View Agenda for this meeting
View Action Summary for this meeting 

Tuesday, October 11, 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, October 11, 2011

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

Thomas Schultz, City Attorney
Andy Gerecke, Building Official
Coordinator: Angela Pawlowski, Recording Secretary

Jennifer L. Wall, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 Novi, Michigan.

2 Tuesday, October 11, 2011

3 7:00 p.m.

4 ** ** **

5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Good evening,

6 everybody. Welcome to the October 11th, 2011

7 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. I'm going to

8 call this meeting to order.

9 First we are going to do the Pledge of

10 Allegiance. Member Ibe could you start us

11 off.

12 (Whereupon the Pledge of Allegiance was

13 recited.)


15 Ms. Pawlowski, will you please call the roll.

16 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gedeon?

17 MR. GEDEON: Here.

18 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gerblick, absent,

19 excused.

20 Chairman Ghannam?


22 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Ibe?

23 MR. IBE: Present.

24 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Krieger?

25 MS. KRIEGER: Present.





1 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Sanghvi?

2 MR. SANGHVI: Here.

3 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member Skelcy?

4 MS. SKELCY: Here.

5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you. I will go

6 over some of the formats and rules of conduct.

7 There should be a sheet in the back that

8 explains it, but please turn off all

9 cellphones and pagers during our meeting.

10 Representatives or the applicant will be

11 asked to come forth and state their names and

12 be sworn by our secretary and present their

13 case. Generally, they will be allowed five

14 minutes, and they will be allowed extensions

15 at the discretion of the Chair.

16 If the public wishes to make a comment,

17 they will be asked at a particular time and

18 they can raise their hand to be recognized.

19 Next, we will move onto the approval of

20 the agenda. Are there any additions or

21 corrections or modifications to the agenda?


23 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: None. Well, if not

24 I'll ask for a motion to approve.

25 MR. SANGHVI: So moved.





1 MR. IBE: Second.

2 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: All in favor say aye.


4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any opposed? Seeing

5 none, our agenda is approved, and we'll move

6 to the August 9th, 2011 Zoning Board minutes,

7 for the approval of those.

8 Are there any corrections or

9 modifications to that? Member Skelcy.

10 MS. SKELCY: Yes, on Page 27, Line 10,

11 the sentence reads, it might help if you guys

12 cut down those weeds to make the property

13 look -- it says bigger, but it should be

14 better.

15 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Anything else? With

16 that one amendment, I'll ask for a motion to

17 approve the August 9th, 2011 minutes.

18 MR. SANGHVI: So moved with the

19 amendment.

20 MR. IBE: Second.

21 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: All in favor say aye.

22 THE BOARD: Aye.

23 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any opposed? Seeing

24 none, our August 9th, 2011 minutes are

25 approved. And we will move to our first item





1 on the agenda.

2 Which is Case Number 11-010 Commission

3 for the County of Oakland.

4 Is the application present?

5 MS. WEEKLEY: Mr. Rollinger is not here.

6 But I'm here. I was in court with Mr.

7 Rollinger for an extensive amount of time this

8 morning. It was my understanding he was going

9 to be here this evening.

10 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Have you had contact

11 with him today?

12 MS. WEEKLEY: Yes, I was in court with

13 him this morning.

14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Why don't we move

15 this until Mr. Rollinger comes, so we can

16 present -- have one presentation on this, if

17 you don't mind.

18 So we will go ahead and skip over Item

19 Number 2 to Item Number 2, Case Number 11-030

20 for Ethan Allen.

21 If the applicant is here, please step

22 forward.

23 MR. TERRY: Good evening. Bryan Terry,

24 with Allied Signs, 33650 Giftos Drive, Clinton

25 Township, Michigan.





1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Please raise your

2 right hand be sworn by our secretary.

3 MS. SKELCY: Do you swear or affirm to

4 tell the truth?

5 MR. TERRY: I do.

6 As it says on our application, we are

7 here for Ethan Allen. The purpose for this

8 request is for an additional sign on the rear

9 of the building, just under 55 square feet,

10 which would be in the upper left-hand corner

11 of the building as you're facing it from the

12 Twelve Mile Road frontage.

13 The reasonable hardship for this

14 property is, as we know, the frontage of the

15 building is actually on the Twelve Oaks circle

16 drive. So their main sign, which would be at

17 their front entrance, faces away from Twelve

18 Mile Road, so there is really no identifiable

19 signage from the Twelve Mile side of this

20 building.

21 Some of the neighboring businesses as I

22 drove through that site, Verizon, Hagopian,

23 Renaissance, Jared, as you go around the

24 Twelve Oaks Drive, in fact, the building

25 architecture, the way that these buildings





1 were actually created, it looks almost as

2 though they have two front facades because

3 they didn't want to have the rear of the

4 building, if you will, facing Twelve Mile,

5 look like a rear building.

6 So reasonable hardship with this is

7 visibility. We would respectfully request

8 that you would be able to approve this signage

9 as proposed.

10 I'll turn it back over to the Board. I

11 thank you for your consideration.

12 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you, sir.

13 Would anybody in the public would like to make

14 a comment about this specific case, please

15 raise your hand.

16 Seeing none, I will close the public

17 remarks section and ask our secretary to read

18 any correspondence.

19 MS. SKELCY: There were nine notices

20 mailed, and no returns and no responses.

21 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: All right. Then I

22 will open it up to the City for any comments

23 or issues with the city. Anything?

24 Seeing none, then I will open it up to

25 the Board for discussion. Anybody have any





1 questions or comments? Member Skelcy.

2 MS. SKELCY: I know that the Hagopian

3 also has a sign that faces on Twelve Mile, and

4 I would be in favor of approving this based on

5 the fact that other neighbors have the same

6 issue that you have with regard to visibility,

7 and only being seen -- the sign around the

8 ring road. That's it. Thank you.

9 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Anybody else?

10 I also have the same opinion as

11 Member Skelcy. It is kind of par for the

12 course in that area, because of the way these

13 properties are situated, so I have no problem

14 either.

15 Anybody else?

16 MR. IBE: I agree, Mr. Chair.

17 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Then I will -- if

18 there is no other comments or questions, I

19 will entertain a motion at this point. Member

20 Skelcy.

21 MS. SKELCY: I move that the case of

22 11-030, Ethan Allen located at 42845 Twelve

23 Mile Road, that we approve the variance to

24 allow placement of a second wall sign of 55

25 square feet on the existing retail building





1 located between Twelve Mile on the Twelve Oaks

2 Mall ring road.

3 This request is based on circumstances

4 and features that are exceptional and unique

5 to the property, that being the business is

6 located much lower in the ground, and there is

7 no ability to see the business from Twelve

8 Mile Road.

9 And these features do not result from

10 the conditions that exist generally in the

11 City, and they are not self-created.

12 Furthermore, the failure to grant the

13 relief will unreasonably prevent or limit the

14 use of the property and will result in

15 substantially more than mere inconvenience or

16 inability to attain a higher economic or

17 financial return.

18 Finally, the grant of relief will not

19 result in the use of the structure that is

20 incompatible with or unreasonably interferes

21 with adjacent or surrounding properties. And

22 will result in substantial justice being done

23 to both the applicant and adjacent or

24 surrounding properties. And it is not

25 inconsistent with the spirit of the ordinance.





1 MS. KRIEGER: Second.

2 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Seeing a motion and a

3 second, any further discission?

4 Seeing none, Ms. Pawlowski, can you

5 please calling the roll.

6 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gedeon?

7 MR. GEDEON: Yes.

8 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Chairman Ghannam?


10 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Ibe?

11 MR. IBE: Yes.

12 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Krieger?

13 MS. KRIEGER: Yes.

14 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Sanghvi?

15 MR. SANGHVI: Yes.

16 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Skelcy?

17 MS. SKELCY: Yes.

18 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Motion passes six to

19 zero.

20 MR. TERRY: Thank you.

21 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Congratulations, sir.

22 I see Mr. Rollinger is in the house, so

23 I will recall Case Number One, 11-010 Road

24 Commission for County of Oakland. Can you

25 please step forward.





1 MR. ROLLINGER: Good evening, Mr. Chair.

2 I attempted to try a different route taking

3 Meadowbrook to Ten Mile Road and did not

4 realize many other people decided that was a

5 good way to go, too. I apologize for that.

6 I'm here, as the Chair indicated, my

7 name is Robert Rollinger. I'm here on behalf

8 of the applicant, the Road Commission for

9 Oakland County.

10 And we are here this evening to ask the

11 Board to use its rehearing process to

12 reconsider its decision that was previously

13 made, in which it chose to grant a -- one of

14 the two choices that we had made.

15 Choice being to have two signs, one

16 being a pedestal sign, our monument sign in

17 front of the building along the highest point,

18 where the new inclined slope, if you will, is

19 going to be after the Novi Road project is

20 completed at 25100 Novi Road, and to allow for

21 secondary a wall sign approximately 30 square

22 feet, and in lieu of the other alternative,

23 which was the preference of the owner, which

24 is to have a pole sign which would be the

25 about 14 feet high, four-foot high sign on top





1 of a 10-foot high pole.

2 I do have with me a copy of the drawing

3 that we had for the board, when it looked at

4 both choices to show what the pole sign would

5 look like.

6 We're here because admittedly the

7 Road Commission -- as the applicant did not

8 have a preference in thinking through the

9 process, the owner had indicated to us, their

10 overriding preference was to have this pole

11 sign, and we thought that, given that that was

12 what their preference is, it's their property,

13 not our property, we're here because of the

14 partial taking, this is part of our effort to

15 mitigate against the effects of the Novi Road

16 mid section project at their property area, to

17 try to mitigate against the effects caused by

18 the partial taking.

19 Given their preference to us, and as

20 expressed to the Board, was to have this pole

21 sign. We wanted to try to bring it back to

22 the Board at least to look at that issue and

23 revisit it.

24 In the alternative, we also, in talking

25 about it, thought that perhaps if the board





1 was inclined to allow a larger pedestal sign,

2 that that may, in fact, be as satisfactory to

3 the owner, as what the Board had examined in

4 the first instance by allowing a larger

5 pedestal sign, again, at the highest incline

6 point, which would be -- rather than using the

7 existing pedestal monument sign, which we

8 believe it to be 36 square feet.

9 That if the larger sign was allowed, at

10 that point, in conjunction with the northerly

11 wall sign, about 30 square feet, that that

12 might be more acceptable to the owner.

13 And again, I don't want to put words in

14 the owner's mouth, but we're again, trying to

15 do things that we can do through the variance

16 process with the Board to try to mitigate

17 against the effects again of doing the Novi

18 Road project, and its impact on this

19 particular piece of property.

20 So we are back here again, under the

21 Board's Rule 10.2 to ask the Board to

22 reconsider its decision either to think about

23 having, if not, this pole sign, at least

24 allowing some type of pole sign within the

25 parameters acceptable to the Board, or in the





1 alternative to consider a larger monument

2 pedestal sign that would be more acceptable to

3 what the owner is looking for.

4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you. Before

5 you finish, I just have one question for the

6 City.

7 Is that something we can consider today,

8 or this is just a rehearing of the original

9 issue?

10 MR. SCHULTZ: It is not. I guess I'd

11 make two points.

12 The first is, the Road Commission is the

13 petitioner here. As far as I know,

14 Mr. Rollinger, Ms. Weekley will correct me if

15 I'm wrong, I think the petition was for

16 rehearing. It was only signed by the Road

17 Commission.

18 The court hasn't ordered the Board to do

19 anything. I think I can say that with a

20 little bit of confidence because I don't think

21 the court could do that.

22 As I read Mr. Rollinger's letter, some

23 information was kind of presented that night

24 at the last hearing, maybe a little bit, not

25 in advance, but kind of at the meeting, and I





1 think this is the opportunity for Collex to

2 put -- to expand upon it.

3 If -- so that's kind of point number

4 one. You have all the same authority you had

5 the first time. The court isn't ordering you

6 to do anything different except hear the

7 Petitioner and Collex one more time.

8 With regard to the possible resolution

9 of maybe a bigger monument sign instead of a

10 pole sign, I think that would be an

11 appropriate avenue to inquire about with the

12 Road Commission, if they're willing to do

13 that. Collex, if they're willing to do that,

14 but that would actually have to be an action

15 that we would renotice for a later meeting.

16 But a fair avenue to discuss with these two

17 people.

18 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: With that in mind,

19 sir, do you agree, with that analysis, I

20 presume?

21 MR. ROLLINGER: Certainly. I would say

22 we are here, as Mr. Schultz just indicated,

23 when we met again with Judge Kumar, she did

24 ask us -- I should say she asked me -- or told

25 me, I shouldn't say ask, told me, that I





1 should try to proceed with rehearing request

2 to the Board, if such a rehearing request was

3 an available remedy. Turns out it is, so we

4 are here.

5 In fact, I told the judge we were back

6 there today, and told her I would be here this

7 evening rehearing the request to point out to

8 the Board basically what I just said.

9 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I understand. Thank

10 you. Before we question him, let me just make

11 sure she puts on her presentation.

12 MS. WEEKLEY: Sure. I just wanted to

13 correct the record in two areas.

14 First, I did sign a petition on behalf

15 of Collex. My name, again, Rebecca Weekley.

16 I'm general counsel for Collex.

17 Number two, when we were in chambers

18 this morning with the judge, she also

19 indicated that in the event, I know we're sort

20 of jumping the gun and getting to new monument

21 sign that's larger, which may be more

22 acceptable to my client, she did indicate to

23 Mr. Rollinger and the Road Commission that

24 perhaps it would behoove them, and she would

25 appreciate if they would also support and





1 bring that variance, if its requested by the

2 Board, that the pole sign is denied, and we're

3 moving towards that.

4 I know that that is something that the

5 judge is also looking for, support from the

6 Road Commission for.

7 Those are the two issues that I wanted

8 to bring to the Board's attention.

9 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. Anything

10 further from the applicant? Anything further,

11 sir?

12 MR. ROLLINGER: No. That's basically

13 what I, again, just wanted to point out to the

14 Board that that's why we are here.

15 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: At this point, I will

16 then open it up to the public for any

17 comments. Is there anybody who wants to speak

18 on this particular case?

19 Seeing none, I will close the public

20 remarks section and ask our secretary to read

21 the correspondence.

22 MS. SKELCY: There were 49 notices

23 mailed, ten were returned and no responses.

24 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Anything further from

25 the City?





1 MR. SCHULTZ: Just a quick question, I

2 guess, through the Chair to Ms. Weekley, we

3 don't have in our file Collex's signature. So

4 is that --

5 MS. WEEKLEY: It was attached to the

6 letter Mr. Rollinger wrote. He attached

7 emails in support of correspondence, right

8 above my name as attorney for Collex. On the

9 fourth page, four of four of the fax cover.

10 MR. SCHULTZ: As far as I know, we don't

11 have the actual email correspondence. Is that

12 something we can get?

13 MR. ROLLINGER: Certainly. I will look

14 to see if I can find it and show it to you.

15 MR. SCHULTZ: It seems like a small

16 detail, but depending on what the result is

17 tonight, it matters who is here before you.

18 So I understand Ms. Weekley's point, and

19 that's fine to proceed. But I think we are

20 going to need a copy of that at some point

21 from her or Mr. Rollinger.

22 Then I guess the other question would

23 be, are you asking the Chair for this matter

24 to be tabled for the Road Commission to come

25 forward with a different ground sign? Or do





1 you want this to proceed again on the pole

2 sign, on the same variance request that you

3 had last time? Which are you asking?

4 MS. WEEKLEY: It is my understanding,

5 again, I'm not a municipal attorney, so I

6 don't know, but it is my understanding that

7 the variance for a new monument sign would

8 have to be a completely new variance that the

9 Road Commission would have to file unrelated

10 to the rehearing.

11 MR. SCHULTZ: So you still want to go

12 forward with the rehearing?

13 MS. WEEKLEY: Am I supposed to be

14 reading between the lines?

15 MR. SCHULTZ: The question is this. She

16 and Mr. Rollinger can ask you to hold another

17 hearing -- first vote to rehear, then hold

18 another hearing on the very same request. But

19 it sounded like they may have worked out some

20 arrangement where they're both okay with a

21 larger sign and that's really what they want

22 you to act on.

23 I'm just asking the question. I'm not

24 sending any messages.

25 MS. WEEKLEY: There have been no -- I





1 can tell you this. There has been no plans

2 drawn up for any monument sign that's been

3 presented to my client. I don't have

4 engineered drawings yet.

5 So we are at the preliminary stages of

6 this. However, if that is going to make my

7 client happy, I am more than willing to go

8 back and have, you know, sign -- a new sign

9 drawn up.

10 My job is to make my client happy.

11 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: At this point, you

12 don't know if that --

13 MS. WEEKLEY: I know right now that a

14 pole sign would make my client elated.

15 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I understand.

16 MR. SCHULTZ: I think that answers the

17 question. I think you should go for it as

18 advertised and see --

19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: At this point, I will

20 open it up to the Board for discussion.

21 Member Sanghvi.

22 MR. SANGHVI: I got a question for our

23 City Attorney. Do we need to do break this

24 into two segments, one to agree to rehear the

25 case, and then the sign variance itself?





1 MR. SCHULTZ: That's correct. Two

2 separate motions. One action depends on the

3 other.

4 MR. SANGHVI: Then in the first case, I

5 would like to make a motion then that we agree

6 to rehear the case.

7 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. Any second?

8 MS. KRIEGER: Second.

9 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Seeing a motion and a

10 second, any further discussion on that

11 particular motion? Member Skelcy.

12 MS. SKELCY: Mr. Rollinger, do you

13 expect to present any new information during

14 the rehearing that you did not present at the

15 last hearing?

16 MR. ROLLINGER: The only thing that I

17 guess I would be adding is again, the -- in

18 reading over what was presented to the Board

19 was, I guess, recognition to the owner, the

20 preference that they have for a pole sign

21 versus the two signs that were granted by the

22 ZBA.

23 Again, I guess posing to the Board,

24 whether or not the board should in its

25 judgment, give more weight to what the owner's





1 preference is in terms of the alternatives

2 that were offered, the pole sign or the two

3 signs being the pedestal sign and allowing the

4 30 square foot sign on the northerly wall of

5 the building, and whether or not the Board

6 feels in its judgment, that more weight should

7 be given to the owner's preference, which we

8 did not do, frankly, at the last ZBA hearing.

9 We simply presented, here's two choices,

10 the Board -- to this Board, we did not have

11 any preference as to which way the board

12 wanted to go, but now recognizing that the

13 owner is seeking one versus the other, is

14 showing a preference for the pole sign.

15 I did not, I don't think, echo that to

16 the Board.

17 MS. SKELCY: Okay. It doesn't sound

18 like you're going to be presenting any new

19 information during a reconsideration hearing?

20 MR. ROLLINGER: There is nothing new

21 that I can add, other than that.

22 MS. SKELCY: Okay, thank you.

23 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member Gedeon.

24 MR. GEDEON: In response to that, I

25 would suggest that the Road Commission's





1 indifference, what was made clear, but at the

2 same time, this Board gave a considerable

3 amount of time to the property owner, and

4 property owner's representatives to speak to

5 the Board. And I think that the property

6 owner's position was abundantly clear that

7 they favored the pole sign at the time.

8 And I would also like to remind the

9 Board that when considering whether, you know,

10 how much weight we should put towards the

11 property owner's opinion, you may all recall

12 that after we granted the variance, actually

13 the two variances for the additional signs,

14 which, you know, went beyond the ordinance, so

15 they were getting something, you know, that

16 they wouldn't normally be entitled to get,

17 that that was not good enough for the property

18 owner, and he stormed out of the chambers.

19 And you know, literally slammed the door. So

20 I'm not that sympathetic to him, given that

21 behavior in front of the Board.

22 My opinion was pretty clear all along

23 that I'm not in favor of the pole sign, so I

24 don't support the rehearing request.

25 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any other further





1 discussion before we take a vote on the motion

2 to grant the rehearing?

3 Member Ibe.

4 MR. IBE: Mr. Rollinger, as well as

5 counsel for Collex, I'm sure both of you as

6 lawyers, do understand that when there is a

7 reconsideration, I'm sure -- those of us who

8 litigate and getting called all the time, it's

9 not a reconsideration based on what has

10 already been litigated, I mean what we have

11 talked about. This has to do with some

12 evidence, other than what we have talked

13 about.

14 And based on what I'm hearing, you don't

15 have anything new to add to what has already

16 been said on the record that we have, is that

17 correct?

18 MR. ROLLINGER: Yes, sir, that is a fair

19 statement. As I said, the only thing that I

20 can add to what I have done is to try to

21 emphasize, which I just didn't do it at that

22 time, I was just trying to present the facts

23 as we knew them, there was two choices, and

24 this is what they are. This is the size, this

25 is what it will look like. And I stopped at





1 that point. I did not in any way try to

2 explain to the Board the preference of the

3 owner of the property.

4 MR. IBE: Sure. You maintained some

5 neutrality in presenting your case, and I

6 appreciate that.

7 But I think I was here during that

8 debate, or during the conversation or the

9 discussion in that case, I think the

10 preference was clear, as to what Collex

11 wanted, they wanted a pole sign.

12 I think the Board's decision was pretty

13 clear to fact that a pole sign would not be

14 allowed.

15 You know, while I'm inclined to consider

16 rehearing, my only problem is, is there is

17 nothing new that is going to be presented.

18 Unless counsel for Collex tell me there is

19 something new to present.

20 Now, if there is nothing new other than

21 what we have already talked about, I don't

22 intend to revisit an issue that has already

23 been talked about at great length. And

24 emphasis was made by -- the owner of Collex

25 was here, and frankly, I must his behavior was





1 less than desirable to me when he came here

2 the last time. He stormed out. And in fact,

3 I think his words was not very kind, I'm not

4 going to repeat it. But that's -- I'm not

5 going to hold that against him. I understand

6 people don't get a decision that didn't work

7 for them.

8 But in the absence of new evidence to be

9 added to what has already taken place here, I

10 will probably sit on the fence for this for

11 now. I'm not sure if -- how the other members

12 feel about it.

13 But unless counsel tells me there will

14 be new evidence presented, I am not really

15 sure which way I am going to go because I

16 think we made it clear as to a pole sign.

17 Now, you have an opportunity here to

18 tell me what is the new evidence that we need

19 to hear. Counsel?

20 MS. WEEKLEY: I have none. There is no

21 new evidence. The driveway has been moved,

22 which is now further south from where it used

23 to be. It was moved today. So that makes it

24 again, an issue for vision around the monument

25 sign because this monument sign is going to be





1 blocking where you pull out from the new

2 driveway, where a pole sign is thinner,

3 obviously because it's sitting on a pole,

4 there is going to be better vision around a

5 pole sign than there is going to be around a

6 monument sign. That is all.


8 discussion?

9 Seeing none, can you take please take

10 roll on the motion to rehear the matter -- to

11 grant the rehearing, I should say.

12 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gedeon?

13 MR. GEDEON: No.

14 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Chairman Ghannam?


16 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Ibe?

17 MR. IBE: Yes.

18 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Krieger?

19 MS. KRIEGER: Yes.

20 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Sanghvi?

21 MR. SANGHVI: Yes.

22 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Skelcy?

23 MS. SKELCY: Yes.

24 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Motion passes five to

25 one.





1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: So now we will

2 actually reconsider the decision. Is there

3 any further discussion or questions or

4 comments other than we have already gone over,

5 by the Board, or -- Member Sanghvi.

6 MR. SANGHVI: I think this time we have

7 been presented with kind of a schedule of a

8 sign and dimensions of the pole sign and other

9 things, which I don't think they had at the

10 last meeting in this detail.

11 In looking at those dimensions, the

12 14-foot high pole sign, including the sign

13 itself, not just the pole, and the sign is

14 supposed to be four foot tall and eight foot

15 wide, which probably will solve the problem,

16 that will take care of also -- they don't need

17 another huge wall sign as well.

18 And the new topography of the property

19 itself, I think I tend to believe that they

20 have a particular difficulty, and it is

21 appropriate for us to grant a variance --

22 grant a variance and allow a pole sign. Thank

23 you.

24 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Anybody else have any

25 comments or questions? Member Skelcy.





1 MS. SKELCY: I believe our prior

2 decision was a good decision, and I will be

3 voting the same way. I will not agree to a

4 pole sign at this particular location.

5 However, if the applicant wants to come

6 back and readvertise for a larger monument

7 sign, I would certainly give that fair

8 consideration. Thank you.

9 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member Gedeon?

10 MR. GEDEON: I would echo those same

11 sentiments. I am not opposed to working with

12 the property owner further, to find a more

13 desirable arrangement for the monument sign.

14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Anybody else? Member

15 Ibe.

16 MR. IBE: Mr. Chair, I will also agree

17 with what my colleagues have said to our

18 speakers. I am not going to be in favor of a

19 pole sign, however, I will be willing to

20 consider something other than that.

21 I think counsel for Collex has made

22 already made that indication, in conversation,

23 that his client will be happy with a pole

24 sign, but will also be happy with something.

25 So I am willing to listen to what that





1 something is else. But the pole sign, I'm

2 sorry, the answer will be no.

3 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: As a personal comment

4 myself, I mean, I have given this

5 consideration two times. This is the third

6 time.

7 I understand the plight of the property

8 owner. I would understand why he would want a

9 pole sign, in his perception is it's going to

10 be better, in terms of advertising his

11 location, given the topography and so forth.

12 The problem is, City Council has come to

13 a decision long ago that they're against pole

14 signs. I understand you're coming here for an

15 exception to the rule, but, you know, they

16 don't want to move backwards and start -- and,

17 you know, have these pole signs in the city,

18 by their decision.

19 The question becomes, does this fit

20 within the exceptions. I think the given the

21 relief already granted, you know, I just --

22 you know, my feeling before, my feeling now, I

23 haven't given it reconsideration, it does

24 meets it. Again, whether the applicant or the

25 property owner wants to come back for other





1 type of relief, again we will always give that

2 fair consideration.

3 For this particular pole sign, I would

4 not be in favor of granting that.

5 Anybody else have any comments or

6 concerns or questions?

7 Seeing none, I will entertain a motion.

8 Member Skelcy.

9 MS. SKELCY: I move in the Case of

10 11-010, located at 25100 Novi Road, that we

11 move to deny the request for the variance of

12 the pole sign, based on the fact that the

13 request is not based on circumstances or

14 features that are exceptional or unique to the

15 property and does not result from conditions

16 that exist generally in the city or that are

17 self-created.

18 In addition, the failure to grant the

19 relief will not unreasonably prevent or limit

20 the use of the property, will not result in

21 substantially more than mere convenience or

22 more inability to attain a higher economic

23 financial return.

24 Finally, the grant of relief in this

25 particular request will not result in a





1 strcuture that is incompatible with or

2 unreasonably interferes with the adjacent or

3 surrounding properties, and will not result in

4 substantial injustice being done to the

5 applicant and adjacent or surrounding

6 properties.

7 And it is -- if it were be granted, it

8 would be inconsistent with the spirit of the

9 ordinance.

10 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any seconds? First

11 let me have any seconds. Is the motion

12 seconded?

13 MR. GEDEON: I will second it.

14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Now any further

15 discussion?

16 MR. IBE: May I please add, that the

17 applicant also has a viable alternative to the

18 pole sign. And the applicant's counsel, in

19 fact, stated on the record that the applicant

20 will be happy with an alternative other than a

21 pole sign, and that is something that

22 obviously weighs heavily to be making a

23 decision like this.

24 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Anything further?

25 MR. SCHULTZ: Just a clarification on





1 the motion.

2 Last time there were two motions, one to

3 grant the alternative relief on the two signs,

4 and then the motion to deny the pole sign.

5 I think fairly construed the whole --

6 both the motions were up for reconsideration,

7 so I guess I would like to ask the maker of a

8 motion to add that you're affirming the

9 previous motion to grant the alternative of

10 two signs.

11 So it was two motions last time. So

12 you've restated the second motion. I want to

13 confirm you're also affirming the first motion

14 that was made last time, and that the

15 intention really is essentially to, on

16 reconsideration we hear -- affirm your prior

17 decision, in both respects.

18 MS. SKELCY: I would like to incorporate

19 into my motion the statements made on the

20 record by Mr. Schultz.

21 MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you very much.

22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any further

23 discussion? Seeing none, Ms. Pawlowski, can

24 you please call the roll.

25 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gedeon?





1 MR. GEDEON: Yes.

2 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Chairman Ghannam?


4 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Ibe?

5 MR. IBE: Yes.

6 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Krieger?


8 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Sanghvi?


10 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Skelcy?

11 MS. SKELCY: Yes.

12 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Motion passes four to

13 two.

14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you for your

15 presentation.

16 MR. ROLLINGER: If I may approach

17 Mr. Schultz with a copy of the email.

18 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Sure. Next I'm going

19 to call Item Number 3 on our agenda for Case

20 Number 11-031 for Spirit Halloween. Is the

21 applicant here, please.

22 Can you please state your name and

23 address.

24 MR. CLANTON: Bill Clanton, 1014 Adams

25 Road, Burton, Michigan.





1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Raise your right hand

2 to be sworn by our secretary.

3 MS. SKELCY: Do you swear or affirm to

4 tell the truth?

5 MR. CLANTON: I do.

6 MS. SKELCY: Thank you.

7 MR. CLANTON: Spirit Halloween, we are

8 in the Lazy-Boy showcase shop outside of

9 Twelve Oaks Mall.

10 Similar to Ethan Allen, we are

11 requesting a variance for a second sign on the

12 rear of the building. The rear of the

13 building, in our case, faces Novi Road, as the

14 front faces Twelve Oaks Mall.

15 We were allowed a 60 square foot sign on

16 the front of the building, and our hardship is

17 we don't have any visibility on the back of

18 the building towards Novi Road. We figured

19 about 25 percent of the traffic coming into

20 the mall does go past the front of our

21 building. But most of the traffic does go in

22 the main entrance off of Novi Road, that's

23 about 60 percent of our traffic. And we

24 figure we could definitely use visibility of

25 the sign on the back.





1 Unlike the Ethan Allen case, we are only

2 there for 22 more days, so our sign will be

3 coming down November 3rd.

4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you, sir. Is

5 there anybody in the public who would like to

6 make a comment about this particular case,

7 raise your hand.

8 Seeing none, I will close the public

9 remarks section and have the secretary call

10 the roll.

11 MS. SKELCY: You mean --

12 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I'm sorry. Secretary

13 read any correspondence. I apologize.

14 MS. SKELCY: There were nine mailed,

15 notices, zero returns and zero responses.

16 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Anything from the

17 City on this particular request?


19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Then I will open it

20 up to the Board for discussion. Member

21 Sanghvi.

22 MR. SANGHVI: This is a temporary --

23 these signs are temporary. The previous

24 people with the same building had two signs

25 previously. We had granted them a variance





1 for two signs. And I think this is an

2 identical situation. This is a temporary

3 situation. So I have no problem in supporting

4 that application. Thank you.

5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member Gedeon.

6 MR. GEDEON: Yeah, just a point of

7 clarification from the City, since this is a

8 property that we have granted variances before

9 in the past, were those variances specific to

10 the occupant, or the particular sign that they

11 wanted to put up? Is there any reason why

12 they wouldn't be able to piggyback on one of

13 the previous variances?

14 MR. SCHULTZ: I haven't seen Ms. Nilan's

15 full report, frankly a different kind of sign.

16 It's a temporary sign versus a permanent sign

17 for identification. So my guess is that it

18 ran through this way because of the different

19 nature of the sign.

20 MR. GEDEON: Okay. I have no problems

21 with this.


23 Krieger?

24 MS. KRIEGER: Question. There is the

25 wall sign, is that also for the monument sign,





1 is that three signs or -- what signs would

2 they -- they get the sign on Novi Road, then

3 the sign over the door, and there is the

4 monument sign.

5 MR. SANGHVI: Yes, three signs.

6 MS. KRIEGER: I just noticed when that I

7 drove by that there was a monument sign as

8 well. They had a sign then also -- I don't

9 have any difficulties giving this since it's

10 only going to be until November 3rd.

11 However, I did notice as I was driving

12 on the entrance all the lawn signs. If would

13 you be willing to remove those?

14 MR. CLANTON: Yes.


16 understanding there was only one request for

17 an additional wall sign.

18 MR. SCHULTZ: Right. I guess we can

19 look into what's on the monument sign. There

20 may be a business center sign, there may be

21 some separate authority for an additional

22 name, but we can look in that.

23 MS. KRIEGER: It says Spirit Halloween,

24 too.

25 MR. CLANTON: It's two foot by three





1 foot sign right in front of the building, that

2 is also Denny's monument sign.

3 MR. SCHULTZ: So we will look at whether

4 they need some separate authority for that.

5 This is just a limited variance for the second

6 sign and --

7 MS. KRIEGER: Thanks.

8 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: You did request it

9 until November 3rd, is that accurate?

10 MR. CLANTON: Right. That's when our

11 sign comes down.

12 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I have no problem

13 with that either. Anybody else have any

14 comments or questions?

15 Seeing none, I will entertain a motion.

16 Member Ibe.

17 MR. IBE: In Case Number 11-031 Spirit

18 Halloween, I move that the applicant's request

19 for a 60 square foot wall sign on the west

20 elevation of the retail structure located on

21 the perimeters of the Twelve Oaks Mall site be

22 granted, for the following reasons. One, that

23 the request is based on circumstances and

24 features that are exceptional and unique to

25 the property, and do not result from





1 conditions that exist generally in the city or

2 that are self-created.

3 Specifically, this property is located

4 in a very unique place within the Twelve Oaks

5 Mall, and visibility is an issue for the

6 applicant. In order for the applicant to have

7 a better visibilty cars that are going by on

8 Twelve Mile as well as other areas, this sign

9 becomes very necessary.

10 Furthermore, the failure to grant relief

11 will unreasonably prevent or limit the use of

12 the property and will result in substantially

13 more than mere inconvenience, inability to

14 attain a higher economic or financial return.

15 The applicant in this case is in a

16 temporary business, of selling items. This is

17 the season, obviously. The sign is crucial at

18 this stage in order for the applicant to make

19 that economic goal that it has set for itself.

20 And failure to grant relief, will not

21 result in the use of structure that is

22 incompatible with or unreasonably interfere

23 with adjacent or surrounding properties and

24 will result in substantial justice being done

25 to both the applicant and adjacent surrounding





1 properties and is not inconsistent with the

2 ordinance.

3 Also let me state that these temporary

4 signs going to November 3rd, based on the

5 request of the applicant.

6 MS. SKELCY: Second.

7 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Seeing a motion and a

8 second, any further discussion?

9 MS. KRIEGER: And the applicant stated

10 that he will have the extra lawn signs

11 removed.

12 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Do you agree with

13 that?

14 MR. IBE: Yes, I do.

15 MS. SKELCY: Second.

16 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any further

17 discussion?

18 Seeing none, Ms. Pawlowski, can you

19 please call the roll.

20 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gedeon?

21 MR. GEDEON: Yes.

22 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Chairman Ghannam?


24 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Ibe?

25 MR. IBE: Yes.





1 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Krieger?


3 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Sanghvi?


5 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Skelcy?

6 MS. SKELCY: Yes.

7 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Motion passes six to

8 zero.

9 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you, sir. Next

10 I'm going to call Item Number 4, Case Number

11 11-032 for Shiro restaurant.

12 Could you please state your name and

13 address for the record, sir.

14 MR. ARKIN: Good evening. My name is

15 Earl Arkin, 43100 Nine Mile, Novi, Road.

16 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Raise your right hand

17 to be sworn by our secretary.

18 MS. SKELCY: Do you swear or affirm to

19 tell the truth?

20 MR. ARKIN: I do.

21 MS. SKELCY: Thank you.

22 MR. ARKIN: Good evening. I am here

23 representing Shiro restaurant, requesting a

24 permit for an off-premise Shiro restaurant

25 sign as it exists on the northeast corner of





1 Nine Mile Road and Novi Road.

2 The existing sign has made a significant

3 difference in the restaurant business. Shiro

4 restaurant represents a hardship and is

5 extremely well-hidden in an industrial wooded

6 area.

7 The restaurant is sitting back 245 to

8 265 feet from Nine Mile Road, and 600 feet

9 from Novi Road cannot be seen looking east or

10 west on Nine Mile Road or north or south on

11 Novi Road.

12 Illustration looking east, illustration

13 looking west. Illustration looking from the

14 north. And illustration looking south.

15 Directional signs isn't new to Novi, as

16 it is used when needed as illustrated as

17 Rotary Park. Please note that Rotary Park

18 looks like a temporary sign, but is of a type

19 of a permanent nature. The Novi Ice Arena,

20 and Sports Club, Venture Road, and CVS as a

21 few examples.

22 A landmark is not on Grand River in full

23 view, but rather hidden in an industrial

24 wooded area.

25 No matter how good a restaurant may be,





1 the restaurant needs directional assistance to

2 impulse patrons.

3 Discontinuing the off-premise restaurant

4 sign could result in the devastating loss of

5 customer base as restaurant patrons could

6 interpret the absence of the sign as the

7 restaurant being closed. These surely are not

8 times to be out of sight or out of mind.

9 I feel it's important that we as a

10 community support the business with the aide

11 and the sign that is requested to insure the

12 continued existence of the unique landmark

13 location. The sign's request will not

14 negatively impact any neighbor or alter the

15 character of the land.

16 Thank you for your time and

17 consideration.

18 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you, sir. Is

19 there anybody from the public that would like

20 to make a comment on this particular case?

21 Seeing none, I will close the public

22 remarks section and ask our secretary to read

23 any correspondence.

24 MS. SKELCY: There were 26 notices

25 mailed, there were none returned, and there





1 was seven responses, all from the same

2 company. Arkin, A-r-k-i-n, LLC.

3 And there is no notations except a

4 circling the word approval.

5 MR. SANGHVI: Okay. Any comments from

6 the City on this request?

7 Seeing none, I will open it to the Board

8 for discussion. Member Sanghvi.

9 MR. SANGHVI: Question for Mr. Arkin, is

10 it the same sign you would like to be

11 continued? It's nothing different from

12 before?

13 MR. ARKIN: Same sign as it is. There

14 it is. It's been up there since 2006. It was

15 done well originally. It looks as good today

16 as the day it was put there.

17 MR. SANGHVI: Very good. Thank you,

18 sir.

19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member Krieger.

20 MS. KRIEGER: You own the property at

21 the corner though, correct?

22 MR. ARKIN: Yes, ma'am.

23 MS. KRIEGER: Would you be willing -- I

24 would be willing to leave the sign as is until

25 the Shiro restaurant -- I remember the -- that





1 the Shiro restaurant, this sign would remain

2 until the business changed, and then a new

3 business would come back to the city for a new

4 variance request, being that the property is

5 unique, this home needs to create a business

6 so it can perpetuate itself.

7 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any other comments?

8 Member Skelcy.

9 MS. SKELCY: You know, I am not opposed

10 to a sign, but this kind of looks like a pole

11 sign to me.

12 And if it's going to there permanently,

13 I would be more favorable if it were to become

14 a regular monument type sign.

15 Do you have any opposition to that, sir?

16 MR. ARKIN: The terrain doesn't allow

17 for it. The land goes down, if you put

18 something on the ground, it won't be seen.

19 The monument sign would not be able to be

20 seen.

21 MS. SKELCY: Thank you.

22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any other comments?

23 MR. SANGHVI: I just wanted to ask one

24 question for the City. Do you really identify

25 this particular sign as a pole sign?





1 I notice two different poles for

2 elevation, rather than a pole sign with a

3 single pole. And technically, I don't think

4 this is a pole sign as defined as the pole

5 signs.

6 MR. SCHULTZ: I'll take a look, but I

7 think --

8 MR. GEDEON: Just a comment on that

9 question. If you -- if the Board members

10 remember a while back, there was the bank on

11 Fourteen Mile Road. In that presentation

12 the -- that the sign company made a point

13 about how monument signs and pole signs, the

14 only different was that the monument signs had

15 a skirt, you know, around the poles, hiding

16 the poles, but essentially, structurally they

17 are the same thing.

18 MR. SCHULTZ: For the Chair, the

19 definition pole or poles for ground pole

20 signs. I think it is a pole sign, the

21 monument is --

22 MR. SANGHVI: With a mention, what is

23 underneath -- that's a monument sign.

24 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Sir, that sign has

25 been there for quite a while, has it not?





1 MR. ARKIN: Yes.

2 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: How long has it been?


4 MR. ARKIN: 2006.

5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I remember because I

6 go by there every day. I remember it's been

7 there for quite a while.

8 Just remind me, I know your property is

9 several -- few hundred feet, 600 feet east of

10 that, do you own from Shiro to the corner of

11 Novi Road? Or there was a break in the

12 ownership?

13 MR. ARKIN: I own that -- I own to the

14 west also, Arkin Industries is 43100.

15 You have got seven approvals because I

16 was sent seven serial numbers. I could have

17 written something nice in each one of them,

18 but I didn't think it was necessary.

19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: We understand it is

20 all you.

21 I guess my question is, from Shiro going

22 west towards Novi Road, is that all part of

23 the -- I know there is several parcels, but do

24 you own them all?

25 MR. ARKIN: Yes, I do.





1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: There is nothing

2 planned to be built on those parcels?

3 MR. ARKIN: Not presently, no.

4 MR. GEDEON: One more question, if I

5 may.


7 MR. GEDEON: I see the chain link fence

8 there. Is that part of the reason that's

9 causing visibilty issues with a potential

10 monument sign, or more of a ground mounted

11 sign?

12 MR. ARKIN: I don't think the ground

13 would work.

14 MR. GEDEON: Is it because of the fence

15 or some other reason?

16 MR. ARKIN: No. I just don't think it

17 will work.

18 MS. KRIEGER: You could put a skirt

19 around it?

20 MR. ARKIN: If you notice -- look at the

21 Rotary, Novi sign itself. That's been there

22 for years. It's on two posts. A pole, as you

23 call it.

24 MR. GEDEON: I guess I would counter as

25 saying, just because there is an ugly sign





1 down the road, doesn't mean we should grant

2 another ugly sign.

3 MR. ARKIN: I don't think our sign is

4 ugly at all. I think it's very well done. We

5 did it right the first time. If it isn't

6 broken, why fix it.

7 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: How often do you

8 maintain that sign in terms of painting?

9 MR. ARKIN: It hasn't been necessary.

10 We work with Tim Trikes signage, and he's a

11 stickler for doing it right the first time. I

12 mean, look at the sign.

13 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I have seen it many,

14 many times over those years. I go by there

15 virtually every day.

16 MR. ARKIN: We would love to put lights

17 on it, but that's something you don't want to

18 do, and I can understand that.

19 So this was something less than what we

20 really wanted. But it has helped, it really

21 has.

22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I understand. I have

23 seen this motion before from you. Here's what

24 I wouldn't have a problem doing. Take into

25 consideration something Member Krieger.





1 I don't have problem with the permanency

2 of it, so long as Shiro is still in business,

3 and so long as the sign is not changed,

4 because if you were given a permanent sign,

5 then all of a sudden, you're putting up this

6 billboard there, that may be a problem, so as

7 long as this sign stays and is maintained, I

8 don't have a problem.

9 MR. ARKIN: I have no problem with that.

10 And if someone is a -- Shiro sold their

11 restaurant to some other person, I would think

12 you would want me to come before the board at

13 that time, then we will do that.


15 understanding would be as long as the sign is

16 approved, I mean, it could remain, reletter

17 it. You know what I'm talking about?

18 MR. ARKIN: We are happy with it just

19 the way the sign is.


21 MR. ARKIN: We have fought long and hard

22 to get the arrows saying 600 feet, because

23 when you see a sign restaurant or something

24 like that, you go down the road and it doesn't

25 tell you how far it is. You think it might be





1 seven or eight miles and you don't make the

2 turn.

3 So the sign the way it is, I think it's

4 done right and we're very happy with it.


6 understand. Thank you. Member Skelcy.

7 MS. SKELCY: I would not be in favor of

8 this pole sign being there indefinitely. So I

9 would not be in favor of a motion that would

10 say that it could stay there until Shiro

11 closes or moves.

12 I mean, if they were to lower the sign,

13 or if we were to do a motion where we granted

14 it for two years, or possibly three, I would

15 be in favor of that.

16 But I'm really highly opposed to pole

17 signs in the City of Novi. Thank you.

18 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any other comments?

19 Member Ibe.

20 MR. IBE: This is also very difficult

21 for me, sir. I drive by the restaurant, it's

22 a very fine restaurant.

23 And my only concern rests with the fact

24 that if it looks like a duck and quacks like a

25 duck, then it must be one, that's a pole sign





1 to me.

2 MR. ARKIN: I'm sorry? Looks like what?

3 MR. IBE: If it looks like a duck,

4 quacks like one, then it must be.

5 What I'm trying to say is, no matter how

6 we call it, no matter how we paint it, no

7 matter how we try to qualify it, it is pole

8 sign to me.

9 And I'd like to read the language of the

10 ordinance, and apply it strictly when it comes

11 to pole signs. You know, certainly we'll be

12 in favor or what Member Skelcy suggested,

13 leaving that as a permanent sign for the next

14 10, 15 years doesn't sit well with me at all.

15 But for a limited time, perhaps, you may

16 see differently that maybe this sign may need

17 change to look a little bit more fitting with

18 a monument sign. I know what the topography

19 of the area looks like. I know you say you

20 can't see it, but I respectfully (inaudible)

21 with you, because I know I can see it, when I

22 come down there.

23 My -- in fact, my doctor's office is

24 just across the street from it. I see their

25 sign. It's not a pole sign, but I see it,





1 even before I approach Nine Mile Road, it's a

2 monument sign.

3 MR. ARKIN: There is a sign there, there

4 is a fence in front of that, too.

5 MR. IBE: I understand, sir. But I do

6 say, your statement was that you would not see

7 a monument sign. I'm going to respectfully

8 (inaudible) with that. I see the other

9 monument sign across the street on the other

10 side of Nine Mile and Novi Road.

11 So if I can see that sign, before I even

12 approach Nine Mile, that means I can probably

13 see your sign.

14 I will be favor of what Member Skelcy

15 suggested, which is something that is limited

16 because that sign definitely is a pole sign.

17 And I'm just not comfortable, sir, with pole

18 signs.

19 I want to make insure that Shiro stays

20 around here forever. But I also want to make

21 sure that the people of Novi have a decent

22 city, a place they can call home. Because at

23 the end of the day, we all have to live in the

24 city, we have to be proud of it.

25 I certainly understand your position.





1 My position, as well as what the ordinance

2 calls for, is that pole signs are just not

3 allowed.

4 Thank you, Mr. Chair.

5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any other comments or

6 suggestions as to how resolve these things?

7 Member Sanghvi.

8 MR. SANGHVI: Only comment I would like

9 to make is (inaudible) the realistic signs are

10 technically pole signs in this city. They are

11 not monument signs. Wherever you go, you will

12 see them, they are on two-by-fours and a board

13 across it.

14 And if you define these as a pole sign,

15 as opposed to the Harold's Frame sign, or the

16 Crowne Plaza pole sign, which are on metal

17 tall pole, single pole, you see, I think we

18 need to be very clear about what we are

19 calling a pole sign.

20 And that is why I raised the issue

21 earlier because technically is this a pole

22 sign or not. To me, I don't think this is a

23 pole sign. It is a cross between a pole sign

24 and a monument sign without the masonry work

25 on it.





1 And I have no problem with this, so long

2 as it is, we already accept it, and we talking

3 about -- in this particular instance, we are

4 talking about continuing the same sign so long

5 as that business continues there.

6 If the business changes, then, obviously

7 the sign comes down also. And if there is a

8 new business, yes, they probably will come for

9 another sign and that is the time to discuss

10 whether there should be a monument sign or two

11 pole signs.

12 So I have no difficulty in supporting

13 them to continue as they are, and continue

14 them for so long as their business lasts

15 there, they can continue with their sign.

16 Thank you.

17 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: So we have two

18 issues. Number one, whether to grant or deny

19 the request.

20 And the second would be, if you grant

21 it, what limitations do you put such as a time

22 or a style.

23 Member Skelcy.

24 MS. SKELCY: I guess what I'm saying is

25 I would support a motion, if the time were





1 limited, otherwise, I would not be able to

2 vote in favor of it, because I think at some

3 point, maybe in two or three years, maybe it

4 will be the only pole sign left in the city.

5 I don't know.

6 But I want the City to have the ability

7 to decide in the future if this pole sign

8 should remain or be taken down. And so that's

9 why I would want the time frame. Thank you.

10 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: How about as a

11 suggestion, if the Board is inclined to grant

12 for only this tenancy -- and by the way, Shiro

13 is a tenant, are they not?

14 MR. ARKIN: That's correct.

15 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Only grant for this

16 tenant. When the tenant leaves, or ceases

17 business, then the sign would have to come

18 down.

19 MR. SANGHVI: This particular business.

20 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Correct. Would that

21 be acceptable?

22 MR. GEDEON: In general, I would not

23 have a problem with that. My curiosity is

24 with the prior variance that were granted, I

25 don't have the benefit of knowing what those





1 were. I mean, were those characterized as a

2 temporary sign to begin with? I mean, why is

3 this the fourth time you're coming before the

4 Board.

5 MR. ARKIN: In 2006 we were given I

6 believe 18 months, 24 months. I came back,

7 then I think in 2009, we were granted again,

8 to continue the sign.

9 Now I'm trying to see if we can't keep

10 this as long as the restaurant is there.

11 Times are tough, as you know, when you

12 think of making a sign again, or even a

13 monument sign, I don't think that would work,

14 it's expensive. You know, things are not

15 easy. Those people work very hard to maintain

16 themselves.

17 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member Krieger.

18 MR. SANGHVI: The Home Sweet Home,

19 Shiro, that house was historically where the

20 sweetened condensed was created, and I believe

21 that the Shiro restaurant, because -- it was

22 White House Inn, the house was having -- it

23 has become a restaurant place, but the

24 turnover was more frequent in the past. So

25 the Shiro has become popular.





1 So because it, in my belief, that it has

2 come back repeatedly with the same Shiro

3 request is because the business is successful.

4 It's nice to have a successful business

5 in Novi with a building that has something

6 going on versus an empty building. And pole

7 sign, no pole sign, I am glad it's not like

8 driving down Eight Mile and you see these big

9 express signs on Eight Mile, versus an

10 expressway. This sign is not obtrusive. It

11 assists the business, as long as -- it would

12 be nice to be a permanent sign for -- but

13 considering that Shiro is a restaurant, at

14 some point the restaurant, historically you

15 will get any business, it's only there for so

16 many years. The Shiro building itself, the

17 restaurant is farther down the road, so as a

18 directional sign that assists, it has helped,

19 so I have no difficulty in granting a variance

20 for another three years or as long as the

21 Shiro restaurant is in business, and then have

22 the applicant -- if there is a new business

23 coming in, and that house is still there, that

24 the new applicant would come back to the City

25 and, say, okay, this is the new business we





1 would like a new sign, this is what it would

2 look like, if that's okay with the applicant,

3 and that's where I'm at right now.

4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I tend to echo that,

5 and the reason why is because even though you

6 own multiple parcels, they could be sold off

7 separately, and you know, if this is granted

8 on a permanent basis, that corner piece may be

9 burdened by the sign. It may have to be there

10 forever. I tend to agree that it shouldn't be

11 permanent, but only for the tenancy of Shiro.

12 Go ahead, you can speak, sir.

13 MR. ARKIN: It's going to be considered

14 as long as I own that parcel, and as long as

15 Shiro is in business?

16 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Well, that's up to

17 the Board, but my inclination would be to

18 grant something that's applicable only to

19 Shiro, regardless of whether you own it or

20 not.

21 MR. ARKIN: Pertain only to Shiro?

22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Regardless of whether

23 you own it or not. You could sell that

24 parcel, as long as Shiro is there, they could

25 use still use it.





1 MR. ARKIN: That would be fine.

2 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any other questions,

3 comments, or somebody can make a motion.

4 MR. SANGHVI: Another question. This is

5 a question for the City Attorney. Can we

6 suggest that if it come for renewal in two

7 times, maybe he should consider to monument

8 sign instead of a pole sign so that we can get

9 over the pole sign problem.

10 MR. SCHULTZ: For the Chair, if you're

11 asking could you make that a condition, sure,

12 you could.

13 MR. SANGHVI: Thank you.

14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Anything else?

15 Member Skelcy.

16 MS. SKELCY: Based of what Member

17 Sanghvi said, I would be in favor of a

18 three-year extension, and with the idea that

19 if they come back in front of us, that we

20 would ask them to present for a permanent

21 monument sign.

22 Is that what you were saying,

23 Member Sanghvi?

24 MR. SANGHVI: If they come for a renewal

25 in two year's time, if the business still





1 survive two more years, then maybe they should

2 put a monument sign, that is what I was

3 suggesting.

4 MS. SKELCY: I would suggest three

5 years.

6 MR. SANGHVI: Three years, okay. No

7 problem.

8 MR. GEDEON: I trust counsel's judgment,

9 but I don't understand how sitting here today

10 we can limit what a future board can do.

11 MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Chair, I think that

12 your motion is -- or the motion that sounds

13 like is being contemplated is a three-year

14 renewal at which time he -- your suggestion is

15 he present a monument sign. But that's not

16 necessarily limitations on the next Board.

17 The next Board could do to the same thing.

18 You have indicated in your motion that

19 you would like them to consider a monument

20 sign. If he comes back with the same sign in

21 three years, the Board sitting then will have

22 full authority to do whatever, but he has

23 three years, as a result of the motion.

24 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any other questions,

25 comments or motions? Member Krieger.





1 MS. KRIEGER: To the applicant, that for

2 the Shiro sign, if you put skirting around the

3 bottom, it is no longer a pole sign, it is a

4 monument sign. I thought I'd be as economic

5 as I could.

6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Without giving advice

7 either way.

8 Any other questions? Can someone make a

9 motion. Member Krieger.

10 MS. KRIEGER: In Case Number 11-032,

11 Shiro restaurant, 43180 Nine Mile Road, I move

12 to approve the request for the variance to

13 allow the continued placement of the 36 square

14 foot off-premises sign for an existing

15 restaurant business for three years.

16 The request is based upon circumstances

17 or features that are exceptional and unique to

18 the property, being that this is a house that

19 is farther east of Novi Road and does not

20 result in conditions that exist generally in

21 the city, they're not self-created.

22 Also the applicant is a property owner

23 of the property from Novi Road, to the Arkin

24 building, so this sign is also on his

25 property.





1 The failure to grant relief will

2 unreasonably prevent or limit the use of this

3 historical property and will result in

4 substantially more than mere inconvenience or

5 inability to attain a higher economic or

6 financial return.

7 The grant of relief will not result in a

8 use of structure that's incompatible with or

9 reasonably interferes with adjacent or

10 surrounding properties. And will result in

11 substantial justice being done to both the

12 applicant and the adjacent or surrounding

13 properties. And it is not inconsistent with

14 the spirit of the ordinance.

15 MR. SANGHVI: Second.

16 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Seeing a motion and a

17 second. Any further discussion?

18 Seeing none, Ms. Pawlowski, can you

19 please call the roll.

20 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gedeon?

21 MR. GEDEON: No.

22 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Chairman Ghannam?


24 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Ibe?

25 MR. IBE: Yes.





1 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Krieger?


3 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Sanghvi?


5 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Skelcy?

6 MS. SKELCY: Yes.

7 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Motion passes five to

8 one.

9 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Congratulations, sir.

10 MR. ARKIN: Thank you very much.

11 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Next on the agenda is

12 Case Number -- Item Number Five, Case Number

13 11-033, for Fiat of Novi.

14 Can the applicant please step forward.

15 Please state your name and address.

16 MR. TKACZ: My name is Stanley Tkacz,

17 architect, address is 1529 South Wayne Road,

18 Westland, Michigan.

19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Being an architect,

20 can you please raise your right hand and be

21 sworn.

22 MS. SKELCY: Do you swear or affirm to

23 tell the truth?


25 MS. SKELCY: Thank you.





1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Go ahead, sir.

2 MR. TKACZ: Good evening, ladies and

3 gentlemen. I appear before you tonight

4 representing Suburban Collection for the new

5 sales and service facility of Fiat Automotive.

6 There are four items among you tonight

7 concerning this facility.

8 Through the Board's pleasure, do we take

9 them all as one big, lump sum, or do we do

10 them individually? What would you like?

11 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Well, you make your

12 presentation, and we will decide how to make

13 motions whether to approve or disapprove.

14 MR. TKACZ: All right, sir. Item Number

15 One has to do with a 20-foot setback

16 landscaping.

17 This is an existing condition that you

18 should have in the little portfolio booklet

19 that I submitted.

20 It shows photographs of the retaining

21 wall and the landscaping that is presently

22 existing. This was established in 1991, when

23 the original site was developed, and is short

24 by one foot six in order to miss an existing

25 20-foot water easement, that passes and





1 crosses and parallels the road. This is why

2 it was placed in this position, and has been

3 that way for that time.

4 Item Two has to do with the overhead

5 doors facing Haggerty Road. This condition is

6 part of the Fiat design criteria program, that

7 is indicated within their renderings in the

8 booklet.

9 There are in the City of Novi other

10 facilities, automotive, that do have their

11 doors also facing main thoroughfares.

12 Adjacent right next-door is the Infinity

13 store, the Jaguar store has overhead doors

14 facing Ten Mile and the Mercedes Benz has

15 doors facing onto Haggerty.

16 There are, of course, across the street

17 in your neighboring municipality of Farmington

18 Hills, several facilities directly across the

19 street, that also have multiple overhead doors

20 facing the main thoroughfare.

21 Itember Number Three has to do with the

22 dumpster location. In the program, there is

23 existing two dumpsters on the site. One at

24 the very rear building behind Chrysler.

25 The second one is right next to -- in





1 this side yard, on the north property line

2 that services the Infinity store. We placed

3 the one for the Fiat basically in the same

4 location to service the Fiat location. The

5 facility itself will be part of the building.

6 It will reflect the building, it will appear

7 as the building structure in itself.

8 The last and final element has to do

9 with the round oval element signs that appear

10 on the red corner posts. They are Fiat

11 internally lit signs that go with their design

12 criteria.

13 I'm not supposed to say this, but we

14 said this at the Planning Commission, so you

15 know, though both of them today say Fiat, if

16 the dealer makes his quota, one of them in two

17 years will say Alfa Romeo. Thank goodness.

18 In the process -- that was brought out at the

19 Planning Commission.

20 That is the program before you. Is

21 there any questions?

22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Before I get to that,

23 I will ask if there is anyone in the public

24 who would like to make a comment on this

25 particular case, please raise your hand.





1 Seeing none, I'll close the public

2 remarks section I'll ask our secretary to read

3 any correspondence.

4 MS. SKELCY: Twenty-nine were mailed,

5 two returns and two responses.

6 One response is from Ed Gardner located

7 at 31555 West Eleven Mile in Farmington Hills.

8 He objects and states, the requested variances

9 would all have a negative impact on the City

10 of Farmington Hills.

11 We also received an objection from

12 Fayez Enterprises. The letter is signed by

13 Charles Alawan, who is the property manager of

14 Pheasant Run Plaza.

15 He writes, we have a mixed response as

16 regards to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Fiat

17 of Novi. We choose to deal separately with

18 each of the applicable and listed ordinance

19 sections being addressed.

20 Number one, Section 2400 variance, we

21 have no objection. Number two, Section

22 1503(5) should be upheld. We feel that this

23 appeal would serve to deface the longstanding

24 architectural integrity of the thoroughfare.

25 Number Three, Section 2503(F), requiring





1 an enclosure for the dumpster in a rear yard

2 should be upheld, consistent with the same

3 assessment of the dumpsters at our Pheasant

4 Run Plaza property by the City of Novi in

5 2010.

6 Number Four, Section 2805(3) should be

7 stringently applied to this appeal, consistent

8 with the City of Novi rejection of our own

9 recent appeal. Our hardship was equal to or

10 greater than Fiat of Novi.

11 We are not opposed to continuation of

12 the business appeal in the area, however, we

13 feel that a new entity should be held to the

14 same City requirements as those of us who are

15 established the over the last 25 years. Our

16 needs and appeals should be viewed in the same

17 light and manner as those wishing to have

18 contemporary consideration. Cordially,

19 Charles Alawan.

20 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. Any comments

21 from the City on this one?

22 Seeing none, I will open it up to the

23 Board for discussion.

24 MR. SANGHVI: Question for you, sir.

25 May I?





1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member Sanghvi.

2 MR. SANGHVI: You going to bring a new

3 building where the used car parking lot is

4 now?

5 MR. TKACZ: That is correct, sir. The

6 used car building goes completely down.

7 MR. SANGHVI: What's going to happen to

8 that used car business?

9 MR. TKACZ: All gone.

10 MR. SANGHVI: All going to go?

11 MR. TKACZ: All gone bye-bye.

12 MR. SANGHVI: Very good. Thank you. I

13 have no problem with your request.

14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I have one question

15 actually. Is the dumpster, even though you're

16 asking for a variance there, is it going to be

17 enclosed?

18 MR. TKACZ: Yes, sir. It is being

19 enclosed, it is to be brick like the building.

20 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: You just want to

21 simply place it in a different area, I

22 presume?

23 MR. TKACZ: That's correct. What the

24 big problem, why we put it there is, between

25 the Fiat property though we are nine feet





1 below Haggerty Road, the Chrysler store is

2 another eight feet below us, so it's taking

3 all the waste down the hill to get behind the

4 Chrysler building. That's why we put one up

5 on the level of the Fiat store.

6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: In your judgment,

7 that's the best area to put it for this

8 particular --

9 MR. TKACZ: Yes, sir. It is next to the

10 interior, side property line, but we're also

11 adjacent to another automobile dealership.

12 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I understand that.

13 Will it be visible from Haggerty?

14 MR. TKACZ: No way.

15 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Is Phesant Run behind

16 you, the shopping center?

17 MR. TKACZ: Yes, they're over the crick,

18 over the ravine.

19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Right. Will they be

20 in direct view of that dumpster?

21 MR. TKACZ: It's all forest. It's all

22 heavy forest back there.

23 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I don't have any

24 other questions, sir. I have no problem with

25 the requests.





1 Anybody else? Member Krieger.

2 MS. KRIEGER: The service doors will

3 remain closed, except for when vehicles are

4 going in?

5 MR. TKACZ: That is correct, ma'am. It

6 is an air conditioned space, so the doors will

7 be closed during the summer.

8 Please bear in mind, also as I had just

9 mentioned, the floor of the Fiat store is nine

10 feet below Haggerty Road. The doors are

11 10-foot tall, so from -- even if you stand on

12 Haggerty Road, the top of the door is only six

13 inches above grade, but then there is a

14 three-foot berm on top of that, plus all the

15 landscaping on top of that.

16 So visuality of the doors is only if you

17 literally drove onto the site. We hope,

18 anyway.

19 MS. KRIEGER: Thank you.

20 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Anybody else have any

21 questions or comments? Or motions?

22 MR. GEDEON: One question. With the

23 wall signs, are they specifically going to be

24 the logos, or you know how some car dealers,

25 is it going to have dealership's, you know,





1 personal name, or the Suburban Collection

2 name?

3 MR. TKACZ: (Indicating) That's the one

4 that's up on M59. Those are eternally lit

5 logos. This is the one that's on Woodward.

6 MS. SKELCY: Can I see. This one will

7 say Novi?

8 MR. TKACZ: Novi. It has been a long

9 discussion with Fiat whether it's--

10 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Speak by the podium,

11 if you don't mind.

12 MR. TKACZ: It had been a long

13 discussion with Fiat whether we say Fiat of

14 Novi, Novi of Fiat, but with the two emblems,

15 we said, this is redundant. Let's just have

16 the logo and the word Novi. The word Suburban

17 will not be on the building.

18 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member Skelcy.

19 MS. SKELCY: Will they have to come back

20 if they want to change the sign to Alfa Romeo

21 in two years, or if we just grant it, we just

22 do it without --

23 MR. SCHULTZ: That's in the normal

24 course. Unless you limit it in your motion,

25 they would not have to.





1 MS. SKELCY: Okay, thank you.

2 MR. TKACZ: When you say that, ma'am, I

3 hope they meet their quota. I would like to

4 drive one.


6 MR. IBE: Really no questions. But I

7 just want to say welcome to your business to

8 City of Novi. I welcome you, and hopefully

9 you make your quota. Because I think I like

10 Alfa Romeo.

11 MR. TKACZ: We are kind of proud of this

12 because 90 percent of all the Fiats that have

13 been released to be built, have all been

14 renovations.

15 No true Fiat design has been built in

16 North America yet. This will be the first

17 one. And so the client is very anxious to get

18 it started and everything else. But as you

19 folks all seen, they're working with an

20 overseas automotive company trying to work in

21 an American situation, it's long and very

22 difficult.

23 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Sure. If there is no

24 other questions or comments, I will entertain

25 a motion.





1 As he mentioned, we can technically take

2 them separately or we can take them --

3 everybody wants to grant them all, or deny

4 them all, or take them separate, we can

5 certainly do that.

6 MR. SANGHVI: I have no problem with the

7 package completely considering it as one.

8 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I agree, too.

9 Member Skelcy, help us out.

10 MS. SKELCY: I move that in the Case of

11 11-033 Fiat of Novi, located at 24305 Haggerty

12 Road, that we grant the following variances as

13 requested.

14 First, that they be granted an 20-foot

15 front yard setback to parking.

16 Second, that they be permitted to have

17 overhead service doors facing a thoroughfare.

18 Third, that they have an accessory

19 dumpster placed in the location indicated by

20 the architect, which will be surrounded by a

21 brick wall on all three sides.

22 MR. TKACZ: Yes, ma'am.

23 MS. SKELCY: And four, that we grant

24 them the two red signs that they have

25 requested on the front of the building.





1 This motion is made because there are

2 unique circumstance and physical conditions of

3 the property, such as narrowness, shallowness,

4 shape, water, topography, or other similar

5 physical conditions, and the need for the

6 variance is not due to the applicant's

7 personal or economic difficulty.

8 In this particular case, the building is

9 located -- I don't want to say in a hole,

10 but --

11 MR. TKACZ: It is in a hole.

12 MS. SKELCY: Much lower --

13 MR. TKACZ: Lower grade differential.

14 MS. SKELCY: Has a much lower grade

15 differential. The need is not self-created.

16 Strict compliance with regulations governing

17 area setback, frontage, height, bulk, density

18 or other dimensional requirements will

19 unreasonably prevent the property owner from

20 using the property for a permitted purpose and

21 will render conformity with those regulations

22 unnecessarily burdensome.

23 The request variances are the minimum

24 variances necessary to do substantial justice

25 to the applicant, as well as to the other





1 property owners in the district.

2 Finally, the requested variances will

3 not cause an adverse impact on surrounding

4 property, property values or the use and

5 enjoyment of the property in the neighboring

6 or zoning district. In fact, it will likely

7 increase the value.

8 MR. IBE: Second.

9 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Seeing a motion and a

10 second, is there any further discussion?

11 Member Gedeon.

12 MR. GEDEON: I might recommend an

13 amendment to remove the limitation that the

14 signs be red, perhaps we could introduce an

15 alternative limitation that they -- the sign

16 correspond to the logo of the cars being sold

17 at the location?

18 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Well, how about we

19 just do this, as a suggestion, agree to grant

20 the petition as requested. I think that would

21 be a little bit more general.

22 MR. SCHULTZ: It would be, and I guess,

23 maybe this is just -- maybe I'm reading this

24 wrong, but the three signs that are listed in

25 the request, were the ovals, the word Novi and





1 service, are those the three that are actually

2 being requested or are there two ovals?

3 MR. TKACZ: Two ovals and Novi. The

4 service sign is small. It's not outside of

5 the requirements of signage and graphics. We

6 were told if it was less than six square feet,

7 that it was not part of the sign package. So

8 it's the two ovals and Novi.

9 MS. SKELCY: So we are asking to amend

10 the motion to say that we grant the variance

11 for two front signs, including a service sign.

12 The word service sign.

13 MR. TKACZ: No, service shouldn't be

14 included.

15 MS. SKELCY: Should not be included.

16 MR. TKACZ: Should not be included.

17 MS. SKELCY: Just the two --

18 MR. TKACZ: Two ovals and Novi.

19 MS. SKELCY: Two ovals and --

20 MR. TKACZ: It was explained to us, the

21 word service, if it stayed under six square

22 feet, was not considered graphics on a

23 building.

24 MR. SCHULTZ: So here is my minor issue.

25 What was advertised was an oval sign of 15.5





1 square feet, a 10.7 lettering that says Novi,

2 and then the 6.7 that says service.

3 It sounds like that has changed a little

4 bit, but I wonder if that raises an

5 advertising kind of issue.

6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: If we grant as

7 advertised and as requested, isn't that what

8 you want?

9 MR. TKACZ: That's fine. That's fine,

10 sir. I have no problem with that.

11 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: If we use that

12 general language, if we are all in agreement,

13 that should suffice.

14 If there is any issues with size, I

15 mean, they would have to certainly come back,

16 I would presume.

17 MR. SCHULTZ: Fair enough with that

18 comment.

19 MS. SKELCY: I agree to the changes as

20 proposed by Chairman Ghannam.

21 MR. IBE: I will second that once again.

22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any further

23 discussion? If not, Ms. Pawlowski, can you

24 please call the roll.

25 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gedeon?





1 MR. GEDEON: Yes.

2 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Chairman Ghannam?


4 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Ibe?

5 MR. IBE: Yes.

6 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Krieger?


8 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Sanghvi?


10 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Skelcy?

11 MS. SKELCY: Yes.

12 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Motion passes six to

13 zero.

14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Congratulations, sir.

15 MR. TKACZ: Thank you, ladies and

16 gentlemen. Remember, you all have to buy one.

17 I personally cannot get into one. I'm just

18 too big.

19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Next on the agenda is

20 other matters. Are there any other matters

21 that need to be brought to the Board's

22 attention?

23 Anything from the City that needs to be

24 brought from the agenda?

25 Seeing none, I will move -- or entertain





1 a motion to adjourn.

2 MR. SANGHVI: So moved.

3 MR. IBE: Second.

4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: All in favor say aye.


6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any opposed?

7 Seeing none, we are adjourned.

8 (The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.)

9 ** ** **

























5 I, JENNIFER L. WALL, Notary Public in and

6 for the County of Oakland, State of Michigan, do hereby

7 certify that the hearing above was taken before me on

8 Tuesday, October 11, 2011. The foregoing statements

9 were duly recorded by me stenographically and

10 electronically, and were reduced to typewritten form by

11 computer-aided transcription under my direction; and

12 that this is, to the best of my

13 knowledge and belief, a true and accurate transcript of

14 said proceeding.

15 I further certify that I am not related to

16 any party or counsel, nor interested in the outcome of

17 this cause.




21 ______________________________

Jennifer L. Wall, CSR-4183

22 Notary Public, Oakland County, MI

My Commission Expires: 11-12-15