View Agenda for this meeting 
View Action Summary for this meeting

REGULAR MEETING - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY OF NOVI
TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2011

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, March 8, 2011.

BOARD MEMBERS
David Ghannam, Chairman
Mav Sanghvi
Rickie Ibe
Linda Krieger
Donna Skelcy
Jeffrey Gedeon

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

REPORTED BY:
Sherri L. Ruff, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 Novi, Michigan

2 Tuesday, March 8, 2011.

3 - - -

4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I'd like

5 to call the March 8, 2011, Zoning Board

6 of Appeals to order.

7 If we could start with the

8 Pledge of Allegiance. And,

9 Member Sanghvi, welcome back. Will you

10 please lead us.

11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

12 I would be delighted.

13 (The Pledge of Allegiance was

14 recited.)

15 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you.

16 Ms. Martin, if you would please call

17 the roll.

18 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe?

19 MEMBER IBE: Present.

20 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger?

21 MEMBER KRIEGER: Present.

22 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi?

23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Here.

24 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy?

 

 

 

 

1 MEMBER SKELCY: Here.

2 MS. MARTIN: Chairman

3 Ghannam?

4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Here.

5 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon?

6 MEMBER GEDEON: Here.

7 MS. MARTIN: Member Cassis

8 will be absent tonight.

9 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay.

10 Thank you. I will go over briefly a

11 few of the format and rules that we

12 have, and all the rules should be

13 toward the entrance.

14 Make sure all pagers and cell

15 phones are off during this meeting.

16 When applicants are called, they will

17 be asked to come forth, state their

18 name and be sworn in by our secretary,

19 if they are not attorneys.

20 The applicants or their

21 representative will have five minutes

22 to address to the board. Extensions

23 may be granted at the discretion of the

24 chair.

 

 

 

 

1 Members of the public will be

2 asked if they have any particular

3 comments on any case being called at

4 that time, and they will be recognized

5 and limited to three minutes.

6 The first item on the list of

7 the agenda is the approval of the

8 agenda, and this would be for the

9 current agenda. Are there any

10 modifications or corrections to the

11 current agenda?

12 MS. MARTIN: Yes. The first

13 case, 10-061, 41107 Jo Drive, has

14 requested in writing to be tabled to

15 the April 12, 2011, ZBA meeting.

16 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Do we need

17 a formal motion on that to adjourn

18 that?

19 MR. SCHULTZ: Yes.

20 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Can I hear

21 a motion to adjourn that? What was the

22 date of the next meeting?

23 MS. MARTIN: April 12th.

24 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: April

 

 

 

 

1 12th. Can I hear a motion to adjourn

2 the Jo Drive item to May -- I'm sorry,

3 April 12th?

4 MEMBER SANGHVI: So move.

5 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second.

6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any

7 further discussion? If not,

8 Ms. Martin, can you please call the

9 roll.

10 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi?

11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.

12 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger?

13 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.

14 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe?

15 MEMBER IBE: Yes.

16 MS. MARTIN: Chairman

17 Ghannam?

18 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Yes.

19 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy?

20 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes.

21 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon?

22 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes.

23 MS. MARTIN: Motion passes,

24 five to zero.

 

 

 

 

1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay.

2 MS. MARTIN: Six to zero,

3 sorry.

4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any other

5 corrections or modifications to the

6 agenda?

7 MS. MARTIN: No.

8 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: And I will

9 hear -- then can I hear a motion to

10 approve the agenda as modified?

11 MEMBER SANGHVI: So move.

12 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second.

13 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: All in

14 favor, say aye.

15 THE BOARD: Aye.

16 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any

17 opposed? Seeing none, we have an

18 agenda for tonight.

19 Next is the approval of the

20 minutes for February 8, 2011. Are

21 there any corrections or modifications

22 to that? Mr. Boulard.

23 MR. BOULARD: On page 15,

24 line 20, the last words should be,

 

 

 

 

1 "They were not interested." That's it.

2 Thank you.

3 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay.

4 Anything else? Seeing none, anybody

5 want to make a motion to approve the

6 February 8, 2011, minutes of the

7 meeting as amended?

8 MEMBER SANGHVI: So move.

9 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second.

10 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: All in

11 favor, say aye.

12 THE BOARD: Aye.

13 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any

14 opposed? Seeing none, the February 8,

15 2011, minutes are approved.

16 Next would be the public

17 remarks section. Is there anybody here

18 who would like to make a public remark

19 on items not currently before the

20 zoning board tonight? Seeing none, I

21 will close the public remarks section

22 and move to item number two, since

23 number one has been adjourned.

24 That is Case No. 10-062,

 

 

 

 

1 Weiss. The petitioner is requesting

2 variances to allow the land uses

3 allowed currently under Section 1401 of

4 the City of Novi zoning ordinance for

5 the B-2 zoning, for portions of

6 existing parcels 22-26-101-019 and

7 22-26-101-021 zoned I-1 and OS-1

8 respectively.

9 Could you please state your

10 name, please.

11 MR. QUINN: Yes. Good

12 evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'm

13 Matthew Quinn. I'm an attorney. I'm

14 appearing on behalf of Novi Ten

15 Associates. With me is Carmine

16 Avantini, a professional planner, and

17 he's ready to be sworn.

18 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Could you

19 please raise your hand, sir. State

20 your address and be sworn.

21 MEMBER IBE: Sir, in Case

22 10-062, Weiss project, do you swear or

23 affirm to tell the truth?

24 MR. AVANTINI: I do.

 

 

 

 

1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Would you

2 state your name and address, please.

3 MR. AVANTINI: Carmine

4 Avantini, 306 South Washington Avenue,

5 Royal Oak, Michigan.

6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay.

7 Whoever wishes to proceed, go ahead.

8 MR. QUINN: Yes. Good

9 evening, ladies and gentlemen. I was

10 here two months ago in front of you

11 when this matter was first scheduled,

12 and at that time you had a short panel,

13 and we agreed that the matter would be

14 adjourned to this evening. And also at

15 that time you asked that your city

16 attorney to provide you some written

17 information concerning this appeal.

18 And I would assume that you received

19 that information by this point in time.

20 This is a little unusual

21 matter that is in front of you this

22 evening, because this is a request for

23 a use variance. And perhaps you don't

24 see requests for use variances that

 

 

 

 

1 often. Typically, what you see here,

2 are dimensional variances for side yard

3 setbacks, sizes of buildings and things

4 like that. So, it's going take a

5 little bit of time to go through this.

6 Now, I realize that my client

7 signed and had notarized the

8 application that is in front of you

9 this evening, with a lot of material

10 there. And I would note that Mr. Weiss

11 did put that in an affidavit form as

12 far as the truthfulness of all the

13 contents of that application.

14 Now, we are here tonight, as

15 I said, for a use variance. What we

16 are asking for is the zoning of a piece

17 of property to become B-2. You are not

18 really changing the zoning, just the

19 use. The property is zoned, as you

20 will see in a moment, I-1 and OS-1. We

21 have been through the process, the

22 process for a PRO with the B-2 uses on

23 this process, and we were denied at the

24 city council. And that brings us to an

 

 

 

 

1 appeal to you as the quasi-judicial

2 body of the city.

3 Now, the property that we are

4 looking at is owned by Novi Associates.

5 And I think we can make this out here.

6 This is Ten Mile Road across the front.

7 This is Novi Road going this way. The

8 railroad tracks that we all have to

9 cross are on the east side of the

10 property. Behind us here is the sports

11 club. And this is Arena Drive coming

12 in from Novi Road.

13 Now, my client happens to own

14 all this property, but all of this is

15 not subject to tonight's application.

16 The property was zoned I-1 on the east

17 side and OS-1 on the west side.

18 Now, the area that we are

19 dealing with today - I guess we should

20 go this way - is the part one, which is

21 the industrial area, and part two,

22 which is the OS-1 area. We are only

23 asking for the B-2 uses on this area as

24 described in our application. Roughly,

 

 

 

 

1 it's 23 acres altogether.

2 And what we are asking for is

3 to use this property for the

4 construction of a grocery store. Right

5 now we have Krogers lined up for

6 allowing us to have a 40,000 square

7 foot neighborhood center here. This

8 Kroger store is approximately 63,

9 64,000 square feet. And then B-2 uses

10 on these five out-lots through here.

11 All the B-2 uses that would be allowed

12 by the ordinance.

13 Now, I do want to have a

14 caveat to that. We are not asking for

15 any automobile-related uses that are

16 referenced in the B-2 ordinance, only

17 the general retail items is what really

18 we are asking for to be used here.

19 Now, the question becomes,

20 you know, what right do we have to come

21 to you to ask that this be used for

22 B-2? Well, in your -- in the city

23 ordinance and under your own policy,

24 you have the criteria for a use

 

 

 

 

1 variance request. And that use

2 variance request states that a

3 petitioner like us can seek permission

4 to use land for a purpose not otherwise

5 permitted within the underlying zoning

6 district.

7 As set forth in the zoning

8 ordinance, petitioner is expected to

9 demonstrate unnecessary hardship.

10 That's the key, unnecessary hardship,

11 which will include some or all of the

12 following. Not all, but some.

13 First, the building structure

14 or land - and, of course, here we are

15 talking about land - cannot be

16 reasonably used for any of the uses

17 permitted by right. So that would be

18 the industrial uses, which we have

19 listed in one of the exhibits, or the

20 medical office type uses listed in the

21 OS district.

22 Secondly, that the need for

23 the requested variance is due to unique

24 circumstances of the property involved,

 

 

 

 

1 such as narrowness, shallowness, shape,

2 water, topography or similar physical

3 conditions, and is not due to the

4 applicant's personal or economic

5 hardship.

6 Three, that the proposed use

7 will not alter the essential character

8 of the neighborhood.

9 And, four, that the need for

10 the requested variance is not the

11 result of actions of the property owner

12 or previous property owners.

13 Now, unnecessary hardship, as

14 referenced in the application, Black's

15 Law Dictionary says that, "Within a

16 zoning ordinance, so as to authorize

17 granting of a variance of such land or

18 such ground if land cannot

19 reasonably" -- I'm sorry, I was jumping

20 head.

21 "Within a zoning ordinance,

22 so as to authorize granting of a

23 variance of such ground if land cannot

24 yield a reasonable return if used only

 

 

 

 

1 for the purposes allowed in the zone.

2 The plight of the owner is due to

3 unique circumstances, not general

4 conditions of the neighborhood, and use

5 to be authorized will not alter the

6 essential character of the locality.

7 The land cannot reasonably be used for

8 any of the uses permitted by right."

9 Then we went ahead and cited

10 some Michigan cases, and I just shortly

11 want to highlight some of the lines

12 from those cases.

13 The Jesus Center Versus

14 Farmington Hills Zoning Board case

15 said, "Because zones established by

16 ordinance will not always reflect the

17 realities of land controlled by the

18 zoning ordinance, the City and Village

19 Zoning Act provides a process by which

20 a property owner may seek a variance

21 from the application of the ordinance."

22 Then from Ratcliff, a

23 textbook on zoning, "Unnecessary

24 hardship must show credible proof that

 

 

 

 

1 the property will not yield a

2 reasonable return if used only for

3 purpose allowed by the ordinance, or

4 must establish that the zoning gives

5 rise to hardship, amounting to virtual

6 confiscation, or the disadvantage must

7 be so great as to prohibit the owner

8 from all reasonable use of the property

9 allowed by the zoning ordinance."

10 In the Jansen case, again,

11 the zoning board of appeals case in

12 Michigan where the ZBA determined that

13 the landowner made the requisite

14 showing of financial hardship, and that

15 the compatibility of the proposed use

16 was within the character of the

17 surrounding properties, there the ZBA

18 allowed construction of multiple-family

19 dwellings at the request of the

20 property owner.

21 There is other cases. The

22 Puritan Greenfield case says, "That the

23 function of the board of zoning appeals

24 is to protect the community against

 

 

 

 

1 usable land remaining idle, and that

2 purpose, which gives definition to

3 unnecessary hardship," and continuing,

4 "since the main purpose of allowing

5 variances is to prevent land from being

6 rendered useless. Unnecessary hardship

7 can best be defined as a situation

8 where, in the absence of a variance, no

9 feasible use can be made of the land."

10 Now, where do we go from

11 here? Let's talk about this property.

12 First of all, as we told you, we have

13 Kroger as an entity that is willing to

14 buy acreage from this to build a

15 Kroger. They were going to pay five

16 million dollars for the purchase of

17 their acreage, of seven acres.

18 Also, with the completion of

19 this project, the rate of return on the

20 investment was going to be about 15

21 percent annually of the investment.

22 So, when you look at the property and

23 the financial hardship, the unnecessary

24 hardship, that is something that the

 

 

 

 

1 case law allows you to take

2 consideration of.

3 So, has Mr. Weiss, Novi Ten

4 Associates, suffered a financial

5 hardship? Well, obviously, they have,

6 because these projects cannot go

7 forward with those monies involved.

8 Now, let's talk about the

9 usefulness of this property. And this

10 is laid out in here, but it's very

11 important to go over. As you know, as

12 explained, Mr. Weiss has owned this

13 property for about 30 years. He

14 actually owned it while the Erwins -

15 everybody remembers the Erwins -

16 while they had their orchards there.

17 They rented from him, all right, over

18 the last -- he actually bought it from

19 them many years ago, so he's had it

20 that long. He's had it ready for

21 development that long.

22 It's been pretty much zoned,

23 been master-planned commercial, as you

24 see in here, through the '99 master

 

 

 

 

1 plan. Then it became commercial again.

2 And then it became a special project

3 area for the last two times the master

4 plan was looked, at until the very last

5 time that it came up last year. So

6 this property all this time has been

7 zoned industrial.

8 And had there been any

9 offers? No, there has been no offers

10 for developments. Has he been looking

11 for offers? Certainly, he's been

12 looking for offers. Every landowner

13 looks for offers for projects. But

14 there has been nothing there.

15 Now, what does the future say

16 for this property? Well, even in your

17 planning department's own reports that

18 are set forth in the attachment, we

19 came up with certain facts regarding

20 the use of this property, the future

21 use. I want to get to that page,

22 because it happens to be close to the

23 end.

24 What the planning

 

 

 

 

1 department's documents show is that in

2 currently built industrial buildings,

3 the vacancy rate is between 16 and 21

4 percent. That's buildings that are

5 constructed. Actually, within a square

6 mile of this site, there is over

7 300,000 square feet of industrial

8 buildings that are empty. In fact,

9 adjacent to the east is a 110,000

10 square foot industrial building that's

11 been vacant for about five years.

12 Down on Nine Mile, just about

13 a mile away, there is additional

14 buildings. I know of two right offhand

15 that are, again, 100,000 square feet

16 plus, that have been empty for at least

17 two years.

18 So, here you have a need

19 of -- at least the city perceives a

20 need to have industrially-zoned

21 property when you already have 16 to 21

22 percent of the existing industrial

23 buildings vacant. But yet the city

24 still says, "We need more industrial

 

 

 

 

1 property."

2 Well, how about vacant

3 industrial property? The planning

4 department's own reports stated that

5 it's expected there will be no use for

6 additional industrial land for between

7 19 and 48 years in the future. This is

8 a piece of vacant land. So, not only

9 do you have 16 to 21 percent of

10 existing buildings vacant, industrial,

11 but, the city's own reports say for at

12 least another 19, minimum of 19 years,

13 you won't need any more industrial

14 land, all the way up to possibly 48.

15 So, is this property useless

16 to be used as industrial land today?

17 We say certainly it is, because the

18 city's own records and documents show

19 that it can't possibly be used for

20 another 19 years. I would hope, and I

21 really haven't looked, that the value

22 of this property on the city's

23 assessment roll is almost zero.

24 Because if it can't be used today, it

 

 

 

 

1 hasn't been used for 30 years in the

2 past and it can't be used for at least

3 19 years in the future as industrial

4 property; it has no value. And that's

5 why there is a hardship applicable to

6 this property based upon the city's own

7 records.

8 Now, why do we need something

9 there like B-2 uses? Well, within the

10 documentation there is a market study

11 done by the Chesapeake Group.

12 Coincidentally, the Chesapeake Group a

13 few years before they did this study

14 did the city's own study on what the

15 city needed for businesses in the

16 community. The same Chesapeake Group

17 did the report for Mr. Weiss and showed

18 that, yes, in fact, there is a need for

19 a grocery store and other commercial

20 uses at this site in the city.

21 Then, based upon that market

22 study report, he went and had another

23 report done by the Strategic Edge

24 Group. This Strategic Edge Group went

 

 

 

 

1 out and talked to 300 different people

2 in the city, randomly 300 people, and

3 asked them about a grocery store and

4 other commercial in this particular

5 area. What they said was in the

6 consumer survey is that 78 percent of

7 the responses, 78 percent said that

8 they were very likely or somewhat

9 likely to shop at a grocery store

10 companion commercial at this location.

11 And why is this location so

12 important? Well, think about it.

13 Think about grocery stores in Novi.

14 How many do we have? Well, you would

15 be surprised. In Novi, we really only

16 have the Kroger store up on Grand River

17 and Beck, and that was built about ten

18 years ago. Then we have a Busch's

19 store that took over the old Farmer

20 Jack at Ten Mile and Meadowbrook.

21 And that's only about a half a store

22 because of its size; it can't expand in

23 where it is. And then you have Better

24 Foods, and that's really about it.

 

 

 

 

1 You have grocery stores

2 outside of Novi. You got Meijer's on

3 the south side; you got Meijer's on the

4 other side. You've got Costco to go

5 to. But as far as a pure grocery store

6 is concerned - I'm not talking about

7 your convenient store or your 7-Elevens

8 or gas stations, but a true grocery

9 store - Novi is served by roughly

10 one-and-a-half stores, and that's for

11 55,000 people. That's why the market

12 study was so adamant in its conclusion

13 that, yes, Novi needs additional

14 grocery stores.

15 And when they looked at this

16 location and the surrounding

17 residential area, that is why 78

18 percent of the respondents said, "Yes,

19 this is the place where we will go."

20 So, now, what have we

21 established so far? We have

22 established that we have a use for the

23 property that's documented by market

24 studies and by consumer research. And

 

 

 

 

1 then we showed you that the existing

2 use of this land as industrial just

3 isn't viable; it isn't viable at all.

4 So, the -- where we are then

5 is really establishing your four

6 criteria through what we have already.

7 As far as the land cannot be reasonably

8 used for the uses permitted, we have

9 established that through the city's own

10 records. It's vacant; it's not going

11 to be even ready for development for 19

12 years.

13 Number two, that the need for

14 the requested variance is due to unique

15 circumstances of the property. The

16 property has been like this for 30

17 years, and it's going to be the same.

18 My client has not changed anything in

19 his ownership of this other than for

20 the last ten years he's been working on

21 this. He's been working on putting the

22 Kroger deal together. He finally got

23 that done, and here we go again.

24 One of the reasons why it

 

 

 

 

1 didn't go through earlier is in 2004 we

2 brought this project forward, and we

3 did the PRO similar, only the project

4 was much larger; it's since been

5 shrunk. We came to the planning

6 commission in December of 2004, and the

7 planning commission and the city

8 basically said, "Listen, we are waiting

9 for the improvements to be done at Ten

10 Mile and Novi Road." Remember, that

11 was just a very small intersection.

12 Now, of course, it's five lanes pretty

13 much in all directions. The city said,

14 "Wait. Put your project on hold and

15 come back when that intersection is

16 improved."

17 So, Mr. Weiss did. We came

18 back two years ago, started the project

19 again. And after he waited all that

20 time, after he was willing to pay the

21 city 400,000 for road improvements,

22 park improvements and other

23 improvements as part of the PRO, he was

24 turned down.

 

 

 

 

1 The third item, that the

2 proposed use will not alter the

3 essential character of the

4 neighborhood. Well, you know that

5 neighborhood, what's around there.

6 Carmine's going to tell you a little

7 bit more from a planning perspective

8 what that means. But, you know to the

9 north on Ten Mile Road you have

10 industrial buildings. To the east you

11 have industrial buildings. To the

12 south, he owns all of that, remember.

13 He owns everything to the south. It's

14 vacant until you get to the sports club

15 and across the street where you got

16 Walgreen's on the corner. And then

17 across the street you have offices. So

18 the character of the neighborhood is

19 not going change at all by having a

20 grocery store and ancillary commercial

21 items there.

22 The fourth thing, that the

23 need for the requested variance is not

24 the result of actions of the property

 

 

 

 

1 owner. Well, he's not done anything

2 but own the property. The city keeps

3 bouncing back and forth on the uses of

4 this property in its master plan

5 throughout all of these years.

6 So, we satisfied all those

7 four criteria. And before I wind up,

8 I'm going to have Carmine Avantini come

9 up and just verify -- did you get his

10 letter, by the way, as part of your

11 packet yesterday? It would have come

12 in yesterday from LSL Planning.

13 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Yes.

14 MR. QUINN: Okay. Carmine,

15 why don't you come up and verify the

16 report.

17 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: If you can

18 be brief, sir. Mr. Quinn did a nice

19 job. You are limited to five minutes.

20 He's been about 17 to 18.

21 MR. AVANTINI: I understand.

22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I

23 understand this is more complex.

24 MR. AVANTINI: And we

 

 

 

 

1 appreciate your indulgence.

2 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: No

3 problem.

4 MR. AVANTINI: Just a couple

5 of key points that I included in here

6 is that this particular site, when you

7 look at all the other industrial and

8 office sites within the community, is

9 really at a competitive disadvantage,

10 in addition to the vacancy rate that

11 Mr. Quinn had just indicated. When you

12 look at other industrial sites, in

13 particular, there are, including in

14 your community and surrounding

15 communities, if you are an industrial

16 user looking for space, this is not one

17 of the first places you would go to.

18 Another thing I want to point

19 out, too, is the fact that currently

20 within this area and within the

21 community, you do have to travel a

22 great distance if you want to go to --

23 other than Busch's, if you want to go

24 to grocery stores, you have to travel

 

 

 

 

1 miles to get there. That further

2 impacts the traffic throughout the

3 community, creates additional

4 congestion, uses additional fuel, air

5 emissions and so forth. So, if we are

6 really looking for a sustainable

7 community, it makes sense to have

8 convenience commercially located near

9 the residential areas, which this

10 particular site meets that condition.

11 I know -- just one last

12 thing. One of the other items that

13 came up during the re-zoning, was the

14 fact that you do have Busch's in a

15 shopping center nearby, and this could

16 potentially create competition for that

17 center. Having lived across the street

18 from that center for six years, not all

19 that long ago, it hasn't changed much

20 in that frame of time. And, you know,

21 it's been 100 percent full for many

22 years. There is not a lot of

23 investment that's gone on in that

24 particular center. A little

 

 

 

 

1 competition nearby may help bring some

2 improvements to that particular site.

3 MR. QUINN: Just in

4 conclusion -- thank you, Carmine. We

5 would like you to grant as a use for

6 this property, as requested, the B-2

7 uses under the ordinance, with the

8 exception of any automobile-related

9 uses, which can be excluded.

10 What's good about that, by

11 granting the B-2 uses, you control --

12 you, as the ZBA, control the

13 development of the B-2 uses.

14 Now, the diagram here on the

15 panel of the overhead is what we

16 propose to the city during our site

17 plan, PRO. We would abide by that, but

18 you have control over what the B-2 will

19 look like.

20 So, we appreciate a positive

21 vote. We are here to answer any

22 questions you might have. And thank

23 you very much for your attention.

24 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you,

 

 

 

 

1 Mr. Quinn.

2 Is there anyone in the

3 audience who would like to make a

4 comment on this specific case, please

5 raise your hand and be recognized.

6 Seeing none, the public remarks section

7 will be closed.

8 Next, I will ask the

9 secretary to read any correspondence we

10 have.

11 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, there

12 were 44 notices mailed, zero responses,

13 and two mail returned.

14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay.

15 Next, any comments from the city, other

16 than what was already provided?

17 Mr. Schultz.

18 MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Chair,

19 thank you. Just a couple. I guess the

20 first couple are clarifications.

21 I think counsel said that

22 what you are here doing today is

23 sitting as a quasi-judicial body

24 hearing an appeal. I think those were

 

 

 

 

1 the words. It's really not I think

2 what you are doing today.

3 The city council acted on it

4 with the Planned Rezoning Overlay,

5 didn't approve it, made its motion.

6 That's not being appealed to you. You

7 don't have the authority to do it.

8 You are being asked a

9 separate question. Should you grant a

10 use variance? And Mr. Quinn did go

11 through the four standards for that.

12 And I guess I just want to clarify

13 that, too.

14 I understand that he cited

15 the rules of procedure when he talks

16 about meeting some of these or all of

17 these. But the ordinance and the case

18 law is pretty clear. You go through

19 all four, and they need to meet all

20 four parts of the test. And I guess --

21 so those are the two clarifications.

22 So, the other is just a

23 general comment. I don't know, maybe

24 Mr. Quinn can address. A number of

 

 

 

 

1 these points that were made by Mr.

2 Quinn have been sort of directly

3 addressed and sort of factually

4 disputed by the materials that were

5 submitted by your planning consultant

6 and your planning staff.

7 Our office didn't actually

8 provide anything specifically to the

9 ZBA, but Ron Arroyo's office did do a

10 report, and the planning staff did an

11 extensive report going through a number

12 of the items Mr. Quinn talked about at

13 length. I guess I don't know whether

14 or not he picked up that packet or had

15 a chance to review it. That may be

16 relevant to what he asks you to do

17 tonight.

18 But, you have in your hands

19 and in the packet, sort of an extensive

20 review of the same items Mr. Quinn just

21 went through. And, obviously,

22 Mr. Boulard and planning staff are here

23 to supplement those and answer any

24 questions you might have.

 

 

 

 

1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. I

2 will open now for the board for

3 questions of the applicant or the city.

4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Question for

5 Mr. Schultz. Will you kindly explain

6 to me and the people in the audience

7 and people that come, what is a PRO?

8 MR. SCHULTZ: Okay. The PRO

9 is a sort of shorthand reference to the

10 planned rezoning overlay. So, the

11 zoning on this property is OS-1 and

12 I-1. And Mr. Weiss came in, the

13 applicant came in and said, "I don't

14 want to use the property for either of

15 those district uses. I want to put a

16 specific development on here or a

17 specific conceptual plan for

18 development that's really retail and

19 other uses."

20 The city has a provision in

21 its ordinance as part of an amendment

22 to the zoning map where you can lay

23 over that existing I-1 and OS-1, a

24 rezoning, called a planned rezoning,

 

 

 

 

1 that has specific uses that are called

2 out and a specific concept plan that's

3 shown for what would be put on it.

4 So, Weiss came forward, the

5 applicant came forward, and proposed on

6 part of it sort of down Ten Mile

7 Road -- yeah, Ten Mile Road frontage, a

8 Kroger store and then sort of a related

9 retail development. And then on some

10 of the other areas they proposed sort

11 of this open use that, you know, showed

12 plans, conceptual plans, but said,

13 "We'll deal with what actually might go

14 in there later as another PRO

15 improvement." And so the city -- so

16 that's a request to essentially rezone

17 it for a particular concept plan.

18 That went to the planning

19 commission, which made its

20 recommendation of approval. But it

21 went to the city council, which is the

22 approving authority, and they looked at

23 it and said, "We don't think you have

24 met the standards for a planned

 

 

 

 

1 rezoning overlay," and they denied the

2 motion. And I think a copy of that is

3 in your packet of materials.

4 So, that is done. The

5 request for the PRO is completed, and

6 review's been completed, and the city

7 council did not approve.

8 The appeal from that, or the

9 remedy for the applicant for that

10 denial from city council is to go to

11 the Oakland County Circuit Court and

12 say, "They should have approved it."

13 The reason they are here tonight is

14 before they can do that, they have to

15 come to the ZBA and ask for a use

16 variance - which is what they have done

17 here tonight - so that when they get to

18 the circuit court, the city doesn't

19 say, or the court doesn't say, "I'm not

20 ready to review your circuit court suit

21 on the PRO. You didn't ask the ZBA for

22 a different kind of relief for the same

23 basic result."

24 So, this is them asking, not

 

 

 

 

1 exactly the same, for kind of what they

2 were asking the city council for, but

3 in concept of a use variance. And

4 their problem, and I think maybe

5 "problem" is not the right word. Their

6 task, as Mr. Quinn noted, is a little

7 different than usual, and a pretty

8 serious standard. Essentially, they

9 have to show they don't have any use of

10 that property without you telling them

11 that they can use it for their proposed

12 use.

13 The city staff went through

14 those four standards, and essentially

15 came to the conclusion they haven't

16 actually proved that basic concept.

17 They really focused more on why they

18 want the Kroger use there or retail

19 uses there as opposed to why they can't

20 use it for the office or industrial

21 use.

22 They submitted their

23 materials, and city staff responded to

24 those. You have all those in front of

 

 

 

 

1 you. You are going through tonight

2 those four steps to see whether or not

3 they have met their burden of proof on

4 the use variance.

5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any other

7 questions of the applicant?

8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Not at this

9 point; maybe later on.

10 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay.

11 Member Skelcy.

12 MEMBER SKELCY: Thank you,

13 Mr. Chairman.

14 Mr. Quinn.

15 MR. QUINN: Yes.

16 MEMBER SKELCY: Would you

17 agree that the property could be used

18 for a medical building?

19 MR. QUINN: The OS-1 part?

20 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes.

21 MR. QUINN: Perhaps, yes.

22 MEMBER SKELCY: Do you also

23 agree that the light industrial portion

24 of the land could also -- could be used

 

 

 

 

1 for light industrial-type activity?

2 MR. QUINN: I think there the

3 proof is in the pudding. There is

4 absolutely no demand for any industrial

5 use at that property.

6 MEMBER SKELCY: But the

7 question is it could be used for that,

8 could it not?

9 MR. QUINN: It could, at some

10 point in the future.

11 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay. Now,

12 what attempts did Mr. Weiss make, if

13 any, to use it for something such as

14 industrial or medical?

15 MR. QUINN: Well, until he

16 got Kroger in line, this property has

17 been available for industrial use for

18 the first 20 some years.

19 MEMBER SKELCY: What efforts

20 did he make to attempt to develop it

21 for either medical or light industrial?

22 MR. QUINN: It was -- as I

23 recall, it was listed with a realtor

24 for that use for quite a number of

 

 

 

 

1 years. I don't know exactly how many

2 years.

3 MEMBER SKELCY: And what else

4 did he do besides list it? Anything

5 else?

6 MR. QUINN: Well, what else

7 he did is in the rear portion, he

8 donated all the land for the city -- to

9 the city for the ice arena, which was

10 part of his property. And in an effort

11 to have that Arena Drive built so that

12 industrial uses would come off of it.

13 That was all part of the plan.

14 So he gave about three

15 million dollars' worth of property to

16 the city. The city built the road,

17 then the one arena was built, the

18 sports arena. And the rest of it

19 attached to that road has always been

20 marketed for industrial, and never

21 happened. And then the frontage on Ten

22 Mile Road never happened for

23 industrial, also.

24 MEMBER SKELCY: All right.

 

 

 

 

1 But, basically, all he did was listed

2 it? Doesn't sound like with regard to

3 the remaining portion he did anything

4 to actively try to develop it except

5 list it. He didn't go out and solicit?

6 MR. QUINN: You have to

7 remember, it's hard to do when you have

8 so much industrial vacancy in the city.

9 Not many people want to build on vacant

10 land when they can move into an

11 existing building and they don't have

12 to spend the construction dollars

13 for.

14 MEMBER SKELCY: But he didn't

15 go out and try to solicit a buyer or a

16 development like he did with Kroger?

17 MR. QUINN: No, actually,

18 because Kroger kind of came to him.

19 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay. How

20 did Kroger come to him?

21 MR. QUINN: Kroger --

22 Mr. Rick Ragsdale, which is the

23 regional director for Kroger, lives in

24 Novi. He is the one that brought the

 

 

 

 

1 Kroger Regional Headquarters to Grand

2 River in Novi. They have been looking

3 in Novi to have a second store ever

4 since they built the first store, which

5 is about ten years ago. So they have

6 been looking diligently in Novi. And

7 this was the prime site based on the

8 market surveys and all the consumer

9 information they have obtained.

10 MEMBER SKELCY: Now, during

11 your presentation, you didn't talk

12 about the topography or anything

13 related to that in terms of building

14 for industrial or medical. It doesn't

15 seem that there is any problems along

16 Ten Mile at all.

17 MR. QUINN: Not the frontage.

18 The property slopes off quite a bit, as

19 you see. And then back about 300

20 feet, there is the huge Chapman Creek

21 goes through there, and there is a

22 depression of about 30 feet that goes

23 through the entire thing. That's

24 where - I put that up again - that's

 

 

 

 

1 where the commercial projects stopped

2 right there.

3 MEMBER SKELCY: I guess if

4 you could build a Kroger there, and if

5 you could build anything else along

6 those two pieces of property, you could

7 certainly build a light industrial

8 building, could you not?

9 MR. QUINN: Yes. As part of

10 a PRO, we have to submit a conceptual

11 plan of what could be built there. And

12 I think it was another 100,000 square

13 foot industrial building, just like --

14 that's next door that's vacant. That's

15 shown on our concept plan.

16 MEMBER SKELCY: In other

17 words, there is nothing wrong with the

18 topography of the land that prevents

19 you from using it for a medical

20 building?

21 MR. QUINN: Correct.

22 MEMBER SKELCY: Or for light

23 industrial?

24 MR. QUINN: That's correct.

 

 

 

 

1 MEMBER SKELCY: Those are all

2 the questions I have. Thank you.

3 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member

4 Gedeon.

5 MEMBER GEDEON: Yeah, I would

6 like to start off with a comment

7 regarding your presentation about the

8 number of grocery stores in Novi. And

9 I don't find that argument very

10 persuasive, given that the Meijer

11 grocery store, super center, is right

12 around the immediate surroundings of

13 Novi. To some residences, a Meijer

14 directly across the border might be

15 closer to the grocery store than within

16 the city limits. I'm not sure why you

17 focused exclusively on the grocery

18 stores within the city limits.

19 Also, you failed to mention

20 the Walmart grocery store, which will

21 be built just a couple miles north of

22 there on the Grand River Town Center

23 area.

24 MR. QUINN: Yeah, the reason

 

 

 

 

1 for that is there is a difference

2 between what we will call a regional

3 store like a Meijer's or a Walmart, or

4 a -- what's the other -- Costco,

5 something like that, and a grocery

6 store. A grocery store, you go in, you

7 buy groceries, and that's it. You

8 don't have to worry about people that

9 are there buying nuts and screws and

10 plywood and sports equipment and

11 everything else. That's why there is a

12 differentiation in the market study

13 from a grocery store to what we will

14 call a regional store like a Meijer's.

15 That's what I was pertaining to.

16 MEMBER GEDEON: Okay. I

17 understand that, but in the survey that

18 you presented to us, didn't it state

19 that most of the people surveyed prefer

20 the Meijer's?

21 MR. QUINN: I don't recall it

22 being stated that way.

23 MEMBER GEDEON: Or that was

24 their most frequent grocery store that

 

 

 

 

1 they went to.

2 MR. QUINN: Yes, it is. The

3 point of that is because they don't

4 have an alternative.

5 MEMBER GEDEON: Well, that's

6 one interpretation. It could be a

7 preference.

8 MR. QUINN: Again, it's their

9 preference because they don't have a

10 typical grocery store to go to.

11 MEMBER GEDEON: Okay. Well,

12 anyway, I just wanted to get that out.

13 Second point, you said that

14 the current owner has owned the

15 property for 30 some years.

16 MR. QUINN: Right.

17 MEMBER GEDEON: Do you feel

18 that -- do you know if the property has

19 appreciated in those 30 years?

20 Presumably, 30 years is a pretty long

21 time span. Property values have gone

22 up quite a bit in Novi. You know, the

23 last few years notwithstanding.

24 MR. QUINN: Yeah, I was just

 

 

 

 

1 thinking about my house value I just

2 got; I think they have gone down about

3 30 years' worth. No, I really don't.

4 I don't have those numbers.

5 MEMBER GEDEON: Okay. So you

6 are not willing to speculate if the

7 property value has increased over

8 30 years?

9 MR. QUINN: You would assume

10 that it's gone up at least a dollar, so

11 it has gone up, sure.

12 MEMBER GEDEON: And noting

13 the possible uses for property, do you

14 recognize use as -- an investment as a

15 possible use of the property?

16 MR. QUINN: No, not given the

17 19-year vacancy of industrial --

18 19-year future use where this property

19 is not going to be used. That's an

20 investment -- by paying taxes for 30

21 years and another 19 years, that's a

22 losing investment.

23 MEMBER GEDEON: Okay. But, I

24 mean, if it was shown that property

 

 

 

 

1 taxes -- even after property taxes,

2 that the value has increased, couldn't

3 holding it for investment purposes and

4 selling it as property values increase

5 sometime in the future be considered an

6 acceptable use of the property?

7 MR. QUINN: In this

8 circumstance, I don't think so.

9 MEMBER GEDEON: Okay. Thank

10 you.

11 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any other

12 questions or concerns of the board?

13 Member Krieger.

14 MEMBER KRIEGER: I'm not too

15 sure where to direct this, to the city

16 or Mr. Quinn.

17 For the master plan, since

18 it's come under review, and I looked in

19 the internet under minutes, there is

20 not as much detail as I had hoped for.

21 I do want to recognize and

22 thank Mr. Weiss for his donation to the

23 city of the sports club property and

24 the ice rink. The intent -- I was

 

 

 

 

1 always wondering where that road was

2 going to go besides turning right.

3 But for the master plan, if

4 the petitioner, Mr. Weiss, I didn't see

5 that in the minutes that he had come to

6 the city during public input and said,

7 "Look, I'm having this difficulty with

8 industrial use for the master plan, I'd

9 like to look at some other alternative.

10 This was something that -- this is

11 another opportunity that I might be

12 able to use this property so the

13 hardship could be met."

14 MR. QUINN: Yes, I can tell

15 you, Ms. Krieger, that we were part of

16 the master plan review of this from day

17 one. I can't tell you how many

18 meetings we attended with them. And,

19 in fact, from my standpoint, the sad

20 part of it is, because of the lack of

21 finalization with the Kroger contract,

22 we couldn't get in front of the

23 planning commission before the master

24 plan was approved. We were there the

 

 

 

 

1 same night. They were case number one;

2 they approved the master plan. We were

3 case number two, and then they said,

4 "Sorry, we have to use the fact that

5 case number one adopted the master

6 plan, and now you don't fit with the

7 master plan anymore." So, that's how

8 it all worked out at the last meeting.

9 The same meeting, they were one, we

10 were two. Could we have been one on

11 that agenda? Certainly. The city

12 chose to put us after the master plan

13 consideration.

14 MEMBER KRIEGER: Wasn't there

15 audience participation?

16 MR. QUINN: Oh, yeah. We

17 participated, yes.

18 MEMBER KRIEGER: And also

19 made a decision you were number two? I

20 didn't understand.

21 MR. QUINN: Yeah, I

22 participated in the audience

23 participation.

24 MEMBER KRIEGER: That was my

 

 

 

 

1 first question for now.

2 MR. SCHULTZ: I guess I kind

3 of need to respond.

4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Go ahead,

5 Mr. Schultz.

6 MR. SCHULTZ: To the sort of

7 tone of Mr. Quinn's comments. The

8 master plan went on for a long time. I

9 think that PRO could have gone on a

10 different kind of track if anybody

11 wanted it to, including the applicant.

12 The planning commission actually was --

13 I believe it was the planning

14 commission that acted the night that

15 Mr. Quinn is talking about.

16 MR. QUINN: That's correct.

17 MR. SCHULTZ: Planning

18 commission recommends and planning

19 commission adopts the master plan. The

20 city council decision, which came a

21 month later, obviously took into

22 account the master plan, but that's

23 because the master plan amendment had

24 been cooking for the last couple years,

 

 

 

 

1 and it was in place.

2 The planning commission -

3 actually, the minutes will reflect -

4 asked the question, you know, "Even

5 with the master plan, if we think this

6 is appropriate use of the property,

7 what should we do?" So, it was not as

8 open and shut, frankly, as counsel

9 says, "It's already up; we can't

10 consider it anymore." It was a full

11 and serious consideration of the PRO

12 request in the normal course.

13 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any other

14 questions or comments by the board?

15 MEMBER SANGHVI: I just had

16 one comment and question for the --

17 primarily for the city and Mr. Schultz.

18 Mr. Quinn has made some

19 interesting points, and I would like

20 some kind of response from the city,

21 planning department and Mr. Schultz,

22 point by point about some of the issues

23 he has raised. And maybe we can come

24 back and get some more information on

 

 

 

 

1 this area before we finally vote on it.

2 Thank you.

3 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Did you

4 want to say anything?

5 MR. SCHULTZ: I guess it

6 would not befall to me to do any

7 point-by-point response. The planning

8 department and Mr. Arroyo essentially

9 put together a point-by-point response,

10 which they could go through tonight.

11 You know, I think the board maybe might

12 ask Mr. Quinn if he wants an

13 opportunity to take a look at that if,

14 for some reason, he hasn't gotten it

15 before tonight. I will just put that

16 out there as an opportunity for

17 Ms. McBeth or Ms. Kapelanski could do

18 point by point tonight.

19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. I

20 just have a couple comments myself.

21 I've seen the response information

22 submitted by the city. I view this

23 entire project, the 27 plus acres, to

24 me it seems more of a zoning issue as

 

 

 

 

1 opposed to a variance. I understand

2 you have to exhaust remedies and so

3 forth. And this is a large parcel of

4 land, clearly can be used for the

5 purposes its zoned for. I understand

6 you may have issues with the zoning.

7 To me, the zoning rules are

8 more, you know, future looking and more

9 permanent in nature. When the city

10 comes up - and they are the

11 legislators, not us - so to come up

12 with an idea that this is going to be

13 residential and this is light

14 industrial or office service, that's

15 not meant to take into consideration

16 necessarily a dip in the economy. And

17 maybe you can't build in industrial, or

18 maybe office is not necessarily

19 required at this. It's like a

20 petitioner coming up and having some

21 type of residential zoning saying,

22 "Residential is not selling. Let me

23 put up a liquor store there or a bar or

24 a gas station," or something to that

 

 

 

 

1 effect. They could make those type of

2 arguments, too. And those are really

3 zoning issues to me as opposed to use

4 variances.

5 Personally, when I looked

6 item by item at the requirements that

7 you are responsible to illustrate to

8 us, it does not appear to me that you

9 meet all of the requirements necessary

10 for a use variance. And, at this

11 point, I would not be in support.

12 Anybody else who would like

13 to make a comment or question of the

14 petitioner? Member Ibe.

15 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Quinn.

16 MR. QUINN: Yes, sir.

17 MEMBER IBE: I'm just going

18 to focus on what the guidelines are

19 here for us to arrive at some kind of

20 conclusion in the case. And I was

21 looking at the first one, which is what

22 other property cannot be reasonably

23 used for any of the uses permitted? I

24 think we already addressed that issue,

 

 

 

 

1 so I'm going to move to the second one,

2 which I find a little bit more

3 troubling.

4 Other than the Kroger, that

5 is, which is due to the unique

6 circumstances, would that be correct?

7 MR. QUINN: Yes.

8 MEMBER IBE: For grocery

9 shopping?

10 MR. QUINN: One of them,

11 yes.

12 MEMBER IBE: What other

13 unique circumstances do you -- maybe I

14 didn't get it in your first

15 presentation. Other than the need for

16 that, what other unique circumstances

17 do we have?

18 MR. QUINN: The unique

19 circumstances is the fact that this

20 property has been not able to be used

21 for the zoning purpose for 30 years in

22 the past. And for the next 19 to the

23 next 48 years, it is not scheduled to

24 be used for light industrial purposes,

 

 

 

 

1 according to the city's own studies.

2 That is unique unto this property.

3 MEMBER IBE: And what about

4 in terms of the narrowness or

5 shallowness or shape of the property?

6 Does that really come into play as to

7 why you wish to not propose a different

8 use of the property?

9 MR. QUINN: No, no, as far as

10 that for the use, no, those types of

11 things really don't apply to this

12 situation.

13 MEMBER IBE: Very well. I

14 think one of the -- I think one of my

15 colleagues asked you a question, and

16 I'm going to go back again on your last

17 comment. The uniqueness you talk

18 about, the need for grocery, you base

19 it on this survey that says people have

20 grocery shopping in the cities.

21 MR. QUINN: Market study,

22 right.

23 MEMBER IBE: And you don't

24 consider the Meijers that are located I

 

 

 

 

1 think west and south of our borders,

2 you don't consider that to be part

3 of -- accessible to Novi residents?

4 MR. QUINN: No, that's,

5 again, a different type of grocery

6 store. That's a super store, a super

7 center, with things that are sold other

8 than groceries. The market study was

9 specific to grocery stores itself and

10 grocery uses.

11 When people, in my opinion,

12 want to go grocery shopping, they want

13 to go to a grocery store, buy their

14 meat, buy their fruit, buy their

15 vegetables, and leave as quickly as

16 they can. They don't want to be in the

17 same checkout lines as people buying

18 clothes, people buying sports

19 equipment, people buying cameras and

20 video things. That's the difference

21 between a super store like that and a

22 true grocery store.

23 MEMBER IBE: Obviously, that

24 is not based on any kind of scientific

 

 

 

 

1 study. Is that your personal opinion,

2 or how do you come to that conclusion?

3 MR. QUINN: I watch my wife

4 shop. I think that's a scientific

5 study.

6 MEMBER IBE: Would you also

7 agree, sir, that the last maybe 20

8 years, the demographics has really

9 changed, and the way people shop has

10 really changed? That's obviously at

11 least (inaudible) Walmart, and places

12 where they don't have Walmart and

13 places they don't have Meijers.

14 Because people want to have one place

15 where they can shop for so many things.

16 So, the uniqueness of having a grocery

17 store where you can buy meat and

18 potatoes is not as unique anymore. And

19 the concept, obviously, was good when,

20 you know, when we had it maybe 25 years

21 ago. But as people are more mobile,

22 they want to go to a place and be able

23 to -- especially with the price of gas

24 right now, who wants to drive around to

 

 

 

 

1 two, three different stores?

2 MR. QUINN: Good question.

3 MEMBER IBE: Wouldn't you

4 prefer to go to Meijer's and buy your

5 clothes and also buy your meat and

6 potatoes?

7 MR. QUINN: No, I guess I

8 would rather go to some other clothing

9 store.

10 MEMBER IBE: Absolutely.

11 Thank you, Mr. Quinn. I appreciate

12 your time.

13 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM:

14 Mr. Boulard.

15 MR. BOULARD: If I might, I

16 might ask Ms. McBeth to address the

17 reference to the 18 to 48 years and so

18 on, please.

19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Please.

20 MR. BOULARD: How that's

21 manifested in the zoning ordinance.

22 MS. MCBETH: Thank you. Good

23 evening, I'm Barbara McBeth from the

24 planning department.

 

 

 

 

1 We did provide some

2 information in the report that included

3 the master plan study and which

4 included a market analysis, and that

5 was in the 2007 report. And the city

6 did work with our consultant, Ron

7 Arroyo, and his sub-consultant, the

8 Chesapeake Group. They prepared a

9 study that looked at a variety of

10 aspects of supply and demand for

11 various land uses throughout the

12 community. And they identified that

13 with the growing residential

14 population, there would be growing

15 demand for various other land uses.

16 That was in 2007/2008.

17 In 2010, the staff undertook

18 another update to the master plan for

19 land use, really looking at the city as

20 a whole again, overall, and noting that

21 the residential component had slowed

22 down in that time frame, wasn't growing

23 as quickly as we originally

24 anticipated.

 

 

 

 

1 The study was adjusted, and a

2 number of the assumptions were modified

3 in a downward fashion. And that study

4 was again used as part of their 2010

5 master plan for land use.

6 Now, we think that the

7 applicant may be misunderstanding what

8 the statements were regarding the

9 supply of office space. There was a

10 number of comments about the current

11 mix of land uses, and the demand for

12 office and industrial space was

13 plentiful for a certain time frame.

14 But what they are not picking up from

15 the comments and from the details of

16 the study, we believe, is that nothing

17 is saying which piece of land is going

18 to be developed first for office and

19 industrial. Some of the properties

20 would obviously be more suited to

21 office and industrial land uses and

22 would probably be absorbed into the

23 market more quickly.

24 So, we are not saying this

 

 

 

 

1 piece, included as part of that

2 available land, we are not saying this

3 would have to be the last one in line

4 to be picked up and used for office and

5 industrial space; it could be one of

6 the first ones.

7 Another item that we had

8 brought to the attention in this report

9 and previously was the fact that there

10 certainly could be a big user that

11 could come in, a medical office user,

12 industrial user, could come in and

13 deplete the supply or very much greatly

14 reduce the supply of available office

15 and industrial space.

16 I think I covered what you

17 were concerned about there.

18 MR. BOULARD: Yes, thank you.

19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any

20 questions? Member Skelcy.

21 MEMBER SKELCY: I have a

22 question. I have a question.

23 MS. MCBETH: Yes.

24 MEMBER SKELCY: The majority

 

 

 

 

1 of the other properties in that area

2 are zoned industrial, office and

3 residential. So, if we were to change

4 this use variance, it would change I

5 think the character of the area based

6 on what's currently there.

7 MS. MCBETH: That is

8 certainly staff's opinion. This would

9 be another 450 feet or so of commercial

10 development along one of the more

11 prominent roads. We think that would

12 change the character of the land in

13 that way.

14 MEMBER SKELCY: All right.

15 Thank you.

16 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you,

17 ma'am. Any other -- I'm sorry,

18 Mr. Boulard.

19 MR. BOULARD: I just have one

20 other question for Mr. Quinn. In view

21 of the -- in view that this originally

22 came before the board and the board had

23 requested additional information and so

24 on, I just wanted to make sure,

 

 

 

 

1 Mr. Quinn, you know, find out if he

2 will prefer to have this tabled so he

3 could look at additional information

4 and respond, or if he would rather have

5 it going forward tonight.

6 MR. QUINN: Well, it is true,

7 I didn't have a chance to look at the

8 city's reports because it wasn't

9 published as things normally are

10 online, so I wasn't aware that it had

11 been done.

12 MEMBER SANGHVI: It's your

13 call now.

14 MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Chair, just

15 to respond to that comment. The city

16 treated it in the way it normally

17 treats all the other applications that

18 are before you tonight. I think

19 Mr. Quinn could have come in and picked

20 up the packet. I believe it was

21 available a week or so ago.

22 That question is still fair

23 to Mr. Quinn, what do you want to do?

24 MR. QUINN: That's my fault.

 

 

 

 

1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: If you

2 want, you could certainly ask the board

3 to move this to another day; it's up to

4 you. I don't know that it will

5 necessarily be moved or not, but if you

6 want time to look at that.

7 MR. QUINN: I know I'm going

8 to be here next month anyway on another

9 matter. But, no, I don't think that

10 any response that I'm going to have

11 to -- is going to change anything, to

12 be honest with you.

13 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay.

14 Fair enough. Any other questions or

15 comments of the board? If not, I will

16 look for a motion. Member Skelcy.

17 MEMBER SKELCY: In the matter

18 of ZBA Case No. 10-062, relating to a

19 use variance to allow land uses

20 currently provided for in Section 1401

21 in the City of Novi zoning ordinance,

22 for the B-2 zoning district on the

23 portions of parcels 22-26-101-019 and

24 22-26-101-021, zoned I-1 and OS-1

 

 

 

 

1 respectively, I move that the request

2 be denied for the following reasons:

3 Number one, with regards to

4 Section 3104.1, the ZBA has authority

5 to authorize the use in a zoning

6 district in which it is not otherwise

7 permitted, only if it is clearly shown

8 that the land cannot be used for a

9 zoned use. The applicant has failed to

10 demonstrate that the land at issue

11 cannot be used for any of the variety

12 of uses allowed in the office and/or

13 light industrial districts. The

14 applicant, instead, has focused the

15 application on the alleged desirability

16 of a Kroger store and related uses on

17 one discreet portion of the property.

18 Number two, with regard to

19 section 3104.1, the ZBA finds that the

20 spirit of the zoning ordinance would

21 not be observed or substantial justice

22 done by a change in the uses allowed to

23 retail commercial. The recent 2010

24 master plan amendments and the existing

 

 

 

 

1 ordinance reflects the intended and

2 desired use of the area. The applicant

3 made no specific reference to any

4 particular term or requirement of the

5 zoning ordinance in support of the

6 change to retail commercial uses, and

7 did not establish or even attempt to

8 establish efforts to use, market or

9 develop the property as zoned in plan.

10 In addition, the applicant

11 almost exclusively focuses on the

12 proposed Kroger store and related strip

13 mall development. The applicant does

14 not identify the uses or any specific

15 development proposals for the remaining

16 areas along Ten Mile Road and along

17 Novi Road. In other words, the

18 applicant has not indicated how those

19 areas demand specific approval of

20 retail or commercial uses now as

21 opposed to office or industrial uses.

22 In the absence of proposed uses and

23 users, the board cannot find that all

24 the B-2 uses are appropriate for the

 

 

 

 

1 entire property, or, that other uses

2 allowed in the OS-1 or I-1 districts

3 are not available.

4 Three, with regard to section

5 3104.1, the applicant has not

6 established the requirements set forth

7 for the use variances as follows: The

8 property cannot reasonably be used for

9 any of the uses permitted by right or

10 any special land use permit in the

11 zoning district in which it is located.

12 The board finds that the applicant

13 misstates the findings of the staff's

14 update to the 2007 report by the

15 Chesapeake Group. This study does not

16 support the applicant's conclusion that

17 the property will remain vacant for

18 another 18 to 48 years.

19 As indicated in the planning

20 review, prepared by the city's planning

21 review center, dated February 28 of

22 2011, and in the memorandum of Birchler

23 Arroyo Associates, also dated February

24 28, 2011, the projections in the

 

 

 

 

1 original Chesapeake Group study nor

2 staff's update do not predict which

3 land or buildings will or should be

4 utilized or when such land or buildings

5 will be utilized.

6 While there is other land and

7 there are other buildings currently

8 authorized for office and/or light

9 industrial uses, the property at issue

10 is of sufficient size and configuration

11 to allow development similar to

12 developments within such districts that

13 have recently occurred in the city.

14 One of the purposes of the

15 master plan is to make sure that there

16 is sufficient area planned for

17 particular kinds of development and

18 uses in the future. The vacancy study

19 cited does not establish that the

20 master plan and zoning for this

21 property is unsupported. The applicant

22 did not provide any information to the

23 board with regard to any efforts to

24 use, market or develop the property, as

 

 

 

 

1 permitted by the zoning ordinance. In

2 fact, the applicant expressly stated in

3 the application that it was always

4 intended to become a retail

5 development.

6 Further, today there was no

7 indication from counsel indicating that

8 there had been efforts made to actively

9 market it for medical or light

10 industrial.

11 That the need for the

12 requested variance is due to unique

13 circumstances or physical conditions of

14 the property involved, such as

15 narrowness, shallowness, shape, water,

16 topography or other similar physical

17 conditions, and is not due to the

18 applicant's personal or economic

19 hardship. The applicant did not

20 establish any unique circumstances or

21 physical conditions causing a hardship

22 for development of the property. The

23 property has roughly a third of a mile

24 frontage along Ten Mile Road and

 

 

 

 

1 approximately 450 feet of frontage

2 along Novi Road. While there are

3 environmental features on the property,

4 there is significant buildable space

5 near both the Ten Mile frontage and the

6 Novi Road frontage, where the

7 topography is reasonably flat and

8 public utilities are available.

9 In addition, today counsel

10 admitted that the property could be

11 used for both medical and industrial

12 use based on the topography of the

13 land.

14 That the proposed use will

15 not alter the essential character of

16 the neighborhood. As indicated in the

17 planning review center report and the

18 Birchler Arroyo report, the master plan

19 for this property has been primarily

20 office and/or industrial since 1993,

21 with only a brief exception between

22 1999 and 2001. It has not been master

23 planned for commercial use since 1993,

24 as asserted by the applicant.

 

 

 

 

1 The majority of other

2 properties in the surrounding area are

3 zoned and master planned for

4 industrial, office and residential

5 uses. Allowing commercial or retail

6 uses on the nearly one-third-mile long

7 stretch of Ten Mile from Novi Road to

8 the railroad tracks would substantially

9 change the character of the area from a

10 residential and industrial office

11 corridor with limited commercial uses,

12 to a residential and commercial

13 corridor.

14 The applicant really only

15 addresses the effect of the proposed

16 Kroger store and related strip mall.

17 The applicant does not discuss the

18 specific proposed uses for the

19 remaining Ten Mile frontage or the

20 remaining Novi Road frontage. Those

21 uses and potential uses cannot be

22 evaluated by this board under those

23 circumstances.

24 The October 2008 Chesapeake

 

 

 

 

1 Group study, which the applicant shows

2 market support for a grocery store and

3 related retail center is out-dated.

4 The letter from Chesapeake Group dated

5 February 28, 2011, supersedes any

6 previous findings by Chesapeake Group

7 in that regard.

8 The need for the requested

9 variance is not the result of actions

10 of the property owner and previous

11 owners. For example, it's not

12 self-created.

13 While the applicant indicates

14 the property was always intended to be

15 used for commercial or retail purposes,

16 a substantial amount of growth and

17 development in the City of Novi over

18 the past 30 years has involved office

19 and industrial development. The

20 applicant has not addressed any efforts

21 made to use, market or develop the

22 property for the permitted purposes

23 within that time.

24 MEMBER IBE: I will second

 

 

 

 

1 that.

2 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any

3 further discussion by the board?

4 Ms. Martin, can you please call the

5 roll.

6 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi?

7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.

8 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger?

9 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.

10 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe?

11 MEMBER IBE: Yes.

12 MS. MARTIN: Chairman

13 Ghannam?

14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Yes.

15 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy?

16 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes.

17 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon?

18 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes.

19 MS. MARTIN: Motion to deny

20 passes, six to zero.

21 MR. QUINN: Thank you very

22 much. Have a good evening.

23 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Next on

24 the agenda is Case No. 10-069, for

 

 

 

 

1 27754 Novi Road, Suithouse. The

2 petitioner has requested in writing to

3 withdraw this case, is that right?

4 MS. MARTIN: Yes.

5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: So we

6 don't need a motion to eliminate that

7 from the agenda?

8 MR. SCHULTZ: No.

9 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Next is

10 Case No. 10-071, 42355 and 42235 Grand

11 River, for KIA. The petitioner is

12 requesting variances at 42355 Grand

13 River-KIA, to change out the faces of

14 two ground signs approved under

15 previous variances with specified text,

16 install an oversize wall sign with an

17 area increase over that approved in

18 previous variances, install two

19 additional wall signs, an additional

20 non-allowed ground sign of greater than

21 the allowed area and height, and three

22 oversize directional signs. The

23 property is zoned B-3 and P-1 and is

24 located on the east side of Novi Road

 

 

 

 

1 and south side of Grand River.

2 Would you please state your

3 name.

4 MS. HARRELL: Good evening.

5 My name is Michelle Harrell. I'm

6 counsel for the applicant. And with me

7 tonight is Ed Phillips from Phillips

8 Sign and Lighting, who has filed an

9 application for variance on behalf of

10 Feldman Chevrolet-KIA.

11 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Will you

12 be making a presentation, sir?

13 MR. PHILLIPS: As well.

14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I

15 understand, as well as your counsel.

16 Just raise your right hand and be

17 sworn.

18 MEMBER IBE: In Case 10-071,

19 42355 and 42235 Grand River-KIA, do you

20 swear or affirm to tell the truth?

21 MR. PHILLIPS: I do.

22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Would you

23 state your name and address and please

24 proceed.

 

 

 

 

1 MR. PHILLIPS: My name is Ed

2 Phillips, Phillips Sign and Lighting,

3 40920 Executive Drive, Harrison

4 Township, Michigan.

5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Please

6 proceed.

7 MS. HARRELL: Members of the

8 council and the board, we are here

9 asking for a set of variances for

10 signage that are upon our dealership

11 buildings. In fact, we have in our --

12 in the package that you have are some

13 renderings of those signs. We have

14 actual bigger ones, so you can actually

15 see what they look like, if we could

16 approach and hand them out.

17 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Please.

18 MS. HARRELL: Because they

19 are larger, and you will be able to

20 see. They are also coded so that you

21 can see exactly what kind of variance

22 we are requesting for each type of

23 sign.

24 Overall, there are multiple

 

 

 

 

1 requests made. Although the requests

2 in total are not very significant,

3 although they are multiple and

4 detailed. Mr. Phillips will go through

5 each one so you can understand. He's

6 put together a very organized

7 presentation of the actual variance

8 request. And after he's done giving

9 you the detail about the requests, I

10 will address the request based upon

11 hardship.

12 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay.

13 MR. PHILLIPS: Our handout is

14 the entire site. Please note items A

15 through L. The very first item,

16 obviously, is A; they are not in order.

17 The order here was per Jeannie Niland's

18 report you have in your package. What

19 we have done is taken and highlighted

20 the items that were approved.

21 And not to be deceiving in

22 any way, items A, D, C, G and B are

23 approved. Items D and C, copied to be

24 reviewed. We have decided to leave C

 

 

 

 

1 as is with no changes. So the sign

2 that you see C, "Certified used car,"

3 that's the existing sign at the site,

4 will be unchanged. So that is because

5 the structure, if you will note on our

6 little guide here, structure is

7 approved, copy change only, would be

8 the variance. That's per a previous

9 zoning board approval.

10 Sign D is the small -- very

11 small sign you see at the entrance.

12 Again, there is a picture in your

13 package; this is a little quicker to

14 look at. That's a very small sign. I

15 believe it's an 18 square foot sign.

16 The copy on that is yet to be

17 determined. GM has not really designed

18 it or determined what it will say.

19 But, again, that is not an increase,

20 and that was an approved sign just with

21 (inaudible). So, again, structural

22 approved, copy change only.

23 The next items to look at,

24 anything -- anything in yellow has some

 

 

 

 

1 form of approval. The green items

2 are -- they are directional by nature.

3 The ordinance allows two square feet,

4 as you know. And we do need -- these

5 signs are a little larger. Two square

6 feet is not practical in this. We

7 consider the word "Service" on the KIA

8 building, for example, J, to be very

9 directional by nature. As you can see,

10 at 17 square feet, 17.1, so we do

11 require -- we will need a 15.1 square

12 foot variance.

13 Items L and K, same thing

14 applies, two square feet in both cases,

15 17 square feet needed for "Delivery,"

16 and 15 needed for "Service."

17 Okay. Items E, F, H, and I

18 are ones that we require a variance

19 for. And the reasons are shown or

20 indicated in each instance. They are

21 existing signs with the exception of I.

22 And I is a new sign, and it is the KIA

23 sign. It is the KIA brand sign that

24 they are using. It's the smallest of

 

 

 

 

1 their monument.

2 In wrapping, my purpose, both

3 brands, GM and KIA, has a design

4 criteria. The design you see before

5 you is in conformance from a corporate

6 perspective, branding an image

7 consistency is a critical concern. So

8 that's -- hopefully, this helps. I can

9 answer any questions.

10 MS. HARRELL: I'd like to

11 talk about the issue of the standard

12 for a variance for a sign, which is

13 certainly hardship. I'd also like to

14 tell the board that Marla and Jay

15 Feldman are both here, as well, in case

16 the board has any questions of them.

17 As for this particular

18 property, there is simply not enough

19 signage available on the buildings in

20 order to provide sufficient notice to

21 passerby as to which dealership is

22 which dealership, and also as far as

23 directional signage.

24 The unique part of this

 

 

 

 

1 business, being a car dealership, and

2 why they need additional sized signs

3 and different types of signs is that

4 you have customers and people passing

5 by on the roadways that are moving

6 about the property, and about the

7 property inside, in the business itself

8 in vehicles. So, for purposes of

9 customer safety and convenience, we

10 need them to be able to see very

11 readily that they are going towards the

12 service area, or they are heading

13 toward the KIA dealership versus the

14 Chevrolet dealership, so that they are

15 not confused directionally or have

16 other issues while they are driving

17 around in their vehicles. So, car

18 dealerships have a unique issue as far

19 as signage.

20 The type of business also

21 involved here has dealer and

22 manufacturer requirements as to

23 signage. If you look at the pictures,

24 you can tell that there has been a

 

 

 

 

1 modernization by brands as to what they

2 want the dealership to look like. And

3 the signage corresponds to what the

4 brands have asked be done at the

5 dealerships.

6 So, for example, the

7 Chevrolet sign is larger and has a lot

8 of the blue coloring to it. The KIA

9 signage, in fact, the KIA monument, is

10 the smallest one that KIA allows. So

11 we have tried to fit as closely as we

12 could within the sign ordinance so we

13 didn't have to ask for much larger

14 variances.

15 And I think that they are

16 very attractive. We don't think that

17 they are going to be very intrusive

18 into the roadway or be distracting. So

19 we have tried to minimize this as much

20 as possible. Certainly, the hardship

21 is that we need to comply with what the

22 brands want. We also need to have

23 signage that promotes safety and public

24 convenience.

 

 

 

 

1 We can answer any questions

2 if the board has any questions of us.

3 MEMBER GHANNAM: Okay. Thank

4 you. At this time, I will open this

5 particular case to any public remarks

6 regarding this case only. Is there

7 anybody in the audience who would like

8 to make a comment? Seeing none, I will

9 close the public remark section, and I

10 will ask our secretary to read any

11 correspondence we have.

12 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, 44

13 notices were mailed, zero responses,

14 four mail returned.

15 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you,

16 Mr. Secretary. Any comments from the

17 city on this matter?

18 MR. BOULARD: No comment.

19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I will

20 then open it up to the board for

21 discussion. Any questions or comments?

22 Member Skelcy.

23 MEMBER SKELCY: Thank you,

24 Mr. Chair. I wanted to ask about sign

 

 

 

 

1 B, which is already approved. It looks

2 to me like the KIA is west of the

3 dealership, right? Of the road.

4 MR. BOULARD: It's east.

5 MEMBER SKELCY: It's east of

6 the dealership. So, for B, which is

7 approved, and you want the face sign

8 changed, I guess you want the content

9 changed, is that correct?

10 MR. PHILLIPS: Just the lens

11 itself.

12 MEMBER SKELCY: What's it

13 going to be changed to?

14 MR. PHILLIPS: Chevy Truck.

15 MEMBER SKELCY: B?

16 MR. PHILLIPS: Yes.

17 MEMBER SKELCY: It's right in

18 front of the KIA place?

19 MR. PHILLIPS: It's over in

20 that direction certainly. It is at the

21 west end of the Chevy store. The copy

22 on that will look like the center

23 picture.

24 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay. So, I

 

 

 

 

1 guess the thing I'm looking at when I

2 look at the KIA dealership, that's kind

3 of what I'm focusing on now. That's

4 why I'm looking at sign B, because it

5 looks like it's right in front of the

6 KIA dealership.

7 Why do you have to have a

8 sign on the building as well as a

9 monument sign? Wouldn't a monument

10 sign be enough?

11 MR. PHILLIPS: I think in

12 some cases it might be. In this

13 particular instance, I probably think

14 not. With the Marty Feldman Chevrolet

15 proximity there, it just needs to be

16 branded KIA. There could be some

17 confusion as to exactly what's going on

18 over here. It would look like Chevy.

19 MEMBER SKELCY: Are two signs

20 for KIA required by the KIA company?

21 MR. PHILLIPS: Very much so.

22 Every KIA dealership you see -- I can't

23 think of an exception offhand.

24 MEMBER SKELCY: They all have

 

 

 

 

1 one on their building and a monument

2 sign up front?

3 MR. PHILLIPS: And the

4 monument, certainly.

5 MEMBER SKELCY: I don't have

6 any other questions. Thank you.

7 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member

8 Gedeon.

9 MEMBER GEDEON: A lot of this

10 comes down to the fact that you are

11 going to operate basically two

12 different businesses on one parcel.

13 Can you discuss the pros or cons, or if

14 you had any thoughts about whether or

15 not a parcel split would be appropriate

16 here? Or was that even considered? Or

17 is there a reason why it wasn't

18 considered? Or would that not change

19 anything?

20 MR. PHILLIPS: Parcel split

21 is planned, so it is in there.

22 As far as signage is

23 concerned, we have been very careful to

24 try to design these buildings and brand

 

 

 

 

1 them with their own brand. So, again,

2 going back to Ms. Skelcy's

3 comment, it's been considered right

4 from the very start.

5 MEMBER GEDEON: And I guess a

6 question for the city and the city

7 attorney. If we grant these variances

8 for the parcel as it is now, how does

9 that work if the split is approved?

10 MR. SCHULTZ: If you grant

11 the variance, and the split is

12 approved, the split won't affect what

13 you do tonight. Charles will be

14 able to answer the question whether, if

15 they do the split first, they might get

16 additional signage.

17 MR. BOULARD: If I may, I

18 believe the split is already done.

19 MR. SCHULTZ: Okay.

20 MR. BOULARD: But, because

21 they are separate businesses, there are

22 signs that are allowed by right. For

23 example, sign G on the KIA dealership

24 is allowed by right because there is

 

 

 

 

1 another business there. So, there are

2 a certain number of signs. What the

3 request is for is additional signs and

4 refacing of those signs that have

5 been -- additional signs that have been

6 approved previously for the Chevrolet

7 dealership that were specific as to

8 their verbiage that was on them. And

9 also the fact that we got some

10 directional signs, which in the

11 ordinance are allowed to be two square

12 feet. Clearly, we got 17, 19 square

13 feet, those kinds of things

14 MEMBER GEDEON: Thank you.

15 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any other

16 questions or comments by the board?

17 Mr. Sanghvi.

18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you,

19 Mr. Chair. I went and tried to drive

20 around and place all the signs you have

21 today provided. If I had this

22 yesterday, I could have better

23 visualized what you are trying to do.

24 What's the name of the

 

 

 

 

1 business, just KIA or KIA Feldman?

2 MR. PHILLIPS: Feldman KIA.

3 MS. HARRELL: Feldman KIA.

4 MEMBER SANGVHI: Just like

5 the Chevrolet.

6 MS. HARRELL: Right.

7 MEMBER SANGHVI: You have

8 already approved signs that are already

9 there, so we don't need to talk about

10 them. All we are to talk about are the

11 (inaudible) variance and size of the

12 wall sign? Sign F, it's been there a

13 long time? Sign F?

14 MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, the KIA

15 sign. I'm sorry, the Feldman sign?

16 MEMBER SANGHVI: It's been

17 around?

18 MR. PHILLIPS: No, that's a

19 new set of letters.

20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Those are

21 new?

22 MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. All the

23 letters on the new signs, by the way, I

24 don't know if the board cares either

 

 

 

 

1 way, but all this new stuff is all LED.

2 So it's all very low in power

3 consumption.

4 MEMBER SANGHVI: So this

5 variance is for a new sign, not the

6 size of the sign, is that right,

7 Mr. Boulard?

8 MR. BOULARD: I'm sorry,

9 which sign, F?

10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Talking

11 about sign F.

12 MR. BOULARD: Yes, sign F.

13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Variance is

14 for a new sign, not the size of the

15 sign?

16 MR. BOULARD: That's correct.

17 Sign E, there was a previous variance

18 to allow that to go up to 52.4 square

19 feet. And the request is to increase

20 the size of sign E to 103.25 square

21 feet with the logo included.

22 One of the difficulties

23 clearly is that they couldn't do

24 mock-up signs because the new front is

 

 

 

 

1 not on the Chevrolet dealership and the

2 other building is under construction.

3 MEMBER SANGHVI: I didn't see

4 many mock-ups around there.

5 MR. BOULARD: No.

6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Signs L and

7 K, why do you need such a huge sign?

8 MR. PHILLIPS: They are

9 really not that large. Seventeen

10 square feet is kind of small. Given

11 the size of the building, they are not

12 that large. And two square feet is so

13 small, it's, you know, one by two.

14 MS. HARRELL: Directional

15 signs usually are two feet, because

16 they say "Restroom" and they are the

17 size of the door. But these are bay

18 doors, so they need to be bigger.

19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Most of the

20 bays are -- I don't see many bays in

21 dealership with small doors.

22 MS. HARRELL: No, no, you are

23 right.

24 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Anything

 

 

 

 

1 else?

2 MEMBER SANGHVI: That's it.

3 Thank you.

4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I'm sorry,

5 Member Skelcy.

6 MEMBER SKELCY: Thank you,

7 Chairman. I had a question about E. I

8 have a little bit of an issue with E.

9 Because 52 feet is allowed, and you

10 want 103, that's like twice the size.

11 Now, the size of the letters is not

12 dictated by Chevrolet, is it?

13 MR. PHILLIPS: No, they have

14 letter sets, and this particular

15 letter set -- actually, sorry, let me

16 correct that. Given this entrance

17 element, that's always to scale. If

18 you look at any Chevrolet dealership,

19 it will look similar to this. So,

20 given the certain width, that's the

21 sign that's usually suggested of that

22 marquis or that fascia, if you will.

23 MEMBER SKELCY: All right.

24 Thank you.

 

 

 

 

1 MR. PHILLIPS: Can I go back

2 to this?

3 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Sure.

4 MR. PHILLIPS: This 52 square

5 feet is based on the linear footage of

6 our building. If you take into account

7 this whole building, all we do is just

8 this front portion up here. If you

9 take this whole building, including the

10 part that's set back, we would probably

11 exceed the 103.

12 MEMBER SKELCY: Yeah, does

13 the ordinance permit which part of the

14 building we are to take into account?

15 I mean, does it have to be just the

16 front fascia portion, or does it

17 include the entire length of the

18 building?

19 MR. BOULARD: I can check on

20 that. I believe it's the portion of

21 building that the sign is mounted on.

22 I will be happy to look into that.

23 MS. SKELCY: Thank you.

24 MR. PHILLIPS: That is what we

 

 

 

 

1 view. I think it's a fair argument, not

2 argument, suggestion, to consider the

3 whole building. This is in scale with

4 what your own ordinances are.

5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Anyone

6 else?

7 MEMBER SKELCY: I'm sorry,

8 no. Sorry.

9 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I just

10 have a few comments myself. I agree,

11 this was very, very helpful today, as

12 it was presented and outlined exactly

13 what you have and what you need.

14 Couple things. Number one, I

15 do understand the uniqueness of the

16 entire property and the fact you have a

17 new brand coming, KIA Motors, and the

18 need for signage. I understand that.

19 You have to understand what we do. The

20 majority of our cases are all signs,

21 "We need more signs," so does everybody

22 else. But, you know, we take this as a

23 case-by-case basis.

24 The board can grant or deny

 

 

 

 

1 sign by sign, or we can do it as a

2 whole. But, in general, given the

3 uniqueness of your scenario, the

4 location on Grand River, it's typically

5 a faster miles-per-hour roadway, and

6 the need for somewhat larger signs,

7 even though these are, as Member

8 Skelcy pointed out, very large signs.

9 I think under the circumstances I would

10 be in favor of it. I think you

11 established what you need for these

12 types of variances. Clearly, a two

13 square foot sign for service or

14 delivery is very small. We have a

15 number of, you know, car dealerships in

16 Novi. They should be properly

17 identified for the proper flow of

18 traffic and so forth. In any event, I

19 would be in favor of those as

20 requested.

21 Anybody else have questions

22 or comments? Member Krieger.

23 MEMBER KRIEGER: Out of

24 curiosity, on the east side of

 

 

 

 

1 Haggerty, the Feldman KIA, is that the

2 same family? MR. FELDMAN:

3 That's a temporary location until the

4 new building is done in Novi.

5 MEMBER KRIEGER: Okay. And

6 then Marty Feldman is on the pylon

7 sign, so you would also like it on the

8 building?

9 MR. PHILLIPS: No. We will

10 leave the word "Feldman," only goes on

11 the building, and "Marty Feldman" will

12 remain on the ground signs.

13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Just a

14 question. Do we need to know what kind

15 of verbiage is going to go on this face

16 change?

17 MR. SCHULTZ: I think if you

18 approve the size of the sign, the

19 verbiage is probably going to be as

20 shown, but they would have the ability

21 to change that unless you

22 specifically --

23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Usually

24 we used to ask what they are going to

 

 

 

 

1 write.

2 MR. SCHULTZ: Unless you

3 specifically condition that, with their

4 approval.

5 MEMBER SANGVHI: Okay.

6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member

7 Skelcy.

8 MEMBER SKELCY: I kind of

9 agree that we should include the

10 language, because I remember another

11 case we had where we approved the sign

12 with one language, and then they

13 changed it to something else.

14 MR. SCHULTZ: I'd like to get

15 the assent on record, just so we are

16 clear, if that's the motion, that they

17 agree to that.

18 MEMBER SKELCY: Would you be

19 willing to agree to that limitation?

20 MR. PHILLIPS: Yes.

21 MS. HARRELL: Yes.

22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Which sign

23 were you referring to?

24 MEMBER SKELCY: The ones

 

 

 

 

1 where they want copy change.

2 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: That would

3 be D and C, I believe. Are those the

4 only two that are copy changes?

5 MEMBER SKELCY: I think C is

6 not.

7 MR. PHILLIPS: It would be B

8 as well.

9 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: B and C.

10 Is that right, B, C and D, am I

11 accurate?

12 MR. PHILLIPS: B, C, D and A.

13 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. I'm

14 sorry, Mr. Boulard.

15 MR. BOULARD: If I may, do

16 you know what the copy is going to be

17 for sign D yet?

18 MR. PHILLIPS: Sign D, no, we

19 do not. General Motors, they are going

20 to drop the Goodrich thing. They are

21 doing something, we are not sure, they

22 are not sure.

23 MR. BOULARD: So that would

24 be -- that would be difficult to

 

 

 

 

1 specify which language is there.

2 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM:

3 Personally, I mean, with this type of

4 operation, I know there is not going to

5 be obscene language on there. I know

6 it's going to be all, you know,

7 business related and trademark and so

8 forth. So I personally don't want to

9 get involved in even micromanaging the

10 actual language. I'm sure it will be

11 appropriate. As long as the sizes are

12 appropriate to the board.

13 MEMBER SANGHVI: My question

14 is not micromanage, whether it is

15 required by the ordinance or not.

16 MR. SCHULTZ: It's not

17 required. And when you are adamant

18 enough that you want to make it part of

19 the motion, we just usually ask the

20 petitioner to say that's okay with

21 them, but it is up to the board.

22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any other

23 questions or comments or discussion by

24 the board? I will look for a motion.

 

 

 

 

1 Member Skelcy.

2 MEMBER SKELCY: In the case

3 of 10-071, location 42355 Grand River

4 Avenue, the KIA as well as the Feldman

5 Chevrolet business, I move that we

6 grant the requested variances for the

7 signs at Marty Feldman, including with

8 reference to sign C in the proposal

9 presented to the board that's already

10 been approved. And you are not going

11 change the copy on C, are you?

12 MR. PHILLIPS: That will

13 remain as is.

14 MEMBER SKELCY: So, strike

15 that with regard to sign C. Sign D,

16 that is also copy change, which we are

17 not going to have anything to do with,

18 so we will not include that in the

19 motion.

20 Sign E, that the original

21 variance for this oversize wall sign is

22 52.2 square feet, and move that we

23 grant the request to install an

24 enlarged sign of 103.25 square feet.

 

 

 

 

1 That we grant the request for a

2 variance for a second wall sign of

3 23.16 square feet, and the additional

4 name "Feldman" on the wall sign.

5 With regard to Feldman KIA,

6 sign H, that we permit the additional

7 Feldman wall sign of 18.75 square feet

8 on the new KIA dealership.

9 With regard to sign I, that a

10 44 square foot, 20 foot high ground

11 sign for KIA be approved, as well as

12 the -- be approved. And for signs J, K

13 and L, that the directional signs for

14 service and delivery be granted at 17

15 square foot each.

16 Because the circumstances and

17 features of this particular area are

18 exceptional and unique to the property,

19 such as the fact that the traffic on

20 Grand River drives by the facility very

21 quickly. And also the fact that we

22 want people to be able to pull into the

23 land facility without stopping on Grand

24 River to look for the delivery area or

 

 

 

 

1 the service area.

2 The failure to grant relief

3 will unreasonably prevent or limit the

4 use of the property and will result in

5 substantially more than mere

6 inconvenience or inability to attain a

7 higher economic or financial return.

8 And the grant of relief will not result

9 in the use of a structure that is

10 incompatible with adjacent or

11 surrounding properties, and will also

12 result in substantial justice being

13 done to both the applicant and adjacent

14 or surrounding properties, and is not

15 inconsistent with the spirit of the

16 ordinances.

17 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any

18 second? I'm sorry, Mr. Boulard.

19 MR. BOULARD: Might I ask if

20 you would like to include sign D, in

21 the previous variance was specific as

22 to the copy. So while the size --

23 there is not a variance required for

24 the size, the variance would be

 

 

 

 

1 required to make that available for any

2 copy in the future, which was a

3 request.

4 Also, sign L, I believe, is

5 19 square feet as opposed to the 17

6 square feet.

7 MEMBER SKELCY: The sheet

8 shows L at 17 square feet, not 19.

9 MR. BOULARD: I believe that

10 that's the amount the variance

11 required, is that correct?

12 MS. HARRELL: Yes.

13 MR. PHILLIPS: Actually, one

14 is 17 and one is 15.

15 MEMBER SKELCY: So the

16 variance is for 17 square feet; it will

17 be a total of 19 for sign L?

18 MR. PHILLIPS: Sign L

19 requires 17. Sign K requires 15.

20 MEMBER SKELCY: Variance?

21 MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, variance.

22 MEMBER SKELCY: I would like

23 to amend my motion based on what

24 Mr. Boulard said.

 

 

 

 

1 MEMBER IBE: I will second

2 the motion.

3 MR. BOULARD: I'm sorry, just

4 to confirm, sign C, you do not -- you

5 are not going to change the face of

6 that?

7 MR. PHILLIPS: We are not.

8 MR. BOULARD: That will stay

9 exactly as it is?

10 MR. PHILLIPS: Yes.

11 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: We have a

12 second to the motion. Any further

13 discussion by the board? Seeing none,

14 Ms. Martin, can you please call the

15 roll.

16 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi?

17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.

18 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger?

19 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.

20 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe?

21 MEMBER IBE: Yes.

22 MS. MARTIN: Chairman

23 Ghannam?

24 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Yes.

 

 

 

 

1 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy?

2 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes.

3 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon?

4 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes.

5 MS. MARTIN: Motion passes,

6 six to zero.

7 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM:

8 Congratulations.

9 MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you very

10 much.

11 MEMBER SKELCY: Thanks for

12 the great sign; it was very helpful.

13 MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you very

14 much.

15 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Next on

16 the agenda is Case number five,

17 Case No. 11-001, 41460 Grand River

18 Avenue, Suites F and G. The petitioner

19 is requesting a variance to install an

20 additional 18 square foot wall sign on

21 Suites F and G of Gateway Village

22 Retail, located at 41460 Grand River

23 Avenue. The property is zoned NCC and

24 is located north of Grand River on the

 

 

 

 

1 west side.

2 Can you please state your

3 name and address for the record, sir.

4 MR. WARD: Yes, Patrick Ward,

5 41460 Grand River Avenue.

6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: You are

7 not an attorney?

8 MR. WARD: No.

9 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Just raise

10 your right hand and be sworn by our

11 secretary, sir.

12 MEMBER IBE: Sir, in Case No.

13 11-001, 41460 Grand River Avenue, do you

14 swear or affirm to tell the truth?

15 MR. WARD: Yes, I do.

16 MEMBER IBE: Thank you.

17 MR. WARD: First of all, I

18 would like to thank the board for the

19 opportunity this evening. As everybody

20 should have in the packet, we are

21 requesting a sign variance for a

22 business that was opened in June of

23 2010, C & L Ward.

24 Back in 2010, we entered into

 

 

 

 

1 a lease agreement at the Shops of GV,

2 which is located on the corner of Grand

3 River and Meadowbrook. At that point,

4 we chose the Shops at GV primarily

5 because of the two retail entrances in

6 the facility as well as two areas for

7 signage. Under our retail agreement

8 with Anderson Windows, the design and

9 construction of the showroom was going

10 to be subsidized by them. So, in doing

11 so, they requested that they get

12 exterior building signage as well. And

13 that's part of, I guess, the point for

14 the additional variance.

15 Under the retail agreement,

16 we cannot have our own stand-alone logo

17 and signage -- actually, we have to

18 have a stand-alone logo and signage.

19 In addition, they have to be

20 represented as well. We can't combine

21 the logos nor can they be touching in

22 any manner.

23 At this point, we have

24 invested $125,000 into the showroom, of

 

 

 

 

1 which, $55,000 of it was subsidized by

2 Anderson, with the agreement they have

3 the exterior signage on the building.

4 At this point, similar to

5 Feldman, I guess we are citing the

6 traffic. We are on Grand River, as

7 well, so traffic does move quickly.

8 Also, since this is being leased for

9 the purpose of the window and door

10 showroom, if you look at the proper

11 signage above with the entrances, since

12 there is two, if you can look at

13 picture -- actually, this is the

14 building here, the brick building. You

15 will notice it had the C & L Ward logo,

16 and then we also have the Anderson

17 signage that has been installed.

18 That being said, there is two

19 retail entrances, and it will eliminate

20 the confusion amongst the center to

21 have signage above each doorway going

22 into the building.

23 It also appears that the

24 building isn't fully occupied. When we

 

 

 

 

1 signed our lease agreement with the

2 Shops at GV, they have 12 units, of

3 which at that point four of them were

4 unoccupied, making the facility look

5 kind of desolate, to say the least.

6 So, we feel it looks better in the

7 community to have full occupancy in any

8 type of building.

9 As I said, the showroom is

10 financially subsidized by Anderson.

11 And, again, I, at this point, feel it

12 is consistent with the spirit of the

13 ordinance that has been established by

14 the City of Novi.

15 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you,

16 sir. I will ask at this time if there

17 is any input from the audience, if

18 anybody would like to make a comment on

19 this specific case? Seeing none, I

20 will close the public remark section

21 and ask the secretary to read any

22 correspondence.

23 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, 26

24 notices were mailed, zero responses,

 

 

 

 

1 four mail returned.

2 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you.

3 Any input or comments from the city?

4 MR. BOULARD: No.

5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: We will

6 open it up to the board for discussion.

7 And as I do -- Member Sanghvi, you have

8 a comment?

9 MEMBER SANGHVI: I have no

10 problem with their request, and I am in

11 support of it.

12 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I just

13 have a question or comment, sir. I

14 understand you mentioned that you have

15 an arrangement with Anderson, and part

16 of it there was supposed to be outside

17 signage and so forth. And, apparently,

18 you put it up without permission of the

19 city, I presume.

20 MR. WARD: Yes, I did.

21 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: When was

22 that put up?

23 MR. WARD: The sign itself?

24 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Yes.

 

 

 

 

1 MR. WARD: The original sign

2 for C & L Ward was placed up in August.

3 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: And who

4 put that up?

5 MR. WARD: Mark Zurney from

6 Signtech.

7 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: And you

8 represent who?

9 MR. WARD: I represent C & L

10 Ward.

11 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: That's the

12 tenant of the entire two spaces,

13 correct?

14 MR. WARD: Yes.

15 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: And you

16 got cited, apparently, according to the

17 records, in November of 2010 because no

18 permit was pulled or no approval was

19 granted?

20 MR. WARD: Yes, there was a

21 permit originally pulled. That's where

22 the confusion took place. We were

23 approved by the landlord, because we

24 were occupying two places, to have two

 

 

 

 

1 different signs. Unfortunately, after

2 the fact, we come to find out that's

3 not indeed the case.

4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. I

5 understand. Is it the case where

6 Anderson is occupying the space where

7 the sign will be?

8 MR. WARD: Yes, sir.

9 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: There is a

10 shared arrangement, I presume.

11 MR. WARD: Shared

12 arrangement, which 98 percent of the

13 showroom is Anderson products.

14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. And

15 a question for the city. The sign

16 that's proposed, if they were allowed a

17 sign, it's within the size limit that

18 is authorized by ordinance?

19 MR. BOULARD: The difficulty

20 is this: Previously there was two --

21 previously there was two separate

22 suites; each had its own sign. It was

23 smaller based on the frontage that was

24 there. When the suites were combined,

 

 

 

 

1 now you got one entity. The ordinance

2 allows one sign. And the sign that the

3 gentleman put up, C & L Ward sign,

4 originally the permit that he got was

5 for a size of a sign based on the

6 entire frontage.

7 So, I guess, I believe -- I

8 don't know, based on the frontages,

9 which is 50 percent or whatnot, how big

10 the sign -- how big this second sign

11 would be allowed to be if it was a

12 separate suite.

13 MEMBER GHANNAM: But the C &

14 L sign is larger than permitted by

15 city, only because it occupies two

16 suites? If it only occupied one suite,

17 it should have been smaller? Does that

18 make sense?

19 MR. BOULARD: That's correct.

20 The size of the C & L Ward sign was

21 based on the combined frontage.

22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you.

23 I don't have any other questions.

24 Anybody else? Member Skelcy.

 

 

 

 

1 MEMBER SKELCY: Thank you,

2 Mr. Chairman. How long has CL Ward

3 been in business here at this building?

4 MR. WARD: Since June of

5 2010.

6 MEMBER SKELCY: The Anderson

7 sign, that went up second?

8 MR. WARD: Yes, it did.

9 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay.

10 MR. WARD: It was a

11 coordinated effort amongst the general

12 contractor and Anderson Windows, and

13 that's where a bit of the confusion

14 took place with the signs and my

15 subsequent conversation with the

16 landlord regarding occupying the two

17 spaces.

18 MEMBER SKELCY: When you

19 opened up C & L Ward, did you intend to

20 at that time have an Anderson sign up?

21 MR. WARD: Yes.

22 MEMBER SKELCY: You intended

23 to have two signs all along?

24 MR. WARD: Absolutely.

 

 

 

 

1 Again, under our agreement with

2 Anderson, in order for them to

3 subsidize the showroom, we had to have

4 additional signage for them to help

5 fund the whole project.

6 MEMBER SKELCY: If you

7 intended to do that from the get-go,

8 how come you didn't include the

9 Anderson language in the C & L sign?

10 MR. WARD: Again, under the

11 retailer's agreement, they have to be

12 completely separate signs. We can't

13 combine or touch them. Unlike maybe

14 the last example, like the Chevrolet

15 dealership where they allow you to do

16 that. We can't co-brand at all.

17 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay. Thank

18 you. Those are all the questions I

19 have.

20 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member

21 Ibe.

22 MEMBER IBE: Sir, you just

23 said that when you -- when you moved in

24 you had Anderson Windows advertised,

 

 

 

 

1 correct?

2 MR. WARD: We had the C & L

3 Ward sign.

4 MEMBER IBE: The C & L Ward

5 sign. When you signed the contract,

6 was Anderson on board at the time?

7 MR. WARD: Absolutely.

8 MEMBER IBE: When did you

9 request to put up the C & L Ward sign?

10 MR. WARD: That would have

11 been -- it would have been originally

12 in --

13 MEMBER IBE: In June?

14 MR. WARD: I don't believe I

15 have that here. I believe it was

16 June.

17 MEMBER IBE: So at that time

18 you knew Anderson needed to have a

19 separate sign, is that correct?

20 MR. WARD: Absolutely.

21 MEMBER IBE: Because the sign

22 you got, obviously, this size is based

23 on the fact that you would occupy both

24 suites; were you aware of that?

 

 

 

 

1 MR. WARD: No, I was not.

2 And, again, this leads to the

3 confusion. And I will own that part of

4 it with myself and the landlord on it

5 occupying two different signage -- two

6 different entrances.

7 MEMBER IBE: I do understand

8 your need for wanting to obviously to

9 separate, but the problem I have is I

10 cannot have a policy that I go by that

11 if parties are aware of something, and

12 obviously aren't presenting the entire

13 truth to the party who makes a

14 decision, then I find it troubling,

15 because, obviously, you knew going in

16 that Anderson had a separate sign. And

17 had you told that to the board or

18 perhaps when this C & L sign was

19 approved, you may not have the same

20 size that you have now. So if I'm

21 going to vote on this at all, I would

22 vote for an amendment as to your sign

23 to conform with what should have been

24 there originally as if you had two

 

 

 

 

1 signs.

2 MR. WARD: Okay, I

3 understand.

4 MEMBER IBE: That would be

5 my position, because obviously you have

6 to (inaudible), and right now I feel

7 that you knew, but that information was

8 available when the C & L Ward sign was

9 requested.

10 MR. WARD: That we knew we

11 were getting two signs?

12 MEMBER IBE: Absolutely.

13 Because it was part of your contract.

14 MR. WARD: Contract with who?

15 MEMBER IBE: Anderson, right?

16 MR. WARD: Our contract with

17 Anderson is they had to have exterior

18 signage.

19 MEMBER IBE: Right.

20 MR. WARD: Again, the

21 confusion amongst the sizing I was

22 unaware of.

23 MEMBER IBE: My question is,

24 you knew that -- when did you sign the

 

 

 

 

1 contract with Anderson?

2 MR. WARD: Well before June.

3 MEMBER IBE: So you knew way

4 before you applied for the C & L sign

5 that Anderson needed a separate sign,

6 is that correct?

7 MR. WARD: Correct.

8 MEMBER IBE: I have nothing

9 further, Mr. Chair.

10 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any other

11 comments? Member Gedeon.

12 MEMBER GEDEON: Well, I don't

13 have a problem with this. I think if

14 you look at the facade of the building,

15 it's clearly designed to have a sign

16 over each entrance way. And the

17 particular facade feature of the end

18 unit with the triangle shape there, the

19 C & L Ward sign fits quite nicely

20 within that space. So, the size,

21 notwithstanding, I mean, it looks -- it

22 looks appropriate to me. So, I mean,

23 yes, it seems as though they may have

24 made a mistake in their application

 

 

 

 

1 process, but, I mean, the mistake seems

2 pretty harmless to me. So, I've got no

3 problem with this.

4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. Any

5 other comments? Member Krieger.

6 MEMBER KRIEGER: Is the C & L

7 Ward sign, they have a grant for a

8 larger sign?

9 MR. BOULARD: There was not a

10 variance issued for the C & L Ward

11 sign. The size of the C & L Ward sign

12 is larger than would be for a single

13 suite, because it took into -- the

14 calculation took into account the

15 combined frontage of the two suites.

16 Does that answer the question?

17 MEMBER KRIEGER: Okay. So,

18 now, if they have two signs and we make

19 an amendment, they have to get a new

20 sign and shrink it?

21 MR. BOULARD: The ordinance

22 would allow one sign based on the

23 combined frontage. You know, the

24 choice from there would be up to the

 

 

 

 

1 board.

2 MEMBER KRIEGER: Okay, thank

3 you. I understand. Thank you.

4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any other

5 questions or comments?

6 MEMBER SKELCY: I have a

7 question. How much did the C & L sign

8 cost you?

9 MR. WARD: I don't have

10 that. I feel unprepared, but I don't

11 have it. It was in the range of

12 $4,600.

13 MEMBER SKELCY: Thank you.

14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any other

15 questions or comments? If none, I will

16 entertain a motion. Member Gedeon.

17 MEMBER GEDEON: In Case No.

18 11-001, 41460 Grand River Avenue, Suite

19 F and G, I move to approve the variance

20 as requested for a second sign for a

21 single business operating under two

22 suites, for the reasons that the

23 building is clearly designed to have a

24 sign over each door frame, and is not

 

 

 

 

1 visually unappealing to have a sign

2 above each door frame. And the

3 mistakes made with the size of the sign

4 were not the fault of the petitioner;

5 it was merely a misunderstanding of

6 what was permitted.

7 In addition, the failure to

8 grant relief will unreasonably prevent

9 or limit the use of the property due to

10 the contractual relationship between

11 Anderson and C & L Ward. And the

12 grant of relief will not result in a

13 use of a structure that's incompatible

14 or unreasonably interfere with adjacent

15 and surrounding properties.

16 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second.

17 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: In terms

18 of further discussion, I have one

19 question for the city. We can limit

20 this to this particular tenant, the C &

21 L Ward tenant?

22 MEMBER SANGHVI: This tenant.

23 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: In other

24 words, if this tenant terminates for

 

 

 

 

1 any reason, this variance would

2 terminate, I presume.

3 MR. SCHULTZ: Correct, yes.

4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I would

5 offer an amendment that this approval

6 would be limited to this particular

7 tenant.

8 MEMBER GEDEON: I accept that

9 amendment.

10 MEMBER KRIEGER: I second.

11 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: We have an

12 approval and a second. Any further

13 discussion? Seeing none, Ms. Martin,

14 can you please call the roll.

15 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi?

16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.

17 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger?

18 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.

19 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe?

20 MEMBER IBE: Yes.

21 MS. MARTIN: Chairman

22 Ghannam?

23 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Yes.

24 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy?

 

 

 

 

1 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes.

2 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon?

3 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes.

4 MS. MARTIN: Motion passes,

5 six to zero.

6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM:

7 Congratulations.

8 Next is item number six,

9 which is Case No. 11-002, 41370 Bridge

10 Street. The petitioner is requesting

11 an extension to install a real estate

12 leasing sign of 48 square feet

13 adjacent to I-96. The property is

14 zoned I-1 and is located east of

15 Meadowbrook and south of I-96.

16 Please state your name and

17 address, sir.

18 MR. GILTNER: David Giltner,

19 Signature Associates, One Town Square,

20 Suite 1200, Southfield, Michigan,

21 48076.

22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Could you

23 please raise your right hand and be

24 sworn.

 

 

 

 

1 MEMBER IBE: Sir, in Case No.

2 11-002, 41370 Bridge Street, do you

3 swear or affirm to tell the truth?

4 MR. GILTNER: I do.

5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Please go

6 ahead, sir.

7 MR. GILTNER: The current

8 zoning ordinance allows for a 16 square

9 foot sign. The sign that I'm here to

10 request is for a freeway sign.

11 Customarily, freeway signs are 48

12 square feet. I'm requesting a 48

13 square foot freeway sign.

14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. At

15 this point I will open this matter up

16 to public comment. Is there anybody in

17 the public audience who would like to

18 make a comment on this particular case?

19 Seeing none, I will close the public

20 remark section and ask the secretary to

21 read any correspondence.

22 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, 11

23 notices were mailed, zero responses,

24 zero mail returned.

 

 

 

 

1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you.

2 Any comments by the city?

3 MR. BOULARD: No.

4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I will

5 open it up to the board for discussion.

6 Member Sanghvi.

7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Boulard,

8 as I understand, this is a renewal of a

9 current sign, isn't it?

10 MR. BOULARD: Yes. There was

11 a previous variance that was approved

12 for a period of one year, and this is a

13 renewal of that.

14 MR. GILTNER: I'd like to

15 clarify, actually. The variance was

16 granted to a competitor of mine, the

17 predecessor to the marketing of the

18 building, so this is a, you know, this

19 is a new sign. You granted a variance

20 to another real estate company.

21 MR. BOULARD: But it's -- the

22 sign, the previous variance was not

23 specific to the verbiage, so it's a

24 continuation of the sign that was

 

 

 

 

1 approved under the variance, is that

2 correct?

3 MR. GILTNER: Okay.

4 MR. BOULARD: Same size, you

5 are not going to move it?

6 MR. GILTNER: It's a

7 different sign company that would take

8 the sign out and put another sign in.

9 I didn't request it would be relocated,

10 so I assume it would be in the same

11 place, yeah.

12 MEMBER SANGHVI: This is a

13 new sign?

14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: It will be

15 a new sign, as he said, but replacing

16 the old sign, is that correct?

17 MR. GILTNER: Correct.

18 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: When did

19 your brokerage company take over this

20 particular listing?

21 MR. GILTNER: January was

22 when we started marketing. It's taken

23 us this far to get in front of you.

24 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: What is

 

 

 

 

1 your listing period?

2 MR. GILTNER: I think I have

3 a one-year listing.

4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay.

5 Under the circumstances -- this is

6 adjacent to the freeway and really is

7 going to be facing the freeway, is my

8 understanding.

9 MR. GILTNER: Correct.

10 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I

11 understand freeway signage is a little

12 unique because of the thousands of cars

13 going by daily as opposed to a street

14 like Meadowbrook or something.

15 MR. GILTNER: Right.

16 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I don't

17 have a problem for a one-year

18 limitation of your sign request.

19 Any other comments by the

20 board?

21 MEMBER SANGVHI: I agree with

22 you.

23 MEMBER IBE: I will also

24 support it, Mr. Chair.

 

 

 

 

1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any

2 further questions or comments? If not,

3 I will entertain a motion.

4 MEMBER SANGHVI: In Case No.

5 11-002, 41370 Bridge Street, I move

6 that we approve the variance requested

7 by the applicant. Request is based

8 upon circumstances or features that are

9 exceptional and unique to this

10 property, and do not result from

11 conditions that exist generally in the

12 city and they are not self-created.

13 The grant of relief will not result in

14 a use of structure that is incompatible

15 with and unreasonably interferes with

16 adjacent and surrounding properties,

17 and will result in substantial justice

18 being done to both the applicant and

19 adjacent and surrounding properties,

20 and is not inconsistent with the spirit

21 of the ordinance.

22 MEMBER KRIEGER: For one

23 year.

24 MEMBER SANGHVI: And required

 

 

 

 

1 for one year.

2 MEMBER IBE: I will second

3 that.

4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any

5 further discussion? Seeing none, Ms.

6 Martin, can you please call the roll.

7 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi?

8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.

9 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger?

10 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.

11 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe?

12 MEMBER IBE: Yes.

13 MS. MARTIN: Chairman

14 Ghannam?

15 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Yes.

16 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy?

17 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes.

18 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon?

19 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes.

20 MS. MARTIN: Motion passes,

21 six to zero.

22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you,

23 sir.

24 MR. GILTNER: Thank you.

 

 

 

 

1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Next is

2 item seven, Case No. 11-003, 30995

3 Springlake Boulevard, for Springs

4 Apartments, II. The petitioner is

5 requesting a variance from Section

6 2503.2.A to allow accessory structures

7 in the interior side yard with setbacks

8 approximately 18 feet.

9 Can you please state your

10 name and address.

11 MR. DECORN: My name is David

12 Decorn (ph), 30057 Orchard Lake Road,

13 Farmington Hills, Michigan.

14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Are you an

15 attorney, sir?

16 MR. DECORN: No, I'm not.

17 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Please be

18 sworn by our secretary.

19 MEMBER IBE: Sir, in Case No.

20 11-003, 30995 Springlake Boulevard, do

21 you swear or affirm to tell the truth?

22 MR. DECORN: Yes.

23 MEMBER IBE: Thank you.

24 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Please

 

 

 

 

1 proceed.

2 MR. DECORN: Basically, we

3 are just asking to build some carports

4 in the existing parking lots that are

5 already there, so it kind of determines

6 where we can put them. I mean, there

7 is really not much to it. Like I said,

8 we have to put them in the parking lots

9 that are existing, so -- and we need a

10 variance on the side to put them in

11 there.

12 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Anything

13 else?

14 MR. DECORN: No, not really.

15 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I will

16 open this to public remarks. If there

17 is anybody in the audience who would

18 like to make a remark in this

19 particular case, please raise your hand

20 and be recognized. Seeing none, I will

21 close the public remarks section and

22 ask our secretary to read any

23 correspondence.

24 MEMBER IBE: Thank you,

 

 

 

 

1 Mr. Chair. Nineteen notices were

2 mailed, zero responses, zero mail

3 returned.

4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any

5 comments by the city?

6 MR. BOULARD: Just a quick

7 question. In the application, the

8 request was for seven car ports of six

9 units apiece and two of four units

10 apiece.

11 MR. DECORN: Correct.

12 MR. BOULARD: Is that

13 correct?

14 MR. DECORN: Yes.

15 MR. BOULARD: When I went

16 through the plan, I was having

17 difficulty finding seven of the

18 six-unit ones. Is it possible there is

19 only six? I mentioned it to the

20 planning staff, and they thought there

21 may have been one that was left out

22 because of utility conflicts. I just

23 want to make sure.

24 MR. DECORN: No, there is

 

 

 

 

1 seven. Do you mind if I come up?

2 MR. BOULARD: We can use the

3 overhead. This one shows up on both

4 sheets.

5 MR. DECORN: Yeah, five, six.

6 MR. BOULARD: This one shows

7 up.

8 MR. DECORN: Correct. I see

9 what you are saying.

10 MR. BOULARD: There is

11 Pontiac Trail here.

12 MR. DECORN: Right here.

13 MR. BOULARD: Okay. So there

14 is seven. Wonderful. I stand

15 corrected.

16 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. Any

17 other comments by the city? I will

18 open it up to the board, and as I do, I

19 will make a couple comments.

20 What is the purpose of the

21 carports? Is it requested by the

22 tenants?

23 MR. DECORN: Yes, basically

24 to give them the opportunity to get

 

 

 

 

1 their vehicles out of the weather

2 and --

3 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: If you add

4 the total number of carports you are

5 offering, is it basically one per unit,

6 is that how you are counting?

7 MR. DECORN: No, it's 25

8 percent, between 20 and 25 percent.

9 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: So do

10 tenants pay extra for that?

11 MR. DECORN: Yeah, they would

12 actually lease them, so first come,

13 first serve.

14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I presume,

15 if I'm not -- I'm not correct, that

16 they would have to submit plans to the

17 city to approve for proper structural

18 and other issues?

19 MR. BOULARD: Yes. They

20 already submitted for the approval of

21 the site plan. A condition of that

22 approval -- because these end up for

23 this complex in the side setback, and I

24 believe the other complex in the side

 

 

 

 

1 and front setbacks.

2 MR. DECORN: Correct.

3 MR. BOULARD: Is that the

4 approval is conditioned upon the

5 approval of this body.

6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. Was

7 there any input from the fire marshal

8 as to any egress or ingress issues?

9 MR. BOULARD: The fire

10 marshal had a chance to comment when

11 this went before planning staff, and it

12 was approved.

13 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. I

14 have no problems with your request,

15 sir, as you requested.

16 Any other comments by the

17 board?

18 MEMBER SANGHVI: No, I agree

19 with you.

20 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I will --

21 if there is no other comments, I will

22 entertain a motion.

23 MEMBER IBE: I will take

24 it.

 

 

 

 

1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member

2 Ibe.

3 MEMBER IBE: In Case No.

4 11-003, 30995 Springlake Boulevard, I

5 move that we grant the variance

6 requested by the applicant for the fact

7 that there are unique circumstances of

8 the property makes it such it becomes

9 necessary to have the carports. At

10 least in Michigan, a place where you do

11 have snow. And talking about snow,

12 there may be some snow tomorrow. And,

13 obviously, the residents of this

14 particular place have requested these

15 particular carports, in which the

16 applicants (inaudible). Although not

17 everyone gets the carport, but it does

18 serve the purpose for which it is

19 intended. So that uniqueness I think

20 is sufficient to grant the request.

21 Secondly, the need is not

22 self-created. Obviously, we do

23 understand based on weather conditions

24 that makes it necessary to have a

 

 

 

 

1 carport living in Michigan.

2 Strict compliance with

3 regulations governing the area,

4 setbacks, frontage, height, bulk,

5 density will render conformity with

6 those regulations unnecessarily

7 burdensome for the applicant. The

8 requested variance is the minimum

9 necessary to do substantial justice to

10 the applicant as well as other property

11 owners in the district. And the

12 requested variance will not cause

13 adverse impact on surrounding property.

14 And this is also consistent with the

15 zoning ordinance.

16 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second.

17 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: It's been

18 moved and seconded. Any further

19 discussion by the board? Seeing none,

20 Ms. Martin, can you please call the

21 roll.

22 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi?

23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.

24 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger?

 

 

 

 

1 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.

2 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe?

3 MEMBER IBE: Yes.

4 MS. MARTIN: Chairman

5 Ghannam?

6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Yes.

7 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy?

8 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes.

9 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon?

10 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes.

11 MS. MARTIN: Motion passes,

12 six to zero.

13 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM:

14 Congratulations, sir, on that. You are

15 here on the next item?

16 MR. DECORN: Yes.

17 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Next item

18 is item number eight, Case No. 11-004,

19 31170 Wellington Drive - Portsmouth

20 Apartments. The petitioner is

21 requesting a variance from Section

22 2503.2.A allowing accessory structures

23 in the front and interior side yard.

24 Could you please state your

 

 

 

 

1 name again for the record.

2 MR. DECORN: David Decorn.

3 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: You have

4 already been sworn, sir, previously, so

5 we won't swear you in again, so please

6 state your case.

7 MR. DECORN: Basically, this

8 is the same situation. We are looking

9 to build some carports, and we need a

10 variance on the front and side

11 setbacks.

12 This one there is one

13 building that was eliminated, so the

14 application I believe says 19, but I

15 think we made it 18, because there was

16 an easement for a gas line in building

17 six. But other than that, everything

18 is -- we are just eliminating one of

19 those.

20 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: So your

21 request is for 18 carports, is

22 that it?

23 MR. DECORN: I don't have the

24 application in front of me.

 

 

 

 

1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I'm sorry.

2 MR. BOULARD: I believe there

3 is 28.

4 MR. DECORN: I'm sorry, yeah,

5 28. I'm sorry, yeah.

6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Anything

7 else, sir?

8 MR. DECORN: No.

9 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I will

10 open it up to public remarks. If there

11 is anybody in the audience that would

12 like to make a comment, please raise

13 your hand. Seeing none, I will close

14 the public remark section and ask the

15 secretary to read any correspondence.

16 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, 66

17 notices were mailed, zero responses,

18 zero mail returned.

19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. Any

20 comments from the city?

21 MR. BOULARD: No.

22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any

23 comments or questions by the board?

24 MEMBER SANGVHI: I think it's

 

 

 

 

1 a good idea to have carports; I have no

2 problem.

3 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I have no

4 problem with it either, sir, for the

5 previous reasons we stated. Would

6 anybody like to make a motion?

7 MEMBER IBE: I can certainly

8 take it, but just real quick, is it 27

9 or going to be 28?

10 MR. BOULARD: Twenty-eight.

11 MEMBER IBE: Still 28?

12 MR. BOULARD: I found 28.

13 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay.

14 MEMBER IBE: In Case No.

15 11-004, 31170 Wellington Drive,

16 Portsmouth Apartments, I move that we

17 grant the applicant's request for the

18 variances as requested for 28 unit

19 carports in the existing apartment

20 complex for the following reasons: And

21 the fact that there are unique

22 circumstances or physical conditions of

23 the property which necessitate to have

24 the carport. And just as was

 

 

 

 

1 previously stated, Michigan is a cold

2 state and we do have snow, and the need

3 for carports is definitely a necessity

4 these days. And since the applicant

5 has elected to put up carports, that by

6 itself is unique.

7 This request or need for

8 carports is not self-created because of

9 the weather conditions in Michigan.

10 And strict compliance of the

11 regulations governing the area,

12 setback, frontage, height or bulk will

13 unreasonably prevent the property owner

14 from using the property for the

15 purposes that is intended. The

16 requested variance is the minimum

17 variance necessary to do substantial

18 justice to the applicant. And the

19 requested variances will not cause any

20 adverse impact on the surrounding

21 property owners, and is consistent with

22 the zoning board.

23 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second.

24 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any

 

 

 

 

1 further discussion by the board?

2 Seeing none, Ms. Martin, can you call

3 the roll.

4 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi?

5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.

6 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger?

7 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.

8 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe?

9 MEMBER IBE: Yes.

10 MS. MARTIN: Chairman

11 Ghannam?

12 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Yes.

13 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy?

14 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes.

15 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon?

16 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes.

17 MS. MARTIN: Motion passes,

18 six to zero.

19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM:

20 Congratulations, sir.

21 MR. DECORN: Thank you.

22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Moving on,

23 we have other matters, the election

24 of officers. I know we were supposed

 

 

 

 

1 to have that last month, and because of

2 absences of members, we adjourned it to

3 this month. How do we do the order?

4 Should it be chairman first?

5 MR. SCHULTZ: Chairman first.

6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Anybody

7 like to make any nomination for

8 chairman?

9 MEMBER SANGHVI: May I

10 propose the name of Mr. Ghannam as

11 Chairman.

12 MEMBER IBE: I second that.

13 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you,

14 Member Sanghvi and Member Ibe, and I

15 accept the nomination.

16 Any other nominations for

17 Chairman for this coming-up year?

18 MEMBER SANGVHI: I suggest we

19 close the nomination.

20 MEMBER IBE: I second that as

21 well.

22 MEMBER KRIEGER: I third

23 it.

24 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: We take a

 

 

 

 

1 vote on the record, I presume?

2 MR. SCHULTZ: Yes, correct.

3 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay.

4 Ms. Martin, I believe she can call the

5 roll?

6 MR. SCHULTZ: She can do a

7 voice vote.

8 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: A voice

9 vote?

10 MR. SCHULTZ: Yes.

11 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Then all

12 in favor, say aye.

13 THE BOARD: Aye.

14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: All

15 opposed? Seeing none, I have been

16 elected chairman.

17 MEMBER IBE: Congratulations.

18 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Go ahead,

19 Member Sanghvi.

20 MEMBER SANGHVI: May I

21 nominate Mr. Ibe as vice chairperson

22 for the next session.

23 MEMBER SKELCY: Second.

24 MEMBER IBE: Thank you, I

 

 

 

 

1 will accept.

2 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any other

3 nominations for vice chair?

4 MEMBER SANGHVI: I suggest we

5 close the nomination, sir.

6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Seeing

7 none, I will close the nominations for

8 vice chair. So all in favor of Member

9 Ibe being vice chair for this next

10 session, say aye.

11 THE BOARD: Aye.

12 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: All

13 opposed? Seeing none, congratulations,

14 Member Ibe, for vice chair. Next?

15 MEMBER SANGHVI: I'd like to

16 nominate Ms. Skelcy as secretary for

17 the coming session.

18 MEMBER IBE: I will second

19 that.

20 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. Any

21 other nominations for secretary?

22 MEMBER SKELCY: Oh, I will

23 accept.

24 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I didn't

 

 

 

 

1 even ask you. Seeing no other

2 nominations for secretary, all in favor

3 of Member Skelcy being secretary, say

4 aye.

5 THE BOARD: Aye.

6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: All

7 opposed? Seeing none, congratulations.

8 We have no others, right?

9 MR. SCHULTZ: No others.

10 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Those are

11 the three.

12 MEMBER SANGHVI: May I make a

13 motion to adjourn?

14 MEMBER IBE: Second.

15 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: All in

16 favor of adjourning at this point, say

17 aye.

18 THE BOARD: Aye.

19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: All

20 opposed? Seeing none, we are

21 adjourned.

22 (The Meeting was adjourned at

23 9:08 p.m.)

24 - - -