is putting
11 out there 6 feet 7 inches, so you could
12 break the motion up if you so choose to do
13 it that way as well to be able to articulate
14 exactly what you are saying.
15 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Would you
16 prefer it that way?
17 MS. WORKING: I think that that would
18 be an agreement between the Applicant and
19 the Board.
20 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: We would
21 approve 6 foot 7, but we would also approve
22 up to 48.38 square feet.
23 MS. WORKING: That would be one way to
24 do it.
1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Or whatever the
2 sign is.
3 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: That's why
4 I say up to because if they choose option
5 two where they scale down the size to get
6 one foot out of the height, it would
7 obviously be less than what they are
9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I for one would
10 be in favor of that.
11 MEMBER BAUER: I would too.
12 MEMBER IBE: I would too.
13 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Would anyone
14 like to make a motion?
15 So, do you understand what we are
16 referring to?
17 MR. CAPIONI: Yes.
18 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: That will give
19 you the flexibility if you wanted to do
21 MR. CAPIONI: I appreciate it. That's
22 very reasonable and I appreciate the thought
23 that you put into that, sir. Thank you.
24 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I'm a
1 numbers guy, I don't know. It took me a
2 while. I'm not good at articulating it per
3 se, but if everyone seems to agree I would
4 move that in case number: 07-102 filed by
5 Kathy Wichman of Innerface Architectural
6 Signage for Henry Ford Health System located
7 at 40000 Eight Mile Road. That we approve
8 the Petitioner's request for a ground sign
9 height variance of 7 inches which would
10 allow them up to 6 foot 7 inches in height.
11 And that we -- I'm sorry?
12 MS. WORKING: I'm sorry, I am
13 following you along.
14 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: And that we
15 approve the requested ground sign area
16 variance as requested of up to 48.38 square
17 feet. Allowing the Petitioner to move the
18 sign around as the Board has recommended as
19 they see fit. And the reasons being that
20 the traffic study indicated by the
21 Petitioner shows that the -- as well as the
22 health factors of the many of their clients
23 and the surveys of their clients have shown
24 that it would be in the public interest and
1 safety and welfare of the residents of Novi
2 as well as those visiting that people are
3 able to identify this building. Also due to
4 the size of the building as well as the
5 property as well as the speed of Eight Mile
7 MEMBER WROBEL: Second.
8 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: The
9 Petitioner has established setback
11 MEMBER WROBEL: Second.
12 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: And setback from
13 the road.
14 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: And setback
15 from the road.
16 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We have a motion
17 and a -- a motion by Member Sanghvi (sic)
18 and a second by Member Wrobel.
19 Did we go over the correspondence in
20 this case?
21 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: There were
22 two approvals.
23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I had just
24 gotten to those in my packet.
1 Any further discussion? Please call
2 the roll.
3 MS. WORKING: Vice-Chair Fischer?
4 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye.
5 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?
6 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes.
7 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?
8 MEMBER IBE: Yes.
9 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?
10 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
11 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?
12 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes.
13 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?
14 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
15 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?
16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.
17 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0.
18 MR. CAPIONI: Thank you very much.
19 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you
20 for your willingness to compromise.
22 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Next case is
23 Case number: 07-102-B filed by Kathy
24 Wichman of Innerface Architectural Signage
1 for Henry Ford Health System located at
2 39450 Twelve Mile Road. They are requesting
3 two illuminated ground signs and three
4 illuminated wall signs for the center
5 located at said address. This location has
6 approval for a single illuminated ground
7 sign located on the corner of Twelve Mile
8 and Haggerty. The property is zoned OST and
9 located north of Twelve Mile and west of
10 Haggerty Road.
11 The Applicant is coming forward.
13 MR. CAPIONI: I am trying to find some
14 of the paperwork here that we have too.
15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Since it is a
16 separate case we do need you to state your
17 name and address and be sworn in all over
19 MR. CAPIONI: Thank you very much. My
20 name is Marco Capioni. I live at 835 Pine
21 Hill Drive in Bloomfield Hills and I am not
22 an attorney.
23 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm
24 to tell the truth regarding case: 07-102-B?
1 MR. CAPIONI: Yes, I do.
2 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.
3 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you.
4 MR. CAPIONI: On this application, and
5 I don't want to -- we have done obviously
6 the same signage studies have been done and
7 we do have a traffic analysis also for this
8 intersection which again, also being
9 directly off of the freeway entrance at M-5
10 is an area that as well has a higher than
11 usual traffic accident occurrence rate.
12 But what I really want to talk about
13 for this one is that the boulevard along
14 Twelve Mile is absolutely stunningly
15 beautiful. For us it does a very good job
16 of masking the building. And so while we're
17 asking for a lot of different variances from
18 your Ordinances, it's really with the
19 studies that we have done driving back and
20 forth on Twelve Mile Road and on Haggerty
21 trying to determine the placement of the
22 sign to give you that cueing effect so that
23 from the distance of an eighth of a mile or
24 in some cases hopefully up to a quarter mile
1 you are able to see the building and then
2 get yourself set to the right place to make
3 the left turn.
4 As you know in this case the
5 drives are out of line with the Michigan
6 left turn drives so you actually have to go
7 past it to come back to them. So there is an
8 element of confusion. So what we have done
9 is tried to study the placement of, and I
10 know you are not going to believe this, the
11 least number of the signs on the building
12 and at gray that would make sure that people
13 would be able to identify those entrances.
14 The two ground signs are very critical
15 to announce where the entrances are because
16 of actually the berm it does a good job of
17 hiding those two drives. And the building
18 signs are primarily there to give you that
19 cueing affect so that you are able to see
20 the facility before you get to it. As you
21 see we concentrated on Twelve Mile which we
22 think is where the majority of the traffic
23 coming to our facility as opposed to the
24 traffic that would be coming down Haggerty.
1 We think that the Haggerty sign on the
2 Haggerty entrance at ground which be
3 sufficient. We have not placed any wall
4 signs up on the northeast corner, but we
5 placed them towards the south end and that
6 is basically based on our studies to find
7 out what signs have the greatest impact on
8 the drivers approaching the facility.
9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. This
10 too is a public hearing. Is there anyone in
11 the audience who cares to comment on this
12 case? We have someone.
13 MR. SOSIN: Matthew Sosin, Northern
14 Equities Group. I am the owner of the
15 building. 39000 Country Club Drive,
16 Farmington Hills, Michigan.
17 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Please be sworn
19 MR. SOSIN: I'm actually an attorney.
20 MEMBER BAUER: Would you raise your
21 hand --
22 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: No, no, he's an
24 MR. SOSIN: I'm the developer of the
1 site. I can help Marco talk about existing
2 conditions. I can also provide historical
3 interpretations of what went on when the
4 site plan was approved and what was intended
5 for those boulevards and the building. So,
6 I can speak on that. Also some background
7 on some of the gradings of Twelve Mile and
8 Haggerty which changed when the site was
9 originally -- when the Twelve Mile Road was
10 expanded. There were some grades that Marco
11 alluded to that creates some blind spots
12 that require the height in the signs. You
13 might find that height of the signs is
14 required (unintelligible). What happens is
15 the intersection on Haggerty is so high
16 (unintelligible). It go downs on the north,
17 east, west and south. I am here to answer
18 any of those questions.
19 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: So you are
20 actually part of the case as opposed to
21 being part of the public hearing?
22 MR. SOSIN: Yes.
23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Which is fine.
24 At this time I will close the public hearing
1 and ask about correspondence.
2 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: In this
3 case, Mr. Chair, there were 22 notices
4 mailed with zero approvals and zero
6 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you.
7 Comments from the City or Attorney?
8 MS. KUDLA: No.
9 MR. AMOLSCH: I just have one point of
10 clarification for the Board. There are a
11 number of variances here requested
12 (unintelligible) gets lost in the shuffle,
13 but just for the Board's purview. The
14 parcel of land is an OST zoning district
15 which permits a ground sign and wall sign.
16 So, one of the variances for the wall sign
17 will just be for area only and not the other
19 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you.
20 Comments from the ZBA? Member Sanghvi?
21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Question for you, Mr.
22 Chair, do you want to consider the sign all
23 individually or do you want to do it all at
24 the same time?
1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Would the group
2 be open to doing the ground signs together
3 and the wall signs together?
4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Whichever way you
5 want to go. (Unintelligible) --
6 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Let's do it that
8 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right, let's talk
9 about the ground signs then.
10 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Okay.
11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Part of the ground
12 signs, these are two really major entrances
13 your ground signs are at and I have no
14 problem. Thank you.
15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Okay. Further
16 comments? Member Wrobel?
17 MEMBER WROBEL: I was involved in this
18 project when it came before the Planning
19 Commission. Since this is one of the
20 premier buildings we thought at the time and
21 since it's at the entrance to the City then
22 we want this to look as good as possible.
23 And we're pleased that Henry Ford Hospital
24 will be taking the entire building which is
2 The one thing I am looking here on the
3 blueprints. Item number six, for the life
4 of me, I don't see a need for a sign there
5 because that's just parking lot. It has no
6 access to the street. Could you give me
7 your rationale as to why that is being
9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Member Wrobel --
10 MEMBER SANGHVI: We are just
11 considering the ground sign.
12 MEMBER WROBEL: Oh, the ground sign?
13 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes. Initially
14 we are only going to discuss the ground
16 MEMBER WROBEL: Okay, excuse me.
17 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Hold that
19 MEMBER WROBEL: Ground signs are fine
20 the way they are. I agree it's needed
21 there. They're both at the main entrances.
22 That's fine for ground signs.
23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Okay, thank you.
24 Comments from this side of the table?
1 Member Fischer?
2 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: What is the
3 square footage of this building?
4 MR. CAPIONI: It's 130,000 square
6 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: How does
7 that compare to Providence?
8 MR. AMOLSCH: Don't know.
9 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Chris?
10 MR. FOX: Really small.
11 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I'm sorry?
12 MR. FOX: Really small. I don't know
13 the square footage.
14 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: What were
15 the approved variances for Providence? Not
16 the big one, but the other smaller ones?
17 MR. AMOLSCH: We approved five sizes
19 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: What was the
20 height of those smaller ones, do you
22 MR. AMOLSCH: No.
23 MR. FOX: Fourteen.
24 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Around 14
1 was the large entrance sign?
2 MR. AMOLSCH: I think the other one
3 was --
4 MR. FOX: I thought the main sign was
5 18 or 20 --
6 MR. AMOLSCH: The main sign was 20 by
7 the entrance --
9 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER:
11 MS. WORKING: I can go pull the file
12 and it will take me less than five minutes.
13 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER:
14 (Unintelligible) I am fine with that.
15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you.
16 Further comments on the ground signs? I
17 have a question as to what the size of the
18 corner sign is?
19 MR. AMOLSCH: That is 44.66 square
21 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: And that one is
22 approved and it's already been placed?
23 MR. AMOLSCH: That one was approved,
1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: That really
2 catches people northbound Haggerty and
3 eastbound --
4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Westbound.
5 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I'm sorry,
6 westbound Twelve Mile.
7 I have no problem with the
8 monument signs and even though they are over
9 double the permitted size, I would be in
10 favor of it as well.
11 Any other comments? Okay, can we have
12 a motion just on the ground signs? Member
14 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I would move
15 that in case number: 07-102-B filed by Kathy
16 Wichman of Innerface Architectural Signage
17 for Henry Ford Health Systems at 39450
18 Twelve Mile Road that we approve sign number
19 two and sign number three, the two ground
20 signs as requested due to the fact that the
21 Petitioner has established a practical
22 difficulty in the elevation of the property.
23 The traffic on Twelve Mile and Haggerty
24 roads, the speed as well as the volume and
1 the need for two identification signs for
2 this large, large property.
3 MEMBER BAUER: Second.
4 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: So we have a
5 motion --
6 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: That's a
7 technical term by the way.
8 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We have a motion
9 by Member Fischer and a second by Member
11 Further discussion? Please call
12 the roll.
13 MS. WORKING: I'm sorry, the second
14 came from?
15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Member Bauer.
16 MS. WORKING: Thank you. Vice-Chair
18 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye.
19 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?
20 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
21 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?
22 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes.
23 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?
24 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes.
1 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?
2 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
3 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?
4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.
5 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?
6 MEMBER IBE: Yes.
7 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0 to
8 approve the two ground signs.
9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Correct. Now,
10 we want to discuss the three wall signs.
11 Open it up to the Board for discussion.
12 Member Wrobel, would you like to make
13 your comment now?
14 MEMBER WROBEL: I would like to make
15 my comment now. Thank you.
16 Explain the rationale for sign
17 number six, the area that just faces the
18 parking lot.
19 MR. CAPIONI: That sign was originally
20 intended to try and grab some visibility
21 from M-5. But I have to admit after having
22 driven it a number of different times I find
23 it doesn't achieve that either. So, if you
24 so kindly permit it we would save the money
1 and take number six off of our request.
2 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We can do that.
3 We can reduce, but we can't add.
4 MR. CAPIONI: Thank you.
5 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Other comments?
6 Member Fischer?
7 Oh, I'm sorry, were you finished, Mr.
8 Wrobel? I guess not.
9 MEMBER WROBEL: I am looking at sign
10 four and five there. I understand that
11 because of the height of the building, but I
12 am kind of leery approving two signs in such
13 a close area even though they sort of get
14 two different traffic angles. I am
15 wondering whether one sign five would be
16 better placed at the eastern end of the
17 building where you could see it the same way
18 if you are coming down Haggerty or westbound
19 Twelve Mile.
20 MR. CAPIONI: I'm sorry, are you
21 talking about moving it?
22 MR. WROBEL: Yeah, I'm just looking
23 because see these two signs four and five.
24 They are very close to each other. And I
1 understand the reason for sign four if you
2 are coming eastbound on Twelve Mile to see
3 the building there. Even though I am still
4 wondering if the ground sign at the entrance
5 will serve the same purpose. But if it were
6 me, and this is just my opinion, when I look
7 at sign five it would be more appropriate at
8 the other end of the building where you
9 could see it coming the other direction.
10 Just from driving through that intersection
12 MR. CAPIONI: We actually had the same
13 discussion on our team. The problem what we
14 were having was we actually did tests. When
15 you are coming from the other side of
16 Haggerty Road going west on Twelve Mile,
17 that other corner of the building is totally
18 invisible and this is actually the best
19 visibility here. And also it's also from
20 the Michigan left turnaround it's basically
21 another identifier that you found the right
22 place. I know that the two signs are very
23 close together, but time and time again we
24 really thought those two really serves the
1 needs both coming off of the freeway M-5
2 going east and west and then onto Twelve
3 Mile Road. Really, we think this is where
4 the majority of our traffic volume will be.
5 Most of the people who may be traveling on
6 Haggerty will probably be more familiar with
7 the area. But, this would be the ones that
8 people would be drawn who might not be
9 familiar with that location.
10 MEMBER WROBEL: I still have a concern
11 with both of them but I will wait to hear
12 what my colleagues have to say before I
13 decide. Thank you.
14 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you,
15 Member Wrobel.
16 Member Fischer?
17 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I am glad
18 that Member Wrobel brought up sign number
19 six, I couldn't agree more. I don't really
20 take particular issue with signs four or
21 five. I think the size is right for the
22 size of the building there.
23 I can see Member Wrobel's point
24 about too close together and possibly moving
1 it, but in the end I am not a sign expert
2 and I'm not a traffic expert and if this is
3 where they choose to put the signs at, I can
4 support that. My concern is what -- my
5 concern, frankly, would be are you going to
6 come back and ask for signs in that
7 northeast corner of the building eventually?
8 MR. CAPIONI: No, I don't intend to.
9 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay. The
10 only reason I ask that is because we have
11 had areas who have had the four corners and
12 they want one basically on every side of the
13 building and I would not be willing to
14 support this. But if this is where you have
15 chosen to put the two signs, I can support
16 signs four and five as submitted.
17 MR. CAPIONI: I can tell you that our
18 signage experts as well as Wade and Trim,
19 our traffic engineers, they recommended
20 against it. They didn't feel it had any
21 value, so.
22 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Seeing that
23 this seems to be the least amount that would
24 be value at it, I could support it.
1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you.
2 Other comments? Member Sanghvi?
3 MEMBER SANGHVI: I had some question
4 and it is not really related to these high
5 wall signs. But I didn't see any
6 directional signs inside.
7 MR. CAPIONI: In terms of the parking
9 MEMBER SANGHVI: In the parking, where
10 are you going to be, whether MRI, x-ray or
11 Surgery Center or whatever else you are
12 going to have there.
13 MR. CAPIONI: The nice thing about the
14 building is we have a front entrance and a
15 back entrance. All the entrances are --
16 MEMBER SANGHVI: So, you are going to
17 use this and put signs on the wall there?
18 MR. CAPIONI: Yes. I'm not sure if I a
19 picture of the building. But in the front
20 of the building there is the center of the
21 building --
22 MEMBER SANGHVI: I have been there. I
23 have sat there in your parking lot trying to
24 figure out what you were trying to do, so I
2 MR. CAPIONI: Actually we did do some
3 focus studies and basically people said they
4 are going to go right to the stone so that
5 better be the entrance. And then when you
6 come in either the front or the back then we
7 are going to have signage interior to the
8 building. So, we actually -- truth be known
9 a lot of signage inside parking lots becomes
10 very confusing and one of the reasons we
11 like this building was the way it was
12 designed. It really attracted you, if you
13 parked in the front or the back you are
14 actually equal distance from everything
15 because you are going to go right into that
16 middle section. So we won't be having any
17 other entrances for our patients.
18 MEMBER SANGHVI: You are not coming
19 back with the directional signs?
20 MR. CAPIONI: No.
21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay, thank you.
22 MR. CAPIONI: Thank you.
23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Any other
1 MEMBER SANGHVI: No, it's time to make
2 a motion.
3 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Let me make one
4 first, please. Initially I came in and I
5 was okay with the monument signs and I was
6 totally against all three wall signs, but my
7 colleagues have convinced me that they are
8 important and your presentation was very
9 well laid out and convincing. So I am in
10 support of number four and number five with
11 the Applicant choosing the locations of
12 those signs. If they choose to put them
13 both on the Twelve Mile side. That's my
15 Anything else? Member Fischer?
16 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: In making
17 the motion how should we handle sign six?
18 Do we just leave it off and not find any
19 findings? Or make a comment that they have
20 withdrawn that sign?
21 MS. KUDLA: That they have withdrawn
22 the sign.
23 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I would
24 make a motion that in case number: 07-102-B
1 filed by Kathy Wichman of -- am I saying
2 that correctly?
3 MS. WICHMAN: Yes, you are. Thank
5 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Of
6 Innerface Architectural Signage for Henry
7 Ford Healthy System located at 39450 Twelve
8 Mile Road that we approve the Petitioner's
9 request for sign four and sign number five
10 as submitted due to the fact that the
11 Petitioner has established practical
12 difficulty. That the request is based on
13 circumstances that are unique to the
14 property such as the size of building, the
15 layout of the building on the property as
16 well as the fact that a failure to grant
17 relief will result in substantially more
18 than a mere inconvenience and that it will,
19 in fact, be safer for the residents and
20 visitors of the City of Novi.
21 And lastly, that the granted relief
22 will not result in a use that is
23 incompatible with the surrounding uses and
24 does substantial justice to this property
1 owner as well as those surrounding.
2 I would also comment that the
3 Petitioner has chosen to withdraw sign
4 number six, so we will not dictate action.
5 MEMBER IBE: I'll second the motion.
6 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We have a motion
7 by Member Fischer. Seconded by Member Ibe.
8 Comments or discussion further?
9 Mr. Amolsch, did that address your
10 concern about the wall sign?
11 MR. AMOLSCH: There wasn't a concern.
12 I just wanted the Board aware that one of
13 those wall signs were permitted with an
14 addition to the permitted ground sign.
15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Any further
16 discussion? Seeing none, please call the
18 MS. WORKING: Vice-Chair Fischer?
19 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye.
20 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?
21 MEMBER IBE: Yes.
22 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?
23 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes.
24 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?
1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes.
2 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?
3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.
4 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?
5 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
6 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?
7 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
8 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0.
9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Your request has
10 been approved.
11 MR. CAPIONI: Thank you very much.
12 And thank you for your full consideration.
14 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Okay, up to
15 Other Matters. Even though we have already
16 welcomed Mr. Ibe, we will continue to thank
17 him. Now that you have made it through an
18 entire meeting, hopefully you will come back
19 in February.
20 MEMBER IBE: Yes.
21 MEMBER BAUER: That's when the big one
24 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We'll move on to
1 item number two, Rules and Procedures.
2 Everybody received a copy of the
3 rules put together by our Subcommittee and
4 chaired by Member Fischer and hopefully you
5 have had a chance to review them. And we
6 want to make any last changes that may be
7 necessary and hopefully we can adopt these
8 this evening.
9 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Mr. Chair,
10 if I may have the floor one minute?
11 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Certainly.
12 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I have
13 spoken with Robin at great length about one
14 of the comments regarding the Building
15 Official having authority to basically go
16 around and move around the mock-up sign
17 requirement. I just think that it's hard to
18 give such as cases like Providence the
19 Building Official the authority for safety
20 reasons, etcetera to go ahead and allow a
21 mock-up to not be put up --
22 MS. WORKING: Chris, could you move
23 out into the atrium? Thank you. Sorry, it
24 was distracting me.
1 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I agree. So
2 I think it's important for them, it will
3 take some burden off of us under Other
4 Matters of reviewing cases like Providence.
5 But I did want to bring up this package.
6 This is a good package I think from Lydall.
7 MS. WORKING: Oh, as an example?
8 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: This is a
9 package of an example of pretty much what we
10 might be expecting as a Board as long as the
11 Board agrees.
12 Thank you, Mr. Chair, I just wanted to
13 go ahead and get that clarification and I'll
14 be happy to answer any other questions or
15 concerns as well as Member Krieger.
16 MS. WORKING: Member Fisher, picking
17 up on that, I did have one question for you
18 and I don't know if it's necessary to have
19 to put it in writing or not, but previous
20 Petitioners have also done like slide shows
21 for you when there has not been a mock sign
22 on a building, i.e., the Providence 25 foot
23 structure. Remember we asked them to come
24 back? When you say a package, could it be
1 either or?
2 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I would
3 prefer to have it in my packet.
4 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: As long as we
5 can see it in advance.
6 MS. WORKING: Okay. It helps me to
7 see it.
8 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: He can put
9 this package onto a power point.
10 MS. WORKING: Right, it does help me
11 when the Applicants come to talk to me when
12 they are applying to appear before you to be
13 able to show them this is what we mean.
14 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Hand them
15 this. My other comment about that would
16 be -- I forget what I was going to say now.
17 See, I am getting old. It's my birthday
18 month. I am going to be 25 this month. If
19 I think it of --
20 MEMBER BAUER: Geez, I don't remember
21 when I was 25.
23 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Are there
24 any other questions or comments?
1 MEMBER BAUER: Yes, sir.
2 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Member Bauer?
3 MEMBER BAUER: (Unintelligible).
4 MEMBER SANGHVI: There is no question.
6 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: General
7 procedure rule Section 9.
9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: The last
11 I'm sorry. 9.0, the last paragraph.
12 MS. WORKING: Oh, thank you.
13 MEMBER BAUER: Mock-up sign must be
14 removed or replaced with a sign conforming
15 to the variance granted within five working
16 days. Now, he's got the temporary sign up.
17 He has got to take the other one down. They
18 wouldn't have a sign yet.
19 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: This is
20 only when they are denied or approved
22 MEMBER BAUER: He's got no sign.
23 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: So you are
24 saying while they are fabricating a sign of
1 lesser size he wouldn't have a sign?
2 MEMBER BAUER: No.
3 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Is that the
5 MEMBER BAUER: That's right.
6 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: The sign would
7 be taken down and there would be nothing
8 there for perhaps a month or two until the
9 sign is made.
10 MS. WORKING: Although having said
11 that, the Henry Ford case that was before
12 you this evening, they have the sign there
13 currently. You granted them something less
14 than what they asked for this evening. So if
15 they were to remove that mock sign that they
16 did erect for your consideration this
17 evening, they still have their ground sign,
18 so it doesn't apply to every case.
19 MEMBER BAUER: No, not to every case,
20 but --
21 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: For a new
22 building or something like that.
23 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: My concern
24 about mock-up signs, I am surprised at what
1 some of these Petitioners do. If it was me
2 and it was my business, I would get out
3 there with a piece of cardboard paper and
4 put it on there and some of these can be
5 torn up and whipped apart by the wind. So I
6 would be concerned about allowing even
7 someone to have a mock-up sign longer than
8 that. That's just my take.
9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Mr. Amolsch, you
10 have a comment?
11 MR. AMOLSCH: Through the Chair. I
12 was wondering about this myself. I don't
13 know why anybody would want to put another
14 mock-up up of a lesser variance than what
15 was required. Also we have discussed this
16 before about an approval sign, how long a
17 mock-up can remain on a building. I think
18 the Board -- it's not in here, but I think
19 the Board's feeling was before that they can
20 it keep it up until they had their sign
21 fabricated. Am I right about that?
22 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I believe that's
23 the way we have looked at things in the past
24 that perhaps a time frame needs to be on it.
1 I think where Member Bauer is coming from,
2 the denial, five days for a denial is fine,
3 that's good. But if we are granting a
4 request and they reduced it five, ten square
5 feet, we're saying that perhaps they ought
6 to be allowed to keep the mock-up sign up
7 for a longer period of time and that maybe
8 we need to identify a time frame.
9 MEMBER BAUER: (Unintelligible).
10 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Well, I don't
11 want to say that because maybe they spent a
12 lot of money on that --
13 MS. WORKING: Right now they are not
14 going to pour a foundation for a ground sign
15 until the Spring. So you can have that mock
16 sign out there if the weather doesn't take
17 it away for the next four to five months.
18 MR. AMOLSCH: And the other problem we
19 have is that some of the mock-ups are very
20 well done, but some of them are just banners
21 that are flapping around on the building. If
22 it takes two or three months to fabricate a
23 sign, I don't think we want to see that.
24 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Henry Ford
1 I was taking to them to make sure they know
2 they need sign foundation permits through us
3 and they are stating eight weeks out before
4 they do their sign foundations based on the
5 weather and stuff of that nature. So you
6 can have mock-up signs out there for two
7 months. We don't want that.
8 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: And if their a
9 banner or something it's not going to look
10 good. So maybe we leave it the way it is.
11 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I guess I
12 would, I would prefer the mock-up signs be
13 removed. I would say we could act on
14 leaving a mock-up sign in the individual
15 case, could we not?
16 MEMBER BAUER: But you are not stating
18 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: We could
19 state it in here.
20 MEMBER BAUER: I think it's got to be
21 a time limit.
22 MS. KUDLA: It doesn't necessarily
23 need to be in the rules. You can do it on a
24 case by case basis.
1 MR. AMOLSCH: As part of the motion?
2 MS. KUDLA: Yes.
3 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: So, this
4 could be a pretty stringent rule, but we are
5 able to kind of veto our own rule and
6 overrule our own rule and give an exception
7 to leave it up for longer.
8 MS. KUDLA: It probably should be part
9 of the motion. But if you are going to
10 leave this in here as a general rule and
11 deviate from that, I would give yourself
12 some language saying that --
13 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I would
14 have Tom give is some language.
15 MS. KUDLA: Exactly. That there may
16 be some exceptions where you vary from this
18 MS. WORKING: So we're looking at two
19 prongs and a leverage change as well as a
20 case by case stipulated motion?
21 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: So the
22 language in here from him would basically
23 say the Board has the ability to as part of
24 the motion make exceptions for mock-up sign
2 MS. KUDLA: Something like that, yes.
3 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Something like
5 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: So, he can
6 make that change.
7 MS. WORKING: So, are we going to
8 request that it be an additional section or
9 placed in Section 9.0?
10 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Another
11 paragraph or another sentence. Whatever he
12 says. That's why he gets paid the big
14 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I have two very
15 minor changes. One was on page six which is
16 to put the number 72 in parenthesis and to
17 do the same thing in Section 6.1. And on
18 page 9 the same thing in Section 9.2 put 21
19 in parenthesis. Just to be consistent
20 throughout the Rules and Regulations.
21 MS. WORKING: What was the second one,
22 I'm sorry?
23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Page 9, Section
24 9.2 the number 21 to be put in parenthesis
1 after the words twenty-one. That would make
2 it consistent with all the numbers that we
3 have in our Rules and Regulations.
4 MS. WORKING: Okay.
5 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Any other
6 additions, corrections? Member Sanghvi?
7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. I have a
8 question. And my question is this, the City
9 of Novi was chartered in 1969. I tried to
10 find out who really authored the primary
11 rules of conduct and everything which we
12 have been using so far.
13 MEMBER BAUER: They were
14 (unintelligible) --
15 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Jerry
16 Bauer --
17 MEMBER SANGHVI: So, I want to know if
18 there ever have been any amendments to those
19 since they have been adopted, and if they
20 have when and what were they?
21 MS. WORKING: I know the current Rules
22 of Procedure you are operating under were
23 approved in 1999. That's the only answer to
24 your question that I have.
1 MEMBER SANGHVI: See, because I --
2 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Then we had
3 a mock-up amendment which you investigated,
4 found and sent to the Subcommittee. So, I
5 feel like these have been updated by the
6 City and we did get the most recent version.
7 We did any amendments that this Board has
8 approved. I feel good about that.
9 MEMBER SANGHVI: So, my second
10 question is, what did you think was broken
11 here which we are trying to fix?
12 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: The main
13 objective originally by the Chair of this
14 Zoning Board was to insure, number one, that
15 the rules were updated given the NZBA Act.
16 And we have made several changes in here to
17 make it kind of more general regarding
18 noticing and that kind of stuff, basically
19 saying that we will abide by whatever the
20 current statute governing this from the
21 State of Michigan Legislature. And then we
22 made some of the other changes which I
23 highlighted the last time. Like the
24 attendance policy, etcetera.
1 MEMBER SANGHVI: That is my
2 (unintelligible) question now?
3 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I'm sorry?
4 MEMBER SANGHVI: That is what I am
5 questioning. Why are we doing that? What
6 we are trying to do is to take out the
7 meaning of this whole thing and go to see
8 what you have done is what you have created
9 is conditions of employment and grounds for
11 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Correct.
12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Is it any of our
13 business how to decide what us and the
14 future members of the Zoning Board of
15 Appeals will conduct themselves in the way
16 of how many times has a City terminated
17 membership of the Zoning Board of Appeals on
18 the grounds of absenteeism?
19 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: We have
20 not, but I feel that there may have been
21 errors in past years.
22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Have you any
23 statistics to prove anything? Or are you
24 just guessing?
1 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I was not
2 given these when I was Chair and I am not
3 going to go back and recreate an attendance
4 schedule. So I didn't have these so I
5 couldn't enforce any of these when I was
6 Chair. So I can't give you statistics so I
7 am not going to take you over them and do
8 that. But, to answer your question as to
9 who are we to stipulate the termination and
10 the rules of employment here? We need some
11 ground rules. We as appointees by City
12 Council do have an obligation to them and
13 the citizens of Novi. We have an obligation
14 to other Board Members including alternate
15 members. So, this isn't a way to try to put
16 conditions on people. It's merely a way to
17 guide them to be courteous when they won't
18 be there. If you can make sure that seven
19 days before a meeting you let us know that
20 you are not going to be here, that's an
21 excused absence and you can miss every
22 single meeting in the year. But if you
23 don't show up and you don't let anyone know,
24 that is rude to the citizens, it's rude
1 Chair, it's rude to the alternate, it's rude
2 to every other member on this Board, and I
3 don't want to be a part of a Board that
4 doesn't have any conditions like that.
5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Why would you think
6 that this rule is necessary? What has
7 happened in the past to create this
8 situation that you need this rule?
9 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I'm just
10 looking to the future --
11 MEMBER SANGHVI: I am not looking to
12 the future. You have to look at the past
13 and try to see if there has been any
14 commissions and you want to rectify
15 something, you want to introduce new rules
16 and regulations. A, I am not an employee of
17 this Board or this City. I am a volunteer
19 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I don't
20 disagree with that fact --
21 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligible) It's
22 a fact of life.
23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Member Sanghvi
1 MEMBER SANGHVI: No, no. The whole
2 point is, this is a ridiculous creation.
3 Terms of conditions for employment and
4 grounds for termination does not apply to a
5 voluntary board which is not -- you have no
6 right to fire somebody whom you have not
8 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Excuse me.
9 Turning to the attorney, is this within our
10 purview to write the rules and regulations?
11 MS. KUDLA: It is within your purview
12 to have rules and regulations. You're
13 appointed by City Council. So I almost want
14 to say that maybe City Council needs to look
15 at something like a termination policy.
16 MEMBER BAUER: They can only
18 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Which is
19 stipulated --
20 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: They are the
21 only ones that can terminate --
22 MEMBER SANGHVI: This is the whole
23 point. I don't think we have any business
24 making this. You can tell them, City
1 Council, do you have any kind of rules for
2 this? (Unintelligible). You ask them. But
3 you don't (unintelligible) sitting here
4 deciding for me and my future colleagues who
5 are join here, how to hire them, fire them,
6 when to fire them, what they should do, how
7 they should they dress, how should they
8 (unintelligible) hair cut. That is all
10 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It's not
11 supposed to be a hostile policy.
12 MEMBER SANGHVI: You have created a
13 hostile document.
14 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I'm sorry
17 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair, could we
18 agree to disagree and possibly have this
19 outside of the regular hearing discussion?
20 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Absolutely.
21 MEMBER SANGHVI: And the language
22 here. I mean, look at it. I want to point
23 out that there is a difference between use
24 of the word shall and will or maybe or
1 expected. You have put down shall which
2 becomes a commandment. Though shalt not
3 steal. Though shalt not commit adultery.
4 It's a commandment. Shall is a commanding
5 futuristic word which should not be utilized
6 in this kind of document unless you are an
7 employee and you want to fire
8 (unintelligible), and I am not an employee.
9 I don't buy your position that, yes, I am an
10 employee of this Board.
11 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: And you are
12 totally entitled to your opinion.
13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, I am totally
14 entitled. And I challenge your opinion to
15 call me an employee of this Board.
16 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We didn't call
17 you an employee of this Board.
18 MEMBER SANGHVI: That is what Mr.
19 Fischer just did. He said that you are --
20 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: You are a
21 voluntarily member --
22 MEMBER SANGHVI: I am a volunteer here
23 and I volunteer my time. I volunteer my
24 talent. I volunteer my energy. I volunteer
1 all kinds of things including my own money
2 to go traveling around doing everything
3 else. I am not a compensated employee of
4 the City or this Board and I think you ought
5 to have a very clear understanding of the
6 status of the members of this Zoning Board.
7 We are all volunteers. Don't try to create
8 a situation where you are forcing the
9 volunteers to do certain things your way.
10 That is not acceptable. That is not
11 democrative. That is not how this country
12 is based on. This is not how the country
13 runs. This is a fundamental problem with
14 this whole document if you go ahead and read
15 one by one and everything. I feel it's full
16 of crap.
17 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you for
18 your opinion.
19 Member Bauer, do you have a comment?
20 MEMBER BAUER: I don't disagree with
21 this. But why would you take what is
22 already in the Ordinance for the Zoning
23 Board or for the Ordinance and in the State
24 and do it over again?
1 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I am not
2 sure I understand the question.
3 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I believe if I
4 may, what he is referring to is like the
5 whole first page about variances, for
6 example, listing exactly what the use
7 variance is, the non-use variance is is
8 already in written form in the Ordinance.
9 And my thought to that is it just makes it
10 clearer or provides a short version without
11 having to look through an entire Ordinance
12 to find that information.
13 MEMBER BAUER: I'm just asking why?
14 But I don't disagree.
15 MS. WORKING: Would it be appropriate
16 to pose these questions to Mr. Schultz and
17 the Subcommittee outside of a regularly
18 scheduled hearing date and then bring them
19 back to the Board at a later date?
20 MEMBER BAUER: You can, but that's no
22 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I would prefer
23 to move forward on it. It's been already
24 reviewed by Member Schultz and by the
1 Attorney's office.
2 There really isn't that many
3 changes from what the rules and procedures
4 were previously, at least in my opinion.
5 Everybody has different opinions as I
6 mentioned. I'll throw it out to the group,
7 however, because this is a democracy. What
8 is the thoughts of the group? Would you
9 want to hold off on the vote and talk to
10 Member Schultz -- or Mr. Schultz, I can't
11 make him a member -- Attorney Schultz and go
13 Member Krieger hasn't spoken yet.
14 MEMBER KRIEGER: I would like
15 Schultz's input and Counsel's input.
16 MS. KUDLA: It does say when it has
17 been accepted by City Council. Any kind of
18 suggestion based on this would have to be
19 finalized by City Council, any termination
20 of any members.
21 MEMBER KRIEGER: But I just meant this
22 whole paper.
23 MS. KUDLA: You mean the whole thing
24 to be accepted by City Council?
1 MEMBER KRIEGER: No, verbalized
3 MS. KUDLA: If you are looking to make
4 other suggestions to add to these or
5 subtract, is that what you are talking
7 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
8 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Tom has
9 made all the recommendations.
10 MS. KUDLA: Did you guys have
11 Subcommittee meetings?
12 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Right.
13 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yeah.
14 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: We made our
15 recommendations to him and as Chairman
16 Shroyer said, we really didn't change that
17 many fundamental things. The absentee
18 policy was probably one of the biggest,
19 other than that it was just changing it,
20 updating wording according to Community
21 Development Department --
22 MS. WORKING: Community Development
23 Department --
24 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: -- to make
1 it current. Tom has already accepted these.
2 He is the one who has actually drafted this.
3 I don't see what the point of sending it
4 back to the City Attorney is other than to
5 waste taxpayer dollars.
6 MEMBER KRIEGER: The red print then
7 would be what he corrected.
8 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: The changes that
9 were made.
10 MS. WORKING: And the most updated
11 copy was in your meeting file tonight. That
12 was one that I did e-mail out last Friday
13 evening, but I gave you a hard copy today in
14 your meeting file in case you didn't get the
15 e-mail or didn't have a chance to read all
16 of the ten pages of the document.
17 MEMBER KRIEGER: Because of Mav's
18 concerns, I would want to keep this as a
19 soft issue versus like a hard this is it
20 kind of deal for now.
21 MS. WORKING: You don't want to vote
22 on it?
23 MEMBER KRIEGER: I don't want to vote
24 on it.
1 MEMBER SANGHVI: If you want to
2 discuss this document, maybe you should
3 discuss it when Mr. Schultz is around and I
4 would like to read line by line which I have
5 highlighted here and I have questions about
6 and I would like to get some answers.
7 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Would it be --
8 if I may, would it be better for each of us
9 individually to talk to Mr. Schultz or to
10 have him talk to the group because people
11 have different concerns?
12 MS. KUDLA: I mean, I can answer your
13 legal concerns. If you have drafting
14 suggestions that you would rather see, and
15 Tom is working on this document, yeah, I
16 mean you can interact with him directly. But
17 if you have questions I can answer them.
18 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: What I would
19 like to do at this point. There is enough
20 concern addressed by the Board not to move
21 forward with this this evening. I had hoped
22 to get it resolved this evening, but it
23 looks like it needs to be discussed further.
24 What I would suggest is that any members
1 that have specific questions regarding this,
2 contact the attorney directly. And if Mr.
3 Schultz then feels that we need to meet
4 together as a group, we can set that up and
5 move forward from there.
6 Is that agreeable with everyone?
7 MEMBER SANGHVI: My only problem with
8 your suggestion, Mr. Chairman, what happens
9 to the Open Meeting Act when you go
10 individually and talk about it because you
11 don't know what I am talking to him about.
12 I don't know what you are talking to him and
13 that completely destroys the concept of an
14 Open Meeting Act.
15 MS. KUDLA: These are procedural rules
16 so that doesn't really apply.
17 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: So, we will
18 table this for now and move forward with my
19 recommendation. Is that agreeable with
21 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: What are
22 the next steps on that then?
23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I will get back
24 in touch with our attorney.
1 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer, would
2 you like this to appear on the February
4 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes, please. I
5 will contact the Attorney and see what the
6 recommendations are to move forward.
7 MS. WORKING: Do we need to take a
8 vote for that or?
9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I was going to
10 ask --
11 MS. KUDLA: What is it on there right
13 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: It's under Other
15 MS. WORKING: Rules and Procedures.
16 MEMBER SANGHVI: We're not working on
17 anything else.
18 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Okay, we will
19 just do that.
21 Item three under Other Matters is East
22 Lake Drive, request for variance extension.
23 MS. WORKING: You have in your meeting
24 file as well as I believe I e-mailed to you
1 a few weeks back that you would be asked to
2 consider under Other Matters a request from
3 Mr. Joe Debrincat who came before you. He
4 was granted a variance and as you well know
5 our Ordinance stipulates 90 day requirement
6 to pull a permit. He is asking for an
7 extension to that and a 180 day extension.
8 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Motion to
9 approve the 180 day from the original
10 approval by the Board to pull the permit by
11 Mr. Joseph Debrincat.
12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second.
13 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Motion by Member
14 Fischer. Seconded by Member Sanghvi.
15 Any other discussions? Please call
16 the roll.
17 MS. WORKING: Vice-Chair Fischer?
18 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye.
19 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?
20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.
21 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?
22 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes.
23 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?
24 MEMBER IBE: Yes.
1 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?
2 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
3 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?
4 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
5 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?
6 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes.
7 MS. WORKING: Motion to approve 180
8 extension approved.
9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Okay, thank you.
11 MS. WORKING: Our next case would be
12 23820 Lynwood. If you recall the Board
13 asked the Applicant to try and resolve the
14 case through administrative matters. He was
15 required to apply in writing for a
16 withdrawal. He has done so and we would
17 like to close the case.
18 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Do we need a
19 vote on that?
20 MS. WORKING: Do we need a vote on
22 MS. KUDLA: Might as well vote on
24 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: What are we
1 voting on?
2 MS. WORKING: Accepting a withdrawal
3 for ZBA consideration.
4 MEMBER KRIEGER: Per motion?
5 MS. WORKING: I would leave it up to
6 the attorney. If we need to have a motion
7 and a vote, we'll do it. But he was
8 required to submit in writing to withdraw by
9 this Board last month.
10 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I thought
11 last month we said if they chose to
12 withdraw, they withdrew the case. There was
13 really no action.
14 MEMBER SANGHVI: If we close it what
15 was there to discuss?
16 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Right.
17 MEMBER BAUER: There is nothing to
19 MS. KUDLA: I don't believe it's
20 required, but if it's on the agenda and it's
21 something that you got on the agenda. I
22 didn't think it needed to be on the agenda,
23 it could have been withdrawn. Now that it's
1 MS. WORKING: It had to be done in
2 writing. It was just part of the minutes
3 since I wasn't here last month I listened to
4 it and they was asked that they submit in
5 writing and the Board knows the submission
6 was made.
7 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Second
8 Member Krieger's motion.
9 MEMBER SANGHVI: You can say the
10 consensus of the Board was to accept his
12 MS. WORKING: Okay. Can we just do
14 MS. KUDLA: Yes.
15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We have accepted
16 the withdrawal. No need to vote on it.
17 Last item under other matters is
18 nominations for the Chair and Vice-Chair and
19 Secretary to be voted on at the February's
21 I'll open up the floor for nominations
22 for the Chair. Typically I will do that one
24 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Do we?
1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Don't we? I
2 believe we do.
3 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It's been a
4 year, I'm getting older.
5 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I would like to
6 nominate our Vice-Chair, Justin Fischer, for
8 MEMBER BAUER: Sure, why not. Good
9 old boy.
10 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: You accept the
12 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yes.
13 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Any other
14 nominations for Chair?
15 MEMBER KRIEGER: Justin.
16 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Looks like
17 that's closed.
18 Nominations for Vice-Chair? Nobody
19 wants to be an officer?
20 MEMBER BAUER: Member Sanghvi.
22 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We have a
23 nomination for Member Sanghvi.
24 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I second
1 the nomination for Member Sanghvi.
2 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Do you accept
3 the nomination?
4 MEMBER SANGHVI: To do what?
5 MEMBER BAUER: Vice-President.
6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Maybe state what you
7 would like to me to do. Because I already
8 know that reading this in public
10 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: You don't want
11 to accept it?
12 MEMBER SANGHVI: If that is part of
13 the job, no, I don't want it because I don't
14 think that it is appropriate for me to be
15 reading things aloud.
16 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: The
17 Secretary could do it.
18 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: You can defer to
19 the Secretary.
20 MEMBER SANGHVI: That's fine with me.
21 The Chair doesn't want me to do it, that's
22 fine with me. But it's the Chair who
24 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Okay. So you
1 accept the nomination?
2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, I'll accept the
4 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Any other
5 nominations for Vice-Chair?
6 MS. WORKING: Who nominated Member
8 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Bauer.
9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Member Bauer.
10 MS. WORKING: Thank you.
11 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Nominations for
13 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Nominate
16 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: You accept the
17 nomination? Second.
18 MEMBER KRIEGER: I don't know.
20 MEMBER BAUER: She is a good girl.
21 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: She said yes.
22 MEMBER KRIEGER: All right.
23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Any other
24 nominations for Secretary? So, it looks
1 like we will have an official vote in
3 Do we do that at the beginning of the
4 meeting so I don't have to Chair or do we do
5 it at the end of the meeting?
7 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I can do it at
8 the beginning?
9 MEMBER SANGHVI: I think so.
10 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?
11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Usually we have done
12 it in the beginning.
13 MS. WORKING: Our Attorney just
14 informed me that it could be the first order
15 of business on the agenda in February. I
16 don't know offhand if the Rules of Procedure
17 govern that, but then you indicated that you
18 might pass the gavel to the new Chairperson
19 to chair that meeting. I guess it's at the
20 Board's pleasure what they would like do to.
21 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: At the
22 Chair's discretion.
23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I think it
24 should be first on the agenda.
1 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Seeing no
2 other items, Mr. Chair, I would make a
3 motion to adjourn.
4 MEMBER BAUER: Second.
5 MEMBER KRIEGER: Third.
6 (The meeting was adjourned at
7 10:56 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 (193) typewritten pages, is a
11 true and correct transcript of my said
12 stenographic notes.
19 Mona L. Talton,
20 Certified Shorthand Reporter
22 January 17, 2008