View Agenda for this meeting 
View Action Summary for this meeting

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Proceedings had and Testimony taken in the matter of the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, at City of Novi, 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, on Tuesday, March 6, 2012

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

Andy Gereke, Building Official
Beth Saarela, City Attorney
Coordinator: Angela Pawlowski, Recording Secretary

Jennifer L. Wall, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 Novi, Michigan.

2 Tuesday, 6march 6, 2012

3 7:00 p.m.

4 ** ** **

5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Good evening

6 everyone. Welcome to the March 6th, Zoning

7 Board of Appeals meeting for the City of

8 Novi. If we can all rise and say the Pledge

9 of Allegiance. Member Krieger start us off.

10 (Whereupon the Pledge of Allegiance was

11 recited.)

12 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you. If

13 we can now have roll call, please,

14 Ms. Pawlowski.

15 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gedeon,

16 absent.

17 Member Gerblick?

18 MR. GERBLICK: Here.

19 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Chairman Ghannam?


21 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Ibe?

22 MR. IBE: Present.

23 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Krieger?

24 MS. KRIEGER: Present.

25 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Sanghvi?



1 MR. SANGHVI: Present.

2 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Skelcy?

3 MS. SKELCY: Here.


5 will go over some of the public hearing

6 format and rules, although we have them in

7 the back for you to look at.

8 Please everybody turn off your

9 cellphones and pagers so we are not

10 distracted during the meeting. Also when

11 your case is called, will the applicant

12 please come forward. You will be given five

13 minutes to present your case and extensions

14 are at the discretion of the chair.

15 Public will also be asked if they

16 wish to make comments on a particular case.

17 Next is our approval of the agenda.

18 Are there any corrections or modifications to

19 the agenda?


21 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Nothing from

22 anybody the City? Anybody else?

23 If not, I will entertain a motion

24 to approve the agenda.

25 MR. SANGHVI: So moved.



1 MS. SKELCY: Second.

2 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Seeing a motion

3 and second, all in favor say aye.


5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any opposed?

6 Seeing none, our agenda is

7 approved.

8 And we will move to the public

9 remarks sections. This will be an

10 opportunity for anybody in the public who

11 would like to make a comment, not on a

12 particular case that's before the Board

13 tonight.

14 Is there anybody who would like to

15 make any comments?

16 Seeing none, I will close the

17 public remarks section and move to our first

18 case.

19 Item Number 1, Case Number 12-001

20 for 50630 Amesburg Drive. Please come

21 forward, sir.

22 I know you were here last time, but

23 if you can raise your right hand and be sworn

24 by our secretary.

25 MS. SKELCY: Do you swear or affirm



1 to tell the truth?

2 MR. MINOCK: I do.

3 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: State you name

4 and address for the record, please, before

5 you proceed.

6 MR. MINOCK: My name is

7 Jason Minock. My address is 50757 Culvert

8 Isle Drive, Novi.

9 I was here a couple weeks ago, and

10 for those couple members I don't believe were

11 here, but it's a similar/disimilar issue. I

12 was asked to go back and talk to the

13 homeowners association as well as the

14 adjacent neighbor.

15 I have stopped multiple times at

16 that neighbor's house and actually last week

17 I left a whole packet, I printed off some

18 condos packet, left my card, unfortunately, I

19 don't know that person. I did leave the card

20 and asked them to call me, but I have never

21 heard back from them.

22 So I don't know if -- they have not

23 responded, you know, I have stopped there

24 several times.

25 The homeowners association, there



1 is three members of the board, I am one of

2 them, so I'm taking me out of the equation.

3 The two other members said they had no

4 problems with it. They did just send a

5 quicky note that it was fine with them, which

6 was two of the bigger issues that I think a

7 couple people on the Board had last time.

8 I can go into all the facts of the

9 case, I don't know if we want to rehash all

10 of that. Those are the issues that I took

11 from the last meeting to forth. That's all.

12 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you, sir.

13 Is there anybody in the public who would like

14 to make a comment on this particular case,

15 please raise your hand.

16 Seeing none, I will close the

17 public remarks section and ask our secretary

18 to read any correspondence that wasn't done

19 last meeting.

20 MS. SKELCY: There is no new

21 correspondence since.

22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Next I will turn

23 to the City for any comments?

24 MS. SAARELA: I just had a comment

25 regarding the information about the



1 association.

2 I understand you're looking at

3 different factors when you're considering

4 approving or denying a variance. One of them

5 is impact on the surrounding properties.

6 This issue of the association and approving

7 it may seem relevant to that, however, who

8 you are really considering, are those people

9 getting notice that are required to get

10 notice under the zoning ordinance and zoning

11 enabling act, whether they want to come in

12 and give their input on the adverse impact.

13 You know, you they can listen and consider if

14 the association comes in and objects,

15 however, as far as conditioning and approval

16 on whether the association approves or

17 disapproves, that something can't be -- that

18 can't be the deciding factor.

19 So I just wanted to give you those

20 input.

21 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Appreciate that.

22 Anything else from the City?

23 If not, I would open it up to the

24 Board for any discussion. Anybody have any

25 questions, comments?



1 MR. SANGHVI: I just had a question

2 for the counselor.


4 MR. SANGHVI: You want to enlighten

5 me about IUD?

6 MS. SAARELA: There is an IUD

7 agreement that controls the development of

8 Island Lake, that was something that was

9 developed back probably in the late '90s,

10 early 2000s. It basically -- it discusses

11 the layout of the subdivision, and, you know,

12 what can be included, what the zoning is in

13 the subdivision and requirements, certain

14 requirements like that.

15 It's my understanding it does not

16 have certain requirements for particular

17 facades and where they need to be located.

18 MR. SANGHVI: (Inaudible) what we

19 are discussing?

20 MS. SAARELA: Not anything that I

21 am aware or that has ever been discussed

22 prior to this, no. It just basically lays

23 out the numbers of lots permitted and divides

24 it up into what types of subdivisions are in

25 there (inaudible).



1 MR. SANGHVI: Thank you. I don't

2 have any further comments. Thank you,

3 Mr. Chair.

4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I appreciate it,

5 sir. In my own personal opinion, I do

6 appreciate that you went to the next-door

7 neighbor. To me that was important because

8 it's right next-door, it's the same

9 elevation, although I know the house is

10 situated or will be situated differently. So

11 I do appreciate that. And given the fact you

12 had no response, I assume if there was a

13 response, it would have been either positive

14 or negative. We don't have that, so given

15 that, I have no problem with it.

16 If there are differences, they are

17 situated somewhat differently, so I have no

18 problems supporting your request.

19 Anybody else have any comments or

20 questions or issues? If none, I will

21 entertain a motion.

22 Member Gerblick?

23 MR. GERBLICK: In the case of

24 12-001, 50630 Amesberg Drive, I move that we

25 grant the motion as is, and for the reasons



1 that there are unique circumstances to the

2 physical conditions of the property. There

3 is a curvature in the road, which kind of

4 separates these two houses. The need is not

5 really self-created. The requested variance

6 is the minimum variance as you stated

7 previously. There was some small changes

8 that were made, nothing that, I guess, is

9 considered a major change, but there was some

10 small structural changes that make it

11 somewhat different, and that the roads --

12 they face on two different streets, the way

13 they're situated.

14 I move that we grant the variance

15 as is.

16 MS. SKELCY: Second.

17 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Seeing a motion

18 and a second, any further discussion?

19 Seeing none, Ms. Pawlowski, can you

20 please call the roll.

21 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gerblick?


23 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Chairman Ghannam?


25 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Ibe?



1 MR. IBE: Yes.

2 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Krieger?


4 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Sanghvi?


6 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Skelcy?

7 MS. SKELCY: Yes.

8 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Motion passes six

9 to zero.

10 MR. MINOCK: Thank you.

11 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Next on the

12 agenda is Item Number 2, Case Number 12-005,

13 TJ Maxx, 43175 Crescent Boulevard. Please

14 step forward, sir.

15 Please state your name and address.

16 MR. DETERS: I am Kevin Deters of

17 Metro Detroit Signs. The address is 23544

18 Hoover Road, Warren, Michigan 48089.

19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Raise your right

20 hand and be sworn by our secretary.

21 MS. SKELCY: Do you swear or affirm

22 to tell the truth?

23 MR. DETERS: Yes.

24 MS. SKELCY: Thank you.

25 MR. DETERS: As you're aware, we



1 are applying for a variance for a larger sign

2 than what's allowed.

3 First of all, I'd like to

4 apologize, if any of you came out over the

5 weekend to see our mock sign, we had it up

6 and the wind storm on Friday blew it down, so

7 we had to go back yesterday morning and

8 reinstall it.

9 And the reason we didn't hang the

10 banner above the store front, where the

11 current sign is, is it would really look

12 hokey and tacky having a banner on top of

13 their existing sign, plus it is illuminated,

14 could have been a fire hazard, so we just put

15 the size of our preferred sign, you know,

16 onto the right of that store front, which I'm

17 sure you all figured out.

18 At any rate, TJ Maxx would like to

19 have this sign for a few reasons. The

20 existing sign that they have is -- it looks

21 disproportionately small on their large store

22 front, and it just doesn't look, in my

23 opinion, esthetically correct in that large

24 shopping center.

25 Also, the new sign has white



1 perforated vinyl, which the existing sign

2 does not have, so that it's -- the new sign

3 would be red during the day and light up

4 white at night.

5 I realize that there is a nearby

6 Marshalls and Kohls on the other side of

7 Novi Road, that I don't know exactly what

8 size those signs are, but they appear to be

9 larger than 65 square feet.

10 And I realize that it's a different

11 site, different shopping center, but in my

12 opinion, it's a similar request because

13 they're all department stores.

14 And so I figure if Kohls and

15 Marshalls could have larger signs than that,

16 why not TJ Maxx.

17 So you all know why I'm here, I'll

18 just take any questions if you have them.

19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you, sir.

20 Are you finished?

21 MR. DETERS: Yes.

22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Is there anybody

23 in the public who has a comment on this

24 particular case, please raise your hand.

25 Seeing none, I will close the



1 public remarks section and ask our secretary

2 to read any correspondence.

3 MS. SKELCY: There were 165 notices

4 mailed 45 returns and no responses.

5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any questions or

6 issues or comments by the City?


8 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I will open it

9 up to the Board for discussion. Member

10 Skelcy?

11 MS. SKELCY: On this photograph,

12 that you have provide to us, is the red area

13 part of the sign itself the (inaudible).

14 MR. DETERS: No. The size of the

15 white TJ Maxx letters on the banner are the

16 size of what the sign letters would be. It's

17 just we had to give the banner some type of

18 background.

19 MS. SKELCY: Thank you.

20 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Anybody else?

21 Member Skelcy?

22 MS. SKELCY: Is it possible to make

23 the sign smaller? I mean, I think the scale

24 is pretty, pretty large. I'm not that

25 thrilled personally as a member of the Board



1 with how large these letters are. Even

2 though it doesn't include the red, I still

3 think it's quite, quite large. What about

4 reducing it?

5 MR. DETERS: Well, that would

6 certainly be an option. This was the sign

7 that was brought to my company by TJ Maxx.

8 They said, try to get this sign.

9 If the Board would be willing, I'm

10 sure -- so the sign we're proposing is 161

11 and a half square feet.

12 So if the Board would be willing to

13 say, you know, we wouldn't support a sign

14 this large, but how about 90 square feet, or

15 some smaller amount, I'm sure TJ Maxx would

16 be open to that.

17 Unfortunately, there isn't -- I

18 don't believe there is a representative from

19 TJ Maxx here. But I'm sure that they would

20 be -- they would be happy to do that, happy

21 to have a variance, but a smaller variance.

22 I'm sure they would be okay with that.

23 MS. SKELCY: Then the current sign,

24 what square footage is that?

25 MR. DETERS: You know, ma'am, I



1 don't know. We didn't put that sign up. We

2 put up the temporary sign, when that -- it

3 was under construction about a year ago, we

4 put up that sort of banner. It wasn't really

5 a banner, but you know what I'm talking

6 about. We put that one up. We did not put

7 this one up, so I don't know.

8 If I would guess, I would say that

9 sign is about 50 square feet. I would guess

10 it's about maybe three foot letters by maybe

11 15, but that's a naked eye guess.

12 MS. SKELCY: Thank you.

13 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Actually, while

14 we are on that issue isn't -- according to

15 our brief, it is 46 and a half square feet,

16 is that correct?

17 MR. GERECKE: Correct.

18 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: It appears that

19 was allowed in '87, when the ordinance was

20 much smaller, I presume. Does that make

21 sense? It was a variance at that time. When

22 they were permitted a 24 square foot sign, am

23 I reading that accurately?

24 MR. GERECKE: That's correct.

25 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: So now, just so



1 I'm clear they're entitled to a 65 square

2 foot sign, is that correct?

3 MS. SAARELA: Up to, yes. And

4 based on their frontage that's -- you know,

5 their frontage is -- if it was just based on

6 frontage, they would be able to go bigger

7 than that, but there is a cutoff at 65 feet

8 square.

9 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Right, up to a

10 maximum of 65, okay. So the question

11 becomes, sir, one of reasonableness.

12 I mean, certainly when you come to

13 the board for an exception to the rule with a

14 variance, your job is to minimize your

15 request. I understand based upon what you

16 there, you have a 46 and a half, which is

17 almost exactly what you're estimating, which

18 was an exception at the time, but really

19 would be entitled to right now up to 65 feet

20 square feet.

21 The question becomes one of

22 reasonableness, I guess Ms. Skelcy's

23 questions.

24 I have no problem with approving a

25 larger sign with 65 feet, but your variance



1 request is for almost 162 square feet, which

2 is massive.

3 MR. DETERS: I understand.


5 question to you would be, what's the minimum

6 amount you think you would need to do the job

7 for this particular store?

8 MR. DETERS: Okay, I suppose that's

9 in some ways up to the Board.

10 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: It obviously is,

11 but my question is from your perspective.

12 What would be reasonable under the

13 circumstances? To me 162 square feet is, you

14 know, it's gigantic.

15 MR. DETERS: Could we say -- could

16 we say about 85 or 90, or is that still out

17 of your ballpark?

18 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: It's not my

19 ballpark. It's up to the Board. It's not

20 only my vote.

21 I'm just asking from your

22 perspective, if you think TJ Maxx would be --

23 with their signage, somewhere between 85 to

24 90 square feet would be sufficient?

25 MR. DETERS: Yes.




2 suggesting that somehow a 162 square foot

3 sign complies with their current franchise or

4 current requirements, so on?

5 MR. DETERS: No, not necessarily.

6 Every one of these national chains has a

7 standard set of signs that they have, you

8 know, so TJ Maxx might have a standard 160

9 square foot sign, 120, 100, 85, on down the

10 line, just depending how large their store

11 front is, they try to get the largest one

12 they can.

13 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: To me it's a

14 request, you know -- if you're allowed by

15 rule up to 65 square feet and you're

16 requesting -- for a store which is big, I

17 have to admit, this is a large store, there

18 is only so many big box retailers, to request

19 in the range of 85 to 90 is not unreasonable

20 to me. I would have no problems supporting

21 that. But 162 feet square feet is to me

22 unreasonable. So those are my comments.

23 Anybody else?

24 MR. GEDEON: First off, I want to

25 apologize for being late today. But on this



1 matter, I think that it's important to our --

2 we are another case coming up next-door, the

3 Wal-mart, and it's going to be pretty hard to

4 break whatever precedent we set in this case

5 for that case. I think we should be mindful

6 of that.

7 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member Sanghvi?

8 MR. SANGHVI: My question was for

9 proportional lettering for this, would

10 85 feet --

11 MR. DETERS: As far as I'm

12 concerned, I think that would work, yes.

13 MR. SANGHVI: Good, thank you.

14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: By the way, just

15 so everybody is clear, the request is to take

16 the existing sign down and replace it with

17 the sign?

18 MR. DETERS: Yes, right, that's

19 correct.


21 understand there is not going to be two

22 signs, right?

23 MR. DETERS: Correct.

24 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Anybody else

25 have any questions or comments?



1 Anybody like to make a motion?

2 MR. SANGHVI: I'm suggesting

3 85 feet.

4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I personally

5 have no problem with 85, if you want to go as

6 high as 90.

7 MR. SANGHVI: Speaking about the

8 lettering portion, that's why I asked him.

9 MR. DETERS: I am okay with 90 as

10 well.

11 MR. IBE: What is the square foot

12 area of the store front again?

13 MR. DETERS: Let me see.

14 MR. SANGHVI: 168 feet. It's here,

15 if you look --

16 MR. DETERS: The store front is 160

17 feet wide, and it looks like it's

18 approximately, I would say 35 or 40 feet

19 high. I don't have the exact height.

20 MR. IBE: I would have no problem

21 with supporting 85 or 90.

22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Anybody like to

23 make a motion? Member Krieger?

24 MS. KRIEGER: In Case Number

25 12-005, TJ Maxx at 43175 Crescent Boulevard,



1 I move to deny the request for 162 square

2 feet, but from the discussion 85 -- move to

3 approve 85 square foot sign for a single sign

4 on the wall as described with the white

5 lettering above the door, and the request is

6 based upon circumstances that are exceptional

7 and unique to the property, with all the

8 buildings around Novi Road to visualize

9 the -- into the back area, and that the

10 failure to grant relief will prevent and

11 limit the use of the property. And the grant

12 of the relief will not result in use,

13 structure that is incompatible with or

14 unreasonably interferes with adjacent or

15 surrounding properties and will do

16 substantial justice for the applicant and the

17 surrounding properties.

18 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I had a feeling

19 you may be upset about that. She said a

20 double motion.

21 MS. SAARELA: I would rather have

22 it worded as grant a lesser variance, rather

23 than deny and grant in the same variance.


25 suggested to deny the request, but grant



1 something different, she is suggesting why

2 don't we move to grant.

3 MS. SAARELA: Grant a lesser

4 variance.


6 MS. KRIEGER: I move to approve an

7 85 square foot sign with all the previous

8 discussion.


10 problem. Is that okay?

11 MS. SAARELA: Yeah.

12 MR. SANGHVI: Second.

13 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Just in terms of

14 further discussion, I would just like to add

15 that the applicant will remove the existing

16 sign and replace it with the sign that is

17 approved?

18 MR. DETERS: Yes.

19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: With that in

20 mind, is that okay with the motioner?

21 MS. KRIEGER: Yes.

22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any further

23 discussion on that?

24 Seeing none, Ms. Pawlowski, can you

25 please call the roll.



1 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gedeon?

2 MR. GEDEON: Yes.

3 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gerblick?


5 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Chairman Ghannam?


7 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Ibe?

8 MR. IBE: Yes.

9 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Krieger?

10 MS. KRIEGER: Yes.

11 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Sanghvi?

12 MR. SANGHVI: Yes.

13 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Skelcy?

14 MS. SKELCY: Yes.

15 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Motion passes seven

16 to zero.

17 MR. DETERS: Thank you.

18 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Congratulations,

19 sir.

20 Next on the agenda is Item Number

21 Three, Case Number 12-006, for 2105 West Lake

22 Drive. Is the applicant here? Please come

23 forward, sir, and ma'am.

24 Are both of you going to be

25 speaking tonight? Can you please right your



1 hand and be sworn.

2 MS. SKELCY: Do you swear or affirm

3 to tell the truth?

4 MR. BYRD: I do.

5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Please state

6 your name and address.

7 MR. BYRD: Kevin Byrd. We live at

8 926 East Sunnybrook Drive. This is my wife.

9 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Please proceed.

10 MR. BYRD: We have been shopping in

11 the area for about two years and found the

12 home owned by Karina Steiner. We put a bid

13 on the house. We are currently in contract

14 to purchase the house from them at the end of

15 this month.

16 For several weeks we have been

17 through finances, all the -- so we have been

18 through all the process other than -- we'd

19 like to add onto the house, make it a little

20 bit more family friendly, get a little bit

21 more space.

22 We love the home. It's very

23 limited as far as any additional room. There

24 is no basement, there is a very small crawl

25 space. It's a really nice layout, really



1 thoughtfully done. There is no extra living

2 room. There is no dining room. It's just

3 the three bedrooms, the small ones, ten by

4 ten, so it's very small as well.

5 The garage is actually smaller than

6 the layout. I just got the dimensions, it's

7 19 feet, typical garage is about 21, 24 feet

8 deep. This one has the furnace room and

9 water heater in it, so it makes it even

10 shorter.

11 I have got some photographs. The

12 doors to access that open into the car area,

13 so even lining the back wall with any sort of

14 shelving, whatever gets very difficult.

15 Anyway, there is no lot space for a

16 shed. We are on the water, we are very

17 outdoorsy people, so anything from a kayak to

18 paddles and life jackets. We'd just like to

19 find some more space for some of those items.

20 So I think what we would like to do

21 is prefer to have indoor storage, versus the

22 clutter in the yards. Some of the

23 neighborhood is transitional (inaudible) yard

24 by yard, isn't necessarily the case. We'd

25 like to keep everything indoors. There is an



1 easement on the side of the lot, so there is

2 a lot of activity for people to access the

3 water. Some of the things are left outside,

4 there is just more opportunity, safety issues

5 or for theft. So, again, we'd like kind of

6 keep everything indoors.

7 Once we have kind of grown the

8 garage forward, then we can grow one of the

9 bedrooms above it, the two bedrooms are

10 side-by-side above the garage, in the

11 photographs that you have. So the ten by ten

12 room, we'd like to grow little bit larger, at

13 least have a small area, maybe a kid

14 playroom, still have room for a guest bedroom

15 for the in-laws, have a kid room on the other

16 side.

17 Like I said, we'd just like to add

18 about 18 feet to the garage, that would still

19 maintain the 31 and a half feet to the

20 street. So all the current offsets from the

21 previous approvals will be maintained, the

22 only thing we would do is increase the lot

23 coverage percent. We looked through a lot of

24 the other previous approvals, and 36 to 38

25 and a half percent seem to be somewhat



1 common. And based on Mr. Webber's

2 calculations, which I hope are correct, is

3 somewhere around 37 percent.

4 We'd kind of like to fall in that

5 range and move forward for approval.

6 At the same time, we'd would like

7 to improve the front sort of the curb appeal

8 of the house, kind of looks like a big, flat

9 barn. We have talked to the two neighbors on

10 the south side, there is the easement, the

11 neighbor on the north, they have actually

12 been extremely supportive and recommended to

13 go as big as possible because they know how

14 tight everything is, everything is very

15 cramped.

16 And we talked to the two neighbors

17 across the street as well. Everybody was

18 very supportive, and if they needed to come

19 or provide any sort of feedback, they would

20 be happy to do so.

21 I guess with that, I'd ask for any

22 questions.

23 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you, sir.

24 Is there anybody in the public who would like

25 to make a comment on this particular case?



1 Ma'am, come forward, please, and

2 state your name, please.

3 MR. STEINER: My name is Karina

4 Steiner, I'm the owner.

5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Raise your right

6 hand and be sworn.

7 MS. SKELCY: Do you swear or affirm

8 to tell the truth?



11 MR. STEINER: As I said, I live in

12 the house currently, and there are couple of

13 things over -- missed when I lived there, I

14 enjoyed living, one was not having a

15 basement. So I totally can see why these two

16 want more storage for a boats, for a kayak,

17 all these things that you like, everything

18 will be neat and clean from the outside.

19 And also I would have liked a

20 little bit more living space, (inaudible)

21 have more extra for things that I missed, and

22 yeah. And on top of it, I think it's just

23 personal, but I think the house looks better.


25 ma'am, appreciate it.



1 Is there anybody else in the public

2 who would like to make a comment about this

3 particular case?

4 Seeing none, I will close the

5 public remarks section and ask our secretary

6 to read any correspondence.

7 MS. SKELCY: There were 36 notices

8 mailed, six returned, two approvals. One

9 comes from Karina and Andrea Steiner, I

10 believe that's the person who just spoke.

11 And the other one is from Nick and

12 Laurie Malles, M-a-l-l-e-s, at 2111 West Lake

13 Drive, and they have no comment. They simply

14 circled approval.

15 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any comments or

16 issues with the city?


18 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Seeing none, I

19 will open it up to the Board for discussion.

20 Member Sanghvi?

21 MR. SANGHVI: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

22 I came and saw your property on Saturday.

23 It's a pretty good looking house, even now

24 without any further addition.

25 I think it will enhance further the



1 improvement you are suggesting, and I have no

2 difficulty in supporting your request. Thank

3 you.


5 took a look all the paperwork and documents

6 that you submitted on the home. I will be

7 honest with you, whoever did this is

8 paperwork and the proposed remedies did a

9 very good job, it gives us an idea because

10 you can't build a house temporarily until

11 it's approved. They did a very, very nice

12 job, showing us what it may look like or what

13 it would look like with their proposals.

14 Under the circumstances, we have

15 had a lot of lakefront homes come before us,

16 even when these were built years ago, when

17 codes were different, you're now trying to

18 work with what you want on this particular

19 lot, we can understand that. I'm very

20 cognizant of that, and I have no problem with

21 your request, so I would be in support of it.

22 I think it does -- you have tried

23 to minimize the request under the

24 circumstances, so that's a very nice job.

25 Anybody else have any comments?



1 Member Gedeon?

2 MR. GEDEON: I went by yesterday.

3 These lakefront homes additions are usually

4 very contentious, oftentimes many

5 disapprovals, and the fact that none of your

6 neighbors have a problem with it, I think

7 (inaudible) the reasonableness of your

8 design.

9 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member Skelcy?

10 MS. SKELCY: I think the design

11 enhances the look of the home as well as it's

12 pretty -- it looks pretty kind of conforming

13 to what you already have, so it's not a

14 significant -- it doesn't really jump out at

15 you in a negative way. So I would be in

16 favor or this variance as well.

17 MR. BYRD: We only had about two

18 days from seeing the house to coming by it

19 and seeing there was a meeting. In the two

20 days of thoughts, we have had a lot more

21 ideas and it will look better and better as

22 we kind of get an architect in and have some

23 stone work and other things.

24 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I appreciate the

25 fact that you have come before you buy the



1 house and ask for all the variances you're

2 requesting so you're not stuck with a house

3 you may not be able to modify.

4 Any other comments or discussion?

5 If not, I will entertain a motion in this

6 case. Member Skelcy?

7 MS. SKELCY: I move in the Case of

8 12-006 at 2105 West Lake Drive, that we grant

9 the north side yard setback variance of 8.62

10 feet, that we grant the south side yard

11 setback of 10.68 feet, and that we grant the

12 proposed lot coverage variance of 70 percent.

13 The reason that we should do this

14 is because there are unique circumstances or

15 physical conditions to the property including

16 narrowness, shallowness, water, typography or

17 other similar physical conditions, and in

18 fact, this house is located on the lake, and

19 they can't build out toward the lake but they

20 can certainly build out back from the lake.

21 That is one of the conditions.

22 The need is not self-created, there

23 is strict compliance with regulations

24 governing the area setbacks, frontage,

25 height, bulk, density and other dimensional



1 requirements will unreasonably prevent the

2 property owner from using the property for

3 their permitted purpose.

4 The requested variance is the

5 minimum variance necessary to do substantial

6 justice to the applicant, as well as the

7 other property owners in the district. In

8 fact, two property owners have agreed with

9 the requested variance.

10 The requested variance will not

11 cause any adverse impact on surrounding

12 property, and will likely, in fact, enhance

13 the property values in the area as well as

14 property value of that particular home.

15 MS. KRIEGER: Second.

16 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Seeing a motion

17 and a second, any further 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: Member Gerblick?


24 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Chairman Ghannam?




1 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Ibe?

2 MR. IBE: Yes.

3 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Krieger?


5 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Sanghvi?


7 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Skelcy?

8 MS. SKELCY: Yes.

9 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Motion passes seven

10 to zero.

11 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Congratulations.

12 Next on the agenda is Item Number

13 Four, Case Number 12-007, Wal-mart, 26090

14 Ingersol Drive.

15 Can you please state your name and

16 address, sir.

17 MR. CHASE: My name is David Chase.

18 My address is 16722 Hudson (ph) Circle,

19 Lakeville, Minnesota. I am here as a

20 representative for SAIC.

21 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Please raise

22 your hand and be sworn.

23 MS. SKELCY: Do you swear or affirm

24 to tell the truth?

25 MR. CHASE: I do.



1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Please proceed,

2 sir.

3 MR. CHASE: I am here as a

4 representative for the architectural firm

5 that designed the Wal-mart store, SAIC.

6 They're out of St. Paul, Minnesota.

7 We have provided a board to give

8 the relative size and scale of the signage

9 that we are asking for a variance to indicate

10 how that would look on a larger size building

11 that we currently have under construction.

12 Our building is 468 feet long, and

13 as such, it provides the mass that would

14 support the signage that we are requesting to

15 have a variance to be provided for.

16 We feel that this signage is the

17 appropriate size for this sign of building

18 that's under construction.

19 The additional signage that we have

20 shown here, home, pharmacy, and the other --

21 garden center and so forth, that signage is,

22 in our view, is way fine signage as opposed

23 to marketing signage. Because again, of the

24 size, overall size of the building, we think

25 it's important for the customers to know



1 which portion of the store to go into, that

2 they're most interested in purchasing, what

3 they may be there for.

4 The only sign that is lit would be

5 the Wal-mart sign itself, the other way fine

6 signage is not proposed to be lighted

7 signage.

8 And the fourth point that we'd like

9 to make, is that the overall signage is a lot

10 less than would be the signage if it were

11 broken up into smaller individual stores, and

12 65 foot signage restriction was applied to

13 that.

14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Anything else,

15 sir?

16 MR. CHASE: That's basically our

17 points.


19 you. Is there anybody in the public who

20 would like to make a comment on this case?

21 Seeing none, I will close our

22 public remarks section and ask our secretary

23 to read any correspondence.

24 MS. SKELCY: 75 notices were

25 mailed, 35 were returned, there were no



1 responses.

2 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any comments by

3 the City or issues?

4 MS. SAARELA: None.

5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I will open it

6 up to the Board for discussion.

7 MS. SKELCY: I have a question

8 about that -- the outdoor living sign. Is

9 that going to be on the side or is that going

10 to be on the front? The outdoor living.

11 MR. CHASE: The outdoor living sign

12 would be here (indicating). I'm not sure if

13 I need to be at the microphone.


15 explain it at the microphone, please.

16 MR. CHASE: Yes, the outdoor living

17 sign would be the -- as you're looking at the

18 front of the building on the far right-hand

19 side.

20 MS. SKELCY: So it's not on the

21 side of the building?

22 MR. CHASE: No.

23 MS. SKELCY: Thank you.

24 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Anybody else

25 have any questions? Member Sanghvi?



1 MR. SANGHVI: Were you aware that

2 sometimes we like to see the mock-up signs

3 before approving the variances?

4 MR. CHASE: The signage is going to

5 be constructed of large letters. I'm not

6 sure how I would -- I'm not saying I

7 couldn't. I'm not thinking of how I would go

8 about preparing a mock-up for you. I'm sure

9 we could do a painted plywood sign, if that's

10 you're thinking of?

11 MR. SANGHVI: Any kind, so we know

12 where you are putting it up.

13 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: The building is

14 not constructed, it's not completed.

15 MR. CHASE: It's under construction

16 right now.

17 MR. SANGHVI: I would like to see

18 where you are likely to put them.

19 MR. CHASE: Okay.

20 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Anything else,

21 Member Sanghvi?

22 MR. SANGHVI: No. I just wondered

23 whether you were aware of it or not.


25 questions or comments for the applicant?



1 Member Ibe?

2 MR. IBE: Sir, I'm just about

3 curious about you (inaudible) these signs,

4 several entrances. Is that something that

5 you do with all Wal-mart stores? I'm not

6 familiar -- I know Wal-mart, I've only been

7 to one Wal-mart in my whole life. I'm not

8 sure that's how all Wal-marts are, what they

9 look like, there are signs for every

10 entrance?

11 MR. CHASE: Yes, it is, would be

12 the short answer. This store is a prototype,

13 150,000 square foot store. I think actually

14 in the documentation called it 149.

15 We have two entrances on that size

16 store. And we provide signage for, you know,

17 grocery and for pharmacy and that. This

18 store is unique. This is a further designed,

19 if you will, prototype. Typically the

20 signage would be there, but there is more

21 amenities in this store than the average

22 store. So it becomes a little more important

23 to help the customer find where they should

24 be going. Particularly, if you think in

25 terms of the pharmacy, they might be just



1 running in to pick up a prescription, or on

2 the other side, the groceries.

3 You know, if you're there for

4 groceries, you would want to go in that door

5 rather than the one where the general

6 merchandise is.


8 consistent with your signs, the ones that are

9 closer to that particular entrance, that's

10 where those items are?

11 MR. CHASE: Yes.

12 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Just in terms of

13 my own comments, I mean, you are asking for a

14 large variance. By the way, does that large

15 variance, the one from the size of 233

16 square feet, does that only apply to the main

17 sign, the Wal-mart, or is that an

18 accumulation of all five?

19 MS. SAARELA: I believe that's for

20 the main sign.

21 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: That's just for

22 the main sign.

23 MR. CHASE: Excuse me. If you can

24 look at the poster here, the Wal-mart sign

25 with the spark on it, is the 298 square feet,



1 the outdoor living sign is 49.43, home and

2 pharmacy is 35.13, recycle sign is 6.1, and

3 the market sign is 10.13.


5 got an identification of one of the signs,

6 and how -- what the variance was. But it

7 seems the other signs are within the 65 feet,

8 but it's just the number of signs that you

9 are requesting, I guess.

10 Is that size of the Wal-mart with

11 the mark next to it, is that the standard

12 size that Wal-mart uses throughout its stores

13 or is this larger or smaller or do you know?

14 MR. CHASE: That I would be -- I

15 don't know for sure, to be honest. That sign

16 is, I'm going to say, thought about to a

17 large degree in terms of this particular

18 store, we certainly kept it smaller because

19 we knew the signage variance would be an

20 issue. So I don't have the numbers to relate

21 whether other stores, and the 150 prototype

22 is one of the larger. There is only a couple

23 of larger prototypes.

24 But it was thought about in terms

25 of the scale, and as you can see, it isn't an



1 overwhelming sign on that large of a

2 building.

3 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: And I understand

4 Wal-mart is a huge store. I mean, there is

5 no question about it. This is a large retail

6 store, certainly a 65 square foot sign on

7 that type of building, you know, if the logo

8 were to be unusually small, it would be

9 dwarfed by that building. So I don't think

10 there is any question you need a large sign.

11 The question becomes one of reasonableness.

12 I'll ask you what I asked the other

13 applicant, is there any minimum that you

14 would like to have as opposed to 298 square

15 feet? Is there any less of a variance that

16 you would suggest, if we wouldn't grant that?

17 MR. CHASE: I was not offered a

18 substitute, smaller variance. I was asked to

19 present on what we have here.

20 Does that mean that they would not

21 accept anything smaller? I would not go that

22 far to say. I'm going to say that they would

23 consider something smaller, but there again,

24 it becomes a matter of proportion and how far

25 do we go with it.



1 I think that what we'd like to do

2 is if we are going to offer something is,

3 take that elevation and try different sizes

4 on it and kind of see how it looks.

5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I mean, four

6 additional signs, especially the way you have

7 identified it in these photographs and your

8 documents to me, I have no problem with,

9 number one, reasonable size. Number two, I

10 think on a retailer this large you have to

11 have some kind of direction because it's

12 obnoxious if you are going to one area, and

13 you need to be on the other side. I mean, I

14 think parking-wise for people, flow of

15 traffic, in and out, you want to park near

16 where you want to enter. So I have no

17 problem with that.

18 I'm more concerned about close to a

19 300 square foot sign in the middle under the

20 circumstances. That's all.

21 That's one question. Were you the

22 one who designs these particular signs or are

23 there consultants on the sign itself?

24 MR. CHASE: Wal-mart has their

25 consulting people, but I think you probably



1 have met Jackie Cook Haxby. She was here

2 when the entitlement initially was presented.

3 I'm not sure who she present to,

4 but she would have been here, but had a

5 conflict in her schedule. I'm actually on

6 the construction administration side of

7 things. I'm here for an on-site inspection

8 tomorrow at the project, so I'm kind of

9 filling in for the project architect.

10 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I understand. I

11 understand. Those are my comments in terms

12 of this.

13 Member Krieger, then I'll take

14 Member Sanghvi.

15 MS. KRIEGER: Are there any,

16 historically in Novi where they have accepted

17 signs before the building was in place?

18 MR. GERECKE: Off the top of my

19 head, I don't know that for sure. I'm

20 positive in the past we have done it, yes.

21 MS. KRIEGER: And then the other --

22 I had another question, which if I can

23 remember my train of thought.

24 The power gym that we approved, the

25 square footage in comparison, the picture



1 that we approved, was that near almost 300

2 square feet?

3 MS. SKELCY: I think that was Golds

4 Gym.

5 MS. KRIEGER: The gym, yes.

6 MR. GERECKE: I would have to

7 verify that. I'm not positive.

8 MS. KRIEGER: I'm thinking

9 proportionally, that if -- yes, that they do

10 need something that's proportionally correct,

11 but then I agree that that size is rather

12 big. And that the comparison to other

13 shopping centers, it is nice to have

14 directional signs. However, there are other

15 stores where I guess you just learn where

16 they're at, and then know, so I feel divided

17 about that right now. Those are my comments

18 so far.

19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member Sanghvi?

20 MR. SANGHVI: Thank you. Just one

21 question for you, sir. The bottom picture

22 here, that you are showing, is it to scale?

23 MR. CHASE: Yes, it is.

24 MR. SANGHVI: So the Wal-mart sign

25 on that is to scale to the size of the



1 building?

2 MR. CHASE: Yes, it is.

3 MR. SANGHVI: Thank you. I have no

4 problem with that kind of proportion. Look

5 at the size of the front. Oh, my God, it's

6 enormous.


8 enormous sign, but when you look at the

9 photograph, it's relevant, it is

10 proportional.

11 MR. CHASE: I should probably

12 mention on the typical Wal-mart store, we

13 don't have brick behind the sign. It is a

14 phanelick (ph) paneling and it's a brown,

15 dark brown and a lighter brown color, with

16 darker on the ends, and in the background for

17 the sign. So that whole panel stands out as

18 a brand of sign for Wal-mart. Quite a bit

19 different than your situation where we have

20 the brick background for the sign.

21 I think as you -- if you would see

22 it, as it got a little smaller, it would

23 start to disappear. However, that's what we

24 were always concerned about in our

25 discussions in our office.



1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member Skelcy?

2 MS. SKELCY: Is this the largest

3 Wal-mart that Wal-mart makes?

4 MR. CHASE: No. I know there is a

5 prototype at 180,000 square feet. I

6 understand that they have built five or six

7 stores over 200,000 square feet also, but

8 those are not the more popular ones.

9 Right now we have some going in

10 at -- I have got two projects under

11 construction that are at 90,000 square feet,

12 got a couple coming up at 120, and then there

13 is two more at 150.

14 MS. SKELCY: Okay, thank you.

15 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member Krieger?

16 MS. KRIEGER: Follow-up question.

17 Offhand, do you know the Wal-mart on Haggerty

18 and Pontiac Trail, and the one on Milford

19 Road and the expressway, what their sizes

20 are?

21 MR. CHASE: I'm sorry, I do not.

22 MS. KRIEGER: The proportion of the

23 building would be similar?

24 MR. CHASE: The sign relative to

25 the building, is that what you are talking



1 about? I don't know how big the stores are,

2 and more than likely, in a popular area like

3 this, they're in the same size range as this

4 one. But I'm not familiar with those stores

5 at all.

6 MS. KRIEGER: Thank you.


8 questions or comments? Member Gerblick?

9 MR. GERBLICK: Based on the

10 Wal-marts I have seen in the area, I think

11 most of them have signs that are slightly

12 larger than that, based on that mock-up

13 there. Just speaking from the one in

14 Milford, driving out 96, as you get to

15 Fowlerville, there is one that is right off

16 the highway there. Just wanted to comment on

17 that.


19 comments or questions?

20 If there are none, I will entertain

21 a motion. You can take these separately, if

22 you want to do the proposed main signs, the

23 proposed numbers of additional signs or take

24 it all together.

25 MR. SANGHVI: Two separate motions?



1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: You can take all

2 at once, or move to deny or can do it both at

3 the same time. You want to you try? Member

4 Sanghvi?

5 MR. SANGHVI: I'd like to make a

6 motion for Case Number 12-007, 26090 Ingersol

7 Drive, that we approve the request for the

8 main sign, where the proposed sign area is

9 298 square feet, with a variance of 233

10 square feet.

11 And also approve the additional

12 signs for identification, but of the

13 different area of the store, for different

14 shopping purposes.

15 The request is based upon

16 circumstances and features that are

17 exceptional and unique to this particular

18 property and store, and do not result from

19 conditions that exist generally in the City

20 of Novi.

21 And the failure to grant relief

22 will unnecessarily provide all uses of

23 property and will unreasonably prevent or

24 limit the use of the property and will result

25 in substantially more than mere inconvenience



1 or inability to attain a higher economic or

2 financial return.

3 The grant of relief will not result

4 in a use of structure that is incompatible

5 with or unreasonably interferes with adjacent

6 or surrounding properties, and will result in

7 substantial justice being done to both the

8 applicant and adjacent or surrounding

9 properties, and is not inconsistent with the

10 spirit of the ordinance. Thank you.

11 MS. SKELCY: Second.

12 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Seeing a motion

13 and a second, any further discussion?

14 Seeing none, Ms. Pawlowski, can you

15 please call the roll.

16 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gedeon?

17 MR. GEDEON: No.

18 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gerblick?


20 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Chairman Ghannam?


22 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Ibe?

23 MR. IBE: Yes.

24 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Krieger?




1 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Sanghvi?


3 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Skelcy?

4 MS. SKELCY: Yes.

5 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Motion passes five

6 to two.

7 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Congratulations,

8 sir.

9 MR. CHASE: Thank you very much.

10 It's greatly appreciated.

11 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Next on the

12 agenda is other matters.

13 Are there any other matters that

14 need to be addressed at this time? Anybody?

15 Then next would be the election of

16 officers. Does it matter what order we take

17 them?

18 MS. SAARELA: It does not.

19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Then we need to

20 vote for secretary, vice chair and chair, is

21 that correct?

22 MS. SAARELA: Yes.

23 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: How about we

24 take secretary. First what we usually do is

25 take nominations. Member Sanghvi?



1 MR. SANGHVI: Mr. Chair, may I

2 propose the name of Linda Kriger for

3 secretary.

4 MR. IBE: Second.

5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: You accept that

6 nomination, Ms. Krieger?

7 MS. KRIEGER: Sure.


9 nominations for secretary?

10 If there are none, I'll close the

11 nomination section of secretary and do we

12 need to actually take a vote, if there are no

13 other nominations?

14 MS. SAARELA: You could just take a

15 voice vote.

16 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Then all in

17 favor of Ms. Krieger, or Member Krieger being

18 our secretary for the next period of time, I

19 believe a year, all in favor say aye.

20 THE BOARD: Aye.

21 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any opposed?

22 Seeing none, congratulations, Member Krieger

23 on being our secretary next session.

24 Next would be the vice chair. Are

25 there any nominations for vice chair?



1 MR. SANGHVI: I nominate Ms. Skelcy

2 for vice chair.

3 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: We have a second

4 to that?

5 MR. IBE: Second.

6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Seeing a motion

7 and a second, any other -- do you accept that

8 nomination, Member Skelcy?

9 MS. SKELCY: Yes.

10 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Are there any

11 other nominations for vice chair for our next

12 period?

13 Seeing none, I will close that

14 section of our nominations and take a voice

15 vote.

16 All in favor of Member Skelcy being

17 the next vice chair. All in favor say aye.

18 THE BOARD: Aye.

19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any opposed?

20 Seeing none, Member Skelcy is the vice chair.

21 Lastly, but not least, I'm looking

22 for a nomination for the next chairman. I'm

23 going to defer to our dean of Zoning Board of

24 Appeals, Member Sanghvi for that nomination.

25 MR. SANGHVI: Thank you, Mr. Chair,



1 I don't know whether I want to be dean.

2 May I see suggest Mr. Ibe's name as

3 the chairman.


5 second?

6 MS. SKELCY: Second.

7 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Seeing a motion

8 and a second, Member Ibe, do you accept that

9 nomination?

10 MR. IBE: Yes.


12 nominations for chairperson for the next

13 session of the Zoning Board?

14 Seeing none, I will close that

15 section -- or that nomination and ask for a

16 voice vote.

17 All in favor of Member Ibe being

18 our next chairperson, all in favor say aye.

19 THE BOARD: Aye.

20 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any opposed?

21 Seeing none, Member Ibe is our next chairman.

22 Congratulations to all three of

23 you.

24 Anything else for the election of

25 officers?




2 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member Sanghvi?

3 MR. SANGHVI: May I take this

4 opportunity to thank you for an excellent job

5 you have done the during the past year. We

6 really appreciate your service.

7 (Applause.)

8 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: My pleasure.

9 Seeing no other matters, I'll entertain a

10 motion to adjourn.

11 MR. SANGHVI: So moved.

12 MR. IBE: Second.

13 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Seeing a motion

14 and second, all in favor say aye.

15 THE BOARD: Aye.

16 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any opposed?

17 Seeing none, we are adjourned.

18 (The meeting was adjourned at 7:53 p.m.)

19 ** ** **










2 ) ss.


4 I, Jennifer L. Wall, Notary Public within and for

5 the County of Oakland, State of Michigan, do hereby certify

6 that the hearing above, that the statements given by said

7 individuals was stenographically recorded in the presence of

8 myself and others, afterward transcribed by computer under

9 my personal supervision, and that the said statements are a

10 full, true and correct transcript of the statements given by

11 the individuals.

12 I further certify that I am not connected by blood

13 or marriage with any of the parties or their attorneys, and

14 that I am not an employee of any of them, nor financially

15 interested in the action.

16 IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand at

17 the City of Walled Lake, County of Oakland, State of

18 Michigan.



21 ________________ _________________________

Date Jennifer L. Wall CSR-4183

22 Oakland County, Michigan

My Commission Expires 11/12/15