City of Novi ZBA Minutes - December 2, 2003

View Agenda for this meeting
View Action Summary for this meeting

REGULAR MEETING -- ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY OF NOVI
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2003 -- 7:30 P.M.

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, December 2, 2003.

BOARD MEMBERS
Cynthia Gronachan, chairwoman
Jerald Bauer
Frank Brennan
Sarah Gray
Laverne Reinke

ALSO PRESENT:
Don Saven, Building Department
Sarah Marchioni, Building Department
Thomas Schultz, City Attorney
Denise Anderson, Recording Secretary

REPORTED BY:
Cheryl L. James, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: It looks like

2 everybody's here. We're going to call the December

3 2nd, 2003, Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to order.

4 Denise, please call the roll.

5 MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer?

6 MEMBER BAUER: Present.

7 MS. ANDERSON: Member Brennan?

8 MEMBER BRENNAN: Here.

9 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray?

10 MEMBER GRAY: Present.

11 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?

12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Present.

13 MS. ANDERSON: Member Reinke?

14 MEMBER REINKE: Here.

15 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: The Zoning Board of

16 Appeals is a hearing board empowered by the Novi City

17 Charter to hear appeals seeking variances from the

18 applications of the Novi zoning ordinances.

19 It takes a vote of at least four

20 members to approve a variance request, and a vote of

21 the majority of the members present to deny a

22 variance.

23 A full board consists of six members.

24 Since we only have five members tonight, and at least

1 four members are required, those petitioners who wish

2 to table their request until the next meeting, or

3 until a full board is present, may do so now.

4 Is there anyone here that wishes to

5 have their case tabled until next month?

6 (No response.)

7 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: All right. Any board

8 decision made tonight will be final.

9 We ask the audience to please review

10 the rules of conduct on your agenda this evening,

11 particularly that all cell phones and pagers be

12 turned off during the meeting.

13 We had -- are there any changes or --

14 to the agenda for this meeting?

15 MS. ANDERSON: No, there are no

16 changes.

17 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Therefore, I'd like to

18 move for approval that the agenda be approved.

19 MEMBER REINKE: So moved.

20 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: All those in favor,

21 say aye.

22 (Vote taken.)

23 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: The minutes, we had

24 the October minutes in our packets. Are there any

1 changes or notes to make in regards to minutes?

2 (No response.)

3 MEMBER GRAY: Move to accept.

4 MEMBER BRENNAN: Second.

5 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: All those in favor,

6 say aye.

7 (Vote taken.)

8 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: This is the portion of

9 the meeting for public remarks. Any comments related

10 to a case that is not on the agenda and related to a

11 case, either a future case, or if you as a resident

12 have something to bring to the board's attention this

13 evening, you can do so now. Again, as a reminder, if

14 you have something to say in regards to a particular

15 case this evening that's coming before the board,

16 you'll have an opportunity at that time to do so.

17 Is there anybody in the audience that

18 wishes to make public remarks?

19 (No response.)

20 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Seeing none, then

21 we'll go ahead and call our first case.

22 MR. SAVEN: Madam Chairman, members of

23 the board, at this time I'd like to introduce Denise

24 Anderson. She is our new ZBA clerk. She will be

1 taking all the minutes and all the information

2 regarding cases, and at this time I would like to

3 introduce Denise.

4 Actually, Sarah is leaving us for the

5 second time, and we're just bringing her into the

6 group right now.

7 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Welcome aboard.

8 MS. ANDERSON: Thank you.

9 MEMBER BRENNAN: Madam Chair, we did

10 have a gentleman raise a hand right there toward the

11 end.

12 Sir.

13 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'm sorry, what?

14 MEMBER BRENNAN: Did you want to say

15 something -- if it's relative to that case you got to

16 wait until we call it.

17 AUDIENCE MEMBER: It's relative to this

18 case.

19 MEMBER BRENNAN: Thank you.

21 CASE NUMBER 03-050

22 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: All right. Then I

23 would like to call the first case, Case Number

24 03-050, filed by John Karakian at 2450 Shawood Drive.

1 Mr. Karakian is requesting a second extension to his

2 case which was granted back in July of 2003 for a

3 front yard setback variance of 24.8 feet.

4 Good evening.

5 MR. KARAKIAN: Good evening.

6 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: It's been a while

7 since you've been sworn in. Would you like to raise

8 your right hand and be sworn in by our secretary?

9 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or

10 affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 03-050?

11 MR. KARAKIAN: I do, I swear.

12 MS. KARAKIAN: We've had several

13 builders look at the plans for the home, and the last

14 builder that we decided to work with filed for

15 bankruptcy and took a large sum of money, and so now

16 we're back to square one.

17 And this is the second one that we've

18 dealt with. We thought this one would be a good one.

19 We actually brought him in front of you to, you know,

20 explain the plans, but -- we're actually going to

21 bankruptcy court December 11th, so we're back to the

22 drawing board again.

23 MR. KARAKIAN: Yeah. We've researched

24 builders and we thought we had a good builder, ready

1 to go with it. You granted the variance, and he took

2 the money and ran. And I think he did a lot of other

3 one people, and he kept the (inaudible), one big

4 mess, and now we're trying to find another builder,

5 but that was a mighty blow, but I'm still determined.

6 But that's what happened so far, so

7 that consumed a lot of the variance time right there,

8 going through the whole ordeal so far, trying to

9 regain some trust in finding a good builder, too, you

10 know, that kind of thing.

11 So that's why we're here tonight, to

12 explain the situation of what's happened so far.

13 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: There were no public

14 notices sent since this application took place and

15 was granted back-

16 MS. MARCHIONI: (Interposing)

17 Actually, notices were sent to all the surrounding

18 neighbors.

19 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay. I'm sorry.

20 MS. MARCHIONI: Sorry.

21 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Never mind. Okay.

22 Well, I guess twenty notices were sent, and there

23 were two approvals and two were sent back.

24 Okay. Is there anyone in the audience

1 that wishes to speak in reference to this case?

2 (No response.)

3 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Seeing none, building

4 department.

5 MR. SAVEN: Yes. I've worked with John

6 on his dilemma. I mean, this is very, very serious.

7 I mean, he's been through the mill, and as you are

8 well aware, the issue regarding the variance, the

9 granting of the variance, there is a certain time

10 factor that he needs to build within.

11 And he has -- he went through extensive

12 research in trying to get a builder, the first

13 builder he had with him at the time he was before the

14 board, and that didn't pan out too well. And he

15 had -- he had, in fact, got ahold of an expert in a

16 professional capacity to try to get him hooked up

17 with somebody dependable, and this dependable person

18 took him for a lot of money.

19 At this particular time he's a little

20 reluctant, but he's still trying to find a good

21 builder to complete the project, and it's going to

22 take a little more time.

23 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Members. Member

24 Brennan.

1 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, parties coming

2 before us when they have hardship, and you certainly

3 have hardship. I'd suggest, given you have the

4 winter months in front of you, maybe we consider a

5 six-month extension and let these people go home.

6 MR. KARAKIAN: That would be great.

7 MEMBER BRENNAN: So I'll make that

8 motion, that the petitioner be granted six months

9 extension to this variance request for the purpose of

10 building their home.

11 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

12 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: We've had a -- moved

13 and approved the second. Is there any further

14 discussion?

15 (No further discussion.)

16 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Denise, would you

17 please call the roll.

18 MS. ANDERSON: Member Brennan?

19 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

20 MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer?

21 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

22 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray?

23 MEMBER GRAY: Yes.

24 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?

1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes.

2 MS. ANDERSON: Member Reinke?

3 MEMBER REINKE: Yes.

4 MS. ANDERSON: Motion passes five to

5 nothing.

6 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay.

7 MR. KARAKIAN: Thank you.

8 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: You're all set for

9 another six months. Good luck to you.

10 MR. KARAKIAN: Thank you very much.

11 MEMBER BRENNAN: Good luck.

13 CASE NUMBER 03-098

14 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay. Let's move to

15 our next case, Case 03-098 filed by Robert Geracz at

16 48800 Nine Mile Road. Is Mr. Geracz here?

17 (No response.)

18 MEMBER BRENNAN: Madam Chair.

19 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Yes.

20 MEMBER BRENNAN: I propose that, like

21 we have done in the past if a party's maybe running a

22 little late for some reason or another, we hold them

23 until the end of the meeting and deal with it then.

24 MEMBER BAUER: Yep.

1 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Is everybody in favor

2 of that?

3 MEMBER GRAY: Yep.

4 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: All right.

8 CASE NUMBER 03-093

9 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: All right. Moving

10 very quickly, Case Number 03-093 filed by

11 Planet Neon representing ABC Warehouse at

12 43606 West Oaks Drive. Jeff Kasper of

13 Planet Neon is requesting three sign variances to

14 erect three signs at the ABC Warehouse store located

15 at 43606 West Oaks Drive in the West Oaks Shopping

16 Center.

17 Good evening. Are you Mr. Kasper?

18 MR. MINERSHAGEN: No, I'm not.

19 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Would you please

20 state-

21 MR. MINERSHAGEN: (Interposing) I'm

22 Jim Minershagen. I'm with ABC Warehouse, and I'll

23 give a little of introduction before I let John

24 Findlarek from Planet Neon will be the lead

1 (inaudible).

2 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Before you start, sir,

3 would you both approach the podium and raise your

4 right hand and be sworn in by our secretary.

5 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or

6 affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 03-093?

7 THE GROUP: I do.

8 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Go head.

9 MR. MINERSHAGEN: All right. I'll

10 start over. Jim Minershagen with ABC Warehouse, and

11 my address is 1 Silverdome Park in Pontiac, which is

12 where our headquarters is located.

13 This is the former Scott Shuptrine

14 Furniture building which we have acquired and have

15 been going through the process -- in fact, we were

16 probably here before this board sometime in the

17 summer as it related to a lot split that he had to

18 accomplish, and then that went out to the council.

19 We purchased the property in late

20 September.

21 We have gone through the facade review

22 committee, and so one of the other steps is to deal

23 with the signage issue.

24 From a timing standpoint, why, it's our

1 intention to submit shortly to the building

2 department showing what we would do in the way of

3 interior renovations and modifications to the

4 building to turn it into an ABC Warehouse retail

5 store.

6 Our projected time frame as far as

7 opening is April, at this point, based upon our best

8 guesstimate.

9 But the there had already been

10 previously granted, several years ago, some variances

11 on signage that were granted to the Scott Shuptrine

12 organization as a subsidiary of Art Van Furniture.

13 But at this point I'd like to turn it

14 over to John with Planet Neon, and he can elaborate

15 for you just exactly what we have in mind from a

16 signage standpoint.

17 MR. FINDLAREK: My name is John

18 Findlarek. I'm with Planet Neon. Our offices are

19 located on 46593 Grand River in Novi.

20 As you can see, ABC is coming into

21 town. I think they're very excited to be coming into

22 that shopping area. There's a lot going on over

23 there.

24 And that location is not only unique in

1 the amount and size of shops that are over there, but

2 the location of the building that they're going into

3 is also unique.

4 As I'm sure you've driven by it, the

5 entrance is kind of truncated. It not only has a

6 single access, you have access to this facility from

7 West Oaks Drive, from the service drive between West

8 Oaks Shopping Center and

9 West Oaks II Shopping Center, and then you have

10 another entrance on the back side from that

11 West Oaks II shopping plaza as well.

12 There's three distinct elevations that

13 potentially could have signage as a result of that,

14 you know, the way that building is located.

15 The building is also hidden in behind

16 the Art Van building, which makes it very difficult

17 to see from Novi Road, which leads us to some -- the

18 need for the adequate signage to be visible as you're

19 driving down West Oaks Drive.

20 What we've done is we've looked at what

21 that building has had in the past and what it

22 currently has in relationship to signage, and we saw

23 what Scott Shuptrine had did with the building. At

24 one point in the time they had signage on the

1 different elevations, and they have since moved

2 signage over -- directly over that front entrance.

3 And I think we're in agreement that

4 that is the best location for a sign, and so what

5 we're proposing is three sign variances here tonight.

6 The first sign that I'm going to talk

7 about is a sign that goes over that front entrance.

8 When you drove by and took a look at

9 that location, you can see that the mockup sign is

10 relatively the same size as the current sign that is

11 on there. Actually, our letters are a little bit

12 shorter than the current set of letters that are on

13 there. That sign will mainly be visible as you're

14 going down West Oaks Drive, and we think that it

15 would be necessary to have the proper size so that,

16 you know, somebody driving down, they don't look over

17 their shoulder to see it, that they will see it and

18 not miss the business.

19 The second sign is on the north

20 elevation which faces West Oaks II Shopping Center.

21 There's currently a sign on that elevation as well,

22 and what we did is we sized that sign the same square

23 footage as the current sign that is on that

24 elevation.

1 That entrance is -- has a West Oaks II

2 Shopping Center on that side. There a tremendous

3 amount of traffic, and there will also be some truck

4 traffic that will be directed in from that. As you

5 saw when you drove by, that that is where the truck

6 entrance is, and that's why we're requesting the sign

7 on that.

8 The third sign that we're asking for --

9 and here's where I need to apologize. I don't know

10 when everybody drove by these locations. There

11 was -- as you know, we had some windstorms and we

12 lost some banners, and I sent a gentleman out to

13 replace banners, and I did not give him proper

14 instructions, and we ended up with, on that

15 elevation, that -- between the

16 Art Van building and the new Scott Shuptrine

17 building, that would be the -- where we're going to

18 put that installation center sign.

19 If you looked at it today, the banner

20 that was up there is correct. If you looked at it --

21 the day before Thanksgiving, the banner that was up

22 there was correct. We put a larger banner up there

23 for a short period of time, so it was -- if you saw

24 the larger banner -- I don't know when you drove by.

1 What we're looking at is a twelve

2 square foot sign on that location, which is

3 approximately, you know, approximately six foot by

4 two foot, so it's -- what you saw up there was a

5 seventy-two square foot banner, if you drove by it

6 then.

7 So those are the three signs that we're

8 asking for.

9 I have -- I brought the plans to the

10 City as I was working with ABC to see what was

11 acceptable to some of the members, to see what type

12 of signage was currently in that location and some of

13 the things that you do, and I feel that I've taken

14 all the considerations and I've come up with a sign

15 package that is similar to what's currently in size

16 that's on that building, and I think it's tasteful,

17 it's necessary to -- for ABC to have, you know, the

18 proper size signage, and I think it's, you know,

19 appropriate of size and location.

20 If you have any questions, and you

21 might have some on those banners when I put them up,

22 I'd be glad to answer them for you.

23 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, thank you.

24 There were 16 notices sent; no approvals, no

1 objections.

2 Is there anyone in the audience that

3 wishes to make a comment in regards to this case.

4 (No response.)

5 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Seeing none, building

6 department.

7 MR. SAVEN: Just want to verify the

8 location of the sign. This sign two. Your sign two

9 is showing -- is that sign B or is that sign C?

10 THE WITNESS: The way they are located

11 on this, sign two is the front sign. The hundred and

12 fifty square foot is the sign that's going over the

13 truncated elevation.

14 MR. SAVEN: Okay.

15 MEMBER BRENNAN: Let's refer to these

16 as sign A, B or C.

17 MR. SAVEN: I'm looking at your diagram

18 here.

19 MR. FINDLAREK: Yes. They were written

20 up in this -- in not the same order as what that is.

21 MR. SAVEN: Okay. I just want to

22 verify, because the sign which is sign two on this is

23 actually sign C.

24 MR. FINDLAREK: Right.

1 MR. SAVEN: That's the one that's only

2 12 square feet?

3 MR. FINDLAREK: Correct.

4 MR. SAVEN: I want to make sure the

5 board is aware of that.

6 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Thank you. Board

7 members.

8 MEMBER BRENNAN: Just a clarification

9 question. Installation center, this ABC, this is

10 where you're installing stereos when people pull in

11 their cars, and boomboxes and all that stuff; is that

12 what that is.

13 MR. MINERSHAGEN: Yes, sir, mobile

14 electronics. That's the way it's all sold, so it's

15 sold on an installed basis. There's no other

16 maintenance work that goes into the car there.

17 We really feel that we need it. It's

18 really directional more than anything, because people

19 have to come around behind the building to find where

20 it is.

21 MEMBER BRENNAN: If they've already

22 bought the equipment, do they need to have a sign

23 that says ABC Warehouse or just installation center?

24 MR. MINERSHAGEN: Well, if we tell

1 somebody go around behind the building, we're

2 adjacent to somebody else, which is adjacent to Art

3 Van. It just kind -- it really clarifies it other

4 versus next door.

5 MEMBER BRENNAN: We often try to get

6 less for best, and that was the one observation and

7 note that I had on my -- that's okay with me.

8 Thanks.

9 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Anyone else? Member

10 Gray.

11 MEMBER GRAY: I had the same

12 observation as Frank. I didn't think that an

13 installation center necessarily had to have the logo,

14 but -- does this have directional signs on the Ring

15 Road yet, on Donelson Drive or-

16 THE WITNESS: (Interposing) No

17 directional signs currently.

18 MEMBER GRAY: No directional signs?

19 MEMBER BRENNAN: There's none in that

20 mall yet.

21 MEMBER GRAY: Boy, I wish they had

22 them.

23 Well, I know the sign is needed over

24 the front door. This seems awfully big. I don't

1 have a problem with the other two.

2 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Anyone else?

3 MEMBER BRENNAN: Madam Chair, I wanted

4 to add -- I did have another note here -- that they

5 have verified that the signage over the front door,

6 and that back sign -- and I know some of these center

7 businesses we've granted some sign relief because

8 there is a lot of traffic that surrounds it. I'm not

9 compelled to grant signage on all four sides, but

10 assuming that it is -- it is correct, that the sign

11 on the main entrance is similar to what was at Scott

12 whatever his name was --

13 MEMBER BAUER: Shuptrine.

14 MEMBER BRENNAN: Shuptrine. I guess I

15 never went there, that's why they're out of

16 business -- and if the sign in the back, sign number

17 two I believe it is, or sign B -- no, sign A. I

18 guess I'd be compelled to support.

19 And, you know, as far as that

20 installation center, it's 24 square feet. It's not

21 overly enormous. I guess I don't have all that big

22 of heartburn with their request.

23 MEMBER GRAY: Is that a motion?

24 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll make that motion,

1 seeing everybody else is nodding their head.

2 With respect to Case 03-093, I would

3 move that the petitioner's request for the three

4 signs as submitted be approved.

5 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

6 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: It's been moved and

7 seconded that all three sign request variances be

8 approved. Is there any further discussion?

9 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll just expand on

10 the motion, before I get in trouble. For the purpose

11 of business identification and for specialized

12 installation center identification.

13 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: It's been moved and

14 amended and approved. Is there any further

15 discussion?

16 (No further discussion.)

17 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Seeing none, Denise,

18 would you please call the roll.

19 MS. ANDERSON: Can you please tell me

20 who seconded it? I didn't see it.

21 MEMBER BRENNAN: Jerry.

22 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Bauer.

23 MS. ANDERSON: Member Brennan?

24 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

1 MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer?

2 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

3 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray?

4 MEMBER GRAY: Yes.

5 MS. ANDERSON: Member Grenke (ph)?

6 MEMBER REINKE: Yes.

7 MS. ANDERSON: Member Reinke?

8 MEMBER REINKE: Sorry.

9 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?

10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes.

11 MS. ANDERSON: Motion passes five to

12 nothing.

13 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, gentlemen. Your

14 variance has been approved. Please see the building

15 department.

16 MR. MINERSHAGEN: We will. Thank you

17 for your help.

18 MEMBER BRENNAN: Welcome to Novi.

19 MR. MINERSHAGEN: We've been lucky for

20 a long time. We are eagerly awaiting getting open.

22 CASE NUMBER 03-099

23 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay. Our next case

24 is 03-099 filed by Kerr, Russell and Weber, PLC, for

1 Main Market at Grand River and

2 Main Street. James Cambridge is requesting a 20 foot

3 parking lot setback variance between the two unit

4 parcels intended for proposed general condominium

5 associated with the Main Street development.

6 MR. CAMBRIDGE: Good evening. I'm

7 James Cambridge.

8 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Good evening. Would

9 you please raise your right hand?

10 Are you an attorney?

11 MR. CAMBRIDGE: Yes, I am.

12 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Scratch that last.

13 Thank you.

14 MR. CAMBRIDGE: For the record, my

15 address is at 500 Woodward Avenue in Detroit. I'm

16 here tonight on behalf of Wells Fargo Bank, the owner

17 of the condominium unit one, and Western United Life

18 the owner of condominium units two and three.

19 Tonight's request is the third step and

20 the last step necessary to allow the City to issue

21 tax bills for the separately owned parcels right now.

22 Both the bank and Life Company

23 foreclosed on separate mortgages after the loan that

24 was made to the developer went into default. Those

1 foreclosures have been completed, and we are now the

2 owner of what is unit one, two and three.

3 Upon completing the foreclosure, we

4 asked the City for a tax bill for each of our

5 respective parcels so that we could pay the property

6 taxes. We found out, correctly so, that the City was

7 not able to do that because, as it turns out, the

8 developer never got, to our surprise, the final

9 approval from the City on the condominium.

10 So we started with the planning

11 commission and got approval on the condominium site

12 plan from planning. We got approval from the city

13 council a couple weeks ago on the condominium.

14 This is the last step that is necessary

15 to complete the project and get tax bills so that we

16 can pay the taxes that have been owed since last

17 summer.

18 The request tonight is for a variance

19 of 20 feet on the parking. When it was originally

20 designed and built, the owner was more or less the

21 same. It's not anymore. There apparently is a break

22 in what is the paved parking behind the 200 and 300

23 building at

24 Main Market. It is used and seen as a uninterrupted

1 parking lot, and we need a variance of 20 feet for

2 the setback.

3 I'd be happy to answer any questions

4 that the board may have.

5 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: All right, thank you.

6 There were 53 notices sent; no approvals, no

7 objections.

8 Is there anyone in the audience that

9 wishes to speak in reference to this case?

10 (No response.)

11 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Seeing none, building

12 department.

13 MR. SAVEN: Yes, I do, I have a

14 comment. In terms of -- if the board does grant this

15 variance, okay, it is off an existing building. You

16 have to bear in mind there are other billing

17 department concerns that we have, because the

18 property line is established at this particular time,

19 so that particular wall which is on the west end

20 would be something that will be needed to be

21 addressed, possibly through the Construction Board of

22 Appeals, but that will happen during development

23 because we have two separate ownerships.

24 MR. CAMBRIDGE: Yes. Unit one is fully

1 built, that's where the building 200 and 300 is, but

2 it is the understanding of The Life Company that owns

3 units two and three, which are not built right now,

4 that when they have a development plan they have to

5 bring it back to the entire City and get that

6 reviewed and approved.

7 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, thank you.

8 Board members.

9 MEMBER BRENNAN: Madam Chair?

10 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Member Brennan.

11 MEMBER BRENNAN: These are

12 condominiums?

13 MR. CAMBRIDGE: Yes, sir.

14 MEMBER BRENNAN: We're looking to get

15 people down Main Street, number one; we're looking to

16 complete Main Street, number two; we have a

17 petitioner that wants to pay some taxes, number

18 three. It's been approved by planning commission,

19 with this one exception of this variance of the

20 setback. This seems like this is a no-brainer. This

21 is some paperwork that we need to initiate to

22 complete this, and it seems very reasonable, and is

23 in the best interest of the City of Novi.

24 MEMBER BAUER: I agree.

1 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Member Gray.

2 MEMBER GRAY: Understanding everything

3 that's already been said, and having watched your

4 presentation at council, I'm also compelled to

5 support this, primarily because the parking lot's

6 already been built and is in use, so I don't have a

7 problem with it.

8 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay. Anyone else?

9 MEMBER BRENNAN: We have our planner

10 that wants to say something?

11 MR. SCHMITT: Just a brief issue of

12 clarification. At this point there's no actual

13 construction being proposed. I just wanted to

14 clarify that.

15 What happened actually was the original

16 owner laid the condominium over the top of the

17 existing land and buildings in an effort to finance

18 it creatively, some might say, and took it to the

19 county and got it recorded. That way the City has

20 never saw it.

21 At this point it's merely trying to

22 clarify legal boundaries, but hopefully, at some

23 point in the future, we'll have actually living

24 condominiums down there.

1 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay. Anyone else?

2 (No further discussion.)

3 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there a motion

4 somewhere?

5 MEMBER BRENNAN: Sarah's prepared to

6 give a motion.

7 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: I figured as much.

8 MEMBER GRAY: Oh, geez. In the matter

9 of Case Number 03-099, I would move that we grant the

10 variance requested based on the fact that there is a

11 practical difficulty in the structure -- the way that

12 the financing has taken place. That's not a reason

13 for granting that, I know that. There is adequate

14 parking, the parking lot is already built, some of

15 the buildings are already built. This is a -- it's a

16 housecleaning measure is what it is.

17 And, is that good enough, Tom?

18 MR. SCHULTZ: That's good enough, if I

19 might just suggest that it's -- this is intended to

20 be a Downtown area, and parking is intended to be

21 sort of cohesive and not broken up by greenbelts and

22 setbacks.

23 MEMBER BRENNAN: Addition to the

24 motion?

1 The petitioner has established the

2 proposed use will not unreasonably impair the

3 (inaudible) property values in the surrounding areas.

4 MEMBER GRAY: Correct, all that.

5 MR. SCHULTZ: Sounds great.

6 MEMBER BRENNAN: Thank you for the

7 cheat sheet.

8 MR. SAVEN: Did you get that, Denise?

9 MEMBER BRENNAN: I can say that again

10 slower.

11 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: That probably would

12 work.

13 MR. SCHULTZ: It'll be in the --

14 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: So it's been moved,

15 seconded and amended. Is there any further

16 discussion on that wonderful motion that we have

17 here?

18 (No further discussion.)

19 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Seeing none, Denise,

20 would you please call the roll.

21 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray?

22 MEMBER GRAY: Yes.

23 MS. ANDERSON: Member Brennan?

24 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

1 MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer?

2 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

3 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?

4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes.

5 MS. ANDERSON: Member Reinke?

6 MEMBER REINKE: Yes.

7 MS. ANDERSON: Motion passes five to

8 nothing.

9 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Congratulations. You

10 just helped with your housecleaning. Good luck.

11 MR. CAMBRIDGE: Thank you.

13 CASE NUMBER 03-100

14 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Case Number 03-100,

15 filed by Secure Development Properties, LLC, for the

16 Family Fun Center located at

17 45799 Grand River. Jeffrey and Theresa Wainwright

18 are requesting a favorable interpretation of land

19 usage as provided in the zoning ordinance thereby

20 granting authorization of project continuance as a

21 non special land use. The property is a ten acre

22 parcel located on the south side of Grand River west

23 of Taft, more specifically west of Gatsby Restaurant.

24 Good Evening.

1 MR. WAINWRIGHT: Good evening. Thank

2 you. My name is Jeffrey Wainwright, and this is

3 rather new for me, and I really appreciate the

4 opportunity to be in front of you.

5 And what we're really asking for is-

6 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: (Interposing) Before

7 you get started, I need you to please -- are you all

8 going to testify this evening, the people that you

9 brought with you?

10 MR. WAINWRIGHT: Yes, ma'am.

11 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Would you all stand

12 and raise your right hand and be sworn in by our

13 secretary?

14 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly or swear

15 or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 03-100?

16 THE GROUP: Yes, I do.

17 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay. You can

18 proceed.

19 MR. WAINWRIGHT: We're asking for a --

20 the Zoning Board of Appeal to review our case, and

21 our case is simply asking that you give us an

22 interpretation that would allow us to continue to

23 move forward with the project. It is a family fun

24 park.

1 And I will try and zoom it in. It's

2 not as tiny as it looks; however, it is relatively

3 small.

4 The primary features of this park is

5 that it is a family fun center. It is designed very

6 specifically for families. It's not intended to be

7 really anything other than a family get-together.

8 Incorporated in this park are two

9 one-acre family picnic areas that is open to the

10 general public, and we would encourage that to be

11 used by our patrons as well as visitors in the area.

12 There's a miniature golf course, bumper

13 boats, climbing walls, trampoline center, family cart

14 track, a little tiny kiddie track with little bitty

15 electric cars for the four- and five-year-olds to

16 drive.

17 And inside the main building there is a

18 -- what's called a laser tag area and a activity

19 center. There's birthday rooms, and there will be a

20 minor concessions, such as pops and pizza, hotdogs

21 and things like that.

22 Next door to us is the Gatsby

23 Restaurant, and so they have a full service -- full

24 food menu, so for that reason we've elected not to go

1 with a full food service. We think that would

2 suffice just fine in the area. And our mission is

3 family oriented, not really so much in the food

4 direction.

5 With that said, I would like to

6 introduce our attorney, Mr. Tim Stoepker. I believe

7 he's had some conversation with Mr. Schultz today,

8 and perhaps also with Tim Schmitt, and also our

9 architect and project director, Mr. Lee Mamola who is

10 from the city of Novi.

11 And we have other people in the

12 audience that are involved in our project, too, but

13 the three of us will be the only people speaking.

14 So with that, I will turn over to

15 Mr. Lee Mamola.

16 Thank you very much.

17 MR. MAMOLA: Members of the board, as

18 you know, I've been in front of you many times over

19 the years, and I'd like to apologize a little bit on

20 behalf of this project. We rushed to get our packet

21 into you because -- to make tonight's meeting because

22 we really were caught off guard at this requirement

23 to -- that we would have to go in front of the

24 planning commission as a special land use.

1 And the reason is quite simple

2 basically.

3 It's been my experience of 22 years of

4 being on the planning board and doing planning work

5 within this community that plans were always looked

6 at and reviewed as per the activities that were

7 permitted within a zoning district.

8 I've never had the experience where

9 plans, if one portion of the property was used one

10 way and the property extended in other areas, as this

11 one does, that other -- the other areas somewhat

12 dictated or impacted what was being proposed.

13 We're really here to ask you tonight to

14 recognize that the recreational functional activities

15 that are contained in the I-1 area of this parcel

16 are, in fact, contained in the I-1 area and that we,

17 therefore, do not require special land use approval.

18 I believe you have in your packet a

19 survey which shows the general configuration of the

20 ten acre parcel, which also shows the surveyed line

21 between the I-1 area and the OST area, the I-1 area

22 being generally to the north.

23 And it is within that area that all the

24 functional activities of this project are contained

1 and proposed. There is no recreational activity

2 proposed in the OST district, primarily because the

3 OST district does not permit it.

4 So all the games and all the activities

5 Mr. Wainwright referred to are within the I-1

6 district.

7 The I-1 district goes generally east

8 and west, that is, the boundary between the I-1 and

9 the OST district goes east and west and is generally

10 ten feet north of the land where the adjacent

11 residential property to the east is Andy's Hills.

12 Now, we understand that the City has

13 made a determination primarily on the basis that the

14 water -- storm water -- part of the storm water

15 system must flow off of the I-1 area onto the OST

16 area and, therefore, we are using a part of the

17 overall ten acres, part of the OST, as depended upon

18 the development and the use of I-1.

19 It's my understanding that that little

20 pond that is in the OST area has been there for some

21 time, it's part of long ago recorded easements that

22 are part of an overall drainage pattern which takes

23 the water from the project's parcel, generally

24 filters it into sedimentation basin. It is in need

1 of maintenance. It has not been maintained over a

2 number of years. We propose to bring maintenance up

3 to speed. And then it generally flows into the

4 wetland area off site to the Andy's Hills

5 development, and maybe some related parcels there.

6 That is consistent with the storm water

7 master plan.

8 The City also maintains the fact -- or

9 likes to maintain the fact, I think my interpretation

10 of it, that the entire parcel must -- parts of the

11 entire parcel, even though it's not zoned I-1, but

12 the OST part of it, abuts the residential district,

13 and therefore, that's why they think we need to have

14 special land use.

15 Again, our use and function and

16 activities, our parking areas, our activity areas,

17 the buildings, all the pavement, all the lighting

18 does not have to depend upon that.

19 The other notion that I would like

20 to -- is the fact that it has been discussed that the

21 OST area here to the south was zoned OST primarily so

22 that we could avoid -- whatever development would

23 come along on the I-1 district could be -- avoid the

24 requirement for special land use and avoid all the

1 other setbacks and development issues that one must

2 obey when they abut residential.

3 Well, the fact of the matter is,

4 demonstrated by our diagram here, we believe that we

5 could put up to a 25,000 square foot building with

6 required parking, and meeting setbacks, all within

7 that OST district in accordance with the OST

8 standards.

9 There's another standard that one must

10 meet when they obtain site plan approval, and that is

11 have secondary access. Access is -- to the OST is by

12 primarily through the I-1 area driveway. It's the

13 same parcel to the OST. Secondary access could be

14 done by one of either one of two ways, either through

15 an adjacent parcel to the west, long narrow parcel.

16 And I'll point out that when and if this adjacent

17 long narrow parcel becomes developed, it, too, must

18 have a secondary means of egress for emergency

19 vehicles. So this point along this line some day, in

20 the future, will serve both parcels.

21 The long narrow configuration of this

22 parcel really helps to have the secondary egress in

23 the back, or they could go through other means of

24 secondary egress from this site for emergency

1 vehicles, being the backyard of Gatsby's essentially.

2 Thank you. Again, it's our

3 representation and understanding that the use itself

4 is contained entirely within the I-1 district, and we

5 ask that you recognize that and grant the motion

6 accordingly, that we do contain all of our activity

7 within the I-1 district and it does not spill over to

8 the OST district.

9 I left a couple of points untouched,

10 and I'd like to let the attorney,

11 Mr. Stoepker, to speak to those.

12 MR. STOEPKER: Madam Chair, members of

13 the board, my name is Timothy Stoepker. My address

14 is 500 Woodward Avenue, suite 4000, Detroit, Michigan

15 48226, and I'd just like to touch on a little bit of

16 the history of this, and to help us go along I do

17 have a memorandum that I'd like to submit to

18 Mr. Schultz and he can hand that out to you.

19 Until this evening, we were not sure

20 what the real reason was for the request for the

21 interpretation.

22 I had conversations with Mr. Schultz,

23 there were a number of issues raised but we had not

24 received anything in writing and, therefore, it was a

1 little bit difficult to address the issue without

2 just guessing across the board, and I'm just going to

3 follow through with that.

4 This evening we did receive a

5 memorandum dated November 25th, 2003, which seems to

6 state that the sole reason why we are here tonight is

7 because -- and I'm quoting -- the -- in this

8 district, private outdoor recreation facilities are

9 not permitted as the OST. The use of this site,

10 however, does spill into OST parcel as the required

11 storm water system is located on this site.

12 And I would like to address that

13 specific issue, if I could.

14 MR. SCHULTZ: Madam Chair?

15 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Yes.

16 MR. SCHULTZ: I think the board is

17 going to have to address an issue here. Mr. Stoepker

18 has handed out some material. As the board knows,

19 you're the final say as far as the City goes, but

20 obviously there's a right to appeal from whatever you

21 decide tonight. The decision that you make tonight

22 is reviewed by the Circuit Court on a record that's

23 created here tonight.

24 I think before the board accepts

1 something presented to you at your meeting as part of

2 the proponent's presentation on which they'll

3 presumably rely if they challenge the decision, you

4 need to think about whether or not, as a board,

5 you're able to consider this tonight and make a

6 decision tonight.

7 If you accept this, rely on it and make

8 it part of the record, it is part of the record. If

9 you make a decision tonight, you're deemed

10 essentially to have had knowledge of what's in this

11 stack of documents that

12 Mr. Stoepker just gave me.

13 Alternatively, if you accept it and

14 decide you need to time to review it, then the board

15 has always had a chance to table the matter and think

16 more about it.

17 So I leave it up to the board whether

18 you want me to take this and pass it out, because if

19 I do I think it becomes part of the record.

20 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Well, with all due

21 respect to the petitioner and his attorney, that

22 looks like a pretty thick stack of paper that he just

23 presented you, which none of these board members

24 would be able to review and make a proper decision,

1 and you've actually took the words out of my mouth,

2 because we would not have -- be able to make a

3 decision this evening without reviewing all of the

4 information.

5 So, no -- I -- you -- I will ask our

6 other board members if they concur with this.

7 Do you wish to accept the paperwork from the

8 petitioner's attorney this evening?

9 MEMBER BRENNAN: This one just got

10 buggered up real good.

11 MR. SCHULTZ: You need to inquire

12 whether the petitioner wants a decision tonight.

13 MEMBER BRENNAN: Madam Chair? We have

14 this-

15 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: (Interposing) Hang on

16 one second. We have Member Reinke.

17 MEMBER REINKE: Any amount of

18 information before us on a case of this magnitude or

19 nature, there's no way we have time to go through

20 that and make a -- gather information or make a

21 decision based by that, so I would not accept it.

22 MEMBER BAUER: I will not either.

23 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Member Brennan.

24 MEMBER BRENNAN: By show of hands, just

1 out of curiosity, are there other people in the

2 audience here that are here for this particular case?

3 I think it might be worthwhile to

4 continue on, just to hear what the other issues are

5 so that we're better informed, so if this is

6 adjourned we are better informed and it's on the

7 record.

8 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: But to state that

9 we're not accepting -- we choose not to accept the

10 additional paperwork as part of the record this

11 evening, is that proper-

12 MR. SCHULTZ: (Interposing) I think if

13 the board decides to table this matter, I think it's

14 appropriate. I think you've indicated that the board

15 is not going to accept this material tonight for

16 purposes of a decision tonight. If you, of course,

17 table the decision after hearing from property owners

18 in the area, and the proponent, then by all means I

19 assume you'll accept this and consider it and give it

20 the weight it deserves.

21 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: I think that would be

22 the best way to do this, especially since we have a

23 number of people here this evening, not to make them

24 come back, as long as we're -- that would be okay to

1 listen to them this evening and then table it for

2 our -- so we have time to review the rest of the

3 information.

4 MR. SCHULTZ: I think there should be a

5 full hearing tonight, just as you had planned from

6 the beginning.

7 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Thank you,

8 Mr. Schultz.

9 MR. STOEPKER: Is it -- just so I'm

10 understanding that if the memorandum is not

11 submitted, that the board then would review and act

12 on the request this evening?

13 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: We will not -- we will

14 review it -- we will be tabling this case this

15 evening, we will not be acting on it.

16 MR. SCHULTZ: Madam Chair.

17 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: I'm sorry.

18 MR. SCHULTZ: I don't -- respectfully,

19 I don't think that you can answer the question from

20 Mr. Stoepker now until you heard his presentation,

21 heard the neighbors' response, and heard from the

22 staff. And you may well be able to make a decision

23 at the end of that as far as, you know, but all

24 options at the end of that will be open to you.

1 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Thank you for

2 clarifying that.

3 MR. STOEPKER: Before I begin the

4 comments I had, just from a background standpoint,

5 what I would like to have clarified is the reason

6 that we are here this evening is solely based upon

7 the fact that it is presumed, or that it's stated

8 that the required storm water from the I-1 use goes

9 under the OST parcel. That's what's stated in the

10 memo, and that's there is no other reason we're here.

11 MR. SCHMITT: Perhaps this is the point

12 where I should chime in and give the planning

13 department's background on this project.

14 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Well, I would like to

15 continue with our point of order. Can that question

16 be answered simply, or are we going -- I don't want

17 to be all over the place here this evening.

18 MR. STOEPKER: I agree.

19 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: If you want to -- why

20 don't we do this: Why don't you finish what you

21 have, ask your questions. We will address them

22 accordingly in our normal procedure and take it from

23 there.

24 MR. STOEPKER: Okay. Before coming

1 here this evening, again, I had conversations with

2 both Mr. Schultz and Mr. Schmitt as to their thoughts

3 or their opinions as to the reason why the proposed

4 use would require special land use permit as opposed

5 to just merely site plan approval as otherwise

6 required by the zoning ordinance, and a variety of

7 reasons were given, which were attached to

8 correspondence which were included within the

9 application to you.

10 And one of them was that there was

11 apparently a misunderstanding at the time the

12 property was rezoned by the city council, and people

13 didn't understand where the boundary line was going

14 to be located from the former R zoned property to the

15 OST property. That reason was given.

16 Another reason was -- given was that

17 the OST property was not independently developable

18 under Section 209(c) of the zoning ordinance and,

19 therefore, the adjacency rule, which would otherwise

20 be in full force and affect, which would say we only

21 need site plan approval as a special land use

22 approval would not apply.

23 The other reason given was the flow of

24 water from the I-1 parcel to the OST parcel. Another

1 reason that was given was the fact that the I-1 and

2 the OST parcel have a similar tax identification

3 number and, therefore, somehow that blurs the zoning

4 district line.

5 In looking at the memo that was issued

6 on November 25th, 2003, it states that it appears to

7 us the reason that we are here is based upon the use

8 of the sedimentation pond on the OST parcel for the

9 I-1 parcel.

10 Since it's not clear to me as to why we

11 are here, I will try to address those issues

12 succinctly.

13 From a rezoning standpoint, the

14 property was rezoned in 1997, and as you can see, the

15 result of the rezoning from the original residential

16 to OST resulted in the current configuration. The

17 residential zone boundary is over here. This is I-1

18 property. And I-1 property is over here.

19 So it's clear from the boundary line

20 the I-1 does not -- is not adjacent to, and as fact

21 it's stated in the memo from the department it is not

22 adjacent to residentially zoned property.

23 And there seemed to be a question as to

24 whether or not the city council actually knew, or the

1 planning commission actually knew, that that was

2 occurring at the time of the rezoning application.

3 And, in fact, in looking at the record

4 that was submitted, that knowledge was well-known to

5 both the planning commission and to the city council

6 at the time the property was rezoned.

7 That question was raised specifically

8 at the planning commission hearing at the time of the

9 rezoning when Mr. -- Member Hogly asked Mr. Quinn to

10 clarify this ten foot strip at this location in

11 relationship to the 4.3 acres. And I'm quoting, Mr.

12 Quinn stated the reason for the ten foot strip was

13 because there is so much regulated woodlands and

14 wetlands beyond the proposed building -- behind the

15 proposed building that was originally proposed for

16 this OST. It had to be moved up ten feet in order to

17 do that, and the rezoning line had to be moved up ten

18 feet to keep enough parking.

19 So everyone at that hearing knew why

20 the line was drawn where it was because of certain

21 natural features on the OST property and to maintain

22 a buildability or developability of that OST parcel.

23 That conversation then carried on into

24 the city council hearing, which was conducted July

1 2nd, 1997, again where it was specifically discussed

2 and commented on by the then planner, Mr. Rogers, who

3 specifically commented on and noted the fact that

4 that boundary line or that -- specifically that ten

5 feet.

6 And that issue was specifically

7 discussed during the rezoning process, and the issue

8 related to, again, the fact there were natural

9 features on the site that needed to be addressed and

10 the location of the line where it ultimately was

11 approved by the city council was, again, a subject of

12 independent discussion.

13 So if, in fact, there was a -- presumed

14 to be a doubt that the city council didn't understand

15 where this line was going to be and why it was drawn

16 there, it is clear from both the planning commission

17 minutes and the city council record from July 21st,

18 1997, that, in fact, they clearly understood why the

19 ten foot line was located there.

20 Again, in front of the city council on

21 July 21st, 1997, Mr. Quinn stated, I'm quoting,

22 advised moving the building forward as much as

23 possible as one of the reasons for the ten foot

24 encroachment. He explained there is a ten foot strip

1 of I-1. And then Mr. Rogers explained that it was a

2 logical lineup with the adjacent I-1 properties

3 around it. So, again, everyone clearly knew.

4 So the first statement that was given

5 to us that, in fact, the city council didn't

6 understand the impact of the rezoning and didn't

7 understand the ten feet is clearly not corroborated

8 in the record. It was clearly discussed, and the

9 line was drawn there with knowledge and intent.

10 And, in fact, at that time there was an

11 office building complex proposed for the OST and

12 traditional I-1 proposed for the I-1 parcel without

13 the requirement of any special land use permit

14 because everyone understood what the issues were when

15 the property was rezoned.

16 The next question that was raised had

17 to do with the tax identification number, the fact

18 that the I-1 and the OST maintain the same tax

19 identification number.

20 In examining the zoning ordinance, it

21 is clear that it is not the tax identification number

22 which determines, in fact, what the zoning parcel is.

23 In fact, under Section 203 of the zoning ordinance,

24 it notes that the -- I'm actually at Section 203 and

1 201, it notes that, in fact, a zoning lot or zoning

2 district of record may not be the same as -- or

3 coincide with the record of property recorded with

4 the county. In other words, for zoning purposes the

5 zoning boundaries are looked at and not the legal

6 description of the property for zoning district

7 purposes.

8 So it's a consequence to say that

9 because they have the same tax ID number they are

10 somehow one parcel for purposes of adjacency is not

11 supported by the ordinance. In fact, the zoning line

12 between the OST and the I-1 clearly separate those

13 two. If, in fact, it was intend to be blurred, then

14 there would be no reason to have a zoning district.

15 It is the zoning district line that controls the

16 definition of adjacency as it relates to either a

17 special land use or I -- or a site plan review

18 requirement as it relates to residential property.

19 The other position that was stated was

20 under Section 200 9(c) of the zoning ordinance where

21 there was actually an exception stated to the

22 adjacency rule, and I'll quote that. Limitations may

23 not be circumvented by separating the parcel from the

24 adjacent or abutting use district by a parcel or

1 strip of land which is undevelopable because of its

2 size or inaccessibility. Well, that clearly is not

3 the case here. The entire OST parcel is developable.

4 Clearly, the intent of the 9(c) section

5 was if somebody created like a ten foot peninsula or

6 sliver to somehow break up the adjacency rule. That

7 clearly wasn't the intent.

8 In this case, the OST parcel is

9 independently developable from the I-1; in fact, can

10 be developed as a site condominium in accordance with

11 the I-1 and still meet the street frontage

12 requirements under the zoning ordinance.

13 So, examination of Section 9 -- 200

14 9(c) shows that, in fact, the one exception to

15 adjacency, that being the sliver or the peninsular

16 situation, does not apply here because, as the

17 architects have just demonstrated, the OST parcel is

18 developable under the OST requirements, meeting all

19 setbacks, parking requirements, and accessibility to

20 Grand River. And certainly there are examples of

21 that on Grand River; the Novi Tech Center, the Brewer

22 Park situation, site condominium. Again, where you

23 have a private road off the main frontage is

24 permitted specifically under the zoning ordinance.

1 So the one exception stated in the ordinance to the

2 required adjacency does not apply here.

3 Furthermore, the ordinance itself does

4 not define what it means to be adjacent or abut. So

5 we -- in that case, what we did is we took the

6 ordinary customary meaning, which is the requirement

7 of the zoning ordinance, and we looked at the

8 requirements of -- we looked at the definition under

9 the Merriman-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, tenth

10 edition of 1993, and the definition of abut means to

11 reach or to touch. Well, in this case, the OST, the

12 I-1 parcel, does not touch, and as submitted in the

13 memo to you by the planning department, does not

14 touch the residential parcel; so, therefore, there's

15 clearly no adjacency within the meaning of the

16 section of the ordinance which would then impose the

17 special land use requirements on the proposed use.

18 Finally, based upon the memo dated

19 November 25th from the planning department, it

20 appears that, in fact, that the position taken by the

21 planning department of applying the special land use

22 is because water from the I-1 will flow into the

23 sedimentation pond on the OST parcel. Query as to if

24 the water was all retained on the I-1 parcel and then

1 flowed into the OST at the normal agricultural runoff

2 rate would, in fact, the planning department's

3 position be the same. In other words, if the

4 retention was all done on the I-1 and met the storm

5 water requirements would, in fact, the planning

6 department's decision be the same. Based upon their

7 memo, I think not.

8 But, in any event, if you look at the

9 zoning ordinance, the issue of adjacency is not

10 accepted by the fact of water runoff. The only issue

11 of adjacency exception is if, in fact, there was an

12 otherwise undevelopable parcel that separates the I-1

13 from the residential piece.

14 The argument being made here is that

15 natural water runoff, or flow of water runoff,

16 somehow nullifies the zoning district lines. If that

17 was the intent, the water runoff itself would be

18 regulated as a use, and that is not the case here.

19 It's not the water runoff which is being regulated as

20 the use, it's the recreational use which is the

21 subject of the regulation. Whether we have an I-1

22 flowing onto prior residential property for water

23 purposes, or to the OST, the water flow remains the

24 same. The only issue there is water properly

1 retained as required by City code and by City

2 ordinances.

3 Again, the mere fact that water, which

4 naturally flows in one direction, does not make or

5 defeat the adjacency argument or requirement. Again,

6 it is not the intent to regulate the flow of water.

7 If that were the case, the ordinance would have

8 provided for regulation due to relocation of

9 utilities. That would mean if we have electrical

10 lines across their property that go from the I-1 to

11 the OST, does that defeat -- does that defeat the

12 argument there as well. If you have water that

13 traverses both properties, does that defeat the

14 adjacency requirement. Clearly the ordinance does

15 not say that. If you have sanitary sewer that

16 crosses property lines, does that defeat the zoning

17 district requirement. Clearly that's an absurd

18 interpretation, since the purpose is to regulate use,

19 and whether you have a recreational use or any other

20 use on the I-1, you are still going to have the same

21 water retention requirements.

22 So for the department to conclude that

23 the mere fact of the flow of water defeats the

24 adjacency requirement is not supported by any section

1 of the ordinance, and if that had been the case they

2 would have cited the section to you.

3 The only exception to the adjacent

4 requirement is, as I stated, section 200 9(c), which

5 says you cannot defeat that requirement by creating

6 an otherwise undevelopable property between the

7 residential and I-1. Clearly that is not the case

8 here. The entire OST property is developable

9 independently of the I-1 except for lawful ingress

10 and egress across the I-1.

11 For those reasons, we would ask the

12 board to reverse the decision of the planning

13 department and to interpret the ordinance so as to

14 permit this use to go forward subject to planning --

15 site plan review by the planning commission and not

16 subject to special land use review.

17 Thank you. I'd be willing to answer

18 any questions that you might have.

19 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Thank you very much.

20 There were 18 notices sent, no approvals, no

21 objections.

22 Is there someone in the audience that

23 wishes to speak in regards to this case? I saw a

24 bunch of hands earlier.

1 Would you like to come down, please.

2 MR. VANASZAK: Hi. My name's Steve

3 Vanaszak, and I'm the residential property owner

4 immediately to the west of this parcel, the OSB (sic)

5 parcel I believe, the zoned parcel.

6 Frank, I appreciate you lending this to

7 me. I did get the notice, and I have been looking

8 into this, but I haven't -- did not have time to go

9 into this.

10 Couple of things that I want to say. I

11 did hear a few things. Obviously there's some legal

12 issues that have to be sorted out as to whether or

13 not the property can be determined as to being I-1 or

14 not, whether it's adjacent to.

15 Obviously OSB zoning is a more

16 preferable zoning than I-1 to be adjacent to as a

17 property owner.

18 The one plan that he did show, he

19 showed a parkland I believe it was, that he mentioned

20 would be accessible, I assume free of charge to the

21 public. That concerns me a little bit, only to the

22 fact -- I mean, it's a heavily wooded area right now.

23 We have a number of owls that live in there. I know

24 that because they've been in my yard, especially

1 recently. It is -- we don't have too many parcels

2 like that left. Most of them are being removed.

3 At the same token, parkland, properly

4 put together, would be a fairly good alternative.

5 The only thing is, that parcel, OSB, is bordered on

6 three sides by residential property. It's bordered

7 on the east by Andy's property, by the west by

8 myself, and I believe the property to the south is

9 also residential, although I'm not positive of that.

10 I believe it is though.

11 So I believe that the development of

12 this property is sensitive. It is a quality of life

13 issue for the people that live in this area.

14 My feeling is that we would -- that it

15 would be wise to table this issue, to give this a

16 little more review. I would personally like to see

17 what was handed out. I would like to also know what

18 their plans are for replanting of the trees that

19 would be removed in the parkland.

20 I also have concerns over the migration

21 of individuals, if they go into the parkland how do

22 they know where that property ends and my property

23 begins. I have a barn back there. I have property

24 back there.

1 In addition to that, I'm assuming that

2 the reason that this development is going in, because

3 the Expo Center is coming into the area and they're

4 hoping that they're going to gain -- that that kind

5 of a business will profit from that.

6 Do they plan on leaving this as a

7 parkland, or is this going to become a putt-putt golf

8 course in three years if the project is successful,

9 something I would definitely not want to see put into

10 that parcel. So I'd be curious as to whether or not

11 the property owners would be willing to deed that

12 property over to the City for a parkland if, indeed,

13 that is going to be a parkland.

14 Those are some of the concerns that I

15 have, and so I would ask that you would table this

16 motion and look into this a little more, and that I

17 could be involved in terms of some of the paperwork

18 and anything else that the developer is presenting to

19 the board as well.

20 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, thank you. Yes,

21 sir.

22 MR. JOHNSON: I'm Joseph Johnson from

23 Gatsby's. I manage the place. And we're really

24 happy that they're going to develop this project.

1 And we've been -- they've been talking to us through

2 the whole project, and we have no problems with them

3 at all. That's pretty much all I have to say.

4 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay. Anyone else?

5 Yes. Come on down, please.

6 MS. NELSON: Hi. I'm Cindy Nelson. We

7 have a business right on Grand River,

8 C & J Sign Company, and we've been also talking to

9 them about the project and, you know, concerns like

10 what signs and all that kind of stuff.

11 But my comment on the whole thing is

12 that, you know, as people that have tried to maintain

13 a business for the last year with

14 Grand River being torn up and the bridge being gone

15 and, you know, not -- we're not as hard hit as the --

16 you know, the retail places that -- like the Rosewood

17 and Fairlane Motel and the people that have to try to

18 get people to come down this road.

19 I think the idea of having a viable

20 family, you know, thing that people would want to

21 come back to this area for, and maybe, you know --

22 it's certainly going to help everybody -- well, like

23 the restaurants and the hotels and all those kind of

24 things, but it's also going to help, you know, people

1 like us that are, you know, wholesale.

2 The other thing about them is that -- I

3 don't know if it's -- it's not been mentioned into

4 the record, but they are planning on using only Novi

5 contractors, which is very good news for people like

6 us that are trying to survive in a bad economy, with

7 this road conditions and stuff. People have gotten

8 used to going down all different kind of roads to

9 find different things, even Madison Electric,

10 Chandelier and Sherwin Williams, you know. As

11 retailers, people have gotten out of coming down

12 here, and if we can bring more people down here, it's

13 going to be better for the city, better for the

14 community. And certainly if they're using, you know,

15 all contractors from this city, that's a lot of

16 people that are employed, and they've got a lot of --

17 their project is, you know, going good, they seem to

18 be talking to the local people to see what, you know,

19 is good for everybody involved.

20 So that's just my point of view as a,

21 you know, business owner in Novi. I say, you know,

22 bring in the people, bring in the business. They're

23 willing to pay taxes. They're going to take the

24 property, they're going to make it into something.

1 And one more point is that we have been

2 here for ten years. There's been very little

3 development, you know, in our area except for

4 shopping malls and shopping malls and more shopping

5 malls. Be nice to have something where people could

6 bring their family, bring their kids. You go and you

7 spend an afternoon. You don't drop them off, like at

8 the park over at Fountain Walk where kids get their

9 heads cracked open. You sit with your kids and play

10 putt-putt golf and you go and you get a hotdog and

11 maybe enjoy some of the other things that Novi has to

12 offer for families.

13 Thank you.

14 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Anyone else? Yes,

15 sir.

16 MR. BRYCE: I'm Phillip Bryce, and I

17 live in Novi, I've lived in Novi for 15 years. And

18 I've known Jeff for probably about 18 months now and

19 have been involved in the project, knowing that the

20 different places we've looked at and, in my opinion,

21 Novi really provides the best area.

22 My children now are seventeen and

23 nineteen, and I know if we would have had a place

24 like this as they were growing up -- the focus of

1 this fun park is from five-years-old to fifteen, so

2 it's really an ideal place.

3 So I guess, one, I want to give my

4 support to -- I know Steve -- I didn't get your last

5 name -- but he had a concern over parklands and

6 woods. I know the property, and I think that Novi's

7 got some pretty reasonable standards of landscaping

8 that I know are looking to be met, and I just don't

9 think that there are that many trees. As far as

10 people wandering outside of the park, my

11 understanding is there's going to be fences, so

12 people shouldn't be wandering over to other

13 properties.

14 So I guess my, you know, real comment

15 goes with the last two people that were up here. I

16 think it's something that is viable for Novi, adds a

17 lot of quality of life to the people that are here

18 and, you know, it's something that -- you know, we

19 don't really have a quality center like this that can

20 be used, especially in the summer for when you can

21 take your kids out and do the putt-putt golf and have

22 a nice picnic and things like that.

23 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Thank you. Anyone

24 else? Yes, sir.

1 MR. BIRDSALL: My name is Mark Birdsall

2 with Signature Associates. I'm also a planning

3 official, so I understand what happens from your side

4 of the bench as well.

5 When Jeff and I started with a clean

6 piece of paper, we first decided on what communities

7 we wanted to look at, and then within those

8 communities we looked at what zoning the use was

9 allowable. I prefer that in my line of work, being

10 strictly an industrial commercial broker, I know what

11 the communities write their zoning districts for, and

12 that's why I always work with them whenever possible.

13 We met with the City of Novi first off

14 to determine exactly which parcels the use was

15 allowable. This site was one that was specifically

16 allowable and we liked the best, and that's why we

17 purchased it.

18 So it wasn't -- what we were trying to

19 do right from the beginning was not to be required to

20 have a special land use. We were working within the

21 zoning ordinance as it's written and were directed to

22 this parcel with the City of Novi full well and

23 understanding of what we were going to do, why we

24 were going to purchase it, and it was specifically

1 not -- did not abut any residential whatsoever, so we

2 did not need a special land use, and that's why we

3 bought this property, just so you understand some of

4 our background.

5 Thank you.

6 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Anyone else in the

7 audience?

8 (No response.)

9 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Seeing none, building

10 department?

11 I'm sorry.

12 MR. MAMOLA: Madam Chair, may I address

13 the concern brought by one of the members of the

14 audience?

15 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay.

16 MR. MAMOLA: Respond to it I guess.

17 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: All right.

18 MR. MAMOLA: I think the first

19 gentleman that spoke might have been -- misunderstood

20 our presentation. It is -- we are not proposing

21 development of a park in the OST area.

22 If you were to go out and look at the

23 property, much of the area that is being proposed for

24 development is an area that was frankly cleared

1 several years ago by a previous landowner of the

2 parcel, and much of the natural area further to the

3 rear is expected to maintain that way. It would be

4 submitted under a separate site plan approval

5 submission years from now.

6 Also, I'd like to add that the -- this

7 project is attempting to be open for this

8 recreational season this summer. Tabling tonight

9 would be disastrous to the project. And, if

10 anything, rather than to table it for a future

11 meeting, perhaps tabling it to the end of your

12 agenda, or whatever's convenient to the board

13 tonight, and maybe we can continue to investigate

14 other alternatives and hopefully reach a solution

15 tonight.

16 Thank you.

17 MR. WAINWRIGHT: May I further address

18 the question also very briefly?

19 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay.

20 MR. WAINWRIGHT: Thank you very much.

21 We, too, are very concerned about the

22 -- making sure that the nature -- the beautiful

23 nature area this land is well preserved. We've been

24 working with the Friends of Novi Park. We've been

1 working with the Friends of the Rouge River project.

2 They're going to be meetings at the parcel very soon.

3 We're going to be putting in a nature

4 trail in the back of that to show off the nature

5 that's in the very back of this parcel. It's truly a

6 beautiful area. In some ways it's a shame that the

7 previous owner before the current -- the last owner

8 had cleared the land, but there's not one tree -- not

9 one tree would be removed from that land as long as

10 we own it.

11 And currently we have plans for

12 installing a large number of trees on the southern

13 border where those trees have been decimated by the

14 recent tree diseases, and we're working very

15 carefully with Don Tilton, Dr. Tilton, and also the

16 landscape people to make sure we put the right

17 species in. We are very careful and very concerned

18 about the nature aspect.

19 Two weeks ago I personally rented a

20 bulldozer and took it into my hands to very carefully

21 move a rabbit habitat where our parking lot would be

22 to the southeast portion of this lot so that the

23 rabbits would have a nice home to live after we do

24 the development. They do their movement, I learned

1 from Dr. Tilton, during the early winter, and that's

2 what we would be facing right now, so I put that

3 habitat in place myself.

4 And if there's any owls that we can

5 help with, we pledge our commitment that we're a

6 family, and we're going to treat that as a family

7 parcel, and we will develop it that way.

8 I beg your indulgence to please move

9 forward on this issue tonight and to try to reach a

10 conclusion. We're not a corporation as you often

11 face, and we need to be able to reach conclusion and

12 move forward.

13 We're just not financially strong like

14 a Singh Corporation that can manifest and survive

15 with substantial (inaudible).

16 I know Mr. Schultz was not actually

17 suggesting a delay, but pointing out that that

18 certainly is an option.

19 In our case, we would ask your sincere

20 indulgence to move forward tonight.

21 Also regarding the pond that's close to

22 you, not only with the owl areas, there's also a frog

23 infestation in that area, and we have identified with

24 Dr. Tilton how to move frogs if we were to expand

1 that sediment basin, the usage and the spilloff of

2 that property. If not, we will add the sediment

3 basin to the existing I-1 area so there's no

4 inclusion, no activity (inaudible).

5 Thank you.

6 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Saven.

7 MR. SAVEN: Madam Chair and board

8 members, I just want to reiterate what's before you

9 tonight is an issue regarding the interpretation

10 regarding the special land use. These are issues

11 that you'll have to decide.

12 But what I want to bring up, there's

13 been several issues brought up by -- the

14 environmental issues, certainly concerns through

15 Steve Vanaszak and other people regarding what's

16 happening on this particular parcel. They will still

17 have to go through the planning process.

18 These issues regarding ordinances,

19 compliance to the rest of he City of Novi ordinances,

20 whatever, will still be required to go through that

21 process.

22 I just want to point that out. What's

23 before you is an issue regarding the special land use

24 provision and that interpretation.

1 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Thank you, Mr. Saven,

2 for clarifying that. I hope the audience understands

3 what our job is this evening.

4 Mr. Schultz.

5 MR. SCHULTZ: If I may, Madam Chair,

6 just a couple other comments in that regard.

7 I think the characterization by

8 Mr. Mamola that this is kind of rushed on the agenda

9 is actually pretty (inaudible). It got on quickly

10 enough that we weren't able to confirm that the

11 letter that we'd written to the planning department,

12 you know, with our analysis of the legal issues

13 wasn't in your packet. In fact, we had a letter from

14 Mr. Stoepker, or I did, shortly just before the

15 holiday, and that got on quickly enough that I didn't

16 even really get a chance to respond to that to him,

17 so he was essentially here before you tonight working

18 from telephone conversations that he and I had had,

19 and, you know, obviously the brief memo from Mr.

20 Schmitt in the planning department.

21 And I think as a result of that there

22 is a couple of misconceptions that are created by the

23 presentation on behalf of the property owner.

24 The first, I think, is the easiest one

1 to deal with. That's this issue that Mr. Stoepker

2 finished up with about the City's rationale relating

3 to storm water naturally running across the property

4 between the two -- across the line between the OST

5 and I-1 district, and I'm hoping that that was a

6 miscommunication on everybody's part, because clearly

7 that's not the issue. From our prospective, the

8 issue relating to storm water is this: The plan that

9 they submitted to the planning department showed

10 substantial development on the I-1 parcel without one

11 obvious thing that you find on every site plan,

12 retention of storm water on the I-1 parcel. That was

13 shown being done on the OST parcel. That's not -- if

14 you're going to treat the I-1 as a separate parcel,

15 you wouldn't do that.

16 From, I think the planning department's

17 perspective, confirmed by us, if that's what's

18 represented then, even they seemed to be treating

19 this as one parcel, not two separate parcels, and

20 that's -- that was the department's position.

21 The second issue that he addressed was

22 what he thought apparently was a statement that

23 council didn't understand what it did in 1997, and I

24 think you can have more confidence in what the

1 council knew in 1997. I think it's understood well

2 where the lines were being drawn; however -- and I

3 think Mr. Stoepker did quote from the council

4 minutes. It was clearly presented to the council in

5 1997 as one unified development, even though there

6 were going to be two separate zoning districts, and

7 it would be an office-type, industrial office. And

8 I -- and that -- that fact meant that there was no

9 discussion of whether or not the OST or the I-1 would

10 abut residential, because it didn't matter.

11 And here's why -- and I think this is

12 sort of the overarching view that you need to take

13 regarding the ordinance. Novi's ordinances is a

14 little bit unique in that there are so many uses

15 within the districts that are permitted in one

16 circumstance, if they don't abut residential, but are

17 either not permitted if they abut residential or are

18 permitted with a higher standard of review, special

19 land use if they abut residential.

20 In this case, although it is an

21 industrial district, I-1, the only thing that's

22 actually permitted outright when it abuts residential

23 is an office building, or office-type use.

24 So in 1997 that was not a big issue,

1 whether or not there was going to be office

2 development on the I-1 corresponding to the OST. The

3 problem that can create is, you know, what's the

4 definition of abutting, and because I think there are

5 so many instances where that becomes an important

6 thing, the ordinance was drafted in such a way that

7 they actually went out of their way to say when we --

8 and this is Section 209 -- or 200, I guess, 9, which

9 says when we mean abutting, you know, we don't --

10 it's not abutting if there's a road intervening, if

11 the road is of a certain size. But you also cannot

12 circumvent the restrictions that come with abutting

13 residential by putting a little strip of property in

14 between the I-1 use and the residential use.

15 And so the real question before you on

16 that issue is take a look at that map. In 1996,

17 before it was rezoned, the I-1 clearly connected at

18 the corner with a residential. By moving the line

19 forward ten feet, they say because -- you know,

20 they're trying to give enough OS development and

21 whatnot, does that -- does that lessen the concerns

22 that would normally exist for having industrial close

23 to residential.

24 If you have a permitted use on an I-1

1 site of an office building, there's a -- you know,

2 office to residential is kind of transitional use.

3 People expect that, residential can be next to

4 offices.

5 We're talking here about an outdoor

6 activity, go-carts, you know, could be any one of all

7 the other things that are required to be special land

8 uses if they abut residential.

9 Does that ten foot strip of property,

10 which is most likely to be a green belt setback, if

11 you were to view that line as the important line,

12 does that solve the problems that caused the City to

13 create that requirement for a special land use in the

14 first place, and I think the department said no, it

15 doesn't. It's a ten foot strip that really doesn't

16 make it non-abutting if you look at the intention of

17 the City's ordinance. And we don't disagree with

18 that. We agree with that.

19 And so I think that's the issue that

20 you have to deal with once you get past the question

21 of where the line is. But the larger issue is it is

22 still one site, one parcel. It's never been split.

23 Do we have anything in our zoning

24 ordinance that says for purposes of reviewing this

1 plan we're going to take the zoning line and use that

2 as the benchmark for setbacks, for use, for all those

3 kind of things, and I think the planning department

4 made the interpretation no, that may relate to what

5 kind of uses you can put on the property, but it's

6 still one zoning law as far as the City is concerned.

7 You know, when you read the definition

8 of zoning lot in the City's ordinance, there is an

9 intention that it could be more than one lot. It's

10 hard to read that it could be less than one lot,

11 which is essentially what they're arguing here.

12 So, you know, I guess the last thing I

13 want to address -- and then I think you ought to hear

14 from Mr. Schmitt as to what the planning department's

15 conversations were with the property owner. But, you

16 know, I think it's important to know that the

17 question is not before you tonight, the hard question

18 of whether or not this would be an approved --

19 approvable development as a special land use. The

20 only question is should it go through the special

21 land use process.

22 One other time, at least in the time

23 that we've been City attorneys, an owner -- or

24 potential purchaser of the property has come forward

1 to the City to say what do I have to do, and to our

2 knowledge, my knowledge, the indication was you have

3 to go through the special land use process.

4 Nothing -- that didn't come to fruition, but I don't

5 think the City is taking an inconsistent position

6 here. I think that ought to be afforded.

7 The last thing I want to say is I think

8 the submission that he read has a lot of factual

9 information about meetings, and

10 Mr. Birdsall said well, we talked to the City and

11 they said this was okay.

12 Those are the kinds of factual things

13 that you might want to determine whether you want to

14 know more about, and do you want to give the City an

15 opportunity to rebut in a more formal way a statement

16 in writing that we were sort of led down this path

17 only to have, you know, the rug yanked out from under

18 us.

19 I don't think the department is going

20 to agree with that characterization do you want --

21 we're talking about creating a record here that could

22 be reviewed. Do you want some further information in

23 a formal way from the City on that issue.

24 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Thank you,

1 Mr. Schultz. The board is going to entertain a

2 four-minute break just to run out and be right back.

3 (A short recess was taken.)

4 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay. At this time I

5 would like to call the Zoning Board of Appeals

6 meeting back to order.

7 And before I call on Mr. Schmitt, I'm

8 going to sidetrack here a little bit, because I have

9 some ideas, and I would like the board members to

10 address the questions to Mr. Schmitt before we drag

11 this on into the wee morning hours, so having --

12 right on plan.

13 Excuse me. I called the meeting back

14 to order. Thank you.

15 Board members, do -- does anybody have

16 any questions or comments at this time?

17 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

18 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Member Brennan.

19 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes, I sure do. I

20 think we've really complicated this whole issue with

21 a lot of sidebars and other discussions. What's

22 before us, and what's only before us, is looking at

23 an interpretation of whether this parcel abuts

24 residential property.

1 Now, you can look at the map and say

2 no, it doesn't. You can argue the case that it's one

3 district. Let's assume that it is one district and

4 it does abut. What would we normally do as a board

5 is we have a parcel under development bordering

6 residential. Well, the first thing we'd say is how

7 many property owners out there are against this.

8 Well, there's nobody from Andy's here.

9 Next thing we do is we say well, are

10 there any adjoining businesses that have any

11 objection. Matter of fact, they're all lined up

12 supporting it. We've got local support.

13 The drainage issue and that whole

14 argument that it's going from I-1 to OST so that

15 makes the OST part of that, that makes it all one big

16 package, I think that's a moot point. Where best for

17 the drainage water to go but to the swamp.

18 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Excuse me.

19 MEMBER BRENNAN: No. Sorry.

20 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Not at this time, sir.

21 AUDIENCE MEMBER: About the drainage.

22 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Not at this time.

23 MEMBER. BRENNAN: What's before us is

24 whether this parcel abuts residential land, and I

1 think it's very clear that it does not. I think it's

2 very clear in the information we got tonight -- and

3 I'm prepared to move on this with one stipulation,

4 and that is that that big old pile of paperwork is

5 retrieved by the petitioner's attorney, because I'm

6 not prepared to look at additional information.

7 You want to move, I'm ready to move,

8 but it won't include that.

9 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Hang on one second.

10 I'd like the rest of the board members to address

11 this, if you please.

12 Anyone else?

13 Member Gray, do you have something?

14 MEMBER GRAY: I have several things.

15 While I can certainly appreciate what they want to do

16 and how they're going to do it, and I think this

17 would be very appropriate to have in this area, I

18 have some major concerns. I can't fully support

19 Mr. Brennan's point of view.

20 One of the first things -- I'm not even

21 going to complicate it with that. The petitioner

22 said, while he was standing up there trying to

23 address some of Mr. Vanaszak's concerns, we plan to

24 put nature trails to the back of the parcel, in fact,

1 to help people see how nice this is. So my question

2 is, is if they're going to put nature trails to the

3 back of the parcel, I don't know how far south

4 they're planning to go, I don't know if it's going to

5 be -- the trailheads are going to be from the I-1.

6 That tells me they're going to be using -- if the

7 trail -- if the nature trails are going into the

8 south -- southern part of the property into the OST,

9 that tells me that they're going to be using it as

10 part of the I-1 as one site.

11 And so my comment at this time is, I

12 would be in support of having to go through the

13 special land use process, and that way everybody who

14 needs to know, they can go, they can get a special

15 land use from planning commission and proceed with

16 their project. If there's as much support as there

17 appears to be, it will breeze through planning on

18 special lands use.

19 MR. SCHULTZ: Madam Chair.

20 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Schultz.

21 MR. SCHULTZ: Just to comment, and I

22 know the rest of the members are going to make

23 comments on this, I just want to make sure, again,

24 that the sort of legal question that's before you --

1 because while I certainly understand Member Brennan's

2 point of view that ultimately somebody's going to

3 have to look at this and decide is it appropriate for

4 the neighbors. Respectively, that's not the question

5 that's occurring tonight. The question that's

6 occurring tonight is a legal interpretation

7 essentially of what the ordinance said, and what

8 Member Brennan contemplates happening here is

9 exactly, frankly, the special land use process.

10 Public notices are sent out, not on a

11 -- not on some kind of a confusing notice that says

12 well, is this supposed to be a special land use or is

13 it the use permitted as of right, but more a public

14 notice saying here's the proposed site plan, here's

15 the proposed use, do you have any objections and, you

16 know, do you support it or are you against it.

17 I think it -- it's important for the

18 board to know that what it does tonight, unlike most

19 of the decisions that you make on factual kind of

20 basis, does, in fact, become a kind of precedent

21 because it's a question of what does the ordinance

22 mean, and if it means it for this property it's going

23 to mean it for every other property.

24 And, you know, just so that we're

1 clear, the two issues that have been raised by the

2 planning department are, number one, is it one zoning

3 lot so, therefore, it obviously abuts residential on

4 three sides, or on two sides at least. And I think

5 we need to make clear -- I didn't address that a

6 lot -- that first basic issue a lot in my earlier

7 comments, but remember, if there's two separate

8 zoning lots, as

9 Mr. Stoepker argued here, you create a problem by

10 that interpretation because one of those zoning lots

11 doesn't front the public road which makes it an

12 unbuildable parcel under the City's ordinance. And

13 so that's an issue -- and that's one of the issues

14 why it's considered one zoning lot.

15 The other question of the ten feet, you

16 know, if you do -- if you do get past the planning

17 department's first analysis of is it one zoning lot

18 and, therefore, it obviously abuts, then the question

19 of okay, if it's two zoning lots does it -- but

20 because there's only a ten foot strip -- again,

21 that's a legal interpretation that's going to carry

22 with you, or the City I guess, from that point

23 forward.

24 So to make a factual determination

1 based on whether anybody's here objecting to this

2 particular development is, I think, the cart before

3 the horse a little bit because it's not the same

4 factual situation you normally have. This is

5 different than what you normally do.

6 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Member Gray.

7 MEMBER GRAY: Following up on

8 Mr. Schultz's comments and what I was saying earlier,

9 I think -- I've looked at this parcel of land. It is

10 with one tax ID. It's clearly one parcel, and if we

11 treat it as one parcel then it does require the

12 special land use process.

13 My first comment when I look -- or my

14 first note to myself when I reviewed -- just glanced

15 at this plan was where they're going to do the

16 on-site detention, because that's what I looked for.

17 And I know there's not a specific site plan that's

18 before us, but if it's a standalone project then they

19 have to retain their storm water on-site, and/or

20 detain it on-site, one or the other.

21 I don't think it's a ten foot strip of

22 property that was moved years ago. I mean, these --

23 the property owners could have come back at any time

24 and asked the City to move that property line back if

1 they wanted to. Obviously now we know why they

2 didn't want to.

3 Again, I think that this is a project

4 that has merit, and I think it should stand on that

5 merit, and I feel it will go through the special land

6 use process.

7 Thank you.

8 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Any other member?

9 (No response.)

10 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: I would like to add my

11 comments to the record at this time. Given the vast

12 amount of knowledge -- or the vast amount of

13 information and the lack of clarity that is before us

14 tonight, I am not comfortable in any way, shape or

15 form, as a board member to make a decision this

16 evening. I apologize to the petitioner. I know you

17 have a clock running, and you indicated that you are

18 not a corporation. If there was something that I was

19 comfortable in making my decision that was in front

20 of me this evening, I would do so. I do not have

21 enough information in front of me to do that.

22 There have been dates and times and

23 stories and conversations and memos presented for us

24 that are not in front of us this evening. I feel

1 that this is being pushed in front of us to make a

2 hasty decision. That's my perception. That may not

3 be what your intent is, and that is my perception,

4 and I am not comfortable in making that decision.

5 In regards to -- our job is to do an

6 interpretation. There are residents -- I have

7 questions that I would like to address in terms of

8 the residents that abut up to this property, if they

9 can be notified or if they should be notified and if

10 that's why they're not here. There's certain footage

11 involved and frontage involved in the property, so I

12 need more clarification.

13 So I cannot support -- make a decision

14 on this this evening.

15 Board members, is there anything else

16 at this time?

17 (No response.)

18 MEMBER BRENNAN: May I ask a question

19 of Sarah?

20 Do you know whether or not Andy's was

21 on that mailing list for this?

22 MS. MARCHIONI: Let me check.

23 MR. SCHULTZ: Member Gronachan -- Madam

24 Chair.

1 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Yes.

2 MR. SCHULTZ: In response to the

3 comment that you make about making a decision

4 tonight, obviously we'd be happy to go through the --

5 each of the points raised by the proponent, both here

6 tonight and in the correspondence that was sent to

7 our office, and whatever information is here, and

8 give the City's position in response to that,

9 obviously in time by the next meeting.

10 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: And I would be

11 comfortable in that, tabling it to next month and

12 looking at all the facets. There's a great deal at

13 stake here. We're looking at an unusual case. We're

14 looking at something that I, as a board member, have

15 not come across in the past. We're looking at an

16 impact on residents. We're looking at an impact on

17 the businesses. I did hear their appreciation for

18 it. I'm not opposed to that. It's just that before

19 I make this decision I feel that I have to be -- make

20 sure that everybody is going to be positively

21 impacted, and that's one of the criteria.

22 MR. SCHULTZ: As we did with the Ten

23 and Beck case, I think we did share with the

24 proponent correctly, without attorney/client

1 privilege, anything that we provide will be provided,

2 or could be provided if the board wished, and the

3 petitioner as well, in enough time for the petitioner

4 to respond.

5 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: And that worked well

6 in the past-

7 MR. SCHULTZ: (Interposing) Yes.

8 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: -when we did that.

9 MR. SCHULTZ: I'd throw that out for

10 the board's consideration.

11 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: I guess it's up to the

12 fellow board members at this point.

13 MEMBER BAUER: I agree with you.

14 MR. SAVEN: If that's the way you're

15 leaning, I would request that petitioner talk to the

16 adjacent land owners regarding their concerns,

17 because of the fact that they're not -- they are

18 unsure as to what's happening on that parcel.

19 There are proposed -- two separate --

20 there are two separate -- for building in the back

21 where the nature trail's going to be, where I -- what

22 I'm hearing is there's some concerns in that area,

23 and those should be addressed with those adjacent

24 land owners if there's -- that's the way you're

1 going.

2 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Especially since

3 your -- thank you, Mr. Saven, for thinking that this

4 is going to be just a park.

5 So there's some issues that are not

6 clearcut this evening, although we did try to clarify

7 with them, and I don't see 30 days to educate this

8 board and bring them up to speed with everything

9 that's in place is going to hurt everyone but help

10 everyone on the board and it gets everyone to work

11 together.

12 I'm not opposed to this development. I

13 just need more time and more information to make the

14 right review of this case.

15 Anyone else? Mr. Reinke, are you ready

16 to say something.

17 MEMBER REINKE: My question is, if --

18 or my comment is, if they want to really start moving

19 today they have the option to go ahead with the

20 special land use.

21 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Process.

22 MEMBER REINKE: Pursue that avenue. So

23 I'm not prepared to make a decision tonight because I

24 don't think I have enough information before me to go

1 in that direction. They still have the option, if

2 they feel they can't afford the time, to start out

3 right now with a special land use. They just go from

4 there.

5 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Schmitt.

6 MR. SCHMITT: And from our perspective,

7 just to piggy-back on Mr. Reinke's comments, that the

8 applicant can submit at any time. Whether or not

9 they submit it under a special land use or not would

10 be up to them. Ultimately, I think they're trying to

11 get the determination that it's not a special land

12 use. But if they submit it tomorrow and the board

13 decides in one month that it is a special land use,

14 we would merely hold the application from moving to

15 the planning commission before we had all the

16 appropriate information.

17 The applicant can bring its plan

18 tomorrow, and we would start the clock on them. It

19 is just a matter of when it would move to the

20 planning commission.

21 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay. I think you see

22 where we're going here.

23 MR. STOEPKER: If that's the case,

24 Madam Chair -- and I'm trying to count votes here,

1 and I think I am counting four to adjourn, to table,

2 without being presumptuous. What I would like -- is

3 the normal procedure on an interpretation is that the

4 City actually state its position in writing so the

5 property owner can respond to the position taken by

6 the City. And to date the only thing that we have in

7 writing is what was just issued on November 25th,

8 which is the water retention issue, which led me to

9 believe that if we retained all the water on our

10 property, which we could do, then there is no issue

11 at all. I'm not even conceding that that should be

12 an issue, but from our standpoint, the reason why we

13 submitted what we did -- because I've already

14 submitted letters which you got with the application

15 which addressed every issue in the memo, but it

16 was -- we were guessing from our standpoint as to

17 what the issue was.

18 So if it's going to be tabled, we would

19 ask that the City be required to issue its official

20 interpretation in writing well in advance of the

21 hearing so we can respond in writing well in advance

22 of the hearing so when the board's packet's issued it

23 has both positions within the packet so it can make

24 an informed decision.

1 I don't think it's as complex as we're

2 making it if you look at the definitions, but we need

3 to know what City's actual position here is, because

4 right now we were guessing, okay, and the only thing

5 we have in writing is that the water's going to go

6 onto the OST parcel. If that's the reason then

7 that's the reason, and we can respond to that.

8 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay. Thank you.

9 MR. SCHULTZ: Chair?

10 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Schultz, would you

11 care to --

12 MR. SCHULTZ: I guess if two attorneys

13 couldn't disagree we'd be in trouble, but, you know,

14 we obviously didn't create the timing for filing the

15 interpretation here before the board. If they wanted

16 something in writing they could have waited until

17 they got something in writing before they filed the

18 interpretation.

19 Frankly, I think it makes more sense,

20 the City having said we read the ordinance to say

21 that this is a special land use for the proponent

22 who's the one pursuing the appeal to say why they

23 don't think it is and for the City to respond.

24 Having said that, it has been my

1 intention to respond to Mr. Stoepker's letter, and

2 I'll be happy to do that.

3 In the meantime, I think he ought to be

4 prepared to submit, and I assume he has, a statement

5 of why he thinks, on behalf of his clients, it's not

6 a special land use. So he will certainly get a

7 letter from our office responding to his, because

8 that's professional and appropriate to do, but I

9 think he needs -- he's the proponent here. He makes

10 the argument in the first instance.

11 MR. STOEPKER: With all due respect,

12 it's the City's job to interpret it. They need to

13 make the interpretation so we can respond. To say it

14 is a special land use for site plan doesn't tell me

15 why it becomes a special land use. When the

16 ordinance says adjacent, and the one exception is the

17 exception 200 (C) -- 9(c), which Mr. Schultz has

18 stated, then is that the exception, is that the

19 reason why, because even in their own memo they admit

20 that the properties do not touch each other, they're

21 not adjacent. So why is it -- when they physically

22 do not touch each other, why is it any special land

23 use when, in fact, the ordinance says adjacent, and

24 what then is the meaning of adjacent. It's not for

1 us to give you the interpretation, it's for the City,

2 and that's what the building official's job is. It

3 says the City shall make the interpretation and then

4 we respond to that if we disagree and we appeal. We

5 appealed because we were told that's what it was

6 going to be.

7 Normally I would get something in

8 writing. So I don't think I'm asking for something

9 out of the ordinary. It's the City's interpretation

10 which is subject to your review.

11 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: I have to be honest.

12 I'm stuck here.

13 MR. SCHULTZ: I don't think you need to

14 be. I don't want to argue with Mr. Stoepker. If he

15 wants to wait until he gets my letter and respond to

16 that, that's fine. I think he should take this

17 material back that he dropped off, and we could wait,

18 and we'll get that out just as soon as possible.

19 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay.

20 MR. STOEPKER: That's fine.

21 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: So we're at the point

22 of tabling I think. Member Gray.

23 MEMBER GRAY: I would like to move that

24 we table this to next month so that we all have the

1 opportunity to get the information that we need to

2 make an educated decision.

3 MEMBER BAUER: I'd second that.

4 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: It's been moved and

5 approved to table this until the January meeting, and

6 we can make it the --

7 MS. MARCHIONI: The cutoff date is

8 December 18th to have any new material.

9 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay.

10 MR. STOEPKER: That means that counsel

11 has to give me something -- I need an interpretation.

12 MR. SCHMITT: We will crystallize the

13 planning department's on this by Friday. You'll have

14 a letter in the mail by Friday.

15 MR. STOEPKER: Thank you,

16 Mr. Schmitt. I appreciate that.

17 MEMBER GRAY: May I also make one more

18 comment, Madam Chair?

19 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Yes.

20 MEMBER GRAY: I would like to remind

21 everybody that we're not real happy taking items put

22 in front of us at the meeting, or the day of, so if

23 everybody can act appropriately, that would be

24 wonderful.

1 Thank you.

2 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: So it's been moved and

3 approved. Is there any further discussion on the

4 motion?

5 (No further discussion.)

6 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Seeing none-

7 UNIDENTIFIED: (Interposing) Madam

8 Chair --

9 MR. SAVEN: We're in a-

10 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: (Interposing) We're

11 in the middle here.

12 Seeing none, Denise, would you please

13 call the roll.

14 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray?

15 MEMBER GRAY: Yes.

16 MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer?

17 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

18 MS. ANDERSON: Member Brennan?

19 MEMBER BRENNAN: No.

20 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?

21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes.

22 MS. ANDERSON: Member Reinke?

23 MEMBER REINKE: Yes.

24 MS. ANDERSON: The motion to table

1 passes four to one.

2 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay. So we're going

3 to table this until next month.

4 MR. STOEPKER: What's the date?

5 MS. MARCHIONI: January 2nd.

6 MR. STOEPKER: January 2nd.

7 MS. MARCHIONI: I'm sorry. January

8 6th.

9 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's correct that

10 date to January 6th, 2004, will be the next meeting.

11 MEMBER GRAY: I'm presuming they can go

12 first?

13 MS. MARCHIONI: Yes.

14 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Thank you. We'll see

15 you next month.

19 CASE NUMBER 03-103

20 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Moving right along, we

21 will now call Case 03-103 filed by Juxtapose Sign

22 Studio for West Market Square at 47666 Grand River.

23 Beverly White of Juxtapose Sign Studio is

24 representing West Market is requesting a third

1 extension of their previously approved sign variance.

2 A second variance was granted November 4th of 2002,

3 and the first variance was granted on September 18th,

4 2001.

5 Good evening.

6 MS. WHITE: Yes, I'm Beverly White from

7 Juxtapose Sign Studio, and as you stated, it is the

8 third extension request. We appreciate the previous

9 extensions you have granted.

10 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: I'm sorry. We really

11 we need to swear you in first. Would you raise your

12 right hand.

13 MS. WHITE: Okay.

14 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or

15 affirm to tell the truth regarding

16 Case 03-103?

17 MS. WHITE: Yes. As I stated, this is

18 the third request for an extension on a variance. We

19 came here a year ago, and a delay in construction

20 hindered our ability to -- or hindered Jona's ability

21 to rent the properties as quickly as they wanted to.

22 Right now we have -- they have 63,000

23 square feet in existing construction that hasn't been

24 leased, and also proposed construction that is being

1 marketed preconstruction. Does that make sense?

2 So their existing construction that's

3 there now, it is 80 percent occupied and 20 percent

4 including the future properties, it is a total of 20

5 percent unleased still.

6 So we're asking that hopefully, at

7 least one more time, that we can get an extension on

8 the variance.

9 There is no other signage on the

10 perimeter of the property anywhere on Beck or

11 anywhere on Grand River that markets the property.

12 There isn't even a main exterior sign telling

13 people -- there's no identity sign there now either.

14 That's being worked on under separate some paperwork

15 with the City.

16 So this sign is very, very important to

17 the marketing of the remaining properties and

18 preconstruction that's going on over there.

19 I have -- I have figures, I have

20 drawings. I don't know what you might need in order

21 to back this up.

22 It's a simple request, it's an

23 important request, that we keep the 64 square foot

24 sign that's on a diagonal that's on the corner of

1 Beck and Grand River.

2 Last year the sign was in ill repair.

3 That has been corrected. It's fresh looking still,

4 after all this time, and -- so it doesn't look like

5 it's been up there for a long time, so it looks nice,

6 it's -- and, again, it's the only sign on the

7 perimeter of the property right now that tells

8 anybody what's going on in that major complex.

9 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, thank you. Is

10 there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak on

11 behalf of this case?

12 (No response.)

13 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: I guess not. There

14 were seven notices sent; no approvals, no objections.

15 Building department.

16 MR. SAVEN: No comment.

17 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Board members.

18 MEMBER REINKE: What is your lease rate

19 currently?

20 MS. WHITE: It is 80 percent occupied

21 at this time. We have a 20 percent vacancy that

22 needs to be filled.

23 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Member Brennan.

24 MEMBER BRENNAN: Two years ago I asked

100

1 this petitioner, not necessarily you, ma'am, but the

2 owner, Jona's Companies, to come before us with an

3 entire sign package. They have not done that. At

4 the last extension it was very clear that that would

5 be the last one, and in any other development, when

6 we're at 80 percent build-out we would ask for

7 permanent signs.

8 I think it's the appropriate time for a

9 permanent sign on that corner.

10 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Board members.

11 MEMBER REINKE: Madam Chairman.

12 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Yes,

13 Member Reinke.

14 MEMBER REINKE: I agree with

15 Mr. Brennan. I think she should be given, like, a

16 90-day extension with -- at the end of the 90 days

17 she should come back, on or before, with a

18 permanent-type sign.

19 MEMBER BRENNAN: I like that even

20 better. Like I said, you know, I asked this

21 developer's attorney two years ago to please go

22 back -- because this has got frontage on Beck, it's

23 got frontage on Grand River. I can see him coming

24 back for the next four or five years with signs here

101

1 and there, and I'm not too interested in doing that

2 when we can address it upfront like we asked him two

3 years ago.

4 MEMBER GRAY: I would agree.

5 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Anyone else?

6 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll make a motion

7 with respect to Case 03-103 the petitioner's request

8 be granted for an extension of 90 days with the clear

9 understanding that at the end of that 90 days the

10 owner will be before us with a total sign package for

11 this site.

12 MEMBER REINKE: Support.

13 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: It's been moved and

14 seconded. Is there any further discussion on the

15 motion?

16 (No further discussion.)

17 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Denise, please call

18 the roll.

19 MS. ANDERSON: Member Brennan?

20 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

21 MS. ANDERSON: Member Reinke?

22 MEMBER REINKE: Yes.

23 MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer?

24 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

102

1 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray?

2 MEMBER GRAY: Yes.

3 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?

4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes.

5 MS. ANDERSON: The motion passes five

6 to nothing.

7 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: The extension -- you

8 understand the extension will be granted for 90 days,

9 to return in front of the ZBA with a complete sign

10 package before the end of that 90 days?

11 MS. WHITE: Okay. I believe they have

12 actually submitted some sign, not through us

13 unfortunately.

14 MR. REINKE: Put it this way, that sign

15 will disappear in 90 days.

16 MS. WHITE: Okay. All right. I hear

17 you.

18 MEMBER BRENNAN: You can be the bearer

19 of bad news, but they've got to start finishing it

20 off.

21 MS. WHITE: Well, we appreciate the 90

22 days. I mean, that gives us some time to keep the

23 sign up while we're waiting -- getting something

24 together. Thank you so much.

103

1 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Thank you.

3 CASE NUMBER 03-101

4 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: And for the last sole

5 person sitting in the back, Case Number 03-101 filed

6 by John Richards Homes of Autumn Park. I don't think

7 you're Carrie.

8 MR. MAZUR: No, I'm not.

9 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay. Is requesting a

10 one-year extension of an existing construction

11 trailer at 46355 White Pines Drive, Lot 127, in

12 Autumn Park.

13 Would you please state your name and

14 raise your right and be sworn in by our secretary.

15 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or

16 affirm to tell the truth regarding

17 Case 03-101?

18 MR. MAZUR: I do. My name is

19 Scott Mazur. I'm with John Richards Homes, and I'm

20 here today to get an extension on our construction

21 trailer in the Autumn Park subdivision. It is our

22 last phase, which is phase three, of Autumn Park,

23 which is thirty-five lots. Fourteen are remaining.

24 There is, as of right now, seven homes under

104

1 construction in phase three. We plan on selling the

2 next fourteen remaining lots within seven months to a

3 year of next year.

4 You know, all we're requesting is just

5 a one-year extension for the trailer to be left on

6 Lot 127 in Autumn Park.

7 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay. There were

8 thirteen notices sent; zero approvals, one objection,

9 and I'll paraphrase. This comes from Ms. Wagner at

10 46275 White Pines Drive. She was unable to attend

11 the meeting this evening due to family obligations.

12 She indicates that the area is still covered with

13 rubbish, piping. Ninety-five percent of the business

14 hours one truck is parked in front while that person

15 uses the trailer for office space, and that is the

16 only employee working out of that trailer. She

17 suggests that perhaps one of the model homes be used

18 and this trailer be removed.

19 There is no one left in the audience to

20 make any comments.

21 Building department.

22 MR. SAVEN: That's the same complaint I

23 received.

24 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay. Board members.

105

1 MEMBER REINKE: Madam Chairman.

2 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Yes,

3 Member Reinke.

4 MEMBER REINKE: Too many extensions. I

5 think it's time to quit.

6 MEMBER GRAY: Yep.

7 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Anyone else? Member

8 Gray.

9 MEMBER GRAY: Every time I drive by

10 this site there's always something stored on there.

11 That one piece of pipe that you got a picture of has

12 been there for, it seems like two years now, and this

13 is -- it's not a real good representation of what

14 that community is at this point, and I don't blame

15 the neighbors for being upset.

16 I've had a few phone calls from some of

17 the neighbors saying please don't let it go on

18 anymore.

19 I've looked through the minutes here,

20 and it -- I've seen comments that once a project is

21 about fifty percent built out we usually tell you to

22 pull the trailer. If you've got four lots left --

23 last year it was twenty-one out of a hundred and

24 thirty-seven. I think it should go.

106

1 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Anyone else?

2 MEMBER REINKE: Madam Chairman.

3 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Yes,

4 Member Reinke.

5 MEMBER REINKE: I think the extension

6 should be terminated. It should be given 45 days to

7 get everything out of there.

8 MEMBER GRAY: Is that a motion,

9 Mr. Reinke?

10 MEMBER REINKE: Yes, you may.

11 MEMBER GRAY: Then I'll second it.

12 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: There's been a motion

13 and a second. Is there any further discussion on the

14 motion?

15 MS. MARCHIONI: Reason for removal?

16 MEMBER REINKE: Number of extensions

17 has exceeded the normal function, and that they have

18 maintained a poor job of maintaining the construction

19 site, and it's really no longer needed.

20 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay. Any other

21 discussion?

22 (No further discussion.)

23 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Seeing none, Denise,

24 would you please call the roll.

107

1 MS. ANDERSON: Member Reinke?

2 MEMBER REINKE: Yes.

3 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray?

4 MEMBER GRAY: Yes.

5 MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer?

6 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

7 MS. ANDERSON: Member Brennan?

8 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

9 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?

10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes.

11 MS. ANDERSON: The motion passes five

12 to zero.

13 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: I'm sorry, but you

14 need to remove that trailer from that site within 45

15 days. The extension has not been granted at this

16 point.

18 CASE 03-098

19 MEMBER BRENNAN: Madam Chair.

20 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Yes,

21 Member Brennan.

22 MEMBER BRENNAN: With respect to

23 03-098 -- I wish I could remember that legal jargon

24 that Mr. Harrington used in the meeting when somebody

108

1 didn't show up and didn't give us notice, but I would

2 move that this be denied due to they didn't show up.

3 He had a special word that he used.

4 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Failure to appear?

5 MEMBER BRENNAN: No. It was -- bottom

6 line, if the petitioner doesn't advise us he's not

7 going to be here and he doesn't show up, then I would

8 move for denial and he can refile.

9 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

10 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Been moved and

11 approved that in Case 03-098 that the petitioner be

12 denied for failure to appear in front of this board

13 on December 2nd, 2003. Is there any further

14 discussion?

15 (No further discussion.)

16 MEMBER BRENNAN: Just to be sure, not

17 making a mistake here, did anybody call you?

18 MS. MARCHIONI: The guy dropped off

19 additional information the other day, so he knew

20 about the meeting.

21 MR. SAVEN: Matter of fact, if I may

22 expound on that just a bit, there was a newspaper

23 article, I'm sure you got a copy of, and that was his

24 house last week, so that's why he's looking for

109

1 having that house, maintaining that second house with

2 the existing house maintained on his property.

3 MEMBER BRENNAN: He's got to show up.

4 MEMBER GRAY: And he specifically asked

5 to be tabled last month when there were but four of

6 us, so --

7 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Denise, please call

8 the roll.

9 MS. ANDERSON: Member Brennan?

10 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

11 MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer?

12 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

13 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray?

14 MEMBER GRAY: Yes.

15 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?

16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes.

17 MS. ANDERSON: Member Reinke?

18 MEMBER REINKE: Yes.

19 MS. ANDERSON: Motion passes five to

20 zero.

21 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Thank you. Are there

22 any other matters for the board this evening?

23 MR. SAVEN: Yes. I have one other

24 issue. I just want to say thank you to the board for

110

1 a fantastic year, for all you guys have done. You've

2 done a fantastic job, and I want to wish you all a

3 very, very happy holiday season, until next year when

4 we hit the ground running again.

5 Thank you.

6 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Anyone else?

7 (No response)

8 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: I call to have this

9 meeting adjourned. All in favor?

10 (Vote taken.)

11 MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Meeting adjourned.

12 Happy holidays everybody.

13 (The meeting was adjourned at

14 9:44 p.m.)

15 - - -

111

1 C E R T I F I C A T E

3 I, Cheryl L. James, do hereby

4 certify that I have recorded stenographically the

5 proceedings had and testimony taken in the

6 above-entitled matter at the time and place hereinbefore

7 set forth, and I do further certify that the foregoing

8 transcript, consisting of one hundred and twenty (120)

9 typewritten pages, is a true and correct transcript of my

10 said stenograph notes to the best of my ability.

13 -------------------------

Cheryl L. James, CSR-5786