|
View Agenda for this meeting
REGULAR MEETING - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 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, on Tuesday, August 10, 2010. BOARD MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY: 1 Novi, Michigan 2 Tuesday, August 10, 2010 3 7:00 p.m. 4 - - - 5 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: I'd like to 6 call to order the August 10th regular 7 meeting of the City of Novi Zoning Board of 8 Appeals. 9 Would everyone please rise for 10 the Pledge of Allegiance. Member Krieger, 11 would you please lead us. 12 BOARD MEMBERS: I pledge 13 allegiance to the flag of the United States 14 of America, and to the republic for which 15 it stands, one nation, under God, 16 indivisible, with liberty and justice for 17 all. 18 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: All right. 19 Ms. Martin, will you please call the 20 roll. 21 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger? 22 MEMBER KRIEGER: Present. 23 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe? 24 MEMBER IBE: Present.
4 1 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Wrobel? 2 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Present. 3 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy? 4 MEMBER SKELCY: Here. 5 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon? 6 MEMBER GEDEON: Here. 7 MS. MARTIN: Member Ghannam is 8 absent, and Member Cassis is absent, and 9 Member Sanghvi will be absent. 10 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Okay. We do 11 have a quorum, and the meeting is now in 12 session. 13 As a reminder, please make sure 14 all cellphones and pager ringers are turned 15 off at this time. And, also, I'd like to 16 go over some of the meeting rules. A copy 17 of the entire public hearing rules of 18 conduct is available next to the chamber 19 entrance door. 20 The Zoning Board of Appeals is a 21 hearing board empowered by the City of Novi 22 to hear appeals seeking variances from 23 existing Novi zoning ordinances. It takes 24 a vote of at least four members to approve
5 1 a variance request, and a majority of 2 members present to deny a request. 3 Tonight we do not have a full 4 board, so each applicant has the 5 opportunity to table their case if they so 6 desire, until a full board is present. 7 Otherwise, decisions made today will stand. 8 Individual applicants may take up 9 to five minutes, and groups may take up to 10 ten minutes to address the board. 11 And the next item on the agenda 12 is the approval of the agenda. Are there 13 any additions, deletions or changes to 14 propose? 15 MS. MARTIN: Just the public 16 remarks. I put it at the bottom; it should 17 have been up at the top, and I revised 18 that. 19 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Okay. We 20 received copies of that prior to the 21 meeting. Thank you. 22 Okay, seeing none, I will 23 entertain a motion to approve the agenda. 24 All those in favor, please signify by 1 saying aye. 2 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 3 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: All opposed, 4 no. We have an approved agenda. 5 Approval of the meeting minutes 6 is next; we do not have any to approve, so 7 we will move on to the next section, which 8 is the public remarks section of the 9 meeting. 10 Is there anyone in the audience 11 who wishes to make any comments not 12 pertaining to matter on the agenda tonight, 13 please come forward. Seeing none, the 14 public remarks section of the meeting is 15 closed. 16 That brings us up to the cases 17 for this evening. First case is Case No. 18 10-029, 25750 Novi Road. 19 The petitioner is requesting 20 variances on behalf of the property owner 21 to address non-conformity that would result 22 from the designation of an additional 23 highway easement for the new railroad 24 bridge on Novi Road, the parking setbacks, 1 minimum parking space size, parking 2 screening, landscape and street trees. 3 The property is zoned TC-1 and is 4 located south of Grand River and east of 5 Novi Road. 6 Is the petitioner here? 7 MR. ROLLINGER: Yes. 8 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Please come 9 forward to the podium. State your name and 10 address for the record. If you are not an 11 attorney, please raise your right hand and 12 be sworn in by our secretary. 13 MR. ROLLINGER: For the members 14 of the board, my name is Robert Rollinger; 15 I am an attorney. I'm here on behalf of 16 the applicant, the Board of County Road 17 Commissioners for Oakland County, who is 18 the condemnor in the Novi Road project 19 case. 20 The attorney for Grand Grace 21 Holdings, the property owner, is 22 Mr. Matthew Quinn, and Mr. Quinn has 23 indicated his consent and approval to the 24 zoning board application that I have filed 1 on behalf of the Road Commission. 2 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Okay. Thank 3 you. You can proceed with your 4 presentation. 5 MR. ROLLINGER: Thank you. As I 6 indicated, I am representing the Road 7 Commission for Oakland County. The Road 8 Commission for Oakland County is the 9 applicant this evening. Again, it's been 10 joined in by Mr. Quinn on behalf of the 11 Grand Grace Holdings. 12 The variances I'm seeking this 13 evening on behalf of the Road Commission 14 relate to the Novi Road Mid Section 15 Project, which is scheduled for 16 construction starting in the fall of 2010 17 through 2011. 18 The project is located along 19 Novi Road between Grand River Avenue south 20 to Ten Mile Road. A highway overpass is 21 going to be constructed over the existing 22 CSX Railroad right-of-way in the southeast 23 portion of the City of Novi. 24 The subject properties are being 1 included in a series of condemnation cases 2 in which property is being acquired to 3 widen Novi Road; that was part of the Mid 4 Section Project. A highway easement is 5 being acquired estimated at about 16,627 6 plus or minus square feet. The highway 7 easement acquisition is over a variable 8 with property and it's contiguous with 9 Novi Road and Trans-X Drive, which is 10 located just to the south. The highway 11 easement varies roughly in width from 12 12 feet to 35 feet. 13 In addition, temporary 14 construction easements are going to be 15 acquired adjacent to the new southern 16 boundary of the property. The easement 17 also will vary in width, and is, for the 18 most part, approximately 40 feet in width. 19 The temporary construction 20 easements will impact approximately 59 21 parking spaces that are located along the 22 south and west boundaries of the parking 23 lot. In addition, a temporary construction 24 easement is being acquired over a driveway 1 area, which is located within the east 2 portion of the meets and bounds parcel 3 description. 4 The second temporary construction 5 easement will be utilized to provide 6 temporary road access to the Trans-X Drive 7 due to the closure of the Trans-X Drive at 8 the Novi Road intersection during the 9 construction project. 10 Due to the physical proximity 11 between the newly constructed bridge 12 overpass wall and the authorized parking 13 location to the Grand Grace Holding 14 shopping center facility, the Road 15 Commission is seeking approval from the 16 City of Zoning -- sorry, City of Novi 17 Zoning Board of Appeals to a series of site 18 specific zoning variances, which take into 19 account changes in setback requirements. 20 And, in addition, variances are 21 being sought by way of a waiver of 22 landscape requirements, as well as outdoor 23 lighting requirements, contained in the 24 zoning ordinance for the TC-1 zoning 1 classification. 2 The requested variances for the 3 parking lot setback required two separate 4 20-foot variances, a 20-foot variance from 5 the setback requirement for the west front 6 yard and a second 20-foot variance for the 7 exterior side yard to the south. 8 The parking setback under Section 9 2506.14 is being requested from the 10 required 25-foot setback for a 13-foot 11 variance for the parking space, which is 12 parallel to the Novi Road right-of-way. At 13 the entrance from Novi Road to the first 14 parking space as 12 feet can be provided. 15 As far as the landscape berm or 16 brick wall requirement under section 17 2509.2(b), a variance is being requested 18 along the Novi Road/Trans-X Road frontages 19 from the required 2.5 foot screen wall. A 20 photographic exhibit is shown to pattern a 21 proposed wall and the approximate 22 (inaudible) has been submitted along with 23 the Road Commission's application. 24 And each member should have 1 copies of that sketch showing the color of 2 the wall. 3 The Road Commission is seeking a 4 variance from the required street tree 5 plantings under section 1602.5 to allow all 6 street trees to be removed instead of the 7 requirement of one canopy tree for each 35 8 feet of frontage and one sub-canopy tree 9 for each 15 foot of frontage. 10 Again, there is, literally, the 11 wall is going to abut up to the new 12 right-of-way easement line, which will abut 13 up to the entrance way. There is no 14 physical space for tree plantings or 15 landscaping at that location. 16 A variance is being sought under 17 the outdoor lighting requirement of Section 18 2511, due to the fact that there are four 19 parking spaces which may be designated for 20 compact cars only. These are the two 21 locations where there are two light poles 22 that are physically present today. Those 23 are being taken out. 24 Two new light poles will be put 1 in, but they are going to be -- the actual 2 pole is going to be right on the parking 3 space lot line. So, it may be off by a 4 foot, so it -- most cars are still going to 5 fit, but this will allow sufficient space 6 to install two overhead light poles at the 7 identified locations on the plans that we 8 did submit. And these will be 9 perpendicular to Novi Road. 10 The placement of the poles may 11 cause a deficiency in the parking space 12 dimensions, and the placement of the two 13 light poles at the corners of the parking 14 spaces will encroach slightly, thus, the 15 request for the variance. 16 There will be no change on the 17 existing barrier-free parking area. It 18 will not be impacted at all by the project 19 along the 17-parking space area located off 20 of the Trans-X Road frontage, nor along the 21 Novi Road frontage parking area, as well. 22 Again, I mentioned the owner, 23 through their counsel, Grand Grace Holdings 24 is joining in consenting to the application 1 to the zoning board. 2 In the application, I did 3 indicate that the partial acquisition of 4 this property is due to circumstances 5 beyond the control of the parking owner. 6 The acquisition is authorized by law under 7 the Michigan Constitution. To undertake 8 the acquisition, the Road Commission was 9 required to deposit into escrow with the 10 circuit court a sum which was estimated to 11 be the just compensation for the partial 12 acquisition of the property, leaving the 13 property owner with the opportunity to 14 contest the amount of the just 15 compensation, if they believe it was 16 adequate or inadequate in the circuit 17 court. 18 These are unique circumstances 19 which are beyond the control of the 20 property owner. The property owner neither 21 caused nor created the circumstances, and 22 the Road Commission should not be penalized 23 by seeking the requested variances. 24 Under the Michigan condemnation 1 procedure statute, these variances, if 2 granted, should include as part of the 3 resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of 4 Appeals, there is the language contained in 5 the statute, which is MCL 6 213.54(2) that states as follows: The 7 property shall be considered by the City of 8 Novi to be in conformity with the zoning 9 ordinance for all future uses with respect 10 to the non-conformity with which each 11 variance was granted. 12 Moreover, if the subject property 13 was also non-conforming for other reasons, 14 by granting the requested variances, the 15 City of Novi Zoning Board of Appeals is not 16 taking any position on the effect and the 17 status of the other pre-existing 18 non-conformities. 19 The owner of the subject property 20 may not increase the non-conformity for 21 which each zoning variance was granted 22 without the consent of the City of Novi. 23 We believe granting the requested 24 zoning variances will secure the public 1 safety and grant that a substantial justice 2 be done. This is in accordance with the 3 requirements of the zoning enabling act, 4 and we believe sufficient practical 5 difficulties have been explained as the 6 basis for each of the zoning variances 7 which we are seeking tonight from the 8 board. 9 Also present today is Ms. Kim 10 O'Lear (ph), a representative of Orchard, 11 Hiltz & McCliment, who can provide any 12 technical or engineering explanations that 13 the board may require. Thank you. 14 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Thank you. 15 Is there anyone in the audience who wishes 16 to address the board regarding this case? 17 MR. SEYMOUR: My name is Phil 18 Seymour; I'm an attorney. My address is 19 1026 West Eleven Mile Road in Royal Oak. I 20 work with Mr. Quinn. I'm here just to echo 21 what Mr. Rollinger said. 22 We represent Grand Grace 23 Holdings, LLC. We concur and the property 24 owner concurs in the applicant's petition 1 for a variance. 2 We would also echo that this is 3 nothing that was caused by the landowner. 4 It is solely the result of the condemnation 5 case and the plans for the road improvement 6 requested by the Road Commission for 7 Oakland County. 8 If there are any questions, I 9 will be happy to answer them. 10 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Okay, thank 11 you. Anybody else? Seeing none, will the 12 secretary please read any correspondence 13 regarding this case into the record. 14 MEMBER IBE: Thank you, Mr. 15 Chair. There were 16 notices mailed, 16 zero responses, one mail returned. 17 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Okay. Does 18 the building department or city attorney 19 wish to make any comments at this time? 20 MR. BOULARD: I'd like to just 21 bring to your attention there is a number 22 of supporting documents in the packet. If 23 you did not receive by e-mail the 24 additional copy of Mark Spencer's letter, 1 there is one in your -- in the folder 2 there. 3 I wanted to -- just wanted to say 4 we spent a great deal of time working with 5 the folks from the county and tried to 6 minimize -- to the degree possible, to 7 minimize these variances. And I think they 8 have done a good job, and we would be in 9 support of those. 10 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Okay. 11 MS. KUDLA: We have nothing 12 specific to add. If you have any questions 13 about the statute, as this is being 14 undertaken pursuant to the Uniform 15 Condemnation Procedures Act. So there are 16 some -- a little bit different language 17 that's going to be required in the motion. 18 In the event that someone does 19 propose a motion, I do -- I would be able 20 to suggest some language, because there 21 does need to be some conditions added at 22 the end of the language, as indicated by 23 the Road Commission. 24 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Okay, thank 1 you. 2 At this time, I will refer this 3 matter to the board for discussion. 4 Ms. Skelcy. 5 MEMBER SKELCY: Thank you. 6 Mr. Rollinger, are you with the firm 7 Secrest, Wardle? 8 MR. ROLLINGER: No, I'm not. 9 MEMBER SKELCY: Who are they? 10 MS. KUDLA: That's our office. 11 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay, thank you. 12 Excellent letter. 13 MS. KUDLA: Thank you. Tom 14 Schultz wrote it. 15 MEMBER SKELCY: I know. Please 16 tell Mr. Schultz he did a great job. 17 I reviewed everything, and sounds 18 like we are going to have a great 19 improvement on Novi Road, which will really 20 help the residents and all the congestion 21 in that area, so I would be in favor of the 22 variances being requested. Thank you. 23 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: 24 Ms. Krieger. 1 MEMBER KRIEGER: Since the city 2 has been working with the Road Commission, 3 there is copies of the information that was 4 given by Secrest Wardle that the -- 5 regarding the five lanes, the traffic 6 studies for safety, et cetera? 7 MS. KUDLA: Was there traffic 8 studies done? That's something you would 9 probably want to address with the Road 10 Commission. I'm sure there were traffic 11 studies done with the project. 12 MR. ROLLINGER: Yes. Certainly, 13 there were traffic studies. I would 14 probably ask Ms. O'Lear from Orchard, Hiltz 15 & McCliment to speak to any specific 16 questions you may have. 17 MS. O'LEAR: My name is Kim 18 O'Lear. I am certain that there were also 19 engineering studies that were done and 20 probably done during the early preliminary 21 engineering stage, which was a number of 22 years ago. I don't have the specifics with 23 me today, but the decision on how many 24 lanes would be carried through, there are 1 two lanes in each direction and a center 2 turn lane came out of that traffic study. 3 MEMBER KRIEGER: So there would 4 be a copy that the city would be able to 5 have in the clerk's office? 6 MS. O'LEAR: I'm sure that you 7 can ask the county to get that for you. 8 MEMBER KRIEGER: I agree. To 9 have been here as long as I have been, 10 always going over or across the train 11 tracks and waiting for the train, and then 12 seeing how long the lines are when they 13 back up all the way to Ten Mile and Grand 14 River, the safety is definitely -- would be 15 taken care of. As well as if you are a car 16 versus a train, a train is going to win. 17 So, with these requests, I also am in 18 agreement. Thank you. 19 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Thank you. 20 Anything else? 21 MEMBER GEDEON: I would just echo 22 that this project makes a lot of sense for 23 a lot of reasons, so I have no problem with 24 this. 1 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Okay. I, 2 too, will support this; it's been a long 3 time coming in Novi. I have been here over 4 28 years, and it's been needed. 5 Seeing all the board members had 6 the opportunity to speak on this matter, I 7 will entertain a motion. 8 MS. KUDLA: In the event the 9 motion is approved, I have suggested 10 language. I will read it off. Feel free 11 to either, you know, not accept it, make, 12 you know, changes to it or make your own 13 separate motion. It's kind of long, so I'm 14 just going to read through it. If anyone 15 wants, I have it written down if you want 16 to review it. 17 Okay. The proposed motion would 18 be I move that we grant the variance, in 19 this case, 10-029, sought by the Road 20 Commission for Oakland County for 25750 21 Novi Road, because the petitioner has 22 established that the widening of Novi Road 23 right-of-way and associated road 24 construction project causes a practical 1 difficulty relating to the property, 2 including some or all of the following 3 criteria. 4 Petitioner has established that 5 the property is unique because the 6 buildings and parking are existing, and 7 that the physical condition of the property 8 creates the need for a variance because the 9 widening of Novi Road right-of-way by Road 10 Commission and the associated road 11 construction and improvements will cause 12 the property to be non-conforming in 13 several respects. 14 The need for the variance is not 15 self-created because the property owners 16 are not responsible for the widening 17 project. 18 Strict compliance with 19 dimensional regulations of the zoning 20 ordinance will unreasonably prevent 21 petitioner from using the property for the 22 permitted purpose as existing building and 23 parking will make it unnecessarily 24 burdensome to comply with the regulation 1 because the buildings are existing and 2 can't be moved and the improvements are 3 required by the road construction plans. 4 Petitioner has established that 5 the variance is the minimum necessary 6 because a lesser variance would not allow 7 construction of the roadway project as 8 planned. 9 The requested variance will not 10 cause adverse impact on the surrounding 11 property values or the enjoyment of the 12 property in the neighborhood or zoning 13 district because the public will benefit 14 from the widening of Novi Road and the 15 construction of the associated road 16 improvements. 17 As a result of the variance, the 18 property shall be considered by the City of 19 Novi to be in conformity with the zoning 20 ordinance for all future uses with respect 21 to the non-conformity for which each 22 variance was granted. 23 Moreover, if the subject property 24 was also non-conforming for other reasons, 1 by granting the requested variances, the 2 City of Novi has not taken any position on 3 the effect of the status of the other 4 pre-existing non-conformities. 5 The owner of the property may not 6 increase the non-conformity for which each 7 zoning variance was granted without the 8 consent of the City of Novi. 9 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, I would 10 like the motion as read and move for that 11 it be approved. 12 MEMBER KRIEGER: I second. 13 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Okay. We 14 have a motion by Member Ibe and a second by 15 Member Krieger. Any further discussion? 16 Seeing none, Ms. Martin, please call the 17 roll. 18 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger? 19 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 20 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe? 21 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 22 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Wrobel? 23 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Yes. 24 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy? 1 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 2 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon? 3 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes. 4 MS. MARTIN: Motion passes, five 5 to zero. 6 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Next on the 7 agenda is Case No. 10-030, 25345 8 Novi Road. The petitioner is requesting 9 variances on behalf of the property owner 10 to address a non-conformity that will 11 result in the designation of an additional 12 highway easement for the new railroad 13 bridge on Novi Road for building setback, 14 parking island size and type, landscaping, 15 parking lot screening, street trees and 16 parking lot lighting. The property is 17 zoned I-1 and is located west of Novi Road, 18 south of Grand River. 19 Petitioner again? 20 MR. ROLLINGER: Thank you. 21 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: City 22 attorney, does he need to state his name 23 again? 24 MS. KUDLA: He's already sworn 1 in. 2 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Okay. You 3 can proceed again. 4 MR. ROLLINGER: Thank you very 5 much. Good evening, members of the Zoning 6 Board of Appeals. My name is Robert 7 Rollinger. I'm appearing on behalf of the 8 applicant, Road Commission for Oakland 9 County. 10 The Road Commission, as I 11 mentioned earlier, is undertaking the 12 Novi Road Mid Section Project along 13 Novi Road in the southeast area of the City 14 of Novi. And that includes the overpass 15 bridge over the CSX Railroad, requiring the 16 seeking of various zoning variances from 17 this evening, because there is a partial 18 taking as well of the subject property, 19 which is located at 25345 Novi Road. 20 The Road Commission has acquired 21 a highway easement over the west 32 feet of 22 the east 65 feet of the property. The 23 taking widens Novi Road right-of-way to 24 65 feet. This area is now encumbered by a 1 new highway easement for public highway 2 purposes of approximately 6,955 square 3 feet. 4 In addition, a temporary 5 construction easement over a 75-foot strip 6 of land parallel and contiguous to the west 7 boundary of the proposed highway easement 8 acquisition is likewise being required. 9 Total area that will be encumbered by the 10 temporary construction easement is 11 estimated to be 6,979 square feet, more or 12 less. 13 Due to the proximity of the 14 bridge overpass to the subject property, 15 and a new parking configuration, location 16 and proximity to the new right-of-way for 17 Novi Road, that is created by the 18 acquisition, together with the 19 ingress/egress alignments for truck 20 deliveries and a parking area to cure the 21 effects of the taking on the remainder of 22 the property, the Road Commission is 23 requesting that the City of Novi Zoning 24 Board of Appeals grants to it a series of 1 variances so that the spirit of the City of 2 Novi zoning ordinance is observed, public 3 safety secured and substantial justice is 4 done. 5 Under section 2400, a 15-foot 6 variance is being sought from the required 7 40-foot setback from the building to allow 8 for 25 feet instead of the required 40-foot 9 setback. Also, under Section 2400, the 10 parking lot front and exterior side yard 11 setback of 40 feet cannot be met due to the 12 proximity and location of the parking lot 13 area and in conjunction with the new 14 alignment of Novi Road, there will be one 15 and one half feet estimated -- excuse me, 16 from the required 40-foot setback. 17 For the exterior side yard to the 18 south, a 25-foot setback is sought from the 19 required 40-foot setback, leaving a need 20 for a 15-foot variance. 21 Ordinance Section 2506.13 22 requires a raised curbed end island. The 23 Road Commission is proposing to paint this 24 island instead of having it be raised and 1 curbed. Truck traffic ingress and egress, 2 which is depicted in the drawings submitted 3 to the ZBA, along with their application, 4 identified a configuration which will 5 provide safe and secure parking for 6 customers of the property owner as well as 7 to allow ingress and egress for truck 8 deliveries to the principal building 9 location and storage areas. 10 The Road Commission is proposing 11 to provide an identical number of parking 12 spaces. There are 12 required and 12 being 13 provided, as has previously been in 14 existence. 15 The handicap space currently 16 located is identified as the space closest 17 to the door of the locked building for 18 retail customers. The Road Commission is 19 seeking a waiver from the requirements of 20 Section 2509 to eliminate the need to 21 submit a landscape plan with details of the 22 new parking lot landscape. This is due to 23 the fact there will be no intention to 24 screen along the new parking space area due 1 to their location and their proximity to 2 the new bridge overpass wall. There is no 3 physical space area that would be there for 4 this to occur. 5 The outdoor lighting requirement 6 under Section 2511 is another variance 7 which is being sought. There is not any 8 intent to change from the existing current 9 lighting located both in the principal 10 building and the front of the building as 11 you enter, nor on the side of the building, 12 both of which are going to remain intact 13 where they are. 14 The drawings accompanying the 15 submission identify the subject property, 16 as well as providing an explanation as to 17 the parking lot plan; ingress and egress to 18 and from the site from relocated Genmar 19 Road. The buildings on site are clearly 20 identified, as is the edge of the pavement 21 to be removed from the site. 22 The practical difficulties 23 required under the zoning ordinance and 24 zoning enabling act have been met. The 1 partial acquisition is due to the 2 construction of the CSX bridge overpass. 3 This is beyond the control of anyone, 4 including this property owner. 5 The acquisition is both 6 authorized by law and under the Michigan 7 Constitution. For this acquisition to 8 occur, again, the Road Commission did make 9 a deposit into escrow of an estimated just 10 compensation amount to satisfy the 11 requirements of the law, which allows the 12 owner to still challenge the adequacy or 13 inadequacy of compensation in circuit 14 court. 15 These are unique circumstances 16 which are beyond the control of the 17 property owner, and neither caused nor 18 created by the property owner, and the Road 19 Commission as a statutory body should not 20 be penalized due to the fact they are 21 seeking these variances. 22 The variances, if granted, should 23 be in accordance with the language of MCL 24 213.54(2), which I mentioned earlier, and 1 which counsel mentioned as part of the 2 proposed board resolution for the first 3 property. 4 That language states, "The 5 property shall be considered by the City of 6 Novi to be in conformity with the zoning 7 ordinance for all future uses with respect 8 to the non-conformity for which each zoning 9 ordinance was granted. 10 "Moreover, if the subject 11 property was also non-conforming for other 12 reasons, by granting the requested 13 variances, the City of Novi Zoning Board of 14 Appeals has not taken any position on the 15 effect of the status of the other 16 pre-existing non-conformities. 17 "The owner of the subject 18 properties may not increase the 19 non-conformity for which each zoning 20 ordinance was granted without the consent 21 of the City of Novi." 22 Again, present today is Ms. Kim 23 O'Lear from Orchard, Hiltz & McCliment, and 24 she is here to answer any technical or 1 engineering questions or concerns that any 2 members of the board may have. 3 Thank you for your attention. 4 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Thank you. 5 Is there anyone in the audience who wishes 6 to address the board regarding this case? 7 Seeing none, will the secretary read any 8 correspondence into the record. 9 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, 30 10 notices were mailed, zero responses, two 11 mail returned. 12 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Thank you. 13 Does the building department or city 14 attorney wish to add anything at this time? 15 MR. BOULARD: I would merely echo 16 my previous comments. 17 MS. KUDLA: Same comments, if 18 there is an inclination to approve, I have 19 a motion to propose for the record. 20 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Thank you. 21 Okay, at this time I will refer this matter 22 to the board for discussion. Ms. Krieger. 23 MEMBER KRIEGER: Did Stricker 24 Paint have any as the previous case, 1 participation, was there any -- 2 MR. ROLLINGER: The attorney for 3 Stricker Paint has been provided with an 4 exact duplicate copy of the materials that 5 the board has, and he has not indicated yea 6 or nay or anything whatsoever about this. 7 MEMBER KRIEGER: Okay. Thank 8 you. 9 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Anyone else? 10 Once again, I would support this proposal; 11 it's a long time coming. 12 And at this time, Counsel, would 13 you care to read your motion? 14 MS. KUDLA: Sure. In the event 15 there is an inclination to move to grant 16 the variances, we would suggest the 17 following language: 18 I move we grant the variances in 19 Case No. 25345 Novi Road -- Case No. 10-030 20 sought by the Road Commission of Oakland 21 County for 25345 Novi Road, because the 22 petitioner has established that the 23 widening of the Novi Road right-of-way and 24 the associated road construction project 1 causes a practical difficulty relating to 2 the property, including some or all of the 3 following criteria. 4 Petitioner has established that 5 the property is unique because the 6 buildings and parking are existing, and 7 that the physical condition of the property 8 creates the need for a variance because the 9 widening of the Novi Road right-of-way by 10 the Road Commission for Oakland County and 11 the road construction associated 12 improvements will cause the property to be 13 non-conforming in several respects. 14 The need for the variance is not 15 self-created because the property owners 16 are not responsible for the road widening 17 project and associated construction. 18 Strict compliance with the 19 dimensional regulations of the zoning 20 ordinance will unreasonably prevent 21 petitioner from using the property for the 22 permitted purpose because it will make it 23 unnecessarily burdensome to comply with the 24 regulation because the buildings are 1 existing and can't be moved, and the 2 improvements are required by the Road 3 Commission construction requirements. 4 Petitioner has established that 5 the variance is the minimum variance 6 necessary, because a lesser variance would 7 not allow the construction of the roadway 8 project as planned. 9 The requested variance will not 10 cause adverse impact on surrounding 11 property values or the enjoyment of 12 property in the neighborhood or zoning 13 district because the public will benefit 14 from the widening of Novi Road right-of-way 15 and construction of the associated 16 improvements. 17 As a result of the variance, the 18 property shall be considered by the City of 19 Novi to be in conformity with the zoning 20 ordinance for all future uses with respect 21 to the non-conformity for which each 22 variance was granted. 23 Moreover, if the subject property 24 was also non-conforming for other reasons, 1 by granting the requested variances, the 2 City of Novi has not taken any position on 3 the effect on the status of the other 4 pre-existing non-conformities. 5 The owner of the property may not 6 increase the non-conformity for which each 7 zoning variance was granted without the 8 consent of the City of Novi. 9 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, once 10 again, I will adopt the motion as suggested 11 by the city attorney and that move for its 12 approval. 13 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Okay. 14 MEMBER KRIEGER: I will second. 15 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Okay. We 16 have a motion made by Member Ibe and second 17 by Member Krieger. If there is no further 18 discussion, Ms. Martin, please call the 19 roll. 20 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger? 21 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 22 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe? 23 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 24 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Wrobel? 1 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Yes. 2 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy? 3 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 4 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon? 5 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes. 6 MS. MARTIN: Motion passes, five 7 to zero. 8 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Thank you. 9 MR. ROLLINGER: Thank you very 10 much. 11 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Okay. Next 12 up is Case No. 10-031, 40798 Ladene 13 Lane. The petitioner is requesting a 14 variance from the minimum rear yard 15 requirement to allow construction of a 16 sunroom on the rear of an existing 17 residence. Property is zoned R-3 and is 18 located north of Eight Mile Road and west 19 of Haggerty Road. 20 If the petitioner is here, please 21 come forward to the podium. Please state 22 your name and address for the record. And 23 if you are not an attorney, please raise 24 your right hand and be sworn by our 1 secretary. 2 MR. LESSARD: Dan Lessard (ph), 3 25400 Milford Road, South Lyon. 4 MEMBER IBE: In case 10-031, sir, 5 do you swear or affirm to tell the truth? 6 MR. LESSARD: Yes, sir. 7 MEMBER IBE: Thank you. 8 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: You may 9 proceed with your presentation. 10 MR. LESSARD: This is a note from 11 Jack Reed, property owner at 40798 Ladene 12 Lane. He apologizes for not being here 13 tonight, but I will be here representing 14 him for the information necessary and 15 request a variance on his behalf. 16 Last year he came here before the 17 board and received approval for the exact 18 same variance that he's asking for tonight; 19 it's in your last page of your packet. 20 Unfortunately, not knowing the system and 21 the procedures required from the city, he 22 never pulled the permit within the 120-day 23 window from the original variance date, 24 which would have avoided the resubmission 1 of the variance. 2 But at this time he received 3 approval. His family was going through a 4 little bit of financial difficulty and 5 wasn't able to take on the project at that 6 time. 7 So, again, the reason I'm here 8 today is to ask for the variance of 12.5 9 feet from a 35-foot zoning setback to the 10 building of the sunroom on the footprint of 11 the pre-existing deck. 12 The setback is currently 35 feet; 13 he's asking for 12.5 feet. So, 14 essentially, the setback would be 22.5 15 feet, if approved. 16 This variance is needed primarily 17 because the property is pie-shaped, and the 18 house itself was set slightly farther back 19 on the property, which only provided a 20 35-foot original setback. 21 Although, I currently have a deck 22 exactly where the sunroom will sit. It 23 will have a structural professional 24 engineer's specifications to support the 1 sunroom. 2 Nothing has changed from the 3 first request. This is still a traditional 4 wood frame building and is going to be put 5 on a pre-existing deck. 6 A copy of the approval of the 7 homeowner association is on the -- provided 8 stick drawing in the packet, as well as a 9 view of the lot itself from Google Earth 10 that was provided in your packet, also. 11 I can take any questions. 12 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Okay, thank 13 you. Is there anyone in the audience who 14 wishes to address the board regarding this 15 case? 16 Seeing none, Mr. Secretary, 17 please read any correspondence into the 18 record. 19 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, there 20 were 28 notices mailed, three objections, 21 zero approvals, two mail returned. 22 First objection is from -- signed 23 by Edward and Mary Ann Roney of 40701 West 24 Mill Road Court and dated 8-1-2010. And it 1 reads, "Zoning ordinances are established 2 to protect all properties and interests. I 3 do not see a public improvement in this 4 request, and we object to any variance. We 5 hope Mr. Reed can adjust his plans to fit 6 within the existing ordinances." 7 The second objection is from Ed 8 Roney, who is the same writer of the first 9 objection. And it reads, "Objection to 10 Zoning Board of Appeals Case 10-031, 40798 11 Ladene Lane." 12 And the third objection is 13 written by someone named G. Ford, address 14 40784 Ladene, dated 8/7/2010. And it 15 reads, "I know you are going to approve 16 this again, and once more, construction 17 traffic on my property will not be 18 tolerated." 19 That's it, Mr. Chair. 20 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Okay, thank 21 you. Does the city attorney or building 22 department wish to add anything at this 23 time? 24 MS. KUDLA: No. 1 MR. BOULARD: I would just add 2 that as was indicated, the variance was 3 approved in the past, but because of the 4 time that had transpired, we were advised 5 and provided guidance that he needed to 6 come back before you. 7 I believe that the time that the 8 variance was approved previously, the issue 9 of access on the neighboring property was 10 also brought up. And at that time the 11 petitioner indicated they felt they could 12 construct -- construct the improvements 13 without violating that property line, so I 14 believe that's still the case. 15 MR. LESSARD: Yes, that is still. 16 MR. BOULARD: And it is a 17 somewhat unique-shaped lot. Thank you. 18 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Thank you. 19 I will refer this matter over to the board 20 now for discussion. 21 MEMBER GEDEON: Just as a point 22 of clarification for the city. In the 23 paperwork that we received, it said staff 24 did not support the request. Are you 1 changing your opinion now? 2 MR. BOULARD: I'm not changing my 3 opinion. I do not support the request; I 4 can't support the request. However, the 5 lot is uniquely shaped, and there are some 6 extenuating circumstances. I just wanted 7 to recognize that. 8 MEMBER GEDEON: I don't know if 9 it's appropriate to compare this to the 10 next case, since we haven't heard it yet, 11 but it seems very similar. The wetlands in 12 the back versus the park in the back, and 13 I'm curious what goes into the city's 14 opinion about whether or not to support the 15 request or not. 16 MR. BOULARD: In this case, in 17 this particular case, the intent was to 18 remain consistent with the recommendation 19 from the last time awarded in this case. 20 MEMBER GEDEON: Okay, thank you. 21 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: 22 Ms. Skelcy. 23 MEMBER SKELCY: What is your 24 relationship to the applicant? 1 MR. LESSARD: A friend of his. 2 MEMBER SKELCY: Can people -- can 3 the non-owner -- 4 MS. KUDLA: Well, he's sworn in, 5 and we have the application signed with all 6 the same information and is signed by the 7 owner, so the application is in the record. 8 He's consistent with that, so that's -- 9 yeah, that's fine. 10 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay, thank you. 11 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Anyone else? 12 MEMBER KRIEGER: Since it's the 13 same one and it's just a matter of time, 14 and he's already stated that it won't be -- 15 they will be within their own property 16 line, does what I read last year, can that 17 be readmitted, or do I have to read it 18 again? 19 MS. KUDLA: You mean read the 20 same motion as last year? 21 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yeah. 22 MS. KUDLA: You can read the same 23 motion as last year. 24 MEMBER KRIEGER: So in 1 Case No. -- that's what I would do, I'm 2 sorry. 3 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Go ahead. 4 Anyone else have anything to say? Go 5 ahead, Ms. Krieger. 6 MEMBER KRIEGER: In 7 Case No. 10-031 filed by John Reed on 8 40798 Ladene Lane, that I move to approve 9 the request for the variance from the 10 minimum rear yard requirement to allow 11 construction of a sunroom in the rear of 12 the existing residence. The petitioner has 13 mentioned his practical difficulty, and he 14 will honor the access concerns of the 15 neighbors. 16 The variance will not cause any 17 trespassing on the property of the 18 surrounding neighbors. The maximum 19 variance request is 12.5 feet from the 20 minimum 35-foot rear setback. And this 21 setback will unreasonably prevent the use 22 of the property for a permitted purpose. 23 A variance will provide 24 substantial justice to the petitioner and 1 surrounding property owners. These are 2 unique circumstances to this property, and 3 it is not self-created. Evidence of 4 adequate light and air is provided as by 5 the satellite image, and it is in the 6 spirit of the zoning ordinance. 7 MEMBER GEDEON: I will second. 8 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: We have a 9 motion made by Member Krieger and second by 10 Member Gedeon. Is there any further 11 discussion? If not, Ms. Martin, please 12 call the roll. 13 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger? 14 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 15 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe? 16 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 17 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Wrobel? 18 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Yes. 19 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy? 20 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 21 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon? 22 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes. 23 MS. MARTIN: Motion passes, five 24 to zero. 1 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Okay, motion 2 passes, five to zero. 3 The next case up is Case No. 4 10-032 for 23320 West Lebost. The 5 petitioner is requesting variances to add 6 additions to connect an existing two-car 7 garage to a three-car attached garage. 8 Property is zoned R-4 and is located south 9 of Ten Mile and east of Meadowbrook Road. 10 The petitioner is here. Please 11 state your name and address. And if you 12 are not an attorney, please raise your hand 13 and be sworn in. 14 MR. MILLER: My name is Greg 15 Miller. My address is 23320 West Lebost, 16 and I am not an attorney. 17 MEMBER IBE: In Case No. 10-032, 18 23320 West Lebost, do you swear or affirm 19 to tell the truth? 20 MR. MILLER: Yes. 21 MEMBER IBE: Thank you. 22 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Please 23 proceed with your presentation. 24 MR. MILLER: Yes, we are 1 requesting three setbacks to add on to my 2 garage. It's now a two-car, which is 3 barely adequate, only 20 feet wide barely. 4 I have five cars right now. My daughter 5 just started driving, so our driveway is 6 not that long, so I'm just trying to get it 7 so I can keep three cars in the garage and 8 two in the street. So I'm looking for a 9 front yard setback of a variance of 10 two-and-a-half feet, a side yard setback of 11 two-and-a-half feet, and an aggregate side 12 yard setback of 9.1 feet. 13 I have the prints and did it all 14 in brick so it matches the house, so it 15 won't look like just a shanty added onto 16 the side or something. 17 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Okay. All 18 right. Thank you. Is there anyone in the 19 audience who wishes to address the board 20 regarding this case? Seeing none, 21 Mr. Secretary, please read the 22 correspondence into the record. 23 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, there 24 were 42 notices mailed, two objections, 1 zero approvals, zero mail returned. 2 The first objection, dated 3 07/26/2010, and signed by John and Patsy 4 Keller of 23261 West Lebost Drive, Novi, 5 Michigan. And it reads, "No, three-car 6 garage will not blend into the neighborhood 7 and would look out of place." 8 Second objection is from Jerry 9 and Nancy Helton of 23262 West Lebost, 10 dated 8/7/2010. And it reads, "Our houses 11 are all pretty much the same. We think 12 adding a third garage will look out of 13 place and be too close to the house next 14 door. Also, adding four feet to the front 15 of the new garage going towards the street 16 will also make the garage stick out more." 17 And that's it, Mr. Chair. 18 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Thank you. 19 Does the building department or city 20 attorney wish to make any comments? 21 MS. KUDLA: We have nothing to 22 add. 23 MR. BOULARD: I did a couple 24 things on one, there is one variance 1 request for the aggregate side setback, the 2 existing structure is not in conformity; 3 (inaudible) it makes that worse. And I had 4 a couple questions with the petitioner, if 5 I may. 6 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Yes. 7 MR. BOULARD: Do you have the 8 homeowners' association approval? 9 MR. MILLER: Yes. You should 10 have a copy of that with your stuff. 11 MR. BOULARD: Just wanted to 12 verify that. 13 Secondly, is there a well 14 or septic in the back yard that would 15 require (inaudible) access? 16 MR. MILLER: No, all city water 17 and city sewer. 18 MR. BOULARD: The other thing I 19 would like to point out is that in this 20 particular case, since it's adding onto the 21 existing garage, there is not a lot of 22 options in terms of putting it on the other 23 side of the house and things like that. 24 It's a little more difficult than adding a 1 room addition or something. Thank you. 2 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Okay. At 3 this time I will refer the matter to the 4 board. Member Gedeon. 5 MEMBER GEDEON: In reference to 6 one of the objections, the objector 7 mentioned that it was a four-foot variance 8 requested for the front setback, and the 9 variance as proposed is only two-and-a-half 10 feet. Is the two-and-a-half feet accurate? 11 MR. MILLER: Yes. 12 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Okay, 13 Member Krieger. 14 MEMBER KRIEGER: What's your 15 intent for the third garage -- for the 16 doors? I don't know about -- in our 17 homeowner association, all the garages face 18 to the side, so this one would face to the 19 street. Would you have it closed? 20 MR. MILLER: Yes. Yeah, they are 21 all existing, one faces the street, and the 22 new one will be facing the street, also. 23 It should be on your plan. 24 MEMBER KRIEGER: Do you think 1 there would be a time that the garages -- 2 when you have all three of them open? 3 MR. MILLER: Well, there is only 4 actually two doors. One is a two-car door, 5 and the other one will be the one-car door. 6 And the one-car door will be the one that's 7 used the most; that's my wife's car. The 8 other one is just storage for my two other 9 cars. 10 MEMBER KRIEGER: Otherwise, I 11 think it's really cool because (inaudible). 12 That's it, thank you. 13 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Anyone else? 14 I have a question. The issue was brought 15 up, and going through the subdivision, I 16 haven't noticed any other three-car 17 garages. 18 MR. MILLER: I have a picture 19 here of one that is on East Lebost. And 20 this is another one that's on West Lebost, 21 where he actually added a two-car garage 22 onto his one and turned his one-car into 23 living space. 24 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: I did notice 1 those. 2 MR. MILLER: Here's another one; 3 I don't remember the street. Same thing, 4 they took and added on, and then they 5 turned half their garage into living space. 6 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Okay. 7 MR. MILLER: So there were three 8 added on right there. 9 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Okay. I 10 have no further questions. 11 Anyone else have anything to say? 12 If not, I will be looking for a motion. 13 Member Skelcy. 14 MEMBER SKELCY: I move that we 15 grant the variance -- in the case of 16 10-032, the address of 23320 West Lebost, 17 I make a motion that we grant the variances 18 as requested because the setback, frontage, 19 height, weight, density requirements 20 unreasonably prevent the use of the 21 property for a permitted purpose. 22 The variance will provide 23 substantial justice to petitioner and 24 surrounding property owners in the zoning 1 district. There are unique circumstances 2 to the property, and the property has a 3 somewhat pie shape. 4 The problem is not self-created. 5 There will be adequate light and air 6 provided to adjacent properties. There is 7 no increase of fire danger or public 8 safety. Property values will not be 9 diminished within the surrounding areas, as 10 we can see that there are other residences 11 that also have three-car garages. And the 12 spirit of the zoning ordinance is 13 observed. 14 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second. 15 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Okay. We 16 have a motion made by Member Skelcy, 17 seconded by Member Krieger. Is there any 18 further discussion? 19 Ms. Martin, please call the roll. 20 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger? 21 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 22 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe? 23 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 24 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Wrobel? 1 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Yes. 2 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy? 3 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 4 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon? 5 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes. 6 MS. MARTIN: Motion passes, five 7 to zero. 8 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: All right. 9 Now we are on the final case of tonight's 10 agenda, Case No. 10-033, for 40791 Kingsley 11 Lane. Petitioner is requesting a variance 12 to construct a screened porch on an 13 existing deck. The property is zoned R-2 14 and is located south of Fourteen Mile and 15 east of Novi Road. 16 Petitioner, please come forward. 17 State your name and address. And if you 18 are not an attorney, please raise your 19 right hand and be sworn in by the 20 secretary. 21 MR. MCCOY: My name is Mike 22 McCoy; I'm the owner of McCoy Construction. 23 And the homeowners wanted to be here, but 24 they are out of town, and they were not 1 able to attend. 2 MEMBER IBE: In Case No. 10-033, 3 40791 Kingsley Lane, do you swear or affirm 4 to tell the truth? 5 MR. MCCOY: Yes, I do. 6 MEMBER IBE: Thank you. 7 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Okay, please 8 proceed. 9 MR. MCCOY: We built the -- my 10 company designs and builds decks and 11 porches and remodels basements, and we have 12 been in business 30 years, and we have done 13 a lot of work in Haverhill Farms. We built 14 several screened-in porches and a lot of 15 decks. 16 We built the deck on this house 17 for the previous homeowner probably ten or 18 15 years ago. And the new homeowner, who 19 has been there four years, they have a 20 somewhat very modest size deck that we 21 built before, and it only comes out 11 feet 22 from the kitchen door wall and backs up to 23 a woodlands. And a lot of mosquitos, and 24 they are really not able to enjoy their 1 deck and their back yard with the sun, and 2 she gets bit by mosquitos, so they are not 3 able to enjoy their back yard. 4 What we are proposing to do is 5 build a screened-in porch. And we have 6 done this a number of times in Novi on this 7 existing deck. And the porch is a very 8 modest size; it's only coming out 11 feet. 9 When it's completely -- when it's finished, 10 it will look exactly -- it will look like 11 the homeowner or the builder built this 12 porch on the house when it was built. In 13 other words, it's going to be shingled to 14 match the trim. The existing shingle, the 15 soffits will match, the color will match; 16 it will look really sharp. And the 17 homeowner will be able to enjoy his back 18 yard. 19 There is lots of room on both 20 sides of the neighbors, and there is 21 nothing behind them except for the wetlands 22 back there. And we could sure use the 23 business, so I hope we can get an approval, 24 as we've gotten many times before from your 1 community. 2 So, I'm just here to plead their 3 case, and hopefully we can build a screened 4 porch for these nice people. 5 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Okay. Thank 6 you. 7 MR. MCCOY: Like we did for you, 8 Wayne. 9 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: And you made 10 me come before the ZBA myself. 11 MR. MCCOY: I did, I apologize. 12 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: All right. 13 Is there anyone in the audience who wishes 14 to address the board regarding this case? 15 Seeing none, Mr. Secretary, please read any 16 correspondence. 17 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, there 18 were 181 notices mailed, two approvals, 19 zero objections, and 13 mail returned. 20 The first approval was from Jane 21 Mitchell of 41305 Cornell Drive, Novi, 22 Michigan, 48377, dated 7/27/2010. And it 23 reads, "No objection to already existing 24 deck. Sorry, but in this neighborhood you 1 need screened-in deck to get away from 2 mosquitos." 3 And second approval is from Alan 4 and Audrey Poese, of 40857 Kingsley Lane, 5 dated 7/26/2010. And it reads, "We are not 6 close enough to see" -- strike that. 7 "We are not close enough to see 8 this home from our address, but we 9 certainly have no objection to your 10 proposed screened porch." 11 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Okay. Thank 12 you. 13 MEMBER IBE: You're welcome. 14 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Does the 15 building department or city attorney wish 16 to add anything at this time? 17 MR. BOULARD: Nothing to add. 18 MS. KUDLA: We have nothing to 19 add either. 20 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Okay. Thank 21 you. At this time, I will refer this 22 matter to the board for discussions. 23 Member Ibe. 24 MEMBER IBE: Just a comment. I 1 certainly have no objections at all to 2 this. I think any time anyone is willing 3 to add value to their property and also 4 help to increase their property tax, I'm 5 all for it. Thank you. 6 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Anyone else? 7 Mr. Gedeon. 8 MEMBER GEDEON: I will just add 9 that I previously lived on Belden Circle, 10 which is immediately behind Kingsley Lane, 11 abutting the same wetlands, and the 12 mosquitos are a big problem, so it makes a 13 lot of sense. 14 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: 15 Ms. Krieger. 16 MEMBER KRIEGER: A question. The 17 already existing deck, so in order for the 18 city -- if they want to enclose it they 19 need approval? They can't just -- like if 20 I wanted my back deck, to enclose it, I 21 have to come and see you? 22 MR. BOULARD: The zoning 23 ordinance allows certain protrusions into 24 the rear setback, including open decks. 1 And there is a limit to how many feet and 2 so on. Once you put on a roof and enclose 3 it, it takes on more mass, and in the 4 zoning ordinance, that would require a 5 variance. 6 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you. I'm 7 in approval for it, too. Thank you. 8 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: I will just 9 add a couple comments. Number one, I live 10 in the land of mosquitos, and I built a 11 very similar deck to it. It's required if 12 you live in the woods and wetlands. 13 Number two, Mr. McCoy, your 14 company does very good work. I'm sure it 15 will look very well at this house, and I 16 will support it. 17 Now I need a motion. 18 Ms. Skelcy. 19 MEMBER SKELCY: In the case of 20 10-033, for the address of 40791 Kingsley 21 Lane, I move that we grant the variance 22 requested, and as requested, because the 23 setback, frontage, height, bulk and density 24 requirements unreasonably prevent the use 1 of the property for a permitted purpose. 2 The variance will provide 3 substantial justice to petitioner and 4 surrounding owners in the zoning district. 5 There are unique circumstances to the 6 property which would include the 7 mosquito-infested water and wetlands. The 8 problem is not self-created. There is 9 adequate light and air provided to adjacent 10 properties. There is no increase of fire 11 danger or public safety. Property values 12 will not be diminished within the 13 surrounding area. And the spirit of the 14 zoning ordinance is observed. 15 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second. 16 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Okay. We 17 have a motion made by Member Skelcy and 18 seconded by Member Krieger. Any further 19 discussion? If not, please call the roll, 20 Ms. Martin. 21 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger? 22 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 23 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe? 24 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 1 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Wrobel? 2 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Yes. 3 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy? 4 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 5 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon? 6 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes. 7 MS. MARTIN: Motion passes, five 8 to zero. 9 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: All set. 10 MR. MCCOY: Thank you very much. 11 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: This brings 12 us to the other matter section of the 13 agenda. 14 The city's attorney or city 15 staff, any other matters to discuss? Mr. 16 Boulard. 17 MR. BOULARD: I just want to 18 mention there had been some requests by one 19 of the members for a training opportunity. 20 I have spoken with the attorney's office, 21 and they have graciously agreed to approve 22 that. In order to provide that, they have 23 provided some dates for us; we e-mailed 24 those out. If you didn't get that, please 1 let us know. Everybody should have got it, 2 but if you wouldn't mind letting Malinda 3 know what dates work for you, and we'll try 4 to get that scheduled at a convenient time. 5 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Having been 6 through the training once before, it's 7 worth the time to go through it, especially 8 for the newer members. 9 City attorney, do you have 10 anything you wish to add? 11 MS. KUDLA: We have nothing. 12 That training would probably be at our 13 office, and we'll provide like a 14 dinner-type. 15 MEMBER SKELCY: Where is it? 16 MS. KUDLA: It's at Thirteen and 17 Northwestern. 18 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Does any 19 board member have any other matters to 20 discuss at this time? Okay. That 21 concludes our business for the evening, and 22 I will entertain a motion to adjourn. 23 MEMBER IBE: I move that we 24 adjourn this meeting. 1 MEMBER SKELCY: Second. 2 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: We have a 3 motion by Member Ibe, a second by 4 Member Skelcy. All in favor, signify by 5 saying aye. 6 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 7 CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Meeting is 8 adjourned at 7:59. 9 - - - 3 C E R T I F I C A T E 4 5 I, Sherri L. Ruff, do hereby 6 certify that I have recorded 7 stenographically the proceedings 8 had and testimony taken in the 9 above-entitled matter at the time 10 and place hereinbefore set forth, 11 and I do further certify that the 12 foregoing transcript, consisting 13 of (49) typewritten pages, is a 14 true and correct transcript of my 15 said stenographic notes. 16 17 18 ____________ __________________________ 19 Date Sherri L. Ruff, CSR-3568 20 Certified Shorthand Reporter 21 22 23 24
|