| 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, June 4, 2002. BOARD MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY: MR. CHAIRMAN: We will call this meeting to order. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Present. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Present. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Present. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Present. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Here. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Here. MR. CHAIRMAN: The court reporter had indicated that the minutes from last week -- or last month were difficult to hear, so make sure that you have your mics on. Thank you. We do have a quorum. The meeting is now in session. Ladies and gentlemen, we do have rules of conduct. It's on the front page of the agenda. I'd ask that you review it and adhere to it.
The Zoning Board of Appeals is a hearing Board empowered by the Novi City Charter to hear appeals seeking variances from the application of the Novi building and ordinance. It takes a vote of at least four members to approve a variance and a vote of the majority of the members to deny a variance. We have a full Board tonight, so any of the decisions will be final. Any changes to the agenda? MS. MARCHIONI: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: No? I would move for approval. All those is favor say aye. (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: We do not have any minutes, so we'll get on to public remarks. This portion under public remarks is relative to cases or issues not on our agenda. If there is somebody here that wishes to address the Board on a case that's on our agenda, would you kindly wait until that case is called. Does anyone want to approach the Board on non agenda issues?
(No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Seeing none, we'll move on.
CASE NUMBER 02-037 MR. CHAIRMAN: We will call the first case, Case Number 02-037 filed by Scott Salzeider. And, sir, you will -- you're going to be presenting three cases in a row. We'll have you sworn in, and maybe what you can do is give us a summary and then we'll look at each one independently. But if you'll give us your name, raise your right hand and be sworn by Mr. Sanghvi. MR. SALZEIDER: My name is Scott Salzeider. I'm vice president of Singh Homes, 7125 Orchard Lake Road, West Bloomfield. MEMBER SANGHVI: Do you swear that you will tell the truth in the matters before you? MR. SALZEIDER: I will. MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. MR. SALZEIDER: I'm here tonight to request the variance for three lots at
Willowbrook Farms subdivision. We have three lots on Willowbrook Farms which we're unable to fit any of the houses from the houses that we offer at Willowbrook. The hardship is to the depth issue. If you notice, on most lots there's a full depth lot with a straight line here. On cul-de-sacs, the lot -- the property lines actually extend a little bit at these points. I have three lots. The first one is lot 45 on the agenda. You'll see how it's just kind of straight and chopped off across the back there, where on lot 44, next to it, is full depth, and lot 46 here on the cul-de-sac is full depth. Now, these areas -- when the developer got this project approved through the City, it was required that they save as much of those park areas as possible, this Scarborough Park and then Bloomfield Park at lot 73 and Bloomfield Park here, which we agreed to do; however, it's created a situation where we can't fit houses -- any of our houses on those three lots. This lot 45 -- I would like to point
out on all these that we're discussing tonight, we have not encroached the woodland buffer or wetland buffer on any of them. I've highlighted that in yellow on each of those plot plans. On all these lots we have not encroached the woodland or wetland buffer, which I've shaded here in yellow tonight. So none of the structure encroaches on the wetland buffer at all. The blue is the house, and the red shaded area here is what I've shown as a proposed deck area, you know, if that was to be a concern, for a future customer moving into these residences. On all three lots, lot 45, 73 and 56, it's simply the fact of having to preserve those areas, which we agreed to do, has created a hardship for us that none of our houses will fit. We will not be destroying or disturbing any of those areas that were meant to be protected on any of the lots, and every home that we've selected for each of these three lots is the least intrusive for that particular lot. Lot 45 is simply -- which is the first one on the agenda, it's simply a depth
problem. Normally on a cul-del-sac, as this goes back, there's some type of a point that goes out. On this particular lot this is chopped off, and there's no depth to fit our line of houses in there. MEMBER BRENNAN: Okay, good. There were 28 notices sent; no approvals, no objections. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board on this first case? I guess that's a yes. MR. MARX: Yes. I sent a letter in. My name is John Marx. I live next door, lot 57, to lot 56. I sent a letter in. Did the Board receive it? MR. SAVEN: This is lot 45, sir. MR. MARX: Okay. You had all three. MR. CHAIRMAN: We're going to take it a case at a time. MR. MARX: Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: He just gave us a kind of a general overall on- MR. MARX: (Interposing) I'll wait then. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Anybody else?
(No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Building Department? MR. SAVEN: Scott has answered the question regarding the deck issue that I want to add regarding any future -- he answered the question regarding the deck issue. I'll point out to the Board that the closest proximity is the 27.45 feet, and does increase as it projects to the opposite side of the home. You can see that in the plot plan. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members, any questions or comments? MEMBER REINKE: Well, I think that just because they don't have a home in their packages to fit on these lots -- these lots are big enough to put a home on, and that -- the issues are gonna, for sure, come in if people are going to want to put a deck. It's going to be that much closer. So I don't see any reason why a home can't be built on these size lots. These lots are big enough to build a home on. Maybe it would have to be a little more creative. Maybe you have to
put something else in their package, but I see no reason for a variance on any one of these three. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah? MEMBER GRAY: This is new construction, and I'm -- I don't feel that a hardship has been demonstrated other than the way they platted their subdivision. And I agree with Mr. Reinke. It hasn't been demonstrated that they can't build something a little bit smaller. MR. CHAIRMAN: Let me ask, how many homes are in this development? MR. SALZEIDER: There's 56 in phase two. And the problem is not, obviously, the overall square footage of the lot. It's a depth issue. MR. CHAIRMAN: But these are the only three properties- MR. SALZEIDER: (Interposing) Right. MR. CHAIRMAN: -three sites that you have a problem with? MR. SALZEIDER: Right. MEMBER GRAY: Then the houses are too big.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else? MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to also remind the Board that you do have a similar ordinance that has to take place regarding building adjacent to homes that have certain square footage. They have to stay within 75 percent requirement, so I'm sure that's one of the reasons why this gentleman is here today. MR. SALZEIDER: Yes. We -- these are the -- this is the lineup of houses that have been approved for that subdivision for the architectural requirements. The depth is a real issue from a design standpoint of a house. I do agree that the lots are, overall, square footage, but the fact that they're irregular -- and I think I showed that on the overhead. They're very irregular the way the back is chopped off, and in certain areas the property line is drawn in. And I know the intent there, which the developer agreed to, was to save and protect that -- preserve that wetland and woodland area, and we are not encroaching in that in any way. It's not a -- it's not a custom
subdivision. There, you know, apparently was, you know, an oversight on our part not to have houses lined up for these three lots, but we have three phases there, and these are the only three lots that are affected, and there is really no neighboring properties that are affected. It's all park area. I know lot 57 is next to lot 56, which the customer has an issue, but there's really no other residences that are adversely affected by any of this variance. MR. CHAIRMAN: Let me ask you this question: What if you don't get a variance on any of the three? What's the impact on the construction of these houses? Obviously, they have to be a little bit smaller to meet the setback. MR. SALZEIDER: It's not so much -- yeah, they'll be smaller. It's really irregular. You know what, it's been difficult to do a layout that, you know, customers want to see when -- when you're taking ten foot off the depth of a house. We've been able to accommodate it,
and there are certain lots, like lot 52 -- if I can put this back up here for a minute. Can I show the overhead again on the -- there's a lot here, lot 52, it's not a bad -- it's real skinny and pie shaped like that, so -- we have a house called a Hampton house that we modified the garage a little bit, and we don't fit a three-car garage on there, but it doesn't encroach us in the back, so we're still able to fit the house in there. The similar circumstance on lot 54 and 51, they're very tight, but they're not tight in a depth standpoint, so it does mean maybe eliminating a three car garage, which is very popular, but, you know, it doesn't -- the depth is a real problem from a design standpoint which, you know -- that's what the customers are looking for, a house that has a decent layout with open floor plan, and it's going to be hard to accommodate on those three lots simply, you know, because of the property lines jetting in like that on those two lots and the back property line on 45 being chopped off. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah? MEMBER GRAY: Without getting into
trying to redesign houses, if they did a different juxtaposition of the house and moved the garage a different way, they could certainly fit this house on the property just by being a little creative, and I don't -- you know, I don't see where a three car garage has to necessarily open to the front. It could be -- yes, open to the front but maybe put it on a little bit of an angle, and that would pull the house forward, still keep the 30 foot setback. Just get a little creative with it. MR. SALZEIDER: We- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Hold on. We're still in discussion here. MEMBER GRAY: I don't want to get into, you know, redesigning their houses, and I realize that they want to build these houses, but they're going to have to get creative or they're going to have to make the house smaller, as far as I'm concerned. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mav, do you have anything to add? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. I just want to really emphasize the circumstances which has
necessitated the situation, and that is preservation of the wetlands and the woodlands. I have been to the site, and it looks very different than what you can see on the paper. It's really flat. It has no depth whatsoever, and to bring anything on there of -- in keeping with the rest of the homes around there, I think they're going to need a variance, without which would be a very much smaller house, and it's not going to do any good to the entire neighborhood by having a tiny house there on that lot to meet with all the requirements for the side yard and backyard and rear yard and so on and so forth. So, as far as I'm concerned, I think this is a real case of hardship because they are trying to preserve the woodlands and the wetlands, and I wouldn't have any hesitation in supporting their application. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. I'll give my two cents, if it's okay. This is new construction. The petitioner has already shown us that they've been able to make adjustments in house plans on other lots so that there wasn't any variance requirements.
I will tend to support, at least three other members, that there should be given some further thought on laying out a house on these properties. Any other comments from the Board? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: If not, we'll take a motion. We've called ZBA Case 02-037. We'll take that one and then -- MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, in Case Number 02-037, I move that the variance request be denied due to insufficient hardship. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Got a motion and a second. Any discussion? (No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Call that one -- we have input from- MR. SCHULTZ: (Interposing) Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, reference, again, to the hardship, and just I want to make sure this is a nonuse or area variance we're talking under practical difficulty standards rather than hardship standard.
MEMBER REINKE: Okay. So corrected.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other comment? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Your motion on that particular case has been denied.
CASE NUMBER 02-038 MR. CHAIRMAN: You want to address 02-038 and we'll take a look and see if there's anything different on that one?
MR. SALZEIDER: This is a similar circumstance as lot 45. Again, we had the depth problem. This one is the tightest that we have to the wetland buffer. I would like to point out that this Hampton house -- this is a Hampton 2, which is roughly twenty-seven hundred square feet, one of the lower to average size houses in that neighborhood, and has an overall depth of around forty-eight feet, which -- and it's a very compact house. You can see how the garage does not extend much from the house. I'm just going to use this other one as an example. This is a (inaudible ) 2 house, which is actually a hundred square feet less than the Hampton house, and you'll see how it's set up where the garage is extended further out, and that has an overall depth of fifty-three feet, so depth does not always correlate with square footage and size of house. And I just, you know -- on all three of these, I just would like to reiterate that there are certain things that we can do from a design standpoint. I don't think -- unless we go to a
tiny, tiny house, which will not fit in this neighborhood, this hardship is always going to exist simply because of the way that rear property line jets in and how it's chopped off on lot 45. We don't offer a house from phase one, which was even a little bit smaller than this, that's going to work on any of these lots without some type of variance, and we have taken into consideration in all three cases the layout and our specific plans -- like on that Bloomfield house it offered, you know -- there is a garage that extends out further. Well, we chose the three car front- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Let's keep specific to this one, okay. Tell us what's special about this case. That's what we're looking for. MR. SALZEIDER: This is our least deep house, forty-eight feet deep from front to back, and it's our tightest area to the wetland buffer, but we still are not encroaching the wetland buffer. And, as you can see here, from my red areas again, we will be able to accommodate an average size deck which is approximately ten feet deep by twenty feet long across the back there. It
opens up to the left. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. There were 17 notices sent; no approvals, no objections. Anyone in the audience wish to address the Board on this case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Seeing none, we'll move to Building Department. MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman of the Board, if you take a look at the variance they're requesting, if they're required to build a smaller house, the house depth would be thirty-eight feet based upon meeting requirements to the ordinance. Yes, the lot is unusual at the rear, and where it projects on in, that's where the 24.11 feet is covered. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Board members? MEMBER REINKE: Well, I -- Mr. Chairman, I still have the same thing. This is new construction. I think they can be creative enough to put a suitable home on there that will fit with the rest of the development of the subdivision and that could fit on that lot without requesting a variance for a rear yard.
To me it has to be demonstrated that nothing can be built there, and it's not demonstrated. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Others? Sarah. MEMBER GRAY: I agree with Mr. Reinke. Again, I realize that they've made every effort to stay out of the woodlands and the wetlands, but they're taking out six quality trees that are in the building footprint; four walnuts, a cherry and a maple, and those are significant trees, so, you know, those -- I realize trees do come down when you build new houses, but again, it hasn't been demonstrated that they can't build with lesser variances to my satisfaction. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other discussion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. No further discussion, we'll entertain a motion and see where we are on this one. MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, in Case 02-038, I move that petitioner's variance request be denied due to lack of practical difficulty.
MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. MR. SCHULTZ: Just ask that -- Mr. Chair, that Mr. Reinke's motion incorporate the comments that he made which would serve adequately as finding to fact as true to the comments. MR. CHAIRMAN: So noted. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right.
CASE NUMBER 02-039 MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's address 02-039. MR. SALZEIDER: The only difference on this lot 56 is my hardship has two frontages. Meadowbrook Road, there's an easement, a public easement that does not allow us to go as close to the property line as we would on a typical lot. The other concerns are the same. Where -- this yellow shaded area is well beyond the wetland buffer; however, the property line does jet in quite drastically on this lot. And even though -- if the Meadowbrook Road easement was not there, obviously you would be able to shift this house over to the left and meet the zoning ordinance. It's really the two frontages on this particular lot that create the hardship. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Again, 17 notices sent; no approvals, no objections. Anyone in the audience? MR. MARX: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Want to give us your name and address? MR. MARX: Yeah. My name is John
Marx. I'm at 41326 Scarborough Lane, right next door. And if you could do that overhead again over here, I would appreciate it. MEMBER SANGHVI: Do you swear that you will tell the truth in this regard? MR. MARX: I do. MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. MR. MARX: You can see visually that lot 56 is larger than my lot, which is lot 57, and they had no trouble putting a three car garage on our side, and I would -- and as far as the easement and Meadowbrook Road is concerned, I should think the developer was fully aware of that at the time of planning the subdivision, so I don't see any hardship. It's -- pertaining to the situation, so I would, you know, request that the variance be denied. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. MARX: I have a letter, by the way, which I would leave. MR. CHAIRMAN: Bring it on up. We'll put it in the file. MR. MARX: Okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The rest of the Board hasn't (inaudible.) MR. MARX: All right. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anybody else in the audience wish to address the Board on this particular case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Building Department? MR. SAVEN: Only that this is a corner lot issue, too, which doesn't help the matter. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members? MEMBER REINKE: Well, it's -- really, I see the same thing. I'm looking at this corner here, I could see that corner being kind of angled around or something to bring in four feet. That would very simply take care of the whole problem there really, not affect the basic size of the home. To me that's very simple, so I think that there's avenues there that are available to the developer/builder that really doesn't necessitate a variance. MR. SALZEIDER: Could I make one comment?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure. MR. SALZEIDER: The houses -- I've heard two comments about adjusting the houses on the lot. We make an effort so that they all face the road. We shift them a little bit so that maybe it's not too noticeable. And I agree, if I could -- if I had freedom to twist this which ever way I'd like, I may be able to squeeze it in there, but that's not, also, good from a design standpoint or, you know, from esthetic standpoints for a customer that's going to buy these houses. We always have to take into consideration that -- the perpendicular entrance to the driveway from the street. MR. CHAIRMAN: I have to apologize. I didn't have this last case open. I have to retract. There were fifteen notices sent. There were two objections. And, sir, we did have your letter. I didn't have your file open. There was another objection besides Mr. Marx. MR. MARX: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: There was another objection from Scott Pouncher at Labost (ph). I
must say that he has his own reasons for objecting. So there were two objections on this particular case. Board members? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: If I might just pipe in something here. I think what you're seeing -- or hearing here is some sentiment from the Board that, historically, we've looked at new construction and been very moved to variances without some representation that the house as presented can't be built any other way, and that's been one of the -- one of the issues that has been lacking in the presentations tonight, that you can't build a little bit different house, position it a little bit different, there's just no way you can do it. If you were to come back in another month and show us something different, we might feel different, but at least in the first couple cases, given the clean sheet of paper, we have thus far felt that you could spend a little bit more time on this and get closer -- at least closer to what is Code.
MR. SALZEIDER: Would that require reapplication, or how would I leave that door open to come back in a month? MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, at this point the first two cases you've been denied, unfortunately. If you, at this point, want to pull this one and come back in a month, you have that option yet. We voted on the first two cases, so it's kind of up to you if you want us to continue on or if you want to take advantage of this point, because we have not called the vote. We have not called for any motions at this point. MR. SALZEIDER: Yes. I'd like to come back, if I could. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members? MEMBER REINKE: I have no problem with it. MR. SAVEN: We have to go back through readvertising, Mr. Chairman, because there will be a difference in the setback. MR. CHAIRMAN: Understood. Kind of salvage the last case. Sarah. MEMBER GRAY: I want to make a
comment to Mr. Marx, sir, that I can appreciate your sentiment about the building that -- your house on a smaller lot. With a corner lot there's two front yards, so there has to be a thirty foot setback as opposed to side yard on that one corner. That's one of the reasons why, although the lot is bigger, the house won't fit, so I just wanted to make you aware of that. And this particular house has the smallest requested variance of only five feet but, again, it's new construction, and we -- I don't feel that we should be seeing variance requests in new construction. Thank you. MEMBER REINKE: If I may make a comment, Mr. Chairman. You're going to have to really demonstrate that nothing else can be done to get my support on any variance request on new construction. I'm speaking just for my input and feelings on that for that size of a lot. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Marx, sir, you have some last comment, sir? MR. MARX: I just wanted to respond. Actually, I do a lot of development myself. I
don't want to preclude, you know, a good development being on this particular site. I was not contacted by the developer, and I'm happy to, you know, sit and discuss with them the possible configuration for the site if -- I'll leave that open. MEMBER GRAY: We would encourage the -- Singh to be in contact with you since you're the next-door neighbor. MR. MARX: Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Board members, the petitioner has asked that we table this one. He's going to work on it. All those in favor of moving this off for another month? (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we have a unanimous, so -- maybe talk with your neighbor there and take another look at the other two cases and see if there's something you can do that makes it less of a variance request. Okay? Thank you.
CASE NUMBER 02-040 MR. CHAIRMAN: Case 02-040 filed by
Jon Grayson, 175 Pickford. Mr. Grayson has got two variance requests for a house on Pickford, 175. They are a front yard setback and lot coverage. You want to raise your hand and give us your name and address and be sworn by Mr. Sanghvi? MR. GRAYSON: My name is Jon Grayson. I reside at 175 Pickford in Novi. MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Grayson, do you swear that you will tell the truth in the matter before you? MEMBER GRAY: Yes, I do. MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. MR. GRAY: Basically what I have is a house in an older neighborhood that I want to put addition on but I'm too close to the front. I'm asking for a variance, because I can't move my house back, to meet the front yard setback. Then on the side there's an empty lot that abuts up to my property. It's lot 28. It's going to come up for sale at auction July 16th. I'm going to make every attempt I can to purchase that lot to add it onto my piece of property so I can have more property, plus make the lot look
better, too, which hasn't been taken care of for four years now, and just trying to make everything better. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. There were twenty-seven notices sent; one approval, Mr. and Mrs. Roy Pierce. They note the neighborhood is slowly growing and improving and they encourage this petitioner's efforts. Anybody in the audience wish to give any input in this case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: No hands waving, Building Department? MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman of the Board, I had the opportunity to talk to Mr. Grayson earlier on, and he -- the setback requirement goes to his porch. That -- that's the reason why we're looking at this extensive variance that's before you tonight. He's staying in line with the front building line of his main building, and I really don't have a problem with this. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Board members? MEMBER BAUER: Neither do I.
MEMBER REINKE: What's the actual distance from the front of the house to the right-of-way, or what's the width of the porch? MR. GRAYSON: Four feet. MEMBER REINKE: He's not coming any -- Mr. Chairman, he's not coming any closer to the road that's there. The side yard he's keeping. And it's great to hear that he's going to look at possibly adding another lot to the area there. Since the house is in its existing structure -- existing location, it's not coming any further -- closer to the road than what is there now. I can support the petitioner's request. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah? MEMBER GRAY: Normally these lots are forty feet. These are two thirty-six foot lots, and if he had the four more feet on each lot we wouldn't even be looking at the lot size coverage, I don't think. And as far as coming any further -- closer to the road, he's maintaining the line and I don't have a problem with it. I think it's going to be a nice improvement to the neighborhood -- to the house and to the neighborhood. MR. CHAIRMAN: I see a lot of nodding
heads. Do we have a motion to be made? MEMBER GRAY: I would move that we approve Case Number 02-040 filed by Mr. Grayson for the variances requested because he has demonstrated that no further increase into the setback from the front will be required. Would that be practical difficulty, Tom? MR. SCHULTZ: Yeah. We can incorporate the comments that you made comments before your motion. MEMBER GRAY: Sure. MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and second. Any discussion? (No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?
MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, you have an approval for your variance. See the Building Department for permits. MEMBER GRAY: Thank you very much.
CASE NUMBER 02-041 MR. CHAIRMAN: Next up is Mr. Barnett, Library Sports Pub. This is case 02-041. This is one of a number of cases we're going to here tonight regarding outdoor seating. Are you Mr. Barnett? MR. BARNETT: Yes, I am. MR. CHAIRMAN: Want to stick your right hand up and Mr. Sanghvi will swear you in? MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Barnett, do you swear that you will tell the truth regarding this matter? MR. BARNETT: I do. MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.
MR. BARNETT: Again, my name is Robert Barnett. I am the owner/operator of the Library Sports Pub on 42100 Grand River, and we're entering our seventh year of operation, and lucky enough to have been able to provide outdoor seating for the previous six years to our customers, and would very simply like to continue providing that. I would like to say that the setup has not changed. We're using the same railing and the same configuration of seating. I know the landlord had gone through major renovations last year, and the exterior of the building is in better condition and the concrete is in better condition, and we look forward to be able to, again, provide our customers with outdoor seating. MR. CHAIRMAN: Good. Thank you very much. There were 12 notices sent; no approvals, no objections. Anyone in the audience want to make a comment? (No response.)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Seeing no hands, prior to asking the Building Department for comments I'll note that we do have a letter in the file from Allen that says that they have had no issues with the applicant, and as he's already noted, he's been doing this for six years. His request is for a three-year extension. Building Department? MR. SAVEN: If it's the Board's wish to approve the three-year extension, I would ask that it be under continuing jurisdiction so that in the event we do have a problem regarding this matter, we can ask the gentleman to come back before the Board at a show cause hearing. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Board members? MEMBER SANGHVI: I can make a motion. MR. CHAIRMAN: If you would. MEMBER SANGHVI: That we -- in the matter of Case Number 02-041, the applicant's request be granted and we also keep the project under continued jurisdiction for the period of next three years. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Support.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's have some discussion. You want to run this through what month to what month? You have- MR. BARNETT: (Interposing) The same as we've done in the past. That would be May 1st through September 30th. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. And we'll make that part of the motion. All right. We have a motion and support. Any other discussion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You've got your three-year permit. MR. BARNETT: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. See the Building Department for your necessary permits.
CASE NUMBER 02-042 MR. CHAIRMAN: Case 02-042, filed by William Oliver, 2009 West Lake Drive. We have a request for three variances -- actually, four variances. They're all regarding the setbacks and also lot coverage. And, sir, you're going to be presenting for the applicants? MR. MCDONALD: That's correct. My name is Craig McDonald. I'm the applicant's -- the Olivers' architect. MR. CHAIRMAN: You want to raise your right hand and be sworn? MEMBER SANGHVI: Do you swear, sir, that you will tell the truth regarding this project? MR. MCDONALD: I will. MEMBER SANGHVI: I will. The Olivers
are looking to build a eighteen hundred square foot home on West Lake Drive. They presently are living in the existing small home that is on the site. We're looking for a variance on the north side of 5.2 feet, south side of 10.2 feet, for a total of 15.4 feet. The existing lot is extremely narrow, as most of the lots are along West Lake Drive on the west side of Walled Lake, so we could build with this, minimally, a, 20 foot wide house that is very long and narrow, which is very difficult to design with today's standards. I would like the Board to note that the existing house is only half a foot off the existing side yard, so we -- the new house would be -- although still not conforming to the ordinance, would be improving the nonconformance. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Is that it? MR. MCDONALD: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. If we have questions, you'll be the first to hear them. Anybody in the audience wish to make comment on this case? Come on down and give us your name and address, please.
MS. BURKETTE: Good evening. My name is Elizabeth Burkette. I live at 2005 West Lake Drive, next door to his house. I Actually have -- would like to explain four reasons why I oppose this variance. The first reason is that I think that building a house this close to my house will significantly decrease the value of my house. Right now the houses -- the lots are narrow but the houses are staggered. My house is in the middle, Bill and Gina's house is in the back of the lot. Even though it's a half a foot, they say, off the lot line, it is not anywhere near my house. It's back on the lot. And the house on the other side of them is at the front of the lot, so the houses are staggered. What would happen if he was allowed to build a long narrow house there is that six windows of my house would face a solid wall. This is from my upstairs bedroom window, which is near the back of the house. It's not by any means the best view of the house, but I don't want to bore you with a view from every window, but I want you to see that even the sides
of my house facing the south side has a view, and -- just so you know, the new house, proposed house, would be in between my house and the house that you see. This is another view from that same window looking toward the street or over the neighbor's garage to the yard in the back. Not only would the side of my house, the six windows, have no view, we'd be looking at a wall. This is taken actually from the front of the house, and because the proposed house would extend to where my deck is, which is, of course, five or six feet past the front of my house even the front of my house would have an impaired view. I wouldn't be able to see this part of the lake. I know that Bill told me that he paid good money for his house -- his lot that he has now, but I have a, obviously, vested interest. I've been in my house since 1979. I've not only paid for it almost once, got a divorce a couple years ago, and since it's the only home the children have ever had, and I thought it was a good investment, I went to the bank, borrowed six
figures, and I'll paying for this house again until I'm eighty-three, so I have a very vested interest in my house retaining its value. The second point is I'd actually like, for now -- the children might do something different later -- to stay in my house, but I think that it decreases the quality of life in my house. There would be less light, less ventilation, so I think it will not be lighted area as it is now. I want to show you one more view. This is actually out one of the side windows, not facing the lake but looking squarely at the house next door. This is not Bill's house, which is back on the lot, but the house on the lot one lot over. So, you see, the houses already close together, so he's proposing to put a house in between my house and this house. So besides decreasing the value of my house and making my house dark and having less ventilation, I have a worry -- when his house was surveyed several weeks ago, the surveyors did find -- they asked me what it was. I was surprised they didn't know -- that there's a marker in the back with a stone cap on the top, a metal cap on the
top, that's shaped like a cross, and I would assume that that is -- the exact middle of that would be the lot line. His surveyor did not put it right in the middle but he put the property line -- says property line right on the wooden stake, to the side of that. And besides that, for the first twenty that I lived there, we had an iron fence between our house and the neighbor's house that went all the way down to the lake. In an effort to be a good neighbor, a couple of neighbors ago -- five people have lived in that house, by the way, since I've lived there, including -- I see some people whose relatives have lived in that house. We always assumed that that was a lot line. Now, that might not have been correct, but let me show you on this -- if you can see this. This is the property stake that was put in, but there is still -- this is a hole in the ground where the fence was, so when you look at another view of that -- what I'm actually telling you is, instead of going -- there's a straight line that's been drawn with the property line stakes,
but it's at a different angle, so it goes closer to my house, and if that's actually where the lot line is, and if I don't take another foot on the other side I've lost a foot of frontage of my house on the lake, which I've been paying taxes on for a very long time. You'd think that wouldn't be a worry; however, another neighbor who's here and I'm sure will speak as well -- this is actually a copy of the plat. What one of our neighbors has told us is that the original plat was actually wrong and that we all own inches less than we did before. I don't know if that's true or not, but if the first person takes a different amount of land, that might mean the rest of us have less. I'd hate to see that happen. I don't know if the original plat was wrong. Can I pass that around? MR. CHAIRMAN: That's fine. MS. BURKETTE: That was created many years ago. So I am worried about the lot line. And the third -- or the fourth, actually, and final main concern that I have is that I'm very afraid of fires now. I'm just not
paranoid. Twice since I've lived in my house -- and one of those neighbors is here tonight -- I've seen a house burn to the ground. Matter of fact, out that same window that you saw. Fire department came. The houses were a total loss. When Ron's house burned, the fire was so intense that it melted the windows in the house which is next door to where Bill is now. So if he is allowed to put a house that's as very great variance, that's very close to ours, if any one of the houses -- of course, it could be his house, but it could be the house on either side of him -- would burn -- I assume he's also going to have glass in his windows -- that can happen to him. And when Ron's house burned and Patty's house, the windows melt, then the house caught on fire. Even though the fire department was there, there was extensive damage to the roof and side of the house. So with these very narrow lots and these old houses -- actually, this is an appraisal that I had done some time ago. It's actually about two years ago -- the date on this is '99. It says that the average age of the house is between new
and eighty-years-old, and the average price is shown as well. It says the average age of a home in our neighborhood is fifty-years-old, so if you put fifty-year-old houses, even if there's one new house in between, if Mrs. O'Leary's cow knocks over the lantern, you can lose the whole neighborhood, so I think for the safety of the entire neighborhood, it's good to maintain the variances. I appreciate your attention. Do you have any questions for me? MR. CHAIRMAN: We may. Not right now. MS. BURKETTE: Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other comments from the audience? Yes, sir. MR. HAGER: Good evening. Jeff Hager, 2109 West Lake Drive. I live approximately four or five houses from the petitioners. Normally I don't attend these functions, but this is a little bit unique of a situation because I've been in this position before, and although I don't know the applicants personally, they had came to me a few weeks back telling me that they had plans on leveling their
home and building a new home, and they realize that I had been in their position before with a limited lot with adjacent neighbors that have very reasonable concerns, and he explained to me what some of their strategies were, to be accommodating to the supporting neighbors. And the question that I had was, is your proposal going to obstruct the view of the adjacent neighbors, and if the answer's yes, then you do not have my support. If you can position the home in a manner that will not obstruct the view of the lake by either adjacent neighbor I will then support you. The applicants then came back and said here is our plot plan, here is home A, here is home B, our home falls behind that, there is no obstruction to the view radius. Number two is that when I was in this position, the side yard setbacks were ten feet north and south, and I was grandfathered in. Now, I appeared before you back in '94, '95, and I was grandfathered in, and we're in the same Bentley subdivision, and I'm curious as to why that grandfather clause no longer exists, but that's a
discussion for another day. So I would like the Board to take that into very careful consideration, that I believe, in my personal opinion, that the variance that the applicants are asking for should be based on ten feet each side yard setback, not the fifteen. I also believe that having built a twenty-one foot wide home on West Lake Drive, that you assume some significant economic hardship by building a skinny home, and that's the risk that these two people are going to undertake. Twenty foot does not allow you the architectural capabilities to build and assemble a home that will allow reasonable resale value. It is at its absolute minimal. I wouldn't recommend anyone building a new home less than twenty feet. They are at their absolute minimum. The other couple concerns that I have is that the current position of their home right now, it's right on the street. It's unsafe. It's unsanitary when the gravel road truck comes by and places the chemicals on the road and it splatters onto their home to prevent dust. It's unsafe when
the plow goes through West Lake Drive and throws six feet of snow up against their door and they can't get in the home. Additionally, it's an eyesore for the community. We welcome new construction. We need to avoid remodeling homes that don't have the warrant to be remodeled. Again, they were very conscious about the view radius for the adjacent neighbors. There is no obstruction. I believe that if they can correctly position the home in line with the rest of the waterfront community, that will yield the best results for the community as a whole. So we really have one of two choices. We can leave the home as it is right now, an eight hundred square foot eyesore that's on the road, that's a danger to the community, or we can permit the applicants the variance that's required and allow them to replace a 1920 structure with new construction, to take advantage of the latest and greatest technology, apply new technology for architectural design, and properly position the home on the waterfront that will match a grow of teeth.
This should yield a dramatic improvement to the appearance of the overall community. It should improve the quality of the community. I believe that the petitioners' request is reasonable. The architectural drawings and the footprint provided provide enough detailed information for the Board to make an educated and reasonable decision. I would ask this Board to evaluate the best interest of the community as a whole. If there are residents whom oppose new construction, we certainly welcome those comments, either for or against, but I would also ask the Board to give very careful consideration to the logic and the credibility of the opposers. There is no downside, there is no risk. There's only significant improvement opportunities that exist, and we have a right to allow new construction in an area that is severely depressed. I'm an economist. I believe in the doctrine of laissez-faire. I don't believe in putting rules and regulations on what a person can
do with his or her property; however, I do recognize that zoning and restrictions and ZBA is a necessary function to operate in today's society. So I would ask, as a resident of Novi for over ten years, as a neighbor a couple of houses down, that you support their request. Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else in the audience? Come on down. Get in line. Let's get this expedited. Let's keep our discussion to a couple minutes, if we can. MR. KOZIAN: Good evening, Board. My name is Brian Kozian. I, too, live on 1523 West Lake Drive. I, too, have a narrow lot on West Lake Drive. I also stood before this Board in 1997 and was granted a twenty-eight foot wide house on a forty foot lot. I have six foot on each side of my lot lines with the neighbor. I, too, had opposition when we went to build our house. After being in the house now for five years, I have been able to control drainage, shading, things of those situations. That was all
an issue at the time, but after five years down the road, that's all seemed to have passed and things are going very well. I'm very familiar with the Oliver home. Their home sits just three-and-a-half feet off West Lake Drive. As you probably will agree, there's no right way to build a house on these narrow lots that we live in up on Walled Lake. There's only the best way. I feel that the Olivers' design is the best way. His design, most importantly, moves the house off the street, and I think that's the most important thing. His design gives consideration to the neighbors with regards to line of site, views of the lake. His design does not ask for unreasonable side yard setbacks. His design is going to add curb appeal to an area in dire need. I can speak personally for the architect who designed this house, as he designed two others on West Lake Drive, one which is mine. I'm sure you will agree he does a fine job. The Olivers' willingness to make such
a large investment in such a decayed area speaks for itself. You can make a difference here today by approving these variances. By approving these variances you win twice. First of all, you move a house off that street; and, second of all, you bring a house that is architecturally correct into an area of dire need. Thank you. MR. CURTIS: Hi. My name is William Curtis. I live at 101 Penhill, which is straight directly across the street from this house. I'm also known as the surveyor in the neighborhood. I work for a surveying company. I am a licensed surveyor in the state of Alabama, and have been doing it for 30 years. I didn't survey any of the lots, but I did go around and try to help the neighbors find some of the points so that it would make it easier. Some of the lots have been surveyed twice, and they're side by side. It's very hard to make a determination on where the lot lines are in that whole plat, but I think the surveyor has done the best he could with what is existing now, and if
you look at the drawing you can see some of it. The original fence went through the existing house. It didn't run on a parallel with the property line. It just ran from the lake to that house. The fence was also -- when you put up a fence you always put the post on your side and the chain-link on the outside to make it look good, and that's the way that fence was done. I know it looks different than what my neighbor remembers of where the property line is, but the lot hasn't really gotten any smaller or being cheated. It's just a little bit more on the other side than she realizes, but it's still there. It's only a couple inches shorter on the whole lake front. But I think moving the house back would be a good improvement and would bring all of the houses into the 21st Century, and we can all live with this. Thank you. MR. GNATIC: My name is Greg Gnatic. I live at 2023 West Lake Drive, recently purchased 1947 West Lake Drive, so I have a current new construction on one side of the property and a proposed new construction on the other side of the
property. I think moving this home would ease the congestion on this road. Where they currently park now in front of their house or across the street makes it very difficult for two cars to pass on this road at the same time. I think the house positioned where it currently is is a huge safety issue. The house being three-and-a-half, three, almost four feet off the road has concern with traffic going through that area. Sometimes we get people driving through that area at pretty high rates of speed, and this house being so close to the edge of the road just does make it a little scary at times. I also think that at times during the summer, where we have so many cars parked and congested on this road, that it would make it difficult -- it would be very difficult for any type of emergency vehicles to get through there in a safe and efficient manner. I highly support the construction, I've seen the plans, and I think he's doing a great job. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else in the audience? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: We had thirty-eight notices sent. We have two approvals; from Mr. Peterson on West Lake and Mr. Hine on Penhill. Building Department? MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, unlike Mr. Hager, I'm a regulatory agency, I know where he's coming from, but the bottom line is that the issue regarding grandfathering for which he brought up earlier on, yes, this was part of the ordinance which existed at the time you were building your house and is no longer part of the ordinance. You must comply with the current provisions of the goal for that particular district. I'm sorry it happened that way. So we'll see an increase in setback requirements along the lake side, and you will continue to see them as people continue building in that particular area. MR. CHAIRMAN: No comments with respect to this particular case? MR. SAVEN: No, just for the fact
that this goes back to the reason why the increase in the setback requirements. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members? Sarah. MEMBER GRAY: Don, would you -- for Mrs. Burkette, would you address the fire issue with- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) The fire issue is based upon the building on the lot adjacent to the property line. The building code provision requiring that protection shall be provided for -- there's exterior walls that come between three foot and the property line, so there has to be fire protection on those exterior walls. It used to be a-five foot requirement but now it's a three-foot requirement. And the properties that are adjacent this are ones that are even closer to the property line and the proposed structure. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah? MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Oliver, or your architect, how far are you proposing the front setback from West Lake Drive to the front of the garage? Is that 39 feet? MR. MCDONALD: It's -- the surveyor did not put a dimension on it, but I think it
scales over 40 feet. MEMBER GRAY: Over 40 feet? MR. MCDONALD: Yes. MEMBER GRAY: If -- I'm just going to ask this, because I know how the houses are stepped forward, and the neighbor to the north is concerned about her side view. Would you be willing to pull it closer to the street, since you have 40 feet, but not to interfere with the proposed well site; in other words, could you pull it forward towards the street a little bit? Are you going to live in the house while you're doing construction? MR. OLIVER: We were going to demo the house. MEMBER GRAY: So you could get to do the construction? MR. OLIVER: Correct. MEMBER GRAY: Okay. MR. MCDONALD: We can take a look at that; however, we have taken the site line to the two owners of the existing residents, and we feel that we have been sensitive to her site issues. MEMBER GRAY: Thank you. I know this
comes up a lot in this area where an old house is set closer to the road and now they want to build a new house, and while my sympathies are with the neighbors, I guess the comment has to be made that if you want to retain your view perhaps you should buy it, so having said that, I really think this is a good situation with getting rid of a house that's so close to the road, it's less of an -- well, it's less intrusive in width because it's narrower than the existing house. And my only concern would be is if they would be billing to work with the one neighbor to possibly pull the house back towards the road a little bit while not compromising the rest of their proposal. And that's all I have. Thank you. MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, I agree with Miss Gray, that the -- that house is probably one of the few homes that, along there, could almost just -- three steps from your car if you stop on the road and be at your front door. And it's a very positive situation for the whole community to get that house off that road. What they proposed, I think, is a
tremendous improvement to the neighborhood. That neighborhood needs as much help as it can get. And it's a small lot, it's a tight situation for the neighborhood. There's no "hundred percent everybody have everything that they want" there. I think the petitioner has tried to not obstruct the view, and from looking at the layout of the three homes on the angle, it's been very minimal into that, and I don't think that the person that is totally obstructed from the lake, that it's really a small part. I can support the petitioners' request. MR. CHAIRMAN: Let me make a quick comment. Did I hear you say that you could look at the possibility of pulling that back a little bit? MR. MCDONALD: We- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Is that something that you- MR. MCDONALD: (Interposing) We can take a look at that; however, we feel that we have made a sensitive attempt to try to provide for the neighbors already.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it anything you want to discuss with the neighbor right now? I mean, if that's -- it has worked out in the past -- I'm very sensitive to your next door neighbor's issues that she brought up, and I think that if you've -- if you have the opportunity -- you're all here tonight -- if you want to take ten minutes and sit out in the atrium and talk about it, we'll take another case and give you guys a chance to maybe work something out. I'd like to see her smiling, and she's not. That's just my thoughts. MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir. MEMBER REINKE: Just one comment I'd like to make. If you're gonna pull that house closer to the road -- you've got forty feet. You've got twenty feet wide. That means even with the maximum, if you get four cars you're out on the road. If you're in any closer, you get two cars, the third one's there. I really have a problem with bringing it any closer than what it is laid out. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's just one lowly
guy's comments. Any other discussion? MEMBER SANGHVI: I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, that if there is any way to find some happy medium without making drastic changes, and I think it should be taken right now rather than put it off later on. MEMBER REINKE: Why don't we take the next case? MR. CHAIRMAN: That's what I've asked. Gentlemen, can we get -- can we get some feedback from you guys? Do you want to talk to your neighbor? MR. MCDONALD: We'd be willing to move the house back, as long as it doesn't cause a problem with the front setback, even with the front -- the lake side of her house. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll tell you what. I'm going to ask you to take five minutes, please, and go talk to your neighbor. We're going to call the next case, and when you're done, just come back in and we'll finish up whatever case is up and then we'll bring you right back. Okay? MR. MCDONALD: Okay.
MEMBER GRAY: Thank you. CASE NUMBER 02-043 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Canup, will you come on down? I believe you're next, Case 02-043, Brent Canup of 47201 Glamorgan. And he wants to tear down an accessory structure and build a new one. You want to raise your hand and be sworn by Mr. Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Do you swear to tell the truth in this regard? MR. CANUP: Yes, I do. As stated, we live at 47201 Glamorgan. We bought the house and property in 1973, and have been there ever since, and really have no intention of leaving. At the time we bought the property there was an accessory structure on the property of twenty-eight by thirty-two, which is roughly nine hundred square feet. There was also an attached garage on the house which is roughly five hundred fifty square feet. The -- over the years we didn't pay a lot of attention, but recently noticed that the structure that we want to tear down was built on a
easement, and what's worse than that, it's built underneath a power line. Also, the structure's footings on the northeast corner are beginning to settle in the -- we've noticed about a three-inch settlement on the front northeast corner of the building, which is really cocking the whole building to one side. And it's not noticeable if you don't go look for it, but it is there. And also in checking the building, when the building was built it was built about eighteen inches on the square, so the -- the building that we have, as good as it does look, it does match the structure, the architecture of the house, as well as the facade of the house that we live in. As good as it looks, it's in sad shape, and rather than trying to rebuild it I thought I would take it and move it back into compliance away from the easement that runs through the property and turn it ninety degrees sideways and build it some way bigger, the reason for that being that I collect old automobiles and I have more cars than I have garage space, and I've got
those kind of scattered around between my son's house and my house. At this time I can only get one of my cars in my garage, and I have four of the older cars. And this has been a hobby of mine for all my life, practically ever since I was 14, and I would like to be able to continue that hobby and keep my cars at home where I can maintain them and work on them. So if the Board sees fit, we would like to be able to remove the existing structure and increase the size of it by four hundred fifty square feet, I believe it is, is the variance that we really need; however, we do need a variance as stated, but the -- actually, we have nine hundred now and we will have fifteen hundred square feet, if we're allowed to build the structure that we would like to build. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to address the Board? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: No hands. Nineteen notices sent to neighbors; no approvals, no objections.
Building Department? MR. SAVEN: No objection, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll open comments. I happened to be over at Brent's property on Sunday to see the condition of the structure. It is right underneath the power line. He does have room to go back, and while he didn't mention it, there is a considerable woodlands/wetlands that is protected behind him, so there's nobody immediately directly behind him. Try as I might, I couldn't find any reason to not give some consideration to this. Any other Board members? MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, am I correct, Mr. Saven, if he had over an acre he wouldn't need this? MR. SAVEN: That is correct. If he had over an acre of property -- he is an RA zoning district which allows him to have more of an increase in square footage more so than any other district, that being the R-1 district. Based on the fact that his lot is just a tad under an acre, because we had a discussion about this earlier on, that he did not
qualify for this particular variance. MR. CHAIRMAN: Can we define a tad? MEMBER REINKE: What's a tad under? MR. CANUP: 300 square feet. MEMBER REINKE: Rules are rules, I understand that, but I mean for 300 square feet requiring this, I really don't see a problem with the request. MEMBER BAUER: I have no problem. MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Chairman, may I make a motion that in Case Number 02-043 the applicant's request be granted because of unusual circumstances of the power lines and other issues as described. MEMBER BAUER: Second the motion. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Brennan, with all due respect, what's the hardship? MR. CANUP: The hardship is that I have a building that is in sad shape of repairs and has to be moved. MEMBER GRAY: You could easily replace with same size. What's the hardship to go
bigger? MR. CANUP: The hardship is I don't have enough to keep the automobiles that I own. MEMBER GRAY: Okay. That's what I wanted to know. Thank you. MR. CANUP: I would like to keep them inside and not leave them outside. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other discussion? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we have a motion. Call the vote. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Canup, see the
Building Department for your permits. You have a variance. MR. CANUP: Thank you very much.
CASE NUMBER 02-044 MR. CHAIRMAN: Case 02-044 filed by Lee Mamola representing Spartan Concrete, and Lee is going to discuss a couple of variance requests and he's going to do it very quickly because we, as the Board, have reviewed this packet at length. MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, we have. MR. CHAIRMAN: Lee, want to raise your hand and be sworn? MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Mamola, do you swear to tell the truth regarding this case? MR. MAMOLA: Yes, sir, I do. MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. MR. MAMOLA: Lee Mamola from Mamola Associates Architects. Also with me tonight is Mr. Greg Dowling from Spartan Concrete. I believe the Board members -- you have my letter of May 8th which substantially presents the arguments and the reasons for the request for variances that we're seeking.
I'd like to add information, and that is an explanation of what concrete is a little bit, and I'll try to simplify this. There are different types of concrete. There's a type of concrete you pour a basement wall with is different than the type of concrete you make a sidewalk out of. So in the nature of the concrete business, they mix different ingredients to make different types of concrete. Much the same way you mix ingredients for a cake, you mix different ingredients to make different cakes. The real question here that I think might have some gray issues to decide here is whether or not this is an expansion of a nonconforming use, and it's our claim that it is not an expansion of a nonconforming use because the addition of the silo is simply to accommodate a different type of ingredient. If you think of making one cake with a sugar-free or special type of sugar versus another cake with regular sugar, that's what they're doing here. They're using a different type of ingredient to make a different type of concrete,
so they sell one type of concrete A, they're correspondingly selling a lesser type of concrete B. There's no net increase in sales of concrete by -- solely by the addition of this silo structure. There's no additional staff hired as a result of this business expanding, the silo being added. There's no additional trucks that are coming on, so there's no additional, therefore, use or activity with this particular question. To summarize the reasons why we need the other two variances. It has to be next to the existing silo because as these ingredients mix it's very critical that they mix together from silo A to silo B. If not, the concrete will not properly mix in the truck and you could have failure out on the job site which, of course, nobody wants. And the reason the silo is there now, existing today, is because it was there 30 some years, and it was in accordance with the ordinances way back when. To comply with ordinance would mean that we'd have to take down the existing silo, and not only that but they'd have to essentially turn
the whole building around to revert towards the back, and in the back they have aggregate storage bins and other supply materials. It would totally disrupt the ongoing day-to-day traffic of the cement trucks moving in and out of that property. As it is, they have ample turning radius in front yards, et cetera, to go in and out of Grand River. It would be a serious disruption to the day-to-day activity of the trucks to not grant this variance. So if there's any questions about the detail of how concrete is mixed, the type of concrete, et cetera, I think Mr. Dowling is here to answer those questions for you there. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Lee. Fourteen notices sent; no approvals, no objections. Anyone in the audience? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: No hands. Building Department? MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like Lee to indicate the what the height of this silo is in comparison to the other ones. MR. MAMOLA: It's fifteen feet less in height. I think the existing silo is either
seventy-eight or eighty feet, one of the other numbers, and this will, essentially right next to it, to the west, and it is fifteen feet -- within an inch or two of fifteen feet shorter of the existing silo. MR. CHAIRMAN: About 20 feet over what is currently allowed? MR. MAMOLA: Yes, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members? MEMBER SANGHVI: Why do you call it a silo? What does it store? MR. MAMOLA: It stores the type of ingredient, dried goods. And Mr. Dowling can give you've the chemistry of that. But basically, every day, that silo structure gets filled based upon anticipation of the deliveries for that day, and it basically gets emptied by the end of day, and that's what determines the height, and that's why it's the 60 some feet that it is. MEMBER SANGHVI: I thought silo was a structure where you store, specially grain, and I would have seen the processing tower rather than a silo.
MR. MAMOLA: Well, silo is somewhat of a generic term. I mean, the materials are in there, stored for a day- MEMBER SANGHVI: (Interposing) That is what is causing all the problem, because you are using a generic term, silo, which it is not a silo really. Technically, it's a processing tower, and that's where all the problem starts. MEMBER REINKE: I think the problem really is height, no matter what you call it. MEMBER SANGHVI: The height has already been there. It's already pre-existing. New one is lower than the current one. MEMBER REINKE: Right. For what the petitioner has requested, I think they've tried to keep it to a bare minimum for their operation, what's really required for their ongoing operation. I don't think it's an expansion. It's just that it's part of their business. MR. CHAIRMAN: This is also an area where this petitioner has been since 1967. He's probably seen, Lordy knows, how many changes to the ordinance, and has had to deal with a number of changes from time to time.
I'm compelled to support the petitioner's request. MEMBER BAUER: I'm compelled to support it also. Needless to say, up in things in new processes and so forth, and I'm sure that helps him. MR. CHAIRMAN: Who wants to make a stab at it? MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, in Case 02-044, I move that the variance requested by Spartan Concrete be granted because it is a non expansion of nonconforming function and it is required for his business operation. MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: You've got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Good job, Lee. See the Building Department for your necessary permits. MR. MAMOLA: Thank you.
CASE NUMBER 02-042 (Continued) MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd like to call back the Olivers, please. MR. MCDONALD: We adjourned as you suggested and we have proposed to the neighboring house to the north that we would -- as I mentioned before we left, we would slide the house back so that the Oliver residence would be in line with the lake side of the neighboring residence to the north. Her counter-offer was to request that we take the house even further towards West Lake Drive, which, in turn, would then start to impede on the view of the Olivers.
We're willing to leave this offer open on the table to -- in all fairness, to even the house up on the lake side. In my opinion, all it's going to do is slide the house back so she has a better view of the neighbor on the south side. The site lines are what they are. She's not going to see anymore of the lake. That's what we're willing to compromise on and offer to her as a good neighbor. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ma'am, any comments from your perspective? MS. BURKETTE: Several things I guess. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you get over to the mic, please. MS. BURKETTE: Sure. What they offered was -- even though they've asked for more than 15 feet on the side variance, they're not willing to look at any variance on the back. They'll only go a couple feet back so that they don't have to ask for a variance, because what he said was that that would delay his project, so I guess I really have no choice.
What he's willing to do is go back a couple of feet. That's better than nothing. It doesn't address the safety issues, from my point of view. You might think that fire's not a problem, but having lived there and seen what I have, I still think that's a very great issue. I don't think that his view -- he could have bought two lots as well. He could have bought -- which might be a compromise in our area. The lots are very narrow. We have some neighbors that have two lots, then they could put a lot in the middle of the house. I could have bought the view but he could have bought a larger lot, he could have bought two lots, so I really feel like I still have no choice here. What he has offered is just to move back a couple feet. That's better than nothing. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. MS. BURKETTE: It still did not address a lot of my main concerns. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, would you tell me whether this modification of your offer, whether that changes any of the variance requests? You still have the same side yard setback, you still
have the same- MR. MCDONALD: (Interposing) The variance requests would be the same. MR. CHAIRMAN: Just position the house -- MR. MCDONALD: If we pull it back much farther, we would have to come in for a fifth variance along West Lake Road, if we pull it back so far that we start to encroach in the front yard setback. MR. CHAIRMAN: Don, if we consider the architect's offer to pull the lot back -- the house back five feet, do we have to re- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) No. It's -- the setback requirement that you're dealing with is what the issue is of the ordinance. MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll take the Board comments, but I'll tell you what mine is right now. I'm satisfied that the petitioner has tried to make some considerations for a neighbor, among many, supportive of one neighbor that had some issues, and I'm satisfied that an effort's been made. Board members? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Chairman?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, ma'am. MEMBER GRONACHAN: I concur. I think this is an overall improvement, considering that at the current time there is no side yard setback with this house. There's -- it seems to address a number of other safety issues, even though the current neighbor may seem that a fire is an issue, but fire is an issue wherever you are, and especially up in those neighborhoods. I think new construction is the best thing as opposed to leaving this old house there, because even if that house catches fire there's no guarantee that your house is not going to be affected, so I'm -- I'm glad that the two of you worked it out to the best, at this point, and I agree and concur and support the petitioner. You want to make a motion? MR. CHAIRMAN: Please. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. In Case Number 02-042 filed by William and Gina Oliver, I motion that the variances requested by the petitioner be approved with the agreement that the house be moved back -- do we have a-
MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Five feet. MR. MCDONALD: I don't think we should put a number to it as much as we should say that the lake front wall should be even with the house to the north. MR. CHAIRMAN: That work? MEMBER SANGHVI: The lake side wall should be level. MEMBER GRONACHAN: That the lake front of the house be even with the house to the north and that the north and south variances be approved. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion on the motion? MEMBER SANGHVI: No question. MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, you have several variances that are part of this. MEMBER GRONACHAN: I'm sorry. MR. SAVEN: Would you do all of them please. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to read them all off, or as submitted?
MEMBER GRONACHAN: I'll amend that and add as submitted amended. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Any further discussion? We already have a motion. Sarah? MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. You have a variance. See the Building Department for your necessary permits. Thank you. MEMBER REINKE: I have one comment before the petitioner leaves. I must really compliment you in putting your proposal together as far as information wise. You've probably been one
of the best information packages I've seen put together. MR. OLIVER: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: You know what, I think we can get one of these restaurant cases here real quick.
CASE NUMBER 02-045 MR. CHAIRMAN: 02-045, Nakia Shamany of Hershey's Ice Cream. Come on down. This is another request for temporary outdoor seating. This is another case where there has been previous -- and, sir, you want to give us your name and raise your hand and be sworn by Mr. Sanghvi? MR. SHAMANY: My name is- MEMBER SANGHVI: (Interposing) Do you swear to tell the truth regarding the matter in front of you? MR. SHAMANY: I do. My name is Shamany. I want to present -- we want to allow to get a permit temporary to outside seats on my property during the summertime. That's it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Just like the previous case, thank you.
Anyone in the audience care to give some input? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: There were twelve notices sent; two approvals. One from the Pheasant Run Plaza, and the other from Two At A Time. They both like the idea of tables and chairs. And what I don't have in the file, or maybe I do -- Building Department, do we have any previous history, any problems? MR. SAVEN: I've received no complaints regarding this matter. And, once again, if it's the Board's wish, I'd like- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Continuing jurisdiction. MR. SAVEN: -to keep this under continuing jurisdiction. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, can we, as well, define the time frame roughly that you're looking at, May through September? THE SHAMANY: Yeah. To September 30. MR. CHAIRMAN: And, again, three
years? MR. SHAMANY: You understand what continuing jurisdiction is, that Building Department, if they have a problem, they might ask you to come back and talk to us? MR. SHAMANY: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: You haven't had a problem yet, so everything ought to be hunky-dory. Board Members? MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MEMBER REINKE: Case 02-045, I move that petitioner's request for a variance for three years be granted and maintain continuing jurisdiction for business operation. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and a number of seconds. Any discussion? Sarah? MS. MARCHIONI: What was the time frame, May- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) May -- approximately May through September. MEMBER BAUER: May 1st to end of
September. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: You've got a permit -- or, no, you've got a variance. See this guy for the permit, and thanks for coming down. We're going to take five minutes, quick break. (A short recess was taken.)
CASE NUMBER 02-046 MR. CHAIRMAN: We're going to reconvene, 02-046, filed by Sami Harb. Do you have somebody that's going to be presenting for you or
are you going to do it? MR. HARB: My name is Sami Harb. I have with me Stewart Michaelson, my partner, and representing us would be Mr. Kevin Holtz (ph). MR. CHAIRMAN: And you, sir, are an attorney? MR. COLTS: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: If the other two are going to give testimony we'll ask them to when they stand up. Sir, you're in front of us for an interpretation, and I'll remind you that we've had your case, we've read it through, so give us a summary and give us your point of view. MR. COLTS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the Board. I'd just like to briefly review the site that we have with you. It's a 40 acre parcel on the west side of Beck Road just north of the Greenwood Oaks subdivision. The planning commission, subject to your favorable interpretation, has approved it for 30 homes approximately as shown here. Over half the site is wetland, which will be preserved in perpetuity as part of the one family clustering
option that was granted by the planning commission at its May 1st meeting. The site also includes a pocket of woodlands at the northwest corner that will be preserved in perpetuity. The developer will be building all of the homes in this community. All of the decks will be constructed with the homes, and the setbacks for those decks will be fully conforming. All setbacks for this community satisfy the ordinance and no variances will be required for setbacks. All wetland buffers will also be satisfied and respected as part of the development. The issue presented today is the thirtieth unit and whether the road right-of-way of this extensive Beck Road right-of-way for this community is included in calculating permitted density. The density analysis starts with Section 2400 of the ordinance, which states that a R-1 district, the maximum density permitted, is 1.65 dwelling units to the gross acre.
There's no definition of gross acre in your ordinance, although many ordinances do define it, and the commonly accepted definition of gross acre in the real estate industry is that that is inclusive of road rights-of-way. The ordinance gets more specific though as it relates to the one family clustering option. In Section 2403 of the zoning ordinance, the permitted density is, again, 1.65 dwelling units per acre calculated in accordance with the density of density and -- in the ordinance. When we turn to the definition of density, it states that the density is the number of dwelling units that may be placed on an acre of net site area. Then, finally, we turn to the zoning ordinance definition of net site area, and the net site area is an area of land, excluding identified wetlands or water horses that are regulated, but not excluding quality wetlands less than two acres in size. There is no exclusion of right-of-way owned by the applicant from the definition of net site area. The net site area includes the area of
land owned by the applicant. It excludes wetlands or water horses regulated by the state or by the city, and only excludes quality wetlands less than two acres in size. The applicant's position is very simple. There's no ambiguity in the ordinance. Net site area does not exclude road right-of-way owned by the applicant; and, therefore, that right-of-way should be included in calculating the permitted density. That will allow the thirtieth home to be built in this community. It will provide added tax base for the city. It will enhance the quality of this development, and will cause no detriment to any other land. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. There were 38 notices; no approvals, no objections. Anyone in the audience care to make a comment? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Come on up. You'll have to be sworn. Give us your name, raise your hand.
MR. MICHAELSON: My name is Stewart Michaelson. MEMBER SANGHVI: Would you raise your right hand, sir, and swear to tell the truth regarding this matter? MR. MICHAELSON: I do. I know you want to be brief, we all want to see the hockey game, but I just wanted to add a couple of things. We took a very difficult site that had been looked at by many other builders and developers. More than half of it is wetlands. It's a beautiful piece of property. There's a lot of woodlands. We happen to have a unique type of community that we've been building successfully. In, actually, Farmington Hills we bought two pieces of property from the City of Farmington Hills, worked very closely with them. It's a type of community that we're proposing to build in Novi. It works well in an established city like Novi. It's a site condominium. We do all the landscaping. We build the decks, and we set up an association that's -- it's private roads, and it's set up in such a way that the residents have no
maintenance. All the outside maintenance is done for them, and really what it appeals to are people that are living in bigger homes, the kids are grown and they don't want to leave the community but they want to have something that, you know -- a nice place to live, a ranch or a first floor master. The don't want to live in a big colonial, they don't want the maintenance anymore but they want to say, in this case, in Novi. We took this unique piece of property, and we think we did a great site plan. The Planning Commission approved it. We had a lot of tweaking to do with the Planning Commission, and we came up with a great product, and I think it's a great asset, and I think the city of Novi is in great need of this type of product. And for us it's a major hardship to lose one unit on such a small number of units as it is. I mean, we have less than -- you know, we're doing -- on 40 acres we're only taking -- we're only asking for 30. So besides the law on our side, I'd like to appeal to your sense of what we're trying
to do here. And I'd just appreciate it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anybody else in the audience? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Building -- no. Thirty-eight notices -- I already said this -- no approvals, no objection. Building Department, please. MR. SAVEN: Stewart, based upon the density that you were looking at, what kind of numbers were you looking at as far as omitting the right-of-way? What were you looking at, twenty-nine point some? MR. MICHAELSON: Yeah. Well, the calculations actually came out to a fraction, so it's really not a full unit. We'd be losing a half a unit. Obviously, you can't build a half a unit, so we're really -- I mean, we're way under utilizing the site as it is, so the thirtieth unit is really like asking for half a unit or some fraction thereof. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members? MEMBER BAUER: I have no problem with
it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, what's before us is whether the petitioner's case can petition that right-of-way is not excluded so it's included. MEMBER BAUER: That's right. MR. CHAIRMAN: And I think that that's the basis for his case. Cindy? MEMBER GRONACHAN: You took the words right out of my mouth. After reading this very carefully, I have just come up to the conclusion that since the right-of-way is not specifically excluded from the definition of net area, therefore, it must be included and that the ordinance must be amended if they want the -- that specific definition to not include right-of-way. And I see Mr. Schultz raising his hand. MEMBER REINKE: Can I ask a question of the Building Department. In calculation prior, have we ever included the road right-of-way? MR. SAVEN: That I couldn't -- I really don't know. MEMBER REINKE: Okay.
MR. SCHULTZ: In response to that, Mr. Royal was asked to come up with an answer to a similar question before the Planning Commission. We didn't find anything -- any developments where it actually become an issue, and Mr. Royal indicated that he expected the road right-of-way to be included, but it was not a case issue, and it was resolved one way or the other. And I guess I would point out if the Board is inclined to do this, he can simply say, as part of the motion, that limited to the facts and circumstances of this case, and leave it at that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MEMBER GRAY: I would also suggest that we may want to refer this to the council to go back to ordinance review and get the exclusion put in for future reference. I think that would be appropriate. I didn't -- I didn't find ambiguity in the ordinance at all. It's cut and dry, as far as I could see. MR. SCHULTZ: I think that's a good idea. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. And, Sarah,
would you -- how do we want to handle this? MR. SAVEN: You need a motion. MEMBER REINKE: You have to make a motion. MR. SCHULTZ: Part of a motion. MR. CHAIRMAN: Part of a motion? All right. Any other discussion? MEMBER SANGHVI: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. We'll take a motion. MEMBER SANGHVI: I would like to make a motion, sir, that in Case Number 02-046, the applicant's request for the interpretation of -- interpretation be granted as there is no definite exclusion in the ordinance as it is written at present, and we may also suggest that this issue should be taken up by the council and, if necessary, the ordinance be amended. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? MEMBER GRAY: We want to limit it to this circumstance only? MR. SAVEN: For this circumstance.
MEMBER BAUER: Fine. MR. CHAIRMAN: Everyone understand that it's limited to this particular case? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yeah. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other discussion? MEMBER SANGHVI: We are only dealing with this particular case really. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Sarah, you want to call the roll, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yep. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have our interpretation.
CASE NUMBER 02-047 MR. CHAIRMAN: Caribou Coffee is on its way up. Case Number 02-047, Caribou Coffee located on Grand River, also is in front of us for outdoor seating. Sir, I don't know if there were previous grants. MR. AKERS: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: This is new. Tell us a little bit about your business and what you have planned, please. MR. AKERS: My name is James Akers. I'm district manager for Caribou Coffee. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sanghvi is going to swear you in, sir. MR. AKERS: Okay. MEMBER SANGHVI: Do you swear to tell the truth regarding the matter of Caribou Coffee? MR. AKERS: Yes. We are a new business in Novi, and we've been open approximately one year. We have an outdoor seating area, or
patio, already set, and we'd like to put five tables, twenty seats and three umbrellas up on the the outside. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. MR. AKERS: And also from April 15th through the end of October. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. There were three notices sent. You have an approval from Providence. Apparently, they want to take a break, walk across the street and get a cup of coffee. MR. AKERS: Yes, they're very good customers. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone in the audience? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Seeing no hands, Building Department? MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, this is the first time for this gentleman to come before us. I do appreciate the fact there were three years here. This is something to consider for letting him get a trial run for a year, see how it goes. If we get any complaints, whatever, regarding this issue, we'll be talking to this gentleman, and after this
year we'll see how it goes and if it's in good shape then come back for three year time. Right off the bat for three years is a little difficult for me to swallow. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members? MEMBER REINKE: I totally agree with Mr. Saven. I think we need to see some experience first. MR. SAVEN: I would also, if it's the Board's wish to approve this particular variance, I would ask that I have the ability to go out there and take a look at the setup to make sure it meets the requirements and maneuverability around the area. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, all right. We'll take a motion if we're ready. MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, in Case 02-047, I move that petitioner's variance be granted for a period of one year with a stipulation that Mr. Saven will review the arrangement that he will have to comply with the City requirements. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. MEMBER BAUER: And for continuing jurisdiction.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And that the time frame will be from now until the end of September. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. MR. SAVEN: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. There was an issue here that they wanted it until November; is that correct? MR. AKERS: I was asking -- yeah, April 15th -- well, to the end of October. MEMBER REINKE: Make it the end of October. I don't have any problem with that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion amended. Any other discussion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.
MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. You understand what you have to do? You have to see the Building Department. They're going to come out and see how you're going to set it all up so that you got safe aisles and all of that. MR. AKERS: Sure. MR. CHAIRMAN: And if you don't have any problems in a year, we'll come back and probably discuss a three-year grant. MR. AKERS: Great, thank you.
CASE NUMBER 02-048 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Kahm, you want to come on down, Case 02-048. Mr. Kahm is here to tell us why he needs a 23.3 foot square ground sign at the entranceway of Willowbrook subdivision. MR. KAHM: Good evening. MR. CHAIRMAN: Raise your hand and be sworn, please. MEMBER SANGHVI: Do you swear to tell
the truth regarding this matter? MR. KAHM: I do. MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. MR. KAHM: I'll try to make it quick. We are in the process of constructing the third phase of Willowbrook Farm, a subdivision which fronts on Meadowbrook Road. As the Board may recall, our first phase fronts on Ten Mile Road, and the second and third phases front on Meadowbrook Road. There is an entry sign -- this is the plan of the overall plan of phase two and three. Phase two already has a boulevard entry to the south of this entry with a sign in it. Phase three has an entry to the north, but phase three, due to dimensional constraints, could not have a boulevard entry. We could only have a standard twenty-eight foot back-to-back roadway entry. We would like to put identification signage at this entry as well to provide for public identification for the entry to Willowbrook, including emergency vehicles, so that someone, particularly vehicles coming southbound on Meadowbrook Road, would know that they could also
get into the subdivision at this point and realize that this is Willowbrook at this entry as well as the entry to the south. The configuration that we're proposing is two signs on either side -- or a sign on either side of the entry at forty-five degree angles. The Board may recall, I was here not too long ago regarding Churchill Crossing, and you granted a variance similar to what I'm requesting this evening for that entry as well. The character of this entry architecturally, if you will, is quite similar to what we have on the entry to the south; same brick, same piers, same design, just that we'd be putting, again, as I mentioned, forty-five degree signs on either side of the entry so that north and southbound traffic could identify the entry of phase three. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. There were fifty-five notices sent. There was one objection. I sure hope he's watching tonight because he's very emphatic there's too many high profile advertisings already. I object to any proliferation of this
commercial menace. Mr. Desuite's on Bethway. That said, Building Department? MR. SAVEN: We have two major entrances to this project, and it's a means of identifying second entrance for people, emergency vehicles. It's something we should look at in the ordinance as far as (inaudible) to subdivisions. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, comments? MEMBER SANGHVI: I don't see any problem with the business to be identified, and the sign has to go up, and the size of the sign is an issue or not is another matter, and as far as the sign, what he requested, I personally have no problem. MEMBER BAUER: Health, safety and welfare. MR. CHAIRMAN: Make a motion. MEMBER SANGHVI: I make a motion, sir, in Case 02-048, the applicant's request for this ground sign be granted for the purpose of identification and also for making it easier for the emergency vehicles in access. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? (No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Kahm, you've got a variance. See the Building Department. MR. KAHM: Thank you very much.
CASE NUMBERS 02-049 and 02-050 MR. CHAIRMAN: The next two cases will be presented by Mr. Saven. Let's call them for the record. 02-049 and 02-050.
These both concern properties on Grand River. They both concern the expansion, the widening of Grand River. It relates to properties that already exist, and we have to take some of their front yard in order to get proper setback. Anything you want to add to that, Mr. Saven? MR. SAVEN: No, not really, other than this is the same thing we did on Twelve Mile Road. The one -- the first one that's before you is the little white house which is on the south side of Grand River between -- or just east of Taft Road. This is certainly a nonconforming structure, but the fact is that we're asking for approximately a 12.1 foot variance because we're widening the right-of-way from thirty-three feet to fifty feet. And in Case Number 050, we have OST property where they have two parcels which are on the north side of Grand River between Taft and Beck Road. As you -- if you've been by there, you can see they have kind of a gravel front area. The City will be involved in installing a parking
lot in that particular area. In your packet you'll notice that this has been reviewed also by plan review center. They're making some comments, but in the most restricted use it is what's before you tonight. If we can do the modifications to decrease that variance, we're certainly going to try, but as it exists right now, what's presented before you is that, the requirement for a nineteen foot variance. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. MR. SAVEN: And -- I'm sorry. There was also an issue about a one foot setback for the proposed right-of-way requirement where we have the issue of berming requirements and what have you. MR. CHAIRMAN: In both cases there were notices sent. There was a couple of approvals on Case 050. I'll also note, as I read it, that the two properties are in cooperation and they're in agreement with this, so it seems like a win-win for everyone. Board members? MEMBER SANGHVI: May I make a motion,
sir? MR. CHAIRMAN: Please. MEMBER SANGHVI: That in Case Numbers 02-049 and 02-050 we approve the applicant's -- we grant the applicant's request for the variances as noted because of the special circumstances. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. MEMBER REINKE: Support. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and support. Any discussion? (No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Saven, your variance requests have been approved. We do have another matter, couple things to talk about. We lost our vice chair, so if there is a -- MEMBER GRAY: Volunteer? MR. CHAIRMAN: Volunteer or if there is somebody that wants to make a surprise- MEMBER BAUER: (Interposing) Mr. Sanghvi. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sanghvi? MS. MARCHIONI: Wait. He's already secretary. MEMBER GRONACHAN: I'll go back to being secretary. MS. MARCHIONI: You want to switch? MR. CHAIRMAN: I have a motion for Mr. Sanghvi. MEMBER GRAY: So moved. MR. CHAIRMAN: And looks like we have lots of heads shaking up and down. All those in favor, say aye. (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
Congratulations. MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. And I make a motion that we have Miss Gronachan as secretary. MEMBER GRONACHAN: I miss that position. MR. CHAIRMAN: All those in favor say aye. (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Good. Discussion on portable signs that's on here for other matters. What's that about, Don? That's a carry-over from last month. MR. SAVEN: I'm trying to remember. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I think it had to do with the- MEMBER REINKE: (Interposing) I had to do with the portable sign at Grand River and Novi Road. MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. MEMBER GRAY: Well, it was an issue that was brought up in a case, Starbucks, and then there's some other ones that keep coming up, so there are a lot of portable signs around.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And is there an ordinance that deals with that? MR. SAVEN: Yes, there is. Off premises -- most off-premis signs, they're not permitted, so Mr. Amolsh will be duly notified. And I think he picks up these signs quite frequently. MEMBER SANGHVI: Wasn't there an issue about enforcing that situation because -- or am I talking about something different? MEMBER SAVEN: Yeah. I think if you take a look at it you'll see what's happening right now. I just happened to see all these arts and crafts things for the Novi Lions Club that's going up on every corner. These are off-premis signs but it's a community event. Sometimes these things need to be cleared -- need to be cleared through the City Manager, which he is the person who can allow them to placed for a community event. MEMBER REINKE: This would apply to a community event and not a business operation, correct? MR. SAVEN: Correct. If you can recall, we tried to get an electronic sign out
here. We're in the process of looking into this so that we can take all the concerns of everybody, put it on one sign rather than having all these portable signs all over the place. MEMBER GRAY: I think there's a difference between a community activity, like an art fair, and an advertising sign that is for a business, and if we don't allow them and -- well, we have a liability issue when it's in a public area like a sidewalk, don't we Tom? MR. SCHULTZ: Well, you have a liability issue. And, actually, when you start regulating which -- what the content is in the sign though, you have to remember that, that -- then you start on a First Amendment issue, and speech is entitled to less, but you try to stay away from regulating content on signs. MEMBER BAUER: Just the content? MEMBER REINKE: My concern isn't so much content. I can support a community function and so forth that's going on at the discretion of the City Manager. If it's going out in front of a business, I think it's going in front of this Board. That's my own comment.
MEMBER SANGHVI: I agree. MR. SAVEN: I'm not going to argue that fact. I just know that we've had a tremendous amount of community event signs go up, and I know that everybody's trying to take care of people within the community. I think this is what led to the issue regarding this electronic sign, try to get all the events that would happen in the city notified rather than having these portable signs being all over the place. I want to be cautious about this. MEMBER REINKE: I think it's a good point. MEMBER GRAY: I think one of the reasons I brought it up with Starbucks was because they had approached us for the neon sign and then nobody ever showed and we never ruled on that. It never came back for any kind of sign, and then- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Next thing we know we got -- MEMBER GRAY: Next thing -- yeah, yeah. And I know we addressed it with the Lizard Cantina, whatever. MEMBER BAUER: We gave them for 30
days. MEMBER GRAY: Yeah. So -- I keep wanting to say Leaping Lizard. MEMBER SANGHVI: I guess I have a question, Mr. Schultz, and that is, is the City Manager really entitled to supercede the decision of this Board? MR. SCHULTZ: If you're going to put it that way, the answer would be no. I guess the question is what is the particular- MEMBER SANGHVI: (Interposing) I'm not talking about this particular -- this is a general question. MR. SCHULTZ: Unless the ordinance gives the City Manager or some other city administrative official the authority to grant the sign, then, you know, there's -- there has to be the authority by ordinance. I can't speak to whether or not it exists. It's hard to answer the question can he supercede the Board. MEMBER SANGHVI: Would you kindly do a research and give me an answer and maybe send a letter. MR. SCHULTZ: Absolutely.
MR. SAVEN: Is there any specifics that's behind this, or is it just a decision of the Board? MEMBER SANGHVI: Just a decision of the Board. MR. SCHULTZ: I can probably talk to Don about the specifics that lead to the question. Obviously, I don't know them specific. MEMBER SANGHVI: I don't want to bring it up here. MR. SCHULTZ: That's okay. MEMBER BAUER: But when the Board has turned something down. MR. SCHULTZ: Sure. We'll get you a response. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Cindy? MEMBER GRONACHAN: I have one last thing. I think that, if there is anybody at home left watching, that maybe we should let everyone in Novi know that there is an opening on the Zoning Board of Appeals and anybody that would be interested to please fill out their application and set up an interview and we'd love to have another member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, I have two very quick issues that I'd like to bring before you. Number one, one of the issues that come as a result of the variance, and right after granting a variance is see the Building Department for your permit. Sometimes these people haven't even applied yet. Needless to say, maybe you can submit your application to the Building Department at this time. MR. CHAIRMAN: Maybe I'll say see the the Building Department. MR. SAVEN: I'd appreciate that, because automatically they assume that -- they want permit, I need that right now. Number two is -- I know you guys are going to beat me up over this, but I got a real concern about a couple issues on subdivisions and when people are developing subdivisions and they're taking a look at issues whereby they have difficult lots. I happen to be real close with a lot of issues, number one, when it deals with woodlands
and wetlands and configurations of properties; and, number two, is that when they go to build a house on a property and they have certain models, they want to keep that same theme going through this whole thing, it's very difficult to change in this particular -- Mr. Reinke's ready to pounce on me, but the bottom line is there's two things. One of the concerns we have is if you're talking about redesigning a house where the house has to get smaller, you've got to be careful because that's kind of like (inaudible) for the adjacent. You want to try to maintain something along that line where the square footage is feasible. I mean yes, they could probably redesign the house, but we want to make sure it's compatible with the area. MEMBER REINKE: I think that any of the lots in question that are in a plotted subdivision may take a little creativity by the people that they really wouldn't have to downsize a home, they're going to have to be a little more creative in their design and maybe have to change it around from their -- going around with their cookie cutter stamping houses out.
MR. SAVEN: I understand. When you have woodlands and wetlands -- we're dealing with woodlands issues and wetlands issues and we're trying to keep the people out of there. MEMBER REINKE: Oh, I totally agree with you, but what I'm saying is that what can be done, what we have seen done, unless they can demonstrate to me that they cannot build a house that's compatible with what they're building, then I'll talk and listen to them. But they come in and say this is the one house in our portfolio that has to fit on the lot, I can't buy that. MR. SAVEN: Now I understand what you're coming up with. If he would have showed you five different house designs that were part of this -- his particular -- now, I can -- this will help me in getting this information out to the people. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Otherwise, when you're looking at this -- I'm sorry. When you're looking at this you're thinking what's -- it's a self-created hardship. I mean, they knew this from the beginning when they laid this out. You have your specific lot sizes, and you know what size
houses you're building. To come up with a subdivision where you need four or five variances on brand-new construction, I don't get it. And then another variance for a deck. I mean, I think that this Board is very clear, especially on new construction. And I was concerned when there's a lay -- and maybe I'll talk to Tom on this at a later date, but when they're laying out these subdivisions and these lots are of different sizes, okay. Nothing happened tonight that showed me that nothing else could be built, and so until I see that, I can't go and grant a variance on a new construction. MR. SAVEN: Okay. I understand what you're saying now, for the fact what he was presenting today wasn't adequate enough information- MEMBER GRONACHAN: (Interposing) Exactly. MR. SAVEN: -for you to act on this. What I'm saying is when we have -- this City always has been so protective of the woodlands and the wetlands issues, and even in the woodlands in
negotiations for woodlands and wetlands in the development of the sub, the engineering behind this thing goes a little bit to the forefront before the woodlands issues are really resolved. And then it's the determination out in the field upon once that -- that subdivision is developed where that woodlands protected fence goes, and all of a sudden they're looking at this, how can this be. MEMBER REINKE: I totally agree with that. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Right. MR. SAVEN: So now they're working off a much smaller area that they have to deal with. Now they're talking about okay, if we have to cut down -- we have to stay out of this protected area, and now it's a situation where it's a reality. It isn't something that's a development from a line drawing. It's now a reality. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Now, I understand that part of it, but nonetheless, you still have to -- they -- then they still have to do their homework. I don't feel personally -- and if I'm wrong about this, please correct me, but I don't feel it's the Board's responsibility to do that
homework for the petitioner. MR. SAVEN: No. I think you've hit it on the head. I got direction now because now I can say okay, out of all of your designs which you were trying to develop for this particular project, your site one, site two, site three, site four, site five plan, show them this doesn't fit this no matter how you rotate this. MEMBER REINKE: I don't want to give you that direction because that's not my opinion. MEMBER GRAY: That's not my opinion either. MEMBER REINKE: The thing is, they have the lot there, they have a sizable lot that they can build the same square footage home if they use a little creativity. Maybe it isn't one of their five models. MR. CHAIRMAN: It was the petitioner that drove me. I mean, he's the one that showed the plot plan and said here's a particular parcel that's smaller than anything else we're talking about, and yet we got a house on that. I mean, he noosed himself. MEMBER REINKE: Turn the house 90
degrees and put it on the lot. MR. CHAIRMAN: Tom? MR. SCHULTZ: Put Don's comment a little differently, just sitting through the Planning Commission process a little bit, I think what Don's saying is you may see these developers come in and instead of designing that lot so it has the V, so that they've got a little more park area or wetland preservation, they may straighten it out so they don't have to come back to you -- come to you, the ZBA, next time. They may not preserve. They may request a permit to build. They may square that off so that they don't have to come before the ZBA, and those little things that the Planning Commission exacts, sometimes when they get out in the field, may cause them to have to come to you. MEMBER REINKE: So you're saying the Planning Commission is saying that they're going to set it up, send them to the ZBA and ZBA is going to rubber stamp it? MR. SAVEN: No. MR. SCHULTZ: No. MR. SAVEN: Just one second. If you
took that one case at the end of the cul-de-sac, you have an arc to begin with, okay. Next thing you have is you have a depressed area off the rear property line. You just -- by virtue of the arc you narrowed the distance down from front to rear, and if that property was a hundred and thirty-five foot, now you're dealing with something that may be ninety-five feet, okay, for that distance, so now you got a thirty foot setback, you've got a thirty-five rear yard setback. That one that was ten foot just totally floored me. When I looked I says well, how in the heck can this be. Because the angulation of the property came down at such a drastic shape or configuration, and the arc was there, it limited it. There was no place to do this. MEMBER GRAY: And I understand all that, but I also know that -- from my background growing up in construction, build the same house but maybe move the garage to an angle and pull the house forward. I'm not saying redesign the whole thing, but there's got to be some way that these builders, with all the subdivisions that they've put in in all the cities around here, that they've
got to have at least two other plans they can maybe bring in for these smaller lots. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Show us what the- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) Show us what the options are. MR. SAVEN: Okay, will be done. MEMBER GRAY: Move to adjourn. MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved, so accepted. See you next month. (The meeting was adjourned at 9:48 p.m.)
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 127 typewritten pages, is a true and correct transcript to the best of my abilities.
________________________________ Cheryl L. James, CSR-5786 ____________ Date
|