| View Agenda for this meeting View Action Summary for this meeting REGULAR MEETING -- ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Proceedings had and testimony taken in the matters of ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS at City of Novi, 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, on Tuesday, October 2, 2001.BOARD MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY: MR. CHAIRMAN: At this time I would like to call the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to order. Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Present. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Present. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Fannon, I have excused. Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Present. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan is excused. Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Here. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Here. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. The Board consists of six members, and we have -- two members are absent tonight, one member in Alden. It takes a vote of four members to approve a variance.
Is there anyone that would like to table their case without having the full Board before us this evening? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, we'll continue on. The Zoning Board of Appeals is empowered by the City charter to hear appeals seeking a variance to the application of an ordinance. It takes at least four members to approve a variance request and a vote of majority of the members present to deny a variance. And since we have five members here this evening, all decisions this evening will be final. Are there any additions or changes or corrections to the agenda? SARAH MARCHIONI: Yes. Number six has been tabled to next month. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other changes? SARAH MARCHIONI: That would be it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Approval of the agenda as corrected? MEMBER BAUER: So motioned. MR. CHAIRMAN: In favor, signify by
saying aye? (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Opposed? (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: We don't have any minutes for approval tonight, correct? SARAH MARCHIONI: Correct. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. At this time I'd like to have a public remarks section. If there is anything -- anybody that would like to address the Board that's not on a case this evening -- the cases we like to have addressed as they come forward. Sir? MR. STOEKER: Yes. Members of the Board, Mr. Chairman, my name is Timothy Stoeker (ph). I'm here on behalf of Jaguar of Novi with Fordland. We have submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals an application for sign variances which has been with the City at least for, I want to say, at least two or three months, and the issue that was before us will be revised, though it's not stated in your ordinance, is the policy,
apparently, of the Board not to review zoning variance applications for signage until such time as the building is complete. This dealership is scheduled to open January 31st -- or January -- at least until the walls are up. The dealership is scheduled to open January 31st, 2002. The application materials that we submitted to the Board for your review included architectural diagrams or elevations wherein we superimposed onto the building the signs that we were requesting as well as the other signs that will go on the perimeter of the proper. If I could figure out how to turn this on, this is a copy of what we've submitted in part. This is the elevation that faces Haggerty Road, and it says Jaguar of Novi, and this is part of our dilemma. That sign is to be attached to a glass wall with predrilled holes, and then the wiring comes from up above through the construction -- constructural members of the building. The problem is, that glass wall will not be installed until December of this year, and
cannot be even fabricated or ordered until we know the specific location of the signage that's gonna go on the wall and the type of signage that's gonna go on the wall because of the predrilled holes. So it's kind of we're in a cart before the horse situation here. We need to get the wall up. We can't get the wall up and we can't order it until such time as we know where the holes are gonna go and how the sign is gonna be placed on the wall because it is a glass wall. Once, in fact, the signs are finally ordered, from the time of ordering it takes eight to ten weeks to fabricate and then another week of installation. So based upon the fact that, at the earliest we could be heard would probably be January, if the walls could not be up until December, excluding this wall which we couldn't install, the earliest we would probably be on your agenda is January. That means our signage for the dealership to identify the dealership would not be installed sometime until March at the earliest, and the dealership would be located there with no identification as to who it is that's there, other than the cars -- the few cars -- as you know, we've
restricted the display of cars on the site. So that's our dilemma. The documentation that we submitted, this is the elevation that faces Ten Mile. Again, the signage at issue is not -- that's attached to the upper part of the walls at that location surface, service sign indicating where the service bay is. As you know, the service bay is recessed there actually, looks like a glass window and not a service bay, and then the Jaguar name itself and then the logo or trademark in the form of the leaping Jaguar, which somebody from the Planning Commission asked me about. MEMBER BRENNAN: Sir, one minute. MR. STOEKER: Yes. One minute? I thought I had ten. MEMBER BRENNAN: You have five. MR. STOEKER: I got five left? MEMBER BRENNAN: You have one minute left. MR. STOEKER: I have one minute left. The balance of the signage is not on the building. It's a directional sign at Ten Mile and on Haggerty, and then the internal sign getting you to
and from within the dealership. So what we are here asking is if, in fact, the Board will accept the application without the walls being up and review the sign variance application based upon the materials submitted and the mockups. We've already prepared the mockups, which will be hung in the exact locations where the sign will be proposed, and we've made them to scale. So what we're asking for is to be heard by you without the necessity of having the walls put up first. The mockups will be there, so you can see them in advance of the hearing when you do have the drawings, would show, in fact, how the signs would be placed upon the building. MR. CHAIRMAN: When do you anticipate to have your basic walls up? MR. STOEKER: Well, they're being built as fast as they could, but we were informed -- a large part of that's glass. In fact, there's no signage going where there is no glass on the building. And we have been advised that the earliest that the glass would go on is sometime early to mid December. And the balance of the
walls, the sandstone areas, there is no signage. So even putting those up would not help you from -- if you needed walls, because there is no- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Well, it does because it gives us a perspective of the building. Board members, comments or discussion? MEMBER BAUER: I would like to see the mockups put up there. MEMBER BRENNAN: I would agree with Mr. Bauer. And the petitioner explained that he wasn't aware of this, which is not entirely true, because when you go pull a sign permit you get the rules of the ZBA on any variance request, which include very specifically the requirements of mockups, and whether you do that with strings or cables or ferries, we have- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Well, I have- MR. STOEKER: (Interposing) We agreed to do the mockups. That's not the issue. The issue is you won't process the application, what we've been told, without the walls. We've got
the full-size mockups. We've already ordered them, and we'll put them out there. What we've been told is you won't accept the application until the walls are physically up on the building. In other words, like the drawing that you have here shows the steel. We have the signs that are actually to scale that we would put on them the way you see it now, so you would see service, Jaguar, Jaguar of Novi and- MEMBER BRENNAN: (Interposing) Can you show them in the position they're going to be? MR. STOEKER: Oh, yeah, absolutely. And in reference- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Well, let's- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) Mr. Chairman, if I may, it may try to help the situation out. What's being explained is the difficulty in getting materials there to put on the exterior of the wall in time for the opening. The time factor that's -- what he's explaining is the fact that the walls -- exterior walls are comprised
of glass. This glass is going to go on in a short period of time, just prior to the occupancy of the building, so for them to come to the Board within that 30-day time factor is going to be a very difficult situation for them to try to understand what that sign is comprised of, what the variance would allow them to build, if we're going to be looking at a difference from what was being proposed, and it would be a hardship to them to be able to try to put something together. I would recommend that -- if at all possible, that even if we could not get the sign directly in the place where it's supposed to be, to probably put it in the area where it's just visible so you could see the size of the sign. Would that be agreeable to the Board? MEMBER BAUER: In close proximity? MR. SAVEN: Close proximity. Would that be something you could work with? MR. CHAIRMAN: Let me say, I think originally we were presented with material that was just put up on that from a rendering that was illustration-wise, and we totally objected to receiving and evaluating material in that fashion.
With a structure there -- and understanding the applicant's need at this point in time, if a rendering can be held or suspended in position as to where it would go, I think that really gives us a perspective into the building, the size of the sign, and looking at everything there that we can make an evaluation and determination. MR. SAVEN: This is understanding this is in a glassed area; is that correct? MR. STOEKER: Right. All the signage and the -- the signage is on that area away from the sandstone portion. And we will actually hang it and display it, and it will be to scale as you require from the mockup, and the leaper will be dimensional as well, so you can see that. I mean, it will all be dimensioned. There would just be -- there's no wall behind it. That's all. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members, do you have any problem with -- Miss Gray? MEMBER GRAY: I think if they're going to put the signs where they're going to be once the glass is up, and as long as we get our normal packet with renderings as well to make it --
I think we're astute enough, we can make a decision based on that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further comments or discussion? You can proceed. We'll go from there. MR. STOEKER: I will assume we need to send a letter to the recording clerk to say put us on the November agenda? We'd like to be put on the November agenda because they're all made up and ready to go. MR. SAVEN: You're on the November agenda. MR. STOEKER: Right. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anyone else that would like to address the Board in the public remarks? MARGARET LORRIE: Yes, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, step forward. MARGARET LORRIE: My name is Margaret Lorrie and I reside at 1127 South Lake Drive in the South Pointe Condominiums complex. We were here earlier in the summer
because our next-door neighbor, Andy Kowal, was applying for a variance on the property line to build a garage closer than normal. That was denied. But also, when we brought in the pictures it was noted that he had a temporary tent sort of thing that covered a great deal of stuff very close to the property line, and one of the council people, Moore, mentioned that he had gotten a six-month variance on this two years ago, and oh, it was still there, and at that time he was asked to please clean it up. And it's not moved. So I was wondering, what can you help us do to correct this situation? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Saven? MR. SAVEN: Thank you, sir. What I will do is I will forward this information to the ordinance department and they will follow up on what the case was, how long he had and notify Mr. Kowal of the situation. Okay? MARGARET LORRIE: Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: You're welcome. MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Chair? MR. CHAIRMAN: Miss Gray?
MEMBER GRAY: I had driven through South Pointe the other day, and I know that there's still a dispute over the property line, and I had talked to some of the residents of South Pointe, and they may, indeed, have to get another survey, and I re-enforced that because, you know, surveys have to be done. But that tent structure, it's still -- it's still pretty messy back there, and -- so I had talked to some of these people and said well, you know, this is the forum and this is how you do it, so that's why they're here tonight. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MEMBER GRAY: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else that would like to address the Board in public -- yes, sir, step forward, please. ROLAND McMICHAEL: I'm Roland McMichael. I live at 1127 South Lake Drive, and having to deal with our neighbor, Andy, I was over tonight, he's not constructed but built up bricks twelve to fourteen inches high that, obviously, are on our property. He has landscape material, he has odd number of pieces of cement
block strewn throughout the area. This area, in 1996, my son and I personally spent four hours cleaning up thinking it was a good neighbor's act. Well, it backfired. It's back now as bad as it was before, if not worse. I don't know what it's going to take to bring him to his senses and treat us like neighbors, not like a dump yard. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. SAVEN: Same issue. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the Board at this time? MEMBER BRENNAN: Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir. MEMBER BRENNAN: Can I make a real quick comment? These people have been here before. We saw a lot of photographs and we've seen the evidence of this thing, and I will just go on record as saying, Mr. Saven, will you have ordinance enforcement jump on this immediately- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) I will, sir.
MEMBER BRENNAN: -for the sake of these people? They've been here at least two times before. And, obviously, it's not an easy thing for you, ma'am. Don will take care of it. MR. SAVEN: We'll get with the ordinance division. MR. CHAIRMAN: At this time we'll close the public remarks section. MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Reinke, can I make a quick comment from this public- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Go ahead. SARAH GRAY: Okay. Sarah Gray, 133 Maudlin, not ordinance -- not Zoning Board of Appeals member at this time. I wanted to let the Board know, and some of the neighbors up in the area, that we, as Walled Lake Western Band and Orchestra boosters, have obtained a temporary sign variance for some very large signs that are posted for our Haunted Woods this weekend and next weekend, and ordinance enforcement has been made aware of it. They'll be coming down in two weeks, and we're
doing the Haunted Woods as a fundraiser for band and orchestra for the Walled Lake School District -- Western High School band, and if anybody's interested, we're going to be going from seven o'clock until 10:30 Friday and Saturday this week and Friday and Saturday next week, and it's going to be a lot of fun, so we hope to see you. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. CASE NUMBER 01-072 MR. CHAIRMAN: At this time we'll close the public remarks section and call our first case, Case Number 01-072, filed by Five -- Fifty Five Marketing Group representing Brownstones at Vistas. And, Mr. Bauer, do you want to -- COLLEEN SLOAN: Hi. MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth in matter of the case of 01-072? COLLEEN SLOAN: I do. MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Could I have your name and address?
COLLEEN SLOAN: Colleen Sloan. I represent -- I'm from Group Fifty Five Marketing, and I represent Brownstones at the Vistas. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Present your case, please. COLLEEN SLOAN: We're looking for an extension on our permit for the temporary directional sign at Thirteen Mile and Novi. Brownstones is not nearly developed yet, and it would be an economic hardship if we could not extend our permit. MR. CHAIRMAN: What length of time are you looking for this extension? COLLEEN SLOAN: Six months to a year. MR. CHAIRMAN: At what point are you at presently? COLLEEN SLOAN: Right now we have 240 built and 80 units occupied. MR. CHAIRMAN: What is your total build? COLLEEN SLOAN: We have 460, so we are not at total capacity yet. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members, comments or discussion?
Mr. Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, I only had two questions on this. One was the number of homes, it's 460, and the number sold is 80; is that correct? COLLEEN SLOAN: That are occupied. MEMBER BRENNAN: Occupied. How many sold? COLLEEN SLOAN: Two hundred and eighty are built. MEMBER BRENNAN: So you're a little bit less than half, around half. Personally, I wouldn't have an objection to the granting of the extension. I think -- you know, as far as I recall, the request was for a year, and -- we'll listen to other board members, but- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) The first request was for a year. MEMBER BRENNAN: I don't think we -- I don't have any personal issue with this. We're less than halfway, and economic times are a little stressed, so a year might be reasonable. MEMBER BAUER: I can go along with a
year, or until it's sold out. MEMBER SANGHVI: Whichever is shorter. MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll make a motion, with the nods that I see, in Case Number 01-072, that the petitioner's request for a year's extension be granted for the purpose of selling out. MEMBER BAUER: Seconded. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion or comments on the motion? Hearing none, Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Your variance request
has been approved. Please see the Building Department and we wish you the best of luck. COLLEEN SLOAN: Thank you, Board. CASE NUMBER 01-079 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Next case, Case Number 01-079, filed by Four Seasons Sunroom, representing the homeowners at 47225 Autumn Park Court. Rick Hadad? RICK HADAD: Rick Hadad, yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, would you please be sworn in. MEMBER BAUER: Would you raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 01-079? RICK HADAD: Yes, I do. MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you present your case, please. RICK HADAD: Okay. First of all, you all have drawings up there, and there is an error in the drawing, not on the size. So what we're here to do tonight is correct what we're showing
there, but on the -- on the appearance of the room. I have a photograph here that would accurately show the scale and size of the room and give you a better idea of what we're proposing to do. That shows the room with the brick-faced walls. The brick wall is only going to come to floor level, not up into the knee wall, so that's, size-wise, accurate. First of all, I want to mention to -- I want to let the Board know that we were issued a building permit on this job. And in calling the -- and it was issued in error and the error was our fault. When I called the City to find out -- I had a question regarding the distance of a step to the pool, and it was at that time that it was pointed out to me that we needed a ten foot setback. When I submitted the drawings to my cad department, I asked Mr. Surdu for a copy of his site plan. He sent an original copy of the survey. My cad department put that on the drawing that was submitted to the City, and we simply -- it was an oversight. At that time, again -- the State of
Michigan -- I talked to Henry Green in Code Enforcement for the State of Michigan. There is no building code requirement as far as a setback to a pool to a house. It's a zoning issue to this City, and it's not commonly used in a lot of other cities. So it's been my experience in the past that we put pools two, three, four feet -- rooms to a swimming pool quite often. So, in any case, it was a mistake. We found it ourselves, and at that time we made application for building permit. It was an honest mistake. But in doing so, because we made the mistake, the permit was issued and the room was built. It's not erected on site. The room -- it's a custom room that is modularally built and ready to be installed. The reason we're asking for a variance tonight is I was -- after we were -- after I found this out I called a number of people I know, some friends of mine that are in planning and zoning in other cities, to try to find the rationale for the setback, and a number of issues were brought up as far as concerns for building a
structure like this off the house. One was the lighting, affecting the natural light going into the house. Well, this being an all-glass conservatory, that's kind of a non-issue. We won't be blocking any light. There will be three doorwalls in this room as well as all sliding windows. We will not be blocking any -- or really affecting natural ventilation at all. My -- the reason I thought was the rationale behind the setback was as a deterrent from children -- kids getting on top of it and try to jump in the pool, for safety reasons. I thought that was a concern. But this being a seven twelve pitch and an all glass roof, it literally -- you cannot get on this roof. My guys that install this are young men that do this every day, and they use specially-constructed roof jacks and they build their scaffolding system to get up on the roof. Where the wall and the roof meet, the transition is smooth to allow the snow to come off, so there would be no way to grab and grip to get on this. So as far as that safety issue is concerned, I don't think anybody would have to
worry about this. As it is, there is an existing paper patio there that is closer to the pool than what we're proposing to do, and it's elevated. We're going to be actually a foot further away from the pool than the existing patio is now. But the primary reason for denial, as I understand it, is the -- swimming pools are categorized as an accessory structure, and it's been my experience, and I've been building for 25 years and installing sunroofs for quite a while, the reason for that is to stop the spread of flame. You know, it's primarily combustibility. Well, I think swimming pools may, conveniently, have been classified as an accessory structure, but in reality, they're not. They're noncombustible. The -- and my structure is all glass and aluminum. It also is noncombustible, so there really is no issue with regard to that. That is the rationale behind the ordinance as I see it. Enforcement of that -- we're not going to be violating the legislative intent, and if that -- that being the case, it
would be unnecessary to enforce it, and that speaks directly to the criteria that unnecessary -- strict compliance would be unnecessarily burdensome. And in addressing some of the other issues as per the information that I got that we needed comply with to be granted a variance, their -- enforcement of this would stop the homeowner from using the property for a use that would be otherwise permitted, and it would be -- the other homeowners in the area have, you know -- are they going to have the right to enjoyment of adding to their property being denied that use if it's strictly enforced? Also, it will not negatively impact any of the homeowners. That's a beautiful room. If anything, it will be a nice view from Nine Mile Road as you pass by it. Also, it's not going to -- this will not impair the intent or the purpose of the ordinance or the City Master Plan. The need for the variance wasn't self-created. This was arbitrarily legislated. I mean, when you lump a swimming pool into an accessory structure, this was not something that
they did, so I don't think the -- that it was self-created. So, for those reasons, we're respectfully requesting the Board to consider this. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to input into this case? RICK HADAD: You know what -- excuse me. One other point that I wanted to make is that I looked over the minutes for the last two years meetings for the Zoning Board of Appeals, and there were two other cases, the only two cases that came before this Board with a similar type issue. Now, the setbacks were one-and-a-half feet, three-and-a-half feet respectfully, and both were granted for the same reasons. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We had twenty-three notices sent. We received four responses. All were approval. Building Department? MR. SAVEN: Just another issue I'd like to bring up is, one of the other issues was the placement of the pool. The placement of the pool, in reference to the yard, if you look at the
plot plan, this gentleman and young lady's property has a tremendous amount of easements that are associated with this, so the location of the pool was really confined to an area that could not place the pool back any farther than what it is right now. That's one of the issues I would give consideration. The other issue is, I need to know where the stairway is located at on the plan. RICK HADAD: I think I can show you that. The stair is going to remain exactly where it is now, coming off the patio, except it's going to be brought closer to the -- you know, we're going to make it -- we're going to bring it- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) There is no door coming off the room? RICK HADAD: There is a door, yes. MR. SAVEN: Where is that door at? GEORGE SURDU: There's actually three doors. RICK HADAD: There's three. There's one on the full nose, directly in the front. MR. SAVEN: Okay. RICK HADAD: And then there's one on
each side, directly opposite one another. And there are three existing staircases there now. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. One other thing I want to make note of here is you do have homeowner's association approval. Mr. Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: First of all, if I ever put on a sunroom and if I need a variance, you've got my business. You did a nice job for these guys. RICK HADAD: Thank you. MEMBER BRENNAN: You did the research. And you're right, while we don't reference other cases, we try to be consistent, and given what you have presented tonight, I have no objection and would endorse your variance request. RICK HADAD: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members, other comments? Miss Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Thank you, Mr. Reinke. Is there any way that this sunroom can be moved towards the northwest -- towards the front of the house?
RICK HADAD: It- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) I understand the construction, that you probably wanted just to place it where -- over an existing, but I see a way -- I see a way to alleviate some of this by moving it, if it could be. Now, if it can't, that's a different story. RICK HADAD: I don't know that it could not be, but just for the sake of symmetry, it would be -- it would really be -- it would be kind of a sin to do that. It's perfectly balanced centered on that with the two gables. From the eye -- from the street appeal and from everything else, I think the neighbors would object to changing it. It would be -- it's going to be much more attractive where it is. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, being with the shape of the pool, I think it would have to be moved exclusively. RICK HADAD: Yeah. MEMBER GRAY: Well, if it was moved towards the northwest -- I don't know if there's any way to do it. This is exactly what I wanted to
see, is something like this. RICK HADAD: There is a bay window there with large bays on the side. It would have to be moved so far because the wall would intersect the glass. MEMBER GRAY: And that's what I wanted to see. I would have liked to have seen something like this in the packet. It would have made my -- because I looked at this and I say well, you know, we can move that, we can move that. RICK HADAD: In the future I'll make sure it's included. MEMBER GRAY: No. I'm just making- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) No future. MEMBER GRAY: -a suggestion. That was my only question. From an insurance standpoint, I'd be real concerned about having all this glass real close to the pool with a lot of wet feet and people running around. RICK HADAD: It's all tempered safety glass. MEMBER GRAY: That's your decision. If the Chair is in the mood to entertain a motion, I would move that we approve
the variance due to the lot configuration and the placement of the pool and the easements that would be in order. MEMBER BAUER: Seconded. MEMBER SANGHVI: Seconded. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to grant the petitioner's variance request. Is there any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, your variance request has been approved. See the Building Department and we wish you the best of luck.
RICK HADAD: Can I ask another thing? GEORGE SURDU: Thank you, Board. RICK HADAD: Can I ask that the five-day waiting period be waived? Actually, that's not -- on second thought, that won't be necessary. I don't think we'll start it before then. MEMBER GRAY: It's going to be raining all the rest of this week. CASE NUMBER 01-080 MR. CHAIRMAN: Next case, Case Number 01-080, filed by Blair Bowman, representing Vision Spa and Salon. Good evening. BLAIR BOWMAN: Good evening. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you be sworn in, please. MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 01-080? BLAIR BOWMAN: I do. MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you please present your case.
BLAIR BOWMAN: Thank you. Chairman Reinke, I'm Blair Bowman representing Bowco (ph) Enterprises and Vision Spa and Salon, concerning a project that we're looking to construct on Beck Road somewhat south of Grand River. We received preliminary site plan approval and are seeking now a variance that came out of that process because technically, in the OS1 districts, which this property's now zoned, any type of, technically identified, loading areas or delivery areas need to be in the rear yard. And when we worked with the consultants and our engineers, we really worked very carefully to try to preserve the natural features of the wetlands and the wetland buffers. And in order to put any type of a delivery area into the rear yard, we would have intruded into those natural features. So it was suggested that we would put it into the side yard and to come to this body for and request a variance in order to preserve the natural features. Also, I just want to make note, we've
submitted some plans to you this evening. To call this a delivery area, frankly, is somewhat of a misnomer. It's a single-entry door that the employees will access and that they receive very limited amounts of UPS-style shipments that are literally hand-carried type of items. And we've also agreed that we would work with those deliveries and limit them on the time of operation and things like that to be least impactful. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that would like input in this case? There were 19 notices sent, we received no approvals, no objections. Building Department? MR. SAVEN: Well, I think if you turn the building at 90 degrees and move -- I'm sorry. BLAIR BOWMAN: You mean the usual? MEMBER GRAY: But it works on paper. MR. SAVEN: Just to point out to the Board, the wetlands area that's associated with the project and is one of the issues, and certainly is a tight site in terms of the natural features that are there, and the basin that's to the south.
MEMBER BAUER: You make it too easy for him. I was going do have him replace the wetlands. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members, comments or discussions? Miss Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Well, Mr. Chair, I know that we have an ordinance that says in commercial you can't have any loading doors facing any residential zone, and in here we have R8 to the north. I don't know what the Master Plan is in this area. I know that if the building were made a little smaller, moved forward, there probably could have been other things that could have been done with this; however, that's not -- I'm not going to second-guess the Planning Commission. I'm not real happy with seeing delivery doors facing residential, but it looks very small, and I would certainly hope that the hours of delivery would be very limited so that a person living in that house is not impacted too much. It seems like the house is real close to the property line, which is not the petitioner's
fault. I would hope we do not see any requests like this in the future at all. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members, comments or discussions? Mr. Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Just the obvious observation. This thing's -- the door is tucked right at the end of the building. They are right smack up against the wetlands. What's before us is whether this is a legitimate use. I would suggest that it is. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further comments or discussion on the request? MEMBER SANGHVI: Make a motion? MR. CHAIRMAN: Please. MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Chairman, I move that the applicant's request be granted for case number 01-080 due to the presence of wetlands and the particular terrain and configuration of the plot. MEMBER BRENNAN: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's been moved and seconded to grant the variance as requested. Any
further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, your variance request has been approved. See the Building Department. We wish you the best of luck. BLAIR BOWMAN: We appreciate your consideration. Thank you. CASE NUMBER 01-081 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Next case, Case Number 01-081, filed by Robert Loynes. ROBERT LOYNES: Loynes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, would you please
be sworn in. MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 01-081? ROBERT LOYNES: Yes. MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you please present your case. ROBERT LOYNES: Well, to begin with, I have no basement, and I need a bigger building to house a pickup and two cars and a few other things that I need to get in storage. And it says here I need two buildings, but I'm only requiring one because of -- the twelve by twelve has already been put up by somebody else. Other than that, I mean, I'm just requesting this variance so I can have a storage building. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to input into this case? Building Department? MR. SAVEN: Just one question. The 12 by 12 is going to remain?
ROBERT LOYNES: Yes, sir. MR. SAVEN: Okay. So there is two accessory structures -- detached accessory structures on your property? ROBERT LOYNES: Yes, there will be. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. There were thirty-four notices sent and we received nineteen approvals and one objection. The objection states that the homeowner on Durson, I believe, should stay within the existing ordinance. The sub is one of the oldest in Novi. Many projects within this subdivision over the years are uneven -- oh -- have created an uneven look in the community. I believe that this variance he's creating is already against the existing local ordinance and that the ordinance was established to protect the area. Board members, comments or discussion? MEMBER SANGHVI: Are you allowed to have two accessory buildings? MR. SAVEN: No, just one. MEMBER SANGHVI: So there are already two in existence now already?
MR. SAVEN: No. You have one -- yeah. You have two that's in existence now, one's going to be torn down or is- ROBERT LOYNES: (Interposing) Yes. One will be torn down. MR. SAVEN: One will be torn down, the other one is going- MEMBER SANGHVI: (Interposing) I know. MR. SAVEN: Plus this building, so it will be two. MR. SANGHVI: I realize that, but the question, isn't one already standing there now? MR. SAVEN: Yes. MEMBER SANGHVI: And we are making legal one bigger building? MR. SAVEN: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yeah. I have -- I have a problem with this, only because we're looking at a substantial variance to the overall square footage of accessory buildings. And while I can -- I have some sympathy. I have a large home in Echo Valley and I
don't have a garage and four kids, and I wish I had a large thirty-four by twenty-five accessory building in the backyard to shove all my stuff into. The elimination of the twelve by twelve shed makes your variance request about three hundred sixty square feet, and I would be more moved towards something like that rather than the petition as submitted. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members, other comments or discussion? Miss Gray? MEMBER GRAY: The twelve by twelve shed, when was that built, sir? ROBERT LOYNES: When was that built? MEMBER GRAY: Yeah. ROBERT LOYNES: I'm not exactly sure. MEMBER GRAY: How long have you owned the property? ROBERT LOYNES: I bought the property in 1994. MEMBER GRAY: And it was there when you purchased? ROBERT LOYNES: Yes.
MEMBER GRAY: Is it on a slab? ROBERT LOYNES: Yes, sir -- yes, ma'am. MEMBER GRAY: So it wouldn't be real feasible to ask him to remove the 12 by 12. What about decreasing the size? When I look at a twenty-five by thirty-four, I see at some point in the future somebody is going to put a second floor on that and make it into a house, and then you have two houses on the property. I mean, this is a big building. ROBERT LOYNES: Yes. MEMBER GRAY: And I do understand that, you know, people need storage. I'm not comfortable with that huge building back there, especially when there's an existing 20 by 18 garage. Would something be done with that garage that's attached to the house already? Is that going to be converted to living space, sir? ROBERT LOYNES: No. It's for my wife's car and my car, and there's just enough room in there for them.
MEMBER GRAY: Okay. ROBERT LOYNES: May I say something else? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. ROBERT LOYNES: In the subdivision, there are at least fifteen, sixteen properties that have oversized garages on them now, or two over -- a big garage and an oversized garage out behind. And out of sixty homes, I -- that's what I went around and looked at. MR. CHAIRMAN: How many of them are that size? ROBERT LOYNES: How many are that size? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah. ROBERT LOYNES: I'm not exactly sure. That might be one or two. MEMBER GRAY: Are some bigger? ROBERT LOYNES: No, no bigger. MEMBER GRAY: Most of them are smaller? ROBERT LOYNES: Most of them are 25 and 25, something like that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we hear a couple
options, really, that the Board has discussed. I think we're going to have to try come to a consensus. We're going to have to look at something a little bit different than what your total request is. Do you feel you have some flexibility on the size of the building, do you have -- do you feel you have some flexibility of giving up the 12 by 12 shed? ROBERT LOYNES: I really don't want to do that because, as you see on the plan, I had the sidewalk going around, which, apparently, somebody had a pool out there at one time, and the sidewalk goes out to the shed, and I have my lawnmowers and stuff like that in there. I could go smaller around the main building, but I have a pickup truck that is a crew cab, dual-wheel, and it's about 23, 24 feet long. I think it's 23 feet long. I could go smaller if that's requested. MR. CHAIRMAN: What do you feel is the minimum size building that you would need? ROBERT LOYNES: Twenty-five by twenty-five or twenty-five by thirty, if that's
feasible, or twenty-four by twenty-five or thirty, if that's feasible. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members? MR. BRENNAN: Hold on. I'm doing some quick math. Quick math suggests that if he had a twenty-five by twenty-five foot new building, which is six hundred twenty-five square feet, and kept the twelve by twelve shed, which is a hundred and forty-four square feet, we have a total of seven hundred and sixty-nine square feet, which is within the allowable square footage; therefore, he would only need a variance for a second building. MR. SAVEN: No, sir. MEMBER BRENNAN: No, sir? MR. SAVEN: He also has an existing garage attached to the house which needs to be counted, which is 360 square feet. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. You have- MR. BRENNAN: (Interposing) You mean, the attached garage is part of the accessory- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) Absolutely. The sum total of all accessory structures on the site. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. If you take the
garage, which is 20 by 18- MEMBER BAUER: (Interposing) Three hundred sixty. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's 360. You take the 12 by 12, which is 144, you come up with 504 square feet. And we took a 25 by 25 building, you got 625, so you come up with 1129 square feet. What's the Board's comments or discussion on that point? MEMBER GRAY: Two hundred eighty less than what he's applying for. I think that would be a little more livable or acceptable. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Do you feel you could live with a 25 by 25 and keep your 12 by 12 shed? ROBERT LOYNES: Yes, sir, I could. MR. CHAIRMAN: What's the Board's feeling on the consensus of that? MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, I'm the one that objected to the overall square footage. We're getting closer to something that's within the allowable -- we're only 300 some square feet over what's allowable. The petitioner has made a move to get
closer to what we like to see, and we should probably make a move to get closer. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that a motion? MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll make a motion and see how the Board feels with the request, 01-081, the petitioner's request to maintain a 12 by 12 shed, to remove the small shed that's on the left-hand side of this picture right here- ROBERT LOYNES: (Interposing) East side. MEMBER BRENNAN: -and the new structure will be 25 by 25 square feet, and whatever the math works out is what it works out. MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to grant the variance request for a -- maintain the 12 by 12 shed and a new 25 by 25 foot building. I have one question of the Building Department. Can that be built eight foot off the back property line? MR. SAVEN: Six. MR. CHAIRMAN: Six? MR. SAVEN: Six. Minimum of six.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Board members, any further comments on the motion? Hearing none, Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: See the building department for the necessary permits and we wish you the best of luck. ROBERT LOYNES: Thank you. CASE NUMBER 01-082 MR. CHAIRMAN: Moving onto the next case, Case Number 01-082, filed by Sandra Marderosian of 23141 Meadowbrook Road, is requesting an 8.92 foot side yard setback on the
side of the property to allow construction of an addition to her residence. Would you please be sworn in. MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 01-082? SANDRA MARDEROSIAN: Yes. MR. BAUER: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Please present your case. SANDRA MARDEROSIAN: My name is Sandra Marderosian. I live at 23141 Meadowbrook, and I've lived there for seventeen years. And I have three daughters, and we're kind of busting at the seams a little bit, and we've always thought we'd do an addition, and we're looking to put an addition -- we're not wanting to go over our existing home line, encroaching upon the north lot line any more than our garage is now. We had a garage built in 1989, twelve years ago, and we were allowed to build the garage ten feet from the lot line. And we've been told since then it's changed, and to do the addition to the home, without doing the variance, we would have to bring in the addition, like, nine feet in the
back, which, architecturally, would look kind of funny. We just want to extend the addition out from the existing home line that we have now. The blueprints have signatures from neighbors on both sides, and our association. Nobody's had any objections that I've been told. We didn't feel this would impact the neighbors because it doesn't extend past the home line, and if we did indent it, we felt that would be more offensive to the neighbors because it wouldn't be as architecturally nice. I think that was it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to participate or input into this case? Building Department? MR. SAVEN: In your packet you probably received the plot plan that had an 18 foot structure, which was the existing garage. I asked our inspector to go out there and remeasure it, and that is 13 foot, so it might have seemed a little confusing to you. SANDRA MARDEROSIAN: They measured
the sidewalk in this thing. MR. SAVEN: There is twenty-two -- twenty-five feet to the property line, so if the garage was eighteen foot, it would have been three feet, and that got me kind of concerned, to figure out why we issued a permit for something that's close to the property line. SANDRA MARDEROSIAN: I do have a copy of the field sheet that has that. MR. SAVEN: So, anyhow, to make a long story short, I reviewed it and I sent my inspector, and it's actually nine -- it's actually 9.5 feet to the property line, but we were pretty close in that particular area. I assume it's how the building was situated and the angle of the property, but that's what it was. It was ten foot at that time. It was legal at that time. Now, because of the change of the ordinance, we have the change of the requirements, which require more for sum total of two side yards plus for one side being at a certain amount. MR. CHAIRMAN: There were twenty-six notices sent, and we received two objections, and
one letter that was an objection but not an objection. We have no objection to the requested variance from across the lake from an appearance standpoint; however, according to the letter the Building Department sent, setback is already on a variance to the allowable amount, hence our objection. Another one says we know the property on the north side has been sold and we want to know what the impact on that would be. And it says make sure that the -- any discussion in this matter with the homeowner's association. Have you done that? SANDRA MARDEROSIAN: Yeah. I have a copy of the blueprint that I had them sign. MR. CHAIRMAN: That they approved that? SANDRA MARDEROSIAN: Um-hmm. MR. CHAIRMAN: And also take a look at the impact of the variance on the new homeowners on the lot on the north side. Mr. Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: You know, every
three years I get reinterviewed by the council for the ZBA, and they always ask me what's one of your strengths, and I say compassion. And if this isn't a case for compassion. We have a homeowner that's been in the same property for fifteen years. The City has changed the rules and the petitioner is asking to make an addition to her home that's within this sphere of the ordinance. She shouldn't be penalized for this. I see no objections other than some very tempered letters. She is up against the water. Ma'am, I have no problem with your request. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members, further comments or discussion? Doc Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: I live in the same neighborhood, and I've been there for nearly 25 years. I've seen this house being built and what's happened and how things have changed, and there is a lot of space between the street and your north border, and by giving this kind of variance is not
going to make the slightest difference, so I have no problem. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: I go by it at least two or three times a day. I have no problem with it at all. SANDRA MARDEROSIAN: Thank you. MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Chairman, if I may make a motion? MR. CHAIRMAN: Please. MEMBER SANGHVI: That Case Number 01-082, the petitioner's request for the variance be granted because of already peculiar lot configuration and presence of water on the back side. MEMBER BAUER: Seconded. MR. CHAIRMAN: Moved and seconded to grant the petitioner's request. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?
MEMBER BAUER: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Your variance request has been approved. Please see the Building Department for the necessary permits, and we wish you the best of luck. SANDRA MARDEROSIAN: Thank you. CASE NUMBER 01-085 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Next case, Case Number 01-085, filed by Al Evers of 109 Penhill. Homeowner of 109 Penhill is seeking two variances to construct a second story on top of existing home, and is requesting side yard variance of one foot and a variance to enlarge the structure. Sir, would you please be sworn in. AL EVERS: Yes. MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear
or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 01-085? AL EVERS: I do. I'm seeking a one foot variance. I would like to thank the Board for putting me on the docket today on such short notice. I tried -- this is my first time ever being involved in this, so I'll be as brief as possible. I purchased the home in November of 2000. I was supposedly buying a completely remodeled, renovated ranch home, and my building inspector, prior to, had pointed out that I needed to maybe replace some shingles and maybe some roof borons (ph), some minor roof repair. So after the closing on November 3rd, I had my roofing contractor come out there, and he proceeded to tear off the shingles and do the necessary roof repair, and upon doing that he discovered that there was a roof built over the top of a roof with five layers of shingles, and when he found that out he immediately contacted me and we called the City of Novi and had an open roof inspection. The inspector came out the following
Monday and red tagged it, I do believe, that it wasn't to code. So in the meantime, since November of 2000, I've been in a legal battle with the former seller of the house, but in the meantime, since then, I had to contact a engineer and an architect, and they came up -- and they came out and inspected the premises, went through all the rafters and found that there was cracked rafters in the structure and that the whole top of the house had to come off to come to code. So upon realizing that, what kind of an investment now I have to make into a house that was supposedly totally remodeled, I had the architect draw that -- since the surrounding homes were -- the cottage style homes are being torn down, and that new homes two lots from where I purchased my home tore done and rebuilt the house, that the current drawing that you see in front of you will be similar to what's going on in the area. So that's why I'm asking for a building variance of one foot and a side yard variance. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there
anyone in the audience who would like to input into this case? There were fifty-eight notices sent and we received two approvals. Building Department? MR. SAVEN: You talk of compassion. AL EVERS: I also got -- recently we got married and I'm living with my mother-in-law. MR. CHAIRMAN: Miss Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Well, having purchased one of these old cottages myself and discovering that there was a gable roof put on top of a flat roof, and being in the same circumstances, believe me, I have compassion. And I'm going to trump you. I was five months pregnant at the time, so there. MEMBER SANGHVI: Eighteen years ago. MEMBER GRAY: I would like to make a motion that we grant the variance and waive the five-day waiting period and let this poor man get on with his life. MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Been moved and seconded to grant the petitioner's request-
MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) Excuse me. The purpose? MEMBER GRAY: To- MEMBER SANGHVI: (Interposing) Hardship. MEMBER GRAY: Based on- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) Existing structure? MEMBER GRAY: Existing structure and based on hardship and the small lots in the area, and -- although he doesn't have that problem, I'm sorry. Let's make this correct. Let's make a motion to grant the variance based on putting a second story on top of an existing home that is -- has become his hardship due to unknown defects when he purchased. Is that okay, Tom? MR. SCHULTZ: Yes. MEMBER GRAY: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Support for the motion? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Been moved and seconded to grant the petitioner's request.
Is there any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Definitely yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, your variance request has been approved. See the Building Department for the necessary permits. We wish you the best of luck. AL EVERS: Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, is there something you wanted to address the Board on? POLICE OFFICER: No, sir. I'm here to protect the meeting. MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh. Other matters. 2001 (ph) meeting date schedule. Everybody have
copies of that? Are there any problems as seen as to what Sarah has laid out there? MEMBER GRAY: What about November? Might we have to move November if there's an election? We did in August for a potential primary. MEMBER BRENNAN: What is the date? MEMBER GRAY: It says November 4th. SARAH MARCHIONI: The election would be on the 5th, so they actually made me move it to the 4th. MEMBER GRAY: The 4th is Monday? SARAH MARCHIONI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: The 4th is Monday. MEMBER GRAY: Doesn't the council meet the first Monday? SARAH MARCHIONI: No. They are going to move to the 12th, the Monday after Veteran's Day. MEMBER GRAY: No problem. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Sarah, any -- Mr. Saven? MR. SAVEN: Yes. The two issues that
came before the Board for audience participation, we've been through some restructuring in my department, and I just wanted to make it known that I do not have control of the ordinance individuals, and when we deal with ordinance violations they should be directed to Cindy Yuglo (ph), who would follow up on those particular matters. I like to make sure that by going through these -- if anybody walks in my office and sees what I got there, if I just place a paper on my desk I could probably forget about it in two seconds. I just want to make sure it gets to the- SARAH MARCHIONI: (Interposing) I second that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the Board have any other matters to bring before us at this time? Hearing none, we'll adjourn the meeting at this point. (The meeting was adjourned at 8:28 p.m.) Date approved: November 5, 2001 ___________________ Sarah Marchioni Recording Secretary
C E R T I F I C A T E I, Cheryl L. James, do hereby certify that I have recorded stenographically the proceedings had and testimony taken in the above-entitled matter at the time and place hereinbefore set forth, and I do further certify that the foregoing transcript, consisting of sixty-six (66) typewritten pages, is a true and correct transcript to the best of my abilities.
________________________________ Cheryl L. James, CSR-5786 ____________ Date
|