View Agenda for this meeting
View Action Summary for this meeting


Proceedings had and testimony taken in the matters of the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, at City of Novi, 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, Tuesday, October 14, 2008.

Justin Fischer, Chairperson
Mav Sanghvi, Vice-Chairperson
Gerald Bauer
Brian Burke
David Ghannam
Linda Krieger
Timothy Shroyer

Christian Fox, Community Development Liaison
Elizabeth Kudla, City Attorney
Charles Boulard, Building Official
Robin Working, ZBA Recording Secretary


Mona L. Talton, Certified Shorthand Reporter.

7 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I'd like to call

8 to order the October 2008 Zoning Board of

9 Appeals meeting for the City of Novi.

10 Ms. Working, will you please call the

11 roll.

12 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?

13 MEMBER BAUER: Present.

14 MS. WORKING: Member Burke?


16 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


18 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer?


20 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer?


22 MS. WORKING: Member Ghannam?


24 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?




2 MS. WORKING: Mr. Ibe?

3 Mr. Chair, Mr. Ibe is absent this

4 evening.


6 will you please lead us in the pledge of

7 allegiance.

8 BOARD MEMBERS: I pledge allegiance to

9 the flag of the United State of America.

10 And to the Republic for which it stands, one

11 nation under God indivisible with liberty

12 and justice for all.


14 alternate member serving tonight in the

15 place of Rickie Ibe we do have a quorum so

16 the meeting is now in session.

17 The rules of conduct for tonight's

18 meeting can be found in the back of the room

19 on the back of the agenda or on a separate

20 sheet in the back there.

21 But I would like to remind people that

22 if could you please turn off all cell phones

23 and pagers it would be appreciative. And as

24 far as the meeting goes, we would like to



1 keep it where individuals will have five

2 minutes to address the Board and groups will

3 have 10 minutes. So, someone speaking on

4 behalf of a group they will have 10 minutes.

5 Like I said, a full set of the rules can be

6 found in the back of the room.

7 The Zoning Board of Appeals is a

8 hearing board empowered by the Novi City

9 Charter to hear appeals seeking variances

10 from the application of the Novi Zoning

11 Ordinance. It takes a vote of at least four

12 members to approve a variance and a vote of

13 the majority present to deny a variance.

14 Tonight we do have a full board so any

15 decisions made will be final.

16 We have an agenda in front of us. Are

17 there any changes to the agenda?

18 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair, I would like

19 to bring to the Board's attention that case

20 number three under new business 08-055 has

21 been withdrawn. It no longer requires your

22 consideration.

23 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Can you help me

24 out with a clarification, a little past



1 other matters we have a case listed there.

2 That will not be heard tonight, correct?

3 MS. WORKING: That is correct. 08-054

4 did not make it out of Planning Commission,

5 therefore, will not be heard by the ZBA this

6 evening.


8 to let anyone know that might be here to

9 speak on behalf of case number 08-054 filed

10 by the Manyam Group for the Temple Cultural

11 Center at 26233 Taft Road, that did not make

12 it out Planning Commission and will not be

13 heard tonight. So, comments will have to be

14 reserved until the meeting at which it is

15 heard.

16 We do have an amended agenda. Any

17 motions to approve?




21 Member Sanghvi and a second Member Shroyer.

22 All in favor say aye?





1 Seeing none, the agenda passes.

2 And we will move along to approval of

3 the minutes for August 12th, 2008. Are

4 there any changes to those minutes? Seeing

5 none, I will entertain a motion to approve

6 as submitted?

7 MEMBER BAUER: So moved.



10 Bauer and second by Member Sanghvi. All in

11 favor say aye?



14 Seeing none, the minutes are approved.

15 At this point we will move to the

16 public remarks portion of the meeting. All

17 comments related to a case on the agenda

18 should be held until that case is heard.

19 However, if anyone wishes to address the

20 Board on any matter or any case not on the

21 agenda tonight, please come forward. Seeing

22 none, we will close the public remarks

23 portion of the meeting and move to our first

24 case.



1 MEMBER SHROYER: Mr. Chair, excuse me.


3 MEMBER SHROYER: I have a copy of

4 September 9th, minutes in my packet as well.

5 Were we going to -- we're not going to

6 review those this evening?

7 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Given that they

8 are not in the agenda we will go ahead and

9 save them until the next meeting.

10 MS. WORKING: We didn't place them on

11 the agenda because we didn't feel you had

12 enough time to review them to make a motion

13 to approve them.

14 MEMBER SHROYER: You are ahead of the

15 game, Member Shroyer.

16 MEMBER SHROYER: Trying to work at it.

17 Thank you.

18 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Seeing no other

19 comments, we will go ahead and call case

20 number 08-045 filed by Charles Alawan of

21 Pheasant Run Plaza, Incorporated for

22 Pheasant Run Plaza located at 39877, 39863,

23 39853, 39843, 31, 21 and 39783 Grand River

24 Avenue.



1 Board Members, you will remember that

2 this case was tabled from the August 12th

3 meeting and the business is located south of

4 Grand River and west of Haggerty Road. The

5 Applicant is requesting five variances for

6 the placement of additional wall signage on

7 the north elevation of the plaza facing

8 Grand River Avenue.

9 You are the Petitioner?

10 MR. ALAWAN: Good evening. Yes. My

11 name is Chuck Alawan.


13 raise your hand and be sworn in by our Board

14 Secretary.

15 MEMBER KRIEGER: Do you swear or

16 affirm in case number: 08-045 to tell the

17 truth in this case?

18 MR. ALAWAN: Absolutely.

19 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you.


21 state your name and address for us.

22 MR. ALAWAN: My name is Charles

23 Alawan. I live in Farmington Hills, but I

24 am here representing a certain number of



1 businesses at Pheasant Run Plaza on Grand

2 River just west of Haggerty.

3 I would have liked to have been here

4 two months ago, the economic conditions just

5 about made a different approach, but that's

6 not why I'm here. It had nothing do with

7 the economic conditions. It's a condition

8 that we have observed over a number of years

9 for a group of our merchants.

10 I think you all had a packet.


12 MR. ALAWAN: We did post signs. We

13 were going to be here last month and Ms.

14 Working reminded me that I needed to put up

15 some mock signs, which we did. I am hoping

16 that you had a chance to look at them.

17 I think this is functioning. It's

18 that building there, Grand River is right

19 there. And that building almost faces

20 perpendicular to Grand River.

21 When you are traveling that would be east on

22 Grand River, it's pretty hard to see

23 anything except the back of the building.

24 Then when you are going west, it's even more



1 difficult because of some of the vegetation,

2 trees and traffic. So, we have had over a

3 number of years complaints and requests by

4 some of those merchants to get a little

5 better exposure and to get a little break, a

6 little break because of that position.

7 So, we have proposed to put the

8 signage on the north end of that one

9 building and limit it to use by merchants in

10 that building. That building this is an

11 aerial photograph. There it is. Grand

12 River is the bottom of the picture. That

13 building, north would be the closest to

14 Grand River. That's the face of the

15 building that we have in mind. And I have

16 another photograph that probably gives you

17 it just in case you didn't get a chance to

18 go by it. We are talking about five

19 merchants, five signs. The signs would have

20 all the same type signs and color of

21 letters.

22 The owner of the property, he is not

23 terribly interested in putting signs up on

24 his building except in this particular case



1 we think it's a hardship that we have to

2 address and that's why we are bringing it to

3 you. We think it's a situation that has

4 been lingering for a number of -- that's the

5 style, the type letters. If you seen the

6 mockup it really doesn't do much except to

7 give you an idea. That's what it would look

8 like if you gave us permission to do it.

9 We have been listening to these

10 tenants for a number of years. I think in

11 past years there was an attempt to have a

12 directory sign which stack directly type

13 thing. It wasn't approved then and I don't

14 agree to have it now because it doesn't

15 function and you can't read the letters.

16 But in this case it does offer a

17 controlled architectural display of signs.

18 It's not different types. It's not

19 different letters. It's not a circus. It's

20 a pretty organized and well thought out plan

21 to give these merchants a little better shot

22 on some of the traffic coming from the west

23 toward the east.

24 There is a cost involved. Each



1 merchant would absorb the sign. The owner

2 would absorb putting in a new circuit to

3 accommodate it. It would certainly help. I

4 know we want to do things to help merchants

5 make money. I think we need to do

6 everything we can to allow them to reach

7 their potential. Especially with this

8 situation, this is not something that we

9 would want for anybody to have to go through

10 these kinds of economic conditions. We are

11 facing a whole new ball game. But these

12 signs stand away from that particular

13 condition and is addressing a particular

14 condition that has existed for a number of

15 years.

16 So, we are asking your permission to

17 change or at least modify it in this

18 particular case as the ordinance to allow

19 it.

20 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you very

21 much for your comments.

22 Madam Secretary, are there any

23 correspondence?

24 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number:



1 08-045, 21 notices were mailed. Zero

2 approvals and zero objections.

3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Is there anyone

4 in the audience who wishes to make a comment

5 on the case?

6 Seeing none, we will close the

7 opportunity. And we will ask the Community

8 Development Department, any comments

9 tonight?

10 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair, Mr. Amolsch

11 is not with us this evening, but I think you

12 have all the information you need about the

13 size and location and design for your

14 consideration.



17 MR. BOULARD: I have a question for

18 the Petitioner, if I could.


20 MR. BOULARD: One of the criteria for

21 approval of the appeal is that the

22 circumstances or features that are

23 exceptional or unique to the property are

24 not self created and that the conditions are



1 unique to that property. And, thus, the

2 variance is justified. Could you describe

3 what situation is unique?

4 MR. ALAWAN: Certainly I'm sure it is

5 not unique for the entire city, but it's

6 unique for that property because it's laid

7 out in such a way, 20 some years ago when it

8 was built to accommodate the property. I

9 think Karim was create as a side street.

10 And I think Mr. Paze (ph) and the property

11 development across the road denoted some

12 space to create that road. So, that kind of

13 tightened that angle that that building was

14 built at. And the circumstances we feel

15 that we are talking about is the exact

16 thing. The angle doesn't allow a decent

17 exposure from either direction.

18 You can start traveling west on Grand

19 River Avenue, come down Haggerty or either

20 make a turn if you have been there.

21 Unfortunately, we have got some very, very

22 healthy mature trees and vegetation. You

23 can probably pick up and I think, Ms.

24 Working, you might be able to pick up the



1 Smokers there and maybe the Oxford Tailor,

2 but by that time you are picking speed up

3 and you have lost it.

4 The nature of the problem is the angle

5 of that building to the street and the

6 covers that we have coming the other way.

7 We do have a marquis and since I was in here

8 we redesigned the marquis to brighten it up

9 and give it a little more emphasis on the

10 lettering because we were getting complaints

11 that people couldn't even pick up the

12 marquis.

13 We still have a problem because we

14 have to take advantage of that strip to get

15 the parking in there. When you have got

16 parking there in one direction you are going

17 to have a time reading it because we are

18 restricted in height. Burger King has sign

19 that upsets the view to that. We have done

20 something, we have lightened up on it.

21 Tried to make it more visible for people who

22 are looking for Pheasant Run because

23 addresses mean nothing. If you want to give

24 people directions and if you want to say I'm



1 at 39 whatever it is you are talking about,

2 you have to tell them Pheasant Run.

3 But, in the other direction, you get

4 the back of the building and you are by it

5 before you even know what's going on. The

6 angle of this building and that northern

7 wall, it really does help because you can

8 pick up those signs. And I know it's a

9 variance and I know it may not be unique in

10 terms of the entire city, but at least to

11 that property it poses a problem.


13 this time I will turn it over to the Board

14 discussion and ask for comments. Member

15 Sanghvi?


17 Mr. Chair. Personally to me the whole

18 notion of putting signs like that on the

19 wall is rather tacky and it reminds me of

20 the warehouses with all those signs on the

21 top of the buildings, especially when you

22 drive down from LaGaurdia Airport to

23 Manhattan. It's just all run down and look

24 all the way through, and I don't know that



1 it's going to fit in the City of Novi these

2 kinds of signs. I would very much support a

3 marquis sign listing all the businesses so

4 everybody is visible rather than just the

5 names of the businesses. This kind of

6 thing, I'm sorry, cannot support it.


8 Member Sanghvi. Other Board Members?

9 Member Ghannam?

10 MEMBER GHANNAM: I just have a couple

11 of questions for you, sir. On one of your

12 photographs it has the names of tenants and

13 so forth. It has capital letters for the

14 first name and then small letters. Was that

15 your intent for each and every tenant to

16 have a capital, for example, Gina Agosta

17 Salon and the rest are smaller case letters?

18 MR. ALAWAN: I think the mock signs

19 don't demonstrate that.

20 MEMBER GHANNAM: Was that the intent?

21 MR. ALAWAN: The intent was for

22 uniformity of size and style and color.

23 MEMBER GHANNAM: For each letter?

24 MR. ALAWAN: For each letter and for



1 each sign. We didn't want to end up with a

2 gaudy look. That concerns us. That's the

3 style the landlord in terms of maintaining

4 that property, and he has done very well for

5 25 years and still continues with this idea.

6 But, yes, I see what you are saying, the

7 caps are there. And I don't think the

8 mockup shows that.

9 MEMBER GHANNAM: What size letters do

10 they intend on putting up?

11 MR. ALAWAN: It will conform to the

12 size of the sign. In other words, we are

13 limited to the size of that sign and it

14 would conform to that in terms of letters.

15 We tried to demonstrate it on the mockups,

16 but it didn't pick the style that I show in

17 this picture by showing caps. I'm not quite

18 sure, quite frankly, what size it would be,

19 but I think they are 12 inches.

20 MEMBER GHANNAM: I have a couple more

21 questions. What is the type of facade

22 that's on the wall that these letters --

23 MR. ALAWAN: It's a stucco.

24 MEMBER GHANNAM: It is a stucco?



1 MR. ALAWAN: It's a stucco. And it's

2 a beige. It might be a little darker beige

3 because those letters they are white. We

4 are still talking to give it a little more

5 definition during the daytime.

6 MEMBER GHANNAM: Have the tenants been

7 complaining about customers of theirs not

8 being able to see them?

9 MR. ALAWAN: It's really been

10 constant. I managed the property for five

11 years. We have an anchor tenant there that

12 has also 50% of that building, that's Gina

13 Agosta. And she has always talked to us

14 about that.

15 MEMBER GHANNAM: Personally, I know at

16 least in the past since I have been here we

17 had a few cases similar to this. One of

18 them that comes to mind was a case that we

19 heard, a property on Beck just north of the

20 freeway. And it was similarly angled

21 perpendicular to Beck Road. And people

22 coming from the north going south could not

23 see anything. I think the owner wanted some

24 type of monument sign. This is a little bit



1 different. Personally I see the need for

2 the tenants given this unusual

3 circumstances. And certainly it doesn't

4 seem that the tenants are responsible for

5 the layout or design obviously of the

6 promises since this was done long before

7 they were there. It seems pretty consistent

8 with what we have done before. So, I would

9 be in support of this variance.

10 MR. ALAWAN: Just to comment that we

11 have had restrictions in terms of the out to

12 out size of the sign. We have filled out

13 forms that restrict the outer limits. We

14 haven't really defined the fact whether the

15 first letter would be a cap or not.

16 MEMBER GHANNAM: Either way I am sure

17 it would have to comply with City

18 ordinances. Thank you.


20 Members? Member Bauer?

21 MEMBER BAUER: This location is a

22 place where people are going to go, not out

23 looking for it. And with the Pheasant Run

24 Plaza, that's a great draw right there.



1 Another unique thing, I live not too

2 far from here and many times I have seen

3 that parking lot completely full.

4 MR. ALAWAN: Lunch time.

5 MEMBER BAUER: I don't see what their

6 problem is. I cannot support it.


8 Members? Member Shroyer?

9 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, sir. Just

10 points of clarification here. On the

11 overhead you put up it showed nine different

12 addresses in the building. On the

13 application it list seven addresses, three

14 of which are Agosta.

15 MR. ALAWAN: We have two vacancies

16 right now.

17 MEMBER SHROYER: Two vacancies?

18 MR. ALAWAN: Yes.

19 MEMBER SHROYER: So, if new tenants

20 come in what are you going to do for them?

21 MR. ALAWAN: We only have room at this

22 time to consider five. That's our choice as

23 landlords and we are dealing with what we

24 have and that's all we can deal with. And



1 we're not projecting beyond that quite

2 frankly. It's not something that we want to

3 see on that side of the building.

4 I would just like to respond to Mr.

5 Bauer if --


7 directly asked a question we'll keep it to

8 the Board's comments.

9 MR. ALAWAN: Oh, I'm sorry.


11 MEMBER SHROYER: That was the only

12 question I had for the Applicant. And

13 obviously I do have concerns about having

14 other businesses going in there and coming

15 back to us at a later time looking for some

16 type of signage for them being fair and

17 consistent.

18 I am also aware of at least three

19 other shopping plaza-type layouts in Novi.

20 One right up the street with a similar

21 layout. If we approve something along this

22 line, my concern is that we will be seeing

23 every one of those shopping centers in here

24 requesting the same type of activity. I



1 don't see the practical difficulty being

2 justified and I cannot support it. Thank

3 you.


5 Member Shroyer. Member Krieger?

6 MEMBER KRIEGER: One question for the

7 City. The level of Pheasant Run, the sign

8 that's there, the monument sign and it's

9 level to the street, if it's down or level?

10 MR. BOULARD: I was there at lunch

11 today. I believe the parking lot drops.

12 The level of the parking lot is a

13 significant drop from the road surface. The

14 monument sign, correct me if I am wrong, is

15 up at road level, you know, you can't see it

16 from the road. There is vegetation there.

17 It's not a tall sign, but it is up on the

18 berm, so-to-speak, although it's certainly

19 not raised above the road level.

20 MEMBER KRIEGER: My second question

21 was that taking into consideration of the

22 speed that that would be a practical

23 difficulty, but also that those businesses

24 are a destination. If you could convince me



1 more and as previous members have stated

2 that there are other areas in Novi where

3 there is similar buildings, how it is unique

4 for you to have these signs on your north

5 wall?

6 MR. ALAWAN: The question was asked

7 whether it was unique to this property and I

8 also admitted that I don't know how many

9 similar ones, but there certainly has to be

10 other similar conditions. But I think the

11 question was was it unique to this property.

12 I was addressing the way it's laid out that

13 is what causes a problem with this

14 particular building. I can't vouch for

15 other situations in the city. If that's

16 question.

17 MEMBER KRIEGER: I am needing more

18 information to be able to consider that it

19 is a unique circumstance that I can support.

20 MR. ALAWAN: Am I responding?


22 MR. ALAWAN: The marquis is really in

23 a disadvantage area because we are lower

24 than the road a bit and the marquis is



1 located in an area that is down at the level

2 of the parking lot. The uniqueness as I

3 have described, it is very difficult to get

4 the kind of exposure for that one building.

5 We have one building which faces Grand River

6 and that building we have more problems with

7 tenants. But I am not dealing with that,

8 that problem, but it's symptomatic of what I

9 am talking about because people want

10 exposure. Everything I hear in this

11 business is we want exposure to the main

12 thoroughfare. Well, we can't give them

13 that.

14 At this particular junction there is

15 an accumulation of several years now when we

16 were being asked to do -- in fact, I think

17 it was two or three years ago I just

18 broached this subject in a casual manner and

19 chose not at that time to make the appeal.

20 But nothing ventured, nothing gained, and so

21 here we are. It's a culmination of these

22 people asking us to do something.

23 So, as a landlord we want to control

24 this as much as you do want control for the



1 city, we want to control for our property.

2 We don't want signs up all over the place.

3 They come to us with banner request. We tell

4 them you have to go to the city for that.

5 We don't want banners hanging off of our

6 marquis. It is unique to us and it is a

7 problem and, therefore, I appeal on that

8 basis. As to whether it's unique for the

9 City of Novi, I don't think so, I am sure

10 there are other situations.

11 If what you are saying is if this

12 happens and then other people will want the

13 same treatment, I can't respond except that

14 we have a situation and we have to come to

15 you to get some relief from it.

16 And you haven't heard me -- the

17 question was the parking lot. The parking

18 lot is jammed between 11:30 and 1:00. And

19 if you are ever there in the morning and you

20 are ever there in the afternoon you can go

21 there right now we do have (unintelligible).

22 We think some of it, if not a good portion

23 of it is because we don't get the amount of

24 drive-by coverage that we would like to.



1 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you.


3 comments at this time, Member Krieger?



6 MEMBER BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

7 Seeing as this building gets 100% visibility

8 when you are heading west on Grand River and

9 about zero heading east, I sympathize with

10 the need for something there on that

11 northern facade. And you had me right up

12 until you have two vacancies, and you know

13 -- I am in a building that has a lot of

14 vacancies and I am sure that the landlord is

15 going to want to do anything they can do to

16 bring a tenant in, including signage on that

17 north facade. And then you are going to be

18 jamming in another sign. And that's what's

19 going to start to look a little tacky.

20 The way this is laid out right

21 here, I don't object to that. I think it's

22 a little understated. Plain and simple and

23 no flash, no nothing, it looks nice, and I

24 would support that. But I am a little



1 concerned about this vacancy and you are

2 going to work as hard as you can to fill the

3 empty spots that you have. And some guy

4 coming in with whatever kind of business is

5 going to want the same signage on the north

6 side and that's what I am thinking.

7 MR. ALAWAN: Thank God we still have

8 an option as landlord to accept tenants. We

9 don't want tattoo shops, tanning places. We

10 have had several this year businesses we

11 really don't want in that plaza. We are

12 being selective because we're not in a

13 crisis and that's why when the question was

14 asked, I passed over those vacancies because

15 that's not part of what I am dealing with

16 here. I am not looking to prospect, in

17 other words, to put a sign up on

18 (unintelligible). These are established

19 businesses that I am getting them for.

20 MEMBER BURKE: I understand that. But

21 I don't want to get into a debate about your

22 practices. Sooner or later there is going

23 to be another tenant, and the next thing you

24 know we're going to have more signs there



1 and then it's going to get a little more

2 jumbled and a little more compressed and

3 it's not going to have the same appeal that

4 I like on this.

5 MR. ALAWAN: I certainly don't want to

6 get into a debate. It was already explained

7 to us that this would be restricted to

8 people in that building and would be

9 restricted to what I am appealing for

10 because of the space limitation five. We

11 are certainly not coming back here if you

12 are going to approve this, we are not coming

13 back for more signs.


15 other Board Member comments tonight?


17 MEMBER SHROYER: I'll make a motion.

18 In Case number: 08-045, Pheasant Run Plaza,

19 Incorporated, the locations of 38787, 39821,

20 39831, 39853, 39863 and 39877, I move to

21 deny the variance request whereas the

22 Petitioner has not convincingly demonstrated

23 practical difficulty, as item one.

24 Item two, these businesses already



1 have existing wall signs on the east

2 elevation of the building and the ordinance

3 does not allow for additional signage.

4 And number three, circumstances of this

5 property are not unique as there are many

6 buildings with this configuration within the

7 city.

8 And item four, the addition of more

9 signage will not provide substantial justice

10 to the other tenants or operating owners on

11 Grand River and other similar properties in

12 the city.

13 MEMBER BAUER: Second.


15 motion by Member Shroyer and a second by

16 Member Bauer. Any other comments by Board

17 Members?

18 Seeing none, Ms. Working, will you

19 please call the roll.

20 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer?


22 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?


24 MS. WORKING: Member Burke?




2 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer?


4 MS. WORKING: Member Ghannam?


6 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?


8 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


10 MS. WORKING: Motion to deny passes

11 6-1.


13 this time your variance request has been

14 denied, sir.


16 At this time I would like to call case

17 number -- moving along to the new business

18 portion of the agenda, Case Number: 08-052

19 filed by Jasper Catanzaro representing

20 Weston Estates Homeowners Association at

21 43468 McLean Court.

22 Petitioner is requesting two sign

23 variances for the placement of a 10 foot

24 tall, break-away pole, subdivision



1 entranceway sign. The sign measures 14

2 inches by 20 inches and is proposed to be

3 located in a City of Novi right-of-way

4 adjacent to lot 12, 43468 McLean Court. The

5 property is zoned R-4 located west of Novi

6 Road and north of 9 Mile Road.


8 If you can please be sworn in by our

9 Board Secretary.

10 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number:

11 08-052 do you swear or affirm to tell the

12 truth in this case?


14 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Could you state

15 your name and address and proceed with your

16 case.

17 MR. CATANZARO: I'm Jasper Catanzaro,

18 43468 McLean Court. Good evening. I am

19 here to represent the Weston Estates

20 Homeowners Association and we are asking for

21 a sign variance for our neighborhood for the

22 following reasons.

23 In the first place to get to our

24 little subdivision there are only 12 homes



1 in our subdivision. You have to go through

2 the Mystic Forest Subdivision and there is

3 no distinction when you come in through

4 Mystic Forest to tell you it's Weston

5 Estates. Our homes were built approximately

6 10 years after the first homes were built in

7 Mystic Forest and on average they cost

8 between $100,000 to $200,000 more than

9 Mystic Forest homes.

10 We actually thought that there was

11 going to be a sign placed by the builder,

12 but the homes got sold so quickly and turned

13 over to the association that we never got

14 around to figuring out if they were going to

15 put a sign out there. It never happened.

16 So, anyway, first, we had went through the

17 Mystic Forest Homeowners Association and

18 asked if we could have a sign placed in the

19 boulevard where you come in, and our past

20 president told us they didn't want to do

21 that. They didn't want anything put into

22 the boulevard there.

23 So, then, we decided to pick an area.

24 So, we're looking at there, is the area that



1 we are looking at doing this is in the

2 roadway, whatever the boulevard there is

3 about the logical place. And basically what

4 we are looking to do is put in a sign that

5 looks something like you have the package

6 there in front of you. But I have something

7 that's similar in another subdivision and

8 it's going to be something that match our

9 mailbox, something like that. It will match

10 our mailboxes. Our mailboxes are similar to

11 those.

12 What we want to do is, we want to have

13 something to show that this is the Weston

14 Estates Subdivision. We want something that

15 is going to be very tasteful. And basically

16 if you have any suggestions too, we would be

17 open to those. But we would like something

18 to show that this is our subdivision. In

19 fact, I think we are the only subdivision in

20 Novi that does not have any entrance sign.

21 So, I guess that's what that is.

22 I am going to conclude with my little

23 report here. I see maybe I should have been

24 better prepared, but it's my first time



1 doing this.


3 will take it easy on you, and if the Board

4 has any questions in the future I'm sure

5 we'll ask.

6 I don't hear any further comments at

7 this time, I'll ask the Secretary to read

8 any correspondence.

9 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number:

10 08-052, 33 notices were mailed and three

11 responses were returned. And first one is

12 from Matt Gibson on McLean Court.

13 "Please note my comments to case number:

14 08-052 for 43468 McLean. Comments: It's

15 unfortunate the building developer did not

16 plan or leave room for a sign. Weston

17 Estates is unique. The only way in is

18 through Mystic Forest. To put a sign up

19 (unintelligible) no parking sign does not do

20 justice. Also when entering, a sign would

21 be located on your left which does not seem

22 correct. It probably would be more of a

23 hazard to get a variance to put the sign on

24 the wrong side of the street. Also when



1 exiting the sign is not visible until you

2 are very close to it because of the street

3 trees which will only be getting larger.

4 Are there signs in Novi which are located on

5 your left when entering? (Unintelligible)

6 small sign on your left I would agree are

7 fine."

8 The the next one is Michael and Susan

9 Sluskar (ph), City of Novi homeowners.

10 "This letter is in response to a Zoning

11 Board of Appeals public hearing notice we

12 received dated 23, September, 2008,

13 regarding the request for two zoning

14 ordinance variances for entrance signage

15 pertaining to Weston Estates. As homeowners

16 of properties adjacent to Weston Estates we

17 strongly disapprove of the placement of any

18 such signage within the subdivision

19 right-of-ways for this purpose. The Weston

20 Estates entrance sign proposal advocates

21 that a doubled sided plaque attached to a 10

22 foot pole be located in the right-of-way

23 adjacent to lot 12, 43468 McLean Court, in

24 Weston Estates. We feel this sign is



1 totally unnecessary. Signage to distinguish

2 McLean Court, a/k/a Weston Estates from the

3 Mystic Forest Subdivision should have been

4 addressed when McLean Court was first

5 established.

6 As a Mystic Forest homeowner an

7 emphatically state that the building of

8 Weston Estates has lowered my qualify of

9 life in Novi. As residing on the corner lot

10 I am now subject to a much higher noise and

11 traffic level than before. I would have

12 much preferred the residence of Weston

13 Estates to have their own entrance allowing

14 off Novi Road allowing them all the identity

15 they desire and the ability to erect all the

16 signage that they want.

17 The utilization of the exiting Mystic

18 Forest street for their entrance and exit

19 can be apparent setting apart the Mystic

20 Forest Subdivision. That's just the way it

21 is, just as I have had to make adjustments,

22 so must they. Many we understand the

23 concerns of the homeowners of Weston Estates

24 about real property value, however, we



1 strongly object to the placement of such

2 signage as we feel it will negatively

3 detract from the value and enjoyment of our

4 property. We ask that you do not grant the

5 requested variances and uphold the spirit of

6 the existing zoning ordinances. Thank you."

7 The last one is in Thomas and Kimberly

8 Tabush (ph), city of Novi homeowners.

9 "Regarding my comments regarding case

10 number: 08-052 for proposed Weston Court

11 Estates signage variances. It has come to

12 our attention that the homeowners of Weston

13 Court Estates are attempting to gain

14 approval for two zoning ordinance variances

15 for an entrance sign pertaining to their

16 site condo development. As homeowners of

17 property adjacent to Weston Court Estates we

18 strongly disapprove of the placement of any

19 such signage within the subdivision right of

20 way for this purpose.

21 The Weston Court Estates entrance sign

22 proposal advocates that a double sided

23 plaque attached to a 10 foot pole located in

24 the right-of-way adjacent to lot 12 in



1 Weston Estates. The proposed location of

2 this plaque, while not within the platted

3 area of Mystic Forest would obstruct views

4 for the homeowners of abutting properties

5 within Mystic Forest. The developer, Mozart

6 Homes was aware of the sentiments of

7 homeowners with property abutting to the

8 Weston Court Estates condominium site and,

9 therefore, did not indicate or have plans to

10 erect an entrance sign within the

11 subdivision right-of-ways in deference to

12 those most directly affected.

13 The homeowners of Weston Court Estates

14 have not approached the homeowners of the

15 abutting properties for concurrence with

16 their proposal. The Weston Court Estates

17 residents think that a lack of a sign

18 implies that the new development is part of

19 the older Mystic Forest development. As the

20 Weston Court Estates needs to develop its

21 own identity as a means to distinguish it

22 from Mystic Forest, that objective should

23 not be pursued at the detriment to the

24 persons to whom real property is assessed



1 within 300 feet of the boundary of the

2 proposed signage variance. The residents of

3 West Court Estates should not be permitted

4 to infringe on the rights of Mystic Forest

5 Subdivision resident's abutting property

6 simply because it is more cost effective for

7 them to do so.

8 While we understand the concerns of

9 the homeowners of Weston Court Estate about

10 real property values, we strongly object to

11 the placement of such signage as we feel it

12 will negatively detract from the value and

13 enjoyment of our property. The homeowners

14 of Weston Court Estates should not have line

15 of sight view to the entrance sign as the

16 suggested location is in direct line of

17 sight from our residence. I would have to

18 view the sign everyday while utilizing my

19 kitchen, bathroom, rear patio and bedrooms.

20 I ask each of you which rooms of your house

21 do you use the most? In which rooms do you

22 gather more often when friends and family

23 visit? I purchased a home in the confines

24 of a subdivision so I would not have to view



1 signage while enjoying my home. I chose to

2 live in a zone community because the zoning

3 laws are meant to protect the rights.

4 Additionally, I believe that placement

5 of signage in said location will cause a

6 decrease in the value of our home and make

7 it less likely to sell if this zoning

8 variance is permitted. We ask that you do

9 not grant the requested variance and uphold

10 the spirit of the existing zoning ordinance.

11 Thank you."

12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, Madam

13 Secretary. At this time I will ask if

14 anyone in the audience wishes to make a

15 comment on this case? If you guys want to

16 come forward and start lining up.

17 If you will be sworn in by our

18 secretary.

19 MEMBER KRIEGER: If you can swear or

20 affirm to tell the truth in case number:

21 08-052?

22 MR. TARBUSH: I will.

23 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: State your name

24 and address.



1 MR. TARBUSH: Tom Tarbush at 23304

2 Mystic Forest. You have read the letter

3 that we have submitted to the Zoning Board

4 on this also. A couple of points that I

5 would like to reemphasize on this is that

6 when the developer was building this site,

7 he did ask the homeownership about signage

8 into this area and understood that Mystic

9 Forest Homeowners Association was not in

10 favor of signage.

11 Secondly, he had an option to put an

12 entrance off of Novi Road directly and chose

13 not to put the entrance off of Novi Road so

14 that he could have another lot for a house

15 so that he could get more value for his

16 property as well as more tax dollars for the

17 city. So, I am assuming, and I hate to

18 assume that the reason why the variance was

19 given that they didn't have a direct access

20 to a main street was for tax dollar purposes

21 as well as end dollars for his development

22 company.

23 Finally, along with that, the

24 development has been in as I said about five



1 years now without any signage. So, if they

2 have gone five years without a sign what's

3 the difference if it goes another 20 years

4 without a sign? When they all purchased the

5 home they all drove through Mystic Forest to

6 look at the property. They all went through

7 Mystic Forest to talk to the developer and

8 they all still purchased their home without

9 a sign saying that they were Weston Court

10 Estates. So, with that being said, what's

11 the need for the sign? People still bought

12 their home.

13 Now, being a person that has lived in

14 five different cities in five different

15 states, personally purchased a number of

16 homes in all of those states, property

17 values are looked at in a one square mile

18 basis. When a bank comes in to assess the

19 property value of your home, they are

20 looking at a one mile square radius of your

21 value of your home. So, that home is going

22 to be valued not only at Mystic Forest, but

23 in every other subdivision that's in a one

24 square mile.



1 I am sorry they bought a house that

2 was more expensive than the other homes in

3 the subdivision, but they knew that went

4 they bought the property. Buyer beware. If

5 you want to have a piece of property that's

6 a higher value when you go for resale, you

7 have to understand that 12 homes is not

8 going to bring up the value of 100 homes.

9 There is 100 homes in that subdivision. The

10 weight factor there isn't enough value on

11 those homes to even draw up the value of

12 Mystic Forest homes.

13 Then finally my residence is the

14 only residence that is going to be looking

15 at that sign every day. When I look out my

16 kitchen window pouring a cup of coffee I see

17 that sign. When I sit in my family room and

18 look out the window I see that sign. No one

19 has ever come directly to me and asked me

20 what my opinion was about putting in a sign.

21 The day that they put it in or the weekend

22 that they put in a prototype sign I was out

23 in my yard cutting the grass. There were

24 three or four homeowners from the Weston



1 Estates homeowners that were standing around

2 looking at the sign. They all saw me in my

3 yard. They never came to ask me what my

4 opinion was on that.

5 I guess my only other thing is if the

6 Board does approve this sign, I would like

7 at least from a neighborly perspective that

8 they move the sign down so I can't see it

9 out of my window. And, secondly, I would

10 like the City to consider decreasing my

11 property value because every home that's by

12 the entrance of a subdivision has lower

13 property values. My property value is going

14 down, I would like a reduction in my taxes.

15 And then, finally, I would like to

16 have the homeowners association put in a

17 privacy area so that I can't see it, the

18 signage coming out of my home. Every

19 entrance that you go into that has signage

20 for the subdivision there is landscape

21 around the development has provided so that

22 you have privacy and cannot see the signage

23 from your home. That's what I am asking.

24 Thank you.



1 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, sir.

2 Before we have other people stepping up for

3 comments let me just clarify a few things.

4 This Board only has a certain amount of

5 jurisdiction. We are only looking at the

6 case before us tonight. Anything regarding

7 the previous development, that really wasn't

8 involving the Zoning Board, so we must focus

9 on the facts presented us tonight. Also,

10 this Zoning Board does not have the

11 authority over taxes. The Board of Review

12 is something that you would have to take

13 that up with if anything were to be decided

14 on tonight.

15 So, once again, we will go back to

16 comments, but I would like them zeroed in on

17 the facts as presented to us in our case

18 tonight.

19 I will ask that you be sworn in by our

20 Secretary and proceed with your comments as

21 well.

22 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number:

23 08-052 do you swear or affirm to tell the

24 truth?



1 MS. HALSKI (ph): I do. My name is

2 Michelle Halski, I live at 43444 McLean

3 Court in the Weston Estates Development. On

4 behalf of my husband and myself, we really

5 would like to have some type of

6 identification sign. We have driven around

7 Novi and all the other subdivisions do have

8 some forms of identification, give you some

9 indication that you are entering a

10 subdivision.

11 As Jasper mentioned, we are basically

12 a court development and you drive from

13 Mystic Forest into this court. When we tell

14 people we are with Weston Estates they are

15 always saying, where is that? We can't even

16 use it for deliveries. When we have friends

17 coming over for holiday parties, you got to

18 turn into Weston Estates. Well, where is

19 that? It's on McLean Court. It kind of

20 doesn't gibe. It doesn't make sense. We

21 want our own form of identity. Our houses

22 are newer and they do look different. It is

23 its own unique little community. It's a

24 little cul-de-sac development.



1 The developer, Mozart, they have had

2 three developments now. We were their very

3 first ones, probably a learning experience

4 for them. Originally we had a service road

5 coming off of Novi Road. They closed off

6 that service road. At that service road at

7 a certain point in time there was a sign

8 which led everyone to believe, hey, we have

9 indication that we were a subdivision. When

10 they blocked off that road the sign went

11 away. The road was closed up. Again, that

12 was only one way in and that was through

13 Mystic Forest.

14 Since they have completed two other

15 developments at Brookhaven and Taft Knolls,

16 they do have signage identifying that that's

17 a subdivision. We do have our own

18 homeowners association and we pay our own

19 homeowners dues which are separate and

20 unique from Mystic Forest. We do everything

21 different -- not different, but on our own

22 from Mystic Forest. So, we are just asking

23 for some form of identification.

24 The sign we thought it could be



1 something classy, it's not something that's

2 a big monolith, it's not a flashing bright

3 marquis, it's just something unique and

4 classy. As Jasper mentioned we are willing

5 to take suggestions from the Board. We just

6 really want something that kind of shows

7 that we're different because we're not

8 Mystic Forest. If I wanted a house in

9 Mystic Forest I would have bought a house

10 there, but I bought in Weston Estates.

11 That's basically all I have to say.

12 Thanks for your time.

13 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you very

14 much. Let me ask other people in the

15 audience if they have comments on tonight's

16 case? Seeing none, all right.

17 You have some more comments?

18 MR. CATANZARO: One final thing, the

19 road that used to go -- that we first bought

20 on, we all knew in the beginning it was

21 going to be a cul-de-sac, but it was called

22 Weston. And then something happened. There

23 was another road in Novi called Weston so

24 they changed it to McLean. So, just like



1 Michelle said, people drive in there and you

2 would have to really explain to people how

3 to get to us.

4 We are looking for something, I heard

5 earlier somebody had asked about a unique

6 situation. We feel this is a unique

7 situation and we feel that we're probably

8 the only subdivision that doesn't have some

9 sort of name on it. Thank you very much.


11 will close the public comments for tonight

12 for this case and I will turn it over to the

13 Community Development Department for any


15 MR. BOULARD: Nothing to add beyond

16 the issues that have already been raised.

17 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I will turn it

18 over to the Board for their discussion

19 tonight. Member Sanghvi starting us off

20 again.


22 Mr. Chair. We have a tricky situation here.

23 On the one hand, this is a subdivision, even

24 though it is a small subdivision, and it



1 needs an identification. It needs an

2 identification. On the other hand, there is

3 no really good safe and unobtrusive place to

4 put that sign. And I don't know whether it

5 is very practical to put this subdivision

6 given its size on some kind of sign on Novi

7 Road near Mystic -- what's the name of the

8 street they went in? Anyway, Mystic Forest

9 area itself other than right on McLean Court

10 there itself.

11 But, yes, we need to find a way of

12 identifying the subdivision. To me, I know

13 this doesn't meet with the requirement and

14 this is a pole sign. It looks pretty

15 elegant to me. I don't have any problem

16 with the appearance of the sign. My only

17 question is how far are you proposing that

18 sign to be from that fire hydrant?

19 MR. CATANZARO: I think we're looking

20 at about 10 feet.


22 safety (unintelligible) in that respect?

23 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi, through

24 the Chair, should the Board be inclined to



1 grant the variance in this case this

2 evening, the Petitioner is fully aware, we

3 have discussed that this would be the first

4 step and the next step would be to go to the

5 Engineering Department and work with them.

6 There are several different reviews that

7 will be done through Engineering with DPW

8 and Engineering as well as Landscape

9 Architectural input from our City Planner,

10 Dave Beschke. The variance they are asking

11 for you tonight is the ability to be able to

12 move on to that next step. So, this is just

13 one in a series before there may be a sign

14 erected if those approvals are given as

15 well.

16 The Petitioner has chosen to start

17 with the ZBA and knows that it may be

18 necessary to move forward with a separate

19 application in filing for the engineering

20 for a right-of-way permit. I would assume

21 that that is part of their review with the

22 fire hydrant. The code does address that as

23 well as other public safety considerations.




1 consideration should be considered when you

2 are giving a variance not after giving the

3 variance.

4 MEMBER GHANNAM: I just had a comment,

5 through the Chair. That's a question I was

6 going to ask our counsel. Shouldn't those

7 things be done before this is brought to us?

8 Because shouldn't we know where it can be

9 placed and if it can be placed through these

10 other things that Ms. Working was telling us

11 about?

12 MS. KUDLA: Well, what they are going

13 to go through is a right-of-way permit.

14 They will look at it at that time and if it

15 can't be placed from a safety perspective

16 near that fire hydrant, I would assume at

17 that time they would have to come up with

18 another location. I don't think that this

19 variance is requesting a specific location.

20 It's just requesting a sign.

21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: So, the location

22 is no part of it? I mean, we have heard

23 many comments regarding the location and I

24 would be hesitant to approve a blanket



1 approval for where we are going to place it

2 if we have no clue where the City

3 Engineering Department is going to state

4 that it should be.

5 MS. KUDLA: Given that there is a

6 question that this is going to be in a

7 public city right-of-way, I don't think that

8 you can give the specific location given

9 that they no matter what are still going to

10 have review it for being in the public

11 right-of-way. So, if it's going to

12 interfere in the public right-of-way with

13 their sewer easement or their water easement

14 or anything else that the City needs to get

15 to in the public right-of-way, they are

16 going to say no to that location. If you

17 say this is where we want it, it's still

18 going to come to that right-of-way permit

19 review. If it's going to obstruct them

20 getting to their sewer or their water main,

21 it's still going to be denied from that

22 perspective no matter where you specifically

23 said you wanted it.




1 I think that's why the question is being

2 brought up. That it would make more sense

3 for the City to decide this is where it's

4 going to be so we can then make a

5 determination based off of comments.

6 MS. KUDLA: So, you are suggesting do

7 the right-of-way permit, first

8 consideration, get a specific location and

9 table this and come back after the

10 right-of-way permit. I think that can be

11 done procedurally.


13 want to go out on the limb and give

14 permission, grant a variance and then find

15 out that this is not a safe place to put it

16 in the first place. So, I think I like to

17 know more about the safety concern and all

18 other aspects of it before deciding what we

19 are going to decide here at the Zoning Board

20 of Appeals meeting.



23 what I feel. Thank you.




1 Member Sanghvi.

2 MR. BOULARD: I think the point is

3 sort of well taken. The issue is, first of

4 all, if the type of sign is not approved

5 then the location is a moot point. The

6 petitioners, I believe, were given the

7 option to also apply for that right-of-way

8 permit at this time. It's additional cost,

9 and they chose, as I understand at this time

10 to proceed with the variance request

11 approval to install this type of sign in the

12 approximate area. Obviously even if this

13 body were to approve that, if the

14 Engineering Department could not find a safe

15 place, the sign would not be installed and

16 we would be back to square one.




20 strangest thing I have ever heard that the

21 location is a moot point. The location is

22 very important as the sign itself where it's

23 going to be and what kind of sign it is

24 going to be. We can't consider going to the



1 (unintelligible) once we approve the sign.

2 No, I don't agree with that. Thank you.


4 Member Sanghvi. Other Board Members?

5 Member Krieger?

6 MEMBER KRIEGER: I would like to see

7 more information about where I would like

8 the sign, but I agree with Member Sanghvi,

9 that I would like to see more information.

10 I would be willing to table this issue.

11 Thank you.


13 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

14 This isn't totally unique. I for one live

15 in a subdivision within the city that the

16 subdivision is within a subdivision. The

17 other subdivision has two entrances and we

18 have none. You have to go through it to get

19 to ours. In fact, at our last homeowners

20 association meeting we discussed signage.

21 I also look at all the other

22 subdivisions in Novi that are

23 interconnected. They may have an entryway

24 semi, but they are connected by streets that



1 are connecting the different subdivisions,

2 and I can see them wanting to have signs at

3 each one of their entrances going both

4 directions. So, there is a possibility of

5 opening up a large hornets nest here. I

6 don't see enough of a hardship at this time

7 to support this variance request.

8 However, I think it's important enough

9 to request that the City Ordinance Review

10 Committee review this possibility and what

11 can be done, what should be done. What can

12 be made available with an Ordinance change

13 that would allow people to come in and

14 request something. What I am looking at

15 there is a standardization that we would

16 have the same requirements for everyone that

17 came forward. So, I am not opposed to

18 signage for that type of situation, I can't

19 support it this evening because I see it

20 being a much bigger item that needs to be

21 addressed and perhaps the city can do

22 something that would allow other

23 subdivisions to come forward as well and be

24 consistent.




2 Members? Member Burke?

3 MEMBER BURKE: To the Applicant. The

4 picture here shows a sign hanging down and

5 then you showed us one that looked like a no

6 parking sign. Which sign -- is that the

7 sign you were getting, that type of sign?

8 Or is it really going to be this type of

9 sign?

10 MR. CATANZARO: We are looking at what

11 you have there.

12 MEMBER BURKE: About 14 by 20?

13 MR. CATANZARO: Correct. Not that

14 big.

15 MEMBER BURKE: Three inch pole?

16 MR. CATANZARO: That's it.

17 MEMBER BURKE: That's 10 foot off the

18 northern most property?

19 MR. CATANZARO: Correct.

20 MEMBER BURKE: If we decided to table

21 this, through the Chair, I would ask if we

22 can at least, if we voted for this, could we

23 put an amendment on it that says it can't be

24 any closer than a 10 setback from the edge



1 of the sub?

2 MS. KUDLA: You can say that, but then

3 if it went through the permit process and

4 they found that that was the only place they

5 would be coming back here asking for an

6 amendment on that.

7 MEMBER BURKE: But it could go farther

8 into the sub?

9 MS. KUDLA: Right.

10 MEMBER BURKE: They could probably

11 find somewhere farther into the sub?

12 MS. KUDLA: Right, right.

13 MEMBER BURKE: It would be just as

14 safe. Well, I do support your sign, but as

15 you have heard, there are some procedural

16 issues I think that needs to be taken care

17 of beforehand. Thank you.


19 Members?

20 I think I am going to echo the

21 sentiments of Member Shroyer. I really

22 think that he hit the nail on the head. We

23 have seen more and more cases recently where

24 I believe something like this is the case.



1 What happens is something might come before

2 us, maybe something that we don't object to

3 as a Board, but doesn't meet the strict

4 standard that we need to review as part of

5 the appeals process. Is it exceptional and

6 unique to the City of Novi? And as Member

7 Shroyer said, I have seen similar

8 situations. Will it unreasonably prevent or

9 limit the use of the property? In my eyes,

10 no, it won't. So, while I don't object to

11 the sign per se, I don't feel that it meets

12 our standards. And I think that the perfect

13 place for something like this is with the

14 Sign Ordinance Committee on City Council

15 Subcommittee. So, unfortunately at this

16 time I would be forced to deny based on the

17 standards that we have to review in the

18 appeals process based on case law.

19 However, I don't object to the need

20 for identification. I feel your pain in

21 that. So, other Board Members?

22 MEMBER BURKE: Motion to table? Is

23 that what we want? We're going to vote for

24 or against it? Mr. Shroyer asked that we



1 get some more input, so I make a motion to

2 table.


4 Whose doing what at this point? What action

5 are we waiting for?

6 MEMBER BURKE: Following Mr. Shroyer's

7 comments about some procedural taking place.

8 Getting some right-of-way permit to

9 ascertain an exact location of the sign.


11 we have got here is what comes first, egg or

12 the chicken. And you want a permit first

13 and then look at other things and I would

14 have thought that we need to know all the

15 facts relevant for ourselves including the

16 safety concern and the presence of the fire

17 hydrant before we decide whether this

18 variance should be granted or not. So, we

19 are back to square one. Any amount of

20 tabling is not going to resolve that issue.

21 The fact remains that they are in the

22 subdivision here, there are some homeowners

23 there. They need an identification of some

24 kind that this is a subdivision. And the



1 City has given them the permission to build

2 that subdivision. So, it is up to City and

3 it beholds on us and the City to take a

4 decision to tell them one way or the other

5 whether, yes, you can have a sign or you

6 can't have a sign. And if you can have a

7 sign that you make it contingent upon safety

8 approval for the presence of the fire

9 hydrant, et cetera, et cetera. Thank you.

10 MEMBER BAUER: I have one thing to

11 say.


13 MEMBER BAUER: North on Village Oaks

14 there is a separate area called Fairfield,

15 am I correct? Fairfield Farms?

16 MS. WORKING: I honestly don't know,

17 sir.

18 MEMBER BAUER: It is an extension of

19 Village Oaks but it has a separate name.

20 They have nothing, never had. And that's

21 over 30 years.

22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Is it possible

23 to direct the Engineering Department to

24 review this and give us their recommendation



1 without asking them to fully apply for the

2 right-of-way so they can give us some type

3 of determination on the location of the

4 sign?

5 MS. WORKING: Through the Chair.


7 MS. WORKING: The Community

8 Development Department did correspond with

9 the Engineering Department about this case

10 and because there are policies that require

11 applications to be filed and fees to be paid

12 for reviews to be done, the Petitioner was

13 given the option and he chose to stick with

14 the ZBA petition in the beginning. Many of

15 you are in homeowner associations, you know

16 the way you have to go back to your

17 homeowners association for approval of

18 expenditure of any kind of funds. So, they

19 thought that since they finally had gotten

20 the agreement for the approval of the $300

21 for their petition, that they would stick

22 with this direction for now and see where it

23 led.

24 Through the Chair, if the Board is so



1 inclined maybe knowing what the Petitioner

2 has heard tonight, maybe he would have

3 chosen differently. I can't speak on his

4 behalf. Just so that you know, there has

5 been information exchanged between the

6 Engineering Department and the Community

7 Development Department, but not a review

8 done because that requires an application

9 and a filing fee.


11 I am saying is that it's no longer the

12 Applicant asking or requesting the permit --

13 MS. WORKING: I will have to defer to

14 counsel.


16 Board should have the ability to ask the

17 City to provide services, and that's what

18 we're doing so we can make a correction

19 determination.

20 MS. KUDLA: But to go through a whole

21 what you mean as a right-of-way permit

22 review, I would not recommend stepping away

23 from anything that needs to be done in that

24 review just to limit the review for purposes



1 of what you need here today. So, I could

2 not recommend as the City Attorney that it

3 would be safe for the Engineering Department

4 to not go through all of the steps that it

5 needs to go through in order to issue a

6 right-of-way permit.

7 I guess what you are asking is to do a

8 right-of-way permit without any costs for

9 basis of the determination of this Board. I

10 can't recommend anything less than a full

11 right-of-way permit investigation.


13 recommend anything less even just to find a

14 location? A proposed or possible location?

15 MS. KUDLA: Are you talking about

16 possible locations or a proposed location?

17 Because once you pick your proposed location

18 it's still going to have to then go back to

19 the Engineering Department for the

20 right-of-way permit for that specific

21 location.

22 MEMBER BURKE: As part of what I want

23 to say I would like to retract my motion to

24 table. And nobody second it.




2 anyway.

3 MEMBER BURKE: Let me ask the

4 Applicant. Would you be willing, if we were

5 to table this, would you be willing to go

6 back to the City to get your right-of-way

7 permit so that we can establish a specific

8 location of the sign?


10 MEMBER BURKE: And then come back to

11 the ZBA with a specific location so that we

12 could either make a decision one way or

13 another on that?

14 MR. CATANZARO: Correct.

15 MEMBER BURKE: In that case, fellow

16 commissioners, I motion to table this so the

17 Applicant goes back and gets a right-of-way

18 permit to ascertain the exact location of

19 the requested sign.


21 motion.

22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Motion by Member

23 Burke and a second by Member Sanghvi. Any

24 further comment? Ms. Krieger?



1 MEMBER KRIEGER: That the two

2 homeowners have a discussion. Can we ask

3 for the parties involved?


5 wouldn't be a bad idea for the two parties

6 involved to discuss the proposed sign. But

7 I don't feel that it's proper to make that

8 part of the motion. But I think the Board,

9 we always obviously encourage people to talk

10 with their neighbors.

11 MEMBER BAUER: One of other things

12 that I think should be taken into

13 consideration and that is to live up to the

14 ordinance as far as size.

15 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I think that's

16 another comment that the Applicant can take

17 under advisement as they review the

18 right-of-way.

19 Any other comments? Member Ghannam?

20 MEMBER GHANNAM: I would just like to

21 amend the motion to add that before the

22 Applicant comes back to the ZBA that he gets

23 all applicable approvals such as

24 engineering, landscaping, whatever else is



1 required before he comes and get a final

2 decision. Because if one of them is not

3 approved, then he wouldn't be coming back

4 here anyway. It would be a wasted step.

5 So, whatever applicable requirements have to

6 be met prior to coming back to the ZBA.


8 tell us what those would include?

9 MR. BOULARD: Well, generally the

10 right-of-way permit is what's going to be

11 outstanding. Obviously the sign permit.

12 The ability to issue a sign permit would

13 depend on the decision here. But we are in

14 agreement, we will cover all the concerns

15 that you all had.


17 have a motion. Given that the right-of-way

18 seems to be the only outstanding issue, do

19 you still care to make that as an amendment

20 then?

21 MEMBER GHANNAM: No, if that's the

22 only thing that is being required and all

23 the investigation were to be encompassed in

24 that right-of-way permit, that would be the



1 only amendment to get a right-of-way permit.

2 I think it's only fair to the homeowners

3 nearby or whoever is on notice of this that

4 they know where the specific sign, potential

5 sign would go.


7 MR. BOULARD: Once the sign permit is

8 issued there is going be to a building

9 permit. The issue there is the construction

10 of the pole and the size of the footing.

11 Those are things that aren't going to have

12 any visual affect.

13 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Mr. Fox, did you

14 have you something to add?

15 MR. FOX: Through the Chair, for a

16 little bit of clarification. Based on what I

17 am reading in here, for what we are actually

18 trying to do, the Ordinance allows them to

19 have an entranceway sign, but it's required

20 to be a ground sign. What they are asking

21 for is a pole sign which is too tall to be

22 considered an entryway sign and it's mounted

23 on a pole. Those are the two things that

24 they are asking for a variance for. The



1 location is always taken care of through the

2 right-of-way permit. They are allowed to

3 have a sign. They can put the sign in there

4 as long as it is in the right-of-way

5 somewhere and the right-of-way department

6 approves it. But the fact that it's a pole

7 mounted sign and that it's more than five

8 feet tall is the reason it's here. That's

9 the main reason that we're sitting here.


11 Staff's comments it says that the entrance

12 does not have access to a location for a

13 ground sign as required by Ordinance.

14 MS. WORKING: I believe that to be a

15 correct statement.

16 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I am going based

17 off of that comment.

18 MS. WORKING: Most entranceway signs

19 are located in a boulevard or on a parcel of

20 land. I believe, and maybe the Petitioner

21 can clarify that this pole sign is proposed

22 to be put on a homeowner's parcel of land,

23 not like a homeowner's association owned

24 piece of property.



1 MR. FOX: And it is going to be less

2 than 10 feet from the edge of the

3 right-of-way which is one of the

4 requirements. It's got to be in the

5 right-of-way, but less than 10 feet from the

6 border of the right-of-way, which this would

7 not be in this particular case. But as far

8 as back and forth in that right-of-way, up

9 and down the street, I mean, other than the

10 fact that there is an issue with the hydrant

11 there, that needs to be resolved. I just

12 want to be clear on as far as what the main

13 reason was for it to be here. It's not the

14 fact that they are not allowed to have a

15 sign at all, it's just the type of sign they

16 are asking for.


18 still given the circumstances regarding

19 exceptional unique piece of property that we

20 have, I would still like to see the location

21 I think is going to be important.

22 Are there any other comments?

23 MS. WORKING: One more through the

24 Chair if you all don't mind. I also believe



1 that conversation has occurred between the

2 Engineering Department and the Petitioner

3 over a period of time. And at one time it

4 was recommended by the City Engineering

5 Department that they look at a break-away

6 pole type sign rather than a ground sign and

7 that's how they have come to this point

8 today after discussing it with the other

9 homeowners in their cul-de-sac community.

10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: And I think that

11 might be important information for the

12 Applicant to submit the next time this comes

13 before us.

14 There is a motion by Member Burke and

15 a second by Member Sanghvi. No amendments

16 were added. So, I will ask Ms. Working to

17 call the roll.

18 MEMBER GHANNAM: Actually, I had an

19 amendment that they go through the process

20 of the Engineering Department regarding the

21 right-of-way to find out where the location

22 is.


24 are tabling it to begin with.



1 MEMBER BURKE: That's part of the

2 motion.

3 MS. WORKING: Motion to table?


5 MS. WORKING: Member Burke?


7 MS. WORKING: Motion to table. Member

8 Sanghvi?


10 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer?


12 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?


14 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer?


16 MS. WORKING: Member Ghannam?


18 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?


20 MS. WORKING: Motion to table passes

21 7-1.

22 MR. CATANZARO: Thank you very much.

23 MS. WORKING: Oh, 7-0, I apologize.




1 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: At this time we

2 call the last case number under New

3 Business. Case Number: 08-053 filed Pat

4 Cavanaugh of Shannon Development LLC for

5 Stoneridge Office Park located on parcel

6 50-22-10-452-001. The Applicant is

7 requesting one sign variance for continued

8 placement of an 8 foot 6 inch by 7 foot 6

9 inch, sixty-four square foot construction

10 identification sign originally approved on

11 12-8-06 located on the stated parcel. The

12 project received its first C of O on August

13 5, 2008. The property is zoned OS-1 and is

14 located west of Novi Road and north of

15 Twelve Mile Road.

16 You are the Petitioner?

17 MR. CAVANAUGH: I'm Shawn (ph)

18 Cavanaugh for Shannon Development.

19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All right, would

20 you raise your hand and be sworn in by our

21 Secretary.

22 MEMBER KRIEGER: Do you swear or

23 affirm in this case: 08-053 to tell the

24 truth in this case?




2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: State your name

3 and address and proceed.

4 MR. CAVANAUGH: Shawn Cavanaugh, 640

5 North Old Woodward in Birmingham. We are

6 respectfully requesting a six month

7 extension to the sign permit for the

8 following reasons. The sign is a key

9 reference point for identifying the project

10 which still has a substantial amount of

11 construction to be completed. We have three

12 buildings completed. It's a seven building

13 project. One of which the TCO was awarded

14 to.

15 We have also, as an office condominium

16 project we seek to have project and owner

17 identification signage. We are in the

18 process of submitting a plan for a permanent

19 monument sign. We have met with Alan

20 Amolsch. Apparently the sign is presenting

21 its own set of challenges, so we will

22 apparently need to come before the Zoning

23 Board to address those issues as well. We

24 expect to that have submitted within 30



1 days. So, in conclusion we are respectfully

2 requesting an extension.


4 will pass the file to the Secretary and ask

5 her to read any correspondence for us

6 tonight.

7 MEMBER KRIEGER: In this case:

8 08-053, 121 notices were mailed and zero

9 responses.

10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Is there anyone

11 in the audience that wishes to make a

12 comment on this case, please come forward.

13 You will be sworn in by our Secretary,

14 please.

15 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number:

16 08-053 do you swear or affirm to tell the

17 truth in this case?

18 MR. HERTZBERG (ph): Yes.

19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: State your name

20 and address.

21 MR. HERTZBERG: My name is Michael

22 Hertzberg. We are the recipients of

23 documents of August 5th. We have no issue

24 with the sign remaining in place as long as



1 it's not used as a crutch to further delay

2 in getting a monument sign at the site. We

3 are a medical office in there. We have

4 patients every day complaining they cannot

5 find us because there is no sign on the

6 road.

7 The sign that's there obviously is a

8 nice size sign, however, it's kind of off to

9 the side of the property and it's not very

10 visible from the road. We have concern

11 about emergency crews finding us in case of

12 an emergency.

13 There was a real estate sign. I

14 believe it's 3 by 5 foot, if I am not

15 mistaken, just past the entry driveway to

16 the property. It's very difficult to see.

17 The writing is small because there is a lot

18 of writing on it. It does have our address

19 on that for our one building, but, again, it

20 is difficult to see unless you know what you

21 to look for you don't see it. We have been

22 there for just over two months now and it's

23 something that we are dealing with on a

24 daily basis. We have no issue with the



1 construction sign staying, we just want

2 something added to it, so I would ask that

3 if you guys do approve it, to put a time

4 mandate on it when we could get a monument

5 sign. If that's something that possibly you

6 guys can do.


8 it's in our purview to mandate a monument

9 sign, we can place a time limit, and we

10 often do with these cases on this sign,

11 which might further that cause. Correct me

12 if I'm wrong?

13 MS. KUDLA: That's correct.


15 other comments from anyone in the audience?

16 Seeing none, I will close that portion and

17 turn it over to the Community Development

18 Department. Mr. Boulard?

19 MR. BOULARD: I just have one question

20 for the Petitioner for the sake of the

21 record. The existing sign doesn't appear to

22 located on your plan. Can you tell us

23 roughly where it is along the frontage?

24 MR. CAVANAUGH: It's to the east side



1 of the site. That's the picture, I guess.

2 Yours is a little better than mine.

3 MR. BOULARD: Somewhere behind

4 Building G, is that roughly where it is?


6 it on the overhead for us too.

7 MR. BOULARD: I am just trying to

8 match that picture to the site.

9 MR. CAVANAUGH: It's to the eastern

10 boarder of the site where the stone wall is.

11 It would be behind where you see Building D.

12 MR. BOULARD: Building B is the

13 building that's straight ahead when you come

14 in the drive?


16 MR. CAVANAUGH: G is the first

17 building when you come in the drive. The

18 building is to be constructed which would be

19 to the right of the driveway.

20 MS. WORKING: Could you just show the

21 Board on this item where it is?

22 MR. CAVANAUGH: Thank you. This is

23 approximately where the sign is.




1 other comments from our friends over on the

2 other end of the table there?

3 Seeing none, I will turn it over for

4 Board discussion. Member Bauer?

5 MEMBER BAUER: You are asking for six

6 months?

7 MR. CAVANAUGH: We chose six months

8 based on the thought that a month is really

9 actually only like 20 days. We don't intend

10 to take six months.

11 MEMBER BAUER: I was going to say.

12 You are going to be working in the

13 wintertime?

14 MR. CAVANAUGH: No, sir. We wanted to

15 give ourselves some room. We intend to

16 submit the proposal for the monument sign

17 within 30 days.


19 were two violations for continued use of

20 this sign; is that correct?

21 MS. WORKING: That is correct.

22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: And a citation?

23 MS. WORKING: That is correct. The

24 Petitioner's case has been postponed pending



1 the ZBA case tonight.


3 back from the --

4 MS. WORKING: He will still have to go

5 back and prove that he did go to the Board

6 to remedy the situation.


8 piece of clarification. I did my math and

9 it was a little under 64 square feet which

10 is allowed under construction identification

11 signs. Right now we are looking at this

12 because of the City code; is that correct?

13 Is that my understanding?

14 MS. WORKING: Correct.


16 don't see issues with a six month extension

17 at this time. I will entertain a motion if

18 someone cares to make it or have any other

19 comments. Member Shroyer?

20 MEMBER SHROYER: I have a comment and

21 I can go ahead and make a motion. First

22 comment I know that you had indicated that

23 the permanent sign is going to be problem.

24 I am going to encourage the Applicant to put



1 together the request for the permit to try

2 your hardest to stay within City Ordinance

3 requirements.

4 MR. CAVANAUGH: We certainly are.

5 That's why we are assessing it with Mr.

6 Amolsch.

7 MEMBER SHROYER: He's the expert so

8 heed his warnings.

9 In case number: 08-053 Stoneridge

10 Office Center, move to approve the variance

11 requested. The unique circumstances of the

12 development of this project, that's item

13 one. Item two, this situation does not

14 result from conditions that exist generally

15 in the city or that are self created.

16 Three, due to the current economy, the

17 failure to grant relief would unreasonably

18 prevent or limit the use of the property.

19 And, four, to grant relief will not result

20 in the use of the structure that's

21 incompatible with or unreasonably interferes

22 with adjacent and surrounding properties.

23 Conditions of approval include the

24 variance shall be for a maximum of six



1 months and the submittal of a sign package

2 for permanent approval be submitted to the

3 City within, you said 30 days, I am going to

4 give you 45 days.



7 a friendly amendment that the inclusion of

8 economic factors, we also took into

9 consideration that this sign is of a

10 temporary nature combined with that as

11 opposed to permanent signs for economic

12 reasons.

13 MEMBER SHROYER: Certainly.


15 concurs?



18 other comments? Seeing none, Ms. Working,

19 will you please call the roll for the motion

20 made by Member Shroyer and seconded by

21 Member Bauer.

22 MS. WORKING: Thank you. Member

23 Shroyer?




1 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?


3 MS. WORKING: Member Burke?


5 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer?


7 MS. WORKING: Member Ghannam?


9 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?


11 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


13 MS. WORKING: Motion to approve passes

14 7-0.

15 MR. CAVANAUGH: Thank you very much.


17 was granted with some conditions. So, make

18 sure you meet those and call the City with

19 any questions and best of luck to you guys.


21 At this time we will go ahead and

22 discuss the Rules of Procedure which were

23 given to us. I will turn it over to the

24 City Attorney to make any comments that she



1 wishes to make at this time.

2 MS. KUDLA: I don't have anything

3 substantively additional to add. I just

4 made the minor changes that we discussed at

5 the last meeting which was to indicate that

6 there would be one alternate member and that

7 we would continue in the same manner that we

8 have been. And that alternate member can

9 participate in Board consideration up until

10 the point of voting. That isn't the case

11 when they not sitting in for a regular

12 member.


14 Members have any comments? Member Sanghvi?


16 Mr. Chair. I just would like to thank all

17 the parties concerned in coming to a very

18 nice document to look at and hopefully we

19 will be approving tonight.

20 And if there is not going to be a lot

21 of discussion I would like to make a motion

22 to approve the rules as presented and

23 corrected, hoping that it will iron out a

24 lot of the little kinks and help us run the



1 Board very smoothly from now on. Thank you.



4 There is a second by Member Ghannam at this

5 time.

6 I will ask for any other comments.

7 Member Shroyer?

8 MEMBER SHROYER: I have several that I

9 think bear discussion. One is just a

10 clerical or typographical error I believe on

11 Article 5 under Motions, Section 5.1, page

12 6. Instead of it being Section 5.1, I

13 believe that should be Section 5.0 because

14 that is the first one.

15 Also, on that page right above that

16 4.1, Vacancy in Office, the last sentence it

17 says: From any regular member of the Board

18 other than the alternate member. I think we

19 ought to include and the PC representative

20 as well.

21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I will turn it

22 over to the attorney for response. My

23 understanding would be that this document

24 kind of refers to the Planning Commission



1 member as a second member, as its own

2 separate member by himself or herself as in,

3 in and of itself as opposed to -- he is not

4 a regular member basically to me.


6 special member.

7 MEMBER BURKE: Don't hold anything

8 back either.


10 higher on the pedestal, Mr. Burke.

11 MS. KUDLA: Technically he would be a

12 regular member, though we haven't made any

13 really distinction between his position and

14 how that would be any way different than

15 other regular members, which it really only

16 differs in that he has to recuse himself on

17 matters that he has voted on from Planning

18 Commission perspective. But generally he

19 would be a regular member.

20 MEMBER GHANNAM: But can he be an

21 officer?

22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I think more or

23 less the Board has talked about it and we

24 don't want that person to be.



1 MEMBER GHANNAM: Correct. So, you

2 wouldn't include it?

3 MS. KUDLA: I don't see why he

4 couldn't be, but it would be up to you

5 whether or not.


7 general consensus when we met in the back

8 room is that we don't think it would be

9 appropriate given the short-term nature.

10 Usually they are a newer member to the

11 Board, et cetera, so we just felt that this

12 should be people that are just appointed.

13 Not to mention the fact that they have a

14 busy schedule with the three meetings a

15 month that they unfortunately have to bear

16 as well.


18 withstanding their exceptional ability and

19 expertise, we have decided to give them a

20 way out of it.


22 Wrobel hadn't.

23 MEMBER SHROYER: Our officer elections

24 are in February by Ordinance, and they



1 select their candidate in June. It doesn't

2 really match up. Which brings me back to

3 Section 2 under Membership. Do we want to

4 leave it the saying, the Board consist of

5 seven regular members and one alternate

6 member approved by Council? And it goes on

7 and says, one member shall also be a member

8 of the Planning Commission. Or would we

9 want to change that to six regular members,

10 and then also, an additional member shall be

11 selected to comply with the commission?

12 MS. KUDLA: Well, I think when you go

13 to the Zoning Enabling Act, you are going to

14 have to designate this person from the

15 Planning Commission as a regular member.

16 That's how they are designated under the

17 Zoning Enabling Act.


19 Section 2, but we still want the change to

20 the other section, the vacancy.

21 MEMBER SHROYER: And the last comment

22 that I have here, I believe, let me double

23 check, is on page 4 where we talk about 2.3,

24 Alternate Member. And it talks about the



1 second to the last sentence, however, the

2 alternate member may vote only in the

3 absence or recusal of a regular member.

4 That is fine then because that means if a

5 Planning Commission member is not present he

6 could act on behalf of the Planning

7 Commission member as well, correct? So

8 nothing needs to be done there either?

9 MS. KUDLA: Nothing needs to be done

10 there.

11 MEMBER SHROYER: Those are the only

12 comments that I have, Mr. Chair.

13 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: So, we have an

14 suggested amendment to Section 5.1 to make

15 it 5.0. And we also have Section 4.1

16 stating that no Planning Commission member

17 shall serve in the absence.


19 consider it to be an elected position.


21 MS. KUDLA: Would you like me to make

22 that a Section 4.2?


24 feel is appropriate we'll take your advice.



1 MS. KUDLA: Okay.


3 with that?

4 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. We should be

5 able to approve it just based on that?


7 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.


9 comments? So, we have a motion and a

10 second. And now Member Shroyer has

11 suggested amendments, do you --


13 accept the amendments.

14 MEMBER GHANNAM: I'll second that

15 also.

16 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Seconder accepts

17 as well. Any further discussion? Seeing

18 none, Ms. Working, will you please call the

19 roll on the approval of the Rules of

20 Procedure as amended.

21 MS. WORKING: It's with pleasure that

22 I ask for this vote.

23 Member Sanghvi?




1 MS. WORKING: Member Ghannam?


3 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?


5 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer?

6 MEMBER SHROYER: Most assuredly.

7 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?


9 MS. WORKING: Member Burke?


11 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer?

12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: An emphatic yes.

13 Aye as well.

14 MS. WORKING: It gives me great

15 pleasure to say that the Rules of Procedure

16 are approved 7-0.


18 road but I appreciate everyone's effort on

19 this. I think that we all put in a lot of

20 work even including previous members, Member

21 Canup helped us out, Linda, myself. Then

22 the subcommittee started doing it, then we

23 all got together. It was a great

24 compromise, good discussions that we had in



1 special meetings. I certainly appreciate

2 everybody's hard work on this.

3 And with that seeing no other business

4 before the Zoning Board I will entertain a

5 motion to adjourn.



8 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All in favor say

9 aye?



12 Seeing none, we are adjourned.

13 (The meeting was adjourned at

14 8:34 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 (78) typewritten pages, is a

11 true and correct transcript of my said

12 stenographic notes.






18 _____________________________

19 Mona L. Talton,

20 Certified Shorthand Reporter


22 October 23, 2008