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

TUESDAY - AUGUST 8, 1995

CIVIC CENTER - 45175 TEN MILE RD.

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

PRESENT: Members Harrington, Brennan, Reinke,

Antosiak

ABSENT: Members Harris, Bauer, 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 four (4) Members here tonight, it is a quorum. The 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. A full Board consists of six (6); since we only have four (4) Members here this evening and a vote of at least four (4) Members is required to grant a variance any petitioners who wish to present their case to a full Board may request a postponement or a tabling of their variance request to the next Meeting. Any Board decision that is made tonight will be final. Are there any petitioners who request to have their variance request tabled until the September Meeting?

Amarjit Chawney, I have a request for a variance which is number one on the agenda. (Case No. 95-072) I would request that this be tabled until the next meeting, please.

Chairman Antosiak indicated that will be added to the next Meeting which is scheduled for September 5, 1995.

Chairman Antosiak inquired are there any other petitioners who wish to have their case tabled?

Johann Appel, I live at 23675 Novi Road, basically the second property south of it. I would like to know where the water discharge is ending up when the building is up? The storm water. Where is it running? Where is it going to be?

Chairman Antosiak: I am not sure that this is the right Board to address your question to.

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 2 8/8/95

Greg Capote: Could you please state your question again?

Johann Appel: You do not have a map here that shows where...

Greg Capote: A storm water distribution map. No, I do not.

Johann Appel: The subject property seeks a variance of what is missing from the 20 acres. I would like to ask you what is the zoning there?

Greg Capote: The zoning where, sir?

Johann Appel: Where the project is going up.

Greg Capote: I am sorry I didn't hear your question prior, as to what property in particular that you were speaking of.

Johann Appel: That 16 acres.

Don Saven: That would be Mr. Chawney's case, I believe. Is that correct?

Johann Appel: Yes.

Greg Capote: That is OS-1.

Johann Appel: All 16 acres are OS-1, or only 3 or 4 acres?

Greg Capote: The latter of your comment. As indicated in the review by Mr. Rogers and in the minutes.

Chairman Antosiak: Sir, that case has been tabled until the next meeting. We have just tabled that case.

Johann Appel: Tabled. I will come back. Thank you.

Chairman Antosiak inquired are there any other petitioners who request to have their variance request tabled?

Chairman Antosiak indicated I have four (4) other changes to the agenda. Zoning Board of Appeals Cases 95-045, 076, 078 and 084 have all requested to be tabled to the next meeting.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Moved by Chairman Antosiak,

Seconded by Vice-Chairman Harrington,

THAT THE AGENDA FOR THE AUGUST 8, 1995 MEETING BE APPROVED AS AMENDED.

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 3 8/8/95

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

Moved by Member Reinke,

Seconded by Vice-Chairman Harrington,

THAT THE MINUTES FOR THE JULY 11, 1995 MEETING BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN.

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

Mike Kenney, representing Pulte Homes is requesting a variance to allow the continued placement of a temporary construction trailer on lot 3, Lochmoor Village, for a period of six (6) months. this trailer had been approved through the Temporary Use Permit Board of Appeals for a period of six (6) months on December 9, 1994.

Mike Kenney was present and duly sworn.

Mike Kenney: We would just like to extend. The subdivision is still ongoing and we would like to keep the trailer on site where it is currently positioned for an additional 6 months or less. That trailer is currently in place and we would just ask the Board for an extension.

Chairman Antosiak: There was a total of 2 written Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There was no written response received.

There was no audience participation.

Don Saven: Only that my jurisdiction to allow 6 months is basically all that I can give at this time. The project is moving along very well. It is moving very fast. It is anticipated that it will probably be completed before the next 6 months. I don't believe that you will need it more than that, or do you?

Mike Kenney: No, I don't think so.

Vice-Chairman Harrington: You are pretty sure that you won't need more than 6 months? Like, if you need 9 are you going to back here again in 6 months?

Mike Kenney: That is not my intent.

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 4 8/8/95

Chairman Antosiak: I have a clarification question. Your Temporary Use Permit expired on June 9th, is the 6 months that you are requesting from June 9 or from today?

Mike Kenney: From June 9th.

Moved by Vice-Chairman Harrington,

Seconded by Member Reinke,

THAT IN CASE NO. 95-073 TO MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF THE SIX (6) MONTH EXTENSION AS REQUESTED, BECAUSE OF THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE COMPLETING OF CONSTRUCTION.

Discussion on motion:

Member Reinke: I would like to put an end date on this, maybe January 1st or something like that; so that we will have a termination date.

Vice-Chairman Harrington: Mr. Kenney, will January 1st work for you?

Mike Kenney: That would be fine.

Vice-Chairman Harrington: Mr. Reinke I would make that subject to JANUARY 1, 1996.

Member Reinke: I will support that motion.

ROLL CALL: YEAS (4) NAYS (0) MOTION CARRIED

PUBLIC REMARKS

Chairman Antosiak: We will back up one step. At the beginning of the Meeting I omitted the Public Remarks portion of the Meeting and I will now invite anyone who may have comments not related to a case before the Board this evening to step forward, if they have any to be made. Those who have comments relative to a particular case, I ask that you hold those until that case is heard. Is there anyone from the public who would like to make any comments?

No one came forward.

J. Richards Development Corporation is seeking relied from the Zoning Board of Appeals to allow the lot width to be determined by the increased front yard setback as indicated on the proposed site plan, which is from 50 to 60 feet, for Turnberry Estates located off of Eight Mile between Meadowbrook and Haggerty Roads.

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 5 8//8/95

Ken Cousino was present and duly sworn.

Ken Cousino: We have put forward this petition on behalf of the owner. The request before the Board is based on the issues that I believe that you have in a letter before you. I would like to review them. There was an existing subdivision in place on part of this property that was abandoned, there was a request by the neighboring property owners not to connect this property with the neighboring property. It is a private street and a public right of way adjacent to it. So, this cul-de-sac was extended and that was closed off as part of the project. Additionally, we have approximately 45 acres on this project and we are only building 19 lots as it is. One of the lots is 20 acres in size. We are preserving 10.4 acres of woodlands; protected woodlands, on the north side of the site. There is also some wetlands on the site that are right adjacent to this entry way so we went through a diligent effort to move the entry way over and still preserve the general configuration of the property.

Ken Cousino: The key element here from our prospective is the fact that it is a cul-de-sac. The lots meet all of the requirements. They are large lots. They are in excess of an acre. The houses were going to probably be set back anyway. These are going to be larger homes. The adjacent homes are estate type homes, residential homes and we thought the most expedient way to handle this would be to simply increase the minimum front setback line to accommodate that.

Ken Cousino: It was our understanding during the planning process that was acceptable anyway. When the Ordinance states minimum front setback of 50 feet that you would have the option to move it back to 60; but in this case the City of Novi has said that no, they do look for the 50 and that we would have to come before the Board to increase that to where that setback would work. The plans that were submitted with this request do show those lots as proposed and they do form a pretty nice circle in there. One doesn't stick up from the other, they sit up very nicely because they are on the cul-de-sac on the outside of the curve. I think that you can see that no one's front yard is going to end up in someone's backyard as a consequence. These homes will set back. They are all on a curve and they just set back off of the cul-de-sac.

Ken Cousino: Lastly, the reason that we are before the ZBA at this point is because we have been all the way through the process, including an approved final site plan with some contingencies on the wetland and during that review process it became known that there was a problem here with the setback and the lot widths. We felt that the easiest way to handle this would be for me to come back to this Board. In talking to the Planner, there is apparently no provision in the City of Novi to handle cul-de-sacs as a special REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 6 8/8/95

condition. Many communities, as you may know, 80% of frontage requirements for a cul-de-sac or some consideration that you end up with these pie shaped lots so that they work with normal front street parallel front yard street setbacks. I think that kind of ended up creating this condition.

Chairman Antosiak: There was a total of 22 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There was no written response received.

There was no audience participation.

Don Saven: You don't have any problems with any environmental concerns; woodlands, wetlands?

Ken Cousino: The only protected woodlands on the site are at the north edge, the wetlands are on the southeast edge. We are staying out of those concerns with this request.

Member Brennan: Just a quick question to reaffirm what you said. You have gone through he final site plan?

Ken Cousino: Yes, we have gone through the final site plan. There was one or two contingencies items relating to the wetlands; a little sedimentation basin that we had shown as temporary the DNR wanted that put in as permanent, so it is a little change of a note on the plan. During that process of distributing new plans the planner said, "hey, there is this problem with these front set backs", so it kind of came up as a last minute issue.

Member Reinke: What is the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the Planning Department on this?

Greg Capote: The Planning Commission recommended approval of this plan for both preliminary and final. I believe that this project has to go back to the Planning Commission for final.

Ken Cousino: That is correct.

Vice-Chairman Harrington. Do I correctly understand that if we were not to grant your variance as requested you would be unable to develop the project in its present form?

Ken Cousino: That is correct.

Member Reinke: If you are not to get a variance, what would you lose; one lot?

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 7 8/8/95

Ken Cousino: We would lose one lot, that is correct. There was another consideration that we proposed in meeting with the planner, that we could shift all of the lots to the east; but then we started encroaching into the wetland area. It is acceptable to have the wetlands within the lot, but we felt that it would be better to leave the wetlands alone and outside of this zoning to leave that configuration. Because of the location of the wetlands, it seemed to make more sense to keep them on the cul-de-sac and not shift them to the right. We did not want to go further to the north because with extending that other cul-de-sac to the north you get closer to the protected woodlands and we shift everything up that way. So those two little constraints we are trying to work around, kind of box us in. For the large parcel that it is, we were trying to preserve a lot of open space. It was the interest of the property owner, more than the developer, to preserve that large open space.

Member Reinke: I think that they are trying to push an extra lot in here, which I don't know if it is really warranted or not. I think it is self created. I think that they should be able to live within the zoning requirements.

Ken Cousino: Another alternative that we had discussed with the planner was instead of providing a 75 foot minimum cul-de-sac radius and it is presented as a minimum, if we could have an 80 foot or an 82 foot radius just in the right of way, it would then provide sufficient frontage along that and make these lots work.

Member Reinke: Then you would have to have a variance request for that.

Ken Cousino: That is correct. That would be a different variance request.

Member Reinke: I think that you have a large enough parcel here that it should be able to be developed within the existing ordinance. I see no reason for a variance on this property.

Ken Cousino: Part of my argument is that had this been identified at the beginning of the planning process, like at the preliminary site plan, that there was a problem here for final site plan or during the construction document review or during the final review; it may have been more easily handled then. At this point, we would be re-designing roads, sewer, water, potential impact on woodlands and the wetlands and re-orienting these spaces and it just seems that we would lose a construction season and I understand that is not a particular concern here but it is to the developer at a late date to find this out. How can we kind of minimize damage here and continue with the project that basically meets I believe the intent of the ordinance quite nicely.

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 8 8/8/95

Vice-Chairman Harrington: Why was this found out at such a late date?

Ken Cousino: That is when it was raised as an issue. It was approximately mid June of this year, the first that it was notified that there was a problem here that needs to be addressed and we were already waiting for sewer and water permits from the DNR and the Michigan Department of Public Health and the wetlands had been applied for at the DNR and had gone through one review already and it was a shock to us to find this out at this late date.

Member Brennan: I have a bit of a different twist of things here. We generally look at hardship as a vehicle for granting a variance. Personally I think that this might be a case that justifies hardship because it wasn't created by the petitioner it was created by the City's inability to spot it or to spot it at so late in the game. It appears to me that there is some legitimacy in the request. It is a good use of the property. It comes to this Board with recommendation of approval.

Don Saven: Most of your lots exceed the minimum requirement, is that correct?

Ken Cousino: Yes, including these particular lots.

Don Saven: The lines between lots 16 and 17; should you go to this 84 foot cul-de-sac or consider this, would this have any cause for concern as far as setback requirements go?

Ken Cousino: Would it minimize or reduce the area in those lots so that they wouldn't meet the requirement? They would still meet it. It would still work.

Moved by Member Brennan,

Seconded by Vice-Chairman Harrington,

THAT IN CASE NO. 95-077 THE VARIANCE BE GRANTED BECAUSE SUFFICIENT HARDSHIP HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED.

Discussion on motion:

Vice-Chairman Harrington: I think that this is a very close case. I could be persuaded to agree with Mr. Reinke and in seconding the motion I also have some feeling relative to Mr. Brennan. My support of the motion is that the extent of the incursion in the ordinance that would be required to approve it is minimal. We are looking at a large area for development and we are looking at one lot in contrast with a major incursion. I do not necessarily agree with Mr. Brennan's observation that it is the City's fault when people develop in this community. I believe that they are on

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 9 8/8/95

notice of our requirements and they are required to hire competent people to spot those problems long before it ever comes to us. That is not the basis of my support.

Chairman Antosiak: I will support Mr. Brennan's motion primarily because all of the lots do exceed the recommended lot size and typically variances are sought for exactly the opposite reason as being sought in this case; which is typically a smaller lot with buildings closer to the lot line. In this regard I would be willing to support the motion.

ROLL CALL: YEAS (4) NAYS (0) MOTION CARRIED

Craig Bright, representing Randolph Holmes is requesting a variance of 76 inches to allow for the construction of a deck at 23202 Mystic Forest Drive. This lot was previously granted a variance for the construction of a single family residence in which the required side yard is 12.08 feet. This previous variance was granted on June 7, 1994, ZBA Case No. 94-059.

Randolph Holmes was present and duly sworn.

Randolph Holmes: This request deals with your permission to build a wooden deck off of the back of my home. As noted in your write up there was previous zoning variance to construct the home on this lot. The issue is that apparently the deck is going to be a little to close to the protected woodland area. Just to stress to the Board that the deck would not be infringing on a neighbor because on the north side of the property it is all woods, all forest. Without a zoning variance I am not sure how I could put a wooden deck on the back of my house the way the house has been constructed on that lot, due to the positioning of the house on the lot.

Chairman Antosiak indicated there was a total of 4 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There was no written response received.

There was no audience participation.

Don Saven: The lot is very unusual in nature.

Chairman Antosiak: I recollect that from the original case.

Member Reinke: The only reason that I can support this is because of the open area that it affects. If it were anything else other than that I would definitely be against this proposal.

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 10 8/8/95

Vice-Chairman Harrington: I concur with Mr. Reinke.

Don Saven: By any chance are you infringing on any protected woodlands area? I want to be absolutely sure.

Randolph Holmes: No. The house is adjacent to protected woodlands.

Don Saven: Is there any protected woodlands area involved where your deck is going to be?

Randolph Holmes: No.

Moved by Member Reinke,

Seconded by Vice-Chairman Harrington,

THAT IN CASE NO. 95-079 TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUEST DUE TO LOT SIZE AND CONFIGURATION.

ROLL CALL: YEAS (4) NAYS (0) MOTION CARRIED

The applicant is seeking a variance for an expansion of a nonconforming structure to allow an increase in the play area on the south side of the building by 1,144 square feet and to add a 75 square foot extension on the west side for a cash booth. Fast food

restaurants are not normally permitted in the PD-3 Districts.

Tom Radclyfe was present and duly sworn.

Tom Radclyfe: McDonalds is before you requesting a variance to add an addition to a nonconforming use. Our proposal is in 2 parts; to improve our restaurant at the location on Twelve Mile Road on the pad of Twelve Oaks Mall. Our proposal is to add a what we call a cash booth in the back of the restaurant; this cash booth is approximately 5 feet by 15 feet. It still takes the process of basically conveniencing the customer and allowing them to actually pay for their product before they pick up the product. It is pretty standard in most of our restaurants today. It is a means of providing a convenience to the customer and speed to the customer. The second addition is a proposed play place of approximately 1200 square feet. The play place addition will be approximately 26 by 44 overall and would be just over 24 foot high. The purpose of this is to create an environment, if you will, of an area where kids can play while their parents can have a leisurely dinner or lunch. It provides for various play place equipment where the kids can crawl, climb and that type of thing.

Tom Radclyfe: We were before Planning Commission and received

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 11 8/8/95

preliminary approval of the site plan and the PD-3 option. We came before City Council and during that Meeting it was discovered that the best of recollections and people going through the records that shortly before our restaurant was constructed in December of 1978 the Zoning Ordinance was changed prohibiting fast food in the PD-3. Our hardship if you will right now, is that our structure is a nonconforming use. The restaurant itself is 17 years old and we feel that it needs the enhancements that we are proposing as a means of not only providing not only our customers but the residents of Novi with a modern facility.

Chairman Antosiak indicated there was a total of 7 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There was no written response received.

There was no audience participation.

Building Department had no comment.

Member Reinke: Basically the use and the function and everything is basically the same. The changes that are being made really have no adverse affect on the operation and traffic and everything else there that is in existence. I don't have any problem with the petitioner's request.

Member Brennan: I feel the same way. I watched the Council Meeting when this was presented and there seems to be support from all Departments including Mr. Fried, Mr. Rogers. This was the only stipulation that McDonalds has to keep them from proceeding, I believe.

Tom Radclyfe: That is correct. They are in final site plan approval.

Vice-Chairman Harrington: I would support the petition, but give it qualified support. I feel strongly that nonconforming uses in this community should not be expanded but given the total absence of opposition and given the apparent support from other bodies and the fact that the proposed use is consistent with the existing use; I would support it, but it is very qualified support.

Don Saven: Did you get a letter from the Taubman Company?

Tom Radclyfe: Yes, I did. (Copy given to Chairman and was read into the record. Copy in file.)

Chairman Antosiak: I to could support a motion here for the reasons that Mr. Reinke has cited.

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 12 8/8/95

Moved by Member Reinke,

Seconded by Vice-Chairman Harrington,

THAT IN CASE NO. 95-080 THE VARIANCE REQUEST BE GRANTED DUE TO THE ZONING HARDSHIP THAT THIS IS SITUATED IN.

ROLL CALL: YEAS (4) NAYS (0) MOTION CARRIED

Matthew Thurber is requesting a 10 foot front yard setback variance to allow for the construction of a single family residence on Parcel "B" in the Deer Run subdivision located between Eight and Nine Mile Road off of Garfield Road.

Matt Thurber was present and duly sworn.

Matt Thurber: I am trying to build a house for myself in Deer Run Subdivision. It is subdivision between Eight and Nine Mile Road off of Garfield Road. The lot that see before you backs up to a quarry, so it is sort of a water front lot. The lot currently has a 42 foot building pad, due to the 25 foot wetlands buffer that is on the lot.

Matt Thurber: I talked to Sue at JCK and she said that she would like to maintain that 25 foot buffer. The problem is that with a 42 foot building pad it is pretty hard to find a 3000 or a 3500 square foot home, which is what I would like to build. The house that I gave you a copy of is currently the house that I am living in now in Timber Ridge and would like to rebuild on this lot.

Matt Thurber: I am willing to take the sun room off, that shows my sincerity in trying to get the lot to fit the house, which would lessen the depth of the house by 10 feet. The house that I am proposing to build is about 50 feet deep from the front of the garage to the back of the house. In looking in the builders magazine from last month for instance, most houses in the 3000 to 3500 square foot range have depths of 50 to 68 feet and that is a much more common depth. The footprint of the house that I am trying to build is a very small footprint in an effort to get it to fit onto the lot.

Matt Thurber: Normal setbacks in most subdivisions that are coming on board of this nature, are 30 to 35 feet with my conversations with the Building Department. So, I am requesting a 35 foot front setback or a 10 foot variance.

Matt Thurber: You will also notice on the plan that the garage is almost totally recessed and that further adds to having a shallow house; so I have done just about everything I can product wise to

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 13 8/8/95

get a 3500 square foot home that would fit into this building pad.

Chairman Antosiak indicated there was a total of 27 Notices that were 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.

Don Saven: In relationship to the gentleman who has added that in his request, where is he? I believe that you are parcel "B", is that correct?

Matt Thurber: The septic field location which has been approved by Oakland County would not change from where it is currently proposed and approved.

Don Saven: Where is your well?

Matt Thurber: My well is on the back of the house, closer to the water. It is on the back of the driveway. The well location and the septic field location would both remain as proposed and approved by Oakland County.

Vice-Chairman Harrington: On this diagram does your septic location show?

Matt Thurber: No, it doesn't. It is not on either one of those.

Vice-Chairman Harrington: Where is the proposed septic going to be in terms of orienting myself on this schematic?

Matt Thurber: The proposed septic has already been approved in the front yard and it starts basically on the front yard line.

Vice-Chairman Harrington: Clearance to the well would be at least 50 feet?

Matt Thurber: Yes, between the septic and the well. The developer doesn't have a problem with approving this either.

Chairman Antosiak: I have a question for Mr. Saven. When these lots are approved do they depict a building foot print? Or at least a foot print in which a building can be placed?

Don Saven: I think that there is something relative to where a building can be placed, like a pad area that it can be placed in. Sometimes due to the configuration and especially when you are

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 14 8/8/95

dealing with the wetlands area and the 25 foot buffer strip that we are trying to maintain, this is becoming a little bit of a problem.

Chairman Antosiak: It seems to me, if someone lined off the setback requirements and the wetland buffer when this lot was originally planned that they would have seen a very small footprint for an allowable building or you would have ended up to fit in there with a long and narrow building.

Matt Thurber: I am not sure how long the 25 foot wetlands buffer requirement has been in effect. I think that this has been under development for quite some time.

Greg Capote: I believe that the 25 foot buffer rule has been in the last year or year and a half. It could be that plan had gone through the process prior to the 25 foot buffer requirement.

Member Reinke: The only reason that I can support this proposal is the size of the lot. I really think that to many of these times and situations we are coming in and lots are being requested to be over built. Due to the lot size, I can support the petitioners request.

Moved by Vice-Chairman Harrington,

Seconded by Member Reinke,

THAT IN CASE NO. 95-081 TO APPROVAL THE PETITION FOR THE VARIANCE AS SUBMITTED, DUE TO THE LOT SIZE AND THE UNIQUE CONFIGURATION OF THE PARCEL.

ROLL CALL: YEAS (4) NAYS (0) MOTION CARRIED

Mike Kenney, representing Pulte Homes, is requesting a variance to allow the placement of a permanent island sign on Lochmoor Lane and Eleven Mile Roads. The proposed sign will be located in the City right of way.

Mike Kenney was present and duly sworn.

Mike Kenney: We would like to put a permanent entry sign in the boulevard at the entrance of this subdivision on Lochmoor Lane. The City currently has an ordinance that island signs are not permitted on public roads. This is a recorded plat, these streets will be public. The sign placement is 14 feet off of the right of way of Eleven Mile Road. It will still be within the right of way on Lochmoor Lane. It is a two sided sign. We pushed it back off of Eleven Mile Road to avoid any site restrictions, oncoming traffic, incoming or outgoing traffic. It is a permanent sign. We would

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 15 8/8/95

build it within the regulations of the Building Department and any Sign Ordinance with respect to height restrictions or construction codes and what have you.

Chairman Antosiak indicated there was a total of 2 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There was no written response received.

There was no audience participation.

Don Saven: This has received approval from City Council.

Vice-Chairman Harrington: It is your testimony that the erection of this sign will not present a safety hazard?

Mike Kenney: That is correct. We have also complied with the license agreement that comes with this. The sign is insured.

Chairman Antosiak: Will you be seeking any other signage for this entrance to the subdivision?

Mike Kenney: Not to my knowledge, no.

Member Reinke: Question for Mr. Saven. Is there a traffic problem, do we need to have somebody address this?

Alan Amolsch: That was done before this went to Council. Mr. Jerome goes out to check the site and makes sure that there is no problem with that. It is part of the package that goes to Council.

Chairman Antosiak: The petitioner would be required to give a hold/harmless to the City for the sign in the right of way?

Alan Amolsch: Yes, there is.

Moved by Vice-Chairman Harrington,

Seconded by Member Reinke,

THAT IN CASE NO. 95-074 FOR APPROVAL OF THE PETITION AS SUBMITTED FOR THE REASON THAT THERE IS A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, THERE IS NO WHERE ELSE TO PUT THE SIGN.

ROLL CALL: YEAS (4) NAYS (0) MOTION CARRIED

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 16 8/8/95

Dennis Ringvelski, representing Greenwood Oaks Homeowners Association is requesting a variance to allow the placement of a second entry sign at Ten Mile and Lynwood (east side of Lynwood) on the existing wall.

Dennis Ringvelski was present and duly sworn.

Dennis Ringvelski: Basically we have two stone walls at the entranceway to Greenwood Oaks; one is on the west side and one is on the east side of Lynwood Drive as you can see from the little drawings that you have there. The present sign on the stone wall is on the angled part of the wall; so that people coming to our subdivision can really only see that sign if they come from the east side of Novi. Anyone coming from South Lyon or west of us on Ten Mile Road, creates sometimes a safety hazard because they have to screech to a halt when they realize, especially workmen, that they have just about passed our subdivision. I have seen them almost do a "U" Turn in that area to try to get to us. The other hardship basically besides the traffic hazard is that it is just very difficult for visitors, etc. to find us due to the present placement. Since we were putting new letter, basically the same letters but re-done because the present ones are falling apart; we thought that it would be an appropriate time at the same time to place the same letters on the other wall which is already in existence. There would be no additional structures or anything like that being added to the signage.

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.

Alan Amolsch had no comment.

Vice-Chairman Harrington: What is the speed limit in that area of Ten Mile?

Dennis Ringvelski: I think it is about 40; but it is about 60 normally.

Member Brennan: I live across the street from this subdivision and because of the angle of those existing walls it is near impossible if you are heading east bound you don't see any signage at all.

Member Reinke: Look at the size of the sign requests, say roughly 2 foot by 8 an 1/2 foot, you are looking at 17 square feet. It is not an obtrusive sign. It blends in well with the wall. Since the REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 17 8/8/95

wall is in existence there I really don't see any problem with the petition.

Vice-Chairman Harrington: I concur.

Chairman Antosiak: I concur for the reasons that Mr. Brennan has stated.

Moved by Member Brennan,

Seconded by Vice-Chairman Harrington,

THAT IN CASE NO. 95-075 THE VARIANCE BE GRANTED DUE TO HARDSHIP DEMONSTRATED AND SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS.

ROLL CALL: YEAS (4) NAYS (0) MOTION CARRIED

Rob Conley, representing Delwal Corporation is requesting a variance to allow placement of a sign mounted to the landscape wall at 44500 Grand River Avenue. The verbiage will be "DELWAL CORPORATION" "HEADQUARTERS" AND "TIPKE TOOL", with the square footage being 83 square feet.

Rob Conley was present and duly sworn.

Rob Conley: We are proposing to install decorative block letter signage on a ground built landscape wall along Delwal property frontage, Grand River frontage. To obtain the necessary verbiage that we are seeking it is going to require 83 square feet under the block letter method of calculation. We have a unique situation in that we are trying to identify 2 distinct businesses at this location and are separating the verbiage of the 2 signs to conform with the decorative landscape wall as well as allow approaching visitors coming down Grand River to see the sign in enough time to know that is the location that they are seeking and make adequate preparation for turning into our property. The sign will be of a decorative construction. We have a 98 foot setback. Using the blocked method calculation we are loosing a lot of footage just on blank wall separation. If our letters are calculated only on the square foot value of the letters themselves we are at approximately 38 square feet and well under the allocated amount of footage.

Rob Conley: We believe the ground signage will add a very attractive addition to the Grand River corridor along this frontage.

Chairman Antosiak indicated there was a total of 17 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There were 2 written responses received. REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 18 8/8/95

One voicing approval and one voicing objection. Copies in file.

There was no audience participation.

Alan Amolsch had no comment.

Rob Conley: We are trying to prevent just that situation by separating the 2 distinct businesses that they can be identified early enough that oncoming traffic or visitors would be able to see that in a timely fashion.

Vice-Chairman Harrington: Question for Don or Alan. Aren't we supposed to be identifying all the occupants of the building?

Alan Amolsch: A business sign can identify all the occupants or businesses on a piece of land. The only restriction that we have on verbiage is when it is a business center sign, then it can only say the name of the business center. These are going to be 2 businesses within the same building and they can display their sign within the existing square footage that is allowed under the ordinance.

Vice-Chairman Harrington: Each would be allowed or entitled to their own sign?

Alan Amolsch: Within the square footages that the ordinance stipulates, they have to live with.

Vice-Chairman Harrington: If there were a dozen occupants of the building and there was one big long wall, would they each be entitled to their own individual sign?

Alan Amolsch: If they could fit it into the square footage with the setback formula that the ordinance stipulates, then they could do that. What they are doing here is going beyond what the ordinance allows for square footage. They originally had pulled a permit for a sign which met the square footage of the sign ordinance of 48 square feet; however, they felt that this was not going to serve their needs. That is why they filed this petition.

Vice-Chairman Harrington: (Inquired of Rob Conley). Is the 83 square foot that you have requested, is that a drop dead number and that is the absolute minimum necessary to accomplish your purposes or can you get any closer to what the ordinance specifies?

Rob Conley: I would believe that would be the minimum amount that we would need to present this on the wall. The wall has been

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 19 8/8/95

constructed and to place the Delwal Corporation Headquarters in the center of the arch which gives it the most visibility and the Tipke Tool on the flat 90 degree portion I believe that the calculations that we are utilizing are probably the minimum necessary.

Member Reinke: There is definitely a reason for the type of business and the traffic along that for signage and identification. Looking at the letter size that is proposed, it is not really obtrusive. The block that they are mounting on is giving them the problem in total square footage. Looking at the sign itself, to me, it doesn't seem to present a problem.

Chairman Antosiak: Question for Alan Amolsch. Why is this viewed as one sign rather than 2 signs?

Alan Amolsch: It could be reviewed either way. The petitioner has requested instead of asking for a second sign, he requested that we review it under the square footage limitations under one sign. That is their choice. You can either review it under the second sign separate from the other and because it is individual letters we block the message off to the total height of the letters times the length of the message.

Chairman Antosiak: I was just looking because one is on the curve of the wall and one is on the flat of the wall and it doesn't seem continuous and viewed in that perspective......

Alan Amolsch: Either way they would have had to request a variance for square footage.

Chairman Antosiak: But viewed from that perspective the Delwal portion of that particular sign would be within ordinance and the petitioner would be requesting approximately 20 square foot for a second sign.

Alan Amolsch: That is correct. It can be looked at either way. This is a unique situation because they are letters on an existing wall. Normally we look at a sign structure that is built for a sign. This is a little different than your normal sign request.

Vice-Chairman Harrington: I am prepared to make a motion but before making the motion I would comment that only because this is a minimal incursion and I concur with Mr. Reinke's comments on the sign, if this same petitioner was to come back here and have 2 or 3 more occupants or tenants and say "we need to identify them too", that clearly would offend the spirit or the letter of the ordinance. But, under these circumstances I think this is the minimum necessary.

Moved by Vice-Chairman Harrington,

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 20 8/8/95

Seconded by Member Reinke,

THAT IN CASE NO. 95-082 TO APPROVE THE SIGN VARIANCE AS REQUESTED BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUE HARDSHIP ASSOCIATED WITH IDENTIFICATION OF THE OCCUPANTS OF THIS SPACE.

ROLL CALL: YEAS (4) NAYS (0) MOTION CARRIED

United Development is requesting a variance to allow the placement of an entrance sign in the boulevard at Ten Mile and Windridge Lane. The sign will be 8' x 33" (21 sq. ft.) with height from grade to top of sign being 4'9", the verbiage will be "WINDRIDGE PLACE".

Sam Piccolo was present and duly sworn.

Sam Piccolo: United Development is not the developer. The developer is Stalberg Properties. We negotiated to buy the lots. We have taken a lot of interest in the landscaping and signs of the subdivision, so we negotiated with Mr. Stalberg to whatever money he was going to allocate for the subdivision landscaping and signage that we would do the work because we were going to exceed it. At that time he gave us a plat that showed a boulevard with a sign on it and a berm area for some landscaping. The 2 lots that are on the boulevard don't have or there is no space in front of those lots to put a sign because it would be on someone's private property. When I went to pull a permit I found out that you could not put a sign on a boulevard. They did recommend that I go to Council; I went in front of the Council and now I am in front of the ZBA. I believe that we are putting up an attractive sign it will have brick and the sandblasted wood. We are going to meet all of the requirements and there is really no other alternative to put a sign up there. So, I guess, your consideration in this matter would be very helpful to the subdivision. It is a permanent sign it is going to be for the subdivision and we would appreciate any consideration.

Chairman Antosiak indicated there was a total of 15 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There was no written response received.

There was no audience participation.

Alan Amolsch: This is exactly the same as the Lochmoor case. They have gone to Council, the license agreement and everything.

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 21 8/8/95

Vice-Chairman Harrington: Is it your testimony to this Board that the erection of this sign will not present a safety hazard?

Sam Piccolo: Absolutely not.

Vice-Chairman Harrington: The reason that you need this variance is that there is no other place to put the sign?

Sam Piccolo: Other than private property, I don't think that we could and I can't see putting a structure or a sign on private property.

Chairman Antosiak: I will just add that this is another boulevard sign case which we seem to get many of.

Sam Piccolo: If it is any consolation, if I were developing it myself and knowing the ordinance I would design without being in the boulevard. We were just floored when we found out that we couldn't do it.

Vice-Chairman Harrington: You design it so that it is not in the boulevard and then you have to come back in front of us because you need 2 signs because people go right by it and then slam on their brakes. So, we are still going to get to talk to you, unless zoning and ordinance review committee gets involved.

Moved by Vice-Chairman Harrington,

Seconded by Member Reinke,

THAT IN CASE NO. 95-083 TO APPROVE THE PETITION FOR THE SIGN VARIANCE AS REQUESTED, BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUE CONFIGURATION PRESENT THERE IS NO OTHER PLACE TO PUT THE SIGN.

ROLL CALL: YEAS (4) NAYS (0) MOTION CARRIED

John Flanagan is requesting a variance to the Home Occupation Ordinance, Section 201c, to allow for the retail sales of fire arms in his home located at 23948 E. LeBost.

John Flanagan was present and duly sworn.

John Flanagan: My case is that I currently have a Federal Fire Arms License which allows me to purchase fire arms at wholesale and then retail them. I am currently not a stocking dealer, which means that I do not have weapons for sale at home. I take my business by taking an order and then ordering the weapon and selling it. I was somewhat surprised to find out that I was in violation of a Novi Ordinance. This came to light under the ATF

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 22 8/8/95

list, reviewing my license and they informed me that I would either have to get a variance or to allow my business to go bankrupt, basically. So, I am coming before the Board to ask for this variance so that I can continue my business.

Chairman Antosiak indicated there was a total of 34 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There was one written response received voicing objection. Copy in file.

There was no audience participation.

DISCUSSION

Don Saven had no comment.

Member Reinke: Mr. Flanagan, is this a side line endeavor or is this something that you are building? What is your.....

John Flanagan: It is currently a side line, yes.

Member Brennan: Mr. Flanagan, I have a list of questions and if it is ok you can just answer yes or no to make it easy.

Is this business your only source of income? (John) No, it is not.

How long have you had this business in Novi? (John) Approximately 2 years.

Have your neighbors ever expressed any concern, prior to this date? (John) No they have not.

Have you ever been ticketed or in violation of any Novi law with regard to this business? (John) No.

I think you have already discussed maintaining the stock of fire arms and you do not. (John) I do not maintain a stock of fire arms for sale, I have some personally owned weapons but they are not part of my business.

Do you maintain a stock of ammunition, for inventory or resale? (John) Only for personal use.

Can you tell us the monthly number of sales conducted at your residence? (John) None lately since the ATF has essentially put me in a limbo state until this issue is resolved.

Prior years? (John) Prior years, less than one a month. As I said this is a side line business, I got into it as a hobby.

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 23 8/8/95

The last question I would like you to expand on. Can you describe the safety considerations that you have in place to secure and to protect your property? (John) As I said, I do not stock weapons for sale, therefore I do not have a collection. I remove the bolts which is a major component of the fire arm and I keep them locked separately. Ammunition is not stored with weapons. I have the regular collection of dead bolts on my front and rear doors.

You did mention something about safes? (John) No, I have a closet that I keep them in.

Vice-Chairman Harrington: Mr. Flanagan, do I correctly understand that your engagement in casual or incidental sales of fire arms preceded the Brady Bill or the Federal Statute which now requires your approval by the local ordinance?

John Flanagan: Yes, I have been in business since approximately 1986.

Member Reinke: It has only been 2 years in Novi, is that correct?

John Flanagan: Yes, 2 to 3 years. I am not sure of the exact date.

Vice-Chairman Harrington: We on the Board, especially when we are dealing with sensitive issues like fire arms which have a high political content; we are very concerned about neighbor objections. That is important to us and we encourage people to come and to talk to us when they are concerned about these issues. Mrs. Sudz is not present this evening; has she ever spoken to you or addressed a concern about traffic?

John Flanagan: No, she has not.

Vice-Chairman Harrington: Has Mrs. Sudz ever expressed a concern to you about the hours in which presumably your visitors would come and pick up their purchases and leave?

John Flanagan: No, sir and if it helps in this line of questioning I do not believe that I have ever met the lady in question.

Vice-Chairman Harrington: Has she ever spoken to you by telephone?

John Flanagan: No, she has not.

Vice-Chairman Harrington: Did she speak to you before this meeting?

John Flanagan: No, sir she has not. Unless one of the messages on my answering machine that was just a click and a disconnect was from her.

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 24 8/8/95

Vice-Chairman Harrington: Well, I would not make that assumption. Are you here this evening because you wish to comply with both the Federal Statute as well as the Novi Ordinance?

John Flanagan: That is correct. I do not wish to be doing anything that can be construed as being illegal.

Chairman Antosiak: Mr. Capote, has anything on the Home Occupation Ordinance come up for discussion at Ordinance Review?

Greg Capote: Ordinance Review Committee referred it to the Implementation Committee. The Implementation Committee has a long list of things that they have yet to look at and this is one of them. Currently they have been working hard on the OS-3 proposed new zoning district. They are just now making a recommendation to the Planning Commission and the next items are the B-1 districts with the possibility of allowing food sales and the preparation of foods. After that has been discussed, then, the home sales of fire arms will be discussed. It might still be some time.

Chairman Antosiak: Any guess as to how long that might be?

Greg Capote: I don't like to speculate. The OS-3 discussion has gone on much longer than I have ever anticipated. I believe we counted 9 meetings in total. I mentioned to the committee several meetings ago that I have been asked by Council as a body and by individual Council Members and the ZBA as to what is happening to this. Their response to me was "we will get to it, when we get to it, there are other matters before us and we will get to it as quickly as possible". That is not me speaking, it is the committee as a whole.

Vice-Chairman Harrington: I wouldn't ask you to speak for them, but given that they are presumably taking issues in the order of importance to them; this issue and I don't see it as home fire arms but the whole issue of occupations in the home; that is not at the top of their agenda right now?

Greg Capote: It has been on a first come first serve basis. The OS-3 was something that we were looking at even at the end or the latter portion of 1994, it got put at a side line and then we started looking at other things and then we went back to the OS-3 again. Then it will go to the B-1 Ordinance review and then onto the Home Occupational sales, etc. I try to take it as a first come first serve unless the committee tells me to do otherwise. Their wish is my command, it is whatever they want to do. I service the committee. I offer opinions when I think it is important and even when I disagree they continue on and make their recommendations. It is that kind of relationship.

Member Reinke: Number one, I don't think that we need retail sales REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 25 8/8/95

of any type in a residential district. Number two, I believe that guns should be sold in a commercial district. They are in a business situation and not a residential situation. I cannot support the petitioners request.

Vice-Chairman Harrington: The petitioner is engaged and has been engaged in a legal use of his home premises and this conflict has been created by the Brady Bill at the Federal level, which is an attempt to put people out of business because of the product that they may sell on a casual or hobby basis, like this gentleman. He has been singled out. He is being discriminated against, to the detriment of other people who engage in other occupations out of their homes. For the Board to ignore that fact, I think is simply wishful thinking. The reason I support the petitioner's request among other reason is the fact that he is engaged in a lawful activity and I don't think that this petitioner or those similarly situated should be singled out. More to the point; in the other cases that have come before this Board there have been a common nexus of factors in which the approval by the Board has been granted. Number one, is it a primary source of business or income or is casual or hobby? Everyone of the variances that have been granted it has been casual, incidental or hobby sales. Number two, in everyone of those applications the petition or petitioner has had the lawful use of this hobby or call it a business if you will prior to the enactment of the ordinance and the Brady Bill. This is not a situation where the petitioner is coming in and saying "listen I want to start up in business and I want to expand what is basically a use that perhaps is not or should not be approved". I believe the petitioner fits right square in the middle of all of the ones that have come before us. Most significantly, because each one of these cases is on case by case basis and we look at the facts of the individual cases; this petitioner fits just like all the other petitioners in that there have been no neighbor complaints and in fact until the Brady Bill act as magnifying glass upon citizens involved in these unapproved activities; no one even knew that petitioners like Mr. Flanagan were engaged in this activity. Now that the eye in the sky or the Federal Government requires these people to obtain a public permit to do this then people become aware and express their political objection to the nature of what is occurring rather than there being a harm which flows from the activity such as like the petitioner. For those reasons and in cases similar to this, I will follow the same rationale that I have used in our prior cases. There is not distinction between this petitioner and any of the others and in some respects his case is stronger than the others. I do support his petition.

Chairman Antosiak: Mr. Harrington, I generally agree with what you say but I generally disagree with what you say here. Quite frankly I believe that the Home Occupation Ordinance pre-dated the Brady Bill, so, the petitioner was, in fact, operating his business in

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 26 8/8/95

violation of that ordinance if he did not have a permit from the City to do so. What has happened with the Brady Bill is that some other event has occurred to point that out to the City. In theory if somebody pointed out Avon sales or Girl Scout cookies or whatever those folks also could very well be in violation of the ordinance. I have supported on the other petitions the request for temporary variances in length of one year for the sole reason that I do believe that the Home Occupation Ordinance if over broad. I don't believe that it addresses the nature of work in 1995 as perhaps it did when it was passed many years ago. You have many more people working at home today than you did in the past. I believe at the last meeting that I pointed out that the very first sentence of that ordinance deals with businesses typically conducted in the homes of which I believe that fire arm sales are typically conducted in the homes. But like I said, in the past and in this case I would support a temporary variance until the City has a chance to review the ordinance. I could not support a permanent variance in this case.

Member Brennan: We have precedence, the petitioner has demonstrated that he has features of his business that make us comfortable in terms of safety in casual sales. I think that the Board needs to be fair and the Board needs to be consistent. I will support a temporary variance as well.

Member Reinke: Two last comments. We have no precedence here. Each case stands on its own merits. Any case that is judged does not set a precedence for the next case. Number two, I am being very consistent. I have voted against every single application for fire arm sales in a residential area and I will continue to be consistent.

Moved by Vice-Chairman Harrington,

Seconded by Member Brennan,

THAT WE TABLE THIS APPLICATION UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING AT WHICH TIME WE HAVE A FULL BOARD. THE REASON BEING THAT IT WOULD APPEAR FROM THE DISCUSSION THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE UNABLE TO REACH A CONSENSUS EVEN ON A TEMPORARY VARIANCE WHICH I CERTAINLY WOULD SUPPORT, I THINK THIS IS AN ISSUES THAT CRIES FOR CLOSE OVER SIGHT BY THE CITY AND IF WE ARE GOING TO DISAPPROVE PARTICULAR OCCUPATIONS THEN THERE SHOULD BE PUBLIC DEBATE ON WHAT WE APPROVE OF AND WHAT WE DON'T. WE ARE GOING TO BE UNABLE TO OBTAIN THE FOUR (4) VOTES WHICH IS THE MINIMUM REQUIRED TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE.

Discussion on motion:

Member Brennan: Mr. Flanagan, were you here at 7:30 when the introductory comments were made regarding the number of people that were required to vote?

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 27 8/8/95

John Flanagan: No, I was a few minutes late.

Member Brennan: Were you aware that you had to have all 4 votes in order to get your variance granted?

John Flanagan: No, sir.

ROLL CALL: (VOICE VOTE) YEAS (3) NAYS (1) Reinke

CASE WILL BE TABLED TO THE NEXT MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 1995.

Don Saven: I had a Mr. Spoon from Farbman Equities contact me regarding a concern that he had for asking for a special meeting. I believe that Mr. Spooner is he here and I will let him explain his concern.

Jeff Spoon: I represent the New Apostolic Church that owns Glens Oaks Apartment, which is going to be named in the future the Enclave. We are in the processing of converting those apartments into condominiums. We have gone through the site plan approval process, we received 100% approval from the Planning Commission. We received approval last night from the Council, subject to 2 variances that the City Attorney felt were necessary. Two variances which are required are: 1. a condominium has to be on a public road, if I have stated that correctly. The project right now is on an interior road of the Twelve Oaks Mall itself. 2. the ordinance requires that all of the buildings have a connecting sidewalk between them. The difficulty there is that the topography of the development won't allow us to install sidewalks connecting the buildings but there is an interior walkway system to each building, enclosed, at the present time. Further to meet that ordinance we decided to add additional sidewalks to the site plan itself which would be along the lake area so that the residents can walk that area. The reason why the Council has asked the ZBA to have a special meeting for me is because of the time frame that we are under. We are spending significant dollars, most likely over a million dollars in capital improvements to change this development from an apartment development to a condominium development. To achieve that, we need to go to market by October 1, 1995. The difficulty is that last night was the first time that we heard about the required variances and what we were planning to do was to actually start construction today and be able to build the new guard house and the landscaping and the new facades and everything else by the time the October 1st date starts. If I wait for the next ZBA Meeting, which is on the 5th at least I think it is, I basically have 3 weeks to build a guard house and monument signs and landscaping. The difficulty is and I have been in this business to many years; the rains start falling when I start construction. I will have that difficulty and so I do ask the ZBA

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 28 8/8/95

if at all possible you can grant me a special hearing prior to the 5th of September and as soon as possible which is legally required. I would much appreciate this.

Chairman Antosiak: As we were discussing earlier, the earliest possible day that we could have a meeting would be August 22nd. We notify adjoining land owners of the variance request and give them 10 days to respond to that Notice. Nancy tells me that if she receives your request by this Friday that would allow us to have a meeting on the 22nd, assuming......

Jeff Spoon: The Taubman Company has granted us the approval for the development which is part of the package of the site plan approval.

Chairman Antosiak: If you would give that letter to Nancy, then it can be distributed. I say August 22nd with the presumption that we can get everyone here. As you see, 3 Members are not here tonight and they are out of town and cannot be reached until next week. I have not asked the other Member who are here if they are available on August 22nd. Is there anyone who knows now that they are not going to be available? Or if they won't be available?

Vice-Chairman Harrington: I have a question before I answer that question. What is it that has created this emergency? Someone didn't figure out that they might need variances to do this project?

Jeff Spoon: Unfortunately, last night the City Council and all of us were woken up by the City Attorney saying "wait a minute folks, there are 2 variances that you need to get".

Vice-Chairman Harrington: What about your architect or planner?

Jeff Spoon: Unfortunately all I can say is that we all missed it. We thought that frankly, we received preliminary and final site plan and we had everything in order and frankly nobody realized that it was required. I have been working very closely with the Planning Department, etc. That is why it is the next day and I am here. I am sorry for that.

Greg Capote: I offered our apology to the applicant. I have been aware for sometime of their desire to improve this development by giving it a face lift and change it from a rental development to ownership. The landscaping improvements, the guard house will be a great enhancement to this entire project. As Mr. Spoon had described to me earlier, he needed to bring this project to market come this fall or otherwise this wasn't going to happen. The project would not happen. Looking at the PD-3 option and all of our plan development option it requires both preliminary and final site plan approval by both the Planning Commission and City

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 29 8/8/95

Council. Unfortunately, this interpretation by Mr. Fried, being announced last night on the floor during a Council meeting is unfortunate for the applicant. I hope that it doesn't destroy their desire to proceed as we worked very hard to get through the approval process. This is a relatively simple thing. It is a face lift to this property. The use has not changed. It is not an expansion of the existing use or anything of that nature. This should have been caught during the pre-application meeting by myself and Mr. Rogers and it wasn't. I apologize for it. That is all that I have to say at this time.

Jeff Spoon: I would like to add one thing. Mr. Capote's department and himself have been extremely helpful. I have seen a City really munster all their forces to work to bring a good development together. So, there is no hesitation or anger on the petitioner's part. It is what it is. We are here. We are going to go through and to try to get this development done. We only ask of the ZBA if we can possibly get that meeting as soon as possible. We would much appreciate it.

Member Brennan: I will be available on the 22nd.

Vice-Chairman Harrington: I will be here also. I would ask Mr. Chairman; given that we have pushed forward at least 4 matters and then the last one, five matters, to the September Meeting do you anticipate that your testimony and support of these variances will be extensive, are we looking at a couple of hours of meeting?

Jeff Spoon: No. The presentation would take 15 minutes just to bring everybody up to speed as to what is going on and that should be about it.

Vice-Chairman Harrington: I would express to Mr. Chairman that I would be willing and I don't know what the re-publication or whether or not we could even do the paperwork that would be involved; but if we already have pending matters that would simply involve an amended Notice; I would certainly be willing to use productive use of our time on the 22nd to consider any other matters that would want to be advanced on the time table. There is no point to doing one Meeting on the 22nd and then having 17 matters until one in the morning in September. That is only my thought.

Chairman Antosiak: Is that at all possible? I would encourage you to get your request formally into the Building Department in the next day or two.

Jeff Spoon: I have no problem with that. I will make sure that it happens. I appreciate that.

Chairman Antosiak: Someone will call you to confirm, or you will

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 30 8/8/95

get a letter to confirm the Meeting if we in fact have a quorum. I support Mr. Harrington's suggestion that if you can move some of the tabled items of tonight to the 22nd, and it can be scheduled for every one; let's do it. I have no idea of what September will look like and I will not be here for the September meeting.

Amarjit Chawney: I always like to come to the City of Novi for the evening meetings. We are always treated very fairly especially by the Building Department. The reason that I stayed back is to request that if there is any correspondence that have been received by your office; if I could get a copy of it so that I can be better prepared to answer any questions when I come the next time.

Chairman Antosiak: Let me look in your file.

Amarjit Chawney: If I may also make a comment, this August 22nd Meeting if it does happen maybe my project could be included on that.

Chairman Antosiak: There is just one letter in your file, Mr. Chawney, and it is an approval.

Chairman Antosiak: Is there any other discussion?

Alan Amolsch: I would like to report that we have prevailed in the Trammell Crow sign case and the sign is coming down; the one on the freeway. There were numerous cases that came before the Board on that one and there was some litigation involved in it also. The City Attorney's office has prevailed and the sign is coming down.

Member Reinke: One last comment, Mr. Saven, what is the status on West Oaks Veterinary Clinic?

Don Saven: I am really not sure. I was inquiring today as to why they are not moving forward and this was with some of the residents around the area who also have some concerns. I do know that there is some activity being generated with the buildings on the site right now. There is some movement in that particular area.

Greg Capote: I don't know of any activity on the site but I do know that they have one year to take action, then their plan becomes null and void.

Member Reinke: I am not trying to discourage it, I am trying to encourage it.

REGULAR, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

PAGE 31 8/8/95

The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.

Date Approved Nancy C. Mckernan

Recording Secretary