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, Wednesday, November 12, 2008.

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

Christian Fox, Community Development Liaison
Thomas Schultz, City Attorney
Alan Amolsch, Ordinance Enforcement
Charles Boulard, Building Official
Barbara McBeth, Deputy Community Development Director
Robin Working, ZBA Recording Secretary

Mona L. Talton, Certified Shorthand Reporter.

1 Novi, Michigan

2 Wednesday, November 12, 2008

3 7:00 p.m.

4 - - - - - -



7 would like to call to order the Wednesday,

8 November 12th, 2008 City of Novi Zoning

9 Board of Appeals meeting.

10 Ms. Working, would you please call the

11 roll for us.

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: Member Ibe?

3 MEMBER IBE: Present.

4 MS. WORKING: All present, Mr. Chair.


6 would ask my Vice Chair to go ahead and lead

7 us in a pledge of allegiance.

8 BOARD MEMBERS: I pledge allegiance to

9 the flag of the United States of America and

10 to the Republic for which it stands, one

11 nation under God indivisible with liberty

12 and justice for all.


14 Vice-Chair Sanghvi.

15 I would like to point out in the back

16 of the room there should be a copy of the

17 rules and the procedure for the Zoning Board

18 of Appeals. I would like to call attention

19 to two of the main rules. First of all, if

20 everyone could make sure that they turn off

21 or at least put on vibrate all of their cell

22 phones and pagers.

23 I would like to let you know that

24 tonight we will, and in any case we will



1 hold individuals to address the Board, they

2 have five minutes to do so. Groups have ten

3 minutes to address the Board if they are

4 speaking on behalf of, an individual

5 speaking on behalf of a whole group has ten

6 minutes to speak.

7 The Zoning Board of Appeal 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 request and a

13 vote of a majority present to deny a

14 variance request. Tonight we do have a full

15 board so any decisions made will be final.

16 Looking at our agenda, are there any

17 changes to our agenda tonight?

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

19 to please add under approval of minutes, the

20 minutes for the October 5th, Zoning Board of

21 Appeals hearing.

22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It was the 14th?

23 MS. WORKING: October 14th.




1 MS. WORKING: And under Other Matters,

2 if it pleases the Board under number 4, the

3 Rules of Procedure.

4 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Is that going to

5 be a discussion? Or is there a little bit

6 to tell us about?

7 MS. WORKING: I believe last meeting,

8 Mr. Chair, there were a couple of minor

9 changes to the rules and I do not believe

10 there was a vote to approve -- to codify

11 them.


13 about when we get to that. Any other

14 changes or is there a motion to approve as

15 amended?



18 second?

19 MEMBER BAUER: Second.


21 motion by Member Sanghvi and a second by

22 Member Bauer.

23 All in favor say aye?





2 Seeing none, we have an agenda.

3 We'll move to the approval of the

4 minutes from the September 9th, 2008 Zoning

5 Board of Appeals meeting. Are there any

6 changes? Member Sanghvi?


8 things I noticed. One for the September,

9 we'll take September first. And on page 108

10 line 18, it says: I think you are requiring

11 the new members to participate. It should

12 be excluding by changing the date of the

13 election. If you remember the discussion we

14 had.

15 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Oh, excluding.

16 Page 108, line 18. Requiring should be

17 changed to excluding?



20 changes?


22 October --


24 September first. Is there a motion to



1 approve as amended?

2 MEMBER BAUER: Approve as amended.


4 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: There is motion

5 by Member Bauer and a second by Member

6 Sanghvi.

7 All in favor say aye?



10 Seeing none, the minutes are approved as

11 amended.

12 And move to October 14th, 2008

13 minutes. Member Sanghvi?


15 line 10 where it says: Is there a safety,

16 and there it says unintelligible. It should

17 be changed to hazard.


19 line 10, unintelligible should be changed to

20 hazard.

21 Any other changes? Is there motion to

22 approve as amended?

23 MEMBER BAUER: So approved.





2 motion to approve as amended by Member Bauer

3 and a second by Member Sanghvi. All in

4 favor say aye?



7 Seeing, none, the October 14th minutes are

8 approved as amended.

9 At this time I will go ahead and move

10 to the public remarks section of the Zoning

11 Board of Appeals meeting. This is a public

12 remarks portion where anyone in the audience

13 may make a comment. Any comments relating

14 to a case on the agenda should be held to

15 that case being called. So if anyone wishes

16 at this time to address the Board on a

17 matter not in front of the Board tonight,

18 please come forward. Seeing none, we will

19 close the public remarks section of the

20 meeting.


22 And we will go ahead and call

23 case number: 08-054 filed by the Manyam

24 Group, LLC, for the property located at



1 26233 Taft Road. The petitioner is

2 requesting it appears to be seven height

3 variances and then an accessory structure

4 height variance, dumpster located in the

5 side yard as well as a parking variance.

6 MEMBER BURKE: Mr. Chair, I need to

7 interrupt you just for a second. Seeing as

8 I sat on the Planning Commission on this

9 item I need to recuse myself. Do I have to

10 make a motion to that affect?

11 MEMBER IBE: So moved.



14 motion to recuse Member Burke by Member

15 Bauer and there is a second by Member

16 Shroyer. All in favor say aye?



19 second by Member Ibe.

20 MEMBER SHROYER: Before you go to the

21 vote I believe Mr. Schultz might have a

22 comment.

23 MR. SCHULTZ: No, I'm fine. Thank you

24 very much.




2 motion. All in favor say aye?



5 Seeing none. Mr. Burke, we will see you in

6 a bit.

7 And you are here to represent the

8 Petitioner?

9 MR. AMANN: I am, Mr. Chairman. My

10 name is Bryan Amann. I am the attorney on

11 behalf of the Petitioner. I have given my

12 card with the address to the stenographer so

13 she won't have to figure out how to spell

14 that name.


16 everyone knows, since you are an attorney we

17 won't need to swear you in for this case,

18 but I am sure you will be happy to tell the

19 truth anyway.

20 MR. AMANN: I never understood why

21 they don't swear in the attorneys but

22 everybody else.


24 understood it either. The least reliable



1 people in the world.


3 that, but anyway.


5 by them.

6 (Interposing)(Unintelligible).


8 myself into any more trouble, please

9 proceed.

10 MR. AMANN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let

11 me indicate what is the ninth item, the

12 variance we are referring to regarding the

13 dumpster, we are no longer seeking. We have

14 essentially found a way to move the dumpster

15 to the rear of the building pursuant to our

16 report with the Planning Commission --

17 Barbara is shaking her head no at me. And

18 we still need that variance.

19 Okay, late changing news, we still

20 need that variance. We will get to that at

21 a later time.

22 Mr. Chairman, I will briefly address a

23 quick introduction of project and I will get

24 the architect to kind of walk through each



1 individual item. First, we appreciate the

2 time and effort you have been putting in

3 this effort. We have worked greatly with

4 your staff and the administration and the

5 Planning Commission up to this point and we

6 appreciate the time put into that.

7 This project, if you have received

8 this part of your packet, this package which

9 actually refers to the preliminary site

10 plan, those elements. Unless you could not

11 sleep at night I would not expect you to

12 read line by line on this item, but you will

13 find in this a reference to the fundamental

14 design of this project.

15 This was established pursuant to a

16 practice known as Vastu. And, in fact, the

17 practice that many of you know as Fung Shway

18 comes out of this practice of Vastu. It

19 dates back to the 1300s and it really is

20 based in the 2000-year-old principles of

21 what is known as the Vastus, the scriptural

22 principles which support this religion and

23 this practice. It aligns a prescriptive

24 relationship between certain elements of the



1 designs in the building. And those elements

2 that we are here to talk to you tonight is

3 the heights of certain features are of those

4 elements that are under this Vastu approach

5 are prescriptively designed and it took 12

6 months with the architect to try to make

7 sure the building, its features and all the

8 other elements including where the windows

9 are, the number of windows and all those

10 items are part of this religious basis of

11 this Vastu principle that they may apply.

12 Material to, reflective of their religious

13 objectives. We will go through those

14 individual features.

15 But I think some of the good news that

16 we are really here on what I deal with a lot

17 of other communities which are essentially

18 architectural features. We are not seeking

19 wholesale dimension variances or wholesale

20 variances that allow a whole wall to be a

21 lot taller than others. These are

22 architectural features which are essentially

23 key to their religious practice under the

24 Vastus principle. So, with that I am going



1 to bring Praveen Manyam, the architect to

2 explain each item to you in detail you so he

3 can point out exactly what we are talking

4 about.

5 MR. MANYAM: Thank you. My name is

6 Praveen Manyam.


8 attorney as well?



11 you would please raise your hand and be

12 sworn in by our Secretary.

13 MR. MANYAM: Okay.

14 MEMBER KRIEGER: Do you swear or

15 affirm in this case number: 08-054 to tell

16 the truth in this case?

17 MR. MANYAM: I do.

18 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you.

19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: State your name

20 and address and then go ahead and proceed

21 with your presentation.

22 MR. MANYAM: I am Praveen Manyam of

23 Frankenmuth, Michigan. I am an architect.

24 I represent the design profession on this



1 project. I would just like to explain a

2 little bit about the variances that we are

3 seeking for this project.

4 I will start with the height

5 variances. Some of these variances actually

6 I will deal with one particular building.

7 It's a three phase project. Three buildings

8 there. One particular building is the

9 temple building that is part of the phase

10 two on this project. The height variances

11 that we are seeking, first one is this

12 building, this structure right here, the

13 Maha Rajagopuram. This is essentially the

14 entrance gateway to the building. All of

15 these design features on this building are

16 derived out of the necessities dealing with

17 the temple itself. They are not there for

18 pretty decorations. Hindu temple is an

19 authenticate Hindu temple in India and the

20 carving on the building. And each carving

21 is a unique carving. And every temple is

22 different carving and so forth.

23 So, what we are putting together here

24 is an emulation of an authentic building



1 found in India. Most specifically the

2 southern regions of India. This is the

3 entrance gateway and we're basically looking

4 for two feet, four and a half inches

5 variance for this structure. It's a strict

6 proportional entity. And you can see by the

7 drawing there that it's the wider bands at

8 the bottom and they taper up to the smaller

9 bands toward the top. It's completely

10 derived out of mathematics and it wasn't

11 something where we were able to just shorten

12 it this way or that way emulating the

13 authenticity of this structure.

14 Another couple of variances that we

15 are looking at from a height perspective is

16 behind the structure there is -- let me pull

17 this sheet up a little bit. Now, I am

18 showing you the north elevation of this

19 building. The entrance gateway we are

20 talking about earlier is right here.

21 Toward the front of the building we

22 are talking about the entry point. And

23 these elements here, we are looking for a

24 variance of one and a half feet. Also, same



1 thing, this is the actual building itself.

2 We are marking the actual entry points of

3 this building. It's part of the process of

4 extension to the prayer hall space and it's

5 something where the doors itself on the

6 building are not standard doors. We are

7 talking greater than 10 feet height doors

8 and really magnificent large doors.

9 In proportion with the entire

10 entrance perspective of the building, we are

11 seeking this variance for these elements

12 that compliment the entry points of the

13 building. Towards the rear of the building

14 there are three, essentially three items

15 here that stand out quite tall. This

16 element here is the tallest variance that we

17 are seeking. It's 55' 1" in height, so we

18 are asking for a variance of 20' 1".

19 I will show you a section that

20 essentially this, that piece that we're

21 talking about right here, it's purely a

22 decorative piece and this space that lies

23 under that piece is a very sacred space.

24 This is a space where the general public



1 will actually not be allowed to enter this

2 space. This is essentially the markings of

3 that space.

4 In this temple configuration there

5 will be three such spaces like that and

6 that's what these three elements represent

7 in this structure here. The brass pole over

8 here is also part of the process of entering

9 the temple building. Once you pass this

10 brass pole you have not entered the prayer

11 hall space yet. It's really the last point

12 that you pass before you enter the prayer

13 hall space. This has a definite symmetry to

14 the tallest point of the back of the

15 building to that sacred place that I showed

16 you.

17 They are both 55' 1" in height and it

18 simulates with one another. It's

19 essentially those two elements are meant to

20 be in symmetry with each other and they are

21 on center on access with the center of that

22 sacred space there. Those are, I believe

23 those are the height variances that we are

24 seeking.



1 The other, there is one

2 more height variance that we are seeking

3 that deals with the roof top units. Right

4 here we are seeking a variance on the height

5 vertical for a 7 foot variance for a 42 foot

6 high structure above the building here.

7 What we have done here is that we are

8 enclosing the mechanical equipment in order

9 to ensure that there is no sound, outdoor

10 noise situations on this property being that

11 we have residential neighbors essentially

12 all over the property lines, so we will be

13 using acoustic material inside that

14 structure there.

15 In order to get a service technician

16 in and so forth, we needed to have the

17 height implications that we are presenting

18 here. We have lowered the height of the

19 prayer hall space that falls underneath that

20 to try to reduce the overall height of that

21 space but still with the serviceability

22 implications and so forth, we needed it to

23 be -- the best we could do was 42 feet on

24 that structure there.



1 Then another variance that we are

2 seeking is the refuge bin. Essentially we

3 were looking at the refuse bin, we were

4 looking at the three buildings as

5 essentially as main buildings. So we were

6 initially looking at moving the dumpster

7 behind the cultural center building. I will

8 show the site perspective. I will show you

9 the road just to get some perspective. The

10 road is essentially on the right edge of the

11 screen there. The cultural center is this

12 building right here up front. The temple

13 building that we are talking about is right

14 here. So, we do have a refuge bin behind

15 this temple building. But we are looking

16 for another refuge bin for this cultural

17 center building that is something more

18 relative to this building.

19 Essentially for the Planning

20 Commission we did put it on the side of this

21 building and what we were looking at is that

22 this won't be an accessory building, so we

23 were looking at moving this dumpster to

24 somewhere behind the cultural center



1 building and not requesting a variance.

2 Essentially anywhere we put it here will be

3 a side yard, so we are requesting a variance

4 for putting the dumpster. We would be happy

5 to move it from this location and put it

6 somewhere else which we could work with the

7 Community Development Department on that,

8 but we would be looking for a variance to

9 put it anywhere here, before this temple

10 building.

11 And then the last

12 variance that we are seeking is the parking

13 variance. We presented a plan that provides

14 272 spaces for parking for this development.

15 From the calculations at the Planning

16 Commission, we determined that the main use

17 building, the temple building has two, we

18 were going to determine the parking based on

19 the main use building. The temple building

20 has a prayer hall on the upper floor and a

21 multi purpose room on the lower floor.

22 The prayer hall is determined that it

23 would need 194 parking spaces. The multi

24 purpose room it was determined that it would



1 require 112 parking spaces. So the total

2 for that would be a requirement of 306

3 parking spaces. We have provided 272

4 parking spaces, so we are requesting

5 variance for 112 parking spaces.

6 In support of that variance one, we

7 wanted to mention that the prayer hall and

8 the multi purpose room are not meant to be

9 simultaneous activity spaces. The prayer

10 hall space itself in terms of maximum

11 capacity is a totally separate use from the

12 multi purpose room and we can't even

13 conceive of a situation where we would want

14 to be having such an event in the prayer

15 hall and let people be in the multi purpose

16 room.

17 But barring that, we do have

18 contingency plans. One is an overflow

19 parking agreement we do have with Miracle

20 Software which is a property located on

21 Grand River not far from here. And we do

22 have a letter of agreement for that. Also

23 we do have, we do have someone representing

24 Miracle Software here as well to verify that



1 request of that.

2 So, those are essentially the

3 variances that we are seeking and I will

4 turn it over to Bryan.


6 MR. AMANN: Just to wrap up very

7 quickly. I think it's important to point

8 out when we were at the Planning Commission,

9 although we had certain neighbors concerned

10 and things like that, we were really pleased

11 at the general appreciation and expression

12 and support of the beauty and the splendor

13 of the buildings. These buildings have a

14 certain look and it's very expensive

15 exterior finishes. So we think that will be

16 reflective.

17 Also, this building is essentially at

18 its closest is 27 feet away from the nearest

19 resident. So, although we are seeking

20 certain variances on certain heights, when

21 you look at it as relationship to actual

22 setbacks from other residents, the potential

23 impact of that is certainly minimized if

24 non-existent.



1 With that for one final closing point

2 I want to bring up Anand Gangadharan who his

3 going to represent the actual temple itself.

4 He just has one comment and then we are

5 prepared to answer any questions or hear any



8 evening, and are you an attorney?

9 MR. GANGADHARAN: Not I am not.


11 please be sworn in as well.

12 MEMBER KRIEGER: Do you swear or

13 affirm in case number: 08-054 to tell the

14 truth in this case?

15 MR. GANGADHARAN: Yes. Again, we

16 appreciate on behalf of the Sri Venkateswara

17 Temple and Cultural Center. I just want to

18 state that the variances requested are very

19 much a part of religious practice. It is

20 part of the Hindu basis of why and how a

21 temple is constructed. And fundamentally we

22 appreciate your consideration of our request

23 here. If there are any questions I am happy

24 to answer. That's all. Thank you.




2 Amann?

3 MR. AMANN: We are all set, thank you,

4 Mr. Chairman.

5 MR. MANYAM: I have a bunch here a

6 letters from various members in the

7 community that are in support of this

8 project.


10 receive those prior to?

11 MS. WORKING: I have not received

12 them, no.

13 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Can we go ahead

14 and get those to you and you can make a copy

15 of them as part of the case?

16 MS. WORKING: Absolutely.

17 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: You can go ahead

18 and bring them to the Board. I don't seem

19 to have the case file for this case. At

20 this point in the meeting we normally go

21 ahead and read all the correspondence into

22 the case prior to letting the audience make

23 their comments, unfortunately I am missing

24 the file, so if you would bear with us for a



1 few moments while Robin helps me out I would

2 greatly appreciate it.

3 Madam Secretary, if you will please go

4 ahead and read the correspondence into the

5 record, I would appreciate it.

6 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number:

7 08-054, 32 notices were mailed. One

8 response, and it is, Dear Board Members.

9 The purpose of this letter is to object to

10 the approval of the variances to construct

11 the proposed cultural center. My objection

12 is based on the following reasons: One, to

13 build the proposed -- I don't want to say it

14 or I am going to miss it up -- Sri Ven --


16 Venkateswara Temple.

17 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you. And

18 cultural center requires approval of too

19 many variances. To approve all those

20 variances makes a mockery of the building

21 ordinances of the City of Novi.

22 Two, the size of the parcel does not

23 provide enough spaces to accommodate so many

24 parking spaces. Reducing the size of the



1 building to 21,823 square feet is not

2 enough. It does not reduce the number of

3 people who will come for major celebrations

4 and banquets.

5 Three, discharging more water into the

6 back of Andes Hills will increase the storm

7 water problem we currently face with the

8 storm water from the commercial buildings of

9 the north.

10 Four, the parcel is too small to the

11 proportion of the proposed cultural center.

12 According to web page of this project, the

13 temple is expecting to serve a membership of

14 over 3,000 families and the cultural center

15 expects to have over 1,000 persons seating

16 down at one time.

17 The web page also indicates that the

18 temple and cultural center will be the place

19 to celebrate weddings, birthdays,

20 graduations and other important occasions.

21 It is reasonable and realistic to anticipate

22 that the temple and cultural center will be

23 used at the same time as a gathering place

24 for thousands of people. Perhaps over 3,000



1 families who will come to worship and

2 celebrate their cultural practices.

3 The web page also indicates that the

4 cultural center will be the place where

5 medical and legal help will be offered by

6 willing specialists in their respective

7 fields for our community.

8 Are the medical and legal services

9 free or will there be a minimum charge? In

10 either case many people will come for the

11 services all the time. The community center

12 will be considered as a re-configurable

13 space focused on 1,000 persons seating

14 weddings, multi-purpose classroom and

15 recreational activities. Premium banquet

16 hall with all (unintelligible) for an Indian

17 wedding. To me this use of the cultural

18 center sounds like a commercial hall. The

19 traffic and commotion of the area will be

20 inevitable.

21 This number of people will arrive in

22 more than 287 cars, therefore, people will

23 have to park all over the neighborhood

24 creating too much commotion. The



1 disturbance will negatively impact in the

2 peace and value of the properties around.

3 Thank you for considering my concerns.

4 Cordially Felix Alwana (phonetic) from Andes

5 Hills Court.

6 That's it.


8 also in our packet we did receive --

9 MS. WORKING: I'm sorry, through the

10 Chair. I think there was a late submission,

11 number two behind that one, Mr. Chair.

12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: This appears to

13 have been sent in with no name or address.

14 Mr. Schultz, is it appropriate to read it

15 into the record?

16 MR. SCHULTZ: No, it is not.


18 this e-mail at this time. Any other

19 comments that you are aware of, Robin?

20 MS. WORKING: That was it.

21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you very

22 much as always for your help on that. At

23 this time I would ask anyone in the audience

24 if they wish to make comment on this case if



1 they will please come forward. If there are

2 going to be other people behind her, go

3 ahead and come forward so we can keep a

4 cycle going and line up against the wall if

5 you are able to. Before we do get started

6 with the public remarks, comments. I do

7 want to mention that the Zoning Board has

8 the scope and the jurisdiction over the

9 ordinances and variances requested on the

10 agenda and the heights that were mentioned

11 during the presentation, et cetera. We

12 would appreciate everyone keeping their

13 comments to those variances and keeping

14 their comments mainly on the proceedings

15 tonight.

16 As far as what the Planning

17 Commission has decided and as far as

18 building sizes, et cetera, we don't have

19 jurisdiction per se over that. So, I just

20 want to ask that everyone keep their

21 comments to the point in order to keep this

22 as an efficient meeting.

23 Please state your name and address and

24 then proceed with your comments.



1 MS. GARDENER: My name is Jane

2 Gardener. I live 46000 West Eleven Mile,

3 Novi, Michigan. I would like to start, we

4 as residents in this community, we are

5 trying to come to grips with this building

6 going into this spot and we are kind of

7 excited about it, and I do appreciate the

8 explanation of the different decorative

9 elements on the top of the temple. It's a

10 big concern to me, the decorative elements,

11 not so much in how tall they are, but in

12 terms of how well they are lit, and I want

13 to discuss that a little bit.

14 But I also wanted to say in his

15 presentation about this temple, I

16 appreciated that, but the Applicant totally

17 omitted to mention the 21,000 square foot

18 cultural center and its use. Yes, I don't

19 believe that they will use the upstairs

20 prayer portion of the temple and the

21 downstairs 4,000 square foot multi-purpose

22 room. I can't imagine our own church, the

23 Catholic church I belong to using the church

24 and having a function at the same time. You



1 just wouldn't do that. It would be

2 irreverent. But I really am concerned that

3 the 4,000 square foot multi-purpose room and

4 the cultural center will be used at the same

5 time. And I think that this is a huge issue

6 for parking.

7 There is almost 4,000 square feet in

8 the multi purpose and I think in the

9 cultural center as well. If you look at

10 your plan you can see these are two large

11 spaces. So, yes, I don't believe that the

12 temple or these parking places for these

13 variances will be used at the same time, but

14 I don't think the Applicant at all addressed

15 the fact that the two buildings because they

16 are two separate buildings of the same size.

17 If you look, the one is 22,000 square feet.

18 The other one is 21,000 square feet. And I

19 guess as a resident of this area and living

20 on a very small road of Taft and Eleven Mile

21 we are grossly concerned that this is going

22 to provide a headache constantly for all of

23 the people involved. We believe it will be

24 a safety hazard. It will be a traffic mess.



1 And the intersection will be overwhelmed and

2 we as a community will be overwhelmed.

3 So, I really would like the Zoning

4 Board to look at that. One of my fellow

5 residents is going to talk more about the

6 parking spaces because it is a big issue.

7 And we are not trying to prevent this

8 temple. We are appreciative of the

9 diversity of our area and of our culture for

10 our children and for our community, so, we

11 really welcome this.

12 But we really also want to have our

13 living on those properties. So, we also

14 expect a little bit of consideration given

15 that this site is going to go in. Ten

16 variances is a lot of variances. I know

17 most of us have tried to get variances at

18 one time or another and had not been granted

19 one. So, these are very large variances and

20 I guess the one I want to talk about in

21 terms of the lighting.

22 I believe these are beautiful

23 structures on top of this building. My

24 property backs up on Eleven Mile backs up



1 into the woodland. I don't want to be

2 sitting outside on a beautiful evening and

3 see these large structures lit up all night.

4 As it is there is a lighting from the back

5 intersection that went in. Some nights with

6 the cloud cover you could particularly read

7 in my backyard because it is so bright. My

8 biggest concern is how long are these

9 structures or the steeples, the decorative

10 elements, whatever they want to be called,

11 how long are they going to be lit? And if

12 these variances are granted, I believe we

13 have to have wording in the approval of the

14 variances that sets a time frame for these

15 structures to be lit.

16 This building is bright white.

17 It will beautiful, but it is bright white.

18 So, the ambient light that reflects off this

19 and these tall towers is going to be huge

20 and we have a very big concern, the

21 residents in this whole area about seeing

22 this in the evening. So, we would really

23 like to know what time it's going to be lit

24 and we want the temple and the Applicant



1 held to these times. That is very important

2 to us.

3 Another thing I just

4 wanted to point out in terms of the

5 structure being close to residents. Yes,

6 the temple itself may be 275 feet from the

7 nearest residence, but the cultural center

8 is 75 feet from the nearest resident. I

9 know Mrs. Thibodaux (phonetic) who lives on

10 that piece of property next to where the

11 dumpster was before, she is truly

12 appreciative of moving the dumpster

13 literally outside of 10 feet from her

14 property because that's where the initial

15 application is. So, we appreciate them

16 working with her and us in terms of moving

17 that.

18 I guess that about sums up our

19 concerns. We want to be excited about the

20 temple, we truly do. My daughter just came

21 down to U of M to go to the Indian dance

22 that was performed there. She had several

23 friends and we would like to also be a part

24 of that community for them. But we also



1 want them to be cognizant of why we moved to

2 these pieces of property and why we built

3 our homes and why we live in this area

4 because we appreciate the wetland and

5 woodland and we would like those as

6 undisturbed as possible by the lighting, the

7 parking and the traffic.

8 So, those are some big concerns I

9 have. Thank you very much for your time.

10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you very

11 much. Is there anyone else? Is there

12 anyone else in the audience that wishes to

13 make comment? Yes?

14 MS. THIBODAUX (ph): Yes, I am Janet

15 Thibodaux.

16 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Your address as

17 well, please?

18 MS. THIBODAUX: My address is 26201

19 Taft Road and my property is directly south

20 to the proposed project. And I have been

21 opposed to this project from the very

22 beginning for many reasons. The amount of

23 variances that they are asking tells me that

24 perhaps this site does not accommodate the



1 very wonderful plans that they have for

2 their temple and cultural center. I am very

3 concerned about the impact that this project

4 will have on myself and the other residents

5 surrounding this project.

6 I am very concerned about a dumpster

7 being 10 to 20 feet from the side of my

8 property and perhaps I don't understand the

9 variances that are being asked, but that is

10 my understanding at this point. I am very

11 concerned. And when I hear a variance that

12 request the dumpster being put to the side,

13 what does that mean to my property? I do

14 not wish to see a dumpster. I do not wish

15 to smell trash from a dumpster from my

16 property.

17 Additionally, I am

18 concerned about my ability to leave and

19 enter my driveway. The Basilian Brothers

20 residency is underway right now, that

21 project is being underway, and I know you

22 are not here tonight to hear that. But I am

23 very concerned about how close their egress

24 is to Eleven Mile. I will have that new



1 egress to the right of my property as I

2 leave my drive. And then I will have this

3 new project egress to the left of my

4 property and I am very concerned about that.

5 Eleven Mile and Taft Road is already -- what

6 do I want to say? A dangerous site. You

7 know why? Hit the brakes and look both ways

8 and hope that nothing is going to happen

9 when I proceed south down Taft Road.

10 Please consider the impact that this

11 project will have not only on my residency,

12 but on the residences that's surrounding.

13 And at the same time I know you wish to

14 accommodate the interest of the people who

15 support this project. It's not an easy

16 decision and I hope you will make the right

17 one. Thank you.

18 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you very

19 much. Next? Name and address for us and

20 make your comments.

21 MR. ROZACH (ph): Good evening, my

22 name is Matt Rozach. My address is 45950

23 West Eleven Mile. I am probably the second

24 closest resident -- I am probably the



1 closest resident to this temple. Parking

2 requirements are typically dedicated by

3 building size and usage per the City of Novi

4 Ordinances. In this case as stated in the

5 Planning Review preliminary site plan, "The

6 Applicant provided data was used to

7 calculate the occupancy of the temple and

8 the cultural center which was then used to

9 determine the parking standard for the

10 overall site." So, there was a strong bias

11 to using the Applicant's supplied data.

12 From this information parking

13 requirements were determined for each of the

14 buildings. We have the temple up here,

15 22,600 square feet. The cultural center

16 21,823 feet. Parking was determined from

17 the prayer hall and the multi-purpose room

18 which is 40% of the temple. And parking was

19 determined for the main conference and the

20 classrooms which is 50% of the cultural

21 center. I wish my percentages came in

22 there. I guess I got the red a little too

23 dark. Working with this they came up with

24 the temple needing 306 required parking and



1 the cultural center needing 239 required

2 parking for a total of 545 total required

3 parking.

4 Now the requests for variance is for

5 34 parking spaces based on just the use of

6 the temple building now. If we look at just

7 the use of the temple building now, we are

8 taking the 306 minus the 272 planned parking

9 and we come up with 34 variances and there

10 is no parking right now designated for the

11 cultural center.

12 When actually what's

13 going on is, parking is only provided for

14 20% of both building spaces with the

15 variance of 34 parking spaces. Doesn't

16 something seem wrong here? Wake up. There

17 is too much building and not enough parking.

18 We have moved from allocating 7 or 15 square

19 feet per person, depending upon the building

20 or the room to allocating 49 square feet per

21 person to determine our work parking

22 requirement on this project.

23 Using only one of the buildings at a

24 time appears to be a moving target with the



1 Applicant. Even though the Planning

2 Department's approval basis on both

3 authorities will not be utilized

4 simultaneously. Building usage from the

5 Applicant has evolved from the September

6 24th Planning minutes saying uses would not

7 occur at the same time. Then we moved up to

8 the October 22nd Planning minutes and now

9 major events will not occur at the same

10 time. So all of a sudden now we are using

11 two buildings but major events will not

12 occur.

13 Now, the latest is in the October 29,

14 letter to the City Zoning Board from the

15 Manyam Group they say maximum capacity use

16 will not occur simultaneously. They are

17 admitting they are going to use both

18 buildings. It's obvious to me that there is

19 definitely an intent by the Applicant to use

20 both buildings at the same time. What

21 number of persons in a building does it

22 require that parking places be provided?

23 Fifty people? A hundred people?

24 Consider the following here. These



1 are the hours that they are presenting for

2 use of the temple. We are talking 9:00 to

3 9:00 during the weekdays except for early

4 afternoon and on the weekends we are talking

5 9:00 to 10:00 in the evening.

6 Uses of the cultural center. There are

7 10 recognized southern Hindu major festivals

8 and other minor festivals that are

9 celebrated. In addition, temples or centers

10 in Canton and Troy are booked three to four

11 months out for parties such as wedding,

12 graduations, birthdays and other events.

13 The same will most likely occur here.

14 Traditional weddings in India will be for

15 two days, it is possible that two-day

16 weddings will occur here.

17 This is an authenticate

18 traditional Hindu temple, very ornate with

19 the next closest one in Chicago. This alone

20 with attract more activities than other

21 temples in the area. It seems like a lot of

22 activity in the cultural center during

23 temple hours. To me it sounds like both

24 buildings are attended and will be operated



1 simultaneously. Therefore, parking

2 requirements must be addressed for use of

3 both buildings.

4 The question is is 308 required

5 parking places sufficient together with off

6 site parking to meet the needs of 45,000

7 square feet? No. Off-site parking will

8 actually have a heavier burden on the

9 traffic flow. Traffic increases not only

10 for those arriving, departing to park on the

11 site's lot, but traffic for those cars

12 performing drops offs and pick ups will

13 actually had four times to the traffic

14 volume.

15 This is the lot here and we have Grand

16 River and we have a Taft Road and down here

17 we have Eleven Mile. With only a single

18 entrance, there is only one entrance to this

19 parcel, all traffic will be required to use

20 Taft Road which at this location is a very

21 short two lane residential street. Note

22 also very close by are two schools. There

23 is a school down here. A school here, a

24 church, the Basilian and the Basilian



1 Father's project that is going in. And this

2 intersection right here, Eleven Mile and

3 Taft Road, that is the number one crash site

4 today per the April 16th, 2008 master plan

5 for land use.

6 Off site parking is currently

7 discussed to be at Miracle Software which is

8 up here. That requires left-hand turns off

9 the site, so people coming out of the site

10 are going to have to make a left-hand turn

11 to go up to Miracle Software. While cars on

12 Taft trying to turn in on left are going to

13 back up. So you have got two directions

14 trying to turn left here.

15 Backups will occur and residences

16 that use Taft to get to from their subs are

17 not going to be pleased and there is a lot

18 of people that use Taft to get off the

19 expressway to come in their sub.

20 In summary regarding the parking, it's

21 more important than ever that adequate

22 parking is provided for both buildings and

23 on-site. It's strongly stressed that any

24 parking variances come out of the zoning



1 that it is conditioned upon the applicant's

2 promise and statement that both facilities

3 will not be utilized simultaneously in the

4 motion to approve and that the term utilized

5 is quantified. Define the number of people.

6 Is that 50, a hundred people when the

7 building becomes utilized? If this is not

8 adhered to the neighborhood will not only be

9 overran by traffic, but also by parked

10 vehicles because this is really not a 34

11 space variance, it's 100 percent variance

12 based on the use of two buildings.

13 The variance must be conditioned upon

14 the promised statement that applicant, that

15 both the temple and the cultural center will

16 not be used at the same time, otherwise this

17 variance will not be appropriate. It is a

18 disaster waiting to happen.

19 I am very concerned four to six years

20 into the future if it's found that the

21 deciding facts were way too conservative or

22 building use is different than as presented

23 that the city and neighboring residents and

24 subdivisions will pay a heavy toll since the



1 project may not have been approved with

2 better facts on the onset.

3 Now regarding the height variances.

4 This falls under special land use this

5 project. Under special planned use

6 additional requirements Section 2516.2C

7 states, "The proposed use is to be

8 compatible with adjacent uses of land in

9 terms of location, size, character and

10 impact on adjacent property or the

11 surrounding neighborhood. Again, this is a

12 residential district. The building and its

13 towers are not at all compatible in size and

14 character with the surrounding parcels.

15 Homes one side, the temple and an office

16 building of finishes that are white and not

17 neutral in color on the other side. How is

18 that compatible with adjacent uses of land?

19 It will definitely stand out in this

20 residential community.

21 Approving the requested land variance

22 only further conflicts with the requirements

23 to not impact adjacent properties or the

24 surrounding neighborhood.



1 Now, added lighting to the building,

2 the building towers and the parking lots.

3 This is a significant wild life wooded area

4 that will be undergoing a major stress

5 change. That parcel that this site is going

6 to be on is basically going to divide a

7 major wildlife habitat and the lighting, if

8 it's not monitored or restricted is

9 definitely going to impact this wildlife

10 habitat in this woodland area.

11 I ask that lighting not remain on

12 beyond a reasonable length of time in the

13 evening. Hopefully the lights can be shut

14 off by 10 p.m. This lightening issue needs

15 to be considered so that light pollution

16 does not further intrude into our

17 residential neighborhood. Any motion to

18 approve the height variance must address for

19 the residences' sake the lighting element

20 and the time restriction, especially if the

21 architecture elements are going to be

22 approved at the height requested. Thank you

23 very much for your time.

24 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you very



1 much.

2 MS. DOOLEY: My name is Trisha Dooley.

3 I live at 25711 Arcadia. I sat at the

4 Planning Commission meeting last month and

5 heard people speaking and letters being read

6 in support of the temple and the cultural

7 center and how it would benefit the

8 community and their families.

9 And the fact is, no one ever

10 argued that point. This has never been the

11 issue. The issue remains to be for me is

12 why for this particular project I feel like

13 so many issues are willing to be overlooked

14 or ignored. The City Ordinance, the

15 protective lands. The traffic situation.

16 And my next question for whether it's you or

17 the Planning Commission, I don't know, is if

18 we do that for this project, what do we do

19 for the next project that comes to the city

20 that wants to change 10 ordinances, 13

21 variances? And really I don't know if

22 that's a precedent that's being set for

23 future projects that are coming to the area.

24 And that makes me nervous.



1 I think it's a wonderful project.

2 It's a beautiful building. I still believe

3 that there is a better site that would be

4 much more suitable for a project this size.

5 But if it is going to end up on this

6 property since so many considerations will

7 have had to be made for this project to fit

8 into this piece of land, I would just expect

9 that the same amount of consideration be

10 given to the residents in this area. Which

11 means that, I understand to the best of my

12 knowledge that there are required times,

13 that there are specific times that the

14 temple can be open, but I have yet to hear

15 about designated hours that the cultural

16 center will be opened and I think that that

17 needs to be regulated and monitored for the

18 residents in the area how late that can stay

19 open? How early it can be open? And,

20 again, the lighting for people in that area

21 remains to be a big issue.

22 I would expect the traffic issue to be

23 re-examined because, again, from my

24 understanding, I think the traffic report



1 was clearly biased. What I understood was

2 that they believed that there was to be no

3 traffic -- I know you all have driven that

4 and if you for any reason could think that a

5 center of this size, bringing that many

6 people into that area, it's a problem there

7 already and it is only going to get worse.

8 Again, what I would really just like

9 to say is, I think to have good neighbors,

10 you need to be good neighbors. If everybody

11 is willing to give something. Obviously,

12 like I said, if it's going to be in that

13 area, they will be getting a lot and I think

14 they need to give the same back to the

15 neighbors and be considerate of the area

16 that they are moving into, the residential

17 area they are moving into. Anyway, thank

18 you.

19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you very

20 much. If I could just make one quick

21 comment. Once again, per the rules of

22 conduct, please make sure that all cell

23 phones are turned off or at least on vibrate

24 out of consideration for Petitioners,



1 speakers and the Board, I would greatly

2 appreciate that.

3 Name and address?

4 MS. MATHIS (ph): My name is Maria

5 Mathis. I live at 25714 Arcardia Drive. And

6 I have been a Novi resident since 1986. I

7 bought my second house in Novi off of Eleven

8 Mile because we loved being there. We love

9 the location. Away from everything and it

10 is just keeps getting more and more,

11 Catholic Central going in and now

12 Providence, and the traffic on Eleven Mile

13 has become atrocious.

14 I would drive down Eleven Mile

15 and I would set my cruise at 30 because I do

16 not want a traffic ticket and I have to go

17 on my back end all the time and I am coming

18 from that perspective. I don't know how you

19 are going to be able to monitor this.

20 Let me back up. The parking variance

21 is also what I want to talk about. When you

22 have a place, the web site promoted 3,000

23 families. You are talking at least one car

24 per family. We are not talking about a wife



1 or husband coming at separate times or the

2 teenage child starting to drive. Then we

3 are talking additional cars than 3,000. We

4 have to be realistic. And the gentleman had

5 the photographs of all that. He did a

6 fantastic job. It was so well prepared.

7 Let's look at the real picture. How

8 many people are the cultural center thinking

9 of having? If you look at what at the last

10 meeting because they brought a photograph

11 and they showed the place in Troy and they

12 were parked all over the grass. And my

13 question is, who is going to police this?

14 If they start parking all over the grass, I

15 mean our community, it brings us down. We

16 are supposed to be one of the top 100

17 cities. And people starting to park on the

18 grass is not going to look very attractive.

19 And who is going to monitor that? What

20 start happening if you give a little fine,

21 the fine is not going to be a big deal. So,

22 I want to know who is going to monitor that?

23 And they mentioned that there is going

24 to be a company that is going to be



1 providing additional parking. How many

2 parking spaces does this company have? And

3 how is the transportation? Is it going to

4 be with busses? Is it going to be with

5 vans? How is all that going to work out?

6 And then also at the last meeting it

7 was brought up that the school system was

8 also going to provide additional parking. I

9 know at my child's elementary school parking

10 we use Novi Meadows when we have been

11 advised that we don't have enough parking.

12 And then if they are going to use the school

13 property who is going to maintain that?

14 It's all during winter break and there is

15 nobody shoveling the driveway. So, I want to

16 make with realistic of, can you have a place

17 that big with that amount of parking spots?

18 Be realistic. If you went and looked at the

19 web site before it was taken off you would

20 have seen how it was promoted and it was

21 promoted to bring people from all over.

22 It's a regional center and a regional center

23 is going to have more than 300 parking

24 spots. It has to. So, I am asking as a



1 resident of Novi, a resident that deals with

2 Taft Road all the time, we like Taft, it's

3 usually local residents going to their

4 places. Once in a while we get people

5 cutting through. Usually it's local and now

6 we are going to have much more traffic down

7 there. I am asking please be responsible.

8 And if it goes through make sure that

9 everything is kept up to par. That there

10 are monitoring with the police making sure

11 that traffic is not getting to go too fast.

12 If there is a left turn lane problem,

13 that a left turn lane is going to be put in

14 and then whose going to have to pay for

15 that? Hopefully as a Novi taxpayer I'm not

16 going to have to have the extra expense in

17 that. That's going to be written in. That

18 if any infrastructure and all that needs to

19 be changed that that is going to be taken

20 care of.

21 But most importantly be realistic with

22 parking. If you look at really how many

23 people they are going to cater to and really

24 where they are going to park? And hopefully



1 I forgot to notice that Taft Road has no

2 parking signs, but if they don't I would

3 hope that that would be consistent and

4 people are not parking along the road.

5 Look at us residents that have been

6 here a long time. Yes, we want the temple.

7 We want the goodness of people but we have

8 to be realistic of where they are going to

9 park.

10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you very

11 much. I wish I had jurisdiction over the

12 potholes because my road would be the best

13 in Novi, but I appreciate your comments.

14 More comments?

15 MR. KASER (ph): Ray Kaser, 45435

16 Andes Hills Court directly north of the

17 temple. It's almost hard to expound on

18 everything that my neighbors have said

19 because they have done a good job. One

20 thing, I don't know what the question here

21 is, at the onset of us learning this back in

22 September, there was 14 variances and the

23 parking variance had stated it needed over

24 900 parking spots for this project and



1 magically it's down to 400 or 500 or 300

2 now. And I have no idea where these parking

3 spots had gone.

4 They said they have downsized 55,000

5 square feet of building on that space and

6 it's only 8 and a half acres. It's not a 10

7 acre site. It's eight and a half inches and

8 an acre and a half is wetlands which crosses

9 a river. So, the property cross a river.

10 And that's equivalent to 33 houses or 1,500

11 square feet houses being built on that

12 property which you two probably would have

13 never allowed to happen.

14 I researched by going to Troy. Troy

15 has two entrances. One of them goes out to

16 a three lane highway having a left turn

17 lane. And Canton has one building. It has

18 the temple and I believe below is the

19 conference room. So, what else I have

20 noticed at both those places, there are

21 trees are everywhere. They must have 40 foot

22 trees and 20 foot lights. Their neighbors

23 cannot see them at all which is really they

24 are really nice to their neighbors.



1 One of the variances that are missing

2 in the beginning is a berm. I think

3 ordinance say that they have to have a 15

4 foot berm. Well, because of the size of the

5 property they can't put a 15 foot berm. So

6 they brought it down to three foot. While

7 they have three foot berm and a ten foot

8 tree, and I have looked at the site plans,

9 they have a 20 foot light. That means we

10 will see lights all the time. I will be

11 sitting on my deck and it would just be lit

12 up. It's too big a project. Too big of a

13 temple to be put on eight and a half acres.

14 Thank you very much.


16 MR. MORELY (ph): Good evening, my

17 name is Irwin Morely. I am a resident of

18 Novi, 24508 Partridge Court. I just wanted

19 to add on that in addition of the scale it's

20 something that is very positive for the

21 Indian community in Novi as well as other

22 surrounding areas and we really appreciate

23 you taking the time to understand the

24 development, understand people's concern and



1 hopefully you will do the right thing and

2 approve this for us. We appreciate it.

3 Thank you.


5 much. Is there anyone else in the audience

6 that wishes to make a comment on this case?

7 Going once, going twice, seeing no other

8 comments, I will close the public remarks

9 portion of the case. And I will ask if

10 anyone from the City wishes to make a

11 comment?

12 MR. BOULARD: I wanted to give Barbara

13 McBeth, our Deputy Community Development

14 director is here. I believe she was present

15 and can speak to the previous hearings. And

16 I wanted to ask Barbara if she could bring

17 us up to date on the progress so far that

18 may have eliminated some of the variances.

19 And also, Barb, if you would be so

20 kind, there seems to be some question about

21 the number of parking spaces required if

22 it's 306 or 308. Then that number required

23 for the variance appears the same 34, but I

24 wondered if you would clarify that if you



1 would be so kind?

2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Right before you

3 get to that, I actually just want to ask our

4 attorney and I am sure he will have some

5 comment to make, but as far as the number of

6 spots and how it was determined, that is not

7 under our purview, am I correct in that

8 statement?

9 MR. SCHULTZ: You are correct. And I

10 think it's important about understanding

11 exactly. And we'll have Barb go through the

12 sort of physical characteristics of the 308.

13 The bottom line is, the Planning Commission

14 as part of its special land use made the

15 determination based on the representations

16 about not having use at the same time.

17 That's it's the 308 or 306, whichever number

18 Barb says it is. And that's not an issue

19 that's on appeal to the ZBA. It's not an

20 issue that the ZBA can look into, decide

21 whether they agree or disagree with, that's

22 the number. So, the 308 or 306 boils down

23 to the fact that they provided 272. So the

24 issue is 34 spaces.



1 It would be helpful if Ms. McBeth

2 could talk a little bit about whether or not

3 those spaces actually could be put on the

4 property if need be because I think that's

5 an important consideration for you as we

6 move forward.


8 just wanted t make sure that the Zoning

9 Board and everyone in the audience

10 understood that we are not allowed to

11 necessarily look at how the number was

12 brought. We are not looking at the 308, we

13 must concentrate on the 34 and apply our

14 standards to the 34.

15 MR. SCHULTZ: That is correct.


17 McBeth?

18 MS. McBETH: Thank you. Good evening.

19 I will go over a few of the details that I

20 was hoping to talk with the Board about.

21 This is the areal photo of the property.

22 The subject property is outlined in red

23 here. Taft Road is over to the right. Mrs.

24 Thibodaux's house is right here she alluded



1 to her property earlier. The Andes Hills

2 development is here and Grand River is just

3 to the north and off the page.

4 The property is zoned RA, residential

5 acreage and is master planned for single

6 family residential uses. There are wetlands

7 on the front of the property as well as near

8 the back of the property and almost all of

9 the back part of the property contains very

10 good quality dense woodlands on the back

11 half of the site. I did also just want to

12 go just over briefly the site plan for the

13 property so that we can all make sure that

14 we're aware of where the different buildings

15 are prosed to be located.

16 So, again, Taft Road is to the right

17 and north is up. The cultural center

18 building is located closest to Taft Road.

19 It's a two-story building about 21,823

20 square feet. The proposed temple building

21 is also two stories. It's about 22,693

22 square feet. The first phase of the

23 development is the priest residence and

24 temporary temple essentially a room in



1 residence that will accommodate the temple

2 until the second phase, the temple itself is

3 constructed. And then the third phase

4 somewhere down the line will be the cultural

5 center again closest to Taft Road.

6 The Planning Commission approved

7 this special land use, the preliminary site

8 plan the woodland and wetland permits on

9 October 22nd, subject to the considerations

10 of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the

11 variances and ordinance considerations that

12 are presented this evening. All of the

13 height variances are related to the temple

14 building itself. Mr. Manyam presented the

15 cross section and elevations that there is

16 an artist rendering that I can also show you

17 where the height considerations are located

18 for the features on the temple building.

19 Again, the structure that is located in

20 front of the temple is proposed to be 37' 4

21 1/2" in height.

22 There are a couple of decorative

23 elements appearing on the temple that are 36

24 and a half feet and 40 and a half feet in



1 height. There are two decorative elements

2 here at the back what we refer to as

3 elements that exceed the typical height

4 standards that are 50 feet in height each

5 and then two elements that are 55' 1" in

6 height. The brass pole and the element in

7 the very back of the building.

8 We have noted in Section 2903 of the

9 Zoning Ordinance exemptions from the height

10 locations have been identified. The zoning

11 ordinance states that church spires are not

12 required to meet the height standards and

13 it's staff's opinion that these elements

14 could be considered to be the equivalent of

15 a spire on a church. We did some research,

16 if anybody is interested we can show some

17 pictures of various church spires that exist

18 on churches around the world, but I won't

19 show you those at this point and I will move

20 on to the other aspects of this.

21 The proposed temple we know that each

22 element is setback from the property line

23 the distance that is greater than the height

24 of those elements as the ordinance requires



1 and the staff supports the approval of the

2 use variances since the elements are part of

3 the design and function of the temple.

4 The final height variance is for the

5 mechanical equipment screening on the roof,

6 located right about here. That is 42 feet

7 in height and that variance is from a

8 different section of the ordinance, Section

9 2503.2E (2) which states that roof top

10 appurtenances shall not exceed the maximum

11 height standard of the distance which is 35

12 feet.

13 We note that the screening is located

14 in the center of the temple building and is

15 proposed to match the color of the building.

16 Staff supports this variance since the

17 screening has been designed to be an

18 integral part of the design of the building.

19 There is another request from the

20 ordinance standards and that relates to the

21 location of the dumpster enclosure near the

22 cultural center, so I'll put that back up

23 here. I can zoom in on it a little bit.

24 The location where it is shown on the plans



1 is right about in this location here. And

2 we have talked with the applicant about

3 relocating that somewhere further to the

4 west. Somewhere further from the adjacent

5 residential home. Possibly somewhere in

6 this location over here, but that has not

7 been determined yet.

8 It's staff's opinion that the Zoning

9 Board of Appeals would continue to need to

10 look at this as an ordinance variation since

11 the dumpster enclosure would be still

12 located in the side yard. We would like to

13 work with Applicant at the time of final

14 site plan to find a better location for that

15 dumpster enclosure.

16 And we did provide quite a bit of

17 information in the written materials to the

18 Zoning Board of Appeals related to the

19 parking requirements for the site. We did

20 note that the Planning Commission approved a

21 special land use of the site plan designing

22 that the parking in the more intense use.

23 The temple is required to be provided on the

24 site. A total of 308 parking spaces are



1 required for the development and only 274

2 parking spaces have been provided with the

3 deficiency of 34 parking spaces. Again, we

4 did have the applicant in the applicant's

5 materials, let me show you up here on the

6 overhead with the statements about the

7 events at the cultural center would never be

8 held concurrently with any large scale

9 temple activities. So, we relied on that

10 information. But if the Zoning Board of

11 Appeals is inclined to grant the variance,

12 we would suggest that this be requested

13 again on the record and is part of that

14 statement.

15 It sounds like people are interested

16 in the actual calculations, that the

17 Planning Commission endorsed for the parking

18 requirement. What we did was we took the

19 temple parking standards and we looked at

20 the prayer hall and the multi-purpose room

21 in the temple itself and we found that the

22 prayer hall could be assumed to have an

23 occupancy of one person per seven square

24 feet. That's based on a curve line of



1 people sitting in chairs. There would be no

2 pews or chairs as we understand it provided

3 in that prayer hall. So, we kind of took

4 the tightest scenario that we could.

5 And then for the multi-purpose room on

6 the first floor of that building we made an

7 assumption that there would be one person

8 per 15 square feet, assuming that people

9 might be sitting at tables and chairs and

10 that's when we came up with the 308 parking

11 spaces that would be required.

12 Again, I looked at the cultural

13 center, that building also would require a

14 number of parking spaces and, again, we took

15 the maximum occupancy that we're assuming

16 for the main area that would be occupied.

17 There is kind of banquet room that again we

18 assumed would be one person for every 15

19 square feet. With the tables and chairs for

20 150 spaces for that room and then some

21 classrooms as well. And then our calculation

22 again at one per 15 square feet were 89

23 parking spaces.

24 So, that building itself would require



1 239. Again, based on the assumption that the

2 Applicant is -- we can rely on the

3 Applicant's statements that there would not

4 be concurrent use of the two buildings, the

5 Planning Commission endorsed the higher of

6 those requirements which was the 308 parking

7 spaces. And that's how we arrived at that

8 number.

9 I will be happy to answer any of

10 the questions that the Board might have

11 either now or at the appropriate time.

12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I think we will

13 bring you back up during more discussion

14 should there be any questions.

15 MS. McBETH: Thank you.


17 question.

18 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: We will let the

19 whole entire city speak and then we will

20 turn it to Board discussion. And at that

21 time if you request her assistance we will

22 call her back up.

23 Anyone else from the City

24 officials who wish to make comments at this



1 time?

2 MR. BOULARD: Nothing further.


4 time I will go ahead and open it up for

5 Board discussion. It sounds like you may be

6 coming back up as soon as I turn it over to

7 Vice-Chair Sanghvi.


9 all, I want to thank you for your

10 presentation. I have a couple of questions.

11 If I am correct, Novi area is about 36

12 square miles?

13 MS. McBETH: I would say that's about

14 correct.


16 churches do we have in Novi?

17 MS. McBETH: You know, our department

18 has not made a study of that. That would be

19 something interesting --


21 number I came to in my mind after going

22 through different streets and all that was

23 about 14. How many of them are not in a

24 residential area?



1 MS. McBETH: Again, churches are

2 typically permitted with special land use

3 approval if in a residential district. I am

4 not aware of any churches or places or

5 worship that are not located in a

6 residential district in Novi.


8 One of the issues that was raised by some of

9 the city residents here was about the

10 traffic or the perception of a traffic

11 problem. I believe a traffic study was

12 presented to the Planning Commission. Would

13 you like to throw some light on that so

14 people will understand that this fact has

15 already be covered in this discussion?

16 MS. McBETH: Through the Chair, the

17 Applicant did provide a traffic study and

18 some parking figures as well in that traffic

19 study and that was reviewed by the City's

20 traffic consultant. Our consultant had some

21 questions about that study and referred it

22 back to the Applicant's expert and they took

23 a look at the traffic study together and

24 provided some additional information that



1 was requested or required by our traffic

2 consultant.

3 Our consultant eventually did endorse

4 that traffic study and made a conclusion

5 that he was comfortable with it and that

6 Taft Road would be able to accommodate the

7 traffic that would be generated.


9 I have one more question for you. Would you

10 rather have the prescribed number of parking

11 spots in this project or save the trees if

12 you could?

13 MS. McBETH: Again, I think that might

14 be a matter for the Zoning Board of Appeals.

15 Our consultants again are environmental

16 consultants have noted that woodlands that

17 are on site are in very high quality and

18 good habitat as the residents have pointed

19 it as well. It would be our preference as

20 planners to keep the woodlands intact

21 wherever its possible without causing undue

22 difficulty with the parking on the site.


24 very much. I don't have any more questions



1 for you.


3 Member Sanghvi.

4 I just want to ask the Board if we

5 want to look at all the variances at once, I

6 mentioned this to you before, or if we

7 wanted to break them into different

8 sections. Does anyone have an opinion on

9 that that they wish to share?


11 easier administrative put for discussion.

12 Maybe just the height variance first and the

13 parking variance second.

14 Because dumpster is off.


16 have to review that as well, the dumpster as

17 well. But I do like that idea. I think we

18 are going to go ahead and discuss the height

19 variance first if that's appropriate, Mr.

20 Schultz?

21 MR. SCHULTZ: It may be a good time to

22 make a little introductory statement on the

23 questions that relate to height briefly.

24 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I already gave



1 you your chance.

2 MR. SCHULTZ: Okay, I can wait. I

3 noticed a couple of times use of the word

4 variances for the height issues here and we

5 were careful in the letter that we did and

6 what the Planning Department came up with to

7 try and say you have got two different ways

8 to go here. You are used to dealing with

9 issues relating to more height than is

10 allowed under the ordinance as a variance.

11 In this case though because it's a church.

12 And it's our position and I think it's the

13 Planning Department's position that we are

14 really not looking at you exercising

15 authority to grant variances. Yes, there

16 are elements, seven elements that are listed

17 in the notice as being beyond 35 feet in

18 height. But there is a provision in the

19 ordinance called the general exceptions

20 provision that says for church spires the 35

21 foot height limitation doesn't apply. And

22 unfortunately as we said in our letter, the

23 language is a little bit inconsistent or

24 might even be a word or two missing. But



1 our interpretation of that Section 2903 of

2 the Ordinance is the 35 foot height

3 limitation is not a limitation in the normal

4 sense and you are not being asked in our

5 view to give a variance from. What you are

6 being asked to do under 2903 is decide

7 whether what they have proposed as to height

8 for these particular seven architectural

9 elements, which we think are church spires

10 would fall under that, are those appropriate

11 heights.

12 2903 does not give you good standards

13 to do that. It basically just says the ZBA

14 if it's a special land use can specify what

15 the height limit is going to be. It's not

16 the same as granting a variance. It's not

17 your usual practical difficulty standard. It

18 just sort of says, the height limit doesn't

19 apply for church spires, the ZBA decides if

20 it's a special land use. I think the

21 assumption of the ordinance is it's going to

22 be higher than 35 feet because frankly, most

23 churches whether they're in a residential

24 area or anywhere else tend to have at least



1 some architectural element that's higher

2 than the rest of the building to draw

3 attention to it or for the purposes

4 described by the proponent.

5 So, the question that the Board needs

6 to ask itself is, taking a look at these

7 seven things, whether they're in a

8 residential area or anywhere else tend to

9 have at least some architectural element

10 that's higher than the rest of the building

11 to draw attention to it or for the purposes

12 described by the proponent. So, the

13 question that the Board needs to ask itself

14 is, taking a look at these seven things,

15 should the height that they are proposing be

16 permitted? Without good standards in that

17 Section 2903, though, what we tried to do in

18 the letter that we gave you today, my

19 apologies for doing that, we got a number of

20 questions so we thought we would put

21 together a letter.

22 Because it's a special land use we

23 thought it would be appropriate to look at

24 the Special Land Use Section that normally



1 is the province of the Planning Commission.

2 You don't normally apply those factors that

3 are laid out in the letter. But without

4 that kind of guidance you are just sort of

5 left deciding whether or not it's a good

6 height or not.

7 I think the first thing you have to do

8 is decide, number one, do you think these

9 fall under the characterization of church

10 spires? And if they do, you are not talking

11 about variances, you are talking about is

12 the height that is proposed appropriate for

13 a church spire. Here it says a temple. A

14 temple architectural element. So, if you

15 decide to go down that road, then you need

16 to look at those factors, not your practical

17 difficulty factors, but the factors laid out

18 in our letter, compatibility with

19 surrounding uses, appropriateness to the

20 particular use and decide are these heights

21 that are proposed for these elements

22 appropriate and can they be approved.

23 Because that Section 2903 leaves that

24 question to you. I wish it had better



1 guidance, but it is what it is.

2 So, I think that's the height issue

3 with everything except those, the air

4 conditioner which is your usual variance,

5 practical difficulty and all that kind of

6 different stuff.


8 that's where we are going to break at. We

9 will look at one through seven at this time

10 and discuss that first. Then we will get to

11 the apparatus, the dumpster and the parking

12 last.

13 Do you wish to make comment as well in

14 regards to the distance of the nearest

15 property line as part of that ordinance as

16 well?

17 MR. SCHULTZ: That is the one standard

18 that I guess is in the ordinance. It says

19 obviously it can't be higher than the

20 distance from that element to the property

21 line and that is not here. They are 75 feet

22 away. The tallest aspect of this is 50

23 feet.




1 always for your expertise, Mr. Schultz.

2 Board Members?



5 Krieger?

6 MEMBER KRIEGER: Regarding the height.

7 No, I'm sorry. For Mr. Schultz. How do we

8 measure the height? For example, on Novi

9 Road they are building a dentist office I

10 believe next to a residential area and I

11 believe they put in landfill or filler, and

12 then they put in the building. So, is the

13 height determined or maybe it's for Beth,

14 I'm not sure, how they determine the height?

15 I'm not or maybe it for both.

16 MR. SCHULTZ: She is walking up. I

17 will wait for her to answer.

18 MS. McBETH: Thank you for the

19 question. Typically the height is measured

20 from average grade around the building. So,

21 we look at the four sides of the building,

22 come up with the average grade and then the

23 height is measured from that average

24 finished grade. I think that the office



1 that you are referring to might be slightly

2 different because they are bringing in some

3 fill at that point. Usually it would be

4 measured from the average grade around the

5 building at its finished level and thought's

6 how it is measured.

7 MEMBER KRIEGER: That's it.


9 Member Krieger. Other Board Members?

10 Member Shroyer?

11 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you. I have so

12 many questions I'm not sure how to start.

13 The presentation was excellent. It cleared

14 a lot of questions that I had initially

15 because I didn't have a complete

16 understanding, even to the point of hearing

17 that one person said the cultural center was

18 one story and reading that it is two. And

19 then having it confirmed that it is a two

20 story, right?

21 The first question I have regarding

22 height would be, is there anything in your

23 religious SWA or whatever that would prevent

24 the Applicant from building the building



1 seven feet below ground? Lowering it seven

2 feet which meant a height above the average

3 grade?

4 MR. AMANN: I just want to stipulate

5 for Mr. Schultz's purposes we would have no

6 objection to the interpretation of the spire

7 approach versus the variance request that we

8 stipulate to as well. I'll let Praveen

9 maybe answer the question.

10 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you very much.

11 MR. SCHULTZ: If I could. I am not

12 agreeing to the stipulation. I think

13 obviously that's going to be the Board's

14 determination whether to go that route and

15 if you decide you don't want to treat them

16 as spires, you will be back into the

17 variance.


19 Thank you both for the clarification.

20 MR. MANYAM: Part of the design

21 implication that we were dealing with one is

22 if the soils report comes out that the soil

23 generally in that area are very poor, so we

24 were trying to negotiate with the expense of



1 realistically making these buildings happen

2 without re-inventing the wheel.

3 Going below let's say even seven foot,

4 with the tight program that we were

5 maintaining in order to maximum woodlands

6 that we are trying to preserve on this

7 property and then allowing for normal

8 implications in terms of how people enter

9 the building, the process they go through to

10 get to the point that they need to get to,

11 determining in terms of like snow, ice EDA

12 capabilities and so forth, we were looking

13 at needing more floor space again just to go

14 below anything that we needed to go. So we

15 were trying to come up with the best

16 compromise and preserve as much of the

17 woodlands as we possibly can.

18 MR. AMANN: To complete that answer

19 there is a more practical issue to be

20 confronted. This is as you have heard

21 surrounded by some very pristine woodlands,

22 but also a substantial wetland area. The

23 water table of this site is such that if we

24 were to try to go road we were going to



1 breach the water table and would be

2 impossible of constructing in that manner.

3 MEMBER SHROYER: There are not

4 residences in the area that have basements?

5 MR. AMANN: The residences are to the

6 north of there a substantial distance away.

7 We are essentially wrapped around it and we

8 actually took a substantial portion of the

9 site and preserved the wetland in there and

10 would have constructed it near. The

11 residences are essentially uphill to the

12 north.

13 MEMBER SHROYER: Did you look at other

14 residences or other property within the Novi

15 area that perhaps it could be lowered seven

16 feet which would bring everything within our

17 ordinance requirements?

18 MR. AMANN: No, we got into this site

19 obviously because they owned this site and

20 started to try to design with this site.

21 And then the ultimate presentation we had

22 earlier as to the Vastu principle, that

23 they go to the religious connections of the

24 design of the building kind to take over



1 when they get into that and that is

2 essentially what drove this design.

3 MEMBER SHROYER: Tying in with other

4 questions that have already been somewhat

5 looked at, the lighting?

6 MR. AMANN: I am glad you asked that

7 question. In fact, we have already

8 indicated at the Planning Commission and I

9 think the photometric report shows that, in

10 fact, we meet the Ordinance requirements of

11 (unintelligible) that property line level.

12 But more importantly it also indicated the

13 building lighting, people are concerned

14 about the back lighting will be turned off

15 no later than 11:00 p.m. as a regular basis,

16 that was part of our Planning Commission

17 presentation as well.

18 MEMBER SHROYER: I still have, I have

19 an interpretation concerning having to do

20 with what constitutes a spire. Everything I

21 have read it's something conical, coming to

22 a point. There is definitions that indicate

23 that it basically is a steeple. And the

24 things I read of a steeple, it simulates the



1 same thing. So that's something that I want

2 to get further clarification myself on

3 regarding height.

4 MR. AMANN: If I may, Mr. Chair, I

5 have actually had the pleasure of

6 representing now several temples. I did the

7 last three temples in Canton, Michigan and

8 have had the experience as to the definition

9 issue that Mr. Schultz raises.

10 Our ordinances are typically written

11 from an American perspective so we use the

12 term spire. Spire if you look at its

13 intended meaning essentially a conical type

14 of architectural structure for religious

15 significance. Because I was raised in a

16 Baptist church and a spire was a much

17 different thing than what you are looking

18 for on this temple.

19 A spire I think when used in ordinance

20 terms in your mind's eye creates the sense

21 of a conical type structure. And although

22 the ordinance is written essentially in

23 American terminology in a sense of what we

24 are used to seeing, the fact is I think what



1 we are presenting to you is essentially the

2 reflection of this religion's perspective of

3 what their spires are.

4 I have come to the same issue in other

5 communities, they have come to the same

6 conclusion on this.

7 MEMBER SHROYER: Thanks for your input

8 on that. I still want to do further

9 research myself. Regarding the mechanics

10 which is also a height variance. I

11 understand that --


13 we could stick with the first seven. The

14 height of the interpretation and the spire I

15 think that's where we're going to stick with

16 first and then we will get to the apparatus.

17 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. I thought that

18 was the height.

19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It is the height

20 as well, however, we're looking at the

21 interpretation versus that brass goes back

22 to our normal practical difficulty standard.

23 MEMBER SHROYER: Is the brass pole in

24 the first seven?




2 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. Come on up.

3 The renderings on the brass poles show some

4 type of appendixes off the top. Are those

5 antenna or what is the --

6 MR. GANGADHARAN: Fundamentally the

7 brass pole is a flag pole that basically

8 where the daisy or the guard declares this

9 is my territory or this is a religious spot.

10 It's very similar to a U.S. flag in a U.S.

11 consulate in a different country. It's

12 fundamentally something that says this is a

13 temple. This is proclaimed. It's something

14 that is visible. It's a brass, but it's a

15 flag made of brass on a pole.

16 MEMBER SHROYER: I was looking at

17 interpreting it as flag pole as well. What

18 are the appendixes, the things sticking out?

19 MR. GANGADHARAN: It simply stands

20 like a flag. It is symbolic.

21 MR. AMANN: It is a flag and it would

22 appear like a flag.

23 MEMBER SHROYER: It's nothing like a

24 person physically, it's not like a crows



1 nest or something that would be up there?

2 MR. AMANN: No.

3 MEMBER SHROYER: And it has no

4 servicing purposes such as an antenna?

5 MR. AMANN: No. No.

6 MR. GANGADHARAN: No, it is strictly

7 for religious purpose.

8 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you. I believe

9 these are all my questions I have for now,

10 Mr. Chair. Thank you.


12 Member Shroyer. Other Board Members?

13 Member Bauer?

14 MEMBER BAUER: What is a decorative

15 element?

16 MR. AMANN: You are referring to the

17 term of -- I think you have heard the term

18 used decorative element for what we have

19 ascribed to these elements of the religious

20 practice a part of the Vastus principle.

21 So, even the parapet that you see along the

22 front of the building has a particular

23 religious purpose representing aspirations

24 of hope, wealth, security and faithfulness



1 and those things like that. So, sometimes

2 you have seen them described as decorative

3 elements because they are not a flat wall.

4 It's just part of they appear decorative as

5 the rest of the building. But the elements

6 they are seeking the variances on are as we

7 described even though they have been

8 characterized as decorative elements, they

9 are functionally part of the religious

10 demonstration of the Vastu principles that

11 they are seeking approval of.

12 MEMBER BAUER: It actually is part of

13 the religion?

14 MR. AMANN: It is part of the Vastu

15 principles exactly.

16 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.


18 Members? Vice-Chair Sanghvi?


20 I would like one of you to describe the

21 architecture of a Hindu temple which will

22 cover all these questions for everybody

23 else. I know what they are, but that's not

24 the issue. And I think you might as well



1 enlighten everybody by stating in the

2 scriptures of Hinduism there are prescribed

3 structures for a temple of different parts

4 and elements of that temple which are

5 essential for this place of worship.

6 MR. MANYAM: In the design of the

7 Hindu temple you will never find two temples

8 that are actually alike. A true authentic

9 temple was actually carved out of stone on a

10 hillside mountain in India. The carvings

11 that are done on these temples are stories

12 and they wrap around the entire building.

13 It's a story of various scriptures within

14 the Gita which is the Holy book for the

15 Hindu religion and these stories and the

16 temple that's created for the deity that is

17 represented in that temple are specific and

18 very germane to the design of that temple

19 and that's where a Boston specialist comes

20 in and determines how this temple is laid

21 out.

22 The entrance of every temple faces

23 eastward for the rising of the sun in the

24 morning. The deity is on center with the



1 door. The flag pole that we are talking

2 about is an element that relates directly to

3 the main central deity that is represented

4 in this temple.

5 In this temple that we are presenting

6 here, the deity is flagged by two other

7 (unintelligible), and these two

8 representations are part and parcel of this

9 deity that we have here. And so, it's an

10 actual process of entering a temple. It's a

11 situation where the temple that this is

12 emulated from is one that rest up in the

13 hills of southern India and it's an ascent

14 from way below near sea level all the way

15 up. And people sometimes walk on bare feet

16 to get to this point. It's an ascension

17 process and that's why most temples, even

18 the Hindu temples that you see here that

19 states that the prayer hall itself is on the

20 second floor. It's not a situation where

21 you go downstairs and then come back

22 upstairs. You park your car on ground

23 level, you enter in at some point at ground

24 level. You take off your shoes. You take



1 off your coat and you prepare yourself from

2 this journey to the prayer hall space.

3 The elements that are depicted on the

4 building are indicative of what is composed

5 of this specific temple. So, for this

6 reason we went to a specialist in India who

7 helped us determine exactly the composition

8 proportions and sizing of all the elements

9 that were presented to you here today.


11 will go ahead and make a few comments

12 regarding the height variance on items

13 number one through seven. No, you first.

14 MEMBER GHANNAM: I don't have any



17 have something?

18 MR. SCHULTZ: Just on the spire

19 question. We did address that. We did

20 highlight that section of the ordinance. We

21 don't find a lot of initiating case that

22 talks what a spire is. So, we fell back on

23 some kind of practical research. What would

24 be described as spires. And you find



1 descriptions of that, not just the conical

2 or steeple kind of thing, but I think the

3 architectural term we use to describe all

4 different shapes and sizes, so I just wanted

5 to throw that out there.


7 Schultz.

8 Regarding the items one through seven

9 I tend to agree that the use of spire in our

10 ordinance is more of an americanized version

11 of what we are looking at and it would be my

12 belief that, I just want it to be

13 interpreted as such and it would fall under

14 the ordinance of that the height limitations

15 shall not apply to such religious

16 structures. And as such, given our

17 attorney's opinion, I don't find any reason

18 that the Zoning Board should exercise its

19 ability to restrict that underneath the

20 greater distance to the nearest property

21 line. We are in between that.

22 Another point regarding the spire is

23 that, some of the items that require the

24 largest variances actually are what we or



1 some of us are Christians look at as a

2 spire. They are in the same context that

3 that whole type structure. So, I feel that

4 the items that are being requested that have

5 the large variance request, if you will,

6 fall even closer to that description of a

7 spire. So, once again I believe for this

8 purpose, items one through seven would fall

9 under that interpretation. That would be

10 finding.

11 What I would like a little bit of

12 clarification on is that in page one of the

13 packet that was prepared for the Zoning

14 Board, this packet. It says that the some

15 of the Vastu principles determine decisions

16 as how one enters the temple and where on

17 the land the temple should be located as

18 well as height and ratios among other

19 criteria.

20 If you could just give me more

21 explanation as to how the ratios were

22 derived at, given the religious background

23 and driving the height that was finally

24 decided upon in this request. I will let



1 you go first.

2 MR. MANYAM: Some of the things that

3 make up other criteria are things like bird

4 stars and star signs of the deity itself.

5 Essentially the deity in the temple

6 situation is personified. So, there are

7 birth dates. There are essential elements

8 about the deity that this temple is built

9 for that make up the other criteria that

10 come up in the design. If we pick a

11 different deity than the temple, the

12 proportions, the elements of how we put this

13 together changes slightly and those are all

14 composed of, say, the bird sign, the

15 location, geographic location, and elements

16 like that. If it helps now.

17 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I understand a

18 little bit more. I appreciate your

19 willingness to teach us more. So, thank you

20 for that.

21 Last for the attorney. In regards to

22 this we are looking at an interpretation and

23 finding that is in a religious sense a spire

24 in accordance with this ordinance.



1 I also have concerns regarding the

2 lighting. Are we able to with an

3 interpretation motion attach a condition or

4 finding of fact that they did state that the

5 lights would come down at 11:00? That is

6 also a major concern of mine. Living close

7 to a commercial property where the lights

8 were on at all hours of the night.

9 MR. SCHULTZ: Sure. The answer is,

10 yes. The only reason I am hesitating, I

11 don't know that you need to formally make an

12 interpretation if somebody makes a motion

13 under Section 2903 to approve those heights,

14 then you don't need to use the word

15 interpretation, you have made that motion

16 and, yes, you would be able to attach a

17 condition with regard to the lighting being

18 turned off I believe at 11 o'clock or

19 whatever time you find it appropriate.


21 Members?


23 question to you, Mr. Schultz. Just a matter

24 of interpretation. Is it all right to



1 mention the City attorney's letter to the

2 Planning Commission in the current

3 discussion?

4 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the Chair, you

5 can ask questions about what's in the letter

6 in terms of a motion or reading things out

7 of it, I guess I would prefer not to do

8 that. But if you have a question --


10 have a couple of questions regarding that.

11 And one of them was his reference to this




15 like to educate me a little more about it?

16 MR. SCHULTZ: Sure. What you referred

17 to is an acronym for the Religious Land Use

18 and Institutionalized Persons Act. It's a

19 Federal Statute that was adopted a few years

20 ago when the United States Congress made

21 some findings that maybe certain religious

22 uses were not getting a fair shake before

23 local municipal approving bodies. You can

24 agree with that or disagree with that, but



1 the bottom line is a Federal statute was

2 enacted that basically changes the way a

3 court might look at it at a decision of a

4 local body like this if there is a denial of

5 a requested religious use.

6 Normally your decisions are, I don't

7 want to say easy to uphold from review, but

8 it's a pretty minimal standard that's unique

9 as the Zoning Board of Appeals reviewing

10 court doesn't decide whether you made the

11 right decision, whether it agrees with the

12 decision. It basically looks and hears the

13 records, sees what was before you and says

14 to itself, was there any basis on which they

15 could have made that decision. Even though

16 I think it's wrong, was it irrational.

17 That's a very minimal differential standard

18 to review.

19 The Federal statute flips that on its

20 head and basically says, if it's a religious

21 use and you are making a discretionary

22 decision and that decision burdens the

23 ability, that decision burdens the ability

24 of the user to engage in that religious use,



1 substantially, not a minor burden, but a

2 real burden, then it goes the other way.

3 Instead of the proponent having

4 to prove that you were wrong, we essentially

5 have to prove that we were right and it's a

6 much higher standard. It's often brought up

7 by religious petitioners, petitioners for

8 religious use. Sometimes it applies.

9 Sometimes it doesn't. Whether it's applies

10 has to do with whether or not you are really

11 imposing a burden limiting somebody's

12 ability to engage in a religious use. So,

13 the question, for example, tonight on this

14 issue would be if we are looking at the

15 height issue. You would ask yourself if we

16 just said, you know what, those elements,

17 the spires, whatever you want to call them,

18 are too high. You got to cut them down by

19 12 feet to meet the ordinance, would that be

20 imposing a burden, a substantial burden on

21 their ability to practice their religion.

22 If somebody reviewing your decision

23 says, yes, that would be a substantial

24 burden, we would have the obligation to



1 prove that there was some compelling

2 governmental interest, that this was the

3 least restrictive thing we could do to meet

4 the height ordinance. We haven't

5 necessarily talked about this until now, but

6 it's an issue.

7 The fact that it's a religious

8 use makes it a little different than the

9 next case that's coming up because of that

10 Federal statute.


12 for your educational discourse. I think it

13 helps everybody else who listened to you

14 also to understand what else is involved

15 under the service here what we are facing.

16 Thank you, Mr. Chair?


18 Member Sanghvi. Member Shroyer?

19 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

20 If Ms. McBeth -- she is still here. I

21 thought you were hiding behind that chair.

22 In looking at one of our standards

23 that we tried to review concerning providing

24 substantial justice to the Petitioner and



1 the surrounding property owners, if the

2 surrounding property owners were sitting

3 onto their rear deck or in their backyard,

4 is there a way to determine how much of the

5 spires they would be able to see over the

6 tree lines?

7 MS. McBETH: I am not sure if the

8 architect has presented kind of a site

9 drawing.

10 MEMBER SHROYER: I haven't seen one in

11 the packet.

12 MS. McBETH: I don't think we have

13 seen that either. I don't recall seeing

14 something like that. I can point out that

15 there are the wooded areas, again,

16 throughout the property.

17 MEMBER SHROYER: Primarily endogenous

18 trees?

19 MS. McBETH: Yes.

20 MEMBER SHROYER: (Unintelligible).

21 MS. McBETH: Yes, I believe they would

22 for the most part. So, here is the temple

23 that we were talking about that has the

24 height consideration. The Planning



1 Commission looked at this project twice as

2 you may or may not know. The first time the

3 priest residence had been a little bit

4 further to the back and the temple building

5 had been a little bit further to the rear as

6 well. Encroaching into this natural woodland

7 area. So, they have moved the buildings out

8 of that area a little bit. They are

9 proposing these trees in this area to

10 further buffer and our landscape architect

11 and our woodland consultant are going to

12 work together to determine if those are

13 going to need the julett (ph) or evergreen

14 trees. I think there is an argument to make

15 those evergreen trees.

16 I think at that point to help mitigate

17 the view from the residents that have talked

18 this evening that are off of Eleven Mile

19 Road -- let me in switch this over. They

20 are this area to the south.

21 So, there was that mitigating factor.

22 Also some trees are proposed along here,

23 but, of course this is a very dense woodland

24 on the south side and the other residents



1 that we have talked about as well. Andes

2 Hills are here and the applicant is

3 proposing some landscaping through here.

4 So, I think to answer your question, there

5 has not been a study done by our department.

6 I'm not sure if the architect has done one

7 to take a look at it, but there are some

8 existing woodlands and replacement landscape

9 trees that are proposed and woodland

10 replacements on site as well.

11 MEMBER SHROYER: The topography of the

12 area Andes Court is higher than the land and

13 the development; is that correct?

14 MS. McBETH: This area here is quite

15 low. This is a wetland area, so there is not

16 too much vegetation in this area. This area

17 is lower. We have heard that this area in

18 the back here is lower as well. So, I think

19 that this property stands a little bit

20 higher, but I haven't verified that on a

21 survey at this point.

22 MEMBER SHROYER: And we are not

23 looking at any height variances at all

24 regarding the cultural center?



1 MS. McBETH: No, not for the cultural

2 center. Again, that is two stories above

3 grade and that meets the height variance of

4 35 feet.

5 MEMBER SHROYER: There was no

6 mechanical apparatus?

7 MS. McBETH: We have not seen any

8 mechanical apparatus on top of that

9 building. So, I am going to say, no, there

10 was none.

11 MEMBER SHROYER: I know that's not an

12 original seven, but while I have her up

13 here.


15 have the floor.

16 MEMBER SHROYER: I think that's it.

17 I had a second question but it wasn't

18 for Ms. McBeth. That's all for now.


20 Members?

21 More comments? Member Ibe?

22 MEMBER IBE: My comment I think is

23 probably more from a legal point of view.

24 Now, this is not, it's not indicative of



1 what I think of the project now, but I think

2 the definition of spire, clearly I will

3 agree with the attorney for the Petitioner

4 as well as for the (unintelligible). If we

5 are to accept the definition to be what it

6 is, then, of course, this whole discussion

7 is moot. I don't know why we are wasting

8 all the time. I think we need to make a

9 motion. Thank you.

10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I just want to

11 clarify one last time with our attorney, the

12 City attorney. You say that we would make

13 a -- you would recommend making a motion,

14 but towards the effect of granting the

15 variances as opposed to an interpretation?

16 Is that what you said?

17 MR. SCHULTZ: No. And I think I

18 wasn't clear.


20 MR. SCHULTZ: It's a two-step

21 analysis. If you look at Section 2903 and

22 say I think that that was intended to apply

23 to these elements, they are spires, they are

24 within that concept, then you don't need to



1 do the variance issue. You don't need to

2 make a specific formal interpretation of

3 that. You would just apply that standard.

4 You would say, what 2903 says is, if you are

5 a spire, the 35 feet doesn't apply and the

6 Board specifies the height. As long as it's

7 not more than 75 in this case.

8 So, the motion would be, I find under

9 Section 2903, these are spires. I think the

10 height is appropriate, but I want to deal

11 with the lighting and I want it turned off

12 by such and such a time. That would be the

13 motion if I am correctly understanding it,

14 it's a motion to approve.


16 MEMBER IBE: So, may I move forward

17 with a motion then?

18 MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you.

19 MEMBER IBE: In light of the extended

20 discussions, presentations made by

21 Petitioners, comments made by concerned

22 residents and the discussions we have heard

23 from the Board Members as well as the City

24 and the attorney for the City, I would move



1 that the structure as presented by the

2 Petitioner falls under the definition of

3 what a church spire should be. And in

4 accordance with Section 2903, there are

5 spires and the heights obviously makes

6 exemptions from height limitations. And as

7 a result a variance relief is not required

8 and as such I move that the Board adopt,

9 adopt the definition -- strike that. I move

10 that the Board apply the standard for the

11 definition of a church spire to the

12 Petitioner's claims.

13 In addition, there should be a

14 condition that the lighting of the structure

15 should be turned off by 11 p.m. each day.

16 Mr. Schultz, (unintelligible)?

17 MR. SCHULTZ: It does, but briefly

18 through the Chair. Confirm that this

19 relates to all seven of the elements, the

20 spires.

21 MEMBER IBE: Certainly.

22 MR. SCHULTZ: And that you are

23 approving the heights that are proposed on

24 the site plan.



1 MEMBER IBE: So moved.

2 MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you very much.


4 one through seven on the agenda?

5 MR. SCHULTZ: Correct.

6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Would it also be

7 appropriate to mention that this is in

8 consideration of the Religious Land Use and

9 Industrialized Persons Act and other

10 determinations would be a burden on

11 religious exercise?

12 MR. SCHULTZ: No. I don't know that

13 you need to mention RLUIPA. I think that's

14 kind of a background kind of thing. I think

15 it would be appropriate if the maker of the

16 motion chose to say that these are elements

17 that appear to be related to the purpose of

18 the temple and that the height relates to

19 that larger building structure. That would

20 be appropriate.

21 MEMBER IBE: I will concur with that.

22 MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you.

23 MEMBER IBE: So moved.




1 motion on the table.

2 MEMBER GHANNAM: I'll second it.


4 seconds the motion and all its amendments I

5 assume?

6 MEMBER GHANNAM: Absolutely.

7 MR. BOULARD: If I may further

8 complicate issues, that's not my intent.

9 The lighting which is to go off at 11 p.m.

10 and my understanding would be that it would

11 not come on before daylight in the morning,

12 that is the light for just the building or

13 all the site lighting, the parking lot

14 lighting?

15 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the Chair, I

16 think your ability to condition that

17 probably relates to the seven elements that

18 you are talking about.

19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I think you also

20 bring up a good question. Do we have a

21 morning time that we want to relate to?

22 MEMBER IBE: I would think that

23 depending on when we have daylight.

24 MR. AMANN: If I may. We wouldn't



1 expect to have them on ever before -- I

2 think the earliest we get dark around here

3 even with Daylight Saving's Time in effect

4 is probably 5:00 p.m.


6 to the morning.

7 MR. AMANN: Well, we wouldn't expect

8 to have them on in the morning. So, it's

9 problem solved.

10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: So, delaying the

11 first two items one through seven only

12 (unintelligible)?

13 MR. SCHULTZ: That's correct.

14 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: And the seconder

15 concurs with all those comments?

16 MR. GHANNAM: Yes.


18 comments before the motion is called?

19 Member Shroyer?

20 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you. I just

21 want to mention I am not opposed whatsoever

22 to this structure. I think it's a gorgeous

23 building. However, I still reserve the

24 thought that I said originally, that I want



1 to do further research on spires and temples

2 -- I mean spires and steeples.

3 And also due to the lateness of

4 receiving the attorney's recommendation, or

5 letter I should say this afternoon, I have

6 not had adequate time to thoroughly review

7 it. Consequently I will not be in support

8 of any motions this evening. Thank you.


10 other comments? Seeing one, Ms. Working,

11 please call the roll.

12 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?


14 MS. WORKING: Member Ghannam?


16 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?


18 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


20 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer?


22 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?


24 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer?




2 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 5-2.


4 and move along with the Board discussion on

5 item number 8, the roof top apparatus and I

6 will open it back up for Board discussion.

7 Member Bauer?

8 MEMBER BAUER: I think in the past

9 when we have run into these type of things

10 it's almost a given. I mean, you got to

11 have them somewhere and rather than take out

12 space inside of building itself, that's

13 where they go on top. So, I would be in

14 favor of leaving at the 42 feet. The seven

15 feet variance.



18 with what Mr. Bauer says. Thank you.

19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Just a point of

20 clarification, Mr. Schultz, that we are now

21 back to our practical difficulty standard on

22 this; is that correct?

23 MR. SCHULTZ: That it's a practical

24 difficulty and the dumpsters, yes.




2 Members? You can go ahead and come up for

3 us, the architect or you. Both of you.

4 Given the standards, the legal standards

5 that I am sure you are well aware of for

6 practical difficulty, go ahead and please

7 explain to us what the practical difficulty

8 in this situation is.

9 MR. AMANN: Thank you. Certainly, the

10 practical difficulty is simply based on the

11 fact that we obviously have a roof line that

12 is at a certain level and then we have the

13 mechanical equipment of the size required

14 for this structure. So, in order to

15 properly screen it, we have had to apply a

16 seven foot, essentially we needed a variance

17 of seven foot to get appropriate screening

18 because of the desire, particularly as we

19 have heard concerns from neighbors tonight

20 and also with the Planning Commission

21 throughout the process as to not wanting to

22 hear mechanical equipment, not wanting to

23 see mechanical equipment. So, in order to

24 sufficiently screen it we need to start from



1 where our roof line is and then provide what

2 has been determined a seven foot wall to

3 provide that screening. So our practical

4 difficulty is where we have to start and

5 then the sufficiency of wall needed to

6 complete the job. And that being the basis

7 of the seven foot variance. It's our desire

8 to have sufficient wall that it allows us to

9 use materials for absorption of sound so we

10 can minimize any sound escaping as well as

11 prevent any visualization of the equipment

12 as well.

13 We have also located it centrally

14 enough to the building even though we have

15 this practical difficulty, we try to

16 minimize any potential impact of that

17 practical difficulty on the neighbors to try

18 to further minimize the appearance of it.


20 through the Plan Review Center report that

21 was dated October 14th, and it appears that

22 the Community Development Department brought

23 up the point that you could consider placing

24 the unit in a mechanical room as part of the



1 building or placing the unit on the ground.

2 Why can't that be done?

3 MR. AMANN: Certainly it's feasible to

4 do that. It affects their layout that they

5 had and I will let them address that. As to

6 being on the ground, I think you are seeing

7 more and more not only with religious

8 institutions but with many institutions uses

9 and other uses, the attempt to have them off

10 the ground away from potential mischief and

11 also involvement of people trying to do any

12 danger, especially HVAC systems it's best to

13 have it in a secure area so that you don't

14 have any potential problems with those. I

15 will let them address the actual design

16 within the building of that location.


18 great.

19 MR. MANYAM: On the ground just like

20 Mr. Amann said that the site footprint that

21 we in order to for the goal to maximum the

22 woodland on this property when the site

23 footprint is very tight. We have parking up

24 against this building. There is no real



1 yard space on the side of these buildings.

2 The location of this, we do have a separate

3 mechanical room inside the space on the

4 floor in addition to the penthouse

5 mechanical structure. The nature of this

6 building, the choreography of the spaces,

7 the prayer hall space itself is in its sense

8 its own space. There is the ground floor

9 space in which you enter which you go

10 through process of removing your shoes and

11 coat. And there are those services like the

12 restrooms and so forth there. They is a

13 stairway and elevator to go up to the second

14 floor. And then on the second floor there

15 is going to be the front spaces of the

16 second floor before you actually enter the

17 prayer hall space itself.

18 So, in essence it's designed as its

19 own entity and we are trying to create a

20 clear span of space that's in the prayer

21 hall likewise within in the building. So,

22 when you compose all those items together

23 and the duct work that we would like to

24 utilize to get to within all the elements of



1 the building and properly servicing a

2 building of this nature, this is a location

3 that we really need to be more centralized.

4 MR. AMANN: One aspect of that if I

5 can ask him in front of you. I never really

6 like to ask questions that I am not sure of

7 the answer to, but I am going to do that

8 here. It is my understanding also that the

9 equipment we have on the exterior of the

10 roof is equipment that we could not

11 necessarily have internal to the building

12 without open ventilation and access.

13 MR. MANYAM: Right, and proper

14 ventilation as being accommodated for the

15 building structure.

16 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: What about the

17 equipment that makes it that way?

18 MR. MANYAM: The air conditioning unit

19 and the open air systems that we would like

20 to have for proper ventilation of running

21 this equipment. These are equipment, for

22 instance, the AC condenser unit, not the

23 furnace itself. Those are all located

24 within the mechanical room within the first



1 floor.

2 MR. AMANN: One other aspect of this

3 is also in light of obviously the seven

4 structures that we talked about earlier,

5 although this mechanical screening wall that

6 we have is above the sidewalk, obviously

7 it's below, and we have made it out of

8 similar color. Essentially disappear into

9 what would be arising above the roof.

10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I appreciate the

11 aesthetics there. In my mind I see it as a

12 separate unit, but I want to look at it in a

13 different light as far as the legal world

14 would take it. So, I appreciate your

15 comments Thank you. That's all I have as

16 far as questions.

17 Other Board Members?

18 MR. GHANNAM: I would be willing to

19 make a motion if there are no other

20 discussion. I would move that in case

21 number: 08-054 that in item Number 8 that

22 we approve the proposed variance requested

23 by 7 feet as requested and as designed by

24 the architects because it meets the



1 practical difficulty standards in that if we

2 do not approve it it would be unreasonably

3 prevent the use of the property for

4 permitted purpose. The variance would

5 provide substantial justice to the

6 petitioner and surrounding property owners.

7 The property is unique in that it's a

8 residential area and they are trying to fit

9 these structures on the property.

10 The problem was not self created,

11 because as they explained, the structure has

12 to be certain height and to me the most

13 logical place is on top of the roof for the

14 reasons that they have discussed. There is

15 proper and adequate light provided to

16 adjacent properties. There is no increase

17 of fire danger or public safety. In fact, I

18 think it would be decreased. Property

19 values would not be diminished and the

20 spirit of the zoning ordinance would be

21 observed.

22 MEMBER IBE: Second.


24 motion by Member Ghannam and a second by



1 Member Ibe. Would you consider making part

2 of the motion the last comments that were

3 made regarding the aesthetics matching that

4 of the rest of the building?

5 MR. GHANNAM: Yes. I stated that I

6 would move to approve it as proposed, so

7 that would include that.


9 discussion? Seeing none, Ms. Working,

10 please call the roll.

11 MS. WORKING: Member Ghannam?

12 MR. GHANNAM: Yes.

13 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?


15 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?


17 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


19 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer?


21 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?


23 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer?




1 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 6-1.

2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Moving along to

3 item 9. We are still talking about the

4 dumpster. It's gone back and forth whether

5 or not we were discussing that, but it

6 appears, Ms. McBeth, that it's still is on

7 the table for us to decide tonight. So I

8 will open up the Board for discussion on the

9 dumpster, number 9.

10 And I will start off. Ms. McBeth, if

11 I could bother you for a second.

12 MS. McBETH: Sure.


14 comments was that basically the final

15 placement is going to be decided at the

16 final site plan approval anyway. So I find

17 it hard for the Zoning Board to approve a

18 blanket for anywhere in the side yard at

19 this time. Can you explain maybe why you

20 would consider that we do?

21 MS. McBETH: Yes. The staff felt

22 strongly that the location as to the single

23 family home was not an appropriate location.

24 And we felt that there were many other



1 locations where it would be appropriate

2 behind the cultural center but not

3 technically in the rear yard. It's a little

4 bit strange because we have multiple

5 buildings on the site. So, the side yard

6 would be anywhere to the side of these

7 buildings. The rear yard would actually

8 have to be behind all of the buildings on

9 the site, and we don't feel that that would

10 be appropriate to have the dumpster located

11 physical to the cultural center that far

12 away. And our best representation is that

13 the dumpster itself could be located along

14 this line here which is also in the side

15 yard, but more appropriately located for the

16 cultural center which was the third stage

17 and located closest to Taft Road.

18 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: On the left-hand

19 side of the cultural center there is a

20 little green box, is that the entrance then?

21 MS. McBETH: This area here, Mr.

22 Chairman?


24 MS. McBETH: Yes, that is a



1 (unintelligible) I believe for driving under

2 and dropping people off.


4 you are looking at on the south side where

5 you think it might be more appropriate, tell

6 me more about the land that is to the south

7 of that.

8 MS. McBETH: The resident that was

9 present this evening, there is a house right

10 in this location and a swimming pool at

11 about this location. And then heavy woods.

12 Really nice quality woodlands that are in

13 that area occupy all of this space here. We

14 felt that locating a dumpster enclosure with

15 the appropriate screening would be better

16 located further away for the noise problems

17 that are sometimes preceding with emptying

18 the dumpster and sometimes the smell of the

19 dumpster enclosure to be located as far away

20 from that home as possible without really

21 encroaching into the other residential areas

22 that are surrounding.

23 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: What is possible

24 for the lot below there? South of where you



1 are proposing the possible dumpster and west

2 of the home in question.

3 MS. McBETH: This is the current

4 property line shown right here. So, it's

5 assumed that this property would stay

6 residential. This parcel here just to the

7 west of that actually comes to the south and

8 connects over to Taft Road a little bit

9 farther down off the page here. So, this is

10 connected to a larger site. Again, zoned

11 single family residential. We would expect

12 residential types of entities on the

13 property.


15 dumpsters be emptied in residential areas?

16 MS. McBETH: I don't believe that

17 there is an Ordinance provision for that.

18 Charles, I'm sorry, are you aware if

19 there are any Ordinance provisions on that?


21 commercial abutting residential it's 6:00 in

22 the morning, but I'm not aware if there is

23 anything as special land uses abutting a

24 residential area.



1 MR. BOULARD: I am not aware of a

2 limitation.


4 property line been considered as far as

5 dumpster location?

6 MS. McBETH: Yes. The north property

7 line here. This area is not shown for

8 development because it is a regulated

9 wetland and they are proposing some wetland

10 mitigation in these other areas that are

11 identified. This line of trees here, kind

12 of a heavy line of trees was proposed by the

13 Applicant and approved or recommended for

14 approval by our landscape architect. The

15 residential property is to the north from

16 the cultural center itself. So, we felt

17 that it would be more appropriate to be

18 located on the southern property line and

19 more convenient and less obtrusive into the

20 natural areas that are on site.

21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: That's all the

22 questions I have. I will open it up for

23 other Board Members. Member Ghannam?

24 MEMBER GHANNAM: Actually I have a



1 couple of questions for Ms. McBeth.

2 Ms. McBeth, I have got a couple

3 of questions for you. If we did approve

4 item number 9 which is the dumpster

5 variance, would you recommend that we

6 approve it for the south side or what you

7 call the side yard property, to be

8 determined between the Applicant and the

9 Planning Commission?

10 MS. McBETH: I think that would be

11 appropriate between the Applicant and the

12 Community Development Department on their

13 final site plan review which we would be

14 handling administratively.

15 The Applicant's attorney, Mr. Amann,

16 just suggested that they would be willing to

17 as well provide a limitation on the request

18 that the dumpster enclosure itself be at

19 least 100 feet from that adjacent

20 residential area.

21 MR. AMANN: Actually better than that.

22 That hard red line along the bottom is a

23 wall. So the end of that wall no less than

24 100 feet west from that wall, so it would



1 put it essentially we think about there if

2 you want to use that picture.

3 MS. McBETH: So, the same general

4 area, just 100 feet from the end of the

5 walk.

6 MR. AMANN: What we are dealing with

7 on the south of us that is a pool in the

8 rear and the house is in front of the pool,

9 that would put us probably 200 feet. And we

10 have no problem as it relates to really the

11 application, if there is a standard that

12 doesn't allow dumpsters being picked up

13 before 6:00 a.m., on commercial property is

14 adjacent to residential, we don't have a

15 particular issue with that either as well to

16 our dumpster and we wouldn't expect it to be

17 before that time.

18 MEMBER GHANNAM: I don't have any

19 other questions. Thank you.

20 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It's not so much

21 regarding the time limit that I have -- I am

22 not particularly impressed with the

23 Ordinance that allows that to begin with. I

24 think 6:00 is too early. And I appreciate



1 the effort. And as far as putting it 100

2 yards from that line, but I live even

3 further than that from the dumpsters in the

4 commercial area and at 6:00 when they come

5 by I can still hear them. And it's much

6 more than that. So, I am not sure where I

7 can take a time limit on this.

8 I am struggling because I see that

9 there is really no other place on this lot

10 and this makes much more sense to put the

11 dumpster closest to the Cultural Center.

12 However, there is also great concerns about

13 the affect on that neighbor. So where does

14 the neighbor's right coincide with their

15 right to have a dumpster nearest to the

16 Cultural Center as far as the legal standard

17 is permitted?

18 MR. SCHULTZ: That's a fair question.

19 I mean, that's the determination that you

20 are making in terms of is the proposed

21 location, does it do justice to the property

22 owner as well as the proponent here? So,

23 you have to make that determination. If the

24 question is can you impose conditions on



1 timing, regular removal to make sure there

2 is no overflow and things like that, all

3 those conditions are appropriate to be made.

4 MEMBER KRIEGER: (Unintelligible).

5 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: You want to make

6 your comments known.

7 MEMBER KRIEGER: My question would be,

8 if we could table it until a future time

9 when they are building it to determine?

10 MR. SCHULTZ: And maybe Ms. McBeth

11 would chime in on this. At some point they

12 need a final site plan approval and they

13 need to know where to show the dumpster. I

14 think they can proceed at some point with

15 the assumption that they are going to bring

16 that question back. But they do need final

17 site plan approval and they need to know

18 where their dumpster is permitted. They do

19 need a dumpster. In terms of the proponent,

20 the proponent has to be able to put it

21 somewhere on the property. Whether it's

22 further away or closer, I guess, that's what

23 you would need to struggle with.

24 From a Planning Review perspective and



1 from a Community Development perspective, I

2 don't know that they need to see the

3 building still first.



6 enough to say that they cannot put it in the

7 backyard, and leave it at that? Because

8 that is the main concern of the neighbors

9 around there. The dumpster being close to

10 the property line in the backyard, back of

11 the property.

12 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the Chair, it

13 would be appropriate to say it's got to be

14 at least X feet away from the residential

15 improvements wherever they ultimately agree

16 on.


18 don't have to come back to us again and they

19 can decide for themselves.


21 Members have any other comments? Anyone?

22 MEMBER GHANNAM: How about I make a

23 motion if there is no further discussion. I

24 will go ahead and move in case number:



1 08-054 as to item Number 9 to approve the

2 petition that the dumpster be located in the

3 side yard with the understanding and

4 specific agreement that it will be at least

5 100 feet west of the southern wall that's on

6 the property line as described on the site

7 plan I believe that is shown tonight. The

8 specific location to be approved and agreed

9 between mutual consent of the Community

10 Development Department as well as the

11 Petitioner for the reasons that, first of

12 all, they have to have, it's got to be a

13 location that doesn't affect at least as

14 much as possible the neighbors mainly to the

15 south.

16 And based on the layout of this

17 particular site, I think there are unique

18 circumstances to the property where it

19 deserves to be in the side yard. The

20 problem is not self created. There is no

21 increase of fire danger or public safety.

22 Property values would not be diminished

23 within the surrounding area. And the spirit

24 of the Ordinance is observed.




2 motion on the table.



5 second by Member Sanghvi. Any further

6 discussion? Member Krieger?

7 MEMBER KRIEGER: Question? Was that a

8 100 feet or 100 yards from the westerly

9 point of that wall?

10 MEMBER GHANNAM: As the Petitioner

11 suggested at least 100 feet west of the

12 southern wall that's adjacent to the

13 southern property.


15 questions or comments? Seeing none, Ms.

16 Working.

17 MS. WORKING: Member Ghannam?


19 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


21 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer?


23 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?




1 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer?


3 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?

4 MEMBER IBE: Present.

5 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?


7 MR. SCHULTZ: Could you clarify that

8 the present was a yes.

9 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe, present is a

10 yes for clarification, please?

11 MEMBER IBE: I think my vote is a

12 present vote. You can interpret it

13 whichever way you want. It means I am

14 neither for nor against it.

15 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: The only issue

16 with that, Member Ibe, is that I believe the

17 rules that regulate the Zoning Board mandate

18 that we do vote a yes or a no on each motion

19 in front of us. And I believe that maybe

20 not by our rules but maybe in the Charter,

21 the City Charter, I believe.

22 MR. SCHULTZ: It's a requirement of

23 the Rules. It's a requirement under the

24 Statute. There is no abstentions unless you



1 have a conflict of interest which I don't

2 believe is present. So, there must be a yes

3 or not vote, you are correct.


5 recall the roll, Ms. Working.

6 MS. WORKING: Should I begin at the

7 beginning?


9 motion maker.

10 MS. WORKING: Member Ghannam?


12 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


14 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer?


16 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?


18 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer?


20 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?


22 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?


24 MS. WORKING: Motion to approve passes



1 4-3.

2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: And last to the

3 parking item number 10. I'll open it up for

4 Board discussion. Member Ibe?

5 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, as well as the

6 Petitioner this is one area that concerns me

7 the most as perhaps the parking. I think if

8 there is any area where I am on the fence,

9 it is the parking. I think the gentleman,

10 one of the residents who had some, he had a

11 projection for us to see. He made a good

12 point. And I think that's Mr. Mathis, I

13 believe, I am not sure if I got his name

14 right. And I will go over his points, and

15 I'm not paraphrasing, I am actually quoting

16 him, he is says, "This is too much building

17 and not enough parking." And John I think

18 said, Is this the best site for this

19 project? I think the parking is what

20 troubles me the most. Everything about what

21 we have heard so far I have had no problem

22 with. As much as I think that we ought to

23 accommodate with what the Petitioner wants,

24 it troubles me that you do have two large



1 structures in a big building.

2 And to someone who understands world

3 religion. I am a Catholic, but I do

4 understand the Hindu religion very well, and

5 I do know that the people are very religious

6 devout people. And there will be events.

7 And there will be multiple events. It's not

8 just going to be one event. Knowing fully

9 well that there is a temple in Canton that I

10 am familiar with and I drive by it. My

11 family lives very close to the temple and I

12 know how busy it can be. And they don't

13 even have a cultural center that is

14 separate.

15 MR. AMANN: It's part of their

16 building.

17 MR. IBE: It's part of the building.

18 So, parking is a huge issue for me.

19 The residents are concerned that you

20 will not have activities going on. Is there

21 any guarantee that you can give to alleviate

22 the fears of those residents as well as to

23 calm me down for me to trust that this is

24 not one of those April Fool's jokes that you



1 are playing on us? Because the last thing I

2 want is driving down Taft and having these

3 people coming the same route because the

4 place is crowded and we can't get by.

5 MR. AMANN: Certainly. I very much

6 appreciate your concern in your question.

7 We spent a fair amount of time with this in

8 the Planning Commission. You are raising an

9 issue, I think what your attorney was

10 talking about is essentially about the

11 underlying calculation of the parking

12 required for the site. And I will address

13 that.

14 The issue before you tonight, though,

15 is really about these 34 spaces. But let me

16 address the first part because I think it

17 will help to give you comfort in

18 understanding of that 34 space issue. As it

19 relates to the parking as probably Beth

20 explained, we submitted, of course, a

21 detailed traffic study which included

22 parking calculations.

23 The traffic consultant we are very

24 appreciative of the fact that not only did



1 they review it, they questioned it. They

2 disagreed at first and said how can you make

3 these assertions? The beauty of what we

4 have here is that you don't have to take our

5 word as a promise, but we do have a letter

6 on file as part of the Planning Commission

7 approval that says that you will not have

8 simultaneous events as part of our condition

9 of our approval.

10 What the traffic consultant did is

11 actually said go check the other temples

12 that are in existence. And they referenced

13 the one in Troy that they thought, many

14 thought was the worst case scenario. And,

15 in fact, to demonstrate and determine, in

16 fact, whether or not, number one, do they

17 have simultaneous events with the Cultural

18 Center and the Temple.

19 You are right, many of the Temples you

20 don't see separate buildings because, for

21 example, the one that I was representing in

22 Canton, they have the ability because of the

23 size they have them as part of the building

24 itself. So, there was a Prayer area. There



1 was a Cultural Center area. All within the

2 one same building. So, it wasn't that they

3 didn't have the capacity for the use on

4 site, that had it, it was just all within

5 one building. And those sites parked

6 properly because just as this Temple, they

7 do not use both sites at one time. It is by

8 the very nature of their function. Although

9 we have given a letter based on the Planning

10 Commission condition that should be I think

11 part of your file that says as a condition

12 we agree that they will not be used.

13 But, secondly, we had the ability to

14 have the traffic consultant go and, in fact,

15 verify the actual experience of other

16 Temples to see that this is, in fact, the

17 case. Just as we also looked at one of the

18 bigger issues is your Ordinance is typically

19 Americanized as it relates to calculating

20 parking spaces for worship spaces. In fact,

21 I go to a church where 22,000 families

22 belong and maybe 4,000 people attend on a

23 weekend at each services, four different

24 services. We all sit in a pew, we sit in a



1 seat and you can designate a space for it.

2 The fact is we can then cram more

3 people in one area and we have to have more

4 parking to accommodate that. This Temple

5 actually involves the use of the prayer room

6 which is (unintelligible) where people

7 actually would go prostate. They would

8 actually go flat on the ground. And the

9 space required for an individual worshipper

10 in this area is much larger than you could

11 have actually think. So, it actually

12 affects the parking calculations because you

13 will not physical fit in the area where

14 normally you would think in a normal

15 Americanized worship experience.

16 So, that's where it fundamentally

17 affects the underlying parking calculation.

18 Then when you look at the actual uses and

19 decide not to have multiplicity of use.

20 Then when you look at the actual

21 verification of that experience, that's how

22 we ultimately got to an understanding of the

23 underlying parking calculations.

24 As it relates to the particular issue



1 on the 34 spaces, it comes down to as Ms.

2 McBeth explained, an attempt and the desire

3 expressed by the Environmental consultant

4 and the Planning Commission the desire to

5 preserve really a pristine woodland area as

6 opposed to putting more spaces in there.

7 Particularly since we are only going to

8 confront this experience of being

9 potentially maximized on the parking on

10 certain events in the year and we do have

11 several events. You are aware of several

12 events throughout the year. But that's why

13 we have also made an accommodation with the

14 ZBA and the Planning Commission as it

15 considered before us off site parking.

16 Questions were raised about what that

17 does to parking. We will actually as we

18 have indicated in the Planning Commission

19 have a van, a shuttle van which would be

20 used to transport people back and forth

21 keeping cars away from the site. But more

22 importantly out of all these concerns about

23 traffic and parking, it's important to

24 understand one of the great things about



1 religious institutions as it relates to

2 traffic and parking concern is predominantly

3 they occur on Sundays. So, we hear a lot of

4 concerns about cars getting in and out of

5 the road and whatever. That's why when

6 traffic analyst look at these issues they

7 look at how they are non-rush hour and they

8 are very compatible to residential. They

9 are compatible in the business areas because

10 we are not occurring at rush hour times

11 which are on weekdays. Even though we will

12 have people to come in to worship and

13 perform functions throughout the week, but

14 those will not be the areas or the times

15 where we have large gatherings of people

16 where we have to worry about the parking.

17 So, as it relates to -- and we also

18 indicated to the Planning Commission, we

19 know it's important to the neighbors that

20 this site is properly parked. We know it's

21 important to the City. We have gone through

22 great discussions on this. It is more

23 important to us if our worshippers can't get

24 to the site, there is more problems for the



1 leadership of the Temple than anybody else.

2 So, they have spent a lot of time with the

3 traffic consultant to make sure they are

4 actually properly parked and that's why they

5 have also entered into the ancillary

6 agreement. They have also approached the

7 school about a secondary agreement if they

8 need for some other purpose for other

9 spaces.

10 The Cultural Center itself is a

11 subsequent phase that we may get to. It's

12 not part of the initial construction. So,

13 we are going to have the time and experience

14 of having the temple built. Its operation

15 and then we will be coming to ultimately on

16 the final site plan with the City on the

17 Cultural Center some time down the road.

18 The City will have had years under its

19 belt with this site operating in the Temple

20 and its parking and its traffic before it

21 has to give any consideration ultimate to

22 the Cultural Center and its final site plan.

23 So, you will know. So there won't be any

24 April Fools. There will be great experience



1 under the belt.

2 MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Chair, can I

3 followup on those comments to address sort

4 of, is this a real promise kind of question

5 just so everybody is clear? And it was

6 discussed a little bit at the Planning

7 Commission. It's a lot more than just a

8 promise the way the Planning Commission has

9 phrased it. It's an actual condition of the

10 special land use approval. If there is a

11 violation, and I think you all got the

12 minutes that shows what that limitation is,

13 events will occur at the same time. I think

14 one of the earlier speakers from the public

15 asked the question who pays attention to

16 that? Who enforces that? And the answer

17 is, the City would in the normal course

18 enforce that. Not just an Ordinance

19 requirement that says you can't create a

20 nuisance situation. You can't park on Taft

21 Road, but literally go to that special land

22 use approval and say this is the condition

23 that allows you to be having any events here

24 whether it's worship service or the use of



1 the Cultural Center. And if, in fact, it's

2 not being adhered to and it's deemed to be

3 an actual violation of that condition, the

4 City absolutely has the right to enforce

5 that provision as though it were an

6 Ordinance, maybe even more so. It's the

7 kind of thing that we would probably

8 approach the Court and say they are in

9 violation of their entire use because they

10 are not supposed to be parking on Taft Road.

11 They can't park on the lawn. If they have

12 problems with the parking that they have set

13 up, they either need to go back and get more

14 parking approved which would go to the

15 Planning Commission. Or if they can't do

16 that, then they have to make their own

17 arrangements as they were discussing. But

18 it's an enforceable promise. It's actually

19 a condition that the Planning Commission put

20 out and you would be able to tag along to

21 your own determination if you chose to do

22 that. Thank you.

23 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Can you better

24 define enforceable? What happens down the



1 road? Are they no longer allowed to

2 practice? Are they no longer allowed to use

3 the building for purposes? Or are they

4 issued a $100 ticket? Where on the spectrum

5 is -- where is the enticement for them to

6 actually go along with this condition or

7 just ignore it and drag it out in court?

8 MR. SCHULTZ: That's a good question.

9 Where on the spectrum the City's enforcement

10 falls depends on where the violation is. If

11 it's the occasional car or something like

12 that parked improperly, then they give a

13 ticket. That may be a regular role of

14 Ordinance enforcement. If it's a regular

15 occurrence that there seems to be violation

16 of the promise and a condition not to use

17 these two at the same time, we probably

18 approach the appropriate authority in

19 District Court or in the Circuit Court and

20 say, here is the approval. Here is what we

21 want them to start doing and stop doing.

22 And I guess what I am saying is, the courts

23 acknowledge your ability to place that

24 condition on and, therefore, our ability to



1 enforce it on behalf the ZBA or Planning

2 Commission. It's in the Statute. It's in

3 the Ordinance. You have the authority --

4 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I understand we

5 have the authority to attach it. What is

6 the punitive realization of such a

7 condition? I am still grasping --

8 MR. SCHULTZ: It goes anywhere from

9 the ticket if it's a minor thing that can be

10 corrected that way to full blown litigation

11 where we ask for a court to order them to do

12 something or stop doing something.

13 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: But we have no

14 idea what that something could be?

15 MR. SCHULTZ: It would be to comply

16 with the condition. Not use the two at the

17 same time. Don't park on the grass. Don't

18 park on Taft Road. Whatever the violation

19 is is what we're asking.


21 answer. I'll open it up for the Board.

22 MEMBER KRIEGER: I guess just to add

23 to that. Like they could park, not

24 necessarily if they would, but the potential



1 of parking on the shoulder is there because

2 there is shoulder. Just like at the high

3 school on a football night you drive down

4 Taft and if they are there and they're

5 arguing with the people, they are doing it,

6 so why can't we?

7 MR. AMANN: If I may address that --


9 time. If the Board ask a direct question

10 then we will call you up.

11 MR. AMANN: Okay.

12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: We are trying to

13 get some answers from our City Attorney at

14 this time. Thank you.

15 MR. SCHULTZ: That is one of the

16 conditions that the Planning Commission put

17 on it that there wouldn't be that occurring

18 as happens with football games. That's a

19 requirement. So, once they make that

20 representation and the Planning commission

21 and perhaps this Board says it's going to be

22 a condition of whatever approval we give

23 you, then there is no ability to come back

24 later and say but the school does it on the



1 weekends. It's a condition.

2 MEMBER KRIEGER: Another question I

3 came up with too is the number of services,

4 because it being a church or a temple, that

5 if you go to church on Sunday and you might

6 have three services, two in the morning and

7 one at night, then what would they

8 anticipate here for amount of people? The

9 number of services?

10 MR. GANGADHARAN: Fundamentally it's

11 more or less an open format between you and

12 your God. You can come there at any time

13 you choose when the temple is open. It's

14 not a prescribed service per se. There

15 might be offerings that people might make,

16 but come in and let the priest help them any

17 way they wish. It's almost a menu format

18 that says these are the various things you

19 could do by way of services and it's a one

20 on one thing.

21 So, there is not a concentrated

22 time at which things happen. There might be

23 just because the way of American life people

24 might get free at 6:00 or 7:00 and you might



1 find that small bump up around that popular

2 time, but otherwise anyone who wishes to

3 practice can walk in any time the temple is

4 open and get the equivalent of personalized

5 service, if you will.

6 And also along the discussion just to

7 say that we have agreed about not parking on

8 Taft, putting signs for not parking on Taft

9 just to add to the previous questions.

10 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you.


12 questions, Member Krieger?



15 Members? Mr. Shroyer?

16 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

17 Ms. McBeth? I have several questions here.

18 First of all, is the master plan showing

19 Taft being widened any time soon?

20 MS. McBETH: The master plan for land

21 use for expanding Taft Road to more than --

22 MEMBER SHROYER: Multiple lanes?

23 MS. McBETH: Not that I am aware of,

24 not at this point.



1 MEMBER SHROYER: So, there are no

2 plans on the record at all for widening the

3 two?

4 MS. McBETH: Not that I'm aware of.

5 MEMBER SHROYER: Any plan for

6 improvements on the intersection of Taft?

7 MS. McBETH: I am not aware of any

8 proposed improvements for that intersection

9 at this time.

10 MEMBER SHROYER: Somebody had

11 indicated I think they said a 2006 survey it

12 was slated it was the number one crash site

13 in the intersection. Is that correct?

14 MS. McBETH: I have not been able to

15 confirm whether that's correct. I did not

16 go back and check the record on that.

17 MEMBER SHROYER: Is there parking

18 permitted on Andre Hills road?

19 MS. McBETH: In Andes Hills.

20 MEMBER SHROYER: Andes Hills.

21 MS. McBETH: It's a private road and

22 speaking with a couple of the residents

23 there they indicated that they would not

24 want to allow or encourage parking on their



1 street. So, I assume that that would be

2 enforced and that there would be no parking

3 on Andes Hills Court.

4 MEMBER SHROYER: I didn't think there

5 was. I wanted to make sure. Any there any

6 connecting sidewalks or driveways planned

7 that would run from Grand River to the

8 property or from Eleven Mile Road to the

9 property?

10 MS. McBETH: Again on the plan there

11 is a gap. Andes Hills has the sidewalk to

12 this point and that I believe goes all the

13 way to Grand River. But there is gap here

14 where the wetland is currently located.

15 The temple is proposing a sidewalk

16 along Taft Road here. There is another gap

17 in property to the south. As you get a

18 little bit farther to the south into the

19 corner it's part of the approval for the

20 Basilian Father's, there are sidewalks

21 proposed to the corner.

22 MEMBER SHROYER: And when there is a

23 wetland such as where the gap is, the only

24 way to have a sidewalk there is at the



1 City's expense; is that correct?

2 MS. McBETH: There would be, that

3 would probably show up on the report that's

4 being prepared that talks about gaps in the

5 sidewalk. There are various funding

6 mechanisms. One of which if the City could

7 take the initiative and complete that. They

8 are looking at other funding alternatives,

9 but that one seems to be the primary source

10 at this time.

11 MR. SHROYER: Okay, thank you. And

12 obviously what I am looking at is I am

13 equally concerned as Member Ibe stated about

14 safety and traffic and parking, etcetera.

15 It's a huge concern in my eyes. On the site

16 itself can additional parking be added

17 without approval of the MDEQ?

18 MS. McBETH: Yes, the MDEQ would cover

19 the wetlands issue, so I believe that this

20 area is regulated wetlands and it doesn't

21 seem likely that they could add parking

22 there without MDEQ approval at that

23 location. Further to the back this is all

24 regulated woodland and not all covered by



1 wetland. I think there is a creek or stream

2 that comes through here. And its an area

3 that is wetland. But I believe they could

4 add some parking there in the back with

5 removal of some of that.

6 MEMBER SHROYER: About any idea how

7 much we would lose to create 34 parking

8 spaces?

9 MS. McBETH: No, we haven't done a

10 study of that in particular. And there may

11 be other areas on the site where they can do

12 that. I know there are buffers required

13 around the perimeter here and I think they

14 have worked their way to provide the

15 necessary buffers in those locations as

16 well. This is also a wetland area here.

17 So, I think that it's most likely that that

18 back area would be affected before adding

19 additional parking without trying to get any

20 additional variance.

21 MEMBER SHROYER: And they can do that

22 whether we approve it or not actually?

23 MS. McBETH: Well, that would again go

24 to the Planning Commission for review and



1 they would take a look at it, tree survey

2 the woodland plan and get some professional

3 recommendations from our environmental

4 consultants and they would talk about the

5 replacement value, whether they could

6 replace the woodlands on site or if they

7 needed to pay into the tree fund as part of

8 that. And the Planning Commission would be

9 the one to authorize to grant a woodland

10 permit.

11 MEMBER SHROYER: So that would be one

12 option available if we were to deny the

13 parking variance. Is there other options

14 that you are aware of?

15 MS. McBETH: I think another option

16 would be to reduce the size of the building.

17 That would be something that I think the

18 Applicant is taking into consideration

19 regarding the review of the project,

20 especially between the first and second

21 reviews by the Planning Commission. There

22 was a 10,000 square foot decrease in the

23 building size of the Cultural Center at this

24 location here. And I believe they reduced



1 some of the meeting space as well as some of

2 the other functional space. That would be

3 another option.

4 MEMBER SHROYER: Does our Ordinance

5 enforcement officers work on Sundays?

6 MS. McBETH: I think occasionally it's

7 some work on the weekends. But Alan is

8 shaking his head.

9 (Interposing)(Unintelligible).

10 MEMBER SHROYER: What I am looking at,

11 obviously I think it would be very difficult

12 for the City to monitor these usages. And

13 if we do look at something like this and

14 attaching requirement terms like large

15 numbers when we are talking about

16 simultaneous events and maximized spacing

17 and what have you, I think you will need to

18 attach specific numbers too. I am going to

19 rule out completely the possibility of

20 thinking about Miracle Software as an

21 overflow. Especially in today's economy,

22 and hopefully this will never happen, but in

23 today's economy we don't know from one day

24 to another if a business is going to even be



1 in existence. We don't know what tenant may

2 be in there in the future, if any. So, I am

3 not going to look at that any further.

4 I still want to and I mentioned

5 earlier, I want to review things further.

6 But this initial talk on the three phases of

7 547 spaces, which would leave a shortest of

8 273 spaces is only 50 percent. So I want to

9 go back and review that even further.

10 One other question for the Applicant,

11 if I may. This is partially because of my

12 ignorance of the Hindu religion and I

13 apologize for that. It was mentioned this

14 evening that if a different deity was used

15 that may change the requirements that would

16 need to be built of the temple itself. Is

17 there a different deity that could be used

18 that would allow --

19 MR. AMANN: The deity they had

20 selected for this is at the very core of

21 their religious purpose. And I think Mr.

22 Schultz will tell you you are now deep down

23 into RLUIPA in a long long manner.

24 Let me further address that. You are



1 expressing concerns about --

2 MEMBER SHROYER: There is no other

3 explanation.

4 MR. AMANN: Not on that point, but

5 about the 547 parking spaces.

6 MEMBER SHROYER: I didn't ask you

7 about that.

8 MR. AMANN: Okay, well, it shouldn't

9 be part of the consideration.

10 MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Chair, can I just

11 followup the question? I don't think the

12 question was improper. I think the answer

13 was fine. There was a comment made. I

14 think Mr. Shroyer was simply asking a

15 question to get some more clarification.

16 There is nothing wrong with that. But

17 obviously it is sort of their core issue, so

18 probably not going to be the basis on which

19 you make your decision.

20 MEMBER SHROYER: Oh, not at all.

21 MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you.

22 MEMBER SHROYER: And to the City, is

23 there any way at all of separating the

24 phases? Looking at -- Oh, I'm sorry, I



1 didn't think it would have to be you again,

2 Ms. McBeth. Since it is three phases and it

3 is stretched out over a period of time is

4 there a way you can look at phase one and

5 two and approve those activities and

6 postpone phase three? Or is it all because

7 it's tied into the final site plan approval?

8 MS. McBETH: I believe, and Mr.

9 Schultz can correct me on this if I'm wrong,

10 but the Applicant has proposed the

11 development in its entirety, so they are

12 asking for approval in its entirety. The

13 phasing is helpful so we will know which

14 order the buildings will be constructed and

15 would be completed. Utilities available for

16 each phase.

17 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you. That's

18 all I have, Mr. Chair.


20 Member Shroyer. Further discussion? Member

21 Ghannam?

22 MEMBER GHANNAM: Thank you. I have

23 got a couple of questions again. You have

24 mentioned this business on Grand River that



1 you have an agreement with for overflow

2 parking and so forth. Is it the intent of

3 the Applicant to enter into a lease for that

4 space during certain periods of time? And

5 if so, for how long?

6 MR. AMANN: It's our intent to enter

7 into an enforceable agreement, lease or

8 easement which would be provided for as long

9 as need. We also have tentative agreements

10 from Rock Financial as well as agreement we

11 have with the school as far as additional

12 spaces if we need to get to there. And we

13 have talked about that because the focus of

14 this variance request is about 34 spaces.

15 It's not about intersection questions or

16 width of roads and stuff like that, it's

17 about these 34 spaces. We have the ability

18 we reflected in the record to meet that

19 amount over and over and over. So, we would

20 have put them into an enforceable agreement

21 that would run with the land so that even if

22 the company or something were to happen with

23 the company, the agreement would be

24 enforceable.



1 MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Chair, can I break

2 in here a little bit? I guess I want to

3 make sure we don't get too far down the road

4 on this idea that they are coming to you

5 with a lease for spaces off site. It's not

6 really what our Ordinance is set up for.

7 It's not really something that we want to

8 encourage petitioners to do in the normal

9 course. We can't meet the parking on our

10 site so we are going to go several

11 properties down the road. We had an

12 Ordinance that allowed shared parking in

13 certain circumstances that allows such

14 parking agreements, but it's very specific

15 and I think we are getting pretty far field

16 from it.

17 I think it's a fine point for them to

18 raise, but I don't think it's something that

19 you as a Board want to be regularly relying

20 on. If they enter into a lease and that's

21 how they plan to make sure that are not in

22 violation of our Ordinances, that's great.

23 But I don't know that it should be formally

24 brought into the discussion. I just wanted



1 to get that out there.


3 you still have the floor.

4 MEMBER GHANNAM: Yes, just one more

5 question. One of the citizens came up here,

6 the gentleman who gave us a nice

7 presentation indicated that apparently there

8 has been some change in your position

9 regarding whether or not there is going to

10 be major events held at the same time or

11 that type of analysis. I just want to make

12 it clear from my mind that if a parking

13 variance is granted and their, I guess day

14 of worship is on Sunday; is that accurate?

15 MR. AMANN: Yes.

16 MEMBER GHANNAM: That there would be

17 no other events at the Cultural Building; is

18 that accurate?

19 MR. AMANN: Yes. The language that

20 was given, the letter was presumed to a

21 specific request and conversation with the

22 Planning Commission that pretty much

23 articulated here is want we want, the

24 condition we want you to agree to.



1 Essentially we gave a letter and it is

2 expected that, the letter specifically talks

3 about not having maximum usage of the site

4 which means essentially usage of the temple

5 and then usage of the cultural center in

6 which if it gets built, because we're still

7 talking about that being a phase down the

8 road. So, the language that is actually in

9 the agreement, although he is correct, it

10 hasn't worked, but the language that was

11 given, the letter requested was the language

12 requested pursuant to the condition of the

13 Planning Commission on its approval.

14 MEMBER GHANNAM: So, if they have

15 worship on a Sunday there will not be, say,

16 a wedding or some other type of large amount

17 in the Cultural Building?

18 MR. AMANN: Exactly.

19 MR. GANGADHARAN: It's not just a day

20 of worship, but it might be those select

21 days that we had mentioned as being the

22 major worship days in the year.

23 MEMBER GHANNAM: Right, and I

24 understand that.



1 MR. GANGADHARAN: They may not

2 necessarily fall on a Sunday, but for those

3 days we will definitely take all the

4 precautions because end of the day when we

5 have such a fine development, we fully

6 intend for it to be an enjoyable experience

7 as much as a spiritual experience. It's not

8 much of a spiritual experience if you can't

9 find parking. And you are driving around

10 the place and you can't park on Taft. You

11 have to get out some place. We want to

12 organize it such that it's done well. I was

13 the person representing the trustees and the

14 executive in offering that letter to make it

15 very clear that that is a commitment from

16 the Temple organization to the City and we

17 take it very seriously that we have no

18 intention of making this just a statement

19 for the purpose of getting this permit. We

20 are citizens. We stay here. I have been a

21 resident of Novi. I am a business owner in

22 Novi. We fully intend for this to be

23 something that we are all proud of in the

24 community and something that works well.



1 We are trying to work within the

2 constraints of the whole system, but in

3 general we want for this to be a pleasant

4 experience for all us that will be using the

5 facility.

6 MEMBER GHANNAM: I understand your

7 point and it's well taken. But we also want

8 to make sure that you are a good neighbor to

9 your surrounding property owners. Thank

10 you. I have no other questions. Thank you.

11 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Were we given --

12 I don't remember seeing a copy of that

13 letter that keeps being referred to as part

14 of the agreement.

15 Member Bauer?

16 MEMBER BAUER: The letter that I have

17 of November 6th, states that: We wish to

18 clarify that we will not use the Cultural

19 Center and Temple facilities concurrently at

20 maximum capacity. But you could use one at

21 full and one at half.

22 MR. AMANN: I guess you could try to

23 interpret it that way. You have heard the

24 expression on the record and certainly you



1 can include that in as a condition if you

2 were so generous to give an approval. It is

3 not intended to use, to have scheduled

4 events at each facility at simultaneously

5 times.

6 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.


8 letter I was referring to. I was referring

9 to the letter with the parking and the

10 Planning Department or the Planning

11 Commission. I didn't catch which one it

12 was.

13 MR. AMANN: That's the letter that we

14 gave in response to the Planning Commission,

15 yes, that's correct.

16 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: You sounded much

17 more formal, I guess.

18 MR. AMANN: It actually was made --

19 I'm sorry, if I wasn't clear about that.

20 The Planning Commission made it as a

21 condition of their approval and they wanted

22 a letter acknowledging their condition and

23 that was the purpose.

24 MR. SCHULTZ: I just want to point



1 out. The Planning Commission approval and

2 the language in that is the floor beneath

3 which they can't sink. So, whatever their

4 letter says it's still the Planning

5 Commission motion that applies.


7 Members? I have a couple of questions

8 regarding the parking study or to address

9 the parking in this booklet. Now, it's

10 states in here that -- now, this is your

11 traffic study that was sworn to?

12 MR. AMANN: Yes, we provided the

13 traffic study that was reviewed by the City

14 traffic consultant.

15 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It admits itself

16 that the weekend parking demand may be an

17 issue, correct?

18 MR. AMANN: Certainly the weekend is

19 when we expect the greatest usage of the

20 sign.


22 quoting the actual comments as made in the

23 study. Would the Cultural Center 2.8 times

24 as large as the one inch (unintelligible)



1 potential demand would be 510.

2 MR. AMANN: Hang on just one second.

3 We have got some specific. When you look

4 at, yeah, you are extrapolating out a

5 particular line when you get to the

6 conclusions that says, in fact --

7 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I am going line

8 by line, just trying to understand your take

9 on it. I will get down to the bottom.

10 MR. AMANN: Right. If you use the

11 same square foot of the entire area Cultural

12 Center you utilize the one inch, correct.


14 down to like you stated what they say is a

15 more comparable reference point, correct?

16 When they say the demand estimate is at 265

17 parking spots?

18 MR. AMANN: Correct.


20 Saturday afternoon accumulation of 182 in

21 Troy. Did they only do one weekend of

22 study?

23 MR. AMANN: You mean our consultant?




1 MR. GANGADHARAN: They gave a complete

2 week.


4 weekend?

5 MR. AMANN: I believe that's one

6 weekend.


8 And was that weekend one of these particular

9 instances where it would be higher than just

10 a normal weekend?

11 MR. GANGADHARAN: It was. It was

12 determined that there was an event taking

13 place at the Bharatiya Temple in Troy on the

14 Saturday afternoon.


16 Sunday?

17 MR. GANGADHARAN: I don't actually

18 recall on Sunday. I am not aware of

19 anything.

20 MR. AMANN: If I can help reference

21 that. I think you are trying to go to the

22 underlying determination of the parking

23 capacity which started with the Planning

24 Commission --




2 not. I'm looking at the 308. I am not

3 looking to say that anyone is appealing the

4 308. I am looking at, you are going below

5 the 308 and that 34 is crucial to me and I

6 have great concerns about that. So, I am

7 specifically talking about the 34 that you

8 were going under the 308 that everyone has

9 determined is kind of the floor at the time,

10 but determined by the Planning Department.

11 So, I'm sticking with the 304.

12 So, I am still questioning, did this

13 include a Sunday?

14 MR. GANGADHARAN: It did include a

15 Sunday.

16 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: And was this a

17 regular Sunday or a Christmas type event?

18 MR. AMANN: It was a regular Sunday

19 after the Saturday being one of the High

20 Holidays.

21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: So, it was near

22 a High holiday?

23 MR. GANGADHARAN: For clarification,

24 most of those major days that we talk about



1 don't necessarily have to fall on a Sunday.

2 It would be literally improbable that is

3 just falls, that it's coincidence with a

4 Sunday. Sunday is just general traffic you

5 will find it higher. But on an auspicious

6 day which we celebrate could be any day of

7 the week and we had one of those days

8 included as part of the traffic study.


10 that?

11 MR. GANGADHARAN: I suspect it was a

12 Saturday that we were talking about.

13 MR. MANYAM: There was a retirement

14 engagement on the Sunday afternoon.

15 MR. GANGADHARAN: So, there was an

16 event as well on Sunday.

17 MR. AMANN: In fact in Troy, in the

18 Troy center they do not have a description

19 of the use of the Cultural Center. They are

20 allowed to use the Cultural Center at the

21 same time for other events like that where

22 we would not be doing that.

23 MR. MANYAM: As a matter of fact, the

24 control traffic study that was submitted to



1 the Planning Commission showed peak Sunday

2 usage.


4 High Holy day?

5 MR. AMANN: Saturday.

6 MR. MANYAM: Saturday there was an

7 event that leads us toward the evening and

8 on Sunday there was an afternoon luncheon

9 type occasion or retirement type party that

10 occurred that day.


12 at a peak of about 230 at 8:00 on Saturday?

13 MR. AMANN: Yes.


15 still references 183 as a peak. Now if I am

16 looking at this peak of 200 multiplying by

17 his ratio, we would be over and probably in

18 between the 277 and the 308.

19 MR. MANYAM: What I am showing here is

20 enter and exit. It's written here on the

21 side, side bar entry about exiting volume

22 per hour. (Unintelligible).


24 well. You said you represented other areas



1 or other temples in Canton as well. Are any

2 of them of a more similar nature to this as

3 far as size goes?

4 MR. AMANN: I don't recall the exact

5 square footage. They were all unified

6 buildings. We had separate buildings. It

7 seems to me the last temple I did I think

8 was roughly, it's not constructed yet. It's

9 roughly 36,000 square feet I think.


11 concern about the parking as well and as

12 mentioned regarding Miracle Software they

13 could go away and I understand we would look

14 at tenant agreements, and I agree, I don't

15 think we want to promote an agreement. We

16 need to work on keeping parking on site. I

17 think that's the main intent of the

18 Ordinance. This one study from one day and

19 one temple in Troy that is half the size is

20 not convincing to me that the number of

21 demand per spots would be adequate at 277,

22 notwithstanding 308, not to be in question

23 once again.

24 So, I will ask one last question of



1 Ms. McBeth just to clarify something on a

2 memo that I saw regarding 25 percent. It's

3 page 4 of your October 14th memo, the very

4 last couple of lines. I believe it refers

5 to the Planning Commission, but I just want

6 a clarification as it may apply to us. If

7 it's not even germane to the proceedings let

8 me know that too. It says the Zoning Board

9 has advised the Planning Commission the

10 mechanism to accept land banking up to 25

11 percent?

12 MS. McBETH: It does, that is correct.

13 I think that would have been a Planning

14 Commission determination. The Planning

15 Commission would have said that they would

16 support the idea that not all the parking

17 space will be installed at the initial time

18 and that a certain area is being reserved

19 for those additional parking spaces. That

20 was not something that was proposed by the

21 Applicant. That was not a plan that was

22 reviewed by the Planning Commission or the

23 Community Development Department. And

24 likely if they had seen a plan it might have



1 been one of those encroached into the

2 woodland because things like that would have

3 been in the logical area. So that question

4 was not really supported by the Planning

5 Commission.

6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay, thank you.

7 That sums up my comments in general. I am

8 not convinced given the study that was

9 provided to us regarding parking and other

10 concerns that I brought up as well as other

11 Board Members that the 34 variance would do

12 substantial justice to this Petitioner and

13 the others in the area. I'll leave it at

14 that.

15 Other Board Members? Member Sanghvi?


17 sir. I would like to make certain

18 observation and comments. First observation

19 I want to point out that Hindu year is a uni

20 year and it is not like what we have in the

21 western world. Number two, Sunday has no

22 special significance in a Hindu religion and

23 all this hang ups about Sunday and all these

24 things are really irrelevant when it comes



1 to celebrating certain Hindu days of

2 worship. Number three, when you have a

3 congregation of 3,000 family and you all go

4 to your churches and all that and I go to

5 mine which is not this particular church

6 anyway, but hardly ever you will find the

7 whole congregation showing up at the same

8 time. How many times have you seen it? So,

9 when you consider all these things I think

10 let us keep common sense in front of our

11 mind when we take all these decisions and

12 talk about all these numbers rather than get

13 carried away by the numbers used there and

14 everywhere. Sometimes statistics have bad

15 traffic and will mislead you. So, please

16 don't get hung up on these numbers. As well

17 as this particular traffic area we are

18 trying to put here from what I gather this

19 is the temple complex where entire Hindu way

20 of life is going to be represented in that

21 complex about how people live, Hindus live

22 in their own life which is very different

23 than what we know, understand as to how the

24 (unintelligible) lives.



1 I have lived in the western part of

2 the world for over 50 years. Not only in

3 this country but also in England. I have

4 seen all kinds of temples and all kind of

5 churches and when we start talking about

6 getting into the microscopic details of this

7 thing, sometimes going for the trees we

8 forget the woods. So, let us understand the

9 issue here.

10 The issue here is 34 parking spots as

11 recommended by our own City Department. Are

12 these 34 spots so critical that you are

13 likely to prevent this kind of place of

14 worship to be constructed in this city?

15 Whether they can cut the trees and build

16 those 34 spots because they have a legal

17 land to do it and whether you would like to

18 see more cement concrete than live tree is

19 another issue we ought to think about. So,

20 let common sense direct and let's get on

21 with it. We have been dealing with this

22 issue, first case for about three hours and

23 I think time has come to understand the

24 value of our time and everybody's else time



1 as well as the importance of this project

2 and make decisions and move on. Thank you.


4 Members? Member Krieger?

5 MEMBER KRIEGER: My concern would be

6 if we denied the 34 spaces then they could

7 always cut down some trees and put up some

8 more parking lot. So, that is what my

9 question would be. Thank you.


11 Members? By no means am I under the

12 impression that cutting down more trees and

13 putting more cement is ever the correct

14 answer. But I have not been convinced that

15 the amount of space or the space in between

16 the 277 and 308 won't keep people from

17 parking in the nearby residences. I have

18 done it myself. I have been at the football

19 games. I have been many places where

20 parking is not adequate and that is not

21 something that the City of Novi wants to

22 create. And until, once again, the

23 Petitioner has the burden of proof to show

24 us that the practical difficulty is there



1 and that this is adequate and it does

2 everybody justice and it works in the best

3 interest of the City and the residents and

4 the visitors that will be there, until that

5 can be done, whether it be through studies

6 or further information from the Planning

7 Department, I cannot support this at this

8 time.

9 One car parked in a resident's street,

10 a residential street and traffic running

11 through residential street is one too many

12 for me. And until I am convinced that that

13 won't take place and that there is adequate

14 parking on site, I cannot support this. I'm

15 sorry.

16 Other Board Members? Other

17 suggestions? The Board has never been so

18 quiet.


20 the devil's advocate and I'll make --


22 speak.

23 MEMBER IBE: Just a quick comment. I

24 understand your point is well taken. But I



1 think to the defense of the other Board

2 Members, I don't believe that I am hung up

3 on Sunday as any day for the sake of

4 argument. As I stated previously, I do

5 understand the Hindu religion just as much

6 as I understand my religion of being a

7 catholic. And understand the practice and

8 the way of the people. It's a great

9 religion and I completely want to

10 accommodate them. As someone who attends a

11 church in Farmington Hills, when I saw the

12 size of the church grow, where we were

13 parking at that funeral facility that is

14 located next to the church, that they had to

15 literally give us tickets every Sunday and

16 the residents in the condo were complaining

17 because church members were parking just

18 everywhere. It became a nuisance. The city

19 of Farmington Hills had to assign the police

20 to direct traffic on Sundays. That was

21 costing the city money. It was

22 inconveniencing the people in the

23 neighborhood and until the church was able

24 to take matters into their own hands and



1 expand the parking lot, and made away with

2 so many other things that we enjoy in order

3 to create more parking for the parishioners,

4 I think it is incumbent upon the Petitioner

5 to find a way to accommodate the needs of

6 the residents.

7 Unfortunately I may have gone along

8 with other things that we have had so far

9 today, but this is where I draw it off. I

10 don't think I am going to support the

11 variance that is being requested for the

12 parking for the simple fact that I think the

13 residents have made their point clear. I

14 think their point is that it's just not

15 going to work. I don't buy the idea that

16 because you have some off site parking that

17 that is going to solve this problem. I

18 seriously don't buy that at all. I probably

19 use the term April Fool's day because that's

20 going to happen here. I don't buy the idea

21 the City is going to enforce this rule on

22 any given day. I just don't buy that idea

23 because no one has told me exactly what that

24 penalty will be. What is a punitive nature



1 of this penalty? Is it going to $100?

2 Well, gee, maybe they can just pay that. Is

3 it going to require the taxpayers of the

4 City of Novi to have to litigate this case

5 in court at my own expense? I don't think

6 that's fair to the people who live in this

7 neighborhood or the people of the City of

8 Novi to have to litigate something that we

9 can foresee right now. It is foreseeable

10 that we are going to end up litigating this

11 matter. I just don't buy it. I'm sorry, I

12 just don't approve of this variance. Thank

13 you.


15 at this time that the Board consider a

16 postponement of this case to give the

17 Petitioner and the City more time to review

18 and come up with any factual evidence that

19 they want to present to the Board, possibly

20 additional studies as I have mentioned. If

21 we can get some more clarification on the

22 litigation of punitive damages piece.

23 I need some clarification from the

24 Petitioner regarding the extent to which a



1 quote unquote "large scale temple activity",

2 and what that is and how it won't coincide

3 with the Cultural Center and what events

4 takes place at the Cultural Center. I just

5 need to know estimates of real population

6 that they anticipate now, five years down

7 the road, ten years down the road when none

8 of us will likely be on the Board anymore.

9 And I would also like to see some

10 input from the Planning Department and the

11 environmental consultants regarding the

12 woodlands and wetlands and the parking as it

13 sees fit. I think there is a lot more

14 factual evidence that this Board is going to

15 need before they make a decision on this

16 parking determination. I would suggest a

17 postponement. Other than that I would not

18 be able to support and would be forced to

19 deny it.

20 Mr. Schultz?

21 MR. SCHULTZ: Just a couple of

22 comments. Number one, in terms of the

23 enforcement issue, I guess I am surprised at

24 that. That engenders as much discussion as



1 it has. In any case where you grant a

2 variance in any case where you make an

3 approval, you are sort of assuming that the

4 proponent is going to live up to what's been

5 approved and sought and that the City is

6 going to do what it normally does in the

7 event that that doesn't happen. That is --


9 that, Mr. Schultz, is if we approve some

10 type of setback on a house and they go in

11 and they build the house and if it's not to

12 the specifications that the Zoning Board

13 takes place, we can litigate that and that's

14 litigated once.

15 On the other hand, when you are

16 looking at a traffic situation or a parking

17 situation where people are parking daily,

18 weekly, monthly, whatever it may be, we have

19 the potential to have to litigate this over

20 and over and over again. It's not a one

21 time thing of I built my house, I put it six

22 feet away and the Zoning Board said I could

23 put it five feet away from the setback, this

24 is a parking issue that is constantly



1 moving. And I think that warrants the

2 discussion of where a litigation may go.

3 MR. SCHULTZ: I take the point that

4 it's different than sort of a one time

5 building issue and I don't disagree. I

6 guess I would, I would say there are all

7 sorts of approvals that the City gives

8 everyday through the Planning Commission and

9 occasionally through this Board that do

10 exactly what is proposed here today. The

11 Planning Commission I guess more so than

12 this Board. It's the nature of the land use

13 approval. All of these issues are ongoing

14 and, therefore, require vigilance. If it's

15 a Sunday the police are out there responding

16 to a complaint. I am not actually

17 disagreeing, I am just saying it's

18 enforcement in the normal course I guess

19 from staff's perspective.

20 And then with regard to the tabling, I

21 guess we just need to know what additional

22 information you are seeking. I don't know

23 whether the proponent has a timing issue for

24 this or not?




2 of what I would prefer to see. I saw heads

3 nodding and I think Member Ibe just made

4 some comments as to what he would see. And

5 I certainly don't want to forejudge this

6 just because of any timing issues. I would

7 be interested if they wanted to make any

8 comments as to timing, I am sure we would

9 accommodate them and get them on the

10 December meeting if possible. But I

11 certainly can't make a decision based on

12 timing. I am sure you don't want to defend

13 that in court. That's not a practical

14 difficulty standard.

15 MR. SCHULTZ: Sure.


17 Members want to make a comment on a possible

18 postponement? Does the Petitioner wish to

19 make any comments as far as you see where we

20 are going at this time?

21 MR. AMANN: Mr. Chairman, thank you

22 for the opportunity to respond. And I will

23 respond to the limited questioning by the

24 Board Members. We would certainly welcome



1 if you believe it's the pleasure of the

2 Board that it would otherwise deny the

3 application that we would certainly welcome

4 the postponement of the application as

5 opposed to a denial so we could work with

6 staff and the City attorney and anyone else

7 to provide additional information to respond

8 to the concerns expressed by the Board

9 Members.

10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If you do have

11 any other questions through the City, I am

12 sure that the City would be more than happy

13 to contact any of the Board Members to

14 gather additional information as to what we

15 are requesting of you.

16 MR. AMANN: We appreciate that.

17 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I would make a

18 motion that we postpone this case likely to

19 the December meeting or when the Petitioner

20 is ready for further clarification on the

21 issues brought up by the Board Members and

22 give time for the City attorney, Planning

23 Department as well as the Petitioner to

24 address those concerns.



1 MEMBER BAUER: Second the motion.

2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: We have a second

3 by Member Bauer. All in favor say aye --

4 I'm sorry, Ms. Working, please call the

5 roll.

6 (Interposing)(Unintelligible).

7 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer?


9 MS. WORKING: Motion to postpone.


11 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?


13 MS. WORKING: Member Ghannam?


15 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?


17 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?


19 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


21 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer?


23 MS. WORKING: Motion to postpone

24 passes 5-2.




2 Zoning Board will take a 10 minute break and

3 come back.

4 (A recess was held.)


6 call Case Number 2 on the agenda. Case

7 Number: 08-056 filed by filed by Jason

8 Minock for Toll Brothers for Island Lake

9 located south of Grand River, north of Ten

10 Mile, east of Napier Road and west of Wixom

11 Road.

12 Is the Petitioner here tonight?

13 MR. MINOCK: Yes.


15 please go ahead and step up to the front.

16 The Petitioner is requesting 9 variances for

17 oversized real estate advertising signs to

18 be located at several addresses on the

19 property. And the Petitioner is requesting

20 12 variances for directional signage within

21 the development to be located at several

22 addresses within the property as well. All

23 those properties can be found on the agenda.

24 Are you an attorney?




2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All right, could

3 you be sworn in by our Secretary.

4 MEMBER KRIEGER: Do you swear or

5 affirm in case number: 08-056 to tell the

6 truth in this case?

7 MR. MINOCK: I do.


9 proceed with your case.

10 MR. MINOCK: You need my address or

11 no?

12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Name and address

13 and your case, yes.

14 MR. MINOCK: My name is Jason Minock.

15 My address is 25622 Napier Road.

16 As most of you I'm sure know, Island

17 Lake is a large community. It covers over

18 900 acres. We are asking that the current

19 signage that we have in the community that

20 we get an extension for a year. We have two

21 models on the site currently and due to the

22 large size of the site we have models on

23 both the north and south side and there is

24 multiple entrances and we believe that



1 signage is needed in order to get to our

2 models and get around where people are not

3 driving around in the community lost.

4 The signs are all in good shape except

5 for some that I was about to replace and

6 then I got the notice that I needed an

7 extension, so I have held off on that.

8 There are some signs, I don't know if you

9 guys have this map. The signs on the

10 northern most piece of the property. It

11 would be signs 23 through 25, and hopefully

12 if I sign one of these deals this weekend I

13 will only need three of those signs and so

14 we will see if that occurs.

15 Since last time we had an extension we

16 have removed one of the signs. It's been

17 taken down. And I could go into some of the

18 economics. We talked earlier with Robin

19 about the economics. I don't know that I

20 need to bore you with all the economics.

21 It's a tough market out there. I think

22 pretty much everybody reads the paper and

23 understands that getting traffic to our site

24 is paramount for our sales.



1 I don't have a whole lot to say. If

2 people have questions I can answer.


4 your comments and I will go ahead and ask

5 the Secretary to read any correspondence.

6 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number:

7 08-056, 370 notice were mailed and we have

8 five responses.

9 The first one: The only sign we

10 object to is the boathouse on Drakes Bay

11 Drive. Number two, this sign is much too

12 big and contains directions and descriptions

13 that other signage also describes. From

14 Chris and Debra Richinger (ph) on Reeds

15 Pointe Drive.

16 The next one is from Charles A. Selski

17 (ph), 50406 Drakes Bay Drive: Toll Brothers

18 has done an outstanding job in maintaining

19 these signs they received on approval. I

20 know I speak for other homeowner when I say

21 the word targeted up scaling advertising for

22 the development improves the value and

23 future marketability of all homes.

24 The next one is from John McKernan



1 (ph), 25976 Island Lake Drive: I object to

2 the variance for the nine oversized signs

3 requested by Toll Brothers.

4 I see no need after five years that this

5 neighborhood has to continue to look like a

6 used car lot. Signs for homes for sale or

7 model homes is one thing, but I think by now

8 everyone knows there are homes for sale by

9 Toll Brothers. They are asking for

10 variances, they should be making repairs to

11 some of the grounds they are responsible

12 for.

13 The next one is from Fred Cola (ph),

14 50385 Drakes Bay Drive: I am in support of

15 Toll Brothers' request for nine variances of

16 oversized signs.

17 And the next one is from Frederick and

18 Lisa Cola: I am in support of Toll

19 Brothers' request for nine oversized signs

20 for Island Lake of Novi.

21 Carlene and Robert Luntsford (ph): We

22 strongly oppose the Toll Brothers proposal

23 for large signs. Toll Brothers violated the

24 state and local laws by fraudulently



1 representing no development behind our homes

2 verbally and inviting as been evidenced by

3 the master deed and record (unintelligible)

4 located in the City of Novi. The

5 consequences of their breach are still felt

6 to this day. Buyers who are not impacted

7 are simply lucky. Do not allow Toll

8 Brothers to utilize larger signage in our

9 community. Our fellow homeowners are not

10 allowed oversized signs to help sell their

11 homes. Why should Toll Brothers benefit and

12 our homeowners be harmed any further.

13 Lastly, larger signs will not equate to the

14 additional sales. The economy will.

15 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, Madam

16 Secretary. I will ask if there is anyone in

17 the audience who wishes to make a comment on

18 this case? Seeing none, we will close the

19 public comments section and move along to

20 the City if anyone from the City who wishes

21 to make a comment.

22 MR. BOULARD: Mr. Chairman, I don't

23 have any particular information to add

24 beyond what was included in your packets. I



1 did want to point out that extensions were

2 granted for oversized real estate signs in

3 2004 and then again in 2006 and 2007.


5 Anyone else? Open it up for Board

6 discussion. Member Shroyer?

7 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

8 The applicant, Mr. Minock, please come

9 forward. Somewhere in here I read that

10 there was signs that would be combined in

11 order to be reduced. How many signs were

12 being combined?

13 MR. MINOCK: There is actually going

14 to be two signs combined into one. I

15 believe sign number 7 and 8. I don't know

16 if you have this map. Number 7 and 8 are

17 going to be combined into one. I haven't

18 done that yet. But that's my intention is

19 to combine those.

20 MEMBER SHROYER: Which sign will be

21 removed then?

22 MR. MINOCK: Actually, both of them.

23 They both have some paint peeling and I need

24 to have a new sign put in.



1 MEMBER SHROYER: So, 7 and 8 are being

2 removed and only one is being replaced?

3 MR. MINOCK: Correct.

4 MEMBER SHROYER: I read earlier that

5 signs 7, 8, 9, 44, 46, 66 and 27 are to be

6 replaced by newly identified signs. What is

7 the size of those? Do the new signs meet

8 the City ordinance or are they oversized as

9 well?

10 MR. MINOCK: They are oversized. They

11 are actually in place. The new signs I am

12 going to put actually do meet the lot size

13 marker for 25, 26, 24 and 23 on the north

14 side, those would be -- I don't know if you

15 are looking at the map.

16 MEMBER SHROYER: I am going from the

17 written response.

18 MR. MINOCK: Oh, I'm sorry, you are

19 talking about the home site number. Yes,

20 correct. I was looking at -- yes, those are

21 --

22 MEMBER SHROYER: It's 24 by 36.

23 MR. MINOCK: Right. Which I believe

24 falls under the six square falls under the



1 six square feet.

2 MEMBER SHROYER: Is that right, Mr.

3 Amolsch? Does that fall within our sign

4 ordinance?

5 MR. AMOLSCH: If they are less than

6 six square feet, yes, and five feet high.

7 MEMBER SHROYER: Do they fall within

8 five feet?

9 MR. MINOCK: We can make them five

10 feet, yes.

11 MEMBER SHROYER: That's all the

12 questions I have, Mr. Chair. Thank you.


14 Member Shroyer. Member Burke?

15 MEMBER BURKE: Jason, you said pending

16 the outcome this weekend you may have a pass

17 on which sign?

18 MR. MINOCK: The signs that we were

19 just referring to. Currently those signs

20 are oversized that are there. They have

21 been there for several years. They have

22 been there like four or five years and I was

23 going to replace those with signs that

24 actually are going to fall within the six



1 square feet so I actually wouldn't need a

2 variance.

3 MEMBER BURKE: That would be 7 and 8?

4 Which number signs?

5 MR. MINOCK: Yes, it would be 6, 7, 8

6 and 9.

7 MEMBER BURKE: So that whole north

8 end?

9 MR. MINOCK: Correct.

10 MEMBER BURKE: Sell me on the

11 billboard being sign number 2. Tell me why

12 that has to be that big? It seems that you

13 have got some support within the community,

14 but somebody had a pretty specific position

15 against sign number two and it is pretty

16 big.

17 MR. MINOCK: There is no question it's

18 a larger sign. It's been there for a couple

19 of years and what is does is that photo

20 that's in there, it's an aerial photo of the

21 boathouse. It gives people the ability to

22 see an areal shot of what's down in that

23 boathouse without actually driving down

24 there and touring around. So, it's been



1 very successful for us because we're selling

2 lifestyle in terms of this community. The

3 amenities that we have there are different

4 from all the other developments in Novi. I

5 think we have a 170 acre lake. We have a

6 boathouse that has tennis courts in places.

7 You go swimming and an outdoor pool, boat

8 docks and that kind of thing. In my opinion

9 this really showcases that.

10 It is sitting back, it's a little bit

11 off the road and it also directs people that

12 the two signs actually direct people to the

13 model. The one model is somewhat within the

14 middle of the community there. We have

15 people that tend to get a little bit

16 confused driving around so both has the

17 directional and then an aerial photo to show

18 that.

19 MEMBER BURKE: Would it be safe to

20 assume that any potential buyer coming out

21 here has done a little research on the

22 facility or just happened to drive by? You

23 probably don't get a lot of sales by

24 drive-bys, would that be accurate?



1 MR. MINOCK: More so, yes, that's

2 true.

3 MEMBER BURKE: So they are probably

4 doing a little research on-line?

5 MR. MINOCK: A little bit of research,

6 correct.

7 MEMBER BURKE: You probably have this

8 aerial picture on-line?

9 MR. MINOCK: We have some of this

10 on-line, correct. But when you drive by

11 it's not completely apparent that that's

12 what is there. It sits quite a ways off of

13 Drakes Bay.

14 MEMBER BURKE: Do you know what the

15 size of this is?

16 MR. MINOCK: I don't know off the top

17 of my head. It's probably, I am just going

18 to make a guess here and say it's probably 9

19 feet wide and maybe 6 feet high by itself.

20 The actual sign not the height off the

21 ground. Five feet high maybe.

22 MEMBER BURKE: And you said that that

23 sits off the road a little bit?

24 MR. MINOCK: It sits off the road. I



1 mean, it's not sitting right on the road.

2 It's behind the sidewalk there. It's

3 actually at the entrance to the boathouse

4 going in.

5 MEMBER BURKE: I have been there a few

6 times. It's a nice sub, no doubt and nice

7 community. I think the signs throughout are

8 okay. I have to appreciate what the one

9 respondent said about the sign that it is

10 pretty big and that might be one that I

11 would have a problem with.

12 MR. MINOCK: The idea with the signs

13 too is, I mean, it's a benefit to the

14 homeowners. Nobody benefits, the City, us

15 or the homeowner if I have vacant lots

16 sitting in there.

17 MEMBER BURKE: You won't hear that

18 argument from me. But it's a big sign.

19 Thank you.


21 MEMBER KRIEGER: Two things. On the

22 notice of violation did they pay the $400

23 fee? Alan or Robin?

24 MS. WORKING: The fee receipt would be



1 on the last page on the right hand side of

2 the case file.


4 MEMBER KRIEGER: Then the second thing

5 was, I actually drove through this twice,

6 and I was in jeans and a T-shirt so I guess

7 the lady in the model thought I was the

8 woman that was going to fix her signs, but

9 that was okay.

10 MR. MINOCK: She didn't no. She asked

11 me about today. She had no idea that I was

12 even doing this.

13 MEMBER KRIEGER: Okay. For 6, 7, 8, 9

14 is where I started out at. I then I saw how

15 many real estate signs were up. So, then I

16 was wondering, okay, Toll Brothers is

17 selling empty lots and homeowners are trying

18 to sell their site. So, I was wondering

19 what's the difference. Then I drove along

20 and I got to where 19 was and saw another

21 sign and said, oh, these are the arrow

22 signs. So, I went all the way down because

23 the directional arrows really didn't tell me

24 where to go and so I started from 16 and



1 then went 17, 18, 19. Of course, 19

2 somebody played with and said turn right

3 instead of turn left. So, then I went

4 around and had the scenic ride all the way

5 down to 20. And when I got to 21 that was

6 laying out in the grass both signs. And

7 then I got to 2 and 3, 11 and 12 and if the

8 signs are, if you have got a sign, the

9 homeowners, the majority of the people

10 there, they are already residents, they know

11 what's at the boathouse. So, the only

12 person it would benefit would be somebody

13 coming in at 1.

14 So, it looks like that whole south end

15 near Ten Mile the area that wants to be

16 built, so I can see a sign where number 1 is

17 at and then the rest of them would be

18 irritating to the homeowners I think more

19 than anyone trying to get direction to

20 anywhere. And that's my observation so far.

21 Question percent built? The percent

22 that's left to be built? And what

23 percentage has been built so far this year?

24 MR. MINOCK: Left to build is around



1 18, 19 percent for the community as a whole.

2 And everything except for the four lots on

3 the north side there, everything on the

4 north side of the lake is sold. So, the

5 only thing we have left to sell is on the

6 south side of Drakes Bay. On the south side

7 of the lake. And it not just out at Ten

8 Mile. We actually have this whole section

9 back here. Then we have 27 lots back here

10 and we have almost 100 lots down here.

11 There are quite a few lots to go. We're

12 getting there, but we're definitely not

13 there.

14 MEMBER KRIEGER: So, total percentage

15 build out?

16 MR. MINOCK: About 82 percent. Was

17 your question how many sales we had this

18 year?


20 MR. MINOCK: Between the two sites we

21 have had 12.

22 MEMBER KRIEGER: Twelve percent?

23 MR. MINOCK: Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, geez,

24 no.



1 MEMBER IBE: Sales.


3 MR. MINOCK: I would be promoted and I

4 wouldn't be here if it was 12 percent. I

5 can assure you that. Twelve sales.

6 MEMBER KRIEGER: Those were all my

7 questions.


9 Member Krieger. Anyone else? I tend to

10 agree in the general sense that the lots

11 sitting vacant and the houses sitting vacant

12 do nothing for you, do nothing for the City,

13 do nothing for the homeowners. I can

14 support this request with probably a year

15 time limit on it.

16 There are certain ones that are large

17 like number 2 that probably should be looked

18 at maybe next time, but given everything

19 that's going on, given the statistics that

20 you presented, I can support this for one

21 year.

22 I will make a motion that in case

23 number: 08-056 that we approve for one year

24 the variance as requested given the unique



1 size of the land, the layout of the land,

2 the layout of the roads. All with the

3 condition that the signs must be maintained

4 and to the standards of the Community

5 Development Department. Should they have

6 any issues I would appreciate them letting

7 the Zoning Board know.



10 Member Fischer and a second by Member Burke.

11 Any other questions? Member Sanghvi?

12 MEMBER SANGHVI: I was going to

13 suggest a friendly amendment to make it two

14 years because I don't think the economy is

15 going to change very much in a year's time.

16 And things the way they are they are not

17 likely to improve to sell this kind of

18 design houses in a year's time.

19 (Unintelligible).

20 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: You said you are

21 82 percent built. What about sold?

22 MR. MINOCK: Eighty-two percent are

23 closed and we have got eight that's -- seven

24 in backlog right now that we haven't closed



1 yet, but we have sold and were built.

2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I will amend it

3 to 18 months.

4 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right.



7 concurs. Any other questions or comments?

8 Member Shroyer?

9 MEMBER SHROYER: Would the Motioner

10 entertain a second friendly amendment that

11 the Petitioner would indicate that signs

12 number 7, 8, 9, 44, 46, 66 and 27 when they

13 are to be replaced by newly identified style

14 not to exceed the 24 inches by 36 inches and

15 no more in height than the five feet as

16 required by Ordinance?

17 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I can agree to

18 that given that the Petitioner stated that

19 in his comments, yes.

20 MEMBER BURKE: Concur.


22 comments? Seeing none, Ms. Working, please

23 call the roll.

24 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer?




2 MS. WORKING: Member Burke?


4 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?


6 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?

7 MEMBER KRIEGER: Sure, I guess.

8 MS. WORKING: And Member Sanghvi?


10 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer?


12 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?


14 MS. WORKING: Motion to approve passes

15 7-0.

16 MR. MINOCK: Thank you.


18 We will call number 3 on the agenda

19 which is Case Number: 08-057 filed by John

20 Babcock for the property located north of

21 Eight Mile and west of Beck Road at the

22 Richmond Drive Entranceway. The Petitioner

23 is requesting two 1.83 square foot

24 single-face builder panel signs to be placed



1 below each of the existing signs. The

2 Petitioner is also requesting two 10 feet

3 height variances for the placement of two

4 6.5 square foot monogram seal emblem signs

5 15 feet high on the existing peaks of the

6 entranceway ground sign. The property is

7 zoned RA and is located north of Eight Mile

8 west of Beck Road.

9 You are the Petitioner?

10 MR. BABCOCK: I am.


12 attorney?

13 MR. BABCOCK: No, I'm not.

14 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Please be sworn

15 in.

16 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number:

17 08-057 for Maybury Park Estates do you swear

18 or affirm to tell the truth in this case?

19 MR. BABCOCK: I do. John Babcock,

20 2071 Maple Road, Babcock Homes. In Maybury

21 Park we have two entrances there that were

22 built at two different times. The first

23 entrance to phase one and the entrance to

24 phase two is basically a duplicate of the



1 two of them. The phase two landscaping

2 monuments and everything has already been

3 approved and looked at. The signage that we

4 are talking about putting on phase two is

5 exactly the same that has already approved

6 on phase one. It's just in need of a

7 variance because of the way the signage sits

8 on a monument higher up, but it's exactly

9 the same as phase one.





14 the Board Secretary if there are any

15 comments. I will note that there is 14

16 notices mailed with zero responses and I

17 will ask if there is anyone in the audience

18 that wishes to make a comment on this case?

19 No? Then we will close that opportunity and

20 turn to the City. Mr. Fox?

21 MR. FOX: Through the Chair for some

22 clarification. The two entrances of the new

23 proposed entrance is only a few hundred feet

24 down the road on Eight Mile from the



1 original. The Applicant is proposing to put

2 the same signage up for consistency sake.

3 Originally when the original entrance was

4 approved through ZBA 04-051 I think was the

5 first time that was pushed through. They

6 considered the crest up at the very high

7 point to be considered artistic augmentation

8 is how they called it which is not

9 considered signage. And then the rest of it

10 should be consistent as far as size and

11 everything else.


13 Fox. I remember the first time, I was much

14 younger when this case came before us. A

15 long time ago.

16 I will open it up for Board

17 discussion. Member Burke?

18 MEMBER BURKE: How far did you say the

19 two streets were? You said a few hundred?

20 MR. FOX: I don't know the exact

21 number, but they are not very far apart

22 there's probably five to seven feet maybe

23 between the two.

24 MEMBER BURKE: I see. I support it.




2 MEMBER BURKE: Nothing. I just said I

3 support it.


5 MEMBER SHROYER: I think it's a pretty

6 simple case and I am going to go ahead and

7 make a motion that in case number: 08-057,

8 Maybury Park Estates, move to approve a

9 variance request. Being the seal is more

10 decorative in nature and not part of the

11 signage. This variance allows for the

12 consistency and the sign is already approved

13 in existence and making this property

14 unique. And granting this relief will not

15 result in use that is incompatible with

16 adjacent and surrounding properties and is

17 not inconsistent with the spirt of the

18 ordinance.



21 motion by Member Shroyer. Seconded by

22 Member Krieger.

23 Any further discussion? Seeing none,

24 Ms. Working, please call the roll.



1 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer?


3 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?


5 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


7 MS. WORKING: Member

8 Bauer?


10 MS. WORKING: Member Burke?


12 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer?


14 MS. WORKING: And Member Ibe?


16 MS. WORKING: Motion to approve passes

17 7-0.


19 has been granted. Thank you very much. We

20 probably scared you with the earlier cases.

21 Have a good night.


23 We will call Case Number: 08-058

24 filed by Michael Kahm of Singh Development



1 for the property located at 27475 Huron

2 Circle. The Petitioner is requesting one

3 sign variance for the location of a double

4 sided leasing sign for Waltonwood at Twelve

5 Oaks to be located in the northwest corner

6 of said property. This property is zoned RC

7 and located south of Twelve Mile Road, east

8 of Novi Road.

9 If you can raise your hand and be

10 sworn in for us.

11 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number:

12 08-058 for Waltonwood do you swear or affirm

13 to tell the truth?

14 MR. KAHM: I do. My name is Mike

15 Kahm. I am with Singh Development Company,

16 7125 Orchard Lake Road, West Bloomfield.

17 Good evening. A long night.

18 Most of you remember I was here a few

19 months ago regarding the signs we have at

20 our Waltonwood Development and we discussed

21 the current economic conditions and the

22 exposure that we need for this development.

23 And at that time you allowed us to keep the

24 one sign that we have on the ring road of



1 the mall -- no, pardon. You had us remove

2 the one on ring road and we still have the

3 one. And I indicated at that time that one

4 of the important things for us given the

5 location of our development is really having

6 the exposure from Twelve Mile Road. So,

7 what we presented this evening is a

8 directional/marketing sign which is off

9 premise on property that we own adjacent to

10 our Waltonwood Development. But we would

11 like to use that as a way of directing

12 people who are looking for a development,

13 but who are not completely acquainted with

14 the Novi area. We have people living in our

15 development that live from areas as far away

16 as Grosse Pointe. So, Novi is a regional

17 destination. So, it's important to us to be

18 able to direct people from a major

19 thoroughfare to our development. So, we are

20 asking if you would consider us placing this

21 sign on our property that fronts on Twelve

22 Mile Road and we obviously meet the setback

23 requirements in the Ordinance for the sign.




1 Thank you very much. In this case there

2 were 14 notices mailed with zero responses.

3 Is there anyone in the audience that wishes

4 to make a comment on this case? Seeing

5 none, we will close that opportunity as well

6 and turn it over to the City.

7 MR. BOULARD: No response or comment

8 other than what is in your packet. If you

9 have any questions we'll be glad to answer.


11 Board Members? Vice-Chair Sanghvi?


13 support their request. It is a replacement

14 for the Huron Circle sign because once you

15 get inside you know where Waltonwood

16 Development is.


18 Vice-Chair Sanghvi.

19 Mr. Kahm, just a question on the

20 application attachment where you said:

21 Therefore, marketing efforts are a never

22 ending necessity and exposure is critical to

23 that effort.

24 Do we have an end plan to having these



1 types of signs ever?

2 MR. KAHM: I wish.


4 understand. I guess all I'm asking is is

5 there a point where you will feel that you

6 are occupied in the sense where these kind

7 of signs can come down and you are basically

8 replenishing with new customers? Or are we

9 looking at something that really, truly

10 could potentially be there forever? Assume

11 a decent economy or an economic turnaround

12 as well.

13 MR. KAHM: I would say obviously when

14 we develop the property that it's on we are

15 not going to probably want that sign there

16 any more and we are hoping as the economy

17 turns around and we get more customer

18 traffic that this project will stabilize.

19 But the statement in the application is

20 true, the assisted living side of things, we

21 probably have a 50 percent turnover annually

22 and that's only because of the nature of

23 our --

24 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I'm sorry, what



1 percent?

2 MR. KAHM: A 50 percent turnover. But

3 that's because of the nature of the

4 occupants. They come there out of necessity

5 not out of demand. So, they either have

6 something happen in their life and a lot of

7 times we lose people to nursing homes,

8 hospitals or unfortunately death. And

9 that's just the nature of the beast. Our

10 average age, our entry age I should say is

11 85. So, we will always be marketing, but

12 right now to us it's very crucial to have

13 some exposure to bring the traffic in from

14 Twelve Mile and recognize where we are and

15 what we are.

16 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: But assuming an

17 economic turnaround and assuming that this

18 stabilizes at some point, this type of

19 marketing may go away and you will promote

20 in other ways, I'm hoping?

21 MR. KAHM: Or I will be here with my

22 knee pads on.

23 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: With the economy

24 I might be living here by that time.



1 What type of time were you looking

2 for?

3 MR. KAHM: A couple of years if that's

4 all right.


6 Members? Mr. Shroyer, do you have any


8 MEMBER SHROYER: I do. Mr. Amolsch,

9 does this sign fall within the size

10 requirements of the City for size

11 limitation? It looks like it's about to 8

12 feet by 4 feet 7 inches.

13 MR. AMOLSCH: It's an off premise

14 advertising sign is what it is. So, it

15 doesn't fall under the normal aspects of the

16 Ordinance. If it's a real estate sign it

17 would only be allowed to be 16 square feet

18 in area and 10 feet tall.

19 MEMBER SHROYER: So, this would be an

20 off site advertised sign. It can be

21 construed temporary in nature as well?

22 MR. AMOLSCH: An off premise sign it

23 would be up to the Board as to the time

24 limit. It's not a permitted sign. That's



1 why it has to be here.

2 MEMBER SHROYER: Our temporary sign

3 that's on Huron Drive right now is scheduled

4 to be done in January; is that correct?

5 MR. AMOLSCH: That is correct.

6 MS. WORKING: No. I'm sorry, through

7 the Chair. It is the Huron Circle sign that

8 was denied and the Mackinaw Boulevard sign

9 will expire in January of 2009.

10 MR. AMOLSCH: That's it.

11 MS. WORKING: They are very similar.

12 MR. AMOLSCH: Yes.

13 MEMBER SHROYER: I have my streets

14 mixed up. Those are the only questions I

15 have, Mr. Chair. Thank you.


17 Member Shroyer. Member Burke?

18 MEMBER BURKE: I just had to laugh

19 real quick because the staff couldn't

20 support this variance due to a lack of

21 demonstrated practical difficulty. I can't

22 imagine anybody for the first time coming in

23 around the mall and that not being a

24 practical difficult entrance.



1 Anyway, I support the sign and would

2 like to make a motion in case number:

3 08-058 for the approval of one off premise

4 advertising sign for the reason that it is

5 upon circumstances of features that are

6 exceptional and unique to the property, and

7 that the failure to grant relief would limit

8 the use of property and could result in

9 substantial inability to obtain a higher

10 financial return. And this would not result

11 in any unreasonable interference with

12 adjacent or surrounding properties. Also,

13 that we would give this approval for two

14 years and we would reiterate that the

15 Mackinaw Boulevard sign would be removed in

16 January of '09.


18 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Isn't it already

19 scheduled to come down in January '09?


21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Do we need it as

22 part of the motion then?

23 MS. WORKING: I believe the Petitioner

24 reserves the right to petition the Board on



1 the Mackinaw sign when it expires.


3 would be its own case and we shouldn't be

4 deciding that tonight. I would feel

5 hesitant to put that as part of the motion.

6 MR. SCHULTZ: I mean, it would be a

7 permissible condition but it sounds like

8 it's been requested.

9 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Would we not be

10 taking away his right to appeal that sign?

11 MR. SCHULTZ: He could ask for that

12 sign, but then he would lose the one that he

13 just asked for. It would be permitted but it

14 sounds like it's withdrawn.

15 MEMBER BURKE: So, if I retract it, he

16 can still come back in January and say can I

17 keep the Mackinaw sign?

18 MR. SCHULTZ: Correct.

19 MEMBER BURKE: Then I retract it. My

20 bad.


22 talk about the land ownership at all given

23 that they own it? I don't think it would be

24 an issue.





3 motion by Mr. Burke for two years and a

4 second by Member Shroyer. Any further

5 discussion? Seeing none, Ms. Working,

6 please call the roll.

7 MS. WORKING: Member Burke?


9 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer?


11 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?


13 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer?


15 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?


17 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?


19 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


21 MS. WORKING: Motion to approve passes

22 7-0.

23 MR. KAHM: Thank you very much.




1 of luck. Save me a room.

2 (Interposing)(Unintelligible).



5 Number: 08-059 filed by Sam LoPiccolo for

6 159 at 24580 Cavendish Avenue. Petitioner

7 is requesting a temporary use permit for the

8 continued placement of a temporary

9 construction trailer at said lot for the

10 time period November 12, 2008 through

11 November 12, 2010. And the Petitioner has

12 received temporary use permit and a one year

13 extension. The property is zoned R-4

14 located north of Ten Mile Road and west of

15 Novi Road.

16 Are you an attorney?

17 MR. LoPICCOLO: No, sir.


19 your hand and be sworn in by our Secretary?

20 MEMBER KRIEGER: In Case Number:

21 08-059 for LoPiccolo Homes. Did I say that

22 right?

23 MR. LoPICCOLO: Close.

24 MEMBER KRIEGER: Do you swear or



1 affirm to tell the truth in this case?

2 MR. LoPICCOLO: I do.


4 state your name and address and proceed with

5 your case.

6 MR. LoPICCOLO: My name is Salvatore

7 (ph) LoPiccolo. I am owner of LoPiccolo

8 Homes. My address 44303 Plymouth Oaks

9 Boulevard in Plymouth. This is just, I

10 guess reiterating what we did last year

11 because of the economy. I would have been

12 out of here three years ago if things didn't

13 turn as they did. Nothing has changed since

14 last year. I am asking for a two year

15 variance, but quite honestly I can't

16 guarantee that that's going to be done.

17 Depending on when this thing turns around.

18 I still have 23 vacant lots in there. So,

19 it's a substantial amount and it's adjacent

20 to Singh's third phase which we were in and

21 could not go into it because of the economy.

22 So, the trailer is right next to phase three

23 which has got quite a bit more lots than we

24 have left.



1 I have got people I'm working with

2 right now and I am going to need someplace.

3 I can't stay there forever like this. The

4 trailer would be gone with everything else.

5 So, I got the lots nice and clean. The

6 trailer there isn't any garage laying around

7 it. We would appreciate the help on that.


9 other comments?

10 MR. LoPICCOLO: No, I don't.


12 Madam Secretary, if you could read any

13 correspondence into the record.

14 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number:

15 08-059 43 notices were mailed. Two

16 responses and one complaint was received.

17 The first one is from Sally, I can't say the

18 name. The last name is spelled

19 G-O-G-I-N-E-I, on Cavendish Avenue: We

20 strongly oppose the continued placement of

21 the trailer on Lot 159. There are many

22 developed and owner occupied homes around

23 the lot and the trailer is an eye sore. It

24 also is a hazard to kids playing around,



1 with construction workers pulling and out of

2 the trailer in this parking lot. LoPiccolo

3 has many options to place this trailer where

4 there are a majority of undeveloped, unsold

5 or unoccupied lots without causing

6 inconveniences to any other owners. Safety

7 of children is our top priority.

8 (Unintelligible) are right around that

9 trailer. I strongly oppose this permit

10 extension.

11 The next is from Cromwell (ph) on

12 Cavendish Avenue: An empty trailer and

13 building equipment has been sitting on Lot

14 159 for over a year. The trailer is not

15 being used or cared for. The builder has

16 empty spec homes that could be used instead

17 of the trailer should they build another

18 house. Since they have not built a house

19 recently the trailer should be removed. It

20 seems dangerous to have an empty trailer

21 sitting there.

22 This one is from Sandra McCarthy on

23 Decker Drive. Dear, Ms. Working, attached

24 you will find our comments in regards to the



1 Zoning Board of Appeals Case Number:

2 08-059, and the attached documentation

3 states: Please do not extend the temporary

4 use permit to extend the temporary

5 construction trailer of Lot 159 in Churchill

6 Crossing at 24580 Cavendish from November

7 12, 2008 to November 12, 2010 for the

8 following reasons. Number one, LoPiccolo

9 Homes have not built a new home in the 20

10 months since we have been in our home. Two,

11 the construction trailer has been vacant,

12 abandoned since summer of 2007. Three, all

13 utilities to the trailer have been cut off.

14 Four, Singh is currently building homes and

15 they have no construction trailer. There is

16 no reason for LoPiccolo to retain their

17 vacant trailer on site. Five, the

18 construction trailer attracts kids to the

19 site causing mischief. Six, a very

20 unpleasant sight to view. And that's it.


22 complaint form was not necessarily part of

23 the send out? Ms. Working, could you just

24 clarify that for the Board, if you would?



1 MS. WORKING: That is correct, Mr.

2 Chair. A resident came to the City

3 requesting to file a complaint and we were

4 aware that the case was appearing before the

5 Board, so we brought it to your attention

6 here at the ZBA for your consideration.


8 appreciate that. Thank you very much.

9 MS. WORKING: You are very welcome.

10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Is there anyone

11 in the audience who wishes to make a comment

12 on this? Please come forward.

13 MR. COLLINS: Good evening, everybody,

14 my name is Dave Collins. I live at 24652

15 Cavendish. Actually, guys, what I would

16 like to do is show a real quick slide show

17 on the trailer. Pretty much pictures say

18 words, you know. If things will work out. I

19 don't now how well this is going to work

20 out. That is just a shot down the street.

21 Let me try another one here. This is the

22 trailer in question. And it's still too

23 glossy. Actually, I don't know if I can

24 hand these to you and you can take a look



1 for yourself since these are not showing too

2 well. Here is another one. And there has

3 also been some tickets written on it. You

4 can barely see it. It's a trailer right

5 here. Right below my finger and there is

6 some equipment on the side too also.

7 The bottom installation is falling out

8 of this thing. The top is rusting. I agree

9 with my fellow homeowners, it's not too

10 pretty. Actually, I just had a listing on

11 my house. Nothing is selling right now and

12 I tell you, this doesn't help when you come

13 in the sub and you roll in and you see that.

14 The electricity is cut off. There was a

15 porta potty a while back, that's gone. It's

16 not been used. I can feel for Mr. LoPiccolo

17 and him trying to sell houses. But, again,

18 this isn't helping.

19 That's pretty much all I got to say,

20 guys.

21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you very

22 much. Anyone else tonight who wishes to

23 make a comment on this case? If not, we

24 will close the opportunity for comments and



1 turn it over to the City.

2 MR. FOX: Just for some clarification.

3 As far as Singh not having a trailer on

4 site, they have a trailer that they are

5 using on another one of their sites. They

6 have three or four sites here in town that

7 have combined all their efforts into one

8 trailer. As a matter of fact I think is has

9 come before you to be talked about recently,

10 so they don't need it. They don't need a

11 trailer on every one of their sites at this

12 time. So, they are just combining it into

13 one location and this just isn't the

14 location where they keep it.

15 As far as the trailer is concerned, we

16 had a site visit. It does look like it's

17 not been maintained very well. It does look

18 vacant, although we don't know that for a

19 fact. When we were out there there was

20 nobody there, but that doesn't necessarily

21 make it vacent. There is some heavy

22 equipment stored on the site either on that

23 site or adjacent to that site with some

24 building materials that might need to be



1 taken care of. Maybe a stipulation as part

2 of it if you guys are inclined to grant the

3 variance.


5 Fox. Board Members? Mr. Burke?

6 MEMBER BURKE: Do you still have

7 equipment on site?

8 MR. LoPICCOLO: Yeah, I have a

9 bulldozer and a back hoe on site.

10 MEMBER BURKE: Did you get a citation

11 that said you had to move that stuff off?

12 MR. LoPICCOLO: Yes, I did.

13 MEMBER BURKE: What is the condition

14 of the trailer?

15 MR. LoPICCOLO: The trailer does have

16 some issues with that resting on top. But

17 nobody has even asked me for that. I would

18 be happy to take care of that.

19 MEMBER BURKE: Certainly you can see

20 where people that you build homes for --

21 MR. LoPICCOLO: This economy isn't

22 going to stay there and I will have to come

23 back sooner or later --

24 MEMBER BURKE: Hold on. Hold on. Let



1 me just finish. You can understand why they

2 have an objection --

3 MR. LoPICCOLO: Absolutely.

4 MEMBER BURKE: -- as a bit of an eye

5 sore. I am just trying to get clarification.

6 We have some pictures dated as recent as

7 October 6th, so I just wanted to know since

8 then have you removed the equipment, cleaned

9 up the lot, taken care of the building?

10 MR. LoPICCOLO: Not knowing if I am

11 going to be pulling the trailer out I have

12 not. Nobody has asked me to do it. That

13 trailer is in the same condition it's been

14 in for three years.

15 MEMBER BURKE: Okay. Thank you.


17 Members? Member Sanghvi?


19 you, Mr. Chair. I visited the site

20 yesterday and it doesn't look any different

21 than what is shown on those pictures. It is

22 in shambles. There is no way I can support

23 this kind of trailer sitting on that lot.

24 Thank you.




2 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Piccolo --

3 MR. LoPICCOLO: LoPiccolo.

4 MEMBER IBE: LoPiccolo, sir, would you

5 agree that the economy is bad? We can agree

6 on that?

7 MR. LoPICCOLO: We have been in

8 business for 30 years and never seen it this

9 bad. Builders are going out of business

10 every day.

11 MEMBER IBE: I completely concur with

12 you. Would you also agree that you have

13 homeowners who have their properties leased

14 in there?

15 MR. LoPICCOLO: As well as I do.

16 MR. IBE: That's correct.

17 MR. LoPICCOLO: I got six completed

18 houses in there.

19 MR. IBE: So, would you agree in this

20 economy the buyer has more preferences now

21 and if they come to your place and see that

22 trailer in the bad condition it is, do you

23 think they are more likely buy from that

24 subdivision? Or are they going to go to one



1 that doesn't have an eye sore like what you

2 have?

3 MR. LoPICCOLO: That trailer is a

4 temporary vehicle and people see that it's

5 temporary. Now, if people want it cleaned

6 up, I have no problem cleaning it up. That

7 trailer was put there like that. That was

8 Multi's trailer and sometimes I put my

9 trailer in the lot. So, I have no problem.

10 Nobody has asked me to date to do that. I

11 would be more than happy to do a clean up on

12 that. Everything is nice and neat that's

13 there. I have got two buyers that I am

14 working on. I am going to need the

15 equipment.

16 Now, I can't force the people to buy.

17 I am trying the best that I can. There are

18 a lot of other issues that we're fighting

19 every day besides that.

20 MEMBER IBE: I do understand that,

21 sir. Do you think that we have to ask you

22 to clean up something that looks like an eye

23 sore?

24 MR. LoPICCOLO: Like I said, it's been



1 that way for three years. It's temporary

2 there. Unfortunately this temporary has

3 dragged on way too long. So, I agree with

4 you that it can be cleaned up. And I would

5 be happy to do that.

6 MEMBER IBE: The point I am trying to

7 make, you know, you keep repeating this

8 which is my annoyance, and I will tell you

9 what it is. No one has asked you to do

10 something. Excuse me one moment, sir. You

11 have an obligation not just to yourself, but

12 the people who live there to clean it up.

13 You are making it look like that have to

14 sanction you to make you do something that

15 you have an obligation to do. Would you

16 agree, sir, that no one has to ask you to

17 take care of your property? If it's in a

18 bad condition, you have some obligation that

19 you shoulder as the owner of that trailer to

20 keep it in good shape so that the residents

21 don't have to look at an eye sore and

22 potential buyers don't see it and get scared

23 that this property is (unintelligible). And

24 you drive down the home values. Would you



1 agree, sir, that it is your obligation to do

2 it without anyone asking you to do it?

3 MR. LoPICCOLO: Yes, I do.

4 MEMBER IBE: Thank you. I have

5 nothing further.


7 Member Ibe. Any other comments? Questions?

8 Is the trailer completely vacant?

9 MR. LoPICCOLO: Nothing has moved in

10 or out. I stopped paying electric because I

11 didn't need electricity because of the air

12 conditioning in the summer time. I don't

13 even know if the electric has been turned

14 off, to be honest with you. That's the only

15 utility that we have there.


17 anticipate using the trailer again?

18 MR. LoPICCOLO: We store stuff in

19 there. I do maintenance on the houses. I

20 just got done, we had electricians there. I

21 don't have a lot of volume right now because

22 there is nobody buying.


24 last time you were there?



1 MR. LoPICCOLO: I was personally there

2 probably two weeks ago.


4 I safe to understand that this expired in

5 April? Can you give me a little background

6 on that?

7 MR. AMOLSCH: I can't. This was

8 Officer Underhill's case. I do know that a

9 ticket was issued --

10 MR. LoPICCOLO: I think a ticket was

11 just issued --

12 MR. AMOLSCH: A formal hearing was

13 scheduled if not done already.


15 violation in my packet from April 2008.

16 MR. LoPICCOLO: On the trailer?

17 MR. AMOLSCH: Right.

18 MR. LoPICCOLO: You filed it the day

19 after. The equipment was on Singh's lot and

20 I had that moved. It was our lot at the

21 time it was there. But then we didn't go

22 into phase three, so I had it moved. It was

23 during the cold weather and I couldn't get

24 it out of there. It was mud, so it was



1 difficult. But I did get it out of there.


3 MEMBER SHROYER: Due to the economy

4 and only due to the economy I would be

5 willing to move forward on this granting of

6 a temporary use. But I would expect us to

7 look at a much shorter period, perhaps even

8 a nine month time frame which would only go

9 through the summer of next year with a lot

10 of conditions. Naturally it would require

11 the cleaning up and removal and storage of

12 heavy equipment and materials and taking

13 care of any of the safety issues with the

14 trailer, et cetera. It is not fair to the

15 surrounding homeowners and the people in

16 that subdivision to that have to look at

17 that eye sore everyday.

18 After nine months or whatever period

19 of time you may wish to grant, I would like

20 to see the Petitioner back with evidence

21 that he has maintained the property as

22 requested. That would be my comment.

23 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I would concur

24 and I would even support six months,



1 beginning of the Springtime given the

2 concerns that we have seen.

3 Board Members? Any comments on that

4 time limit? Anything here? For a motion?

5 Member Burke?

6 MEMBER BURKE: What are you going to

7 do with the equipment? Are you going to

8 pull the equipment out of there?

9 MR. LoPICCOLO: If I don't get these

10 deals signed I am going to have to. It's not

11 --

12 MEMBER BURKE: You were given a notice

13 in April, in August and September. Now you

14 got a citation in October. So, I think it's

15 quite clear that the city wants the

16 equipment off property.

17 MR. LoPICCOLO: The first notice was

18 on (unintelligible) that was a lot that was

19 on Singh's property.

20 MEMBER BURKE: I am look just looking

21 --

22 MR. LoPICCOLO: I understand. It

23 moved from one lot to the other --

24 MEMBER BURKE: At this point it really



1 doesn't matter. It started in April and

2 here we are now in November. What I am

3 looking at is the citation.

4 MR. LoPICCOLO: I guess let me ask

5 you. When do you expect it to removed and I

6 will have it removed?

7 MEMBER BURKE: If it's equipment how

8 is tomorrow? They have been asking you

9 since -- they give you a reminder in August

10 and September. And you got a citation in

11 October about the equipment on the property.

12 I am not sure how much lead time you need.

13 You tell me.

14 MR. LoPICCOLO: It depends on if I

15 sign the deal. I will do the best I can to

16 get them out of there now. Right now I am

17 limited at what I can do and I don't have a

18 big staff. After 30 years I am down to just

19 me right now. I will get it moved as

20 quickly as I get it started and out of

21 there.

22 MEMBER BURKE: I tell you what, I

23 would support my fellow members here on

24 giving you six months in the trailer, but



1 that equipment has got to be gone and out of

2 there. I don't know if we can give you a

3 time frame on that, but I would want it out

4 yesterday. You are not building anything

5 right now. They don't need to be there and

6 it's clearly an eye sore for the entire

7 community there. And I would also put some

8 stipulations on you cleaning up the

9 property and making this trailer look

10 halfway decent. That would be about the

11 only way I can support it.


13 MEMBER SHROYER: I will go ahead and

14 make a motion then. And please feel free to

15 add something on this. In Case Number:

16 08-059, LoPiccolo Homes I move to approve

17 the temporary use requested for a period of

18 six months provided all actions that do not

19 fall within our Ordinance requirements are

20 ceased by month's end. This includes

21 storage of any heavy equipment and any other

22 stored materials. Also, the site must

23 cleared of any -- cleared up with removal of

24 any and all trash and debris and all safety



1 concerns of the trailer need to be addressed

2 by the same time. The construction trailer

3 as well as the parking area, the landscaping

4 and grass must be maintained for the length

5 of the variance. The use permit is based on

6 the need for the use due to 22 lots yet to

7 be developed. Is that correct, sir?

8 MR. LoPICCOLO: Well, home sites

9 built. The lots are developed.

10 MEMBER SHROYER: Twenty-two homes

11 sites yet to be developed. The slowness of

12 our current housing industry. No additional

13 fire or safety issues being created. No

14 decrease in surrounding property values and

15 the spirt of the Ordinance upheld.

16 MEMBER BAUER: Second.


18 motion with conditions by Member Shroyer and

19 seconded by Member Bauer. Any further

20 comments or questions? Seeing none, Ms.

21 Working, please call the roll.

22 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer?


24 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?




2 MS. WORKING: Member Burke?


4 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer?


6 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?


8 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?


10 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


12 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0.

13 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: You were given

14 six months, but hopefully when you come back

15 at that time will see some progress. So,

16 best of luck, though.

17 MR. LoPICCOLO: Thank you very much.

18 (Interposing)(Unintelligible).

19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: He will get the

20 notice from the City.

21 Moving on to other matter.

22 Number one, it appears that we have a

23 request for ZBA 08-024 on Meadowbrook Road

24 for a six month extension and we received



1 that in our packet and the back up for it.

2 Is there a motion?

3 MEMBER BURKE: Motion to approve.

4 MEMBER BAUER: Second. Are we looking

5 for six months from today, Robin? Chris?

6 MR. FOX: The expiration would be six

7 months from the expiration date from the

8 original variance.


10 with you, Mr. Burke?





15 motion and a second. Ms. Working, please

16 call the roll.

17 MS. WORKING: Member Burke?


19 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?


21 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer?


23 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?




1 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?


3 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


5 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer?


7 MS. WORKING: Motion to approve passes

8 7-0.


10 at Case Number: ZBA 08-010 requesting 180

11 day extension from the original expiration

12 date. Is there a motion to approve that?


14 MEMBER BAUER: Second.


16 motion by Member Sanghvi and a second by

17 Member Bauer.

18 MS. WORKING: And the time frame

19 please?

20 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It is 180 days

21 from the original expiration as requested.

22 Please call the roll.

23 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?




1 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?


3 MS. WORKING: Member Burke?


5 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer?


7 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?


9 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?


11 MS. WORKING: And, Member

12 Shroyer?


14 MS. WORKING: Motion to approve passes

15 7-0.

16 And last ZBA 08-020. They are

17 requesting a six-month extension from the

18 original expiration date. Is there a motion

19 to approve as requested?

20 MEMBER BAUER: So moved.


22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Motion by Member

23 Bauer and a second by Member Krieger for a

24 six month extension from the original



1 expiration date.

2 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?


4 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?


6 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


8 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer?


10 MS. WORKING: Member Burke?


12 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer?


14 MS. WORKING: And Member Ibe?


16 MS. WORKING: Motion to approve

17 passes 7-0.

18 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Moving along to

19 the last item of the day. The Rules.

20 MS. WORKING: Through the Chair, this

21 is a document that you have all worked very

22 hard on and there have been several

23 revisions and last month there were a few

24 minor changes made and we would like to have



1 it codified, if possible, with the

2 appropriate approval and signatures.


4 already approved the re-write. We approved

5 it based on them being rewritten as we

6 stated. Do we really need an approval

7 again?

8 MS. WORKING: I will leave that up to

9 Counsel.

10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Can we just sign

11 it?

12 MR. SCHULTZ: I'm sorry I wasn't here.

13 Were there changes discussed at the last

14 meeting?


16 discussed, but we approved it based on that

17 and said we approve it with those already --

18 MEMBER BURKE: There is a motion --

19 MR. SCHULTZ: I think it just needs a

20 signature.

21 MS. WORKING: It just needs a

22 signature.


24 withdraw your motion?



1 MEMBER BURKE: I withdraw it.

2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Given that that

3 takes care of all the business before the

4 Zoning Board today. I will entertain a

5 motion to adjourn.

6 MEMBER BAUER: So moved.



9 Bauer. Seconded by Member Sanghvi to

10 adjourn. All in favor say aye?



13 adjourned for the November meeting.

14 (The meeting was adjourned at

15 11:32 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 (204) typewritten pages, is a

11 true and correct transcript of my said

12 stenographic notes.






18 _____________________________

19 Mona L. Talton,

20 Certified Shorthand Reporter


22 November 21, 2008