REGULAR MEETING - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - CITY OF NOVI

The Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m., with Chairman Brennan presiding.

ROLL CALL

Present Members Bauer, Harrington, Reinke, Fannon, Meyer, Brennan and Sanghvi

Absent None

Also Present Donald M. Saven - Building Official

Alan Amolsch - Ordinance Officer

Sarah Marchioni - Recording Secretary

Tamara Buswinka – Staff Planner

Dennis Watson – City Attorney

Rod Arroyo – Planning and Traffic Consultant

Chairman Brennan indicated that there is a full board present and any decisions made will be final. The Zoning Board of Appeals is a hearing board empowered by the City Charter to hear appeals seeking variances from the application of the Novi Zoning Ordinance.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Chairman Brennan indicated that there are seven (7) cases on the agenda. I am told that the last case, 00-005 filed by Maples Place, has been tabled. Other than that the agenda is as is. Are there any changes to the agenda? Hearing none, all in favor to approve the agenda, please say aye. All ayes. Agenda approved.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Chairman Brennan indicated that there are minutes from January 4, 2000. Are there any changes or corrections to the minutes? Hearing none, all in favor say aye. All ayes. Minutes approved as written.

PUBLIC REMARKS

Chairman Brennan indicated that since there are no hands we will move onto the first case.

Jane Dietrich, representing Singh Development Co., LTD is requesting an extension of the temporary construction sign permit for property located at Waltonwoods of Novi, 27475 Huron Drive, sidwell number 50-22-14-200-038.

David Zaitchik was present and duly sworn.

David Zaitchik: We are asking for a year’s extension for the temporary construction sign. The construction is not complete yet but we expect to be finished by the end of the year. We are asking to extend the permit for one year.

Chairman Brennan indicated that there were eight (8) notices sent to neighbors. There were no approvals or objections.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

There was no audience participation.

DISCUSSION

Don Saven: I was there today and they just started the occupancy approximately two (2) weeks ago so it is going to take them some time to complete the project.

Chairman Brennan: How many units are up for occupancy?

David Zaitchik: They are senior apartments and I do not know.

Chairman Brennan: Are there any that have been leased up to date?

David Zaitchik: No, not yet.

Chairman Brennan: How much time do you think that you need for this sign?

David Zaitchik: We are thinking that we will be in construction until fall. Just to be conservative we are saying that we will be done by the end of the year.

Moved by Member Fannon,

Seconded by Member Reinke,

THAT IN CASE NO. 99-089 TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE FOR ONE (1) YEAR DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE CONSTRUCTION IS NOT COMPLETED AND THAT THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS JUST BEING GRANTED TO THE PROJECT.

Roll Call: Yeas (6) Nays (0) Motion Carried

Patti Krula of Metro Detroit Sign, Inc., representing Break Time Billiards Bar & Grille is requesting a thirty three (33) square foot variance to allow the placement of a 10.42’ x 7.0’ (73 sq. ft.) wall sign to be placed on the front of the building at 30850 Beck Road in the Beck Village Plaza. (Previous case #99-032)

John Dedders was present and duly sworn.

John Dedders: Five or six months ago we approached the Board requesting a one hundred sixty (160) square foot sign for this location. That evening an eighty-(80) square foot sign was approved. The owner, Mr. Ziata, has asked to re-design the sign and has come up with a more modern looking one. It is seventy-three (73) square feet instead of eighty (80) square feet. We are asking the Board to approve this seventy-three (73) square foot sign as opposed to the eighty-(80) square foot sign that had been approved previously.

Chairman Brennan indicated that there were seven (7) notices sent to neighbors. No approvals or objections had been submitted.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

There was no audience participation.

DISCUSSION

Chairman Brennan: We gave you approval for an eighty-(80) foot. You want something less and that is great.

Moved by Reinke,

Seconded by Bauer,

THAT IN CASE NO. 99-090 THE PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A SEVENTY THREE (73) SQUARE FOOT SIGN BE GRANTED FOR BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION.

Roll Call: Yeas (6) Nays (0) Motion Carried

DISCUSSION

Member Harrington: Is this limited to this petitioner like the prior approval?

Member Reinke: Yes.

Ronald M. Kachman of the Building Design Group Inc., representing Marvin Poota, is requesting a variance for one (1) parking space at the proposed building location at 43025 Grand River Avenue.

Ronald Kachman was present and duly sworn.

Chairman Brennan: This is the Novi Party Store, correct?

Ronald Kachman: Yes, it is.

Ronald Kachman: We are before you requesting a variance for one (1) parking space for a convenience store that has been extensively worked on with the Town Center Committee and Planning Commission. We have worked out a design that has revolved around a couple of things. We did put an addition behind the original building. The Town Center Committee and Planning Commission requested to flip the building, tear down the old building and come up with a new design. We have worked with the Town Center Committee on this and have evolved to this particular design where we had our own particular driveway going out of the site. We met the parking requirements with this particular design. However, the Building and Planning Departments would like to see a shared drive with the people to the east of our site. We provided an access into the Main Street development behind us. This particular design is the one that went before the Planning Commission and received approval based upon the different elements that were required. The driveway that was created pushed the parking back and we lost one (1) parking space. However, with this particular design it allows for better circulation and flow through the site. The Planning Commission and Town Center Committee was very receptive as to what we have done. They gave approval based upon a variance of one (1) parking space. This design will enhance the area and has pushed the building back. It will open up the site into the Main Street project.

Chairman Brennan indicated that there were twenty-six (26) notices sent to neighbors. No approvals or objections had been submitted.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

There was no audience participation.

DISCUSSION

Chairman Brennan: I am in favor of anything that can be done in that particular strip to make it look better. It has probably served its purpose in the 70’s. I think that what is being presented is a nice addition to the community and I support it.

Member Harrington: I reviewed the minutes from the Planning Commission. I strongly support what you are doing and the variance is minor in nature. That entire area of Novi is in desperate need of significant improvement.

Member Reinke: It is a definite improvement and the encroachment that is going into a variance that is required is minimal. I will support the petitioner’s request.

Member Bauer: How soon do you expect to have it done?

Ronald Kachman: As soon as we get the variance we will be going into building permits next week.

Moved by Harrington,

Seconded by Bauer,

THAT IN CASE NO. 00-001 TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE AS SUBMITTED BY REASON OF THE HARDSHIP AND THE UNIQUE LOT SIZE CONFIURATION AS WELL AS THE FACT THAT THE PARKING VARIANCE ITSELF IS MINIMAL.

Roll Call: Yeas (6) Nays (0) Motion Carried

Matthew C. Quinn, representing Novi Equities is requesting a use variance to allow all B-2 principle permitted uses within an existing I-1 Zoning District. The property containing 57.06 acres is located south of Grand River and east of Wixom Road, sidwell number 50-22-17-101-018.

David Gillam was present and duly sworn.

David Gillam submitted one (1) document as part of the record.

David Gillam: Out of the fifty-seven (57) acres, about fifty (50) acres is developable based upon the fact that there are woodlands and wetlands on the property. There is a little bit of history here in terms of the Master Plan designation of the property in prior City Council action. I would direct the Board’s attention to your own Rules of Procedure. There are five (5) points that the Board is to take a look at in determining whether or not a use variance is appropriate. The first being whether or not the land can reasonably be used as it is currently zoned. The zoning on the parcel right now is I-1, Light Industrial, and we are requesting a use variance to B-2, Community Commercial. As indicated in the materials that Mr. Quinn has provided, there has been basically no industrial development on that site at all for the thirty five (35) years that Novi Equities has owned that property. The document that I have just passed out right now is from Sanford Green, the Vice-President of Real Estate. Over the past fifteen-(15) years there has been no inquiry made as to anyone that wants the site for purposes of industrial use. There has been no inquiry made from anyone that is interested in having industrial buildings put up for them to use on that particular site. There has been no one that has inquired about leasing industrial buildings. In terms of industrial use, this is a dead spot. Part of it is attributable to the fact that the city has already dedicated one thousand (1,000) acres to the new OST zoning classification. The higher end Light Industrial uses that would typically and historically have gone to this particular site are not going to be going to this site now. They will be going to the OST zoning along the Haggerty / 12 Mile Corridor. At this particular location, we have the disadvantage of Cadillac Asphalt being directly across Wixom Road and Perfection Steel being directly south. These are traditional heavy industrial uses that are thought of as more dirty and less attractive than some others. The high end uses that would normally be coming in to an industrial site like the one we have are not going to be going there for that reason as well. There are better places for them to go in the city of Novi.

David Gillam: The second factor that you need to look at is whether or not there are unique circumstances involving this particular piece of property. A significant portion of the property is wetlands or woodlands that would be regulated by the city. It could not be subject to development on the fact that seven (7) acres cannot be developed effects our ability to market that as an industrial site. Also, there are heavy industrial uses nearby and those two (2) factors would distinguish this particular site from any other site within the city of Novi.

David Gillam: The third criteria is whether or not the use variance would alter the essential character of the area. The site has been evaluated for purposes of the Master Plan and also the proposed rezoning that had gone before the Planning Commission and Council. Mr. Arroyo’s position is that what was proposed, B-2, is compatible with the existing uses in that area. Obviously the Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Arroyo, both in terms of their adoption of the Master Plan, which reflects the site as B-2 and also with their approval of the proposed rezoning. Although City Council had turned down that proposed rezoning, the Planning Commission felt to the same extent that Mr. Arroyo did that what is proposed is compatible.

David Gillam: The fourth part is whether or not the situation is self-created. Obviously, we did not put the woodlands and wetlands at that particular site. We were not involved in the placement of the nearby heavy industrial uses. We were not involved in the creation of the OST zoning and competing districts of the city. We are not the ones that have refused to rezone the property to B-2, contrary to the Master Plan and recommendation of the Planning Commission.

David Gillam: Finally, whether or not the use variance would impair the intent or purpose of the Zoning Ordinance or the Master Plan. We think just the opposite. We think that granting the use variance would be consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.

David Gillam: The unnecessary hardship that we would have to show to be entitled to the variance must include some or all of the aforementioned. It is our position that we have established all of the elements that would entitle us to the use variance. If the Zoning Board is uncomfortable with a blanket variance in this particular case then I would indicate that we would have no objection to a qualification or a condition on the variance. The Special Land Use is set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, which is a gasoline service station. We have no interest in putting in a gasoline service station at this particular site. We are talking about community commercial development as permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. We would have no objection if you would like to condition the grant of the Special Use upon us not putting in the Special Use of the gasoline service station.

Chairman Brennan indicated that there were eighteen (18) notices sent to neighbors. No approvals or objections had been submitted.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

There was no audience participation.

DISCUSSION

Member Harrington: While I was looking at the application that was submitted there was a subsection A and B. The first subsection is an appeal from the Novi City Council’s decision of December 06, 1999. Are you suggesting that this an appeal that we have some sort of review power over City Council?

David Gillam: No, I think that Mr. Quinn drafted it and we have been provided with a copy of the opinion that Mr. Watson had issued. After reviewing it, we agree with his opinion.

Member Harrington: So the sole issue is whether or not to grant the use variance to allow all B-2 principle permitted uses, correct?

David Gillam: That is correct.

Member Harrington: Was that the identical relief that you sought before Council on December 6?

David Gillam: As a practical matter, yes. Although the form that was requested was an actual rezoning of the property.

Member Harrington: All seven (7) members of Council denied that application?

David Gillam: It is my understanding, from reviewing the minutes.

Member Harrington: Is there anything preventing Novi Equities from putting in an industrial site on that parcel?

David Gillam: I don’t think that they are in the business of developing an industrial site. Our business is commercial development.

Sanford Green: For the last fifteen-(15) years we have maintained the property with the existing zoning. We have at various times endeavored to market this property as an industrial property and received no interest whatsoever. Physically, there is nothing that would restrain us from developing the property as an industrial property. However, it has no use as an industrially zoned property, which is why we asked for a change.

Member Harrington: It has no use or it has no use at the price that it has been listed at?

Sanford Green: It has attained no interest at any price. We simply tried to solicit interest in general without speaking about a price and were unable to.

David Gillam: I think that is reflected in the letter that I gave you tonight. It indicated for the last fifteen-(15) years that there has been no interest in the site at all.

Member Harrington: My reaction is that it is awfully thin when I hear from petitioner’s that we can’t sell it and do what we would like to be able to do with it. When it involves use issue and the effect of which is to spot-zone the parcel I become very concerned at either the aggressive efforts or the price that is being sought. I am not impressed with the efforts that have been made by the owners of this parcel to use it for industrial over any period of time. I am looking at the letter and I am looking at the other materials. I carefully reflected on what the city of Novi has intended for that parcel and I am straining to find why I should spot-zone this parcel, especially when City Council unanimously voted it down.

Chairman Brennan: I think that there is some documentation in the packet that told us that city services, sewer and water, have only recently been installed in that area. This may impact the ability to market that property industrial. I wonder whether this request for rezoning is premature.

Dennis Watson: I think that the Board has correctly hit on the fact that you don’t have authority to rezone the property or reverse a decision that City Council has. It is entirely a use variance issue. The standard is whether the property can reasonably be put to a zoned use and whether it is shown clearly to you. In other words, is there substantial evidence to support a claim that the property can’t reasonably be put to a use that is consistent with the existing zoning? If you are satisfied that they have made that case then you can grant the variance. If you are not satisfied then you should not grant it. If you think that you need additional information then you certainly have the authority to take a step back and seek that additional information. I would point out that Mr. Arroyo is also here if you care for any comment as to the use of the property.

Chairman Brennan: I think that this may be premature and this area of Novi is on the verge of development. The fact that there are now city services to that parcel may have a different impact on your ability to market it. My gut feel is to not support your application but also say that it may be a little early. If you can come back in a year from now and say that you can’t sell it then you might have a stronger case.

Member Reinke: I think that I echo the direction that the Board is going. We may have problems with mismatched zoning and spot zoning and will create more of a problem that we have tried to eliminate.

Member Meyer: I would like to hear Mr. Arroyo’s comments regarding whether or not it can be clearly shown that this land cannot be used for the zoned use that it is presently identified for.

Rod Arroyo: We provided some background information to help you make your decision and help you make the findings that you are required to make. This land does abut I-1 property to the east and there is I-2 property to the south. There is also a fairly significant woodland and wetland area that buffers the property to the south and the east. There was an applicant that approached the city last year across the street and asked for I-1 zoning. The property on the west side of Wixom Road was rezoned to I-1, OST and B-2, known as the Pellerito property. There does appear to be some interest in I-1 in this area. Along the Grand River frontage, there is primarily B zoning.

Chairman Brennan: You presented an opinion during the Council meeting and you heard the Council’s reaction. Did that alter your opinion at all?

Rod Arroyo: I think that we have to look at the case at hand. At the Council meeting, I did not support the designation of this property as commercial property when the Master Plan was prepared. I felt that it should say in the designation that was either in the industrial or OST type designation. The Planning Commission disagreed with that and they choose to designate this property for commercial use. The application came before us for rezoning and we reviewed it. The Master Plan is the document of the Planning Commission and is not my document. We reviewed the Master Plan and found that the application for rezoning was consistent. We made a recommendation based upon our review. Tonight there is a request for a use variance. Standards for a use variance are much different than looking at the standards for a rezoning. I think that there are standards before you, in terms of what you need to look it, and they are different than what City Council would consider in looking at a rezoning application. I would suggest that you focus on those particular standards in looking at this and draw a conclusion based upon those standards.

Chairman Brennan: With respect to timing, how did this match up with the Beck Road / Grand River project that was approved for commercial?

Tamara Buswinka: I am not aware of any correlation.

Chairman Brennan: Not correlation, but in terms of timing of their request for rezoning and when that project took place. I ask the question because part of the contention of the petitioner is that commercial is needed on the west side. While the general consensus is correct we have recently had a new and different project in the approval process at Beck/Grand River. I wonder if the additional commercial district is really required at this time. I live at Ten/Beck and that whole western end of the city is in the midst of development. I am on this Board because of a Special Land Use case eight (8) years ago. I am very sensitive to Special Land Use and I have nothing in front of me tonight that tells me that this needs to be something that we approve tonight.

Member Bauer: I have not seen anything tonight that has changed my mind to give them a variance.

Member Meyer: I appreciate Mr. Arroyo’s thoughts and the distinction that you have made between what this Board can do regarding a use variance and what the Council/Planning Commission can do regarding rezoning.

Member Sanghvi: Maybe we should table this for a year instead of rejecting it.

Chairman Brennan: That is an option that we can give the petitioner. The suggestion was rather than making a motion or move towards denial, we could table this for a bit.

David Gillam: With all due respect, I would say no. We would ask for a decision from the Zoning Board tonight as to the special use. We have been in this position for thirty-five (35) years and as far as we are concerned another year won’t make a difference.

Chairman Brennan: It was pretty clear on your application that the attendance tonight was a requirement in pursuit of getting what you want. It allows you to move to where you want to go next.

Moved by Meyer,

Seconded by Bauer,

THAT IN CASE NO. 00-003 TO DENY THE REQUEST DUE TO THE FACT OF NOT BEING ABLE TO CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE LAND CANNOT BE USED FOR THIS ZONED PURPOSE THAT IT IS ALREADY DESIGNATED FOR.

Roll Call: Yeas (6) Nays (0) Motion Carried

DISCUSSION

Member Harrington: I am strongly supporting the motion and I want to make clear that in supporting the motion the record is de-void of a factual basis to find that efforts have been made. The burden is on the petitioner, not on the Board. We have a letter and a conclusive statement about not having been approached by people. If they were to come back a year from now and show listing agreements, what competitive parcels are selling for in the same/similar regions and something about this property that it can’t market then that is a different evidentiary basis. All we have are conclusions and for that reason I am supporting the motion.

Kim Weedman, owner, is requesting three (3) variances to allow a second story addition to be constructed over an existing legal non-conforming structure located at 303 Duana.

Kim Weedman and Wally Baker were present and duly sworn.

Wally Baker: Kim’s house was built approximately forty-five (45) years ago. Kim’s mother, Linda, is moving in. The house has twenty-four (24) foot front setbacks, which should be thirty (30), and the side yard setbacks are three (3) and six and a half (6 ½). We are asking if it would be possible to build on top of the structure.

Kim Weedman: We would not be going wider, we just want to go on top.

Chairman Brennan indicated that there were thirty (30) notices sent to neighbors. There were three (3) approvals and no objections. I would like to read one that came from Joyce and Troy Enochs. It states "Please let Kim Weedman have her three variances. I know first-hand (being in front of the ZBA) that you are a great group of people and will make the right decision."

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

There was no audience participation.

DISCUSSION

Member Reinke: This is another case of lot configuration and size. Due to the size of the home and family then I see the need.

Moved by Reinke,

Seconded by Bauer,

THAT IN CASE NO. 00-002 THE PETITIONER’S VARIANCE IS GRANTED DUE TO LOT SIZE CONFIGURATION.

Roll Call: Yeas (6) Nays (0) Motion Carried

DISCUSSION

Chairman Brennan: I will note that this area of Novi generally draws a lot of attention when the neighbors do not have support. I see no one in the audience so I suspect that you have full support.

Michael P. Storm of Tru-Cut Landscaping, Inc., owner is wishing to continue his landscaping business with outside storage in a Light-Industrial zoning district abutting a residential for a period of two years.

Chairman Brennan: Seeing no one in the audience, I suspect that this gentleman is not here. No one is coming to the podium. Board members, what is your preference?

Moved by Harrington,

Seconded by Reinke,

THAT IN CASE NO. 00-004 TO DENY BY REASON OF NON-APPEARANCE AND ABANDONMENT OF THE VARIANCE PETITION.

Roll Call: Yeas (6) Nays (0) Motion Carried

DISCUSSION

Chairman Brennan: Did we have any contact from them at all?

Sarah Marchioni: I sent a notice in the mail but I did not talk to him or receive anything that he would not be attending.

Chairman Brennan: This is the time of year that we look at re-distributing the pain. We will accept nominations for a new Chair.

Moved by Bauer,

Seconded by Reinke,

TO NOMINATE MEMBER HARRINGTON AS THE NEW CHAIR

Roll Call: Yeas (6) Nays (0) Motion Carried

Moved by Harrington,

Seconded by Bauer,

TO NOMINATE MEMBER FANNON AS THE NEW VICE-CHAIR

Roll Call: Yeas (6) Nays (0) Motion Carried

Moved by Reinke,

Seconded by Harrington,

TO NOMINATE MEMBER BAUER AS THE NEW SECRETARY

Roll Call: Yeas (6) Nays (0) Motion Carried

Member Harrington: I will be out of the country on March 7, which is our next scheduled meeting. If there is anyone else that is unavailable then I would like to move it a week.

All of the members stated that they would be at the meeting.

Chairman Brennan: Would you like Member Fannon to Chair?

Member Harrington: Either you (Brennan) or Member Fannon.

Member Harrington: I was reasonably struck by the continued presence of two (2) temporary signs on one of the buildings in the north end that was rejected last month.

Moved by Harrington,

Seconded by Bauer,

TO AMEND THE RULES OF PROCEDURE TO PROVIDE THAT TEMPORARY SIGNS ("MOCK-UPS") BE REMOVED WITHIN FIVE (5) DAYS AFTER OUR ACTING UPON THE PETITION.

Roll Call: Yeas (6) Nays (0) Motion Carried

DISCUSSION

Member Harrington: I am making this motion and we should vote on it. I would suggest that we vote on this motion at next month’s meeting. If we are going to revise the Rules of Procedure then we should give some sort of notice because people in the community may have input on what we are doing.

Member Sanghvi: Five (5) working days?

Member Harrington: Yes, five (5) working days. Also, I do not know that we have the process formalized in the Rules of Procedure.

Chairman Brennan: I like the idea. I have seen the same thing going on with temporary signs being up for a long time.

Alan Amolsch: On a number of occasions I have had to contact the applicant to tell them to take the signs down.

Chairman Brennan: In the Building Department are we handing out the handout regarding procedures on signs?

Don Saven: Yes, we are.

Chairman Brennan: A recommendation is that we make it a line item on the bottom. If they do get a variance for a sign then the mock-ups have to be down in five (5) days.

Member Harrington: I think the burden should be on them and that would be part of the proposal.

Member Bauer: You are saying that you would like the petitioner to ask if he can leave the temporary sign up until he gets the new one?

Member Harrington: Yes.

Member Reinke: I agree with it but I wonder if this is really part of our rules or part of the Ordinance.

Alan Amolsch: Well, the Ordinance does not allow banner signs to begin with so in this case they are not permitted anyway. The only reason that they are allowed is because of the Zoning Board of Appeals’ request.

The Meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.

Date Approved: March 07, 2000 __________________________________

Sarah Marchioni

Recording Secretary