View Agenda for this meeting
View Action Summary for this meeting
REGULAR MEETING - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
City OF NOVI
TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 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, June 12, 2012.
Rickie Ibe, Chairman
Linda Krieger, Secretary
Charles Boulard, Building Official
Elizabeth Saarela, City Attorney
Coordinator Angela Pawloswki, Recording Secretary
Darlene K. May, RPR/CSR-6479. Certified Shorthand Reporter
1 Novi, Michigan
2 Tuesday, June 12, 2012
3 7:03 p.m.
4 -- --- --
5 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Welcome to the
6 June 12, 2012 Novi Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.
7 Can we please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.
8 (Pledge of Allegiance.)
9 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you.
10 Ms. Pawlowski, can we please have
11 the roll call, please.
12 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gedeon?
13 MEMBER GEDEON: Here.
14 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gerblick?
15 MEMBER GERBLICK: Here.
16 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Ghannam?
17 MEMBER GHANNAM: Here.
18 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Chairman Ibe?
19 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Present.
20 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Krieger?
21 MEMBER KRIEGER: Here.
22 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Sanghvi?
23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Here.
24 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Skelcy?
25 MEMBER SKELCY: Here.
1 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Now we'll go over
2 the formal rules of conduct for the Novi Zoning Board
3 of Appeals. Before I do that, please turn off all
4 cell phones as well as silence the pagers so we are
5 not disrupted during this meeting. Also, when the
6 case is called, the applicant please come forward and
7 the applicant will have five minutes to present your
8 case and any extensions that may be allowed by the
10 The public will be asked if they
11 wish to make comments on a particular case and at
12 that point, the public remarks will be entertained.
13 The agenda can be found in the back of the room for
14 those who need to get a copy of the agenda.
15 Thank you.
16 Next is the approval of the agenda
17 for today's meeting. Is there any corrections or
18 modifications to the agenda for today?
19 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Yes. ZB case 12-022
20 at 39500 Ten Mile has asked to be postponed until the
21 July meeting to allow verification of the posting.
22 Also, case number 12-025, which is
23 located at 27754 Novi Road has withdrawn their
25 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you.
1 Is that the only modifications for
2 the agenda? Do we have any additional modifications?
3 Seeing none, I would entertain a
5 MEMBER SANGHVI: May I make a motion
6 to accept the amendments for tonight?
7 MS. SKELCY: Second.
8 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Motion has been
9 made and seconded.
10 Do we have any comments regarding
12 Seeing none. Can we all in favor
13 say "Aye."
14 THE BOARD: Aye.
15 CHAIRPERSON IBE: All against, say
17 The aye carries. The agenda is
18 hereby approved.
19 Now, that brings us to the minutes
20 from the last meeting. Do we have any changes to the
21 minutes from the last meeting?
22 Seeing none, I will entertain a
23 motion to approve the minutes from the May 8th, 2012
25 MEMBER SANGHVI: May I make a motion
1 to accept the minutes as presented?
2 MEMBER GERBLICK: Second.
3 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Do we have any
4 comments regarding the motion that was made and
6 Seeing none, all in favor say,
8 THE BOARD: Aye.
9 CHAIRPERSON IBE: All against say
11 The favors carry. The minutes for
12 May 8th, 2012 has been approved.
13 Now that would bring us to public
14 remark section for this meeting. Is anyone in the
15 audience who would like to make a public remark
16 before we go into the cases for today?
17 Well, seeing none, the public remark
18 section is now closed and we are going to start with
19 the first case for today.
20 That would be Case Number 12-016,
21 31140 Beck Road. Will the applicant please come to
22 the podium. When you come to the podium, please
23 state your full name and also spell your name so that
24 it can be recorded. And if you're not an attorney,
25 raise your right hand and be sworn in by madame
2 MEMBER KRIEGER: Your name, sir?
3 MR. MANSOUR: Kal Mansour, K-a-l,
4 Mansour, M-a-n-s-o-u-r.
5 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number
6 12-016, do you swear to tell the truth in this case?
7 MR. MANSOUR: Yes, ma'am.
8 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you.
9 MR. MANSOUR: My name is Kal
10 Mansour. I'm with Sign Emporium. I'm here to
11 represent the Shops at the Trail. Asking the
12 committee to consider a new ground sign due to the
13 lack of visibility for the existing tenants that are
14 there. The hardship we have is the way the building
15 has been set inside a little bit.
16 Basically, that's all I have to say
17 about that. I'll wait for you folks if you have any
19 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Well, is there
20 anybody in the public that would like to make a
21 comment on this particular case? Please raise your
22 right hand and come to the podium at this point.
23 Well, seeing none, I'll ask madame
24 secretary to read any correspondence that was
25 received in this particular case.
1 MEMBER KRIEGER: In this case,
2 12-016, 22 were mailed, three returned, no responses.
3 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you.
4 I will now ask the City if they have
5 any comments to make regarding this particular case.
6 MR. BOULARD: Just a point of
7 clarification. This was the -- this application was
8 previously on the agenda on the old information along
9 with the application. There's also new information
10 that supersedes that and includes a revised location
11 for the sign. So I just want to make that note.
12 Because it is considerably -- a considerable distance
13 from where it was before.
14 And point out that this is the
15 third -- this will be proposed for third sign for the
16 site. There's a sign that is allowed by right.
17 There is a sign that is allowed under the previous
18 grants and this would be the third sign for the site.
19 So I will standby for questions.
20 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you,
21 Mr. Boulard.
22 Does the city attorney have anything
23 to add?
24 MS. SAARELA: We have nothing to
1 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you. I will
2 now open up to the board for any questions regarding
3 this particular case.
4 Yes, Member Skelcy?
5 MEMBER SKELCY: I was wondering,
6 Mr. Mansour, why do you feel you need this
7 particular sign since you already have two?
8 MR. MANSOUR: The existing signs
9 that are there right now stand about five feet tall
10 and they just indicate the name of the shopping
11 center itself. The tenants that are there right
12 now -- he's losing tenants at a pretty good rate and
13 they're all complaining because the way the building
14 is set inside there, they don't have enough
15 visibility and this -- he's hoping that this is going
16 to be the remedy for it and he is willing to take the
17 one sign down that's on Beck Road, hopefully, in
18 place of this one here. So he is willing to take off
19 the one sign.
20 MEMBER SKELCY: Now, this proposed
21 sign looks like it's quite far back from Beck Road.
22 Because it looks like it's lined up with the CVS that
23 is over there.
24 MR. MANSOUR: Actually, the way it's
25 positioned right now, you'll be able to see it from
1 Pontiac Trail from where the traffic light is. And
2 as you're heading north on Beck Road, you'll be able
3 to catch it on the angle that it's in.
4 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay. Thank you,
5 very much.
6 MR. MANSOUR: Thank you.
7 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you. Do we
8 have any other comments?
9 Yes, Member Ghannam?
10 MEMBER GHANNAM: First of all, I
11 guess, the question becomes why such a large sign?
12 MR. MANSOUR: Well, he wanted to max
13 it out because he's got quite a few tenants in there
14 and a lot of them want as much space as possible and
15 we've got it set back to what the ordinance will
16 allow us. We've got it set back pretty far only for
17 the purpose of trying to get some square footage on
18 there to accommodate everybody that is there.
19 MEMBER GHANNAM: I understand the
20 theory that bigger is always better. The site is
21 entitled to one sign. You have two. Now you want a
22 third sign. That's not quite double the size that
23 you would be allowed if you were entitled to one
24 sign, but almost double.
25 MR. MANSOUR: Yeah.
1 MEMBER GHANNAM: So, I mean, how
2 does this meet our standards of practical difficulty?
3 MR. MANSOUR: Again, the hardship is
4 the way the building is set in and based on the
5 ordinance, the setbacks, it's within the setback
6 ordinance. You know, based on how many feet from the
7 road there, it is within that ordinance. It does
8 fall within that ordinance.
9 MEMBER GHANNAM: I don't understand
10 that. What falls within the ordinance?
11 MR. MANSOUR: The size of the sign
12 that we're asking for.
13 MEMBER GHANNAM: Is that accurate,
14 Mr. Boulard?
15 MR. BOULARD: I guess you're talking
16 about the overall size of the sign?
17 MR. MANSOUR: Yes, sir. The
18 verbiage. You're correct.
19 MR. BOULARD: The sign ordinance
20 allows one sign for business center. That sign is
21 not supposed to have the tenant names on it. Which
22 is one of the reasons this sign is before you.
23 This sign is limited -- that that
24 one sign is limited to six feet in height and one
25 square foot for every two feet of setback from the
1 center line. However, the maximum is a hundred
2 square feet.
3 So I think -- is that, perhaps, what
4 you're saying? You know, one foot for every foot of
6 MR. MANSOUR: Correct.
7 MR. BOULARD: One thing that is also
8 apparent from the conversations we had earlier
9 tonight is that the sign ordinance indicates that the
10 size of the sign is measured in the smallest polygon.
11 The regular polygon that, you know, includes all the
12 verbiage on it. This sign, the sign that is
13 originally proposed, works out to about 137 square
14 feet as opposed to the maximum of 100 feet, if it was
15 the only sign. So in that sense, in that sense we
16 advertised for the larger sign in the event that you
17 wanted to consider that or something less. But the
18 other issue is that, A, it's the third sign and the
19 tenant names.
20 I hope that helped.
21 MEMBER GHANNAM: I mean, if it was
22 the only sign, he's entitled to six foot high and
23 he's requesting 13 foot, correct?
24 MR. BOULARD: Yes.
25 MEMBER GHANNAM: Because according
1 to our old material, it said if it was the only sign,
2 it would be 85 feet as opposed to the 100, but is
3 that changed because of the new location?
4 MR. BOULARD: Yes.
5 MEMBER GHANNAM: Okay. Yeah.
6 Personally, as proposed, I am not in favor of this
7 particular sign. I do like the idea, however, that
8 if you were to get a sign, that you'd take down the
9 second sign. I would encourage that. But in terms
10 of the height, I mean, to me it seems massive. Even
11 when you put your proposed average-sized six foot man
12 next to it, it's more than double. It's 13 foot.
13 It's just massive for that particular area.
14 I mean, we do have unusual -- I
15 shouldn't say unusual. We have very strict
16 ordinances in Novi. The question is, how does this
17 sign -- I guess your theory is that the bigger the
18 sign the tenants will stay and I'm not sure that's
19 necessarily the case in this economy. But in terms
20 of the size, I'm not in favor. If some of the other
21 members would consider smaller signs, I'd consider
22 that in exchange for a removal of the second sign,
23 but as proposed I would not be in favor.
24 Thank you.
25 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you.
2 MEMBER GEDEON: When I see this --
3 we had a case last year for the Town Center. Are you
4 familiar with the Novi Town Center?
5 MR. MANSOUR: Yes.
6 MEMBER GEDEON: In that case, I
7 believe they wanted four tenant panels and it was --
8 I don't remember the exact type, but it was certainly
9 less than 13 feet and there were similar issues
10 there. You know, the Town Center shops are tucked
11 behind, you know, some outlots. There's a car wash
12 and some restaurants and some other things like that.
13 So it's similar. I think it's probably even less
14 visibility there than in this case. So I'm not
15 inclined to support this. Especially with that many
16 tenant panels. You know, maybe if it was reduced to
17 something comparable even understanding that it's a
18 different zoning district, but as it's presented, you
19 know, I don't think I support this.
20 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you. Do we
21 have any comments or questions for the applicant?
22 MEMBER KRIEGER: Previously, we
23 approved for, I think it was Biggby Coffee on the
24 corner. They wanted a second sign to face Pontiac
25 Trail. I believe since then they've left, but then
1 can a separate business come along again and ask for
2 a second sign on the building itself once whatever we
3 do with these separate signs? Like Shops on the
4 Trail, the directional sign I see on Pontiac Trail
5 and Beck Road. So how would that change things?
6 MR. BOULARD: So if I understand
7 correctly, your question is would granting or denying
8 this variance change the right of a business that was
9 on the corner in the center to have a second sign?
10 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yeah.
11 MR. BOULARD: To the best of my
12 knowledge, only one sign would be allowed and this
13 board would see a new request for a second sign for a
14 tenant within the center that was based on having
16 MEMBER KRIEGER: Because they could
17 potentially have a third sign, then, if they haven't
18 posted on this third sign that they're proposing?
19 MR. BOULARD: Well, if there was
20 another variance granted, then the tenant could
21 potentially have two signs, yes.
22 MEMBER KRIEGER: Okay. Thank you.
23 I also, not to say that neighbors
24 are -- you have to do what your neighbor does, but
25 the K and S building next door opted to do something
1 similar and it's not as large as that. So I'm
2 agreeable that to take down one of the Beck Road
3 signs as proposed, but then, too, it's pretty big to
4 go up to 13 feet. So I would also not be in favor of
5 that. Thank you.
6 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Do we have any
7 additional comments?
9 MEMBER GEDEON: Having heard from a
10 couple of other members of the panel here, it sounds
11 like most of us are thinking that 13 feet is too
12 much. Is there a size smaller than that that you
13 would be willing to live with as far as a proposal
14 for a sign?
15 MR. MANSOUR: We've considered a lot
16 of options. The only reason for that is where the
17 placement of the sign is to max it out as much as
18 possible. It's the ordinance that kind of forces it
19 to be pushed back so far. And at that point, you
20 know, it's almost -- it's a waste of money for them
21 to even to attempt to do that. Especially when they
22 have it pushed back from the property line. If I'm
23 not mistaken, it's 90 feet. We got trees that are
24 there. He wants to try to clear some of that, you
25 know, to get as much visibility. I mean, considering
1 the scope of the property that's there, the sign, you
2 know, I mean, it's minute. That's just my opinion.
3 You know, you folks make the final
4 judgment on that.
5 MEMBER GEDEON: Okay. Thank you.
6 MR. MANSOUR: Thank you.
7 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Well, sir, just a
8 quick comment. It appears your proposal is not going
9 to pass if a vote is taken; however, that doesn't
10 stop you from going forward. The only concern I have
11 with the sign is -- two concerns is, one, the size
12 itself, as previously echoed by my colleagues. As
13 well as the fact that the businesses that you want to
14 advertise there, I seriously doubt how anyone is
15 going to be able to see those. Subject to pull up
16 there, stop and take a look at the big sign.
17 It may not solve the problem that is
18 intended, but that's my personal observation. But
19 the choice is yours.
20 Well, having heard all the comments
21 and there is no additional comment or question --
22 Yes, Mr. Boulard, you have something
23 to say?
24 MR. BOULARD: I just want to
25 mention, if the owner -- you mentioned clearing trees
1 and so on, not related to this, but the -- before he
2 starts cutting down trees and vegetation --
3 MR. MANSOUR: Oh, no. You
4 misunderstood. I apologize. It's not a matter -- he
5 wasn't thinking about cutting trees. Where the trees
6 are placed we want to get some clearance on that.
7 For the view.
8 MR. BOULARD: For the landscape.
9 Sorry about that.
10 MR. MANSOUR: Oh, you're fine.
11 MR. BOULARD: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
12 CHAIRPERSON IBE: If there are no
13 questions, I would entertain a motion.
14 Anyone want to attempt this?
15 MEMBER SKELCY: I move in the case
16 of 12-016 located at 31140 Beck Road that we deny the
17 variances requested by the applicant, including the
18 request for the tenant names on a business center
19 sign, a third sign on the property that exceeds the
20 required amount under the ordinance. And the reason
21 that I move to deny it is because the request is
22 based upon circumstances or features that are not
23 exceptional and unique to the property and do
24 result -- do not result in the conditions that exist
25 generally in the City or that are self-created. The
1 failure to grant the relief will not unreasonably
2 prevent or limit the use of the property and will not
3 result in substantially more than mere inconvenience
4 or inability to obtain a higher economic or financial
6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second.
7 MS. SAARELA: Can I suggest just
8 some specific -- adding some of the specific reasons
9 that were discussed with the board here including --
10 I mean, some of the information provided by the
11 applicant was that the reason for the signage is that
12 tenants are leaving and, if you look at factor C or
13 one of the factors, that would result in mere
14 inconvenience or inability to obtain a higher
15 economic or financial return, the variance would
16 result in interference with adjacent and surrounding
17 properties. You mentioned that the signage is not
18 consistent with the signage that you seen on
19 surrounding merchants and properties that is larger.
20 I would suggest that it would be inconsistent with
21 the spirit intended of the ordinance because of the
22 larger size.
23 That you also want to just add some
24 of those specific reasons right into the motion.
25 MEMBER SKELCY: I would like to
1 amend the motion to include the information provided
2 by counsel.
3 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Second?
4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.
5 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Seeing the motion
6 and it has been seconded, do we have any discussion
7 regarding that motion?
9 MEMBER KRIEGER: I would also like
10 to add that the sign isn't necessarily true whether
11 for the economic returns that businesses were going
12 to come and go regardless.
13 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you.
14 Ms. Pawlowski, can we call the roll,
16 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gedeon?
17 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes.
18 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gerblick?
19 MEMBER GERBLICK: Yes.
20 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Ghannam?
21 MEMBER GHANNAM: Yes.
22 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Chairman Ibe?
23 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Yes.
24 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Krieger?
25 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
1 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Sanghvi?
2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.
3 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Skelcy?
4 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes.
5 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Motion passes seven
6 to zero.
7 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you. Sorry,
9 MR. MANSOUR: That's okay.
10 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you, sir.
11 We now move to our second case for
12 the day, case number 12-019, 24755 Nepavine Drive.
13 Will the applicant please take the
15 MR. MINOCK: My name is Jason
16 Minock. It's M-i-n-o-c-k.
17 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number
18 12-019, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth in
19 this case?
20 MR. MINOCK: I do.
21 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you.
22 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you.
23 MR. MINOCK: I believe everybody has
24 a copy of the color one, hopefully, because the black
25 and white one doesn't quite do justice. I'm here
1 asking for a variance for the size of a house that
2 has to be within 75 percent of the average floor area
3 of the surrounding community. And the way that the
4 ordinance was written, doesn't take into the fact a
5 large RUV (ph) like this. So next to Bellagio, my
6 understanding is, I can build very small homes. It
7 wouldn't matter how large the homes were in Bellagio.
8 But, if Bellagio -- if it's the same community, you
9 have an issue. And that's the issue that I have in
10 Island Lake.
11 Based on the map, the homes that are
12 highlighted in blue are 150 feet wide minimum, almost
13 one acre, much larger homesites. The ones in green
14 are 106 feet wide. Again, much larger homesites,
15 half acre minimum. Then, the ones that are in the
16 orange there are predominantly 90 feet wide and about
17 a third of an acre.
18 And, basically, there was a
19 hierarchy in Island Lake. They said there was going
20 to be three different size single family homes which
21 are going to be what -- and this is just our terms.
22 But the signature homes, which are
23 the ones in the water there, the larger homes. They
24 are both wider and larger square footage. And then
25 there are the estate homes which are in the green
1 which are, again, larger. And I have the average
2 square footages of the homes within the radius that
3 Doug had done. So the averages within that radius is
4 4300 square feet for the estate homes, 5400 square
5 feet for the signature homes and within the orange
6 it's 3300 square feet.
7 So what I'm asking for is that the
8 home that I'm asking about, lot 389, be compared to
9 the other homes of like size lots, like size homes.
10 Right now it's being compared to lots that are three
11 times larger which, obviously, can accommodate much
12 larger homes. So the square footage has been
13 eschewed there.
14 The house in question that we're
15 asking about is 2753 square feet. So it's not a real
16 small house. And I understand the issue. You don't
17 want a really large house and a small house right
18 next to each other. That's not the case. All the
19 orange are on 90 foot wide lots and all the homes are
20 relatively similar in size.
21 So I'm asking for a variance on that
22 lot that the square footage requirements, really,
23 just take into account the homes within its own
24 community. That's all.
25 MEMBER SANGHVI: Can we request him
1 to put this on the overhead, please?
2 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Please. Can you
3 put it on the overhead?
4 MEMBER SANGHVI: So everyone can see
5 what he's talking about.
6 MR. MINOCK: Does that help?
7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. Just show me
8 which house you are talking about now. Which one?
9 MR. MINOCK: I'm referring to this
10 house right here. And, again, the blue, which are
11 the signature, are the one acre lots. These green
12 ones that are here, highlighted in green, are half
13 acre lots and got 106 feet wide and all of this
14 orange here are what we call our executive lots that
15 are 90 feet wide. It is similar the size lot on the
16 north side of the lake, but I didn't bother
17 highlighting those because they don't come into play
18 with the radius.
19 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you.
20 Is there anyone in the audience who
21 would like to make a comment concerning this
22 particular case?
23 Seeing none, I will go to the
25 MR. BOULARD: Nothing to add and
1 I'll stand by and answer any questions.
2 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you,
3 Mr. Boulard.
4 And the City Attorney, any?
5 MS. SAARELA: I have nothing to add
7 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you.
8 I will ask my secretary to read into
9 the record any correspondence that was received for
10 this case.
11 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number
12 12-019, 27 were mailed, eight returned. Zero
14 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you, madame
16 I would like to now open this up for
19 MEMBER SKELCY: I have a question.
20 Mr. Boulard, are all the other pink
21 ones or the orange ones, is this the size mandated
22 for this particular -- the orange executive homes was
23 that mandated by the builder or by the City?
24 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Should be by the
1 MR. BOULARD: I guess the intent of
2 the ordinance is that within a community, within a
3 community that the home are built like sizes so you
4 don't have folks that move into a neighborhood with a
5 three to 4,000 square foot home or someone builds a
6 1500 foot square house, that kind of thing or the
7 extreme. This development is unique in that most
8 developments have lots that are pretty much the same
9 size, unless there's wetlands or so on involved.
10 Unless I'm mistaken, up to this point, the economy
11 being what it was, most of the -- as you can see, the
12 average of the executive homes is fully the mandated
13 75 percent of the estate homes, things like that.
14 But, for example, in this case you
15 have a proposed home on that lot that happens to be
16 backed up and within the calculated radius with a lot
17 of the bigger homes. That said, for example, if
18 there were no estate homes or signature homes in
19 development, the proposed home at 2753, I believe,
20 would hit the 75 percent of the average of the
21 executive homes and that's what you're asking for.
22 But the size of the home is based on
23 the sales in the market. Whatever they decide to
24 sale, to some extent, that's how the size is come up
1 MEMBER SKELCY: Thank you, very
2 much. I have no other questions.
3 MR. MINOCK: If the home was up back
4 here closer to Ten Mile and you did your radius, so
5 if the home was back here and you did your radius, it
6 would meet the ordinance.
7 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you.
8 Yes, Member Ghannam?
9 MEMBER GHANNAM: So the problem he's
10 facing or this particular unit is facing is it's
11 because it's abutting the green colored homes, the
12 half acre ones, correct?
13 MR. BOULARD: Yes. It's nearby.
14 MR. MINOCK: And the blue.
15 MEMBER GHANNAM: I understand the
16 blue. But out of curiosity, all the ones along that
17 line that are next to the green shaded homes, have
18 you had this problem before or are they all developed
19 or no? I didn't see that.
20 MR. MINOCK: All these green homes
21 back here are developed.
22 MEMBER GHANNAM: No. I'm talking
23 about the orange side.
24 MR. MINOCK: The orange? Yes. They
25 have all been sold and I believe every one has been
1 through the permit process. They haven't been built
3 MEMBER GHANNAM: And the
4 average-size homes of all those shaded in orange is
5 approximately how much?
6 MR. MINOCK: Well, it's 3300 square
7 feet within the radius of the confines of this
8 ordinance, but in the whole overall it's probably a
9 little less than 3300 square feet.
10 I'm guessing it's probably 3200
11 square feet.
12 MEMBER GHANNAM: That's the average?
13 MR. MINOCK: Yes.
14 MEMBER GHANNAM: And out of
15 curiosity -- and I assume this is one particular
16 phase. All the ones shaded in orange are a
17 particular phase in Island Lake?
18 MR. MINOCK: Correct.
19 MEMBER GHANNAM: And of the ones in
20 orange, shaded orange in that phase, is this one of
21 the homes that is being built in this particular
22 phase, this size home, 2700 and some square feet?
23 MR. MINOCK: It is. And this home
24 actually exists in that phase in a different area so
25 it didn't have this issue.
1 MEMBER GHANNAM: So it's a floor
2 plan and elevation and all that that is being built,
3 but your problem is it's next to the green shaded
5 MR. MINOCK: Right.
6 MEMBER GHANNAM: I got you.
7 Personally, since we didn't receive
8 any major or really objections to your proposal and I
9 assume all the nearby homeowners got notice, it
10 doesn't seem to be unreasonable. It does seem an
11 unusual area where this home is and how it's situated
12 near these extremely larger lots and homes and
13 medium-size homes. So I have no problem with it,
15 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you. Do we
16 have any additional comments? Questions considering
18 Seeing none. I will entertain a
20 Yes. Go ahead.
21 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number
22 12-019, 24755 Nepavine Drive, I move to approve the
23 request for similar to similar as presented that
24 there are unique circumstances and physical
25 conditions according to the map from the orange area.
1 That it becomes an issue because of this home's
2 unique location and it abuts another area phase of
3 this development that is similar, but not similar.
4 So, also, the property such as narrowness,
5 shallowness, shape, water, topography, which are all
6 part of this area, or similar physical conditions and
7 the need for the variance is not due to the
8 applicant's personal or economic difficulty.
9 It's not self-created and the strict
10 compliance with regulations governing area, setback,
11 frontage, height, bulk, density or other dimensional
12 requirements will unreasonably prevent the property
13 owner from using the property for its permitted use
14 or purpose and will render conformity with those
15 regulations unnecessarily burdensome.
16 That this particular home is a
17 little bit smaller than the rest of the property size
18 as presented. So for those reasons, that the
19 requested variance is the minimum variance necessary
20 to do substantial justice to the applicant as well as
21 to other property owners in the district. The other
22 property owners were notified. So residents in that
23 area are aware. The requested variance will not
24 cause an adverse impact on surrounding properties,
25 property values which are similar or the use and
1 enjoyment of the property in the neighborhood or
2 zoning district.
3 MEMBER GHANNAM: Second.
4 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Seeing a motion
5 and second. Do we have any further discussion?
6 Seeing none, Ms. Pawlowski, please
7 call the roll.
8 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gedeon?
9 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes.
10 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gerblick?
11 MEMBER GERBLICK: Yes.
12 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Ghannam?
13 MEMBER GHANNAM: Yes.
14 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Chairman Ibe?
15 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Yes.
16 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Krieger?
17 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
18 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Sanghvi?
19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.
20 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Skelcy?
21 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes.
22 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Motion passes seven
23 to zero.
24 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you.
1 MR. MINOCK: Thank you.
2 CHAIRPERSON IBE: We will now call
3 case number 12-020, Timken, 28125 Cabot Drive. Will
4 the applicants please take the podium and state your
5 name and spell it for the record. And if you're not
6 an attorney, please raise your right hand and be
7 sworn in by the secretary. Thank you.
8 MR. MARCELLI: Good evening. My
9 name is Mike Marcelli, M-a-r-c-e-l-l-i, director of
10 sales for the Timken Company located at 28125 Cabot
11 Drive. Thank you for your time this evening.
12 MEMBER KRIEGER: You're not an
14 MR. MARCELLI: Not an attorney.
15 MEMBER KRIEGER: So in case number
16 12-020, 28125 Cabot Drive, do you swear to tell the
17 truth in this case?
18 MR. MARCELLI: Yes.
19 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you.
20 MR. MARCELLI: With me is Tim Franta
21 from our sign company. He will be providing the
22 details on our request.
23 MR. FRANTA: My name is Timothy
24 Franta, F-r-a-n-t-a, with Canton Sign Company,
25 Canton, Ohio. I represent Timken Company's
2 MEMBER KRIEGER: So in the case of
3 12-020, do you swear to tell the truth in this case?
4 MR. FRANTA: Yes, I do.
5 I'm going to briefly state why we
6 need this variance in our opinion and then I'm going
7 to show you some photographs to try to visually
8 explain it. Because, as you know, a picture is worth
9 a thousand words and I tend to yammer on anyway.
10 Timken Company has been located in
11 this Haggerty Corporate quarter park. They were on
12 Cabot just a few -- maybe a mile or so to the north
13 of where they're at now. And in that original
14 building, they had this sign on their building facing
15 M-5, north M-5. And it's an illuminated sign and it
16 gives them a presence on the building. When they
17 moved to their new location, the new building is
18 dissimilar to the first building because it only has
19 one entrance and I think your ordinance only allows
20 two wall signs for this type of building of this
21 size. So now there are three tenants and they all
22 have to go into the same entrance and without the
23 variance, Timken is denied a sign on the building.
24 We're not asking for a sign to be
25 added to a wall that already has a sign. What we
1 would like is to have the existing sign that was
2 there placed on the west wall of the new building
3 facing M-5 in a similar situation. It's not too
4 large. It's within the ordinance sizes.
5 So what I want to do is show you --
6 how do we get this thing to work?
7 MEMBER KRIEGER: Just lay it on
9 MR. FRANTA: This is the sign as it
10 existed at 28875 Cabot Drive. It's an internally
11 illuminated channel letter sign. At night the
12 letters Timken light up.
13 The new building, the new address,
14 there are three frontages. Cabot -- at the end of
15 Cabot as you go down towards 12 Mile, they have,
16 like, a little pond and it's next to the art
17 institute. You may know where that is at. In order
18 to enter this building, you have to actually go
19 through the art institute's parking lot.
20 And this is the north side of this
21 building. There are no signs on this side. It has,
22 basically, a couple of little directional signs.
23 The east wall of this building has a
24 sign, SSDC, who is a tenant of the building, and they
25 actually downsized their space and created a new
1 space that the Timken Company is occupying now.
2 Right below that sign is the Timken
3 space. They occupy a space on the second floor.
4 Here's a view of the south wall of
5 this building and here, again, the second sign from
6 the second tenant, they occupy the first floor of
7 this building and that sign is, here again, right
8 above where the Timken company's offices are.
9 There's an entrance to this building
10 off of 12 Mile and here's a view of the building as
11 you drive up the driveway and you can see the east
12 side and the south side of the building and the two
13 signs that exist.
14 Now, the entrance to the building,
15 all three entrances, are right here. That's the only
16 way you can get into the building. You go into the
17 lobby and there's a business on the first floor. I
18 think the art institute has some offices. But you go
19 up an elevator and there's two tenants in the second
20 level. So you only have one way to get in.
21 Here's the side of the building that
22 we're suggesting that we're allowed to put this sign.
23 This is the west side and it faces the on ramp off of
24 12 Mile and this is the area that we would like to
25 place that sign. Right here.
1 And I believe we placed a mockup
2 banner on this building 10 days ago so you members
3 could possibly drive by and see it. It's the exact
4 size of the sign that we're putting in.
5 There's another view of the sign
6 from the west side from M-5. And this is the area
7 where the sign's going to go. Right here.
8 Now, lastly, I show a rendering.
9 This is a computer rendering of the sign in the
10 position that we desire. Now, without this sign, no
11 one will know just driving around where the Timken
12 Company is. They have no idea. They may have an
13 address, so they're looking for the address. They
14 come to the area. They see the entrance to the art
15 institute and have to snake their way through.
16 They'll be driving around the building. If we at
17 least have this sign, they'll know, hey, the Timken
18 Company is in that building and all they have to do
19 is find the door. So that's what we're asking for.
20 Thank you.
21 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you.
22 Is there anybody in the public who
23 would like to make a comment regarding this
24 particular case?
25 Seeing none, I will ask the
1 secretary to please read any correspondence
3 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number
4 12-020, 11 were mailed. One returned. Zero
6 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you. I will
7 now turn to the City for any comment they may have on
8 this particular case.
9 MR. BOULARD: I just want to confer
10 one thing, if I can ask the applicant a question?
11 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Please.
12 MR. BOULARD: If I understand from
13 our earlier conversations, the sign that you're
14 proposing to install, it is the same sign that is on
15 the building in the previous location?
16 MR. FRANTA: Correct.
17 MR. BOULARD: So you already have
18 the sign?
19 MR. FRANTA: The sign exists. We
20 may have to modify how we install it to adhere it to
21 your building code and we have a local sign company
22 that has submitted the engineer drawings and whatnot
23 to show how it attaches to the wall, et cetera. But
24 it's the same sign.
25 MR. BOULARD: Thank you.
1 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you. Any
2 from the City Attorney's office?
3 MS. SAARELA: No.
4 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you. I will
5 now open up this matter for the board.
6 Yes. Member Sanghvi?
7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. I drove
8 around here looking for this place. It's not easy to
9 find. Until you come around and look at the west
10 side wall up in the sky and then you see the mockup
11 you have put in here. Otherwise, there is no way of
12 identifying this building. I think it needs
13 something to identify this at that location. Thank
15 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you, Member
17 MEMBER GEDEON: As you presented the
18 case, specifically, you mentioned the west wall of
19 the building and you also mentioned that there would
20 only be one sign per direction -- or per one wall.
21 So one on the west wall and one on the south wall and
22 one on the east wall. Would you accept that if those
23 limitations were added to the motion?
24 MR. FRANTA: I'm not sure what
25 you're saying.
1 MEMBER GEDEON: If we limited the
2 motion, specifically, to one sign per wall with the
3 Timken sign -- or the requested sign being on the
4 west wall, would that be acceptable limitations?
5 MR. FRANTA: Yes. That would be
7 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you, Member
9 Yes, Member Ghannam?
10 MEMBER GHANNAM: Sir, I understand
11 your request. To me, it seems logical. Because if
12 you have two signs up there and one tenant is not
13 identified, then the question is how do they know if
14 that tenant is in the building. The problem is that
15 you have the two that you're entitled to and, you
16 know, obviously, you received a variance. And the
17 problem is what if another space is split up and
18 another tenant and then you have your fourth tenant
19 and then another space is split up and you have a
20 fifth tenant or a sixth tenant. Then the question
21 becomes how many signs can go on those walls. Once
22 we grant a variance it's good, really, I believe,
23 indefinitely. And that becomes my concern.
24 Your concern is you got three
25 tenants, you want three signs and I don't blame you
1 personally. That's what I worry about for future
2 reference. Do you understand?
3 MR. FRANTA: I know the owner of the
4 building does not oppose this and we're not asking
5 for an additional sign. Because this sign existed
6 already in that corridor on a building. So it's not
7 a new sign, per se.
8 MEMBER GHANNAM: It's not allowed by
9 this ordinance for this building. That's the
11 MR. FRANTA: You're correct. What
12 we're trying to point out is that the unique
13 positioning of this building and the way the
14 entrances are makes it extremely difficult for
15 anybody to find it and using like a GPS to get an
16 address, it's not like you're going to go right to
17 the address because you're going into a different
18 parking lot.
19 But, you know, we're just -- we want
20 to have a presence to the public so that they know
21 this is the correct building and since there is only
22 one entrance to the building, once you see the sign,
23 you'll know you're at the right place.
24 MEMBER GHANNAM: That, I understand.
25 But if you take that to its logical extreme, that
1 building is entitled to an unlimited number of signs
2 depending on the unlimited number of tenants. Do you
3 follow me?
4 MR. FRANTA: I understand. That's
5 why we're asking for your decision.
6 MEMBER GHANNAM: I don't have
7 anything else. Thank you.
8 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Ms. Skelcy?
9 MEMBER SKELCY: I have to agree with
10 Mr. Ghannam's comments.
11 In addition, I know that off of that
12 one entrance there is a ground sign that says Timken
13 off of 12 Mile. Because I saw it when I drove by.
14 MR. FRANTA: It's a small
15 directional sign.
16 MEMBER SKELCY: Right.
17 MR. FRANTA: The letters are
18 approximately two inches high.
19 MEMBER SKELCY: I understand. I'm
20 stating -- I'm not asking you any questions at this
22 MR. FRANTA: Okay.
23 MEMBER SKELCY: What I'm saying, you
24 know, I know that is there. And the Timken, you
25 know, when you're pulling up -- when I pulled up and
1 looked at it, I didn't see Timken. I had to drive
2 all the way to the back of the building to find the
3 sign and I kind of don't think it serves that great
4 of a purpose when you can't see it from the front.
5 And I also agree that, you know, every time you get a
6 new tenant, you're going to want to come back and ask
7 for another sign for the tenant and then we start to
8 get into that slippery slope where we almost have a
9 monument sign with all the tenant names like the
10 earlier case we heard tonight.
11 So that's all I have to comment on.
12 Thank you.
13 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you, sir.
14 MR. MARCELLI: Could I respond to
15 that question or the issue?
16 CHAIRPERSON IBE: I don't believe
17 there was a question posed. One minute, sir.
18 Just go ahead with your comments.
19 MEMBER KRIEGER: Well, I'll hear
20 what you have to say first.
21 MR. FRANTA: Thank you. I
22 respectfully understand the issue with regard to
23 multiple tenants being able to move in, but the
24 building is now full. I mean, I realize that nothing
25 is forever but we do have a long-term intention to be
1 in the building and the building is right now as
2 occupied, it's full. There isn't space for another
3 tenant to move in.
4 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you, sir.
5 MEMBER KRIEGER: A question to the
6 City. How was it that you have one -- how did we
7 have one building with two different businesses with
8 two different -- I mean, if it was one business
9 coming into this building, they'd end up with three
10 signs if they wanted to keep the -- if we approve
12 MR. BOULARD: So ...
13 MEMBER KRIEGER: Mostly, how did it
14 end up being two different businesses, one entrance,
15 one building?
16 MR. BOULARD: The unit specifies
17 that for a business building with a single identity,
18 with a single entrance, there is one sign allowed.
19 If that building is over 40,000 square feet, which
20 this building is, there's two signs allowed. The
21 landlord can distribute those as he sees fit. His
22 largest tenants, the ones that pay the most, whatever
23 he wants to. So in this case, now, we have a
24 building with a single entrance.
25 So this would be, potentially, a
1 third sign. I'm not sure -- I'm not sure that there
2 wouldn't be a way to frame a variance so that if all
3 the tenants moved out a single tenant would just go
4 back to two.
5 MEMBER KRIEGER: Or come back to the
6 City with --
7 Could they in the future, for
8 counsel, that if these three moved out and somebody
9 else wanted to come into the building, would they
10 have to come back to the City regarding signs?
11 MS. SAARELA: I guess for this sign,
12 do you want to make this sign limited to this tenant
13 so that another tenant wouldn't be able to have a
14 sign necessarily?
15 MEMBER KRIEGER: Because I agree
16 that they need some identification. It's just
17 interesting how it ended up being this way versus
18 other signs we've had in the City.
19 So, thank you.
20 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Okay.
21 MEMBER GHANNAM: Actually, I have
22 another question.
23 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Sure.
24 MEMBER GHANNAM: How many tenants
25 would be in this building?
1 MR. FRANTA: I believe there is the
2 Social Security, the SSDC. I'm not sure what that
3 building is. And then there's the Freescale Company
4 and the art institute has some offices in that
5 building also, but they have their own building
6 across from the parking lot. So they don't require a
7 sign on that building. It's like they have a couple
8 classrooms in it. But there would be three tenants.
9 And we're not asking for a sign to be on the same
10 wall as another sign. We're just asking for a sign
11 on a single wall that has no sign.
12 MEMBER GHANNAM: All right. Thank
14 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Do we have any
15 additional comments?
16 Sir, I think my problem with this,
17 for both of you gentlemen, is that the question that
18 was asked by two of the members was not really
19 answered to my satisfaction.
20 MR. FRANTA: Okay.
21 CHAIRPERSON IBE: And that is what
22 stops -- you know, like you said, the other company
23 had to let go of some space for Timken to occupy the
24 second floor. What is stops Timken from dividing up
25 the second floor for a tenant to come in and they're
1 going to require the sign?
2 MR. FRANTA: You guys.
3 CHAIRPERSON IBE: I'm sorry?
4 MR. FRANTA: You guys stop them.
5 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Well, now, is it
6 agreeable to you that, one, this -- if this motion to
7 pass, it's restricted, one, to this particular
8 tenant. That's one. And, two, that no additional
9 signs will be granted beyond these three. Is that
10 something you will agree to?
11 MR. FRANTA: Yes.
12 MEMBER GEDEON: I guess I have a
13 issue with that. You can't limit a future board's
14 ability to grant a variance.
15 CHAIRPERSON IBE: We're not asking
16 the board would limit it. It's just if the tenant is
17 agreed -- now, who is the owner of the property?
18 You gentlemen, you're representing
19 the owner of the property?
20 MR. FRANTA: The owner is not
22 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Okay.
23 MR. FRANTA: But he did sign the
24 application and he's in favor of the sign being
25 placed where we're asking.
1 CHAIRPERSON IBE: So, technically,
2 you cannot speak for the owner as to what happens in
3 the future?
4 MR. FRANTA: No. We cannot. But I
5 believe the owner is bound by the rules of the Zoning
6 Board and that's, basically, why we're here to ask
7 for the variance on. We're not trying to rewrite the
8 zoning board.
9 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Very well, sir.
10 Do we have any additional comments
11 or questions?
12 Seeing none, I will entertain a
14 MEMBER GEDEON: I'll propose a
15 motion to approve the variance as requested for an
16 additional 40 foot wall sign for the business with
17 specific limitations that the additional sign be
18 placed on the west wall of the building and that no
19 other wall sign is moved to the west. So it is the
20 only wall sign present on the west side of the
21 building and I would also limit the variance to the
22 specific tenant, Timken, in this case.
23 The request is -- and the reason for
24 granting this variance is because the request is
25 based on circumstances and features that are
1 exceptional and unique to the property and do not
2 result from conditions that exist generally in the
3 City or that are self-created.
4 Specifically, the arrangement of the
5 building along M-5 allows for -- or I shouldn't say
6 allows for. But provides additional space that is
7 not intrusive to the main surface roads in the area.
8 The failure to grant relief will
9 unreasonably prevent or limit the use of the property
10 and will result in substantially more than mere
11 inconvenience or inability to attain a higher
12 economic or financial return.
13 The grant of relief will not result
14 in a use of structure that is incompatible with or
15 unreasonably interferes with adjacent or surrounding
16 properties, will result in substantial justice being
17 done to both the applicant and the adjacent or
18 surrounding properties, and is not inconsistent with
19 the spirit of the ordinance.
20 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Can I get a
22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second.
23 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Seeing the motion
24 and a second. Do we have any further discussion?
25 Seeing none. Please call the roll.
1 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gedeon?
2 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes.
3 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gerblick?
4 MEMBER GERBLICK: Yes.
5 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Ghannam?
6 MEMBER GHANNAM: No.
7 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Chairman Ibe?
8 CHAIRPERSON IBE: No.
9 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Krieger?
10 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
11 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Sanghvi?
12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.
13 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Skelcy?
14 MEMBER SKELCY: No.
15 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Motion passes four
16 to three.
17 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you very
19 MR. FRANTA: Thank you.
20 CHAIRPERSON IBE: I'll bring this to
21 our next case for today. Case number 12-023, Mixx
22 Sports Bar outdoor seating.
23 Will the applicant please come to
24 the podium. State your full name and spell it for
25 our reporter. And if you're not an attorney, please
1 raise your right hand and be sworn in by madame
3 MR. DOYLE: Daniel Doyle, D-o-y-l-e.
4 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number
5 12-023, 43155 Main Street, do you swear or affirm to
6 tell the truth in this case?
7 MR. DOYLE: I do.
8 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you.
9 MR. DOYLE: I'm one of the partners
10 of the Mixx Sports Bar and we're requesting a
11 variance. The current ordinance calls for a six foot
12 pathway and we're requesting a variance down to a
13 five foot pathway, reducing it a foot.
14 Because of the design of the
15 building, we're one of the few establishments in the
16 downtown district that does not have enough room to
17 put an outside patio. We've had several patrons
18 indicate that they go to other places during the
19 summer because of the outdoor seating arrangement.
20 Our business is still there, but we could bring more
21 traffic to the downtown district which would promote
22 the other businesses.
23 We are one of only three on our
24 street that are still in business down there and we
25 would like to bring more traffic down there. There's
1 a jeweler, there's ourselves and there's a hair
3 Included in the packet that I think
4 everybody received, it has a copy of a picture of the
5 patio similar to what we were recommending to what
6 the Penn Grill has in downtown Plymouth.
7 It would be a decorative, iron-type
8 gated area. We've also included a copy of the
9 drawing for the proposed location, along with copies
10 of the ordinances. We looked at the city of
11 Northville and the city of Plymouth, which I think we
12 were trying to replicate a similar downtown district
13 as those areas. You can see that the city of
14 Northville, their ordinance has for a 42 foot (sic),
15 which is about three and a half foot. And the city
16 of Plymouth has a five foot or 60 feet -- or 60-inch,
17 five foot path.
18 We feel that there is -- right now
19 there is next to no traffic on that street. We
20 probably have 10, maybe 15 people on a busy day come
21 down the street. We don't feel that it would
22 restrict the flow of foot traffic and we hope that it
23 will generate more business downtown for the other
24 businesses and the structure.
25 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you.
1 MR. DOYLE: Thank you.
2 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Is there anybody
3 in the public who would like to make a comment on
4 this particular case, please raise your hand.
5 Seeing none. I will ask madame
6 secretary to read into the record any correspondence
8 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number
9 12-023, 39 were mailed, zero returned, zero
11 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you. I will
12 now ask the City for any comment it may have now
13 regarding this particular case?
14 MR. BOULARD: If I could bring up a
15 point in question with the applicant, please.
16 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Yes. Please.
17 MR. BOULARD: I just want to confirm
18 for the record that the proposed five feet would be
19 the absolute minimum even with door swings and so on
20 so that someone in a wheelchair could traverse that?
21 MR. DOYLE: Absolutely, yes.
22 MR. BOULARD: And also, that you're
23 confident that the area that would remain inside the
24 fence is going to be accessible also? Including the
25 area around the tree and so on?
1 MR. DOYLE: Yes.
2 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you.
3 Do we have any comment from the
4 City's counsel?
5 MS. SAARELA: No.
6 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you.
7 I will now open up this particular
8 case for conversation to the board.
9 Yes, Member Ghannam?
10 MEMBER GHANNAM: Just a couple of
11 questions. With the proposed gate and so forth, how
12 much room would that leave for pedestrians to
13 traverse on the sidewalk area?
14 MR. DOYLE: I believe that the gate
15 would open inward so it wouldn't infringe on the five
16 foot pathway.
17 MEMBER GHANNAM: So there would be
18 five feet?
19 MR. DOYLE: Yes.
20 MEMBER GHANNAM: Okay. Is there
21 any issues with safety or concerns with the City
22 regarding the safety of the berm being five feet?
23 MR. BOULARD: The actual fenced area
24 of the gate does open out. The gate that is around
25 the fence that would be required, I assume, by OCC,
1 opens out. However, the outdoor seating area does
2 not extend in front of the exit door of the building.
3 So it should be -- I don't see that there would be a
4 safety issue there. As long as we got the five feet
6 MEMBER GHANNAM: So with regard to
7 the outside seating, that's not -- I mean, they would
8 be entitled to that. The only question is this one
9 variance, right?
10 MR. BOULARD: Yes. The outdoor
11 seating variance requires a six foot wide path, but
12 they don't have enough room there and can't go up or
13 down the sidewalk to the west because it's a
14 different property there.
15 So, hence, the request for the
17 MEMBER GHANNAM: Just one other
18 question for you. If you reduce this fenced in area
19 by the one foot given the six foot, would that be
20 safe for the seating area outside?
21 MR. BOULARD: I'm guessing with the
22 minimum four foot shown to the table that would be
24 MEMBER GHANNAM: Is that your
25 position, sir? That it would be unusable if you
1 reduced it a foot?
2 MR. DOYLE: Yes. Yes.
3 MEMBER GHANNAM: I mean, I
4 understand the need for the variance. I mean, you're
5 entitled to outside seating. To me, so long as there
6 is no issues with safety and so forth of pedestrians,
7 I mean, I have no problem with this.
8 MR. DOYLE: We did look at
9 alternatives. Trying to go up to the roof and that
10 was virtually impossible because of the stacks. So
11 we did look for alternatives.
12 MEMBER GHANNAM: That is your job.
13 You have to try to minimize whatever request you're
14 making. If you can't do the entire outside seating
15 because of this one foot and yet it's still safe, it
16 appears reasonable.
17 MR. DOYLE: Thank you.
18 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you.
19 Yes, Member Gedeon?
20 MEMBER GEDEON: I think the
21 applicant's discussion of neighboring zoning
22 ordinances in Northville and Plymouth is compelling.
23 If you go to the downtown area, even in Ann Arbor,
24 Plymouth or Northville, many of the restaurants have
25 outdoor seating and it's just what's expected and I
1 know that the downtown Novi area is struggling and
2 this one thing is not going to turn it around,
3 obviously, but I think every little bit helps. So
4 I'm in favor of this.
5 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you, Member
7 Yes, Member Gerblick?
8 MEMBER GERBLICK: I saw that you had
9 a picture from, I guess, it's the Penn Bar in
11 MR. DOYLE: Yes.
12 MEMBER GERBLICK: I know their fence
13 that they have in place there in the wintertime,
14 that's a removable fence. It's not permanent. The
15 question is, was the fence that you guys are
16 proposing to put in, is that a permanent fence or is
17 it going to be similar to what they have at the Penn
18 where you would have a cast iron fence that would be
19 removable in the winter months?
20 MR. DOYLE: I'm sorry. My partner
21 is the builder and he was supposed to be here, but he
22 got called out of town. I believe we can remove it,
23 but I'm not certain. But if it makes a difference,
24 we can make it removable during the winter.
25 MEMBER GERBLICK: All right. Thank
2 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Member Skelcy?
3 MEMBER SKELCY: Are you going to
4 have three tables? The drawing shows three, but is
5 that ...
6 MR. DOYLE: Well, it'll be three to
7 five. Whatever fits and make sense within that area
8 to seat comfortably.
9 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay. Thank you.
10 No more questions.
11 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Do we have any --
13 MEMBER SANGHVI: I have no problem
14 with outside seating arrangement, but I'm not so sure
15 about the enclosure around there. I mean, there's so
16 little room there, if you go and look at the place.
17 If you put an enclosure, there is no room for anybody
18 else to walk around it without going on the street.
19 And, yes, you can have outside seating, but I am not
20 so sure about the enclosure around there.
21 Physically, there's no room to put a regular size
22 table or anything where you can walk around the fence
23 going to some other business on the street. And I'm
24 not sure how the American Disability Act also can be
25 enforced if you put an enclosure there.
1 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Maybe our City
2 or ...
3 MR. BOULARD: I can try to address
4 that. The ADA is a civil rights legislation and so
5 that is enforced by the City. The barrier free code
6 requires, typically, depending on the amount of
7 traffic, three feet to five feet for traffic. So if
8 the applicant was, as promised, to maintain a five
9 foot path clear without, you know, bases for fence
10 posts and things in it, clear, it would meet, in my
11 estimation, the requirements.
12 With regard to the fence and the
13 enclosure, I believe that's a requirement for outdoor
14 service of alcohol from the OCC. So it's a kind of
15 the chicken or the egg.
16 MEMBER SANGHVI: A Catch-22?
17 MR. BOULARD: Yes.
18 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Very well. Thank
20 Yes, Member Gedeon?
21 MEMBER GEDEON: For the City, is
22 there any kind of other ordinance that requires -- I
23 imagine it's a public sidewalk, right, so permanent
24 structure. I can just imagine snow removal and all
25 that stuff being an issue.
1 MR. BOULARD: The ordinance requires
2 the fixtures and so on are removed. Fixtures and
3 tables, wastebaskets and those kind of things are
4 removed in the winter. Certainly, the landlord
5 and/or the business owner is responsible for clearing
6 that snow.
7 One suggestion I could put out is
8 that you could, if you so decided, to put a condition
9 that the posts are removable so you wouldn't have a
10 buildup up of snow against the building in the winter
11 and reduce that buildup.
12 MEMBER GEDEON: That would be my
13 concern. Thanks.
14 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you.
16 MEMBER KRIEGER: Are you amendable
17 to that, to have a fence that is removable?
18 MR. DOYLE: Yes.
19 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Very well. Member
21 Do we have any additional comments
22 or questions?
23 Seeing none, I will entertain a
24 motion, please.
25 Yes, Member Krieger.
1 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number
2 12-023 for 43155 Main Street I move to approve the
3 applicant's request for five feet as the amount of
4 distance for the barrier free area for traffic,
5 pedestrian traffic. That, as requested, also for
6 winter, a fence that is able to be removed for winter
7 clearing of snow. That the area is unique
8 circumstances on Main Street and physical conditions
9 of the property that it will enhance an attraction
10 for more visitors to the street. The narrowness,
11 shallowness, shape, water, topography and similar
12 physical conditions and the need for the variance is
13 not due to the applicant's personal or economic
15 The strict compliance with
16 regulations governing the area, setback, frontage,
17 height, bulk, density or other dimensional
18 requirements will unreasonably prevent the property
19 owner from using the property for a permitted
20 purpose. That having the fence for -- giving liquor
21 outside per laws or will render conformity with those
22 regulations unnecessarily burdensome.
23 The requested variance is the
24 minimum variance necessary to do substantial justice
25 for the applicant as well as to the neighboring
1 property owners in the district. The requested
2 variance will not cause an adverse impact on
3 surrounding property. People will still be able to
4 get by with wheelchairs. The property values will
5 not be dimensioned and maybe enhance them by
6 attracting more in the enjoyment of the property in
7 the neighborhood and zoning district.
8 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Yes, Mr. Boulard?
9 MR. BOULARD: If I might offer the
10 suggestion that as opposed to just winter that say
11 the fence will be removed in the periods that the
12 ordinance excludes outdoor seating. Because there
13 are specific dates in there.
14 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
15 MR. BOULARD: That will change that.
16 That way everybody knows what dates you meant.
17 MEMBER KRIEGER: Okay.
18 MEMBER GHANNAM: I'll second it.
19 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Very well. Seeing
20 a motion and a second. Do we have any further
22 Seeing none. Please call the roll,
23 Ms. Pawlowski.
24 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gedeon?
25 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes.
1 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gerblick?
2 MEMBER GERBLICK: Yes.
3 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Ghannam?
4 MEMBER GHANNAM: Yes.
5 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Chairman Ibe?
6 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Yes.
7 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Krieger?
8 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
9 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Sanghvi?
10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.
11 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Skelcy?
12 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes.
13 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Motion passes seven
14 to zero.
15 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you.
16 Congratulations, sir.
17 MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Board.
18 CHAIRPERSON IBE: That brings us to
19 our next case. Case number 12-024, Crescent Place,
20 26401 Novi Road. Will the applicant please come to
21 the podium.
22 State your full name for the record
23 and please spell your name, first and last name. And
24 if you're not an attorney, raise your right hand and
25 be sworn in by the secretary.
1 MR. ROBINSON: Good evening. Steve
2 Robinson, R-o-b-i-n-s-o-n, with Brooks Development
4 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number
5 12-024 on 26401 Novi Road, do you swear to tell the
6 truth in this case?
7 MR. ROBINSON: I do.
8 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you.
9 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Please go ahead.
10 MR. ROBINSON: We're here this
11 evening on the redevelopment of the existing Big Boy
12 on the northwest corner of Novi and Crescent Road. I
13 know this project was before you, I believe, a couple
14 years ago. When we picked up the project after it
15 previously failed, we tried to mirror as much of the
16 previously approved project as we possibly could. In
17 fact, we mirrored almost everything, although
18 conditions have changed somewhat in the marketplace.
19 We're here this evening asking for,
20 I guess, three different variances. Much of them are
21 the two variances regarding setback. And locations
22 of the loading zone are really due to the constraints
23 of the site having three separate frontages. And the
24 final -- and I can go into that in more detail if
25 you'd like.
1 But the final is relative to the
2 parking. The demand in this location has really seen
3 a number of quick service restaurants, fast casual
4 restaurants. Which is, I mean, a fast moving trend
5 within the retail industry. As opposed to menu
6 service, drive-thru service, this is a menu board
7 service where you walk in, you order from the menu
8 board, get your food and either sit down or walk back
9 out again.
10 We've seen in many communities --
11 some communities, I guess, a distinction of this type
12 of restaurant. Your quick service restaurants in the
13 zoning ordinance relative to parking. We've done a
14 number of these projects across the state and in the
15 periods of 2009 to 2012, which has been, you know, a
16 relatively difficult environment for Michigan. We've
17 really hung in there and developed a number of these
18 properties to include this type of restaurants.
19 We have seen that seating
20 requirements is more on the order of one per 100 as
21 opposed to one per 70, which is the current City of
22 Novi ordinance.
23 When we looked at -- the nature of
24 the variance of 14 spaces was more a product of the
25 math going into it where we felt that somewhere
1 between one per 70 versus one per 100 and we've come
2 across one per 90 is something we thought was more
3 conservative to the need of the users, but still, you
4 know, still something that would be satisfied to the
5 retailers in this area to make this a successful
6 center. So although it's 14 spaces, it was really
7 derived on the math of one per 90 as opposed to one
8 per 70 in the ordinance.
9 This property is, you know, kind of
10 in field redevelopment project within the Town Center
11 district. The Town Center district being designed, I
12 think, successfully in areas and maybe not so
13 successfully in other areas to support pedestrian
14 traffic and the more of a walkable community, which I
15 also think will eschew the parking demand numbers
16 when you're inside a large community like this. So
17 this property, although it stands alone, is part of a
18 larger area of development with the properties across
19 the street, et cetera. And we're quite confident
20 that based on our experience with these types of
21 centers and these types of users that the parking
22 that we're asking for will be sufficient.
23 You know, there are some
24 inefficiencies to the site that to conform with the
25 aesthetics of this particular area with this front
1 loaded building, the building that fronts on Novi
2 Road, and we think we have done -- I guess we'll
3 consider ourselves an admirable job with trying to
4 fit in with the rest of the community and help
5 preserve the pattern of development in the Town
6 Center district.
7 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you.
8 Is there anyone in the public who
9 would like to make a remark in this particular case?
10 Please raise your hand.
11 Seeing none, I will ask the
12 secretary to read into the record any correspondence
14 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number
15 12-024, 29 were mailed, zero returned, zero
17 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you. The
18 City, do we have any comments concerning this
19 particular case?
20 MR. BOULARD: Kristen Kapelanski
21 from our planning division is here just in case you
22 have any questions and we have her report.
23 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Very well. Thank
24 you so much.
25 The City Attorney, any comments?
1 MS. SAARELA: I do not.
2 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you very
4 I will now open this particular case
5 to the board for discussion.
6 Yes, Member Skelcy?
7 MEMBER SKELCY: I have questions for
8 the City.
9 Yes, thank you.
10 MS. KAPELANSKI: Good evening.
11 MEMBER SKELCY: When I read the
12 report, it says that there will be two restaurant
13 spaces and then it says additional retail space. How
14 many additional retail spaces will there be?
15 MS. KAPELANSKI: I believe the
16 applicant has shown on the floor plan that was
17 submitted one large retail space in terms of
18 calculating the parking. If they split it into two
19 spaces or one, we would calculate the parking the
20 same way.
21 MEMBER SKELCY: So it would be the
22 same no matter how many businesses were in there?
23 MS. KAPELANSKI: Yes.
24 MEMBER SKELCY: Then I notice that
25 you do not support the variance because there's been
1 no explanation as to why they cannot reduce the size
2 of the buildings to accommodate the parking; is that
4 MS. KAPELANSKI: That's correct.
5 The planning staff does not support their requested
6 variance for the number of parking spaces or the
7 parking setbacks, but we did support the variance
8 request for the loading zone and the dumpster
10 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay. Thank you.
11 I have a question for Mr. -- I'm
12 sorry. I didn't write your name down.
13 MR. ROBINSON: Robinson.
14 MEMBER SKELCY: Mr. Robinson, why
15 can you not reduce the size of the building, which
16 appears to be the billion dollar question?
17 MR. ROBINSON: Right. Well, it's
18 simple economics. I mean, I can try to twist that
19 some other way, but, you know, there's been -- this
20 project was attempted once before on this particular
21 property with the similar size building. I don't
22 know for -- I think it's almost exactly -- we used
23 exactly the same floor plan that they did before. We
24 used exactly the same site plan with the exception of
25 the parking lot in the rear.
1 You know, between construction --
2 between hard costs and redevelopment of the site,
3 you've got utility issues and you've got storm water
4 issues here that need to be accommodated for.
5 There's an economic balance to trying to get the
6 project to work and that was our threshold number.
7 The rents from the prior attempt at this project are
8 down at least 25 percent from what they were four
9 years ago. The demand has changed. The market's
11 The owners of the Big Boy which are,
12 you know, great people, have significantly reduced
13 price to try to make this work, but that's the simple
15 MEMBER SKELCY: So you're saying
16 that in order to recoup the costs for building and
17 developing and continuing to maintain the property,
18 you have to have that much space so that you can
19 lease out retail and have two restaurants?
20 MR. ROBINSON: Yeah. If you look
21 at -- it's one per 70 for a restaurant. It's one per
22 200 for retail. So for every parking space, we need
23 to lose almost -- excuse my math.
24 So for every 70 feet of restaurant
25 we need to lose the 200 feet of retail. So in order
1 to bring this in balance to have the two restaurants
2 this building would be is -- my math genius.
3 Much smaller.
4 Let's see. Maybe I can do the math
5 real quick.
6 It would go all the way down like
7 7700 square feet. So we would lose, you know, 2400
8 square feet.
9 MEMBER SKELCY: Thank you. Those
10 are all the questions I have. Thank you.
11 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you, member
13 Yes, Member Gedeon?
14 MEMBER GEDEON: I know the focus on
15 the last couple of questions has been on the size of
16 the building. But I think the applicant made a valid
17 point about the use of the building for not so much
18 fast food -- I apologize. I forgot the word you
19 used. Quick service?
20 MR. ROBINSON: Quick service.
21 MEMBER GEDEON: Quick service food.
22 So that's something that the zoning ordinance may not
23 have anticipated when they set the one per 70 square
24 foot requirement. So, you know, even though you can
25 say, well, they should've built a smaller building,
1 they're kind of in the gray area here in my opinion.
2 So, you know, I would support this.
3 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you, Member
5 Do we have any --
6 Yes, Member Sanghvi?
7 MEMBER SANGHVI: From what I look at
8 this plan here, you would have streets on three sides
9 of property. So which is the front yard? And where
10 do you put the dumpster? In the rear? In front of
11 the Melting Pot?
12 I mean, the way the whole property
13 is located and the design and everything is there,
14 they need a variance for almost everything to build
15 anything worthwhile. And I don't see how they can
16 build anything without these variances, really. And
17 from what is going on in the Expo Center now, this is
18 really going to be one of the real prime properties
19 in that area and they want to develop it and it needs
20 developing. I have no problem with developing
21 anything. So I know that the two main variances are
22 not a problem. But there is no other way anything
23 can be done as far as I can see. So, reluctantly, I
24 am willing to support that case.
25 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Yes, Member
2 MEMBER GHANNAM: I have no problems
3 with the loading zone on the dumpster locations given
4 the configuration. With regard to the parking, was
5 this particular building -- I know you said it's the
6 same -- basically, the same floor plans of the
7 existing building?
8 MR. ROBINSON: No. The previously
9 public building. Not the existing building. The
10 existing building is a much smaller building.
11 MEMBER GHANNAM: With the current
12 configuration of this 10,000 and some square foot
13 building, did you design it with tenants in mind?
14 MR. ROBINSON: We do have -- we have
15 tenants in mind. One of the major tenants was lost
16 during the process to another location. But we --
17 just keeping market demand, you know, we can easily
18 fill it across the board with restaurants. We don't
19 think the building would park for that from our
20 standpoint. We think the building would park to
21 about 4600 square feet of restaurant is where we feel
23 You know, our -- and if I may have
24 some liberty. Our focus has really been on the
25 aesthetics and how this building functions and how it
1 fits in with the community. So we have tried not to
2 cut any corners on the aesthetics of the building,
3 the landscaping, everything else like that. So this
4 is a building that really fits within the idea of the
5 Town Center district and that's where our main focus
6 has been. And we're trying to make it economically
8 MEMBER GHANNAM: And I appreciate
9 that. So you may have tenants but I assume each food
10 service place would take about 2300 square feet?
11 MR. ROBINSON: Yeah. Either 24, 22,
12 22, 20. You know, when we get right down to it,
13 somewhere in that neighborhood.
14 MEMBER GHANNAM: And the balance is
15 some kind of retail?
16 MR. ROBINSON: And the balance would
17 be retail.
18 MEMBER GHANNAM: This is a unique
19 spot given what just got -- or is getting demolished
20 behind you. And I understand the need. Novi Road is
21 very busy and so forth and I think your need has been
22 justified. So I have no problems with the balance of
23 the parking issues either. So I would be willing
24 support it.
25 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you, Member
2 I also have a comment to make.
3 First, I must say that I applaud the applicants for
4 the careful planning. This particular spot actually
5 needs redeveloping. If there is anywhere in the Town
6 Center that needed redevelopment, is this particular
7 eyesore. When you drive past it every day, it just
8 doesn't look good. I'm sure that with the
9 redevelopment, it's probably going to bring some life
10 to the area. And, really, I think you have made your
11 case very simple for me to support your proposal.
12 Thank you.
13 MR. ROBINSON: Thank you.
14 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Do we have any
15 further discussion?
16 Seeing none, I would entertain a
17 motion, please.
19 MEMBER GEDEON: I move that we grant
20 the variance as requested in case number 12-024,
21 Crescent Place, 26401 Novi Road. The variance should
22 be granted due to the practical difficulty, that
23 there are unique circumstances or physical conditions
24 of the property where the building is located and the
25 surrounding properties around it. The need is not
2 Strict compliance with regulations
3 will unreasonably prevent the property owner from
4 using the property for a permitted purpose or will
5 render conformity with those regulations
6 unnecessarily burdensome. The request granted is
7 the minimum request necessary to do substantial
8 justice to the applicant as well as other property
9 owners in the district and the requested variance
10 will not cause an adverse impact on surrounding
11 property, property values or the use and enjoyment of
12 the property in the neighborhood or zoning
14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second.
15 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Seeing a motion
16 and a second. Do we have any further discussion?
17 Seeing none. Please call the roll,
18 Ms. Pawlowski.
19 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gedeon?
20 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes.
21 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Gerblick?
22 MEMBER GERBLICK: Yes.
23 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Ghannam?
24 MEMBER GHANNAM: Yes.
25 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Chairman Ibe?
1 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Yes.
2 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Krieger?
3 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
4 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Sanghvi?
5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.
6 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Member Skelcy?
7 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes.
8 MS. PAWLOWSKI: Motion passes seven
9 to zero.
10 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Congratulations.
11 MR. ROBINSON: Thank you very
13 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you.
14 Turning to the City, do we have to
15 do anything with the case that was tabled or
16 dismissed? Do we have to take any motion regarding
17 those, case number 12-022?
18 MS. SAARELA: It's already been
20 CHAIRPERSON IBE: It's already been
21 set. Wonderful. Great.
22 I'm sorry. Go ahead.
23 MR. BOULARD: If I might, the
24 gentleman that is sitting in the back watching us
25 patiently is actually -- I just want to introduce
1 him. His name is Alex Trouissant (ph). He is
2 between his first and second years of law school.
3 He's a member of the Novi Community and he's helping
4 us out a few days a week in preparing some of the
5 paperwork. So you'll see his name and I just wanted
6 to introduce him and say thank you.
7 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Thank you.
8 MEMBER GHANNAM: Thank you. And my
9 law school.
10 CHAIRPERSON IBE: Very well. Do we
11 have any other matters that we need to take up at
12 this time?
13 Seeing none, I will entertain a
14 motion to adjourn.
15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Motion to adjourn.
16 MEMBER SKELCY: Second.
17 CHAIRPERSON IBE: We have a motion
18 and seconded. All in favor say "Aye."
19 THE BOARD: Aye.
20 CHAIRPERSON IBE: All opposed?
21 Seeing none, meeting is hereby
23 (Meeting concluded at 8:28 p.m.)
24 - - -
1 C E R T I F I C A T E
3 STATE OF MICHIGAN)
4 ) ss
5 COUNTY OF OAKLAND)
7 I, Darlene K. May, Notary Public
8 within and for the County of Oakland, do hereby
9 certify that I have recorded stenographically the
10 proceedings had and testimony taken in the
11 above-entitled matter at the time and place
12 hereinbefore set forth, and I do further certify that
13 the foregoing transcript, consisting of seventy-eight
14 (78) typewritten pages, is a true and correct
15 transcript of my said stenographic notes.
Darlene K. May, RPR/CSR-6479
19 June 24, 2012