REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF NOVI

TUESDAY - JUNE 6, 1995

CIVIC CENTER - 45175 TEN MILE RD.

The Meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m., with Chairman Antosiak presiding.

PRESENT: Members Bauer, Harris, Antosiak, Harrington,

Brennan, Reinke

ABSENT: Baty (alternate)

ALSO PRESENT: Donald M. Saven - Building Official

Greg Capote - Staff Planner

Alan Amolsch - Ordinance Enforcement Officer

Nancy McKernan - Recording Secretary

*****************************************************************

Chairman Antosiak indicated we have a quorum tonight. The meeting is now in session. The Novi Zoning Board of Appeals is a hearing board empowered by the Novi City Charter to hear appeals seeking variances from Novi Zoning Ordinances and their application as enforced and reviewed by the Building Department. It takes a vote of at least four (4) Members to grant a variance request. We have a full Board tonight, so any decision that is made tonight will be final.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Chairman Antosiak indicated I have one change to propose for the agenda. We have been given a request from the Novi Hilton to table their sign variance request until next meeting due to an unexpected illness.

Moved by Member Harris,

Seconded by Vice-Chairman Harrington,

TO APPROVE THE AGENDA FOR THE JUNE 6, 1995 MEETING AS AMENDED.

ROLL CALL: (VOICE VOTE) (ALL YEAS) MOTION CARRIED

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

Moved by Member Bauer,

Seconded by Vice-Chairman Harrington,

TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 2, 1995 MEETING AS WRITTEN.

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 2 JUNE 6, 1995

ROLL CALL: (VOICE VOTE) (ALL YEAS) MOTION CARRIED

PUBLIC REMARKS:

Chairman Antosiak indicated this is our Public Remarks portion of the Meeting. We ask that all comments related to cases before the Board this evening to be heard at the time that each case is called. However, if there is anyone in the audience who would like to address the Board on any matter not related to a specific case before us; this is the time to do so. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to come forward at this time?

Kingsley Cotton I am an attorney for Hughlan Development. We were before you back in October regarding the Vistas. I thought I would take about 2 or 3 minutes tonight and update you on what is happening at the Vistas and let you know where we are with regard to issues that may be coming before you.

Kingsley Cotton indicated you may recall that when we were here in October we said, with your permission, that we would come back in February to address a couple of issues that you had problems with the night that we were here in October. I want to tell you about that and just let you know in general what is going on with the project.

Kingsley Cotton indicated I have taken the liberty of copying a diagram of the project that I would like to pass out just for reference purposes, because I don't think that we gave you one the last time we were here. Copies given to Board Members.

Kingsley Cotton indicated one of our concerns is having to come before this Board to frequently. I know that may have been a problem with other developments of this scope in the past and so believe me we have worked hours and hours with your staff to try to isolate issues that are necessary for this Board and to try to expedite getting them here or getting as many of them here as soon as possible. I guess what I wanted to do was to share with you tonight the frustration and the problem that we are having in doing that and just by way of information to let you know that despite our best efforts you haven't seen the last of us and this is a long project and it is a big project and essentially what our problem is that it is difficult for us to articulate now a possible zoning problem that we might be having 4 years from now in Phase 15.

Kingsley Cotton indicated as you can see from the diagram, the project is phased; beginning with Phase 1 to Phase 16. For orientation purposes you can see Decker Road, the new Decker Road cutting through at an angle; so the top of the page is north. Phase 1 has begun and models are going up there now. We are currently working on Phase 2 with the infrastructure. The Village Center Commercial, for your information, is going to be right up at REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 3 JUNE 6, 1995

the top in the middle in Phase 4, 5, 6 and 8. Phases 4, 5 and 6 are along Thirteen Mile and then Phase 8 is a little to the south. Phase 11 will also contain some of the "live-work" areas of the development as will Phase 8.

Kingsley Cotton indicated as I said one of the problems that we have had, and once again I am just sharing this with you; is the City is requiring us as is their right to comply with the underlying zoning even though this is a Planned Unit Development. So, where in some municipalities, a Planned Unit Development would permit the developer and the City Council to negotiate or sign a contract regarding all zoning issues without the necessity of coming to the Board; in this City we have been asked to come before this Board for any type of deviation from the underlying existing zoning. So, to the extent that this property or a great majority of it is zoned RA, that presents problems for us in an 1100 unit development.

Kingsley Cotton indicated just to finish up here, what I wanted to mention was that when we were here in October you asked us to come back with more details about projecting signs into the front or actually into the right of way over the sidewalk in our village center-commercial. We were talking about putting 4 foot signs perpendicular to the buildings. We still intend to come back with you and I can see how busy your agendas are, but probably in July or August with some graphics to demonstrate what we have in mind there and that is what we were lacking when we were here the last time. I don't think that we did a good enough job, frankly, last time of demonstrating to you the types of signs that we were looking for and what we intended for the Village Center-Commercial. So that variance is right for consideration and we intend to be back in the next month or two, regarding that.

Kingsley Cotton indicated the other thing that you asked us to come back for was garage heights, detached garage heights. We were asking for additional room on the second story with that. We intend to be back later this summer with that.

Kingsley Cotton indicated we are having trouble with builder's signage. The ordinance in this City permits one builder's sign per project. Due to the scope of this project and the number of different builders that we are going to have, we are in the process of working out a comprehensive sign plan that we hope to present to the Planning Commission and the Building Department and then we will determine what variances are needed for this Board.

Kingsley Cotton indicated a couple of examples of the things that are premature are: there is either a 40 or 50 foot setback around the entire development required by the PUD Ordinance and there are certain areas within the development where we believe that driveways, sidewalks or other flat work may encroach into that

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 4 JUNE 6, 1995

setback. We would like to be able to tell you where all that is right now, so that we could come before you and seek some relief based on our plans. But, at this point it is so far down the road that the Building Department has suggested that it is premature to do that and of course we are in agreement with that.

Kingsley Cotton indicated other things that we are not ready, and we know that there is going to be problems having to do with in Phase 2 there is an eyebrow development and we want to put a gazebo in the center of the eyebrow and we think it may encroach on the setback there; but the site plan hasn't been developed yet so we think that is premature to come before you.

Kingsley Cotton indicated other examples would be; we have a flag park planned down in the southwest corner where Decker meets Novi Road and we want to submit detailed site plans before we can determine what variances are going to be needed.

Kingsley Cotton indicated I will conclude now and just say thank you for hearing me out; I am open to any questions that you may have regarding the development. The fact that we didn't come back to you in February; we did speak with Mr. Saven about that and he concurred in our judgment during the month of March that there were on going negotiations with the City Council and the lengthy PUD agreement has been executed with the City Council. We are a long way off from fly specking everything and so despite our best intentions I apologize that we cannot come before you and seek all of the variances that we need.

Member Harris indicated this is for the Building Department. When they do come back; I would appreciate a summary of the variances granted and what phases they are applicable in, since it is going to be a prolonged process we can keep those things straight.

Don Saven indicated one of the things that we did run into problems was that it was the wishes of the Board to try to condense everything in a one time shot, as we had discussed earlier on. This became very difficult to try to speculate even prior to having any Planning Commission reviews or anything of this nature. A lot of things are a little bit premature at this particular time, so we are going to consolidate all those particular ones that we have and he will be back at that time.

James Korte, Shawood Lake Area. I would like to introduce myself as sitting on a Board; a new Homeowners Subdivision for South, East Lake and Shawood/Walled Lake Heights. I will be our liaison if you should need, or if we feel that you should need, something with regards to our new homeowners area. I would like to remind you that we at the north end have problems like nobody else. We didn't ask for them, the nature of the beast, the age of the developments that we live in and ask for you to do as you have done in the past, REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 5 JUNE 6, 1995

your very best, and understand that we are like no other. Maudlin, and there are members and Austin is very busy this evening. Our subdivision organization would not be commenting on any of these, we see nothing wrong with any of those as they flow. Except you see, as seeing as how I am here; I will get my 2 cents worth. Thank you. I will be the liaison, if necessity arises. Thank you.

Ludwig & Associates, Ltd., representing Aspen Woods Condominiums, is requesting a variance from the 75' perimeter property line setback for the cluster option for units 12 through 17 and a variance from the requirement that clusters of units consist of between 2 and 4 buildings and allow a single unit cluster in one location for property located on Eleven Mile easterly of Beck Rd.

Ray Cousineau was present and duly sworn.

Ray Cousineau indicated I am representing Tri-Mount, the owner of the property. Ludwig and Associates are the designers or planners. I have a couple of boards to put up here.

Ray Cousineau indicated I am going to try to be brief, I know that you have a long agenda and I want to see the hockey game.

Ray Cousineau indicated this site plan before you this evening or the variances before you are the result of our site plan for Aspen Woods. It is cluster development, located on the south side of Eleven Mile between Beck and Taft Road. We have used the cluster provisions of the Ordinance to develop a single family condominium site of detached dwellings, that again still qualifies under the cluster option. This site plan, has been approved by the Planning Commission subject to us receiving the variances from this Board.

Ray Cousineau indicated again, so you understand. We have spent over 2 years working on this particular site. We have also spent well over $75,000.00 in engineering and planning fees to develop this particular proposal and bring this site plan to where it is right now. It is a single family development. It is going to be constructed into the flavor of a subdivision, even though it has been developed under the cluster option. We have an approval for 31 units, which is the site plan that is before you this evening. It is on 27 acres, which is a density of 1.2 dwelling units per acre. The ordinance which permits 1.65 dwelling units per acre would yield 45 units on this particular piece of property. So we are proposing 31 and 45 would be permitted. The underlying zoning is R1.

Ray Cousineau indicated this site plan preserves over 68% of the site in natural features; woodlands, wetlands and open space.

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 6 JUNE 6, 1995

Again, over 68% of this site will be left virtually untouched. Included in that 68% are over 5 acres of upland woodlands and over 10 acres of wetlands.

Ray Cousineau indicated again this plan has been approved by the Planning Commission and this plan has also been recommended by all of the City Consultants. The City Consultants have also recommended the granting of the variances before you this evening.

Ray Cousineau indicated regarding the 2 variances that we need: The first variance is a variance of a 75 foot side yard setback. In this particular area of the site, this is the east property line of the site (Mr. Cousineau was pointing to the boards he had brought to the meeting.) and Eleven Mile is to my right and this is the south portion of the site. This is Lochmoor Village through here. The cluster ordinance requires a 75 foot perimeter setback on all perimeter property lines. We have maintained that setback except in this particular location where the physical constraints of the site have caused us to tighten up our design and we have submitted a request for a variance from 75 feet to a 35 foot side yard setback. The 30 foot side yard setback complies with the R1 zoning for single family subdivisions. So, we feel that it is something that is justifiable. Again, it is something that we need to have a variance approved for to be able to build in this particular location of the site. The option is to shift the roadway. If you notice in this location we have units abutting Lochmoor and we have the roadway shifted down to the west. An option that is approvable and complies with all ordinance requirements is to simply take that roadway and push it up adjacent to Lochmoor Village, where you would create what you call a double frontage roadway. This roadway would be essentially into the back yards of the lots in Lochmoor Village. Again, that is something that is approvable; we have submitted this design to the City; the Consultants and the Planning Commission have found it undesirable and they have asked us to pursue the option that is before you this evening. That option, shifting the roadway into a proper design location and getting it away from the rear yards of Lochmoor Village, creates the need for the variance on the side yard setback from 75' to 35'.

Ray Cousineau indicated I have also included in your packet a letter from the Pulte Homes Corporation, which are the developers/builders of Lochmoor supporting this particular request.

Ray Cousineau indicated the second request is a request for a variance that would allow a single unit cluster. That request applies to this particular unit, in this location. (pointing to board) This is a blow up of that particular area. Originally we had proposed a 2 unit cluster, which complies with the ordinance. That 2 unit cluster is represented by the highlighted red lines, one unit, two unit. (pointing to board). Again, that was

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 7 JUNE 6, 1995

something that was proposed originally, we took it before the Planning Commission, they felt that we should modify that 2 unit cluster to reduce it geometrically; get the dimensions down as small as possible to eliminate encroachments of the buildable area within the wetland buffer. The 2 units, as we originally proposed were outside of the wetland area itself; but they did result in some grading encroachment into the buffered area. We redesigned the 2 units, modified the geometrics, shrunk them down, tightened them up to the roadway and submitted that plan to the Planning Commission. It significantly reduced the encroachments into the buffer area; but it did not eliminate them altogether. The Planning Commission felt that a better design would be to eliminate the 2 units; allow one unit only, and thereby eliminate all encroachments in to the wetland buffer area. We took the Planning Commission's recommendation, eliminated the 2 units and ended up with a single unit. We made it clear to the Planning Commission that it would require a variance of this Board and they understood that and said to go and get the variance.

Ray Cousineau indicated again, I have a letter from the Pulte Homes Corporation supporting this particular variance request.

Ray Cousineau indicated the hardships for both of these requests are somewhat similar. The site is very unique in terms of its geometrics but more so it is unique in terms of its natural features. Most of the site, as I have indicated, well over 2/3rds of the site is natural features; woodlands, wetlands, upland woodlands. We have done our utmost to preserve those features and in so doing we have created the need for some variances which are before you this evening.

Ray Cousineau indicated we think that the variances are reasonable in our request. They follow the recommendations of your planners. They will not adversely impact the surrounding properties or surrounding areas. They will not establish a precedent that you will have to deal with in the future because these are site specific variances, that are related to our particular site design and they really will not in any way undermine any of the criteria established by the cluster ordinance. With that I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Chairman Antosiak indicated there was a total of 57 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There was a total of 2 written responses received both voicing approval. Copies in file.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

There was no audience participation.

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 8 JUNE 6, 1995

Don Saven had no comment.

Greg Capote had no comment.

Member Reinke indicated I think that there has been a lot of work and effort that has been put in by the Planning Commission and by the petitioner on this. I think that they have probably done as much as they can to adjust to minimum encroachment and I think that they have done a very good job on doing that.

Member Harris inquired the underlying zoning is R1? So the 35' setback would meet the normal R1 zoning?

Greg Capote indicated yes, that is correct.

Moved by Member Harris,

Seconded by Member Reinke,

THAT IN CASE NO. 95-038 TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE AS REQUESTED FOR THE PERIMETER PROPERTY LINE SETBACK TO BE REDUCED TO 35 FEET, GRANTING A 40 FOOT VARIANCE FOR UNITS 12 THROUGH 17. ALSO TO ALLOW A VARIANCE TO THE OPTION FOR UNIT 20 TO BE BUILT AS A SINGLE UNIT.

ROLL CALL: YEAS (6) NAYS (0) MOTION CARRIED

James D. Howie is requesting a variance to the Home Occupation Ordinance, Section 201 c, to allow for the retail sales of fire arms in his home located at 46155 Nine Mile Rd.

James Howie was present and duly sworn.

James Howie indicated I would like to pass a handout to the Board.

James Howie indicated as mentioned I am requesting a variance to have a retail business in my home. I have had the business previously. I am requesting the variance because of 3 concerns, hardship, previous approval and no violations.

James Howie indicated Hardship; it is impossible for me to conduct my business without a business permit. I need a business permit for a legal address. I also need that for financial statements, tax requirements, invoices, dealer transactions, compliance with BATF regulations and trade shows.

James Howie indicated secondly previous approval was given to me for my business from the City of Novi.

James Howie indicated thirdly I have had no violations in my

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 9 JUNE 6, 1995

business or conducting my business.

James Howie indicated I am located on 2.1 acres. I have a 250' black top driveway. No secondary buildings are involved. No traffic congestion or problems. Sales by appointment only. Sales are conducted after 7:30 p.m. I have one customer per appointment. I conduct my business discretely, legally and openly.

James Howie indicated attachments to the package is the prior business permit, a Michigan sales tax license, a Federal Fire Arms License and the Notice of Appeal for this Board.

James Howie indicated gentleman, I accept your comments.

Chairman Antosiak indicated there was a total of 19 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There was 5 written responses received, all voicing objection. Copies in file.

Tom VanHorn, I live in Echo Valley Subdivision. I am not a gun advocate, but I just feel that the Ordinance that was passed was definitely discriminatory against anyone that would like to sell fire arms. If we are worried about safety, then we should maybe limit liquor licensing and cigarette sales close to children a lot more than we are gun owners. I am just concerned this is a business for this man that sounds pretty reputable and I feel that the original ordinance that was passed was very discriminatory. If he has carried on a business and he has a lot of property there......I have a question. Are ammunitions sold with the weapons?

James Howie indicated no.

Tom VanHorn indicated empty guns do not shoot people. I just feel that it should be passed. I think this is another discriminatory act against anyone that is interested in fire arms and I think it is a double standard when you are looking at the other vices that take place in our society. Thank you.

Steve Tracey, 22125 Beck Road. I would like to encourage this body to grant a variance in this case or in the absence of that variance granted they should pursue with all due diligence any other individual in the City taking part in a home business including Mary Kay representatives, Amway. Shaklee and things like that. If the ordinance is to be enforced it should be enforced uniformly.

Member Brennan inquired how long have you had this business? That was one thing that was missing on this summary.

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 10 JUNE 6, 1995

James Howie indicated it will be 3 years this February. It is interesting with this business to the fact that not only am I regulated by the BATF and the Internal Revenue, my customers are also regulated. People just don't walk up and offer to purchase; they have to go to their local Police Department and have the necessary paperwork. There is a tremendous amount of regulation. This is one business where both the customer and the sales person are regulated.

Member Brennan inquired do you keep any stock and trade? Do you keep a surplus of weapons in your home to demonstrate or to show clients?

James Howie indicated no I don't. I try to comply with the ordinance of not having retail sales inventory. The catch 22 is the fact that if I do have a customer and he orders something; I have to get that order from a distributor and have it in my home. Now, that becomes inventory. It wouldn't have been inventory if I didn't have the offer or the down payment for the item.

Member Harris inquired are you required by the Federal Government to sell it out of your home solely?

James Howie indicated no, I can also sell at trade shows and that was an issue that I was going to mention. I can't attend trade shows if I don't have my business permit which gives my legal address. The BATF outlined retail sales, but I also have wholesale sales between other dealers which I have accomplished?

Member Harris inquired was the change in the federal regulation that required the approval of the local municipality, what created this hardship for you?

James Howie indicated yes it did. Previously I was approved by Novi for my business permit. This was a renewal of the permit. I am going through the channels for renewal and that is why I am here, gentleman.

Member Brennan inquired is this your only source of income?

James Howie indicated no, it isn't.

Chairman Antosiak inquired if you so elected, you could rent a store front or acquire a commercial property and operate your business out of that, could you not?

James Howie indicated to do that, I would have to have another address and the address would be where that location is.

Vice-Chairman Harrington inquired what is your other occupation?

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 11 JUNE 6, 1995

James Howie indicated I am an operations manager, for Textron Automotive.

Vice-Chairman Harrington inquired that is your full time job?

James Howie indicated yes it is.

Vice-Chairman Harrington inquired the sales that you engage in are in the nature of a side line?

James Howie indicated yes they are.

Vice-Chairman Harrington inquired have you ever been cited by the Novi Police?

James Howie indicated no sir I haven't. I have also called the enforcement agencies and spoke with them. There have been no citations and things are running well.

Vice-Chairman Harrington inquired to the best of your knowledge in the 3 years that you have been engaged in casual sales of fire arms without ammunition; have you ever been the subject of any government citation?

James Howie indicated none. As a matter of fact, I have been interviewed by the BATF prior to the license and went over my business plan with them and they understood what I was trying to do. You start small and you build yourself up.

Vice-Chairman Harrington indicated when I think in terms of a business, I often think in terms of a commercial enterprise which may have signage and the like. Do you have a great big sign in front of your house saying "Gun Sales".

James Howie indicted no sir, no signs, no secondary buildings. Just my home.

Member Harris inquired do your immediate neighbors know that you had the gun sales prior to this?

James Howie indicated I don't know. I haven't asked them .

Member Harris indicated there has been no discussion with it prior; has there been any discussion since that has been posted.

James Howie indicated there has been no discussion ever.

Vice-Chairman Harrington inquired what security arrangements, do you have in your household for guns which may be in transit between sales?

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 12 JUNE 6, 1995

James Howie indicated I have everything locked up in my basement, and I have 2 dogs that patrol the house?

Vice-Chairman Harrington inquired what are they locked in?

James Howie indicated a safe.

Member Harris inquired do you see this as a growing business or a business that would stay at an occasional level, out of your home as opposed to the trade shows?

James Howie indicated I am limited in growth in the home, but I do hope to one day have the business grow well enough that I can move out of the home and do it on a more timely basis with longer hours.

Member Harris inquired approximately how many customers would you see in a given week or month?

James Howie indicated in a given month, probably two.

Member Harris inquired what would you see that needing to grow to make it a more viable commercial venture outside of the home?

James Howie indicated I would like to see it grow to at least 2 sales a week.

Vice-Chairman Harrington indicated my thought is, and I will simply share it with the Board, I think that the intent of the ordinance is to, from my view, to eliminate full time business or substantial business for visible commercial enterprise for residential areas. I don't know where I would personally draw the line between 2 sales a year versus 2 sales a month. The description that the gentleman has given us this evening doesn't seem to me to fit within that concept of commercial enterprise. I also realize that it is a very sensitive community issue. I think the point is well taken that unless we are going to be investigating Mary Kay and Shaklee and garage sales on a regular basis, that some fine tuning of the ordinance needs to be done; which is not really our job. Our job is simply to respond to the petitions as they come forward.

Member Reinke indicated I don't think that we are asked to interpret the ordinance here, we are asked to review the gentleman's petition. I think that maybe we need to look at Mary Kay and all the rest of the home occupations if we are going to look at it this way. I think that it is classified as a hobby thing. I don't see the undue hardship. If the gentleman is leaning towards a commercial business he has to make a decision to go that way in commercial district. I see no reason to grant the variance requested.

Member Harris indicated I have spoken before the City Council

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 13 JUNE 6, 1995

recently on this very ordinance; asking that the ordinance be reviewed; that it is probably the singly most ambivalent ordinance or paragraph of an ordinance that exists in my readings. But we are, in fact, faced with having this ordinance before us. I do believe that the change in the federal regulation combined with the enforcement of this ordinance does, in fact, create a hardship for these individuals who are caught in that transition. I think the petitioner has laid out a very solid representation of his approach of this and what he is doing with it and I find myself leaning in support of it on this occasion.

Member Brennan indicated I agree with Mr. Harris. I think that the hardship has been demonstrated due to the changes in our own ordinance. This man has a legal business. He has been very diligently reviewed and interviewed by the federal government. I put my trust in them. I would move to grant a variance.

Moved by Member Brennan,

Seconded by Member Harris,

THAT IN CASE NO. 95-047 TO GRANT THE VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE SALE OF FIRE ARMS IN THE HOME LOCATED AT 46155 NINE MILE RD. A HARDSHIP HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED.

Discussion on motion:

Chairman Antosiak indicated I can't find myself supporting this variance. I read the ordinance and the ordinance on home occupations begins "any use customarily conducted entirely within a dwelling and carried on by the inhabitants thereof" before we even arrive at the stock and trade question. I don't view fire arm sales as an occupation customarily conducted entirely within a dwelling. I believe that the hardship is self imposed because the only reason that he is requesting a hardship is because he has opted not to open a commercial establishment and deal in the guns full time in an appropriately zoned area. So for that reason, I cannot support the variance.

ROLL CALL: YEAS (3) NAYS (3) BAUER, REINKE, ANTOSIAK

Chairman Antosiak indicated we have a dead lock.

Member Harris indicated to Chairman Antosiak. I do agree with your comments and I do think that they are very appropriately placed. My sense in this one is that this is an individual who is caught in this transition. If this were a new petitioner I would .......... and be exactly where you are at with the interpretation. I do believe that there was a hardship in the fact that he was caught in the changing of ordinances and I think that in that case it is really is our role as a Zoning Board to interpret that and make a

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 13 JUNE 6, 1995

determination on it.

Member Reinke indicated what you have to look at is that and as the Chairman indicated plus the amount of input we have by the surrounding area and what their feelings are. The uncomfortableness that they feel with that there. I think that is a very strong situation. We have to take into strong consideration too.

Member Harris indicated I don't disagree with you Mr. Reinke, but I didn't see any one them show up tonight. I didn't see anyone come forward to be asked the questions about whether there was any known nuisance or negative value. Whether there was traffic in the community. Whether there were the kinds of things that personally would have dissuaded or persuaded me to go in a different direction.

Member Brennan indicated I agree with Mr. Harris. As the previous case we had there was a lot of concern and a lot of questions and at the end of our last case the same types of resolutions to concern were addressed by the petitioner; the issue of safety, the issue of no ammunition, the issue that this is a very limited business. I think that we have the same conditions that we had with the previous case.

Member Reinke inquired how many notices were sent out?

Chairman Antosiak indicated there was 19.

Member Reinke inquired how many did you receive in return?

Chairman Antosiak indicated there were 5.

Vice-Chairman Harrington indicated the problem with this one is that it is a yea or nay call. A nay means that for these casual sales and I think we are grafting something on here which is the concept of business. I am not satisfied that this gentleman is running a business out of his home any more than regular cookie sales or Mary Kay products or the like are necessarily businesses out of the home. I have listened to this gentleman's testimony regarding the number of sales. I have listened to his testimony regarding his compliance with every single governmental regulation that there is and the fact that it may be unpopular with people from Northville. But, the issue is that he is either able to do this or he is out of his casual sales occupation, which I am not prepared to do. I have listened to the comments and the objections. I am trying to find a compromise. We usually try to work towards a compromise. I think, where do you compromise when it is yes or no. The only area of compromise that I could even suggest and I am not sure that I am going to persuade anyone to change their vote, would be to move to grant this permit for a

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 15 JUNE 6, 1995

year. Let's see what happens. Let's see if the fears of the neighbors have in fact been justified by anything that has occurred regarding this gentleman. If that kind of evidence or testimony is presented before us, then I would be the first one after a period of time, next year, 6 months, 9 months, I don't know; I would be the first one to change my vote. I don't necessarily think because of the political sensitivity of fire arms that we have to sit here and allow this man to be legislated out of his casual business. I don't believe that. If anyone else would consider approving it for a year, let's see what happens. That is the only suggestion that I can make. Otherwise, we are at a dead lock.

Member Bauer indicated the gun business has no bearing on it as far as I am concerned. It is operating a business out of his home. I have one right down the street from me; it is not guns. They park 8 and 10 on each side of the house. It is hard to get by. I just couldn't go for it.

Member Harris indicated on that point I would have to agree with you. If in fact the City was going to enforce the ordinance realistically.

Member Bauer indicated they should.

Member Harris indicated the reason that we are enforcing this ordinance is because the gentleman had to come to the City to get approval as opposed to the other sets of circumstances. I think, in my mind, that is what sets this apart. I think it far more intrusive the number of other uses that we have in our neighborhoods along the way. I certainly would support Mr. Harrington's limitation of a year because I certainly have a hope that this ordinance will be reviewed before then and will have some clarity as to what these things really mean.

Member Reinke indicated I think it is the wrong occupation in a residential area. Secondly, I think the more things that we approve the longer the home occupation ordinance is not going to be reviewed. I think that if we just really stop approving these and continuing these situations it is going to force the ordinance to be reviewed sooner and the whole thing addressed.

James Howie indicated I would like to address the concern about safety. The fact that the fire arms themselves are locked. I don't have additional fire arms until an order is made. They are not flagrantly in the home. I have 4 children myself; they understand the safety of this. I understand totally the safety and my responsibilities toward this and that is why I am sincere when I come here. Strictly it is a business as a business. I pay taxes, sales taxes and it is strictly is a legal business. I thank you for your concerns.

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 16 JUNE 6, 1995

Moved by Member Brennan,

Seconded by Vice-Chairman Harrington,

THAT IN CASE NO. 95-047 TO GRANT A VARIANCE BASED UPON HARDSHIP, WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE PETITIONER REAPPEAR IN JUNE OF 1996 TO REFRESH THE CASE AND TO SEE IF WE HAVE A CHANGE IN THE HOME OCCUPATION ORDINANCE. THE CASE WILL BE REVIEWED AT THAT TIME.

Discussion on motion:

Member Harris indicated I would add to that if the motion carries, that the neighbors be re-notified at the time of his return so they would have an opportunity as well to address this Board on the circumstances or conditions a year from now.

Member Reinke indicated they would automatically be notified, just the way that they were this time.

Member Harris indicated I just wanted to be sure. A return doesn't always mean re-posting, is my sense.

ROLL CALL: YEAS (4) NAYS (2) Bauer, Reinke MOTION CARRIED

Glen and Penny Davis are requesting a 4 foot side yard setback variance to allow for the construction of a second story addition at 1988 Austin.

Brian Welton was present and duly sworn.

Brian Welton indicated I represent Portland Building, the contractor that is contracting this job. What we are proposing to do: it is a house that was originally built 6 foot off of the lot line, which is nonconforming because it is now 10. We are putting a second story directly on top of the house, 16 by approximately 33. We are asking that we get a 4 foot variance so that we can go all the way over to the existing outside wall and go straight up with the existing wall. That is basically it.

Chairman Antosiak indicated there was a total of 24 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There were 2 written responses received, both voicing approval. Copies in file.

James Korte, 2022 Austin. I sit 3 houses to the south of this property. Clara Wixom built that house in the mid 30's. It has sat in it's exact position for that time. If anyone thinks that there is a view from the road, any view is already blocked; so that REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 17 JUNE 6, 1995

is not a problem. If there is a fire hazard that hazard has been there for 50 years and in the last 25 years a fire truck has never been to the property. Therefore, to deny this would only stymie people that want to expand and do absolutely nothing for the subdivision. Therefore, please pass it and let the chains fall. Thank you.

Don Saven indicated I had communications with the contractor relevant to the second story and taking option of what could be done and it just would not look right. To be consistent with what was existing would be a good job.

Member Reinke inquired will you be residing the lower level of this also?

Brian Welton indicated I personally did not sell, I am the superintendent. I would have to look at the job. I believe that it is a second story and we are not touching the first story. We are just doing the second story and that is it.

Glen Davis indicated the whole house is being sided except for the garage. The garage is being trimmed. If you don't have a set of plans, I have some here with me, if you would like to look at them.

Board wanted to look at the plans.

Member Reinke indicated for the size of the homes up there it is almost impossible for a family to live in anything that is there. It was a cottage area. I think with the renderings shown, it will be a definite asset for him and for the area. I would highly support the Board approving the variance.

Glen Davis indicated I am also a new father, I have a young son and I really need the room. I would really appreciate it.

Moved by Member Reinke,

Seconded by Member Bauer,

THAT IN CASE NO. 95-048 THE SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST BE GRANTED DUE TO LOT SIZE AND CONSTRUCTION SPACE REQUIREMENTS.

ROLL CALL: YEAS (6) NAYS (0) MOTION CARRIED

Glen Davis inquired is there a 5 day grace period? Could I possibly have that waived? We have been waiting 2 months on this now.

Board agreed.

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 18 JUNE 6, 1995

Five day waiting period was waived.

Todd Keene is requesting a 6 foot front yard setback variance to allow for the construction of an addition at 2300 Austin.

Todd Keene was present and duly sworn.

Todd Keene indicated basically it is the same situation as the gentleman before me. I plan on adding on, although I am going outward. The existing building is 20 feet from the road or from the setback and the addition that I am having a problem with on the variance that I am requesting is 24 feet. I believe that 30 feet is the zoning right now. I am asking for 6 feet.

Todd Keene indicated it is a 2 bedroom ranch. We have already maxed out our bedrooms. We plan on having another child and I am asking for the variance.

Chairman Antosiak indicated there was a total of 26 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There was no written response received.

James Korte, 2034 Austin, I will use the one closest to his property. Fred Traylor built that house, again in the mid 30's. He sold to Don Vaner. Don Vaner had one child immediately after he moved in; when she became pregnant for the second child they sold to Gabriel. Gabriel immediately had one child and when she became pregnant for the second child, they had to sell. It appears that house is awfully small. Now, if you don't let them build and I do not know these people other than I do see the wife pushing a pram with a newborn in and I am presuming that if they plan to stay there they will also be out of room. Therefore, please don't push another family out; let them build.

Don Saven indicated we do have a degree of difficulty in as far as putting an addition on anywhere else around the house based upon the topography of the land. The land does slope off towards the rear as I discussed the issue with the gentleman. Also he does want to try to match his roof lines with different pitches just to make it look presentable.

Member Harris inquired for a point of clarity, this 24 feet to the road, part of the house is actually closer than that already?

Todd Keene indicated yes.

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 19 JUNE 6, 1995

Member Harris indicated the front of the house, so this is going out to the side of the house; so actually the addition is going to be a greater distance from the road than the current frontage of the house. I see no problem with this at all.

Moved by Member Harris,

Seconded by Member Reinke,

THAT IN CASE NO. 95-049 TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE AS REQUESTED DUE TO LOT CONFIGURATION.

ROLL CALL: YEAS (6) NAYS (0) MOTION CARRIED

George Faysal is requesting a 3.75 foot variance to allow the placement of a basketball pole in the side yard, for property located at 45603 Freemont in the Yorkshire Subdivision.

George Faysal was present and duly sworn.

George Faysal indicated basically the case is just what it says on the agenda. I would like to add that in the packet I have a picture there. I have subdivision approval. My neighbor adjacent to the house where it would greatly effect; I have a letter from there also. One of the reasons that we want to do this is because my driveway has quite a slope to it and we feel that it would be unsafe to put it down closer to the street.

Chairman Antosiak indicated there was a total of 31 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There were 3 written responses received. One voicing approval, two voicing objection. Copies in file.

There was no audience participation.

Don Saven inquired could you explain to the Board, whether or not there are any windows on your neighbor's home on that side?

George Faysal indicated no.

Member Harris inquired are there basement windows there?

George Faysal indicated yes there are basement windows.

Member Harris indicated basement but no windows at the living level.

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 20 JUNE 6, 1995

George Faysal indicated no not at all. That is the home that has the letter in the packet, they approved.

Member Brennan inquired your subdivision approval is done through what committee or is this just the Board?

George Faysal indicated that is the Board that approved it. I think it is President, Vice-President and Secretary who's signatures are on there.

Member Reinke indicated I am presuming that the swimming pool is right behind the fence at the end of the driveway, is that correct?

George Faysal indicated yes, that is correct.

Member Reinke indicated I would much rather see it at the end of the driveway, where the fence is; but I suppose with the pool there that creates another situation.

Vice-Chairman Harrington indicated I think that there was a legitimate safety concern with the front yard setback issues and I don't see that safety issue as presented here. In fact the petitioner seems to be responding to that by moving the pool farther from the street than could be considered. The real issue is an aesthetic one. If the neighbor who would be the most affected by this were anything but supporting; that would affect my vote. The neighbor supports it and hopefully the new owners if that neighbor ever sells will likewise support it. But, once the variance is granted it is granted.

Moved by Vice-Chairman Harrington,

Seconded by Member Bauer,

THAT IN CASE NO. 95-050 TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE AS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUE CONFIGURATION OF THIS LOT.

ROLL CALL: YEAS (5) NAYS (1) Reinke MOTION CARRIED

Charles Kruvelis is seeking a variance to allow the continued use of two (2) separate accessory buildings for property located at 1430 West Lake Rd.

Charles Kruvelis was present and duly sworn.

Charles Kruvelis indicated I had a new garage built. I was ready to get my letter of approval and I got a letter from the City stating that I had to demo a shed that has been there well before I moved into this house, which has been 2 1/2 years that I have

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 21 JUNE 6, 1995

lived there.

Charles Kruvelis indicated my hardship is that I have no storage space. I've got a growing family and due to the high water contents near and about West Lake Drive I have no basement. So, I seek permission to keep my perfectly good shed.

Chairman Antosiak indicated there was a total of 42 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There was 4 written responses received. One voicing approval and three voicing objection. Copies in file.

Lisa Kruvelis indicated I would like to add something. I would like to add that my neighbor has a 6 foot privacy fence and a garage right next to it. So, actually you can only see a foot and a half of the roof by 3 feet. It is in the back corner, so I don't know what the problem is.

Charles Kruvelis indicated there is also a misunderstanding. We are not actually on the lake. We are across the street. I know she had an objection. We are across the street from the lake, we are not on the lake frontage at all. I've got a double lot and actually the lot even goes out farther because of the grass which is obviously a part of the road or another 15 feet. You are looking at 150 feet by 85 feet. That is a big lot. I also know that there are other garages built with 1/4 of the lot and they are able to keep their sheds. As a matter of fact, it never came up. I guess the real reason that I am here is why am I being singled out from not being able to keep my shed?

Lisa Kruvelis indicated a guy right across the road has a garage built the week before us, has a shed 2 feet from it and no problem.

We have a lot double his size and it is in the back corner of the lot. Do you have a copy of the survey? You can't even see it from the road. There is only one neighbor that can see it from his place and all he can see is over his privacy fence.

Charles Kruvelis indicated if there is any recommendations of maybe putting a new roof; I never put a new roof on it because I had just built the garage and I didn't want to do anything when I was sure I wouldn't have been approved of a permit until this was squared away. I have the same color shingles left from my garage that was just built last year, I can put them on the shed and it will look as good as new.

Thomas Gross, I am the neighbor that they are talking about, next door to them. I object to the shed being there. I have with me some diagrams and some pictures if I may show them to you.

Pictures and diagrams given to the Board.

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 22 JUNE 6, 1995

Thomas Gross indicated as you can see, my lot numbers are 14 and 15. The measurements on my garage and house are exact. The measurements on the property line on his lot 17 and 18 are exact. The measurements on the garage, the house and the shed are approximate; but with a pretty good guesstimation. As you can see, my garage and that shed is no more than 6 feet apart. From his storage shed to his new garage is approximately 6 feet apart. From his garage to my house is approximately 21 feet. I consider this a fire hazard. Also, it is just a blocking of view. The buildings are too crowded together there. I think that he could have relieved some of this problem here by placing his garage closer to his house; you can see there is approximately 40 feet from his garage to his house. The east side of my house, there are windows there; I am looking out those windows and all I see is a utility storage shed and a garage and occasionally a motor home that is sitting there. When that is there I am completely blocked of view of anything other than buildings and a recreational vehicle.

Thomas Gross indicated as you can see in the pictures that I have taken, that utility building just recently got doors installed on it. That was the first doors that have been on that building in over 10 years. There is a privacy fence there simply because I tried to work with the other neighbor to clean up his yard, put some doors on that building, but he didn't want to do it and that is why that fence is there to try to block some of the ugliness that was there.

Thomas Gross indicated I don't feel that with the size of the garage that he has now that he has a need for this size of storage building. Thank you.

Lisa Kruvelis indicated I would like to add one more thing in comment. This guy has both a garage and a shed. Every house on that block has a garage and a shed and one person has 2 garages and a shed. What is the problem with us having a garage and a shed? Why are we being singled out and constantly harassed by this guy?

Charles Kruvelis indicated second of all the new garage that was built, was only 5 feet added to each side. It was in the exact same location. As he has just mentioned that shed has been there part of 10 years. Why all of a sudden is it a fire hazard? If you visit my property, which you are all welcome to, if you take a look at his garage it is a safety violation because it is buckling on both sides. He has 2 different colored shingles and we could go on and on.

Lisa Kruvelis indicated and he is close to the fence, less than a foot away.

Charles Kruvelis indicated his garage is much more unsightly as he stated to the City of Novi than my shed. Like I said, if I got the REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 23 JUNE 6, 1995

approval I would throw a roof and paint the shed the color of the garage that I just had built last August.

Sarah Gray 133 Maudlin, I don't know either of these parties; it sounds like a neighborhood dispute. We are not here for that purpose. Number one, if it is OK for all of the other neighbors, if it was OK when the garage was built last year. Why is it not now? Obviously if you know our area, we can't have basements without running 2, 3 or 4 sumps because of the water table. Where are we supposed to store our stuff? Thank you.

Charles Kruvelis inquired can I see those pictures? Because those were probably shot a long time ago, I would be willing to bet.

Pictures given to Mr. Kruvelis.

Vice-Chairman Harrington inquired as you review those pictures, is the "stuff" that is stored next to the storage shed; is that currently there, is that your "stuff"?

Charles Kruvelis indicated that was "stuff" that was left by the family that lived there before me.

Vice-Chairman Harrington inquired is it still there?

Charles Kruvelis indicated yes. I had re-done the roof on my house, front and back, put the garage up. I have invested close to $25,000.00 in this property in the 2 1/2 years that I have been there. I dumped, I don't know how many, loads of gravel so that we wouldn't have to swim in mud to pull into the driveway. I have done nothing but fix the place and I have my neighbor just on me like a mosquito.

Vice-Chairman Harrington indicated all I wanted to know was if the stuff is still there.

Charles Kruvelis indicated yes it is.

Vice-Chairman Harrington indicated it might be a hazard.

Charles Kruvelis indicated I could have that removed. Like I said, I am open up to any suggestions or recommendations.

Member Reinke inquired of Don Saven. Was there a variance granted for that garage?

Don Saven indicated I don't believe that it was required to have a variance because of the location of the garage itself.

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 24 JUNE 6, 1995

Chairman Antosiak indicated I will add that there are letters in file from last August and September informing the property owner that the shed would have to be taken down when the garage was completed.

Member Reinke inquired if relative to the garage being built, that the shed was to come down.

Don Saven indicated that might be a requirement, yes.

Charles Kruvelis indicated that was not stipulated.

Lisa Kruvelis indicated that wasn't even brought up until, we didn't know about the shed until 3 months after the garage was completed. The first time that we heard about it was when we received a photo copy of a letter that somebody sent to him about this complaint, 3 weeks after the fact. If we would have known that we could have made different provisions.

Charles Kruvelis indicated to make the garage larger.

Lisa Kruvelis indicated different provisions to make the garage larger. I don't want all of this stuff piled up in the yard. If you have the shed you keep the stuff in it.

Charles Kruvelis indicated as you can tell by the pictures, see that is what happened. He sent a letter to the City and said that the shed was unsightly. That was how it all began. He came over and talked to me and asked me if I was able to keep the shed and I said sure. It must have been shortly after that when he ran in and called the City and stated that the shed was unsightly because he didn't know of any codes and obviously or probably nobody does. Instead of getting my letter of approval to have the garage inspected, I got the letter stating that the shed has to be lost. I was quite upset. As you can tell by the pictures, he deemed it unsightly. My shed is 8 foot, his property is about a half a foot taller than mine. He has the 6 foot privacy fence and from the pictures you can see only 3 or 4 rows of shingles, which I said that I will replace.

Member Reinke indicated in the size of the lot configuration, and I guess I will address this question to Mr. Saven. Could that shed be legally positioned on that lot?

Don Saven indicated could it legally be? As far it's location where it exists now, I don't believe so.

Member Reinke inquired could it be repositioned on that lot to be legal?

Don Saven indicated if it was physically attached to the garage

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 25 JUNE 6, 1995

yes. Then it becomes a unit or an entity.

Member Reinke indicated I can understand the storage problem. I guess I really have a problem with the position of it. There are other modes or things that can be worked out for a storage situation and have it be in conformity with the ordinance rather than just continuing a situation that is nonconforming. The thing is, if nothing would have been changed but the garage was expanded to make it a problem as far as the ordinance is confirmed.

Lisa Kruvelis indicated if we knew of this problem, we would have made the garage different. We just can't pick up the garage and move it now.

Charles Kruvelis inquired why are we being singled out?

Member Reinke indicated you are not being singled out.

Charles Kruvelis indicated we sure are. I can take you through neighborhoods and show you that there are new garages built with sheds; roofs almost bumping the garages.

Member Reinke indicated these are situations that we are working with, but you are not being singled out as an individual just because of that situation.

Charles Kruvelis inquired well, what situation is there?

Member Reinke indicated I am saying that we have situations that come before us all of the time. You are not singled out as the only person that has run into this situation.

Charles Kruvelis inquired does that mean if we have to lose the shed that everybody else does or no?

Member Reinke indicated I am saying that when they are brought before us, a lot of times they end up doing that. I can't guarantee you that every individual in that situation is brought before this Board.

Chairman Antosiak indicated we are not an Enforcement Board; we are a Hearing Board. If the City enforces the ordinance, then the applicants will be before us. As I understand the variance request, this lot is not large enough to allow for 2 accessory buildings, is that correct Mr. Saven.

Don Saven indicated the issue is that with the detached accessory buildings you are only allowed to have one in conformance with the ordinance. Now, like I said, if that building that shed, was attached to that building he would meet the maximum allowable for that particular area and it would be ok. The fact that it is 2

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 26 JUNE 6, 1995

buildings, that is what presents the problem.

Lisa Kruvelis inquired of Don Saven. Are you saying that if we add a wall connecting the shed to the garage, then it would no longer be a problem?

Don Saven indicated hear what I am saying very carefully. If you construct the wall then at that particular time your shed and your garage would be over the area and you would be back here before the Zoning Board of Appeals. That building would have to be physically moved from where it is located, with ratwall, attached to your garage. Then at that particular point if you met the 6 foot setback then that would be ok. Your square footage is there. The 2 buildings are the point in question.

Vice-Chairman Harrington indicated so the shed would not have to be destroyed, the shed would simply have to be moved.

Don Saven indicated it would have to be physically attached to that garage where it would become one gigantic accessory building.

Vice-Chairman Harrington indicated then a variance was not even necessary.

Don Saven indicated I don't believe so, because if his shed is 6 foot from the property line the only thing that I would question was whether he had any overhead wires above the shed.

Charles Kruvelis indicated it would be impossible to move it.

Lisa Kruvelis indicated it is on a cement slab. We would have to put all new cement in.

Member Harris indicated I would like to ask, and maybe we should take a break for a moment, to ask that the permit and the activity for the garage be checked to determine whether or not there were any conditions placed on it. Either at that time, or during the inspection time.

Charles Kruvelis indicated I don't believe that when the permit was pulled the drawing had shown the shed on the permit. But, when the gentleman came out to check the footing and they laid it; it wasn't stipulized then or did we receive the letter that it would have to be removed. There was going to be nothing said about anything until the complaint was lodged after the garage was built.

Member Harris indicated my interest was when the City began to take legal notice and issue with this and I was wondering what was in the record.

Charles Kruvelis indicated September 2nd.

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 27 JUNE 6, 1995

Member Harris inquired when was the garage built?

Lisa Kruvelis indicated August.

Charles Kruvelis indicted the first week of August it was done.

Lisa Kruvelis indicated it was July. The beginning of July.

Chairman Antosiak indicated I am looking at the file.

Vice-Chairman Harrington indicated it is not before us tonight, seeing as it is on the diagram; is the shed of the neighbor also in violation?

Don Saven indicated that I don't know. I would have to take a look.

Vice-Chairman Harrington indicated you have 2 detached buildings there.

Don Saven indicated it probably would be; depends on when the shed was built, too.

Thomas Gross indicated I was told that I had to be 10 feet away from existing building and no overhead wire and at one point I was told by the Building Department that I had to be 10 feet off of the property line. I may have misunderstood that.

Charles Kruvelis indicated but this shed has been in probably as long as the house has been there and that has been well over 30 years. There obviously was no code back them. I was hoping that would fall under the grandfather act; the shed.

Chairman Antosiak indicated based on the file we have here, the permit was approved July 18, 1994. I find nothing in the permit file requiring removal of the shed. This is the permit for the garage. We also have a letter dated September 2, 1994, addressed to Mr. Thomas Gross and a carbon to Mr. Kruvelis; telling Mr. Gross that "please be advised that upon completion of the garage the owner will be required to remove the existing shed in order to comply with the Novi Ordinances in regard to accessory use buildings. Although I can understand your concern in the matter, I prefer to let the property owner complete the new garage so that any personal belongings that are stored in the shed can be transferred to the new building. The property owner will be made aware of the Ordinance requirements prior to receiving a final building approval." That is the last correspondence that I see in the file. There are several notes and comments apparently on telephone and other conversations between the Building Department and the parties.

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 28 JUNE 6, 1995

Member Brennan indicated we come to impasse once again. I would like to make a recommendation to at least get off of neutral ground here. This shed has been there for some time. It has been pointed out that there are other sheds on other lots. I think it is obvious that there is a problem with this particular shed. The ceiling or the roof seems to be buckling. It looks in pretty ratty shape. Maybe if you can make some assurances that this could be dressed up, that it could look acceptable and blend in with the rest of the facilities; maybe that is a neutral ground to at least start with a motion.

Vice-Chairman Harrington indicated I don't know that we are at an impasse, because no one has made a motion yet. My own thought is that this is not a self created hardship, true. But it is one that is readily fixable if not now at some point in the future when the petitioner makes a determination to whether he would choose to take it down to conform or to move it and attach it to his garage. If the petitioner attaches it to the garage there is no need for a variance. So that is the way that I am leaning. It is readily fixable. There may have to be an economic decision by the petitioner whether we pour new concrete and rat walls and if that is important enough, we continue our storage. This is not a big deal to move a shed.

Charles Kruvelis indicated it is a pretty big deal. Everything is there. The only thing is that the roof does look bad because that was what the color of the roof of the house was before I reroofed it. I can't do anything until this is done. I have 4 bundles of shingles, the same color of the garage. I have paint, the same color as the garage waiting to be slapped on. There is doors on that shed. What more can I say.

Member Reinke indicated I agree with Mr. Harrington. There is another solution, other than leaving that there, which would require a variance.

Moved by Vice-Chairman Harrington,

Seconded by Member Reinke,

THAT IN CASE 95-050 TO DENY THE REQUESTED VARIANCE DUE TO INSUFFICIENT HARDSHIP.

ROLL CALL: YEAS (5) NAYS (1) Brennan MOTION CARRIED

Anglin Supply is requesting a variance to allow for the expansion of a nonconforming use which is not permitted in the OS-1 zoning district. This variance is subject to site plan review and approval of the Planning Commission.

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 29 JUNE 6, 1995

Sue Anglin was present and duly sworn.

Sue Anglin indicated we are respectfully requesting a variance for the use of a shade structure for protection of our more delicate topiary and ornamental and specimen shrubs. It is just as simple as that.

Chairman Antosiak indicated there was a total of 11 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There was no written response received.

There was no audience participation.

Don Saven indicated it is an expansion of a nonconforming use and I do believe that this would still require site plan review process.

Greg Capote indicated I will affirm that it does require site plan review and I do have a set of 3 photos to show the structure under construction. (pictures were given to the Board.)

Vice-Chairman Harrington inquired is the heavy construction equipment which is visible in one of the photographs, is that stored on your property?

Sue Anglin indicated yes, it has always been on the property; the back part of the property.

Vice-Chairman Harrington indicated it looks awful, when you drive by Eleven Mile Road and what is pictured there is not what I saw the other day when I drove by. It looks.....you know I-75, it looks like the storage area above Bay City an I-75. It just looks terrible. My only reaction is, which isn't really germane to what you are attempting to do because that will help one portion of the property; but at the same time you are looking to clean up one area of the property you might want to look at the total piece.

Sue Anglin indicated absolutely, sir and we have been doing that. We have for sometime been working with an architect to help develop and to design a master plan for our area. We moved to the area many, many years ago and did not realize that we were going to be in such a hot spot of Novi obviously. It is a big responsibility and a big chore to take an operation that has been in progress for 40 years and just move it. There is many things to be considered. So, at this point we are working with an architect as I said to help develop and design something for our future in this location.

Vice-Chairman Harrington indicated it still looks awful.

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 30 JUNE 6, 1995

Sue Anglin indicated well, I don't know what to tell you. Do you have option of where I can send it?

Member Harris inquired of Greg Capote. Can this be re-designed to comply with this zoning, the OS-1?

Greg Capote indicated no it cannot. Anglin Supply is a legal nonconforming use. Under the confines of the ordinance they can exist and prosper and do well under the existing building foot print.

Member Harris inquired but if we are looking at, as we are being told, an architect's re-design of the business; is there a possibility that there is a re-design of this business that could fit this zoning reasonably to carry out this business' normal work?

Greg Capote indicated I imagine that may be a possibility, given what the business plan may be of Anglin Supply. I have not had any discussions with Anglin Supply in that regard. So, I would presume that would be a possibility; but that is an office service district.

Member Harris indicated I see and I realize that this isn't NCC which is the issue across and down the street. However, we appear to be having the same kinds of concerns that we are having some of our NCC properties. The concern is to each individual request and I do believe that this is an excellent improvement to the property. Under the ordinance, and I had to read it very carefully to even realize that it was a structure that would do that or would need this kind of approval. However, it does. I still see this as an incremental, I see your business changing in the years that I have been here. It has been an improvement along the way. But we are still up against potentially this zoning and I would ask that if this variance is approved or not that you spend some time with the Planning Department to make certain that the direction that you are going doesn't put us into a no win situation down the road with your business.

Member Reinke inquired why would this not have gone for site plan review and Planning Commission before coming to us?

Greg Capote indicated it would seem appropriate that the applicant seek a variance for that use prior to going to the Planning Commission and going through all of the site plan review fees, given that it would receive a negative approval from our department given the legal nonconforming use and the ordinance doesn't permit it.

Member Harris inquired how close to conformity do you view the structure right now, for the site plan approval process.

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 31 JUNE 6, 1995

Greg Capote indicate none.

Member Harris inquired no problem or.....?

Greg Capote indicated no I see a problem, it does not conform. Under the uses listed, under the OS-1.....

Member Harris indicated I understand that it is a non-conforming use; but if we gave a variance how close is the structure to being able to get site plan approval.

Greg Capote indicated as far as setback requirements and that, I would have to look at a site plan to make the determination. I see the plan in the packet but it is not complete enough for me to make any determination.

Member Harris inquired is there any obvious problems with the location, placement, others?

Greg Capote indicated having looked at the site only from the car window when I looked at it, I believe in late April, I really have to go out and take a look at it and look at a conceptual site plan and maybe speak to some of the Ordinance Officers that have seen the site prior. To answer that question.

Member Harris indicated I am going to make a motion to approve this to see where it goes. If it passes, it would not only what I have asked you previously, but I would also ask that you make certain before you make any other moves that you talk to Greg.

Moved by Member Harris,

Seconded by Member Reinke,

THAT IN CASE NO. 95-052 TO APPROVE THE REQUESTED VARIANCE, BASED ON THE FACT THAT ALTHOUGH IT IS A NONCONFORMING USE AND AN EXPANSION IT IS AN IMPROVEMENT IN THE PROPERTY.

ROLL CALL: YEAS (6) NAYS (0) MOTION CARRIED

The Kensington Corporation is requesting a use variance to allow for the construction of two (2) separate buildings of light industrial uses, which are not permitted in the OS-2 zoning district for property located at 46700 Grand River Avenue. The property is currently zones OS-2 (Planned Office District).

Wilfred Brunk, attorney for Kensington Corporation was present.

Wilfred Brunk indicated this is a request for a use variance to

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 32 JUNE 6, 1995

allow the construction of 2 additional buildings on this particular parcel. This land has been owned by my client for approximately 25 years and it has always been used as equipment storage and repair for trucks and heavy equipment. If you will look at the photographs that are being passed around, this particular parcel which is over 19 acres in size is sandwiched between 2 parcels which have similar uses already. They are all nonconforming. Most of the parcels along this zoning district on the north side of Grand River between Beck and Taft are nonconforming uses already. They are primarily industrial uses.

Wilfred Brunk indicated the zoning for this property is the Planned Office District and it has been for a period of years. My client has attempted to sell this particular parcel for 6 years now. It has been actively listed and marketed by Signature Associates and now it is listed by one of the ReMax Offices. There has been no offers received, at all by any prospective purchasers who would try to then use the property as it is allowed under the ordinance. The only persons who have expressed any interest are those who would want to continue or to expand the nonconforming use as an equipment or storage repair yard.

Wilfred Brunk indicated I believe that the photographs are self-explanatory. There are currently 2 equipment repair and storage buildings already located on the property. We are asking for permission to construct 2 more, so that the property can be fully utilized. It is across the street from industrial property.

Wilfred Brunk indicated it is within your authority, of course, to grant a variance use if we can show that the property cannot be used for it's zoned use.

Wilfred Brunk indicated every effort to market the property to someone who would purchase it and use it for an allowable purpose has been unsuccessful. There has been a tenant in the property for the past few years who has indicated that they are going to move and relocate because they do not have sufficient repair facilities within the location of the 2 buildings of site. My client is faced with the loss of a tenant, the loss of a potential purchaser and no perspective use for this property and no buyers.

Wilfred Brunk indicated we are asking that the use that be allowed, the construction of 2 additional buildings, will be the same use that the property has always enjoyed for the past 2 1/2 decades.

Wilfred Brunk indicated of course, if the use variance was approved we would go through the normal site plan approval process. As was presented in the case just prior to this one it would be pointless to go through site plan review and Planning Commission and develop building plans and have those approved all to be in conformance with the setback requirements and the construction and then to find REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 33 JUNE 6, 1995

the use variance would not be permissible.

Chairman Antosiak indicated there was a total of 17 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There was a total of 2 written responses received, both voicing approval. Copies in file.

There was no audience participation.

Greg Capote had no comment.

Don Saven inquired what are the distances from the property line for the proposed buildings?

Wilfred Brunk indicated as I have indicated to you, sir, an actual site plan has not been developed for the property.

Don Saven indicated I understand that, give me an approximation.

Wilfred Brunk indicated it looks like the side yard on the west side of the proposed building would be approximately 150 feet, that is the proposed building which is on the north of the property; and from the east boundary it looks again 150 to 200 feet and for the proposed building on the south side it looks like 100 to 125 feet roughly at 1 inch to 50 for the side yard setback.

Wilfred Brunk indicated again, these would be buildings that we put to the same use as the existing buildings on the site and allow this property to be productively utilized. The current zoning for this stretch of Grand River between Beck and Taft, is very optimistic in terms of the types of development and businesses which would come in. Unfortunately, no uses of that sort have materialized since this zoning ordinance was passed.

Member Harris inquired why 2 separate buildings? Why not one single building?

Wilfred Brunk indicated that was a condition of the offer to purchase from the existing tenant as to his needs for an equipment storage building. I do not know the answer as to why 2 buildings would be required as opposed to one. I presume that it would be access in and out of the buildings.

Member Harris indicated I think you need to understand at least the position that I am thinking of here and that is that this somewhat of a spot zoning in content. Although we are not allowed to change as a Board you are asking for a variance in the use. To do it for a particular purpose without much definition as to what would be

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 34 JUNE 6, 1995

there and what would be done other than to say that it would be a continuation of a pre-existing use; doesn't in my mind give me enough information to make that kind of decision at this point.

Wilfred Brunk indicated the use would be for a truck repair garage and for storage of heavy truck equipment, similar to the use that has been used on this property in the past and for both of the properties on either side of it to the east and west. Heavy trucks and a building in which they could be repaired, not on the outside, but under cover.

Member Harris indicated I understand and I appreciate that information, but it now appears as if we have 4 existing garages, if you look at the plan, scattered around the property; which is going to make any future use request, if this were granted, contingent upon this configuration. We are looking at not only the present, but we also need to look that if a variance is granted to construct this what future uses may be if this tenant were to move on or this owner were to move on.

Member Harris inquired of Greg Capote. Has there been any recent review of the section, the Grand River Corridor and that area in terms of the zoning, by the City, the Planning Department or the Consultant? When is the last time that we looked?

Greg Capote indicated not recently.

Member Harris indicated I do appreciate the fact that it is sandwiched between 2 pieces of property that are being used for this type of a use.

Wilfred Brunk indicated the real concern that we have is that we would love to market the property and sell it to someone who will use it for an allowed use. For 6 years that effort has gone unsuccessful and there just do not appear to be any potential developers who will develop these parcels on the Grand River Corridor for Planned Office Service District. That is the problem. The heart of our problem.

Vice-Chairman Harrington indicated I am not sure that doubling the size of the nonconforming use is the direction to go. That is my own feeling. The property has been used. It is being used. There is at least a fear that we might not be able to find a replacement tenant. But, to counter that fear by simply putting 2 more buildings and doubling the size of the nonconforming use, I can't support that.

Wilfred Brunk indicated the efforts to market the property have been unsuccessful to any who would purchase it to continue it's existing use. The property has been openly offered for sale, no one wants to buy it.

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 35 JUNE 6, 1995

Vice-Chairman Harrington indicated I will give my reaction to that one, which is, if you are prepared to come and talk about financial specifics of the offers and how it is being marketed and the fact that it can't be marketed in today's environment and get into those kinds of specifics I would listen to them. But, real estate is among the most elastic items that can be sold. If the price is right there is always a willing buyer. You know that and I know that. So the fact that this particular owner has not been able to "successfully" market it for 6 years; in my view in the absence of anything further is simply a pricing problem.

Wilfred Brunk indicated a point well taken.

Member Harris inquired would the petitioner consider tabling this request to bring us more information, that might in fact lend itself to a different interpretation? As I said, I am not persuaded at this point that this is the remedy for what you are asking for.

Wilfred Brunk inquired could you give me some guidance as to what additional information you would find helpful?

Member Harris indicated along the lines of what Mr. Harrington is saying. What has this marketing plan been? When we look at whether property can be used as zoned; one of the things that we have to look at is any less intense zoning that might underlie that, which could include OS-1 in this case or down the line. To say that something as intense as an OS-2 or as dense as an OS-2, has nothing under it that this property can be for is a relatively and weighty and heavy decision. I would like to have some information that would help me to understand that there has been a range of marketing done on this up to and including the OS-2 most intense use, which is what I am sure the property owner would have loved to have done and certainly he probably started out hoping to do that. But as you come down that hierarchy of zoning, I would be very interested in knowing the kinds of efforts that have gone on along that way. As I said, this does in my mind come very close to what I would consider a spot zoning for this particular use because it is an expansion. A continuation, a small expansion possibly, but this is really well over doubling it's size, it would appear to me in terms of the use and I think that is a significant change.

Wilfred Brunk indicated we would be glad to assemble as much information as we can on the marketing efforts and present it to you at a future meeting.

Moved by Member Harris,

Seconded by Vice-Chairman Harrington,

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 36 JUNE 6, 1995

THAT IN CASE NO. 95-053 TO TABLE THE CASE TO ALLOW THE PETITIONER TO RETURN AT A FUTURE MEETING TO BE SCHEDULED WHEN THEY HAVE ASSEMBLED THE INFORMATION TO PRESENT TO THE BOARD.

Chairman Antosiak inquired what is the date, if they want to get on schedule for the next meeting? When would they have to submit their information?

Nancy McKernan indicated the next Meeting is July 11, 1995, the information should be received by the 16th of June.

Don Saven indicated I would suggest that they work post haste on this because our agenda is getting quite full.

Member Harris indicated they may want to shoot for the August Meeting.

Member Reinke indicated maybe you should work with the Building Department to see what the agenda is and what the cut off times are, so that you have adequate time. It might be better to come back for the August Meeting which I think is going to be earlier in the month. That would give you more time to come in; but whatever way will work out best for you in the time frame.

Wilfred Brunk indicated I believe that we can assemble the information that you need and get it to the clerk before the deadline of the 16th. We will do everything that we can get that in their hands.

ROLL CALL: YEAS (6) NAYS (0) MOTION CARRIED

Sarah Gray is requesting a front yard setback variance of 4 feet to allow for the construction of an addition at 133 Maudlin.

Sarah Gray was present and duly sworn.

Sarah Gray indicated this is the third one tonight where we want a variance so that we can do some construction. I have a 2 story house. That first story was built in 1942. In May of 1984 I believe that we put a second story on it. I want to have a front door on my house. This house has never had a front door since it was built. It had one door on the side when we bought it in 1983. I do apologize because I know that you normally like to deal with blue prints; I could not see the expense of having them drawn up if I was not granted the variance.

Sarah Gray indicated if I am granted the variance, prints will be completely to code and provided to Don.

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 37 JUNE 6, 1995

Sarah Gray indicated this is rough and not drawn to scale. You have some rough sketches that I did with your packet. Basically I want a 4 foot variance on the front setback, so that I can have an 8 foot vestibule or foyer or whatever on the front of the house.

Sarah Gray indicated I have interesting topography and I have low ceilings on the first floor. It would be extremely difficult to notch in a standard size door and have it open correctly in my house.

Sarah Gray indicated I would like to have a large vestibule area. I would like that to be a two-story so that there could be a walk in closet in the second floor bedroom above the front of the house.

Sarah Gray indicated the reason that I did this board for you, is to let you know what the setbacks are. This is me right here; I have 80 feet of frontage. I have two lots that were combined in May of 1993. Right now the front of my house is 34 feet from the road. My neighbor to the south is 24 1/2 feet; my neighbor to the north beyond the vacant lot is 24 feet. By going out 8 feet, I will be at 26 feet; I will still be farther back from the road than either of my neighbors. Just to give you a note of what it is.

Sarah Gray indicated I know that you have a letter in opposition from my neighbor to the north. I was last here, I believe, in March when Mr. Pierce was before you asking for a 6 foot variance to put a 5 foot porch on the front of his house which would have taken him 19 feet from the road. It is a bit of a difference. I have lived here since 1983, I have been in the area since 1978. I am a homeowner, who lives in my house while that is a rental. I will never have a parking problem. This is an existing cement driveway 20 feet wide. This is my proposed driveway, for my garage which I am also building this summer. I intend to leave this part between the front of the house and the road there, this will be a court yard; I will never have a parking problem.

Chairman Antosiak indicated there was a total of 43 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There was one written response received, voicing objection. Copy in file.

James Korte 2026 Austin. This house has come a long way. It is a little bleak, it is a little bare, and it is a little awful in many ways and I am certainly not stepping on Sarah's toes to say that. With the front hallway we can give a little character and begin to create something in the thought process. It is going to happen that the side garage goes in and we can begin some kind of line quality. Maudlin and Eubank are probably the worst in the north end. You have hear me say that before. Kiddy corner there is a lovely house and right next to her is a California style that has

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 38 JUNE 6, 1995

lots of charm. If this is granted then there will be 3 in that area that are beginning to be some point of civilized society at the north end. Thank you.

Michael Hilley, 135 Maudlin. I live right next door to Sarah. I am just south of her, where her addition would be going. It is nearest to me and I have no objections. It is going to help the property values and it is going to help her have more room for herself and make the house look nicer. That is my opinion.

Don Saven indicated we have no objection.

Member Reinke indicated I have always been a strong believer in front yard setbacks. But, do due to the extenuating circumstances and the amount of traffic that you have on your road back there, I don't think it is ever going to be an excessive amount of traffic going down there. Your proposed addition is still not as close to the road as the houses on either side of your lot. I think it will be a positive aspect to your house. It will be nice. I support the petitioner's request.

Member Harris indicated I would support your comments, particularly because we are concerned about the front yard setbacks principally because of the parking or the stacking of cars and you have addressed that very well. This lot is configured in a way to do that. I would be willing to support a motion when it is made.

Moved by Member Reinke,

Seconded by Member Harris,

THAT IN CASE NO. 95-054 THE VARIANCE REQUEST BE GRANTED, DUE TO HOUSE POSITIONING AND LOT CONFIGURATION.

ROLL CALL: YEAS (6) NAYS (0) MOTION CARRIED

James Korte, representing Walter Nienaltowski, is requesting a variance for 600 sq. ft. total aggregate floor space and a 4 1/2' variance for the proposed distance from an accessory building and a main building to allow for the construction of an addition to the existing garage at 111 Austin Drive.

James Korte was present and duly sworn.

James Korte indicated the pictures that are being passed are the problem. These are Walt's cars, they are presently housed in Detroit. The most recent showing was in the Kalamazoo area. The

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 39 JUNE 6, 1995

largest picture, of I think the beige Packard, is in our Hudson's area here in Novi. The problem is that by the time you go downtown and polish the car, take the cloth off; you look like you need to be polished and your cloth taken off. So, if we could bring these vehicles to his property that would solve our problem. You lose a good 3 hours in what is going on anymore to go and to get them out of storage. If you are not familiar with old cars, the liability in a storage area is impossible and that is why there are so very few places that you can rent in a commercial kind of situation and the only ones are in downtown.

James Korte indicated what you have before you is a very simple drawing. If you drove by, the garage itself is very simple construction done probably in the early 60's. The garage would look exactly the same as it is, as I say simple construction. The roof trusses would be at exactly the same, the soffits would be exactly the same; one is going straight back.

James Korte indicated I have talked with Don Saven on several occasions with regards to the potential problem of connecting the foundations between old and new. Now, when we dig those foundations up we will find out what is going on and all code will be met. As the back of that foundations now sits, it appears to be a huge hunk of concrete. How far down it is, nobody knows. That we will deal with and as I say follow all code at that point.

James Korte indicated at the northern end of the garage there will have to be firewalls and such where it comes to close to the house. Here again, all City code will be met.

James Korte indicated the 4 1/2 foot distance that we are asking between the houses, I feel arbitrary at this point, because of the nature and the angle that the garage sits funny to the house. If you look at that there is more than ample room. He is encroaching no one. We have 80 clear feet on one side and 40 clear feet on the other. We are more than 30 foot back from the road. We are 135 and 145. So, our problem is not getting near anybody. The problem is the inability for him to house his vehicles.

James Korte indicated he does not drive these regularly. He has a regular car, a Lincoln by name that of course would also be housed. Now, this garage is large enough; there would be minor work done in there if you here again understand the old car syndrome "a bolt is always coming loose and you generally do those yourself". It will not be a mechanics garage of any sort. It will be he, dealing with what he has to do to keep those cars in tip top condition that they are now in.

James Korte indicated to speak of the cars, if you are familiar with Meadowbrook Hall, Meadowbrook has a concoursed elegance that is invite only. This gentleman is invited with his cars on a

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 40 JUNE 6, 1995

regular base. Which means that they are over 95 point cars

James Korte indicated as one becomes a senior, he would like to have them next to him. It is as simple as that.

James Korte indicated I presume that I can answer any question and as I say the reason that there are no formal drawings, which of course will have to be provided, it is the exact same structure, exact same color, exact same everything. In this situation, if you drove by you really won't know that it happened when it is finished.

Chairman Antosiak indicated there was a total of 24 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There was no written response received.

There was no audience participation.

Don Saven had no comment.

Vice-Chairman Harrington inquired do these vehicles generate any income for this homeowner?

Walter Nienaltowski indicated no.

James Korte indicated they are a hobby. I have upholstered classic cars for years and if you really understand the problems in the classic car business, where do you put those in a safe situation?

Member Reinke inquired of Don Saven. Correct me if I am wrong, even if he was 10 feet away from the side of the house; due to the size of the house he would still require a variance, is that correct?

Don Saven indicated that is correct. As Jim has pointed out here, if you take a look at the corner of the house it doesn't extend into the main portion of the garage, it is only the corner. The size of the garage is what we are looking at right now.

Member Brennan inquired as you have proposed this addition, it doesn't quite but nearly doubles the size of that garage for allowable size under code; is there any way of reducing that and still getting those cars in?

James Korte indicated without being ridiculous, do you think that we can find a way to shrink those cars? I think that one of the problems, if you are having a problem, this is not a small piece of property. The garage door would only enter from the front. There

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 41 JUNE 6, 1995

will be no side car entry. There won't be any windows other than what is there now and that, of course, is for safety purposes. At some point in time, and I don't think that Walt has any plans on moving until he moves big time or slow time out of there; at some point in time someone can tear the roof off and create a whole lovely house and over the garage or at least over the back end of the garage and create a house that would like very much like houses today. The property would allow such a happening. He has no plans, but the property does allow such a thought process to happen.

James Korte indicated I think that because of the way that the house sits on the property, I don't think it is really noticeable. I think that if we were turning the garage to the side or if we were asking to put a 4 car entry; I think that we could have a real visual problem. But, with the depth of what is going on I don't find it a problem. I just don't know how we can shrink the size of the garage and get the 3 cars plus his daily passenger car and of course the passenger car isn't always there but it certainly would be nice in the winter to stick all of your vehicles under the roof.

Member Harris inquired of Don Saven. Would you help me do the math here? It appears that if the allowable floor space as this written is 850 square feet and the proposed addition is going to bring this to 1320. Is the actual variance 600 square feet or 470 square feet that we are asking for?

Don Saven indicated it appears to be 470 at that calculation.

Member Harris inquired was I reading something incorrectly?

Don Saven indicated let me go through this one more time.

Member Harris indicated I guess the point there is that he is allowed 850 and 1320 is what the building would be, so we have a request for actually 470 square feet.

Don Saven indicated that is correct, 470.

Member Reinke indicated that is less than what was advertised so that is really no problem as far as that concern.

Moved by Member Harris,

Seconded by Vice-Chairman Harrington,

THAT IN CASE NO. 95-056 FOR APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCES BOTH IN THE SETBACK FROM THE HOUSE, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE OF 4 1/2 FEET TO ALLOW THE BUILDINGS TO BE 5 1/2 FEET APART AT THAT POINT AND THE ALLOWABLE FLOOR SPACE, A VARIANCE OF 470 SQUARE FEET TO ALLOW A TOTAL OF 1320 SQUARE FEET.

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 42 JUNE 6, 1995

ROLL CALL: YEAS (6) NAYS (0) MOTION CARRIED

Michael Hilley is requesting a 3 foot side yard setback to allow for the construction of an addition for property located at 135 Maudlin.

Michael Hilley was present and duly sworn.

Michael Hilley indicated on the back of my house it is kind of "L" shaped. I want to square it up. I have a back porch that goes about 8 feet past that and I want to bring the side at the north end of the house at the back of the house and just square it up and enclose that in. The upper part which is an approved deck back in '87, I have studs and all of that; there is no problem on the way that it is constructed, I want to close it all in and make that an upper bedroom and then on the lower part I want to make that like a hobby room. I need the variance to continue an additional 8 feet.

Chairman Antosiak indicated there was a total of 33 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There was no written response received.

Sarah Gray, 133 Maudlin. I am immediately to his north. Mike and his wife Ruth have been wonderful neighbors for 10 years, they have

really done a great job on their property. The houses are fairly close together. I don't have a problem with it and if future residents of either of our houses do, there is a privacy fence back there. It is not a problem.

Jim Korte indicated nobody can see what is going on in that back yard. If you drove by you could see absolutely nothing. If Sarah doesn't have a problem, then there really is no problem in the world. Thank you.

Don Saven indicated he is staying consistent, just squaring off the building. I really don't have a problem with it.

Member Bauer indicated he is not encroaching any more than he already is.

Moved by Member Reinke,

Seconded by Member Bauer,

THAT IN CASE NO. 95-057 THE VARIANCE REQUEST BE GRANTED DUE TO THE

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 43 JUNE 6, 1995

LOT SIZE AND THE EXISTING FOOT PRINT ON THE SIDE YARD IS BEING FOLLOWED.

ROLL CALL: YEAS (6) NAYS (0) MOTION CARRIED

Johnson sign, representing Mission Health is requesting a variance to allow the placement of 3 signs to be located at 39500 Ten Mile road. A) a ground pole sign 7'6" x 10' (75 sq. ft.) with height from grade being 10'; the verbiage is to be MISSION HEALTH PROFESSIONAL OFFICE CENTER; located at the corner of Ten Mile and Haggerty Roads. B) a ground pole sign 7' x 3'6" (24.5 sq. ft.) with height from grade being 6'; the verbiage is to be MISSION HEALTH PROFESSIONAL OFFICE CENTER; located by the entrance on Haggerty Rd. C) a ground pole sign 7' x 3'6" (24.5 sq. ft.) with height from grade being 6'; the verbiage is to be MISSION HEALTH PROFESSIONAL OFFICE CENTER; located by the entrance on Ten Mile Rd.

Chuck Bissel from Providence Hospital was present and duly sworn.

Chuck Bissel indicated this is the facility that we opened approximately 15 years ago at Ten and Haggerty. It was first inroad into the community of Novi. When we opened our Providence Park facility in the summer of '92, this building was closed and put on the market for sale. We have such a high level of success in the community at our new Beck Road facility, and we are a little behind schedule in terms of our next phase of office building expansion that we decided to reopen the facility at Ten and Haggerty for uses of medical office space.

Chuck Bissel indicated to that end we would like to put signs back up, three in this particular case. One at the corner of Ten and Haggerty and one at each of the entrances off of Haggerty Road and off of Ten Mile. The sign sizes are pretty much self-explanatory. The sign at the corner of Ten and Haggerty would be modeled after and very similar to the signs that we have at our Beck Road facility called Providence Park.

Chuck Bissel indicated the terminology Mission Health is representative of our joint operating agreement that you may have read about in Crain's and has been publicized on radio and television. It is the joint venture that we have with the Catherine MacAuley Health System. It is a development of 4 hospitals under the mast head of Mission Health. Providence Hospital. St. Joes of Ann Arbor, McPherson, and Saline.

Chuck Bissel indicated I think with that as the introduction I don't have anything more to add, but I will be happy to answer any questions if I can.

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 44 JUNE 6, 1995

Chairman Antosiak indicated there was a total of 15 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There was one written response received voicing objection. Copy in file.

Jay Johnson, with Johnson Sign Company. A couple of things to address and Alan might be able to help us on this. Previously they were approved and there was a total of 182 square feet. This new package that they are asking for with all 3 signs totals about 124, so they are actually down sizing it by 58 square feet. The sign that they mentioned in that letter (on the corner) was at 16 foot, we have dropped that down to 10 foot. So they are asking for some less.

Jay Johnson inquired has everyone been by the location and have seen the temporary signs that are up? You can see the difficulty in the size of a legal entrance sign. I have some information that can back up what size letter you need at what reading distance, but I think that you probably notice on the 2 entrance signs that they were relatively small.

Jay Johnson indicated in regards to addressing the hardships, as you know the building is not very visible and it is an extremely busy corner. I guess there concern would be properly identifying and directing traffic into the location.

Member Harris inquired of Jay Johnson. The signs that are there right now are conforming signs?

Jay Johnson indicated yes, they have all been permitted and they are conforming. They are pretty much maxed out in what is allowed.

Alan Amolsch had no comment.

Member Harris inquired of Alan Amolsch. Under the current sign ordinances, would they be allowed the 2 entrance signs of legal size without variance?

Alan Amolsch indicated yes, as Mr. Johnson has mentioned what they have out there today is exactly what the ordinance permits. The entrance signs are only supposed to be 3 square feet in area and 6 feet high and the sign they have on the corner is of conforming size and height. What they have out there today is what the ordinance allows.

Member Harris inquired how are they allowed the third sign?

Alan Amolsch indicated the signs at the entrance way are called

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 45 JUNE 6, 1995

driveway, entranceway signs. They are allowed to be 3 square feet in area and 6 feet high, 30% of the sign can contain the business information and the rest has to indicated entrance, exit or that type of information.

Member Harris inquired what would there option be to put a sign on each driveway and not to have one on the corner, in terms of size?

Alan Amolsch indicated they are allowed to put their business sign wherever they want on the property.

Member Harris inquired would they be allowed 2 business signs, because they are on two...

Alan Amolsch indicated no. There is no provision in the ordinance for 2 ground pole signs on 2 frontages. There is for 2 wall signs.

Member Harris inquired if they were on the building they would be allowed?

Alan Amolsch indicated that is correct.

Member Brennan inquired if they were to build the new signs and put them in the same location and build them of the same general construction, same overall size dimensionally then they are in compliance? There is no need for a variance?

Alan Amolsch indicated that is correct. What they have out there today is what the ordinance allows.

Chuck Bissel indicated our concern is that the 2 signs at the entranceways from Haggerty and Ten Mile are very small. The 1 x 3 signs, if you have been by there you will see our concern is that you virtually can't see them as you are driving in any one of the directions. Our previous signs that we had up before we had closed the building down were more in line for the size of the sign that we are asking for in a variance and yet in total we are asking for less than what we had before.

Member Harris indicated my sense is that the signs that are up are significant or sufficient to recognize that corner and to recognize the entranceways that are there. I really don't see, other than an advertising standpoint, I don't see the need for the larger sign. I don't see the hardship that would be the basis for looking at a larger sign.

Jay Johnson inquired you felt that the entrance signs were fine and that they were readable?

Member Harris indicated yes, it is a combination of the size, knowing what is at the location. There is a lot of people that

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 46 JUNE 6, 1995

believe that Providence has been there throughout.

Chuck Bissel indicated it has been closed for 2 1/2 years now. There has been quite a transition to our new facility at Beck Road.

Member Reinke indicated I concur with Mr. Harris, I don't see a need for larger signs. Especially with having 3 sings there.

Jay Johnson indicated really it is just considered one sign. Isn't that correct?

Alan Amolsch indicated yes, one business sign is permitted. The other 2 are just driveway entrance signs.

Member Harris indicated we have a height variance on the other 2 signs before us?

Alan Amolsch indicated yes, we have a one foot height variance on the requested signs.

Member Harris inquired the requested signs, not the existing signs?

Alan Amolsch indicated yes, because they are actually asking for 3 business signs in this request.

Chairman Antosiak inquired is the business sign that you are requesting at the corner the same size of the sign that is on the corner of Beck and Grand River?

Chuck Bissel indicated I would say very close to that, yes. I believe that sign is....

Member Harris indicated I don't know how long you have been with Providence, but we have had a number of issues around signs both at the hospital and now here in terms of the size and the numbers. The one along the expressway was the most recent one and there are a number of identifiers and I think that Providence has a very high profile in the community. A very recognizable profile.

Chuck Bissel indicated I have been with Providence for 15 years, I put the signs up at Ten Mile and Haggerty. That was one of the first projects that I got involved with; I guess that kinds of tells you that you have been some place to long when you have to go through them the second time around. We took those signs down simply because we did not want the confusion at the time, when we opened our new facility with people still coming with what was identified as a 24 hour ER. There were legal ramifications, so in our judgement at that time we took down all of the 3 signs that we are now requesting to put back up. The difference being, the sign that was on the corner of Ten and Haggerty was 16 feet tall, that was a pretty major statement at the time and it had variances. The REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 47 JUNE 6, 1995

sign that we are requesting to replace it with is again, modeled after the corner sign that we have at Grand River and Beck and is much shorter by 6 feet. We feel that is a very important sign for us in terms of the re-identification, the re-opening of the facility. In similar fashion the signs at both of the entrances on Haggerty and Ten Mile we feel are just to small as they are presently put up on a temporary basis.

Jay Johnson indicated one of the hardships that we would look at here too, one of the negative things that they have is the visibility of the building and even locating the building itself because of the berms and that it sits back so far. It would be different if the building itself could make a statement.

Member Harris indicated that may well be, but my sense of that would be that it was a self-imposed hardship when they designed and built the building. There was a profile that was preferred when they put it up.

Member Reinke indicated I think that the proposed or the permitted signage is really adequate. You are looking at 35 square feet. You are looking at something larger than a 4 by 8 sheet of plywood. I think most people can see that quite easily at 70 feet.

Moved by Member Harris,

Seconded by Member Reinke,

THAT IN CASE NO. 95-055A, B & C TO DENY THE REQUESTED VARIANCES ON INSUFFICIENT HARDSHIP.

ROLL CALL: YEAS (6) NAYS (0) MOTION CARRIED

Pulte Homes is requesting a variance to allow the continued placement of a temporary sales trailer, located on lot 41 in the Lochmoor subdivision. Trailer had been approved through the Temporary Use Permit Board of Appeals for a period of six (6) months on December 9, 1994.

No one was present for the case.

Moved by Member Bauer,

Seconded by Member Reinke,

THAT IN CASE NO. 95-033 THE VARIANCE BE DENIED DUE TO THE PETITIONER NOT BEING AT THE MEETING TO PRESENT THE CASE.

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 48 JUNE 6, 1995

ROLL CALL: YEAS (6) NAYS (0) MOTION CARRIED

Planet Neon, representing Bavarian village is requesting a variance to allow the placement of an illuminated wall sign 34' x 2' (68 sq. ft.) with the verbiage "BAVARIAN VILLAGE SKI GOLF" to be located at 43263 Crescent Blvd. Refer to ZBA Case No. 1545 "A".

There was no one present for the case.

Moved by Member Harris,

Seconded by Member Reinke,

THAT IN CASE NO. 95-018 TO DENY THE VARIANCE DUE TO LACK OF THE PETITIONER'S APPEARANCE.

ROLL CALL: YEAS (6) NAYS (0) MOTION CARRIED

Novi Christian Day Care is requesting a variance to allow the placement of a second sign, 3' x 3' (9 sq. ft.) with the verbiage "Novi christian Day Care and Pre-School 349-3481 Loving Care", for property located at the First Baptist Church of Novi, 45301 Eleven Mile Rd.

Pastor Gary Elfner was present and duly sworn.

Pastor Elfner indicated the case simply as proposed here, that the current sign that we have advertises basically our church and the school, it says nothing about day care. People do not know that we have a day care there. That is our hardship. The color and the design of the sign, it will be quite colorful, and it will enhance the property. We are, I understand, one of only 3 day cares in the area that take infants which is a service to the community. So we request this because it is difficult for people to see that have, or it is impossible for people to see that we have a day care. Our playground is in the back. It is in the rear of the building. As you drive by we have no way of advertising. We have tried advertising through papers and fliers to no avail. Our only success in advertising has been the temporary sign that we had up in the early fall of '94 and the yellow pages, those have been the only 2 successful things that we have had. Since that sign has been down we have really been struggling because people can't find us. That is our case.

Chairman Antosiak indicated there was a total of 32 Notice sent to adjacent property owners. There was one written response received voicing approval. Copy in file.

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 49 JUNE 6, 1995

There was no audience participation.

Alan Amolsch had no comment.

Member Harris inquired there is an existing sign next to the church, what is the verbiage on that sign?

Pastor Elfner indicated currently the verbiage is "First Baptist Church of Novi", the times of services and then "Novi Christian School" and then under that we K1, Day Care, etc., it is on a board and that board will be removed and be re-done to reflect the grades but not the day care. The day care is a separate entity.

Member Harris inquired that board is not on the approved sign though?

Alan Amolsch gave a picture to the Board. He indicated that is the most recent picture that I have.

Pastor Elfner indicated we checked with the Building Department and they said as long as it was within or that we moved the boards together, we added another board so that the people would know what grade levels we service.

Member Harris inquired is there room on that sign to put the day care advertisement?

Pastor Elfner indicated we have the words day care on that sign and we have had no response from that whatsoever. It is to small to see from the road. At 35 mph and the setback it takes what I believe is 8 inch letters. They are just not visible. We were going to re-design that sign to read "Resource Center and K-12" and put up a separate sign for the day care because it is a separate entity.

Member Harris inquired is the day care located in the building that is south from the church or is it in the church building itself?

Pastor Elfner indicated it is east of the church. South of the church is the parsonage. It is the white building back there.

Member Reinke inquired you say this is a separate entity by itself?

Pastor Elfner indicated yes, it is licensed by the State where the rest of it is not.

Member Reinke inquired but it is still run by the church itself?

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 50 JUNE 6, 1995

Pastor Elfner indicated that is right. We base this partially on the fact of going around the City and talking to various churches who have day care; they said they had a problem until they put the sign up saying that there was a day care in their facility. Until that time, they knew it was a church, but they did not know that they had a day care in the facility. That is the purpose of the sign.

Member Brennan inquired this second sign will also be on Taft Road as well?

Pastor Elfner indicated yes, that would be just south of the driveway. Just south of the southward driveway. It is where the temporary sign was; we put it in the exact place. Same size and same everything.

Member Harris inquired the approximate location of where we put the polling sign up when we vote?

Pastor Elfner indicated yes.

Member Harris indicated I do believe that this is a unique use offered.

Member Reinke indicated I think that it is a unique use and I think that there is something recognizable. I could go along for a years period of time with having a second sign there but I think that really in the long run we have to look at a total sign package to incorporate everything into one sign that would be adequately visible and identify everything there rather than having 2 separate signs.

Pastor Elfner indicated we, in designing or re-designing the wooden sign that we have are trying to do that and with the ministries that we have there we cannot get the letters large enough. According to sign companies at a 35mph rate, with the setback ......

Alan Amolsch indicated you may want to look into possibly moving the sign closer to the road. The sign is setback quite away. You only have to be back 63 feet from the centerline of the nearest adjacent roadway. That is something that you may want to consider in the future.

Member Reinke indicated I think that there are avenues and approaches that would be open. Maybe in moving the sign closer to the road. Maybe in making a little bit larger sign. I think that there are avenues that you could do by working with the Building Department, working with the sign company that could give you the identification that you want for everything and have it all in one which would look a much neater package and do much better for you

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 51 JUNE 6, 1995

than 2 individual signs. I could see a limited time for a second sign until you had a chance to explore and design a permanent sign to cover everything. I think that you need to talk to the City about what options you have.

Pastor Elfner indicated we have talked to them about our options and the sizes of signs and everything and have tried to meet all of the requirements, distance from the road, size of sign and everything.

Member Reinke indicated I think that you need to look at what you feel and what a sign company feels that your needs are. Then maybe we would have some room for adjustment and options in between that would suffice what you want and really get it all on a single sign.

Pastor Elfner indicated that sounds good.

Carla Glasier indicated there are 2 other day cares right here on Ten Mile that do have a church sign as well as a day care sign, as 2 separate identities and that is pretty much what we are asking for also. To have 2 signs as 2 separate identities as well.

Member Harris indicated we have been looking for middle ground here this evening. I would like to piggy back on the proposal to give a variance for a year, with an opportunity for you to come back at the end of that time to tell us about the options that you have considered. To tell us whether the sign generated or didn't generate. Whether you have looked at the entire signage for that piece of property, and it is kind of a unique piece of property; where it is located. To re-petition at that point for what you believe that your total needs are for that piece of property. Whether it would be a replacement sign or whatever. Whether it would still be 2 signs with a rationale for doing that and sizes and shapes of it. I believe that I had to pull into the driveway to read that sign that was there to see and I think the location, Alan, is absolutely correct. It is not the best location on the property with the change in traffic patterns around there.

Pastor Elfner inquired a total package? I would come back with?

I do have some ideas for total packages that would....we do have 2 streets. We come in off of 2 entrances and you can't see one side from the other, etc. I appreciate that very much.

Moved by Member Harris,

Seconded by Member Bauer,

THAT IN CASE NO. 95-039 FOR APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE FOR THE SECOND SIGN AS REQUESTED FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR, DURING WHICH THE PETITIONER WILL BE ALLOWED OR WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PREPARE AND TO PRESENT TO THIS BOARD ALTERNATE SIGN PACKAGES FOR THE ENTIRE REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 52 JUNE 6, 1995

PIECE OF PROPERTY.

ROLL CALL: YEAS (6) NAYS (0) MOTION CARRIED

Member Harris indicated I would be very interested, when you come back, if you have some information about how successful the recruitment went after the sign went up.

Pastor Elfner indicated I certainly do that.

Chairman Antosiak indicated the other items on our Agenda this evening deal with the need or the lack thereof to schedule the next 3 Meetings from the first Tuesday to the second Tuesday of the month. July, as I understand it, already will be scheduled for the 11th because the first Tuesday is the 4th of July. Is the 11th ok with the majority of the Board?

The 11th did not seem to be a problem.

Chairman Antosiak indicated I mentioned to Nancy that with my vacation plans I arrive back here on the 10th, so hopefully I will be here for the Meeting on the 11th.

Chairman Antosiak inquired how about August 1, which is the first Tuesday of August?

Member Reinke indicated I will be on vacation.

Member Brennan indicated I will be on vacation.

Don Saven indicate I will be on vacation.

Frank Brennan indicated Jill Baty will be on vacation.

Chairman Antosiak indicated then I would suggest that we re-schedule the August Meeting until the 8th.

Member Harris indicated at that point I will be on vacation.

Member Bauer indicated I will also be on vacation.

Member Harris indicated at that point you will have 5.

Chairman Antosiak indicated we will move it to the 8th and hope we that we will have at least 4 to show up.

Chairman Antosiak indicated September 5th is the Tuesday immediately following Labor Day.

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 53 JUNE 6, 1995

Nancy McKernan indicated we do have a problem with September 12th. We can't change to the 12th because there is something with elections. The City Clerk said we could do it on Thursday the 7th if it was good for everyone or we could change to the 19th.

Chairman Antosiak indicated that is a little too late.

Member Harris indicated I would stay with the 5th as my vote.

Member Reinke indicated I would say let's stick with the 5th, I may be out of town but I will be back in time for the Meeting.

Chairman Antosiak indicated let's try to stick with the 5th.

Chairman Antosiak inquired is there any other matters for discussion this evening?

Member Reinke indicated yes. Question, update from Mr. Saven. The Pleasant Cove residents thank you for your input on getting our mailboxes replaced. Secondly, what is the status of the Veterinary Expansion?

Don Saven indicated I don't know.

Member Reinke indicated I thought that I would see something done by this time because it has been.....

Don Saven indicated we have several projects that fall within that category. They go through the entire process and they sit, I don't know whether it is strictly because of financing or what.

Member Reinke indicated I am concerned. They are talking about taking out a lot homes down and I was hoping to see them leveled by this time.

Member Reinke indicated I would just like to mention and I don't know if this is something that is available. At one time when we first got our new Planning Clerk, we used to get an update on subdivisions, etc. I don't know if he still does this, but if he does it is very helpful information to us. It would give us some indication of where these projects were, so that we would have some kind of idea of what is coming down the road, etc. If it is being generated I would like to have a copy of it.

Member Harris indicated I would also like to say that I appreciated Greg's report. But, I am not encouraged by what is there.

Don Saven indicated that gentleman really tries hard. I was with him today on a very similar nature on an OS-2 type of situation, where we were looking at nonconforming uses where it is an in and out, where we have no increase in occupant loads, the same type of

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 54 JUNE 6, 1995

manufacturing business, taking the same building, no increase in size or anything. Just in and out. Based on the fact that it is an OS-2 area and it is one of these things where it is a nonconforming but not an expansion of a nonconforming use but the ability for that business to go into that place is something that we were looking at very carefully. We had questions and we communicated pretty well and I just wanted to make sure that the employee count was there, reasonable, and everything is the same so that we are not going to have any problems with the issue. I don't want to see the issue before us and that is the bottom line.

Alan Amolsch indicated that property is rough along Grand River. That went from M3 to I2 to I1 and now it is OS.

Don Saven indicated I remember in 1972 the issue was the M2 and they were allowed to have outdoor storage at that time and then they changed it to I1, which meant that they had to screen the storage and everyone went totally up in arms and it was nonconforming and it really created a problem. If you remember that was all the issues down Grand River and the particular problems down there by Haggerty Road and the nonconformities that were before us.

Member Harris inquired how is that one going with the clean up in that area? Keeford and that whole group?

Don Saven indicated I haven't been down there.

Member Harris indicated I had wondered if there was any movement. When I drove by a couple of weeks ago it didn't look like there was a lot of toxic removal being done.

Don Saven indicated it didn't look like much of nothing being done, to be honest with you.

Member Bauer indicated that is what I thought, too.

Chairman Antosiak indicated Nancy tells me that we already have 14 on the Agenda for the next meeting, so I hope you all decide to come.

Meeting was adjourned at 10:32 p.m.

Date Approved Nancy C. McKernan

Recording Secretary