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, September 14, 2010.

Wayne Wrobel, Chairperson
Mav Sanghvi
Victor Cassis
Rickie Ibe
Linda Krieger
Jeffrey Gedeon
Donna Skelcy

Thomas R. Schultz, City Attorney
Charles Boulard, Building Official
Malinda Martin, Senior Customer Service Representative

Sherri L. Ruff, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 Novi, Michigan

2 Tuesday, September 14, 2010

3 7:00 p.m.

4 - - -

5 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Good evening.

6 It's seven p.m. I would like to call to

7 order the September 14th regular meeting

8 of the City of Novi Zoning Board of

9 Appeals.

10 Would everyone please rise for

11 the pledge of Allegiance. Member Gedeon,

12 please lead us.

13 BOARD MEMBERS: I pledge

14 allegiance to the flag of the United

15 States of America, and to the republic

16 for which it stands, one nation, under

17 God, indivisible, with liberty and

18 justice for all.


20 would you please call the roll.

21 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi?


23 MS. MARTIN: Member Cassis?










1 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger?


3 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe?

4 MEMBER IBE: Present.

5 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Wrobel?


7 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy?


9 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon?


11 MS. MARTIN: Member Ghannam

12 will be absent tonight.


14 have a quorum, and the meeting is now in

15 session.

16 As a reminder, please turn off

17 all cellphone and pager ringers at this

18 time.

19 Also, I'd like to go over some

20 of the meeting rules. A copy of the

21 entire public meeting rules of conduct is

22 available next to the chamber entrance

23 door.

24 The Zoning Board of Appeals is









1 a hearing board empowered by the City of

2 Novi to hear appeals seeking variances

3 from existing Novi city ordinances. It

4 takes a vote of at least four members to

5 approve a variance request, and a

6 majority of members present to deny a

7 request.

8 Tonight we have a full board,

9 so all decisions will be final.

10 Individual applicants may take

11 up to five minutes, and groups may take

12 up to ten minutes to address the board.

13 The next item on the agenda is

14 the approval of the agenda. Are there

15 any additions, deletions, changes, to the

16 proposed agenda?

17 MS. MARTIN: There is a change

18 about other matters, the training session

19 for ZBA members.


21 entertain a motion to approve the

22 agenda.

23 MEMBER KRIEGER: I'm sorry. If

24 I could add a Part A and Part B for









1 afterwards.


3 other changes? I will entertain a motion

4 to approve the agenda.


6 MEMBER IBE: Second.

7 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: All in favor

8 signify by saying aye.


10 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: All opposed,

11 no. We have an approved agenda.

12 Next is the approval of the

13 meeting minutes from the July 13th ZBA

14 meeting. Are there any changes to the

15 minutes? Okay. I will entertain a

16 motion to approve them then.



19 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: All in favor,

20 please signify by saying aye.


22 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: All opposed,

23 no. Okay. The July 13th meeting

24 minutes have been approved.









1 Next are the approval of the

2 meeting minutes from the August 10th ZBA

3 meeting. Any changes to these minutes?

4 Seeing none, I will entertain a motion to

5 approve these minutes.


7 MEMBER IBE: Second.

8 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: All in favor,

9 aye. All opposed, no. All in favor,

10 aye.


12 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: All opposed?

13 Okay. These minutes have been also

14 approved.

15 Next on the agenda is the

16 public remarks section of the meeting.

17 If there is anyone in the audience who

18 wishes to make any comments not

19 pertaining to any matter on the agenda

20 tonight, please come forward. Okay.

21 Seeing none, the public remarks section

22 of the meeting is closed.

23 That brings us to the cases on

24 the agenda this evening. The first case









1 on the agenda is Case No. 10-034, 39500

2 Grand River Avenue, Mercedes-Benz.

3 The petitioner is requesting a

4 variance to install an 80-square-foot

5 wall sign on the south elevation of the

6 Mercedes-Benz dealership located at 39500

7 Grand River Avenue. The property is

8 zoned B-3 and is located north of Grand

9 River and west of Haggerty Road.

10 Is the petitioner here? Can

11 you please come forward to the podium.

12 Please state your name and address for

13 the record. And if you are not an

14 attorney, please raise your right hand

15 and be sworn in by our secretary.

16 State your name and address

17 please.

18 MR. ADAM: I am Matthew Adam

19 with Gil (ph) & Associates. I work for

20 the owner, Lee Ghesquiere.


22 Ghesquiere, President of Mercedes-Benz of

23 Novi.










1 both of them, I guess.

2 MEMBER IBE: Yes. In Case No.

3 10-034, 39500 Grand River Avenue, do you

4 swear or affirm to tell the truth?

5 MR. ADAM: Yes, I do.


7 MEMBER IBE: Thank you.


9 proceed with your presentation.

10 MR. ADAM: Yes. In a current

11 set of renovations on the project, which

12 includes interior renovations, which are

13 about complete, and exterior renovations,

14 which we are hoping to get started before

15 the cold weather, we need a replacement

16 sign for the existing sign and band that

17 currently runs along the south side of

18 the building.

19 The new sign, or replacement

20 sign, is, in actuality, once calculated,

21 with the band of the existing, is less

22 than half of what the signage is now on

23 the building. But we feel it's still

24 above the ordinance guidelines. But we









1 feel that this new signage is integral to

2 the design aesthetics of the building and

3 to the operation of the business itself.

4 I had a rendering originally

5 submitted with the package; I brought an

6 extra copy if you wish --

7 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: If you could

8 put it on the overhead for us.

9 MR. ADAM: Right now the

10 renovations are going to incorporate a

11 sun shade that will run along the bottom

12 of the existing edge of the pit with some

13 new decorative columns. All part of the

14 program referred to as Autohaus, which is

15 a Mercedes-mandated program.

16 The facade will be given a

17 fresh architectural metal panel instead

18 of the (inaudible) that's currently

19 there. The sun shade now is where the

20 existing signage and band is located at

21 the moment.

22 The replacement sign is going

23 to replace the text with the same text in

24 height and length that is there now, but









1 simply as a square marquis in the center

2 of the south elevation.

3 MR. GHESQUIERE: I would like

4 to remove the text.

5 MR. ADAM: Yeah. The text on

6 the wing wall will be removed, so an

7 additional wall sign that's coming down

8 in this renovation.

9 MR. GHESQUIERE: Currently,

10 there is two Mercedes-Benz of Novi

11 marquis: One where it's shown in the

12 picture, and the other one right on the

13 front door. The new corporate mandate

14 from Mercedes-Benz USA is to only have

15 one central sign. So that, in effect, we

16 go from two signs up on the facia to one

17 single sign as mandated by Mercedes-Benz

18 USA.


20 else?

21 MR. ADAM: I think that wraps

22 up our presentation.

23 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you.

24 Is there anyone in the audience who









1 wishes to address the board regarding

2 this case?

3 Seeing none, will the secretary

4 read any correspondence regarding this

5 case into the record.

6 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, in this

7 particular case, 21 notices were mailed,

8 zero responses, two mail returned.


10 you. Does the building department or

11 city attorney wish to make any comments

12 at this time?

13 MR. BOULARD: Nothing to add.

14 MR. SCHULTZ: Nothing.


16 you. At this time, I will refer this

17 matter to the board for discussion.

18 Mr. Sanghvi.

19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you,

20 Mr. Chair. I was at the site earlier in

21 the day today, and everything looked very

22 nice to me. The (inaudible) very good,

23 reducing the number by combining the two

24 signs into one. And, to me, it looks









1 like a win-win situation for everybody,

2 and I have no difficulty supporting the

3 request.


5 Anyone else? Member

6 Cassis.

7 MEMBER CASSIS: Thank you,

8 Mr. Chairman. I'm just a little confused

9 here. I did go by that place, and it

10 seems like they are going to have two

11 signs, Mr. Boulard, now? One on the

12 south side and one on the east side of

13 the building?

14 MR. BOULARD: Are you speaking

15 of the symbol?


17 MR. BOULARD: There is two

18 signs existing; there will now be one.


20 mock-up is on the center elevation where

21 you can -- it's hard to see in the text

22 that pops up above.


24 MR. GHESQUIERE: That is the









1 only signage.

2 MEMBER CASSIS: There won't be

3 any on the east side?


5 MEMBER CASSIS: Because I saw

6 one.

7 MR. GHESQUIERE: That's the

8 existing sign, so that will come down.

9 MEMBER CASSIS: Okay. Thank

10 you.

11 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Anyone else?

12 Mr. Boulard.

13 MR. BOULARD: Like I said, I

14 just want to clarify on the east side the

15 symbol will remain.

16 MR. GHESQUIERE: The star will

17 remain.

18 MR. BOULARD: Yes, the star,

19 but the text --

20 MR. GHESQUIERE: The text, it

21 goes from two sets of text to the one set

22 of text.

23 MEMBER CASSIS: All right.

24 Thank you.









1 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Anyone else?

2 I will just make a quick comment. I will

3 support this. I'm also very surprised.

4 I think this is the first time being in

5 ZBA I have seen someone come in for a

6 reduction in the signage rather than an

7 increase; it's a refreshing change.

8 That being said, I am looking

9 for a motion. Member Ibe.

10 MEMBER IBE: Thank you,

11 Mr. Chair. In Case No. 10-034, 39500

12 Grand River Avenue, I move that we

13 approve the petition as requested on the

14 grounds that the request is based upon

15 circumstances of features that are

16 exceptional and unique to this property,

17 and do not result from conditions that

18 exist generally in the city or that is

19 self-created.

20 And, also, the fact that the

21 parent company, Mercedes-Benz of USA has

22 mandated this Mercedes-Benz of Novi to

23 comply with the terms of the agreement.

24 That, alone, is sufficient basis to grant









1 this request.

2 In addition, the failure to

3 grant relief will unreasonably prevent or

4 limit the use of the property and will

5 result in substantially more than mere

6 inconvenience or inability to attain a

7 higher economic or financial return.

8 And the grant of relief will

9 not result in a use of the structure that

10 is incompatible with or unreasonably

11 interfere with adjacent or surrounding

12 properties. And the spirit of the zoning

13 ordinance will be best served if this is

14 granted.



17 have a motion made by Member Ibe and a

18 second by Member Krieger. And is there

19 any further discussion?

20 If not, Ms. Martin, please take

21 the roll.

22 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi?


24 MS. MARTIN: Member Cassis?










2 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger?


4 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe?


6 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Wrobel?


8 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy?


10 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon?


12 MS. MARTIN: Motion passes,

13 seven to zero.


15 second case on the agenda, Case No.

16 10-035, 27775 Novi Road, Paul's TV.

17 The petitioner is requesting a

18 variance to install an additional

19 47-square-foot wall sign on the east

20 elevation of the Art Van Furniture store

21 located at 27775 Novi Road. The property

22 is zoned RC and is located north of I-96

23 and west of Novi Road.

24 Is the petitioner here? Please









1 come forward. Please state your name and

2 addresses for the record. And if you are

3 not an attorney, please raise your right

4 hand to be sworn in by our secretary.

5 MS. RICH: Lisa Rich. My

6 address is 812 East Maxwell, Hazel Park,

7 Michigan. And I represent Alex --


9 is Alex (inaudible) with Paul's TV, 2660

10 Barranca Parkway, Irvine, California.

11 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Are either of

12 you attorneys?

13 MS. RICH: No.


15 MEMBER IBE: In Case 10-035,

16 27775 Novi Road, Paul's TV, do you swear

17 or affirm to tell the truth?

18 MS. RICH: Yes.


20 MEMBER IBE: Thank you.


22 proceed with your presentation.

23 MS. RICH: We are petitioning

24 for a wall sign for Paul's TV, as they









1 have no identification on the Art Van

2 building to show that they are a lessee

3 in the Art Van store.

4 So, I do understand that Art

5 Van is already above their variances, but

6 as far as Paul's TV, no one would know

7 that they were in there without viewing

8 it or being able to see it as driving by.

9 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Do you have a

10 copy of this?

11 MS. RICH: I do.

12 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Put it on the

13 overhead, please.

14 MS. RICH: It's probably hard

15 to see it on the building, but it is on

16 the east elevation, so it will be

17 opposite Art Van's wall sign, so it

18 wouldn't crowd the wall or anything.

19 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Anything else

20 you wish to add?

21 MS. RICH: I do have some

22 photos of the wall sign that we installed

23 at Westland. And, if you can see, we had

24 done something new with the raceway and









1 actually taken a digital photo of the

2 raceway of the brick on the wall so that

3 it totally matches the wall and washes

4 out.

5 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Anything else

6 you wish to add?


8 no other way of representing ourselves

9 without having the sign on the wall.

10 There is no pylon sign on that building,

11 and there is nowhere in our lease that

12 allowed us to have our own entrance in

13 any way, shape or form. So we are hoping

14 that you will allow us to put a sign up.


16 you. Is there anyone in the audience who

17 wishes to address the board regarding

18 this case? Sir, please come down and

19 state your name and address. You will

20 have to be sworn in if you are not an

21 attorney, too, please.

22 MR. MINOR: Jim Minor (ph) with

23 ABC Warehouse. We are the nextdoor

24 neighbors to these folks. Address









1 (inaudible) Industrial, Pontiac,

2 Michigan.

3 MEMBER IBE: Raise your right

4 hand, sir. In Case 10-035, 27775

5 Novi Road, Paul's TV, do you swear or

6 affirm to tell the truth?

7 MR. MINOR: Yes, sir.

8 MEMBER IBE: Thank you.


10 MR. MINOR: I submitted a

11 letter, and I don't know if that's part

12 of your package. I will be glad to read

13 it, or if it gets read into the --

14 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: You can read

15 it if you desire.

16 MR. MINOR: Board members. We

17 are the owners of the adjacent building

18 to the west at 43606 West Oaks Drive,

19 which is our ABC Warehouse retail store.

20 We had a long relationship with

21 the Art Van Furniture chain and, in fact,

22 purchased our building from them, which

23 is previously a Scott Shuptrine Furniture

24 Store.









1 We purchased this in 2004, and

2 opened it in the fall of that year and

3 complied with all ordinances as relates

4 to signage and other issues.

5 We think Paul's TV should

6 comply with all ordinances and fit the

7 signage within their present

8 identification, as they have done at

9 several other locations. Notably, M59 at

10 Lakeside, Chesterfield Township, Port

11 Huron, among many others.

12 All the retailers in the West

13 Oaks complex would like to have more

14 signage, including ABC Warehouse. The

15 Art Van building, given its location on

16 Novi Road, has the greatest exposure, by

17 far, of any retailer along Novi Road.

18 If this appeal is approved, you

19 are signaling to the rest of the

20 retailers in the West Oaks complex that a

21 precedence has been set for other

22 retailers to proceed to try to get

23 additional signage.

24 Novi has a long hallowed









1 reputation for defending the sign

2 ordinance, and if you approve something

3 like this, you are just going in another

4 direction.

5 And I'd like to take issue with

6 what they said about no other

7 alternative. They do have other

8 alternatives, and they have done it at

9 other locations, but I just -- thank you,

10 sir.

11 I don't know if you can see

12 that. This is their -- this is their

13 Royal Oak store, Woodward just north of

14 Thirteen. They have put the Paul's TV

15 sign -- it might not show up very well at

16 the top of the glass. It is inside the

17 glass; it is not hung on the outside of

18 the building. So, I beg to differ that

19 they do have alternatives.

20 I appreciate your

21 understanding. Our position here, we

22 just think there ought to be some justice

23 here.

24 Also, my question is whether









1 there is any hardship and not just

2 economic benefit. Thank you.


4 Is there anyone else in the audience who

5 wishes to comment on this matter?

6 Seeing none, will the secretary

7 read any correspondence regarding this

8 case into the record.

9 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, 30

10 notices were mailed, one objection, six

11 mail returned. I believe the only

12 objection we have has been read by

13 Mr. Gordon of ABC Warehouse.

14 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you.

15 Does the building department or city

16 attorney wish to make any comments at

17 this time?

18 MR. BOULARD: The only question

19 I had was I wondered if the petitioner

20 can verify the sign is going to be

21 illuminated, is that correct?

22 MS. RICH: Yes, it will be.

23 Can I say something else? We were going

24 to go the route with the window like we









1 did in Royal Oak, but I do understand the

2 ordinance is there is no lit signs inside

3 the window, also. So, if you could

4 approve that, we would go that route,

5 also.


7 Anything else?


9 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: At this time,

10 I will refer this matter to the board for

11 discussion.


13 question. If you could explain how

14 Paul's TV is related to Art Van. And

15 (inaudible) is apparently the owner of

16 the property?


18 leasing our space.

19 MEMBER KRIEGER: So it's Art

20 Van, and you are separate businesses?



23 Cassis.

24 MEMBER CASSIS: Thank you,









1 Mr. Chairman. I do happen to agree with

2 the ABC Warehouse people. If this outfit,

3 Art Van, were to sell washing machines,

4 would we allow the washing machine outfit

5 to put a sign outside? If they get

6 cameras into that Art Van location, are we

7 going to add another sign for cameras? I

8 don't think this is possible. We are

9 putting a precedence here that we'll not

10 be able to control. I will be voting

11 against this. Thank you.


13 Member Sanghvi.

14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you,

15 Mr. Chair. First, the question for the

16 building department. If there was a

17 separate entrance for this business,

18 which is a separate entity altogether

19 from Art Van, would they have any

20 difficulty in having a sign there?

21 MR. BOULARD: I believe if

22 there was a separate and distinct

23 entrance, that they would --

24 MEMBER SANGHVI: They would be









1 entitled to a sign?

2 MR. BOULARD: That's correct.

3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Now, the fact

4 that they don't have a separate entrance,

5 and that is the only reason why they are

6 here, and what they need is a business

7 identification. This is not part of the

8 Art Van operation at all. And, so, I

9 think it is quite reasonable to grant

10 their request and have a business

11 identification sign on the wall there.

12 Thank you.

13 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. Member

14 Ibe.

15 MEMBER IBE: I know you said

16 this party or Paul's TV is a separate

17 entity from Art Van, but I notice that in

18 your TV commercials, Paul's TV and Art

19 Van advertise as one. Tell me how they

20 are different. What is so distinct about

21 these two groups? And yet they advertise

22 as one entity on television all the time.


24 our advertisement campaign is to package









1 furniture and televisions together. That

2 is why. It's just a savings and cost of

3 advertising.

4 MEMBER IBE: I would assume

5 that Paul's TV is located in all Art Van

6 stores; is that part of your agreement?


8 them, right now, our agreement is

9 to (inaudible) --

10 MEMBER IBE: You do have Paul's

11 TV separate from Art Van? Do you have

12 other locations for Paul's TV?


14 have nine locations in the State of

15 California, and three in Massachusetts

16 and one in New Hampshire. None of them

17 are related to Art Van.

18 MEMBER IBE: But in Michigan

19 you don't have any separate store front,

20 is that correct?


22 this point, no, sir.

23 MEMBER IBE: Thank you,

24 Mr. Chair.










2 Gedeon.

3 MEMBER GEDEON: Just following

4 up on that. The stores in your other

5 states, are they also associated with

6 furniture stores, or are they standalone?


8 them are associated with furniture

9 stores, yes, sir.

10 MEMBER GEDEON: Inside the

11 store, what kind of separation is there

12 between Art Van and Paul's TV?


14 the store, we have a space within their

15 store, so we have our own wall. We have

16 an entrance to Paul's TV inside -- a

17 signage inside.

18 MEMBER GEDEON: Is the staff

19 all separated, too?


21 are an entirely separate business.

22 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Anyone else?

23 Okay. Seeing that, I will entertain a

24 motion.









1 MEMBER SKELCY: I will move

2 that we grant the variance requested for

3 the sign, based on the fact that the

4 request is based on circumstances of

5 features that are exceptional and unique

6 to the property and do not result in

7 conditions that exist generally in the

8 city or that are self-created.

9 The failure to grant relief

10 will unreasonably prevent the use of the

11 property and will result in substantially

12 more than mere inconvenience or inability

13 to attain a higher economic or financial

14 return.

15 And, finally, that the grant of

16 relief will not result in a use of the

17 structure that is incompatible with or

18 unreasonably interferes with adjacent or

19 surrounding properties, and will result

20 in substantial justice being done to both

21 the applicant and adjacent or surrounding

22 properties. And is not inconsistent with

23 the spirit of the ordinance.











2 have a motion made by Member Skelcy and a

3 second by Member Sanghvi. Is there any

4 further discussion? Member Cassis.

5 MEMBER CASSIS: This is the

6 first time I ever comment about a motion,

7 but I think if we grant this, and all

8 these other communities did not allow

9 this kind of a sign, and he has another

10 alternative to do it. And this is Novi;

11 I don't understand this. Thank you.

12 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. Member

13 Cassis. Tom.

14 MR. SCHULTZ: I guess, through

15 the Chair. In kind of the spirit of that

16 comment, I know the planning staff puts

17 together sort of a test for granting a

18 variance. I'm wondering if the maker of

19 the motion could add sort of the factual

20 predicate to that that -- I mean, is it

21 based on the fact that if they had a

22 separate entrance they could have their

23 own sign? Or is it the need for

24 identification and the overall amount of









1 signage is appropriate? If we could add

2 just a little bit of factual information

3 so the --

4 MEMBER SKELCY: I didn't think

5 we had to have a factual basis

6 specifically for that -- for motions.

7 MR. SCHULTZ: We do for each

8 one of these. If we sort of --

9 MEMBER SKELCY: Based on the

10 standards for the sign variance. The

11 circumstances of the features that are

12 exceptional include the fact that Paul's

13 TV would be entitled to have an entrance

14 if they had a separate portion of the

15 building, separate entrance. That is

16 unique to the property.

17 The failure to grant relief

18 will unreasonably prevent or limit the

19 use of property, as they will not be able

20 to use the store and television sales

21 together. And it does not interfere with

22 adjacent or surrounding properties.

23 MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you.

24 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. I have









1 one question for the petitioner. Your

2 hours of operation mirror those of Art

3 Van?


5 sir.


7 you. Any other discussion?

8 MEMBER SANGHVI: I just want to

9 make things correct, and I accept the

10 amendment. Thank you.


12 right.

13 Ms. Martin, will you please

14 call the roll.

15 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi?


17 MS. MARTIN: Member Cassis?


19 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger?


21 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe?


23 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Wrobel?










1 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy?


3 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon?


5 MS. MARTIN: Motion failed,

6 four to three (sic).


8 request has been denied.

9 The next case on the agenda is

10 Case No. 10-036.

11 MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Chair. It

12 was a motion to approve that failed, but

13 what you need now is a motion to deny

14 with a similar sort of explanation for

15 the denial.

16 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay, sorry.

17 Member Ibe.

18 MR. SCHULTZ: Little late on

19 the draw; sorry about that.

20 MEMBER IBE: In Case No.

21 10-035, 27775 Novi Road, Paul's TV, I

22 move that the motion -- the applicant's

23 petition be denied for the facts that --

24 the reason that the petitioner presented









1 are things that are self-created. They,

2 obviously, could have a separate entrance

3 to the establishment, which, obviously,

4 would have required -- would be required

5 to have a sign on. However, in this

6 case, we don't have that.

7 And, additionally, the

8 establishment has alternatives that can

9 be reasonably (inaudible) for which

10 they -- meaning to get more advertisement

11 out there for themselves.

12 Granting the request will also

13 interfere with adjacent properties, as

14 has been demonstrated by the competitor,

15 that being ABC Warehouse, or the

16 objection that was presented.

17 And, based on all of this, I

18 believe the spirit of the zoning

19 ordinance is better served with a denial

20 of this petition.



23 motion by Member Ibe and second by Member

24 Cassis. Any further discussion?









1 Ms. Martin, please call the

2 roll.

3 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi?


5 MS. MARTIN: Member Cassis?


7 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger?


9 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe?


11 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Wrobel?


13 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy?


15 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon?


17 MS. MARTIN: Okay. Motion to

18 deny is five to two; it passes.

19 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: All right.

20 That takes care of that issue. Now we

21 can move on to Case No. 3.

22 Case No. 10-036, 49251 Grand

23 River Avenue, Quick Lube.

24 The petitioner is requesting a









1 variance to install a seven-foot

2 four-inch high pole mounted changeable

3 copy sign in addition to the existing

4 signs at the auto dealership located at

5 49251 Grand River. The property is zoned

6 B-3 and is located south of Grand River

7 and east of Wixom Road.

8 Is the petitioner here?

9 MR. MULLER: Yes.

10 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Please come

11 forward to the podium, and state your

12 name and address for the record. And if

13 you are not an attorney, please raise

14 your right hand and be sworn in by our

15 secretary.

16 MR. MULLER: Timothy Muller.

17 My company is Curb Appeal Concepts,

18 Incorporated, 4040 Montgomery Drive,

19 Shelby Township, Michigan.

20 MR. CASTANOS: Rick Castanos,

21 service director, Varsity Lincoln

22 Mercury, 49521 Grand River Avenue, Novi,

23 Michigan.

24 MEMBER IBE: In Case 10-036,









1 49251 Grand River Avenue, do you swear or

2 affirm to tell the truth?

3 MR. MULLER: Yes.


5 MEMBER IBE: Thank you.


7 proceed with your presentation.

8 MR. MULLER: I don't know if

9 this turns the other way or not.

10 Good evening. What I'd like to

11 present tonight to the board, currently

12 Varsity Lincoln Mercury is going through

13 some changes. They are a very high-end

14 dealership, not only here locally, but

15 throughout the whole entire area.

16 What they are trying to do is

17 on the back side of their dealership

18 facing Sam's Club, they currently have an

19 existing sign, a lit, two-sided sign.

20 What we are proposing to do is to put one

21 sign is going to be on the lower left

22 there, is a full-color changeable message

23 board with a light box on top that will

24 light up to signify Quick Lane, which is









1 a new service that the dealership is

2 doing. On the right-hand side will be

3 non-lit; that's the back side of the

4 sign.

5 The purpose for the change in

6 the signage is, obviously, as everybody

7 knows with the conditions in the economy,

8 but the real intent is to drive more

9 customers to the dealership. I

10 personally sat out front there the other

11 day, and within five minutes there was

12 over 35 cars that came in. I don't think

13 people realized what the dealership has

14 to offer.

15 As far as the current signage,

16 like I mentioned, it's almost the

17 identical same size; it's actually a

18 little bit smaller than what is there.

19 We are not asking for any more signage.

20 Actually, a little bit smaller.

21 And then the last thing that's

22 noted there is regarding the electronic

23 message center portion. My understanding

24 is with a changeable copy, you are









1 allowed a 15-second time change in the

2 City of Novi, which the dealership has no

3 problem using that to that 15-second

4 ability.

5 That's pretty much what they

6 are asking for.


8 there anybody in the audience which

9 wishes to address the ZBA regarding this

10 issue? Seeing none, Mr. Secretary, any

11 correspondence?

12 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, 27

13 notices were mailed, zero responses, four

14 mail returned.


16 the building department or city attorney

17 wish to make any comments? Mr. Boulard.

18 MR. BOULARD: I have a question

19 for the petitioner, if I could.

20 Could you clarify the

21 application? It says the dealership is

22 wanting to advertise a new oil change,

23 tire and auto center at the dealership

24 and a new LED sign to allow for more









1 advertising. Is the sign new or

2 existing?

3 MR. MULLER: No, there is an

4 existing sign there now.

5 MR. BOULARD: So the sign will

6 replace the existing sign?

7 MR. MULLER: Correct.

8 MR. BOULARD: And it will be

9 exactly the same size?

10 MR. MULLER: It's actually a

11 little bit smaller. That's the current

12 sign that's there now. It's seven foot

13 four by three foot four inches. The

14 current, new sign, I believe, is two

15 inches less, left to right. And

16 vertically at the -- it's exactly the

17 same, left to right.

18 MR. BOULARD: So would I be

19 correct in understanding at this point

20 that the only variance required would be

21 changeable copy?

22 MR. MULLER: That's correct.

23 MR. BOULARD: Because the

24 existing sign is covered under the









1 previous variance?

2 MR. MULLER: That's correct.

3 MR. BOULARD: Are there any

4 other signs that are intended to be

5 removed?

6 MR. CASTANOS: Not at this

7 time.

8 MR. BOULARD: Not at this time?


10 MR. BOULARD: The last issue I

11 just wanted to raise for the board. I

12 apologize, on your agenda it says, "Quick

13 Lube" as opposed to "Quick Lane." I

14 don't want to cause undue competition.

15 Thank you.

16 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Mr. Schultz,

17 do you have anything to add?


19 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you.

20 At this time I will refer this to the

21 board for discussion. Ms. Skelcy.

22 MEMBER SKELCY: What do you

23 plan on putting on the changeable copy?

24 MR. CASTANOS: We do special









1 events. We do special events on

2 Saturdays, drive-in traffic for Saturday.

3 We do lady's day on Wednesdays. We do --

4 we do various different outfits. Breast

5 cancer was a big one we had at the

6 dealership (inaudible) supporting that.

7 So we would like to be able to put that

8 stuff out there as customers are coming

9 through to see what they have to offer.

10 MEMBER SKELCY: Will you be

11 advertising any other businesses

12 whatsoever?

13 MR. CASTANOS: No, no, strictly

14 with what we got there.

15 MEMBER SKELCY: Isn't it true

16 this sign doesn't really face Grand

17 River?

18 MR. CASTANOS: No. It's

19 actually a parking lot sign; you can't

20 see it from Grand River or Wixom Road.

21 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay. Thank

22 you.


24 Gedeon.









1 MEMBER GEDEON: You said the

2 sign itself was a little bit smaller than

3 the existing sign. Is the pole support,

4 the height of the sign the same, or is it

5 higher or the same?

6 MR. CASTANOS: The pole support

7 is the exact same height, seven foot

8 four. It's shortened I think an inch or

9 two on each side.

10 MR. MULLER: Height-wise it is

11 going to be the same height at seven feet

12 four inches.

13 MEMBER GEDEON: Thank you.


15 Member Krieger.

16 MEMBER KRIEGER: Your intent

17 will be -- there is a drive to go off of

18 Grand River into that area, people that

19 go to Sam's or Target to that

20 drive-through (inaudible)?

21 And the second question was is

22 it just for Lincolns, or do you offer

23 other services to other vehicles?

24 MR. CASTANOS: Quick Lane Tire









1 and Auto does all makes all models. So,

2 basically -- it's basically catering to

3 oil changes, will be the marquis

4 servicing all makes, all models, with oil

5 change services for all makes all models

6 on the leaderboard.

7 As far as the entrance coming

8 in, the only entrance to that sign,

9 actually, you got to go through Grand

10 River to get into the Sam's Club parking

11 lot, and then it's behind that. So it's

12 not really directly off Grand River.

13 There is another drive that comes across

14 as you come off Grand River, then you

15 turn into the Sam's Club parking lot, and

16 that's where you see the Varsity service

17 sign with the arrows. That's the purpose

18 of that being there originally in the

19 beginning.

20 MEMBER KRIEGER: Okay. Thank

21 you.

22 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Anyone else?

23 Member Cassis.

24 MEMBER CASSIS: Thank you,









1 Mr. Chairman. I think I will be going

2 along with this because, number one, it

3 relates to a service of cars that this

4 outfit has in (inaudible). And, also, it

5 does not front on a main street; rather,

6 it is on a parking lot there. And there

7 is a diminishing of the square footage,

8 too. So I will be voting for this.

9 Thank you, Mr. Chair.

10 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you.

11 Anyone else? Okay. Seeing that all

12 board members have had an opportunity to

13 speak, I will entertain a motion.

14 Member Ibe.

15 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, in Case

16 10-036, 49251 Grand River, Quick Lane, I

17 move that we grant the variance as

18 requested by the petitioner, for the fact

19 that the request is based on upon

20 circumstances of features that are

21 exceptional and unique to the property.

22 Now, the petitioner has not

23 presented us with something that is

24 different. Petitioner actually is









1 replacing an existing sign, and the size

2 of the sign is really not much different

3 from what we had before, other than the

4 fact that it will be the -- is that

5 called, the electronics --

6 MEMBER CASSIS: The lettering.

7 MEMBER IBE: The lettering.

8 And, also, the fact that the economic time

9 that we live in calls for situations where

10 businesses have to find ways to generate

11 new business and new customers. This,

12 obviously, it works in the best interest

13 of the petitioner. And the problem is not

14 self-created.

15 The failure to grant will

16 unreasonably prevent or limit the use of

17 this property, and will result in

18 substantially more than mere

19 inconvenience or inability to attain a

20 higher economic financial return for this

21 business.

22 Finally, the grant of relief

23 will not result in the use of a structure

24 that is incompatible with adjacent









1 businesses, and the spirit of the zoning

2 ordinance will be observed.

3 Thank you, Mr. Chair.



6 motion made by Member Ibe and second by

7 Member Krieger.


9 add, I'm sorry. In the area where they

10 are speaking where the sign is at, the

11 speed would not be at a rate where it

12 would cause more safety issues. Is that

13 agreeable?

14 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Mr. Schultz?

15 MR. SCHULTZ: Similar to that

16 concern, just because one of the things

17 the city council did when it crafted that

18 pretty narrow changeable copy sign, the

19 ordinance was, you know, to pay attention

20 to the traffic on main roads. And if the

21 maker of the motion might accept another

22 finding that this is internal -- pretty

23 well internal to the site, and the

24 traffic impacts are reduced. As another









1 way to distinguish it from the next case

2 that's going to have to approve its own

3 basis.

4 And a clarification, this is

5 just the changeable copy sign, no other

6 variance. Changeable copy, no other

7 variance, if that's okay.

8 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, I would

9 adopt the statements as relayed by the

10 city counselor as well as my colleague as

11 part of the motion.


13 MEMBER KRIEGER: I agree, too.


15 further discussion?

16 Ms. Martin, please call the

17 roll.

18 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi?


20 MS. MARTIN: Member Cassis?


22 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger?


24 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe?










2 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Wrobel?


4 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy?


6 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon?


8 MS. MARTIN: Motion passes,

9 four to three.

10 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: You have been

11 approved. Thank you.

12 The fourth case on the agenda

13 is 10-037, 26132 Ingersol Drive, Novi

14 Town Center.

15 The petitioner is requesting

16 variances to install a revised sign

17 package, including four oversize business

18 center signs with four tenant names and

19 an oversize clock tower sign on several

20 locations at the Novi Town Center site.

21 The property is zoned TC and is located

22 south of I-96 and east of Novi Road.

23 MR. QUINN: Good evening,

24 ladies and gentlemen. My name is Matthew









1 Quinn, Attorney, appearing on behalf of

2 Town Center Investors.

3 It's a pleasure, once again, to

4 be back here for the Novi Town Center.

5 As you are aware, over the last two years

6 or so, there has been a lot of activity

7 at the Novi Town Center. A lot of

8 reconstruction, demolition. And I can

9 just tell you this that there is more on

10 the way, and that is why the sign package

11 needs to be upgraded.

12 Currently, at the Novi Town

13 Center, there are four monument signs.

14 And those four monument signs have two at

15 Town Center Drive at the intersection

16 with Grand River Avenue. And the other

17 two monument signs are at Novi Road at

18 the Crescent Boulevard entranceway.

19 Now, the Novi Town Center

20 zoning district allows the Town Center to

21 have one pylon sign. But, years ago,

22 this body, a predecessor of yours,

23 granted the Town Center the right to have

24 those three additional signs. And so









1 those monument signs that you see out

2 there today have been granted under your

3 jurisdiction.

4 Now, originally, why were those

5 signs granted, and why are we back today

6 seeking a little bit addition? I do want

7 to point out to you a reminder that we

8 are not seeking to add any new-sized

9 structures whatsoever, but to exist

10 within the structures that exist today.

11 Now, in perspective of the Novi

12 Town Center, just let me help you out

13 here. The expressway is on the north;

14 Novi Road is here on the west side. And,

15 of course, Grand River Avenue on the

16 south side.

17 Now, what is unique about the

18 Novi Town Center as far as the interior

19 tenants? And let's just take it -- I'm

20 sure most of you have been there. TJ

21 Maxx. TJ Maxx sits right in this

22 interior corner. And it is considered by

23 the Town Center Investors and Simon

24 Company, their manager, as an anchor









1 store.

2 The Novi Town Center is

3 different than all the other Town

4 Centers, because it is totally surrounded

5 by out-lots. And those out-lots prohibit

6 vision from Novi Road or Grand River

7 Avenue into the center of the Novi Town

8 Center. And that gives us the

9 uniqueness.

10 We are trying to redevelop this

11 center. Currently, there are 30 tenants

12 that are there. After final demolition

13 and reconstruction, there will be

14 68 tenant spaces available, an additional

15 38. Some of those 38 we would like to be

16 larger anchor stores.

17 Anchor stores in their leases

18 require signage, if signage is allowed,

19 at the major roadways. And, in fact,

20 right now, some of the leases for the

21 existing tenants, such as TJ Maxx, such

22 as Bally's, such as Border's, and I can

23 tell you because they are going to be

24 filing it tomorrow, with Wal-Mart, they









1 require within their leases to have the

2 exterior signage if it's allowed.

3 Currently, on these signs we

4 are allowed to have Novi Town Center as

5 the name. Let me show you this. Novi

6 Town Center. We are allowed to have two

7 tenant names on the signs that exist out

8 there today. They have chose not to put

9 any tenant names out so far because of

10 the conflict with the number of anchor

11 tenants that require signage.

12 So, what are we asking for? We

13 are only asking for the addition of two

14 additional tenant names to be placed on

15 these signs. Very simple; just two new

16 names. Now that's, of course, two names

17 on each of the four signs. But that's a

18 requirement.

19 If you look at -- you know, why

20 would you want a tenant name? Well,

21 certainly, people that come from

22 Novi Road -- and let me show you a

23 perspective view. And I know it's a

24 little hard to see. This is Novi Road









1 going north.

2 This is the existing sign.

3 Remember, all we are doing to the

4 existing sign is adding the architectural

5 cap, and that's going to raise it 1.2

6 inches, to a height of eight feet. By

7 having this perspective, you will be able

8 to see four tenants that are within the

9 Novi Town Center, as you are going north.

10 Those anchor tenants are going to get the

11 signage that they need, and the same with

12 the south side.

13 Oh, I want to point out, this

14 is the sign that exists on the north

15 side. Behind this greenery is the sign

16 that exists on the south side of Crescent

17 Drive. You cannot see both those signs

18 at the same time. That's why you need

19 one sign going north, one sign going

20 south. The perspective going south --

21 and this color just doesn't show up all

22 that well. This is the perspective going

23 southbound. This is the monument sign on

24 the south side of Crescent Boulevard.









1 The sign that we just looked at is,

2 again, hidden behind the greenery that

3 sits right there.

4 So, in effect, what are we

5 asking for? We are asking for a variance

6 to allow two additional tenant signs.

7 That requires us to add a -- request a

8 variance for the square footage that's

9 allowed. On each monument sign we are

10 allowed 30 square feet because of the

11 setback from the road. We are asking for

12 a variance of 32.83 square feet, and that

13 encompasses a block consisting of all the

14 names that exist on each of the signs.

15 We are also asking for that

16 variance of one foot two inches, totaling

17 eight feet, so we can put that cornice on

18 top of the sign. That cornice exactly

19 matches the architectural feature that

20 has been added to the top of the new Town

21 Center roof reconstructions. So it's

22 carrying that through.

23 Now, we are using the same

24 brick; we are using everything the same.









1 This is not a new sign. We are not

2 replacing it; we are just adding the

3 cornice to the top.

4 Now, moving on to the other

5 sign variance, it deals with the City of

6 Novi. This is -- let me just show you

7 back out here. This is the clock tower

8 that exists on what we call Building I.

9 That doesn't mean anything to you, but

10 it's the building that's under

11 reconstruction.

12 This is the clock that exists.

13 And, currently, on each side of the tower

14 the name of Novi is there. Now, that

15 Novi was put there by the owners of the

16 Town Center Mall as notice to the world

17 that this is Novi. That actually was

18 there before there was any Novi and any

19 water tower at the intersection or not.

20 Now, what's happened in the

21 meantime, the Novi -- I call it Novi

22 water tower; you don't own it; we don't

23 own it. The owners of the old convention

24 center for their own personal reasons









1 have removed the name of Novi from the

2 water tower, so it's just blank. The

3 City of Novi in the minds of the Novi

4 Town Center needs to have identification

5 at this intersection. And we are going

6 to maintain the name of Novi in each of

7 those locations.

8 What we are asking is that we

9 increase the size of those Novi signs a

10 little, so that instead of 15 square foot

11 apiece, they will be 39 square feet each.

12 So we are asking for a variance of 24.5

13 square feet for the Novi signs. Those

14 Novi signs will be back-lit and visible

15 day and night.

16 Just for your edification,

17 what's not in front of you but it's

18 already been approved as part of the site

19 plan, on the clock tower you see that

20 this shows a green light here. Well,

21 that is an interior lighting, and that

22 color is going to change with seasons.

23 It's not going to change all the time.

24 This is St. Patrick's Day,









1 obviously, because it's green. But it

2 could be blue in the summer, it could be

3 red for Christmas, holiday time. Another

4 color for different things.

5 Also, all along the outside of

6 the clock tower, again, not subject to

7 you, just for your information, LED

8 lights are going to be placed around it

9 to more brighten it up, show a more

10 festive atmosphere for this focal point.

11 This is actually copied from a

12 very well-to-do and respected shopping

13 center down in Texas. And we are trying

14 to -- they are trying to bring that here

15 to spruce things up.

16 Now, again, what's important is

17 on the monument signs, tenants only and

18 logos. We are not going to put, you

19 know, fruit sale this week or anything

20 like that. Just tenant names, all right.

21 Now, there is no question that

22 the relief -- if we are denied this

23 relief, that it will unreasonably prevent

24 or limit the use of the Novi Town Center









1 and its ability to attract new anchor

2 tenants and for its economic

3 revitalization. The relief will not

4 result in any structure that's

5 incompatible with or unreasonably

6 interferes with adjacent or surrounding

7 properties.

8 It will result in substantial

9 justice being done to the owners of the

10 Novi Town Center in their attempt to

11 re-configure and re-invent the Town

12 Center area. These variance requests are

13 not inconsistent with the spirit or

14 intent of the sign ordinance. The

15 variance requests are based upon the

16 circumstances of features that are

17 exceptional and unique to the Novi Town

18 Center, and do not result in conditions

19 that generally exist.

20 Now, I would just take you back

21 to the map showing how some of these

22 businesses are so interior, it's

23 impossible to see them from the outside.

24 That's why this identification is needed.









1 If we have any questions, I

2 have with me tonight Matt Niles from Wah

3 Yee Architects that talks about the

4 square footages of the signs. And, of

5 course, Jim Clear, the mayor of the mall,

6 is here to answer any questions regarding

7 tenants.

8 So, we are looking forward to

9 this re-invigoration of the center. We

10 are looking forward to 68 new tenants

11 coming in and getting this kicked off.

12 And we are all looking at this happening

13 in 2012 when the re-construction is

14 completed.

15 This is, as I said, the first

16 step, and we are asking you to help us to

17 be able to lease out the 68

18 spaces. Thank you.


20 you.

21 MEMBER CASSIS: Mr. Chairman,

22 point of order only.

23 Mr. Schultz, I do sit on the

24 planning commission; however, I was not









1 present at the time that they dealt with

2 this. Do I still stay here?

3 MR. SCHULTZ: You can stay.

4 MEMBER CASSIS: Thank you.

5 Thank you, Mr. Chair.


7 Member Cassis.

8 MR. QUINN: Nice to have you.

9 MEMBER CASSIS: I know you love

10 that.


12 anybody in the audience who wishes to

13 address the board regarding this case?

14 Seeing none, will the secretary read any

15 correspondence regarding this case into

16 the record.

17 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, there

18 were 14 notices mailed, zero responses,

19 four mail returned.


21 the building department or city attorney

22 wish to make any comments?

23 MR. BOULARD: If I could bring

24 to your attention the letter from









1 Mr. Quinn that's in your packet. It was

2 provided to hopefully provide some

3 clarification.

4 I did have one question for

5 Mr. Quinn, if I could.

6 MR. QUINN: Sure.

7 MR. BOULARD: The four anchor

8 tenants, are those going to be the same

9 four anchor tenants on all of the signs?

10 MR. QUINN: Not necessarily.

11 Because of the different entranceways,

12 some anchors might be closer to Novi Road

13 and other anchors might be closer to

14 Grand River. We are just asking for

15 four. Actually, two, two additional

16 tenant names to be allowed on the signs.

17 MR. BOULARD: Thank you.

18 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Mr. Schultz?

19 MR. SCHULTZ: Nothing.


21 that, I will turn it over for the board.

22 Member Skelcy.

23 MEMBER SKELCY: On this sign

24 picture that you provided to us, which









1 two names are being added, Wal-Mart and

2 TJ Maxx?

3 MR. QUINN: No. All we are --

4 we are allowed to have -- there is no

5 names there at all right now.


7 MR. QUINN: We have the right

8 to put two. We are asking for the

9 permission to add two additional tenant

10 names.


12 companies that are going in there like

13 Wal-Mart, for instance, are they

14 requiring their names before they will

15 sign leases?

16 MR. QUINN: They -- I have just

17 examples. The TJ Maxx lease has that

18 language in there; it was negotiated when

19 they came in. Border's, same thing.

20 And, also, Bally's. We just pulled out

21 the main three. There could be others if

22 Jim Clear looked harder.

23 Within their purchase

24 agreements, with -- see, Wal-Mart is a









1 little different, because they are buying

2 nine plus acres, all right. And they are

3 going to construct their own nine acres.

4 As part of their purchase agreement, it's

5 my understanding, because that's

6 something I don't get involved with, the

7 negotiating, that this same sign, right,

8 exists. If there are names allowed on

9 exterior signage, they must be one of

10 those signage tenants, sign tenants, I

11 guess you would say.

12 MEMBER SKELCY: So even though

13 they are buying their own property and

14 will own their own building, they are

15 asking to have their name placed on the

16 Novi Town Center monument sign?

17 MR. QUINN: Let's assume they

18 are. I can't guarantee that one way or

19 the other.


21 MR. QUINN: If they are not

22 there, it would be one of the new other

23 anchors that is going to be attracted to

24 the center.









1 MEMBER SKELCY: So this was

2 just done for illustrative purposes?

3 MR. QUINN: This is just an

4 illustration.

5 MEMBER SKELCY: All right.

6 MR. QUINN: Because the Town

7 Center eight is going to come down; it's

8 going to be removed.

9 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay. Thank

10 you.


12 Member Krieger.

13 MEMBER KRIEGER: I guess the

14 first thing is wow. For the adding the

15 cornice on the top of the sign, would we,

16 by granting a variance, if the monument

17 sign stays where it's at, would that take

18 care of the -- I don't remember the word

19 I want, for the length to the street?

20 MR. QUINN: Yes. It's not

21 being moved. We are retaining the same

22 brick that's there today. If you have

23 been by there, they have been cleaning it

24 up, replacing some loose brick. All









1 that's happening is they are putting this

2 cornice on top.

3 MEMBER KRIEGER: That shouldn't

4 affect any numbers or requirements for

5 variance?

6 MR. QUINN: Only for the

7 height. It adds 1.2 inches to a total of

8 eight feet.



11 Cassis.

12 MEMBER CASSIS: Good evening.

13 MR. QUINN: Good evening, sir.

14 MEMBER CASSIS: How many

15 monument signs are you asking for right

16 now?

17 MR. QUINN: No new ones.

18 MEMBER CASSIS: Monument.

19 MR. QUINN: No new ones. We

20 have four existing, and we are going to

21 keep the same four existing.

22 MEMBER CASSIS: Same four

23 existing?

24 MR. QUINN: No new signage, no









1 additional structures.

2 MEMBER CASSIS: You are just

3 asking for placement of the names?

4 MR. QUINN: Exactly.

5 MEMBER CASSIS: On those signs?

6 MR. QUINN: That's right.

7 MEMBER CASSIS: As we are

8 developing this -- and I'm all for

9 developing this shopping center. By the

10 way, compliments on that new structure

11 facing Olive Garden; it looks very good.

12 Looking towards the future,

13 Mr. Quinn, how many other monument signs

14 do you think will be coming in the

15 future?

16 MR. QUINN: I don't see any new

17 ones.

18 MEMBER CASSIS: Is this all

19 this center would be asking for?

20 MR. QUINN: These two -- these

21 four exist at the two main entry roads

22 now. There is no new entry roads that

23 really can be built.

24 MEMBER CASSIS: Now, if like my









1 colleague was asking about Wal-Mart, what

2 if they come forward and say, "We want to

3 have our own monument sign"?

4 MR. QUINN: They will be on

5 their own in asking for that.

6 MEMBER CASSIS: Okay. Thank

7 you, Mr. Chair.


9 Gedeon.

10 MEMBER GEDEON: Just to clarify

11 that, though, even though you say they

12 will be on their own, by way of the

13 ordinance, they are entitled to the

14 monument sign.

15 MR. QUINN: They may be

16 entitled; I don't know that for sure.

17 They are coming in with a wall sign on

18 the wall. I have not looked into that if

19 they are entitled to another one or not.

20 I mean, it's really not part of what we

21 are here tonight about.

22 MEMBER GEDEON: Right. But, I

23 mean, I guess we are concerned about

24 that, the total number of signs.









1 MR. QUINN: I think --

2 MEMBER GEDEON: If you are

3 talking about the property owner selling

4 off a portion of the land.

5 MR. QUINN: It's the same

6 general piece that Mervyn's was in

7 before, and they did nicely with a wall

8 sign.


10 MR. QUINN: They would have

11 been out here on this, all right.

12 Mervyn's would have been, if we would

13 have been there at that time.

14 MEMBER GEDEON: Okay. I guess

15 a point of clarification for the building

16 department and city attorney then, if

17 it's a separate property owner within

18 that development, wouldn't they have the

19 right to have another sign, a monument

20 sign?

21 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the

22 chair. Just as a general proposition,

23 without looking through the ordinance,

24 they are probably going to get a wall









1 sign, just under the ordinance.

2 These monument signs are

3 separate; they are actually approved on

4 the site plan. This is the, remember, TC

5 District, which has a little bit of a

6 different approval process that goes to

7 the city council with a recommendation

8 from the planning commission. And

9 because it's such a unique area, the site

10 plan in this case, way back when, is what

11 granted the monument signs in the first

12 place that are there that Mr. Quinn's

13 clients and client wants to add to.

14 So, is Wal-Mart going to get

15 its own sign? Without looking it up,

16 they are probably going to get a wall

17 sign.

18 But these monument signs are --

19 the variances are height, little bit of

20 the area, and then the two extra tenants.

21 So, if it helps to say Wal-Mart is going

22 to get a sign, I don't know how big; I

23 don't know where.










1 Member Sanghvi.


3 clarification. The monument signs are

4 the same; you want a little extra height

5 on it, number one?

6 MR. QUINN: Correct.

7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Number two,

8 you are already permitted to have two

9 names, which you never had before so far

10 on the signs?

11 MR. QUINN: Correct.

12 MEMBER SANGVHI: But you are

13 not willing to commit what names are

14 going to go on this at this point in

15 time?

16 MR. QUINN: No. Because

17 tenants come and tenants go, as we all

18 know. All we are saying is tenants'

19 names only.


21 written a fourth name there is Town

22 Center.

23 MR. QUINN: Just as an example.

24 All of those names are just









1 illustrations.

2 MEMBER SANGHVI: They don't

3 really mean much?

4 MR. QUINN: No. They mean

5 nothing.

6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Like you had

7 Wal-Mart and TJ Maxx and Border's.

8 MR. QUINN: It could be

9 Dr. Sanghvi & Associates.

10 MEMBER SANGHVI: I'm not in

11 practice anymore. Thank you.

12 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Anyone else

13 have questions? I just have a couple

14 quick questions.

15 The tenant names on the sign,

16 are those going to be back-lit or

17 front-lit or lit at all?

18 MR. QUINN: Back-lit, right?

19 MR. NILES: Internally lit.

20 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: So they will

21 be lit up at night?

22 MR. QUINN: Correct, yes.


24 example of the signs for the anchor









1 stores that are within the Town Center,

2 would there be any of the out-lot

3 businesses placing their names on these

4 signs, or just the ones within the --

5 MR. QUINN: No, only those

6 within the Town Center property itself.


8 right. Since everybody has had the

9 opportunity to talk. Member Sanghvi.

10 MEMBER SANGHVI: I want to say

11 one thing. I like what -- I think it's

12 done in good taste, looks very nice. And

13 including the tower and the name of Novi

14 on the clock. To be quite honest, I will

15 be very happy to support this variance.

16 MEMBER CASSIS: Keep the Irish

17 color.

18 MR. QUINN: As long as we can.


20 this point, I'm looking for a motion.

21 Member Krieger.


23 Case No. 10-037, 26132 Ingersol Drive,

24 for Town Center, Town District, I move to









1 approve the variance as requested to --

2 for the four existing business signs to

3 continue with the addition of the cornice

4 at the requested amount. And that the

5 four additional names can be placed as

6 needed on the sign as requested.

7 And that the request is based

8 upon circumstances of features that are

9 exceptional and unique to the Town Center

10 property, and does not result from

11 conditions that exist generally, and is

12 not self-created. And failure to grant

13 relief will unreasonably prevent the use

14 of this property in its -- as Dr. --

15 Mr. Quinn said, new economic

16 revitalization, if I remember that. And

17 will result in substantially more than

18 mere inconvenience or inability to attain

19 a higher economic or financial return.

20 And grant of the relief will

21 not result in use of a structure that is

22 incompatible with or unreasonably

23 interferes with adjacent or surrounding

24 properties. It will result in









1 substantial justice being done to the

2 applicant and adjacent surrounding

3 properties, as well as Novi, and is not

4 inconsistent with the spirit of the

5 ordinance.



8 motion made by Member Krieger and a

9 second by Member Sanghvi.

10 MR. BOULARD: If I may. Could

11 I suggest possibly amending the motion to

12 also include the oversize clock tower

13 sign, and also clarify that there are two

14 additional tenant signs for a total of

15 four.

16 MEMBER KRIEGER: The part that

17 I left out to include that as Mr. Boulard

18 had said regarding the clock.


20 Member Sanghvi, is that acceptable?



23 discussion?

24 MR. SCHULTZ: Just, Mr. Chair,









1 a suggestion that you take Mr. Quinn up

2 on the condition that these be tenant

3 signs only, not out-lots, and that they

4 be tenants of the center.

5 MR. QUINN: Tenants of the Novi

6 Center Investors.


8 accept.


10 Member Sanghvi?

11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, sir.

12 MEMBER SKELCY: If you do that,

13 will that exclude Wal-Mart?

14 MR. SCHULTZ: No. They are a

15 tenant of the center.

16 MEMBER SKELCY: Even though

17 they are buying it?

18 MR. SCHULTZ: They will own a

19 piece of it, but they are within the

20 center property.


22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Schultz, is

23 it necessary to mention that the tenants'

24 names may change?









1 MR. SCHULTZ: No, sir, not

2 necessary to mention, unless you -- I

3 mean, you can.

4 MEMBER SANGHVI: So they don't

5 come back again?

6 MR. SCHULTZ: Okay. As long as

7 it's clear, and I think it is, that it's

8 four total companies.

9 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yeah, it's in

10 there.

11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

12 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: All set then?

13 Any other discussion?

14 Ms. Martin, please call the

15 roll.

16 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi?


18 MS. MARTIN: Member Cassis?


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,

7 seven to zero.

8 MR. QUINN: Thank you very

9 much. Have a good evening.

10 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: The next case

11 is Case No. 10-038, 25100

12 Novi Road, Collex.

13 The petitioner is requesting

14 the following variance on behalf of the

15 property owner to address a

16 non-conformity that would result from the

17 additional highway easement for the new

18 railroad bridge on Novi Road, and

19 requests for re-location of an existing

20 sign as a pole sign and a temporary sign

21 for 18 to 24 months. The property is

22 zoned I-2 and is located east of

23 Novi Road and south of Grand River.

24 Is the petitioner here? Please









1 state your name and address. And if you

2 are not an attorney, please be sworn in

3 by our secretary.

4 MR. ROLLINGER: Mr. Chairman,

5 my name is Robert Rollinger. I'm an

6 attorney, and here on behalf of the Road

7 Commission for Oakland County.

8 We are requesting this evening

9 that this matter be tabled. I had an

10 opportunity prior to the meeting to

11 discuss it with Mr. Boulard and

12 Mr. Schultz, as a result of a recent

13 court hearing.


15 do we have to do?

16 MR. SCHULTZ: Just agree with

17 Mr. Rollinger. We didn't get a formal

18 correspondence, so I wanted to make sure

19 he got a chance to say that on the

20 record. But it is appropriate to table

21 at this time.

22 Okay. Mr. Boulard has actually

23 reminded me of a good point. If the

24 board were to table to an unspecified









1 date, you are going to need -- the city

2 is going to need to re-advertise. If you

3 table to a specific date, you don't need

4 to pay for the re-publication and

5 advertisement.

6 I guess I leave it to

7 Mr. Rollinger, who was at the court

8 hearing, the choice of what you want to

9 do.

10 MR. ROLLINGER: Well, as I

11 understand it, Mr. Schultz, Judge

12 Kumar has requested a status conference

13 November the 16th. So the next available

14 date after that would probably be your

15 December ZBA meeting.

16 MR. SCHULTZ: If you did that,

17 I think you could maybe save the county

18 some advertisement costs. If you choose

19 to. You may want to re-advertise, but I

20 don't know if you got a lot of feedback

21 last time.

22 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: So we have to

23 have a motion to table?

24 MR. SCHULTZ: Motion to table,









1 and probably makes sense to table to

2 December.

3 Mr. Boulard makes another good

4 point. If, as a result of the

5 facilitation, Mr. Rollinger is going to

6 go through a request for changes, then

7 obviously there would be

8 re-advertisement. If it stays the same,

9 you should be good to go.


11 don't have to vote on a table?

12 MR. SCHULTZ: Motion to table

13 to December, and then a vote.

14 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, in

15 Case No. 10-038, 25100 Novi Road, Collex,

16 I move that we table this request as

17 requested by the petitioner to the ZBA

18 December calendar. I'm sorry, December,

19 2010, calendar.



22 have a motion by Member Ibe and a second

23 by Member Gedeon. Any further

24 discussion? Call the roll.









1 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi?


3 MS. MARTIN: Member Cassis?


5 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger?


7 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe?


9 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Wrobel?


11 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy?


13 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon?


15 MS. MARTIN: Motion to table

16 passes, seven to zero.

17 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: The next case

18 is Case No. 10-039, 24460 Novi Road,

19 Michigan Tractor and Machine.

20 The petitioner is requesting

21 the following variances on behalf of the

22 property owner to address non-conformity

23 that will result from the additional

24 highway easement for the new railroad









1 bridge on Novi Road, and request the

2 re-location of existing signage. The

3 property is zoned I-2 and located east of

4 Novi Road and south of Grand River.

5 MR. ROLLINGER: Thank you,

6 Mr. Chairman. Good evening, members of

7 the Zoning Board of Appeals.

8 My name is Robert Rollinger.

9 I'm an attorney representing the Road

10 Commission for Oakland County regarding a

11 site specific variance request we made

12 for what we call the Michigan CAT

13 property, located at 24460 Novi Road,

14 24800 Novi Road and 25000 Novi Road. The

15 subject property is located on the east

16 side of Novi Road, north of Grand River

17 and south of Ten Mile Road. The subject

18 property is in an I-2 zoning district.

19 The Road Commission, with the

20 support and assistance of the City of

21 Novi, is undertaking the widening of

22 Novi Road from Ten Mile Road to Grand

23 River. This construction project does

24 include a bridge overpass over the









1 existing CSX Railroad.

2 The bridge and road widening

3 construction will impact properties along

4 Novi Road, both on the east side and west

5 side of Novi Road, including the Michigan

6 Caterpillar (inaudible). At this

7 location, additional right-of-way for

8 Novi Road in the form of public highway

9 easements for public highway purposes are

10 being required for sufficient width to

11 widen Novi Road. It will also result in

12 a road grade difference than that which

13 exists at the current time.

14 Due to the Novi Road

15 improvement project, the existing legal

16 (inaudible) circumstances for the

17 Michigan CAT property will become

18 additionally non-compliant with several

19 City of Novi zoning ordinance

20 requirements.

21 On November -- I'm sorry,

22 January -- June, I apologize, June 6,

23 2006, the ZBA did grant a series of

24 zoning variances to keep the property in









1 conformity with the Novi zoning ordinance

2 requirements.

3 In ZBA Case No. 06-042, the

4 following site specific zoning variances

5 were previously granted. A front yard

6 building setback variance of 15 feet for

7 24460 Novi Road; a front yard building

8 setback variance of 15 feet for

9 24800 Novi Road; a parking setback

10 variance of 52 feet for parking area A at

11 2500 (sic) Novi Road; parking setback

12 variance of 97 feet for parking area B at

13 24800 Novi Road; a parking setback

14 variance of 77 feet for parking area D at

15 24460 Novi Road; a variance to eliminate

16 the required parking lot screen wall or a

17 landscaped berm for parking areas A, C

18 and D; a variance to allow the outdoor

19 storage and display area for heavy

20 machinery to remain in the front yard of

21 24800 Novi Road, and a variance to

22 eliminate the screen wall or landscape

23 berm for the outdoor storage and display

24 area located at 24800 Novi Road.









1 In ZBA case 06-051, the ZBA

2 approved a sign variance request to

3 re-locate the existing sign outside of

4 the Novi Road right-of way and allow the

5 support structures for the sign to be

6 replaced with the same dimensions that

7 currently existed, should the support

8 structures not be able to be moved for

9 the two existing signs.

10 At the current time, the Road

11 Commission is seeking a series of zoning

12 variances to the dimensional aspects of

13 the previously granted non-use

14 dimensional variances from the ZBA. The

15 purpose of these zoning variances is

16 taking into account a partial taking for

17 a newly widened and improved Novi Road,

18 in the proximity of the CSX bridge

19 overpass, which will be in close

20 proximity.

21 The request for the variance

22 for the front yard setback for 24800

23 Novi Road is a request to increase the

24 previously granted variance to 24 feet









1 from the previously granted 15-foot

2 variance.

3 For 24800 Novi Road, the

4 variance request is for the parking lot

5 setback in the front yard, which will

6 increase the variance by an additional

7 one foot.

8 For 24600 Novi Road, there is a

9 front yard parking lot setback request to

10 increase the previously granted variance

11 of 77 feet, an additional two feet, to

12 79 feet.

13 With respect to the existing

14 signs at 24800 Novi Road and 2500

15 Novi Road, the request is being made to

16 allow these existing signs to be

17 re-located approximately three feet to

18 five feet east of the new Novi Road

19 right-of-way line, in an area of the

20 greenbelt area, between the new Novi Road

21 right-of-way, and the front parking space

22 area for 24800 Novi Road; to move the

23 sign located at 2500 Novi Road, which

24 identifies the entrance, which would









1 likewise be re-located approximately

2 three feet to five feet east of the new

3 Novi Road right-of-way line; and an

4 identification sign that states on it

5 Michigan Cat Power Systems, which is a

6 two-tiered sign containing the logo of

7 the owner, approximately three feet to

8 five feet east of the Novi Road

9 right-of-way line.

10 This request includes the

11 variance to allow the support structures

12 on the signs to be re-located so that

13 they can be detached and reattached to

14 support the sign.

15 Each of these variance requests

16 is being made to facilitate the

17 right-of-way acquisition along Novi Road.

18 The ZBA at its regular June 6, 2006,

19 meeting, previously granted sign

20 variances, based on each of the signs,

21 copies of which are attached to our ZBA

22 application and are part of the

23 submission to the ZBA to re-locate the

24 signage outside the Novi Road









1 right-of-way, and to allow the support

2 structures on these signs to be detached

3 and reattached with the same dimensions

4 that currently exist.

5 The Road Commission is

6 undertaking the road improvement project

7 along Novi Road in which the highway

8 overpass bridge will be constructed over

9 the existing CSX Railroad right-of-way.

10 Under the Uniform Condemnation

11 Procedures Act, the condemning agency is

12 authorized to seek zoning variances from

13 the local zoning board of appeals if a

14 parcel of property is needed by the

15 condemning agency, and there is a partial

16 taking that results from that

17 acquisition, such as in the case of the

18 Michigan CAT property.

19 The inability of the owner to

20 conform to the City of Novi zoning

21 ordinance requirements is directly

22 related to the Novi Road improvement

23 project that occurs at this location.

24 Granting the requested variances will









1 allow the spirit of the City of Novi

2 zoning ordinance to be observed, public

3 safety secured, and substantial justice

4 done for the owner.

5 With respect to grade and

6 elevation changes, a partial taking will

7 alter the road grade in front of the

8 property by approximately one foot. In

9 the new right-of-way acquisition area,

10 there is a sidewalk that is being

11 installed between the roadway and the

12 building in question. Because the new

13 right-of-way to Novi Road will be

14 relocated to the east, the setback for

15 the building at 24800 Novi Road, the

16 parking lot setback for the property at

17 24800 Novi Road, and the parking lot

18 setback for 24460 Novi Road all will be

19 impacted.

20 Previous building setback and

21 parking lot setback variances granted by

22 the ZBA at the request of the Road

23 Commission in 2006 need to be widened and

24 altered. Granting these requested









1 variances will substantially reduce the

2 impact of the partial taking of the

3 property owner in question.

4 If you have any questions, I

5 would be happy to try to answer them for

6 you.


8 Is there anyone in the audience who

9 wishes to address the board regarding

10 this case? Seeing none, will the

11 secretary read any correspondence into

12 the record.

13 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, 34

14 notices were mailed, zero responses,

15 eight mail returned.

16 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you.

17 Does the building department or city

18 attorney have anything to add at this

19 time?

20 MR. SCHULTZ: I do. Mr. Chair,

21 a question I think for Mr. Rollinger.

22 I think when we were going over

23 these summaries in anticipation of the

24 meeting, it was my understanding that









1 those signs are actually already there.

2 That as a result of the 2006 case, they

3 have been moved back and re-installed in

4 accordance with the variance referred to

5 in your presentation, is that correct?

6 Because we really only advertised the

7 building setback and the parking

8 setbacks. We didn't advertise --


10 MR. SCHULTZ: The signs. We

11 didn't call them out, I should say, here

12 in the summer; we didn't call them out.

13 Are the signs staying or are they being

14 moved?

15 MR. ROLLINGER: I believe the

16 signs need to be moved just a short

17 distance, based on the width of the

18 right-of-way and the setback

19 requirements.

20 MR. SCHULTZ: I guess the

21 reason I ask that question is I think the

22 variance on the second page, or maybe

23 it's the first page, of your summary at

24 the top.









1 Charles, correct me if I'm

2 wrong, this is the actual same language

3 that was used in 2006 to grant the

4 variances. Are they going to go back

5 another three to five feet?

6 MR. ROLLINGER: I believe -- I

7 believe so.

8 MR. SCHULTZ: I think that's

9 probably something we need to explore

10 with the county for the next meeting,

11 because I don't think we called out the

12 signs. When I went over this, I think I

13 was under the impression that the signs

14 were where they are. They got a

15 variance, and they moved them, and I

16 think, as Charles said, the variance is

17 from the right-of-way. If the

18 right-of-way changes, I think the

19 variance --

20 MR. ROLLINGER: So, question,

21 if the right-of-way line changes because

22 of the widening, as long as it comports

23 with where the new right-of-way line

24 is --









1 MR. SCHULTZ: I think we might

2 be able to read the previous variance in

3 that way. Is there an urgency,

4 Mr. Rollinger, in doing the sign portion

5 of this tonight? Because we can

6 certainly do the rest of it.


8 understanding is that the signs -- and,

9 again, I will have to check to be sure.

10 My understanding is that the signs where

11 they are located may be in the way of

12 where the contractor is intending to

13 continue the excavation.

14 As you may have seen, the

15 excavation has already started. And, so,

16 I believe that we did contact the owners

17 along Novi Road, and including Michigan

18 CAT, to let them know we were going to do

19 whatever we needed to do to get those

20 signs back far enough so that the

21 excavation wouldn't interfere with

22 customers trying to find Michigan CAT, so

23 their sign wouldn't be taken down.

24 So, if the reading of the









1 previous zoning variance and the language

2 being based upon the new right-of-way

3 line is acceptable, and we can just deal

4 with where the new right-of-way line is,

5 that's fine with me. I just want to make

6 sure that the owner still knows where

7 their property is and people coming there

8 will find it without any difficulty.

9 MR. SCHULTZ: Go ahead with

10 your questions.


12 Cassis.

13 MEMBER CASSIS: Mr. Schultz, I

14 think those signs, all of them, as I have

15 seen them for years and years, even with

16 the widening and the partial taking, as

17 you say of a few feet, I think they would

18 still be in conformity with even the new

19 street widening. They would still be in

20 conformity of our zoning ordinance. So,

21 really, I don't know if we really need to

22 take those up. What's your opinion?

23 I mean, maybe whoever is

24 excavating doesn't want to have the









1 liability of hitting a sign or maybe of

2 an underground foundation.


4 MEMBER CASSIS: Of cables and

5 so on. Maybe that might be the case.

6 But whether we need to even deal with

7 whether a variance is being realized

8 here, abided by, even though there is a

9 widening. I think that's the question,

10 isn't it, Mr. Rollinger?

11 MR. ROLLINGER: Yes. We just

12 want to be assured that would not be an

13 issue.

14 MEMBER CASSIS: Did you hear

15 me?

16 MR. SCHULTZ: Yeah, I did. And

17 I guess the response to that, I'd like a

18 few minutes just to look through the

19 previous variance language and see if we

20 can come to that conclusion.

21 MEMBER CASSIS: Yeah, sure.


23 (Inaudible).

24 MEMBER SANGHVI: The question









1 is I don't know that we need to deal with

2 the sign here at all. With what is here

3 or presented to us, there is nothing

4 about signs really. This is about the

5 width on the setbacks in a different

6 area.

7 MEMBER CASSIS: They do address

8 the signs there.

9 MEMBER SANGHVI: In the main

10 petition itself; I don't see it. Can we

11 deal with what we have here and deal with

12 the sign at a later date?

13 MR. SCHULTZ: On the assumption

14 that there is a --

15 MEMBER SANGHVI: I thought they

16 already moved the sign in 2006.

17 MR. SCHULTZ: I just have a

18 suggestion, Member Sanghvi, through the

19 Chair. I think if we could go get the

20 variance request from the last 2006 and

21 compare it. We have the motion, but it's

22 just as requested, if you could table

23 this one. We don't want -- we don't want

24 to cause a problem to the county. So a









1 motion to table this one and go on to the

2 next one so we can see what --


4 that acceptable?

5 MR. ROLLINGER: That's fine.

6 Mr. Chair, if I may say this, Chairman

7 Wrobel, I do have a copy of the 2006

8 Board of Appeals Case 06-042, which may

9 have the language that the board adopted,

10 which I would be happy if I could

11 approach Mr. Schultz and share this with

12 him.

13 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Yes, please.

14 Okay. So, we'll wait for Mr. Schultz to

15 comment and move on to the next case.


17 should maybe make a motion to table.

18 MR. SCHULTZ: If you could

19 table this one and move on to the next

20 one.

21 MEMBER SANGHVI: So do the same

22 thing we did to the last one?

23 MEMBER KRIEGER: I move to

24 table this case until the --










2 MEMBER KRIEGER: No, until the

3 end of the meeting, to the next case?

4 MR. SCHULTZ: To the next

5 case.



8 motion and a second. All in favor to

9 table, say aye.


11 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: All opposed?

12 We'll table that issue.

13 The next case then is Case No.

14 10-040, 25345 Novi Road, Stricker Paint.

15 The petitioner is requesting the

16 following variances on behalf of the

17 property owner to address the reduced

18 visibility for existing non-conforming

19 signage that would result from the

20 additional highway easement for the new

21 railroad bridge on Novi Road. The

22 property is zoned I-1 and located west of

23 Novi Road and south of Grand River.

24 MR. ROLLINGER: Thank you,









1 Chairman Wrobel.

2 Again, Robert Rollinger,

3 appearing on behalf of the Road

4 Commission for Oakland County, regarding

5 the Stricker Paint parcel located at

6 25345 Novi Road, located on the west side

7 of Novi Road, south of Grand River and

8 north of Ten Mile Road.

9 The Road Commission in this

10 instance is seeking a height variance for

11 signage for the Stricker Paint Products

12 property. At the present time, there is

13 one sign identifying Stricker Paint

14 Products' location.

15 I have -- is there a light

16 dimmer on here, Chairman Wrobel?

17 The smaller photograph depicts

18 the current signage, and then the mock-up

19 drawing shows the proposed sign at this

20 location. The existing signage of

21 Stricker Paint Products is acknowledged

22 to be non-conforming. It's my

23 understanding that under the ordinance

24 for I-1 zoning district, the property









1 would be allowed either a sign 30

2 feet square and six feet in height, or

3 two wall signs, due to a corner parcel

4 with frontage on two separate streets,

5 Novi Road and GenMar.

6 There is an identification of

7 the business being Stricker Paint

8 Products, which is listed on the exterior

9 wall above the door, for identification

10 purposes. Again, this parcel is probably

11 the most directly impacted parcel from

12 the bridge overpass of CSX Railway,

13 because this parcel is directly south of

14 where the railroad right-of-way is for

15 where the bridge overpass is going to be.

16 As a result of the partial

17 taking from this property as part of the

18 Novi Road Mid Section project to build

19 the overpass bridge, the Novi Road

20 frontage for Stricker Paint Products will

21 be well above the grade of the remainder

22 property. And there will not be

23 practical access to and from the subject

24 property from Novi Road at this location.









1 Once the project is built, the

2 primary access will be off of GenMar,

3 south of Novi Road, which will then lead

4 into and out of the parking area for

5 Stricker Paint Products.

6 After the taking, there will be

7 a 31 to 32-foot high retaining wall

8 between the building improvements for

9 Stricker Paint Products on Novi Road.

10 The existing pole sign on the

11 property, which is depicted in the

12 photograph, will have to be removed,

13 because it will be within the new

14 right-of-way of Novi Road. Therefore, we

15 need to create a new location for the

16 pole sign so it can be placed beyond the

17 bounds of the new Novi Road right-of-way,

18 as well as the height and location, which

19 will be clearly visible for motor vehicle

20 operators on and along Novi Road as they

21 approach the bridge overpass for the CSX

22 Railroad, which is located immediately

23 north of where Stricker paint prods is.

24 This variance request is part









1 of a series of previously granted

2 variance requests for this property.

3 And, again, under the condemnation act,

4 the Road Commission is authorized to seek

5 site specific variances with the owner

6 where there is a partial taking to

7 mitigate the effects of the partial

8 taking. This is one of the specific

9 requests that we are making for this

10 property.

11 The proposed sign is intended

12 to be above the height limits, so that

13 motor vehicle operators traveling both

14 northbound and southbound on Novi Road

15 will be able to clearly see from a

16 visible height, the identification and

17 location for Stricker Paint Products, by

18 allowing a two-sided sign that would be

19 back-lit and containing the name of the

20 business entity, Stricker Paint Products,

21 as well as an option to include the

22 language, "Home of Stricker Paint

23 Products as part of the signage. It will

24 provide an identification of the business









1 location as well as the ingress and

2 egress to reach the building from GenMar

3 Road.

4 We are seeking approval to

5 allow the variance to be on a line of

6 approximately three feet to six feet west

7 of the new right-of-way line of

8 Novi Road, so the owner of Stricker paint

9 prods can determine the best possible

10 location to maximize visibility to

11 passing motorists who are traveling

12 northbound and southbound on Novi Road.

13 The anticipated height would exceed the

14 limitations contained in the maximum

15 height under the Novi ordinance for the

16 zoning district.

17 In addition, we are seeking a

18 variance to allow a location sign to be

19 erected to identify the manner of ingress

20 and egress to and from Stricker Paint

21 Products along GenMar Road, due to the

22 fact that GenMar Road is to be re-located

23 as part of the project. And it will

24 become the primary access for ingress and









1 egress once the project is completed at

2 this location.

3 It's believed by the Road

4 Commission this will assist Stricker

5 paint prods in providing the required

6 information to its customers so that the

7 manner of ingress and egress can be

8 pointed out coming in off of Novi Road

9 along GenMar into the parking lot area to

10 allow the subject locational sign.

11 Once the bridge overpass is

12 constructed, any previous use of existing

13 signage on any of the buildings will

14 become non-existent for actual or

15 potential customers, due to the height

16 difference and the manner of construction

17 of the bridge overpass and its proximity

18 to where the buildings are. Passing

19 motorists will simply not be able to use

20 any of the existing signage to either

21 locate ingress and egress to the building

22 from Novi Road onto GenMar, nor will the

23 existing sign identify the business as

24 being Stricker Paint Products because









1 it's not going to be visible.

2 The variance request is not

3 self-created by the owner. The practical

4 difficulty that exists for the basis of

5 seeking the variance is a direct result

6 of the project being built by the Road

7 Commission, in conjunction with the City

8 of Novi in this location.

9 We believe these are unique

10 circumstances which are beyond the

11 control of the property owner. Neither

12 the property owner nor the Road

13 Commission should be penalized for

14 seeking the requested variances.

15 I would be happy to the discuss

16 the proposal with you should you have any

17 questions this evening. And, again, this

18 drawing is intended to provide a

19 depiction of our best estimate of the

20 kind of sign. Again, the size, I

21 understand, may be off a bit. I don't

22 make signs, so we kind of guessed at what

23 we would need if you were driving a car

24 up over the bridge trying to find









1 Stricker Paint Products. If it was not

2 high enough, you might pass it too

3 quickly. If the lettering is not big

4 enough, you may not be able to know that

5 that's what you are trying to find. So

6 we are trying to imagine what it will be

7 like once the overpass bridge is actually

8 built.


10 you. Is there anyone in the audience who

11 wishes to address the board regarding

12 this case? Seeing none, will the

13 secretary read any correspondence into

14 the record.

15 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, ten

16 notices were mailed, zero responses, two

17 mail returned.

18 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you.

19 Mr. Boulard, do you care to make any

20 comments at this time?

21 MR. BOULARD: In your folder,

22 you will see there is a drawing of the

23 proposed sign that the petitioner has

24 provided. In addition, there is a









1 revised copy of the staff report. At the

2 time that we did that, we were expecting

3 some renderings which would show contacts

4 and so on. And Mr. Rollinger has been

5 hard at work trying to get those.

6 The drawing that we have is

7 there and, certainly, you know, I think

8 pole signs are as a last resort, if at

9 all. And I would suggest that at this

10 point that the board consider tabling

11 this to allow Mr. Rollinger to get us

12 some drawings that maybe show more of the

13 relationships, and also look at

14 alternatives for the signage for this

15 building.

16 I just -- I had hoped that we

17 would have more. Obviously, a mock sign

18 is a little difficult to do, and I

19 understand that. But I would -- I would

20 suggest that perhaps more information is

21 needed to act on it.


23 agree to tabling this to a future time,

24 more detail?









1 MR. ROLLINGER: Again, the only

2 practical problem that we have with this

3 location is, again, I believe -- I don't

4 believe, I know, because I'm the one who

5 wrote the letter. I sent the letter

6 already to the owners of Stricker Paint

7 Products to advise them that the

8 excavation, as you have already seen, is

9 going to start this month. And that

10 there was a reasonable likelihood that

11 their existing sign is going to be taken

12 down prior to the next ZBA meeting. So

13 there will not be any signage whatsoever

14 which will identify this location

15 probably within the next week or ten

16 days, because the contractor is on a time

17 constraint, both from not only the county

18 but from the city to get this project

19 done, I believe, by the end of November.

20 So, they are trying to maintain the time

21 schedule.

22 So, I can tell the board and

23 tell Mr. Boulard, I have personally

24 notified the owner that the sign is going









1 to have to come down.


3 Cassis.


5 you, Mr. Chairman.

6 First of all, let me say, have

7 we settled -- is it Stricker or Stricker

8 Paint?

9 MR. ROLLINGER: I have been

10 told both.

11 MEMBER CASSIS: I wasn't sure.

12 MR. ROLLINGER: I have been

13 told Stricker. I don't know.

14 MEMBER CASSIS: This outfit has

15 been here ever since I have come, 33

16 years ago, an established business. I

17 salute their longevity; let's start with

18 that.

19 Second, I'm trying to help

20 Mr. Rollinger, or is it Rollinger?

21 MR. ROLLINGER: Rollinger.

22 MEMBER CASSIS: Okay. Because

23 you said it two different ways.

24 If we say, presently, Stricker









1 Paint has a sign already; it has a

2 certain dimension, right?

3 MEMBER SANGHVI: It's there.

4 MEMBER CASSIS: No, the present

5 one is there and has a dimension. If we

6 can ask how high the pole for that sign

7 is going to be and how far it will be

8 from the first sign, can you supply that

9 right now? I mean, if we go along and

10 approve the same dimensions of the sign

11 right now as he has, but then describe

12 how high that pole is going to be and how

13 far it will be from the bridge or setback

14 or whatever, can that be possible? Or am

15 I asking for too much? Just to expedite

16 this case.

17 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the

18 Chair. Very reasonable question.

19 Unfortunately, I don't think it works as

20 a solution. We've got a very narrow

21 advertisement here for the particular

22 size sign and particular configuration

23 and all that. So we are sort of stuck

24 with that or something less than that as









1 a variance. And once you remove that

2 existing sign, it's going to lose that

3 non-conformity. So you can't just say

4 here tonight let's pick it up and move it

5 over. That might be a motion at the next

6 meeting or a possible resolution, but for

7 tonight, that wouldn't work.

8 But I guess I just want the

9 board to know that the city would have

10 some ability to work with the property

11 owner through Mr. Boulard for some sort

12 of temporary signage.

13 MEMBER CASSIS: Temporary,

14 yeah.

15 MR. SCHULTZ: Because I'm not

16 sure this would be built in two days or

17 ten days anyways. So, there would be

18 some opportunity to get a little bit of

19 identification there, while the rest of

20 the --

21 MEMBER KRIEGER: Can they use

22 their current sign?

23 MR. SCHULTZ: I guess we'll

24 have to take a look at the ordinance and









1 do what we can. I mean, this is going to

2 be -- I mean, this is going to be a very

3 permanent sign. So, I understand

4 Mr. Rollinger's point that this could

5 have an impact, but it could also have a

6 long-term impact on the city. So that's

7 why we would prefer, if there is going to

8 be tabling -- or if you are not sure, I'm

9 not saying you have to table, that we go

10 the temporary route for that period of

11 time.


13 Skelcy.

14 MEMBER SKELCY: Based on the

15 fact that this is going to be a 50 foot

16 square double-sided pole sign, I'm in

17 favor of tabling this request to allow

18 Stricker time to explore alternative

19 signage schemes, as well as more

20 descriptive documentation. And this is

21 based on the staff recommendation, which

22 I'm in favor of following their

23 recommendation.

24 I have no problem with the









1 temporary sign, but I think for purposes

2 of how big this sign is going to be, I

3 mean, this is even bigger than the

4 hamburger sign that we saw on Novi Road

5 that was circular. I would be in favor

6 of that.

7 So I could not approve it

8 tonight. I would not be voting yes if it

9 were to be brought before us tonight.

10 MR. ROLLINGER: I should

11 indicate, again, as maybe I didn't

12 explain well enough earlier. The size

13 you see on the mock-up drawing is a best

14 guesstimate, because we are not in the

15 sign business, and we do not have ready

16 access to discuss this with the property

17 owner.

18 Mr. Stricker's attorney has not

19 been cooperative with us on that, because

20 he is asking that the Road Commission --

21 I shouldn't say ask. He's taking the

22 legal position that we should take the

23 entire parcel. And he doesn't care what

24 zoning variances I come before you to ask









1 you for. Even if you grant all of them,

2 he really doesn't care; he wants the

3 parcel taken in its entirety.

4 So, I'm not here with his help

5 or cooperation. I'm here because the law

6 allows the Road Commission to come before

7 you and ask you for site specific zoning

8 variances, including this one.

9 Part of what we are trying to

10 do is to mitigate the effect of the

11 bridge overpass and the proximity of the

12 bridge overpass to his building. So, we

13 guessed at the size, we guessed at the

14 height, based on where the bridge

15 overpass highest height is going to be in

16 proximity to his building.

17 MEMBER SKELCY: So he basically

18 doesn't want to operate that business

19 anymore? He would like Oakland County to

20 buy the entire property?

21 MR. ROLLINGER: That's correct.


23 MR. SCHULTZ: He probably

24 doesn't want any sign there, so the









1 variance is for the Road Commission.

2 We'll work with the Road Commission to

3 document some sort of temporary sign

4 approval to deal with. I mean, if the

5 sign gets taken down, he may not put it

6 back up. The Road Commission can't go on

7 his property and re-install the sign for

8 him, so another reason I think that we

9 should probably --

10 MEMBER SKELCY: Probably table?

11 MR. SCHULTZ: Probably table.

12 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Looking for a

13 motion.

14 MEMBER GEDEON: I have just a

15 couple more questions. I notice that

16 there has already been some road

17 construction signs, some orange signs.

18 Are there going to be any business

19 listings saying what businesses are

20 accessible on Novi Road?

21 MR. ROLLINGER: Yes. We are

22 going to be posting a temporary

23 construction sign. One of the requests I

24 had for you this evening for the Collex









1 Collision parcel was a temporary sign for

2 the 18 to 24-month period, so that folks

3 who were trying to find the driveway

4 access point into Collex off of Novi Road

5 would know where they are supposed to

6 enter. So we are going to be posting --

7 MEMBER GEDEON: Right. I guess

8 at the intersection of Ten Mile and Novi,

9 is there going to be a sign that says

10 what businesses are still accessible on

11 Novi Road there? Where is the road

12 closed sign for Novi Road going to be

13 posted?

14 MR. ROLLINGER: Let me defer to

15 my able-bodied project engineer, Kim

16 O'Lear, from Orchard, Hiltz & McCliment,

17 who can speak to that better than I can.

18 MS. O'LEAR: The project will

19 remain open and all businesses will

20 remain open at all times. The road is

21 going to close -- at this point, we don't

22 think it will close in this calendar

23 year. I have not seen the construction

24 sequencing schedule, but our best









1 estimates were that it wasn't going to

2 fully close. There will be some lane

3 closures, but all businesses will be

4 maintained, and all will have access all

5 times during the entire project, which

6 won't finish until next year.

7 MEMBER GEDEON: Okay. But when

8 Novi Road does close, at what point north

9 or south on Novi Road between Ten Mile

10 and --

11 MS. O'LEAR: It will close at

12 the railroad.


14 MS. O'LEAR: South of Grand

15 River. And will also then close at the

16 railroad -- there is a short window in

17 the railroad, and it can't -- they are

18 building the new GenMar south of the

19 existing GenMar, and that has to take

20 place prior to them closing the railroad

21 so that we can maintain businesses and we

22 can get the trucks that are on GenMar in

23 and out.

24 So, eventually, when Novi Road









1 officially closes, it's my understanding

2 that it's just at the railroad itself.

3 And all businesses, you will be able to

4 get up to GenMar and Trans-X on the south

5 end, and all the way down to the Main

6 Street and cemetery and buildings that

7 are on Trans-X.

8 MEMBER GEDEON: Okay. A second

9 unrelated question. The purpose of the

10 Road Commission coming here today is to

11 retain the value of the property. And

12 you stated earlier that the current sign

13 is non-conforming. So is there really

14 any loss to the property owner for losing

15 a non-conforming sign?

16 MR. ROLLINGER: I might ask Mr.

17 Boulard to speak to that.

18 MR. BOULARD: The existing

19 non-conforming, there is -- there would

20 be a loss in -- possible loss, in my

21 mind, in that the existing non-conforming

22 sign could stay and be maintained only

23 for an indefinite period of time. Once

24 you take that down to move it, it no









1 longer can be re-installed.

2 So the fact that the Road

3 Commission is taking that highway

4 easement and forcing the sign to be

5 moved, then it would force -- or could be

6 seen as forcing the property owner to be

7 losing that non-conformity that they had.

8 I'm not sure if that helps at all.

9 MEMBER GEDEON: Sure, sure.

10 MEMBER CASSIS: Mr. Chairman?


12 MEMBER CASSIS: Tomorrow

13 morning at 8:00 in the morning, there

14 will be an informational meeting.

15 MR. ROLLINGER: Right.

16 MEMBER CASSIS: At O'Connor's,

17 that would explain everything that is

18 going to take place. So O'Connor, the

19 restaurant.

20 MR. BOULARD: If I may.

21 MEMBER CASSIS: Eight o'clock

22 in the morning.

23 MR. BOULARD: Thank you for

24 jumping in. There is a meeting for all









1 the business owners and anyone that's

2 interested at Gus O'Connor's at 8:00

3 tomorrow morning. The Road Commission is

4 going to be there to answer questions and

5 explain the process. Assuming everybody

6 is watching on TV.

7 MEMBER CASSIS: That's why I

8 mentioned it. Thank you.

9 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Do we want to

10 go back to tabling this? And, if so, I

11 will entertain a motion.

12 MEMBER SKELCY: I move that we

13 table this matter until the December,

14 2010, meeting, and give a specific date

15 so it doesn't have to be re-noticed.

16 MR. SCHULTZ: I think this one

17 to the next meeting.

18 MEMBER SKELCY: To the next

19 meeting?

20 MR. SCHULTZ: To the next

21 meeting.

22 MEMBER SKELCY: I move we table

23 this to the next meeting so that the Road

24 Commission can attempt to get some better









1 drawings, renderings, architectural

2 drawings, that give a more descriptive

3 documentation of how the sign -- the

4 50-foot square foot sign would look.

5 MR. ROLLINGER: If I might

6 speak to that. Again, having stopped at

7 Stricker Paint before we came to try to

8 measure the size of the existing sign,

9 which we believe is about 32 square feet,

10 four feet high, eight feet across, we are

11 perfectly comfortable with having the

12 ZBA, in fact, move to grant the request

13 but reduce the size to 32 square feet.

14 We were, again, using a

15 guesstimate at 50 square feet, based on

16 coming up over the bridge overpass and

17 needing to be high enough and visible

18 enough as you are going over the bridge

19 overpass northbound and southbound to

20 come up with a size that would not

21 interfere with a driver's line of sight,

22 and also the speed of traffic on

23 Novi Road. That's how -- that's how I

24 came up with 50 square feet. It's not a









1 magic number. I'm perfectly willing to

2 have a smaller size. I'm just trying to

3 guess what a driver would need to see as

4 you are coming over a bridge.

5 MEMBER SKELCY: I guess my

6 concern is more that we are going to have

7 a pole sign, which we don't really like

8 pole signs in Novi. So that's my biggest

9 concern, you know, what is this pole sign

10 going to look like?

11 MEMBER CASSIS: Mr. Chairman.

12 I think -- I think there is more to this

13 story than meets the aye. I gathered

14 from you that Mr. Stricker is going for a

15 full taking, and you want to give him

16 partial taking.

17 MR. ROLLINGER: That's correct.

18 MEMBER CASSIS: And, in that

19 case, Mr. Schultz, I don't think we need

20 to touch this, because Mr. Stricker is

21 not the person who is coming to petition

22 before us.

23 MR. SCHULTZ: Well, through the

24 Chair. We are not counsel for the









1 county, Mr. Rollinger is, obviously, but

2 I think the county's concern is that the

3 loss of the sign contributes to the loss

4 of the -- the need for the full taking

5 instead of the partial.

6 I certainly understand the

7 county coming in saying, "We'll replace

8 the sign. We'll give them another sign."

9 To take that argument away that there has

10 been a full taking, taking the entire

11 parcel.

12 So, I guess, respectfully, I

13 think at some point need to deal with a

14 permanent sign, because the county has

15 the right to request that. But I think

16 some additional information is being

17 requested by the staff, which makes

18 sense. And we can give the county some

19 relief temporarily between now and the

20 next meeting to cover their argument with

21 Mr. Stricker as well as we can.

22 MEMBER CASSIS: Who is going to

23 pay for the sign?

24 MR. SCHULTZ: Well, I --









1 MEMBER CASSIS: I mean, we are

2 entering very technical and difficult

3 kind of area here.

4 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the

5 Chair. That's a good and very serious

6 question. That sign may never go up.

7 The relevance is that it could go up,

8 that the county secured the relief to

9 allow them to put it up. The county --

10 this is an appropriate thing for the

11 county to be doing.


13 MR. SCHULTZ: Staff has some

14 questions about the permanent signage,

15 and its brief tabling and some temporary

16 relief hopefully puts the county in the

17 best position we can put them in.


19 (inaudible) need to do something in the

20 meantime.

21 MEMBER GEDEON: I guess I would

22 question, you know, whether or not we

23 should just deny the request. Because it

24 seems unlikely that we are going to









1 approve a pole sign in the future. And

2 if that's -- I don't know that; I don't

3 know how people would vote. But I would

4 not be opposed to entertaining a motion

5 to deny rather than simply table.

6 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: We do have a

7 motion pending to table.

8 MEMBER KRIEGER: Until October.

9 Second.


11 motion by Member Skelcy to table and

12 second by Member Krieger. Is there any

13 more --

14 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, should

15 the motion also say that temporary relief

16 should be granted?

17 MR. SCHULTZ: No. I think that

18 can be handled administratively, to the

19 extent we can.


21 have a pending motion. Any other

22 discussion on the motion? Ms. Martin.

23 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi?










1 MS. MARTIN: Member Cassis?


3 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger?


5 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe?


7 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Wrobel?


9 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy?


11 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon?


13 MS. MARTIN: Motion passes,

14 seven to zero, to table to the October 12

15 meeting.

16 MR. SCHULTZ: Motion to bring

17 the last one off the table.


19 motion to bring back 10-039 back in front

20 of us.

21 MEMBER SKELCY: I motion that

22 we bring Case No. 10-039, for 24460 and

23 24800 and 25000 Novi Road, Michigan

24 Tractor and Machine.











3 motion and a second to re-introduce this

4 topic.

5 MR. SCHULTZ: All in favor?

6 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: All in favor?



9 will now discuss Case 10-039 again.

10 MR. SCHULTZ: Finally some good

11 news for Mr. Rollinger and the county.

12 You know, Mark Spencer had gone

13 through what he believed the proposal to

14 be, including the signage; that memo is

15 in your packet. He concluded that based

16 on the variance, we didn't need to deal

17 with the signage.

18 I understand Mr. Rollinger was

19 being careful, but with the way it's

20 advertised, I think we can tell him

21 tonight that he would be able to do what

22 he's asking you to approve tonight with

23 the variance that they already have, and

24 that we don't need to re-adopt that









1 variance request.

2 It's a little bit different and

3 may actually be a little bit better, but

4 I think it covers, as Mark concluded,

5 what he would like to do, what he's asked

6 to do. I think we can just not act on

7 those sign variance requests that are in

8 his memo and act on the three things that

9 are in Mr. Boulard's summary for the

10 setbacks.


12 questions for Mr. Schultz? I will open

13 it up for further discussion then to the

14 board. Or a motion.

15 MEMBER SKELCY: I motion that

16 we approve the variances requested by the

17 county. Notably, we are having new

18 construction placed on Novi Road that

19 will impinge on the properties. The

20 bridge will impinge on being able to

21 observe this business. And also the --

22 we are going to have improvements in that

23 area that could impinge on being able to

24 observe the business, see the business,









1 know how to get to the business.

2 And I make the motion based on

3 the fact that the setback, frontage,

4 height, bulk and density requirements

5 unreasonably prevents the use of the

6 property for a permitted purpose, based

7 on the bridge that's going to be

8 constructed.

9 The variance will provide

10 substantial justice to the petitioner and

11 surrounding property owners in the zoning

12 district.

13 There are unique circumstances

14 created by the building of the bridge.

15 The problem is not self-created; it's

16 created by the widening of the road and

17 the installation of the bridge.

18 There is adequate light and air

19 provided to adjacent properties. There

20 is no increase of fire danger or public

21 safety. Property values will not be

22 diminished within the surrounding area,

23 and the spirit of the zoning ordinance is

24 observed.











3 motion made by Member Skelcy and seconded

4 by Member Krieger. Any further

5 discussion? Member Cassis.


7 Mr. Rollinger.


9 MEMBER CASSIS: In the matter

10 of that Michigan Tractor, were the owners

11 notified of this petition?

12 MR. ROLLINGER: Oh, certainly.

13 MEMBER CASSIS: And they did

14 say it's okay to go for this stuff?

15 MR. ROLLINGER: They didn't say

16 anything; we didn't hear back from them.

17 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the

18 Chair. This is the county's request for

19 a variance to grant relief to the

20 property so that it can argue issues of

21 compensation. So, the property owner is

22 not obligated to appear, consent, sign or

23 anything. So this is the county's

24 variance and their authority.









1 MEMBER CASSIS: What if the

2 wishes of the owner -- just informational

3 to me.

4 MR. SCHULTZ: Sure.

5 MEMBER CASSIS: What if the

6 wishes of the owner were two feet

7 different from what they are asking for

8 or five feet? I mean, shouldn't these

9 people be even informed, requested or

10 asked their opinion?

11 MR. SCHULTZ: Again, through

12 the Chair. They clearly are informed.

13 The county gives them notice, and I

14 believe we give them notice when we mail.

15 This is in litigation; so there is

16 ongoing --

17 MEMBER CASSIS: That's why I'm

18 asking these questions.

19 MR. SCHULTZ: There is ongoing

20 communications. I believe they are fully

21 aware of this, or as aware as they need

22 to be legally.

23 And just to be clear, they

24 can -- the property owner can always come









1 in and ask for variance requests.

2 MEMBER CASSIS: And if the

3 litigation goes one way or the other,

4 then this might be moot. I mean, this

5 might be --

6 MR. SCHULTZ: Absolutely.

7 MEMBER SANGHVI: It could be.

8 MEMBER CASSIS: This might be

9 even irrelevant.

10 MEMBER SANGHVI: What a waste

11 of time.

12 MR. SCHULTZ: Possibly.


14 MEMBER SANGHVI: That's how the

15 process works.

16 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Do we have

17 any other discussion?

18 Ms. Martin, take the roll,

19 please.

20 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi?


22 MS. MARTIN: Member Cassis?


24 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger?










2 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe?


4 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Wrobel?


6 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy?


8 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon?


10 MS. MARTIN: Motion passes,

11 seven to zero.

12 MR. ROLLINGER: Thank you very

13 much. If I may approach Mr. Schultz and

14 just get back my 2006 ZBA materials, that

15 would be great.

16 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: The next case

17 on the agenda is Case No. 10-041 for

18 1254 East Lake Drive.

19 The petitioner is requesting

20 six variances for the construction of a

21 new home located at 1254 East Lake Drive.

22 The applicant is requesting a 10-foot

23 front yard setback variance, a 22.06-foot

24 rear yard setback variance, a north side









1 yard setback variance of 10 feet, a south

2 side yard variance setback of 5.29 feet,

3 with a total aggregate variance of both

4 side yards of 15.29 feet, and a lot

5 coverage of 15.1 percent.

6 The property is zoned R-4 and

7 located on lot two in the Supervisor's

8 Plat No. 1 Subdivision located east of

9 East Lake Drive and north of New Court.

10 The existing house is to be or will be

11 demolished. The board granted this

12 request in April of 2006.

13 Is the petitioner here?


15 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Please state

16 your name and address. And if you are

17 not an attorney, please be sworn in.

18 MR. CUMMINGS: My name is

19 Robert Cummings. The address is 1254

20 East Lake Drive in Novi. I am not an

21 attorney.

22 MEMBER IBE: Sir, in Case No.

23 10-041, 1254 East Lake Drive, do you

24 swear or affirm to tell the truth?









1 MR. CUMMINGS: Yes, sir.

2 MEMBER IBE: Thank you.


4 proceed.

5 MR. CUMMINGS: Good evening. I

6 would like to thank the board for their

7 time and consideration tonight.

8 My name is Robert Cummings. I

9 have lived in the City of Novi and Walled

10 Lake for the last 18 years.

11 My purpose tonight is to build

12 a home that will be consistent with the

13 City of Novi, also consistent with the

14 neighborhood at 1254 East Lake Drive and

15 will fit in with that neighborhood.

16 My plan in front of you, which

17 is the same today, was approved in 2006.

18 The reason for not moving forward that

19 day was because of economic reasons. The

20 minutes of that meeting were e-mailed on

21 Monday to the board.

22 In 2006, I'm going to show you

23 a picture of the existing home. This was

24 a picture of the existing home. I did









1 have it torn down that year in 2006. The

2 reason for that, it was a 60-year-old

3 home that had unsettling floors, old

4 plumbing, poor electric. It was

5 aesthetically unpleasing with the house

6 and garage.

7 The garage at that time was

8 five feet from the property line on the

9 east side, and it was two feet from the

10 property line on the south side.

11 In 2006, my neighbor to the

12 north presented and he also commented on

13 the house that it had not been painted in

14 several years, and it was not even

15 regularly maintained as far as the

16 property.

17 My proposed floorplan is 2,459

18 feet. And after speaking with the

19 assessing division here in the city, they

20 have informed me that the average median

21 home in Novi is 2,400 feet. That's why I

22 said in my beginning here I was trying to

23 fit a house within the neighborhood.

24 I believe that you need to have









1 very good relationships with your

2 neighbors. And I recently moved from

3 Walled Lake, on the north side of Walled

4 Lake, the City of Walled Lake. And I had

5 a great relationship with all my

6 neighbors, and I still continue that.

7 I have truly considered the

8 view that my neighbors will have with my

9 current house, especially the two

10 closest. My one neighbor that is on the

11 south side at the address of 1256 is

12 approximately a giant distance of 23

13 feet in front of the home that I'm

14 proposing. The garage that was

15 previously there was two feet off the

16 property line. And I'm now going to --

17 when I get into my request, I will prove

18 why the new garage is better located.

19 Their current garage is five

20 inches from the property line. So by me

21 moving my garage, I will demonstrate how

22 it is a better position for that

23 particular neighbor.

24 My south side on the previous









1 home was three feet from my property

2 line. And the south side of -- that was

3 my south side. The north side of their

4 home was two feet from the property line.

5 So I'm going to prove again that the

6 dimensions I'm going to have are very

7 very good for those neighbors.

8 In 2006, my neighbor to the

9 north favored the project. I have been

10 told that there is a new owner of that

11 house, and I have not had the privilege

12 of meeting that particular individual

13 and/or family.

14 I have been working on this

15 particular house with Matt Furber of

16 Furber Construction, who is a builder

17 that's been a reputable builder in the

18 City of Novi, and he's assisted me on

19 this. And, also, I have hired an

20 architect firm by the name of TK Hallet,

21 who is in Brighton, who has also assisted

22 with putting together what I think is the

23 right plan.

24 You are going to see two









1 surveys in front of you that have been

2 submitted. One of them is what was shown

3 in 2006. Its size is approximately

4 eight-and-a-half by eleven, and the

5 second is a full-scale survey that's

6 approximately two feet by two feet. They

7 are 99 percent the same. There was a

8 quarter-inch change that the city

9 recommended in 2006 that I performed, and

10 I will point that out as that is a side

11 setback, that was the difference between

12 4.71 inches and 5.05 inches. That's --

13 again, I will point that out to you.

14 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Do you happen

15 to have a copy you can put on your

16 overhead?

17 MR. CUMMINGS: Of which one,

18 sir?


20 documentation you are showing us.

21 MR. CUMMINGS: I sure will.

22 This was put in a plan, two by two. I

23 will do as was recommended. I hope it

24 fits. I think we have that.









1 I have a request for two side

2 yard setbacks. The width of my lot is 40

3 feet. I have a size difficulty meeting

4 the 15 and 10 minimums with the 25

5 aggregate. The proposed house of 30 feet

6 in width has been placed as symmetric as

7 possible. I have positioned the house

8 with a minimum of five feet on the north

9 and 5.05 on the south.

10 The current house that was tore

11 down was 27.9 feet in width; I'm

12 asking for 30 feet. It's a difference of

13 two feet. That is the request that

14 covers the side yard setback on the north

15 and the south, and the total aggregate of

16 two side yards.

17 The rear yard has an odd shape

18 on the north side of the lot. What I

19 would like to do is I would like to show

20 an aerial of the lake view. The arrow

21 points to my property. And as you can

22 see, the aerial of the lake view has what

23 I will call a half moon shape on the 22

24 lots that go from the north to the south









1 that are directly on the lake. And the

2 35-foot requirement is met on the south

3 side, which is 48 -- which is 43 feet.

4 As we move to the middle, you

5 can kind of see how the topography of the

6 lake is less as you go from the south to

7 the north. As we move in the middle, we

8 have 28 feet, and as we go to the north,

9 we have 12 feet. If we take an aggregate

10 of those three, we have 28 feet. So we

11 meet the requirement on the south, but as

12 we go north, the picture shows why we are

13 asking for this rear yard setback.

14 The difference that I'd like to

15 point out of the old house to where the

16 new house will physically be is only four

17 feet in size of that rear yard setback.

18 The odd shape of the rear yard

19 also burdens the front yard. The front

20 yard request is 20 feet to give ample

21 potential room for an average sized car,

22 which is generally about 20 feet. The

23 attached garage maintains curb appeal, so

24 I can put items in the garage such as









1 garbage, lawn mowers, edgers and things,

2 so that I can maintain a nice street and

3 have good curb appeal. This eliminates

4 the detached garage that was only five

5 feet off the road, and it was very

6 aesthetically unpleasing. Again, a big

7 difference between five feet and 20 feet,

8 15 feet, that I will be off the road.

9 Persons who are walking, walking their

10 dogs, bicycling, have a much better area

11 in this situation.

12 And as I pointed out

13 previously, my neighbor to the south, now

14 we have more distance. The old garage

15 was only two feet; this is going to be

16 five feet from the property line. And

17 with their garage only five inches from

18 the property line, it does give some room

19 there.

20 The last requested variance is

21 the total lot coverage. And if, again,

22 our attention can go back to the aerial

23 view, I would like to point out that the

24 lot is not as deep as the other lots that









1 are in this 22-lot area. And to be

2 consistent with the other homes, the

3 variance is requested.

4 A home that is done correctly

5 will enhance and beautify the

6 neighborhood, for all the homes on East

7 Lake Drive and for the City of Novi. I

8 pointed out hopefully how this particular

9 home will maintain curb appeal. It will

10 be equal to houses that are in the City

11 of Novi, and how we placed it as best as

12 we feel possible, working with an

13 architect and builder that have worked

14 with a lot of homes in the city, to make

15 it fit and again work for the

16 neighborhood and the city.

17 I want to thank everyone here

18 tonight for your consideration.

19 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you.

20 Is there anyone in the audience who

21 wishes to address the board regarding

22 this case?

23 Please step to the podium.

24 State your name and address. And if you









1 are not an attorney, please be sworn in.

2 MR. HARRIS: My name is Arthur

3 James Harris, II. I am still an active

4 member of the State Bar of Michigan.

5 I would like to put this

6 request in a broader historic

7 perspective. My family bought that house

8 in 1946. We are 1256 East Lake Drive,

9 and we are the south neighbor to

10 Mr. Cummings.

11 If you look back over the plat

12 going back to the late thirties when most

13 of those homes were built, there was a

14 very conscientious objective of trying to

15 maintain the fact that given the

16 curvature of the shore line, that the

17 allocation of ownership space was

18 predicated on enhancing the view for

19 every person who lives on that side of

20 the lake to the maximum extent. A tacit

21 covenant to be sure. And that covenant

22 has been honored for over 70

23 years.

24 What Mr. Cummings wants to do,









1 he is perfectly entitled because he

2 bought the property. And I understand

3 some of what he mentioned about 1254

4 before he demolished the building. But I

5 am deeply concerned about the fact that

6 his plan does fundamental violence to

7 that covenant that has governed the

8 neighborhood and the lake line of the

9 east side of Walled Lake between 1250 and

10 1258.

11 As I say, I have no objection

12 to having him build a house. Now,

13 curiously, we were having extensive

14 interior work done on our house in 2006.

15 I was not privy to the notice of the

16 variances that were filed at that time;

17 that's neither here nor there, but it's

18 true.

19 The other aspect of it is, that

20 in the spirit of talking about being a

21 good community member and neighbor, the

22 fact of the matter is, within three weeks

23 ago, he and I had a conversation when he

24 was there having excavation work done, to









1 determine whether the soil was strong

2 enough to sustain a new structure. And I

3 asked him, "Well, does that mean you are

4 planning to move in here or re-build?"

5 And, "No, not really. I have been

6 looking at other places around the lake,

7 and they aren't too interesting."

8 I would submit to you -- and

9 this isn't Civics 101. If a good

10 neighbor would have had the courtesy at

11 least to come and knock on my door, or

12 even give me a phone call and say, "These

13 are the plans that I have contemplated,

14 and if you would like further

15 explanations, I would be happy to talk

16 through them with you. And this hearing

17 is coming up, and maybe we can find a

18 little more room to work together." That

19 never happened.

20 So, I respectfully ask the

21 board to, at a minimum, table this

22 request until such time as there is an

23 opportunity to either have that

24 consultation, with or without counsel,









1 and see if there is a way that we can do

2 better.

3 What I am suggesting to you in

4 conclusion is the fact that just because

5 you buy a property that was owned by

6 somebody else that was in less desirable

7 repair or maintenance, does not by

8 definition give that new owner the right

9 to carte blanch decide how much land is

10 going to be taken out of the visual line

11 of neighbors both to the north and south.

12 I would submit to you that's the

13 fundamental equivalent of seeking a

14 visual easement at the expense of his

15 neighbors. Thank you.


17 anyone else? Please come forward.

18 MR. GABLE: Brian Gable. I'm

19 the owner of the property just to the

20 north, 1250 East Lake Drive. I am not an

21 attorney.

22 MEMBER IBE: Sir, in Case No.

23 10-041, 1254 East Lake Drive, do you

24 swear or affirm to tell the truth?









1 MR. GABLE: I do.

2 MEMBER IBE: Thank you.

3 MR. GABLE: My wife and I just

4 bought the property at 1250 East Lake

5 Drive two months ago. When we bought our

6 house, the majority of the value of the

7 house that we saw came from the view of

8 the lake. This proposed -- no house

9 existed at that time when we bought the

10 property.

11 As this house is proposed, it

12 would take away part or some of the view

13 to the south. The way the lake is

14 formed, that house would actually stick

15 quite a bit out towards the south end

16 from where our house sits and where our

17 view is.

18 I understand the need to

19 maximize; the property is very narrow. I

20 understand the need to maximize that and

21 go for those variances. My concern is

22 mostly with the rear setback or the

23 setback to the lake. That house would

24 sit quite a bit farther, and our views









1 from our windows all along the west side

2 of the lake looking south would be

3 partially taken up by this new house.

4 And, just for reference, my

5 house is 1,600 square feet and has a much

6 shallower lot than this one is to the

7 street. Thank you.


9 Anyone else wish to address the board?

10 MS. HARRIS: I would like to

11 make a comment. I live at 1256.

12 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Please state

13 your name.

14 MS. HARRIS: I'm Joy Harris;

15 I'm not an attorney.

16 MEMBER IBE: In Case No.

17 10-041, 1254 East Lake Drive, do you

18 swear or affirm to tell the truth?

19 MS. HARRIS: Absolutely.

20 MEMBER IBE: Thank you.

21 MS. HARRIS: I just want to

22 comment, he wants to take this house less

23 than or a little more than 12 feet from

24 the water front. And then it appears









1 that he's going to put a deck on, which

2 is going to require another variance.

3 That says there is a basement, but there

4 are no plans. I haven't seen any plans

5 for a basement; I looked -- I went to the

6 office to check it out. But there is

7 going to be a basement there. How is

8 that going to open out to the lake?

9 He one time said that he was

10 going to concrete the whole back yard, so

11 I went in and made sure he knows where

12 the dividing line is.

13 I am not going to see anything

14 on my view. The view of the lake and

15 these homes is on the right side and the

16 whole house's windows to view the lake.

17 I'm only going to see Mr. Cummings'

18 house. If he's got windows, I'm going to

19 see his bedroom, because he's only going

20 to be four feet from me.

21 I would like to request we have

22 a clearance of the total five feet and no

23 overhang. He's got a two-foot overhang,

24 and he wants to take two feet of that









1 five feet. There isn't going to be much

2 room there.

3 So, from my personal thoughts,

4 I would like to have a clearance of five

5 feet. I would like to have this house

6 moved back. He's got huge space in the

7 rear. It's like he's going to sit on the

8 very front of the water, and everybody

9 else to the left of him is 30 feet from

10 the water, 25 to 30 feet. So he's going

11 to be out of sequence with everyone else

12 no matter what he says. Just come to my

13 house, and I will show you. Thank you

14 very much.

15 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you.

16 Is there anyone else? Seeing none, will

17 the secretary read any correspondence

18 into the record.

19 MEMBER IBE: Yes. Mr. Chair,

20 36 notices were mailed, one objection,

21 zero approvals, seven mail returned.

22 The objection is from Robert

23 Andrews of 1262 East Lake Drive, dated

24 8/30/2010. And it reads, "Rear yard









1 setback is too close to lake. Should be

2 no closer than 25 feet as are majority

3 of homes on the lake. Move home closer

4 to the road."


6 Does the building department or city

7 attorney wish to make any comments at

8 this time?

9 MR. BOULARD: I just wanted to

10 reiterate that the -- there is -- in your

11 file there is a copy of the plan the

12 petitioner referred to with the

13 dimensions, correct dimensions on it.

14 Also, there is in your file a copy of

15 those minutes that he referred to that

16 were e-mailed earlier in the week.

17 And I -- just because the

18 application was similar to the one

19 previously, I wanted to verify that the

20 existing building and footage are gone?

21 MR. CUMMINGS: Say that again,

22 please.

23 MR. BOULARD: The existing

24 buildings and footings have been removed?









1 MR. CUMMINGS: Yes, sir.


3 do you have anything?

4 MR. SCHULTZ: I do not.


6 At this time I will refer this matter to

7 the board for discussion. Ms. Skelcy.

8 MEMBER SKELCY: You know, I

9 happen to live on the lake, and I do my

10 jog around that part, as many times as I

11 can a week. And I have concern, quite

12 frankly, with the rear setback being 22

13 feet. That's quite a large setback that

14 you are requesting.

15 And it's a great piece of

16 property. Every time I run by it, I wish

17 I could buy it because it's so beautiful;

18 you have a great view of the lake over

19 there. But I really have a concern with

20 that. And I wanted to let you know, if

21 you are going to be impinging on your

22 neighbors' views of the lake, that's

23 going to be a problem.

24 And contrary to what you said









1 earlier, it doesn't seem like you have,

2 you know, worked well with the neighbors.

3 Because they are here today wondering why

4 you haven't talked to them and kind of

5 worked out the issues with them. So I

6 just want to let you know at this point I

7 could not vote in favor of this variance

8 due to this rear setback.

9 MR. CUMMINGS: Can those -- can

10 those particular questions be

11 re-addressed that they mentioned?

12 MEMBER SKELCY: I'm sorry?

13 MR. CUMMINGS: Can the comments

14 that the three individuals made be

15 addressed?

16 MR. SCHULTZ: Sure, they can.

17 You can either -- he can do it in

18 response to the question, or you can give

19 him time at the end.

20 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: We'll give

21 you time at the end.

22 MR. CUMMINGS: Thank you.


24 Cassis.









1 MEMBER CASSIS: Question. You

2 said you are going to have a 2,400 square

3 feet house?

4 MR. CUMMINGS: Yes, sir.

5 MEMBER CASSIS: And you said

6 the average of the home in Novi is 2,400

7 square feet?


9 MEMBER CASSIS: Believe me,

10 many of those subdivisions in Novi have

11 smaller homes. This, Mr. Chairman, this

12 lot on the lake, just like all of the

13 others around the lake there, cannot be

14 measured, in my opinion, by what the

15 average of a subdivision home in Novi is.

16 I think a home or a house to be

17 built on a lake frontage, as these

18 neighbors have said, has two dimensions.

19 Number one, the setbacks and the size of

20 the house. But, very important, as the

21 former lawyer has mentioned, the view of

22 the lake. That is an amenity that is

23 worth money. It's worth exposure to the

24 lake, which an average subdivision person









1 doesn't even have relevance to this kind.

2 My suggestion to the gentleman

3 here, petitioner, is don't misunderstand

4 us. We want you to build a beautiful

5 home. In fact, many of the other former

6 petitioners that came before us and

7 expanded or built new homes around that

8 lake have done so very tastefully, but

9 appropriately, and with negotiations and

10 good, above-the-board dealings with their

11 neighbors.

12 So, with -- I think, in my

13 opinion, I'm talking about myself, is

14 that we are willing to entertain a larger

15 house to sit there. But I think it's

16 oversized in this case, and the setback

17 to the lake should be respected, because

18 the neighbors will be suffering their

19 economic advantage. And, in fact,

20 whatever advantage they have, the view of

21 the lake will be compromised.

22 So, I will not be going along

23 with this kind of drawing or petition

24 because of the size of the house.









1 Surely, he can have a smaller house or

2 smaller garage. Or situate the house in

3 such a way as to set back more away from

4 the lake so that to respect the

5 neighbors' view.

6 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

7 MR. CUMMINGS: Chairperson, can

8 I address Mr. Cassis?

9 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: We will let

10 you respond at the end. Anyone else have




14 Gedeon.

15 MEMBER GEDEON: I guess I would

16 prefer more question and answer, if

17 that's okay. Can I direct questions?


19 MEMBER GEDEON: Just since it's

20 been addressed by some of the other board

21 members. Can you just state why you are

22 choosing to do the rear setback and front

23 setback the way they are as opposed to

24 simply moving the whole house and garage









1 forward, closer to the road?

2 MR. CUMMINGS: To answer your

3 question, the old house, the difference

4 of the old property line to the new

5 property line is approximately four feet.

6 And that's seemingly, at this particular

7 time, the comment that is being addressed

8 by us. I don't think that four feet from

9 the old house to the new house is a great

10 burden on the view.

11 To answer further your

12 question, the neighbors to the south at

13 1256 is 23 feet in front of my house.

14 That is a long way. The beauty of this

15 lake is facing west. And with their 23

16 feet in front of me, there is not even

17 discussion on how I can be burdening

18 their view of the west.

19 I do understand the comment

20 that was made on the north. But if we

21 take a look at where my house is on the

22 farthest back side to where their north

23 windows are, the north part of their

24 house that faces is still a good 15









1 feet in front of mine.

2 I would like to address the

3 current board member, Mr. Cassis, that

4 the difference of houses is not that

5 much. And that particular view, I just

6 want an honest opinion. I don't think we

7 are depleting them.

8 Again, I understand the

9 neighbor at 1250's comments; I respect

10 those comments. And, again, we are only

11 talking four feet on the south side.

12 Someone commented here the beauty of this

13 neighborhood is the north side. So we

14 know the west sunsets are the best view,

15 and the north side as has been commented

16 is the view, also.

17 My neighbor on the north side,

18 I am not competing against a west or

19 north. And I do understand that they

20 were not here in 2006. I understand

21 that. I'm only taking four feet from

22 what they could have had if I had the

23 previous house.

24 And to take all the items I









1 mentioned to beautify the old house to

2 the new house and the neighborhood, that

3 is where I have communicated with the

4 architect and the builder that I have.

5 So we are talking a difference of four

6 feet on that side. And I wanted to

7 re-explain the neighbor to the south view

8 and the neighbor to the north view. That

9 would be answering your question at this

10 time.

11 And I will save my other

12 comments as Chairperson said for later.

13 Please continue your comments.


15 understand that a 40-foot lot, there is

16 only so much you can do on a 40-foot lot.

17 I guess one other question that I have,

18 one of the comments had to do with a land

19 covenant regarding the rear setback

20 allegedly. Can you speak to that? Are

21 you aware of any covenants on the

22 property that would restrict your ability

23 to build this?

24 MR. CUMMINGS: I think going









1 back 70 years, none of us are going to be

2 able to define that. I guess if there is

3 such a covenant, I would like to see it.

4 It does sound more like a legal matter

5 that maybe we can ask our legal

6 individual.

7 MEMBER GEDEON: I think it

8 would be something you would have to have

9 your own attorney.

10 MR. CUMMINGS: To answer your

11 question, no, I don't think there is any

12 covenant that exists on this lake. I

13 have lived on this lake -- I lived on

14 this lake starting in 1997. And there

15 may be no one that knows this lake better

16 than I do. I lived on the west side, the

17 north side, now I'm on the east side. So

18 the answer to your question, a covenant,

19 I will say defiantly no.

20 MEMBER GEDEON: I would also

21 add I don't think it's within this

22 board's jurisdiction to enforce

23 covenants; I was just wondering if you

24 were aware of it.









1 MR. CUMMINGS: I appreciate the

2 question.

3 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Anyone else?

4 Member Krieger.

5 MEMBER KRIEGER: Would you be

6 willing to reconsider your request for

7 your rear yard setback?

8 MR. CUMMINGS: What would you

9 suggest?

10 MEMBER KRIEGER: I'm not the

11 one petitioning.

12 MR. CUMMINGS: I understand.

13 Do you feel the four feet difference in

14 the house is that much of a burden for

15 the other --

16 MEMBER KRIEGER: I'm asking if

17 you would reconsider.

18 MR. CUMMINGS: If I had to, the

19 four feet would be a topic of discussion,

20 to answer your question.

21 MEMBER KRIEGER: Okay. Thank

22 you.


24 questions? I have one quick question.









1 What is the proposed height above grade

2 of the new house? I can't read it; it's

3 kind of small.

4 MR. CUMMINGS: I do not have

5 the exact answer to that.

6 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Just give me

7 a ballpark.

8 MR. CUMMINGS: We have an

9 eight-foot form in the basement, and I

10 guess I might have some help here from

11 Mr. Boulard. We have an eight-foot form

12 in the basement, and we have a main level

13 and a second level.

14 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Roughly from

15 the roof line from the second level up,

16 how high is that roughly?

17 MR. CUMMINGS: I think that we

18 have nine-foot ceilings. So I would say

19 we have a nine-foot ceiling on each

20 level.


22 the previous house that was taken down,

23 was that a one-story home?

24 MR. CUMMINGS: That was -- put









1 the picture back in. That was a -- it

2 did have an upper level.

3 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Bottom line,

4 this house you propose putting here would

5 be much taller than the previous house

6 that was there, correct?

7 MR. CUMMINGS: I would say it's

8 going to be taller. If there was a main

9 floor in the old house and an upper

10 level, that there is definitely going to

11 be a little higher level, upper level,

12 than the old house.


14 right. Those are the only questions I

15 have. If you want to address any issues

16 brought up before, we'll listen to them

17 at this time.

18 MR. CUMMINGS: Our first

19 individual, I respect his comments. We

20 did apply for this particular variance in

21 2006, and he did not show any interest.

22 I respect that, also.

23 I would have thought the other

24 two sides of discussion, that he would









1 have felt it was important recently

2 because we were -- I was going after the

3 same variances. I thought he was on

4 board. We had not had a discussion. In

5 the four years I have been there, I have

6 spoken with him a number of times, and

7 he's not communicated he had any issues

8 with that. I do respect his comments.

9 On our third person, there is

10 an overhang that's on the south side that

11 is a fireplace, and that overhang is two

12 feet; that is a fireplace. Mr. Boulard

13 and I have spoken about that. That can

14 be eliminated completely or re-drawn out.

15 That the third individual who had the

16 request of the five foot, that would be

17 maintained.

18 And, again, I think on both the

19 first and third individual, I would move

20 the garage north so there would be more

21 distance between our houses. I moved

22 also the house further north so there

23 would be more distance. And it appears

24 as if we have a four-foot question on the









1 rear.

2 I would request that the board

3 would look at four feet is not going to

4 impact much of the view of what was

5 previously there.


7 Cassis.

8 MEMBER CASSIS: Yeah. I just

9 wanted to mention, Mr. Cummings, that did

10 you at all approach your neighbors and

11 say, "Look, here's what I'm doing. I

12 hope we can work together"? Did you do

13 that?

14 MR. CUMMINGS: I have tried to

15 communicate with my neighbors to the

16 north. I don't know if they have just

17 moved in or not there. I knocked on

18 their door several times, and I left a

19 couple notes on their door. Again, as I

20 stated earlier --


22 gathering here is that they are willing

23 to work with you. I mean, they mentioned

24 that. And all you needed to do was just









1 say, "Look, I want to do this if can we

2 work together."

3 I think you have a point here

4 that if you build a beautiful home, the

5 value of their homes will appreciate, so

6 they are not going to stop you, if I may

7 suggest, from really building a nice

8 quality home. If you just approach them

9 and it makes -- make some amends or talk

10 to them and see what they -- you know.

11 MR.CUMMINGS: That's a very

12 good idea; I respect that. I have spoken

13 with both my neighbors to the south many

14 times; they never pointed out, again,

15 they had a problem with the past plans.


17 suggestion.

18 MR. CUMMINGS: I completely

19 agree. That's why I stated before that I

20 think neighbors need to be close. You

21 are going to live and breathe next to

22 someone for five, 10, 20 years, and I did

23 not know they would even have an

24 objection.









1 Again, the ball goes both ways.

2 I did not know they would have an

3 objection. There was a time last year I

4 even offered to take them out on my

5 pontoon boat. It did not materialize; it

6 wasn't for any negativity, I think it was

7 the timing.

8 The new neighbors, I have

9 approached them and have not

10 communicated. I have made at least six

11 attempts to go to their home. I look

12 forward to meeting them in the future. I

13 think they are hard workers, because I

14 went there at 9:00 in the morning and

15 6:00 at night, and they aren't there. I

16 did leave a couple messages on their

17 door. I hope you got those. They are

18 business cards, twice, on your door, and

19 I put it right in their doorknob, so I

20 would assume they have gotten it. So

21 there have been efforts, Mr. Cassis, to

22 do exactly that.


24 Anybody else on the board have any









1 questions? Member Sanghvi.


3 comment. Mr. Cummings, from what I hear

4 from the board here, it looks like the

5 way things stand presently are not likely

6 to be acceptable, and maybe you want to

7 think about it and go back to the drawing

8 board and think about your rear yard

9 setback. And maybe consult with your

10 neighbors and everybody and find a

11 solution to the problem. And maybe you

12 want to come back again with a different

13 plan than what you have presented at this

14 time.

15 This is just my personal

16 feeling. And I don't know how the board

17 is going to vote, but I have a feeling

18 that the way it stands, I don't think

19 it's likely to fly. Thank you.

20 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you.

21 Member Skelcy.

22 MEMBER SKELCY: I just want to

23 reiterate what Member Cassis said. Your

24 neighbors aren't objecting to a beautiful









1 home; they just want some compromise,

2 which I think is always a good thing with

3 neighbors. So that you can get what you

4 want, and they can get what they want, as

5 well.


7 you. Anything else? You have the option

8 at this time if you want us to proceed

9 with a vote on this matter as is, we can

10 table it, discuss it. It's your choice.

11 MR. CUMMINGS: All right. I

12 think I will take the board member's

13 suggestion to my left, to my closest

14 left, to table this. And I appreciate

15 the time and consideration of the board

16 this evening.


18 MEMBER IBE: Sure. In Case No.

19 10-041, 1254 East Lake Drive, I move,

20 based on the petitioner's request, that

21 we table this to December? November?

22 MR. CUMMINGS: Do we have an

23 October alternative?

24 MS. MARTIN: No, we would have









1 to re-publish. Well, we could.

2 MR. BOULARD: I guess in order

3 to -- if there were any changes to the

4 variances other than a lesser amount, we

5 would have to re-publish them by Friday

6 in the paper in order to meet the

7 timelines for the October meeting. So I

8 guess the question is do you think that

9 allows you enough time? Otherwise --

10 MR. CUMMINGS: I would agree

11 with what I think the consensus is. It

12 does seem that November -- it seems like

13 it will -- if there is a change in

14 architect plans, they will not be ready

15 by Friday.

16 MR. BOULARD: If I may, I will

17 be happy to help try to, you know, find a

18 way we can work with what's been

19 published. But, without knowing for

20 sure, I wouldn't want to jeopardize the

21 re-hearing.


23 you.

24 MEMBER IBE: The motion is that









1 this be tabled to November, 2010?

2 MR. CUMMINGS: Yes, sir.

3 MEMBER IBE: Thank you.



6 have a motion and second. Any other

7 questions? Can we have a roll, please.

8 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi?


10 MS. MARTIN: Member Cassis?


12 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger?


14 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe?


16 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Wrobel?


18 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy?


20 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon?


22 MS. MARTIN: Motion to table to

23 November 9, 2010, ZBA meeting, passes

24 seven to zero.










2 sir. We have been in session two hours

3 and 45 minutes. I will leave it to the

4 board's discretion to take a five-minute

5 break.

6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, please.

7 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: We'll adjourn

8 for five minutes and start back up at

9 9:50.

10 (Recess taken.)

11 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: I'd like to

12 call the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting

13 to order.

14 We'll resume these proceedings

15 this evening with the next case, Case

16 10-042, 26650 Taft Road, Hayes Trucking.

17 The petitioner is requesting a

18 use variance to allow outdoor storage for

19 a concrete crushing operation. The

20 property is zoned I-1 and is north of

21 Grand River and east of Taft Road.

22 If the petitioner is here,

23 please come forward to the podium. State

24 your name.









1 MR. MEIHN: Good afternoon, or

2 good evening, I guess, is the proper way

3 to say it today. My name is Greg Meihn.

4 I'm an attorney here in Novi. I'm going

5 to be doing a presentation for Lewis

6 Hayes, who is standing here to my right.

7 I doubt that he, other than questions you

8 may have, is going to speak, but I think

9 it would be appropriate at this time to

10 at least swear him in, so to speak, so

11 that we don't have to worry about that

12 problem at the appropriate time.

13 MEMBER IBE: Sir, in Case No.

14 10-042, 26650 Taft Road, do you swear or

15 affirm to tell the truth?

16 MR. HAYES: Yes, sir.

17 MEMBER IBE: Thank you.

18 MR. MEIHN: In the 26 years I

19 have been practicing law, I'm constantly

20 amazed, and I really appreciate -- you

21 may think I'm weird to be able to sit

22 here for three hours and watch the

23 process that goes on. While you may not

24 feel it at this point in time, it's a









1 beautiful process. Whether you like what

2 people bring or don't, it's still -- it's

3 a good process. I am impressed and glad

4 to be here.

5 We are seeking a use variance.

6 I will tell you on the outset that we are

7 also willing to consider, although I know

8 the difficulties involved, you mentioned

9 a temporary permit to allow the

10 completion of a project. And I will

11 explain to you what I'm talking about.

12 This is a piece of property

13 that was originally zoned I-2 in the

14 seventies. Mr. Hayes operated a trucking

15 terminal that had over 32 trucks, 15

16 employees, administrative staff, and

17 continued to run that. Sometime between

18 the 1970s and now, the use changed to an

19 I-1, but he was grandfathered in as an

20 I-2 and continues to operate that

21 particular business.

22 It's a family-owned business

23 that dates back to the thirties with the

24 father and mother had owned it. In fact,









1 I was surprised and pleased to know that

2 the mother had played an instrumental

3 part in the continued operation of this

4 business all the way through and until

5 the eighties, something that -- something

6 that I, again, was impressed with, given

7 what type of world we lived in in the

8 thirties.

9 In 2008, the world changed, as

10 we all know it in a different way. I'm

11 not talking about a 911-type of change,

12 but some of the businesses that have been

13 long-term residents in Novi changed for

14 them. The real estate market was the

15 first to hit. The next that followed was

16 the commercial market. And now we are

17 running into yet a third problem, and

18 that is somehow in some way, I'm not

19 making any political statement, the

20 (inaudible) projects are not coming out

21 as they expected, through the present

22 administration.

23 As a result of that, in 2008,

24 Mr. Hayes, who had a 1.4 million dollar









1 mortgage on the piece of property, was

2 forced to make a decision. And he made

3 that decision by essentially selling 30

4 of his trucks, getting rid of all but two

5 of his employees to, you know, make it

6 through the tough times that still exist

7 today in terms of the building and

8 residential construction industry.

9 He is hanging on. He saw an

10 opportunity in 2009 to take his property

11 and turn it into a recycling of concrete.

12 He was fortunate enough to appear and get

13 a special temporary permit for that and

14 has operated that business for the year.

15 Unfortunate for him, the I-96

16 Novi Road, which was the project for

17 which he was operating or using his

18 property to store crushed concrete and to

19 work that process was delayed, and that

20 project still is ongoing. And they

21 weren't able to complete the project

22 within the time frame that everybody had

23 expected. And, in fact, everybody had

24 expected to such a degree that there are









1 penalty clauses and other detrimental

2 issues that apply to my client and other

3 people that are involved in this project.

4 Specifically, back charges, back charges

5 are starting to occur.

6 Because, in my discussions with

7 Mr. Boulard, to try to attempt to find a

8 way to this problem, we stopped taking

9 concrete on this property effective

10 September 1st. And as a result of that,

11 the concrete that was supposed to take

12 and crush and move on, pursuant to the

13 I-96 project, which was supposed to be

14 done two months ago, now have to go to a

15 location in a site that's outside of this

16 area. And those charges now are coming

17 back to lay on the shoulders of

18 Mr. Hayes.

19 So we have a problem with

20 Mr. Hayes in the sense that the business

21 as he knew it since 1975 doesn't exist.

22 He's down to two trucks. He has a

23 mortgage payment on that business. He

24 got -- he got savvy and paid off his









1 bills, except for the mortgage. He

2 reduced his staff down to two.

3 He's now brought in another

4 business and is looking to sell his

5 property. I want to talk with you

6 briefly about that. And this crushing

7 business has allowed him to be able to

8 meet his mortgage requirements and his in

9 excess of $35,000 worth of tax money that

10 he pays for this property on a yearly

11 basis.

12 This is his family business.

13 This is his business. And, you know, I'm

14 not being dramatic, when I say there is

15 not another place for him to go. And we

16 all know there is not another use for

17 this property.

18 We almost got lucky in 2009. I

19 want to be very straight with you. If

20 you recall, when Detroit was having its

21 problems of trying to figure out where

22 the auto show was going to go, Rock

23 Financial did enter into a contract with

24 Mr. Hayes to buy his property up.









1 Unfortunately, that didn't go.

2 We have had the property for

3 sale now for a better part of three

4 years; we are actively moving that. The

5 biggest problem that we have when we talk

6 about an alternative use, what can he do

7 differently than this non-conforming use,

8 if I may use it that way, is basically

9 nothing. The only closest offer that

10 he's gotten on this piece of property

11 come from an automotive repair shop, and

12 that offer was in excess of 400,000 less

13 than what is even owed on the mortgage,

14 let alone phase one, phase two, and other

15 reports. Which, when you add all that

16 up, it's probably now over 600,000 of

17 what he owes on it.

18 So, presently, he has done

19 everything that we would have expected

20 him to do in 2008 occurred. His business

21 dried up, which was a trucking business.

22 He sold his trucks to stay alive. He met

23 his payment requirements. He has an

24 ongoing business that's helping him to









1 pay the bills while he continues to try

2 to sell and looks to sell the property.

3 He knows that the long-term solution to

4 this problem is to get out from

5 underneath that problem.

6 But, frankly, we are looking

7 for the help from ZBA to assist him in

8 that transition. We leased -- we put the

9 property up for sale. We are doing

10 everything we can to do so.

11 Our major concern right now, as

12 I've indicated to you, we have a scenario

13 where the present project for which the

14 temporary permit that was issued by you

15 has -- the permit has expired, and the

16 project is still ongoing. And it now

17 presents a significant substantial

18 problem for him in terms of the back

19 charges. That's the first issue.

20 The second issue is that given

21 the area that's around where he's at, a

22 permanent variance is not out of the

23 realm. His use does not have any effect,

24 has not had any effect on the surrounding









1 landowners. It does not have any effect

2 on the surrounding uses. He is a

3 participant in this project.

4 In fact, you may remember, I

5 don't have the date right here, but in

6 the eighties, late to middle eighties, it

7 was the middle eighties, where they were

8 one vote short of moving all of these and

9 having industrial guys over and moving

10 them to the proper place. And if that

11 would have happened, unfortunately, it

12 did not, we wouldn't be here because that

13 use would have allowed him to do what

14 he's doing now.

15 There is no other use for this

16 property at this point. If there were, I

17 would love for somebody to point at it.

18 We have looked everywhere we can from

19 selling the property to leasing the

20 property. And the property's use is what

21 it's being -- its best use is where it's

22 presently now.

23 There is no residential

24 development going on that -- he gets back









1 his trucks. There is no commercial

2 development that's going on. There is

3 some road work that's going on, which

4 he's now a participant of, the I-96. And

5 he has an opportunity to be a participant

6 of the ongoing project that's occurring

7 with the railroad bridge. And, in fact,

8 has been approached for the same concept

9 of using his place to store crushed stone

10 and/or concrete and turn it in.

11 So, I am standing here before

12 you with a scenario that you are looking

13 at an individual that has been a

14 long-time resident of the City of Novi.

15 And I understand that that means a lot

16 but it doesn't mean a lot; it's just a

17 fact. Who has contributed to the taxes

18 here, whose use of the property, while

19 non-conforming pursuant to the master

20 plan, is not having an effect on the

21 surrounding landowners. It's not

22 upsetting the process; it's not anything

23 of that nature.

24 Now, I do understand there is a









1 competitor that is here today that their

2 concern is that, of course, it's far

3 better for them to get rid of Mr. Hayes

4 and not grant this because it's going to

5 improve their business. But I will

6 submit to you that they can't even take

7 the work that Mr. Hayes is presently

8 doing, and that's why they went to

9 Mr. Hayes, and that's why this originally

10 occurred in the first place.

11 So, I would respectfully

12 request -- you have a lot of hard

13 decisions that you made, that the ZBA

14 consider a permanent use. And if that's

15 a little bit too much to bite, that the

16 ZBA consider extending or issuing a

17 temporary permit to allow him to finish

18 this project and figure out what other

19 alternatives that present to him in a

20 timely fashion.

21 Other than that, I thank you

22 for your time.

23 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you.

24 Is there anyone in the audience who









1 wishes to address the board regarding

2 this case? Please come forward. State

3 your name and address. If you are not an

4 attorney, please be sworn in.

5 MR. CAPELLO: Good evening.

6 Kim Capello, 26444 Taft Road. I am an

7 attorney, and this evening I represent

8 Novi Crushed Concrete, the competitor, so

9 to speak, to Mr. Hayes' operation.

10 Perhaps you can straighten out

11 a few of the facts. I'm a bit confused,

12 because at one point in the presentation

13 I heard that Mr. Hayes was operating this

14 as his business, and at another point I

15 heard Mr. Hayes is leasing the property

16 to somebody else that was operating the

17 crushed concrete business.

18 It's unfortunate that -- the

19 Hayeses have been in Novi for a long

20 period of time and operated a trucking

21 company. It's unfortunate they got

22 caught up in the economy like a lot of

23 other businesses. That's not the issue

24 before you tonight.









1 They are here asking for a use

2 variance from the light industrial

3 district to allow them to operate on a

4 permanent basis, an I-2 heavy industrial

5 use.

6 The reasons that they have put

7 on the record today are not substantial

8 evidence to give you the grounds or

9 basis, as you know, to grant the request

10 that they are asking for. The property

11 can reasonably be used for an I-2 use.

12 You all know what the I-2 uses are and

13 what the special land use is under -- I'm

14 sorry, the I-1 district permits and what

15 the special land use under the I-1

16 district permits. I'm not going to go

17 over them, but there is a multitude of

18 uses, starting as less offensive as

19 office and going on.

20 This property is at the corner

21 of Grand River and Taft Road. There is a

22 signal there. They have frontage on both

23 Grand River and Taft Road. They have all

24 utilities available to it. It's a large









1 parcel; you can construct more than one

2 building on it. You can construct a

3 building without any variance whatsoever

4 because of the size of the parcel.

5 Except for the concrete that is

6 now on the property, the property is a

7 flat, easily buildable piece of land.

8 The argument that perhaps because of the

9 economy there is no use for the property

10 is not the right standard for you to

11 apply. If that were the case, any

12 property that's vacant in the city, any

13 property that's for sale in the city,

14 would have a right to come to you and

15 say, "I should get a use variance

16 re-zoning for this property, because in

17 today's economy, there is nothing I can

18 do with it." That's not the right

19 standard. This property in any other

20 economy would have been a great piece of

21 property to develop.

22 We have Providence Hospital

23 just expanded down at Beck Road. We see

24 what's going on at the Town Center. We









1 now see what's going on at the Rock

2 Financial. The temple is right down the

3 street on Taft Road. There is still a

4 lot of development in that area, and this

5 property is part of that development in

6 that area.

7 So, I guess what I say to you

8 is there are not substantial facts on the

9 record for you to have any finding

10 whatsoever for a permanent or temporary

11 use.

12 Whoever is operating that site,

13 knew that the permit that was granted was

14 up September 1st. They continued to

15 accept concrete. They accepted concrete

16 not just from 96, as they propose. They

17 accepted from Telegraph, they accepted it

18 from Orchard Lake, anywhere they could

19 get it. This plant was not put in place

20 just to service 96.

21 My client used to operate their

22 business on Meadowbrook Road between

23 Grand River and Eleven Mile Road. They

24 are a crushed concrete plant there. That









1 property was re-zoned from I-2 to I-1.

2 When they wanted to expand their

3 business, they were not allowed to

4 expand. So they did the right thing.

5 They found some I-2 property, and is now

6 located on Twelve Mile Road east of Beck

7 in I-2 property.

8 It took them two years to make

9 the move from Meadowbrook Road to Beck

10 Road, because what they did is they did

11 it right. What they did, they went in

12 and got site plan approval, which I think

13 I might have been on the planning

14 commission, as you reminded me today. It

15 took her two years to get through the

16 process. I don't think any of you

17 (inaudible) remember how slow that

18 process was. It took them two years, but

19 they did it right. They had to go

20 through site plan approval, they fenced

21 their yard, they put up landscaping.

22 They did everything that they were

23 required to do and bore that additional

24 expense to do that. And now to let a









1 temporary company come in and not comply

2 with any of the requirements is unjust

3 and unfair.

4 If you were to grant them the

5 permanent relief they are asking for,

6 what you would be doing is allowing them

7 to have an I-2 use without complying with

8 any ordinance requirements whatsoever

9 with regard to landscaping, setbacks,

10 use, anything at all. A competitor, we

11 would not be a competitor; it would be

12 unfair.

13 My client did a lot of business

14 with Dan's Excavation, who is doing the

15 96 job, who is doing the Telegraph Road

16 job before the temporary use permit was

17 granted, permitted this company; they can

18 operate cheaper. So, of course, they are

19 going to sell the product cheaper.

20 I see in their application that

21 they have made the argument that they

22 should be grandfathered in because they

23 had an I-2 use when it was re-zoned to

24 I-1. I don't need to tell your counsel,









1 and I certainly don't need to tell you,

2 merely because you have an I-2 use is not

3 automatically grandfathered in for all

4 I-2 uses. What we need to do is look at

5 the use they had; they had a trucking

6 company.

7 I provided you with photos of

8 what's out there today. I also provided

9 you with aerials that I got from Oakland

10 County. When you looked -- I'm sure the

11 administration has provided you with the

12 aerials, also, but when you look at the

13 aerials, all that were there were trucks;

14 it was a trucking company. And the

15 trucking company, the way it operated its

16 business, it would go off-site, pick up

17 materials off-site. It would deliver

18 them off-site. That's how the trucking

19 company worked.

20 Now, on occasion, they may have

21 had some materials that were temporarily

22 left on-site. Nothing that you see

23 there. So that's the trucking company.

24 If anything would be grandfathered in, it









1 would be the trucking company. They have

2 gone well beyond operating as a trucking

3 company. They have constantly and

4 permanently accepted materials on site.

5 They have stored broken concrete; they

6 have stored crushed concrete.

7 Also, even beyond that, when

8 you think about what they are doing, it's

9 a manufacturing company, and it's an

10 outdoor manufacturing company. What they

11 are doing is taking broken concrete,

12 crushing it and manufacturing it into

13 various degrees or levels of gravel that

14 are used for bases of roads and other

15 things.

16 They are not a company -- I'm

17 sorry, they are not a trucking company

18 now. What they are doing now is

19 definitely not grandfathered in from

20 their trucking company.

21 One last point. It's our

22 belief, and they admitted that Hayes sold

23 almost all of his equipment. And,

24 unfortunately, I had a lot of clients









1 that did business with Hayes. There is

2 not one of my clients that has said

3 anything bad about the Hayes Trucking

4 Company.

5 He was forced to sell. He

6 abandoned any I-2 use he had back in 2008

7 when he sold his company. The intent

8 when he sold his trucks was to no longer

9 operate as a trucking company. I don't

10 think he can come in front of you and

11 say, after 2008, after he sold almost

12 every one of his trucks, that he still

13 intended to operate as a trucking

14 company. He abandoned that I-2 use. And

15 if there was any grandfathering for

16 trucking alone, that had been terminated

17 at that point.

18 I'm asking you to deny it

19 permanently. At least make him go

20 through the right process. If they want

21 to use an I-2 use, make them go through

22 the re-zoning process. Let the master

23 plan committee, planning commission, city

24 council, make that decision. It









1 shouldn't be made at the Zoning Board of

2 Appeals.

3 In regard to allowing them to

4 continue, they knew their permit was up

5 September 1st. It's not my fault, it's

6 not your fault, it's their fault they

7 have a yard full of materials that they

8 can't deliver. Thank you.


10 there anyone else who wishes to address?

11 MS. COPELAND: My name is Rose

12 Copeland, 46900 West Twelve Mile. I

13 represent Copeland Paving and Novi

14 Crushed Concrete, and I'm not an

15 attorney.

16 MEMBER IBE: Raise your right

17 hand, please. Ma'am, in Case No. 10-042

18 26650 Taft Road, do you swear or affirm

19 to tell the truth?

20 MS. COPELAND: I do.

21 MEMBER IBE: Thank you.

22 MS. COPELAND: Being up here is

23 not easy for me. My husband who could

24 not be here tonight, he's actually on a









1 job, and I will try to handle this if I

2 can.

3 Both Novi Crushed Concrete and

4 Copeland Paving, like Hayes, we have been

5 here 40 plus years in the City of Novi.

6 We are a three-generation business. My

7 boys are involved. My husband and I, we

8 have been married 33 years. My

9 father-in-law, it's a family-owned and

10 operated business; it's been that way

11 forever. My husband and I have lived in

12 the city for 25 years.

13 We, through these businesses,

14 ourselves, we supported this city in many

15 ways. I coached Little League baseball;

16 we donate many many donations. I don't

17 need to get into them all. We supported

18 the city greatly, all the years we have

19 been here. Lived here and done business

20 in the city.

21 I remember well before we were

22 married, 275 wasn't even built yet. We

23 used to ride horses back in there, so we

24 got a long history here, also, and I









1 respect that he has, also.

2 Mr. Capello covered some topics

3 I was going to; I won't reiterate on

4 those. I can tell you that for Dan's

5 Excavating, we supplied material for the

6 I-96 project all last year. We had no

7 problems supplying all the material and

8 meeting all their needs. There was never

9 a complaint or problem.

10 Basically, again, this isn't my

11 area. My son and my husband handled most

12 of this, but bidding and pricing is

13 generally how it's done with Dan's

14 Excavating.

15 We have complied with materials

16 they need. We have had them all

17 processed and produced. It's 21-AA, 4-G

18 large and sand; we got it all. So we can

19 comply. That's an untrue statement that

20 says that we cannot comply with what

21 their needs are. We did it all last

22 year, and we could have continued this

23 year.

24 We have not sold any 21-AA to









1 them this year. However, Dan's

2 Excavating has been in there for material

3 they don't have, which is large material.

4 They are still doing some business with

5 us, but they don't need much of it. It's

6 just the minimal use that they need. And

7 they have come in and hauled from us for

8 that use.

9 So, I'm going leave it at that.

10 I'm going to respectfully ask you not to

11 approve this variance in order for fair

12 competition. I think they should have to

13 meet the same property requirements as we

14 have had to meet over the years. Again,

15 we got the heavy industrial property, you

16 know, and that's basically all I'm going

17 to say, and I thank you for your time.

18 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you.

19 Anyone else who wishes to address the

20 board? Seeing none, will the secretary

21 read any correspondence into the record?

22 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, 27

23 notices mailed, zero responses, six mail

24 returned.










2 Does the building department or city

3 attorney wish to add anything at this

4 time?

5 MR. BOULARD: Just a couple

6 comments. One, I wanted to clarify that

7 the temporary use approval was --

8 actually, there was two approvals, one

9 for one year on developed parcels, and

10 there is (inaudible) 12 months that those

11 are allowed with a maximum of one

12 renewal. So this is the second year of

13 that. Just for the sake of

14 clarification.

15 Also, as you know, on the staff

16 report, if a variance were granted for

17 this use, the site plan requirements

18 would still not be waived. Site plan

19 approval for the city planning commission

20 and possibly city council, depending on

21 the requirements and so on, would need to

22 be done. They would be completed, and

23 the site would need to be developed in

24 compliance with the ordinances before the









1 use could legally begin.

2 So, I hope that clears that up.

3 I will be happy to answer any

4 questions.


6 this time I will refer this matter to the

7 board for discussion. Ms. Skelcy.


9 question for the attorney for Mr. Hayes.

10 MR. MEIHN: Yes.

11 MEMBER SKELCY: So, it's my

12 understanding that the temporary renewal

13 expired on September 1st.

14 MR. MEIHN: That's correct.

15 MEMBER SKELCY: That was like I

16 think a Friday, or something, or

17 Thursday. And yet you continued to

18 operate even after the temporary permit

19 expired. Does your client not have a

20 regard for the law?

21 MR. MEIHN: Oh, absolutely. In

22 fact, the operation -- continuation of

23 operation was after I had -- again,

24 Mr. Boulard did not approve anything.









1 But after I had had discussions with him

2 with regard to what the requirements were

3 going to be to get that material off the

4 property to be in compliance.

5 So, yes, he had regard for the

6 law. That's why the material was

7 crushed. That's why the notice that went

8 out of violation is going to be complied

9 with for that property.

10 MEMBER SKELCY: But you have

11 continued to operate even through today?

12 MR. MEIHN: That is correct.


14 temporary permit says you really

15 shouldn't be.

16 MR. MEIHN: It's one of those

17 rock in a hard places. If you don't get

18 the material off the land, then you've

19 got another set of problems.

20 MEMBER SKELCY: Shouldn't you

21 have been planning to get it off the land

22 by September 1st?

23 MR. MEIHN: I would assume.

24 MEMBER SKELCY: Since you knew









1 of date?

2 MR. MEIHN: Absolutely. Should

3 they have done that, absolutely.


5 didn't?

6 MR. MEIHN: Right. That was a

7 failing on Mr. Hayes' part of recognizing

8 when this thing came to an end.


10 question is: Is it true that you are

11 getting cement from areas other than the

12 I-96 project?

13 MR. MEIHN: Did we get cement

14 earlier during this 12-month period of

15 time, yes.

16 MEMBER SKELCY: When was the

17 last time you got cement from an area

18 other than the I-96 project?

19 MR. MEIHN: I couldn't tell you

20 with good faith.

21 MEMBER SKELCY: Can your

22 client?

23 MR. MEIHN: He couldn't either,

24 because he's not running the operation.









1 MEMBER SKELCY: So it is being

2 leased?

3 MR. MEIHN: Yes. If you

4 will -- how it's being operated, he has a

5 trucking company, Mr. Hayes. He has now

6 two trucks instead of 32, but he has a

7 trucking company. He is working in

8 concert with Mid Michigan, who is doing

9 the crushing, to deal with the hauling,

10 crushing and that process. So,

11 absolutely, and that's why I mentioned in

12 my presentation it's a business he's

13 running, and it's a lease that he's

14 doing.

15 MEMBER SKELCY: You are aware

16 that the use -- to change the use has

17 really high standards? Are you aware of

18 that?

19 MR. MEIHN: I'm very aware of

20 that.

21 MEMBER SKELCY: And, you know,

22 I drove by there; you guy are still

23 operating. I drove by there on Saturday;

24 I wanted to see what was going on. You









1 are still operating even though the

2 temporary permit had expired. I found

3 that very disconcerting. I think it's an

4 eyesore from the road, that all that

5 gravel or broken cement is sitting there.

6 I mean, it's very clearly visible; it's

7 really an eyesore.

8 And, you know, personally, I

9 have to favor what the staff is

10 recommending, that we move towards a

11 progress on the master plan for land use.

12 And I really don't think you met your

13 burden for the variance, for the use, for

14 the change of the use of the property.

15 It's a very high standard.

16 I think it was pointed out by

17 one of the people who spoke, Mr. Capello,

18 that there really aren't unique

19 circumstances or physical conditions.

20 It's not narrow, it's not shallow, the

21 shape isn't weird or unusual. Water,

22 topography and other similar physical

23 conditions, there is really nothing like

24 that there at that particular property.









1 MR. MEIHN: I would agree with

2 you that the ones that you mentioned

3 don't exist. But we are just not stuck

4 with those in terms of conditions for

5 consideration of the variance. There is

6 also the condition of a hardship, which I

7 think we have met.

8 MEMBER SKELCY: What is that

9 hardship?

10 MR. MEIHN: The hardship is

11 that the business that existed there as

12 was known in 1975 doesn't exist in the

13 form that it existed in 1975.


15 totally understand that with the economy.

16 But, for the use variance, it has to be

17 unique circumstances of the property

18 involved.

19 MR. MEIHN: It does.

20 MEMBER SKELCY: And I don't see

21 that here being shown by you or your

22 client.

23 MR. MEIHN: Well, I would

24 respectfully disagree that it has to be









1 limited to the unique circumstances of

2 the property in the sense that a hard --

3 every hardship is unique to that

4 particular piece of property. And this

5 particular piece of property has no other

6 use, despite fellow counsel indicated

7 there is all these uses, office buildings

8 and residential. I would really love for

9 that to be an option for here. If it

10 were an option, it would have occurred

11 three years ago. It would have occurred

12 two years ago. It would have occurred

13 one year. Rock Financial isn't doing any

14 anything in terms of that.

15 MEMBER SKELCY: Why isn't that

16 something that you can pursue?

17 MR. MEIHN: We have been

18 pursuing it for three years.

19 MEMBER SKELCY: And, again,

20 that has nothing to do with regard to the

21 fact that you can't sell the land. It

22 has to do with unique circumstances of

23 the physical conditions at the

24 property.









1 MR. MEIHN: Absolutely.

2 MEMBER SKELCY: Again, you

3 haven't presented me with any information

4 that would show anything in that vein.

5 MR. MEIHN: I understand that

6 the list that you have provided do not

7 exist in this case in terms of the unique

8 circumstances. Our argument is similar

9 to the argument that was granted when the

10 temporary permit was issued. If you look

11 back at the basis for which that permit

12 was issued, somebody, a majority, found

13 that this type of use on this piece of

14 property was an acceptable use for this

15 period of time. I didn't make that

16 decision.

17 And I share your views. I

18 would think that any concrete crushing

19 location place is an eyesore no matter

20 where you are at. I would agree with

21 you. It's not something that I want to

22 see. It's that old adage, not in my back

23 yard. I'm not arguing with you in that

24 regard. What I'm arguing with you is









1 that a year ago you said he can do this.

2 Forget for the moment, because

3 you are right, also, on being

4 appropriately, if you are not pissed, at

5 least angry, why did you continue to

6 operate when you knew what was going on?

7 He made a mistake. That's not something

8 that he pays attention to as well as he

9 should. That's primarily why I got

10 involved in this matter within the last

11 week, because I don't think it's his

12 forte to do this. Those aren't excuses,

13 and those are not defenses, and those are

14 not reasons for you to grant anything,

15 but they are just the facts I'm trying to

16 portray so there is at least an

17 understanding.

18 But the reasons for granting

19 the temporary permit a year ago still

20 exist here today. And all I'm asking for

21 is, as Mr. Boulard says, granting of a

22 variance. Permanent variance today does

23 not get us anywhere other than back to

24 having to go through the whole process of









1 complying, as fellow counsel had

2 indicated, with all those requirements.

3 That's all I'm asking, is for him an

4 opportunity to be able to take what now

5 appears to be a business that he can

6 shift to and make it work. The

7 alternatives aren't there.

8 MEMBER SKELCY: You are asking

9 for a permanent change, not a temporary

10 permit. Your request in front of the

11 board is for a permanent change; it's not

12 for temporary.

13 MR. MEIHN: I understand and,

14 unfortunately, I did not do that. And

15 that's why I said in my beginning

16 presentation to you, that I would

17 consider -- I would highly consider a

18 temporary use, at a minimum, to allow us

19 to finish the I-96 project so the back

20 charges aren't something that's piled on

21 top of him. That will give us time to do

22 the complete attempt to re-zone the

23 property.

24 Or, grant the variance, grant









1 anything. We still can't operate. We

2 still have to go through the whole

3 process of the re-zoning issues. Either

4 way, I'm confronted with what I was

5 handed, and I'm trying to find a

6 mechanism that works in terms of

7 compliance with what you need and with

8 what the present situation presents to

9 me.

10 The competitions are going to

11 have to face the situation somewhere down

12 the line. I don't know how to address

13 that any other way.

14 MEMBER SKELCY: I have no other

15 questions. Thank you.

16 MR. MEIHN: Thank you.


18 Member Krieger.

19 MEMBER KRIEGER: I appreciate

20 the fiscal responsibility of Mr. Hayes by

21 reducing trucks. But there is a question

22 here of that if he's leasing it, who

23 actually owns the property? So, my

24 question would be to the -- and then,









1 also, backtrack a second. Is that for

2 I-1 and I-2 then, if it is an eyesore and

3 not in my back yard, but if you have an

4 I-1, you are going to landscape it so

5 that it is something that is livable.

6 And who is to say if you go past a

7 temporary use variance, that you leave

8 that whole pile of concrete and abandon

9 the whole site altogether?

10 My question would be to

11 Mr. Schultz. If you go from 32 trucks to

12 two trucks, is that -- in 2008, then is

13 that changing the business? Would that

14 change the special permit?

15 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the

16 Chair. I think they are kind of -- I

17 think that's a fact that's not

18 necessarily something that he's relating

19 to his request for this use variance.

20 So, I think Mr. Capello mentioned that he

21 had a previously grand -- non-conforming

22 use of the trucking company. I think the

23 question of going from 32 to two might

24 relate to whether he could re-establish









1 that.

2 MEMBER KRIEGER: Same business?

3 MR. SCHULTZ: Yeah. It might

4 relate to that, but that's not the

5 question that the board is being asked.

6 The board is being asked to, which Mr.

7 Boulard has allowed to happen for the

8 last two years under his special land use

9 approval authority, which is now expired.

10 So he's put aside the 32 trucks and the

11 issue of the trucking business. He wants

12 a permanent use variance to operate the

13 concrete crushing business, not the

14 trucking business.


16 Cassis.

17 MEMBER CASSIS: Thank you,

18 Mr. Chairman. This is a kind of Solomon

19 kind of situation. I have known the fact

20 that Mr. Hayes has been around the area

21 for quite a long time.

22 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Longer than

23 you.

24 MEMBER CASSIS: And he had been









1 a good citizen, which is right and so on.

2 Hard times came in, and hard times come

3 in to everybody. All of us are going

4 through the same hard time.

5 But I've also known the

6 exemplary citizenship of the Copelands.

7 And they were located on Meadowbrook Road

8 in the past. And when the city asked

9 them to move, they did, and at great

10 expense. I believe I was either on the

11 council or on the planning commission at

12 that time, and they came before us. And

13 we went through a very rigorous process.

14 And, in fact, if memory serves

15 me, they came before us on several

16 different issues, and maybe two or three

17 different times to get them through. So,

18 two families here. Good, upstanding and

19 paying their taxes and so on, and it's a

20 difficult process.

21 Now, we are being asked to

22 really push back the master plan

23 backwards. We have just finished a

24 master plan.









1 MR. MEIHN: I understand the

2 work involved in that.

3 MEMBER CASSIS: The eggs have

4 just hatched, and we did.

5 MR. MEIHN: Yes.

6 MEMBER CASSIS: The city wants

7 to move forward in its desire to have the

8 kind of community that we want. And my

9 contention here is, economic problems,

10 yes. But we seek to resolve economic

11 problems in a way that we can manage

12 them.

13 I see trucks driving all over

14 the place and being hired. I mean,

15 Mr. Hayes' specialty is trucking. And

16 trucking is very much in need right now.

17 It's the same ones that are bringing the

18 concrete to this place right now.

19 Trucks.

20 So, I really can't see how he

21 is in such a bind. And I know you are

22 saying he's behind on catching up with

23 his obligations, economically, and so on.

24 That alternative of just crushing









1 concrete and so on is the only solution

2 that Mr. Hayes can come up with?

3 So, on these grounds, and as my

4 colleague has already mentioned there

5 about the violations of continuing the

6 process and so on, we are talking about

7 master plan. We are talking about the

8 same kind of conditions that his

9 competitors are going through. We are

10 talking about if we extend in a very

11 simple way, through the ZBA, allowing him

12 to keep on with the process, and we

13 insist on others to go through the

14 lengthy process of planning commission

15 approval for re-zoning, I think we have

16 just abandoned our responsibility. And,

17 really, use the Solomon philosophy in a

18 very judicious way.

19 So, I would not go along with

20 extending this. I don't know, maybe the

21 mercy of this board might allow him to

22 just finish whatever is there, even

23 though he went beyond the time allotted

24 to him.









1 MR. MEIHN: Yeah.

2 MEMBER CASSIS: Maybe that

3 could be a solution that will be resting

4 with the minds and hearts of this body.

5 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


7 MR. MEIHN: Thank you for your


9 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Anybody else?

10 Member Ibe.

11 MEMBER IBE: Sir, how long

12 would it take to complete whatever is

13 there right now to at least get rid of

14 the materials that you have there?

15 MR. MEIHN: Sixty to 65 days.

16 And what I mean by rid, I want to be

17 forthright and honest. Much shorter to

18 crush the concrete into material. But

19 when you -- because, again, we can talk

20 about grandfathered in. And I have to

21 disagree with fellow counsel, who has

22 been there throughout the process.

23 Material of a great nature and smaller

24 nature on there, to remove that









1 additional material, which I don't think

2 we have to, but let's just play it by the

3 rules and say we do. Now, the crushed

4 material, which may be no different than

5 sand, that's where that additional time

6 frame would be.

7 I expect and I hope, and I

8 have, since I've gotten involved, spoken

9 with Mr. Hayes and explained to him the

10 processes of life, as we see it. And

11 I've spoken with Mid Michigan, and we

12 fully intend to either be in compliance

13 with the notice of violation, or to be a

14 day or two outside of that in terms of

15 the crushing process, so that it's all

16 material.

17 And then we have that argument

18 as to whether that material that's there

19 is grandfathered in from the I-2 previous

20 years. And I will argue and be prepared

21 to show it is, but we intend to get that

22 off, also.

23 If we are not going to get a

24 continued use of this property, we









1 have -- we have very little alternative.

2 I wish we didn't, and maybe Novi Crushing

3 would like this property, but I'm sure

4 they would not. We have to do something

5 with it, and we have to get the property

6 in some other shape if we are going to

7 have any other chance of meeting the tax

8 collector.

9 So, that's why I mention today,

10 65. I intend -- we intend to be done

11 much earlier than that, but I want to be

12 very blunt and honest there are these two

13 parts. And the one part I think,

14 Mr. Boulard, I won't speak for him, but

15 what I think is most concerned about, the

16 second part, he's concerned about, also,

17 but I think I can effectively argue on

18 that one. But we want that out, also.

19 MEMBER IBE: I'm sorry, for the

20 city, obviously, I understand that his

21 time has expired September 1st. And like

22 Member Cassis said, it's almost like a

23 Solomon like way of deciding this matter

24 here. We have materials currently on









1 this property that obviously can't just

2 stay there.

3 Is it possible within your

4 authority and discretion to allow

5 additional time for them to complete

6 whatever process it needs that's required

7 to remove the materials there? Is there

8 something that we can legally do or

9 through your office?

10 MR. SCHULTZ: If I can jump in.

11 You know, obviously, you could kind of

12 see that becoming a question. A number

13 of people mentioned it, and the

14 proponent's counsel asked for that kind

15 of temporary relief. The problem is he

16 alluded to he kind of came in to a

17 request that's set. And it's set right

18 now for a use variance. There is no such

19 thing as a temporary use variance. And

20 the relief that they requested kind of

21 limits you.

22 You don't, as a board, don't

23 have the authority to say, "Well, we are

24 not going to give you the use variance,









1 but we are going give you some other

2 relief."

3 Mr. Boulard gave, after public

4 hearings, the two years of temporary

5 special land use. The proponent could

6 have come here and said, "I want an

7 extension." And at that point, the

8 ordinance kicks in and says, "That's the

9 extent of Mr. Boulard's authority."

10 There could have been a request for far

11 less relief of an extension granted by

12 the board of another year or six months

13 or 60 days. That seems like an option.

14 The problem is, it can't be done tonight.

15 It has to be done, properly advertised;

16 there is a different section of

17 ordinance. It's the kind of thing that

18 maybe -- we keep filling up this October

19 agenda.

20 MR. MEIHN: Thanks, Thomas.

21 MR. SCHULTZ: That if that's

22 where the board is headed, and I don't

23 know if it is. But as an answer to the

24 question, Mr. Boulard couldn't do it, but









1 the board could say to the applicant, "We

2 are interested in your idea of getting

3 the concrete off your property, but we

4 are not going to give you a use variance

5 very likely. And we don't want this to

6 be a long-term thing, so come back to us

7 next month, and we might give you a

8 certain amount of time before you are out

9 of compliance." As an option.

10 MEMBER CASSIS: You can still

11 have the floor, but maybe a different

12 way. Let me ask you if legally, now, has

13 he been cited legally for a violation?

14 Is there a violation?

15 MR. BOULARD: The ordinance --

16 the ordinance states that the --

17 MEMBER CASSIS: Has he been

18 ticketed?

19 MR. BOULARD: He has not been

20 ticketed.

21 MEMBER CASSIS: He has not.

22 MR. BOULARD: The ordinance

23 states you have a number of three days

24 following the expiration of the permit









1 for removal of the equipment operation,

2 the site going back to previous. So,

3 September 1st was I believe was on a

4 Friday. We waited until the next

5 Tuesday, because it was a holiday

6 weekend, before we did an inspection of

7 the site. At that point, the site was

8 not in compliance.

9 The next day we sent out a

10 notice of violation with 14 days from the

11 date of the notice. So by the time it

12 gets through the mail, it's 14 days from

13 the date of the notice to bring the

14 property in compliance. That's where we

15 stand at this point.

16 MEMBER CASSIS: Okay. I'm glad

17 you said that, because -- and to

18 Mr. Schultz, is there a way right now

19 under this 14 days or whatever, that is

20 given to him as a notice, to work through

21 that administrative, for lack of a better

22 word, to use, that not even have to come

23 before us, but the city would supervise

24 his removal of crushing and removing of









1 that stuff for a certain period of time

2 administratively? Or whatever, under

3 jurisdiction of that ticket or that

4 violation? Just a question.

5 MR. SCHULTZ: It's probably not

6 something that we want to --

7 MEMBER CASSIS: To advertise.

8 It's happened before.

9 MR. SCHULTZ: Maybe a better

10 answer would be it wouldn't be anything

11 that this board would order to occur. It

12 would be more of a prosecutorial kind of

13 thing with the district court.

14 MR. MEIHN: Right.

15 MR. SCHULTZ: And every case is

16 different. So, if a ticket gets written

17 and, frankly, I imagine a ticket will be

18 written if there is continued work. You

19 know, every case will be different. And

20 we'll see what happens, but I don't want

21 this to come out the wrong way. It's not

22 up to this board what happens there. So

23 it seems to me the safe thing to do, if

24 that's the sentiment, is to suggest that









1 he might want to be on that next October

2 agenda for some sort of extension of Mr.

3 Boulard's authority. And, you know,

4 between now and then, there may be some

5 more information.

6 I mean, the 60 days may be a

7 complete guess. Our staff might think

8 it's more than 180, and you decide you

9 don't want to do it.

10 MEMBER CASSIS: The reason I'm

11 asking that is I don't think the board

12 wants Mr. Hayes -- I don't know, I may be

13 wrong, to keep accepting more material.

14 MR. SCHULTZ: He should not be

15 accepting anything right now.

16 MEMBER IBE: Period.

17 MEMBER CASSIS: So what I would

18 be saying, under a supervisory kind of

19 administrative kind of thing, they would

20 be able to monitor that, and see to it

21 that he would finish the job there.

22 MR. SCHULTZ: Again, that's

23 kind of a more or less a district court

24 work-out kind of thing. It may or may









1 not happen.

2 In the meantime, whether this

3 board suggests it or not, the proponent

4 can always come to the board in October

5 and say, "Apparently, the use variance is

6 problematic, so I'm going to go in this

7 other direction." He has that ability to

8 recommend it or not.

9 MR. MEIHN: Just to add to what

10 he's saying. I have had a number of

11 these, and, you know, it either gets

12 worked out -- and I know you do not have

13 this authority to do what is called a

14 lesser included offense, so to speak,

15 where you ask for the permanent use, and

16 then you go down to something different

17 because of how it's been positioned here.

18 But the city attorney is

19 exactly correct, that the two ways I

20 guess would be to come back here in

21 October, or it gets worked out through

22 the prosecutorial action in front of the

23 judge, who then has the power to trump

24 most everybody, unless he's going to be









1 appealed by Tom.

2 MR. SCHULTZ: Well, I don't

3 want to argue. I think it's a lot more

4 our discretion than the courts, for the

5 most part, the city's discretion.

6 MR. MEIHN: I would agree with

7 you.

8 MR. SCHULTZ: For a court to

9 order something to occur that's not legal

10 is pretty rare. But, for the city to

11 allow it to happen is a possibility. But

12 I have no idea whether or not that's

13 something that would make sense until you

14 know a lot more about it.


16 questions? Member Sanghvi.

17 MEMBER SANGHVI: My perspective

18 is quite different. Putting off is a

19 slippery slope. And if you decide this

20 is not the right thing to do, the time is

21 now to cut the cord, rather than putting

22 it off and giving other options. So you

23 got to decide once and for all where we

24 all stand and take a stand and go for it.









1 MR. SCHULTZ: Final comment on

2 that. I agree. I was suggesting you

3 either vote on the use variance. However

4 you turn out, you turn out. Or the

5 applicant decides maybe to withdraw that

6 request and try something else less

7 permanent. In which case, that would be

8 up to him.

9 MR. MEIHN: Given the sentiment

10 of the board, that would be my request.

11 MEMBER IBE: To withdraw?

12 MR. MEIHN: Yes, sir.

13 MEMBER CASSIS: I agree with my

14 colleague, Dr. Sanghvi. That's why I was

15 trying to twist it in a way.

16 MEMBER SANGHVI: I just want to

17 be very plain without beating around the

18 bush. Let's be honest with ourselves and

19 also them and decide once for all where

20 we all stand.

21 MEMBER IBE: It appears the

22 gentleman has said they wish to withdraw.

23 Is that correct, sir?

24 MR. MEIHN: That is correct.









1 So I can take the option -- just one

2 question I have. Is it this Friday to

3 get on the October board?

4 MS. MARTIN: I need the

5 information as soon as possible, because

6 we have work to do before Friday.

7 MR. MEIHN: Friday is not your

8 day; tomorrow is your day?

9 MS. MARTIN: Yes.

10 MR. MEIHN: Thank you.

11 MR. BOULARD: Tomorrow by noon.

12 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: What do we

13 have to do now?

14 MR. SCHULTZ: A motion to

15 confirm the withdrawal by the applicant.


17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. I make a

18 motion that we accept the request for the

19 removal of the application.



22 motion and a second. Any further

23 discussion? No.

24 Roll please, Ms. Martin.









1 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi?


3 MS. MARTIN: Member Cassis?


5 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger?


7 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe?


9 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Wrobel?


11 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy?


13 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon?


15 MS. MARTIN: Motion passes,

16 seven to zero, to withdraw.

17 MR. MEIHN: Thank you,

18 everybody.

19 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: This brings

20 us to the tenth case of the evening.

21 Case No. 10-043, 1181 West Lake Drive,

22 and 10-044 for 1185 West Lake Drive.

23 The petitioner is requesting

24 use and dimensional variances to allow









1 construction of a shared garage across

2 the property line dividing two separate

3 parcels of land in the front and side

4 setbacks as well as side rear setback

5 variances for proposed porch additions to

6 1185 West Lake Drive.

7 If the petitioner is here,

8 please step forward and state your name

9 and address. And if you are not an

10 attorney, please be sworn in.

11 MR. DISMONDY: Dave Dismondy,

12 1181 West Lake. I'm not an attorney.

13 MEMBER IBE: In Case No. 10-043

14 and 10-044 for 1181 and 1185 West Lake

15 Drive, do you swear and affirm to tell

16 the truth?

17 MR. DISMONDY: I do.

18 MEMBER IBE: Thank you.

19 MR. DISMONDY: In the event my

20 family attorney needs to answer any

21 questions for you, I think he should

22 probably stand up now.


24 them sworn in, too.









1 MR. DISMONDY: Actually, he's

2 an attorney, so he doesn't need to be.

3 She's here for support; she's my mother,

4 she's the adjacent parcel. I don't

5 expect her to have to say much, but if

6 you want to stand up, you are welcome to

7 do so.

8 I will try to keep this brief.

9 This is the fourth time I have been here.

10 I was young and naive when I bought this

11 home about seven years ago now. And so

12 we have done a lot with the property.

13 We are -- initially, I thought

14 it was going to be a heck of a lot easier

15 than it's been, but working with

16 Ms. Martin and Mr. Boulard and their

17 staff, we are doing things the right way.

18 So, to begin, it's really

19 important if we could dim the lights so

20 you can take a look at this aerial shot,

21 without falling asleep; I know it's

22 getting late. It kind of shows you why

23 we have such a unique piece of property.

24 It's on a peninsula on Walled Lake in









1 Novi. And there has always been this

2 question when I go for a request for

3 variance is what's the front, what's the

4 back? Yes, the easement that cuts it in

5 half makes it really difficult, and every

6 time we need to do something or request

7 something, it looks like we are asking

8 for a ton, because there is a list of

9 variances we are requesting. But, if you

10 understand the property, you realize that

11 hopefully it's not such a big deal.

12 Couple things here. First,

13 we'll start with the garage. You will

14 notice these two homes adjacent to each

15 other. I should point to it. This one

16 and this one. This is 1181. You are

17 seeing a cottage there in that photo

18 because it's old.

19 Two years ago I was here, and

20 we turned the existing cottage into a

21 really nice home. The reason I'm showing

22 you this -- the reason I'm showing you

23 this is just the quality of construction

24 that we are looking to do. We are really









1 looking to make it a nicer place to live.

2 And we really worked with our

3 neighbors on all this. And, you know,

4 living so close together in such a little

5 piece of property, there is challenges,

6 because everybody, you know, some people

7 like it the old way; some people like it

8 the new way. But we are working -- I

9 know there was issues with the East Lake

10 job tonight.

11 I want you to know that I

12 walked out with each neighbor and have

13 measured things off and really have tried

14 to narrow it down to make everybody say,

15 you know, you are making it a better

16 place to live; we appreciate that. So

17 just to get that across to you guys.

18 Let's start with the garage.

19 You will notice there is an existing

20 garage on the property. It's kind of

21 cockeyed, it's of poor quality, and when

22 we got the variance, I believe it was a

23 year or two ago to build a home, we also

24 had a separate variance approved to build









1 a two-car garage. Which we thought was a

2 great idea. The more the neighbors and I

3 started talking was, you know, if we

4 start putting another building here in

5 this spot right here, there is going to

6 be zero -- it's going to be -- driving

7 through here, you will have building,

8 building, building, building. It was

9 just too much.

10 So, we were working with the

11 neighbors, and the idea is to knock down

12 the existing garage because it's in poor

13 quality and put a three-car garage

14 instead of two separate two-car garages.

15 And, in doing so, you are going to open

16 up this space for a green area. It's

17 going to give us more greenery back here,

18 going to be less in terms of lot

19 coverage.

20 If we did the two separate

21 garages as already approved, you are

22 going to have this dead space here, you

23 will have dead space here, dead space

24 here. We are trying to alleviate that.









1 We don't have much property to work with,

2 especially because -- I should have

3 explained this better.

4 This easement is the driveway

5 for this home. This home and this home.

6 This home I rebuilt, and I live in this

7 one. This one my mother uses as a

8 cottage. So, our family owns these two

9 properties. My idea initially, because,

10 when I proposed this with the building

11 department, was can I put this garage

12 across the property line? It's not a

13 very common thing to do. We can do that

14 if we combine the parcels. So with

15 Charles, Mr. Boulard's staff, I worked

16 out options. Let's have our architect

17 put together some drawings that would

18 make it look like one home. That would

19 alleviate -- the concern is this: If you

20 have a home that you attach, and you have

21 a kitchen in one and kitchen in the other

22 and, you know, it gives you that duplex

23 issue that the city wasn't very keen on.

24 So this was our solution.









1 What we did was propose this

2 and had our attorney extraordinaire draft

3 an easement between the two properties.

4 And the easement is a shared garage. I'm

5 hoping -- it was in the package for sure.

6 I'm hoping you had a chance to go through

7 it, and the city attorney may have issues

8 or questions with it.

9 Clearly, these two properties,

10 it's small. The idea is, you know, I

11 don't want to think about it, but

12 long-term, if my mom was to not want

13 this, I'm going to knock it down and use

14 that as a yard, too. It's a small --

15 looks kind of big on here, but it's

16 small. So it needs to be -- it will

17 never be out of the family. And even if

18 it is, the easement is a living document.

19 It clearly states what would happen in

20 that event.

21 So, I'm not sure if you guys

22 have had a chance to read through that;

23 that's neither here nor there. Did I

24 address everything with the garage? Do









1 you think I addressed everything with the

2 garage? (Inaudible)

3 In addition to this,

4 economically, it doesn't make sense to do

5 a lot of things I've done. I've started

6 something, and I'm going to finish it.

7 I'm never going to get the money out of

8 it there unless I live there for 40

9 years, but hopefully I will.

10 We are taking -- along this

11 easement there are telephone poles with

12 electrical lines above. We are actually

13 clearing them in this middle easement

14 here. See, this easement, I can't do

15 anything with it because of the utilities

16 underneath, so I'm stuck with this

17 between us. This is creating this unique

18 circumstance, where I have to be creative

19 with this land, this land and this, to

20 make it nice, okay. So by doing one

21 garage instead of two, having the

22 easement so both properties are legally

23 bound, and it makes sense; it creates

24 more open space.









1 I worked with the neighbors to

2 make sure the views aren't going to be

3 obstructed. And if you look, this is

4 very important here. This neighbor, this

5 view is this way. I should have told

6 you, there is water around this whole

7 thing; it's a peninsula. His view is

8 this way. His view is this way. And

9 from here to here -- excuse me, I'm

10 sorry. These two lots, mine and my

11 mother's and our proposed garage, there

12 is water on both sides. And then this is

13 my end neighbor; he's got the whole end.

14 So this is very unique. By putting a

15 garage here, I'm not going to be

16 interfering with anybody's water view,

17 okay.

18 I think I have addressed the

19 unique circumstances. While it's a

20 beautification effort, another plus is if

21 I were to put two garages there, in the

22 event that there is an emergency, it

23 would be extremely difficult for an

24 emergency vehicle to come in and turn









1 around. If there was an emergency, you

2 would have to go to the end or something.

3 That's always been an issue with this

4 piece of land. It just gives it more

5 flexibility if we are able to keep this

6 open right here.

7 We have worked with the

8 neighbors and the architect to figure out

9 maybe a better spot to put this, but the

10 idea is I can't put it along this

11 property line because there is a well

12 here that serves as this house.

13 And by using the existing

14 garage as the starting point, essentially

15 I'm taking the existing garage and

16 extending it another stall. It's such

17 poor quality now, I want it to match the

18 quality of the home we just built, and I

19 also want to in the next case I talk

20 about is just dolling up this little

21 cottage to match. So these three will

22 all flow together.

23 And it's going -- since I moved

24 there seven years ago, they have done a









1 lot of updates to the end peninsula. My

2 neighbor just next door, right here, has

3 rebuilt that home completely and added a

4 level. It's really getting contagious;

5 it's working down this way.

6 My neighbor right now just

7 re-did his entire garage, and he's got

8 plans -- he's working with our existing

9 architect to do something with his home.

10 So it's contagious. Any questions?


12 you. How do we handle this? There is

13 one for -- they are both together, right,

14 the porch and the garage?

15 MR. DISMONDY: Those are two

16 separate cases, the porch.

17 MR. BOULARD: When the

18 applications came in, there is two --

19 there is two parcels. One application

20 was for the porches on the house.

21 MR. DISMONDY: Cottage.

22 MR. BOULARD: Cottage, yes.

23 The other application, which was named,

24 which had the address for the other









1 property was for the garage. Looking at

2 it, we determined since the garage was

3 really common to both properties, that

4 both properties needed the same variance.

5 So that's why we combined them into --

6 there is two separate parcels that would

7 have variances on them. But,

8 essentially, it's one set of issues, with

9 the exception of the porch, which is

10 specific to the cottage property.


12 handle the garage issue now and then do

13 the porch issue, or let them --

14 MR. SCHULTZ: They should be

15 two different motions.


17 MR. SCHULTZ: Again, you know,

18 the issue with the garage is that as

19 creative as it is, it is a use variance.

20 It's essentially taking those two parcels

21 and essentially treating them as a

22 multiple-family development. So the

23 issue of -- you have to establish that

24 use can exist on the property. In order









1 to get a use variance, he's got two

2 single-family homes. That's the issue

3 for the garage.

4 MEMBER SKELCY: What's your

5 point about the two-family home in terms

6 of the use variance?

7 MR. SCHULTZ: The reason why it

8 was set up as a use variance is because

9 you've got the garage straddling the

10 property line. They are used by both

11 families as a single use. It's not

12 really a single-family use; it's a joint

13 use. So, I think you need to separate

14 the porch variances, which are sort of

15 classic kind of, you know, thing that you

16 deal with as a non-use area variance from

17 this garage issue. Which starts -- the

18 very first thing, you don't get to the

19 setback issue on the garage until you

20 decide whether he's met the test for a

21 use variance, which, again, is pretty

22 tough.


24 proceed?









1 MR. SCHULTZ: I'm sorry, the

2 garage first.


4 MR. SCHULTZ: Separately the

5 porches.


7 issue of the garage, is there anyone in

8 the audience who wishes to address the

9 board regarding this case? Seeing none,

10 any correspondence?

11 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, 84

12 notices were mailed, three objections,

13 two approvals, nine mail returned.

14 Now, the first objection is

15 from Thomas Harvey, 1195 West Lake Drive,

16 Novi, Michigan, 48377. And it's dated on

17 9/13/2010. And it reads, "One, not

18 acceptable to combine. Property requests

19 with minimum information; two, small part

20 of the request could be acceptable and

21 presented separately; three, bad decision

22 to build a garage across two separate

23 lots line; four, two-story, three plus

24 car garage with porch is a cottage; five,









1 best use of property could be developed

2 with separate garage for each and some

3 lawn."

4 And the next objection is from

5 Ranald Brown of 44750 Bayview Drive, No.

6 40, Novi, Michigan. And it reads, "The

7 requested variance sought will not mesh

8 well with existing use nor maintain

9 current presentation of pre-existing

10 structures. In addition, such proposed

11 changes will alter use of said parcel and

12 provide environmental stratification."

13 And the third objection is from

14 David Boyer of 1191 West Lake Drive,

15 Novi, Michigan, dated 9/8/2010. And it

16 reads, "Would prefer to see each property

17 variance appeal separately. Do not want

18 to lose any view of the lake. As for the

19 property at 1185, approve property, of

20 1181, object."

21 Now, there is an approval from

22 Thomas Campbell of 45000 Bayview Drive,

23 dated August 31, 2010. And also an

24 approval from Lori and Hugh Howlett. And









1 it reads -- I'm sorry, of 1175 West Lake

2 Drive, dated 9/9/2010. And it reads, "We

3 agree with the variances. We would

4 request that the garage complement the

5 other garage in our area, e.g., not

6 too" -- it's difficult to make out

7 what -- "not too tall plus not too

8 over-powering. Please keep the height to

9 17 feet or lower."

10 That's it, Mr. Chair.


12 you.

13 Mr. Boulard, do you care to add

14 anything additional?

15 MR. BOULARD: I would clarify.

16 I have had a couple -- couple calls from

17 folks that received the notification

18 about the height of the garage, because

19 the drawings, when they came and looked

20 at them, showed roughly 19 foot something

21 to the ridge. So folks were concerned

22 about that.

23 I indicated to them that the

24 appeals did not talk about the height.









1 I'm not sure the height is -- in the

2 zoning ordinance is measured from the mid

3 point of the roof. I'm not sure where

4 the ordinance -- existing garage design

5 stands on that. There might be some

6 adjustments required. But once we --

7 without knowing, and since it wasn't part

8 of the request, that's not something we

9 considered at this time.

10 MR. DISMONDY: It was

11 communicated with the neighbors that we

12 were -- when we were walking through

13 this, that this is simply a zoning

14 variance request now. And I would be

15 happy to work with them on making sure

16 that their height -- when you are on a

17 little piece of property on a lake,

18 everyone is going to be like, "Ideally,

19 it would be this." Ideally, we live a

20 stone's throw from all our neighbors.

21 I'm not going to build something that's

22 going to make an enemy out of them. So,

23 I said, let's get this through

24 zoning-wise, and I would be happy to have









1 the plans modified to make sure everybody

2 is happy about that. And that was really

3 accepted really well.

4 So, I'm really surprised that I

5 did have some negatives on there,

6 because, you know, one of them is from

7 across the lake. Bayview is in Walled

8 Lake or further north in a condo complex.

9 Tom Harvey is three -- three homes away.

10 It's interesting, but not completely

11 surprised. You know, thinking about

12 where I live and how kind of crammed

13 in --

14 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: We are going

15 to have to cut you off. Technically, you

16 are not supposed to be talking now.

17 Mr. Schultz, do you have

18 anything you wish --


20 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: You confused

21 us enough.

22 MR. SCHULTZ: I'm sorry.


24 this time, I'm going to refer the matter









1 to the board for discussion. Ms.

2 Skelcy.

3 MEMBER SKELCY: Thank you.

4 Okay. I just went blank. What's the

5 problem -- I mean, I keep thinking you

6 guys -- if you get this variance, then

7 how are you going to sell the property in

8 the future? And I understand you want to

9 keep it in the family, and that's great.

10 I'm just wondering, gosh, maybe you

11 should -- your mother should deed the

12 land to you and get it -- can they

13 re-parcel it at all so that they are

14 together? Mr. Schultz or Boulard? I'm

15 just curious.

16 MR. SCHULTZ: I just saw this

17 as part of the packet. I don't know what

18 other options he has. Build the garage

19 on one site and do a license --

20 MR. BOULARD: We did -- we were

21 trying to get real creative to make this

22 work. One of the options was to combine

23 this parcel and have a single house and

24 single garage. There might by variances









1 required, but that was one option. That

2 option didn't really work out.

3 There was -- somebody had the

4 idea that you should try to split off

5 that parcel across the street and just

6 build the garage on. But as Mr. Schultz

7 pointed out wisely, that now you got an

8 accessory use on a piece of property with

9 no primary use, so that didn't work. So

10 we tried to get really creative.

11 Based on my knowledge of the

12 tightness of those lots, I don't

13 believe -- I believe those lots could be

14 combined with a single house on them. I

15 don't think it would be possible to split

16 anything else off in the future if that

17 happened.


19 MR. BOULARD: We tried to get

20 really creative. The difficulty or the

21 thing I'm concerned about is, you know,

22 we got a garage which would be across a

23 property line. Obviously, there is

24 building code ordinances and so on that









1 would also be required. But you got a

2 structure which is across property lines,

3 with potentially different ownership,

4 despite everyone's best intentions. And

5 you got access to -- you got an upper

6 level (inaudible). I'm not sure how you

7 deal with that as well as the use

8 variance.

9 MEMBER SKELCY: And this is

10 going to be a two-story garage?

11 MR. DISMONDY: Well, you know,

12 the homes on the lakes don't really

13 afford you to have a basement, so all it

14 is like a storage type of loft type of

15 thing. So you walk upstairs and throw

16 your junk; it's an upstairs garage or

17 upstairs basement.

18 MEMBER SKELCY: Let me ask you

19 this, because I drove back in there I

20 think it was last night, and it was a

21 tight squeeze. And is it possible -- I'm

22 just asking, is it possible to like re-do

23 the garage that's there? Is that a

24 two-car garage that's there right now and









1 just build the one-car like really close

2 to it so that people can still -- I mean,

3 I had to drive on your property to back

4 out.

5 MR. DISMONDY: Right. That's

6 what I mean, it's poorly done. That

7 garage that's existing right there, it's

8 not parallel with the home. The entrance

9 to that garage is not facing the home.

10 MEMBER SKELCY: Oh, I didn't

11 realize that. Yeah.

12 MR. DISMONDY: It makes no

13 sense. It floods; it's rotting. So, I

14 don't want anything to do with that

15 garage, unfortunately.

16 MEMBER SKELCY: But that garage

17 is on your property.

18 MR. DISMONDY: It's on the

19 cottage.

20 MEMBER SKELCY: It's on your

21 mother's property?

22 MR. DISMONDY: We are a pretty

23 close family.

24 MS. DISMONDY: We are real









1 close.

2 MEMBER SKELCY: It just -- it

3 seems like a difficult situation.

4 MR. DISMONDY: So it's --

5 combining lots, I have to knock the

6 cottage down, which defeats -- I can't

7 have two single-family homes on one lot.

8 Otherwise, we would have combined the

9 two, no problem. But then if I do that,

10 my mom doesn't have a place to enjoy.

11 MEMBER SKELCY: I see. Thank

12 you.

13 MR. MANDELL: Could I inject a

14 point that may ease some of your

15 concerns, if I may?


17 MR. MANDELL: Seymour Mandell.

18 I'm an attorney, I'm an architect, and

19 I'm somewhat distant related to this

20 family. And I have designed over 50

21 buildings, somewhat major buildings here

22 in the City of Novi in my younger day.

23 Most of the buildings that were

24 built in the Vincenti Industrial Park









1 were my designs. I designed The Feeland

2 (ph) House building over on Nine

3 Mile Road. You are probably familiar

4 with the fact that we have Arkin

5 Distributors. If you went down Mystic

6 (ph) Road, there is about four or five

7 buildings I designed.

8 Incidentally, I actually

9 created several mutual benefit easements

10 for a lot of these buildings, in the

11 industrial parks, particularly, for

12 reducing the number of driveway cuts and

13 other things. When Miliken Lehman (ph)

14 was your consultant, they found those

15 easements to be actually very desirable,

16 even though the city was entertaining a

17 motion, or rather an ordinance, to put

18 fencing between industrial buildings.

19 But, nonetheless, easements are

20 a good way of people sharing common areas

21 that would otherwise become very

22 difficult to develop. In fact, there is

23 an easement going right through the back

24 of all these homes, or you call them









1 possibly the front of their homes,

2 depending on which way you want to

3 consider it.

4 There is also no disagreement

5 over the fact that if Dave wants to build

6 a two-car garage or even a three-car

7 garage behind his own home, and put

8 whatever roof lines he might have that

9 are compatible with this house on them,

10 we wouldn't even have to be here. The

11 object here is to create some open spaces

12 which both the neighbors can enjoy and

13 the people along the lake can enjoy.

14 And when you look over at this

15 piece of property, you will see a

16 compatible structure with the house

17 that's there. And, eventually, with

18 Dave's options to buy his mother's

19 property, he may buy and join the

20 properties together and tear down the

21 other house altogether.

22 I mean, these are all

23 possibilities that are more likely to

24 happen in the future than anything else









1 is likely to happen.

2 Incidentally, I drafted over

3 250 mutual benefit easements in various

4 parts of the Oakland, Wayne and Washtenaw

5 County areas. And this is over a 50-year

6 period, and I have never been told or

7 ever had any knowledge of any litigation

8 developing from the use of these type of

9 easements.

10 In fact, because there is

11 easements already there, nobody is

12 fighting with one another. They are all

13 user-friendly, and everybody understands

14 what this situation is. So, I don't see

15 why putting a setback requirement that's

16 only for the benefit of individual

17 property owners and for the benefit of

18 the fire department, you know, coming in

19 and out of places. By combining the two

20 garages into one garage, building a

21 beautiful building and having access, you

22 know, around it where people can enjoy

23 the lawn, and we are actually reducing

24 the amount of construction that exists on









1 that property right now. So everybody is

2 really in a win-win position. There is

3 nobody losing out by what we are

4 proposing to do. Thank you.

5 If you have any questions about

6 anything that I've worked on, like the

7 letter you received and the easement

8 agreements, I will be happy to answer any

9 questions you might have.

10 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you.

11 Anyone else? Mr. Cassis.

12 MEMBER CASSIS: You got one of

13 the best lawyers that I have witnessed.

14 MR. MANDELL: Pardon?

15 MR. DISMONDY: He's a good

16 man.

17 MEMBER CASSIS: He's a master

18 philosopher.

19 MR. DISMONDY: Tonight's been

20 expensive for me. I expected two hours;

21 now I'm getting four.

22 MEMBER CASSIS: I was going to

23 comment on that. But Mr. Mandell is a

24 very good lawyer.









1 MR. MANDELL: Just to throw in

2 a side comment. I'm also on the

3 Southfield Planning Commission, and I

4 have been there 14 years. So I know what

5 problems are like when you sit at your

6 end of the table.

7 MEMBER CASSIS: You know, I

8 have not enjoyed your presence and

9 philosophy for what, six years, four

10 years now? When were you here the last

11 time? Three or four years ago? The hour

12 is late, so let's not go on.

13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Let's get on

14 with the meeting.

15 MEMBER CASSIS: Just my concern

16 is, and this is your problem, not mine,

17 or our problem here is, like my colleague

18 said, about future disposition of

19 property, or how is that if a buyer comes

20 along and they find this thing sitting

21 and he wants two instead of one. That is

22 the question that I would be

23 entertaining. And not that we are going

24 to reject or anything on that basis.









1 MR. DISMONDY: Can I respond?

2 I can respond to that?

3 MEMBER CASSIS: Yeah, if you

4 want.

5 MR. DISMONDY: It's the

6 seller's burden. So, if in the very

7 unlikely event that we want to sell off

8 that piece, it's going to be extremely

9 difficult. Because, guess what, they are

10 going to have to share a garage with me.

11 MEMBER CASSIS: You know, I

12 have lived long enough, and Mr. Mandell

13 lived long enough to believe that

14 circumstances change. As you may have

15 witnessed from those people who came

16 here.

17 MR. DISMONDY: Absolutely.

18 MEMBER CASSIS: Today, you got

19 lovely kids; I saw their pictures, and

20 that's great. I'm happy for you. And a

21 very nice mother, and you get along.

22 Now.

23 MR. DISMONDY: We are lucky.

24 MEMBER CASSIS: I'm not in the









1 family business here.


3 right.

4 MEMBER CASSIS: Those are my

5 concerns, Mr. Chairman.

6 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Anyone else?

7 Member Sanghvi.

8 MEMBER SANGVHI: Thank you. I

9 think it's a novelty way you are taking

10 care of the problem. I like the way you

11 are solving the problem and leaving some

12 open space around and people can see the

13 west, northwest side, keeping open. I

14 was there yesterday, took me a while to

15 find the place. And saw it, and I think

16 it's a very novelty way of solving the

17 problem, and you got no problem, I have

18 no problem. Thank you.

19 MR. DISMONDY: It took a long

20 time to get to this point, so, thank you.

21 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Anyone else?

22 Member Gedeon.

23 MEMBER GEDEON: I'm at the

24 point where I would like to approve this,









1 but I'm just having trouble with how we

2 would actually form the motion, on what

3 factual basis we would use. If the

4 guidelines are that under the current --

5 there is no possible current use that

6 exists. I mean, I don't see how we can

7 possibly say that, because there is --

8 they have right now is a possible use.

9 So, I don't know what options we have

10 there.

11 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Mr. Schultz?

12 MR. SCHULTZ: These are always

13 tough questions, because it is your

14 decision and not ours. I note that the

15 staff report essentially says that that

16 they don't support it because the use

17 variance is a very high standard.

18 I know Mr. Boulard went over

19 one of the other standards you have to

20 deal with is whether or not there are

21 other alternatives. And I don't know

22 exactly what was explored and whether

23 there -- you know, if there really is a

24 relationship kind of issue here. You









1 build a garage on one piece and give a

2 license to the other piece, which maybe

3 doesn't pass with the ownership.

4 You know, the reason why

5 single-family homes are and lots are

6 self-contained, so you don't have this

7 issue. You don't have the building code

8 issue. You know, when these property

9 owners move on, the city has to worry

10 about -- the rules exist to avoid the

11 dispute with the assessor. You know, who

12 gets assessed what amount on the garage?

13 You know, if you have two neighbors who

14 really don't get along, you know, that's

15 a city resource question.

16 I mean, it's easy to say we got

17 an easement, we got it all worked out,

18 but when you have a dispute, you got to

19 get the courts involved. All of this is

20 a resource-driven thing. There is a

21 reason why the rules say keep yourself

22 six feet away from each other. This

23 isn't an access even. This is

24 qualitatively like putting a house on the









1 home and saying both families can use it.

2 It's the garage, but it's an accessory

3 structure to the home.

4 So, this is pretty unusual and,

5 obviously, the staff doesn't make the

6 decision, but the reason to point out

7 it's a use variance, because that's a

8 pretty tough standard.


10 Member Sanghvi.

11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Can you define

12 this as a kind of condominium?

13 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the

14 Chair. No, maybe that would be an

15 option, but that's not what this is.

16 This is still separately a single-family

17 owned parcel, not a condominumized piece

18 of property. It's a structure that's

19 essentially going to be jointly owned

20 with some sort of imaginary line down the

21 garage floor.

22 MEMBER SKELCY: Would you have

23 to totally re-zone the area?

24 MR. SCHULTZ: It would be an









1 entirely different approval process if

2 they wanted do something, which was one

3 of the things that was thrown out there.

4 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Anyone else?

5 MEMBER SKELCY: I just want to

6 say, you know, it's a great idea. I

7 mean, I always like to, you know, grant

8 variances for homeowners, because, you

9 know, we want -- I think most of us

10 probably all agree, we want you to be

11 able to use your property, you know, the

12 way that you can enjoy it, so that you

13 can enjoy it. But as the city attorney

14 pointed out, a use variance, as you heard

15 from, you know, the other matter that was

16 before yours, use variance is a really

17 high, high standard.

18 And I don't -- I think that

19 there are other ways you could possibly

20 do this. I don't really see how we can

21 help you in that way. Maybe other

22 members of the board have a better idea.

23 While I would love to do it, I just don't

24 see where you met the, you know, that the









1 need for the requested variance is due to

2 unique circumstances or physical

3 conditions of the property, such as

4 narrowness, shallowness, shape, water,

5 topography or other physical conditions,

6 because you could put a separate garage

7 up.

8 MR. DISMONDY: Trust me, when

9 you say there is another way, you know,

10 this has been addressed for two years

11 with multiple people in the city. And we

12 finally found somebody who has had

13 experience over the last 50 years

14 of having use easements within your city.

15 And I'm not being disrespectful

16 by any means here. Have you guys heard

17 of any issues with those easements?

18 Because they live a long time. I mean,

19 you would be hearing about these issues,

20 and that would be maybe prompting you to

21 say absolutely, we cannot do this again.

22 You have a history and

23 precedence set, and to come here and say,

24 you know, there has got to be another









1 way, we have done that.

2 You know, before we got the

3 original garage approved through this

4 board, you know, we were probably playing

5 with that for two years prior to that.

6 This is going on forever. I might be

7 dead before we even get something built

8 here. It's just so frustrating, and I'm

9 trying not to show that to you guys.


11 MR. DISMONDY: But trust that

12 we have tried to do everything and found

13 the right procedures. And if this gets

14 to the point where you guys go, "Give it

15 another shot," I don't think there is --

16 you know, there isn't another shot.

17 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay. Thank

18 you.

19 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair. With

20 all due respect, sir, and with all due

21 respect to Mr. Mandell, who I'm sure is a

22 fine attorney. I'm also an attorney.

23 The one thing I can tell you is that I

24 don't take anyone's word for it. To say









1 there has been no litigation, doesn't

2 mean there won't be one in the future.

3 The fact that you are a happy family

4 today, can mean bad family tomorrow.

5 When people say, "Take my word

6 for it," that's when I become most

7 suspicious about it. Unfortunately, I

8 don't think -- the law is the law. This

9 is a use variance, so we have to form our

10 opinion based on what the law asks us to

11 do. Not based on what you think maybe

12 has happened in the past. So,

13 unfortunately, I know he's a very good

14 scrivener, can draft good documents;

15 however, that is not good enough for me.

16 Not as an attorney.

17 I always have a suspicion when

18 somebody tells me, "Take my word for it."

19 I can probably point out one or two

20 places where it's happened; I can do

21 legal research for you.

22 Thank you, Mr. Chair.

23 MR. DISMONDY: Am I allowed to

24 reply to that?












4 anyone else on the board who wishes to

5 make any comments? Member Krieger.

6 MEMBER KRIEGER: I'd like to

7 approve it as well, but then the use -- I

8 have to be able to say the unique

9 circumstances. And I want to say that

10 there are, but I can't, because I just --

11 so what would your option be?

12 MR. DISMONDY: I think to move

13 to Pine Lake. I'm kidding.

14 MEMBER KRIEGER: Give me the

15 words, and I will say them.

16 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: I think we

17 have debated this; I think we need to

18 call a motion. Is anyone willing to make

19 one?

20 MEMBER CASSIS: Someone make

21 the motion.


23 MR. DISMONDY: Can I -- I don't

24 mean to interrupt, but, you know, if you









1 read the case here.

2 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: We are done

3 with the public.

4 MEMBER SKELCY: We are going to

5 move on with the motion.

6 MEMBER IBE: Go ahead.

7 MEMBER SKELCY: Did you want to

8 do the motion, Member Ibe? Go ahead.

9 MEMBER IBE: That's fine. I

10 will refer to you.

11 MEMBER SKELCY: All right.

12 Unfortunately, I'm going to make a motion

13 to deny the variance requested, the use

14 variance only, that's been requested for

15 the garage, because I do not believe that

16 the applicant has met the burden required

17 for a use variance.

18 Am I doing this properly?

19 MR. SCHULTZ: Yes.

20 MEMBER SKELCY: And that would

21 require him to meet the standard of the

22 fact that the property couldn't be used

23 for any of the uses permitted by right or

24 by special land use permit in the zoning









1 district in which it's located. I don't

2 feel that the applicant has met the

3 burden of showing that there are unique

4 circumstances or physical conditions of

5 the property involved, such as

6 narrowness, shallowness, shape, water,

7 topography or other similar physical

8 conditions.

9 I think the proposed use will

10 alter the essential character of the

11 neighborhood, and that the need for the

12 requested variance is -- hasn't shown

13 that it's not the result of the actions

14 of the property owner or previous

15 property owners.


17 motion.

18 MEMBER IBE: I second it.

19 MR. SCHULTZ: Could it include

20 the fact there are uses on both of those

21 single-family properties right now?


23 incorporate what Mr. Schultz has said

24 verbally in the motion.









1 MEMBER IBE: I will also

2 second.


4 have a motion by Member Skelcy, seconded

5 by Member Ibe. Any other discussion on

6 the board?

7 Ms. Martin, please take the

8 roll.

9 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi?


11 MS. MARTIN: Member Cassis?


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 to deny

24 passes, seven to zero.










2 lead us to the second issue, the porch

3 issue.

4 MR. DISMONDY: Okay. On 1185,

5 which is the cottage next door. There is

6 an existing back patio area, same type of

7 scenario here. With this driveway

8 easement cutting the properties in half,

9 it's really made it restrictive as to

10 making a house that's useful. When I say

11 that, I mean, I can't put an attached

12 garage on there because of that driveway

13 easement. I can't expand the footprint of

14 the home because of that driveway

15 easement. As such, and again, through the

16 neighbors' response that are positive, I

17 am requesting on the -- excuse me, east

18 side of the cottage facing the main

19 lake -- I guess I should put this back up.

20 There is two separate things.

21 On this side there is a patio; it's tough

22 to see from this view. I think you can

23 probably see it from your overhead.

24 There is an existing patio. The idea was









1 to put in a three-season porch there to

2 enjoy, you know, as much of the seasons

3 as we can. It won't go beyond the

4 existing patio, which is why the

5 neighbors were all about it. It doesn't

6 impede on anybody's view. It doesn't

7 impede on anybody's sunlight. It helps

8 doll up the house, and I'm going to make

9 it match the house next door, make it a

10 nice area.

11 So that's one. And on the

12 south facing the side of that house there

13 is an existing entrance door. Believe it

14 or not, the entrance on the house is on

15 the south, because just how weird this

16 property is. I'm going to put in a

17 covered entryway there. All I'm doing is

18 adding a little roof over the entrance so

19 when you are unlocking the door, you are

20 not getting rained or snowed on.

21 And, again, that's not impeding

22 on anybody's views or encroaching on the

23 properties. I believe since the lot is

24 so tight, that's what the variance was,









1 overall side lot, because I'm cutting in

2 a few feet.

3 Let's see. That's the gist of

4 that variance request.


6 you. Is there anyone in the audience who

7 wishes to address the board regarding

8 this case? Seeing none, will the

9 secretary read any correspondence into

10 the record?

11 MEMBER IBE: Yes. Mr. Chair,

12 that were 84 notices mailed, and three

13 objections, two approvals, nine mail

14 returned. And the objections are exactly

15 the same one that was read for the

16 previous case as well as the approval.


18 enter that into the record. Does the

19 building department or city attorney wish

20 to add anything?

21 MR. BOULARD: Nothing.

22 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Seeing that,

23 I turn this matter over to the board for

24 discussion.









1 MEMBER SKELCY: You are trying

2 to add two porches on this sheet? It

3 looks like it says proposed open porch

4 and then proposed porch.

5 MR. DISMONDY: Yeah. So the

6 lake side where you see it shaded there,

7 that's a three-season porch.

8 MEMBER SKELCY: That's what you

9 are adding?

10 MR. DISMONDY: And then the

11 entrance way, they are calling it a

12 porch; it's really a little roof and

13 couple posts when you walk in.

14 MEMBER SKELCY: All right.

15 Thank you.

16 MR. DISMONDY: On the side.


18 MEMBER CASSIS: The one facing

19 the lake, on one piece of paper here you

20 say proposed porch; on the former drawing

21 here you say it's a three-season room.


23 MEMBER CASSIS: Is it a room or

24 porch?









1 MR. DISMONDY: I think they are

2 the same. Are you calling a porch --

3 MEMBER CASSIS: I don't think a

4 room is a porch. I mean, I don't know.

5 MEMBER SANGHVI: It's not a

6 porch.


8 MEMBER CASSIS: Are you asking

9 for two porches or a room and a porch?

10 MR. DISMONDY: I guess from

11 your definition I'm assuming it's a room

12 and a porch.

13 MEMBER CASSIS: Why didn't you

14 say that?

15 MR. DISMONDY: I believe the

16 drawings say it's a porch. It's a porch.

17 MEMBER CASSIS: Look, you have

18 one of the best lawyers in the world, and

19 you should let him, in my opinion, do

20 this presentation. You are paying him

21 anyhow, but that's your option.

22 But, look, on one point you say

23 it's a porch. I know what a porch is.

24 On another drawing, you say it's a room.









1 Now a room is put carpet in, you put a

2 roof, put windows, all of this. Now,

3 which is it?

4 MR. DISMONDY: It's a room.

5 MEMBER CASSIS: It's a room?

6 MR. DISMONDY: Correct.

7 MEMBER CASSIS: Well, I will

8 wait for my colleagues to comment about

9 the room and the porch, and I will

10 reserve my right to speak again.


12 Ms. Krieger.

13 MEMBER KRIEGER: It's going to

14 be like an outdoor facility with walls

15 and screens and a roof?

16 MR. DISMONDY: Right.

17 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you.


19 Sanghvi.

20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yeah, I just

21 have a question. Did we advertise this

22 as a room and a porch or just two

23 porches?

24 MR. BOULARD: The zoning









1 ordinance, once you put a roof over it,

2 the zoning ordinance doesn't specify a

3 difference. So, the porch on the south

4 side required a variance because there is

5 a roof over it. And you can -- there are

6 some exceptions in the ordinance and

7 setbacks that allow you for a stoop or

8 something like that that doesn't have a

9 roof over it. But in the eyes of the

10 zoning ordinance, both of them are

11 essentially the same. Whether it's a

12 sunroom or a three-season porch or open

13 porch or whatnot, it doesn't matter; we

14 are covered.

15 MEMBER SKELCY: I have a

16 question. So these sheets, I'm trying to

17 figure out the garage versus the

18 accessory building on the first page of

19 the sheet. Are we talking about section

20 2503 for this, for the porches?

21 MR. BOULARD: For the porches,

22 the three sections that say section 2400,

23 those are the setback sections

24 (inaudible).









1 MEMBER SKELCY: So why is the

2 variance for 2,429 feet? He's only

3 supposed to be so many feet away from the

4 lake, is that it?

5 MR. BOULARD: The front is

6 the -- the front is the portion of the

7 house that fits -- faces the road.


9 MR. BOULARD: So, technically,

10 the back is the lake side.

11 MEMBER SKELCY: So his porch

12 room is going to be -- supposed to be 35

13 feet away from the lake?

14 MR. BOULARD: From the property

15 line.

16 MEMBER SKELCY: That would be

17 the lake?

18 MR. BOULARD: The property line

19 is in from the lake; there is a sea wall.

20 MEMBER SKELCY: All right.

21 MR. BOULARD: When you take a

22 property run and drive through the middle

23 of it and have the house facing it, as

24 the petitioner mentioned, it's fairly









1 unique.


3 MR. BOULARD: Those three

4 sections in my mind (inaudible).


6 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Anybody else?

7 Anybody care to make a motion?

8 MEMBER SKELCY: I move that we

9 approve the requested variances pertaining

10 to Section 2400 of the ordinance, which

11 would give them a 29-and-a-half foot

12 variance for the rear setback, seven-foot

13 and two-foot variance for the side

14 setbacks, and 14-foot variance for the

15 aggregate of the side setbacks. Based on

16 the fact that the property's dimensions

17 are unusual, and the setback frontage,

18 height, bulk, and density requirements

19 unreasonably prevent the use of the

20 property for a permitted purpose. That

21 the variance will provide substantial

22 justice to the petitioner and surrounding

23 property owners in the zoning district.

24 There are unique circumstances









1 to the shape of the property. The

2 problem isn't self-created. Adequate

3 light and air is provided to adjacent

4 properties. There is no increase in fire

5 danger or public safety. Property values

6 will not be diminished in the surrounding

7 area; they may be even enhanced. And the

8 spirit of the zoning ordinance is

9 observed.



12 motion made by Member Skelcy and second

13 by Member Krieger. Any further

14 discussion? Ms. Martin, please call the

15 roll.

16 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi?


18 MS. MARTIN: Member Cassis?


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,

7 seven to zero.

8 MR. DISMONDY: Thanks guys.

9 Good night.

10 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: All right.

11 Moving on to Case No. 10-045, 43771 Grand

12 River Avenue. Petitioner is requesting a

13 use variance to allow outdoor storage for

14 several adjacent parcels at 43771 through

15 43831 Grand River Avenue. Property is

16 zoned TC-1 and located south of Grand

17 River Avenue, west of Novi Road.

18 If the petitioner is here,

19 please state your name and address. And

20 if you are not an attorney, please raise

21 your right hand and be sworn in.

22 MR. PASCARIS: Good evening.

23 George Pascaris, 43771 Grand River, Novi.

24 I'm not an attorney.









1 MR. KELLY: Jack Kelly, 422

2 East Main, Northville, Michigan. Not an

3 attorney.

4 MEMBER IBE: In Case No. 10-045

5 for 43771-43831 Grand River, do you swear

6 or affirm to tell the truth?


8 MR. KELLY: I do.

9 MEMBER IBE: Thank you.

10 MR. PASCARIS: Thank you. What

11 we are trying to do on this property is

12 really just beautify and clean it up.

13 And we are trying to find a use for it

14 that's better suited than what is there

15 now. I understand what we are trying to

16 do calls for a variance, and that's why

17 we are here.

18 Jack Kelly owns Imagine

19 Landscape and would like to occupy the

20 property. And what they do is

21 landscaping. They design, install

22 landscaping, you know, to homes,

23 businesses, things of that nature. He's

24 been in business I think six or seven









1 years and been growing ever since, and

2 would really like to be part of Novi.

3 He likes the Grand River

4 corridor there and feels he would be a

5 good fit to Novi. I, as well, feel that

6 the use for that spot would be a good use

7 for it. Just because of the fact how the

8 property is situated with the Country

9 Building Supply on one side and Novi Feed

10 on the other side.

11 The drawbacks to the property,

12 I think if you guys have driven by there

13 and have probably seen it, is the bridge

14 that they built over there really hides

15 the property, and it makes it somewhat

16 difficult to get in there, as well as the

17 railroad being back there.

18 I know it's zoned Town Center,

19 which is a good thing. I remember coming

20 to these meetings when the whole Town

21 Center thing was being developed and the

22 ring road and all that was supposed to

23 get developed. And because of economical

24 circumstances, I believe that's probably









1 why it didn't happen. So, again, I just

2 feel that I think it's a good use for it,

3 and I hope you guys all agree. And we

4 would like to hear what you think.


6 you. Is there anyone in the audience who

7 wishes to address the board regarding

8 this case? Seeing none, Mr. Secretary,

9 please read any correspondence into the

10 record.

11 MEMBER IBE: Thank you,

12 Mr. Chair. Twenty-five notices mailed,

13 zero responses, two mail returned.

14 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you.

15 Does the building department or city

16 attorney wish to make any comments?



19 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: No, okay. At

20 this time, I will refer this matter to

21 the board. Ms. Skelcy, thank you.

22 MEMBER SKELCY: What do you

23 plan on storing there?

24 MR. PASCARIS: Well, landscape









1 material. I believe they have mulch,

2 they have plant materials, shrubbery,

3 flowers. And, of course, in our

4 discussions, he said he would definitely

5 beautify the property with -- he's going

6 to make it look just like he would a

7 beautiful home.

8 MR. KELLY: You are not going

9 to see stuff coming from the street.

10 It's not going to be a massive pile like

11 you had the conversation with the guy

12 with the cement; it was a total eyesore.

13 We are going to make it beautiful. It's

14 going to be a place of business. People

15 are going to come there. I'm going to

16 constantly take people there. It's going

17 to be a place I want people to see; I

18 will have displays, nice plantings,

19 flowers, things like that. So it's

20 actually going to make the property look

21 a little bit nicer. If you have been

22 there, the property doesn't look nice at

23 all.

24 MEMBER SKELCY: Well, there is









1 homes there.

2 MR. PASCARIS: Right. I think

3 if you have the drawing there that we

4 submitted, the architectural drawing,

5 which everything I submitted was inside

6 of the drawing that we had sent. It was

7 like 11 by 17, I believe. There is three

8 homes on the property now.

9 MEMBER SKELCY: Are those homes

10 going to be torn down?


12 MEMBER SKELCY: All three?

13 MR. PASCARIS: No. The two.

14 The one home will stay as an existing

15 office, and the other two homes -- the

16 one home that is in good shape. The

17 other two are in very poor shape.


19 MR. PASCARIS: So the one is in

20 good shape, smaller one; it's 650 square

21 feet. One will turn into the office.

22 And the rest of the property will be -- I

23 understand how the board feels about

24 outside storage and how the city feels,









1 and you don't want to see anything as an

2 eyesore. I feel it is an eyesore now,

3 and if you have any suggestions on how we

4 can get over this and properly screen it

5 and get us going and put another person

6 in business into the city. I know you

7 guys are forward thinking and

8 pro-business, so I really, you know,

9 appreciate some help.



12 finished?

13 MEMBER SKELCY: I'm sorry. I'm

14 so tired.

15 MR. PASCARIS: As we are, and I

16 apologize.

17 MEMBER CASSIS: I will make

18 this brief, Mr. Chairman.

19 This is such a radical change

20 from one of our finest zoning districts

21 in the city to a very radically change

22 B-3. Not B-3, but I-2. With storage

23 outside, and who knows in the future what

24 will be -- now he says some mulch and









1 stuff. But if we re-zone it that way to

2 him, he can put anything he wants. And

3 not just that, but future users might do

4 even whatever they want.

5 I would be voting against this.

6 Thank you, Mr. Chair.


8 Member Cassis. Member Sanghvi.

9 MEMBER SANGHVI: I agree with

10 Mr. Cassis wholeheartedly.


12 you. And anybody else? Member Ibe.

13 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, I would

14 say, while I feel for the petitioners,

15 the issue before us is no different from

16 what we experienced this evening

17 regarding the concrete case.

18 You know, I have a problem when

19 we begin to bend the rules the way, just

20 because we feel like it. Feeling doesn't

21 have anything to do with it. It's what

22 is in the best interest of the City of

23 Novi and within the confines and scope of

24 the law.









1 Unfortunately, for this

2 petitioner, the law is what it is. So I

3 will not be in favor of this as well.

4 If there is any other way to

5 accommodate them, I would be more than

6 happy to. But based on what we have,

7 what we have already seen this evening, I

8 think it's good to be consistent and stay

9 firm within the law. Thank you.

10 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you.

11 Anybody else care to make a comment? I

12 will entertain a motion.

13 MEMBER SKELCY: I will make a

14 motion to deny the request for the use

15 variance made by the petitioner because

16 they have not -- well, first of all,

17 because approval of the request would

18 represent a move backward from the

19 progress towards the designations in the

20 master plan for land use.

21 Secondly, they have not met the

22 burden of -- that's required. They

23 haven't shown an unnecessary hardship

24 rather than a mere practical difficulty.









1 They have not shown that the property

2 cannot be reasonably used for any of the

3 uses permitted by right or by special

4 land use permit in the zoning district.

5 They have not shown that the need for the

6 requested variance IS due to unique

7 circumstances or physical conditions of

8 the property involved. They have not

9 shown the proposed use will not alter the

10 essential -- they haven't shown that the

11 proposed use will not alter the essential

12 character of the neighborhood. And that

13 the need for the requested variance is

14 not the result of the actions of the

15 property owner or previous property

16 owners.



19 have a motion made by Member Skelcy,

20 seconded by Member Cassis. Any further

21 discussion? Ms. Martin, please call the

22 roll.

23 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi?










1 MS. MARTIN: Member Cassis?


3 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger?


5 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe?


7 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Wrobel?


9 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy?


11 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon?


13 MS. MARTIN: Motion to deny

14 passes, seven to zero.

15 MR. PASCARIS: Can I ask a

16 question, please? I don't want to take

17 up any more time. Everybody has been

18 here long enough. Everybody is tired, I

19 understand.

20 I don't want to -- my intention

21 was not to go back on the (inaudible).

22 Although, if you guys did go to the site

23 and you understand the hardships of the

24 site. You said we didn't meet the









1 hardship on the site. I really don't

2 understand how you guys couldn't see

3 that.

4 And by cleaning up the

5 property, and I understand you don't want

6 a bunch of things in the future and

7 things can change, but isn't there a way

8 to get to work together to get to the

9 point where we want to get? Excuse me.

10 By limiting the amount of time you are

11 allowed to do something like that? Like

12 the other people had 12-month or A

13 two-year thing, how come that's not

14 offered?


16 something you would have to discuss with

17 the city planning department.

18 MR. PASCARIS: I'm just

19 wondering why it's not presented so we

20 can move forward.

21 MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Chair, I

22 think he can have the conversation with

23 the city staff and administration instead

24 of the board. It's a perfectly normal









1 and appropriate conversation to have with

2 the right staff.

3 MR. PASCARIS: Thank you.

4 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: And, finally,

5 the twelfth and final case on the agenda.

6 Drum roll, please.

7 Case No. 10-046, 44650 Eleven

8 Mile Road. Petitioner is requesting

9 variances to add a new two-car garage to

10 existing residence with an existing

11 two-car attached garage requiring a

12 variance to exceed the

13 850-square-foot limit on accessory uses.

14 Property is zoned R-4 and is located

15 north of Eleven Mile Road and east of

16 Taft Road.

17 Will you state your name and

18 address for the record. If you are not

19 an attorney, please be sworn in.

20 MR. YARNELL: My name is Tom

21 Yarnell. Address is 44650 West Eleven

22 Mile Road. I am not an attorney.

23 MEMBER IBE: Sir, in Case No.

24 10-046, 44650 West Eleven Mile Road, do









1 you swear or affirm to tell the truth?

2 MR. YARNELL: I do.

3 MEMBER IBE: Thank you.

4 MR. YARNELL: The purpose of

5 the garage is so I can store my boat and

6 my truck, that the boat originally now

7 sits in the yard and truck sits out in

8 the driveway. I just want the garage to

9 store my boat and the truck in the

10 garage. That's the only purpose I have

11 for it. Thank you.


13 anyone in the audience who wishes to

14 comment on this case? Seeing none --

15 MR. YARNELL: Can I add one

16 more thing? I'm sorry.


18 MR. YARNELL: I was here back

19 in May, and I talked with Chris over what

20 I was going to do and everything. He

21 told me originally because I had over an

22 acre of property I was allowed 2,500

23 square feet of out buildings. That's why

24 I have the plans I do have now.










2 Mr. Secretary.

3 MEMBER IBE: Yes. Thank you,

4 Mr. Chair. There were 22 notices mailed,

5 two approvals, zero objections, one mail

6 returned.

7 The first approval is from Dan

8 Valentine of 44719 Eleven Mile, dated

9 August 30, 2010. And it reads,

10 "Absolutely approve Mr. Yarnell's

11 request. Will not distract from his

12 house and/or neighborhood."

13 And the second approval is from

14 Robert Hilliard of 44636 West Eleven Mile

15 Road, also dated August 30th, 2010. And

16 it reads, "We do not have a problem with

17 Tom's building and attached garage to

18 existing garage. Our garage is on the

19 same side."

20 Thank you, Mr. Chair.

21 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you.

22 Does the building department or city

23 attorney wish to add anything at this

24 time?










2 MR. BOULARD: I will keep my

3 comments brief. I just want to say that

4 if this is approved, I will be jealous of

5 Mr. Yarnell.


7 this time, I will refer the matter to the

8 board. Member Sanghvi.

9 MEMBER SANGHVI: One question

10 for you, sir. What are you going to do

11 with (inaudible)?

12 MR. YARNELL: Pardon?

13 MEMBER SANGVHI: You have some

14 beautiful trees on the east side of your

15 lot.

16 MR. YARNELL: Yes.

17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Are you going

18 to disturb them?

19 MR. YARNELL: No. The trees, I

20 already cut down the trees that I have to

21 cut down for the garage. I have already

22 done that. The trees that are out there

23 now are going to stay.

24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. Thank









1 you.

2 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Anyone else?

3 I will entertain a motion.


5 10-046, 44650 West Eleven Mile Road, I

6 move to approve the petitioner's request

7 to add a new two-car attached garage to

8 an existing residence, to give the

9 variance requested of 310 square feet.

10 That the setback frontage, height,

11 density requirements don't unreasonably

12 prevent the use of the property for its

13 permitted use. It will provide

14 substantial justice to the petitioner and

15 surrounding property owners. It is

16 unique to this property, and adequate

17 light and air is provided to adjacent

18 properties. No increase of fire danger

19 or public safety will occur. Property

20 values will be improved within

21 surrounding area, and the spirit of the

22 zoning ordinance is observed.

23 MEMBER IBE: I will second

24 that.










2 motion made by Member Krieger and

3 seconded by Member Ibe. Any further

4 discussion? Ms. Martin --

5 MEMBER GEDEON: I would just

6 add to the motion that the reason, more

7 facts, that the large size of the lot

8 permits this use.


10 agreeable?




14 added to the motion. Ms. Martin, please

15 call the roll.

16 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi?


18 MS. MARTIN: Member Cassis?


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,

7 seven to zero.

8 MR. YARNELL: Thank you very

9 much. One other thing, I had applied for

10 this permit back in the end of July. I'd

11 like to see if I could waive the five-day

12 waiting period.

13 MR. SCHULTZ: Five-day waiting

14 period.

15 MR. YARNELL: They told me when

16 I was -- when I applied for the permit,

17 when I actually -- when I applied to come

18 here, they told me to ask you to waive

19 the five-day waiting period.

20 MS. MARTIN: I approved that

21 previous, and I don't know where it came

22 from.

23 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: You can get

24 with Ms. Martin.









1 MR. YARNELL: Thank you very

2 much.

3 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: That brings

4 us to other matters section, and it has

5 to do with the Zoning Board of Appeals

6 training session. Wednesday, September

7 22, 6:30 at Secrest Wardle. Tom will

8 entertain us, I assume.

9 If you are not going to attend,

10 I would say let Ms. Martin know so she

11 can have a count as to who will be there

12 and not be there.

13 MEMBER KRIEGER: Wednesday,

14 September 22?


16 MEMBER KRIEGER: What time?

17 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Six-thirty at

18 Secrest Wardle.

19 MEMBER KRIEGER: All right.

20 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Anything else

21 you want to add?

22 MEMBER KRIEGER: I had seen a

23 sign in the city that's -- I guess it's

24 not a city sign; it's called no









1 soliciting. It was a red sign, and

2 somebody told me it was going to be taken

3 down, but it's still there. So I was

4 wondering if the no soliciting sign that

5 was posted in one of subs, that if that's

6 -- somebody said it was going to be taken

7 down, but it's still there. And I was

8 wondering if -- I kind of like the sign.


10 subdivision.


12 wondering how to get one, because it's so

13 much nicer to not have people come and

14 knocking on the door; you don't know who

15 is knocking on your door.

16 MR. BOULARD: Sounds like a

17 conversation --

18 MR. SCHULTZ: We can -- so we

19 can find out a little bit about the sign

20 and maybe report back at that training

21 session or something.

22 MEMBER KRIEGER: Okay. And for

23 the training session, if we could review

24 the use variances and what goes with









1 businesses and lands.

2 MR. SCHULTZ: Sure.


4 Thanks.

5 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Just a note.

6 The no soliciting sign was put up by the

7 homeowner's association; it's not a city

8 sign. And they gave us the blessing to

9 put it up.

10 MEMBER SANGVHI: May I make a

11 motion to thank Mr. Schultz for being

12 here today.


14 MR. SCHULTZ: Thanks or

15 objection.

16 MEMBER SANGVHI: I haven't seen

17 you.

18 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: That takes us

19 to the end of our business for the

20 evening, and I will entertain a motion to

21 adjourn.


23 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: All in favor?










1 (The hearing was adjourned at

2 12:00 a.m.)

3 - - -
































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


5 I, Sherri L. Ruff, do hereby certify

6 that I have recorded stenographically the

7 proceedings had and testimony taken in

8 the above-entitled matter at the time and

9 place hereinbefore set forth, and I do

10 further certify that the foregoing

11 transcript, consisting of (213)

12 typewritten pages, is a true and correct

13 transcript of my said stenographic notes.



16 ______________


17 Date Sherri L. Ruff,


18 Certified Shorthand