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, on Tuesday, August 10, 2010.

Wayne Wrobel
Rickie Ibe
Linda Krieger
Donna Skelcy
Jeffrey Gedeon

Beth Kudla, City Attorney
Charles Boulard, Building Official
Malinda Martin, Senior Customer Service Representative

Sherri L. Ruff, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 Novi, Michigan

2 Tuesday, August 10, 2010

3 7:00 p.m.

4 - - -


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.


19 Ms. Martin, will you please call the

20 roll.

21 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger?


23 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe?

24 MEMBER IBE: Present.







1 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Wrobel?


3 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy?


5 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon?


7 MS. MARTIN: Member Ghannam is

8 absent, and Member Cassis is absent, and

9 Member Sanghvi will be absent.


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







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.


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.



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?



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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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?


20 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe?


22 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Wrobel?


24 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy?


2 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon?


4 MS. MARTIN: Motion passes, five

5 to zero.


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.


22 attorney, does he need to state his name

23 again?

24 MS. KUDLA: He's already sworn

1 in.


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.


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.


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.


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.


8 you.


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.


14 MEMBER KRIEGER: I will second.


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?


22 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe?


24 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Wrobel?


2 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy?


4 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon?


6 MS. MARTIN: Motion passes, five

7 to zero.


9 MR. ROLLINGER: Thank you very

10 much.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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?


22 MS. KUDLA: You can read the same

23 motion as last year.


1 Case No. -- that's what I would do, I'm

2 sorry.


4 Anyone else have anything to say? Go

5 ahead, Ms. Krieger.


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.


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?


15 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe?


17 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Wrobel?


19 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy?


21 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon?


23 MS. MARTIN: Motion passes, five

24 to zero.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


7 MR. MILLER: So there were three

8 added on right there.


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.



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?


22 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe?


24 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Wrobel?


2 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy?


4 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon?


6 MS. MARTIN: Motion passes, five

7 to zero.


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.


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.


6 you.

7 MR. MCCOY: Like we did for you,

8 Wayne.


10 me come before the ZBA myself.

11 MR. MCCOY: I did, I apologize.


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."


12 you.

13 MEMBER IBE: You're welcome.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.



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?


23 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe?


1 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Wrobel?


3 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy?


5 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon?


7 MS. MARTIN: Motion passes, five

8 to zero.


10 MR. MCCOY: Thank you very much.


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.


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.


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.



3 motion by Member Ibe, a second by

4 Member Skelcy. All in favor, signify by

5 saying aye.



8 adjourned at 7:59.

9 - - -

3 C E R T I F I C A T E


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.



18 ____________


19 Date Sherri L. Ruff,


20 Certified

Shorthand Reporter